text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We present a method enabling us to write in relativistic manner the wave functions of some particular two particle bound state models in quantum mechanics. The idea is to expand the bound state wave function in terms of free states and to introduce the potential energy of the bound system by means of the 4-momentum of an additional constituent, supposed to represent in a global way some hidden degrees of freedom. The procedure is applied to the solutions of the Dirac equation with confining potentials which are used to describe the quark antiquark bound states representing a given meson state.'
author:
- 'L.Micu'
title: A Lorentz covariant representation of bound state wave functions
---
Introduction
============
About ten years ago a Lorentz covariant stationary expression for the internal wave function of a meson has been introduced [@gm]. The meson was supposed to be made of a free $q\bar{q}$ pair and of a collective excitation of a background field representing the time averaged result of the continuous series of quantum fluctuations taking place in the bound system. In momentum space the generic form of the single meson state was written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{meson}
&&\left.\vert {\mathcal M}(P)\right\rangle=
\int d^3k_1{m_1\over e_{1}}
d^3k_2{m_2\over e_{2}}d^4Q\nonumber\\
&&\times\delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2+Q-P)\varphi(k_1,k_2;Q)\nonumber\\
&&\times\bar u_{s_2}(k_2)\Gamma_{\mathcal M} v_{s_1}(k_1)\Phi^\dagger(Q)~
\left.
b^\dagger_{s_1}(k_1)a^\dagger_{s_2}(k_2)
\vert 0 \right\rangle\,\end{aligned}$$ where $a^+,~b^+$ are free creation operators of the valence $q\bar q$ pair, $u$ and $v$ are free Dirac spinors, $\Gamma_{\mathcal M}$ is a Dirac matrix ensuring the relativistic coupling of the quark spins. The collective excitation is represented by $\Phi^\dagger(Q)$ where $Q^\mu$ is the difference between the bound state 4-momentum and the sum of the free quarks 4-momenta.
The ket (\[meson\]) is not the output of a dynamical scheme. In fact, it is only a phenomenological form with suitable features, like normalizability, Lorentz covariance, fulfillment of the mass shell constraints by the meson and the quark momenta.
Recently we found out that it is possible to derive an expression like (\[meson\]) from the solutions of some bound state problems in relativistic quantum mechanics which allow the independent treatment of the quarks while preserving the translational invariance of the wave function. Observing that these requirements cannot be simultaneously fulfilled if the bound system is made of a $q\bar{q}$ pair only, we supposed the existence of an additional constituent which represents some hidden degrees of freedom and show that the wave function can be written in a form like (\[meson\]).
In the following we present a method enabling us to relate the relativistic invariant function $\varphi(k_1,k_2;Q)$ in Eq.(\[meson\]) with the bound state wave function in quantum mechanics and the 4th component of the momentum carried by the additional constituent, $Q^0$, with the potential energy of the bound system.
The second section is devoted to the particular models in relativistic quantum mechanics for bound states which are adequate to our purpose. The bound state wave function factorizes into solutions of the Dirac equation with confining potentials and a function describing the effect of the hidden degrees of freedom on the quark system.
By comparing these models with the bound state models in field theory and establishing a correspondence between their elements having similar rôles we make the conjecture that the additional constituent represents in global way the quantum fluctuations of the background field which generate the binding.
In the third section we present the general method leading to a relativistic representation of the bound state wave function in the specific cases presented above. The method is applied to the analytical solutions of the Dirac equation with confining potentials which are used to write the meson wave function.
In the last section we give some brief comments on the relation existing between various approaches to the bound state problem. Also, commenting upon the particular way of including the quantum fluctuations in a relativistic stationary representation of a bound system we conclude that our method is an alternative to the light cone formalism for low and intermediate energy.
Bound state models
==================
As mentioned in the introduction, our way to ensure the quark independence without violating the invariance at translations of the bound state wave function is to assume the existence of an additional constituent of the bound system. This is reflected by the appearance in the wave function of new variables representing the relative quarks coordinates with respect to the additional constituent.
Next we present two different ways of introducing the additional constituent into the quantum mechanical formalism.
In the first case the quarks are bound together by a confining potential which depends on their relative coordinate. The additional constituent is defined as a representative of some hidden degrees of freedom which induce a random motion of the center of mass of the $q\bar{q}$ pair with respect to the meson coordinates in the rest frame of the bound system. The wave function $\Psi$ of the bound system can be written as: $$\label{Psi1}
\Psi(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2,\vec{\rho})=\chi(\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2) ~
\phi(\vec{R}-\vec{\rho}_0)$$ where $\vec{R}=\eta\vec{r}_1+(1-\eta)\vec{r}_2$ is the position vector of the center of mass of the $q\bar{q}$ pair if $\eta={m_1\over m_1+m_2}$, $\vec{\rho}_0^i with i=1,2,3$ are the meson coordinates and $\chi$ is the eigenfunction of the following Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h0}
&&
{\mathcal H}=-i\vec{\nabla}^{(1)}\vec{\alpha}^{(1)}+
\beta^{(1)}m_1
-i\vec{\nabla}^{(2)}\vec{\alpha}^{(2)}+\beta^{(2)}m_2\nonumber\\
&&+ {\mathcal
V}^{(1,2)}(\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2),\end{aligned}$$ whose eigenvalue is the meson mass, $M$. In agreement with the above remarks, $\phi$ is the normal distribution of the random variable $\vec{r}-\vec{\rho}_0$ which writes as: $$\label{phi0}
\phi(\vec{r}-\vec{\rho}_0)={\mathrm e}^{-{(\vec{r}-\vec{\rho}_0)^2
\over 2\kappa^2}}$$ where $\kappa^2$ is the variance.
In the second case, the additional constituent is associated with some center of forces to which the quarks are independently bound. The wave function of the bound system reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi2}
&&\Psi_M(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2,\vec{\rho}_0)\nonumber\\
&&=\int~d^3\rho~
\bar{\psi}(\vec{r}_2-\vec{\rho})\Gamma_{\mathcal
M}\psi^c(\vec{r}_1-\vec{\rho})~ \phi(\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho}_0),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{\mathcal M}$ is a Dirac matrix ensuring the relativistic coupling of spins and $\psi$ is the eigenfunction of the single particle Hamiltonian $$\label{h}
{\mathcal H}=-i\vec{\nabla}^{(j)}\vec{\alpha}^{(j)}+
\beta^{(j)}m_j+{\mathcal
V}_j(\vec{r}_j-\vec{\rho}).$$ Here, ${\mathcal V}_j$ are confining potentials and the single particle function $\psi^c$ defined as $i\gamma_2\gamma_0\bar{\psi}^T$ is the charge conjugated partner of $\psi$.
Like in the first case the centers of forces are supposed to be randomly distributed aroud the meson center, so that $\phi$ writes as: $$\label{phi}
\phi(\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho}_0)=
{\mathrm e}^{-{(\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho}_0)^2\over2 \delta^2}}\,$$ where $\delta$ is a free parameter.
We remark that in the above examples the additional constituent does not behave like a real particle, but rather like an environment because it is not perceived through its specific properties, but through its effect on the embedded quarks. This remark shall be enforced in the next section when making a comparison between the representations of the bound systems in quantum mechanics and field theory.
Lorentz covariant form of the wave functtion $\Psi_M$
======================================================
The first step of the procedure leading to a relativistic expression for the wave function it to expand $\Psi$ in terms of free states whose transformation properties at boosts are known.
Turning to the first case and noticing that $\Psi(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2,\vec{\rho}^0)$ in Eq.(\[Psi1\]) is a $4\times4$ matrix, we write: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ps1}
&&\Psi(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2,\vec{\rho})=\nonumber\\
&&\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,s_1,s_2}\int d^3k_1{m_1\over e_1}d^3k_2
{m_2\over e_2}{\rm e}^{i[\vec{k}\vec{r}+\vec{K}(\vec{R}-\vec{\rho})]}
\nonumber\\
&&\bar{\Psi}^{(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)}_{s_1,s_2}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)
w_{\epsilon_1,s_1}
(\vec{k}_1)\bar{w}_{\epsilon_2,s_2}(\vec{k}_2)\end{aligned}$$ where $w_{\epsilon,s}$ is the general notation for free Dirac spinors, $\epsilon$ denotes the sign of the energy, $s$ is the spin projection on an arbitrary axis. By $\vec{k}
=(1-\eta)\epsilon_1\vec{k}_1-\eta\epsilon_2\vec{k}_2$, $\vec{r}=
\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2$ and $\vec{K}=\epsilon_1
\vec{k}_1+\epsilon_2\vec{k}_2$ we denoted the relative momentum, relative position vector and total momentum of the quark pair respectively. According to the general principles of the quantum mechanics, the coefficient $\tilde{\Psi}^{(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)}_{s_1,s_2}
(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)$ in (\[ps1\]) writes as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pm1}
&&\tilde{\Psi}^{(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)}_{s_1,s_2}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)=
\int d^3r_1 d^3r_2 d^3\rho\nonumber\\
&&\times{\rm e}^{-i[\vec{k}\vec{r} +(\vec{R}-\vec{\rho})\vec{K}]}
\bar{w}_{\epsilon_1,s_1}(k_1)\Psi(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2,
\vec{\rho})~
w_{\epsilon_2,s_2}(\vec{k}_2)\end{aligned}$$ and is the probability amplitude to find in the bound system a free $q\bar{q}$ pair with the quantum numbers $\{\epsilon_1,\vec{k}_1,s_1\}$ and $\{\epsilon_2,\vec{k}_2,
s_2\}$ and a stationary wave with momentum $-\epsilon_1\vec{k}_1-\epsilon_2\vec{k}_2$.
In the second case, using the same notations as above, the single particle wave functions $\psi$ in (\[Psi2\]), reads: $$\label{ps2}
\psi(\vec{r}-\vec{\rho})=\sum_{\epsilon,s}\int~d^3k~{m\over
e_k}~\tilde{\psi}^{(\epsilon)}_s(k)~w_{\epsilon,s}(k) {\rm e}
^{i\epsilon\vec{k}(\vec{r}-\vec{\rho})},$$ where $$\label{pm2}
\tilde{\psi}^{(\epsilon)}_s(k)=\int~d^3r~\bar{w}_{\epsilon,s}(k)
~\psi(\vec{r})~{\rm
e}^{-i\epsilon\vec{k}\vec{r}}$$ is the probability amplitude to find a free quark with positive (negative) energy, spin $s$ and momentum $\vec{k}$ in a bound state characterized by $\psi$. Taking into account the similar relations existing for $\bar\psi$ and for the charge conjugated solution $\psi^c$ we write the expansion coefficient of the wave function (\[Psi2\]) as follows:
$$\label{tilde2}
\tilde{\Psi}^{(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2)}_{s_1,s_2} (\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)=
\int d^3\rho~{\mathrm e}^{i\vec{\rho}(\epsilon_1\vec{k}_1+\epsilon_2
\vec{k}_2)} \tilde{\bar{\psi}}^{(\epsilon_1)}_{s_1}(\vec{k}_1)
\Gamma_{\mathcal M}
\tilde{\psi}^{c(\epsilon_2)}_{s_2}(\vec{k}_2) \phi(\rho-\vec{\rho}_0).$$
From the above examples it results that the additional constituent contributes to the total momentum with $\vec{Q}=
-\epsilon_1\vec{k}_1-\epsilon_2\vec{k}_2$,which may be seen as the reaction of the environement with respect to the independent motion of the quarks.
A similar relation is supposed to hold for the 4th components of the momenta where the “energy” of the additional constituent, $Q^0$, is the binding energy of the system, defined as the remaining part from the meson mass after extracting the energies of the free quarks. Then we have: $$\label{Q}
Q^0=M-\epsilon_1\sqrt{\vec{k}_1^2+m_1^2}- \epsilon_2\sqrt{\vec{k}_2^2+
m_2^2}.$$
In an ideal model the relation (\[Q\]), like the potential itself, should result from the elementary processes, but for the time being this haven’t been done. We notice however that nonrelativistic QCD resorts to a definiton similar with (\[Q\]) when introducing the effective potential as the remaining part in the effective QCD Lagrangian after removing the kinetic terms [@bb; @pot].
We remark that, according to the above definitions, the “square mass” of the effective constituent, $Q^2=
Q_0^2-\vec{Q}^2$, is not a constant and therefore, as we already supposed, $Q^\mu$ is not the 4-momentum of an elementary particle.
Now, introducing the occupation numbers of the free states and recalling that in field theory the negative energy creation operators are in fact annihilation operators of positive energy particles which give zero when acting on the vacuum, we get the following expression for the ket representing a single meson at rest:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{meson1}
&&\left.\vert {\mathcal M}(M,\vec{0})\right\rangle=
\int d^3k_1~{m_1\over e_1}
d^3k_2~{m_2\over e_2}d^4Q
~\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2+\vec{Q})\delta(e_1+e_2+Q_0-M)
\nonumber\\
&&\times \sum_{s_1,s_2}\tilde{\Psi}^{(+,+)}_{s_1,s_2}(\vec{k}_1,
\vec{k}_2))
\bar{u}_{s_2}(\vec{k}_2)\Gamma_{\mathcal M} v_{s_1}(\vec{k}_1)
~\alpha^\dagger(Q)~ a_{s_2}^\dagger
(\vec{k}_2)~ b_{s_1}^\dagger (\vec{k}_1)\vert 0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
We mention that the quark (antiquark) creation operators, $a^\dagger$ ($b^\dagger$) are simple tools reflecting the quark statistics, not the result of a canonical quantification formalism. Extending this notation to the additional constituent we denote by $\alpha^\dagger(Q)$ the creation of an effective excitation with momentum $Q^\mu$. The quark operators and $\alpha$ represent independent elements in a stationary representation and we find reasonable to assume they commute with each other. However, we notice that it doesn’t make any sense to write commutations relations among $\alpha$-s because they do not represent elementary excitations and hence they are not quantified. The best we can do is to deal with them in such a way as to ensure the overall conservation of the energy and momentum [@gm] in the physical amplitudes which make use of expressions like (\[meson1\]).
The last step towards a relativistic representation of quark antiquark bound state is to write the expansion coefficients $\Psi^{(+,+)}_{(s_1,s_2)}$ in relativistic invariant form. This can be easily done by replacing the 4th component of a vector $V^0$ in the rest frame by $(P^\mu V'_\mu)~ M^{-1}$, where $V'^\mu$ is the vector $V^\mu$ in the reference frame where the meson momentum is $P^\mu=(E,~\vec{P})$; also, the scalar products like $\vec{k}_i \vec{k}_j$ must be written as $(P\cdot k'_1)(P\cdot k'_2)~M^{-2}-
(k'_1\cdot k'_2)$.
Then turning to Eq.(\[meson\]) we observe that it is equivalent with (\[meson1\]) if $\varphi(k_1,k_2;Q)$ is identified with $ \tilde{\Psi}^{(+,+)}_{s_1,s_2}(k_{1},k_{2})$ in the first case and with $\tilde{\psi}_{s_1}^{(+)}(k_{1})
\tilde{\psi}_{s_2}^{(+)}(k_{2})\tilde{\phi}(Q)$ in the second case, written with the Lorentz invariant notations defined previously.
Examples
========
0.5cm [**The single particle Dirac equation**]{} 0.3cm The method presented in the previous section is now applied to the cases where the single particle wave functions $\psi$ are simple, analytical solutions of the Dirac equation with confining potentials of the type ${\mathcal V}=\left(\begin{array}{c c}
{\mathcal V}_{1,2}&0\\
0&-{\mathcal V}_{2,1}
\end{array}\right)$ [@micu].
0.3cm [*i. Linear rising potentials*]{} 0.3cm First we consider the case of linear rising potentials where $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mathcal
V}_1(\vec{r})=\zeta~r,\label{v1}\\
&&{\mathcal
V}_2(\vec{r})=-2m+\sqrt{\zeta\over\xi}
\left(1+2\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{L}\right)
+{\xi\over r},\label{v1p}\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $\zeta$ and $\xi$ characterize the potential.
The simplest analytical solutions having the angular momentum $J$, magnetic number $M_J$, and energy $E_J=m+2\sqrt{\zeta\over\xi}J$ are written as follows: $$\label{psif}
\psi^{\rho}_{JM_J}(\vec{r})=\left(\begin{array}{r}
r^{\rho-1}{\mathrm e}^{-\sqrt{\zeta\xi}r}~{\mathcal
Y}^{M_J}_{(J-{1\over2}) J}\\
-i\sqrt{\zeta\over\xi}~r^{\rho}{\mathrm e}^{-\sqrt{\zeta\xi}r}~{\mathcal
Y}^{M_J}_{(J+{1\over2}) J} \end{array} \right),$$ where ${\mathcal Y}_{lJ}^{MJ}$ are eigenfunctions of the total angular momentum $J$, and $\rho=J+{1\over2}$.
Projecting $\psi$ on the free Dirac solutions, the expression (\[psif\]) takes the form (\[ps2\]). Using the relativistic notation mentioned in the preceding section we get in the case $J=1/2,~M_J=r$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{plr}
&&\tilde{\psi}^{(+)}_{sr}(k)=\Omega^{(+)}(k)~\bar{u}_s(k)u_r(k),\\
&&\tilde{\psi}^{(-)}_{sr}(k)=\Omega^{(-)}(k)~\bar{u}_s(k){(\gamma\cdot P)
\over M}v_r(k)\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma^\mu,~\mu=0,1,2,3$ are Dirac matrices, $M$ is the meson mass and $\Omega^{(\pm)}(k)$ is given by the invariant form: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Omega^{(\pm)}(k)=\sqrt{2m~\zeta\xi\over e(k)\mp m}\left[\sqrt{\zeta\over\xi}
{\sqrt{e(k)\mp m}\over e(k)\pm m}\Sigma(k)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\pm
\left(1\left.+\sqrt{\zeta\over\xi}{1\over
e(k)\pm m}\right)\Delta(k)\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Sigma(k)=
{\zeta\xi-3k^2
\over\left(\zeta\xi+k^2\right)^3}\,$$ and $$\Delta(k)=
{k\over
\left(\zeta\xi+k^2\right)^2}$$ with $k$ representing the Lorentz invariant expression $k=\sqrt{(P^\mu k_\mu)^2 M^{-2}-m^2}$ and $e(k)=\sqrt{k^2+m^2}$. 0.3cm
[*ii. Oscillator potential*]{} 0.3cm In the case of the oscillator potential where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v2}
&&{\mathcal V}_1=\lambda~\omega^2~r^2,\\
&&{\mathcal V}_2=-2m+\lambda-2\omega(1+\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{L}),\end{aligned}$$ the simplest analytical solutions of the Dirac equation are: $$\label{psios}
\psi_{J}^M(\vec{r})=\left(
\begin{array}{r} r^{J-{1\over2}}{\mathrm
e}^{-{1\over2}\lambda\omega r^2}~{\mathcal Y}^M_{(J-{1\over2}) J}\\
-i\omega~r^{J+{1\over 2}}{\mathrm
e}^{-{1\over2}\lambda\omega r^2}~{\mathcal Y}^M_{(J+{1\over2}) J}
\end{array} \right).$$ Proceeding as above, and using the same notations, in the case $J=1/2,M=r$ we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ospl}
&&\tilde{\psi}^{(+)}_{sr}(k)=\sqrt{
e(k)+m\over 2m}\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[1-{e(k)-m\over \omega}\right]{\mathrm
e}^{k^2\over2\lambda\omega}~\bar{u}_s(k)~u_r(k),
\\ \label{osmi}
&&\tilde{\psi}^{(-)}_{sr}(k)=\sqrt{e(k)
+m\over 2m}\nonumber\\
&&\left[{e(k)+m\over \omega}-1\right]{\mathrm
e}^{k^2\over 2\lambda\omega}~\bar v_s(k){(\gamma\cdot
P)\over M}u_r(k). \end{aligned}$$ In all the above cases it is possible to define the charge conjugated solutions $\psi^c=i\gamma_2\gamma_0\bar{\psi}^T$. As a result $u\to v$ and $\psi^{(\pm)}\to\psi^{c(\pm)}$ in (\[plr\]-\[osmi\]).
Closing this section, we mention that the single particle solutions of the Dirac equation with confining potentials also can be used in the case where the confining potential depends on the relative quark coordinates if ${\mathcal V}^{(1,2)}(\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2)$ can be written as the limit of ${\mathcal V}^{(1)}(\vec{r}_1-\vec{\rho}_1)+
{\mathcal V}^{(2)}(\vec{r}_2-\vec{\rho}_2)$ when $\vec{\rho}_1\to
\vec{r}_2$ and $\vec{\rho}_2\to\vec{r}_1$. Then the two particle problem separates into two independent single particle problems and the coefficient $\tilde{\Psi}^{(+,+)}_{s_1,s_2}
(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)$ can be calculated like in the previous cases.
Comments and conclusions
========================
Now we comment briefly upon the features of the different relativistic approaches to the bound state problem in order to get a deeper understanding of the subject.
First we consider the approaches in relativistic quantum mechanics and observe that their common features are the existence of an attractive potential well and of stationary wave functions with finite norms in the space of the relative coordinates. Such approaches are not really relativistic because the interaction potential cannot be written in a boosted reference frame.
In the approaches to the bound state problem derived from the field theory, the interaction is the result of the continuous exchange of quanta [@bs] between the constituents. In this case, the iterative solution of the dynamical equation is expressed in terms of a relativistic interaction kernel and of free propagators. As a result the solution is Lorentz covariant but has a fluctuating character because the bound state appears to be made of an indefinite number of free constituents.
The two representations look quite different. However, from consistency arguments one may suppose the existence of a well defined correspondence between their elements having similar rôles in the bound system. In this sense we think reasonable to suppose that the stationary wave function in the quantum mechanical approach is the result of a time average over a finite time $T$ of the fluctuating solution in the field theory. This means that if the observation time is longer than $T$, the fluctuating set of free particles in the field approach appears as a small, stationary set made of free particles, and of an effective excitation of the background field which gives rise to the binding.
In this paper we have shown that a similar representation emerges from a particular set of models with confining potentials, if one assumes that the bound system contains beside the pair of quarks an additional effective constituent. Owing to this one we succeeded to write the bound state wave function as a superposition of free states and to escape the problems raised by the presence of the interaction potentials by giving a Lorentz covariant meaning to the potential energy of the bound system. Furthermore, by relating the effective constituent to the quantum fluctuations of the background field generating the binding we provided a justification for the existence of some spacial degrees of freedom accompanying the interaction potential. These ones, which are quite unusual in quantum mechanics, in our models are the natural consequence of the imperfect cancellation of the vector momenta during the quantum fluctuations.
Also, as an unquantized element of the bound system, the additional constituent creates the possibility to by-pass the Dirac no-go theorem [@pamd] which states that a bound system with a fixed number of particles can be quantized in relativistic manner only if the generators of the symmetry group depend explicitly on the interaction potential.
Concluding these comments, one can say that the additional constituent makes our method an alternative to the light cone formalism for low and intermediate energy, where only the average effect of the quantum fluctuations can be observed.
Now, comparing the two particular models presented in the second section, we remark that the first one is much like the usual potential models, where the quarks are the sources of the forces which bind them together. However, the influence of the environment which manifests through the random motion of the center of mass of the $q\bar{q}$ pair around some fixed point is not to be neglected, because it is essential for the relativistic treatment of the bound system and, moreover, it may offer a solution to the old center of mass problem in relativistic quantum mechanics.
In our second case the confining forces are mainly due to the environment which looks like a glue in which both quarks are embedded. This model is similar with the bound state models where the wave function is factorized in terms of constituent wave functions and the confinement is the result of the independent interaction of the quarks with an effective constituent like, for instance, the bag in the bag models [@bm].
We further remark that in both these models, as an effect of the quark independence, the mass center of the quark pair is not at rest in the rest frame of the meson. The center of mass is at rest in the limit $\kappa\to\infty$ and $\delta\to\infty$ when the functions $\tilde\phi$ simulate the $\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2)$ and the quarks lose their independence. In this case the first model transforms into a classical two body one and has a well defined nonrelativistic limit, while the wave function of the second model writes as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nr}
&&\Psi(\vec{r}_1,\vec{r}_2,\vec{\rho}_0)\to\nonumber\\
&&\int d^3k_1 {m_1\over e_1}~d^3k_2 {m_2\over e_2}
~dQ^0\delta^{(3)}(\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2)\nonumber\\
&&{\mathrm
e}^{i(\vec{k}_1-\vec{k}_2)(\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2)}
\tilde{\psi}^{c(+)}_{s_1}(\vec{k}_1)
\tilde{\psi}^{(+)}_{s_2}(\vec{k}_2)...,\end{aligned}$$ and it may lack a suitable classical correspondent.
A last comment concerns the place of the time in the present formalism. Our models are stationary quantum mechanical models where time is a simple parameter, not a real coordinate like in the field approach. In the correspondence we established between the two representations of a bound system we conjectured that the stationary wave function in quantum mechanics is the result of a time average over a finite time $T$ of the fluctuating solution in the field approach, where $T$ is a physical parameter of the model, not a coordinate.
This supposition makes the coordinate representation inadequate for the relativistic treatment of a bound system and explains why it is impossible to relate the iterative field solution in the coordinate representation with the stationary solution in the quantum mechanical approach, or to give a relativistic meaning to the last one.
In this paper we have shown that the adequate representation is the momentum one, under the condition to find a suitable way to take into account the stationary effect of the continuous series of quantum fluctuations generating the binding.
The work was finished during author’s visit at the Center of Theoretical Physics in Marseille in the frame of the Cooperation Agreement between CNRS and the Romanian Academy. The hospitality at the Center of Theoretical Physics is warmly acknowledged. The author thanks Dr. Claude Bourrely for clarifying discussions and for the careful reading of the manuscript.
The financial support from the Ministry of Education and Research in the frame of the CERES Programme under the Contract No. 125/2003 and from the Romanian Academy through the Grant No.21/2004 is gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{}
D. Ghilencea and L. Micu, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 1577 (1995); L. Micu, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 5318 (1996); [*ibidem*]{} D [**55**]{}, 4151 (1997).
L. Micu, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**18**]{}, 2895.
N. Brambilla, hep-ph/0008279; G. S. Bali, hep-ph/0010032; N. Brambilla and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 3974 (1997); N. Brambilla, P. Consoli and G. M. Prosperi, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 5878 (1994).
K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 2445 (1974); L. S. Brown and W. I. Weisberger, Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{}, 3239 (1979).
E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. [**84**]{}, 1232 (1951); M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Phys. Rev. [**84**]{}, 350 (1951); N. Nakanishi, Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys. [**43**]{}, 1 (1969).
P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{}, 392 (1949).
A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{}, 3471 (1974); A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and C. B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 2599 (1974); T. DeGrand, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and J. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D [**12**]{}, 2060 (1975).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report the realization of an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) entanglement source for gaussian continuous-variable quantum key distribution at $1550$nm. Our source is based on a single continuous-wave squeezed vacuum mode with $11.1 \pm 0.1$dB squeezing, combined with vacuum at a balanced beam splitter. The conditional variance product (Reid criterion, *Phys.Rev.*A **40** 913, 1989) of this source is $0.31 \pm 0.01$, well below the classical threshold $1$. The maximal achievable key rate with security against collective attacks is of $0.38$ bits/measurement. Although only a single squeezed beam was used, the conditional variance product is comparable to the best reported values using two squeezed beams.'
address:
- |
$^1$ Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut) and\
Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstraße 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany
- '$^2$ Centre for Quantum Engineering and Space-Time Research - QUEST, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany'
- '$^3$ Institut für Theoretische Physik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Appelstra[ß]{}e 2, 30167 Hannover, Germany'
author:
- |
Tobias Eberle$^{1,2}$, Vitus Händchen$^1$, Jörg Duhme$^{2,3}$,\
Torsten Franz$^3$, Reinhard F Werner$^3$, Roman Schnabel$^1$
nocite:
- '[@Lodewyck2007; @Fossier2009; @Lance2005]'
- '[@Zhang2000; @Schori2002; @Laurat2005; @Keller2008; @Bowen2003; @Takei2006; @Hage2011; @Eberle2011]'
title: 'Gaussian Entanglement for Quantum Key Distribution from a Single-Mode Squeezing Source'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum key distribution (QKD) enables two remote parties to generate a shared key which is guaranteed to be entirely unknown to any potential eavesdropper. Discrete variable systems implementing, for example, the famous *BB84* protocol [@BB84] are well established [@Gisin2002] and commercial systems even exist. Continuous variable (CV) systems using beams of laser light have also been investigated because they are expected to have characteristic advantages. In CV systems homodyne detection is used to measure the quadratures of the electro-magnetic field. PIN photo diodes, as used in homodyne detectors, are a well developed technology widely used in telecommunication. They offer high bandwidth, low dark noise and high quantum efficiencies. Most CV systems today use prepare-and-measure schemes employing gaussian or discrete modulation [@Grosshans2002]-[@Leverrier2009]. The less common entanglement-based schemes do not need signal modulation [@Rodo2007], and instead exploit quantum correlations in the field quadratures between the two parties in a bi-partite entangled state. The key resource for key generation then becomes the squeezing of laser beams, which is usually converted to entanglement by interfering two such beams on a beam splitter [@Ou1992]-[@Silberhorn2001]. An implementation of a suitable source for a CV entanglement-based scheme was shown in [@DiGuglielmo2007] and a demonstration of a fully implemented table-top QKD was done in [@Su2009].
In this paper we realize and characterize an EPR entanglement source at the telecommunication wavelength of $1550$nm using only one squeezed mode and a vacuum mode at the two input ports of a balanced beam splitter. The resulting bi-partite two-mode squeezed state is reconstructed using balanced homodyne detection. A comparison of our experimental results with numerical simulations is used to analyze the structure of the noise, including an optical loss of $6.8$$\%$ and electronic dark noise, but no detectable phase noise. Various benchmark quantities are determined from the covariance matrix. The maximal extractable secret key rate against collective attacks is about $0.38$bits/measurement. Statistical fluctuations of this quantity due to the finite number of measurements for the reconstruction of the covariance matrix are discussed. Furthermore we calculate the EPR-entanglement, a conditional covariance product introduced by M.Reid [@Reid]. Our source achieves a value of $0.31 \pm 0.01$, which has to be compared with the classical threshold $1$. To the best of our knowledge this is the lowest value published so far [@Laurat2005; @Hage2011; @Eberle2011], even including sources using two squeezed beams.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section \[sec: gaussian systems\] we recapitulate the description of gaussian systems in terms of symplectic invariant quantities. In Section \[sec: qkd\] we specify our quantum key distribution scheme and show how to express the achievable key rate in terms of local symplectic invariants. Section \[sec: experiment\] describes the experimental setup, and Section \[sec: results\] the main results. Section \[sec: system parameters\] shows how we can specify the description of the source and the key distribution channel by simulating explicit noise models. Section \[sec: conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Gaussian systems {#sec: gaussian systems}
================
To fix notation, we summarize some facts about gaussian systems. We consider a bipartite experimental setting, one side labeled Alice, the other Bob. We call the joint state $\rho \in \BH $ where $ \HH = \HH_A \otimes \HH_B $ is the Alice/Bob system Hilbert space.
Wigner function
---------------
In the following, we describe the state using its Wigner function. As we perform quadrature measurements and our states are gaussian this gives a convenient description. Our setup produces squeezed vacuum states, that is, the first moments are zero. So the gaussian state is completely determined by its covariance matrix $\Gamma$, whose elements are given by $ \Gamma_{i,j}=\tr \left[ \rho \left\{ R_i, R_j \right\}_+ \right] $, with the quadrature observables $ R \in \left\{ X_A, P_A, X_B, P_B \right\} $. The corresponding Wigner function is given by [@Wigner] $$W\left(\xi\right)=\left(2 \pi \det\left[\Gamma\right]\right)^{-\dim\left[\Gamma\right]} \exp \left[-\frac{1}{2}\xi^T \Gamma^{-1} \xi\right]\ .$$ with the phase space vector $\xi$ and covariance matrix $$\Gamma = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
A&C\\
C^T&B\\
\end{array}\right)\ ,$$ where the blocks $A$ and $B$ correspond to the subsystems of Alice and Bob and $C$ to the correlations. Furthermore, a physical gaussian state obeys the positivity criterion $$\rho \geq 0 \Leftrightarrow \Gamma + i \Omega \geq 0\ , \quad \mbox{where} \quad \Omega = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ -1 & 0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&-1&0\\ \end{array} \right)$$ is the symplectic form. The covariance matrix is always given with respect to a local choice of basis states. Many interesting properties, such as entanglement and the optimal extractable key rate, do not depend on these choices. One can therefore choose a basis bringing the covariance matrix into a simplified form, the so-called Simon normal form [@Simon] $$\Gamma =
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\lambda_a & 0 & c_x & 0\\
0 & \lambda_a & 0 & -c_p\\
c_x & 0 & \lambda_b & 0\\
0 & -c_p & 0 & \lambda_b\\
\end{array}\right)$$ with $\lambda_i \geq c_x \geq |c_p|$. Here $c_x$ and $c_p$ describe the correlations between Alice’s and Bob’s outcomes of the amplitude and phase measurements. These quantities characterize the state independent of any local basis transformations. However, their dependence on the original (e.g., measured) matrix $\Gamma$ involves the diagonalization-like process of bringing $\Gamma$ into this form by suitable local symplectic transformations. It is therefore often easier to use local symplectic invariants with a direct expression in terms of $\Gamma$. We use the set [@Simon] $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 = \det[A]=\lambda_a^2\\
I_2 = \det[B]=\lambda_b^2\\
I_3 = \det[C]=-c_x c_p\\
I_4 = \det[\Gamma]= \left( c_x^2 - \lambda_a \lambda_b \right) \left( c_p^2 - \lambda_a \lambda_b \right)\ .\end{aligned}$$
EPR-Correlations
----------------
Different criteria have been used to quantify the (non-)classicality of quantum systems. The most basic distinction is whether a given state is separable, i.e. whether it can be written as a mixture of product states. States that are not separable are called entangled, yet there are also entangled states which can be described with a local classical model [@Werner1989]. The existence of such a model is equivalent to the full hierarchy of Bell inequalities. Sometimes (e.g., in [@Werner1989]) one can get by with models in which on one side, say Bob’s, quantum mechanics is taken for granted, so that the hidden variable is a random quantum state, from which the response of all measurement devices is computed by the quantum formalism. States allowing models with this property on [*both*]{} sides are exactly the separable ones. The one-sided condition is also called steering [@Wiseman] after a remark by Schrödinger [@Schroedinger1935]. Thus, steering states (those which do not allow a half-quantum classical model) are more demanding to make than just non-separable ones, but such states might still be unfit for violating any Bell inequality [@Wiseman].
In the gaussian setting violations of Bell inequalities are generally hard to get and require the measurement of some observables which are not functions of a single quadrature and hence not accessible by homodyne measurements. Indeed, if Alice and Bob are restricted to such measurements, the Wigner function provides an exact classical model for all correlations. However, the gaussian analogue of the steering condition makes sense, and has been shown [@Wiseman; @Cavalcanti2009] to be equivalent to a criterion introduced by Margaret Reid [@Reid], who called it “EPR-entanglement”. It reads $$\operatorname{Var}_{A|B}(X_A,X_B) \cdot \operatorname{Var}_{A|B}(P_A,P_B) < 1\ ,
\label{eq: epr}$$ where $\operatorname{Var}_{A|B}$ denotes the conditional variance of Alice’s measurement given Bob’s result and $ 1 $ is the critical value below which a state is called to be EPR entangled. Interchanging the roles of Alice and Bob gives a second, inequivalent criterion. Separable states are never EPR-entangled, while states violating a Bell inequality always do. On the converse, a state that fulfils the EPR criterion may not be separable, but may allow a description with a one-sided classical model.
In terms of the symplectic invariants the conditional variance product (\[eq: epr\]), optimized over the choice of local quadratures, is equal to $I_4/I_1$ (resp. $I_4/I_2$ if we exchange the roles of Alice and Bob). Hence Reid’s EPR-entanglement is equivalent to $$\frac{I_4}{I_1} < 1.$$
Quantum key distribution with gaussian states {#sec: qkd}
=============================================
In the following we summarize the classification of attacks on quantum cryptography systems. We determine the secure key rate for gaussian states described by their covariance matrix, assuming collective attacks and also consider effects due to experimental imperfections of the reconstruction of the covariance matrix.
Attacks
-------
Possible attacks on QKD-schemes can be summed up in different classes whereby Eve has in all cases unlimited computational power. The classes are different in the way how Eve performs her measurement on the quantum channel. In ascending order of Eve’s power they are:
Individual attacks Eve does not posses a quantum memory and measures each signal individually.
-------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collective attacks Eve has a quantum memory but attacks all signals in the same way, i.e., her attacks are permutation invariant.
Coherent attacks Eve has a quantum memory and all attacks are allowed.
Device independent Eve has produced Alice and Bobs devices and may exploit knowledge about the inner workings of the devices.
Secure key rate for collective attacks
--------------------------------------
Here we consider collective attacks in the limit of asymptotic key length. The extractable secret key rate is given by the Devetak-Winter bound [@Devetak2004] which has been adapted by Lodewyck et al. [@Lodewyck2007], to the gaussian regime: $$k_{sec}=I_{A,B}-\chi_{E,X}$$ with $X \in \left\{ A, B \right\}$. Here $I_{A,B}$ is the mutual information between Alice’s and Bob’s measurement outcomes, in other words, the information Alice has on Bob’s outcome and vice versa. The Holevo rate $\chi_{E|X}$ represents the information Eve has on the measurement outcome of $X$. Eve always has the choice to eavesdrop Alice’s or Bob’s quantum channel or both. Because it is unknown where Eve performs her collective attack, $X$ must be chosen such that $$k_{sec}=\min \left[ I_{A,B}-\chi_{E,X} | X \in \left\{ A, B \right\} \right]$$ and all loss is thus considered to stem from attacks on the secrecy of the quantum channel. For example, if the state held by Alice and Bob is pure it follows that $\chi_{E,X}=0$. Hence, due to the security analysis, loss always decreases the secrecy of our QKD scheme.
For completeness, we give now the secret key rate in terms of symplectic invariants (compare with [@Lodewyck2007]). First, we can express the mutual information as: $$I_{A,B} = 1- \frac 1 2 \log_2\left(1 - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{I_4'}{I_1 I_2} + \sqrt{\frac{I_4'^2}{I_1^2 I_2^2}- \frac{4 I_3^2}{I_1 I_2} } \right)\right)$$ with $I_4' = I_1 I_2 + I_3^2 - I_4$. Defining $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) &=& \frac{x + 1}{2} \log_2 \left(\frac{x + 1}{2}\right) - \frac{x - 1}{2} \log_2 \left(\frac{x - 1}{2}\right)\\
d_\pm &=& \sqrt{1/2\left((I_1 + I_2 + 2 I_3) \pm \sqrt{(I_1 + I_2 + 2 I_3)^2-4 I_4}\right)} \\
d_A &=& \sqrt{ \sqrt{\frac {I_2}{I_1}} \left( \sqrt{I_1 I_2} - 1/2 \left( \frac{I_4'}{\sqrt{I_1 I_2}} + \sqrt{\frac{I_4'^2}{I_1 I_2}- 4 I_3} \right) \right) }\\
d_B &=& \sqrt{ \sqrt{\frac {I_1}{I_2}} \left( \sqrt{I_1 I_2} - 1/2 \left( \frac{I_4'}{\sqrt{I_1 I_2}} + \sqrt{\frac{I_4'^2}{I_1 I_2}- 4 I_3} \right) \right) }\end{aligned}$$ we can express the Holevo rate as $$\chi_{E,X} = f(d_+) + f(d_-) - f(d_X)\ ,$$ with $X \in \left\{A,B\right\}$. It should be noted, that asymmetries between Alice’s and Bob’s part of the state are only reflected in the $d_{A,B}$ quantity. This form lets us efficiently determine the secret key rate for any covariance matrix. Note again, that our security analysis mathematically only holds in the limit of asymptotic key length, thus finite size effects are not considered.
Effects of a finite number of measurements on the reconstruction of the covariance matrix
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our experiment we reconstruct the covariance matrix by homodyne measurements with finitely many samples. Hence, the reconstruction of the state is not perfect as infinite measurements would be needed. To account for this effect, we determine the state with the lowest extractable key that is compatible with the observed data. We find the physical state $\Gamma'$ in a region around the measured state defined through gaussian abberation that minimizes the key rate in order to regain the security of our QKD. This approach comprises the standard gaussian error propagation of the key rate too. We optimize over the individual entries of the covariance matrix $$\fl k_{sec}\left(\Gamma'\right)=\min\left[k_{sec} \left( \widetilde{\Gamma} \right) | \forall i,j \, : \widetilde{\Gamma}_{i,j} \in \left[ \Gamma_{i,j}- \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Gamma_{i,j},\Gamma_{i,j}+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Gamma_{i,j} \right] \right]\ ,
\label{eq:keyrate}$$ where $N$ is the number of measurements used for the reconstruction of the entry. This Ansatz is motivated by the fact that the abberation of the secure key rate itself, as numerically computed from the experimental data, scales with $ 1/Sqrt[N] $. We found that for practical inputs the minimizing matrix was of the form $$\Gamma'=\Gamma+
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\lambda_a & 0 & -c_x & 0\\
0 & \lambda_a & 0 & c_p\\
-c_x & 0 & \lambda_b & 0\\
0 & c_p & 0 & \lambda_b\\
\end{array}\right)\ ,$$ although it should be noted that this is not necessarily unique. This gaussian abberation automatically considers the uncertainty of the reconstructed covariance matrix with respect to finite statistical effects.
Experiment {#sec: experiment}
==========
![Schematic of the experiment: The beam of a $1550$nm fiber laser (red) was frequency doubled (yellow) and used as a pump for the squeezed-light source. The squeezed beam was overlapped with a vacuum mode at a [$50$:$50$ ]{}beam splitter to produce a pair of EPR entangled beams. The field quadratures of both beams were measured by balanced homodyne detection to characterize the EPR source and to provide data points that can be used to extract a secret quantum key from simultaneous measurements of the amplitude or phase quadrature. AOM: acousto-optical modulator, PD: photo diode.[]{data-label="fig:experiment"}](Fig1-ExperimentalSetup.pdf){width="13cm"}
A schematic of the experiment is shown in Fig. \[fig:experiment\]. The EPR entanglement source was driven by a commercial $1$W $1550$nm fiber laser. Most of its power was frequency doubled in a quasi phase-matched periodically poled potassium titanyl phosphate (PPKTP) crystal [@Ast2011] and served as a pump for the squeezed-light source. The squeezed-light source consisted of a $1 \times 2 \times 9.3$mm$^3$ PPKTP crystal. One of its end-surfaces was curved with a radius of curvature of $12$mm and coated with a high-reflective coating for both the pump and the fundamental beam at $775$nm and $1550$nm, respectively. The other end-surface was flat and anti-reflective coated for both wavelengths. Together with a coupling mirror with a radius of curvature of $25$mm a hemilithic cavity was formed. The coupling mirror had a reflectivity of $90$$\%$ for $1550$nm and a reflectivity of $20$$\%$ for $775$nm. With an $23$mm air gap between the crystal and the coupling mirror the cavity had a finesse of $60$ at $1550$nm, a free spectral range of $3.8$GHz and a full width half maximum linewidth of $63$MHz. The temperature of the PPKTP crystal was tuned to about $50^\circ$C to achieve quasi phase-matching. A sub-milliwatt control beam which was coupled into the cavity through the high-reflective mirror, was used to lock either the length of the cavity and the phase of the pump. The output of the squeezed-light source was split from the pump by means of a dichroic beam splitter and overlapped with a vacuum mode at a balanced beam splitter to produce a pair of EPR entangled beams. The field quadratures of these beams were measured by homodyne detection. Therefore each beam was overlapped with a strong local oscillator of about $10$mW at a balanced beam splitter with a visibility of about $99.5$$\%$ and detected by a pair of custom-made PIN photo diodes with high quantum efficiency ($> 99$$\%$). By changing the relative phase between the local oscillator and the quantum field the measured field quadrature could be chosen. In order to lock both homodyne detectors to a certain quadrature a single sideband technique was used. Therefore an $80$MHz frequency shifted beam, produced by an acousto-optical modulator, was coupled into the squeezing path from behind the dichroic beam splitter and phase locked to it. The single sideband was detected by the homodyne detectors and demodulated at $80$MHz. By choosing the phase of the electronic oscillator used for the demodulation appropriately the homodyne detector could be set to measure a certain field quadrature.
The outputs of both homodyne detectors were recorded simultaneously by means of a data acquisition system. Therefore they were demodulated with a double-balanced mixer at $8.3$MHz and lowpass filtered with an anti-aliasing filter having a passband of $40$kHz. The data was sampled with $14$bit resolution at a sampling rate of $500$kHz.
Experimental results {#sec: results}
====================
![Characterization of the EPR source: The conditional variance product (EPR) is plotted versus the detected squeezing, measured before the balanced entanglement beam splitter. All measurements are done at a sideband frequency of $8.3$MHz. The blue line describes a theoretical model. The model fitted best with a total optical loss of $6.8$$\%$ and no phase noise.[]{data-label="fig:epr"}](Fig2-epr_vs_squeezing.pdf)
Figure \[fig:epr\] shows a characterization of our EPR source. The conditional variance product from Eq. (\[eq: epr\]) is plotted versus the single mode input squeezing used to produce the entanglement. The conditional variance product was measured by both homodyne detectors taking either amplitude or phase quadrature data simultaneously. The variance of the squeezed state was determined by one of the homodyne detectors and a removed [$50$:$50$ ]{}beam splitter in the optical path. For this measurement the same optical pump power for the nonlinear process was used as for the entanglement measurement. For an input squeezing of $11.1 \pm 0.1$dB (with corresponding anti-squeezing of $16.6 \pm 0.1$dB) the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen covariance product was as low as $0.31 \pm 0.01$. This is to the best of our knowledge the strongest Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen entanglement published so far. As all other schemes either use two squeezed beams to produce the entanglement or type II parametric down-conversion which is equivalent to the previous one, this result is quite remarkable. The blue solid line in the figure shows a theoretical model using $$\operatorname{Var}_{A|B}(X_A,X_B) \cdot \operatorname{Var}_{A|B}(P_A,P_B)=\frac{1+(\nu-\nu^2)\sinh^2{r}}{1+\frac{1}{4}(1-\nu^2)\sinh^2{r}}\ ,
\label{eq:EPR-theory}$$ where $\nu$ denotes the overall optical loss and $$r=-\frac{1}{2}\ln{\left(\frac{10^{\operatorname{Var}_{sqz}/10}-\epsilon}{1-\epsilon}\right)}
\label{eq:EPR-theory-r}$$ with $\operatorname{Var}_{sqz}$ being the variance of the squeezed input state in decibel. The parameter $\epsilon $ is the optical loss we obtained from the measurement of the input squeezing i.e. without 50:50 beam splitter. We determined $\epsilon $ to $5.9$$\%$. The optical loss $\nu$ for the entanglement measurement was expected to be larger since further components were involved in the setup. We assumed it to be symmetric since both detectors are separated from the entanglement source by comparable optical paths. The model fits best with no phase noise and an overall optical loss of $\nu=6.8$$\%$, which is indeed slightly higher than the total optical loss of the input squeezing measurement.
![Data points from simultaneous measurements of the amplitude (left) and phase quadrature (right): In both quadratures the measurements are significantly correlated and anticorrelated, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:data"}](Fig3-data.pdf)
Figure \[fig:data\] shows the correlations between Alice and Bob at an input squeezing of $11.1$dB. The figure on the left hand side shows data points from simultaneous measurements of the amplitude quadrature at both detectors. Each point refers to the outcome of Alice’s measurement on the abscissa and Bob’s corresponding measurement outcome on the ordinate, where both values are normalized to the standard deviation of the vacuum (black circle in the figure). On the right hand side the same for the phase quadrature is shown. The amplitude quadrature measurements are significantly correlated, whereas the phase quadrature measurements are anti-correlated due to the phase flip at the entanglement beam splitter. Furthermore, the measurement values for the phase quadrature have a considerably higher variance at each detector since this quadrature is anti-squeezed.
![Achieved key rate, secure against collective attacks, as a function of detected squeezing, which was measured before the [$50$:$50$ ]{}entanglement beam splitter. The blue line is a simulated model, which fitted best with an optical loss of $6.8$$\%$, no phase noise and an electronic dark noise level $18.3$dB below the vacuum noise.[]{data-label="fig:keyrate"}](Fig4-keyrate_vs_squeezing.pdf)
Assuming collective attacks, the achievable secure key rate dependent on the input squeezing is shown in Fig. \[fig:keyrate\]. According to our model, with an optical loss of $6.8$$\%$ and no phase noise, we observed a positive key rate for more than $5$dB input squeezing reaching about $0.38$bits/measurement for $10.5$dB. The secure key rate was calculated with Eq. (\[eq:keyrate\]) from the reconstructed covariance matrices. Hence, no error bars are given as the shown secure key rate refers to its lower bound.
To reconstruct the covariance matrix of our bi-partite state the partial tomographic protocol described in [@DiGuglielmo2007] was used, where for the first time the complete covariance matrix of a gaussian state was measured. For example the covariance matrix for the generated state with an input squeezing of $11.1$dB is given as follows, $$\Gamma =
\left(\begin{array}{cc|cc}
0.55 & -0.09 & 0.45 & -0.14\\
-0.09 & 24.7 & -0.07 & -23.2\\\hline
0.45 & -0.07 & 0.55 & 0.01\\
-0.14 & -23.2 & 0.01 & 23.7\\
\end{array}\right)\ .$$ One can directly see certain properties of the state from the entries in the matrix. The values on the principal diagonal are the variances for the amplitude and phase quadrature measurements at Alice’s and Bob’s detector. The diagonal entries of the two blocks in the upper right and lower left give the strengths of the correlations in the amplitude quadrature and the anticorrelations in the phase quadrature, respectively, between both detectors. In a perfect orthogonal measurement the remaining entries should turn out to be zero since they give the covariance between amplitude and phase quadratures. The small deviation from zero show that the measurements were not perfectly orthogonal. The influence of this effect on the secure key rate is discussed in Section \[sec: system parameters\].
The solid line in Fig. \[fig:keyrate\] describes the theoretical behavior of the secure key rate. The theoretical model was calculated by simulating all biasing experimental effects on the key rate. A description of these effects and their influences as well as the fit parameters are given in Section \[sec: system parameters\]. The deviation of the experimental data from the theoretical model at high input squeezing stems probably from the locks of the squeezed-light source and the homodyne detectors which might be unsufficient as disturbances on small time scales have large impact for such high squeezing levels.
Determination of system parameters {#sec: system parameters}
==================================
In order to give a precise description of our source, we have modeled different types of noise that could influence the state, respectively, the data acquisition. We used numerical simulations to determine which type of noise is present in the experiment and discuss influences on the secure key rate. It should be emphasized here, that we are performing our investigations under the assumption of collective attacks and in the limit of infinite repetition.
Sources
-------
The generation of squeezed light has been modeled in [@Takeno2007] as $$\operatorname{Var}_{\rm{sqz,asqz}} = 1\pm \eta \frac{4\sqrt{P/P_\text{th}}}{(1\mp\sqrt{P/P_\text{th}})^2 + 4 K^2}\ ,$$ where $\eta$ is the overall efficiency, $P$ the pump power for the nonlinear process, $P_{\rm{th}}$ the threshold power and $K$ a constant depending on the implementation. The corresponding parameters were determined directly at the source, i.e. without [$50$:$50$ ]{}beam splitter, to $\eta = 0.941$, $P_{\rm{th}} = 268$mW and $K=0.136$. One should note, that the generated state is mixed for all pump powers.
Optical loss
------------
Optical loss stems from absorption, scattering, the non-ideal quantum efficiency of the balanced homodyne detector and from non-perfect mode-matching reducing the visibility. It can be modeled as a convex combination of the original state $\rho$ with the vacuum state $\rho_{vac}$ as $\rho' = (1-\nu) \rho + \nu \rho_{vac}$, which translates to the covariance matrix as $$\Gamma'=\left(1-\nu\right) \Gamma + \nu \idty\ ,$$ where $\nu \in \left[0, 1\right]$ is the optical loss parameter.
Phase noise
-----------
We subsume all imperfections of the measurement basis choice under the topic phase noise. While the ideal measurement would always measure only the phase or amplitude quadrature, phase noise imprinted on the local oscillator would introduce deviations from the perfect choice of the quadrature. We describe phase noise as random rotation in phase space, given by a distribution $F$. The state $\rho$ transforms as $$\rho^\text{phase noise}=\int F\left(\Delta\sigma, \Delta\alpha_t\right) U\left(\Delta\alpha_t\right)^\dagger \rho U\left(\Delta\alpha_t\right) d\alpha_t\ .$$ Thereby $U\left(\alpha_t\right)$ describes the rotation while $F\left(\Delta\sigma, \Delta\alpha_t\right)$ is chosen as gaussian distribution with mean $\alpha$ and variance $\sigma$.
Phase noise is not a gaussian process, i.e. the resulting state will not be fully described by its second moments [@Franzen2006; @Hage2008]. On the other hand, the effect of phase noise would significantly reduce the gaussian character of the state.
Detection noise
---------------
In our setup, detection noise is mainly given by electronic dark noise of the balanced homodyne detector. Other sources of detection noise could be residual technical noise of the local oscillator beam in combination with a non-perfect common mode rejection. Shot noise and technical noise of the control beams accompanying the entangled fields could also result in increased noise in the balanced homodyne detector.
Discussion
----------
![Simulation of the secure key rate vs. the input single mode squeezing: The blue curve shows the secure key rate expected from a pure state. For the red one an optical loss of $6.8$$\%$, as present in our experiment, was taken into account. Therefore an optical loss of $5.9$$\%$ was assumed for the squeezing, i.e. before the beam splitter, yielding the input single mode squeezing on the abscissa. For the green curve $1.5$$\%$ detection noise was added in addition to the optical loss. This curve corresponds to the one in Fig. \[fig:keyrate\]. In the presence of additional $0.05$rad phase noise the secure key rate would drop to the grey dashed curve.[]{data-label="fig: key rate theory"}](Fig5-keyrate_vs_squeezing_theory.pdf)
We have found that the behavior of the state in terms of its covariance matrix can be described quite well with the types of noise discussed above. For the theoretical model in Fig. \[fig:keyrate\] we found a total optical loss of $\nu=6.8$$\%$ and zero phase noise. Our simulation revealed a detection noise of $1.5$$\%$ in respect to the balanced homodyne detectors’ vacuum noise. This is in excellent agreement with their independently measured dark noise variance of $18.3$dB below the vacuum noise. Hence, our control beams did not contribute to the detection noise. It should be noted, that every source of noise has a characteristic impact on the key rate, which can be seen in Fig. \[fig: key rate theory\].
One effect, not part of the current investigation, are correlations between successive measurements. These correlations have been observed in the experiment and would reduce the key rate. A possible source for these correlations has been identified in the anti-aliasing lowpass filter which is used for the data acquisition [@Hamill1981]. A future enhancement of the experiment is expected to show much less correlations.
Conclusion {#sec: conclusion}
==========
We have presented a gaussian entanglement source involving a squeezed mode and a vacuum mode which revealed a positive secure key rate when taking collective attacks into account. We have shown that a single squeezed input mode is a resource sufficient for entanglement based quantum key distribution. The modelling of our EPR entanglement is in very good agreement with our experimental data.
In the present experiment the entanglement has been distributed on an optical table. Coupling one part of the bi-partite state into an standard optical telecommunication fiber and building Bob’s detector remotely would allow for quantum key distribution in local area networks. Our simulation revealed that even with an additional optical loss of up to about $20$$\%$ in one arm the secure key rate would still be positive, assuming no phase noise is induced by the fiber. A previous experiment showed that a high coupling efficiency to optical fibers can be achieved [@Mehmet2010]. Hence, secure keys can be distributed between two parties who are about $1$ to $2$km apart. Although the restriction to a single squeezed input mode, as presented here, is of fundamental interest, a full scheme with two squeezed fields overlapped at a balanced beam splitter will achieve higher key rates. Assuming again no phase noise we expect the secure key rate for a $1$km fiber to be around $1$bit/measurement. Since a squeezing bandwidth of more than $100$MHz was already demonstrated [@Mehmet2010a] such a kilometer-scale quantum key distribution could achieve significant overall key rates.
This research was supported by the EU FP7 project Q-ESSENCE (Grant agreement number 248095). TE and VH thank the IMPRS on Gravitational Wave Astronomy for support. VH acknowledges support from HALOSTAR. TF acknowledges support from DFG under grant WE-1240/12-1 and from BMBF project QUOREP. RFW acknowledges support by the EU FP7 project COQUIT (Grant agreement number 233747).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Bennett C H and Brassard G 1984, *Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing* (Bangalore: India) p 175–9 Gisin N, Ribordy G, Tittel W, and Zbinden H 2002 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **74** 145–95 Grosshans F and Grangier P 2002 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **85** 057902 Lodewyck J, Bloch M, García-Patrón R, Fossier S, Karpov E, Diamanti E, Debuisschert T, Cerf N J, Tualle-Brouri R, McLaughlin S W, and Grangier P 2007 *Phys. Rev.* A **76** 042305 Fossier S, Diamanti E, Debuisschert T, Villing A, Tualle-Brouri R and Grangier P 2009 *New. J. Phys.* **11** 045023 Lance A M, T Symul T, Sharma V, Weedbrook C, Ralph T C, and Lam P K 2005 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **95** 180503 Leverrier A and Grangier P 2009 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **102** 180504 Rodo C, Romero-Isart O, Eckert K, Sanpera A 2007 *Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.* **14** 69–80 Ou Z Y, Pereira S F, Kimble H J, Peng K C 1992 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**68**]{} 3663–6 Zhang Y, Wang H, Li X, Jing J, Xie C, Peng K 2000 *Phys. Rev.* A [**62**]{} 023813 Schori C, Sorensen J L, Polzik E S 2002 *Phys. Rev.* A [**66**]{} 033802 Laurat J, Coudreau T, Keller G, Treps N, Fabre C 2005 *Phys. Rev.* A [**71**]{} 022313 Keller G, D’Auria V, Treps N, Coudreau T, Laurat J, Fabre C 2008 *Opt. Express* [**16**]{} 9351–6 Bowen W P, Schnabel R, Lam P K, Ralph T C 2003 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**90**]{} 043601 Takei N, Lee N, Moriyama D, Neergaard-Nielsen J S, Furusawa A 2006 *Phys. Rev.* A [**74**]{} 060101(R) Hage B, Janousek J, Armstrong S, Symul T, Bernu J, Chrzanowski H M, Lam P K, Bachor H A *Eur. Phys. J.* D **63** 457–61 Eberle T, Händchen V, Duhme J, Franz T, Werner R F, and Schnabel R 2011 *Phys. Rev.* A **83** 052329 Silberhorn C, Lam P K, Weiß O, K[ö]{}nig F, Korolkova N, Leuchs G 2001 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**86**]{}, 4267–70 DiGuglielmo J, Hage B, Franzen A, Fiurasek J, and Schnabel R 2007 *Phys. Rev.* A **76** 012323 Su X, Wang W, Wang Y, Jia X, Xie C and Peng K 2009 *EPL* **87** 20005 Reid M D 1989 *Phys. Rev.* A **40** 913–23 Wigner E 1932 *Phys. Rev.* **40** 749 Simon R 2000 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **84** 2726–2729 Werner R F 1989 *Phys. Rev.* A **40** 4277–4281 Wiseman H M, Jones S J and Doherty A C 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett* **98** 140402 Schrödinger E 1935 *Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.* **31** 553 Cavalcanti E G, Jones S J, Wiseman H M, and Reid M D 2009 *Phys. Rev.* A **80** 032112 Devetak I, and Winter A 2004 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **93** 080501 Ast S, Moghadas Nia R, Schönbeck A, Lastzka N, Steinlechner J, Eberle T, Mehmet M, Steinlechner S, and Schnabel R 2011 *Opt. Lett.* **36** 3467–9 Takeno Y, Yukawa M, Yonezawa H, Furusawa A 2007 *Opt. Express* **15** 4321–7 Franzen A, Hage B, DiGuglielmo J, Fiurasek J, and Schnabel R 2006 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **97** 150505 Hage B, Samblowski A, DiGuglielmo J, Franzen A, Fiurasek J, and Schnabel R 2008 *Nature Physics* **4** 915–918 Hamill D C 1981 *Wireless World* **August** 59–64 Mehmet M, Eberle T, Steinlechner S, Vahlbruch H, and Schnabel R 2010 *Opt. Lett.* **35** 1665-7 Mehmet M, Vahlbruch H, Lastzka N, Danzmann K, and Schnabel R 2010 *Phys. Rev.* A **81** 013814
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Generalizing the classical matrix-tree theorem we provide a formula counting subgraphs of a given graph with a fixed $2$-core. We use this generalization to obtain an analog of the matrix-tree theorem for the root system $D_n$ (the classical theorem corresponds to the $A_n$-case). Several byproducts of the developed technique, such as a new formula for a specialization of the multivariate Tutte polynomial, are of independent interest.'
address:
- 'Independent University of Moscow, Bolshoi Vlas’evskii per. 11, 121002, Moscow, Russia'
- 'Mathematics Department, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden'
author:
- Yurii Burman
- Boris Shapiro
title: 'Around matrix-tree theorem'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#Sec:Intro}
============
Let us first fix some definitions and notation to be used throughout the paper. The main object of our study will be an undirected graph $G$ without multiple edges. It is understood as a subset $G \subset \{\{i,j\} \mid i,j
\in {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}\}$, where elements of ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$ are vertices and elements of $G$ itself are edges. Informally speaking, this means that we mark (i.e. distinguish) vertices but not edges of $G$ (except for Section \[Sec:APoly\] where an edge labeling will be used). Usually we will assume that $G$ contains no loops, i.e. edges ${\{i,i\}}$. Directed graphs (appearing in Sections \[Sec:MSub\] and \[Sec:Orient\] for technical purposes) are subsets of ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}^2$. Since a graph is understood as a set of edges, notation $F \subset G$ means that $F$ is a subgraph of $G$.
We will denote by $n = v(G)$ the number of vertices of $G$, by $\#G = e(G)$ the number of its edges, and by $k(G)$ the number of connected components. For every connected component $G_i \subset G$ ($i = 1, \dots, k(G)$) it will be useful to consider its Euler characteristics $\chi(G_i) = v(G_i) -
e(G_i)$. A connected graph containing no cycles will be called a [ *tree*]{}, a disconnected one, a [*forest*]{}. Note that the absence of cycles is equivalent to the equality $\chi(G_i) = 1$ for all $i$; if cycles are present then $\chi(G_i) \le 0$.
We will usually supply edges of the graph $G$ with weights. A weight $w_{ij} = w_{ji}$ of the edge ${\{i,j\}}$ is an element of any algebra $\A$. For a subgraph $F \subset G$ denote $w(F) {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}\prod_{{\{i,j\}}
\in F} w_{ij}$; call it the [*weight*]{} of $F$. For any set $U$ of subgraphs of $G$ call the expression $Z(U) = \sum_{F \in U} w(F)$ the [ *statistical sum*]{} of $U$. (By definition, we assume $w_{ij} = 0$ if $G$ contains no edge ${\{i,j\}}$.)
To a graph $G$ with weighted edges one associates its [ *Laplacian matrix*]{} $L_G$. It is a symmetric $(n \times n)$-matrix with the elements $$(L_G)_{ij} = \begin{cases}
-w_{ij}, &i \ne j,\\
\sum_{k \ne i} w_{ik}, &i = j.
\end{cases}$$ The Laplacian matrix is degenerate; its kernel always contains the vector $(1,1,\dots,1)$. However, its principal minors are generally nonzero and enter the classical matrix-tree theorem whose first version was proved by G.Kirchhoff in 1847:
\[Th:MTreeClass\] Let $T_G$ be the set of all (spanning) trees of $G$. Then $Z(T_G)$ is equal to any principal minor of $L_G$.
This theorem has numerous generalizations (for a review, see e.g. [@Abde] and the references therein). For our purposes the most important will be the “all-minors” theorem by S.Chaiken [@Chaiken].
Call a subset $J = \{(i_1,j_1), \dots, (i_m,j_m)\} \subset
\{1,2,\dots,n\}^2$ [*component-disjoint*]{} if $i_p \ne i_q$ and $j_p \ne
j_q$ for every $p \ne q$; denote $\Sigma J {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}\sum_{p=1}^m (i_p +
j_p)$. Fix a numeration of the pairs $(i_p,j_p) \in J$ such that $i_1 <
\dots < i_m$, and denote by $\tau_J$ the permutation of ${\{1,2,\dots,m\}}$ defined by the condition $j_{\tau_J(1)} < j_{\tau_J(2)} < \dots < j_{\tau_J(m)}$.
A forest $F$ with the vertex set ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$ is called [*$J$-admissible*]{} if it has $m$ components, and every component contains exactly one vertex from the set $\{i_1, \dots, i_m\}$, and exactly one, from $\{j_1, \dots,
j_m\}$ (these two may coincide if the sets intersect). Denote by $\gamma_{F,J}$ a permutation of the set ${\{1,2,\dots,m\}}$ such that $i_p$ and $j_{\gamma_{F,J}(p)}$ lie in the same component of $F$, for every $p =
1,2,\dots,m$.
For an $n \times n$-matrix $M$ and a component-disjoint set $J$ denote by $M(J)$ the submatrix of $M$ obtained by deletion of the rows $i_1, \dots,
i_m$ and the columns $j_1, \dots, j_m$. For any permutation $\sigma$ denote by ${\varepsilon}(\sigma) = \pm1$ its sign (parity).
\[Th:AllMinors\] For any component-disjoint subset $J \subset {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}^2$ one has $$(-1)^{\Sigma J}\det (L_G)(J) = \sum_F {\varepsilon}(\tau_J \circ \gamma_{F,J}) w(F)$$ where the sum is taken over the set of all $J$-admissible subforests $F$ of $G$.
Theorem \[Th:MTreeClass\] is a particular case of Theorem \[Th:AllMinors\] corresponding to the situation when $J$ contains one element only.
Most of this article is devoted to various generalizations of Theorem \[Th:MTreeClass\]. In Section \[Sec:MSub\] we consider determinant-like expressions for statistical sums of subgraphs $F \subset G$ with cycles (namely, subgraphs with a given $2$-core). In Section \[Sec:ChiZero\] we consider the case of subgraphs with vanishing Euler characteristics. Spanning trees of a graph $G$ can be interpreted as irreducible linearly independent subsets of roots in the root system $A_n$; in Section \[Sec:D\] we prove an analog of Theorem \[Th:MTreeClass\] for the root system $D_n$.
Two remaining sections form a sort of appendix to the paper. In Section \[Sec:Orient\] we give an explicit formula for the number $d(G)$ of orientations of the graph $G$ without sources and sinks (this number enters Theorem \[Th:2Core\]). In Section \[Sec:APoly\] we provide a formula for the so called [*external activity polynomial*]{} which is a specialization of the multivariate Tutte polynomial of the graph $G$. The latter is defined as $$T_G(q,w) = \sum_{m=1}^n q^n Z(U_m)$$ (see [@Sokal; @Tu; @WelshMerino] for details) where $U_m$ is the set of subgraphs of $G$ having $m$ connected components and $w$ is a collection of weights of the edges. The formula we prove (Theorem \[Th:ExtAct\]) is an alternating sign summation over partitions of the set of vertices of $G$.
In the end of the paper we discuss several open problems related to the main topic.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The first named author is sincerely grateful to the Mathematics Department of Stockholm University for the hospitality and financial support of his visit in September 2005 when the essential part of this project was carried out. We are thankful to Professors N.Alon and A.Sokal for their comments on the Tutte polynomial and a number of relevant references. We are grateful to Professor Olivier Bernardi who pointed out an important mistake in an earlier version of this paper.
Graphs with a given $2$-core {#Sec:MSub}
============================
Let $G$ be an undirected graph (loops and multiple edges are allowed). The maximal subgraph $G' \subset G$ such that every vertex of $G'$ is an endpoint of at least two edges or is attached to a loop (that is, there are no “hanging” vertices) is called the [*$2$-core of $G$*]{} and denoted by $\name{core}_2(G)$. A graph $G$ is the union of $\name{core}_2(G)$ and a number of forests (possibly empty) attached to every vertex of $\name{core}_2(G)$.
A graph $G$ is called [*negative*]{} if it contains no loops, no multiple edges, $G = \name{core}_2(G)$, and $\chi(G_i) < 0$ where $G_i$, $i = 1,
\dots, k(G)$ are connected components of $G$. A graph $G$ is called [ *non-positive*]{} if all the above is true but $\chi(G_i) \le 0$. A non-positive graph $G$ is the union of a negative graph $G_0$ and several cycles, each cycle forming a separate connected component. We will code this situation as $G = G_0 \cup 3^{k_3} \dots n^{k_n}$ where $k_s$ stands for the total number of cycles of length $s$.
For any directed graph $Q$ (with the vertex set ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$) denote by $[Q]$ the corresponding undirected graph. Given a $(n \times n)$-matrix $M$ with entries $a_{i,j}\in \A$ define $$\langle M,Q\rangle {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}\prod_{(i,j) \in Q} a_{ij}.$$ In particular, if $[Q] \subset G$ where $G$ is a graph without loops or multiple edges, with weights $w_{ij}$ (like in the previous section), then $\langle L_G,Q\rangle = (-1)^{e(Q)}w(Q)$.
A directed graph $Q$ is called [*regular*]{} if the following two conditions are satisfied:
1. \[It:NSS\] $Q$ contains no sources or sinks, i.e. for every vertex there is at least one incoming and one outgoing edge.
2. If $Q$ contains a loop (an edge $(i,i)$) or a pair of antiparallel edges (edges $(i,j)$ and $(j,i)$) then they form a separate connected component of $Q$.
If $Q$ is a regular directed graph then $[Q]$ consists of a non-positive graph and several loops and double edges (cycles of length $2$), each loop and double edge forming a separate connected component. We will denote this by $[Q] = H \cup 1^{k_1} 2^{k_2}$ where $H$ is non-positive and $k_1, k_2$ are the number of loops and double edges, respectively.
In what follows it will be convenient to allow graphs to have multiple (more specifically, double) edges. If $F$ is a graph with multiple edges we will abuse notation writing $F \subset G$ if the graph obtained from $F$ by neglecting the multiplicities is a subgraph of $G$. Computing the weights, we will, however, take multiplicities into account: $$w(F) {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}\prod_{{\{i,j\}} \text{ is an edge of }F} w_{ij}^{m_{ij}}$$ where $m_{ij} \in \Integer_{{\ge}0}$ is the multiplicity of the edge ${\{i,j\}}$.
Let $H \subset G$ be a non-positive graph plus several double edges, each double edge forming a separate component. In other words, $H = H_0 \cup 2^{k_2} 3^{k_3} \dots n^{k_n}$ where $H_0$ is negative. Then denote $${\varrho}_G(H) = \sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{c}
\Lambda \mbox{ is regular}\\
\relax[\Lambda] = H \cup 1^{n-v(H)}
\end{array}}
\langle L_G,\Lambda\rangle$$ (so that the total number of vertices of $\Lambda$ is $n$). By $U(H)$ denote the set of all subgraphs $F \subset G$ such that $\name{core}_2(F) =
H$.
\[Th:2Core\] Let $H = H_0 \cup 2^{k_2} 3^{k_3} \dots n^{k_n}$ be a non-positive graph without loops together with several double edges. Then $$\label{Eq:MSub}
{\varrho}_G(H) = (-1)^{e(H)} d(H_0) \sum_{l_2=k_2}^n \dots \sum_{l_n=k_n}^n
\binom{l_2}{k_2} \dots \binom{l_n}{k_n} 2^{l_3 + \dots + l_n} \,
Z(U(H_0 \cup 2^{l_2} \dots n^{l_n}))$$ where $d(H_0)$ is the number of orientations of $H_0$ without sources and sinks.
\[Cr:MSubgrInv\] One has $$\label{Eq:MSubgrInv}
\begin{aligned}
Z(U(H)) =(-1)^{e(H_0)} d(H_0) 2^{-(k_3 + \dots + k_n)} &\times\\
\times \sum_{l_2=k_2}^n \dots \sum_{l_n=k_n}^n (-1)^{l_2 + l_3 + \dots + l_n}&
\binom{l_2}{k_2} \dots \binom{l_n}{k_n} \, {\varrho}_G(H_0 \cup 2^{l_2}
\dots n^{l_n}).
\end{aligned}$$
Corollary \[Cr:MSubgrInv\] is our closest approximation to a “matrix-subgraph” theorem, that is, the best available analog of Theorem \[Th:MTreeClass\] for subgraphs of arbitrary structure. Indeed, the left-hand side of is the statistical sum over the graphs with a fixed $2$-core (for trees the $2$-core is empty), while the right-hand side is a polylinear function of matrix elements of the Laplacian matrix (in the case of trees it was its principal minor). Notice that, unlike Theorem \[Th:MTreeClass\], the right-hand side of cannot be computed in polynomial time. This is hardly surprising: it is known that the calculation of the Tutte polynomial (and even its value at almost any point of the plane) is a sharp $P$-hard problem (see [@Welsh §9]). Therefore there is no hope to obtain a formula for the statistical sum of connected subgraphs in $G$ with any given number of edges in the form of a determinant or, in general, to get a formula of polynomial complexity in terms of the Laplacian matrix.
Let $\Lambda = \Lambda_0 \cup \Lambda_1$ be a regular subgraph of $G$ such that $[\Lambda_0] = H$ and $[\Lambda_1] = 1^{n-v(H)}$. Now, $\langle
L_G,\Lambda\rangle = \langle L_G,\Lambda_0\rangle \langle
L_G,\Lambda_1\rangle$. Since $\Lambda_0$ contains no loops, then $\langle
L_G,\Lambda_0\rangle = (-1)^{e(H)} w(H)$.
One has $(L_G)_{ii} = \sum_{k \ne i} w_{ik}$, so that the term $\langle
L_G,\Lambda_1\rangle$ can be represented as the sum of monomials $w_{i_1k_1}
\dots w_{i_s k_s}$ where $\{i_1, \dots, i_s\}$ is the vertex set of $\Lambda_1$. In other words, $\langle L_G,\Lambda_1\rangle = \sum_{\Theta}
w(\Theta)$ where $\Theta$ is the directed graph with $[\Theta] \subset G$ satisfying the following property: if $i \in \{i_1, \dots, i_s\}$ then $\Theta$ contains exactly one edge starting from $i$, and if $i \notin
\{i_1, \dots, i_s\}$ is a vertex of $\Theta$ then it is a sink (no edge starts from it).
One can easily see that every connected component of $\Theta$ is either a tree such that all its vertices except the root are in $\{i_1, \dots,
i_s\}$, or a graph with exactly one cycle with all its vertices in $\{i_1,
\dots, i_s\}$. Thus, $\name{core}_2([\Lambda_0 \cup \Theta]) = H_0 \cup
2^{l_2} \dots n^{l_n},$ where $l_2 \ge k_2$, …, $l_n \ge k_n$.
On the other hand, let $F \subset G$ be a subgraph such that $\name{core}_2(F) = H_0 \cup 2^{l_2} \dots n^{l_n}$. To identify $F$ with $[\Lambda_0 \cup \Theta]$ one has, first, to point out which “$1$-cycled” connected components of $F$ belong to $\Lambda_0$ and which to $\Theta$ — there are $\binom{l_2}{k_2} \dots \binom{l_n}{k_n}$ ways to do this. Having this choice made one must orient the $2$-core of $F$ without sources and sinks — the number of such orientations being $d(H_0 \cup 2^{l_2} \dots
n^{l_n}) = 2^{l_3 + \dots + l_n} d(H_0)$.
One has $\frac{1}{k!}\frac{d^k}{d x^k} (1-x)^l = \sum_{s=0}^l \binom{s}{k}
\binom{l}{s} (-1)^s x^s = \binom{l}{k} (1-x)^{l-k}$, and therefore $$\sum_{s=0}^l (-1)^s\binom{s}{k} \binom{l}{s} = \begin{cases}
0, &\mbox{if } k < l,\\
1, &\mbox{if } k = l.
\end{cases}$$ The corollary is now straightforward.
Graphs with vanishing Euler characteristics {#Sec:ChiZero}
===========================================
Corollary \[Cr:MSubgrInv\] becomes particularly simple if $H$ is a cycle. Namely, if $H = s^1$ (a cycle of length $s$) then $\lambda_G(H)$ is the statistical sum of the set of all connected subgraphs $F \subset G$ having exactly one cycle of length $s$. The “negative part” $H_0$ of the graph $H$ is empty which implies $d(H_0) = 1$.
Denote by $\Sigma_n$ the symmetric group of order $n$ acting on ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$, and denote by $\Partit_n$ the set of all partitions of $n$. For a permutation $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$ having $k_1$ cycles of length $1$, $k_2$ cycles of length $2$, etc., denote $D(\sigma) {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}1^{k_1} \dots n^{k_n}
\in \Partit_n$. Finally, for any function $f: \Partit \to \A$ define the [*$f$-determinant*]{} of an $(n \times n)$-matrix $M$ with entries $a_{i,j}\in \A$ by the formula $$\det\nolimits_f (L) = \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma_n} f(D(\sigma))
a_{1,\sigma(1)} \dots a_{n,\sigma(n)}.$$ Now one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\varrho}_G(2^{l_2} \dots n^{l_n}) &= \sum_{D(\sigma) = 1^{n - 2l_2 -
\dots - nl_n}2^{l_2} \dots n^{l_n}} (-1)^{n + 2l_2 + \dots + nl_n}
(L_G)_{1,\sigma(1)} \dots (L_G)_{n,\sigma(n)} \\
&= \det\nolimits_{\chi_{l_2, \dots, l_n}} L_G,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\chi_{l_2, \dots, l_n}(1^{k_1} \dots n^{k_n}) =
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{n + 2l_2 + \dots + nl_n}, &\text{if } k_2 = l_2, k_3=l_3, \dots, k_n
= l_n,\\
0, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Thus, Corollary \[Cr:MSubgrInv\] for a cycle takes the following form:
\[St:1Cycle\] The statistical sum of the set of subgraphs $F \subset G$ having one cycle of length $s \ge 3$ is equal to $\frac12 \det\nolimits_{\tau_s} L_G$, where $\tau_s(1^{k_1} \dots n^{k_n}) = (-1)^{n + 2k_2 + \dots + nk_n} k_s$. The statistical sum of the set of subgraphs $F \subset G$ having one cycle of length $2$ is $\det\nolimits_{\tau_2} L_G$.
This corollary implies the following formula which is the “matrix-tree theorem” for connected subgraphs containing exactly one cycle of any length $s \ge 3$, that is, connected subgraphs $H \subset G$ with $\chi(H) = 0$:
Let $U_G$ be the set of all connected subgraphs of $H \subset G$ such that $\chi(H) = 0$. Then $$Z(U_G) = \frac{1}{2}\det\nolimits_\mu(L_G)$$ where $$\label{Eq:1Cycle}
\mu(1^{k_1} 2^{k_2} \dots n^{k_n}) = (-1)^{n + k_2 + 2k_3 + \dots + (n-1)k_n}
(2k_2 + k_3 + \dots + k_n).$$
A finer result concerning graphs $H \subset G$ such that $\chi(H_i) = 0$ for any connected component $H_i$ of $H$ ($i = 1, \dots, k(H)$) can be obtained using Theorem \[Th:AllMinors\].
For a graph $G$ and a component-disjoint set $J$ denote by $G - J$ the graph obtained from $G$ by deletion of all the edges $(i_p j_p)$ where $(i_p,j_p) \in J$. Then Theorem \[Th:AllMinors\] implies
\[St:GivenCycle\] Let $G$ be a graph with the vertex set ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$, without loops and multiple edges, with weights $w_{ij}$ defined for all the edges. Let $J =
\{(i_1,j_1), \dots, (i_m,j_m)\}$ be a component-disjoint subset of ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}^2$. Then $$\label{Eq:GivenCycle}
(-1)^n {\varepsilon}(\tau_J) w_{i_1 j_1} \dots w_{i_m j_m} \det (L_{G-J})(J) =
\sum_H (-1)^{k(H)}w(H)$$ where the sum is taken over the set of all subgraphs $H\subseteq G$ such that every connected component $H_i$ of $H$ contains one cycle (that is, $\chi(H_i) = 0$), the edges ${\{i_1,j_1\}}, \dots,
{\{i_m,j_m\}}$ enter these cycles and vertices $i_p$ and $j_q$ alternate along the cycle.
It follows from Theorem \[Th:AllMinors\] that the product $w_{i_1 j_1}
\dots w_{i_m j_m} \det (L_{G-J})(J)$ is equal to the sum of $\pm w_{i_1
j_1} \dots w_{i_m j_m} w(F)$ where $F$ runs over the set of subforests of $G - J$ having $m$ components and such that the $p$-th component contains the vertices $i_p$ and $j_{\gamma_{F,J}(p)}$; here $\gamma_{F,J}$ is the permutation of $\{1,2,\dots,m\}$ defined in Section \[Sec:Intro\]. In other words, $w_{i_1 j_1} \dots w_{i_m j_m} \det (L_{G-J})(J)$ is equal to the sum of $\pm w(H)$ where $H = F+J$ is the result of addition to $F$ of the edges ${\{i_1,j_1\}}$, …, ${\{i_m,j_m\}}$. Thus, $H$ is a graph with one cycle in every connected component; all edges ${\{i_p,j_p\}}$ enter the cycles, and vertices $i_p$ and $j_q$ alternate along the cycle. The connected components of $H$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the cycles of the permutation $\gamma_{F,J}$. The sign of the term $w(F)$ is equal to $(-1)^n {\varepsilon}(\tau_J) {\varepsilon}(\tau_J \circ
\gamma_{F,J}) = (-1)^n {\varepsilon}(\gamma_{G,J})$. The permutation $\gamma_{G,J}$ contains $k(H)$ cycles. The sign of any permutation of ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$ with $k$ cycles equals $(-1)^{n+k}$, and therefore, the total sign is $(-1)^{k(H)}$.
Denote now $$Q_m = \sum_{\#J = m} w_{i_1 j_1} \dots w_{i_m j_m} \det (L_{G-J})(J)$$ where the sum is taken over the set of all component-disjoint subsets $J
\subset {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}^2$ of cardinality $m$. Statement \[St:GivenCycle\] allows to express the generating function for the sequence $Q_m$:
\[Th:GenFun\] One has $$\label{Eq:GenFun}
\sum_{m=1}^\infty Q_m t^m = (-1)^n \sum_H w(H) \prod_{i=1}^{k(H)}
((1+t)^{\ell_i(H)}-1)$$ where the sum in the right-hand side is taken over the set of all subgraphs $H \subset G$ such that $\name{core}_2(H_i)$ is a cycle of length $l_i(H)$; here $H_1, \dots, H_{k(H)}$ are connected components of $H$.
By Statement \[St:GivenCycle\] one has that $Q_m = \sum_H a_m(H) w(H)$ where the sum is taken over the set of all subgraphs $H \subset G$ having exactly one cycle in every connected component. The coefficient $a_m(H)$ is equal, to $(-1)^{n+k(H)}$ times the number of component-disjoint sets $J =
\{(i_1,j_1), \dots, (i_m,j_m)\}$ such that
- ${\{i_p,j_p\}} \in \name{core}_2(H)$ for all $p = 1, \dots, m$.
- For every cycle of $H$ there is at least one edge $(i_p j_p)$ entering it.
- If a cycle of $H$ has more than one edge $(i_p, j_p)$ in it then the vertices $i_p$ and $j_q$ alternate along the cycle.
This obviously implies that $$a_m(H) = (-1)^{n+k(H)}
\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{l}
m_1 + \dots + m_{k(H)} = m\\
m_1, \dots, m_{k(H)} \ge 1
\end{array}}\binom{\ell_1(H)}{m_1} \dots
\binom{\ell_{k(H)}(H)}{m_{k(H)}},$$ and follows.
$$\label{Eq:AltSum}
\sum_{m=1}^\infty (-1)^m Q_m = \sum_H (-1)^{n+k(H)} w(H).$$
Linearly independent subsets of the root systems $A_n$ and $D_n$ {#Sec:D}
================================================================
The technique of Section \[Sec:ChiZero\] can be used to obtain results on linearly independent subsets of finite root systems, cf. [@PoShSh].
The set of positive roots $R_+(A_n)$ of the reflection group $A_n$ consists of vectors $e_{ij} = b_i - b_j$, $1 \le i < j \le n$ where $b_1, \dots,
b_n$ is the standard basis in $\Complex^n$. We will assign to every root $e_{ij} \in R_+(A_n)$ its weight $w_{ij} \in \A$ where $\A$ is any algebra. By definition $w_{ji} = w_{ij}$. For any subset $S \subset R_+(A_n)$ of positive roots consider a graph $\Gamma(S)$ with the vertices $1,
\dots, n$ such that ${\{i,j\}}$ is an edge of $\Gamma(S)$ wherever $e_{ij} \in S$. The edge ${\{i,j\}}$ bears the weight $w_{ij}$. The graph $\Gamma(S)$ is undirected and contains no loops or multiple edges. If $S'
\subset S$ then $\Gamma(S')$ is a subgraph of $\Gamma(S)$. We will write $w(S)$ instead of $w(\Gamma(S))$ for short and denote by $L_S$ the Laplacian matrix of the graph $\Gamma(S)$.
For a given subset $S\subset R_+(A_n)$ one can consider the group $G(S)$ generated by the reflections in the roots $e_{ij} \in S$. The group $G(S)$ is a subgroup of the Weyl group of $A_n$, and therefore the space $V =
\{\sum_{i=1}^n x_i b_i \mid \sum_{i=1}^n x_i = 0\} \subset \Complex^n$ is $G(S)$-invariant. $S$ is called [*irreducible*]{} if $V$ is an irreducible representation of $G(S)$.
The following is obvious:
\[Th:A\] A set $S \subset R_+(A_n)$ is linearly independent if and only if $\Gamma(S)$ contains no cycles. $S$ is irreducible if and only if $\Gamma(S)$ is connected. A linearly independent set $S' \subset S$ is maximal (among linearly independent subsets of $S$) if and only if $\Gamma(S')$ is a forest composed of spanning trees of connected components of $\Gamma(S)$. If $S$ is irreducible (that is, $\Gamma(S)$ connected) then any maximal linearly independent subset $S'$ of $S$ is also irreducible (that is, $\Gamma(S')$ is a spanning tree of $\Gamma(S)$).
Using matroid terminology, one can reformulate Theorem \[Th:A\] as follows. (See [@Sokal; @WelshMerino] for more detail about matroids.)
A submatroid of the linear matroid of $\Complex^n$ generated by vectors $e_{ij} \in S$ is isomorphic to the graphical matroid of $\Gamma(S)$.
One can associate a weight $w_{ij} = w_{ji} \in \A$ to every root $e_{ij} \in R_+(A_n)$. So, one can consider weights of the root systems and statistical sums of sets of root systems, like it was done for graphs in the previous sections. Now the matrix-tree theorem (i.e. Theorem \[Th:MTreeClass\]) and Theorem \[Th:A\] imply:
\[St:NTrees\] Let $S \subset R_+(A_n)$ be irreducible and $T_S$ be the collection of all maximal linearly independent subsets of $S$. Then $Z(T_S)$ is equal to (any) principal minor of the Laplacian matrix $L_S$.
Consider now a similar question for the reflection group $D_n$. Its set $R_+(D_n)$ of positive roots consists of the vectors $e_{ij}^+ = b_i - b_j$ (the $\plusmark$-vectors) and $e_{ij}^- = b_i + b_j$ (the $\minusmark$-vectors) for all $1 \le i < j \le n$. We associate to every $\plusmark$-vector $e_{ij}^+$ the weight $u_{ij} \in \A$, and to every $\minusmark$-vector $e_{ij}^-$ the weight $v_{ij} \in \A$. Notions of linearly independent, maximal and irreducible subsets $S \subset R_+(D_n)$ are defined exactly as in the $A_n$-case.
For every set $S \subset R_+(D_n)$ consider the graph $\Gamma(S)$ with the vertices $1, \dots, n$ where the vertices $i$ and $j$ are joined by the edge marked $\plusmark$ if $e_{ij}^+ \in S$, and by the edge marked $\minusmark$ if $e_{ij}^- \in S$. Thus, the graph $\Gamma(S)$ is undirected, contains no loops, and has at most two edges joining every pair of vertices; all its edges are marked by $\plusmark$ or $\minusmark$, and if two edges join the same pair of vertices then their marks are different.
A cycle in $\Gamma(S)$ is called [*odd*]{} if it contains an odd number of edges marked $\minusmark$.
\[Th:D\] A set $S \subset R_+(D_n)$ is irreducible if and only if $\Gamma(S)$ is connected. $S$ is linearly independent if and only if every connected component of $\Gamma(S)$ is either a tree or a graph with exactly one cycle, and this cycle is odd. If $S$ is irreducible then a linearly independent set $S' \subset S$ is maximal if and only if the following holds: if $\Gamma(S)$ contains no odd cycles then $S' = S$, otherwise every connected component of $\Gamma(S')$ is a graph containing exactly one cycle, and this cycle is odd.
This is a $D$-analog of Theorem \[Th:A\] and it is obvious as well. Our goal in this section is to obtain a $D$-analog of Statement \[St:NTrees\].
Let $J = \{(i_1, j_1), \dots, (i_m,j_m)\} \subset {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}^2$ be a component-disjoint subset. Denote $S-J^- {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}S \setminus \{e^-_{i_1
j_1}, \dots, e^-_{i_m j_m}\}$.
\[Th:Cardm\] One has $$\sum_{m=1}^n t^m \sum_{\#J = m} v_{i_1 j_1} \dots v_{i_m j_m} \det (L_{S -
J^-})(J) = (-1)^n \sum_H w(H) \prod_{i=1}^{k(H)}
((1+t)^{\ell_i^-(H)}-1).$$ Here the internal sum in the left-hand side is taken over the set of all component-disjoint sets $J \subset {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}^2$ of cardinality $m$. The sum in the right-hand side is taken over the set of all subsets $H \subset S$ such that every connected component of the graph $\Gamma(H)$ contains exactly one cycle. Above we denote by $k(H) {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}k(\Gamma(H))$ the number of these components, and by $\ell_i^-(H)$ ($i = 1, \dots, k(H)$) the number of $\minusmark$-edges entering the cycle in the $i$-th component.
The proof is completely analogous to that of Theorem \[Th:GenFun\]. A required analog of Statement \[St:NTrees\] is now:
$$\label{Eq:SumD}
\sum_{m=1}^n (-2)^m \sum_{\#J = m} v_{i_1 j_1} \dots v_{i_m j_m} \det (L_{S
- J^-})(J) = (-1)^n \sum_F (-2)^{k(F)} w(F).$$
Here the internal sum in the left-hand side is taken over the set of all component-disjoint sets $J \subset {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}^2$ of cardinality $m$. The sum in the right-hand side is taken over the set of all maximal linearly independent subsets $F \subset S$. As usual, $k(F)$ is the number of connected components of the graph $\Gamma(F)$.
This follows directly from Theorems \[Th:Cardm\] and \[Th:D\] and the equality $$\prod_{i=1}^k ((-1)^{\ell_i}-1) = \begin{cases}
(-2)^k, &\text{ if all the $\ell_i$ are odd,}\\
0, &\text{ if at least one $\ell_i$ is even.}
\end{cases}$$
Orientations without sources and sinks {#Sec:Orient}
======================================
Let $G$ be an undirected graph with the vertex set ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$, without loops (multiple edges are allowed). In this section we give a combinatorial description of the number $d(G)$ of directed graphs $Q$ such that $[Q] = G$ and $Q$ has no sources or sinks. (Recall that the number $d(G)$ enters equation .)
For a set of vertices $P \subset {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$ of $G$ denote by $\langle
P\rangle$ the subgraph of $G$ spanned by $P$ (i.e. having $P$ as its vertex set and containing all the edges of $G$ with both endpoints in $P$). Denote $k(P) {\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize def}}{=}}k(\langle P\rangle)$ for short and denote by $\mu(P) = e(\langle {\{1,2,\dots,n\}} \setminus P\rangle)$, that is, the number of edges in $G$ having both endpoints outside $P$.
Recall that a graph $F$ is called [*bipartite*]{} if one can split its vertices into two groups such that every edge joins two vertices from different groups. Equivalently, this means that every closed path in $F$ contains an even number of edges.
Assume that $G$ has no isolated vertices. Then the number $d(G)$ of orientations of $G$ without sources and sinks (i.e. such that for every vertex there is at least one incoming and one outgoing edge) is given by the expression $$d(G) = \sum_{m=0}^n (-1)^m \sum_{\scriptsize P: \#P = m, \langle P\rangle
\mbox{ is bipartite}} 2^{\mu(P) + k(P)}.$$ (By assumption, $k({\varnothing}) = 0$ and $\mu({\varnothing})$ is equal to the total number of edges in $G$.)
Fix a set $P$ of vertices, and let $N(P)$ be the number of orientations of $G$ such that every vertex from $P$ is either a source or a sink. Since an edge cannot join two sources or two sinks, one has $N(P) = 0$ if $\langle
P\rangle$ is not bipartite.
Suppose now that $\langle P\rangle$ is bipartite. Consider the graph $F$ obtained by adding to $\langle P\rangle$ all the edges having one vertex in $P$ and the other outside $P$. Apparently, $k(F) = k(P)$. Since $G$ has no isolated vertices, every connected component of $F$ has $2$ orientations such that every its vertex is either a source or a sink. Thus, the total number of ways to orient the edges of $F$ is $2^{k(P)}$. The number of edges of $G$ not belonging to $F$ is $\mu(P)$. These edges can be oriented arbitrarily, and, therefore, $N(P) = 2^{\mu(P) + k(P)}$. The statement follows now from the inclusion-exclusion formula.
\[Cr:ChrPoly\] The number of orientations of $G$ without sources and sinks is given by $$\label{Eq:TotCyclChr}
d(G) = \sum_{m=0}^n (-1)^m \sum_{P: \#P = m} 2^{\mu(P)} \name{chr}_{\langle
P\rangle}(2)$$ where $\name{chr}_F(\lambda)$ is the chromatic polynomial of the graph $F$, that is, the number of ways to color its vertices in $\lambda$ colors so that any two adjacent vertices have different colors. (One assumes $\name{chr}_{\langle {\varnothing}\rangle} = 1$.)
One has $\name{chr}_F(2) = 2^{k(F)}$ if the graph $F$ is bipartite, and $\name{chr}_F(2) = 0$ otherwise.
The number of orientations of $G$ without sources and sinks is given by $$\label{Eq:TotCyclChi}
d(G) = \sum_{F \subseteq G} 2^{\mu(F) + k(F)} (-1)^{\chi(F)}$$ where the sum is taken over the set of all subgraphs $F \subseteq G$, and $\mu(F)$ is the total number of edges in $G$ having no common vertices with the edges from $F$.
A classical result (see e.g. [@WelshMerino] for proof) relates the multivariate Tutte polynomial to the chromatic polynomial: $$\name{chr}_H(\lambda) = T_H(\lambda,-1) = \sum_{\scriptstyle
\begin{array}{c}
\scriptstyle F \subseteq H\\
\scriptstyle v(F) = v(H)
\end{array}} \lambda^{k(F)} (-1)^{e(F)}.$$ ($-1$ in the argument of $T_H$ means that one takes $w_{ij} = -1$ for every edge ${\{i,j\}}$ of $H$). Now by Corollary \[Cr:ChrPoly\], $$d(G) = \sum_{m = 0}^n (-1)^m \sum_{\scriptstyle \begin{array}{c}
\scriptstyle F \subseteq G\\
\scriptstyle v(F) = m
\end{array}} 2^{\mu(F)} 2^{k(F)} (-1)^{e(F)} = \sum_{F \subseteq G}
2^{\mu(F)+k(F)} (-1)^{\chi(F)}.$$ where $\chi(F) = v(F) - e(F)$ is the Euler characteristics of $F$.
Multivariable external activity polynomial {#Sec:APoly}
==========================================
In the previous section we made use of the fact that the chromatic polynomial of a graph is a specialization of its multivariate Tutte polynomial $T(q,w)$. Below we consider another specialization of the $T$ which we call the [*external activity polynomial*]{}.
As in Section \[Sec:MSub\] let $G$ be a graph without loops or multiple edges and with the weights $w_{ij} \in \A$ assigned to its edges. Suppose that $G$ is connected and fix an arbitrary numeration of its edges. Let $T$ be a spanning tree of $G$ and $e$ be an edge not entering $T$. The graph $T \cup e$ has exactly one cycle, and this cycle contains the edge $e$. An edge $e$ is called [*externally active*]{} for $T$ if $e$ is the smallest edge (with respect to the above numeration) in the cycle. The polynomial $$C_G(w) = \sum_{T \text{ is a spanning tree of } G} w(T)
\prod_{{\{i,j\}} \text{ is externally active for } T} (w_{ij}+1).$$ will be called the [*external activity polynomial*]{} of $G$. Its specialization (re)appeared recently in the form of the Hilbert polynomial for a certain commutative algebra related to $G$, see [@PoSh].
Obviously, the following statement holds:
\[St:Connect\] If $G$ is connected then $C_G(w) = Z(U_0)$, where $U_0$ is the set of all connected spanning subgraphs of $G$.
\[Cr:FreeTerm\] If $G$ is connected then $C_G(w) = \lim_{q \to 0} T_G(q,w)/q$ where $T_G$ is the multivariate Tutte polynomial.
We present another expression for the polynomial $C_G$:
\[Th:ExtAct\] $$\label{Eq:ExtAct}
C_G(w) = \sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^{k-1}(k-1)! \sum_{{\{1,2,\dots,n\}} = P_1 \sqcup
\dots \sqcup P_k}\, \prod_{{\{i,j\}}: \exists s\,\, i,j \in P_s} (w_{ij}+1)$$ where the internal sum taken is over all partitions of the set of vertices into $k \ge 1$ pairwise disjoint subsets, and the product is taken over the set of all edges ${\{i,j\}}$ of the graph $G$ such that both endpoints ($i$ and $j$) belong to some $P_s,\,s = 1, \dots, k$.
To prove Theorem \[Th:ExtAct\] we need the following technical lemma.
\[Lm:Moebius\] For any $n \ge 2$ one has $$\label{Eq:Moebius}
\sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^{k-1} \sum_{{\{1,2,\dots,n\}} = P_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup P_k} (p_1 -
1)! \dots (p_k - 1)! = 0,$$ where $p_i = \# P_i$ is the cardinality of $P_i$.
Denote by $a_{k,n}$ the coefficient at $(-1)^{k-1} (k-1)!$ in and use induction on $n$ to prove the lemma. For $n = 2$ one has $a_{1,2} = 1$ (the only possible set partition is $\{1,2\} = \{1,2\}$) and $a_{2,2} = 1$ (the only possible set partition is $\{1,2\} = \{1\} \sqcup \{2\}$), so that holds. Let now it hold for some $n$. Partitions of the set ${\{1,2,\dots,n+1\}}$ fall into two types: either ${\{1,2,\dots,n+1\}} = P_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup P_k \sqcup
\{n+1\}$, or ${\{1,2,\dots,n+1\}} = P_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup (P_s \cup \{n+1\}) \sqcup
\dots \sqcup P_k$, where in both cases $P_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup P_k$ is a partition of ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$. The sum taken over the set partitions of the first type is $$\sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^k \sum_{{\{1,2,\dots,n+1\}} = P_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup P_k \sqcup
\{n+1\}} (p_1 - 1)! \dots (p_k - 1)!\, 0! = 0$$ by the induction hypothesis. The sum taken over the set partitions of the second type equals $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^n &(-1)^{k-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \sum_{{\{1,2,\dots,n+1\}} = P_1 \sqcup
\dots \sqcup (P_s \cup \{n+1\}) \sqcup \dots \sqcup P_k} (p_1 - 1)! \dots
p_s ! \dots (p_k-1)! \\
&= \sum_{s=1}^k (-1)^{k-1} \sum_{s=1}^k p_s \sum_{{\{1,2,\dots,n\}} = P_1
\sqcup \dots \sqcup P_s \sqcup \dots \sqcup P_k} (p_1 - 1)! \dots (p_s -
1)! \dots (p_k-1)! \\
&= n\sum_{s=1}^k (-1)^{k-1} \sum_{{\{1,2,\dots,n\}} = P_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup
P_k} (p_1 - 1)! \dots (p_k - 1)! \\
&= 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Notice first that for any graph $F$ the statistical sum of [*all*]{} subgraphs $H \subset F$ equals $$Z(\{H \mid H \subset F\}) = \prod_{{\{i,j\}}\text{ is an edge of } F}
(1+w_{ij}).$$ Consider the poset $\mathcal P_n$ of all set partitions of ${\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$ ordered by refinement. In particular, $\name{min} = \{1\} \sqcup
\dots \sqcup \{n\}$ is the smallest element of $\mathcal P_n$, and $\name{Max} = {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$ is its largest element.
Recall (from Section \[Sec:Orient\]) that for a set $P \subset {\{1,2,\dots,n\}}$ one denotes by $\langle P\rangle$ the subgraph of $G$ with the vertex set $P$; edges of $\langle P\rangle$ are all the edges of $G$ with both endpoints in $P$. Statement \[St:Connect\] implies now that $$Z(\{H \mid H \subset F\}) = \sum_{(P_1 \sqcup \dots \sqcup P_k) \in
{\mathcal P}_n} C_{\langle P_1\rangle}(w) \dots C_{\langle P_k\rangle}(w).$$ By Lemma \[Lm:Moebius\] the value $\mu(u,\name{Max}) = (-1)^{k-1} (k-1)!$ where $\mu(u,v)$ is the Möbius function for the poset $\mathcal P_n$. Therefore theorem follows from the Möbius inversion formula, see e.g. [@Stanley].
Questions and final remarks {#questions-and-final-remarks .unnumbered}
===========================
Multivariate Tutte polynomial has been studied intensively since 1970s when it was found to be related to partition functions of some important models in mathematical physics (Ising model, Potts model, and more; for more information consult [@FK; @Triang], references therein and also the review paper [@Sokal].) Of particular interest are the complex zeros of these polynomials because they are responsible for the phase transition in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic media. It might be very interesting to study the zeros of the external activity polynomial $G_G$. Many natural questions about them (including the half-plane property, see [@Sokal]) are still open. Notice however that by Corollary \[Cr:FreeTerm\] the polynomial $C_G$ is related to the specialization of the Tutte polynomial at $q = 0$ while in Potts model $q$ is interpreted as a number of states (of the spin) — we are leaving it to professional physicists to give a sensible interpretation to the polynomial $C_G$.
Another possible direction of study is suggested by the nature of formulas , , , , , , and : they all contain a sign alternating summation. It is highly probable that these formulas present the Euler characteristics of suitable complexes; so there is a problem to find these complexes. They must be related to the categorification of the Tutte polynomial obtained recently by E.F.Jasso-Hernandez and Y.Rong in [@CategTutte]; see also [@Categ; @Stosic1; @Stosic2] where the categorification of the chromatic polynomial was carried out.
Section \[Sec:ChiZero\] of this paper contains two different descriptions of graphs $G$ such that every connected component of $G$ has vanishing Euler characteristics. One is given by the Statement \[St:1Cycle\] and its corollary (both are special cases of Theorem \[Th:2Core\]), and the other is contained in Theorem \[Th:GenFun\] and its corollary, based on the all-minors version of the matrix-tree theorem. The relation between these results resembles the relation between a determinant and its minors decomposition. It seems very interesting to find similar results for graphs with an arbitrary $2$-core.
[9]{}
A.Abdesselam, The Grassmann-Berezin calculus and theorems of the matrix-tree type, [*Adv. Appl. Math*]{}, [ **33**]{}(2004), pp. 51–70.
S.Chaiken, A combinatorial proof of the all minors matrix tree theorem, [*SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth.*]{}, [**3**]{}(1982), no. 3, pp. 319–329.
S.-Ch.Chang, J.L.Jacobsen, J.Salas and R.Shrock, Exact Potts model partition functions for strips of the triangular lattice, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{}, [**114**]{}(2004), nos. 3/4, pp. 763–823.
S.Janson, D.E.Knuth, T.Luczak and B.Pittel, The birth of the giant component, [*Random Structures and Algorithms*]{}, [**4**]{}(1993), pp. 233–358.
C.M.Fortuin, P.W.Kasteleyn, On the random cluster model. I. Introduction and relation to other models, [*Physica*]{} [ **57**]{}(1972), pp. 536–564.
E.F.Jasso-Hernandez, Y.Rong, [*A Categorification for the Tutte Polynomial*]{}, math.CO/0512613.
L.Helme-Guizon, Y.Rong. A categorification for the chromatic polynomial. [*Algebr. Geom. Topol.*]{} [**5**]{}(2005) pp. 1365–1388.
G.Kirchhoff, Über die Auflösung der Gleichungen, auf welche man bei der Untersuchung det linearen Verteilung galvanischer Ströme gefurht wird, [*Ann. Phys. Chem.*]{}, [**72**]{}(1847), S. 497–508.
G.Masbaum, A.Vaintrob, A new matrix-tree theorem, [ *Internat. Math. Res. Notices*]{}, [**27**]{}(2002), pp. 1397–1426.
A.Postnikov and B.Shapiro, Trees, parking functions, syzygies, and deformations of monotone monomial ideals, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**356**]{}(2004), pp. 3109–3142.
A.Postnikov, B.Shapiro, M.Shapiro, Algebras of Curvature Forms on Homogeneous Manifolds Algebras of Curvature Forms on Homogeneous Manifolds, in [*Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras & Applic.*]{}, AMS Trans. Ser. 2, [**194**]{}(2000), pp. 227–235.
Alan D. Sokal, [*The multivariate Tutte polynomial (alias Potts model) for graphs and matroids*]{}, math.CO/0503607.
R.P.Stanley, [*Enumerative Combinatorics*]{}, Wadsworth & Brooks, Monterey, 1986.
M.Stosic, [Categorification of the dichromatic polynomial for graphs]{}, math.GT/0504239.
M.Stosic, [New categorifications of the chromatic and the dichromatic polynomials for graphs]{}, math.QA/0507290.
W.T.Tutte, A contribution to the theory of chromatic polynomials, [*Canadian J. Math.*]{} [**6**]{}(1954), pp. 80–91.
D.J.A.Welsh, The Tutte polynomial, in [*Statistical physics methods in discrete probability, combinatorics, and theoretical computer science*]{} (Princeton, NJ, 1997), Random Structures Algorithms [**15**]{}(1999), nos. 3–4, pp. 210–228.
D.J.A.Welsh, C.Merino, The Potts model and the Tutte polynomial, in [*Probabilistic techniques in equilibrium and nonequilibrium statistical physics*]{} and [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [ **41**]{}(2000), no. 3, pp. 1127–1152.
[^1]: Research supported in part by the RFBR grants \# N.Sh.1972.2003.1 and \# 05-01-01012a
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Aggregated data in real world recommender applications often feature fat-tailed distributions of the number of times individual items have been rated or favored. We propose a model to simulate such data. The model is mainly based on social interactions and opinion formation taking place on a complex network with a given topology. A threshold mechanism is used to govern the decision making process that determines whether a user is or is not interested in an item. We demonstrate the validity of the model by fitting attendance distributions from different real data sets. The model is mathematically analyzed by investigating its master equation. Our approach provides an attempt to understand recommender system’s data as a social process. The model can serve as a starting point to generate artificial data sets useful for testing and evaluating recommender systems.'
author:
- |
Marcel Blattner\
\
\
\
Matus Medo\
\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'refer.bib'
date: 30 July 1999
title: 'Recommendation systems in the scope of opinion formation: a model'
---
Introduction
============
This is the information age. We are witnessing information production and consumption in a speed never seen before. The WEB2.0 paradigm enables consumers and producers to exchange data in a collaborative way benefiting both parties. However, one of the key challenges in our digitally-driven society is information overload [@berg10]. We have the ’pain of choice’. Recommendation systems represent a possible solution to this problem. They have emerged as a research area on its own in the 90s [@Res97; @gold92; @KoMi97; @GoSc99; @BrHe98]. The interest in recommendation systems increased steadily in recent years, and attracted researchers from different fields [@recsyshand]. The success of highly rated Internet sites as Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, Yahoo, Last.fm and others is to a large extent based on their recommender engines. Corresponding applications recommend everything from CD/DVD’s, movies, jokes, books, web sites to more complex items such as financial services.
The most popular techniques related to recommendation systems are collaborative filtering [@BiPa98; @GoRo01; @BrHe98; @HeKo04; @KoMi97; @GoSc99; @ReIa94; @SaKa01] and content-based filtering [@ClGo99; @Pa07; @MeMo02; @bal97; @lin03]. In addition, researchers developed alternative methods inspired by fields as diverse as machine learning, graph theory, and physics [@fou07a; @fou07b; @mir03; @zhou07; @ZhBlYk07; @Blattner10; @web01; @zha02]. Furthermore, recommendation systems have been investigated in connection with trust [@and08; @don05; @wal08; @mas04; @mas04b] and personalized web search [@bir05; @bru07; @sug04], which constitutes the new research frontier in search engines.
However, there are still many open challenges in the research field of recommendation systems [@AdTu05; @guy10; @jan09; @gey10; @HeKo04; @recsyshand; @dra10]. One key question is connected to the understanding of the user rating mechanism. We build on a well documented influence of social interactions with peers on the decision to vote, favor, or even purchase an item [@rich88; @kim07]. We propose a model inspired by opinion formation taking place on a complex network with a predefined topology. Our model is able to generate data observed in real world recommender systems. Despite its simplicity, the model is flexible enough to generate a wide range of different patterns. We mathematically analyze the model using a mean field approach to the full Master Equation. Our approach provides an understanding of the data in recommender systems as a product of social processes. The model can serve as a data generator which is valuable for testing and evaluation purposes for recommender systems.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The model is outlined in Sec. (\[sec:model\]). Methods, data set descriptions, and validation procedures are in Sec. (\[sec:methods\]). Results are presented in Sec. (\[sec:results\]). Discussion and an outlook for future research directions are in Sec. (\[sec:discussion\]).
Model {#sec:model}
=====
Motivation
----------
Our daily decisions are heavily influenced by various information channels: advertisement, broadcastings, social interactions, and many others. Social ties (word-of-mouth) play a pivotal role in consumers buying decisions [@rich88; @kim07]. It was demonstrated by many researchers that personal communication and informal information exchange not only influence purchase decisions and opinions, but shape our expectations of a product or service [@wh54; @arndt67; @and03]. On the other hand, it was shown [@henn04], that social benefits are a major motivation to participate on opinion platforms. If somebody is influenced by recommendations on an opinion platform like MovieLens or Amazon, social interactions and word-of-mouth in general are additional forces governing the decision making process to purchase or even to rate an object in a particular way [@mas09].
Our model is formulated within an opinion formation framework where social ties play a major role. We shall discuss the following main ingredients of our model:
- Influence-Network (IN)
- Intrinsic-Item-Anticipation (IIA)
- Influence-Dynamics (ID)
#### Influence Network
We call the network where context-relevant information exchange takes place an Influence-Network (IN). Nodes of the IN are people and connections between nodes indicate the influence among them. Note that we put no constraints on the nature of how these connections are realized. They may be purely virtual (over the Internet) or based on physical meetings. We emphasize that INs are domain dependent, i.e., for a given community of users, the Influence Network concerning books may differ greatly (in topology, number of ties, tie strength, etc.) from that concerning another subject such as food or movies. Indeed, one person’s opinion leaders (relevant peers) concerning books may be very different from those for food or other subjects. In this scope, we see the INs as domain-restricted views on social networks. It is thus reasonable to assume that Influence Networks are similar to social interaction networks which often exhibit a scale-free topology [@bar08]. However, our model is not restricted to a particular network structure.
#### Intrinsic-Item-Anticipation
Suppose a new product is launched on the market. Advertisement, marketing campaigns, and other efforts to attract customers predate the launching process and continue after the product started to spread on the market. These efforts influence product-dependent customer anticipation. It is clear that the resulting anticipation is a complex combination of many different components including intrinsic product quality and possibly also suggestions from recommendation systems.
In our model we call the above-described anticipation Intrinsic-Item-Anticipation (IIA) and measure it by a single number. It is based on many external sources, except for the influence generated by social interactions. It is the opinion on something taken by individuals, before they start to discuss the subject with their peers. Furthermore, we assume that an individual will invest resources (time/money) into an object only, if the Intrinsic-Item-Anticipation is above a particular threshold, which we call Critical-Anticipation-Threshold.
#### Influence-Dynamics
The Influence-Dynamics describes how individuals’ Intrinsic-Item-Anticipations are altered by information exchange via the connections of the corresponding Influence-Network. From our model’s point of view this means the following: an individual’s IIA for a particular item $i$ may be shifted due to social interactions with directly connected peers (these interactions thus take place on the corresponding IN), who already experienced the product or service in question. This process can shift the Intrinsic-Item-Anticipation of an individual who did not yet experience product/object $i$ closer to or beyond the critical-anticipation-threshold.
We now summarize the basic ingredients of our model. An individual user’s opinions on objects are assembled in two consecutive stages: i) opinion making based on different external sources, including suggestions by recommendation systems and ii) opinion making based on social interactions in the Influence-Network. The second process may shift the opinions generated by the first process.
Mathematical formulation of the model
-------------------------------------
In this section we firstly describe how individuals’ Intrinsic-Item-Anticipations may change due to social interactions taking place on a particular Influence-Network. Secondly, we introduce dynamical processes governing the opinion propagation.
#### IIA shift
We model a possible shift in the IIA as: $$\label{equ:iia1}
\hat{f}_{i j} = f_{i j} + \left[\frac{\Theta_{j}}{k_{j}}\right]^{(1-\gamma)}.$$ where $\hat{f}_{ij}$ is the shifted Intrinsic-Item-Anticipation of individual $j$ for object $i$, $f_{ij}$ is the unbiased IIA, $\Theta_{j}$ is the number of $j$’s neighbors, who already experienced and liked item $i$, $k_{j}$ denotes the total number of $j$’s neighbors in the corresponding IN, and $\gamma \in (0,1)$ quantifies trust of individuals to their peers. An individual $j$ will consume, purchase, or positively rate an item $i$ only if $$\label{equ:iia_cond}
\hat{f}_{ij} \ge \Delta.$$ We identify $\Delta$ as the Critical-Anticipation-Threshold. Values of $f_{ij}$ are drawn from a probability distribution $f_{i}$. Since the IIA for each individual is an aggregate of many different and largely independent contributions, we assume that $f_{i}$ is normally distributed, $f_{i} \in \mathcal{N}(\mu_{i},\sigma)$. (Unless stated otherwise.) To mimic different item anticipations for different objects $i$, we draw the mean $\mu_{i}$ from a uniform distribution $U(-\epsilon,\epsilon)$. We maintain $\mu_{i}$, $\epsilon$, and $\sigma$, so that $f_{i}$ is roughly bounded by $(-1,1)$, i.e., $-1 \le \mu - 3 \sigma < \mu + 3 \sigma \le 1$. Note that $\hat{f}_{ij}$ can exceed these boundaries after a shift of the corresponding IIA occurs. The second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[equ:iia1\]) is the influence of $j$’s neighborhood weighted by trust $\gamma$. To better understand the interplay between $\gamma$ and the density of attending users in the neighborhood of user $i$, $\rho:=\Theta_{j}/k_{j}$, we refer to Fig. \[fig:conplot1\]. Trust $\gamma\approx 1$ causes a big shift on the IIA’s even for $\rho \approx 0$. On the other hand, $\gamma \approx 0$ needs high $\rho$ to yield a significant IAA shift. These properties are understood as follows: people trusting strongly in their peers need only few positive opinions to be convinced, whereas people trusting less in their social environment need considerable more signals to be influenced.
![Contour plot for $\gamma$ and $\rho=\Theta_{j}/k_{j}$. Numbers inside the plot quantify the shift in the IAA as a function of $\gamma$ and $\rho$.[]{data-label="fig:conplot1"}](contour_plot_rho_gamma)
#### Influence-Dynamics
The Influence-Dynamics proceeds as follows. Firstly, we draw an Influence-Network IN$(\mathcal{P})$ with a fixed network topology (power-law, Erdős-Rényi, or another). $\mathcal{P}$ refers to a set of appropriate parameters for the Influence-Network in question (like network type, number of nodes, etc.). The network’s topology is not affected by the dynamical processes (opinion propagation) taking place on it. We justify this static scenario by assuming that the time scale of the topology change is much longer then the time scale [^1] of opinion spreading in the network. Each node in the Influence-Network corresponds to an individual. For each individual $j$ we draw an unbiased Intrinsic-Item-Anticipation $f_{ij}$ from the predefined probability distribution $f_{i}$. At each time step, every individual is in one of the following states: $\{S,A,D\}$. $S$ refers to a susceptible state and corresponds to the initial state for all nodes at $t=0$. $A$ refers to an attender state and corresponds to an individual with the property $\hat{f}_{ij} \ge \Delta$. $D$ refers to a denier state with the property $\hat{f}_{ij} < \Delta$ after an information exchange with his/her peers in the Influence-Network happened. An individual in state $D$ or $A$ can not change his/her state anymore. It is clear that an individual in state $A$ cannot back transform to the susceptible state $S$, since he/she did consume or favor item $i$ and we do not account for multiple attendances in our model. An individual in state $D$ was influenced but not convinced by his opinion leaders (directed connected peers). We make the following assumption here: if individual $j$’s opinion leaders are not able to convince individual $j$, meaning that individual’s $j$ Intrinsic Item Anticipation $\hat{f}_{ij}$ stays below the critical threshold $\Delta$ after the influence process, then we assume that $j$’s opinion not to attend object $i$ remains unchanged in the future. Therefore we have the following possible transitions for each node in the influence network: $j_{S} \rightarrow j_{A}$ or $j_{S} \rightarrow j_{D}$. Node states are updated asynchronously which is more realistic than synchronous updating, especially in social interaction models [@car08]. The Influence-Dynamics is summarized in Algorithm \[recsysmodbas\].
$G(N,E)\gets$ GenNetwork($\mathcal{P}$) generate distribution $f_{i}$ from $\mathcal{N}(\mu_{i},\sigma)$ draw $f_{ij}$ from $f_{i}$ $j_{state} \gets S$ $j_{state} \gets A$ $\hat{f}_{ij} \gets f_{ij} +
\left[\frac{\Theta_{j}}{k_{j}}\right]^{(1-\gamma)}$ $j_{state} \gets D$ $j_{state} \gets A$
#### Master Equation
We are now in the position to formulate the Master Equation for the dynamics. As already said before, two things can happen when a non-attender is connected to an attender: a) he/she becomes an attender too, or b) he/she becomes a denier who will not attend/favor the item. For these two interaction types we formally write: $$\begin{aligned}
S + A & \stackrel{\lambda}{\longrightarrow}& 2A \nonumber \\
S + A & \stackrel{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} & D + A\end{aligned}$$ Here $\lambda$ denotes the probability that a susceptible node connected to an attender becomes an attender too, and $\alpha$ is the probability that a susceptible node attached to an attender becomes a denier. To take into account the underlying network topology of the Influence Network it is common to introduce compartments $k$ [@gle11]. Let $N^{A}_{k}$ be the number of nodes in state $A$ with $k$ connections, $N^{S}_{k}$ the number of nodes in state $S$ with $k$ connections, and $N^{D}_{k}$ the number of nodes in state $D$ with $k$ connections, respectively. Furthermore we define the corresponding densities: $a_{k}(t)=N^{A}_{k}/N_{k}$, $s_{k}(t)=N^{S}_{k}/N_{k}$ and $d_{k}(t)=N^{D}_{k}/N_{k}$. $N_{k}$ is the total number of nodes with $k$ connections in the network. Since every node from $N_k$ must be in one of the three states, $\forall t:\ a_{k}(t) + s_{k}(t) + d_{k}(t) = 1$. A weighted sum over all $k$ compartments gives the total fraction of attenders at time $t$, $a(t) =
\sum_{k}P(k)a_{k}(t)$ where $P(k)$ is the degree distribution of the network (it also holds that $a(t)=N^A(t)/N$). The time dependence of our state variables $a_{k}(t),d_{k}(t),s_{k}(t)$ is $$\left.\begin{aligned}
\dot{a}_{k}(t) &= \lambda k s_{k}(t) \Omega \\
\dot{d}_{k}(t) &= \alpha k s_{k}(t) \Omega \\
\dot{s}_{k}(t) &= -(\alpha + \lambda) k s_{k}(t) \Omega
\end{aligned}\right\}
\label{eq:mas1}$$ where $\Omega$ is the density of attenders in the neighborhood of susceptible node with $k$ connections averaged over $k$ $$\Omega = \sum_{k}P(k)(k-1)a_{k}/{\left< k \right>}
\label{eq:omega}$$ where ${\left< k \right>}$ denotes the mean degree of the network. As outlined above, $\lambda$ is the probability that a node in state $S$ transforms to state $A$ if it is connected to a node in state $A$. This happens when $\hat{f}_{ij} > \Delta$. Therefore, we have $ \Delta_{-} < f_{ij} < \Delta$ where $\Delta_{-} = \Delta - (1/k)^{1-\gamma}$. From this we have $\lambda = \int_{\Delta_{-}}^{\Delta}f(x)dx$, where $f(x)$ is the expectation distribution. Similarly we write for $\alpha = \int_{l}^{\Delta_{-}} f(x)dx$, where $l$ denotes the lower bound of the expectation distribution $f(x)$. A crude mean field approximation can be obtained by multiplying the right hand sides of Eq. (\[eq:mas1\]) with $P(k)$ and summing over $k$, which yields a set of differential equations $$\left.\begin{aligned}
\dot{a}(t) &= \lambda {\left< k \right>} s(t)a(t),\\
\dot{d}(t) &= \alpha {\left< k \right>} s(t) a(t),\\
\dot{s}(t) &= -(\alpha + \lambda) {\left< k \right>} s(t) a(t).
\end{aligned}
\right\}
\label{eq:mas2}$$ which is later used to obtain analytical results for the attendance fraction $a(t)$.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
We describe here our simulation procedures, datasets, experiments, and analytical methods.
#### Simulations
Our simulations employ Alg. (\[recsysmodbas\]). As outlined in the model section, we do not change the network topology during the dynamical processes. We experiment with two different network types, Erdős-Rényi (ER), and power law (PL) which are both generated by a so-called configuration model [@new1]. ER and PL represent two fundamentally different classes of networks. The former is characterized by a typical degree scale (mean degree of the network), whereas the latter exhibits a fat-tailed degree distribution which is scale free. The networks are random and have no degree correlations and no particular community structure. To obtain representative results we stick to the following approach: we fix the network type, number of nodes, number of objects, and network type relevant parameters to draw an ER or PL network. We call this a configuration $\mathcal{P}$. In addition, we fix the variance $\sigma$ of the anticipation distributions $f_{i}$. We perform each simulation on $50$ different networks belonging to the same configuration $\mathcal{P}$ and on each network we simulate the dynamics $50$ times. Then we average the obtained attendance distributions over all $2500$ simulations.
#### Datasets
To show the validity of our model we use real world recommender datasets. [**MovieLens**]{} (movielens.umn.edu), a web service from GroupLens (grouplens.org) where ratings are recorded on a five stars scale. The data set contains $1682$ movies and $943$ users. Only $6,5\%$ of possible votes are expressed. [**Netflix**]{} data set (netflix.com). We use the Netflix grand prize data set which contains $480189$ users and $17770$ movies and also uses a five stars scale. [**Lastfm**]{} data set (Lastfm.com). This data set contains social networking, tagging, and music artist listening information from users of the Last.fm online music system. There are $1892$ users, $17632$ artists, and $92834$ user-listended artists relations in total. In addition, the data set contains $12717$ bi-directional user friendship relations. These data sets are chosen because they exhibit very different attendance distributions and thus provide an excellent playground to validate our model in different settings.
#### Experiments
[**Data topologies**]{}. We firstly investigate the simulated attendance distributions as a function of trust $\gamma$, the anticipation threshold $\Delta$, and the network topology. For this purpose we simulate the dynamics on a toy network with $500$ nodes and record the final attendance number of $300$ objects. The simulation is conducted for ER and PL networks and performed as outlined in the simulations paragraph above. In Fig.(\[fig:skew\_heatmap\_er\]) and Fig.(\[fig:skew\_heatmap\_pw\]) we investigate the skewness [@zwi00] of the attendance distributions and the maximal attendance obtained for the corresponding parameter settings. The skewness of a distribution is a measure for the asymmetry around its mean value. A positive skewness value means that there is more weight to the left from the mean, whereas a negative value indicates more weight in the right from the mean.
[**Fitting real data**]{}. We explore the model’s ability to fit real world recommendation attendance distributions found in the described data sets. For this purpose we fix for the Netflix data set a network with $480189$ nodes and perform a simulation for $17770$ objects. In the MovieLens case we do the same for $943$ nodes and $1682$ objects and for the Lastfm data set we simulate on a network with $1892$ nodes and $17632$ objects. In the case of Lastfm we have the social network data as well. We validate our model on that data set by two experiments: a) we use the provided user friendship network as simulation input and fit the attendance distribution and b) we fit the attendance distribution like in the MovieLens and Netflix case with an artificially generated network.
[**Mathematical analysis**]{}. We investigate the Master Equations Eq. (\[eq:mas1\]) and Eq. (\[eq:mas2\]). We provide a full analytical solution for Eq. (\[eq:mas2\]) and an analytical approximation for Eq. (\[eq:mas1\]) in the early spreading stage.
Results {#sec:results}
========
[**Data topologies**]{}. The landscape of attendance distributions of our model is demonstrated in Fig. (\[fig:skew\_heatmap\_er\]) and Fig. (\[fig:skew\_heatmap\_pw\]). To obtain these results, simulations were performed as described in Sec. (\[sec:methods\]). The item anticipation $f_{i}$ was drawn from a normal distribution with mean values $\mu_{i} \in U(-0.1,0.1)$ and variance $\sigma=0.25$ fixed for all items. Both networks have $500$ nodes. In the Erdős-Rényi case, we used a wiring probability $p=0.03$ between nodes. The Power Law network was drawn with an exponent $\delta = 2.25$. The simulated attendance distributions in Fig.(\[fig:skew\_heatmap\_er\]) and Fig.(\[fig:skew\_heatmap\_pw\]) show a wide range of different patterns for both ER and PL Influence-Networks. In particular, both network types can serve as a basis for attendance distributions with both positive and negative skewness. Therefore, the observed fat-tailed distributions are not a result of the heterogeneity of a scale free network but they are emergent properties of the dynamics produced by our model. The parameter region for highly positively-skewed distributions is the same for both network types. The parameters $\gamma$ and $\Delta$ can be tuned so that all items are attended by everybody or all items are attended by nobody. While not relevant for simulating realistic attendance distributions, these extreme cases help to understand the model’s flexibility.
![Skewness of the attendance distributions as a function of trust $\gamma$ and the critical anticipation threshold $\Delta$ for Erdős-Rény networks with $500$ nodes and $300$ simulated items.[]{data-label="fig:skew_heatmap_er"}](skew_heatmap_er)
![Skewness of the attendance distributions as a function of trust $\gamma$ and the critical anticipation threshold $\Delta$ for power-law networks with $500$ nodes and $300$ simulated items.[]{data-label="fig:skew_heatmap_pw"}](skew_heatmap_pw)
[**Fitting real data**]{} We fit real world recommender data from MovieLens, Netflix and Lastfm with results reported in Fig. (\[fig:fit\_movielens\]), Fig. (\[fig:fit\_netflix\]), Fig. (\[fig:fit\_lastfm\]), Fig. (\[fig:fit\_lastfm\_net\]), and Tab. (\[tbl:results1\]), respectively. The real and simulated distributions are compared using Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence [@kull51]. We report the mean, median, maximum, and minimum of the simulated and real attendance distributions. Trust $\gamma$, anticipation threshold $\Delta$, and anticipation distribution variance $\sigma$ are reported in figure captions. We also compare the averaged mean degree, maximum degree, minimum degree, and clustering coefficient of the real Lastfm social network and networks obtained to fit the data. Results are reported in Tab. (\[tbl:Lastfmres\]) and Fig. (\[fig:netLastfm\]). Note that thus obtained parameter values can be useful also in real applications where, assuming that our social opinion formation model is valid, one could detect decline of the overall trust value in an online community, for example.
![Fit of the MovieLens attendance distribution with trust $\gamma = 0.50$, critical anticipation threshold $\Delta = 0.6$, anticipation distribution variance $\sigma=0.25$, and power law network with exponent $\delta=2.25$, $943$ nodes, and $1682$ simulated objects.[]{data-label="fig:fit_movielens"}](fit_movielens)
![Fit of the Netflix attendance distribution with trust $\gamma=0.52$, critical anticipation threshold $\Delta = 0.72$, anticipation distribution variance $\sigma=0.27$, and power law network with exponent $\delta=2.2$, $480189$ nodes, and $17770$ simulated objects.[]{data-label="fig:fit_netflix"}](fit_netflix.png)
![Fit of the Lastfm attendance distribution with trust $\gamma = 0.4$, critical anticipation threshold $\Delta = 0.8$, anticipation distribution variance $\sigma = 0.24$, and real Lastfm user friendship network with $1892$ nodes and $17632$ simulated objects.[]{data-label="fig:fit_lastfm"}](fit_lastfm)
![Fit of the Lastfm attendance distribution with trust $\gamma = 0.6$, critical anticipation threshold $\Delta = 0.8$, anticipation distribution variance $\sigma = 0.24$, and power law network with exponent $\delta=2.25$, $1892$ nodes and $17632$ simulated objects.[]{data-label="fig:fit_lastfm_net"}](fit_lastfm_net)
D KL Med Mean Max Min
------ --------- ----------- ------------- ----------------- --------
ML $0.046$ $27/26$ $59/60$ $583/485$ $1/1$
NF $0.030$ $561/561$ $5654/5837$ $232944/193424$ $3/16$
LFM1 $0.05$ $1/1$ $5.3/5.2$ $611/503$ $1/1$
LFM2 $0.028$ $1/1$ $5.3/5.8$ $611/547$ $1/1$
: Simulation results. ML: Movielens, NF: Netflix, LFM1: Lastfm with real network, LFM2: Lastfm with simulated network, KL: Kullback-Leibler divergence, Med: Median, Mean, Max: maximal attendance (data/simulated), Min: minimal attendance (data/simulated).[]{data-label="tbl:results1"}
D ${\left< k \right>}$ $k_{min}$ $k_{max}$ $\delta$ $C$
------ ---------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------
LFM1 $13.4$ $1$ $119$ $2.3$ $0.186$
LFM2 $12.0$ $1$ $118$ $2.25$ $0.06$
: Mean, minimum, maximum degree, clustering coefficient $C$, and estimated exponent $\delta$ of the real (LFM1) and simulated (LFM2) social network for the Lastfm data set.[]{data-label="tbl:Lastfmres"}
![Log-log plot of real (red) and simulated (blue) social network degree distribution $P(k)$ for the Lastfm data set. Inset: plot of the cumulative degree distribution.[]{data-label="fig:netLastfm"}](lastfm_network_comp)
[**Mathematical analysis**]{}. Eq. (\[eq:mas2\]) can be solved analytically. We have $\forall t:\ a(t) + s(t) + d(t) = 1$ with the initial conditions for the first movers $a_{0}=
\int_{\Delta}^{u}f(x)dx$, $s(0) = 1 - a(0)$, and $d(0)=0$. In the following we use the bra-ket notation ${\left< x \right>}$ to represent the average of a quantity $x$. Standard methods can now be used to arrive at[^2] $$a(t) =\frac{(\tau \left<k\right>)^{-1} \exp(t/\tau) }{(\alpha + \lambda)\left[\exp(t/\tau) - 1 \right] + (\tau \left<k\right>a_{0})^{-1}}.
\label{eq:an1}$$ Here $\tau$ is the time scale of the propagation which is defined as $$\tau = \left(a_{0} \alpha \left < k \right > + \lambda \left < k \right > \right)^{-1}.$$ This is similar to the time scale $\tau= \left( \lambda \left <
k \right > \right)^{-1}$ in the well known SI Model [@new02; @bar08]. Eq.(\[eq:an1\]) can be very useful in predicting the average behavior of users in a recommender system.
Since Eq. (\[eq:mas1\]) is not accessible to a full analytical solution, we investigate it for the early stage of the dynamics. Assuming $a(0)=a_{0} \gg 0$, we can neglect the dynamics of $d(t)$ to obtain $$\dot{\Omega}(t) = \left( \frac{{\left< k^{2} \right>}}{{\left< k \right>}} - 1 \right) \Omega(t).$$ In addition, Eq. (\[eq:mas1\]) yields $$\left.\begin{aligned}
\dot{a}_{k}(t) &= \lambda k (1-a_{k}(t)) \Omega(t) \\
\dot{s}_{k}(t) &= -(\alpha + \lambda) k (1-a_{k}(t)) \Omega(t) \\
\end{aligned}
\right\}
\label{eq:mas3}$$ Neglecting terms of order $a_{k}^{2}(t)$ and summing the solution of $a_{k}(t)$ over $P(k)$, we get a result for the early spreading stage $$a(t) = a(0) \Big(1 + \tau\lambda \big(\exp(t/\tau)-1\big) \Big),
\label{eq:masapprox}$$ with the timescale $\tau = {\left< k^{2} \right>}/\left[\lambda({\left< k^{2} \right>} - {\left< k \right>})\right]$. The obtained time scale $\tau$ valid in the early stage of the opinion spreading is clearly dominated by the network heterogeneity. This result is in line with known disease models, e.g., SI,SIR [@new02; @bar08]. We emphasize that Eq.(\[eq:masapprox\]) is valuable in predicting users’ behavior of a recommender system in an early stage.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Social influence and our peers are known to form and influence many of our opinions and, ultimately, decisions. We propose here a simple model which is based on heterogeneous agent expectations, a social network, and a formalized social influence mechanism. We analyze the model by numerical simulations and by master equation approach which is particularly suitable to describe the initial phase of the social “contagion”. The proposed model is able to generate a wide range of different attendance distributions, including those observed in popular real systems (Netflix, Lastfm, and Movielens). In addition, we showed that these patterns are emergent properties of the dynamics and not imposed by topology of the underlying social network. Of particular interest is the case of Lastfm where the underlying social network is known. Calibrating the observed attendance distribution against the model then leads not only to social influence parameters but also to the degree distribution of the social network which agrees with that of the true social network.
The Kullback-Leibler distances (KL) for the simulated and real attendance distributions are below $0.05$ in all cases, thus demonstrating a good fit. However, the maximum attendances could not be reproduced exactly by the model. One reason may be missing degree correlations in the simulated networks in contrast to real networks where positive degree correlations (so-called degree assortativity) are common. For the Lastfm user friendship network we observe a higher clustering coefficient $C \approx 0.18$ compared to the clustering coefficient $C \approx 0.06$ in the simulated network. To compensate for this, a higher trust parameter $\gamma$ is needed to fit the real Lastfm attendance distribution with simulated networks.
We are aware that our statistics to validate the model is not complete. But we are confident, that our approach points to a fruitful research direction to understand recommender systems’ data as a social driven process.
The proposed model can be a first step towards a data generator to simulate bipartite user-object data with real-world data properties. This could be used to test and validate new recommender algorithms and methods. Future research directions may expand the proposed model to generate ratings within a predefined scale. Moreover, it could be very interesting to investigate the model in the scope of social imitation $\cite{mich05}$.
[^1]: The term time scale denotes a dimensionless quantity and specifies the devisions of time. A shorter time scale means a faster spreading of opinions in the network.
[^2]: We give here only the solution for $a(t)$ because we are mainly interested in the attendance dynamics.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Using a dynamical density functional theory we analyze the density profile of a colloidal liquid near a wall under shear flow. Due to the symmetries of the system considered, the naive application of dynamical density functional theory does not lead to a shear induced modification of the equilibrium density profile, which would be expected on physical grounds. By introducing a physically motivated dynamic mean field correction we incorporate the missing shear induced interparticle forces into the theory. We find that the shear flow tends to enhance the oscillations in the density profile of hard-spheres at a hard-wall and, at sufficiently high shear rates, induces a nonequilibrium transition to a steady state characterized by planes of particles parallel to the wall. Under gravity, we find that the center-of-mass of the density distribution increases with shear rate, i.e., shear increases the potential energy of the particles.'
author:
- 'J.M. Brader'
- Matthias Krüger
title: Density profiles of a colloidal liquid at a wall under shear flow
---
Introduction
============
Classical Density Functional Theory (DFT) provides a powerful and general framework for determining the equilibrium microstructure and thermodynamics of classical many particle systems [@bob_advances; @bob_review]. Of particular interest is the one-body density profile $\rho({{\bf r}})$ resulting from application of a time-independent external potential field $V^{\rm ext}({{\bf r}})$. Within DFT, the density profile of a one-component system follows from functional minimization of the Grand potential $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega[\,\rho\,]=\mathcal{F}_{\rm id}[\,\rho\,] + \mathcal{F}_{\rm ex}[\,\rho\,] +
\int \!d{{\bf r}}\, (V^{\rm ext}({{\bf r}}) - \mu)\rho({{\bf r}}), \end{aligned}$$ with respect to $\rho({{\bf r}})$, where $\mu$ is the chemical potential and $\mathcal{F}_{\rm ex}[\,\rho\,]$ is the unknown ‘excess’ part of the Helmholtz free energy, containing details of the interparticle interactions. The ideal gas free energy is given exactly by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_{\rm id}[\,\rho\,]=\int\!d{{\bf r}}\rho({{\bf r}})[\ln(\Lambda^3\rho({{\bf r}}))-1], \end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength. For many important model systems (e.g. hard-spheres [@rosenfeld], colloid-polymer mixtures [@colpol; @colpol1], rod-sphere mixtures [@onsager]) there exist accurate approximations for the excess Helmholtz free energy which yield equilibrium density profiles in excellent agreement with those obtained from numerical simulation.
Given that DFT provides a clear method for determining equilibrium density distributions, it is natural to next investigate the [*dynamics*]{} of the density profile in the presence of a time-dependent external field $V^{\rm ext}({{\bf r}},t)$. The simplest, phenomenological, route to an equation of motion for $\rho({{\bf r}},t)$ is to assume that the average particle current ${\bf j}({{\bf r}},t)$ arises from the gradient of a nonequilibrium chemical potential $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf j}({{\bf r}},t) = -\Gamma\rho({{\bf r}},t)\nabla\mu({{\bf r}},t), \end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the mobility. Assuming that $\mu({{\bf r}},t)$ is given by the functional derivative of the Helmholtz free energy with respect to $\rho({{\bf r}},t)$ and employing the continuity equation thus leads to the familiar equation of dynamical density functional theory (DDFT) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho({{\bf r}},t)}{\partial t} = \nabla\cdot\left[ \Gamma\rho({{\bf r}},t)
\nabla\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}[\rho({{\bf r}},t)]}{\delta \rho({{\bf r}},t)} \right],
\label{ddft}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ is the equilibrium Helmholtz free energy functional, evaluated using the instantaneous nonequilibrium density profile. Although equation (\[ddft\]) was first proposed by Evans [@bob_advances], subsequent work has clarified greatly the nature of the approximations involved. Both Marconi and Tarazona [@marconi1; @marconi2], and Archer and Evans [@archer], have demonstrated that approximating the nonequilibrium chemical potential using the equilibrium Helmholtz free energy is equivalent to assuming that the inhomogeneous pair correlations in nonequilibrium are the same as those for an equilibrium fluid with density profile $\rho({{\bf r}},t)$. Specifically, for a system interacting via a pair-potential $\phi(|{{\bf r}}_1-{{\bf r}}_2|)$ the equilibrium sum-rule [@bob_advances] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumrule}
\int\!d{{\bf r}}_2\, \rho^{(2)}({{\bf r}}_1,{{\bf r}}_2)\nabla_1\phi(|{{\bf r}}_1\!-\!{{\bf r}}_2|)
= \rho({{\bf r}}_1)\nabla_1\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}_{\rm ex}}{\delta \rho({{\bf r}}_1)},\end{aligned}$$ is assumed to hold. The integral on the l.h.s. of (\[sumrule\]) occurs when coarse graining the $N$-particle Smoluchowski equation to the one-body level by integration over $N\!-\!1$ degrees of freedom. Applying the equilibrium equality (\[sumrule\]) to close the resulting nonequilibrium expression leads directly to (\[ddft\]). The implicit ‘adiabatic’ approximation in applying (\[sumrule\]) to nonequilibrium is that the one-time pair correlations are instantaneously equilibrated to those of an equilibrium system with density $\rho({{\bf r}},t)$. For a wide range of systems, the good qualitative agreement between the results of Brownian dynamics simulation and DDFT validates the adiabatic approximation when applied to inhomogeneous fluid states out of equilibrium. However, the approximation may break down for dense fluids close to dynamical arrest (e.g. hard-sphere-like colloidal glasses), for which the structural relaxation time becomes large.
The possibility of going beyond the adiabatic approximation has been explored on a formal level [@finken]. However, an explicit and implementable method of incorporating temporal nonlocality into the theory remains to be found. More recently, the DDFT (\[ddft\]) has been rederived using projection operator methods [@espanol] and extended to incorporate pair hydrodynamics [@rex1; @rex2; @rauscher_hydro], orientational degrees of freedom [@rex3] and even self-propelled particles [@wensink]. Going beyond overdamped Smoluchowski dynamics, Marconi and coworkers have developed a DDFT-type approach to treat inertial systems which makes possible the study of thermophoresis [@marconi3].
In order to address the influence of external flow on inhomogeneous density distributions, a DDFT incorporating the advection of particles by a flowing solvent has been developed [@rauscher2]. The resulting advected-DDFT equation of motion has a form identical to that of the standard theory (\[ddft\]), but with the time derivative replaced by the Stokes derivative $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho({{\bf r}},t)}{\partial t} &+& \nabla\cdot(\rho({{\bf r}},t){\mathbf{v}}({{\bf r}},t)) = \notag\\
&&\hspace*{0.5cm}\nabla\cdot\left[ \Gamma\rho({{\bf r}},t)
\nabla\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}[\rho({{\bf r}},t)]}{\delta \rho({{\bf r}},t)} \right],
\label{adv_ddft}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{v}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$ is the velocity of the solvent. The advected-DDFT is therefore simply standard DDFT in the comoving frame and is thus subject to the same adiabatic approximation as the original theory. However, compared to situations for which the relaxation dynamics is of a purely diffusive nature, application of the equilibrium identity (\[sumrule\]) to an externally driven system represents a more severe approximation. For example, in the absence of an external potential field, equation (\[sumrule\]) is automatically, and trivially, satisfied for a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. This is not the case for a driven system. Even when $V^{\rm ext}({{\bf r}})=0$, the presence of an external flow field distorts the pair correlation functions and renders the integral term finite, whereas the spatial homogeneity of the one-body density yields a value of zero for the r.h.s.
There is considerable current research activity in the development of theoretical approaches to treat colloidal systems driven into nonequilibrium states by external flow. Much of the focus has been on the description of dense states close to the glass transition (see e.g. [@joeprl_08; @pnas]). While the mode-coupling-type approaches employed in these studies are capable of capturing nonergodic behaviour, their application is restricted to systems with a spatially homogeneous density distribution. In contrast, Eq.(\[adv\_ddft\]) is ideally suited to address spatial inhomogeneity, but is incapable of describing glassy dynamics.
In the present work we will consider the application of (\[adv\_ddft\]) to driven steady states. In order to clearly expose the nature of the underlying approximations we will focus on the specific test case of interacting colloidal particles at a planar wall, with a shear flow acting parallel to the wall. Consideration of this particular external field and flow geometry reveals a serious deficiency of applying (\[sumrule\]) to close the equation of motion for the one-body density of driven states. The physics which is lost in making the closure approximation arises from a coupling between the interparticle interactions and the external flow field and would, in an exact treatment, be captured implicitly by the flow induced distortion of $\rho^{(2)}({{\bf r}}_1,{{\bf r}}_2)$. Previous studies based on (\[adv\_ddft\]) have focused on two cases: (i) Noninteracting particles, for which the only relevant coupling is that between the external potential and flow fields [@rauscher1; @mk_diploma], (ii) Spherically inhomogeneous soft Gaussian particles [@dzubiella; @rauscher2; @rauscher3]. In these studies the combination of soft particle interactions and spherical inhomogeneity served to obscure the failings of Eq.(\[adv\_ddft\]) addressed in the present work.
The paper will be structured as follows: In section \[system\] we specify the system under consideration. In section \[coupling\] we introduce the problem presented by the absence of a coupling between the external flow and the interparticle interactions. In sections \[mf\_theory\] and \[flowkernel\] we develop a mean field theory which captures the desired coupling and propose a simple approximation for the required convolution kernel. In section \[excess\] we detail the Rosenfeld functional used to approximate the excess free energy functional. In section \[results\] we present and analyze the density profiles of hard-spheres at a hard wall, both in the presence and absence of gravity. In section \[discussion\] we give a discussion and provide an outlook for future work.
The System {#system}
==========
We consider a system of $N$ spherical colloidal particles dispersed in an incompressible Newtonian solvent at temperature $T$. The diameter $d$ of the strongly repulsive colloidal core provides the basic unit of length. Assuming that the colloidal momenta are instantaneously thermalized, the time evolution of the probability distribution of particle positions, $\Psi(t)\equiv\Psi(\{ {\bf r}_i\},t)$, is dictated by the Smoluchowski equation [@dhont] $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{1.1cm}\frac{\partial \Psi(t)}{\partial t} +
\sum_{i} {\boldsymbol{\partial}}_i\cdot {\bf j}_i =0,
\label{smol_hydro}\end{aligned}$$ where the probability flux of particle $i$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf j}_i={\bf v}_i(t)\Psi(t)
- \sum_{j} {\boldsymbol{D}}_{ij}\cdot({\boldsymbol{\partial}}_j - \beta\,{\bf F}_j)\Psi(t),
\label{flux}\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta=1/k_BT$. The hydrodynamic velocity of particle $i$ due to the applied flow is denoted by ${\bf v}_i(t)$ and the diffusion tensor ${\boldsymbol{D}}_{ij}$ describes (via the mobility tensor $\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{ij}=\beta{\boldsymbol{D}}_{ij}$) the hydrodynamic mobility of particle $i$ resulting from a force on particle $j$. The force ${\bf F}_j$ on particle $j$ is generated from the total potential energy according to ${\bf F}_j=-{\boldsymbol{\partial}}_j U_N$ and includes the influence of an external one-body potential field, as well as the forces generated by interaction with other particles (taken here to be pairwise additive) $$\begin{aligned}
U_N(\{ {\bf r}_i\},t)
=\sum_{i}V^{\rm ext}({{\bf r}}_i,t) + \sum_{i<j}\phi(|{{\bf r}}_i-{{\bf r}}_j|).
\label{potential}\end{aligned}$$ The three terms contributing to the flux thus represent the competing effects of (from left to right in (\[flux\])) external flow, diffusion and potential interactions.
In order to focus on the thermodynamic (as opposed to hydrodynamic) aspects of the cooperative particle motion we will neglect hydrodynamic interactions (HI) between the colloids. The expression (\[flux\]) is thus approximated in two ways: (i) The influence of the $N$-particle configuration on the mobility of a given particle is neglected, ${\boldsymbol{D}}_{ij}=D_0\delta_{ij}$, where $D_0$ is the bare diffusivity. (ii) The velocity field is determined by the translationally invariant (traceless) velocity gradient tensor describing the affine motion, ${\bf v}_i={\bf v}({\bf r}_i,t)={\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t)\cdot{{\bf r}}_i$. Neglecting the dependence of ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t)$ upon the colloid configuration enables the externally applied flow to be prescribed from the outset, without requiring that this be determined as part of a self consistent calculation.
![ A schematic two-dimensional illustration showing the effect of shear flow on the microstructure of hard spheres at a hard wall. (a) A typical equilibrium configuration. (b) Shear flow leads to the formation of layers in the $xz$-plane as particles at different values of $y$ attempt to overtake each other. (c) Focusing on a binary collision close to the wall. The particle closer to the wall gets pushed against it, while the colliding particle is forced to ‘roll around’ the other in order to move past. []{data-label="figure1"}](figure1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Interaction-flow coupling {#coupling}
=========================
In the present work we wish to study the influence of flow on a fully interacting, inhomogeneous system. So far, the only application of (\[adv\_ddft\]) has been to spherically inhomogeneous systems subject to a variety of flow fields [@rauscher1; @mk_diploma; @dzubiella; @rauscher2; @rauscher3] (representing a single colloid in a sea of ideal or Gaussian polymers). In particular, under shear flow, the ideal particles accumulate at the colloid surface within the two compressive quadrants ($I\equiv{{\bf r}}\cdot({\boldsymbol{\kappa}}+{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}^{T})\cdot{{\bf r}}<0$) and are depleted from the extensional quadrants ($I>0$), leading to ‘wake’ formation at larger shear rates [@mk_diploma]. The advected DDFT (\[adv\_ddft\]) thus captures a certain coupling between inhomogeneities in the density field and external flow. However, this ‘external potential-flow coupling’ is a straightforward consequence of employing an external potential (e.g. a fixed sphere) which either directly obstructs the particles as they attempt to follow the affine flow, or perturbs the solvent flow field such that the particles are swept around the obstacle (when the appropriate Stokes flow is employed).
A more demanding and illuminating test of the advected-DDFT approach is provided by considering external potentials which do not directly hinder the affine path of the advected particles, but which may nevertheless be expected to generate flow dependent density profiles. Emphasis may thus be placed upon the nontrivial ‘interaction-flow coupling’. For the purpose of the present work we will thus focus on the special case of a time-independent external potential which varies in $y$-direction and restricts the particles to move in the half space $$\begin{aligned}
V^{\rm ext}({{\bf r}})=
\begin{cases}
\;\infty \hspace*{2cm}y<d/2
\\
\;V^{\rm ext}_w(y) \hspace*{1.21cm}y>d/2.
\end{cases}
\label{general_pot}\end{aligned}$$ The translational invariance of $V^{\rm ext}_w$ within the $xz$-plane has the consequence that the resulting equilibrium density distribution varies in $y$-direction only. In addition to the external potential field, we specialize the external flow field to a steady simple shear with flow in $x$-direction and a linear gradient in the $y$-direction $$\begin{aligned}
\label{shear}
{\mathbf{v}}=y\,\dot\gamma\,\hat{{\mathbf{e}}}_x, \end{aligned}$$ with shear rate $\dot\gamma$ (corresponding to a velocity gradient tensor $\kappa_{\alpha\beta}=\dot\gamma\delta_{\alpha x}\delta_{\beta y}$). The pair potential entering (\[potential\]) represents a hard-sphere repulsion $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(r)=
\begin{cases}
\;\infty \hspace*{1.5cm}r<d
\\
\;\;0 \hspace*{1.6cm}r>d.
\end{cases}
\label{general_pair}\end{aligned}$$ The situation under consideration is shown schematically in the second panel of Fig.\[figure1\]. Note that the zero-shear plane may be located at $y=0$ without loss of generality, as only relative particle velocities are physically relevant.
Application of (\[adv\_ddft\]) to treat the specified nonequilibrium situation immediately reveals the problem at hand. We have already noted that our chosen geometry leads to translational invariance of the equilibrium density distribution within the $xz$-plane, $\rho_{\rm eq}({{\bf r}},t)=\rho_{\rm eq}(y,t)$. For the shear flow (\[shear\]) the advective term in (\[adv\_ddft\]) is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theproblem}
\nabla\cdot(\rho({{\bf r}},t){\mathbf{v}}({{\bf r}},t))=\nabla\cdot(y\,\dot\gamma\,\rho(y,t)\,\hat{{\mathbf{e}}}_x)=0. \end{aligned}$$ Within the advected-DDFT approach the applied shear flow has no influence on the density profile at the wall. Equation (\[adv\_ddft\]) thus reduces to (\[ddft\]), which, for the present time-independent external potential, yields the equilibrium density profile. This disappointing conclusion contradicts physical intuition and presents a fundamental failing of Eq.(\[adv\_ddft\]).
In the right panel of Fig.\[figure1\] we sketch what we consider to be the correct physical picture. As a shear flow is applied parallel to the wall the particles experience a (nonconservative) force proportional to their perpendicular separation from the wall. Particles at different values of $y$ thus seek to move past each other, perturbing the equilibrium microstructure and leading, at higher shear rates, to the formation of particle layers in the $xz$-plane. In particular, when a pair of particles collide close to the wall, the particle at smaller $y$ will be forced against the wall, whereas the second particle will be forced to roll around its neighbour in order to follow as closely as possible the affine solvent flow. These physical mechanisms should be manifest in the nonequilibrium density profile.
We note that Brownian dynamics simulations [@brady_rev] display two dimensional particle layering at intermediate shear rates, followed by an additional symmetry breaking in the vorticity direction at high shear rates, characterized by the formation of particle chains in $x$-direction. It is important to realize that the density distribution described by DFT represents an average over all $z$-coordinates of the particle chains (which, for an infinite system, are not pinned to a particular location in $z$). Our assumption that $\rho({{\bf r}},t)=\rho(y,t)$ is thus fully justified for the present density functional based study.
Mean field theory {#mf_theory}
=================
In a system without HI, $N$-particle configurations for which colloidal particles overlap are forbidden by the infinitely repulsive colloidal pair potential. While an exact statistical mechanical treatment (i.e. exact evaluation of the integral in (\[sumrule\])) would lend such unphysical configurations zero statistical weight, care must be exercised in approximate treatments which do not fully satisfy this important geometrical constraint. In the present situation it would appear that application of the equilibrium sum rule (\[sumrule\]) does not satisfy exactly the no-overlap ‘core condition’ when applied to driven states. However, it is not at all clear how to improve the approximation (\[sumrule\]) in a way that both incorporates the flow induced distortion of $\rho^{(2)}({{\bf r}}_1,{{\bf r}}_2,t)$ and enables its weighted integral to be approximated using an equilibrium free energy functional. For this reason we take an alternative route and attempt to include the missing physics by modifying the advective term in (\[adv\_ddft\]). This approach is motivated by considering the dynamics of hydrodynamically interacting dispersions.
In a system with HI, the hydrodynamic velocity entering (\[flux\]) can be decomposed into affine and particle induced fluctuation terms ${\bf v}_i(t)={\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t)\cdot{\bf r}_i + {\bf v}^{\rm fl}_i(t)$, where ${\bf v}^{\rm fl}_i(t)$ can be expressed in terms of the third rank hydrodynamic resistance tensor [@lubrication]. The fluctuation term describes the disturbance of the affine solvent flow by the particles and ensures that a pair of approaching particles ‘flow around’ each other, without coming into direct contact. The impenetrable character of the particles, represented by the pair potential (\[general\_pair\]), thus enters indirectly by providing a boundary condition for the solvent flow. Integration of (\[smol\_hydro\]) over $N\!-\!1$ degrees of freedom yields an advective term $$\begin{aligned}
\label{noproblem}
\nabla\cdot\, \rho({{\bf r}},t) [\,{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t)\cdot{{\bf r}}\,+\, {{\bf v}}^{\rm fl}({{\bf r}},t)\,] \end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bf v}}^{\rm fl}({{\bf r}},t)\equiv\langle {{\bf v}}^{\rm fl}_i(t) \rangle$ is the conditional average over $N\!-\!1$ coordinates, given that a particle is located at ${{\bf r}}$. In contrast to (\[theproblem\]), the divergence in (\[noproblem\]) is not neccessarily zero for the inhomgeneous system presently under consideration. For hydrodynamically interacting systems the fluctuation term may thus provide the desired contribution to the flux in $y$-direction.
The above considerations suggest a possible solution to the problem posed by (\[theproblem\]). By empirically incorporating a conditionally averaged fluctuation term into the velocity field driving our Brownian system, we aim to mimic the hydrodynamic fluctuation term discussed above. In this way we can correct, at least to some extent, the occurance of unphysical overlaps by enforcing that there be no radial flux between pairs of particles at contact. We envisage a system of hard-core particles under shear flow in which there occur frequent and random binary collisions. At each collision the particles rotate around each other according to some specified rule (for our specific choice, see section \[flowkernel\] below) before moving apart along their respective streamlines. For a homogeneous system, this mechanism gives rise to zero net flux through any given plane at constant $y$. However, in the presence of the external potential field (\[general\_pot\]), the inhomogeneous density distribution will lead to a $y$-dependent flux which will modify the equilibrium distribution, until it is balanced by an equal and opposite diffusive flux, thus establishing a nonequilibrium steady state.
As the density profile under consideration varies only in $y$-direction, we need only seek the $y$-component of the fluctuation contribution. The arguments presented above thus suggest the mean field term $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mf_term}
v^{\rm fl}_y(y,t)=\int_{-\infty}^{\,\infty}dy' \rho(y',t)\,\bar v^k_y(y-y')\label{eq:mf}\end{aligned}$$ which expresses the contribution of the density at $y'$ to the average velocity at $y$. The ‘flow kernel’ $\bar v^k_y(y)$ entering (\[mf\_term\]) describes the $y$-component of the velocity of a particle which collides with a neighbour at vertical separation $y$. Our modified version of (\[adv\_ddft\]) thus becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho(y,t)}{\partial t} &=&
\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Bigg[\,-\rho(y,t)v^{\rm fl}_y(y,t) \notag\\
&&\hspace*{0.5cm} +\;\;\; Pe^{-1}\rho(y,t)
\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}[\rho(y,t)]}{\delta \rho(y,t)} \Bigg],
\label{adv_ddft_mod}\end{aligned}$$ where we have scaled length using $d$ and time using $\dot\gamma$, leading to an explicit appearance of the Peclet number, $Pe\equiv\dot\gamma d^2/D_0$, expressing the competition between affine advection and diffusive motion. The steady state solution of (\[adv\_ddft\_mod\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(y)=z\exp\left(-\beta V^{\rm ext}(y) + c^{(1)}(y) +
Pe\!\int_y^{\infty}\!\!\!dy' v^{\rm fl}_y(y')\right)\notag\\
\label{ss_solution}\end{aligned}$$ where $z$ is the equilibrium fugacity and we have introduced the one-body direct correlation function [@bob_advances] $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(1)}({{\bf r}})=-\frac{\delta \beta\mathcal{F}[\rho({{\bf r}},t)]}{\delta \rho({{\bf r}},t)}.\end{aligned}$$ The integral in (\[ss\_solution\]) can be regarded as a nonequilibrium contribution to the intrinsic chemical potential. It should be noted that the requirement that a homogeneous density generates no particle flux in $y$-direction implies that the spatial integral over $v_y(y)$ is zero. For homogeneous states $v_y^{\rm fl}(y,t)$ is thus zero and the bulk chemical potential is unchanged from that in equilibrium.
Flow kernel {#flowkernel}
===========
In order to derive the flow kernel in Eq. , we consider the relative velocities of two particles, a tagged particle with position ${\mathbf{r}}_t$ and a reference particle at ${\mathbf{r}}_r$, during a scattering event, with $\Delta {\mathbf{r}}={\mathbf{r}}_t-{\mathbf{r}}_r$. As discussed above, we neglect hydrodynamic interactions to keep the description as simple as possible. The incorporation of hydrodynamic interactions should in principle be possible in our approach. The following derivation of the scattering velocities is based on the assumption that in any situation, the particles adjust their velocities such that they minimize the friction with the solvent. The particles are at contact while they move around each other and then pass each other (see the right panel of Fig.\[figure1\]). During the contact period, they have a nonvanishing velocity relative to the solvent. We will now derive the velocity ${\mathbf{v}}^k$ of the tagged particle in the frame comoving with the reference particle, which is assumed to move with constant velocity $\dot\gamma y_r$, i.e., we keep $y_r$ fixed. In a real scattering event one particle would move up and the other down. In our mean field picture, where the tagged particle moves in the fixed density distribution of other particles, we have to keep the $y$-position of the reference particle fixed. The velocity with minimal friction follows from minimization of the velocity relative to the solvent velocity ${\mathbf{v}}$, which we denote $\Delta {\bf v}$, $$\Delta v^2=({\mathbf{v}}^k-{\mathbf{v}})^2=(v^k_x-\dot\gamma \Delta y)^2+v_y^{k2}+v_z^{k2}.\label{eq:1}$$ As long as the particles are in contact, they move on a trajectory with constant distance from each other, leading to $$\Delta r^2=d^2.$$ Differentiation of this expression and elimination of $\Delta x$ leads to $$v^k_x=-\frac{v^k_y\Delta y+v^k_z\Delta z}{\sqrt{d^2-\Delta y^2-\Delta z^2}}.$$ Inserting in Eq. yields $$\Delta v^2=\left(-\frac{v^k_y\Delta y+v^k_z\Delta z}{\sqrt{d^2-\Delta y^2-\Delta z^2}}-\dot\gamma \Delta y\right)^2+v_y^{k2}+v_z^{k2}.\label{eq:11}$$ We can now minimize this expression with respect to $v^k_y$ and $v^k_z$. This yields, $$\label{vy}
v^k_y (\Delta y, \Delta z)=-\dot\gamma \left(\frac{\Delta y}{d}\right)^2\sqrt{d^2-\Delta y^2-\Delta z^2}.$$ In order to average this value over all possible values of $\Delta z$, we substitute $$\Delta z=\sqrt{d^2-\Delta y^2}\sin \phi.$$ into (\[vy\]) and integrate over $\phi$ to obtain (the factor of $\frac{1}{2\pi}$ is inserted as normalization, and the range of the integral is restricted to the half circle since the velocity is zero for $|\phi|>\pi/2$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vy1}
v^k_y (\Delta y)&=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\dot\gamma \left(\frac{\Delta y}{d}\right)^2 \sqrt{(d^2-\Delta y^2)}\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\!\!\!\!d\phi \cos \phi\notag\\&=-\frac{\dot\gamma}{\pi} \left(\frac{\Delta y}{d}\right)^2 \sqrt{d^2-\Delta y^2}.\end{aligned}$$ This result does not account for the density of particles at contact, relative to that in bulk. In order to include information about the local microstructure about a reference particle, the flow distorted inhomogeneous pair distribution function $g({{\bf r}},y)$ should, in principle, be included as a prefactor in (\[vy\]) before angular integration. Given that $g({{\bf r}},y)$ is not known, we make the zeroth order approximation $g({{\bf r}},y)= g_{\rm eq}(r)$, to arrive at our final result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kernel}
\bar v^k_y(\Delta y)=-\frac{\dot\gamma}{\pi}\, g_{\rm eq}(d) \left(\frac{\Delta y}{d}\right)^2 \sqrt{d^2-\Delta y^2}.\end{aligned}$$
For hard-spheres the Carnahan-Starling expression $g_{\rm eq}(d)=(1-\phi/2)/(1-\phi)^3$ provides a simple and accurate expression for the contact value [@hansen]. For other choices of interaction potential $g_{\rm eq}(d)$ may be obtained using either integral equation methods [@brader_ijtp] or, more consistently, an equilibrium test-particle calculation employing the same Helmholtz free energy as that used to generate the dynamics.
Excess free energy {#excess}
==================
Given the equation of motion (\[adv\_ddft\_mod\]) and flow kernel (\[kernel\]), we need to specify a particular approximation to the excess free energy functional in order to arrive at a closed theory for the density profile. For hard-sphere fluids the Rosenfeld functional [@rosenfeld] yields accurate results for both the microstructure and thermodynamics. Within the Rosenfeld approximation the excess free energy of hard-spheres is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}^{\rm hs}_{\rm ex}[\rho] &=&
-n_0\ln(1-n_3)
\,+\,\frac{n_1n_2-\boldsymbol{n}_1\cdot\boldsymbol{n}_2}{1-n_3} \notag\\
&&+\,\frac{n_2^3 - 3 n_2(\boldsymbol{n}_2\cdot\boldsymbol{n}_2)}
{24\pi(1-n_3)^2}.
\label{rosenfeldfunctional}\end{aligned}$$ where the weighted densities are given by convolutions of the density profile $$n_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})=\int d\mathbf{r'}\rho(\mathbf{r'})
\,\omega^{(\alpha)}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'}).
\label{weighted_density}$$ The weight functions are characteristic of the geometry of the particles $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{(3)}(\mathbf{r})&=&\Theta(r-R),\notag\\
\omega^{(2)}(\mathbf{r})&=&\delta(r-R),\notag\\
\omega^{(1)}(\mathbf{r})&=&\frac{\delta(r-R)}{4\pi R},\notag\\
\omega^{(0)}(\mathbf{r})&=&\frac{\delta(r-R)}{4\pi R^{2}},\notag\\
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{(2)}(\mathbf{r})&=&\frac{\mathbf{r}}{r}\delta(r-R),\notag\\
\boldsymbol{\omega}^{(1)}(\mathbf{r})&=&\frac{\mathbf{r}}{r}\frac{\delta(r-R)}
{4\pi R},
\label{weightfunctions}\end{aligned}$$ where $R=d/2$ is the sphere radius. Although improved versions of the Rosenfeld functional do exist [@roth_review], the original version [@rosenfeld] will prove sufficient for the present application.
Results
=======
Hard-spheres
------------
We first address the problem of hard-spheres at a hard wall ($V^{\rm ext}_w(y)=0$). The steady state equation (\[ss\_solution\]) was solved numerically (Picard iteration) using the flow kernel (\[kernel\]) and the Rosenfeld approximation to the excess free energy. The contact value of the radial distribution function employed in (\[kernel\]) was taken from the Carnahan-Starling equation of state [@hansen].
### Intermediate shear rates
In Fig.\[figure2\] we show density profiles calculated for a volume fraction $\phi=0.45$ at various (low to intermediate) values of the Peclet number. In equilibrium, $Pe=0$, the density profile shows a typical oscillatory structure arising from local packing contraints at the wall. Applying a finite $Pe$ leads to an increase in both the contact value (see inset (a)) and height of the oscillatory peaks, which is accompanied by an increase in the depth of the minima. The enhanced structure of the profile is a direct consequence of the collision mechanism built into the advective term of our theory (c.f. Fig.\[figure1\].c) and indicates the development of particle layers in nonequilibrium steady states at finite $Pe$. Despite the highly structured character of the nonequilibrium profiles, it should be noted that the adsorption (i.e. the spatial integral of $\rho(y)-\rho_b$) remains independent of $Pe$, where $\rho_b=\frac{6\phi}{\pi d^3}$ is the bulk colloid density. While this is a straightforward consequence of the continuity equation underlying (\[adv\_ddft\]), it nevertheless provides a useful check for our numerical results.
![ Steady state density profiles of a hard-sphere fluid at volume fraction $\phi=0.45$ for $Pe=0, 3.142, 6.283, 9.425$ and $12.566$. As the Peclet number is increased the oscillatory structure of the profile becomes more pronounced, reflecting the formation of particle layers in the $xz$-plane. Inset (a) focuses on the region close to the wall, where the contact value $\rho(d/2)$ increases linearly with $Pe$. Inset (b) shows the density dependence of the coefficient determining the nonequilibrium contribution to the reduced osmotic pressure $\beta\Pi_{\rm ne}(\phi,Pe)=\alpha(\phi)\phi^2 Pe$, as determined from the contact value. []{data-label="figure2"}](figure2.eps){width="8.2cm"}
### Osmotic pressure
For hard-spheres at a hard-wall, the contact value of the density profile satisfies the sum rule $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \Pi = \rho(d/2),
\label{osmotic}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi$ is the osmotic pressure. While the sum rule (\[osmotic\]) is generally applied to equilibrium, there seems to be no reason why it should not be equally valid for the present nonequilibrium situation (although, as far as we are aware, there currently exists no mathematical proof of this assertion). Our numerical calculations show that, for a given volume fraction, the contact value $\rho(d/2)$ increases linearly over a the entire range of Peclet numbers investigated ($Pe=0\rightarrow 10$ for each volume fraction considered). Employing the sum rule (\[osmotic\]) we thus find that the numerically obtained osmotic pressure obeys the following relation $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \Pi(\phi,Pe) = \beta \Pi_{\rm eq}(\phi) + \alpha(\phi)\phi^2 Pe
\label{osmotic_fit}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha(\phi)$ is a volume fraction dependent coefficient.
![ Steady state density profiles for volume fraction $\phi=0.42$ at $Pe=16.965, 17.279,
17.593, 17.907$ and $18.221$. For clarity the profiles have been translated vertically. As $Pe$ is increased the profiles display an increasingly slow oscillatory decay to the bulk density. At a critical value of $Pe=Pe_{\rm crit}$ the Brownian motion is no longer able to restore the equilibrium structure far from the wall and shear effects dominate. For $Pe>Pe_{\rm crit}$ the oscillations no longer decay and the entire sample enters a layered state, characterized by a well defined oscillation amplitude. The width of the laning oscillations away from the wall (and which extend throughout the entire sample) defines an order parameter $W$ characterizing the nonequilibrium transition. The inset focuses on a single peak ($\phi=0.42$) within the layering region for $Pe=17.907$ and $18.221$. The layering peaks can be well approximated by a Gaussian. []{data-label="figure3"}](figure3.eps){width="8.0cm"}
The definition of $\alpha(\phi)$ in the second term of (\[osmotic\_fit\]) is motivated by the exact low volume fraction results of Brady and Morris [@brady_morris]. By solving exactly the pair Smoluchowski equation in the low density limit for hard-spheres without HI it has been shown that the osmotic pressure (obtained from the trace of the stress tensor) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \Pi(\phi\rightarrow 0,Pe) = \rho_b + \frac{4}{3\pi^2}\phi^2 Pe
\label{brady_osmotic}\end{aligned}$$ In inset (b) of Fig.\[figure2\] we show the volume fraction dependence of $\alpha$. Gratifyingly, the fact that $\alpha$ exhibits a low volume fraction plateau confirms that the present theory indeed captures the correct scaling ($\sim \phi^2 Pe$) of the flow induced correction to the osmotic pressure. The fact that we recover the correct low density scaling is a nontrivial output of our approach. However, the limiting value $\alpha(\phi\rightarrow 0)=0.164$ obtained in the present work differs from the exact value of $4/3\pi^2=0.135$ by a factor of $1.2$. Given the rather severe approximations employed in the present work, namely the mean-field term (\[mf\_term\]) and flow kernel (\[kernel\]), it should not be surprising that there is some deviation from the exact result. Nevertheless, the recovery of the correct low density scaling is reassuring and suggests that performing calculations with a renormalized Peclet number $Pe^*=Pe/1.2$ may be appropriate, should a detailed comparison with simulation or experiment be required.
We note that time-dependent solutions of (\[adv\_ddft\_mod\]) (not considered in the present work) would enable study of the transient behaviour of the Osmotic pressure resulting from time-dependent changes in the applied shear flow, e.g. the onset of steady shear flow [@zausch].
### Laning transition
Turning now to higher values of $Pe$, we show in Fig.\[figure3\] density profiles for $\phi=0.42$ and $Pe=16.695 \rightarrow 18.221$, focusing on the layering structure away from the direct vicinity of the wall (the region $y>5$ is shown). As $Pe$ is increased from zero to values around $17.6$ the oscillatory structure shows an increasingly slow decay with distance from the wall, indicating that Brownian motion is gradually succumbing to the influence of the applied shear flow. For $Pe>17.6$ the decay length of the oscillatory profiles shows a strong sensitivity to variations in the Peclet number and diverges at a critical value $Pe_{\rm crit}\approx 17.8$. This divergence signifies the onset of an ordered phase for which the asymptotic density profile is characterized by a well defined period and amplitude of oscillation.
The emergence of an infinitely extended oscillatory profile at a critical value of the Peclet number is a nontrivial prediction of the present theory and signifies a non equilibrium transition to an inhomogeneous steady state. Such layered states have been observed in Brownian dynamics simulations [@foss_brady] but have thus far remained inaccessable to microscopically based theories. For $Pe>Pe_{\rm crit}$ it is of interest to look at the structure of the individual oscillations within the layered phase. In the inset to Fig.\[figure3\] we show a single density peak at $y\approx 51.4$ for $Pe=17.907$ and $18.221$. For larger values of $Pe$ the peak becomes both narrower and higher, reflecting the reduced influence of Brownian motion, which acts to damp the oscillations and restore equilibrium. The density peaks in the layering region may be well approximated by a Gaussian, implying the existence of two-dimensional particle planes at high $Pe$ values, with harmonic restoring forces acting against random out-of-plane fluctuations.
Shear induced layering phases, similar to those predicted by the present theory, have been observed in both colloidal experiments [@hoffman1; @hoffman2; @ackerson_clark; @ackerson_pusey; @ackerson] and Brownian dynamics simulations of hard-sphere dispersions [@foss_brady]. More recently, experiments on noncolloidal dispersions (no Brownian motion) under oscillatory shear have shown that the presence of irreversible processes when the particles collide can give rise to self-organization and the formation of particle lanes [@pine].
### Phase diagram
The oscillation amplitude of the density in the limit $y\rightarrow\infty$ serves as an order parameter characterizing the nonequilibrium transition from a locally layered state, homogeneous in bulk, to a fully macroscopic layered phase. Specifically, $W\equiv\max(\rho(y\rightarrow\infty))-\min(\rho(y\rightarrow\infty))$ provides a suitable order parameter (see Fig.\[figure3\]). In Fig.4 we show the nonequilibrium phase diagram in the $(\phi\,,Pe)$ plane, obtained by examination of $W$ as a function of $Pe$. For each volume fraction density profiles were calculated on a large grid extending beyond $300$ particle diameters. For $Pe<Pe_{\rm crit}$ the converged profiles clearly decay to zero as a function of $y$, well within our sample size (as for the profiles for $Pe=16.965, 17.279$ and $17.593$ in Fig.\[figure3\]). For $Pe>Pe_{\rm crit}$ iteration of Eq.(\[ss\_solution\]) results in a ‘laning region’ which grows out from the wall indefinitely until the laning structure covers the entire range of the numerical grid. The value of $W$ for laning states may thus be operationally defined as the density difference between the minina and maxima of the oscillations at a distance sufficiently far removed from the wall. In practice, $W$ was estimated from the variation of the profile around $y=150$. The inset to Fig.\[figure4\] shows $W$ as a function of $Pe$ for $\phi=0.42$, following the path indicated by an arrow in the main figure. For values of $Pe$ close to, but above, the transition, $W$ is well described by a square root.
The phase diagram shown in Fig.\[figure4\] is consistent with that calculated in Brownian dynamics simulations of charge stabilized colloidal dispersions (see Fig.4 in [@grest]), provided that the temperature used in the simulation study is identified as an inverse volume fraction. In [@grest] temperatures both above and below the equilibrium freezing transition were considered and the nonequilibrium order-disorder phase boundary found to vary continuously through the freezing transition. In the present study we prefer to restrict ourselves to volume fractions below freezing ($\phi_{\rm fr}=0.494$) in order to avoid the possible complications which may arise from the presence of underlying metastable states. A serious study of the complex interaction between crystal nucleation and external flow goes beyond the scope of the present work.
Finally, we note that the value $Pe_{\rm crit}=14.7$ obtained from the present theory for $\phi=0.45$ is remarkably consistent with Brownian dynamics simulations performed at the same volume fraction (c.f. Figure.3 in [@foss_brady]). The simulations predict that a layered structure emerges within the range $Pe=10 \rightarrow 30$.
![ The phase boundary in the $(\phi\,,Pe)$ plane separating the disordered phase from the ordered ‘laning’ phase (lines serve as a guide for the eye between calculated data points). The hard-sphere freezing transition at $\phi=0.494$ is indicated by the broken line. The inset shows the order parameter $W$ as a function of $Pe$ for $\phi=0.42$, following the path indicated by the blue arrow in the main panel. Above $Pe_{\rm crit}$ the numerical data suggests a continuous transition with the order parameter varying as $W\sim(Pe\!-\!Pe_{\rm crit})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ for small $Pe\!-\!Pe_{\rm crit}$. []{data-label="figure4"}](figure4.eps){width="8.0cm"}
### Bulk laning
The results presented in the previous section indicate that the presence of the dynamical mean field term in (\[ss\_solution\]) gives rise to an instability with respect to laning when the Peclet number exceeds a certain critical value. Although we have concentrated on the particular problem of particles at a hard-wall, it would appear that the density inhomogeneities induced by the wall simply serve to ‘seed’ the generation of a laning structure for $Pe>Pe_{\rm crit}$. It may thus be anticipated that for supercritical values of $Pe$, any kind of density fluctuation, regardless of its amplitude, will be sufficient to initiate laning.
In order to test the above hypothesis we have solved (\[ss\_solution\]) for a range of $Pe$ numbers using the following initial guess for numerical iterative solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{initial}
\rho_{\rm init}(y)=\rho_b + a\exp(-b(y-y_0)^2),\end{aligned}$$ for various values of the parameters $a, b$ and $y_0$. For $Pe<Pe_{\rm crit}$ the perturbation is eroded during the iteration procedure and yields the steady state solution $\rho(y)=\rho_b$ for all values of the parameter set $(a,b,y_0)$. For $Pe>Pe_{\rm crit}$ any finite value of the parameter $a$ is sufficient to seed the laning and a fully laned steady state solution, extending over the entire numerical sample length, is obtained, regardless of the values of $b$ and $y_0$ employed. In this sense, it would appear that, for supercritical states, any amount of ‘numerical dirt’ in the initial homogeneous density distribution is sufficient to generate a fully laned steady state. Moreover, we have confirmed that the values of $Pe_{\rm crit}$ thus obtained are entirely consistent with the phase boundary shown in Fig.\[figure4\], which was calculated in the presence of a hard-wall. Given the above observations it would be of interest to perform a fully time-dependent solution of (\[adv\_ddft\_mod\]). Such a calculation, which we defer to a future publication, would also enable predictions to be made regarding the timescale upon which lanes are formed and its dependence upon the supersaturation $Pe\!-\!Pe_{\rm crit}$.
![ Steady state sedimentation profiles of a relatively dilute dispersion for $Pe=0,31.416,62.832,103.673$ and $125.664$ at a fixed value of the gravitational length $k_BT/g\Delta m=20$. The black curve corresponds to $Pe=0$ and is obtained from a static DFT calculation at a fugacity $z=1.5$. Due to the conservation equation underlying our DDFT, steady state profiles at finite $Pe$ have the same adsorption as the profile for $Pe=0$, i.e. particle number is conserved. Inset (a) shows the center-of-mass $\bar{y}$ (see Eq.\[com\] as a function of $Pe$. Inset (b) focuses on the region close to the wall and demonstrates fact that the contact value is independent of $Pe$. []{data-label="figure5"}](figure5.eps){width="8.0cm"}
Influence of gravity
--------------------
We now consider adding an extra component to the external potential $$\begin{aligned}
V_w^{\rm ext}(y)=yg\Delta m, \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta m$ is the bouyant mass of a colloid and $g$ is the gravitational field strength. We thus address the influence of the shear flow (\[shear\]) upon colloidal sedimentation profiles. Choosing a fugacity $z=1.5$ and gravitational length $\xi=k_BT/g\Delta m=20$ yields the equilibrium sedimentation profile shown in Fig.\[figure5\], for which the local volume fraction remains rather low, even in the vicinity of the wall. As $y$ increases, the local packing oscillations give way to a monotonic decrease of the density. It may thus be anticipated that for finite values of $Pe$, the flow kernel built into our mean-field theory will lead to a net transport of particles from regions of high density to regions of lower density until the scattering flux is balanced by the gravity-biased diffusion of particles towards smaller $y$ values.
The expectation of flow induced broadening of the sedimentation profiles is confirmed by the steady state results shown in Fig.\[figure5\]. Note that the particle number (i.e. area under each of the curves in Fig.\[figure5\]) is conserved and is independent of $Pe$. The canonical nature of the DDFT imposes that the broadening of the sedimentation profile with increasing $Pe$ is accompanied by an overall decrease in the local density within the range $0<y<40$. It is interesting to consider this change of the density distribution in view of the recently discussed violation of the fluctuation dissipation theorem (FDT) [@Krueger09; @Berthier02] in sheared systems. This violation was expressed in terms of the fluctuation dissipation ratio $X_{\rm FDT, f}$ defined as the ratio of response and thermal fluctuations for observable $f$ (see, e.g. [@Krueger09] for details). In equilibrium, one has $X_{\rm FDT,f}=1$, while under shear, $X_{\rm FDT,f}<1$ is observed. Since, by definition, the ratio $X_{\rm FDT, f}$ is proportional to $(k_BT)^{-1}$ (when keeping response and fluctuations $T$-independent), one can also describe the FDT violation in terms of an effective temperature $T_{\rm FDT,f}=T/X_{\rm FDT, f}$ which in turn is larger than $T$ [@Berthier02]. (Note that the dependence of $X_{\rm FDT, f}$, and hence $T_{\rm FDT,f}$, on observable $f$ is unclear.) Here, we are tempted to define in analogy the center-of-mass ratio $X_{\rm com}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comr}
X_{\rm com}=\frac{\bar{y}(0)}{\bar{y}(\dot\gamma)},\end{aligned}$$ with $\bar{y}(\dot\gamma)$ the center-of-mass of the density distribution at shear rate $\dot\gamma$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{com}
\bar{y}=\frac{\int_0^\infty \!dy\, y \rho(y)}{\int_0^\infty \!dy\, \rho(y)}.\end{aligned}$$ At low density, $\rho(y)\propto \exp[-y/\xi]$ and $\bar{y}=\xi\propto k_BT$, independent of shear. At higher density, $\rho$ in Fig. \[figure5\] does not follow a simple exponential, but one still expects $\bar{y}(0)\propto k_BT$, as long as packing effects are not too dominant. This confirms the close analogy of our defintion of $X_{\rm com}$ to $X_{\rm FDT,f}$: if for the system under shear, the ratio $X_{\rm com}$ will be smaller than unity, one can formally interpret this in terms of an effective temperature larger than $T$. Inset (a) to Fig.5 shows that the center-of-mass under shear is indeed larger then in equilibrium, i.e., we indeed have $X_{\rm com}<1$ in accordance to the findings for the ratio $X_{\rm FDT,f}$. The decrease of $X_{\rm com}$ as function of shear rate resembles the behavior of $X_{\rm FDT,f}$, which was also found to decrease with shear rate [@Krueger09; @Berthier02]. We furthermore expect that $X_{\rm com}$ decreases with density and note $X_{\rm com}\to 1$ for $\phi\to0$ (where $\bar{y}(\dot\gamma)\to \xi$), as observed for $X_{\rm FDT,f}$. The center-of-mass ratio hence shows the same overall properties as the fluctuation-dissipation-ratio. This suggests that both are driven by similar physical processes. These findings are also interesting in view of efforts towards a thermodynamic definition of an effective temperature of the system under shear [@Langer07]. We realize that a comparison of the concrete values of $X_{\rm com}$ and $X_{\rm FDT,f}$ is not possible since the system under gravity is different from the bulk-systems studied in [@Krueger09; @Berthier02; @Langer07], as the density depends both on $y$ and $\dot\gamma$. Future work on a single tagged heavy particle in a bath of density matched particles might prove more useful in this respect.
Despite the broadening of the profiles as a function of $Pe$, the ultimate asymptotic decay can always be fitted by a Boltzmann decay, $\rho(y\rightarrow\infty)\sim \exp(-y/\xi)$. This is expected since the density far away from the wall is low and $\varrho(y)$ hence approaches the Boltzmann-distribution.
The inset to Fig.\[figure5\] focuses on the region $0.5<y<3$. Despite the major changes in density distribution induced by the applied shear flow, it is striking that the contact value $\rho(d/2)$ remains independent of $Pe$, in contrast to our previous findings at $g=0$ (see Figs.\[figure2\] and \[figure3\]). This is not surprising. For any finite $g$, the steady state density profile has an adsorption $\Gamma\equiv\int_0^{\infty}\!dy\,\rho(y)$ corresponding to the average number of particles in a column in $y$-direction with unit area in the $xz$-plane. In a gravitational field this column of particles thus exerts a force $\Gamma g \Delta m$ on the wall and determines the contact value of the density distribution. As particle number is conserved within the DDFT, it follows that the contact value of the density at the wall will be independent of $Pe$, as observed in our numerical solutions. The fact that the variation in contact value as a function of $Pe$ is distictly different for the two cases $Pe=0$ and $Pe\ne 0$ is related to the singular behaviour of $\rho(y\rightarrow\infty)$ in the limit $g\rightarrow 0$.
![ Steady state sedimentation profiles of a dense dispersion for $Pe=2,4,6$ and $15$ and at separations removed from the wall. The inset shows the local structure close to the wall. Although some local layering can be induced close to the wall at high shear rates, the gravitational force suppresses the development of an extended layering phase. As in Fig.\[figure5\], the contact values remains independent of $Pe$. []{data-label="figure6"}](figure6.eps){width="8.2cm"}
Fig.\[figure6\] shows further sedimentation profiles for a state with $\xi=10$ and larger local volume fraction than those shown in Fig.\[figure5\]. As previously, the profiles broaden with increasing $Pe$. Due to high local density in the vicinity of the wall, it may be expected that the layering transition identified in our calculations at $g=0$ may become relevant at sufficiently high $Pe$ values. The profile at the highest $Pe$ value shown in Fig.\[figure6\] ($Pe=15$) does indeed show the development of a layering structure close to the wall, similar to that in Fig.\[figure2\]. However, the gravitational force acting on the particles supresses the development of long range oscillations and disrupts the formation of a macroscopic layering phase at any finite value of $Pe$. As for the profiles shown in Fig.\[figure5\], the contact value at the wall remains independent of $Pe$ over the range of parameters investigated.
Discussion
==========
We have applied dynamical density functional theory to calculate the density profiles of a colloidal liquid at a wall under shear flow. The chosen flow geometry served to highlight failings of the existing DDFT approach to driven states and a semi-empirical correction was proposed to reintroduce the missing physical mechanism. Calculations performed at various volume fractions and Peclet numbers have revealed that the new approximation captures a non-equilibrium phase transition to an ordered laning state, for shear rates above a critical value of $Pe$. Moreover, sedimentation profiles are dramatically altered by the application of shear flow, which leads to an increase in height of the colloidal center-of-mass with increasing shear rate. The behavior of the center-of-mass ratio $X_{\rm com}$ is in qualitative agreement with the previously studied fluctuation-dissipation-ratio under shear. The study of a single tagged heavy particle in a bath of density matched particles might be an interesting variant for the future.
The mean-field correction to the advection term is presently rather empirical in character, arrived at using physical arguments, and it would be desirable to place this on a more rigorous basis, ideally as part of a systematic scheme for improving the DDFT under external flow. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. In some sense, the present state of the theory for driven states is reminiscent of the early days of equilibrium DFT, for which the first attempts to go beyond the local density or square gradient approximation relied on the introduction of empirical weight functions to incorporate spatial nonlocality [@bob_review]. The insight gained from these studies proved very useful for the development of subsequent nonlocal approaches with a better foundation in statistical mechanics. We thus hope that the present work may provide stimulus for further developments in applying DDFT to driven nonequilibrium states.
The physical ’scattering’ mechanism built into the present theory generates a nontrivial coupling between density inhomogeneities and external flow, but has no effect on systems with a homogeneous density distribution. While this is likely to be appropriate for certain colloidal systems, it may represent an approximation for others. Imposing shear flow on a homogeneous dispersion generally leads to the development of finite normal stresses, which have been associated with the phenomenon of shear-induced particle migration [@morris_rev]. It is thus conceivable that a shear-induced drift of particles to regions of lower shear rate could result in a density gradient through the sample. Very recent experiments on PMMA hard-sphere-like colloids suggest that flow-concentration coupling can lead to a novel form of shear-banding [@mike_banding]. However, the banding reported in [@mike_banding] only occurs for volume fractions above the glass transition, whereas the present work is focused purely on colloidal liquid states.
Both the standard form of DDFT (\[ddft\]) and its advected extension (\[adv\_ddft\]) are based on an implicit adiabatic assumption which neglects the time taken for the (one-time) pair correlation functions to equilibrate following a change in the average density profile. It may thus be anticipated that in very dense systems, for which the structural $\alpha$-relaxation time becomes important, the pair correlation functions will be unable to keep up with changes in the density, leading to a breakdown of the adiabatic approximation. The fact that the structural relaxation time of driven dense states is determined by the inverse flow rate $\dot\gamma^{-1}$ (at least for states with $\dot\gamma^{-1}<\tau_{\alpha}$) raises the interesting possibility that the adiabatic approximation may be more accurate when applied to calculate the response of dense systems to time-dependent changes in flow rate than to time-dependent changes in external potential. The present work has focused on steady state response and the next step in our research program will be to extend our studies to treat time-dependent shear flow.
An important simplification of the present treatment is that hydrodynamic interactions have been neglected. This excludes from the outset the development of the hydrodynamically bound clusters which may form at very high shear rates and which have been suggested as a possible mechanism for shear thickening [@joe_review]. As we focus here on the low and intermediate Peclet numbers characteristic of the onset of shear thinning, this omission should not be too severe. More fundamental is the fact that the ordered phase observed in Brownian dynamics simulations [@foss_brady] and captured by the present theory is apparently absent in Stokesian dynamics simulations including the full solvent hydrodynamics [@foss_brady2]. It would thus appear that hydrodynamic interactions can render the ordered phase unstable. Nevertheless, we consider it important that any prospective theory of driven colloids be able to descibe first the simpler case of interacting Brownian particles, before seeking to refine this to include hydrodynamics at some level. While it may well be that the (approximate) incorporation of hydrodynamic interactions into the theory disrupts the laning behaviour reported here, we can at least be sure that such an improved theory has a sound physical basis and that the laning observed in Brownian dynamics [@foss_brady] will indeed emerge should we choose to switch-off the hydrodynamics. Such a gradual theoretical development, adding new physical aspects step-by-step, is important in developing a robust theory and tackling the fully hydrodynamic problem from the outset would be unlikely to deliver this.\
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
It is a pleasure to contribute the present work to a Festschrift celebrating the achievements of Professor Evans. One of us (JMB) had the privilege to complete a Ph.D. under Bob’s supervision. His enthusiastic and creative approach to physics have made a deep and lasting impression. The authors would like to thank Matthias Fuchs for numerous discussions on the subject of colloid dynamics, we both benefitted from the stimulating environment in the Konstanz Soft Matter Theory Group. Funding was provided by the SFB-TR6, the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant number KR 3844/1-1.
R. Evans, Adv.Phys. [**28**]{} 143 (1979);
R. Evans, in [*Fundamentals of inhomogeneous fluids*]{}, edited by D. Henderson (Dekker, New York, 1992).
Y. Rosenfeld, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**63**]{} 980 (1989).
M. Schmidt, H. Löwen, J.M. Brader and R. Evans, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**85**]{} 1934 (2000).
R. Evans, J. M. Brader, R. Roth, M. Dijkstra, M. Schmidt, and H. Löwen, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A [**359**]{}, 961 (2001).
J.M Brader, A. Esztermann and M. Schmidt, Phys.Rev.E [**66**]{} 031401 (2002).
U. Marini Bettolo Marconi and P. Tarazona, J.Chem.Phys. [**110**]{} 8032 (1999).
U. Marini Bettolo Marconi and P. Tarazona, J.Phys.: Condens.Matter [**12**]{} A413 (2000).
A.J. Archer and R. Evans, J.Chem.Phys. [**121**]{} 4254 (2004).
Garnet Kin-Lic Chan and R. Finken, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**94**]{} 183001 (2005).
P. Espanol and H.Löwen, J.Chem.Phys. [**131**]{} 244101 (2009).
U. Marini Bettolo Marconi and S. Melchionna, J.Chem.Phys. [126]{} 184109 (2007).
M. Rex and H. Löwen, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**101**]{} 148302 (2008).
M. Rex and H. Löwen, Eur.Phys.J.E [**28**]{} 139 (2009).
M. Rauscher, J.Phys.: Condens.Matter [**22**]{} 364109 (2010).
M. Rex, H.H. Wensink and H. Löwen, Phys.Rev.E [**76**]{} 021403 (2007).
H.H. Wensink and H. Löwen, Phys.Rev.E [**78**]{} 031409 (2008).
M. Rauscher, A. Dominguez, M. Krüger and F. Penna, J.Chem.Phys. [**127**]{} 244906 (2007).
J.M. Brader, M.E. Cates and M. Fuchs, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**101**]{} 138301 (2008).
J.M. Brader, Th. Voigtmann, M. Fuchs, R.G. Larson and M.E. Cates, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. [**106**]{} 15186 (2009).
M. Krüger and M. Rauscher, J.Chem.Phys. [**127**]{} 034905 (2007).
M. Krüger, Diploma Thesis, University of Stuttgart, Germany 2006.
F. Penna, J. Dzubiella and P. Tarazona, Phys.Rev.E [**68**]{} 061407 (2003)..
C. Gutsche, F. Kremer, M. Krüger, M. Rauscher, R. Weeber and J. Harting, J.Chem.Phys. [**129**]{} 084902 (2007).
J. K. G. Dhont, [*An introduction to the dynamics of colloids*]{} (Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1996).
S. Kim and S.J. Karilla, [*Microhydrodynamics, principles and selected applications*]{} (Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1991).
J.-P. Hansen and I.R. McDonald. [Theory of Simple Liquids]{} (Academic, London, 1986).
J.M. Brader, Int.J.Thermophys. [**27**]{} 394 (2006).
R. Roth, J.Phys.:Condens.Matter [**22**]{} 063102 (2010).
J.F. Brady and J.F. Morris, J. Fluid Mech. [**348**]{} 103 (1997).
R.L. Hoffman, Trans.Soc.Rheol. [**16**]{} 155 (1972).
R.L. Hoffman, J.Colloid Interface Sci. [**46**]{} 491 (1974).
B.J. Ackerson and N.A. Clark, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**46**]{} 123 (1982).
B.J. Ackerson and P.N. Pusey, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**61**]{} 1033 (1988).
B.J. Ackerson, J.Rheol. [**34**]{} 553 (1990).
D.R. Foss and J.F. Brady, J.Rheol. [**44**]{} 629 (2000).
L. Corté, P.M. Chaikin, J.P. Gollub and D.J. Pine, Nature Physics, [**4**]{} 420 (2008).
J. Zausch, J. Horbach, M. Laurati, S.U. Egelhaaf, J.M. Brader, T. Voigtmann and M. Fuchs, J.Phys.:Condens.Matter [**20**]{} 404210 (2008).
J.F. Brady, Chem.Eng.Sci. [**56**]{} 2921 (2001).
J.M. Brader, J.Phys.:Condens.Matter [**22**]{} 363101 (2010).
W. Xue and G.S. Grest, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**64**]{} 419 (1990).
J.F. Morris, Rheol.Acta [**48**]{} 827 (2009).
R. Besseling, L. Isa, P. Ballesta, G. Petekidis, M.E. Cates and W.C.K. Poon, arXiv:1009.1579 (2010).
D.R. Foss and J.F. Brady, J.Fluid.Mech. [**407**]{} 167 (2000).
M. Kr[ü]{}ger and M. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 135701 (2009). J. S. Langer and M. L. Manning, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 056107 (2007). L. Berthier and J.-L. Barrat, J. Chem. Phys. [**116**]{}, 6228 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The well-known middle levels conjecture asserts that for every integer $n\geq 1$, all binary strings of length $2(n+1)$ with exactly $n+1$ many 0s and 1s can be ordered cyclically so that any two consecutive strings differ in swapping the first bit with a complementary bit at some later position. In his book ‘The Art of Computer Programming Vol. 4A’ Knuth raised a stronger form of this conjecture (Problem 56 in Section 7.2.1.3), which requires that the sequence of positions with which the first bit is swapped in each step of such an ordering has $2n+1$ blocks of the same length, and each block is obtained by adding $s=1$ (modulo $2n+1$) to the previous block. In this work, we prove Knuth’s conjecture in a more general form, allowing for arbitrary shifts $s\geq 1$ that are coprime to $2n+1$. We also present an algorithm to compute this ordering, generating each new bitstring in $\cO(n)$ time, using $\cO(n)$ memory in total.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, TU Berlin, Germany'
- 'Department of Theoretical Computer Science and Mathematical Logic, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic'
- 'Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, United Kingdom & Department of Theoretical Computer Science and Mathematical Logic, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic'
author:
- Arturo Merino
- Ondřej Mička
- Torsten Mütze
bibliography:
- '../refs.bib'
title: On a combinatorial generation problem of Knuth
---
Introduction
============
In computer science and mathematics we frequently encounter various fundamental classes of combinatorial objects such as subsets, permutations, combinations, partitions, trees etc. There are essentially three recurring algorithmic tasks we want to perform with such objects, namely counting (how many objects are there?), random generation (pick one object uniformly at random), and exhaustive generation (generate every object exactly once). The focus of this paper is on the latter of these tasks, namely algorithms for exhaustively generating a class of combinatorial objects. This research area has flourished tremendously, in particular since the advent of powerful computers, and many of the gems it has produced are treated in depth in the most recent volume of Knuth’s seminal series ‘The Art of Computer Programming’ [@MR3444818] (see also the classical book by Nijenhuis and Wilf [@MR0396274]).
Combination generation
----------------------
One of the basic classes of combinatorial objects we want to generate are *$(k,\ell)$-combinations*, i.e., all ways of choosing a subset of a fixed size $k$ from the ground set $[n]:=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ where $n:=k+\ell$. In a computer we conveniently encode every set by a bitstring of length $n$ with exactly $k$ many 1s, where the $i$th bit is 1 if and only if the element $i$ is contained in the set. For instance, all 2-element subsets of the 4-element ground set $\{1,2,3,4\}$ are $12$, $13$, $14$, $23$, $24$, $34$, where we omit curly brackets and commas for simplicity, and the corresponding bitstrings are $1100,1010,1001,0110,0101,0011$. As we are concerned with fast generation algorithms, a natural approach is to generate a class of objects in an order such that any two consecutive objects differ only by a small amount, i.e., we aim for a *Gray code* ordering. In general, a combinatorial Gray code is a minimum change ordering of objects for some specified closeness criterion, and fast algorithms for generating such orderings have been discovered for a large variety of combinatorial objects of interest (see [@MR1491049; @MR3444818]). For combinations, we aim for an ordering where any two consecutive sets differ only in exchanging a single element, such as $(12,13,14,24,34,23)=(1\ul{1}\ul{0}0,10\ul{1}\ul{0},\ul{1}\ul{0}01,0\ul{1}\ul{0}1,0\ul{0}1\ul{1},\ul{0}1\ul{1}0)$. As we can see, this corresponds to swapping a 0-bit with a 1-bit in the bitstring representation in every step, where the two swapped bits are underlined in the example.
The middle levels conjecture
----------------------------
In the 1980s, Buck and Wiedemann [@MR737262] conjectured that all $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations can be generated by *star transpositions* for every $n\geq 1$, i.e., the element 1 either enters or leaves the set in each step. In terms of bitstrings, this means that in every step the first bit is swapped with a complementary bit at a later position. The ordering is also required to be cyclic, i.e., this transition rule must also hold when going from the last combination back to the first. The corresponding *flip sequence $\alpha$* records the position of the bit with which the first bit is swapped in each step, where positions are indexed by $0,\ldots,2n+1$, so the entries of $\alpha$ are from the set $\{1,\ldots,2n+1\}$ and $\alpha$ has length $N:=\binom{2(n+1)}{n+1}$. For example, a cyclic star transposition ordering of $(2,2)$-combinations is $(12,23,13,34,14,24)=(\ul{1}1\ul{0}0,\ul{0}\ul{1}10,\ul{1}01\ul{0},\ul{0}0\ul{1}1,\ul{1}\ul{0}01,\ul{0}10\ul{1})$, and the corresponding flip sequence is $\alpha=213213$. Buck and Wiedemann’s conjecture was raised independently by Havel [@MR737021] and became known as *middle levels conjecture*. The name appeals to the middle two levels of the $(2n+1)$-dimensional hypercube. This conjecture received considerable attention in the literature (see [@MR1350586; @MR1329390; @MR2046083; @MR2195731; @MR2609124; @MR962224; @MR962223; @MR1268348]), as it lies at the heart of several related combinatorial generation problems. It is also mentioned in the popular books by Winkler [@MR2034896] and by Diaconis and Graham [@MR2858033], and in Gowers’ survey [@MR3584100]. Eventually, the middle levels conjecture was solved by Mütze [@MR3483129] and a simplified proof appeared in [@gregor-muetze-nummenpalo:18]. Moreover, a constant-time algorithm for computing a star transposition ordering for $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations for every $n\geq 1$ was presented at SODA 2017 [@MR3627876].
Knuth’s stronger conjecture
---------------------------
In Problem 56 in Section 7.2.1.3 of his book [@MR3444818] (page 735), which was ranked as the hardest open problem in the book with a difficulty rating of 49/50, Knuth raised a stronger version of the middle levels conjecture, which requires additional symmetry in the flip sequence. Specifically, Knuth conjectured that there is a star transposition ordering of $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations for every $n\geq 1$ such that the flip sequence $\alpha$ has a block structure $\alpha=(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{2n})$, where each block $\alpha_i$ has the same length $N/(2n+1)$ and is obtained from the initial block $\alpha_0$ by element-wise addition of $i$ modulo $2n+1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,2n$. As the entries of $\alpha$ are from $\{1,\ldots,2n+1\}$, the numbers $1,\ldots,2n+1$ are chosen as residue class representatives for this addition, rather than $0,\ldots,2n$. In other words, such a flip sequence $\alpha$ has cyclic symmetry and the initial block $\alpha_0$ alone encodes the entire flip sequence $\alpha$ by a factor of $2n+1$ more compactly. The compression factor $2n+1$ is best possible, and it arises from the fact that every bitstring obtained by removing the first bit of an $(n+1,n+1)$-combination has exactly $2n+1$ distinct cyclic rotations. Also note that $N/(2n+1)=2C_n$, where $C_n:=\frac{1}{n+1}\binom{2n}{n}$ is the $n$th Catalan number. For instance, for $n=2$ we have $N=20$, and all $(3,3)$-combinations can be generated from $111000$ by the flip sequence $(4134\;5245\;1351\;2412\;3523)$, i.e., with initial block $\alpha_0:=4134$. Similarly, for $n=3$ we have $N=70$, and all $(4,4)$-combinations can be generated from $11110000$ by the flip sequence defined by the initial block $\alpha_0:=6253462135$. The entire ordering of combinations obtained for this example is shown in the first column in Figure \[fig:c44\]. In fact, the compact encoding of the flip sequence required in Knuth’s problem was the main tool researchers used in tackling the middle levels conjecture experimentally, as it allows restricting the search space by a factor of $2n+1$ (which yields an exponential speedup for brute-force searches). This approach was already employed by Buck and Wiedemann [@MR737262] for $n=3,4,5$, and was later refined and implemented on powerful computers by Shields, Shields, and Savage [@MR2548541] for values up to $n\leq 17$ and by Shimada and Amano [@shimada-amano] for $n=18,19$.
Our results
-----------
Unfortunately, none of the flip sequences constructed in [@MR3483129; @MR3627876; @gregor-muetze-nummenpalo:18] to solve the middle levels conjecture satisfy the stronger symmetry requirements of Knuth’s problem. The main contribution of this work is to solve Knuth’s symmetric version of the middle levels conjecture in the following more general form, allowing for arbitrary shifts; see Figure \[fig:c44\] for illustration.
![Star transposition Gray codes for $(4,4)$-combinations obtained from Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n=3$ and $s=1,2,\ldots,6$. 1-bits are drawn as black squares, 0-bits as white squares. The initial block $\alpha_0$ of the flip sequence is shown at the top, and the division of all $N=70$ combinations into $2n+1=7$ blocks of length $2C_n=10$ is highlighted by horizontal lines. []{data-label="fig:c44"}](c44)
\[thm:star\] For any $n\geq 1$ and $1\leq s\leq 2n$ that is coprime to $2n+1$, there is a star transposition ordering of all $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations such that the corresponding flip sequence is $\alpha=(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{2n})$, and each block $\alpha_i$ is obtained from the initial block $\alpha_0$ by element-wise addition of $i\cdot s$ modulo $2n+1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,2n$.
In Section \[sec:ideas\] below we explain why the condition on $s$ to be coprime to $2n+1$ is necessary and cannot be omitted from Theorem \[thm:star\]. Our proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] is constructive, and translates into an algorithm that generates $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations by star transpositions efficiently.
\[thm:algo\] There is an algorithm that computes, for any $n\geq 1$ and $1\leq s\leq 2n$ that is coprime to $2n+1$, a star transposition ordering of all $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations as in Theorem \[thm:star\], with running time $\cO(n)$ for each generated combination, using $\cO(n)$ memory in total.
The initial combination can be chosen arbitrarily in our algorithm, and the initialization time is $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$. We implemented this algorithm in C++ and made it available for download and experimentation on the Combinatorial Object Server website [@cos_middle]. It is open whether our algorithm can be improved to generate each combination in time $\cO(1)$ instead of $\cO(n)$.
Related work {#sec:related}
------------
Let us briefly discuss several results and open questions that are closely related to our work.
### Star transpositions for permutations
In the literature, star transposition orderings of objects other than combinations have been studied intensively. A classical result, discovered independently by Kompel’maher and Liskovec [@MR0498276] and Slater [@MR504868], is that all *permutations* of $[n]$ can be generated (cyclically) by star transpositions, i.e., in every step, the first entry of the permutation is swapped with a later entry. An efficient algorithm for this task was found by Ehrlich, and is described as Algorithm E in Knuth’s book [@MR3444818 Section 7.2.1.2] (see also [@DBLP:journals/endm/ShenW13]). For instance, for $n=4$ such an ordering is given by starting at the identity permutation $1234$ and applying the flip sequence $\alpha=121213212123121213212123$ (indices are again 0-based). The ordering of permutations resulting from this algorithm for $n=5$ is shown in Figure \[fig:star\] (a). The first two of the aforementioned papers prove more generally that permutations can be generated using any set of transpositions that forms a connected graph as a basis, such as star transpositions or adjacent transpositions. Tchuente [@MR683982] proved more generally that the graph of permutations under such transpositions is Hamilton-laceable for $n\geq 4$, i.e., it has a Hamilton path between any two permutations with opposite signs. These results are special cases of a more general open problem that asks whether the Cayley graph of the symmetric group on any set of generators has a Hamilton cycle, which in turn is a special case of an even more general conjecture attributed to Lov[á]{}sz about Hamilton cycles on arbitrary connected Cayley graphs [@MR0263646]; see [@MR1201997; @MR2548567; @MR2548568] for more references in this direction.
### Multiset permutations {#sec:related-multiset}
Combinations and permutations are both special cases of *multiset permutations*. A multiset permutation is a string over the alphabet $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with a given frequency distribution $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$, i.e., the symbol $i$ appears exactly $a_i$ times in the string for all $i=1,\ldots,n$. For instance, $4412113$ is a multiset permutation for $n=4$ with frequencies $(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)=(3,1,1,2)$. Clearly, for $n=2$ multiset permutations contain only two symbols, so they encode combinations. On the other hand, for $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)=(1,\ldots,1)$ every symbol appears exactly once, so such multiset permutations are simply permutations of $[n]$. Shen and Williams [@shen_williams_2015] raised a beautiful and brave conjecture which asserts that for any integers $n\geq 2$ and $k\geq 1$, all multiset permutations over the alphabet $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with frequencies $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)=(k,\ldots,k)$ can be generated by star transpositions. The only confirmed general cases for this conjecture are the case $n=2$ (the middle levels conjecture) and the case $k=1$ (by the results on permutations mentioned before). In addition, Shen and Williams gave a solution for $(n,k)=(3,2)$ in their paper, which is shown in Figure \[fig:star\] (b). We also verified the next two small cases $(n,k)=(3,3)$ and $(n,k)=(4,2)$ by computer. Moreover, the techniques developed in this paper allowed us to solve Shen and Williams’ conjecture for the cases $k\in\{2,3,4\}$ and $n\geq 2$ [@gregor-merino-muetze:20].
### Other algorithms for combination generation
We also know many efficient algorithms for generating combinations that do not use star transpositions. Tang and Liu [@MR0349274] first showed that all $(k,\ell)$-combinations can be generated by transpositions of a 0-bit with a 1-bit, where neither of the swapped bits is required to be at the boundary. Their construction arises from restricting the classical binary reflected Gray code to bitstrings with $k$ 1s, and was turned into a constant-time algorithm by Bitner, Ehrlich, and Reingold [@MR0424386]. Eades and McKay [@MR782221] showed that $(k,\ell)$-combinations can be generated by transpositions of the form $00\ldots 01\leftrightarrow 10\ldots 00$, i.e., the bits between the swapped 0 and 1 are all 0s. We can think of this as an algorithm that plays all possible combinations of $k$ keys out of $n=k+\ell$ available keys on a piano, without ever crossing any fingers. Jenkyns and McCarthy [@MR1352777] showed that we can restrict the allowed swaps further and only allow transpositions of the form $01\leftrightarrow 10$ or $001\leftrightarrow 100$; see also [@MR995888]. Eades, Hickey and Read [@MR821383] and independently Buck and Wiedemann [@MR737262] proved that all $(k,\ell)$-combinations can be generated by using only adjacent transpositions $01\leftrightarrow 10$ if and only if $k\leq 1$ or $\ell\leq 1$ or $k\cdot\ell$ is odd. An efficient algorithm for this problem was given by Ruskey [@MR936104].
Another elegant and efficient method for generating combinations based on prefix rotations was described by Ruskey and Williams [@MR2548545]. An interesting open question in this context is whether all $(k,\ell)$-combinations can be generated by prefix reversals, i.e., in each step, a prefix of the bitstring representation is reversed to obtain the next combination. Such orderings can be constructed easily for the cases $k\in\{1,2\}$ or $\ell\in\{1,2\}$, but no general construction is known.
Proof ideas {#sec:ideas}
-----------
In this section we outline the main ideas used in our proof of Theorem \[thm:star\], and in its algorithmization stated in Theorem \[thm:algo\]. We also highlight the new contributions of our work compared to previous papers.
### Flipping through necklaces {#sec:idea-paths}
We start noting that the first bit of a star transposition ordering of combinations alternates in each step (see Figure \[fig:c44\]), so we may simply omit it, and obtain an ordering of all bitstrings of length $2n+1$ with either exactly $n$ or $n+1$ many 1s, such that in every step, a single bit is flipped. Observe that from a flip sequence $\alpha_0$ that satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[thm:star\] we can uniquely reconstruct the first bitstring of each block, by considering for each index $i\in\{1,\ldots,2n+1\}$ the parity of the position of first occurence of the number $i$ in $\alpha$ starting from this block. For example, for the flip sequence $\alpha$ defined by $\alpha_0:=6253462135$ and $s=1$ (see the left column in Figure \[fig:c44\]), the first occurence of the numbers $i=1,\ldots,7$ in $\alpha$ is at positions $7,1,3,4,2,0,10$ and the parity of those numbers is the starting bitstring $1110000$. As any two consecutive blocks of the flip sequence differ by addition of $s$, the first bitstrings of the blocks differ by cyclic rotation by $s$ positions. From this we obtain that the flip sequence $\alpha_0$ that operates on these strings of length $2n+1$ must visit every equivalence class of bitstrings under rotation exactly once, and it must return to a bitstring from the same equivalence class as the starting bitstring. It also follows that the compression factor $2n+1$ in Knuth’s problem is best possible. Formally, a *necklace $\neck{x}$* for a bitstring $x$ is the set of all strings that are obtained as cyclic rotations of $x$. For example, the necklace of $x=1110000$ is $\neck{x}=\{1110000,1100001,1000011,0000111,0001110,0011100,0111000\}$, and there are 10 necklaces for $n=3$, namely $\neck{1110000},\neck{1101000},\neck{1100100},\neck{1100010},\neck{1010100}$ and their complements. In the example shown in Figure \[fig:c44\], each of the flip sequences $\alpha_0$ shown visits exactly one representative from each necklace, and it starts and ends with a bitstring from $\neck{1110000}$. In fact, the order of necklaces is exactly the same for each of the columns in the figure, and the only difference are the chosen representatives. For example, in the first column ($s=1$) we visit the bitstring $1010110$ after three flips, and in the last column ($s=6$) we visit the bitstring $1011010$ after three flips, and both differ only by cyclic rotation. Moreover, all flip sequences in the figure start with the string $1110000$ and end at a cyclic rotation of it after 10 flips, and the value $s$ by which the string is rotated to the right after applying $\alpha_0$ takes every possible value $s=1,\ldots,6$. We refer to $s$ as the *shift* of the flip sequence $\alpha_0$. The crucial observation is that every string of length $2n+1$ with either exactly $n$ or $n+1$ many 1s has exactly $2n+1$ distinct cyclic rotations, i.e., every necklace has the same size $2n+1$. Consequently, we may apply the shifted flip sequences $\alpha_i$, obtained from $\alpha_0$ by element-wise addition of $i\cdot s$ modulo $2n+1$, one after the other for $i=1,\ldots,2n$, and this will produce the desired star transposition ordering of all $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations. Clearly, for this to work the shift $s$ and $2n+1$ must be coprime, otherwise we will return to the starting bitstring prematurely before exhausting all bitstrings from the necklaces. In particular, if $s=0$ we return to the starting bitstring after applying only $\alpha_0$. For instance, applying the flip sequence $\alpha_0=6241247617$ to the starting string $1110000$ visits every necklace exactly once, but returns to the exact same bitstring after 10 flips (every bit is flipped an even number of times by $\alpha_0$), so this flip sequence has shift $s=0$. This explains the condition stated in Theorem \[thm:star\] that $s$ and $2n+1$ must be coprime, which is necessary and cannot be omitted.
### Gluing flip sequences together {#sec:idea-gluing}
To construct a flip sequence $\alpha_0$ that visits every necklace exactly once and returns to the starting necklace, we first construct many disjoint shorter flip sequences that together visit every necklace exactly once. These basic flip sequences are obtained from a simple bitflip rule based on Dyck words that is invariant under cyclic rotations. In a second step, these basic flip sequences are glued together to a single flip sequence by local modifications.
[r]{}[0.55]{} 
Figure \[fig:idea-gluing\] illustrates this approach for $n=3$. We may start at the bitstring $x_1=0010110$ and apply the flip sequence $\beta=251642$ to generate a sequence of bitstrings $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_6,x_1'$, and the final bitstring $x_1'=1011000$ belongs to the same necklace as $x_1$, and it differs from $x_1$ by a right-rotation of $s_\beta=5$. Similarly, from the bitstring $y_1=1101000$ we may apply the flip sequence $\gamma=7152$ to generate a sequence of bitstrings $y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_1'$, and the final bitstring $y_1'=0001101$ belongs to the same necklace as $y_1$, and it differs from $y_1$ by a right-rotation of $s_\gamma=3$. The sets of necklaces $\neck{x_1},\ldots,\neck{x_6}$ and $\neck{y_1},\ldots,\neck{y_4}$ visited by the two sequences are disjoint, and every necklace is contained in exactly one sequence. As $x_6$ differs from $y_1$ by a single flip of the 3rd bit, and $y_4$ differs from a cyclic rotation of $x_1$ by a single flip of the 7th bit, we may replace the last entry of $\beta$ with 3 and the last entry of $\gamma$ by 7, and concatenate the resulting sequences, yielding the flip sequence $\alpha_0=25164{\bf 3}715{\bf 7}$, which visits every necklace exactly once. Moreover, the shift of the resulting flip sequence $\alpha_0$ turns out to be $s=6$ (which is coprime to $2n+1=7$). In this example, the gluing of the two flip sequences is achieved by taking their symmetric difference with a 4-cycle of necklaces $(\neck{x_1},\neck{x_6},\neck{y_1},\neck{y_4})$, removing one flip from each of the two original sequences, and adding two flips to transition back and forth between them. In our proof later, for technical reasons the gluing of flip sequences uses slightly more complicated structures, namely 6-cycles of necklaces, albeit with the same effect of joining two smaller flip sequences to one in each step. One of the major technical hurdles is to ensure that several of these gluing steps do not interfere with each other.
[r]{}[0.48]{} 
The benefit of the gluing approach is that Knuth’s generation problem translates into the problem of finding a spanning tree in a suitably defined auxiliary graph: Specifically, the nodes of this auxiliary graph are the basic flip sequences we start with, and the edges correspond to the gluing 6-cycles that join two of them together. A spanning tree in the auxiliary graph corresponds to a collection of gluing 6-cycles that glue together all basic flip sequences to a single flip sequence $\alpha_0$ with the desired properties. We show that each of our basic flip sequences can be interpreted combinatorially as a plane tree with $n$ edges (in particular, the number of basic flip sequences is given by the number of these trees), so the aforementioned auxiliary graph has all plane trees with $n$ edges as its nodes; see Figure \[fig:idea-aux\]. Moreover, the gluing operation between two basic flip sequences can be interpreted as a local modification of the two plane trees involved. Specifically, a leaf of one plane tree is removed and reattached to a neighbor of the original attachment vertex. A spanning tree in the auxiliary graph can be obtained by choosing a minimal set of gluing 6-cycles such that the corresponding local modifications allow to transform any two plane trees into each other (see the bold edges in Figure \[fig:idea-aux\]).
### Controlling the shift {#sec:idea-shift}
The next key step is to control the shift of the resulting flip sequence $\alpha_0$. Without controlling the overall shift, we may end up with a shift $s=0$, which is useless as explained above, or more generally, with a shift $s$ that is not coprime to $2n+1$, which is again useless. Even if we managed to obtain a shift $s$ that is coprime to $2n+1$, Knuth’s problem specifically asks for a shift of $s=1$, which is the most natural choice to state the problem. Consequently, we need to be able to change the shift from any number $s$ to $1$ modulo $2n+1$. However, if we can do that, then we can also change the shift from any number $s$ to any other number that is coprime to $2n+1$, as we made no assumptions on which $s$ we get initially. In this sense, being able to solve Knuth’s problem, which asks for a shift of 1, is not easier than solving the general problem stated in Theorem \[thm:star\], which allows for arbitrary shifts (coprime to $2n+1$).
Ideally, gluing two flip sequences with shifts $s_\beta$ and $s_\gamma$ should give a flip sequence with shift $s_\beta+s_\gamma$. This would allow us to compute the overall shift simply as the sum of shifts of the basic flip sequences, and this sum can be evaluated explicitly to be $s=C_n$, the $n$th Catalan number. In the example from the previous section, we had $s_\beta=5$ and $s_\gamma=3$, and an overall shift of $s=6$ after the gluing, which is different from $s_\beta+s_\gamma=5+3=8=1$ (modulo 7), so the desired additivity of shifts under gluing does not hold in this example. In fact, guaranteeing that the shifts behave additively under gluing requires substantial effort, and is achieved by constructing a particularly nice spanning tree in the aforementioned auxiliary graph.
Having guaranteed that the overall shift is $s=C_n$, we apply two complementary techniques for modifying the shift to any desired value (coprime to $2n+1$) that we discuss in the following.
The first approach to modify the shift of flip sequences we refer to as *switching*. To illustrate this technique, consider again the columns $s=1$ and $s=6$ in Figure \[fig:c44\]. As we mentioned before, both flip sequences visit the same necklaces in the same order, but they only differ in the chosen necklace representatives, yielding different shift values. Specifically, after the first two flips, both flip sequences $\alpha_0$ for $s=1$ and $s=6$ visit the bitstring $x=1010010$; see Figure \[fig:idea-switch\]. In the third step, one sequence flips the 5th bit of $x$, yielding the string $y=1010110$, while the other sequence flips the 4th bit of $x$, yielding the string $y'=1011010$, which only differ by cyclic right-rotation by 5 steps.
[r]{}[0.4]{} 
After this flip, the entries of both flip sequences differ only by the constant 5, and consequently, their shift values differ only by 5 ($s=1$ and $s=6$). We refer to a bitstring $x$ that allows flipping two distinct bits to reach two bitstrings $y$ and $y'$ in the same necklace $\neck{y}=\neck{y'}$ as a *switch*. We systematically construct many possible switches that allow modifying the shift of flip sequences in a controlled way, while preserving the order of the visited necklaces. Unfortunately, we are unable to prove that the basic flip sequences we use always contain enough of those switches that are usable for us, even though computer experiments suggest that this is the case. This is why we use the switching method only to prove Theorem \[thm:star\] for small values of $n\leq 38$ (these are probably all values that are ever interesting in ‘practice’).
For $n\geq 39$ we employ another method to modify the shift of flip sequences, which works by modifying the aforementioned spanning tree in the auxiliary graph. This method changes the order in which necklaces are visited, unlike the switching method discussed before, which affects only the chosen representatives. Also, the spanning tree modification does not work for $n\leq 38$, as there are not enough plane trees available, which form the nodes of the auxiliary graph (recall Figure \[fig:idea-aux\]).
### Efficient algorithms
The biggest obstacle in translating our constructive proof into an efficient algorithm is to quickly compute the resulting shift $s$ of the flip sequence $\alpha_0$ that results from the gluing process. Only with this information we know by how much $s$ needs to be modified to achieve the shift value that is specified in the input of the algorithm (which may be different from $s$). For this we crucially need the addivitity of the shift values under gluing, which guarantees that $s=C_n$. Clearly, the $n$th Catalan number modulo $2n+1$ can be computed efficiently. For instance, for $n=10$ we have $s=C_n=16796=17 \pmod{2n+1}$, and if the desired shift value is 1, we know that we need to correct $s$ by $-16$ in the course of the algorithm. Similar to our proof of Theorem \[thm:star\], our algorithm also distinguishes between two regimes, one for small $n\leq 38$, where those modifications are done via switching, and one for $n\geq 39$, where the corrections are based on spanning tree modifications.
### Comparison to previous work {#sec:comparison}
The general idea of gluing, and the resulting reduction to a spanning tree problem, is very natural and variations of it have been used successfully in several papers before (see e.g. [@MR1308693; @MR2925746; @MR3599935; @DBLP:conf/soda/SawadaW18; @MR3826304; @gregor-micka-muetze:20]). As mentioned before, a flip sequence $\alpha_0$ satisfying the requirements of Knuth’s conjecture encodes the entire flip sequence $\alpha$ by a factor of $2n+1$ more compactly. This requires us to perform all the aforementioned steps, i.e., the construction of basic flip sequences and gluing them together, on *necklaces* rather than on *bitstrings*, as was previously done in [@MR3483129; @gregor-muetze-nummenpalo:18], which creates many additional technical complications. The key innovation of our paper is to develop these necklace-based constructions, and in particular, to control the shift of the resulting flip sequence $\alpha_0$, using the techniques presented in Section \[sec:idea-shift\]. The flexibility that these methods have will certainly yield other interesting applications in the future. As evidence for that, recall from Section \[sec:related-multiset\] that these techniques allow us to construct solutions for Shen and Williams’ conjecture on multiset permutations with frequencies $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)=(k,\ldots,k)$ for the cases $k\in\{2,3,4\}$ and $n\geq 2$ [@gregor-merino-muetze:20]. We are confident that with more work, they will enable us to settle also this problem in full generality.
Outline of this paper
---------------------
In Section \[sec:prel\] we introduce some terminology and notation that is used throughout the paper. In Section \[sec:paths\] we explain the construction of the basic flip sequences that together traverse all necklaces. In Section \[sec:gluing\] we discuss the gluing technique that we use to join the basic flip sequences together to a single flip sequence that satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[thm:star\]. These two ingredients are combined in Section \[sec:tree\], where we reduce Knuth’s problem to a spanning tree problem in a suitably defined auxiliary graph, and we present the proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\geq 39$ based on the aforementioned spanning tree modification technique. In Section \[sec:new-tree\] we redefine the spanning tree in the auxiliary graph, so that shift values behave additively under gluing, which is essential for our algorithms and also for our proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for small $n$. In Section \[sec:switch\] we discuss the switching technique, which is then used to prove Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\leq 38$. The proof of Theorem \[thm:algo\] is explained in Section \[sec:algo\].
Preliminaries {#sec:prel}
=============
In this section we introduce some definitions and easy observations that we will use repeatedly in the subsequent sections.
Binary strings and necklaces
----------------------------
We let $A_n$ and $B_n$ denote all bitstrings of length $2n+1$ with exactly $n$ or $n+1$ many 1s, respectively. The *middle levels graph $M_n$* has $A_n\cup B_n$ as its vertex set, and an edge between any two bitstrings that differ in a single bit. As mentioned in Section \[sec:idea-paths\] before, in a star transposition ordering of all $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations, the first bit alternates between 0 and 1 in each step; see Figure \[fig:c44\]. Consequently, omitting the first bit, we see a Hamilton cycle in the graph $M_n$ on the remaining $2n+1$ bits. We index these bit positions by $1,\ldots,2n+1$, and we consider all indices modulo $2n+1$ throughout this paper, with $1,\ldots,2n+1$ as residue class respresentatives (rather than $0,\ldots,2n$).
The empty bitstring is denoted by $\varepsilon$. For any bitstring $x$ and any integer $i\geq 0$, we let $x^i$ denote the bitstring obtained by concatenating $i$ copies of $x$. Also, we let $\sigma^i(x)$ denote the bitstring obtained from $x$ by cyclic left-rotation by $i$ positions. As mentioned before, the *necklace of $x$*, denoted $\neck{x}$, is defined as the set of all bitstrings obtained from $x$ by cyclic rotations, i.e., we have $\neck{x}=\{\sigma^i(x)\mid i\geq 0\}$. E.g., for $x=11000\in A_2$ we have $\neck{x}=\{11000,10001,00011,00110,01100\}$. The *necklace graph $N_n$* has as vertex set all $\neck{x}$, $x\in A_n\cup B_n$, and an edge between any two necklaces $\neck{x}$ and $\neck{y}$ for which $x$ and $y$ differ in a single bit; see Figure \[fig:n3\]. Observe that $N_n$ arises as the quotient of $M_n$ under the equivalence relation of rotating bitstrings cyclically. Note that for a given necklace $\neck{x}$, there may be two distinct bits in the representative $x$ that reach the same necklace $\neck{y}$, a fact that we will exploit heavily in Section \[sec:switch\]. Nonetheless, we still consider $N_n$ as a simple graph, and so not all vertices of $N_n$ have the same degree. As mentioned before, for any $x\in A_n\cup B_n$, the necklace $\neck{x}$ has size $2n+1$, i.e., the graph $N_n$ has by a factor $2n+1$ fewer vertices than the graph $M_n$. To define the flip sequence $\alpha_0$ in Theorem \[thm:star\], we will construct a Hamilton cycle in $N_n$. This is achieved using paths in the middle levels graph $M_n$ that have the following property: A path $P=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ in $M_n$ is called *periodic*, if one can flip a single bit in $x_k$ to obtain a vertex $x_{k+1}$ that satisfies $\neck{x_{k+1}}=\neck{x_1}$.
![The necklace graph $N_3$, with the cycle factor $\cF_3$ highlighted. The Dyck words in the necklace representatives are highlighted by gray boxes, and the corresponding rooted trees $t(x)$ for all $\neck{x}$, $x\in A_3$, are shown at the bottom.[]{data-label="fig:n3"}](n3)
Operations on sequences
-----------------------
For any sequence $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$, we let $|x|:=k$ denote the length of the sequence. For any sequence of integers $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ and any integer $a$, we define $x+a:=(x_1+a,\ldots,x_k+a)$. For any sequence of bitstrings $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$, we define $\neck{x}:=(\neck{x_1},\ldots,\neck{x_k})$ and $\sigma^i(x):=(\sigma^i(x_1),\ldots,\sigma^i(x_k))$.
Dyck words, rooted trees, and plane trees
-----------------------------------------
The *excess* of a bitstring $x$ is the number of 1s minus the number of 0s in $x$. If $x$ has excess 0 (i.e., it has the same number of 1s and 0s) and every prefix of $x$ has non-negative excess, then we call $x$ a *Dyck word*. We use $D_n$ to denote the set of all Dyck words of length $2n$. Moreover, we define $D:=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}D_n$.
An (ordered) *rooted tree* is a rooted tree with a specified left-to-right ordering for the children of each vertex. Every Dyck word $x\in D_n$ can be interpreted as a rooted tree with $n$ edges as follows; see Figure \[fig:rot\]: If $x=\varepsilon$, then this corresponds to the tree that has an isolated vertex as root. If $x\neq \varepsilon$, then it can be written uniquely as $x=1\,u\,0\,v$ with $u,v\in D$. We then consider the trees $L$ and $R$ corresponding to $u$ and $v$, respectively, and the tree corresponding to $x$ has $L$ rooted at the leftmost child of the root, and the edges from the root to all other children except the leftmost one, together with their subtrees, form the tree $R$.
[r]{}[0.42]{} 
Given a rooted tree $x$, let $\rho(x)$ denote the tree obtained by rotating the tree to the right, which corresponds to designating the leftmost child of the root of $x$ as the new root in $\rho(x)$. In terms of bitstrings, if $x=1\,u\,0\,v$ with $u,v\in D$, then $\rho(x)=u\,1\,v\,0$; see Figure \[fig:rot\].
A *plane tree* is a tree with a specified cyclic ordering of the neighbors of each vertex. We think of it as a tree embedded in the plane, where the cyclic ordering is the ordering of the neighbors of each vertex in counterclockwise (ccw) direction around the vertex. We let $T_n$ denote the set of all plane trees with $n$ edges. For any rooted tree $x$, we let $[x]$ denote the set of all rooted trees obtained from $x$ by rotation, i.e., we define $[x]:=\{\rho^i(x)\mid i\geq 0\}$, and this can be interpreted as the plane tree underlying $x$, obtained by ‘forgetting’ the root. We also define $\lambda(x):=|[x]|$, and for the plane tree $T=[x]$ we define $\lambda(T):=\lambda(x)$. Note that $\lambda(x)=\min\{i\geq 1\mid \rho^i(x)=x\}$.
For any plane tree $T$ and any of its edges $(a,b)$, we let $T^{(a,b)}$ denote the rooted tree obtained from $T$ by designating $a$ as root such that $b$ is its leftmost child. Moreover, we let $T^{(a,b)-}$ denote the rooted tree obtained from $T^{(a,b)}$ by removing all children and their subtrees of the root except the leftmost one, and we let $T^{(a,b)--}$ denote the tree obtained as the subtree of $T^{(a,b)-}$ that is rooted at the vertex $b$. Given a vertex $a$ of $T$, consider each neighbor $b_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, of $a$ and define the rooted tree $t_i:=T^{(a,b_i)-}$. We refer to the rooted trees $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ as the *$a$-subtrees* of $T$. Note that we have $T=[(t_1,\ldots,t_k)]$.
A *leaf* of a rooted or plane tree is a vertex with degree 1. In particular, the root of a rooted tree is a leaf, if and only if it has exactly one child. We say that a leaf of a tree is *thin*, if its unique neighbor in the tree has degree at most 2, otherwise we call the leaf *thick*. For any rooted or plane tree $T$, we write $v(T)$ and $e(T)$ for the number of vertices or edges of $T$, respectively.
Centroids and potential
-----------------------
Given a (rooted or plane) tree $T$, the *potential of a vertex $a$*, denoted $\varphi(a)$, is the sum of distances from $a$ to all other vertices in $T$. The *potential of the tree $T$*, denoted $\varphi(T)$, is the minimum of $\varphi(a)$ over all vertices $a$ of $T$. A *centroid* of $T$ is a vertex $a$ with $\varphi(a)=\varphi(T)$.
Our first lemma captures important properties of a centroid of a tree.
\[lem:centroid\] Let $T$ be a plane tree. For every edge $(a,b)$ of $T$, we have $$\label{eq:pot-diff}
\varphi(b)-\varphi(a)=e(T^{(b,a)--})-e(T^{(a,b)--}).$$ As a consequence, $T$ has either one centroid or two adjacent centroids. If $e(T)$ is even, then $T$ has exactly one centroid.
Comparing the potentials of $b$ and $a$, note that the distance of every vertex in $T^{(b,a)--}$ to $b$ differs by $+1$ from its distance to $a$. Conversely, the distance of every vertex in $T^{(a,b)--}$ to $b$ differs by $-1$ from its distance to $a$. Combining these observations shows that $\varphi(b)=\varphi(a)+v(T^{(b,a)--})-v(T^{(a,b)--})$. Using that $v(T)=e(T)+1$ for both trees $T\in\{T^{(b,a)--},T^{(a,b)--}\}$, we obtain . Consider any path between two leaves of $T$. By , the sequence of potential differences along this path forms a strictly decreasing sequence. It follows that $T$ has either one or two centroids, and if there are two, then they must be adjacent in $T$. Moreover, if there are two centroids $a$ and $b$, then we must have $\varphi(b)-\varphi(a)=0$ along the edge $(a,b)$ of $T$, and then implies that $e(T^{(b,a)--})=e(T^{(a,b)--})$, i.e., $e(T)=e(T^{(b,a)--})+e(T^{(a,b)--})+1=2e(T^{(a,b)--})+1$ is odd.
The next lemma describes possible values that the parameter $\lambda(T)$ can take for a plane tree $T$.
\[lem:lambda\] Let $T\in T_n$ be a plane tree with $n\geq 1$ edges. Then $\lambda(T)$ is a divisor of $2n$. If $T$ has a unique centroid, then $\lambda(T)$ is even, and if $T$ has two centroids, then $\lambda(T)=2n$ if $n$ is even, and $\lambda(T)\in\{n,2n\}$ if $n$ is odd. Moreover, for $n\geq 4$ and any even divisor $k$ of $2n$ or for $k=n$ there is a plane tree $T$ with $\lambda(T)=k$.
Let $x$ be a rooted tree such that $T=[x]$. Note that $x=T^{(a,b)}$ for some edge $(a,b)$ of $T$. As there are at most $2n$ choices for the pair $(a,b)$, we obtain that $\lambda(T)\leq 2n$. If $\lambda:=\lambda(T)<2n$, then we clearly have $\rho^{\lambda}(x)=x$ and $\rho^{2n}(x)=x$. If $\lambda$ was not a divisor of $2n$, then there are integers $c\geq 1$ and $1\leq d<\lambda$ such that $2n=c\lambda+d$, and together the previous two equations would yield $\rho^d(x)=x$, and then $d<\lambda$ would contradict the definition of $\lambda$. We conclude that $\lambda(T)$ is indeed a divisor of $2n$.
Now suppose that $T$ has a unique centroid $c$. Consider the $c$-subtrees $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ of $T$, i.e., we have $T=[(t_1,\ldots,t_k)]$. Each $t_i$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, contributes either 0 or $2e(t_i)$ to the quantity $\lambda(T)$. This shows that $\lambda(T)$ is even.
It remains to consider the case that $T$ has two centroids $c$ and $c'$. We define the rooted trees $t_c:=T^{(c',c)--}$ and $t_{c'}:=T^{(c,c')--}$. If $n$ is even, then $n-1$ is odd, implying that $e(t_c)\neq e(t_{c'})$. This yields in particular that $t_c\neq t_{c'}$, and so we have $$\label{eq:lambdaT2n}
\lambda(T)=2e(t_c)+2e(t_{c'})+2=2\underbrace{(e(t_c)+e(t_{c'})+1)}_{=n}=2n.$$ The $+2$ in comes from the two rooted trees $T^{(c,c')}$ and $T^{(c',c)}$. If $n$ is odd, then if $t_c\neq t_{c'}$ we also have , i.e., $\lambda(T)=2n$, whereas if $t_c=t_{c'}$, then we have $$\label{eq:lambdaTn}
\lambda(T)=2e(t_c)+1=e(t_c)+e(t_{c'})+1=n.$$ The $+1$ in comes from the rooted tree $T^{(c,c')}=T^{(c',c)}$.
To prove the last part of the lemma, let $k<n$ be an even divisor of $2n$, i.e., we have $2n=kd$ for some integer $d\geq 3$ and $k=2\ell$ for some integer $\ell\geq 1$. Consider the plane tree $T$ obtained by gluing together $d$ copies of the path on $\ell$ edges at a common centroid vertex. This tree has $d\ell=dk/2=n$ edges and satisfies $\lambda(T)=2\ell=k$. For $k=n$, the path $T$ on $n$ edges satisfies $\lambda(T)=n$. For $k=2n$, the path $T$ on $n-1$ edges, with an extra edge appended to one of its interior vertices, satisfies $\lambda(T)=2n$ under the assumption that $n\geq 4$.
Periodic paths {#sec:paths}
==============
In this section we define the basic flip sequences that together visit every necklace exactly once, following the ideas outlined in Sections \[sec:idea-paths\] and \[sec:idea-gluing\]. We thus obtain a so-called *cycle factor* in the necklace graph $N_n$, i.e., a collection of disjoint cycles that visit every vertex of the graph exactly once. The key properties of these cycles that we will need later are summarized in Proposition \[prop:Fn\] below. Each cycle in the necklace graph $N_n$ is obtained from a periodic path in the middle levels graph $M_n$, and we define these periodic paths via a simple bitflip rule based on Dyck words.
The following lemma is well-known (see [@bollobas_2006 Problem 7]).
\[lem:rot\] For any $x\in A_n$, there is a unique integer $\ell=\ell(x)$ with $0\leq\ell\leq 2n$ such that the first $2n$ bits of $\sigma^\ell(x)$ are a Dyck word. For any $y\in B_n$, there is a unique integer $\ell=\ell(y)$ with $0\leq\ell\leq 2n$ such that the last $2n$ bits of $\sigma^\ell(y)$ are a Dyck word.
For any $x\in A_n$, we let $t(x)\in D_n$ denote the first $2n$ bits of $\sigma^\ell(x)$ where $\ell:=\ell(x)$, i.e., we have $\sigma^\ell(x)=t(x)\,0$. Similarly, for any $y\in B_n$, we let $t(y)\in D_n$ denote the last $2n$ bits of $\sigma^\ell(y)$ where $\ell:=\ell(y)$, i.e., we have $\sigma^\ell(y)=1\,t(y)$. In the following it will be crucial to consider the rooted trees corresponding to $t(x)$ and $t(y)$. By Lemma \[lem:rot\], every bitstring $x\in A_n\cup B_n$ can be identified uniquely with the rooted tree $t(x)$ and the integer $\ell(x)$.
Consider an $x\in A_n$ with $\ell(x)=0$, i.e., we have
\[eq:f\] $$\label{eq:xdec}
x=\underbrace{1\,u\,0\,v}_{t(x)}\,0$$ with $u,v\in D$. Then we define $$\label{eq:ydec}
y:=f(x)=1\,\underbrace{u\,1\,v\,0}_{\rho(t(x))}\in B_n.$$ Note that we have $\ell(y)=0$. We then define $$\label{eq:ffx0}
f(y)=f(f(x)):=0\,\underbrace{u\,1\,v\,0}_{\rho(t(x))}\in A_n.$$ Note that we have $\ell(f(y))=1$. We extend these definitions to all $x\in A_n\cup B_n$ by setting $$\label{eq:ffx}
f(x):=\sigma^{-\ell}(f(\sigma^\ell(x))), \text{ where } \ell:=\ell(x).$$
This definition is illustrated in Figure \[fig:f4\]. It follows directly from these definitions that the mapping $f:A_n\cup B_n\rightarrow A_n\cup B_n$ is invertible.
![Definition of the function $f$ for $n=4$. The Dyck words in the bitstrings are highlighted by gray boxes, and the corresponding rooted trees $t(x)$ for the shown bitstrings $x\in A_4$, are displayed at the side. Bitstrings from the set $B_4$ are shown in gray. Consecutive trees in each column differ by tree rotation. As rotating the last tree yields the first tree in each column, the cycles in the necklace graph defined by $f$ wrap around at the bottom and top.[]{data-label="fig:f4"}](f4)
From we obtain that for all $x\in A_n$ we have $$\label{eq:rot}
t(f(f(x)))=t(f(x))=\rho(t(x)).$$ Moreover, – show that if $\ell(x)=0$, then we have $\ell(f(x))=0$ and $\ell(f(f(x)))=1$. From this and , we thus obtain for all $x\in A_n$ that $$\label{eq:shift}
\ell(f(x))=\ell(x) \quad \text{and} \quad \ell(f(f(x)))=\ell(x)+1.$$
In words, if we cyclically read a bitstring $x\in A_n$ starting at position $p:=\ell(x)+1$ and consider the first $2n$ bits as a rooted tree, ignoring the extra 0-bit, then the bitstring $f(x)$ read starting from position $p$ has the extra 1-bit plus the rotated tree, and the bitstring $f(f(x))$ read starting from position $p+1$ is the same rotated tree plus the extra 0-bit.
For any $x\in A_n\cup B_n$, we define the integer $$\label{eq:kx}
k(x):=\min\big\{i>0\mid \neck{f^i(x)}=\neck{x}\big\}.$$
The following lemma summarizes important properties of the parameter $k(x)$.
\[lem:kx\] For every $x\in A_n\cup B_n$ we have the following:
1. For any $y\in\neck{x}$ and any integer $i\geq 0$ we have $\neck{f^i(x)}=\neck{f^i(y)}$. In particular, we have $k(y)=k(x)$.
2. For any integer $i\geq 0$ we have $\neck{f^i(x)}=\neck{f^{k(x)+i}(x)}$.
3. For any integers $0\leq i<j<k(x)$ we have $\neck{f^i(x)}\neq\neck{f^j(x)}$.
4. For any integer $i\geq 0$ we have $k(f^i(x))=k(x)$.
5. We have $k(x)=2\lambda(t(x))$.
\(i) This follows directly from .
\(ii) By the definition of $k(x)$, we have $\neck{x}=\neck{f^{k(x)}(x)}$. Using , this gives $\neck{f^i(x)}=\neck{f^i(f^{k(x)}(x))}=\neck{f^{k(x)+i}(x)}$.
\(iii) Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $y:=f^i(x)$ and $z=f^j(x)$ with $0\leq i<j<k(x)$ satisfy $\neck{y}=\neck{z}$. Then, using that $f$ is invertible, we obtain from that $\neck{x}=\neck{f^{-i}(y)}=\neck{f^{j-i}(z)}$ with $j-i<k(x)$, contradicting the definition of $k(x)$ in .
\(iv) It suffices to prove that $k(f(x))=k(x)$. Observe that we have $\neck{f^{k(x)}(f(x))}=\neck{f^{k(x)+1}(x)}=\neck{f(x)}$ by (ii). On the other hand, we have $\neck{f^j(f(x))}\neq\neck{f(x)}$ for all $1\leq j<k(x)$ by (iii). Combining these two observations proves that $k(f(x))=k(x)$.
\(v) By , two applications of $f$ correspond to one rotation of the tree $t(x)$. The statement now follows from the definition .
For any $x\in A_n\cup B_n$ we define
\[eq:Pxn\] $$\label{eq:Px}
\begin{split}
P(x)&:=\big(x,f(x),f^2(x),\ldots,f^{k(x)-1}(x)\big). \\
\end{split}$$ By , $P(x)$ is a periodic path in the middle levels graph $M_n$, and by Lemma \[lem:kx\] (iii), $\neck{P(x)}$ is a cycle in the necklace graph $N_n$. For any $y\in\neck{x}$ and any integer $i\geq 0$, combining Lemma \[lem:kx\] (i)+(iv) shows that $k(f^i(y))=k(x)$, and so $\neck{P(x)}$ and $\neck{P(f^i(y))}$ describe the same cycle, differing only in the choice of the starting vertex (recall ). We may thus define a cycle factor in $N_n$ by $$\label{eq:Fn}
\cF_n:=\big\{\neck{P(x)}\mid x\in A_n\cup B_n\big\}.$$
This definition is illustrated in Figures \[fig:n3\] and \[fig:f4\] for $n=3$ and $n=4$, respectively. The following proposition summarizes the observations from this section.
\[prop:Fn\] For any $n\geq 2$, the cycle factor $\cF_n$ defined in has the following properties:
1. For every $x\in A_n\cup B_n$, the $2i$th vertex $y$ after $x$ on the periodic path $P(x)$ satisfies $t(y)=\rho^i(t(x))$. Consequently, we can identify the path $P(x)$ and the cycle $\neck{P(x)}$ with the plane tree $[t(x)]$.
2. The number of vertices of the path $P(x)$ and the cycle $\neck{P(x)}$ is $2\lambda(t(x))\geq 4$, and we have $\ell(f^{2i}(x))=\ell(x)+i$ for all $i=0,\ldots,\lambda(t(x))$.
3. The cycles of $\cF_n$ are in bijection with plane trees with $n$ edges.
Clearly, (i) follows from and the definition . Moreover, (iii) is an immediate consequence of (i). To prove (ii), note that $|P(x)|=k(x)$ by the definition , and use that $k(x)=2\lambda(t(x))$ by Lemma \[lem:kx\] (v). As $n\geq 2$, Lemma \[lem:lambda\] guarantees that $\lambda(t(x))\geq 2$, and so $|P(x)|=2\lambda(t(x))\geq 4$. The second part of claim (ii) follows directly from .
Gluing the periodic paths {#sec:gluing}
=========================
In this section we implement the ideas outlined in Section \[sec:idea-gluing\], showing how to glue pairs of periodic paths to one longer periodic path. It turns out that the gluing operation involving two periodic paths can be interpreted as a local modification operation on the two corresponding rooted trees; see Figure \[fig:pull\]. Repeating this gluing process will eventually produce a single periodic path that corresponds to a Hamilton cycle in the necklace graph. The most technical aspect of this approach is to ensure that multiple gluing steps do not interfere with each other, and the conditions that ensure this are captured in Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] below.
We define the two rooted trees $s_n:=1(10)^{n-1}0\in D_n$ for $n\geq 3$ and $s_n':=10s_{n-1}\in D_n$ for $n\geq 4$. Note that both $s_n$ and $s_n'$ have $n$ edges, $s_n$ is a star, and $s_n'$ is obtained from a star by appending an additional edge to one leaf. For $n\geq 4$, consider two Dyck words $x,y\in D_n$, $n\geq 4$, with $(x,y)\neq (s_n,s_n')$ of the form $$\label{eq:gluing}
x=1\,1\,0\,u\,0\,v, \quad y=1\,0\,1\,u\,0\,v, \quad \text{ with } u,v\in D.$$
[r]{}[0.42]{} 
We refer to $(x,y)$ as a *gluing pair*, and we use $G_n$ to denote the set of all gluing pairs $(x,y)$, $x,y\in D_n$. Considering the corresponding rooted trees, we say that $y$ is obtained from $x$ by the *pull* operation, and we refer to the inverse operation that transforms $y$ into $x$ as the *push* operation; see Figure \[fig:pull\]. We write this as $y=\pull(x)$ and $x=\push(y)$. We refer to any $x$ as in as a *pullable tree*, and to any $y$ as in as a *pushable tree*. Also, we refer to the subtrees $u$ and $v$ in as the *left and right subtree of $x$ or $y$*, respectively. A pull removes the leftmost edge that leads from the leftmost child of the root of $x$ to a leaf, and reattaches this edge as the leftmost child of the root, yielding the tree $y=\pull(x)$. A push removes the leaf that is the leftmost child of the root of $y$, and reattaches this edge as the leftmost child of the second child of the root of $y$, yielding the tree $x=\push(y)$. Under this viewpoint, we can use the same identifiers for vertices and edges in $x$ and $y$.
The next lemma asserts that the centroid(s) of a tree are invariant under certain pull/push operations, and that these operations change the tree potential only by $\pm 1$.
\[lem:potential\] Let $(x,y)\in G_n$ be a gluing pair as in . Every centroid of $x$ contained in its right subtree is also a centroid of $y$, and we have $\varphi(y)=\varphi(x)-1$. Every centroid of $y$ contained in its left subtree is also a centroid of $x$, and we have $\varphi(x)=\varphi(x)+1$.
Let $a$ be the leaf incident to the edge in which $x$ and $y$ differ. Clearly, $a$ is not a centroid of $y$. Moreover, for any vertex $b$ in the subtree $u$ of $x$, the pull operation that transforms $x$ into $y$ changes the potential of $b$ by $+1$. Similarly, for any vertex $b$ in the subtree $v$ of $x$, the pull operation changes the potential of $b$ by $-1$. This proves the first part of the lemma. The proof of the second part is analogous.
For a gluing pair $(x,y)\in G_n$, we define $x^k:=f^k(x\,0)$ and $y^k:=f^k(y\,0)$ for $k\geq 0$. These sequences agree with the first vertices of the periodic paths $P(x)$ and $P(y)$, respectively, defined in . Using the definition , a straightforward calculation yields $$\label{eq:xyi}
\begin{pmatrix} x^0 \\ x^1 \\ x^2 \\ x^3 \\ x^4 \\ x^5 \\ x^6 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1\,1\,0\,u\,0\,v\,0 \\ 1\,1\,0\,u\,1\,v\,0 \\ 0\,1\,0\,u\,1\,v\,0 \\ 0\,1\,1\,u\,1\,v\,0 \\ 0\,0\,1\,u\,1\,v\,0 \\ 1\,0\,1\,u\,1\,v\,0 \\ 1\,0\,0\,u\,1\,v\,0 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
\begin{pmatrix} y^0 \\ y^1 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1\,0\,1\,u\,0\,v\,0 \\ 1\,1\,1\,u\,0\,v\,0 \end{pmatrix}.$$ From this we obtain $$\label{eq:Txi}
\begin{pmatrix} t(x^0) \\ t(x^2)=\rho(t(x^0)) \\ t(x^4)=\rho^2(t(x^0)) \\ t(x^6)=\rho^3(t(x^0)) \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1\,1\,0\,u\,0\,v \\ 1\,0\,u\,1\,v\,0 \\ 1\,u\,1\,v\,0\,0 \\ u\,1\,v\,0\,1\,0 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
t(y^0)=(1\,0\,1\,u\,0\,v\,0)$$ (recall Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (i)).
The next lemma shows that the bitstrings listed in all belong to distinct necklaces.
\[lem:min-length\] Let $(x,y)\in G_n$ be a gluing pair as in . Then we have $|P(x^0)|=k(x^0)\geq 8$ and $|P(y^0)|=k(y^0)\geq 4$.
Note that if $(x,y)=(s_n,s_n')$ then we have $k(x^0)=4$ and therefore $\neck{x^0}=\neck{x^4}$ and $\neck{x^2}=\neck{x^6}$, so for this case the statement of Lemma \[lem:min-length\] would not hold.
Note that for any $n\geq 4$, the star $x=s_n$ is the only rooted tree with $\lambda(x)=2$. For any other tree $x$ we have $\lambda(x)\geq 4$ by Lemma \[lem:lambda\], so by Lemma \[lem:kx\] (v) we have $k(x^0)=2\lambda(x)\geq 8$.
For $n\geq 4$, we have $\lambda(y)\geq 2$ for any tree $y\in D_n$ by Lemma \[lem:lambda\], so by Lemma \[lem:kx\] (v) we have $k(y^0)=2\lambda(y)\geq 4$.
Observe from that $$\label{eq:Cxy}
C(x,y):=(x^0,x^1,x^6,x^5,y^0,y^1)$$ is a 6-cycle in the middle levels graph $M_n$. The bit positions flipped along this cycle are $$\label{eq:alpha-Cxy}
\alpha(C(x,y)):=(|u|+4,2,3,|u|+4,2,3).$$
By Lemma \[lem:min-length\] we have that for all $i\geq 0$ the 6-cycle $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ has the two edges $\sigma^i((x^0,x^1))$, $\sigma^i((x^5,x^6))$ in common with the periodic path $\sigma^i(P(x^0))$, and the edge $\sigma^i((y^0,y^1))$ in common with the periodic path $\sigma^i(P(y^0))$. We refer to these three edges as the *$f$-edges of $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$*, and we refer to $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ as a *gluing cycle*. Observe that if $[x]\neq [y]$, then $\neck{P(x^0)}$ and $\neck{P(y^0)}$ are distinct cycles in the necklace graph $N_n$ by Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (i), implying that $$\label{eq:Pxy}
P(x^0)\bowtie P(y^0):=\Big(x^0,y^1,y^2,\ldots,y^{2\lambda(y)-1},
\sigma^{-\lambda(y)}\big((y^0,x^5,x^4,x^3,x^2,x^1,x^6,x^7,\ldots,x^{2\lambda(x)-1})\big)\Big)$$ is a periodic path in the middle levels graph $M_n$, and together the $2n+1$ periodic paths $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i\big(P(x^0)\bowtie P(y^0)\big)$ visit all vertices of $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i\big(P(x^0)\cup P(y^0)\big)$. To see this, recall that $|P(x^0)|=2\lambda(x)$, $|P(y^0)|=2\lambda(y)$, and $\sigma^{\lambda(y)}(y^{2\lambda(y)})=y^0$ by Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (ii). Note that the edge set of $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i\big(P(x^0)\bowtie P(y^0)\big)$ is the symmetric difference of the edge sets of $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i\big(P(x^0)\cup P(y^0)\big)$ with the gluing cycles $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i(C(x,y))$. Specifically, the $f$-edges of the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$, $i\geq 0$, are removed and replaced by the other edges $\sigma^i((x^1,x^6))$, $\sigma^i((y^0,x^5))$, and $\sigma^i((x^0,y^1))$, for all $i\geq 0$.
In the necklace graph $N_n$, the symmetric difference of the edge sets of the two cycles $\neck{P(x^0)}$ and $\neck{P(y^0)}$ with the 6-cycle $\neck{C(x,y)}$ is a single cycle on the same vertex set as $\neck{P(x^0)}\cup \neck{P(y^0)}$.
For all $i\geq 0$, we say that the subpath $\sigma^i((x^1,\ldots,x^5))$ of $\sigma^i(P(x^0))$ is *reversed by $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$*. Moreover, we say that two gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are *compatible*, if they have no $f$-edges in common. We also say that $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are *nested*, if the $f$-edge $\sigma^i((y^0,y^1))$ of $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ belongs to the path that is reversed by $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$; see Figure \[fig:nested\]. In this case we write $\sigma^i(C(x,y))\gg \sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$. Lastly, we say that $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are *interleaved*, if the $f$-edge $\sigma^j((\hx^0,\hx^1))$ of $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ belongs to the path that is reversed by $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$.
The following key proposition captures the conditions under which a pair of gluing cycles is compatible, interleaved, or nested, respectively.
\[prop:Cxy\] Let $n\geq 4$ and let $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G_n$ be two gluing pairs with $[x]\neq [y]$, $[\hx]\neq[\hy]$, and $\{[x],[y]\}\neq\{[\hx],[\hy]\}$. Then for any integers $i,j\geq 0$, the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ defined in have the following properties:
1. $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are compatible.
2. $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are interleaved, if and only if $i=j+2$ and $\hx=\rho^2(x)$.
3. $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are nested, if and only $i=j-1$ and $\hx=\rho^{-1}(y)$.
Two nested gluing cycles as in case (iii) of Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] can be interpreted as follows: We start at the tree $x$, pull an edge towards the root to reach the tree $y=\pull(x)$, then perform an inverse tree rotation $\hx=\rho^{-1}(y)$, which makes the previously pulled edge eligible to be pulled again, then pull this edge a second time, reaching the tree $\hy=\pull(\hx)$. Consequently, nested gluing cycles occur if and only if the same edge of the underlying plane trees is pulled twice in succession; see Figure \[fig:nested\].
It suffices to prove the lemma for $i=0$ and arbitrary $j\geq 0$, so for the rest of the proof we assume that $i=0$. We consider the bitstrings $z^k:=f^k(z\,0)$ for all $z\in \{x,y,\hx,\hy\}$ and $k\geq 0$.
By Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (i) and the assumptions $[x]\neq [y]$ and $[\hx]\neq[\hy]$, each of the 6-cycles $\neck{C(x,y)}$ and $\neck{C(\hx,\hy)}$ in $N_n$ connects two distinct cycles of the cycle factor $\cF_n$ with each other, and the edges of the 6-cycle given by the $f$-edges of $C(x,y)$ and $C(\hx,\hy)$ all lie on one of the cycles from the factor. Consequently, by the assumption that $\{[x],[y]\}\neq\{[\hx],[\hy]\}$, it suffices to verify the following three claims about edges in $M_n$: (1) If $[x]=[\hx]$, then the edge $(x^5,x^6)$ is distinct from $\sigma^j(\hx^0,\hx^1)$, and the edge $(x^0,x^1)$ is distinct from $\sigma^j(\hx^5,\hx^6)$ for all $j\geq 0$. (2) If $[x]=[\hx]$, then the edge $\sigma^j(\hx^0,\hx^1)$ does not belong to the path $(x^1,\ldots,x^5)$ for any $j\geq 0$, with the only possible exception occuring if $\sigma^{-2}(\hx^0,\hx^1)=(x^4,x^5)$ and $\hx=\rho^2(x)$. (3) If $[y]=[\hx]$, then the edge $(y^0,y^1)$ does not belong to the path $\sigma^j(\hx^0,\ldots,\hx^6)$ for any $j\geq 0$, with the only possible exception occuring if $(y^0,y^1)=\sigma^1(\hx^2,\hx^3)$ and $\hx=\rho^{-1}(y)$.
We begin observing that $\sigma^j(z^k)\in A_n$ for even $k$ and $\sigma^j(z^k)\in B_n$ for odd $k$ and all $j\geq 0$. This immediately implies (1). To prove (2), we first show that $\sigma^j(\hx^0)\neq x^2$. This follows from , by observing that $t(\sigma^j(\hx^0))=t(\hx^0)$ and $t(x^2)$ differ in the second bit. From we also see that the condition $t(\sigma^j(\hx^0))=t(\hx^0)=t(x^4)=\rho^2(t(x^0))$ is equivalent to $\hx=\rho^2(x)$. Moreover, from we see that $\ell(\sigma^j(\hx^0))=-j$ and $\ell(x^4)=2$, so $\sigma^j(\hx^0)=x^4$ implies that $j=-2$.
To prove (3), we first show that $y^0\notin\{\sigma^j(\hx^0),\sigma^j(\hx^4)\}$. From we see that $t(y^0)$ and $t(\sigma^j(\hx^0))=t(\hx^0)$ differ in the second and third bit, showing that $y^0$ is different from $\sigma^j(\hx^0)$. From we also obtain that the root of $t(\sigma^j(\hx^4))=t(\hx^4)$ is a leaf, whereas the root of $t(y^0)$ is not a leaf, proving that $y^0$ is different from $\sigma^j(\hx^4)$. From the same relation we also see that the condition $t(y^0)=t(\sigma^j(\hx^2))=t(\hx^2)=\rho(t(\hx^0))$ is equivalent to $y=\rho(\hx)$. Moreover, from we see that $\ell(y^0)=0$ and $\ell(\sigma^j(\hx^2))=1-j$, so $y^0=\sigma^j(\hx^2)$ implies that $j=1$.
This completes the proof.
![Two nested 6-cycles $C(x,y)$ and $C(\hx,\hy)$. The plane tree $[\hy]$ is obtained from $[x]$ by pulling the same edge twice in succession. This edge is drawn fat in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:nested"}](nested)
Translation to a spanning tree problem {#sec:tree}
======================================
In this section we combine the ingredients from the previous two sections, and show how they translate Knuth’s Gray code problem into the problem of finding a spanning tree $\cT_n$ in a suitably defined auxiliary graph $\cH_n$, following the ideas outlined in Section \[sec:idea-gluing\]. The definitions of the graphs $\cH_n$ and $\cT_n$ are given in Sections \[sec:Hn\] and \[sec:Tn\] below, respectively. Based on this, we describe how flip sequences are glued together inductively along the spanning tree $\cT_n$ (Sections \[sec:flip\] and \[sec:flip-T\]). This allows us to make a first attempt of proving Theorem \[thm:star\] (Section \[sec:first\]). Unfortunately, this attempt does not give a complete proof yet, as we are unable to control the shift value of the flip sequences resulting from the gluing process; recall the discussion from Section \[sec:idea-shift\]. In Section \[sec:lollipop\] we present a method to control the shift value by modifying the spanning tree $\cT_n$. With this we are able to prove Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\geq 39$ in Section \[sec:large-proof\].
Definition of $\cH_n$ {#sec:Hn}
---------------------
For $n\geq 4$, we let $\cH_n$ denote the directed arc-labeled multigraph defined as follows: The node set of $\cH_n$ is $T_n$, i.e., all plane trees with $n$ edges. Moreover, for each gluing pair $(x,y)\in G_n$, there is an arc labeled $(x,y)$ from the plane tree $[x]$ to the plane tree $[y]$ in $\cH_n$. Some pairs of nodes of $\cH_n$ may be connected by multiple arcs oriented the same way (with different labels), such as $([1100110010],[1010110010])$ and $([1100101100],[1010101100])$. Some pairs of nodes may be connected by multiple arcs oriented oppositely, such as $([11010100],[10110100])$ and $([11001010],[10101010])$. There may also be loops in $\cH_n$, such as $([11010010],[10110010])$.
Let $\cT$ be a simple subgraph of $\cH_n$, i.e., $\cT$ has no loops and no multiple arcs, neither oriented the same way nor oppositely. We let $G(\cT)$ be the set of all arc labels of $\cT$, i.e., the set of all gluing pairs $(x,y)\in G_n$ that give rise to the arcs in $\cT$. As $\cT$ is simple, we clearly have $[x]\neq[y]$, $[\hx]\neq[\hy]$, and $\{[x],[y]\}\neq \{[\hx],[\hy]\}$ for all $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT)$. We say that $G(\cT)$ is *interleaving-free* or *nesting-free*, respectively, if there are no two gluing pairs $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT)$ such that the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are nested or interleaved for any $i,j\geq 0$.
The next lemma provides a simple sufficient condition guaranteeing interleaving-freeness.
\[lem:heavy\] If for every gluing pair $(x,y)\in G(\cT)$, the root of the tree $x$ is not a leaf, then $G(\cT)$ is interleaving-free.
Suppose there are two gluing pairs $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT)$ such that the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are interleaved for some $i,j\geq 0$. By Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] (ii), this implies $i=j+2$ and $\hx=\rho^2(x)$. However, note that the root of $\rho^2(x)$ is a leaf (recall ), whereas the root of $\hx$ is not a leaf by the assumption of the lemma, so this is a contradiction.
Pullable/pushable leaves
------------------------
The following definitions are illustrated in Figure \[fig:pullable\]. Given a plane tree $T$ and two vertices $a,b$ of $T$, we let $d(a,b)$ denote the distance of $a$ and $b$ in $T$, and we let $p^i(a,b)$, $i=0,1,\ldots,d(a,b)$, be the $i$th vertex on the path from $a$ to $b$ in $T$. In particular, we have $p^0(a,b)=a$ and $p^{d(a,b)}(a,b)=b$.
Consider a vertex $c$ and a leaf $a$ of $T$ with $d(a,c)\geq 2$. We say that $a$ is *pullable to $c$*, if $p(a,c)$ has no neighbors between $p^2(a,c)$ and $a$ in its ccw ordering of neighbors. We say that $a$ is *pushable to $c$*, if $p(a,c)$ has no neighbors between $a$ and $p^2(a,c)$ in its ccw ordering of neighbors.
Consider a vertex $c$ and a leaf $a$ of $T$ with $d(a,c)\geq 1$. We say that $a$ is *pullable from $c$*, if $d(a,c)\geq 2$ and $p(a,c)$ has at least one neighbor between $p^2(a,c)$ and $a$ in its ccw ordering of neighbors, of if $d(a,c)=1$ and $c$ is not a leaf. We say that $a$ is *pushable from $c$*, if $d(a,c)\geq 2$ and $p(a,c)$ has at least one neighbor between $a$ and $p^2(a,c)$ in its ccw ordering of neighbors, or if $d(a,c)=1$ and $c$ is not a leaf.
For any odd $n\geq 5$ we define the *dumbbells* $d_n:=1(10)^{(n-1)/2}0(10)^{(n-1)/2}\in D_n$ and $d_n':=\rho^{-2}(d_n):=101(10)^{(n-1)/2}0(10)^{(n-3)/2}\in D_n$. Each dumbbell has two centroids of degree $(n+1)/2$ each, and all remaining vertices are leaves.
Given a plane tree $T$ with a unique centroid $c$, we refer to every $c$-subtree of $T$ as *active*. If $T$ has two centroids $c,c'$, we refer to every $c$-subtree of $T$ except the one containing $c'$, and to every $c'$-subtree of $T$ except the one containing $c$ as *active*. Note that if $T\notin\{[s_n],[d_n]\}$, then it has a centroid with an active subtree that is not a single edge.
The following two lemmas describe certain pull/push operations on plane trees that preserve the centroid(s), and that change the tree potential by $\pm 1$.
\[lem:pot-pull\] Let $c$ be a centroid of a plane tree $T$, let $a$ be a leaf of $T$ that is pullable to $c$, which if $T\neq[d_n]$ belongs to an active $c$-subtree, and define the rooted tree $x:=x(T,c,a):=T^{(a'',a')}$, where $a':=p(a,c)$ and $a'':=p^2(a,c)$. Then $x$ is a pullable tree, the rooted tree $y:=\pull(x)$ satisfies $\varphi(y)=\varphi(x)-1$, and the leaf $a$ is pushable from $c$ in $[y]$. If $x\neq d_n$, then the centroid(s) of $x$ and $y$ are identical and contained in the right subtrees of $x$ and $y$. If $x=d_n$, then $x$ has two centroids, namely the roots of its left and right subtree, and the root of the right subtree is the unique centroid of $y$.
The statements follow immediately from the definitions given before the lemma, and by Lemma \[lem:potential\]. To see that $x\neq s_n$ note that the star $[s_n]$ has a unique centroid $c$ and no leaves that are pullable to $c$.
![Definition of pullable and pushable leaves.[]{data-label="fig:pullable"}](pullable)
\[lem:pot-push\] Let $c$ be a centroid of a plane tree $T$, let $a$ be a thick leaf of $T$ that is pushable to $c$, which if $T\neq [d_n']$ belongs to an active $c$-subtree, and define the rooted tree $y:=y(T,c,a):=T^{(a',a)}$, where $a':=p(a,c)$. Then $y$ is a pushable tree, the rooted tree $x:=\push(y)$ satisfies $\varphi(x)=\varphi(y)-1$, and the leaf $a$ is pullable from $c$ in $[y]$. If $y\neq d_n'$, then the centroid(s) of $y$ and $x$ are identical and contained in the left subtrees of $y$ and $x$. If $y=d_n'$, then $y$ has two centroids, namely the roots of its left and right subtree, and the root of the left subtree is the unique centroid of $x$.
The proof is analogous to Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\]. To see that $y\neq s_n'$ note that $a$ is assumed to be thick, unlike the leaf we would push in $s_n'$ to obtain $s_n$.
Definition of $\cT_n$ {#sec:Tn}
---------------------
We define a subgraph $\cT_n$ of $\cH_n$ as follows: For every plane tree $T\in T_n$ with $T\notin\{[s_n],[d_n]\}$, we fix a vertex $c$ that is a centroid of $T$ and that has at least one active $c$-subtree that is not a single edge. The leftmost leaf of every such $c$-subtree is pullable to $c$. We fix one such leaf $a$ with maximum distance from $c$. For $T=[d_n]$, we let $c$ be one of its centroids, which has exactly one $c$-subtree that is not a single edge, namely the tree $s_{(n+1)/2}$. The leftmost leaf $a$ of this subtree is pullable to $c$. In both cases, let $x:=x(T,c,a)$ be the corresponding pullable rooted tree as defined in Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\], and define $y:=\pull(x)$, yielding the gluing pair $(x,y)\in G_n$. We let $\cT_n$ be the spanning subgraph of $\cH_n$ that is given by the union of arcs $([x],[y])$ labeled $(x,y)$ for all gluing pairs $(x,y)$ obtained in this way. In the above definition, ties in the case of two centroids or in the case of multiple leaves with maximum distance from $c$ can be broken arbitrarily.
The next lemma shows that the graph $\cT_n$ defined above is indeed a spanning tree of $\cH_n$, and moreover the potential of plane trees along every arc of $\cT_n$ changes by by $-1$. For any arc $(T,T')$, we say that $T'$ is an *out-neighbor* of $T$, and we say that $T$ is an *in-neighbor* of $T'$.
\[lem:Tn\] The graph $\cT_n$ is a spanning tree of $\cH_n$, and for every arc $(T,T')$ in $\cT_n$ we have $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$. Every plane tree $T$ other than the star $[s_n]$ has exactly one neighbor $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$, which is an out-neighbor. Furthermore, $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free.
Consider the gluing pair $(x,y)\in G(\cT_n)$ added for the plane tree $T$ with $T=[x]$. By Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\] we have $\varphi(y)=\varphi(x)-1$, i.e., the potential of the trees changes by $-1$ along every arc of $\cT_n$. It follows that in $\cT_n$, every plane tree $T$ other than the star $[s_n]$ has exactly one neighbor $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$, which is an out-neighbor. Consequently, $\cT_n$ has no cycles, regardless of the orientation of arcs along the cycle (in particular, there are no loops). As from every plane tree $T\in T_n$, we can reach a tree $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$, there is a directed path from $T$ to the star $[s_n]$, which is the unique plane tree with minimum potential $n$. We showed that $\cT_n$ does not contain cycles and is connected, i.e., it is a spanning tree. By Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\], for any gluing pair $(x,y)\in G(\cT_n)$ the right subtree of $x$ contains a centroid of $x$. As a centroid is never a leaf, the right subtree of $x$ contains edges, i.e., the root of $x$ is not a leaf, so we may apply Lemma \[lem:heavy\] to conclude that $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free.
Basic operations on flip sequences {#sec:flip}
----------------------------------
We now describe some basic operations on flip sequences that will be used heavily in the next section when gluing flip sequences together.
Consider a periodic path $P=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ in the middle levels graph $M_n$. We say that a sequence of integers $\alpha=(a_1,\ldots,a_k)$ is a *flip sequence* for $P$, if $a_i$ is the position in which $x_{i+1}$ differs from $x_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,k-1$, and the vertex $x_{k+1}$ obtained from $x_k$ by flipping the bit at position $a_k$ satisfies $\neck{x_{k+1}}=\neck{x_1}$. There is unique integer $\lambda$ modulo $2n+1$ given by the relation $x_1=\sigma^\lambda(x_{k+1})$. We define $\lambda(\alpha):=\lambda$, and we refer to this quantity as the *shift* of $\alpha$. In words, the parameter $\lambda$ describes by how much the necklace representatives get rotated to the right when traversing the periodic path once.
We also define
$$\label{eq:rev}
\begin{split}
\rev(P)&:=\Big(x_1,\sigma^{\lambda(\alpha)}\big((x_k,x_{k-1},\ldots,x_2)\big)\Big), \\
\rev(\alpha)&:=(a_k,a_{k-1},\ldots,a_1)-\lambda(\alpha),
\end{split}$$
where indices are considered modulo $2n+1$, as always. Note that $\rev(\alpha)$ is a flip sequence for the periodic path $\rev(P)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:lambda-rev}
\lambda(\rev(\alpha))=-\lambda(\alpha).$$
Given $P=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ and $\alpha=(a_1,\ldots,a_k)$ as before, we define
$$\label{eq:mov}
\begin{split}
\mov(P)&:=\big(x_2,\ldots,x_k,\sigma^{-\lambda(\alpha)}(x_1)\big), \\
\mov(\alpha)&:=\big(a_2,\ldots,a_k,a_1+\lambda(\alpha)\big).
\end{split}$$
Note that $\mov(\alpha)$ is a flip sequence for the periodic path $\mov(P)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:lambda-mov}
\lambda(\mov(\alpha))=\lambda(\alpha),$$
which means that the shift is independent of the choice of the starting vertex along the path. Similarly, for any integer $i$ we have that $\alpha+i$ is a flip sequence for the periodic path $\sigma^{-i}(P)$ satisfying $$\label{eq:lambda-plus}
\lambda(\alpha+i)=\lambda(\alpha).$$
For example, the periodic path $P=(1010100,1110100,0110100,0110101)$ has the flip sequence $\alpha=(2,1,7,2)$ with $\lambda(\alpha)=2$, and the periodic path $\rev(P)=(1010100,1010101,1010001,1010011)$ has the flip sequence $\rev(\alpha)=(7,5,6,7)$ with shift $\lambda(\rev(\alpha))=-2$. Moreover, $\mov(\alpha)=(1,7,2,4)$ is a flip sequence for the periodic path $\mov(P)=(1110100,0110100,0110101,0010101)$ with $\lambda(\mov(\alpha))=2$, and $\alpha+1=(3,2,1,3)$ is a flip sequence for the periodic path $\sigma^{-1}(P)=(0101010,0111010,0011010,1011010)$ with $\lambda(\alpha+1)=2$.
Flip sequences for subtrees of $\cH_n$ {#sec:flip-T}
--------------------------------------
Using the notation introduced in the previous section, we now describe how to glue flip sequences of periodic paths together inductively along subtrees of $\cH_n$. Ultimately, this will be done for the entire spanning tree $\cT_n$. The key problem in this gluing process is to keep track of the shift value of the flip sequences resulting after each step.
For any $x\in A_n\cup B_n$, with $k(x)$ defined in , we let $\alpha(x)$ be the sequence of positions in which $f^{i+1}(x)$ differs from $f^i(x)$ for all $i=0,\ldots,k(x)-1$. Clearly, $\alpha(x)$ is a flip sequence for the periodic path $P(x)$ defined in . By Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (ii), we have $$\label{eq:lambda-alpha-x}
\lambda(\alpha(x))=\lambda(t(x)).$$
Let $\cT$ be any subtree of $\cH_n$ such that $G:=G(\cT)$ is interleaving-free. We define the set of necklaces $N(\cT):=\bigcup_{[x]\in\cT} \neck{P(x\,0)}$. By Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (i), this is the set of all necklaces visited by cycles $\neck{P(x\,0)}$ in $N_n$ for which the plane tree $[x]$ belongs to $\cT$. In the following, for any $z\in N(\cT)$ and any $x\in z$ we define two periodic paths $\cP_G(x)=\{P,P'\}$ with the same starting vertex $x$ in the middle levels graph $M_n$ and flip sequences $\alpha(P)$ and $\alpha(P')$ for these two paths such that $P'=\rev(P)$ and $\alpha(P')=\rev(\alpha(P))$. Moreover, $\neck{P}$ and $\neck{P'}$ will be oppositely oriented cycles in the necklace graph $N_n$ with vertex set $N(\cT)$. These definitions proceed inductively as follows:
**Base case:** If $\cT=[x]$ is an isolated node, then we have $G(\cT)=\emptyset$. For all $i,j\geq 0$ we define $y:=\sigma^j(f^i(x\,0))$. Note that $\alpha(y)$ is a flip sequence for $P(y)$, and so we may define $$\cP_\emptyset(y):=\{P(y),\rev(P(y))\}, \quad \alpha(P(y)):=\alpha(y), \quad \alpha(\rev(P(y))):=\rev(\alpha(y)),$$ with reversals as defined in .
**Induction step:** For the induction step, we assume that $\cT$ has at least two nodes. Consider all gluing pairs $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT)$ for which $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ are nested for some $i,j\geq 0$. By Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] (iii), this is only possible if $i=j-1$ and $\hx=\rho^{-1}(y)$. Consequently, the sequences of arcs of $\cT$ that are given by such pairs of nested gluing cycles form directed subpaths of $\cT$. In particular, there is a gluing pair $(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT)$ satisyfing the following property (\*): $\sigma^i(C(x,y))\not\gg \sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ for any $(x,y)\in G(\cT)$ and $i,j\geq 0$. Consider the subtrees $\cT_1$ and $\cT_2$ obtained by removing the arc $([\hx],[\hy])$ from $\cT$, and consider the sets of gluing pairs $G_1:=G(\cT_1)$ and $G_2:=G(\cT_2)$. By Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] (i), by induction, and by property (\*), there is a periodic path $P_1\in \cP_{G_1}(\hx\,0)=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ that satisfies $(x_1,\ldots,x_7)=(\hx^0,\ldots,\hx^6)$, and a periodic path $P_2\in \cP_{G_2}(\hy\,0)=(y_1,\ldots,y_l)$ that satisfies $(y_1,y_2)=(\hy^0,\hy^1)$. Moreover, there are corresponding flip sequences $\alpha(P_1)=:\alpha_1=(a_1,\ldots,a_k)$ and $\alpha(P_2)=:\alpha_2=(b_1,\ldots,b_l)$. We then define the periodic path $$\label{eq:P12}
P_1\bowtie P_2:=\Big(x_1,y_2,y_3,\ldots,y_l,\sigma^{-\lambda(\alpha(P_2))}\big((y_1,x_6,x_5,x_4,x_3,x_2,x_7,x_8,\ldots,x_k)\big)\Big)$$ in the middle levels graph $M_n$ (cf. ). Together, the $2n+1$ periodic paths $\bigcup_{i\geq 0} \sigma(P_1\bowtie P_2)$ visit all vertices of $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i\big(P_1\cup P_2\big)$. Moreover, considering the decomposition $\hx=1\,u\,0\,v$ with $u,v\in D$, we define $$\label{eq:alpha-bowtie}
\alpha_1\bowtie \alpha_2:=\Big(3,b_2,b_3,\ldots,b_l,\big((|u|+4,a_5,a_4,a_3,a_2,2,a_7,a_8,\ldots,a_k)\big)+\lambda(\alpha(P_2))\Big).$$ As $\alpha_1\bowtie \alpha_2$ is a flip sequence for the periodic path $P_1\bowtie P_2$ by and , we may define $$\label{eq:P-ind}
\begin{split}
P'&:=\mov^j(\sigma^i(P_1\bowtie P_2)), \quad \alpha':=\mov^j(\alpha_1\bowtie \alpha_2-i), \\
\cP_G(y)&:=\{P',\rev(P')\}, \quad \alpha(P'):=\alpha', \quad \alpha(\rev(P')):=\rev(\alpha').
\end{split}$$ for all $i,j\geq 0$, where $y$ is the first vertex of the path $\mov^j(\sigma^i(P_1\bowtie P_2))$. By induction, the sequence of necklaces $\neck{P_i}$, $i\in\{1,2\}$, is a cycle in the necklace graph $N_n$ with vertex set $N(\cT_i)$. Consequently, $\neck{P'}$ as defined in is a cycle with vertex set $N(\cT_1)\cup N(\cT_2)=N(\cT)$, as desired.
Observe from , , and that $$\lambda(\alpha(P'))=\lambda(\alpha(P_1))+\lambda(\alpha(P_2)).$$ Unrolling this inductive relation using Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (i)+(iii), , and , we obtain that $$\label{eq:total-shift-T}
\lambda(\alpha(P'))=\sum_{T\in\cT} \gamma_T\cdot \lambda(T),$$ where the signs $\gamma_T\in\{+1,-1\}$ are determined by which of the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$ with $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT)$, $i,j\geq 0$, are nested.
The relation allows us to compute the shift of flip sequences of periodic paths obtained by the gluing operation $\bowtie$. For example, consider the three periodic paths $P_1:=P(x\,0)$, $P_2:=P(\hx\,0)$, and $P_3:=P(\hy\,0)$ shown in Figure \[fig:nested\], and the corresponding gluing cycles $C(x,y)$ and $C(\hx,\hy)$. Note that the gluing cycles $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ join the paths $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i(P_1\cup P_2)$, and the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(\hx,\hy))$ join the paths $\bigcup_{i\geq 0}\sigma^i(P_2\cup P_3)$. As $\hx=\rho^{-1}(y)$, we have that $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^{i+1}(C(\hx,\hy))$ are nested for all $i\geq 0$ by Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] (iii). For $n=8$, $u=10$ and $v=11101000$ the corresponding flip sequences $\alpha_1:=\alpha(x\,0)$, $\alpha_2:=\alpha(\hx\,0)$, and $\alpha_3:=\alpha(\hy\,0)$ have the shifts $\lambda(\alpha_1)=n=8$, $\lambda(\alpha_2)=\lambda(\alpha_3)=2n=16$ (recall ). The 36th and 37th vertices on the periodic path $P_2\bowtie P_3$ are $\sigma^{-17}(y^1)$ and $\sigma^{-17}(y^0)$, respectively (recall that $y^0=y\,0$ and $y^1=f(y^0)$). Consequently, $y^0$ and $y^1$ are the first two vertices on the periodic path $P_{23}:=\rev(\mov^{36}(\sigma^{17}(P_2\bowtie P_3)))$ with flip sequence $\alpha_{23}:=\rev(\mov^{36}(\alpha_2\bowtie \alpha_3-17))$. The resulting flip sequence $\alpha:=\alpha_1\bowtie\alpha_{23}$ for the periodic path $P:=P_1\bowtie P_{23}$ has shift $\lambda(\alpha)=\lambda(\alpha_1)-\big(\lambda(\alpha_2)+\lambda(\alpha_3)\big)=8-(16+16)=-24$.
A first attempt at proving Theorem \[thm:star\] {#sec:first}
-----------------------------------------------
Let $\cT_n$ be the spanning tree of $\cH_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn\], i.e., the node set of $\cT_n$ is the set $T_n$ of all plane trees with $n$ edges. By Lemma \[lem:Tn\], $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free. We fix the vertex $x_1:=1^n 0^{n+1}\in A_n\cup B_n$. The set $\cP_{G(\cT_n)}(x_1)$ defined in Section \[sec:flip-T\] contains a periodic path $P$ with starting vertex $x_1$ and second vertex $f(x_1)$ in the middle levels graph $M_n$ such that $\neck{P}$ has the vertex set $N(\cT_n)=\bigcup_{[x]\in T_n} \neck{P(x\,0)}=\{\neck{x}\mid x\in A_n\cup B_n\}$, i.e., $\neck{P}$ is a Hamilton cycle in the necklace graph $N_n$. By , the corresponding flip sequence $\alpha(P)$ has a shift of $$\label{eq:total-shift-Tn}
\lambda(\alpha(P))=\sum_{T\in T_n} \gamma_T\cdot \lambda(T)$$ for some signs $\gamma_T\in\{+1,-1\}$ that are determined by which gluing cycles encoded by $\cT_n$ are nested.
With $s:=\lambda(\alpha(P))$ we define the flip sequences $$\label{eq:alpha-first}
\alpha_0:=\alpha(P), \quad \alpha_i:=\alpha_0+i\cdot s \text{ for } i=1,\ldots,2n.$$ If we apply the entire flip sequence $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{2n})$ to the starting vertex $x_1$ in the middle levels graph $M_n$, then we reach the vertex $\sigma^{-i\cdot s}(x_1)$ after applying all flips in $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{i-1})$ for every $i=1,\ldots,2n+1$. Consequently, if $s$ and $2n+1$ happen to be coprime, then we reach $x_1$ only after applying the entire flip sequence, and as $\alpha_0=\alpha(P)$ is the flip sequence of the Hamilton cycle $\neck{P}$ in the necklace graph $N_n$, the resulting sequence $C$ of bitstrings is a Hamilton cycle in the middle levels graph $M_n$. A star transposition Gray code for $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations satisfying the conditions of Theorem \[thm:star\] is then obtained from $C$ by prefixing every bitstring of $C$ with 1 or 0, alternatingly.
However, the aforementioned approach requires that $s=\lambda(\alpha(P))$ and $2n+1$ are coprime, which not be the case. Even if the two numbers were coprime, then this approach only establishes Theorem \[thm:star\] for one particular value of $s$, and it is hard to control what this value will be, without further knowledge about the signs $\gamma_T$ in . In particular, if we want to achieve a shift of $s=1$, which is Knuth’s original conjecture, then we need a controlled way of modifying $\alpha(P)$ to another flip sequence $\alpha(P')$, so that we obtain a shift of $\lambda(\alpha(P'))=1$ or any other shift $\lambda(\alpha(P'))=s$ that is coprime to $2n+1$. Given that $\lambda(\alpha(P))$ modulo $2n+1$ could possibly be any number from $\{0,1,\ldots,2n\}$, both tasks are equally difficult. In the next section we show how to accomplish these tasks by carefully modifying the spanning tree $\cT_n$ locally.
Modifying the spanning tree $\cT_n$ {#sec:lollipop}
-----------------------------------
In this section we describe how to locally modify the spanning tree $\cT_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn\] before, such that we can control the shift value of the flip sequences that result from the gluing process.
We define the rooted tree $p_\ell:=1^\ell 0^\ell$. This is the path with $\ell$ edges rooted at one of its end vertices. For any binary vector $\beta=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_k)\in\{0,1\}^k$, we define $t_\beta:=(p_{\ell_1},p_{\ell_2},\ldots,p_{\ell_k})$ with $\ell_i:=2$ if $\beta_i=0$ and $\ell_i:=3$ if $\beta_i=1$ for $i=1,\ldots,k$. In words, $t_\beta$ is obtained by gluing together $k$ paths at their end vertices, a path of length 2 for every 0-bit and a path of length 3 for every 1-bit of $\beta$, ordered from left to right at the root of $t_\beta$ according to the ordering of bits in $\beta$. Note that $$\label{eq:etbeta}
e(t_\beta)=2k+w(\beta)\leq 3k,$$ where $w(\beta)$ denotes the number of 1s in $\beta$.
For any integer $r\geq 2$, we also define $t_r:=p_2^{r/2}$ for even $r$ and $t_r:=(p_2^{(r-3)/2},p_3)$ for odd $r$. Clearly, we have $$\label{eq:etr}
e(t_r)=r.$$ In words, $t_r$ is a tree with $r$ edges that is obtained by gluing together paths of length 2 at their end vertices, possibly adding a path of length 3 as the last path if $r$ is odd.
For a given integer $n\geq 21$, we define $$\label{eq:kn}
k=k(n):=\lfloor n/3\rfloor-6\geq 1,$$ and for any binary vector $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$, we define $$\label{eq:rnbeta}
r=r(n,\beta):=n-16-(2k+w(\beta)).$$ Observe that $$\label{eq:rnbeta2}
r \geByM{\eqref{eq:rnbeta},\eqref{eq:etbeta}} n-16-3k\eqBy{eq:kn} n-16-3(\lfloor n/3\rfloor-6)=2+n-3\lfloor n/3\rfloor\geq 2.$$ We then define $$\label{eq:T0beta}
L^0_\beta:=[(t_\beta,p_7,p_4,t_r,p_5)],$$ i.e., $L^0_\beta$ is the plane tree obtained by gluing together the trees $t_\beta,p_7,p_4,t_r,p_5$ at their roots in ccw order; see Figure \[fig:lolli1\]. We clearly have $$\label{eq:eT0}
e(L^0_\beta)=(7+4+5)+e(t_\beta)+e(t_r)\eqByM{\eqref{eq:etbeta},\eqref{eq:etr}} 16+(2k+w(\beta))+r\eqBy{eq:rnbeta} n,$$ i.e., we have $L^0_\beta\in T_n$.
![Definition of the plane tree $L^0_\beta$ for $n=40$, with the centroid highlighted.[]{data-label="fig:lolli1"}](lollipop)
Consider the collections $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LTbeta}
\begin{split}
L_\beta&:=\big\{L^0_\beta,L^1_\beta,\tL^1_\beta,L^2_\beta,\tL^2_\beta,L^3_\beta,\tL^3_\beta,L^4_\beta\big\}, \\
T_\beta&:=\big\{T^1_\beta,T^2_\beta,\tT^2_\beta,T^3_\beta,T^5_\beta\big\}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ of in total 13 distinct plane trees shown in Figure \[fig:lolli2\], all of which are obtained from $L^0_\beta$ by modifying only the paths $p_7,p_4,p_5$ in the definition , by suitably replacing them by trees with the same number of edges (7, 4, or 5, respectively), as shown in the figure. We refer to these three subtrees as the *arms* of each $T\in L_\beta\cup T_\beta$. In Figure \[fig:lolli2\], the subtrees $t_\beta$ and $t_r$ that are the same in each tree are indicated by gray-shaded areas. We also consider the following pairs of trees from the set $L_\beta$
\[eq:CLbeta-all\] $$\label{eq:CLbeta}
\begin{split}
\cC_\beta&:=\big\{(L^0_\beta,L^1_\beta),(L^1_\beta,L^2_\beta),(L^2_\beta,L^3_\beta),(L^3_\beta,L^4_\beta),(L^0_\beta,\tL^1_\beta),(\tL^1_\beta,\tL^2_\beta),(\tL^2_\beta,\tL^3_\beta),(\tL^3_\beta,L^4_\beta)\big\}, \\
\cL_\beta&:=\cC_\beta\cup\{(L^4_\beta,T^5_\beta)\}.
\end{split}$$ These are the pairs of trees joined by solid arcs in Figure \[fig:lolli2\]. We also define the following two subsets of $\cL_\beta$ $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:CLbeta+-}
\cC_\beta^+&:=\cC_\beta\setminus\{(L^0_\beta,\tL^1_\beta)\}, \quad \cC_\beta^-:=\cC_\beta\setminus\{(L^0_\beta,L^1_\beta)\}, \\
\cL_\beta^+&:=\cL_\beta\setminus\{(L^0_\beta,\tL^1_\beta)\}, \quad \cL_\beta^-:=\cL_\beta\setminus\{(L^0_\beta,L^1_\beta)\}.
\end{split}$$
We will show that $\cC_\beta$ and $\cL_\beta$ are subgraphs of $\cH_n$ that span the set of nodes $L_\beta$ or $L_\beta\cup\{T^5_\beta\}$, respectively. In fact, $\cC_\beta$ is a cycle, and $\cL_\beta$ is a cycle with a pending edge attached to it, and we refer to it as a *lollipop*. Moreover, $\cL_\beta^+$ and $\cL_\beta^-$ are two distinct spanning trees of the lollipop $\cL_\beta$.
The next proposition captures all key properties of the lollipop subgraphs $\cL_\beta$ of $\cH_n$ that will be needed later on. In particular, property (vi) asserts that switching between the two distinct spanning trees $\cL_\beta^+$ and $\cL_\beta^-$ of $\cL_\beta$ changes the shift value of a flip sequence by $-4n$, which is crucial. This is achieved by making $G(\cL_\beta)$ nesting-free, except for the arcs $(L^0_\beta,\tL^1_\beta)$ and $(\tL^1_\beta,\tL^2_\beta)$, which are both present in $\cL_\beta^-$, but not in $\cL_\beta^+$.
\[prop:lollipop\] For $n\geq 21$ and $k$ as defined in we have the following:
1. For any $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$ and any plane tree $T$ from one of the sets $L_\beta$ or $T_\beta$ defined in , the unique vertex with degree at least 5 is the centroid of $T$.
2. For any $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$ and any plane tree $T\in L_\beta\cup T_\beta$, we have $\lambda(T)=2n$.
3. For distinct binary vectors $\beta,\beta'\in\{0,1\}^k$, the sets of trees $L_\beta\cup T_\beta$ and $L_{\beta'}\cup T_{\beta'}$ are disjoint.
4. For any $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$, the spanning tree $\cT_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn\] has no arcs $(T,T')$ or $(T',T)$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$ and $T\notin L_\beta$ and $T'\in L_\beta$.
5. For any $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$ and for every pair $(T,T')$ of trees from $\cL_\beta$ defined in , there is a unique gluing pair $(x,y)\in G_n$ with $([x],[y])=(T,T')$. Consequently, the lollipop $\cL_\beta$ is a subgraph of $\cH_n$ that spans the set of nodes $L_\beta\cup\{T^5_\beta\}$, and $\cL_\beta^+$ and $\cL_\beta^-$ defined in are spanning trees of $\cL_\beta$. Moreover, $G(\cL_\beta^+)$ is interleaving-free and nesting-free, and $G(\cL_\beta^-)$ is interleaving-free and nesting-free, except for the two gluing pairs $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cL_\beta^-)$ that are given by $([x],[y])=(L^0_\beta,\tL^1_\beta)$ and $([\hx],[\hy])=(\tL^1_\beta,\tL^2_\beta)$, which satisfy $\sigma^i(C(x,y))\gg \sigma^{i+1}(C(\hx,\hy))$ for all $i\geq 0$.
6. Consider the subtrees $\cC_\beta^+$ and $\cC_\beta^-$ of $\cH_n$ defined in that span the set of nodes $L_\beta$, and define $G^+:=G(\cC_\beta^+)$ and $G^-:=G(\cC_\beta^-)$. Moreover, let $(x,y)\in G_n$ be the gluing pair with $([x],[y])=(L^4_\beta,T^5_\beta)$. Also, let $P^+$ be the periodic path from $\cP_{G^+}(x\,0)$ defined in Section \[sec:flip-T\] that starts with the vertices $x\,0,f(x\,0),\ldots$, and let $P^-$ be the periodic path from $\cP_{G^-}(x\,0)$ that starts with the vertices $x\,0,f(x\,0),\ldots$. Then the flip sequences $\alpha(P^+)$ and $\alpha(P^-)$ have shifts $\lambda(\alpha^+)=2n\cdot 7+2n$ and $\lambda(\alpha^-)=2n\cdot 7-2n$.
The periodic paths $P^+$ and $P^-$ referred to in (vi) are well-defined, as by (v), $G(\cC_\beta^+)\subseteq G(\cL_\beta^+)$ and $G(\cC_\beta^-)\subseteq G(\cL_\beta^-)$ are interleaving-free.
\(i) The trees $t_\beta$ and $t_r$ in the definition have at least one edge by and , and so $T$ has a unique vertex $c$ with degree at least 5 (each of the three arms contributes +1 to the degree of $c$). Let $a$ be any of the neighbors of $c$ in $T$. Note that $e(T^{(a,c)--})\geq 4+5=9$, and $e(T^{(c,a)--})\leq 7-1=6$, as the smaller two of the three arms of $T$ have at least 4 and 5 edges, respectively, and the largest of the three arms of $T$ has at most 7 edges. Applying Lemma \[lem:centroid\], we obtain that $\varphi(a)-\varphi(c)\geq 9-6>0$, proving that $c$ must be the unique centroid.
\(ii) Consider the centroid $c$ of $T$ given by (i), and consider the cyclic ordering of subtrees around $c$. Due to the presence of the three arms with 7, 4, or 5 edges, respectively, this sequence of trees has no cyclic symmetries, implying that $\lambda(T)=2n$, as $e(T)=n$ (recall ).
\(iii) This follows by observing that the binary vector $\beta$ can be recovered uniquely from each tree $T\in L_\beta\cup T_\beta$. Indeed, $T$ has a unique vertex $c$ of degree at least 5. Moreover, there is a unique subtree with 5 edges emanating from $c$, which is the second-largest of the three arms. The next subtrees emanating from $c$ in ccw direction are paths of length 2 or 3, which encode the binary vector $\beta$. This sequence of subtrees is terminated by a subtree with 7 edges emanating from $c$, which is the largest of the three arms of $T$.
\(iv) By Lemma \[lem:Tn\], along every arc $(T,T')$ of $\cT_n$ we have $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$, so it is enough to prove that $\cT_n$ has no arcs $(T,T')$ from a node $T\notin L_\beta$ to a node $T'\in L_\beta$. For any $T'\in L_\beta$, let $c$ be its centroid given by (i). By Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\], every incoming arc at $T'$ corresponds to a leaf of $T'$ that is pushable from $c$. As all leaves have distance at least 2 from $c$ in $T'$, any leaf that is pushable from $c$ is thick by definition, so we need to consider only thick leaves of $T'$. In particular, the trees $t_\beta$ and $t_r$ in the definition have only thin leaves, and therefore contain no leaves pushable from $c$. Only the three arms of $T'$ have thick leaves, and may therefore have leaves pushable from $c$. All leaves of trees $T'\in L_\beta$ that are pushable from $c$ are marked by a white square in Figure \[fig:lolli2\]. In particular, $L_\beta^0$ has no leaves that are pushable from $c$, and therefore no incoming arcs in $\cT_n\subseteq\cH_n$. $L_\beta^1$ and $\tL_\beta^1$ have one leaf each that is pushable from $c$, coming from the arcs $(L_\beta^0,L_\beta^1)$ and $(L_\beta^0,\tL_\beta^1)$, respectively, which we can ignore as their starting nodes are in $L_\beta$. The tree $L_\beta^2$ has two leaves that are pushable from $c$, one from the arc $(L_\beta^1,L_\beta^2)$, which we can ignore. The second one comes from the arc $(T_\beta^1,L_\beta^2)$ of $\cH_n$, which however, is not present in $\cT_n$, by the choice of a leaf in $T_\beta^1$ that is pullable to $c$ and that has maximum distance from the centroid in the definition of $\cT_n$. All leaves of trees $T'\in T_\beta\setminus\{T^5_\beta\}$ that are pullable to $c$ are marked by crosses in Figure \[fig:lolli2\], with their distance from the centroid indicated next to them. The tree $\tL_\beta^2$ has one leaf that is pushable from $c$ coming from the arc $(\tL_\beta^1,\tL_\beta^2)$, which we can ignore. The tree $L_\beta^3$ has three leaves that are pushable from $c$, one from the arc $(L_\beta^2,L_\beta^3)$, which we can ignore, and two from the arcs $(T_\beta^2,L_\beta^3)$ and $(\tT_\beta^2,L_\beta^3)$ of $\cH_n$, which are not present in $\cT_n$, by the choice of leaf in $T_\beta^2$ and $\tT_\beta^2$ that is pullable to $c$ and that has maximum distance from the centroid. The tree $\tL_\beta^3$ has two leaves that are pushable from $c$ from the arcs $(L_\beta^2,\tL_\beta^3)$ and $(\tL_\beta^2,\tL_\beta^3)$, which we can both ignore. Finally, the tree $L_\beta^4$ has three leaves that are pushable from $c$, two from the arcs $(L_\beta^3,L_\beta^4)$ and $(\tL_\beta^3,L_\beta^4)$, which we can ignore, and one from the arc $(T_\beta^3,L_\beta^4)$, which is not present in $\cT_n$, by the choice of a pullable leaf in $T_\beta^3$ that is pullable to $c$ and that has maximum distance from the centroid.
\(v) Figure \[fig:lolli2\] shows how to root the plane trees $T,T'$ of each pair $(T,T')\in\cL_\beta$, such that the rooted trees $x,y$ with $(T,T')=([x],[y])$ form a gluing pair $(x,y)\in G_n$. In the figure, every pair $(T,T')\in\cL_\beta$ is joined by a large solid arrow marked by $j=1,1',2,2',3$, and the small arrows marked $j$ next to $T$ and $T'$ indicate the root vertex, and the splitting of the cyclic ordering of neighbors of this vertex to obtain the left-to-right ordering of the children of the root. One can check that the resulting pairs of rooted trees $(x,y)$ have the form , i.e., $y=\pull(x)$, and consequently these are indeed gluing pairs in $G_n$. Moreover, none of the tree vertices marked as root is a leaf, implying that $G(\cL_\beta^+)$ and $G(\cL_\beta^-)$ are interleaving-free by Lemma \[lem:heavy\].
Using Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] (iii), one can check that no two of the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$, with $(x,y)\in G(\cL_\beta)$ and $i\geq 0$, are nested, except for the cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))\gg \sigma^{i+1}(C(\hx,\hy))$, $i\geq 0$, that are given by $([x],[y])=(L^0_\beta,\tL^1_\beta)$ and $([\hx],[\hy])=(\tL^1_\beta,\tL^2_\beta)$. This is because in any two pull operations corresponding to two consecutive arcs of the lollipop $\cL_\beta$, we never pull the same tree edge twice in succession, except in the latter case.
\(vi) By , we need to evaluate the sums $\sum_{T\in L_\beta}\gamma_T\cdot \lambda(T)$ for both sets of gluing pairs $G^+$ and $G^-$. By (ii), we have $\lambda(T)=2n$ for each of the eight trees $T\in L_\beta$. Moreover, from (v) we obtain that $G(\cC_\beta^+)\subseteq G(\cL_\beta^+)$ is nesting-free and therefore we have $\gamma_T=+1$ for each of the eight trees $T\in L_\beta$, showing that $\alpha(P^+)=2n\cdot 8=2n\cdot 7+2n$. On the other hand, $G(\cC_\beta^-)\subseteq G(\cL_\beta^-)$ is nesting-free except for the gluing pairs $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cC_\beta^-)$ that are given by $([x],[y])=(L^0_\beta,\tL^1_\beta)$ and $([\hx],[\hy])=(\tL^1_\beta,\tL^2_\beta)$, which satisfy $\sigma^i(C(x,y))\gg \sigma^{i+1}(C(\hx,\hy))$ for all $i\geq 0$. As $L^0_\beta$ is a leaf of $\cC_\beta^-$, we obtain that $\gamma_{L^0_\beta}=-1$ and $\gamma(T)=+1$ for all $T\in L_\beta\setminus\{L^0_\beta\}$. Consequently, we obtain that $\alpha(P^-)=2n\cdot 7-2n$.
This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\geq 39$ {#sec:large-proof}
--------------------------------------------
We are now in position to prove Theorem \[thm:star\] for all sufficiently large values of $n$.
Let $n\geq 39$, let $k$ be as defined in , and let $\cT_n$ be the spanning tree of $\cH_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn\]. The following definitions are illustrated in Figure \[fig:lolli3\]. Let $\cT_n^-$ denote the subgraph of $\cT_n$ obtained by removing all nodes in the sets $L_\beta$ defined in for all $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$. From Lemma \[lem:Tn\] we know that every node $T$ of $\cT_n$ has at most one neighbor $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$. Combining this with Proposition \[prop:lollipop\] (iv) shows that $\cT_n^-$ is still a connected graph. We now extend $\cT_n^-$ to a spanning tree of $\cH_n$, by adding all arcs from either the set $\cL_\beta^+$ or $\cL_\beta^-$ as defined in for all $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$. This choice for each $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$ is encoded in a sign sequence $\chi$ of length $2^k$, and the entries of this sequence are indexed by $\beta$, so $\chi_\beta\in\{+,-\}$ for all $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$. As each of $\cL_\beta^+$ and $\cL_\beta^-$ is a spanning tree on the same set of nodes $L_\beta\cup\{T^5_\beta\}$ by Proposition \[prop:lollipop\] (v), and as these sets of nodes are disjoint for distinct binary vectors $\beta,\beta'\in\{0,1\}^k$ by Proposition \[prop:lollipop\] (iii), $$\label{eq:Tchi}
\cT_n(\chi):=\cT_n^-\cup \bigcup_{\beta\in\{0,1\}^k} \cL_\beta^{\chi_\beta}$$ is a spanning tree of $\cH_n$ for every sign sequence $\chi$. Each of the subtrees $\cL_\beta^{\chi_\beta}\subseteq \cL_\beta$ is connected to $\cT_n^-$ via the node $T^5_\beta$, which is the end node of the ‘handle’ of the lollipop $\cL_\beta$.
![Definition of the tree $\cT_n(\chi)$. Each node represents a plane tree from $T_n$, as shown in Figure \[fig:lolli2\], which provides a zoomed view of a single lollipop $\cL_\beta$. The double arrows show the choice between two arcs that we may remove from the lollipop $\cL_\beta$ to obtain the subtrees $\cL_\beta^+$ and $\cL_\beta^-$, for each binary vector $\beta\in\{0,1\}^k$. Each such choice changes the shift of the resulting flip sequence by $-4n=2 \pmod{2n+1}$. []{data-label="fig:lolli3"}](lollipop)
For each such spanning tree, we can now define a periodic path $P(\chi)$ in the middle levels graph $M_n$ as described in Section \[sec:first\], and by and , the shift of the corresponding flip sequence $\alpha(P(\chi))$ is $$\label{eq:shift-chi}
\lambda(\alpha(P(\chi)))=\underbrace{\sum_{T\in\cT_n^-}\gamma_T\cdot\lambda(T)}_{=:\lambda_0}+\sum_{\beta\in\{0,1\}^k}\underbrace{\sum_{T\in L_\beta}\gamma_T\cdot\lambda(T)}_{=:\lambda_\beta}$$ for some signs $\gamma_T\in\{+1,-1\}$. Note that the first summand $\lambda_0$ in is a fixed integer that is independent of $\chi$, as the tree $\cT_n^-$ is independent of $\chi$. Moreover, the inner sum $\lambda_\beta$ of the second summand in is $\gamma_\beta(2n\cdot 7+2n)$ if $\chi_\beta=+$ or $\gamma_\beta(2n\cdot 7-2n)$ if $\chi_\beta=-$ by Proposition \[prop:lollipop\] (vi), where $\gamma_\beta\in\{+1,-1\}$. Therefore, by choosing $\chi_\beta\in\{+,-\}$ appropriately, we can change the value of the shift $\lambda(\alpha(P(\chi)))$ by $-4n$. Note that $-4n=2$ modulo $2n+1$, and that 2 and $2n+1$ are coprime. Therefore, to make the sum modulo $2n+1$ have any possible value $s$ in $\{0,1,\ldots,2n\}$, it is enough if we have at least $2n$ choices for $\beta$, i.e., if $2^k\geq 2n$ (for proving the theorem we would only need values of $s$ that are coprime to $2n+1$). From the definition we see that this inequality holds for all $n\geq 39$. At this point the construction of the flip sequence satisfying the conditions of Theorem \[thm:star\] proceeds as explained in Section \[sec:first\] with the definition .
Redefining the spanning tree {#sec:new-tree}
============================
The proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\geq 39$ presented in Section \[sec:large-proof\] fails for $n\leq 38$, as there are not enough lollipops $\cL_\beta$ available to adjust the shift of the resulting flip sequence in to any value $s\in\{0,1,\ldots,2n\}$ that is coprime to $2n+1$. Recall that we have essentially no control over the value of $\lambda_0$ in , as the signs $\gamma_T\in\{+1,-1\}$ depend on which pairs of gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(x,y))$ and $\sigma^j(C(\hx,\hy))$, $i,j\geq 0$, with gluing pairs $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT_n)$ are nested. For some small values of $n$, we could of course compute the value of $\lambda_0$ explicitly, but this takes exponential time and space, given that the number of plane trees in $T_n$ is exponential. This seems feasible maybe for $n\leq 20$, but certainly not for $n\geq 30$ (note that $|T_{30}|\geq 10^{13}$). So for some small values of $n$ we do not know $\lambda_0$, and even if we knew the value, the methods presented so far do not allow us to adjust the value to the desired shift $s$.
The problem of not knowing the value of $\lambda_0$ is also a fundamental obstacle in translating the proof presented before to an efficient algorithm for computing the corresponding Gray code for any $n$. Specifically, if the algorithm does not not know $\lambda_0$, then it first has to compute its value, to be able to adjust it to the desired shift $s$, or to any shift $s$ that is coprime to $2n+1$. However, this would take exponential time and space for initialization, which is inacceptable.
There is one obvious idea that solves both problems simultaneously: If we construct a spanning tree $\cT_n$ of $\cH_n$ such that $G(\cT_n)$ is not only interleaving-free, but also *nesting-free*, then all signs $\gamma_T$ in are positive, which allows us to use the closed form expression $$\label{eq:lambda-Cn}
\sum_{T\in T_n} \lambda(T)=C_n,$$ where $C_n$ is the $n$th Catalan number. To see this identity, recall that $\lambda(T)$ counts all rooted trees whose underlying plane tree is $T$, so overall we count all rooted trees, which gives the sum $|D_n|=C_n$.
Combining , , and Proposition \[prop:lollipop\] (ii) shows that $$\lambda_0=C_n-2^k\cdot 8\cdot 2n$$ (recall from that $|L_\beta|=8$), i.e., we have a closed formula for $\lambda_0$, which can be computed efficiently. In particular, we only need to compute this number modulo $2n+1$, so all arithmetic deals with small numbers only.
From Lemma \[lem:Tn\] we know that for the spanning tree $\cT_n$ of $\cH_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn\], $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free. Unfortunately, $G(\cT_n)$ is not nesting-free in general. Consequently, to implement the approach outlined before, in the following we define another spanning tree $\cT_n$ of $\cH_n$ such that $G(\cT_n)$ is both interleaving-free and nesting-free (see Lemma \[lem:Tn-new\] below). This alternative definition of $\cT_n$ is considerably more complicated than the one presented in Section \[sec:Tn\], which is why we deferred it to this point, to separate it clearly from the the other ingredients of the proof (presented in Sections \[sec:flip\], \[sec:flip-T\], and \[sec:lollipop\]), which will work the same way as before also for the new $\cT_n$.
Redefinition of $\cT_n$ {#sec:Tn-new}
-----------------------
We define the rooted trees $$\label{eq:spires}
\begin{alignedat}{4}
q_0&:=10,& q_1&:=1100,& q_2&:=110100,& q_3&:=11100100, \\
q_4&:=11010100,&\quad q_5&:=1110100100,&\quad q_6&:=1110010100,&\quad q_7&:=1110011000, \\
q_8&:=1101011000,&\quad q_9&:=1101010100,& &&& \\
\end{alignedat}$$ see Figure \[fig:spire\].
We define a subgraph $\cT_n$ of $\cH_n$, $n\geq 4$, as follows: For every plane tree $T\in T_n$ with $T\neq [s_n]$, we define a gluing pair $(x,y)\in G_n$ with either $T=[x]$ or $T=[y]$. We let $\cT_n$ be the spanning subgraph of $\cH_n$ given by the union of arcs $([x],[y])$ labeled $(x,y)$ for all gluing pairs $(x,y)$ obtained in this way. The definition of the gluing pair $(x,y)\in G_n$ for a given plane tree $T\neq[d_n]$ proceeds in the following three steps (T1)–(T3), whereas if $T=[d_n]$, then the special rule (D) is applied.
**(D) Dumbbell rule.** If $T=[d_n]$, we let $c$ be one of its centroids, which has exactly one $c$-subtree that is not a single edge, namely the tree $s_{(n+1)/2}$. The rightmost leaf $a$ of it is thick and pushable to $c$ in $T$, so we define $y:=y(T,c,a)=d_n'$ and $x:=\push(y)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-push\].
**(T1) Fix the centroid and subtree ordering.** If $T$ has two centroids, we let $c$ denote the centroid whose active $c$-subtrees are not all single edges. If this is true for both centroids, we let $c$ be the one for which all active $c$-subtrees $t_1,\ldots,t_k$, listed in ccw order such that $t_1$ is the first tree encountered after the $c$-subtree containing the other centroid, give the lexicographically minimal string $(t_1,\ldots,t_k)$.
If $T$ has a unique centroid, we denote it by $c$. We consider all $c$-subtrees of $T$, and we denote them by $t_1,\ldots,t_k$, i.e., $T=[(t_1,\ldots,t_k)]$, such that among all possible ccw orderings of subtrees around $c$, the string $(t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_k)$ is lexicographically minimal.
**(T2) Select $c$-subtree of $T$.** If $T$ has two centroids, we let $t_\hi$ be the first of the trees $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ that is distinct from $q_0$.
If $T$ has a unique centroid, then for each of the following conditions (i)–(v), we consider all trees $t_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,k$, and we determine the first tree $t_i$ satisfying the condition, i.e., we only check one of these conditions once all trees failed all previous conditions:
1. $t_i$ has 7 edges,
2. $t_i=q_1$ and $t_{i-1}=q_0$,
3. $t_i\in\{q_2,q_4\}$ and $t_{i+1}\in\{q_0,q_1,q_2\}$,
4. $t_i\notin\{q_0,q_1,q_2,q_4\}$,
5. $t_i\neq q_0$.
Conditions (ii) and (iii) refer to the previous tree $t_{i-1}$ and the next tree $t_{i+1}$ in the ccw ordering of $c$-subtrees, and those indices are considered modulo $k$. Note that $T$ is not the star $[s_n]$, and so at least one $c$-subtree of $T$ is distinct from $q_0$ and satisfies the last condition, so this rule to determine $t_i$ is well-defined. We let $t_\hi$ be the $c$-subtree determined in this way. Clearly, $t_\hi$ has at least two edges.
![Illustration of the trees $q_0,\ldots,q_9$ defined in , which are highlighted in gray, and pull/push operations between them. In the spanning tree $\cT_n$, every arc $([x],[y])$ is labeled with a gluing pair $(x,y)$, and in the figure, the rooted trees $x$ and $y$ are obtained by rooting the plane trees $[x]$ and $[y]$ at the vertices indicated by the small arrows, which also show the splitting of the cyclic ordering of neighbors of this vertex to obtain the left-to-right ordering of the children of the root. For clarity, every arc and the corresponding two small arrows are marked by the same integer. The framed trees $\{q_1,\ldots,q_5\}\cup\{q_7,q_8\}$ are treated by separate rules in step (T2). []{data-label="fig:spire"}](tn)
**(T3) Select leaf to pull/push.** If $t_\hi=1^l q_j 0^l$ for some $l\geq 0$ and $j\in\{1,\ldots,5\}\cup\{7,8\}$, i.e., $t_\hi$ is a path with one of the trees $q_1,\ldots,q_5$ or $q_7,q_8$ attached to it, then we distinguish four cases; see Figure \[fig:spire\]:
1. If $j\in\{1,3,7\}$, then we let $a$ be the leftmost leaf of $t_\hi$, which is thin, and define $x:=x(T,c,a)$ and $y:=\pull(x)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\]. Clearly, for $j=1$ we have $y=1^{l-1} q_2 0^{l-1}$ if $l>0$ and $y=q_0^2$ if $l=0$, for $j=3$ we have $y=1^l q_4 0^l$, and for $j=7$ we have $y=1^l q_8 0^l$.
2. If $j\in\{2,4\}$, then we let $a$ be the rightmost leaf of $t_\hi$, which is thick, and we define $y:=y(T,c,a)$ and $x:=\push(y)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-push\]. Clearly, for $j=2$ we have $x=1^{l-1} q_3 0^{l-1}$ if $l>0$ and $x=q_1q_0$ if $l=0$, and for $j=4$ we have $x=1^{l-1} q_5 0^{l-1}$ if $l>0$ and $x=q_2q_0$ if $l=0$.
3. If $j=5$, then we let $a$ be unique leaf of $t_\hi$ that is neither the leftmost nor the rightmost one, which is thick, and we define $y:=y(T,c,a)$ and $x:=\push(x)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-push\]. We clearly have $x=1^l q_6 0^l$.
4. If $j=8$, then we let $a$ be the rightmost leaf of $t_\hi$, which is thin, and define $x:=x(T,c,a)$ and $y:=\pull(x)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\]. We clearly have $y=1^l q_9 0^l$.
Otherwise we distinguish two cases:
1. If the potential $\varphi(T)=\varphi(c)$ is even, we let $a$ be the leftmost leaf of $t_\hi$ and define $x:=x(T,c,a)$ and $y:=\pull(x)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\].
2. If the potential $\varphi(T)=\varphi(c)$ is odd and the rightmost leaf $a$ of $t_\hi$ is thin, we define $x:=x(T,c,a)$ and $y:=\pull(x)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\].
3. If the potential $\varphi(T)=\varphi(c)$ is odd and the rightmost leaf $a$ of $t_\hi$ is thick, we define $y:=y(T,c,a)$ and $x:=\push(y)$ as in Lemma \[lem:pot-push\].
This completes the definition of $\cT_n$. In Lemma \[lem:Tn-new\] below we will show that $\cT_n$ is indeed a spanning tree of $\cH_n$. The spanning trees $\cT_n\subseteq \cH_n$ for $n=4,5,6,7$ are shown in Figures \[fig:t456\] and \[fig:t7\].
![Illustration of the spanning trees $\cT_4,\cT_5,\cT_6$. The subgraphs $\cS^1,\cS^2\subseteq \cT_n$ with all plane trees that have one or two centroids, respectively, are highlighted. Centroid(s) are marked with bullets, where the centroid selected in step (T1) is filled gray. Plane trees are arranged in levels according to their potential, which is shown on the side. The arrow markings are explained in Figure \[fig:spire\]. []{data-label="fig:t456"}](tn)
![Illustration of the spanning tree $\cT_7$. Notation is as in Figure \[fig:spire\].[]{data-label="fig:t7"}](tn)
In the following, we refer to rules (q137), (q8), (e), and (o1) in step (T3) as *pull rules*, and to rules (q24), (q5), and (o2) as *push rules*. Note that the leaf to which one of the pull rules (q137), (q8) or (o1) is applied, is always thin, whereas the leaf to which any push rule is applied, is always thick.
Properties of $\cT_n$
---------------------
The main task of this section is to prove that $\cT_n$ is a spanning tree of $\cH_n$ for which $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free and nesting-free (Lemma \[lem:Tn-new\] below). The following lemma is an auxiliary statement that will be used in that proof.
\[lem:circular\] If $T$ has a unique centroid $c$, then the $c$-subtree $t_\hi$ selected in step (T2) satisfies the following conditions:
1. If $t_\hi=q_1$, then $t_{\hi-1}=q_0$ or $t_1=t_2=\cdots=t_k=q_1$.
2. If $t_\hi\in\{q_2,q_4\}$, then $t_{\hi+1}\in\{q_0,q_1,q_2\}$ or $t_1=t_2=\cdots=t_k=q_4$.
We first prove (a). Among the conditions (i)–(v) that are checked in step (T2), only conditions (ii) and (v) lead to selecting a $c$-subtree that is isomorphic to $q_1$ for $t_\hi$. If condition (ii) holds, then we clearly have $t_{\hi-1}=q_0$ by (i). If condition (v) applies, then all $c$-subtrees $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ of $T$ failed all previous conditions (i)–(iv). In particular, from (ii) we know that $t_i=q_1$ implies that $t_{i-1}\neq q_0$. Moreover, from (iii) we obtain that $t_{i-1}\notin\{q_2,q_4\}$. Combining this with (iv) shows that $t_{i-1}=q_1$. This proves part (a) of the lemma.
It remains to prove part (b). Among the conditions (i)-(v), only conditions (iii) and (v) lead to selecting a $c$-subtree that is isomorphic to $q_2$ or $q_4$ for $t_\hi$. If condition (iii) holds, then we clearly have $t_{\hi+1}\in\{q_0,q_1,q_2\}$. If condition (v) applies, then all $c$-subtrees $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ of $T$ failed all previous conditions (i)–(iv). In particular, from (iii) we know that $t_i\in\{q_2,q_4\}$ implies that $t_{i+1}\notin\{q_0,q_1,q_2\}$. Combining this with (iv) shows that $t_{i+1}=q_4$. This proves part (b) of the lemma.
\[lem:Tn-new\] The graph $\cT_n$ is a spanning tree of $\cH_n$, and for every arc $(T,T')$ in $\cT_n$ we either have $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$ or $\varphi(T)=\varphi(T')-1$. Every plane tree $T$ other than the star $[s_n]$ has exactly one neighbor $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$, which is an out-neighbor or in-neighbor. Furthermore, $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free and nesting-free.
Consider a gluing pair $(x,y)\in G(\cT_n)$ added for a plane tree $T$ with $T=[x]$. By Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\] we have $\varphi(y)=\varphi(x)-1$, i.e., the potential of the trees changes by $-1$ along this arc. On the other hand, consider a gluing pair $(x,y)$ added for a plane tree $T$ with $T=[y]$. By Lemma \[lem:pot-push\] we have $\varphi(x)=\varphi(y)-1$, i.e., the potential of the trees changes by $+1$ along this arc. It follows that in $\cT_n$, every plane tree $T$ other than the star has exactly one neighbor $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$, which is an out-neighbor or in-neighbor. Consequently, $\cT_n$ has no cycles, regardless of the orientation of arcs along the cycle (in particular, there are no loops). As from every plane tree $T\in T_n$, we can reach a tree $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$, there is a path from $T$ to the star $[s_n]$, which is the unique plane tree with minimum potential $n$. We showed that $\cT_n$ does not contain cycles and is connected, i.e., it is a spanning tree.
We now show that $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free. By Lemma \[lem:pot-pull\], for any gluing pair $(x,y)\in G(\cT_n)$ with $\varphi(y)=\varphi(x)-1$ the right subtree of $x$ contains a centroid of $x$. As a centroid is never a leaf, the right subtree of $x$ contains edges, i.e., the root of $x$ is not a leaf. For any gluing pair $(x,y)\in G(\cT_n)$ with $\varphi(x)=\varphi(y)-1$, as $y$ is obtained from $x$ by a push rule, the pushed leaf in $y$ is thick, i.e., the right subtrees of $y$ and $x$ contain edges, and hence the root of $x$ is not a leaf. We can thus apply Lemma \[lem:heavy\] to conclude that $G(\cT_n)$ is interleaving-free.
The remainder of the proof is devoted to showing that $G(\cT_n)$ is nesting-free.
We let $\cS^1$ and $\cS^2$ denote the subgraphs of $\cT_n$ induced by all plane trees with a unique centroid, or with two centroids, respectively. By Lemma \[lem:centroid\], $\cS^1=\cT_n$ and $\cS^2=\emptyset$ for even $n$, whereas $\cS^1$ and $\cS^2$ are both nonempty for odd $n$; see Figures \[fig:t456\] and \[fig:t7\]. For any plane tree $T\neq [s_n]$ in $\cT_n$, consider the tree $T'$ with $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$ that is connected to $T$ in $\cT_n$. By Lemmas \[lem:pot-pull\] and \[lem:pot-push\], if $T$ has a unique centroid, then $T'$ also has a unique centroid. Similarly, if $T$ has two centroids, then $T'$ also has two centroids, except if $T=[d_n]=[d_n']$, in which case $T'=[\push(d_n')]$ has a unique centroid. Consequently, $\cS^1$ and $\cS^2$ are subtrees of $\cT_n$, with only a single arc between them, namely the arc $([\push(d_n')],[d_n'])$.
The following arguments are illustrated in Figure \[fig:nest-free\]. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $G(\cT_n)$ is not nesting-free. Then by Proposition \[prop:Cxy\] (iii), there are gluing pairs $(x,y),(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT_n)$ with $\hx=\rho^{-1}(y)$. We consider the plane trees $T:=[\hx]=[y]$, $T':=[\hy]$, and $T'':=[x]$. We let $a$ denote the leaf in which $\hx$ and $\hy$ differ, which is also the leaf in which $x$ and $y$ differ. Moreover, we let $b$ denote the root of $\hx$, $b'$ the root of $y$, and $b''$ the leftmost child of the root of $x$. As $\hx$ and $x$ are pullable trees, we have $\hx=1\,1\,0\,u'\,0\,w$ and $x=1\,1\,0\,u\,0\,v'$ for $u',w,u,v'\in D$ (recall ). Combining these relations with $\hx=\rho^{-1}(y)$ shows that if $u'=\varepsilon$, then we have $u=w$ and $v'=\varepsilon$ (in particular, $b=b''$), whereas if $u'\neq \varepsilon$, then we have $u'=1\,u\,0\,v$ and $v'=v\,1\,w\,0$. The vertex identifiers $a,b,b',b''$ and the subtree identifiers $u,v,w$ apply to the rooted trees $x,y,\hx,\hy$, but also to the plane trees $T,T',T''$. Note that $\hx=T^{(b,b')}$, $y=T^{(b',a)}$, $\hy=T'^{(b,a)}$, and $x=T''^{(b',b'')}$. We let $c,c',c''$ denote the centroid of $T,T',T''$, respectively, selected in step (D) or (T1), and we let $t,t',t''$ denote the subtrees selected in step (D) or (T2).
![Notations used in the proof that $G(\cT_n)$ is nesting-free. The gray subtrees contain the centroid(s). []{data-label="fig:nest-free"}](tn)
**Case 1:** We first consider the case $u'=\varepsilon$. In this case the leaf $a$ of $T=[\hx]=[y]$ is thin, and so both $T'=[\hy]=[\pull(\hx)]$ and $T''=[x]=[\push(y)]$ have smaller potential than $T$, i.e., we have $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T'')=\varphi(T)-1$. This is impossible however, as $T$ has only a single neighbor in $\cT_n$ with potential $\varphi(T)-1$.
We now consider the case $u'\neq \varepsilon$.
**Case 2a:** $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)+1$ and $\varphi(T'')=\varphi(T)-1$. In this case, the leaf $a$ is thick and pushable to $c'$ in $T'$, implying that $w\neq\varepsilon$, and the leaf $a$ is thick and pushable to $c$ in $T$.
*Subcase 2a(i):* $T,T',T''\in\cS^1$ or $T,T',T''\in\cS^2$. By Lemmas \[lem:pot-pull\] and \[lem:pot-push\], the centroid(s) of $T,T',T''$ are identical. As $a$ is pushable to $c$ and in an active $c$-subtree in $T$, the centroid(s) of $T$ are in $u$, in particular, $c$ is in $u$. As $a$ is in an active $c'$-subtree of $T'$, we must have $c'=c$.
As $\hx$ is obtained from $\hy$ by a push applied to the leaf $a$, one of the push rules (q24), (q5) or (o2) in step (T3) applies to $t'$ in $T'$.
However, rule (q5) does not apply, as the rightmost leaf of $q_5$ is missing in $t'$.
If rule (q24) applies to $t'$, i.e., $t'$ is a path with $q_2$ or $q_4$ attached to it (in particular, $v=\varepsilon$), then $t$ is a path with $q_3$ or $q_5$ attached to it, respectively, i.e., rule (q137) or (q5) apply to $t$ in $T$. However, rule (q137) is a pull rule, not a push rule, a contradiction. If rule (q5) applies to $t$, then this rule applies a push to a leaf in $w$, but not to $a$, a contradiction.
If rule (o2) applies to $t'$ in $T'$, i.e., $\varphi(T')$ is odd and $a$ is the rightmost leaf of $t'$, then $\varphi(T)=\varphi(T')-1$ is even, so rule (o2) does not apply to $t$ in $T$. It remains to check that none of the push rules (q24) or (q5) applies to $t$, either. Rule (q5) does not apply, as the rule does not push $a$, which is the rightmost leaf of $t$, but rather a leaf that is neither the rightmost nor the leftmost leaf of $t$. Rule (q24) does not apply either, as $w\neq \varepsilon$. In each case, we arrive at a contradiction.
*Subcase 2a(ii):* $T=[d_n]\in\cS^2$ and $T''=[\push(d_n')]\in\cS^1$. By rule (D), it suffices to consider the case that the centroids of $T$ are $b'$ and $b''$ and $c=b''$, i.e., we have $u=q_0^{(n-1)/2}$, $v=q_0^{(n-5)/2}$, and $w=\varepsilon$. Then we have $c'=b'$ and rule (q137) of step (T3) applies to the $c'$-subtree $1w100=1100=q_1$ of $T'$, but this is a pull rule, not a push rule, a contradiction.
*Subcase 2a(iii):* $T'=[d_n]\in\cS^2$ and $T=[\push(d_n')]\in\cS^1$. By rule (D), it suffices to consider the case that the centroids of $T'$ are $b$ and $b'$ and $c'=b'$, i.e., we have $u=\varepsilon$ and $v=w=q_0^{(n-3)/2}$. Then $c=b'$ is the unique centroid of $T$, and the leaf $a$ is not pushable to $c$ in $T$, a contradiction.
**Case 2b:** $\varphi(T'')=\varphi(T)+1$ and $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T)-1$. In this case, the leaf $a$ is pullable to $c''$ in $T''$, and the leaf $a$ is thick (due to the vertex $b''$) and pullable to $c$ in $T$.
*Subcase 2b(i):* $T,T',T''\in\cS^1$ or $T,T',T''\in\cS^2$. By Lemmas \[lem:pot-pull\] and \[lem:pot-push\], the centroid(s) of $T,T',T''$ are identical. As $a$ is pullable to $c$ and in an active $c$-subtree in $T$, the centroid(s) of $T$ are in $w$, in particular, $c$ is in $w$. As $a$ is in an active $c''$-subtree of $T''$, we must have $c''=c$.
As $y$ is obtained from $x$ by a pull applied to the leaf $a$, one of the pull rules (q137), (q8), (e) or (o1) in step (T3) applies to $t''$ in $T''$.
However, rule (q8) does not apply, as the leftmost leaf of $q_8$ is missing in $t''$.
If rule (q137) applies to $t''$, i.e., $t''$ is a path with $q_1$, $q_3$, or $q_7$ attached to it (in particular, $u=\varepsilon$), then $t$ is a path with $q_2$, $q_4$, or $q_8$ attached to it, respectively, i.e., rule (q24) or (q8) apply to $t$ in $T$. However, rule (q24) is a push rule, not a pull rule, a contradiction. Also, rule (q8) applies a pull to a leaf in $v$, but not to $a$, a contradiction.
If rule (e) applies to $t''$ in $T''$, i.e., $\varphi(T'')$ is even and $a$ is the leftmost leaf of $t''$, then $\varphi(T)=\varphi(T'')-1$ is odd, so rule (e) does not apply to $t$ in $T$. As $a$ is not the rightmost leaf of $t$ in $T$ due to the edge $(b',b'')$, rule (o1) does not apply to $t$, either. Moreover, none of the remaining pull rules (q137) or (q8) apply to $t$, as they only apply to thin leaves, whereas $a$ is thick in $T$. We arrive at a contradiction.
If rule (o1) applies to $t''$ in $T''$, i.e., $\varphi(T'')$ is odd and $a$ is the rightmost leaf of $t''$, then $\varphi(T)=\varphi(T'')-1$ is even, so rule (o1) does not apply to $t$ in $T$. None of the pull rules (q137) or (q8) apply to $t$ due to the fact that $a$ is thick in $T$, as argued before. Suppose that rule (e) applies to $t$ in $T$, i.e., $a$ is the leftmost leaf of $t$. However, if $a$ is the rightmost leaf of $t''$ and the leftmost leaf of $t$, then as $c''=c$ we obtain that $t$ is a path with $q_2$ attached to it, in which case the push rule (q24) applies to $t$, a contradiction.
*Subcase 2b(ii):* $T''=[d_n]$ or $T=[d_n]$. These cases are impossible as the tree $[d_n]$ has an incoming arc from the tree $[\push(d_n')]$ with lower potential that it is connected to in $\cT_n$, and no outgoing arcs to any such tree.
**Case 2c:** $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T'')=\varphi(T)+1$. In this case, the leaf $a$ is pullable to $c''$ in $T''$, and the leaf $a$ is thick and pushable to $c'$ in $T'$.
*Subcase 2c(i):* $T,T',T''\in\cS^1$ or $T,T',T''\in\cS^2$. By Lemmas \[lem:pot-pull\] and \[lem:pot-push\], the centroid(s) of $T,T',T''$ are identical. As $a$ is pullable to $c''$ and in an active $c''$-subtree in $T''$, the centroid(s) of $T''$ are in $v$ or $w$. Moreover, as $a$ is pushable to $c'$ in $T'$ and in an active $c'$-subtree of $T'$, the centroid(s) of $T'$ are in $v$ or $u$. Combining these observations shows that the centroid(s) are in $v$ and $c'=c''$. As $y$ is obtained from $x$ by a pull applied to the leaf $a$, one of the pull rules (q137), (q8), (e) or (o1) in step (T3) applies to $t''$ in $T''$.
In the following we first assume that the centroid is unique, i.e., $T,T',T''\in\cS^1$, and subsequently we explain how to modify these arguments if $T,T',T''\in\cS^2$.
If rule (q137) applies to $t''$, then due to the edge $(b',b)$, we must have $u=\varepsilon$, $c''=b'$, and $t''=q_1$. Using Lemma \[lem:circular\] (a), it follows that $w=\varepsilon$, or $n$ is even and all $c''$-subtrees of $T''$ are copies of $q_1$. In the first case, the leaf $a$ of $T'$ is thin, a contradiction. In the second case, we have $w=q_0$ and $v=q_1^{(n-4)/2}$. If $n=4$, then $b$ is the unique centroid of $T'$, and not $c'=b'$, a contradiction. If $n\geq 6$, then $v$ consists of at least one copy of $q_1$, and in $T'$, rule (ii) in step (T2) applies to the $c'$-subtree given by the leftmost such copy (as $u=\varepsilon$), and this rule has higher priority than rule (iii) that selects the $c'$-subtree $1w100=110100=q_2$, a contradiction.
If rule (q8) applies to $t''$ in $T''$, i.e., $t''$ is a path with $q_8$ attached to it, then we have $w=\varepsilon$, i.e., $a$ is thin in $T'$, a contradiction.
If rule (e) applies to $t''$ in $T''$, i.e., $\varphi(T'')$ is even and $a$ is the leftmost leaf of $t''$, then for $a$ to be leftmost in $t''$, we must have $c''=b'$ due to the edge $(b',b)$. Also we have $u\notin\{\varepsilon,q_0,q_0^2\}$, otherwise the $c''$-subtree $110u0$ would be equal to $q_1,q_2$, or $q_4$, respectively, and then rule (q137) or (q24) would apply to $t''$ instead of rule (e). Clearly, the push rule (o2) does not apply to $t'$ in $T'$, as $\varphi(T')=\varphi(T'')$ is even. The push rule (q5) does not apply to $t'$ either, as this rule would apply a pull to a leaf in $w$, and not to $a$. If the push rule (q24) applies to $t'$, then we have $1w100\in\{q_2,q_4\}$, i.e., $w=q_0$ or $w=q_0^2$. By Lemma \[lem:circular\] (b), the ccw next $c'$-subtree of $1w100$ in $T'$, namely the tree $1u0$, is from $\{q_0,q_1,q_2\}$, or $n$ is a multiple of 4 and all $c'$-subtrees of $T'$ are isomorphic to $q_4$. In the first case, we get $u\in\{\varepsilon,q_0,q_0^2\}$, a contradiction to the conditions on $u$ derived before. In the second case, we have $w=q_0^2$, i.e., the $c''$-subtree $1w0$ of $T''$ is isomorphic to $q_2$. Moreover, we have $u=q_0^3$, and $v$ consists of $(n-8)/4$ copies of $q_4$. If $n=8$, then $v=\varepsilon$ and the unique centroid of $T''$ is $b''$, not $c''=b'$, a contradiction. If $n\geq 12$, then the rightmost copy of $q_4$ in $v$ has $1w0=q_2$ as its ccw next $c''$-subtree, implying that rule (iii) in step (T2) applies to this subtree. However, the $c''$-subtree $t''=110u0=1101010100$ has 5 edges and is distinct from $q_0,q_1,q_2,q_4$, so it was selected by rule (iv), which has lower priority, a contradiction.
If rule (o1) applies to $t''$ in $T''$, i.e., $\varphi(T'')$ is odd and $a$ is the rightmost leaf of $t''$, then we have $u=\varepsilon$. Moreover, we have $c''\neq b'$, as otherwise rule (q137) would apply to $t''$ instead of rule (o1), i.e., the centroid of $T''$ is in $v$, but not at the root of this subtree. Consequently, the push rule (o2) does not apply to $t'$ in $T'$, as $a$ is not the rightmost leaf of $t'$ due to the edge $(b',b'')$. The push rule (q24) does not apply to $t'$ either, again due to the edge $(b',b'')$, which is missing in $q_2$ and $q_4$. If the push rule (q5) applies to $t'$, i.e., $t'$ is a path with $q_5$ attached to it, then we have $u=\varepsilon$, $w=q_0$ and $t''$ is a path with $q_7$ attached to it. However, then rule (q7) applies to $t''$ in $T''$, and not rule (o1), a contradiction.
If $T,T',T''\in\cS^2$, then the above four cases for the pull rules applied to $t''$ in $T''$ can be adapted as follows: The cases where rule (q8) or (o1) applies to $t''$ are the same, only the cases where the rule (q137) or (e) applies have to be modified, due to the usage of Lemma \[lem:circular\], which only applies if the centroid is unique.
If rule (q137) or (e) applies to $t''$, then we have $c''=b'$ as before. Now $w=\varepsilon$ follows from the fact that in step (T2), $t''$ is selected as the first active $c''$-subtree in ccw order that is not a single edge. But then $a$ is thin in $T'$, a contradiction.
*Subcase 2c(ii):* $T'=[d_n]\in\cS^2$ and $T=[\push(d_n')]\in\cS^1$. By rule (D), it suffices to consider the case that the centroids of $T'$ are $b$ and $b'$ and $c'=b'$, i.e., we have $u=\varepsilon$ and $v=w=(10)^{(n-3)/2}$. Then $c''=b'$ is the unique centroid of $T''$, and we have $11u0=1100=q_1$. However, this $c''$-subtree violates the conditions of Lemma \[lem:circular\] (a), as $w\neq \varepsilon$ and $v$ contains at least one $c''$-subtree that is a single edge, by the assumption $n\geq 4$.
This completes the proof.
Switches {#sec:switch}
========
In this section we develop another systematic way to modify the shift value of flip sequences, which works *without modifying the spanning tree $\cT_n$*, following the ideas outlined in Section \[sec:idea-shift\]. This will allow us to prove Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\leq 38$.
For two bitstrings that differ in a single bit, we write $p(x,y)$ for the position in which $x$ and $y$ differ. We say that a triple of vertices $\tau=(x,y,y')$ with $x\in A_n$, $y,y'\in B_n$ and $y\neq y'$ is a *switch*, if $x$ differs from both $y$ and from $y'$ in a single bit, and $\neck{y}=\neck{y'}$. In the necklace graph $N_n$, a switch can be considered as a multiedge $(\neck{x},\neck{y})=(\neck{x},\neck{y'})$. The *shift* of a switch $\tau=(x,y,y')$, denoted $\lambda(\tau)$, is defined as the integer $i$ such that $y=\sigma^i(y')$. For example $\tau=(1110000,1110001,1111000)$ is a switch, as we have $\neck{1110001}=\neck{1111000}$, and its shift is $\lambda(\tau)=1$, as $1110001=\sigma^{1}(1111000)$. We denote a switch $\tau=(x,y,y')$ compactly by writing $x$ with the 0-bit at position $p(x,y)$ underlined, and the 0-bit at position $p(x,y')$ overlined. The switch $\tau$ from before is denoted compactly as $\tau=111\ol{0}00\ul{0}$. Note that for any switch $\tau=(x,y,y')$, the inverted switch $\tau^{-1}:=(x,y',y)$ has shift $\lambda(\tau^{-1})=-\lambda(\tau)$. For example, for $\tau=111\ol{0}00\ul{0}$, the switch $\tau^{-1}=111\ul{0}00\ol{0}$ has shift $\lambda(\tau^{-1})=-1$. Clearly, cyclically rotating a switch yields another switch with the same shift. Similarly, reversing a switch yields another switch with the negated shift. For example, the switch $\sigma(\tau)=11\ol{0}00\ul{0}1$ has shift $+1$, and its reversed switch $1\ul{0}00\ol{0}11$ has shift $-1$.
Modifying flip sequences by switches
------------------------------------
The idea of a switch $\tau=(x,y,y')$ is simple and yet very powerful: Consider a flip sequence $\alpha=(a_1,\ldots,a_k)$ with shift $\lambda(\alpha)$ for a periodic path $P=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$, and let $x_{k+1}$ be the vertex obtained from $x_k$ by flipping the bit at position $a_k$. If we have $(x_i,x_{i+1})=(x,y)$ for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$, then the modified flip sequence
\[eq:switch\] $$\label{eq:swalpha1}
\alpha':=\big(a_1,\ldots,a_{i-1},p(x,y'),a_{i+1}+\lambda(\tau),\ldots,a_k+\lambda(\tau)\big)$$ produces a periodic path $P'=(x_1',\ldots,x_k')$ that visits necklaces in the same order as $P$, i.e., we have $\neck{x_i}=\neck{x_i'}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,k$, and we have $$\label{eq:swlambda1}
\lambda(\alpha')=\lambda(\alpha)+\lambda(\tau).$$ The situation where $(x_i,x_{i+1})=(x,y')$ is symmetric, and can be analyzed with these equations by considering the inverted switch $\tau^{-1}$ with $\lambda(\tau^{-1})=-\lambda(\tau)$.
Similarly, if we have $(x_i,x_{i+1})=(y',x)$ for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$, then the modified flip sequence $$\label{eq:swalpha2}
\alpha':=\big(a_1,\ldots,a_{i-1},p(x,y)+\lambda(\tau),a_{i+1}+\lambda(\tau),\ldots,a_k+\lambda(\tau)\big)$$ produces a periodic path $P'=(x_1',\ldots,x_k')$ that visits necklaces in the same order as $P$, and we have $$\label{eq:swlambda2}
\lambda(\alpha')=\lambda(\alpha)+\lambda(\tau).$$
Again, the situation where $(x_i,x_{i+1})=(y,x)$ is symmetric, and can be analyzed with these equations by considering the inverted switch $\tau^{-1}$ with $\lambda(\tau^{-1})=-\lambda(\tau)$.
In particular, if $\neck{P}$ is a Hamilton cycle in the necklace graph $N_n$, then $\neck{P'}$ is also a Hamilton cycle in the necklace graph, albeit one whose flip sequence has a different shift (as given by and ).
For example, consider the flip sequence $\alpha=6253462135$, which starting from $x_1=1110000$ produces the periodic path $P=(x_1,\ldots,x_{10})$ and the vertex $x_{11}$ shown on the top left hand side of Figure \[fig:c44\] (recall that we omit the first bit here), and we have $\lambda(\alpha)=+1$. For the switch $\tau=(x,y,y')=101\ol{0}\ul{0}10$ with $\lambda(\tau)=+5$ we have $(x_3,x_4)=(x,y)$, and according to the flip sequence $\alpha'=(6,2,p(x,y'),3+5,4+5,6+5,2+5,1+5,3+5,5+5)=6241247613$ has shift $\lambda(\alpha')=\lambda(\alpha)+\lambda(\tau)=+1+5=+6$ and produces a periodic path $P'$ that visits necklaces in the same order as $P$. The path $P'$ is shown on the top right hand side of Figure \[fig:c44\]. All other columns with shifts $s=2,3,4,5$ in this figure were obtained from the first column by applying the same switching technique, using multiple different switches.
Construction of switches
------------------------
We now describe a systematic way to construct many distinct switches from the canonic switch $\tau=1^n \ol{0}0^{n-1}\ul{0}$, which has shift $\lambda(\tau)=+1$.
For any integers $n\geq 1$, $d\geq 1$ and $1\leq s\leq d$, the *$(s,d)$-orbit* is the maximal prefix of the sequence $s+id$, $i\geq 0$, considered modulo $2n+1$, in which all numbers are distinct. Clearly, the number of distinct $(s,d)$-orbits for fixed $d$ and $s\geq 1$ is $n_d:=\gcd(2n+1,d)$, and the length of each orbit is $\ell_d:=(2n+1)/\gcd(2n+1,d)$. Note that both $n_d$ and $\ell_d$ are odd integers. For example, for $n=10$ and $d=6$ there are $n_d=3$ orbits of length $\ell_d=7$, namely the $(1,6)$-orbit $(1,7,13,19,4,10,16)$, the $(2,6)$-orbit $(2,8,14,20,5,11,17)$, and the $(3,6)$-orbit $(3,9,15,21,6,12,18)$. For any $n\geq 1$, we let $X_n$ denote the set of all binary strings of length $2n$ with exactly $n$ many 0s and $n$ many 1s. For instance, we have $X_2=\{1100,1010,1001,0110,0101,0011\}$.
The base case of our definition is the switch $\tau_{n,1}:=1^n \ol{0}0^{n-1}\ul{0}$, which has shift $\lambda(\tau_{n,1})=+1$. For any integer $2\leq d\leq n$ that is coprime to $2n+1$, we let $\tau_{n,d}$ denote the sequence whose entries at the positions given by the $(1,d)$-orbit equal the sequence $\tau_{n,1}$, including the underlined and overlined bit. In words, $\tau_{n,d}$ is obtained by filling the entries of $\tau_{n,1}$ one by one into every $d$th position of $\tau_{n,d}$, starting at the first one.
For any integer $3\leq d\leq n$ that is not coprime to $2n+1$, we choose an arbitrary bitstring $x=(x_2,\ldots,x_{n_d})\in X_{(n_d-1)/2}$, and we let $\tau_{n,d,x}$ denote the sequence whose entries at the positions given by the $(1,d)$-orbit equal the sequence $\tau_{(\ell_d-1)/2,1}$, including the underlined and overlined bit, and for $j=2,\ldots,n_d$, all entries at the positions given by the $(j,d)$-orbit equal $x_j$. In words, $\tau_{n,d}$ is obtained by filling the entries of $\tau_{(\ell_d-1)/2,1}$ one by one into every $d$th position of $\tau_{n,d}$, starting from the first one, and then filling the gaps between these entries by copies of $x$. Clearly, the number of choices we have for $x$ in this construction is $\binom{n_d-1}{(n_d-1)/2}$.
Note that the construction for coprime $d$ can be understood as a special of the construction for non-coprime $d$ with $n_d=1$ and $x=\varepsilon$.
These definitions are illustrated in Figure \[fig:switch\] for $n=1,\ldots,7$. The next lemma follows immediately from these definitions. It asserts that the sequences $\tau_{n,d}$ and $\tau_{n,d,x}$ defined before are indeed switches with shift $d$.
\[lem:switch\] Let $n\geq 1$. For any integer $1\leq d\leq n$ that is coprime to $2n+1$, the sequence $\tau_{n,d}$ defined before is a switch with $\lambda(\tau_{n,d})=d$. For any integer $3\leq d\leq n$ that is not coprime to $2n+1$ and any bitstring $x\in X_{(n_d-1)/2}$, the sequence $\tau_{n,d,x}$ defined before is a switch with $\lambda(\tau_{n,d,x})=d$.
![All switches for $n=1,\ldots,7$. The switch $\tau_{n,1}$ is shown as the first switch in each block, and the remaining switches are ordered by increasing $d$. The bits flipped by $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are marked light gray and dark gray, respectively. The framed bits belong to a $(1,d)$-orbit for some $d$ that is not coprime to $2n+1$. Whether a switch is $f$-conformal or $f^{-1}$-conformal is indicated by $+$ or $-$, respectively, and by ‘n’ if neither of the two. Similarly, a switch being usable or reversed is indicated by ‘y’=yes and ‘n’=no. The resulting effective shifts are shown in the rightmost column. []{data-label="fig:switch"}](switch)
In fact, every possible switch can be obtained in one of the two ways described by the lemma, and by reversal and cyclic rotations, but this is irrelevant here.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\leq 38$ {#sec:small-proof}
--------------------------------------------
Recall the definition of the function $f$ from . We say that a switch $\tau=(x,y,y')$ is *$f$-conformal*, if $y=f(x)$ or if $x=f(y')$, and then we refer to $(x,y)$ or $(y',x)$, respectively, as the *$f$-edge* of the switch. Also, we say that $\tau$ is *$f^{-1}$-conformal*, if the inverted switch $\tau^{-1}$ is $f$-conformal, and we refer to the $f$-edge of $\tau^{-1}$ also as the $f$-edge of $\tau$. A switch being $f$-conformal means that its $f$-edge belongs to a periodic path defined in .
Given a set of nesting-free gluing pairs $G\subseteq G_n$, we say that an $f$-conformal or $f^{-1}$-conformal switch $\tau$ is *usable w.r.t. $G$*, if for every gluing pair $(\hx,\hy)\in G$ and all $i\geq 0$, the three $f$-edges of the gluing cycle $\sigma^i(C(\hx,\hy))$ defined in , i.e., the edges $\sigma^i((\hx^0,\hx^1))$, $\sigma^i((\hx^5,\hx^6))$ and $\sigma^i((\hy^0,\hy^1))$ as defined in are distinct from the $f$-edges of $\tau$. Recall from and that the three $f$-edges are *removed* when joining periodic paths, so a switch whose $f$-edge is one of the removed edges would not be relevant for us. We also say that a usable switch $\tau$ is *reversed*, if the $f$-edge of $\tau$ lies on the reversed path of one of the gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(\hx,\hy))$, $(\hx,\hy)\in G$, for some $i\geq 0$, i.e., on the path $\sigma^i((\hx^1,\ldots,\hx^5))$.
For an $f$-conformal usable switch $\tau$ that is not reversed, the modifications to the flip sequence described by change the shift by $+\lambda(\tau)$, and for an $f^{-1}$-conformal usable switch that is not reversed, they change the shift by $+\lambda(\tau^{-1})=-\lambda(\tau)$. On the other hand, if the switch is reversed, then the sign of these changes is inverted. We refer to this quantity as the *effective shift* of $\tau$, and we denote it by $\lambda^e(\tau)$; see Figure \[fig:switch\]. Essentially, the effective shift of $\tau$ is the shift $\lambda(\tau)$ with the sign determined by $f$-conformality (multiplied by $-1$ iff $f^{-1}$-conformal) and reversed (multiplied by $-1$ iff reversed). The effective shift describes by how much the shift of the flip sequence along a periodic path changes when applying the aforementioned switching technique using this switch.
To check whether $\tau$ is usable, we consider its $f$-edge, and we distinguish two cases: If the $f$-edge of $\tau$ is $(x,y)$ with $x\in A_n$ and $y\in B_n$, then we only need to check that $(x,y)\notin\{\sigma^i((\hx^0,\hx^1)),\sigma^i((\hy^0,\hy^1))\mid (\hx,\hy)\in G\wedge i\geq 0\}$. Recall from that $\hx^0=1\,1\,0\,u\,0\,v\,0$ and $\hy^0=1\,0\,1\,u\,0\,v\,0$ for some $u,v\in D$, so if $x':=\sigma^{\ell(x)}(x)$ with $\ell(x)$ as in Lemma \[lem:rot\] satisfies $$\label{eq:usable1}
\tag{i}
x'=1\,1\,1\cdots,$$ i.e., the first three bits of $x'$ are 1s (the first bit is always 1), then $\tau$ is usable for *every $G$*. On the other hand, if the $f$-edge of $\tau$ is $(y',x)$ with $y'\in B_n$ and $x\in A_n$, we only need to check that $(y',x)\notin\{\sigma^i((\hx^5,\hx^6))\mid (\hx,\hy)\in G\wedge i\geq 0\}$. Recall from that $\hx^6=1\,0\,0\,u\,1\,v\,0$ for some $u,v\in D$, and therefore $\sigma^{\ell(\hx^6)}(\hx^6)=\sigma^3(\hx^6)=u\,1\,v\,0\,1\,0\,0$, so if $x':=\sigma^{\ell(x)}(x)$ satisfies $$\label{eq:usable2}
\tag{ii}
x'=\cdots 0\,0\,0,$$ i.e., the last three bits of $x'$ are 0s (the last two bits are always 0s), then $\tau$ is usable for *every $G$*. On the other hand, if $x'=\cdots 1\,0\,0$, then we may consider the last five bits of $x'$, and if $$\label{eq:usable3}
\tag{iii}
x'=\cdots 1\,0\,1\,0\,0,$$ then this implies that the substring $v$ of $\hx^6$ satisfies $v=\varepsilon$, i.e., the right subtree of $\hx$ and $\hy$ in the gluing pair $(\hx,\hy)$ is empty. This is in principle possible for arbitrary sets of gluing pairs $G$, but not for the ones arising from our spanning tree $\cT_n\subseteq \cH_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn-new\]. Specifically, if $G=G(\cT_n)$, then recall from the proof of Lemma \[lem:Tn-new\] that for all gluing pairs $(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT_n)$, the root of $\hx$ is not a leaf, i.e., for such an $\hx=1\,u\,0\,v$ with $u,v\in D$, we have $v\neq \varepsilon$. We can thus conclude from that $\tau$ is usable w.r.t. $G=G(\cT_n)$. If none of the sufficient conditions – applies, we can still check whether $\tau$ is usable by considering the definition of $\cT_n$ in more detail.
To check whether $\tau$ is reversed, we consider its $f$-edge $(x,y)$ with $x\in A_n$ and $y\in B_n$, or its $f$-edge $(y',x)$ with $y'\in B_n$ and $x\in A_n$, and if both rooted trees $x':=\rho^{-1}(t(x))\in D_n$ and $x'':=\rho^{-2}(x)(t(x))\in D_n$ (recall Proposition \[prop:Fn\] (i)) do not have the form or have a root that is a leaf, i.e., we have $$\label{eq:not-reversed}
\begin{split}
x'&\in\{1\,0\,\cdots, 1\,1\,1\,\cdots\} \text{ or the root of $x'$ is a leaf}, \\
\text{ and } x''&\in\{1\,0\,\cdots,1\,1\,1\,\cdots\} \text{ or the root of $x''$ is a leaf},
\end{split}$$ then the switch is *not* reversed. If this sufficient condition does not apply, checking whether a switch is reversed or not requires considering the definition of $\cT_n$ in more detail.
For $n=1$ we can use the flip sequence $\alpha_0:=21$ for $s=1$ and $\alpha_0:=31$ for $s=2$, starting from $x_1:=1100$. For $n=2$ we can use $\alpha_0:=5135$ for $s=1$, $\alpha_0:=3241$ for $s=2$, $\alpha_0:=5142$ for $s=3$, and $\alpha_0:=3253$ for $s=4$, starting from $x_1:=111000$. For $n=3$ and $1\leq s\leq 2n=6$ valid solutions are given in Figure \[fig:c44\].
For the rest of the proof we assume that $n\geq 4$. We consider the spanning tree $\cT_n\subseteq\cH_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn-new\]. As explained in Section \[sec:first\], based on the spanning tree $\cT_n$, we define a periodic path $P$ with starting vertex $x_1:=1^n0^{n+1}$ and second vertex $f(x_1)$ in the middle levels graph $M_n$, such that $\neck{P}$ is a Hamilton cycle in the necklace graph $N_n$, and the shift of the corresponding flip sequence $\alpha(P)$ is given by . As the spanning tree $\cT_n$ is nesting-free by Lemma \[lem:Tn-new\], all signs $\gamma_T\in\{-1,+1\}$ in this sum are positive, and we therefore have $\lambda(\alpha(P))=C_n$ by , with $C_n$ being the $n$th Catalan number.
We modify the flip sequence $\alpha(P)$ as described by by a set $S$ of $f$-conformal or $f^{-1}$-conformal switches that are usable w.r.t. to the nesting-free set of gluing pairs $G=G(\cT_n)$. This yields a path $P'$ that visits necklaces in the same order as $P$, and the corresponding flip sequence $\alpha'(S)$ has shift $$\label{eq:lambda-S}
\lambda(\alpha'(S))=C_n+\sum_{\tau\in S}\lambda^e(\tau),$$ where $\lambda^e(\tau)$ is the effective shift of $\tau$. We aim to choose $S$ so that this sum has any possible value $s$ that is coprime to $2n+1$. For this it is enough to choose $S$ so that modulo $2n+1$, any possible value in $\{0,\ldots,2n\}$ can be achieved.
To this end, we say that a multiset $S$ of integers is *$m$-complete* if modulo $m$ every possible number in $\{0,\ldots,m-1\}$ arises as a sum of a subset of $S$. For example, the multiset $\{-1,+2,-3,+5,+5\}$ is 17-complete, as for $S_0:=\emptyset$, $S_1:=\{-1,+2\}$, $S_2:=\{+2\}$, $S_3:=\{-1,+2,-3,+5\}$, $S_4:=\{-1,+5\}$, $S_5:=\{+5\},\ldots,S_{14}:=\{-3\}$, $S_{15}:=\{-1,+2,-3\}$, $S_{16}:=\{-1\}$ we have $\sum_{x\in S_i}=i$ modulo 17 for all $i=0,\ldots,16$.
Appendix \[sec:app\] shows for every $4\leq n\leq 38$ a set $S'$ of $f$-conformal or $f^{-1}$-conformal switches (each row in the tables contains one switch), all of which were constructed via Lemma \[lem:switch\]. All of these switches and their cyclic rotations are usable w.r.t. $G=G(\cT_n)$, and the conditions – that apply to obtain this are listed in the last column of these tables. In the four exceptional cases marked by –, none of these conditions applies. However, the gluing pair $(\hx,\hy)\in G_n$ for which an $f$-edge of the gluing cycle $\sigma^i(C(\hx,\hy))$ for some $i\geq 0$ coincides with the $f$-edge of this switch is still *not* in the set $G(\cT_n)$, which can be checked by straightforward calculations, using the definition of $\cT_n$ and considering the left and right subtrees $u,v\in D$ of $\hx$, which are as follows in these four cases: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:uv4} \tag{iv1} (u,v)&=(10,10), \\
\label{eq:uv5} \tag{iv2} (u,v)&=(10,1010), \\
\label{eq:uv11} \tag{iv3} (u,v)&=(10,1011011010010010), \\
\label{eq:uv15} \tag{iv4} (u,v)&=(1011011010010010,1011010010).
% last case: the relevant subtree ***is*** selected in step~(T2) as it has 7 edges, but the potential is even, so it turns out ok\end{aligned}$$ The first switch in each of the tables in the appendix is reversed (marked with ‘R’ in the last column), as its $f$-edge lies on the reversed path of the gluing cycle $\sigma^{2}(C(\hx,\hy))$ for $(\hx,\hy):=(11001^{n-2}0^{n-2},\pull(\hx))$ and we have $(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT_n)$ by the definition of $\cT_n$. No other switch in the tables is reversed, which can be verified in each case by applying condition . The resulting effective shift for each switch is listed in the second-to-last column of the tables. Moreover, the corresponding multisets of integers $\{\lambda^e(\tau)\mid \tau\in S'\}$ can easily be checked to be $(2n+1)$-complete.
It follows that for each of these values of $n$ and for any $1\leq s\leq 2n$ that is coprime to $2n+1$, there is a subset $S\subseteq S'$ such that the flip sequence $\alpha'(S)$ obtained by applying a suitable cyclic rotation of each switch $\tau\in S$ has a shift of $\lambda(\alpha'(S))=s$ by . We may then define $\alpha_0:=\alpha'(S)$, and the remaining $\alpha_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,2n$ as in , and from there we complete the proof as explained in Section \[sec:first\].
Discussion of the switching technique
-------------------------------------
To control the shift value of flip sequences, the switching technique described before is undoubtedly much more elegant than the spanning tree modification described in Section \[sec:lollipop\]. It also yields much nicer Gray codes, as the order of necklaces remains unchanged under switching. Unfortunately, despite considerable efforts, we failed to make the switching technique work for general values of $n$. In particular, it is not even known what the value of the $n$th Catalan number modulo $(2n+1)$ is; recall . For $n\geq 2$ and $2n+1$ being prime, this value is $+2$ or $-2$, as can be shown easily, but things are much more complicated for non-prime values $2n+1$. The first few entries of this sequence are $1,2,-2,-4,-2,2,-6,2,-2,-4,-2,12,-5,2,-2,\ldots=1,2,5,5,9,2,9,2,17,17,21,12,22,2,29,\ldots$. While Lemma \[lem:switch\] is a very powerful tool to provide us with many distinct switches (in fact, all possible switches), we have unfortunately little control over which of them are $f$-conformal or $f^{-1}$-conformal. The proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for small $n$ and several computer experiments that we performed suggest that there are enough conformal and usable switches available for all $n$, but we are unable to prove this. We can systematically construct conformal switches that yield $(2n+1)$-complete sets of effective shift values only in the following two cases: $n$ being a power of 2, or $2n+1$ having two large factors. We failed to do so in general, in particular in the case when $2n+1$ is prime. It is not even clear which multisets of integers one should aim for to obtain a $(2n+1)$-complete set, which is an interesting purely number-theoretic problem. While some general sufficient criteria in this direction are known (see e.g. [@MR2450344]), none of them seem to be applicable in our situation. Overall, it remains open whether the switching technique can be used for every $n$, which would simplify our proofs.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:algo\] {#sec:algo}
=============================
Our algorithm to compute a star transposition ordering of $(n+1,n+1)$-combinations is a faithful implementation of the constructive proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] presented in Section \[sec:large-proof\] for $n\geq 39$ and in Section \[sec:small-proof\] for $n\leq 38$. For the reasons discussed at the beginning of Section \[sec:new-tree\], in both cases we use the spanning tree $\cT_n$ of $\cH_n$ defined in Section \[sec:Tn-new\]. This is possible, as the proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\geq 39$ works also with this redefined spanning tree $\cT_n$. In particular, Proposition \[prop:lollipop\] (iv) also holds for this spanning tree $\cT_n$. To see this, in addition to the leaves of all plane trees in $L_\beta$ that are pushable from the centroid, we now also have to consider all leaves that are pullable from the centroid (marked by black squares in Figure \[fig:lolli2\]), and that yield a plane tree not in $L_\beta$. However, this gives exactly the plane trees $T_\beta^1$, $T_\beta^2$, $\tT_\beta^2$, and $T_\beta^3$. As each of these trees has a unique arm with 7 edges that is considered with highest priority by rule (i) in step (T2), these trees are not connected to a tree in $L_\beta$ in $\cT_n$.
In the following we outline the key data structures and computation steps performed by our algorithm. For more details, see the C++ implementation available at [@cos_middle]. We maintain the following data structures:
- the bitstring representation $x\in A_n\cup B_n$ of the current $(n+1,n+1)$-combination;
- the position $\ell(x)$ from where to read the rooted tree $t(x)$ in $x$;
- the plane tree $T=[t(x)]$ and its centroid(s).
The space required by these data structures is clearly $\cO(n)$.
There are two types of steps that we encounter in our algorithm: An *$f$-step* is simply an application of the mapping $f$ defined in to the current bitstring $x$, which corresponds to following one of the basic flip sequences. Such a step incurs only a rotation of the tree $t(x)$ (recall ), and therefore the plane tree $T=[t(x)]=[\rho(t(x))]$ is not modified. On a subpath that is reversed by a gluing cycle, we apply $f^{-1}$ and inverse tree rotation $\rho^{-1}(t(x))$ instead. A *pull/push step* is more complicated, and corresponds to following one of the edges of a gluing cycles $\sigma^i(C(\hx,\hy))$, $i\geq 0$, $(\hx,\hy)\in G(\cT_n)$ for some arc $([\hx],[\hy])$ in the spanning tree $\cT_n$. Such a step also modifies the plane tree $T=[t(x)]$ by applying a pull or push operation to one of its leaves. All these updates can easily be done in time $\cO(n)$.
For deciding whether to perform an $f$-step or a pull/push step, the following computations are performed on the current plane tree $T=[t(x)]$, following the steps (T1)–(T3) described in Section \[sec:Tn-new\]:
- compute a centroid $c$ of $T$ and its potential $\varphi(c)$ as in step (T1) in time $\cO(n)$ (see [@MR396308]);
- compute the lexicographic subtree ordering as in step (T1) in time $\cO(n)$. In the case where the centroid is unique, this is achieved by Booth’s algorithm [@MR585391]. Specifically, to compute the lexicographically smallest ccw ordering $(t_1,\ldots,t_k)$ of the $c$-subtrees of $T$ we insert $-1$s as separators between the bitstring representations $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ of the subtrees, i.e., we consider the string $z:=(-1,t_1,-1,\ldots,-1,t_k)$. This trick makes Booth’s algorithm return a cyclic rotation of $z$ that starts with $-1$, and it is easy to check that this rotation is also the one that minimizes the cyclic subtree ordering $(t_1,\ldots,t_k)$.
- compute a $c$-subtree of $T$ and one of its leaves as in steps (T2) and (T3) in Section \[sec:Tn-new\] in time $\cO(n)$.
Overall, the decision which type of step to perform next takes time $\cO(n)$ to compute.
Upon initialization, the algorithm once computes the value of the $n$th Catalan number $C_n$ modulo $2n+1$ in time $\cO(n^2)$, using Segner’s recurrence relation. For $n\leq 38$ we proceed as follows: With the shift $s$ specified as input to the algorithm, we compute $r\in\{0,\ldots,2n\}$ such that $C_n+r=s$ modulo $2n+1$, and we consider a precomputed set of switches $S\subseteq S'$ with $S'$ as specified in the tables in the appendix such that $\sum_{\tau\in S}\lambda^e(\tau)=r$. Whenever we encounter a switch in the course of the algorithm, which can be detected in time $\cO(n)$, we perform a modified flip as described by . Each time this happens, the position $\ell(x)$ has to be recomputed, while the plane tree $T=[t(x)]$ does not change.
On the other hand, for $n\geq 39$ we proceed as follows: With the shift $s$ specified as input, we compute $r\in\{0,\ldots,2n\}$ such that $C_n+2\cdot r=s$ modulo $2n+1$. We then use the spanning tree $\cT_n(\chi)$ defined in for the sign sequence $\chi$ whose first $r$ entries are equal to $-$, and all others are equal to $+$. Recall that $\chi$ has length $2^k$ with $k$ as defined in , and $2^k\geq 2n\geq r$ by the assumption $n\geq 39$. As $\cT_n$ is nesting-free by Lemma \[lem:Tn-new\], we have $\gamma_T=+1$ for all $T\in T_n$ in , except for the tree $L^0_\beta\in L_\beta$ for each $\beta$ with $\chi_\beta=-$, which satisfies $\lambda(L^0_\beta)=2n$ by Proposition \[prop:lollipop\] (ii). Consequently, the shift of the corresponding flip sequence evaluates to $\lambda(\alpha(P(\chi)))=\sum_{T\in T_n}\lambda(T)-4n\cdot r$, which equals $C_n+2\cdot r$ by and the fact that $-4n=+2$ modulo $2n+1$, and this is equal to $s$ by the definition of $r$. Working with $\cT_n(\chi)$ instead of $\cT_n$ requires bypassing the aforementioned decision routine in the cases where the current plane tree $T=[t(x)]$ belongs to one of the sets $L_\beta\cup\{T^5_\beta\}$ defined in , which can easily be detected in time $\cO(n)$.
Summarizing, the algorithm described before runs in time $\cO(n)$ in each step, using $\cO(n)$ memory in total, and it requires time $\cO(n^2)$ for initialization.
Usable switches for $n\leq 38$ {#sec:app}
==============================
The following tables show the sets $S'$ of switches used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:star\] for $n\leq 38$.
\[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{}
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & $-3$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & $-3$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & $-5$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $-7$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+8$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $-9$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & $-3$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $-11$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+8$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+12$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+10$ &\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+14$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+8$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-11$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-11$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+10$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $+10$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+12$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-13$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-13$ &\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+16$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $-19$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+8$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+10$ &\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+12$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-11$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-13$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $-21$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+10$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-13$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & $+14$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-15$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $-23$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $+14$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+10$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-13$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-17$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-17$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+12$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-17$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & $+22$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+10$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-15$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-15$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-11$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+14$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-19$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-15$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-17$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-19$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $-29$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+10$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+12$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & $+14$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+20$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $+14$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+14$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+10$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+20$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $+20$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-13$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-17$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+20$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-13$ &\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+20$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-23$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-9$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+10$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-13$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+14$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-19$ &\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+22$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & $+6$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+8$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+12$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $+18$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-21$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-5$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+10$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $+10$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & $+14$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-15$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $+30$ &\
[x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}x[2mm]{}|x[7mm]{}l]{} & $\lambda^e$ & usable\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 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 & 0 & & $+1$ & R\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & & & $+2$ &\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & & 0 & & 1 & $+4$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $-7$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $-11$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $+14$ &\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & $+14$ &\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & $+14$ &\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We construct Zollfrei Lorentzian metrics on every nontrivial orientable circle bundle over a orientable closed surface. Further we prove a weaker version of Guillemin’s conjecture assuming global hyperbolicity of the universal cover.'
address: 'Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Hamburg'
author:
- Stefan Suhr
title: 'A Counterexample to Guillemin’s Zollfrei Conjecture'
---
Introduction {#last}
============
In[^1] [@guill1] a pseudo-Riemannian metric $g$ on a compact manifold $M$ is called [*Zollfrei*]{} if the geodesic flow of $(M,g)$ induces the structure of a fibration by circles on the set of lightlike nonzero vectors $\{g(v,v)=0,v\neq 0\}\subseteq TM$. In particular every lightlike geodesic of a Zollfrei metric is closed. We will call manifolds that admit a Zollfrei metric [*Zollfrei*]{} as well.
It is not difficult to classify all Zollfrei surfaces. [@guill1] shows that every Zollfrei surface $(M,g)$ admits a finite cover $(M',g')$, which is globally conformal to $({\mathbb R}^2/{\mathbb Z}^2, \underline{dxdy})$ where $x$ and $y$ are the canonical coordinates on ${\mathbb R}^2$ and $\underline{dxdy}$ denotes the metric induced by $dxdy:=
\frac{1}{2}(dx\otimes dy+dy \otimes dx)$. However already for $3$-manifolds the questions of determining the diffeomorphism type of a manifold admitting a Zollfrei metric is wide open. Besides the examples described in [@guill1], called [*standard examples*]{}, none were known so far. The manifolds of the standard examples all have one of the four diffeomorphism types of compact manifolds with universal cover $S^2\times{\mathbb R}$ (see [@tollefson]), i.e. $S^2\times S^1$ and the three manifolds with double cover $S^2\times S^1$ corresponding to the three involutions of $S^2\times S^1$:
- $(x,y,z,t)\mapsto (-x,-y,-z,t)$
- $(x,y,z,t)\mapsto (-x,-y,-z,t+\pi)$
- $(x,y,z,t)\mapsto (-x,-y,z,t+\pi)$ .
Here the $2$-sphere is considered as the submanifold $\{x^2+y^2+z^2=1\}$ of ${\mathbb R}^3$. The standard examples all lift to a metric $g_{can}-\lambda dt^2$ on $S^2\times {\mathbb R}$, where $g_{can}$ is the canonical round sphere metric of radius one and $\lambda >0$.
In 1989 V. Guillemin conjectured in his book [@guill1], page 8:
Every Zollfrei manifold in dimension three has the same diffeomorphism type as one of the standard examples.
In this article we will give a counterexample to the Conjecture.
\[T1\] Every nontrivial orientable circle bundle over a closed and orientable surface admits Zollfrei metrics.
Note that the Gysin sequence for the integral cohomology implies that the different circle-bundles over different surfaces are nonhomeomorphic.
It is well known that the lightlike geodesics of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold are invariant, as unparameterized curves, under global conformal changes of the metric. Therefore Theorem \[T1\] in fact yields an infinite-dimensional family of Zollfrei metrics.
Proof {#last4}
=====
The Theorem of Boothby and Wang [@boowa]
----------------------------------------
Following [@geiges], section 7.2., we call a vector field [*regular*]{} if around every point there exists a flow box that every flow line intersects at most once. We call a contact form $\alpha$ on an odd dimensional manifold [*regular*]{} if the Reeb vector field ${\mathcal{R}}$ of $\alpha$ is regular.
Let $\pi\colon M\to B$ be a principal circle bundle and ${\mathcal{R}}\in\Gamma(TM)$ tangent to the fibres with $2\pi$-periodic flow, i.e. ${\mathcal{R}}$ generates the circle action on $M$. Then, following [@geiges], a differential $1$-form $\alpha\in \Omega^1(M)$ is a [*connection $1$-form*]{} if (1) $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{R}}(\alpha)\equiv 0$ and (2) $\alpha({\mathcal{R}})=1$. Note that here we explicitly assume the identification $i\cdot{\mathbb R}\cong {\mathbb R}$. Conditions (1) and (2) imply that there exists a well defined closed $2$-form $\omega$, called the [*curvature form*]{}, defined by $\pi^*\omega =d\alpha$. The class $-\left[\frac{\omega}{2\pi}\right]\in H^2(B,{\mathbb Z})$ is called the [*Euler class*]{} of the bundle $\pi\colon M\to B$.
Let $(B,\omega)$ be a closed symplectic manifold with integral symplectic form $\omega/2\pi$. Let $\pi\colon M \rightarrow B$ be the principal $S^1$-bundle with Euler class $-\left[\frac{\omega}{2\pi}\right] \in H^2(B,{\mathbb Z})$. Then there is a connection $1$-form $\alpha$ on $M$ with the following properties:
- $\alpha$ is a regular contact form,
- the curvature form of $\alpha$ is $\omega$,
- the vector field ${\mathcal{R}}$ defining the principal circle action on $M$ coincides with the Reeb vector field of $\alpha$.
Let $(B,g)$ be a smooth closed surface with constant curvature $K$ and volume form $\text{dvol}^g$ such that $\text{vol}(B,g)\in 2\pi {\mathbb Z}$. Then $\frac{\text{dvol}^g}{2\pi}$ is an integral symplectic form. Denote with $\pi\colon M\to B$ the $S^1$-principle bundle over $B$ with Euler class $-\left[\frac{\text{dvol}^g}{2\pi}\right]\in H^2(B,{\mathbb Z})$. Define for $\phi \in (0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ the Lorentzian metric $$h_\phi :=\pi^* g-\cot^2\phi\cdot \alpha\otimes\alpha$$ on $M$. Note that $\pi-2\phi$ is the opening angle of the light cones of $h_\phi$ around ${\mathcal{R}}$. The Reeb vector field ${\mathcal{R}}$ of $\alpha$ is a timelike Killing vector field of $h_\phi$, i.e. $(M,h_\phi)$ is stationary spacetime. Denote with $\Phi$ the flow of ${\mathcal{R}}$.
Note that in the case of $B\cong S^2$ and $K=4$ we can describe $h_\phi$ as the pseudo-Riemannian analogues to the Berger spheres [@berger]. Consider the canonical embedding $i\colon S^3\hookrightarrow \mathbb{H}\cong {\mathbb R}^4$ into the Quaternions and the orthonormal frame field $(\mathcal{I},
\mathcal{J},\mathcal{K})$ with ${\mathcal{I}}\colon x\mapsto i\cdot x$, ${\mathcal{J}}\colon x\mapsto j\cdot x$ and ${\mathcal{K}}\colon x\mapsto k\cdot x$. By $({\mathcal{I}}^\ast,{\mathcal{J}}^\ast,{\mathcal{K}}^\ast)$ denote the dual frame field. Let $\langle.,.\rangle$ be the canonical scalar product on ${\mathbb R}^4$. Then we know that ${\mathcal{I}}^*=\alpha$ and ${\mathcal{R}}={\mathcal{I}}$ for $(B,g)=({\mathbb C}P^1,g_{FS})$ where $g_{FS}$ denotes the Fubini-Studi metric. Further it follows that $$h_\phi(x):=i^*\langle .,.\rangle -\frac{1}{\sin^2\phi}{\mathcal{I}}^\ast \otimes {\mathcal{I}}^\ast={\mathcal{J}}^\ast\otimes {\mathcal{J}}^\ast+{\mathcal{K}}^\ast\otimes {\mathcal{K}}^\ast-\cot^2(\phi) {\mathcal{I}}^\ast\otimes {\mathcal{I}}^\ast.$$
The Arrival Time {#S2.2}
----------------
Following [@cjm] we will call a Lorentzian manifold $(\mathcal{M},g)$ [*standard stationary*]{} iff $\mathcal{M}$ splits into a product $\mathcal{M}_0\times {\mathbb R}$ with $$\label{NE1}
g(x,t)[(v,\tau),(v,\tau)]=g_0(x)[v,v]+2g_0(x)[\delta(x),v]\tau-\beta(x)\tau^2$$ where $(x,t)\in \mathcal{M}_0\times {\mathbb R}$, $(v,\tau)\in T_x \mathcal{M}_0\times {\mathbb R}$, $g_0$ is a Riemannian metric on $\mathcal{M}_0$, $\delta$ a smooth vector field on $\mathcal{M}_0$ and $\beta$ a positive smooth function on $\mathcal{M}_0$.
Denote with $F$ the Finsler metric on $\mathcal{M}_0$ given by $$F(x,v):=\sqrt{\tilde{g}_0(x)[v,v]+\tilde{g}_0(x)[\delta(x),v]^2}+\tilde{g}_0(x)[\delta(x),v]$$ where $\tilde{g}_0:=g_0/\beta$. We have the following [*Fermat’s principle*]{}:
\[T2\] Let $(\mathcal{M},g)$ be a standard stationary spacetime and $(x_0,t_0)\in \mathcal{M}$, $s\in{\mathbb R}\mapsto \gamma(s)=(x_1,s)\in \mathcal{M}$, $x_1\in \mathcal{M}_0$. A curve $s\in [0,1]\to z(s)=(x(s),t(s))\in\mathcal{M}$ is a future pointing lightlike geodesic of $(\mathcal{M},g/\beta)$ if and only if $x(s)$ is a geodesic for the Fermat metric $F$, parameterized to have constant Riemannian speed $h(x)[\dot{x},\dot{x}]=\widetilde{g}_0(x)[\delta(x),\dot{x}]^2+\widetilde{g}_0[\dot{x},\dot{x}]$, and $$\label{NE2}
t(s)=\int_0^s \left(\widetilde{g}_0(x)[\delta(x),\dot{x}]+\sqrt{\widetilde{g}_0(x)[\delta(x),\dot{x}]^2+\widetilde{g}_0[\dot{x},\dot{x}]}\right)d\nu.$$
Recall that the lightlike geodesics of $(\mathcal{M}_0\times {\mathbb R},g)$ are reparameterizations of the lightlike geodesics of $(\mathcal{M}_0\times {\mathbb R},\tilde{g})$.
The Global Construction
-----------------------
We want to apply the reasoning of Theorem \[T2\] to the lightlike geodesics of $(M,h_\phi)$. It is clear that these Lorentzian manifold are not standard stationary. But we can consider the problem locally. Choose a $h_\phi$-spacelike immersion $I\colon D^2\to M$, i.e. $I^* h_\phi >0$. Then the map $\Phi_I\colon D^2\times {\mathbb R}\to M$, $(p,t)\mapsto \Phi(I(p),t)$ is an immerison of $D^2\times {\mathbb R}$. It follows that $(D^2\times {\mathbb R},(\Phi_I)^\ast h_\phi)$ is a standard stationary Lorentzian spacetime in the sense of [@cjm].
\[R2\] Consider the arrival time $t_x$ for a closed curve $x\colon[a,b]\to D^2$ as defined by . Then $[t_x(b)-t_x(a)] \text{mod}\;2\pi$ quantifies the obstruction of the lightlike curve $s\mapsto \Phi_I(x(s),t_x(s))$ to being closed in $M$. This follows from the fact that the map $\Phi_I$ is $2\pi$-periodic in the ${\mathbb R}$-factor. So if the arrival time is a rational multiple of $2\pi$, e.g. $t_x(b)-t_x(a)=\frac{p}{q}2\pi$, then $s\mapsto \Phi(x^q(s),t_{x^q}(s))$ is closed.
We will now give a [*coordinate invariant*]{} description of the arrival time, i.e. a functional for curves in the orbit space $B$. Let $I\colon D^2\to M$ be a spacelike immersion as before. We express the components of in terms of objects defined on $B$. We immediately see that $\widetilde{g}_0= \frac{1}{-h_\phi({\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{R}})}I^* h_\phi$. Next define $\underline{Y}:=Y-\frac{h_\phi (Y,{\mathcal{R}})}{h_\phi ({\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{R}})} {\mathcal{R}}$ for $Y\in TM$. Then on one side we have $h_\phi(\underline{Y},\underline{Y})=g(\pi_\ast Y,\pi_\ast Y)$. One the other side we have $$h_\phi(\underline{Y},\underline{Y})=-h_\phi({\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{R}})\left(\frac{h_\phi(Y,Y)}{-h_\phi({\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{R}})}+\frac{h_\phi(Y,{\mathcal{R}})^2}{h_\phi({\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{R}})^2}\right).$$ From follows that $\widetilde{g}_0(\delta(x),.)=\frac{I^* h_\phi({\mathcal{R}},.)}{-h_\phi({\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{R}})}=-I^*\alpha$. Combining the equations we get $$F(x,v)=\sqrt{\frac{(\pi\circ I)^*g(v,v)}{-h_\phi({\mathcal{R}},{\mathcal{R}})}}-I^*\alpha(v)=\tan\phi\cdot\sqrt{(\pi\circ I)^*g(v,v)}-I^*\alpha(v).$$
Spacelike immersions $I\colon D^2\to M$ are induced for example by certain local section of $\pi\colon M\to B$. Therefore for $U\subseteq B$ contractible and a section $s\colon U\to M$ such that the image of $s$ is spacelike, we can define $F_U$ via the previous formula. Note that a global version of $F_U$ does not exists, as $M$ is nontrivial. In our case this comes from the fact that $\alpha$ has no well defined counterpart on $B$. But $d\alpha$ has a well defined counterpart on $B$ in the form of $\text{dvol}^g$. So the global version of the arrival time functional, we are looking for, is no longer well defined on curves $\gamma\colon I\to B$, but instead is defined for (e.g.) smooth maps $f\colon S\to B$ where $S$ is a compact oriented $2$-manifold with nonempty boundary. From this point of view the [*arrival time functional*]{} for a map $f\colon S\to B$ is $$cp_\phi(f):=\tan\phi\cdot L^{g}(f|_{\partial S})+\int_S f^\ast (-\text{dvol}^{g})$$ where $L^{g}$ denotes the length functional of $g$. Following [@tai1] we will call functionals like $cp_\phi$ [*charged particles*]{}.
The critical points of $cp_\phi$ describe the periodic orbits of a charged particle on $(B,\tan(\phi)\cdot g)$ moving under the influence of the “magnetic field” $-\text{dvol}^{g}$.
Extremals of $cp_\phi$
----------------------
The general framework can be described as follows: The definitions and results are taken from [@tai0]. Let $\omega$ be an arbitrary $2$-form on $B$. Consider for the class of contractible open subsets $U\subseteq B$ the family of functionals $$cp_U\colon C^{\infty}(I,U)\to {\mathbb R},\; \gamma\mapsto cp_U(\gamma):=L^{g}(\gamma)+\int_\gamma \sigma,$$ where $\sigma \in \Omega^1(U)$ is a primitive of $\omega|_{U}$. The physical intuition behind $cp_U$ is that the critical points of $cp_U$ model the motion of a charged particle moving under the influence of a magnetic field $\omega$. In physics terms the $1$-form $\sigma$ represents a vector potential of the magnetic field $\omega|_U$.
Let $\gamma\colon [a,b]\to U$ be a regular curve parameterized w.r.t. constant $g$-arclength. Then $$\label{NE3}
\frac{1}{|\dot{\gamma}|_g}\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}} \dot{\gamma}=-\omega(\dot{\gamma},.)^{\#}$$ are the Euler-Lagrange equations of $cp_U$ (Here we set $|v|_g:=\sqrt{g(v,v)}$). Especially the Euler-Lagrange equations are independent of $U$ and $\sigma$. We will refer to the solutions as [*extremals*]{}.
Recall that there exist constant $\e,\delta >0$ such that any pair of points $x,y\in B$, with distance at most $\delta$, can be joined by a unique solution $\gamma
\colon [0,1]\to B$ of lying completely in the ball of radius $\e$ around $x$, compare [@tai0].
Next we describe the relation between the critical points of $cp_\phi$ and $cp_U$. The following definition is taken from [@tai0]. A [*film*]{} $\Pi\subseteq B$ is an oriented surface with nonempty boundary embedded into $B$ such that the boundary is a union of finitely many closed curves $\gamma_\alpha$ with the following properties:
- $\gamma_\alpha$ has the boundary orientation,
- every $\gamma_\alpha$ is a finite polygon of extremal segments whose lengths do not exceed $\delta$ and
- the curves $\gamma_\alpha$ are disjoint, i.e. $\gamma_\alpha \cap \gamma_\beta=\emptyset$ if $\alpha\neq \beta$.
The space of films on $B$ is denoted with $L(B)$. Define $$cp\,\colon\, L(B)\to {\mathbb R},\; \Pi\mapsto L^g(\Pi|_{\partial S})+\int_S \Pi^\ast \omega.$$
Let $\Pi\in L(B)$. Then $\delta cp(\Pi)=0$, i.e. $\Pi$ is a critical point of $cp$, if and only if the boundary of $\Pi$ consists of a union of smooth closed extremals.
As an example we calculate the extremals of $({\mathbb C}P^1, \tan\phi\cdot g_{FS},\text{dvol}^{FS})$. The Fubini-Study metric is a Riemannian metric on ${\mathbb C}P^1\cong S^2$ of constant curvature equal to $4$ and diameter $\pi/2$. Hence $({\mathbb C}P^1, g^{FS})$ is isometric to $(S^2,\frac{1}{4}g_{can})$ where $g_{can}$ denotes the canonical metric on $S^2$ with curvature equal to one. Fix the “polar” parameterization $$P\colon U:=(0,\pi)\times (0,2\pi)\to S^2, \;(\theta,\psi)\mapsto (\sin\theta \cos\psi, \sin\theta \sin\psi, \cos\theta).$$
We claim that one solution to the Euler-Lagrange equations of $cp_U$ is the curve $t\mapsto (\sin\theta \cos t, \sin\theta \sin t, \cos\theta)$ with $\theta
=\arctan(2\tan\phi)$. Note that this curve is simply closed. Observe that $P^\ast g^{FS}=\frac{1}{4}(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\psi^2)$ and $P^\ast\text{dvol}^{FS}=
\frac{\sin\theta}{4}d\theta\wedge d\psi$. Further observe that $\Gamma^\psi_{\psi \psi}=0$ and $\Gamma^\theta_{\psi \psi}=-\sin(\theta)\cos(\theta)$. Consequently we have $$\frac{\tan\phi}{|\dot{\gamma}|}\nabla_{\partial_\psi}\partial_\psi
=-2\cos(\theta) \tan(\phi) \partial_\theta$$ and $$-\omega(\dot{\gamma},.)^\# =\text{dvol}^{FS}(\partial_\psi,.)^\#=-\sin(\theta) \partial_\theta.$$
Then the curve $t\mapsto (\sin\theta \cos t, \sin\theta \sin t, \cos\theta)$ is a solution of the Euler Lagrange equation iff $-2\tan\phi \cos\theta=
-\sin\theta$ or equivalently $\theta =\arctan (2\tan\phi)$.
\[R3\] Recall that if $(B,g)$ has constant curvature, the isometry group of the universal cover $(\widetilde{B},\widetilde{g})$ acts transitively on $T^1\widetilde{B}$. Further it preserves $\widetilde{cp}$, the lift of $cp$, if $\omega$ is a multiple of $\text{dvol}^g$. This implies that the extremals of $\widetilde{cp}$ are either all closed or all nonclosed. In the case of nonnegative curvature all extremals of $\widetilde{cp}$, and therefore $cp$, are closed. For curvature equal to $-1$ the extremals are closed iff $|\omega(\dot{\gamma},.)^\sharp|_g>1$. Note that it is sufficient to consider the case $K=-1$.
Lightlike Geodesics of $(M,h_\phi)$
-----------------------------------
Since $cp_\phi$ is constant on all simply closed extremals, Remark \[R2\] readily implies:
\[P2.1\] The lightlike geodesics of $(M,h_\phi)$ are either all closed or all nonclosed depending on whether the extremals of $cp_\phi$ are closed and $cp_\phi(\gamma)\in {\mathbb Q}$ for any extremal $\gamma$ of $cp_\phi$.
Again as an example we determine the condition for $({\mathbb C}P^1,\tan\phi \cdot g_{FS},\text{dvol}^{FS})$. In the polar parameterization $P$ we can choose the primitive $\sigma=-\frac{\cos\theta}{4}d\psi$ of $P^\ast(-$dvol$^{FS})$. Thus we have $\int_\gamma \sigma =-\frac{\pi}{2} \cos(\arctan (2\tan\phi))$. The length of every simply closed solution of is $\pi \sin(\arctan (2\tan\phi))$. Bringing everything together we get $$\begin{aligned}
cp_U(\gamma)&=\pi\left(\sin(\arctan (2\tan\phi))-\frac{\cos(\arctan (2\tan\phi))}{2}\right)\\
&=\frac{\pi}{2} \cos(\arctan (2\tan\phi))(4\tan(\phi)-1)\\
&=\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+4\tan^2\phi}}(4\tan(\phi)-1)\end{aligned}$$ From Remark \[R2\] we know that $cp_U(\gamma)$ mod $2\pi$ quantifies the obstruction for the lightlike geodesics over $\gamma$ to being closed. Therefore the lightlike geodesics of $(S^3,h_\phi)$ will eventually close iff $\frac{4\tan(\phi)-1}{\sqrt{1+4\tan^2\phi}}\in {\mathbb Q}$.
\[P2.2\] If the lightlike geodesics of $(M,h_\phi)$ are closed then $(M,h_\phi)$ is Zollfrei.
First recall that defines an Euler-Lagrange flow on $TB$. The point of the proof is to note the relation between the Euler-Lagrange flow of $cp_\phi$ on $TB^\times:=TB\setminus\{\text{zero section}\}$ and the geodesic flow of $h_\phi$ on the smooth manifold $\operatorname*{Light}_\phi$ of lightlike tangent vectors $v\neq 0$ of $(M,h_\phi)$. More precisely the Euler-Lagrange flow $\Phi_B$ of $\cot\phi\cdot cp_\phi$ on $TB^\times$ and the geodesic flow $\Phi_M$ on $\operatorname*{Light}_\phi$ are conjugated via $\pi_*$, i.e. $\pi_*\circ \Phi_M=\Phi_B\circ \pi_*$, where $\pi\colon M\to B$ denotes the bundle projection.
1\) $\Phi_B$ induces an circle fibration on $TB^\times$: Consider the pullback $\widetilde{cp}_\phi$ of $cp_\phi$ to the universal cover $\widetilde{\pi}\colon \widetilde{B}\to B$. $\widetilde{cp}_\phi$ is invariant under the action of $\text{Isom}(\widetilde{B},\widetilde{g})$, the isometry group of $(\widetilde{B},\widetilde{g})$. Recall that since $\widetilde{g}$ has constant curvature, $\text{Isom}(\widetilde{B},\widetilde{g})$ acts transitively on $T^r \widetilde{B}$ for every $r>0$ and commutes with $\Phi_{\widetilde{B}}$, the Euler-Lagrange flow of $\widetilde{cp}_\phi$. The isotropy group of every flowline is closed. This defines a fibre bundle structure on every $T^r \widetilde{B}$ with $1$-dimensional fibre. Since $\Phi_{\widetilde{B}}(v,t)=\Phi_{\widetilde{B}}(\lambda\cdot v,\frac{t}{\lambda})$, these fibrations extend to a fibration of $T\widetilde{B}^\times$. The assumption that the lightlike geodesics of $h_\phi$ are closed implies that the extremals of $cp_\phi$ are closed as well. From Remark \[R3\] we know that in this case the extremals of $\widetilde{cp}_\phi$, and with it the flowlines of $\Phi_{\widetilde{B}}$, are closed as well. Therefore the isotropy groups are compact, i.e. the fibres are diffeomorphic to $S^1$.
The fibration structure is of course invariant under the induced action of $\pi_1(B)$. Therefore it descends to a fibration of $TB^\times$ over the smooth manifold of flowlines of $\Phi_B$.
2\) $\Phi_M$ induces an circle fibration on $\operatorname*{Light}_\phi$: Since $\pi_*$ conjugates $\Phi_M$ with $\Phi_B$, every flowline of $\Phi_M$ induces a finite covering of the respective flowline of $\Phi_B$. We have seen in Remark \[R3\] that $cp_\phi$ is constant on every extremal of minimal period. Then Remark \[R2\] implies that these coverings all have the same number of leaves. Together with part 1) this yields that $\Phi_M$ induces the structure of an circle fibration on $\operatorname*{Light}_\phi$, i.e. $(M,h_\phi)$ is Zollfrei.
A weaker conjecture
===================
Despite Theorem \[T1\] one can hope to prove a weaker version of the conjecture, e.g. assuming additional properties of the pseudo-Riemannian universal cover. Note that for $3$-manifolds, up to sign, every pseudo-Riemannian metric, that is not Riemannian or anti-Riemannian, is Lorentzian. This opens for us the possibility to use notions of causality theory from Lorentzian geometry. [@guill1] raises the question, whether additionally assuming causality of the universal cover is sufficient for the Conjecture to be true. We can give the following partial answer:
\[T1a\] If the $3$-manifold $M$ admits a Zollfrei metric $g$ such that the universal Lorentzian cover is globally hyperbolic, $M$ is covered by $S^2\times S^1$, i.e. diffeomorphic to either $S^2\times S^1$, ${\mathbb R}P^2\times S^1$, ${\mathbb R}P^3 \sharp {\mathbb R}P^3$ or the nonorientable $2$-sphere bundle over $S^1$.
Recall that according to [@besa3] we can define a Lorentzian manifold $(M,g)$ to be [*globally hyperbolic*]{} iff $(M,g)$ is isometric to $(N\times {\mathbb R}, g_0+g_0(\delta,.)-\beta dt^2)$, where $\beta$ is a smooth positive function on $N\times {\mathbb R}$, $g_0$ is a Riemannian metric on $N$ and $\delta$ is a smooth vector field on $N$ both i.g. depending on the $t$-coordinate. Note that global hyperbolicity implies causality for a Lorentzian manifold.
Theorem \[T1a\] follows from a result due to Low ([@low2], Theorem 5). The proof leans on the notion of [*refocussing spacetimes*]{} introduced in [@low1].
A strongly causal spacetime $(M, g)$ (that is not necessarily globally hyperbolic) is called refocussing at $p\in M$ if there exists a neighborhood $O$ of $p$ with the following property: For every open $U$ with $p\in U\subseteq O$ there exists $q \notin U$ such that all the lightlike geodesics through $q$ enter $U$. A space-time $(M, g)$ is called refocussing if it is refocussing at some $p$, and it is called nonrefocussing if it is not refocussing at every $p \in M$.
Recall that global hyperbolicity implies strong causality for Lorentzian manifolds. So the definition is not needed in full generality, i.e. those who are not familiar with causality theory might as well substitute global hyperbolicity for strong causality in the definition.
\[TL1\] Let $M$ be globally hyperbolic, with non-compact Cauchy hypersurface $N$. Then $M$ cannot be refocussing.
With this at hand we can state the following proposition for our purposes.
Let $(M,g)$ be a Lorentzian manifold such that the universal Lorentzian cover $(\widetilde{M},\widetilde{g})$ is globally hyperbolic. If there exists $p\in M$ such that all lightlike geodesics eminating from $p$ return to $p$ with uniformly bounded Riemannian arclength (w.r.t. a fixed complete Riemannian metric on $M$), then $M$ is compact and $\widetilde{M}$ is spatially compact, i.e. $\widetilde{M}\cong N\times {\mathbb R}$ with $N$ compact.
According to Theorem \[TL1\] the only points we have to prove are (1) $(\widetilde{M},\widetilde{g})$ is refocussing and (2) $M$ is compact.
(1). Since the lightlike geodesic loops around $p$ have bounded Riemannian arclength, they share a common fundamental class $\eta\in \pi_1(M)$. Notice that $\eta$ is nontrivial, since else the universal cover would violate causality. Hence the universal cover is refocussing at any point $\widetilde{p}\in
\widetilde{\pi}^{-1}(p)$, since all lightlike geodesics through $\eta^{-1}(\widetilde{p})$ meet $\widetilde{p}$ and there exists a neighborhood of $\widetilde{p}$ that does not contain $\eta^{-1}(\widetilde{p})$.
(2). The deck transformation group of the universal cover acts properly discontinuously on the universal cover. This implies that there exists a $k\in {\mathbb Z}$ such that $\eta^k(N\times\{0\})$ is disjoint from $N\times \{0\}$, as $N$ is compact. This implies that the quotient of $\widetilde{M}\cong N\times {\mathbb R}$ by the group generated by $\eta^k$ is compact and moreover covers $M$. Then $M$ has to be compact.
Theorem \[TL1\] implies for $3$-manifolds that any Cauchy hypersurface in the universal cover has to be diffeomorphic to $S^2$. Thus $\widetilde{M}\cong S^2\times {\mathbb R}$. The compact quotients of $S^2\times {\mathbb R}$ were classified in [@tollefson]. They are exactly $S^2\times S^1$, ${\mathbb R}P^3\times S^1$, ${\mathbb R}P^3 \sharp {\mathbb R}P^3$ and the nonorientable $2$-sphere bundle over $S^1$.
At the end of these notes we want to post some questions in connection with Zollfrei $3$-manifolds. P. Mounoud asked if every Zollfrei $3$-manifold is a Seifert fibration. At this point the author does not have an idea how to prove such a claim or how to give a counterexample. If a counterexample exists, then it cannot be stationary, since [@fjp] show that every compact stationary Lorentzian manifold is a Seifert fibration.
On the other hand is the question if every Seifert fibration admits a Zollfrei Lorentzian manifold. This question is especially interesting for the trivial bundles over surfaces of genus greater than one. Again such examples cannot be stationary, since then the Finsler metric $F$ (see section \[S2.2\]) will be globally well defined and the lightlike geodesics correspond the geodesics of $F$ on the underlying surface. Since the fundamental groups of the surfaces in question are nontrivial, not all lightlike geodesics can be homotopic. This clearly contradicts the Zollfrei property.
[**Acknowledgment:**]{} I would like to thank Kai Zehmisch and Pierre Mounoud for their careful reading of the first draft and their valuable comments.
[Smith]{}
M. Berger. *Les Variétés [R]{}iemanniennes [H]{}omogènes [N]{}ormales [S]{}implement [C]{}onnexes à [C]{}ourbure [S]{}trictement [P]{}ositive*. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3) [**15**]{} (1961), 179–246.
Bernal, A. N. and S[á]{}nchez, M., *Smoothness of time functions and the metric splitting of globally hyperbolic spacetimes*. Comm. Math. Phys. [**257**]{} (2005), 43–50.
Boothby, W. M. and Wang, H. C., *On contact manifolds*. Ann. of Math. (2) [**68**]{} (1958), 721–734.
Caponio, E. and Javaloyes, M. [Á]{}. and Masiello, A.. *On the energy functional on Finsler manifolds and applications to stationary spacetimes*. Math. Ann. [**351**]{} (2011), 365–392.
Chernov, V., Rudyak, Y.. *Linking and Causality in Globally Hyperbolic Space-times*. Commun. Math. Phys. [**279**]{} (2008), 309–354.
Flores, J. L. and Javaloyes, M. [Á]{}. and Piccione, P.. *Periodic geodesics and geometry of compact [L]{}orentzian manifolds with a [K]{}illing vector field*. Math. Z. [**267**]{} (2011), 221–233.
Geiges, H., *An introduction to contact topology*. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics Vol. 109, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2008).
Guillemin, V., *Cosmology in [$(2 + 1)$]{}-dimensions, cyclic [M]{}odels, and [D]{}eformations of [$M_{2,1}$]{}*. Annals of Mathematics Studies Vol. 121, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1989).
Low, R.J. *The space of null geodesics*. In: Proceedings of the Third World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, Part 5 (Catania, 2000). Nonlinear Anal. [**47**]{} (2001), 3005–3017.
Low, R.J. *The Space of Null Geodesics (and a New Causal Boundary)*. Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 692, Springer, Belin, Heidelberg, New York (2006), pp. 35–50.
Ta[ĭ]{}manov, I.A.. *Nonselfintersecting Closed Extremals of Multivalued or not everywhere Positive Functionals*. Math. USSR Izv. [**38**]{} (1992), 359–374.
Ta[ĭ]{}manov, I. A.. *Closed extremals on two-dimensional manifolds*. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, $\mathbf{47}$ (1992), 143–185,
Tollefson, J.. *The Compact $3$-Manifolds covered by $S^2\times {\mathbb R}$*. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**45**]{} (1974), 461–462.
[^1]: 53C22, 53C50, closed geodesics, Lorentzian manifolds
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the first terrestrial measurement of the Landé g factor of the $5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ state of singly ionized barium. Measurements were performed on single Doppler-cooled $^{138}\mathrm{Ba}^+$ ions in a linear Paul trap. A frequency-stabilized fiber laser with nominal wavelength 1.762 $\mu$m was scanned across the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\leftrightarrow 5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ transition to spectroscopically resolve transitions between Zeeman sublevels of the ground and excited states. From the relative positions of the four narrow transitions observed at several different values for the applied magnetic field, we find a value of $1.2020\pm0.0005$ for $g_{5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}}$.'
author:
- 'N. Kurz'
- 'M. R. Dietrich'
- Gang Shu
- 'T. Noel'
- 'B. B. Blinov'
title: 'Measurement of Landé g factor of $5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ state of BaII with a single trapped ion'
---
Single trapped ions continually prove themselves to be a valuable physical system for high-precision measurements motivated by study of the variation of fundamental constants[@Prestage; @Fortier; @Dzuba], the construction of frequency standards [@standards; @clocks] and for tests of violations of fundamental symmetries and physics beyond the standard model [@FundamentalPhysics]. Their value is largely attributable to their long trapping times which allow rapid accumulation of statistics, and since inhomogeneous broadening effects are very small, linewidths can be very narrow [@Ca1; @Ca2; @Ca3]. Barium is of particular interest because of its potential for experimental observation of atomic parity nonconservation[@Fortson]. To date, comprehensive studies of the lifetimes of metastable states [@lifetime], hyperfine parameters of the odd isotopes $^{135}\mathrm{Ba}^+$ and $^{137}\mathrm{Ba}^+$ and isotope shifts [@Arroe] and branching ratios [@Kurz] have all been performed. Also, barium provides a means by which to test models of nuclear structure, in particular a comparison between calculated and measured higher order nuclear moments[@octupole]. Ab initio calculations are often not possible and require experimental input of atomic parameters. We present the first precision measurement of the Landé g factor of the $5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ state of BaII, which we find to differ significantly from previously the accepted value of 1.12, derived from astronomical observation[@BMoore; @Back; @Curry; @CMoore]. Along with values for the g factors of the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}$, $6\mathrm{P}_{1/2}$, $6\mathrm{P}_{3/2}$ and $5\mathrm{D}_{3/2}$, this completes the measurement of g factors for all low-lying (infrared and visible) atomic states of BaII[@Poulson; @Knoll].
For this experiment we perform high precision optical spectroscopy on single trapped $^{138}\mathrm{Ba}^+$ ions. Neutral barium is photoionized by a two-step process; first, we excite an intercombination transition at 791 nm with an external cavity diode laser (ECDL) and then subsequently ionize these excited atoms with pulses from a nitrogen laser at 337 nm. The first step allows for isotope selection[@Steele]. The ions are confined in a radio frequency (RF) linear trap with approximately 1 W of RF at a frequency $\Omega_{trap}\approx 2\pi\times12.38$ MHz and DC endcap bias of 670 V. We measure trap secular frequencies in the radial and axial directions to be $\left(\omega_x, \omega_y, \omega_z\right)\approx 2\pi\times\left(2.5, 1.4, 0.6\right)$ MHz from the secular motion sidebands of measured spectra. Current-carrying coils create a magnetic field of approximately 0.2-0.5 mT perpendicular to the k-vector of the cooling beam to prevent optical pumping into degenerate dark states and to separate Zeeman levels for the experiment. Ba$^+$ has a lambda structure with a strong dipole $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\rightarrow 6\mathrm{P}_{1/2}$ transition at 493.4 nm used for Doppler cooling as shown in figure 1. This has a branching ratio of approximately 25% to the metastable $5\mathrm{D}_{3/2}$ state and hence requires a repump laser at 649.7 nm to depopulate that state. A home-built ECDL at 986 nm is frequency doubled in a KNbO$_3$ bow-tie cavity to provide 493 nm light. Approximately 10 $\mu$W is sufficient for cooling. A second ECDL provides 649.7 nm light, of which about 50 $\mu$W is sent to the ion for the repump. The two beams are sent to the ion via optical fiber to ensure perfect overlap, ease of alignment and ideal spatial mode with approximately 50 $\mu$m focus for low background scatter.
We determine the relative frequencies of transitions between the Zeeman levels of the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}$ and $5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ states via excitation with a narrowband 1.762 $\mu$m thulium-doped fiber laser (Koheras Adjustik$^\mathrm{TM}$). The laser is frequency stabilized via Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH) lock to a temperature-stabilized Zerodur$^\mathrm{TM}$ cavity with a finesse of approximately 1000 and free spectral range of 0.5 GHz placed in high vacuum[@600Hz]. Coherence times of approximately 150 $\mu$s of Rabi oscillations between the ground and excited state indicate a laser linewidth of no greater than 10 kHz[@Dietrich]. A double-pass acousto-optic modulator (AOM) shifts the frequency of a part of the laser power and introduces the frequency modulation necessary for a locking signal. A second AOM in the beam path to the trap shifts the frequency of the remaining beam with respect to the cavity and can be scanned over a range of 80-120 MHz to observe transitions of the ion. Exciting the ion to the $5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ state (lifetime $\tau\approx$ 30 s) takes the ion out of the cooling cycles and into a “dark" state. State detection is performed by monitoring the ion fluorescence at the 493 nm cooling laser transition, which is collected with an NA=0.28 microscope objective, spatially filtered and sent to a photomultiplier tube (PMT). With photon counts of approximately 3000/s while fluorescing, we are able to distinguish bright and dark states with over 99% efficiency after 10 ms observation time [@Dietrich].
A small portion (approximately 1 $\mu$W) of the 493 nm light is split off from the cooling beam, polarized, sent through a quarter-wave plate and focussed to a spot size of approximately 70 $\mu$m onto the ion along the magnetic field direction. This beam has purely circular polarization and optically pumps the ion into the $m_j=-1/2$ Zeeman sublevel of the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}$ state. Fine-tuning of the relative direction of the field at the ion and the optical pumping beam is accomplished by adjusting the currents in two compensation coils orthogonal to each other and the main coil. Optical pumping efficiency is better than 90%. Without the optical pumping, the ion population is in an approximately equal mixture of ground state Zeeman levels prior to excitation with 1.762 $\mu$m light. Optical pumping will enhance or extinguish transitions in the ion’s spectrum depending on the ground state level from which the transition begins. By this method, we are able to identify specific transitions in the spectrum.
The sequence of the experiment is then as follows. The ion is cooled with 493 and 650 nm light. The 493 nm cooling light is switched off to prevent power broadening of the ground state while driving the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\leftrightarrow 5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ transition. Delaying turning off the 650 nm light pumps the ion to the ground state, during which time optical pumping light may or may not be applied to reach a definite Zeeman level of the ground state. The 1.762 $\mu$m light is then switched on for 20 $\mu$s to drive the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\rightarrow 5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ transition. This pulse is line-triggered to reduce fluctuation due to magnetic perturbations. The duration of the pulse is chosen to be approximately a $\pi$ Rabi rotation between the ground and excited state for carrier transitions and lower order micromotion sidebands, while suppressing the excitation of weaker sideband transitions. After the pulse is applied, the cooling lasers are switched on and the ion’s state is determined by observing its fluorescence on the PMT. The sequence is repeated 40 to 100 times for each value of the shift AOM to accumulate statistics. Shelving events are counted and the frequency of the laser shifted by the single-pass AOM to obtain the full spectrum. We perform the cycle at six different values of the magnetic field and track the shift of features in the spectrum. The entire dataset is shown in Fig 2(a), with a representative spectrum for the main coil current of 2.1 Amps in Fig 2(b).
We obtain a spectrum of peaks with typical widths of approximately 50 kHz that shift monotonically with changing field coil current. Peak heights near the central frequency of the single-pass AOM are 30-50% dark state probability at each frequency step without optical pumping as is to be expected because the two ground state Zeeman levels are equally occupied. Optical pumping for 200 $\mu$s prior to sending the 1.762 $\mu$m laser pulse extinguishes transitions that originate from the $m_J=+1/2$ Zeeman sublevel, while increasing the peak heights to over 90% dark state probability for those which originate from the $m_J=-1/2$ level. We differentiate micromotion sideband transitions from carrier transitions by their relative strengths; carrier Rabi oscillations between the ground state and excited state have typical $\pi$ pulse times of 10 $\mu$s while those on sidebands are two to three times as long.
We clearly observe a carrier transition and its first micromotion sideband, which consistently shift parallel to one another with changing current as indicated in figure 2(a). Using these lines we can precisely determine the trap RF frequency $\Omega_{trap}$ to be $12.3759\pm 0.0025$ MHz, in excellent agreement with direct measurement of this frequency. A second pair of lines which exhibits the same characteristics but whose transition frequency increases with increasing field was also observed. Optical pumping enhances the first pair but extinguishes the second. We thus conclude that these lines originate from ground state Zeeman levels of opposite spin. Two weaker lines which converge to a frequency approximately 24.6 MHz higher at zero coil current than the other two measured carriers and display opposite behavior when optically pumped were observed as shown in figure 2(a). These correspond to second order micromotion sidebands, since their zero current frequency is higher than the zero current frequency of observed carrier transitions by an amount equal to exactly twice the trap frequency.
The error in bright/dark counts is taken to be binomial and the spectral features are fit with a Lorentzian to obtain the precise central frequency of transitions. The statistical uncertainty in peak positions is typically one to several kHz. Because the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\rightarrow 5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ transition is an electric quadrupole transition, $\Delta$m=0, 1 or 2 transitions are all in principle allowed by selection rules. However, because the k-vector of the 1.762 $\mu$m laser is perpendicular to the quantization axis set by the B-field, the radiation pattern for $\Delta m=0$ transitions suppresses those features and they were never observed in the measured spectra. The polarization of the 1.762 $\mu$m laser and radiation patterns allow both $\Delta m=1$ and 2 transitions, with the latter being slightly stronger [@Roos]. Expected carrier transitions and relative shifts are shown in figure 1(b).
By subtracting the measured trap frequency from first order micromotion sidebands and twice that frequency from second order sideband positions, we calculate the position of the carrier frequency for four Zeeman transitions: $\Delta m=+1$ from $\left|6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\right.$; $\left.m_J=+1/2\right>$, $\Delta m=-1$ from $\left|6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\right.$; $\left.m_J=-1/2\right>$, $\Delta m=-1$ from $\left|6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\right.$; $\left.m_J=+1/2\right>$ and $\Delta m=-2$ from $\left|6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\right.$; $\left.m_J=-1/2\right>$ (see Fig. 3). The other Zeeman transitions fall well outside of the available bandwidth of the AOM. The Zeeman levels of the D state shift by $g_Dm_J\mu_B B$ and those of the ground state by $g_Sm_J\mu_B B$, in an applied magnetic field $B$, with $\mu_B=1.40$ MHz$\cdot$G$^{-1}$ the Bohr magneton. The predicted shift directions and relative magnitudes are summarized in Fig. 1(b). Taking the magnetic field and zero field frequency to be unknown parameters and eliminating their dependence by strictly using frequency differences among measured lines at individual values for the magnetic field, we algebraically solve for the ratio of the g factors of the two states. The g factor ratio as calculated from the four different measured lines agree to within the statistical error, as do the value for the ratio at different coil current. We are further able to solve for the applied field and find that we apply 0.067 mT of magnetic field for each amp of coil current, to a maximum of 0.2 mT at the 3.0 A value used here, well within the linear Zeeman regime. Inputting the accepted value for $g_{6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}}=2.0024906(11)$[@Knoll], we are able to solve for $g_{5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}}=1.2020\pm0.0005_{stat}$. Strict LS coupling predicts a g factor of 6/5=1.2 for the $5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ state. Leading order corrections come from relativistic effects, interactions between the valence electron and the core shell and QED shifts from electron self-energy and vacuum polarization. The largest of these occurs at the $\alpha(\alpha Z)^2$ level, approximately the level at which we observe a deviation from 6/5[@Khetselius; @QED].
We suspect several sources of systematic error. Because we are not concerned with linewidths or transition strengths, we consider only effects that influence the relative frequencies of features in an individual run. Two sources of error related to trapping parameters are the variation of the ion’s position with respect to the magnetic field and AC Zeeman shifts caused by currents induced in the trap by the high RF voltages. We estimate the former to be of the level of $10^{-4}$ as the ion’s position varies by much less than a few microns over the course of the experiment, as observed on a electron-multiplied CCD camera, and magnetic gradients are of the order 40 nT/$\mu$m. AC Zeeman shifts have been seen to affect g factor measurements, albeit at the $10^{-4}$ level in slightly different trap geometries[@Sherman], but these are highly suppressed in our trap design because of the large distance between the ion and the nearest grounded electrode through which current is able to pass to ground. Several potential sources of frequency error are related to the shelving laser itself. Drifts can occur both on the locking cavity due to pressure or temperature variations and in the phase of the 60 Hz AC voltage to which the beginning of the shelving pulse is triggered. This is only a problem during the course of a single run at each individual magnetic field, since the extraction of the g factor comes from each field value rather than a fit as a function of field. We can use the observed change in the position of the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\rightarrow 5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ transition as a combined measure of these effects. We extract the central (non Zeeman-shifted) value for the $6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\rightarrow 5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ transition, which lies midway between the $\Delta m=+1$ from $\left|6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\right.$; $\left.m_J=-1/2\right>$ and $\Delta m=-1$ from $\left|6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}\right.$; $\left.m_J=+1/2\right>$ transitions. This value agrees to within 4 kHz for the different values of coil current. From this uncertainty we estimate that the shift over the course of an individual run, which is at most one hour in duration, is at worst a few kHz. This represents the dominant contribution to the systematic uncertainty and we can safely assume the overall systematic error in the g factor measurement to be $\pm 0.0001$.
In conclusion, we have measured the Landé g factor of the $5\mathrm{D}_{5/2}$ state of the Ba$^+$ ion to be $1.2020\pm0.0005_{stat}\pm0.0001_{sys}$, a significant improvement over the uncertainty of previously published values. We find that it differs significantly from previous measurements. With its importance for experiments testing nuclear structure, parity nonconservation and for applications as a frequency standard, barium’s atomic structure is of continued interest, both theoretically and for future experimental study.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Jennifer Porter, Joanna Salacka, Aaron Avril and Tom Chartrand to the work. Research support was provided by National Science Foundation Grants Nos. 0758025 and 0904004.
[99]{} J. D. Prestage, R. L. Tjoelker & L. Maleki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74, 3511-3514 (1995). T. M. Fortier, et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **98, 070801 (2007). V. A. Dzuba & V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A **61, 034502 (2000). A. A. Madej & J. E. Bernard, “Single-Ion Optical Frequency Standards and Measurement of their Absolute Optical Frequency" in *Frequency Measurement and Control, (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg 2001). J. Sherman, W. Trimble, S. Metz., W. Nagourney & E. N. Fortson, *Progress on Indium and Barium single-ion optical frequency standards, 2005 Digest of the LEOS Summer Topical Meetings, IEEE Cat. No. 05TH8797 (IEEE, New York, 2005). V. A. Dzuba & J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A **73, 032503 (2006). A. Kreuter, et. al., Phys. Rev A **71, 032504 (2005). J. Benhelm, G. Kirchmair, U. Rapol, T. Körber, C. F. Roos & R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. A **75, 032506 (2007). P. A. Barton, C. J. S. Donald, D. M. Lucas, D. A. Stevens, A. M. Steane & D. N. Stacey Phys. Rev. A **62, 032503 (2000). E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70, 2383-2386 (1993). A. A. Madej & J. D. Sankey, Phys. Rev. A **4, 2621 (1990). O. H. Arroe, Phys. Rev. **79, 836Ð838 (1950). N. Kurz, M. R. Dietrich, Gang Shu, R. Bowler, J. Salacka, V. Mirgon & B. B. Blinov, Phys. Rev. A **77, 060501(R) (2008). K. Beloy, A. Derevianko, V. A. Dzuba, G. T. Howell, B. B. Blinov & E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. A **77, 052503 (2008). B. E. Moore, Ann. der Phys. \[4\] **25, 314 (1908). E. Back, Ann. der Phys. \[4\] **70, 360-3 (1923). J. J. Curry, Journal Phys. Chem. Ref. Data **33, 725 (2004). C. E. Moore, *Atomic Energy Levels v. 3, Nat. Bur. Std. Circ. No. 467 (US Gov’t. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1958). O. Poulson & P. S. Ramanujan, Phys. Rev. A **14(4) 1463-7 (1976). K. H. Knöll, G. Marx, K. Hübner, F. Schweikert, S. Stahl, Ch. Weber & G. Werth, Phys. Rev. A **54(2) 1199-1205 (1996). A. V. Steele, L. R. Churchill, P. F. Griffin & M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. A **75, 053404 (2007). N. Yu, X. Zhao, H. G. Dehmelt & W. Nagourney, Phys. Rev A **50, 2738-2741 (1994). M. R. Dietrich, N. Kurz, T. Noel, G. Shu & B. B. Blinov, Phys. Rev. A **81, 052328 (2010). C. Roos, Ph. D. thesis, University of Innsbruck, 2000, Downloadable at http://heart-c704.uibk.ac.at/publications/dissertation/roosdiss.pdf O. Yu Khetselius, Phys. Scr. T**135, 014023-6 (2009). D. A. Glazov, et. al., Phys. Rev. A **70, 062104 (2004). J. A. Sherman, A. Andalkar, W. Nagourney & E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. A. **78, 052514 (2008).*************************************************
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The main result of this paper is a construction of finitely additive measures for higher rank action on Heisenberg nilmanifold. Under a full measure set of Diophantine condition of the generators of the action, we construct *Bufetov functional* on rectangles on $2g+1$ dimensional Heisenberg manifold. We prove the deviation of ergodic integral of higher rank actions by its asymptotics to Bufetov functionals for sufficiently smooth function. In this paper, we derive limit distribution which proves normalized ergodic integrals to have variance 1 converges in distribution to a nondegenerate compactly supported measure on the real line.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA'
author:
- 'Minsung Kim\*'
title: Limit theorems for higher rank actions on Heisenberg nilmanifolds
---
Introduction
============
Introduction
------------
The asymptotic behavior and limiting distribution of ergodic averages of translation flow was studied by Alexander Bufetov in the series of works [@bufetov2009finitely; @bufetov2010holder; @B14]. He constructed finitely-additive Hölder measures and cocycles over translation flows that are known as *Bufetov functionals*. The construction of such functional is used to derive deviation of ergodic averages and results on probabilistic behavior of ergodic averages of translation flows. Interestingly, it is discovered that there is a duality between the Bufetov functionals and invariant distributions which plays a key role in the work of G. Forni [@forni2002deviation]. Following these observation, such functionals and duality (or bijective correspondence) between the space of invariant distributions called Flaminio-Forni space are also constructed in the sense of other parabolic flows: horocycle flows [@FF02; @BF14] and Heisenberg nilflows [@FF06; @FK17]. In this paper, our main results are on limit distributions of higher rank abelian actions. We firstly introduce the Bufetov functional for higher rank abelian actions under bounded type of Diophantine conditions. Our main argument is based on the renormalization argument for higher rank actions by induction argument. This is a key idea used in Cosentino and Flaminio in [@CF15], but we extend their constructions to rectangular shape and derive the deviation of ergodic averages of higher rank actions. Likewise, this explains the duality between Bufetov functionals and invariant currents appeared in [@CF15]. The crucial part is handling the estimation of deviation ergodic averages on (stretched) rectangles, and this enables to derive our main theorems. (See. e.g [@ravotti2019quantitative; @F20].)
As a corollary, we can prove there exists a limit distributions of (normalized) ergodic integrals of abelian actions with variance 1. More specifically, for almost all limit of normalized ergodic integrals of converges in distribution to a nondegenerate compactly supported measure on the real line, which is certain form of Bufetov functionals. This generalizes a limit theorem for theta series on Siegel half spaces, which introduced in the works of Götze and Gordin [@GG04] and Marklof [@M99]. (See [@tolimieri1978heisenberg; @mumford2007tata1; @mumford2007tata] for general introduction and nilflow case [@griffin2014limit; @cellarosi2016quadratic].)
A possible application of this paper will be proving the mixing of time-changes of abelian higher rank actions and estimate on the (polynomial) decay of correlation. This is realized by the analyticity of Bufetov functional on higher dimensional rectangular domain and polynomial type of lower bounds of sub-level sets of analytic function. Such polynomial estimates on the measure are derived by real analyticity of a functional along the leaves of a foliation transverse to the actions based on results of [@bru]. Work in progress of the author [@kimc] indicates that the *shearing* method developed in the proof of mixing for a dense set of time-changes for uniquely ergodic nilflows is also a crucial step in that direction.
In rank 1 case, mixing property of time-changes of nilflows has been studied recently. Nilflows are never mixing but time-changes destroys the elliptic behavior on the base torus, which are sensitive in perturbations. Mixing property of time changes of Heisenberg nilflows was firstly studied in [@AFU11]. Then, it was extended in the dense set of non-trivial time changes for any uniquely ergodic nilflows on general nilmanifolds [@Rav18; @avila2019mixing]. As a special example, on time-changes of Heisenberg flows, decay of correlation [@FK17] and multiple mixing [@forni2020multiple] was proved by analyticity of Bufetov functional and Ratner property, respectively.
In the higher rank setting, mixing of $\Z^k$-actions (or mixing of shapes) for automorphisms on nilmanifold is proved in [@gorodnik2014exponential; @gorodnik2015mixing]. Related results of $\R^k$-actions, however, are not well-known on higher step nilmanifolds. It is also interesting question if it is possible to construct Bufetov functionals on higher step nilmanifolds $(s>2)$. Since moduli space is trivial and there is no known renormalization flows, we could not obtain the results in the desired method. However, we still hope other methods in handling non-renormalizable flows may be possibly applied. (Cf. [@FF14; @FFT15; @kim2020effective])
Definition and statement of results
-----------------------------------
We review definitions about Heisenberg manifold and its moduli space.
### Heisenberg manifold
Let $\mathsf{H}^g$ be standard $2g+1$ dimensional Heisenberg group and set $\mathsf{\Gamma}:= \Z^g \times \Z^g \times \frac{1}{2} \Z$ a discrete and co-compact subgroup of $\mathsf{H}^g$. We shall call it standard lattice of $\mathsf{H}^g$ and the quotient $M := \mathsf{H}^g /\mathsf{\Gamma} $ will be called *Heisenberg manifold*. Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}^g = Lie(\mathsf{H}^g)$ of $\mathsf{H}^g$ is equipped with basis $ (X_1, \cdots, X_g, Y_1, \cdots Y_g, Z)$ satisfying canonical commutation relation $$\label{commute}
[X_i,Y_j] = \delta_{ij}Z.$$
For $1 \leq d \leq g$, let $\mathsf{P}^d < \mathsf{H}^g$ be the subgroup with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{p}$ generated by $(X_1, \cdots, X_d)$ and for any $\alpha \in Sp_{2g}(\R)$, set $(X_i^\alpha, Y_i^\alpha, Z) = \alpha^{-1}(X_i,Y_i,Z)$ for $1 \leq i \leq d$. We define parametrization of the subgroup $\alpha^{-1}(\mathsf{P}^d) $ $${\mathsf{P}}_x^{d,\alpha} := \exp(x_1X_1^\alpha+\cdots+x_dX_d^\alpha), \ \ x = (x_1, \cdots, x_d) \in \R^d.$$
By central extension of $\R^{2g}$ by $\R$, we have an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow Z(H^g) \rightarrow H^g \rightarrow \R^{2g} \rightarrow 0.$$ The natural projection map $pr: M \rightarrow H^g /(\mathsf{\Gamma}Z(H^g)) $ maps $M$ onto a $2g$-dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}^{2g}:= \R^{2g}/\Z^{2g}$.
### Moduli space
The group of automorphisms of $\mathsf{H}^g$ that are trivial on the center is $Aut_0(\mathsf{H}^g) = Sp(2g,\R) \ltimes \R^{2g}$. Since dynamical properties of actions are invariant under inner automorphism, we restrict our interest to $Sp(2g,\R)$. We call *moduli space* of the standard Heisenbeg manifold the quotient ${\mathfrak{M}}_g = Sp(2g,\R) / Sp(2g,\Z)$. We regard $Sp(2g,\R)$ as the deformation space of the the standard Heisenbeg manifold $M$ and ${\mathfrak{M}}_g$ as the moduli space of $M$.
*Siegel modular variety* is double coset space $\Sigma_g = K_g\backslash Sp_{2g}(\R)/ Sp_{2g}(\Z)$ where $K_g$ is maximal compact subgroup $Sp_{2g}(\R) \cap SO_{2g}(\R)$ of $Sp_{2g}(\R)$.
For $\alpha \in Sp_{2g}(\R) $, we denote $[\alpha]:=\alpha Sp_{2g}(\Z) $ its projection on the moduli space ${\mathfrak{M}}_g$ and write $[[\alpha]]:= K_g\alpha Sp_{2g}(\Z)$ the projection of $\alpha$ to the Siegel modular variety $\Sigma_g$. Double coset $K_g\backslash Sp_{2g}(\R)/ 1_{2g}$ is identifed with $\mathfrak{H}_g:= \{Z \in Sym_g({\mathbb{C}}) \mid \Im(Z) >0 \}$ *Siegel upper half space* of genus $g$, and consequently $\Sigma_g \thickapprox Sp_{2g}(\Z) \backslash \mathfrak{H}_g$.
### Sobolev bundles
Given basis $ (V_i)$ of Lie algebra, let $\Delta = -\sum V_i^2$ denote Laplacian via the standard basis. Similarly, denote $\Delta_\alpha$ Laplacian defined by the basis $(\alpha^{-1})_*V_i$. For any $s \in \R$ and any $C^\infty$ function $f \in L^2(M)$, $${\left\|f\right\|}_{\alpha,s} = \langle f, (1+\Delta_\alpha)^sf \rangle^{1/2}.$$ Let $W_\alpha^s(M)$ be the completion of $C^\infty(M)$ with above norm and denote $W_\alpha^{-s}(M)$ its dual space. Extending it to the exterior algebra, define the Sobolev spaces $\Lambda^d\mathfrak{p} \otimes W^s(M)$ of cochains of degree $d$, and use the same notations for the norms.\
The group $Sp_{2g}(\Z)$ acts on the right on the trivial bundles $$Sp_{2g}(\R) \times W^s(M) \rightarrow Sp_{2g}(\R).$$ We obtain the quotient flat bundle of Sobolev spaces over the moduli space: $$(Sp_{2g}(\R) \times W^s(M)) / Sp_{2g}(\Z) \rightarrow\mathfrak{M}_g = Sp_{2g}(\R) / Sp_{2g}(\Z)$$ the fiber over $[\alpha] \in \mathfrak{M}_g$ is locally identified with the space $W_\alpha^{s}(M)$.
$Sp_{2g}(\Z)$ acts on the right on the trivial bundles by $$(\alpha,\varphi) \mapsto (\alpha,\varphi)\gamma = (\alpha \gamma,\gamma^*\varphi), \quad \gamma \in Sp_{2g}(\Z).$$ By invariance of $Sp_{2g}(\Z)$ action, we denote the class $(\alpha,\varphi)$ by $[\alpha,\varphi]$ and write $Sp_{2g}(\Z)$-invariant Sobolev norm $${\left\|(\alpha, f)\right\|}_s := {\left\|f\right\|}_{\alpha,s}.$$
Main results {#main-results .unnumbered}
------------
One of the main objects of this paper is a space of finitely-additive measures defined on the space of all squares on Heisenberg manifold $M$. We state our results beginning with an overview of Bufetov functional.
\[hi\] Let $\hat B_H(M)$ be the space of all functionals $\hat\beta_H$ on irreducible representation $H$. Assign every rectangle $\Gamma \subset M$ a complex number $\hat\beta_H(\Gamma) \in {\mathbb{C}}$ so that the following holds:
1. $(\emph{Additive property})$ For any decomposition of disjoint rectangles $\Gamma = \bigcup_{i=1}^n \Gamma_i$ or those intersections have zero measure, $$\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma) = \sum_{i=1}^n\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma_i).$$
2. $(\emph{Scaling property})$ For $\bm{t} \in \R^d$, $$\hat\beta_H(r_{\bm{t}}[\alpha],\Gamma) = e^{-(t_1 + \cdots t_d)/2}\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma).$$
3. $(\emph{Invariance property})$ For any action ${\mathsf{Q}}_\tau^{d,Y}$ generated by $Y_i$’s and $\tau \in \R_+^d $, $$\hat\beta_H(\alpha,({\mathsf{Q}}^{d,Y}_\tau)_*\Gamma) = \hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma).$$
4. $(\emph{Bounded proprety})$ For any rectangle $\Gamma$, there exists a constant $C(\Gamma) >0$ such that for $\hat X = \hat X_1\wedge \cdots \wedge \hat X_d$, $$|\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma)| \leq C(\Gamma)(\int_{\Gamma}|\hat X| )^{d/2}.$$
\[def;rect\] For $(m,\textbf{T}) \in M \times \R_+^d$, denote the rectangle of action of ${\mathsf{P}}$, $$\Gamma^X_\textbf{T}(m) = \{{\mathsf{P}}^{d,\alpha}_{\bm{t}}(m) \mid \bm{t} \in [0,\textbf{T}^{(1)}]\times \cdots \times [0,\textbf{T}^{(d)}] \}$$ and define $\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}) := \hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma^X_{\textbf{T}}(m))$.
For arbitrary rectangle $\Gamma = [0,\textbf{T}^{(1)}] \times \cdots \times [0,\textbf{T}^{(d)}]$, pick $\textbf{T}'^{(i)} \in [0,\textbf{T}^{(i)}]$ for each $i$ to decompose $\Gamma$ into $2^d$ sub-rectangles. We write $\mathbf{P}(\textbf{T}')$ collection of $2^d$ vertices $v = (v^{(1)},v^{(2)}, \cdots, v^{(d)})$ where $v^{(i)} \in \{0, \textbf{T}'^{(i)}\}$. Let $\Gamma_v$ be a rectangle whose sides $\bm{I}_v = (I^{(1)},I^{(2)}, \cdots, I^{(d)}) \in \R_+^d$ where $$I^{(l)} =
\begin{cases}
T^{(l)} - T'^{(l)} & \text{if} \quad v^{(l)} = T'^{(l)}\\
T'^{(l)} & \text{if} \quad v^{(l)} = 0.
$$**T**\_1 = (T\_1\^[(1)]{},T\_1\^[(2)]{}, , T\_1\^[(d)]{})$$\end{cases}$$ Then, we have $\Gamma = \bigcup_{v \in \mathbf{P}(\textbf{T}')}\Gamma_v$.
\[hi2\] The function $\beta_H$ satisfies following properties:
1. *(Cocycle property)* For all $(m,\textbf{T}_1,\textbf{T}_2) \in M \times \R^d \times \R^d$, $$\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}_1 + \textbf{T}_2) = \sum_{v \in \mathbf{P}(\textbf{T}_{1})} \beta_H(\alpha,{\mathsf{P}}_{v}^{d,\alpha}(m),\bm{I}_v).$$
2. *(Scaling property)* For all $m \in M$, $$\beta_H(r_{\bm{t}}\alpha,m,\bm{T}) = e^{(t_1 + \cdots t_d)/2}\beta_H(\alpha,m,\bm{T}).$$
3. $(\emph{Bounded proprety})$ Let us denote largest length of side $T_{max} = \max_{i}\textbf{T}^{(i)} $. Then, there exists a constant $C_H >0$ such that $$\beta_H(\alpha,m,\bm{T}) \leq C_HT_{max}^{d/2}.$$
4. *(Orthogonality)* For all $[\alpha] \in DC$ and all $\bm{T} \in \R^d$, bounded function $\beta_H(\alpha,\cdot,\bm{T})$ belongs to the irreducible component, i.e, $$\beta_H(\alpha,\cdot,\bm{T}) \in H \subset L^2(M).$$
By representation theory introduced (\[rep\]), for any $f \in W^s(M)$ has a decomposition $$f = \sum_Hf_H$$ and we define *Bufetov cocycle* associated to $f$ (or form $\omega$) as the sum $$\label{BBB}
\beta^f(\alpha,m,\bm{T}) = \sum_H D_\alpha^H(f)\beta_{H}(\alpha,m,\bm{T}).$$
For convenience, identification of distributions of form $\omega$ and function $f$ were used. The formula (\[BBB\]) yields a duality between the space of Basic (closed) currents and invariant distributions. In similar setting for horocycle flow, refer [@BF14 Cor 1.2, p.10].
Given a Jordan region $U$ and a point $m \in M$, set $P^{d,\alpha}_Um$ the Birkhoff sums associated to some $m \in M$ for the action $\mathsf{P}^{d,\alpha}_x$ given by $$\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_Um , \omega \right\rangle := \int_U f(\mathsf{P}^{d,\alpha}_xm)dx_1\cdots dx_d$$ for any degree $\mathfrak{p}$-form $\omega = f\hat X_1^\alpha \wedge \cdots \wedge \hat X_d^\alpha$, with $f \in C^\infty_0(M)$ (smooth function with zero averages).
Let the family of random variable $$E_{T_n}(f): = \frac{1}{{vol(U(T_n))}^{1/2}}\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(T_n)}(\cdot) , \omega_f \right\rangle,$$ and we are interested in asymptotic behavior of the probability distributions of $E_{T_n}(f)$. Our goal is to understand the asymptotics of $E_{T_n}$.
\[limit\] For every closed form $\omega_f \in \Lambda^d\mathfrak{p} \otimes W^s(M)$ with $s> s_{d,g} = d(d+11)/4+g+1/2$, which is not a coboundary, the limit distribution of the family of random variables $E_{T_n}(f)$ exists, and for almost all frequency $\alpha$, it has compact support on the real line.
*Outlines of the paper.* In section 2, we give basic definitions on Higher rank actions, moduli spaces and Sobolev spaces. In section 3, we state main theorem and prove constructions of Bufetov functionals with main properties. In section 4, we prove asymptotic formula of Birkhoff integrals and its limit theorems. In section 5 and 6, we prove $L^2$-lower bound and analyticity of Bufetov functional. In section 7, there is a measure estimates of Bufetov functionals on the sets where they are small. This result only holds when frame $\alpha$ is of bounded type.
Analysis on Heisenberg manifolds
================================
In this section, we will recall definitions of currents, representation and renormalization on moduli space.
Invariant currents
------------------
We denote the bundle of $\mathfrak{p}$-forms of degree $j$ of Sobolev order s by $A^j(\mathfrak{p}, {\mathfrak{M}}^s)$. Similarly, there is a flat bundle of distribution $A_j(\mathfrak{p}, {\mathfrak{M}}^{-s})$ whose fiber over $[\alpha]$ is locally identified with the space $W_\alpha^{-s}(M)$ normed by ${\left\|\cdot\right\|}_{\alpha,-s}$.
In the following, we set $\omega^{d,\alpha} = dX_1^\alpha \wedge \cdots \wedge dX_d^\alpha$ a top dimensional ${\mathfrak{p}}$-form and identify $d$ dimensional currents ${\mathcal{D}}$ with distributions, for any $f \in C^\infty(M)$ $$\langle {\mathcal{D}},f\rangle:= \langle {\mathcal{D}}, f\omega^{d,\alpha}\rangle.$$
For $s>0$, we denote $D \in Z_d(\mathfrak{p},W^{-s}(M))$ a closed $\mathsf{P}$-invariant currents of dimension $d$ and Sobolev order $s$. Then, from formal identities, $\langle D, X_i^\alpha(f) \rangle = 0$ for all test function $f$ and $i \in [1,d]$.
By [@CF15 Prop 3.13], for any $s > {d/2}$ with $d = \dim{\mathsf{P}}$, denote $I_d({\mathfrak{p}},\mathscr{S}(\R^g))$ the space of $\mathsf{P}$-invariant currents of Sobolev order $s$, which coincides with the space of closed currents of dimension $d$.
- It is one dimensional space if $\dim \mathsf{P} = g$, or an infinite-dimensional space if $\dim \mathsf{P} < g$. We have $I_d({\mathfrak{p}},\mathscr{S}(\R^g)) \subset W^{-d/2-\epsilon}(\R^g)$ for all $\epsilon>0$.
Let $\omega \in \Lambda^d\mathfrak{p}' \otimes W^s(\R^g)$ with $s > (d+1)/2$. Then, $\omega$ admits a primitive $\Omega$ if and only if $T(\omega) = 0$ for all $T \in I_d({\mathfrak{p}},\mathscr{S}(\R^g))$. We may have $\Omega \in \Lambda^{d-1}\mathfrak{p}' \otimes W^t(\R^g)$ for any $t < s - (d+1)/2$.
Representation
--------------
We write Hilbert sum decomposition $$\label{rep}
L^2(M) = \bigoplus_{n\in\Z}H_n$$ into closed $H^g$-invariant subspaces. For some fixed $K>0$, we write $f = \sum_{n \in \Z}f_n \in L^2(M)$, $f_n \in H_n$ where $$H_n = \{f \in L^2(M) \mid \exp(tZ)f = \exp(2\pi \iota n K t)f\}.$$ We also have $W^s(M) = \bigoplus_i W^s(H_i)$ of $W^s(M)$ into closed $H^g$-invariant subspaces $W^s(H_i) = W^s(M) \cap H_i$. The center $Z(H^g)$ has spectrum $2\pi \Z \backslash \{0\}$ the space splits as Hilburt sum of $H^g$-module $H_i$, which is equivalent to irreducible representation $\pi$.
\[stone\]\[Stone-Von Neumann\] For $\alpha = (X_i,Y_i,Z)$, the unitary irreducible representation $\pi$ of the Heisenberg group of non-zero central parameter $K$, is unitarily equivalent to Schrödinger representation. For infinitesimal representation with parameter $n$ for $k = 1, 2, \cdots, g$ $$D\pi(X_k) = \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{x_k}}, \quad D\pi(Y_k) = 2\pi \iota n K x_k, \quad D\pi(Z) = 2\pi \iota n K.$$
Best Sobolev constant
---------------------
The *Sobolev embedding theorem* implies that for any $\alpha \in Sp(2g,\R)$ and $s > g+1/2$, there exists a constant $B_s(\alpha)$ such that for any $f \in W^s_\alpha(M)$, $${\left\|f\right\|}_\infty \leq B_s(\alpha){\left\|f\right\|}_{s,\alpha}.$$ The *best Sobolev constant* is defined as the function on the group of automorphism $$\label{def;sobolev}
B_s(\alpha) = \sup_{f \in W^s_\alpha(M) } \frac{{\left\|f\right\|}_\infty}{{\left\|f\right\|}_{s,\alpha}}.$$ By Proposition 4.8 of [@CF15], there exists a universal constant $C(s)>0$ such that the *best Sobolev constant* satisfies the estimate$$\label{ineq;sobolev}
B_s([[\alpha]]) \leq C(s)\cdot (Hgt[[\alpha]])^{1/4}.$$
From the Sobolev embedding theorem and the definition of the best Sobolev constant, we have the following bound.
\[lem;cf5.5\][@CF15 Lemma 5.5]\[3.1\] For any Jordan region $U \subset \R^d$ with Lebesgue measure $|U|$, for any $s > g + 1/2$ and all $m \in M$, $${\left\|[\alpha, (P_U^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} \leq B_s (\alpha)|U|.$$
Renormalization
---------------
Any such $\hat\delta_i$ generate a one-parameter subgroup of automorphism $r_i^t = e^{t\hat\delta_i}$. We denote renormalization flow $r_\textbf{t} := r_{i_1}^{t_1}\cdots r_{i_d}^{t_d}$ and $$r_i^t[\alpha,\omega] = [r_i^t\alpha, \omega], \quad r_i^t[\alpha, {\mathcal{D}}] = [r_i^t\alpha, {\mathcal{D}}].$$
Let $U_t : L^2(\R^d) \rightarrow L^2(\R^d) $ be unitary operator for $t = (t_1,\cdots, t_d)$, $$U_tf(x) = e^{-(t_1+\cdots + t_d)/2}f(e^{t_1}x_1, \cdots e^{t_d}x_d).$$ That is, for invariant currents $D_\alpha^H$, $$D^H_{r_t(\alpha)} = e^{(t_1+\cdots + t_d)/2}D_\alpha^H.$$ Then, the action of $\R^d$ defined by their parametrization is $$\label{eqn;reno1}
{\mathsf{P}}_x^{d, (r_1^{t_1}...r_d^{t_d}\alpha)} = {\mathsf{P}}_{(e^{-t_1}x_1,...,e^{-t_d}x_d)}^{d, \alpha}$$ and the Birkhoff sum satisfy identities $$\label{eqn;birkhoff}
P_U^{d, (r_1^{t_1}...r_d^{t_d}\alpha)}m = e^{(t_1+\cdots + t_d)/2}P_{(e^{-t_1},...,e^{-t_d})U}^{d, \alpha}m.$$
Diophantine condition
----------------------
Diagonal matrix $\delta_i = diag(d_1, \cdots, d_g)$ with $d_i = 1$, $d_k = 0$ if $k \neq i$. For each $1 \leq i \leq g$, we denote $\hat\delta_i = \begin{bmatrix} \delta_i & 0 \\ 0 & -\delta_i\end{bmatrix} \in \mathfrak{sp}_{2g}$.
We define height function $Hgt:\Sigma_g \rightarrow \R^+$ to be the maximal height of a $Sp_{2g}(\Z)$ orbit. The height of $W \in \mathfrak{H}_g$ is the positive number $hgt(W):= det \Im(W)$ and for the class of $[W] \in \Sigma_g$, $$Hgt([Z]) := \max_{\gamma \in Sp_{2g}(\Z)}hgt(\gamma(Z)).$$
For detailed information, refer to [@CF15 §4.3 - 4.4]. Let $\delta = diag(\delta_1, \cdots, \delta_g)$. By Lemma 4.9 of [@CF15], for any $[\alpha] \in {\mathfrak{M}}_g$ and any $t \geq 0$, $$\label{201}
Hgt([[\exp (t \hat\delta(d))\alpha]]) \leq (\text{det}(e^{t\delta}))^2Hgt([[\alpha]]).$$
Let $\exp \bm{t} \hat\delta(d)$ be the subgroup of $Sp_{2g}(\R)$ defined by $\exp (\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))X_i = e^{t_i}X_i$, for $i = 1, \cdots, d$, and $\exp (\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))X_i = X_i$ for $i = d+1, \cdots g$. We also denote $r_{\bm{t}} = \exp \bm{t} \hat\delta(d)$.
We say that an automorphism $\alpha \in Sp_{2g}(\R)$ or a point $[\alpha] \in {\mathfrak{M}}_g$ is *$\hat\delta(d)$-Diophantine* of type $\sigma$ if there exists a $\sigma>0$ and a constant $C>0$ such that $${Hgt}([[\exp (-\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))\alpha]]) \leq CHgt([[\exp (-\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))]])^{(1-\sigma)}{Hgt}([[\alpha]]), \ \forall \bm{t} \in \R_+^d.$$ This states that $\alpha \in Sp_{2g}(\R)$ satisfies a $\hat\delta(d)$-Diophantine if the height of the projection of $\exp (-\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))\alpha$ in the Siegel modular variety $\Sigma_g$ is bounded by $e^{2(t_1+\cdots t_d)(1-\sigma)}$.\
- $[\alpha] \in {\mathfrak{M}}_g$ satisfies a *$\hat\delta$-Roth condition* if for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{eqn;roth}
{Hgt}([[\exp (-\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))\alpha]]) \leq CHgt([[\exp (-\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))]])^{\epsilon}{Hgt}([[\alpha]]), \ \forall \bm{t} \in \R_+^d.$$ That is, $\hat\delta(d)$-Diophantine of type $0<\sigma <1$.\
- $[\alpha]$ is of *bounded type* if there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{bdd}
Hgt([[\exp (-\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))]]) \leq C, \ \forall \bm{t} \in \R_+^d.$$
For $1 \leq d \leq g$, according to Margulis-Kleinblock [@KM99], a generalization of Khinchin-Sullivan logarithm law for geodesic excursion [@Sul82] holds.
Let $X = G/\Lambda$ be a homogeneous space equipped with the probability Haar measure $\mu$. A function $\phi : X \rightarrow \R$ is said $k$-DL (distance like) for some exponent $k > 0$ if it is uniformly continuous and if there exist constants $C_1, C_2 > 0$ such that $$C_1e^{-kz} \leq \mu(\{x \in X \mid \phi(x) \geq z \})\leq C_2e^{-kz}, \quad \forall z \in \R.$$
Theorem 1.9 of [@KM99] states the following.
\[prop;cartan1\] Let $G$ be a connected semisimple Lie group without compact factors, $\mu$ its normalized Haar measure, $\Lambda \subset G$ an irreducible lattice, $\mathfrak{a}$ a Cartan subalgebra of the Lie algebra of G. Let $\mathfrak{d}_+$ be a nonempty open cone in a $d$-dimensional subalgebra $\mathfrak{d}$ of $\mathfrak{a}$. If $\phi : G/\Lambda \rightarrow \R$ is a $k$-DL function for some $k > 0$, then for $\mu$-almost all $x \in G/\Lambda$ one has $$\limsup_{\mathbf{z} \in \mathfrak{d}_+, \mathbf{z}\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\phi(\exp(\mathbf{z}) x)}{\log{\left\|\mathbf{z}\right\|}} = \frac{d}{k}$$
By Lemma 4.7 of [@CF15], logarithm of Height function is DL-function with exponent $k = \frac{g+1}{2}$ on the Siegel variety $\Sigma_g$ (and induces on ${\mathfrak{M}}_g = Sp_{2g}(\R)/Sp_{2g}(\Z)$). Hence, we obtain the following proposition.
Under the assumption $X = {\mathfrak{M}}_g$ of Proposition \[prop;cartan1\], for $s> g+ 1/2$, there exists a full measure set $\Omega_g(\hat\delta)$ and for all $[\alpha] \in \Omega_g(\hat\delta) \subset {\mathfrak{M}}_g$ $$\label{jackma}
\limsup_{\bm{t} \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log Hgt ([[\exp (-\bm{t} \hat\delta(d))\alpha]]) }{\log {\left\|\bm{t}\right\|}} \leq \frac{2d}{g+1}.$$ Any such $[\alpha]$ satisfies a $\hat\delta$-Roth condition .
For any $L>0$ and $1\leq d \leq g$, let DC($L$) denote the set of $[\alpha] \in {\mathfrak{M}}_g$ such that $$\label{cond;newdc}
\int_0^\infty\cdots\int_0^\infty e^{-(t_1+ \cdots t_d)/2}\text{Hgt} ([[r_\textbf{-t}\alpha]])^{1/4}dt_1\cdots dt_d \leq L.$$ Let DC denote the union of the sets DC(L) over all $L > 0$. It follows immediately that the set $DC \subset {\mathfrak{M}}_g$ has full Haar volume.
Constructions of the functionals
================================
Let ${\Gamma}$ be any $d$-dimensional rectangles, which defines a current, a continuous functional on $d$-forms. For an irreducible representation $H$, there exists *basic current* $B_\alpha^H$ associated to $D_\alpha^H$. Let $\omega$ be invariant volume form and let $\eta_X := \iota_{X_{i_1}}\cdots\iota_{X_{i_d}} \omega$. The basic current $B_\alpha^H$ is defined as $$B_\alpha^H = D_\alpha^H \eta_X.$$ For every $d$-form $\xi$, the formula implies $$B_\alpha^H(\xi) = D_\alpha^H(\frac{\eta_X \wedge \xi}{\omega}).$$
The current is *basic* in the sense that for all $j \in \{i_1, \cdots, i_d\}$, $$\iota_{X_{j}}B_\alpha^H = L_{X_{j}}B_\alpha^H = 0.$$
The basic current $B_\alpha^H$ belongs to a dual Sobolev space of currents. We write any smooth $d$-form $\xi = \sum \xi^{(i)}\hat X_i$, where $\hat X_i \in \Lambda^d\mathfrak{p}' $. It follows that the space of smooth $d$-form is identified to the product of $C^\infty(M)$ by isomorphism $\xi \longrightarrow \xi^{(i)}$. By isomorphism, we define Sobolev space of currents $\Omega^s_\alpha(M)$ and their dual spaces of currents $\Omega^{-s}_\alpha(M)$.
By Sobolev embedding theorem, for every rectangle $\Gamma$, the current $\Gamma \in \Omega^{-s}_\alpha(M)$ for $s > (2d+1)/2$. Then, all basic currents $B_\alpha^H \in \Omega^{-s}_\alpha(M)$ for all $s > d/ 2$ since $D_\alpha^H \in \Omega^{-s}_\alpha(M)$ for all $s > d/2$.
Constructions of the functionals
--------------------------------
For any exponent $s>d/2$, Hilbert bundle induces an orthogonal decomposition $$A_d(\mathfrak{p}, {\mathfrak{M}}^{-s}) = Z_d(\mathfrak{p}, {\mathfrak{M}}^{-s}) \oplus R_d(\mathfrak{p}, {\mathfrak{M}}^{-s})$$ where $R_d(\mathfrak{p}, {\mathfrak{M}}^{-s}) = Z_d(\mathfrak{p}, {\mathfrak{M}}^{-s})^\perp$. Denote by $I^{-s}$ and $R^{-s}$ the corresponding orthogonal projection operator and by $I_\alpha^{-s}$ and $R_\alpha^{-s}$ the restrictions to the fiber over $[\alpha] \in {\mathfrak{M}}$ for $\alpha \in Sp(2g,\R)$. In particular, for the Birkhoff averages $D = P_{U}^{d,\alpha}m$, we call $I_\alpha^{-s}(D) = I^{-s}[\alpha,D]$ boundary term and $R_\alpha^{-s}(D) = R^{-s}[\alpha,D]$ remainder term respectively. Consider the orthogonal projection $$\label{eqn;decom}
D = I_{r_{-\bm{t}}[\alpha]}^{-s}(D) + R_{r_{-\bm{t}}[\alpha]}^{-s}(D).$$
For fixed $\alpha$, let $\Pi^{-s}_H : A_d(\mathfrak{p}, W_\alpha^{-s}(M)) \rightarrow A_d(\mathfrak{p}, W_\alpha^{-s}(H))$ denote the orthogonal projection on a single irreducible unitary representation. We further decompose projection operators with $$\Pi^{-s}_H = {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha}(\Gamma)B^{-s,H}_{\alpha} + R_\alpha^{-s,H}$$ where ${\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{H,\alpha} : A_d(\mathfrak{p}, W_\alpha^{-s}(M)) \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ denote the orthogonal component map of $\mathsf{P}$-invariant currents (closed), supported on a single irreducible unitary representation.\
The *Bufetov functionals* on rectangles $\Gamma$ are defined for all $\alpha \in DC$ as follows.
\[35\] Let $\alpha \in DC(L)$. For $s> s_d = d(d+11)/4+g+1/2$ and every rectangle $\Gamma$ on $M$, the limit $$\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma) = \lim_{t_d \rightarrow \infty}\cdots \lim_{t_1 \rightarrow \infty} e^{-(t_1+ \cdots t_d)/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{H,r_\textbf{-t}[\alpha]}(\Gamma)$$ exists and define a finitely-additive finite measure on the space of rectangles. There exists constant $C(s, \Gamma)>0$ such that the following estimate holds: $$\label{asym}
|\Pi_{H,\alpha}^{-s}(\Gamma) - \hat\beta(\alpha,\Gamma)B_\alpha^H|_{\alpha,-s} \leq C(s,\Gamma)(1+L).$$
For simplicity, we omit dependence of $H$. For every $\textbf{t} \in \R^d$, we have the following orthogonal splitting: $$\Pi_{H,\alpha}^{-s}(\Gamma) = {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}(\Gamma)B_{\alpha,\textbf{t}} + R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}},$$ where $$\quad {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}:= {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{H,r_\textbf{-t}[\alpha]}, \ B_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}:=B_{r_\textbf{-t}[\alpha]}^{-s,H}, \ R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}:=R_{r_\textbf{-t}[\alpha]}^{-s,H}.$$ For any $\textbf{h} \in \R^d$, we have $${\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(\Gamma)B_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}} + R_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}} = {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}(\Gamma)B_{\alpha,\textbf{t}} + R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}.$$
By reparametrization (\[eqn;reno1\]), $B_{\textbf{t+h}} = e^{-(h_1+\cdots h_d)/2}B_\textbf{t}$, $$\label{eqn;rel}
{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(\Gamma) = e^{(h_1+\cdots h_d)/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}(\Gamma) + {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}})$$ and it follows that $${\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(\Gamma) = e^{h_1/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2+h_2,\cdots, t_d+h_d }(\Gamma) + {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}}).$$
By differentiating at $h_1 =0$, $$\label{eq1}
\frac{d}{dt_1}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2+h_2,\cdots, t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) = \frac{1}{2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2+h_2,\cdots, t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) + [\frac{d}{dh_1}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}})]_{h_1=0}.$$
Therefore, we solve the following first order ODE $$\frac{d}{dt_1}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2+h_2,\cdots , t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) = \frac{1}{2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2+h_2,\cdots, t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) + {\mathcal{K}}^{(1)}_{\alpha,\bm{t}}(\Gamma)$$ where $${\mathcal{K}}^{(1)}_{\alpha,\bm{t}}(\Gamma) = [\frac{d}{dh_1}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}})]_{h_1=0}.$$
Then, the solution of the differential equation is $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2+h_2,\cdots t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) &= e^{t_1/2}[{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,0, t_2+h_2,\cdots t_d+h_d}(\Gamma)+\int_0^{t_1} e^{-\tau_1 /2}{\mathcal{K}}^{(1)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1 ]\\
&= e^{t_1/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,0, t_2+h_2,\cdots t_d+h_d}(\Gamma)+\int_0^{t_1} e^{(t_1-\tau_1) /2}{\mathcal{K}}^{(1)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1.\end{aligned}$$ Note by reparametrization $$e^{t_1/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,0, t_2+h_2,\cdots t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) = e^{h_2/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2, t_3+h_3\cdots t_d+h_d}(\Gamma)$$ and it is possible to differentiate the previous equation with respect to $h_2$ again. Then $$\label{eqn;ode2}
\frac{d}{dt_2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2,\cdots t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) = \frac{1}{2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2, t_3+h_3, \cdots t_d+h_d}+\int_0^{t_1} e^{-\tau_1 /2} {\mathcal{K}}^{(2)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1 .$$ where ${\mathcal{K}}^{(2)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma) = \frac{d}{dh_2}{\mathcal{K}}^{(1)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)$.
Then, the solution of is $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2,\cdots t_d+h_d}(\Gamma) \\
& = e^{t_2/2}[{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, 0,t_3+h_3,\cdots t_d+h_d}+\int_0^{t_2} e^{-\tau_2 /2}\int_0^{t_1} e^{(t_1-\tau_1) /2} {\mathcal{K}}^{(2)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1d\tau_2]\\
& = e^{h_3/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t_1, t_2,t_3,\cdots t_d+h_d}+\int_0^{t_2} e^{(t_2-\tau_2) /2}\int_0^{t_1} e^{(t_1-\tau_1) /2} {\mathcal{K}}^{(2)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1d\tau_2.\end{aligned}$$
Inductively, we solve first order ODE repeatedly and obtain the following solution $$\label{eqn;odefinal}
{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\bm{t}}(\Gamma) = e^{(t_1+\cdots t_d)/2}\Big({\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,0}+\int_0^{t_d}\cdots \int_0^{t_1} e^{-(\tau_1+\cdots \tau_d)/2}{\mathcal{K}}^{(d)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1\cdots d\tau_d \Big)$$ where $${\mathcal{K}}^{(d)}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma) = [\frac{d}{dh_d}\cdots \frac{d}{dh_1}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\textbf{t+h}}(R_{\alpha,\textbf{t}})]_{h_d\cdots h_1=0}.$$
Let $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{t}$ denote the inner product in Hilbert space $\Omega^{-s}_{r_\textbf{-t}[\alpha]}$. From the intertwining formula, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\bm{t+h}}(R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}) & = \langle R_{\alpha,\bm{t}} , \frac{B_{\alpha,\bm{t+h}}}{|B_{\alpha,\bm{t+h}}|_{\bm{t+h}}^2}\rangle_{\alpha,\bm{t+h}}\\
& = \langle R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}\circ U_{\bm{-h}} ,\frac{B_{\alpha,\bm{t+h}}\circ U_{\bm{-h}}}{|B_{\alpha,\bm{t+h}}|_{\bm{t+h}}^2} \rangle\\
& = \langle R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}\circ U_{\bm{-h}} , \frac{B_{\alpha,\bm{t}}}{|B_{\alpha,\bm{t}}|_{t}^2} \rangle = {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\bm{t}}(R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}\circ U_{\bm{-h}}). \end{aligned}$$
In the sense of distribution, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dh_d}\cdots \frac{d}{dh_1}(R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}\circ U_{\bm{-h}}) &= -R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}\circ(\frac{d}{2} + \sum_{i=1}^{d}{X_i}(t))\circ U_{\bm{-h}} \\
& = [(\sum_{i=1}^{d}{X_i}(t) - \frac{d}{2})R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}]\circ U_{\bm{-h}}\end{aligned}$$ and we compute derivative term of (\[eq1\]) in representation, $$[\frac{d}{dh_d}\cdots \frac{d}{dh_1}({\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\bm{t+h}}(R_{\alpha,t}))]_{\bm{h}=0} = -{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\bm{t}}((\sum_{i=1}^{d}{X_i}(t) - \frac{d}{2})R_{\alpha,\bm{t}})).$$ Set ${\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha,t}(\Gamma) = |R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}|_{r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha,-(s+1)}$ with a bounded non-negative function, then by Lemma \[04\], we claim that $$\begin{aligned}
|{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,\bm{t}}((\sum_{i=1}^{d}{X_i}(t) - \frac{d}{2})R_{\alpha,\bm{t}}))| \leq {\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma) \leq C(s,\Gamma) Hgt ([r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha] )^{1/4}.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the solution of equation exists under Diophantine condition (\[cond;newdc\]) and the following holds: $$\lim_{t_d \rightarrow \infty}\cdots \lim_{t_1 \rightarrow \infty} e^{-(t_1+\cdots t_d)/2}{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t}(\Gamma) = \hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma)$$ Moreover, by continuity, the complex number $$\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma) = {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,0}+\int_0^\infty\cdots \int_0^{\infty} e^{-(\tau_1+\cdots \tau_d)/2}{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1\cdots d\tau_d$$ depends on $\alpha \in DC(L)$. Since we have $$\Pi_{H,\alpha}^{-s}(\Gamma) - \hat\beta(\alpha,\Gamma)B_\alpha^H = R_0 - \left(\int_0^\infty\cdots\int_0^\infty e^{-(\tau_1+ \cdots \tau_d) /2}{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha,\tau}(\Gamma)d\tau_1\cdots d\tau_d\right)B_\alpha^H,$$ by Diophantine condition again, $$|\Pi_{H,\alpha}^{-s}(\Gamma) - \hat\beta(\alpha,\Gamma)B_\alpha^H|_{\alpha,-s} \leq C(s,\Gamma)(1+L).$$
Remainder estimates
-------------------
In this subsection, we obtain estimate for remainder term which is used in Lemma \[35\]. Firstly, we prove the bound of Birkhoff sum of rectangles.\
\[lem;boundary1\] [@CF15 Lemma 5.7] Let $s > d/2+2$. There exists a constant $C = C(s)>0$ such that for all $t_i \geq 0$ for $1\leq i \leq d$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|I^{-s}[\alpha, D]\right\|}_{-s} \leq e^{-(t_1+\cdots + t_d)/2}{\left\|I^{-s}[r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha, D]\right\|}_{-s}\\
+ C_1|t_1+ \cdots + t_d| \int_{0}^1e^{-u(t_1 + \cdots + t_d)/2}{\left\|R^{-s}[r_1^{-ut_1}\cdots r_d^{-ut_d}\alpha, D\right\|}_{-(s-2)}du.
\end{gathered}$$
By Stokes’ theorem, we have the following remainder estimate.
[@CF15 Lemma 5.6]\[eqn;stokes\] For any non-negative $s' < s- (d+1)/2$ and Jordan region $\Gamma \subset \R^d$, there exists $C = C(d,g,s,s')>0$ such that $${\left\|R^{-s}[\alpha, (P_{\Gamma}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} \leq C {\left\|[\alpha, \partial(P_{\Gamma}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s'}.$$
Here we prove quantitative bound of Birkhoff averages of higher rank actions on rectangle. (Cf. [@CF15 theorem 5.10]).
\[thm;3.3\] For $s > s_d$, there exists a constant $C(s,d) >0$ such that the following holds.
For all $t_i >0$, $m \in M$ and ${\Gamma_d(t)} = [0,e^{t_1}]\times \cdots \times [0,e^{t_d}]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn;main2}
\begin{split}
{\left\|[\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(t)}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} &\leq C\sum_{k=0}^d \sum_{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d} \int_{0}^{t_{i_k}}\cdots\int_{0}^{t_{i_1}} \exp({\frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^d t_l - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^k u_{i_l} })\\
& \times Hgt ( [[\prod_{1\leq j \leq d}r_j^{-t_{j}}\prod_{l=1}^k r_{i_l}^{u_{i_l}}\alpha]] )^{1/4}du_{i_1}\cdots du_{i_k}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
We prove by induction. For $d = 1$, it follows from the theorem 5.8 in [@CF15]. We assume that the result holds for $d-1$. Decompose the current as a sum of boundary and remainder term as in .\
Step 1. We estimate the boundary term. By Lemma \[lem;boundary1\], renormalize terms with $r^u = r_1^u\cdots r_d^u$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ine;step1}
\begin{split}
&{\left\|I^{-s}[\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(t)}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} \leq e^{-(t_1+\cdots + t_d)/2}{\left\|I^{-s}[r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(t)}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s}\\
& + C_1(s) \int_{0}^{t_1+\cdots + t_d}e^{-ud/2}{\left\|R^{-s}[r^{-u}\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(t)}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-(s-2)}du\\
& := (I) + (II)
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
By renormalization and Lemma \[lem;cf5.5\] for unit volume, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\|I^{-s}[r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(t)}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} &= e^{t_1+\cdots + t_d}{\left\|I^{-s}[r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(0)}^{d,r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s}\\
& \leq C_2e^{t_1+\cdots + t_d}Hgt ([[r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha]] )^{1/4}
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$I \leq C_2e^{(t_1+\cdots t_d)/2}Hgt ([[r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha]] )^{1/4},$$ where the sum corresponds to the first term $(k=0)$ in the statement.
Step 2. To estimate $(II)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ine;step2}
\begin{split}
{\left\|R^{-s}[r^{-u}\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(t)}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-(s-2)} &= {\left\|e^{ud}R^{-s}[r^{-u}\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d(t-u)}^{d,r^{-u}\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-(s-2)}\\
& \leq C_3(s,s')e^{ud}{\left\|[r^{-u}\alpha, \partial(P_{\Gamma_d(t-u)}^{d,r^{-u}\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s'}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
The boundary $\partial ({\mathsf{P}}_{\Gamma}^{d, r^{-t}\alpha})$ is the sum of $2d$ currents of dimension $d-1$. These currents are Birkhoff sums of $d$ face subgroups obtained from ${\mathsf{P}}_{\Gamma}^{d, r^{-t}\alpha}$ by omitting one of the base vector fields $X_i$. It is reduced to $(d-1)$ dimensional shape obtained from $\Gamma_d(t-u):= [0,e^{t_1-u}]\times \cdots [0,e^{t_d-u}]$. For each $1\leq j \leq d$, there are Birkhoff sums along $d-1$ dimensional cubes. By induction hypothesis, we add all the $d-1$ dimensional cubes by adding all the terms along $j$:$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ine;norm}
\begin{split}
& {\left\|[r^{-u}\alpha, (P_{U_{d-1}(t-u)}^{d-1,r^{-u}\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s'} \leq C_4(s',d-1)\sum_{j=1}^{d}\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d\\ i_l \neq j, \forall l} }\int_{0}^{t_{i_k-u}}\cdots\int_{0}^{t_{i_1-u}}\\
& \exp({\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{l=1\\ l\neq j }}^d (t_l - u) - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^k u_{i_l} }) Hgt ( [[\prod_{\substack{1\leq l \leq d \\ l \neq j }}r_l^{-(t_{l}-u)}\prod_{l=1}^k r_{i_l}^{u_{i_l}}(r^{-u}\alpha)]] )^{1/4}du_{i_1}\cdots du_{i_k}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Combining and , we obtain the estimate for $(II)$.
$$\begin{aligned}
(II) & \leq C_5(s',d-1)\sum_{j=1}^{d}\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d\\ i_l \neq j} } \int_{0}^{t_1 + \cdots t_d}\int_{0}^{t_{i_k-u}}\cdots\int_{0}^{t_{i_1-u}}du_{i_1}\cdots du_{i_k}du\\
& \times \exp({\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{l=1\\ l\neq j }}^d t_l - \frac{1}{2}u - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^k u_{i_l} })Hgt ( [[\prod_{1\leq l \leq d}r_l^{-t_{l}}\prod_{l=1}^k r_{i_l}^{u_{i_l}}(r_j^{-u+t_j}\alpha)]] )^{1/4}.
\end{aligned}$$
Applying the change of variable $u_{j} = t_{j} - u$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(II) & \leq C_6(s',d-1)\sum_{j=1}^{d}\sum_{k=1}^{d-1} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d\\ i_l \neq j} } \int_{-(t_1 + \cdots t_d) + t_j}^{t_j}\int_{0}^{t_{i_k-u}}\cdots\int_{0}^{t_{i_1-u}}du_{i_1}\cdots du_{i_k}du_j\\
& \times \exp({\frac{1}{2}(t_1 + \cdots t_d) - \frac{1}{2}u_j - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^k u_{i_l} })Hgt ( [[\prod_{1\leq l \leq d}r_l^{-t_{l}}\prod_{l=1}^k r_{i_l}^{u_{i_l}}(r_j^{-u_{j}}\alpha)]] )^{1/4}.
\end{aligned}$$ Simplifying multi-summation above, (with $-(t_1 + \cdots t_d) + t_j \leq 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
(II) & \leq C_7(s',d)\sum_{k=1}^{d} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d} } \int_{0}^{t_{i_k}}\cdots\int_{0}^{t_{i_1}}du_{i_1}\cdots du_{i_k}\\
& \times \exp({\frac{1}{2}(t_1 + \cdots t_d) - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^k u_{i_l} })Hgt ( [[\prod_{1\leq l \leq d}r_l^{-t_{l}}\prod_{l=1}^k r_{i_l}^{u_{i_l}}\alpha]] )^{1/4}.
\end{aligned}$$
Step 3. Remainder estimate.\
The remainder term is obtained from Lemma \[eqn;stokes\] (Stokes theorem). Following step 2, estimate of remainder reduces to that of $d-1$ form. Combining with the step 1, we have the following $$\label{eqn;remain6}
{\left\|R^{-s}[\alpha, \partial(P_{\Gamma_d}^{d,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} \leq C(s)\sum_{i=1}^{d-1} {\left\|I^{-s}[\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_i}^{i,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} + {\left\|R^{-s}[\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_1}^{1,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s}$$ where $\Gamma_i$ is $i$-dimensional rectangle. Sum of boundary terms are absorbed in the bound of $(I) + (II)$. For 1-dimensional remainder with interval $\Gamma_T$, the boundary is a 0-dimensional current. Then, $$\langle \partial(P_{\Gamma_T}^{1,\alpha}m), f \rangle = f({\mathsf{P}}_{\Gamma_T}^{1,\alpha}m) - f(m).$$ Hence, by Sobolev embedding theorem and by definition of Sobolev constant and , $${\left\|R^{-s}[\alpha, \partial(P_{\Gamma_T}^{1,\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} \leq 2B_{s'}([[\alpha]] ) \leq C(s)Hgt ([[\alpha]] )^{1/4}.$$
Then, by inequality (\[201\]) $$\begin{aligned}
Hgt ([[\alpha]] )^{1/4} \leq Ce^{(t_1+\cdots t_d)/2}Hgt ([[r_1^{-t_1}\cdots r_d^{-t_d}\alpha]] )^{1/4}.
\end{aligned}$$ This implies that remainder term produces one more term like the bound of $(I)$. Therefore, the theorem follows from combining all the terms $(I), (II)$, and remainder.
Now we prove the estimate for constructing Bufetov functionals.
\[04\] Let $s > s_d$. There exists a constant $C(s)>0$ such that for any rectangle $\Gamma_d = [0,e^{\Gamma_1}]\times \cdots \times [0,e^{\Gamma_d}]$ and all $m \in M$, $${\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha,t}(\Gamma) \leq C(s,\Gamma)Hgt ([r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha] )^{1/4}.$$
Recall that ${\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha,t}(\Gamma) = {\left\|R^{-s}[r_{-\bm{t}}[\alpha], (P_{\Gamma}^{d,r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-(s+1)}$ and by Lemma \[eqn;stokes\], it is equivalent to prove to find the bound of $d-1$ currents. By theorem \[thm;3.3\], we obtain the remainder estimate. $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{K}}_{\alpha,t}(\Gamma) & \leq C\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \sum_{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d-1} \int_{0}^{\Gamma_{i_k}}\cdots\int_{0}^{\Gamma_{i_1}} \exp({\frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^{d-1} \Gamma_l - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^k u_{i_l} })\\
& \times Hgt ( [[\prod_{1\leq j \leq d-1}r_j^{-\Gamma_{j}}\prod_{l=1}^k r_{i_l}^{u_{i_l}}(r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha)]] )^{1/4}du_{i_1}\cdots du_{i_k}.\end{aligned}$$
It follows from (\[201\]) that for $0 \leq k \leq d-1$, $$Hgt ( [[\prod_{1\leq j \leq d-1}r_j^{-\Gamma_{j}}\prod_{l=1}^k r_{i_l}^{u_{i_l}}(r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha)]] )^{1/4} \leq e^{\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{l=1}^k{u_{i_l}} - \sum_{l=1}^d\Gamma_l)}Hgt ([[r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha]] )^{1/4}.$$
Then, we obtain $$\label{eqn;remainder1}
{\left\|R^{-s}[r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha, (P_{\Gamma_d}^{d,r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha}m)]\right\|}_{-s} \leq C \Big(\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \sum_{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d-1} \prod_{l=1}^k \Gamma_{i_l} \Big) Hgt ([[r_{-\bm{t}}\alpha]] )^{1/4}.$$ Setting $C(s,\Gamma) = C \Big(\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \sum_{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d-1} \prod_{l=1}^k \Gamma_{i_l} \Big)$, we obtain the conclusion.
Proof of theorem \[hi\]
-----------------------
The main theorem follows from refinement of the method of [@BF14; @FK17] to the $d$-form and currents.\
*Proof of theorem 1.1*. *Additive property* follows from linearity of projections and limit and it is immediate to derive *Scaling property* from definition.\
*Bounded property*. By scaling property, $$\hat\beta(\alpha,\Gamma) = e^{dt/2}\hat\beta_H(r^t[\alpha],\Gamma).$$ Choose $t = \log (\int_{\Gamma}|\hat X| )$ and $\hat X = \hat X_1\wedge \cdots \wedge \hat X_d$, then uniform bound of Bufetov functional on bounded size of rectangles, $$|\hat\beta(\alpha,\Gamma)| \leq C(\Gamma) (\int_{\Gamma}|\hat X| )^{d/2}.$$
*Invariance property.* It suffices to check invariance property of rank 1 action ${\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau$ for $\tau \in \R$. Let $Y_i$ be generator of ${\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau$ and pick $X_i$ with $[X_i,Y_i] = Z$.
Given rectangle $\Gamma$, set $\Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}:= ({\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau)_*\Gamma$. Let $D(\Gamma, \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})$ be the $(d+1)$ dimensional space spanned by the trajectories of the action of ${\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau$ projecting $\Gamma$ onto $\Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}$. Then $D(\Gamma, \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})$ is union of all orbits I of action ${\mathsf{Q}}_\tau^{1,Y}$ such that the boundary of $I$, $d$-dimensional faces, is contained in $\Gamma \cup \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}$, and interior of $I$ is disjoint from $\Gamma \cup \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}$. By definition, denote $r_t := r_{i}^{t}$. Then, $r_{-t}(\Gamma)$ and $r_{-t}(\Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})$ are respectively the support of the currents $r_{t}^*\Gamma$ and $r_{t}^*\Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}$. Thus, we have the following identity $$r_{t}^* D(\Gamma, \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}) = D({r_{-t}}(\Gamma), {r_{-t}}(\Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})).$$ Since the currents $\partial D(\Gamma, \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}) - (\Gamma - \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})$ is composed of orbits of the action of ${\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau$, it follows that $$\label{area0}
\partial[{r^*_t}D(\Gamma, \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}) ] - ({r^*_t}\Gamma - {r^*_t}\Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})= {r^*_t}[\partial D(\Gamma, \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}) - (\Gamma - \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})] \rightarrow 0.$$ Now, we turn to prove the volume of $D({r_{-t}}(\Gamma), {r_{-t}}(\Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}}))$ is uniformly bounded for all $t>0$. For any $p \in \Gamma$, set $\tau(p)$ be length of the arc lying in $D:= D(\Gamma, \Gamma_{\mathsf{Q}})$, and set $\tau_\Gamma := \sup\{\tau(p) \mid p \in \Gamma\} < \infty$. We write $$vol_{d+1}(D) = \int_{\Gamma} \tau dvol_d.$$ Since $vol_{d}(r_{-t}\Gamma) \leq e^tvol_{d}(\Gamma)$, $$\label{ineq;area2}
vol_{d+1}(r_{-t}D) = \int_{r_{-t}\Gamma} \tau dvol_d \leq \tau_\Gamma e^{-t} vol_{d}(r_{-t}\Gamma) \leq \tau_\Gamma vol_{d}(\Gamma) < \infty.$$
Note that current $({\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau)_*\Gamma - \Gamma$ is equal to the boundary of a $(d+1)$ dimensional current $D$. By arguments in remainder estimate (or Sobolev embedding theorem), $$\label{area1}
|({\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau)_*\Gamma - \Gamma|_{r^{-t}\alpha, -s} \leq C_s\tau B_s([[r^{-t} \alpha]]) \leq C_s\tau \text{Hgt} [[r^{-t}\alpha]]^{1/4}$$ is finite for all $t >0$.
Then, by , and existence of Bufetov functional (from Diophantine condition), the last inequality holds $$|{\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t}(({\mathsf{Q}}^{1,Y}_\tau)_*\Gamma ) - {\mathscr{B}}^{-s}_{\alpha,t}(\Gamma )|_{\alpha,-s} < \infty.$$ Therefore, by definition of Bufetov functional, we prove the invariance property.
Bound of functionals
--------------------
We define excursion function $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\mathfrak{M}}(\alpha,\bf{T}) & := \int_0^{\log T^{(d)}}\cdots \int_0^{\log T^{(1)}} e^{-(t_1 + \cdots t_d)/2}\text{Hgt} ([[r_{\bf{t-\log T}}\alpha]])^{1/4} dt_1\cdots dt_d \\
& = \prod_{i=1}^d{(T^{(i)})}^{1/2} \int_0^{\log T^{(d)}}\cdots \int_0^{\log T^{(1)}} e^{(t_1 + \cdots t_d)/2}\text{Hgt} ([[r_{\bf{t}}\alpha]])^{1/4} dt_1\cdots dt_d.\end{aligned}$$
Denote $\bm{tT} = (t_1T^{(1)},\cdots, t_dT^{(d)})$ and $\textbf{t} = (t_1,\cdots, t_d)$.
\[6.1type\] For any Diophantine $[\alpha] \in DC(L)$ and for any $f \in W^s(M)$ for $s > s_d+1/2$, the Bufetov functional $\beta^f$ is defined by a uniformly convergent series. $$|\beta^f(\alpha,m,\bm{tT})| \leq C_s(L + \prod_{i=1}^d (T^{(i)})^{1/2}(1+\prod_{i=1}^d t_i+E_{\mathfrak{M}}(\alpha,\bf{T})){\left\|\omega\right\|}_{\alpha,s}$$
for $\omega = f\omega^{d,\alpha} \in \Lambda^d\mathfrak{p} \otimes W^s(M)$. It follows from Lemma \[35\] that there exists a constant $C >0$ such that $$|\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{t})| \leq C(1+L+\prod_{i=1}^d t_i).$$ By exact scaling property, $$\beta_H(\alpha,m,\bm{tT}) = \prod_{i=1}^d (T^{(i)})^{1/2}\beta_H(r_{\log \textbf{T}}[\alpha],m,\textbf{t}).$$ By Diophantine condition (\[cond;newdc\]), whenever $\alpha \in DC(L) $ then $r_{\log \textbf{T}}[\alpha] \in DC(L_T) $ with $$L_T \leq L\prod_{i=1}^d(T^{(i)})^{-1/2} + E_{\mathfrak{M}}(\alpha,\bf{T}).$$ Thus for all $(m,\textbf{t}) \in M \times \R^d$, $$|\beta_H(r_{\log \textbf{T}}[\alpha],m,\textbf{t})| \leq C(1+L_T + \prod_{i=1}^d t_i).$$ It follows that for all $s > 1/2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|\beta^f(\alpha,m,\bm{tT})| \leq C_s \prod_{i=1}^d (T^{(i)})^{1/2}(1+L+\prod_{i=1}^d t_i)\sum_{n\in \Z}{\left\|\omega_n\right\|}_{\alpha,s} \\
& \leq C_s \prod_{i=1}^d (T^{(i)})^{1/2}(1+L_T+\prod_{i=1}^d t_i)(\sum_{n\in \Z}(1+n^2)^{-s'})^{-1/2}(\sum_{n\in \Z}{\left\|(1-Z^2)^{s'/2}\omega_n\right\|}^2_{\alpha,s})^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for all $s'>s_d$, there exists a constant $C_{s,s'}>0$ such that $$|\beta^f(\alpha,m,\textbf{tT})| \leq C_{r,r'}\prod_{i=1}^d (T^{(i)})^{1/2}(1+L_T+\prod_{i=1}^d t_i){\left\|\omega\right\|}_{\alpha,s+s'}.$$
This lemma implies that all properties of the Bufetov functionals associated to a single irreducible component $\beta_H$ can be extended to the Bufetov functionals $\beta^f$ for any $f \in W^s(M)$. From this, we can derive bounded property for the cocycles $\beta(\alpha,m, \textbf{T})$ with respect to $m$ along the orbits of actions in time $\textbf{T} \in \R^d$ respectively.
\[6.2type\]For all $s > s_d+1/2$, there exists a constant $C_s >0$ such that for almost all frequency $\alpha$ and for all $f \in W^s(M)$ and for all $(m,\bm{T}) \in M \times \R^d$, we have $$\label{eqn:asymp}
|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}m , \omega \right\rangle - \beta^f(\alpha,m,\bm{T}) | \leq C_s(1+L){\left\|\omega\right\|}_{\alpha,s}.$$ for $U(\bm{T}) = [0,T^{(1)}]\times \cdots [0,T^{(d)}]$ and $\omega = f\omega^{d,\alpha} \in \Lambda^d\mathfrak{p} \otimes W^s(M)$.
By Lemma \[35\] and \[6.1type\], asymptotic formula (\[asym\]) on each irreducible provides proof of Corollary \[6.2type\].
Limit distributions
===================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[limit\], limit distribution of Birkhoff sums of higher rank actions on squares.
Limiting distributions
----------------------
\[7.1\] There exists a continuous modular function $\theta_H : Aut_0(\mathsf{H}^g) \rightarrow H \subset L^2(M)$ such that $$\lim_{|U(\bm{T})| \rightarrow \infty}{\left\|\frac{1}{{vol(U(\bm{T}))}^{1/2}} \left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}(\cdot) , \omega_f \right\rangle - \theta_H(r_{\log \bm{T}}[\alpha])D^H_\alpha(f)\right\|}_{L^2(M)} = 0 .$$ The family $\{ \theta_H(\alpha) \mid \alpha \in Aut_0(\mathsf{H}^g) \}$ has a constant norm in $L^2(M)$.
By Fourier transform, the space of smooth vectors and Sobolev space $W^s(H)$ is represented as Schwartz-type space $\mathscr{S}^s(\R^d) \subset L^2(\R^d)$ such that $$\int_{\R^d}|(1+ \sum_{i}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial u_i^2}+\sum_{i}u_i^2 )^{s/2} \hat f(u)|^2du < \infty.$$
Let $\bm{t, u} \in \R^d$. Then we claim for any $f \in \mathscr{S}^s(\R^d)$, there exists $\theta[\alpha] \in L^2(\R^d)$ such that $$\lim_{ |U(\bm{T})| \rightarrow \infty}{\left\|\frac{1}{{vol(U(\bm{T}))}^{1/2}} \int_{U(\bm{T})} f(\bm{u+t})d\bm{t} - \theta_H(r_{\log \bm{T}}[\alpha])Leb(f)\right\|}_{L^2(\R^d, d\bm{u})} = 0.$$
Equivalently, $$\lim_{|U(\bm{T})| \rightarrow \infty}{\left\|\frac{1}{{vol(U(\bm{T}))}^{1/2}} \int_{0}^{T^{(d)}}\cdots\int_{0}^{T^{(1)}}e^{i \bm{t\cdot \hat u}}\hat f(\bm{\hat u}) dt - \hat\theta_H(r_{\log \bm{T}}[\alpha])\hat f(0) \right\|}_{L^2(\R^d, d\hat u)} = 0.$$
For $\chi \in L^2(\R^d, d\hat u)$, we denote $$\chi_j(\hat u) = \frac{e^{i \hat u_j} -1 }{i\hat u_j}, \ \chi(\hat u) = \prod_{j=1}^d\chi_j(\hat u).$$
Let $\hat\theta[\alpha](\hat u) := \chi(\hat u)$ for all $\hat u \in \R^d$. Then, by intertwining formula, for $\textbf{T} \in \R^d$ and $\textbf{u} \in \R^d$, $$U_\textbf{T}(f)(\hat u) = {\prod_{i=1}^d (T^{(i)})^{1/2}}f(\bm{T\hat u}), \text{ for } \bm{T\hat u} = (T^{(1)}\hat u_1,\cdots, T^{(d)}\hat u_d).$$ Then, for all $\alpha \in A$, $$\hat\theta(r_{\log \bm{T}} [\alpha])(\hat u) = U_\textbf{T}(\chi)(\hat u) = {\prod_{i=1}^d (T^{(i)})^{1/2}}\chi(\bm{T\hat u}).$$ The function $\theta[\alpha]$ is defined by Fourier inverse transform $${\left\|\theta_H(\alpha)\right\|}_H = {\left\|\theta(\alpha)\right\|}_{L^2(\R^d)} = {\left\|\hat\theta(\alpha)\right\|}_{L^2(\R^d)} = {\left\|\chi(\hat u)\right\|}_{{L^2(\R^d, d\hat u)}} = C >0.$$
By integration, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{T^{(d)}}\cdots\int_{0}^{T^{(1)}}e^{i \bm{t\cdot \hat u}}\hat f(\hat u) dt &= (\prod_{i=1}^d T^{(i)})\chi(\bm{T\hat u}) \hat f (\hat u)\\
& = (\prod_{i=1}^d T^{(i)})\chi(\bm{T\hat u}) (\hat f (\hat u) - \hat f (0)) + (\prod_{i=1}^d T^{(i)})^{1/2}\hat\theta(r_{\log \bm{T}} [\alpha])(\hat u) \hat f (0).\end{aligned}$$
We note that $\prod_{i=1}^d T^{(i)} = vol(U(\bm{T}))$. Then the claim reduces to the following: $$\limsup_{vol(U(T)) \rightarrow \infty} {\left\|vol(U(\bm{T}))^{1/2}\chi(\bm{T\hat u})(\hat f(\hat u) - \hat f( 0)) \right\|}_{L^2(\R^d)} = 0.$$
If $f \in \mathscr{S}^s(\R^g)$ with $s > d/2$, function $\hat f \in C^0(\R^d)$ and bounded. Thus, by Dominated convergence theorem, $${\left\|vol(U(\bm{T}))^{1/2}\chi(\bm{T\hat u}) (\hat f (\hat u) - \hat f (0))\right\|}_{L^2(\R^d, d\hat u)} = {\left\|\chi(\nu)(\hat{f}(\frac{\nu}{\bm{T}}) - \hat f (0)) \right\|}_{L^2(\R^d, d\nu)} \rightarrow 0 .$$
\[522\] There exists a constant $C >0$ such that for any $s > d/2$, for any $\alpha \in A$ and $f \in W^s(H)$, we have $$\lim_{|U(\bm{T})|\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{{vol(U(\bm{T}))}^{1/2}}{\left\| \left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}m , \omega_f \right\rangle \right\|}_{L^2(M)} = C|D_\alpha^H(f)|.$$
From Corollary \[522\], we derive the following limit result for the $L^2$ norm of Bufetov functionals.
\[7.3\] For irreducible component H and $\alpha \in DC$, there exists $C>0$ such that $$\lim_{|U(\bm{T})|\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{{vol(U(\bm{T}))}^{1/2}}{\left\|\beta_H(\alpha,\cdot,\bm{T})\right\|}_{L^2(M)} = C.$$
By the normalization of invariant distribution in Sobolev space $W^s(M)$, there exists a function $f_\alpha^H \in W^s(H)$ such that $D_\alpha(f_\alpha^H) = {\left\|f_\alpha^H\right\|}_s = 1.$ For all $\alpha \in DC(L)$, by asymptotic formula , $$\big|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}m , \omega \right\rangle - \beta^f(\alpha,m,\bm{T}) \big| \leq C_s(1+L).$$ Therefore, $L^2$-estimate follows from Corollary \[522\].\
A relation between the Bufetov functional and the modular function $\theta_H$ is established below.
\[4.4\] For any $L >0$ and invariant probability measure supported on $DC(L) \subset {\mathfrak{M}}_g$, $$\beta_H(\alpha,\cdot, 1) = \theta_H([\alpha]), \quad \text{for } \mu \text{-almost all } [\alpha] \in {\mathfrak{M}}_g.$$
By Theorem \[6.2type\] and Lemma \[7.1\], there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $\alpha \in supp(\mu) \subset DC(L)$, for all $T>0$ we have $$\lim_{|U(\bm{T})| \rightarrow \infty}{\left\| \beta_H(r_{\log \bm{T}}[\alpha],\cdot, 1) - \theta_H(r_{\log \bm{T}}[\alpha])\right\|}_{L^2(M)} \leq \frac{C_\mu}{{vol(U(\bm{T}))}^{1/2}}.$$ By Luzin’s theorem, for any $\delta >0$ there exists a compact subset $E(\delta) \subset {\mathfrak{M}}$ such that we have the measure bound $\mu({\mathfrak{M}}\backslash E(\delta)) < \delta$ and the function $\beta_H(\alpha,\cdot,1) \in L^2(M)$ depends continuously on $[\alpha] \in E(\delta)$. By Poincare recurrence, there is a full measure subset $E'(\delta) \subset E(\delta)$ of $\R^d$-action.
For every $\alpha_0 \in E'(\delta)$, there is diverging sequence $(t_n)$ such that $\{r^{t_n}(\alpha_0) \} \subset E(\delta)$ and $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}r^{t_n}(\alpha_0) = (\alpha_0)$. By continuity of $\theta_H$ and $\beta_H$ at $[\alpha_0]$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\| \beta_H([\alpha_0],\cdot, 1) - \theta_H([\alpha_0])\right\|}_{L^2(M)} \\
= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}{\left\| \beta_H(r_{\log \bm{T_n}}[\alpha_0],\cdot, 1) - \theta_H(r_{\log \bm{T_n}}[\alpha_0])\right\|}_{L^2(M)} = 0.\end{gathered}$$ Thus, we have $\beta_H([\alpha],\cdot, 1) = \theta_H([\alpha])$ for $[\alpha] \in E'(\delta)$. It follows that the set of equality fails has less than any $\delta>0$, thus the identity holds for almost all $[\alpha]$.\
For all $\alpha \in Aut_0(\mathsf{H}^g)$, general smooth function $f \in W^s(M)$ for $s > s_d+1/2$, $f$ decompose an infinite sum, and the functional $\theta^f$ is defined by a convergent series. $$\theta^f(\alpha) = \sum_H D_\alpha^H(f)\theta_{H}(\alpha).$$
The following result is an extention to general asymptotic theorem from Corollary \[4.4\].
\[lll\] For all $\alpha \in Aut_0(\mathsf{H}^g)$, and for all $f \in W^s(M)$ for $s > s_d+1/2$, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}{\left\|\frac{1}{vol(U(T_n))^{1/2}}\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(T_n)}m , \omega_f \right\rangle- \theta^f(r_{\log \bm{T_n}}\alpha)\right\|}_{L^2(M)} = 0.$$
Proof of Theorem \[limit\]
---------------------------
By theorem \[lll\], we summarize our results on limit distributions for higher rank actions.
Let $(T_n)$ be any sequence such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} r_{\log \bm{T_n}} [\alpha] = \alpha_\infty \in {\mathfrak{M}}_g.$$ For every closed form $\omega_f \in \Lambda^d\mathfrak{p} \otimes W^s(M)$ with $s> s_d+1/2$, which is not a coboundary, the limit distribution of the family of random variables $$E_{T_n}(f): = \frac{1}{{vol(U(T_n))}^{1/2}}\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(T_n)}(\cdot) , \omega_f \right\rangle$$ exists and is equal to the distribution of the function $\theta^f(\alpha_\infty) = \beta(\alpha, \cdot, 1) \in L^2(M)$. If $\alpha_\infty \in DC$, then $\theta^f(\alpha_\infty)$ is bounded function on M, and the limit distribution has compact support.
*Proof of theorem \[limit\]*. Since $\alpha_\infty \in {\mathfrak{M}}_g$, the existence of limit follows from Corollary \[4.4\] and Lemma \[lll\].\
A relation with Birkhoff sum and theta sum was introduced in [@CF15 §5.3], and as an applications, we derive limit theorem of theta sums.
Let $\mathscr{Q}[x] = x^\top \mathscr{Q}x$ be the quadratic forms defined by $g \times g$ real matrix $\mathscr{Q}$, $\alpha = \begin{pmatrix}{I}&{0}\\{\mathscr{Q}}&{I}\end{pmatrix} \in Sp_{2g}(\R)$, $\ell(x) = \ell^\top x$ be the linear form defined by $l \in \R^g$. Then, Theta sum $$\Theta(\mathscr{Q},l;N)= N^{-g/2}\sum_{n \in \Z^g \cap [0,N]} e(\mathscr{Q}[n] + \ell(n))$$ has limit distribution and it has compact support.
$L^2$-lower bounds
===================
In this section we prove bounds for the square mean of ergodic integrals along the leaves of foliations of the torus into circles transverse to central direction.
Structure of return map
------------------------
Let ${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}$ denote $(g+1)$-dimensional torus with standard frame $(X_i,Y_i,Z)$ with $${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1} := \{\mathsf{\Gamma}\exp(\sum_{i=1}^g y_iY_i +zZ) \mid ({y_i},z) \in \R\times \R \}.$$
It is convenient to work with the polarized Heisenberg group. Set $H^g_{pol} \approx \R^g \times \R^g \times \R $ equipped with the group law $(x,y,z)\cdot (x',y',z') = (x+x',y+y',z+z'+yx')$.
Reduced standard Heisenberg group $H_{red}^g$ is defined by quotient $H_{pol}^g/(\{0\}\times \{0\} \times \frac{1}{2}\Z) \approx \R^g \times \R^g \times \R / \frac{1}{2}\Z$. Reduced standard latice $\mathsf{\Gamma}_{red}^g$ is $\Z^g\times \Z^g \times \{0\}$ and the quotient $H_{red}^g/\mathsf{\Gamma}_{red}^g$ is isomorhic to standard Heisenberg manifold $H^g/\mathsf{\Gamma}$.
Now, we consider return map of ${\mathsf{P}}^{d,\alpha}$ on ${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}$. For $x = (x_1, \cdots, x_g) \in \R^g$, $$\exp(x_1X_1^\alpha + \cdots +x_gX_g^\alpha) = (x_\alpha, x_\beta, w\cdot x ), \text{ for some } x_\alpha, x_\beta \in \R^d.$$ In $H_{red}^g$, $$\exp(x_1X_1^\alpha + \cdots +x_gX_g^\alpha)\cdot(0,y,z) = (x_\alpha, y + x_\beta, z+ w\cdot x ).$$ Then, given $(n,m,0) \in \mathsf{\Gamma}_{red}^g$, $$\label{def;return}
\exp(x_1X_1^\alpha + \cdots +x_gX_g^\alpha)\cdot(0,y,z)\cdot (n,m,0) = \exp(x'_1X_1^\alpha + \cdots +x'_gX_g^\alpha)\cdot (0,y',z' )$$ if and only if $x_\alpha' = x_\alpha+n$, $y' = y + (x_\beta - x_\beta') +m$ and $z' = z+ (w - w')\cdot x + n(y+x_\beta)$.\
Assume $\langle X^\alpha_i, X_j\rangle \neq 0$ for all $i, j$, and we write first return time $t_{Ret} = (t_{Ret,1},\cdots t_{Ret,g})$ for ${\mathsf{P}}^{d,\alpha}$ on transverse torus ${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}$. We denote domain for return time $U(t_{Ret}) = [0,t_{Ret,1}] \times \cdots [0,t_{Ret,g}]$. Return map of action ${\mathsf{P}}^{d,\alpha}$ on ${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}$ has a form of skew-shift $$A_{\rho,\tau}(y, z) = (y+\rho, z+v\cdot y+\tau_i) \quad \text{on } \R^g/\Z^g \times \R/K^{-1}\Z.$$ From computation of each rank 1 action, for each $1 \leq i \leq d$, it is a composition of commuting linear skew-shift $$\label{skew}
A_{i,\rho,\tau}(y, z) = (y+\rho_i, z+v_{i}\cdot y+\tau_i) \quad \text{on } \R^g/\Z^g \times \R/K^{-1}\Z$$ for some constant $\rho_i, \sigma_i \in \R^g$ and $v_{i} \in \R^g$. For each $j \neq k$, $$A_{j,\rho,\tau}\circ A_{k,\rho,\tau} = A_{k,\rho,\tau}\circ A_{j,\rho,\tau}.$$
Given pair $(\m,n) \in \Z_{K|n|}^{g}\times \Z$, let $H_{(\m,n)}$ denote the corresponding factor and $C^\infty(H_{(m,n)})$ be subspace of smooth function on $H_{(m,n)}$. Denote $\{e_{\m,n}\mid (\m,n) \in \Z_{|n|}^{g}\times \Z \}$ the basis of characters of ${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}$ and for all $(y,z) \in {\mathbb{T}}^g \times {\mathbb{T}}$, $$e_{\m,n}(y,z):= \exp[2\pi \iota (\m\cdot y + nKz)].$$ For each $A_{i,\rho,\sigma}$ and ${v_i} = (v_{i1},\cdots v_{id})$, the orbit can be identified with the following dual orbit $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{O}}_{A_i}(\bm{m},n) & = \{(\bm{m} + (nj_i)v_i,n), \ j_i \in \Z \}\\
&= \{ (m_1 + (nv_{i1})j_i, \cdots, m_d + (nv_{id})j_i, n ), \ j_i \in \Z\} .\end{aligned}$$
If $n = 0$, the orbit $[(\m,0)] \subset \Z^{g}\times \Z$ of $(m,0)$ is reduced to a single element. If $n \neq 0$, then the dual orbit $[(\m, n)] \subset \Z^{g+1}$ of $(\m, n)$ for higher rank actions is described as follows: $${\mathcal{O}}_{A}(\bm{m},n) = \{(m_k + n\sum_{i=1}^d(v_{ik} j_i), n)_{1\leq k \leq d} : j = (j_1, \cdots j_d)\in \Z^d\}.$$
It follows that every A-orbit for rank $\R^d$-action (or $A^j$-orbit) can be labeled uniquely by a pair $(\m, n) \in \Z_{|n|}^g \times \Z\backslash\{0\}$ with $\m = (m_1,\cdots, m_g)$. Thus, the subspace of functions with non-zero central character can be split as a direct sum of components $H_{(m,n)}$ with $\m \in \Z^g, n \in \Z\backslash\{0\}$. Then, $$L^2({\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}) = \bigoplus_{\omega \in {\mathcal{O}}_A}H_\omega.$$
Now we proceed to the cosideration of the higher cohomology problem which appears in the space of Fourier coefficients.
Higher cohomology for $\Z^d$-action of skew-shifts
--------------------------------------------------
We consider a $\Z^d$ action of return map ${\mathsf{P}}^{d,\alpha}$ on torus ${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}$. By identification of cochain complex on torus, it is equivalent to consider the following cohomological equation for degree $d$ form $\omega$, $$\label{eqn;cohskew}
\omega = d\Omega \iff \varphi(x,t) = D\Phi(x,t), \quad x \in {\mathbb{T}}^g, \ t \in \Z^d.$$ We restrict our interest of $d$-cocycle $\varphi : {\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1} \times \Z^d \rightarrow \R$ with $\Phi : {\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1} \rightarrow \R^d$, $\Phi = (\Phi_1, \cdots \Phi_d)$ and $D$ is coboundary operator $D \Phi = \sum_{i=1}^{d}(-1)^{i+1}\Delta_{i} \Phi_i $ where $\Delta_{i} \Phi_i = \Phi_i \circ A_{i,\rho,\tau} - \Phi_i$. The following proposition is the generalization to the argument of [@katok1995higher Prop 2.2]. Let us denote $A^j = A^{j_1}_{1,\rho,\tau}\circ \cdots \circ A^{j_d}_{d,\rho,\tau}.$
A cocycle $\hat\varphi$ satisfies cohomological equation if and only if $\sum_{j \in \Z^d}\hat\varphi_{(\m,n)} \circ A^j = 0$ for $j = (j_1,\cdots, j_d) \in \Z^d$.
We consider dual equation $$\label{eqn;dual}
\hat\varphi = D\hat\Phi.$$ Let us denote the following notation: $$(\delta_i\hat\varphi)(m_1, \cdots, m_d) = \delta(m_i)\hat\varphi(m_1, \cdots, m_d), \text{ and}\quad \delta(0) = 1, \ \text{otherwise } 0.$$ $$(\Sigma_i \hat\varphi)(m_1, \cdots, m_d) = \sum_{j = -\infty}^\infty \hat\varphi\circ (A_1^{m_1} \cdots A_i^j \cdots A_d^{m_d})$$ $$(\Sigma^+_i \hat\varphi)(m_1, \cdots, m_d) = \sum_{j = m_i}^\infty \hat\varphi\circ (A_1^{m_1} \cdots A_i^j \cdots A_d^{m_d})$$ $$(\Sigma^-_i \hat\varphi)(m_1, \cdots, m_d) = -\sum_{j = -\infty}^{m_i-1} \hat\varphi\circ (A_1^{m_1} \cdots A_i^j \cdots A_d^{m_d})$$
It is clear that $\Sigma^-_i - \Sigma^+_i = \Sigma_i$ and $\Sigma^+_i\hat\varphi = \Sigma^-_i\hat\varphi $ if and only if $\Sigma_i\hat\varphi = 0$.
Note that $$\label{eqn;sigma}
\Sigma^+_i\Delta_{i} = \Sigma^-_i\Delta_{i} = id, \quad \Delta_{i}\Sigma^+_i = \Delta_{i}\Sigma^-_i = id.$$ By direct calculation of Fourier coefficient, $\Sigma_i(\hat\varphi - \delta_i\Sigma_i \hat\varphi) = 0$. Let $\hat\Phi_i(\hat\varphi) = \Sigma^-_i(\hat\varphi - \delta_i\Sigma_i \hat\varphi)$, then $\hat\Phi_i(\hat\varphi)$ vanishes at $\infty$. By , $$\hat\varphi - \delta_i\Sigma_i \hat\varphi = \Delta_{i}\hat\Phi_i(\hat\varphi).$$
We can proceed this by induction. $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\varphi - \Sigma_{1,\cdots, d} \hat\varphi & = \sum_{i=1}^{d}(\delta_1\cdots\delta_{i-1}\Sigma_1\cdots \Sigma_{i-1}\hat\varphi - \delta_1\cdots\delta_{i}\Sigma_1\cdots \Sigma_{i}\hat\varphi)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{d}(\delta_1\cdots\delta_{i-1}\Sigma_1\cdots \Sigma_{i-1}\hat\varphi - \delta_i\Sigma_i( \Sigma_{1}\cdots\Sigma_{i-1}\hat\varphi))\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{d}(-1)^{i+1}\Delta_{i} \hat \Phi_i(\hat\varphi)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\hat \Phi_i(\hat\varphi)= (-1)^{i+1}\Sigma^-_i \delta_1\cdots\delta_{i-1}(\Sigma_1\cdots \Sigma_{i-1}\hat\varphi - \delta_i\Sigma_i(\Sigma_1\cdots \Sigma_{i-1}\hat\varphi))$$ and $\hat \Phi_i(\hat\varphi)$ vanishes at $\infty$. Thus, $\hat\Phi_i$ is a solution of if and only if $\Sigma_1\cdots \Sigma_d\hat\varphi = 0$.
For fixed $(\m,n) \in \Z^g \times \Z$ , we denote obstruction of cohomological equation restricted to the orbit of $(\m,n)$ by $\mathcal{D}_{m,n}(\varphi) = \sum_{j \in \Z^d} \hat\varphi_{(\m,n)} \circ A^j$.
\[skew\] There exists a distributional obstruction to the existence of a smooth solution $\varphi \in C^\infty(H_{(\m,n)})$ of the cohomological equation (\[eqn;cohskew\]).
A generator of the space of invariant distribution $\mathcal{D}_{m,n}$ has form of $$\mathcal{D}_{\m,n}(e_{a,b}) := \begin{cases}
e^{-2\pi \iota \sum_{i=1}^d[(\m\cdot \rho_i + nK\tau_i ) j_i + nK\tau_i{j_i\choose 2}]} & \text{if } (a,b) = (m_k+K\sum_{i=1}^d(v_{ik} j_i),n)_{1\leq k \leq g}\\
0 & otherwise.
\end{cases}$$
From previous observation, there exists obstruction
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{\m,n}(\varphi) &= \sum_{j \in \Z^d}\int_{{\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}}\varphi(x,y)\overline {e_{\m,n}\circ A_{\rho,\tau}^j}dxdy.\end{aligned}$$
By direct computation, for fixed $j = (j_1, \cdots j_d)$, $$e_{\m,n}\circ A_{\rho,\tau}^j(y,z) = \prod_{i=1}^d\big(e^{2\pi \iota [(\m\cdot \rho_i + nK\tau_i ) j_i + nK\tau_i{j_i\choose 2}]}\big)\big(e^{2\pi \iota (\m\cdot y+ K(z+n\sum_{k=1}^d(v_{ik} j_i)y_k))}\big).$$ Then, we choose $\varphi = e_{a,b}$ for $(a,b) = (m_k+K\sum_{i=1}^d(v_{ik} j_i),n)_{1\leq k \leq g}$ in the non-trivial orbit $(n\neq 0)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{\m,n}(e_{a,b}) = e^{-2\pi \iota \sum_{i=1}^d[(\m\cdot \rho_i + nK\tau_i ) j_i + nK\tau_i{j_i\choose 2}]}.\end{aligned}$$
We conclude this section by introducing the theory of unitary representations. $$\label{def:irred}
L^2(M) = \bigoplus_{n\in \Z}H_n := \bigoplus_{n\in \Z}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{\mu(n)}H_{i,n}$$ where $H_n = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{\mu(n)}H_{i,n}$ is irreducible representation with central parameter $n$ and $\mu(n)$ is countable by Howe-Richardson multiplicity formula. By direct calculation, we obtain $\mu(n) = |n|^d$ for all $n \neq 0$.
For ${\mathsf{P}}$-action, the space of invariant currents $I_d({\mathfrak{p}},\mathscr{S}(\R^g)) \subset W^{-s}(\R^g)$ for $s > d/2+\epsilon$ for all $\epsilon >0$. That is, by normalization of invariant distributions in the Sobolev space, for any irreducible components $H = H_n$ and $\alpha$, there exists a non-unique function $f^H_\alpha$ such that $$\label{def:normalization}
D_\alpha(f^H_\alpha) = {\left\|f^H_\alpha\right\|}_s = 1.$$
Changes of coordinates
----------------------
For any frame $(X_i^\alpha,Y_i^\alpha,Z)_{i=1}^g$, denote transverse cylinder for any $m \in M$, $$\mathscr{C}_{\alpha,m} := \{m\exp(\sum_{i=1}^g y_i'Y_i^\alpha+z'Z) \mid (y',z') \in U(t_{Ret}^{-1}) \times {\mathbb{T}}\}.$$
Let $\Phi_{\alpha,m} : {\mathbb{T}}_{\mathsf{\Gamma}}^{g+1} \rightarrow \mathscr{C}_{\alpha,m} $ denote the maps: for any $\xi \in {\mathbb{T}}_{\mathsf{\Gamma}}^{g+1}$, let $\xi' \in \mathscr{C}_{\alpha,m}$ denote first intersection of the orbit $\{\mathsf{P}_t^{d,\alpha}(\xi) \mid t \in \R_+^d \}$ with transverse cylinder $\mathscr{C}_{\alpha,m}$. Then, there exists first return time to cylinder $t(\xi) = (t_1(\xi), \cdots, t_d(\xi)) \in \R_+^d$ such that $$\xi' = \Phi_{\alpha,m}(\xi) = \mathsf{P}_{t(\xi)}^{d,\alpha}(\xi), \ \ \forall \xi \in {\mathbb{T}}_{\mathsf{\Gamma}}^{g+1}.$$
Let $(y,z)$ and $(y',z')$ denote the coordinates on ${\mathbb{T}}_{\mathsf{\Gamma}}^{g+1}$ and $\mathscr{C}_{\alpha,m}$ given by the exponential map respectively, $$(y,z) \rightarrow \xi_{y,z}:= \mathsf{\Gamma}\exp(\sum_{i=1}^g y_iY_i+zZ), \quad (y',z') \rightarrow m\exp(\sum_{i=1}^g y_i'Y_i^\alpha+z'Z).$$
For $1\leq i, j \leq g$ and matrix $A = (a_{ij}), B = (b_{ij}), C = (c_{ij}), D = (d_{ij})$, set $$\alpha :=
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{array}
\right] \in Sp(2g, \R),$$ satisfying $A^tD-C^tB = I_{2g}$, $C^tA = A^tC$, $D^tB = B^tD$, and $\det(A) \neq 0$.
Recall that $X_i^\alpha = \sum_{j}a_{ij}X_j + b_{ij}Y_j + w_iZ$ and $Y_i^\alpha = \sum_{j}c_{ij}X_j + d_{ij}Y_j + v_iZ$ with $det(A) \neq 0$. Let $x = \mathsf{\Gamma}\exp(\sum_{i=1}^d y_{x,i}Y_i+z_xZ)\exp(\sum_{i=1}^d t_{x,i}X_i) $, for some $(y_x,z_x) \in {\mathbb{T}}^d \times \R/K\Z$ and $t_x = (t_{x,i})\in [0,1)^d$.\
Then, the map $\Phi_{\alpha,m} : {\mathbb{T}}_{\mathsf{\Gamma}}^{g+1} \rightarrow \mathscr{C}_{\alpha,m}$ is defined by $\Phi_{\alpha,x}(y,z) = (y',z')$ where $$\label{11}
\begin{bmatrix}
y'_{1} \\
y'_{2} \\
\vdots\\
y'_{g}
\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & \cdots & a_{1g} \\
a_{21} & a_{22} & \cdots & a_{2g} \\
\vdots& \vdots& \vdots& \vdots \\
a_{g1} & a_{g2} & \cdots & a_{gg}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
y_{1} - y_{x,1} \\
y_{2} - y_{x,2} \\
\vdots\\
y_{g} - y_{x,g}
\end{bmatrix} +
\begin{bmatrix}
b_{11} & \cdots & b_{1g} \\
b_{21} & \cdots & b_{2g} \\
\vdots& \vdots& \vdots \\
b_{g1} & \cdots & b_{gg}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
t_{x,1} \\
t_{x,2} \\
\vdots\\
t_{x,g}
\end{bmatrix}.$$ and $z' = z + P(\alpha,x,y)$ for some degree 4 polynomial $P$.
Therefore, the map $\Phi_{\alpha,x}$ is invertible with $$\Phi^*_{\alpha,x}(dy_1'\wedge \cdots dy_g' \wedge dz') = \frac{1}{det(A)} dy_1\wedge \cdots dy_g \wedge dz.$$
Since $A^tD-C^tB = I_{2g}$, by direct computation we obtain return time $$\begin{bmatrix}
t_1(\xi) \\
t_2(\xi) \\
\vdots\\
t_g(\xi)
\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
d_{11} & \cdots & d_{1g} \\
d_{21} & \cdots & d_{2g} \\
\vdots& \vdots& \vdots \\
d_{d1} & \cdots & d_{gg}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
t_{x,1} \\
t_{x,2} \\
\vdots\\
t_{x,d}
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
c_{11} & c_{12} & \cdots & c_{1g} \\
c_{21} & c_{22} & \cdots & c_{2g} \\
\vdots& \vdots& \vdots& \vdots \\
c_{g1} & c_{g2} & \cdots & c_{gg}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
y_{1} - y_{x,1} \\
y_{2} - y_{x,2} \\
\vdots\\
y_{g} - y_{x,g}
\end{bmatrix}$$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\|t(\xi)\right\|} \leq \max_i| t_i(\xi)|^g \leq
\max_i|\sum_{j=1}^g d_{ij} t_{x,i}+ c_{ij}(y_i - y_{x,i}) |^g
\leq \max_i{\left\|Y^\alpha_i\right\|}^g.
\end{aligned}$$
$L^2$-lower bound of functional.
--------------------------------
We will prove bounds for the square mean of integrals along foliations of the torus ${\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}$ into torus $\{\xi\exp(\sum_{i=1}^g y_iY_i) \mid y_i \in {\mathbb{T}}\}_{\xi \in {\mathbb{T}}_\mathsf{\Gamma}^{g+1}}$. Let ${\mathsf{Q}}_y^{g,Y} := \exp(y_1Y_1+\cdots+y_gY_g), \ \ y = (y_1, \cdots, y_g) \in \R^g$ be the action generated by elements of standard basis $Y_i$.
\[8.1\] There exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $\alpha = (X^\alpha_i,Y^\alpha_i,Z)$, and for every irreducible component H of central parameter $n\neq 0$, there exists a function $f_H$ such that $$|f_H|_{L^\infty(H)} \leq Cvol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1} |\mathcal{D}_\alpha^H(f_H)|$$ $$|f_H|_{\alpha,s} \leq Cvol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}|\mathcal{D}_\alpha^H(f_H)|(1+ \frac{T(t_{Ret})}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}}{\left\|Y\right\|})^s(1+n^2)^{s/2}$$ where ${\left\|Y\right\|} := \max_{1\leq i \leq g}{\left\|Y_i^\alpha\right\|}$ and $T(t_{Ret}) = \sum_{i=1}^g t_{Ret,i}$.\
On rectangular domain ${U(\bm{T})}$, for all $m \in {\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1}$ and $T^{(i)} \in \Z_{t_{Ret,i}}$, $$\label{mind}
{\left\|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})} ({\mathsf{Q}}^{g,Y}_ym) , \omega_H \right\rangle\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} = |\mathcal{D}_\alpha^H(f_H)|\left(\frac{vol{(U(\bm{T}))}}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}} \right)^{1/2}.$$ In addition, whenever $H \perp H' \subset L^2(M)$ the functions $$\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})} ({\mathsf{Q}}^{g,Y}_ym) , \omega_H \right\rangle \quad \text{and} \quad \left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})} ({\mathsf{Q}}^{g,Y}_ym) , \omega_{H'} \right\rangle$$ are orthogonal in $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)$.
As explained in $\S 5.1,$ the space $L^2({\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{d+1})$ decompose as a direct sum of irreducible subspaces invariant under the action of each $A_{j,\rho,\sigma}$. It follows that the subspace of functions with non-zero central character can be split as direct sum of components $H_{(\m, n)}$ with $(\m, n) \in \Z_{|n|}^g \times \Z\backslash\{0\}$ with $\m = (m_1,\cdots, m_g)$. For $F \in H_{(\m, n)}$, the function is characterized by Fourier expansion $$F = \sum_{j \in \Z^d} F_j e_{A^j(\bm{m},n)} = \sum_{j \in \Z^d} F_j e_{(m_k+K\sum_{i=1}^d(v_{ik} j_i),n)}.$$ Then, by Lemma \[skew\], $$\label{eqn;identity}
\mathcal{D}_{(\m,n)}(e_{A^j(\bm{m},n)}) = e^{-2\pi \iota \sum_{i=1}^d[(m\cdot \rho_i + nK\tau_i ) j_i + nK\tau_i{j_i\choose 2}]}.$$ For any irreducible representation $H:=H_n$ with central parameter $n \neq 0$, there exists $\m \in \Z_{|n|}^d$ such that the operator $I_\alpha $ maps the space $H$ onto $H_{(\m, n)}$. The operator $I_\alpha : L^2(M) \rightarrow L^2({\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1})$ is defined $$\label{changesof}
f \rightarrow I_\alpha(f) := \int_{U(t_{Ret})} f\circ {\mathsf{P}}_x^{d,\alpha} (\cdot)dx.$$ Then, operator $I_\alpha$ is surjective linear map of $L^2(M)$ onto $L^2({\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1})$ with right inverse defined as follows:
Let $\chi \in C_0^\infty (0,1)^g$ be any function of jointly integrable with integral 1. For any $F \in L^2({\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1})$, let $R_{\alpha}^{\chi}(F) \in L^2(M)$ be the function defined by $$R_\alpha^{\chi}(F)(\mathsf{P}^{d,\alpha}_v(m)) = \frac{1}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}} \chi(\frac{v}{t_{Ret}})F(m), \ (m,v) \in {\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1} \times U(t_{Ret}).$$ Then, it follows from the definition that there exists a constant $C_\chi>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|R_\alpha^{\chi}(F)|_{\alpha,s} &\leq C_\chi vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}(1+ \sum_{i=1}^g t^{-1}_{Ret,i}{\left\|Y^\alpha_i\right\|})^s{\left\|F\right\|}_{W^s({\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1})}\\
& \leq C_\chi vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}(1+ \frac{T(t_{Ret})}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}}{\left\|Y\right\|})^s{\left\|F\right\|}_{W^s({\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1})}. \end{aligned}$$
Choose $f_H := R_\alpha^{\chi}(e_{m,n}) \in C^\infty(H)$ such that $I_\alpha(f_H) = e_{m,n}$ and $$\label{eqn;emn}
\int_{U(t_{Ret})} f_H\circ {\mathsf{P}}_t^{d,\alpha} (y,z)dt = e_{m,n}(y,z), \text{ for } (y,z) \in {\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g+1}.$$ By and , we have $|\mathcal{D}_{H}(f_H)| = |\mathcal{D}_{(m,n)}(e_{m,n})| = 1$. Therefore, it follows that $$|f_H|_{L^\infty(H)} \leq C_\chi vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}$$ $$|f_H|_{\alpha,s} \leq Cvol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}|D_\alpha^H(f_H)|(1+ \frac{T(t_{Ret})}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}}{\left\|Y\right\|})^s(1+n^2)^{s/2}.$$ Moreover, since $\{ e_{m,n}\circ A^j_{\rho,\tau} \}_{j \in \Z^d} \subset L^2({\mathbb{T}}_\Gamma^{g},dy )$ is orthonormal, we verify $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})} ({\mathsf{Q}}^{g,Y}_ym) , \omega_H \right\rangle \right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} & = {\left\|\sum_{j_d = 0}^{[\frac{T^{(d)}}{t_{Ret,d}}]-1}\cdots\sum_{j_1 = 0}^{[\frac{T^{(1)}}{t_{Ret,1}}]-1} e_{m,n}\circ A^j_{\rho,\tau}\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)}\\
& = \left(\frac{vol{(U(\bm{T}))}}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}} \right)^{1/2}.
$$
For any infinite dimensional vector $\textbf{c} := (c_{i,n}) \in l^2$, let $\beta_{\textbf{c}}$ denote Bufetov functional $$\beta_{\textbf{c}}=\sum_{n \in \Z}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu(n)} c_{i,n}\beta^{i,n}.$$ For any $\textbf{c} := (c_{i,n})$, let $|\textbf{c}|_s $ denote the norm defined as $$|\textbf{c}|_s^2 = \sum_{n \in \Z\backslash\{0\} }\sum_{i=1}^{\mu(n)}(1+K^2n^2)^s|c_{i,n}|^2.$$ From Corollary \[7.3\], $${\left\|\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,\cdot,\textbf{T})\right\|}^2_{L^2(M)} \leq C^2|\textbf{c}|_{l^2}^2vol{(U(\bm{T}))}.$$
\[Crucial\] For any $s > s_d+1/2$, there exists a constant $C_s >0$ such that for all $\alpha \in DC(L)$, for all ${\textbf{c}}\in l^2$, for all $z \in {\mathbb{T}}$ and all $T>0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\left|{\left\|\beta_{{\textbf{c}}}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}),\bm{T})\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} - \left(\frac{vol{(U(\bm{T}))}}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}} \right)^{1/2}|{\textbf{c}}|_0 \right| \\
\leq C_s (vol{(U(t_{Ret}))} + vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}) (1+L)(1+ \frac{T(t_{Ret})}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}}{\left\|Y\right\|})^s|\textbf{c}|_{s}.\end{gathered}$$
By , for every $n \neq 0$, there exists a function $f_{i,n} \in C^\infty(H)$ with $D(f_{i,n}) = 1$. Let $f_{{\textbf{c}}} =\sum_{n \in \Z}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu(n)} c_{i,n}f_{i,n}$, by adding functions on all irreducibles. Then, by Lemma \[8.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
&|f_{{\textbf{c}}}|_{L^\infty(M)} \leq C|\textbf{c}|_{l^1}\\
&|f_{{\textbf{c}}}|_{\alpha,s} \leq Cvol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}(1+ \frac{T(t_{Ret})}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}}{\left\|Y\right\|})^s|\textbf{c}|_s.\end{aligned}$$ By orthogonality, $${\left\|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}\circ {\mathsf{Q}}_y^{g,Y}, \omega_{{\textbf{c}}} \right\rangle\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} = \left(\frac{vol{(U(\bm{T}))}}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}} \right)^{1/2} |\textbf{c}|_0.$$ From the estimation for each $f_{i,n}$ in Lemma \[8.1\], for every $z \in {\mathbb{T}}$ and all $T >0$, we have $${\left\|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}(\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z})), \omega_{{\textbf{c}}} \right\rangle - \left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}(\xi_{y,z}), \omega_{{\textbf{c}}} \right\rangle\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} \leq 2|f_{{\textbf{c}}}|_{L^\infty(M)}{\left\|Y\right\|}.$$ Let $T_{\alpha,i} = t_{Ret,i}([T/t_{Ret,i}]+1)$ and $U(t_\alpha) = [0,T_{\alpha,1}]\times \cdots \times [0,T_{\alpha,g}]$. Then, $${\left\|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}(\xi_{y,z}), \omega_{{\textbf{c}}} \right\rangle - \left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(t_\alpha)}(\xi_{y,z}), \omega_{{\textbf{c}}} \right\rangle\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} \leq vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}|f_{{\textbf{c}}}|_{L^\infty(M)}.$$ Therefore, for some constant $C'>0$ such that $$\left| {\left\|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}(\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z})), \omega_{{\textbf{c}}} \right\rangle\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} - \left(\frac{vol{(U(\bm{T}))}}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}} \right)^{1/2} |\textbf{c}|_0\right| \leq C' vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}|{\textbf{c}}|_{l^1}.$$
For all $s > s_d + 1/2$, by asymptotic property of Theorem \[6.2type\], there exists constant $C_s>0$ such that $$\Big|\left\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}m , \omega \right\rangle - \beta_H(\alpha,m,\bm{T})D_\alpha^H(f_H) \Big | \leq C_s(1+L){\left\|f\right\|}_{\alpha,s}.$$ Applying $\beta_{{\textbf{c}}} = \beta^{f_{{\textbf{c}}}}$ and combining bounds on the function $f_{{\textbf{c}}}$ with (\[15\]), $$\begin{aligned}
& \left|{\left\|\beta_{{\textbf{c}}}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}),\bm{T})\right\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^g,dy)} - \left(\frac{vol{(U(\bm{T}))}}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}} \right)^{1/2} |\textbf{c}|_0\right| \\
& \leq C' vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}|\textbf{c}|_{l^1} + C_svol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1}(1+L) |f_{{\textbf{c}}}|_{\alpha,s}\\
& \leq C_s'(vol{(U(t_{Ret}))} + vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}^{-1})(1+L)(1+ \frac{T(t_{Ret})}{vol{(U(t_{Ret}))}}{\left\|Y\right\|})^s|\textbf{c}|_{s}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we derive the estimates in the statement.
Analyticity of functionals
==========================
In this section we will prove that for all $\alpha \in DC$, the Bufetov functionals on any square are real analytic. We recall the orthogonal property on a irreducible component $H$ (central parameter $n \in \Z \backslash \{0\}$) : for any $(m,\textbf{T}) \in M \times \R_+^d$ and $t\in \R$, $$\label{orth}
\beta_H(\alpha,\phi_t^Z(m),\textbf{T}) = e^{2\pi \iota Knt }\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}).$$
Let $\Gamma_\textbf{T} : U(\bm{T}) \rightarrow M$ be a $C^1$ parametrized rectangle with coordinate of ${\textbf{s}}= (s_1,\cdots, s_d)$. Recall Definition \[def;rect\] and we write $\Gamma_\textbf{T}$ with action of ${\mathsf{P}}_{{\textbf{s}}}^{d,X}$ generated by standard frame $X_i$. Set $\Gamma_\textbf{T} = (\gamma_1(s_1), \cdots, \gamma_d(s_d))$ for $\gamma_i(s_i) = \exp(s_iX_i) $.
For every $t \in \R$, define stretched rectangle by $$\label{def;stretch}
[\Gamma_T]^Z_{i,t}({{\textbf{s}}}) = (\gamma_1(s_1), \cdots,\gamma_{i,t}^Z(s_i), \cdots \gamma_d(s_d))$$ with a new curve $\gamma_{i,t}^Z(s_i):= \phi^Z_{ts_i}(\gamma_i(s_i))$. We write restriction of a rectangle map $\Gamma_T$ by the following way: For ${\textbf{s}}= (s_1, \cdots, s_d)$, set $\Gamma_{T,i,s}({{\textbf{s}}}):= \Gamma_T({{\textbf{s}}}) $ is defined with its coordinate $s_i \in [0,s]$ for fixed $i$ and $s_j \in [0,T^{(j)}]$ for all $j \neq i$.
\[parts\] For a fixed generator $(X_i,Y_i,Z)$ satisfying commutation relation (\[commute\]), the following formula for rank 1 action holds: $$\hat\beta_H(\alpha,[\Gamma_T]^Z_{i,t}) = e^{2\pi \iota t n KT^{(i)}}\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma_T) - 2\pi \iota n K t \int_0^{T^{(i)}}e^{2\pi \iota n K t s_i}\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma_{T,i,s})ds_i.$$
Let $\alpha = (X_i, Y_i,Z)$ and $\omega$ be $d$-form supported on a single irreducible representation $H$. We obtain following the formula for stretches of curve $\gamma_{i,t}^Z$ (see [@FK17 §4, Lemma 9.1]), $$\frac{d\gamma_{i,t}^Z}{ds_i} = D\phi^Z_{ts_i}(\frac{d\gamma_i}{ds_i}) + tZ\circ \gamma_{i,t}^Z.$$
It follows that pairing is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle[\Gamma_\textbf{T}]^Z_{i,t}, \omega \rangle & = \int_{U(\bm{T})}\omega(\frac{d\gamma_1}{ds_1}(s_1), \cdots, \frac{d\gamma_{i,t}^Z}{ds_i}(s_i) ,\cdots, \frac{d\gamma_d}{ds_d}(s_d)) d{\textbf{s}}\\
& = \int_{U(\bm{T})}e^{2\pi \iota n Kts_i}[\omega(\frac{d\gamma_1}{ds_1}(s_1), \cdots, \frac{d\gamma_d}{ds_d}(s_d))] + \iota_Z\omega \circ [\Gamma_\textbf{T}]^Z_{i,t}({\textbf{s}})d{\textbf{s}}\end{aligned}$$ Denote $d-1$ dimensional triangle $U_{d-1}(\bm{T})$ with $U(\bm{T}) = U_{d-1}(\bm{T}) \times [0,T^{(i)}]$. Integration by parts for a fixed $i$-th integral gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{U(\bm{T})}e^{2\pi \iota n Kts_i}[\omega(\frac{d\gamma_1}{ds_1}(s_1), \cdots, \frac{d\gamma_d}{ds_d}(s_d))]d{\textbf{s}}\\
&= e^{2\pi \iota n Kt{T^{(i)}}}\int_{U(\bm{T})}[\omega(\frac{d\gamma_1}{ds_1}(s_1), \cdots, \frac{d\gamma_d}{ds_d}(s_d))]d{\textbf{s}}\\
& - 2\pi \iota n Kt \int_{0}^{T^{(i)}} e^{2\pi \iota n Kts_i}\int_{U_{d-1}(\bm{T})}\left(\int_{0}^{s_i} [\omega(\frac{d\gamma_1}{ds_1}(s_1), \cdots,\frac{d\gamma_i}{ds_i}(r) \cdots, \frac{d\gamma_d}{ds_d}(s_d))]dr\right)d{\textbf{s}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we have the following formula $$\begin{gathered}
\langle [\Gamma_\textbf{T}]_{i,t}^Z, \omega \rangle = e^{2\pi \iota n Kt{T^{(i)}}}\langle [\Gamma_\textbf{T}], \omega \rangle - 2\pi \iota n Kt \int_{0}^{T^{(i)}} e^{2\pi \iota n Kts_i} \langle\Gamma_{T,i,s}, \omega \rangle ds_i\\
+\int_{U(\bm{T})}(\iota_Z\omega \circ [\Gamma_\textbf{T}]^Z_{i,t})({\textbf{s}})d{\textbf{s}}.
\end{gathered}$$ Since the action of ${\mathsf{P}}_\textbf{t}^{d,X}$ for $\textbf{t} \in \R^d$ is identity on the center $Z$, $$\lim_{t_d \rightarrow \infty}\cdots \lim_{t_1 \rightarrow \infty} e^{-(t_1+ \cdots t_d)/2}\int_{U(\bm{T})} (\iota_Z({\mathsf{P}}_\textbf{t}^{d,X})^*\omega \circ [\Gamma_\textbf{T}]^Z_{i,t})({\textbf{s}}) d{\textbf{s}}= 0.$$ Thus, it follows by definition of Bufetov functional, the statement holds.
Here we define a restricted vector $\textbf{T}_{i,s}$ of $\textbf{T} = (T^{(1)},\cdots, T^{(d)}) \in \R^d$. For fixed $i$, pick $s_i \in [0,T^{(i)}]$ such that $\textbf{T}_{i,s} \in \R^d$ is a vector with its coordinates $${T}^{(j)}_{i,s} =
\begin{cases}
{T}^{(j)} & \text{if} \quad j \neq i\\
s_i & \text{if} \quad j = i.
$$**T**\_1 = (T\_1\^[(1)]{},T\_1\^[(2)]{}, , T\_1\^[(d)]{})$$\end{cases}$$ Similarly, $\textbf{T}_{i_1,\cdots, i_k ,s}$ is a vector with $i_1, \cdots i_k$ coordinates replaced by $s_{i_1}, \cdots, s_{i_k}$.
\[9.2\] Let $y = (y_1, \cdots, y_d) \in \R^d$. The following equality holds for each rank-1 action. $$\begin{gathered}
\beta_H(\alpha,\phi_{y_i}^{Y_i}(m),\textbf{T}) = \\
e^{-2\pi \iota y_i n K{T}^{(i)}} \beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}) + 2\pi \iota n Ky_i \int_0^{{T}^{(i)}} e^{-2\pi \iota y_i n Ks_i} \beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}_{i,s})ds_i. \end{gathered}$$
Let $\Gamma^X_T(m) = {\mathsf{P}}_{{\textbf{s}}}^{d,X}(m)$ for all ${\textbf{s}}\in U(\bm{T})$. By definition and commutation relation (\[commute\]), it follows that $$\phi_{y_i}^{Y_i}(\Gamma_\textbf{T}^X(m)) = [\Gamma_\textbf{T}^X(\phi_{y_i}^{Y_i}(m))]_{i,t}^Z.$$ By the invariance property of Bufetov functional and Lemma \[parts\], $$\begin{aligned}
& \beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}) = \hat\beta_H(\alpha,\phi_{y_i}^{Y_i}(\Gamma_T^X(m)) \\
& = e^{2\pi \iota y_i n K{T}^{(i)}}\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma_\textbf{T}^X(\phi_{y_i}^{Y_i}(m)) - 2\pi \iota n Ky_i \int_0^{{T}^{(i)}} e^{2\pi \iota n Ky_is_i}\hat\beta_H(\alpha,\Gamma_{T,i,s}^X(\phi_{s_i}^{Y_i}(m))ds_i\\
& = e^{2\pi \iota y_i n K{T}^{(i)}}\beta_H(\alpha,\phi_{y_i}^{Y_i}(m),\textbf{T}) - 2\pi \iota n Ky_i \int_0^{{T}^{(i)}} e^{2\pi \iota n Ky_is_i}\beta_H(\alpha,\phi_{s_i}^{Y_i}(m),\textbf{T}_{i,s})ds_i.\end{aligned}$$ Then statement follows immediately.
We extend previous lemma for higher rank actions by induction.
\[9.3\] The following equality holds for rank-d action. $$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_H(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}(m) ,\textbf{T}) = e^{-2\pi \iota \sum_{j=1}^d y_j n K{T}^{(j)}} \beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}) \\
&+ \sum_{k=1}^d\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d} }\prod_{j=1}^{k}(2\pi \iota n Ky_{i_j})e^{-2\pi \iota n K(\sum_{\substack{l\notin \{i_1, \cdots, i_k\}}}y_{l}{T}^{(l)}) } \\
& \times \int_0^{{T}^{(i_1)}}\cdots\int_0^{{T}^{(i_k)}}e^{-2\pi \iota n K(y_{i_1}s_{i_1}+\cdots + y_{i_k}s_{i_k} )}\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}_{i_1,\cdots, i_k ,s})ds_{i_k}\cdots ds_{i_1}\end{aligned}$$
Assume inductive hypothesis works for rank $d-1$. For convenience, we write $${\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}(m) = \phi_{y_d}^{Y_d}\circ{\mathsf{Q}}_{y'}^{d-1,Y}(m) \text{ for } y' \in \R^{d-1} \text{ and } y = (y',y_d) \in \R^d.$$ By applying Lemma \[9.2\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn;9.2}
\begin{split}
\beta_H(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}(m),\textbf{T}) & = e^{-2\pi \iota y_d n K{T}^{(d)}} \beta_H(\alpha, {\mathsf{Q}}_{y'}^{d-1,Y}(m),\textbf{T})\\
& + 2\pi \iota n Ky_d \int_0^{{T}^{(d)}} e^{-2\pi \iota y_d n Ks_d} \beta_H(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_{y'}^{d-1,Y}(m),\textbf{T}_{d,s})ds_d \\
& := I + II
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, by induction hypothesis $$\begin{aligned}
&I = e^{-2\pi \iota \sum_{j=1}^{d-1} y_j n K{T}^{(j)}} \beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}) \\
&+ \sum_{k=1}^{d-1}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d-1} }\prod_{j=1}^{k}(2\pi \iota n Ky_{i_j})e^{-2\pi \iota n K(\sum_{\substack{l\notin \{i_1, \cdots, i_k\}}}y_{l}{T}^{(l)} + y_d{T}^{(d)} )} \\
& \times \int_0^{{T}^{(i_1)}}\cdots\int_0^{{T}^{(i_k)}}e^{-2\pi \iota n K(y_{i_1}s_{i_1}+\cdots + y_{i_k}s_{i_k} )}\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}_{i_1,\cdots, i_k ,s})ds_{i_k}\cdots ds_{i_1}\end{aligned}$$ which contains 0 to $d-1$th iterated integrals containing $e^{-2\pi \iota n K y_d{T}^{(d)} }$ outside of iterated integrals.
For the second part, we apply induction hypothesis again for restricted rectangle $\textbf{T}_{d,s}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
II &= 2\pi \iota n Ky_d \int_0^{{T}^{(d)}} e^{-2\pi \iota y_d n Ks_d} \big[e^{-2\pi \iota \sum_{j=1}^{d-1} y_j n K{T}^{(j)}} \beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}_{d,s})]ds_{d}\\
&+ \sum_{k=1}^{d-1}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d-1} } (2\pi \iota n Ky_d) \prod_{j=1}^{k}(2\pi \iota n Ky_{i_j})e^{-2\pi \iota n K(\sum_{\substack{l\notin \{i_1, \cdots, i_k\}}}y_{l}{T}^{(l)} )} \\
& \times \int_0^{{T}^{(d)}} \left( \int_0^{{T}^{(i_1)}}\cdots\int_0^{{T}^{(i_k)}} ds_{i_k}\cdots ds_{i_1} \right)ds_{d} \\
& \times e^{-2\pi \iota n K(y_{i_1}s_{i_1}+\cdots + y_{i_k}s_{i_k}+y_ds_d )}\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}_{i_1,\cdots, i_k,d ,s}).\end{aligned}$$ The term $II$ consist of 1 to $d$-th iterated integrals containing $e^{-2\pi \iota n K y_ds_d }$ inside of iterated integrals. Thus, combining these two terms, we prove the statement.
For any $R>0$, the *analytic norm* defined for all ${\bf c} \in l^2$ as $${\left\|\bf{c}\right\|}_{\omega, R} = \sum_{n\neq 0}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu(n)}e^{nR}|c_{i,n}|.$$
Let $\Omega_R$ denote the subspace of $\textbf{c} \in \ell^2$ such that ${\left\|c\right\|}_{\omega, R}$ is finite.
\[16\] For $\textbf{c} \in \Omega_R$, any $\alpha \in DC(L)$ and $\textbf{T}\in \R_{+}^d$, the function $$\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}\circ \phi_z^Z(m) ,\textbf{T}), \ (y,z) \in \R^d\times {\mathbb{T}}$$ extends to a holomorphic function in the domain $$D_{R,T} := \{(y,z) \in {\mathbb{C}}^d\times {\mathbb{C}}/\Z \mid \sum_{i=1}^d |Im(y_i)|{T}^{(i)} + |Im(z)|< \frac{R}{2\pi K} \}.$$ The following bound holds: for any $R'<R$ there exists a constant $C>0$ such that, for all $(y,z) \in D_{R',T}$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
|\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}\circ \phi_z^Z(m),\textbf{T})| \\
\leq C_{R,R'}{\left\|c\right\|}_{\omega, R}(L + vol(U(\bm{T}))^{1/2}(1+E_M(a,\bm{T})) (1+K\sum_{i=1}^d |Im(y_i)|{T}^{(i)})
\end{gathered}$$
By Lemma \[9.3\] and (\[orth\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}\circ \phi_z^Z(m) ,\textbf{T}) = e^{(z-2\pi \iota \sum_{j=1}^d y_j n K{T}^{(j)})} \beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}) \\
&+ \sum_{k=1}^d\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d} }\prod_{j=1}^{k}(2\pi \iota n Ky_{i_j})e^{-2\pi \iota n K(\sum_{\substack{l\notin \{i_1, \cdots, i_k\}}}y_{l}{T}^{(l)} )} \\
& \times e^{2\pi \iota n Kz}\int_0^{{T}^{(i_1)}}\cdots\int_0^{{T}^{(i_k)}}e^{-2\pi \iota n K(y_{i_1}s_{i_1}+\cdots + y_{i_k}s_{i_k} )}\beta_H(\alpha,m,\textbf{T}_{i_1,\cdots, i_k ,s})ds_{i_k}\cdots ds_{i_1}\end{aligned}$$
As a consequence, by Lemma \[6.1type\] for each variable $(y_i,z) \in {\mathbb{C}}\times {\mathbb{C}}/\Z$, Then for the rank d action, by induction, for $(y,z) \in {\mathbb{C}}^d\times {\mathbb{C}}/\Z$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}\circ \phi_z^Z(x) ,\textbf{T})| \\
& \leq (L + vol(U(\bm{T}))^{1/2}(1+E_M(a,\bm{T}))[C_1\sum_{n\neq 0}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu(n)}e^{nR}|c_{i,n}|e^{2\pi |Im(z - \sum_{i=1}^d{T}^{(i)}y_i) |nK} \\
& + \sum_{k=1}^d C_k \left(\sum_{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq d }\prod_{j=1}^{k}(|Im(y_{i_j})|{T}^{(i_j)}) \sum_{n\neq 0}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu(n)}n|c_{i,n}|e^{2\pi (|Im(z)| + \sum_{j=1}^k {T}^{(i_j)}|Im(y_{i_j})|)nK}\right)].\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the function $\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,{\mathsf{Q}}_y^{d,Y}\circ \phi_z^Z(m) ,\textbf{T})$ is bounded by a series of holomorphic functions on ${\mathbb{C}}^d \times {\mathbb{C}}/ \Z$ and it converges uniformly on compact subsets of domain $D_{R,T}$.
Measure estimation for bounded-type
===================================
Bufetov functionals were constructed for $\alpha \in A$ under Diophantine condition, which depends on backward orbit under renormalization in the moduli space ${\mathfrak{M}}_g$. In this section, we prove measure estimation of Bufetov functional under bounded-type case (\[bdd\]). This result is generalization of $\S 11$ of[@FK17].\
Let ${\mathcal{O}}_r$ denote thee space of holomorphic functions on the ball $B_{\mathbb{C}}(0,r) \subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$. We recall the *Chebyshev degree*, the best constant $d_f(r)$ stated in the following theorem and estimation of *valency*.
[@bru Thm 1.9]\[ball\] For any $f \in {\mathcal{O}}_r$, there is a constant $d:= d_f(r)>0$ such that for any convex set $D \subset B_\R(0,1) := B_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1) \cap \R^n$, for any measurable subset $U \subset D$ $$\sup_{D}|f| \leq \left(\frac{4n Leb(D)}{Leb(U)} \right)^d\sup_{U}|f|.$$
Let ${\mathcal{L}}_t$ denote the set of one-dimensional complex affine spaces $L \subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that $L \cap B_{\mathbb{C}}(0,t) \neq \emptyset$.
[@bru Def 1.6] Let $f \in {\mathcal{O}}_r$. The number $$\nu_f(t):=\sup\{\text{valency of }f \mid L \cap B_{\mathbb{C}}(0,t) \neq \emptyset \}$$ is called the valency of $f$ in $B_{\mathbb{C}}(0,t)$.
By [@bru Prop 1.7], for any $f \in {\mathcal{O}}_r$, and the valency $\nu_f(t)$ is finite and any $t \in [1,r)$ there is a constant $c := c(r) >0$ such that $$\label{chev}
d_f(r) \leq c\nu_f(\frac{1+r}{2}).$$
\[11.1\] Let $L>0$ and ${\mathscr{B}}\subset DC(L)$ be a bounded subset. Given $R>0$, for all $c \in \Omega_R$ and all $\textbf{T}^{(i)}>0$, let ${\mathcal{F}}(c,\bm{T})$ denote the family of real analytic functions of the variable $y \in [0,1)^d$ defined as $${\mathcal{F}}(c,\bm{T}):= \{ \beta_{\textbf{c}}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}), \bm{T}) \mid (\alpha,x,z) \in {\mathscr{B}}\times M \times {\mathbb{T}}\}.$$ There exists $\textbf{T}_{\mathscr{B}}:= (\textbf{T}^{(i)}_{\mathscr{B}})$ and $\rho_{\mathscr{B}}>0$, such that for every $(R,\bm{T})$ such that $R/\textbf{T}^{(i)} \geq \rho_{\mathscr{B}}$ and $\textbf{T}^{(i)} \geq \textbf{T}^{(i)}_{\mathscr{B}}$, and for all $\textbf{c} \in \Omega_R\backslash \{0\}$, we have $$\sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}(c,T)} \nu_f < \infty.$$
Since ${\mathscr{B}}\subset {\mathfrak{M}}$ is bounded, for each time $t_i \in \R$ and $1 \leq i \leq g$, $$0 < t_{i,{\mathscr{B}}}^{min} = \min_i\inf_{\alpha \in {\mathscr{B}}} t_{Ret,i,\alpha} \leq \max_i\sup_{\alpha \in {\mathscr{B}}} t_{Ret,i,\alpha} = t_{{\mathscr{B}}}^{max} < \infty.$$
For any $\alpha \in {\mathscr{B}}$ and $x \in M$, the map $\Phi_{\alpha,x} : [0,1)^d \times {\mathbb{T}}\rightarrow \prod_{i=1}^d[0,t_{\alpha,i}) \times {\mathbb{T}}$ in (\[11\]) extends to a complex analytic diffeomorphism $\hat\Phi_{\alpha,x}: {\mathbb{C}}^d \times {\mathbb{C}}/ \Z \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^d \times {\mathbb{C}}/ \Z$. By Lemma \[16\], it follows that for fixed $z \in {\mathbb{T}}$, real analytic function $\beta_{{\textbf{c}}}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}), \bm{T})$ extends to a holomorphic function defined on a region $$H_{\alpha,m,R,t} = \{y \in {\mathbb{C}}^d \mid \sum_{i=1}^d |Im(y_i)| \leq h_{\alpha,m,R,t} \}.$$ By boundedness of the set ${\mathscr{B}}\subset {\mathfrak{M}}$, it follows that $$\inf_{(\alpha,x) \in {\mathscr{B}}\times M} h_{\alpha,m,R,t}:= h_{R,T} >0.$$
For every $r>1$, there exists $\rho_{\mathscr{B}}>1$ such that, for every $R$ and $\textbf{T}$ with $R/\textbf{T}^{(i)} > \rho_{\mathscr{B}}$, then as a function of $y \in {\mathbb{T}}^d$ $$\beta_{{\textbf{c}}}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}), \textbf{T}) \in {\mathcal{O}}_r.$$
Then, by Lemma \[16\], the family ${\mathcal{F}}(c,\textbf{T})$ is uniformly bounded and normal. By Lemma \[Crucial\], for sufficiently large pair **T**, no sequence from ${\mathcal{F}}(c,\textbf{T})$ can converge to a constant. By Lemma 10.3 of [@FK17], for any normal family ${\mathcal{F}}\subset {\mathcal{O}}_R$ such that no functions is constant along a one-dimensional complex line, hence the statement follows.\
We derive measure estimates of Bufetov functionals on the rectangular domain.
\[lem:prev\]Let $\alpha \in DC$ such that the forward orbit of $\R^d$-action $\{r_{\bm{t}}[\alpha]\}_{\bm{t} \in \R^d_+}$ is contained in a compact set of M. There exist $R, C, \delta>0$ and $T_0 \in \R_+^d $ such that, for every $\textbf{c} \in \Omega_R \backslash \{0\}$, $T \geq T_0$ and for every $\epsilon >0$, we have $$vol(\{m \in M \mid |\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha, m ,\bm{T})| \leq \epsilon vol(U(\bm{T}))^{1/2} \}) \leq C\epsilon^{\delta}.$$
Since $\alpha \in DC$ and the orbit $\{r_{\bm{t}}[\alpha]\}_{\bm{t} \in \R_+}$ is contained in a compact set, there exists $L>0$ such that $r_{\bf{t}}(\alpha) \in DC(L)$ for all $\bm{t} \in \R^d_+$. Then, we choose $\textbf{T}_0 \in \R^d$ from conclusion of Lemma \[11.1\]. By scaling property of Bufetov functionals, $$\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,m ,\bm{T}) = \left(\frac{vol(U(\bm{T}))}{vol(U(\bm{T_0}))} \right)^{1/2}\beta_\textbf{c}(g_{\log(\bm{T/T_0})}[\alpha],m , \bm{T}_0).$$
By Fubini’s theorem, it suffices to estimate $$Leb(\{y \in [0,1]^d \mid |\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}), \bm{T}_0)| \leq \epsilon \}).$$
Let $\delta^{-1} = c(r)\sup_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}(c,T_0)} v_f(\frac{1+r}{2})< \infty $. Since by Lemma \[Crucial\], we have $$\inf_{(a,x,z) \in {\mathscr{B}}\times M \times {\mathbb{T}}} \sup_{y \in [0,1]^d}|\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}) ,\bm{T}_0)|>0.$$
By theorem \[ball\], for unit ball $D = B_\R(0,1)$ and $U = \{y \in [0,1]^d \mid |\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}) , \bm{T}_0)| \leq \epsilon \}$ and bound in formula (\[chev\]), there exists a constant $C>0$ and $\delta>0$ such that for all $\epsilon >0$ and $(\alpha,x,z) \in {\mathscr{B}}\times M \times {\mathbb{T}}$, $$Leb(\{y \in [0,1]^d \mid |\beta_\textbf{c}(\alpha,\Phi_{\alpha,x}(\xi_{y,z}) , \bm{T}_0)| \leq \epsilon \}) \leq C\epsilon^{\delta}.$$ Then statement follows from Fubini theorem.
\[cor;volume\] Let $\alpha$ be as in the previous Lemma \[lem:prev\]. There exist $R, C, \delta>0$ and $T_0 \in \R_+^d $ such that, for every $\textbf{c} \in \Omega_R \backslash \{0\}$, $T \geq T_0$ and for every $\epsilon >0$, we have $$vol(\{x \in M \mid \left|\langle P^{d,\alpha}_{U(\bm{T})}m , \omega_{{\textbf{c}}} \rangle \right| \leq \epsilon vol{(U(\bm{T}))}^{1/2} \}) \leq C\epsilon^{\delta}.$$
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
The author appreciates Giovanni Forni for discussions and various suggestions to improve the draft. He also thanks Corinna Ulcigrai for giving several comments and Osama Khail for helpful discussion. This work was initiated when author visited the Institut de Mathematiques de Jussieu-Paris Rive Gauche in Paris, France. He acknowledges invitation and hospitality during the visit. This research was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS 1600687.
[99]{} Artur Avila, Giovanni Forni, Davide Ravotti, and Corinna Ulcigrai, *Mixing for smooth time-changes of general nilflows*, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.11628 (2019).
Artur Avila, Giovanni Forni, and Corinna Ulcigrai, *Mixing for the time-changes of heisenberg nilflows*, Journal of Differential Geometry **89** (2011), no. 3, 369–410.
Alexander Bufetov and Giovanni Forni, *Limit theorems for horocycle flows*, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) **47** (2014), no. 5, 851–903.
Alexander Brudnyi, *On local behavior of analytic functions*, Journal of Functional Analysis **2** (1999), no. 169, 481–493.
Alexander I Bufetov, *Finitely-additive measures on the asymptotic foliations of a markov compactum*, arXiv preprint arXiv:0902.3303 (2009).
, *H[ö]{}lder cocycles and ergodic integrals for translation flows on flat surfaces*, Electronic Research Announcements **17** (2010), 34–42.
Alexander I. Bufetov, *Limit theorems for translation flows*, Ann. of Math. (2) **179** (2014), no. 2, 431–499.
Salvatore Cosentino and Livio Flaminio, *Equidistribution for higher-rank [A]{}belian actions on [H]{}eisenberg nilmanifolds*, J. Mod. Dyn. **9** (2015), 305–353.
Francesco Cellarosi and Jens Marklof, *Quadratic weyl sums, automorphic functions and invariance principles*, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society **113** (2016), no. 6, 775–828.
Livio Flaminio and Giovanni Forni, *Invariant distributions and time averages for horocycle flows*, Duke Math. J. **119** (2003), no. 3, 465–526.
, *Equidistribution of nilflows and applications to theta sums*, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems **26** (2006), no. 2, 409–433.
, *On effective equidistribution for higher step nilflows*, arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3640 (2014).
Livio Flaminio, Giovanni Forni, and James Tanis, *Effective equidistribution of twisted horocycle flows and horocycle maps*, Geom. Funct. Anal. **26** (2016), no. 5, 1359–1448.
Giovanni Forni and Adam Kanigowski, *Time-changes of heisenberg nilflows*, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05543 (2017).
, *Multiple mixing and disjointness for time changes of bounded-type heisenberg nilflows*, Journal de l’[É]{}cole polytechnique—Math[é]{}matiques **7** (2020), 63–91.
Giovanni Forni, *On the equidistribution of unstable curves for pseudo-anosov diffeomorphisms of compact surfaces*, Preprint.
Giovanni Forni, *Deviation of ergodic averages for area-preserving flows on surfaces of higher genus*, Annals of Mathematics **155** (2002), no. 1, 1–103.
Friedrich G[ö]{}tze and Mikhail Gordin, *Limiting distributions of theta series on siegel half-spaces*, St. Petersburg Mathematical Journal **15** (2004), no. 1, 81–102.
JORY GRIFFIN and JENS MARKLOF, *Limit theorems for skew translations.*, Journal of Modern Dynamics **8** (2014), no. 2.
Alexander Gorodnik and Ralf Spatzier, *Exponential mixing of nilmanifold automorphisms*, Journal d’Analyse Math[é]{}matique **123** (2014), no. 1, 355–396.
, *Mixing properties of commuting nilmanifold automorphisms*, Acta Mathematica **215** (2015), no. 1, 127–159.
Minsung Kim, *On time-changes of higher rank actions for heisenberg nilmanifolds*, In preparation.
Minsung Kim, *Effective equidistribution for generalized higher step nilflows*, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09789 (2020).
Anatole Katok and Svetlana Katok, *Higher cohomology for abelian groups of toral automorphisms*, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems **15** (1995), no. 3, 569–592.
D. Y. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis, *Logarithm laws for flows on homogeneous spaces*, Invent. Math. **138** (1999), no. 3, 451–494.
Jens Marklof, *Limit theorems for theta sums*, Duke mathematical journal **97** (1999), no. 1, 127–154.
David Mumford and C Musili, *Tata lectures on theta. i (modern birkh[ä]{}user classics)*, Birkh[ä]{}user Boston Incorporated, 2007.
David Mumford, Madhav Nori, and Peter Norman, *Tata lectures on theta iii*, vol. 43, Springer, 2007.
Davide Ravotti, *Mixing for suspension flows over skew-translations and time-changes of quasi-abelian filiform nilflows*, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems (2018), 1–30.
, *Quantitative equidistribution of horocycle push-forwards of transverse arcs*, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03187 (2019).
Dennis Sullivan, *Disjoint spheres, approximation by imaginary quadratic numbers, and the logarithm law for geodesics*, Acta Math. **149** (1982), no. 3-4, 215–237.
R Tolimieri, *Heisenberg manifolds and theta functions*, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society **239** (1978), 293–319.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Sensor-based human activity recognition (HAR) is now a research hotspot in multiple application areas. With the rise of smart wearable devices equipped with inertial measurement units (IMUs), researchers begin to utilize IMU data for HAR. By employing machine learning algorithms, early IMU-based research for HAR can achieve accurate classification results on traditional classical HAR datasets, containing only simple and repetitive daily activities. However, these datasets rarely display a rich diversity of information in real-scene. In this paper, we propose a novel method based on deep learning for complex HAR in the real-scene. Specially, in the off-line training stage, the AMASS dataset, containing abundant human poses and virtual IMU data, is innovatively adopted for enhancing the variety and diversity. Moreover, a deep convolutional neural network with an unsupervised penalty is proposed to automatically extract the features of AMASS and improve the robustness. In the on-line testing stage, by leveraging advantages of the transfer learning, we obtain the final result by fine-tuning the partial neural network (optimizing the parameters in the fully-connected layers) using the real IMU data. The experimental results show that the proposed method can surprisingly converge in a few iterations and achieve an accuracy of 91.15% on a real IMU dataset, demonstrating the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed method.'
author:
- Fanyi Xiao
- Ling Pei
- Lei Chu
- Danping Zou
- Wenxian Yu
- Yifan Zhu
- Tao Li
title: A Deep Learning Method for Complex Human Activity Recognition Using Virtual Wearable Sensors
---
Introduction
============
Human activity recognition (HAR) is a research hotspot in the field of computer vision and has broad application prospects in security monitoring, biological health, and other fields. Traditional recognition algorithms are mainly based on images or videos[@zhang2017review]. With the emergence of various wearable smart devices embedded with microsensors such as inertial measurement units (IMUs), these devices are highly used in daily life and play an indispensable role in emerging fields that strongly demand HAR such as virtual reality (VR). Therefore, it is a natural way to realize HAR based on wearable devices.
In recent years, HAR based on wearable devices has been conducted deep studies [@sousa2019human], and there exist two general methods. Previous researches use traditional machine learning methods such as Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Random Forest (RF) to receive the recognition result [@pei2013human; @pei2012using]. However, these methods need to to design features manually, calculate time and frequency domain features based on characteristics of the data. To reduce the computational consumption and compress input data, a further selection of features also needs to be conducted. Due to the longtime design and selection of manual features, it always costs lots using traditional methods of machine learning. With the development of deep learning in recent years, deep neural networks such as Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)[@ronao2016human] or Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTM)[@chevalier2016lstms] have been widely used for HAR, finishing both feature extraction and activity classification.
Almost all the above methods now can achieve excellent results on specific sensor-based HAR datasets. The widely used public datasets and their main characteristics are shown in Table \[tab1\].
Datasets Sampling Rate (Hz) Sensors Activities Subjects
------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- ------------ ----------
UCI HAR[@anguita2013public] 50 2 (Acc, Gyro) 6 30
WISDM[@lockhart2011design] 20 1 (Acc) 7 36
WHARF[@bruno2015wearable] 32 1 (Acc) 12 17
PAMAP2[@reiss2012introducing] 100 4 (Acc, Gyro, Mag, Temp) 18 9
: Widely used public datasets and main characteristics (Acc=accelerometer, Gyro=gyroscope, Mag=Magnetometer, Temp=Temperature).[]{data-label="tab1"}
However, all these datasets have defects as follows:
- The most widely used datasets such as UCI HAR[@anguita2013public] contain only simple daily activities, for example, walking, running or jumping, while human behaves much more complex in real life.
- Subjects involved in data collection are always limited, and the same activity tends to be performed similarly, for instance, walking may only include walking at normal speed. However, the same activity can be performed in different styles and may vary with different humans in the real world.
- During data collection, most datasets use only a single IMU, which makes them unsuitable for recognizing more elaborate activities such as stretching arms or stretching legs. Though other datasets use more than two IMUs, the increase in IMUs also leads to the intrusion to subjects.
To solve problems above, this paper innovatively adopts a pose reconstruction dataset AMASS[@mahmood2019amass], which is a large collection of motion capture (Mocap) datasets, for HAR. The adoption of this dataset has the following advantages:
1. AMASS contains rich motion types. It includes complex activities such as house cleaning in addition to simple daily activities, making this dataset closer to real life.
2. The containing of multiple mocap datasets in AMASS leads to both richer characteristics in activities and an increase in the number of involved subjects, which is more than 300.
3. Inspired by [@huang2019deep], where virtual IMU data are innovatively used in pose reconstruction, we similarly use virtual IMU for HAR, which greatly reduces the cost of collecting real datasets.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
- Adopt a novel pose reconstruction dataset AMASS for HAR and use virtual IMU data in this dataset.
- Use a realistic dataset to fine-tune the model for further reducing the gap between real and virtual data.
- Propose a CNN framework combined with an unsupervised penalty for HAR.
Experimental results show that test result on the realistic dataset is 91.15% after fine-tuning, which demonstrates the feasibility of applying pose recognition datasets and using virtual IMU data for HAR.
Dataset preprocessing based on the SMPL model
=============================================
One major work of this paper is the processing of AMASS, making it suitable for HAR. Since the IMU data in AMASS is virtual, this paper further processes the DIP dataset proposed in [@huang2019deep], which contains real IMU data that can be used to reduce the gap between virtual data and real data.
SMPL model
----------
SMPL [@loper2015smpl] is a parameterized model of the 3D human body, totally including $N = 6890$ vertices, $K = 23$ joints. Input parameters of this model are shape parameters $ \boldsymbol{\beta} $, which takes 10 values controlling the shape change of the human body, and pose parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ that takes 72 values which define the relative angles of 24 joints (including the root joint) of the human body:
$$M(\boldsymbol{\beta, \theta}) = W(T_P(\boldsymbol{\beta,\theta}),J(\boldsymbol{\beta}),\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{W}),$$
$$T_P(\boldsymbol{\beta, \theta}) = \boldsymbol{T}+B_s(\boldsymbol{\beta})+B_p(\boldsymbol{\theta}),$$
where $T$ defines a template mesh, to which pose-dependent deformations $B_s(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ and shape-dependent deformations $B_p(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ are added. Based on the rotation around the predicted joint locations $J(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ with smoothing defined by the blend weight matrix $\boldsymbol{W}$, the resulting mesh is then posed using a standard linear skinning function (LBS).
Using this model, AMASS converts the motion poses of several classical motion capture datasets such as Biomotion [@troje2002decomposing], from a skeletal form to a more realistic 3D skin model, while the pose parameters are given as a rotation matrix.
Virtual data generation
-----------------------
Though AMASS contains the input parameters of the SMPL model, it does not contain IMU data as original mocap datasets do not provide IMU data. To use AMASS for sensor-based pose reconstruction, [@huang2019deep] confirms the feasibility of synthesizing IMU data and generating corresponding SMPL parameters based on the input of different models.
Based on the rich information provided by AMASS, virtual acceleration data and orientation readings in the rotation matrix can be generated by placing virtual sensors on the SMPL mesh surface. Orientation readings are directly obtained using forward kinematics, while virtual accelerations are calculated via finite differences [@huang2019deep]. The virtual acceleration for time $t$ is defined as: $$a_t=\frac{p_{t-1} + p_{t+1} - 2\cdot p_t}{dt^2},$$ where $p_t$ is the position of a virtual IMU for time $t$, and $d_t$ is the time interval between two consecutive frames.
Labeling and filtering with SMPL model
--------------------------------------
Since AMASS contains over 11000 motions, it is necessary to classify these motions into different activities and make true labels. Further, a single motion file in AMASS may consist of several activities, so it is also essential to filter out some motions that affect the balance of the dataset. Activity labeling and data filtering are mainly achieved through three steps.
### Posture-based labeling
We first classify the whole motions in AMASS into 12 categories based on the superficial descriptions of motions in most classical mocap datasets included in AMASS. Two types of motions are directly removed in this procedure. The first type is motions with little relevance to human daily activities, such as boxing and other martial motions described in Biomotion [@troje2002decomposing]. The second type refers to some frequently converted motions(e.g. quick transitions between walking, stopping and running). Since the motion duration is generally short in AMASS, frequent motion transitions may conflict with the subsequent sliding window length settings, therefore such motions are also excluded.
### Acceleration-based filtering
A simple classification of the dataset is implemented in the previous section, while some data are further filtered based on accelerations. Using the accelerations obtained via the sensor on the wrist, a dynamic graph of the acceleration over time can be created. The accelerations at the left wrist for typical walking and running movements are shown in Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[fig2\].
As can be seen from the comparison of Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[fig2\], different activities often differ in acceleration characteristics. Therefore, data is further cleaned based on the differences in the characteristics of acceleration (e.g. peaks, variances, etc.).
![Wrist accelerations for typical running movement[]{data-label="fig2"}](walking.png){width="0.98\linewidth"}
![Wrist accelerations for typical running movement[]{data-label="fig2"}](running2.png){width="0.98\linewidth"}
### Data cleaning with SMPL model
For some activities whose acceleration characteristics are not obvious, such as the stretching of the arms, it almost fails using acceleration features to clean the dataset. However, since AMASS provides SMPL pose parameters in the form of the rotation matrix, it becomes feasible to filter this type of activity adopting visualization with the SMPL model.
After using Unity to build the SMPL model, the motions can be visualized by passing in different SMPL pose parameters. Clapping motion and motion of waving arms are shown in Fig. \[fig3\] and Fig. \[fig4\] respectively. After visualization of such data, mislabeled motions can be successfully deleted.
![Visualization for waving movement[]{data-label="fig4"}](clapping.png){height="0.7\linewidth"}
![Visualization for waving movement[]{data-label="fig4"}](waving.png){height="0.7\linewidth"}
However, preprocessed AMASS still suffers the problem of extremely unbalanced activities after processing above, which is mainly caused by unbalanced motions in the original AMASS. To alleviate this problem, interpolation up-sampling is adopted in this paper.
Deep learning algorithm and fine-tuning
=======================================
Proposed method
---------------
The proposed method includes two stages: the off-line training stage and the on-line testing stage. At the first stage, we firstly employ the AMASS dataset, containing abundant human poses, to enhance the variety and diversity of the real data.
Motivated by the pioneer works [@Erhan2010Why; @Lecun2015Deep], a deep convolutional neural network ($U$ convolutional layers and $S$ fully-connected layers) with an unsupervised penalty ($U$ deconvolutional layers) is proposed to automatically extract the features of AMASS. Specially, given $p$-th batch IMU data ${{\bf{X}}^{\left( p \right)}}$ and the related labels ${{\bf{Z}}^{\left( p \right)}}$, the proposed method tries to update the neural network parameters $ \Theta = {\Theta _0} \cup {\Theta _1}{\rm{ = }}{\left\{ {{{\bf{W}}_k}} \right\}_{k = 1,2, \cdots ,2U + S}} $ by minimizing $$\label{eq32}
\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\mathop {{\rm{argmin}}}\limits_\Theta }&{\underbrace {{\cal L}_{0}\left( {{\Theta _0}} \right)}_{supervised} + \lambda \underbrace {{{\cal L}_{1}}\left( {{\Theta _1}} \right)}_{unsupervised \ penalty}}
\end{array},$$
where $${\cal L}_{0}\left( \Theta_0 \right) = \left\| {{{\bf{Z}}^{\left( p \right)}} - {\varphi _S}\left( {{{\bf{W}}_S}{{{\bf{\tilde X}}}^{\left( p \right)}}} \right)} \right\|_2^2,$$ $${{{\bf{\tilde X}}}^{\left( p \right)}} = {\varphi _U}\left( {{{\bf{W}}_U} \cdots {\varphi _1}\left( {{{\bf{W}}_1}{{\bf{X}}^{\left( p \right)}}} \right)} \right),$$ $${{\cal L}_1}\left( {{\Theta _1}} \right) = \left\| {{{\bf{X}}^{\left( p \right)}} - {\varphi _{2U}}\left( {{{\bf{W}}_{2U}} \cdots {\varphi _{U + 1}}\left( {{{\bf{W}}_1}{{{\bf{\tilde X}}}^{\left( p \right)}}} \right)} \right)} \right\|_2^2,$$ $\varphi$ is the activation function of the $i$-th layer, and $\lambda$ is the penalty parameter that balances $\mathcal{L}\left(\Theta_0\right)$ and $\mathcal{L}_{1}\left(\Theta_{1}\right)$. We use an unsupervised penalty to promote the generalization of the proposed method by considering:
- In our case, by optimizing $\mathcal{L}_{0}\left(\Theta_{0}\right)$, we try to represent ${{\bf{X}}^{\left( p \right)}}$ of high-dimension by the latent layer of low-dimension (${{{\bf{\tilde X}}}^{\left( p \right)}}$). Such an operation, considering the low dimensionality of the IMU data, is helpful for the key feature extraction.
- The unsupervised penalty in itself is a denoising autoencoder [@Lecun2015Deep] that can help denoising the AMASS dataset, enhancing the robustness of the proposed method.
- It has been shown in previous studies that learning multi-task (i.e., $\mathcal{L}_{0}\left(\Theta_{0}\right)$ and $\mathcal{L}_{1}\left(\Theta_{0}\right)$) jointly can improve the generalization error bounds [@chu2019lemo; @Maurer2013Excess].
Fine-tuning with real IMU
-------------------------
Since IMU data in AMASS is virtually generated via the SMPL model and virtual sensors, while the IMU data in the real world tends to be affected by environmental noise, electromagnetic waves, etc. Therefore, certain differences exist between virtual and real data. To eliminate the gap, this paper uses the DIP dataset with real IMU data provided in [@huang2019deep] for fine-tuning. Data processing of DIP is similar to AMASS, except the fact that DIP only contains 5 activities, namely “computer works”, “walking”, “jumping”, “stretching arms” and “stretching legs”. Meanwhile, DIP has rather balanced activity categories, therefore up-sampling is not performed on DIP.
Following the off-line training stage in Section 3.1, at the on-line testing stage, by leveraging advantages of the transfer learning, we obtain the final result by fine-tuning the parameters in the fully-connected layers with the real IMU data.
Test Verification
=================
This paper innovatively adopts a pose reconstruction dataset AMASS with virtual IMU data for HAR and proposes a new CNN framework with an unsupervised penalty. We design several comparative experiments, to prove the feasibility of using pose reconstruction dataset for HAR.
To further verify the rationality of the method proposed in this paper, both classical machine learning algorithms and deep learning algorithms are tested on AMASS and DIP. Taking the sequence length in AMASS into consideration, this paper finally adopts RF and DeepConvLSTM[@ordonez2016deep] algorithms for comparisons. For RF we directly input the processed data for classification, while we adopt the original DeepConvLSTM architecture for comparison.
Experimental design
-------------------
Three groups of comparative experiments based on different datasets are designed. Experiment 1 conducts training and testing on AMASS, using all three algorithms. The ratio of the training set to the test set is 7:3. Experiment 2 conducts training and testing on DIP and adopts all three algorithms similar to experiment 1. Experiment 3 is trained on the AMASS training set, fine-tuned on the DIP training set and finally tested on the DIP test set. Only our proposed method and DeepConvLSTM are involved in experiment 3.
Considering that some activities cannot be identified using only one IMU, three IMUs located at the left wrist, the right thigh, and the head are selected in this paper. The total input data have features in 36 dimensions, including three-axis acceleration and rotation matrix. Since the sampling rates of AMASS and DIP are both 60Hz, a sliding window with 60 frames (i.e. 1 second) length is selected, while the degree of overlapping is set as 50%.
Evaluation criteria
-------------------
Commonly used evaluation criteria in HAR are accuracy, recall, F1-score and Area Under the Curve (AUC), among which accuracy and F1-score are most commonly used. Therefore, we also adopt accuracy and F1-score as the performance measures: $$Accuracy=\frac{\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}TP_{cn}+\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}TN_{cn}}{\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}TP_{cn}+\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}TN_{cn}+\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}FP_{cn}+\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}FN_{cn}},$$ $$F1-score=\frac{2\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}TP_{cn}}{2\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}TP_{cn}+\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}FP_{cn}+\sum_{cn=1}^{CN}FN_{cn}},$$ where $CN$ denotes the class number. Variables $TP_{cn}$, $FP_{cn}$, $TN_{cn}$, $FN_{cn}$ are the true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives of the class $cn$ , respectively.
Experimental results and analysis
---------------------------------
Table \[tab2\] illustrates all results in three experiments. From the results on the AMASS dataset in Table \[tab2\], we can see that all three algorithms can achieve accuracy over 70%, despite the fact that IMU data in AMASS is virtual and the containing of complex activities composed of several motions. Results on the DIP dataset in Table \[tab2\] corresponds to the results of experimen2, comparing three algorithms on a realistic IMU dataset DIP. We can see that the proposed method outperforms DeepConvLSTM and RF on both AMASS and DIP, which strongly illustrates the rationality of the deep learning algorithm proposed in this paper.
------------- ------------ ------------ -------- ---------- -------- ----------
Acc F1-score Acc F1-score Acc F1-score
AMASS **87.46%** **86.50%** 73.03% 72.43% 75.01% 70.00%
DIP **89.08%** **89.16%** 78.33% 79.31% 77.25% 75.96%
AMASS & DIP **91.15%** **91.21%** 84.80% 85.12% `\` `\`
------------- ------------ ------------ -------- ---------- -------- ----------
: Experimental results[]{data-label="tab2"}
Notice that the classification result on DIP is not as good as the classification result of DeepConvLSTM and RF on classical HAR datasets. The main reason is that although DIP only contains 5 activities, similar to AMASS, each activity may be composed of a variety of motions, such as activity stretching legs which includes two motions, leg raising, and stepping. Activities with multiple motions greatly increase the difficulty of classification.
To confirm gaps between virtual IMU data and real IMU data, we additionally use the proposed network trained on AMASS to finish the classification task on DIP, an unsurprising result of accuracy less than 50% is obtained. While the network trained based on AMASS and fine-tuned on the DIP training set achieves the best performance on the DIP test set, both for the proposed method and DeepConvLSTM. The results confirm that fine-tuning indeed eliminates the gap between the virtual IMU and the real IMU to some extent.
We also show the confusion matrix figures of the proposed method in experiment 2 experiment 3. As Fig. \[fig5\] and Fig. \[fig6\] show, fine-tuning effectively improves the classification results of some categories in DIP, which is mainly caused by richer motions in AMASS that make it easier to distinguish some confusing activities. Another interesting thing to be noticed is that fine-tuning can achieve rather excellent results within 20 epochs. This also provides a way for future research, that is, training on large-scale virtual IMU datasets, only need for a small scale of datasets with real IMU data for fine-tuning, which will reduce the cost of collecting real data.
![Confusion matrix of DIP in experiment3[]{data-label="fig6"}](confusion_matrix_dip.png){width="0.98\linewidth"}
![Confusion matrix of DIP in experiment3[]{data-label="fig6"}](confusion_matrix_fine_tune02.png){width="0.98\linewidth"}
Conclusion
==========
This paper innovatively adopts a pose reconstruction dataset AMASS for HAR for the problem of simple daily activities and limited subjects in classical datasets. At the same time, a pose reconstruction dataset DIP with real IMU data is used for fine-tuning, to reduce the gap between virtual IMU data and real IMU data. Future work can focus on the most suitable IMU configurations through more detailed experiments.
### Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant 61873163, Equipment Pre-Research Field Foundation under Grant 61405180205, Grant 61405180104.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[We study the phase diagram of the proton–neutron interacting boson model (IBM–2) with special emphasis on the phase transitions leading to triaxial phases. The existence of a new critical point between spherical and triaxial shapes is reported.]{}'
author:
- 'J.M. Arias$^1$, J.E. García–Ramos$^2$, and J. Dukelsky$^3$'
title: 'Phase Diagram of the Proton-Neutron Interacting Boson Model'
---
Quantum phase transitions (QPT) have become a subject of great interest in the study of several quantum many–body systems in condensed matter, quantum optics, ultra–cold quantum gases, and nuclear physics. QPT are structural changes taking place at zero temperature as a function of a control parameter (for a recent review see [@Vojta]). Examples of control parameters are the magnetic field in spin systems, quantum Hall systems, and ultra-cold gases close to a Feshbach resonance, or the hole-doping in cuprate superconductors.
The atomic nucleus is a finite system composed of N neutrons and Z protons (Z+N$\approx $100). Though strictly speaking QPT take place for large systems in the thermodynamic limit, finite nuclei can show the precursors of a phase transition for some particular values of N and Z. In these cases, one finds specific patterns in the low energy spectrum revealing the strong quantum fluctuations responsible for the phase transition [@IZ04]. Recently the concept of critical point symmetry has been proposed by Iachello and applied to atomic nuclei. First, the transition from spherical to deformed $\gamma$-unstable shapes was studied and the corresponding critical point called E(5) [@E5]. Since then, the interest in nuclear shape–phase transitions has been constantly growing. The characteristics of the critical point in the phase transition from spherical to axially deformed nuclei, called X(5), were presented in Ref. [@X5]. More recently, the critical point in the phase transition from axially deformed to triaxial nuclei, called Y(5), has been analysed [@Y5]. In all these cases, critical points are defined in the context of the collective Bohr Hamiltonian [@BMII]. Using some simplifying approximations precise parameter–free predictions for several observables are obtained. This allows to identify nuclei at the critical points looking at spectroscopic properties. Indeed, some experimental candidates to critical nuclei have already been proposed [@E5Exp; @X5exp].
The collective Bohr Hamiltonian, underlying this approach to critical point symmetries, is closely related to the Interacting Boson Model (IBM) [@IBM]. The simplest version of the IBM is called IBM–1 since in it no explicit distinction is made between protons and neutrons. In IBM–1 there are three dynamical symmetries: $SU(5)$, $O(6)$, and $SU(3)$. These correspond to well defined nuclear shapes: spherical, deformed $\gamma$-unstable, and prolate axial deformed, respectively. The structure of the IBM–1 Hamiltonian allows to study systematically the transition from one shape to another. There were some pioneering works along these lines in the 80’s [@DSI80; @FGD; @Alex], but it has been the recent introduction of the concept of critical point symmetry that has recalled the attention of the community to the topic of quantum phase transitions in nuclei. The phase diagram of the IBM–1 has been studied from several points of view [@DSI80; @FGD; @Alex; @Cas; @Jo1; @Ar3]. The three different phases are separated by lines of first order phase transition, with a singular point in the transition from spherical to deformed $\gamma$-unstable shape that is second order. In the usual IBM–1 no triaxial shapes appear. These can only be stabilised with the inclusion of specific three body forces. A more natural way to generate triaxial deformations is by explicitly taking into account the proton-neutron degree of freedom with the more realistic IBM–2 [@IBM-2].
In this letter we will study the phase diagram of the IBM–2 using a simplified Hamiltonian that keeps all the main ingredients of the most general one. This is the Consistent–Q IBM–2 Hamiltonian [@Ca] $$H= x \left(n_{d_\pi}+n_{d_\nu} \right)-\frac{1-x}{N}
Q^{(\chi_\pi,\chi_\nu ) }\cdot Q^{(\chi_\pi,\chi_\nu )} ~,
\label{HQ}$$ where $n_{d}=\sum_{\mu }d_{\mu }^{\dagger }d_{\mu }$, $Q^{(\chi_\pi,\chi_\nu )}=\left(Q_\pi^{\chi_\pi}+
Q_\nu^{\chi_\nu}\right)$ with $Q^\chi_{\kappa }=\left[ d_{\kappa }^{\dagger }\widetilde s_{\kappa }+
s_{\kappa }^{\dagger }\widetilde d_{\kappa }\right]^{2} +
\chi_\kappa \left[ d_{\kappa }^{\dagger }\widetilde{d}_{\kappa }\right]^{2}$ and $N$ is the total number of bosons, which is equal to the number of valence proton plus neutron pairs. The IBM phase diagram studied up to now corresponds to the selection $\chi_\pi=\chi_\nu$ which produces either spherical, axial or $\gamma$ independent shapes. We will extend the previous works on IBM phase transitions by exploring the transitions from axial to triaxial shapes within the mean field or intrinsic state formalism. The trial wave function is the most general proton-neutron boson condensate [@GK80; @BM80; @GLnp], $|g\rangle=|N_\pi, N_\nu, \beta_\pi, \gamma_\pi , \beta_\nu,
\gamma_\nu, \Omega \rangle$ $$|g \rangle = \frac{(\Gamma^\dag_\pi) ^{N_\pi}
\hat{R}_3(\Omega)(\Gamma^\dag_\nu )^{N_\nu}}{\sqrt{N_\pi! N_\nu!}}
|0 \rangle \label{STIN}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^\dagger_\kappa=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ \beta_\kappa^2}}
\left[s_\kappa^\dagger \right.&+& \beta_\kappa \cos \gamma_\kappa
d^\dagger_{\kappa 0}
\nonumber \\
&+& \left. \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ~ \beta_\kappa
\sin \gamma_\kappa (d^\dagger_{\kappa 2} + d^\dagger_{\kappa -2}) \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa=\pi,\nu$ and $\hat{R}_3(\Omega)$ is the three dimensional rotation operator with $\Omega$ fixing the relative orientation (Euler angles) between the proton and neutron condensates. $N_\pi$ and $N_\nu$ are the numbers of valence proton and neutron pairs, respectively. The equilibrium values of the structure parameters ($\beta_\pi, \gamma_\pi , \beta_\nu, \gamma_\nu, \Omega$) and the energy of the system for given values of the control parameters in the Hamiltonian ($x, \chi_\pi, \chi_\nu$) can be obtained by minimising the expectation value of the Hamiltonian (\[HQ\]) in the intrinsic state (\[STIN\]): $\delta \langle g |H|g\rangle = 0$.
![Pictorial representation of the IBM-2 parameter space with a dynamical symmetry in each of the four vertices.[]{data-label="FIG1"}](NewCasten3D.eps){height="6cm" width="6.5cm"}
Although there is an explicit dependence of the energy on the Euler angles, it has been shown [@GLnp] that oblique configurations (relative orientation angles different from the aligned $\Omega=0$ or the perpendicular $\Omega=\pi/2$ ) require a repulsive hexadecapole $\pi-\nu$ interaction. Therefore, since our Hamiltonian (\[HQ\]) has no hexadecapole terms, we do not expect oblique configurations. We can then safely assume that any arbitrary local minimum will have $\Omega=0,~\gamma_\pi=\gamma_\nu =0^\circ $ (or equal to $60^\circ$) for the aligned configurations or $\Omega=0,~\gamma_\pi =0^\circ,~\gamma_\nu =60^\circ$ (or $\gamma_\pi =60^\circ,~\gamma_\nu =0^\circ$) for the perpendicular configurations. In both cases $\Omega=0$ and the rotation operator disappears from the intrinsic state (\[STIN\]). In that situation, the energy per boson in the limit $N_\pi,N_\nu
\rightarrow \infty $ reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
&&E(\beta_\pi, \gamma_\pi , \beta_\nu, \gamma_\nu;\chi_\pi, \chi_\nu, x)= x
\sum_{\kappa=\pi,\nu} \frac{\beta_\kappa^2}{1+\beta_\kappa^2} \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1-x}{4} \sum_{\mu=0,\pm 2} \left[\sum_{\kappa=\pi,\nu}
Q_\mu^2(\kappa) + 2 Q_\mu(\pi) Q_{-\mu}(\nu) \right]\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the notation $Q_0(\kappa)=Q_0(\beta,\gamma,\chi)_\kappa$ and $Q_2(\kappa)=Q_{-2}(\kappa)=
Q_2(\beta,\gamma,\chi)_\kappa=Q_{-2}(\beta,\gamma,\chi)_\kappa$ with $$\begin{aligned}
Q_0(\kappa)&=&\frac{1}{1+\beta_\kappa^2}{\left[ 2 \beta_\kappa
\cos \gamma_\kappa - \sqrt{\frac{2}{7}}
\beta_\kappa^2 \chi_\kappa \cos (2\gamma_\kappa) \right]}~,
\nonumber\\
Q_2(\kappa)&=&\frac{1}{1+\beta_\kappa^2}\left[ \sqrt{2} \beta_\kappa \sin
\gamma_\kappa + \sqrt{\frac{1}{7}} \beta_\kappa^2 \chi_\kappa \sin
(2\gamma_\kappa) \right].\end{aligned}$$
![Transition from $SU(3)$ to $SU^*(3)$: $x=0$, $\chi_\pi=-\sqrt{7}/2$ and $\chi_\nu$ varies from $-\sqrt{7}/2$ to $+\sqrt{7}/2$. In the panels are plotted the energy of the ground state in arbitrary units, and the variation of the shape parameters $\beta_\nu$ (dimensionless) and $\gamma_\nu$ (degrees).[]{data-label="FIG2"}](y5.eps){height="6cm" width="5cm"}
As a natural extension of the Casten triangle for IBM–1 [@Ca], the geometrical representation of the IBM–2 is a pyramid with the new triaxial dynamical symmetry $SU^*(3)$ [@DB82] in the upper vertex. Fig. \[FIG1\] shows a pictorial representation of the IBM–2 parameter space. Any point in this space is obtained with the following transformation to polar coordinates (see Fig. \[FIG1\]). $$\rho = 1-x ~;~ \theta = - \frac{\pi}{3}~\frac{\chi_\pi-\chi_\nu}
{\sqrt{7}} ~;~ \phi = -
\frac{\pi}{3}~\frac{\chi_\pi+\chi_\nu}{\sqrt{7}} ~.$$ We have explored the IBM-2 parameter space of Hamiltonian (\[HQ\]) and present here a selected set of calculations in order to establish the IBM–2 phase diagram (a more detailed presentation will be given in a forthcoming publication). We have not found traces of phase transitions in the transition from $O(6)$ to $SU^*(3)$ in a parallel way as the already known transition from $O(6)$ to $SU(3)$ in IBM–1. The $O(6)$ symmetry is in fact very unstable against small perturbations driving the system out of the dynamical symmetry either to axial deformed or to triaxial shapes depending on the interaction. The $O(6)$ symmetry itself has been proposed as a critical dynamical symmetry [@Jol].
In Fig. \[FIG2\] we show the transition $SU(3)\rightarrow SU^*(3)$ through the edge plotted in Fig. 1. Along this line $x=0$ and $\chi_\pi=-\sqrt{7}/2$ are fixed. The relevant control parameter is $\chi_\nu$ varying from $-\sqrt{7}/2$ (equal and aligned quadrupole prolate shapes for protons and neutrons) to $\sqrt{7}/2$ (quadrupole prolate shape for protons and quadrupole oblate shape for neutrons with perpendicular axis of symmetry [@DB82]). In Fig. \[FIG2\] we present the results for the ground state energy (in arbitrary units) and the shape parameters ($\beta_\nu, \gamma_\nu$). The resulting proton parameters are $\beta_\pi=\sqrt{2}$ and $ \gamma_\pi=0$ for all values of the control parameter $\chi_\nu$. In the limit $\chi_\nu=-\sqrt{7}/2$ we recover the results known from IBM-1: $\beta_\nu=\sqrt{2}$ and $\gamma_\nu=0$. In the opposite limit $\chi_\nu=\sqrt{7}/2$ the results known from Ref. [@DB82] are obtained: $\beta_\nu=\sqrt{2}$ and $\gamma_\nu=60^{\circ}$. Around $\chi_\nu=0.4035$ a clear shape phase transition is observed changing the system from axial ($\chi_\nu<0.4035$) to triaxial ($\chi_\nu>0.4035$). We will call this point “y”. Note that in this phase transition the order parameter is $\gamma_\nu$ that changes from $0$ in the symmetric phase to a finite value in the non-symmetric phase [@Landau]. We have minimised the energy following two inverse paths looking for possible coexistence of minima and the corresponding spinodal and antispinodal points. Both calculations give exactly the same results. This means that spinodal, critical and antispinodal points all converge to a single point [@IZ04]. Therefore, the transition from $SU(3)$ to $SU^*(3)$ is second order.
![Same as Fig. \[FIG2\] but for the transition from $U(5)$ to $SU^*(3)$: $\chi_\pi=-\chi_\nu=-\sqrt{7}/2$ and $x$ varies from $0$ (triaxial) to $1$ (spherical).[]{data-label="FIG3"}](x5ast.eps){height="6cm" width="5cm"}
Fig. \[FIG3\] shows the transition from $U(5) \rightarrow SU^*(3)$ through the corresponding edge in Fig. \[FIG1\]. Along this edge $\chi_\pi=-\chi_\nu=-\sqrt{7}/2$ are fixed and the relevant control parameter is $x$ changing from $1$ (spherical) to $0$ (triaxial). The values of $\beta_\pi$ and $\beta_\nu$ are always equal at the energy minimum, while $\gamma_\pi$ and $\gamma_\nu$ are symmetric with respect to $\gamma = 30^{\rm \circ}$ axis. In the different panels, the energy, and the values of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ for proton and neutron shapes are presented. For $x=1$, $\beta_\pi=\beta_\nu=0$ implying a spherical shape. For $x=0$ we recover the $SU^*(3)$ case with $\beta_\pi=\beta_\nu=\sqrt{2}$, and $\gamma_\pi=0$ and $\gamma_\nu=60^{\rm \circ}$. A phase transition at $x=0.8$ is observed. We will call this point “x$^*$”. As in the preceding case, we have performed two sets of calculations following inverse paths to determine the order of the transition and again we have found no region of coexistence, converging at the same place, spinodal, critical, and antispinodal points. Note that in this case the order parameter is $\beta_\pi=\beta_\nu$, as well as $\gamma_\pi=60-\gamma_\nu$.
![Same as Fig. \[FIG2\] but for a generic transition from U(5) to a triaxial shape. The structure parameters are $\chi_\pi=-1.2$, $\chi_\nu=0.5$ and the control parameter $x$ varies from $0$ to $1$.[]{data-label="FIG4"}](c-int-new3.eps){height="6cm" width="5cm"}
In Fig. \[FIG4\], we present the study of a generic transition from $U(5)$ (spherical) to a triaxial shape through a trajectory within the IBM–2 pyramid. In particular, we have selected the trajectory defined by $\chi_\pi=-1.2$ and $\chi_\nu=0.5$, using $x$ as the control parameter varying from $1$ to $0$. The ground state energy, and the values for the $\beta$’s and the $\gamma$’s are plotted. Two phase transitions are observed at different values of $x$. Starting from $x=1$ (spherical system), a first transition to axial deformed shape is observed at $x\approx 0.8$. At this point, the values of $\beta_\pi$ and $\beta_\nu$ depart from zero but $\gamma_\pi$ and $\gamma_\nu$ are zero indicating a deformed axial symmetry. $\beta_\pi$ and $\beta_\nu$ play the role of order parameters in this phase transition. For a value of $x\approx 0.48$ a second phase transition is observed. The values of $\beta_\pi$ and $\beta_\nu$ are different from zero in both sides changing smoothly along the transition. The angular parameters $\gamma$ jump from zero to finite values indicating a transition from an axial shape to a triaxial shape. Therefore $\gamma_\pi$ and $\gamma_\nu$ are the order parameters. The different values for the shape parameters for protons and neutrons are due to the selection of the structure parameters $\chi_\pi$ and $\chi_\nu$ for this trajectory. As in preceding cases we have performed two sets of calculations following inverse paths to determine the order of the phase transition. The transition at $x\approx 0.8$ can be analysed looking at the behaviour of the ground state energy (inset). Where the full line corresponds to a forward calculation, starting at $x=0$, increasing $x$, and the dashed line to a backward calculation, starting at $x=1$, decreasing $x$. The inset shows that there are two minima competing, one spherical and one deformed. If the system comes from the spherical region it keeps spherical for a while even there is another deformed minimum with slightly lower energy. On the other side, if the system comes from the deformed region it keeps deformed (look at the small peak in the full line in the inset at x=0.802) although another spherical minimum have slightly lower energy. This coexistence of deformed and spherical minima in a small region around $x=0.8$ is the signature for a first order phase transition. The phase transition at $x\approx 0.48$ has been studied with forward and backward calculations. We have not found any coexistence region. The antispinodal, critical and spinodal points come together to a single point as corresponds to a second order phase transition.
![Schematic phase diagram for IBM-2. S stands for spherical, A for axial and T for triaxial phases. The critical points “x$^*$” and “y” studied here and those already known for the IBM-1 phase diagram, “x”, “e”, and “O(6)”, are marked with dots. []{data-label="FIG5"}](CastenFases2.eps){height="6cm" width="6cm"}
We have explored the parameter space of the IBM–2 Hamiltonian (\[HQ\]) in Fig. \[FIG1\]. The resulting phase diagram of the proton–neutron IBM as described by the Hamiltonian (\[HQ\]) is depicted in Fig. \[FIG5\]. There are three well defined phases: spherical, axially deformed (prolate in the schematic presentation of Fig. \[FIG5\]) and triaxial. The critical surface separating spherical and axially deformed shapes (e–x$^*$–x–e) is first order, while the surface separating axially deformed and triaxial shapes (e–O(6)–y–x$^*$–e) is second order, including the common line between both surfaces (e–x$^*$). We have checked that in all the cases discussed in which the transition is second order the behaviour of the corresponding order parameter near the critical point is consistent with a critical exponent $1/2$ as given by the Landau theory [@Landau]. We would like to stress that the critical surface separating spherical and axially deformed nuclei is almost a sphere with a radius equal to $\rho=0.2$ and centered in $U(5)$. The straight line plotted inside the figure gives an idea of the trajectory followed by the transition discussed in Fig. \[FIG4\]. We would like to emphasise that we have found a new critical point (x$^*$) at the phase transition changing directly from spherical to triaxial shapes. We are currently studying the spectroscopic properties of this critical point. The results will be presented elsewhere. Finally, this scheme of analysis can be easily extended to positive values of $\chi_\pi$ to obtain the dynamical symmetry limits $\overline{SU(3)}$ and $\overline{SU^*(3)}$.
We acknowledge discussions with F. Iachello and M. Caprio. This work was supported in part by the Spanish DGI under project numbers BFM2002-03315, BFM2000-1320-C02-02, BFM2003-05316-C02-02, and FPA2003-05958.
[100]{} M. Vojta, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**66**]{}, 2069 (2003).
F. Iachello, and N.V. Zamfir, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{}, 212501 (2004).
F. Iachello, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 3580 (2000).
F. Iachello, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 052502 (2001).
F. Iachello, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, 132502 (2003).
R.F. Casten, and N.V. Zamfir, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 3584 (2000).
R.F. Casten and N.V. Zamfir, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 052503 (2001).
E. López-Moreno and O. Castaños, [*Phys. Rev. C*]{} [**54**]{}, 2374 (1996).
J. Jolie, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 182502 (2002). J.M. Arias, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, 162502 (2003).
A. Arima, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**66**]{}, 205 (1977).
R.F. Casten and D.D. Warner, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**60**]{}, 389 (1988).
J. Jolie, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 162501 (2001).
J.J. Binney, N.J. Dowrick, A.J. Fisher, and M.E.J. Newman, [*The Theory of Critical Phenomena*]{}, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Stefano Battiston $^{(1)}$ G[é]{}rard Weisbuch $^{(1)}$ and Eric Bonabeau $^{(2)}$\
[(1) Laboratoire de Physique Statistique, ENS, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris, France]{}\
[(2) Icosystem Corp., 545 Concord Av. Cambridge, MA 02138, USA]{}\
[Correspondence to: [email protected], tel +33144323623, fax +33144323433 ]{}\
title: Decision spread in the corporate board network
---
epsf
PACS: 89.75 -k; 89.65 -s
*Keywords*: social networks, opinion dynamics, directorate interlock, Ising model.
Introduction
=============
We present a model for the diffusion of decisions in a network of corporate boards linked by shared board directors. Boards of large corporations share common directors with each other forming complex networks, often characterized by Small World properties [@Davis02].
An example of board network is shown in figure \[ChaseNet1Labels\]: nodes represent boards of directors, two boards are connected by an edge if there is at least one director sitting on both boards at the same time. The network represents the boards at 1 degree of separation (in term of edges) away from the board of Chase Manhattan Bank. For instance the boards of Abbott Laboratories and Chase Manhattan Bank are connected because they share one director.
We are interested in the influence of such networks on the decisions made by boards. The role of boards is to make decisions about the long-term strategy of the corporations. There are essentially two kinds of decisions a board is faced to:
- Decisions regarding topics specific to the board, such as the appointment of a vice president, for which we can assume that different boards don’t influence each other. We previously studied [@Battiston; @2003] the role of subsets of well connected directors on decisions of this type.
- By contrast, there are decisions about topics of general interest to the economy such as whether to increase or decrease investments in development or in advertisement, which depend on the belief in economical growth or recession. Decisions of equivalent generality concern the adoption of governance practices. In these cases, decisions previously made in some boards might influence other boards, through the presence of shared directors. The present paper is devoted to the dynamics of this kind of decisions across the board network.
The second issue has already been studied in sociology. Haunschild in an article [@Haunschild] about the impact of interlock on US corporate acquisition activity in the 80’, demonstrates the role of inter-organizational imitation of managers. The article by Davis and Greve [@Davis96] concerns the diffusion of corporate governance practices such as the “poison pill” among the US largest corporations in the 80’ (The poison pill is a counter measure against hostile takover allowing “target shareholders to acquire shares at a 50 perc. discount if an acquirer passes a certain ownership threshold”).
Davis and Greve analyse a large set of empirical data and show that the poison pill was primarily mediated by director interlock, with a spreading time scale of the order of one year. In order to explain the observed spreading dynamics, the authors develop a contagion model in which boards are agents with a certain probability to imitate an earlier adopter of the practice. The influence of a board on an interlocked board is reduced or enhanced by a number of factors, discussed in detail by the authors, such as similar industrial sector, firm size, firm performance, concentration of ownership of both companies involved.
We here present a model where agents are instead board directors engaged in a decision making dynamics. Inter-boards influence takes place through shared directors. We are not taking into account the heterogeneity of inter-boards influences. We are interested in understanding under which conditions a large majority of boards making a same decision can emerge. The decision making process is based on the hypothesis that agents tend to follow the majority of the agents to whom they are connected.
This kind of behavior is not perfectly rational in the sense of economics and is known as “herd behavior” [@Orlean] [@Follmer], but presents formal analogies with the Ising model often used for social system models, [@Galam; @82] [@Galam; @91] [@Weisbuch; @99].
Models [@Galam; @82] [@Galam; @91] [@Weisbuch; @99] are based on binary opinion dynamics. The basic updating process is the same as described here by equations \[eq:mod1:1\] and \[eq:mod1:2\], but interaction topologies are simplified to either full connectivity or lattice connectivity.
Unlike the cited works, in the present model the dynamics takes place on an empirical etherogeneous network organized in interconnected groups. This is the director network of Fortune 1000 corporations (data are kindly provided by Davis [@Davis02]). The connectivity within a group (a board of directors) and between groups is highly etherogeneous. Moreover, the dynamics takes places in different groups at different times.
Furthermore, we explore two different scenarios for the influence exerted by groups upon each other. In the first scenario the information about other groups’ decisions only affects the initial opinions of interlocking directors. In the second scenario such information is taken into account by all directors during the whole board meeting.
Our main result in this paper is that the way this information is taken into account by directors at a local level, determines whether, at a global level, it can emerge a large majority of boards making the same decision.
Building a model for the spread of decisions
----------------------------------------------
We here focus on a time scale of a few months, just the time for boards to hold a couple of meetings. Typically we have in mind fast decisions concerning investment and advertisement strategies for the next six months. Decisions of this type are relevant for the macro-economics of a country, especially if corporations tend to make similar decisions in connection to external dramatic events such as crises or wars. It is therefore important to understand what structural parameters of the network determine the number of boards adopting a given decision. Of course this is a formidable task to accomplish, so we start considering in this paper a simple situation in which decisions are binary and the most central board of the network takes a decision in the first place and the other boards meet afterwards. Because of the interlock, the decision made in a given board is influenced by the presence of some directors that were present at a previous meeting on another board.
Let us assume that each board has to make a binary decision. The opinion of director $i$ is represented by a binary variable $s_{i}=\pm1$. For the decision making dynamics in each board meeting, we assume a survey-like mechanism, as in [@Battiston; @2003]: each director updates his opinion based on the average opinion of the other directors, according to a logit probability function (see below).
Boards have meetings once per month, according to a given schedule. Directors start from an initial opinion $s_{i}=\pm 1$ at the beginning of the meeting. By the end of a meeting, directors adopt the opinion that agrees with the decision made by the board.
Therefore, directors serving on several boards start a new meeting with an initial opinion adopted at the last meeting in another board. In this way the decision made previously in a board can influence the decision making dynamics in another board.
After first studying the decision spread on some simple test-bed networks we concentrated on the real network of the boards 1 and 2 degrees of separation away from the board of Chase Manhattan Bank in 1999.
The most central board of the network meets first and the other boards meet afterwards, according to a given schedule.
The topological structure of the network is known from the names of the directors in the boards of the set of companies under consideration. On the other hand, we do not know the magnitude of the influence of a board on another one.
We here assume that the influence of one board on a connected board varies in accordance with the number of directors shared by the two boards (the interlock). For sake of simplicity we don’t take into account those specific factors such as: some boards are very influential over other ones because of differences in prestige, revenue, economic performance, expertise in a specific field, see [@Davis96] for a detailed analysis.
We here present a first model in which the influence of a board $b_{1}$ on another board $b_{2}$ is due only to the fact that those directors of $b_{1}$ which sit also in $b_{2}$, will support, at the beginning of the meeting in $b_{2}$, the choice adopted by $b_{1}$. We study how the pattern of decisions depends on the value of the average interlock.
In the second model the influence of the interlock is increased by two factors.
- Inside the board, directors sitting also on common outside boards have a larger mutual influence than other directors.
- Decisions made by other connected boards can be taken into account as external signals by all board members.
Model 1
========
Inside board dynamics
---------------------
We here describe the simplest model. Directors meet, discuss and vote.
In any new meeting directors’ opinions are initialized as follows:
- Directors participating at a meeting for the first time are initialized with opinions randomly chosen among 0 or 1;
- all other directors start with the opinion they acquired at the previous meeting they participated at,
- except for directors from the most central node $b_{c}$ which start at any new meeting with the opinion that won in $b_{c}$.
At each time step, a director randomly selected is informed of the opinions of all other directors in the board at time t, and average them to evaluate a field $h_{i}$: $$\label{eq:mod1:1}
h_{i}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}s_{j}$$ $n$ being the size of the board. He updates his opinion according to a probabilistic choice function of the field. The probability that director $i$ takes some opinion $\pm1$ at time $t+1$ is given by: $$\label{eq:mod1:2}
P\{s_{i}(t+1)=\pm1\}=\frac{ \exp(\pm \beta h_{i}(t))}
{\exp(\beta h_{i}(t))+\exp(-\beta h_{i}(t))}$$ The updated opinion is expressed by the director and is taken into account by later sampled directors.
The average opinion $m$ of the board, is a function of time during each meeting and eventually converges at a value $m^{*}=\pm1$ for $\beta\gg1$. In all simulations we set $\beta=4$ such that the board converges to unanimity in less than 30 steps, i.e. in roughly three average sampling of each director. We take the final value of $m^{*}$ as the decision of the board. We will write $m$ for $m^{*}$ in the following for sake of simplicity.
Boards’ network dynamics
--------------------------
The central node meets first and the decision made is by convention $+1$.
Boards are assumed to meet monthly and to discuss again the same topic. Each step represents a month, and hence a cycle of board meetings. The central board meet first, followed by the nodes on each surrounding layer, in order of distance from the center. Unless specified, the meeting schedule described here will be assumed in the following for model 1 and for model 2.
Within the model described so far, the whole network converges to a stable value of the average decision $M^{*}$ in 2-3 steps, which is reasonable. In fact it is conceivable that some actions require more than one decisional step, to be fully approved.
If a board happens to make a decision -1, it is quite reluctant to change in the next. This model differs from usual contagion models in that the risk of infection or adoption of an innovation may be diminished by an internal dynamics of the board.
We will write $M$ for $M^{*}$ in the following for sake of simplicity. We run several simulations with varying random seeds per set of parameters and we monitor the following variables:
- The average decision $<m_{k}>$ of the board $k$. Because $m_{k}=\pm1$ at each run, the probability $p^{+}_{k}$ that $m_{k}=+1$ is given by: $p^{+}_{k}=\frac{1+<m_{k}>}{2} $
- The average decision $M$ of the whole board network over several runs. We will call $P^{+}$ the fraction of boards that make decision +1, averaged over several runs.
Results
========
We present the results of model 1 on different networks of increasing connectivity. First, with consider a square lattice (**figure \[figLatt\_g04\]**) with an odd number of vertices on the edge, so that there is a node in the center of the lattice. A node represents a board of n=10 directors, a link represents the existence of some shared directors between two boards. The fraction of shared directors between two connected boards is a parameter $\gamma$ that we can control. For each pair of connected boards we can impose that they share a larger fraction of directors by replacing a director of the first board with a director of the second one (provided that each director sits only on one chair!). It is very important to remark that increasing the number of shared directors per pair of boards, introduces at some point some links between boards that were not connected before. For instance at the end when each board is sharing all its directors with its four initial neighbouring boards, in fact all boards must share the same 10 directors and therefore the graph must be complete. With no interlock, all nodes are isolated and $\gamma=0$.
The fraction $P^{+}$ of boards that adopted decision +1 is plotted as a function of $\gamma$ in **figure \[figPvsG\_toys\]**(circles).
The same procedure has been applied to a star network (**figure \[figStar\_g10\]**) and to the network of boards 1 degree of separation away from the CMB’s board (**figure \[ChaseNet1Labels\]**). Plots of $P^{+}$ are shown in **figure \[figPvsG\_toys\]**(triangles and squares, respectively).
$P^{+}$ increases linearly with the average fraction $\gamma$ of directors shared by any two boards until it saturates for $\gamma$ around 0.6. The value of $\gamma$ observed in real board networks is $\gamma=.1\pm.02$, which corresponds to $P^{+}\simeq 0.6$, i.e. 60 per cent chances to adopt decision +1, compared to 50 per cent chances in absence of interlock ($P^{+}=0.5$ for $\gamma=0$).
As a first result, within the hypothesis of this model the degree of interlock observed in the real CMB’s network is low compared to the one required to a have a large majority of boards adopting a same decision. Results will be further analysed in the discussion section.
Model 2: the influence of lobbies and information
==================================================
The second model shares the same general dynamics as the first model in terms of initial conditions and sequences of updating directors and boards opinion, but the field variables $h_i$ are increased by two terms taking into account mutual influence of well-connected directors and the propagation of information from boards which met previously.
The central question about the role of the interlock is how it influences the decision making dynamics ([@Carpenter], [@Fich]). In a previous paper ([@Battiston; @2003]) we proposed a mechanism that we re-introduce in the present model. We assume that two directors in the board who also serve in another outside board are likely to take each other’s opinion into account more seriously than the opinion of directors with whom they don’t have additional professional relationships. These directors form a graph called *interlock graph of the board*, for simplicity called “lobby” in the following. In the equation for the field felt by directors who participate in a lobby we introduce a coupling factor. Director $i$ feels a field $h_{i}^{0}$ defined as follows: $$\label{eq:mod2:1}
h_{i}^{0}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}(1+\alpha_{1} J_{ij}) s_{j}$$ where n is the size of the board, $J_{i,j}$ is the number of *outside* boards on which directors $i$ and $j$ sit together, $\alpha_{1}$ is a parameter modulating the mutual influence of directors in the lobby.
Of course directors take into account their own opinion: by definition $J(i,i)$ should be the total number of outside boards where director $i$ sits. This is much larger than the number of outside boards a director can *share* with another one. So in order to avoid giving a too big weight to the opinion of a director himself compared to the opinion of his colleagues, $J(i,i)$ is set as the number of outside boards where director $i$ serves with at least one other director of the board. In summary, a director with several appointments, takes into account his own opinion more than that of his colleagues. Among his colleagues then, he takes into account their opinions based on how many professional relationships he holds with them.
As a consequence of the dynamics, directors belonging to a connected component of a lobby tend to have the same opinion. As the lobby is a graph consisting of one or more connected components, it must be kept in mind that different connected components may have different opinions and their effects on the whole board could partly cancel out.
Furthermore, information about what decision other boards have made so far, can reach a board thanks to the interlocking directors. Therefore, their influence is twofold: on one hand they have an initial opinion which reflects the decision made in another board (model 1). They could just support that same decision, keeping confidential the information about the fact that the other board has made that decision. On the other hand they can reveal this information to the other directors, which will take it into account to form their opinion. We model this by means of a second term in the equation for the field. This is a sort of external field $h^{e}$ acting on all directors of board $k$, but specific to the board $k$. It equals the sum of the decisions made so far in the boards connected through interlock to the board $k$, weighted by the number of shared directors: $$\label{eq:mod2:2}
h^{e}=\sum_{l=1}^{deg(k)} J^{B}_{kl}b_{l}$$ The sum is running on the boards interlocked to board $k$, deg(k) is the connectivity degree of board $k$, $J^{B}_{kl}$ is the number of directors shared by boards $k$ and $l$, $b_{l}$ is the decision made by the board if it has already met, $b_{l}=0$ otherwise.Again we don’t include any factor of prestige for the boards. Nevertheless, a board is more influential on another if it has more directors on it. It is important to stress the fact that boards that have not yet met do not influence the decision. The information reaching a board can then be different from the information about what all other boards, interlocked or not, have decided so far.
The total field acting on director $i$ is: $$\label{eq:mod2:3}
h_{i}=h_{i}^{0}+h^{e}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}(1+\alpha_{1} J_{ij}) s_{j}+
\alpha_{2} \sum_{l=1}^{deg(k)} J^{B}_{kl}b_{l}$$ where $\alpha_{2}$ is a parameter modulating the influence of the information about other board’s decisions.
We are now interested in the behavior of the system in the space of the parameters $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$.
Results
=========
We have run model 2 on two real board networks: the boards that are 1 degree of separation away from Chase Manhattan Bank’s (CMB) board, and the boards 2 degrees of separation away from CMB’s board. We refer to them in the following as CMB Net 1 and CMB Net 2, respectively. CMB Net 1 consists of 35 boards, with average size 12, and average fraction of shared directors equals to 0.1. The average connectivity degree is 5. CMB Net 2 consists of 277 boards, with average size 12, and average degree 9, average fraction of shared directors 0.1.
We varied parameters $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ in order to understand what can be the impact of lobbies and the impact of information on the decision making process over the board network.
Results of simulations on CMB Net 1 and CMB Net 2 are given in **figure \[figP\_ChNet1\]** and **figure \[figP\_ChNet2\]** respectively.
For CMB Net 1, increasing the influence $\alpha_{1}$ of common appointments in external boards from 0 to 1 while keeping $\alpha_{2}=0$ (**fig. \[figP\_ChNet1\] left**), leads to the increase of $P^{+}$ from $0.63\pm0.01$ to $0.68\pm0.01$. On the other hand $P^{+}$ increases dramatically with the influence $\alpha_{2}$ of the information about connected boards’ decisions (**fig. \[figP\_ChNet1\] right**). For high values of $\alpha_{2}$ there is no more dependence on $\alpha_{1}$.
When $\alpha_{1}=0$ and $\alpha_{2}=0$, then model 2 is formally equivalent to model 1. We recall that we have run model 1 on a network with the same topology as CBM Net1, but with an homogeneous fraction $\gamma$ of shared directors. When $\gamma$ equals the average fraction of shared directors observed in CBM Net1, then model 1 yields $P^{+}=0.6$, close to $P^{+}=0.63$ found with model 2. So the etherogeneity of the fraction of shared directors doesn’t seem to play a significant role on the network as a whole.
**Figure \[ChaseNet1SpreadColor\_a2\_01\]** shows the map of the probability $P^{+}$ to make decision +1 over the topology of the network. Dark nodes make decision +1 with high probability. Dark edges represent a board interlock consisting of two or more shared directors, clear edges represent one shared director interlock.
For CMB Net 2, there is no dependence of $P^{+}$ on $\alpha_{1}$ even for $\alpha_{2}$ small. The dependence of $P^{+}$ on $\alpha_{2}$ (**fig. \[figP\_ChNet2\]** , circles) is as dramatic as for CMB Net 1.
Of course the chosen schedule of meetings when information propagates from the center to the periphery seems important. To test this, we considered three different cases:
- CMB’s board meets first, then the boards 1 degree of separation away from CMB’s board meet with a fixed schedule and finally the boards 2 degrees away meet with a fixed schedule.
- CMB meets first and then the other boards meet with a schedule randomly chosen at every run,
- the schedule of all boards, including the first, is randomly chosen at every run
Results obtained in the three cases are shown in **figure \[figP\_ChNet2\]** (circles, triangles and stars, respectively). The dramatic effect of information observed for case 1 (circles) is insensitive to the particular schedule chosen, inside layer 1 and inside layer 2. In case 2 (triangles) the probability of making decision +1 remains small even when the influence of information is strong. In case 3 (stars) the probability of making decision +1 is basically not different from the control value 0.5 occurring when adoption of decision +1 and -1 are equally probable.
Discussion and Conclusions
============================
We have presented two models for the decision making process of a network of interlocked boards about a common topic with a binary choice $\pm 1$. The opinions of directors of the boards are initially evenly distributed, but the most central board meets first and takes the decision +1 by convention.
- Model 1 only assumes that agents are imitative and that directors with multiple appointments arrive at a board meeting with an initial opinion which favors the decision made in the last board meeting they participated at.
- Model 2 further takes into account the enhanced mutual influence of directors sharing appointments in outside boards and the decisions made by interlocked boards.
Results of simulations with model 1 show that the average probability $P^{+}$ that a board adopts the decision of the center node increases linearly with the average fraction $\gamma$ of directors shared by any two boards until it saturates. But the value of $\gamma$ observed in real board networks ($\gamma=0.1$) corresponds to only 60 per cent chances to make decision +1, compared to 50 per cent chances in absence of interlock. Therefore if one assumes that board interlock only introduces a bias in the initial opinions of interlocking directors, then the effect of the interlock on the decision making dynamics is very small.
For Model 2, we find that common appointments in external boards ($\alpha_{1}>0$) affects very weakly the spreading dynamics. By contrast, information about interlocked boards’ decisions ($\alpha_{2}>0$) has a dramatic impact on the average probability $P^{+}$ that a board adopts the decision of the center. If we assume that external information has an influence comparable to the influence of colleagues’ average opinion ($\alpha2 \simeq 0.1$), we then find that almost certainly all boards end up adopting the decision of the center ($P_{+}=.9$ for CMB Net 1, $P_{+}=.9$ for CMB Net 2).
The order of boards meeting is of crucial importance: a meeting schedule respecting the distance of the boards from the central board is a necessary condition to have a large majority of boards making the same decision. In fact, innovations in real board networks has been observed [@Davis96] to start from a peripheral node and almost never from the most central node. But the diffusion takes place only when the central node adopts the innovation and it is then imitated by connected boards. In our model the radiation from the center hypothesis is based on the idea that the topic is discussed in a board when it is proposed by an interlocked director who has been involved in the same discussion on another board. Even if in real boards the meetings are not scheduled as we have assumed in our model, one can argue that directors of central boards usually know *before* the meeting what their board is likely to decide and through interlock this information can be taken into account in the meetings of more peripheral boards even if they are scheduled before the meeting of the central boards.
The models presented here are very stylized with respect to the real mechanisms involved in a decision making process in a network of boards. Our hypothesis about agents fall in the framework of the “herd behavior”. We have chosen to make the smallest number of hypothesis on the agents in order to keep the behavior of the system completely comprehensible.
As a general conclusion we find that imitation of colleagues and opinion bias due to the interlock are not sufficient to trigger an avalanche of identical decisions over the network, whereas information about interlocked boards’ decisions is. But there is no need to invoke public information about what *all* boards have decided, nor any external dramatic events.
This model thus provides a simple endogenous mechanism to explain the fact that boards of the largest corporations of a country can, in the span of a few months, take the same decisions about general topics such as investments and advertisements.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Gerald Davis (Univ. of Michigan), for having kindly provided the data of the US Fortune 1000 and for helpful comments. We also thank Jacques Lesourne and Andrea Bonaccorsi for fruitful discussion.This work is supported by FET-IST department of the European Community, Grant IST-2001-33555 COSIN.
References
==========
[13.]{}
Battiston, S., Bonabeau, E., Weisbuch G., Decision making dynamics in corporate boards, *Physica A*, 322, 567 (2003).
Carpenter, M.A., Westphal, J.D., The strategic context of social network ties: examining the impact of director appointment on board involvement in strategic decision making, forthcoming in *Academy of Management Journal*.
Davis, G.F., Yoo, M., Baker, W.E., The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982-2001, *Strategic Organization* 1: 301-326 (2003).
Davis, G.F. and Greve, H.R., Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s, *Am. J. of Sociology*, 103, 1-37 (1996).
Fich E.M., White, L.J., Why do CEO’s reciprocally sit on each other’s boards?, forthcoming.
Föllmer H., Random Economies with Many Interacting Agents, *Journal of Mathematical Economics* 1/1, 51-62 (1974).
Galam S., Gefen Y. and Shapir Y., Sociophysics: A mean behavior model for the process of strike, *Math. J. of Sociology*, 9, 1-13 (1982).
Galam S. and Moscovici S., Towards a theory of collective phenomena: consensus and attitude changes in groups, *Eur. J. of Social Psychology*, 21, 49-74 (1991).
Haunschild, P.R., Interorganizational imitation: the impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity, *Administrative Science Quarterly* **38**, 564-592 (1993).
Orléan A., Bayesian interactions and collective dynamics of opinions: herd behavior and mimetic contagion, *J. of Economic Behavior and Organization* **28**, 257-274 (1995).
Weisbuch G. and Boudjema G., Dynamical aspects in the adoption of agri-environmental measures, *Advances in Complex Systems*, 2, pp. 11-36 (1999).
Figures
=========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The goal of this paper is to shed light on the determinacy question that arises in New Keynesian models as result of a combination of several monetary policy rules; in these models, we provide conditions to guarantee existence and uniqueness of equilibrium by means of results that are obtained from theoretical analysis. In particular, we show that Taylor–like rules in interest rate setting are not the only way to reach determinacy of the rational expectations equilibrium in the New Keynesian setting. The key technical tool that we use for that purposes is the so–called Budan–Fourier Theorem, that we review along the paper.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653 Beer-Sheva 8410501, ISRAEL.'
- 'Departament of Economics and Economic History, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra, SPAIN. '
author:
- 'Alberto F.Boix'
- Adrián Segura Moreiras
bibliography:
- 'AFBoixReferences.bib'
title: Revisiting the determinacy on New Keynesian Models
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The indeterminacy of the rational expectations equilibrium (REE) poses a complication to the conduct of monetary policy. It is associated with increased volatility as there is uncertainty about which equilibrium will be realized. Hence, it is possible that agents in the economy will produce a second-best outcome in equilibrium. This means that a policy regime in place should not only be consistent with an optimal equilibrium, but also concerned about its uniqueness.
One of the main problems that arises from New Keynesian (NK) models is the so-called multiple equilibria puzzle. This captures the idea that an undesired equilibrium could appear as a result of a specific combination of policies. Cochrane [@Cochrane2011] argued that there have been many attempts to tackle this problem. However, practically all of them seem to assume that the government will have the power to blow up the economy if an unexpected equilibrium occurs.
The discussion among academics is still open with new alternative solutions to the dilemma recently proposed. In Bianchi and Nicolò [@BianchiNicolo2017], the authors used a method that consists of augmenting the original model with auxiliary exogenous equations in order to provide the adequate number of explosive roots. Our paper, addressing the same problem, takes a different direction. We pretend to explore, analytically and numerically, the conditions under which uniqueness and existence are guaranteed in equilibrium. Therefore, the main purpose of our work is to shed light on the determinacy question. We are going to compare computational results (from simulation) with those that are obtained from theoretical analysis; however, we want to single out that we do not produce results based on computational simulation, our path is always, on the one hand, to exhibit statements that are obtained from theoretical analysis and, on the other hand, to illustrate these statements by means of numerical simulation.
The focus of attention in the NK framework has been centered around the determinacy conditions of endogenous interest rate rules of the kind presented by Taylor in [@Taylor1993]. Determinacy there has often been found to depend on the size of the policy response parameters, or more specifically, the Taylor principle being followed (see [@Woodford2001] and [@BullardMitra2002]). To guarantee determinacy, the literature has also highlighted the importance of historical feedback in monetary rules, with purely forward-looking policy found to foster non-uniqueness of equilibria [@SvenssonWoodford2005]. Our results here display that “Taylor-like” rules in interest rate setting are not the only way to achieve determinacy of the REE in the NK setting.
The importance of our work stems from the fact that we propose a generalization of computational results (applied to finding the roots of a characteristic polynomial) in order to clarify the existence, and potentially, uniqueness of real roots for a linear system of equations. To do so, we use the so-called Budan-Fourier Theorem which is stated in the paper (see Theorem \[Budan Fourier\]); notice that this result has been already used for the same purposes in some earlier works to tackle the determinacy issue (e.g. [@BullardMitra2007preprint Proof of Proposition 1]).
The paper is organized as follows: after reviewing the Budan–Fourier Theorem in Section \[the budan fourier theorem\] and some determinacy terminology we introduce in Section \[determinacy terminology\] to shorten and simplify the statement of several of our results, in Section \[Gali model\], we look at a canonical New Keynesian (NK) model and derive the conditions for determinacy of equilibrium when the money supply follows an exogenous path. In Section \[models with lagged data\], we consider a model in which a monetary authority responds to lagged values of output, inflation, and interest rate deviations. In Section \[behavioral model\], we explore stability conditions for a model in which agents do not fully understand future policies. Finally, in Section \[potential limitations\], we explore the potential limitations of our methods to tackle more involved models; even in this case, we illustrate that the Budan–Fourier Theorem is still a useful tool to provide necessary determinacy conditions that are easy to check in practice, because they only require polynomial evaluation.
We want also to mention here in what linear rational expectational models we are interested to tackle the determinacy issue in this paper; indeed, all our models can be cast in the form $$\Gamma_0 y(t)=\Gamma_1 y(t-1)+\Psi z(t),$$ ($t=1,\ldots ,T$), where $z(t)$ is an exogenously evolving, possibly serially correlated, random disturbance, and $\Gamma_0$ is an invertible matrix. This fits into the framework studied in [@BlanchardKhan1980], where the determinacy issue boils down to count how many eigenvalues of $\Gamma_0^{-1}\Gamma_1$ lie inside or outside the complex unit disk. It is worth noting that both in [@Sims2002] and [@LubikSchorfheide2003] the authors tackle more general models than the ones considered here, in particular they allow $\Gamma_0$ to be singular; however, in both works they also need to calculate some eigenvectors of certain matrices, and it is well known that, if one wants to do so in practice (e.g. numerically), then one often has to calculate at once both eigenvalues and eigenvectors, for instance using the classical Power method [@Householder1975 Chapter 7]. For this reason, we hope that the methods we present in this paper will be useful to tackle more complicated models.
All our results will be illustrated through numerical examples that were done with Matlab [@MATLAB:2015].
The Budan–Fourier Theorem {#the budan fourier theorem}
=========================
Due to the importance that the Budan–Fourier Theorem plays in this paper, our goal now is to review it for the convenience of the reader, referring to [@Akritas1982 Theorem 1] and the references given therein for further details (see also [@Barbeau1989 page 173]). First of all, we define the notion of sign variation.
\[sign variation\] We say that a **sign variation exists** between two nonzero numbers $c_p$ and $c_q$ ($p<q$) in a finite or infinite sequence of real numbers $c_1,c_2,c_3,\ldots$ if the following holds.
(i) If $q=p+1,$ then $c_p$ and $c_q$ have opposite signs.
(ii) If $q\geq p+2,$ then $c_{p+1},\ldots ,c_{q-1}$ are all zero and $c_p$ and $c_q$ have opposite signs.
Keeping in mind this terminology, the Budan–Fourier Theorem can be phrased in the below way.
\[Budan Fourier\] Let $P(x)$ be a polynomial with real coefficients and of degree $d,$ and denote by $P^{(i)}$ its $i$th derivative; moreover, set $P_{seq} (x):=(P(x),P'(x),P^{(2)}(x),\ldots, P^{(d)} (x)).$ Finally, given real numbers $a<b,$ denote by $v_a$ (respectively, $v_b$) the number of sign variations of $P_{seq} (a)$ (respectively, $P_{seq} (b)$). Then, the following holds.
(i) $v_b\leq v_a.$
(ii) $r\leq v_a-v_b,$ where $r$ denotes the number of real roots of the equation $P(x)=0$ located in the interval $(a,b).$
(iii) $v_a-v_b-r$ is either zero or an even number.
Determinacy terminology {#determinacy terminology}
=======================
In order to simplify and shorten the statements we obtain in this paper about determinacy of several models, our aim now is to introduce a clearer notation on the determinacy question; the interested reader on semi–algebraic sets is referred to [@RealAlgebraicGeometry Chapter 2] and the references given therein for additional information.
\[determinacy terms in action\] Let $n\geq 1$ be an integer, and let $S\subseteq\R^n$ be a semi–algebraic set over $\R$ (that is, a subset of $\R^n$ satisfying a boolean combination of polynomial equations and inequalities with real coefficients). In practice, $S$ will be the space where the parameters of our model lie.
(i) We say that our model is **unconditionally determined** if, for any $(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\in S,$ our model is determined.
(ii) We say that our model is **generically determined** if there exists a semi–algebraic subset $S'\subset S$ such that our model is determined for any $(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\in S'.$
Hereafter, we refer to the set $S$ as the **parameter space**, and to $S'$ as the **determinacy region**.
A dynamic linear system {#Gali model}
=======================
In this section we show that a set of non-restrictive assumptions on the structural parameters of the underlying economic model are sufficient for the uniqueness of the equilibrium. The case we consider was presented by Galí in [@GaliKeynesian2015 3.4.2], but in contrast to the numerical methods in the original, here we also show our results analytically. In this particular case, one is interested in the analysis of the so-called timing structure: “cash-when-I’m-done” (CWID). Eventually, we are going to show that an exogenous money growth rule, under this specific setup, is always going to give us unconditional determinacy. In the dynamic linear system considered in the paper, one wants to show that the matrix $$A:=\begin{pmatrix}[r] 1+\sigma\eta& 0& 0\\ -k& 1& 0\\ 0& -1& 1
\end{pmatrix}^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} \sigma\eta& \eta& 1\\ 0& \beta&
0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{pmatrix},$$ (where $k>0,$ $\sigma>0,$ $\eta>0$ and $\beta\in (0,1)$ are real numbers) has two eigenvalues inside the unit disk[^2] and the remainder one is outside, because by [@BlanchardKhan1980] this is equivalent to say that the corresponding dynamic linear system has a unique stationary solution; our goal in this section is to show that this is true. Notice that, in this case, our parameter space is $$S=\{(k,\sigma,\eta,\beta)\in\R^4:\ k>0,\ \sigma>0,\ \eta>0,\ 0< \beta<1\}.$$ We deduce the unconditional determinacy of this model from the below technical statement.
\[the conditions to apply Budan Fourier\] Let $A$ be a $3\times 3$ matrix with real entries such that its characteristic polynomial is $P(x)=x^3-bx^2+cx-d,$ where we suppose that $b>1,$ $c>0,$ $d\in (0,1),$ $1-d<b-c,$ and $bc-d>0.$ Then, the following assertions hold.
(i) All the real roots of $P$ are located in the interval $(0,b).$
(ii) $P$ has at least one real root in the interval $(1,b).$
(iii) If $P$ has two complex roots, then both are located in the unit disk.
(iv) If all the roots of $P$ are real, then $P$ has at least one real root in the interval $(0,1).$
(v) $P$ has a single root in the interval $(1,b).$
First of all, given $x\in [0,+\infty)$ notice that $P(-x)=-x^3-bx^2-cx-d<0,$ because $x\geq 0$ and $b>0,$ $c>0$ and $d>0$ by our assumptions; this shows that $P$ has no roots in the interval $(-\infty, 0].$ Moreover, given $\mu\geq 0$ a real number, it follows that $$P(b+\mu)=\mu (b+\mu)^2+\mu c+(bc-d)>0;$$ indeed, $P(b+\mu)>0$ because we know by assumption that $P(b)=bc-d>0$ and the remainder terms of $P(b+\mu)$ are also non–negative. Summing up, our calculations show that $P(x)<0$ for any $x\in (-\infty, 0],$ and $P(x)>0$ for any $x\in [b,+\infty).$ These two facts show that all the roots of $P$ are located in the interval $(0,b),$ and therefore part (i) holds.
Now, the reader can easily check that $P(1)=1-b+c-d<0$ again because of our assumptions; in this way, since $P(1)<0$ and $P(b)>0$ Bolzano’s theorem [@RealAlgebraicGeometry Proposition 1.2.4] guarantees the existence of at least one real root of $P$ in the interval $(1,b),$ hence part (ii) is also true. In what follows, we denote by $\lambda$ this root, and let $\lambda_2,\lambda_3$ be the remainder roots of $P.$ Keeping in mind this notation, one has that $\lambda\cdot\lambda_2\cdot\lambda_3=d$ if and only if $\lambda_2\cdot\lambda_3=d/\lambda.$ This equality shows that $\lambda_2\cdot\lambda_3<1$ because $d\in (0,1),$ and $\lambda >1;$ now, we want to distinguish two cases.
On the one hand, suppose that $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are complex numbers, then $\lambda_3=\overline{\lambda_2}$ (where $\overline{(-)}$ denotes complex conjugation) and therefore $\lvert\lambda_2\rvert^2=\lambda_2\cdot\overline{\lambda_2}
=\lambda_2\cdot\lambda_3<1\Longleftrightarrow\lvert\lambda_2\rvert<1,$ and this shows that both $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are located in the unit disk, as claimed.
On the other hand, if $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are real numbers, then either $\lambda_2\in (0,1)$ or $\lambda_3\in (0,1)$ because $\lambda_2\cdot\lambda_3<1.$
Our final aim is to show that $P$ has a single root in the interval $(1,b),$ and for this we plan to use the Budan–Fourier Theorem (see Theorem \[Budan Fourier\]); first of all, the sequence of $P$ and all its non–zero derivatives (aka Fourier sequence) turns out to be $$P_{seq} (x):=(x^3-bx^2+cx-d,3x^2-2bx+c,6x-2b,6).$$ Now, we evaluate this sequence respectively at $1$ and $b;$ namely, $$P_{seq} (1):=\left(1-b+c-d,3-2b+c,6-2b,6\right),\
P_{seq} (b):=\left(bc-d,b^2+c,4b,6\right)$$ Let $v_1$ (respectively, $v_b$) be the number of signs variations of $P_{seq} (1)$ (respectively, $P_{seq} (b)$), and notice that $v_b=0$ because we know by our assumptions that $P(b)=bc-d>0,$ $b^2+c>0$ and $4b>0.$
Remember that the Budan–Fourier Theorem says that the number of real roots of $P$ located in the open interval $(1,b)$ is less or equal than $v_1-v_b= v_1;$ our final aim will be to show that $v_1=1.$ We need to consider four cases
Firstly, if $3-2b+c\leq 0$ and $6-2b\leq 0,$ then clearly $v_1=1.$ Secondly, if $3-2b+c\leq 0$ and $6-2b\geq 0,$ then again $v_1=1.$ Thirdly, if $3-2b+c\geq 0$ and $6-2b\geq 0,$ then once again $v_1=1$. Finally, assume to reach a contradiction that $3-2b+c\geq 0$ and $6-2b\leq 0,$ so $v_1=3.$ Notice that the inequality $6-2b\leq 0$ is equivalent to say that $b\geq 3.$ On the other hand, the inequality $3-2b+c\geq 0$ is equivalent to $c\geq 2b-3,$ and this inequality implies, since $b>c,$ that $b>2b-3,$ hence $b<3,$ a contradiction. Therefore, this fourth case can not happen.
Summing up, we have finally checked that $v_1=1,$ which implies that there is at most $1$ real root in the interval $(1,b)$ by the Budan–Fourier Theorem, and since we already checked that in this interval $P$ has at least one real root, we can finally conclude that $P$ has a single root in the interval $(1,b),$ just what we finally want to show.
Now, building upon Proposition \[the conditions to apply Budan Fourier\], we are ready to prove the main result of this section, keeping in mind the notation we introduced at the very beginning.
\[some properties of matrix\] The following assertions hold.
(i) One has that $$A=\begin{pmatrix}[l] \frac{\sigma\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}& \frac{\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}
& \frac{1}{1+\sigma\eta}\\ \frac{k\sigma\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}&
\frac{k\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}+\beta& \frac{k}{1+\sigma\eta}\\
\frac{k\sigma\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}& \frac{k\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}+\beta&
\frac{k}{1+\sigma\eta}+1
\end{pmatrix}$$
(ii) The eigenvalues of $A$ are exactly the roots of the polynomial $P(x)=x^3-bx^2+cx-d,$ where $$b=\frac{\sigma\eta+k(1+\eta)}{1+\sigma\eta}+1+\beta,\
c=(1+\beta)\frac{\sigma\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}+
\frac{k\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}+\beta,\ d=\frac{\beta\sigma\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}.$$
(iii) Our model is unconditionally determined.
First of all, part (i) is just an issue of inverting a matrix, and afterwards a multiplication of matrices, and both steps are left to the interested reader. Secondly, it is straightforward to check that $P(x)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $A,$ hence part (ii) holds too.
To prove the unconditional determinacy of this model, we only need to check that the assumptions of Proposition \[the conditions to apply Budan Fourier\] hold; indeed, it is clear that $b>1,$ $c>0$ and $d\in (0,1).$ On the other hand, notice that $P(1)=1-b+c-d=\frac{-k}{1+\sigma\eta}<0$ again because $k$, $\sigma$ and $\eta$ are strictly positive; finally, one also has that $$P(b)=bc-d=\left(\frac{\sigma\eta+k(1+\eta)}{1+\sigma\eta}+1+\beta\right)
\left((1+\beta)\frac{\sigma\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}+
\frac{k\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}+\beta\right)-\frac{\beta\sigma\eta}{1+\sigma\eta}>0.$$ Summing up, we have checked that we are under the assumptions of Proposition \[the conditions to apply Budan Fourier\], and therefore this Proposition implies that our model is unconditionally determined, just what we finally wanted to show.
We want to single out that Proposition \[the conditions to apply Budan Fourier\] does not cover the model analyzed by Bullard and Mitra in [@BullardMitra2002 Proposition 3 and Appendix C] because, in their model, $d<0.$ Finally, the Routh–Hurwitz criterion [@MeinsmaRH Theorem 1.1], used to prove the stability of one of the models studied by Gabaix (see [@GabaixNK Proposition 5.3] and [@GabaixNKOA Proposition 9.7]), only implies in our case that all the eigenvalues of $P$ have positive real part, so it is not useful for our purposes. In what follows (see Sections \[models with lagged data\] and \[behavioral model\]), we analyze these models.
We end this section by exhibiting some numerical examples to illustrate Theorem \[some properties of matrix\]; as we already pointed out in the Introduction of this manuscript, the unjustified calculations in all the examples we present in this paper were done with Matlab [@MATLAB:2015]. Remember that our path here and in the remainder sections is, on the one hand, to provide results that are obtained from theoretical analysis and, on the other hand, to illustrate these results by means of numerical examples.
\[example Gali result\] First of all, we calibrate our parameters in the following way: $\beta=0.99,$ $\sigma=0.5,$ $\eta=1.2$ and $k=0.3.$ In this case, $$A=\begin{pmatrix} 0.3750 & 0.7500 & 0.6250\\
0.1125 & 1.2150 & 0.1875\\
0.1125 & 1.2150 & 1.1875\end{pmatrix},$$ its characteristic polynomial is $x^3-2.7775x^2+1.9612x-0.3712$ (remember that Theorem \[some properties of matrix\] guarantees the existence of a unique eigenvalue in the interval $(1,2.7775)$), and its eigenvalues are $0.3107,$ $0.6620$ and $1.8048.$ Therefore, in this case, the unique eigenvalue of $A$ contained in $(1,2.7775)$ is $1.8048.$
Secondly, now we calibrate our parameters following Woodford [@Woodford1999]; indeed, in this case we pick $\beta=0.99,$ $\sigma=0.157,$ $\eta=1.2$ and $k=0.024.$ In this case, $$A=\begin{pmatrix} 0.1585 & 1.0098 & 0.8415\\
0.0038 & 1.0142 & 0.0202\\
0.0038 & 1.0142 & 1.0202\end{pmatrix},$$ its characteristic polynomial is $x^3-2.1930x^2+1.3297x-0.1569$ (remember that Theorem \[some properties of matrix\] guarantees the existence of a unique eigenvalue in the interval $(1,2.1930)$), and its eigenvalues are $0.1547,$ $0.8634$ and $1.1749.$ Therefore, in this case, the unique eigenvalue of $A$ contained in $(1,2.1930)$ is $1.1749.$
Finally, we calibrate our parameters following Clarida, Galí and Gertler [@ClaridaGaliGertler2000]; indeed, in this case we pick $\beta=0.99,$ $\sigma=1,$ $\eta=1.2$ and $k=0.3.$ In this case, $$A=\begin{pmatrix} 0.5455 & 0.5455 & 0.4545\\
0.1636 & 1.1536 & 0.1364\\
0.1636 & 1.1536 & 1.1364\end{pmatrix},$$ its characteristic polynomial is $x^3-2.8355x^2+2.2391x-0.5400$ (remember that Theorem \[some properties of matrix\] guarantees the existence of a unique eigenvalue in the interval $(1,2.8355)$), and its eigenvalues are $0.5455,$ $0.5784$ and $1.7116.$ Therefore, in this case, the unique eigenvalue of $A$ contained in $(1,2.8355)$ is $1.7116.$
Some rules with lagged data {#models with lagged data}
===========================
Now, we would like to explore a more realistic version of the model. In what follows, policymakers are assumed to react to changes throughout particular policies, that were recorded in the past. In order to explore this fact, our next goal will be to recover and extend [@BullardMitra2002 Proposition 3 and Appendix C]; before doing so, we want to review the following elementary Linear Algebra technical fact.
\[eigenvalues inside and outside\] Let $A$ be an invertible matrix with real entries. Then, $A$ has a unique eigenvalue outside the unit disk if and only if $A^{-1}$ has a unique eigenvalue inside the unit disk.
\[starting BM point\] For certain non–inertial lagged data rules [@BullardMitra2002 pages 1118–1119], the matrix relevant for uniqueness is the below one: $$B=\frac{1}{\varphi_x+k\varphi_{\pi}}\begin{pmatrix} 0& -\beta\varphi_{\pi}
& 1\\ 0& \beta\varphi_x & k\\ \sigma (\varphi_x+k\varphi_{\pi})&
\varphi_x+(k+\beta\sigma)\varphi_{\pi}& -\sigma\end{pmatrix},$$ where $k>0,$ $\sigma >0,$ $\beta\in (0,1),$ $\varphi_x\geq 0,$ $\varphi_{\pi}\geq 0,$ and either $\varphi_x$ or $\varphi_{\pi}$ is strictly positive. By Lemma \[eigenvalues inside and outside\], $B$ has two eigenvalues inside the unit disk and one outside if and only if $B^{-1}$ has one eigenvalue inside the unit disk and the remainder two ones outside. As pointed out in [@BullardMitra2002 Appendix C], the characteristic polynomial of $B^{-1}$ is $P(x)=x^3-bx^2+cx+d,$ where $$b=1+\frac{1}{\beta}+\frac{k}{\beta\sigma}>2,\
c=\frac{1}{\beta}-\frac{\varphi_x}{\sigma},\
d=\frac{\varphi_x+k\varphi_{\pi}}{\beta\sigma}.$$ The reader will easily note that, in this model, our parameter space is $$\begin{aligned}
S=& \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi})\in\R^5:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x\geq 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}>0\}\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi})\in\R^5:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x> 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}\geq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$
Motivated by the content of Discussion \[starting BM point\], our next goal will be to prove the following:
\[generalized BM model\] Let $P(x)=x^3-bx^2+cx+d\in\R [x],$ where $b>0,$ and $d>0.$ Then, the following assertions hold.
(i) $P$ has exactly one negative real root.
(ii) If $b>2,$ then $P$ has at least one root outside the unit disk.
(iii) $P$ has exactly one real root at $(-1,0)$ if and only if $P(-1)<0.$
(iv) If $P(1)<0,$ then $P$ has exactly one real root at $(0,1).$
(v) If $P(1)>0,$ and $b>2,$ then $P$ has a single real root at $(-\infty, 0),$ and the other two roots are outside the unit disk.
(vi) If $P(-1)<0$ and $P(1)<0,$ then $P$ has exactly two real roots in the interval $(-1,1)$ and the remainder real root is bigger strictly than $1.$
(vii) (Cf.[@BullardMitra2002 Proposition 3]) Suppose that $b>2.$ If $P(-1)<0$ and $P(1)>0,$ then $P$ has exactly one root at $(-1,0),$ and the remainder two ones are outside the unit disk.
(viii) Suppose that $b>2.$ If $P(-1)>0$ and $P(1)<0,$ then $P$ has exactly one root at $(0,1),$ and two roots whose real part is bigger than $1$ in absolute value.
(ix) Suppose that $b>2.$ If $P(-1)>0$ and $P(1)>0,$ then $P$ has all its roots outside the unit disk.
(x) Suppose that $b>2.$ $P$ has exactly one root at the unit disk and the remainder ones outside if and only if one and only one of the following four conditions is satisfied.
- $P(-1)<0$ and $P(1)>0.$
- $P(-1)=0,$ $P'(-1)\neq 0$ and $P(1)<0.$
- $P(-1)>0$ and $P(1)<0.$
- $P(-1)>0,$ $P(1)=0$ and $P'(1)\neq 0.$
First of all, the negative real roots of $P(x)$ are the positive real roots of $Q(x)=P(-x)=-x^3-bx^2-cx+d;$ let $v_Q$ be the number of sign variations of the coefficients of $Q.$ Independently of $c,$ one can see that $v_Q=1,$ so Descartes’ rule of signs [@RealAlgebraicGeometry Proposition 1.2.14] implies that $P$ has exactly one negative real root.
Hereafter, let $\lambda_1,\lambda_2 ,\lambda_3$ be the roots of $P.$ Without loss of generality, suppose that $\lambda_1<0,$ so it follows that $\lambda_2+\lambda_3=b-\lambda_1>b>2.$ On the one hand, if $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are real, then the above upper inequality shows that either $\lambda_2>1$ or $\lambda_3>1;$ on the other hand, if $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are complex conjugates, then again the above inequality shows that their real part is bigger strictly than $1.$ Anyway, this shows that $P$ has at least one root outside the unit disk.
Now, let $r$ be the number of real roots of $P$ at $(-1,0);$ notice that $$P_{seq} (x):=(x^3-bx^2+cx+d,3x^2-2bx+c,6x-2b,6).$$ Now, we evaluate this sequence respectively at $-1$ and $0;$ namely, $$P_{seq} (-1):=\left(-1-b-c+d,3+2b+c,-6-2b,6\right),\
P_{seq} (0):=\left(d,c,-2b,6\right)$$ Let $v_{-1}$ (respectively, $v_0$) be the number of signs variations of $P_{seq} (-1)$ (respectively, $P_{seq} (0)$), and remember that $r\leq v_{-1}-v_0$ by the Budan–Fourier Theorem. Moreover, notice also that $v_0=2$ because $d>0,$ and $b>0.$ Next, there are four cases to distinguish; first of all, if $-1-b-c+d<0$ and $3+2b+c<0,$ then $c>-1-b+d,$ and therefore $0>3+2b+c>3+2b-1-b+d=2+b+d,$ a contradiction because both $b$ and $d$ are strictly positive, hence this case can not happen. Secondly, if $-1-b-c+d<0$ and $3+2b+c>0,$ then $v_{-1}=3$ and therefore, combining Bolzano jointly with Budan–Fourier, we can guarantee that there is a unique real root at $(-1,0).$ Thirdly, if $-1-b-c+d>0$ and $3+2b+c<0,$ then $v_{-1}=2,$ hence no real roots at $(-1,0)$ by Budan–Fourier. Finally, if if $-1-b-c+d>0$ and $3+2b+c>0,$ then once more $v_{-1}=2,$ so there are no real roots at $(-1,0).$ Summing up, we have checked that $P$ has exactly one real root at $(-1,0)$ if and only if $P(-1)<0,$ as claimed.
Next, we looked at the interval $(0,1)$ assuming that $P(1)<0;$ notice that $$P_{seq} (0):=\left(d,c,-2b,6\right),\
P_{seq} (1):=\left(1-b+c+d,3-2b+c,6-2b,6\right).$$ Here, there are three cases to consider, keeping in mind that we are assuming that $1-b+c+d<0;$ first of all, if $3-2b+c<0$ and either $6-2b<0$ or $6-2b>0,$ then $v_1=1,$ so $v_0-v_1=2-1=1,$ and therefore Bolzano plus Budan–Fourier ensure the existence of a unique real root at $(0,1).$ Secondly, if $3-2b+c>0$ and $6-2b<0,$ then $v_1=3$ and thus $v_0-v_1=-1,$ so this case can not happen because $0\leq v_0-v_1.$ Finally, if $3-2b+c>0$ and $6-2b>0,$ then again $v_1=1,$ so $v_0-v_1=2-1=1,$ and therefore Bolzano plus Budan–Fourier ensure the existence of a unique real root at $(0,1).$ Summing up, we have checked that $P$ has exactly one real root at $(0,1)$ if $P(1)<0,$ as claimed.
Now, assume that $P(1)>0,$ and as above denote by $\lambda_1,\lambda_2 ,\lambda_3$ the roots of $P.$ Without loss of generality, suppose that $\lambda_1<0,$ before we already saw that, if $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are complex, then both have real part strictly bigger than $1,$ in particular they lie outside the unit disk. Moreover, we also checked that, if $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ are real and positive, then at least one of them is strictly bigger than $1,$ without loss of generality suppose that $\lambda_2>1.$ If $\lambda_2
=\lambda_3,$ then we are done, so hereafter we assume that $\lambda_2
\neq\lambda_3,$ hence both are simple roots of $P.$ Suppose, to reach a contradiction, that $\lambda_3\in (0,1);$ since $\lambda_3$ is a simple root of $P$ and $P(0)>0,$ then there is $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$ such that $\lambda_3\pm\varepsilon\in (0,1),$ $P(\lambda_3-\varepsilon)>0$ and $P(\lambda_3+\varepsilon)<0.$ But this implies, since $P(1)>0,$ that there is another real root at $(0,1)$ by Bolzano, a contradiction by the foregoing. This shows that if $P(1)>0,$ then $P$ has a single real root at $(-\infty, 0),$ and the other two roots are outside the unit disk.
Finally, notice that the remainder items (v)–(ix) are immediate consequence of the previous ones, the proof is therefore completed.
As immediate consequence of Proposition \[generalized BM model\], we obtained our promised generalization of [@BullardMitra2002 Proposition 3], namely the below:
\[the BM case\] Preserving the notations of Discussion \[starting BM point\], $B$ has two eigenvalues inside the unit disk if and only if one and only one of the following four conditions is satisfied.
(i) $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)<0$ and $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)>0.$
(ii) $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)=0,$ $\beta\varphi_x\neq \sigma(3+5\beta)+2k$ and $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0.$
(iii) $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)>0$ and $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0.$
(iv) $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)>0,$ $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)=0,$ and $\beta\varphi_x\neq \sigma(\beta-1)-2k.$
Therefore, in this case our model is generically determined, and the determinacy region is $$\begin{aligned}
S'= &\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi})\in S:\
k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)<0,
\ k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)>0\}\cup\\
& \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi})\in S:\
k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)=0,
\beta\varphi_x\neq \sigma(3+5\beta)+2k,\\
& k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0\}\cup\\
& \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi})\in S:\
k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)>0,
\ k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0\}\cup\\
& \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi})\in S:\
k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\varphi_x-2\sigma)(1+\beta)>0,\
\beta\varphi_x\neq\sigma(\beta-1)-2k,\\
& k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)=0\}.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that, in Theorem \[the BM case\], the condition $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)>0$ is what Woodford calls the **Taylor principle** (see [@Woodford2001] and [@Woodford2003]); Theorem \[the BM case\] shows, in particular, that the Taylor principle is neither sufficient, nor necessary to guarantee determinacy. This fact was already pointed out by Bullard and Mitra [@BullardMitra2007 Propositions 1, 2 and 11].
Before moving to the next model, we want to consider the below:
\[no condition satisfied\] As we already proved, if all the conditions appearing in Theorem \[the BM case\] are not satisfied, then we can not expect determinacy. As example, suppose that $\varphi_x=2.4,$ $\varphi_{\pi}=3.2,$ $\sigma=1,$ $\beta=0.99$ and $k=0.3;$ in this case, $$B^{-1}=
\begin{pmatrix}[r] 1.3030 & -1.0101 & 1\\
-0.3030 & 1.0101 & 0\\
2.4 & 3.2 & 0\end{pmatrix},$$ its characteristic polynomial is $P(x)=x^3-2.3131x^2-1.3899x+3.3939$ and its eigenvalues are $-1.2003,$ $1.2482$ and $2.2653.$ Indeed, this is because $P(-1)>0$ and $P(1)>0$ (cf. Proposition \[generalized BM model\] (ix)).
\[second BM model\] Now, we want to consider an inertial lagged data rule studied by Woodford [@Woodford2003] and Bullard and Mitra [@BullardMitra2007 page 1183]; in this specific model, the matrix which is relevant to study determinacy is the below one: $$B=\begin{pmatrix}[r] 1+\frac{k\sigma}{\beta}& -\frac{\sigma}{\beta}
& \sigma\\ -\frac{k}{\beta}& \frac{1}{\beta} & 0\\ \varphi_x&
\varphi_{\pi}& \varphi_{r}\end{pmatrix},$$ where $k>0,$ $\sigma >0,$ $\beta\in (0,1),$ $\varphi_x\geq 0,$ $\varphi_{\pi}\geq 0,$ $\varphi_r\geq 0$ and at least one among $\varphi_x,$ $\varphi_{\pi}$ and $\varphi_r$ is strictly positive. In this case, building upon [@Woodford2003 Appendix C, Proposition C.2], Bullard and Mitra [@BullardMitra2007 Propositions 1, 2 and 11] gave necessary and sufficient conditions to ensure determinacy; in this case, determinacy holds if and only if $B$ has a single eigenvalue inside the unit disk. It is known [@BullardMitra2007 page 1198] that the characteristic polynomial of $B$ is $P(x)=x^3-bx^2+cx+d,$ where $$b=1+\frac{1}{\beta}+\frac{k\sigma}{\beta}+\varphi_r>2,\
c=\frac{1}{\beta}+\left(1+\frac{1}{\beta}+\frac{k\sigma}{\beta}
\right)\varphi_r-\sigma\varphi_x,\
d=\frac{\sigma\left(\varphi_x+k\varphi_{\pi}-\sigma^{-1}\varphi_r\right)}{\beta}.$$ Notice that, in this case, our parameter space is $$\begin{aligned}
S=& \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in\R^6:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x\geq 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}\geq 0,\
\varphi_r>0\},\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in\R^6:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x\geq 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}> 0,
\varphi_r\geq 0\},\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in\R^6:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x> 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}\geq 0,
\varphi_r\geq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$
Once more, as immediate consequence of Proposition \[generalized BM model\], we obtain the below:
\[the second BM case\] Preserving the notations of Discussion \[second BM model\], if $\varphi_r<\sigma(k\varphi_{\pi}+\varphi_x),$ then $B$ has a single eigenvalue inside the unit disk if and only if one of the following conditions is satisfied.
(i) $k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)<0$ and $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)>0.$
(ii) $k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)=0,$ $\sigma\beta\varphi_x\neq (3+5\beta+\varphi_r(1+3\beta+k\sigma))$ and $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0.$
(iii) $k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)>0$ and $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0.$
(iv) $k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)>0,$ $k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)=0,$ and $\sigma\beta\varphi_x\neq (\beta-2k\sigma-1+\varphi_r (1+k\sigma-\beta)).$
Notice that, in this case, one has generic determinacy in $$\begin{aligned}
S'= & \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in S:\
k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)<0,\\ & k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)>0\}\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in S:\
k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)=0,\\ & k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0,\
\sigma\beta\varphi_x\neq (3+5\beta+\varphi_r(1+3\beta+k\sigma))\}\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in S:\
k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)>0,\\ & k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)<0,\}\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in S:\
k\sigma(\varphi_{\pi}-1)+(\sigma\varphi_x-2)(1+\beta)
-\varphi_r (2\beta+k\sigma+1)>0,\\ & k(\varphi_{\pi}-1+\varphi_r)+\varphi_x(1-\beta)=0,\
\sigma\beta\varphi_x\neq (\beta-2k\sigma-1+\varphi_r (1+k\sigma-\beta))\}.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that both Theorem \[the BM case\] and Theorem \[the second BM case\] deal even with non–generic boundary cases; in case of Theorem \[the second BM case\], Woodford already observed [@Woodford2003 footnote of page 672] that his determinacy conditions are sufficient but not generically necessary, whereas the ones we are providing in our results work with full generality. Finally, observe that the determinacy conditions obtained in Theorem \[the second BM case\] only work, roughly speaking, for bounded values of inertia, whereas Bullard and Mitra’s ones [@BullardMitra2007 Proposition 2] work for unbounded inertia.
We end the discussion of this model with the below:
\[even low inertia yields no determinacy\] We want to single out that, of course, the assumption $\varphi_r<\sigma(k\varphi_{\pi}+\varphi_x)$ is not solely enough to ensure determinacy. As example, suppose that $\beta=0.99,$ $k=0.3,$ $\sigma=1,$ $\varphi_x=4.3,$ $\varphi_{\pi}
=1.82$ and $\varphi_r=0.5;$ in this case, $$B=
\begin{pmatrix}[r] 1.3030 & -1.0101 & 1\\
-0.3030 & 1.0101 & 0\\
2.4 & 3.2 & 0.5\end{pmatrix},$$ its characteristic polynomial is $P(x)=x^3-2.8131x^2-2.1333x+4.3899$ and its eigenvalues are $-1.3204,$ $1.0937$ and $3.0399.$ Indeed, this is because $P(-1)=2.7101>0$ and $P(1)=0.4434>0$ (cf. Proposition \[generalized BM model\] (ix)).
Studying a behavioral New Keynesian model {#behavioral model}
=========================================
As consequence of the Routh-Hurwitz criterion [@MeinsmaRH Theorem 1.1], Gabaix (see [@GabaixNK Proposition 5.3] and [@GabaixNKOA Proposition 9.7]) obtained the below:
\[stability of Gabaix model\] Let $P(x)=x^3-bx^2+cx-d\in\R [x],$ where $b>0,$ $c>0,$ $d>0$ and $P(1)\neq 0.$ Then, the following statements are equivalent.
(i) $P$ has exactly one root at $(0,1)$ and the remainder ones are outside the complex unit disk.
(ii) The sequence $(e_3,e_2,(e_2 e_1-e_3e_0)/e_2,e_0)$ contains exactly two sign changes, where $e_3=1-b+c-d,$ $e_2=3-b
-c+3d,$ $e_1=3+b+c-3d$ and $e_0=1+b+c+d.$
(iii) Either $e_2\leq 0$ or $e_2 e_1-e_3e_0\leq 0.$
Let us briefly review what was the original motivation for Gabaix to look at Proposition \[stability of Gabaix model\]; indeed, building upon a Taylor stability criterion which includes behavioral agents [@GabaixNK Proposition 3.1], Gabaix introduced a behavioral New Keynesian Model with backward looking terms (see [@GabaixNK Proposition 5.3] and [@GabaixNKOA Proposition 9.7]). In this extended model, the relevant matrix to ensure determinacy is the below one: $$B=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{\sigma\phi_x\beta^f+\beta^f+k\sigma}{M\beta^f}&
\frac{\sigma (\beta\phi_{\pi}-\alpha^f\eta\rho\chi-1)}{M\beta^f}&
\frac{\alpha^f \sigma((\eta-1)\rho+1)}{M\beta^f}\\
-\frac{k}{\beta^f}& \frac{\alpha^f\eta\rho\chi+1}{\beta^f}
& \frac{\alpha^f(-\eta\rho+\rho-1)}{\beta^f}\\
0& \eta\chi& 1-\eta\end{pmatrix}.$$ In this case, since in this model there is a single predetermined variable and the remainder two ones are jump variables, again using [@BlanchardKhan1980], determinacy holds if and only if $B$ has a single real eigenvalue less than $1$ in absolute value, and the remainder two ones are complex number with modulus greater than one.
We also want to single out that, among all the parameters involved in the above matrix, both $\phi_x$ and $\phi_{\pi}$ are non–negative, and both $M,M^f\in [0,1]$ represent a degree of behavioralism in the models studied by Gabaix, as already observed by Cochrane in [@Cochranecomments].
Going back to Proposition \[stability of Gabaix model\], notice that the expression $e_2 e_1-e_3e_0$ is quadratic in terms of the coefficients of our polynomial; our next goal will be to provide a sufficient condition to guarantee stability that only involves a linear expression in the coefficients of the polynomial; namely:
\[sufficient linear condition\] Let $P(x)=x^3-bx^2+cx-d\in\R [x],$ where $b>0,$ $c>0,$ $d>0$ and $P(1)\neq 0.$ Then, the following assertions hold.
(i) All the real roots of $P$ are contained in the interval $(0,1+M),$ where $M=\max\{b,c,d\}.$
(ii) If $P$ has only one real root at $(0,1),$ then $P(1)\geq 0.$
(iii) If either $3-2b+c\leq 0$ or $b\geq 3,$ and $P(1)>0,$ then $P$ has a single real root at $(0,1).$
(iv) If $b-c>0$ and $P(1)>0,$ then $P$ has a single real root at $(0,1).$
Let $x_0\in [0,+\infty),$ and notice that $P(-x_0)=
-x_0^3-bx_0^2-cx_0-d<0;$ this shows that all the real roots of $P$ are strictly positive. The fact that all of them are less than $1+\max\{b,c,d\}$ is just by the classical Cauchy bound [@HirstMacey1997 Theorem 1]; this proves part (i).
Now, assume, to reach a contradiction, that $P(1)<0;$ keeping in mind that $P(0)=-d<0,$ we have to distinguish two cases. On the one hand, if $P(x_0)>0$ for some $x_0\in (0,1),$ then Bolzano’s Theorem implies that there are at least two real roots at $(0,1)$ (indeeed, because $P(0)<0,$ $P(x_0)>0$ and $P(1)<0$), so we get a contradiction. On the other hand, if $P(x_0)\leq 0$ for all $x_0\in (0,1)$ and $P(\lambda)=0$ for some $\lambda\in (0,1),$ then $\lambda$ has to be of multiplicity two, and this is again a contradiction.
Finally, notice that parts (iii) and (iv) were already shown in the course of the proofs of Propositions \[some properties of matrix\] and \[generalized BM model\]; the proof is therefore completed.
\[determinacy region at Gabaix model\] Our plan here is to use Proposition \[sufficient linear condition\] to partially describe the sets where determinacy holds in Gabaix model; indeed, remember that in his model, the relevant matrix to ensure determinacy is the below one: $$B=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{\sigma\phi_x\beta^f+\beta^f+k\sigma}{M\beta^f}&
\frac{\sigma (\beta\phi_{\pi}-\alpha^f\eta\rho\chi-1)}{M\beta^f}&
\frac{\alpha^f \sigma((\eta-1)\rho+1)}{M\beta^f}\\
-\frac{k}{\beta^f}& \frac{\alpha^f\eta\rho\chi+1}{\beta^f}
& \frac{\alpha^f(-\eta\rho+\rho-1)}{\beta^f}\\
0& \eta\chi& 1-\eta\end{pmatrix}.$$ One can check, using the expression of the characteristic polynomial of $B$ written down by Gabaix [@GabaixNKOA page 64] jointly with the value of this polynomial evaluated at $1$ [@GabaixNKOA page 66] the below facts.
First of all, part (ii) of Proposition \[sufficient linear condition\] shows that the determinacy region must be contained inside $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}:= &\{(k,\sigma,\alpha,\alpha^f,\beta,\beta^f,M,M^f,\eta,
\rho,\chi,\phi_x,\phi_{\pi})\in\R^{13}: \\
& (1-\beta^f-\alpha\chi(1-\rho))(1-M+\sigma\phi_x)+k\sigma (\phi_{\pi}-1)\geq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Secondly, part (iv) of Proposition \[sufficient linear condition\] shows that the determinacy region must contain the subset of $\widetilde{S}$ given by the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
& \left(\frac{\sigma((\beta^f-1)+\beta (\eta-1)-\eta\alpha^f\rho\chi)}{M\beta^f}\right)
-\left(\frac{k\sigma}{M\beta^f}\right)\phi_{\pi}\\
& +\frac{(\eta-1)(k\sigma+1+\beta+M-M\beta^f)+\eta(\alpha^f\chi(\rho(M-1)-M)-1)
+M+\beta^f+k\sigma}{M\beta^f}>0.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, part (iii) of Proposition \[sufficient linear condition\] shows that the determinacy region must contain, on the one hand, the subset of $\widetilde{S}$ given by the inequality $$\left(\left(\frac{\sigma}{M}\right)\phi_x+\frac{(1-\eta)M\beta^f+\eta\alpha^f\rho
\chi M+M+\beta^f+k\sigma}{M\beta^f}\right)\geq 3,$$ and, on the other hand, the subset of $\widetilde{S}$ given by the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
& \left(\frac{\sigma((\beta^f-1)+\beta (\eta-1)-\eta\alpha^f\rho\chi)}{M\beta^f}\right)
-\left(\frac{k\sigma}{M\beta^f}\right)\phi_{\pi}\\
& +\frac{(\eta-1)(k\sigma+1+\beta+M-M\beta^f)+\eta(\alpha^f\chi(\rho(M-1)-M)-1)
+M+\beta^f+k\sigma}{M\beta^f}\\
& +\left(\left(\frac{\sigma}{M}\right)\phi_x+\frac{(1-\eta)M\beta^f+\eta\alpha^f\rho
\chi M+M+\beta^f+k\sigma}{M\beta^f}\right)\geq 3.\end{aligned}$$
One can easily check that Proposition \[stability of Gabaix model\] and Proposition \[sufficient linear condition\] can be applied to obtain necessary and sufficient (respectively, sufficient) conditions to guarantee the determinacy of the model studied by Bullard and Mitra in [@BullardMitra2007 page 1185]; here, we only write down the sufficient conditions of determinacy given by Proposition \[sufficient linear condition\] in their specific model (cf. [@BullardMitra2007 Propositions 3 and 4]).
\[Bullard and Mitra other sufficient conditions\] The matrix $$\frac{1}{1-\varphi_x \sigma}\begin{pmatrix}1-\beta^{-1}k\sigma
(\varphi_{\pi}-1)& \beta^{-1}\sigma (\varphi_{\pi}-1)&
\sigma\varphi_r\\ -k\beta^{-1}(1-\varphi_x \sigma)&
\beta^{-1}(1-\varphi_x \sigma)& 0\\
\varphi_x (1+\beta^{-1}k\sigma)-\beta^{-1}k\varphi_{\pi}&
\beta^{-1}(\varphi_{\pi}-\varphi_x \sigma)& \varphi_r
\end{pmatrix},$$ (where $k>0,$ $\sigma>0,$ $\beta>0,$ $\varphi_x\geq 0,$ $\varphi_{\pi}\geq 0,$ $\varphi_r\geq 0,$ and at least one among $\varphi_x,\varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r$ strictly positive) has exactly one eigenvalue at $(0,1)$ if $\varphi_x<\sigma^{-1},$ $\varphi_{\pi}\leq 1,$ $$(1-\varphi_x \sigma)\left(
\beta(1-\beta)-\varphi_r(1+(1+\varphi_r)(\beta+k\sigma))\right)
+\beta\left(\beta+\varphi_r (\beta+1)+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)<0,$$ and, in addition, at least one of the below inequalities holds: $$\begin{cases} (1-\varphi_x \sigma)\left(\beta(2-3\beta)
-\varphi_r (1+(1+\varphi_r)(\beta+k\sigma))\right)
+\beta\left(2\beta(1+\varphi_r)+2k\sigma(1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)\geq 0,\\
(1-\varphi_x \sigma)(1-3\beta)+\beta(1+\varphi_r)
+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\geq 0,\\
(1-\varphi_x\sigma)\left(\beta-\varphi_r-(1+\varphi_r)
(\beta+k\sigma)\right)+\beta\left(\beta (1+\varphi_r)
+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)>0.\end{cases}$$ In this case, our parameter space is $$\begin{aligned}
S=& \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in\R^6:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x\geq 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}\geq 0,\
\varphi_r>0\},\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in\R^6:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x\geq 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}> 0,
\varphi_r\geq 0\},\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in\R^6:\ k>0,
\ \sigma >0, 0<\beta<1,\ \varphi_x> 0,\ \varphi_{\pi}\geq 0,
\varphi_r\geq 0\},\end{aligned}$$ and generic determinacy holds in the below subset: $$\begin{aligned}
S'=& \{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in S:
\ \sigma\varphi_x<1,\ \varphi_{\pi}\leq 1,\\
& (1-\varphi_x \sigma)\left(
\beta(1-\beta)-\varphi_r(1+(1+\varphi_r)(\beta+k\sigma))\right)
+\beta\left(\beta+\varphi_r (\beta+1)+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)<0,\\
& (1-\varphi_x \sigma)\left(\beta(2-3\beta)
-\varphi_r (1+(1+\varphi_r)(\beta+k\sigma))\right)
+\beta\left(2\beta(1+\varphi_r)+2k\sigma(1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)\geq 0\},\\
& \cup
\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in S:
\ \sigma\varphi_x<1,\ \varphi_{\pi}\leq 1,\\
& (1-\varphi_x \sigma)\left(
\beta(1-\beta)-\varphi_r(1+(1+\varphi_r)(\beta+k\sigma))\right)
+\beta\left(\beta+\varphi_r (\beta+1)+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)<0,\\
& (1-\varphi_x \sigma)(1-3\beta)+\beta(1+\varphi_r)
+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\geq 0\}\\
& \cup\{(k,\sigma,\beta,\varphi_x, \varphi_{\pi},\varphi_r)\in S:
\ \sigma\varphi_x<1,\ \varphi_{\pi}\leq 1,\\
& (1-\varphi_x \sigma)\left(
\beta(1-\beta)-\varphi_r(1+(1+\varphi_r)(\beta+k\sigma))\right)
+\beta\left(\beta+\varphi_r (\beta+1)+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)<0,\\
& (1-\varphi_x\sigma)\left(\beta-\varphi_r-(1+\varphi_r)
(\beta+k\sigma)\right)+\beta\left(\beta (1+\varphi_r)
+k\sigma (1-\varphi_{\pi})\right)>0\}.\end{aligned}$$
We also want to illustrate this model with the below:
\[example of the third Bullard Mitra model\] Suppose that $\beta=0.99,$ $k=0.3,$ $\sigma=1,$ $\varphi_x=4.3,$ $\varphi_{\pi}
=1.82$ and $\varphi_r=0.5;$ in this case, $$\begin{pmatrix}[r] -0.2277 & -0.2510 & -0.1515\\
-0.3030 & 1.0101 & 0\\
-1.5308 & 0.7591 & -0.1515\end{pmatrix},$$ its characteristic polynomial is $P(x)=x^3-0.6309x^2-0.6566x+0.1530$ and its eigenvalues are $-0.6758,$ $0.2057$ and $1.1010.$ Indeed, this is because $P(-1)=-0.8212<0$ and $P(1)=-0.1344<0$ (cf. Proposition \[generalized BM model\] (vi)). Notice that, in this case, $0.6309<2.$
We want to conclude this section with the below:
\[non–negativity at 1 is important\] We want to single out that the assumption $P(1)\geq 0$ is necessary (but not sufficient) to ensure determinacy. As example, suppose that $\phi_x=1,$ $\phi_{\pi}=2,$ $\alpha=0.5,$ $\rho=0.35,$ $\beta=0.99,$ $\eta=0.05,$ $\chi=0.3,$ $m=0.85,$ $\sigma=0.2,$ and $k=0.053.$ In this case, $$B=
\begin{pmatrix}[r] 1.4244 & 0.2323 & 1.1488\\
-0.0535 & 1.0177 & -0.3371\\
0 & 0.0150 & 0.9500\end{pmatrix},$$ its characteristic polynomial is $P(x)=x^3-3.3920x^2+3.7870x-1.3952$ and its eigenvalues are $1.3861,$ $1.0030 + 0.0240i$ and $1.0030 -0.0240i.$ Indeed, this is because $P(1)=-2.2650e-04<0.$ Notice that, even in this case, one has that $b-c<0.$
Potential limitations {#potential limitations}
=====================
So far in this paper, the use of the Budan–Fourier Theorem to address the determinacy issue has been restricted to models where the characteristic equation one has to deal with is of degree three, so one natural question to ask is the potential use of this result to tackle models where the characteristic equation has higher degree; our goal in this section will be to briefly explain what might be the potential limitations of doing so. We illustrate it in what follows.
Indeed, we consider one of the models studied by Bhattarai, Lee and Park in [@BhattaraiLeePark2014]; in such a model, the parameter space is $$\begin{aligned}
S=\{& (\beta,\eta,\gamma,\rho_R,k,\varphi,\phi_Y,\phi_{\pi})\in\R^8:\
\beta\in (0,1),\ \eta\in [0,1),\ \rho_R\in [0,1),\ \gamma\in [0,1],\\
& k>0,\ \varphi>0,\ \phi_Y>0,\ \phi_{\pi}>0\},\end{aligned}$$ and one has to look at the polynomial $P(x)=a_5x^5-a_4x^4+a_3x^3
-a_2x^2+a_1x-a_0,$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& a_5=\beta,\ a_4=\beta+1+\beta(\eta+\gamma+\rho_R)+
(1-\eta)k\left(\varphi+\frac{1}{1-\eta}+(1-\rho_R)\phi_Yk^{-1}\beta\right),\\
& a_3=1+(\beta+1)(\eta+\gamma+\rho_R)+\beta (\eta\gamma+\eta\rho_R+\gamma
\rho_R)
\\ &+(1-\eta)(1-\rho_R)k\left(\left(\phi_{\pi}+
\frac{\rho_R}{1-\rho_R}\right)\left(\varphi+
\frac{1}{1-\eta}\right)+(1+\beta\gamma)\phi_Y k^{-1}
+\frac{1}{1-\rho_R}\left(\frac{\eta}{1-\eta}\right)
\right),\\
& a_2=(\eta+\gamma+\rho_R)+(\beta+1)(\eta\gamma+\eta\rho_R+\gamma
\rho_R)+\beta\eta\gamma\rho_R\\
& +(1-\eta)(1-\rho_R)k\left(\left(\phi_{\pi}+
\frac{\rho_R}{1-\rho_R}\right)\left(\varphi+
\frac{1}{1-\eta}\right)+\phi_Y\gamma k^{-1}\right),\\
& a_1=\eta\gamma+\rho_R (\eta+\gamma+\eta\gamma+\beta\eta\gamma),
\ a_0=\eta\gamma\rho_R.\end{aligned}$$ Since $P(-x)\leq 0$ for any $x\in [0,+\infty),$ all the real roots of $P$ need to be strictly positive; moreover, since the degree of $P$ is odd, Bolzano’s Theorem guarantees that $P$ has at least one real root. On the other hand, since in this case determinacy holds if and only if $P$ has exactly three roots inside the unit disk, at least one of them has to be real, hence contained at (0,1) (indeed, otherwise $P$ would have $0,$ $2$ or $4$ roots inside the unit disk); summing up, as observed in [@BhattaraiLeePark2014], a necessary condition for determinacy is $P(1)>0.$ Therefore, in this case, the determinacy region must be contained inside $$\left\{(\beta,\eta,\gamma,\rho_R,k,\varphi,\phi_Y,\phi_{\pi})\in
S:\ \phi_{\pi}+\frac{(1-\gamma)(1-\beta)}{k(\varphi+1)}\phi_Y >1
\right\}.$$ Our next goal will be to show that the Budan–Fourier Theorem provide other necessary conditions for determinacy; indeed, let $v_1$ be the number of sign variations of $$\begin{aligned}
P_{seq} (1)=& (a_5-a_4+a_3-a_2+a_1-a_0,5a_5-4a_4+3a_3-2a_2+a_1,
2(10a_5-6a_4+3a_3-a_2),\\ & 6(10a_5-4a_4+a_3),24(5a_5-a_4),120a_5).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since one can easily check that $v_0=5,$ the Budan–Fourier Theorem tells us that the number $r$ of real roots of $P$ at (0,1) is less or equal than $5-v_1,$ and that $5-v_1-r$ is either zero, two or four. In this case, since determinacy holds if and only if there are exactly three roots inside the unit circle, it follows that $r$ can only be either one or three, which implies that $5-v_1$ must be zero, one or three, which is equivalent to say that $v_1$ can only be zero, two or four. Summing up, this shows that the determinacy region must be contained inside $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}:=& \left\{(\beta,\eta,\gamma,\rho_R,k,\varphi,\phi_Y,\phi_{\pi})\in
S:\ \phi_{\pi}+\frac{(1-\gamma)(1-\beta)}{k(\varphi+1)}\phi_Y >1,\
v_1=0\right\}\\
& \cup\left\{(\beta,\eta,\gamma,\rho_R,k,\varphi,\phi_Y,\phi_{\pi})\in
S:\ \phi_{\pi}+\frac{(1-\gamma)(1-\beta)}{k(\varphi+1)}\phi_Y >1,\
v_1=2\right\}\\
& \cup\left\{(\beta,\eta,\gamma,\rho_R,k,\varphi,\phi_Y,\phi_{\pi})\in
S:\ \phi_{\pi}+\frac{(1-\gamma)(1-\beta)}{k(\varphi+1)}\phi_Y >1,\
v_1=4\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The reader will easily note that, while the necessary and sufficient conditions obtained in [@BhattaraiLeePark2014 Proposition of page 222] by means of a stronger version of the Rouché Theorem [@Lloyd1979 Theorem 2] require the evaluation of transcendental functions, the necessary conditions we give through Budan–Fourier just involve polynomial evaluation.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
By means of the Budan–Fourier Theorem [@Akritas1982 Theorem 1], we have shown in a completely analytical way the existence and uniqueness of real roots for several linear systems of equations arising from New Keynesian models; indeed, we have done so, first of all, for a model when the money supply follows an exogenous path [@GaliKeynesian2015 3.4.2], secondly when a monetary authority responds to lagged values of output (see [@BullardMitra2002 Proposition 3 and Appendix C] and [@BullardMitra2007 Propositions 1, 2 and 11]), and finally when agents do not fully understand future policies (see [@GabaixNK Proposition 5.3] and [@GabaixNKOA Proposition 9.7]). We also pinpoint the potential limitations of our methods to tackle models where the characteristic equation is of high degree.
One thing the reader may ask is why we have only used the Budan–Fourier Theorem to estimate the number of real roots of a polynomial in a given interval; this is because the models studied in this paper involved between four and thirteen parameters, and from our perspective it is not obvious, neither to evaluate polynomials in the whole interval we are interested in, nor to make too many manipulations with them. This prevented us to employ other techniques, like Sturm sequences [@RealAlgebraicGeometry Corollary 1.2.10], to tackle this complicated issue; of course, obtaining complete necessary and sufficient determinacy conditions require, in general, not only to look at the real roots, but also at the complex ones. This explains why in recent works (e.g. [@Lubik2007], [@GabaixNK], [@BhattaraiLeePark2014]) authors dealing with the determinacy issue use more sophisticated tools, like the Routh–Hurwitz criterion [@MeinsmaRH Theorem 1.1], the Schur–Cohn criterion (see [@Mardenbook page 198, Th. (43,1)] or [@LaSallebook page 27, 5.3.]) or the Rouché Theorem [@Lloyd1979 Theorem 2].
We would like to remember that our motivation comes from the issue of indeterminacy of the rational expectations equilibrium that complicated the conduct of monetary policy, and also with the multiple equilibria puzzle problem arising from New Keynesian models; we hope the techniques used throughout this paper can help to tackle, not only these issues, but also others appearing in models different from the ones considered here.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank Davide Debortoli, Jordi Galí, Thomas Lubik, Lluc Puig and Jesús Fernández-Villaverde for useful and fruitful advices and feedback about the contents of this paper.
[^1]: A.F.B. is supported by Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 844/14) and Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad MTM2016-7881-P. A.S.M. was supported by the Barcelona GSE Severo Ochoa PhD Track Fellowship.
[^2]: Throughout this paper, by the **unit disk** we mean the set $\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\ \lvert z\rvert <1\}.$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The paper gives a complete description of the subgroups of the semigroup of tropical $n$-by-$n$ matrices up to an isomorphism. In particular, we show that every of these groups has a torsion-free abelian subgroup of index at most $n!$, proving the conjecture of Johnson and Kambites.'
address: 'Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory, 119991, GSP-1, Moscow, Russia'
author:
- Yaroslav Shitov
title: Tropical matrices and group representations
---
Introduction
============
The set $\R$ of reals extended by adding an infinite negative element $-\infty$ is called the *tropical semiring* and is also known as the *max-plus algebra*. The tropical arithmetic operations on $\Ro=\R\cup\{-\infty\}$ are $a\op b=\max\{a,b\}$ and $a\ot b=a+b$. The main object of our research is the set $\Ro^{n\times n}$ of tropical $n$-by-$n$ matrices. We are interested in studying the multiplicative structure of tropical matrices. The multiplication of such matrices is defined as ordinary matrix multiplication with $+$ and $\cdot$ replaced by the tropical operations $\op$ and $\ot$.
The study of linear algebra over the tropical semiring is important for many different applications (see [@AGG; @HOW]). There is a number of purely linear-algebraic important problems for tropical matrices, for example, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors problem, the problem of solving linear systems, computational problems for the rank functions, see [@DSS; @HOW]. Another important approach considers the set of tropical matrices from the point of view of the semigroup theory. The paper [@Gau] is devoted to the solution of the Burnside-type problem for semigroups of tropical matrices. Johnson and Kambites in the recent paper [@JK2] have developed the study of the semigroup-theoretic structure of tropical matrices. They consider Green’s relations on the semigroup $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$, groups of tropical matrices, and idempotent tropical matrices. They give a complete description of the subgroups of $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$ in the case when $n=2$. The study of Green’s relations on the semigroup of tropical matrices has been developed in [@HK; @JK]. In [@HK], the complete description of the $\mathcal{D}$-relation has been provided. In [@JK], the important characterization of the $\mathcal{J}$-order has been given, and the connection of Green’s relations with the rank functions of tropical matrices has been studied.
The aim of our paper is to solve the problem that has arisen from the paper [@JK2]. Namely, we are interested in a complete characterization of the subgroups of the semigroup $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$. We show that every subgroup of the semigroup of tropical $n$-by-$n$ matrices admits a faithful representation with tropical monomial $n$-by-$n$ matrices. We prove that every subgroup $\G$ of $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the wreath product $\R\wr\S_n$, and, conversely, every subgroup of $\R\wr\S_n$ can be realized with tropical $n$-by-$n$ matrices. Our results confirm the conjecture proposed in [@JK2] that every group admitting a faithful representation by $n\times n$ tropical matrices must have a torsion-free abelian subgroup of index at most $n!$. We also give an upper bound for the order of a periodic group of tropical $n$-by-$n$ matrices, developing the result proven in [@dAP].
Throughout our paper $\S_n$ will denote the symmetric group on $\{1,\ldots,n\}$. By $a_{i(\cdot)}$ we denote the $i$th row of a matrix $A$, by $A[r_1,\ldots,r_k]$ the submatrix of $A$ formed by the rows with numbers $r_1,\ldots,r_k$. We say that a matrix $P\in\Ro^{n\times n}$ is *monomial* if there exists $\sigma=\sigma(P)\in\S_n$ such that $p_{ij}\neq-\infty$ if and only if $i=\sigma(j)$. In this case, $P$ is called *diagonal* if $\sigma(P)$ is the identity. Note that the diagonal matrix with zeros on the diagonal is the neutral element of the semigroup $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$.
Subgroups of the semigroup $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$
=============================================================
We need the concept of the row rank (see [@AGG]) of a tropical matrix for our considerations.
\[rrank\] A tropical matrix $B\in\Ro^{n\times m}$ is said to be of *full row rank* if no row of $A$ can be expressed as a linear combination of other rows, that is, the condition $$\label{eq_1_of_it}
b_{i(\cdot)}=\bigoplus_{k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}\setminus\{i\}} \lambda_k\ot b_{k(\cdot)}$$ fails to hold for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\in\Ro$.
We also need the following lemma.
\[lemma\_1\_of\_it\] Let $A, B, C, D\in\Ro^{n\times n}$ be such that $B=C\ot A$, $A=D\ot B$. If the row rank of $B$ is full, then there exists a monomial matrix $P\in\Ro^{n\times n}$ such that $B=P\ot A$.
Since $B=C\ot A$ and $A=D\ot B$ imply that $B=C\ot D\ot B$, we have $$\label{eq_2 of_it}
b_{i(\cdot)}=\bigoplus\limits_{p=1}^n\left[\left(\bigoplus\limits_{k=1}^nc_{ik}\ot d_{kp}\right)\ot b_{p(\cdot)}\right].$$
If $\bigoplus\limits_{k=1}^nc_{ik}\ot d_{ki}<0$, then the summand of $p=i$ can be omitted from the right-hand side of (\[eq\_2 of\_it\]). In this case, the condition (\[eq\_1\_of\_it\]) is satisfied, so the row rank of $B$ is not full. The contradiction shows that indeed $\bigoplus_{k=1}^n\left(c_{ik}\ot d_{ki}\right)\geq0$. Then for some $\varkappa=\varkappa(i)$, we have $c_{i\varkappa}\ot d_{\varkappa i}\geq0$. From $B=C\ot A$ it follows that $b_{it}\geq c_{i\varkappa}\ot a_{\varkappa t}$ for every $t\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. On the other hand, $$c_{i\varkappa}\ot a_{\varkappa t}=c_{i\varkappa}\ot\left(\bigoplus\limits_{p=1}^n d_{\varkappa p}\ot b_{pt}\right)
\geq c_{i\varkappa}\ot d_{\varkappa i}\ot b_{it}\geq b_{it},$$ so indeed $b_{it}=c_{i\varkappa}\ot a_{\varkappa t}$ for every $t\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Thus every row of $B$ is some row of $A$ multiplied by a scalar. Since the row rank of $B$ is full, the result follows.
The following lemma deals with matrices whose row rank is not full.
\[lemma\_2\_of\_it\] Let $\G$ be a subgroup of $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$, $n\geq2$. If the row rank of some matrix $A$ from $\G$ is not full, then $\G$ admits a faithful representation with tropical $(n-1)$-by-$(n-1)$ matrices.
By Definition \[rrank\], some row of $A$ is a linear combination of other its rows. So for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ we have $A=P\ot\overline{A}$, where the matrix $\overline{A}\in\Ro^{(n-1)\times n}$ is obtained from $A$ by removing the $i$th row, and $P\in\Ro^{n\times(n-1)}$ is such that the matrix $P[1,\ldots,i-1,i+1,\ldots,n]$ is the neutral element of $\left(\Ro^{(n-1)\times(n-1)},\ot\right)$. Since $\G$ is a group, for every $G\in\G$ there exists $B\in\G$ such that $G=A\ot B$.
Thus we see that $G=P\ot\overline{G}$. The matrix $\overline{G}$ here is uniquely determined, because $P[1,\ldots,i-1,i+1,\ldots,n]$ is the neutral element. The map $\varphi$ sending $G\in\G$ to $\overline{G}\ot P\in\Ro^{(n-1)\times(n-1)}$ is therefore well defined.
Note that for every $G,H\in\G$ it holds that $$\varphi(G\ot H)=\varphi(P\ot \overline{G}\ot P\ot \overline{H})=\overline{G}\ot P\ot \overline{H}\ot P=\varphi(G)\ot \varphi(H),$$ so $\varphi$ is a homomorphism. Moreover, if $\varphi(G)=\varphi(H)$, then $\overline{G}\ot P=\overline{H}\ot P$, so in this case $P\ot \overline{G}\ot P\ot \overline{G}=P\ot \overline{H}\ot P\ot \overline{G}$, or $G\ot G=H\ot G$. Since $\G$ is a group, the condition $\varphi(G)=\varphi(H)$ therefore implies that $G=H$, proving that $\varphi$ is injective.
Now we are ready to prove the one of our main results.
\[grtrmatr\] Every subgroup of the semigroup $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$ admits a faithful representation with tropical monomial $n$-by-$n$ matrices.
The case of $n=1$ is trivial, and we proceed by the induction on $n$. Let $n\geq2$, $\G$ be a subgroup of $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$, $E$ be a neutral element of $\G$. The two cases are then possible.
1\. Let $\G$ contain a matrix whose row rank is not full. Lemma \[lemma\_2\_of\_it\] shows that in this case $\G$ admits a faithful representation with tropical $(n-1)$-by-$(n-1)$ matrices. The inductive hypothesis then shows that $\G$ has a faithful representation with tropical monomial $(n-1)$-by-$(n-1)$ matrices, so the result follows.
2\. Now let the matrices from $\G$ be of full row rank. In this case, from Lemma \[lemma\_1\_of\_it\] it follows that for every $G\in\G$ there exists a monomial matrix $\P_G\in\Ro^{n\times n}$ such that $G=\P_G\ot E$. Since the row rank of $G$ is full, we see that the matrix $\P_G$ is uniquely determined. So we can define the map $\psi$ sending $G\in\G$ to the monomial matrix $\P_G$. Clearly, $\psi$ is injective. We also see that for every $G,H\in\G$ it holds that $G\ot H=\P_G\ot E\ot H=\P_G\ot H=\P_G\ot\P_H\ot E,$ so $\psi$ is a homomorphism.
Johnson and Kambites in [@JK2 Section 4] conjectured that every group admitting a faithful representation by $n\times n$ tropical matrices has a torsion-free abelian subgroup of index at most $n!$. Now we are ready to prove this conjecture.
\[answ\] Let a group $\G$ admit a faithful representation by $n\times n$ tropical matrices. Then $\G$ has a torsion-free abelian subgroup of index at most $n!$.
By Theorem \[grtrmatr\], we assume without a loss of generality that $\G$ consists of tropical monomial $n$-by-$n$ matrices. Consider the subgroup $D$ of all diagonal matrices from $\G$. Clearly, $D$ is normal in $\G$, abelian and torsion-free. It remains to note that matrices $A,B\in\G$ belong to the same coset of $D$ in $\G$ if and only if $\sigma(A)=\sigma(B)$.
D’Alessandro and Pasku have shown that every periodic finitely generated subgroup of $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$ is finite, see [@dAP Proposition 5]. Theorem \[grtrmatr\] allows us to derive a more precise characterization. Recall that a group $H$ is *periodic* if each element of $H$ has finite order.
\[answ2\] The order of any periodic subgroup of the semigroup $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$ is at most $n!$.
By definition, any torsion-free subgroup of a periodic group is trivial. So the result follows from Theorem \[answ\].
Finally, we note that the group of all tropical monomial $n$-by-$n$ matrices is isomorphic to the wreath product $\R\wr\S_n$. This gives the following group-theoretic description of the subgroups of $\left(\Ro^{n\times n},\ot\right)$.
\[grtrmatr2\] A group $\G$ admits a faithful representation with tropical $n$-by-$n$ matrices if and only if $\G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the wreath product $\R\wr\S_n$.
Follows from Theorem \[grtrmatr\].
I would like to thank my scientific advisor Professor Alexander E. Guterman for constant attention to my work.
[99]{}
Linear independence over tropical semirings and beyond, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Tropical and Idempotent Mathematics (G. L. Litvinov and S. N. Sergeev eds.), volume 495 of Contemporary Mathematics, Amer. Math. Soc., 2009, pp. 1–38.
A combinatorial property for semigroups of matrices, Semigroup Forum 67 (2003) 22–30.
On the rank of a tropical matrix, in: Combinatorial and computational geometry (E. Goodman, J. Pach and E. Welzl, eds.), volume 52 of Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005, pp. 213–242.
On the Burnside problem for semigroups of matrices in the $(\max,+)$ algebra, Semigroup Forum 52 (1996) 271–292.
Max Plus at Work: Modeling and Analysis of Synchronized Systems: A Course on Max- Plus Algebra and Its Applications, Princeton Univ. Press, 2006.
Tropical matrix duality and Green’s $\mathcal D$ relation, arXiv:1010.0130v1.
Green’s J-order and the rank of tropical matrices, arXiv:1102.2707v1.
Multiplicative structure of $2\times2$ tropical matrices, Linear Algebra Appl. 435 (2011) 1612–1625.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Astro2020 Science White Paper
Cold Debris Disks as Strategic Targets for the 2020s
**Thematic Areas:** $\boxtimes$ Planetary Systems $\square$ Star and Planet Formation $\square$ Formation and Evolution of Compact Objects $\square$ Cosmology and Fundamental Physics $\square$ Stars and Stellar Evolution $\square$ Resolved Stellar Populations and their Environments $\square$ Galaxy Evolution $\square$ Multi-Messenger Astronomy and Astrophysics
**Principal Author:**
Name: John H. Debes\
Institution: Space Telescope Science Institute\
Email: [email protected]\
Phone: (410)338-4782\
**Co-authors:** Elodie Choquet (Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, CNES, LAM),Virginie C. Faramaz (JPL-Caltech), Gaspard Duchene (Berkeley), Dean Hines (STScI), Chris Stark (STScI), Marie Ygouf (Caltech-IPAC), Julien Girard (STScI), Amaya Moro-Martin (STScI), Pauline Arriaga (UCLA), Christine Chen (STScI), Thayne Currie (NASA/Ames, NAOJ), Sally Dodson-Robinson (U. Delaware), Ewan S. Douglas (MIT/U. of Arizona), Paul Kalas (Berkeley), Carey M. Lisse (APL), Dimitri Mawet (Caltech), Johan Mazoyer (JPL-Caltech), Bertrand Mennesson (JPL), Max A. Millar-Blanchaer (JPL-Caltech), Anand Sivramakrishnan (STScI), Jason Wang (Caltech)\
**Co-Signers:** Vanessa Bailey (JPL), William C. Danchi (GSFC), Laurent Pueyo (STScI), Marshall Perrin (STScI), Bin Ren (STScI), Aki Roberge (GSFC), Glenn Schneider (U. of Arizona), Jordan Steckloff (PSI)\
**Abstract:** Cold debris disks (T$<$200 K) are analogues to the dust in the Solar System’s Kuiper belt–dust generated from the evaporation and collision of minor bodies perturbed by planets, our Sun, and the local interstellar medium. Scattered light from debris disks acts as both a signpost for unseen planets as well as a source of contamination for directly imaging terrestrial planets, but many details of these disks are poorly understood. We lay out a critical observational path for the study of nearby debris disks that focuses on defining an empirical relationship between scattered light and thermal emission from a disk, probing the dynamics and properties of debris disks, and directly determining the influence of planets on disks.
We endorse the findings and recommendations published in the National Academy reports on Exoplanet Science Strategy and Astrobiology Strategy for the Search for Life in the Universe. This white paper extends and complements the material presented therein with a focus on debris disks around nearby stars. Separate complementary papers are being submitted regarding the inner warm regions of debris disks (Mennesson et al.), the modeling of debris disk evolution (Gaspar et al.), studies of dust properties (Chen et al.), and thermal emission from disks (Su et al.).
Overview {#overview .unnumbered}
--------
As we approach the detection of the 4000th confirmed exoplanet, we are on the verge of foundational discoveries in planet formation, habitability and the context of our Solar System within the galactic planetary population (Exoplanet Science Strategy report 2018; Plavchan et al. 2019). Direct imaging of planetary systems provides key insights on their architecture, chemistry, dynamics and evolution.
Debris disks are the dusty remains of planet formation–they trace the location of colliding or evaporating minor bodies in a planetary system. They can be detected in scattered visible/near-infrared (NIR) light and via thermal emission in the IR as well as sub-mm wavelengths. Thermal emission directly traces larger particles in the system and determines the temperature of the dust, while the scattered light traces the micron-sized dust. We define a cold debris disk as a disk with a blackbody temperature $\leq$200 K.
A proxy for the total amount of dust in a system can be estimated from the ratio of thermal infrared radiation to the total luminosity of the star or $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}$. The dust properties and disk morphology dictate the peak surface brightness of scattered light. The dynamics of micron-sized dust are highly dependent on what non-gravitational forces are present, while larger dust particles trace the density distribution of parent bodies. Further, more dense disks are dominated by collisions (so-called collisional disks), while less dense disks are shaped by drag forces, such as Poynting-Robertson drag (so-called transport dominated disks). To date most disks that have been spatially resolved in scattered light are cold and collision dominated. The interplay between dynamical forces and dust particle properties makes predicting the morphology and peak surface brightness for dusty disks challenging. This uncertainty hinders the detection of unseen planets within disks and planning for future exo-Earth yields from direct imaging missions.
![(Left) Surface brightness profiles along the disk major axis of a selection of spatially resolved disks in scattered light, along with detection limits from visible light coronagraphs. (Right) Radii and $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}$ of the cold debris disks resolved to date with different facilities including the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) instruments and extreme-AO (XAO). The brightest systems have been resolved in scattered light (green and blue markers) while a majority of [*Herschel*]{}-resolved disks (yellow markers) lie below the sensitivity limits of current visible/near-IR imagers.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](disks_C.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Left) Surface brightness profiles along the disk major axis of a selection of spatially resolved disks in scattered light, along with detection limits from visible light coronagraphs. (Right) Radii and $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}$ of the cold debris disks resolved to date with different facilities including the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) instruments and extreme-AO (XAO). The brightest systems have been resolved in scattered light (green and blue markers) while a majority of [*Herschel*]{}-resolved disks (yellow markers) lie below the sensitivity limits of current visible/near-IR imagers.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](Lir-Rad_Plot4_scaled.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Scattered light images of cold debris disks are useful because they tend to have better spatial resolution compared to thermal IR or sub-mm interferometric imaging as well as tracing the warmest and coldest components of a disk with a single wavelength of light. Cold debris disks are more extended and can thus be probed to a larger volume, improving the chances of building a statistically significant sample with a wide range of morphology, host star, and $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}$.
We recommend that three areas of cold debris disk research be prioritized over the next decade in order to connect existing observations to planned direct imaging missions: predicting scattered light emission from disks based on their thermal emission, characterizing the dynamics and properties of dust in debris disks, and forging a connection between exoplanets and structures observed in debris disks. Focusing on these areas will maximize the main scientific goals of the Exoplanet Science Strategy. Throughout this report we mention selected current and planned facilities that can accomplish a subset of these goals, but we primarily focus on scientific requirements rather than specific facilities.
Defining a relationship between scattered light emission and thermal emission {#defining-a-relationship-between-scattered-light-emission-and-thermal-emission .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold debris disks are relatively common in the solar neighborhood. According to IR excesses surveys performed with [*Herschel*]{}, debris disks with $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}\gtrsim 10^{-6}$ are as common as 22% around K–A stars (Montesinos et al. 2016) and are detected around stars as old as 10 Gyr. About a hundred debris disks have been resolved in thermal emission with Herschel, JCMT, or ALMA on spatial scales as small as $0.3''$ (e.g. Lieman-Sifry. 2016), overlapping with the regions where we expect to caracterize exoplanets in reflected light. The current sample of spatially resolved scattered light debris disks numbers to $\sim40$, the majority discovered via instruments on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) (Choquet et al. 2018) and with $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}\sim10^{-4}$. Disks with lower luminosities are undetectable with current facilities, but the exact amount of scattered light they may possess is difficult to predict.
Disk luminosities below $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}\sim10^{-4}$ correspond roughly to the transition point between collision dominated disks and transport dominated disks, weakly dependent on disk radius (Kuchner & Stark, 2010). A majority of nearby disks possess a fractional luminosity that suggests that they may be transport dominated (Chen et al. 2014, Sibthorpe et al. 2018). Transport dominated disks are of particular interest because they should be cold analogs to the Kuiper belt and Solar Sytem zodiacal cloud. Further, it is important to empirically determine how scattered light efficiency evolves with decreasing $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}$. Determining this relationship will help estimate dust scattered light contamination at the brightness levels and spatial scales where we expect to characterize the reflected light of exoplanets.
The superior inner working angles of ground-based extreme AO coronagraphs will find additional bright disks (e.g., Engler et al., 2018) without improving on HST’s detection limits at larger separations (e.g. Marshall et al. 2018). Figure \[fig:f1\] shows the surface brightness profiles of disks as a function of angular distance from their host stars. We also plot extrapolated surface brightness profiles of hypothetical disks that have surface brightnesses 10 and 200 times as bright as that estimated for the Solar System exo-zodiacal cloud at 1 AU at a distance of 10 pc as proxies for disks that may be transport dominated. These disks demonstrate the diversity of surface brightnesses with respect to $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\star}$ along with the challenges these disks present for the direct imaging of exoplanets in reflected light.
We recommend a systematic and homogenous scattered light direct imaging survey of [*Herschel*]{} detected disks with low luminosities to empirically determine the amount of scattered light as it relates to integrated thermal emission. This survey will require both high sensitivity at small inner working angles to resolve the most compact disks, but will also require a surface brightness sensitivity of at least V=25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ at 5-10${^{\prime\prime}}$. We also recommend that concurrent to this effort that each star have extremely high precision spectro-photometry in the visible/NIR performed. Such observations allow the search for integrated scattered light beyond 2$\mu$m as well as accurate estimation of stellar photospheres. While IRTF/SPEX can detect integrated scattered light from the brightest disks (Lisse et al. 2012; 2017), a relative flux precision of better than at least one part in 10$^{5}$ will be needed for most [*Herschel*]{} detected disks. For larger disks, JWST’s NIRCAM will likely be preferred for cataloging scattered light beyond XAO NIR capabilities.
Probing the dynamics and properties of dust with scattered light {#probing-the-dynamics-and-properties-of-dust-with-scattered-light .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dust interacts with other dust, with its host star, and with its local galactic environment in ways that are observable. These include variations in morphology between scattered light and thermal emission, differences in scattering efficiency and polarization, and time variable sub-structures (Boccaletti et al., 2016). Interpreting the origins of these observable effects will be critical to predicting the amount of scattered light from a disk as well as when it is being modified by a planet.
Observations of debris disks in scattered-light and at millimeter wavelengths are crucial for understanding what dynamical forces act upon dust. Historically, observations of asymmetries in debris disks seen in scattered light have been attributed to planetary perturbers, but the discovery of several disks that show surprising morphologies in scattered light and in sub-mm wavelengths challenge these simple interpretations.
As the sample of debris disks observed both in scattered light and at millimeter wavelengths increases (e.g., Boley et al. 2012) some disks are equally broad in scattered light and thermal emission, contrary to expectations. For instance, the millimeter emission of the debris ring of HD 107146 (Ricci et al. 2015, Marino et al. 2018) and of that of HD 92945 (Marino et al. 2019) seen with ALMA both appear as broad as seen in scattered-light. It is difficult to explain differences on the disks morphologies and width across wavelengths due solely to radiation pressure, which means that our understanding of the dust dynamics is still incomplete. Our proposed survey of Herschel-detected disks will constrain the extent to which stellar wind drag, ISM interactions, and other dynamical effects may affect the morphology of a debris disk.
Scattered light images of debris disks also provide clues about the physical characteristics of the dust grains they contain, which in turn inform on the nature of the parent bodies from which the grains are produced. A complementary white paper by Chen et al. also discusses the importance of scattered light imaging for understanding dust composition. Quantitatively, the grain size distribution, dust composition (including the possibility of porosity) and the shape of individual grains (oblate/prolate grains, aggregates) is encoded in the scattered light spectrum, scattering phase function (total intensity light as a function of scattering angle) and polarizability curves (linear polarized intensity of light as a function of scattering angle). The study of scattering efficiency as a function of wavelength has been studied for over a decade in debris disks (e.g. Debes et al., 2008) and the field is now moving toward estimating all three quantities simultaneously.
Cold debris disks and a wide range of Solar System bodies show modest differences between phase functions (Hughes et al. 2018). Indeed, in the Solar System, studies of cometary dust primarily focus on the polarizability curve, whose main characteristics (peak level of polarization, amplitude of the backscattering negative branch) appear more dependent on dust properties (e.g., Levasseur-Rigourd 2001; Zubko et al. 2016; Kolokolova et al. 2004, 2018; Frattin et al. 2019). For instance, the lack of a negative branch altogether in near-infrared observations of comet Hale-Bopp (Jones & Gehrz 2000) was linked to the remarkably small size of the dust grains produced in that system.
![Total intensity (left, adapted from Hughes et al. 2018) and polarizability (right) for Solar System dust populations (gray symbols) and for debris disks (colored symbols). Most phase functions share a near universal phase function, except for the HR4796A debris and comet 67P, while the scatter in polarizability curves is much larger (filled triangles represent comet Hale-Bopp for which the negative polarization backscattering branch is conspiscuously absent.)[]{data-label="fig:dustscatt"}](phasefunctions_astro2020){width="\textwidth"}
![Total intensity (left, adapted from Hughes et al. 2018) and polarizability (right) for Solar System dust populations (gray symbols) and for debris disks (colored symbols). Most phase functions share a near universal phase function, except for the HR4796A debris and comet 67P, while the scatter in polarizability curves is much larger (filled triangles represent comet Hale-Bopp for which the negative polarization backscattering branch is conspiscuously absent.)[]{data-label="fig:dustscatt"}](polarizability_astro2020){width="\textwidth"}
We recommend that a large sample of disks be observed in both total intensity and polarized intensity in order to fully characterize disk phase function, polarizability curve, and scattering efficiency, ideally over the whole optical-NIR range (cometary and asteroid dust have red and blue “polarization colors”, respectively). With such data in hand, it will be possible to perform direct comparisons to Solar System dust. Currently, the polarizability curve of debris disks is limited to small ranges of scattering angles (e.g, Tamura et al. 2006), with only the HR 4796A ring being fully characterized (Perrin et al. 2015). The ability to detect the back scattering peak in highly inclined disks (at scattering angles $\gtrsim160^\circ$), which requires high contrast and sensitivity at very small inner working angles, is critical to achieve this goal.
Directly Testing the interaction between planets and debris disks {#directly-testing-the-interaction-between-planets-and-debris-disks .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Planets gravitationally sculpt debris disks and create large-scale structures, from rings (e.g., Kalas et al. 2005), warps (e.g., Heap et al. 2000), and other disturbed morphologies (Lee & Chiang 2016) to distinct patterns like mean-motion resonant (MMR) structures (e.g.,Wyatt 2003). These structures may help us constrain the planet’s mass and orbit, the migration rate/grain size of dust, and indicate the presence of otherwise unobservable planets.
[l]{}[0.53]{} {width="52.00000%"}
The use of disk structures as a signpost for planets has had limited results, primarily for two reasons. Firstly, collision dominated disks tend to erase the more unique, easily-identifiable structures like MMR structures (Stark & Kuchner 2009), leaving us with more ambiguous structures like gaps and warps that can be created by a variety of processes (e.g., Klahr & Lin 2005, Lyra & Kuchner 2013). Second, because we are limited to disk structures at large stellar separations, where planets are faint in reflected light, we have only a single system for which planet-induced disk structure and the planet itself have been imaged: $\beta$ Pictoris (Dent et al. 2014), which is viewed edge-on and thus difficult to interpret.
We recommend directly imaging the cold debris disks of known planet hosting stars with [*Herschel*]{}-detected disks of low luminosity which are likely to be dominated by drag processes and more amenable to showing MMR features. HR 8799, $\epsilon$ Eridani, and 51 Eri are also prime targets. New radial velocity surveys, GAIA astrometry, or other methods may open up a larger sample of disks to study disk-planet interactions within 100 pc.
Observational Requirements {#observational-requirements .unnumbered}
--------------------------
Our recommendations require a contrast ratio in the visible or NIR for total and polarized intensity light of $\sim$10$^{-10}$ for stars that have apparent V $<$10. This contrast must extend from 0.1${^{\prime\prime}}$-30${^{\prime\prime}}$ to probe the innermost edges of cold debris disks ($\sim$5-10 AU at 100 pc) as well as to image disks of our nearest stellar neighbors ($\sim$100 AU at 3 pc). For large and nearby disks, spatial resolution can be $\sim0.5{^{\prime\prime}}$ but more compact disks and MMR features require spatial resolutions of $\sim$50 mas to resolve features at our proposed inner working angle. Some of these requirements will be met by future ELT instrumentation, the WFIRST/CGI, WFIRST+starshade as well as the HabEx and LUVOIR concepts. Most future facilities have restricted outer working angles, and do not connect to the sensitivity of HST instruments at larger separations (i.e., Fomalhaut’s disk). This gap can be addressed by space missions with small apertures and correspondingly large dark holes (e.g. Bryden et al 2011, Guyon et al 2012) or the use of a starshade and a large detector field-of-view. The feasibility of suborbital missions has been advanced by recent suborbital coronagraph and wavefront sensing missions such as PICTURE and HiCIBaS (Douglas et al 2018, Mendilllo et al 2017, Côté et al 2018).
**References** [.]{}\
Bailey et al. 2018, Proc. SPIE, 10698\
Beuzit et al. 2019, Subm. to A&A (arXiv:1902.04080)\
Boccaletti et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 230\
Boley et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L21\
Bryden et al. 2011, Proc. SPIE, 81511\
Côté et al. 2018, Proc. SPIE, 1070248\
Chen et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 25;\
Choquet et al., 2018, ApJ, 854, 53;\
Debes et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 318\
Debes et al. 2009, ApJ, 673, 191\
Dent et al. 2014, Science, 343, 1490\
Douglas et al. 2018, JATIS, 4, 019003\
Eiroa et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A11\
Engler et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A151\
Exoplanet Science Strategy report 2018\
Guyon et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 84421S\
Faramaz et al. in prep., 2019\
Frattin et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2198\
Heap et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, 435\
Hughes et al. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 541\
Jones & Gehrz 2000, Icarus, 143, 338\
Kalas et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 1067-1070\
Klahr & Lin 2005, ApJ, 632, 1113\
Kolokolova et al. 2004, Comets II, 577\
Kolokolova et al. 2018, JQSRT, 204, 138\
Kuchner & Stark 2010, AJ, 140, 1007\
Levasseur-Rigourd et al. 2007, P&SS, 55, 1010\
Lisse et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 93\
Lisse et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 182\
Lyra & Kuchner 2013, Nature, 499, 184\
Marino et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5423-5439\
Marino et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1257-1269\
Mendillo, et al. Proc SPIE, 1040010\
Marshall et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 10\
Montesinos et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A51\
Perrin et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 182\
Plavchan et al. 2019, Astro2020 Science White Paper\
Ricci et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 124\
Sibthorpe et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3046\
Schmid et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A9\
Stark et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 123\
Tamura et al. 2006, ApJ, 641\
Wyatt et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1321\
Zubko et al. 2016, P&SS, 123, 63\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We derive sublinear-time quantum algorithms for computing the Nash equilibrium of two-player zero-sum games, based on efficient Gibbs sampling methods. We are able to achieve speed-ups for both dense and sparse payoff matrices at the cost of a mildly increased dependence on the additive error compared to classical algorithms. In particular we can find ${\varepsilon}$-approximate Nash equilibrium strategies in complexity ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{n+m}/{\varepsilon}^3\right)}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{s}/{\varepsilon}^{3.5}\right)}$ respectively, where $n\times m$ is the size of the matrix describing the game and $s$ is its sparsity. Our algorithms use the LP formulation of the problem and apply techniques developed in recent works on quantum SDP-solvers. We also show how to reduce general LP-solving to zero-sum games, resulting in quantum LP-solvers that have complexities ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{n+m}\gamma^3\right)}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{s}\gamma^{3.5}\right)}$ for the dense and sparse access models respectively, where $\gamma$ is the relevant “scale-invariant” precision parameter.'
author:
- 'Joran van Apeldoorn[^1]'
- 'András Gilyén[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'Bibliography.bib'
date: |
QuSoft, CWI and University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.\
e-mail: [{apeldoor,gilyen}@cwi.nl]{}\
title: 'Quantum algorithms for zero-sum games'
---
Introduction
============
A *matrix game* is a two-player zero-sum game in which both players have only a finite number of pure strategies. We label the moves for the first player (called Alice) by $[n]$ and the moves for the second player (called Bob) by $[m]$. If Alice plays $i\in[n]$ and Bob plays $j\in[m]$, then Alice gets a *payoff* $A_{ij} \in [-1,1]$ and Bob gets payoff $-A_{ij}$. Their individual goal is to get the highest payoff possible. The payoff can be written in matrix form $A\in [-1,1]^{n\times m}$, hence the name *matrix game*. A game is called *symmetric* if $m=n$ and $A = -A^T$, in other words, the payoff matrix is *skew symmetric*.
If one of the players would always play the same move, then (for most games) it would be easy for the other player to win. Hence a strategy will be randomized in general. Let $\Delta^n$ be the set of all non-negative vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ that sum to $1$, i.e., the set of all probability distributions over $n$ elements. Given a randomized strategy $x\in\Delta^n$ for Alice and a randomized strategy $y\in\Delta^m$ for Bob, the expected payoff for Alice is $x^TAy$.
Naturally Bob’s goal is to minimize Alice’s expected payoff; the best he can do is to assume that Alice plays the best strategy $x$ on her side and optimize his $y$ for that: $$\min_{y \in \Delta^m} \max_{x \in \Delta^n} x^TAy$$
We can write this as a linear program (LP) by noting that a linear function over the simplex (in this case $x\mapsto x^TAy$) is maximized on a vertex of the simplex: $$\min_{y \in \Delta^m} \max_{x \in \Delta^n} x^TAy = \min_{y \in \Delta^m} \max_{i\in[n]} e_i^TAy$$ which can be written as an LP: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:primal}
\min \ \ \ &\lambda\\
s.t.
\ \ \ & Ay \leq \lambda e\nonumber\\
& y\in\Delta^m\nonumber\\
& \lambda\in [-1,1]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $e$ is the all-one vector. Notice that since Alice’s strategy $x$ is in $\Delta^n$ she can indeed not get a better expected value than $\lambda$. In fact, the *dual* of this LP is the LP for Alice, and due to strong duality this gives the same value! Hence we will call the optimal $\lambda^*$ the *value* of the game. The corresponding strategies are called a *Nash equilibrium*. Notice that for a symmetric game the value is always $0$. For completeness, let us also state the dual problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dual}
\max \ \ \ &\lambda'\\
s.t.
\ \ \ & A^T x \geq \lambda' e\nonumber\\
& x\in\Delta^n\nonumber\\
& \lambda'\in [-1,1]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We will call a strategy $y$ for Bob *${\varepsilon}$-optimal* when $Ay\leq (v^*+{\varepsilon})e$, and similar for Alice. Grigoriadis and Khachiyan [@grigoriadis1995SubLinRndApxAlgMatrixGames] showed that a pair of ${\varepsilon}$-optimal strategies can be found using a classical computation consisting of ${\mathcal{O}\left( \log(n+m)/{\varepsilon}^2 \right)}$ iterations, and ${\mathcal{O}\left( n+m \right)}/\log(n+m)$ steps per iteration[^3]. In fact, a more careful analysis shows that an iteration can be implemented in $s$ operations, where $s$ is the maximal row and column sparsity of $A$. Notice that this leads to a *sub-linear* amount of work! They show this by first converting any game to a symmetric game and then showing that symmetric games can be solved by a randomized algorithm. In Section \[sec:classical\], we give a proof of their results that directly applies to non-symmetric games. In the same paper the authors also prove that any *deterministic* algorithm would require at least $mn/2$ queries to the input.
As in recent work on convex optimization using *quantum computers* [@brandao2016QSDPSpeedup; @apeldoorn2017QSDPSolvers; @brandao2017QSDPSpeedupsLearning; @apeldoorn2018ImprovedQSDPSolving] we show that using a quantum computer a quadratic improvement in terms of the dimensions $n$ and $m$ can be achieved, at the expense of a slightly heavier dependence on the precision. In particular, in Section \[subsec:qdense\] we show that on a quantum computer ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{n+m}/{\varepsilon}^3\right)}$ queries to the entries of $A$ and the same number of other gates suffice to implement the algorithm by Grigoriadis and Khachiyan [@grigoriadis1995SubLinRndApxAlgMatrixGames]. In Section \[subsec:qsparse\] we show that this can be improved to ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{s}/{\varepsilon}^{3.5}\right)}$ for sparse matrices. Note that unlike in the aforementioned works, the classical algorithm that we speed up (and hence our quantum algorithm) does not depend on additional scale parameters, thus the achieved speed-ups seem more applicable in practice.
In Section \[sec:reduction\] we also show how to reduce general LP-solving to zero-sum games, resulting in our new general purpose quantum LP-solvers. This reduction introduces an extra dependence on the size of the primal and dual solutions in the complexity. However, the dependence on these parameters and on the approximation error is only cubic, where as an LP-solver obtained from the recent results on SDP-solving [@apeldoorn2018ImprovedQSDPSolving] would have a fifth power dependence. Furthermore, we give the first quantum LP-solver which depends on the sparsity of the LP instead of on $n$ and $m$[^4].
#### Notation.
We write $\bm{e}$ for Euler’s constant. For a vector $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ we write $\bm{e}^x$ for the vector with entries $\bm{e}^{x_i}$. Throughout the paper $i$ is an index in $[n]$ and $j$ is an index in $[m]$. We write $e_j$ for the $j$-th standard basis vector and $e$ for the all-one vector when the dimension is clear from context. We use notation ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(T\right)}$ as a shorthand for ${\mathcal{O}\left( T\cdot{\mbox{\rm polylog}\left(T\frac{nm}{{\varepsilon}\delta}\right)} \right)}$.
#### Computational model.
When talking about the time complexity or gate complexity of a quantum algorithm then we assume that all two-qubit gates have unit cost. Furthermore we assume access to a classical-write / quantum-read random access memory at unit cost. We only require such a memory consisting of ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1/{\varepsilon}^2\right)}$ bits, so not allowing such a gate will worse the gate complexity by at most a factor of ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1/{\varepsilon}^2\right)}$.
Classical algorithm {#sec:classical}
===================
In this section we will present the classical zero-sum game algorithm developed by Grigoriadis and Khachiyan [@grigoriadis1995SubLinRndApxAlgMatrixGames], with two alterations:
1. We give the algorithm and its proof without first reducing the problem to symmetric games. In this way we lay more emphasis on the fact that this is a *primal-dual* approach and on the connection to *fictitious play*. Furthermore, we hope that this view on the algorithm will allow for an easier application to other problems.
2. The algorithm by Grigoriadis and Khachiyan assumes the desired additive error ${\varepsilon}$ is known from the start of the algorithm. We present a version of the algorithm for which the additive error in the intermediate solutions uniformly decreases during the run of the algorithm, but we also consider a version corresponding to a fixed accuracy goal more similar to their results.
$x^{(0)} \gets 0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $y^{(0)} \gets 0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^m$ $\eta^{(t)} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{t}}$ (alternatively in the fixed accuracy-goal version choose $\eta^{(t)} = {\varepsilon}/4$) $u^{(t)} \gets -A^Tx^{(t)}$ and $v^{(t)} \gets Ay^{(t)}$ $P^{(t)} \gets \bm{e}^{ u^{(t)}} = \bm{e}^{ -A^T x^{(t)}}$ and $Q^{(t)} \gets \bm{e}^{ v^{(t)}} = \bm{e}^{Ay^{(t)}}$ $p^{(t)} \gets P^{(t)} / {\left\lVertP^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1$ and $q^{(t)} \gets Q^{(t)} / {\left\lVertQ^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1$ Sample $a\sim p^{(t)}$ and $b\sim q^{(t)}$ $y^{(t+1)} = y^{(t)}+\eta^{(t)} e_a$ and $x^{(t+1)} = x^{(t)}+ \eta^{(t)} e_b$
We start by proving that this algorithm is correct, before giving a bound on the complexity.
\[lem:correctness\] Let $\delta\in (0,1/3)$. With probability at least $\delta$ Algorithm \[alg:main\] produces a sequence of $x^{(t)}$ and $y^{(t)}$ such that for all $t$ the intermediate solutions $x^{(t)}/{\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1$ and $y^{(t)}/{\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1$ are ${\varepsilon}'$-optimal solutions with $${\varepsilon}' = \frac{2}{\sqrt{t}} \cdot\left(3\ln(t) + \ln(nm) + \ln(1/\delta) + 2\right).$$ Let ${\varepsilon}\in (0,1)$. If we run the algorithm with $\eta^{(t)}:={\varepsilon}/4$ instead, then, with probability at least $1-\delta$, the solutions are ${\varepsilon}$-optimal after $T=\Big\lceil\frac{16\ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)}{{\varepsilon}^2}\Big\rceil$ iterations.
Note that $x^{(t)}/{\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1$ and $y^{(t)}/{\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1$ are indeed probability distributions. Hence $(x^{(t)}/{\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1,\min_j (A^Tx^{(t)}/{\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1)_j)$ and $(y^{(t)}/{\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1,\max_i (Ay^{(t)}/{\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1)_i)$ are feasible points for the primal and dual . Due to strong duality, to show that these solutions are ${\varepsilon}$-optimal, it suffices to show that the difference between their values is at most ${\varepsilon}$, that is $$\forall i\in[n] , j\in[m]: {\left(Ay^{(t)}/{\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1\right)}_i - {\left(A^Tx^{(t)}/{\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1\right)}_j \leq {\varepsilon}$$ To do so we consider the potential function $$\Phi(t) := {\left(\sum_{j\in[m]} P_j^{(t)}\right)}{\left(\sum_{i\in[n]} Q_i^{(t)}\right)} = {\left(\sum_{j\in[m],i\in[n]} P_j^{(t)}Q_i^{(t)}\right)}$$ and show that this is bounded from above. In the beginning $\Phi(0) = nm$, moreover -3mm $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t+1) &= {\left(\sum_{j\in[m]} P_j^{(t+1)}\right)}{\left(\sum_{i\in[n]} Q_i^{(t+1)}\right)}\\
&= {\left( \sum_{j\in[m]} \bm{e}^{ (-A^Tx^{(t)})_j - \eta^{(t)}A_{bj} }\right)} {\left( \sum_{i\in[n]} \bm{e}^{ (Ay^{(t)})_i + \eta^{(t)} A_{ia} }\right)}\\
&= {\left( \sum_{j\in[m]} P^{(t)}_j \bm{e}^{- \eta^{(t)}A_{bj} }\right)} {\left( \sum_{i\in[n]} Q_j^{(t)} \bm{e}^{ \eta^{(t)} A_{ia} }\right)}\\
&= {\left( \sum_{j\in[m]} p^{(t)}_j {\left\lVertP^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 \bm{e}^{ -\eta^{(t)}A_{bj} }\right)} {\left( \sum_{i\in[n]} q^{(t)}_i {\left\lVertQ^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 \bm{e}^{ \eta^{(t)} A_{ia} }\right)}\\
&= \Phi(t) {\left( \sum_{j\in[m]} p^{(t)}_j \bm{e}^{ -\eta^{(t)}A_{bj} }\right)} {\left( \sum_{i\in[n]} q^{(t)}_i \bm{e}^{ \eta^{(t)} A_{ia} }\right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Taking the expectation over the sampling of $a$ and $b$ and working out the sums we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} [ \Phi(t+1)] &= \Phi(t) \sum_{a\in[m]} \sum_{b\in[n]} \sum_{j\in[m]} \sum_{i\in[n]} p^{(t)}_a q^{(t)}_b p^{(t)}_j q^{(t)}_i \bm{e}^{ \eta^{(t)} (A_{ia} - A_{bj}) }\\
&\leq \Phi(t) \sum_{a\in[m]} \sum_{b\in[n]} \sum_{j\in[m]} \sum_{i\in[n]} p^{(t)}_a q^{(t)}_b p^{(t)}_j q^{(t)}_i {\left(1+\eta^{(t)} {\left(A_{ia}-A_{bj}\right)} +3{\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)}^2\right)},
\end{aligned}$$ where we used the fact that for all $x\in[-1,1]$ it holds that $\bm{e}^x\leq 1+x+3x^2/4$ , which implies $\bm{e}^{\eta^{(t)} {\left(A_{ia}-A_{bj}\right)}} - 1 - \eta^{(t)} {\left(A_{ia}-A_{bj}\right)}\leq\frac{3}{4}\left(\eta^{(t)} {\left(A_{ia}-A_{bj}\right)}\right)^2\leq 3{\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)}^2$. Now also observe that $$\sum_{a\in[m]} \sum_{b\in[n]} \sum_{j\in[m]} \sum_{i\in[n]} p^{(t)}_a q^{(t)}_b p^{(t)}_j q^{(t)}_i = 1$$ and that all the $A_{ia}-A_{bj}$ terms cancel against another $A_{bj}-A_{ia}$ term with the same $p^{(t)}_a q^{(t)}_b p^{(t)}_j q^{(t)}_i$ coefficient. Hence $$\mathbb{E} [ \Phi(t+1)] \leq \Phi(t) {\left(1+3{\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)}^2 \right)}$$ and by taking the expectation on both sides and expanding the recursion we get $$\mathbb{E} [ \Phi(t)] \leq \Phi(0) \prod_{\tau=0}^{t-1} {\left(1+3{\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)}^2\right)} \leq nm \bm{e}^{ 3\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} {\left(\eta^{(\tau)}\right)}^2}.$$ By Markov’s inequality, with probability at least $1-\delta^{(t)}$ we have that $$\Phi(t) \leq \frac{nm}{\delta^{(t)}} \bm{e}^{ 3\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} {\left(\eta^{(\tau)}\right)}^2}.$$ Since $\Phi(t)$ is the sum of positive terms, each term itself is smaller than the sum. It follows that for all $i\in [n],j\in [m]$ $$P_j^{(t)}Q_i^{(t)} = \bm{e}^{ {\left(Ay^{(t)}\right)}_i - {\left(A^Tx^{(t)}\right)}_j } \leq \frac{nm}{\delta^{(t)}} \bm{e}^{ 3\sum_{\tau=0}^{t-1} {\left(\eta^{(\tau)}\right)}^2}.$$ Taking the logarithm on both sides, and dividing by ${\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 = {\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 = \sum_{\tau=1}^t \eta^{(t)}$ we get that $$\label{eq:bound}
\forall i\in[n] , j\in[m]: {\left(Ay^{(t)} / {\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 \right)}_i - {\left(A^Tx^{(t)} / {\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 \right)}_j \leq \frac{\ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta^{(t)}}\right)+3\sum_{\tau=1}^t {\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)}^2 }{\sum_{\tau=1}^t \eta^{(t)}}.$$
Until now every step works for both choices of $\eta^{(t)}$. First we finish the proof of the infinitely running version of the algorithm, where we choose $\delta^{(t)}:=\frac{\delta}{2t^2}$. Using the bounds $\sum_{\tau=1}^t {\left(\eta^{(t)}\right)}^2 = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{\tau=1}^t \frac{1}{\tau} \leq \frac{\ln(t)+1}{4}$ and $\sum_{\tau=1}^t \eta^{(t)} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\tau=1}^t \sqrt{\frac{1}{\tau}} \geq \sqrt{t}/2$ we find that, with probability at least $1-\frac{\delta}{2t^2}$, we have for : $$\begin{aligned}
\forall i\in[n] , j\in[m]:{\left(Ay^{(t)} / {\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1\right)}_i-{\left(A^Tx^{(t)} / {\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 \right)}_j
&\leq \frac{\ln( 2\delta^{-1} t^2 nm )+(\ln(t)+1)}{\sqrt{t}/2} \\
&\leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{t}} \cdot\left(3\ln(t) + \ln(nm) + \ln(1/\delta) + 2\right).\end{aligned}$$
Taking the union bound over the error probabilities we have that the total error probability over all iterations is less than $\sum_{t\in \mathbb{N}} \frac{\delta}{2t^2} = \frac{\delta}{2} \cdot \frac{\pi^2}{6} \leq \delta$.
Now we finish the analysis of the fixed-error version of the algorithm choosing $\eta^{(t)}:={\varepsilon}/4$ and $\delta^{(t)}:=\delta$. We can then, with probability at least $1-\delta$, bound as $$\begin{aligned}
\forall i\in[n] , j\in[m]:{\left(Ay^{(t)} / {\left\lVerty^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 \right)}_i - {\left(A^Tx^{(t)} / {\left\lVertx^{(t)}\right\rVert}_1 \right)}_j
&\leq \frac{\ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)+3t{\varepsilon}^2/16 }{t{\varepsilon}/4}=\frac{3}{4}{\varepsilon}+ \frac{4\ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)}{t{\varepsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$ For $t\geq \frac{16\ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)}{{\varepsilon}^2}$ this can be further upper bounded by ${\varepsilon}$.
Once we get the solutions we can estimate the value of the game by simply playing the games with the corresponding randomized strategies. Since in each run the game has bounded value, by Chernoff’s bound we get the following:
Given a pair of strategies $x,y$, let us take $k={\mathcal{O}\left( 1/{\varepsilon}^2 \right)}$ independent samples $i_1,\ldots,i_k$ from $x$ and similarly $j_1,\ldots,j_k$ from $y$. Then with high probability $\sum_{\ell=1}^k A_{i_\ell,j_\ell}/k$ is an ${\varepsilon}$-approximate estimate of the value of the game corresponding to these strategies.
This clearly shows that obtaining the approximate solutions via Algorithm \[alg:main\] dominates the complexity of approximately computing the corresponding value.
When access to $A$ is given by an oracle which can be queried for any matrix element of $A$, then the following lemma gives a bound on the cost of the algorithm.
\[lemma:DenseClassical\] Algorithm \[alg:main\] can be implemented to find an ${\varepsilon}$-optimal pair of solutions on a classical randomized computer with probability at least $1-\delta$ in $\frac{16}{{\varepsilon}^2} \ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)$ iterations, using ${\mathcal{O}\left( n+m \right)}$ time per iteration and $n+m$ queries to the entries of $A$.
The iteration bound follows from Lemma \[lem:correctness\]. In the rest of the proof we drop the $(t)$ subscript for ease of notation. Since in each iteration only one entry of $x$ changes, the change in $u$ can be computed using $m$ queries. It then requires ${\mathcal{O}\left( m \right)}$ work to compute $P$ and $p$. In the same amount of time the cumulative distribution corresponding to $p$ can be calculated. By generating a random number between $0$ and $1$ up to high precision and performing binary search on the cumulative distribution we can sample $a$ from $p$. A similar approach works for $y$, $v$, $Q$, $q$ and $b$.
When $A$ is given by a *sparse oracle* which also allows querying for any $j$ the location of the $j$-th non-zero entry in each row and column, then a further speedup is possible.
\[lemma:SparseClassical\] Let $s$ be the maximum number of non-zero entries in a row, and $d$ the maximum number of non-zero entries in a column of $A$. Algorithm \[alg:main\] can be used to find an ${\varepsilon}$-optimal pair of solutions on a classical randomized computer with probability at least $1-\delta$ in $\frac{16}{{\varepsilon}^2} \ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)$ iterations, ${\mathcal{O}\left( s\ln(m) +d\ln(n) \right)}$ time per iteration and $s+d$ queries to a sparse oracle for $A$.
The iteration bound follows from Lemma \[lem:correctness\]. In the rest of the proof we drop the $(t)$ subscript for ease of notation. Now, since there is a sparse oracle for the rows of $A$, the change in $u$ can be computed using $s$ queries and ${\mathcal{O}\left( s\ln(m) \right)}$ time. Hence, also the multiplicative change in $P$ can be calculated in ${\mathcal{O}\left( s\ln(m) \right)}$ time.
Now, instead of keeping $P$ as a list, we keep it as a tree with the sum of the branches stored at each leaf, see Figure \[fig:tree\] for an example. Now, updating one leaf can be done by walking the tree upward and changing each node as required, which takes ${\mathcal{O}\left( \ln(m) \right)}$ time. Hence, $P$ can be updated in $s\ln(m)$ time. Given a tree structure for the vector $P$, sampling from $P/{\left\lVertP\right\rVert}$ can easily be implemented: walk down the tree, going left or right with probabilities proportional to the node values. Finally we note that there is no need to initialize a full-sized empty tree, the tree can be built during the run of the algorithm.
A similar approach works for $y$, $v$, $Q$, $q$ and $b$ and the lemma statement follows.
\] child [ node [3]{} child [ node [1]{} ]{} child [ node [2]{} ]{} ]{} child [ node [7]{} child [ node [3]{} ]{} child [ node [4]{} ]{} ]{};
Quantum implementation of the algorithm {#sec:quantum}
=======================================
In the quantum case we aim at a sublinear-time algorithm in $m$ and $n$, which strictly speaking cannot even read through a single column or row of $A$. For this we need to assume that we can make quantum queries[^5] to the oracles describing $A$. Also observe that the algorithm always maintains $x^{(t)}$ and $y^{(t)}$ that have at most $t$ non-zero elements. Therefore we can efficiently store $x^{(t)}$ and $y^{(t)}$ during the algorithm and we will only work implicitly with the non-sparse vectors $v,u,p$ and $q$. We store $x^{(t)}$ in a tree-like data structure in QCRAM, similar to the structure discussed at the end of the last section, see in Figure \[fig:tree\]. This enables us to query elements of $x$ and sample from $i\in [n]$ with probability $\frac{x_i}{{\left\lVertx\right\rVert}_1}$, both in time ${\mathcal{O}\left( \log(n) \right)}$. Moreover, it enables the preparation of the quantum state $\sum_{i\in[n]}\sqrt{x_i/{\left\lVertx\right\rVert}_1}{|i\rangle}$ in time ${\mathcal{O}\left( \log(n) \right)}$, as discussed in [@grover2002SuperposEffIntegrProbDistr; @kerenidis2016QRecSys]. Implementing one iteration of Algorithm \[alg:main\] essentially boils down to efficient Gibbs-sampling, i.e., implementing sampling from the distribution $\bm{e}^{x^T A}/{\lVert \bm{e}^{x^T A}\rVert}_1$.
\[def:Gibbs\] For a vector $v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ let $\bm{e}^v$ denote the vector whose $i$-th coordinate is $\bm{e}^{v_i}$. Then $G(v):=\frac{\bm{e}^v}{{\left\lVert\bm{e}^v\right\rVert}_1}$ denotes the *Gibbs distribution* corresponding to $v$.
First we broadly describe the classical analogue of the quantum process used in Sections \[subsec:qdense\]. Following this we will state a few useful technical results in Section \[subsec:technical\] and then in Sections \[subsec:qdense\]-\[subsec:qsparse\] we finally show how to implement the process quadratically more efficiently on a quantum computer.
We will focus on the $t$-th iteration of Algorithm \[alg:main\]. We assume that $x^{(t)}$ is $t$-sparse and is stored in the tree data structure, our goal is to sample from $G(x^TA)$. Since $x$ is $t$-sparse we can compute a single element of $u = x^TA$ using ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(t\right)}$ steps. Since we have a procedure to calculate $u_j$, we can find the maximal element $u_j$ using ${\mathcal{O}\left( m \right)}$ calls to this procedure. Call this maximum $u_{\max}$. We will sample from $G(x^T A - u_{\max}e) = G(x^TA)$ since this allows us to use that $\bm{e}^{u_j - u_{\max}}\leq 1$ for all $j$. To do this sampling we will use rejection sampling: sample $j\in [m]$ uniformly at random, then with probability $\bm{e}^{u_j - u_{\max}}$ output $j$ and with probability $1-\bm{e}^{u_j - u_{\max}}$ output $\bot$. If we would post-select on the outcome not being $\bot$, then we would have sampled from $G(x^T A - u_{\max}e) = G(x^TA)$. Hence we repeat this procedure an expected ${\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{m \bm{e}^{u_{\max}}}{\sum_{j=1}^m \bm{e}^{u_j}} \right)} \leq {\mathcal{O}\left( m \right)}$ times until we get an output other than $\bot$, resulting in complexity ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(mt\right)}$.
All the steps described above have quadratically faster quantum counterparts. Estimating a single value $u_j$ can be done via amplitude estimation, finding the maximum can be achieved using the maximum-finding algorithm by Dürr and Hoyer [@durr1996QMinimumFinding] and rejection sampling can be done in ${\mathcal{O}\left( \sqrt{m} \right)}$ steps via amplitude amplification.
Technical Lemmas {#subsec:technical}
----------------
In order to describe our quantum algorithms succinctly we introduce some technical results about block-encodings. A unitary $U$ is an $a$-qubit block-encoding of $A$ if the top-left block of the unitary $U$ is $A$: $$A= \left({\langle0|}^{\otimes a}\otimes I\right) U \left({|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}\otimes I\right)\Longleftrightarrow U= \left[\begin{array}{cc} A & .
\\ .
& .
\end{array}\right].$$ One can think of this as a probabilistic implementation of the linear transformation $A$: given an input state ${|\psi\rangle}$, applying the unitary $U$ to the state ${|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}{|\psi\rangle}$, measuring the first $a$-qubit register and post-selecting on the ${|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}$ outcome, we get a state $\propto A{|\psi\rangle}$ in the second register. We will often just say that we apply the matrix $A$ to a quantum state ${|\psi\rangle}$ by which we mean that we take the state ${|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}{|\psi\rangle}$, where ${|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}$ are fresh ancilla qubits, and we apply the block-encoding $U$ to the state ${|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}{|\psi\rangle}$, and treat the ancilla states ${|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}$ as an indicator of success. For simplicity we will denote ${|0\rangle}^{\otimes a}$ by ${|\bar{0}\rangle}$, and in all our applications we will have $a={\mathcal{O}\left( \log(m+n) \right)}$. We will use the following result about transforming eigenvalues of block-encodings [@low2017HamSimUnifAmp; @gilyen2018QSingValTransf]:
\[thm:polyTransf\] Suppose that $U$ is an $a$-qubit block-encoding of a Hermitian matrix $A$, and $P\in{\mathbb{R}}[x]$ is a degree-$d$ polynomial satisfying that
1. for all $x\in[-1,1]\colon$ $|P(x)|\leq \frac12$, or \[it:noParity\]
2. for all $x\in[-1,1]\colon$ $|P(x)|\leq 1$ and $|P(x)|=|P(-x)|$.
Then there is a quantum circuit $\tilde{U}$, which is an $(a+2)$-qubit block-encoding of $P(A)$, and which consists of $d$ applications of $U$ and $U^\dagger$, (and in case \[it:noParity\] a single application of controlled-$U^{\pm1}$) and ${\mathcal{O}\left( (a+1)d \right)}$ other one- and two-qubit gates.[^6]
Finally we invoke some polynomial approximation results which are explicitly or implicitly proven in [@gilyen2018QSingValTransf].
\[lem:polyApx\] Let $\beta\geq 1$, $\xi\leq 1/2$ and $t\in[0,1-\frac{1}{\beta}]$. There exist polynomials $\tilde{P},\tilde{Q},\tilde{R}$ such that
- $\forall x\in[-1,1]\colon|\tilde{P}(x)|\leq \frac12$ and for all $x\in[-1,0]\colon$ $|\tilde{P}(x)-\bm{e}^{\beta x}/4|\leq \xi$,
- $\forall x\in[-1,1]\colon |\tilde{Q}(x)|=|\tilde{Q}(-x)|\leq 1$, $\forall x\in [0,t]\colon |\tilde{Q}(x)|\leq\xi$, $\forall x\in [t+\frac{1}{\beta},1]\colon \tilde{Q}(x)\geq1-\xi$,
- $\forall x\in[-1,1]\colon |\tilde{R}(x)|=|\tilde{R}(-x)|\leq 1$, and $\forall x\in [\frac{1}{2\beta},1]\colon |\tilde{R}(x)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\beta x}}|\leq\xi$,
moreover $\deg(\tilde{P})$, $\deg(\tilde{Q})$, $\deg(\tilde{R})= {\mathcal{O}\left( \beta\log(1/\xi) \right)}$.
Dense matrices {#subsec:qdense}
--------------
\[lem:GibbsDense\] Suppose that $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is stored in a data structure as in Figure \[fig:tree\], such that[^7] ${\left\lVertx\right\rVert}_1\leq \beta$ for some $\beta\geq 1$. If we have quantum query access to the matrix elements of $A\in [-1,1]^{n\times m}$, then we can sample from a distribution that is $\delta$-close to $G(x^T A)$ in total variation distance, in query and time complexity ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\sqrt{m}\right)}$ on a quantum computer with QCRAM.
Using the tree data structure we can implement a unitary in time ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1\right)}$ that acts as $$\begin{aligned}
{|0\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}
&\mapsto {|0\rangle}\sum_{i\in[n]}\sqrt{x_i/\beta}{|i\rangle} + {|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where ${|\mathrm{garbage}\rangle}$ is some subnormalized quantum state on a (possibly multi-qubit) register. Similarly, with a single additional query we can implement the unitary $V$ acting as[^8] $$\begin{aligned}
V \colon {|0\rangle}{|0\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}{|j\rangle}
&\mapsto {|0\rangle}\left({|0\rangle}\sum_{i\in[n]}\sqrt{x_i A_{ij}/\beta}{|i\rangle} + {|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}'\rangle}\right){|j\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where the third and fourth registers have ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1\right)}$-qubits. Let $\mathrm{SWAP}_{12}$ be the gate that swaps the first two qubits. Now observe that for $U:=V^\dagger \left(\mathrm{SWAP}_{12}\otimes I \right)V$ we have $$({\langle00\bar{0}|}\otimes I)U({|00\bar{0}\rangle}\otimes I)={\mathrm{diag}}(x^T A/\beta),$$ i.e., $U$ is a block-encoding of the Hermitian matrix ${\mathrm{diag}}(x^T A/\beta)$. We can estimate the value of $u_j=\sum_{i\in[n]}x_i A_{ij}$ to additive error say $1/2$ with ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\right)}$ uses of $U$ and $U^{-1}$ by amplitude estimation [@brassard2002AmpAndEst]. Therefore, with $u_{\max}:=\max_{j\in[m]}u_{j}$, we can also find a constant additive approximation $\tilde{u}_{\max}\in[u_{\max},u_{\max}+1]$ in time ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\sqrt{m}\right)}$ with high probability using generalized quantum minimum/maximum-finding [@apeldoorn2017QSDPSolvers]. We can boost the success probability to $1-\frac{\delta}{3}$ by ${\mathcal{O}\left( \log(1/\delta) \right)}$ repetitions. Using simple block-encoding techniques [@gilyen2018QSingValTransf] we can then also implement $U'$, a block-encoding of $M := {\mathrm{diag}}(x^T A - \tilde{u}_{\max} e)/(2\beta)$, with a constant overhead.
Now we are ready to implement the rejection sampling. We first prepare the uniform superposition $\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sum_{j\in[m]}{|j\rangle}$. Then ideally we would like to apply the map $$\begin{aligned}
{|0\rangle}{|j\rangle} &\mapsto
\sqrt{\bm{e}^{u_j-\tilde{u}_{\max}}}{|0\rangle}{|j\rangle}+{|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}''\rangle}\\
&= {|0\rangle}\bm{e}^{\beta \frac{ {\mathrm{diag}}( x^T A - \tilde{u}_{\max} e) }{2\beta}}{|j\rangle}+{|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}''\rangle}.\\
&= {|0\rangle} \bm{e}^{\beta M} {|j\rangle} + {|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}''\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ to this uniform superposition.
We implement a good approximation of the above by replacing the function $\bm{e}^{\beta z}/4$ with an approximating polynomial $\tilde{P}(z)$, and then using eigenvalue transformation Theorem \[thm:polyTransf\]. For this we use an approximation polynomial $\tilde{P}(z)$ as in Lemma \[lem:polyApx\], with $\xi=\frac{\delta}{12em}$. We can then implement the map $${|0\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}{|j\rangle}\mapsto {|0\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}\tilde{P}\left({\mathrm{diag}}(x^T A - \tilde{u}_{\max}e)/ 2\beta\right){|j\rangle}/4+{|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}'''\rangle},$$ using ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\deg(\tilde{P})\right)}={\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\log(1/\delta)\right)}$ steps as shown by Theorem \[thm:polyTransf\].
Finally, we obtain a sample with probability at least $1-\frac{\delta}{9}$ using ${\mathcal{O}\left( \sqrt{m}\log(1/\delta) \right)}$ rounds of amplitude amplification. Note that due to the $\delta/(12em)$ accuracy, we sample from a distribution ${\mathcal{O}\left( \delta \right)}$-close to $G(x^T A)$ in total variation distance.
\[thm:DenseQuantum\] Algorithm \[alg:main\] can be used to find an ${\varepsilon}$-optimal pair of solutions with probability at least $1-\delta$ in $\frac{16}{{\varepsilon}^2} \ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)$ iterations. On a quantum computer with QCRAM the $t$-th iteration can be implemented in ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left((1+t{\varepsilon})\sqrt{n+m}\right)}$ time and the same number of quantum queries to the entries of $A$, leading to a total time $\&$ query complexity of ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{n+m} / {\varepsilon}^3\right)}$.
This follows from Lemma \[lem:correctness\] and Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\], by setting the additive error to ${\mathcal{O}\left( {\varepsilon}^2\delta/\ln(nm/\delta) \right)}$ in the latter.
Sparse matrices {#subsec:qsparse}
---------------
Now we describe our result for the case when $A$ has sparse rows and columns. We state the result with $s$ denoting an upper bound on the sparsity of both the rows and the columns. Note that if separate bounds are known for each, then $s$ is simply the maximum of the two bounds.
\[lem:GibbsSparse\] Suppose $x\in {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}^n$ has at most $t$ non-zero entries and is stored in a data structure as in Figure \[fig:tree\], and ${\left\lVertx\right\rVert}_1\leq \beta$ for $\beta\geq 1$. If we have quantum query access to a sparse oracle of $A\in [-1,1]^{n\times m}$ having $s$-sparse rows and columns, then we can sample from a distribution that is $\delta$-close to $G(x^T A)$ in total variation distance, in query and time complexity ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta^\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{s}\right)}$ on a quantum computer with QCRAM.
We can assume without loss of generality that $\beta s\leq m/4$, otherwise the statement follows from Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\]. Let us define $w\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$ by $w_j:=\sum_{i\in[n]}x_i |A_{ij}|\geq u_j$. The main idea is the following: we can implement Gibbs sampling efficiently for $j$’s where $w_j\leq 1$, this is because $w_j\leq 1$ for at least half of the $j$’s (as $\sum_{j\in[m]}w_j\leq \beta s \leq m/2$), this implies that for these $j$ we have $|u_j|\leq 1$ and hence the distribution $G(u)$ is quite uniform on these positions. On the other hand Gibbs sampling $j$’s for which $w_j\geq 1/2$ is also easy, this is because we can find such $j$’s efficiently by first sampling an $i$ with probability $x_i/\beta$ and then sampling a $j$ with probability $\frac{|A_{ij}|}{s}$. Since the two regimes cover every $j \in [m]$ we can Gibbs sample a $j$ by combining the two sampling procedures, in a similar fashion to [@brandao2017QSDPSpeedupsLearning; @apeldoorn2018ImprovedQSDPSolving]. Hence the proof is structured as follows: first we show how to approximate $u_{\max}$ to constant additive error, then we show how to distinguish the two regimes. Following this we show how to handle the small $w_j$’s and then the large $w_j$’s. We conclude by showing how to apply these procedures together.
To approximate $u_{\max}$ recall that using the tree data structure, as in Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\], we can implement a block-encoding $U$ of ${\mathrm{diag}}(x^T A/\beta)$ with a single query to $A$ in time ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1\right)}$. We can estimate the value of $u_j=\sum_{i\in[n]}x_i A_{ij}$ to additive error $1/2$ with ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\right)}$ uses of $U$. As in Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\] we use the tree data structure to implement a unitary acting as $$\begin{aligned}
{|0\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}
&\mapsto {|0\rangle}\sum_{i\in[n]}\sqrt{x_i/\beta}{|i\rangle} + {|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}\rangle}.
\end{aligned}$$ in time ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1\right)}$. With a single additional query, we can implement a unitary acting as $$\begin{aligned}
{|0\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}
&\mapsto {|0\rangle}\sum_{i\in[n]}\sum_{j\colon A_{ij}\neq 0}\sqrt{x_i |A_{ij}|/(\beta s)}{|i\rangle}{|j\rangle} + {|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage}'\rangle},
\end{aligned}$$ We will call the resulting state ${|\psi\rangle}$. Now, we only need to approximate the maximum $u_{\max}$ if it is larger than $1$, otherwise we just set $\tilde{u}_{\max} = 1$, hence we start by assuming that it is greater than $1$. Observe that if $u_{j}> 1$, then $\left({|0\rangle\! \langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes{|j\rangle\! \langle j|}\right){|\psi\rangle}$ has squared norm $w_j/(\beta s)\geq u_j/(\beta s)> 1/(\beta s)$. This means that the probability of getting outcome ${|0\rangle}$ in the first register and ${|j\rangle}$ in the last register when measuring ${|\psi\rangle}$ is at least $1/(\beta s)$. We can find a constant additive approximation $\tilde{u}_{\max}\in[u_{\max},u_{\max}+1]$ of the maximum value by using generalized quantum minimum/maximum-finding [@apeldoorn2017QSDPSolvers] with ${|\psi\rangle}$ as the initial superposition over $j$’s and by estimating $u_j$ using $U$. Thus in total it takes time ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta^{\frac{3}{2}} \sqrt{s}\right)}$ to find a constant approximation of the maximum with high probability, and as in Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\] we can boost the success probability to $1-\delta/3$ with ${\mathcal{O}\left( \log(1/\delta) \right)}$ repetitions. If all $u_j$ are less than $1$, then the algorithm will return an estimate $\tilde{u}_{\max}$ that is less than $1$ and hence we can detect this.
Now to distinguish the two cases for $w_j$, consider the unitary $W$ that acts as $$\begin{aligned}
W\colon {|0\rangle}{|0\rangle}{|\bar{0}\rangle}{|j\rangle}
&\mapsto {|0\rangle}\left({|0\rangle}\sum_{i\in[n]}\sqrt{x_i|A_{ij}|/\beta}{|i\rangle} + {|1\rangle}{|\mathrm{garbage''}\rangle}\right){|j\rangle},
\end{aligned}$$ which can be implemented using two queries and ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1\right)}$ gates. Observe that the unitary $V:=W^\dagger(\mathrm{SWAP}_{12}\otimes I\otimes I)W$ is a block-encoding of the Hermitian matrix ${\mathrm{diag}}(w/\beta)$. Let $\xi$ be a precision parameter that will be set later. Using Lemma \[lem:polyApx\] and Theorem \[thm:polyTransf\] we can implement a unitary $V'$ that is a block-encoding of ${\mathrm{diag}}(\tilde{ Q}(w))$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{ Q}(w_j)^2\in \begin{cases}
[0,\xi/2], & \text{if } w_j\leq \frac{1}{2} \\
[1-\xi/2,1] & \text{if } w_j\geq 1,
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ using[^9] ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\log(1/\xi)\right)}$ time and queries. Now there is a $Q\colon [0,\beta]\to [0,1]$ such that $\tilde{Q}^2$ is an additive $\frac{\xi}{2}$-approximation of the function $\tilde{Q}^2$, $Q$ is zero on $[0,1/2]$, and $Q$ is $1$ on $[1,\beta]$. $Q$ should be thought of as the “idealized” version of $\tilde{Q}$.
To Gibbs sample for the small $w_j$, consider the following procedure. First prepare a maximally entangled state $\sum_{j\in[m]}\frac{{|j\rangle}{|j\rangle}}{\sqrt{m}}$ and apply $V'$ to the first register (and to some ancilla qubits) and set a flag to indicate success if the ancilla state *does not remain* as ${|\bar{0}\rangle}$, so that the amplitude of $j$ decreases by a factor $\sqrt{1-\tilde{Q}^2(w_j)}$. The flag signifies the part of the maximally entangled state that corresponds to the small $w_j$. Then, using some fresh ancilla qubits ${|\bar{0}\rangle}$, apply the map $\bm{e}^{\frac{u_j-1}{2}}/4$ to the state ${|j\rangle}$ in the second register indicating “success” with a second flag qubit, apply this so that the additive error guarantee is $\frac{\xi}{6}$ if $u_j\leq 1$. This can be done in ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\log(1/\xi)\right)}$ time and queries similarly to Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\]. The probability of measuring the success flag and seeing ${|j\rangle}$ in the second register is $\xi$-close to $(1-Q^2(w_j))\bm{e}^{u_j}/(16e m)$. Summing this over all $j$ amounts to an overall success probability of $\Omega(1)$ for this “partial” rejection sampling procedure, because $|u_j|\leq w_j\leq 1/2$ for at least half of the indices $j\in [m]$.
Now to Gibbs sample for the large $w_j$’s we consider another procedure: prepare the state ${|\psi\rangle}$ and consider the first qubit being in the ${|0\rangle}$ state as “success”. As before we apply $V'$ to the first register (and some ancilla qubits) but now we set a flag to indicate success if the ancilla state *remains* ${|\bar{0}\rangle}$, so that the amplitude of $j$ decreases by a factor $\tilde{Q}(w_j)$. Now we would like to apply $\bm{e}^{(u_j-\tilde{u}_{\max})/2} / 8\sqrt{w_j} $, we do so in two steps. First we apply the map $\bm{e}^{(u_j-\tilde{u}_{\max})/2}/4$ to the state ${|j\rangle}$ in the last register with a additive error that is ${\mathcal{O}\left( \xi \right)}$ using ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\log(1/\xi)\right)}$ time and queries. We indicate success with a second flag qubit, similarly to Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\]. Then we apply a block-encoding $V''$ of ${\mathrm{diag}}(\tilde{R}(w))$ to the last register, where $|\tilde{R}(w_j)-1/\sqrt{4w_j}|={\mathcal{O}\left( \xi \right)}$ for all $w_j\geq 1/2$, with the help of Lemma \[lem:polyApx\] and Theorem \[thm:polyTransf\]. This will take^\[foot:QSVT\]^ ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\log(1/\xi)\right)}$ time and queries. We set a fourth success flag qubit if we retain the ${|\bar{0}\rangle}$ ancilla state. The probability that we see all the flags indicating success and that we get measurement outcome ${|j\rangle}$ in the last register upon measuring the final state, is $\xi$-close to $ Q^2(w_j)\bm{e}^{u_j-\tilde{u}_{\max}}/(64 \beta s)$, which amounts to an overall success probability of $\Omega(\frac{1}{\beta s})$ for this “partial” rejection sampling procedure.
Finally, notice that the two resulting partial Gibbs states are subnormalized in different ways. Let us define $N := 16em + 64 \beta s\bm{e}^{\tilde{u}_{\max}}$. We sample a $j$ from the full distribution in the following way: with probability $\frac{16em}{N}$ sample $j$ using the first procedure, and with probability $\frac{64 \beta s\bm{e}^{\tilde{u}_{\max}}}{N}$ sample $j$ using the second procedure. Since both procedures have total success probability $\Omega(\frac{1}{\beta s})$ the success probability of the final algorithm is also $\Omega(\frac{1}{\beta s})$. Therefore we can rejection sample a $j$ with ${\mathcal{O}\left( \sqrt{\beta s} \right)}$ rounds of amplitude amplification with high probability, and can boost the success probability to $1-\delta/9$ by ${\mathcal{O}\left( \log(1/\delta) \right)}$ repetitions. If we set $\xi={\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{\delta}{m\beta s} \right)}={\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{\delta}{m^2} \right)}$, then the distribution will be $\delta$ close to the true Gibbs distribution. The complexity of each rejection sampling round is ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\beta\log(m/\xi)\right)}$, which leads to the final complexity statement.
\[thm:SparseQuantum\] Algorithm \[alg:main\] can be used to find an ${\varepsilon}$-optimal pair of solutions with probability at least $1-\delta$ in $\frac{16}{{\varepsilon}^2} \ln\left(\frac{nm}{\delta}\right)$ iterations. On a quantum computer with QCRAM the $t$-th iteration can be implemented in ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left((1+t{\varepsilon})^\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{s}\right)}$ time and the same number of quantum queries to a sparse oracle of $A$ with $s$-sparse rows and columns, giving a total time $\&$ query complexity ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{s} / {\varepsilon}^{3.5}\right)}$.
This follows from Lemma \[lem:correctness\] and Lemma \[lem:GibbsDense\], by setting the additive error to ${\mathcal{O}\left( {\varepsilon}^2\delta/\ln(nm/\delta) \right)}$ in the latter.
Reduction of general LP-solving to zero-sum games {#sec:reduction}
=================================================
In this section we will reduce general LPs to zero-sum games to obtain a faster quantum algorithm for LP-solving. A similar argument can be found in for example [@carmon2019Rank1Sketch]. We consider an LP in the following standard form: $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{y\in {\mathbb{R}}^m} \ \ \ &b^Ty\nonumber\\
s.t.
\ \ \ & Ay \leq c\label{eq:generalLPprimal}\\
& \phantom{A}y\geq 0, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ -3mm which gives rise to the dual LP -7mm $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n} \ \ \ &c^Tx\nonumber\\
s.t.
\ \ \ & A^Tx \geq b\label{eq:generalLPdual}\\
& \phantom{A^T}x\geq 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We assume without loss of generality that all entries of $A$, $c$ and $b$ are in $[-1,1]$. Furthermore, we assume a constant $R$ is known such that adding the constraint $\sum_{i=1}^m y_i \leq R$ to the primal will not change the optimal value of the primal. Similarly, we assume a constant $r$ is known such that adding the constraint $\sum_{j=1}^n x_j \leq r$ to the dual will not change the optimal value of the dual. This implies that strong duality holds and the two optimal values coincide, so we will write ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}$ for this value. Moreover, we can assume without loss of generality that $|c_i|\leq R$ for all $i\in [n]$, otherwise we could remove the constraint without changing the value of ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}$. Finally, let $s$ denote a bound on the row and column sparsity of $A$, as well as on the sparsity of $b$ and $c$. Our reduction will consist of the following steps:
1. Reduce an optimization problem to feasibility using binary search.
2. Scale the problem such that the solutions will be in the simplex.
3. Reduce to a problem where all right-hand sides of the inequality constrains are $0$.
4. Reduce to a zero-sum game.
#### Reduction to feasibility.
Note that $-R \leq {\mbox{\rm OPT}}\leq R$, because ${\left\lVertb\right\rVert}_\infty\leq1$ and there is an optimal solution with ${\left\lVerty\right\rVert}_1\leq R$. Hence, if we can answer questions of the type “is ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}>\alpha$ or ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}\leq \alpha+{\varepsilon}$” then we can use $\log(R/{\varepsilon})$ iterations of binary search to determine ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}$ up to additive error ${\varepsilon}$. To answer questions of this form we add $c^Ty \geq \alpha$ as a constraint and ask whether there is a feasible $y$. That is, we want to know whether there is no $y$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
-b^Ty &\leq -\alpha\\
Ay &\leq c\\
\sum_i y_i &\leq R\\
y &\geq 0\end{aligned}$$ or, [^10] for some fixed ${\varepsilon}'$, there is a $y$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
-b^Ty &\leq -\alpha + {\varepsilon}'\\
Ay &\leq c+ e {\varepsilon}'\\
\sum_i y_i &\leq R\\
y &\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Here we need to be careful with our choice of ${\varepsilon}'$ since relaxing all the constraints by ${\varepsilon}'$ might change the value of $b^Ty$ by as much as ${\varepsilon}'(r+1)$, as we will show in the proof of Lemma \[lem:reduction\]. Hence we pick ${\varepsilon}' = \Theta({\varepsilon}/ (r+1))$.
#### Scale to the simplex.
Note that by dividing all the right-hand sides by $R$ we simply scale down $y$ such that $\sum_i y_i \leq 1$. This, however, does imply that we want a lower additive error: ${\varepsilon}'' = \Theta({\varepsilon}/ (R(r+1)))$. Let us define $y'' := (y,z)^T$ where $z\in {\mathbb{R}}$ is a new variable. Then we obtain the new feasibility problem $$\begin{aligned}
\exists ? y'' \in \Delta^{m+1} \ \ s.t. & \\
A''y'' &\leq c''\end{aligned}$$ where $$A''= \left(\begin{array}{rr}
-b^T & 0\\
A & 0
\end{array}\right), \ \ c''= \left(\begin{array}{rr}
-\alpha / R \\
c / R
\end{array}\right)$$
#### Right-hand sides zero.
For the final reduction to a zero-sum game, we want that all right-hand sides are equal to zero. To achieve this we use that $\sum_i y_i'' = 1$. We introduce an extra variable $h$ and add the constraint $\sum_i y_i'' = h$. If we now constrain the new vector $y''' = (y'',h)^T$ into the simplex instead of $y''$ then we find that $\sum_i y_i'' = h = 1/2$. Hence by scaling all the right-hand sides by a factor $1/2$ we will not have changed whether the LP is feasible. But now we have a variable $h$ that is fixed to a constant, so we can shift the inequalities by setting the right-hand side to zero while appropriately changing the coefficient of $h$ on the left-hand side. In particular we get the new feasibility problem $$\begin{aligned}
\exists ? y''' \in \Delta^{m+2} \ \ s.t. & \\
A'''y''' &\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$A'''= \left(\begin{array}{rr}
e^T & -1\\
\!-e^T & 1\\
A'' & -c''\kern-1.7mm
\end{array}\right), \ \ y'''= \left(\begin{array}{ll}
y''\!\! \\
h
\end{array}\right).$$ It suffices to bring down the additive error by a factor of at most two.
#### A zero-sum game.
To construct a zero-sum game as in we simply observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{y'''\in \Delta^{m+2}, \lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}} & \lambda \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \ \ \ & A'''y''' \leq \lambda e\end{aligned}$$ has a value less than ${\varepsilon}'''$ iff there is a point that is ${\varepsilon}'''$-feasible for the last LP.
The final game matrix now is -4mm $$\label{eq:generalgamematrix}
A''' = \left(\begin{array}{rrr}
e^T & 1 & -1\\
-e^T & 1 & 1\\
-b^T & 0 & \alpha/R\\
A & 0 & -c/R
\end{array}\right)$$ Now let us prove that the sketch above indeed gives the desired result.
\[lem:reduction\] Finding the optimal value $\lambda^*$ of the game up to additive error ${\varepsilon}'''={\varepsilon}/ (6R(r+1))$ suffices to correctly conclude either ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}< \alpha$ or ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}\geq \alpha-{\varepsilon}$ for the corresponding LP .
Finding the optimal value $\lambda^*$ of the game up to additive error ${\varepsilon}'''$ will tell us at least one of the following two things:
- $\lambda^* > 0$
- $\lambda^* \leq 2 {\varepsilon}'''$.
First assume we are in the case where $\lambda^* > 0$. In this case there is no $y''' \in \Delta^{m+2}$ such that $$A'''y'''\leq 0.$$ On the other hand if we would have ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}\geq \alpha$, then there would be a $y$ such that $Ay \leq c$, $\sum_i y_i\leq R, y \geq 0$ and $b^Ty\geq \alpha$. Let $\hat{y} = (y/(2R), 1/2-\sum_i y_i / (2R), 1/2)^T$. Then $$A'''\hat{y} = \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ (-b^Ty+\alpha) / (2R) \\ (Ay - c)/ (2R) \end{array}\right) \leq 0$$ which is a contradiction, hence ${\mbox{\rm OPT}}< \alpha$.
Now we treat the other case: if $\lambda^* \leq 2{\varepsilon}'''$ and $y^* = (y,z,h)$ is a strategy with this value, then we find that $$A'''y^* \leq 2 {\varepsilon}'''.$$ This implies that $|h -1/2| \leq {\varepsilon}'''$. Since $-b^T y + h\alpha/R \leq 2{\varepsilon}'''$ we get that $b^T y \geq h\alpha/R - 2{\varepsilon}''' \geq \alpha / (2R) - 2(\alpha/(2R) + 1){\varepsilon}'''$. A similar argument also shows that for all $j\in [n]$ $$(A y)_j \leq c_j/ (2R) + 2(c_j/(2R) + 1){\varepsilon}'''.$$ Let $\hat{y} = 2Ry$, then $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
b^T\hat{y} &\geq \alpha - 2(\alpha+2R) {\varepsilon}''' &\geq \alpha - 6R{\varepsilon}''',\label{eq:erroredopt}\\
A\hat{y} &\leq c + 2(c+2R) {\varepsilon}''' &\leq c + 6R{\varepsilon}'''.\label{eq:erroredconstraints}\end{aligned}$$ Let $x^*$ be an optimal solution for the dual , such that $\sum_i x_i \leq r$. Then by applying weak duality on the relaxed constraints in we find that $$b^T\hat{y} \leq (c+e6R{\varepsilon}''')^Tx^* \leq {\mbox{\rm OPT}}+ 6Rr{\varepsilon}'''$$ and hence by we can conclude $${\mbox{\rm OPT}}\geq \alpha - 6R(r+1){\varepsilon}''' = \alpha - {\varepsilon}. \qedhere$$
Via this reduction we give two new quantum LP-solvers. The first improves the error dependence of quantum LP-solvers to cubic; an LP-solver obtained from a state-of-the-art quantum SDP-solver [@apeldoorn2018ImprovedQSDPSolving] would have a fifth-power error dependence. The second solver is based on our sparse algorithm and is the first quantum LP-solver that depends on the sparsity of the LP instead of on $n$ and $m$.
Given quantum query access to an LP of the form , an ${\varepsilon}$-optimal and ${\varepsilon}$-feasible $y$ can be found with probability $1-\delta$ using either
- ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left((\sqrt{n}+\sqrt{m})\left(\frac{R(r+1)}{{\varepsilon}} \right)^{\!\!3} \right)}$ quantum queries to a dense matrix oracle and the same number of other gates, or
- ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{s}\left(\frac{R(r+1)}{{\varepsilon}} \right)^{\!\!3.5} \right)}$ quantum queries to a sparse matrix oracle and the same number of other gates.
The ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left((\sqrt{n}+\sqrt{m})\left(\frac{R(r+1)}{{\varepsilon}} \right)^3\right)}$ bound follows directly from Lemma \[lem:reduction\] and Lemma \[thm:DenseQuantum\].
For the sparse case let $s$ be the maximum of the sparsity of $A$, $b$ and $c$. Then apart from the first two rows, every row and column of $A'$ is $(s+3)$-sparse. However, the row sparsity only matters in the complexity of the Gibbs-sampling step, in which multiples of the all-one vector can be added to the exponent without changing the Gibbs state. Since the first two rows are the all-one vector plus a $1$-sparse vector, we can treat them as effectively $1$-sparse for the Gibbs sampling step. The stated complexity bound then follows from Lemma \[lem:reduction\] and Lemma \[thm:SparseQuantum\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to Ronald de Wolf for useful comments on the manuscript.
[^1]: Supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, grant number 617.001.351 and partially supported by QuantERA project QuantAlgo 680-91-034.
[^2]: Supported by ERC Consolidator Grant 615307-QPROGRESS and partially supported by QuantERA project QuantAlgo 680-91-034.
[^3]: The authors show that the steps in each iteration can be highly parallelized.
[^4]: The sparsity of an LP should not be confused with the sparsity parameter relevant in SDP solving. An LP that is written as an SDP will have SDP sparsity $1$ since all the matrices involved are diagonal. Our goal here is to get a dependence on the LP sparsity instead of a dependence on $n$ and $m$.
[^5]: A quantum oracle is a unitary that acts analogously to the classical oracle on basis states, but allows making queries in superposition; we also assume access to the inverse of such a unitary. For more details see, e.g., [@berry2012BlackHamSimUnitImp].
[^6]: Given the polynomial $P$ we can compute the gates for implementing an approximate polynomial $\tilde{P}$ such that $|P-\tilde{P}|\leq \xi$ for all $x\in[-1,1]$ in time ${\mathcal{O}\left( d^3{\mbox{\rm polylog}\left(d/\xi\right)} \right)}$ as shown by Haah [@haah2018ProdDecPerFuncQSignPRoc].
[^7]: If ${\left\lVertx\right\rVert}_1\leq 1$ then the Gibbs distribution is very close to uniform so we can Gibbs sample in time ${\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(1\right)}$.
[^8]: In case of a complex matrix entry $A_{ij}$ any consistent choice of $\sqrt{A_{ij}}$ works, e.g., we can set $\sqrt{-1}$ to $\bm{i}$.
[^9]: \[foot:QSVT\]A similar unitary can be implemented with complexity ${\mathcal{O}\left( \sqrt{\beta}\log(1/\xi) \right)}$ by quantum singular value transformation [@gilyen2018QSingValTransf] of $W$, however this operation is not the bottleneck so we do not optimize it heavily.
[^10]: These cases are potentially overlapping. In the intersection we are happy with either conclusion.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'All atmosphere-less planetary bodies are covered with a dust layer, the so-called regolith, which determines the optical, mechanical and thermal properties of their surface. These properties depend on the regolith material, the size distribution of the particles it consists of, and the porosity to which these particles are packed. We performed experiments in parabolic flights to determine the gravity dependency of the packing density of regolith for solid-particle sizes of 60 $\mu$m and 1 mm as well as for 100-250 $\mu$m-sized agglomerates of 1.5 $\mu$m-sized solid grains. We utilized g-levels between 0.7 m s$^{-2}$ and 18 m s$^{-2}$ and completed our measurements with experiments under normal gravity conditions. Based on previous experimental and theoretical literature and supported by our new experiments, we developed an analytical model to calculate the regolith stratification of celestial rocky and icy bodies and estimated the mechanical yields of the regolith under the weight of an astronaut and a spacecraft resting on these objects.'
author:
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rainer Schräpler, Jürgen Blum and Ingo von Borstel</span>'
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Carsten Güttler</span>'
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
title: THE STRATIFICATION OF REGOLITH ON CELESTIAL OBJECTS
---
methods: laboratory — small bodies
INTRODUCTION {#kap:INTRO}
============
@Gary1972 state that “Regolith is a mantle of loose incoherent rocky material of various origins that forms the surface of planetary bodies”. Its size distribution determines the optical, mechanical and thermal properties of these surfaces. On bodies without atmosphere, regolith is formed by high-velocity impacts of interplanetary particles of different sizes. These impacts produce ejecta material with a size and velocity distribution determined by the impactor and target properties. Ejecta with velocities lower than the escape velocity of the target body are reaccreted and, thus, form the regolith on the surface. Laboratory experiments of @Hartmann1985 found ejecta velocities depending on the velocity of the impactor. The experiments of [e.g. @Fujiwara1980; @Nakamura1994] and studies of crater structures on the Moon [@Vickery1986; @Vickery1987] showed that smaller particles are ejected at higher velocities than the larger ejecta. Finally @AsteroidsIII calculated in their chapter III the trajectories and re-accretion of ejected material on small celestial objects depending on its velocity. Therefore, the regolith size distribution should depend on the escape speed and, hence, on the size of the target body. @Gundlach2012 developed a method to correlate the size of the regolith particles with the thermal conductivity of the regolith. Thus, from measurements of the thermal inertia of small objects in the Solar System, their regolith-particle size can be estimated. The regolith filling factor, i.e. the packing density of the regolith particles (or 1 - porosity), enters their calculation as a free parameter. @Gundlach2012 found that objects with a size smaller than 100 km are covered with regolith particles of the size of $\sim$1-10 mm, whereas larger objects carry regolith with particle sizes of 10-100 $\mu$m.
@Skorov2012 model comet nuclei as consisting of macroscopic dust and ice agglomerates. In a recent work, @Blumetal2014 showed that this model can explain the observed continuous activity of comets in the inner Solar System. Inside the comet nucleus, the dust and ice agglomerates are only subjected to the weak gravitational force of the comet, which leads to a stratification of the packing density within a comet nucleus. On celestial objects the regolith is compacted by their gravitational force, which leads to a stratification where the filling factor of the regolith increases with layer depth.
However, the texture (e.g. particle size distribution and packing density) and vertical stratification of regolith is basically unknown for all celestial objects except for the Moon [@LunarSourcebook]. Recently, @Kiuchi2014 related the particle size to the porosity for a variety of celestial objects. However, they used a simplified model in their analysis that implies that the packing density depends only on the ratio of the gravitational force of the contact force of a regolith particle. A result of this simplification is that the packing density of the regolith does not change with depth. If this was true, it would be impossible to compress loosely packed regolith at all. Thus, the results of @Kiuchi2014 are valid for the uppermost layer of the regolith where hydrostatic compression is small.
We will show in this article that stratification of regolith due to hydrostatic compression is important and can be calculated with the relation between pressure and filling factor of the regolith found in our article. With this information, also the yield of objects on the surface of the regolith-covered celestial objects was derived.
For $\mu$m sized grains, this relation is experimentally obtained (see Section \[sect:EXACT\] by compressing the regolith with a piston in a cylinder as shown by @Guettleretal2009. For the 10 $\mu$m grains, we measured the low-pressure part of the compression curve by adding thin layers on a regolith to compress it by its own weight and the high pressure part by compressing the regolith by a piston. For grains larger than 50 $\mu$m, the regolith is compacted to RCP (random close packing, its highest possible filling factor) by its own gravitational force for thicknesses above a few particle layers. We therefore did most of these measurements in the low-gravity environment aboard the Zero-G-plane of the European Space Agency. However, in spite of that, it was only possible to measure the upper 20% of the compression curve (see Section \[sect:Expres\]). It was therefore necessary to develop a model for the full compression curve (see Section \[sect:CE\]) in which only one parameter must be experimentally determined. With this analytical model, we could additionally reproduce the relation between filling factor and grain radius found by @Yangetal2000 at constant $g$ and can show the consistency of our model (see Sect. \[sect:CE\]).
To simulate the stratification of the packing density within a comet nucleus, we additionally used in our experiments 0.1-0.25 mm-sized dust agglomerates consisting of 1.5 $\mu$m-sized mono-disperse and spherical $\rm SiO_2$ grains. We performed our measurements with mono-disperse spherical monomer particles to ease the theoretical approach to our measurements, whereas the particles on celestial objects will most likely be irregular and polydisperse. However, our previous measurements in @BSDR2006 showed that the results will not change dramatically for these particles (see Sect. \[sect:appli\]).
In Section \[sect:EXACT\], we describe our experimental approach and the experimental findings. Section \[sect:CE\] uses the analytical-approximation form of @Guettleretal2009 and the results of @DoTi1995 and @krijtetal2014 to model the observed regolith stratification. In Section \[sect:appli\], we derive filling-factor profiles of the regolith for selected small rocky and icy bodies and estimate the mechanical yield of the regolith under the weight of an astronaut and a spacecraft, resting on these objects. Finally, Section \[kap:COCON\] summarizes our results.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH {#sect:EXACT}
=====================
In this Section, we describe the experimental methods developed and applied for the determination of the pressure-dependent filling factor of regolith and the results we received in parabolic-flight and laboratory experiments.
Particle Samples {#sect:EP}
----------------
As regolith analogs, we used amorphous SiO$_2$ spheres with diameter of 10 $\mu$m, glass spheres with 60 $\mu$m diameter from unknown glass type, spherical soda lime particles with 1 mm diameter, and agglomerates of 1.5 $\mu$m-sized amorphous SiO$_2$ spheres with 100-250 $\mu$m diameter. Fig. \[fig:Histo\] shows the size distributions and microscopic images of these samples.
![\[fig:Histo\] Measured number-fraction histograms of the diameters of the regolith-analog particles (left column) and the corresponding microscopy images of our particle species. The inset in the bottom-right picture shows the constituent 1.5 $\rm \mu m$-sized $\rm SiO_2$ grains of the dust agglomerates.](Fig1.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The experiments were performed at 10$^5$ Pa ambient pressure. Laboratory, microgravity and hypergravity experiments were performed with all samples with the exception of the 10 $\mu$m-sized particles. These particles fluidized under microgravity conditions, due to the ambient gas pressure, and could, thus, not deliver reliable results. For these particles, we only analyzed the experiments conducted in the laboratory. The humidity of the air inside the experiment could increase the contact forces of the particles and therefore decrease their filling factor at a given pressure. To find this influence we did ground experiments for the 10 $\mu$m-sized particles at $10$ Pa gas pressure and at ambient (10$^5$ Pa) air pressure (asterisks and triangles in Fig. \[fig:PPress\]) and found no deviation within our error bars.
Experimental Setup {#sect:ESPL}
------------------
### Parabolic-Flight Experiments {#sect:ESPL_PFE}
Parabolic-flight experiments under reduced and hyper-gravity conditions were performed onboard the ZERO-G Airbus A300 aircraft. Typically, several experimental setups are mounted in the passenger area of the aircraft and are operated by onboard experimentalists during the flights. In one such flight, the aircraft performs up to 31 parabolic and catenary-curve flight maneuvers.
During a parabolic flight maneuver, inertia forces completely cancel Earth’s gravity and the aircraft and all experiments onboard are completely weightless. During a catenary-curve flight maneuver, inertia forces partly cancel Earth’s gravity and the aircraft and all experiments are partly weightless so that the environment of celestial bodies with surface accelerations smaller than on Earth can be simulated.
In the flights described here, the flight maneuvers consisted of 13 catenary curves with Martian (0.38 $g$), 12 with Lunar (0.17 $g$) and 6 parabolas at zero gravity, respectively. Here $g=9.81~\rm m~s^{-2}$ is the surface acceleration on Earth. As the aircraft has to enter and exit the parabolas and catenary curves, a “pull-up” and a “pull-out” maneuver are required before and after each constant-acceleration curve. These maneuvers cause hyper-gravity accelerations from 1.3 $g$ to 2 $g$. We also utilized these hyper-g phases for our experiments.
In the parabolic-flight experiments considered here, four different masses of otherwise identical regolith samples were filled in glass cylinders with an inner diameter of 2.5 cm, with cylinder no. 1 having the highest mass and cylinder no. 4 with the lowest mass, respectively.
Even for the largest (1 mm) particles, only 1% of their contact points are with cylinder walls so that the finite cylinder diameter will influence the measurements only through the Janssen effect [@Janssen1895; @Sperl2005] described below and quantified in Eq. \[eq:jan\]. It should also be noted that the lowermost layer of particles naturally possesses a different filling factor, because of the flat surface of the cylinder base. This boundary effect is relevant for the mm-size particle measurements and was corrected for in the data analysis.
The four glass cylinders were placed in a polycarbonate experimental box and mounted on a linear stage together with a video camera (see Fig. \[fig:Pic\]). The video camera was used to measure the filling height of each of the samples. Caused by the mounting of the cylinders in the polycarbonate box, their bottom was not visible in the field of view of the camera (see Fig. \[fig:Pic\]). Therefore, we calibrated the filling-height by comparing the measurements during the 1 $g$ phases with height measurements on the ground without the box.
During the parabolic flights, we performed two types of experiments.
- Type-1 experiments: The regolith is deagglomerated and homogeneously distributed inside the glass cylinder by a single shake using a succession of an upward 20 $g$ acceleration, a downward -20 $g$ acceleration, and then again an upward 20 $g$ acceleration so that in the end the sample box comes to rest at its starting position. This initial shaking with an amplitude of 20 cm was performed using the electromagnetic linear stage. Thereafter, the regolith particles sedimented in the ambient (log-$g$ or hyper-$g$) acceleration downwards and formed a layer whose filling height could be measured on the video-camera images (see Fig. \[fig:Pic\]). During this sedimentation phase, the residual-acceleration vector in the aircraft is not perfectly directed in vertical direction. Therefore, surfaces of the regolith in the 4 cylinders are slightly tilted (in all 4 cylinders in the approximate same direction and with the same angle). We only used measurements in which the surface was tilted towards the camera so that the full perimeter of the sample surface was visible. We measured the fill height at four points at the cylinder rim, that have a distance of 90 degrees and calculated the mean fill height by averaging over these four measurements. A random deviation of the surface from a perfect plane is a reason for the large error bars in our figures \[fig:DFF\], \[fig:PPress\] and \[fig:PoR\], because an error in the fill height measurements of $\pm$0.3 mm corresponds to an error in $\Phi$ of $\pm$0.1. The error bars of this measurements are found statistically by calculating the mean and standard deviation of different measurements.
The ambient acceleration level is produced by the airplane that performs catenary-curves with Martian, Lunar and hyper-gravity accelerations. As the acceleration level provided by the aircraft varied strongly with time, particularly during the hyper-gravity phases, and as the experiment duration (i.e., shaking plus sedimentation) was always short compared to these variations, we were able to measure the fill heights for about 50 uniformly distributed $g$-levels between $\sim0.3~g$ and $\sim2~g$ during the parabolic-flight campaign. For ease of analysis, we equipped our experiment with an acceleration sensor whose read-out value (in units of $g$) was displayed in the field of view of the video camera (see the LED display in Fig. \[fig:Pic\]).
- Type-2 experiments: These experiments were performed at micro-gravity conditions generated by parabola maneuvers of the airplane. The regolith is deagglomerated and homogeneously distributed inside the glass cylinder as described in the type-1 experiments. In a subsequent second step, the linear stage is very slowly (at 5 cm s$^{-1}$) moved upwards to bring all regolith particles back to the base of the cylinder. In a third step, the linear stage accelerated the experimental box upwards to compress the granular medium at pre-defined constant acceleration levels of 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2 $g$, respectively, over a length of 71 cm, causing acceleration times of 3.7 , 3.1 and 2.7 s, respectively. Naturally, these accelerations were superposed with the residual accelerations of the aircraft, which were in the range of $\pm$ 0.2 $g$. We were able to perform up to three type-2 experiments per parabola. Because the temporal changes of the residual acceleration were long compared to the experimental duration, we again obtained a total of around 40 equally distributed $g$-levels between $\sim0.06~g$ and $\sim 0.3~g$.
![\[fig:Pic\] Top: Schematic drawing of the experimental setup. Bottom: Picture of the experimental box with the four sample cylinders containing regolith from 60 $\mu$m-sized spheres, captured with the video camera. The LED display on the upper left of the image shows the acceleration level inside the airplane.](Fig2.pdf){width=".45\textwidth"}
### Ground Experiments {#sect:LE}
For the experiments exclusively performed in the laboratory under normal-gravity conditions, we successively filled a small mass ${\mbox{d}}m$ of regolith simulant particles in a glass tube with 25 mm diameter and measured the resulting gain in volume, ${\mbox{d}}V$. The ratio ${\mbox{d}}m / {\mbox{d}}V$ is the density of the lowermost level in the glass tube. Repeating this procedure by carefully stratifying additional layers with a spatula resulted in a filling-factor profile along the tube height (type 1 ground experiments).
As it was not possible to perform reduced-gravity experiments for the 10 $\mu$m sized particles during the parabolic flights, we additionally conducted type 2 ground experiments. The difference to the regular (type 1) ground experiments was that we additionally shook the regolith before measuring the fill height to avoid any hysteresis effect. To obtain high pressure data of the 10 $\mu$m sample, we also performed compression measurements as described in @Guettleretal2009 (type 3 ground experiments). We performed these experiments in vacuum at 10 Pa gas pressure (triangles in Fig. \[fig:PPress\]) and at ambient air pressure (10$^5Pa$; asterisks in Fig. \[fig:DFF\]) and found that there is no difference within our error bars.
An advantage of using 10 $\mu$m sized particles over larger grains is that the hydrostatic compression by their own weight is much smaller than the pressure required to compress them to RCP. Therefore, higher hydrostatic pressures were simulated by compressing the regolith with a piston. Thus, we could achieve measurements over a wide range of the compression curve for the 10 $\mu$m sized particles. For the 60 $\mu$m and 1 mm particles, only segments of this curve could be obtained (see Fig. \[fig:PPress\]).
The pressure acting within the regolith bottom layer in the cylinder scales with the fill height $x$ of the cylinders following Janssen’s Equation [@Janssen1895; @Sperl2005] $$\begin{aligned}
p=\frac {m g}{4 K \pi r^2}[1-\mbox{exp}(-4K\frac{x}{2 r})],\label{eq:jan}\end{aligned}$$ where $K=0.2$ [@Janssen1895], $m$, and $r$ are the ratio between the horizontal and vertical components of the stress tensor in the regolith, the mass inside the cylinder at a given fill height $x$, and the radius of the cylinder, respectively. As @Janssen1895 used containers with a square cross section but we employed circular cylinders instead, we substituted the side length by $2 r$.
Experimental Results {#sect:Expres}
--------------------
### Parabolic-Flight Experiments {#sect:PE}
As shown in Sect. \[sect:ESPL\_PFE\], our measurements in the parabolic-flight experiments directly yielded the $g$-dependence of the average filling factor of the regolith in each of the four glass tubes. As these four glass tubes were always filled with the same sample material but to different heights, we used the method depicted in Sect. \[sect:LE\] to derive the height-dependent filling factor. Thus, cylinder 4 with the smallest fill height corresponds to the uppermost layer of the other three cylinders and possesses an average filling factor of $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_4=\frac{m_4}{V_4 \rho_b},\end{aligned}$$ where m$_4$, $V{_4}$, and $ \rho_b$ are the mass and volume of the regolith in cylinder 4, and the density of the regolith bulk material, respectively. The filling factor of the subsequent layers $i=3, 2, 1$ can then be calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_i=\frac{m_{i}-m_{i+1}}{(V_{i}-V_{i+1}) \rho_b},\end{aligned}$$ with $m_i$ and $V_i$ being the mass and volume of cylinder $i$, respectively.
Figs. \[fig:DFF\] shows the resulting filling factors $\Phi_i$ ($i=4, 3, 2, 1$ from top to bottom) of the regolith layers consisting of 60 $\mu$m-sized particles, 1 mm-sized particles, and 100-250 $\mu$m-sized dust agglomerates, respectively, as a function of the ambient acceleration level. The error bars denote the standard derivation among the 10-12 (60 $\mu$m-sized particles), 16-20 (1 mm-sized particles), and 17-21 measurements (100-250 $\mu$m-sized dust agglomerates), respectively.
The graphs for the 60 $\mu$m particles generally show an increase of the filling factor with increasing depth and increasing gravity level, until RCP ($\Phi_{\mathrm{RCP}}$=0.64) is reached. The filling factor for the mm-sized particles is close to RCP for the whole gravity and depth ranges. As the individual measurement errors are very large, it is difficult to recognize a systematic behavior for these particles. The interpretation for this data is easier in Fig. \[fig:PPress\], because there the data of layer depth and gravity level are combined to give a better statistical basis. The dust agglomerates are, however, only compressed to a maximum filling factor of $\Phi = 0.37$ and never get close to RCP.
In all our measurements, the regolith particles adhered in mono-layers to the walls and to the top of the cylinders. However, this considerably affects the resulting filling factors only for the mm-sized particles. We could partly correct for this effect for the 1 mm-sized spheres by counting the (spatially resolved) particles on the walls, but not all surfaces were visible in the camera field of view. For the invisible surfaces, we assumed the same surface coverage of adhered particles as on the visible surfaces. However, we have to bear in mind that this procedure might lead to an overcorrection of the filling factor, because the invisible surfaces were in the upper part of the cylinders and, thus, not necessarily came in contact with the same number of particles.
The effect of adhesion is stronger at low $g$-levels and leads to the artificial decrease (because of the overcorrection described above) of the filling factor for accelerations between $0.1~g$ and $0.3~g$ (see Fig. \[fig:DFF\]), which is visible in the data of the 1 mm-sized particles. These particles also show a boundary effect in cylinder 4, because of the rather small layer thickness of 4 mm and a naturally reduced filling factor in the first particle layer from the cylinder bottom.
It was not possible to use 10 $\mu$m sized particles in the parabolic-flight experiments. The inside of the cylinders were at ambient pressure and an air cushion formed in between the particles. The time available for sedimentation during the experiment was too short for the air to diffuse out of the regolith layers. This effect also led to a systematic reduction of the filling factor for the 60 $\mu$m particle measurements at low pressures.
However, the model described in Section \[sect:CE\] will show that the filling factor only depends on the hydrodynamic pressure inside the regolith. Therefore, in Fig. \[fig:PPress\], we plotted all reduced- and hyper-gravity data points as a function of the respective hydrostatic pressure inside the regolith, using Eq. (\[eq:jan\]), together with the data from the ground experiments (see Sect. \[sect:LES\]).
![\[fig:DFF\] The filling factor $\Phi$ for regolith layers consisting of 60 $\mu$m-sized spheres (left), 1 mm-sized spheres (middle), and 100-250 $\mu$m-sized dust agglomerates (right), respectively, as a function of the ambient acceleration level (in units of $g=9.8$ m s$^{-2}$) at depths of 3 mm, 7 mm, 10 mm and, 14 mm (from top to bottom; left), 2 mm, 5 mm, 9 mm and, 13 mm (middle), and 3 mm, 6 mm, 7 mm and, 10 mm (right), respectively. Each data point in the graph represents the mean of 10 - 12 (left), 16 - 20 (middle), and 17 - 21 (right) individual measurements, respectively, and the error bars denote one standard derivation.](Fig3.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
{width="1.\textwidth"}
### Ground Experiment {#sect:LES}
Microscopically, restructuring and compaction inside a regolith layer takes place, because external forces act against rolling friction on inter-particle contact points [@Yangetal2000]. These forces arise from the ambient pressure inside the regolith and their origin (gravity-driven hydrostatic or external by a piston) is irrelevant. Therefore, the compression of regolith can also be studied with ground-based experiments for pressures exceeding the hydrostatic value. The results of our type 1 ground experiments, as described in Sect. \[sect:LE\], are shown as pluses in Fig. \[fig:PPress\] and were derived by boxcar-averaging of four individual filling-factor measurements as a function of hydrostatic pressure. We chose to use a boxcar-averaging method instead of binning the data points (which was done for the parabolic-flight experiments), because the experiments showed a hysteresis effect, which would have been veiled by the binning method. Between two subsequent measurements in the laboratory, we added a defined mass of particles to the sample (see Sect. \[sect:LE\]).
In the type 2 ground experiments measurements, the regolith was shaken up after a new upper layer had been deposited so that all regolith particles could sediment simultaneously. With this, we got rid of the above-described hysteresis effect and could bin the data for better statistics. These data (only available for the 10 $\mu$ m particles) are shown in Fig. \[fig:PPress\] as triangles (measurements in vacuum) and asterisks (measurements at 10$^5$ Pa air) with error bars. In the type 3 ground experiments, we produced high pressures by compressing the regolith with a piston as described in @Guettleretal2009. The results of these experiments (only for 10 $\mu$ m-particles) are shown as pluses with error bars in Fig. \[fig:PPress\]. Here, each error bar denotes the standard deviation of four different measurements. These measurements start at around 10$^4$ Pa pressure. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:PPress\], slightly increasing pressure does not appreciably compact the regolith. We think that is because the internal friction of our compression apparatus has to be overcome. At around 10$^5$ Pa pressure, the regolith then gets compacted. At 10$^6$ Pa pressure, our measurements terminate, because the limit of our experimental apparatus had been reached.
Fig. \[fig:PPress\] shows a general increase of the filling factor with increasing pressure, but in some intervals of the type 1 ground experiments, the filling factor decreases with increasing pressure. This is due to the fact that a granular medium does not always restructure under the weight of the additional layers, which then leads to a reduction in filling factor. After the additional layers reach a height between 4 mm and 7 mm, corresponding to an additional pressure of 20 to 35 Pa, the regolith suddenly restructures to a higher filling factor. The effect is exaggerated in the data shown in Fig. \[fig:PPress\], because the hysteresis, which takes place over the whole cylinder height, is assigned to only one layer, due to our analysis method. Further evidence to this behavior is visible in the data, which do not show arbitrarily scattered data points but follow an undulating line, which is clearly visible for the agglomerate data at high pressures (pluses in the rightmost panel of Fig. \[fig:PPress\]). For the other particle types, this behavior is only visible when the data points are plotted linearly.
Another issue of the type 1 ground experiments is that after the addition of another particle layer, the sample had to be moved to determine the new mass. Any associated vibrations may have caused restructuring and, thus, may have artificially increased the filling factor of the sample. The data of the mm-sized particles are again affected by the loss of particles, which stick to the walls at low and medium pressures, which increases the measured filling factor. Apart from this, our laboratory data fit well to our parabolic-flight results.
Modeling {#sect:CE}
========
Regolith consisting of solid spherical particles {#sect:RCS}
------------------------------------------------
@Guettleretal2009 used the following empirical description for the pressure dependence of the filling factor of cohesive-particle layers: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\Sigma)=\Phi_2 -\frac{\Phi_2 - \Phi_1}{\exp\left(\frac{\log \Sigma -\log p_m}{\Delta} \right) +1}.\label{eq:gu}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Sigma$ is the pressure and $\Phi_1$, $\Phi_2$, $p_m$, and $\Delta$ are the minimum and maximum filling factor at very low and very high pressures, the turnover pressure and the logarithmic width of the transition from low to high filling factor. The transition width was experimentally found by @Guettleretal2009 to be $\Delta =0.58$ for omni-directional compression. The packing density $\Phi_1$ (Random Ballistic Deposition, RBD) has been measured by @BS2004 which matches results from numerical simulations and corresponds to a coordination number of 2 for spherical monodisperse particles, independent of their radius. RBD means that particles sequentially drop at random positions on a surface and stick where they hit. $\Phi_2$ (Random Close Packing, RCP) is used for spherical monodisperse particles independent of their size and corresponds to a mean coordination number of 6 (Yang et al. 2000). At RCP, a regolith is jammed and cannot be compressed further.
Sliding is not possible either, because sliding forces are very high and the regolith particles will crunch prior to sliding. At a filling factor of $\Phi = 0.15$, the average coordination number of the particles inside the regolith is $2$ [@vandelagemaatetal2001] so that the particles are free to move. Any pressure is transformed into a force at the particle contacts, which is proportional to the particle cross section and the inverse filling factor. With this consideration, the pressure at which the restructuring of the regolith starts, can be calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
p_1 = \frac{F_{roll} \Phi_1}{\pi~r_p^2}. \label{eq:pm}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
F_{roll}=F_0 \left(\frac{r_p}{r_0}\right)^{\frac 23} \label{eq:fro}\end{aligned}$$ [@krijtetal2014]. Here, $r_p$ is the particle radius.
Equation \[eq:pm\] relates the pressure inside the regolith to the force exerted on a single particle inside the regolith that makes it roll over its contact points. To derive this force, we multiplied the ambient pressure inside the regolith by an effective cross section per unit monomer particle. This effective cross section (at a coordination number of 2) is the cross section of a monomer particle divided by the packing density, i.e. the smaller the packing density the higher the force on a single particle contact for a given pressure. In other words, $p_1$ is the maximal pressure a regolith can sustain without restructuring. The material parameter $F_{0}$ at the radius $r_0$ are taken from the measurement of @Heim1999. With the assumption that $\Delta$ is independent of particle size, the ratio $$\begin{aligned}
R=\frac{p_m}{p_1}\label{eq:rpm}\end{aligned}$$ is particle size independent and it is possible to calculate $p_{m}$ from $p_1$ for all particle sizes, $$\begin{aligned}
p_m = \frac{F_{roll} \Phi_1}{\pi~r_p^2} R.\label{eq:rpr}\end{aligned}$$
The measurements by [@Guettleretal2009] show filling factors slightly below $\Phi =0.15$ at low pressures, which implies that their regolith at low pressures included void spaces. Therefore, it is not possible to use $p_1$ from Eq. \[eq:pm\] in this case. For $p_1$ we instead have to use the filling factor $\Phi =0.15$ to assure that the coordination number of the particles is 2. Therefore we take the pressure from the compression curve of [@Guettleretal2009] at $\Phi =0.15$ and associate it with $p_1$.
We assume that the logarithmic transition width $\Delta$ is independent of particle size so that we obtain a constant value of $\Delta = 0.58$ and a constant R for all samples. In a descriptive way, this is the case, because the increasing resistivity against compression at increasing filling factors is due to a reordering of the particles and a corresponding increase of the mean coordination number. The mean coordination number is independent of the particles size and is directly connected to the force chains in a regolith, which are responsible for its resistance to compression. For a proof please compare figure 4 of @Langemaat, which was done for mono-disperse nanometer sized particles with Figure 9 of @Yangetal2000 which is plotted for different sizes (1 $\mu$m to 1000 $\mu$m) depending on porosity. These curves are nearly identical.
To prove the assumption of a constant $\Delta$ and to show the consistency of our model, we plotted our data for a constant ambient pressure $\Sigma$ (calculated from @Yu1997 as described below) as a function of the particle radius (solid curve in Fig. \[fig:PoY\]). This was done by evaluating the relation between $p_m$ and the particle radius through combining Eqs. \[eq:pm\], \[eq:fro\] and \[eq:rpm\], $$\begin{aligned}
p_m(r_p)=F_0\Phi_1 r_0^{-\frac23} \pi^{-1} r_p^{-\frac43}. \label{eq:rpr2}\end{aligned}$$ The parameters of the resulting solid curve in Fig. \[fig:PoY\] are shown in Table \[table:FFP\].
A potential radius dependency of $\Delta$ was realized by multiplying $\Delta$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{r}{r_j}\right)^{0.5}\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{r}{r_j}\right)^{-0.5} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $r_j = 10$ $\mu$m being a scaling parameter. The dotted amsnd dashed curves in Figure \[fig:PoY\]) show the behavior of the filling factor as a function of particle radius for these cases. Both deviations from constant $\Delta$ result in a non-monotonic behavior of the curves, in contradiction to all available measurements and numerical simulations, which are monotonically increasing and do not fit these curves [see, e.g. the data of several authors given in @Yu2004; @Yangetal2000 and the data shown in Figure \[fig:PoY\]]. The measurements by @Yu1997 were performed with irregular particles with a narrow size distribution. Their data are shown as pluses in Fig. \[fig:PoY\]). Their experiments and the corresponding setup are so well described that we could use their measurement results to calculate the pressure. @Yu1997 used the standard method: they filled a truncated cone with an upper diameter of 57 mm, a lower diameter of 44 mm and a height of 70 mm to the rim with their particles and measured their weight. We calculated the mean pressure inside the container for the average mass they filled in for different particle sizes and therefore packing densities. We did this by integrating Equation \[eq:jan\] over the fill height.
@Feng1998 and @Milewski did measurements with spherical particles using the same method. The measurements of @Yu1997 (diamonds in Fig. \[fig:PoY\]) and @Milewski (triangles in Fig. \[fig:PoY\]) fit our calculations properly, which shows that our Eq. \[eq:rpr2\], a constant $\Delta$, a power law for $p_m(r_p)$ as well as the ansatz with a Fermi function is appropriate. The measurements of @Yu1997 show that the power law also holds for irregular particles, and that irregular particles behave like spherical particles that are somewhat smaller. Quantitatively, this means that the corresponding $p_m$ of irregular grains is approximately a factor of 8 larger than for spherical particles so that the curves in Fig. \[fig:PoP\] are shifted by a factor 5 to the right to be valid for irregular particles. With the above considerations, and having in mind that $p_m$ for regolith particles with a wide size distribution has the opposite effect on $p_m$ and nearly cancels the change from spherical to irregular grains (see the discussion in Section \[sect:LOOM\]), this estimates a maximum error of our curves caused by the assumption of spherical particles.
The dotted curve in Fig. \[fig:PoY\] is a best fit taken from @Yu2004 to the measurements with irregular particles from several authors.
![\[fig:PoY\] The dependency of the filling factor $\Phi$ on the particle radius at constant fill height and gravity. Pluses: data from irregular particles with a narrow size distribution [@Yu1997]. Diamonds: data from spherical mono-disperse particles [@Milewski]. Triangles: data from spherical mono-disperse particles [@Feng1998]. Solid curve: our model with constant $\Delta$. Dashed-dotted curve: our model with $\Delta \propto r^{0.5}$. Dashed line: our model with $\Delta \propto r^{-0.5}$. Dotted line: best fit of measurements with irregular particles of several authors taken from @Yu2004.](Fig5.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
To derive $p_m$ from the measurements shown in Fig. \[fig:PPress\], we fit Eq. \[eq:gu\] to the measured data, with $p_m$ being the only fit parameter. The resulting values for $p_m$ as well as the other parameters used in Eq. \[eq:gu\] are shown in the first three lines of Table \[table:FFP\]. The best-fitting curve is shown as a solid line in Fig. \[fig:PPress\]. As the data show some considerable scatter, we also plot two envelope curves (shown as dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:PPress\]), which define a maximally possible range for the transition pressure from $p_{\rm min}$ to $p_{\rm max}$. These two parameters are also given in Table \[table:FFP\] and were derived such that they define the minimal range of transition pressures for which no data points fall outside the envelope curves. Due to the above-mentioned hysteresis effect and vibrations during handling in the laboratory experiments (see \[sect:LES\]), which result in a too-low packing density for some of the data points and a compaction above RCP for others, respectively, the above conditions is strictly obeyed for the microgravity data, but we allow the laboratory data to fall outside the envelope curves.
Particle type $\phi_1$ $\phi_2$ $p_m$ $p_{min}$ $p_{max}$ $\Delta$ $\Sigma$ Power
---------------------------------- ---------- ---------- -------------------- ----------- ------------------ ---------- ---------- -------
10 $\mu$m spheres 0.15 0.64 5$\times 10^3$ 40 1.3$\times 10^5$ 0.58
60 $\mu$m spheres 0.15 0.64 0.35 0.02 16 0.58
1 mm spheres 0.15 0.64 0.3 0.005 10 0.58
100-250 $\mu$m agglomerates 0.05 0.37 0.6 0.06 6 0.58
1 mm agglomerates 0.05 0.55 $6.1\times10^{-2}$ 0.58
1 cm agglomerates 0.05 0.55 $4.7\times10^{-3}$ 0.58
@Guettleretal2009 0.12 0.58 $13 \times 10^3$ 0.58
@Machii2013 0.35 0.55 $4 \times 10^5$ 0.58
Solid curve in Fig. \[fig:PoY\] 0.15 0.64 0.58 357 Pa 0
Dotted curve in Fig. \[fig:PoY\] 0.15 0.64 0.58 357 Pa +0.5
Dashed curve in Fig. \[fig:PoY\] 0.15 0.64 0.58 357 Pa -0.5
In Fig. \[fig:PoR\], all derived transition pressures $p_m$ and their respective uncertainty ranges, $p_{\rm min} - p_{\rm max}$ (all data identical to those of the first three rows in Table \[table:FFP\]), are shown as asterisks with error bars as a function of the regolith-particle radius. The data point from the omnidirectional compression experiments of @Guettleretal2009 is also shown in Fig. \[fig:PoR\] at $r_p = 0.75 ~\rm \mu m$ (asterisk without error bar). The solid line in Fig. \[fig:PoR\] corresponds to Eq. \[eq:rpr2\], i.e. $p_m \propto r_p^{-4/3}$. The dotted line is the best fit to the data assuming a power law and minimizing the chi-square error statistics of the logarithmic data points.
We think that this deviation in slope can be attributed to the rather large errors in our measurements, but is not proof that the model behavior (Eq. \[eq:rpr2\]) is wrong.
The rough agreement between model (Eq. \[eq:pm\]) and data indicates that rolling is the major effect at the particle level during compression and shows that it can describe our measurements reasonably well. Although the $p_m$ was not used to fit the model to our data, the transition pressure $p_m$ measured by @Guettleretal2009 for $\rm \mu m$-sized monomer grains is also reasonably well represented by the model.
![\[fig:PoR\] The transition pressure p$_m$ from Eq. \[eq:gu\] as a function of the radius of the spherical regolith particles. The solid line shows the model curve, given by Eq. \[eq:rpr2\]. The data point for the smallest particle size stems from the compression measurements of @Guettleretal2009. All other data points are derived by fitting Eq. \[eq:gu\] to our measurements. The error bars denote the envelope curves in Fig. \[fig:PPress\] and are given by $p_min$ and $p_max$.](Fig6.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Regolith consisting of dust agglomerates {#sect:RFA}
----------------------------------------
At low pressures, the total filling factor of the regolith consisting of dust agglomerates should be $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{total}=\Phi_{\mathrm{aggl}} \Phi_{\mathrm{RSS}},\end{aligned}$$ with $\Phi_{\mathrm{\mathrm{aggl}}}$=0.35 [@Weidling2012] and $\Phi_{RSS}$ being the internal filling factor of the 100-250 $\mu$m-sized dust agglomerates and of the regolith super structure, respectively. The force on a single dust agglomerate inside the regolith can be calculated from the pressure $\Sigma$ within the regolith, analogous to Eq. \[eq:pm\], by $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mathrm{\mathrm{aggl}}}=\frac{\Sigma ~ \pi ~ r_{\mathrm{aggl}}^2}{\Phi_{RSS}}.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the friction against rolling-force for an agglomerate compared to solid particles of the same size is smaller by a factor of $\Phi_{\mathrm{aggl}}$ and the regolith super structure was formed by random ballistic deposition, which yields a filling factor of $\Phi_{RSS}$=0.15. We can then calculate the minimum pressure at which rolling occurs $$\begin{aligned}
p_{roll}=\frac{F_{\mathrm roll} ~ \Phi_{\mathrm RBD}}{\pi ~ r_{\mathrm{aggl}}^2 ~ \Phi_{\mathrm{aggl}}}.\end{aligned}$$ We get $p_{\mathrm roll} \approx 10^{-2}~{\mathrm{Pa}}$ and this is the pressure at which restructuring of regolith consisting of agglomerates should start. This is consistent with our measurements shown in Fig. \[fig:PPress\] (right panel) and the analytical approximation shown in Fig. \[fig:PPress\] (solid lines).
Limits of our Model {#sect:LOOM}
-------------------
Our model is based on measurements on regolith for spherical grains with radii between $r_p = 7 \times 10^{-7}$ m and $r_p = 5 \times 10 ^{-3}$ m and pressures in between $\Sigma = 10^{-7}$ Pa and $\Sigma = 10^{6}$ Pa. We apply our model to celestial objects for which the representative regolith-grain sizes modeled to be between $r_p = 4.4 \times 10^{-5}$ m and $r_p = 4.2 \times 10 ^{-2}$ m [@Gundlachetal2011]. The pressures at the second regolith-particle layer in these objects are between $\Sigma = 10^{-2}$ Pa and $\Sigma = 10$ Pa and can reach values of $\Sigma = 10^{3}$ Pa deep inside the regolith. Thus, the particle sizes have to be extrapolated by only one order of magnitude using the results of our experiments and the pressures are well within our measurement range. The fact that we only measured at a minimum $g$-level of 0.06 ms$^{-2}$ and, e.g., the asteroid 1996FG3 possesses a $g$-level of 3.3$\times$10$^{-4}$ ms$^{-2}$ at its surface is not a severe restriction of applicability, because only the pressure inside the regolith is relevant.
However, regolith particles on planetary objects are not mono-disperse spherical grains but are irregular in shape and possess some size distribution, as can be seen in the Apollo samples [@LunarSourcebook]. To test the influence of grain irregularity and poly-dispersity on the mechanical properties of the regolith, we previously already did unidirectional compression measurements with monodisperse and polydisperse irregular grains [@BSDR2006] with a size range of 0.1$\mu$m - 10$\mu$m [see @Kothe2013 their Figure 3]. We found that the filling factor for RBD drops from $\Phi_1 = 0.15$ for monodisperse spherical grains to $\Phi_1 = 0.11$ and $\Phi_1 = 0.07$ if mono-disperse irregular and poly-disperse irregular grains are used [@BSDR2006]. The maximum filling factor at high unidirectional compressions are $\Phi_2 = 0.33$ for mono-disperse spherical and irregular grains and drop to $\Phi_2 = 0.20$ for poly-disperse irregular particles [@BSDR2006]. Mind that these values are much lower than the RCP value, because under unidirectional compression the samples creep sideways. Although not explicitly given in our previous paper, the values for $p_m$ are almost identical for the three types of grains and read $p_m = 5 \times 10^3$ Pa, $p_m = 2 \times 10^3$ Pa, and $p_m = 4 \times 10^3$ Pa for the monodisperse spherical, the mono-disperse irregular and the poly-disperse irregular grains, respectively.
The measurements of @Yu1997 show that irregular particles behave like spherical grains that are a factor of 5 smaller (see Section \[sect:RCS\]). Applying Eq. \[eq:rpr2\], we find a corresponding change of $p_m$ by a factor of 8. However, as a size distribution [as e.g. found by @Miy2007] reduces this effect on $p_m$ by a factor of 2 (see above), we therefore conclude that the morphology and poly-dispersity of the grains play only a minor role for the compression behavior of regolith.
The stratification measurements of the densities of lunar regolith show external packing densities larger than RCP [@LunarSourcebook]. This indicates that polydisperse grains can be compacted beyond this limit and show that our model underestimates the packing densities by approximately 12% (discussed later).
Regolith from particles larger than 100 $\mu$m is sensitive to vibrations due to the large inertia of the particles compared to their inter-particle van der Waals forces. Thus, vibrations caused by impacts on the celestial objects can increase their regolith packing density by 0.1 [@Yu1997 their Figure 5].
We do not think that sintering is an important issue for regolith particles, because these grains were produced by impact destruction and size selective re-accretion. Whether the re-accreted particles are directly formed by impact fragmentation or by fragmentation and re-sintering, is not of relevance. The latter is more realistic as the investigations in the Lunar Sourcebook [@LunarSourcebook] show that the regolith particles have a internal packing density of about 79% from void internal spaces. During the formation of comets in the early solar nebula, the temperatures were presumably too small for relevant sintering processes, so that sintering will not have any influence for the stratification of cometary surface regolith. However, laboratory measurements of @Pat-El2009 show that sintering during an orbital passage of the comet can increase the stability of the regolith in the uppermost few centimeters. This means that our model may not be applicable to the uppermost centimeters below the comet surface. However, as during each orbit a comet can lose surface material of a few meter depth, it is not clear whether heat-flow induced sintering is of relevance.
Applications to Planetary Sciences {#sect:appli}
==================================
Rocky objects {#sect:Rocky}
-------------
In this Section, we will derive the filling factor of the regolith on atmosphere-free planetary bodies as a function of depth below the surface. With this result, we will calculate the mechanical yield of the regolith under a mass of 100 kg resting on the surface on feet with a total area of 0.07 m$^2$. We will consider the effect of ambient gravity only and will disregard the compaction of the regolith by high-velocity impacts. In that course, we will compare our results with measurements taken by the Apollo 15-17 core tubes and drill cores on the Moon.
We again start with the calculation of the pressure inside the regolith of an arbitrary planetary body as a function of depth $h$ below the surface, $\Sigma(h)$. Because the function $\Sigma(h)$ is non algebraic, we obtain its inverse $h(\Sigma)$ by integrating the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{d}}h = \frac{{\mbox{d}}\Sigma(h)}{\rho_b g \Phi(\Sigma)},\end{aligned}$$ using $\Phi(\Sigma)$ from Eq. \[eq:gu\], and get $$\begin{aligned}
h & = & \frac{\Sigma}{g \rho_b (\Phi_1\Phi_2-2\Phi_2^2)} \Big\{\Phi_1-2 \Phi_2+ (\Phi_2-\Phi_1)\times \\ \nonumber
&&\mbox{H2F1}\left[\Delta,1,1+\Delta,\frac{\Phi_2 \Sigma^{\frac{1}{\Delta}}
p_m^{-\frac{1}{\Delta}}}{\Phi_1-2\Phi_2}\right]\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ with H2F1 being the Gaussian hypergeometric function. Inserting the inverse function of Eq. \[eq:gu\], $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(\Phi)=p_m\left(\frac{\Phi_2-\Phi_1}{\Phi_2-\Phi}\right)^{\Delta \ln10},\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
h & = & \frac{p_m}{g \rho_b(\Phi_1\Phi_2-2\Phi_2^2)} \left(\frac{\Phi_1-\Phi}{\Phi-\Phi_2}\right)^{\Delta}\times \nonumber \\
&&\Big\{\Phi_1-2\Phi_2+(\Phi_2-\Phi_1)\times \label{eq:h} \\
&&\mbox{H2F1}\left[\Delta,1,1+\Delta,\Phi_2 p_m^{-\frac{1}{\Delta}}\frac{\Phi_1-\Phi}{\Phi-\Phi_2} p_m^{\frac{1}{\Delta}} \right] \Big\} \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ The filling factor as a function of pressure and depth below the surface of the regolith is shown in Figs. \[fig:PoP\] and \[fig:HOP\], respectively, for a variety of planetary bodies with different gravitational accelerations $g$. The particle sizes of the regolith were taken from @Gundlach2012. For the graphs shown in both Figures, we used $\Phi_1 = 0.15$ and $\Phi_2 = 0.64$. $p_{\rm m}$ is calculated from the particle diameters of the regolith, using Eqs. \[eq:pm\] and \[eq:rpm\] (see Fig. \[fig:DFF\]). The graph in Fig. \[fig:HOP\] is the inverse of Eq. \[eq:h\].
![\[fig:PoP\]The filling factor of the regolith of various Solar-System bodies as a function of hydrostatic pressure. The curves from left to right Phobos (2.2 mm), asteroid 1996FG3, asteroid Steins, asteroid Dodona, asteroid Vesta, the Moon and planet Mercury respectively.](Fig7.pdf){width=".45\textwidth"}
![\[fig:HOP\] The filling factor as a function of depth of the regolith (with particle diameters given in parentheses) of (from top to bottom) Mercury (44 $\mu$m), the Moon (96 $\mu$m), Dodona (0.6 mm), Vesta (108 $\mu$m), Phobos (2.2 mm), Steins (1.3 mm), 1996FG3 (2.0 mm), respectively.](Fig8.pdf){width=".43\textwidth"}
Because all reasonable loads, like, e.g. a 100 kg object on the surface with a foot-area of 0.07 m$^2$, lead to pressures that are orders of magnitude larger than the pressures needed to compact the regolith to RCP, we did the ansatz for the total yield of the regolith $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\mathrm{yield}}=\int_0^{H_{\infty}} {\mbox{d}}H - \frac1{\Phi_{RCP}} \int_0^{H_{\infty}} \Phi(H) {\mbox{d}}H . \label{eq:yield}\end{aligned}$$ Because Eq. \[eq:h\] is monotonically increasing and continuous, we achieve the primitive of the inverse function of Eq. \[eq:yield\] (second integral) with the substitution $H=h(\Phi)$ and partial integration, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{H_{\infty}}\Phi(H) {\mbox{d}}H&={H_{\infty}} \Phi(H_{\infty})-0 \Phi(0) \label{eq:pip} \\
&-\int_{\Phi_0}^{\Phi_{\infty}} h(\Phi) {\mbox{d}}\Phi.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Executing the integration of the first term in Eq. \[eq:yield\] and inserting Eq. \[eq:pip\] results in $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\mathrm{yield}}=\int_{\Phi_0}^{\Phi_{\infty}}h(\Phi) {\mbox{d}}\Phi,\label{eq:yieldf}\end{aligned}$$ which we solved numerically. The above term converges very slowly with $\Phi_{\infty} \rightarrow \Phi_{RCP} = 0.64$. This implies that $h_{\mathrm{yield}}$ depends on the regolith layer depth above a solid planetary interior. However, granular regolith has the characteristic to distribute point loads on its surface in a cone-shaped manner to a larger and larger area beneath. These cones have typically a friction angle between 35 and 50 degrees [@GranularDynamics]. This means that after a given depth inside a granular media, the force is being distributed over a large area. If the corresponding pressure reaches the elastic limit of the regolith, the compaction terminates. Here, we assume that the friction angle is 35 degrees and that the elastic limit of the regolith is given by Eq. \[eq:pm\]. In Fig. \[fig:HY\], we show the yield as a function of the layer depth (using Eq. \[eq:yieldf\]) for different planetary bodies. We plot the curves only for depths for which the pressure is above the elastic limit of the regolith. As the depth of the regolith is basically unknown, the maximum possible yield is given by the right end of each respective curve. However, if the regolith layer is shallower than that and is followed by bare rock beneath, the respective yields are smaller and can be derived from the curves in Fig. \[fig:HY\]. One can recognize from Fig. \[fig:HY\] that even for the deepest possible regolith depths, the static yield of the regolith under the weight of the assumed spacecraft or astronaut is on the order of a few decimeters.
![\[fig:HY\] The yield of an object with a mass of 100 kg resting on feet with a total area of 0.07 m$^2$ (astronaut on one foot, small spacecraft) on different celestial bodies. The graphs give the yields (left to right) on 1996FG3, Phobos, Steins (almost identical to Phobos), Vesta, Dodona, the Moon and Mercury, respectively, as a function of the depth of the regolith layer. Please note that due to the friction angle, the yield will not increase further at a regolith depth at which the pressure is reduced to the elastic limit. The curves terminate at this point.](Fig9.pdf){width=".45\textwidth"}
To compare our results with measurements taken on the Moon with Apollo 15-17 core tubes given in Table 9.5 of @LunarSourcebook, we average our lunar data of Fig. \[fig:HOP\] over the depth ranges given in @LunarSourcebook. The porosity values of @LunarSourcebook include the internal porosity of the lunar regolith grains. This internal packing density was measured and reads $\sim$0.79 [@LunarSourcebook]. In Table \[table:PDM\] we present our data on the filling factor of the lunar regolith together with the external packing density, corrected for the internal packing density of the grains [both taken from @LunarSourcebook]. The lunar surface regolith obviously is packed sightly denser than predicted by our model. This is because of the size distribution and irregularity of the lunar regolith particles for which packing densities up to 70% are possible [@Desmond2013].
Depth Range (m) Our Model Measured
----------------- ----------- ---------- -- -- -- --
0 - 0.15 0.57 0.60
0 - 0.30 0.59 0.64
0.30 - 0.60 0.62 0.70
0 - 0.60 0.60 0.68
: \[table:PDM\]Comparison of our predicted filling factor (center column) of the lunar regolith (averaged over the depth range shown in the left column) with measured external filling factors from Apollo published in @LunarSourcebook (right column).
@Magri2001 estimated the porosity of the first meter of regolith on asteroids using ground-based radar measurements. However, their data possess huge errors and it is not possible to find a correlation between filling factor and size of the asteroids in their data. If we average over all their findings, we get a filling factor of 0.49 $\pm$ 0.14. If we assume that the regolith grains of the asteroids possess the same internal packing density as measured for the lunar regolith particles, the average packing density is 0.62 $\pm$ 0.14, which matches with our model that predicts that at a few decimeters depth the regolith is at RCP. This estimations are, however, not a strong confirmation of our model, because the averaging over objects of different sizes and taxonomic types might not be appropriate.
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
-------------------------------
According to the model of @Skorov2012, comet nuclei consist of dust and ice agglomerates, each consisting of $\mu$m-sized solid dust and ice grains. To calculate for this model the pressure, depth and yield-load dependencies of the filling factor on a comet, we follow the calculation in Section \[sect:Rocky\]. Here, we assume that ice agglomerates have a transition pressure that is a factor of 10 larger than that of our silicate agglomerates [@Gundlachetal2011]. We calculated the comet-regolith compression for agglomerates of 1 cm, 1 mm, 180 $\rm \mu m$ in size, respectively, the latter being the dust-aggregate size in our experiments. Particles that are in contact possess a contact surface whose size is proportional to their radius squared. During rolling, additional contact surface is added in the direction of rolling and removed in the opposite direction. However, this process of creation and removal of contact surface is asymmetric, because the contact forces pull the contacting surfaces outward before they break. This difference causes a torque on the particle, which is known as rolling friction [see @krijtetal2014; @DoTi1995]. The radius dependence of this mechanism is found by @krijtetal2014 to be given by r$^{\frac23}$. Agglomerates in contact possess a contact area for which the number of monomer particles is proportional to the agglomerate radius squared. During rolling, new particle-particle contacts are formed in the direction of rolling and broken in the opposite direction, because the monomer particles are also pulled outward. Because of this analogy between solid-solid and agglomerate-agglomerate contacts, we assume that the agglomerate-radius dependence of this mechanism follows the same power law as for compact particles. The parameters used in our calculations are also given in Table \[table:FFP\].
In the following, we apply our calculations to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which is being visited by the Rosetta spacecraft in 2014/2015. As the Rosetta-mission data concerning the g-levels have not been published at the submission date of this paper, we calculated them using the published mass, average mass density and volume of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko [@Sierksetal2015] of $m = 10^{13}$ kg, $\rho = 470 \rm ~kg~m^{-3}$ and $V = 25 ~ \rm km^3$. Thus, we get for the average radius of $R = 1.8$ km a surface acceleration of $g = 2 \times 10^{-4} \rm ~m~s^{-2}$.
We calculated the properties of cometary material for two extreme cases, namely that he comet consists of dust agglomerates or ice agglomerates only, and one average case that the comet consists of a 50%-50% (in volume) mixture of dust and ice agglomerates, as proposed by @Skorov2012. We further assume that the dust and ice agglomerates are arranged in random or alternate order so that the compressive behavior can be averaged in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\mathrm{ice+dust}}(p)&=&\frac12 \left(\Phi_{\mathrm{ice}}(p)+\Phi_{\mathrm{dust}}(p)\right) \\
\mathrm{Yield}_{\mathrm{ice+dust}}(p)&=&\frac12 \left(\mathrm{Yield}_{\mathrm{ice}}(p)+\mathrm{Yield}_{\mathrm{dust}}(p)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Fig. \[fig:PhiH\] shows the filling factor as a function of pressure for comet-nucleus material, assuming that the comet consists of agglomerates of 1 cm size (first group of 3 curves), 1 mm size (second group of 3 curves) and 180 $\mu$m size (third group of 3 curves). Within these groups, the agglomerates consisting of dust agglomerates are always represented by the left curve, the ice-and-dust mixture by the center curve, and the ice agglomerates by the right curve, respectively.
Regolith consisting of agglomerates has a smaller total RBD filling factor compared to regolith from solid grains, due to the intrinsic porosity of the agglomerates (see Section \[sect:RFA\]). Therefore, they can be compacted further than RCP of the regolith super structure by destruction or deformation of the spherical agglomerates and subsequent compaction to a global RCP structure. Its strength against compression is higher than that of a regolith consisting of compact grains of the same size [@Machii2013]. The compression curve thus consists of two parts. The first compaction stage is due to the reorientation of the agglomerates by rolling until RCP of the super structure is reached (our measurements in Section \[sect:Expres\]). The data for the second compaction stage are based on the compression measurement of @Machii2013, which follow the compression of the agglomerates themselves. This compression takes places at pressures larger than $10^5$ Pa, because the $\mu$m-sized grains (i.e. the constituent grains of the agglomerates) determine the compression strength. The original data of @Machii2013 start at a filling factor of 0.24, whereas the maximum compression of our measurements ends at a filling factor of 0.37. This is due to the different preparation methods of the agglomerates. The more spherical and monodisperse the agglomerates are, the smaller is their filling factor at RCP [@Donev2004]. We used the results by @Machii2013 by increasing their initial filling factor to our end value of 0.37 (see Table \[table:FFP\]) and assumimg that the pressure required for the compression of icy agglomerates to a given filling factor is 10 times higher than for dusty ones. For compressions where the agglomerates are in RCP, the total filling factor as a function of pressure is independent of the agglomerates size. This means that the curve corresponding to the @Machii2013 data (slopes at high pressures) is valid for all three agglomerate sizes. An explanation for this behavior is given in the Appendix.
Mind that the pressures at the second compression stage are much higher than the internal pressures on small Solar-System objects. Such pressures can occur on a comet only during high-velocity impacts. For impact pressures in the GPa range we recommend the work of [@Beitz2013].
![\[fig:PhiH\] Filling factor as a function of pressure of cometary material. The first group of three curves represents regolith from cm-sized agglomerates, the second group of three curves represents regolith from mm-sized agglomerates, and the third group of three curves represents regolith from 180 $\mu$m-sized agglomerates, respectively. The high-pressure behavior of the material is based on data from @Machii2013. These curves are independent of the agglomerate size of the regolith. Within these groups, the left curve is regolith from dusty material, the middle curve is a 50%-50% (in volume) mixture of agglomerates from dust and water ice, and the right curve is regolith from water ice. Please note that the curve of the ice particles of the mm-sized agglomerates is almost identical with the curve of the dust particles of the 180 $\mu$m sized particles.](Fig10.pdf){width=".47\textwidth"}
The high rolling and sticking forces of water ice lead to a comet nucleus of low filling factor; whereas the regions close to the comet surface presumably consist of dust agglomerates only, due to the sublimation of water ice, and will thus possess a higher filling factor. A mixture of dust and ice agglomerates possibly results in a filling factor in between the extreme values (see Fig. \[fig:PhiH\]). A comet nucleus is assumed to possess a few centimeter thick layer of pure dust agglomerates, which is followed by a mixture of dust and ice agglomerates. Thus, the filling factor will follow the respective left curve of one of the three groups in Fig. (\[fig:PhiH\]) in the upper centimeters of the surface, followed by the center curve for a 50%-50% (in volume) mixture of dust and ice. For a higher ice content, the filling factor will be closer to the pure ice curve, which is the right-most curve in the respective triples. For a lower ice abundance, the filling factor will be closer to the left curve. The three triple-curves in Fig. \[fig:PhiH\] represent dust and ice agglomerate sizes of 1 cm, 1 mm, and 180 $\rm \mu m$, respectively.
Applied to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gersimenko, we get a filling factor as a function of depth as shown in Fig. \[fig:POHC\]. The respective triple curves are, those for agglomerate sizes of 1 cm (dotted lines), 1 mm (dashed lines), and 180 $\rm \mu m$ solid lines. The respective upper curve represents agglomerates consisting of dust, the center curve represents 50%-50% (in volume) mixtures of dust and ice, and the lower curve stands for pure ice agglomerates, respectively. All curves start from a layer depth of one particle diameter.
![\[fig:POHC\] The filling factor as a function of depth below the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The group of three dotted curves represents particle layers consisting of 1 cm-sized agglomerates, the group of dashed graphs represents particle layers consisting of 1 mm-sized agglomerates, the group of solid graphs represents particle layers consisting of 180 $\mu$m-sized agglomerates. Within these groups, the upper curve represents dusty material, the middle curve a 50%-50% (in volume) mixture of agglomerates from dust and water ice, and the lower curve ice agglomerates, respectively. All curves start from a depth of one agglomerate diameter.](Fig11.pdf){width=".45\textwidth"}
To apply our results to the anticipated landing of the Rosetta lander on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, we calculated how much the surface of the comet nucleus will yield at touchdown. For the lander, we assume a mass of 100 kg and a total landing-feet area of 0.07 m$^2$. In case the spacecraft rests on the surface it will only render the agglomerate super structure to RCP and will not considerably sink in under its own weight, because the pressure below its feet is only $\sim0.4$ Pa and, thus, much lower than the pressure needed to compact the regolith (see Fig. \[fig:PhiH\]). However, the impact pressure will be higher than the static weight of the spacecraft.
Instead of using an impact model [e.g. @Melosh1998], we estimate the impact pressure by assuming that the impact velocity will be decelerated steadily by the landing gear on a length of 10 cm, which is foreseen for the Rosetta lander. This dynamic pressure is treated as a static pressure on the surface. According to @Melosh1998, dynamic compression of our regolith would require a 20 times stronger deceleration and does therefore not appear. An issue of the static ansatz is the small deceleration time (0.4 s), because of the low sound speed in the regolith of about 20 ms$^{-1}$ [see @Beitz2013]. This limits the depth to which the regolith can be compressed to 8 m. But due to the friction angle, the elastic limit is already reached for 180 $\mu$m-sized aggregates at 3 m, 7 m and 10 m for pure ice, dust-ice mixture and pure dust, respectively, assuming an impact velocity of 1 m s$^{-1}$. For the mm and cm-sized agglomerates the elastic limit is reached at a depth larger than 100 m by the gravitational acceleration of the comet only. For these agglomerate sizes the yield is independent of the impact velocity.
![\[fig:67Y\] The yield of the Rosetta lander (assuming a mass of 100 kg and a total landing-feet area 0.07m$^2$) whose landing gear decelerates the impact within a length of 10 cm on an agglomerate-layer material consisting of 180 $\mu$m-sized agglomerates (solid lines), 1 mm-sized agglomerates (dashed lines) 1 cm sized agglomerates (dashed-dotted lines), as a function of impact velocity. Within a group of this lines the uppermost curve is in case the surface consists of ice agglomerates, the lowermost curve in case of dust agglomerates and the center curve in case of a 50%-50% (in volume) mixture of dust and ice agglomerates. ](Fig12.pdf){width=".45\textwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:67Y\], the solid group of three lines show the yield of a spacecraft landing on regolith consisting of 180 $\mu$m-sized aggregates as a function of impact velocity. The dashed and dash-dotted group of three lines show the impact penetration for mm-sized agglomerates and cm -sized agglomerates. Within these groups of three lines the uppermost line corresponds to ice agglomerates the center line corresponds to a 50%-50% (in volume) mixture of ice and dust agglomerates and the lowermost line corresponds to dust agglomerates..
At low velocities ($v_{\mathrm{imp}}<$20 cm s$^{-1}$) and a surface of 180 $\mu$m-sized aggregates , the yield is dominated by the gravity of the comet. For larger velocities the impact velocity gets important and dominates the yield at velocities larger than 1 m s$^{-1}$. In case the surface consists of agglomerates smaller than a few millimeters in diameter the yield is always dominated by the gravity of the comet.
The penetration depth is higher for the ice agglomerates, because their higher rolling force prevented an RCP packing down to a depth of a few decimeters so that the icy material can potentially be compacted more than a pure dust-aggregate surface. However, the total penetration is less than 20 cm even for impact speeds as high as 1 m s$^{-1}$.
Summary {#kap:COCON}
=======
From measurements of the static compaction of regolith analog at different g-levels on-board a parabolic aircraft as well as in ground experiments, we found that the filling factor depends on the ambient hydrostatic pressure as well as on grain size and morphology. Using an analytical description for the compression curve, we developed an analytical model to predict the stratification of regolith-covered dusty and icy Solar-System bodies. We compared our findings of the stratification of the surface regolith of the Moon with Apollo 15-17 core tubes and drill cores and found only a slightly denser packing than predicted in our model. In a second step, we calculated the mechanical yield of a spacecraft resting on the surface of such a body. We found that a spacecraft with reasonable mass will never penetrate into the regolith of any Solar-System body by more than 60 cm and a comet by more than 25 cm.\
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} This research was supported by the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt under grant no. 50WM1236. We thank TU München and the European Space Agency for providing the parabolic flights, Novespace for yet another professional and flawless campaign onboard their parabolic aircraft, and Eike Beitz for the SEM microscopy of our 1.5$\mu$m samples.
The calculation in this Section shows that the high-pressure behavior of the filling factor of dust agglomerates, as studied by @Machii2013 and represented in Fig. \[fig:PhiH\], is independent of the size of the agglomerates. We as well as @Machii2013 used in the experiments agglomerates with a filling factor of 0.35. These agglomerates are organized in RCP in a regolith with a given minimal pressure (which is depending on the agglomerate size, as shown in Fig. \[fig:PhiH\]). Because the agglomerates can fill the void spaces in between each other under further compression, the compression curve follows the one by @BS2004 for unidirectional compression. The pressure above which the grains inside the agglomerates flow is $p > p_{f}=10^5$ Pa @BS2004.
Therefore, the area of the contact circle between two agglomerates, $A_c$, depends on the force $F$ applied to the contact sphere, $$\begin{aligned}
A_c=\frac F {p_f}.\label{eq:acf}\end{aligned}$$ The dependency of the contact area on the indentation $h$ of the deformed agglomerates with radius $r$ is approximately given by the cut-face of a sphere $$\begin{aligned}
A_c=(2hr-h^2) \label{eq:ach}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying an indentation that is proportional to the radius of the agglomerates, i.e. $h/r=$ const, we get $A_c \propto r^2$. The force on the agglomerates inside the body depends on the local pressure $p$ through $$\begin{aligned}
F=\frac{p r^2 \pi}{\Phi_{RBD}}\label{eq:fpr}\end{aligned}$$ (see also Eq. \[eq:pm\]). With the above condition, we see that the pressure acting at the contact area of an agglomerate is independent of the radius of the agglomerates, because both the force on the agglomerate at a given pressure inside the agglomerate and the contact area at a given force are proportional to $r^2$. This also means that a given pressure leads to a compaction of the regolith independent of the agglomerate size. This conclusion is, however, only valid for pressures high enough to compact the agglomerates, i.e. for $p > p_{f}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper provides a method to study the non-negativity of certain linear operators, from other operators with similar spectral properties. If these new operators are formally self-adjoint and non-negative, we can study the complex powers using an appropriate locally convex space. In this case, the initial operator also will be non-negative and we will be able to study their powers. In particular, we have applied this method to Bessel-type operators.'
address: |
Departamento de Matemáticas. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales\
Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata\
Funes 3350 (7600)\
Mar del Plata, Argentina
author:
- Sandra Molina
title: ' Distributional fractional powers of similar operators. Applications to the Bessel operators'
---
Introduction
============
Operators of type Bessel appear in the literature related with different versions of Hankel transform (see [@al],[@HI],[@MB],[@az]). We are going to consider Bessel operators on $(0,\infty)$ given by
$$\label{besselOp1}
\Delta _{\mu }=\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+(2\mu +1)(x^{-1}\frac{d}{dx})=x^{-2\mu -1}\frac{d}{dx}x^{2\mu +1}\frac{d}{dx}$$
and $$\label{besselOp2}
S_{\mu}=\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}-\frac{4\mu^{2}-1}{4x^{2}}=x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}}\frac{d}{dx}x^{2\mu +1}\frac{d}{dx}x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}},$$ wich are related through $$S_{\mu}=x^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}\Delta _{\mu }x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}}.$$ This feature has inspired us to develop a method to study fractional powers based in a concept of “similar operator”. Similar operators have the same spectral properties between them and of being non negative if one of them has this property. This method will apply in the contexts of Banach spaces and locally convex spaces.
Moreover, other feature of operators (\[besselOp1\]) and (\[besselOp2\]) is that one of these is selfadjoint and the other is not. To establish the complex powers of a differential operator in distributional spaces is important that this operator be formally self-adjoint. It would therefore be interesting to obtain an operator similar and formally self-adjoint from a given initial operator.
To study the distributional fractional powers of Bessel operators, we use the theory developed by Martinez y Sanz in [@ms]. .2in
In section 2 we will review some of the standard facts about Hankel transform, convolution and Bessel operator in distributional and Lebesgue spaces, which are fundamental to establish the non negativity of Bessel operator. In Section 3 we will state our main results about similar operators in Banach spaces and we will describe the relation between their fractional powers. We extend this idea to locally convex spaces and we apply this ideas to the Bessel operator (\[besselOp1\]) and (\[besselOp2\]).
In section 4 we will establish the non-negativity of $S_{\mu }$ in suitable weighted Lebesgue spaces. In sections 5 and 6 we will establish the non negativity of $S_{\mu }$ in a suitable locally convex space and in its dual space.
For the convenience of the reader, we have added an Appendix with the proofs of some results about Hankel transform, convolutions, thus making our exposition self-contained.
.3in
Previous results on Hankel transform and convolution
====================================================
In this section we introduce the Lebesgue and distributional spaces necessary for our purposes.
By $\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)$ we denote the space of functions in $C^{\infty }(0,\infty)$ with compact support in $(0,\infty)$ with the usual topology, and by $\mathcal{D'}(0,\infty)$ the space of classical distributions in $(0,\infty)$.
Throughout this paper we assume $\mu > -\frac{1}{2}$. We will consider the Hankel transform defined in a suitable functional space denoted by $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ and given by
$$\mathcal{H}_{\mu }=\left\{ \phi \in C^{\infty}(0,\infty):
\underset{x\in (0,\infty )}{\sup }\left| x^{m}(x^{-1}D)^{k}x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}}\phi (x)\right| <\infty :m,k=0,1,2,...\right\}$$
endowed with the family of seminorms $\left\{ \gamma _{m,k}^{\mu }\right\},$ given by
$$\label{eqsemihmu}
\gamma _{m,k}^{\mu }(\phi )=\underset{x\in (0,\infty )}{\sup }\left| x^{m}(x^{-1}D)^{k}x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}}\phi (x)\right|,$$
$\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ is a Fréchet space (see [@az Lemma 5.2-2, pp. 131]). Given $1\leq p <\infty$ and a measurable function $w:(0,\infty) \rightarrow \Bbb{C}$ then we consider
$$\label{defespLp}
L^{p}((0,\infty), w\:dx)=\left\{ f:(0,\infty) \rightarrow \Bbb{C}:\: f
\:\text{is measurable and}\:\int_{0}^{\infty}\left| f(x)\right|
^{p}w(x)dx<\infty \right\}$$
where with $dx$ we denote the Lebesgue usual measure. In $L^{p}((0,\infty), w\:dx)$ we consider the usual norm $$\left\| f\right\| _{L^{p}((0,\infty), w\:dx)}=\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty}\left|
f(x)\right| ^{p}w(x)dx\right] ^{1/p}.$$
Moreover, $$L^{\infty }((0,\infty),w)=\left\{ f:(0,\infty) \rightarrow \Bbb{C}:\:\:\text{measurable and}\qquad \text{ess sup}_{x\in (0,\infty)}|wf(x)|<\infty \right\}$$ endowed with the norm $$\left\| f\right\| _{L^{\infty }((0,\infty),w)}=\left\| wf\right\|_{\infty }.$$ For simplicity of notation we write $L^{p}(w)$ and $L^{\infty}(w)$ instead of $L^{p}((0,\infty),w\:dx)$ and $L^{\infty}((0,\infty),w)$.
Let $s$ and $r$ as follow $$\label{eqr}
r=x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}}$$ $$\label{eqs}
s=x^{2\mu +1}/c_{\mu }$$ with $c_{\mu }=2^{\mu }\Gamma (\mu +1)$.
\[espacio hm\] It is verified that $$\label{inclusHm}
\mathcal{H}_{\mu}\subset L^{1}(sr)\cap L^{\infty }(r)\subset L^{p}(sr^{p}) \:\:\:1\leq p<\infty,$$ with $r$ and $s$ given by (\[eqr\]) and (\[eqs\]).
The inclusion $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}\subset L^{\infty}(r)$ is immediate and also
$$\label{acotainf}
\left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}= \gamma _{0,0}^{\mu}(\phi),\quad \phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu}.$$
It also verifies that $\mathcal{H}_{\mu} \subset L^{1}(sr)$ as $$\int_{0}^{\infty}|\phi| \: sr\: dx=\int_{0}^{1}|x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}\phi|x^{2\mu+1}c_{\mu}^{-1}\:dx+
\int_{1}^{\infty}x^{m}|x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}\phi|x^{-m+2\mu+1}c_{\mu}^{-1}\:dx<\infty$$ if $m>2\mu+2$, and $$\label{acota L1}
\| \phi \| _{L^{1}(sr)}\leq C \{\gamma _{0,0}^{\mu}(\phi)+\gamma_{m,0}^{\mu}(\phi)\} ,\quad \phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu}$$
It also verifies that $$\label{acota Lp}
\left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{p}(sr^{p})}=\Bigl \{ \int_{0}^{\infty} |\phi|^{p-1}r^{p-1} |\phi|rs \Bigr \}^{\frac{1}{p}}\leq \Bigl \{ \left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{\infty}(r)}\Bigr \}^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\Bigl \{ \left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{1}(sr)}\Bigr \}^{\frac{1}{p}}$$ and by (\[acotainf\]) and (\[acota L1\]) we can consider a constant $C'$ such that
$$\label{acotainf1}
\left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}\leq C'\left[ \gamma
_{0,0}^{\mu }(\phi )+\gamma _{m,0}^{\mu }(\phi )\right],\quad \phi
\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }.$$
$$\label{acota L11}
\left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{1}(sr)}\leq C'\left[ \gamma _{0,0}^{\mu }(\phi
)+\gamma _{m,0}^{\mu }(\phi )\right] ,\quad \phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$$
and by (\[acota Lp\]), (\[acotainf1\]) and (\[acota L11\]) we finally conclude that $$\label{acotatotal}
\left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{p}(sr^{p})}\leq C'\left[\gamma_{0,0}^{\mu}(\phi)+\gamma_{m,0}^{\mu}(\phi)\right],\quad \phi\in\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$$
.2in
If $J_{\mu}$ denote the Bessel function of first kind and order $\mu$, we consider the Hankel transform $\mathit{h}_{\mu }$ given by $$\mathit{h}_{\mu}\phi(x)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\sqrt{xy}J_{\mu}(xy)\phi
(y)dy. \label{transf Hankel}$$ for $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$.
\[notatra hankel\] If $\phi \in L^{1}(sr)$ then Hankel transform $\mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi $ is well defined because the kernel $(xy)^{-\mu }J_{\mu }(xy)$ is bounded if $\mu > -\frac{1}{2}$ (see [@wa (1), pp. 49]) . By Proposition \[espacio hm\], $\mathit{h}_{\mu}\phi$ is well defined for all $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ and is an automorphism (see [@az theorem 5.4-1, pp. 141]).
The space of the continuous linear functions $T:\mathcal{H}_{\mu }\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$.
\[regular h’ mu\] We call a function $f\in L_{loc}^{1}((0,\infty) )$ a [*regular element*]{} of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$ if the identification $$\begin{array}{llll}
T_{f}: & \mathcal{H}_{\mu } & \longrightarrow & \Bbb{C} \\
& \phi & \longrightarrow & (T_{f},\phi )=\int_{0}^{\infty }f\phi
\end{array}$$ is well defined and is continuous; namely $T_{f}\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$.
\[regdistrib\] Given $T\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$, we can consider the restriction of $T$ to $\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)$ as a member of $\mathcal{D}^{\prime}(0,\infty)$, because convergence in $\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)$ implies convergence in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$. But $\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)$ is not dense in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ (see [@az]), consequently the behavior of an element $u\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime}$ over $\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)$ not determines univocally the behavior of $u$ as element of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }.$ If a locally integrable function is zero as regular element of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$, then is zero a.e in $(0,\infty)$ because is zero as regular distribution in $\mathcal{D}^{\prime}(0,\infty)$. So, regular distributions in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime}$ are included in injective way in $\mathcal{D'}(0,\infty)$.
Suppose that $1\leq p<\infty $. A function in $L^{p}(sr^{p})$ or $L^{\infty }(r)$ is a regular element of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$. In particular, the functions in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ can be considered as regular elements of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{\prime }$.
Let $f\in L^{\infty }(r)$, since $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }\subset
L^{1}(sr)=L^{1}(r^{-1}/c_{\mu })$, if $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu
}$, then $\phi \in L^{1}(r^{-1})$ and $(T_{f},\phi
)=\int_{0}^{\infty }f\phi $ is well defined for $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$. So, by (\[acota L1\]) $$\left| (T_{f},\phi )\right| \leq \left\| f\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}\left\|
\phi \right\| _{L^{1}(r^{-1})}=c_{\mu }\left\| f\right\| _{L^{\infty
}(r)}\left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{1}(sr)}$$ $$\leq Cc_{\mu }\left\| f\right\|
_{L^{\infty }(r)}\left[ \gamma _{0,0}^{\mu }(\phi )+\gamma _{m,0}^{\mu
}(\phi )\right]$$
consequently, $f$ is a regular element of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$.
Now, let $f\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ with $1\leq p<\infty$, then $$\left| (T_{f},\phi )\right| \leq \int_{0}^{\infty }\left| f\phi \right|
=\int_{0}^{\infty }\left( r\left| f\right| \right) \left( s^{-1}r^{-1}\left|
\phi \right| \right) s=\int_{0}^{\infty }\left( r\left| f\right| \right)
\left( c_{\mu }r\left| \phi \right| \right) s \label{identif f}$$ Since $r\left| f\right| \in L^{p}(s)$ and $r\left| \phi \right| \in
L^{q}(s)$ because $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }\subset L^{q}(sr^{q})$ (see (\[inclusHm\])), being $q$ the conjugate of $p$, we obtain by Hölder inequality and (\[acotatotal\]) $$\left| (T_{f},\phi )\right| \leq c_{\mu } \left\| f \right\|
_{L^{p}(sr^{p})}\left\| \phi \right\| _{L^{q}(sr^{q})}\leq Cc_{\mu }\left\|
f\right\| _{L^{p}(sr^{p})}\left[ \gamma _{0,0}^{\mu }(\phi )+\gamma
_{m,0}^{\mu }(\phi )\right]$$ with $m$ a positive integer $m>2\mu +2$. So, $f$ is a regular element of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$.
.2in
Given $f,g$ defined in $(0,\infty )$, the Hankel convolution $f\sharp g$ is defined formally by $$\label{conv zem}
\left( f\sharp g\right) (x)=\int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty
}D_{\mu }(x,y,z)f(y)g(z)\:dydz$$ where $D_{\mu }(x,y,z)$ is given by
$$D_{\mu }(x,y,z)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{2^{\mu-1}(xyz)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}(A(x,y,z))^{2\mu-1} &\mbox{si}&\vert x-y \vert <z <x+ y \\
0 &\mbox{si}& 0<z<\vert x-y \vert \:\: \mbox{o}\:\: z> x+y .\\
\end{array} \right.$$
$A(x,y,z)$ is the measure of area of the triangle with sides $x,y,z\quad$ and $\quad\vert x-y \vert <z <x+ y$ is the condition for such a triangle to exist, and in this case $A(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{[(x+y)^{2}-z^{2}][z^{2}-(x-y)^{2}]}$.
.2in The proofs of Theorems \[teoyoung\] and \[approxiden\] and Proposition \[prop hankel conv\] are displayed in Appendix.
\[teoyoung\] Let $f\in L^{1}(sr)$.
1. If $g\in L^{\infty }(r)$, then the convolution $f\sharp g(x)$ exists for every $x\in (0,\infty )$, $f\sharp g \in
L^{\infty }(r)$ and $$\label{young Linfty}
\left\| f\sharp g\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}\leq \left\| f\right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)}\left\| g\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}.$$
2. If $g\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ $(1\leq p<\infty )$, then the convolution $f\sharp g(x)$ exists for a. e. $x\in (0,\infty ),$ $f\sharp g$ $\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ and $$\label{young lp}
\left\| f\sharp g\right\| _{L^{p}(sr^{p})}\leq \left\| f\right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)}\left\| g\right\| _{L^{p}(sr^{p})}.$$
.2in
\[approxiden\] Let $\{\phi_{n}\}\subset L^{1}(rs)$ such that
1. $\phi_{n}\geq 0$ in $(0,\infty)$,
2. $\int_{0}^{\infty}\phi_{n}(x) r(x)s(x)\:dx=1$ for all n
3. For $\delta > 0$ , $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\delta}^{\infty} \phi_{n}(x)r(x)s(x)\:dx=0$.
Let $f\in L^{\infty}(r)$ and continuous in $x_{0}\in(0,\infty)$, then $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} f\sharp \phi_{n}(x_{0})=f(x_{0})$. Further, if $\:\:rf\:\:$ is uniformly continuous in $(0,\infty)$ then $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \|f\sharp \phi_{n}(x)-f(x)\|_{L^{\infty}(r)}=0$
.2in
\[prop hankel conv\] Let $f,g\in L^{1}(sr)$, then $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }\left( f\sharp g\right) =r\mathit{h}_{\mu }(f)\mathit{h}_{\mu }(g). \label{hankel convol}$$
.3in
The Bessel operator $S_{\mu }$
------------------------------
In this section we summarize some elementary properties of $S_{\mu }$ on the spaces $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ and $\mathcal{H}'_{\mu }$. For most of the proofs we refer the reader to [@az].
\[notas smu\]
1. The operator $S_{\mu }:\mathcal{H}_{\mu } \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ is continuous.
2. If $\lambda \geq 0$, the operator $$\begin{array}{lll}
\mathcal{H}_{\mu } & \longrightarrow & \mathcal{H}_{\mu } \\
\phi & \longrightarrow & (\lambda +x^{2})\phi
\end{array}$$ is continuous.
3. If $\lambda >0$, the operator $$\begin{array}{lll}
\mathcal{H}_{\mu } & \longrightarrow & \mathcal{H}_{\mu } \\
\phi & \longrightarrow & (\lambda +x^{2})^{-1}\phi
\end{array}$$ is continuous.
\[h mu s mu\] Let $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$, then
1. $\left( \mathit{h}_{\mu }S_{\mu }\phi \right) (x)=-x^{2}\left(\mathit{h}_{\mu}\phi \right) (x),\quad x\in (0,\infty ).$
2. $\left( S_{\mu }\mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi \right) =\mathit{h}_{\mu}(-y^{2}\phi (y)).$
.2in
\[operhmu\] The following continuous operators in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ can be extended to $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$ in the following way:
1. The Hankel transform $\mathit{h}_{\mu }$ $$(\mathit{h}_{\mu }u,\phi )=(u,\mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi ),\quad u\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime },\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu },$$
and $\mathit{h}_{\mu }:\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{\prime }\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$ is a bijective mapping .
2. The diferential operator $S_{\mu }$ $$(S_{\mu }u,\phi )=(u,S_{\mu }\phi ),\quad u\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime
},\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }.$$
3. The product of $(\lambda +x^{2})$ for $\lambda \geq 0$ $$((\lambda +x^{2})u,\phi )=(u,(\lambda +x^{2})\phi ),\quad u\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime },\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }.$$
4. The product of $(\lambda +x^{2})^{-1}$ for $\lambda >0$ $$((\lambda +x^{2})^{-1}u,\phi )=(u,(\lambda +x^{2})^{-1}\phi ),\quad u\in
\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime },\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }.$$
\[propHankelSmu\] If $u\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$, then
1. $\mathit{h}_{\mu }S_{\mu }u =-x^{2}\mathit{h}_{\mu }u $
2. $S_{\mu }\mathit{h}_{\mu }u =\mathit{h}_{\mu }(-y^{2}u)$
\[prophankelsmumas1\] The following equalities are valid in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$ for $n=1,2,\dots$
1. $(-S_{\mu }+\lambda)^{n}\mathit{h}_{\mu }=\mathit{h}_{\mu}(y^{2}+\lambda)^{n}$.\
Moreover if $\lambda> 0$
2. $\mathit{h}_{\mu }(-S_{\mu }+\lambda)^{-n}=(y^{2}+\lambda)^{-n}\mathit{h}_{\mu}$.
3. $\mathit{h}_{\mu }(-S_{\mu }(-S_{\mu }+\lambda)^{-1})^{n}=y^{2n}(y^{2}+\lambda)^{-n}\mathit{h}_{\mu}$
\(1) is immediate consequence of item (2) of Proposition \[propHankelSmu\] .\
Noting that $\mathit{h}_{\mu }(y^{2}+\lambda)^{-1}\mathit{h}_{\mu }$ is inverse operator of $-S_{\mu }+\lambda$, then (2) is obtained with a simple aplication of Propositon \[invHankel\] (see Appendix) and induction over n.\
Equality (3) follows immediately by item (2) of Proposition \[propHankelSmu\] and induction over n.
.2in
Previous results about similar operators and no-negativity
==========================================================
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces. Suppose that there is an isometric isomorphism $T:X\rightarrow Y$ and let $T^{-1}:Y\rightarrow X$ its inverse. Let $A$ a linear operator $A:D(A)\subset X\rightarrow X$ then we can consider the operator $B=TAT^{-1}$, $B:D(B)\subset Y\rightarrow Y$ with domain $$D(B)=\{x\in Y: T^{-1}x\in D(A)\},$$ Under these conditions we will say that such operators are *similars*.
\[propopsimilar\] Let $A$ and $B$ similar operators. Then $A$ is non negative if and only if so is $B$.
Let $B=TA T^{-1}$ , the proof is immediate noting that $$(zId-B)^{-1}=T(zId-A)^{-1}T^{-1},$$ for a complex number $z$ .
.2in If $A$ is a non negative operator, then for $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $\textrm{Re}\:\alpha>0$, $n>\textrm{Re}\:\alpha$ and $\phi\in D(A^{n})$, the Balakrisnahn operator associated with $A$, can be represented by $$J_{A}^{\alpha}\phi=\frac{\Gamma(m)}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(m-\alpha)}\int_{0}^{\infty}\lambda^{\alpha-1}[A(\lambda+A)^{-1}]^{m}\phi\:d\lambda,$$ (see [@ms Proposition 3.1.3, pp.59]).
If $A$ is bounded, $J_{A}^{\alpha}$ can be consider as fractional power of $A$, and in other case we can consider the following representation for fractional power given in [@ms Theorem 5.2.1, pp.114]), $$A^{\alpha}=(A+\lambda)^{n}J_{A}^{\alpha}(A+\lambda)^{-n},$$ with $\alpha$, $n$ as above and $\lambda\in\rho(-A)$.
When two operators are similar, the fractional powers also meet this property. Thus, we have the following result:
\[propobalakrisnan\]Let $A$ and $B$ similar and non negative operators. If $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $\textrm{Re}\:\alpha>0$, then $$\label{eqsimbalak}
J_{B}^{\alpha}=TJ_{A}^{\alpha}T^{-1},$$ and $$\label{eqsimilpot}
B^{\alpha}=TA^{\alpha}T^{-1},$$
where $T$ is the isometric isomorphism that verifies $B=TAT^{-1}$.
We observe that if $B=TAT^{-1}$ then $B^{n}=TA^{n}T^{-1}$ and $$D(T J_{A}^{\alpha}T^{-1})=\{x\in Y:T^{-1} x\in D(J_{A}^{\alpha})\}=\{x\in Y:T^{-1} x\in D(A^{n})\}=D(J_{B}^{\alpha}),$$
and (\[eqsimbalak\]) is immediate from properties of Bochner integral. In (\[eqsimilpot\]) the equality of domains is evident and $$B^{\alpha}=(B+\lambda)^{n}J_{B}^{\alpha}(B+\lambda)^{-n}=(TAT^{-1}+\lambda)^{n}TJ_{A}^{\alpha}T^{-1}(TAT^{-1}+\lambda)^{-n}=$$ $$=T(A+\lambda)^{n}T^{-1}TJ_{A}^{\alpha}T^{-1}T(A+\lambda)^{-n}T^{-1}=TA^{\alpha}T^{-1}.$$
.2in Now, we consider a Hausdorff locally convex space $X$ with a direct family of seminorms $\{\|\|_{X,\nu}\}_{\nu\in \mathcal{A}}$. Let $Y$ be a linear space such that there is a linear isomorphism $L:X\rightarrow Y$. Then, we can define the following family of seminorms in Y: $$\|y\|_{Y,\nu}=\|L^{-1}(y)\|_{X,\nu}.$$ Thus, the linear space $Y$ with the directed family of seminorms $\{\|\|_{Y,\nu}\}_{\nu\in \mathcal{A}}$ is a Hausdorff locally convex space and $X$ and $Y$ are isomorphic. The propositions \[propopsimilar\] and \[propobalakrisnan\] can be easily extended to the case of non negative operators in locally convex spaces.
Applications to Bessel operator
-------------------------------
Given $\mu >-\frac{1}{2}$, we consider the differential operator given by (\[besselOp1\]) defined in $(0,\infty)$.
We are now going to apply the observations considered in the previous section to the operator $\Delta _{\mu }$. First, we calculate the Sturm-Liouville form of $\Delta _{\mu }$, thereby obtaining the operator $$T_{\mu }=x^{2\mu +1}\Delta _{\mu }$$ which is formally self-adjoint. Operators of type $fT_{\mu }f$, with $f\in C^{\infty }(0,\infty)$, are still formally self-adjoint. If we want the new operator to be similar to $\Delta _{\mu }$, namely type $r^{-1}\Delta _{\mu }r$, we have to consider $r=x^{-\mu
-\frac{1}{2}}$. Thus the operator $$\label{def smu}
S_{\mu }=x^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}\:\Delta _{\mu }\:x^{-\mu
-\frac{1}{2}}$$ is formally self-adjoint and similar to $\Delta _{\mu }$ and hence with the same espectral properties.
Since mappings $L_{r}:L^{p}(r^{p}s)\rightarrow L^{p}(s)$ with $1\leq p<\infty$ (or $L_{r}:L^{\infty}(r)\rightarrow L^{\infty}$) given by $L_{r}(f)=rf$ are isometric isomorphisms, if we consider the part of the distributional operator $\Delta_{\mu }$ in the spaces $L^{p}(s)$ (or $ L^{\infty}$), i.e., the operator with domain $$D((\Delta_{\mu })_{L^{p}(s)})=\left\{ f\in
L^{p}(s):\Delta_{\mu }f\in L^{p}(s)\right\},$$ and given by $(\Delta_{\mu})_{L^{p}(s)}f=\Delta_{\mu}f$. Then, applying the ideas developed in the previous section, it is enough to study the operator $S_{\mu }$ in the spaces $L^{p}(sr^{p})$ (or $L^{\infty}(r)$).
Fractional powers of $S_{\mu }$ in Lebesgue spaces
==================================================
Now, we study the non negativity of the part in $L^{p}(sr^{p})$ and in $L^{\infty }(r)$ of distributional differential operator $S_{\mu}$ given by (\[besselOp2\]).
Let $1\leq p<\infty$. We will denote by $S_{\mu,p }$ the part of $S_{\mu }$ in $L^{p}(sr^{p})$; i.e. the operator $S_{\mu }$ with domain $$D\left( S_{\mu,p }\right) =\left\{ f\in
L^{p}(sr^{p}):S_{\mu }f\in L^{p}(sr^{p})\right\}$$ and given by $ S_{\mu,p }f=S_{\mu }f.$ .1in
Analogously, by $S_{\mu,\infty }$ we will denote the part of $S_{\mu }$ in $L^{\infty }(r)$; namely, the operator $S_{\mu }$ with domain $$D\left( S_{\mu,\infty}\right) =\left\{ f\in L^{\infty
}(r):S_{\mu }f\in L^{\infty }(r)\right\}$$ and $S_{\mu,\infty}f=S_{\mu}f.$
.2in
In order to study the non negativity of operators $-S_{\mu,\infty}$ and $-S_{\mu,p}$ we consider the following function:
$$\mathcal{K}_{\nu }(x)=\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}x\Bigr)^{\nu }\int_{0}^{\infty
}e^{-t-\frac{x^{2}}{4t}}\frac{dt}{t^{\nu +1}}, \label{rep integ 1}$$
for $x\in (0,\infty)$. Since for $\nu < 0$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty
}e^{-t-\frac{x^{2}}{4t}}t^{-\nu -1}\:dt<\int_{0}^{\infty
}e^{-t}t^{-\nu -1}\:dt<\infty$$
and for $\nu\geq 0$ the function $e^{-t-\frac{x^{2}}{4t}}t^{-\nu -1}$ is bounded in a neighborhood of zero, $\mathcal{K}_{\nu}$ is well defined for $\nu\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mathcal{K}_{\nu}>0$.
For non-integer values of $\nu $ , $\mathcal{K}_{\nu}$ (see [@wa (15), pp. 183]), coincides with the Macdonald’s function $\rm {K}_{\nu }$ (see [@wa (6) and (7), pp. 78]) given by $$\rm{K}_{\nu }(x)=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{I_{-\nu }(x)-I_{\nu }(x)}{\sin \nu
\pi }\quad x>0,$$ with $I_{\upsilon }$ is the modified Bessel function over $(0,\infty )$ (see [@wa (2), pp. 77]). For integers values of $\nu$, $\rm {K}_{\nu }$ is defined by $$\rm{K}_{n}(x)=\underset{\nu \rightarrow n}{\lim }\:\rm{K}_{\nu
}(x)\quad x>0.$$
.3in
Now, given $\lambda >0$, we consider the function $$N_{\lambda }(x)=\lambda ^{\frac{\mu }{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{K}_{\mu }(\sqrt{\lambda }\:x), \quad x\in (0,\infty).$$ .1in
The following lemmas describe properties of the kernel $N_{\lambda}$ which are crucial for the study of the no-negativity of Bessel operator (for proofs see Appendix).
\[lemaNlambda\] Given $\mu >-\frac{1}{2}$ and $\lambda >0$ then .1in
a\) $N_{\lambda }\in L^{1}(sr)=L^{1}(\frac{r^{-1}}{c_{\mu }})$ and $$\left\| N_{\lambda }\right\| _{L^{1}(sr)}=\frac{1}{\lambda }.$$
b\) $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }N_{\lambda }(y)=\frac{y^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}}{\lambda +y^{2}}.$$
\[lemaHankelNlambda\] Let $1\leq p<\infty $. If $f\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ or $L^{\infty }(r)$ then the following equality holds on $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$ $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }( N_{\lambda }\sharp f) =\frac{1}{\lambda +y^{2}}\:\mathit{h}_{\mu }( f) \label{hank conv nl}$$
.3in Finally, we can establish the main result of this section.
\[teonongLp\] Given $\mu >-\frac{1}{2}$, then
1. The operators $ S_{\mu,p}$ and $S_{\mu,\infty}$ are closed .
2. The operators $-S_{\mu,p}$ and $-S_{\mu,\infty}$ are non-negative.
\(1) Let $\{f_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\subset D\left( S_{\mu,\infty}\right)$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}f_{n}=f\quad \quad {\rm and} \quad\quad \lim_{n\rightarrow
\infty}S_{\mu,\infty} f_{n}=g$$
in $L^{\infty}(r)$. Since convergence in $L^{\infty}(r)$ implies convergence in $\mathcal{D'}(0,\infty)$, then given $\phi
\in\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)$ $$(S_{\mu}f,\phi)=(f,S_{\mu}\phi)=\lim_{n\rightarrow
\infty}(f_{n},S_{\mu}\phi)=\lim_{n\rightarrow
\infty}(S_{\mu}f_{n},\phi)=(g,\phi),$$
so, $S_{\mu}f=g$ and $ S_{\mu,\infty}$ is closed. The case of $S_{\mu,p}$ is similar.\
.1in
\(2) Let $\lambda >0$ and $f\in D\left( S_{\mu,\infty}\right)$ such that $\bigl(\lambda
-S_{\mu,\infty}\bigr)\:f=0$. Then $\left( \lambda -S_{\mu,\infty}\right)f\in L^{\infty }(r)$ and is null as regular element of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$, so $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }\bigl(\lambda - S_{\mu,\infty}f\bigr)=0$$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$. By Proposition \[propHankelSmu\], we obtain that $$(\lambda +y^{2})\mathit{h}_{\mu }f=0$$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$, and hence by Proposition \[operhmu\]
$$\mathit{h}_{\mu }f=(\lambda +y^{2})^{-1}(\lambda
+y^{2})\mathit{h}_{\mu }f=0.$$
Then, $f=0$ as element of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }^{\prime }$ and by Remark \[regdistrib\] we conclude that $f=0$ a.e in $(0,\infty)$ and, $\lambda - S_{\mu,\infty}$ is inyective. Now, let $f\in L^{\infty }(r)$ and $g=N_{\lambda }\sharp
\:\mathit{f}$. Then, by Theorem \[teoyoung\], $g\in L^{\infty
}(r)$ and $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }\bigl(\left(\lambda - S_{\mu,\infty}\right) g\bigr)=(\lambda +y^{2})\:\mathit{h}_{\mu }g=(\lambda
+y^{2})\:\mathit{h}_{\mu }( N_{\lambda }\sharp \:f) =\mathit{h}_{\mu}f.$$ By injectivity of Hankel transform in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu
}^{\prime }$ we obtain that $$\left(\lambda - S_{\mu,\infty}\right) g=f,$$ so, $\lambda - S_{\mu,\infty }$ is onto. Also, $$\left\| \left(\lambda - S_{\mu,\infty}\right)^{-1}f\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}=\left\| g\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}=\left\|
N_{\lambda }\sharp \mathit{f}\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}\leq \left\|
N_{\lambda }\right\| _{L^{1}(rs)}\left\| \mathit{f}\right\| _{L^{\infty
}(r)}=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left\| \mathit{f}\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}$$ hence $- S_{\mu,\infty }$ is non-negative. The proof of non-negativity of $- S_{\mu,p}$ is similar.
: In [@motri], the result of theorem above has been obtained for the particular case $p=2$ and in $\mathbb{R}^{n}_{+}$.
Now, in view of non-negativity of $- S_{\mu,\infty }$ and $- S_{\mu,p}$ we can consider the complex fractional powers. If $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$, $\textrm{Re}\:\alpha> 0$ and $n>\textrm{Re}\:\alpha$ then the fractional power of $- S_{\mu,\infty }$ can be represented by: $$(- S_{\mu,\infty })^{\alpha}=(- S_{\mu,\infty }+1)^{n}\mathcal{J}_{\infty }^{\alpha}(- S_{\mu,\infty }+1)^{-n},$$ (see [@ms (5.20), pp. 114]), where with $\mathcal{J}_{\infty}^{\alpha}$ we denote the Balakrishnan operator associated to $- S_{\mu,\infty}$ given by: $$\mathcal{J}_{\infty}^{\alpha}\phi=\frac{\Gamma(n)}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(n-\alpha)}\int_{0}^{\infty}\lambda^{\alpha-1}\Bigl[- S_{\mu,\infty}(\lambda- S_{\mu,\infty})^{-1}\Bigr]^{n}\phi\:d\lambda,$$ for $\alpha$ and $n$ in the previous conditions and $\phi\in D((- S_{\mu,\infty})^{n})$, (see [@ms (3.4), pp. 59]). The case of $(- S_{\mu,p})^{\alpha}$ is analogous.
Nonnegativity of Bessel operator $S_{\mu }$ in the space $\mathcal{B}$
=======================================================================
In order to study non-negativity of Bessel operator in a locally convex space, we begin with the following observation:
The continuous operator $-S_{\mu}:\mathcal{H}_{\mu}\to\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ is not non-negative.
.1in
Indeed, if we suppose that $-S_{\mu}$ is non-negative in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$, by the continuity of $-S_{\mu}$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$, given $\alpha\in \mathbb{C}$, $0<\alpha< 1$ and according to [@ms Chapter 5, pp. 105 and 134]), we have that fractional power $(-S_{\mu})^{\alpha}$ would be given by $$\label{e6}
(-S_{\mu})^{\alpha}\phi=\frac{\sin
\alpha\pi}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\:
\lambda^{\alpha-1}(-S_{\mu})(\lambda-S_{\mu})^{-1}\phi\:
d\lambda$$ and $D((-S_{\mu})^{\alpha})=D(-S_{\mu})=\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$. Applying the Hankel transform in (\[e6\]) we obtain $${\it h}_{\mu}\Bigl((-S_{\mu})^{\alpha}\phi\Bigr)(y)=\frac{\sin
\alpha\pi}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\:
\lambda^{\alpha-1}y^{2}(\lambda+y^{2})^{-1}{\it
h}_{\mu}\phi(y)\:
d\lambda.$$ $$=(y^{2})^{\alpha}{\it h}_{\mu}\phi(y),$$
where we have used equality (3) of Proposition \[prophankelsmumas1\] and [@ms Remark 3.1.1]). In this case it would mean that $(y^{2})^{\alpha}{\it h}_{\mu}\phi(y)\in\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ which is false in general (just consider $\phi(y)=y^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}e^{-y^{2}}$ and $\alpha=\frac{1}{4}$).
.3in
Now, we consider the Banach space $Y=L^{1}(sr)\cap L^{\infty }(r)$ with the norm $$\left\| f\right\| _{Y}=\max \left( \left\| f\right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)},\left\| f\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}\right) ,$$ and the part of the Bessel operator in $Y$, $(S_{\mu})_{Y}$, with domain $$D\bigl[(S_{\mu})_{Y}\bigr]=\{f\in Y:S_{\mu}f\in Y\}.$$
From Theorem \[teonongLp\] it is evident that $-(S_{\mu})_{Y}$ is closed and nonnegative. We have the following proposition:
\[suavdomSmuy\] $D\bigl[(S_{\mu})_{Y}\bigr]\subset C_{0}(0,\infty)$.
By (\[inclusHm\]) and (\[eqincL1\]), $L^{1}(sr)\cap L^{\infty}(r)\subset L^{1}(0,\infty)\bigcap
L^{2}(0,\infty)$, then for $f\in D\bigl[(S_{\mu})_{Y}\bigr]$, $f$ and $S_{\mu}f$ are in $L^{1}(0,\infty)$. By Remark \[obsHankelL1\] (see Apendix) then $\mathit{h}_{\mu}f-\mathit{h}_{\mu}S_{\mu}f$ are in $L^{\infty}(0,\infty)$. By (1) of Proposition \[propHankelSmu\] we have that $$(1+y^{2})|\mathit{h}_{\mu}f|\leq M,$$ so, $\mathit{h}_{\mu}f\in L^{1}(0,\infty)$.
We have thus proved that for $f\in D\bigl[(S_{\mu})_{Y}\bigr]$ then $f$ and $\mathit{h}_{\mu}(f)$ are in $L^{1}(0,\infty)\bigcap
L^{2}(0,\infty)$. Then, by Remark \[inverHankelHmu\] (see Appendix), we obtain that $$\mathit{h}_{\mu}(\mathit{h}_{\mu}(f))(x)=f(x) , \quad \mbox
{a.e}\quad x\in (0,\infty).$$
Since $\mathit{h}_{\mu}(f)\in L^{1}(0,\infty)$ then by Proposition \[ImHankL1\], $f=g$ a.e in $(0,\infty)$ with $g\in
C_{0}(0,\infty)$.
.3in
Now, we consider the following space: $$\mathcal{B}=\{f\in Y: (S_{\mu})^{k}f\in Y \quad\mbox {for}\quad k=0,1,2,\cdots\}=
\bigcap_{k=0}^{\infty}D\bigl[((S_{\mu})_{Y})^{k}\bigr],$$
with the seminorms $$\rho_{m}(f)=\max_{0\leq k\leq m}(\| (S_{\mu})^{k}f \|_{Y}), \quad m=0,1,2,\cdots$$
\[B debil H\] From Proposition \[suavdomSmuy\] it is evident that $\mathcal{B}\subset C^{\infty}(0,\infty)\bigcap C_{0}(0,\infty)$. Moreover, is clear from (\[inclusHm\]) that $\mathcal{B}\subset L^{p}(sr^{p})$ for all $1\leq p<\infty$, and considering (1) of proposition \[notas smu\] we have that $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }\subset \mathcal{B}$ and the topology of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ induced by $\mathcal{B}$ is weaker than the usual topology given in section 2. Indeed, from (\[acotainf1\]) and (\[acota L11\]) we have that $$\label{eqacotasemi}
\|\phi\|_{Y}\leq C \left[ \gamma _{0,0}^{\mu }(\phi )+\gamma
_{k,0}^{\mu }(\phi )\right] ,\quad \phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu}$$ for $k> 2\mu+2$, and by continuity of $S_{\mu}$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$, we deduce that given a seminorm $\rho_{m}$ there exists a finite set of seminorms $\{\gamma _{m_{i},k_{i}}^{\mu}\}_{i=1}^{r} $ and constants $c_{1},\dots, c_{r}$ such that $$\rho_{m}(\phi)\leq \sum c_{i}\gamma _{m_{i},k_{i}}^{\mu}(\phi),
\quad \phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu}.$$ Moreover, $\mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ is dense in $\mathcal{B}$ because $\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)$ it is.
\[propo nonormable\] $\mathcal{B}$ is not normable.
Suppose that $\mathcal{B}$ is locally bounded, then there exists an integer positive $n$ such that the set $$V_{n}=\Bigl\{\phi\in\mathcal{B} : \rho_{n}(\phi)< \frac{1}{n}\Bigr\},$$ are bounded. Then, there exists a $t_{n}> 0$ such that $$\label{eqinclVn}
V_{n}\subset t_{n}V_{n+1}.$$ Let $\phi\in\mathcal{B}$ and $\varphi=\bigl((n+1)\rho_{n}(\phi)\bigr)^{-1}\phi$. Then $\varphi\in V_{n}$ and by (\[eqinclVn\]) $(t_{n})^{-1}\varphi\in V_{n+1}$, and hence $\rho_{n+1}((t_{n})^{-1}\varphi)< \frac{1}{n+1}$, so $$\label{desigrho}
\rho_{n+1}(\phi)\leq t_{n}\rho_{n}(\phi)$$ Given a constant $l>0$ and $f,g\in C^{2k}(0,\infty)$ related by $f(x)=g(lx)$, we have that
$$\label{eqSmuiterated}
(S_{\mu})^{k}f(x)=(l^{2})^{k}((S_{\mu})^{k}g)(lx).$$
Now, let $\phi\in\mathcal{B}$ such that $(S_{\mu})^{n+1}\phi$ non-identically vanishing function and a constant $s>1$. Then $\psi(x)=\phi(s^{-1}x)$ remains in $\mathcal{B}$ and verified that $(S_{\mu})^{n+1}\psi$ is a non-identically vanishing function and $\phi(x)=\psi(sx)$. Then, $$\|(S_{\mu})^{n+1}\psi\|_{L^{\infty}(r)}=s^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}s^{-2(n+1)}\|(S_{\mu})^{n+1}\phi\|_{L^{\infty}(r)}\leq$$ $$\label{eqnonorm}
s^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}s^{-2(n+1)} t_{n}\rho_{n}(\phi)\leq s^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}s^{-2(n+1)}s^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}} s^{2n} t_{n}\rho_{n}(\psi)=s^{-2}t_{n}\rho_{n}(\psi).$$ Since (\[eqnonorm\]) is verified for all $s>1$, taking $s\rightarrow \infty$, we conclude that $\|(S_{\mu})^{n+1}\psi\|_{L^{\infty}(r)}$=0 which contradicts the assumption about $\psi$. Then the proposition follows.
We denote with $(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B}}$ the part of Bessel operator $S_{\mu}$ in $\mathcal{B}$. By definition of $\mathcal{B}$, it is evident that the domain of $(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B}}$ is $\mathcal{B}$ and is verified the following result
\[cont smu in B\] $\mathcal{B}$ is a Fréchet space and $-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B}}$ is continuous and nonnegative operator on $\mathcal{B}$.
The proof is immediate by Proposition 1.4.2 given in [@ms].
Nonnegativity of Bessel operator $S_{\mu }$ in the distributional space $\mathcal{B'}$
=======================================================================================
In this section we study the non-negativity of Bessel operator in the topological dual space of $\mathcal{B}$ with the strong topology, i.e the space $\mathcal{B'}$ with the seminorms $\{|.|_{B}\}$, where the sets $B$ are in the family of bounded sets in $\mathcal{B}$, and are given by
$$|T|_{B}=\sup_{\phi\in B}|(T,\phi)|, \quad T\in \mathcal{B'}.$$
As in [@stu Remark 3.4, pp.263], $\mathcal{B'}$ is sequentially complete because $\mathcal{B}$ is non-normable. Moreover, and for $1\leq p\leq \infty$ then $L^{p}(sr^{p})\subset \mathcal{B'}$. To prove this, we observe that given $f\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ and $\phi\in \mathcal{B}$ and $q$ the conjugate of $p$ then $$\label{eqacotaf}
\Bigl|\int_{0}^{\infty}f\phi\Bigr|=\Bigl|\int_{0}^{\infty}f\phi s^{-1}r^{-p}sr^{p}\Bigr|\leq \|f\|_{L^{p}(sr^{p})}\|\phi s^{-1}r^{-p}\|_{L^{q}(sr^{p})},$$
and $$\|\phi s^{-1}r^{-p}\|_{L^{q}(sr^{p})}=\Bigl\{\int_{0}^{\infty}|\phi s^{-1}r^{-p}|^{q}sr^{p}\Bigr\}^{\frac{1}{q}}=
\Bigl\{\int_{0}^{\infty}|\phi|^{q}(c_{\mu}r^{2}r^{-p})^{q}sr^{p}\Bigr\}^{\frac{1}{q}}=$$ $$\label{eq phi}
=c_{\mu}\Bigl\{\int_{0}^{\infty}|\phi|^{q}r^{2q-pq+p} s \Bigr\}^{\frac{1}{q}}
=c_{\mu}\Bigl\{\int_{0}^{\infty}|\phi|^{q} sr^{q}\Bigr\}^{\frac{1}{q}}.$$
Moreover, by (\[acota Lp\]) we have that $$\label{acota phi}
\|\phi\|_{L^{q}(sr^{q})}\leq \rho_{0}(\phi),$$ and from (\[eqacotaf\]), (\[eq phi\]) and (\[acota phi\]) we obtain that $f\in\mathcal{B'}$.
Now, let $B$ be a bounded set in $\mathcal{B}$ then $$\sup_{\phi\in \mathcal{B}}\Bigl|\int_{0}^{\infty}f\phi\Bigr|\leq c_{\mu}\|f\|_{L^{p}(sr^{p})}\sup_{\phi\in \mathcal{B}}\|\phi\|_{L^{q}(sr^{q})}\leq c_{\mu}\|f\|_{L^{p}(sr^{p})}\sup_{\phi\in \mathcal{B}}\rho_{0}(\phi).$$ Consequently, the topology in $L^{p}(sr^{p})$ induced by $\mathcal{B'}$ with strong topology is weaker than the usual topology.
By Remark \[B debil H\], $\mathcal{B'}\subset \mathcal{H'}_{\mu}$. Moreover, from the continuity of the Bessel operator in $\mathcal{B}$, we can consider $S_{\mu}$ in $\mathcal{B'}$ as adjoint operator of $S_{\mu}$ in $\mathcal{B}$, that is $$(S_{\mu}T,\phi)=(T,S_{\mu}\phi), \quad T\in\mathcal{B'}, \phi\in\mathcal{B},$$ and we denote with $(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}}$ the part of Bessel operator in $\mathcal{B'}$
The operator $-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}}$ is continuous and non negative considering the strong topology in $\mathcal{B'}$.
The proof of continuity is identical to the proof given in [@stu Theorem 3.5, pp. 264] for the Laplacean operator and the non negativity is a consecuence of theory of fractional powers in distributional spaces (see [@ms pp. 24]).
The operator $(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}}$ is not injective because the function $x^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}$ is solution of $S_{\mu}=0$ and belongs to $\mathcal{B'}$, in fact $$|(x^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}},\phi)|\leq c_{\mu}\|\phi\|_{L^{1}(sr)}\leq c_{\mu}\rho_{0}(\phi), \:\: (\phi\in\mathcal{B}).$$
.2in According to representation of fractional powers of operators in locally convex spaces given in [@ms], for $\textrm{Re}\:\alpha>0$, $n>\textrm{Re}\:\alpha$ , $T\in\mathcal{B'}$, $(-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}})^{\alpha}$ is given by
$$(-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}})^{\alpha}T=\frac{\Gamma(n)}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(n-\alpha)}\int_{0}^{\infty}\lambda^{\alpha-1}\Bigl[-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}}(\lambda- (S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}})^{-1}\Bigr]^{n}T\:d\lambda.$$
From the general theory of fractional power in sequentially complete locally convex spaces (see [@ms pp. 134]), we deduce immediately the properties of powers as multiplicativity, spectral mapping theorem, and .2in
1\) If $\textrm{Re}\:\alpha> 0$ then
$$\label{eqduality}
\Bigl((-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B}})^{\alpha}\Bigr)^{\ast}=\Bigl((-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B}})^{\ast}\Bigr)^{\alpha}.$$
Since $(-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B}})^{\ast}=-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}}$ then from (\[eqduality\]) we obtain the following duality formula $$((-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}})^{\alpha}T,\phi)=(T,(-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B}})^{\alpha}\phi), \:\: (\phi\in\mathcal{B}, T\in\mathcal{B'}).$$ .2in
2\) Since the usual topology in $L^{p}(sr^{p})$ is stronger than the topology induced by $\mathcal{B'}$ then we can deduce that
$$\bigl[(-(S_{\mu})_{\mathcal{B'}})^{\alpha}\bigr]_{L^{p}(sr^{p})}=((-(S_{\mu,p}))^{\alpha},$$ if $\textrm{Re}\:\alpha> 0$, (see [@ms Theorem 12.1.6, pp. 284]).
Appendix
========
Some properties of Hankel transform in Lebesgue spaces
------------------------------------------------------
\[propplan\] If $f,g\in L^{1}(sr)$, then:
\(1) $\mathit{h}_{\mu }f\in L^{\infty }(r).$
\(2) $$\label{parseval}
\int_{0}^{\infty }\mathit{h}_{\mu }f g=\int_{0}^{\infty}f\mathit{h}_{\mu}g.$$
The assertion $(1)$ follows from the equalities $$x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}}\mathit{h}_{\mu }(f)(x)=x^{-\mu -\frac{1}{2}}\int_{0}^{\infty }\sqrt{xy}J_{\mu }(xy)f(y)dy=\int_{0}^{\infty }(xy)^{-\mu
}J_{\mu }(xy)f(y)y^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}dy.$$
The existence and equality of the integrals in (\[parseval\]) are an immediate consequence of Tonelli-Hobson theorem.
In [@HI] is studied a version of Hankel transform given by:
$$H_{\mu }(f)(x)=c_{\mu }\int_{0}^{\infty }\left( xy\right) ^{-\mu
}J_{\mu }(xy)f(y)s(y)dy,$$
for $f\in L^{1}(s)$. $H_{\mu}$ is related whit $\mathit{h}_{\mu}$ by $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }(f)=r^{-1}H_{\mu }(rf).$$ for $f\in L^{1}(sr)$ ($r$ and $s$ like as in section 2). From this relation and the inversion theorem for $H_{\mu}$ (see [@HI Corollary 2e, pp 316]) , we obtain the following inversion theorem for $\mathit{h}_{\mu}$
\[invHankel\] If $f\in L^{1}(sr)$ and $\mathit{h}_{\mu }(f)\in L^{1}(sr)$ then $f$ may be redefined on a set of measure zero so that it is continuous in $(0,\infty)$ and
$$f(x)=\int_{0}^{\infty }\sqrt{xy}J_{\mu
}(xy)\mathit{h}_{\mu}(f)(y)dy=\mathit{h}_{\mu}(\mathit{h}_{\mu}(f))(x)$$
\[inverHankelHmu\] From the above Propositon we deduce immediately the validity of equality $\mathit{h}_{\mu}\mathit{h}_{\mu}f=f$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ and $\mathcal{H'}_{\mu}$.
.3in
With $L^{p}(0,\infty)$ we denote the usual Lebesgue space given by (\[defespLp\]) with $w(x)=1$.
\[obsHankelL1\] Since the function $(z)^{\frac{1}{2}}J_{\mu}(z)$ is bounded in $(0,\infty)$ for $\mu > -\frac{1}{2}$, then for $f\in
L^{1}(0,\infty)$ we have that $\mathit{h}_{\mu}f$ is continuous and $\|\mathit{h}_{\mu}f\|_{\infty}\leq C\|f\|_{1}$.
As usual, we denote with $C_{0}(0,\infty)$ the set of continuous functions in $(0,\infty)$ and vanishes at infinity. We have the following proposition:
\[ImHankL1\] $\mathit{h}_{\mu}(L^{1}(0,\infty))\subset C_{0}(0,\infty)$
First, we observe that $$\label{eqincL1}
L^{1}(sr)\cap L^{\infty }(r)\subset L^{1}(0,\infty).$$
Indeed, $$\int_{0}^{\infty}|f|\:dx=\int_{0}^{\infty}|f| rr^{-1}\:dx=\int_{0}^{1}|f| rr^{-1}\:dx+\int_{1}^{\infty}|f|
rr^{-1}\:dx\leq$$ $$\leq \| f \|_{L^{\infty}(r)}\int_{0}^{1}r^{-1}\:dx+\int_{1}^{\infty}|f|
r^{-1}\:dx =C \| f\|_{L^{\infty}(r)}+c_{\mu }\| f\|_{L^{1}(rs)},$$ because $r< 1$ in $[1,\infty)$ , $\mu +\frac{1}{2}> 0$ and $rs=c^{-1}_{\mu }r^{-1}$.
By (\[eqincL1\]) and (\[inclusHm\]) we deduce that $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}\subset L^{1}(0,\infty)$. Since $\mathcal{D}(0,\infty)\subset \mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ then $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ is dense in $L^{1}(0,\infty)$. Given $f\in L^{1}(0,\infty)$ and $\{\phi_{n}\}\subset \mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ such that $\phi_{n}\rightarrow f$ in $L^{1}(0,\infty)$ then by Remark \[obsHankelL1\] (see Apendix) $\mathit{h}_{\mu}(\phi_{n})\rightarrow \mathit{h}_{\mu}(f)$ uniformly. Since $\mathit{h}_{\mu}(\phi_{n})\in C_{0}(0,\infty)$ then $\mathit{h}_{\mu}(f)\in C_{0}(0,\infty)$.
For $\mu > -\frac{1}{2}$, $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ is a dense subset of $L^{2}(0,\infty)$ and for $\phi\in \mathcal{H}_{\mu}$ we have that
$$\|\mathit{h}_{\mu}\phi \|_{2}=\|\phi\|_{2},$$ So, we can consider the extension to $L^{2}(0,\infty)$ of $\mathit{h}_{\mu}$ and $$\|\mathit{h}_{\mu}f\|_{2}=\|f\|_{2},$$ for $f\in L^{2}(0,\infty)$.
Hankel convolution
------------------
\[propD\] $D_{\mu }(x,y,z)$ satisfies the following properties:
1. $D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\geq 0$ for $x,y,z \in (0,\infty)$.
2. $\int_{0}^{\infty} \sqrt{zt} J_{\mu}(zt) D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\: dz=\sqrt{xt} J_{\mu}(xt)\sqrt{yt} J_{\mu}(yt)t^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}$ for $x,y,t\in (0,\infty)$.
3. $\int_{0}^{\infty} z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\: dz=c_{\mu}^{-1}x^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}$ for $x,y \in (0,\infty)$.
Assertion (1) follows immediately.
To proof (2), first we observe that $$\Bigl|\sqrt{zt} J_{\mu}(zt) D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\Bigr|=\Bigl|\sqrt{zt}(zt)^{\mu} (zt)^{-\mu}J_{\mu}(zt) D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\Bigr|\leq C t^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\Bigl|z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}} D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\Bigr|=$$ $$=C t^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\Biggl|z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{2^{\mu-1}(xyz)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}(A(x,y,z))^{2\mu-1}\Biggr|=$$ $$=C t^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{(xy)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{2^{3\mu-1}\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}\Biggl|z((x+y)^{2}-z^{2})^{\mu-\frac{1}{2}}(z^{2}-(x-y)^{2})^{\mu-\frac{1}{2}}
\Biggr|$$ and the last function is integrable for $z\in [\:\vert x-y \vert\:,\:x+y\:]$ and $\mu>-\frac{1}{2}$. So, we conclude that $z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}D_{\mu }(x,y,z)$ is integrable in $(0,\infty)$ for $\mu>-\frac{1}{2}$. Now, we consider the change of variables $T:(0,\pi)\rightarrow (0,\infty)$ given by $T(\phi)=\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}$. Then $\vert x-y \vert< T(\phi)<x+y$ , $\frac{d}{d\phi}T(\phi)=\frac{xy \sin \phi}{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}}$ and $A(x,y,T(\phi))=\frac{xy}{2}\sin \phi$. So, $$\int_{0}^{\infty} \sqrt{zt} J_{\mu}(zt) D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\: dz=\frac{2^{\mu-1}(xy)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{\vert x-y \vert}^{x+y} \sqrt{zt} J_{\mu}(zt)z^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\:(A(x,y,z))^{2\mu-1}\: dz=$$
$$=\frac{2^{\mu-1}(xy)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{\pi} J_{\mu}\bigl(\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}\:\:t\bigr) \bigl(\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}\bigr)^{-\mu+1}.$$ $$.\Bigl(\frac{xy}{2}\sin \phi\Bigr)^{2\mu-1}\frac{xy \sin \phi}{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}}\:\:d\phi=$$ $$\label{eqint4}
\frac{(xy)^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2^{\mu}\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{\pi}\frac{ J_{\mu}\bigl(\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}\:\:t\bigr)}{ \bigl(\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}\bigr)^{\mu}}\sin^{2\mu}\phi\:\:d\phi.$$
Since $$\int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{J_{\mu}\bigl(\sqrt{Z^{2}+z^{2}-2zZ \cos \phi}\bigr)}{\bigl(\sqrt{Z^{2}+z^{2}-2zZ \cos \phi}\bigr)^{\mu}}\sin^{2\mu}\phi\:\:d\phi=2^{\mu}\Gamma\Bigl(\mu+\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\Gamma\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\frac{J_{\mu}(Z)}{Z^{\mu}}
\frac{J_{\mu}(z)}{z^{\mu}},$$ (see (16) pg. 367 [@wa]) valid to $z,Z>0$, $\mu> -\frac{1}{2}$, and considering $Z=xt$ y $z=yt$ we obtain in the last equality $$\label{eqint5}
\int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{J_{\mu}\bigl(\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}\:\:t\bigr)}{\bigl(\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}\bigr)^{\mu}t^{\mu}}\sin^{2\mu}\phi\:\:d\phi=2^{\mu}\Gamma\Bigl(\mu+\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\Gamma\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\frac{J_{\mu}(xt)}{(xt)^{\mu}}
\frac{J_{\mu}(yt)}{(yt)^{\mu}}.$$ Applying (\[eqint5\]) in (\[eqint4\]), we obtain that $$\int_{0}^{\infty} \sqrt{zt} J_{\mu}(zt) D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\: dz=$$
$$\frac{(xy)^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2^{\mu}\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}} \:\: t^{\mu}2^{\mu}\Gamma\Bigl(\mu+\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\Gamma\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\frac{J_{\mu}(xt)}{(xt)^{\mu}}
\frac{J_{\mu}(yt)}{(yt)^{\mu}}=\sqrt{xt} J_{\mu}(xt)\sqrt{yt} J_{\mu}(yt)t^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ As for (3), we consider again the change of variable $T$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty} z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\: dz=\frac{2^{\mu-1}(xy)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{\vert x-y \vert}^{x+y} z\:(A(x,y,z))^{2\mu-1}\: dz=$$ $$\frac{2^{\mu-1}(xy)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{\pi}\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}\:\:\Bigl(\frac{xy}{2}\sin \phi\Bigr)^{2\mu-1} \frac{xy \sin \phi}{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}-2xy \cos \phi}}\:d\phi=$$
$$=\frac{2^{\mu-1}(xy)^{-\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{\pi}}\:\:2^{-2\mu+1}(xy)^{2\mu}\:
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\:\Gamma(\mu+\frac{1}{2})}{\mu\:\Gamma(\mu)}=$$ $$=(xy)^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}} (2^{\mu}\:\Gamma(\mu+1))^{-1}.$$
.2in Proof of Theorem \[teoyoung\]
\(1) Let $f\in L^{1}(sr)$ and $g\in L^{\infty }(r)$, then: $$\int_{0}^{\infty}|f(y)|\biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty}|g(z)|D_{\mu }(x,y,z)dz\biggr]dy \leq$$ $$\leq \left\| g\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}\int_{0}^{\infty}|f(y)|\biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty}z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}} D_{\mu }(x,y,z) dz\biggr]dy =$$ $$\label{eqlplinfty}
\left\| g\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)}\int_{0}^{\infty}|f(y)|y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}} x^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}c_{\mu }^{-1} dy=x^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\left\| f \right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)}\left\| g\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)},$$ thus ( \[conv zem\]) exists for every $x\in (0,\infty)$ and by (\[eqlplinfty\]) we have $$|x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}(f\sharp g)|\leq \left\| f \right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)}\left\| g\right\| _{L^{\infty }(r)},$$ hence (\[young Linfty\]).\
(2) Given $f\in L^{1}(sr)$ and $g\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ with $1\leq p <\infty$, set: $$K(x,z)=\int_{0}^{\infty} x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}} z^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(y)D_{\mu}(x,y,z)c_{\mu } dy.$$ We claim that: $$(1)'\int_{0}^{\infty}|K(x,z)|s(x)dx\leq \left\| f \right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)}=\left\| rf \right\|
_{L^{1}(s)};$$ $$(2)'\int_{0}^{\infty}|K(x,z)|s(z)dz\leq \left\| f \right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)}=\left\| rf \right\|
_{L^{1}(s)}.$$ In fact $$\int_{0}^{\infty}|K(x,z)|s(x)dx=\int_{0}^{\infty}|K(x,z)|x^{2\mu+1}c_{\mu}^{-1}dx=$$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\biggl |\int_{0}^{\infty} x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}} z^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(y)D_{\mu}(x,y,z)c_{\mu } dy \biggr |x^{2\mu+1}c_{\mu}^{-1}dx\leq$$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\biggl [\int_{0}^{\infty} x^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}D_{\mu}(x,y,z)dx \biggr ] |f(y)|z^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}dy =$$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty}c_{\mu}^{-1} y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}|f(y)|z^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}dy =\left\| f \right\|
_{L^{1}(sr)}$$ The proof for (2)’ is similar. If $h\in L^{p}(s)$ then the integral $$Th(x)=\int_{0}^{\infty}K(x,z)h(z)s(z)dz.$$ converges absolutely for a.e. $x\in (0,\infty)$ (see [@gf], theorem 6.18), also $Th\in L^{p}(s)$ and $$\label{eqdes1}
\left\| Th\right\|_{L^{p}(s)} \leq \left\| f \right\|
_{L^{1}(rs)} \left\| h \right\|
_{L^{p}(s)}.$$ Then, since $g\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ then $h=rg\in L^{p}(s)$ and we have that $$T(rg)(x)=\int_{0}^{\infty}K(x,z)z^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}g(z)c_{\mu}^{-1}z^{2\mu+1}dz=$$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\Biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty} x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}} z^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(y)D_{\mu}(x,y,z)c_{\mu } dy \Biggr] z^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}g(z)c_{\mu}^{-1}z^{2\mu+1}dz=$$ $$\label{eqK}
x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}\int_{0}^{\infty} \Biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty}f(y)D_{\mu}(x,y,z)dy \Biggr] g(z)dz$$ With similar considerations applied to $\mid f\mid \in L^{1}(sr)$ and $\mid g\mid \in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ we obtain that for a.e. $x\in (0,\infty)$ the integral $$\int_{0}^{\infty} \Biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty}\mid f(y)\mid D_{\mu}(x,y,z)dy \Biggr] \mid g(z)\mid \:dz$$ is finite and by application of Tonelli-Hobson theorem in (\[eqK\]) we conclude that $$T(rg)(x)=x^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}} (f\sharp g)(x).$$ From the previous equality and (\[eqdes1\]) we have $$\left\| r (f\sharp g)\right\|_{L^{p}(s)} \leq \left\| f \right\|
_{L^{1}(rs)} \left\| rg \right\|
_{L^{p}(s)},$$ and so (\[young lp\]) is valid.
.2in Proof of Theorem 2
By (1) and (3) of Proposition \[propD\] we have that $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}x_{0}^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}D_{\mu }(x_{0},y,z) \phi_{n}(z)\:dy dz=1,$$ then $$f\sharp \phi_{n}(x_{0})-f(x_{0})=$$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}D_{\mu }(x_{0},y,z) \phi_{n}(z)y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\bigl(y^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(y)-x_{0}^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(x_{0})\bigr)\:dydz.$$
By continuity of $f$ in $x_{0}$ let $\delta> 0$ such that $|y^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(y)-x_{0}^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(x_{0})|<\varepsilon$ if $|y-x_{0}|<\delta$, and we consider $$|f\sharp \phi_{n}(x_{0})-f(x_{0})|\leq |I_{1}|+|I_{2}|,$$ where $$\label{eqI1}
|I_{1}|=\Biggl|\int_{0}^{\delta}\int_{0}^{\infty}D_{\mu }(x_{0},y,z) \phi_{n}(z)y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\bigl(y^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(y)-x_{0}^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(x_{0})\bigr)\:dydz \Biggr|$$ $$\label{eqI2}
|I_{2}|=\Biggl|\int_{\delta}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}D_{\mu }(x_{0},y,z) \phi_{n}(z)y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\bigl(y^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(y)-x_{0}^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}f(x_{0})\bigr)\:dydz \Biggr|$$ Since $D_{\mu }(x_{0},y,z)\neq 0$ only if $|x_{0}-z|<y<x_{0}+z$, and if $0< z<\delta$ then $(|x_{0}-z|,x_{0}+z)\subset (x_{0}-\delta, x_{0}+\delta)$ , then we obtain in (\[eqI1\]) that $$|I_{1}|\leq \varepsilon \int_{0}^{\delta}\int_{0}^{\infty}D_{\mu }(x_{0},y,z) \phi_{n}(z)y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\:dydz=$$ $$\varepsilon \int_{0}^{\delta}x_{0}^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}} z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}c_{\mu}^{-1}\phi_{n}(z)\:dz\leq \varepsilon x_{0}^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}.$$ On the other hand $$|I_{2}|\leq 2\| f\|_{L^{\infty}(r)}\int_{\delta}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}D_{\mu }(x_{0},y,z) \phi_{n}(z)y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\:dydz =$$ $$2\| f\|_{L^{\infty}(r)}x_{0}^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\int_{\delta}^{\infty}c_{\mu}^{-1}z^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}} \phi_{n}(z)\:dz$$ so, $|I_{2}|\rightarrow 0$ when $n\rightarrow \infty$ and the first assertion has been proven. Second affirmation follows from the previous proof and the uniformly continuity of $rf$.
.2in
Proof of Proposition 5
If $f,g\in L^{1}(sr)$, then $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }\left( f\sharp g\right)(t)=\int_{0}^{\infty} f\sharp g(x)\sqrt{xt}J_{\mu}(xt)\: dx=$$ $$\label{eqhakconv}
\int_{0}^{\infty} \Biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty
}D_{\mu }(x,y,z)f(y)g(z)\:dydz\Biggr]\sqrt{xt}J_{\mu}(xt)\: dx$$ Since $f\sharp g\in L^{1}(sr)$ we obtain that $$\int_{0}^{\infty} \Biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty
}|D_{\mu }(x,y,z)f(y)g(z)|\:dydz\Biggr]|\sqrt{xt}J_{\mu}(xt)|\: dx<\infty$$ for all $t\in (0,\infty)$. Then, $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }\left( f\sharp g\right)(t)=\int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty}f(y)g(z)\Biggl[\int_{0}^{\infty} \sqrt{xt}J_{\mu}(xt) D_{\mu }(x,y,z)\: dx\Biggr]\:dydz=$$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty}f(y)g(z)\sqrt{yt}J_{\mu}(yt) \sqrt{zt}J_{\mu}(zt) t^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}\:dydz=t^{-\mu-\frac{1}{2}}
\mathit{h}_{\mu }(f)(t)\mathit{h}_{\mu }(g)(t).$$
Properties of $N_{\lambda}$
---------------------------
Proof of Lemma \[lemaNlambda\]
a\) $$\left\| N_{\lambda }\right\| _{L^{1}(sr)} =\frac{1}{c_{\mu }}\int_{0}^{\infty }\lambda ^{\frac{\mu }{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{K}_{\mu }
(\sqrt{\lambda}\:x)x^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}dx=$$ $$=\frac{1}{c_{\mu }}\int_{0}^{\infty} \lambda ^{\frac{\mu}{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\lambda }\:x\Bigr)^{\mu}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }e^{-t-\frac{\lambda x^{2}}{4t}}\frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}\right] x^{\mu +\frac{1}{2}}dx=$$ $$=\frac{1}{c_{\mu }}\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)^{\mu +1}\lambda ^{\mu }\int_{0}^{\infty
}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }x^{2\mu +1}e^{-\frac{\lambda x^{2}}{4t}}dx\right]
e^{-t}\frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}=$$ $$=\frac{1}{c_{\mu }}2^{\mu }\lambda ^{-1}\Gamma
(\mu +1)\int_{0}^{\infty }e^{-t}dt=\lambda ^{-1}.$$
For b), in virtue of the following equality
$$\label{eqautov2}
\int_{0}^{\infty} x^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{x^{2}}{2}}\sqrt{xy}\:J_{\mu}(xy)\:dx=y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{y^{2}}{2}},\quad y>0,$$
(see [@ober (5.9), pp. 46]), setting $y=(\sqrt{a})^{-1}r$ with $a,r>0$, and considering the change of variable $s=\frac{x}{\sqrt{a}}$, then we obtain that
$$\int_{0}^{\infty} (\sqrt{a}\:s)^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{as^{2}}{2}}\sqrt{sr}\:J_{\mu}(sr)\sqrt{a}\:ds=\Biggl(\frac{r}{\sqrt{a}}\Biggr)^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}
e^{-\frac{r^{2}}{2a}}$$ so, $$\label{eqautov3}
\int_{0}^{\infty} s^{\mu+1}e^{-\frac{as^{2}}{2}}\:J_{\mu}(sr)\:ds=a^{-\mu-1}r^{\mu}
e^{-\frac{r^{2}}{2a}}\:,$$ for all $a>0$. Then, $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }N_{\lambda }(y)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\lambda^{\frac{\mu}{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{K}_{\mu}
(\sqrt{\lambda}\:x)\sqrt{xy}\:J_{\mu}(xy)\:dx=$$ $$\int_{0}^{\infty}\lambda^{\frac{\mu}{2}}x^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\lambda}\:x\Bigr)^{\mu}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty } e^{-t-\frac{\lambda x^{2}}{4t}}\frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}\right]\sqrt{xy}\:J_{\mu}(xy)\:dx=$$ $$\label{eqHankelN}
\lambda^{\mu}\:y^{\frac{1}{2}}\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)^{\mu+1}\int_{0}^{\infty}x^{\mu+1}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }e^{-t-\frac{\lambda x^{2}}{4t}} \frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}\right]\:J_{\mu}(xy)\:dx.$$ Applying de boundedness of function $z^{-\mu}J_{\mu}(z)$ we obtain that
$$\int_{0}^{\infty}x^{\mu+1}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }e^{-t-\frac{\lambda x^{2}}{4t}}\frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}\right]\:|J_{\mu}(xy)|\:dx=$$ $$y^{\mu}\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }e^{-\frac{\lambda x^{2}}{4t}}x^{2\mu+1}\bigl|(xy)^{-\mu}J_{\mu}(xy)\bigr|\:dx \right]\:e^{-t}\:\frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}< \infty$$
Then, reversing the orden of integration in (\[eqHankelN\]) and applying (\[eqautov3\]) we obtain that
$$\mathit{h}_{\mu }N_{\lambda }(y)=\lambda^{\mu}\:y^{\frac{1}{2}}\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)^{\mu+1}\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }x^{\mu+1}e^{-(\frac{\lambda}{2t})\frac{x^{2}}{2}}J_{\mu}(xy)\:dx\right]\:e^{-t}\frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}=$$ $$\lambda^{\mu}\:y^{\frac{1}{2}}\Bigl(\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)^{\mu+1}\int_{0}^{\infty}\Bigl(\frac{\lambda}{2t}\Bigr)^{-\mu-1}y^{\mu}e^{-\frac{ty^{2}}{\lambda}} \: e^{-t}\frac{dt}{t^{\mu +1}}=\lambda^{-1}\:y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-t(1+\frac{y^{2}}{\lambda})} \: dt.$$
Considering the change of variable $s=t(1+\frac{y^{2}}{\lambda})$ in the last integral we obtain finally
$$\mathit{h}_{\mu }N_{\lambda }(y)=\lambda^{-1}\:y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-s} \Bigl(1+\frac{y^{2}}{\lambda}\Bigr)^{-1}\:ds=
\lambda^{-1}\:y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}\Bigl(1+\frac{y^{2}}{\lambda}\Bigr)^{-1}=\frac{y^{\mu+\frac{1}{2}}}{\lambda +y^{2}}.$$
Proof of Lemma \[lemaHankelNlambda\].
Suppose that $f\in L^{p}(sr^{p})$ and $\psi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$, we claim that
$$\label{convoloc distr}
\int_{0}^{\infty }\left( N_{\lambda }\sharp f\right) (x)\psi
(x)dx=\int_{0}^{\infty }f(z)\left( N_{\lambda }\sharp \psi \right)
(z)dz.$$
Indeed, we first observe that the following integral is finite $$\int_{0}^{\infty }\left| f(z)\right| \left[ \int_{0}^{\infty
}\int_{0}^{\infty }\left| N_{\lambda }(y)\right| \left| \psi (x)\right|
D_{\mu }(x,y,z)dxdy\right] dz$$ In fact, given a integer $q$ such that $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$, the function $$G(z)= \int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty }\left|
N_{\lambda }(y)\right| \left| \psi (x)\right| D_{\mu }(x,y,z)dxdy$$ is in $L^{q}(sr^{q})$ because it is the convolution of $\left|
N_{\lambda }(y)\right|\in L^{1}(sr)$ and $\left| \psi (x)\right|\in
L^{q}(sr^{q})$ ($\psi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu })$. Since $f\in
L^{p}(sr^{p})$ then $$\int_{0}^{\infty }\left| f(z)\right| G(z)dz=\int_{0}^{\infty }(
r\left| f(z)\right| )( s^{-1}r^{-1}G(z))
s\:dz<\infty$$ because $r\left| f\right| \in L^{p}(s)$ and $s^{-1}r^{-1}G = c_{\mu
}rG\in L^{q}(s)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\infty}f(z)\left(N_{\lambda }\sharp \psi \right)(z)\:dz
&=&\int_{0}^{\infty }f(z)\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty
}N_{\lambda }(y)\psi (x)D_{\mu }(x,y,z)dx\:dy\right] dz \\
&=&\int_{0}^{\infty }\left[ \int_{0}^{\infty }\int_{0}^{\infty
}f(z)N_{\lambda }(y)D_{\mu }(x,y,z)dz\:dy\right] \psi (x)dx \\
&=&\int_{0}^{\infty }( N_{\lambda }\sharp\:f) (x)\psi (x)dx\end{aligned}$$ and we thus get (\[convoloc distr\]). The proof for $f\in
L^{\infty }(r)$ is similar.
Now, given $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ and $f\in
L^{p}(sr^{p})$ or $L^{\infty }(r)$, by (\[convoloc distr\]), we have that $$\label{eqNlambdaf}
(\mathit{h}_{\mu }( N_{\lambda }\sharp \:f) ,\phi
)=(( N_{\lambda}\sharp\: f) ,\mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi
)=\int_{0}^{\infty} f(x)\:N_{\lambda }\sharp\: \mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi
(x)\: dx$$
By Propositions \[prop hankel conv\], \[invHankel\] and item b) of Lemma \[lemaNlambda\] $$\mathit{h}_{\mu }( N_{\lambda }\sharp \mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi )(y) =r\mathit{h}_{\mu }( N_{\lambda }) \mathit{h}_{\mu }(\mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi)(y)=\frac{\phi (y)}{\lambda +y^{2}}.$$
So, $$\label{eqNlambdaH}
N_{\lambda }\sharp \:\mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi =\mathit{h}_{\mu }\Bigl(
\frac{\phi}{\lambda +y^{2}}\:\Bigr).$$ Finally, from (\[eqNlambdaf\]) and (\[eqNlambdaH\]) we obtain that for $\phi \in \mathcal{H}_{\mu }$ that
$$(\mathit{h}_{\mu }( N_{\lambda }\sharp \:f) ,\phi
)=\int_{0}^{\infty} f(x)\:N_{\lambda }\sharp\: \mathit{h}_{\mu }\phi
(x)\: dx=\int_{0}^{\infty} f(x)\: \mathit{h}_{\mu }\Bigl(
\frac{\phi}{\lambda +y^{2}}\:\Bigr)(x)\: dx=$$ $$=\int_{0}^{\infty}\:\frac{1}{\lambda +x^{2}}\:\mathit{h}_{\mu }( f)(x)\phi(x)\:dx=\Bigl(\frac{1}{\lambda +x^{2}}\:\mathit{h}_{\mu }( f) ,\phi \Bigr)$$
.4in [**Acknowledgments**]{} Some of the main ideas of this paper were discussed with Miguel Sanz. The author wishes to thank him for the many helpful suggestions and for the stimulating conversations.
[99]{} Altenburg, V. G.: Bessel-Transformationen in Räumen von Grundfunktionen über dem Intervall $\Omega =(0,\infty )$ und deren Dualräumen, Math.Nachr.**108**(1982) 197-218.
G. B. Folland, *Real Analysis. Modern Techniques and Their Applications*, John Wiley, (1999).
I.I. Hirschman Jr: Variation diminishing Hankel transforms, J. Analyse Math. **8** (1960/61), 307-336.
S Kesavan, *Topics in Functional Analysis and Applications*, John Willey, (1989).
W. Lamb, *Fractional powers of operators defined on a Fréchet space, *Proc. Edimburgh Math. Soc. **27** (1984), 165-180.
I. Marrero and J.J. Betancor, Hankel convolution of generalized functions, *Rendiconti di Matematica*, **15** (1995), 351-380.
C. Martinez and M. Sanz, *The Theory of Fractional Powers of Operators*, North-Holland Mathematics Studies **187**,** **Elsevier Science B. V., (2001).
C. Martínez, M. Sanz and F. Periago, *Distributional fractional powers of the Laplacean. Riesz potentials*, Studia Math*.* **135** (1999),** **253-271.
S. Molina and S. E. Trione: *n-dimensional Hankel transform and complex powers of Bessel operator*, Integral Transforms and Special Functions, Vol.18, No 12, (2007), 897-911.
F. Oberhettinger: Tables of Bessel Transforms. Springer-Verlag, (1972).
G.N. Watson: A treatise on the theory of Bessel functions. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, (1995).
U. Westphal, *Fractional powers of infinitesimal generators of semigroups*, In R. Hilfer, editor, *Applications of Fractional Calculus in Physics*. World Scientific Publishing Co. (2000), 131-170.
A. H. Zemanian: Generalized Integral Transformation, Dover Publications, (1987).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- '$^{\dagger}$ Department of Chemistry, Technion, 32000 Haifa, Israel.'
- '$^{\ddagger}$Centre de Physique Th[é]{}orique, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France. Laboratoire Propre du CNRS UPR A.0014'
author:
- 'J. Katriel$^{\dagger}$, B. Abdesselam$^{\ddagger}$ and A. Chakrabarti$^{\ddagger,}$ [^1]'
title: 'ON THE FUNDUMENTAL INVARIANT OF THE HECKE ALGEBRA $H_{n}(q)$'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
This talk will be based on $[1]$ and $[2]$. Much more complete discussions and references to other authors can be found there. More recent developments can be found in $[3]$.
Let me start by recapitulating certain facts concerning the invariants of the classical symmetric group $S_{n}$. The single cycle class-sums $\lbrace [p]_{n};\;p=2,\;3,\cdots, \;n \rbrace$ belong to the centre. Here $[2]_{n}$ is the sum of transpositions, $[3]_{n}$ is that of circular permutation of triplets (each term being a product of transpositions) and so on. Their eigenvalues characterize irreducible representations (irreps.) of $S_{n}$ corresponding to different standard Young tableaux with $n$ boxes.
Definition. [*Content*]{} of the box in the $i$-th row and $j$-th column of the Young tableau is equal to $(j-i)$.
The symmetric power sums of these contents gives the eigenvalues $\lambda_{[p]_{n}}^{\Gamma}$ of $[p]_{n}$ for $\Gamma$. Thus $$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda_{[2]_{n}}^{\Gamma}=\displaystyle\sum_{(i,\;j) \in \Gamma} (j-i)
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda_{[3]_{n}}^{\Gamma}=\displaystyle\sum_{(i,\;j) \in \Gamma} (j-i)^{2}-
{1 \over 2}n(n-1)
\end{array}$$ and so on $[1]$.
For $n \geq 6$ the eigenvalues of $[2]_{n}$ show degeneracy. As $n$ inereases higher and higher $[p]_{n}$’s are needed to uniquely characterize each irreducible representation.
[*The situation changes dramatically as $S_{n}$ is $q$-deformed to $H_{n}(q)$. The eigenvalues of $C_{n}$, the $q$-deformed $[2]_{n}$, alone suffice to characterize the irreducible representations for arbitrary $n$. (Throughout only real, positive i.e. generic $q$ is considered.)*]{}
I will now show how this becomes possible. The generators of the $H_{n}(q)$ satisfy $$\label{equation:Hecke}
\begin{array}{ll}
g_i^2=(q-1)g_i+q &\;\;\; i=1,\, 2,\, \cdots,\, n-1 \\
g_ig_{i+1}g_i=g_{i+1}g_ig_{i+1} &\;\;\; i=1,\, 2,\, \cdots,\, n-2 \\
g_ig_j=g_jg_i &\;\;\; {\mbox{if }} |i-j|\geq 2
\end{array}$$ For $q=1$ one gets $S_{n}$. The fundumental invariant is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation:fund}
C_n &=& g_1+g_2+\cdots +g_{n-1}+
\frac{1}{q}(g_1g_2g_1+g_2g_3g_2+\cdots +g_{n-2}g_{n-1}g_{n-2}) \nonumber \\ &+&
\frac{1}{q^2}(g_1g_2g_3g_2g_1+g_2g_3g_4g_3g_2+\cdots +g_{n-3}g_{n-2}g_{n-1}g_{n-2}g_{n-3})
\nonumber \\ &+&\cdots \nonumber \\ &+&
\frac{1}{q^{n-2}}g_1g_2\cdots g_{n-2}g_{n-1}g_{n-2}\cdots g_2g_1 \end{aligned}$$ For $q=1$, $g_{1}g_{2}g_{1}=(13)$ and so on and one gets back $[2]_{n}$. The eigenvalue of the fundumental invariant for the $Y$-tableau $\Gamma$ can be shown $[1]$ to be the following $q$-deformation of $(1)$, $$\label{equation:eigen}
\Lambda_n^{\Gamma}=q\displaystyle\sum_{(i,j)\in\Gamma}{q^{j-i}-1 \over q-1}
=q\displaystyle\sum_{(i,j)\in\Gamma} [j-i]_q.$$
Definition. $q$-content of the box in the $i$-th row and $j$-th column of the Young tableau is equal to $q\;[j-i]_{q}$.
Hence $\Lambda_n^{\Gamma}$ is the sum of the $q$-contents of the boxes of $\Gamma$.
Consider, for $n=6$, the irreducible representations $[4,\;1,\;1]$ and $[3,\;3]$. The box contents are
For $S_{6}$, $$\Lambda_6^{[4,\;1,\;1]}=\Lambda_6^{[3,\;3]}=3$$
For $H_{6}(q)$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\Lambda_6^{[4,\;1,\;1]}(q)=q^3+2\;q^2+3\;q-2-{1 \over q} \\
\Lambda_6^{[3,\;3]}(q)=q^2+3 q -1
\end{array}$$ [*Thus the degeneracy is lifted as $q$ moves away from unity.*]{} This is the simplest non-trivial example. For the general case one notes:
\(i) The $q$-contents are constant for boxes on the same diagonal of $\Gamma$.
\(ii) Developping the $q$-brackets and regrouping terms $$\Lambda_{n}^{\Gamma}=\displaystyle\sum_{k >0 }q^{k} \pi_{k}^{\Gamma}-
\displaystyle\sum_{k < 0 }q^{k+1} \nu_{k}^{\Gamma}$$ where $$\pi_{k}^{\Gamma}=\displaystyle\sum_{l \geq k >0 }(\hbox{number of boxes with content $l$})$$ $$\nu_{k}^{\Gamma}=\displaystyle\sum_{l \leq k <0 }(\hbox{number of boxes with content $l$})$$ From $(i)$ and $(ii)$ it is not difficult to show $[1]$ that [*$\Lambda_{n}^{\Gamma}$ completely determines $\Gamma$ and hence the irrep.*]{}
Set $q=e^{\delta}\;(\not = 1)$ and let $$\tilde{C}_{n}\equiv {q-1 \over q} C_{n}$$ then $[1]$, $$\Lambda_{\tilde{C}_{n}}^{\Gamma}=\delta \lambda_{[2]_{n}}^{\Gamma}+
{\delta^2 \over 2} ( \lambda_{[3]_{n}}^{\Gamma}+ {1\over 2}n(n-1))+\cdots$$ The eigenvalues of all $[p]_{n}$ ($p=2,\cdots,\;n$) in the coefficients of the above series. This is another way of exhibiting that $C_{n}$ by itself contains information equivalent to that supplied by all $[p]_{n}$ for $S_{n}$.
Projection operators for irreps. can be constructed in terms of $C_{n}$ in a straightforward way since there is no degeneracy. When the limit $q\rightarrow 1$ is taken correctly higher class-sums of $S_{n}$ appear automatically as necessary to project out the corresponding irrep. of $S_{n}$. This is discussed in detail in $[1]$. Further interesting uses of projection operators can be found in $[3]$.
In $[1]$ a direct relation was given between the eigenvalues of $C_{n}$ an those of the Casimir of $SU_{q}(N)$ ($q$-deformation of the Casimir quadratic in the Cartan-Weyl generators of $SU(N)$) for an irrep. corresponding to a $Y$-diagram $\Gamma$ with $n$ boxes (and at most $N-1$ rows). It was shown that this Casimir $C_{2}$ can be so redefined (denoted then by $\tilde{C}_{2}$) that the eigenvalue for $\Gamma$ is just $$\Lambda_{\tilde{C}_{2}}^{\Gamma}=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}q^{2(l_{k}-k)}$$ where $l_{k}$ is the number of boxes in the $k$-th row. This was derived using the Gelfand-Zetlin basis $[1]$. But $(11)$ is, of course, independent of the choice of such a basis. Since $$l_{k} \geq l_{k+1},\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(l_{k}-k) > (l_{k+1}-k-1)$$ Hence the indices of $q$ in $(11)$ are strictly monotonically decreasing.
Thus even for a reducible representation arising in a certain context (say some model) if one obtains the matrix of $\tilde{C}_{2}$ from some source and diagonalizes it the coefficient of each block of unit matrix must be of the form $$\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}q^{2 L_{k}} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;(L_{k} > L_{k+1})$$ Now setting $$l_{k}=L_{k}+k,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(k=1,\cdots, \;N-1)$$
The $Y$-diagram $\Gamma$ is completely determined. [*Thus the eigenvalue of a suitably $q$-deformed quadratic Casimir completely characterizes an irrep. of $SU_{q}(N)$.*]{} (For $q=1$ or $SU(N)$ one needs, in general, all the invariants upto order $N$.)
Setting $q=e^{\delta}$, $$\displaystyle\sum_{k}q^{2 L_{k}}=1+(2\delta)(\displaystyle\sum_{k}L_{k})+
{1\over 2!}(2\delta)^{2}(\displaystyle\sum_{k}L_{k}^{2})+\cdots$$ One can compare $(15)$ with $(10)$.
The coefficients of higher powers of $\delta$ contain informations equivalent to those of higher order Casimirs of $SU(N)$.
I present now, without derivation, the relation between $C_{n}$ and $\tilde{C}_{2}$ eigenvalues for a $\Gamma$ with $n$ boxes $[1]$, $$\left({q^{2}-1 \over q^2}\right)^{2}\Lambda_{C_{n}(q^2)}^{\Gamma}+
{q^{2}-1 \over q^2}n =\Lambda_{\tilde{C}_{2}}^{\Gamma}+{q^{2(-N+1)}-1 \over q^2 -1}$$ for ($\displaystyle\sum l_{k}=n$ in $(11)$).
The Hecke and $q$-deformed unitary algebras are well-known to be closely related. But the aspect presented here is more general. [*Thus the $q$-deformed quadratic Casimirs of the other Lie algebras should play analogous roles*]{}. Our investigation is not complete. Here only $SU_{q}(N)$ has been studied. However in an accompanying talk $[4]$ the foregoing statement is confirmed for $SO_{q}(5)$. The discussion at the end of $[4]$ gives an idea of the richness of content of the $q$-deformed Casimirs.
Apart from such remarkable conceptual aspects, $C_{n}$ or, even better, the sequence ($C_{2}$, $C_{3},\cdots,\;C_{n}$) nested in $H_{n}(q)$ can furnish powerful techniques for various goals. As an example, I will indicate below how they can be used to compute characters. A detailed study can be found in $[2]$. (Another interesting aspect has been studied in $[3]$).
For the sequence $H_{2}(q)\subset H_{3}(q) \subset \cdots \subset H_{n}(q)$ one defines the Murphy operators $$L_{2}=C_{2}, \;\;L_{3}=C_{3}-C_{2},\cdots , \;\;L_{n}=C_{n}-C_{n-1}$$ One obtains $$L_{p}=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{p-1} q^{1-p+i}(g_{i} g_{i+1}\cdots
g_{p-1}\cdots g_{i+1} g_{i})$$ and $$L_{p+1}={1 \over q} g_{p}L_{p}g_{p} +g_{p}$$
Basis vectors of an irrep. can be specified by sequences of $Y$-diagrams (indicating how successive boxes are added) $$\Gamma_{2} \subset \Gamma_{3} \subset \cdots \subset \Gamma_{n}$$ The eigenvalue of $L_{i}$ can be shown to be $[2]$ $$\lbrace \Gamma_{i}\backslash\Gamma_{i-1}\rbrace_{q}\equiv q[k_{i}-p_{i}]_{q}$$ where $\Gamma_{i}$ is obtained by adding the box $(k_{i},\;p_{i}$) to $\Gamma_{i-1}$. The eigenvalue is the $q$-content of the last box added. Also $$tr(L_i)_{\Gamma_n}=\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma_{n-1}\subset\Gamma_n}
tr(L_i)_{\Gamma_{n-1}}\;\;\; (i=2,\, 3,\, \cdots,\, n-1.)$$ and $$tr(L_n)_{\Gamma_n}=
\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma_{n-1}\subset\Gamma_n} |\Gamma_{n-1}|\,
\{ \Gamma_n\setminus\Gamma_{n-1} \}_q\; .$$ where $$|\Gamma_{n-1}|=\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma_{n-2}\subset\Gamma_{n-1}}
|\Gamma_{n-2}|=dim\;\Gamma_{n-1}$$ For what follows we will need traces of products of [*non-consecutive*]{} Murphy operators only. For such products with $$\alpha_{i+1} \geq \alpha_{i}+2$$ $$tr\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\ell} L_{\alpha_i}\right)_{\Gamma_n} =
\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma_{n-1}\subset\Gamma_n}
tr\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\ell} L_{\alpha_i}\right)_{\Gamma_{n-1}}\;\;\;(\hbox{for}\;\alpha_{l} < n)$$ $$tr\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\ell} L_{\alpha_i}\right)_{\Gamma_n} =
\displaystyle\sum_{\Gamma_{n-1}\subset\Gamma_n}
\{\Gamma_n\setminus\Gamma_{n-1}\}_q \;
tr\left(\prod_{i=1}^{\ell-1} L_{\alpha_i}\right)_{\Gamma_{n-1}}\;\;(\hbox{for}\; \alpha_{l}=n)$$ The recursion relations $(22)$ to $(26)$ yield easily the traces of the $L$’s and their non-consecutive products $[2]$. A symbolic program is easy to set up. Taking the trace of each side of $(18)$ and inverting the relation one obtains $[2]$. $$tr\Big(g_1 g_2 \cdots g_{k-1} \Big)=\left(\frac{q}{q-1}
\right)^{k-2}\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{k-2} (-1)^i{{k-1}\choose i} tr(L_{k-i})$$ Similarly, after multiplying both sides of $(18)$ by $L_{m}$ (non-consecutive), $$tr\Big((g_1 g_2 \cdots g_{k-1}) L_m\Big)=\left(\frac{q}{q-1}\right)^{k-2} \displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{k-2} (-1)^i
{{k-1}\choose{i}}
tr(L_{k-i} \; L_m) \; .$$ Continuing step-wise, with suitable choices of $m$ at each step, it can be shown $[2]$ that one finally obtains in terms of known traces of the type $(25)$ and $(26)$ traces of the form $$tr\Big((g_1 g_2 \cdots g_{m_{1}-1})(g_{m_{1}+1} \cdots
g_{m_{2}-1}) \cdots (g_{m_{j}+1} \cdots
g_{p})(g_{k}g_{k+1}\cdots g_{p+r}\cdots g_{k+1}g_{k})\Big)$$ Here the last factor comes from the last non-consecutive $L$ ($L_{p+r-1}$). This, in general, has overlapping indices with the preceding factors. At each previous step such overlaps has been assumed to be [*reduced*]{} (reexpressed as sums of traces of ordered products the $g_{i}$’s in ascending order of $i$) so that they have no overlap but, possibly, [*cuts*]{} (at $i=m_{1}, \;m_{2},\cdots, \;m_{j}, \hbox{say})$. This reduction procedure, to be applied again to $(29)$, will be briefly described below. Let us however first are exhibit the simplest results, illustrating general properties. One obtains $[2]$ $$tr(g_{i})=tr(L_{2}),\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(i=1,\cdots,\;n-1)$$ $$tr(g_{i}g_{i+1})=
\Big({q \over q-1}\Big)\Big(tr(L_{3})-2tr(L_{2})\Big),\;\;\;\;\;
(i=1,\cdots,\;n-2)$$ $$tr(g_{i}g_{i+2})={1\over q-1}\Big( -2q\, tr(L_{2})+
(q+1)^{2}tr(L_{3})-(1+q^{2})tr(L_{4})+(q-1)tr(L_{2}L_{4})\Big)$$ The equalities of the traces in each example illustrate a fundumental lemma $[2]$: [*The trace of product of any number of disjoint sequences, in any irrep., depends only on the lengths of the component connected sequences.*]{}
Note that in $(32)$, $(g_{i}g_{i+2}$) being disjoint (i.e. a cut at $i+1$) a non-consecutive product $L_{2}L_{4}$ appears on the right. [*Note that the $L$’s on the right do not depend on $n$ (of $H_{n}(q)$)*]{}. This is also a general feature.
When there is no overlap and at most one cut $(29)$ can be reduced relatively easily $[2]$. Thus $$\begin{array}{ll}
V_k &\equiv tr\Big((g_{1}...g_{k-1})(g_{k+1}...g_{p})(g_{p+1}...
g_{p+r}...g_{p+1})\Big) \\
&= \displaystyle\sum_{\ell=0}^{r-1}{{r-1}\choose l}q^{l}(q-1)^{r-l-1}
tr\Big((g_{1}...g_{k-1})(g_{k+1}...g_{p+r-l})\Big)
\end{array}$$ (For $V_{0}$ with $k=0$ the first factor is defined to be unity). When there is an overlap we introduce [*$f$-expansions*]{} defined below. (For a full account see Appendix $[2]$). From, $$g_{i}^{2}=(q-1)g_{i}+q$$ one deduces $$g_{i}^{p}=f_{p}g_{i}+q\;f_{p-1}$$ where $$f_{p}={q^{p}-(-1)^{p} \over q+1 }$$ It can be shown that (for overlap$=p-l+1$) $$\label{equation:e14}
tr\Big((g_{1}...g_{p})(g_{l}...g_{p+r}...g_{l})\Big)
=(q-1)\displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{p-l+1} q^{k}f_{2(p-l+1-k)+1}V_{k}
+f_{2(p-l+1)+1}V_{0}$$
[*Thus the $f$-coefficients are determined only by the length of the overlap.*]{} The general case with overlap and multiple cuts is treated in App. $[2]$.
Tables of characters (polynomials in $q$) are given in $[2]$. Here let me just summerize the main steps:
\(1) Traces of (non-consecutive) products of Murphy operators.
\(2) Traces of products of $g$’s with cuts and overlap in terms of $(1)$.
\(3) Reduction removing overlaps ($f$-expansions).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
J. Katriel, B. Abdesselam and A. Chakrabarti, The fundumental invariant of the Hecke algebra $H_{n}(q)$ characterizes the representations of $H_{n}(q)$, $S_{n}$, $SU(N)_{q}$ and $SU(N)$. (q-alg/9501021)(to published in Jour. Math. Phys).
J. Katriel, B. Abdesselam and A. Chakrabarti, The character table of the Hecke algebra $H)_{n}(q)$ in terms of traces of products of Murphy operators (q-alg/9502018).
T. Brzezinski and J. Katriel, representation theoretic derivation of the Temperley-Lieb-Martin algebras (hep-th/9507128).
A. Chakrabarti, talk presented in the Nakai worhshop (Tianjin, 1995).
[^1]: *Talk presented at the Nankai workshop, Tianjin, 1995 by A. Chakrabarti.*
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we develop the James - Stein improved method for the estimation problem of a nonparametric periodic function observed with Lévy noises in continuous time. An adaptive model selection procedure based on the weighted improved least squares estimates is constructed. The improvement effect for nonparametric models is studied. It turns out that in non-asymptotic setting the accuracy improvement for nonparametric models is more important, than for parametric ones. Moreover, sharp oracle inequalities for the robust risks have been shown and the adaptive efficiency property for the proposed procedures has been established. The numerical simulations are given.'
author:
- 'Pchelintsev E.A., [^1]'
- 'Pchelintsev V.A., [^2]'
- 'Pergamenshchikov S.M.[^3]'
title: ' Improved robust model selection methods for a Lévy nonparametric regression in continuous time [^4]'
---
[**Key words:**]{} Improved non-asymptotic estimation, James - Stein procedures, Robust quadratic risk, Nonparametric regression, Lévy process, Model selection, Sharp oracle inequality, Adaptive estimation, Asymptotic efficiency.\
[**AMS (2010) Subject Classification : primary 62G08; secondary 62G05**]{}
Introduction {#sec:In}
============
Consider the following nonparametric regression model in continuous time $$\label{sec:In.1}
\d\,y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}} = S(t)\d\,t + \,
\d \xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,,\quad
0\le t \le n\,,$$ where $S(\cdot)$ is an unknown $1$ - periodic function, $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$ is an unobserved noise. The problem is to estimate the function $S$ on the observations $(y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$. Note that, if $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$ is a Brownian motion, then we obtain the well-known “signal+white noise” model which is very popular in statistical radio-physics (see, for example, [@IbragimovKhasminskii1981; @Kutoyants1977; @Kutoyants1984; @Pinsker1981]). In this paper we assume that in addition to intrinsic noises in radio-electronic systems, approximated usually by the gaussian white or color noise, the useful signal $S$ is distorted by the impulse flow described by Lévy processes defined in the next section. The cause of a pulse stream can be, for example, either external unintended (atmospheric) or intentional impulse noises or errors in the demodulation and the channel decoding for binary information symbols. Note that, for the first time the impulse noises for the detection signal problems have been studied by Kassam in [@Kassam1988] through compound Poisson processes. Later, such processes was used in [@Flaksman2002; @KonevPergamenshchikov2012; @KonevPergamenshchikov2015; @KPP2014; @Pchelintsev2013] for parametric and nonparametric signal estimation problems. It should be noted that such models are too limited, since the compound Poisson process can describe only the large impulses influence with a single fixed frequency. However, the real technical (for example, telecommunication or navigation) systems work under noise impulses having different sizes and different frequencies (see, for example, [@Proakis1995]). To take this into account one needs to use many (may be infinite number) different compound Poisson processes in the same observation model. This is possible to do only in a framework of Lévy processes which are natural extensions for the compound Poisson processes. Moreover, it should be noted also that Lévy models are fruitfully used in the different applied problems (see, for example, [@BarndorffNielsenShephard2001; @Bertoin1996; @ComteGenenCatalot2011; @ContTankov2004] and the references therein). In this paper we consider the adaptive estimation problem for the function $S$ i.e. when its regularity properties are unknown. To do this we use the model selection methods. The interest to such statistical procedures is explained by the fact that they provide adaptive solutions for the nonparametric estimation through oracle inequalities which give non-asymptotic upper bounds for the quadratic risks including the minimal risk over chosen the estimators family. It will be noted that for the first time the model selection methods were proposed by Akaike [@Akaike1974] and Mallows [@Mallows1973] for parametric models. Then, these methods have been developed for nonparametric estimation problems by Barron, Birgé and Massart [@BarronBirgeMassart1999] and Fourdrinier and Pergamenshchikov [@FourdrinierPergamenshchikov2007] for regression models in discrete time and Konev and Pergamenshchikov [@KonevPergamenshchikov2010] in continuous time. Unfortunately, the oracle inequalities obtained in these papers can not provide the efficient estimation in the adaptive setting, since the upper bounds in these inequalities have some fixed coefficients in the main terms which are more than one. To obtain the efficiency property one has to obtain the sharp oracle inequalities, i.e. the inequalities in which the coefficient at the principal term is close to unity. To obtain such inequalities for general non-Gaussian observations one needs to use the method proposed by Konev and Pergamenshchikov in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009a; @KonevPergamenshchikov2009b; @KonevPergamenshchikov2012; @KonevPergamenshchikov2015] for semimartingale models in continuous time based on the model selection tool developed by Galtchouk and Pergamenshchikov in [@GaltchoukPergamenshchikov2009a; @GaltchoukPergamenshchikov2009b] for heteroscedastic non-Gaussian regression models in discrete time.
The goal of this paper is to develop a new sharp model selection method for estimating the unknown signal $S$ using the improved estimation approach. Usually, the model selection procedures are based on the least squares estimates. This paper proposes the improved least squares estimates which enable us to improve considerably the non-asymptotic estimation accuracy. For the first time such idea was proposed by Fourdrinier and Pergamenshchikov in [@FourdrinierPergamenshchikov2007] for regression models in discrete time and by Konev and Pergamenshchikov in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2010] for Gaussian regression models in continuous time. We develop these methods for the non-Gaussian regression models in continuous time. It should be noted that generally for the conditionally Gaussian regression models we can not use the well-known improved estimators proposed in [@FourdrinierStrawderman1996; @JamesStein1961] for Gaussian or spherically symmetric observations. To apply the improved estimation methods to the non-Gaussian regression models in continuous time one needs to use the modifications of the well-known James - Stein estimators proposed in [@KPP2014; @Pchelintsev2013] for parametric problems. We use these estimators to construct model selection procedures for nonparametric models. Then to study the non-asymptotic accuracy we develop a special analytical tool for the Lévy regression models to obtain sharp oracle inequalities for the improved model selection procedures. Then to study the efficiency property for the proposed estimation procedure we need to obtain a lower bound for the quadratic risks. Usually, to do this one uses the van Trees inequality. In this paper we show the corresponding van Trees inequality for the Lévy regression models and then we derive the needed asymptotic sharp lower bound for the normalized risks, i.e. we find the Pinsker constant for the model . As to the upper bound, similarly to [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009b], we use the obtained sharp oracle inequality for the weighted least squares estimators containing the efficient Pinsker procedure. Therefore, through the oracle inequality we estimate from above the risk of the proposed procedure by the risk of the efficient Pinsker procedure up to some coefficient which goes to one. As a result we show the asymptotic efficiency without using the smoothness information of the function $S$.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:Mod\] we describe the noise processes in and define the main risks for the estimation problem. In Section \[sec:Imp\] we construct the improved least squares estimates and study the improvement effect for the Lévy model. In Section \[sec:Mo\] we construct the improved model selection procedure and show the sharp oracle inequalities. In Section \[sec:Sim\] the Monte Carlo simulation results are given. The asymptotic efficiency is studied in Section \[sec:Ae\]. In Section \[sec:Stc\] we study some properties of the stochastic integrals with respect to the Lévy processes. In Section \[sec:VanTrees\] we prove the van Trees inequality for the model . In Section \[sec:Prf\] we prove all main results and in Appendix we give some technical results.
Noise process model {#sec:Mod}
===================
First, we assume that the noise process $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$ in is defined as $$\label{sec:In.1+1}
\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=\sigma_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}} w_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}} + \sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=x*(\mu-{\widetilde}{\mu})_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
\,,$$ where $\sigma_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}$ and $\sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}$ are some unknown constants, $(w_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{t\ge\,0}{t\ge\,0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet\ge\,0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet\ge\,0$}}}}$ is a standard Brownian motion, “$*$” denotes the stochastic integral with respect to the compensated jump measure $\mu(\d s\,\d x)$ with deterministic compensator ${\widetilde}{\mu}(\d s\,\d x)=\d s\Pi(\d x)$, i.e. $$z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=\int_0^t\int_{\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}x\,(\mu-{\widetilde}{\mu})(\d s \,\d x)\,.$$ Here $\Pi(\cdot)$ is a Lévy measure, i.e. some positive measure on $\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}=\bbr\setminus \{0\}$, (see, for example, [@ContTankov2004; @JacodShiryaev2002] for details) such that $$\label{sec:Ex.1-00_mPi}
\Pi(x^{2})=1
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\Pi(x^{6})
\,<\,\infty\,.$$ We use the notation $\Pi(\vert x\vert^{m})=\int_{{\mathchoice{\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}}}\,\vert z\vert^{m}\,\Pi(\d z)$. Note that the Lévy measure $\Pi(\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}})$ may be equal to $+\infty$. It should be noted that in all papers on the nonparametric signal estimation in the model the main condition on the jumps is the finiteness of the Lévy measure, i.e. $\Pi(\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}})<+\infty$.
The process allows us to consider the several independent impulse noise sources with the different frequencies. Indeed, in this case (see, for example, page 135 in [@ContTankov2004]) we introduce compound Poisson processes into the model as $$\label{sec:In.1_ex_1}
z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=\sum^{M}_{{\mathchoice{k=1}{k=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek=1$}}}}\sum^{N^{k}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,Y_{{\mathchoice{k,j}{k,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,j$}}}}
\,,$$ where $(N^{1}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{t\ge 0}{t\ge 0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet\ge 0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet\ge 0$}}}},\ldots,(N^{M}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{t\ge 0}{t\ge 0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet\ge 0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet\ge 0$}}}}$ are independent Poisson processes with the intensities $\lambda_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}},\ldots, \lambda_{{\mathchoice{M}{M}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleM$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleM$}}}}$ and the sizes of impulses $(Y_{{\mathchoice{1,j}{1,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,j$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{j\ge 1}{j\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge 1$}}}},\ldots, (Y_{{\mathchoice{M,j}{M,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleM,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleM,j$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{j\ge 1}{j\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge 1$}}}}$ are independent i.i.d. sequences with $\E Y_{{\mathchoice{k,j}{k,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,j$}}}}=0$ and $\varsigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}=\E Y^{2}_{{\mathchoice{k,j}{k,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,j$}}}}<\infty$. In this case the Lévy measure for any Borel set $\Gamma\subseteq\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$ is defined as $$\Pi(\Gamma)=\sum^{M}_{{\mathchoice{k=1}{k=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek=1$}}}}\lambda_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}\,\P(Y_{{\mathchoice{k,1}{k,1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,1$}}}}\in\Gamma)\,.$$ Next, note, that if $$\label{sec:In.1_cond_Ex}
\sum_{{\mathchoice{k\ge 1}{k\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek\ge 1$}}}}\,\lambda_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}\,\varsigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}
<\infty\,,$$ then we can introduce the infinite number of the noise jumps setting $$\label{sec:In.1_ex_2}
z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=\sum^{\infty}_{{\mathchoice{k=1}{k=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek=1$}}}}\sum^{N^{k}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,Y_{{\mathchoice{k,j}{k,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,j$}}}}
\,.$$ Moreover, if the total noise intensity $\sum_{{\mathchoice{k\ge 1}{k\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek\ge 1$}}}}\lambda_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}=+\infty$, then $\Pi(\bbr_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}})=+\infty$, i.e. we obtain the observation model with saturated impulse noise.
In the sequel we will denote by $Q$ the distribution of the process $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$ in the Skorokhod space $\D[0,n]$ and by ${{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ we denote all these distributions for which the parameters $\sigma_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}$ and $\sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}$ satisfy the conditions $$\label{sec:Ex.01-1}
0< \underline{\sigma}\le \sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\sigma=\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}+\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}\,
\le
\overline{\sigma}
\,,$$ where the bounds $\underline{\sigma}$ and $\overline{\sigma}$ are functions of $n$, i.e. $\underline{\sigma}= \underline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ and $\overline{\sigma}=\overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ such that for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{sec:Ex.01-2}
\liminf_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,n^{\epsilon}\,
\underline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\,
>0
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,n^{-\epsilon}\,\overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
=0
\,.$$
We also assume that the distribution $Q$ of the noise process $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$ is unknown. We know only that this distribution belongs to the distribution family ${{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ defined in –. By these reasons we use the robust estimation approach developed for nonparametric problems in [@GaltchoukPergamenshchikov2006; @KonevPergamenshchikov2012; @KonevPergamenshchikov2015]. To this end we will measure the estimation quality by the robust risk defined as $$\label{sec:risks_11_0}
{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S)=\sup_{{\mathchoice{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}\,
{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S)\,,$$ where ${\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is an estimate, i.e. any function of $(y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$, ${{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the usual quadratic risk defined as $$\label{sec:risks_00}
{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S):=
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\,\|{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-S\|^2
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\Vert S\Vert^{2}=\int^{1}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,S^{2}(t)\d t
\,.$$ The first goal in this paper is to develop shrinkage nonparametric estimation methods for $S$ which improve the non asymptotic robust estimation accuracy with respect to the well known least squares estimators. The next goal is to provide non asymptotic optimality in the sense of sharp oracle inequalities. Moreover, asymptotically, as $n\to\infty$, our goal is to show the efficiency property for the proposed shrinkage estimators for the risks .
Improved estimation {#sec:Imp}
===================
Let $(\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{j\ge\, 1}{j\ge\, 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge\, 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge\, 1$}}}}$ be an orthonormal basis in $\L_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}[0,1]$. We extend these functions by the periodic way on $\bbr$, i.e. $\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t)$=$\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t+1)$ for any $t\in\bbr$.
$\B_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}$) [*Assume that the basis functions are uniformly bounded, i.e. for some $\overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}>0$, which in general case may be depend on $n$,* ]{} $$\label{sec:In.3-00_Upb}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{0\le j\le n}{0\le j\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le j\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le j\le n$}}}}\,\sup_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le 1}{0\le t\le 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le 1$}}}}\vert\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t)\vert\,
\le\,
\overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
<\infty\,.$$
For example, we can take the trigonometric basis defined as ${\mbox{Tr}}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}\equiv 1$ and for $j\ge 2$ $$\label{sec:In.5_Trb}
{\mbox{Tr}}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(x)= \sqrt 2
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\cos(2\pi[j/2]x)\, \quad\mbox{for even}\quad j \,;\\[4mm]
\sin(2\pi[j/2]x)\quad\mbox{for odd}\quad j\,,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $[a]$ denotes integer part of $a$.
For estimating the unknown function $S$ in we consider it’s Fourier expansion $$S(t)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty \theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\phi_j(t).$$ The corresponding Fourier coefficients $$\label{sec:Imp.2}
\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=(S,\phi_j)= \int^1_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,S(t)\,\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t)\,\d t$$ can be estimated as $$\label{sec:Imp.3}
{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}= \frac{1}{n}\int^n_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\phi_j(t)\,\d
y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,.$$ In view of , we obtain $$\label{sec:Imp.4}
{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,,$$ where $$\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
I_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
I_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(f)=\int^n_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,f(t)\,\d \xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,.$$ As in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009b] we define a class of weighted least squares estimates for $S(t)$ $$\label{sec:Imp.5}
{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\lambda(j){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,,$$ where the weights $\lambda=(\lambda(j))_{1\leq j\leq n}\in\bbr^{n}$ belong to some finite set $\Lambda$ from $[0,\,1]^n$ for which we set $$\label{sec:Imp.6+0}
\nu_n=\mbox{card}(\Lambda)
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\vert \Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\max_{\lambda\in \Lambda} \,L(\lambda)\,,$$ where $\mbox{card}(\Lambda)$ is the number of the vectors $\lambda$ in $\Lambda$ and $L(\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda(j)$. In the sequel we assume that all vectors from $\Lambda$ satisfies the following condition.
$\B_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})$ [*Assume that for any vector $\lambda\in\Lambda$ there exists some fixed integer $d=d(\lambda)$ such that their first $d$ components equal to one, i.e. $\lambda(j)=1$ for $1\le j\le d$ for any $\lambda\in\Lambda$.* ]{}
\[Re;sec:Imp.1++\] Note that the weight coefficients satisfying the condition $\B_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})$ was introduced in [@Nussbaum1985] to construct the efficient estimation for the nonparametric regression model in discrete time.
Now we need the $\sigma$ - field generated by the jumps of the process , i.e. we set ${{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sigma\{z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,,0\le t\le n\}$. To construct the improved estimators we need the following proposition.
\[sec:Imp.Prop\_2\_1\] For any $n\ge 1$ the random vector ${\widetilde}{\xi}_{{\mathchoice{d,n}{d,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled,n$}}}}=(\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d}{1\le j\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}}}$ is the ${{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ - conditionally Gaussian in $\bbr^{d}$ with zero mean and the covariance matrix $$\label{sec:Imp.6-1}
\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\left(
\E\,\xi_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}\,\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|{{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\right)_{{\mathchoice{1\le i,j\le d}{1\le i,j\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le i,j\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le i,j\le d$}}}}$$ such that $$\label{sec:Imp.6-1-0}
\inf_{{\mathchoice{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}
\left({\mbox{tr}}\,\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\lambda_{{\mathchoice{max}{max}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylemax$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylemax$}}}}(\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})\right)
\geq (d-1)\underline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,,$$ where $\lambda_{{\mathchoice{max}{max}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylemax$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylemax$}}}}(A)$ is the maximal eigenvalue of the matrix $A$.
Now, for the first $d$ Fourier coefficients in we use the improved estimation method proposed for parametric models in [@Pchelintsev2013]. To this end we set ${\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=({\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d}{1\le j\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}}}$. In the sequel we will use the norm $\vert x\vert^{2}_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}=\sum^{d}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,x^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ for any vector $x=(x_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d}{1\le j\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}}}$ from $\bbr^{d}$. Now we define the shrinkage estimators as $$\label{sec:Imp.12_Imp}
\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}=
\left(1-g_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j)\right){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
g_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j)=
\frac{c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{|{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}}
\Chi_{{\mathchoice{\{1\le j\le d\}}{\{1\le j\le d\}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\{1\le j\le d\}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\{1\le j\le d\}$}}}}
\,,$$ where $$c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=
c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)
=
\frac{(d-1)\underline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\left(r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}+\sqrt{d\,\overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}/n}\right)\,n}$$ and the threshold $\overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}>0$ is given in the lower bound . The positive parameter $r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is such that $$\label{sec:Imp.12+1_r_n}
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,=\infty
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,
\frac{r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n^{\epsilon}}
\,=\,0$$ for any $\epsilon>0$.
Now we introduce a class of shrinkage weighted least squares estimates for $S$ as $$\label{sec:Imp.11}
S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\lambda(j)\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,.$$
We denote the difference of quadratic risks of the estimates and as $$\Delta_{Q}(S):={{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}},S)-{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}},S)\,.$$ We obtain the following result.
\[Th.sec:Imp.1\] Let the observed process $(y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t \le n}{0\le t \le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t \le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t \le n$}}}}$ describes by the equations –. Then for any $n\ge 1$ $$\label{sec:Imp.11+1}
\sup_{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,\sup_{{\mathchoice{\Vert S\Vert\le r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\Vert S\Vert\le r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\Vert S\Vert\le r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\Vert S\Vert\le r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}
\Delta_{Q}(S)\le-c^2_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\,.$$
\[Re;sec:Imp.1\] The inequality means that non-asymptotically, i.e. for non large $n\ge 1$, the estimate outperforms in mean square accuracy the estimate . As we will see later in the efficient weight coefficients $d \approx n^{\epsilon}$ as $n\to \infty$ for some $\epsilon>0$. Therefore, in view of the definition of the constant $c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ in and the conditions and $n c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. This means that improvement is considerably may better than for the parametric regression when the parameter dimension $d$ is fixed [@Pchelintsev2013].
Model selection {#sec:Mo}
===============
In this section we construct a model selection procedure for the estimation of $S$ in on the basis of the weighted shrinkage estimators . To this end we consider the empirical squared error defined as $${\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)=\|S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}-S\|^2.$$ In order to obtain a good estimate, we have to write a rule to choose a weight vector $\lambda\in \Lambda$ in . It is obvious, that the best way is to minimise the empirical squared error with respect to $\lambda$. Making use the estimate definition and the Fourier transformation of $S$ implies $$\label{sec:Mo.1}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)\,=\,
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda^2(j)(\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}})^2\,-
2\,\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}\,\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
+
\Vert S\Vert^{2}\,.$$ Since the Fourier coefficients $(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{j\ge 1}{j\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge 1$}}}}$ are unknown, the weight coefficients $(\lambda_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{j\ge 1}{j\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge 1$}}}}$ can not be found by minimizing this quantity. To circumvent this difficulty one needs to replace the terms $\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}\,\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ by their estimators $\overline{\vartheta}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}$ defined as $$\label{sec:Mo.2vartheta}
\overline{\vartheta}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}=
\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}\,{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\frac{{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n}\,,$$ where ${\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is the estimate for the limiting variance of $\sigma=\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}\,\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ which we choose in the following form $$\label{sec:Mo.3}
{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sum_{{\mathchoice{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}}}^n {\widehat}{t}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^2
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
{\widehat}{t}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=
\frac{1}{n}\,
\int_0^{n} {\mbox{Tr}}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t)\d y_t
\,.$$ For this change in the empirical squared error, one has to pay some penalty. Thus, one comes to the cost function of the form $$\label{sec:Mo.4}
J_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)\,=\,\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda^2(j)(\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}})^2\,-
2\,\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)\,\overline{\vartheta}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}
+\,\delta\,{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)\,,$$ where $\delta$ is some positive constant, ${\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)$ is the penalty term defined as $$\label{sec:Mo.5_whP}
{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)=\frac{{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,|\lambda|^2_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n}
\,.$$
We define the improved model selection procedure as $$\label{sec:Mo.6}
S^*=S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda^*}{\lambda^*}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda^*$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda^*$}}}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\lambda^*=\mbox{argmin}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}}\,J_n(\lambda)\,.$$ It will be noted that $\lambda^*$ exists because $\Lambda$ is a finite set. If the minimizing sequence in $\lambda^*$ is not unique, one can take any minimizer. Now, to write the oracle inequality we set $$\label{sec:Mo.9+1_psi}
\Psi_{{\mathchoice{Q,n}{Q,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,n$}}}}=(1+\overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}^4)\,(1+\sigma)(1+c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})\nu_n\,,$$ where $c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=n\max_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in \Lambda}{\lambda\in \Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in \Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in \Lambda$}}}}c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)$. It is useful to note that in view of the first condition in and the properties the constant $c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is not large as $n\to\infty$, i.e. for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{sec:Mo.8_cn}
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,\frac{c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n^{\epsilon}}
=0\,.$$
First we study the non asymptotic properties for the procedure .
\[sec:Mo.Th.1\] There exists some constant $\check{\l}>0$ such that for any $n\geq1$ and $0<\delta<1/2$, the risk of estimate for $S$ satisfies the oracle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^*,S)\,&\le\, \frac{1+5\delta}{1-\delta}
\min_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}} {{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}},S)
+\check{\l}\frac{\Psi_{{\mathchoice{Q,n}{Q,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,n$}}}}}{n \delta}\,
\\[2mm]\label{sec:Mo.10}
&
+
\frac{12\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n}\,.\end{aligned}$$
In the case, when the value of $\sigma$ is known, one can take ${\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sigma$ and $$\label{sec:Mo.9_P}
P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)=\frac{\sigma\,|\lambda|^2_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n}\,,$$ then we can rewrite the oracle inequality in the following form $$\label{sec:Mo.10+1}
{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^*,S)\,\le\, \frac{1+5\delta}{1-\delta}
\min_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}} {{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}},S)
+\check{\l}\frac{\Psi_{{\mathchoice{Q,n}{Q,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,n$}}}}}{n \delta}\,
\,.$$ Also we study the accuracy properties for the estimator .
\[sec:Mo.Prop.1\] Let in the model the function $S(\cdot)$ is continuously differentiable. Then, there exists some constant $\check{\l}>0$ such that for any $n\geq2$ and $S$ $$\label{sec:Mo.15++-00}
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma| \leq
\,\check{\l}\,
\frac{(1+\|\dot{S}\|^2)}{\sqrt{n}}\,,$$ where $\dot{S}$ is the derivative of the function $S$.
\[Re.sec:Ma.TrgBasis\] It should be noted that to estimate the parameter $\sigma$ in we use the equality for the Fourier coefficients $t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=(S,{\mbox{Tr}}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})$ with respect to the trigonometric basis , since, as is shown in Lemma A.6 in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009a] for any continuously differentiable function $S$ and for any $m\ge 1$ the sum $\sum_{{\mathchoice{j\ge m}{j\ge m}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge m$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge m$}}}}\,t^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ can be estimated from above in an explicite form. Therefore, through the trigonometric basis we can estimate the variance $\sigma$ uniformly over the functions $S$, when we will study the efficiency property for the proposed procedures.
To obtain the oracle inequality for the robust risk we impose the following additional conditions.
$\C_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}})$ [*Assume that the upper bound for the basic function defined in is such that for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{sec:Mo.8+2-0}
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,\frac{\overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n^{\epsilon}}
=0.$$* ]{}
$\C_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})$ [*Assume that the set $\Lambda$ is such that for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{sec:Mo.8+1++2}
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\frac{\nu_n}{n^{\epsilon}}=0
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,\frac{\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n^{1/2+\epsilon}}
=0\,.$$* ]{}
We note that Theorem \[sec:Mo.Th.1\] and Proposition \[sec:Mo.Prop.1\] directly imply the following inequality.
\[sec:Mo.Th.2\] If the conditions $\C_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}})$ – $\C_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})$ hold for the distribution $Q$ of the process $\xi$ in , then for any $n\geq 2$ and $0<\delta<1/2$, the robust risk of estimate for continuously differentiable function $S$ satisfies the oracle inequality $$\label{sec:Mo.10+1-2}
{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
(S^*,S)\,\le\, \frac{1+5\delta}{1-\delta}
\min_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}} {{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,(S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}},S)
+\frac{B_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(1+\|\dot{S}\|^2)}{n \delta}\,,$$ where the term $B_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is independent of $S$ and for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{sec:Mo.11-2}
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,\frac{B_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n^{\epsilon}}
=0\,.$$
\[Re.sec:ModSel\_010\] Note that sharp oracle inequalities similar to and was obtained earlier by Konev and Pergamenshchikov in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009a; @KonevPergamenshchikov2012; @KonevPergamenshchikov2015] for model selection procedures based on the weighted least squares estimates . Unfortunately, we can not use such oracle inequalities for the model selection procedures, based on the weighted shrinkage estimates since they depend non linearly on the coefficients $\lambda$. This is main technical difficulty which doesn’t allow us to use the obtained oracle inequalities. Moreover, in all these papers the oracle inequalities are obtained under condition that the Lévy measure is finite. The inequalities and are obtained without conditions on the impulse noises.
Now we specify the weight coefficients $(\lambda(j))_{{\mathchoice{j\ge
1}{j\ge
1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge
1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge
1$}}}}$ in the way proposed in [@GaltchoukPergamenshchikov2009a] for a heteroscedastic regression model in discrete time. Consider a numerical grid of the form $$\label{sec:Imp.7}
{{\cal A}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\{1,\ldots,k_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\}\times\{r_1,\ldots,r_m\}\,,$$ where $r_i=i\rho_n$ and $m=[1/\rho_n^2]$. Both parameters $k_n\ge 1$ and $0<\rho_n\le 1$ are the functions of $n$ such that for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{sec:Imp.8}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
&\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,k_n=+\infty\,,
\quad
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,\dfrac{k_n}{\ln n}=0\,,\\[6mm]
&\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\rho_n=0
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,n^{\epsilon}\rho_n\,=+\infty\, .
\end{array}
\right.$$ One can take, for example, $$\rho_n=\frac{1}{\ln (n+1)}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
k_n=\sqrt{\ln (n+1)}\,.$$ For each $\alpha=(\beta,r)\in{{\cal A}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ we introduce the weight sequence $\lambda_{{\mathchoice{\alpha}{\alpha}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\alpha$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$}}}}=(\lambda_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\alpha))_{{\mathchoice{j\ge 1}{j\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge 1$}}}}$ as $$\label{sec:Imp.9}
\lambda_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\alpha)=\Chi_{{\mathchoice{\{1\le j\le d\}}{\{1\le j\le d\}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\{1\le j\le d\}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\{1\le j\le d\}$}}}}+
\left(1-(j/\omega_\alpha)^\beta\right)\, \Chi_{{\mathchoice{\{ d<j\le
\omega_\alpha\}}{\{ d<j\le
\omega_\alpha\}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\{ d<j\le
\omega_\alpha\}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\{ d<j\le
\omega_\alpha\}$}}}}$$ where $d=d(\alpha)=\left[\omega_{{\mathchoice{\alpha}{\alpha}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\alpha$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$}}}}/\ln (n+1)\right]$, $$\omega_{{\mathchoice{\alpha}{\alpha}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\alpha$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$}}}}=\left(\tau_{{\mathchoice{\beta}{\beta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\beta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$}}}}\,r\,v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\right)^{1/(2\beta+1)}\,,
\quad
\tau_{{\mathchoice{\beta}{\beta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\beta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$}}}}=\frac{(\beta+1)(2\beta+1)}{\pi^{2\beta}\beta} \quad\mbox{and}\quad v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=
\frac{n}{\overline{\sigma}_n}
\,.$$ We set $$\label{sec:Imp.10_Lambda}
\Lambda\,=\,\{\lambda(\alpha)\,,\,\alpha\in{{\cal A}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\}\,.$$ It will be noted that in this case $\nu_n=k_n m$. Therefore, the conditions imply the first limit equality in . Moreover, in view of the definition and taking into account that $\tau_{{\mathchoice{\beta}{\beta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\beta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\beta$}}}}\le 1$ for $\beta\ge 1$ the function $L(\lambda)$ defined in can be estimated for any $\lambda\in\Lambda$ as $$\max_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}}\,
L(\lambda)\le \max_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}}\,\omega_{{\mathchoice{\alpha}{\alpha}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\alpha$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\alpha$}}}}\le v^{1/3}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}} \rho^{-1/3}_n
\,.$$ Therefore, using here the conditions and we get the last limit in , i.e. the condition $\C_2)$ holds for the set $\Lambda$ defined in .
\[Re.sec:ModSel+++000\] It will be observed that the specific form of weights was proposed by Pinsker [@Pinsker1981] for the filtration problem with known smoothness of the regression function observed with an additive gaussian white noise in continuous time. Nussbaum [@Nussbaum1985] used such weights for the gaussian regression estimation problem in discrete time.
Monte Carlo simulations {#sec:Sim}
=======================
In this section we give the results of numerical simulations to assess the performance and improvement of the proposed model selection procedure . We simulate the model with $1$-periodic function $S$ of the form $$\label{sec:Sim_Sign_11}
S(t)=t\,\sin(2\pi t)+t^2(1-t)\cos(4\pi t)$$ on $[0,\,1]$ and the Lévy noise process $\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}$ is defined as $$\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=0.5\, w_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}+0.5\, z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,.$$ Here $z_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}$ is a compound Poisson process with intensity $\lambda=\Pi(x^2)=1$ and a Gaussian ${{\cal N}}(0,\,1)$ sequence $(Y_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{j\ge1}{j\ge1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge1$}}}}$ (see, for example, [@KonevPergamenshchikov2015]).
We use the model selection procedure with the weights in which $k_n=100+\sqrt{\ln (n+1)}$, $r_i=i/\ln (n+1)$, $m=[\ln^2 (n+1)]$, $\overline{\sigma}_n=0.5$ and $\delta=(3+\ln n)^{-2}$. We define the empirical risk as $${{\cal R}}(S^*,\,S)=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}^p {\widehat}{\E}\left(S_n^*(t_j)-S(t_j)\right)^2\,,$$ $${\widehat}{\E}\left(S_n^*(\cdot)-S(\cdot)\right)^2=
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\mathchoice{l=1}{l=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylel=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylel=1$}}}}^N \left(S_{n,l}^*(\cdot)-S(\cdot)\right)^2\,,$$ where the observation frequency $p=100001$ and the expectations was taken as an average over $N = 1000$ replications.
\[Tab1\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$n$ 100 200 500 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------
${{\cal R}}(S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda^*}{\lambda^*}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda^*$}} 0.0118 0.0089 0.0031 0.0009
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda^*$}}}},\,S)$
${{\cal R}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}} 0.0509 0.0203 0.0103 0.0064
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}}}},\,S)$
${{\cal R}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}} 4.3 2.3 3.3 7.1
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}}}},\,S)/{{\cal R}}(S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda^*}{\lambda^*}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda^*$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda^*$}}}},\,S)$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The sample quadratic risks for different optimal $\lambda$
\[Tab2\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$n$ 100 200 500 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------
${{\cal R}}(S^*_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}} 0.0237 0.0103 0.0041 0.0011
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}}}},\,S)$
${{\cal R}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}} 0.0509 0.0203 0.0103 0.0064
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}}}},\,S)$
${{\cal R}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}} 2.1 2.2 2.5 5.8
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}}}},\,S)/{{\cal R}}(S^*_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{{\widehat}{\lambda}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{\lambda}$}}}},\,S)$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The sample quadratic risks for the same optimal ${\widehat}{\lambda}$
Table 1 gives the values for the sample risks of the improved estimate and the model selection procedure based on the weighted LSE (3.15) from [@KonevPergamenshchikov2012] for different numbers of observation period $n$. Table 2 gives the values for the sample risks of the the model selection procedure based on the weighted LSE (3.15) from [@KonevPergamenshchikov2012] and it’s improved version for different numbers of observation period $n$.
\[fig1\] {width="70.00000%"}
\[fig2\] {width="70.00000%"}
\[fig3\] {width="70.00000%"}
\[fig4\] {width="70.00000%"}
Figures 1–4 show the behavior of the procedures and depending on the values of observation periods $n$. The bold line is the function , the continuous line is the model selection procedure based on the least squares estimators ${\widehat}{S}$ and the dashed line is the improved model selection procedure $S^*$. From the Table 2 for the same $\lambda$ with various observations numbers $n$ we can conclude that theoretical result on the improvement effect is confirmed by the numerical simulations. Moreover, for the proposed shrinkage procedure, Table 1 and Figures 1–4, we can conclude that the benefit is considerable for non large $n$.
Asymptotic efficiency {#sec:Ae}
=====================
In order to study the asymptotic efficiency we define the following functional Sobolev ball $$\label{sec:Ae.1}
W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}=\{f\in\C^{k}_{{\mathchoice{p}{p}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylep$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylep$}}}}[0,1]\,:\,
\sum_{{\mathchoice{j=0}{j=0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=0$}}}}^k\,\|f^{(j)}\|^2\le r\}\,,$$ where $r>0$ and $k\ge 1$ are some unknown parameters, $\C^{k}_{{\mathchoice{p}{p}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylep$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylep$}}}}[0,1]$ is the space of $k$ times differentiable $1$ - periodic $\bbr\to\bbr$ functions such that for any $0\le i \le k-1$ $$f^{(i)}(0)=f^{(i)}(1)
\,.$$ In order to formulate our asymptotic results we define the Pinsker constant which gives the lower bound for normalized asymptotic risks $$\label{sec:Ae.3}
l_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}(r)\,=\,((1+2k) r)^{1/(2k+1)}\,
\left(\frac{k}{\pi (k+1)}\right)^{2k/(2k+1)}
\,.$$
It is well known that for any $S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$ the optimal rate of convergence is $n^{-2k/(2k+1)}$ (see, for example, [@Pinsker1981; @Nussbaum1985]). On the basis of the model selection procedure we construct the adaptive procedure $S^*$ for which we obtain the following asymptotic upper bound for the quadratic risk, i.e. we show that the parameter gives a lower bound for the asymptotic normalized risks. To this end we denote by $\Sigma_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ the set of all estimators ${\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ of $S$ measurable with respect to the process , i.e. measurable with respect to $\sigma$-field $\sigma\{y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,,\,0\le t\le n\}$.
\[Th.sec: Ae.2\] The robust risk admits the following asymptotic lower bound $$\label{sec:Ae.05}
\liminf_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,
\inf_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\in\Sigma_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\in\Sigma_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\in\Sigma_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\in\Sigma_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}
\,v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}^{2k/(2k+1)}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S)
\,
\ge l_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}(r) \,.$$
We show that this lower bound is sharp in the following sense.
\[Th.sec: Ae.1\] The quadratic risk for the estimating procedure $S^{*}$ has the following asymptotic upper bound $$\label{sec:Ae.4}
\limsup_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}^{2k/(2k+1)}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(S^{*},S)
\,
\le l_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}(r)
\,.$$
It is clear that Theorem \[Th.sec: Ae.1\] and Theorem \[Th.sec: Ae.2\] imply
\[Co.sec: Ae.1\] The model selection procedure $S^{*}$ is asymptotically efficient, i.e. $$\label{sec:Ae.5}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\,(v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})^{\frac{2k}{2k+1}}\,
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(S^{*},S)\,
= l_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}(r)
\,.$$
\[Re.2.2\] Note that the equality implies that the parameter is the Pinsker constant in this case (cf. [@Pinsker1981]).
\[Re.2.3\] It should be noted that the equality means that the robust efficiency holds with the convergence rate $$(v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})^{\frac{2k}{2k+1}}
\,.$$ It is well known that for the simple risks the optimal (minimax) estimation convergence rate for the functions from the set $W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$ is $n^{2k/(2k+1)}$ (see, for example, [@Pinsker1981; @Nussbaum1985; @IbragimovKhasminskii1981]). So, if the distribution upper bound $\overline{\sigma}_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ we obtain the more rapid rate, and if $\overline{\sigma}_n\to \infty$ as $n\to\infty$ we obtain the more slow rate. In the case when $\overline{\sigma}_n$ is constant the robust rate is the same as the classical non robust convergence rate.
The property means that the model selection procedure asymptotically has the same efficiency property as the LSE model selection (see, [@GaltchoukPergamenshchikov2009b; @KonevPergamenshchikov2009b]). So, it means that the proposed shrinkage method non-asymptotically has benefit with respect to LSE and asymptotically the shrinkage methods keep the efficiency property.
Stochastic calculus for the Lévy processes {#sec:Stc}
==========================================
In this section we study the process . First we recall the Novikov inequalities, [@Novikov1975], also referred to as the Bichteler–Jacod inequalities, see [@BichtelerJacod1983; @MarinelliRockner2014], providing bounds of the moments of the supremum of purely discontinuous local martingales for $p\ge 2$ and for any $n\ge 1$ $$\label{Novikov++}
\E\sup_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}|\Upsilon*(\mu-{\widetilde}{\mu})_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}|^{p}\le C_{{\mathchoice{p}{p}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylep$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylep$}}}}
\left(
\E\,\big (|\Upsilon|^{2}*{\widetilde}{\mu}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\big)^{p/2}
+
\E\,\big (|\Upsilon|^{p}*{\widetilde}{\mu}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\big)
\right)\,,$$ where $C_{{\mathchoice{p}{p}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylep$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylep$}}}}$ is some positive constant. Further for any two functions $f$ and $g$ from $\L_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}[0,t]$ with $t>0$ we use the following notations $$\label{product_norm}
(f,g)_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}
f(s)g(s)
\d s
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\Vert f\Vert^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}
f^{2}(s)
\d s
\,.$$
\[Pr.sec:Stc.1\] For any nonrandom function $f$ and $g$ from $\L_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}[0,t]$ $$\label{sec:Stc.1}
\E\, I_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)I_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)=
\sigma\,
(f,g)_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,,$$ where the noise variance $\sigma$ is given in .
Now we set $$\label{sec:Stc.6-00_wt_I}
{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)=I^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)
-\E\,I^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
{\widetilde}{M}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)=\M^{f,f}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
\,.$$
For any $[0,n]\to\bbr$ function $f$ we introduce the following uniform norm $$\|f\|_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sup_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}|f(t)|\,.$$
\[Pr.sec:Stc.3\] Let $f$ and $g$ be two borel $[0,n]\to\bbr$ functions such that $\|f\|_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\le \overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ and $\|g\|_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\le \overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$. Then for any $0<t\le n$ $$\label{sec:Stc.9+1_UpBnd}
\left\vert \E\,{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)\, {\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)\,
\right\vert\le
\sigma^{2}\,
\left(
2(f,g)^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
+
\overline{\phi}^{4}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,\Pi(x^4)t
\right)\,.$$
Using with $f=g$ we can obtain that the process $({\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{t\ge 0}{t\ge 0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet\ge 0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet\ge 0$}}}}$ satisfies the following stochastic equation $$\label{sec:Stc.6-01}
\d {\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)
=
\d{\widetilde}{M}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)\,,
\quad
{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}(f)=0\,.$$ Note that from the definition of $M_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f,f)$ in we can represent ${\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)$ as $$\label{sec:Stc.6-01_reprnt}
{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)={\widetilde}{I}^{c}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)+{\widetilde}{I}^{d}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)
\,,$$ where ${\widetilde}{I}^{c}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)=2\sigma_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(f)f(s)\d w_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}$ and $${\widetilde}{I}^{d}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)=2\sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,I_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}(f)f(s)\d z_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}
+
\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}\,
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}
f^{2}(s)\,
\d m_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}
\,.$$ Moreover, by the Ito formula $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)\,{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)&=
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}
{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}(f)\,\d{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(g)
+
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}
{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}(g)\,\d{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(f)\\[2mm]
&+4\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}
f(s)\,g(s)I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(f)I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(g)\d s
+
\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,,
$$ where $\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=\sum_{{\mathchoice{0<s\le t}{0<s\le t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0<s\le t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0<s\le t$}}}}\,\Delta {\widetilde}{I}^{d}_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(f)\,\Delta{\widetilde}{I}^{d}_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(g)$. Using the last in condition and the inequality we can obtain that for any bounded measurable $[0,n]\to\bbr$ function $h$ $$\label{sec:Upper_bound_h}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}\,
\E
\,
\left(
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,h(s)\,\d z_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}
\right)^{6}
\,
<\infty\,.$$ From this and the Hölder inequality we obtain that $$\sup_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}\,
\E\,
I^{4}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)
\,
I^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)
\,
\le
\,
\sup_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}\,
\left(\E\,
I^{6}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)
\right)^{2/3}
\,
\left(\E\,
I^{6}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)
\right)^{1/3}
\,<\infty\,.$$ Therefore, in view of Proposition $$\E\,{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)\,{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)=
4\sigma\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,f(s)\,g(s)(f,g)_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\d s
+\E\,\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
=
2\sigma\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}
(f,g)^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
+\E\,\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
\,.$$ From the definition of the discrete part of ${\widetilde}{I}^{d}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)$ in we can represent the jumps term $\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}$ as $$\label{sec:jumps_reprent_t}
\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=4\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} \check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{1,t}{1,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,t$}}}}
+2\sigma^{3}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} \check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{2,t}{2,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,t$}}}}
+
\sigma^{4}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} \check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{3,t}{3,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle3,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle3,t$}}}}
\,,$$ where $\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{1,t}{1,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,t$}}}}=\sum_{{\mathchoice{0<s\le t}{0<s\le t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0<s\le t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0<s\le t$}}}}
I_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}(f)I_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}(g) f(s)g(s)\,\left( \Delta z_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\right)^{2}$, $$\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{2,t}{2,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,t$}}}}=\sum_{{\mathchoice{0<s\le t}{0<s\le t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0<s\le t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0<s\le t$}}}}
\left(
I_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}(f) f(s) g^{2}(s)\,
+
I_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}(g)( f^{2}(s)\,
\right)
\left( \Delta z_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\right)^{3}$$ and $\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{3,t}{3,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle3,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle3,t$}}}}=\sum_{{\mathchoice{0<s\le t}{0<s\le t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0<s\le t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0<s\le t$}}}}\, f^{2}(s)g^{2}(s)\,\left( \Delta z_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\right)^{4}$. In view of Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.1\] and the upper bound and taking into account that $\Pi(x^{2})=1$ we calculate $$\E\,\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{1,t}{1,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,t$}}}}=
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\E\,I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(f)I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(g) f(s)g(s)\d s
=\sigma\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,(f,g)_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}} f(s)g(s)\d s
=
\frac{\sigma}{2}\,
(f,g)^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
\,.$$ Similarly, we obtain that $$\E\,\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{2,t}{2,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,t$}}}}=\Pi(x^{3})
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,f(s)g(s)
\left(g(s)
\E\,I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(f)
+
f(s)
\E\,I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(g)
\right)
\d s =0\,.$$ and $\E\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{3,t}{3,t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle3,t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle3,t$}}}}=\Pi(x^{4})\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\, f^{2}(s)g^{2}(s)\,\d s$. So, $$\E\,\check{J}^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
=
2 \sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} \sigma (f,g)^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
+
\sigma^{4}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} \Pi(x^{4})\,
(f^{2},g^{2})_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
\,,$$ and, therefore, $$\E\,{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)\,{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)=
2\sigma^{2}\,
(f,g)^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
+
\sigma^{4}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}
\Pi(x^{4})\,
(f^{2},g^{2})_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
\,.$$ Taking into account here that $\sigma^{4}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} \le \sigma^{2}$ and the conditions of the proposition we obtain the upper bound . Hence Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.3\].
Now for any $y\in\bbr^{n}$ we define the following function $$\label{sec:Stc.9-00+1_Ix}
\overline{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(y)=
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,y_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})\,.$$
For this we show the following property.
\[Pr.sec:Stc.4\] For any $n\ge 1$ $$\label{sec:Stc.10+1}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{y\in\bbr^{n}\,,\,\Vert y\Vert\le 1}{y\in\bbr^{n}\,,\,\Vert y\Vert\le 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyley\in\bbr^{n}\,,\,\Vert y\Vert\le 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyley\in\bbr^{n}\,,\,\Vert y\Vert\le 1$}}}}
\E\,\overline{I}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(y)
\le\,(2+\overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}^4\Pi(x^4))
\sigma^2\,
n^{2}
\,.$$
From Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.3\] it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\E\,\overline{I}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(y)&=
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{i,j=1}{i,j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei,j=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei,j=1$}}}}y_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}\,y_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,\E\,
{\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\phi_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}) {\widetilde}{I}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})\\[2mm]
&\le 2\sigma^2
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{i,j=1}{i,j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei,j=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei,j=1$}}}}\vert y_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}\vert\,\vert y_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\vert
\left(\phi_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}\,,\,\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\right)^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
+n\overline{\phi}^{4}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\sigma^2
\Pi(x^4)
\left(\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{i=1}{i=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei=1$}}}}\vert y_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}\vert\right)^{2}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account here that the functions $(\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{j\ge 1}{j\ge 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej\ge 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej\ge 1$}}}}$ are orthonormal, and the fact that $\left(\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{i=1}{i=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei=1$}}}}\vert y_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}\vert\right)^{2}\le n$, we obtain the bound .
The van Trees inequality for the Lévy processes {#sec:VanTrees}
===============================================
In this section we consider the following continuous time parametric regression model with the function $S$ defined as $$\label{sec:VanTrees_1}
S(t,\theta)=
\sum^{d}_{{\mathchoice{i=1}{i=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei=1$}}}}\,\theta_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}\,\psi_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}}(t)\,,$$ with the unknown parameters $\theta=(\theta_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}},\ldots,\theta_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}})'$. Here we assume that the functions $(\psi_i)_{{\mathchoice{1\le i\le d}{1\le i\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le i\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le i\le d$}}}}$ are $1$-periodic and orthogonal functions.
Let us denote by $\nu_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}$ the distribution of the process $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$ on the Skorokhod space $\D[0,n]$. From Proposition \[Pr.sec:App.1++\] it follows that in this space for any parameters $\theta\in\bbr^d$, the distribution $\P_{{\mathchoice{\theta}{\theta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\theta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\theta$}}}}$ of the process is absolutely continuous with respect to the $\nu_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}$ and the corresponding Radon-Nikodym derivative, for any function $x=(x_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le n}{0\le t\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le n$}}}}$ from $\D[0,n]$, is defined as $$\label{sec:App.7}
f(x,\theta)=
\frac{\d\P_{{\mathchoice{\theta}{\theta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\theta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\theta$}}}}}{\d\nu_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}}(x)=
\exp\left\{\int^{n}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\frac{S(t,\theta)}{\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,
\d x^{c}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
-\,\int^{n}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,
\frac{S^{2}(t,\theta)}{2\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,
\d t
\right\}
\,,$$ where $$x^{c}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=
x_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
-
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\int_{{\mathchoice{\bbr}{\bbr}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\bbr$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\bbr$}}}}\,v\,\left(
\mu_{{\mathchoice{x}{x}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylex$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylex$}}}}(\d s\,,\d v)
-
\Pi(\d v)\d s
\right)$$ and for any measurable set $A$ in $\bbr$ with $0\notin A$ $$\mu_{{\mathchoice{x}{x}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylex$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylex$}}}}([0,t]\times A)=\sum_{{\mathchoice{0\le s\le t}{0\le s\le t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le s\le t$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le s\le t$}}}}\,
\Chi_{{\mathchoice{\{\Delta\xi_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\in \sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} A\}}{\{\Delta\xi_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\in \sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} A\}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\{\Delta\xi_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\in \sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} A\}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\{\Delta\xi_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\in \sigma_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}} A\}$}}}}
\,.$$
Let $U$ be a prior density on $\bbr^d$ having the following form: $$U(\theta)=U(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d)=\prod_{j=1}^d u_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})\,,$$ where $u_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ is some continuously differentiable density in $\bbr$. Moreover, let $g(\theta)$ be a continuously differentiable $\bbr^d\to \bbr$ function such that, for each $1\le j\le d$, $$\label{sec:App.8}
\lim_{{\mathchoice{|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty}{|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty$}}}}\,
g(\theta)\,u_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})=0
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\int_{{\mathchoice{\bbr^d}{\bbr^d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\bbr^d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\bbr^d$}}}}\,|g^{\prime}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\theta)|\,U(\theta)\,\d \theta
<\infty\,,$$ where $g^{\prime}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\theta)=\,\partial g(\theta)/\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$. For any ${{\cal B}}({{\cal X}})\times{{\cal B}}(\bbr^d)$-measurable integrable function $H=H(x,\theta)$ we denote $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{\E}\,H&=\int_{\bbr^d}\,
\int_{{\mathchoice{{{\cal X}}}{{{\cal X}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{{\cal X}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{{\cal X}}$}}}}\,H(x,\theta)\,\d \P_{{\mathchoice{\theta}{\theta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\theta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\theta$}}}}\,U(\theta) \d \theta\\[2mm]
&=
\int_{\bbr^d}\,\int_{{\mathchoice{{{\cal X}}}{{{\cal X}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{{\cal X}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{{\cal X}}$}}}}\,
H(x,\theta)\,f(x,\theta)\,U(\theta)\d \nu_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}(x)\, \d \theta\,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\cal X}}=\D[0,n]$.
\[Le.sec:App.3\] For any ${{\cal F}}^y_n$-measurable square integrable function ${\widehat}{g}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ and for any $1\le j\le d$, the following inequality holds $${\widetilde}{\E}({\widehat}{g}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-g(\theta))^2\ge
\frac{\eta^2_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{n\Vert \psi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\Vert^{2}\sigma^{-2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}+I_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}\,,$$ where $$\eta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\int_{{\mathchoice{\bbr^d}{\bbr^d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\bbr^d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\bbr^d$}}}}\,g^{\prime}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\theta)\,U(\theta)\,\d \theta
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
I_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\int_{{\mathchoice{\bbr}{\bbr}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\bbr$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\bbr$}}}}\,\frac{\dot{u}^2_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(z)}{u_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(z)}\,\d z\,.$$
[**Proof.**]{} First of all note that, the density on the process $\xi$ is bounded with respect to $\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\in\bbr$ and for any $1\le j\le d$ $$\limsup_{{\mathchoice{|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty}{|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle|\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}|\to\infty$}}}}\,f(\xi,\theta)\,=\,0\,
\quad\quad\mbox{a.s.}$$ Now, we set $${\widetilde}{U}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}={\widetilde}{U}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(x,\theta)=
\frac{\partial\,(f(x,\theta)U(\theta))/\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{f(x,\theta)U(\theta)}
\,.$$ Taking into account the condition and integrating by parts yield $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{\E}&\left(({\widehat}{g}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-g(\theta)){\widetilde}{U}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\right)
=\int_{{{\cal X}}\times\bbr^d}\,({\widehat}{g}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(x)-g(\theta))\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}
\left(f(x,\theta)U(\theta)\right)\d \theta\,\nu_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}(\d x)\\[2mm]
&=\int_{{{\cal X}}\times\bbr^{d-1}}\left(\int_{\bbr}\,
g^{\prime}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\theta)\,
f(x,\theta)U(\theta)\d \theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\right)\left(\prod_{i\neq j}\d \theta_i\right)\,\nu_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}(\d x)
=\eta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now by the Bouniakovskii-Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we obtain the following lower bound for the quadratic risk $${\widetilde}{\E}({\widehat}{g}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-g(\theta))^2\ge
\frac{\eta^2_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{{\widetilde}{\E}{\widetilde}{U}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^2}\,.$$ To study the denominator in the left hand of this inequality note that in view of the representation $$\frac{1}{f(y,\theta)}
\frac{\partial\,f(y,\theta)}{\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}
=\frac{1}{\sigma_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,
\int^{n}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\psi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t)\,\d w_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,.$$ Therefore, for each $\theta\in\bbr^d$, $$\E_{{\mathchoice{\theta}{\theta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\theta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\theta$}}}}\,
\frac{1}{f(y,\theta)}
\frac{\partial\,f(y,\theta)}{\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}
\,
=0$$ and $$\E_{{\mathchoice{\theta}{\theta}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\theta$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\theta$}}}}\,
\left(
\frac{1}{f(y,\theta)}
\frac{\partial\,f(y,\theta)}{\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}
\right)^2
=\,
\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}
\int^{n}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\psi^2_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t)\d t
=
\frac{n}{\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}
\Vert\psi\Vert^{2}
\,.$$ Using equality $${\widetilde}{U}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=
\frac{1}{f(x,\theta)}
\frac{\partial\,f(x,\theta)}{\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}
+
\frac{1}{U(\theta)}
\frac{\partial\,U(\theta))}{\partial\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}
\,,$$ we get $${\widetilde}{\E}{\widetilde}{U}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^2=
\frac{n}{\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,\Vert\psi\Vert^{2}
+\,I_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,.$$ Hence Lemma \[Le.sec:App.3\].
Proofs {#sec:Prf}
======
Proof of Theorem \[Th.sec:Imp.1\]
---------------------------------
Consider the quadratic error of the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}-S\|^2&=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}(\lambda(j)\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}-\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})^2=
\sum^{d}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}(\lambda(j)\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}-\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})^2+\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=d+1}{j=d+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=d+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=d+1$}}}}(\lambda(j){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})^2\\
&=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}(\lambda(j){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})^2
+
c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
-
2
c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\sum^{d}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}({\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})\frac{{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{\|{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}}
\\
&=\|{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}-S\|^2+
c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
-
2
c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\sum^{d}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}({\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})
\iota_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}({\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\iota_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(x)=x_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}/\|x\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}$ for $x=(x_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d}{1\le j\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}}}\in\bbr^{d}$. Therefore, we can represent the risk for the improved estimate $S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}$ as $${{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}},S)={{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}},S)+
c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
-
2
c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\,
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\,\sum^{d}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}({\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})\,J_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\,,$$ where $J_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\E(\iota_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}({\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})({\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\theta_j)|{{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})$. Now, taking into account that the vector ${\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=({\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d}{1\le j\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}}}$ is the ${{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ conditionally gaussian vector in $\bbr^{d}$ with mean ${\widetilde}{\theta}=(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d}{1\le j\le d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d$}}}}$ and covariance matrix $n^{-1}\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$, we obtain $$J_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\,\iota_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(x)(x-\theta_j)\p(x|{{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})
\d x\,.$$ Here $\p(x|{{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})$ is the conditional distribution density of the vector ${\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$, i.e. $$\p(x|{{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}\sqrt{\det\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}}
\exp\left(-\frac{(x-\theta)'\,\G^{-1}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(x-\theta)}{2}\right)
\,.$$ Recall, that the $\prime$ denotes the transposition. Changing the variables by $u=\G^{-1/2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(x-\theta)$, one finds that $$\label{sec:2.2c}
J_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}}\sum_{l=1}^{d}
\g_{{\mathchoice{j,l}{j,l}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej,l$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej,l$}}}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\tilde{\iota}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(u)u_{l}\exp\left(-\frac{\|u\|^{2}_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}}
{2}\right) \d u\,,
$$ where ${\widetilde}{\iota}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(u)=\iota_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\G^{1/2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}} u+\theta)$ and $\g_{{\mathchoice{ij}{ij}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleij$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleij$}}}}$ denotes the $(i,j)$-th element of $\G^{1/2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$. Furthermore, integrating by parts, the integral $J_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ can be rewritten as $$J_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\sum_{l=1}^{d}\sum_{k=1}^{d}\E\left(\g_{{\mathchoice{jl}{jl}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylejl$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylejl$}}}}
\,\g_{{\mathchoice{kl}{kl}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylekl$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylekl$}}}}\,
\frac{\partial \iota_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{\partial
u_k}(u)|_{u={\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}|{{\cal G}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\right)
\,.$$ In view of the inequality $z^{\prime}Az\leq\lambda_{max}(A)\|z\|^2$ and Proposition \[sec:Imp.Prop\_2\_1\] we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{Q}(S)&=
c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
-
2
c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
n^{-1}\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\,\left(\frac{{\mbox{tr}}\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\|{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}}-
\frac{{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}^{\prime}\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\|{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|^3}\right)
\\[2mm]
&
\le c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
-
2
c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\,(d-1)\underline{\sigma}_n n^{-1}\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\,\frac{1}{\|{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, using the Jensen inequality we can estimate the last expectation from below as $$\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\,(\|{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}})^{-1}=\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\,(\|{\widetilde}{\theta}+n^{-1/2}{\widetilde}{\xi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}})^{-1}
\geq
\,(\|\theta\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}+n^{-1/2}\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\|{\widetilde}{\xi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}})^{-1}
\,.$$ From Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.1\] and the condition we obtain $$\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\|{\widetilde}{\xi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|^{2}_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}\le \overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,d\,.$$ So, for $\Vert S\Vert\le r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ $$\E_{{\mathchoice{Q,S}{Q,S}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,S$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,S$}}}}\,\|{\widetilde}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\|^{-1}\geq
\left(r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}+\sqrt{d\overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}/n}\right)^{-1}$$ and, therefore, $$\Delta_{Q}(S)
\le c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
-
2
c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\frac{(d-1)\underline{\sigma}_n}{\left(r_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}+\sqrt{d\overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}/n}\right)\,n}
=-c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\,.$$ Hence Theorem \[Th.sec:Imp.1\].
Proof of Theorem \[sec:Mo.Th.1\]
--------------------------------
Using the definitions , and , we obtain that for any $\lambda\in\Lambda$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)\,&=\,J_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)+
2\,\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)\left(\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}\,{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\frac{{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n}
-\theta^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda,j}{\lambda,j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda,j$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda,j$}}}}\,\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\right)\\[2mm]
\label{sec:Mo.11}
&+\,
\|S\|^2-\delta{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now we set $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
B_{{\mathchoice{1,n}{1,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,n$}}}}&(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)g_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,,\qquad
B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(\lambda)=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)
\,{\widetilde}{\xi}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\\[2mm]\label{sec:Mo_Proof_B_M}
&\mbox{and}\qquad
M(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j)=(c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)/\vert{\widetilde}{\theta}\vert_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}})\,\Chi_{{\mathchoice{\{1\le j\le d\}}{\{1\le j\le d\}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\{1\le j\le d\}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\{1\le j\le d\}$}}}}$ and ${\widetilde}{\xi}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\xi^2_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}} \xi^2_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$. Taking into account the definition , we can rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)&=J_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)+2\frac{\sigma-{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n}L(\lambda)+
2\,M(\lambda)
\\[2mm]\label{sec:Mo.12}
&-2B_{{\mathchoice{1,n}{1,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,n$}}}}(\lambda)\,+2\sqrt{P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)}\frac{B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(\overline{\lambda})}{\sqrt{\sigma n}}+\,
\|S\|^2-\delta{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the function $L(\lambda)$ is defined in , $\overline{\lambda}=\lambda/|\lambda |_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$. Let $\lambda_0=(\lambda_0(j))_{1\le n}$ be a fixed sequence in $\Lambda$ and $\lambda^*$ be as in . Substituting $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda^*$ in , we consider the difference $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)-{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)&\leq 2\frac{\sigma-{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n}L(\varpi)+2M(\varpi)-2B_{{\mathchoice{1,n}{1,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,n$}}}}(\lambda^*)+2B_{{\mathchoice{1,n}{1,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,n$}}}}(\lambda_0)\\[2mm]
&+2\sqrt{P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)}\frac{B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(\overline{\lambda^*})}{\sqrt{\sigma n}}
-2\sqrt{P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)}\frac{B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(\overline{\lambda_0})}{\sqrt{\sigma n}}\\[2mm]
&
-\delta{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)
+\delta{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varpi=\lambda^*-\lambda_0\in\Lambda_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}$ and $$\label{setLambda-1}
\Lambda_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}=\Lambda-\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}=\left\{
\lambda-\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,,\,\lambda\in\Lambda
\right\}
\,.$$ Note that $|L(\varpi)|\leq 2\vert \Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{*}{*}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle*$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle*$}}}}$. Moreover, note also that $$\label{sec:Mo.13_Ub++c-n}
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,g^{2}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j)\,
{\widehat}{\theta}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
=c^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)
\le \frac{c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n}
\,,$$ where $c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is defined in . Therefore, through the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality we can estimate the term $B_{{\mathchoice{1,n}{1,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,n$}}}}(\lambda)$ as $$|B_{{\mathchoice{1,n}{1,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,n$}}}}(\lambda)|\le
\frac{|\lambda |_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\sqrt{n}}c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)
\left(\sum_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}^{n}
\overline{\lambda}^{2}(j)
\,
\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\right)^{1/2}
=
\frac{|\lambda |_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\sqrt{n}}c_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)
\left(
\sigma+ B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(\overline{\lambda}^{2})
\right)^{1/2}
\,,$$ where $x^{2}=(x^{2}(j))_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le n}{1\le j\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le n$}}}}$ for $x\in\bbr^{n}$. So, applying the elementary inequality $$\label{sec:Mo.13eleq-0}
2|ab|\leq \varepsilon a^2+\varepsilon^{-1} b^2$$ with some arbitrary $\varepsilon>0$, we get $$2|B_{{\mathchoice{1,n}{1,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1,n$}}}}(\lambda)|
\leq \varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)+\frac{c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\varepsilon\sigma n}
(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})\,.$$ Moreover, by the same method we estimate the term $B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}$, i.e. $$2\sqrt{P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)}\frac{B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(\overline{\lambda})}{\sqrt{\sigma n}}
\leq \varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)+\frac{B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}^2(\overline{\lambda})}{\varepsilon\sigma n}
\leq \varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)+\frac{B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}}{\varepsilon \sigma n}\,,$$ where $$B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}
=
\max_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}}\,
\left(
B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}^2(\overline{\lambda})
+
B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}^2(\overline{\lambda}^{2})
\right)
\,.$$ Note that from Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.4\] we obtain that $$\label{sec:Mo.13_Ub}
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}\,B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}
\le
\sum_{{\mathchoice{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda\in\Lambda$}}}}\,
\left(
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}^2(\overline{\lambda})
+
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}^2(\overline{\lambda}^{2})
\right)
\le
2(2+\overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}^4\Pi(x^4))
\sigma^2\nu_n\,.$$ Using the bounds above, one has $$\begin{gathered}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)\leq{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)+\frac{4\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}} |{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n}
+2M(\varpi)
\\[2mm]
+\frac{2}{\varepsilon}\,\frac{c^{*}}{n\sigma}(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})
+\frac{2}{\varepsilon}\,
\frac{B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}}{n\sigma}
\\[2mm]
+2 \varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)
+2\varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)
-\delta{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+\delta{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)\,.\end{gathered}$$ The setting $\varepsilon=\delta/4$ and the estimating where this is possible $\delta$ by $1$ in this inequality imply $$\begin{gathered}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)\leq{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)+
\frac{5\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n}
+2M(\varpi)
\\[2mm]
+\frac{16 (c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}+1)(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})}{\delta n\sigma}
-\frac{\delta}{2}{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+\frac{\delta}{2} P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)
+\delta{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)\,.\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, taking into account here that $$\vert
{\widehat}{P}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)
-
P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)
\vert
\le
\frac{\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n}$$ and that $\delta<1/2$, we obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{sec:Mo.14}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)\leq{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)+
\frac{6\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n}
+2M(\varpi)
\\[2mm]
+\frac{16 (c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}+1)(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})}{\delta n\sigma}
-\frac{\delta}{2} P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+\frac{3\delta}{2} P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)\,.\end{gathered}$$
Now we examine the third term in the right-hand side of this inequality. Firstly we note that $$\label{upper_bound_M-+01}
2|M(\varpi)|\leq\varepsilon\|S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2+\frac{Z^*}{n\varepsilon}\,,$$ where $S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\varpi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ and $$Z^*=\sup_{x\in\Lambda_1}\frac{nM^2(x)}{\|S_x\|^2}
\,.$$ We remind that the set $\Lambda_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}$ is defined in . Using Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.1\] we can obtain that for any fixed $x=(x_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le n}{1\le j\le n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le n$}}}}\in\bbr^{n}$ $$\label{M^2+11-00}
\E\,M^2(x)=\frac{\E\,I^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\left(S_{{\mathchoice{x}{x}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylex$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylex$}}}}\right)}{n^{2}}
=\frac{\sigma \Vert S_{{\mathchoice{x}{x}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylex$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylex$}}}}\Vert^{2}}{n}
=\frac{\sigma}{n}\,
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,x^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,\theta^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$$ and, therefore, $$\label{up-Z*-00}
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}Z^*
\le
\sum_{x\in\Lambda_1}\frac{nM^2(x)}{\|S_x\|^2}
\leq \sigma
\nu_n
\,.$$ Moreover, the norm $\Vert S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda^{*}}{\lambda^{*}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda^{*}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda^{*}$}}}}-S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}}}\Vert$ can be estimated from below as $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}-S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}}}\Vert^{2}
&=
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}
(\varpi(j)+\beta(j))^{2}{\widehat}{\theta}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\\[2mm]
&\ge
\|{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2
+2
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}
\varpi(j)\beta(j){\widehat}{\theta}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta(j)=\lambda_0(j)g_j(\lambda_0)-\lambda(j)g_j(\lambda)$. Therefore, in view of $$\begin{aligned}
\|S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2&-\|S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}-S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}}}\|^2
\le
\|S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2-\|{\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2
-2\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\varpi(j)\beta(j)
{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^2
\\[2mm]
&
\le
-2M(\varpi^{2})-2\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\varpi(j)\beta(j)
{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\theta_j-
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\Upsilon(\varpi)
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Upsilon(\lambda)=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)\beta(j)
{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$. Note that the first term in this inequality we can estimate as $$2M(\varpi^{2})\le \varepsilon\|S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2+\frac{Z_1^*}{n\varepsilon}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
Z^*_1=\sup_{x\in\Lambda_1}\frac{n M^2(x^{2})}{\|S_x\|^2}
\,.$$ Note that, similarly to we can estimate the last term as $$\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}Z_1^*\leq \sigma\nu_n\,.$$ From this it follows that for any $0<\varepsilon<1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\|S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2
\le
\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}
&\left(
\|S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}-S^{*}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}}}\|^2
+\frac{Z_1^*}{n\varepsilon}\right.
\\[2mm] \label{upper-bound-000}
&
\left.
-2\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\varpi(j)\beta(j)
{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\theta_j-
\frac{2\Upsilon(\varpi)}{\sqrt{n}}
\right)
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, note now that the property yields $$\label{theta-whg-upperb-00}
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,
\beta^{2}(j)
{\widehat}{\theta}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\le
2
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,g^{2}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j)\,
{\widehat}{\theta}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
+
2\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,g^{2}_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}$}}}}(j)\,
{\widehat}{\theta}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\le
\frac{4c^{*}}{\varepsilon n}\,.$$ Taking into account that $\vert\varpi(j)\vert\le 1$ and using the inequality , we get that for any $\varepsilon>0$ $$2\left|\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\varpi(j)
\beta(j)
{\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\theta_j\right|\leq\varepsilon\|S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^2
+\frac{4c^{*}}{\varepsilon n}
\,.$$ To estimate the last term in the right hand of we use first the Cauchy – Schwarz inequality and then the bound , i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\vert \Upsilon(\lambda)\vert
&\le
\frac{2\vert\lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\beta^{2}(j)
{\widehat}{\theta}^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\right)^{1/2}
\left(
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\bar{\lambda}^{2}(j)\,\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}} \right)^{1/2}\\[2mm]
&
\le
\varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)
+
\frac{c^{*}}{n\varepsilon\sigma}
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\bar{\lambda}^{2}(j)\,\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\le
\varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)
+
\frac{c^{*}(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})}{n\varepsilon\sigma}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\vert \Upsilon(\varpi)\vert
&\le
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\vert \Upsilon(\lambda^{*})\vert
+\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\vert \Upsilon(\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}})\vert\\[2mm]
&\le
\varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^{*})
+\varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}})
+
\frac{2c^{*}(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})}{n\varepsilon\sigma}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ So, using all these bounds in , we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\|S_{{\mathchoice{\varpi}{\varpi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\varpi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\varpi$}}}}\|^{2}
&\le
\frac{1}{(1-\varepsilon)}\biggl(\frac{Z_1^*}{n\varepsilon}+
\|S_{{\mathchoice{\lambda^*}{\lambda^*}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda^*$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda^*$}}}}^*-S_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_0}{\lambda_0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_0$}}}}^*\|^2
+\frac{6c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})}{n\sigma\varepsilon}
\\[2mm]
&+\varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+\varepsilon P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)\biggr)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Using in the inequality this bound and the estimate $$\|S_{{\mathchoice{\lambda^*}{\lambda^*}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda^*$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda^*$}}}}^*-S_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_0}{\lambda_0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_0$}}}}^*\|^2\leq
2({\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0))\,,$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
2|M(\varpi)|&\le
\frac{Z^*+Z_1^*}{n(1-\varepsilon)\varepsilon}
+
\frac{2\varepsilon({\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0))}{(1-\varepsilon)}
\\[2mm]
&
+
\frac{6c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})}{n\sigma(1-\varepsilon)}
+\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{1-\varepsilon}\left( P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+ P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)\right)
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Choosing here $\varepsilon\le \delta/2<1/2$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
2|M(\varpi)|&\le
\frac{2(Z^*+Z_1^*)}{n\varepsilon}
+
\frac{2\varepsilon({\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0))}{(1-\varepsilon)}
\\[2mm]
&
+
\frac{12c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\sigma+B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}})}{n\sigma}
+
\varepsilon\left( P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*)+ P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)\right)
\,.\end{aligned}$$ From here and , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*) &\leq\frac{1+\varepsilon}{1-3\varepsilon}{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)
+ \frac{6\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n(1-3\varepsilon)}
\\[2mm]
&
+\frac{28(1+c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})(B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}+\sigma)}{\delta(1-3\varepsilon)n\sigma}
+\frac{2(Z^*+Z_1^*)}{n(1-3\varepsilon)}
+\frac{2\delta P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)}{1-3\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Choosing here $\varepsilon=\delta/3$ and estimating $(1-\delta)^{-1}$ by $2$ where this is possible, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda^*) &\leq\frac{1+\delta/3}{1-\delta}{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)
+ \frac{12\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n}
\\[2mm]
&
+\frac{56(1+c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})(B^{*}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}+\sigma)}{\delta n\sigma}
+\frac{4(Z^*+Z_1^*)}{n}
+\frac{2\delta P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)}{1-\delta}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the expectation and using the upper bound for $P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda_0)$ in Lemma \[Lem.A.1\] with $\varepsilon=\delta$ yields $${{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^*,S)\leq\frac{1+5\delta}{1-\delta}{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}(S^*_{{\mathchoice{\lambda_0}{\lambda_0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda_0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda_0$}}}},S)
+\frac{\check{\U}_{{\mathchoice{Q,n}{Q,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,n$}}}}}{n\delta}
+
\frac{12\vert\Lambda\vert_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma|}{n}
\,,$$ where $
\check{\U}_{{\mathchoice{Q,n}{Q,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ,n$}}}}=
56(1+c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}})
(2(6+\overline{\phi}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}^4\Pi(x^4))
\sigma\nu_n
+
1)
+2
c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$. The inequality holds for each $\lambda_0\in\Lambda$, this implies Theorem \[sec:Mo.Th.1\].
Proof of Theorem \[Th.sec: Ae.2\]
---------------------------------
Firstly, note, that for any fixed $Q\in {{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ $$\label{sec:Lo.1-0}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S)
\ge
\,
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,
{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S)
\,.$$ Now for any fixed $0<{\varepsilon}<1$ we set $$\label{sec:Lo.1}
d=d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\left[\frac{k+1}{k}v^{1/(2k+1)}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}l_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}(r_{{\mathchoice{{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}}})\right]
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
r_{{\mathchoice{{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}}}=(1-{\varepsilon}) r\,.$$ Next we approximate the unknown function by a trigonometric series with $d=d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ terms, i.e. for any array $z=(z_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}$, we set $$\label{sec:Lo.4}
S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}(x)=\sum_{j=1}^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,z_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(x)
\,.$$
To define the Bayesian risk we choose a prior distribution on $\bbr^{d}$ as $$\label{sec:Lo.5}
\kappa=(\kappa_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1\le j\le d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\kappa_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=s_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,\eta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,,$$ where $\eta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$ are i.i.d. gaussian ${{\cal N}}(0,1)$ random variables and the coefficients $$s_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\sqrt{\frac{s^*_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
s^{*}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,
=
\left( \frac{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{j}
\right)^{k}
-
1
\,.$$ Furthermore, for any function $f$, we denote by $\p(f)$ its projection in $\L_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}[0,1]$ onto $W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$, i.e. $$\p(f)=\hbox{\rm Pr}_{{\mathchoice{W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleW_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleW_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}(f)\,.$$ Since $W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$ is a convex set, we obtain $$\|{\widehat}{S}-S\|^2\ge\|{\widehat}{\p}-S\|^2
\quad\mbox{with}\quad
{\widehat}{\p}=\p({\widehat}{S})
\,.$$ Therefore, $$\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,{{\cal R}}({\widehat}{S},S)
\ge\,
\int_{\{z\in\bbr^d\,:\,S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}\}}\,
\E_{{\mathchoice{S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}}{S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}$}}}}\|{\widehat}{\p}-S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}\|^2\,\mu_{\kappa}(\d z)
\,.$$ Using the distribution $\mu_{{\mathchoice{\kappa}{\kappa}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\kappa$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\kappa$}}}}$ we introduce the following Bayes risk $${\widetilde}{{{\cal R}}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S})=
\int_{{\mathchoice{\bbr^d}{\bbr^d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\bbr^d$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\bbr^d$}}}}{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S},S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}})\,
\mu_{{\mathchoice{\kappa}{\kappa}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\kappa$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\kappa$}}}}(\d z)\,.$$ Taking into account now that $\|{\widehat}{\p}\|^2\le r$ we obtain $$\label{sec:Lo.12}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,
{{\cal R}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{S},S)
\,
\ge\,
{\widetilde}{{{\cal R}}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{\p})
-2\,
\R_{{\mathchoice{0,n}{0,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0,n$}}}}$$ with $$\R_{{\mathchoice{0,n}{0,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0,n$}}}}=
\int_{{\mathchoice{ \{z\in\bbr^d\,:\,S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}\notin W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}\}}{ \{z\in\bbr^d\,:\,S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}\notin W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}\}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle \{z\in\bbr^d\,:\,S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}\notin W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}\}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle \{z\in\bbr^d\,:\,S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}\notin W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}\}$}}}}\,
\,
(r+\|S_{{\mathchoice{z}{z}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylez$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylez$}}}}\|^2)\,
\mu_{{\mathchoice{\kappa}{\kappa}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\kappa$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\kappa$}}}}(\d z)
\,.$$ Therefore, in view of $$\label{sec:Lo.1+10}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S)
\ge
\,
\sup_{{\mathchoice{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}\,
{\widetilde}{{{\cal R}}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{\p})
-2\,
\R_{{\mathchoice{0,n}{0,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0,n$}}}}
\,.$$ In Lemma \[Le.sec:App.3+1\] we studied the last term in this inequality. Now it is easy to see that $$\|{\widehat}{\p}-S_z\|^2 \ge
\sum_{j=1}^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,
({\widehat}{z}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-z_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})^2
\,,$$ where ${\widehat}{z}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\int^{1}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,{\widehat}{\p}(t)\,\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(t)\d t.$ So, in view of Lemma \[Le.sec:App.3\] and reminding that $v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=n/\overline{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{{\mathchoice{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{Q\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ\in{{\cal Q}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}
{\widetilde}{{{\cal R}}}_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}({\widehat}{\p})\,
&\ge\,
\sup_{{\mathchoice{0<\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}\le \sigma^{*}}{0<\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}\le \sigma^{*}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0<\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}\le \sigma^{*}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0<\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}\le \sigma^{*}$}}}}
\sum_{j=1}^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,\frac{1}
{n\sigma^{-2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}+v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,(s^{*}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})^{-1}}
\\[2mm]
&
=
\frac{1}{v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,
\sum_{j=1}^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,\frac{s^{*}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}
{s^{*}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}+\,1}
=
\frac{1}{v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,
\sum_{j=1}^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,
\left(
1
-
\frac{j^k}{d^k_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}
\right)
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, using now the definition , Lemma \[Le.sec:App.3+1\] and the inequality we obtain that $$\liminf_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\inf_{{\mathchoice{{\widehat}{S}\in\Pi_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{{\widehat}{S}\in\Pi_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\widehat}{S}\in\Pi_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\widehat}{S}\in\Pi_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$}}}}\,v^{\frac{2k}{2k+1}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\,
\sup_{{\mathchoice{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{S\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleS\in W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}$}}}}\,{{\cal R}}^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}({\widehat}{S}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},S)
\ge\,
(1-{\varepsilon})^{\frac{1}{2k+1}}\,
l_{{\mathchoice{k}{k}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek$}}}}(r_{{\mathchoice{{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}}})\,.$$ Taking here limit as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ we come to the Theorem \[Th.sec: Ae.2\].
Proof of Theorem \[Th.sec: Ae.1\]
---------------------------------
This theorem follows from Theorem \[Th.sec:Imp.1\] and Theorem 3.1 in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009b].
Conclusion
==========
In the conclusion we would like to emphasize that in this paper we develop a new model selection method based on the improved versions of the least squares estimates. It turns out that the improvement effect in the nonparametric estimation given in is more important than for the parameter estimation problems since the accuracy improvement is proportional to the parameter dimension $d$ which goes to infinity for nonparametric models. Recall that, the improved estimation methods was usually used for the parametric estimation problem only, where the parameter dimension $d$ is always fixed (see, for example, [@FourdrinierStrawderman1996]). Therefore, the benefit in the non-asymptotic quadratic accuracy from the application of the improved estimation methods is more significant in statistical nonparametric signal processing. Moreover, for the proposed improved model selection procedures we obtain the sharp oracle inequalities. It should be emphasized that in this paper we obtain these inequalities without conditions on the jumps, i.e. without assumption that the Lévy measure is finite. To this end we developed a special analytical tool in Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.3\] to study the non-asymptotic properties for the corresponding stochastic integrals with respect to the process . Moreover, asymptotically, as $n$ goes to infinity, we shown the adaptive efficiency for the improved model selection procedures. This is the meaning, that the proposed shrinkage model selection procedures have the benefit with respect to the least squares estimator in the non-asymptotic accuracy and asymptotically they possess the same efficient properties as the least squares methods. Moreover, the behavior of the constructed procedures is illustrated by the numerical simulations in Section \[sec:Sim\].
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} This work was partially supported by the research project no. 2.3208.2017/4.6 (the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation), RFBR Grant 16-01-00121 A and “The Tomsk State University competitiveness improvement programme” Grant 8.1.18.2018. The work of the last author was partially supported by the Russian Federal Professor program (project no. 1.472.2016/1.4, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation) and by the European research project XterM - Feder, University of Havre (France).
Appendix {#sec:A}
========
Proof of Proposition \[sec:Imp.Prop\_2\_1\]
-------------------------------------------
Using we put for any square integrated functions $f$ $$\label{sec:Stc.7}
I_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}^{(1)}(f)=\int_0^t f(s) \d w_s
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
I_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}^{(2)}(f)=\int_0^t f(s) \d z_s\,.$$ From here and we can see that the vector $\tilde{\xi}$ has the conditionally Gaussian distribution with respect to ${{\cal G}}_n$ with zero mean and its covariance matrix $\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ can be rewritten as $$\G_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sigma_1^2\,I_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}+\sigma_2^2{{\cal D}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}},$$ where $I_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}$ is the identity matrix and the $(i,j)$-th element of the matrix ${{\cal D}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is defined as $\E(I_n^{(2)}(\phi_{{\mathchoice{i}{i}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylei$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylei$}}}})I_n^{(2)}(\phi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})|{{\cal G}}_n)$. Using the celebrated inequality of Lidskii and Wieland (see, for example, in [@MarchallOlkin1979], G.3.a., p.334) we obtain $$\label{eq1.24}
{\mbox{tr}}\G_n-\lambda_{\max}(\G_n)\ge\sigma_1^{2}(
{\mbox{tr}}\,I_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}-\lambda_{\max}(I_{{\mathchoice{d}{d}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyled$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyled$}}}}))
\quad\mbox{a.s.}$$ Now, using we come to desire results.
Proof of Proposition \[sec:Mo.Prop.1\]
--------------------------------------
We use here the same method as in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009a]. Using the equality for the trigonometric basis, we get $$\label{sec:Mo.Prop_1.1}
{\widehat}{t}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=
t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}+
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,,$$ where $$t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=
\int^{1}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,S(u)\,{\mbox{Tr}}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(u)\d u
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\int^{n}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,{\mbox{Tr}}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(u)\,\d \xi_{{\mathchoice{u}{u}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleu$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleu$}}}}
\,.$$ Therefore, the estimator can be represented as $$\label{sec:Mo.Prop_010-04}
{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sum_{{\mathchoice{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}}}^n\,t^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
+
2\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
M_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
+
\frac{1}{n}
\sum^n_{{\mathchoice{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}}}\,\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\,,$$ where $M_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sum^n_{{\mathchoice{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}}}\,t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$. Note that for the continuously differentiable functions (see, for example, Lemma A.6 in [@KonevPergamenshchikov2009a]) the Fourrier coefficients $(t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})$ for any $m\ge 1$ satisfy the following inequality $$\label{sec:Mo.2-1-04}
\sum^{\infty}_{{\mathchoice{j=m+1}{j=m+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=m+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=m+1$}}}}\,t^2_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\le
\frac{4}{m}
\left(\int^{1}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\vert\dot{S}(t)\vert \d t\right)^{2}
\le
\frac{4}{m}
\Vert\dot{S}\Vert^{2}$$ and $\dot{S}=\d S/\d t$. The second term in can be estimated through the equality , i.e. $$\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}\,M^{2}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\frac{\sigma}{n}
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}}}\,t^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\le
\frac{4\sigma}{n\sqrt{n}}\,
\Vert\dot{S}\Vert^{2}\,.$$ Moreover, taking into account that the expectation $\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}\,\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\sigma$ we can represent the last term in as $$\frac{1}{n}
\sum^n_{{\mathchoice{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}}}\,\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
=\sigma
\frac{n-[\sqrt{n}]}{n}
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\,
B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(x')
\,,$$ where the function $B_{{\mathchoice{2,n}{2,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2,n$}}}}(x')$ is defined in for $x'_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=1/\sqrt{n}\Chi_{{\mathchoice{\{\sqrt{n}<j\le n\}}{\{\sqrt{n}<j\le n\}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\{\sqrt{n}<j\le n\}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\{\sqrt{n}<j\le n\}$}}}}$. Therefore, similarly to we find $$\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}
\left\vert
\frac{1}{n}
\sum^n_{{\mathchoice{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{j=[\sqrt{n}]+1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=[\sqrt{n}]+1$}}}}\,\xi^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
-\sigma
\right\vert
\le
\frac{\sigma\left(1+\sqrt{2+4\Pi(x^{4})}\right)}{\sqrt{n}}
\,.$$ This implies that $$\label{sec:Mo.15++-}
\E_{{\mathchoice{Q}{Q}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleQ$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleQ$}}}}|{\widehat}{\sigma}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\sigma| \leq
\frac{4\|\dot{S}\|^2+2\sqrt{\sigma}\|\dot{S}\|
+
\sigma\left(1+\sqrt{2+4\Pi(x^4)}\right)}{\sqrt{n}}$$ and, therefore, we obtain the bound . Hence Proposition \[sec:Mo.Prop.1\].
Proof of Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.1\]
-------------------------------------
Taking into account the definition of $I_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)$ in and we obtain through the Ito formula that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sec:Stc.2}
I_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(f)\,I_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(g)=
\sigma\,
(f,g)_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}
+
\M^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\M^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\Upsilon^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{s-}{s-}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles-$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles-$}}}}
\,
\d \xi_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}
+
\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}\,
\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}
f(s)\,g(s)\,
\d m_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\,,$$ $\Upsilon^{f,g}_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}=f(s) I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(g) + g(s) I_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(f)$ and $m_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}=x^{2}*(\mu-\tilde{\mu})_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}$. Using now the inequality with $\Upsilon=x f$ and $p=2$ we obtain that for any $f\in\L_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}[0,t]$ $$\E\,\left( \int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}f(s)\d z_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}\right)^{2}\le C\Vert f\Vert^{2}_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}<\infty
\,.$$ Therefore, taking the expectation in we obtain . Hence Proposition \[Pr.sec:Stc.1\].
Property of Penalty term
------------------------
\[Lem.A.1\] For any $n\geq 1$, $\lambda\in\Lambda$ and $0<\varepsilon<1$ $$\label{penalty-00}
P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)\leq\frac{\E\,{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)}{1-\varepsilon}+\frac{c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}{n\varepsilon(1-\varepsilon)}
\,,$$ where $c^{*}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}$ is defined in .
By the definition of ${\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)&=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,(\lambda(j)\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^*-\theta_j)^2
=\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\left(\lambda(j)(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^*-\theta_j)+(\lambda(j)-1)\theta_j\right)^2 \\[2mm]
&
\ge
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)^2(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^*-\theta_j)^2+
2\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)(\lambda(j)-1)\theta_j(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^*-\theta_j).\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account the condition $\B_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}$) and the definition we obtain that the last term in tho sum can be replaced as $$\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)(\lambda(j)-1)\theta_j(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^*-\theta_j)
=
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)(\lambda(j)-1)\theta_j({\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-\theta_j)
\,,$$ i.e. $
\E\,\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)(\lambda(j)-1)\theta_j(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^*-\theta_j)=0$ and, therefore, taking into account the definition we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\E\,{\mbox{Err}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)&\geq\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)^2\E\,(\theta_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^*-\theta_j)^2=
\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)^2\E\,\left(\frac{\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{\sqrt{n}}-g_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\right)^2\\[2mm]
&
\ge
P_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}(\lambda)-\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}\E\,\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\lambda(j)^2g_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}(j){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\xi_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\\[2mm]&
\ge (1-\varepsilon)\,P_{n}(\lambda)
- \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\E\,\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,g_{{\mathchoice{\lambda}{\lambda}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\lambda$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\lambda$}}}}^{2}(j){\widehat}{\theta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}^{2}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ The inequality implies the bound . Hence Lemma \[Lem.A.1\].
The absolute continuity of distributions for the Lévy processes {#subsec:App.5++}
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we study the absolute continuity for the the Lévy processes defined as
$$\label{sec:App.5++.1}
\d y_t=S(t)\d t+\d \xi_t\,,
\quad 0\le t\le T\,,$$
where $S(\cdot)$ is any arbitrary nonrandom square integrated function, i.e. from $\L_{{\mathchoice{2}{2}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle2$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle2$}}}}[0,T ]$ and $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le T}{0\le t\le T}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}}}$ is the Lévy process of the form with nonzero constant $\sigma_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}$. We denote by $\P_{{\mathchoice{y}{y}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyley$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyley$}}}}$ and $\P_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}$ the distributions of the processes $(y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le 1}{0\le t\le 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le 1$}}}}$ and $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le 1}{0\le t\le 1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le 1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le 1$}}}}$ on the Skorokhod space $\D[0,T]$. Now for any $(x_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le T}{0\le t\le T}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}}}$ from $\D[0,T]$ we set $$\label{sec:App.++.1}
\Upsilon_{{\mathchoice{T}{T}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleT$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleT$}}}}(x)=
\exp\left\{\int^{T}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\frac{S(u)}{\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,\d x^{c}_{{\mathchoice{u}{u}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleu$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleu$}}}}
-\,\int^{T}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,
\frac{S^{2}(u)}{2\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,
\d u
\right\}
\,,$$ where $x^{c}$ is the continuous part of the process $x$ defined in . Now we study the measures $\P_{{\mathchoice{y}{y}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyley$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyley$}}}}$ and $\P_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}$ in $\D[0,T]$.
\[Pr.sec:App.1++\] For any $T>0$ the measure $\P_{{\mathchoice{y}{y}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyley$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyley$}}}}\ll \P_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}$ in $\D[0,T]$ and the Radon-Nikodym derivative is $$\frac{\d\P_{{\mathchoice{y}{y}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyley$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyley$}}}}}{\d\P_{{\mathchoice{\xi}{\xi}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\xi$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\xi$}}}}}(\xi)
=\Upsilon_{{\mathchoice{T}{T}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleT$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleT$}}}}(\xi)
\,.$$
[**Proof.**]{} Note that to show this proposition it suffices to check that for any $0=t_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}<\ldots<t_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=T$ any $b_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\in\bbr$ for $1\le j\le n$ $$\E\,\exp\left\{i\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{l=1}{l=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylel=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylel=1$}}}}b_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(y_{{\mathchoice{t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$}}}}-y_{{\mathchoice{t_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}}{t_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}$}}}})\right\}
=
\E\,\exp\left\{i\sum^{n}_{{\mathchoice{l=1}{l=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylel=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylel=1$}}}}b_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{t_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$}}}}-\xi_{{\mathchoice{t_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}}{t_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet_{{\mathchoice{j-1}{j-1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej-1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej-1$}}}}$}}}})\right\}\Upsilon_{{\mathchoice{T}{T}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleT$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleT$}}}}(\xi)
\,.$$ taking into account that the processes $(y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le T}{0\le t\le T}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}}}$ and $(\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}})_{{\mathchoice{0\le t\le T}{0\le t\le T}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0\le t\le T$}}}}$ have the independent homogeneous increments, to this end one needs to check only that for any $b\in\bbr$ and $0\le s<t\le T$ $$\label{sec:App.++.2}
\E\,\exp\left\{i\,b (y_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}-y_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}})\right\}
=
\E\,\exp\left\{i\,b (\xi_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}-\xi_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}})\right\}\frac{\Upsilon_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(\xi)}{\Upsilon_{{\mathchoice{s}{s}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyles$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyles$}}}}(\xi)}
\,.$$ To check this equality note that the process $$\Upsilon_{{\mathchoice{t}{t}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylet$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylet$}}}}(\xi)=\exp
\left\{\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,\frac{S(u)}{\sigma_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,\d w_{{\mathchoice{u}{u}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyleu$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyleu$}}}}
-\,\int^{t}_{{\mathchoice{0}{0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0$}}}}\,
\frac{S^{2}(u)}{2\sigma^{2}_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}}\,
\d u
\right\}$$ is the gaussian martingale. From here we directly obtain the squation . Hence Proposition \[Pr.sec:App.1++\].
Properties of the term $\R_{{\mathchoice{0,n}{0,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0,n$}}}}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[Le.sec:App.3+1\] For any $m>0$ the term $\R_{{\mathchoice{0,n}{0,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0,n$}}}}$ introduced in satisfies the following property $$\label{sec:App.5++R++0}
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to\infty}{n\to\infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to\infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to\infty$}}}}\,n^{m}\,
\R_{{\mathchoice{0,n}{0,n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle0,n$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle0,n$}}}}\,=0\,.$$
First, setting $\zeta_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\sum^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\kappa^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,a_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}$, we obtain that $$\left\{
S_{{\mathchoice{\kappa}{\kappa}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\kappa$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\kappa$}}}}\notin W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}
\right\}
=
\left\{
\sum^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,\kappa^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\sum^{k}_{{\mathchoice{l=0}{l=0}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylel=0$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylel=0$}}}}\,
\Vert \phi^{(l)}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\Vert^{2}
> r
\right\}
=
\left\{
\zeta_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
> r
\right\}
\,.$$ Moreover, note that one can check directly that $$\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to \infty}{n\to \infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to \infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to \infty$}}}}\,
\E\,\zeta_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=
\lim_{{\mathchoice{n\to \infty}{n\to \infty}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen\to \infty$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen\to \infty$}}}}\,
\frac{1}{v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}
\sum^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,s^{*}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}\,a_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=r_{{\mathchoice{{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\varepsilon}$}}}}=
(1-{\varepsilon})r\,.$$ So, for sufficiently large $n$ we obtain that $$\left\{
S_{{\mathchoice{\kappa}{\kappa}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\kappa$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\kappa$}}}}\notin W_{{\mathchoice{k,r}{k,r}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylek,r$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylek,r$}}}}
\right\}
\subset
\left\{
{\widetilde}{\zeta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}>
r_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}
\right\}
\,,$$ where $r_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}}=r{\varepsilon}/2$, $${\widetilde}{\zeta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}=\zeta_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}-\E\,\zeta_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
=\frac{1}{v_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,\sum^{d_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,s^{*}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}a_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}{\widetilde}{\eta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
{\widetilde}{\eta}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}=\eta^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}-1\,.$$ Through the correlation inequality from [@GaPeSPA_2013] we can get that for any $p\ge 2$ there exists some constant $C_{{\mathchoice{p}{p}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylep$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylep$}}}}>0$ for which $$\E\,{\widetilde}{\zeta}^{p}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\le C_{{\mathchoice{p}{p}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylep$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylep$}}}}
\frac{1}{v^{p}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}}\,
\left( \sum^{d}_{{\mathchoice{j=1}{j=1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej=1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej=1$}}}}\,
(s^{*}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}})^{2}a^{2}_{{\mathchoice{j}{j}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylej$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylej$}}}}
\right)^{p/2}
\le C \,v^{-\frac{p}{4k+2}}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}
\,,$$ i.e. the expectation $\E\,{\widetilde}{\zeta}^{p}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. Therefore, using the Chebychev inequality we obtain that for any $m>1$ $$n^{m}\P({\widetilde}{\zeta}_{{\mathchoice{n}{n}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylen$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylen$}}}}> r_{{\mathchoice{1}{1}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle1$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle1$}}}})\to 0
\quad\mbox{as}\quad
n\to\infty\,.$$
Hence Lemma \[Le.sec:App.3+1\].
[100]{}
Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. [*IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control*]{} **19** (1974) 716–723.
O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen and N. Shephard. Non-Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-based models and some of their uses in financial mathematics. [*J. Royal Stat. Soc.*]{} **B 63** (2001) 167–241.
Barron A., Birgé L. and Massart P. (1999) Risk bounds for model selection via penalization. [*Probab. Theory Relat. Fields*]{} **113**, 301–415.
Bichteler K., Jacod J. [*Calcul de Malliavin pour les diffusions avec sauts: existence d’une densité dans le cas unidimensionnel*]{}. Séminaire de probabilité, XVII, Lecture Notes in Math., [**986**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1983, 132–157.
J. Bertoin. [*Lévy Processes.*]{} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
Comte, F. and Genon-Catalot, V. (2011) Estimation for Lévy processes from high frequency data within a long time interval. [*The Annals of Statistics*]{}, [**39**]{}(2), 803 – 837.
Cont R., Tankov P. [*Financial Modelling with Jump Processes.*]{} Chapman & Hall, 2004.
Fourdrinier D., Strawderman W. E. (1996). A paradox concerning shrinkage estimators: should a known scale parameter be replaced by an estimated value in the shrinkage factor? [*Journal of Multivariate Analysis*]{}, 59(2), 109 –140.
Fourdrinier D., Pergamenshchikov S. (2007) Improved selection model method for the regression with dependent noise. [*Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics*]{}, **59**(3), 435–464.
Flaksman, A.G. (2002) Adaptive signal processing in antenna arrays with allowance for the rank of the impule-response matrix of a multipath channel [*Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics*]{}, [**45**]{} (12), 977 – 988.
Galtchouk L.I., Pergamenshchikov S.M. (2006) Asymptotically efficient estimates for nonparametric regression models. [*Statistics and Probability Letters*]{}, [**76**]{} (8), 852–860.
Galtchouk L.I., Pergamenshchikov S. M. (2009) Sharp non-asymptotic oracle inequalities for nonparametric heteroscedastic regression models. [*Journal of Nonparametric Statistics*]{} [**21**]{} (1), 1 - 16.
Galtchouk L., Pergamenshchikov S. (2009) Adaptive asymptotically efficient estimation in heteroscedastic nonparametric regression.[*Journal of Korean Statistical Society*]{}, **38**(4), 305–322.
Galtchouk L., Pergamenshchikov S. (2013) Uniform concentration inequality for ergodic diffusion processes observed at discrete times. [*Stochastic Processes and their Applications*]{}, [**123**]{}, 91–109
Ibragimov I. A., Khasminskii R. Z. [*Statistical Estimation: Asymptotic Theory*]{}. Springer, New York, 1981.
Jacod J., Shiryaev A.N. [*Limit theorems for stochastic processes.*]{} 2nd edition, Springer, Berlin, 2002.
James W., Stein C. (1961). Estimation with quadratic loss. [*In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium Mathematics, Statistics and Probability, University of California Press, Berkeley*]{}, 1, 361–380
Kassam S.A. Signal detection in non-Gaussian noise. – New York: Springer-Verlag Inc., IX, 1988.
Konev V. V., Pergamenshchikov S. M. Nonparametric estimation in a semimartingale regression model. Part 1. Oracle Inequalities. [ *Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics of Tomsk State University*]{} **3** (2009) 23–41.
Konev V. V., Pergamenshchikov S. M. Nonparametric estimation in a semimartingale regression model. Part 2. Robust asymptotic efficiency. [ *Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics of Tomsk State University*]{} **4** (2009) 31–45.
Konev V. V., Pergamenshchikov S. M. General model selection estimation of a periodic regression with a Gaussian noise. [*Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics*]{} **62** (2010) 1083–1111.
Konev V. V., Pergamenshchikov S. M. Efficient robust nonparametric estimation in a semimartingale regression model. [*Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat.*]{}, **48** (4), 2012, 1217–1244.
Konev V. V., Pergamenshchikov S. M. Robust model selection for a semimartingale continuous time regression from discrete data. [*Stochastic processes and their applications*]{}, **125**, 2015, 294 – 326.
Konev V., Pergamenshchikov S. and Pchelintsev E. (2014) Estimation of a regression with the pulse type noise from discrete data. [*Theory Probab. Appl.*]{}, [**58**]{} (3), 442–457.
Kutoyants Yu. A. Estimation of the signal parameter in a Gaussian Noise. [*Problems of Information Transmission*]{}, 1977, vol. 13 (4), p. 29 – 36.
Kutoyants Yu. A. [*Parameter Estimation for Stochastic Processes*]{}. Heldeman-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
Jacod J., Shiryaev A. N. [*Limit theorems for stochastic processes*]{}. Vol.1, Springer, New York, 1987.
Mallows C. Some comments on $C_{{\mathchoice{p}{p}{\lower.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstylep$}}
{\lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptscriptstylep$}}}}$.[*Technometrics*]{} **15** (1973) 661–675.
Marshall A.W., Olkin I. [*Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications.*]{} Springer Series in Statistics, Springer, Academic.
Marinelli C., Röckner M. (2014) On maximal inequalities for purely discontinuous martingales in infinite dimensions. [*Séminaire de Probabilités*]{}, Lect. Notes Math., [**XLVI**]{} , 293–315.
Novikov A.A. (1975) On discontinuous martingales. [*Theory Probab. Appl.*]{}, [**20**]{}, 1, 11–26.
Nussbaum M. (1985) Spline smoothing in regression models and asymptotic efficiency in $\L_2$.- [*Ann. Statist.*]{} **13**, 984–997.
Pchelintsev E. (2013) Improved estimation in a non-Gaussian parametric regression. [*Stat. Inference Stoch. Process.*]{}, [**16**]{} (1), 15 – 28.
Pinsker M.S. (1981) Optimal filtration of square integrable signals in gaussian white noise. [*Problems of Transimission information*]{} **17**, 120–133.
Proakis J. G. [*Digital Communications*]{}. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995.
[^1]: Department of Mathematical Analysis and Theory of Functions, Tomsk State University, Lenin str. 36, 634050 Tomsk, Russia, e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Tomsk Polytechnic University, Lenin str. 30, 634050 Tomsk, Russia, e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Laboratoire de Mathématiques Raphael Salem, Avenue de l’Université, BP. 12, Université de Rouen, F76801, Saint Etienne du Rouvray, Cedex France and International Laboratory of Statistics of Stochastic Processes and Quantitative Finance of Tomsk State University, e-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: This work was supported by the RSF grant 17-11-01049 (National Research Tomsk State University).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A complete quantization of a homogeneous and isotropic spacetime with closed spatial sections coupled to a massive scalar field is provided, within the framework of Loop Quantum Cosmology. We identify solutions with their initial data on the minimum volume section, and from this we construct the physical Hilbert space. Moreover, a perturbative study allows us to introduce small inhomogeneities. After gauge fixing, the inhomogeneous part of the system is reduced to a linear field theory. We then adopt a standard Fock representation to quantize these degrees of freedom. For the considered case of compact spatial topology, the requirements of: i) invariance under the spatial isometries, and ii) unitary implementation of the quantum dynamics, pick up a unique Fock representation and a particular set of canonical fields (up to unitary equivalence).'
author:
- 'Mikel Fernández-Méndez'
- 'Guillermo A. Mena Marugán'
- Javier Olmedo
title: A complete hybrid quantization in inhomogeneous cosmology
---
Introduction
============
Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) is one of the most promising approaches to the quantization of cosmological spacetimes [@lqc]. In particular, its application to homogeneous and isotropic spacetimes (or even to anisotropic ones [@bianchi]) has shown that the classical singularity is always replaced with a quantum bounce.
In inflationary scenarios [@liddle], for instance in the presence of a massive scalar field, a careful analysis assuming some associated effective dynamics proves the overwhelming probability that the inflaton produces the necessary amount of e-foldings [@as_slow], solving the fine tuning problem inherent to General Relativity. But such an effective dynamics does not arise from any genuine quantization within LQC; it is rather adopted as a reasonable hypothesis. On the other hand, if one introduces small inhomogeneities –coming from the vacuum fluctuations of the inflaton–, a valid description for them should be provided by a standard Fock representation, at least in certain regimes. Nevertheless, the infinite number of possible inequivalent Fock representations leads to an uncontrollable ambiguity in the physical predictions, unless one can find a privileged Fock quantization.
In this work, we consider a closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetime coupled to a massive scalar field. We provide a complete polymeric quantization of this model, where each solution to the Hamiltonian constraint is characterized by its data on the minimum volume section. The completion of the space of these data with respect to a suitable inner product provides the physical Hilbert space. Moreover, the small inhomogeneities around homogeneous solutions, after a suitable gauge fixing, are described by a (linear) scalar field theory. Finally, we determine a unique $SO(4)$-invariant Fock quantization for them by requiring a unitary implementation of the dynamics.
Homogeneous system
==================
The homogeneous and isotropic system has two global (canonical pairs of) degrees of freedom. One is the pair $(\phi,p_\phi)$ for the matter content. Besides, the geometry is described by a densitized triad, which essentially reduces to $p$ (the square of the scale factor), and an Ashtekar-Barbero $su(2)$-connection $c$. The definition of these variables takes into account the $S^3$ topology, and uses a fiducial volume $l^3_0=2\pi^2$ (see [@apsv]). The Poisson bracket is $\{c,p\}=8\pi G \gamma/3$, with $G$ being the Newton constant and $\gamma$ the Immirzi parameter.
We carry out a polymeric quantization of the geometry degrees of freedom. The basic variables in LQC are fluxes of densitized triads through surfaces enclosed by four geodesic edges, which are determined essentially by $p$, and holonomies of the connection along integral curves of the fiducial triads, with fiducial length $\bar{\mu}l_0$. Specifically, we adopt the [*improved dynamics*]{} scheme, in which $\bar{\mu}=\sqrt{\Delta/p}$, with $\Delta$ equal to the minimum nonzero eigenvalue allowed for the area in Loop Quantum Gravity [@mmo]. Then, the gravitational part of the kinematical Hilbert space is $\mathcal{H}^{\rm grav}_{\rm kin}=L^2(\mathbb{R}_{\rm Bohr},d\mu_{\rm Bohr})$, where $\mathbb{R}_{\rm Bohr}$ is the Bohr compactification of the real line, and $d\mu_{\rm Bohr}$ is the natural Haar measure associated with it. In this Hilbert space one can find a basis of normalizable states in which the action of the matrix elements of the holonomies is given by ${\hat N}_{\bar{\mu}}|v\rangle=|v+1\rangle$, whereas, for the triad, $\hat p|v\rangle={\rm sgn}(v)(2\pi \gamma G \hbar\sqrt{\Delta}
|v|)^{2/3}|v\rangle$. Here, $\hbar$ is the Planck constant. For the scalar field, on the other hand, we employ a standard Schrödinger representation. Adopting a suitable factor ordering, we obtain the following operator representation for the Hamiltonian constraint: $$\label{eq:hom_quantum_const}
\hat{C}_0=\widehat{\left[\frac{1}{V}\right]}^{1/2}\!\!\bigg[8\pi G \big(\hat{p}_\phi^2+m^2\hat{V}^2\hat{\phi}^2\big)-
\frac{6}{\gamma^2}\bigg\{\widehat{\Omega}^2+(1+\gamma^2)l_0^2
\hat{V}^{4/3}-\frac{\hat{V}^2}{\Delta}\sin^2\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0\bigg\}\bigg]\widehat{\left[\frac{1}{V}\right]}^{1/2}\!\!\!\!\!,
\nonumber$$ where $\widehat{\left[1/V\right]}$ is the regularized inverse of the volume operator $\hat{V}$ (see [@apsv; @mmo]), and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:quantumomega} &\widehat{\Omega} &=
\frac{1}{4i\sqrt{\Delta}}\hat{V}^{1/2}
\Big[\widehat{{\rm sgn}(v)}
\left(e^{-i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}\hat{N}_{2\bar{\mu}}e^{-i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}-
e^{i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}\hat{N}_{-2\bar{\mu}}e^{i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}\right)
+\\ \nonumber &+&\left(e^{-i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}\hat{N}_{2\bar{\mu}}e^{-i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}-
e^{i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}\hat{N}_{-2\bar{\mu}}e^{i\frac{\hat{\bar{\mu}}l_0}{2}}\right)\widehat{{\rm sgn}(v)}\Big]\hat{V}^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
The constraint is a second order difference operator that only relates states with support on semilattices of the type $\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}^{\pm}=\{v=\pm(\varepsilon+4n),n\in\mathbb{N}\}$, where $\varepsilon\in(0,4]$ is a continuous parameter labeling each subspace, which can be interpreted as a superselection sector. Moreover, on any solution $\Psi$ to the constraint, the value at all the volumes $v=\varepsilon+4n$ with $n>0$ is totally determined by the value on the minimum volume section, namely $\Psi(\phi,v=\varepsilon)$. The physical Hilbert space can thus be identified with the completion of the functional space of initial data at $v=\varepsilon$ with respect to an inner product which is uniquely determined by the requirement of self-adjointness on a complete set of observables. Hence, the physical Hilbert space of this homogeneous system can be taken as $$\mathcal{H}^{\rm phy} = L^2(\mathbb{R},d\phi).$$
Inhomogeneous model and gauge fixing
====================================
Small inhomogeneities may arise from vacuum fluctuations of the inflaton. With this motivation, we introduce inhomogeneities in our model and adopt a perturbative treatment for them. We will consider scalar perturbations only (this is possible because vector and tensor modes are dynamically decoupled from the scalar ones at first perturbative order). Around the homogeneous solutions, we have $N=\sigma (N_0+\delta N)$, $N_a=\sigma^2\delta N_a$, $h_{ab}=\sigma^2e^{2\alpha}(\Omega_{ab}+\Delta_{ab})$ and $\Phi=\sigma^{-1}(l_0^{-3/2}\varphi+\delta \varphi)$, for the lapse, shift, spatial metric and scalar field, respectively. Here $\sigma^2=4\pi G/3l_0^3$, and $e^{\alpha}$ is the scale factor [@hh]. Besides, the spatial sections are isomorphic to $S^3$, for which we have a natural basis of spherical harmonics. In terms of it, we get the expansions: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\delta N&=&l_0^{3/2}N_0\sum_n g_nQ_n,\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \delta N_a=l_0^{3/2}e^{\alpha}\sum_n
j_nP_a^n,\\ \nonumber \Delta_{ab}&=&2l_0^{3/2}\sum_n
a_nQ_n\Omega_{ab}+3b_nP_{ab}^n,\quad \delta \varphi=\sum_n f_nQ_n.\end{aligned}$$ We will consider perturbations to second order in the Hamiltonian, which takes then the form $H=N_0\big[C_0+\sum_n(C_{2}^n+g_nC_{1}^n)\big]+\sum_n j_n D_{1}^n$, where $C_0$ is the scalar constraint of the homogeneous system ($\alpha,\pi_\alpha,\varphi,\pi_\varphi$) \[with $p$ replaced with $\alpha$ and $\pi_{\alpha}$ being its momentum\], each $C_{2}^n$ is quadratic in the scalar modes $(a_n,b_n,f_n)$ and their canonically conjugate momenta $(\pi_{a_n},\pi_{b_n},\pi_{f_n})$, and $C_{1}^n$ and $D_{1}^n$ are the linear contributions of the perturbations to the scalar and the diffeomorphism constraints (spanned in Fourier modes), respectively.
In our formalism, the perturbations $g_n$ and $j_n$ are nondynamical variables. They just play the role of Lagrange multipliers, associated with first-class constraints. In order to identify the true physical degrees of freedom and reduce the model, we now introduce gauge fixing conditions. One possibility is, e.g., the gauge $a_n=0=b_n$. The derived conditions $\dot{a}_n=0$ and $\dot{b}_{n}=0$, necessary for consistency with the dynamics, fix the functions $j_n$ and $g_n$. In addition, the constraints $D_{1}^n=C_1^n=0$ allow us to determine $\pi_{a_n}$ and $\pi_{b_n}$ in terms of $f_n$ and $\pi_{f_n}$. Besides, in order to adapt the system to a form in which one can apply the uniqueness results of [@uniq-S3; @uniq2-S3] (concerning its Fock quantization), we will make the change of variables $\bar
f_n=e^{\alpha} f_n$ and $\bar\pi_{f_n}=e^{-\alpha}[\pi_{f_n}-(3\pi_\varphi^2/\pi_\alpha+\pi_\alpha)
f_n]$, which can be easily extended into a canonical transformation (up to the perturbative order under consideration).
Hybrid quantization
===================
Assuming that the most important quantum geometry effects are those affecting the homogeneous part of the geometry, we now perform a complete quantization of the system in which we adopt the polymeric quantization explained above for that homogeneous part, while we adhere to a standard quantization not only for the homogeneous component of the scalar field, but for all the inhomogeneities. Remarkably, we can choose a privileged Fock quantization for the inhomogeneities: there is only one Fock representation invariant under the spatial isometries that implements the dynamics unitarily [@uniq-S3]. Actually, this criterion fixes not only the representation of the canonical commutation relations, but also the choice of a canonical pair for our field [@uniq2-S3] (at least if one expects to reach regimes where deparametrization is possible).
In our gauge fixed system, those uniqueness results select the Fock representation which is naturally associated with the massless case for the field described by the modes $\bar f_n$ and $\bar\pi_{f_n}$ [@fmo]. The resulting kinematical Hilbert space is the Fock space $\mathcal{F}$ constructed from the corresponding one-particle Hilbert space. In total, the kinematical Hilbert space is $\mathcal{H}^{\rm kin}=\mathcal{H}^{\rm
kin}_{\rm grav}\otimes L^2(\mathbb{R},d\phi)\otimes\mathcal{F}$. With this space as starting point, we can construct a quantum Hamiltonian constraint and look for its solutions. We expect this constraint to impose a second order difference equation with solutions totally determined by their values on the minimum volume section (at least in the studied perturbative order). Identifying then solutions with initial data, the latter can be completed with a suitable inner product to obtain the physical Hilbert space (see e.g. [@gmm] and the previous section).
Conclusions
===========
We have first analyzed a homogeneous, massive scalar field propagating in a closed FRW spacetime and quantized the system to completion, combining both Schrödinger and polymeric representations. The physical Hilbert space has been constructed out of the functional space defined on the minimum volume section, which provides the initial data for the solutions of the scalar constraint. Along similar lines, we can also obtain the physical Hilbert space when small inhomogeneities are included. These are introduced in the system as perturbations. In the process followed to arrive to this space of physical states, we have carried out a partial gauge fixing, removing two of the three fieldlike degrees of freedom, and performed a canonical transformation (consisting in a scaling of the field) to write the reduced system in a way in which one can appeal to the uniqueness theorems of [@uniq-S3; @uniq2-S3]. Finally, we have adopted a hybrid quantization for this reduced system, combining loop techniques for the homogeneous sector of the geometry with a standard Fock quantization of the inhomogeneities [@fmo].
We acknowledge the MICINN/MINECO Projects FIS2008-06078-C03-03 and FIS2011-30145-C03-02, and the Consolider-Ingenio Program CPAN CSD2007-00042.
[M]{}
Bojowald M 2008 [*Living Rev. Relativity*]{} [**11**]{}, 4
Ashtekar A and Wilson-Ewing E 2009 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**79**]{}, 083535; Martín-Benito M, Mena Marugán G A and Paw[ł]{}owski T 2008 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**78**]{}, 064008
Liddle A R and Lyth D H 2000 [*Inflation and Large-Scale Structure*]{} (Cambridge University Press)
Ashtekar A and Sloan D 2010 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**694**]{}, 108
Ashtekar A, Paw[ł]{}owski T, Singh P and Vandersloot K 2007 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**75**]{}, 024035
Martín-Benito M, Mena Marugán G A and Olmedo J 2009 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**80**]{}, 104015
Halliwell J J and Hawking W 1985 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**31**]{}, 8
Cortez J, Mena Marugán G A and Velhinho J M 2010 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**81**]{}, 044037
Cortez J, Mena Marugán G A, Olmedo J and Velhinho J M 2010 [*JCAP*]{} [**10**]{}, 030
Fernández-Méndez M, Mena Marugán G A, Olmedo J and Velhinho J M 2012 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**85**]{}, 103525
Garay L J, Martín-Benito M and Mena Marugán G A 2010 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**82**]{}, 044048
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In view of its several involvements in various physical and mathematical contexts, 2D-fractional supersymmetry (F-susy) is once again considered in this work. We are, for instance, interested to study the three states Potts model $(k = 3)$ which represents with the tricritical Ising model $(k = 2)$ the two leading examples of more general spin $1/k$ fractional supersymmetric theories.'
---
\
**M.B. Sedra** , **J. Zerouaoui**\
[Université Ibn Tofail, Faculté des Sciences, Département de Physique,\
Laboratoire de Physique de la Matière et Rayonnement (LPMR), Kénitra, Morocco.]{}\
Introduction
============
Fractional spin symmetries (FSS) [@ref; @1; @ref; @2; @ref; @3], which deals with exotic particles, is an important subject that emerges remarkably twenty years ago in coincidence with the growing interest in high energy and condensed matter physics through quantum field theory [@ref; @4], conformal symmetries [@ref; @5] and string theory [@ref; @6].\
\
These symmetries are specific for two-dimensional theories and play a pioneering role in the study of $D=2$ conformal field theories and integrable $\Phi _{1,3}$ deformation of minimal models [@ref; @7]. Well known examples are given by the standard $D=2$ supersymmetry generated by spin $1/2$ charge operators $Q_{\pm 1/2}$ and the superconformal symmetry exhibiting an infinite number of half integer constants of motion [@ref; @8].\
\
Other non common examples are the $c=1-\frac{6}{p(p+1)}$ minimal models containing among their $\frac{p(p-1)}{2}$ primary fields a spin $\frac{(p+2)}{2}$ conformal field which, combined with the energy momentum tensor, generate a kind of generalized superconformal symmetry.\
\
Recall that the usual superconformal invariance is generated by a spin $3/2$ conserved current in addition to the Virasoro current of spin $2$ which give rise, in Laurent modes, to the Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond superconformal algebras. On the other hand, following [@ref; @9], the $\phi_{1,3}$ deformation of the $c=6/7$ tricritical three states Potts model exhibits a similar behavior as the $\phi_{1,3}$ deformation of the $c=7/10$ tricritical Ising model [@ref; @10]. Both of them admit fractional spin constants of motion namely $Q_{\pm 1/3}^{\pm}$ and $Q_{\pm 1/2}$ surviving after the perturbation and satisfying $$Q_{\pm 1/2}^{2}=P_{\pm 1},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{1/3}^{-3}&=&Q_{1/3}^{+3}=P_1\\
Q_{-1/3}^{-3}&=&Q_{-1/3}^{+3}=P_{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{\mu}=(P_1, P_{-1})$ is the two dimensional energy momentum vector. The $\pm 1/3$ lower indices and $\pm$ upper ones carried by the $Q_{\pm 1/3}$’s are respectively the values of the spin and the charges of the $Z_3$ automorphism symmetry of eqs(2-3). Note also that the above equations are particular examples of more general fractional spin $s=\pm 1/k $ equations generalizing the $D=2$ supersymmetry algebra and reading as $$Q_{s}^{\pm k}=P_{ks}$$ Setting $k=2$ and $k=3$, one gets respectively the standard $D=2
N=1$ supersymmetry and the leading generalized one eqs(2-3). Moreover, it is established that under the $\phi_{1, 3}$ deformation, a $c(p)$ minimal model flows to the subsequent $c(p-1)$ conformal one [@ref; @7] in agreement with the Zamolodchikov c-theory [@ref; @11] according to which the central charge $c$ is a decreasing function in the space of coupling parameters.\
\
We focus in this work to renew our interest in fractional supersymmetry, although several productions have been made previously, since we believe that much more important results can be extracted. This is also important to give new breath to supersymmetry, conformal invariance and integrable models as one of the best issues in the history of theoretical and mathematical physics.
We present the $D=2$ three states Potts model as been the first non trivial physical model corresponding to a fractional deformation of the standard supersymmetry and show later how the $D=2 (1/3 , 1/3)$ can be it’s underlying invariance. We are projecting through this first presentation among a series of fourth coming works to shed new insights towards understanding well these exotic symmetries and their possible incorporation in various modern topics of theoretical and mathematical physics.
$D=2$ Three states Potts Model
==============================
It’s now well known that the $c=6/7$ conformal theory and more particularly the three critical Potts model (TPM), admits several several infinite dimensional symmetries. The first kind is given by the conformal symmetry whose generator $T_{\mu \nu}, \mu,
\nu=z, \bar z$ is nothing but the spin $2$ energy momentum tensor which is symmetric and traceless. The second infinite symmetry is generated by the so called conserved $W$-currents. Combined with the spin $2$-conformal current, the $W$-currents generate a huge infinite symmetry known as the $W$-symmetry [@ref; @12].\
\
The famous example of this non standard symmetry is given by the Zamolodchikov algebra generated by $T$ of spin 2 and $W$ of spin 3 conformal currents. The common property of $W$-symmetries is the fact that they are associated to a non standard Lie algebra structure. $W$-algebra is a non linear symmetry containing the conformal one as a particular case and is known as the mediator of the integrability of the $\phi_{1,2}$ magnetic deformation of the $c=6/7$ critical theory [@ref; @9].\
\
The third class of infinite symmetries of the TPM is generated by fractional spin $4/3$ conserved currents $G_{4/3}^{\pm}$ and ${\bar G}_{4/3}^{\pm}$ in addition to the energy momentum tensor. We shall refer to this symmetry as the $4/3$-superconformal symmetry in analogy with the standard superconformal symmetry generated by spin $3/2$ current and which we denote as spin $3/2$-superconformal symmetry.\
\
This invariance of the $c=6/7$ critical theory generalizes in some sense the $N=1$ spin $3/2$ superconformal symmetry of the tricritical Ising model (TIM) having central charge $c$ equal to $7/10$. Recall that TIM and TPM are respectively given by the fourth and sixth levels of the minimal series $$c(p)=1-\frac{6}{p(p+1)}; p=3, 4,...,$$ They appear also as the leading conformal theories of the $N=1$ spin $%
3/2$ superconformal discrete series $$c(m)=\frac{3}{2}( 1-\frac{8}{m(m+2)}); m=3, 4,...,$$ and the spin $4/3$ superconformal discrete one $$c(m)=2( 1-\frac{12}{m(m+4)}); m=3, 4,...,$$ Note also that eqs(5-7) may be regrouped into a two integers discrete series as [@ref; @13] $$c(m, n)=\frac{3n}{n+2}( 1-\frac{2(n+2)}{m(m+n)}); n=1, 2,...,$$ For $n=1$, one recover the unitary minimal models see eq(5). Putting $n=2$ and $%
n=4 $ in the above relation by keeping the integer $m$ free, we obtain respectively the spin $3/2$-superconformal and $4/3$-superconformal theories. However, letting the integer $n$ free and taking $m=3$ we get $$c(3, n)=1-\frac{6}{(n+2)(n+3)}; n=1, 2,...,$$ which corresponds to the minimal unitary series eq(5) once we set $n+2=p$.\
From this overlapping of the above discrete series, we deduce that $N=0$ conformal models of eq(5) admit extra symmetries since they appear as special critical models of the $c(m,n)$ theories.\
\
Another interesting aspect exhibited by the TIM and TPM and more generally the $c(k)=1-\frac{3}{k(2k+1)}%
;k=2,3,...,$ conformal models is the integrability of their $\phi
_{1,3}$ deformation, see the last ref. in [@ref; @7]. It’s shown there that the thermal perturbation of the $%
c=6/7$ model induces an off critical spin $1/3$ supersymmetric algebra surviving after the $\phi _{1,3}$ perturbation. This is a finite dimensional symmetry generated by conserved charges $Q_{+1/3}^{\pm }$ and $Q_{-1/3}^{\pm }$ carrying fractional spin $s=\pm 1/3$ and non vanishing $Z_{3}$ charges, we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{1/3}^{-3} &=&P_{1},Q_{-1/3}^{-3}=P_{-1} \\
Q_{1/3}^{+3} &=&P_{1},Q_{-1/3}^{+3}=P_{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{1/3}^{-}Q_{-1/3}^{-}-{\bar{q}}Q_{-1/3}^{-}Q_{1/3}^{-} &=&\Delta
^{(-,-)}
\\
Q_{1/3}^{+}Q_{-1/3}^{+}-{q}Q_{-1/3}^{+}Q_{1/3}^{+} &=&\Delta ^{(+,+)} \\
Q_{1/3}^{-}Q_{-1/3}^{+}-{\bar{q}}Q_{-1/3}^{+}Q_{1/3}^{-} &=&\Delta ^{(-,+)}
\\
Q_{1/3}^{+}Q_{-1/3}^{-}-{q}Q_{-1/3}^{-}Q_{1/3}^{+} &=&\Delta ^{(+,-)}\end{aligned}$$where $P_{3}$ is the usual $2d$ energy momentum vector and $\Delta
^{(r_{1},r_{2})},r_{1},r_{2}=\pm 1$ are topological charges. the parameter $%
q $ is such that $q^{3}=1$ chosen as $q=exp(2i\pi /3)$. It can be thought of as the deformation parameter of the $U_{q}(sl(2))$ quantum enveloping algebra of $sl(2)$ [@ref; @14]. The parameter $q$ describes also the generator of the $Z_{3}$ discrete abelian group. Denoting by $S^{\star }$ the critical action of TPM and by $S$ its deformation $\phi _{h,\bar{h}}=\phi _{1,3}\otimes \phi
_{1,3};h,\bar{h}=5/7$ namely $$S=S^{\ast }+\lambda \int d^{2}z \phi _{5/7, 5/7}$$ where $\lambda $ is the perturbation parameter, it was shown that the algebra eq(10-15) is a symmetry of the above deformed theory. The conserved charges $Q_{s}^{\pm}$, $\Delta^{(r_1, r_2)}$ and $P_{3s}, s=\pm 1/3 $ are realized as follows $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{1/3}^{\pm } &=&\int \left[ dzG^{\pm }(z,{\bar{z}})+d{\bar{z}}\Gamma ^{\pm
}(z,{\bar{z}})\right] \\
Q_{-1/3}^{\pm } &=&\int \left[ d{\bar{z}}{\bar{G}}^{\pm }(z,{\bar{z}})+dz{%
\bar{\Gamma}}^{\pm }(z,{\bar{z}})\right]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta ^{(+,+)} &=&\int
\left[ dz\partial ++d{\bar{z}}\bar{\partial}\right]
\varphi ^{(+,+)} \\
\Delta ^{(-,-)} &=&\int \left[ dz\partial +d{\bar{z}}\bar{\partial}\right]
\varphi ^{(-,-)} \\
\Delta ^{(+,-)} &=&\int \left[ dz\partial +d{\bar{z}}\bar{\partial}\right]
\varphi ^{(+,-)} \\
\Delta ^{(-,+)} &=&\int \left[ dz\partial +d{\bar{z}}\bar{\partial}\right]
\varphi ^{(-,+)} \\\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
P_{_{1}} &=&\int \left[ dzT+d{\bar{z}}\Theta \right] \\
P_{_{-1}} &=&\int \left[ d{\bar{z}}\bar{T}+dz\Theta \right]\end{aligned}$$ The conformal field $\phi_{h, \bar h}^{(r, \bar r)}(z, \bar
z)=\phi_{h}^{r}(z)\otimes \phi_{\bar h}^{(\bar r)}(\bar z)$, with $r, \bar r= 0,1,2$$(mod 3)$ are the $Z_3 \times \bar Z{_3}$ (left right) charges, appearing in the above equations, which are built as: the $4/3$ supersymmetric currents $G^\pm_{4/3}$ (resp ${\bar
G}^\pm_{-4/3}$) which carry only a left (resp. right) $Z_3$ charge read as $$G=\phi _{4/3,0}^{(\pm ,0)} , \bar G^{\pm}=\phi _{0, 4/3}^{(0,
\pm)}$$ The magnetic order parameter fields $\varphi^{(+, +)}$ and its conjugate $%
\varphi^{(-, -)}$ are given by $$\varphi^{(+, +)}=\phi _{1/21,1/21}^{(+, +)} , \varphi^{(-,
-)}=\phi _{1/21, 1/21}^{(-, -)}$$ They carry the same left and right $Z_3$ charge contrary to the magnetic disorder parameter fields $\varphi^{(+,-)}$ and $\varphi^{(-,+)}$ which read as $$\phi^{(+, -)}=\phi _{1/21,1/21}^{(+, -)} , \phi^{(-, +)}=\phi _{1/21,
1/21}^{(-, +)}.$$ The remaining relevant fields of the TPM involved in eqs(17-25) are $${\bar \Gamma}^{\pm}_{-2/3}=\phi _{1/21,1/21}^{(\pm, 0)} ,
\Gamma^{\pm}_{2/3}=\phi _{5/7,1/21}^{(0, \pm)} , D^0=\phi _{5/7,5/7}^{(0, 0)}$$ The field $\Theta$ appearing in the two last relations eqs(24-25) is the trace of the conserved energy momentum tensor of the off critical theory. It measures the violation of the scale invariance of the $\phi _{5/7,5/7}$ deformation of the TPM model. It reads then as $$\Theta\sim\lambda \phi _{5/7,5/7}^{(0, 0)}$$ Note that the fields $\phi, \Gamma, \bar \Gamma$ and $D$ eqs(27-29) have values of the spin $s=h-\bar h$ respectively equal to $0, (1-s), -(1-s), 0$ with $%
s=1/3$. Note also that the above field operators share some basic features with the four fields involved in the $N=1$ spin $1/2$ supersymmetric $%
\phi_{1,3}=\phi_{3/5, 3/5}$ deformation of the TIM [@ref; @10].\
There, these conformal fields have respectively the spin values $%
0,(1-s),-(1-s)$ and $0$ with $s=1/2$. They belong to the scalar representation of the two dimensional $N=1$ spin $1/2$ supersymmetric algebra $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{s}Q_{s}+Q_{s}Q_{s} &=&P_{2s},s=\pm 1/2 \\
Q_{s}Q_{-s}+Q_{-s}Q_{s} &=&\Delta\end{aligned}$$This algebra is generated by hermitian charges and admits a field representation analogous to the field realization eqs(24-25) of the off critical spin $1/3$ superalgebra. We have $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{1/2} &=&\int dzG+d{\bar{z}}\Gamma ] \\
Q_{-1/2} &=&\int \left[ d{\bar{z}}{\bar{G}}+dz{\bar{\Gamma}}\right] \\
\Delta &=&\int \left[ dz\partial ++d{\bar{z}}\bar{\partial}\right] \varphi \\
P &=&\int \left[ d{z}T+d{\bar{z}}\Theta \right] \\
\bar P &=&\int \left[ d{\bar{z}}\bar T+dz\Theta \right]\end{aligned}$$ We can define the following fields operators $G_{3/2}, {\bar G}%
_{-3/2}, \phi, F, G_{1/2}$ and $\bar G_{-1/2}$ in terms of the field $\phi$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
G_{3/2} &=&\phi _{3/2,0},\bar{G}_{-3/2}=\phi _{0,3/2} \\
\varphi &=&\phi _{1/10,1/10},F=\phi _{3/5,3/5} \\
\bar{G}_{-1/2} &=&\phi _{1/10,3/5},G_{1/2}=\phi _{3/5,1/10}\end{aligned}$$and where $\Theta $ is shown also to be proportional to the perturbation field $F= \phi_{3/5, 3/5}$ namely $\Theta =\alpha F$.
The Underlying $D=2 (1/3, 1/3)$ Supersymmetry
=============================================
An important question that emerges when studying exotic fractional symmetries is their superspace representations. In previous works [@ref; @2], we succeeded to build representations of the $D=2$ fractional supersymmetric algebra, noted simply as $(1/k, 1/k)$ for $k=2,3,...$. The last notation indicates simply the left and right-hand sides of the supersymmetric algebra generated by spin $s=\pm 1/k$ charge operators $Q$ and $\bar Q$ satisfying eq(4).\
\
Based on this knowledge and on the fact that the particular choice $k=2$ reproduce the standard $D=2$ supersymmetry, we focus in what follows to show how $(1/3, 1/3)$ supersymmetric algebra can be considered as the underlying symmetry of the $D=2$ three state Potts model.\
\
Recall first that there are few known models that exhibit the $(1/3, 1/3)$ supersymmetric algebra. We quote the $C=6/7$ minimal models and its $\phi_{1, 3}$ deformation. In these cases, the $D=2(1/3, 1/3)$ superfields are characterized by their spins $s=
h-\tilde h$ and their scale dimension $\Delta=h+\tilde {h}$. They contain $3\times 3$ component fields depending on the space coordinates $z$ and $ \bar z$ and on the extra variable $u$ realizing the topological charge. Setting $h=\tilde {h}=1/21$, by virtue of the $C=6/7$ minimal model [@ref; @7], the scalar superfield $\phi_{1/21, 1/21}$ expands in $\theta _{-1/3}$ and $\tilde {\theta} _{1/3}$ series as $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\phi_{({1/21, 1/21})}
&=& \varphi_{({1/21,1/21})}+\theta_{-1/3}\psi_{({8/21,1/21})}+\tilde\theta_{1/3}\tilde\psi_{({1/21,
8/21})}\\\\
&+& \theta^{2}_{-1/3}\chi_{({15/21, 1/21})}+ \tilde\theta^{2}_{1/3}\tilde\chi^{2}_{({1/21, 15/21})}+
\theta_{-1/3}\tilde\theta_{1/3}\xi_{({8/21, 8/21})}\\\\
&+&\theta^{2}_{-1/3}\tilde \theta
_{1/3}\lambda_{({15/21,8/21})}+\tilde\theta^{2}_{1/3}\theta
_{-1/3}\tilde\lambda_{({8/21, 15/21})}
+\theta^{2}_{-1/3}\tilde\theta ^{2}_{1/3}F_{({15/21, 15/21})}.
\end{array}$$ From this expansion we recognize the fields involved in the TPM discussed in the previous section. Note for instance the last term of this expression namely $F_{({15/21, 15/21})}$ is nothing but the $\phi_{1,3}$ field $\phi_{({5/7, 5/7})}$ of the TPM or $C=6/7$ conformal theory. This is a $D=2(1/3, 1/3)$ supersymmetric invariant quantity exactly as for the field of the $D=2(1/2, 1/2)$ supersymmetric $C=7/10$ minimal model.\
\
Based on this presentation, others important aspects of fractional supersymmetries will be presented in our forthcoming works.
[99]{} G. W. Semenoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 517 (1988);\
C. Ahn, D. Bernard, A. LeClair, Nucl Phys. B 346 (1990)409;\
D. Bernard and A. LeClair, Nucl Phys. B 340 (1990)721;\
A.B. Zamolodchikov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4 (1989)4235. E.H.Saidi, M.B.Sedra, J.Zerouaoui Class. Quant. Grav. [**12**]{} (1995) 1567; E.H.Saidi, M.B.Sedra, J.Zerouaoui, Class. Quant. Grav. [**12**]{}(1995) 2705. A. Perez, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, P. Simon, Nucl.Phys.B 482(1996)325;\
M. Rausch de Traubenberg, P. Simon, Nucl.Phys.B 517(1998)485. C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, Mcgraw-hill (1980) 705. A.A.Belavin, A.M.Polyakov, A.B.Zamolodchikov, Nucl.Phys.B241(1984);\
V. S. Dotsenko, V.A. Fateev, Nucl Phys. B240 \[FS12\](1984)312;\
C. Itzykson, H. Saleur and J. B. Zuber, Europhys. Lett. [**2**]{}, 91 (1986);\
P. Ginsparg, Applied Conformal field Theory, Les houches Lectures (1988). M.B.Green, J.H.Schwarz, E.Witten, Superstring Theory (Cambrigde 1984);\
J. Polchinski: String Theory (Cambridge 1998). A. Ludwig and J.L. Cardy, Nucl. Phys. B 285 \[FS 19\] (1987) 487;\
J. L. Cardy in: Fields, strings and critical phenomena; Les Houches (1988);\
A. Cappeli and J. Latorre, Nucl Phys. B 340 (1990) 659;\
G. Mussardo, Phys. Rep. 218 (1992) 216;\
G. Feverati, P.A Pearce, F. Ravanini, Nucl Phys. B 675 \[FS\] (2003)469. Z. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. B 270 \[FS 16\] (1986) 205;\
D. Friedan, Z. Qiu, S. Shenker, Phys. Lett. B 151 (1985)26. G. Sotkov, C.J. Zhu, Phys. lett. B 229 (1989) 391;\
V.A. Fateev, A.B. Zamolodchikov, Int. J. Mod. Phys A5 (1991)1025. D. A. Kastor, E. Martinec, S. Shenker, Nucl Phys. B 316 (1989) 590. A.B. Zamolodchikov, JETP Lett 43 (1986) 730. A.B. Zamolodchikov, Theo. Math. Phys. 65 (1986) 1205;\
V.A. Fateev and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl Phys. B 280 \[FS 18\] (1987)644;\
P. Bouwknegt and K.Schoutens, Phys. Rep. 233 (1993) 183 ( For a review). F. Ravanini “Propagation on string and conformal theory”, Nordita 89/21. C. Kassel “ Cours sur les groupes quantiques”. partie 1, (1991)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A framework for designing and analyzing computer experiments is presented, which is constructed for dealing with functional and real number inputs and real number outputs. For designing experiments with both functional and real number inputs a two stage approach is suggested. The first stage consists of constructing a candidate set for each functional input and during the second stage an optimal combination of the found candidate sets and a Latin hypercube for the real number inputs is searched for. The resulting designs can be considered to be generalizations of Latin hypercubes. GP models are explored as metamodel. The functional inputs are incorporated into the kriging model by applying norms in order to define distances between two functional inputs. In order to make the calculation of these norms computationally feasible, the use of B-splines is promoted.'
author:
- |
Thomas Muehlenstaedt [^1]\
W. L. Gore & Associates\
and\
Jana Fruth\
Faculty of Statistics, TU Dortmund\
and\
Olivier Roustant\
Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne,\
FAYOL-EMSE, LSTI, F-42023 Saint-Etienne, France\
bibliography:
- 'LitMuehlenstaedt.bib'
title: '**Computer experiments with functional inputs and scalar outputs by a norm-based approach**'
---
\#1
0
[0]{}
1
[0]{}
[**Computer experiments with functional inputs and scalar outputs by a norm based approach**]{}
[*Keywords:*]{} space-filling design, Gaussian process, Maximin design
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
A lot of physical phenomena are now studied virtually by means of computer codes. For complex phenomena it often happens that the code is too time-consuming for a direct usage. This issue is usually addressed by creating “metamodels”, also called “surrogates” or “emulators”, that correspond to quick-to-evaluate mathematical models of the computer codes. In particular the (meta)model based on a Gaussian process (GP) proposed by [@SacSchWel89desi; @SacWelMit89desi] and [@CurMitMor91baye] at the end of the eighties has gained in popularity, and is now described in several books (see e.g. [@SanWilNot03desi], [@FanLiSud06desi], [@GPML]). In the sequel we will use the term “GP model” though other equivalent expressions can be found, such as GP Regression, GaSP, GP emulator, or Kriging model. One main reason for its success is that the GP model both provides an interpolation of the data and an uncertainty quantification in the unexplored regions. Furthermore, it depends on a positive definite function, or *kernel*, that is adaptable to specific priors or frameworks.
A large amount of research has addressed the case of scalar-valued inputs and outputs, though this is often a summary of functional inputs and outputs, given as functions of time or space. Nevertheless there has been a recent literature focusing on this more complex functional framework. [@BayarriEtc2007ValidationFunOut] investigated model validation with functional outputs by using a wavelet decomposition. [@ShiWanMurTit2007GPFRforBatchData] had batches of time-varying data, and modeled separately the mean structure with a functional regression model ([@RamSil97func]) and the covariance structure with a GP model. Developments are given in [@ShiShoi2011GPFunctionalDataBook]. [@Morris2012KrigingWithTimeVaryingInputs] introduced a new kernel for the GP model that allows modelling time-varying inputs and outputs. He also considered the design problem, and extended the maximin distance to the time-varying case. Some theoretical results on designs for computer experiments with time varying inputs can be found in [@Morris2014MaximinDoE].
In this article we consider the situation where the inputs are either scalar-valued or functional, and where the output is scalar-valued. This corresponds, for instance, to practical situations where engineers study a summary of the output, but consider the whole complexity of the inputs, that may be scalar-valued but also time-varying functions or more general multivariate functions. We investigate a GP model approach using a customized kernel based on norms and B-splines. We also propose an original design strategy aiming at providing an initial space-filling design. Although the methods are related to the work presented by [@Morris2012KrigingWithTimeVaryingInputs], it covers different cases, e.g. our method is not restricted to time varying inputs and, at the same time, time varying outputs. Furthermore we allow for a combination functional and scalar inputs.
Section 2 provides some notations and presents the functional framework, including some basics about B-splines and functional norms. In Section 3 designs for computer experiments with both functional and scalar-valued inputs are described. In Section 4, GP models are derived, including a weighting procedure for extracting which part of a functional input has high influence on the output. In Section 5, the methodology is applied to a theoretical example and to a sheet metal forming problem. A concluding discussion is given in Section 5.
Background and notations
========================
In this paper we consider a scalar-valued function $g$ depending on functional inputs ${\mathbf{f(t)}} = (f_1(t), \dots, f_{d_f}(t) )$, as well as, possibly, on scalar-valued inputs ${\mathbf{x}} = (x_1, \dots, x_{d_s})$:
$$y = g({\mathbf{x}}, {\mathbf{f}}(t)) $$
In the notations above, $g$ represents a time-consuming simulator and $d_s, d_f$ are two integers, with $d_f > 0$. For the sake of simplicity we consider that $t \in [0,1]$ is scalar-valued but the methodology presented here could be generalized to a vector-valued input ${\mathbf{t}} \in [0, 1]^{d_t}$. We assume that the inputs are bounded, and have been rescaled to $[0,1]$: ${\mathbf{x}} \in [0, 1]^{d_s}$ and $f_j(t) \in [0,1]$ for all $t \in [0,1]$ and $j \in \{1, \dots, d_f\}$. In this framework, a design of experiments $\mathcal{D}$ with $n$ runs consists of two sets of scalar and functional inputs denoted by ${\mathbf{x}}^{(i)} = (x^{(i)}_1, \dots, x^{(i)}_{d_s})$ and ${\mathbf{f}}^{(i)}(t) = (f^{(i)}_1(t), \dots, f^{(i)}_{d_f}(t))$, $i=1,\dots,n$. We denote by $y^{(1)}, \dots, y^{(n)}$ the corresponding scalar-valued outputs. The design used is denoted by $\mathcal{D}$, in contrast to a distance later on denoted by $D$.
Some basics on B-splines {#sec:splines}
------------------------
B-splines are an attractive tool for the modeling of functional input (see [@deBoor2001GuideToSplines], [@RamSil97func]). They cover various types of functions, reduce the infinite space of functions considerably and provide a practical mathematical framework for further computations. B-spline functions are always bounded, which is an important feature for input functions which usually are only allowed to vary between given values.
A B-spline is defined as a linear combination of B-spline basis functions $B_{i,m}, i=1,\dots,K$ of order $m$ $$f(t) = \sum_{i=1}^K \beta_i B_{i,m}(t)$$ where the order $m=1$ relates to (piecewise) constant functions. $K$ and $m$ have to be fixed with $K\geq m$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_K)$ is the vector of basis coefficients. The B-spline basis functions are defined over a sequence of increasing knots (time points) of length $K-m+2$ with additional $m-1$ replicates for the first and the last knot which are necessary for basis functions at the bounds $$\tau_1= \dots =\tau_{m-1} = \tau_m < \tau_{m+1}< \dots< \tau_{K} < \tau_{K+1}= \tau_{K+2}= \dots= \tau_{K+m}.$$ They are recursively given by $$B_{i,1}(t) = {\mbox{\boldmath $1$}}_{[\tau_i, \tau_{i+1}]}(t) $$ for $i = 1\dots, K+m-1$ and $$B_{i,m}(t) = \frac{t-\tau_i}{\tau_{i+m-1}-\tau_i}B_{i,m-1}(t) + \frac{\tau_{i+m}-t}{\tau_{i+m}-\tau_{i+1}}B_{i+1,m-1}(t)$$ for $i \in 1, \dots, K$, with $B_{i,m} = 0$ if $\tau_i= \dots = \tau_{i+m} = 0$ to avoid division by zero.
Figure \[fig:spline\] shows basis functions for B-splines of order 1, 2, 3, and 4. For order 1 the basis functions are disjoint piecewise constant functions, for order 4 the functions form the popular cubic spline. In the figure the number of basis functions $K$ is set to 5 for each order. It follows that the number of knots decreases with the order. It can be further seen that at each time point $t$, the sum of all 5 basis functions is 1, which implies that if ${\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}} \in [0,1]^K$ then for all $t$ we have $0 \leq f(t) \leq
1$, $f(t)=1 \Leftrightarrow \beta_1 = \dots = \beta_K = 1$ and $f(t)=0 \Leftrightarrow \beta_{1}=\dots=\beta_{k}=0$. Therefore a bounded function $f$ corresponds to a hypercubic domain for the basis coefficients $\beta$.
One result which justifies the use of B-Splines is found in [@deBoor2001GuideToSplines] on page 55, equation 12. In our notation the result stats that given an unknown but four times differentiable function $g(t)$ defined on $[\tau_m, \tau_{K}]$, the (pointwise) interpolation error of a cubic B-spline is bounded from above and the bound depends on the maximum stepwidth of the knots and the absolute maximum of 4th derivative of the function $g$. Hence, while B-splines itself are a somewhat restriced class of functions, they can be used to approximate a very broad class of functions, i.e. all sufficiently smooth functions.
![B-Spline bases of increasing orders (1 to 4 from top to bottom) for a fix number of $K=5$ functions. The knots are shown as ticks on the x-axis.[]{data-label="fig:spline"}](SplineBasesK5.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Distance-based approach
-----------------------
To discriminate between functions, a distance based approach is chosen. Similar to the $L_2$ norm in Euclidean space, the well known $L_2$ norm for functions is defined as
$$\label{eq:d2}
D_f(f, \tilde{f}) = \|f-\tilde{f}\|_{L^2} = \sqrt{\int_0^1 (f(t) - \tilde{f}(t))^2dt}.$$
Other choices of norms could be possible, e.g. weighted norms, general $p$ norms or norms working on derivatives, e.g. Sobolev norms. The choice of a suitable norm is case sensitive. In the case that the functions are designed as B-splines of the same basis (same number of basis functions, basis order and knot points) the $L^2$ norm of $h(t) = f(t) - \tilde{f}(t) =
\sum_{i=1}^{K} (\beta_i - \tilde{\beta}) b_i(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{K} \delta_i b_i(t)$ reduces to a norm in $\mathbb{R}^{K}$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Jmatrix}
\|h\|_{L^2}^2 = &\int_0^1 h(t)^2\,dt \\
= & \int_0^1 \sum_{i,j}\delta_i\delta_jb_i(t)b_j(t)\,dt\\
= & {\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}' J {\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}\\
= & \|{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}\|^2_{J}
\end{aligned}$$
where $J$ is the $K\times K$ matrix $\left(\int_0^1 b_i(t)b_j(t)\,dt\right)_{1\leq i,j \leq K}$. As the matrix $J$ does not depend on the coefficients of a B-spline function but just on the order and number of basis functions, this matrix can be stored and reused.\
In order to include the scalar valued inputs into the framework, a further distance function has also to be defined: $$\label{eq:Dgeneral}
D((x^{(i)}, f^{(i)}), (x^{(j)}, f^{(j)})) = \sqrt{\|x^{(i)} - x^{(j)}\|_2^2 + \sum_{k = 1}^{d_f} (D_f(f_k^{(i)}, f_k^{(j)}))^2}.$$ In the case that there are no scalar inputs, this distance simplifies to $\sqrt{\sum_{k = 1}^{d_f} (D_f(f_k^{(i)}, f_k^{(j)}))^2}$.
Designs for functional inputs
=============================
Theory
------
There are many approaches on how to design a simulation experiment. A good summary can be found in [@FanLiSud06desi]. Uniform design criteria like the Wrap Around Discrepancy or the Centered Discrepancy are popular approaches, as well as distance-based design criteria like maximin and minimax designs. In contrast to uniform and distance-based designs, which are not directly linked to a statistical model, maximum entropy designs and IMSE optimal are optimality criteria, which are directly linked to a GP model and an assumed covariance kernel. A popular class of designs are Latin Hypercube designs (LHD), invented by [@MckBecCon79Comp].
Our aim is to generalize the concept of LHD to situations with functional inputs. One approach would be to design the coefficients of a basis, such as a B-spline basis, a polynomial basis, etc. (see @RamSil97func).
Here another approach is taken. For a conventional LHD with just scalar inputs, the values of each input variable $x_k$ are equally spread between $0$ and $1$, i.e. $x_k^{(i)} = \frac{\pi(i) - 1}{n - 1}, i = 1,\dots,n$, where $\pi(.)$ is a permutation of $1, \dots, n$. While it is not obvious, which combination of the input variables $x_1$ to $x_d$ to use, it is ensured, that the one dimensional projections are uniformly distributed. The combination is then chosen according to a fitness criterion. This idea is copied to the functional inputs such that in a first step, a candidate set of functions $f^{(1)}_k, \dots, f^{(n)}_k$ is constructed for each $k \in \{1, \dots, d_f\}$. Once these sets are constructed, the best combination of the sets and the scalar inputs is determined.
In the following, the strategy for finding a candidate set based on B-splines is described. This corresponds to finding equally spread points in one dimension for conventional LHD with scalar inputs. Depending on the restrictions on the candidate set, different strategies for finding a good candidate set can be applied. If no prior knowledge is available, our strategy is to apply distance-based approaches here as well. After finding a candidate set, in a second step a space-filling combination of the scalar LHD and the candidate set is found.
### Constructing the candidate set
For B-splines, the choice of the candidate set reduces to the choice of the coefficients of basis functions, i.e. for a candidate set with $n$ functions with $K$ bases, $n*K$ coefficients have to be chosen.
In order to have a space-filling candidate set, the coefficients have to be chosen with care. Ideally a big variety of functions are covered, i.e. increasing/decreasing functions or functions which are in average very high or low.
Here the basis coefficients are sampled from a LHD, i.e. each basis function is considered as an input factor in a LHD. The coefficients could also be sampled and optimized without any restriction to a LHD, but in this case, the coefficients tend to be near to the extremes for DoEs with larger number of basis functions and higher number of runs. As a fitness criterion, not directly the minimum distance among all pairs of functions is used, but a variant proposed in [@MorMit95expl]: $$\Phi_q(\mathcal{D}_f(\beta)) = (\sum^n_{i = 1} \sum_{j = 1}^{i - 1} (D_f(f^{(i)}(\beta_i),
f^{(j)}(\beta_j)))^{-q})^{1/q}.$$ Here, $q = 5$ is applied. The criterion $\Phi_q(\mathcal{D}_f(\beta))$ is written in dependence on $\beta$, as for the construction of the candidate set the optimization takes place over the coefficient vector of the B-spline representation. This fitness criterion does not only use the minimum distance for comparison of different designs but all possible pairs of functions. In order to optimize the $\Phi_q$-criterion any existing algorithm for optimizing LHD can be used, e.g. simulated annealing or genetic algorithms. Here, simulated annealing has been used.
### Constructing a generalized Latin hypercube
Given for each functional input $f_k$ a set of functions is created, the best combination of the LHD for the real inputs and the sets for the functional input has to be searched. Here the same set is used for all functional inputs. However, it would be possible to use a different set for each functional input. In order to rank full designs again a maximin strategy will be chosen. Therefore the distance (\[eq:Dgeneral\]) is used for the following criterion: $$\Phi^c_q(\mathcal{D}(\pi)) = \left(\sum^n_{i = 1} \sum_{j = 1}^{i-1} (D((x^{(i)}(\pi_i), f^{(i)}(\pi_i)), (x^{(j)}(\pi_j), f^{(j)}(\pi_j))))^{-q}\right)^{1/q}$$
The criterion $\Phi^c_q(\mathcal{D}(\pi))$ is written in dependence on a permutation $\pi$ in order to indicate, that in this step of the design construction, the optimization only takes place over switching indices of the scalar of functional inputs. In order to optimize this fitness criterion by an algorithm, there are multiple algorithms possible. In principle, all algorithms used for optimizing LHDs can be applied here, as the candidate sets themselves are not changed, just the combination of the candidate sets and the scalar inputs. Here a variant of simulated annealing as described in [@MorMit95expl] is used.
Another alternative for finding designs, which seems to be promising in the first place is to apply a searching algorithm directly on the fitness criterion by optimizing over the class of functions, the results is that only extremes of the class are chosen. This is similar to maximin designs with just real inputs: The optimal maximin design without restricting it to be a LHD in $d$ dimensions with $2^d$ runs is a traditional full factorial design with two levels, which is definitely not a space-filling design. In order to illustrate this behaviour, a design with 2 functional and 2 scalar inputs, 15 runs and 8 basis functions has been set up. This design has been optimized unconditionally over the coefficients of the functional inputs and the permutation of the scalar inputs. In Figure \[fig:remark1\] a plot of the B-splines for the first functional input is given. Clearly the distinctive functions cluster at the minimum and maximum of the allowed range.
![Plot of one functional input of an unconditionally optimized design with 15 runs, 2 functional and 2 scalar inputs and 8 basis functions. Clearly, the functions are clustering at the minimum and maximum of the allowed output range.[]{data-label="fig:remark1"}](Rplot_remark1.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Surrogate models
================
As for many simulations, the evaluation of the simulation is costly, a big part of literature about computer experiments focused on constructing statistical models for simulation output. Different types of models are applied, e.g. response surface models, artifical neural networks or radial basis functions. However, the most popular model is most likely the GP model ([@SanWilNot03desi]), also called Kriging. There are several reasons for using a GP model. It is capable of exactly reproducing the observations, gives an uncertainty estimate and is very flexible by incorporating different covariance kernels. Furthermore, the GP model has often a very high prediction power compared to other approaches and there is an easy way to switch from interpolation to smoothing by incorporating a nugget effect. In [@Morris2012KrigingWithTimeVaryingInputs], a GP model is extended to incorporate time varying inputs, which are modeled as functional inputs. The ideas presented in the following are in some ways extensions of the modeling ideas developed by Morris.
Especially due to the flexibility a GP model is chosen here as well. For a standard GP model it is assumed that the output of the simulation follows a Gaussian process: $$Y(x, f) = \mu + Z(x, f),$$ where the zero centered GP $Z(x, f)$ is characterized by its covariance function. A typical GP model approach is to use an anisotropic, tensor-product kernel, which can easily be extended here: $$\text{cov}(Z(x^{(1)}, f^{(1)}), Z(x^{(2)}, f^{(2)})) = \sigma^2 g( D_s(x^{(1)},x^{(2)}; \theta_s)) g( D_f(f^{(1)},f^{(2)}; \theta_f)).$$
Here $D_f(.,.;\theta_{f})$ and $D_s(.,.;\theta_s)$ are distances for the functional and scalar inputs respectively, scaled by some covariance parameters $\theta_s, \theta_f$. Standard kernels for $g_k(., \theta)$ are the Gaussian kernel ($g(h, \theta) = exp(\frac{-h^2}{2\theta^2})$), the Matern 5/2 kernel $(g(h, \theta)) = (1 + \frac{\sqrt{5}|h|}{\theta} + \frac{5 h^2}{3 \theta ^2}) exp(-\frac{\sqrt{5}|h|}{\theta})$.
In this statistical model, the parameters $\mu, \sigma, \theta_s$ and $\theta_f$ have to be estimated. There are several approaches for parameter estimation in GP models (Maximum likelihood, restricted Maximum Likelihood, cross validation), where the most common is Maximum Likelihood. As the likelihood cannot be optimized analytically here algorithmic optimization is chosen.
While in the general case, $\|f-\tilde{f}\|$ requires the evaluation of an integral, the use of a B-spline basis simplifies the computation. The kernel reduces to a kernel defined on $D\times D$ where $D$ is the hypercube $[0,1]^{d_s+d_f\times K}$, e.g. a Gaussian covariance kernel reduces to $$\exp \left(- \sum_{\ell=1}^{d_x}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x_\ell^{(1)}-x_\ell^{(2)}}{\theta_{x\ell}}\right)^2\right)
\exp \left(-
\sum_{\ell=1}^{d_f}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{({\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^{(1)}_\ell-{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^{(2)}_\ell)'J({\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^{(1)}_\ell-{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^{(2)}_\ell)}{\theta_{f\ell}}\right)^2\right).$$ with $f_{\ell} = \sum_{k=1}^K \beta_{\ell,k}B_{k,m}$ for the functional inputs $\ell = 1,\dots,d_f$. Furthermore the domain is here hypercubic, both for scalar inputs and functional inputs, due to the property of B-splines (see Section \[sec:splines\]).
The estimation of the parameters is done in a similar way to the estimation methods used in the $R$ package DiceKriging ([@RCoreTeamR], [@RouGinDevDiceKriging]). Therefore in a first step a number of random points in the parameter space are checked for their log-likelihood value and the best is chosen as starting point for the optimization by the $R$-command $optim$.
Many useful concepts, which are known for scalar-valued inputs also work in this context of functional inputs. A leave-one-out cross validation, where the unknown parameters are estimated based on the full data set, but a prediction is made for data point $(x^{(i)}, f^{(i)})$ based on the full data set omitting data point $i$, can be useful to check model adequacy. Although such kind of leave one out prediction is optimistic, it still can help to identify problems with the model.
As for other GP models, an uncertainty estimate is available and hence EGO type optimization techniques ([@JonSchonWelch98EGO]) can be applied for sequential optimization.
Weighting
---------
The surrogate model strategy explained above is attractive, as it shrinks down the infinite dimensional functional input to a problem where for each functional input one covariance parameter is estimated. The disadvantage of this approach is that it tells if one functional input as a whole is important or not via its covariance parameter. But it does not give any result about, which part of the input space of a functional input is important. In order to construct a more informative parameter estimation process, a weighting step in the GP model is suggested. So far the distance between two different functions of one functional input is determined by the $L^2$ distance of the two functions and this distance it used as basis for constructing the covariance between two outputs $Y^{(1)}$ and $Y^{(2)}$. For the special case of B-splines, the $L^2$ distance reduces to ${\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}' J {\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}$. The general idea for the weighting process is to use instead $$\label{eq:Dtiledf}
\tilde{D}_w(f, \tilde{f}) = \sqrt{\int_0^1{ (w(t;\omega)* (f(t) - \tilde{f}(t)))^2dt}},$$ with $\int_0^1 w(t; \omega)dt = 1$. One of the advantages of using B-splines is that the integration is easily done numerically. As this advantage should not be destroyed, the weighting process has to be chosen carefully. Writing equation (\[eq:Dtiledf\]) with $f$ and $\tilde{f}$ being B-splines becomes
$$\tilde{D}_w(f, \tilde{f}) = \sqrt{\int_0^1{ ( \sum_{i=1}^K \delta_i B_{i,m}(t) w(t;\omega))^2dt}},$$
with $\delta_i = \beta_i - \tilde{\beta}_i$ Although this would be in general a possible way for weighting, the numerical computation would be much more complex than before, as the matrix $J$ would now also depend on (weighting) parameters to be estimated. In order to avoid this drawback, the weighting process is discretized such that each basis function is weighted separately:
$$D_w(f, \tilde{f}) = \sqrt{\int_0^1{ ( \sum_{i=1}^K \delta_i B_{i,m}(t) w_i(\omega))^2dt}},$$
with weighting coefficients $w_1(\omega), \dots, w_K(\omega) \geq 0, \sum_{k = 1}^K w_k = 1$. As the weights can be taken out of the integration, now the integral can again be calculated efficiently using
$$D^2_w(f, \tilde{f}) = {\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}' W(\omega)J W(\omega) {\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}.$$
Beforehand, the same formula was derived without the $W(\omega)$-matrix in equation (\[eq:Jmatrix\]). $W(\omega)$ is a diagonal matrix of size $K$. The parameter $\omega$ is a (potentially multidimensional) parameter describing the weighting. This parameter is estimated during the maximum likelihood optimization. One possibility would be to include each diagonal entry of $W$ into $\omega$ and just restrict it to be positive. This is unfortunate for two reasons. First this potentially increases the number of parameters to be estimated by ML dramatically. Secondly, the GP model would no longer be uniquely identifiable. The covariance parameter $\theta$ and the weighting parameter $\omega$ could be exchanged without changing the model. To overcome the identification problem, the entries of $W$ are restricted to be nonnegative and to sum up to 1: $W_{ii} \geq 0, tr(W) = 1$. In order to reduce the number of parameters, here a parametric description of the weighting by a beta distribution is used. The beta distribution is a very flexible distribution with support $[0,
1]$. It is described by two parameters, which both need to be greater than 0. Let $dbeta(t, \omega)$ the density of a beta distribution with parameters $\omega$. Then the weighting matrix is defined as $$\tilde{W}_{ii} = dbeta(t_{imax}, \omega), ~~~~~W(\omega) := \tilde{W}(\omega) / tr(\tilde{W}(\omega)).$$ The value $t_{imax}$ is the argument value, where the $i$th basis spline has its maximum, i.e. the place where the $i$th basis has the highest influence. As the two parameters in $\omega$ are just restricted to be $\geq 0$, the numerical optimization of these two parameters can easily be incorporated into the ML estimation procedure for the covariance parameters.
Application {#sec:application}
===========
### Theoretical example 1
In order to check if the estimation of the covariance parameters work comparable both for real number inputs and functional inputs the following example is used: $$\begin{aligned}
g_1(x, f) =& x_1 + 2 x_2 + 4\int_0^1 t f_1(t)dt + 1 \int_0^1 f_2(t)dt\\\end{aligned}$$ The first real number and the second functional input are of the same importance, i.e. the function $x_1$ and the function $\int_0^1{f_2(t)}dt$ have the same output domain. At the same time, the second real number input and the first functional input are comparably influential but are more important than the first real number and functional input.
A DoE with 20 runs and 3 real number and 3 functional inputs is set up (hence there are inactive input parameters). The corresponding B-splines have 7 basis functions and are of order 4. Afterwards a GP model with the Matern5/2 covariance kernel inlcuding weighting is fitted to the data. The result of the covariance plot is shown in Figure \[fig:Sensitivityplotfampli\] and the weighting plots are shown in Figure \[fig:weightingplotfampli\].
![Sensitivity plot for the first theoretical example using a GP model including weighting.[]{data-label="fig:Sensitivityplotfampli"}](Sensitivityplot_weighted_f_ampli.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Weighting plot for the first theoretical example. As the third functional input is (correctly) rated as unimportant, only the first two weighting plots are shown.[]{data-label="fig:weightingplotfampli"}](weighting_plot_f1_f2_f_ampli.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
### Theoretical example 2 {#sec:example2}
The second example has again 3 scalar inputs and 3 functional inputs $f_k (t) \in C^0( [0, 1 ]), k = 1, 2, 3$, satisfying boundary constraints $0 \leq f_k \leq 1$, but this time the function is chosen to be more complex. The real number part is the well known Branin function ([@DixonSzego1978Branin]) plus one inactive input and the functional part of the example has 2 active inputs and one inactive, including interactions between the real number and functional inputs.
$$\begin{aligned}
g_2(x, f) =& (x_2 - \frac{5}{4 \pi^2 } x_1^2 + \frac{5}{\pi} x_1 - 6)^2 + 10(1 - \frac{1}{8 \pi}) \text{cos}(x_1) + 10 \\
+ & \frac{4}{3}\pi \left( 42 \int_{-5}^{10} f_1(t)(1 - t) dt + \pi ((x_1 + 5) / 5 + 15) \int_0^1 t f_2(t)dt \right).\end{aligned}$$
In order to construct a design, the strategy described above is applied with $n = 40, K = 7, m = 4$. The candidate set is shown in figure \[fig:candidatesettheoreticalexample\].
![Candidate set with $n = 40, K = 5, m = 4$.[]{data-label="fig:candidatesettheoreticalexample"}](intialset_theoretical_example.png){width="\textwidth"}
A generalized LHD according to the methodology described above has been constructed and two GP models have been estimated: One without any weighting for the functional inputs and a second one including weighting for the functional inputs as described in the last chapter. As a covariance kernel, the Matern $5/2$ kernel has been used. Both GP models have been used in order to make predictions for 300 randomly selected sets of inputs points and input functions in order to validate the prediction quality of the two models. For both models, the weighted and the unweighted one, the covariance parameters are summarized in a bar plot in order to illustrate, which inputs are important. In this bar plot, $1 - g_k(1;\theta_k)$ is plotted, where $g_k$ is the kernel of the covariance function chosen (see Figure (\[fig:Sensitivityplot\])). For the weighted model, the result of the weighting procedure is plotted in figure (\[fig:Weightingplot\]). Here again $1 - g_k(1;\theta_k)$ is plotted in a bar plot. Furthermore, a Bspline is plotted, where the weights obtained from the maximum likelihood procedure are used as $\beta$-coefficients. This plot indicates which part of the support has high importance and which part has low importance.
![Prediction plots for the two models including weighting (left hand side) and without weighting (right hand side).[]{data-label="fig:predictionplots"}](PredictionPlot_Branin.png){width="\textwidth"}
![Sensitivity plots based on the covariance parameters for the two models including weighting (left hand side) and without weighting (right hand side).[]{data-label="fig:Sensitivityplot"}](SensitivityPlot_Branin.png){width="\textwidth"}
![Weighting plot for the GP model including weighting. Areas on the x-scale with a high value are of higher importance on the output than areas with smaller values.[]{data-label="fig:Weightingplot"}](weightingPlot_Branin.png){width="\textwidth"}
Both models deliver a good prediction based on prediction plots (see figure (\[fig:predictionplots\])), where the weighted version has slightly better RMSE (0.055) than the nonweighted version (0.081) based on 300 independent observations of the theoretical example.
Springback analysis
-------------------
In deep drawing sheet metal forming, the final shape of a part depends on the elastic energy stored during the process of the forming. The energy is influenced by a number of process parameters like blankholder force and friction. Springback, one of the main sources of geometrical inaccuracy, can be predicted by these parameters in simulation models. Usually, the analysis is limited to constant input parameters. The goal here is to achieve better predictions and deeper information to the springback development by varying the process parameters blankholder force and friction in time using the norm-based function analysis approach.
An explicit Finite Element Method (FEM) via LS-DYNA is used which takes two parameters as input, the friction coefficient ($f_{F}$) and the blankholder force ($f_{B}$), which can be varied externally during the punch travel.
A generalized LHD with 40 runs, using 6 B-spline basis functions of order 4 is constructed and performed in the FEM model. On these data, a functional Kriging model including weighting on a Gauss covariance kernel is fitted. The value $1 - g_k(1;\theta_k)$ is around 0.78 for $f_{F}$ and 0.28 for $f_{B}$ indicating a much larger influence for friction as for blankholder force on the springback. A weighting plot as in Fig. \[fig:Weightingplot\] can be seen in Fig. \[fig:springback-weighting\]. It can be found that in the FEM model the effect of the inputs on the springback reduction is increases towards the end of the punch travel. This shows the importance of careful settings at the end of the process, where the flange of the part is formed.
![Weighting plots for the springback FEM model.[]{data-label="fig:springback-weighting"}](fig-springback-weights.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Exploration of B-splines
------------------------
We revisit the theoretical example 2 of Section \[sec:example2\] for a small study in which we examine the effect of the B-spline order $m$ to the presented functional design and modelling approach. We compare five different orders, $1,2,3,4$ and $5$. For each order we set up a design of size $n=20$ with $K=7$ basis functions and construct a surrogate model. The constant number $K$ ensures a comparable number of model parameters between the different orders. The procedure is repeated 100 times for each order and 5 test data sets of size 600, one for each order, are set up for comparison. Table \[tab:comparison\] shows the resulting root mean square errors (RMSE), averaged over the 100 models. The spline order $m=4$ performs best here. We conclude that, at least in our experience, the B-spline order 4 can be recommended. Figure \[fig:comparison\] shows boxplots of the values $1 - g_k(1;\theta_k)$, comparable to Figure (\[fig:Sensitivityplot\]). The box sizes give an impression of the accuracy of the covariance estimates.
$m$ 1 2 3 4 5
-------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------
Average RMSE 56.29 53.10 44.81 37.07 40.065
: B-spline order comparison: Average RMSE values between the predicted and true values of the 5 test data sets.[]{data-label="tab:comparison"}
![B-spline order comparison: Boxplots of the values $1 - g_k(1;\theta_k)$.[]{data-label="fig:comparison"}](comparison-boxplots-branin.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
In this article a methodology for incorporating functional inputs and scalar inputs into simulation experiments via the use of B-splines is presented. Therefore designs and metamodels are developed. For constructing a space-filling designs, a distance-based approach is presented, which works in two steps. In a first step a candidate set for the functional input parameters is constructed and in the second step a design for the functional as well for the scalar inputs is constructed in a Latin hypercube manner. Given scalar outputs from a simulation, the data can be modelled by a GP model and the covariance parameters are used in order to rank the inputs by importance. In order to learn more about the behaviour of the functional inputs, a weighting process can be introduced, which can analyze, where a functional input is of high importance. This gives an attractive possibility to learn more about the behaviour of the functional inputs. But this benefit comes with the cost of introducing additional parameters and therefore with a more demanding optimization process. The weighting process is not so beneficial for improving prediction but it aims at learning more about the functional inputs. Although when the data set is large enough the prediction for the weighted GP model has often been slightly better than for the unweighted version, especially for small sample sizes, the estimation process of the parameters for weighted GP model does not work as reliably as for the non-weighted GP model. All in all, the methodology developed incorporates functional inputs in a way that the functional character is not changed but still computations are feasible. Fundamental to this has been the usage of functional norms in order to incorporate functional inputs and the usage of B-splines as a representation of functional inputs.
Acknowledgements:
Andon Iyassu, for his help on editing.
[^1]: The authors gratefully acknowledge
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the average size of shifted convolution summation terms related to the problem of Quantum Unique Ergodicity on ${\rm SL}_2 (\mathbbm{Z})\backslash \mathbbm{H}$. Establishing an upper-bound sieve method for handling such sums, we achieve an unconditional result which suggests that the average size of the summation terms should be sufficient in application to Quantum Unique Ergodicity. In other words, cancellations among the summation terms, although welcomed, may not be required. Furthermore, the sieve method may be applied to shifted sums of other multiplicative functions with similar results under suitable conditions.'
author:
- 'Roman Holowinsky[^1]'
title: A Sieve Method for Shifted Convolution Sums
---
Introduction
============
The work presented in this paper focuses on the analysis of the *shifted convolution sums* $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} \lambda(n) \overline{\lambda(n+\ell)} \label{SCSnoabs}$$ where $\ell$ is a fixed non-zero integer and $\lambda$ is a multiplicative function. In particular, we will study such sums when the $\lambda(n)$ are Hecke eigenvalues of Hecke-Maass cusp forms. Obtaining sufficient upper bounds for these types of sums is a key part in the Number Theoretic approach to the problem of Quantum Unique Ergodicity(QUE).
Instead of analyzing the shifted sums as written in (\[SCSnoabs\]), we will investigate the behavior of these sums when one ignores possible cancellations among the summation terms by taking absolute values $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) |. \label{SCSabs}$$ Although this may seem wasteful, positivity of the summation terms allows us to proceed with an upper-bound sieve application in mind. For small fixed $\ell \neq 0$, we benefit from the fact that $n$ and $n+\ell$ have few common factors. Considering the prime factorizations of $n$ and $n+\ell$ will allow us to in essence remove this additive dependence and demonstrate that obtaining non-trivial upper bounds for the shifted sums (\[SCSabs\]) will be a direct result of the fact that $|\lambda(n)|<1$ on average. More specifically, for a given Hecke-Maass cusp form $u$ with Hecke eigenvalues $\lambda$, $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} \frac{|\lambda ( n )|}{n} \ll_u (\log x)^{1-\alpha} \label{singleintro}$$ for some $\alpha>0$. This type of bound may be established unconditionally (see §4.1) by the holomorphicity and positivity at the point $s=1$ of the symmetric square, fourth and sixth power $L$-functions associated with the form $u$. The upper-bound sieve application will then permit a saving of approximately $(\log x)^\alpha$ for each Hecke eigenvalue factor in order to achieve almost twice as much saving for the shifted sum, i.e. for $\alpha$ the same as in (\[singleintro\]) and any $\varepsilon>0$ we have $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} |\lambda(n)\lambda(n+\ell)| \ll_{u,\ell} \frac{x}{(\log x)^{2 \alpha-\varepsilon}}. \label{doubleintro}$$ We state this result as our main theorem.
For a Hecke-Maass cusp form $u$ with Hecke eigenvalues $\lambda ( n )$, a fixed integer $\ell \neq 0$ and $x\geqslant 2$ we have $$\sum_{n \leqslant x} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) | \ll_{u,\ell}
\frac{x}{( \log x )^{\delta}}\label{THM1}$$ for some absolute positive constant $\delta$.
[It does not seem as though the method presented in this paper would permit us to obtain a full integral power saving of $\log x$, i.e. $\delta=1$. We will instead show that (\[THM1\]) certainly holds with $\delta=1/7$ and this may easily be improved to $\delta \sim 1/5$. However, we do not expect the method in this paper to produce better than $\delta=2(1-8/(3\pi))\sim 0.30235$ for reasons related to the Sato-Tate conjecture.]{.nodecor}
[One should notice that in each of the bounds (\[singleintro\]), (\[doubleintro\]) and (\[THM1\]), the implied constant depends on the form $u$. In the problem of QUE, we shall see that this dependence can not be ignored as it will be essential for us to maintain uniform bounds as $u$ varies.]{.nodecor}
[The implied constant in (\[THM1\]) depends on $\ell$ and is bounded by a small power of $\ell$. Therefore, in order to use Theorem 1 successfully in applications, it is necessary to have control over the size of the non-zero shift $\ell$. In Appendix A, we show that one may reduce the problem of QUE to studying shifted sums of type (\[SCSabs\]) with the size of the non-zero shifts $\ell$ growing arbitrarily slowly relative to the size of the spectral parameter.]{.nodecor}
[If one wishes to work under the assumption of the Ramanujan-Petersson(RP) conjecture, arguments may then be simplified while still obtaining Theorem 1 with $\delta \sim 1/9$. For example, the analysis in §3 involving twists of Rankin-Selberg L-functions may be entirely avoided. We leave the details of working under the assumption of RP for a separate paper addressing the analogous problem about shifted sums of Hecke eigenvalues for holomorphic cusp forms, as RP is known in this case. Furthermore, knowledge of RP allows one to consider sums with multiple shifts obtaining similar results.]{.nodecor}
[Many thanks go to everyone involved in the development of this work. In particular, I thank my thesis advisor Professor Henryk Iwaniec for his influence, expert guidance and devotion to Analytic Number Theory and his students. I thank Professor Peter Sarnak and Professor Wenzhi Luo for taking the time to meet on several occasions and provide useful suggestions. Thanks go also to the referees of this paper for the time they took to provide detailed constructive reports. Finally, to the institutions which made it possible to meet with everyone and work on this project, Rutgers University, the Institute for Advanced Study, the University of Toronto and the CRM in Barcelona, where the ideas for this work were first developed, thank you.]{.nodecor}
Automorphic forms
-----------------
Let $\mathbbm{H}$ be the upper half plane with hyperbolic measure $d \mu z : =
y^{- 2} dxdy$. Set $\Gamma ={\rm SL}\sb 2(\mathbbm{Z})$ and let $X = \Gamma
\backslash \mathbbm{H}$ be the quotient space with volume $$\textnormal{Vol} ( X ) : = \int_X d \mu z = \frac{\pi}{3}$$ on which we define the Laplace-Beltrami operator $$\Delta : = y^2 ( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} +
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} ) .$$ Let $\mathcal{A}( X )$ be the linear space of *automorphic functions* $$\mathcal{A}( X ) := \left\{ f :\mathbbm{H} \rightarrow
\mathbbm{C}\, | \, f ( \gamma z ) = f ( z ) \textnormal{ for all } \gamma \in
\Gamma \} \right.$$ and $\mathcal{A}_s ( X )$ the subspace of *automorphic forms* $f \in
\mathcal{A}( X )$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
( \Delta + s ( 1 - s ) ) f = 0 & \textnormal{with} & s = \frac{1}{2} + it.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $\mathcal{L}( X )$ the Hilbert space of square integrable automorphic functions with inner product $$< f, g > : = \int_X f ( z ) \bar{g} ( z ) d \mu z.$$ This space can be decomposed as the closure of two orthogonal subspaces $$\mathcal{L}( X ) = \tilde{\mathcal{C}} ( X ) \oplus \tilde{\mathcal{E}} ( X
)$$ where $\mathcal{E}( X )$ is the space of *incomplete Eisenstein* series $$E ( z| \psi ) := \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\infty} \backslash \Gamma}
\psi ( \textnormal{Im } \gamma z )$$ with $\psi$ any smooth compactly supported function on $\mathbbm{R}^+$ and $$\Gamma_{\infty} := \left\{ \gamma = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \ast\\
& 1
\end{array}\right) \in \Gamma \right\},$$ and $\mathcal{C}( X )$, its orthogonal complement, is the space of smooth, bounded automorphic functions with no zero-th term in their Fourier expansion at $\infty$. Eigenfunctions of $\Delta$ in $\mathcal{C}( X )$ are called *cusp forms*.
In addition to the Laplace operator, we have the commuting family of Hecke operators acting on the space of automorphic functions $$\begin{aligned}
T_n :\mathcal{A}( X ) \longrightarrow \mathcal{A}( X ), & n \geqslant 1. & \end{aligned}$$ The Hecke operators are defined by group operations $$( T_n f ) ( z ) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{\tau \in \Gamma \backslash G_n} f (
\tau z ),$$ where $$G_n = \left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & b\\
c & d
\end{array}\right) : a, b, c, d \in \mathbbm{Z}, ad - bc = n \right\},$$ and thus commute with $\Delta$. Eigenvalues $\lambda_f ( n )$ of the Hecke operators are multiplicative and satisfy the rule $$\lambda_f ( m ) \lambda_f ( n ) = \sum_{d| ( m, n )} \lambda_f \left(
\frac{mn}{d^2} \right) .$$ Since these Hecke operators commute with one another and are self-adjoint, we can choose an orthogonal basis $\{ u_j ( z ) \}$ for the space of cusp forms $\mathcal{C}( X )$, such that for all $n$, $$T_n u_j ( z ) = \lambda_j ( n ) u_j ( z ) .$$ Functions $u$ which are eigenfunctions of $\Delta$ and simultaneous eigenfunctions for all $T_n$ are called *Hecke-Maass cusp forms*. For convenience, we normalize these forms so that $$< u_j, u_j > = \int_X |u_j ( z ) |^2 d \mu z = 1 .$$ With this normalization, a Hecke-Maass cusp form with $\Delta$ eigenvalue $\lambda =
1 / 4 + t_j^2$ will have a Fourier expansion of the type $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber u_j ( z ) & = & \sum_{n \neq 0} a_n ( y ) e ( nx )\\
& = & \sqrt{y} \sum_{n \neq 0} \rho_j ( n ) K_{i t_j} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) e ( nx ) \label{0.5}\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the $K$-Bessel function defined in Appendix B and $\rho_j ( n )$ is proportional to the $n$-th Hecke eigenvalue $\lambda_j ( n )$ of $u_j$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_j ( n ) = \lambda_j ( n ) \rho_j ( 1 ) & \textnormal{for} & n\geqslant 1. \end{aligned}$$ We then have that either $u_j(z)$ is *even*, when $\rho_j(-n)=\rho_j(n)$, or that $u_j(z)$ is *odd*, when $\rho_j(-n)=-\rho_j(n)$.
Quantum Unique Ergodicity
-------------------------
Let $\{u_j\}$ be an orthonormal basis of Hecke-Maass cusp forms. Our work is motivated by the following conjecture.
For any $f$ in $\mathcal{L}( X )$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
< fu_j, u_j > = \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > + o ( 1 ) & \textnormal{as} & j \longrightarrow
\infty \label{1}\end{aligned}$$
Note that when $f$ is a constant function then (\[1\]) is immediate since $$< cu_j, u_j > = c < u_j, u_j > = c$$ for any constant $c$.
This conjecture and several analogues, originally stated in \[R-S\] for general compact manifolds of negative curvature, have been studied by a variety of authors. The most notable result towards establishing such an equidistribution statement is due to Lindenstrauss \[Li\], in which he succeeded to establish QUE completely for $X$ a compact arithmetic quotient in $\mathbbm{H}$. When $X$ is not compact, the conjecture holds by Lindenstrauss’s method for cuspidal $f$, but still requires subconvexity estimates for the symmetric square $L$-function of $u_j$ for $f$ an incomplete Eisenstein series.
If one is looking for effective rates of convergence or studying the analogous equidistribution problem in the holomorphic setting, however, one must currently apply techniques from Analytic Number Theory. The work of Luo and Sarnak \[L-S\], for example, when the Hecke-Maass cusp forms $\{u_j\}$ are replaced with holomorphic forms with weight going to infinity, involves reducing the equidistribution problem to the study of shifted convolution sums and the analysis of Kloosterman sums.
The approach we take in this paper will be similar to that of Luo and Sarnak in that our main concern is the analysis of shifted sums of Hecke eigenvalues. The difference in our work comes from the belief that the average size of the shifted summation terms should be sufficient for QUE. Therefore, we reduce the problem to the study of the sums $$\sum_{n\asymp t_j} | \lambda_j(n) \lambda_j(n+\ell)| \label{SCSabswithj}$$ for $\ell \neq 0$, instead of the sums $$\sum_{n\asymp t_j} \lambda_j(n) \lambda_j(n+\ell), \label{SCSnoabswithj}$$ and will apply upper-bound sieve techniques instead of Kloosterman sum analysis. The method of reduction will in some ways be simpler, as expected by taking absolute values, and will also demonstrate that the number of shifts $\ell \neq 0$ which need to be considered will grow arbitrarily slowly relative to the spectral parameter $t_j$. In fact, in Appendix A we show that modulo a “log-free" convexity bound for the Rankin-Selberg zeta function associated with $u_j$ the problem of QUE reduces to proving $$\sum_{n\asymp t_j} \left|{\lambda}_j ( n ) \lambda_j ( n + \ell )\right| = o ( t_j L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u_j, 1) ) \label{ultimategoal}$$ as $t_j\longrightarrow \infty$ for $0 < |\ell| \leqslant L$ with $L\longrightarrow \infty$ arbitrarily slowly.
QUE obstacles due to the spectral parameter $t_j$
-------------------------------------------------
Recall that our bound in Theorem 1 has an implied constant depending on the Hecke-Maass cusp form in question. At present, the dependence on the spectral parameter does not permit us to establish (\[ultimategoal\]). Starting with the partial sum $$\sum_{n \leqslant x} | \lambda_j ( n ) \lambda_j ( n + \ell ) |,$$ the sieve method in this paper ultimately and unconditionally brings one to the bound below from which Theorem 1 will follow (see §2).
For a Hecke-Maass cusp form $u_j$ with Hecke eigenvalues $\lambda_j( n )$, a fixed integer $\ell \neq 0$ and $x\geqslant 2$ we have $$\sum_{n \leqslant x} | \lambda_j ( n ) \lambda_j ( n + \ell ) | \ll_{\ell} x L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u_j, 1) M_j(x) +R_j(x) \label{THM3}$$ where $$M_j(x):=\prod_{p \leqslant z}\left(1-\frac{(1-|\lambda_j(p)|)^2}{p}\right) \label{MTHM3}$$ with $z=x^{1/s}$ and $s=c \log \log x$ for some large constant $c$ and $R_j(x)$ is an “error" term depending on $u_j$ of size $$R_j(x)=O_j\left(x (\log x)^{-C}\right)\label{RTHM3}$$ for any $C>0$.
When $x$ is of size $t_j$ as in (\[ultimategoal\]), showing that $R_j(x)$ is smaller than the main term with respect to $t_j$ currently requires one to assume the Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture as well as subconvexity bounds for Dirichlet character twists of the Rankin-Selberg zeta function associated with the Hecke-Maass cusp form $u_j$.
Assuming uniform bounds on the error term $R_j(x)$ in (\[THM3\]), it is interesting to note that failing to establish (\[ultimategoal\]) would therefore be due to a peculiar bias in the Hecke eigenvalues. If for prime $p \leqslant z$ we would have $\lambda_j(p)$ taking values sufficiently close to $\pm 1$, then the main term factor $M_j(x)$ would provide no additional saving, leaving us with $$\sum_{n \leqslant t_j} | \lambda_j ( n ) \lambda_j ( n + \ell ) | \ll_{\ell} t_j L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u_j, 1)$$ instead of the desired “small-o" estimate in (\[ultimategoal\]). Although such a bias is not expected, present estimates are not strong enough to rule out the possibility.
In §4, however, we see that the main term factor $M_j(x)$ may be bounded in terms of information coming from the associated symmetric power $L$-functions. In particular, Lemma 4.1 states that $$M_j(x) \ll \left(\frac{L_6(u_j,z)}{L_2(u_j,z) L^2_4(u_j,z) (\log z)^3}\right)^{1/18}$$ with $L_m(u,z)$ the partial Euler product of the m-th symmetric power $L$-function associated with a form $u$ evaluated at the point $s=1$ (see §4) $$L_{m}(u,z) = \prod_{p\leqslant z} \prod_{j=0}^m\left(1-\alpha_p^{m-j}\beta_p^{j} p^{-1}\right)^{-1}.$$ Therefore, $$\sum_{n\leqslant t_j} \left|{\lambda}_j ( n ) \lambda_j ( n + \ell )\right| \ll_\ell \frac{t_j L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u_j, 1)} {\left(L_2(u_j,z) L^2_4(u_j,z)L^{-1}_6(u_j,z) (\log z)^3\right)^{1/18}}. \label{symfactors}$$ Note that the Grand Reimann Hypothesis would have the full symmetric powers satisfying $$(\log \log t_j)^{-B_m} \ll L(\textnormal{sym}^m u_j, 1) \ll (\log \log t_j)^{B_m}$$ for some constant $B_m$ depending on the symmetric power $m$, hence we expect to achieve some logarithmic saving uniform in $t_j$ in (\[symfactors\]) and therefore establish (\[ultimategoal\]), although an unconditional proof is still out of our reach. It would therefore be interesting to study how partial products of symmetric power $L$-functions behave with respect to one another in the hope of showing $$\begin{aligned}
L_2(u_j,z) L^2_4(u_j,z) L^{-1}_6(u_j,z) (\log z)^3 \longrightarrow \infty & \textnormal{as} & t_j\longrightarrow \infty\end{aligned}$$ and other similar relations.
Proof of Theorem 1, the sieve method
====================================
As mentioned in the introduction, we seek to benefit from the fact that $n$ and $n+\ell$ have few common factors when $\ell$ is small. We first rearrange our shifted sums, which we shall from now on denote as $$S_{\ell} ( x ) := \sum_{n \leqslant x} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) |,
\label{SCS}$$ into an object to which a double upper-bound sieve may be applied. Note that we have dropped the subscript-$j$ notation for the sake of presentation. Afterwards, we will demonstrate how our analysis brings one to the bound (\[THM3\]) in §1.3. Applying results from §4 will then prove Theorem 1.
Factorization and partitioning
------------------------------
Let $P(z)$ be defined as $$P(z):=\prod_{p\leqslant z} p.
\label{P}$$ Factoring $n$ and $n + \ell$ uniquely as $$\begin{aligned}
n = ab & \textnormal{and} & n + \ell = a_\ell b_\ell, \label{9.2.1}\end{aligned}$$ such that for every prime $p$ dividing $n(n+\ell)$, $$\begin{aligned}
p| a a_\ell \Rightarrow p \leqslant z & \textnormal{and} & (b b_\ell, P(z))=1 \label{9.2.2}\end{aligned}$$ with $z=x^{1/s}$ for some $s$ to be chosen later, we partition the sum $S_{\ell} ( x )$ into parts depending on the size of $a$ and $a_\ell$. The reasoning behind this partition is that we expect to easily treat the parts where $a$ or $a_\ell$ are large, because the number of such $a$ and $a_\ell$ with small prime factors should be relatively small. We denote by $\mathcal{S}_A ( x )$ and $\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}( x )$ the parts where $a$ and $a_\ell$ are greater than $x^{1/16}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_A ( x ) & := & \sum_{\substack{
n = ab \leqslant x\\
n + \ell = a_\ell b_\ell\\
p| aa_\ell \Rightarrow p \leqslant z\\
(b b_\ell, P(z))=1\\
a > x^{1 / 16}
}} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) | \label{SA}\\
\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell} ( x ) & := & \sum_{\substack{
n = ab \leqslant x\\
n + \ell = a_\ell b_\ell\\
p| aa_\ell \Rightarrow p \leqslant z\\
(b b_\ell, P(z))=1\\
a_\ell > x^{1 / 16}
}} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) | \label{SAl}\end{aligned}$$ and in §5.1, Lemma 5.1, will show that $$\mathcal{S}_A(x)+\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}(x) \ll_{u,\ell} x (\log x)^{-C}$$ for any constant $C > 0$.
The sum over the part with both $a$ and $a_\ell$ less than or equal to $x^{1/16}$ we denote by $S^{\star}_{\ell} ( x )$ $$S^{\star}_{\ell} ( x ) := \sum_{\substack{
n = ab \leqslant x\\
n + \ell = a_\ell b_\ell\\
p| aa_\ell \Rightarrow p \leqslant z\\
(b b_\ell, P(z))=1\\
a, a_\ell \leqslant x^{1 / 16}
}} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n+\ell )
| \label{9.3.3}$$ so that $$S_{\ell}(x)\leqslant \mathcal{S}_A(x)+\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}(x)+S^{\star}_{\ell} (x) \ll_{u,\ell} x (\log x)^{-C} + S^{\star}_{\ell}(x).
\label{4parts}$$ Writing $n$ and $n+\ell$ in terms of their factorizations, we are left with evaluating $$S^{\star}_{\ell}(x)=\sum_{\substack{
a, a_\ell \leqslant x^{1 / 16}\\
p|aa_\ell \Rightarrow p\leqslant z
}} | \lambda ( a ) \lambda ( a_\ell ) |
\sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / a\\
a_\ell b_\ell = ab + \ell\\
( bb_\ell, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} |\lambda ( b ) \lambda(b_\ell)|. \label{writeasfactors}$$ To help deal with certain co-primality conditions which come up during analysis, we denote the greatest common divisor of $a$ and $a_\ell$ as $v$ and have $$S^{\star}_{\ell}(x) \leqslant \sum_{v|\ell} \sum_{\substack{
a, a_\ell \leqslant x^{1 / 16}\\
p|aa_{\ell} \Rightarrow p\leqslant z\\
(a,a_\ell)=1
}} | \lambda ( v a ) \lambda ( v a_\ell) | \sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / a\\
a_\ell b_\ell = ab + \ell' \\
( bb_\ell, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} |\lambda ( b ) \lambda(b_\ell)|\label{dividebyv}$$ with $\ell'=\ell/v$. In §2.3 we will treat the inner most sum in (\[dividebyv\]) by an application of a double-upper bound sieve which we shall now describe.
Double upper-bound sieve heuristics
-----------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{A}= ( a_n )$ be a sequence of non-negative numbers on which we would like to obtain estimates for the sifted sum $$S ( x, z ) : = \sum_{\substack{
n \leqslant x\\
( n, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} a_n .$$ Here $P ( z )$ is the product of primes less than $z$ which belong to some set $\mathcal{P}$ $$P ( z ) : = \prod_{\substack{
p \leqslant z\\
p \in \mathcal{P}
}} p.$$ Application of an upper-bound sieve with linear sieve weights $\xi_{d}$ of level $D$ $$S(x,z)\leqslant \sum_{\substack{
d|P(z)\\
d\leqslant D
}}\xi_{d} \sum_{\substack{
n \leqslant x\\
n \equiv 0 ( \textnormal{mod } d )
}} a_n$$ removes the co-primality condition and allows us to study the partial sums $$A_d ( x ) : = \sum_{\substack{
n \leqslant x\\
n \equiv 0 ( \textnormal{mod } d )
}} a_n .$$ If asymptotics can be established for $A_d ( x )$ when $d|P ( z )$ of the form $$A_d ( x ) = g ( d ) X + r_d ( x )$$ where $g ( d ) X$ is the expected main term with “density" $g(d)$ a multiplicative function and $r_d ( x )$ is a sufficiently small error term, then one would expect to establish a bound $$S ( x, z ) \ll XV$$ with $X$ approximately equal to $$A ( x ) := \sum_{n \leqslant x} a_n$$ and $$V = \prod_{p|P ( z )} ( 1 - g ( p ) ) .$$ Establishing asymptotics for $A_d(x)$ is necessary as our sieve weights can take positive and negative values.
Taking the example of $g ( p ) : = p^{- 1}$ and $P ( z )$ the product of all primes up to $z$, Merten’s formula would then give a saving of $\log z$ $$S ( x, z ) \ll X ( \log z )^{- 1} .$$ In general, if a multiplicative function $g$ satisfies $0 \leqslant g ( p ) <
1$ and “behaves” like $p^{- 1}$ at primes $p$, then one should see similar results.
This idea can be extended to a double sum $$S ( x, z ) := \sum_{\substack{
n_1 \leqslant x\\
( n_1, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} \sum_{\substack{
n_2 \leqslant x\\
( n_2, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} a_{n_1, n_2}$$ for some sequence of non-negative numbers $\mathcal{A}= ( a_{n_1, n_2} )$. In this case, we study the partial sums $$A_{d_1, d_2} ( x ) := \sum_{\substack{
n_1 \leqslant x\\
n_1 \equiv 0 ( \textnormal{mod } d_1 )
}} \sum_{\substack{
n_2 \leqslant x\\
n_2 \equiv 0 ( \textnormal{mod } d_2 )
}} a_{n_1, n_2}$$ and look for asymptotics of the form $$A_{d_1, d_2} ( x ) = g' ( d_1 ) g'' ( d_2 ) X + r_{d_1, d_2} ( x ) \label{DAF}$$ as before. Provided that the appropriate conditions are satisfied, we carry through in the same manner to obtain the bound $$S ( x, z ) \ll XV' V'' \label{DUB}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V' = \prod_{p|P ( z )} ( 1 - g' ( p ) ) & \textnormal{and} & V'' = \prod_{p|P ( z
)} ( 1 - g'' ( p ) ) .\end{aligned}$$ However, if the density functions $g'$ and $g''$ are not independent in terms of $d_1$ and $d_2$, then establishing (\[DUB\]) would require some more care. For example, if asymptotics in (\[DAF\]) were to hold only when $( d_1, d_2 ) = 1$, then upon application of a double upper-bound sieve with sieve weights $\xi'_{d_1}$ and $\xi''_{d_2}$, of level $D'$ and $D''$ respectively, one would arrive at $$S ( x, z ) \ll X ( G' \ast G'' )$$ where $$G' \ast G'' := \sum_{\substack{d_1 |P ( z )\\ d_1<D'}} \xi'_{d_1} g' ( d_1 )
\sum_{\substack{
d_2 |P ( z )\\
d_2 <D''\\
( d_1, d_2 ) = 1
}} \xi''_{d_2} g'' ( d_2 ) . \label{G'*G''}$$ In the appendix of \[F-I\], Friedlander and Iwaniec treat such a condition. We state their theorem here with our definition of $G'\ast G''$.
Let $g'$ and $g''$ be density functions satisfying the linear sieve conditions. Let $( \xi' )$ and $( \xi'' )$ be the optimal linear sieve weights of level $D'$ and $D''$ respectively. Then we have $$G' \ast G'' \ll CV' V''$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V' = \prod_{\substack{
p|P ( z )\\
p < D'
}} ( 1 - g' ( p ) ), & &
V'' = \prod_{\substack{
p|P ( z )\\
p < D''
}} ( 1 - g'' ( p ) )
\end{aligned}$$ and $$C = \prod_{p|P ( z )} ( 1 + h' h'' ( p ) )$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
h' ( p ) = g' ( p ) ( 1 - g' ( p ) )^{- 1}, & h'' ( p ) = g'' ( p ) ( 1 - g''( p ) )^{- 1} . &
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, if $C$ is uniformly bounded in $z$, the dependence of $g''$ on $g'$ by the condition $g'' ( d_2 ) = 0$ when $( d_1, d_2 ) \neq 1$ can be removed and we once again obtain the upper bound (\[DUB\]). Furthermore, if both density functions behave like $g(p)=p^{-1}$, then we expect to save an extra power of $\log z$ and obtain $$S ( x, z ) \ll X ( \log z )^{- 2} .$$
Applying sieve to the inner sum in (\[dividebyv\])
--------------------------------------------------
In order for our sieve method to work properly in application to the sums seen in (\[dividebyv\]) $$\sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / a\\
a_\ell b_\ell = ab + \ell\\
( bb_\ell, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} |\lambda ( b ) \lambda(b_\ell)|$$ with fixed $(a, a_\ell)=1$, we must choose a sifting sequence $\mathcal{A}$ for which we will be able to establish asymptotics of the form (\[DAF\]) when considering the relevant partial sums in arithmetic progressions. To this end, we make use of the trivial bound $$|\lambda(b)\lambda(b_\ell)|\leqslant \lambda^2(b)+\lambda^2(b_\ell)$$ and set $\mathcal{A}=(\lambda^2(b))$ for $b,b_\ell$ satisfying $a_\ell b_\ell=ab+\ell$. By symmetry, the sequence $(\lambda^2(b_\ell))$ is treated the same. We may also assume that our sequence is supported on square-free integers $b$, redefining $\mathcal{A}=(\lambda^2(b) \mu^2(b))$, as Lemma 5.2 will demonstrate that the contribution from those $b$ containing square factors will be quite small. This is done for the purely technical reason that $\lambda^2$ is not a completely multiplicative function. Furthermore, we loosen the co-primality conditions on $b$ and $b_\ell$ by positivity so that we now sum over $( bb_\ell, P_{6\ell} ( z ) ) = 1$ with $$P_{6\ell} ( z ) :=\prod_{\substack{p\leqslant z\\ p \nmid 6\ell}} p.\label{Ph}$$ Finally, we take advantage of positivity once more by defining a multiplicative function $\eta$ such that $$\eta(p^\alpha):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda^2(p) & \textnormal{if } p \mid 6 \\
\lambda^{2\alpha}(p) & \textnormal{if } p \nmid 6
\end{array}\right. \label{eta}$$ for prime powers $p^\alpha$. On square-free $b$, we see that $\eta(b)=\lambda^2(b) \mu^2(b) = \lambda^2(b)$. For all other $b$, we have $\eta(b) \geqslant \lambda^2(b) \mu^2(b) = 0$ and can redefine our sifting sequence for the final time as $\mathcal{A}=(\eta(b))$ for $b, b_\ell$ satisfying $a_\ell b_\ell=ab+\ell$. We are therefore left with applying the double upper-bound sieve to the sum $$S_{a,a_\ell}(x,z):= \sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / a\\
a_\ell b_\ell = ab + \ell\\
( bb_\ell, P_{6\ell} ( z ) ) = 1
}} \eta(b) \label{sievingsum}.$$
For $(a d, a_\ell d_\ell)=1$, we seek asymptotics for the partial sums in arithmetic progression $$A_{d, d_\ell} ( x ) := \sum_{\substack{
c \leqslant x/ad\\
a_\ell d_\ell c_\ell= a d c + \ell
}} \eta ( d c )
\label{3sum}$$ to be of the form $$A_{d, d_\ell} ( x ) = g' ( d ) g'' ( d_\ell ) X + r_{d, d_\ell} ( x )
\label{3goal}$$ where $g' ( d ) g'' ( d_\ell ) X$ is the expected main term with $g'$ and $g''$ multiplicative functions and the error term $r_{d, d_\ell} ( x )$ is sufficiently small. Here $X$ is approximately equal to $$A(x)=\sum_{\substack{ab\leqslant x\\ a_\ell b_\ell = a b + \ell}} \eta(b).$$ In §3 we prove the following asymptotic using standard analysis of twisted Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions.
Fix an integer $\ell \neq 0$. Fix integers $a, a_\ell, d, d_\ell \leqslant x^{1/16}$ such that $(a d, a_\ell d_\ell) = 1$ and $d, d_\ell |P_{6\ell} ( z )$. For $A_{d,d_\ell}(x)$ as defined in (\[3sum\]) we have $$A_{d, d_\ell} ( x ) = \frac{\theta}{\zeta(2)} L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \frac{\lambda^2(d)}{\varphi(a_\ell d_\ell)} \frac{x}{a d} + O_u(x^{13/16+\varepsilon}) \label{THM2.3}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ where $$\theta=\gamma_u \prod_{\substack{p\mid a_\ell \\ p\mid 6}} \left(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)^{-1}\prod_{\substack{p\mid a_\ell d_\ell \\ p\nmid 6}} \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)$$ with constant $\gamma_u$ satisfying $$\frac{3}{5\pi^2} < \gamma_u < 15.$$
To have our asymptotic (\[THM2.3\]) be of the form (\[3goal\]), we set $$h(q):=\prod_{p\mid q} (1-\lambda^2(p) p^{-1})$$ and define our density functions $g'$ and $g''$ to be $$g'(p):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda^2(p) p^{-1} & \textnormal{if } p \nmid a_\ell\\
0 & \textnormal{if } p \mid a_\ell
\end{array}\right. \label{multfunc3g'}$$ and $$g''(p):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
h(p) \varphi(p)^{-1} & \textnormal{if } p \nmid a a_\ell\\
p^{-1} & \textnormal{if } p \nmid a, p\mid a_\ell\\
0 & \textnormal{if } p\mid a
\end{array}\right..
\label{multfunc3g''}$$ Observe that $$g''(p) = \frac{1}{p}+O(p^{-3/2}) \label{g''close}$$ for $p\nmid a$. With these definitions, we bring our asymptotic to the desired form (\[3goal\]) with main term $$X=\gamma_u L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \frac{x}{a} \frac{h(a_\ell)}{\varphi(a_\ell)}
\label{X3}$$ and error term $$r_{d,d_\ell} (x) = O_u(x^{13/16+\varepsilon}). \label{mainerrors}$$
Choosing linear sieve weights $\xi'_{d}$ and $\xi''_{d_\ell}$ of level $D=x^{1/64}$, the contribution from the error term $r_{d,d_\ell}(x)$ will be negligable with respect to $x$ as $$\sum_{\substack{d|P_{6\ell} (z) \\ d \leqslant D}}|\xi_{d}'|\sum_{\substack{d_{\ell}|P_{6\ell} (z)\\ d_\ell \leqslant D\\}}|\xi_{d_\ell}''| \ll (D \log^2 D)^2.$$ This is because linear sieve properties give $|\xi '|, |\xi ''|\leqslant \tau_3$, where $\tau_3(n)$ is the number of ways to write $n$ as the product of three integers. Therefore, we will have the bound $$S_{a,a_\ell}(x,z) \leqslant X \sum_{\substack{
d |P_{6\ell} ( z )\\
d \leqslant D\\
(d, a_\ell)=1
}} \xi_{d}' g'(d)
\sum_{\substack{
d_\ell |P_{6\ell} ( z )\\
d_\ell \leqslant D\\
(d_\ell, a)=1\\
( d, d_\ell ) = 1
}} \xi''_{d_\ell} g''(d_\ell) + O_u\left(\frac{x^{63/64}}{a a_\ell}\right)\label{mainupper}$$ so that an application of Theorem 2.2 gives $$S_{a,a_\ell}(x,z) \ll X C V' V''\label{oursievebound}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
C V' V'' & = & \prod_{\substack{p\leqslant z \\ p \nmid 6\ell}}\left(1+\frac{g'(p) g''(p)}{(1-g'(p))(1-g''(p))}\right)\prod_{\substack{p\leqslant z \\ p \nmid 6\ell}}(1-g'(p))(1-g''(p))\\
& \ll_\ell & \prod_{p\leqslant z}\left(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p^2}\right)\prod_{p\leqslant z}(1-g'(p))(1-g''(p))\\
& \ll_\ell & \prod_{p\leqslant z}(1-g'(p))(1-g''(p)).\end{aligned}$$
Establishing Lemma 1.3 and concluding Theorem 1
-----------------------------------------------
With our main term $X$ as in (\[X3\]) we have, $$\frac{h(a_\ell)}{\varphi(a_\ell)} \prod_{p\leqslant z}(1-g'(p)) \ll \frac{1}{\varphi(a_\ell)}\prod_{p\leqslant z}\left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right).$$ By (\[g”close\]) we have, $$\frac{1}{a}\prod_{p\leqslant z}(1-g''(p)) \ll \frac{1}{\varphi(a)}\prod_{p\leqslant z}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
S^{\star}_{\ell}(x) & \ll_\ell & x L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \sum_{\substack{
a, a_\ell \leqslant x^{1 / 16}\\
p|aa_\ell \Rightarrow p\leqslant z
}} \frac{| \lambda ( a ) \lambda ( a_\ell ) |}{ \varphi(a) \varphi(a_\ell)} \prod_{p\leqslant z}\left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\\
& \ll_\ell & x L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \prod_{p\leqslant z} \left(1+\frac{|\lambda(p)|}{p}\right)^2 \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\\
& \ll_\ell & x L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) M_u(x)\end{aligned}$$ with $M_u(x)$ as in (\[MTHM3\]). Combining this with (\[4parts\]) concludes the proof of Lemma 1.3.
[We see that the error term $R_u(x)$ in Lemma 1.3 comes not only from the sums $\mathcal{S}_A(x)$ and $\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}(x)$ in Lemma 5.1 but also from the error term in (\[mainupper\]). Although the error term was negligable in $x$ with an appropriate choice of sieve level $D$, the method with which we establish the asymptotic in Theorem 2.3 will require subconvexity estimates for twisted Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions if one wishes to show that the error term is smaller than the main term with respect to the spectral parameter.]{.nodecor}
In §4.1, Lemma 4.1 will show that by a “partial Sato-Tate” result one has $$M_u(x)\ll_u (\log z)^{-1/6}.$$ This fractional power saving of $\log z$ comes from the holomorphy and non-vanishing of the associated symmetric square, fourth and sixth power $L$-functions up to the line $\textnormal{Re}(s)=1$. With the above bound for $M_u(x)$, we have shown $$\sum_{n \leqslant x} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) | \ll_{\ell}\frac{x}{(\log z)^{1/6}} L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u, 1)\ll_{\ell,u} \frac{x}{(\log x)^{1/7}}$$ after the appropriate choice for $z=x^{1/s}$ to control the size of the error term $R_u(x)$. This concludes the proof of Theorem 1 with $\delta=1/7$.
Rankin-Selberg in arithmetic progression
========================================
Let $\ell \neq 0$ be a small fixed integer and let $z=x^{1/s}$ for some $s$ to be chosen later. Let $a, a_\ell$ be small fixed integers such that $( a, a_\ell )=(a a_\ell,\ell)=1$ and $p|aa_\ell \Rightarrow p \leqslant z$ and $d, d_\ell$ fixed integers such that $d, d_\ell |P_{6\ell} ( z )$ where $$P_{6\ell} ( z ) := \prod_{\substack{
p \leqslant z\\
p \nmid 6\ell
}} p.$$ A key part in the proof of the main theorem will be to establish an asymptotic, when the linear equation $a_\ell d_\ell c_\ell = adc + \ell$ is solvable in $c$ and $c_\ell$, for the partial sums $$A_{d, d_\ell} ( x ) := \sum_{\substack{
c \leqslant x/ad\\
a_\ell d_\ell c_\ell= a d c + \ell
}} \eta ( d c )$$ with $\eta$ a non-negative, completely multiplicative function defined by $$\eta(p^\alpha):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda^2(p) & \textnormal{if } p \mid 6 \\
\lambda^{2\alpha}(p) & \textnormal{if } p \nmid 6
\end{array}\right.$$ for prime powers $p^\alpha$. Here $\lambda ( p )$ is the $p$-th Hecke eigenvalue for some fixed Hecke-Maass cusp form $u$. Observe that our choice of integers $a, a_\ell, d, d_\ell$ ensures that $(ad,a_\ell d_\ell)=(a d a_\ell d_\ell,\ell)=1$ when the linear equation is solvable.
Since we would like to use this asymptotic in conjunction with an upper-bound sieve application, we want it to be of the form $$A_{d, d_\ell} ( x ) = g' ( d ) g'' ( d_\ell ) X + r_{d, d_\ell} ( x )$$ where $g' ( d ) g'' ( d_\ell ) X$ is the expected main term with $g'$ and $g''$ multiplicative functions and the error term $r_{d, d_\ell} ( x )$ is sufficiently small. Here $X$ is approximately equal to $$A(x)=\sum_{\substack{ab\leqslant x\\ a_\ell b_\ell = a b + \ell}} \eta(b).$$ In order to achieve this task, we interperet the linear equation $a_\ell d_\ell c_\ell=a d c + \ell$ as the congruence $$c \equiv - \ell \overline{ad} ( \textnormal{mod } a_\ell d_\ell )$$ and employ some standard results from Dirichlet series analysis.
Let $D ( s )$ be a Dirichlet series with positive coefficients $a_n$ which converges absolutely for $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) > 1$ and extends to a meromorphic function in the half plane $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) \geqslant 1 / 2$ with a simple pole of residue $r$ at the point $s = 1$ $$D ( s ) := \sum_{n \geqslant 1} \frac{a_n}{n^s} .$$ If D(s) satisfies the bound $$D ( s ) \ll (|s|Q)^{1 + \varepsilon} \label{10.9}$$ for some positive constant $Q$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ on the line $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) =
1 / 2$, then for any $x \geqslant 1$ we have $$\sum_{n \leqslant x} a_n = rx + O ( x^{3/4+\varepsilon}Q^{1/2+\varepsilon}) \label{10.10}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$.
Choose a nice compactly supported test function $h(u)$ to smooth out our sum in question, which majorizes the dyadic segment $[x,2x]$ and is supported on $[x-y,2x+y]$ for some $y\leqslant x$ to be chosen later so that $$\sum_{n} a_{n} h (n)= \sum_{x-y \leqslant n < x} a_{n} h (n) + \sum_{x \leqslant n < 2x} a_{n} + \sum_{2x \leqslant n < 2x+y} a_{n} h(n).$$ Using the Mellin transform of $h(u)$, we start with $$\sum_n a_n h ( n ) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( 2 )} H ( s ) D ( s ) ds.$$ and move the line of integration to $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) = 1 / 2$ picking up the pole at $s = 1$, $$\sum_n a_n h ( n ) = r H(1) + \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( \frac{1}{2} )} H ( s ) D( s ) ds.$$ Repeated partial integration and appropriate choice of $y$ then gives $$\sum_{n} a_n h ( n ) = rx + O(x^{3/4+\varepsilon}Q^{1/2+\varepsilon}).$$ If we had instead chosen a similar nice test function $g(u)$ supported on $[x,2x]$ with $$\sum_{n} a_{n} g (n)\leqslant \sum_{x \leqslant n < 2x} a_{n},$$ then we would have $$\sum_{x<n\leqslant 2x} a_n=rx+O(x^{3/4+\varepsilon}Q^{1/2+\varepsilon})\label{prooflemma3a}.$$ The result follows after subdividing our original interval $[1,x]$ into dyadic segments and applying (\[prooflemma3a\]) for each segment.
In order to apply this lemma to our setting, we construct Dirichlet series $$D_{\chi}(s):=\sum_{n \geqslant 1} \frac{\chi(n) \eta(n)}{n^{s}} \label{Zchi}$$ for every character $\chi$ of a fixed modulos $q$ and note its properties. We start first, however, with the full series $$D_u(s):=\sum_{n\geqslant 1} \frac{\eta(n)}{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\mid 6}\bigg(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p^s}\bigg)\prod_{p\nmid 6}\bigg(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p^s}\bigg)^{-1}
\label{RSflat}$$ as each $D_{\chi}(s)$ will have similar properties. Note that $$D_u(s)=\gamma_u(s) L(u\otimes u,s)$$ for some small correction factor $\gamma_u(s)$ whose product $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_u(s)& = &\prod_{p\mid 6}\left(1 -\frac{p^{2s}+p^{s} - (2p^{2s}-p^{s}-1)\lambda^2(p)+(p^{2s}-p^{s})\lambda^4(p)}{p^{4s}(1+p^{-s})}\right)\nonumber\\
& \times &\prod_{p\nmid 6}\left(1 +\frac{2p^s\lambda^2(p)-p^s-1}{p^{3s}(1-\lambda^2(p)p^{-s})(1+p^{-s})} \right) \label{gammaeuler}\end{aligned}$$ controls the difference in the second degree terms of the Euler products for $D_u(s)$ and the Rankin-Selberg $L$-function $$L(u\otimes u,s)=\sum_{n\geqslant 1} \frac{\lambda^2(n)}{n^{s}}=\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2 s)}L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,s).$$
By (\[localfactors\]) we can write $\lambda^2(p)=\alpha^2_p+2+\alpha^{-2}_p$ and have by (\[KIMSARNAK\]) that $|\alpha^2_p|\leqslant p^{7/32}$. Therefore, with $0\leqslant \lambda^2(p) \leqslant p^{7/32} + 2 + p^{-7/32}$ for every prime $p$, one can check that we trivially have $$\frac{3}{5\pi^2}<\gamma_u:=\gamma_u(1)<15$$ for any form $u$. Furthermore, we know that $D_u(s)$ satisfies the same convexity bound as the Rankin-Selberg $L$-function for $\textnormal{Re}(s)=1/2$, namely $$D_u(s)\ll_u(|s|)^{1+\varepsilon}
\label{RSconvexitybound}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$.
Let $\chi_0$ be the principal character of modulos $q$. We then have $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} \chi_0(n) \eta(n) = \frac{\theta}{\zeta(2)} L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) x + O_u(x^{3/4+\varepsilon} q^{1/2+\varepsilon})$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ where $$\theta=\gamma_u \prod_{\substack{p\mid q \\ p\mid 6}} \left(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)^{-1}\prod_{\substack{p\mid q \\ p\nmid 6}} \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)$$ with constant $\gamma_u$ satisfying $$\frac{3}{5\pi^2} < \gamma_u < 15.$$
Apply Lemma 3a for the Dirichlet series $D_{\chi_0}(s)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
a_n=\chi_0(n) \eta(n) & \textnormal{and} & Q=q \end{aligned}$$ noting that $$\sum_{(n,q)=1} \frac{\eta(n)}{n^s} = D_u(s) \prod_{\substack{p\mid q\\p\mid 6}}\bigg(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p^s}\bigg)^{-1}\prod_{\substack{p\mid q\\p\nmid 6}}\bigg(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p^s}\bigg)$$ and that $$D_{\chi_0}(s) \ll_u (|s|q)^{1+\varepsilon}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ on the line $\textnormal{Re}(s)=1/2$.
For every non-principal character $\chi$ of modulus $q$, we have that $D_{\chi}(s)$ is holomorphic for $\textnormal{Re}(s)\geqslant 1/2$. Modifying the arguments slightly in the proofs of Lemma 3a and Lemma 3b, we obtain a bound for non-principal character twists.
Let $\chi$ be a non-principal character of modulos $q$. We then have $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} \chi(n) \eta(n) \ll_u x^{3/4+\varepsilon} q^{1/2+\varepsilon}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$.
Using the Dirichlet character orthogonality relation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\varphi ( q )} \sum_{\chi ( q )} \bar{\chi} ( m ) \chi
( n ) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \textnormal{if } n \equiv m ( \textnormal{mod } q )\\
0 & \textnormal{otherwise}
\end{array}\right. & \textnormal{when} & (m,q)=1
\label{ortho}\end{aligned}$$ we combine Lemma 3b and Lemma 3c to have the following result.
Fix integers $m$ and $q$ such that $(m,q)=1$. We then have $$\sum_{\substack{
n \leqslant x\\
n \equiv m ( \textnormal{mod } q )
}} \eta ( n )= \frac{\theta}{\zeta(2)} L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \frac{x}{\varphi(q)} + O_u\left(x^{3/4+\varepsilon} q^{1/2+\varepsilon}\right) \label{lemma3dresult}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ where $$\theta=\gamma_u \prod_{\substack{p\mid q \\ p\mid 6}} \left(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)^{-1}\prod_{\substack{p\mid q \\ p\nmid 6}} \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)$$ with constant $\gamma_u$ satisfying $$\frac{3}{5\pi^2} < \gamma_u < 15.$$
[The error term in Lemma 3d depends on the spectral parameter. If one looks at the gamma factors for the twisted Rankin-Selberg $L$-function, then one sees that the true convexity bound for $D_u(s)$ on the line $\textnormal{Re}(s)=1/2$ depends on the spectral parameter $t_u$,]{.nodecor} $$D_u(s) \ll q^{1+\varepsilon}\left(|s|^{1+\varepsilon}+(|s|t_u)^{1/2+\varepsilon}\right).$$ [Results similar to Lemma 3a would then at best produce the modified error term]{.nodecor} $$\sum_{\substack{
n \leqslant x\\
n \equiv m ( \textnormal{mod } q )
}} \eta ( n )= \frac{\theta}{\zeta(2)} L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \frac{x}{\varphi(q)} + O\left(x^{1/2} q^{1+\varepsilon} t_u^{1/2+\varepsilon}\right)$$ [for any $\varepsilon>0$. If $x$ is of size $t_u$, we simply do not have the error term smaller than the main term unless we first assume a subconvexity bound for $D_u(s)$ for $\textnormal{Re}(s)=1/2$.]{.nodecor}
Returning to our sifting sums in arithmetic progressions $A_{d,d_\ell}(x)$, if we interperet the linear equation $a_\ell d_\ell c_\ell=a d c + \ell$ with $(ad,a_\ell d_\ell)=(a d a_\ell d_\ell,\ell)=1$ as the congruence $$c \equiv - \ell \overline{ad} ( \textnormal{mod } a_\ell d_\ell )$$ then $$\sum_{\substack{
adc \leqslant x\\
a_\ell d_\ell c_\ell= adc + \ell
}} \eta ( dc ) = \lambda^2(d) \sum_{\substack{
adc \leqslant x\\
c \equiv - \ell \overline{ad} ( \textnormal{mod } a_\ell d_\ell )
}} \eta ( c )$$ since $\eta(c d)=\lambda^2(d)\eta(c)$ for $d\mid P_{6\ell}(z)$. Therefore, by Lemma 3d we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{
adc \leqslant x\\
a_\ell d_\ell c_\ell= adc + \ell
}} \eta ( dc )&=&\frac{\theta}{\zeta(2)} L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \frac{\lambda^2(d)}{\varphi(a_\ell d_\ell)} \frac{x}{a d}\\
& &+ O_u\left(\lambda^2(d)\left(\frac{x}{ad}\right)^{3/4+\varepsilon}(a_\ell d_\ell)^{1/2+\varepsilon}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ where $\theta$ is now $$\theta=\gamma_u \prod_{\substack{p\mid a_\ell \\ p\mid 6}} \left(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)^{-1}\prod_{\substack{p\mid a_\ell d_\ell \\ p\nmid 6}} \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)$$ with $$\frac{3}{5\pi^2} < \gamma_u < 15.$$
Since $|\lambda^2(d) d^{-3/4}|\ll 1$ by the Kim-Sarnak bound (\[KIMSARNAK\]), if $a,a_\ell,d,d_\ell\leqslant x^{1/16}$ we see that the error term is $O_u(x^{13/16+\varepsilon})$. This brings us to an asymptotic for the partial sums $A_{d,d_\ell}(x)$ and proves Theorem 2.3.
Some bounds involving Hecke eigenvalues
=======================================
Let $u$ be a Hecke-Maass cusp form on $X={\rm SL}\sb 2(\mathbbm{Z}) \backslash \mathbbm{H}$. We associate with $u$ the $L$-function $$L ( u, s ) = \sum_{n \geqslant 1} \lambda ( n ) n^{- s} = \prod_p ( 1 -
\lambda ( p ) p^{- s} + p^{- 2 s} )^{- 1} \label{Lfunc}$$ and write each local factor as $$1 - \lambda ( p ) p^{- s} + p^{- 2 s} = ( 1 - \alpha_p p^{- s} ) ( 1 -
\beta_p p^{- s} )$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_p + \beta_p = \lambda ( p ) & \textnormal{and} & \alpha_p \beta_p = 1.
\label{localfactors}\end{aligned}$$ Since the Hecke operators are self-adjoint, we have that $\lambda ( p ) \in \mathbbm{R}$ and that either $| \alpha_p | = |
\beta_p | = 1$ or $\alpha_p, \beta_p \in \mathbbm{R}$. The current best known estimate for these local factors is due to Kim and Sarnak \[K-Sa\] $$| \alpha_p |, | \beta_p | \leqslant p^{7 / 64} . \label{KIMSARNAK}$$ The Ramanujan-Petersson Conjecture would give $|\lambda(p)|\leqslant 2$.
In addition to $L ( u, s )$, we have the symmetric power $L$-functions $$L ( \textnormal{sym}^m u, s ) := \prod_p \prod^m_{j = 0} ( 1 - \alpha^{m -
j}_p \beta^j_p p^{- s} )^{- 1} \label{Lsymm}$$ for $m\geqslant 1$ and the Rankin-Selberg convolution $$L(u \times u) := \zeta (2s) L ( u \otimes u, s ) := \zeta ( 2 s ) \sum_{n \geqslant 1} \lambda^2 ( n )
n^{- s} = \zeta(s) L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u, s) \label{RSLfunc}$$ which has a simple pole at $s = 1$. By the works of Kim-Shahidi \[K-Sh\] and Kim \[Ki\], the symmetric $m$-th power $L$-functions for $m \leqslant 8$ are holomorphic and non-vanishing for $\textnormal{Re}(s)\geqslant 1$.
We already know from Rankin-Selberg Theory that $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} \lambda^2(n) \sim c_u x
\label{RS}$$ for some constant $c_u$ depending on our cusp form $u$. Results involving the average value of $|\lambda(n)|$ were established in the works of several authors including Rankin (\[Ra1\], \[Ra2\]), Elliott, Moreno, Shahidi \[E-M-S\] and Murty \[Mu\]. Their works were based on properties of the symmetric square and symmetric fourth power $L$-functions associated with $u$ at the point $s=1$. In particular, the work of Elliott, Moreno and Shahidi \[E-M-S\] established the bound $$\sum_{n\leqslant x} |\lambda(n)| \ll_u \frac{x}{(\log x)^{1/18}}
\label{EMS}$$ under the assumption of the Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture. The above bound follows from the simple inequality $$\begin{aligned}
| y | & \leqslant & 1 + \frac{1}{2} ( y^2 - 1 ) - \frac{1}{18} ( y^2 - 1 )^2 \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{17}{18} + \frac{11}{18} ( y^2 - 1 ) - \frac{1}{18} ( y^4 - 2 )\label{RPineq},\end{aligned}$$ which holds for all real $y$ with $|y|\leqslant2$, and from the Hecke relations $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^2(p)-1 & = & (\alpha^2_p+1+\beta^2_p) = \lambda(p^2), \label{sym2eq}\\
\lambda^4(p)-2 & = & (\alpha^4_p+\alpha^2_p+1+\beta^2_p+\beta^4_p)+3(\alpha^2_p+1+\beta^2_p)\label{sym4eq}\\
& = & \lambda(p^4)+3\lambda(p^2). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We refer the reader to that paper for details and instead apply their ideas to properly bound $M_u(x)$ in Lemma 1.3.
Saving a fractional power of $\log z$ from $M_u(x)$
---------------------------------------------------
We would like to establish a bound of the form $$M_u(x)\ll_u (\log z)^{-\delta}$$ for some $\delta>0$ without the assumption of the Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture. This will require us to construct an inequality similar to (\[RPineq\]), but which holds for all real values $y$. To this end, we introduce an extra term and look for values $a$ and $b$ such that $$|y| \leqslant 1+\frac{1}{2}(y^2-1)+a(y^2-1)^2+b(y^2-1)^3 \label{MYineqform}$$ holds true for all real values of $y$, for then we would have $$-(1-|y|)^2=2|y|-y^2-1 \leqslant 2a (y^2-1)^2 + 2b (y^2-1)^3.$$ One such possible choice is $(a,b)=(-1/9, 1/36)$ giving $$-(1-|y|)^2 \leqslant -\frac{3}{18}+\frac{11}{18}(y^2-1)-\frac{7}{18}(y^4-2)+\frac{1}{18}(y^6-5).$$ Note that the right hand side of the above inequality is strictly less than 0 for all $|y|\leqslant 2$ except for $|y|=1$.
Substituting $y=\lambda(p)$ for each prime $p$ and averaging over primes up to $z$ we get $$- \sum_{p\leqslant z} \frac{(1-|\lambda(p)|)^2}{p} \leqslant -\frac{3}{18} \log \log z + O_u(1) \label{absmoment5}$$ provided that $$\frac{11}{18}\sum_{p\leqslant z}\frac{\lambda^2(p)-1}{p} - \frac{7}{18}\sum_{p\leqslant z}\frac{\lambda^4(p)-2}{p}+\frac{1}{18}\sum_{p\leqslant z}\frac{\lambda^6(p)-5}{p}\label{symmpartial}$$ can be bounded independently of $z$. From the Hecke relations (\[sym2eq\]), (\[sym4eq\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^6(p)-5 & = & (\alpha^6_p+\alpha^4_p+\alpha^2_p+1+\beta^2_p+\beta^4_p+\beta^6_p) \nonumber\\
& & + 5(\alpha^4_p+\alpha^2_p+1+\beta^2_p+\beta^4_p)+9(\alpha^2_p+1+\beta^2_p),\label{sym6eq}\nonumber\\
& = & \lambda(p^6) + 5 \lambda(p^4) +9 \lambda(p^2)\end{aligned}$$ one sees that (\[symmpartial\]) may be rewritten as $$-\frac{1}{18}\sum_{p\leqslant z}\frac{\lambda(p^2)}{p} - \frac{2}{18}\sum_{p\leqslant z}\frac{\lambda(p^4)}{p}+\frac{1}{18}\sum_{p\leqslant z}\frac{\lambda(p^6)}{p}$$ and is related to the logarithms of the associated symmetric square, fourth and sixth power $L$-functions at the point $s=1$ as is evident by the Euler product definition (\[Lsymm\]). Since the holomorphicity and non-vanishing of these symmetric powers is known for $\textnormal{Re}(s)\geqslant 1$, we have (\[absmoment5\]) and can state the following Lemma.
For any Hecke-Maass cusp form $u$ with Hecke eigenvalues $\lambda$, we have for $M_u(x)$ as given in (\[MTHM3\]) $$M_u(x)\ll \left(\frac{L_6(u,z)}{L_2(u,z) L^2_4(u,z) (\log z)^3}\right)^{1/18}\ll_u (\log z)^{-1/6} \label{lemma4.1bresult}$$ where the $$L_{m}(u,z) := \prod_{p\leqslant z} \prod_{j=0}^m\left(1-\alpha_p^{m-j}\beta_p^{j} p^{-1}\right)^{-1}\label{symmz}$$ are the partial Euler products of the associated symmetric power $L$-functions at the point $s=1$.
Fourth moment bound in terms of symmetric powers
------------------------------------------------
By the Kim-Sarnak bound (\[KIMSARNAK\]) we have that $$\sum_{n \leqslant x} \lambda^4 ( n ) \ll x \prod_{p\leqslant x}\left(1+\frac{\lambda^4(p)}{p}\right)\ll x \exp\left(\sum_{p\leqslant x}\frac{\lambda^4(p)-2}{p}\right)\log^2(x).$$ Applying the Hecke relations and our partial product definitions $L_m(u,z)$ in (\[symmz\]) we get the following bound.
Let $u$ be a Hecke-Maass cusp form with Hecke eigenvalues $\lambda$, then $$\sum_{n \leqslant x} \lambda^4 ( n ) \ll x ( \log x )^2 L_4(u,x) L^3_2(u,x).
\label{lemma4.2bound}$$
This bound will be used in §5.1 in the proof of Lemma 5.1.
Technical Lemmata
=================
During our proof of Theorem 1 in §2, we stated that the sums $\mathcal{S}_A(x)$ and $\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}(x)$ defined in (\[SA\]) and (\[SAl\]) would have small contribution to our shifted sum $S_{\ell}(x)$. We also removed square-full integers $b$ from our sifting sequence in §2.3 in order to define a new multiplicative function $\eta$ and only applied the double upper-bound sieve to the sum $S_{a,a_\ell}(x,z)$ defined in (\[sievingsum\]). We now show the necessary Lemmata which justify our analysis.
$\mathcal{S}_A(x)$ and $\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}(x)$ have small contribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With our factorization of $n$ and $n+\ell$ as $$\begin{aligned}
n = ab & \textnormal{and} & n + \ell = a_\ell b_\ell,\end{aligned}$$ such that for every prime $p$ dividing $n(n+\ell)$, $$\begin{aligned}
p| a a_\ell \Rightarrow p \leqslant z & \textnormal{and} & (b b_\ell, P(z))=1,\end{aligned}$$ we partitioned the shifted sum $S_{\ell}(x)$ based on the size of $a$ and $a_\ell$. We defined $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_A ( x ) & = & \sum_{\substack{
n = ab \leqslant x\\
n + \ell = a_\ell b_\ell\\
p| ( aa_\ell ) \Rightarrow p \leqslant z\\
(b b_\ell, P(z))=1\\
a > x^{1 / 16}
}} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) |,\\
\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell} ( x ) & = & \sum_{\substack{
n = ab \leqslant x\\
n + \ell = a_\ell b_\ell\\
p| ( aa_\ell ) \Rightarrow p \leqslant z\\
(b b_\ell, P(z))=1\\
a_\ell > x^{1 / 16}
}} | \lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell ) |,\end{aligned}$$ and now prove the following Lemma using a trick of Rankin to detect numbers with small prime factors.
For a fixed Hecke-Maass cusp form $u$ and $\ell\neq 0$ we have $$\mathcal{S}_A(x)+\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}(x) \ll_{u,\ell} x (\log x)^{-C}$$ for any constant $C > 0$.
Define $$\Phi ( x, z ) := \sum_{\substack{
a \leqslant x\\
p|a \Rightarrow p \leqslant z }} 1$$ to be the number of integers less than $x$ with prime factors less than $z$. For any $\alpha>0$, we have $$\Phi (x,z) \leqslant \sum_{\substack{a \leqslant x \\ p|a \Rightarrow p \leqslant z }}
\left(\frac{x}{a} \right)^{\alpha} \leqslant x^{\alpha} \prod_{p\leqslant z} \left( 1-\frac{1}{p^{\alpha}}\right)^{-1}.$$ Setting $\alpha=1-\eta$ with $\eta \longrightarrow 0$ as $z \longrightarrow \infty$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi (x,z) & \ll & x^{\alpha} \prod_{p\leqslant z} \left( 1+\frac{1}{p^{\alpha}}\right)\\
& \ll & x \exp(-\eta \log x + \sum_{p\leqslant z} \frac{1}{p} (1+(\eta \log p) z^{\eta}))\\
& \ll & x (\log z) \exp (-\eta \log x +\eta z^\eta (\log z)).\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $\eta = (\log z)^{-1}$ we get the bound $$\Phi (x,z) \ll x (\log z) \exp(-\frac{\log x}{\log z}). \label{Rank1}$$ Better bounds may be established (see \[deBr\]), however, (\[Rank1\]) is sufficient for our application.
In addition to (\[Rank1\]) we have $$\Psi ( x, z ) := \sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x\\
(b,P(z))=1
}} 1 \ll x \prod_{p \leqslant z} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right) \ll
\frac{x}{\log z} . \label{Psi}$$ Applying (\[Rank1\]), (\[Psi\]) and Lemma 4.2 to $\mathcal{S}_A( x )$ allows us to treat this sum immediately.
By Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 4.2 we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_A ( x ) & \leqslant & \bigg( \sum_{\substack{
x^{1 / 16} < a \leqslant x\\
p|a \Rightarrow p \leqslant z\\
}} \sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / a\\
(b, P(z))=1
}} 1 \bigg)^{1 / 2} \bigg( \sum_{n \leqslant x} | \lambda ( n ) |^4 \bigg)^{1 /
4} \bigg( \sum_{n \leqslant x} | \lambda ( n + \ell ) |^4 \bigg)^{1 / 4}\\
& \ll_{\ell} & \bigg( \frac{x}{\log z} \sum_{\substack{
x^{1 / 16} < a \leqslant x\\
p|a \Rightarrow p \leqslant z
}} \frac{1}{a} \bigg)^{1 / 2} \bigg( x ( \log x )^2 L_4(u,x) L_2^3(u,x)\bigg)^{1 / 2} \end{aligned}$$ with $L_2(u,x)$ and $L_4(u,x)$ as defined in (\[symmz\]). After partial summation, $$\nonumber \sum_{\substack{
x^{1 / 16} < a \leqslant x\\
p|a \Rightarrow p \leqslant z
}} \frac{1}{a}
\ll ( \log z ) ( \log x ) \exp ( - \frac{1}{16} \frac{\log x}{\log z} )$$ and combining our results establishes the bound $$\mathcal{S}_A(x) \ll_{\ell} x (\log x)^{3/2} \exp(-\frac{1}{32} \frac{\log x}{\log z})L_4^{1/2}(u, x) L_2^{3/2}(u,x).$$ After taking $z = x^{1 / s}$ we get $$\mathcal{S}_A ( x ) \ll_{u,\ell} x ( \log x )^{-C}$$ for any $C>0$ by choosing $s=c \log \log x$ appropriately. Applying the same analysis to $\mathcal{S}_{A_\ell}(x)$ concludes the proof of Lemma 5.1.
Square-full $b$ have small contribution
---------------------------------------
In this section, we justify the restriction to the sum over square-free $b$ in the proof of Theorem 1. Recall that in §2.3 we first removed square-full integers $b$ and then took advantage of positivity by setting our sifting sequence to be $\mathcal{A}=(\eta(b))$ for some new multiplicative function $\eta$ defined in (\[eta\]) claiming one only need apply the double upper-bound sieve to the sum (\[sievingsum\]) as the contribution from square-full $b$ would be small.
Starting with the sum over all $b$ for fixed $a,a_\ell\leqslant x^{1/16}$ with $(a,a_\ell)=1$, we write $$\sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / a\\
a_\ell b_\ell = ab + \ell\\
( bb_\ell, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} \lambda^2 ( b ) = \sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / a\\
a_\ell b_\ell = ab + \ell\\
( bb_\ell, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} \lambda^2 ( b ) \mu^2(b) + \mathfrak{S}_{a,a_\ell}(x,z)$$ where $\mathfrak{S}_{a,a_\ell}(x,z)$ is the sum over those $b$ which contain square factors. If we simply pull out the factor $m$ from $b$ which consists of all prime power factors $p^\alpha$ where $\alpha\geqslant 2$ we have $$\mathfrak{S}_{a,a_\ell}(x,z)=\sum^{\sharp\sharp}_{\substack{
z^2 \leqslant m \leqslant x / a\\
(m,P(z))=1}}
\lambda^2 ( m )
\sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / am\\
a_\ell b_\ell = amb + \ell\\
(b,m)=1\\
( bb_\ell, P ( z ) ) = 1
}} \lambda^2 ( b ) \mu^2(b).$$ The $\sharp \sharp$ super-script means that each prime power factor $p^\alpha$ dividing $m$ has $\alpha\geqslant 2$.
Dropping the co-primality conditions for $(b b_\ell,P(z))=1$ and $(b,m)=1$ by positivity while maintaining that $(a_\ell, am)=1$, we can apply Lemma 3d, since $\lambda^2(b)\mu^2(b) \leqslant \eta(b)$ for all $b$, to have $$\sum_{\substack{
b \leqslant x / am\\
a_\ell b_\ell = amb + \ell
}} \lambda^2 ( b ) \mu^2(b) \leqslant \frac{\theta}{\zeta(2)} L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1) \frac{x}{\varphi(a_\ell) am} + O_u\left(\left(\frac{x}{am}\right)^{3/4+\varepsilon} a_\ell^{1/2+\varepsilon}\right)$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ where $\theta$ is now $$\theta=\gamma_u \prod_{\substack{p\mid a_\ell \\ p\mid 6}} \left(1+\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)^{-1}\prod_{\substack{p\mid a_\ell \\ p\nmid 6}} \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2(p)}{p}\right)$$ with $$\frac{3}{5\pi^2} < \gamma_u < 15.$$ Noting that the Kim-Sarnak bound (\[KIMSARNAK\]) and partial summation gives $$\sum^{\sharp\sharp}_{\substack{
z^2 \leqslant m \leqslant x / a\\
(m,P(z))=1}}
\frac{\lambda^2 ( m )}{m^{3/4}} \ll z^{-1/32},$$ we see that $$\mathfrak{S}_{a,a_\ell}(x,z) \ll_u \frac{x}{a a_\ell z^{1/32}}.\label{mathfrakbound}$$ We therefore have the following Lemma.
For $\mathfrak{S}_{a,a_\ell}(x,z)$ as defined above, we have $$\sum_{\substack{
a, a_\ell \leqslant x^{1 / 16}\\
p|aa_\ell \Rightarrow p\leqslant z\\
(a,a_\ell)=1
}} \frac{| \lambda ( a ) \lambda ( a_\ell ) |}{ a a_\ell}\mathfrak{S}_{a,a_\ell}(x,z) \ll_u \frac{x}{z^{1/64}}$$
We insert the bound (\[mathfrakbound\]) to get $$\sum_{\substack{
a, a_\ell \leqslant x^{1 / 16}\\
p|aa_\ell \Rightarrow p\leqslant z\\
(a,a_\ell)=1
}} \frac{| \lambda ( a ) \lambda ( a_\ell ) |}{ a a_\ell}\mathfrak{S}_{a,a_\ell}(x,z) \ll_u \frac{x}{z^{1/32}} \prod_{p\leqslant z} \left(1+\frac{|\lambda(p)|}{p}\right)^2.$$ By arguing as in §4.1 we get the desired result.
Therefore the contribution from square-full $b$ is indeed small.
Reducing to shifted convolution sums
====================================
We demonstrate how one may relate the inner products $<f u_j, u_j>$ in the question of QUE to the study of a controlled number(independent of $t_j$) of shifted convolution sums of Hecke eigenvalues.
Fourier coefficients
--------------------
For $f$ a fixed cusp form or incomplete Eisenstein series, we can express $f$ as a Fourier series expansion of the type $$f ( z ) = a_0 ( y ) + \sum_{\ell \neq 0} a_{\ell} ( y ) e ( \ell x ), \label{2.3}$$ with $a_0 ( y ) = 0$ in the cusp form case. If $f ( z )$ is a fixed cusp form with $\Delta$ eigenvalue $1/4+r^{2}$, then we have the expansion $$f ( z ) = \sqrt{y} \sum_{\ell \neq 0} \rho ( \ell ) K_{ir} ( 2 \pi | \ell
|y ) e ( \ell x )$$ where the $\rho ( \ell )$ are complex numbers. For $f ( z ) = E ( z| \psi )$ the incomplete Eisenstein series $$E ( z| \psi ) : = \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\infty} \backslash \Gamma} \psi (
\textnormal{Im } \gamma z ),$$ where $\psi ( y )$ is a smooth function, compactly supported on $\mathbbm{R}^+$, the coefficients $a_{\ell} ( y )$ can be determined in terms of the coefficients of the Eisenstein series $$E ( z, s ) : = \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\infty} \backslash \Gamma} ( \textnormal{Im }
\gamma z )^s .$$ The latter has the Fourier expansion $$E ( z, s ) = y^s + \varphi ( s ) y^{1 - s} + \sqrt{y} \sum_{\ell \neq 0}
\varphi_{| \ell |} ( s ) K_{s - \frac{1}{2}} ( 2 \pi | \ell |y ) e ( \ell x
) \label{2.4}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi ( s ) = & \sqrt{\pi} \frac{\Gamma ( s - \frac{1}{2} ) \zeta ( 2 s -
1 )}{\Gamma ( s ) \zeta ( 2 s )} = & \frac{\theta ( 1 - s )}{\theta ( s
)},\\
\theta ( s ) = & \pi^{- s} \Gamma ( s ) \zeta ( 2 s ), & \\
\varphi_{\ell} ( s ) = & \frac{2}{\theta ( s )} \sum_{ab = \ell} \left(
\frac{a}{b} \right)^{s - \frac{1}{2}}, & \textnormal{if } \ell \geqslant 1.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\textnormal{res}_{s = 1} E ( z, s ) = \textnormal{res}_{s = 1} \varphi ( s ) = \frac{3}{\pi} . \label{2.5}$$ We have $$E ( z| \psi ) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( 2 )} \Psi ( - s ) E ( z, s ) ds
\label{2.5.5}$$ where $\Psi ( s )$ is the Mellin transform of $\psi ( y )$. This is an entire function with rapid decay in vertical strips, specifically $$\Psi ( s ) \ll ( |s| + 1 )^{- A}$$ for any $A \geqslant 0$, $- 2 \leqslant \textnormal{Re} ( s ) \leqslant 2$, with the implied constant depending only on $\psi$ and $A$.
From these formulas we find the coefficients of (\[2.3\]) in the incomplete Eisenstein series case, $$a_0 ( y ) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( 2 )} \Psi ( - s ) ( y^s + \varphi ( s
) y^{1 - s} ) ds = \psi ( y ) + O ( y^{- 1} )$$ and for $\ell \neq 0$ we move the integration to the line $\textnormal{Re}(s) = 1/2$ to get $$a_{\ell} ( y ) = \left( \frac{y}{\pi} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \int^{+
\infty}_{- \infty} \frac{\pi^{it} \Psi ( - \frac{1}{2} - it )}{\Gamma (
\frac{1}{2} + it ) \zeta ( 1 + 2 it )} \left( \sum_{ab = \ell} \left(
\frac{a}{b} \right)^{it} \right) K_{it} ( 2 \pi | \ell |y ) dt. \label{2.6}$$ Doing the same for $a_0 ( y )$ we get $$a_0 ( y ) = \frac{3}{\pi} \Psi ( - 1 ) + O ( \sqrt{y} ).$$ On the other hand, by unfolding the incomplete Eisenstein series $f$, we derive that $$< f, 1 > = \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} \int_0^{\infty} \psi ( y ) d \mu z = \Psi
( - 1 ).$$ Therefore, we have $$a_0 ( y ) = \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > + O ( \sqrt{y} ) \label{zerocoeffEisenstein}$$ which conveniently contains the expected main term $3/\pi <f,1>$ in (\[1\]). For $\ell \neq 0$ we employ (\[B.1\]) in Appendix B to (\[2.6\]) in order to obtain $$a_{\ell} ( y ) \ll \tau ( | \ell | ) | \ell |^{- 2} y^{- \frac{3}{2}} .$$ Here $\tau ( \ell )$ is the divisor function. In the case of the cusp form, we get a similar bound $$a_{\ell} ( y ) = \rho ( \ell ) \sqrt{y} K_{ir} ( 2 \pi | \ell |y ) \ll |
\rho ( \ell ) || \ell |^{- 2} y^{- \frac{3}{2}} ( r^2 + 1 ) . \label{2.8a}$$ We state the results in the following Lemma.
Let $f \in \mathcal{A} ( X )$ be an automorphic function on $X =
{\rm SL}\sb 2(\mathbbm{Z}) \backslash \mathbbm{H}$ with Fourier series expansion $$f ( z ) = a_0 ( y ) + \sum_{\ell \neq 0} a_{\ell} ( y ) e ( \ell x ) .$$ If $f$ is a cusp form in $\mathcal{A}_s ( X )$, then $$\begin{aligned}
& & a_0 ( y ) = 0 \textnormal{ and}\\
& & a_{\ell} ( y ) \ll | \rho ( \ell ) || \ell |^{- 2} y^{- \frac{3}{2}} (
|s|^2 + 1 ) \textnormal{ for } \ell \neq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ For $f$ an incomplete Eisenstein series, $$\begin{aligned}
& & a_0 ( y ) = \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > + O ( \sqrt{y} ) \textnormal{ and}\\
& & a_{\ell} ( y ) \ll \tau ( | \ell | ) | \ell |^{- 2} y^{- \frac{3}{2}} \textnormal{ for } \ell \neq 0.
\end{aligned}$$
One should note, that the bound (\[2.8a\]) depends heavily on the spectral parameter $r$. When $f$ is a fixed cusp form during analysis, this will cause no problem in estimations as $r$ will be a fixed constant. Much more careful attention has to be paid when we will be appealing to the Fourier series expansions of the variable cusp forms $u_j$. Estimates must here be explicit and quite precise in terms of the spectral parameter $t_j$.
By (\[Iw\], 8.7) we have $$\sum_{|n| \leqslant x} | \rho_j ( n ) |^2 \ll ( t_j + x ) e^{\pi t_j} \label{2.9a}$$ where the implied constant is absolute. The second moment (\[2.9a\]), will make an appearance when our analysis forces us to finally consider the inner product $< u_j, u_j >$ in terms of the Fourier expansions for the variable cusp forms $u_j$. At that point, the introduction of the spectral parameter is unavoidable.
Transformations by unfolding method
-----------------------------------
Let $u ( z )$ be a cusp form with $\Delta$ eigenvalue $\lambda = 1 / 4 + r^2$ and $f (
z )$ an automorphic function which is smooth and bounded on $\mathbbm{H}$. We are going to compute the inner product $< fu, u >$ asymptotically in two ways by an unfolding technique. To this end, we fix a function $g ( y ) \in
C^{\infty}_c (\mathbbm{R}^+ )$, smooth and compactly supported on $\mathbbm{R}^+$, and let $$G ( s ) := \int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) y^{s - 1} dy$$ be its Mellin transform. Therefore, $G ( s )$ is entire and $$G ( s ) \ll ( |s| + 1 )^{- A}$$ for any $A \geqslant 0$, uniformly in vertical strips, where the implied constant depends on $g$ and $A$.
Let $X \geqslant 1$ and consider the integral $$I_f ( X ) := \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( \sigma )} G ( - s ) X^s
\int_{\Gamma \backslash \mathbbm{H}} E ( z, s ) f ( z ) |u ( z ) |^2 d \mu zds \label{3.2}$$ with $\sigma > 1$. Unfolding the inner integral we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber I_f ( X ) & = & \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( \sigma )} G ( - s ) X^s \int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}y^s f ( z
) |u ( z ) |^2 d \mu zds\\
& = & \int^{\infty}_0 g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} f ( z
) |u ( z ) |^2 dx \right) dy. \label{3.3}\end{aligned}$$ We show that our integral $I_f ( X )$ is bounded by $X$ by using the following Lemma(\[Iw\], Lemma 2.10).
Let $z \in \mathbbm{H}$ and $Y > 0$. We have $$\# \left\{ \gamma \in \Gamma_{\infty} \backslash \Gamma \, | \, \textnormal{Im} (
\gamma z ) > Y \right\} < 1 + \frac{10}{Y} .$$
Since $g ( Xy )$ will be supported on $y \asymp 1 /
X$ and $f ( z )$ is bounded, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber I_f ( X ) & \ll_{f, g} & \int_{y \asymp 1 / X} \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} |u ( z
) |^2 d \mu z\\
& \ll_{f, g} & X. \label{3.4}\end{aligned}$$
For an alternate result to (\[3.3\]), we evaluate $I_f ( X )$ by shifting the line of integration. Starting with equation (\[3.2\]) and moving the contour of integration to the line $\textnormal{Re}(s) = 1/2$, we pick up the main term $$M_f ( X ) = \frac{3}{\pi} G ( - 1 ) X < fu, u > \label{Mf}$$ from the pole of the Eisenstein series at $s = 1$ and obtain the bound $R_f ( X ) \ll X$ from (\[3.4\]) where $R_f ( X )$ is the remaining term $$R_f ( X ) = \int_{\Gamma \backslash \mathbbm{H}} p(z) f ( z ) |u ( z ) |^2 d
\mu z$$ with $$p(z):=\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( 1 / 2 )} G ( - s ) X^s E ( z, s ) ds.$$ With this notation, we now write $$I_f ( X ) = M_f ( X ) + R_f ( X ) \label{3.5555}$$ and would like to have $R_f ( X )$ small.
From the Fourier series expansion (\[2.4\]) for the Eisenstein series $E ( z, s )$ and (\[B.1\]) in Appendix B we have $$\begin{aligned}
E ( z, s ) & = & y^s + \varphi ( s ) y^{1 - s} + O ( |s|^2 y^{- 3 / 2} )\\
& \ll & \sqrt{y} + |s|^2 y^{- 3 / 2}\end{aligned}$$ on the line $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) = 1 / 2$. Hence $p ( z ) \ll \sqrt{yX}$ if $y
\geqslant 1 / 2$. Assuming that $\sqrt{y} |f ( z ) |$ is bounded on $\mathbbm{H}$, we conclude that $R_f ( X ) \ll_{f,g} \sqrt{X} .$
Note that this condition is satisfied for $f ( z )$ an incomplete Eisenstein series or a cusp form, and so for these cases $R_f ( X ) \ll_{f,g} \sqrt{X}$. However, even in the simple case of the constant function, we can not make this conclusion. Having the two formulas (\[3.3\]) and (\[3.5555\]) for $I_f ( X )$ brings us to $$M_f(X) = \int^{\infty}_0 g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} f ( z
) |u ( z ) |^2 dx \right) dy + O ( \sqrt{X} ) \label{3.1000}$$ which, upon recalling the definition of $M_f(X)$ in (\[Mf\]), provides the relation between $< fu, u >$ and the relevant shifted convolution sums which come out of the inner integral. The main term on the right, will appear from the zero-th coefficient of $f ( z )$ which is given as $$a_0 ( y ) = \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > + O ( X^{- 1 / 2} ) \label{3.6} .$$ This is consistent with Lemma A.1 since $< f, 1 > = a_0 ( y
)=0$ for $f$ a cusp form and $g ( Xy )$ is supported on $y \asymp 1 / X$.
Now that we’ve unfolded the integral, our plan is to start picking away at parts of the remaining integral in (\[3.1000\]) which we will be able to show are small until we are left with a shifted convolution sum in the appropriate range. Writing $f^{\ast} ( z ) : = f ( z ) - a_0 ( y )$ and substituting into (\[3.1000\]) we get $$M_f(X) = \{ \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > + O (
X^{- 1 / 2} ) \} I_1 ( X ) + I_{f^{\ast}} ( X ) + O ( \sqrt{X} )$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I_{f^{\ast}} ( X ) & = & \int^{\infty}_0 g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} \left( \int^{1 /
2}_{- 1 / 2} f^{\ast} ( z ) |u ( z ) |^2 dx \right) dy, \textnormal{ and} \label{3.13}\\
\nonumber I_1 ( X ) & = & \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( \sigma )} G ( - s ) X^s
\int_{\Gamma \backslash \mathbbm{H}} E ( z, s ) |u ( z ) |^2 d \mu zds, \textnormal{ for } \sigma > 1.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, upon moving $\sigma$ to the left in $I_1$, $$M_f(X) = \{ \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > + O (
X^{- 1 / 2} ) \} \{ \frac{3}{\pi} G ( - 1 ) X + R_1 ( X ) \} + I_{f^{\ast}} ( X ) + O ( \sqrt{X} )$$ where $$R_1 ( X ) = \int_{\Gamma \backslash \mathbbm{H}} p ( z ) |u ( z ) |^2 d \mu z.$$ We see that the pole at $s = 1$ contributes the correct main term $$\frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > \frac{3}{\pi} G ( - 1 ) X$$ and we can write $$M_f(X) = \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > \frac{3}{\pi}
G ( - 1 ) X + I_{f^{\ast}} ( X ) + O ( \sqrt{X} ) \label{3.12}$$ provided $R_1 ( X ) \ll \sqrt{X}$. However, $\sqrt{y}$ is unbounded on $\mathbbm{H}$ and therefore we have to apply some other analysis to properly bound $R_1 ( X )$. We appeal to the Rankin-Selberg zeta function $$Z ( s ) = \sum_{n \neq 0} | \rho ( n ) |^2 |n|^{- s}$$ at the cost of introducing the spectral parameter coming from analysis of the $K$-Bessel function.
We write $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 ( X ) & = & \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( 1 / 2 )} G ( - s ) X^s
\int_{\Gamma \backslash \mathbbm{H}} E ( z, s ) |u ( z ) |^2 d \mu z ds\\
& = & \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( 1 / 2 )} G ( - s ) X^s \sum_{n \neq 0} |
\rho ( n ) |^2 \left( \int_0^{\infty} y^{s - 1} K^2_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) dy
\right) ds\\
& = & \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( 1 / 2 )} G ( - s ) \left( \frac{X}{2 \pi}
\right)^s Z ( s ) \left( \int_0^{\infty} y^{s - 1} K^2_{ir} ( y ) dy \right)
ds\\
& \ll & \frac{X^{1/2}}{r^{1/2}} e^{-\pi r} \int_{( 1 / 2 )} |G ( - s ) Z ( s )| |ds|\end{aligned}$$ by (\[A.12\]) in Lemma B.2. Therefore, the remainder $R_1 ( X )$ will contribute $O ( \sqrt{X} )$, independent of the spectral parameter $r$, provided $Z ( s )$ satisfies the bound $$Z ( s ) \ll |s|^{10} r^\frac{1}{2} e^{\pi r}, \textnormal{ for Re}(s)=1/2 . \label{logfreeconvex}$$ Assuming this “log-free" convexity bound, the remaining work will be to simultaneously evaluate $I_{f^{\ast}} ( X )$ for the cases of $f$ an incomplete Eisenstein series or a cusp form. Note that $f^{\ast} ( z )$ is bounded on $\mathbbm{H}$ because both $f ( z )$ and $a_0 ( y )$ are bounded. We’ve arrived at the following lemma.
Let $X \geqslant 1$. For any $g ( y ) \in C^{\infty}_c (\mathbbm{R}^+ )$, any Hecke-Maass cusp form $u(z)$, and any Hecke-Maass cusp form or incomplete Eisenstein series $f(z)$ with Fourier expansion $$f ( z ) = a_0(y)+f^{\ast}(z) = a_0(y)+\sum_{\ell \neq 0} a_{\ell} ( y ) e ( \ell x ),$$ define the integral $$I_{f^{\ast}} ( X ) : = \int^{\infty}_0 g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} \left( \int^{1 /
2}_{- 1 / 2} f^{\ast} ( z ) |u ( z ) |^2 dx \right) dy.$$ Then for $f(z)$ a cusp form, $$\frac{3}{\pi} G ( - 1 ) X < fu, u > = I_{f^{\ast}} ( X ) + O ( X^{1 /
2} ) .$$ Furthermore, if the Rankin-Selberg zeta function associated with $u(z)$ $$Z ( s ) := \sum_{n \neq 0} | \rho ( n ) |^2 |n|^{- s}$$ satisfies the bound $$Z(s) \ll |s|^{10} r^\frac{1}{2} e^{\pi r} \textnormal{ for Re}(s)=1/2,$$ then $$\frac{3}{\pi} G ( - 1 ) X < fu, u > =\frac{3}{\pi} G ( - 1 ) X \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > + I_{f^{\ast}} ( X ) + O ( X^{1 / 2} ).$$
Our goal now is to show that $I_{f^{\ast}} ( X )$ is much smaller than $X$.
Truncation of the fixed function
--------------------------------
The fixed function $f^{\ast} ( z )$ from the previous section will have the Fourier expansion $$f^{\ast} ( z ) = \sum_{\ell \neq 0} a_{\ell} ( y ) e ( \ell x ) \label{4.111111111}$$ with coefficient bounds as seen in Lemma A.1. If $f^{\ast} ( z )$ came from an incomplete Eisenstein series, then we find that the tail of (\[4.111111111\]) with $| \ell | \geqslant L$ is bounded by $$y^{- 3 / 2} \sum_{| \ell | \geqslant L} \frac{\tau ( \ell )}{\ell^2} \ll
y^{- 3 / 2} \frac{\log L}{L} \asymp X^{3 / 2} \frac{\log L}{L}$$ for $y \asymp 1 / X$ which is in the range of the integral (\[3.13\]). Hence these terms contribute to $I_{f^{\ast}} ( X )$ at most $$X^{3 / 2} L^{- 1} ( \log L ) I_1 ( X ) \ll X^{5 / 2} L^{- 1} \log L.$$ A similar argument works when $f^{\ast} ( z )$ comes from a fixed cusp form $f ( z )$ in which case $f^{\ast} ( z ) = f ( z
)$. In this case, we use the bound \[K-Sa\] $$\rho ( \ell ) \ll \ell^{7 / 64} \tau(\ell) \label{KSa}$$ to show that the tail contributes at most $X^{5 / 2} {L^{-57 / 64}} \log L$. Choosing $L = X^2$ in either case gives us $$I^{\ast}_f ( X ) = I_{f_L} ( X ) + O(X^{3/4})$$ where $I_{f_L} ( X )$ is given by (\[3.13\]) with $f ( z )$ replaced by $$f_L ( z ) = \sum_{0 < | \ell | < L} a_{\ell} ( y ) e ( \ell x ) .$$ Notice that $f_L ( z )$ is bounded on $\mathbbm{H}$. Now we are left with showing that $$I_{f_L} ( X ) = \int^{\infty}_0 g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1
/ 2} f_L ( z ) |u ( z ) |^2 dx \right) dy \label{4.3}$$ has order of magnitude smaller than $X$.
Truncation of the variable cusp form
------------------------------------
Recall that a cusp form $u ( z )$ has the Fourier expansion $$u ( z ) = \sqrt{y} \sum_{n \neq 0} \rho ( n ) K_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) e ( nx
) .$$ We shall see that the key contribution to $I_{f_L} ( X )$ in (\[4.3\]) comes from the middle coefficients of $u ( z )$ with $|n|$ about $rX$ for $y \asymp 1 /
X$. Therefore we write $$u ( z ) = u^{\ast} ( z ) + u_1 ( z ) + u_2 ( z )$$ where $$u^{\ast} ( z ) = \sqrt{y} \sum_{n \neq 0} h \left( \bigg| \frac{n}{rX} \bigg|
\right) \rho ( n ) K_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) e ( nx )$$ and $h ( v )$ is some smooth, compactly supported function with $h(v)=1$ for $v\in [1/V,V]$ and $h(v)=0$ for $v$ outside of $[1/2V,2V]$, with $1 \leqslant V \leqslant X$ to be chosen appropriately. Then $u_1 ( z )$ is the missing partial sum with $|n| \ll rX / V$ and $u_2 ( z )$ is the missing partial sum with $|n| \gg rXV$. Put $u_3 ( z ) = u_1 ( z ) + u_2 ( z
)$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
|u^{\ast} ( z ) |^2 & = & |u ( z ) - u_3 ( z ) |^2\\
& = & |u ( z ) |^2 - 2 \textnormal{Re}\left(u ( z ) u_3 ( z )\right) + |u_3 ( z ) |^2 .\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by the boundedness of $f_L ( z )$ we derive from (\[4.3\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
I_{f_L} ( X ) & = & \int^{\infty}_0 g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{-
1 / 2} f_L ( z ) |u^{\ast} ( z ) |^2 dx \right) dy\\
& & + O \left( \int^{\infty}_0 \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} ( |u ( z )
u_3 ( z ) | + |u_3 ( z ) |^2 ) dx \right) g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} dy \right)\\
& = & I^{\ast}_{f_L} ( X ) + O ( R ( X ) ),\end{aligned}$$ say. By the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality we get $$R ( X ) \leqslant I_1 ( X )^{1 / 2} R_3 ( X )^{1 / 2} + R_3 ( X ) \label{5.5}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 ( X ) & = & \int^{\infty}_0 \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} |u ( z )
|^2 dx \right) g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} dy \\
R_3 ( X ) & = & \int^{\infty}_0 \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} |u_3 ( z )
|^2 dx \right) g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} dy.\end{aligned}$$ We already know that $I_1 ( X ) \ll X$, so it remains to estimate $R_3 ( X )$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
R_3 ( X ) & \leqslant & 2 \int^{\infty}_0 \left( \int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2}
|u_1 ( z ) |^2 dx \right) g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} dy\\
& & + 2 \int^{\infty}_0 \left(
\int^{1 / 2}_{- 1 / 2} |u_2 ( z ) |^2 dx \right) g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} dy\\
& = & 2 R_1 ( X ) + 2 R_2 ( X )\end{aligned}$$ and we will estimate $R_1 ( X )$ and $R_2 ( X )$ directly. We have $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 ( X ) & \leqslant & \sum_{|n| < rX / V} | \rho ( n ) |^2 \int_0^{\infty}
g ( Xy ) K^2_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) y^{- 1} dy\\
R_2 ( X ) & \leqslant & \sum_{|n| > rXV} | \rho ( n ) |^2 \int_0^{\infty} g
( Xy ) K^2_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) y^{- 1} dy\end{aligned}$$ and by Theorem B.5 and Corollary B.2, $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 ( X ) & \ll & \sum_{|n| < rX / V} | \rho ( n ) |^2 \frac{1}{r} e^{-\pi r}\\
R_2 ( X ) & \ll & \sum_{|n| > rXV} | \rho ( n ) |^2 \left(\frac{X}{n}\right)^{2} r e^{-\pi r}\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 ( X ) \ll \frac{X}{V} & \textnormal{and} & R_2 ( X ) \ll \frac{X}{V} .\end{aligned}$$ Hence $R_3 ( X ) \ll X / V$ and by (\[5.5\]) we conclude that $$R ( X ) \ll XV^{- 1 / 2} .$$ This bound is smaller than the main term in (\[3.12\]) if $V$ is chosen to be sufficiently large.
Opening $I^{\ast}_{f_L} ( X )$
------------------------------
We are left with evaluating $$I^{\ast}_{f_L} ( X ) = \int^{\infty}_0 g ( Xy ) y^{- 2} \left( \int^{1 /
2}_{- 1 / 2} f_L ( z ) |u^{\ast} ( z ) |^2 dx \right) dy \label{6.1}$$ where $$f_L ( z ) = \sum_{0 < | \ell | < L} a_{\ell} ( y ) e ( \ell x )$$ and $$u^{\ast} ( z ) = \sqrt{y} \sum_{n \neq 0} h \left( \bigg| \frac{n}{rX} \bigg|
\right) \rho ( n ) K_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) e ( nx ) .$$ Recall that $h ( v )$ is a nice compactly supported function at our disposal and that $L$ can be taken to be $X^2$. Hence $$I^{\ast}_{f_L} ( X ) = \sum_{0 < |\ell| \leqslant L} S_{\ell} ( X ) \label{4.2}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber S_{\ell} ( X ) & = & \sum_n h \left( \bigg| \frac{n}{rX} \bigg| \right) h \left( \bigg|
\frac{n + \ell}{rX} \bigg| \right) \overline{\rho ( n )} \rho ( n + \ell )\\
& & \times \int^{\infty}_0 a_{\ell} ( y ) g ( Xy ) K_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y )
K_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n + \ell |y ) y^{- 1} dy. \label{6.3}\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma A.2b, §A.3, §A.4 and (\[6.3\]) we can now state the following theorem.
Let $X \geqslant 1$, $S_{\ell} ( X )$ be as in [(\[6.3\])]{.nodecor}, and let $u(z)$ be the variable cusp form with Fourier expansion $$u ( z ) = \sqrt{y} \sum_{n \neq 0} \rho ( n ) K_{ir} ( 2 \pi |n|y ) e ( nx ).$$ Then for any fixed cusp form $f ( z )$, $$< fu, u > = \frac{\pi}{3} \left(G( - 1 ) X\right)^{-1} \sum_{0 < | \ell | \leqslant
X^2} S_{\ell} ( X ) + O(X^{-\delta})$$ for some constant $\delta>0$. Furthermore, if the Rankin-Selberg zeta function associated with $u(z)$ $$Z ( s ) := \sum_{n \neq 0} | \rho ( n ) |^2 |n|^{- s}$$ satisfies the bound $$Z ( s ) \ll |s|^{10} r^\frac{1}{2} e^{\pi r}, \textnormal{ for Re}(s)=1/2,$$ then for any fixed incomplete Eisenstein series $f(z)$, $$< fu, u > = \frac{3}{\pi} < f, 1 > +
\frac{\pi}{3} \left(G( - 1 ) X\right)^{-1} \sum_{0 < | \ell | \leqslant X^2} S_{\ell} ( X ) + O(X^{-\delta})$$ for the same constant $\delta>0$.
By Theorem A.5, in order to prove (\[1\]) and QUE, it only remains to show that for each fixed $0<|\ell|<X^2$ and test function $g ( y )$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\ell} ( X ) = o ( 1 ) & \textnormal{as} & r \longrightarrow \infty. \label{rateofconv}\end{aligned}$$ One may choose to proceed by looking for cancellations in $S_\ell(X)$, but we believe that summing over absolute values should be sufficient for obtaining (\[rateofconv\]). Appealing to Theorem B.5, we get a convenient normalization of our coefficients $\rho(n)$. In particular, with each $a_\ell(y)$ bounded as in Lemma A.1, we can bound $S_\ell(X)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
S_\ell(X)& \ll & \sum_{n\asymp r} |\overline{\rho(n)} \rho(n+\ell)| \int_{0}^{\infty} g(y) K_{ir}^2\left(\frac{2\pi|n|}{X} y \right)y^{-1} dy \nonumber \\
& \ll &\sum_{n\asymp r} \frac{|\overline{\rho ( n )} \rho ( n + \ell )|}{r \cosh( \pi r )} = \sum_{n\asymp r} \frac{|\lambda ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell )|}{r L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u,1)} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the implied constant depending on $\ell$, the test functions $h,g$ and $X$. Therefore, if one shows that for fixed $0<|\ell|<X^2$, $$\sum_{n\asymp r} \left|{\lambda} ( n ) \lambda ( n + \ell )\right| = o ( r L(\textnormal{sym}^2 u, 1) )$$ as $r\longrightarrow \infty$, then applying Theorem A.5 and sending $X\longrightarrow \infty$ arbitrarily slowly will prove (\[1\]) and QUE modulo the “log-free" convexity bound (\[logfreeconvex\]).
Properties of the $K$-Bessel function
=====================================
The modified Bessel functions are solutions to the second order differential equation $$z^2 f'' + zf' - ( z^2 + \nu^2 ) f = 0.$$ One solution for $f$ is given by the power series $$I_{\nu} ( z ) : = \sum^{\infty}_{k = 0} \frac{1}{k! \Gamma ( k + 1 + \nu )}
\left( \frac{z}{2} \right)^{\nu + 2 k} .$$ A second solution is given by $$K_{\nu} ( z ) : = \frac{\pi}{2} ( \sin \pi \nu )^{- 1} ( I_{- \nu} ( z ) -
I_{\nu} ( z ) ). \label{A.1}$$ We refer to $\nu$ as the “order” and $z$ as the “argument” of the Bessel function.
In the real variable $y$, the Bessel function $K_{\nu} ( y )$ can be well approximated outside of the range $y \asymp 1 + | \nu |$. We can get a good approximation for small $y$ from the power series expansion and have (\[Iw\], B.36) $$K_{\nu} ( y ) = \left( \frac{\pi}{2 y} \right)^{1 / 2} e^{- y} \left( 1 + O
\left( \frac{1 + | \nu |^2}{y} \right) \right) \label{A.2},$$ which gives exponential decay in $y$ for $y > 1 + | \nu |^2$.
Two useful formulas are the integral representation (\[Iw\], p. 227) $$K_{\nu} ( z ) = \pi^{- 1 / 2} \Gamma \left( \nu + \frac{1}{2} \right)
\left( \frac{z}{2} \right)^{- \nu} \int_0^{+ \infty} ( t^2 + 1 )^{- \nu -
1 / 2} \cos ( tz ) dt \label{A.3}$$ and the Mellin transform (\[Iw\], p. 228) $$\int_0^{+ \infty} K_{\mu} ( y ) K_{\nu} ( y ) y^{s - 1} dy = 2^{s - 3}
\Gamma ( s )^{- 1} \prod \Gamma \left( \frac{s \pm \mu \pm \nu}{2} \right)
\label{A.4}$$ for $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) > | \textnormal{Re} \mu | + | \textnormal{Re} ( \nu ) |$. From the integral representation (\[A.3\]), the following bound is known for real $z$ and imaginary order $ir$ $$K_{ir} ( y ) \ll | \Gamma ( \frac{1}{2} + ir ) | \frac{1 + r^2}{y^2} . \label{B.1}$$ Furthermore, when $\mu = \nu = ir$, with $r \in \mathbbm{R}^+$ in the Mellin transform (\[A.4\]), we get the following bound for $s = \sigma + it$ with $\sigma > 0$ by Stirling’s formula, $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{s - 1} dy \ll_{\sigma} \frac{1}{(
|t| + \sigma )^{1 / 2}} \min \left\{ r^{\sigma - 1} e^{- \pi r}, |
t|^{\sigma - 1} e^{- \pi |t| / 2} \right\} \label{A.11} .$$ In particular, for $0 < \sigma \leqslant 3 / 2$ we have $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{s - 1} dy \ll_{\sigma} r^{\sigma - 1} e^{- \pi r}. \label{A.12}$$
For $s = 0$ we see that the integral can not be bounded in this manner. However, a bound can be established when integrating against a smooth compactly supported function $g$ with Mellin transform $$G ( s ) := \int_0^{+ \infty} g ( y ) y^{s - 1} dy$$ which will be entire and satisfies $$G ( s ) \ll_{g, A} ( |s| + 1 )^{- A} \label{A.13}$$ for any $A \geqslant 0$, uniformly in vertical strips. Therefore, for $g \in
C^{\infty}_c (\mathbbm{R}^+ )$, $$g ( y ) = \frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( \sigma )} G ( s ) y^{- s} ds$$ converges for all $- B \leqslant \sigma \leqslant B$ for any $B$ with $y > 0$. The integral now under consideration is $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{- 1} dy = \frac{1}{2 \pi i}
\int_{( \sigma )} G ( - s ) \int^{+ \infty}_0 K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{s - 1}
dyds. \label{A.14}$$ The contribution of $|t|^{\sigma - 1}$ for large $\sigma$ and large $t$ in (\[A.11\]) is now dominated by our function $G ( s )$, provided we take $A$ large enough in (\[A.13\]). Upon integrating with respect to $s$ we arrive at the following lemma.
For any smooth, compactly supported function $g ( y )$, order $\nu = ir$ with $r > 0$, and $\sigma > 0$ we have $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{- 1} dy \ll_{\sigma, g}
r^{\sigma - 1} e^{- \pi r} . \label{A.15}$$
For any smooth, compactly supported function $g ( y )$, constant $w > 0$, order $\nu = ir$ with $r > 0$, and $\sigma > 0$ we have $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) K^2_{\nu} ( wy ) y^{- 1} dy \ll_{\sigma, g}
\frac{1}{r} e^{- \pi r} \left( \frac{r}{w} \right)^{\sigma} . \label{A.16}$$
Corollary B.2 is particularly nice for constants $w \geqslant r$. In order to establish an equally good result for small $w$, we return to the Mellin transform (\[A.4\]), apply the duplication formula for the gamma function and move the contour line $( \sigma )$ in (\[A.14\]) to the left of $s = 0$. However, $\Gamma ( s )$ has a simple pole at each negative integer so we take care to not move the contour so far as to pick up any of these poles. Moving the contour to any $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) = \delta > - 2$, we pick up the simple poles of the $\Gamma$ factors at $s = 0, 2 ir, - 2 ir$, and our integral (\[A.14\]) equals $$\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( \delta )} G ( - s ) \left( \int^{+\infty}_0 K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{s - 1} dy \right) ds+\sum_{s=-2ir,0,2ir} \textnormal{res}_{s} \textnormal{GF} (s)$$ where $$\textnormal{GF} ( s ) = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{4} \frac{\Gamma \left( \frac{s}{2}
\right)}{\Gamma \left( \frac{s + 1}{2} \right)} \Gamma \left( \frac{s + 2
ir}{2} \right) \Gamma \left( \frac{s - 2 ir}{2} \right) G ( - s ) .$$ Since the residue at $s = 0$ of $\Gamma ( s )$ is 1 and $\Gamma ( 1 / 2 ) =
\sqrt{\pi}$, the residues of $\textnormal{GF} ( s )$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\textnormal{res}_{s = 0} \textnormal{GF} ( s ) & = & \frac{1}{4} \Gamma ( ir ) \Gamma
( - ir ) G ( 0 ),\\
\textnormal{res}_{s = 2 ir} \textnormal{GF} ( s ) & = & \frac{1}{8} \Gamma^2 ( ir ) G (
- 2 ir ),\\
\textnormal{res}_{s = - 2 ir} \textnormal{GF} ( s ) & = & \frac{1}{8} \Gamma^2 ( - ir )
G ( 2 ir )\end{aligned}$$ and because $G ( \pm 2 ir ) \ll ( r + 1 )^{- A}$, the residues contribute $$\frac{1}{4} \Gamma ( ir ) \Gamma ( - ir ) \{ G ( 0 ) + O ( r^{- 2} ) \} .
\label{A.17}$$ Integrating on the line $\textnormal{Re} ( s ) = \delta = - 1$ gives $$\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{( - 1 )} G ( - s ) \left( \int^{+ \infty}_0
K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{s - 1} dy \right) ds \ll_g \frac{1}{r^2} e^{- \pi r}, \label{A.18}$$ by similar analysis which led us to Lemma B.1, and also gives the following Lemma.
For any smooth, compactly supported function $g ( y )$, order $\nu = ir$ with $r > 0$, we have $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) K^2_{\nu} ( y ) y^{- 1} dy = \frac{1}{4}
\Gamma ( ir ) \Gamma ( - ir ) \{ G ( 0 ) + O ( r^{- 2} ) \} + O_g (
\frac{1}{r^2} e^{- \pi r} ) . \label{A.19}$$
Introducing the constant $w$ gives
For any smooth, compactly supported function $g ( y )$, constant $w > 0$, order $\nu = ir$ with $r > 0$, we have $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) K^2_{\nu} ( wy ) y^{- 1} dy = \frac{1}{4}
\Gamma ( ir ) \Gamma ( - ir ) \{ G ( 0 ) + O ( r^{- 2} ) \} + O_g (
\frac{w}{r^2} e^{- \pi r} ) .$$
By Corollary B.4, since $\Gamma ( ir ) \Gamma ( - ir ) \ll \frac{1}{r} e^{- \pi
r}$, we get $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) K^2_{\nu} ( wy ) y^{- 1} dy \ll_g \frac{1}{r}
e^{- \pi r} + \frac{w}{r^2} e^{- \pi r} . \label{A.20}$$ Combining this with Corollary B.2, we see that the same bound exists for any attached positive constant $w$.
For any smooth, compactly supported function $g ( y )$, constant $w > 0$, order $\nu = ir$ with $r > 0$, we have $$\int^{+ \infty}_0 g ( y ) K^2_{\nu} ( wy ) y^{- 1} dy \ll_g \frac{1}{r}
e^{- \pi r} . \label{A.21}$$
This establishes all of the necessary properties for our applications.
de Bruijn, N. G. On the number of positive integers $\leq x$ and free prime factors $>y$. II. *Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A 69=Indag. Math.* **28** (1966), 239–247. Elliott, P. D. T. A.; Moreno, C. J.; Shahidi, F. On the absolute value of Ramanujan’s $\tau $-function. *Math. Ann.* **266** (1984), no. 4, 507–511. Friedlander, J.B.; Iwaniec, H. Hyperbolic Prime Number Theorem. *preprint, to appear in Acta Mathematica.* (2006). Goldfeld, D.; Hoffstein, J.; Lieman, D. An effective zero-free region. *Ann. of Math. (2)* **140** (1994), no. 1, 177–181, appendix of \[H-L\]. Hoffstein, J.; Lockhart, P. Coefficients of Maass forms and the Siegel zero. *Ann. of Math.* (2) **140** (1994), no. 1, 161–181. Iwaniec, H. Introduction to the Spectral Theory of Automorphic Forms. Biblioteca de la Revista Matemática Iberoamericana. \[Library of the Revista Matemática Iberoamericana\] *Revista Matemática Iberoamericana*, Madrid, 1995. xiv+247 pp. Iwaniec, H; Kowalski, E. Analytic Number Theory. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 53. *American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI*, 2004. xii+615 pp. Iwaniec, H.; Sarnak, P. Perspectives on the analytic theory of $L$-functions. GAFA 2000 (Tel Aviv, 1999). *Geom. Funct. Anal.* **2000**, Special Volume, Part II, 705–741. Kim, H. Functoriality for the exterior square of ${\rm GL}\sb 4$ and the symmetric fourth of ${\rm GL}\sb 2$. *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **16** (2003), no. 1, 139–183. Kim, H.; Sarnak, P. Refined estimates towards the Ramanujan and Selberg Conjectures. *J. Amer. Math. Soc.*, **16** (2003), 175–181. Kim, H.; Shahidi, F. Functorial products for $\rm GL\sb 2\times GL\sb 3$ and functorial symmetric cube for $\rm GL\sb 2$. *C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math.* **331** (2000), no. 8, 599–604. Lindenstrauss, E. Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity. *Ann. of Math. (2)* **163** (2006), no. 1, 165–219. Luo, W.; Sarnak, P. Mass equidistribution for Hecke eigenforms. *Comm. Pure Appl. Math*. **56** (2003), no. 7, 874–891. Lau, Y.; Wu, J. A density theorem on automorphic $L$-functions and some applications. *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **358** (2006), no. 1, 441–472 (electronic). Murty, M. R. Oscillations of Fourier coefficients of modular forms. *Math. Ann*. **262** (1983), no. 4, 431–446. Rankin, R. A. Sums of powers of cusp form coefficients. *Math. Ann*. **263** (1983), no. 2, 227–236. Rankin, R. A. Sums of powers of cusp form coefficients. II. *Math. Ann*. **272** (1985), no. 4, 593–600. Rudnick, Z.; Sarnak, P. The behaviour of eigenstates of arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds. *Comm. Math. Phys*. **161** (1994), no. 1, 195–213. Selberg, A. On the estimation of Fourier coefficients of modular forms. *Proc. Sympos. Pure Math*. (1965), Vol. VIII pp. 1-15 Amer. Math. Soc.,Providence, R.I.
[^1]: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under agreement No. DMS-0111298 and No. DMS-03-01168 and also partially supported by NSERC. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
---
\[firstpage\]
\[lastpage\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In order to understand the impact of random influences at physical boundary on the evolution of multiscale systems, a stochastic partial differential equation model under a fast random dynamical boundary condition is investigated. The noises in the model and in the boundary condition are both *additive*. An effective equation is derived and justified by reducing the random *dynamical* boundary condition to a simpler one. The effective system is still a stochastic partial differential equation. Furthermore, the quantitative comparison between the solution of the original stochastic system and the effective solution is provided by establishing normal deviations and large deviations principles. Namely, the normal deviations are asymptotically characterized, while the rate and speed of the large deviations are estimated.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Nanjing University\
Nanjing, 210093, China
- |
Department of Applied Mathematics\
Illinois Institute of Technology\
Chicago, IL 60616, USA
author:
- Wei Wang and Jinqiao Duan
date: 'August 7, 2008'
title: Reductions and deviations for stochastic partial differential equations under fast dynamical boundary conditions
---
[^1]
Introduction {#s1}
============
The random fluctuations may have delicate impact in modeling, analyzing, simulating and predicting complex phenomena. The need to quantify uncertainties has been widely recognized in geophysical and climate dynamics, materials science, chemistry, biology and other areas [@Imkeller; @E00; @TM05]. Stochastic partial differential equations (SPDEs or stochastic PDEs) are appropriate mathematical models for various multiscale systems under random influences [@WaymireDuan].
A stochastic partial differential equation usually contains noise in the equation itself, i.e., the noise is acting on the system inside the physical medium [@Roz; @PZ92; @Chow; @Walsh]. However, noise may affect a complex system not only inside the physical medium but also on the physical boundary. Randomness in such boundary conditions are often due to various fast time scale environmental fluctuations.
The usual boundary conditions, such as the Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, do not contain time derivatives of the system state. On the contrary, *dynamical* boundary conditions contain time derivatives of the state.
The boundary conditions may further contain random effects, as in some applications. For example, the environment surrounding a pipe fluid is usually subject to uncertain fluctuations, such as random vibration around a natural gas pipe or a waste water pipe. In a fluid laboratory, a wind tunnel or fluid pipe may be sitting on a flat foundation, which is also subject to random vibration. This noise affects the pipe fluid flow via boundary conditions such as a Dirichlet or Neumann boundary condition on a part of the pipe surface boundary, which is a static boundary condition perturbed by random fluctuations. The salinity flux on fluid inlet boundary of a gravity current (e.g., at the Strait of Gibraltar) has a fluctuating component and this leads to a random Neumann boundary condition [@DijkBook; @Bong]. Stochastic dynamical systems under such random boundary conditions have been studied recently in, for example, [@DaPrato3; @FW92; @Mas95; @Sowers; @DuanGaoSchm; @Bong].
In some other applications, the evolution of systems may also be subject to dynamical boundary conditions (containing time derivatives of the system state), under random perturbations. Such *random dynamical boundary conditions* arise in the modeling of, for example, the air-sea interactions on the ocean surface [@PeiOor92], heat transfer in a solid in contact with a fluid [@Langer], chemical reactor theory [@Lap], as well as colloid and interface chemistry [@Vold]. The random fluctuations on the boundary are usually much faster than the intrinsic time scale of these systems [@DuanGaoSchm]. In these cases, the mathematical models are stochastic PDEs with fast-varying random dynamical boundary conditions. Such stochastic dynamical systems have been more recently investigated in, for example, [@DuanGaoSchm; @ChSch04; @ChSch05; @YD05; @Bona].\
Motivated by better analytical understanding of the above-mentioned multiscale systems under fast scale random dynamical interactions on the physical boundary, as well as noisy forcing inside the physical medium, we consider a stochastic parabolic partial differential equation on a bounded domain $D$ under fast varying random dynamical boundary condition on a part of the boundary ${\partial}D$. The fast time scale in the random dynamical boundary condition is controlled by a small parameter ${\epsilon}>0$ and perturbed by a noise (white in time but correlated in space). Specifically, we study the following stochastic parabolic partial differential equation with a random dynamical boundary condition on a part of boundary $\Gamma_1$ and a Dirichlet boundary condition on the rest of boundary: $$\begin{aligned}
du_{\epsilon}&=&[{\Delta}u_{\epsilon}+f(u_{\epsilon})]\,dt+\sigma_1 \,dW_1(t)\,,\;\; in \;\;D\\
{\epsilon}du_{\epsilon}&=&[-{\partial}_\nu u_{\epsilon}-u_{\epsilon}]\,dt +\sqrt{{\epsilon}}
\;\sigma_2\,dW_2(t)\,,\;\;
on\;\; \Gamma_1 \\
u_{\epsilon}&=& 0\,, \;\; on \;\; \Gamma_2\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ form the whole of the boundary ${\partial}D$ of domain $D$, $f(u)$ is some nonlinear term, and $\sigma_1,
\sigma_2$ and ${\epsilon}$ are constants. More details of this model will be presented in the next section.\
First, we derive an effective model for the above system as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$. The effective model is still a stochastic partial differential equation, but with a simpler boundary condition (see Theorem \[main1\]). Note that simple boundary conditions not only facilitate theoretical analysis but also are desirable for numerical simulations. To this end, we formulate the above stochastic system as an abstract stochastic evolution equation with non-Lipschitz nonlinear term having polynomial growth and fulfilling a suitable dissipativity condition. Since the nonlinear term is non-Lipschitz, we introduce a cut-off function and a stopping time to obtain a unique mild solution, which is also the unique weak solution for the system (see §3). Here we follow a semigroup approach which is also used in [@Cerrai] to obtain a mild solution for a class of reaction-diffusion equations with multiplicative noise and non-Lipschitz reaction term but with deterministic static homogenous boundary condition. Next we present some useful a priori estimates for the weak solutions which yield the tightness of the distributions of the solutions (see §4). Then by a discussion in the variational form of the system we can pass the limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ to get the effective equation which is a stochastic partial differential equation but with a simpler boundary condition. And further we show that $u_{\epsilon}$ converges to the effective solution $u$ of the limiting equation, in probability, in an appropriate function space.
Then we determine the normalized deviation between the solution $u_{\epsilon}$ of the original system and the solution $u$ of the effective system we obtained. it is proved that the normalized deviation $$v_{\epsilon}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}[u_{\epsilon}-u]$$ converges, as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$, to a process which solves a linear partial differential equation with random coefficients, under a *random* boundary condition. Namely, this random boundary condition is a deterministic static boundary condition perturbed by a white noise; see Theorem \[main2\].
Finally, we investigate the deviations $u_{\epsilon}-u$ of order ${\epsilon}^\kappa$, with $0<\kappa<1/2$. In fact a large deviation result (see Theorem \[main3\]) is proved for
$$\frac{1}{{\epsilon}^\kappa}[u_{\epsilon}-u].$$
In this weak convergence approach we prove the Laplace principle which is equivalent to the large deviations principle in a complete separable metric space (i.e., Polish space). For background see [@BD00; @Dupuis; @Feng].
In [@FW92] the authors have studied a system of reaction-diffusion equations with Lipschitz nonlinear term in open interval $(-1, 1)$ with a static boundary condition perturbed by a stationary random process which varies fast in time. The solution is represented through a Green function, then the limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ is passed in the space $C\big([0,T]\times (-1,
1)\big)$ and one gets a deterministic partial differential equation. The normal deviations of the solutions are then obtained in a weighted space with some assumptions on mixing properties of the random stationary process.\
This paper is organized as follows. The problem formulation and some preliminary results are presented in §2. Section 3 is devoted to the derivation of some useful a priori estimates. The tightness of the laws or distributions for the solutions is proved in §4 and then the effective model is derived in §5. The normalized deviations are studied in section §6 and the last section, §7, is devoted to a large deviations result.
0.8cm
Problem formulation
===================
Let $D$ be a bounded smooth domain in ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ ($1\leq N \leq 3$), with boundary $\Gamma_0$. Assume that $\Gamma_0=\overline{\Gamma}_1\cup\overline{\Gamma}_2$, where $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are open subsets of $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_1\cap\Gamma_2=\emptyset$. We consider the following stochastic partial differential equation with a random dynamical boundary condition on $\Gamma_1$ and a Dirichlet boundary condition on $\Gamma_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fs1}
du_{\epsilon}&=&\big [{\Delta}u_{\epsilon}+f(u_{\epsilon}) \big]\,dt+\sigma_1\, dW_1(t)\;\;in\;\; D\,,\\
{\epsilon}du_{\epsilon}&=&\big[ -{\partial}_\nu u_{\epsilon}-u_{\epsilon}\big]\,dt+\sqrt{{\epsilon}} \,\sigma_2 \,dW_2(t)\;\; on \;\; \Gamma_1\,, \label{fs3}\\
u_{\epsilon}&=&0\;\; on\;\; \Gamma_2\,,\\
u_{\epsilon}(0)&=&u^0\;\; in\;\; D\,, \\
\gamma_1u_{\epsilon}(0)&=&\gamma_1u^0\;\; on \;\;\Gamma_1 \label{fs5}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\epsilon}$ is real number with $0<{\epsilon}\leq 1$; $\nu=(n_1, n_2,
\cdots, n_N)$ is the outer unit normal vector on $\Gamma_1$, and $${\partial}_\nu=\sum^N_{i=1}n_i{\partial}_{x_i}\,.$$ $W_1(t,x)$ and $W_2(t,x)$ are mutually independent $L^2(D)$-valued and $L^2(\Gamma_1)$-valued Wiener processes, respectively, on a complete probability space $(\mathbf{\Omega}, \mathcal{F},
\mathbf{P})$ with a canonical filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq
0}$. Moreover, $\gamma_1$ is a trace operator on $\Gamma_1$ (see next paragraph), and $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are both constants. In fact, $\sigma_1:=\sigma_1\, I_{L^2(D)} $ and $\sigma_2:=\sigma_2
\; I_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}$, where $I_{L^2(D)}$ and $I_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}$ are the identity operators on $L^2(D)$ and $L^2(\Gamma_1)$ respectively. Taking ${\epsilon}=0$ we formally have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{avsys1}
du&=&\big [{\Delta}u +f(u) \big]\,dt+
\sigma_1\,dW_1(t)\;\;in\;\; D,\\
{\partial}_\nu u+u&=&0\;\; on \;\; \Gamma_1\,, \label{avsys3}\\
u&=&0\;\; on\;\; \Gamma_2\,,\\
u(0)&=&u^0\;\; in\;\; D\,. \label{avsys4}\end{aligned}$$
In the following we rewrite the equation in an abstract setting. Denote by $\mathbf{H}^s(D)$ the Sobolev spaces $W_2^s(D)$, $s\geq
0$, with the usual norms; see for instance [@Lion1] for the definition. Note that $\mathbf{H}^0(D)=L^2(D)$. We also define $\mathbf{H}^s_{\Gamma_2}(D)$ and $\mathbf{H}_0^s(D)$, $s\geq 0$, the spaces consisting of the function of $\mathbf{H}^s(D)$ which vanish on the boundary $\Gamma_2$ and ${\partial}D$, respectively. In addition we denote by $\mathbf{B}^s(\Gamma_1)$ the Sobolev space $\mathbf{H}^{s-\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_1)$, $s>\frac{1}{2}$ on the boundary $\Gamma_1$. And let $\gamma_1$ be the trace operator with respect to $\Gamma_1$ which is continuous linear operator from $\mathbf{H}^s(D)$ to $\mathbf{B}^s(\Gamma_1)$ for $s>\frac{1}{2}$. For more information on trace operators we refer to [@Tri78]. We also define spaces $\mathbf{H}^{-s}(D)$, $s\geq 0$ and $\mathbf{B}^{1-s}(\Gamma_1)$, $s>\frac{1}{2}$ as the dual spaces of $\mathbf{H}_0^s(D)$ and $\mathbf{B}^{s}(\Gamma_1)$ respectively.
We denote by $\langle\cdot\,, \cdot\rangle_D$, $\langle\cdot\,,
\cdot\rangle_{\Gamma_1}$ the usual inner products in $L^2(D)$ and $L^2(\Gamma_1)$, respectively.
For our system we introduce the following functional spaces $$X^1_{\epsilon}=\Big\{ (u, v )\in
\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)\times\mathbf{B}^1(\Gamma_1):
v=\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\gamma_1 u \Big\}$$ and $X^0=L_{\Gamma_2}^2(D)\times L^2(\Gamma_1)$. Here $L_{\Gamma_2}^2(D)$ is the space consisting of functions in $L^2(D)$ which vanish on $\Gamma_2$. Define the norm and inner product on $X^0$ and $X^1_{\epsilon}$ respectively as $$|(u, v)|^2_{X^0}=|u|^2_{L^2(D)}+|v|^2_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}\,,\;\; (u, v)\in X^0\,,$$ $$\big\langle (u_1, v_1) , (u_2, v_2)\big\rangle_{X^0}=\langle u_1, u_2\rangle_D+\langle v_1, v_2\rangle_{\Gamma_1}$$ and $$|(u, v)|^2_{X_{\epsilon}^1}=|u|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}+|v|^2_{\mathbf{B}^1(\Gamma_1)}\,,\;\; (u, v)\in X_{\epsilon}^1\,,$$ $$\big\langle (u_1, v_1)\,, (u_2, v_2)\big\rangle_{X^1_{\epsilon}}=\langle u_1\,, u_2\rangle_{\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)}+
\langle v_1\,, v_2\rangle_{\mathbf{B}^1(\Gamma_1)}$$ for $(u_i\,,
v_i)\in X^0$, $i=1, 2$. Here $|u|_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}$ is taken as the equivalent norm as $|u|_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}=|\nabla u|_{L^2}$.
Notice that the space $X_{\epsilon}^1$ depends on ${\epsilon}$ but in the next section we just give some estimates for a fixed ${\epsilon}>0$. And for passing the limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ we will consider in a fixed space instead of $X_{\epsilon}^1$.
Now we define a boundary operator $B$ on $\mathbf{H}^1(D)$ as $$Bu=\gamma_1{\partial}_\nu u+\gamma_1u\,,\;\; u\in \mathbf{H}^1(D)$$ and a second order differential operator $A=-{\Delta}$ with homogenous Neumanna boundary condition. Then we introduce the operator $\mathcal{A}$ on $D(\mathcal{A})=\{(u\,, v)\in X^1_{\epsilon}: (-{\Delta}u, B
u)\in X^0 \}$ as $$\label{A}
\mathcal{A}z=\Big(Au\,, \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}Bu\Big )\,, \;\; z=(u\,,
v)\in X^1_{\epsilon}\,.$$ Associate with the operator $\mathcal{A}$ we introduce the following bilinear form on $X^1_{\epsilon}$ $$\label{bi}
a(z, \bar{z})=\big\langle\mathcal{A}z, \bar{z}
\big\rangle_{X^0}=\int_D\nabla u\nabla\bar{u}\,dx
+\int_{\Gamma_1}(\gamma_1u)(\gamma_1\bar{u})\,d\Gamma_1$$ with $z=(u\,, v)$, $\bar{z}=(\bar{u},\bar{v})\in X_{\epsilon}^1$. Noticing that $$\label{e:1}
|\gamma_1u|^2_{\mathbf{B}^1(\Gamma_1)}\leq
C(\Gamma_1)|u|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1(D)}\,,$$ there is some constants $M>0$, $\tilde{\alpha}>0$ and $\tilde{\beta}\in{{\mathbb R}}$ such that $$\label{e:a}
a(z,\bar{z})\leq M|u|_{\mathbf{H}^1(D)}|\bar{u}|_{\mathbf{H}^1(D)}$$ and $$a(z,z)\geq
\tilde{\alpha}|u|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1(D)}-\tilde{\beta}|u|^2_{L^2(D)}\,.$$ Also by (\[e:1\]) then the following coercive property of $a$ holds $$\label{coercive}
a(z,z)\geq \alpha|z|^2_{X^1_{\epsilon}}-\beta|z|^2_{X^0}\,,\;\; z\in X^1_{\epsilon}$$ for some constants $\alpha>0$ and $\beta\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Then the linear operator $-\mathcal{A}$ generates a $C_0$–semigroup, $\mathcal{S}(t)$, which is compact and analytic on $X^0$; see [@AmEsc96].
Sometimes we also use the notation $a(u, \bar{u})$ instead of $a(z,
\bar{z})$ for any $z=(u, v)$, $\bar{z}=(\bar{u}, \bar{v})\in
X_{\epsilon}^1$.\
Now for the nonlinear term we make the following assumptions
(F)
: $f:{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ is $C^1$-continuous and there are positive constants $a_1$, $b_1$ such that $$f(u)u\leq -a_1u^4+b_1\,,\;\; {\rm for} \;u\in{{\mathbb R}}$$ $$|f(u)|\leq a_1|u|^3+b_1\,,\;\; {\rm for} \; u\in {{\mathbb R}}$$ $$f'(u)\leq -a_1u^2+b_1\,,\;\; {\rm for} \; u\in {{\mathbb R}}\,.$$
Define $F(u)=\int_0^uf(v)dv$. Then by the assumptions ($\mathbf{F}$) there is some positive constant $\tilde{b}$ such that $$\label{FG}
F(u)\leq \tilde{b}\;\; {\rm and} \;f'(u) \leq \tilde{b}\,,\;\;
\forall u\in {{\mathbb R}}\,.$$ For the stochastic term we assume the following conditions.
($\Sigma$)
: Stochastic process $W(t)=(W_1(t)\,, W_2(t))^t$, is a $Q$-Wiener process on $X^0$, defined on a filtered probability space $(\mathbf{\Omega}\,, \mathcal{F}\,, \mathcal{F}_t\,,\mathbf{P})$ with covariance operator $Q=(Q_1\,, Q_2)$ is trace class. Furthermore we assume Tr$(A^{\frac{1}{2}}Q_1)<\infty$.
An example of such functions $f$ is given by the following cubic polynomial $$f(u)=-au^3+bu^2+c$$ with $a>0$, $b$, $c\in{{\mathbb R}}$.
In $(\Sigma)$, the technical condition on $Q_1$ is for the proof of regular properties of solution. As one example for such $Q_1$, one can define $W_1=\sqrt{q(x)}w(t)$ with positive function $q\in
\mathbf{H}^1_0(D)$ and $w$ a standard scalar Wiener process. Then, by the property of trace operator, the covariance operator of $W_1$, $Q_1=q$ satisfies $Tr(A^{1/2}q)=|q|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_0(D)}<\infty$.
With the above notations system (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]) can be written as the following abstract stochastic evolutionary equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SEE}
dz_{\epsilon}(t)=\big[-\mathcal{A}z_{\epsilon}+H_{\epsilon}(z_{\epsilon})\big]\,dt+\Sigma\,
dW(t)\,,\;\; z(0)=z^0\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{\epsilon}=(u_{\epsilon}\,, \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\gamma_1u_{\epsilon})^t$, $H_{\epsilon}(z)(x)=\big(f(u(x)), 0 )\big)^t$, $\Sigma=\big(\sigma_1,\sigma_2\big)^t$ and $W(t)=(W_1(t)\,,
W_2(t))^t$. The equation (\[SEE\]) can be further rewritten in the following mild sense $$\label{mild}
z_{\epsilon}(t)=\mathcal{S}(t)z^0+\int_0^t\mathcal{S}(t-s)H_{\epsilon}(z_{\epsilon}(s))\,ds
+\int_0^t\mathcal{S}(t-s)\Sigma\,dW(s)\,.$$ An adapted process $z_{\epsilon}$ is called a mild solution of (\[SEE\]) if (\[mild\]) hold. For $u_{\epsilon}\in L^2(0, T;
\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)) \cap C(0, T; L^2(D))$, we call $u_{\epsilon}$ a weak solution of (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]) if for any $t\in[0, T)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weak}
&&\langle u_{\epsilon}(t), \psi(t)\rangle_D+{\epsilon}\langle
\gamma_1u_{\epsilon}(t),\psi(t) \rangle_{\Gamma_1}\\
&=& \langle u_{\epsilon}(0),\psi(0)\rangle_D+{\epsilon}\langle
\gamma_1u_{\epsilon}(0),\psi(0) \rangle_{\Gamma_1}+\int_0^t\big\langle
u_{\epsilon}(s), \frac{{\partial}\psi(s)}{{\partial}t}\big\rangle_D\,ds\nonumber\\&&{}+{\epsilon}\int_0^t\big\langle
(\gamma_1u_{\epsilon})(s),\frac{{\partial}\psi(s)}{{\partial}t} \big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}\,ds
+\int_0^t a(u_{\epsilon}, \psi)\,ds +\int_0^t\langle f(u_{\epsilon}),
\psi\rangle_D\,ds\nonumber\\
&&{}+ \int_0^t\langle\psi,
\sigma_1\,d{W}_1(s)
\rangle_D+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\int_0^t\langle\psi, \sigma_2\,d{W}_2(s)
\rangle_{\Gamma_1}\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for any $\psi\in C^1(0, T; C^\infty(D))$. For more detail about solution of SPDEs we refer to [@PZ92].
We end this section by recalling the following two lemmas from [@Lions], which will be used in our later analysis.
\[Lions\] Let $\mathcal{Q}$ be a bounded region in ${{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}}^n$. For any given functions $h_{\epsilon}$ and $h$ in $L^p(\mathcal{Q})$ $(1<p<\infty)$, if $$|h_{\epsilon}|_{L^p(\mathcal{Q})}\leq C\,,\;\; h_{\epsilon}\rightarrow h\;\; {\rm
in} \;\;\mathcal{Q}\;\; {\rm almost\; everywhere}$$ for some positive constant $C$, then $h_{\epsilon}\rightharpoonup h$ weakly in $L^p(\mathcal{Q})$.
Let $\mathcal{X}\subset \mathcal{Y}\subset \mathcal{Z}$ be three reflexive Banach spaces and $\mathcal{X}\subset \mathcal{Y}$ with compact and dense embedding. Define Banach space $$\mathcal{G}=\{h: h\in L^2(0 ,T; \mathcal{X}), \frac{dh}{dt}\in
L^2(0, T; \mathcal{Z}) \}$$ with norm $$|h|^2_\mathcal{G}=\int_0^T|h(s)|^2_\mathcal{X}ds+\int_0^T\Big|\frac{dh}{ds}(s)\Big|^2_\mathcal{Z}ds,\;\;
h\in \mathcal{G}.$$
\[comp\] If $G$ is bounded in $\mathcal{G}$, then $G$ is precompact in $L^2(0, T; \mathcal{Y})$.
0.8cm
Some a priori estimates
=======================
In this section we prove the stochastic evolutionary equation (\[SEE\]) is well-posed and further derive a few useful a priori estimates on the solutions. Since the nonlinear term is non-Lipschitz, we apply the cut-off technique with a random stopping time. The same idea was used in [@Cerrai; @Cerrai2] for stochastic reaction-diffusion equations with local Lipschitz nonlinear terms and multiplicative noise. See also [@LS06] for systems on unbounded domain.
\[wellpose\] (**Wellposedness**)\
Assume that $(\bf{F})$ and $(\mathbf{\Sigma})$ hold. For any $T>0$, let $z^0=(u^0, v^0)\in X^0$ be a $\big(\mathcal{F}_0,
\mathcal{B}(X^0)\big)$-measurable random variable. Then system (\[SEE\]) has a unique mild solution $z_{\epsilon}\in
L^2\big(\mathbf{\Omega}, C(0,T; X^0)\cap L^2(0, T; X_{\epsilon}^1)\big)$, which is also a weak solution in the following sense $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-0.3cm}\langle z_{\epsilon}(t),\phi(t)\rangle_{X^0}-\langle
z_{\epsilon}(0),\phi(0)\rangle_{X^0} \label{weak1}\\
\hspace{-0.3cm}&=&\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^t\big\langle z_{\epsilon}(s),
\frac{{\partial}\phi(s)}{{\partial}t}\big \rangle_{X^0}\,ds
-\int_0^t\langle\mathcal{A} z_{\epsilon}(s),
\phi(s)\rangle_{X^0}\,ds\nonumber\\&&{} +\int_0^t\langle
H_{\epsilon}(z_{\epsilon}(s)), \phi(s)\rangle_{X^0}ds+ \int_0^t\langle\Sigma dW(s),
\phi(s)\rangle_{X^0}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in[0,T)$ and $\phi\in C^1(0, T; X_{\epsilon}^1)$. Moreover if $z^0$ is independent of $W(t)$ with $\mathbf{E}|z^0|^4_{X^0} <\infty $, then there is positive constant $C_T$, which is independent of ${\epsilon}$, such that the following estimates hold: $$\label{est1}
\mathbf{E}|z_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{X^0}+\mathbf{E}\int_0^t|z_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{X^1_{\epsilon}}ds\leq
(1+\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^0})C_T,\;\; {\rm for} \;\; t\in [0, T]$$ and $$\label{est2}
\mathbf{E}\big\{\sup_{t\in[0, T]}|z_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{X^0}\big\}\leq
\big(1+\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^0}+\mathbf{E}\int_0^T|z_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{X_{\epsilon}^1}ds\big)C_T.$$
For any integer $n$, we introduce the following cut-off function $P^n: {{\mathbb R}}^+\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^+$ which is a smooth function satisfying $P^n(x)=1$ if $x<n$ and $P^n(x)=0$ if $x>n+1$. Then nonlinear function $P^n(|z|)H_{\epsilon}(z)$ is Lipschitz in both $X^0$ and $X^1$ where $|z|=|u|+\sqrt{{\epsilon}}|\gamma_1u|$ for $z=(u,
\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\gamma_1u)$. Now we have the following system with globally Lipschitz nonlinear term $$\tilde{z}^n_{\epsilon}(t)=\mathcal{S}(t)z^0+\int_0^t\mathcal{S}(t-s)
P^n(|\tilde{z}^n_{\epsilon}(s)|)H_{\epsilon}(\tilde{z}^n_{\epsilon}(s))ds+\int_0^t\mathcal{S}(t-s)\Sigma\,dW(s).$$ Define a random stopping time $\tau^n(R)$ by $$\tau^n(R)=\inf\left\{t>0: |\tilde{z}^n(t)|\geq R \right \}.$$
Fix arbitrarily a positive number $R<n$ and denote by $\chi_I$ the characteristic function of the set $I$. Consider the following integral equation for $t<\tau^n(R)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mild0}
z^n_{\epsilon}(t)&=&\mathcal{S}(t)z^0+\int_0^{t\wedge\tau^n(R)}
\mathcal{S}(t-s)P^n(|z^n_{\epsilon}(s)|)H_{\epsilon}(z^n_{\epsilon}(s))\,ds\nonumber\\
&&{}+\int_0^{t\wedge\tau^n(R)}\mathcal{S}(t-s)\Sigma\, dW(s)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then by the Theorem 7.4 in [@PZ92], for any $T>0$, the equation (\[mild0\]) has a unique solution $z^n_{\epsilon}\in L^2(\Omega, C(0, T;
X^0)\cap L^2(0, T; X^1))$. Moreover $z_{\epsilon}^n$ is independent of $n$, for $n>R$ and satisfies (\[SEE\]) for $t<\tau^n(R)$.
In the following we first derive some a priori estimates for $z_{\epsilon}$ in $L^2(\Omega, C(0, T; X^0)\cap L^2(0, T; X^1))$. Then we prove the wellposdness of the problem (\[SEE\]).
Applying the Itô formula to $|z_{\epsilon}|^2_{X^0}$ yields $$d|z_{\epsilon}|^2_{X^0}+2\langle\mathcal{A}z_{\epsilon}, z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X^0}dt=2\langle H_{\epsilon}(z_{\epsilon}), z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X^0}dt+
2\langle\Sigma dW(t), z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X^0}+\|\Sigma \|^2_{\mathcal{L}_2^Q}.$$ Here $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}_2^Q}$ denotes the Hilbert–Schmidt norm of operator from $Q^{1/2}X^0$ to $X^0$. Similar for $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}_2^{Q_1}}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{L}_2^{Q_2}}$ in the following. By the assumption ($\mathbf{F}$) we have $$\langle H_{\epsilon}(z_{\epsilon}), z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X^0}=\langle f(u_{\epsilon}), u_{\epsilon}\rangle_D
\leq b_1{\rm Mes}(D)$$ where Mes$(D)$ is the Lebesgue measure of the domain $D$. From the assumptions ($\mathbf{W}$) and ($\mathbf{\Sigma}$), for any $\kappa\in (1/2, 1)$, we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Sigma\|^2_{\mathcal{L}^Q_2}
&=&\|\sigma_1\|^2_{\mathcal{L}^{Q_1}_2}+
\|\sigma_2\|^2_{\mathcal{L}^{Q_2}_2}\\
&\leq& \sigma^2_1 trQ_1+\sigma^2_2 tr Q_2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Now combining all the above analysis and (\[coercive\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{z2}
d|z_{\epsilon}|^2_{X^0}+\alpha|z_{\epsilon}|^2_{X^1}dt\leq \big[\bar{b}+\sigma^2_1
trQ_1+\sigma^2_2 tr Q_2\big]dt+ 2\langle\Sigma\,dW(t),
z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X^0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{b}=2b_1Mes(D)$. Integrating from $0$ to $t$ and taking expectation on both sides of the above formula we have the estimate (\[est1\]) by the Gronwall inequality [@PZ92]. For a further estimate, we apply the Itô formula to $|z_{\epsilon}|^{2m}_{X^0}$, $m>1$, and by calculation similar to get (\[est1\]) we have $$\frac{d}{dt}\mathbf{E}|z_{\epsilon}|^{2m}_{X^0}+
\mathbf{E}\big(|z_{\epsilon}|^{2m-2}_{X^0}|z_{\epsilon}|^2_{X^1_{\epsilon}}\big)
\leq C_1\mathbf{E}|z_{\epsilon}|^{2m-2}_{X^0}+C_2t$$ for some positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$. Then by the Gronwall inequality we have $$\label{zm}
\mathbf{E}|z_{\epsilon}(t)|^{2m}_{X^0}+\mathbf{E}\int_0^t|z_{\epsilon}(s)|^{2m-2}_{X^0}|z_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{X^1_{\epsilon}}ds\leq
C_T(1+\mathbf{E}|z^0|^{2m}_{X^0}).$$
Integrating both sides of (\[z2\]) from $0$ to $t$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|z_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{X^0}&\leq &|z^0|^2_{X^0}+
[\sigma^2_1 trQ_1+\sigma^2_2 tr Q_2+\bar{b}]T+\nonumber\\
&&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\Big|\int_0^t\langle \Sigma \dot{W}(s),
z_{\epsilon}(s)\rangle_{X^0}ds\Big|^2+1.\label{zs}\end{aligned}$$ By the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality [@PZ96] and the assumption ($\mathbf{\Sigma}$) we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbf{E}\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}
\Big|\int_0^t\langle \Sigma \dot{W}(s), z_{\epsilon}(s)\rangle_{X^0}ds\Big|^2\\
&\leq&C\mathbf{E}\int_0^T|z_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{X^0}\|\Sigma \|^2_{\mathcal{L}_2^Q}ds\\
&\leq&C'\mathbf{E}\int_0^T|z_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{X^0}ds\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constants $C$ and $C'$. Then by (\[est1\]) we obtain the estimate (\[est2\]) from (\[zs\]).
Now we continue to prove the wellposedness of the system (\[SEE\]). By the assumption of $f$, $z^n_{\epsilon}$ also satisfies the estimates (\[est1\]) and (\[est2\]) which is independent of $n$ and $R$. Then we have $\tau(R)\rightarrow \infty$ almost surely as $R\rightarrow \infty$. For any $T>0$ define $z_{\epsilon}(t)=
z_{\epsilon}^n(t)$ for some $n$ and $R$ with $n>R$ and $\tau(R)>T$ almost surely. Thus $\mathbb{P}(\tau(R)\leq T) = 0$ as $R\to \infty$ for any $T>0$; for more details about proving global existence, see [@Chow]. The uniqueness and continuity on initial value of $z_{\epsilon}$ follows from those of $z_{\epsilon}^n$. Finally, by the stochastic Fubini theorem, i.e., Theorem 4.18 in [@PZ92], and the same discussion of [@ChSch04], we have (\[weak1\]).
The proof is complete.
By Theorem \[wellpose\] and the definition of $z_{\epsilon}$ we have the following corollary.
\[est0\] Under the same conditions as in Theorem \[wellpose\], for $t\in [0, T]$, the following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est3}
&& \mathbf{E}\big( |u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{L^2(D)}+{\epsilon}|\gamma_1
u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}
\big)+ \nonumber \\
&& \int_0^t \mathbf{E}\big(
|u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)}+{\epsilon}|\gamma_1
u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{\mathbf{B}^1(\Gamma_1)}
\big)ds \leq
(1+\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^0})C_T\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est4}
\mathbf{E}\big\{\sup_{t\in[0, T]} [|u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{L^2(D)}+{\epsilon}|\gamma_1
u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}] \big\}\leq
(1+\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^0})C_T\,,\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $C_T$, independent of ${\epsilon}$.
Since the nonlinear term increases polynomially, in order to pass the limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ in system (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]), we need a priori estimates for $u_{\epsilon}$ in the space $\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)$. In fact we have the following lemma.
\[u1\] Assume that $(\bf{F})$ and $(\mathbf{\Sigma})$ hold. Let $z^0=(u^0, v^0)\in X^0$ be a $\big(\mathcal{F}_0, \mathcal{B}(X^0)\big)$-measurable random variable with $\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^1}<\infty$. Then for any $T>0$, the solution (\[SEE\]) $z_{\epsilon}=(u_{\epsilon},
\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\gamma_1u_{\epsilon})\in L^2(\Omega, L^2(0, T; X^1)\cap C(0, T;
X^0))$ and it satisfies the following estimates: $$\label{uv}
\mathbf{E}|u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)}+
\mathbf{E}\int_0^t|{\Delta}u_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{L^2(D)}ds\leq
(1+\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^1})C_T$$ and $$\label{uv1}
\mathbf{E}\sup_{s\in[0, t]}|u_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)}\leq(1+\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^1})C_T$$ for any $t\in [0, T]$ and for some positive constant $C_T$, independent of ${\epsilon}$.
Let $V(z)=a(z,z)$. Applying the Itô formula to $V(z_{\epsilon})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u_H1}
&&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}V(z_{\epsilon})\\
&=&-\langle \mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}z_{\epsilon}, \mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X_0}
+\langle H(z_{\epsilon}), \mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X_0}+\langle
\Sigma \dot{W}, \mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X_0}\nonumber\\ &&+
\frac{1}{2}\Big[\|\sigma_1\|^2_{\mathcal{L}_2^{A^{\frac{1}{2}}Q_1}}+
\|\sigma_2\|^2_{\mathcal{L}_2^{Q_2}}\Big]\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By definition of $\mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}$ and (\[fs3\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle H(z_{\epsilon})\,, \mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X_0}&=& -\langle
f(u_{\epsilon})\,, {\Delta}u_{\epsilon}\rangle_D \nonumber \\&=&\langle f'(u_{\epsilon})\nabla
u_{\epsilon}\,, \nabla u_{\epsilon}\rangle_D-
\langle {\partial}_\nu u_{\epsilon}\,, f(u_{\epsilon})\rangle_{\Gamma_1}\nonumber\\
&=&\langle f'(u_{\epsilon})\nabla u_{\epsilon}\,, \nabla u_{\epsilon}\rangle_D+\langle
{\epsilon}\dot{u}_{\epsilon}\,, f(u_{\epsilon})\rangle_{\Gamma_1}
+\langle u_{\epsilon}\,, f(u_{\epsilon})\rangle_{\Gamma_1}\nonumber\\
&&-\langle \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\sigma_2\dot{W}_2\,, f(u_{\epsilon})
\rangle_{\Gamma_1}\,.\label{fD}\end{aligned}$$
Also by the Itô formula $$\langle {\epsilon}\dot{u}_{\epsilon}\,,
f(u_{\epsilon})\rangle_{\Gamma_1}={\epsilon}\frac{d}{dt}\langle F(u_{\epsilon})\,,
1\rangle_{\Gamma_1} -\frac{\sigma^2_2}{2}tr \big( D_{uu}\langle
F(u_{\epsilon})\,, 1\rangle_{\Gamma_1}
Q_2^{\frac{1}{2}}(Q_2^{\frac{1}{2}})^*\big)\,.$$
Then we can have from (\[u\_H1\])–(\[fD\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e}
&&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\Big [V(z_{\epsilon})-
2{\epsilon}\langle F(u_{\epsilon})\,, 1 \rangle_{\Gamma_1} \Big]\\
&=&-|\mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}z_{\epsilon}|^2_{X_0}-\langle \Sigma\dot{W}\,,
\mathcal{A}_{\epsilon}z_{\epsilon}\rangle_{X_0}+
\frac{1}{2}\Big[\|\sigma_1\|^2_{\mathcal{L}_2^{A^{\frac{1}{2}}Q_1}}+
\|\sigma_2\|^2_{\mathcal{L}_2^{Q_2}}\Big]\nonumber\\
&&+\langle f'(u_{\epsilon})\nabla u_{\epsilon}\,, \nabla u_{\epsilon}\rangle_D+\langle
u_{\epsilon}\,, f(u_{\epsilon})\rangle_{\Gamma_1}-\frac{\sigma^2_2}{2}tr \big(
D_{uu}\langle F(u_{\epsilon})\,, 1\rangle_{\Gamma_1}
Q_2^{\frac{1}{2}}(Q_2^{\frac{1}{2}})^*\big).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By assumptions ($\mathbf{F}$) and ($\mathbf{\Sigma}$), taking expectation on both sides of (\[e\]), applying the Cauchy inequality and noticing that $$\label{ineq}
|u_{\epsilon}|^2_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}\leq
C_\varepsilon|u_{\epsilon}|^2_{L^2(D)}+\varepsilon|u_{\epsilon}|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}$$ for $\varepsilon>0$, we can have (\[uv\]) by the Gronwall inequality and Corollary \[est0\] by taking $\varepsilon>0$ small enough.
Integrating both sides of (\[e\]) from $0$ to $t$, and using the Cauchy inequality, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\sup_{t\in [0, T]}|u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{\mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^1(D)}\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}|u^0|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}+ C\mathbf{E}\Big[\int_0^T|u_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{L^2(D)}ds+
\int_0^T|u_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}ds+1\Big]\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $C$ depending only on $\tilde{b}$, $Q_1$, $Q_2$, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. Then we have (\[uv1\]) by Corollary \[est0\].
The proof is complete.
0.8cm
Tightness of the distributions of solutions
===========================================
We intent to investigate the limit of the solution $u_{\epsilon}$ of stochastic system (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]) as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ in the sense of distribution. For this purpose, in this section, we establish results on tightness of the distributions of the solutions. Let $\mu_{\epsilon}$ be the distribution of $u_{\epsilon}$, which generates a Radon probability measure on the following metric space $$\mathcal{H} := L^2(0, T; L^2(D)) \cap C(0, T; H^{-1}(D)).$$ Now we prove that the family of distributions $\{\mu_{\epsilon}\}$ is tight in the space $\mathcal{H}$.
We apply the a priori estimates in the preceding section to obtain the tightness of $\{ \mu_{\epsilon}\}$.
First by the property of Wiener process, for some $\rho\in (0, \frac{1}{2})$ $$\label{Me}
\mathbf{E}\sup_{|t-r|\leq \tau}\frac{|\sigma_1 W(t)-\sigma_1W(r)|_{L^2(D)}
}{|t-r|^\rho}\leq \sigma_1C_T.$$ Then, by estimate (\[est1\]) and (\[uv1\]), for any given $\delta>0$, there is a positive constant $C^\delta_T$ such that $$\mathbf{P}\{ A_\delta \}>1-\delta$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
A_\delta=\big\{\omega\in \Omega:\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|u_{\epsilon}(t)|_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)} \leq C^\delta_T&,&
\sup_{|t-r|\leq \tau}\frac{|\sigma_1 W(t)-\sigma_1W(r)|_{L^2(D)}
}{|t-r|^\rho}\leq C_T^\delta \nonumber \\ {\rm and }\;
\int_0^T|u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{H^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}dt\leq C_T^\delta \big\}.\label{Adelta}\end{aligned}$$ For any $\varphi\in H_0^1(D)$, by (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]), we have $$d\langle u_{\epsilon}(s), \varphi \rangle_D =a(u_{\epsilon}, \varphi)ds +\langle
f(u_{\epsilon}), \varphi\rangle_Dds+ \langle \sigma_1d{W}_1(s),
\varphi \rangle_D.$$ By the definition of $a(z,\bar{z})$, we have $$\label{a1}
\sup_{|t-r|\leq \tau}\left|\int_r^ta(u_{\epsilon}, \varphi)ds\right|\leq
M\Big[\int_0^T|u_{\epsilon}(s)|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}ds\Big]^{1/2}|\varphi|_{H^1_0(D)}\sqrt{\tau}$$ where $M$ is defined in (\[e:a\]). By the assumption $\mathbf{(F)}$ and the embedding $\mathbf{H}_0^1(D)$ into $L^6(D)$ we have $$\label{f1}
\sup_{|t-r|\leq \tau}\left|\int_r^t\langle f(u_{\epsilon}), \varphi
\rangle_Dds\right|\leq
C'\Big[1+\int_0^T|u_{\epsilon}(s)|^6_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}ds
\Big]^{1/2} |\varphi|_{H^1_0(D)}\sqrt{\tau}$$ for some positive constant $C'$. Then if $\omega\in A_\delta$, by the definition of $A_\delta$ and (\[a1\])–(\[f1\]) $$|u_{\epsilon}|_{C^{\rho}(0,T; H^{-1}(D) )\cap L^2(0, T;
\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D))}\leq C(T, \delta)$$ for some positive constant $C(T, \delta)$. Define set $K_\delta\subset\mathcal{H}$ as $$K_\delta=\big\{u\in \mathcal{H}:|u_{\epsilon}|_{C^{\rho}(0,T; H^{-1}(D)
)\cap L^2(0, T; \mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D))}\leq C(T, \delta)
\big\}.$$ Then by the compact embedding of $C^\rho(0, T;H^{-1}(D) )\cap L^2(0, T; \mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D))$ into $\mathcal{H}$, $K_\delta$ is compact in $\mathcal{H}$. And by the definition of $A_\delta$ and above analysis we have $$\mathbf{P}\{ u_{\epsilon}\in K_\delta \}>1-\delta.$$ Then we proved the following result.
\[tightness\] (**Tightness of distributions of solutions**)\
The family of distributions of the solutions, $\{ \mu_{\epsilon}\}$, is tight in the space $\mathcal{H}$.
0.8cm
Effective dynamics {#s5}
==================
In this section we pass the limit of ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ in (\[weak\]) and obtain the limiting system in a certain sense to be specified below. We always assume that $\mathbf{E}|z^0|^2_{X^1}<\infty$ and $\mathbf{E}|z^0|^4_{X^0}<\infty$ in the following.
Since $\{ \mu_{\epsilon}\}$ is tight in the space $\mathcal{H}$ (defined in the beginning of the last section), for any $\delta>0$ there is a compact set $K_\delta\subset \mathcal{H}$ such that $$\mathbf{P}\{u_{\epsilon}\in K_\delta\}>1-\delta.$$ Here $K_\delta$ is chosen as a family of decreasing sets with respect to $\delta$, i.e. $K_\delta\subset K_{\delta'}$ for any $\delta\geq\delta'>0$. Moreover by the analysis of last section we can choose the set $K_\delta$ with some positive constant $C_T^\delta$, depending on $T$ and $\delta$, such that $\sup_{t\in [0, T]}|u_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}\leq C^\delta_T$ for $u_{\epsilon}\in
K_\delta$.
Then Prohorov theorem and Skorohod embedding theorem ([@PZ92]) assure that for any sequence $\{{\epsilon}_ j\}_j$ with ${\epsilon}_j\rightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$, there exist subsequence $\{{\epsilon}_ {j(k)}\}$, random elements $\{u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}\}\subset \mathcal{H}$, $u^*\in
\mathcal{H}$, $u^{0*}\in L^2(D)$ and $L^2(D)$-valued Wiener process $W^*_1$, $L^2(\Gamma_1)$-valued Wiener process $W^*_2$ defined on a new probability space $(\Omega^*, \mathcal{F}^*, \mathbb{P}^*)$, such that $$\mathcal{L}(u^*_{{\epsilon}_ {j(k)}})=\mathcal{L}(u_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})$$ and $$u^*_{{\epsilon}_ {j(k)}}\rightarrow u^*\;\;in\;\;\mathcal{H}\;\; as
\;\;k\rightarrow \infty,$$ for almost all $\omega\in \Omega^*$. Moreover $u^*_{{\epsilon}_ {j(k)}}$ solves system (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]) with $W_1$ and $W_2$ are replaced by Wiener process $W^*_{1k}$ and $W^*_{2k}$ respectively defined on probability space $(\Omega^*, \mathcal{F}^*,
\mathbb{P}^*)$ with same distribution as $W_1$ and $W_2$ for any $k$. And $u^0$ is replaced by a random variable $u_k^{0*}$ with $\mathcal{L}(u^0)=\mathcal{L}(u_k^{0*})$. And for $\mathbb{P}^*$- almost all $\omega\in\Omega^*$, $|u_k^{0*}-u^{0*}|_{L^2(D)}\rightarrow 0$ and $$\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}|W^*_1(t)-W^*_{1k}(t)|_{L^2(D)}\rightarrow
0,\;\;\sup_{0\leq t \leq
T}|W^*_2(t)-W^*_{2k}(t)|_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}\rightarrow 0$$ for $k\rightarrow \infty$. Now we will determine the limiting equation satisfied by $u^*$ and the limiting equation is independent of ${\epsilon}$. In fact we will prove that $u^*$ solves (\[avsys1\])–(\[avsys4\]) with $u^0$ and $W_1$ are replaced by $u^{0*}$ and $W_1^*$ respectively. We will pass the limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ in (\[weak\]) for $u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$. For the nonlinear term $f(u)$ increases polynomially, in order to pass the limit in $f(u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})$ we restrict $u_{\epsilon}$ in a bounded set in $\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_1}(D)$. However this is impossible for stochastic process $u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$ which converges just in space $\mathcal{H}$. For this define a new probability space $(\Omega^*_\delta, \mathcal{F}^*_\delta,
\mathbb{P}^*_\delta)$ as $$\Omega^*_\delta=\{\omega'\in \Omega: u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}\in
K_\delta\},$$ $$\mathcal{F}^*_\delta=\{S\cap \Omega^*_\delta: S\in\mathcal{F}^*\}$$ and $$\mathbb{P}^*_\delta(S)=\frac{\mathbb{P}^*(S\cap\Omega^*_\delta)}{\mathbb{P}(\Omega^*_\delta)},
\;\;{\rm for} \;\; S\in\mathcal{F}^*_\delta.$$ Denote by $\mathbb{E}^*_\delta$ the expectation operator with respect to $\mathbb{P}^*_\delta$. It is clear that $\mathbf{P}(\Omega^*\setminus\Omega^*_\delta)\leq\delta$.
Since the distribution of $u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$ is same as that of $u_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$, $u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$ converges to $u^*$ in space $L^2(0, T; L^2(D))\cap C(0, T; \mathbf{H}^{-1}(D))$ under the usual metric for $\omega\in\Omega^*_\delta$. Here the usual metric in the intersection $X\cap Y$, of two metric spaces $(X, d_X)$ and $(Y,
d_Y)$, is the metric $d:= d_X+d_Y$ or equivalently $d:= \max\{d_X,
d_Y \}$.
Now in the following we determine the limiting system satisfied by $u^*$ restricted on probability space $( \Omega^*_\delta,
\mathcal{F}^*_\delta, \mathbb{P}^*_\delta)$. By the weak solution in the sense of (\[weak1\]), for any $\psi\in C^1(0,T;C^\infty(D))$ with $\psi(T)=0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pslimit}
&&-\int_0^T\langle u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(t), \dot{\psi} \rangle_Ddt-
{\epsilon}\int_0^T\langle \gamma_1 u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(t),\dot{\psi} \rangle_{\Gamma_1} dt \\
&=&\int_0^T a(u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}, \psi)dt +\int_0^T\langle
f(u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}), \psi\rangle_Ddt+ \int_0^T\langle
\sigma_1\dot{W}^*_{1k}(t),
\psi \rangle_Ddt+ \nonumber\\
&& \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\int_0^T\langle \sigma_2\dot{W}^*_{2k}(t),
\psi\rangle_{\Gamma_1} dt+\langle u_k^{0*}, \psi(0)\rangle_D+
{\epsilon}\langle \gamma_1 u_k^{0*}, \gamma_1 \psi(0)
\rangle_{\Gamma_1}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ on $( \Omega^*_\delta, \mathcal{F}^*_\delta, \mathbb{P}^*_\delta) $ .
We consider the terms in (\[pslimit\]) respectively. Since $u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$ converges weakly to $u^*$ in $L^2(0, T;
\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D))$ $$\label{1}
\int_0^T a(u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}, \psi)dt\rightarrow \int_0^T a(u^*,
\psi)dt, \;\; {\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$$ for all $\omega\in\Omega_\delta^*$. By the definition of $
\Omega^*_\delta$ and the choice of $K_\delta$, $|u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(t)|_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}$ is bounded uniformly in $t\in [0, T]$ and ${\epsilon}\in (0, 1]$. By the embedding of $\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)$ into $L^{\frac{2N}{N-2}}(D)$, $|f(u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})|_{L^2(0,\; T; L^2(D))}$ is bounded. Then by Lemma \[Lions\] and assumption ($\mathbf{F}$), $f(u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})$ converges weakly to $f(u^*)$ in $L^2(0, T;
L^2(D))$ which means for $\omega\in\Omega^*_\delta$ $$\label{2}
\int_0^T\langle f(u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}), \psi\rangle_Ddt\rightarrow
\int_0^T\langle f(u^*), \psi\rangle_Ddt, \;\; {\epsilon}\rightarrow 0.$$
By assumption ($\mathbf{\Sigma}$) and the property of stochastic integral, see also Lemma 3.1 of [@GyKry96] $$\label{}
\int_0^T\langle \sigma_1\dot{W}^*_{1k}(s),
\psi(s) \rangle_Dds\rightarrow \int_0^T\langle
\sigma_1\dot{W}^*_{1}(s), \psi(s) \rangle_Dds$$ in $\mathbb{P}^*_\delta$-probability and $$\label{}
\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\int_0^T\langle
\sigma_2\dot{W}^*_{2k}(s), \psi(s)
\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds\rightarrow 0$$ in $\mathbb{P}^*_\delta$-probability. Moreover for $\omega\in\Omega^*_\delta$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.5}
&&\big|{\epsilon}\int_0^T\langle \gamma_1 u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(t),\dot{\psi}
\rangle_{\Gamma_1}dt\big|^2\nonumber \\
&\leq & {\epsilon}^2 T|\psi|_{C^1(0, T;
H^1(D))} \int_0^T|u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}dt \nonumber \\
&\rightarrow& 0,\;\;{\epsilon}\rightarrow 0. \label{5}\end{aligned}$$ Then combining the above analysis in (\[1\])–(\[5\]) and by the density argument we could conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e0}
&&-\int_0^T\langle u^*(t), \dot{\psi} \rangle_Ddt \\
&=&\int_0^T a(u^*, \psi)dt +\int_0^T\langle f(u^*), \psi\rangle_Ddt+
\int_0^T\langle \sigma_1\dot{W}^*_{1}(t),
\psi \rangle_Ddt+ \nonumber\\
&& +\langle u^{0*}, \psi(0)\rangle_D \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Integrating by parts in (\[e0\]) we see that the limiting function $u^*$ satisfies the following system with deterministic boundary condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sys1}
du^*&=&\big [{\Delta}u^* +f(u^*) \big]dt+
\sigma_1\,dW^*_{1}(t)\;\;in\;\; D,\\
{\partial}_\nu u^*+u^*&=&0\;\; on \;\; \Gamma_1, \label{sys2}\\
u^*&=&0\;\; on\;\; \Gamma_2,\\
u^*(0)&=&u^{0*}\;\; in\;\; D, \label{sys4}\end{aligned}$$ on the probability space $( \Omega^*_\delta, \mathcal{F}^*_\delta,
\mathbb{P}^*_\delta)$, which has static boundary condition. For the above system (\[sys1\])–(\[sys4\]) we can rewrite in the following abstract form $$\label{abssys}
du^*=[-A_0u^*+f(u^*)]dt+\sigma_1\,dW^*_{1}(t),\;\;
u^*(0)=u^{0*}$$ where the operator $-A_0$ is the Laplace operator with the Robin boundary condition. The corresponding bilinear form is $$a_0(v_1, v_2)=\int_D\nabla v_1 \nabla v_2\,
dx+\int_{\Gamma_1}(\gamma_1v_1)(\gamma_1v_2)\,d\Gamma_1.$$ Then by Theorem 7.4 of [@PZ92], and a similar analysis in the proof of Theorem \[wellpose\], for any $T>0$ system (\[efsys1\])–(\[efsys4\]) has a unique solution $u^*\in
L^2\big( \Omega^*_\delta, L^2(0, T; \mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D))\cap
C(0, T; L^2(D))\big)$ in the sense of (\[e0\]).
Then by the arbitrariness of the choice of $\delta$, $$\label{wstar}
u^*_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}} \;\; {\rm converges\;\; in \;\;\mathbb{P}^*-
probability\;\; to \;\;} u^*$$ which solves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{efsys1}
du^*&=&\big [{\Delta}u^* +f(u^*) \big]dt+
\sigma_1 \; dW^*_1(t)\;\;in\;\; D,\\
{\partial}_\nu u^*+u^*&=&0\;\; on \;\; \Gamma_1, \label{efsys2}\\
u^*&=&0\;\; on\;\; \Gamma_2,\\
u^*(0)&=&u^{0*}\;\; in\;\; D, \label{efsys4}\end{aligned}$$ on the probability space $( \Omega^* , \mathcal{F}^* , \mathbb{P}^*
)$. In order to obtain the convergence in probability of $u_{\epsilon}$, we need the following lemma from [@GyKry96].
\[convprob\] Let $Z_n$ be a sequence of random elements in a Polish space $(\mathbb{X}, d)$ equipped with Borel $\sigma$-algebra. Then $Z_n$ converges in probability to an $\mathbb{X}$-valued random element if and only if for every pair subsequences $Z_l$ and $Z_m$, there exists a subsequence $v_k:=(Z_{j(k)}, Z_{m(k)})$ converging weakly to a random element $v$ supported on the diagonal $\{(x,
y)\in\mathbb{X}\times\mathbb{X}: x=y \}$.
Here we call an $\mathbb{X}$-valued random variable $X_n$ converges weakly to $X$ if $$\mathbf{E}f(X_n)=\int_\mathbb{X}f(x)\mathbb{P}_n(dx)\rightarrow
\int_\mathbb{X}f(x)P(dx)=\mathbf{E}f(X)$$ with $\mathbb{P}_n=\mathcal{L}(X_n)$ and $\mathbb{P}=\mathcal{L}(X)$. Notice that convergence in probability implies weakly convergence, see [@Bill; @Dudley]. Then by the uniqueness property of solution for equations (\[avsys1\])–(\[avsys4\]) which can be proved similarly by that for equations (\[sys1\])–(\[sys4\]), we can formulate the main result in this section by Lemma \[convprob\].
\[main1\] (**Effective system**)\
Assume that conditions $(\mathbf{F})$ and $(\mathbf{\Sigma})$ are satisfied. Let $u^0\in L^2(D)$ be a $(\mathcal{F}_0,
\mathcal{B}(L^2(D)))$- measurable random variable, which is independent of $W(t)$, with $\mathbf{E}|u^0|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}<\infty$ and $\mathbf{E}\big[|u^0|^4_{L^2(D)}+ |\gamma_1 u^0|^4_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}
\big]<\infty$. Then for any $T>0$, the solution $u_{\epsilon}$ of the stochastic system (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]) converges to $u$, which is the solution of the effective limiting system (\[avsys1\])–(\[avsys4\]), in probability in space $\mathcal{H}$: $$\mathcal{H}=L^2(0, T; L^2(D)) \cap C(0, T; H^{-1}(D)).$$
0.6cm
Normal deviations {#s6}
=================
We have proved $u_{\epsilon}$ approaches $u$ in probability in space $\mathcal{H}$, namely, the difference $u_{\epsilon}-u$ tends to $0$ in probability in space $\mathcal{H}$ as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0 $. In this section we consider the order of $u_{\epsilon}-u$ in ${\epsilon}$ as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow
0$, that is, the normal deviations of $u_{\epsilon}$ away from the effective solution $u$. We prove that the order is $\frac{1}{2}$ and the normalized difference $\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}(u_{\epsilon}-u)$ converges in an appropriate function space. In this section we assume the assumption in Theorem \[main1\].
Denote by $v_{\epsilon}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}(u_{\epsilon}-u)$. Then we have the following initial boundary value problem for $v_{\epsilon}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{v}_{\epsilon}&=&{\Delta}v_{\epsilon}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}\big(f(u_{\epsilon})-f(u)\big),\;\; in\;\; D \label{ve1}\\
{\partial}_\nu v_{\epsilon}+v_{\epsilon}&=&-\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\dot{u}_{\epsilon}+\sigma_2 \dot{W}_2,\;\; on
\;\;\Gamma_1 \label{ve2}\\
v_{\epsilon}&=&0,\;\; on \;\;\Gamma_2 \label{ve3} \\
v_{\epsilon}(0)&=&0. \label{ve4}\end{aligned}$$
As ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0 $ we expect $v_{\epsilon}$ converges in some sense to the solution $v$ of the following linear system $$\begin{aligned}
dv&=&[{\Delta}v+f'(u)v]dt,\;\; in\;\; D \label{v1}\\
{\partial}_\nu v+v&=&\sigma_2 \dot{W}_2,\;\; on\;\;
\Gamma_1 \label{v2}\\
v&=&0,\;\; on \;\;\Gamma_2 \label{v3} \\
v(0)&=&0. \label{v4}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the limiting system (\[v1\])–(\[v4\]) contains a static boundary with random force (but not dynamical). For the wellposedness of the above two systems we follow the approach of [@DaPrato3; @PZ96]; see also [@Mas95]. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be a linear bounded operator from $L^2(\Gamma_1)$ into $L^2(D)$ defined as the solution of following problem $$\label{Neum}
ry-{\Delta}y=0\;\; in\;\; D, \;\; {\partial}_\nu y+y = g\;\; on \;\; \Gamma_1$$ with $r\in{{\mathbb R}}$ such that (\[Neum\]) has a unique solution $y=\mathcal{N} g$ for any $g\in L^2(\Gamma_1)$. Here $\mathcal{N}$ is called the Nenumann mapping. For our problem let $g=g_{\epsilon}=-\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\dot{u}_{\epsilon}+\sigma_2 \dot{W}_2$ and $g_0=\sigma_2
\dot{W}_2$. However it is easy to see that $g_{\epsilon}$ and $g_0$ are not in the space $L^2(\Gamma_1)$. Fortunately, we can extend $\mathcal{N}$ to a bounded linear operator from $H^{\varrho}(\Gamma_1)$ to $D^\varepsilon_A$ which is the domain of the operator $(rI-A)^\varepsilon$ with $0<\varepsilon<\frac{\varrho}{2}+\frac{3}{4}$, $\varrho>-\frac{3}{2}$, see [@Lion1] or example 3.1 in [@Mas95]. Here $A$ is a second order differential operator defined on $\{u\in H^2(D), {\partial}_\nu u=0\}$ with $Au={\Delta}u$. Denote by $S(t)$ the $C_0$ semigroup generated by the linear operator $A$. Then we can write the solution of (\[ve1\])–(\[ve4\]) and (\[v1\])–(\[v4\]) respectively in the following mild sense
$$\begin{aligned}
v_{\epsilon}(t)&=&-\int_0^tAS(t-r)\mathcal{N}(\gamma_1v_{\epsilon})(r)dr+\sigma_2\int_0^tAS(t-r)\mathcal{N}dW_2(r)+\nonumber\\
&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}\int_0^tS(t-r)\big[f(u_{\epsilon}(r))-f(u(r))\big]dr+\nonumber\\
&&\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\int_0^tAS(t-r)\mathcal{N}(\dot{\gamma_1u}_{\epsilon})(r)dr\label{v-mild}\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
v(t)&=&-\int_0^tAS(t-r)\mathcal{N}(\gamma_1v)(r)dr+\sigma_2\int_0^tAS(t-r)\mathcal{N}dW_2(r)+\\
&&\int_0^tS(t-r)f'(u(r))v(r)dr.\end{aligned}$$
By the Example 3.1 of [@Mas95] for any $T>0$, there exist functions $v_{\epsilon}$ and $v$, both in $C(0, T; L^2(\mathbf{\Omega},
L^2(D)))$, which are unique mild solutions of (\[ve1\])–(\[ve4\]) and (\[v1\])–(\[v4\]), respectively.
For a special one-dimensional case on the domain $D=(-1,1)$, the solution is proved earlier [@FW92] in a special weighted space $\hat{C}_a\subset C_a([0, T]\times (-1, 1))$. Here $C_a([0,
T]\times (-1, 1))$ consisting of all continuous functions $u(t,x)$, $t\in [0, T]$, $|x|<1$, such that $\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}a(x)u(t,x)=0$ uniformly in $t\in[0, T]$. Here weighted function $a(x)$ can be chosen as $(1-x^2)^\alpha$, $0<\alpha<1$. Then $\hat{C}_a\subset C_a([0, T]\times (-1, 1))$ consisting of $u(t, x)$ such that $h(t, x) = \int_0^tu(s, x)\,ds$ has uniform limit in $t\in[0, T]$ when $x\rightarrow 1$ and when $x\rightarrow-1$.\
Let $\nu_{\epsilon}$ be the distributions of $v_{\epsilon}$ in the space $L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$. For our purpose in the following, we prove the tightness of $\nu_{\epsilon}$. First we should derive a further a priori estimate for $v_{\epsilon}$. As pointed out in [@Mas95] the Itô formula cannot be used for the Lyapunov function $V(x)=|x|^p$, $p>0$. We treat $v_{\epsilon}$ in the mild sense (\[v-mild\]). For any $\delta>0$, we still consider $\omega\in A_\delta$ which defined by (\[Adelta\]).
\[H-lambda\] Let $u^0\in L^2(D)$ be a $(\mathcal{F}_0, \mathcal{B}(L^2(D)))$- measurable random variable, which is independent of $W(t)$, with $\mathbf{E}|u^0|^{2}_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}<\infty$ and $\mathbf{E}\big[|u^0|^4_{L^2(D)}+ |\gamma_1
u^0|^4_{L^2(\Gamma_1)} \big]<\infty$. Then for any $T>0$, there exist a $\lambda>0$ and a positive constant $C_T$ such that $$\mathbf{E}[\chi_{A_\delta}|v_{\epsilon}|^2_{L^2(0, T; \mathbf{H}_{\Gamma_2}^\lambda(D))} ]\leq C_T.$$ Here $\chi_{A_\delta}(\omega)=1$ for $\omega\in A_\delta$ and $\chi_{A_\delta}(\omega)=0$ otherwise.
By the similar estimates in the proof for Proposition 2.2 of [@Mas95] and estimates (\[zm\]) with $m=p$, noticing that the initial value is zero, we have $$\mathbf{E}[\chi_{A_\delta}|v_{\epsilon}|^q_{L^q(0, T; \mathbf{H}^\lambda_{\Gamma_2}(D))}]\leq C_T$$ for some $q>2$. Then by the Hölder inequality we have the result.
Furthermore multiplying $\varphi\in C_0^\infty(D)$ to both sides of (\[ve1\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^T\big\langle \dot{v}_{\epsilon}(t),
\varphi\big\rangle_Ddt\\&=&-\int_0^T\big\langle \nabla v_{\epsilon}(t),
\nabla
\varphi\big\rangle_Ddt+\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}\int_0^T\big\langle(f(u_{\epsilon}(t))-f(u(t))),
\varphi \big\rangle_Ddt.\end{aligned}$$ Then by Lemma \[H-lambda\] we deduce $$\label{ven1}
\mathbf{E}[\chi_{A_\delta}|\dot{v}_{\epsilon}(t)|^2_{L^2(0, T;
\mathbf{H}^{\lambda-1}(D))}]\leq C_T$$ for some positive constant $C_T$. Then by the Chebyshev inequality and Lemma \[comp\], for any $\delta>0$ there is a compact subset $N_\delta\subset L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$ such that $$\mathbf{P}\{v_{\epsilon}\in N_\delta \}>1-\delta.$$ That is, the probability measure sequence $\{\nu_{\epsilon}\}$ is tight in space $L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$. Then Prohorov theorem and Skorohod embedding theorem ([@PZ92]) assure that for any sequence $\{{\epsilon}_ j\}_j$ with ${\epsilon}_j\rightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow \infty$, there exist subsequence $\{{\epsilon}_ {j(k)}\}$, random elements $\{\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}\}\subset L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$, $\bar{v}\in
L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$, $L^2(\Gamma_1)$-valued Wiener process $\overline{W}_{2k}$ defined on a new probability space $(\overline{\Omega}, \overline{\mathcal{F}},
\overline{\mathbb{P}})$, such that $$\mathcal{L}(\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_ {j(k)}})=\mathcal{L}(v_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})$$ and $$\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_ {j(k)}}\rightarrow \bar{v}\;\;in\;\;L^2(0, T;
L^2(D))\;\; as \;\;k\rightarrow \infty,$$ for almost all $\omega\in \overline{\Omega}$. $\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$ solves (\[ve1\])–(\[ve4\]) with $W_2$ replaced by $\overline{W}_{2k}$. And for almost all $\omega\in\overline{\Omega}$ $$\sup_{0\leq t\leq
T}|\overline{W}_{2k}-\overline{W}_2|_{L^2(D)}\rightarrow 0,\;\;
k\rightarrow \infty.$$ Moreover $\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}}(\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}-\bar{u})$ for some random elements $\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$, $\bar{u}\in
\mathcal{H}$ with $\mathcal{L}(\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})=\mathcal{L}(u_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})$ and $\mathcal{L}(\bar{u})=\mathcal{L}(u)$.
In order to pass limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ in $f'$, by the same approach of §\[s5\] we define the following new probability space $(\overline{ \Omega }_\delta, \overline{\mathcal{F}}_\delta,
\overline{\mathbb{P}}_\delta)$ as $$\overline{\Omega}_\delta=\{\omega'\in\overline{\Omega}:
v_{\epsilon}(\omega')\in N_\delta\},$$ $$\overline{\mathcal{F}}_\delta=\{S\cap\overline{\Omega}_\delta:
S\in\mathcal{F}_\delta\}$$ and $$\overline{\mathbb{P}}_\delta(S)=
\frac{\mathbb{P}_\delta(S\cap\overline{\Omega}_\delta)}{\mathbb{P}_\delta(\overline{
\Omega}_\delta)}, \;\;{\rm for} \;\; S\in\mathcal{F}_\delta.$$ Now we restrict the system (\[ve1\])–(\[ve4\]) on the probability space $(\overline{ \Omega}_\delta, \overline{\mathcal{F}}_\delta,
\overline{\mathbb{P}}_\delta)$. By the definition of $\overline{\Omega}_\delta$ and the discussion in §\[s5\] for almost all $\omega\in\overline{\Omega}_\delta$ $$\label{as}
\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(t,x)\rightarrow \bar{u}(t,x), \;\; {\rm almost\;\; everywhere\;\;in
} \;\; [0, T]\times D.$$ And for $\omega\in \overline{ \Omega }_\delta$, $\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$ converges to $\bar{v}$ almost surely on $[0,
T]\times D$, $$\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}\rightarrow \bar{v}\;\; weakly\;\; in\;\; L^2(0,
T; \mathbf{H}^\lambda_{\Gamma_2}(D)),\; as \;k\rightarrow \infty$$ and $$\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}\rightarrow \bar{v}\;\;strongly \;\;in \;\;
L^2(0, T; L^2(D)),\; as \; k\rightarrow\infty.$$
Taking $\psi\in C_0^\infty(0, T; C^\infty(D))$ as the testing function for (\[ve1\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weakve}
&&-\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle \bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s),
\dot{\psi}(s) \big\rangle_Dds\\
&=&\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle
\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s), {\Delta}\psi(s) \big\rangle_Dds
-\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle{\partial}_\nu\psi(s),
\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s) \big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds+\nonumber\\
&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle
f(\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s)-f(\bar{u}(s)), \psi\big\rangle_Dds
\hspace{-0.0cm}-\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle
\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s), \psi(s)\big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds+ \nonumber
\\ &&\sqrt{{\epsilon}}\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle \bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s),
\dot{\psi}(s)\big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}
ds+\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle
\sigma_2\dot{\overline{W}}_{2k}(s), \psi(s) \big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds
\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ We pass the limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ in (\[weakve\]). Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big| \sqrt{{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}}\int_0^T\big\langle
\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s), \dot{\psi}(s)\big\rangle_{\Gamma_1} ds\Big|
\\ &\leq&
\sqrt{{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}}\int_0^T|\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s)|_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}|\dot{\psi}(s)|_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}ds\\
&\leq&
\sqrt{{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}}\int_0^T|\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s)|^2_{\mathbf{H}^\lambda_{\Gamma_2}(D)}ds+
\sqrt{{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}}\int_0^T|\dot{\psi}(s)|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}ds\\
&\rightarrow& 0,\;\;{\epsilon}\rightarrow 0,\;\;{\rm
for}\;\;\omega\in\overline{\Omega}_\delta.\end{aligned}$$ By the assumption ($\mathbf{F}$) and (\[as\]) $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}}}\big(f(\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s))-f(\bar{u}(s))\big)
=f'(\tilde{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s))\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$$ with $\tilde{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}\rightarrow \bar{u}$ almost surely on $[0, T]\times D$. Then by Lemma \[Lions\], $f'(\tilde{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}})$ converges weakly to $f'(\bar{u})$, for $\omega\in\overline{\Omega}_\delta$. And by the choice of $\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$, which converges strongly to $\bar{v}$ in $L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$, we have $f'(\tilde{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s))\bar{v}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}$ converges weakly to $f'(\bar{u})\bar{v}$ in $L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$ which yields $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}}\int_0^T\big\langle
f(\bar{u}_{{\epsilon}_{j(k)}}(s))-f(\bar{u}(s)),
\psi\big\rangle_Dds\rightarrow \int_0^T\langle f'(\bar{u})\bar{v},
\psi\rangle_Dds\;\;{\rm for}\;\;\omega\in\overline{\Omega}_\delta.$$ Also by Lemma 3.1 of [@GyKry96] $$\int_0^T\big\langle \sigma_2\dot{\overline{W}}_{2k}(s), \psi(s)
\big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds\rightarrow \int_0^T\big\langle
\sigma_2\dot{\overline{W}}_{2}(s), \psi(s)
\big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds,\;\; k\rightarrow\infty$$ in $\overline{\mathbb{P}}_\delta$-probability.
Then combining all the above analysis for the terms in (\[weakve\]), we can pass the limit ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ in (\[weakve\]) and conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weakv}
&&\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle \dot{\bar{v}}(s), \psi(s) \big\rangle_Dds\\
&=&\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle {\Delta}\bar{v}(s), \psi(s) \big\rangle_Dds
+\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle f'(\bar{u})\bar{v}, \psi(s)\big\rangle_Dds
\nonumber\\ && \hspace{-0.2cm}-\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle
\bar{v}(s), \psi(s)
\big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds+\int_0^T\hspace{-0.2cm}\big\langle \sigma_2\dot{\overline{W}}_2(s), \psi(s)
\big\rangle_{\Gamma_1}ds, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which is the variational form of (\[v1\])–(\[v4\]). Notice that we have proved the wellposedness of (\[v1\])–(\[v4\]). Then by the arbitrariness of $\delta$ and the same discussion in the proof of Theorem \[main1\], we have the following result on normal deviations.
\[main2\] (**Normal deviations principle**)\
Assume that the conditions $(\mathbf{F})$ and $(\mathbf{\Sigma}')$ are satisfied. Let $u^0\in L^2(D)$ be a $(\mathcal{F}_0,
\mathcal{B}(L^2(D)))$- measurable random variable, which is independent of $W(t)$, with $\mathbf{E}|u^0|^{2}_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}<\infty$ and $\mathbf{E}\big[|u^0|^4_{L^2(D)}+ |\gamma_1 u^0|^4_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}
\big]<\infty$. Let $u_{\epsilon}$ and $u$ be the unique weak solutions of (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]) and (\[avsys1\])–(\[avsys4\]), respectively. Then $\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}(u_{\epsilon}-u)$ converges in probability to a stochastic process v, which is the solution of the linear random system (\[v1\])–(\[v4\]), in the space $L^2(0,T;
L^2(D))$.
0.8cm
Large deviations {#large}
=================
In §\[s5\], Theorem \[main1\], we have proved that $u_{\epsilon}\rightarrow u$ as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$. We have also obtained convergence result of the normal deviations of order ${\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ in §\[s6\], Theorem \[main2\], which implies the normal deviations of order ${\epsilon}^\kappa$ tend to 0 for $0<\kappa<\frac{1}{2}$. In this section we consider the logarithmic asymptotics of the deviations of order ${\epsilon}^\kappa$, $0<\kappa<\frac{1}{2}$, in probability. That is, we consider the deviations of $v^\kappa_{\epsilon}={\epsilon}^{-\kappa}\left(u_{\epsilon}-u \right)$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{v}^\kappa_{\epsilon}&=&{\Delta}v^\kappa_{\epsilon}+{\epsilon}^{-\kappa}\big(f(u_{\epsilon})-f(u)\big),\;\; in\;\; D \label{vke1}\\
{\partial}_\nu
v^\kappa_{\epsilon}+v^\kappa_{\epsilon}&=&-{\epsilon}^{1-\kappa}\dot{u}_{\epsilon}+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}-\kappa}\sigma_2
\dot{W}_2,\;\; on
\;\;\Gamma_1 \label{vke2}\\
v^\kappa_{\epsilon}&=&0,\;\; on \;\;\Gamma_2 \label{vke3} \\
v^\kappa_{\epsilon}(0)&=&0. \label{vke4}\end{aligned}$$ We intend to prove that the family $\{v_{\epsilon}^\kappa: {\epsilon}>0\}$ satisfies the large deviations principle in $L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$. We follow the results on large deviations in [@BD00] for Polish space valued random elements; see also [@SS06] for large deviations of two-dimensional stochastic Navier-Stokes equations.\
Let $H_0\subset H$ be Hilbert spaces with norm $|\cdot|_{H_0}$ and $|\cdot|_H$ respectively. Assume that the embedding of $H_0$ in $H$ is Hilbert-Schmidt. Define $\mathcal{A}$ the class of $H_0$-valued $\mathcal{F}_t$-predictable process $w$ satisfying $\int_0^T|w(s)|^2_{H_0}<\infty$ a.s. For $M>0$ let $$\mathcal{S}_M=\{w\in L^2(0, T; H_0):\int_0^T|w(s)|_{H_0}^2ds\leq M
\}$$ which is a Polish space (i.e., complete separable metric space) endowed with the weak topology. Define $\mathcal{A}_M=\{w\in
\mathcal{A}:w\in \mathcal{S}_M, a.s.\}$.
Let $E$ be a Polish space and $g^{\epsilon}: C(0, T; H)\rightarrow E $ be a measurable map. Let $V$ be an $H$-valued Wiener process. Define $Y^{\epsilon}=g^{\epsilon}(V(\cdot))$. We consider the large deviation principle for $Y^{\epsilon}$ as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$. Since $E$ is a Polish space, the Laplace principle and the large deviation principle are equivalent [@SS06].
A function $I$ mapping $E$ to $[0, \infty]$ is called a rate function if it is lower semicontinuous. A rate function $I$ is called a good rate function if for each $M<\infty$, the level set $\{y\in E: I(y)\leq M\}$ is compact in $E$.
Recall that a family $\{Y^{\epsilon}: {\epsilon}>0\}$ of $E$-valued random elements is said to satisfy the large deviations principle (LDP) with speed $\alpha({\epsilon})\rightarrow\infty$, as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$ and rate function $I$ if (see [@FW84; @PZ92])
1. For any $\delta$, $\gamma>0$ and $y\in E$, there exists ${\epsilon}_0>0$ such that for any ${\epsilon}\in (0, {\epsilon}_0)$ $$\mathbf{P}\left\{|Y^{\epsilon}-y|_E<\delta \right\}\geq \exp\{-\alpha({\epsilon})(I(y)+\gamma)
\}.$$
2. For any $r$, $\delta$, $\gamma>0$, there exists ${\epsilon}_0>0$ such that for any ${\epsilon}\in(0, {\epsilon}_0)$ $$\mathbf{P}\left\{|Y^{\epsilon}-\Phi(r)|_E\geq\delta \right\}\leq
\exp\{-\alpha({\epsilon})(r-\gamma)\}$$ where $\Phi(r)=\{y\in E: I(y)\leq r\}$.
It is well known that the large deviations principle and the following Laplace principle are equivalent in Polish space.
Let $I$ be a rate function on metric space $E$. A family $\{Y^{\epsilon}:
{\epsilon}>0\}$ of $E$-valued random elements is said to satisfy the Laplace principle on $E$ with rate function $I$ and speed $\alpha({\epsilon})\rightarrow\infty$, ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$, if for each real valued, bounded and continuous function $\hbar$ defined on $E$, $$\lim_{{\epsilon}\rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\alpha({\epsilon})}
\log\mathbf{E}\left\{\exp\left[-\alpha({\epsilon})\hbar(Y^{\epsilon})\right]\right\}=-\inf_{y\in
E}\left\{\hbar(y)+I(y)\right\}.$$
For our purpose we introduce the assumption
$(\mathbf{H})$
: There exists a measurable map $g^0: C(0, T; H)\rightarrow
E$ such that
1. Let $\{w^{\epsilon}: {\epsilon}>0\}\subset \mathcal{A}_M$ for some $M>0$. Let $w^{\epsilon}$ converges in distribution to $w$. Then $g^{\epsilon}\left(V(\cdot)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha({\epsilon})}}\int_0^.w^{\epsilon}(s)ds\right)$ converges in distribution to $g^0(\int_0^.w(s)ds)$.
2. For every $M<\infty$, the set $K_M=\{g^0(\int_0^.w(s)ds): w\in \mathcal{S}_M
\}$ is a compact subset of $E$.
For each $g\in E$, define $$\label{rate}
I(y)=\inf_{\{w\in L^2(0, T;H_0):\;\; y=g^0(\int_0^.w(s)ds)
\}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T|w(s)|_{H_0}^2ds \right\}.$$ Then we have the following theorem
\[Lap\] Let $Y^{\epsilon}=g^{\epsilon}(V(\cdot))$. If $g^{\epsilon}$ satisfies the assumption $(\mathbf{H})$, then the family $\{Y^{\epsilon}: {\epsilon}>0\}$ satisfies the Laplace principle in $E$ with rate function $I$ given by (\[rate\]) and speed $\alpha({\epsilon})$.
The proof of the above theorem is similar to that of the proof of Theorem 4.4 in [@BD00] which is for the speed $\alpha({\epsilon})={\epsilon}^{-1}$. We omit it here.
0.5cm
In the following we apply the above result to the system (\[vke1\])–(\[vke4\]). In this case $H=L^2(\Gamma_1)$, $H_0=Q_2^{\frac{1}{2}}H$, $E=L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$, $V(\cdot)=W_2(\cdot)$ and $\alpha({\epsilon})={\epsilon}^{2\kappa-1}$, $0<\kappa<\frac{1}{2}$. Since $Q_2$ is a trace class operator, the embedding of $H_0$ in H is Hilbert-Schmidt. By the analysis of Section \[s6\] there exists a Borel measurable function $g^{\epsilon}:
C(0, T; H)\rightarrow E$, such that $v^\kappa_{\epsilon}=g^{\epsilon}(W_2)$. We intend to verify the assumption ($\mathbf{H}$) for $g^{\epsilon}$. In fact four lemmas are proved to complete the verification. Let $g^{\epsilon}$ be defined as above. For any $w\in\mathcal{A}_M$, $0<M<\infty$, denote $g^{\epsilon}\left(W_2(\cdot)+
{\epsilon}^{-\frac{1}{2}+\kappa}\int_0^.w(s)ds\right)$ by $\hat{v}_{\epsilon}^\kappa$.
\[H1\] $\hat{v}_{\epsilon}^\kappa$ is the unique weak solution of the following stochastic system: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\hat{v}}^\kappa_{\epsilon}&=&{\Delta}\hat{v}^\kappa_{\epsilon}+{\epsilon}^{-\kappa}\big(f(u_{\epsilon})-f(u)\big),\;\; in\;\; D \label{hvke1}\\
{\partial}_\nu
\hat{v}^\kappa_{\epsilon}+\hat{v}^\kappa_{\epsilon}&=&-{\epsilon}^{1-\kappa}\dot{u}_{\epsilon}+\sigma_2
w+{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}-\kappa}\sigma_2 \dot{W}_2,\;\; on
\;\;\Gamma_1 \label{hvke2}\\
\hat{v}^\kappa_{\epsilon}&=&0,\;\; on \;\;\Gamma_2 \label{hvke3} \\
\hat{v}^\kappa_{\epsilon}(0)&=&0 \label{hvke4}\end{aligned}$$ in $L^2(\mathbf{\Omega}, C(0, T; L^2(D))\cap L^2(0, T;
\mathbf{H}^\lambda_{\Gamma_2}(D)))$. Here $\lambda$ is chosen in Lemma \[H-lambda\].
This result follows from a Girsanov argument. In fact let $\widetilde{W}_2(\cdot)=W_2(\cdot)+{\epsilon}^{-\frac{1}{2}+\kappa}\int_0^.w(s)ds$. Then $\widetilde{W}_2$ is Wiener process with covariation $Q$ under the probability $\tilde{P}_w$ which satisfies $$d\tilde{P}_w=\exp\left\{
{\epsilon}^{-\frac{1}{2}+\kappa}\int_0^Tw(s)dW_2(s)-\frac{1}{2}{\epsilon}^{-1+2\kappa}\int_0^T|w(s)|_H^2ds
\right\}d\mathbf{P}.$$ Then a similar analysis in Section \[s6\] yields the result.
\[H2\] Let $w\in L^2(0, T; H)$. Then the following stochastic system $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_w&=&{\Delta}\rho_w+f'(u)\rho_w,\;\; in\;\; D \label{rho1}\\
{\partial}_\nu \rho_w+\rho_w&=&\sigma_2w,\;\; on
\;\;\Gamma_1 \label{rho2}\\
\rho_w&=&0,\;\; on \;\;\Gamma_2 \label{rho3} \\
\rho_w(0)&=&0. \label{rho4}\end{aligned}$$ has a unique weak solution $\rho_w\in C(0, T; L^2(D))\cap L^2(0, T;
\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D))$.
This is a classical result of nonhomogeneous boundary problem [@Lion1].
We now define the function $g^0$ as follows: $ g^0(h):=\rho_w$ if $h=\int_0^.w(s)ds$ for some $w\in L^2(0,T; H)$, otherwise $g^0(h)=0$. By the same discussion in Section \[s6\] for the normal deviations we conclude that
\[H3\] Let $\{w^{\epsilon}\}\subset \mathcal{S}_M$ converge in distribution to $w$, as a $\mathcal{S}_M$-valued random variable. Then $g^{\epsilon}\left(W_2(\cdot)+{\epsilon}^{\kappa-\frac{1}{2}}\int_0^.w^{\epsilon}(s)ds\right)$ converges in distribution to $g^0\left(\int_0^.w(s)ds\right )$ in $E$.
\[H4\] Let $0<M<\infty$ be fixed. Then the set $K_M=\{g^0(\int_0^.w(s)ds) :
w\in \mathcal{S}_M\}$ is compact in $E$.
By the definition of $\mathcal{S}_M$, for any sequence $\{w^n\}\subset\mathcal{S}_M$, there is a subsequence $w^n$ (relabelled by n ) and $w\in \mathcal{S}_M$ such that $w^n$ weakly converges to $w$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Then it is enough to prove that $\rho_{w^n}$ converges to $\rho_w$ in $E$. Let $\Theta_n=\rho_{w^n}-\rho_w$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\Theta}_n&=&{\Delta}\Theta_n+f'(u)\Theta_n\,,\;\; in\;\; D \\
{\partial}_\nu \Theta_n+\Theta_n&=&\sigma_2(w^n-w)\,,\;\; on
\;\;\Gamma_1 \\
\Theta_n&=&0\,,\;\; on \;\;\Gamma_2 \\
\Theta_n(0)&=&0\,.\end{aligned}$$ A simple energy estimate and the fact that embedding of $H_0$ in $H$ is Hilbert-Schmidt yield $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{0\leq t\leq
T}|\Theta_n(t)|^2_{L^2(D)}+\int_0^T|\Theta_n(s)|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}ds\\
&\leq& C(T, b, \sigma_2)\int_0^T|w^n(s)-w(s)|^2_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}ds\\
&\rightarrow & 0,\;\; as\;\; n\rightarrow\infty.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
By the Lemma \[H1\]–\[H4\] and Theorem \[Lap\] we can draw the following result.
\[main3\] (**Large deviations principle**)\
Assume that the conditions $(\mathbf{F})$ and $(\mathbf{\Sigma}')$ are satisfied. Let $u^0\in L^2(D)$ be a $(\mathcal{F}_0,
\mathcal{B}(L^2(D)))$-measurable random variable, which is independent of $(W_1(t), W_2(t))$ with $\mathbf{E}|u^0|^2_{\mathbf{H}^1_{\Gamma_2}(D)}<\infty$ and $\mathbf{E}\big[|u^0|^4_{L^2(D)}+ |\gamma_1 u^0|^4_{L^2(\Gamma_1)}
\big]<\infty$. Let $u_{\epsilon}$ and $u$ be the unique weak solutions of (\[fs1\])–(\[fs5\]) and (\[sys1\])–(\[sys4\]), respectively. Then for any $0<\kappa<\frac{1}{2}$, ${\epsilon}^{-\kappa}(u_{\epsilon}-u)$ satisfies large deviations principle with good rate function $I(\cdot)$ given by (\[rate\]) and speed ${\epsilon}^{2\kappa-1}$ in $L^2(0, T; L^2(D))$.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We would like to thank Francesco Russo, Mauro Mariani, Mark I. Freidlin, and Zhihui Yang for helpful discussions. We are grateful to Paul Dupuis for pointing out the paper [@BD00] and Padma Sundar for the paper [@SS06].
[50]{}
H. Amann & J. Escher, Strongly continuous dual semigroups, [*Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.*]{}, [**CLXXI**]{} (1996), 41-62.
P. Billingsley, [*Convergence of Probability Measures*]{}, second edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999.
S. Bonaccorsi and G. Ziglio, A semigroup approach to stochastic dynamical boundary value problems. *Systems, control, modeling and optimization*, 55–65, IFIP Int. Fed. Inf. Process., 202, Springer, New York, 2006.
V. P. Bongolan-Walsh, J. Duan and T. Ozgokmen. Dynamics of Transport under Random Fluxes on the Boundary. *Comm. in Non. Sci. and Numer. Simu.*, online version doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2006.09.019, 2006.
A. Budhiraja & P. Dupuis, A variational representation for positive functionals of infinite dimensional Brownian motion, [*Prob. and Math. Stat.*]{} [**20**]{} (2000), 39-61.
S. Cerrai, Stochastic reaction-diffusion systems with multiplicative noise and non-Lipschitz reaction term, [*Prob. Th. and Rela. Fields*]{} [**125**]{} (2003),271-304.
S. Cerrai and M. Rockner, Large deviations for stochastic reaction-diffusion systems with multiplicative noise and non-Lipschitz reaction term, [*Ann. Prob.*]{} [**32**]{} (2004), 1100-1139.
P. L. Chow, *Stochastic Partial Differential Equations*. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, 2007.
I. Chueshov & B. Schmalfuss, Parabolic stochastic partial differential equations with dynamical boundary conditions, [*Diff. and Integ. Eq.*]{} [**17**]{} (2004), 751-780.
I. Chueshov & B. Schmalfuss, Qualitative behavior of a class of stochastic parabolic PDEs with dynamical boundary conditions. *Disc. and Cont. Dyna. Syst.* **18**(2-3) (2007), 315-338.
G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk, Evolution equations with white-noise boundary conditions. *Stoch. Stoch. Rep.* **42** (1993), 167-182.
G. Da Prato & J. Zabczyk, [*Stochastic Equations in Infinite Dimensions*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
G. Da Prato & J. Zabczyk, [*Ergodicity for Infinite Dimensional Systems*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
H. A. Dijkstra, [*Nonlinear Physical Oceanography*]{}, Kluwer Academic Publishers,Boston, 2000.
J. Duan, H. Gao and B. Schmalfuss, Stochastic Dynamics of a Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Model, [*Stoch. and Dyna.*]{} [**2**]{} (2002), 357–380.
R. M. Dudley, [*Real Analysis and Probability*]{}. Second Printing(corrected). Chapman and Hall, New York, 1993.
P. Dupuis and R. S. Ellis, *A Weak Convergence Approach to the Theory of Large Deviations.* J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997.
W. E, X. Li & E. Vanden-Eijnden, Some recent progress in multiscale modeling, [*Multiscale modelling and simulation*]{}, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. Eng., [**39**]{}, 3–21, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
J. Escher, Global existence and nonexistence for semilinear parabolic systems with nonlinear boundary conditions, [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**284**]{} (1989),285-305.
J. Escher, On the qualitative behavior of some semilinear parabolic problem, [*Diff. and Integ. Eq.*]{} [**8(2)**]{} (1995),247-267.
J. Feng and T. G. Kurtz, *Large Deviations for Stochastic Processes.* AMS, 2007.
M. I. Freidlin & A. D. Wentzell, [*Random Perturbation of Dynamical Systems*]{}, Springer Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1984.
M. I. Freidlin & A. D. Wentzell, Reaction-diffusion equation with randomly perturbed boundary condition, [*Annl. of Prob.*]{} [**20(2)**]{} (1992),963-986.
A. V. Fursikov & M. I. Vishik, *Mathematical Problems of Statistical Hydrodynamics*. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, 1988.
I. Gyöngy & N. Krylov, Existence of strong solutions for Itô stochastic equations via approximations, [*Prob. Th. and Rela. Fields*]{} [**105**]{} (1996), 143-158.
P. Imkeller & A. Monahan (Eds.). *Stochastic Climate Dynamics*, a Special Issue in the journal *Stoch. and Dyna.*, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2002.
R. E. Langer, A problem in diffusion or in the flow of heat for a solid in contact with a fluid. *Tohoku Math. J.* **35** (1932), 260-275.
L. Lapidus and N. Amundson (eds.), *Chemical Reactor Theory*, Prentice-Hall, 1977.
J. L. Lions, [*Quelques m$\acute{e}$thodes de r$\acute{e}$solution des problèmes non lin$\acute{e}$aires*]{}, Dunod, Paris, 1969.
J. L. Lions & E. Magenes, [*Non-Homogeneous Boundary Balue Problems and Application*]{}, Springer,Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1972.
Y. Lv & J. Sun, Asymptotic behavior of stochastic discrete complex Ginzburg-Landau equations, [*Physica D*]{} [**221**]{} (2006),157-169.
B. Maslowski, Stability of semilinear equations with boundary and pointwise noise, [*Annali Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche*]{} [**22**]{} (1995), 55-93.
J. P. Peixoto and A. H. Oort, [*Physics of Climate*]{}. Springer, New York, 1992.
B. L. Rozovskii, [*Stochastic Evolution Equations*]{}. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1990.
R. B. Sowers, Multidimensional reaction-diffusion equations with white noise boundary perturbations, [*Ann. Prob.*]{} [**22**]{} (1994), 2071–2121.
S. S. Sritharan & P. Sundar, Large deviations for the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations with multiplicative noise, [*Stoch. Proc. and Appl.*]{}, [**116**]{}(11) (2006), 1636-1659.
R. Temam & A. Miranville [*Mathematical modeling in continuum mechanics*]{}, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005
H. Triebel, [*Interpolation Theory, Function Spaces, Differential Operators*]{}, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.
R. Vold & M. Vold, *Colloid and Interface Chemistry,* Addison-Wesley, 1983.
J. B. Walsh, An introduction to stochsatic partial differential equations, [*École d’eté de Probabilité de Saint Flour XIV*]{}, Lect. Notes in Math. [**1180**]{}, 265-439, Springer, Berlin, 1984.
E. Waymire & J. Duan (Eds.), *Probability and Partial Differential Equations in Modern Applied Mathematics*. IMA Volume 140, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
D. Yang & J. Duan, An impact of stochastic dynamic boundary conditions on the evolution of the Cahn-Hilliard system, [*Stoch. Anal. and Appl.*]{} **25** (2007), 613-639.
[^1]: This work was partly supported by the NSFC grant 10701072 and the NSF grant 0620539.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[The Rademacher sums are investigated in the Morrey spaces $M_{p, w}$ on $[0, 1]$ for $1 \leq p < \infty$ and weight $w$ being a quasi-concave function. They span $l_2$ space in $M_{p, w}$ if and only if the weight $w$ is smaller than $\log_2^{-1/2} \frac{2}{t}$ on $(0, 1)$. Moreover, if $1 < p < \infty$ the Rademacher sunspace ${\cal R}_p$ is complemented in $M_{p, w}$ if and only if it is isomorphic to $l_2$. However, the Rademacher subspace ${\cal R}_1$ is not complemented in $M_{1, w}$ for any quasi-concave weight $w$. In the last part of the paper geometric structure of Rademacher subspaces in Morrey spaces $M_{p, w}$ is described. It turns out that for any infinite-dimensional subspace $X$ of ${\cal R}_p$ the following alternative holds: either $X$ is isomorphic to $l_2$ or $X$ contains a subspace which is isomorphic to $c_0$ and is complemented in ${\cal R}_p$.]{}'
author:
- 'Sergei V. Astashkin [and]{} Lech Maligranda'
date:
-
-
title: '[**Rademacher functions in Morrey spaces**]{}'
---
Introduction and preliminaries
==============================
The well-known Morrey spaces introduced by Morrey in 1938 [@Mo38] in relation to the study of partial differential equations were widely investigated during last decades, including the study of classical operators of harmonic analysis: maximal, singular and potential operators – in various generalizations of these spaces. In the theory of partial differential equations, along with the weighted Lebesgue spaces, Morrey-type spaces also play an important role. They appeared to be quite useful in the study of the local behavior of the solutions of partial differential equations, a priori estimates and other topics.
Let $0 < p < \infty$, $w$ be a non-negative non-decreasing function on $[0, \infty),$ and $\Omega$ a domain in $\mathbb R^n$. The [*Morrey space*]{} $M_{p, w} = M_{p, w}(\Omega)$ is the class of Lebesgue measurable real functions $f$ on $\Omega$ such that $$\label{1}
\|f\|_{M_{p, w}} = \sup_{0 < r < {\rm diam}(\Omega), \, x_0 \in \Omega} ~ w(r) \left( \frac{1}{r} \int_{B_r(x_0) \cap \Omega} | f(t) |^p
\,dt \right)^{1/p} < \infty,$$ where $B_r(x_0)$ is a ball with the center at $x_0$ and radius $r$. It is a quasi-Banach ideal space on $\Omega$. The so-called ideal property means that if $|f| \leq |g|$ a.e. on $\Omega$ and $g \in M_{p, w}$, then $ f\in M_{p, w}$ and $\|f\|_{M_{p, w}} \leq \|g \|_{M_{p, w}}$. In particular, if $w(r) = 1$ then $M_{p, w}(\Omega) = L_{\infty}(\Omega)$, if $w(r) = r^{1/p}$ then $M_{p, w}(\Omega) = L_p(\Omega)$ and in the case when $w(r) = r^{1/q}$ with $0 < p \leq q <\infty$ $M_{p,w}(\Omega)$ are the classical Morrey spaces, denoted shortly by $M_{p, q}(\Omega)$ (see [@KJF77 Part 4.3], [@LR13], [@Pe69] and [@Zo86]). Moreover, as a consequence of the Hölder-Rogers inequality we obtain monotonicity with respect to $p$, that is, $$M_{p_1, w}(\Omega) \stackrel {1}\hookrightarrow M_{p_0, w}(\Omega) ~~ {\rm if} ~~ 0 < p_0 \leq p_1 < \infty.$$ For two quasi-Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$ the symbol $X \stackrel {C}\hookrightarrow Y$ means that the embedding $X \subset Y$ is continuous and $\|f\|_{Y} \leq C \|f\|_{X}$ for all $f \in X$.
It is easy to see that in the case when $\Omega = [0, 1]$ quasi-norm (\[1\]) can be defined as follows $$\label{2}
\|f\|_{M_{p, w}} = \sup_{I} ~ w(|I|) \left( \frac{1}{|I|}\int_I | f(t) |^p\,dt \right)^{1/p},$$ where the supremum is taken over all intervals $I$ in $[0, 1]$. In what follows $| E|$ is the Lebesgue measure of a set $E \subset \mathbb R$.
The main purpose of this paper is the investigation of the behaviour of Rademacher sums $$R_n(t) = \sum_{k=1}^n a_k r_k(t), ~ a_k \in {\Bbb R} ~{\rm for} ~k = 1, 2, ..., n, ~{\rm and} ~ n \in {\Bbb N}$$ in general Morrey spaces $M_{p, w}$. Recall that the Rademacher functions on $[0, 1]$ are defined by $r_k(t) = {\rm sign}(\sin 2^k \pi t), ~ k \in {\Bbb N}, t \in [0, 1]$.
The most important tool in studying Rademacher sums in the classical $L_p$-spaces and in general rearrangement invariant spaces is the so-called [*Khintchine inequality*]{} (cf. [@DJT p. 10], [@AK06 p. 133], [@LT77 p. 66] and [@As09 p. 743]): if $0 < p < \infty$, then there exist constants $A_p, B_p > 0$ such that for any sequence of real numbers $\{a_k\}_{k=1}^n$ and any $n \in {\Bbb N}$ we have $$\label{3}
A_p \Big(\sum_{k=1}^n |a_k|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \leq \| R_n \|_{L_p[0, 1]} \leq B_p \Big(\sum_{k=1}^n |a_k |^2\Big)^{1/2}.$$ Therefore, for any $1 \leq p < \infty$, the Rademacher functions span in $L_p$ an isomorphic copy of $l_2$. Also, the subspace $[r_n] $ is complemented in $L_p$ for $1 < p < \infty$ and is not complemented in $L_1$ since no complemented infinite dimensional subspace of $L_1$ can be reflexive. In $L_{\infty}$, the Rademacher functions span an isometric copy of $l_1$, which is uncomplemented.
The only non-trivial estimate for Rademacher sums in a general rearrangement invariant (r.i.) space $X$ on $[0,1]$ is the inequality $$\label{4}
\| R_n \|_{X} \leq C \, \Big(\sum_{k=1}^{n} |a_k|^2 \Big)^{1/2},$$ where a constant $C> 0$ depends only on $X$. The reverse inequality to (\[4\]) is always true because $X \subset L_1$ and we can apply the left-hand side inequality from (\[3\]) for $L_1$. Paley and Zygmund [@PZ30] proved already in 1930 that estimate (\[4\]) holds for $X=G$, where $G$ is the closure of $L_{\infty}[0, 1]$ in the Orlicz space $L_M[0, 1]$ generated by the function $M(u) = e^{u^2} -1$. The proof can be found in Zygmund’s classical books and [@Zy59 p. 214].
Later on Rodin and Semenov [@RS75] showed that estimate (\[4\]) holds if and only if $G \subset X$. This inclusion means that $X$ in a certain sense “lies far” from $L_{\infty}[0,1]$. In particular, $G$ is contained in every $L_p[0,1]$ for $p < \infty$. Moreover, Rodin-Semenov [@RS79] and Lindenstrauss-Tzafriri [@LT pp. 134-138] proved that $[r_n]$ is complemented in $X$ if and only if $G \subset X \subset G^{\prime}$, where $G^{\prime}$ denotes the Köthe dual space to $G$.
In contrast, Astashkin [@As01] studied the Rademacher sums in r.i. spaces which are situated very “close" to $L_{\infty}$. In such a case a rather precise description of their behaviour may be obtained by using the real method of interpolation (cf. [@BK91]). Namely, every space $X$ that is interpolation between the spaces $L_{\infty}$ and $G$ can be represented in the form $X = (L_\infty,G)_\Phi^K$, for some parameter $\Phi$ of the real interpolation method, and then $\|\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k r_k \|_X \approx \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_F$, where $F=(l_1,l_2)_\Phi^K$.
Investigations of Rademacher sums in r.i. spaces are well presented in the books by Lindenstrauss-Tzafriri [@LT], Krein-Petunin-Semenov [@KPS] and Astashkin [@As09]. At the same time, a very few papers are devoted to considering Rademacher functions in Banach function spaces, which are not r.i. Recently, Astashkin-Maligranda [@AM10] initiated studying the behaviour of Rademacher sums in a weighted Korenblyum-Kreĭn-Levin space $K_{p,w}$, for $0 < p < \infty$ and a quasi-concave function $w$ on $[0, 1]$, equipped with the quasi-norm $$\label{5}
\|f\|_{K_{p, w}} = \sup_{0 < x \leq 1} w(x) \, \left( \frac{1}{x}\int_{0}^{x} | f(t) |^p\,dt \right)^{1/p}$$ (cf. [@KKL], [@LZ66], [@Za83 pp. 469-470], where $w(x) = 1$). If the supremum in (\[2\]) is taken over all subsets of $[0, 1]$ of measure $x$, then we obtain an r.i. counterpart of the spaces $M_{p, w}$ and $K_{p, w}$, the Marcinkiewicz space $M_{p, w}^{(*)}[0, 1],$ with the quasi-norm $$\label{6}
\|f\|_{M_{p, w}^{(*)}} = \sup_{0 < x \leq 1} ~ w(x) \left( \frac{1}{x}\int_0^x f^*(t)^p\,dt \right)^{1/p},$$ where $f^*$ denotes the non-increasing rearrangement of $| f |$.
In what follows we consider only function spaces on $[0, 1]$. Therefore, the weight $w$ will be a non-negative non-decreasing function on $[0, 1]$ and without loss of generality we will assume in the rest of the paper that $w(1) = 1$. Then, we have $$\label{7}
L_{\infty} \stackrel {1} \hookrightarrow M_{p, w}^{(*)} \stackrel {1}\hookrightarrow M_{p, w} \stackrel {1}\hookrightarrow K_{p, w} \stackrel {1} \hookrightarrow L_p$$ because the corresponding suprema in (\[5\]), (\[2\]) and (\[6\]) are taken over larger classes of subsets of $[0, 1]$.
Observe that if $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) > 0$, then $M_{p, w} = M_{p, w}^{(*)} = L_{\infty}$, and if $\sup_{0 < t \leq 1} w(t) \, t^{-1/p} < \infty$, then $ M_{p, w} = L_p$ with equivalent quasi-norms. However, under appropriate assumptions on a weight $w$ the second and the third inclusions in (\[7\]) are proper.
\[Pro1\]
- If $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) \, t^{-1/p} = \infty$, then there exists $f \in K_{p, w} \setminus M_{p, w}$.
- If $w(t) \, t^{-1/p}$ is a non-increasing function on $(0, 1]$ and $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) =
\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} \frac{t^{1/p}}{w(t)} = 0$, then there exists $g \in M_{p, w} \setminus M_{p, w}^{(*)}$.
\(i) Since $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) t^{-1/p} = \infty$, there exists a sequence $\{t_k\} \subset (0, 1]$ such that $t_k \searrow 0, t_1 \leq 1/2$ and $w(t_k) t_k^{-1/p} \nearrow \infty$. Let us denote $v(t) = w(t) \, t^{-1/p}$ and $$g(s): = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \Big( v(t_k)^{-p/2} - v(t_{k+1})^{-p/2} \Big)^{1/p} (t_k - t_{k+1})^{-1/p} \chi_{(t_{k+1}, t_k]}(s).$$ Note that, by definition, ${\rm supp} \, g \subset [0, 1/2]$. Then, for every $k \in \mathbb N$ $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{t_k} |g(s)|^p \, ds
&=&
\sum_{i=k}^{\infty} \int_{t_{i+1}}^{t_i} g(s)^p \, ds \\
&=&
\sum_{i=k}^{\infty} \frac{v(t_i)^{-p/2} - v(t_{i+1})^{-p/2}}{t_i - t_{i+1}} (t_i - t_{i+1}) = v(t_k)^{-p/2}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we see that $g \in L_p$. Let $f(t):= g(t + \frac{1}{2})$ for $0 \leq t \leq 1$. Then $\| f \|_p = \| g \|_p$, and therefore $f \in L_p$. Moreover, since ${\rm supp} f \subset [1/2, 1]$, we obtain $f \in K_{p, w}$. In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
\| f \|_{K_{p, w}}
&=&
\sup_{0 < x \leq 1} w(x) \left( \frac{1}{x} \int_0^x |f(t)|^p \, dt \right)^{1/p} =
\sup_{\frac{1}{2} \leq x \leq 1} \frac{w(x)}{x^{1/p}} \Big( \int_{1/2}^x |f(t)|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p} \\
&\approx&
\sup_{\frac{1}{2} \leq x \leq 1} \Big( \int_{1/2}^x |f(t)|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p} = \| f \|_{L_p} < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ At the same time, if $I_k:= [\frac{1}{2}, t_k + \frac{1}{2}], k = 1, 2, \ldots$, we have $$w(|I_k|) \left( \frac{1}{|I_k|} \int_{I_k} |f(t)|^p \, dt \right)^{1/p} = v(t_k) \Big ( \int_0^{t_k} |g(s)|^p \, ds \Big)^{1/p}
= v(t_k) \cdot v(t_k)^{-1/2} = v(t_k)^{1/2}.$$ Since $v(t_k) \nearrow \infty$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$, we conclude that $f \not \in M_{p, w}$.
\(ii) It is easy to find a function $g \in L_p \setminus M_{p, w}^{(*)}$. Next, by the main result of the paper [@AA81], there exist a function $f \in M_{p, w}$ and constants $c_0 > 0$ and $\lambda_0 > 0$ such that $$\Big| \{t \in [0, 1]: |f(t)| > \lambda \} \Big| \geq c \, \Big| \{t \in [0, 1]: |g(t)| > \lambda \} \Big|$$ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda_0$. Clearly, since $g \not \in M_{p, w}^{(*)}$, from the last inequality it follows that $f \not \in M_{p, w}^{(*)}$.
The proof of Proposition \[Pro1\] (ii) shows also that the Morrey space $M_{p, w}$ is not an r.i. space whenever $w(t) \, t^{-1/p}$ is a non-increasing function on $(0, 1]$ and $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) = \lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} \frac{t^{1/p}}{w(t)} = 0$.
For a normed ideal space $X = (X, \|\cdot\|)$ on $[0, 1]$ the [*K[ö]{}the dual*]{} (or [*associated space*]{}) $X^{\prime}$ is the space of all real-valued Lebesgue measurable functions defined on $[0, 1]$ such that the [*associated norm*]{} $$\|f\|_{X^{\prime}}: = \sup_{g \in X, ~\|g\|_{X} \leq 1} \int_0^1 |f(x) g(x) | \, dx$$ is finite. The K[ö]{}the dual $X^{\prime}$ is a Banach ideal space. Moreover, $X \stackrel {1}\hookrightarrow X^{\prime \prime}$ and we have equality $X = X^{\prime \prime}$ with $\|f\| = \|f\|_{X^{\prime \prime}}$ if and only if the norm in $X$ has the [*Fatou property*]{}, that is, if $0 \leq f_{n} \nearrow f$ a.e. on $[0, 1]$ and $\sup_{n \in {\bf N}} \|f_{n}\| < \infty$, then $f \in X$ and $\|f_{n}\| \nearrow \|f\|$.
Denote by $\cal D$ the set of all dyadic intervals $I_k^n = [(k-1) \, 2^{-n}, k \, 2^{-n}]$, where $n = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$ and $ k = 1, 2, \ldots, 2^n.$ If $f$ and $g$ are nonnegative functions (or quasi-norms), then the symbol $f \approx g$ means that $C^{-1}\, g \leq f \leq C\, g$ for some $C \geq 1$. Moreover, we write $X \simeq Y$ if Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$ are isomorphic.
The paper is organized as follows. After Introduction, in Section 2 the behaviour of Rademacher sums in Morrey spaces is described (see Theorem 1). The main result of Section 3 is Theorem 2, which states that the Rademacher subspace ${\cal R}_p, 1 < p < \infty$, is complemented in the Morrey space $M_{p, w}$ if and only if ${\cal R}_p$ is isomorphic to $l_2$ or equivalently if $\sup_{0 < t \leq 1} w(t) \log_2^{1/2} (2/t) < \infty$. In the case when $p = 1$ situation is different, which is the contents of Section 4, where we are proving in Theorem 3 that the subspace ${\cal R}_1$ is not complemented in $M_{1, w}$ for any quasi-concave weight $w$. Finally, in Section 5, the geometric structure of Rademacher subspaces in Morrey spaces is investigated (see Theorem 4).
Rademacher sums in Morrey spaces
=================================
We start with the description of behaviour of Rademacher sums in the Morrey spaces $M_{p, w}$ defined by quasi-norms (\[2\]), where $0 < p < \infty$ and $w$ is a non-decreasing function on $[0, 1]$ satisfying the doubling condition $w(2t) \leq C_0 \, w(t)$ for all $t \in (0, 1/2]$ with a certain $C_0 \geq 1$.
\[Thm1\] With constants depending only on $p$ and $w$ $$\label{8}
\Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k \, r_k \Big\|_{M_{p, w}} \approx \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} + \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} \Big( w(2^{-m})
\sum_{k=1}^m | a_k | \Big).$$
Firstly, let $ 1 \leq p < \infty$. Consider an arbitrary interval $I \in {\cal D}$, i.e., $I = I_k^m,$ with $m \in \mathbb N$ and $k = 1, 2, \ldots, 2^m$. Then, for every $f = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k \, r_k$, we have $$\Big(\int_I | f(t)|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p} = \Big( \int_I \Big|\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k + \sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_k(t) \Big|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p},$$ where $\varepsilon_k = {\rm sign} \, {r_k}_{\big| I}, k = 1, 2, \ldots, m$. Since the functions $$\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k +\sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_k(t) ~~ {\rm and}
~~ \sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k -\sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_k(t)$$ are equimeasurable on the interval $I$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big (\int_I | f(t)|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p}
&=&
\frac{1}{2} \Big ( \int_I \Big|\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k +\sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_k(t) \Big|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p} \\
&+&
\frac{1}{2} \Big ( \int_I \Big|\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k -\sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_k(t) \Big|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p},\end{aligned}$$ whence by the Minkowski triangle inequality we obtain $$\Big (\int_I | f(t)|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p} \geq \Big ( \int_I \Big|\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k \Big|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p} \\
= 2^{-m/p}\, \Big|\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k \Big|$$ for every $m = 1, 2, \ldots$. Clearly, one may find $i = 1, 2, \ldots, 2^m$ such that ${r_k}_{\big | I_i^m} = {\rm sign} \, a_k$, for all $k = 1, 2, \ldots, m$. Therefore, for every $m = 1, 2, \ldots$ $$\left(\frac{1}{|I|} \int_I | f(t)|^p \, dt \right)^{1/p} \geq \sum_{k=1}^m |a_k|,$$ and so $$\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} w(2^{-m}) \sum_{k=1}^m |a_k|.$$ On the other hand, by (\[7\]) and (\[3\]) we have $$\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq \| f \|_{L_p} \geq A_p \, \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2}.$$ Combining these inequalities, we obtain $$\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq \frac{A_p}{2} \Big ( \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} + \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} w(2^{-m}) \sum_{k=1}^m |a_k| \Big).$$
Let us prove the reverse inequality. For a given interval $I \subset [0, 1]$ we can find two adjacent dyadic intervals $I_1$ and $I_2$ of the same length such that $$\label{9}
I \subset I_1 \cup I_2 ~~ {\rm and} ~~ \frac{1}{2}\, |I_1| \leq |I| \leq 2\, |I_1|.$$ If $| I_1| = | I_2| = 2^{-m}$, then by the Minkowski triangle inequality and inequality in (\[3\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Big (\int_{I_1} | f (t)|^p \,dt \Big)^{1/p}
&=&
\Big ( \int_{I_1} \Big|\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k + \sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_k(t) \Big|^p \, dt \Big )^{1/p}\\
&\leq&
\Big( \int_{I_1} \Big|\sum_{k=1}^m a_k \varepsilon_k \Big|^p \, dt \Big )^{1/p} + \Big ( \int_{I_1} \Big|\sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_k(t) \Big|^p \, dt \Big )^{1/p}\\
&\leq&
2^{-m/p} \, \sum_{k=1}^m | a_k| + 2^{-m/p} \, \Big ( \int_0^1 \Big| \sum_{k=m+1}^{\infty} a_k r_{k-m}(t) \Big|^p \, dt \Big )^{1/p}\\
&\leq&
2^{-m/p} \, \sum_{k=1}^m | a_k| + 2^{-m/p} \, B_p \, \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2}.\end{aligned}$$ The same estimate holds also for the integral $\big (\int_{I_2} | f (t)|^p \,dt \big)^{1/p}$. Therefore, by (\[9\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\Big (\frac{1}{| I |} \int_{I} | f (t)|^p \,dt \Big)^{1/p}
&\leq&
2^{1/p} \, \Big (\frac{1}{| I_1 |} \int_{I_1} | f (t)|^p \,dt + \frac{1}{| I_2 |} \int_{I_2} | f (t)|^p \,dt \Big)^{1/p}\\
&\leq&
4^{1/p} \, B_p \, \Big( \sum_{k=1}^m | a_k| + \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} \Big)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
w(| I |) \, \Big (\frac{1}{| I |} \int_{I} | f (t)|^p \,dt \Big)^{1/p}
&\leq&
w(2 \cdot 2^{-m}) \, 4^{1/p} \, B_p \, \Big( \sum_{k=1}^m | a_k| + \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} \Big)\\
&\leq&
C_0 \cdot 4^{1/p} \, B_p \, w(2^{-m}) \, \Big( \sum_{k=1}^m | a_k| + \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, using definition of the norm in $M_{p, w}$, we obtain $$\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \leq
C_0 \cdot 4^{1/p} \, B_p \, \Big( \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} w(2^{-m}) \, \sum_{k=1}^m | a_k| + \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} \Big).$$ The same proof works also in the case when $0 < p < 1$ with the only change that the $L_p$-triangle inequality contains constant $2^{1/p-1}$.
In the rest of the paper, a weight function $w$ is assumed to be [*quasi-concave on $[0, 1]$*]{}, that is, $w(0) = 0, w$ is non-decreasing, and ${w(t)}/{t}$ is non-increasing on $(0, 1]$. Moreover, as above, we assume that $w(1) = 1$.
Recall that a basic sequence $\{x_k\}$ in a Banach space $X$ is called [*subsymmetric*]{} if it is unconditional and is equivalent in $X$ to any its subsequence.
\[Cor1\] For every $1 \leq p < \infty$ $\{r_k\}$ is an unconditional and not subsymmetric basic sequence in $M_{p, w}$.
\[Cor2\] Let $1 \leq p < \infty$. The Rademacher functions span $l_2$ space in $M_{p, w}$ if and only if $$\label{10}
\sup_{0 < t \leq 1} w(t) \log_2^{1/2} (2/t) < \infty.$$
If (\[10\]) holds, then for all $m \in \mathbb N$ we have $w(2^{-m}) \, m^{1/2} \leq C$. Using the Hölder-Rogers inequality, we obtain $$w(2^{-m}) \, \sum_{k=1}^m |a_k| \leq w(2^{-m})\Big(\sum_{k=1}^m |a_k|^2\Big)^{1/2} m^{1/2} \le C \, \Big(\sum_{k=1}^m |a_k|^2\Big)^{1/2}.$$ Therefore, from (\[8\]) it follows that $\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k \, r_k \|_{M_{p, w}} \approx \| \{a_k\}\|_{l_2}$.
Conversely, suppose that condition (\[10\]) does not hold. Then, by the quasi-concavity of $w$, there exists a sequence of natural numbers $m_k \rightarrow \infty$ such that $$\label{11}
w(2^{-m_k}) \, m_k^{1/2} \rightarrow \infty ~{\rm as} ~ k \rightarrow \infty.$$ Consider the Rademacher sums $R_k(t) = \sum_{i=1}^k a_i^k \, r_i(t)$ corresponding to the sequences of coefficients $a^k = (a_i^k)_{i=1}^{m_k}$, where $a_i^k = m_k^{-1/2}, ~1 \leq i \leq m_k$. We have $\| a^k\|_{l_2} = 1$ for all $k = 1, 2, ... $ However, $\sum_{i=1}^{m_k} a_i^{k} = m_k^{1/2} ~(k = 1, 2, ...)$, which together with (\[11\]) and (\[8\]) imply that $\| R_k\|_{M_{p, w}} \rightarrow \infty$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$.
\[rem1\]
The Rademacher functions span $l_2$ in each of the spaces $M_{p, w}^{(*)}, M_{p, w}$ and $K_{p, w},$ $1 \leq p < \infty$ (see embeddings (\[7\])). In fact, the Orlicz space $L_M$ generated by the function $M(u) = e^{u^2} -1$ coincides with the Marcinkiewicz space $M_{1, v}^{(*)}$ with $v(t) = \log_2^{-1/2}(2/t)$ (cf. [@As09 Lemma 3.2]). Recalling that $G$ is the closure of $L_{\infty}$ in $M_{1, v}^{(*)}$ we note that the embedding $G \subset M_{p, w}^{(*)}$ holds if and only if (\[10\]) is satisfied. Therefore, by already mentioned Rodin-Semenov theorem (cf. [@RS75]; see also [@LT Theorem 2.b.4]), the Rademacher functions span $l_2$ in $M_{p, w}^{(*)}$ if and only if (\[10\]) holds.
Moreover, it is instructive to compare the behaviour of Rademacher sums in the spaces $M_{1,w}^{(*)}, M_{1,w}$ and $K_{1, w}$ in the case when $w(t) = \log_2^{-1/q} (2/t)$, where $q > 2$. Then (\[10\]) does not hold and $$\Big\|\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k r_k \Big\|_{M_{1, w}^{(*)}} \approx \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} + \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} \, m^{-1/q} \,
\sum_{k=1}^m a_k^{\ast},$$ where $\{a_k^{\ast}\}$ is the non-increasing rearrangement of $\{|a_k|\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ (cf. Rodin-Semenov [@RS75 p. 221] and Pisier [@Pi81]; see also Marcus-Pisier [@MP84 pp. 277-278]), $$\Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k r_k \Big\|_{M_{1, w}} \approx \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} + \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} \, m^{-1/q} \,
\sum_{k=1}^m |a_k | ~~~ {\rm by ~~ (\ref{8})}, ~ {\rm and}$$ $$\Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k r_k \Big\|_{K_{1, w}} \approx \| \{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \|_{l_2} + \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} \, m^{-1/q} \, \Big| \sum_{k=1}^ma_k \Big| ~~ {\rm (cf. ~ \cite[Theorem ~ 2]{AM10}).}$$
Now, we pass to studying the problem of complementability of the closed linear span ${\cal R}_p: = [r_n]_{n=1}^\infty$ in the space $M_{p, w}$. Since the results turn out to be different for $p > 1$ and $p = 1$, we consider these cases separately.
Complementability of Rademacher subspaces in Morrey spaces $M_{p, w}$ for $p > 1$
==================================================================================
\[Thm2\] Let $1<p<\infty$. The subspace ${\cal R}_p$ is complemented in the Morrey space $M_{p, w}$ if and only if condition (\[10\]) holds.
To prove this theorem we will need the following auxiliary assertion.
\[Pro2\] If condition (\[10\]) does not hold, then the subspace ${\cal R}_p$ contains a complemented (in ${\cal R}_p$) subspace isomorphic to $c_0$.
Since $w$ is quasi-concave, by the assumption, we have $$\label{12}
\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} w(2^{-n}) \sqrt{n} = \infty.$$ We select an increasing sequence of positive integers as follows. Let $n_1$ be the least positive integer satisfying the inequality $w(2^{-{n_1}}) \sqrt{n_1} \geq 2$. As it is easy to see $w(2^{-{n_1}}) \sqrt{n_1} < 2^2$. By induction, assume that the numbers $n_1 < n_2 < \ldots < n_{k-1}$ are chosen. Applying (\[12\]), we take for $n_k$ the least positive integer such that $$\label{13}
w(2^{-n_k}) \sqrt{n_k - n_{k-1}} \geq 2^k.$$ Then, obviously, $$\label{14}
w(2^{-n_k}) \sqrt{n_k - n_{k-1}} < 2^{k+1}.$$ Thus, we obtain a sequence $0 = n_0 < n_1 < \ldots$ satisfying inequalities (\[13\]) and (\[14\]) for all $k \in \mathbb N$. Let us consider the block basis $\{v_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of the Rademacher system defined as follows: $$v_k = \sum_{i = n_{k-1}+1}^{n_k} a_i\, r_i, ~~ {\rm where} ~~ a_i = \dfrac{1}{(n_k - n_{k-1}) \, w(2^{-n_k})} ~~ {\rm for} ~~ n_{k-1} < i \leq n_k.$$ Let us recall that, by Theorem \[Thm1\], if $R = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k \, r_k$, then $\| R \|_{M_{p, w}} \approx \| R \|_{l_2} + \| R \|_{w}$, where $$\| R \|_{l_2} = \Big(\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k^2\Big)^{1/2} ~~ {\rm and} ~~
\| R \|_{w} = \sup_{m \in \mathbb N} \Big( w(2^{-m}) \sum_{k=1}^m |b_k|\Big).$$ Now, we estimate the norm of $v_k,$ $k=1,2,\dots,$ in $M_{p, w}$. At first, by (\[13\]), $$\label{15}
\| v_k \|_{l_2} = \Big( \sum_{i=n_{k-1}+1}^{n_k} a_i^2 \Big)^{1/2} =
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{n_k - n_{k-1}} \, w(2^{-n_k})} \leq 2^{-k}, ~ k = 1, 2, \ldots$$ Moreover, taking into account (\[13\]), (\[14\]) and the choice of $n_k$, for every $k \in \mathbb N$ and $n_{k-1} < i \leq n_k$ we have $$w(2^{-i})\, \sum_{j= n_{k-1} + 1}^i a_j = \dfrac{w(2^{-i}) (i-n_{k-1})}{(n_k - n_{k-1}) w(2^{-n_k})} \leq \dfrac{2^{k+1}
\sqrt{i-n_{k-1}}}{2^k \sqrt{n_k - n_{k-1}}} \leq 2.$$ Therefore, $\| v_k \|_{w} \leq 2$ for $k \in \mathbb N$ and combining this with (\[15\]) we obtain $\| v_k \|_{M_{p, w}} \leq C$ for $k \in \mathbb N$.
On the other hand, by Theorem \[Thm1\], $$\label{15extra}
\| v_k \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq c \, w(2^{-n_k}) \, \sum_{ i=n_{k-1}+1}^{n_k} a_i = c$$ for some constant $c > 0$ and every $k \in \mathbb N$. Thus, $\{v_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is a semi-normalized block basis of $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ in $M_{p, w}$.
Further, let us select a subsequence $\{m_i\} \subset \{n_k\}$ such that $$\label{16}
w(2^{-m_{i+1}}) \leq \frac{1}{2} w(2^{-m_i}), ~~ i = 1, 2, \ldots$$ and denote by $\{u_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ the corresponding subsequence of $\{v_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$. Then, $u_i$ can be represented as follows: $$u_i = \sum_{k=l_i}^{m_i} a_k \, r_k, ~~ {\rm where} ~~ l_i = n_{j_i - 1} + 1, ~m_i = n_{j_i}, ~ j_1 < j_2 < \ldots .$$ Moreover, from the above $\{u_i\}$ is a semi-normalized sequence in $M_{p, w}$ and $$\label {17}
\| u_i \|_{l_2} \leq 2^{-i} ~~ {\rm for} ~~ i = 1, 2, \ldots.$$ We show that the sequence $\{u_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ is equivalent in $M_{p, w}$ to the unit vector basis of $c_0$.
Let $f = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \beta_i \, u_i, \beta_i \in \mathbb R$. Then, we have $$f = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \beta_i \sum_{k=l_i}^{m_i} a_k \, r_k = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \gamma_k \, r_k,$$ where $\gamma_k = \beta_i \, a_k, l_i \leq k \leq m_i, i = 1, 2, \ldots$ and $\gamma_k = 0$ if $k \not \in \cup_{i = 1}^{\infty} [l_i, m_i]$. To estimate $\| f \|_{w}$, assume, at first, that $m_s \leq q < l_{s+1}$ for some $s \in \mathbb N$. Then, $$\sum_{k=1}^q |\gamma_k| = \sum_{i=1}^s |\beta_i| \sum_{k=l_i}^{m_i} a_k = \sum_{i=1}^s |\beta_i| \, \dfrac{1}{w(2^{-m_i})} \leq \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0} \, \sum_{i=1}^s \dfrac{1}{w(2^{-m_i})},$$ and from (\[16\]) it follows that $$w(2^{-q}) \, \sum_{k=1}^q |\gamma_k| \leq \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0} \, \sum_{i=1}^s \dfrac{w(2^{-m_s})}{w(2^{-m_i})} \leq
\| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0} \, \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} 2^{-i} = 2\, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0}.$$ Otherwise, we have $l_s \leq q < m_s, s \in \mathbb N$. Then, similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^q |\gamma_k|
&\leq&
\left( \sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \dfrac{1}{w(2^{-m_i})} + \sum_{k = l_s}^q a_k \right) \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0} \\
&=&
\left( \sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \dfrac{1}{w(2^{-m_i})} + \dfrac{q - l_s +1}{(m_s - l_s +1) \, w(2^{-m_s})} \right) \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $m_s = n_{j_s}$ and $l_s = n_{j_s-1} + 1$ for some $j_s \in \mathbb N$, in view of (\[13\]), (\[16\]) and the choice of $n_{j_s}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
w(2^{-q}) \, \sum_{k=1}^q |\gamma_k|
&\leq&
\left( \sum_{i=1}^{s-1} \dfrac{w(2^{-m_{s-1}})}{w(2^{-m_i})} + \dfrac{w(2^{-q}) (q - l_s + 1)}{(m_s - l_s + 1) \, w(2^{-m_s})} \right) \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0} \\
&\leq&
\left( \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} 2^{-i} + \dfrac{2^{j_s+1} \sqrt{q - l_s + 1}}{ 2^{j_s} \sqrt{m_s - l_s + 1}} \right) \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0} \leq 4 \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with the previous estimate, we obtain that $\| f \|_w \leq 4 \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0}$. On the other hand, from (\[17\]) it follows that $\| f \|_{l_2} \leq \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0}$. Therefore, again by Theorem \[Thm1\], $$\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \leq C \, \big( \| f \|_{l_2} + \| f \|_w \big) \leq 5 \, C \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0}.$$ In opposite direction, taking into account the fact that $\{u_i\}$ is an unconditional sequence in $M_{p, w}$, by , we obtain $$\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq c'\,\sup_{i \in \mathbb N} |\beta_i| \, \| u_i \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq c^{\prime}c \, \| (\beta_i) \|_{c_0},$$ for some constant $c^{\prime} > 0$. Thus, we have proved that $E: = [u_n]_{M_{p, w}} \simeq c_0$. Since ${\cal R}_p$ is separable, Sobczyk’s theorem (see, for example, [@AK06 Corollary 2.5.9]) implies that $E$ is a complemented subspace in ${\cal R}_p$.
At first, let us assume that relation (\[10\]) holds. Then, by Corollary \[Cor2\], ${\cal R}_p \simeq l_2$. Therefore, since $M_{p, w} \stackrel {1}\hookrightarrow L_p$, by the Khintchine inequality, the orthogonal projection $P$ generated by the Rademacher system satisfies the following: $$\| Pf \|_{M_{p, w}} \approx \| Pf \|_{L_p} \leq \| P\|_{L_p \rightarrow L_p} \| f \|_{L_p} \leq \| P\|_{L_p \rightarrow L_p} \| f \|_{M_{p, w}},$$ because $P$ is bounded in $L_p, 1 < p < \infty$. Hence, $P: M_{p, w} \rightarrow M_{p, w}$ is bounded.
Conversely, we argue in a similar way as in the proof of Theorem 4 in [@ALM11]. Suppose that the subspace ${\cal R}_p = [r_n]_{n=1}^\infty$ is complemented in $M_{p, w}$ and let $P_1: M_{p, w} \rightarrow M_{p, w}$ be a bounded linear projection whose range is ${\cal R}_p$. By Proposition \[Pro2\], there is a subspace $E$ complemented in ${\cal R}_p$ and such that $E \simeq c_0$. Let $P_2: {\cal R}_p \rightarrow E$ be a bounded linear projection. Then $P: = P_2 \circ P_1$ is a linear projection bounded in $M_{p, w}$ whose image coincides with $E$. Thus, $M_{p, w}$ contains a complemented subspace $E \simeq c_0$.
Since $M_{p, w}$ is a conjugate space (more precisely, $M_{p, w} = (H^{q, u})^{\ast}$, where $H^{q, u}$ is the “block space" and $1/p + 1/q = 1$ – see, for example, [@Zo86 Proposition 5]; see also [@BRV99] and [@Na11]), this contradicts the well-known result due to Bessaga-Pe[ł]{}czyński saying that arbitrary conjugate space cannot contain a complemented subspace isomorphic to $c_0$ (see [@BP58 Corollary 4] and [@BP58S Theorem 4 and its proof]). This contradiction proves the theorem.
Rademacher subspace ${\cal R}_1$ is not complemented in Morrey space $M_{1, w}$
===============================================================================
\[Thm3\] For every quasi-concave weight $w$ the subspace ${\cal R}_1$ is not complemented in the Morrey space $M_{1, w}$.
In the proof we consider two cases separately, depending if the condition (\[10\]) is satisfied or not.
On the contrary, we suppose that ${\cal R}_1$ is complemented in $M_{1, w}$. Then, if $Q$ is a bounded linear projection from $M_{1, w}$ onto ${\cal R}_1$, by Theorem \[Thm1\], for every $p \in (1, \infty)$ and $f \in M_{p, w}$, we have $$\| Q f \|_{M_{p, w}} \approx \| Q f \|_{M_{1, w}} \leq \| Q\| \, \| f \|_{M_{1, w}} \leq \| Q \| \, \| f \|_{M_{p, w}}.$$ Thus, $Q$ is a bounded projection from $M_{p, w}$ onto ${\cal R}_p$, which contradicts Theorem \[Thm2\].
To prove the assertion in the case when (\[10\]) holds, we will need auxiliary results. Let $M_{p, w}^d$ be the dyadic version of the space $M_{p, w}$, $1 \leq p < \infty$, consisting of all measurable functions $f: [0, 1] \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ such that $$\|f\|_{M_{p, w}^d} = \sup_{I \in {\cal D}} ~ w(|I|) \left( \frac{1}{|I|}\int_I | f(t) |^p\,dt \right)^{1/p} < \infty.$$
\[Lem1\] For every $1 \leq p < \infty$ $M_{p, w} = M_{p, w}^d$ and $$\label{18}
\|f\|_{M_{p, w}^d} \leq \|f\|_{M_{p, w}} \leq 4 \, \|f\|_{M_{p, w}^d}.$$
The left-hand side inequality in (\[18\]) is obvious. To prove the right-hand side one, we observe that for any interval $I \subset [0, 1]$ we can find adjacent dyadic intervals $I_1$ and $I_2$ of the same length such that $I \subset I_1 \cup I_2$ and $\frac{1}{2} |I_1| \leq | I | \leq 2 |I_1|$. Then, by the quasi-concavity of $w$, $$\begin{aligned}
&& w(| I |) \left( \frac{1}{| I |} \int_{I} |f(t)|^p \, dt \right)^{1/p} =
\frac{w(| I |)}{| I |} \Big( | I |^{p-1} \int_{I} |f(t)|^p \, dt \Big)^{1/p} \\
&\leq&
\frac{w(\frac{1}{2} |I_1|)}{\frac{1}{2}|I_1|} \Big[ 2^{p-1} |I_1|^{p-1} \Big( \int_{I_1} |f(t)|^p \, dt + \int_{I_2} |f(t)|^p \, dt \Big) \Big]^{1/p}\\
&\leq&
2^{2-1/p} \, w(|I_1|) \left( \frac{1}{|I_1|} \int_{I_1} |f(t)|^p \, dt + \frac{1}{|I_2|} \int_{I_2} |f(t)|^p \, dt \right)^{1/p} \\
&\leq&
4 \, \sup_{I \in {\cal D}} w(|I|) \left( \frac{1}{|I|} \int_{I} |f(t)|^p \, dt \right)^{1/p} = 4 \, \|f\|_{M_{p, w}^d}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the supremum over all intervals $I \subset [0, 1]$, we obtain the right-hand side inequality in (\[18\]).
Let $P$ be the orthogonal projection generated by the Rademacher sequence, i.e., $$\label{19}
Pf(t): = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \int_0^1 f(s) r_k(s) \, ds \cdot r_k(t).$$
\[Pro3\] Let $1 \leq p < \infty$. If ${\cal R}_p$ is a complemented subspace in $M_{p, w}$, then the projection $P$ is bounded in $M_{p, w}$.
By Lemma \[Lem1\], it is sufficient to prove the same assertion for the dyadic space $M_{p, w}^d$. We almost repeat the arguments from the proof of the similar result for r.i. function spaces (see [@RS79] or [@As09 Theorem 3.4]).
Let $t=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \alpha_{i} 2^{-i}$ and $u=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \beta_{i} 2^{-i}$ $(\alpha_{i},
\beta_{i}=0,1)$ be the binary expansion of the numbers $t,u \in [0,1]$. Define the following operation: $$t\oplus u=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 2^{-i} [(\alpha_{i} + \beta_{i} ) ~ {\rm mod} ~ 2].$$ One can easily verify that this operation transforms the segment $[0, 1]$ into a compact Abelian group. For every $u\in [0,1]$, the transformation $w_{u}(s)=s \oplus u$ preserves the Lebesgue measure on $[0, 1]$, i.e., for any measurable $E\subset [0,1]$, its inverse image $w_{u}^{-1}(E)$ is measurable and $m(w_{u}^{-1}(E))=m(E)$. Moreover, $w_{u}$ maps any dyadic interval onto some dyadic interval. Hence, the operators $T_{u}f = f\circ w_{u}$ $(0\le u \le 1)$ act isometrically in $M_{p, w}^d$. From the definition of the Rademacher functions it follows that the subspace ${\cal R}_p$ is invariant with respect to these operators. Therefore, by the Rudin theorem (see [@Ru91 Theorem 5.18, pp. 134-135]), there exists a bounded linear projector $Q$ acting from $M_{p, w}^d$ onto ${\cal R}_p$ and commuting with all operators $T_{u} \;\; (0\le u \le 1)$. We show that $Q = P$.
First of all, the projector $Q$ has the representation $$\label{20}
Q f(t)= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} Q_{i}(f) \, r_{i}(t),$$ where by Theorem \[Thm1\], $Q_{i} ~ (i = 1, 2, \ldots)$ are linear bounded functionals on $M_{p, w}^d$. It is obvious that $$\label{21}
Q_{i}(r_{j})=
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
1 ~{\rm if} ~ i=j,\\
0 ~ {\rm if} ~ i\not=j.\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Consider the sets $$U_i =\Big\{ u\in [0,1]: u=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \alpha_{j}2^{-j}, \;\; \alpha_{i}=0\Big\}, ~~ U_i^c = [0,1]\backslash U_i.$$ One can check that $$r_{i}(t\oplus u)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
r_{i}(t) ~{\rm if} ~ u\in U_i,\\
-r_{i}(t) ~~ {\rm if} ~ u \in U_i^c. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Due to the relation $T_{u}Q=QT_{u}$ $(0\le u \le 1)$ this implies $$Q_{i}(T_uf)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_{i}(f) ~{\rm if} ~ u\in U_i,\\
-Q_{i}(f) ~~{\rm if} ~ u\in U_i^c. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Taking into account that $m(U_i)= m(U_i^c)= 1/2$, we find that $$\int_{U_i} Q_{i}(T_uf)\, du = \frac{1}{2} Q_{i}(f) ~~{\rm and} ~~ \int_{U_i^c} Q_{i}(T_uf)\, du = - \frac{1}{2} Q_{i}(f).$$ Thanks to the boundedness of $Q_{i}$ , this functional can be moved outside the integral; therefore, we obtain $$\label{22}
Q_{i}(f) = Q_i \Bigl ( \int_{U_i} T_uf\,du - \int _{U_i^c}T_uf\,du \Bigl).$$ Since $$\{ s\in [0,1]:\, s = t\oplus u, \;\; u\in U_i \}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
U_i ~ {\rm if} ~ t\in U_i,\\
U_i^c ~ {\rm if} ~ t \in U_i^c, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ $$\{ s\in [0,1]:\, s=t\oplus u, \;\; u\in U_i^c \}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
U_i^c ~ {\rm if} ~ t\in U_i,\\
U_i ~ {\rm if} ~ t \in U_i^c, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and the transformation $\omega_u$ preserves the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$, we have $$\int_{U_i} T_uf(t)du\;=\;\int _{U_i} f(s)\,ds \cdot \chi_{U_i}(t)\;+\; \int_{U_i^c} f(s)\,ds \cdot\chi_{U_i^c}(t)$$ and $$\int _{U_i^c} T_uf(t)\,du\;=\;\int_{U_i^c}f(s)\,ds \cdot \chi_{U_i}(t)\;+\;\int_{U_i}f(s)\,ds \cdot\chi_{U_i^c}(t).$$ It is easy to see that $r_{i}(t)= \chi_{U_i}(t) - \chi_{U_i^c}(t)$. Therefore, from the last two relations it follows that $$\int\limits _{U_i} T_uf(t)\,du - \int_{U_i^c}T_uf(t)\,du = \int_0^1 f(s) r_{i}(s)\,ds \cdot r_{i}(t).$$ This and (\[20\])–(\[22\]) yield $$Q_{i}(f) = \int_0^1 f(s) r_{i}(s)\,ds, ~~ i = 1, 2, \ldots,$$ i.e., $Q = P$, and Proposition \[Pro3\] is proved.
The following result, in fact, is known. However, we provide its proof for completeness.
\[Lem2\] Suppose that the Rademacher sequence is equivalent in a Banach function lattice $X$ on $[0, 1]$ to the unit vector basis in $l_2$, i.e., for some constant $C > 0$ and all $a = (a_k)_{k=1}^{\infty} \in l_2$ $$\label{23}
C^{-1} \, \| a \|_{l_2} \leq \Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k \, r_k \Big\|_{X} \leq C \, \| a \|_{l_2}.$$ Moreover, let $\{r_k\} \subset X^{\prime}$, where $X^{\prime}$ is the Köthe dual space for $X$. Then, the orthogonal projection $P$ is bounded in $X$ if and only if there exists a constant $C_1 > 0$ such that for every $a = (a_k)_{k=1}^{\infty} \in l_2$ $$\label{24}
\Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k \, r_k \Big\|_{X^{\prime}} \leq C_1 \, \| a \|_{l_2}.$$
First, suppose that (\[24\]) holds. For arbitrary $f \in X$, we set $$c_k(f) = \int_0^1 f(s) r_k(s) \, ds, ~ k = 1, 2, \ldots$$ By (\[24\]), for every $n \in \mathbb N$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^n c_k(f)^2
&=&
\int_0^1 f(s) \sum_{k=1}^n c_k(f) r_k(s) \, ds \leq
\| f\|_X \Big\| \sum_{k=1}^n c_k(f) r_k \Big\|_{X^{\prime}} \\
&\leq&
C_1 \, \| f\|_X \Big( \sum_{k=1}^n c_k(f)^2 \Big)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, taking into account (\[23\]), we obtain $$\| Pf \|_X \leq C \Big( \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} c_k(f)^2 \Big)^{1/2} \leq C \cdot C_1 \| f \|_X.$$ Thus, $P$ is bounded in $X$.
Conversely, if $P$ is a bounded projection in $X$, then from (\[23\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 f(t) \sum_{k=1}^n a_k r_k(t) \, dt
&=&
\sum_{k=1}^n a_k \cdot c_k(f) \leq \| a \|_{l_2} \, \Big( \sum_{k=1}^n c_k(f)^2 \Big)^{1/2} \\
&\leq&
C \, \| a \|_{l_2} \, \| Pf \|_X \leq C \, \| P \|_{X \rightarrow X} \, \| a \|_{l_2} \, \| f \|_X \end{aligned}$$ for each $n \in \mathbb N$, all $a = (a_k)_{k=1}^{\infty} \in l_2$ and $f \in X$. Hence, $$\Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_k \, r_k \Big\|_{X^{\prime}} \leq C \, \| P \|_{X \rightarrow X} \, \| a \|_{l_2},$$ and (\[24\]) is proved.
In view of Lemmas \[Lem1\], \[Lem2\] and Proposition \[Pro2\] it is sufficient to prove that $$\label{25}
\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{ \sqrt{n}} \, \Big\| \sum_{k=1}^n r_k \Big\|_{(M_{1, w}^d)^{\prime}} = \infty.$$ For every $m \in \mathbb N$ such that $\sqrt{m/2} \in \mathbb N$ we consider the set $$E_m: = \{t \in [0, 1]: 0 \leq \sum_{k=1}^{2m} r_k(t) \leq \sqrt{m/2}\, \}.$$ Clearly, $E_m = \cup_{k \in S_m} I_k^{2m}$, where $S_m \subset \{1, 2, \ldots, 2^{2m}\}$. Also, it is easy to see that $|E_m| \rightarrow 0$ as $m \rightarrow \infty$. Denoting $$f_m: = \frac{1}{w(|E_m|)} \, \chi_{E_m}, ~ m \in \mathbb N,$$ we show that $$\label{26}
\| f_m \|_{M_{1, w}^d} \leq 1 ~~ {\rm for ~ all} ~~m \in \mathbb N.$$ In fact, let $I$ be a dyadic interval from $[0, 1]$. Clearly, we can assume that $I \cap E_m \not = \emptyset$. Then, by using the quasi-concavity of $w$, we have $$\frac{w(|I|)}{|I|} \int_I |f_m(t)|\, dt = \frac{w(|I|)}{|I|} \cdot \frac{|I \cap E_m|)}{w(|E_m|)}
\leq \frac{w(|I|)}{|I|} \cdot \frac{|I \cap E_m|}{w(|I \cap E_m|)} \leq 1,$$ and (\[26\]) is proved.
From (\[26\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{2m} r_k \Big\|_{(M_{1, w}^d)^{\prime}}
&\geq&
\int_0^1 \Big| \sum_{k=1}^{2m} r_k(t) \Big| \cdot f_m(t) \, dt =
\frac{1}{w(|E_m|)} \int_{E_m} \Big| \sum_{k=1}^{2m} r_k(t) \Big| \, dt \\
&=&
\frac{1}{w(|E_m|)} \, 2^{-2m} \sum_{i \in S_m} \Big| \sum_{k=1}^{2m} \varepsilon_k^i \Big|,\end{aligned}$$ where $ \varepsilon_k^i = {\rm sign} ~ r_k |_{\Delta_i^{2m}}$, $k = 1, 2, \ldots, 2m, ~i \in S_m.$ Denoting $\sigma_m:= \sum_{i \in S_m} | \sum_{k=1}^{2m} \varepsilon_k^i |,$ by the definition of $E_m$, we obtain $$\label{27}
\sigma_m = 2 \cdot \sum_{m - \sqrt{m/2} \leq k \leq m} C_k^{2m} (m - k) = 2 \cdot \sum_{k=1}^{ \sqrt{m/2}} C_{m - k}^{2m} \cdot k,$$ where $C^n_i=\frac{n!}{i!(n-i)!},$ $n=1,2,\dots,$ $i=0,1,\dots,n.$ Let us estimate the ratio ${C_{m - k}^{2m} }/{C_m^{2m} }$ for $1 \leq k \leq \sqrt{m/2}$ from below. At first, $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{C_{m - k}^{2m} }{C_m^{2m} }
&=&
\frac{(m!)^2}{(m-k)! (m+k)!} = \frac{(m-k+1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (m-1) \cdot m}{(m+1) \cdot \cdot \ldots \cdot (m+k-1) \cdot (m+k)} \\
&=&
\frac{m}{m+k} \cdot\frac{(m-k+1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (m-1)}{(m+1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (m+k-1)} = \frac{m}{m+k} \cdot
\prod_{j=1}^{k-1} \frac{1- \frac{j}{m}}{1 + \frac{j}{m}}\\
&=&
\frac{m}{m+k} \cdot \exp \Big( \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \log \frac{1- \frac{j}{m}}{1 + \frac{j}{m}}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Next, we will need the following elementary inequality $$\label{28}
\log \frac{1- t}{1 + t} + 2 \, t + 2 \, t^3 \geq 0 ~~ {\rm for ~ all} ~~ 0 \leq t \leq \frac{1}{2}.$$ Indeed, we set $$\varphi(t):= \log \frac{1- t}{1 + t} + 2 \, t + 2 \, t^3.$$ Then, $\varphi(0) = 0$. Moreover, for all $t \in [0, 1/2]$ we have $$\varphi^{\prime}(t) = - \frac{2}{1-t^2} + 2 + 6 t^2 = \frac{2 t^2 (2 - 3 t^2)}{1-t^2} \geq 0.$$ Thus, $\varphi(t)$ increases on the interval $[0, 1/2]$, and (\[28\]) is proved.
From the above formula, inequality (\[28\]) and the condition $1 \leq k \leq \sqrt{m/2}$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{C_{m - k}^{2m} }{C_m^{2m} }
&\geq&
\frac{m}{m+k} \exp \Big( - \frac{2}{m} \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} j - \frac{2}{m^3} \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} j^3 \Big) \\
&=&
\frac{m}{m+k} \exp \Big( \frac{-k(k-1)}{m} \Big) \exp \Big( \frac{- (k-1)^2 k^2}{2 m^3} \Big) \\
&\geq&
\frac{1}{2} \, \exp \Big(- \frac{k^2}{m} - \frac{1}{m} \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Combining this estimate with equality (\[27\]), we infer $$\label{29}
\sigma_m = 2 \cdot \sum_{k=1}^{ \sqrt{m/2}} \frac{C_{m - k}^{2m}}{C_m^{2m}} \cdot k \cdot C_m^{2m}
\geq C_m^{2m} \cdot e^{-1/m} \cdot \sum_{k=1}^{ \sqrt{m/2}} e^{- \frac{k^2}{m}} \cdot k.$$ The function $\psi(u) = e^{-\frac{u^2}{m}} \cdot u$ increases on the interval $[0, \sqrt{m/2}]$ because of $$\psi^{\prime}(u) = e^{-\frac{u^2}{m}} + u e^{-\frac{u^2}{m}} (- {2u}/{m}) = e^{-\frac{u^2}{m}} (1 - {2 u^2}/{m}) \geq 0$$ for $0 \leq u \leq \sqrt{m/2}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{ \sqrt{m/2}} e^{- \frac{k^2}{m}} \cdot k
&>&
\sum_{k=1}^{ \sqrt{m/2}} \int_{k-1}^k e^{- \frac{u^2}{m}} \cdot u \, du = \frac{m}{2} (1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{e}}) \geq \frac{1}{3} m.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, an easy calculation, by using the Stirling formula, shows that $$\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} C_m^{2m} 4^{-m} \sqrt{\pi m} = 1.$$ Thus, from the above and (\[29\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{2m} r_k \Big\|_{(M_{1, w}^d)^{\prime}}
&\geq&
\frac{1}{w(|E_m|)} \, 2^{-2m} \sum_{i \in S_m} \Big| \sum_{k=1}^{2m} \varepsilon_k^i \Big| =
\frac{1}{w(|E_m|)} \, 2^{-2m} \, \sigma_m \\
&\geq&
\frac{1}{w(|E_m|)} \, 2^{-2m} \cdot C_m^{2m}
\cdot e^{-1/m} \cdot \sum_{k=1}^{ \sqrt{m/2}} e^{- \frac{k^2}{m}} \cdot k\\
&\geq&
\frac{1}{w(|E_m|)} \, 4^{-m} \cdot C_m^{2m} \cdot e^{-1/m} \cdot \frac{1}{3} m \approx \frac{\sqrt{m}}{3 \sqrt{\pi} \, w(|E_m|)} \end{aligned}$$ for all $m \in \mathbb N$ such that $\sqrt{m/2} \in \mathbb N$. Since $|E_m| \rightarrow 0$, then by (\[10\]) $w(|E_m|) \rightarrow 0$ as $m \rightarrow \infty$. Hence, the preceding inequality implies (\[25\]) and the proof is complete.
Structure of Rademacher subspaces in Morrey spaces
==================================================
Applying Theorem \[Thm1\] allows us also to study the geometric structure of Rademacher subspaces in Morrey spaces $M_{p, w}$.
\[Thm4\] Let $1 \leq p < \infty$ and $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) = 0$. Then every infinite-dimensional subspace of ${\cal R}_p$ is either isomorphic to $l_2$ or contains a subspace, which is isomorphic to $c_0$ and is complemented in ${\cal R}_p$.
The following two propositions are main tools in the proof of the above theorem.
\[Pro4\] Suppose that $1 \leq p < \infty$ and $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) = 0$. Then the Rademacher functions form a shrinking basis in ${\cal R}_p$.
To prove the shrinking property of $\{r_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ we need to show that for every $\varphi \in (M_{p, w})^*$ we have $$\label{30}
\| \varphi_{\big | [r_n]_{n=m}^{\infty}} \|_{ (M_{p, w})^*} \rightarrow 0 ~ {\rm as} ~ m \rightarrow \infty.$$ Assume that (\[30\]) does not hold. Then there exist $\varepsilon \in (0, 1), \varphi \in (M_{p, w})^*$ with $\| \varphi \|_{(M_{p, w})^*} = 1$, and a sequence of functions $$f_n = \sum_{k=m_n}^{\infty} a_k^{m_n} r_k, ~~ {\rm where} ~~ m_1 < m_2 < \ldots,$$ such that $\| f_n \|_{M_{p, w}} = 1, ~ n = 1, 2, \ldots$ and $$\label{31}
\varphi(f_n) \geq \varepsilon ~~ {\rm for ~ all} ~~ n = 1, 2, \ldots .$$ Let us construct two sequences of positive integers $\{q_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ and $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty},
1 \leq q_1 < p_1 < q_2 < p_2 < \ldots$ as follows. Setting $q_1 = m_1$, we can find $p_1 > q_1$, so that $\| \sum_{n=p_1+1}^{\infty} a_k^{q_1} r_k \|_{M_{p, w}} \leq {\varepsilon}/{2}$. Now, if the numbers $1 \leq q_1 < p_1 < q_2 < p_2 < \ldots q_{i-1} < p_{i-1}, i \geq 2,$ are chosen, we take for $q_i$ the smallest of numbers $m_n$, which is larger than $p_{i-1}$ such that $$\label{32}
w(2^{-q_{i}}) \leq \frac{1}{2} \, w(2^{-q_{i -1}}).$$ Moreover, let $p_i > q_i$ be such that $$\label{33}
\Big\| \sum_{n=p_i+1}^{\infty} a_k^{q_i} r_k \Big\|_{M_{p, w}} \leq {\varepsilon}/{2}.$$ We set $\alpha_k^i:= a_k^{q_i}$ if $q_i \leq k \leq p_i$, and $\alpha_k^i:= 0$ if $p_i < k < q_{i+1}, i = 1, 2, \ldots$. Then, the sequence $$u_i:= \sum_{k = q_i}^{q_{i+1} - 1} \alpha_k^i \, r_k, ~~ i = 1, 2, \ldots$$ is a block basis of the Rademacher sequence. Moreover, by the definition of $u_i$, $$\label{34}
\sup_{i = 1, 2, \ldots} \| u_i \|_{M_{p, w}} \leq 2,$$ and from the choice of the functional $\varphi$ and (\[33\]) it follows that $$\label{35}
\varphi(u_i) = \varphi\Big( \sum_{k = q_i}^{p_i} a_k^{q_i} \, r_k\Big) = \varphi(f_i) - \varphi \Big( \sum_{k = p_i + 1}^{\infty} a_k^{q_i} \, r_k\Big)
\geq \varphi(f_i) - \Big\| \sum_{k = p_i + 1}^{\infty} a_k^{q_i} \, r_k \Big\|_{M_{p, w}} \geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}.$$ Let $\{\gamma_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be an arbitrary sequence of positive numbers such that $$\label{36}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma_n^2 < \infty ~~ {\rm and} ~~ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma_n = \infty.$$ We show that the series $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma_n\, u_n$ converges in $M_{p, w}$. To this end, we set $b_k:= \alpha_k^i \cdot \gamma_i$ if $q_i \leq k < q_{i+1}$. For every $m \in \mathbb N$, by Theorem \[Thm1\], $$\label{37}
\Big\| \sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \gamma_n \, u_n \Big\|_{M_{p, w}} = \Big\| \sum_{k = q_m}^{\infty} b_k r_k \Big\|_{M_{p, w}} \approx
\Big(\sum_{k=q_m}^{\infty} b_k^2 \Big)^{1/2} + \sup_{l \geq q_m} w(2^{-l}) \cdot \sum_{k=q_m}^l |b_k|.$$ Let us estimate both summands from the right-hand side of (\[37\]). At first, from (\[34\]) and Theorem \[Thm1\] it follows that $$\label{38}
\sum_{k=q_m}^{\infty} b_k^2 = \sum_{i=m}^{\infty} \gamma_i^2 \sum_{k=q_i}^{q_{i+1} - 1} (\alpha_k^i)^2 \leq
C_1\, \sum_{i=m}^{\infty} \gamma_i^2.$$ Similarly, if $q_m < \ldots < q_{m+r} \leq l < q_{m+r+1}$ for some $r = 1, 2, \ldots$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=q_m}^{l} |b_k|
&=&
\sum_{i=m}^{m+r-1} |\gamma_i| \sum_{k = q_i}^{q_{i+1} - 1} |\alpha_k^i| + |\gamma_{m+r}| \sum_{k = q_{m+r}}^{l} |\alpha_k^{m+r}| \\
&\leq&
C_2 \, \Big( \sum_{i=m}^{m+r-1} \frac{|\gamma_i|}{w(2^{-q_{i+1}})} + \frac{|\gamma_{m+r}|}{w(2^{-l})} \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Combining this inequality together with (\[32\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
w(2^{-l}) \, \sum_{k=q_m}^{l} |b_k|
&\leq&
C_2 \, \Big( \sum_{i=m}^{m+r-1} |\gamma_i| \frac{w(2^{-q_{m+r}})}{w(2^{-q_{i+1}})} + |\gamma_{m+r}| \Big) \\
&\leq&
C_2 \, \Big( \sum_{i=m}^{m+r-1} |\gamma_i| \, 2^{-m-r+i+1} + |\gamma_{m+r}| \Big) \\
&\leq&
C_2 \, \max_{i \geq m} |\gamma_i| \Big( \sum_{j=0}^{r-1}\, 2^{1+j - r} + 1\Big) < 3 \, C_2 \, \max_{i \geq m} |\gamma_i|.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, the latter estimate holds also in the simpler case when $q_m \leq l < q_{m+1}$. Thus, for every $m \in \mathbb N$, $$\label{39}
\sup_{l \geq q_m} w(2^{-l}) \, \sum_{k=q_m}^{l} |b_k| \leq 3 \, C_2 \, \max_{i \geq m} |\gamma_i|.$$ From (\[36\]) — (\[39\]) it follows that the series $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma_n \, u_n$ converges in $M_{p, w}$. At the same time, since $\varphi \in (M_{p, w})^*$, by (\[35\]) and (\[36\]), we have $$\varphi \Big(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma_n \, u_n\Big) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma_n \, \varphi(u_n) \geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \gamma_n = \infty,$$ and so (\[30\]) is proved.
\[Cor3\] Under assumptions of Proposition \[Pro4\]:
- $r_k \rightarrow 0$ weakly in $M_{p, w}$.
- The Rademacher functions form a basis in the dual space $({\cal R}_p)^*$.
Since $\{r_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is the biorthogonal system to $\{r_n\}$ itself, (ii) follows from Proposition \[Pro4\] and Proposition 1.b.1 in [@LT77].
\[Pro5\] Let $1 \leq p < \infty$ and $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) = 0$. Suppose that $$u_n = \sum_{k=m_n}^{m_{n+1} -1} a_k \, r_k, ~~ 1 = m_1 < m_2 < \ldots$$ is a block basis such that $\| u_n \|_{M_{p, w}} = 1$ for all $ n \in \mathbb N$ and $\sum_{k=m_n}^{m_{n+1} -1} a_k^2 \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, let $$\label{40}
w(2^{- m_{n+1}}) \leq \frac{1}{2} \, w(2^{-m_n}), ~n = 1, 2, \ldots .$$ Then the sequence $\{u_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ contains a subsequence equivalent in $M_{p, w}$ to the unit vector basis of $c_0$.
Passing to a subsequence if it is needed, without loss of generality we may assume that $$\label{41}
\sum_{k=m_n}^{m_{n+1} -1} a_k^2 \leq \cdot 2^{-n}, ~~n = 1, 2, \ldots.$$ Suppose that $f = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \beta_n \, u_n \in {\cal R}_p$. Setting $b_k = a_k \beta_i$ if $m_i \leq k < m_{i+1}, i = 1, 2, \ldots$, by Theorem \[Thm1\], we obtain $$\label{42}
\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} = \Big\| \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k \, r_k \Big\|_{M_{p, w}} \approx \Big( \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k^2 \Big)^{1/2} +
\sup_{l \in \mathbb N} w(2^{-l}) \sum_{k=1}^l |b_k|.$$ At first, by (\[41\]), $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \beta_i^2 \sum_{k=m_i}^{m_{i+1} -1} a_k^2
\leq ( \sup_{i = 1, 2, \ldots} |\beta_i|)^2 \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 2^{-i}
\leq \| (\beta_i)\|_{c_0}^2.$$ Moreover, precisely in the same way as in the proof of Proposition \[Pro4\] from (\[40\]) and the equalities $\| u_n \|_{M_{p, w}} = 1, n = 1, 2, \ldots$ it follows that for some constant $C^{\prime} > 0$ $$\sup_{l = 1, 2, \ldots} w(2^{-l}) \sum_{k=1}^l |b_k| \leq C^{\prime} \, \| (\beta_i)\|_{c_0}.$$ Combining the last two inequalities together with (\[42\]), we conclude that $\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \leq C \, \, \| (\beta_i)\|_{c_0}$ for some constant $C > 0$.
Conversely, since $\{u_n\}$ is an unconditional sequence in $M_{p, w}$ and $\| u_n \|_{M_{p, w}} = 1,$ $n = 1, 2, \ldots$, by Theorem \[Thm1\], $\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq c|\beta_i|.$ $i = 1, 2, \ldots$, with some constant $c > 0$. Hence, $\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq c\, \| (\beta_i)\|_{c_0}$, and the proof is complete.
Assume that $X$ is an infinite-dimensional subspace of ${\cal R}_p$ such that for every $f=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k r_k \in X$ we have $$\|f\|_{M_{p, w}} \approx \Big(\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k^2\Big)^{1/2},$$ with a constant independent of $b_k,$ $k=1,2,\dots$ Then, $X$ is isomorphic to some subspace of $l_2$ and so to $l_2$ itself.
Therefore, if $X$ is not isomorphic to $l_2$, then there is a sequence $\{f_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty} \subset X,
f_n = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_{n,k} r_k$, such that $\| f_n \|_{M_{p, w}} = 1$ and $$\label{43}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_{n,k}^2 \rightarrow 0 ~~{\rm as} ~~ n \rightarrow \infty.$$ Observe that $\{f_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ does not contain any subsequence converging in $M_{p, w}$-norm. In fact, if $\| f_{n_k} - f \|_{M_{p, w}} \rightarrow 0$ for some $\{f_{n_k}\} \subset \{f_n\}$ and $f \in X$, then from Theorem \[Thm1\] and (\[43\]) it follows that $f = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k r_k$, where $b_k = 0$ for all $k = 1, 2, \ldots$. Hence, $f = 0$. On the other hand, obviously, $\| f \|_{M_{p, w}} = 1$, and we come to a contradiction.
Thus, passing if it is needed to a subsequence, we can assume that $$\label{44}
\| f_n - f_m \|_{M_{p, w}} \geq \varepsilon > 0 ~~ {\rm for ~ all} ~~ n \neq m.$$ Recall that, by Corollary \[Cor3\], the sequence $\{r_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is a basis of the space $({\cal R}_p)^*$. Applying the diagonal process, we can find the sequence $\{n_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}, n_1 < n_2 < \ldots$, such that for every $i = 1, 2, \ldots$ there exists $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_0^1r_i(s)f_{n_k}(s)\,ds$. Then, $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \int_0^1r_i(s)(f_{n_{2k+1}}(s) - f_{n_{2k}}(s))\,ds = 0 ~~ {\rm for ~ all} ~~ i = 1, 2, \ldots .$$ Hence, since the sequence $\{f_{n_{2k+1}} - f_{n_{2k}}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is bounded in $M_{p, w}$ we infer that $f_{n_{2k+1}} - f_{n_{2k}} \rightarrow 0$ weakly in $M_{p, w}$. Now, taking into account (\[44\]) and applying the well-known Bessaga-Pe[ł]{}czyński Selection Principle (cf. [@AK06 Proposition 1.3.10, p. 14]), we may construct a subsequence of the sequence $\{f_{n_{2k+1}} - f_{n_{2k}}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ (we keep for it the same notation) and a block basis $$u_k = \sum_{j=m_k}^{m_{k+1} -1} a_j r_j, ~ 1 = m_1 < m_2 < \ldots,$$ such that $$\label{45}
\| u_k - \big(f_{n_{2k+1}} - f_{n_{2k}} \big) \|_{M_{p, w}} \leq B_0^{-1} \cdot 2^{-k-1}, ~~ k = 1, 2, \ldots,$$ where $B_0$ is the basis constant of $\{r_k\}$ in ${\cal R}_p$, and $$\label{46}
w(2^{-m_{k+1}}) \leq \frac{1}{2} \cdot w(2^{-m_k}), ~~ k = 1, 2, \ldots .$$ From (\[45\]) it follows that the sequences $\{u_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ and $\{f_{n_{2k+1}} - f_{n_{2k}}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ are equivalent in $M_{p, w}$ (cf. [@LT77 Proposition 1.a.9]). Moreover, by Theorem \[Thm1\] and , $$\sum_{j= m_k}^{m_{k+1} - 1} a_j^2 \rightarrow 0 ~~ {\rm as} ~~ k \rightarrow \infty.$$ This fact together with inequality (\[46\]) allows us to apply Proposition \[Pro5\], which implies that the sequence $\{u_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ (and so $\{f_{n_{2k+1}} - f_{n_{2k}}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$) contains a subsequence equivalent to the unit vector basis of $c_0$. Since $\{f_{n_{2k+1}} - f_{n_{2k}}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \subset X$, then $X$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $c_0$. Complementability of this subspace in ${\cal R}_p$ is an immediate consequence of Sobczyk’s theorem (see [@AK06 Corollary 2.5.9]).
[If $\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} w(t) > 0$, then $M_{p, w} = L_{\infty}$ and $\{r_k\}$ is equivalent in $M_{p, w}$ to the unit vector basis of $l_1$ (cf. Theorem \[Thm1\]). Observe also that if $\sup_{0 < t \leq 1} w(t) \log_2^{1/2} (2/t) < \infty$, then we get another trivial situation: ${\cal R}_p \simeq l_2$ (see Corollary \[2\]).]{}
[99]{}
[Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, Samara State University\
Acad. Pavlova 1, 443011 Samara, Russia]{} [*E-mail address:*]{} [[email protected]]{}\
[Department of Mathematics, Lule University of Technology\
SE-971 87 Lule, Sweden]{} [*E-mail address:*]{} [[email protected]]{}\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Based on an original classification of differential equations by types of regular Lie group actions, we offer a systematic procedure for describing partial differential equations with prescribed symmetry groups. Using a new powerful algebraic technique based on the so-called covariant form of a differential equation, we give an effective algorithm for constructing differential equations whose symmetry groups regularly and freely act on the space of dependent and independent variables. As an application, we derive a complete classification of quasi-linear scalar second-order partial differential equations with regular free symmetry groups of dimension no greater than three.'
author:
- 'Alexey A. Magazev[^1]'
- 'Igor V. Shirokov[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Symmetry group classification of differential equations: case of free group actions'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Originally developed as a powerful tool for integrating ordinary differential equations, group analysis of differential equations has long been extended beyond this aim and extensively used in differential geometry and mathematical physics. Researchers in these fields generally deal with the following two interrelated problems. The first problem is finding the maximal symmetry group for a given differential equation, whereas the second is classifying all the differential equations admitting a prescribed symmetry group. The most traditional approach for solving these problems is to apply the classical infinitesimal technique developed by Sophus Lie and his followers [@Lie1880; @Ovs82; @Ibr85; @Olv93; @Olv95].
Until now, numerous results have accumulated in the context of the first problem. In particular, in most cases, the maximal symmetry groups of physically interesting differential equations have already been obtained. The second problem (which is much more difficult than the first one) consists of an exhaustive listing of all the differential equations invariant under prescribed transformation group $G$ whose action is generated by a Lie algebra of vector fields. The solution of this classification task is not only of mathematical interest but also has physical significance, because it eventually leads to the possibility of establishing exact integrable models of physical theories
The main concept of solving the problem of group classification was formulated by Sophus Lie himself in his classic paper on the classification of ordinary differential equations admitting non-trivial symmetry groups [@Lie1888]. Recall that the first step of this classification consists of listing all the inequivalent realizations of the Lie algebra of a prescribed symmetry group. Following this, the second step is to calculate the differential invariants for each inequivalent realization and then use them for constructing the classes of invariant differential equations. Following this procedure, Sophus Lie exhaustively listed all inequivalent Lie algebra realizations in vector fields on the complex plain and all the differential invariants for the corresponding local transformation groups [@Lie1888] (see also [@Olv94] for a more modern viewpoint). Subsequently, an analogous classification was obtained for the Lie algebras of vector fields in $\mathbb{R}^2$ [@GonKamOlv92], by which Nesterenko constructed bases of the differential invariants and the operators of invariant differentiation for associated local Lie transformation groups [@Nes04; @Nes06]. We also mention here Mahomed’s paper [@Mah07], in which a survey of the principal results relating to the group classification of scalar ordinary differential equations (second-order and linear $n$th-order) is provided. It is important to note that solving the classification problem for the above cases was largely possible owing to the small dimensions of the spaces of independent and dependent variables as the computational difficulties of applying the infinitesimal technique grow rapidly with increasing these dimensions.
It also was Sophus Lie who successfully provided one of the first general solutions of the classification problem applied to partial differential equations. In his study [@Lie81], he performed a complete group classification of linear second-order partial differential equations in two independent variables. A further systematic development of these concepts was conducted by Ovsyannikov [@Ovs59; @Ovs82]. His approach, based on the use of equivalence transformations for differential equations and the concept of the so-called arbitrary element, made it possible to implement a large-scale program for the group classification of the basic equation of mathematical physics. In particular, Ovsyannikov himself has performed the complete group classification of a class of non-linear heat conductivity equations [@Ovs59], and subsequently Ibraginov *et al*. [@AkhGazIbr87] employed his approach for the classification of non-linear filtration equations. The concepts of Ovsyannikov have also formed the basis of the *preliminary group classification method*, which was first introduced in [@AkhGazIbr91] and was made well-known by Ibragimov *et al*. [@IbrTorVal91]. Ibragimov and Torrisi applied this method to non-linear detonation equations [@IbrTor92] and non-linear hyperbolic equations [@IbrTorVal91], and subsequently, Torrisi and coauthors obtained the preliminary group classification of some classes of diffusion and heat conduction equations [@TorTraVal96; @TorTra98]. Furthermore, the preliminary group classification method was repeatedly modified, and the range of its applicability was constantly expanded (see, for example, [@BihCarPop12; @VanBihPop20]). In particular, we mention here a series of the papers [@ZhdLah99; @BasLahZhd01; @LahZhd05; @LahZhdMag06], in which classification approaches based on a combination of Lie’s infinitesimal method, Ovsyannikov’s concept of the equivalence group, and the theory of Lie algebra realizations is suggested.
It should be noted that Ovsyannikov’s approach as well as the preliminary group classification method suggest that the class of differential equations which is of interest is restricted by some predefined ansatz. Generally, such an ansatz is some model equation (for instance, the wave equation or the heat conductivity equation), into which, based on a physical motivation, one artificially introduces arbitrary elements, i.e., undefined functions of the dependent and independent variables. It is remarkable that a similar problem statement leads to a partial group classification involving only equations that are obtained as “deformations” of the initial model equation. (In fact, this is equivalent to the problem of constructing differential invariants of a particular form). At the same time, the original infinitesimal Lie’s method, if it is effective, allows performing the complete group classification of *all* the differential equations of arbitrary order.
As we already noted, the main difficulty in using Lie’s method is its computational complexity. Indeed, both steps of this method (the classification of the inequivalent realizations of a given Lie algebra and the construction of their differential invariants) include the integration of systems of partial differential equations, whose dimensions grow with increasing number of dependent and independent variables. Recently, however, some new results have been obtained that can be used for developing a comparatively more effective approach for group classification; this approach completely excludes the stages of integrating differential equations.
First, we would like to highlight the study in [@PopBoyNesLut03], in which Popovich and co-authors obtained the complete set of local inequivalent realizations of real Lie algebras of dimensions no larger than four on a space of an arbitrary number of variables using the technique of the so-called megaideals. Slightly subsequently, the authors of the present paper proposed a more effective method for constructing Lie algebra realizations, which is amenable for implementation on a computer using a symbolic computer algebra system [@MagMikShi15]. Subsequently, Nesterenko applied this method to solve numerous physically important classification problems, such as the classification of the realizations of the Galilei and Poincaré algebras [@NesPosVan16; @Nes15].
Some progress has been made recently in the theory of differential invariants. Olver [@Olv2007] proposed a method to construct differential invariants without a direct integration of differential equations (see also [@Hub2007]). Another result that we would like to mention is an algebraic approach suggested in [@Shi07] to calculate differential invariants and operators of invariant differentiation. As demonstrated in this study, if the dependent variables are invariant under some transitive Lie group of transformations, then the differential invariants are entirely generated by the invariant operators on the corresponding homogeneous space of the independent variables. In turn, the invariant operators on the homogeneous space can be effectively constructed by a purely algebraic approach [@Shi01].
The references cited above display that, as the first step of Lie’s classification program, the problem of listing all the inequivalent realizations of a prescribed Lie algebra can be effectively solved by only purely algebraic techniques. Therefore, in the present study, we basically focus on the second stage of Lie’s program: to find a maximally wide class of differential equations whose symmetry group is generated by a given Lie algebra realization. For this, we develop an algebraic approach based on the formalism outlined in [@Shi07]. Within this approach, the construction of differential invariants is performed in terms of the *algebra of invariant differential operators*, an object that is in a manner dual to the Lie algebra realization. As we have noted, the range of applicability of the formalism is initially limited by the group actions for which the dependent variables are invariant. To overcome this restriction, we introduce the so-called *covariant form* of a differential equation, in which dependent and independent variables $\{ x \}$ and $\{ u \}$ are treated equally (and are regarded as independent variables) and invariant auxiliary variable $w$ is added. Note that this form of differential equations is used in a well-known method of integrating quasi-linear first-order partial differential equations (see, for example, [@Deb12]). Furthermore, it should be emphasized that our algebraic approach for constructing differential invariants essentially depends on the type of the given group action; in this relation, we propose an original classification of differential equations based on the types of prescribed symmetry groups.
The article is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:1\], we briefly recall the basic facts concerning differential equations and their symmetry groups in regard to differential geometry. In this section, we also suggest a classification of differential equations based on the types of symmetry group actions; this classification enables dividing differential equations in an invariant manner into five distinct types. In the second section, we introduce the concept of the covariant form of a differential equation and display that any scalar differential equation can be written in such a form. Moreover, we formulate the necessary and sufficient condition under which a given equation is the covariant form of some differential equation. In the third section, we present Theorems \[t3\] and \[t4\] that provide an effective algorithm for the solution of the group classification problem of differential equations with simply transitive symmetry groups. Applying this algorithm, we present an exhaustive classification of both second-order differential invariants and quasi-linear second-order differential equations for all inequivalent two- and three-dimensional simply transitive symmetry groups, in Section \[sec:4\]. Finally, the problem of the group classification of second-order differential equations whose symmetry groups act freely and have dimensions up to and including three is completely solved, in Section \[sec:5\].
Problem statement {#sec:1}
=================
In this section, we recall the standard mathematical constructions and formulate the problems discussed in this study. For more details of the group analysis of differential equations, see classical literature [@Ovs82; @Ibr85; @Olv93; @Olv95]. The general information on Lie groups and their homogeneous spaces can be found, for example, in [@War13; @Che18; @Hel79].
Let $Z\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be an open subset (regarded as the space of independent and dependent variables for some differential equation), and let $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$ be the infinite-dimensional diffeomorphism group of $Z$. The subset $Z$ looks locally like the Cartesian product $Z\simeq U\times X$, where $X$ and $U$ are the spaces of independent and dependent variables, respectively. The space $U$ can be uniquely extended to the $k$-jet space $U\to U_k=U\times{\underset{1}{U}}\times \cdots \times{\underset{k}{U}}$ with local coordinates $(u^\alpha,u_i^\alpha,u^\alpha_{ij},\dots,u^\alpha_{i_1\dots i_k})$. A *differential equation* (or a *system of differential equations*) is a surface $\cal E$ in the extended space $Z_k\simeq U_k\times X$: $$\label{e1}
{\cal E}: \quad E_\mu(x,u,u_i,u_{ij},\dots)=0, \quad \mu=1,\dots,s.$$
Let $r_\mu$ be the maximal order of derivatives on which the $\mu$–th equation in depends. It is understandable that this number does not change under diffeomorphisms of $Z$ and the choice of the “splitting” $Z\simeq U\times X$. Thus, the sequence of numbers $\operatorname{\mathrm{ord}}{{\cal E}}= \{r_1,\dots,r_s\}$ is a $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$–invariant characteristic of the differential equation $\cal E$.
A *solution* of the differential equation is a surface $S$ in $Z$: $$S:\quad u^\alpha=f^\alpha(x),\quad \alpha=1,\dots \dim U.$$ The codimension, $\operatorname{\mathrm{codim}}S$, of this surface coincides with the number of dependent variables, and is also a $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$–invariant characteristic of the differential equation $\cal E$. The extended surface $S_k\subset Z_k$, $$S_k:\quad
u_i^\alpha=\frac{{\partial}f^\alpha(x)}{{\partial}x^i },\quad
u_{ij}^\alpha=\frac{{\partial}^2 f^\alpha(x)}{{\partial}x^i{\partial}x^j },\quad
\dots\ ;\quad (x,u)\in S,$$ which could be regarded as an integral submanifold of the distribution of Pfaffian forms $$du^\alpha-u_i^\alpha d x^i=0,\quad d u^\alpha_{i}-u^\alpha_{ij} d x^j=0,\quad
\dots,$$ is a submanifold of the manifold $\cal E$.
Denote by $\mathrm{Sol}\,{{\cal E}}$ the set of all the solutions of the differential equation . By definition, the *symmetry group* of this equation is a subgroup $G = \mathrm{Sym}\,{{\cal E}}\subset \operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$ that transforms the solutions of ${{\cal E}}$ to other solutions: $$g\in \mathrm{Sym}\,{{\cal E}}\ \Longleftrightarrow\ g(S) \in \mathrm{Sol}\, {{\cal E}},\quad \forall\ S \in \mathrm{Sol}\, {{\cal E}}.$$ In this study, we restrict our attention to connected local Lie groups of symmetries $G$, which are generated by the corresponding Lie algebras ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of vector fields $X_i$ on $Z$: $$\label{e2}
X_i=\zeta^a_i(z)\,\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z^a}\in T_zZ;\quad [X_i,X_j]=C_{ij}^kX_k.$$ Here, $C_{ij}^k$ are the structure constants of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$.
In the entire study, we assumed that the symmetry group $G$ acts regularly on $Z$. Moreover, we also assume that the group act effectively; otherwise, we can simply replace $G$ by the effectively acting quotient group $G/G_0$, where $G_0$ denotes the global isotropy subgroup of $Z$: $G_0 z = z$ for all $z \in Z$.
Let $G$ be a symmetry group of a given differential equation ${{\cal E}}$ with infinitesimal generators $X_i$, and let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be the corresponding Lie algebra. Let $M=Gz_0$ be the orbit through a point $z_0\in Z$. It is known that there is a $G$-equivariant diffeomorphism between the homogeneous space $M$ and the set of right (or, equivalently, left) cosets $G/H$, where $H=H_{z_0}$ is the isotropy subgroup at the point $z_0$. Owing to the regularity of the group action, we can locally introduce coordinates charts of the form $X\times Y$ in $Z$, where $x\in X$ are coordinates on the orbit $M$, and $y\in Y$ are additional coordinates in $Z$, which can be interpreted as invariants of the group action of $G$ (see, for example, [@Olv95]). (It is important to distinguish between similar coordinate charts and charts $Z\simeq U\times X$ obtained as a result of the “splitting” into dependent and independent variables.) We shall call $\{y\}$ the *invariant coordinates*.
[l]{}[0.45]{}
{width="30.00000%"}
Note that the isotropy subgroup $H$ and its Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$, in general, depend on the invariant variables $y\in Y$, i.e. $H=H(y),\ {\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{h}}(y)$. From the geometric perspective, this suggests that when a point $z_0 \in Z$ moves to another point $z_1$ along a line transverse to the tangent space $T_{z_0} M_0$, the homogeneous space $M_0 = G z_0$ is mapped into the homomorphic homogeneous space $M_1 = G z_1$. The algebraic properties of the latter can differ from those of the space $M_0$ owing to the inequation ${\mathfrak{h}}(y_0)\neq {\mathfrak{h}}(y_1)$ (see Fig. \[pic:1\]). This, in turn, leads to the infinitesimal generators $X_i$ whose coefficients depend on the invariant variables $\{ y \}$ in the coordinate chart $Z \simeq X\times Y$, $$X_i=\zeta^a_i(x,y)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x^a}.$$ Moreover, this dependence cannot be eliminated by coordinate transformations. In this regard, we introduce a numerical characteristic $\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}(X,Y)$, called the *coupling index*, whose definition will be provided in our subsequent papers.
In view of the above considerations, the (regular) actions of a connected Lie group $G$ can be divided into several types.
Type I.
: *Simply transitive action of $G$ on $Z$*.
In this case, $\operatorname{\mathrm{rank}}\zeta_i^a(x)=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}=\dim Z$, ${\mathfrak{h}}=\{0\}$, and there are no invariant variables $\{y\}$.
Type II.
: *Free action of $G$ on $Z$*.
In this case, $\operatorname{\mathrm{rank}}\zeta_i^a(x)=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}<\dim Z$, ${\mathfrak{h}}=\{0\}$, and there are invariant variables $\{y\}$; however, coefficients $\zeta_i^a(x)$ do not depend on their ($\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}(X,Y)=0$).
Type III.
: *Transitive action of $G$ on $Z$*.
In this case, $\operatorname{\mathrm{rank}}\zeta_i^a(x)=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}/{\mathfrak{h}}=\dim Z$, $\dim{\mathfrak{h}}>0$, and there are no invariant variables $\{y\}$.
Type IV.
: *Intransitive action of $G$ on $Z$ with the maximal coupling index*.
In this case, $\operatorname{\mathrm{rank}}\zeta_i^a(x,y)=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}/{\mathfrak{h}}<\dim Z$, $\dim{\mathfrak{h}}>0,\ {\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{h}}(y)$, and there are the invariant variables $\{y\}$, $\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}(X,Y)=\dim Y$.
Type V.
: *Intransitive action of $G$ on $Z$ with a non-maximal coupling index*.
In this case, $\operatorname{\mathrm{rank}}\zeta_i^a(x,y)=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}/{\mathfrak{h}}<\dim Z$, $\dim{\mathfrak{h}}>0,\ {\mathfrak{h}}={\mathfrak{h}}(y)$, and there are the invariant variables $\{y\}$, $\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}(X,Y)<\dim Y$.
Here, each subsequent type contains in a sense all the previous types as special cases. The usefulness of this classification is because of the most effective methods for constructing invariant differential equations are essentially different for different types of group actions.
Thus, it is convenient to introduce the $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$–invariant classification of differential equations given in Table \[tab:1\]. In the table, symbols $n,m,l,k,r_j,s$, and $t$ are arbitrary positive integers.
\[tab:1\]
Type $\dim Z$ $\operatorname{\mathrm{ord}}{{\cal E}}$ $\operatorname{\mathrm{codim}}S$ $\dim{\mathfrak{g}}$ $\dim{\mathfrak{h}}$ $\operatorname{\mathrm{ind}}(X,Y)$
------ ---------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------------
I $n$ $\{r_1,\dots,r_t\}$ $s$ $n$ 0 0
II $n+l$ $\{r_1,\dots,r_t\}$ $s$ $n$ 0 0
III $n$ $\{r_1,\dots,r_t\}$ $s$ $n+m$ $m$ 0
IV $n+k$ $\{r_1,\dots,r_t\}$ $s$ $n+m$ $m$ $k$
V $n+l+k$ $\{r_1,\dots,r_t\}$ $s$ $n+m$ $m$ $k$
: Types of differential equations.
It is notable that the first position in Table \[tab:1\], which indicates types of differential equations, is not informative and will frequently be omitted. Furthermore, note that instead of specifying the numbers $\dim {\mathfrak{g}}$ and $\dim {\mathfrak{h}}$ one may describe the structures of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and its subalgebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ in more detail. For instance, this may be realized by specifying the commutation relations $[e_i,e_j]=C_{ij}^k e_k$ of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ in some basis ${\langle}e_i {\rangle}$ and by the explicit listing of the basis elements of the subalgebra: ${\mathfrak{h}}={\langle}a_\alpha^i(y)e_i{\rangle}$. It will be displayed in our subsequent studies that all the information is sufficient for the complete description of the class of differential equations of a given type.
The interested reader may find a discussion on $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$-invariant approaches for the group classification of differential equations in Ovsyannikov’s book [@Ovs82]. In particular, Ovsyannikov himself suggested the classification to be conducted as follows. To each system of differential equations, we associate a quadruple of numbers $(\nu, \mu, \kappa, \sigma)$, where $\nu$ and $\mu$ are the numbers of independent and dependent variables, respectively. The number $\kappa$ is the maximal order of the derivatives that appear in the system, and $\sigma$ is the number of equations. Remarkably, the classification scheme outlined in Table \[tab:1\] is a more subtle systematization of differential equations than Ovsyannikov’s one because it considers the structure of the symmetry group action. The relation between Ovsyannikov and our classifications is given as follows: $$\nu + \mu = \dim Z,\quad \mu=\operatorname{\mathrm{codim}}S, \quad
\kappa = \max \operatorname{\mathrm{ord}}{{\cal E}},\quad
\sigma =\dim \operatorname{\mathrm{ord}}{{\cal E}}=t.$$
Our overall aim is to provide a complete description of all the non-linear partial differential equations whose types are presented in Table \[tab:1\]. In this study, we focus on the second-order scalar partial differential equations of types I ($\{n,\{2\},1,$ $n,0,0\})$ and II ($\{n+m,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$).
We note that the case of one invariant variable, which was declared as a dependent one, was considered in [@Shi07]. According to our classification, this case includes types $\{n+1,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$ (the special case of type II) and $\{n+1,\{2\},1,n+m,m,0\}$ (the special case of type V). Let us show that there is a fundamental difference between the equations of types $\{n,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$ and $\{n+1,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$.
First, we consider the last type, i.e., the case of a scalar second-order differential equation with $n+1$ dependent and independent variables. In this case, an $n$-dimensional symmetry group $G$ acts on an $n$-dimensional space simply transitively (since $\dim{\mathfrak{h}}=0$), and there is one invariant variable $y_1$, which is declared, for convenience, as a dependent one, $u=y_1$. As the dimension of the $G$-orbits coincides with the dimension of the group $G$, we can assume that the group acts on itself by right multiplications and that the infinitesimal generators of this action coincide with the left-invariant vector fields on $G$: $$\label{e3}
X_i=\xi_i=\sum\limits_{a=1}^{n}\xi_i^a(x)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{x^a}},\quad i=1,\dots,n=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}.$$ (Here and elsewhere, symbol $\xi_i$ denotes the left-invariant vector field on $G$ associated with the basis element $e_i \in {\mathfrak{g}}$).
Now, let us consider an equation of type $\{n,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$, i.e., the case of a scalar second-order differential equation with $n$ dependent and independent variables. In this case, an $n$-dimensional symmetry group $G$ acts simply transitively on an $n$–dimensional space $Z$ (since $\dim{\mathfrak{h}}=0$) and there are no invariant variables $\{y\}$. Again, by virtue of the dimension of the orbits coinciding with the dimension of the group, it can be assumed that $G$ acts on itself by right multiplications and the infinitesimal generators of the action coincide with the left-invariant vector fields: $X_i=\xi_i=\xi_i^j(z){\partial}_{z^j}$. All variables $z^j\ (j=1,\dots,n)$ are treated equally; therefore, we can select the variable $z^n$ as an independent one and rewrite the generators $X_i$ in a relatively traditional form: $$\label{e4}
X_i=\sum\limits_{a=1}^{n-1}\xi^a_i(x,u)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x^a}+\eta_i(x,u)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}u}, \quad i=1,\dots,n=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}.$$ Here, $\eta_i(x,u)=\xi^n_i(z),\ \xi^a_i(x,u)=\xi^a_i(z),\ a=1,\dots,n-1$.
Comparing Eqs. and , it can be seen that the case of $G$-action with the generators considered in [@Shi07] is much easier than the case of $G$-action with the generators .
In the next section, we will display that an arbitrary differential equation can be written in the so-called *covariant form*, which preserves the original “equivalence” of the dependent and independent coordinates. Specifically, the procedure of “splitting” into the dependent and independent variables, $Z\simeq U\times X$, is not necessary. This will allow us to describe $G$-invariant differential equations with the generators and in a uniform manner.
Covariant form of differential equations {#sec:2}
========================================
In this study, we explore the classes of differential equations that are orbits of the diffeomorphism group $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$. However, “splitting” the space $Z$ into dependent and independent variables is not a $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$-invariant procedure. To illustrate this, we consider the following example.
Let $(x,y)$ be local coordinates on a two-dimensional space $Z$, where $x$ is an independent variable and $y$ is a dependent one. Let $g\in \operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$ be the diffeomorphism $(x,y) \mapsto (p,q) \equiv g(x,y)=(y+x/2,y-x)$. We note that in this case, we cannot answer the question: what is the image of a function $E=E(x,y,y_x,y_{xx})$ under the diffeomorphism $g \in \operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$? Indeed, it may be a function $\tilde{E}(p,q,p_q,p_{qq})$ or function $\tilde{E}(p,q,q_p,q_{pp})$, or some other one. In fact, to answer this question, we need to again “split” the coordinates on $Z$ into dependent and independent after acting the diffeomorphism.
It should be emphasized that if the diffeomorphism is an element of the one-parameter group generated by a vector field on $Z$, one generally accepts the rule that “splitting” into dependent and independent variables is defined by continuity. For instance, if the diffeomorphism $g \in \operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$ is generated by the vector field $$X=\eta(x,y)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}y}+\zeta(x,y)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x},\quad g_a(x,y)=(x_a,y_a),\ g=g_1;$$ $$\frac{{\partial}y_a}{{\partial}a}=\eta(x_a,y_a),\quad \frac{{\partial}x_a}{{\partial}a}=\zeta(x_a,y_a),\quad y_a|_{a=0}=y,\ x_a|_{a=0}=x,$$ then, by continuity, we assume that $y_a$ are the dependent variables for all $a>0$.
Let us show that any differential equation can be rewritten in a special form (the covariant form) that preserves the original symmetry between the dependent and independent variables.
First, we formulate the basic idea. Instead of the “splitting” $Z\simeq U\times X$, which is non-invariant under $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$, we introduce the invariant “splitting” $Z\times W$, where the extra variables $w = (w^\alpha) \in W$ are invariant under the group $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$. Our task is to show that the differential equation can be represented in the $\operatorname{\mathrm{Diff}}Z$–invariant form $$\label{e5}
\tilde{{{\cal E}}}: \quad \tilde{E}_\mu(z,w_i,w_{ij},\dots)=0,\quad \mu=1,\dots,s,$$ where the functions $w^\alpha$ satisfy the additional conditions $$\label{e6}
w^\alpha=0, \quad \alpha=1,\dots,\dim W.$$
*Example 1.*$\triangleleft$ As a simple illustration of this idea, we consider a quasi-linear first-order partial differential equation of type $\{n,\{1\},1,*,*,*\}$: $$\label{e7}
{{\cal E}}:\quad \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}a^i(x,u)\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x^i} + b(x,u)=0.$$ The main trick of reducing to a linear partial differential equation is well-known; instead of the equation , we consider the equation $$\label{e8}
\tilde{{{\cal E}}}:\quad \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1}a^i(z)\frac{{\partial}w}{{\partial}z^i} - b(z)\frac{{\partial}w}{{\partial}z^n}=0,$$ where $z^n=u,\ z^i=x^i$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$. If $w=w(z)$ is a solution of , then the equality $w(z)=0$ determines a solution of . The differential equation (together with the condition $w=0$) is the covariant form of the differential equation . $\hfill\triangleright$
It is not difficult to generalize this trick for an arbitrary first-order partial differential equation.
\[pro:1\] A first-order partial differential equation $$\label{e9}
E(x,u;u_a)=0$$ can be represented in the covariant form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e10}
\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}})&=&0,\\ \label{e11}
w&=&0.\end{aligned}$$
*Proof.* $\triangleleft$ (Here and below we will use the notation: $n=\dim Z$, $u=z^n,\ x^a=z^a\ (a=1,\dots,n-1)$). Assuming, by definition, that holds, we obtain $$dw=w_idz^i=w_adx^a+w_ndu=0.$$ By virtue of $du-u_adx^a=0$, we have $$\label{e12}
u_a=-w_a/w_n.$$ (We have obtained the well-known rule of implicit differentiation). Substituting into , we deduce the equation $$\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}})=E(z;-w_a/w_n),$$ which, together with the condition , is the covariant form of the first-order partial differential equation . $\hfill\triangleright$
The following example illustrates the content of Proposition \[pro:1\].
*Example 2.* $\triangleleft$ Let us consider a first-order partial differential equation, which is linear with respect to the derivatives of $u$: $$g^{ab}(x,u)u_au_b+b(x,u)=0.$$ Using , we can rewrite it as $$g^{ab}(z)w_aw_b+w_n^2b(z)=0.$$ Together with the condition , this leads to the covariant form of the given first-order partial differential equation. $\hfill\triangleright$
Recall that a function $f=f(x),\ x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is said to be *homogeneous of degree $k$*, if $f(\lambda x)=\lambda^k f(x)$ for all real numbers $\lambda$.
Let $\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}})$ be a function that is homogeneous with respect to the derivatives $w_i$. The differential equation together with the condition is the covariant form of the differential equation , where $E(x,u;u_a)=\tilde{E}(x,u;-u_a,1)$.
*Proof.* $\triangleleft$ Applying and using the homogeneity of $\tilde{E}$, we obtain $$\tilde{E}(z;w_i)=\tilde{E}(z;w_a,w_n)=\tilde{E}(z;-w_n u_a,w_n)=w_n^k\tilde{E}(x,u;-u_a,1).$$ Thus, if $\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}})$ is a homogeneous function of the derivatives $w_i$, then the equation together with is the covariant form of the differential equation $\tilde{E}(x,u;-u_a,1) = 0$.$\hfill\triangleright$
*Example 3.* $\triangleleft$ Let us consider a differential equation of the form , where $\tilde{E}(z,w_i)$ is a function that is homogeneous of degree two with respect to the second derivatives: $$g^{ij}(z)w_iw_j=0.$$ By virtue of , we can write this in the form $$g^{na}(z)w_nw_a+g^{nn}(z)w_n^2=0\quad
\Longleftrightarrow\quad
w_n^2\left(g^{ab}(z)u_au_b-2g^{na}(z)u_a+g^{nn}(z)\right)=0.$$ which is equivalent to the differential equation $$g^{ab}(x,u)u_au_b-2g^{na}(x,u)u_a+g^{nn}(x,u)=0.$$ $\hfill\triangleright$
Now, we consider second-order partial differential equations.
\[u3\] An arbitrary second-order partial differential equation $$\label{e13}
E(x,u;u_a;u_{ab})=0.$$ can be represented in the covariant form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e14}
\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})&=&0,\\ \label{e15}
w&=&0.\end{aligned}$$
*Proof.* $\triangleleft$ In view of the Pfaffian forms $$\begin{aligned}
dw-w_idz^i=0,\quad dw_i-w_{ij}dz^j=0,\quad i,j=1,\dots,n; \\
du-u_a dx^a=0,\quad du_a-u_{ab}dx^b=0,\quad a,b=1,\dots,n-1,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the expressions for the second derivatives of the function $u = u(x)$ determined implicitly by the relation $w = 0$: $$\label{e16}
u_{ab}=-\frac{w_{ab}}{w_n}+\frac{w_{na}w_b}{w_n^2}+\frac{w_{nb}w_a}{w_n^2}-\frac{w_aw_bw_{nn}}{w_n^3}.$$ Substituting and into leads to a differential equation of the form . $\hfill\triangleright$
\[t1\] The differential equation together with the condition is the covariant form of a differential equation of the form if and only if it is invariant under the infinite-dimensional group of the transformations: $$\label{e17}
w\to s(z)w.$$
*Proof.* $\triangleleft$ Let us assume that the differential equation together with the condition is the covariant form of a differential equation of the form . In accordance with Proposition \[u3\], is obtained by substituting and ($u_a\to u_a[w],\ u_{ab}\to u_{ab}[w]$) into . It is quite easy to check that the right-hand sides of the substitutions and are invariant under the transformations : $$u_a[s(z)w]=-\frac{D_{z^a}(s(z)w)}{D_{z^n}(s(z)w)}=-\frac{s_a(z)w+s(z)w_a}{s_n(z)w+s(z)w_n}=-\frac{w_a}{w_n}
=u_a[w].$$ Here, we have used the condition . Analogously, it can be proved that equality $u_{ab}[s(z)w]=u_{ab}[w]$ holds.
Now, suppose and are invariant under the transformations . Because the infinitesimal generator of these transformations has the form $X=\sigma(z)\,w\,{\partial}_w$, the invariance of is equivalent to the equality $${\underset{2}{X}}\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})|_{\tilde{E}=0}=0\Leftrightarrow \left(\sigma(z) D + \sum\limits_j\sigma_j(z) R_j\right)\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})|_{\tilde{E}=0}=0,$$ where we have used the notation $$D=\sum\limits_i w_i\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}w_i}+\sum\limits_{i\leq j}w_{ij}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}w_{ij}},\quad
R_j=\sum\limits_i(1+\delta_{ij})w_i\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}w_{ij}}.$$ Thus, the invariance of under the transformations is equivalent to the equalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e18}
D\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})&=&k \tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}}),\\ \label{e19}
R_j \tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})&=&0,\quad j=1,\dots,n.\end{aligned}$$
The equation is the requirement that the function $\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})$ be homogeneous with respect to the first and second derivatives: $\tilde{E}(z;\lambda{\underset{1}{w}};\lambda{\underset{2}{w}})=\lambda^k\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})$. Solutions of the system of equations are the invariants $$\label{e20}
J_i=w_i,\quad 1\leq i\leq n;\quad J_{ij}=w_i^2 w_{jj}+w_j^2 w_{ii}-2w_iw_jw_{ij},\quad 1\leq i<j\leq n.$$ Thus, up to a positive constant factor, the second-order differential equations invariant under the transformations can be represent in the form $$\label{e21}
\tilde{E}(z;{\underset{1}{w}};{\underset{2}{w}})=F(z,\tilde{J}_i,\tilde{J}_{ij})=0,$$ where $\tilde{J}_i=w_i/w_n;\ \tilde{J}_{ij}=J_{ij}/w_n^3,\ F(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ is an arbitrary function.
Let $z^n=u$ and $x^a=z^a,\ (a=1,\dots,n-1)$ be the dependent and independent variables, respectively. Subsequently, $$u_a=-\tilde{J}_a,\quad u_{aa}=-\tilde{J}_{an},\quad u_{ab}=(\tilde{J}_{ab}-\tilde{J}_{a}^2\tilde{J}_{bn} - \tilde{J}_{b}^2\tilde{J}_{an})/2\tilde{J}_{a}\tilde{J}_{b}.$$ These expressions for the derivatives $u_a, u_{ab}$ in terms of the invariants $\tilde{J}_{a},\tilde{J}_{ab}$ allow us to rewrite an arbitrary differential equation in the form of . $\hfill\triangleright$
To conclude this section, we formulate, without giving any proofs, the following theorem.
\[t2\] A differential equation (a system of differential equations) of any order with dependent variables $u=(u^1,\dots,u^m)$ can be represented in the covariant form, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e22}
&&E_\mu(z;w,{\underset{1}{w}},\dots,{\underset{r_{\mu}}{w}})=0,\quad \mu=1,\dots s;\\ \label{e23}
&&w^{\alpha}=0,\quad \alpha=1,\dots,m.\end{aligned}$$ The system of equations , is invariant under the transformations $$w^\alpha\to s^\alpha_\beta(z)w^\beta,\quad \det \| s^\alpha_\beta(z) \|\neq 0.$$
Differential equations of simply transitive type {#sec:3}
================================================
Let us consider a differential equation of type $\{n,{2},1,n,0,0\}$, i.e., the equation is a scalar second-order partial differential equation admitting an $n$-dimensional group $G=\mathrm{Lie}({\mathfrak{g}})$ of point symmetries with infinitesimal generators . The group $G$ acts simply transitively on an $n$-dimensional space $Z$ of $n-1$ independent variables $x^a=z^a,\; (a=1,\dots,n-1)$ and one dependent variables $u=z^n$. By virtue of the simple transitivity and local character of the problem, we can assume that the infinitesimal generators of the symmetry group form the realization of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ by the left-invariant vector fields: $X_i=\xi_i$, $i = 1, \dots, n$.
Let $\eta_i=\eta_i^j(z){\partial}_{z^j}$ be the realization of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ by the right-invariant vector fields: $$[\xi_i,\xi_j]=C_{ij}^k\xi_k,\quad [\eta_i,\eta_j]=-C_{ij}^k\eta_k,\quad [\xi_i,\eta_j]=0.$$ Below, we will also use the following notation: $$\label{ed1}
{w_{({i})}}=\hat{\eta}_i w=\eta_i^j(z)w_j,\quad {w_{({ij})}}=\frac12(\hat{\eta}_i\hat{\eta}_j+\hat{\eta}_j\hat{\eta}_i)w=(\hat{\eta}_i\circ\hat{\eta}_j)w,\quad
{w_{({j_1\dots j_k})}}=\frac{1}{k!}\sum\limits_{\sigma\in S_k} \hat{\eta}_{j_{\sigma_1}}\cdots \hat{\eta}_{j_{\sigma_k}}w.$$ Here, $\hat{\eta}_i=\eta_i^j D_j$, where $D_j={\partial}_{z^j}+w_j{\partial}_w+w_{jk}{\partial}_{w_k}+\cdots$ is the total derivative operator.
The following theorem was proved in [@Shi07].
\[t3\] Let a differential equation of the form, $$E(z,w,{\underset{1}{w}},{\underset{2}{w}},\dots,{\underset{k}{w}})=0$$ with $n$ independent variables $\{z^i\}$ and one dependent variable $w$ admit an $n$-dimensional symmetry group $G$ with infinitesimal generators $X_i=\xi_i=\xi_i^j(z){\partial}_{z^j}$. Suppose $G$ acts simply transitively in the space of the variables $z$ (i.e., $\det \| \xi_i^j \| \neq 0$). Then this equation can be represented in the form $$\label{e24}
F(w,{w_{({i})}},{w_{({ij})}},\dots,{w_{({j_1\dots j_k})}})=0.$$ Specifically, the set $\{ w,{w_{({i})}},{w_{({ij})}},\dots,{w_{({j_1\dots j_k})}},\dots \}$ forms a basis of the differential invariants, and $\hat{\eta}_i$ are the operators of the invariant differentiation.
Because for differential equations of the type under consideration the dependent variable $\{u\}$ is not invariant, we cannot directly apply Theorem \[t3\]. However, the transition to the covariant form, in which the dependent variable is an invariant of the symmetry group, allows us to define a general form of the differential equations with simply transitive symmetry groups.
\[t4\] The covariant form of any second-order partial differential equation with a simply transitive group of point symmetries has the form $$\label{e25}
F(I_{(i)},I_{(ij)})=0,\quad w=0,$$ where $$\label{e26}
I_{(i)}={w_{({i})}}/{w_{({n})}},\quad I_{(ij)}=({w_{({i})}}^2 {w_{({jj})}}-2 {w_{({i})}}{w_{({j})}}{w_{({ij})}}+{w_{({j})}}^2 {w_{({ii})}})/{w_{({n})}}^3,\quad
1\leq i<j \leq n.$$
*Proof.* $\triangleleft$ In accordance with Proposition \[u3\], any second-order differential equation can be written in the covariant form , , where the dependent variable $w$ is an invariant of the symmetry group $G$. Therefore, we can utilize Theorem \[t3\] and represent in the form (for $k=2$). By virtue of Theorem \[t1\], we also require invariance of under the infinite-dimensional group of transformations . The second prolongation of the generators of this transformation group can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
{\underset{2}{X}}=\sigma(z)w\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}w}+\sum\limits_{i}D_{z^i}(\sigma(z)w)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}w_i}+
\sum\limits_{i\leq j}D_{z^i}D_{z^j}(\sigma(z)w)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}w_{ij}}=\\
=\sigma(z)w\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}w}+\sum\limits_{i}\hat{\eta}_i(\sigma(z)w)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{w_{({i})}}}+
\sum\limits_{i\leq j}(\hat{\eta}_i\circ\hat{\eta}_j)(\sigma(z)w)\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{w_{({ij})}}}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, considering , we have $${\underset{2}{X}}F({\underset{(1)}{w}},{\underset{(2)}{w}})|_{F=0}=0\Leftrightarrow \left(\sigma(z) D + \sum\limits_j\sigma_{(j)}(z) R_{(j)}\right)F({\underset{(1)}{w}},{\underset{(2)}{w}})|_{F=0}=0.$$ Here, ${\underset{(1)}{w}}=\{{w_{({i})}}\},\ {\underset{(2)}{w}}=\{{w_{({ij})}}\},\ \sigma_{(j)}(z)=\hat{\eta}_j\sigma(z)$, and $$D=\sum\limits_{i} {w_{({i})}}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{w_{({i})}}}+\sum\limits_{i\leq j}{w_{({ij})}}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{w_{({ij})}}},\quad
R_{(j)}=\sum\limits_i(1+\delta_{ij}){w_{({i})}}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{w_{({ij})}}}$$ By solving the system of differential equations, similar to and , we obtain and . $\hfill\triangleright$
Differential equations admitting simply transitive symmetry groups of low dimensions {#sec:4}
====================================================================================
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}^n$ be the $n$-dimensional Lie algebra of a local simply transitive symmetry Lie group. Let us provide an algorithm for calculating the second-order differential invariants of the symmetry group from the structure constants $C_{ij}^k$ of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}^n$. This algorithm also allows us to output the representatives of the classes of differential equations invariant under the symmetry group and linear in the highest order derivatives. Any other equation admitting the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}^n$ as a symmetry algebra can be reduced to one of the given representatives by changing the dependent and independent variables.
Step 1.
: Given the structure constants of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}^n$, left- $\{\xi_i=\xi_i^k(z){\partial}_{z^k}\}$ and right-invariant $\{\eta_i=\eta_i^k(z){\partial}_{z^k}\}$ vector fields are constructed by applying the method proposed in [@MagMikShi15].
Step 2.
: Introducing the notation $x^a=z^a \ (a=1,\dots,n-1),\ u=z^n$, the infinitesimal generators of the symmetry group are written as $X_i=\xi_i^a(x,u){\partial}_{x^a}+\xi_i^n(x,u){\partial}_{u}$.
Step 3.
: In accordance with , quantities ${w_{({i})}},\;{w_{({ij})}}$ as functions of variables $(x,u,{\underset{1}{w}},{\underset{2}{w}})$ are expressed.
Step 4.
: Using , the invariants ${I_{({a})}},\;{I_{({ij})}}$ are calculated as functions of the variables $(x,u,{\underset{1}{w}},{\underset{2}{w}})$.
Step 5.
: From the formulae for the implicit derivatives and , the inverse equalities are derived: $$\label{epod}
w_a=-u_a w_n,\quad w_{ab}=-w_n u_{ab}-w_{bn}u_a-w_{an}u_b-u_au_bw_{nn}.$$ Substituting these into the invariants ${I_{({a})}},\;{I_{({ij})}}$, we obtain the first- and second-order differential invariants: $$v_a=v_a(x,u,{\underset{1}{u}}), \quad v_{ij}=v_{ij}(x,u,{\underset{1}{u}},{\underset{2}{u}}).$$ (The invariants ${I_{({a})}},\;{I_{({ij})}}$ are arranged so that the “unnecessary” variables $\{w_n,w_{an},w_{nn}\}$ cancel and are not presented in the invariants $v_a,\;v_{ij}$).
Step 6.
: The invariant equation linear in the second derivatives is constructed: $$\label{einv_eq}
E(x,u,{\underset{1}{u}},{\underset{2}{u}})=\sum\limits_{1\leq i< j \leq n}a^{ij}({\underset{1}{v}})v_{ij}+b({\underset{1}{v}})=0.$$
Step 7.
: The following results are summarized in a table: the non-zero commutation relations of the Lie algebra, ${\mathfrak{g}}^n$, the infinitesimal generators $X_i$ of the symmetry group, a basis of the first- and second-order differential invariants $v_a,\,v_{ij}$, and the invariant differential equation linear in the second derivatives $E(x,u,{\underset{1}{u}},{\underset{2}{u}})=0$.
As an illustration of the algorithm, we calculate the second order differential invariants and write down the general form of the invariant differential equation linear in the second derivatives for the three-dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(3)$: $$[e_1, e_2] = e_3,\quad
[e_2, e_3] = e_1,\quad
[e_1, e_3] = - e_2.$$ Before making this, we calculate the left- and right-invariant vector fields on the corresponding local Lie group. In the coordinates of the second kind $g_z = e^{z^3 e_3}e^{z^2 e_2}e^{z^1 e_1}$, these can be constructed by applying the algebraic method described in [@MagMikShi15]: $$\xi_1 = {\partial}_{z^1},\
\xi_2 = \sin {z^1} \tan z^2 {\partial}_{z^1} + \cos z^1 {\partial}_{z^2} + \frac{\sin z^1}{\cos z^2}\, {\partial}_{z^3},\
\xi_3 = \cos {z^1} \tan z^2 {\partial}_{z^1} - \sin z^1 {\partial}_{z^2} + \frac{\cos z^1}{\cos z^2}\, {\partial}_{z^3};$$ $$\eta_1 = \frac{\cos z^3}{\cos z^2}\, {\partial}_{z^1} - \sin z^3 {\partial}_{z^2} + \cos z^3 \tan z^2 {\partial}_{z^3},\
\eta_2 = \frac{\sin z^3}{\cos z^2}\, {\partial}_{z^1} + \cos z^3 {\partial}_{z^2} + \sin z^3 \tan z^2 {\partial}_{z^3},\
\eta_3 = {\partial}_{z^3}.$$
The infinitesimal generators $X_i$ of the symmetry group are obtained from the left-invariant vector fields $\xi_i$ by the formal substitute $z^1 \to x, z^2 \to y, z^3 \to u$: $$X_1 = {\partial}_{x},\quad
X_2 = \sin {x} \tan y\, {\partial}_{x} + \cos x\, {\partial}_{y} + \frac{\sin x}{\cos y}\, {\partial}_{u},\quad
X_3 = \cos {x} \tan y\, {\partial}_{x} - \sin x\, {\partial}_{y} + \frac{\cos x}{\cos y}\, {\partial}_{u}.$$ The quantities $w_{(i)}$ and $w_{(ij)}$, which are defined by and considered as functions of the variables $x, y, u, w_1, w_2, w_{11}, w_{12}, w_{13}, w_{22}, w_{23}, w_{33}$, take the form $$w_{(1)} = w_1\, \frac{\cos u}{\cos y} - w_2 \sin u + w_3 \cos u \tan y,\quad
w_{(2)} = w_1\, \frac{\sin u}{\cos y} + w_2 \cos u + w_3 \sin u \tan y,\quad
w_{(3)} = w_3,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
w_{(11)} = w_{11}\, \frac{\cos^2 u}{\cos^2 y} - w_{12}\, \frac{\sin 2u}{\cos y} + w_{13}\, \frac{2 \tan y \cos^2 u}{\cos y} + w_{22} \sin^2 u - w_{23} \sin 2 u \tan y +
\\
+ w_{33} \tan^2 y \cos^2 u - w_1\,\frac{\sin 2 u \tan y}{\cos y} - w_2 \cos^2 u \tan y - \frac{1}{2}\, w_3 (1 + 2 \tan^2 y) \sin 2 u,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
w_{(12)} = w_{11}\,\frac{\sin 2u}{2 \cos^2 y} + w_{12}\,\frac{\cos 2 u}{\cos y} + w_{13}\,\frac{\sin 2 u \tan y}{\cos y} - \frac{1}{2} \, w_{22} \sin 2 u + w_{23} \tan y \cos 2 u +
\\
+ \frac{1}{2}\, w_{33} \sin 2u \tan^2 y + w_1\, \frac{\tan y \cos 2 u}{\cos y} - \frac{1}{2}\, w_2 \sin 2u \tan y + \frac{1}{2}\,w_3 \left ( 1 + 2 \tan^2 y \right ) \cos 2 u,\end{gathered}$$ $$w_{(13)} = w_{13}\, \frac{\cos u}{\cos y} - w_{23} \sin u + w_{33} \cos u \tan y - \frac{1}{2}\, w_1\,\frac{\sin u}{\cos y} - \frac{1}{2} \, w_2 \cos u - \frac{1}{2}\, w_3 \sin u \tan y,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
w_{(22)} = w_{11}\,\frac{\sin^2 u}{\cos^2 y} + w_{12}\,\frac{\sin 2 u}{\cos y} + 2 w_{13}\,\frac{\tan y \sin^2 u}{\cos y} + w_{22} \cos^2 u + w_{23} \sin 2 u \tan y +
\\
+ \frac{1}{2}\, w_{33} \left ( 1 - \cos 2 u \right ) \tan^2 y + w_1\,\frac{\sin 2 u \tan y}{\cos y} - w_2 \sin^2 u \tan y + \frac{1}{2}\, w_3 \sin 2 u \left ( 1 + 2 \tan^2 y \right ),\end{gathered}$$ $$w_{(23)} = w_{13}\,\frac{\sin u}{\cos y} + w_{23} \cos u + w_{33} \sin u \tan y + \frac12\, w_1\,\frac{\cos u}{\cos y} - \frac{1}{2}\, w_2 \sin u + \frac{1}{2}\, w_3 \cos u \tan y,$$ $$w_{(33)} = w_{33}.$$
Using the expressions for $w_{(a)}$ and $w_{(ij)}$, we obtain the invariants $I_{(a)}$ and $I_{(ij)}$ in accordance with . Substituting into the invariants, we find $$\label{1inv}
v_{1} = u_x \, \frac{\cos u}{\cos y} - u_y \sin u - \cos u \tan y,\quad
v_{2} = u_x\, \frac{\sin u}{\cos y} + u_y \cos u - \sin u \tan y,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
v_{12} = \frac{1}{\cos^2 y} \left [
u_{xx} u_y^2 + 2 u_{xy} u_y (\sin y - u_x) + u_{yy} (u_x - \sin y)^2 + \frac{1}{2} \, ( 1 - u_y^2 ) u_y \sin 2 y - \right .
\\
\left . - 3 u_x u_y \cos y - 2 (1+u_x^2) u_y \tan y + \frac{4 u_x u_y}{\cos y} \right ],\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
v_{13} = u_{xx}\,\frac{\cos^2 u}{\cos^2 y} - u_{xy}\,\frac{\sin 2u}{\cos y} + u_{yy} \sin^2 u + \frac{1}{2} \left ( u_y^2 - \frac{u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ) \sin 2 u - u_x u_y \, \frac{\cos 2 u}{\cos y} -
\\
- u_y \tan y \sin^2 u + \frac{\sin 2 u}{1 + \cos 2 y},\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
v_{23} = u_{xx} \, \frac{\sin^2 u}{\cos^2 y} + u_{xy} \, \frac{\sin 2 u}{\cos y} + u_{yy} \cos^2 u - \frac{1}{2} \left ( \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} + u_y^2 \right ) \sin 2 u +
\\
+ u_x u_y\,\frac{\cos 2 u}{\cos y} - u_y \cos^2 u \tan y.\end{gathered}$$ Instead $v_{12}$, $v_{13}$, and $v_{23}$, it is convenient to choose the new set of invariants $\tilde{v}_{12}$, $\tilde{v}_{13}$, $\tilde{v}_{23}$, which is related to the old one by the relations $$\tilde{v}_{12} = \frac{v_{12}-v^2_{1}v_{23}-v^2_{2}v_{13}}{v_{1}v_{2}},\quad
\tilde{v}_{13} = v_{13} - v_{23},\quad
\tilde{v}_{23} = v_{13} + v_{23}.$$ As a result, we have $$\tilde{v}_{12} = \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} + u_{yy} - u_y \tan y,$$ $$\tilde{v}_{13} = \cos 2 u \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} - u_{yy} - \frac{2 u_x u_y}{\cos y} + u_y \tan y \right ) + \sin 2 u \left ( - \frac{2 u_{xy}}{\cos y} + u_y^2 + \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ),$$ $$\tilde{v}_{23} = - \sin 2 u \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} - u_{yy} - \frac{2 u_x u_y}{\cos y} + u_y \tan y \right ) + \cos 2 u \left ( - \frac{2 u_{xy}}{\cos y} + u_y^2 + \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ),$$
In accordance with , the general form of the $\mathfrak{so}(3)$-invariant differential equation linear in the second derivatives can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
\left [ a^{13}(v_{1},v_{2}) \cos 2 u - a^{23}(v_{1},v_{2}) \sin 2 u \right ] \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} - u_{yy} - \frac{2 u_x u_y}{\cos y} + u_y \tan y \right ) +
\\
+ \left [ a^{13}(v_{1},v_{2}) \sin 2 u + a^{23}(v_{1},v_{2}) \cos 2 u \right ] \left ( - \frac{2 u_{xy}}{\cos y} + u_y^2 + \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ) +
\\
+ a^{12}(v_{1},v_{2}) \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} + u_{yy} - u_y \tan y \right ) + b(v_{1},v_{2}) = 0,\end{gathered}$$ where $a^{12}, a^{13}, a^{23}$, $b$ are arbitrary smooth functions of their arguments, and $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$ are defined by . We can yet further simplify this equation by dividing by $a^{12}$ and re-designating the rest arbitrary functions: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{so3eq}
\Delta u + \left [ \tilde{a}^{13}(v_{1},v_{2}) \cos 2 u - \tilde{a}^{23}(v_{1},v_{2}) \sin 2 u \right ] \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} - u_{yy} - \frac{2 u_x u_y}{\cos y} + u_y \tan y \right ) +
\\
+ \left [ \tilde{a}^{13}(v_{1},v_{2}) \sin 2 u + \tilde{a}^{23}(v_{1},v_{2}) \cos 2 u \right ] \left ( - \frac{2 u_{xy}}{\cos y} + u_y^2 + \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ) + \tilde{b}(v_{1},v_{2}) = 0.\end{gathered}$$ Here, $\tilde{a}^{13} = a^{13}/a^{12}$, $\tilde{a}^{23} = a^{23}/a^{12}$, $\tilde{b} = b/a^{12}$, $\Delta$ is the Laplace–Beltrami operator on the 2-sphere: $$\Delta u \equiv \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} + u_{yy} - u_y \tan y.$$ It is interesting to note that if the functions $\tilde{a}^{13}$ and $\tilde{a}^{23}$ are constants, then the coefficients of $u_{xx}$, $u_{xy}$, and $u_{yy}$ in do not depend on $u_x$ and $u_y$. In particular, if $\tilde{a}^{13} = \tilde{a}^{23} = 0$, then the coefficients do not also depend on $u$ and can be regarded as the components of the standard metric on the 2-sphere $S^2$. In this case, the differential equation has the form: $$\Delta u + \tilde{b} \left ( v_{1}, v_{2} \right ) = 0.$$
Below, we list the second-order differential invariants and the invariant quasi-linear second-order differential equations for all two- and three-dimensional local Lie groups. To denote the Lie algebras, we use the notation ${\mathfrak{g}}^n_k$, where $n$ is the dimension of a Lie algebra and $k$ is its number in the list. In addition to the invariants and differential equations, the tables also contain simply transitive realizations of the Lie algebras in the “splitting” coordinates $z = (x,u)$.
Two-dimensional symmetry groups (type $\{2,\{2\},1,2,0,0\}$)
------------------------------------------------------------
In the two-dimensional case, there exist only two non-isomorphic Lie algebras: the commutative Lie algebra $2 {\mathfrak{g}}^1$ and the non-commutative Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}^2$.
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------------
Lie algebra Generators $X_i$ Invariants Quasi-linear second-order
$v_{a}$, $v_{ij}$ differential equation
$2{\mathfrak{g}}^1$ $X_1={\partial}_x$, $X_2={\partial}_u$ $u_x$, $u_{xx}$ $u_{xx}+b(u_x)=0$
${\mathfrak{g}}^2$ $X_1={\partial}_x$, $X_2=x{\partial}_x+{\partial}_u$ $e^u u_x$, $e^{2u}u_{xx}$ $u_{xx}+e^{-2u}b(e^u u_x)=0$
$[e_1,e_2]=e_1$
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------------
: Second-order differential invariants of two-dimensional symmtry groups and quasi-linear differential equations of type $\{2,\{2\},1,2,0,0\}$[]{data-label="tab:2"}
In Table \[tab:2\], $b$ denotes an arbitrary smooth function of its argument.
Three-dimensional symmetry groups (type $\{3,\{2\},1,3,0,0\}$)
--------------------------------------------------------------
We use the classification of non-isomorphic three-dimensional Lie algebras suggested by Mubarakzyanov [@Mub63].
=
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lie algebra Generators $X_i$ Invariants Quasi-linear second-order differential
$v_a,\ v_{ij}$ equation
$3{\mathfrak{g}}^1$ $X_1={\partial}_x,\ X_2={\partial}_y$, $u_x, u_y, u_{xx}$, $u_{xx} + a_1(u_x,u_y) u_{xy} + a_{2}(u_x, u_y) u_{yy} + $
$X_3 = {\partial}_u$ $u_{xy}, u_{yy}$ $\hfill + b(u_x, u_y) = 0$
${\mathfrak{g}}^1+{\mathfrak{g}}^2$ $X_1={\partial}_x$, $e^y u_x, u_y$, $u_{xx} + e^{-y}a_1(e^y u_x,u_y) u_{xy} + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_2]=e_1$ $X_2=x{\partial}_x+{\partial}_y$, $e^{2y} u_{xx}, e^y u_{xy}$, $\hfill+e^{-2y} a_{2}(e^yu_x, u_y) u_{yy} + \hfill$
$X_3 = {\partial}_u$ $u_{yy}$ $\hfill+e^{-2y} b(e^y u_x, u_y) = 0$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_1$ $X_1 = {\partial}_u$, $X_2 = {\partial}_x$, $u_x - y$, $u_y$, $u_{xx} + a_{1}(u_x - y,u_y) u_{xy} + \hfill$
$[e_2,e_3]=e_1$ $X_3 = {\partial}_y + x {\partial}_u$ $u_{xx}$, $u_{xy}$, $u_{yy}$ $\hfill+a_{2}(u_x-y, u_y) u_{yy} +b(u_x-y,u_y) = 0$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_2$ $X_1 = {\partial}_u$, $X_2 = {\partial}_y$, $e^{-x} u_x$, $u_y - x$, $e^{-x}u_{xx} + a_{1}(e^{-x} u_x, u_y - x) u_{xy} + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_3]=e_1$ $X_3 = {\partial}_x + y {\partial}_y + \hfill$ $e^{-x} u_{xx}$, $u_{xy}$, $\hfill + a_{2}(e^{-x}u_x,u_y-x) u_{yy} + \hfill$
$[e_2,e_3]=e_1+e_2$ $\hfill+(y+u) {\partial}_u$ $e^x u_{yy}$ $\hfill + b(e^{-x}u_x,u_y - x) = 0$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_3$ $X_1={\partial}_x$, $X_2={\partial}_y$, $e^u u_x$, $e^u u_y$, $u_{xx} + a_1(e^u u_x, e^u u_y) + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_3]=e_1$ $X_3 = x{\partial}_x + \hfill$ $ e^{2u} u_{xx}$, $e^{2u}u_{xy}$, $\hfill+a_2(e^u u_x, e^u u_y) u_{yy} + \hfill $
$[e_2,e_3]=e_2$ $\hfill + y{\partial}_y + {\partial}_u$ $e^{2u}u_{yy}$ $\hfill+e^{-2u} b(e^u u_x, e^u u_y) = 0$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_4$ $X_1={\partial}_x$, $X_2={\partial}_y$, $e^u u_x$, $e^{hu} u_y$, $u_{xx} + e^{(h-1)u}a_1(e^u u_x, e^{hu} u_y) + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_3]=e_1$ $X_3 = x{\partial}_x+\hfill$ $\ e^{2u}u_{xx}$, $\hfill+e^{2(h-1)u}a_2(e^u u_x, e^{hu} u_y) u_{yy} + \hfill$
$[e_2,e_3]=he_2$ $\hfill+hy{\partial}_y+{\partial}_u$ $e^{(1+h) u}u_{xy}$, $\hfill+e^{-2u} b(e^u u_x, e^{hu} u_y) = 0$
$|h|\leq 1,$ $h \neq 0,1$ $e^{2hu}u_{yy}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_5$ $X_1 = {\partial}_x$, $X_2 = {\partial}_y$, $v^5_1$, $v^5_2$, $u_{xx} + u_{yy} + e^{-2pu} b(v^5_1, v^5_2) + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_3]=pe_1-e_2$ $X_3 = (px+y){\partial}_x+\hfill$ $v^5_{12}$, $v^5_{13}$, $v^5_{23}$ $\hfill+a_1(v^5_1, v^5_2) (u_{xx} - u_{yy}) \cos 2 u - \hfill$
$[e_2,e_3]=pe_2+e_1$ $\hfill+(py-x){\partial}_y+{\partial}_u$ $\hfill-2 a_1(v^5_1, v^5_2) u_{xy} \sin 2 u + \hfill$
$p\geq 0$ $\hfill+a_2(v^5_1, v^5_2) (u_{xx} - u_{yy}) \sin 2 u + \hfill$
$\hfill+2 a_2(v^5_1, v^5_2) u_{xy} \cos 2 u = 0$
${\mathfrak{g}}_{3}^6$ $X_1 = {\partial}_x$, $v^6_1$, $v^6_2$, $e^{2y} u_{xx} + 4 u e^{y} u_{xy} + 4 u^2 u_{yy} + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_2]=e_1$ $X_2 = x {\partial}_x + {\partial}_y$, $v^6_{12}$, $v^6_{13}$, $v^6_{23}$ $\hfill+2 e^y u_x u_y + 4 u u_y^2 - 4 u^2 u_y+ \hfill$
$[e_1,e_3]=2e_2$ $X_3 = x^2 {\partial}_x + \hfill$ $ + a_1\left ( v^6_1, v^6_2 \right ) \left ( e^y u_{xy} + 2 u u_{yy} - u^2 \right ) + \hfill$
$[e_2,e_3]=e_3$ $\hfill+2 x {\partial}_y +e^y {\partial}_u$ $\hfill+a_2 \left ( v^6_1, v^6_2 \right ) \left ( u_{yy} - u \right ) + b\left ( v^6_1, v^6_2 \right ) = 0$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_7$ $X_1 = {\partial}_x$, $\frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} + u_{yy} - u_y \tan y + b\left (v^7_1,v^7_2\right ) + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_2] = e_3$ $X_2 = \sin x \tan y {\partial}_x + \hfill$ $v^7_1$, $v^7_2$, $+\left [ a_1\left (v^7_1,v^7_2\right ) \cos 2 u - a_2\left (v^7_1,v^7_2\right ) \sin 2 u \right ] \times$
$[e_2,e_3]=e_1$ $\hfill+\cos x {\partial}_y + \frac{\sin x}{\cos y} {\partial}_u,$ $v^7_{12}$, $v^7_{13}$, $v^7_{23}$ $\times \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} - u_{yy} - \frac{2 u_x u_y}{\cos y} + u_y \tan y \right ) +$
$[e_3,e_1]=e_2$ $X_3 = \cos x \tan y {\partial}_x - \hfill$ $ + \left [ a_1 \left ( v^7_1,v^7_2 \right ) \sin 2 u + a_2\left (v^7_1, v^7_2\right ) \cos 2 u \right ]\times$
$\hfill-\sin x {\partial}_y + \frac{\cos x}{\cos y} {\partial}_u$ $\times\left ( - \frac{2 u_{xy}}{\cos y} + u_y^2 + \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ) = 0$
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Second-order differential invariants of three-dimensional symmetry groups and quasi-linear differential equations of type $\{3,\{2\},1,3,0,0\}$[]{data-label="tab:3"}
In Table \[tab:3\], $a_1$, $a_2$, and $b$ denote arbitrary functions of their arguments. Furthermore, we use the following notation: $$v^5_1 = e^{pu} \left ( u_x \cos u - u_y \sin u \right ),\quad
v^5_2 = e^{pu} \left ( u_x \sin u + u_y \cos u \right ),\quad
v^5_{12} = e^{2pu}(u_{xx}+u_{yy}),$$ $$v^5_{13} = e^{2pu} \left ( (u_{xx}-u_{yy}) \cos 2 u - 2 u_{xy} \sin 2 u \right ),\quad
v^5_{23} = e^{2pu} \left ( (u_{xx}-u_{yy}) \sin 2 u + 2 u_{xy} \sin 2 u \right );$$ $$v^6_1 = e^y u_x + u_y^2,\quad
v^6_2 = u_y - u,\quad
v^6_{12} = u_{yy} - u,$$ $$v^6_{13} = e^y u_{xy} + 2 u u_{yy} - u^2,\quad
v^6_{23} = e^{2y} u_{xx} + 2 u \left [ u( 2 u_{yy} + u_y - u ) + e^y ( u_x + 2 u_{xy}) \right ];$$ $$v^7_1 = u_x\,\frac{\cos u}{\cos y} - u_y \sin u - \cos u \tan y,\quad
v^7_2 = u_x\,\frac{\sin u}{\cos y} u_x + u_y \cos u - \sin u \tan y,$$ $$v^7_{12} = \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} + u_{yy} - u_y \tan y,$$ $$v^7_{13} = \cos 2 u \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} - u_{yy} - \frac{2 u_x u_y}{\cos y} + u_y \tan y \right ) + \sin 2 u \left ( - \frac{2 u_{xy}}{\cos y} + u_y^2 + \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ),$$ $$v^7_{23} = - \sin 2 u \left ( \frac{u_{xx}}{\cos^2 y} - u_{yy} - \frac{2 u_x u_y}{\cos y} + u_y \tan y \right ) + \cos 2 u \left ( - \frac{2 u_{xy}}{\cos y} + u_y^2 + \frac{1-u_x^2}{\cos^2 y} \right ).$$
Differential equations with free symmetry groups {#sec:5}
================================================
Suppose that a symmetry group acts on a space $Z$ freely and intransitively (we have considered the case of a free and transitive action in the previous section). Locally, we have $Z\simeq X\times Y$, where $X$ is an orbit of the group action, and $Y$ is a subspace transverse to the orbit and coordinates on $Y$ are invariants of the symmetry group. The infinitesimal generators of the group action have the form and coincide with the left-invariant vector fields on $X$. In contrast to the scenario examined in the study in [@Shi07], here we consider a more general case when there are several invariant variables $\{y^1,\dots,y^m\}$.
Differential equations with such symmetry groups have type II: $\{n+m,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$. Without the loss of generality, we can regard the invariant variable $y^m$ as the dependent variable $u$. Indeed, if the dependent variable is not invariant (for example, $u=x^n$), a hodograph transformation can then be used to make the invariant variable $y^m$ dependent. (We note that hodograph transformations have the property of mapping quasi-linear differential equations to quasi-linear ones).
In accordance with Theorem \[t3\], $y^\mu,u, {u_{({i})}},{u_{({ij})}},\dots,$ are differential invariants. (Here, ${u_{({i})}}=\hat{\eta}_iu,\;{u_{({ij})}}=(\hat{\eta}_i\circ\hat{\eta}_j) u,\dots$). Moreover, it is easy to note that the total differentiation operators $D_{y^\mu}$ are operators of the invariant differentiation. Thus, to the above differential invariants, we add the invariants $u_{y^\mu},u_{y^\mu y^\nu},{u_{({i})}}{}_{y^\mu},\dots$. Let us formulate this result in the form of a theorem.
\[t5\] A second-order partial differential equation whose symmetry group acts freely and intransitively has the form: $$F(y,u,u_{y^\mu},{u_{({i})}},u_{y^\mu y^\nu},{u_{({ij})}},{u_{({i})}}{}_{y^\mu})=0.$$ In particular, a differential equation linear in the highest derivatives is represented as follows: $$\label{e28}
\sum\limits_{\mu,\nu=1}^{m-1}a^{\mu \nu}u_{y^\mu y^\nu}+
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}b^{ij}{u_{({ij})}}+
\sum\limits_{\mu=1}^{m-1}\sum\limits_{i=1}^n c^{\mu i}{u_{({i})}}{}_{y^\mu}+d=0.$$ Here, $a^{\mu \nu},b^{ij}, c^{\mu i},d$ are arbitrary functions of $y,u,u_{y^\mu},{u_{({i})}}$.
Let us list all the inequivalent second-order differential equations of type II for local Lie groups of dimensions no larger than three. In the tables below, we indicate the symmetry Lie algebras, their infinitesimal generators, and all the second-order differential invariants. The invariant quasi-linear differential equations have the same structure as . Everywhere below we use the notation: $y=\{y^1,\dots,y^{m-1}\}$, $u_{\mu}=u_{y^\mu},\; u_i=u_{x^i},\; u_{\mu\nu}=u_{y^\mu y^\nu},\; u_{i\mu }=u_{x^i y^\mu },\;u_{ij}=u_{x^ix^j}\; (i,j=1,\dots,n;\; \mu,\nu=1,\dots,m-1).$
One-dimensional symmetry groups (type $\{1+m,\{2\},1,1,0,0\}$)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Up to isomorphism, there is one one-dimensional Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}^1$.
Lie algebra Generators $X_i$ Second-order differential invariants
-------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
${\mathfrak{g}}^1$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1}$ $y,u,u_1,u_{\mu},u_{11},u_{1\mu},u_{\mu\nu}$
: Second-order differential invariants for the one-dimensional Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}^1$[]{data-label="tab:4"}
Two-dimensional symmetry groups (type $\{2+m,\{2\},1,2,0,0\}$)
--------------------------------------------------------------
As we have noted above, there are only two non-isomorphic two-dimensional Lie algebras: $2 {\mathfrak{g}}^1$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}^2$.
Lie algebras Generators $X_i$ Second-order differential invariants
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2{\mathfrak{g}}^1$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1},X_2={\partial}_{x^2}$ $y,u,u_1,u_2,u_{\mu},u_{11},u_{12},u_{22},u_{1\mu},u_{2\mu},u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^2$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1}$, $X_2 = x^1 {\partial}_{x^1} + {\partial}_{x^2}$ $y$, $u$, $e^{x^2}u_1,$ $u_2,$ $u_{\mu},$ $e^{2x^2}u_{11}$, $e^{x^2} \left ( u_{12} + \frac{u_1}{2} \right )$, $u_{22}$, $e^{x^2}u_{1\mu}$,
$[e_1,e_2] = e_1$ $u_{2\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
: Second-order differential invariants for two-dimensional Lie algebras[]{data-label="tab:5"}
Three-dimensional symmetry groups (type $\{3+m,\{2\},1,3,0,0\}$)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here we also use the classification of three-dimensional Lie algebras suggested by Mubarakzyanov [@Mub63].
=
Lie algebra Generators $X_i$ Second-order differential invariants
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3{\mathfrak{g}}^1$ $X_1 = {\partial}_{x^1}$, $X_2 = {\partial}_{x^2}$, $y$, $u$, $u_1$, $u_2$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$, $u_{11}$, $u_{12}$, $u_{13}$, $u_{22}$, $u_{23}$,
$X_3 = {\partial}_{x^3}$ $u_{33}$, $u_{1\mu}$, $u_{2\mu}$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^1+{\mathfrak{g}}^2$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1}$, $y$, $u$, $e^{x^2}u_1$, $u_2$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$,
$[e_1,e_2]=e_1$ $X_2=x^1 {\partial}_{x^1}+{\partial}_{x^2}$, $e^{2x^2}u_{11}$, $e^{x^2}\left ( u_{12} + \frac{u_1}{2}\right )$, $e^{x^2}u_{13}$, $u_{22}$, $u_{23}$, $u_{33}$,
$X_3={\partial}_{x^3}$ $e^{x^2}u_{1\mu}$, $u_{2\mu}$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_1$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1}$, $y$, $u$, $u_1$, $x^3 u_1 + u_2$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$, $u_{11}$, $x^3 u_{11}+u_{12}$,
$[e_2,e_3]=e_1$ $X_2={\partial}_{x^2}$, $u_{13}$, $(x^3)^2 u_{11} + 2 x^3 u_{12}+u_{22}$, $x^3 u_{13}+u_{23}+\frac{u_1}{2}$,
$X_3=x^2{\partial}_{x^1}+{\partial}_{x^3}$ $u_{33}$, $u_{1\mu}$, $x^3 u_{1\mu}+u_{2\mu}$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_2$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1}$, $y$, $u$, $e^{x^3}u_1$, $e^{x^3}\left ( x^3 u_1 + u_2\right )$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$,
$[e_1,e_3]=e_1$ $X_2={\partial}_{x^2}$, $e^{2x^3}u_{11}$, $e^{2x^3}\left ( x^3 u_{11}+u_{12} \right )$, $e^{x^3}\left ( u_{13} + \frac{u_1}{2}\right )$,
$[e_2,e_3]=e_1+e_2$ $X_3=(x^1+x^2){\partial}_{x^1}+\hfill$ $u_{33}$, $e^{x^3}u_{1\mu}$, $e^{2x^3}\left ( (x^3)^2 u_{11} + 2 x^3 u_{12} + u_{22} \right )$,
$\hfill+x^2{\partial}_{x^2}+{\partial}_{x^3}$ $e^{x^3} x^3\left ( u_{13} + \frac{u_1}{2} \right ) + e^{x^3}\left ( u_{23} + \frac{u_1+u_2}{2} \right )$,
$e^{x^3} \left ( x^3 u_{1\mu}+u_{2\mu}\right )$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_3$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1}$, $y$, $u$, $e^{x^3}u_1$, $e^{x^3}u_2$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$, $e^{2x^3}u_{11}$, $e^{2x^3}u_{12}$,
$[e_1,e_3]=e_1$ $X_2={\partial}_{x^2}$, $e^{x^3} \left ( u_{13} + \frac{u_1}{2} \right )$, $e^{2 x^3}u_{22}$, $e^{x^3} \left ( u_{23} + \frac{u_2}{2} \right )$, $u_{33}$,
$[e_2,e_3]=e_2$ $X_3=x^1{\partial}_{x^1}+x^2{\partial}_{x^2}+{\partial}_{x^3}$ $e^{x^3}u_{1\mu}$, $e^{x^3}u_{2\mu}$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_4$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1}$, $y$, $u$, $e^{x^3}u_1$, $e^{h x^3}u_2$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$, $e^{2x^3}u_{11}$,
$[e_1,e_3]=e_1$ $X_2={\partial}_{x^2}$, $e^{(1+h)x^3}u_{12}$, $e^{x^3} \left ( u_{13} + \frac{u_1}{2} \right )$, $e^{2 h x^3}u_{22}$,
$[e_2,e_3]=he_2$ $X_3=x^1{\partial}_{x^1}+\hfill$ $e^{h x^3} \left ( u_{23} + \frac{h u_2}{2} \right )$, $u_{33}$, $e^{x^3}u_{1\mu}$, $e^{h x^3}u_{2\mu}$,
$|h|\leq 1,$ $h \neq 0,1$ $\hfill+h x^2{\partial}_{x^2}+{\partial}_{x^3}$ $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_5$ $X_1 = {\partial}_{x^1}$, $y$, $u$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$, $e^{2px^3}\left ( u_{11} + u_{22} \right )$,
$[e_1,e_3]=pe_1-e_2$ $X_2 = {\partial}_{x^2}$, $e^{px^3}\left ( u_1 \cos x^3 - u_2 \sin x^3 \right )$,
$[e_2,e_3]=pe_2+e_1$ $X_3 = (p x^1 + x^2){\partial}_{x^1}+\hfill$ $e^{px^3}\left ( u_1 \sin x^3 + u_2 \cos x^3 \right )$,
$p\geq 0$ $\hfill+(px^2-x^1){\partial}_{x^2}+{\partial}_{x^3}$ $e^{2px^3} \left [ ( u_{11} - u_{22} ) \cos 2 x^3 - 2 u_{12} \sin 2 x^3 \right ]$,
$e^{2px^3} \left [ ( u_{11} - u_{22} ) \sin 2 x^3 + 2 u_{12} \cos 2 x^3 \right ]$,
$e^{px^3} \left [ \left ( u_{13} + \frac{pu_1-u_2}{2} \right ) \cos x^3 - \left ( u_{23} + \frac{pu_2+u_1}{2} \right ) \sin x^3 \right ]$,
$e^{px^3} \left [ \left ( u_{13} + \frac{pu_1-u_2}{2} \right ) \sin x^3 + \left ( u_{23} + \frac{pu_2+u_1}{2} \right ) \cos x^3 \right ]$,
$e^{px^3}\left ( u_{1\mu} \cos x^3 - u_{2\mu} \sin x^3 \right )$,
$e^{px^3}\left ( u_{1\mu} \sin x^3 + u_{2\mu} \cos x^3 \right )$, $u_{33}$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_6$ $X_1={\partial}_{x^1},$ $y$, $u$, $e^{x^2}u_1 + 2 x^3 u_2 + (x^3)^2 u_3$, $u_2 + x^3 u_3$, $u_3$, $u_\mu$,
$[e_1,e_2]=e_1$ $X_2=x^1{\partial}_{x^1}+{\partial}_{x^2}$, $ \frac{1}{4}\,e^{2x^2} u_{11} + e^{x^2} x^3 \left ( u_{12} + \frac{x^3 u_{13} + u_1}{2} \right ) + \hfill$
$[e_1,e_3]=2e_2$ $X_3 = (x^1)^2 {\partial}_{x^1} + \hfill$ $\hfill+(x^3)^2 \left ( x^3 u_{23} + u_{22} + \frac{u_2 + x^3 u_3}{2} + \frac{(x^3)^2 u_{33}}{4} \right )$,
$[e_2,e_3]=e_3$ $\hfill+2 x^1 {\partial}_{x^2} +e^{x^2} {\partial}_{x^3}$ $e^{x^2} \left ( u_{12} + x^3 u_{13} + \frac{u_1}{2} \right ) + (x^3)^3 u_{33} + \hfill$
$\hfill+3 (x^3)^2 \left ( u_{23} + \frac{u_3}{2} \right ) + x^3 ( 2 u_{22} + u_2)$,
$e^{x^2} u_{13} + (x^3)^2 u_{33}+x^3(2u_{23}+u_3)+u_2$,
$(x^3)^2u_{33}+x^3(2u_{23}+u_3)+u_{22}$,
$x^3 u_{33}+u_{23}+\frac{u_3}{2}$, $u_{33}$, $x^3 u_{3\mu}+u_{2\mu}$,
$e^{x^2}u_{1\mu}+2x^3u_{2\mu} + (x^3)^2 u_{3\mu}$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$
${\mathfrak{g}}^3_7$ $X_1 = {\partial}_{x^1}$, $y$, $u$, $u_\mu$, $u_3$,
$[e_1,e_2]=e_3$ $X_2=\sin x^1 \tan x^2 {\partial}_{x^1} + \hfill$ $u_1\, \frac{\cos x^3}{\cos x^2} - u_2 \sin x^3 + u_3 \tan x^2 \cos x^3$,
$[e_2,e_3]=e_1$ $\hfill+\cos x^1 {\partial}_{x^2} + \frac{\sin x^1}{\cos x^2}\, {\partial}_{x^3}$, $u_1\, \frac{\sin x^3}{\cos x^2} + u_2 \cos x^3 + u_3 \tan x^2 \sin x^3$,
$[e_3,e_1]=e_2$ $X_3=\cos x^1 \tan x^2 {\partial}_{x^1} - \hfill$ $u^7_{(11)}$, $u^7_{(12)}$, $u^7_{(22)}$, $u_{33}$, $u_{3\mu}$, $u_{\mu\nu}$,
$\hfill-\sin x^1 {\partial}_{x^2} + \frac{\cos x^1}{\cos x^2}\, {\partial}_{x^3}$ $u_{13}\,\frac{\cos x^3}{\cos x^2} - u_{23}\sin x^3 + u_{33}\cos x^3 \tan x^2 - \hfill$
$\hfill - \frac{u_1}{2}\, \frac{\sin x^3}{\cos x^2} - \frac{u_2}{2}\, \cos x^3 - \frac{u_3}{2}\, \sin x^3 \tan x^2 $,
$u_{13}\,\frac{\sin x^3}{\cos x^2} + u_{23} \cos x^3 + u_{33} \sin x^3 \tan x^2 + \hfill$
$\hfill + \frac{u_1}{2}\, \frac{\cos x^3}{\cos x^2} - \frac{u_2}{2}\, \sin x^3 + \frac{u_3}{2} \cos x^3 \tan x^2 $,
$u_{1\mu}\,\frac{\cos x^3}{\cos x^2} - u_{2\mu} \sin x^3 + u_{3\mu}\cos x^3 \tan x^2$,
$u_{1\mu}\,\frac{\sin x^3}{\cos x^2} + u_{2\mu} \cos x^3 + u_{3\mu}\sin x^3 \tan x^2$
: Second-order differential invariants for three-dimensional Lie algebras[]{data-label="tab:6"}
In the table, we use the notation: $$\begin{gathered}
u^7_{(11)} = u_{11}\,\frac{\cos^2 x^3}{\cos^2 x^2} - u_{12}\, \frac{\sin 2 x^3}{\cos x^2} + 2 u_{13}\, \frac{\tan x^2 \cos^2 x^3}{\cos x^2} + u_{22} \sin^2 x^3 - u_{23} \tan x^2 \sin 2 x^3 -
\\
- u_1\,\frac{\tan x^2 \sin 2 x^3}{\cos x^2} - u_2 \tan x^2 \cos^2 x^3 - u_3 \left ( \frac{1}{2} + \tan^2 x^2 \right ) \sin 2 x^3,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
u^7_{(12)} = u_{11}\,\frac{\sin 2 x^3}{2 \cos^2 x^2} + u_{12}\, \frac{\cos 2 x^3}{\cos x^2} + u_{13}\, \frac{\tan x^2 \sin 2 x^3}{\cos x^2} - \frac{1}{2}\, u_{22} \sin 2 x^3 + u_{23} \tan x^2 \cos 2 x^3 +
\\
+ u_1\,\frac{\tan x^2 \cos 2 x^3}{\cos x^2} - \frac{1}{2}\, u_2 \tan x^2 \sin 2 x^3 + u_3 \left ( \frac{1}{2} + \tan^2 x^2 \right ) \cos 2 x^3,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
u^7_{(22)} = u_{11}\,\frac{\sin^2 x^3}{\cos^2 x^2} + u_{12}\, \frac{\sin 2 x^3}{\cos x^2} + 2 u_{13}\, \frac{\tan x^2 \sin^2 x^3}{\cos x^2} + u_{22} \cos^2 x^3 + u_{23} \tan x^2 \sin 2 x^3 +
\\
+ u_1\,\frac{\tan x^2 \sin 2 x^3}{\cos x^2} - u_2 \tan x^2 \sin^2 x^3 + u_3 \left ( \frac{1}{2} + \tan^2 x^2 \right ) \sin 2 x^3.\end{gathered}$$
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
In this paper, we have offered a systematic procedure for the group classification of differential equations based on the regular actions of their symmetry groups. Unlike the traditional approaches based on the preliminary group classification, we do not restrict the form of an equation by some ansatz and proceed rather similarly to Lie’s original two-step procedure. This procedure involves finding all the inequivalent realizations for a given abstract Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and the subsequent construction of the differential equations that are invariant under each of these realizations.
One of the main advantages of our method is that there is no need to explicitly integrate differential equations. This is possible if one considers the subtle features of the actions of the prescribed symmetry groups; in this relation, we have classified all the differential equations into five types, which are listed in Table \[tab:1\]. Another distinguishing feature of our method is its covariance, which is achieved by considering the dependent and independent variables equally. It allows us to describe differential equations invariant under different transformation groups in a uniform manner. For these purposes, we have introduced the so-called *covariant form* of a differential equation, i.e., equations and . The transition to the typical form of the differential equation suggests the procedure of “splitting” of the variables into dependent and independent, and all the equations obtained by different approaches of such “splitting” are related by hodograph transformations.
In this study, we have restricted ourselves to scalar second-order differential equations of types $\{n,{2},1,n,0,0\}$ and $\{n+m,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$ in accordance with Table \[tab:1\]. The first type presupposes a symmetry group acting freely and transitively on the space of dependent and independent variables, whereas the symmetry groups for the equations of the second type are assumed to be free but intransitive, in general. We have given the most general form of the equations for these types (Theorems \[t4\] and \[t5\]) and also formulated constructive algorithms of their group classification. Using these algorithms, we have obtained exhaustive classifications of the equations of types $\{n,{2},1,n,0,0\}$ and $\{n+m,\{2\},1,n,0,0\}$ for all the local regular transformation groups of dimensions up to three (see Tables \[tab:2\]–\[tab:6\]).
In future investigations, we plan to further develop our classification program; particularly, we will consider in detail the cases of differential equations of types III, IV, and V. There are also certain reasons to assume that the algebraic technique we have designed will constructively allow the calculation of operators of the invariant differentiation, which suggests the possibility of effectively constructing differential invariants of any order [@Ovs82; @Olv93].
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: iv\[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The origin of the electromagnetic induced transparency (EIT) effect is explained not as the vanish of atom-field interaction, but as the growing of stimulated emission process due to the efficient four- photon mixing, which allows the atom to return in the initial state. We point out the importance of creation the new mathematical model for description the dynamics of optical transitions, which should be based on the concept of the time invariance violation in electromagnetic interactions.'
---
**On the physical nature of the electromagnetic induced**
**transparency effect.**
*V.A.Kuz’menko*
*Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research,*
*Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190, Russian Federation.*
The Bloch equations had been proposed in 1946 for description the nuclear magnetic resonance effect \[1\]. Now there are the basis for description the dynamics of optical transitions \[2\]. The mathematical model well describes the physical phenomena, but a great difficulties appear, when anyone wants to understand the physical sense of this descriptions. The rapid adiabatic passage (RAP) effect is the most simple and fundamental example of such phenomena. When the resonance radiation interacts with the two-level system, the so-called periodical Rabi oscillations of the level population take place. In this case the situation is quite symmetrical. But if the sweeping of resonance conditions appears (for example, the frequency of radiation is changed), the full population transfer from the initial level to the opposite one takes place. The theory well describes this effect, but it does not give physical explanation \[3\]. This is the surprising situation: the mathematical description exists more than fifty years, but any physical explanation of effect is absent till now.
This situation is not an accidental case. It is impossible to explain the origin of RAP effect, if we suppose the equality of forward and reversed transitions. The restriction to equality of integral cross-section of the transitions (equality of the Einstein coefficients) is sufficient for explanation the Rabi oscillations. The physical explanation of RAP effect is possible only if we suppose some inequality between the forward and reversed transitions (in the spectral width, or in the differential cross-section). So, the existence of RAP effect is the indirect proof of such inequality.
Moreover, the number years we have quite direct and complete experimental proof of inequality of forward and reversed transitions. This proof is connected with the existence of the so-called wide component of line in absorption spectrum of polyatomic molecules \[4\]. This physical object has unusual properties: the large spectral width of optical transition ($\sim 150 GHz $) is combined with the long lifetime of the molecule excited states. Its allow to measure separately the parameters of forward and reversed transitions. The measured spectral width of the reversed transition was less than 1 MHz (\[5\] Fig.5). So, the ratio of spectral width of forward and reversed transitions in this case exceeds five orders of magnitude. Accordingly, the cross-section of reversed transition was found to be orders of magnitude greater, than for the forward one \[6\]. Such result is a good base for explanation the origin of the effects in nonlinear optics \[7\].
The goal of this note is to propose the physical explanation of EIT and related effects (self-induced transparency \[8\], optical pulse compression in a resonant absorber \[9\], etc.). The usual explanation of EIT effect is based on the conceptions of coherency and interference. There are rather indistinct and vague concepts. It is supposed, that “the effect of EIT is due to the existence of a coherent superposition of quantum states which does not participate in the atom-field interaction (”dark“ state) because of a quantum interference of the excitation paths” \[10\].
In contrast, the present explanation turns our attention on a stimulated emission process. Absorption of energy is a difference between processes of excitation and deexcitation of atoms due to stimulated emission. In terms of ultranarrow width of the reversed optical transition the stimulated emission process may have the difficulty due to the uncontrolled sweeping of resonance conditions (for example, as the result of the ac Stark shift of atom levels in the laser field \[11\]). Such difficulty can be overcome through the four-photon mixing process, which is strongly facilitated by the presence of powerful resonance radiation on the coupling transition of the lambda-coupling scheme. As the result, the regeneration of the probe laser radiation takes place and the atom returns in the initial state.
The published experimental results sufficiently clearly show both the dynamics of the probe laser field regeneration \[12-14\] and the existence of the extremely efficient four-photon mixing process in this conditions \[10,15-17\]. The light “stopping” effect in such experiments does not have, of course, any connection with the speed of photons in the low presure gas mixture. The delay time of the probe laser pulse is the result of the multiple stage of four-photon mixing process and characterizes the build up time of the superfluorescence emission \[12\].
All processes, which can destroy the four-photon mixing, should lead to growing the absorption of the probe beam. For example, the additional driving field gives the so-called double dark resonance \[18\]. In this case only six- photon mixing can return atom in the initial state. So, this process is less efficient, than a four-photon mixing. When the probe laser deturn from the resonance in lambda-type coupling scheme, the growing of absorption is observed (\[12\] Fig.1). In this case we obviously have the variant of the stimulated Raman population transfer \[19\].
Extremely high efficiency of a four-photon mixing processes in nonlinear optics can be explained as the result of some “memory” of atoms and molecules about the initial state and their aspiration to return back. This “memory” is connected with the inequality of the forward and reversed optical transitions. In other words, this is the result of the time invariance violation in electromagnetic interactions \[20\]. In spite of common opinion the inequality of forward and reversed transitions is widespread in the optics. There is the base of most phenomena in the nonlinear optics. But it usually manifests itself only in an indirect way, because of the direct and independent measurements of the forward and reversed transitions have some difficulties.
It is important to create the new mathematical model (alternative to the Bloch equations) for adequate description the dynamics of optical transitions. This model should be based on the concept of time invariance violation in electromagnetic interactions \[21\]. The descriptions of physical phenomena with such mathematical model will have much more straightforward and clear physical sense, than the present day theory descriptions.
[99]{} F.Bloch, Phys.Rev. [**70**]{}, 460 (1946). L.Allen, J.H.Eberly “Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms” John Wiley and Sons, (1975). R.L.Shoemaker, in “Laser and Coherence Spectroscopy” ed. J.I.Steinfeld, N.Y., Plenum, p.197, (1978). V.A.Kuz’menko, E-print, physics/0204003. C.Liedenbaum, S.Stolte, J.Reuss, Chem.Phys. [**122**]{}, 443 (1988). V.A.Kuz’menko, E-print, hep-ph/0002084. V.A.Kuz’menko, E-print, physics/0102038. K.W.Smith, L.Allen, Opt.Commun. [**8**]{}, 166 (1973). H.M.Gibbs, R.E.Slusher, Appl.Phys.Lett. [**18**]{}, 505 (1971). A.F.Huss, N.Peer, R.Lammegger, E.A.Korsunsky, L.Windholz, Phys.Rev.A [**63**]{}, 013802 (2000). E.A.Korsunsky, T.Halfmann, J.P.Marangos, K.Bergmann, E- print, quant-ph/0209161. A.Kasapi, M.Jain, G.Y.Yin, S.E.Harris, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**74**]{}, 2447 (1995). M.Kozuma, D.Akamatsu, L.Deng, E.W.Hagley, M.G.Payne, E- print, quant-ph/0205158. D.F.Phillips, A.Fleischhauer, A.Mair, R.L.Walsworth, M.D.Lukin, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**86**]{}, 783 (2001). M.M.Kash, V.A.Sautenkov, A.S.Zibrov, L.Hollberg, G.R.Welch, M.D.Lukin, Yu.Rostovtsev, E.S.Fry, M.O.Scully, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**82**]{}, 5229 (1999). V.M.Entin, I.I.Ryabtsev, A.E.Boguslavskii, I.M.Beterov, JETP Letters [**71**]{}, 175 (2000). A.S.Zibrov, A.V.Matsko, O.Kocharovskaya, Y.V.Rostovtsev, G.R.Welch, M.O.Scully, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**88**]{}, 103601 (2002). C.Y.Ye, A.S.Zibrov, Yu.V.Rostovtsev, M.O.Scully, Phys.Rev.A [**65**]{}, 043805 (2002). N.V.Vitanov, M.Fleischhauer, B.W.Shore, K.Bergmann, Adv.At.Mol.Opt.Phys. [**46**]{}, 55 (2001). A.Bohm, “Quantum Mechanics: Foundation and Applications”, Springer-Verlag, (1986). M.Xiaochun, E-print, physics/0210112.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**Multiple Qubits as Symplectic Polar Spaces of Order Two**]{}
Metod Saniga$^{1}$ and Michel Planat$^{2}$
$^{1}$Astronomical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences\
SK-05960 Tatransk' a Lomnica, Slovak Republic\
([email protected])
and
$^{2}$Institut FEMTO-ST, CNRS, D' epartement LPMO, 32 Avenue de l’Observatoire\
F-25044 Besançon Cedex, France\
([email protected])
[**Abstract**]{}
It is surmised that the algebra of the Pauli operators on the Hilbert space of $N$-qubits is embodied in the geometry of the symplectic polar space of rank $N$ and order two, $W_{2N - 1}(2)$. The operators (discarding the identity) answer to the points of $W_{2N - 1}(2)$, their partitionings into maximally commuting subsets correspond to spreads of the space, a maximally commuting subset has its representative in a maximal totally isotropic subspace of $W_{2N - 1}(2)$ and, finally, “commuting" translates into “collinear" (or “perpendicular").\
\
[**MSC Codes:**]{} 51Exx, 81R99\
[**PACS Numbers:**]{} 02.10.Ox, 02.40.Dr, 03.65.Ca\
[**Keywords:**]{} Symplectic Polar Spaces of Order Two – N-Qubits
It is well known that a complete basis of operators in the Hilbert space of $N$-qubits, $N \geq 2$, can be given in terms of the Pauli operators — tensor products of classical $2 \times 2$ Pauli matrices. Although the Hilbert space in question is $2^{N}$-dimensional, the operators’ space is of dimension $4^{N}$. Excluding the identity matrix, the set of $4^{N} - 1$ Pauli operators can be partitioned into $2^{N} + 1$ subsets, each comprising $2^{N} - 1$ mutually commuting elements \[1\]. The purpose of this note is to put together several important facts supporting the view that this operators’ space can be identified with $W_{2N-1}(q=2)$, the symplectic polar space of rank $N$ and order two.
A (finite-dimensional) classical polar space (see \[2–6\] for more details) describes the geometry of a $d$-dimensional vector space over the Galois field $GF(q)$, $V(d, q)$, carrying a non-degenerate reflexive sesquilinear form $\sigma$. The polar space is called symplectic, and usually denoted as $W_{d -1}(q)$, if this form is bilinear and alternating, i.e., if $\sigma(x, x) = 0$ for all $x \in V(d,
q)$; such a space exists only if $d=2N$, where $N$ is called its rank. A subspace of $V(d, q)$ is called totally isotropic if $\sigma$ vanishes identically on it. $W_{2N-1}(q)$ can then be regarded as the space of totally isotropic subspaces of $PG(2N-1,
q)$, the ordinary $(2N - 1)$-dimensional projective space over $GF(q)$, with respect to a symplectic form (also known as a null polarity), with its maximal totally isotropic subspaces, also called generators $G$, having dimension $N - 1$. For $q=2$ this polar space contains $$|W_{2N-1}(2)| = | PG(2N-1, 2)| = 2^{2N} - 1 = 4^{N} - 1$$ points and $$|\Sigma(W_{2N-1}(2))| = (2+1)(2^{2}+1) \ldots (2^{N}+1)$$ generators \[2–4\]. An important object associated with any polar space is its [*spread*]{}, i.e., a set of generators partitioning its points. A spread $S$ of $W_{2N-1}(q)$ is an ($N-1$)-spread of its ambient projective space $PG(2N-1, q)$ \[4,5,7\], i.e., a set of ($N-1$)-dimensional subspaces of $PG(2N-1, q)$ partitioning its points. The cardinalities of a spread and a generator of $W_{2N-1}(2)$ thus read $$|S| = 2^{N} + 1$$ and $$|G| = 2^{N} - 1,$$ respectively \[2,3\]. Finally, it needs to be mentioned that two distinct points of $W_{2N-1}(q)$ are called perpendicular if they are “isotropically" collinear, i.e., joined by a totally isotropic line of $W_{2N-1}(q)$; for $q=2$ there are $$\#_{\Delta} = 2^{2N-1}$$ points that are [*not*]{} perpendicular to a given point of $W_{2N-1}(2)$ \[2,3\].
Now, in light of Eq.(1), we can identify the Pauli operators with the points of $W_{2N-1}(2)$. If, further, we identify the operational concept “commuting" with the geometrical one “perpendicular," from Eqs.(3) and (4) we readily see that the points lying on generators of $W_{2N - 1}(2)$ correspond to maximally commuting subsets (MCSs) of operators and a spread of $W_{2N - 1}(2)$ is nothing but a partitioning of the whole set of operators into MCSs. From Eq.(2) we then infer that the operators’ space possesses $(2+1)(2^{2}+1)\ldots(2^{N}+1)$ MCSs and, finally, Eq.(5) tells us that there are $2^{2N-1}$ operators that do [*not*]{} commute with a given operator; the last two statements are, for $N > 2$, still conjectures to be rigorously proven. However, the case of two-qubits ($N=2$) is recovered in full generality \[1,8,9\], with the geometry behind being that of the [*generalized quadrangle of order two*]{} \[9\] — the simplest nontrivial symplectic polar space.[^1]
[**Acknowledgements**]{}\
This work was partially supported by the Science and Technology Assistance Agency under the contract $\#$ APVT–51–012704, the VEGA project $\#$ 2/6070/26 (both from Slovak Republic) and the trans-national ECO-NET project $\#$ 12651NJ “Geometries Over Finite Rings and the Properties of Mutually Unbiased Bases" (France).
[10]{} Lawrence, J., Brukner, Č., and Zeilinger, A., “Mutually unbiased binary observable sets on N qubits," Physical Review A65, 032320 (2002). Ball, S., “The geometry of finite fields," Quaderni Elettronici del Seminario di Geometria Combinatoria 2E (2001); available on-line from http://www.mat.uniroma1.it/$\widetilde{~~}$combinat/quaderni/. Cameron, P. J., “Projective and polar spaces," available on-line from http://www.maths.qmw.ac.uk/$\widetilde{~~}$pjc/pps/. De Clerck, F., and Van Maldeghem, H., “Ovoids and spreads of polar spaces and generalized polygons," a lecture given at an intensive course on “Galois Geometry and Generalized Polygons," University of Ghent, April 14–25, 1998; available from http://cage.rug.ac.be/$\widetilde{~~}$fdc/intensivecourse/ovspr.ps. Hirschfeld, J. W. P., and Thas, J. A., “General Galois Geometries" (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991). Payne, S. E., and Thas, J. A., “Finite Generalized Quadrangles" (Pitman, London, 1984). Thas, J. A., “Ovoids and spreads in classical polar spaces," Geom. Dedicata 10, 135–144 (1981). Wootters, W. K., “Picturing qubits in phase space," IBM J. Res. Dev. 48, 99–110 (2004). Saniga, M., Planat, M., and Pracna, P., “Projective ring line encompassing two-qubits," Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, submitted; quant-ph/0611063-v4.
[^1]: This object can also be recognized as the projective line over the Jordan system of the full $2 \times 2$ matrix ring with coefficients in $GF(2)$ \[9\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'During 2015 and 2016, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) conducted a three-month observing campaign. These observations delivered the first direct detection of gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers. To search for these signals, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration uses the PyCBC search pipeline. To deliver science results in a timely manner, LIGO collaborated with the Open Science Grid (OSG) to distribute the required computation across a series of dedicated, opportunistic, and allocated resources. To deliver the petabytes necessary for such a large-scale computation, our team deployed a distributed data access infrastructure based on the XRootD server suite and the CernVM File System (CVMFS). This data access strategy grew from simply accessing remote storage to a POSIX-based interface underpinned by distributed, secure caches across the OSG.'
author:
- 'Derek Weitzel, Brian Bockelman'
- 'Duncan A. Brown'
- Peter Couvares
- 'Frank W[ü]{}rthwein, Edgar Fajardo Hernandez'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Data Access for LIGO on the OSG
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10002951.10003152.10003517.10003519</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Information systems Distributed storage</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010520.10010521.10010537.10010541</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computer systems organization Grid computing</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
Introduction
============
The Open Science Grid (OSG) [@pordes2007open] is a “national, distributed computing partnership for data-intensive research;” it provides a fabric of services for achieving Distributing High Throughput Computing (DHTC) [@livny1997mechanisms] across dozens of computational facilities. OSG excels at allowing users to distribute their loosely-coupled batch jobs on a wide set of facilities and infrastructures.
The LIGO Scientific Collaboration’s PyCBC search for gravitataional waves [@usman2016pycbc] is an archetypal OSG application from the computational point-of-view. PyCBC analyses LIGO data in two-week blocks, requiring hundreds of thousands of individual HTCondor batch jobs, each lasting at least an hour. There is enough parallelism to consume tens of thousands of cores simultaneously and no stringent latency requirements for completion.
However, the PyCBC pipeline requires terabytes of non-public input data; throughout the analysis, the data may be read up to 200 times. Accordingly, the PyCBC pipeline was historically always run at sites with a full copy of the LIGO data on a shared filesystem. To run PyCBC on two dozen opportunistic OSG sites would require the LIGO team to maintain two dozen full copies of their input data, an operationally daunting - if not impossible - task for small sites that may only be able to contribute a few hundred cores.
In this paper, we present a different approach taken to process the data from LIGO’s first observing run in 2015 and 2016. We built an infrastructure which utilized remote streaming from a centrally located data store to individual PyCBC jobs. This allowed us to remove the requirement for a local copy of the data, significantly increasing the number of sites LIGO could utilize. In 2015, this infrastructure was accessed using standalone transfer clients; in 2016, the approach was improved to include CernVM-Filesystem (CVMFS) to provide POSIX-based access.
This infrastructure has evolved from including a basic data access service at Nebraska for LIGO to a data management ecosystem, involving a series of caches, multiple data sources, and POSIX-based access with a broad range of potential applications. Section \[background\] outlines the state-of-the-art in the OSG prior to this work and the constituent pieces of our solution. Sections \[implementation\] and \[results\] explains the two phases of the implementation and the resulting performance, respectively. Finally, in Section \[conclusion\] we discuss how we plan to evolve this system into a flexible, multi-tenant, global data management system.
Background
==========
Historically, the OSG has focused on providing a high-level computational services such as the dynamic creation of batch systems across multiple sites utilizing the pilot model [@sfiligoi2009pilot]. In the pilot model, a central factory performs remote submission of batch jobs (*pilots*) to a known set of resources. These pilots are launched by the site batch system and actually consist of another layer of worker node software; this worker node software connects to a larger multi-site resource pool. OSG utilizes GlideinWMS [@sfiligoi2009pilot] to perform this function.
Compared to the GlideinWMS service, OSG’s offerings in data access are relatively low-level: they have focused on allowing remote access to a filesystem [@allcock2005globus]; organizations have to subsequently build data management systems [@rehn2006phedex; @garonne2014rucio; @chervenak2008wide] on top of the remote access. Attempts to recreate these large-scale experimental data management solutions for general use have been unsuccessful [@levshina2014irods]. These are necessarily complex - they must track file location, manage space usage, implement robust site-to-site transfer agents, and have operational procedures in place to handle data loss or inconsistencies at sites. This last item is the most difficult: data loss is treated as an unexpected event yet, over dozens of filesystems (some large and well-run; some small and run by grad students), becomes relatively regular.
Hence, site admins must be responsive and take part of operations for these “traditional" data management systems to function. This drives the cost to the organizations that own the distributed architectures – and excludes opportunistic users such as LIGO from effectively using large-scale data management on the OSG.
On the other hand, one of the key tools utilized on the OSG is CernVM-Filesystem (CVMFS) [@buncic2010cernvm], a global filesystem used to distribute publicly-available software across the planet. Groups write their software into a CVMFS *repository server* and the software is distributed via HTTP over a large-scale content distribute network (CDN) based on a multilevel series of hierarchical caches. Unlike the data management systems, data loss - cache eviction - is expected, cache failure is recoverable via failover, and sites do not even need local infrastructure to utilize the system. However, the existing CDN was oriented toward working set sizes of typical of large software stacks (around 10GB) - insufficient to meet LIGO’s data needs. Further, to achieve scalability, CVMFS defaults to having all data public.
As part of previous work, we introduced extensions to the CVMFS software to efficiently publish much larger datasets kept on a single storage element instead of the single repository server. Further, the OSG deployed a new series of caches with the *StashCache* infrastructure [@weitzeldatafederations; @derek_weitzel_2017_377033]; this hardware allows efficient distribution of data when the working set size is up to 10TB.
Underlying the StashCache software, XRootD [@dorigo2005xrootd] is software suite to provide efficient data access to an underlying filesystem. Multiple `xrootd` daemons can be clustered together into a a distributed data access infrastructure. When multiple sites cluster to provide a single namespace, we refer to this as a *data federation*. The StashCache caching infrastructure fronts a data federation for OSG users; StashCache provides necessary scalability so OSG users do not need to provide scalable storage to be in the data federation.
![Architecture of StashCache[]{data-label="fig:stashcachediagram"}](images/StashCache-Diagram.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:stashcachediagram\] shows the architecture of the StashCache, including both the data federation and OSG-run caches. Jobs, at the bottom, request data from the caching proxies, which are running XRootD. If the caching nodes do not have the data, the caching nodes query the OSG’s XRootD redirector to determine the data source. At the top, multiple data sources provide the authoritative source for data to the caching nodes. The data is streamed to the job as it arrives at the caching nodes.
The caching proxies are geographically distributed across the U.S. The jobs use software such as CVMFS or `stashcp` that determine the nearest cache.
Implementation
==============
PyCBC Data Needs
----------------
The PyCBC workflow consists of approximately a hundred thousand jobs for each day’s worth of recorded LIGO data; the total need is driven by various aspects of the science (for example, enough data must be analyzed to measure the statistical significance of detection candidates) and the computational aspects (re-running failed jobs, re-submitting incorrectly constructed workflows, or running a workflow on a new version of the scientific application). The workflows themselves are managed using the Pegasus Workflow Management System [@deelman2005pegasus]. Each job in the workflow reads one or two *frame files*, containing the calibrated output of the LIGO detectors. Each file is approximately 400MB and represents 4,096 seconds of detector data. The average job in a PyCBC workflow has an execution time between one hour and tens of hours. Jobs typically run on single cores. Hence, the average sustained input data needs is 1Mbps per job. The “Observation Run 1" (O1) data from 2015-2016 is approximately 7TB. The “Observation Run 2” (O2) data, starting in late 2016 and ongoing at time of writing, is 3TB. Hence, the total working set size of any individual PyCBC workflow will be less than 10TB.
For science-quality results covering a science run, the data will be re-read approximately 200 times and set of workflows needed will consume several million CPU hours.
Centralized OSG Implementation {#centralized-osg-implementation .unnumbered}
------------------------------
PyCBC workflows are submitted to a single HTCondor scheduler which is hosted at Syracuse University; this scheduler is part of a local HTCondor-based pool of computational resources. To integrate with the OSG, we reconfigured this scheduler to “flock” [@condor-flock] to an OSG-run HTCondor pool. This causes the scheduler to act as if it were a part of both resource pools, allowing it to simultaneously and transparently run jobs in both with no changes necessary for the LIGO user. The OSG pool consists of HTCondor worker nodes launched inside independent batch system across the OSG. Hence, the LIGO user sees the aggregated resources as a single coherent “site,” despite it being virtualized across the grid. We utilize a central CVMFS repository [@bockelman2014oasis] to distribute the LIGO software, providing users with uniform access to necessary software and small amounts of auxiliary data.
The original setup of the data distribution for LIGO was purposely simple: just as the OSG pool appears to the user as a single large computational resource, we would run a central storage service and use it as if it were a large shared filesystem connected to a large cluster.
We utilized an instance of the Hadoop Distributed Filesystem (HDFS) [@bockelman2009using] at Nebraska that was deployed for the CMS experiment; while LIGO needed only a small percentage of the filesystem’s total volume, we would take advantage of existing infrastructure to scale transfers. Nebraska has deployed 12 data transfer nodes (DTNs) on top of HDFS and has 100Gbps connectivity to the R&D networks in the US. Each DTN has a single 10Gbps interface and the LVS [@zhang2000linux] software is used to provide a single, load-balanced IP address. This means a remote user could theoretically saturate the entire outbound 100Gbps network connection using the single endpoint.
LIGO’s LDR application would transfer data into a storage element at each “LIGO site” (here, Nebraska and Syracuse) using GridFTP. At workflow creation time, Pegasus was instructed to submit to either the OSG HTCondor pool or the Syracuse HTCondor pool, and to treat the HTCondor cluster as able to access the respective GridFTP server. At job startup, the input data would be downloaded from the configured endpoint via GridFTP directly to the worker node - regardless of the physical location of the worker node. Jobs would read from Nebraska in the same manner regardless of whether they were physically running in Nebraska, Caltech, or at any other OSG site. Given that the *average* transfer speed needed per core was 1Mbps out of a total 100Gbps available, this setup was expected to scale across the 10,000 cores we estimated could be available to LIGO.
![Centralized storage deployment of O1 data for processing on the OSG.[]{data-label="fig:gridftp_architecture"}](images/LIGO-on-OSG-data-distribution.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
As soon as LIGO was able to ramp up to more than 5,000 simultaneous jobs, a few data access issues were evident.
**Workflow partitioning**: Note, in Figure \[fig:gridftp\_architecture\], the LIGO user submitting from Syracuse could submit to on-site resource or OSG. In the initial implementation, they could not use both: the input URLs generated by Pegasus could either refer to the Syracuse storage (NFS-mounted) or Nebraska’s (GridFTP). In response, the Pegasus added the capability to have a prioritized list of input URLs; instead of reading from one source (failing if the file is missing), the jobs would read sequentially through the list of potential sources. The same job could run on either resource - no longer partitioning the pools and potentially increasing reliability, as jobs could fall back to an alternate source in case of transient failure.
**Workflow ramp-up**: GridFTP (with the HDFS backend used at Nebraska) consumes approximately 128MB RAM per connection due to the embedded Java virtual machine in the HDFS client and GridFTP starting a separate process per connection. When workflows were submitted to HTCondor, GlideinWMS began to fill the pool with empty slots and HTCondor would rapidly launch new jobs. In turn, many new jobs would connect to the GridFTP servers simultaneously, exhausting available memory on the server. Although the endpoint could manage the steady-state transfer load, it was woefully underpowered for ramp-up. To avoid this, we utilized the HTCondor scheduler’s job startup rate-limiting feature. Through trial-and-error, we found a job startup rate of 1.5Hz was manageable *if* the individual 400MB file transfers completed under 5 minutes. Unfortunately, large computational sites with poor TCP throughput to Nebraska (potentially caused when all the site’s worker nodes shared an underperforming NAT) would still cause memory exhaustion. To better protect the service, we developed and deployed a Globus GridFTP extension to limit the number of concurrent transfers per user on each server: when LIGO had too many ongoing connections, the server would simply refuse to start additional transfers. This would causing queuing or, eventually, a transfer failure (instead of service failure).
**Scalability**: As the number of LIGO users and available cores increased, balancing job startup rates became an impossible task. We have little control over how quickly pilots would launch on remote sites’ batch queues; if the rate-limits were set too low, the pilots would idle and waste available CPU resources. Set too high, the concurrency limits would cause payload jobs to fail. Since the “correct" value varied by site and the mixture of available sites differed hourly, the data access system led to significant waste.
This caused us to switch from using the Globus GridFTP implementation to access central Nebraska storage to using the XRootD daemons. The XRootD server has a lighter resource footprint and is designed to handle thousands of low-throughput connections; GridFTP is better suited for dozens of high-throughput connections. XRootD uses a multi-threaded model, meaning each client connection did not require a full JVM but only a few kilobytes of memory for state. Hence, switching to XRootD moved the bottleneck from DTN memory limitations back to underlying storage performance.
Non-OSG Resources
-----------------
Despite LIGO gaining experience, efficiency, and additional opportunistic sites on the OSG, more core hours were needed to complete the PyCBC analysis. We added TACC’s Stampede resource to the available resource pool, utilizing an XD allocation won by the Syracuse PI. Stampede required us to solve three unique problems:
**Lack of CVMFS**: CVMFS has been a powerful tool for distributing software globally; unfortunately, it is admittedly specific to the grid community. It is not available on Stampede: to work around this, we utilize `rsync` to synchronize select CVMFS repositories onto a scratch filesystem on TACC. While, in general, the Lustre filesystem at TACC provides less performance for software distribution than CVMFS (and updates occur less frequently), the LIGO software stack is sufficiently lightweight to avoid performance bottlenecks.
**Input data access**: While Stampede worker nodes provide access to the external network, we had concerns about scalability and performance of serving frame files from offsite. We utilized the Globus file transfer service [@foster2011globus] to make a copy of the O1 data after data-taking was complete. This sufficed as a “one-off" and avoided the data management difficulties noted in Section \[background\]. The input filenames for the Stampede frame files were added to the list of potential input sources in Pegasus.
**Lack of scalable grid interfaces**: Stampede provided an API for remote submission of jobs based on Globus GRAM [@foster1999globus]. We found this to initially be a poor match for our pilot infrastructure: the pilots could utilize only a single node at a time and our allocation was large enough to run on a few hundred nodes. We would hit limits on the number of allowed batch jobs at Stampede before we could fully utilize our allocation. Hence, we developed a new startup script that utilized the `srun` tool to launch an independent pilot on each node of a multi-node job. That allowed a single batch job to run on an arbitrary number of Stampede nodes; after trail-and-error, we settled on 1024 cores per batch job.
Put together, toward the end of the O1 analysis, we were able to add up to 10,000 Stampede cores into our resource pool and saw peaks of 25,000 available cores to a single PyCBC workflow.
After the initial O1 analysis was complete, we started adding non-US sites, particularly those from the VIRGO collaboration, to the resource pool. VIRGO computational sites utilize the shared EGI infrastructure. EGI is analogous to an European-based OSG; we previously developed the ability to submit pilots across both OSG and EGI infrastructures for the CMS experiment. To add VIRGO resources to the pool, we only needed to add the service hostnames of any VIRGO-only sites not already used by CMS. For data access, we used the same approach as OSG sites: remote streaming of data from Nebraska to worker nodes. In the case of non-US sites, the difference was the network links involved as transfers were often transatlantic.
Distributed CVMFS-based Implementation {#distributed-cvmfs-based-implementation .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
The O1 experience showed that we could sustain 20,000 running cores of PyCBC using a centralized data access architecture. We could stream frame files directly from storage to the worker nodes, even when those worker nodes were on a different continent. However, there were open questions of efficiency - how long did jobs wait for input versus total runtime? - and impact on the shared WAN infrastructure. Maintaining a list of potential input filenames (one for CVMFS, one for Syracuse, one for Stampede) for each logical file was error-prone and not a scalable operational process. Finally, the data access setup was largely usable only by LIGO pipelines built with Pegasus; it worked well for the PyCBC team but not for others.
For data access in O2, we had additional goals
1. **POSIX-based access**: Instead of requiring users to invoke esoteric file transfer utilities to download input, the data files should be available via the traditional POSIX interface.
2. **Use of available local storage resources**: If either cache-based or filesystem-based storage resources were available to LIGO at the computation site, these should be used instead of the WAN.
3. **Uniform namespace**: The LIGO frame files should be accessible via the same filenames at all sites in the OSG resource pool, avoiding the need for site-specific lists of filenames.
All three goals were met by utilizing the StashCache infrastructure and its CVMFS extensions. We now publish the frame files to a CVMFS repository, `ligo.osgstorage.org`, after being copied to Nebraska by LDR. CVMFS - as a FUSE-based Linux filesystem - provides POSIX access, meeting our first goal.
By default, all files in CVMFS are public: this is a necessity, given the use of HTTP caching for the CDN. LIGO frame files are not public and access should be restricted to collaboration members. Hence, the LIGO CVMFS repository must enable the “secure CVMFS” mode. Secure CVMFS uses X509 certificates [@welch2004x] to authenticate and authorize a user to view the namespace and access data. The client certificate is copied from the user process’s environment by the CVMFS client. If the access control list, distributed as part of the repository, allows access to the DN, then the requested file is served from the worker node’s local cache. If the data is not in the local cache, the user’s certificate and key is used to secure a HTTPS connection to request the data.
The use of HTTPS for data access implies the existing CVMFS CDN (implemented using HTTP caches) is not used for data distribution; however, the CDN is used to distribute the filesystem namespace. The latter - containing only filenames, directory structure, and file size - is not considered private data.
As with O1, the Nebraska DTN endpoint was used to distribute the data. For O2, we switched the protocol to HTTPS as `xrootd` supports both HTTPS and xrootd protocols. As the HTTPS connection from CVMFS is authenticated with the user’s client certificate, we again apply the repository’s authorization rules at the Nebraska DTN. Access control is thus applied twice: once for the access to the local cache and again for access to the remote server. The latter is necessary to protect against malicious CVMFS clients.
Toward the second goal, we have extended the StashCache infrastructure to provide an authorization layer. Trusted caching proxy servers, shown as the middle layer in Figure \[fig:stashcachediagram\], are configured to only allow authorized users (periodically updating the access control lists from the local CVMFS mount) access to the LIGO frame files in the site-level cache. On a cache miss, the caching proxy connects to the Nebraska origin, authenticating with a local X509 client certificate, and downloads the missing file. This last authentication step implies that only proxies trusted by LIGO can participate as caches. This limitation appears unavoidable, but does allow LIGO sites to “bring their own” storage resources.
Finally, CVMFS clients are then configured to point at all known caches in addition to the Nebraska-based source. When first mounted, the CVMFS client will use a GeoIP API to determine a preferred ordering of the potential sources.
If the LIGO-trusted site does not provide a cache server but has a LDR-managed - or Globus-managed - set of frame files on a shared filesystem, we use a CVMFS *variant symlink*. The derefenced value of the symlink is managed by the CVMFS client configuration. The symlink at `/cvmfs/oasis.opensciencegrid.org/ligo/frames` points at `/cvmfs/ligo.osgstorage.org/frames` by default. However, the local site admin may change the client configuration so the symlink dereferences to `/mnt/ligo_nfs/frames` at their local site. This variant symlink helps achieve our third goal: frame files appear under the same directory whether the CVMFS-based or shared filesystem-based distribution method is used.
Results and Feedback {#results}
====================
O1 Results {#o1-results .unnumbered}
----------
The first significant usage of OSG by LIGO for the PyCBC workflow was to process the O1 data. This occurred in late 2015 and for a second pipeline in early 2016. Total time used was approximately 4 million hours for 2015 and 13.8 million hours in 2016; about 20 unique computational resources were used for this run. Figure \[fig:ligo\_o1\_hours\] shows the CPU hours utilized in early 2016.
Note that peaks occur around 400,000 hours per day, which is approximately 16,000 jobs continuously occupying CPU cores. LIGO reports that this project contributed approximately 18% of their overall O1 computing. Included in the 13.8M hours in early 2016 is a 2M SU allocation at Stampede; as OSG is composed of many heterogeneous clusters, comparing an “OSG hour" against a Stampede “service unit" is difficult. The OSG maintains a basket of benchmarks based on the scientific applications of user payloads; using this metric, the “average” OSG CPU is 3.147 while Stampede’s CPUs rates a 4.599. Hence, 13.8M total hours is comparable to a 10M SU allocation on Stampede.
![LIGO core-hours enabled by LIGO during early 2016.[]{data-label="fig:ligo_o1_hours"}](images/LIGO_consumption_O1.png){width="45.00000%"}
O2 File Distribution Methods {#o2-file-distribution-methods .unnumbered}
----------------------------
**Site** **Secure CVMFS** **LDR** **Other**
------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------
Comet
Fermilab
Georgia Tech
Caltech/Louisiana
Nebraska
NIKHEF
Omaha
Michigan
Polish VIRGO
Syracuse
UCSD
Wisconsin
TACC
: Availability of data at processing sites[]{data-label="tbl:dataavailability"}
At the time of writing, LIGO’s O2 is ongoing, hence we do not know the aggregate PyCBC CPU usage. Rather, we will focus on how we improved data access for O2.
Table \[tbl:dataavailability\] shows the data availability for the largest sites running the O2 data processing. The sites are listed, and checkmarks signify how the data is available to processing at that site. Approximately half of the sites use CVMFS to provide the LIGO data. Some sites, such as Georgia Tech, NIKHEF, and the Polish Virgo site are part of the Ligo Data Grid, and therefore do not need CVMFS to access the data. Sites *not* in this table are smaller and typically use the remote streaming method from O1.
TACC is an example of out-of-band data distribution. The LIGO collaboration copies the entire LIGO data set to TACC using Globus. This requires human intervention and planning in order to coordinate the data movement.
**Access Method** **Time** **Transfer Speed**
------------------- ---------- --------------------
CVMFS 13.7s 31 MB/s
XRootD Cached 9.38s 46 MB/s
XRootD Remote 108s 4.0 MB/s
: Measured transfer speeds for data access[]{data-label="tbl:transferresults"}
Table \[tbl:transferresults\] shows the transfer times for a 437MB file to a Syracuse worker node. While CVMFS provides a POSIX interface, this comes at a performance penalty. We believe this penalty is small tradeoff for the improved interface. XRootD access is measured using the native XRootD transfer tool, `xrdcp`. The “XRootD cached" column is accessing a local Syracuse cache of the LIGO data set, while the “XRootD remote" column is accessing the Nebraska DTN over the WAN.
We believe the performance penalty for CVMFS-based access is due to three factors: CVMFS will checksum the file as it is downloaded (XRootD does not); in the current implementation, CVMFS performs a HTTPS download for each 32MB chunk of the input (and starts a new TLS connection); and the context-switching penalty from FUSE.
Conclusion and Future Work {#conclusion}
==========================
Prior to this work, distributing datasets on the scale of LIGO’s frame files was a daunting task. The approach used by large experiments such as CMS or ATLAS required significant operational effort from both the experiment and the local site: this was a non-starter for opportunistic OSG users like LIGO.
For LIGO’s O1 run, we were able to successfully utilize tens of millions of CPU hours for PyCBC by using the central resources at Nebraska and modeling the workflow as if OSG was a large site. For O2, we utilized a cache-based distribution model to decrease wasted CPU and WAN bandwidth, improve use of local storage, and provide an easier user experience for non-PyCBC workflows.
The CVMFS-based model is *not* LIGO-specific but does require the workflow’s usage pattern to be cache-friendly and have a working set size of less than 10TB. It allows opportunistic usage of storage, but requires the experiment to have at least one origin (such as Nebraska) and to have a minimal level of trust with the cache sites. Local storage is not required, but the workflows can be WAN-intensive if it is not provided.
We believe this model - even with these restrictions - applies to a wide variety of workflows, including other physics experiments with small datasets and the BLAST databases common in genomics. We plan to utilize it repeatedly in the future. As O2 finishes in 2017 and the PyCBC analyses ramp up, we hope to deploy additional caches for more scalability. Looking further forward, we acknowledge that the X509-based authentication infrastructure is relatively unfriendly to users: we hope to investigate HTTPS-friendly alternates such as those built on OAuth 2.0 [@oauth2]. Altogether, we aim to evolve this into a scalable, easy-to-use infrastructure for all LIGO analysis users.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers PHY-1148698 and ACI-1443047. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Using the decay of the out equilibrium spin-spin correlation function we compute the equilibrium Edward-Anderson order parameter in the three dimensional binary Ising spin glass in the spin glass phase. We have checked that the Edward-Anderson order parameter computed from out of equilibrium numerical simulations follows with good precision the critical law as determined in experiments and in numerical studies at equilibrium (which allow us to estimate the $\beta$ critical exponent). Finally we present a large time study of the off-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relations and we find strong discrepancies (in the low temperature region) between the numerical data and the droplet theory predictions and agreement with the predictions of the replica symmetry breaking theory.'
address:
- 'Departamento de Física Teórica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain. '
- '§ Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Extremadura, 06071 Badajoz, Spain.'
- 'Instituto de Biocomputación y Física de Sistemas Complejos (BIFI), Corona de Aragón 42, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain'
author:
- 'S. Pérez Gaviro , Juan J. Ruiz-Lorenzo § and A. Tarancón'
date: today
title: Study of the phase transition in the $3d$ Ising spin glass from out of equilibrium numerical simulations
---
Introduction\[sec:intro\]
=========================
The characterization, using numerical simulations, of the phase transition in the three dimensional Ising spin glasses has been a challenging problem. Recently a clear picture of the phase transition and good estimates of the critical exponents have been obtained for both Gaussian and bimodal disorder by working at equilibrium [@PRBNUM; @KRATZ; @JORG].
However a characterization of the phase transition using out of equilibrium techniques is still lacking (see reference [@3D] for a detailed discussion). In the first part of this paper we will address this problem (simulating the bimodal disorder). In particular we will compute the order parameter using out of equilibrium techniques [@DYN] and we will characterize the transition using this observable. In addition we will confront our data with previous estimates of the critical point and critical exponents for this model (obtained from numerical simulations and from experiments). The behavior of this observable will permit us to discard (again) a Kosterlitz-Thouless like phase transition (as done in equilibrium [@PRBNUM], that we will refer in the following as $XY$-like scenario) for the transition [@3D]. Moreover, we have studied the dependence of the order parameter with the size of the system. Hence, we will present on this paper the first direct numerical computation of the Edwards-Anderson order parameter in the three dimensional Ising spin glass (obtained out of equilibrium).
This kind of study was performed in the past in four dimensions [@4D] (see also [@DANIEL; @YHT]) but is still lacking in three dimensions (the interesting physical dimensions).
The second part of the paper is devoted to the study of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem out of equilibrium. This kind of analysis have attracted a large amount of work (analytical, numerical and experimental) in the last years [@CUKU; @FM; @BCKP; @FDT; @FRARIE; @FRANZ].
Using the results of reference [@FRANZ] and assuming that the three dimensional Ising spin glass presents stochastic stability (until now it has not been rigorously proved but there are numerical evidences [@RSB]) one can relate the fluctuation-dissipation curves with equilibrium properties and so, compute or measure the equilibrium probability distribution of the overlap. This computation or measurement is very important since it should discern between the different theoretical approaches in competition, which try to describe the behavior of finite dimensional spin glasses (e.g. the Replica Symmetry Breaking (RSB) approach[@MPV; @RSB] or the droplet model[@DROPLET]).
The goal of this (last) part of the paper is twofold. First, to check if the order parameter computed in the first part of this paper matches well in the fluctuation-dissipation (FD) curves. This is important since this value marks the point in which the FD curve departs from its pseudo-equilibrium regime, and the behavior of the curve from this departing point is a clear fingerprint whether or not the system behaves following the RSB theory or the droplet model.
And the second goal is to study the finite time behavior (for really large times) of the curves in order to see how the asymptotic form of the FD curves is built up. This is important, since until now, the numerical simulations [@FDT] and experiments [@HO_2002] show up a behavior compatible with the Replica Symmetry Breaking description and incompatible with droplet theory. One can argue that the curves reported in the literature [@FDT; @HO_2002] are not asymptotic and that the asymptotic curve is compatible with droplet theory and no compatible with RSB.
Finally, we will report the conclusions.
The model and Numerical simulations\[sec:MOD\]
==============================================
We have simulated a three dimensional system in a cubic lattice with helicoidal boundary conditions of size $L$ and volume $V=L^3$. The Hamiltonian is $${\cal H}=-\sum_{<i,j>} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j \,,$$ where $<i,j>$ denotes the sum over the first nearest neighbors, $\sigma_i=\pm
1$ are Ising variables and $J_{ij}=\pm 1$ are quenched random variables with a bimodal probability distribution with zero mean and unit variance. We have used the standard heat-bath algorithm (local dynamics) to simulate the three-dimensional lattice.
We will introduce the observables measured in our work. Firstly, the order parameter (the Edwards Anderson one) is defined as: $$q_\mathrm{ EA}=\overline{\langle \sigma_i \rangle^2} \,,$$ where, as usual, we use $\langle (\cdot \cdot\cdot) \rangle$ and $\overline{(\cdot \cdot\cdot)}$ to denote thermal and quenched disorder average respectively.
In addition, the spin-spin correlation function has been computed using $$C(t,t_w)=\frac{1}{V} \sum_{i=1}^V \sigma_i(t) \sigma_i(t_w) \,.$$ We can obtain formally the order parameter from this correlation as the double limit: $$q_\mathrm{ EA}=\lim_{t\to \infty} \lim_{t_w \to \infty} C(t,t_w)\,.
\label{eq:limit}$$ Notice that the order of the limit is crucial in obtaining the order parameter. We will use this equation to extract $q_\mathrm{ EA}$ from the out-of-equilibrium data.
We will study in the last part of the paper the finite time behavior of the violation of the fluctuation-dissipation relation in the three dimensional spin glass. We will review shortly the main equation of the off-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation equations (see [@ME] for more details): $$R(t_1,t_2)=\frac{1}{T} X(C(t_1,t_2)) \frac{\partial C(t_1,t_2)}{\partial t_2} \; ,$$ where, $t_1>t_2$, $R(t_1,t_2)$ is the response of the system to the magnetic field perturbation (i.e. the magnetic susceptibility of the system: $R(t_1,t_2)=m(t_1,t_2)/h$) and $X(C)$ is the, in principle unknown, function which controls the violation of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Integrating this equation in $t_2$ and taking the perturbing field as $h(t)=h\theta(t-t_w)$ we finally obtain (working in the linear-response region): $$m(t) \simeq \beta h\int_{C(t,t_w)}^1 du ~X(u) \,.$$
In the regime $t_1\gg t_2\gg 1$ we reach the equilibrium, and it is possible to show that $C(t_1,t_2) \to q$. In addition $X(q) \to x(q) \equiv
\int_{q_\mathrm{min}}^q dq^\prime P(q^\prime)$, where $x(q)$ is the integral of the probability distribution of the overlap at equilibrium [@MPV]. Hence, in this regime [@CUKU; @FM; @BCKP; @FDT; @FRARIE; @FRANZ], $$m(t) \simeq \beta h \int_{C(t,t_w)}^1 du~ x(u) \,.$$
Furthermore, we can define $$S(C) \equiv \int_{C(t,t_w)}^1 dq ~x(q) \,,$$ so, $$\frac{m(t) T}{h} \simeq S(C(t,t_w)) \,.$$ Both, in droplet theory and RSB (see reference [@FDT2], in particular its figure 10), $S(C)$ is the straight line $1-C$ for $C\in [q_\mathrm{EA},1]$. However, for $C < q_\mathrm{EA}$ the behavior is very different: in the droplet theory $S(C)$ is constant in this region and in RSB $S(C)$ is a growing function with curvature. We recall that knowing the initial point, $S(C=0)$, we can compute $q_\mathrm{EA}$ in the droplet theory as $$q_\mathrm{ EA}^\mathrm{ droplet}=1-S(C=0) \,.$$
This technique allows us to compute, taking the appropriate limit, the equilibrium function $x(q)$.
Finally, we report that all the numerical simulations have been obtained with the SUE machine [@SUE]. This is a dedicated machine, designed for the simulation of the three dimensional Edwards-Anderson model with first neighbour couplings[@MPV], the system that is being studied in the present work. It consist of 12 identical boards. Each single board is able to simulate $8$ different systems, updating all of them at each clock cycle. SUE reaches an update speed of $217$ ps/spin with a clock frequency of $48$ MHz. The on-board reprogrammability permits to change in an easy way the lattice size, or even the update algorithm or the Hamiltonian. The SUE machine is connected to a Host Computer running under Linux. SUE is in charge of the update of the configurations, and the host computer is in charge of measurements and analysis. The main electronic devices of each SUE board are the Altera family, that performs the update. Other devices store the spins and couplings variables. One of the Alteras is devoted to generate random numbers in a fast way (for more details, see Ref. [@SUE]). Up our knowledge, SUE has been the fastest dedicated machine in the simulation of the three dimensional Edwards-Anderson model.
Computation of the Edward-Anderson Order Parameter\[sec:EA\]
============================================================
In order to compute the Edward-Anderson order parameter ($q_{\mathrm{EA}}$), we have carried out several runs for two lattice sizes and different temperatures: $\beta=1/T = 2.00$, $1.67$, $1.25$, $1.05$, $1.00$, $0.95$ and $0.91$ for $L=30$; and $\beta = 2.00, 1.67, 1.25$ and $1.00$ for $L=60$ . For all of them we have averaged over 58 samples. In figure (\[Fig1\]) we report the curves $C(t,t_w)$ as a function of time $t$.
We have checked that the behavior of $C(t, t_w)$ for $t_w \gg 1$ follows with high precision the behavior (as in higher dimensions, see [@4D; @DANIEL]; this is just an Ansatz): $$C(t, t_w)=a(t)+b(t) t_w^{-c(t)}\,,
\label{eq:fit}$$ where $a(t)$ is related with the value of $q_{\mathrm{EA}}$. In order to find it out we have first obtained, from figure (\[Fig1\]) top, the curves $C(t,
t_w)$ vs. $t_w$ for several fixed values of $t$ (typically, from $8192$ to $\sim 3.7 \times 10^8$ Monte Carlo steps) (see figure (\[Fig1\]) bottom). We have fitted these curves to the functional form defined in (\[eq:fit\]) obtaining in this way the behavior of $a(t)$ as function of $t$ (we show these fits in figure (\[Fig1\])) . From $a(t)$ and for $t \gg 1$, we can obtain the value of $q_\mathrm{{EA}}$ (since asymptotically $a(t)$ must became $q_\mathrm{EA}$). To achieve this aim, we have fitted the last points of $a(t)$ versus $t$ to a constant function (since $a(t)$ shows a clear plateau, see Fig.(\[Fig2\])). In this way, we have implemented the double limit in equation (\[eq:limit\]). The results obtained from these fits are shown in Fig.(\[Fig3\]).
We have checked that for $\beta>1.00$ the values for $q_\mathrm{EA}$ are the same for both $L=30$ and $L=60$. In $\beta=1.00$ the difference is about 1.5 standard deviations. In addition we have run a $L=20$ lattice at $\beta=0.91 $ and $\beta=1.00$: these data show finite size effects as expected since they lie near the critical point (see figure(\[Fig3\])).
Characterizing the Phase Transition\[sec:PT\]
=============================================
As we mentioned before, we have checked that the $q_{\mathrm{EA}}$, which we have computed out of equilibrium, follows with good precision the critical law of the order parameter
$$q_\mathrm{{EA}}(\beta)=A (\beta-\beta_c)^{\beta_{q}}\,,$$
where we have denoted $\beta_q$ the usual $\beta$ exponent of the order parameter (in order to avoid confusion with the usual notation $\beta=1/T$)
By fitting only the points closer to the critical one (satisfying $\beta<1.25$) we obtain $$\beta_c=0.866(2) \;\; \beta_q=0.52(9) \,,$$ with a $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f}=1.13$. This figures compare really well with the numerical values obtained at equilibrium [@PRBNUM], namely: $\beta_c=0.88(1)$ and $\beta_q=0.71(5)$. In particular the difference between the two estimates of $\beta_q$ is 0.19(11), less than two standard deviations.[^1] [^2]
In addition, we can compare with experiments. In reference [@PRBEXP] was found $\beta_q=0.54(10)$[^3] which is in a very good agreement with our out equilibrium value.
We have also checked that $q_{\mathrm{EA}}$ follows with good precision the critical law
$$(q_{EA}(\beta))^{1/\beta_{q}}=A (\beta-\beta_c)\,,$$
Again, we have only used in the fit the points with $\beta<1.25$ (critical region). Moreover we can fix $\beta_q$ to the experimental value, obtaining again a compatible value with the equilibrium one: $\beta_c = 0.8603(6)(236)$, where the first error is statistical and the second error comes from the error of the experimental $\beta_q$. In addition, by fixing $\beta_q$ to the numerical simulations value we obtain $\beta_c =0.820(3)(13)$, less than three standard deviations from the numerical value.
All figures reported in this analysis are compatible with latest estimates of the critical exponents. In reference [@KRATZ] $\beta_c=0.893(3)$ and $\beta_q=0.723(25)$ were reported. In addition a diluted version of this model was studied in [@JORG] and $\beta_q=0.723(50)$ was reported.
Finally, we remark that our numerical results from both $\beta_c$ and $\beta_q$ must suffer from the systematic error coming from the dependence of $q_\mathrm{EA}$ with $L$ near the critical point (as shown the $L=20$ runs). At $\beta=1.00$ we have three different values of the order parameter that fit to the law $$q_\mathrm{EA}(L)= q_\mathrm{EA}(\infty)+\frac{b}{L^c} \,,
\label{eq:fit2}$$ where $b$ and $c$ are constants. This is the finite volume correction equation which holds in the low temperature phase [^4]. We have obtained $c=3.54$ and $q_\mathrm{EA}(\infty)=0.49$ (notice that we are fitting three points to a three parameter function) to be compared with $q_\mathrm{EA}(L=60)=0.485(6)$ and $q_\mathrm{EA}(L=30)=0.47(1)$. At $\beta=0.91$ (the nearest value we have to the critical point) we have only two points, that anyhow, we can try to fit to equation (\[eq:fit2\]) fixing $c=3.54$, obtaining $q_\mathrm{EA}(\infty)=0.278$ (no error bars can be reported since, again, the number of degrees of freedom in this fit is zero) to be compared with the value of our largest lattice $q_\mathrm{EA}(L=60)=0.26(1)$, so this limited analysis suggests that the $L=30$ lattice is asymptotic in its error bars in the region $\beta\ge 0.91$. Hence, we are confident that our final estimates of $\beta_c$ and $\beta_q$ should have small systematic error coming from finite size effects.
We remark that testing the dependence of $q_\mathrm{ EA}$ with the lattice size, for large lattices (e.g. $L=60$) near the transition is not accessible even using the SUE machine.
Finite Time Effects in the Fluctuation-Dissipation relations\[sec:FDT\]
=======================================================================
We have performed several runs again with SUE machine, in a lattice of size $L=60$ for different temperatures: $\beta = 1.25, 1.10, 1.05,
1.00$ and $0.95$. We have used the following standard procedure. We let the system evolve during a time $t_w$, just after this time, a field $h=0.03$ is plugged, seeing the response of the system and recording the magnetization and the correlation function. Then it is possible to extract the value of $q_{EA}$, for the particular $\beta$ being analyzing at that moment, from the point where the curve leaves the linear regime, that is, where $m T/h$ does not follow the pseudo-equilibrium line $(1-C)/T$.
The choice of the field strength applied to the system has not been arbitrary. We need to stay in the linear-response region. We have checked this by simulating different magnetic fields: $h=0.01, 0.03, 0.05$ and $0.10$. Finally we have selected a safe value for $h$: $h=0.03$, which is a compromise between large and small fields (notice that small fields induce strong noise in the measures). In figure (\[FigF\]) we have shown the FDT curve for a waiting time and two perturbing magnetic fields ($h=0.01$ and 0.003) in order to test that we are in the region in which linear-response holds. It is clear from this figure that the curve, inside the error bars, is independent of the perturbing magnetic field.
In the droplet model, the curve $X(C)$ departs horizontally from the straight line $1-C$, the final value of the horizontal line being $m_\mathrm{ asyn}
T/h$ (i.e. $S(C=0)$), where $m_\mathrm{asyn}$ is the equilibrium value of the magnetization in a field $h$ at the temperature $T$. Hence, measuring $m_\mathrm{asyn}$ we can obtain the droplet theory estimate for the order parameter as: $$q_\mathrm{ EA}^\mathrm{ droplet}=1-\frac{m_\mathrm{asyn} T}{h}\,.$$
We will shown in this section plots corresponding to $\beta=1.25$ and $L=60$. In order to obtain numerically $m_\mathrm{asyn}$ we have performed a very large in-field numerical simulation recording the value of the magnetization at the time $t$: $m(t)$. The asymptotic value is simply $m_\mathrm{asyn}=m(\infty)$ (this observable shows really small dependence on $L$ for the lattice sizes simulated in this paper). To avoid extrapolations we have continued the run until the magnetization shows a plateau (this means that the magnetization has reached its equilibrium value), and so we extract the value of $m_\mathrm{asyn}$ by computing the position of this plateau. For instance, we show in figure (\[Fig4\]) the magnetization as a function of time for $\beta=1.25$ and $L=60$.
By computing the asymptotic value of the magnetization for different temperatures, we obtain a reliable estimate for the order parameter in the droplet theory. In Table \[Table\_droplet\] we report these values for the droplet theory estimates and, in addition, we write the values for the order parameter obtained in the first part of this paper, that we will denote in the rest of the paper as $q_\mathrm{EA}^\mathrm{dyn}(\beta)$.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\beta$ $q_\mathrm{EA}^\mathrm{dyn}(\beta)$ $q_\mathrm{
EA}^\mathrm{droplet}$
--------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------
1.25 0.6583(34) 0.5573(13)
1.00 0.5071(31) 0.3957(17)
0.95 0.3554(7) 0.3404(21)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
: \[Table\_droplet\] $q_\mathrm{ EA}(\beta)$ for $L=60$ from $C(t,t_w)$ (obtained in the first part of the paper) and assuming droplet theory from $m T/h$. All the data showed in this table were obtained in a $L=60$ lattice except for dynamical $q_\mathrm{EA}$ at $\beta=0.95$ that was obtained simulating a $L=30$ lattice.
We recall that the values of $q_\mathrm{EA}^\mathrm{dyn}(\beta)$ reported in Table \[Table\_droplet\] have small finite size effects (taking into account their error bars) as checked in figure (\[Fig3\]). Moreover, we have found strong discrepancies between $q_\mathrm{EA}^\mathrm{dyn}(\beta)$ and $q_\mathrm{ EA}^\mathrm{droplet}$ for small temperatures.
We will describe in the rest of the paper our results for the violation of FDT out of equilibrium.
In figure (\[Fig5\]) we report the FD data out of equilibrium for one of the lowest temperature simulated. We have shown a vertical band which marks the our estimate of $q_\mathrm{EA}^\mathrm{dyn}$, a straight line $1-C$ to monitor the departure of this linear behavior and a horizontal band which marks $m_\mathrm{asyn} T/h$ (see figure (\[Fig4\])). In addition we have plotted data from three different waiting times.
Figure (\[Fig5\]) shows that our estimate for $q_\mathrm{EA}^\mathrm{dyn}$ matches very well in the plot and marks the region in which the FD data starts to depart from the linear behavior (for all the temperatures simulated). In figure (\[Fig6\]) we have drawn a magnification of this region. In addition, in this figure one can see that the finite time effects in the building of the asymptotic curve are small. Practically the two biggest waiting times are compatible in the error (there is a factor ten in waiting time). With the state-of-the-art dedicated computed of the day it is impossible to simulate larger waiting times. We can conclude from this figure that we are unable to see dependence in waiting time for the two largest waiting times in the region in which they depart from the linear behavior. The dependence on the waiting time for larger times is smaller than our statistical errors. From our numerical data a droplet theory Fluctuation-dissipation asymptotic curve seems unlikely.
CONCLUSIONS\[sec:CON\]
======================
We have study numerically and out of equilibrium the three dimensional Ising spin glass with bimodal disorder.
By computing the off equilibrium spin-spin correlation function we have been able to extract the order parameter of the phase transition. The study of the behavior of this order parameter with temperature permit us to compute the critical temperature and the associated critical exponent: both figures compare very well with previous numerical simulations and experiments. We have also discarded a $XY$-like scenario (we have found a non-vanishing order parameter in the low temperature region). We have also monitored the dependence of $q_\mathrm{EA}(\beta)$ with the lattice size in the low temperature region for one $\beta$.
In the second part of the paper we have extracted the droplet prediction for the order parameter by computing the asymptotic value of the susceptibility ($mT/h$). The droplet prediction compares (for all the $\beta$’s simulated) well with the order parameter computed in the first part of the paper for high temperature (of course, slightly below the critical temperature), but for lower temperatures the comparison is bad.
Moreover the analysis (for larger waiting times) of the FD curves show a behavior that can be described in the RSB theory and points out that the droplet scenario seems unlikely (only a really small dependence on waiting time, outside of the precision of this work, could build a final FD curve compatible with the droplet theory). Moreover the point in which the numerical data depart from the linear behavior compares well with the estimate obtaining in the first part of this paper, supporting the RSB scenario.
This work has been partially supported by MEC (BFM2003-C08532, FISES2004-01399 and FIS2004-05073) and European Comission HPRN-CT-2002-00307. S. Pérez Gaviro is a D.G.A (Aragón Government) fellow.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[00]{}
H. G. Ballesteros, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernández, V. Martín-Mayor, J. Pech, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, A. Tarancón, P. Téllez, C. L. Ullod and C. Ungil, Phys. Rev. B [**62,**]{} 14237(2000).
H. G. Katzgraber, M. Koerner, A. P. Young, cond-mat/0602212.
T. Jorg, cond-mat/0602215.
L. Berthier and J.-P. Bouchaud, Phys. Rev. B 66, 054404 (2002).
E. Vicent, J. Hammann, M. Ocio, J.-P. Bouchaud and L. F. Cugliandolo, “[*Slow dynamics and aging in spin-glasses*]{}” in Complex Behavior of Glassy Systems. Springer Verlag 1997.
G. Parisi, F. Ricci Tersenghi and J.J.Ruiz-Lorenzo, Journal of Physics A: Math and Gen. 29, 7943 (1996).
D. A. Stariolo, M. A. Montemurro, F. A. Tamarit, Eur. Phys. J. B 32, 361-367 (2003).
H. Yoshino, K. Hukushima, H. Takayama, Phys. Rev. B 66, 064431 (2002).
L. F. Cugliandolo and J. Kurchan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 173 (1993); Phil. Mag. [**71**]{}, 501 (1995); J. Phys. A [**27**]{}, 5749 (1994).
S. Franz and M. Mézard, Europhys. Lett. [**26**]{}, 209 (1994).
A. Baldassarri, L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and G. Parisi, J. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 1831 (1995).
E. Marinari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, J. Phys. A [**31**]{}, 2611 (1998).
S. Franz and H. Rieger, J. Stat. Phys. [**79**]{}, 749 (1995).
S. Franz, M. Mézard, G. Parisi, L. Peliti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1758 (1998); J. Stat. Phys. [**97**]{}, 459 (1999).
D. Hérisson and M. Ocio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **88**]{}, 257202 (2002).
M. Mezard, G. Parisi and M.A. Virasoro, [*Spin glass theory and beyond*]{}. World Scientific, Singapore 1987.
E. Marinari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo and F. Zuliani, J. Stat. Phys. [**98**]{}, 973 (2000).
W. L. McMillan, J. Phys. C [**17**]{}, 3179 (1984); A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, in [*Heidelberg Colloquium on Glassy Dynamics*]{}, edited by J. L. Van Hemmen and I. Morgenstern (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1986), p. 121; D. S. Fisher and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 1601 (1986); Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 386 (1988).
J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, [*“Low temperature properties of Ising spin glasses: (some) numerical simulations”*]{} in “Advances in Condensed Matter and Statistical Mechanics”, Ed. E. Korutcheva and R. Cuerno. Published by Nova Science Publishers 2004. cond-mat/0306675.
D. Iñiguez, E. Marinari, G. Parisi and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, J. Phys. A. [**30**]{}, 7337 (1997).
G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, Eur. Phys. J. B 11, 317-325 (1999).
A. Cruz, J. Pech, A. Tarancón, P. Téllez, C. L. Ullod and C. Ungil, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**133,**]{} 165 (2001).
K. Gunnarsson, P. Svedlindh, P. Nordblad, L. Lundgren, H. Aruga and A. Ito, Phys. Rev. B [**43,**]{} 8199(1991).
M. Pleimling and I. A. Campbell, Phys. Rev. B 72, 184429 (2005). M. Henkel and M. Pleimling, Europhys. Lett. 69. 524 (2005).
[^1]: Notice that in reference [@PRBNUM] corrections to scaling were taken into account. In our estimate there is no scaling corrections, hence our error are smaller than the error quoted in [@PRBNUM]: i.e. our error bars are underestimated.
[^2]: See also [@Campbell] for a non Universality scenario: they reported $\beta_c=0.84(1)$.
[^3]: Note that both results in [@PRBNUM] and [@PRBEXP] come from different methods.
[^4]: In reference [@XY] was checked that in the three dimensional Gaussian Ising spin glass the position of the maximum of the equilibrium probability distribution of the overlap follows this law with $c=1.5(4)$ by fitting $L
\le 16$. Notice that in our case we are using $20 \le L \le 60$ data and we simulate the $\pm J $ model and that the $c$ exponent could depend on the temperature. Notice that usually in equilibrium small lattices develop larger order parameter, however, in our dynamical approach we have found the opposite behavior.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Published Work from this Thesis {#cha:published-work-from}
===============================
The new $\smgroup$ result for the collision term and its implication on gravitino dark matter scenarios allow for a collider test probing the viability of thermal leptogenesis. As a summary of this thesis, the proposed method has been published in [Physical Review D](http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/V75/E023509) [@Pradler:2006qh].\
An e-print of the paper is available on the [arXiv](http://lanl.arxiv.org) server:\
<http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0608344>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'M.M. Ivanov,'
- 'Y.Y. Kovalev,'
- 'M.L. Lister,'
- 'A.G. Panin,'
- 'A.B. Pushkarev,'
- 'T. Savolainen,'
- 'and S.V. Troitsky'
date: 'November 27, 2018'
title: 'Constraining the photon coupling of ultra-light dark-matter axion-like particles by polarization variations of parsec-scale jets in active galaxies'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Despite impressive experimental efforts towards direct-detection, collider and indirect searches for weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs, see e.g. Refs. [@direct-review; @collider-review; @indirect-review] for corresponding reviews), no confirmation of the existence of a candidate dark-matter (DM) particle of this kind has been obtained. As a result, we witness a growing interest to non-WIMP DM candidates, including axions, axion-like particles, sterile neutrinos etc. On the other hand, the conventional Cold Dark Matter (CDM) scenario suffers from considerable tensions with observational data regarding structure formation at small (below kiloparsec) scales, see e.g. Ref. [@1306.0913] for a review. These tensions include the “missing satellites” [@9901240; @9907411], “too-big-to-fail” [@1103.0007] and “cusp-core” [@0708.1492] problems. In general, CDM, as a cold, scale-free and non-interacting substance, forms too much structure at small scales.
One of the scenarios put forward to overcome these tensions is based on the concept of ultra-light (UL), also called “fuzzy”, dark matter (see e.g. Refs. [@002495; @0003018; @0003365], but also early pioneering works [@Turner1983; @Tkachev1986; @Khlopov1985] and, for reviews, [@Doddy; @1610.08297]). In this approach, the DM particle is so light that its de Broglie wavelength is of the order of a kiloparsec, the “problematic” scale of structure formation. This corresponds to a DM particle mass of order of $m \sim 10^{-22}$ eV. With this low mass, the observed DM energy density requires very high number densities of the ULDM particles, which imply that they exist in the form of a classical bosonic field, or a Bose condensate. To protect the low mass from radiative corrections, it is often assumed that the ULDM field corresponds to a pseudo-Goldstone boson of some broken symmetry, just like the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) axion is related to breaking of the Peccei-Quinn symmetry. Related to QCD or not, this particle develops a non-renormalizable coupling to photons similar to that of the axion. Pseudoscalars with these couplings are called axion-like particles (ALPs, see e.g. Ref. [@Ringw-review] for a review). They appear in a natural way in many extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics, including those related to string theory [@Wit; @Dub; @Ringw].
The photon coupling of ALPs makes it possible to search for their manifestations in laboratory experiments and in astrophysical environments, see e.g. Refs.[@Doddy; @1801.08127; @1708.02111; @1612.01864] for recent reviews. A range of approaches are based on the ALP-photon mixing in external magnetic fields [@RaffeltStod], which results in the ALP-photon oscillations, the ALP Primakoff effect and vacuum birefringence. Here, we follow a different approach which is based on the same ALP-photon interaction: the polarization properties of light are changed when it propagates in the external pseudoscalar field.
The condensate of ULDM particles is naturally produced in the early Universe, as follows both from analytical estimates and from detailed numerical simulations. The produced condensate forms domains of the size of order $\sim 100$ pc (see e.g. Ref. [@Schive] for a numerical demonstration). Within each clump, the ALP field experiences fast coherent oscillations with the period determined by $m$. These oscillations can be used to constrain the ULDM scenario with pulsar timing arrays [@RuKhm; @Postnov; @newPSRtiming]. In the present work, we explore the effect of these coherent oscillations on the propagation of electromagnetic waves through the ULDM condensate. We demonstrate that the polarization angle of linearly polarized emission oscillates with the same period, which is determined by the ALP mass and is therefore uniform for all ALP domains in the Universe. Then, we use long-term observations of polarization properties of radio sources to search for these oscillations. We do not find any significant evidence for oscillations with a common period and use this fact to constrain the photon coupling of the ULDM ALP.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:calculation\], we consider photon propagation in the oscillating external ALP background and demonstrate that the plane of linear polarization of photons oscillates with the same period. In Section \[sec:data\], we describe the data resulted from long-term radio observations of parsec-scale jets in active galaxies which we use in this paper. Section \[sec:anal\] presents the method to search, in the ensemble of data, for oscillations with a common period but arbitrary phase. In Section \[sec:results\], we present our results and derive constraints on the ALP-photon coupling. We briefly conclude in Section \[sec:concl\], while some technical details are presented in Appendices.
Theoretical calculation of the expected effect {#sec:calculation}
==============================================
We start with the following Largangian for an ALP interacting with photons, [ ]{}= -F\_\^2 + (\_a \^a - m\^2 a\^2) + a F\_\^, [ ]{}where $a$ is the ALP field, $F_{\mu \nu }$ is the electromagnetic stress tensor, $\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F^{\rho\sigma}$ and ALP parameters are the mass $m$ and the photon coupling constant $g_{a\gamma}$. The latter has the dimension of inverse mass in the natural ($\hbar = c = 1$) system of units, which we hereafter use, unless the dimensions are written explicitly. The Minkowski sum over repeating Greek indices $\mu ,\nu ,\lambda ,\rho =
0, \dots, 3$ is assumed (Latin indices $i, j = 1, 2,3$ enumerate the spatial coordinates).
The equations of motion for the electromagnetic field read $$\partial _{\mu } F^{\mu \nu } + \frac{1}{2}
g_{a\gamma } \epsilon^{\mu \nu \lambda
\rho } \partial _{\mu } \left(a F_{\lambda \rho } \right)=0.$$ At the scales of order the photon wavelength, $a$ changes slowly and hence can be treated adiabatically when taking Fourier integrals. To study the effect of the external $a$ field on the polarization, we consider a plane-wave Ansatz for the electromagnetic field, $$A_{\nu }(x)=A_{\nu }(k) {\rm e}^{ikx} + \mbox{h.\,c.},$$ and decompose $A_{\nu }(k)$ into two linearly polarized components, $$A_{\nu } =A^{+}e_{\nu }^{+}+A^{-}e_{\nu }^{-},$$ where $e_{\nu }^{\pm}$ are properly chosen polarization vectors. The equations of motion result in the dispersion relations (we use here the fact that $|\partial _{0} a| \sim m |a|$ while $|\partial _{i}a| \sim mv
|a|$, where $v \ll 1$ is the dark-matter velocity, hence $|\partial _{0} a| \ll|\partial _{i}a| $), $$\omega_{\pm}^{2} -k^{2} \mp g_{a\gamma } \partial _{0}a |k|=0,$$ so the two polarization states propagate with $$\omega_{\pm} = k \sqrt{1 \pm g_{a\gamma}\frac{\partial _{0}a}{k}}
\simeq
k \pm \frac{1}{2}g_{a\gamma } \partial _{0} a$$ (see also Refs. [@Dub; @Harari:1992ea]).
The axion condensate acts as an optically active medium, in which a linearly polarized photon acquires a phase shift between two circular polarizations, which results in the rotation of the polarization plane. This effect as a *cosmological birefringence* has been constrained in the past, see e.g.[@Wardle:1997gu; @Finelli:2008jv; @Alighieri:2010eu; @Galaverni:2014gca]. Recent studies [@Obata:2018vvr; @DeRocco:2018jwe; @Liu:2018icu] suggested to test this effect with laser interferometry. It should be noted that these works were considering a constant phase shift experienced by photons. In contrast, in the present work we focus on the *periodic* changes of the phase shift caused by the oscillating ALP background.
The difference between the frequencies of the two polarization components, $$\Delta \omega = g_{a\gamma } \partial _{0}a,$$ is translated into the change of the polarization angle for a linearly polarized emission, $$\Delta \phi = \frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}} \! \Delta \omega \, dt =
\frac{1}{2}g_{a \gamma } \int\limits_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}} \! \partial _{0} a\, dt,$$ where the integration is performed along the propagation path of the electromagnetic wave from the emission moment $t_{1}$ to the observation moment $t_{2}$. We use again $|\partial _{0} a| \ll|\partial _{i}a| $ to write $$\partial _{0} a \equiv \frac{da}{dt} - \frac{k_{i}}{|k|} \partial _{i}a
\simeq \frac{da}{dt}$$ and therefore obtain $$\Delta \phi =\frac{1}{2} g_{a\gamma } \left(a(t_{2})-a(t_{1}) \right).$$ Note that the effect is frequency-independent and depends only on the local value of the ALP field at the source and the observer. This is true even in the case of inhomogeneous background [@Harari:1992ea].
The ALP field is coherent and homogeneous at the scales of order of $$\lambda = \frac{1}{mv}\simeq 65 \left (
\frac{m}{10^{-22}~\text{eV}} \right)^{-1} \left ( \frac{v}{10^{-3}}
\right)^{-1} \,\text{pc}\,,$$ where $v$ is the mean velocity of dark matter. It oscillates as $$a(t)=a_0\sin(mt+\delta)\,,$$ where $\delta$ is some random phase and $a_0$ is the field amplitude. The typical oscillation period is $$T=\frac{2\pi}{m}\simeq 4\cdot 10^{7} \left ( \frac{10^{-22}~\text{eV}}{m}
\right)\text{sec}\,.
\label{eq:period}$$ Therefore, these background oscillations get imprinted in the oscillations of the photon phase shift. The observed period at the Earth is $T'=T(1+z)$, where $z$ is the redshift of the source.
We will be interested in the situation where the ALP field in the vicinity of the source is much stronger than next to the observer, that is $a(t_{2}) \ll a(t_{1})$. In particular, this is true for central parts of elliptical galaxies hosting AGNs, which have a reasonably high dark-matter density. Indeed, a recent joint analysis of lensing and kinematics data from Ref. [@Lyskova:2017me] gives the following estimate for the dark-matter energy density there, [ ]{}\_[DM]{}\~510\^9 [M\_]{}/[\^3]{}20 /\^3. [ ]{}Here we assumed a typical dark-matter fraction in elliptical galaxies $\sim\,50\%$ [@Lyskova:2014me]. On the other hand, the energy density $$\rho_{\rm DM} ={1\over 2} \langle \left( \partial a \right)^{2} \rangle +
\frac{m^{2}}{2} \langle a^{2} \rangle =
{1 \over 2} m^{2} a_{0}^{2},$$ which we use to express $a_{0}$ through $\rho_{\rm DM}$ and to obtain the final expression for the oscillating shift of the polarization angle, $$\Delta \phi \simeq 5^{\circ}
\sin \left(2\pi \frac{t}{T'} +\delta\right)
\left (
\frac{\rho_{\rm DM}}{20~\text{GeV}/\text{cm}^3} \right)^{\frac12} \left (
\frac{g_{a\gamma}}{10^{-12}~\text{GeV}^{-1}} \right) \left (
\frac{m}{10^{-22}~\text{eV}} \right)^{-1}\,.
\label{eq:ampl}$$
The data {#sec:data}
========
For the purposes of our study, we made use of polarization sensitive interferometric data at 15 GHz primarily from the MOJAVE (Monitoring Of Jets in Active galactic nuclei with VLBA Experiments) program to monitor radio brightness and polarization variations in jets associated with active galaxies with declinations above $-30^{\circ}$, with supplementary data obtained from the NRAO archive. The observations were performed between 1997 April 6 and 2017 August 25 with the VLBA (Very Long Baseline Array), a system of ten 25-meter radio telescopes, allowing to probe highly-collimated relativistic outflows of the observed sources on parsec scales by achieving angular resolution of the order of one milliarcsecond. The fully-calibrated visibility data together with reconstructed FITS images are publicly available online from the MOJAVE web site[^1]. An example of a total intesity and linear polarization image for the active galaxy 3C 120 is shown in Figure \[fig:3C120\]. The data reduction, including initial calibration and editing, was performed with the NRAO Astronomical Image Processing System [@AIPS] using the standard techniques. Imaging was done with the Caltech DIFMAP package [@difmap]. Each of the final single-epoch images was constructed by applying natural weighting to the visibility function and a pixel size of 0.1 mas. A more detailed discussion of the data reduction and imaging process schemes can be found in [@MOJAVE_V; @MOJAVE_XV]. The earlier papers of the MOJAVE program have focused on the parsec-scale kinematics of the jets [@MOJAVE_XIII], their acceleration and collimation [@MOJAVE_XII], circular and linear polarization properties [@MOJAVE_II; @MOJAVE_I; @MOJAVE_XV; @MOJAVE_XVI; @Pushkarev2018].
To analyze the polarization evolution in the observed sources, the following approach is used. The structure of every source in its full intensity is modelled using the Caltech DIFMAP package [@difmap] by fitting a series of circular (rarely elliptical) Gaussian components to the calibrated visibility data. These components are cross-identified at a certain number of epochs, while they remain sufficiently bright. Their electric vector position angles, $\mathrm{EVPA} = (1/2)
\mathrm{arctan}(U/Q)$, where $U$ and $Q$ are Stokes parameters, are calculated from the corresponding polarization maps as the nine-pixel average of the area centered over a position of the component in total intensity. In this way, jet and core components are identified in Refs.[@MOJAVE_XIII; @Lister-et-al-in-prep]. Because of variable optical depth [@cs_var], Faraday depth and higher turbulence [@TEMZ], the core components demonstrate, on average, larger EVPA fluctuations [@MOJAVE_XVI]. In this work, we therefore concentrate only on the jet features. We estimate that our VLBA EVPA measurements are accurate within $\sim5^\circ$, as it comes from a comparison of highly-compact AGNs to near-simultaneous single-dish observations.
The uncertainty in the EVPA measurements is dominated by two factors, see e.g. the Appendix of Ref. [@WardleKronberg]. The first one is the imperfectness of the receivers which results in the effect of the instrumental polarization when the signal flows from one branch to another. The second one is related to the non-uniform coverage of the $uv$ plane. The flow of the polarized signal is proportional to the total intensity and is therefore non-uniformly distributed over the map. It also results in an artificial increase of the signal-to-noise ratio, so that for weak signals one needs to introduce additional corrections for non-Gaussian distribution of errors. This motivates the removal of low-intensity sources from the data set to suppress hard to control instrumental errors. We impose a cut of the minimal polarized flux density of the component (the sum of polarised emission under the area of a given Gaussian component, as defined above) of 5 mJy, which guarantees that the estimated uncertainty in every particular EVPA measurement is $\sim 5^{\circ}$.
To perform a reliable search for periodicity at the scales of $\sim
1$ yr, as it would be expected for the ULDM effect, we select the source components for which the 5 mJy condition was satisfied for at least 10 observational epochs and require the cadence of not less than 5 epochs per year. Among all observations, these criteria are satisfied for one or more components of 10 sources listed in Table \[tab:sources\], which are used in this analysis.
------------ -------- ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- -----------
B1950 Other Redshift Component Time coverage, Number of
name ID ID years epochs
0415$+$379 3C 111 0.0491 **40 &**4.80&**40\
& & & 39& 3.49 & 19\
& & & 30& 1.94 & 19\
& & & 35& 1.23 & 13\
& & & 36& 1.47 & 19\
& & & 37& 2.01 & 13\
& & & 39& 3.49 & 19\
& & & 57& 1.42 & 11\
0430$+$052&3C 120&0.033 &**41&**1.80&**10\
& & & 38& 1.23 & 11\
& & & 47& 0.92 & 11\
0851$+$202&OJ 287&0.306 &**22 &**3.15&**16\
& & & 9& 1.41 & 10\
1226$+$023&3C 273&0.1583&**19 &**2.49&**13\
& & & 24& 1.60 & 13\
& & & 25& 1.60 & 12\
1253$-$055&3C 279&0.536 &**6 &**2.97&**17\
1308$+$326&OP 313&0.997 &**5 &**2.57&**13\
1510$-$089&PKS 1510$-$08&0.36&**15 &**1.65&**14\
& & & 19& 1.30 & 13\
1641$+$399&3C 345&0.593 &**11 &**2.35&**13\
2200$+$420&BL Lac&0.0686&**7 &**20.39&**126\
& & & 20 & 5.09 & 45\
& & & 23 & 5.58 & 59\
& & & 24 & 2.81 & 25\
& & & 25 & 2.55 & 21\
& & & 26 & 1.70 & 20\
& & & 27 & 1.64 & 25\
& & & 36 & 0.66 & 11\
& & & 47 & 1.00 & 13\
2251$+$158&3C 454.3&0.859&**13 &**1.98&**10\
& & & 8& 1.92 & 10\
************************************************************
------------ -------- ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- -----------
: \[tab:sources\] List of source components selected for the analysis. MOJAVE ID and Component ID correspond to the MOJAVE catalog [@MOJAVE_XIII; @Lister-et-al-in-prep]. Components with the longest time coverage are indicated in bold.
The separations between jet components in a source are sufficiently large to make the regions causally disconnected at the period of observations, therefore making correlated periodic changes of the intrinsic polarization impossible. Other systematic effects could result in common EVPA varations among components of a given extragalactic radio source. First of all, it is the EVPA absolute calibration error. This error is the same for all core and jet components of all sources observed within the same 24-hour long MOJAVE VLBA epoch. Typically, 20 to 30 targets are observed. The variable fraction of this error is estimated to be less than $2^\circ$. Second, polarized emission might partly “leak” from one component to another if they are located too close to each other — within one VLBA beam. Such a situation happens not more than in a couple of cases in our sample. Finally, let us consider Faraday rotation around an extragalactic jet or in our Galaxy. Causality arguments prevent synchronous Faraday depth changes around jets since components are located far enough from each other, while the Galactic Faraday rotation is low and varies on timescales significantly longer than what is analyzed in this paper, see e.g. [@Taylor2009; @Opp2012]. We conclude that the common EVPA variations of components within a given target are insignificant and cannot influence results of our analysis. We note that the analysis presented in this paper was repeated for a subsample which has only one component per target. We obtained qualitatively similar results but with weaker upper limits, as it is expected from the reduction in statistics.
The analysis method {#sec:anal}
===================
The aim of the present study is to search for, or to constrain, periodic oscillations of EVPA in different sources but with a common period. The data analysis we perform includes processing time-dependent measurements for every particular source in the sample to reveal indications for periodicity, followed by an analysis of the sample to see if the periodicities have one common period. We need a quantitative measure of the strength of the effect, which is compared to the same quantity obtained from the Monte-Carlo simulated data assuming no effect is present.
For every sequence of the EVPA measurements (a source component), we calculate the generalised Lomb-Scargle periodogram [@periodogr] (see Refs. [@periodogr17; @periodo-book] for detailed discussions). Compared to other methods, it is more suitable for the case when measurements are distributed non-uniformly in time. It also accounts correctly for a non-zero mean of the measurements. For convenience, the calculation of the periodogram is summarized in Appendix \[app:periodogram\]. As a result, we obtain $p$-values as a function of the assumed oscillation period $T$ (rescaled from the observed $T'$ by $(1+z)$, see Sec.\[sec:calculation\]). We consider periods between 0.1 yr and 1.5 yr with a step of 0.02 yr. This corresponds to the ULDM particle mass $5
\times 10^{-23}$ eV$\le m \le 1.2 \times 10^{-21}$ eV, see Section \[sec:calculation\]. The meaning of the $p$-value is the probability that a signal of a given power (or stronger) is produced by random Gaussian fluctuations; note that $0 \le p \le 1$. In practice, relevant random backgrounds are not distributed normally, and therefore we do not interpret this quantity as a probability. Figure \[fig:1comp\]
![\[fig:1comp\] Example of the data and the periodogram for one source component. The EVPA observations of component 41 of 3C 120 are shown versus the observation time (Earth frame, top panel). The $p$-value calculated from the Lomb–Scargle periodogram for this component is shown as a function of the period $T$ (source frame, i.e. rescaled by $(1+z)$, bottom panel). Low $p$-values indicate that oscillations with large periods fit the data well; however, they do not affect the resulting significance for the full data set estimated through Monte-Carlo simulations.](0430+052_41_evpa_vs_time.pdf "fig:"){width=".75\textwidth"}\
![\[fig:1comp\] Example of the data and the periodogram for one source component. The EVPA observations of component 41 of 3C 120 are shown versus the observation time (Earth frame, top panel). The $p$-value calculated from the Lomb–Scargle periodogram for this component is shown as a function of the period $T$ (source frame, i.e. rescaled by $(1+z)$, bottom panel). Low $p$-values indicate that oscillations with large periods fit the data well; however, they do not affect the resulting significance for the full data set estimated through Monte-Carlo simulations.](1comp.pdf "fig:"){width=".75\textwidth"}
presents an example of the data and the periodogram for one of the source components shown in Figure \[fig:3C120\].
Next, we need to consider the ensemble of $N$ time sequences ($N=32$ in our case). For each time sequence, i.e. for each source component, we have the dependence of the $p$-value on the period, $p_{i}(T)$, $i=1,\dots, N$. For every particular source, small $p_{i}(T)$ indicates that the data favour, to some extent, oscillations with a period $T$. Consider now the function $$L(T)=\log \prod\limits_{i=1}^N p_i (T)=
\sum\limits_{i=1}^N \log \left(p_i (T) \right).$$ Qualitatively, low $L(T)$ would indicate periodic signals with *the same period* $T$ in different sources, as it is expected in ULDM models. Contrary, if periodicities in individual sources are absent or uncorrelated, as it is expected for their intrinsic origin, minima of $p_{i}(T)$ would not coincide, and $L(T)$ would not be that low.
What does a particular value of $L(T)$ mean? To understand it in terms of physical quantities, we perform Monte-Carlo simulations of many artificial data sets, both without the ULDM effect and with the EVPA oscillations with the common period and amplitude introduced by hand, for various periods and amplitudes. The simulations are described in detail in Appendix \[app:MC\]. The simulations of random sets, Section \[app:MC:MC\], allow one to answer the question how often a given value of $L(T)$ may be obtained as a random fluctuation of the data with no signal for a given $T$, thus attributing a local $p$-value to the observed realization of $L(T)$ for the ensemble of sources. The global significance of the observed deviation from randomness is estimated through the same simulation as a measure of the fraction of MC sets for which this or lower $p$-value is obtained from fluctuations for *any* $T$.
To convert $L(T)$ into a limit on the amplitude of EVPA oscillations $\phi$, we use the simulations described in Section \[app:MC:expected\], when signals with various $\phi$ are artificially added to the random data. From these simulations we determine for which $\phi$ a given or lower value of $L(T)$ occurs in 95% of simulated data sets. This allows us to derive the 95% CL upper limit on $\phi$ for every $T$. These upper limits on the common amplitude $\phi$ at a given common period $T$ are finally translated into the limits on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$ at a given ALP mass $m$ using Eqs. (\[eq:period\]), (\[eq:ampl\]) derived in Section \[sec:calculation\].
Results and discussion {#sec:results}
======================
We turn now to the results of the data analysis. They are presented in Figures \[fig:result1\], \[fig:pval\], \[fig:result2\], \[fig:result3\].
![\[fig:result1\] Expected in the case of no ULDM effect (gray band, 68% CL) and observed (thick red line) $L$ as a function of the period $T$. ](example1.pdf){width=".85\textwidth"}
![\[fig:pval\] Local (dashed blue line) and global (full red line) p-values for deviations of the observed value of $L$ from the expected one, as a function of the period $T$.](pboth-full.pdf){width=".75\textwidth"}
![\[fig:result2\] Expected in the case of no ULDM effect (gray band, 68% CL) and observed (thick red line) 95% CL upper limits on the amplitude of oscillations $\phi$ as a function of the period $T$. ](amplitude-limits.pdf){width=".85\textwidth"}
![\[fig:result3\] Expected in the case of no ULDM effect (gray band, 68% CL) and observed (thick red line) 95% CL upper limits on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$ as a function of the ALP mass $m$, for $\kappa=1$. ](alp-limits.pdf){width=".85\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:result1\] presents values of $L$ for various oscillation periods $T$, as expected from MC simulations (for the case of no ULDM effect) and observed in real data. The observed $L(T)$ is in good agreement with expectations, indicating that no ULDM effect is seen. Figure \[fig:pval\] confirms this by presenting $p$-values which correspond to probabilities of obtaining the observed or lower $L(T)$ in Monte-Carlo simulated sets: the local $p$-value corresponds to a given $T$ while the global $p$-value is the probability to observe this or lower local $p$-value for any $T$. The corresponding 95% CL upper limits on the amplitude $\phi(T)$ are given in Figure \[fig:result2\]. They are interpreted in terms of physical parameters of ALP in Figure \[fig:result3\]. Note that the conversion of the limits on the EVPA oscillation amplitude versus $T$ into the limits on $g_{a\gamma}(m)$, that is the transition from Figure \[fig:result2\] to Figure \[fig:result3\], is subject to theoretical systematic uncertainties, the main of which is the lack of knowledge of the dark-matter density in particular observed sources, encoded in the parameter $\kappa \equiv \rho_{\rm DM}/(20~\rm GeV/cm^{3})$. Our limits on $g_{a\gamma }$ scale with $\kappa^{1/2}$.
We turn now to the comparison of our results with other available constraints on $g_{a\gamma}$ for ULDM ALPs. One should note here that the scalar ULDM with masses below $\sim
10^{-21}$ eV is disfavoured by the Lyman-alpha forest measurements [@1703.04683]. However, these constraints are not applicable for certain models with ULDM ALPs, see e.g. Ref. [@1810.05930].
The most abundant group of constraints includes those based on astrophysical effects of ALPs independent on whether they form the dark matter or not. The least model dependent bound results from non-observation of ALPs coming from the Sun with a dedicated axion helioscope, CAST [@1705.02290]. A quantitatively similar constraint comes from the analysis of energy losses in horizontal-branch stars in globular clusters [@1406.6053]. A stronger, but more model dependent constraint was derived from non-observation of gamma rays from supernova SN 1987A [@1410.3747]. A series of constraints have been obtained from the absence of spectral irregularities of X-ray sources embedded in the galaxy clusters, see Refs. [@1304.0989; @1605.01043; @1703.07354; @1704.05256]. These constraints are heavily based on the modelling of the magnetic fields in the clusters which is far from being certain. One of the strongest constraints comes from the nearby Virgo cluster [@1703.07354] for which the turbulent component of the magnetic field was modelled with a certain level of confidence[^2]. In all these studies, a possible regular component of the cluster magnetic field was ignored, which makes the conclusions less robust. The astrophysical constraints are compared to our results in Figure \[fig:limits2\],
![\[fig:limits2\] Upper limits on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$ as a function of the ALP mass $m$ from astrophysical effects (not necessary assuming ULDM): solar axion searches with CAST [@1705.02290], energy losses of the horizontal-branch (HB) stars [@1406.6053] (quantitatively the same as CAST), absence of gamma rays from SN 1987A [@1410.3747] and absence of spectral irregularities in the X-ray spectrum of Vir A [@1703.07354] (see the text for more references and discussions of caveats). Projected sensitivities of axion helioscopes TASTE [@1706.09378] and IAXO [@1103.5334], as well as of the search for X-ray spectral irregularities with Athena [@1707.00176] are shown by dashed lines. The limit from the present work ($\kappa=1$) is given by the full red line for comparison.](limits2.pdf){width=".65\textwidth"}
where we also show projected sensitivities of helioscope experiments TASTE [@1706.09378] and IAXO [@1103.5334], as well as the expected sensitivity of X-ray irregularity analysis with the future instrument Athena [@1707.00176].
Perfectly model-independent results come from purely laboratory experiments, which include “light shining through walls” (e.g. ALPS-I [@1004.1313] and OSQAR [@1506.08082]) and searches for vacuum birefringence, PVLAS [@1510.08052]. Though this approach is the most robust, it results in constraints on ALPs several orders of magnitude worse than astrophysical ones, just because of limitations of the terrestrial equipment as compared to astrophysical environments. The laboratory constraints, as well as the ones expected from the resonant-regeneration ALPS-IIc experiment [@1302.5647], are compared to our results in Figure \[fig:limits3\].
![\[fig:limits3\] Upper limits on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$ as a function of the ALP mass $m$ from purely laboratory searches: ALPS-I [@1004.1313], PVLAS [@1510.08052] and OSQAR [@1506.08082]. Projected sensitivity of ALPS-IIc [@1302.5647] is shown by the dashed line. The limit from the present work ($\kappa=1$) is given by the full red line for comparison.](limits3.pdf){width=".65\textwidth"}
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
Certain dark-matter models assume that ultra-light axion-like particles form a condensate, coherently oscillating with a period of about a year in domains of about 100 pc. These oscillations get imprinted on the polarization angle of linearly polarized electromagnetic emission of astrophysical sources. The period of the oscillations in the source frame is universal and is determined by the particle mass only, so that the corresponding periodic changes would be present for various sources with the same period.
In the present work, we used the data obtained in long-term polarization measurements of parsec-scale jets in active galactic nuclei within the MOJAVE project to search for such periodic patterns with a common period. We did not find any statistically significant effect and have obtained constraints on the photon coupling to axion-like ultralight dark matter at the level of $\lesssim 10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for masses between $\sim 5\times
10^{-23}$ eV and $\sim 1.2 \times 10^{-21}$ eV.
We are indebted to Grigory Rubtsov, Sergey Sibiryakov, Guenter Sigl and Peter Tinyakov for interesting and helpful discussions and to Eduardo Ros for useful comments on the manuscript. This research has made use of data from the MOJAVE data base, which is maintained by the MOJAVE team [@MOJAVE_XV]. The MOJAVE project was supported by NASA-*Fermi* GI grants NNX08AV67G, NNX12A087G, and NNX15AU76G. Y.K. and A.B.P. are partly supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 17-02-00197) and the government of the Russian Federation (agreement 05.Y09.21.0018). T.S. was funded by the Academy of Finland projects 274477, 284495 and 312496. The work of M.I. and S.T. on constraining parameters of ultra-light axions with astrophysical methods is supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant 18-12-00258). S.T.thanks CERN Theory Department for hospitality at the final stages of this work.
#### Note added.
When this study was finalized, two preprints have been posted on arXiv which study constraints on $g_{a\gamma }$ for ULDM ALPs within different approaches. Like our study, they are based on polarization effects, but do not consider the periodic oscillations which are at the base of our method. They include the search for birefringence in observations of the protoplanetary disk of AB Aur [@1811.03525] and the Cosmic Microwave Background [@1811.07873] at the cosmological and Galactic scales. They report upper limits of $g_{a\gamma
} \lesssim 10^{-13}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for $m\sim 10^{-22}$ eV. While a detailed discussion of these results is beyond the scope of the present paper, we note that both Refs. [@1811.03525] and [@1811.07873] assume an additional enhancement of the polarization-angle rotation by a factor of $\sqrt{n}$, where $n$ is the number of $\sim 100$ pc ALP-field domains crossed by the light on its way from the source to the observer. This enhancement is at odds with earlier works [@Dub; @Harari:1992ea] (in more detail, corrections to the results of Ref. [@Harari:1992ea] will be discussed elsewhere [@IvanovPanin]). This $\sqrt{n}$ factor is close to one for AB Aur, which is only 163 pc away; however, the observations [@obs:proto] used in Ref. [@1811.03525] continued only for $\sim 3$ min and therefore give only a snapshot of possible EVPA oscillations. Observations of this kind would be a very prospective tool to constrain $g_{a\gamma}$ if they were performed at several epochs and for several sources, like those used in the present paper.
Generalized Lomb–Scargle periodogram {#app:periodogram}
====================================
In this Appendix, we collect, for convenience, the formulae used to derive the generalized Lomb–Scargle periodogram, following Ref. [@periodogr].
Consider a series of $N$ measurements of a quantity $y_{i}
\pm \sigma_{i}$, performed at epochs $t_{i}$, $i=1,\dots N$. Introduce vectors of the time arguments $\bm{t}=\{t_{i}\}$, data values $\bm{y}=\{y_{i}\}$ and inverse errors $\bm{\bar\sigma}=\{1/\sigma_{i}\}$. Determine the vector of normalized weights $\bm{w}=\{w_{i}\}$ with $$w_i=\frac{1}{\bm{\bar\sigma} \cdot \bm{\bar\sigma}}\,\frac{1}{\sigma_i^2},$$ satisfying $\sum w_{i}=1$ (hereafter the vectors are denoted by bold face, the dot between two vectors denotes their scalar product while the dot between two scalars denotes their product).
For every period $T$ we want to consider, denote $\bm{C}= \{\cos(\omega
t_{i}) \}$ and $\bm{S}= \{\sin(\omega t_{i}) \}$, where $\omega=2\pi/T$. One further denotes: $$Y=\bm{w} \cdot \bm{y}, ~~ C=\bm{w} \cdot \bm{C}, ~~ S=\bm{w} \cdot \bm{S},$$ $$\hat Y_Y=\sum w_i y_i^2,
~~
Y_Y=\hat Y_Y- Y \cdot Y,$$ $$\hat Y_C=\sum w_i y_i c_i,
~~
Y_C=\hat Y_C- Y \cdot C,$$ $$\hat Y_S=\sum w_i y_i s_i,
~~
Y_S=\hat Y_S- Y \cdot S,$$ $$\hat C_C=\sum w_i c_i^2,
~~
C_C=\hat C_C- C \cdot C,$$ $$\hat S_S=1-\hat C_C,
~~
S_S=\hat S_S- S \cdot S,$$ $$\hat C_S=\sum w_i c_i s_i,
~~
C_S=\hat C_S- C \cdot S,$$ $$D= CC \cdot SS - CS \cdot CS.$$ The power spectrum (“normalized periodogram”) is then determined as $$P(\omega) = \frac{1}{YY \cdot D} \left( SS\cdot YC \cdot YC + CC \cdot YS
\cdot YS -2\, CS \cdot YC \cdot YS \right).$$ One notes that $0 \le P(\omega) \le 1$. The local $p$-value for a given frequency $\omega$ is $$p(\omega)=\left(1-P(\omega) \right)^{\frac{N-3}{2}}.$$ To obtain the global significance of a minimum in $p(\omega)$, one needs a more complicated account of the look-elsewhere correction, which may be achieved, for instance, by the Monte-Carlo simulations.
Monte-Carlo simulations and expected limits {#app:MC}
===========================================
Monte-Carlo simulation {#app:MC:MC}
----------------------
To perform statistical studies of the data used in this work, we need to compare actual results with those expected for random data sets, in generation of which one assumes the absence of the effect we are looking for. Generation of these sets is not straightforward because the actual data may have intrinsic non-randomness not related to the effect of ULDM. In particular, intrinsic conditions in the sources may induce periodic or quasi-periodic oscillations of EVPA, see e.g.Refs. [@period1; @period2]: we do not know in advance whether these features are present or not. Therefore, assuming fully random values of EVPA based on the experimental error bars would be misleading: to imitate the ULDM effect in such MC sets, (i) periodic fluctuations should appear in various sources and (ii) their periods, by chance, should coincide. If, however, intrinsic periodic background is present in particular sources, the true probability to initiate the signal from fluctuations is determined by (ii) only. We therefore need to keep unknown features, including periodic ones, in the simulated data sets.
To this end, we adopt a time-scaling procedure: to generate MC time series of EVPA measurements for a source, we take the actual data $(t_{i},y_{i})$ and introduce the factor $\xi$, a random number uniformly distributed between 0.5 and 2.5, by which the observational time is scaled. The simulated data set is then $(t'_{i},y_{i})$, where $$t'_i=t_1 +\xi (t_i - t_1)$$ (the measured values of EVPA, $y_{i}$, are taken from the actual data set). The value of $\xi$ is chosen randomly for every source in the sample. In this way, any potential ULDM signal (periodic changes with a common period for all sources in the set), which might be present in the data, is removed while any intrinsic features, including individual periodicity, remain.
Estimate of the expected limits {#app:MC:expected}
-------------------------------
To estimate the limits on the amplitude $\phi$ of periodic oscillations of the polarization angle, we use the following procedure. We generate a large number (2500 for each value of the period $T$ considered) of MC data sets assuming no common periodic effects are present beyond those generated randomly. For every artificial data set, we reconstruct and record the value of $L$, as described in Sec. \[sec:anal\], as a function of $T$. For each given $T$, we determine the 68% CL band, $\Delta L_{68}(T)$, and the mean, $L_{\rm mean}(T)$, of the values of $L$ which assume no signal (see Figure \[fig:expected\], upper panel).
![\[fig:expected\] Calculation of the expected limit based on MC simulations. The upper panel presents the scatter of $L(T)$ in random MC samples (the full line is the mean value and the gray band contains 68% of MC points for a given $T$). For example, for $T=0.5$ yr, the mean value and the 68% band are shown by thick and thin dashed red lines, respectively. The lower panel is based on the Monte-Carlo samples with artificially introduced periodic oscillations of EVPA with a period of 0.5 years and various amplitudes and phases. For a given value of $L$, 95% of the points are below the full red line. The determination of the mean expected 95% CL upper limit and its 68% CL expected range, based on the values of $L$ obtained from the upper panel, is shown by dashed lines.](expected1.pdf "fig:"){width=".65\textwidth"}\
![\[fig:expected\] Calculation of the expected limit based on MC simulations. The upper panel presents the scatter of $L(T)$ in random MC samples (the full line is the mean value and the gray band contains 68% of MC points for a given $T$). For example, for $T=0.5$ yr, the mean value and the 68% band are shown by thick and thin dashed red lines, respectively. The lower panel is based on the Monte-Carlo samples with artificially introduced periodic oscillations of EVPA with a period of 0.5 years and various amplitudes and phases. For a given value of $L$, 95% of the points are below the full red line. The determination of the mean expected 95% CL upper limit and its 68% CL expected range, based on the values of $L$ obtained from the upper panel, is shown by dashed lines.](expected2.pdf "fig:"){width=".65\textwidth"}
This is the band presented in Figure \[fig:result1\] of the main text together with the function $L(T)$ obtained for the real data.
Next, we perform another MC simulation, this time assuming that some ULDM effect is present. For each fixed period $T$, we generate 2500 MC data sets as described above, but with artificially added harmonic oscillations with period $T$, amplitude $\phi$ (fixed for all objects in the set but random from one MC set to another, following a uniform distribution between $0^\circ$ and $15^{\circ}$) and phases $\delta_{i}$ (random for every object in every MC set). Then, still for the fixed $T$, we determine the 95% upper limit on $\phi$ as a function of $L$ as follows. Take the interval $(L-\epsilon, L+\epsilon)$ for a sufficiently small $\epsilon$ ($\epsilon=5$ was used) to have enough data points in this interval and find the value $\phi_{95}$ such that 95% of the MC points in the interval have $\phi<\phi_{95}$. This, for each given $T$, allows us to obtain the function $\phi_{95}(L)$ which we fit by a smooth 4-parametric curve to suppress fluctuations related to particular MC realizations. This function is presented in Figure \[fig:expected\] (lower panel) as a thick red curve for a particular value of $T=0.5$ yr. The values of $\phi_{95}(L_{\rm mean})$ and $\phi_{95}(\Delta L_{68})$, with the values of the arguments obtained at the previous step, give the mean value and the 68% CL band for the expected 95% CL upper limit on $\phi$ for a given $T$, assuming that no ULDM effect is present. This results in the band of expected upper limits as a function of $T$, presented in Figure \[fig:result2\] of the main text together with the limits obtained from the real data in the same way.
[79]{}
T. Marrodan Undagoitia and L. Rauch, *Dark matter direct-detection experiments*, *J. Phys. G* [**43**]{} (2016) 013001 \[arXiv:1509.08767 \[physics.ins-det\]\]. A. Boveia and C. Doglioni, *Dark Matter Searches at Colliders*, *Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.* [**68**]{} (2018) 429 \[arXiv:1810.12238 \[hep-ex\]\]. J. Conrad, J. Cohen-Tanugi and L. E. Strigari, *WIMP searches with gamma rays in the Fermi era: challenges, methods and results*, *J. Exp. Theor. Phys.* [**121**]{} (2015) 1104 \[*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.* [**148**]{} (2015) no.6, 1257\] \[arXiv:1503.06348 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. H. Weinberg *et al.*, *Cold dark matter: controversies on small scales*, *Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.* [**112**]{} (2015) 12249 \[arXiv:1306.0913 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. A. Klypin *et al.*, *Where are the missing Galactic satellites?*, *Astrophys. J.* [**522**]{} (1999) 82 \[astro-ph/9901240\]. B. Moore *et al.*, *Dark matter substructure within galactic halos*, *Astrophys. J.* [**524**]{} (1999) L19 \[astro-ph/9907411\]. M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock and M. Kaplinghat, *Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**415**]{} (2011) L40 \[arXiv:1103.0007 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. R. F. G. Wyse and G. Gilmore, *Observed Properties of Dark Matter on Small Spatial Scales*, *IAU Symp.* [**244**]{} (2008) 44 \[arXiv:0708.1492 \[astro-ph\]\]. P. J. E. Peebles, *Fluid dark matter*, *Astrophys. J.* [**534**]{} (2000) L127 \[astro-ph/0002495\]. J. Goodman, *Repulsive dark matter*, *New Astron.* [**5**]{} (2000) 103 \[astro-ph/0003018\]. W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov, *Cold and fuzzy dark matter*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**85**]{} (2000) 1158 \[astro-ph/0003365\]. M. S. Turner, *Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**28**]{} (1983) 1243. I.I. Tkachev, *Coherent Scalar-Field Oscillations Forming Compact Astrophysical Object*, *Sov. Astron. Lett.* [**12**]{} (1986) 305 \[*Pisma v Astron. Zh.* [**12**]{} (1986) 726\].
M. Khlopov, B. A. Malomed and I. B. Zeldovich, *Gravitational instability of scalar fields and formation of primordial black holes*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**215**]{} (1985) 575. D. J. E. Marsh, *Axion Cosmology*, *Phys. Rept.* [**643**]{} (2016) 1 \[arXiv:1510.07633 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Hui *et al.*, *Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**95**]{} (2017) 043541 \[arXiv:1610.08297 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, *The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics*, *Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.* [**60**]{} (2010) 405 \[arXiv:1002.0329 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Svrcek and E. Witten, *Axions In String Theory*, *JHEP* [**0606**]{} (2006) 051 \[hep-th/0605206\]. A. Arvanitaki *et al.*, *String Axiverse*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**81**]{} (2010) 123530 \[arXiv:0905.4720 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell and A. Ringwald, *The type IIB string axiverse and its low-energy phenomenology*, *JHEP* [**1210**]{} (2012) 146 \[arXiv:1206.0819 \[hep-th\]\]. I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, *New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles*, *Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.* [**102**]{} (2018) 89 \[arXiv:1801.08127 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Giannotti *et al.*, *Stellar Recipes for Axion Hunters*, *JCAP* [**1710**]{} (2017) 010 \[arXiv:1708.02111 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. V. Troitsky, *Axion-like particles and the propagation of gamma rays over astronomical distances*, *JETP Lett.* [**105**]{} (2017) 55 \[arXiv:1612.01864 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, *Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**37**]{} (1988) 1237. H. Y. Schive, T. Chiueh and T. Broadhurst, *Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Coherent Dark Wave*, *Nature Phys.* [**10**]{} (2014) 496 \[arXiv:1406.6586 \[astro-ph.GA\]\]. A. Khmelnitsky and V. Rubakov, *Pulsar timing signal from ultralight scalar dark matter*, *JCAP* [**1402**]{} (2014) 019 \[arXiv:1309.5888 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. N. K. Porayko and K. A. Postnov, *Constraints on ultralight scalar dark matter from pulsar timing*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**90**]{} (2014) 062008 \[arXiv:1408.4670 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. N. K. Porayko [*et al.*]{}, *Parkes Pulsar Timing Array constraints on ultralight scalar-field dark matter*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**98**]{} (2018) 102002 \[arXiv:1810.03227 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. Harari and P. Sikivie, *Effects of a Nambu-Goldstone boson on the polarization of radio galaxies and the cosmic microwave background*, *Phys. Lett.* B [**289**]{}, 67 (1992). J. F. C. Wardle, R. A. Perley and M. H. Cohen, *Observational evidence against birefringence over cosmological distances*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**79**]{} (1997) 1801 \[astro-ph/9705142\]. F. Finelli and M. Galaverni, *Rotation of Linear Polarization Plane and Circular Polarization from Cosmological Pseudo-Scalar Fields*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**79**]{}, 063002 (2009) \[arXiv:0802.4210 \[astro-ph\]\]. S. di Serego Alighieri, F. Finelli and M. Galaverni, *Limits on Cosmological Birefringence from the UV Polarization of Distant Radio Galaxies*, *Astrophys. J.* [**715**]{}, 33 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.4823 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Galaverni *et al.*, *Cosmological birefringence constraints from CMB and astrophysical polarization data*, *JCAP* [**1508**]{}, no. 08, 031 (2015) \[arXiv:1411.6287 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. I. Obata, T. Fujita and Y. Michimura, *Optical Ring Cavity Search for Axion Dark Matter*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**121**]{}, 161301 (2018) \[arXiv:1805.11753 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. W. DeRocco and A. Hook, *Axion interferometry*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**98**]{} 035021 (2018) \[arXiv:1802.07273 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. Liu *et al.*, *Searching for Axion Dark Matter with Birefringent Cavities*, arXiv:1809.01656 \[hep-ph\]. N. Lyskova, E. Churazov, T. Naab, *Mass density slope of elliptical galaxies from strong lensing and resolved stellar kinematics* *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**475**]{}, 2403 (2018) \[1711.01123 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
N. Lyskova *et al.*, *Stellar kinematics of X-ray bright massive elliptical galaxies*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**441**]{} (2014) 2013 \[arXiv:1404.2729 \[astro-ph.GA\]\]. E.W. Greisen, *AIPS, the VLA, and the VLBA*, in: *Astrophysics and Space Science Library 285, Information Handling in Astronomy – Historical Vistas*, Ed. A. Heck, Dordrecht: Kluwer (2003) 109 M.C. Shepherd, *Difmap: an Interactive Program for Synthesis Imaging*, in: *Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI*, Eds. G. Hunt and H.E. Payne, San Francisco: ASP, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, [**125**]{} (1997) 77. M. L. Lister [*et al.*]{}, *MOJAVE: Monitoring of Jets in AGN with VLBA Experiments. V. Multi-epoch VLBA Images*, *Astron. J.* [**137**]{} (2009) 3718 \[arXiv:0812.3947 \[astro-ph\]\]. M. L. Lister [*et al.*]{}, *MOJAVE XIII. Parsec-Scale AGN Jet Kinematics Analysis Based on 19 years of VLBA Observations at 15 GHz*, *Astron. J.* [**152**]{} (2016) 12 \[arXiv:1603.03882 \[astro-ph.GA\]\]. D. C. Homan *et al.*, *MOJAVE XII: Acceleration and Collimation of Blazar Jets on Parsec Scales*, *Astrophys. J.* [**798**]{} (2015) 134 \[arXiv:1410.8502 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. D. C. Homan and M. L. Lister, *MOJAVE: Monitoring of Jets in Active Galactice Nuclei with VLBA Experiments. II. First-Epoch 15-GHz Circular Polarization Results*, *Astron. J.* [**131**]{} (2006) 1262 \[astro-ph/0511838\]. M. L. Lister and D. C. Homan, *MOJAVE: Monitoring of jets in AGN with VLBA experiments. I. First-epoch 15-GHz linear polarization images*, *Astron. J.* [**130**]{} (2005) 1389 \[astro-ph/0503152\]. M.L. Lister *et al.*, *MOJAVE. XV. VLBA 15 GHz Total Intensity and Polarization Maps of 437 Parsec-scale AGN Jets from 1996 to 2017*, *Astrophys. J. Suppl.* (2018) 12 \[arXiv:1711.07802 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
M.A. Hodge *et al.*, *MOJAVE XVI: Multiepoch Linear Polarization Properties of Parsec-scale AGN Jet Cores*, *Astrophys. J.* [**862**]{} (2018) 151 \[arXiv:1806.07312 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
A. Pushkarev *et al.*, *Linear Polarization Properties of Parsec-Scale AGN Jets*, *Galaxies* [**5**]{} (2017) 93 \[arXiv:1712.03025 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
M.L. Lister *et al.*, in preparation.
A.V. Plavin *et al.*, *Significant core shift variability in parsec-scale jets of active galactic nuclei*, *MNRAS, submitted* (2018) \[arXiv:1811.02544 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
A. P. Marscher, *Turbulent, Extreme Multi-zone Model for Simulating Flux and Polarization Variability in Blazars*, *Astrophys. J.* [**780**]{} (2014) 87 \[arXiv:1311.7665 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
J.F.C. Wardle and P.P. Kronberg, *The linear polarization of quasi-stellar radio sources at 3.71 and 11.1 centimeters*, *Astrophys. J.* [**194**]{} (1974) 249.
A.R. Taylor *et al.*, *A Rotation Measure Image of the Sky*, *Astrophys. J.* [**702**]{} (2009) 1230.
N. Oppermann *et al.*, *An improved map of the Galactic Faraday sky*, *Astron. Astrophys.* [**542**]{} (2012) A93 \[arXiv:1111.6186 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
M. Zechmeister and M. Kurster, *The generalised Lomb-Scargle periodogram. A new formalism for the floating-mean and Keplerian periodograms*, *Astron. Astrophys.* [**496**]{} (2009) 577 \[arXiv:0901.2573 \[astro-ph.IM\]\]. J. T. VanderPlas, *Understanding the Lomb-Scargle Periodogram*, *Astrophys. J. Suppl.* [**236**]{} (2018) 16 \[arXiv:1703.09824 \[astro-ph.IM\]\].
P. Gregory, *Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences*, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010
V. Irsic [*et al.*]{}, *First constraints on fuzzy dark matter from Lyman-$\alpha$ forest data and hydrodynamical simulations*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**119**]{} (2017) 031302 \[arXiv:1703.04683 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. K. H. Leong, H. Y. Schive, U. H. Zhang and T. Chiueh, *Testing extreme-axion wave dark matter using the BOSS Lyman-Alpha forest data*, arXiv:1810.05930 \[astro-ph.CO\]. V. Anastassopoulos [*et al.*]{} \[CAST Collaboration\], *New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction*, *Nature Phys.* [**13**]{} (2017) 584 \[arXiv:1705.02290 \[hep-ex\]\]. A. Ayala *et al.*, *Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from Globular Clusters*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**113**]{} (2014) no.19, 191302 \[arXiv:1406.6053 \[astro-ph.SR\]\]. A. Payez *et al.*, *Revisiting the SN1987A gamma-ray limit on ultralight axion-like particles*, *JCAP* [**1502**]{} (2015) 006 \[arXiv:1410.3747 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. D. Wouters and P. Brun, *Constraints on Axion-like Particles from X-Ray Observations of the Hydra Galaxy Cluster*, *Astrophys. J.* [**772**]{} (2013) 44 \[arXiv:1304.0989 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. M. Berg *et al.*, *Constraints on Axion-Like Particles from X-ray Observations of NGC 1275*, *Astrophys. J.* [**847**]{} (2017) 101 \[arXiv:1605.01043 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. M. C. D. Marsh *et al.*, *A New Bound on Axion-Like Particles*, *JCAP* [**1712**]{} (2017) 036 \[arXiv:1703.07354 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. P. Conlon *et al.*, *Constraints on Axion-Like Particles from Non-Observation of Spectral Modulations for X-ray Point Sources*, *JCAP* [**1707**]{} (2017) 005 \[arXiv:1704.05256 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. V. Anastassopoulos [*et al.*]{} \[TASTE Collaboration\], *Towards a medium-scale axion helioscope and haloscope*, *JINST* [**12**]{} (2017) no.11, P11019 \[arXiv:1706.09378 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. G. Irastorza [*et al.*]{}, *Towards a new generation axion helioscope*, *JCAP* [**1106**]{} (2011) 013 \[arXiv:1103.5334 \[hep-ex\]\]. J. P. Conlon, F. Day, N. Jennings, S. Krippendorf and F. Muia, *Projected bounds on ALPs from Athena*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**473**]{} (2018) 4932 \[arXiv:1707.00176 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. K. Ehret [*et al.*]{}, *New ALPS Results on Hidden-Sector Lightweights*, *Phys. Lett.* B [**689**]{} (2010) 149 \[arXiv:1004.1313 \[hep-ex\]\]. R. Ballou [*et al.*]{} \[OSQAR Collaboration\], *New exclusion limits on scalar and pseudoscalar axionlike particles from light shining through a wall*, *Phys. Rev.* D [**92**]{} (2015) 092002 \[arXiv:1506.08082 \[hep-ex\]\]. F. Della Valle *et al.*, *The PVLAS experiment: measuring vacuum magnetic birefringence and dichroism with a birefringent Fabry-Perot cavity*, *Eur. Phys. J.* C [**76**]{} (2016) 24 \[arXiv:1510.08052 \[physics.optics\]\]. R. Bahre [*et al.*]{}, *Any light particle search II -Technical Design Report*, *JINST* [**8**]{} (2013) T09001 \[arXiv:1302.5647 \[physics.ins-det\]\]. T. Fujita, R. Tazaki and K. Toma, *Hunting Axion Dark Matter with Protoplanetary Disks*, arXiv:1811.03525 \[astro-ph.CO\]. G. Sigl, P. Trivedi, *Axion-like Dark Matter Constraints from CMB Birefringence*, arXiv:1811.07873 \[astro-ph.CO\]. M. Ivanov and A. Panin, in preparation.
J. Hashimoto [*et al.*]{}, *Direct Imaging of Fine Structures in Giant Planet Forming Regions of the Protoplanetary Disk around AB Aurigae*, *Astrophys. J.* [**729**]{} (2011) \[arXiv:1102.4408 \[astro-ph.SR\]\]. M. H. Cohen [*et al.*]{}, *Reversals in the Direction of Polarization Rotation in OJ 287*, *Astrophys. J.* [**862**]{} (2018) 1 \[arXiv:1806.02870 \[astro-ph.GA\]\]. H. Zhang *et al.*, *Large-Amplitude Blazar Polarization Angle Swing as a Signature of Magnetic Reconnection*, *Astrophys. J.* [**862**]{} (2018) L25 \[arXiv:1807.08420 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
[^1]: <http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astro/MOJAVE/allsources.html>
[^2]: A slightly stronger constraint was reported in Ref. [@1704.05256] for a Seyfert galaxy 2E 3140 in the Abell 1795 cluster; however, the precise location of this galaxy within the cluster is unknown.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a neural network architecture and training method designed to enable very rapid training and low implementation complexity. Due to its training speed and very few tunable parameters, the method has strong potential for applications requiring frequent retraining or online training. The approach is characterized by (a) convolutional filters based on biologically inspired visual processing filters, (b) randomly-valued classifier-stage input weights, (c) use of least squares regression to train the classifier output weights in a single batch, and (d) linear classifier-stage output units. We demonstrate the efficacy of the method by applying it to image classification. Our results match existing state-of-the-art results on the MNIST (0.37% error) and NORB-small (2.2% error) image classification databases, but with very fast training times compared to standard deep network approaches. The network’s performance on the Google Street View House Number (SVHN) (4% error) database is also competitive with state-of-the art methods.'
author:
-
title: 'Enhanced Image Classification With a Fast-Learning Shallow Convolutional Neural Network'
---
Introduction
============
State-of-the-art performance on many image classification databases has been achieved recently using multilayered (i.e., [*deep*]{}) neural networks [@Schmidhuber.15]. Such performance generally relies on a convolutional feature extraction stage to obtain invariance to translations, rotations and scale [@LeCun.98; @Coates.11; @Coates.11a; @Le.10]. Training of deep networks, however, often requires significant resources, in terms of time, memory and computing power (e.g. in the order of hours on GPU clusters). Tasks that require online learning, or periodic replacement of all network weights based on fresh data may thus not be able to benefit from deep learning techniques. It is desirable, therefore, to seek very rapid training methods, even if this is potentially at the expense of a small performance decrease.
Recent work has shown that good performance on image classification tasks can be achieved in ‘shallow’ convolutional networks—neural architectures containing a single training layer—provided sufficiently many features are extracted [@Coates.11]. Perhaps surprisingly, such performance arises even with the use of entirely random convolutional filters or filters based on randomly selected patches from training images [@Coates.11a]. Although application of a relatively large numbers of filters is common (followed by spatial image smoothing and downsampling), good classification performance can also be obtained with a sparse feature representation (i.e. relatively few filters and minimal downsampling) [@Le.10].
Based on these insights and the goal of devising a fast training method, we introduce a method for combining several existing general techniques into what is equivalent to a five layer neural network (see Figure \[fig\_sim\]) with only a single trained layer (the output layer), and show that the method:
1. produces state-of-the-art results on well known image classification databases;
2. is trainable in times in the order of minutes (up to several hours for large training sets) on standard desktop/laptop computers;
3. is sufficiently versatile that the same hyper-parameter sets can be applied to different datasets and still produce results comparable to dataset-specific optimisation of hyper-parameters.
The fast training method we use has been developed independently several times [@Schmidt.92; @Chen.96; @Eliasmith; @Huang.04] and has gained increasing recognition in recent years—see [@Eliasmith.12; @Stewart.14a; @Huang.12; @Huang.14] for recent reviews of the different contexts and applications. The network architecture in the classification stage is that of a three layer neural network comprised from an input layer, a hidden layer of nonlinear units, and a linear output layer. The input weights are randomly chosen and untrained, and the output weights are trained in a single batch using least squares regression. Due to the convexity of the objective function, this method ensures the output weights are optimally chosen for a given set of random input weights. The rapid speed of training is due to the fact that the least squares optimisation problem an be solved using an O($KM^2$) algorithm, where $M$ is the number of hidden units and $K$ the number of training points [@McDonnell.15PLOS].
When applied to pixel-level features, these networks can be trained as discriminative classifiers and produce excellent results on simple image databases [@vanSchaik.14; @Tapson.14; @Yu.12; @Zhu.14; @McDonnell.15PLOS; @Zhu.15] but poor performance on more difficult ones. To our knowledge, however, the method has not yet been applied to convolutional features.
Therefore, we have devised a network architecture (see Figure \[fig\_sim\]) that consists of three key elements that work together to ensure fast learning and good classification performance: namely, the use of (a) convolutional feature extraction, (b) random-valued input weights for classification, (c) least squares training of output weights that feed in to (d) linear output units. We apply our network to several image classification databases, including MNIST [@MNIST], CIFAR-10 [@Krizhevsky], Google Street View House Numbers (SVHN) [@SVHN] and NORB [@LeCun.04]. The network produces state-of-the-art classification results on MNIST and NORB-small databases and near state-of-the-art performance on SVHN.
These promising results are presented in this paper to demonstrate the potential benefits of the method; clearly further innovations within the method are required if it is to be competitive on harder datasets like CIFAR-10, or Imagenet. We expect that the most likely avenues for improving our presented results for CIFAR-10, whilst retaining the method’s core attributes, are (1) to introduce limited training of the Stage 1 filters by generalizing the method of [@Yu.12]; (2) introduction of training data augmentation. We aim to pursuing these directions in our future work.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[S:2\] contains a generic description of the network architecture and the algorithms we use for obtaining convolutional features and classifying inputs based on them. Section \[S:3\] describes how the generic architecture and training algorithms are [*specifically*]{} applied to four well-known benchmark image classification datasets. Next, Section \[S:4\] describes the results we obtained for these datasets, and finally the paper concludes with discussion and remarks in Section \[S:5\].
Network architecture and training algorithms {#S:2}
============================================
{width="2\columnwidth"}
The overall network is shown in Figure \[fig\_sim\]. There are three hidden layers with nonlinear units, and four layers of weights. The first layer of weights is the convolutional filter layer. The second layer is a pooling (low pass filtering) and downsampling layer. The third layer is a random projection layer. The fourth layer is the only trained layer. The output layer has linear units.
The network can be conceptually divided into two stages and two algorithms, that to our knowledge have not previously been combined. The first stage is the convolutional feature extraction stage, and largely follows that of existing approaches to image classification [@Coates.11; @Coates.11a; @Le.10; @Sermanet.12]. The second stage is the classifier stage, and largely follows the approach of [@Zhu.15; @McDonnell.15PLOS]. We now describe the two stages in detail.
Stage 1 Architecture: Convolutional filtering and pooling {#S:Stage1}
---------------------------------------------------------
The algorithm we apply to extract features from images (including those with multiple channels) is summarised in [**Algorithm \[algorithm1\]**]{}. Note that the details of the filters ${\bf h}_{i,c}$ and ${\bf h}_{\rm p}$ described in [**Algorithm \[algorithm1\]**]{} are given in Section \[S:filters\], but here we introduce the size of these two-dimensional filters as $W\times W$ and $Q\times Q$. The functions $g_1(\cdot)$ and $g_2(\cdot)$ are nonlinear transformations applied termwise to matrix inputs to produce matrix outputs of the same size. The symbol \* represents two-dimensional convolution.
\[algorithm1\]
This sequence of steps in [**Algorithm \[algorithm1\]**]{} suggest looping over all images and channels sequentially. However, the following mathematical formulation of the algorithm indicates a standard layered neural network formulation of this algorithm is applicable, as shown in Figure \[fig\_sim\], and therefore that computation of all features (${\bf f}_{k},k=1,..K$ ) can be obtained in one shot from a $K$-column matrix containing a batch of $K$ training points.
The key to this formulation is to note that since convolution is a linear operator, a matrix can be constructed that when multiplied by a data matrix produces the same result as convolution applied to one instance of the data. Hence, for a total of $L$ features per image, we introduce the following matrices.
Let
- ${\bf F}$ be a feature matrix of size $L\times K$;
- ${\bf X}$ be a data matrix with $K$ columns;
- ${\bf W}_{\rm Filter}$ be a concatenation of the $CP$ convolution matrices corresponding to ${\bf h}_{i,c}~i=1,\dots P,c=1,\dots C$;
- ${\bf W}_0$ be a convolution matrix corresponding to ${\bf h}_l$, that also down samples by a factor of $D$;
- ${\bf W}_{\rm Pool}$ be a block diagonal matrix containing $CP$ copies of ${\bf W}_0$ on the diagonals.
The entire flow described in Algorithm \[algorithm1\] can be written mathematically as $${\bf F} = g_2({\bf W}_{\rm Pool}~g_1({\bf W}_{\rm Filter}{\bf X})),$$ where $g_1(\cdot)$ and $g_2(\cdot)$ are applied term by term to all elements of their arguments. The matrices ${\bf W}_{\rm Filter}$ and ${\bf W}_{\rm Pool}$ are sparse Toeplitz matrices. In practice we would not form them directly, but instead form one pooling matrix, and one filtering matrix for each filter, and sequential apply each filter to the entire data matrix, ${\bf X}$.
We use a particular form for the nonlinear hidden-unit functions $g_1(\cdot)$ and $g_2(\cdot)$ inspired by [*LP-pooling*]{} [@Sermanet.12], which is of the form $g_1(u) = u^p$ and $g_2(v) = v^{\frac{1}{p}}$. For example, with $p=2$ we have $${\bf F} = \sqrt{{\bf W}_{\rm Pool}~({\bf W}_{\rm Filter}{\bf X})^2}.$$
An intuitive explanation for the use of LP-pooling is as follows. First, note that each hidden unit receives as input a linear combination of a patch of the input data, i.e. $u$ in $g_1(u)$ has the form $u=\sum_{j=1}^{W^2}h_{i,c,j}x_{i,j}$. Hence, squaring $u$ results in a sum that contains terms proportional to $x_{i,j}^2$ and terms proportional to products of each $x_{i,j}$. Thus, squaring is a simple way to produce hidden layer responses that depend on the product of pairs of input data elements, i.e. [*interaction terms*]{}, and this is important for discriminability. Second, the square root transforms the distribution of the hidden-unit responses; we have observed that in practice, the result of the square root operation is often a distribution that is closer to Gaussian than without it, which helps to regularise the least squares regression method of training the output weights.
However, as will be described shortly, the classifier of Stage 2 also has a square nonlinearity. Using this nonlinearity, we have found that classification performance is generally optimised by taking the square root of the input to the random projection layer. Based on this observation, we do not strictly use LP-pooling, and instead set $$\label{g1_a}
g_1(u) = u^2,$$ and $$\label{g2_a}
g_2(v) = v^{0.25}.$$ This effectively combines the implementation of L2-pooling, and the subsequent square root operation.
Stage 2 Architecture: Classifier
--------------------------------
The following descriptions are applicable whether or not raw pixels are treated as features or the input is the features extracted in stage 1. First, we introduce notation. Let:
- ${\bf F}_{\rm train}$, of size $L\times K$, contain each length $L$ feature vector;
- ${\bf Y}_{\rm label}$ be an indicator matrix of size $N\times K$, which numerically represents the labels of each training vector, where there are $N$ classes—we set each column to have a $1$ in a single row, corresponding to the label class for each training vector, and all other entries to be zero;
- ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$, of size $M\times L$ be the real-valued input weights matrix for the classifier stage;
- ${\bf W}_{\rm out}$, of size $N\times M$ be the real-valued output weights matrix for the classifier stage;
- the function $g(\cdot)$ be the activation function of each hidden-unit; for example, $g(\cdot)$ may be the logistic sigmoid, $g(z) = 1/(1+\exp(-z))$, or a squarer, $g(z)=z^2$;
- ${\bf A}_{\rm train}=g({\bf W_{\rm in}}{\bf F_{\rm train}})$, of size $M\times K$, contain the hidden-unit activations that occur due to each feature vector; $g(\cdot)$ is applied termwise to each element in the matrix ${\bf W_{\rm in}}{\bf F_{\rm train}}$.
Stage 1 Training: Filters and Pooling
-------------------------------------
In this paper we do not employ any form of training for the filters and pooling matrices. The details of the filter weights and form of pooling used for the example classification problems presented in this paper are given Section \[S:3\].
Stage 2 Training: Classifier Weights
------------------------------------
The training approach for the classifier is that described by e.g. [@Schmidt.92; @Chen.96; @Eliasmith; @Huang.14]. The default situation for these methods is that the input weights, ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$, are generated randomly from a specific distribution, e.g. standard Gaussian, uniform, or bipolar. However, it is known that setting these weights non-randomly based on the training data leads to superior performance [@McDonnell.15PLOS; @Tapson.14; @Zhu.15]. In this paper, we use the method of [@Zhu.15]. The input weights can also be trained iteratively, if desired, using single-batch backpropagation [@Yu.12].
Given a choice of ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$, the output weights matrix is determined according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T2}
{\bf W}_{\rm out} = {\bf Y}_{\rm label}{\bf A}_{\rm train}^+,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf A}_{\rm train}^+$ is the size $K\times M$ Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse corresponding to ${\bf A}_{\rm train}$. This solution is equivalent to least squares regression applied to an overcomplete set of linear equations, with an $N$-dimensional target. It is known to often be useful to regularise such problems, and instead solve the following [*ridge regression*]{} problem [@Huang.12; @Huang.14]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q}
{\bf W}_{\rm out} &= {\bf Y}_{\rm label}{\bf A}_{\rm train}^{\top}({\bf A}_{\rm train}{\bf A}_{\rm train}^{\top}+c{\bf I})^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a hyper-parameter and ${\bf I}$ is the $M\times M$ identity matrix. In practice, it is efficient to avoid explicit calculation of the inverse in Equation (\[Q\]) [@McDonnell.15PLOS] and instead use QR factorisation to solve the following set of $NM$ linear equations for the $NM$ unknown variables in ${\bf W}_{\rm out}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Final}
{\bf Y}_{\rm label}{\bf A}_{\rm train}^{\top} &= {\bf W}_{\rm out}({\bf A}_{\rm train}{\bf A}_{\rm train}^{\top}+c{\bf I}).\end{aligned}$$ Above we mentioned two algorithms, and [**Algorithm 2**]{} is simply to form ${\bf A}_{\rm train}$ and solve Eqn. (\[Final\]), followed by optimisation of $c$ using ridge regression. For large $M$ and $K>M$ (which is typically valid) the runtime bottleneck for this method is typically the O$(KM^2)$ matrix multiplication required to obtain the Gram matrix, ${\bf A}_{\rm train}{\bf A}_{\rm train}^{\top}$.
Application to Test Data
------------------------
For a total of $K_{\rm test}$ test images contained in a matrix ${\bf X}_{\rm test}$, we first obtain a matrix ${\bf F}_{\rm test}=g_2({\bf W}_{\rm Pool}~g_1({\bf W}_{\rm Filter}{\bf X_{\rm test}}))$, of size $L\times K_{\rm test}$, by following [**Algorithm \[algorithm1\]**]{}. The output of the classifier is then the $N\times K_{\rm test}$ matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Y_test}
{\bf Y}_{\rm test}& = {\bf W}_{\rm out}~g({\bf W_{\rm in}}{\bf F_{\rm test}})\\
&= {\bf W}_{\rm out}~g({\bf W_{\rm in}}~g_2({\bf W}_{\rm Pool}~g_1({\bf W}_{\rm Filter}{\bf X}))).\end{aligned}$$ Note that we can write the response to all test images in terms of the training data: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf Y}_{\rm test}& = {\bf Y}_{\rm label}\left(g({\bf W_{\rm in}}{\bf F_{\rm train}})\right)^+~g({\bf W_{\rm in}}{\bf F_{\rm test}})\label{Y_test1a}\\
{\rm~where~~~~~}&\notag\\
{\bf F}_{\rm train}&=g_2({\bf W}_{\rm Pool}~g_1({\bf W}_{\rm Filter}{\bf X_{\rm train}}))\label{Y_test1b}\\
{\bf F}_{\rm test}&=g_2({\bf W}_{\rm Pool}~g_1({\bf W}_{\rm Filter}{\bf X_{\rm test}}))\label{Y_test1c}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, since the pseudo-inverse, $(\cdot)^+$, can be obtained from Equation (\[Q\]), Equations (\[Y\_test1a\]), (\[Y\_test1b\]) and (\[Y\_test1c\]) constitute a closed-form solution for the entire test-data classification output, given specified matrices, ${\bf W}_{\rm filter}$, ${\bf W}_{\rm pool}$ and ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$, and hidden-unit activation functions, $g_1, g_2$, and $g$.
The final classification decision for each image is obtained by taking the index of the maximum value of each column of ${\bf Y}_{\rm test}$.
Image Classification Experiments: Specific Design {#S:3}
=================================================
We examined the method’s performance when used as a classifier of images. Table \[Table1\] lists the attributes of four well known databases we used. For the two databases comprised from RGB images, we used $C=4$ channels, namely the raw RGB channels, and a conversion to greyscale. This approach was shown to be effective for SVHN in [@Sermanet].
Database Classes Training Test Channels Pixels
------------------------- --------- ---------- ------- ------------ --------------
MNIST [@MNIST] 10 60000 10000 1 28$\times$28
NORB-small [@LeCun.04] 5 24300 24300 2 (stereo) 32$\times$32
SVHN [@SVHN] 10 604308 26032 3 (RGB) 32$\times$32
CIFAR-10 [@Krizhevsky] 10 50000 10000 3 (RGB) 32$\times$32
: **[Image Databases. Note that the NORB-small database consists of images of size $96 \times 96$ pixels, but we first downsampled all training and test images to $32 \times 32$ pixels, as in [@Le.10].]{}**[]{data-label="Table1"}
\
Preprocessing
-------------
All raw image pixel values were scaled to the interval $[0,1]$. Due to the use of quadratic nonlinearities and LP-pooling, this scaling does not affect performance. The only other preprocessing done was as follows:
1. MNIST: None;
2. NORB-small: downsample from 96$\times$96 to 32$\times$32, for implementation efficiency reasons (this is consistent with some previous work on NORB-small, e.g. [@Le.10]);
3. SVHN: convert from 3 channels to 4 by adding a conversion to greyscale from the raw RGB. We found that local and/or global contrast enhancement only diminished performance;
4. CIFAR-10: convert from 3 channels to 4 by adding a conversion to greyscale from the raw RGB; apply ZCA whitening to each channel of each image, as in [@Coates.11].
Stage 1 Design: Filters and Pooling {#S:s1design}
-----------------------------------
\[S:filters\]
Since our objective here was to train only a single layer of the network, we did not seek to train the network to find filters optimised for the training set. Instead, for the size $W\times W$ two-dimension filters, ${\bf h}_{i,c}$, we considered the following options:
1. simple rotated bar and corner filters, and square uniform centre-surround filters;
2. filters trained on Imagenet and made available in Overfeat [@Sermanet.14_overfeat]; we used only the 96 stage-1 ‘accurate’ 7$\times$7 filters;
3. patches obtained from the central $W\times W$ region of randomly selected training images, with $P/N$ training images from each class.
The filters from Overfeat[^1] are RGB filters. Hence, for the databases with RGB images, we applied each channel of the filter to the corresponding channel of each image. When applied to greyscale channels, we converted the Overfeat filter to greyscale. For NORB, we applied the same filter to both stereo channels. For all filters, we subtract the mean value over all $W^2$ dimensions in each channel, in order to ensure a mean of zero in each channel.
In implementing the two-dimensional convolution operation required for filtering the raw images using ${\bf h}_{i,c}$, we obtained only the central ‘valid’ region, i.e. for images of size $J\times J$, the total dimension of the valid region is $(J-W+1)^2$. Consequently, the total number of features per image obtained prior to pooling, from $P$ filters, and images with $C$ channels is $L= CP(J-W+1)^2$.
In previous work, e.g. [@Sermanet.12], the form of the $Q\times Q$ two-dimension filter, ${\bf h}_{\rm p}$ is a normalised Gaussian. Instead, we used a simple summing filter, equivalent to a kernel with all entries equal to the same value, i.e. $$\label{h_pool}
{\bf h}_{{\rm p},u,v}=\frac{1}{Q^2},\quad~u=1,\dots Q, v=1,\dots Q.$$ In implementing the two-dimensional convolution operation required for filtering using ${\bf h}_{{\rm p}}$, we obtained the ‘full’ convolutional region, which for images of size $J\times J$ is $(J-W+Q)^2$, given the ‘valid’ convolution first applied using ${\bf h}_{i,c}$, as described above.
The remaining part of the pooling step is to downsample each image dimension by a factor of $D$, resulting in a total of $\hat{L} = L/D^2$ features per image. In choosing $D$, we experimented with a variety of scales before settling on the value shown in Table \[Table2\]. We note there exists an interesting tradeoff between the number of filters $P$, and the downsampling factor, $D$. For example, in [@Coates.11], $D=L/2$, whereas in [@Le.10] $D=1$. We found that, up to a point, smaller $D$ enables a smaller number of filters, $P$, for comparable performance.
The hyper-parameters we used for each dataset are shown in Table \[Table2\].
Hyper-parameter MNIST NORB SVHN CIFAR-10
------------------------ ------- ------ ------ ----------
Filter size, $W$ 7 7 7 7
Pooling size, $Q$ 8 10 7 7
Downsample factor, $D$ 2 2 5 3
: **[Stage 1 Hyper-parameters (Convolutional Feature Extraction). ]{}**[]{data-label="Table2"}
\
Stage 2 Design: Classifier projection weights
---------------------------------------------
To construct the matrix ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$ we use the method proposed by [@Zhu.14]. In this method, each row of the matrix ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$ is chosen to be a normalized difference between the data vectors corresponding to randomly chosen examples from distinct classes of the training set. This method has previously been shown to be superior to setting the weights to values chosen from random distributions [@Zhu.14; @McDonnell.15PLOS].
For the nonlinearity in the classifier stage hidden units, $g(z)$, the typical choice in other work [@Huang.14] is a sigmoid. However, we found it sufficient (and much faster in an implementation) to use the quadratic nonlinearity. This suggests that good image classification is strongly dependent on the presence of interaction terms—see the discussion about this in Section \[S:Stage1\].
Stage 2 Design: Ridge Regression parameter
------------------------------------------
With these choices, there remains only two hyper-parameters for the Classifier stage: the regression parameter, $c$, and the number of hidden-units, $M$. In our experiments, we examined classification error rates as a function of varying $M$. For each $M$, we can optimize $c$ using cross-validation. However, we also found that a good generic heuristic for setting $c$ was $$c = \frac{N^2}{M^2}{\rm min}({\rm diag}({\bf A}_{\rm train}{\bf A}_{\rm train}^{\top})),$$ and this reduces the number of hyper-parameters for the classification stage to just one: the number of hidden-units, $M$.
Stage 1 and 2 Design: Nonlinearities
------------------------------------
For the hidden-layer nonlinearities, to reiterate, we use: $$\label{nonlin}
g_1(u) = u^2,~g_2(v) = v^{0.25},~g(z) = z^2.$$
Results {#S:4}
=======
We examined the performance of the network on classifying the test images in the four chosen databases, as a function of the number of filters, $P$, the downsampling rate $D$, and the number of hidden units in the classifier stage, $M$. We use the maximum number of channels, $C$, available in each dataset (recall from above that we convert RGB images to greyscale, as a fourth channel).
We considered the three kinds of untuned filters described in Section \[S:s1design\], as well as combinations of them. We did not exhaustively consider all options, but settled on the Overfeat filters as being marginally superior for NORB, SVHN and CIFAR-10 (in the order of 1% in comparison with other options), while hand-designed filters were superior for MNIST, but only marginally compared to randomly selected patches from the training data. There is clearly more that can be investigated to determine whether hand-designed filters can match trained filters when using the method of this paper.
Summary of best performance attained
------------------------------------
The best performance we achieved is summarised in Table \[Table4\].
Database $C$ $M$ $P$ Our best State-of-the-art
------------ ----- ------- ------ ---------- -----------------------------
MNIST 1 12000 60 0.37% 0.39% [@Mairal.14; @Lee.14]
NORB-small 2 3200 $60$ 2.21% 2.53% [@Ciresan.11]
SVHN 4 40000 $96$ 3.96% 1.92% [@Lee.14]
CIFAR-10 4 40000 $96$ 24.14% 9.78% [@Lee.14]
: **[Results for various databases. The state-of-the-art result listed for MNIST and CIFAR-10 can be improved by augmenting the training set with distortions and other methods [@Simard.03; @Ciresan.10; @Ciresan.12]; we have not done so here, and report state-of-the-art only for methods not doing so.]{}**[]{data-label="Table4"}
\
Trend with increasing $M$
-------------------------
We now use MNIST as an example to indicate how classification performance scales with the number of hidden units in the classifier stage, $M$. The remain parameters were $W=7$, $D=3$ and $P=43$, which included hand-designed filters comprised from 20 rotated bars (width of one pixel), 20 rotated corners (dimension 4 pixels) and 3 centred squares (dimensions 3, 4 and 5 pixels), all with zero mean. The rotations were of binary filters and used standard pixel value interpolation. Figure \[fig\_MNIST\] shows a power law-like decrease in error rate as $M$ increases, with a linear trend on the log-log axes. The best error rate shown on this figure is 0.40%. As shown in Table \[Table4\], we have attained a best repeatable rate of $0.37$% using 60 filters and $D=2$. When we combined Overfeat filters with hand-designed filters and randomly selected patches from the training data, we obtained up to $0.32$% error on MNIST, but this was an outlier since it was not repeatedly obtained by different samples of ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$.
![Example set of error percentage value on the 10000 MNIST test images, for ten repetitions of the selection ${\bf W}_{\rm in}$. The best result shown is 40 errors out of 10000. Increasing $M$ above 6400 saturates in performance.[]{data-label="fig_MNIST"}](IJCNN_MNIST){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Indicative training times
-------------------------
For an implementation in Matlab on a PC with 4 cores and 32 GB of RAM, for MNIST (60000 training points) the total time required to generate all features for all 60000 training images from one filter is approximately 2 seconds. The largest number of filters we used to date was 384 (96 RGB+greyscale), and when applied to SVHN ($\sim$600000 training points), the total run time for feature extraction is then about two hours (in this case we used batches of size 100000 images).
The runtime we achieve for feature generation benefits from carrying out convolutions using matrix multiplication applied to large batches simultaneously; if instead we iterate over all training images individually, but still carry out convolutions using matrix multiplication, the time for generating features approximately doubles. Note also that we employ Matlab’s sparse matrix data structure functionality to represent ${\bf W}_{\rm Filter}$ and ${\bf W}_{\rm Pool}$, which also provides a speed boost when multiplying these matrices to carry out the convolutions. If we do not use the matrix-multiplication method for convolution, and instead apply two-dimensional convolutions to each individual image, the feature generation is slowed even more.
For the classifier stage, on MNIST with $M=6400$, the runtime is approximately 150 seconds for $D=3$ (there is a small time penalty for smaller $D$, due to the larger dimension of the input to the classifier stage). Hence, the total run time for MNIST with 40 filters and $M=6400$ is in the order of 4 minutes to achieve a correct classification rate above 99.5%. With fewer filters and smaller $M$, it is simple to achieve over 99.2% in a minute or less.
For SVHN and CIFAR-10 where we scaled up to $M=40000$, the run time bottleneck is the classifier, due to the $O(KM^2)$ runtime complexity. We found it necessary to use a PC with more RAM (peak usage was approximately 70 GB) for $M>20000$. In the case of $M=40000$, the network was trained in under an hour on CIFAR-10, while SVHN took about 8-9 hours. Results within a few percent of our best, however, can be obtained in far less time.
Discussion and Conclusions {#S:5}
==========================
As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the potential benefits of the method presented, namely that it can attain excellent results with a rapid training speed and low implementation complexity, whilst only suffering from reduced performance relative to state-of-the-art on particularly hard problems.
In terms of efficacy on classification tasks, as shown in Table \[Table4\], our best result (0.37% error rate) surpasses the best ever reported performance for classification of the MNIST test set when no augmentation of the training set is done. We have also achieved, to our knowledge, the best performance reported in the literature for the NORB-small database, surpassing the previous best [@Ciresan.11] by about 0.3%.
For SVHN, our best result is within $\sim2$% of state-of-the-art. It is highly likely that using filters trained on the SVHN database rather than on Imagenet would reduce this gap, given the structured nature of digits, as opposed to the more complex nature of Imagenet images. Another avenue for closing the gap on state-of-the-art using the same filters would be to increase $M$ and decrease $D$, thus resulting in more features and more classifier hidden units. Although we increased $M$ to 40000, we did not observe saturation in the error rate as we increased $M$ to this point.
For CIFAR-10, it is less clear what is lacking in our method in comparison with the gap of about 14% to state-of-the-art methods. We note that CIFAR-10 has relatively few training points, and we observed that the gap between classification performance on the actual training set, in comparison with the test set, can be up to 20%. This suggests that designing enhanced methods of regularisation (e.g. methods similar to dropout in the convolutional stage, or data augmentation) are necessary to ensure our method can achieve good performance on CIFAR-10. Another possibility is to use a nonlinearity in the classifier stage that ensures the hidden-layer responses reflect higher order correlations than possible from the squaring function we used. However, we expect that training the convolutional filters in Stage 1 so that they extract features that are more discriminative for the specific dataset will be the most likely enhancement for improving results on CIFAR-10.
Finally, we note that there exist iterative approaches for training the classifier component of Stage 2 using least squares regression, and without training the input weights—see, e.g., [@Tapson.13; @Widrow.13; @McDonnell.15PLOS]. These methods can be easily adapted for use with the convolutional front-end, if, for example, additional batches of training data become available, or if the problem involves online learning.
In closing, following acceptance of this paper, we became aware of a newly published paper that combines convolutional feature extraction with least squares regression training of classifier weights to obtain good results for the NORB dataset [@Huang.15]. The three main differences between the method of the current paper and the method of [@Huang.15] are as follows. First, we used a hidden layer in our classifier stage, whereas [@Huang.15] solves for output weights using least squares regression applied to the output of the pooling stage. Second, we used a variety of methods for the convolutional filter weights, whereas [@Huang.15] uses orthogonalised random weights only. Third, we downsample following pooling, whereas [@Huang.15] does not do so.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Mark D. McDonnell’s contribution was by supported by an Australian Research Fellowship from the Australian Research Council (project number DP1093425). We gratefully acknowledge Prof David Kearney and Dr Victor Stamatescu from University of South Australia and Dr Sebastien Wong of DSTO, Australia, for useful discussions and provision of computing resources. We also acknowledge discussions with Prof Philip De Chazal of University of Sydney.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
J. Schmidhuber, “Deep learning in neural networks: [A]{}n overview,” *Neural Networks*, vol. 61, pp. 85–117, 2015.
Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,” *Proceedings of the IEEE*, vol. 86, pp. 2278–2324, 1998.
A. Coates, H. Lee, and A. Y. Ng, “An analysis of single-layer networks in unsupervised feature learning,” in *Proc.14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), 2011, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA. Volume 15 of JMLR:W&CP 15*, 2011.
A. Coates and A. Y. Ng, “The importance of encoding versus training with sparse coding and vector quantization,” in *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Bellevue, WA, USA*, 2011.
Q. V. Le, J. Ngiam, Z. Chen, D. Chia, P. W. Koh, and A. Y. Ng, “Tiled convolutional neural networks,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23*, J. Lafferty, C. Williams, J. Shawe-Taylor, R. Zemel, and A. Culotta, Eds., 2010, pp. 1279–1287.
P. F. Schmidt, M. A. Kraaijveld, and R. P. W. Duin, “Feed forward neural networks with random weights,” in *Proc. 11th IAPR Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition, Volume II, Conf. B: Pattern Recognition Methodology and Systems (ICPR11, The Hague, Aug.30 - Sep.3), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1992, 1-4*, 1992.
C. L. P. Chen, “A rapid supervised learning neural network for function interpolation and approximation,” *IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks*, vol. 7, pp. 1220–1230, 1996.
C. Eliasmith and C. H. Anderson, *Neural Engineering: Computation, Representation, and Dynamics in Neurobiological Systems*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emMIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003.
G.-B. Huang, Q.-Y. Zhu, and C.-K. Siew, “Extreme learning machine: [A]{} new learning scheme of feedforward neural networks,” in *In Proc. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN’2004), (Budapest, Hungary), July 25-29*, 2004.
C. Eliasmith, T. C. Stewart, X. Choo, T. Bekolay, T. [DeWolf]{}, C. Tang, and D. Rasmussen, “A large-scale model of the functioning brain,” *Science*, vol. 338, pp. 1202–1205, 2012.
T. C. Stewart and C. Eliasmith, “Large-scale synthesis of functional spiking neural circuits,” *Proceedings of the IEEE*, vol. 102, pp. 881–898, 2014.
G.-B. Huang, H. Zhou, X. Ding, and R. Zhang, “Extreme learning machine for regression and multiclass classification,” *IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part B: Cybernetics*, vol. 42, pp. 513–529, 2012.
G.-B. Huang, “An insight into extreme learning machines: [R]{}andom neurons, random features and kernels,” *Cognitive Computation*, vol. 6, pp. 376–390, 2014.
M. D. McDonnell, M. D. Tissera, T. Vladusich, A. [van Schaik]{}, and J. Tapson, “Fast, simple and accurate handwritten digit classification by training shallow neural network classifiers with the ‘extreme learning machine’ algorithm,” *PLOS One*, vol. 10, [e0134254 (1–20)]{}, 2015.
A. [van Schaik]{} and J.Tapson, “Online and adaptive pseudoinverse solutions for [ELM]{} weights,” *Neurocomputing*, vol. 149, pp. 233–238, 2015.
J.Tapson, P. [de Chazal]{}, and A. [van Schaik]{}, “Explicit computation of input weights in extreme learning machines,” in *Proc. ELM2014 conference*, 2014, arXiv:1406.2889.
D. Yu and L. Ding, “Efficient and effective algorithms for training single-hidden-layer neural networks,” *Pattern Recognition Letters*, vol. 33, pp. 554–558, 2012.
W. Zhu, J. Miao, and L. Qing, “Constrained extreme learning machine: a novel highly discriminative random feedforward neural network,” in *Proc. IJCNN*, 2014, p. XXX.
——, “Constrained extreme learning machines: [A]{} study on classification cases,” 2015, arXiv:1501.06115.
Y. LeCun, C. Cortes, and C. J. C. Burges, “The [MNIST]{} database of handwritten digits,” Accessed July 2015, [http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/]{}.
A. Krizhevsky, “Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” Master’s thesis, Dept of CS, University of Toronto. See ), 2009.
Y. Netzer, T. Wang, A. Coates, A. Bissacco, B. Wu, and A. Y. Ng, “Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning,” 2011, nIPS Workshop on Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning. See [ http://ufldl.stanford.edu/housenumbers]{}.
Y. LeCun, F. J. Huang, and L. Bottou, “Learning methods for generic object recognition with invariance to pose and lighting,” in *Proceedings IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*, vol. 2, 2004, pp. 97–104.
P. Sermanet, D. Eigen, X. Zhang, M. Mathieu, R. Fergus, and Y. LeCun, “Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization and detection using convolutional networks,” in *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2014)*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCBLS, 2014.
P. Sermanet, S. Chintala, and Y. LeCun, “Convolutional neural networks applied to house numbers digit classification,” in *International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR)*, 2012.
P. Sermanet, “A deep learning pipeline for image understanding and acoustic modeling,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, New York University., 2014.
J. Mairal, P. Koniusz, Z. Harchaoui, and C. Schmid, “Convolutional kernel networks,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, and K. Weinberger, Eds., vol. 27, 2014, pp. 2627–2635.
C.-Y. Lee, S. Xie, P. Gallagher, Z. Zhang, and Z. Tu, “Deeply-supervised nets,” in *Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop, NIPS*, 2014.
D. C. D. Cire[ş]{}an, U. Meier, J. Masci, L. M. Gambardella, and J. Schmidhuber, “Flexible, high performance convolutional neural networks for image classification,” in *Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, 2011, pp. 1237–1242.
P. Y. Simard, D. Steinkraus, and J. C. Platt, “Best practices for convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis,” in *Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2003)*, 2003.
D. Cire[ş]{}an, U. Meier, L. M. Gambardella, and J. Schmidhuber, “Deep, big, simple neural nets for handwritten digit recognition,” *Neural Computation*, vol. 22, pp. 3207–3220, 2010.
D. Cire[ş]{}an, U. Meier, and J. Schmidhuber, “Multi-column deep neural networks for image classification,” in *Proc. CVPR*, 2012, pp. 3642–3649.
J. Tapson and A. [van Schaik]{}, “Learning the pseudoinverse solution to network weights,” *Neural Networks*, vol. 45, pp. 94–100, 2013.
B. Widrow, A. Greenblatt, Y. Kim, and D. Park, “The [No-Prop]{} algorithm: [A]{} new learning algorithm for multilayer neural networks,” *Neural Networks*, vol. 37, pp. 182–188, 2013.
G.-B. Huang, Z. Bai, L. L. C. Kasun, and C. M. Vong, “Local receptive fields based extreme learning machine,” *IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine*, vol. 10, pp. 18–29, 2015.
[^1]: Available from http://cilvr.nyu.edu/doku.php?id=software:overfeat:start
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss the application of dipole blockade techniques for the preparation of single atom and single photon sources. A deterministic protocol is given for loading a single atom in an optical trap as well as ejecting a controlled number of atoms in a desired direction. A single photon source with an optically controlled beam-like emission pattern is described.'
author:
- 'M. Saffman and T. G. Walker'
title: Engineering single atom and single photon sources from entangled atomic ensembles
---
Quantum information science builds on the laws of quantum mechanics to transmit, store, and process information in new and powerful ways. Advances in this field rely on our ability to manipulate coherently isolated quantum objects while eliminating incoherent interactions with the surrounding environment. It was proposed several decades ago that the availability of single photon sources would enable secure transmission of information without risk of eavesdropping[@ref.bb84]. Single photon sources have been proposed and realized using a number of different approaches[@ref.spsources], and demonstrated for information transmission[@ref.qibook]. Another example of a physical embodiment of quantum information is provided by a single neutral atom, the internal states of which can be used to represent a quantum bit or “qubit". Placing individual atoms on a lattice defined by optical beams and allowing them to interact is one of the approaches currently being explored for constructing a quantum computer [@ref.atomcomputer].
In this letter we describe some new approaches to engineering single atom and single photon sources for use in quantum information science. These ideas utilize the proposal of Lukin et al.[@ref.blockade2] for entanglement of mesoscopic atomic ensembles using a dipole-blockade mechanism that is mediated by dipole-dipole interactions of highly excited Rydberg atoms. Lukin et al. emphasized the application of mesoscopic many-atom qubits for quantum logic. Here we discuss how to combine many-atom entanglement with laser cooling and trapping techniques for loading a single atom into an optical trap, as well as creating single atom and single photon sources. We show that both atoms and photons can be extracted with well defined propagation directions.
Consider a collection of $N$ atoms at positions ${\bf r}_j$ each with non-degenerate ground states $|a\rangle$, $|b\rangle$, intermediate states $|e\rangle$ and highly excited Rydberg states $|r\rangle$ as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig.p1p2calc\]. We envision that the atoms have been laser cooled to $\mu$K temperatures, and confined to a volume of a few $\mu\rm m^3$ defined by an optical trap created by far off-resonance optical beams (FORT trap) using standard techniques[@ref.metcalfbook]. Following the theory of Lukin, et al.[@ref.blockade2] we define the following collective atomic states: the ground state $|g\rangle=\prod_j |b_j\rangle=|b_1b_2...b_N\rangle,$ the singly excited state $|r_j\rangle=|b_1... r_j ...b_N\rangle,$ and the doubly excited state $|r_j r_k\rangle= |b_1... r_j .... r_k ...b_N\rangle.$ The interaction Hamiltonian governing the coupling of levels $|b\rangle$ and $|r\rangle$ assuming zero atom-field detuning is taken to be $\hat V = \hat V_d + \hat V_{dd}$ where $2 V_d/\hbar =
\sum_j \Omega_j |r_j\rangle\langle g|
+ \sum_{j,k>j}\Omega_k |r_j r_k \rangle\langle r_j|
+ {\rm H.c.} $ describes the electric-dipole atom-field coupling in the rotating wave approximation, and $V_{dd}/\hbar=\sum_{j,k>j} \Delta_{jk} |r_j r_k \rangle\langle r_j r_k|$ describes the dipole-dipole interaction of two excited atoms. Here $\Omega_j=-\langle r_j|
\hat d |b_j\rangle {\mathcal E({\bf r}_j})/\hbar,$ where $\hat d$ is the dipole moment operator, and the position dependent optical field is $E({\bf r}_j) =({\mathcal E} ({\bf r}_j) /2)
e^{-\imath\omega t} + c.c.$ . The dipole-dipole shift in the case of dipole moments aligned parallel to the vector separating the atoms is given by $\Delta_{jk} = - f(n) e^2 a_0^2 / |{\bf r}_j - {\bf r}_k|^3$ with $e$ the electronic charge and $a_0$ the Bohr radius. The numerical factor $f(n)$ can be found from a quantum defect theory calculation of the Rydberg Stark map. In the presence of a hybridizing dc field $f(n)\sim n^6$ for a level with principal quantum number $n$[@ref.gallagherbook].
When $\Delta_{jk}\gg|\Omega_j|$ we can safely neglect triply excited states and higher. An arbitrary $N$ atom state vector can be written in this limit as $|\psi(t)\rangle= c_g(t) |g\rangle + \sum_j \tilde c_j(t) |r_j\rangle + \sum_{j,k>j} \tilde c_{jk}(t)|r_jr_k\rangle$. We can obtain analytical estimates of the dynamics by considering the atomic evolution due to a field that is pulsed on to excite a transition to a Rydberg state and has a spatially uniform intensity such that $\Omega_j=\Omega e^{\imath \phi_j}.$ We neglect the atomic motion during a pulse so that $\phi_j$ is taken as constant. Incorporating the phases $\phi_j={\bf k}\cdot {\bf r}_j$ for a traveling wave with wavevector $\bf k$ into the amplitudes $ c_j = \tilde c_j e^{-\imath \phi_j}$ and $ c_{jk}=\tilde c_{jk} e^{-\imath (\phi_j+\phi_k)},$ assuming all coefficients $ c_j$ equal, and adiabatically eliminating the doubly excited state, the normalized singly excited symmetric state can be written as $$|s\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt N}\sum_j e^{\imath \phi_j} |r_j\rangle
\label{eq.single}$$ and has amplitude $c_s= \sqrt N c_j.$ The Schrödinger equation results in
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot c_g &=& -i\frac{\sqrt N \Omega^*}{2} c_s, \\
\dot{ c}_s &=& -i\frac{\sqrt N \Omega}{2}c_g +i\frac{(N-1)|\Omega|^2}{2 \bar\Delta_{dd}}c_s,\end{aligned}$$
\[eq.sym\]
with $\bar\Delta_{dd}=(N(N-1)/2)\left[\sum_{j,k > j} 1/\Delta_{jk}\right]^{-1}$. Solving Eqs. (\[eq.sym\]) with the initial condition $c_g(0)=1$ (this is readily achieved with optical pumping techniques) we find $|c_s(t)|^2= l^{-1}\sin^2[\frac{\sqrt {Nl} |\Omega|}{2} ~t]$ with $l= 1+ (N-1)^2 |\Omega|^2/4N \bar \Delta_{dd}^2.$ Thus at time $t=\pi/(\sqrt{Nl} |\Omega|)$ we have rotated the ground state to the singly excited symmetric state $|s\rangle$ with probability $P_{\rm single}=1/l$ and since Eqs. (\[eq.sym\]) conserve probability $|c_g(t)|^2=P_{\rm zero}=1-P_{\rm single}.$ The unwanted leakage into the doubly excited states at the end of the $\pi$ pulse is found by summing over the doubly excited probabilities resulting in $$P_{\rm double}\sim\sum_{j,k>j} ~ | c_{jk}|^2\sim \frac{N-1}{2l}\frac{|\Omega|^2}{\bar \Delta_{dd}^2}.
\label{eq.p2}$$
![Probability of non-excited and doubly excited states after a Rydberg pulse as a function of the number of atoms. The inset shows the atomic level scheme. []{data-label="fig.p1p2calc"}](p1p2calc.eps){width="7.5cm"}
We can estimate the fidelity of preparation of a singly excited state starting with $N$ trapped atoms using physical parameters of $^{87}$Rb as an example. Assume that the atoms are randomly distributed in a sphere of $5~\mu\rm m$ diameter and that we are using the $n=50$ Rydberg levels. A quantum defect calculation shows that a pair of atoms with the maximum separation of $5~\mu\rm m$ subject to a hybridizing dc field experience a dipole-dipole shift of $\Delta/2\pi \sim 100$ MHz. Using $|\Omega|/2\pi=1$ MHz we see, as shown in Fig. \[fig.p1p2calc\], that the probability of creating a state with zero or two excitations grows linearly with $N$ (the average interatomic spacing and $\bar\Delta_{dd}$ stay roughly constant as atoms are added) and remains less than $3\times 10^{-5}$ for up to $N=500$ atoms.
After creating the singly excited state we apply a $\pi$ pulse at $\omega'$ to transfer the single-atom excitation to the lower ground state $|a\rangle$. The collective atomic state after this pulse sequence is proportional to $(1/\sqrt N) \sum_{j=1}^N e^{\imath \phi_j}|b_1...a_j....b_N\rangle$, which has the same functional form as Eq. (1). It can be shown that corrections to the $N$ atom results due to spontaneous emission are $O(N \gamma_{R}/\bar\Delta_{dd})$ with $\gamma_R$ the Rydberg level spontaneous decay rate. The correction is negligible for experimental conditions of interest with up to several thousand atoms. It should be noted that it is essential for high fidelity preparation that the pulses be applied sequentially. Applying both $\omega$ and $\omega'$ simultaneously leads to large amplitude multiply excited leakage from $|b\rangle$ to $|a\rangle$ due to multiphoton Raman processes.
![Potentials(left) and acceleration(right) for atom ejection with the eject beam centered $3~\mu\rm m$ to the left of the FORT beam. Calculations for $^{87}$Rb with $w_{\rm FORT}=5~\mu\rm m,$ $P_{\rm FORT}=100~\rm mW$, $\lambda_{\rm FORT}=1.06~\mu\rm m,$ $w_{\rm eject}=10~\mu\rm m,$ $P_{\rm eject}=9~\mu\rm W$, $(\omega_{\rm eject}-\omega_{rb})/2\pi
= 1 \rm ~ GHz,$ and $T_{\rm atomic}=30~\mu\rm K.$ []{data-label="fig.ejectforce"}](ejectforce.eps){width="8.5cm"}
One application of this many-atom entangled state is to load an array of optical traps with a single atom in each one for use as a quantum computer[@ref.atomcomputer]. In that application the dipole blockade mechanism can also be used between adjacent qubit sites to implement two-qubit logic gates[@ref.blockade1]. With $N$ atoms in a given lattice site we use the above procedure to prepare the state $|a\rangle.$ To eject the $N-1$ atoms remaining in state $|b\rangle$ we apply a beam that causes strong mechanical forces on $|b\rangle$ but only weak forces on $|a\rangle.$ One possibility is to use a beam with a waist a few times larger than the FORT beam waist $w_{\rm FORT}$ and with a frequency $\omega_{\rm eject}$ that is tuned to the red of $\omega_{ea}$ and to the blue of $\omega_{eb}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig.p1p2calc\]. This gives repulsive gradient forces on $|b\rangle$ and attractive forces on $|a\rangle$ as shown numerically in Fig. \[fig.ejectforce\]. In the left hand plot we see that the combined potential from the FORT beam and the eject beam is strongly repulsive for $|b\rangle,$ but attractive with only a small shift in the position of the minimum for $|a\rangle.$ The net acceleration of atoms in state $|b\rangle$ due to the FORT and eject beams is positive causing motion to the right over the entire region occupied by the atom cloud. After a characteristic time $t_1$ determined by $\frac{1}{2} a t_1^2=w_{\rm FORT}$ with $a=F/m$ the net acceleration, atoms in state $|b\rangle$ will be swept free of the FORT potential,leaving a single atom in state $|a\rangle$ behind. Using the parameters in Fig. \[fig.ejectforce\] we get $t_1\sim 40 ~\mu\rm s.$ Note that since the indistinguishable atoms are actually in an entangled superposition state we cannot actually speak of 1 atom left behind in the trap and $N-1$ ejected until a measurement or decoherence has caused projection of the wavefunction. Finally it should be emphasized that although several experiments have achieved single atom loading in optical traps, they have relied on stochastic loading into extremely small volumes[@ref.1atomtrap]. High fidelity single atom loading is essential for filling a large number of traps in a neutral atom quantum processor[@ref.mott].
As suggested by Lukin et al.[@ref.blockade2] a deterministic beam of atoms can also be generated using the entangled ensemble. We use a protocol very similar to that described above for single atom loading but now start by optically pumping the trapped atoms to state $|a\rangle.$ A sequence of $\pi$ pulses on $\omega'$ and $\omega$ will transfer a single excitation to $|b\rangle$ which can be ejected from the trap as described above. To obtain multiple atom pulses, each containing $m$ atoms, we first go through $m$ dipole blockade cycles to create an entangled state with $m$ units of excitation in $|b\rangle$[@ref.blockade2]. We then eject the $m$ atoms by applying $\omega_{\rm eject},$ recreate the $m-$times excited state, eject the atoms, and so on. We can do this roughly $N/m$ times in a deterministic fashion before having to reload the FORT with atoms. Assuming single atom Rabi frequencies of 1 MHz the time it takes to create an $m-$times excited state is roughly $m/\sqrt N$, since the effective Rabi frequencies scale as $1/\sqrt N.$ We see that for pulses with up to about a hundred atoms the repetition rate will be limited by the ejection time which we have estimated as $t_1\sim 40 ~\mu\rm s.$ While the parameters can be chosen for faster or slower operation, kHz atomic pulse rates are certainly accessible.
The direction of the ejected atoms will be determined by the positioning of the eject beam with respect to the FORT, which provides a means of scanning the ejected atoms. The transverse spread of the atomic beam will be determined by gradients in the eject beam, as well as fluctuations due to spontaneous emission. For the 1 GHz detuning used in the numerical example of Fig. \[fig.ejectforce\] the number of photons scattered from atoms in $|b\rangle$ during a $t_1\sim 40~\mu\rm s$ eject pulse is $n_{\rm scat}\sim 21.$ (The corresponding number of photons scattered from atoms in $|a\rangle$ for which the detuning is -5.8 GHz is only about 0.6.) This results in an rms momentum transfer due to spontaneous emission that is about a tenth of the coherent impulse after an eject time $t_1.$ The emitted beam will therefore be well collimated. It is also feasible to move atoms a controlled distance using traveling dipole force fields as demonstrated recently in [@ref.meschededelivery]. The flexibility of optical control of the beam direction opens the potential of many applications in areas that include optical lattice neutral atom quantum computers, atomic interferometers, precision low-level current sources, and also nanofabrication tasks at the single atom level.
{width="16.cm"}
We turn now to the creation of a phased array single photon source with a diffraction-limited emission pattern. When the optical fields propagate through the sample, atoms will be excited with position dependent relative phases as in Eq. (\[eq.single\]). This results in an entangled state with a phase structure that mimics the phase of the exciting beam and can be used to create a single photon source with well defined directionality. While previous work has achieved single photon sources with a controlled emission direction by coupling to microcavities[@ref.spdirectional] our approach results in a source emission pattern that is reconfigurable and is defined by the structure of the preparation optical fields. Referring to Fig. \[fig.angdist\], fields at $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ with Rabi frequencies $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ drive a two-photon transition $|a\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle \rightarrow |r\rangle$ to the Rydberg level $|r\rangle$ in an $N$-atom ensemble. The effective Rabi frequency for the two photon process acting on atom $j$ is $|\Omega| e^{i\phi_1+i\phi_2}=
(|\Omega_1|e^{i\phi_1({\bf r}_j)}|\Omega_2|e^{i\phi_2({\bf r}_j)})/
\Delta_e,$ where $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are the phases of fields $\omega_1, ~\omega_2$ at the atomic position ${\bf r}_j$ and $\Delta_e=\omega_1-\omega_{ea}.$ As long as $P_{\rm double}$ given by Eq. (\[eq.p2\]) is small only transitions to states with a single excited atom are energetically allowed and we have an effective dipole blockade. Under these conditions an ensemble of atoms in $|a\rangle$ subjected to a $\pi$-pulse applied on $|a\rangle\rightarrow |r\rangle$ produces the entangled symmetric superposition state $|\psi\rangle=\frac{-i}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_je^{\imath(\phi_{1j}+\phi_{2j})}|r_j\rangle.
$ The phases $\phi_{mj}={\bf k}_m\cdot {\bf r}_j$ are simply the phase of the $m^{\rm th}$ laser field ($\sim e^{\imath({\bf k}_m\cdot{\bf r} - \omega_mt)})$ at the position ${\bf r}_j$ of the $j^{\rm th}$ atom.
We now apply a $\pi$-pulse with $\omega_3$ tuned to the $|r\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle$ single-photon transition. The wavefunction is then transformed into $$|\psi\rangle=\frac{-1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_je^{\imath(\phi_{1j}+\phi_{2j}-\phi_{3j})}|e_j\rangle.$$
This state will radiate into a variety of modes with all the atoms in state $|a\rangle$ and a single photon propagating in direction ${\bf k_4}$. The amplitude for emission into state $|g,1_{{\bf k}_4}\rangle=|a_1...a_j...a_N,1_{{\bf k}_4} \rangle$ is proportional to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle g,1_{{\bf k}_4}|({\bf e_{k_4}}\cdot {\bf \hat d})
{\hat a}_{{\bf k}_4}^\dagger e^{\imath{{\bf k}_4\cdot {\bf r}}}|\psi,0_{{\bf k}_4}\rangle\nonumber
\\&=&
-
\sum_j \frac{\langle g|{\bf e_{k_4}}\cdot
{\bf \hat d}|e_j\rangle e^{\imath({\bf k_4-k_1-k_2+k_3}) \cdot{\bf r}_j}}{\sqrt{N}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf e_{k_4}}$ is the polarization of the emitted photon and ${\hat a}_{{\bf k}_4}^\dagger$ is the creation operator for a photon in mode ${\bf k}_4$. Assuming an isotropic angular distribution from the atomic matrix element gives for the angular distribution $$P({{\bf k}_4})\propto \frac{1}{N}\left|\sum_j e^{i({\bf k_4-k_1-k_2+k_3)\cdot{\bf r}_j}}\right|^2.
\label{eq.pofk}$$ Note that the emission is highly directional; in the direction ${\bf
k_4=k_1+k_2-k_3}$ the phases are zero for each atom giving $P({{\bf k}_4})=N$ while for other directions the phase factors become random and $P({{\bf k}_4})\sim 1$. A calculation of the angular distribution, assuming an isotropic atomic matrix element, is shown in Fig. \[fig.angdist\]. The width of the central emission peak is determined by diffraction. For $N=50$ the numerical value for the FWHM agrees to better than 10% with the diffraction estimate of $\lambda/D$, where $D$ is the diameter of the phased atom cloud.
![Angular direction $\theta$ of the photon emitted along ${\bf k}_4$ for collinear Rydberg excitation beams ${\bf k}_1,{\bf k}_2$ and ${\bf k}_3$ tilted by an angle $\phi.$ []{data-label="fig.sps"}](sps.eps){width="6.cm"}
It is evident from Eq. (\[eq.pofk\]) that the angular pattern of the emitted single photon beam bears a close analogy with four-wave mixing. If we arrange for ${\bf k}_2=-{\bf k}_1$ the photon will be emitted in a phase conjugate mode with ${\bf k}_4=-{\bf k}_3.$ For a single photon source it is more convenient to have the emitted photon angularly separated from the other beams as shown in Fig. \[fig.sps\]. By setting the waist size of the ${\bf k}_1, {\bf k}_2, {\bf k}_3$ beams to be much larger than the size of the atomic distribution all atoms will to a good approximation be driven by the same optical intensities so that the accuracy of the preparation Rabi pulses will be high. The angular divergence of the emitted pulse will be determined by the size of the atomic cloud, as seen in Fig. \[fig.angdist\].
Several factors can contribute to angular broadening of the emitted mode. The atomic motion during a $3~\mu$s sequence of preparation pulses, accounting for the characteristic speed of $30~\mu$K $^{87}$Rb atoms, is $\Delta x\sim 0.15~\mu$m, which is about $1/5$ of the emission wavelength. The contribution of this motional dephasing to broadening of the emission mode is a subject of current study. Imperfect dipole blockade leading to doubly excited states can also degrade the single photon fidelity. We note that this will be strongly suppressed by angular selection since the contribution to emission along ${\bf k}_4$ due to a doubly excited Rydberg state channel is proportional to $(1/N)|\sum_j e^{\imath(k_4-2(k_1+k_2)+k_3)}|^2$ which is not phase matched along the direction $\theta$ selected in Fig. \[fig.sps\]. Finally we note that by employing an excited level $|e\rangle$ that is not dipole coupled to the ground state it will be possible to create entangled two-photon pairs with similar beam-like emission properties.
This work is supported by the NSF and NASA. M. S. is an A. P. Sloan Foundation fellow.
C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard in [*Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing*]{}, p. 175 (IEEE, New York, 1984).
A. Imamoglu and Y. Yamamoto,, 210 (1994); C. K. Law and J. H. Eberly, [*ibid.*]{} [**76**]{}, 1055 (1996); C. K. Law and H. J. Kimble, , 2067 (1997); A. Kuhn, et al., Appl. Phys. B [**69**]{}, 373 (1999); J. Kim, et al., , 500 (1999); C. Brunel, et al., , 2722 (1999); C. Santori, et al., [*ibid.*]{} [**86**]{}, 1502 (2001); P. Michler, et al., Science [**290**]{}, 2282 (2000); B. Lounis and W. E. Moerner, , 491 (2000); R. Brouri, et al., Opt. Lett. [**25**]{}, 1294 (2000); C. Kurtsiefer, et al., , 290 (2000); S. Brattke, B. T. H. Varcoe, and H. Walther, [*ibid.*]{} [**86**]{}, 3534 (2001).
For recent reviews see, D. Bouwmeester, A. Ekert, and A. Zeilinger (Eds.), [*The physics of quantum information*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2000); G. Alber, et al., [*Quantum Information An introduction to basic theoretical concepts and experiments*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2001).
G. K. Brennen, et al., , 1060 (1999); D. Jaksch, et al. [*ibid.*]{} [**82**]{}, 1975 (1999); I. H. Deutsch, G. K. Brennen, and P. S. Jessen, Fortschr. Phys. [**48**]{}, 925 (2000); T. Calarco, et al., [*ibid.*]{} [**48**]{}, 945 (2000); A. M. Steane and D. M. Lucas, [*ibid.*]{} [**48**]{}, 839 (2000).
M. D. Lukin, et al. , 037901 (2001).
H. J. Metcalf and P. van der Straten, [*Laser cooling and trapping*]{}, (Springer, New York, 1999).
T. F. Gallagher, [*Rydberg atoms*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).
D. Jaksch, et al., , 2208 (2000).
Z. Hu and H. J. Kimble, Opt. Lett. [**19**]{}, 1888 (1994); D. Frese, et al., , 3777 (2000); N. Schlosser, et al., , 1024 (2001).
An alternative approach using a quantum degenerate gas was demonstrated recently in M. Greiner, et al., , 39 (2002).
S. Kuhr, et al., Science [**293**]{}, 278 (2001).
F. De Martini, G. Di Giuseppe, and M. Marrocco, , 900 (1996); G. S. Solomon, M. Pelton, and Y. Yamamoto, [*ibid.*]{} [**86**]{}, 3903 (2001); E. Moreau, et al., , 2865 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We theoretically study a doped graphene ribbon suspended over a trench and subject to an ac-electrical field polarized perpendicularly to the graphene plane. In such a system, the external ac-field is coupled to the relatively slow mechanical vibrations via plasmonic oscillations in the isolated graphene sheet. We show that the electrical field generates an effective pumping of the mechanical modes. It is demonstrated that in the case of underdamped plasma oscillation, a peculiar kind of geometrical resonance of the mechanical and plasma oscillations appear. Namely the efficiency of pumping significantly increases when the wave number of the mechanical mode is in close agreement with the wave number of the plasma waves. The intensity of the pumping increases with the wave number of the mode. This phenomenon allows selective actuation of different mechanical modes although the driving field is homogeneous.'
author:
- 'Axel M. Eriksson'
- 'Leonid Y. Gorelik'
bibliography:
- 'article.bib'
title: 'Selective nonresonant excitation of vibrational modes in suspended graphene via vibron-plasmon interaction'
---
Since the first graphene sample was isolated and studied experimentally, the experimental and theoretical work on the 2D material has grown tremendously due to its many extraordinary properties[@Novoselov; @Terrones2010]. The high mobility, low mass and mechanical strength of graphene makes it well suited as the basis of nanoelectromechanical resonators. The frequency tunability and high quality factor of graphene based resonators make them promising for e.g., mass sensing[@Chen2009] and filtering applications[@Xu2010]. To actuate the nanomechanical resonators, different principal schemas are utilized. First of all, mechanical oscillations can be initiated by applying an electrical field at resonance frequency with the mechanical vibration[@Chen2013; @Meerwaldt2012; @Lassagne2009]. Another method which is utilized to control mechanical motion exploits the radiation pressure induced by an electromagnetic field in an optomechanical cavity [@Barton2012; @Heikkila2014]. In this case the external frequency, at which the system is driven, is nonresonant with the relatively low mechanical frequency. Nonresonant excitation of the mechanical vibrations can also be achieved by integration of the mechanical resonator in an electrical LC-circuit[@Brown2007]. In both cases, the force acting on the mechanical subsystem is determined by the detuning of the external frequency and the resonance frequency of the cavity or external LC-circuit. The resonance frequency depends on the mechanical displacement which induces an electro-mechanical time-delayed backaction. The backaction generates an effective pumping (or damping) of the mechanical vibrations. Therefore, it is possible both to excite and cool the resonator. These phenomena have been demonstrated for many systems[@Metzger2004; @Kippenberg2008] and for graphene based resonators in particular[@Barton2012]. Recently it was shown that similar effects can be achieved by integrating the resonator into an RC-circuit[@Eriksson2015]. In this description, the actuation mechanism was due to the time-delayed overdamped charge response rather than coupling via a resonant high-frequency mode.
In this article, we show that nonresonant excitation of mechanical vibrational modes can be achieved also for an $isolated$ graphene membrane via its internal charge dynamics. We will demonstrate that the nonresonant actuation mechanism presented here enables selective actuate of different mechanical modes, even antisymmetric ones. The intensity of actuation increases with mode number in contrast to the optomemechanical and electrical pumping mechanisms mentioned above where predominantly actuation of the fundamental mode takes place.
Model
=====
![ An isolated graphene membrane is suspended over a cavity inside a wave-guide. The suspended part of the membrane is free to perform vertical vibrations. A electrostatic ac-field is applied polarized perpendicularly to the graphene sheet.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1)
The sketch of the system under consideration is presented in Fig. \[fig1\], and comprises the isolated graphene ribbon suspended over a trench with width $l$. The system is placed in a wave guide. Electromagnetic waves, with wave length much larger than $l$ travel inside the wave guide along the $x$ axis. The field is assumed to be homogeneous in the trench and screening effects from the wave guide is neglected. The wave is polarized perpendicularly to the flat membrane and induces an electrical field along the membrane only when it is deflected from its flat position. The induced field generate electronic charge waves in the graphene sheet. Simultaneously, the electrical field exerts a force on the suspended part when it is charged and provides a feedback coupling between the electronic and the mechanical subsystems.
To analyse this feedback we model the free vibrating part of the ribbon as an elastic membrane. For simplicity we consider the membrane to be infinite in the y-direction. In this limit, we assume that the membrane deflection $U(x,y,t)=U(x,t)$, charge density $\varrho(x,y,t)=\varrho(x,t)$ and current density $j_{x}(x,y,t)=j(x,t)$ are uniform along the trench. We disregard the geometric nonlinearity of the graphene membrane since it does not affect the nonresonant phenomenon discussed in this paper and can be neglected at small amplitude of oscillation $U\ll l$.
Under these assumptions the dynamical equations for the flexural out-of-plane modes become $$\label{fullDyn}
\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+\gamma \frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\frac{T_0}{\varrho_m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\kappa}{\rho_m}\frac{\partial^4}{\partial x^4}\right)U(x,t)=\frac{\varrho(x,t)}{\rho_m } E(t)$$ with intrinsic mechanical damping $\gamma$, built-in tensile stress $T_0$, bending rigidity of graphene $\kappa$, electrical field in the wave guide $E(t)=E_0\cos(\Omega t)$ and 2D-mass density of graphene $\rho_m$. The corresponding boundary conditions of the clamping are $U(x,t)=0$ and $U'(x,t)=0$ at $x=\pm l/2$. The membrane deflection $U(x,t)$ can be presented as a superposition of the vibrational eigenmodes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U)}
U(x,t)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}u_{n}(t)f_{n}(\xi) \\
\left( -\frac{1}{\pi^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2}+b^2\frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4}\right)f_{n}(\xi)=K^{2}_{n}f_{n}(\xi) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with dimensionless spatial coordinate $\xi=x/l$, stretching-bending ratio $b^2=\kappa/\pi^2 l^2 T_0$ and $f_{n}(\xi)$ is the normalized spatial profile of the flexural eiqenmodes.
To describe the charge dynamics of the electronic subsystem we will use a simple hydrodynamic approach [@Svintsov2012; @Jablan2013]. We will consider monopolar electronic plasma where the Fermi energy $E_{F}$ is much greater than temperature and $\hbar\Omega$. Within this approach the charge evolution is described by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gidr}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\varrho(x,t)= - \frac{\partial}{\partial x}j(x,t),\\
\label{gidr2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}j(x,t)+\nu j(x,t) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{L}}E(t,x),\end{aligned}$$ where $1/\mathcal{L}=e^{2}E_{F}/\hbar^{2}\pi$ and $\nu$ is the scattering frequency. The electrical field along the ribbon consists of one external and one internal contribution $$\label{E}
E(t,x)= E(t) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}U(x,t)+\frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon_0}\mathcal{P}\int \frac{\varrho({x_{1}},t)}{x-x_{1}}\textrm{d} x_{1}.$$ The first term in Eq. (\[E\]) describes the external electrical field induced along the membrane when it deflects from its flat position. The second term describes the internal non-local electrostatic field due to charge redistribution.
The time-scales of the system is obtained by consider a typical experimental situation where we take $l\approx 10\ \mu$m, $E_{F}\approx 1$ meV, end $T_{0}\approx 0.1$N/m which gives $b\sim 10^{-4}$. Under such conditions the characteristic mechanical frequency $\omega_{M}\approx 100$ MHz and the characteristic plasma frequency $\omega_{p}\sim\nu\approx 1$ THz are well separated. Further, we consider high-frequency external driving $\Omega\sim\omega_{p}\gg\omega_{M}$. The strength of the electromechanical coupling generated by the external field is characterized by the coupling frequency $\omega_{E}=E_0\sqrt{\epsilon_0/2\pi l\rho_m}$. We will consider low amplitude external field so that $\omega_{E}$ is the smallest frequency $\omega_{E}<<\omega_{M}<<\Omega$.
Effective mechanical dynamics
=============================
To get the coupled dynamics for the amplitudes $u_{n}(t)$ and charge density $\varrho(\xi,t)$ we combine Eqs.(\[gidr\]) and (\[gidr2\]) and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fullsetMech}
\ddot{u}_{n}(t)+\gamma u_{n}(t) + \omega^{2}_{M}K_{n}^{2}u(t)
= \frac{E(t)}{\rho_m} \langle f_{n}(\xi), \varrho(\xi,t)\rangle,\\
\ddot{\varrho}(\xi,t)+ \nu\dot{\varrho}(\xi,t)-\frac{\omega_{p}^{2}}{\pi^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\mathcal{P}\int \frac{\varrho(\xi_{1},t)d\xi_{1}}{\xi-\xi_{1}}=\nonumber\\
- \frac{E(t)}{\mathcal{L}l^2}\sum_{n}u_{n}(t)\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\xi^2}f_{n}(\xi),
\label{fullsetChar}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle f_{n}(\xi), \varrho(\xi,t)\rangle$ denotes projection of the charge distribution on the spatial mode function $f_n$. The characteristic mechanical and plasma frequencies $\omega_{M}$ and $\omega_{p}$ are defined in table \[tabfreq\].
Electronic Mechanical
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
$\omega(k)=\omega_p\sqrt{|q|}$ $\omega_n=\omega_M K_n$
$\omega_p=\frac{e}{\hbar}\sqrt{\frac{E_F}{2\epsilon_0 l}}$ $\omega_M=\frac{\pi}{ l}\sqrt{\frac{T_0}{\rho_m}}$
: Dispersion relation for plasma and mechanical vibrations. The continuous wave number $q$ corresponds to a plasma wave length $\lambda=2l/|q|$.
\[tabfreq\]
The electrostatic forces acting on the vibrational modes can be expressed by substituting an integral expression for the charge density described by Eq. (\[fullsetChar\]) in the right hand side of Eq. (\[fullsetMech\]). The forces $\mathcal{F}_{n}(t)=E(t) \langle f_{n}(\xi), \varrho(\xi,t)\rangle/\rho_m$ can then be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Force}
\mathcal{F}_{n}&(t)=&\\
\nonumber \omega_{E}^{2}&\sum_{m}&\int^{t}_{-\infty}\textrm{d}t_{1} G_{nm}(t-t_{1})\cos(\Omega(t-t_{1}))u_{m}(t_{1}) +\nonumber \\
\nonumber\omega_{E}^{2}&Re& \left[ e^{2i\Omega t}\sum_{m}\int^{t}_{-\infty}\textrm{d}t_{1} G_{nm}(t-t_{1})e^{i2\Omega(t-t_{1})}u_{m}(t_{1})\right],\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{GrF}
G_{nm}(t)=\omega_{p}^{2}\int \frac{2e^{-\nu t/2}\sin\left(t\sqrt{\omega_{p}^{2}|q|-\nu^{2}}/2\right)}{\sqrt{\omega_{p}^{2}|q|-\nu^{2}}}w_{nm}(q)\textrm{d}q.$$ where $w_{nm}(q)=-(\pi q)^{2}\langle f_{n}(\xi), e^{i\pi\xi q}\rangle \langle e^{-i\pi\xi q},f_{m}(\xi)\rangle$.
The electrostatic forces on the form Eq. (\[Force\]) introduce linear feedback on the mechanical motion. The feedback on mode $n$ is direct back to itself via $G_{nn}(t)$ but the feedback also couples different modes via $G_{nm}(t)$ $n\neq m$. We want to note that the subsets of odd and even modes do not couple. However, since the coupling strength $\epsilon=\omega_E/\omega_M$ is assumed to be small we disregard the coupling between modes since it will affect the mechanics only to fourth order in $\epsilon$. The system of equations Eq. (\[fullsetMech\]) then decouples to independent single mode oscillators.
The dynamics is further simplified since we consider the high-frequency regime of the driving frequency $\Omega\sim\omega_{p}>>\omega_{M},\omega_{E}$. As we will see later, under such conditions only modes with $K_{n}\simeq (\Omega/\omega_{p})^2$ play an important role in the membrane dynamics. We seek the time evolution of the amplitudes $u_{n}(t)$ in the form of perturbation series $$\label{u}
u_n(t)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\varepsilon^{2m} e^{i2m\Omega t}u_{n,m}(t)$$ here $\varepsilon =\omega_{M}/\Omega <<1$ and $u_{n,m}(t)$ are slow on the time scale $\Omega^{-1}$. The second term in the right hand side of Eq. (\[Force\]) gives corrections of the order $\epsilon^2\varepsilon^2$. We will neglect corrections of this order of smallness and take $u_n(t)\approx u_{n,0}(t)$. In these approximations, the dynamics of mode $n$ is governed by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AmEv}
\ddot{u}_n(t)+\gamma\dot{u}_n(t)+\omega_M^{2}K_n^{2}u_n(t)= \\
\omega_{E}^{2}\int_{-\infty}^{t}\textrm{d}t_{1}\ G_{nn}(t-t_{1})\cos(\Omega(t-t_1))u_n(t_1).\end{aligned}$$
The dispersion relation which characterises the time evolution of the $n$:th mode can be obtained by the Ansatz $u_n(t)=\exp(i\omega_{n} t)$. Substituting this form in Eq. (\[AmEv\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DR}
-\omega^{2}_{n} +i\gamma\omega_{n} + \omega^{2}_{M}K_{n}^{2}=\omega_{E}^{2}G_{nn}(\omega_{n};\Omega)\\
G_{nn}(\omega;\Omega)=-\int_{-\infty}^0 \textrm{d}t \exp(-i\omega t)G_{nn}(t)\cos(\Omega t)\end{aligned}$$ Solving Eq. (\[DR\]) we arrive at the following approximation (with an accuracy of $\epsilon^{2}$) for the complex frequencies $\omega_{n}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{n}&=&
\omega_{M}\left[K_{n}+ \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{K_{n}}\Lambda_{n}(\tilde{\Omega})+\frac{i}{2}\left(\frac{1}{Q} + \frac{\epsilon^{2}\tilde{\omega}_{M}}{K_n}\eta_{n}(\tilde{\Omega})\right)\right] \nonumber \\
\Lambda_{n}(\tilde{\Omega})&=&\int\Lambda(\tilde{\Omega},q)w_{nn}(q)dq,\,\nonumber \\
\eta_{n}(\tilde\Omega)&=& \int\eta(\tilde\Omega,q) w_{nn}(q)dq.\end{aligned}$$ here $Q=\omega_{M}/\gamma$ is the characteristic Q-factor and we have introduced the dimensionless frequencies $\tilde{\omega}_{M}=\omega_{M}/\omega_{p}$ and $\tilde\Omega=\Omega/\omega_p$. The functions $\Lambda(\tilde{\Omega},q)$ and $\eta(\tilde\Omega,q)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\Lambda(\tilde{\Omega},q)&=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\tilde{\Omega}^2-|q|}{\left(|q|-\tilde{\Omega}^2\right)^{2}+\tilde{\nu}^{2}\tilde\Omega^2} \\
\eta(\tilde{\Omega},q)&= -\tilde\nu\frac{ \left(|q|+\tilde{\Omega}^2\right)^{2}-\tilde{\Omega}^2\left(4\tilde{\Omega}^2+\tilde{\nu}^{2}\right)}{\left(\left(|q|-\tilde{\Omega}^2\right)^{2}+\tilde{\nu}^{2}\tilde\Omega^2\right)^{2}}\end{aligned}$$ and $w_{nn}(q)=(\pi q)^{2}|\langle e^{i\pi\xi q},f_{n}(\xi)\rangle|^{2}$. To calculate $w_{n}(q)$ we neglect the bending rigidity of the graphene in comparison with the clamping tension since $b<<1$. Under this condition we can take $f_{n}(\xi)=\sin(\pi n\xi+\pi n/2)\theta(1/2-|\xi|)/\sqrt{2}$ with $K_{n}= n$. These forms for the mode shapes give $$\label{w}
w_{nn}(q)=\frac{2q^{2}n^{2}\sin^{2}(\pi (|q|+n)/2)}{(q^{2}-n^{2})^{4}}.$$
Selective mode actuation
========================
The shift of the complex frequencies occure at strong coupling between the mechanical modes and the charge waves. The charge waves are mainly generated from the regions close to the clamping since the gradient of the electrical field along the membrane is biggest in these areas. The coupling is strong when the wave length of the generated charge waves is in close agreement with the mechanical wave length. This can be seen in Fig. \[wnn\] since the functions $w_{n}(q)$ has a sharp maximum in the vicinity of $|q|\sim n$.
![Spatial geometrical resonance between the charge oscillations and the mechanical mode functions occur in the vicinity of $q=K_n=n$. Wave number $K_n=n$ corresponds to a mechanical mode with wave length $\lambda=2l/n$.[]{data-label="wnn"}](fig2)
Therefore we have a peculiar kind of spatial geometrical resonance but a nonresonant phenomenon in the time domain. Simultaneously, at small plasma damping $\tilde{\nu}<<1$, the functions $\eta(\tilde{\Omega},q)$ and $\Lambda(\tilde{\Omega},q)$ dramatically increase when $|q|=\tilde\Omega^{2}$.
The shift of the mechanical damping is qualitatively described by the normalized damping coefficient $\eta_{n}(\tilde\Omega)/n^{2}$, Fig. \[fig3\].
![The damping coefficient for damping ratio $\tilde\nu$ equal 3, 1 and 1/3 in (a), (b) and (c), respectively. A region of negative damping coefficient is present at driving frequencies $\Omega>\omega_p$. The mechanical modes can selectively be driven if $\tilde\nu<1$ due to the geometric resonance of plasma and mechanical oscillations.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3)
The damping coefficient of the $n$th mechanical mode $\eta_{n}(\Omega/\omega_{p})$ becomes negative at $\Omega = \Omega_{n}^{c}(\tilde{\nu})\sim \omega_{p}$ and reaches its minima $\eta_{n}^{min}(\tilde{\nu})$ at the minima frequency $\Omega_{n}^{min}(\tilde{\nu})$. If the plasma oscillation is overdamped Fig. \[fig3\]a, the characteristic width of the minima is much greater than the distance between the minima frequencies $\Omega_{n}^{min}$, while $\eta_{n}^{min}(3)\approx - n^{2}$. In the underdamped situation Fig. \[fig3\]c, the distances between the minima frequencies become greater than the width of the minima and pumping strength $\eta_{n}^{min}(1/3)\approx -10 n^{2}$. It should be particulary emphasised that the distance between minima frequency as well as minima widths are three order of magnitude greater than, and independent of, the characteristic mechanical frequency. Because of this, the phenomenon is nonresonant in the time domain.
A vibrational mode will become mechanically actuated if the effective pumping generated by the high-frequency external field overcomes the intrinsic mechanical damping of the mode. To actuate a mode the driving frequency has to be in the region where the electromechanical cpupling gives negative damping and the amplitude of the external field has to exceed a critical value $E_n^c(\Omega)$. Above the critical value the mechanical vibration is unstable and will be saturated by nonlinear effects. The field strength needed to achieve this can be estimated by using $\rho_m\approx 0.7 $ mg/m$^2$, assuming the quality factor to be $Q=10^5$ and damping ratio $\nu/\omega_p=1/3$. This gives an estimate of the critical field strength for the fundamental mode $E_1^c\approx30$ V/$\mu$m, at the optimal driving frequency $\Omega_1^c$.
Selective actuation of vibrational modes is possible when the overlap of the minima peaks is small, Fig. \[fig3\]c. This possibility is remarkable since the applied electrical field is homogeneous. It is interesting to note that in contrast to optomechanical excitation where only symmetric modes are actuated and the strength of pumping decreases with mode number, whereas in our system also antisymmetric modes can be actuated and the strength of pumping increases with mode number.
From the above analysis it follows that pronounced selective nonresonant excitation of the mechanical modes is achievable for $\tilde{\nu}\ll1$. However, there are natural restrictions for $\tilde{\nu}$ and $n$ which come from the applicability of the hydrodynamic description of the charge dynamics used in this paper. The hydrodynamic equations are not valid in the ballistic regime of electronic propagation. To analyze the range of parameters where our approach is valid, it is convenient to introduce the effective electron mean free path $l_{sc}=v_{F}/\nu$. We then have the following expression for the damping ratio $\tilde{\nu}=\nu/\omega_{p}=0.27 l/(l_{sc}\sqrt{k_{F}l})\simeq 0.07l/l_{sc}$. The hydrodynamic approach fails when the electron mean free path exceeds characteristic space variations in the system $l_{sc}>l/n$. Therefore, the model formulated here is not valid for $n>14\tilde{\nu}$.
Conclusions
===========
To conclude, we have shown that the internal charge dynamics in a suspended isolated graphene sheet can be utilized to selectively actuate vibrational modes by a nonresonant homogeneous external field. The phenomenon occurs when the external field induces plasma oscillations with a wave length comparable to the wave length of the spatial profile of the vibrational mode. Different modes can then be selectively driven via this geometrical resonance, if the plasma oscillations are underdamped.
The authors thank the Swedish Research Council (VR) for funding our research.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Parrondo’s paradox is a counter-intuitive phenomenon in which individually losing strategies, canonically termed [[**Game A**]{}]{}and [[**Game B**]{}]{}, are combined to produce winning outcomes. In this paper, a co-evolution of game dynamics and network structure is adopted to study adaptability and survivability in multi-agent dynamics. The model includes [[**Action A**]{}]{}, representing a rewiring process on the network, and a two-branch [[**Game B**]{}]{}, representing redistributive interactions between agents. Simulation results indicate that stochastically mixing [[**Action A**]{}]{}and [[**Game B**]{}]{}can produce enhanced, and even winning outcomes, despite [[**Game B**]{}]{}being individually losing. In other words, a *Parrondo-type* paradox can be achieved, but unlike canonical variants, the source of agitation is provided by passive network evolution instead of an active second game. The underlying paradoxical mechanism is analyzed, revealing that the rewiring process drives a topology shift from initial regular lattices towards scale-free characteristics, and enables exploitative behavior that grants enhanced access to the favourable branch of [[**Game B**]{}]{}.'
address:
- 'School of Mechanical Engineering, Anhui University of Technology, Anhui Ma’anshan, 243002, China'
- 'School of Management Science and Engineering, Anhui University of Technology, Anhui Ma’anshan, 243002, China'
- 'Science and Math Cluster, Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), 8 Somapah Road, S487372, Singapore'
- 'SUTD-Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Design Center, 8 Somapah Road, S487372, Singapore'
- 'Institute of Theoretical and Applied Informatics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ba[ł]{}tycka 5, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland'
author:
- Ye Ye
- Xiao Rong Hang
- Jin Ming Koh
- 'Jaros[ł]{}aw Adam Miszczak'
- Kang Hao Cheong
- 'Neng-gang Xie'
bibliography:
- 'group\_welfare.bib'
title: Passive network evolution promotes group welfare in complex networks
---
Network rewiring, dynamic networks, Parrondo’s paradox, complex networks
Introduction
============
The mechanistic removal and rewiring of connections between nodes promote structural evolution of complex networks [@pacheco2006coevolution]. When complex networks are utilized as a modelling basis for multi-agent systems, the topological features resulting from these processes, such as emergent scale-free, small-world and community structural properties, can be expected to carry significant impact on system dynamical behavior. In particular, it is reasonable to inquire whether network evolution may promote group adaptability and survivability, such that formally sub-optimal behavioral patterns yield improved outcomes—in other words, whether *Parrondo-type paradoxes* can be achieved. Investigating the possibility and feasibility conditions of these paradoxes, and more broadly the effects of network evolution on multi-agent game dynamics, is the focus of this paper.
A characterizing property of canonical Parrondo-type game pairs is the achievement of *winning* outcomes through the combination of individually *losing* strategies [@harmer1999game]. An *agitation-ratcheting* mechanism underlies the exhibited paradoxical behavior, typically realized through asymmetry in the branching structure of [[**Game B**]{}]{}, such that some branches are favourable (of a higher winning probability), and some are unfavourable (of a higher losing probability). This asymmetric structure forms a *ratchet*. On the other hand, [[**Game A**]{}]{}serves an *agitating* role, to the effect of perturbing the capital of the player. The agitation from [[**Game A**]{}]{}can lead to increased likelihood of landing in favourable branches when [[**Game B**]{}]{}is subsequently invoked, thus manifesting a ratcheting mechanism and enabling the characteristic paradoxical winning outcomes. There have been many examples of such counter-intuitive dynamics studied to date, for instance, in ecological populations [@tan2017nomadic; @cheong2016paradoxical; @koh2018nomadic; @cheong2018time; @cheong2018do; @cheong2017multicellular; @koh2019new; @cheong2019review], population genetics [@wolf2005diversity; @reed2007two; @masuda2004subcritical], physical quantum systems [@abbott2010asymmetry; @flitney2003quantum; @kovsik2007quantum; @pawela2013cooperative; @miszczak2014general; @flitney2002quantum], reliability theory [@di2006parrondo], system design optimization [@koh2018automated; @cheong2019hybrid], and the Allison mixture in information thermodynamics [@cheong2017allison].
A greatly illustrative example is that of the *catfish effect*, deriving from observations of Norwegian fishermen that the forced cohabitation of captured sardines and predatory catfishes can, in fact, be beneficial to sardine yield. The introduction of catfishes into sardine holding tanks stimulates sardine movement, keeping the sardines alive and therefore fresh for a longer duration. A motile state is hence interpretable as *winning*, whereas inactivity or death reflects a *losing* state. Modelling this as a game pair, [[**Game A**]{}]{}then refers to the situation where sardines are in proximity to an active catfish, in which death due to predation (losing) is more likely than survival (winning). [[**Game A**]{}]{}is hence losing. A two-branch [[**Game B**]{}]{}, on the other hand, models sardine behavior when the catfish is absent or otherwise inactive at predation. In [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}, the sardines are surrounded by more swimming (winning) individuals, and the probability of winning is large as the surrounding sardines sustain a mixing of water and reduces the risk of hypoxia. In [[**Branch 2**]{}]{}, the sardines are surrounded by more inactive (losing) individuals, and the probability of losing is large due to hypoxia. The tendency of sardines to reduce energy expenditure means that, in the absence of catfishes, the sardine group is likely to invoke [[**Branch 2**]{}]{}, the unfavourable branch; however, with catfish present ([[**Game A**]{}]{}), the group is likely to swim to avoid predation, invoking the favourable [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}. This leads to the observed catfish effect.
The catfish effect demonstrates the keystone importance of *agitation* in realizing paradoxical outcomes—indeed, if the agitating [[**Game A**]{}]{}is absent, the ratcheting mechanism cannot at all take effect. In similar vein, the diversity of Parrondo-type paradoxes examined in literature commonly rely on agitation provided by an active game, analogous to [[**Game A**]{}]{}, to drive ratcheting in an accompanying game. In the current paper, we propose the use of *passive* network evolution mechanisms—with no dependence nor influence on agent capital—to provide agitative effects, in replacement of the active [[**Game A**]{}]{}. Existing research relevant to such a construction is notably limited. A previous study had indicated plausible agitative contributions from network rewiring on one-dimensional line and two-dimensional lattice topologies [@ye2013multi], but the results were constrained to regular networks with isomorphic neighborhoods for all nodes. To maintain network regularity, the rewiring process was also constrained to maintain node degrees. These restrictions had enabled simplicity in the mathematics of [[**Game B**]{}]{}but compromises applicability, for networks useful in modelling real-world phenomena are typically non-regular, and rewiring processes do not necessarily preserve degree distributions.
The shift from the canonical active perturbative sources to a passive one is a key contribution of this study. We adopt an [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}framework, modelling passive network evolution and multi-agent redistributive capital dynamics respectively, to investigate the possibility of emergent Parrondo-type paradoxes. Our results indicate that network structure evolution can indeed enhance group adaptability and survivability, in some cases with sufficiently strong effect as to turn formerly losing behaviors into winning ones. The mechanism underlying these paradoxical outcomes is also elucidated, with novel analyses on evolutionary topological trends towards scale-free characteristics.
Methods {#sec:model}
=======
Here, we present a general model comprising a passive rewiring-driven network evolution mechanism, [[**Action A**]{}]{}, and a game capturing multi-agent capital dynamics, [[**Game B**]{}]{}. The structure of the adopted [[**Game B**]{}]{}is shown in Figure \[fig:gameb\], adapted from a previous study [@ye2013parrondo]. For each individual, represented as nodes in the network, the two branches of [[**Game B**]{}]{}is selected on a basis of comparison between the capital of the individual $C_i$ and the mean capital of its neighbors $C_i^\dagger$. This branching structure reflects a degree of correlation (or anticorrelation) between the welfare of individuals and their environments, as is indeed expected in the real-world. In [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}, played when $C_i\leq{C_i^\dagger}$, the winning probability is $p_1$, and in [[**Branch 2**]{}]{}, played when $C_i>{C_i^\dagger}$, the winning probability is $p_2$. Accordingly, the losing probabilities are $(1-p_1)$ and $(1-p_2)$ respectively. We take winning and losing outcomes at each game round to respectively result in a unit increment and decrement in the capital of the individual. It is notable that the current construction is general to node degree, and is hence compatible with rewiring processes that do not preserve degree distributions, unlike prior models [@ye2013parrondo; @ye2016effects].
(gameb) [[[**Game B**]{}]{}]{}; (branch1) \[below left=1.5cm and 1cm of gameb\] [[[**Branch 1**]{}]{}]{}; (branch2) \[below right=1.5cm and 1cm of gameb\] [[[**Branch 2**]{}]{}]{};
(wb1) \[below left=1.5cm and 0.2cm of branch1\] [win]{}; (lb1) \[below right=1.5cm and 0.2cm of branch1\] [lose]{}; (wb2) \[below left=1.5cm and 0.2cm of branch2\] [win]{}; (lb2) \[below right=1.5cm and 0.2cm of branch2\] [lose]{};
(gameb) – (branch1) node\[midway, above, xshift=-1.2cm\] [$C_i \leq \sum_{j\sim i}C_j/K_i$]{}; (gameb) – (branch2) node\[midway, above, xshift=1.2cm\] [$C_i > \sum_{j\sim i}C_j/K_i$]{};
(branch1) – (wb1) node\[midway, above, xshift=-0.5cm\] [$p_1$]{}; (branch1) – (lb1) node\[midway, above, xshift=0.5cm\] [$1-p_1$]{};
(branch2) – (wb2) node\[midway, above, xshift=-0.5cm\] [$p_2$]{}; (branch2) – (lb2) node\[midway, above, xshift=0.5cm\] [$1-p_2$]{};
![Illustration of a single stpe in the random rewiring mechanism of Action A. New connection (thick line) is created between $I$ and $m$ and connection between $i$ and $j$ is removed (dotted line). For the sake of clarity only $N=9$ nodes are shown.[]{data-label="fig:actionA"}](pics/actionA_edited.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
As discussed in the introduction, to enhance the relevance of the network evolution model to real-world systems, the adopted rewiring mechanism is vastly different from previously developed variants [@ye2013multi]. There is no constraint in the current rewiring mechanism that the number of neighbors of all nodes be preserved throughout the evolution process. The adopted rewiring mechanism, [[**Action A**]{}]{}, can be described as follows:
Step 1:
: Node $i$ is selected randomly from the network. If the degree of all neighbors of node $i$ is 1, then node $i$ is re-selected.
Step 2:
: Node $j$ is randomly selected from the neighbors of node $i$. If the degree of node $j$ is 1, then node $j$ is re-selected. If all the neighbors of node $j$ are connected to node $i$ (or is node $i$ itself), then node $j$ is re-selected. In the case that it is not possible to select node $j$ satisfying these properties, then return to **Step 1** and re-select node $i$.
Step 3:
: Node $m$ is randomly selected from the neighbors of the node $j$. If nodes $m$ and $i$ are identical or are connected, then node $m$ is re-selected.
Step 4:
: The connection between node $i$ and node $j$ is broken, and a connection between nodes $m$ and $i$ is formed.
An illustration of the mechanism of [[**Action A**]{}]{}is shown in Figure \[fig:actionA\].[[**Action A**]{}]{}and [[**Game B**]{}]{}can occur individually in the network over a duration of time, such that at each time step $t$, only [[**Action A**]{}]{}or [[**Game B**]{}]{}consistently occurs. Alternatively, a stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}can be implemented, such that at each time step, either [[**Action A**]{}]{}or [[**Game B**]{}]{}is selected to occur on a random basis. We denote the total population gains of game $B$ and the stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}as $W^{(B)}(t)$ and $W^{(A+B)}(t)$ respectively. Here, $W(t)=\sum_{i=1}^N \left(C_i(t) - C_0\right)$, where $C_0$ is the initial capital, taken to be equivalent for all individuals, $C_i(t)$ is the capital of individual $i$ at time $t$, and $N$ is the number of individuals (population size) in the network. In ecological or social-dynamical systems, for instance, the capital can be taken to refer to the wealth or welfare of each individual, and the population gain is then a measure of the growth of wealth or welfare of the entire group.
A *Parrondo-type paradox* then occurs when the stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}produces winning results, despite [[**Game B**]{}]{}being individually losing. Such a paradox is characterized by the condition $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(A+B)}(t) \geq 0, \qquad W^{(B)}(t) < 0.\end{aligned}$$
Results & Discussion {#sec:simulations}
====================
Key simulation results and accompanying analyses are presented in this section, starting with observations on the occurrence of a Parrondo-type paradox in the model (Section \[sec:simulations/paradox\]), network evolution trends (Section \[sec:simulations/structure\]), elucidation of the underlying mechanism responsible for the paradoxical outcomes (Sections \[sec:simulations/macro\] and \[sec:simulations/micro\]), and the presence of a critical rewiring duration after which positive population gains can be maintained even without rewiring (Section \[sec:simulations/agitation\]). For all simulations, an initial two-dimensional lattice network of $N=60\times 60$ nodes was adopted. The initial capital of all individuals is taken to be $C_0 = 500$, and [[**Action A**]{}]{}or [[**Game B**]{}]{}are played with identical probabilities of $1/2$ on each round for stochastic mixing, over a period of $T = 1.8\times 10^5$ rounds.
Occurrence of Parrondo-like paradoxes {#sec:simulations/paradox}
-------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:3\](a) presents simulation results with pure [[**Action A**]{}]{}, pure [[**Game B**]{}]{}, and stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}configurations. It is observed that [[**Action A**]{}]{}alone does not result in any population gain, as is trivially expected from a passive rewiring process, whereas [[**Game B**]{}]{}and [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}can result in both negative and positive population gains. Importantly, there exist regions in parameter space where Parrondo-type paradoxes occur—the combined [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}can result in enhanced population gain as compared to [[**Game B**]{}]{}individually, and even produce positive gain when [[**Game B**]{}]{}is losing. These parameter spaces demonstrate that the passive network rewiring process captured in [[**Action A**]{}]{}can serve effectively as an agitative source to sustain ratcheting when mixed with the capital redistributive dynamics of [[**Game B**]{}]{}.
As an illustrative example, we examine $p_1=0.885$ and $p_2=0.010$, whose corresponding evolution of population gain $W(t)$ is presented in Figure \[fig:3\](b). It is clear that [[**Game B**]{}]{}individually produces a losing result over the long-term, whereas the stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}leads to a sustained winning outcome. In addition, Figure \[fig:3\](c) presents the evolution of $d=W(t)/t$, indicative of the per-round population gain. As can be observed, $d$ gradually converges toward stable values. [[**Game B**]{}]{}individually produces steady-state $d=-0.0035<0$, reflecting a losing game, and [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}produces steady-state $d=0.0090>0$, reflecting a winning game.
[0.6]{}[@ m[0.5]{} @]{} {width="50.00000%"}\
[@ m[0.5]{} m[0.5]{} @]{} {width="50.00000%"} & {width="50.00000%"}\
&
Network structure evolution {#sec:simulations/structure}
---------------------------
To probe further into the underlying mechanism of this paradoxical effect, an analysis of the evolution of network structure is required. We define the *average path length* $L$ of the network [@estrada2012structure] as the average distance between any two nodes: $$L = \frac{2}{N(N-1)} \sum_{1\leq i \leq j \leq N} d_{ij},$$ where $N$ is the network size and $d_{ij}$ denotes the distance between nodes $i$ and $j$ in the network as measured on the shortest connecting path.
Furthermore, the clustering coefficient $\mathcal{C}$ [@estrada2012structure] of the network is defined as the average of clustering coefficients $\mathcal{C}_i$ of node $i$, for all nodes within the network. This is expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_i &= \frac{2\mathcal{E}_i}{k_i(k_i-1)} \\
\mathcal{C} &= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{1\leq i \leq N} \mathcal{C}_i
\end{aligned}$$
where $k_i$ is the degree of node $i$, and $\mathcal{E}_i$ is the number of edges among these $k_i$ neighbouring nodes.
[@ m[0.5]{} m[0.5]{} @]{} {width="50.00000%"} & {width="50.00000%"}\
&
[0.6]{}[@ m[0.5]{} @]{} {width="50.00000%"}\
The time-evolution of the average path length $L$ and the clustering coefficient $\mathcal{C}$ of the network are shown in Figure \[fig:4\](a) and \[fig:4\](b), under the selected parameters. The network structure is static when playing [[**Game B**]{}]{}individually—the degree of all nodes in the two-dimensional lattice remains at $K=4$, and $L\approx{30}$. There are no connections between neighbors of each node, therefore $\mathcal{C}=0$. With network evolution from [[**Action A**]{}]{}, there is first a rapid drop in $L$ and a rapid rise in $\mathcal{C}$. This suggests a shift towards a random or small-world topology. As evolution progresses, $L$ eventually stabilizes at $L\approx{5.2}$, whereas $\mathcal{C}$ declines after reaching a peak of $\mathcal{C}\approx{0.1}$ and eventually stabilizes at $\mathcal{C}\approx{0.004}$. The short average path length and small clustering coefficient appear consistent with scale-free networks. Furthermore, it can be observed that [[**Action A**]{}]{}individually produces a faster evolution of network topology than the stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}, as reflected by the time difference in changes of $L$ and $\mathcal{C}$. The reason for this is that in [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}, on average half of the elapsed game rounds are spent on [[**Game B**]{}]{}, which does not entail network evolution; on the other hand the full proportion of game rounds drive network evolution in [[**Action A**]{}]{}alone.
The shift in network topology is further confirmed with an analysis on the degree distribution of the network, as presented in Figure \[fig:4\](c). It is observed that the degree distribution morphs from the $\delta$-distribution of the initial lattice to a normal-like distribution as evolution progresses, in turn eventually shifting into a power-law distribution. In our proposed rewiring process, if the degree of all neighbors of node is 1, then node is re-selected. To some extent, this has a “preferential attachment” effect. The initial network is a two-dimensional lattice network. With evolution from Action A, nodes with a single neighbour will gradually appear. These nodes will no longer be selected in subsequent rounds of network evolution. Therefore, with the increase of time, the set of nodes participating in Action A will become smaller. This leads to the formation of a tail, which may be the reason why the degree distribution becomes power-law over time. Curve-fitting on the degree distribution data have been performed to quantitatively confirm this trend, with results presented in Table \[tab:curve-fitting\]. Summarizing these results, under the rewiring process of [[**Action A**]{}]{}, the network structure gradually evolves from the initial two-dimensional lattice towards a scale-free network. A stabilization of the network structure is observed after approximately $t=10^5$, as reflected in the approach towards steady-state in Figures \[fig:4\](a)–(c).
Time $t$ Best-Fit Distribution Function
----------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
$1.0\times10^3$ Normal $P(k)=0.7718\exp{\left[-\left(\frac{k-3.993}{0.7114}\right)^2\right]}$
$1.0\times10^4$ Normal $P(k)=0.2709\exp{\left[-\left(\frac{k-3.784}{2.061}\right)^2\right]}$
$5.0\times10^4$ Normal $P(k)=0.2181\exp{\left[-\left(\frac{k+1.405}{7.279}\right)^2\right]}$
$1.0\times10^5$ Power Law $P(k)=0.2971k^{-1.023}$
$1.8\times10^5$ Power Law $P(k)=0.3369k^{-1.143}$
\[tab:curve-fitting\]
Macroanalysis on paradoxical mechanism {#sec:simulations/macro}
--------------------------------------
The examined case of $p_1=0.885>1/2$ and $p_2=0.010<1/2$ implies that [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}is favourable (large winning probability) and [[**Branch 2**]{}]{}in unfavourable (large losing probability). The expected gain $E$ of [[**Game B**]{}]{}can be computed as $$E= \pi_1 \left(2p_1-1\right) + \pi_2 \left(2p_2-1\right),
\label{eqn:mean}$$ where $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ represent the stationary distribution probabilities of [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}and [[**Branch 2**]{}]{}of [[**Game B**]{}]{}respectively. Under $p_1=0.885$ and $p_2=0.010$, the condition for a fair [[**Game B**]{}]{}($E=0$) can be calculated to be $\pi_1^\dagger =0.56$ and $\pi_2^\dagger=0.44$.
At each game round, the average probability $\pi_1$ of playing [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}of [[**Game B**]{}]{}can be computed by comparing the capital of each node with the mean capital of its neighbors. This is presented in Figure \[fig:5\]. When the system settles into steady-state, $\pi_1$ stabilizes at $0.5541$ when [[**Game B**]{}]{}is individually played; but this probability is raised to $0.5640$ for the stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}. It follows from the fair-game condition that a winning outcome will result in the long-term if the steady-state $\pi_1$ exceeds $\pi_1^\dagger$, and vice versa, indeed consistent with the observation that [[**Game B**]{}]{}individually is losing but [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}is winning. In other words, the paradoxical mechanism can be deduced to hinge upon the network structure evolution in [[**Action A**]{}]{}, which raises the chance of playing the favourable branch of [[**Game B**]{}]{}in subsequent rounds. This effect is large enough to overcome the losing tendency of [[**Game B**]{}]{}and produce positive population gains.
–(c)](pics/fig6.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
. \[fig:5\]
Microanalysis on positive population gains {#sec:simulations/micro}
------------------------------------------
The criticality of network evolution in the underlying ratcheting mechanism has been suggested by the previous analysis, but the adopted statistical approach does not reveal the exact pathways through which network structure influence branch probabilities and hence long-term outcomes. We therefore seek a micro-scale analysis. To facilitate discussions, we divide the population gain into three contributory parts—gain of all nodes of degree $K_i\leq{5}$, gain of all nodes of $6<K_i\leq{20}$, and gain of all nodes of $K_i>{20}$. The gain in these three subpopulations over time is tracked and presented in Figure \[fig:6\](a), and the probability $\pi_1$ of the subpopulations playing the favourable [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}is shown in Figure \[fig:6\](b).
It is observed in Figure Figure \[fig:6\](a) that the primary source of population gain (close to 90%) is due to contributions from the $K_i\leq{5}$ subpopulation, followed by the $6<K_i\leq{20}$ subpopulation, with the $K_i>{20}$ subpopulation essentially negligible. At the same time, it is observed from Figure \[fig:6\](b) that the probability of playing [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}$\pi_1$ in the $K_i\leq{5}$ and $6<K_i\leq{20}$ subpopulations is consistently greater than the fair-game threshold of $0.56$, thus indicating the steady generation of positive gain. In comparison, $\pi_1$ in the $K_i>{20}$ subpopulation exhibits great volatility, suggesting rapid switching of the neighboring environments of these large-degree nodes between favorable and unfavorable conditions.
At steady-state, the average gains of subpopulations of each node degree, and their probabilities $\pi_1$ of playing [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}, can be computed—these results are presented in Figure \[fig:7\](a) and \[fig:7\](b) respectively. Figure \[fig:7\](a) confirms that the overall population gain results largely from small- and medium-degree nodes, and reveals significant polarization on large-degree nodes with alternating positive and negative average gains, averaging to negligible levels as had previously been observed. This polarization is similarly reflected in Figure \[fig:7\](b). Essentially, a portion of large-degree nodes have neighbouring environments that are greatly favourable in inducing [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}, and a portion have environments greatly unfavourable, leading to the large spread in $\pi_1$ and gain. It can, furthermore, be seen that during the evolution towards steady-state, the gain and degree of each large-degree node display large-amplitude oscillatory characteristics. This is shown in Figure \[fig:8\].
These results indicate a number of key facets in the paradoxical mechanism—there is a characteristic oscillatory pattern in the gain of large-degree nodes, there is an on-average alteration of the probability of entering the favourable [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}, and the rewiring process of [[**Action A**]{}]{}is responsible for producing paradoxical positive gains from an originally losing game, with the accompanying shift in degree distribution potentially playing a notable role. The underlying micro-scale mechanism may be summarized as follows:
- Each large-degree node is typically connected to a large number of small- and medium-degree neighbors. Suppose an arbitrary large-degree node has gain $E$ at a certain time. A large $E$ is beneficial to the neighbors of the large-degree node, as it raises their chances of playing the favourable [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}under [[**Game B**]{}]{}. However, the resultant growth in capital of its neighbors is unfavourable to the large-degree node itself, as an increase in mean neighbor capital lowers its chances of playing [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}. The gain $E$ of the large-degree node will hence be eventually reduced.
- These mechanics essentially mandate an inverse relationship between the gains of large-degree nodes and its neighbors. At some point, $E$ will have decreased sufficiently to become unfavourable to the neighbors, and the resulting decrease in mean capital of the neighbors is in turn favourable to the large-degree node. The gain $E$ will then increase, and the cycle repeats. In other words, the adversity between the large-degree node and its neighbors facilitates reversal behavior as the game progresses. This explains the alternating characteristics of the gain and $\pi_1$ of large-degree nodes previously observed in Figures \[fig:7\] to \[fig:8\].
[@ m[0.5]{} m[0.5]{} @]{} {width="50.00000%"} & {width="50.00000%"}\
&
[@ m[0.5]{} m[0.5]{} @]{} {width="50.00000%"} & {width="50.00000%"}\
&
[@ m[0.5]{} m[0.5]{} @]{} {width="50.00000%"} & {width="50.00000%"}\
&
Sustained necessity of network rewiring agitation {#sec:simulations/agitation}
-------------------------------------------------
\
Considering the rewiring-driven mechanism inducing paradoxical population gains, it is meaningful to question if continued rewiring must occur to maintain positive outcomes, or if beyond a certain threshold, rewiring can be removed with no resultant regression. The latter may hypothetically be possible, if the initial period of rewiring is sufficient to bring the network towards a suitable topology for small-degree nodes to benefit effectively from the oscillatory patterns of larger-degree neighbors.
To investigate such a possibility, we omit [[**Action A**]{}]{}after the stochastically mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}has been played for a certain period of time $t^*$, such that [[**Game B**]{}]{}is played individually for the remaining duration. The simulation results are presented in Figure \[fig:9\](a)–(d), for various values of $t^*$. It is observed from Figures \[fig:9\](a)–(c) that the omission of [[**Action A**]{}]{}at too early a duration prevents the system from sustaining positive population gains, as the network topology is insufficiently evolved before entering steady-state. On the other hand,Figure \[fig:9\](d) demonstrates that when $t^*$ is sufficiently large ($\gtrsim{10^5}$), the system can still generate and retain a positive population gain.
This indicates that beyond a certain period of agitation via network rewiring, the attained steady-state network structure should rewiring be disabled can confer adequate environments for small-degree nodes to sustain the exploitative mechanism. It can also be noted from Figure \[fig:4\] that beyond $t=10^5$, the scale-free characteristics of the network structure are stable, indeed supporting this deduction. Even if rewiring is continued, Figure \[fig:9\](d) shows rapidly diminishing returns, and beyond $t=3\times10^5$, the agitation effect of [[**Action A**]{}]{}can no longer render a growth in population gains. There is therefore a matching value between the required duration of agitative rewiring ([[**Action A**]{}]{}) and the network size, exceeding which the system effectively becomes passive and insignificant further growth can be achieved.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, a stochastically mixed model of [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}was developed to study the effects of network co-evolution on group behavior adaptability and welfare dynamics. In the constructed model, [[**Action A**]{}]{}reflects a rewiring process that drives evolution of network structure, and hence the survival environment of individuals, while [[**Game B**]{}]{}reflects survival mechanics between interacting individuals. The influence of the environment on the survivability of individuals typically comprise both favourable and unfavourable facets, hence [[**Game B**]{}]{}was constructed with two branches, of which [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}reflects favorable influence and [[**Branch 2**]{}]{}reflects adverse influence.
The key result of the current study is that *Parrondo-type* paradoxes can occur when network rewiring ([[**Action A**]{}]{}) is stochastically mixed with multi-agent redistributive mechanics ([[**Game B**]{}]{})—that is, mixed [[**Action A**]{}]{}+ [[**Game B**]{}]{}can produce long-term enhanced and even winning outcomes, despite [[**Game B**]{}]{}being losing individually. It is notable that this result exhibits fundamental differences to the canonical paradoxes produced by Parrondo-type game pairs. In these canonical paradoxes, winning outcomes are produced from the interaction of two active played games ([[**Game A**]{}]{}and [[**Game B**]{}]{}), whereas [[**Action A**]{}]{}examined here is a purely *passive* process, independent of the capital of agents. The result, in other words, is that interaction between a passive process and a single game can produce paradoxes.
Through an extensive analysis, the mechanism underlying the occurrence of such paradoxes has been elucidated. Simplistically, rewiring operations shuffle connections between small-degree and large-degree nodes, thereby enabling small-degree nodes to have a greater on-average chance of invoking the favourable [[**Branch 1**]{}]{}through exploitation of oscillatory behavior of their large-degree neighbors. The evolution of the network structure from the initial lattice topology towards small-world and scale-free networks further facilitates such a mechanism. It is also revealed that rewiring need not be continued indefinitely for the system to maintain positive outcomes, as beyond a threshold duration, the network structure can become adequately conducive to sustain the paradoxical mechanism.
The common emergence of multi-agent competitive-cooperative behavior and interaction structure has indeed been reported in prior literature, typically analyzed through game-theoretic frameworks. Game benefits generated by competitive and cooperative relationships among individuals oftentimes indicate a degree of group adaptability. A variety of game models and contexts have been examined in these existing works, including the prisoner’s dilemma model [@szolnoki2008towards; @vukov2006cooperation], the snowdrift game [@hauert2004spatial; @shang2006cooperative], the public goods game [@hauert2002volunteering; @santos2008social], and the ultimatum game [@nowak2000fairness; @ye2016effect], reflecting differing competitive and cooperative dynamics between individuals. Our current results will aid in the understanding of individual rationality and mobility in their communities, and the group advantages they can potentially confer. In this respect, an ecologically-relevant example is that of emperor penguins, which exhibits coordinated group behavior for survival in cold environmental conditions. Emperor penguins typically cluster in close proximity to conserve heat, but individuals in the outer ranks lose heat more quickly, and are at risk of freezing. If the outer ranks fall, the entire formation will crumple layer by layer. This is detrimental to the entire group. The penguins therefore adopt a dynamic ’transposition’ group behavior, similar to the rewiring process of [[**Action A**]{}]{}, that exchanges individuals between inner and outer ranks. Through this passive process, the risks of outer ranks freezing and inner ranks overheating are reduced.
The current study has focused on strictly passive rewiring mechanisms (independent of agent capitals), as such a regime is greatly complementary to the current understanding of Parrondo-type frameworks. In particular, the evolution of background dependencies between agents in the real-world is seldom tied to direct changes in capital—for instance, changes in the social network of an individual does not immediately alter career and financial standing, but may nonetheless eventually influence progression indirectly. A passive mechanism is needed to model such phenomena. Variants of capital-dependent rewiring, such as preferential rewiring towards high-capital or low-capital nodes, can be investigated in future studies.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.11705002), the Ministry of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences (Research Project 15YJCZ H210; 19YJAZH098), SUTD Start-up Research Grant (No. SRG SCI 2019 142), and the SUTD-MIT IDC Grant (No. IDG21900101 and IDIN19001).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Cooperation between mobile robots and wireless sensor networks is a line of research that is currently attracting a lot of attention. In this context, we study the following problem of barrier coverage by stationary wireless sensors that are assisted by a mobile robot with the capacity to move sensors. Assume that $n$ sensors are initially arbitrarily distributed on a line segment barrier. Each sensor is said to cover the portion of the barrier that intersects with its sensing area. Owing to incorrect initial position, or the death of some of the sensors, the barrier is not completely covered by the sensors. We employ a mobile robot to move the sensors to final positions on the barrier such that barrier coverage is guaranteed. We seek algorithms that minimize the length of the robot’s trajectory, since this allows the restoration of barrier coverage as soon as possible. We give an optimal linear-time offline algorithm that gives a minimum-length trajectory for a robot that starts at one end of the barrier and achieves the restoration of barrier coverage. We also study two different online models: one in which the online robot does not know the length of the barrier in advance, and the other in which the online robot knows the length of the barrier. For the case when the online robot does not know the length of the barrier, we prove a tight bound of $3/2$ on the competitive ratio, and we give a tight lower bound of $5/4$ on the competitive ratio in the other case. Thus for each case we give an optimal online algorithm.'
author:
- 'J. Czyzowicz'
- 'E. Kranakis'
- 'D. Krizanc'
- 'L. Narayanan'
- 'J. Opatrny'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Optimal online and offline algorithms for robot-assisted restoration of barrier coverage [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Mobile robots and wireless sensor networks are related areas of research that have largely been studied by different communities of researchers. Recently, there has been increasing interest in the possibilities uncovered by utilizing [*both*]{} technologies [@Kouba14]: what if mobile robots and wireless sensors could [*cooperate*]{} to solve problems and perform tasks? Environments where autonomous networked entities such as robots and sensors cooperate to achieve a common goal are sometimes called [*mixed-mode environments*]{} and have been the subject of several recent research events, e.g., [@robosense13; @GkmM12]. In this paper, we study a related mixed-mode problem for barrier coverage. Assume $n$ stationary sensors have initial positions on a line segment barrier. Owing to incorrect initial placement, or the death of some sensors due to battery failure or a disaster, the barrier is not completely covered by the sensors. An illustration is given in Figure \[fig:ex\](a), where the segment of the barrier covered by a sensor is represented as a box.
![Robot-assisted restoration of barrier coverage problem with sensor range equal to 0.5: (a) the initial configuration on segment $[0,L]$ with gaps in coverage, (b) a possible solution, (c) and (d) give examples of trajectories that could be followed by the robot to obtain the final configuration in (b).[]{data-label="fig:ex"}](example.pdf){width="11cm"}
The task of the mobile robot is to walk along the barrier segment, pick up and move sensors to final positions such that barrier coverage is restored, [*i.e.*]{}, in their final positions, the sensors collectively cover the entire line segment barrier as in Figure \[fig:ex\](b). Note that the final positions that achieve barrier coverage are not unique. Since sensors may need to be moved in different directions, i.e. left or right, to assure coverage, the robot may sometimes need to turn or change direction in order to restore coverage. The robot may decide to resolve the gap as soon as possible, as late as possible, or some time in between. The robot thus follows a certain [*trajectory*]{}, which can be specified by the starting point, and a sequence of points where the robot alternately turns left and right before it reaches its termination point. Given the initial configuration of Figure \[fig:ex\](a), two of the possible trajectories that achieve the same final positions of sensors are shown in Figures \[fig:ex\](c) and (d). The time needed to restore barrier coverage is clearly related to the length of the robot’s trajectory, which in turn depends on the knowledge it has of the initial positions of sensors. The problem we are interested in is finding an [*optimal*]{} trajectory for the mobile robot in order to achieve barrier coverage as fast as possible. [**Sensor relocation model.**]{} In the sequel we define the capabilities of the sensors and the robot, as well as the trajectory of the robot.
[*Sensors.* ]{} Assume that $n$ [*sensors*]{} $s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_n$ are distributed on the line segment $[0, L]$ of length $L$ with endpoints $0$ and $L$ in locations $x_1\leq x_2\leq \ldots\leq x_n$. The range of all sensors is assumed to be identical, and is equal to a positive real number $r>0$. Thus sensor $s_i$ in position $x_i$ defines a closed interval $[x_i-r, x_i+r]$ of length $2r$ centered at the current position $x_i$ of the sensor, in which it can detect an intruding object or an event of interest. See Figure \[fig:ex\](a) for an illustration of a problem instance. We say that the sensor [*covers*]{} the closed interval $[x_i-r, x_i+r]$. We assume that the total range of the sensors is sufficient to cover the entire line segment $[0, L]$, i.e., $2rn \geq L$. We define a [*gap*]{} to be a closed subinterval $G$ of $[0,L]$ such that no point in $G$ is within the range of a sensor. Clearly, an initial placement of the sensors may have gaps. The sensors provide [*complete coverage*]{} of $[0,L]$ if they leave no gaps. [*Robot.*]{} There is a [*mobile robot*]{} that can move the sensors to positions that guarantee coverage of the entire line segment. We assume that the robot can [*pick, carry, move*]{} and [*drop/deposit*]{} sensors from any initial position to any desired position on the line segment. There is no constraint on the direction and number of turns it can take (left or right) so as to pick and/or drop sensors, and no restriction on where in the line segment it can drop the sensors. We study the case when sensors are small enough and thus the robot can potentially carry all the sensors it needs at the same time.
[*Robot trajectory and length.*]{} Our goal is to provide offline and online algorithms so as to minimize the time taken to restore barrier coverage. Assuming constant speed, we measure this by the distance travelled by the robot from its starting position to complete the task of moving sensors to positions which guarantee complete coverage of the barrier. We assume that the mobile robot starts at position $0$ and moves to the right. At some point it can turn and move left, then again turn and move right and so on. Thus its trajectory can be specified as a sequence of points on the barrier: $[t_0=0, t_1,t_2, \ldots, t_m]$, where the points $t_1,t_3,\ldots$ are the points where the robot turns left, the points $t_2,t_4,\ldots$ are the points where the robot turns right, and finally, the point $t_m$ is the [*termination point*]{} of the trajectory. Therefore, $t_i>t_{i-1}$ for all odd $i$ while $t_i < t_{i-1}$ for all even $i$ where $0 < i \leq m$, and the robot’s trajectory is the sequence of line segments $[0, t_1], [t_1, t_2], \cdots, [t_{m-1}, t_m]$. The length of the trajectory is defined as $\Sigma_{i=1}^m |t_i - t_{i-1}|$.
We seek algorithms that calculate an [*optimal*]{} trajectory for the mobile robot that ensure barrier coverage, i.e. a trajectory of smallest possible length. A mobile robot using an [*offline*]{} algorithm to calculate its trajectory is assumed to know all the initial positions of sensors before starting its trajectory. On the other hand, a robot using an [*online*]{} algorithm knows about sensors only in the parts of the barrier segment where it has already travelled. Specifically, an online robot discovers the presence or absence of a sensor at position $x$ only when reaching $x$. Therefore, at the start of the algorithm, such a robot has no knowledge about any of the sensors’ positions. It can of course remember any sensors that it has seen previously.
[**Related work.**]{} Barrier coverage using wireless sensors has been the subject of intensive research in the last decade [@barriercoverageNodeDegree; @barriercoverage05; @barrierCoveragePlane]. Some papers assumed randomized deployment of sensors on the barrier and analyzed the probability of barrier coverage. Other papers have studied the case of relocatable sensors [@SC10; @Teng07], which start at arbitrary positions and can move to final positions that achieve barrier coverage. Centralized algorithms for minimizing the maximum and average movement of sensors were studied in [@swat2012; @adhocnow2009] and [@adhocnow2010] respectively. Multiple barriers were studied in [@tcs2009], and distributed algorithms for barrier coverage were given for the first time in [@HesariKKPNOS13].
Charikar et al. [@charikar2001algorithms] consider the $k$-delivery TSP problem for transporting efficiently $n$ identical objects, placed at arbitrary initial locations, to $n$ target locations with a vehicle that can carry at most $k$ objects at a time. Chalopin et al. [@wid2013] provide hardness results, exact, approximation, and resource-augmented algorithms for the problem of whether there is a schedule of agents’ movements that collaboratively deliver data from specified sources of a network to a central repository. Our problem differs both in being uncapacitated, and in the fact that the locations of the sources and targets are not known in advance.
Online vehicle routing problems and the online travelling salesman problem have been studied previously; see [@jaillet-wagner] for a survey. Our problem and our conception of online are quite different: the locations the robot needs to deposit sensors are not pre-determined, and we assume an online robot discovers the positions of sensors as it moves along the barrier.
Cooperation between mobile robots and wireless sensors is a relatively new research area and has been explored in several research events in the last couple of years [@GkmM12; @Kouba14; @robosense12; @robosense13]. The authors of [@DSKZ06] and [@SSL07] use information obtained from wireless sensors for the problem of localization of a mobile robot. In [@JS01], mobile robots and stationary sensors cooperate in a target tracking problem: stationary sensors track moving sensors in their sensor range, while mobile robots explore regions not covered by the fixed sensors. A common evaluation platform for mixed-mode environments incorporating both mobile robots and wireless sensor networks is described in [@Kropff08].
[**Our results.**]{} We give a linear time offline algorithm that computes an optimal trajectory for a robot starting at an endpoint of the barrier to restore barrier coverage. For the online case, we show that when the robot does not know the length of the barrier and recognizes the end of it only when reaching it, any algorithm must have a competitive ratio of at least $3/2$. We give a simple algorithm that matches this bound. When the robot does know the length of the barrier, we show a lower bound of $5/4$ on the competitive ratio of any online algorithm for the problem. We then give an adaptive online algorithm whose competitive ratio matches this lower bound.
Optimal Offline Algorithm
=========================
In our offline algorithm we assume that the robot has global knowledge of the positions of sensors on the line segment, and that during the course of its movement, can pick up and carry as many sensors as necessary and deposit them as required. All sensors have identical range denoted by $r$, and the robot starts at the endpoint $0$ of the interval $[0,L]$, and the number of given sensors is sufficient to cover the given interval. Obviously, when the barrier does not contain any gap, the trajectory is empty and we consider below instances containing gaps. We begin by establishing the properties of optimal non-empty trajectories of the robot, which are crucial to the development of the algorithm. We say that a solution is [*order-preserving*]{} if the final order of the position of the sensors is the same as their initial positions. Secondly, a solution is called [*fully stretched*]{} if the robot places all sensors in [*attached positions*]{}, i.e., two consecutive sensors encountered by the robot are placed at distance $2r$ and the first sensor is at distance $r$ from $0$, except possibly the sensors at or after the termination point $t_m$ as in the example in Figure \[fig:ex\](b).
[*(Order-preserving fully stretched solution)*]{} \[lm:op\] There exists an optimal trajectory for the robot that produces an order-preserving fully-stretched solution.
Let $s_i$ and $s_j$ be two sensors such that $x_i<x_j$ and assume that the robot, when following an optimal trajectory places $s_i$ to the right of $s_j$. Clearly, on any optimal trajectory the robot encounters $s_i$ before $s_j$. If on the trajectory of the robot, the placement of $s_i$ occurs after the robot encounters $s_j$, then the robot can pick $s_j$ when traversing it and reverse the placements of $s_i$ and $s_j$. If on the trajectory of the robot, the placement of $s_i$ occurs before the robot encounters $s_j$ then the robot makes a left turn after encountering $s_j$ and the trajectory of the robot must cross the final position of $s_i$. When crossing $s_i$, the robot can replace $s_i$ by $s_j$, and place later $s_i$ in place of $s_j$ using the same trajectory. Since the sensors have identical ranges, this exchange of positions of $s_i$ and $s_j$ gives the same barrier coverage.
When following an order preserving trajectory, the robot can pick any sensor it encounters and delay the drop of a sensor, or drop it earlier so that the distance to the beginning of the segment is $r$ or to the preceding sensor is $2r$. This can be done as long as the span of the trajectory extends $2r$ past the previous sensor.
[*(Three Visits Lemma)*]{} \[lm2\] The trajectory of an optimal algorithm does not contain the same point of the line segment more than three times. Furthermore, the last point of the trajectory can occur in the trajectory at most twice.
The idea is to demonstrate that a robot visiting a point in the line segment more than three times produces a non-optimal trajectory. This is based on the [*early pick-up, late drop*]{} principle, i.e. we show that if a point $p$ is visited more than three times, we can replace a part of a trajectory with a new, shorter trajectory in which pick-ups of sensors are done as early as possible, and drops of sensors are delayed to after the picking in the affected part is finished.
Assume on the contrary that a point, say $p$, on the line segment is visited by the robot at least $k$ times, $k \geq 4$, during its optimal trajectory $T$, see Figure \[fig:fg1\]. Consider trajectory $T_1$, a part of trajectory $T$, that the robot follows from the first to the last visit of $p$. Let $a$ be the rightmost point and $b$ be the leftmost point of the segment $[0,L]$ occurring on $T_1$. Let $T_2$ be a part of trajectory $T$ from $b$ to $p$ prior to reaching $p$ for the first time. Part $T_2$ must exist since the trajectory starts at $0$. Clearly, all sensors that the robot deposits between $b$ and $a$ when following $T$ up to the last visit of $p$ are from among the sensors that the robot carried when entering $T_2$ and those sensors the robot found on the segment between $b$ and $a$. Thus the robot can achieve the same result by replacing $T_2$ and $T_1$ by trajectory $T_3$ consisting of three parts: Part one of $T_3$ is segment $[b,a]$, and the robot when moving from $b$ to $a$ picks all sensors found there. (This “early pick” allows the robot to have all sensors needed later on), Part two is segment $[a,b]$ and the robot when moving from $a$ to $b$ drops the sensors in the same order as achieved by $T_1$ and $T_2$ (the late drop part). The third part is segment $[b,p]$ moving from $b$ to $p$, where the robot does no picks or drops of sensors, see Figure \[fig:fg2\] (a). When following $T_3$, the robot picked all sensors found between $b$ and $a$ and dropped the same sensors as when following $T_2$ and $T_1$. Thus, when it reaches $p$ for the third time, it carries at least the same or more sensors than when reaching $p$ along $T$ for the last time. Thus the robot then can continue along the rest of $T$ and achieve the same result, while visiting $p$ only three times. This trajectory is shorter, a contradiction.
If $T$ ends at $p$, then the third part $[b,p]$ of $T_3$ is not needed, since the robot is doing nothing, and the trajectory should end at $b$. This implies that the last point of an optimal trajectory can be visited at most twice. The case when trajectory $T_3$ ends at $b$ is shown in Figure \[fig:fg2\] (b).
![More than three visits of the point $p$ by the trajectory of the robot.[]{data-label="fig:fg1"}](tr01.pdf){width="6cm"}
![Replacing the old trajectory of the robot with either of the two depicted trajectories.[]{data-label="fig:fg2"}](tr02.pdf){width="12cm"}
Observe that the above lemmas applies to both offline and online algorithms. Furthermore, once a trajectory is specified, the robot can produce an order-preserving fully stretched solution as discussed below, so it suffices to specify the trajectory of the robot.
Given an optimal trajectory $[t_0, t_1, t_2,t_3 \ldots, t_{m-1}, t_m]$, the robot makes a left turn at $t_1, t_3, \ldots$ and right turns at $t_2, t_4,\ldots$. Therefore, the segments $[t_2,t_1], [t_4, t_3],$ $ \ldots,$ $[t_{2i},t_{2i-1}],\ldots$ of $[0,L]$ are traversed by the robot three times, $1\leq i \leq (m-1)/2$, and if $m$ is even, then the segment $[t_m, t_m-1]$, is traversed twice. Furthermore, all these segments are pairwise disjoint, except possibly for the endpoints of the segments. We call the part of the trajectory $[t_{2i},t_{2i-1}]$, $1\leq i \leq (m-1)/2$, traversed by the robot three times, a [*triple*]{}, $t_{2i-1}$ is called its [*left turning point*]{} and $t_{2i}$ is called its [*right turning point*]{}. If $m$ is even, then the segment $[t_{m}, t_{m-1}]$ is called a [*double*]{} and $t_{m-1}$ is called its [*left turning point*]{}. Any line segment in the trajectory that is traversed exactly once by the robot is called a [*straight line segment*]{} (see Figure \[fig:fg3\]). When following a straight line segment the robot necessarily has sufficient supply of sensors and deposits them in attached positions. When following a segment of a triple or a double for the first time, the robot picks all sensors found there and deposits then in attached positions when going back over the segment (see the proof of Lemma \[lm2\]). Clearly, if two consecutive triples, or a triple and a double share an endpoint, these two moves can be merged into a single triple, or a double. This observation and the preceding lemmas imply the following corollary.
\[cor1\] There is an optimal order-preserving and fully stretched trajectory of the robot that produces a complete coverage of $[0,L]$ which consists of $k$ consecutive triples and straight line segments for some $k\geq 0$, and ends with a straight line segment or a double (see Figure \[fig:fg3\]).
![Two possible shapes of an optimal trajectory.[]{data-label="fig:fg3"}](tr03.pdf){width="10cm"}
To construct an optimal trajectory of the robot we need to determine, from the given input instance, the ends of the triples and a double. The following definition of coverage balance is used to determine them.
The [*coverage balance*]{} of sensor $s_i$ at location $x_i$ is defined to be $C_i= (2ri -r)-x_i$, i.e., the difference between the total length that can be covered by sensors $s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_i$ up to the center of $s_i$, and the distance of $s_i$ to the beginning of the interval.
Consider the example in Figure \[fig:ex\]. The coverage balance of sensors listed from left to right are $0.2, -1.1, -0.2,-0.1, 0.2, 0.3,-0.8$ and $0.2$. Notice that in the two examples of trajectories in this figure each left turn is done at a sensor with negative coverage balance. However, doing a left turn at every sensor with negative coverage balance would be wrong, because it could violate the three visits lemma. Similarly, doing a triple involving many consecutive sensors with negative coverage balance can be sub-optimal as well, as seen in the trajectory of Figure \[fig:ex\](c). The following lemma specifies all potential left turning points.
\[lm:opt-tr\] Let $([t_0, t_1, t_2,t_3 \ldots, t_{m-1}, t_m])$ be an optimal trajectory which minimizes the number of triples.
1. Every sensor with negative coverage balance is shifted left, and thus its location is in a triple or the double segment.
2. No triple segment contains the location of a sensor with nonnegative coverage balance.
3. In a double segment the rightmost sensor has negative coverage balance.
4. For every triple $[t_{2i},t_{2i-1}]$, the left-turning point $t_{2i-1}$ is a location of a sensor $x_j$ for some integer $j$ such that either $-2r<C_j<0$, or both, $-2r=C_j$ and $x_j=x_{j+1}$, and the coverage balance of every other sensor located in the interval $[t_{2i},t_{2i-1}]$ is less than or equal to $-2r$.
5. Let $k$ be the smallest integer such that all gaps in $[0,L]$ are to the left of $2rk$. Then $s_k$ is the last sensor to be moved. Let $c= x_k$ if $C_k<0$, else $c= x_k+C_k$. If the trajectory does not end with a double then $C_k\geq 0$, $m$ is odd, and the termination point $t_m=c$. Otherwise the trajectory ends with a double, and $t_{m-1}=c$, i.e., the left-turning point of the double is $c$.
Clearly, any sensor with negative coverage balance needs to be shifted to the left and this is done using a triple of the double . If interval $[t_{2i},t_{2i-1}]$ is a triple than it cannot contain a sensor with nonnegative coverage balance or otherwise we can replace one triple with a shorter triple or two triples that are shorter in total.\
If the rightmost sensor of a double has nonnegative coverage balance, the double can be made shorter by omitting this sensor from the double and by making any shift of it to the right when it is encountered the first time.
Clearly, the left turning point of any triple should be a location of a sensor with negative coverage balance, otherwise the triple can be made shorter. If $C_j \leq -2r$, and $x_j < x_{j+1}$ then sensor $s_{j+1}$ must be shifted left to the position $t_{2i-1}$, or to the left of it by another triple or double. This would either allow a merge of triple $[t_{2i},t_{2i-1}]$ with another triple or double, or it would contradict the three visits lemma. Thus, either $-2r<C_j<0$, or $C_j= 2r$ and $x_j= x_{j+1}$.
Since all gaps are to the left of $2rk$, placing sensors $s_1,s_2,\ldots, s_k$ in attached position covers all gaps and $s_k$ is the rightmost sensor on the trajectory. If $C_k$ is negative, the robot must turn right at $x_k$ for a double. If there is no double, $C_K\geq 0$ and by Corollary \[cor1\] the trajectory ends with a straight line segment, terminating at $c$.
Thus, by the preceding lemma, the potential left turning points in the example in Figure \[fig:ex\] are the initial locations of sensors $s_3, s_4$, and $s_7$, but not $s_2$.
\[def:A\] Let $m$ be the number of sensors whose coverage balance is either $-2r<C_j<0$, or $-2r=C_j$ and $x_j=x_{j+1}$. The list $A$ of indices of sensors of [*potential triple delimiters*]{} is a list of pairs $A= [(b_1, a_1), (b_2, a_2), \cdots, (b_m, a_m)]$ of sensor indices such that
1. $a_1 < a_2 < \cdots < a_m$ are the indices of all sensors such that either $-2r<C_j<0$, or $-2r=C_j$ and $x_j=x_{j+1}$
2. $b_1 $ is the smallest index of a sensor with negative coverage balance, and for $1<i\leq m$ the value of $b_i$ is the smallest index larger than $a_{i-1}$ with negative coverage balance.
\[lm:tpt\] Let $A$ be the list of indices of sensors of potential triple delimiters, $m$ be the number of pairs in $A$, and $c$ be defined as in Lemma \[lm:opt-tr\]. There is an optimal, order preserving, fully-stretched trajectory such that for some integer $j$, $0\leq j\leq m$,
1. the trajectory contains $j$ triples $[x_{b_{i}} + C_{b_i},x_{a_{i}}]$, $1\leq i\leq j$,
2. If $j<m$ then the trajectory ends with a double, $[x_{b_{j+1}} + C_{b_{j+1}},c]$, otherwise the trajectory ends with a straight line and its termination point is $c$.
Consider an optimal trajectory $T$ which minimizes the number of triples. Each pair in list $A$ gives an interval of indices of sensors with negative coverage balance. According to Lemma \[lm:opt-tr\], these sensors must be moved left by a triple or a double. Furthermore the left turning point of any triple is the location of a sensor $s_{a_i}$. Thus, if $T$ contains $j$ triples then $1\leq j\leq m$, and the triples are as stated in the lemma. If $j<m$ then all remaining sensors with negative coverage must be shifted left by a double, and, by Lemma \[lm:opt-tr\], this move is $[x_{b_{j+1}} + C_{b_{j+1}},c]$. If $j=m$ then the trajectory must end at $c$.
The main idea of our offline algorithm is to calculate the list $A$ of potential triple delimiters as defined in Definition \[def:A\]. Let $T_j$ be a trajectory that uses triples on the first $j$ pairs of $A$, $0\leq j \leq m$, and one double if $j<m$. We define the overhead $o_j$ of a trajectory $T_j$ to be the difference between the length of $T_j$ and the straight line trajectory. Clearly,
$$o_j = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
c- x_{b_{j+1}}-C_{b_{j+1}}+\sum_{i=1}^j 2(x_{a_i} -x_{b_i} -C_{b_i})
\mbox{ for } 1 < j < m,\\
\sum_{i=1}^m 2(x_{a_i} -x_{b_i} -C_{b_i}) \mbox{ for }j=m
\end{array}\right.$$
The algorithm calculates the overhead of $T_j$ trajectories for $1\leq j\leq m$ and chooses the trajectory with the minimum overhead. By Lemma \[lm:tpt\], the trajectory with the minimum overhead is optimal. Thus a robot finds the coordinates of an optimal trajectory by executing the offline algorithm below.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx= Algorithm\
(1,0)[440]{}\
the length $L$ of the segment, the number $n$ of sensors,\
their initial locations $x_1\leq x_2 \leq \ldots \leq x_n$, and their range $r$;\
the trajectory points for the robot.\
(1,0)[440]{}\
[**1**]{} [**Scan**]{} $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n$ for gaps;\
[**2**]{} [**if**]{} gaps exist [**then**]{}\
the smallest integer $k$ such that all gaps are to the left of $x_k$;\
the sequence $C_i= (2ri -r)-x_i$, $1\leq i \leq k$;\
$C_k<0$ [**then**]{} $c{\leftarrow}x_k$; [**else**]{} $c{\leftarrow}x_k+C_k$;\
// $c$ is the potential left-turning point of a double.\
the sequence $C_1, C_2, \ldots,C_k$ and\
list $<A, B> = [(b_1,a_1), (b_2,a_2), \cdots, (b_m,a_m)]$;\
// potential triple delimiters\
$o_j{\leftarrow}(c- x_{b_{j+1}}-C_{b_{j+1}})+\sum_{i=1}^j 2(x_{a_i} -x_{b_i} -C_{b_i}) $, $1\leq j\leq m-1$; // $T_j$ overhead\
$o_m{\leftarrow}\sum_{i=1}^m 2(x_{a_i} -x_{b_i} -C_{b_i}) $; // $T_m$ overhead\
$min\{ o_1,o_2, \ldots ,o_m\}$; and its index $k$;\
$x_{a_{1}},x_{b_{1}}+C_{b_{1}},x_{a_{2}}
,x_{b_{2}}+C_{b_{2}},\ldots, x_{a_{k}},x_{b_{2}}+C_{b_{2}}$;\
//the sequence of left/right turning points of the optimal trajectory,\
$k<m$ [**then**]{} [**Output**]{} [*there is a double from*]{} $c$ [*to*]{} $x_{b_{k+1}} +C_{b_{k+1}}$;\
\
$\;\;\;$ [**else**]{} $[0,L]$ is initially completely covered, robot does nothing;\
Since algorithm [*Offline*]{} calculates the overheads of all trajectories that satisfy Lemma \[lm:tpt\] and picks the one with the smallest overhead, the Corollary \[cor1\] and Lemma \[lm:tpt\] imply that the selected trajectory is optimal. Clearly, all calculations in each step are of $O(n)$ complexity. Thus we have the following theorem.
\[thm1\] Assume we are given $n$ sensors in the line segment $[0, L]$ and a robot with starting position $0$. Algorithm [*Offline*]{} computes an optimal trajectory for the robot to follow in $O(n)$ time.
Optimal Online Algorithms
=========================
We now consider online algorithms for restoration of barrier coverage by a robot. For the online algorithm we assume that the robot starts at position 0, it can move along the given line segment, but the robot does not know the positions of sensors until it comes upon them. As usual, we define the competitive ratio of an online algorithm as the length of the trajectory of the online algorithm divided by the length of the trajectory of the optimal offline algorithm.
At the outset, observe that on the input instance where the sensors are placed in such a way that there is no gap in the barrier coverage, the offline algorithm produces a trajectory of length 0, while the online algorithm must traverse the entire barrier segment to ensure that the barrier is covered. Thus no online algorithm can have a bounded competitive ratio. To provide a more meaningful comparison of online with offline algorithms, we only consider below input instances where there is a gap in coverage at the very end of the barrier, that is, the point $L$ is uncovered. On such instances, all valid robot trajectories must have length at least $L-r$. We also consider the possibility that $L$, the length of the barrier, is not known to the robot and the robot will find it out only when reaching the end of the barrier. Since the performance of online algorithms depends on the knowledge of $L$, we consider the two possibilities separately. We use below the notion of potential left and right turning points as defined in the previous section.
When the value of $L$ is unknown to the robot we show the following result.
\[thm3\] Assume that the robot does not know the length $L$ of the barrier $[0, L]$. For any $0 < \epsilon \ll 1$, the competitive ratio of any online algorithm is at least $\frac{3}{2} - \epsilon$. Furthermore, there is an online algorithm with competitive ratio at most $\frac{3}{2} $.
Assume there is an online algorithm $\cal{A}$ with competitive ratio $3/2 - \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon>0$. We give an adversary argument. Start with an input that has no sensors until position $x=2ir$ where there are $i>0$ sensors for some $i$ to be specified later. Clearly there are just enough sensors at $x$ to cover the segment $[0,x]$. Following this, the adversary starts placing sensors in attached position starting at position $x+2r$. The robot has to make a turn at some point $y \geq x$ to cover the gap in coverage before $x$. If it does not make a turn before $6x$, the adversary can set $L=6x$, and the robot must do a double to the beginning, see Figure \[fig:fg4ab\] (a). The trajectory produced by $\cal{A}$ has length at least $2L-r=12x-r$, while the offline algorithm covers the gap before $x$ with a triple from $x$ using a trajectory of at most $3x-2r+5x= 8x-2r$. This gives the competitive ratio of at least $(12x-r)/ (8x-2r) > 3/2$.
If the robot turns at any point $y$ such that $x \leq y < 6x$, then the adversary concludes the barrier at $L=y+r+\delta$, see Figure \[fig:fg4ab\] (b). Clearly, the trajectory produced by $\cal{A}$ has length at least $3y-r+\delta$ while the offline algorithm uses a trajectory of at most $2y+ 2\delta$. Thus the competitive ratio of the algorithm is at least $(3y-r+\delta)/(2y+2\delta) \geq 3/2 -(r+2\delta)/(2x+2\delta) \geq 3/2 -(r+2\delta)/(2ir+2\delta) \geq 3/2 - \epsilon$ for sufficiently large $i$.
To prove the second part of the theorem observe that the algorithm that solves any gap in coverage with a triple from any potential left turning point has competitive ratio at most $3/2$.
In the remainder of the section, we assume that $L$, the length of the barrier segment, is known to the online algorithm. We first prove a lower bound on the competitive ratio of any online algorithm for the problem.
\[thm:lb\] Assume that the online robot knows the length $L$ of the barrier $[0, L]$. For any $0 < \epsilon \ll 1 $, the competitive ratio of any online algorithm is at least $\frac{5}{4} - \epsilon$.
![Competitive ratio for the case when the robot does not know $L$. In (a) the robot turns at $L$ or $y\geq 6x$, in (b) the robot turns at $y< 6x$.[]{data-label="fig:fg4ab"}](tr42.pdf){width="12"}
![Example for the lower bound on the competitive ratio[]{data-label="fig:lower-bound"}](lb.pdf){width="10cm"}
Once again, we provide an adversary argument. We first give the high-level idea of the argument: the adversary creates a gap followed by a pile of $k$ stacked sensors that is just sufficient to cover the gap (see Figure \[fig:lower-bound\]). If the online robot decides to use a triple to cover the gap, the adversary repeats the pattern. If at some point, the online robot does not return with a triple to cover the gap, the adversary creates no more gaps. We then show that regardless of when the online robot decides not to cover a given gap with a triple, its trajectory is at least $\frac{5}{4}$ times the optimal trajectory.
We proceed to give the details of the argument, constructing the input progressively as a function of the behaviour of the robot. Assume that the length of the barrier is $L$; the values of $k$ and $r$ will be specified later as functions of $L$. We repeat the following steps: We create a gap of size $2r(k-1)$ followed by $k$ sensors all at position $2r(k-1)+r$. It is clear that the first $k-1$ sensors can cover the first gap. We now observe the online robot. If the robot turns left at any point $y \geq x$ and does a triple to cover the gap before $x$, then as soon as possible after it returns to $y$, we repeat the same configuration: a gap of the same length followed by a stack of $k$ sensors. Until the robot turns left, we simply place sensors $2r$ apart. These steps are repeated until we reach $L-2r$, at which point we shorten the last gap if needed, and add as many sensors as needed to cover the preceding gap. We also add an additional (and last) sensor, to force every algorithm, online and offline, to come to position $L-r$ to cover the gap at $L$.
Consider the online robot after it has finished its operation. Define the last gap that the robot covered with a triple to be the $i^{th}$ gap and let $x$ be the position of the stack of sensors immediately after this gap. Then $x \geq 2ikr-r$. Observe that the input instance has exactly one more gap after $x$, and the robot needs to cover the $i+1^{st}$ gap with a double. We denote the length of the online robot’s trajectory by $T_A$. The length of the robot’s trajectory until $x$ is at least $3x - 4ir + 2r$ and the length of the double to return to cover the $i+1^{st}$ gap is $2r +2(L-r-(x+2r))$. Therefore $T_A = x + 2L -4ir -2r$. We compare the performance of the robot with two specific offline algorithms. The first algorithm does no triples and achieves coverage simply by doing one double. We denote the length of its trajectory by $T_1$; clearly, $T_1 = 2L -3r$. The second algorithm uses the same trajectory as the online robot for all its triples, proceeds to cover the $i+1^{st}$ gap also with a triple followed by moving right to $L-r$. (Recall that after the $i+1^{st}$ stack of sensors, there are no gaps except the last gap at $L$.) We denote the length of the second algorithm’s trajectory by $T_2$. Then the length of the trajectory for the second algorithm until $x+2rk$ is $3(x+2rk)-4(i+1)r + 2r$ and the length of the final (single) segment is $L-r -(x+2rk)$. $$T_2 = 2x+L+4rk-4ir -3r$$
Suppose $x \geq L/2 - 2rk$. Then: $$\frac{T_A}{T_1} \geq \frac{x+2L-4ir -2r}{2L}
> \frac{L/2 - 2rk + 2L - 4ir -2r}{2L}
= \frac{5}{4} - \frac{2rk + 4ir + 2r}{2L}$$ Suppose instead $x < L/2 - 2rk$. Then $$\frac{T_A}{T_2} \geq \frac{x+2L-4ir -2r}{2x+L+4rk-4ir - 3r}
> \frac{x+2L-4ir -2r}{2x+L+4rk}
= \frac{x + L/2 +2rk}{2x+ L + 4rk} +$$ $$+\frac{3L/2 - 2r(k+1) -4ir}{2x+L+4rk}
> \frac{1}{2} + \frac{3L/2 - 2r(k+1) -4ir}{2L}
= \frac{5}{4} - \frac{2rk+4ir+2r}{2L}$$ By choosing $r = k = L^{1/3}$, we obtain $i = O(L^{1/3})$. This gives a lower bound on the competitive ratio of the online robot of $\frac{5}{4} - O(L^{-1/3})$. By choosing $L$ to be as large as needed, the theorem follows.
The optimal offline algorithm suggests that if the online robot stops doing triples too soon, it may be beaten by an algorithm that does perhaps just one more triple which avoids the double at the end. However if it keeps doing triples for too long, it may be beaten by an algorithm that does fewer triples. It is natural to ask whether there an optimal fraction of the segment such that the online robot can decide in advance to do triples only until then. We say that an online algorithm has a [*fixed switching point*]{} $z$ if it covers each gap before $z$ with a triple, and all gaps after $z$ with the final double. Therefore, the online robot turns left at most once after $z$, and if it does, it turns at position $L-r$ to do the final double. We show below a tight bound on the competitive ratio of an online algorithm with a fixed switching point.
\[thm:fixed-switching-point\] Assume that the robot knows the length $L$ of the barrier $[0, L]$.
1. For any $0 < \epsilon \ll 1$, the competitive ratio of any online algorithm with a fixed switching point is at least $\frac{4}{3} - \epsilon$.
2. There is an online algorithm with fixed switching point with competitive ratio at most $\frac{4}{3} $.
Consider an online robot that has a fixed switching point $z$ such that $0 \leq z \leq L$. Suppose $z \leq 2L/3$, and let $k = \lfloor (z+r)/2r \rfloor$. Consider an input consisting of $k$ attached sensors that clearly cover the barrier until $2kr$, then the next sensor at position $2kr+3r/2$. Clearly, there is a gap of length $r/2$ between the $k^{th}$ and $(k+1)^{st}$ sensors. Next place a sensor at position $2kr+3r$ and sensors in attached position after this until almost the endpoint with the usual gap at the end of the barrier. Thus the only two gaps are between the $k^{th}$ and $(k+1)^{st}$ sensors, and the one at the end. However, since $z < 2kr+r$, the online robot cannot turn back at the $(k+1)^{st}$ sensor to do a triple to cover the gap before that sensor, and must instead cover both gaps with a double. Therefore, the online robot’s trajectory is of length at least $2L-2kr-3r \geq 2L-z-4r$, while the optimal trajectory contains a triple to complete the gap after $z$, and has length at most $L$. Since $z \leq 2L/3$, the competitive ratio of the algorithm is at least $4/3 - 4r/L > 4/3 - \epsilon$ for $4r/L < \epsilon$.
Suppose instead that $z > 2L/3$ and let $k = \lceil z/2r \rceil$. Now consider an input that has a gap from the beginning and then a stack of $k$ sensors at $z$ that suffice to cover the gap before $z$, followed by the next sensor at $2kr + 3r/2$ and attached sensors after that until almost the endpoint of the barrier as before. Observe that there are three gaps: the gap before $z$ that can be solved by turning left at $z$ and doing a triple, the gap between the $k^{th}$ and $(k+1)^{st}$ sensors after $z$, and the gap at the end (If $z$ is so close to the right endpoint that there is no room for two gaps after $z$, then it is easy to show that the competitive ratio is actually $\approx 3/2$.) Thus the online robot must turn at $z$ to cover the gap with a triple, and cover the remaining gaps with a double, with a trajectory of length at least $2L+z-8r$, while the optimal trajectory has length $2L-3r$. Since $z > 2L/3$, the competitive ratio of the algorithm is at least $4/3 - 4r/L$. By choosing $4r/L<\epsilon$ for any given $\epsilon$, we obtain a lower bound of $4/3 - \epsilon$ for the competitive ratio.
Consider now an online algorithm $A$ with a fixed switching point $2L/3$: it turns left at every potential left turning point before $2L/3$ to cover the preceding gap with a triple. After it passes $z$ however, it will only turn left at the end and do a double if necessary. We claim that $A$ has competitive ratio $4/3$. Suppose the optimal offline algorithm $O$ does at least one fewer triple than $A$. Then it is not difficult to see that $$\frac{T_A}{T_0} \leq \frac{8L/3 - 8r}{2L-3r} < \frac{4}{3}.$$ If instead the optimal algorithm does at least one more triple than $A$, then it is not difficult to see that $$\frac{T_A}{T_0} \leq \frac{4L/3 - r}{L} < \frac{4}{3}.$$
Thus in both cases the competitive ratio of the algorithm is at most $4/3$, matching the lower bound.
Thus, by deciding in advance a switching point at which to stop doing triples, it is impossible to derive an online algorithm that matches the lower bound of Theorem \[thm:lb\]. We now specify [**AdaptiveOnline**]{}, an online algorithm for a robot which, when starting at location $0$, relocates sensors on the segment $[0,L]$ to achieve complete barrier coverage. We calculate an upper bound on the competitive ratio of this online algorithm and prove that it asymptotically matches the lower bound of $5/4$ from Theorem \[thm:lb\]. Clearly, an online algorithm can calculate the coverage balance of any sensor it encounters. We now describe two functions for the online robot used in the algorithm. The first function is called [*walk-in-surplus*]{} and is defined as follows: When at a potential left-turning point (or the start of the barrier) the robot moves right picking up sensors having a positive coverage balance and deposits them $2r$ apart (as the optimal offline algorithm constructing a fully-stretched solution would do), until reaching a point $x$ such that the last sensor it dropped was at location $x-2r$, and no sensors were encountered in the interval $[x-2r, x]$. Observe that at such a position $x$, the robot knows that $x$ is a potential right-turning point. The function then returns the value $x$. The second function is called [*walk-in-deficit*]{}: When first time at a potential right-turning point, robot moves right picking up sensors with negative coverage balance on its way until it reaches a sensor with negative coverage balance greater than $-2r$, or balance exactly $-2r$ and collocated with the next sensor. Thus, this is a potential left turning point $y$; the function then returns the value $y$. The functions a [*triple*]{}, and a [*double*]{} behave the same way as in the offline algorithm. The main challenge for the online algorithm is to determine, when it reaches a potential left turning point, whether to do a triple at this point, or to switch to solving the remaining segment as part of the final double.
We specify our adaptive online algorithm as a recursive procedure [**AdaptiveOnline(t,L,r)**]{} in which $[t,L]$ is the subinterval on which the robot has not yet travelled, and barrier coverage remains to be achieved, and $r$ is the range of sensors. To calculate the coverage of $[0,L]$ we execute [**AdaptiveOnline(0,L,r)**]{}. We assume that there is a gap at position $0$; if not, we simply execute the walk-in-surplus function until reaching a potential right turning-point $x$ and then call [**AdaptiveOnline**]{} on the segment $[x-r, L]$. It is clear that the initial part of the trajectory executed until $x$ is optimal, and cannot increase the competitive ratio on the entire input. We give the pseudocode for the algorithm below.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx= Algorithm [**AdaptiveOnline**]{} $(t,L,r)$;\
(1,0)[440]{}\
$t$, $L$, the subinterval being solved, with a gap at $t$ and $r$ is the range of sensors\
the moves of the robot;\
:\
$x$; // the current position\
$T$; // current trajectory length\
$\gamma_i$; // ratio trajectory/distance at left-turning point in iteration $i$\
$\beta_i$; // ratio trajectory/distance at right-turning point in iteration $i$\
walk-in-surplus, walk in deficit, triple and double\
(1,0)[440]{}\
$x {\leftarrow}t+ r$; $T {\leftarrow}0$; $i {\leftarrow}0$; // initialization of variables\
\
$i {\leftarrow}i+ 1$; // iteration of loop\
$b_i \leftarrow x$; // potential right-turning point\
$\beta_i {\leftarrow}(T+r)/b_i$ $\;$// ratio at start of possible triple\
$a_i {\leftarrow}$ walk-in-deficit; // potential left-turning point\
$T {\leftarrow}T+r + 3(a_i-b_i)$; // trajectory if triple is done\
$\gamma_i {\leftarrow}T/a_i$; // ratio at end of possible triple\
$\gamma_i a_i -a_i > L - t$ [**break**]{} $\;$// exit the loop\
\
do a triple on segment $[b_i,a_i]$,\
$x {\leftarrow}$walk-in-surplus; // gap starting at $x-r$\
$T {\leftarrow}T + (x-r-a_i)$; //update trajectory until start of gap\
$x < L$ and $T/(x-r) \leq 2.5$ [**then**]{} AdaptiveOnLine(x-r,L,r);\
$x=L$;\
($L$ not reached) [**then**]{}\
a double (to $L-r$ and back to $b_i$);\
$T {\leftarrow}T + (L-a_i)-(a_i-b_i)$;
The key idea is as follows: First, the online robot keeps track of the ratio between its trajectory so far versus the distance it has covered. If it discovers that this ratio is less than $5/2$, then it “forgets about” the segment covered so far (it will be shown that it has achieved a competitive ratio of at most $5/4$ for this part), and restarts its computations. The ratio between its trajectory and distance travelled so far is computed only at potential left and right turning points. Secondly, when it reaches a potential left-turning point, the online robot calculates the cost of the triple: the difference between its trajectory if it executes the triple and the distance covered so far. If this difference is too high, it decides to stop doing triples, and finish by doing a double.
Observe that before making a recursive call, at least one gap is covered by the robot. Since the number of gaps is finite, the algorithm terminates. It is also clear that [**AdaptiveOnLine**]{} constructs a trajectory that results in barrier coverage. It remains only to analyze the competitive ratio of the trajectory length. Let $T_A(I)$ and $T_o(I)$ be the lengths of the trajectories of the algorithm [**AdaptiveOnline**]{} and the optimal offline algorithm on an input instance $I$ respectively. We prove a bound of $5/4$ on $max_I \{ T_A(I)/T_o(I) \}$, thereby matching the lower bound of Theorem \[thm:lb\].
Fix an input instance $I$. Observe that the algorithm [**AdaptiveOnline**]{} partitions the segment $[0,L]$ into sub-segments that are solved in each recursive call of the algorithm. We call each of these sub-segments an [*epoch*]{}; let $n$ be the number of epochs, such that while traversing epoch $j$, there is no recursive call. Let $T_j$ be the length of the the trajectory of the online robot in epoch $j$, and let $O_j$ be the length of the trajectory of the optimal offline robot in the same epoch. Every epoch starts with a gap, and in every epoch except possibly the last, the mobile robot does triples from the first encountered left-turning point to cover gaps.
\[lemma:early-epochs\] $T_j/O_j \leq 5/4$ for $1 \leq j \leq n-1$
Let the length of epoch $j$ be $\ell_j$. Since the epoch starts with a gap, the optimal algorithm either does the same thing as the mobile robot in the epoch, in which case $T_j/O_j = 1$ or it does part of the epoch using a double in which case $T_j/O_j \leq \frac{T_j}{2 \ell_j}$. Since in each of the epochs $j$ for $1 \leq j \leq n-1$, the recursive call is made only when $T_j/\ell_j \leq 2.5$, we have $T_j \leq 2.5 \ell_j $. The lemma follows.
\[lemma:same-difference\] The difference between the trajectory length and the distance covered on the segment stays the same while executing [*walk-in-surplus*]{} or [*walk-in-deficit*]{}.
Let $T$ be the trajectory length at point $z$ just before executing walk-in-surplus (or walk-in-deficit) and let $T'$ be the trajectory at point $z'$ at the end of its execution. Then $T' - z' = (T + z'-z) - z' = T-z$.
\[lemma:last-epoch\] $T_n/O_n \leq 5/4$
In epoch $n$, there are no recursive calls. For simplifying the analysis, we assume $t=0$ and $L=1$. Assume the loop was exited in iteration $i$. Observe that the loop can be exited either because $x=1$ or because $T-a_i> 1$.
We first consider the case when the loop is exited because $x=1$. In this case, we know that $\gamma_i a_i - a_i \leq 1$ and the online robot walked in surplus after this till the end. Thus, the optimal offline algorithm could not have done more triples than the online robot. Consider an optimal offline algorithm that does fewer triples. Then $$\frac{T_n}{O_n} \leq \frac{T_n}{2} = \frac{ \gamma_i a_i + (1 - a_i)}{2} \leq \frac{2}{2}= 1$$ Thus $T_n/O_n = 1$ in this case.
Next we consider the case when the loop is exited in iteration $i$ because $T-a_i > 1$. If $i=1$, since $T= r + 3(a_i-r)$, this implies $2a_i - 2r > 1$. Observe that the online robot does no triples at all, and does only a double and has a trajectory of length $2-r$. An algorithm that does the triple in the segment $[r, a_i]$ has length at least $r + 3(a_i-r) + 1-a_i = 1+ 2a_i -2r > 2$ which means it is sub-optimal. Therefore, in this case again $T_n/O_n = 1$.
Suppose instead the loop is exited in iteration $i >1$ because $T-a_i = \gamma_i a_i - a_i > 1$. Denote by $d$, the distance between $a$ and $b$, that is, $d=a-b$. Then $$\beta_i = \frac{ \gamma_i a_i - 3d}{a_i -d}
\label{eqn:beta}$$ Next observe that since at the end of iteration $i-1$, the value of $T/(x-r) > 2.5$, we obtain $3 \geq \beta_i = (T+ r)/x > 2.5$. It follows now from Equation \[eqn:beta\] that $$\gamma_i > 2.5
\label{eqn:alpha}$$ Since the loop was not exited in iteration $i-1$, it must be that $\gamma_{i-1}a_{i-1} - a_{i-1} \leq 1$ and since the only moves between $a_{i-1}$ and $b_i$ are achieved by walk-in-surplus and walk-in-deficit, it follows from Lemma \[lemma:same-difference\] that $\beta_i b_i - b_i = \gamma_{i-1}a_{i-1} - a_{i-1} \leq 1$. Substituting $b_i = a_i-d$, and using Equation \[eqn:beta\], we obtain: $$\gamma_i a_i - a_i - 2d \leq 1.
\label{eqn:prev}$$ Finally, recall that $$\gamma_i a_i - a_i > 1
\label{eqn:curr}$$ For reasons that will be clear later, we now prove the following claim:
\[extra\] $\gamma_i a_i - 2a_i - d \leq 0.5$
Suppose $a_i \leq 0.5 + d$. Then since $\gamma_i \leq 3$, we conclude that $\gamma_i a_i - 2 a_i - d \leq 3a_i - 2a_i - d = a_i -d \leq 0.5$. If instead that $a_i > 0.5 + d$, then it follows from Equation \[eqn:prev\] that $\gamma_i a_i - 2a_i - d < 1 - (a_i - d) < 0.5$
Now consider the value of $T_n$. We have $$T_n = \gamma_i a_i + 2 (1-a_i) - d = 2 + \gamma_i a_i - 2a_i - d$$
Suppose the optimal algorithm did fewer triples than [**AdaptiveOnline**]{}. Then $$\frac{T_n}{O_n} \leq \frac{T_n}{2} = \frac{2 + \gamma_i a_i -2a_i - d}{2} \leq \frac{5}{4}$$ where the last inequality follows from Claim \[extra\]. If instead the optimal algorithm did more triples that [**AdaptiveOnline**]{}, its trajectory is of length at least $\gamma_i a_i + 1 - a_i$. Therefore $$\frac{T_n}{O_n} \leq \frac{T_n}{\gamma_i a_i + 1 - a_i} \leq \frac{T_n}{2} \leq \frac{5}{4}$$ where the second inequality uses (\[eqn:curr\]).
Lemmas, \[lemma:early-epochs\], \[lemma:last-epoch\] show that in each epoch the competitive ratio is at most $5/4$. Thus we get the following theorem.
[**AdaptiveOnline**]{} is an online algorithm for barrier coverage of a line segment of known length and has competitive ratio at most $5/4$, and is therefore optimal.
[^1]: This work was partially supported by NSERC grants
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Königstuhl 17,\
69117 Heidelberg, GERMANY
author:
- 'A. BURKERT'
title: 'THE STRUCTURE OF DARK MATTER HALOS. OBSERVATION VERSUS THEORY'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
Introduction
============
Structure formation in the universe is strongly coupled with dark matter (DM). Current cosmological models assume that there exists a non-baryonic cold dark matter (CDM) component which consist of non-relativistic particles that interact with the baryonic component only through gravity. Given a primordial density fluctuation spectrum, cosmological models investigate the formation of dark matter structures and compare the results with observations of the distribution of galaxies into clusters and superclusters [@da]. This comparison provides important information on cosmological parameters as well as on the initial dark matter fluctuation spectrum and by this on the origin and nature of dark matter.
Dark matter can also be studied on galactic scales. On these scales which are of order a few kpc, dark matter structures are in general much older than their internal dynamical timescales. They therefore have reached a dynamical equilibrium state, a virialized dark matter halo. These halos could however still retain valuable information about the initial conditions from which they formed, if the assumption is valid, that dark matter consists of collisionless and dissipationless particles. Dark matter halos often host galaxies in their inner regions. Studying the dynamical properties of these galaxies we gain insight into the inner density structure of dark matter halos and by this into the origin and nature of dark matter.
The structure of simulated dark matter halos
============================================
Assuming spherical symmetry, the radial DM mass distribution $M(r)$ can be described by the DM rotation curve, that is the circular velocity profile $V_c(r) = (GM(r)/r)^{1/2}$. The observations of constant circular velocities in the outer regions of many spiral galaxies [@cas] have lead to the conclusion that DM halos are virialized isothermal spheres with an $r^{-2}$ density profile in the observable radius range. Cosmological models indeed lead to dark matter halos which produce constant outer rotation curves, in general agreement with these observations. Early cosmological calculations did not have enough resolution in order to resolve the density structure of DM halos in detail. Recent high-resolution simulations [@n1; @n2; @n4] however have shown that in the inner and outer regions dark matter halos depart significantly from an $r^{-2}$ power-law distribution. All halo density profiles can be fit accurately by the simple formula,
$$\rho (r) = \frac{\bar{\rho}}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}$$
where $\bar{\rho}$ and $r_s$ are two free parameters. It is very interesting that Navarro et al [@n2; @n4] find a strong correlation between $\bar{\rho}$ and $r_s$. Dark matter halos seem to represent a one-parameter family, characterized completely by their virial mass $M_{200}$ which is the total mass inside the virial radius $r_{200}$. $r_{200}$ is the characteristic radius inside which the mean DM density is $200 \times \rho_{crit}$, where $\rho_{crit} = 3 H^2/8 \pi G$ is the critical density.
The structure of observed dark matter halos
===========================================
Unfortunately it is difficult to observationally verify these numerical results as galaxies are in general gravitationally dominated by their visible baryonic components in the inner regions, while in the outer regions there is not enough visible material in order to measure accurately a rotation curve. In the inner region the inferred DM profiles will depend strongly on how much baryonic mass is subtracted, which in turn depends on the assumed baryonic mass-to-light ratio. The situation becomes even more complicated by the fact that a dominating baryonic component will gravitationally affect and change the cold dark matter density profile [@n3].
Observed dark matter mass profiles
----------------------------------
This situation has changed with the discovery of a new class of low surface brightness dwarf spirals and irregulars, which are strongly dominated by dark matter, even in their innermost regions. High-quality rotation curves have become available in the past few years [@br; @ca; @pu; @puc], which provide insight into the detailed structure of dark matter halos.
Figure 1 shows the dark matter mass profiles of four dwarf galaxies with high signal-to-noise ratio HI rotation curves. All four profiles indeed follow the same universal mass relation. The dot-dashed and dotted curves show DM profiles as predicted from cosmological simulations (equation 1). The dot-dashed curve corresponds to a dark matter halo with virial radius $r_{200}=5 \times r_s$. The best fit through the data. using equation 1. is achieved with the dotted line which assumes $r_{200}=17.5 \times r_s$. Clearly, the halo profiles resulting from numerical simulations, are too massive at small radii when compared with the observations. This is a result of the central $r^{-1}$ density cusp. The apparent contradiction between observation and theory has been discussed in detail by Flores and Primack [@fl], Moore [@mo] and Burkert [@bu; @bur].
A nice fit through the observed profiles over the whole observable radius range is achieved with the simple density distribution [@bu; @bur],
$$\rho_{DM}(r) = \frac{\rho_0 r_0^3}{(r+r_0)(r^2+r_0^2)}$$
where $\rho_0$ and $r_0$ are free parameters which represent the central DM density and a scale radius, respectively. Equation 2 resembles an isothermal profile with a constant-density core at small radii ($r<r_0$). At large radii the density decreases faster than expected for an isothermal distribution, in agreement with the predictions from CDM calculations.
Dark matter scaling relations
-----------------------------
Navarro et al [@n2; @n4] have shown that the two scale parameters of equation 1 are strongly correlated. Small halos are significantly denser than large halos as a result of the fact that small, low-mass halos formed at higher collapse redshifts when the density of the universe was higher.
Whether DM halos indeed represent a one-parameter family, being described completely by their total mass, can be investigated by looking for a correlation between the free parameters $\rho_0$ and $r_0$ in the observational fit formula (equation 2). Instead of using $\rho_0$, which cannot be observed directly, Fig. 2 shows the rotational velocity $v_0$ of observed DM rotation curves at $r_0$ as a function of $r_0$. $r_0$ is determined by fitting the data with a velocity curve as predicted by equation 2. We find indeed a very strong correlation between $r_0$ and $v_0$. The slope agrees well with the predictions from cosmological models [@bu]. Using equation 2 and assuming spherical symmetry one can derive the following scaling relations for the observed DM halos:
$$\begin{aligned}
v_0 & = & 17.7 \left( \frac{r_0}{kpc} \right)^{2/3}
\frac{km}{s} \nonumber \\
M_0 & = & 7.2 \times 10^7 \left( \frac{r_0}{kpc} \right)^{7/3}
M_{\odot} \\
\rho_0 & = & 2.7 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{r_0}{kpc} \right)^{-2/3}
\frac{M_{\odot}}{pc^3} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $M_0$ is the total dark matter mass inside $r_0$. These relations indicate that dark matter halos indeed represent a one-parameter family, in agreement with cosmological models.
On the origin of isothermal dark matter cores
==============================================
As shown in the last section, the shape of the cosmologically predicted universal dark matter density profiles disagrees with the observations. Whereas the observations indicate isothermal dark matter cores with constant density $\rho_0$ and constant velocity dispersion $\sigma_0$, the cosmological models lead to cuspy cores with density profiles $\rho \sim r^{-1}$ and velocity dispersion profiles $\sigma (r) \sim r$. The simulated dark matter cores are dynamically cold and dense. The observed dark matter cores are hotter and less dense. In order to explain this difference a mechanism has to be found which heats dark matter cores, increasing their velocity dispersion and by this decreasing the central dark matter density.
Cosmological initial conditions
-------------------------------
Navarro et al [@n4] have investigated in detail how the structure of DM halos depends on the adopted cosmological model. They find that the profiles are always well fitted by equation 1, independent of halo mass, of the adopted initial density fluctuation spectrum, and of the values of the cosmological parameters. Thus the problem cannot be solved by selecting a certain cosmological model.
This result is not surprising. It is well known that the violent gravitational relaxation of collisionless particle systems leads to universal equilibrium profiles, independent of the initial conditions [@du]. The final profiles of such systems can be well described by a Hernquist profile [@he],
$$\rho_h(r) = \frac{M}{2 \pi} \frac{a}{r(r+a)^3}$$
where M is the total mass of the system and a is its scale length. The Hernquist profile, for example, gives a good description of the surface brightness profiles of elliptical galaxies, collisionless stellar systems which have gone through a stage of violent relaxation. Note, that the simulated halo profiles (equation 1) are very similar to the profiles described by equation (3), with the main difference being a less steeply decreasing density distribution in the outermost regions. This results from the fact that the Hernquist profile describes systems with finite mass, whereas in cosmological models with $\Omega = 1$ halos will always accrete dark matter, leading to a mass profile that should diverge logarithmically for large radii.
Warm dark matter
----------------
Dark matter is assumed to consist of collisionless particles, which interact only by gravity. In this case, the 6-dimensional, microscopic phase space distribution function (DF) $f(\vec{x},\vec{v})$ is a conserved quantity. The cuspy dark matter cores with $\rho \sim r^{-1}$ and $\sigma \sim r$ are characterized by a DF which diverges as $f \sim \rho/\sigma^3 \sim r^{-4}$. Given a critical phase space density $f_{crit}$, there always exists a finite radius $r_{crit}$, inside which $f > f_{crit}$. If the maximum phase space density of dark matter would be finite ($f < f_{crit}$), the dark matter density profile should flatten inside $r_{crit}$.
CDM particles formed with negligible initial velocity dispersion and therefore with an infinitely large $f_{crit}$. No phase space limitations are imposed on CDM cores. The situation is different in the case of warm dark matter, which starts with a finite initial velocity dispersion and therefore with a finite $f_{crit}$. In this case, DM cores might become isothermal inside $r_{crit}$, where f approaches a constant and universal value $f_{crit}$, that is determined by the initial dark matter temperature. This idea can be tested. According to the equations 3, the central phase space density of observed dark matter cores scales as $f_0 \sim \rho_0 / v_0^3 \sim r_0^{-8/3}$. It decreases steeply with increasing core radius. The centers of DM halos are not limited by a universal and finite maximum phase space density which rules out warm dark matter as origin for isothermal dark matter cores.
Secular dynamical processes
---------------------------
As the problem cannot be solved by varying the initial conditions or the nature of dark matter we have to focus on secular dynamical processes that might affect the central parts of the dark matter halos, after the halo formation phase.
Navarro et al [@n3] have proposed a scenario, where a gaseous disk forms in the centers of dark matter halos. The disk potential dominates the central gravitational potential. The authors assume that after a vigorous episode of star formation a large fraction of the total baryonic component is expelled from the galaxy through supernova-driven winds. They show, that a sudden loss of a large fraction of the total gravitational mass from the inner region would result in an expansion of the dark matter core, decreasing the central DM density. This scenario seems at first very attractive. The observed scaling relations for dark matter cores and the fact that dark matter halo profiles are universal would however require significant fine tuning between the early cosmological collapse phase and the secular energetic processes. It is unlikely that DM halos would have self-similar density profiles if their inner structure is subsequently changed by dynamical processes which are not related to the collisionless relaxation process which determined the outer DM profiles. In this case, we would expect that dark matter halos are described by two independent parameters. The first parameter determines their inner structure. It will depend on the violence of the secular processes. The second parameter determines the outer DM structure and depends on the cosmological merging history of the halo.
Substantial mass loss also seems unlikely in the case of the DDO154 [@ca; @puc], a dwarf spiral galaxy with a dark matter halo of total mass $M_{DM} \approx 3 \times 10^9 M_{\odot}$, containing an extended HI disk with total mass $2.5 \times 10^8 M_{\odot}$. Navarro et al [@n3] estimate that, prior to the mass loss epoch, the mass of the gaseous disk should be of order 6 per cent of the total dark matter mass. This ratio is in agreement with the disk-to-halo mass ratio in DDO154, demonstrating that no substantial mass loss has yet occured in this system. On the other hand, the rotation curve of DDO154 clearly shows that its dark matter halo has an isothermal DM core, which must have formed by a different mechanism.
Summary
=======
The observations indicate that dark matter halos are self-similar, being described completely by one free parameter. This surprising universality makes it unlikely that the isothermal cores of observed DM halos result from secular processes. The observed shallow central density profiles probably formed as a direct result of the same processes, which lead to the dark matter halos in the first place. As discussed above, DM calculations do not produce isothermal halo cores. We therefore have to conclude that some important, yet unknown physical features, related to the nature and origin of dark matter, are still missing in cosmological models.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} A.H. Broeils, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**256**]{}, 19 (1992). A. Burkert, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**447**]{}, L25 (1995). A. Burkert, in [*IAU 171: New Light on Galaxy Evolution*]{}, eds. R. Bender and R.L. Davies (Dordrecht; Kluwer), 175 (1996). C. Carignan and K.C. Freeman, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**332**]{}, L33 (1988). S. Casertano and J.H. van Gorkom. 1991, [*Astron. J.*]{}, [**101**]{}, 1231 (1991). M. Davis [*et al*]{}, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**292**]{}, 371 (1985). J. Dubinski and R. Carlberg, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**378**]{}, 496 (1991). R.A. Flores and J.R. Primack, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**427**]{}, L1 (1994). L. Hernquist, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**356**]{}, 359 (1990). B. Moore, [*Nature*]{}, [**370**]{}, 629 (1994). J.F. Navarro [*et al*]{}, [*MNRAS*]{}, [**275**]{}, 56 (1995). J.F. Navarro [*et al*]{}, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**462**]{}, 563 (1996). J.F. Navarro [*et al*]{}, [*MNRAS*]{}, [**283**]{}, L72 (1996). J.F. Navarro [*et al*]{}, [*astro-ph/9611107*]{}, in press, (1997). D. Puche and C. Carignan, C., [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**378**]{}, 487 (1991). C.R. Purton and C. Carignan, C., [*Bul. AAS*]{}, [**28/4**]{}, 1320 (1996).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report a simulation study for bottle-brush polymers grafted on a rigid backbone. Using a standard coarse-grained bead-spring model extensive molecular dynamics simulations for such macromolecules under good solvent conditions are performed. We consider a broad range of parameters and present numerical results for the monomer density profile, density of the untethered ends of the grafted flexible backbones and the correlation function describing the range that neighboring grafted bottle-brushes are affected by the presence of the others due to the excluded volume interactions. The end beads of the flexible backbones of the grafted bottle-brushes do not access the region close to the rigid backbone due to the presence of the side chains of the grafted bottle-brush polymers, which stretch further the chains in the radial directions. Although a number of different correlation lengths exist as a result of the complex structure of these macromolecules, their properties can be tuned with high accuracy in good solvents. Moreover, qualitative differences with “typical” bottle-brushes are discussed. Our results provide a first approach to characterizing such complex macromolecules with a standard bead spring model.'
address:
- '$^1$ Institut für Physik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany'
- '$^2$ Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria'
- '$^3$ Institute for Theoretical Physics and Center for Computational Materials Science, Vienna University of Technology, Hauptstra[ß]{}e 8-10, A-1040 Vienna, Austria'
- '$^4$ Vienna Computational Materials Laboratory, Sensengasse 8/12, A-1090 Vienna, Austria'
author:
- 'Hamed Maleki$^1$ and Panagiotis E Theodorakis$^2$$^,$$^3$$^,$$^4$'
title: 'Structure of bottle-brush brushes under good solvent conditions. A molecular dynamics study'
---
Introduction
============
Macromolecules with comb-like architecture, where linear or branched side chains are grafted onto a backbone chain have found much interest in recent years due to their physical and biochemical properties, which offer important benefits [@zhang_cylindrical_2005; @koutalas_well-defined_2005; @subbotin_spatial_2007; @ishizu_architecture_2008; @sheiko_cylindrical_2008; @potemkin_comblike_2009; @schappacher_newpolymerchain_2000]. Although their structure is complicated, such macromolecules are being synthesized rather successfully [@zhang_cylindrical_2005; @koutalas_well-defined_2005; @ishizu_architecture_2008; @wintermantel_molecular_1996; @gunari_surfactant-induced_2008]. Atom transfer radical polymerization has been efficiently applied to the synthesis of various bottle-brush brushes (also known as comb-on-comb brushes) [@koutalas_well-defined_2005; @ishizu_architecture_2008; @sheiko_cylindrical_2008; @matyjaszewski_atom_2001; @matyjaszewski_effect_2003], where bottle-brush molecules are grafted onto a linear chain (or a point (single monomer) in the case of star bottle-brush brushes) which serves as the backbone of the macromolecule. Brush polymers have been studied extensively as far as it concerns experiments [@zhang_cylindrical_2005; @koutalas_well-defined_2005; @subbotin_spatial_2007; @ishizu_architecture_2008; @sheiko_cylindrical_2008; @potemkin_comblike_2009; @11; @12; @13] as well as theoretical modeling [@alexander_adsorption_1977; @de_gennes_conformations_1980; @daoud_star_1982; @bug_theory_1987; @milner_parabolic_1988; @milner_effects_1989; @milner_polymer_1991; @fredrickson_surfactant-induced_1993; @zhulina_scaling_1995]. Already, the study of ”typical” bottle-brush polymers (flexible linear polymeric chains grafted onto a backbone) has attracted attention for potential applications [@zhang_cylindrical_2005; @sheiko_cylindrical_2008]. For example, some work was motivated by the use of these cylindrical brushes as building blocks in functional supramolecular structures; applications for actuators and sensors have been also discussed, since the structure of these stimuli-responsive polymers can change when external parameters such as pH of the solution, temperature etc. are varied [@stephan_shape_2002; @li_new_2004]. The study of such effects has already been the subject of previous simulation studies of bottle-brush macromolecules with one or two types of side chains where a rigid backbone has been considered as a starting point for the study of these complex macromolecules [@theodorakis_microphase_2009; @theodorakis_interplay_2010; @theodorakis_pearl-necklace_2010; @theodorakis_jcp_2011; @theodorakis_epje_2011; @hsu_theodorakis_jcp_2011; @hsu_characteristic_2010; @hsu_one-_2007; @hsu_structure_2008; @hsu_intramolecular_2006; @hsu_how_2009], where it has also been shown that the radial density profiles for bottle-brush polymers with stiff and flexible backbones are similar when good solvent conditions are assumed. Bottle-brush brushes could serve as a candidate for applications already suggested for bottle-brush polymers, but in the case of bottle-brush brush polymers the higher number of varied structural parameters could help tuning the resulting properties of such macromolecules with a higher accuracy and in various ways. Also, towards understanding more complex structures of macromolecules which exist in biological systems, simulation models would allow for a better understanding of their complex structure-properties relation [@klein_chemistry:_2009; @chang_structural_2009].
Bottle-brush brushes exhibit rich structural behaviour providing even ideas for new applications due to the higher multitude of the correlation lengths which is expected from their structure. More interesting formations could be expected under poor solvent conditions as for typical bottle-brushes [@theodorakis_microphase_2009; @theodorakis_interplay_2010; @theodorakis_pearl-necklace_2010; @theodorakis_jcp_2011; @theodorakis_epje_2011], but for bottle-brush brushes more difficulties, such as equilibrating such a systems, could be expected. Moreover, the interlay of the local conformation of side chains and the global configuration of the backbone adds more complexity to their intricate behaviour. The interpretation of experimental data on bottle-brush brushes is expected to be controversial as is already shown in the case of bottle-brushes with flexible linear side chains [@hsu_characteristic_2010; @hsu_one-_2007]. Also, simulations has shown that the application of scaling concepts in the latter case is proven problematic even in the case where only a single type of side chains occurs, and good solvent conditions are assumed [@hsu_characteristic_2010; @hsu_one-_2007; @hsu_structure_2008; @hsu_intramolecular_2006; @hsu_how_2009]. Moreover, the application of theoretical arguments for the description of these macromolecules has been also proven very difficult [@zhang_cylindrical_2005; @subbotin_spatial_2007; @sheiko_cylindrical_2008; @potemkin_comblike_2009]. A comparison of the results of computer simulations could rather be realised on the basis of effective exponents, as for ”typical” bottle brushes [@hsu_theodorakis_jcp_2011]. In view of the experimental interest for bottle-brush brushes and related complex macromolecules some fundamental understanding on their static properties can be achieved rather well by computer simulations. In this work we describe large-scale molecular dynamics simulations of an off-lattice model of a bottle-brush brush under good solvent conditions to provide a first approach to understanding their overall structural properties.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec. 2 we describe the simulation model. Then, Section 3 discusses the analyzed properties and our numerical results, while Section 4 presents and summarizes our conclusions.
Computational details and simulation method
===========================================
To simulate a bottle-brush brush polymer, we use a molecular dynamics method, where the monomers are coupled to a heat bath [@grest_molecular_1986]. All the monomeric units are modeled by the standard bead-spring model [@graessley_excluded-volume_1999; @40; @grest_structure_1993; @murat_polymers_1991], where all monomers are treated as beads of mass $m$. This model has been extensively used in previous simulations of brush-like systems and its detail discussion has been given elsewhere [@40]. Here, we give a brief description of the parameters we use in our simulations. For the interaction between any two monomers a truncated and shifted Lennard-Jones potential acts given by $$\label{cases}
U_{LJ} (r)=\cases{4 \epsilon_{LJ}[(\frac{\sigma _{LJ}}{r})^{12}-(\frac{\sigma _{LJ}}{r})^6 ] +C&for $r \leq r_{c}$\\
0&for $r>r_{c}$\\}$$
where $r_c=2^{1/6}\sigma_{LJ}$ is the cut-off of the potential, and the constant $C$ is defined such that $U_{LJ}(r=r_c)$ is continuous at the cut-off. Henceforth units are chosen such that $\epsilon_{LJ}=1,
\sigma _{LJ}=1, k_B=1$, and the mass $m$ of the beads is also taken as unity. The connectivity of the beads is guaranteed by the “finitely extensible nonlinear elastic” (FENE) potential: $$\label{eq2}
U_{\rm FENE}(r)=-\frac{1}{2} k r_{0}^{2}\ln[1-(\frac{r}{r_{0}})^{2}]
\qquad 0<r\leq r_{0},$$ where $r_{0}=1.5$, $k=30$ and $U_{FENE}(r)=\infty$ outside the range written in equation (\[eq2\]). The equation of motion for each bead reads $$\label{eq3}
m\frac{d^{2}\textbf{r}_{i}}{dt^{2}}=-\nabla U_{i}-
\gamma \frac{d\textbf{r}}{dt}+\Gamma_{i} (t).$$ In this equation $\gamma$ is the bead friction, $\Gamma_{i}(t)$ describes the random force of the heat bath and $U_{i}$ is the potential each bead experiences due to the presence of the other beads, when they are below the cut-off distance. The random forces $\Gamma_{i}(t)$ satisfy the standard fluctuation-dissipation relation $$\label{eq4}
<\Gamma_{i}(t).\Gamma_{j}(t^{'})>=6k_{B}T\gamma\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t^{'})$$ where $T$ is the temperature and $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. Following previous work [@grest_molecular_1986; @graessley_excluded-volume_1999; @40; @grest_structure_1993; @murat_polymers_1991; @86; @murat_structure_1989; @grest_grafted_1994] $\gamma=0.5 $ and $T=1.2$. Here, $\tau=(m_{LJ}\sigma_{LJ}^{2}/
\epsilon_{LJ})^{1/2}$ is the natural time unit, with units that have been given above. We use the the molecular dynamics package LAMMPS [@lammps] to simulate our systems where the equations of motion for each bead (equation \[eq3\]) are integrated with the velocity-Verlet scheme [@plimpton_fast_1995] with a time step $\Delta t=0.008$. Periodic boundary conditions in the $x$-direction are applied, which is the axis of the rigid backbone where the brush chains with a flexible backbone are grafted regularly with a distance $1/\sigma$ between them. In this study we have considered different grafting densities, i.e., $\sigma=0.25, 0.50$, and $1.00$, which corresponds to grafting every bead, every second bead, and every forth bead of the rigid backbone. Smaller densities for our range of chain lengths would suppress any effects due to the density, while higher grafting densities than the ones we consider here would impose difficulties in equilibrating our systems. In $y-$ and $z-$directions, periodic boundary conditions are applied as well, but the considered linear dimensions of the simulation box were chosen large enough, so that never any interaction of the grafted bottle brush polymers with their periodic images could occur. We have considered a variety of parameters as they are schematically described in figure \[fig1\]. The backbone where the chains are grafted with a grafting density $\sigma$ is rigid, while the backbones of the grafted brushes onto this rigid backbone are flexible as well as their side chains.
The number of monomers of the rigid backbone was $N=128$. We have also performed simulations for other choices of backbone lengths in order to check the influence of periodic boundary conditions on the resulting properties. We found that our results are not affected by the presence of periodic boundary conditions for the rigid backbone length that is taken here. However, if one tries to simulate such a system under poor solvent conditions, then one would expect an influence of the periodic boundary conditions on the properties of the grafted brushes [@theodorakis_microphase_2009; @theodorakis_interplay_2010; @theodorakis_pearl-necklace_2010; @theodorakis_jcp_2011; @theodorakis_epje_2011]. In this manuscript, we will present only results for $N=128$. The backbone of the bottle-brushes attached onto the rigid backbone is $N_{b}=12,24,36$, and $48$ (the part of the chains denoted with red color in figure \[fig1\]). Higher lengths are prohibitely difficult to study. Also, it would be difficult for experiments to access such lengths as it has been discussed already for typical brushes [@hsu_characteristic_2010]. For the side chains of the grafted bottle-brushes onto the rigid backbone we have typically considered chain lengths shorter than $N_{b}$, i.e., $N_{s}=3, 6, 12$, and $24$. These shorter side chains (denoted with blue color in figure \[fig1\]) are grafted onto the flexible backbone of the brushes with a grafting density $\sigma_{s}=0.5$ or $1.0$. As shorter chain lengths are used for $N_{s}$, we did not study the grafting density $\sigma_{s}=0.25$. Figure \[fig2\] shows (left part) typical snapshots for the case of $\sigma=0.25$, $N_{b}=48$, $N_{s}=3$ and $\sigma_{s}=0.5$. In the right part the case of $\sigma=1.00$, $N_{b}=48$, $N_{s}=24$ and $\sigma_{s}=0.5$ is shown. For our choice of parameters we observe structures ranging from low densed brushes to homogeneous cylinders.
We note here that equilibration of our systems required running our simulations for every brush for a time range of $20\times10^{6}$ MD time-steps. Then we collect $2000$ samples running the simulations $4\times10^{6}$ MD steps further. By studying correlations functions for the structural properties of the brushes that vary slowly with time, we find out that this effort was enough to obtain reliable results. In the following, we present our results discussing overall structural properties for these complex macromolecules providing an insight for the overall behavior of these polymers.
Results and Discussion
======================
First, we focus on the effect of the grafting density $\sigma$ on the density profile in the radial directions ($y-z$ plane with the rigid backbone extending along the $x$ direction) for moderate values of $N_{b}$ and $N_{s}$. Figure \[fig3\] shows the density profiles of the system in radial directions ($y,z$) for the case $N_{b}=12$, $N_{s}=3$ and different grafted densities $\sigma$.
From figure \[fig3\], the increase of the grafting density $\sigma$ shows that the chains overally become more stretched in the radial direction as it normally happens for typical bottle-brushes. For low grafting density $\sigma$, the density curves decay almost exponentially for $\sigma=0.25$ and their height reflects analogously the corresponding grafting densities (the second peak from the left). Also, by increasing the grafting density $\sigma$ the latter extension in density becomes higher as the side chains of the grafted brushes get stiffened due to the excluded volume interactions. Moreover, for $\sigma=1.0$, figure \[fig3\] shows that the density profile persists over longer distances from the rigid backbone and indicates that the side chains of the grafted bottle-brush molecules tend to stretch in the radial directions. In addition, the increase of number of side chains grafted onto the flexible backbone $\sigma_{s}$ (inset) hint the effect that the curves of density profile extend further, but the overall behaviour of the systems does not change. Also, for the case $\sigma=1$ and $\sigma_{s}=1$ a third peak is formed due to the layering effect as the density increases close to the rigid backbone.
Stretching of the flexible grafted bottle-brushes in the radial directions is more pronounced when one changes the length of the side chains of the grafted bottle-brushes. Figure \[fig4\] shows differences in the density profile which result from the variation of $N_{s}$.
The increase of $N_{s}$ strengthens the extension of the density profile in the radial direction. The density now stays almost constant at rather high distances $r$ (the density remains constant even at longer distances from the rigid backbone) and the resulting formation of the bottle-brush brush resembles a homogeneous cylinder as it is that of figure \[fig2\] (right part). For $\sigma=1$ we see this rather constant density up to a distance $7$ from the rigid backbone (disregarding of course the first two peaks, which are reminiscent of the layering effect observed for fluid particles in a box close to the wall). As $N_{s}$ increases, the density profile extends to higher distances from the rigid backbone. This extension becomes a rather small effect as the grafting density $\sigma$ is low enough that the beads can not fill the space close to the rigid backbone under good solvent conditions where the chains stretch in the radial direction (inset). The variation of the density profile as a function of the radial distance $r$ with $N_{b}$ is shown in figure \[fig5\] (a). This typical graph is for the case of grafting density $\sigma=0.25$ and $N_{s}=24$. This “low” grafting density allows us to discuss the particular effects avoiding the structures where the density close to the rigid backbone is high.
At small distances $r$ from the rigid backbone, the difference in the density profiles can not be seen. However, at higher distances, the effect of long side chains ($N_{s}=24$) shows higher density at larger distances $r$. For $N_{b}<24$ the density profile looks as it is rather expected even for a typical bottle-brush polymer. But for $N_{b}>24$ (and $N_{s}=24$) the density profile shows a completely different behaviour when the length of the side chains ($N_{s}$) is also rather high. This behavior is characteristic for the bottle-brush brush polymers. The density far from the rigid backbone is higher compared to a typical bottle-brush polymer. Without the side chains of the flexible brush, we would have expected and almost exponential decay in the density profile. However, as the length $N_{s}$ increases (figure \[fig4\]), the density in the outer region (far from the rigid backbone) of the bottle-brush brush polymer increases, and this difference is more pronounced, when the length $N_{b}$ is high enough in order to be far from the almost constant density region close to the rigid backbone (figure \[fig5\] (b)). More interesting is to study the behaviour of the ungrafted end beads of the bottle-brushes which are grafted on the rigid backbone in order to check how close they can come to the rigid backbone. Figure \[fig6\] shows our results for the distribution of these end beads and the dependence with grafting density $\sigma$.
Since $\sigma$ increases the peak of $\rho_{E}(r)$ becomes sharper and thinner. This indicates that the end beads of the flexible backbone are moving within a narrower space in the radial direction and they rather never reach the region close to the rigid backbone. This effect clearly shows that the chains are stiffened due to the increase of the grafting density $\sigma$ and as a consequence, the peak is higher in the case of high $\sigma$. The stretching of the brush chains in the radial direction is also seen here and corroborates the results of figure \[fig3\]. According to figure \[fig6\], as $\sigma$ increases, the peaks are positioned at higher distances $r$. This effect is similar to the case of typical bottle-brush polymers where the increase of the grafting density induces stretching of the side chains in the radial directions and resulting in the increase of the zone which is not accessible to the end beads. The increase of $\sigma_{s}$ strengthens the aforementioned effects, i.e., the brush chains become more stiffened and more stretched, although the chains are under very good solvent conditions.
The corresponding results for the end beads distribution for figure \[fig5\], i.e., figure \[fig7\], shows that the increase of $N_{b}$ shifts the peaks of the resulting density profiles to the right, while these peaks become less sharp, lower and smoother, showing that the flexible backbone becomes less mobile in the radial directions even for this case where the length of the side chains of the brush $N_{s}$ is rather high. Looking at figures \[fig6\] and \[fig7\], we can see that all the changes of parameters have a rather proportional effect on the properties. This points out that carefull tuning of the structure of the bottle-brush brushes can result from the design of our macromolecules, which can be performed in a variety of ways, due to the variety of the parameters that describe their structure.
When $\sigma_{s}$ increases, the differences in the curves are higher and one can see that the curves of the density profiles corresponding to different $N_{b}$ do not overlap any more. The latter effect points us out that the increase of the grafting density $\sigma_{s}$ has a significant effect and it is related analogously to the probability for the flexible backbone untethered end of coming close to the rigid backbone. Figure \[fig8\] confirms this conclusion. When $\sigma_{s}=0.5$, for different values of $N_{s}$, we can almost observe the same height of the peaks in the density profiles for the end beads, the curves become slightly narrower, but the differences are not as pronounced as in the case of $\sigma_{s}=1.00$.
This clearly shows that the change in the grafting density $\sigma_{s}$ has a significant effect on the bottle-brush brush polymers, which we could not distinguish in the overall radial density profiles. We should also note that the increase of $\sigma_{s}$ introduces noticeable differences in the height of the peaks, showing that this parameter can play an important role in the resulting behaviour of our system showing that the variations in $N_{s}$ result in more pronounced differences in the peaks for high grafting density of side chains ($\sigma_{s}=1.0$), and they now have a better correspondence to the values of $N_{s}$.
Figures \[fig9\] and \[fig10\] show the correlation functions of orientations of different bottle-brushes in order to monitor the extent over which correlations between the different grafted brushes on the rigid backbone persist [@theodorakis_interplay_2010]. Such a property has been mainly considered for bottlebrush polymers with two types of monomers [@theodorakis_interplay_2010] in order to characterize the extent over which a Janus structure exists. However, in our case it would provide us the with information of the extent that these compact objects (bottle-brushes grafted on the rigid backbone at high densities) are affected by the presence of their neighboring bottle-brushes. For each chain the vector pointing from the grafting site (the monomer on the rigid backbone where the brush is grafted) to the center of mass of the respective grafted bottle-brush is considered. Projecting this vector into the $yz$-plane and defining a unit vector $\vec{S_{i}}$ for the $i$-th bottle-brush, we define the correlation function $$\label{eqij}
G(\delta x)= \langle \vec{S_{i}} \cdot \vec{S_{j}} \rangle.$$
As we can see from figure \[fig9\], the influence of the grafting density $\sigma$ for values $0.25$-$1.00$ is small, and only some difference can be observed when the value of $\sigma$ changes from $0.25$ to $0.50$. Further increase of the grafting density $\sigma$ seems to have a small effect on the chains. These conclusions are also confirmed for other set of parameter $N_{b}$ and $N_{s}$ (not shown here). We should emphasize that these first peaks occur at a distance $1/\sigma$ as expected. Furthermore, the same behaviour is observed when the grafting density $\sigma_{s}$ is increased (inset in figure \[fig9\]). What we see is that the neighbour bottle-brushes influence mainly their first neighbours. Two neighbouring brushes grafted on the rigid backbone tend to orient in different directions due to the excluded volume interactions, whereas the second neighbours, the third, etc., are almost unaffected from the presence of the other grafted bottle-brushes on the rigid backbone. Only in the case that $\sigma=1.00$ some correlation is slightly detected also for the second neighbors. Deviations for $G(\delta x)$ from zero for third, forth, fifth, etc. neighboring grafted brushes (figure \[fig9\]) are within the statistical error. Of course, this is due to the short chain lengths we have considered for our flexible brushes. When the radius of gyration of the grafted brushes would be higher, these effects play more important role.
For the set of parameters of figure \[fig10\], we have varied parameters $N_{b}$ and $N_{s}$. Here we show only results for the case $\sigma=0.25$, in order to discuss the particular effects. Similar conclusions are drawn for the other cases. Also the increase of $N_{s}$ (figure \[fig10\](a)) shows that the correlations increase, but for $N_{s}>6$ the occurring differences are smaller. The variation of $N_{b}$ (figure \[fig10\] (b)) leads to the same conclusion. For the results of figures \[fig9\] and \[fig10\], we can further observe that the increase of $\sigma_{s}$ results in the increase of the correlations (which of course takes a negative value for neighboring brushes) along the rigid backbone, as the density of the monomers increases. The increase of $\sigma_{s}$ from $0.50$ to $1.00$ increases significantly the density of the monomers between the backbone of the grafted bottle-brushes, effect which is seen in the results of this correlation function. But even in the case of long lengths $N_{s}$ and $N_{b}$ and high grafting densities grafted bottle-brushes further apart form the first neighbors are hardly influenced. To conclude, for the the small lengths $N_{b}$ and $N_{s}$ considered here, the main effect comes from the variation of the grafting density. For other combinations of parameters (not shown here in order to save space) the conclusions remain the same.
Summary
=======
In the present study, we performed molecular dynamic simulations of a standard bead-spring model of flexible bottle-brush polymers grafted onto a rigid backbone under good solvent conditions. Our investigation was based on the analysis of overall properties of interest, i.e., the density profiles in the radial directions (which is the perpendicular direction to the rigid backbone where the bottle-brush polymers are grafted with one of the ends of their flexible backbone). We discussed that the increase of any of the parameters $\sigma$, $\sigma_{s}$, $N_{b}$, and $N_{s}$ results in the stretching of the bottle-brushes in the radial directions although we are under good solvent conditions, as has been also discussed for typical bottle-brushes with a rigid or a flexible backbone. We can also clearly see by analysis of the correlation function $G(\delta x)$ that mainly only first neighbor grafted bottle-brush chains are affected due to the excluded volume interactions between their monomers, even for our extreme cases where the grafted densities $\sigma$ and $\sigma_{s}$, and the lengths $N_{b}$ and $N_{s}$ are high. As the size of the grafted brushes increases, this effect is expected to be more pronounced. The strength of the excluded volume effects between two neighboring bottle-brush polymers grafted onto the rigid backbone can be tuned in various ways, due to the high number of structural parameters characterizing such macromolecules, compared to a typical bottle-brush polymer under good solvent conditions, where the only varying parameter (considering also a rigid backbone) is the length of the grafted linear polymeric chains and the grafting density $\sigma$. We found that the variation of these parameters affect in a proportional way the properties of the macromolecules. That is a change of one parameter for all the grafted brushes has an analogous measurable effect to the structural properties of these macromolecules, although at a first glance their structure seems complicated to be studied by computer simulations. Thus, the properties of these macromolecules can be tuned efficiently by the change of parameters, of course when these are in a good solvent. The lengths of the chains in our study were rather short, but we should stress here that such lengths could be also accessible in the synthesis of bottle-brush brushes. We also find that for the range of parameters studied here, the untethered ends of the chains have not any possibility of being anywhere close to the rigid backbone even for small $\sigma$. The distance and the range that these end beads (possible carriers of some particular substance) can access close to the backbone can also efficiently be tuned, which is rather impossible to control with such accuracy in a typical bottle-brush with flexible side chains. The width of this zone (unaccessible to the end beads) depends strongly on the $N_{s}$ and $\sigma_{s}$ and on the increase of the density depending on the other parameters. We hope that our results will stimulate further study of these macromolecules and the work of analytical predictions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Zhang M and Müller A H E 2005 [*J. Polym. Sci. Part A: Polym. Chem.*]{} [**43**]{} 3461
Koutalas G, Iatrou H, Lohse D and N. Hadjichristidis 2005 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**38**]{} 4996
Subbotin A V and Semenov A N 2007 [*Polymer Science, Ser. A*]{} [**49**]{} 1328
Ishizu K , Murakami T and TakanoT 2008 [*J. colloid and interface sci.*]{} [**322**]{} 59
Sheiko S S , Sumerlin B S and Matyjaszewski K 2008 [*Progr. Polym. Sci.*]{} [**33**]{} 759
Potemkin I I and Palyulin V V 2009 [*Polymer Science, Ser. A*]{} [**51**]{} 163
Schappacher M and Deffieux A 2000 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**33**]{} 7371
Wintermatnel M, Gerle M, Fischer K, Schmidt M, Wataoka I, Urakawa H, Kajiwara K and Tsukahara Y 1996 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**29**]{}, 978
Gunari N, Cong Y, Zhang B, Janshoff A and Schmidt M 2008 [*Macromol. Rapid Commun.*]{} [**29**]{} 821
Matyjaszewski K and Xia J 2001 [*Chem. Rev.*]{} [**101**]{} 2921
Matyjaszewski K, Qin S, Boyce J R, Shirvanyants D and Sheiko S S 2003 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**36**]{} 1843
Rathgeber S, Pakula T, Matyjaszewski K and Beers K L 2005 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**122**]{} 124904 Zhang B, Gröhn F, Pedersen J S, Fischer K, Schmidt M 2006 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**39**]{} 8440 Rathgeber S, Pakula T, Wilk A, Matyajazewski K, Lee H -I and Beers K L 2006 [*Polymer*]{} [**47**]{} 7318
Alexander S 1977 [*J. Phys.(Paris)*]{} [**38**]{} 983
de Gennes P -G 1980 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**13**]{} 1069
Daoud M and Cotton J 1982 [*J. Phys.(Paris)*]{} [**43**]{} 531
Bug A L R, Cates M E, Safran S A, and WittenT A 1987 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**87**]{} 1824
Milner S T, Witten T A and Cates M E 1988 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**5**]{} 413
Milner S T, Witten T A and Cates M E 1988 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**21**]{} 2610
Milner S T 1991 [*Science*]{} [**251**]{} 905
Fredrickson G H 1993 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**26**]{} 2825
Zhulina E B and Vilgis T A 1995 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**28**]{} 1008
Stephan T, Muth S and Schmidt M 2002 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**35**]{} 9857
Li C, Gunari N, Fischer K, Janshoff A and Schmidt M 2004 [*Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.*]{} [**43**]{} 1101
Theodorakis P E, Paul W, and Binder K 2009 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{} 63002
Theodorakis P E, Paul W and Binder K 2010 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**43**]{} 5137.
Theodorakis P E, Paul W and Binder K 2010 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**133**]{} 104901
Erukhimovich I, Theodorakis P E, Paul W and Binder K 2011 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**134**]{} 054906
Theodorakis P E, Paul W and Binder K 2010 [*Eur. Phys. J. E*]{} [**34**]{} 52
Theodorakis P E, Hsu H-P, Paul W and Binder K 2011 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [****]{}
Hsu H -P, Paul W, Rathgeber S and Binder K 2010 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**43**]{} 1592
Hsu H -P, Paul W and Binder K 2007 [*Macromol. Theory Simul.*]{} [**16**]{} 660
Hsu H -P, Paul W and Binder K 2008 [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**129**]{} 204904
Hsu H -P, Paul W and Binder K 2006 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{} 526
Hsu H -P, Binder K and Paul P 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{} 198301
Klein J 2009 [*Science*]{} [**323**]{} 47
Chang R, Kwak Y and Gebremichael Y J 2009 [*Mol. Biol.*]{} [**391**]{} 648
Grest G S and Kremer K 1986 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**33**]{} 3628
Graessley W W, Hayward R C and Grest G S [*Macromolecules*]{} [**32**]{} 3510
Grest G S and Murat M 1995 [*in Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics Simulations in Polymer Science*]{} Binder K Ed. p. 476. Oxford Univ. Press New York
Grest G S and Murat M 1993 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**26**]{} 3108
Murat M and Grest G S 1991 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**27**]{} 704
Grest G S 1999 [*Adv. Polym. Sci.*]{} [**138**]{} 149
Murat M and Grest G S 1989 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**22**]{} 4054
Grest G S 1994 [*Macromolecules*]{} [**27**]{} 418
http://lammps.sandia.gov/
Plimpton S 1995 [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{} [**117**]{} 1
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Social graph construction from various sources has been of interest to researchers due to its application potential and the broad range of technical challenges involved. The World Wide Web provides a huge amount of continuously updated data and information on a wide range of topics created by a variety of content providers, and makes the study of extracted people networks and their temporal evolution valuable for social as well as computer scientists. In this paper we present SocGraph - an extraction and exploration system for social relations from the content of around 2 billion web pages collected by the Internet Archive over the 17 years time period between 1996 and 2013. We describe methods for constructing large social graphs from extracted relations and introduce an interface to study their temporal evolution.'
author:
- |
Miroslav Shaltev^1^, Jan-Hendrik Zab^1^ and\
Philipp Kemkes^1^, Stefan Siersdorfer, Sergej Zerr^2^\
\
\
\
\
\
title: '[Cobwebs from the Past and Present: Extracting Large Social Networks using Internet Archive Data]{}'
---
=10000 = 10000
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The advances of the computer science and technology in the last decades enabled the extraction and analysis of social networks from various types of structured and unstructured data sources. Some sources provide explicit and easy to extract information about user relations. This includes on-line platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn that maintain user databases and offer software interfaces for accessing contacts, friends, or followers. However, in many cases information about social connections is hidden within unstructured data such as Web pages and archives. In the past, personal relationships have been extracted from textual and multimedia sources such as books, historical repositories [@Elson:2010:ESN:1858681.1858696; @Bird:2006:MES:1137983.1138016; @DBLP:conf/socinfo/WienekeDSLCLNPFTMNMHM13] and web search engines [@Matsuo:2006:PAS:1135777.1135837; @Canaleta:2008:SES:1566899.1566939; @DBLP:conf/rskt/NasutionN10]. Despite the work towards increasing the efficiency of finding entity relations on the web [@nuray2009exploiting] only recently in [@Siersdorfer:2015:WEL:2806416.2806582] a method suitable for mining of large graphs has been proposed.\
In this work we introduce SocGraph[^1] - a tool for the construction and analysis of social graphs extracted from the Internet Archive (IA) data and the exploration of the temporal evolution of communities in a variety of applications. \[sec:sysarch\]
![The overview over SocGraph system architecture and its main storage and visualization components.[]{data-label="fig:demoarch"}](apr){width="0.97\linewidth"}
The objectives of the analysis include, but are not limited to shedding light on financial and business relations on the internet, identifying ad-hoc communities centered in social media on different events, such as solar eclipse and ”Earth Hour” that are concerned with artificial light pollution of the night skies of our cities,[^2] or describing and profiling of working groups in citizen science projects, where volunteers are supporting scientists by classifying astronomic and biological phenomena in raw data photographs. Inspired by [@Siersdorfer:2015:WEL:2806416.2806582] we move a step further in that direction and provide an interface for studying the *temporal evolution* of the social networks extracted directly from archived web page content. For social and computer scientists our tool will provide a gateway to the information and knowledge about connections between people stored in the world wide web in the last few decades.
System architecture
===================
The architecture of our system is schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:demoarch\]. First, we analyze the web archive to detect co-mentions of entities in the web pages. In the next step, at the server, we extract the temporal statistics and construct the social graph by connecting extracted entity pairs using detected edges.\
Finally, the user can access the application and create, visualize, modify and interact with the graphs by issuing new queries via a web browser based user interface. In the following we provide an overview of the system components and show how results are presented to the user in more detail.
Data
----
The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit organization crawling the World Wide Web since 1996. For our application we have access to web pages from about $1.8\times10^{9}$ distinct URLs, collected by the IA in the time period of 17 years between 1996 and 2013. Extracting data even from a small sample of all archived web pages is a computationally intensive and requires parallelization of processes.
We used Hadoop and Spark [@Zaharia:2010:SCC:1863103.1863113] technology on a dedicated 25 node computing cluster with 1.3TB main memory and 268 CPU cores to extract co-mentions of persons directly from the archived documents. We stored extracted names, patterns, URLs, date of the crawl and additional miscellaneous information in a relational database, which can be accessed from the server process in real time. The crawled documents of MIME type text have been encapsulated in 346,000 Web ARChive (WARC) files.
Extraction of Entity Pairs
--------------------------
The entity pairs are extracted from the body of the archived documents first by splitting the documents into sentences using the Stanford CoreNLP library [@manning-EtAl:2014:P14-5]. Then extracted sentences are scanned, detecting the constructs matching the template $$<person1><pattern><person2>$$ such as <Barack Obama><and his rival><John McCain>, using a person names dictionary and a sliding window with a pattern length of three words. To reduce noise in the data we exclude pairs with identical names and discard overly long sentences and patterns. We computed the weight of the node as $1/n$, where $n$ is the number of persons co-occurring in the sentence. In Fig.\[fig:weights\] we plot the distribution of the weight per entry in the data set.
The distribution of the number of extracted pairs per year is shown in Fig.\[fig:edperyear\].
![A static graph showing the extracted social network of Barack Obama and John McCain for the period May, 2008 to May, 2009.[]{data-label="fig:statgraph"}](static){width="0.99\linewidth"}
Graph construction
------------------
For building the social graph, we select extracted pairs matching the user query and user defined parameters such as the time period $T$, and merge them into a network considering the node weight and the edge weight between two nodes as follows: $$w=1/n\,,$$ where $n$ is the number of co-mentioned persons in a sentence.\
\
We then define node weight $\mathcal{W}_{N}$ over all considered entries $i$ as $$\mathcal{W}_{N}=\sum_i w_i$$ and the edge weight $\mathcal{W}_{E,kl}$ between two nodes $k$ and $l$ as $$\mathcal{W}_{E,kl}=\sum_{i} w_{k,i} + w_{l,i}\,,$$ where $w_{k,i}$ and $w_{l,i}$ are the individual node weights. We refer to such graphs as static graphs. To study the temporal evolution of the social networks we also construct dynamic graphs, consisting of sequences of static graphs for disjoint intervals of length $\Delta T$ within the time period $T$.
\
\
\
![The graphical user interface of SocGraph as shown in a web browser.[]{data-label="fig:system"}](system){width="\linewidth"}
Graphical user interface
------------------------
The graphical user interface of SocGraph is accessible through a web browser, see Fig. \[fig:system\]. The “Person” input field is expecting a query such as a name of a person or a list of person names. The “Time span” selectors can be used to choose a time period of interest. Three filters are exposed to the user. It is possible (a) to limit the maximum number of considered database entries through providing the value in the ”Maximal number of entries“ input field, filter the nodes (b) by their weight through the adjustment of the ”Weight per entry“ slider and filter the edges (c) by their weight through the ”Edge weight“ slider.\
The node weights are normalized in the range from zero to one and a color scheme ranging from blue to red is utilized to indicate particular weight value from small to large, respectively. Overall, there are three modes of the SocGraph operation, namely:
- A static graph can be computed and visualized over the complete dataset, providing an overview of all co-mentions for the requested persons available in the Internet Archive. This mode is triggered by the “Graph View” button in the “Update” field of the control panel on the right.
- For a specified sliding window a temporal statistical plot can be generated, showing the number of raw co-mentions as well as the weight of the persons of interest. This mode is triggered by the “Temporal statistic” button in the “Update” field of the control panel, the results are displayed in the “Temporal Statistic” tab of the demonstration interface.
- Finally, SocGraph provides a functionality to construct and visualize the individual graphs for particular time periods as well as to create an animation of graph evolution over time. The length of particular periods (measured in days) can be entered in the “Sliding window” input of the “Animation” field of the control panel. The user obtains the dynamic graph by clicking on the “Refresh” button (left to the “Play” button) of the player control strip.\
Once the data is loaded a time line with the number of edges in each sliding window period appears in the “Graph View” tab. To start the animation, the user should click the “Play” button. The animation speed can be controlled by the adjustment of the value (in seconds) in the “Speed” input. The playback can be paused with the “Pause button. Note, that the player also allows step by step forward and backward rendering of the graphs, triggered by the corresponding player control buttons.
Demonstration overview {#sec:guidemo}
======================
In the demonstration we will primarily show how the SocGraph time travel graph system works and how the social networks are constructed from the content of IA web pages. We will demonstrate the graphical interface usage for static and dynamic graph visualization. Additionally, we can elaborate in more detail on the person pair extraction process and explain the underlying parallelization algorithms.
We will explore the social networks of Barack Obama (node $N_{BO}$) and John McCain (node $N_{MC}$) for the one year period from May, 2008 to May, 2009, roughly corresponding to the US presidential election,as an example. The weight per entry has been set to 0.2, which means that we allow data records with up to four additional persons. The edge weight filter has been set to 0.025, in order to not overload the graphs and focus on the interesting entities. The static graph is plotted in Fig.\[fig:statgraph\]. A dynamic graph has been constructed with a sliding window of 30 days. The series of graphs are shown in Fig.\[fig:dgraph\]. For instance we observe that Hillary Clinton ($N_{HC}$) node was connected to ($N_{BO}$) from the beginning and disappeared in June 2008, corresponding to the time point, where Hillary Clinton endorsed Barack Obama and withdrew her candidacy. In following the sizes of both nodes, $N_{BO}$ and $N_{MC}$, remain similar until November, where the actual election took place and $N_{MC}$ drastically reduced the weight already in following month after Barack Obama became a president of the United States. Shortly before in September, Sarah Palins’ ($N_{SP}$) talk on the side of John McCain had positive impact on the votes for this candidate. This fact is also reflected in our graph where $N_{SP}$ appeared in September connected to $N_{MC}$.
Discussion
==========
In this paper we introduced a demonstration of SocGraph - a social graph extracting system for large networks from Internet Archive data. In contrast to other research concerned with graph construction from web related data, we are focused on the temporal evolution of social networks implicitly contained in the stored web pages. In our future work we plan to include pattern filtering techniques, integrate data from search engines and evaluate event identification, as well as sentiment analysis of the personal relationships and their evolution. Our system will be offered as a service within the EU Project Alexandria as part of a Web Observatory accessible to social and computer scientists as well as to general public for social network visualization and evolution analysis. The demonstration is available on our web page: `http://socgraph.l3s.uni-hannover.de` and can be used with any web browser. Additionally, the web page contains a summary of the demo applications as well as a short video tutorial.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work is partly funded by the European Research Council under ALEXANDRIA (ERC 339233), by the European Commission under grant agreements 619525 (QualiMaster) and 688135 (STARS4ALL).
[10]{}
C. Bird, A. Gourley, P. Devanbu, M. Gertz, and A. Swaminathan. Mining email social networks. In [*MSR Workshop 2006*]{}.
X. Canaleta, P. Ros, A. Vallejo, D. Vernet, and A. Zaballos. A system to extract social networks based on the processing of information obtained from internet. In [*ICC Association for Artificial Intelligence 2008*]{}.
D. K. Elson, N. Dames, and K. R. McKeown. Extracting social networks from literary fiction. In [*Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) System Demonstrations*]{}, 2010.
C. D. Manning, M. Surdeanu, J. Bauer, J. Finkel, S. J. Bethard, and D. McClosky. The [Stanford]{} [CoreNLP]{} natural language processing toolkit. In [*Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) System Demonstrations*]{}, pages 55–60, 2014.
Y. Matsuo, J. Mori, M. Hamasaki, K. Ishida, T. Nishimura, H. Takeda, K. Hasida, and M. Ishizuka. Polyphonet: An advanced social network extraction system from the web. In [*Proceedings of World Wide Web Conference 2006, Semantic Web Track*]{}.
M. K. M. Nasution and S. A. Noah. Superficial method for extracting social network for academics using web snippets. In [*RSKT ’10*]{}.
R. Nuray-Turan, Z. Chen, D. V. Kalashnikov, and S. Mehrotra. Exploiting web querying for web people search in weps2. In [*Web People Search Evaluation Workshop (WePS 2009)*]{}.
S. Siersdorfer, P. Kemkes, H. Ackermann, and S. Zerr. Who with whom and how?: Extracting large social networks using search engines. In [*CIKM ’15*]{}, pages 1491–1500. ACM.
L. Wieneke, M. D[ü]{}ring, G. Sillaume, C. Lallemand, V. Croce, M. Lazzaro, F. S. Nucci, C. Pasini, P. Fraternali, M. Tagliasacchi, M. Melenhorst, J. Novak, I. Micheel, E. Harloff, and J. G. Moron. Building the social graph of the history of european integration - [A]{} pipeline for humanist-machine interaction in the digital humanities. In [*SocInfo 2013 International Workshops*]{}.
M. Zaharia, M. Chowdhury, M. J. Franklin, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. Spark: Cluster computing with working sets. In [*Proceedings of the 2Nd USENIX Conference on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing*]{}, HotCloud’10, pages 10–10, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2010. USENIX Association.
[^1]: http://socgraph.l3s.uni-hannover.de
[^2]: http://www.stars4all.eu/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Image segmentation is an inherently ill-posed problem and thus requires regularization in order to limit the search space to *reasonable* solutions. A majority of segmentation methods integrates these regularization terms in one way or the other in an energy functional using a balancing term. The tuning of this parameter that either favours more the regularization or the data conformity is critical and, unfortunately, the success of the optimization process strongly depends on it. Often the optimal settings change from image to image.
In this paper we propose a novel general framework based on an adaptive eigenspace that was first proposed for solving inverse problems. The resulting method proves accurate and yields robust results, without the need for optimization techniques or being sensitive to the parameter choice. In fact, the method solves a symmetric positive definite sparse system and hence, uses only a fraction of the computational cost. The method is very versatile and does not need parameter-tuning, when segmenting objects from any kind of an image or when segmenting different organs. As the adaptive eigenspace is determined directly from the image to segment, the approach also does not need a tedious training phase.\
**Keywords:** Adaptive eigenspace, image segmentation, image processing, noise removal.
author:
- |
Uri Nahum and Philippe C. Cattin\
Department of Biomedical Engineering,\
University of Basel, Allschwil, Switzerland
bibliography:
- 'Refs.bib'
title: Adaptive Eigenspace Segmentation
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
Segmentation is a basic image processing technique that has spurred widespread interest during the last decades. Many of the proposed approaches use some form of regularization and often employ an iterative scheme. Regularization is recommended as it limits the result space to “meaningful” solutions.
Image segmentation is the process in which an algorithm divides a digital image into groups of connected pixels. The idea is to split the image domain into non-intersecting segments and that can subsequently be analyzed to extract higher-level information from the image. Segmentation of images has been an area of active research over more than 45years now [@pavlidis1972segmentation] and yet, finding a robust algorithm, which is able to segment different types of images without intensive parameter tuning or training is still a challenge. Furthermore, measurement noise and speckle, as seen in ultrasound or Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) images, still pose a largely unsolved challenge. Many techniques were proposed over the years, see [@Angenent2006] for a concise overview, including very basic ones, such as thresholding, region growing or watershed, see for example [@adams1994seeded], [@fan2001automatic] and [@shafarenko1997automatic]. The idea behind region growing, for example, is to start in some seed points and to test if the neighboring pixels should be part of their segment. Those methods are very intuitive, but are not robust under noise.
In recent years, segmentation using deep learning and neural networks has become very popular and many papers were written and are still written on this topic, for example [@schmidhuber2015deep], [@litjens2017survey] and [@andermatt2016multi]. In contrast to the above mentioned methods, where the information is taken from the image to be segmented, in deep learning, the method tries to automatically learn the segmentation through a large dataset-collection of sample images and their segmentation’s correct labelling.
Besides the basic ad hoc segmentation approaches described above, a family of more principled segmentation approaches form the energy based techniques. This family includes techniques such as [*active contours*]{}, also known as [*snakes*]{}, see [@kass1988snakes] and its various extensions [@cohen1991active; @Kichenassamy1996; @caselles1997geodesic; @xu19972d; @bresson2007fast]. In this method, a snake is a spline, which can be deformed to minimize the energy functional. The snake is influenced by constraints, called external and internal forces that deform it to match the contours of an object. Some of these energies force the snake to the contour of the image while others regularize the resulting contour to a “reasonable” result. Besides the snakes, other energy based techniques became popular such as the level-sets [@Chan2001] or the graph-cut [@BOYKOV2001] approaches. All these techniques represent different ways of solving an energy term which is similar for all of them. In fact they all try to minimize a positive cost functional $E$, where $I$ is the image to segment and $u$ the segmentation result $$\label{basicOpt}
E[u;I] = F[u;I] + \eta \mathcal{R}[u]\,.$$
The energy $E$ is composed of two components, namely the *fidelity term* $F$ that forces the segmentation to match the source image as close as possible and the *regularization term* $\mathcal{R}$ ensures that the resulting segmentation is reasonable. The balancing term $\eta$ is common to these methods and is a parameter that needs careful tuning to each and every application separately as it balances the trade-off between closeness of the solution to the image and the regularization term. Depending on the application one may choose different kinds of penalty functionals $\mathcal{R}$ for regularization, including the common $L^2$-norm, the [*penalized TV-regularization*]{}, the [*Sobolev $H^1$-penalty*]{} functional, the [*Lorentzian*]{} penalty functional [@Tikhonov:1943:SIP; @Gene:1999:TRT; @Engl:1996:RIP].
The [*adaptive eigenspace*]{} (AE), initially introduced in [@deBuhan:2009:SRP] and later in [@deBuhan:2013:AIM] and in [@de2017numerical] which is strongly related to [@gilboa2016nonlinear], was used in [@Grote:2016:AEI] and in [@grote2017adaptive] as a new regularization method, where the AE of the penalized TV-gradient was used to regularize an inverse medium problem. Instead of adding a penalty functional $\mathcal{R}$ to the minimization problem, we build the parameter from the eigenfunctions of the TV-regularization gradient drastically simplifying the optimization of the energy functional. The method was able to reduce dramatically the number of variables and to achieve very accurate solutions in smaller computational cost. In [@Nahum:2016:AEI], several eigenspaces from different regularization terms are introduced, one of those was the adaptive eigenspace of the Lorentzian regularization. In [@gilboa2016nonlinear], the nonlinear spectral representation is introduced. There, eigenfunctions of the TV-regularization and other convex functionals are used for image decomposition and denoising. The idea of segmenting images using eigenfunctions is also introduced in [@7433409], where eigenfunctions of an anisotropic diffusion operator were used successfully for image segmentation.
In this paper, we propose a *general and versatile framework* using the adaptive eigenspace of the non-convex Lorentzian penalty functional for segmentation. Instead of optimizing over the energy functional $E$, we compute the eigenfunctions of the gradient of the regularization term $\mathcal{R}$ and find the segmentation there. Here, we show how this approach can segment useful information with very low computational cost. As shown in [@Nahum:2016:AEI], the method does not need any parameter tuning, when recovering different media, the same applies for image segmentation. Using the AE for segmentation yields a fast, sparse and reliable method, which is very robust under noise or speckle. As the approach has no parameters there is no need for parameter-tuning such as balancing the term $\eta$ from and is thus inherently insensitive to parameter tuning. Lastly, we show that the proposed novel segmentation approach can also be applied for noise reduction by *segmenting the noise out* (rather than filtering the noise).
This paper is organized in four parts. In Section \[s:Segmentation\], we show how to derive the AE of the Lorentzian. In Section \[s:AEI\_Principle\] properties of the AE are introduced. In Section \[s:PpT\], we show mathematical evidence of the robustness and usefulness of the AE, using examples in one or two space dimensions. At last, in Section \[s:medical\] we show some numerical results that underpin the efficiency and suitability of the AE to segment images, remove noise and combinations thereof.
Image Segmentation and Regularization {#s:Segmentation}
=====================================
In image segmentation one uses, usually, a minimization problem of a positive energy functional $E$ to extract wanted information out of an image. For a given image $I$ and set of admissible parameters $U_{ad}$, one solves $$\label{optimization}
u^*=\operatorname*{argmin}\limits_{u\in U_{ad}} \left\{ F(u,I)+\eta\mathcal{R}(u)\right\}\,,$$ where $F$ is the fidelity term and $\mathcal{R}$ is a regularization functional, which provides any additional knowledge on the wished segmentation and tackles ill-posedness of the optimization problem. The parameter $\eta$ balances between those functionals.
For the regularization, one can choose different penalty functionals $\mathcal{R}(u)$: the standard Tikhonov [@Tikhonov:1943:SIP; @Vogel:2002:CMIP; @Gene:1999:TRT; @Engl:1996:RIP] $L^2$[*-penalty*]{} functional $$\label{eq:L2reg}
\mathcal{R}_{L^2}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2_{L^2}\,,$$ or the [*Sobolev $H^1$-penalty*]{} functional $$\label{eq:H1reg}
\mathcal{R}_{\nabla u}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_\Omega \sum_{i=1}^d \left(\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial x_i}\right)^2\,dx\,,$$ which penalizes strong variation in the solution and leads to smooth results. A popular penalty functional penalizes the Total Variation (TV) [@Vogel:1996:IMTV], and was originally introduced for noise removal in image processing [@Rudin:1992:NTV]. While preserving important detail, regularizing images using the penalized TV, removed unwanted noise. It uses the $L^1$ norm and is given by $$\label{eq:TVreg}
R_{TV}(u) = \frac12\int_\Omega \sqrt{|\nabla u|^2+\varepsilon^2}\,dx\,,\quad \varepsilon\neq0\,.$$ An important penalty functional from a group of non-convex regularization terms is the Lorentzian penalty term $$R_{Lorentz}(u)= \frac12\int_{\Omega} \dfrac{\gamma|\nabla u|^2}{1+\gamma|\nabla u|^2}\,dx\,,\quad \gamma>0\,.$$ It penalizes strong variations in the solution and contains an extra parameter $\gamma$ to allow discontinuities. In contrast, when segmenting an image with the proposed adaptive eigenspace we do not optimize but only have to compute the image’s eigenfunctions of the gradient of the regularization term $\mathcal{R}$. This approach has proved itself as very accurate and reliable in the inverse medium problems in [@Grote:2016:AEI]. There, a severely ill-posed problem was solved and regularized using the adaptive eigenspace of the TV-regularization gradient with much success.
Unlike the inverse medium problem, here, the image to be segmented is known and we may use the image itself to build the adaptive eigenspace. Hence, we can use an AE of non-convex penalty terms, which may be more sensitive to changes in the gradient of the image. In [@Nahum:2016:AEI] and in [@grote2017adaptive], several eigenspaces of different regularization terms are introduced, one of those was the adaptive eigenspace of the Lorentzian regularization. Here, we may use this regularization without intensifying the ill-posedness or non-convexity of the problem.
This results in an image-processing approach, which is not sensitive to a parameter choice and there is no need to change parameters when segmenting different kinds of images, including photos or medical images.
Principle of the Adaptive Eigenspace (AE) {#s:AEI_Principle}
=========================================
The main purpose of image segmentation using the AE lies on the parametrization of the image $I$. Standard techniques use regularization methods and iterative methods on the image. Following [@Grote:2016:AEI], we propose to use the adaptive eigenspace as regularization. There, the parameter is unknown and we use the AE of the TV-regularization as regularization. Here, as the image $I$ is known, we follow [@Nahum:2016:AEI] and derive the adaptive eigenspace of the Lorentzian regularization. For an image $I$ the Lorentzian regularization-functional is given by $$\label{eq:Lorentzian_reg}
R_{Lorentz}(I)= \frac12\int_{\Omega} \dfrac{\gamma|\nabla I(x)|^2}{1+\gamma|\nabla I(x)|^2}\,dx\,,\quad \gamma>0\,.$$ Next, we compute the gradient of $$\label{eq:LorentzRegGrad}
\nabla_u \mathcal{R}_{Lorentz}(I)= -\nabla\cdot
\left(\dfrac{\gamma\nabla I(x)}{\left(1+\gamma|\nabla I(x)|^2\right)^2}\right)\,,\quad \gamma>0\,.$$ Following [@Nahum:2016:AEI], we build an adaptive eigenspace from , this means that we take the gradient from , substitute $I(x)$ into $\phi(x)$ only where $I(x)$ does not appear in an absolute value. Then, we impose Dirichlet boundary conditions and get the following eigenspace problem $$\label{eq:eigenfunctionsTV}
\left \lbrace \begin{array}{rclll}
- \nabla \cdot \left(\dfrac{\gamma\nabla \phi_m(x)}{{\left(1+\gamma|\nabla I(x)|^2\right)^2}} \right) & = & \lambda_m \phi_m(x), & \qquad & \forall\,x\in\Omega, \\[0.2em]
\phi_m(x) & = & 0, & & \forall\,x\in\Gamma\,.
\end{array} \right.$$ Now, we can expand $I(x)$ as $$\label{eq:param_u}
I \ = \ I_0(x) \ + \ \sum_{m\geq 1} \beta_m \phi_m(x),$$ where $I_0 \in H^1(\Omega)$ is a prolongation of $c^2_{|\Gamma} \in H^\frac{1}{2}(\Gamma)$ and the functions $\phi_m \in H_0^1(\Omega)$ form a Hilbertian basis to parametrize $I-I_0$. The prologation $I_0$ is the eigenfunction corresponding to $\lambda = 0$, which holds the same boundary data as $I$, namely $$\label{eq:u_0}
\left \lbrace \begin{array}{rclll}
- \nabla \cdot \left(\dfrac{\gamma\nabla I_0(x)}{{\left(1+\gamma|\nabla I(x)|^2\right)^2}} \right) & = & 0, & \qquad & \forall\,x\in\Omega, \\[0.2em]
I_0(x) & = & I(x), & & \forall\,x\in\Gamma.
\end{array} \right.$$
Properties of the Adaptive Eigenspace Basis {#s:PpT}
===========================================
One-dimensional case {#ss:PpT_1D}
--------------------
In , we have used the basis of eigenfunctions $\{\phi_m \}_{m\geq 1}$ defined by together with $I_0$ defined by . In this section, for a given image $ I(x) $, we provide some analytical and numerical evidence which underpins the basis choice for segmentation of images with or without noise. Similar examinations for proving the usefulness of the methods were made for the penalized TV-regularization eigenspace in [@grote2017adaptive] and for the spectral TV in [@gilboa2016nonlinear].
We can approximate an image $I$ in the eigenspace $\{\phi_1,\phi_2,\,\ldots,\,\phi_K\}$, where all $\phi_m(x)$ satisfy in one space dimension: $$\label{eq:EF-1D}
\left \lbrace \begin{array}{c}
- \dfrac{d}{dx} \left( \mu(x) \dfrac{d}{dx} \phi_m(x) \right) = \lambda_m\phi_m(x) \qquad \forall\,x\in [a,b], \\[0.2em]
\phi_m(a)=0\,,\quad \phi_m(b)=0,
\end{array} \right.$$ where $$\label{eq:mu-1D}
\mu(x)=\dfrac{\gamma}{(|1+\gamma I^\prime(x)^2)^2}\,, \quad \forall x\in [a,b].$$ The behavior of $\phi_m(x)$ strongly depends on the magnitude of $I^\prime(x)$.
If $|I^\prime(x)|\simeq C > \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}$ in some part of $\Omega,$ $\phi_m(x)$ behaves like $\phi_m(x)\simeq A \sin(C^2\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B \cos(C^2\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)$. However, if $I$ is constant in some part of $\Omega$, $|I^\prime(x)|= 0$, then $\mu=\gamma$ there, and $\phi_m$ behaves like $\phi_m(x)\simeq A_m \sin(\sqrt{\frac1\gamma\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_m \cos(\sqrt{\frac1\gamma\lambda_m}\,x)$. For large enough $\gamma$, $\phi_m(x)$ has very slow variation and remains constant.
![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](1d-prof.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}\
![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](EW1.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](2.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}\
![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](EW3.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](EW4.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}\
![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](EW5.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](EW7.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}\
![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](EW8.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![One-dimensional case. The true profile $I$ (top), together with the first eight eigenfunctions from with $\gamma = \max(|I^\prime|)$. \[fig:phi-1D\]](EW9.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
To illustrate this behavior, we now consider the profile $I(x)$ containing two one-dimensional objects, as shown on the top of Fig. \[fig:phi-1D\], note that $I^\prime(x) \neq 0$ for $0.19 \leq x \leq 0.2$, $0.29 \leq x \leq 0.3$, $0.89 \leq x \leq 0.9$ and $0.95 \leq x \leq 0.96$ and $I^\prime(x) = 0$, otherwise. In Fig. \[fig:phi-1D\], we present $I(x)$ together with some of its eigenfunctions from problem . We can see that $\phi_1(x)$ coincides to the first object in $I(x)$ and $\phi_5(x)$ to the second object in $I(x)$ (up to a constant). Actually, all the eigenfunctions, including those seen in Fig. \[fig:phi-1D\], can be described as $$\phi_m(x)\simeq \begin{cases}
A_{m,1} \sin(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,1} \cos(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.0,0.19), \\
A_{m,2} \sin(10^4\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,2} \cos(10^4\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.19,0.2), \\
A_{m,3} \sin(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,3} \cos(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.2,0.3), \\
A_{m,4} \sin(10^4\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,4} \cos(10^4\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.3,0.31), \\
A_{m,5} \sin(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,5} \cos(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.31,0.89)\\
A_{m,6} \sin(30^2\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,6} \cos(30^2\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.89,0.9]\\
A_{m,7} \sin(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,7} \cos(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.9,0.95)\\
A_{m,8} \sin(30^2\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,8} \cos(30^2\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.95,0.96)\\
A_{m,9} \sin(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x)+ B_{m,9} \cos(\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}\,x), & x\in [0.96,1].
\end{cases}$$ For every interval, $\phi_m(x)$ has a different frequency, which is defined by the expression $C^2\sqrt{\lambda_m}$. For example, for each eigenfunction $\phi_m(x)$, the frequency in the subinterval $[0.3,0.31]$ is $\left(\frac{10}{3}\right)^2$ times higher than the frequency in the subinterval $[0.95,0.96)$ due to the strong dependency of $\mu$ from in $I^\prime$ for $I^\prime\neq 0$ (it appears in high potency in the divisor of $\mu$). In the subintervals $[0.0,0.19),[0.2,0.3),[0.31,0.89),[0.9,0.95)$ and $[0.96,1)$, the frequency depends strongly on $\gamma$ which is chosen as $\gamma=\max(|I^\prime(x)|$. While $\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}$ is very small, the eigenfunction $\phi_m(x)$ oscillates very slowly in this subinterval and thus behaves as a constant. As $\lambda_m$ increases, the frequency $\frac{1}{\sqrt\gamma}\sqrt{\lambda_m}$ increases as well and oscillations appear (see $\phi_7$ in Fig. \[fig:phi-1D\], bottom right). Clearly, for high enough $\gamma$, more eigenfunctions $\phi_m(x)$ essentially behave as constants on this subinterval.
Finally, we consider $I$, shown in the top of Fig. \[fig:phi-1D\], with $20\%$ of added noise such that $$I_{noise} = I\left(1+\delta\,\xi\right)\,$$ where $\xi$ is uniformly distributed random number in the interval $(0,1)$ and $\delta=0.2$ represents the noise level. Since $\mu$ is strongly dependent in $I^\prime$, for $I^\prime\neq 0$, the first eigenfunction will essentially extract the objects from the added noise. The image $I_{noise}$ with $20\%$ of added noise is shown in Fig \[fig:phi\_glatt-1D\], together with the first eigenfunction $\phi_1$ and the fifth eigenfunction $\phi_5$ obtained from using $I_{noise}$. Again, we observe that two of the eigenfunctions captures the elements appears in $I_{noise}$, this is up to a small perturbation, as can be seen in both eigenfunctions.
\[rem:thresholding\] although the eigenfunctions are not strictly segmentations as the are not binary labels, one can simply threshold them to yield binary segmentations.
![One-dimensional case. The noised image $I_{noise}$ (left) and the first and fifth eigenfunctions from $\phi_1$ (center) and $\phi_5$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:phi_glatt-1D"}](1d-profn.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![One-dimensional case. The noised image $I_{noise}$ (left) and the first and fifth eigenfunctions from $\phi_1$ (center) and $\phi_5$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:phi_glatt-1D"}](1n.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![One-dimensional case. The noised image $I_{noise}$ (left) and the first and fifth eigenfunctions from $\phi_1$ (center) and $\phi_5$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:phi_glatt-1D"}](2n.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
Two-dimensional case {#ss:PpT_Laplace}
--------------------
To illustrate the remarkable approximation properties of the AE basis in two space dimensions, we now consider the image $I(x)$, $x=(x_1,x_2)$, shown in Fig. \[fig:things\] (top, left). Assume we want to separate the different objects appearing in the image. We compute the first five eigenfunctions using with $I(x)$ as input. Here, as in all examples in this paper, we take $\gamma=\max\left|\nabla I(x)\right|$. These results illustrate the remarkable properties of using the AE for segmentation. We are able to extract from the image, the stapler, the sharpener, the sellotape, the lid of the glue and the position of the slogan of the glue company.
![Two-dimensional case. From top left to bottom right: the image $I(x)$, the eigenfunctions $\phi_1,\, \phi_2,\, \phi_3,\, \phi_{4}$ and $\phi_{5}$.[]{data-label="fig:things"}](things.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Two-dimensional case. From top left to bottom right: the image $I(x)$, the eigenfunctions $\phi_1,\, \phi_2,\, \phi_3,\, \phi_{4}$ and $\phi_{5}$.[]{data-label="fig:things"}](things1EW.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Two-dimensional case. From top left to bottom right: the image $I(x)$, the eigenfunctions $\phi_1,\, \phi_2,\, \phi_3,\, \phi_{4}$ and $\phi_{5}$.[]{data-label="fig:things"}](things2EW.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}\
![Two-dimensional case. From top left to bottom right: the image $I(x)$, the eigenfunctions $\phi_1,\, \phi_2,\, \phi_3,\, \phi_{4}$ and $\phi_{5}$.[]{data-label="fig:things"}](things3EW.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Two-dimensional case. From top left to bottom right: the image $I(x)$, the eigenfunctions $\phi_1,\, \phi_2,\, \phi_3,\, \phi_{4}$ and $\phi_{5}$.[]{data-label="fig:things"}](things4EW.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Two-dimensional case. From top left to bottom right: the image $I(x)$, the eigenfunctions $\phi_1,\, \phi_2,\, \phi_3,\, \phi_{4}$ and $\phi_{5}$.[]{data-label="fig:things"}](things5EW.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
Since the discretization of the eigenspace problem is highly sparse, and can be computed on a coarse grid, we may compute the eigenfunctions by using a standard restarted Arnoldi iteration [@Lehoucq:1996:DTI], which results in a very fast algorithm ($\mathcal{O}(n)$). The resulting eigenfunctions are highly sparse as well, see [@Grote:2016:AEI] for details. Hence, we get a good segmentation at a very low cost in terms of run-time and memory requirements.
Uses in Medical Imaging {#s:medical}
=======================
We shall now illustrate the usefulness and versatility of the method through a series of medical imaging examples.
Segmentation of Medical Images {#ss:segmentingmedical}
------------------------------
First we will use a Magnetic Resonance (MR) image of a female breast, taken from [@eby2008magnetic] with permission from[^1], to segment the tumor mass. On the top/right of Fig. \[fig:brust\], we see the first eigenfunction segmenting the tumor perfectly out of the breast image. Next, in the middle row of Fig. \[fig:brust\], we add to the image $I$, $20\%$ of standard Gaussian noise, such that $$\label{noise} I_{noisy} = I\left(1+\delta\,\xi\right)\,$$ where $\xi$ is i.i.d. Gaussian random variable with mean zero, variance equal to one and $\delta=0.2$ represents the noise level. Now, we compute the adaptive eigenspace of $I_{noisy}$. Again, the first eigenfunction holds a nice segmentation of the tumor despite the additional noise. To demonstrate the quality of our approach, we consider the image $I$ but this time we destroy the boundaries of the tumor and change them by blurring (using an image manipulation program). The resulting image $I_{blurred}$ is shown on the bottom left of Fig. \[fig:brust\]. On the bottom right of Fig. \[fig:brust\], we see the segmentation is accurate and captures the tumor and its blurred boundaries.
![MRI of the breast. Top: the image $I(x)$ and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Middle: the image $I_{noise}(x)$ with $20\%$ of added noise and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Bottom: the image $I_{blurred}(x)$ with blurred boundaries and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$.[]{data-label="fig:brust"}](pics/2888.jpeg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![MRI of the breast. Top: the image $I(x)$ and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Middle: the image $I_{noise}(x)$ with $20\%$ of added noise and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Bottom: the image $I_{blurred}(x)$ with blurred boundaries and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$.[]{data-label="fig:brust"}](pics/2888EW1.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}\
![MRI of the breast. Top: the image $I(x)$ and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Middle: the image $I_{noise}(x)$ with $20\%$ of added noise and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Bottom: the image $I_{blurred}(x)$ with blurred boundaries and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$.[]{data-label="fig:brust"}](pics/2888n.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![MRI of the breast. Top: the image $I(x)$ and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Middle: the image $I_{noise}(x)$ with $20\%$ of added noise and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Bottom: the image $I_{blurred}(x)$ with blurred boundaries and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$.[]{data-label="fig:brust"}](pics/2888nEW1.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}\
![MRI of the breast. Top: the image $I(x)$ and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Middle: the image $I_{noise}(x)$ with $20\%$ of added noise and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Bottom: the image $I_{blurred}(x)$ with blurred boundaries and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$.[]{data-label="fig:brust"}](pics/2889.jpeg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![MRI of the breast. Top: the image $I(x)$ and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Middle: the image $I_{noise}(x)$ with $20\%$ of added noise and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Bottom: the image $I_{blurred}(x)$ with blurred boundaries and its first eigenfunction $\phi_1$.[]{data-label="fig:brust"}](pics/2889EW1.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}
To reduce computational cost and get even more accurate results, we may create a Finite Element (FE) grid on the area of interest rather than on the image boundaries. For illustration, we consider the MR-images $I$ and $I_{blurred}$ shown on the top/left and bottom/left of Fig. \[fig:brust\], respectively. We automatically produce a mesh on the breast boundaries (see on the left of Fig. \[fig:FEbraest\]). The segmentation for $I$ and for $I_{blurred}$ is shown on the center and right of Fig. \[fig:FEbraest\], respectively.
![Segmentation of a MR image of the breast using FE: left, the automatically generated FE mesh. Center: the segmentation of the tumor form image $I$. Right, the segmentation of the image $I_{blurred}$ (right) on the FE mesh.[]{data-label="fig:FEbraest"}](pics/BreastMesh.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![Segmentation of a MR image of the breast using FE: left, the automatically generated FE mesh. Center: the segmentation of the tumor form image $I$. Right, the segmentation of the image $I_{blurred}$ (right) on the FE mesh.[]{data-label="fig:FEbraest"}](pics/BreastEF1.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![Segmentation of a MR image of the breast using FE: left, the automatically generated FE mesh. Center: the segmentation of the tumor form image $I$. Right, the segmentation of the image $I_{blurred}$ (right) on the FE mesh.[]{data-label="fig:FEbraest"}](pics/BreastSmudgedBorderEF1Ref3.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}
This FE approach can be easily adapted to other images, for example in Fig. \[fig:FEheart\] left, we apply this approach for segmenting a ventricle MRI heart image, taken from [@Angenent2006] with permission from$^1$. In the center of Fig. \[fig:FEheart\], the FE mesh is shown and on the right of the figure, we see the segmentation of the adaptive eigenspace using FE. As discussed in Rem. \[rem:thresholding\], we do not always get a binary segmentation, but this is easy to get using a standard threshold.
![Segmenting MR heart image using FE: left, the MR heart image. Center, the automatically generated FE mesh. Right, the first eigenfunction $\phi_1$, i.e. the segmentation of the ventricle (right).[]{data-label="fig:FEheart"}](pics/Angenent.jpeg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![Segmenting MR heart image using FE: left, the MR heart image. Center, the automatically generated FE mesh. Right, the first eigenfunction $\phi_1$, i.e. the segmentation of the ventricle (right).[]{data-label="fig:FEheart"}](pics/meshHeart.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![Segmenting MR heart image using FE: left, the MR heart image. Center, the automatically generated FE mesh. Right, the first eigenfunction $\phi_1$, i.e. the segmentation of the ventricle (right).[]{data-label="fig:FEheart"}](pics/heart_ef1.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}
Noise Removal by Segmenting the Noise Out of an Image
-----------------------------------------------------
With the following examples we show that the adaptive eigenspace approach can not only be used to segment complicated structures but also to *segment out noise and speckle* as seen in some medical images. This can be done using with $m\leq K$, where $K$ is the number of eigenfunctions that we include in the expansion of $I$. Here, we take advantage of the fact that the noise/speckle in the image, appears in eigenfunctions correlating to high eigenvalues.
Hence, we truncate the expansion of $I$ to hold only relevant information and take the first $K$ eigenfunctions related to the smallest eigenfunctions. We can approximate $I$ as the following sum $$\label{eq:param_u_trunc}
\tilde{I} \ = \ I_0(x) \ + \ \sum_{m= 1}^K \beta_m \phi_m(x),$$ where $I_0$, as defined in , holds the information on the boundary of the image and the eigenfunctions $\phi_m$ are computed using . We have the option to set $I_0$ to zero to zero in all or part of the boundary, if we know that the boundary information there is irrelevant.
We consider an OCT B-scan image of a bone piece, shown on the left of Fig. \[fig:octBone\]. This image is produced by measuring across the cut (yielding the cut profile) while ablating the bone using a laser beam coming from top. In the center and right of Fig. \[fig:octBone\], we see the eigenfunctions $\phi_1$ and $\phi_{250}$, respectively. It is easy to see that $\phi_1$ is extremely relevant to the reconstruction of $\tilde{I}$ and the eigenfunction $\phi_{250}$ holding information only on the noise.
![Image filtering: left, the image $I$. Center, the first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Right, the eigenfunction $\phi_{250}$.[]{data-label="fig:oct"}](Octbone.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![Image filtering: left, the image $I$. Center, the first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Right, the eigenfunction $\phi_{250}$.[]{data-label="fig:oct"}](pics/octEW1.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![Image filtering: left, the image $I$. Center, the first eigenfunction $\phi_1$. Right, the eigenfunction $\phi_{250}$.[]{data-label="fig:oct"}](pics/octEW250.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}
Now, we segment the noise out, produced by water droplets of the cooling spray, from the image using . The filtered image is shown on the right of Fig. \[fig:octBone\].
![OCT of a bone: left, the image $I$; right The filtered image $\tilde{I}$ with $K=150$.[]{data-label="fig:octBone"}](Octbone.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![OCT of a bone: left, the image $I$; right The filtered image $\tilde{I}$ with $K=150$.[]{data-label="fig:octBone"}](pics/octrec150.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}
More than $90\%$ of the entries in the eigenfunctions of the adaptive eigenspace are very small, and can be, actually, set to zero without loosing essential information, see [@Grote:2016:AEI]. Hence, the representation of $\tilde{I}$ in is sparse and has low memory requirements.
In some cases the image is so noisy, that we would like to segment the noise out of it before segmenting the image. We consider once more the MR image from Fig. \[fig:brust\] with $120\%$ of added noise (as in with $\delta=1.2$), such that the borders of the tumor are heavily distorted. At the first step, we use the adaptive eigenspace to filter the image (K=150) and then we segment the tumor out of the filtered image. The segmentation is performed with much success, see on the right of Fig. \[fig:brustnoise\]. The segmentation is very close to the one done on the original image, without noise, shown on Fig. \[fig:brust\].
![MRI of the breast. The image $I(x)$ with $120\%$ of added standard Gaussian noise (left) and the first eigenfunction $\phi_{1}$ of AE of the filtered image $\tilde{I}$ with $K=150$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:brustnoise"}](pics/breast120.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"} ![MRI of the breast. The image $I(x)$ with $120\%$ of added standard Gaussian noise (left) and the first eigenfunction $\phi_{1}$ of AE of the filtered image $\tilde{I}$ with $K=150$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:brustnoise"}](pics/breast120EW1.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%" height="4.2cm"}
Concluding Remarks
==================
We have presented a new framework for image segmentation based on the adaptive eigen-space. Instead of minimizing an energy norm and to regularize it, we compute the eigenfunctions of the gradient of the regularization term, to segment an image. The approach has been shown to be insensitive to the parameter $\gamma=\max\left|\nabla I(x)\right|$ as the same value was used for all the experiments reported herein. Hence, the adaptive eigenspace segmentation is not sensitive to the parameter choice and does not need any training or other prior shape information to segment an image other than the image to segment itself.
In addition, we showed how the adaptive eigenspace segmentation can be used to segment the noise out of an image, rather than filtering it with classical methods.
In this paper, mostly medical images are segmented, but clearly, this approach may be directly applied to other type of images. The method uses only a fraction of the computational cost used by other segmentation methods and yet, the results are remarkable. The eigenfunctions are highly sparse and hence this approach can be easily extended to three space dimensions.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
The authors thank Allen Tannenbaum for useful comments and suggestions.
[^1]: [www.slicer.org](www.slicer.org)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[GANDALF]{} is a new hydrodynamics and N-body dynamics code designed for investigating planet formation, star formation and star cluster problems. [GANDALF]{} is written in C++, parallelised with both OpenMP and MPI and contains a python library for analysis and visualisation. The code has been written with a fully object-oriented approach to easily allow user-defined implementations of physics modules or other algorithms. The code currently contains implementations of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics, Meshless Finite-Volume and collisional N-body schemes, but can easily be adapted to include additional particle schemes. We present in this paper the details of its implementation, results from the test suite, serial and parallel performance results and discuss the planned future development. The code is freely available as an open source project on the code-hosting website github at <https://github.com/gandalfcode/gandalf> and is available under the GPLv2 license.'
author:
- |
D. A. Hubber$^{1,2}$[^1], G. P. Rosotti$^{3}$, R. A. Booth$^{3}$\
$^{1}$Universitats-Sternwarte München, Scheinerstraße 1, D-81679 München, Germany\
$^{2}$Excellence Cluster Universe, Boltzmannstr. 2, D-85748 Garching, Germany\
$^{3}$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Rd, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK
bibliography:
- 'references\_gandalf.bib'
date: '28/06/2017'
title: 'GANDALF - Graphical Astrophysics code for N-body Dynamics And Lagrangian Fluids'
---
\[firstpage\]
Hydrodynamics - Methods: numerical
Introduction {#S:INTRO}
============
Numerical simulations are becoming increasingly more important in modern astrophysics research. They allow us to study systems where analytical solutions do not exist and explore the complex (non-linear) interplay due to the multiple physical processes that are normally present in astrophysical problems. In recent years more attention has been given to exploring which algorithms give the most accurate and reliable results and comparing different algorithms to one another, as well as the development of brand new or hybrid algorithms. While many specialist codes exist with single hard-wired implementations of particular physical processes (e.g. Hydrodynamics), the current desire for flexibility in algorithm choice is not always fulfilled with a single code and may often require using multiple codes for a single project.
In this paper we present [GANDALF]{} ([G]{}raphical [A]{}strophysics code for [N]{}-body [D]{}ynamics [A]{}nd [L]{}agrangian [F]{}luids), a new multi-purpose hydrodynamics, N-body and analysis code. [GANDALF]{} has been designed with Star and Planet Formation problems in mind, but with the flexibility to be extended with different physics algorithms to simulate other kinds of astrophysical problems.
[GANDALF]{} was developed with a heavy object-oriented design philosophy in order to improve code maintainability and simplify the process of implementing new features in the future. C++ was chosen as the main development language as a low-level, high-performance computing (HPC) object-oriented language that is easy to bind with other (often C-based) external libraries and can easily be parallelised with both OpenMP and MPI (either individually or combined with a hybrid OpenMP-MPI approach). [GANDALF]{} also contains an optional Python library, which can be used for analysis and visualisation of whole simulations or single snapshots. It is also possible to generate initial conditions and set-up and run the simulation from a Python script making it easier for users not accustomed with C++.
[GANDALF]{} contains implementations of two particle-based hydrodynamics schemes, Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics [SPH; e.g. @Monaghan1992] and the Meshless Finite-Volume scheme [MFV; @LV2008; @GN2011; @GIZMO]. Many algorithms (e.g. gravity, the tree used for neighbour finding) are shared between the two implementations, minimising the amount of code duplication. [GANDALF]{} also includes algorithms for collisional N-body dynamics.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section \[S:HYDRO\], we discuss the Hydrodynamical algorithms that we have implemented into [GANDALF]{}, including any differences from traditional implementations. In Section \[S:NBODY\], we discuss our implementations of the collisional N-body and sink particle algorithms. In Section \[S:MISC\], we discuss other miscellaneous algorithms such as implementing boundary conditions and trees. In Section \[S:IMPLEMENTATION\], we discuss the class structure of the code, how to add new classes on top of the existing framework, the python library and how it can be easily used to perform analysis and run the code. In Section \[S:TESTS\], we present results from our test suite comparing all methods against each other and against other published codes. We also show the serial and parallel performance of the code. In Section \[S:PERFORMANCE\], we discuss the performance and parallel scaling of the code, both with OpenMP and hybrid OpenMP/MPI. In Section \[S:FUTUREWORK\], we briefly discuss ongoing work with the code and planned features for the future.
Hydrodynamical methods in GANDALF {#S:HYDRO}
=================================
[[GANDALF]{} solves the traditional Euler Equations of Hydrodynamics with additional physics terms such as gravitational accelerations. In Lagrangian form, these are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\rho}{dt} &=& - \rho \,\nabla \cdot {\bf v} \\
\frac{d{\bf v}}{dt} &=& -\frac{\nabla P}{\rho} - \nabla \Phi \\
\frac{du}{dt} &=& -\frac{P}{\rho} \nabla \cdot {\bf v} \\
\nabla^2 \Phi &=& 4\,\pi\,G\,\rho\,, \label{Eqn:Poisson}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ is the fluid density, [**v**]{} is the fluid velocity, $u$ is the specific internal, $P$ the thermal pressure and $\Phi$ is the gravitational potential and $G$ is Newton’s constant. ]{}
[GANDALF]{} contains implementations of two particle-based hydrodynamical schemes that use the [*smoothing kernel*]{} as a fundamental quantity in [solving the numerical form of these equations]{}. The fluid properties of all particles are smoothed over a length scale $h$, called the [*smoothing length*]{}, with a weighting function $W({\bf r},h)$ called the [*kernel function*]{}. Each particle occupies/influences a spherical volume called the [*smoothing kernel*]{} of total radius ${\cal R}\,h$. The fluid particles interact with neighbouring particles, i.e. particles whose smoothing kernels overlap, where the interaction is weighted somewhat by the kernel function. The exact details of how the smoothing kernel influences the hydrodynamical equations are explained in each scheme’s implementation.
[GANDALF]{} contains two principal kernel functions which have a finite extent of ${\cal R}\,h$; (i) the M4 cubic spline kernel [@ML1985] with ${\cal R} = 2$ and (ii) the quintic spline kernel [@MorrisPhD] with ${\cal R} = 3$. The complete mathematical description of all these kernels, plus related derivative and integrated quantities, are given in Appendix A of @Hubber2011.
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics {#S:SPH}
-------------------------------
SPH [@Lucy1977; @GM1977] is a popular Lagrangian hydrodynamics scheme that has been implemented in many astrophysical hydrodynamics codes, such as [GADGET2]{} [@Gadget2], [VINE]{} [@VINE2009], [SEREN]{} [@Hubber2011] and [PHANTOM]{} [@Phantom2017]. The main advantages of SPH are (i) it is simple conceptually and to code, and (ii) its Lagrangian nature which provides various advantages over Eulerian methods, [such as having an in-built adaptivity to the wide range of densities found in gravitational collapse problems, (iii) it can be derived from the Euler-Lagrange equations so is naturally conservative, (iv) it can be integrated with symplectic equations such as the Leapfrog resulting in good orbital conservation properties (e.g. angular-momentum conservation) and (v) it can be easily coupled to the N-body equations of motion when including point gravitational sources (e.g. stars, planets)]{}. SPH has been derived in many mathematical forms, each with different assumptions, different integration variables or different methods of computing hydrodynamical quantities. currently uses the standard conservative conservative ‘grad-h’ SPH following @SH2002 and @Price2012, with the pressure-entropy scheme of @SM2013 planned for the future.
### Conservative ’grad-h’ SPH {#SS:GRADHSPH}
Conservative ‘grad-h’ SPH [@SH2002] is one of the standard derivations of the SPH equations that is used in astrophysical codes, such as [GADGET2]{}. The fluid equations are derived from Lagrangian mechanics and hence guarantee conservation of mass, momentum, angular momentum and energy to at least integration error. However, it should be noted that the use of the tree [in calculating gravitational accelerations]{} and block time-stepping algorithms introduces additional sources of error meaning ‘perfect’ conservation is not achieved in practice.
The algorithm described here is similar to that implemented in [ ]{}[@Hubber2011]. We first compute the density, $\rho$, and smoothing length, $h$ of each SPH particle. The smoothed density for particle $i$ is given by $$\label{EQN:SPHRHO}
\rho{_i}= \sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} m{_j}W({\bf r}{_{ij}},h{_i})\,,$$ where ${\bf r}{_{ij}}= {\bf r}{_i}- {\bf r}{_j}$, $W({\bf r}{_{ij}}, h{_i})$ is the smoothing kernel and $m{_j}$ is the mass of particle $j$. The density and smoothing length are related by the simple relation $$\label{EQN:HRHO}
h{_i}= \eta_{_{\rm SPH}} \left( \frac{m{_i}}{\rho{_i}} \right)^{\frac{1}{D}}\,,$$ where $D$ is the dimensionality of the simulation and $\eta_{_{\rm SPH}}$ is a dimensionless parameter that relates the smoothing length to the local inter-particle spacing (default value $\eta_{_{\rm SPH}} = 1.2$). Since $h$ and $\rho$ depend on each other, we must iterate their values until Equations \[EQN:SPHRHO\] and \[EQN:HRHO\] converge to some tolerance, [usually to within about $\sim 1\,\%$.]{}
The SPH momentum equation is given by $$\label{EQN:GRADHMOMEQN}
\frac{d{\bf v}{_i}}{dt} = -
\sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} m{_j}\left\{
\frac{P{_i}}{\Omega{_i}\rho{_i}^2} \nabla{_i}W({\bf r}{_{ij}},h{_i}) + \frac{P{_j}}{\Omega{_j}\rho{_j}^2} \nabla{_i}W({\bf r}{_{ij}},h{_j}) \right\}
\,,$$ where $P{_i}= (\gamma - 1)\,\rho{_i}\,u{_i}$ is the thermal pressure, $u{_i}$ is the specific internal energy, [$\gamma$ is the ratio of specific heats for an ideal gas]{}, $\nabla{_i}W$ is the kernel gradient and $$\label{EQN:OMEGA}
\Omega{_i}= 1 - \frac{\partial h{_i}}{\partial \rho{_i}}
\sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} m{_j}\frac{\partial W}{\partial h}
({\bf r}{_{ij}}, h{_i})$$ is a dimensionless correction term that accounts for the spatial variability of $h$ amongst its neighbouring particles.
[If the temperature is not prescribed (e.g. by an isothermal [equation of state; hereafter EOS]{}), we integrate an energy equation of the form]{} $$\label{EQN:GRADHENEQN}
\frac{du{_i}}{dt} =
\frac{P{_i}}{\Omega{_i}\rho{_i}^2} \sum \limits_{j=1}^{N}
m{_j}{\bf v}{_{ij}}\cdot \nabla W{_{ij}}({\bf r}{_{ij}}, h{_i})\,,$$ where ${\bf v}{_{ij}}= {\bf v}{_i}- {\bf v}{_j}$.
The SPH equations presented so far describe a fluid without dissipation, where the fluid quantities are always continuous. However, many astrophysical problems contain shocks, which lead to dissipation and need to be handled properly. We use the @Monaghan1997 formulation of artificial viscosity for shock-capturing, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d{\bf v}{_i}}{dt} &=&
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\,\frac{m{_j}}{\overline{\rho}{_{ij}}}\,\left\{\alpha_{_{\rm AV}}\,v_{_{\rm SIG}}\mu{_{ij}}\right\}\,\overline{\nabla{_i}W}{_{ij}}\,,\label{EQN:MON97ARTVISC} \\
\frac{du{_i}}{dt} &=& -\,\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\,\frac{m{_j}}{\overline{\rho}{_{ij}}}\,\frac{\alpha_{_{\rm AV}}\,v_{_{\rm SIG}}\mu{_{ij}}^2}{2} \,\hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}\cdot\overline{\nabla{_i}W}{_{ij}}\, \nonumber \\
&& +\,\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\,\frac{m{_j}}{\overline{\rho}{_{ij}}}\, \alpha_{_{\rm AC}}\,v_{_{\rm SIG}}'(u{_i}- u{_j}) \,\hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}\cdot\overline{\nabla{_i}W}{_{ij}}\,,
\label{EQN:MON97ENERGYDISS}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{_{\rm AV}}$ and $\alpha_{_{\rm AC}}$ are constants of order unity that control the dissipation strength, $v_{_{\rm SIG}}$ and $v_{_{\rm SIG}}'$ are the signal speeds for artificial viscosity and conductivity respectively, $\hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}= {\bf r}{_{ij}}/|{\bf r}{_{ij}}|$ and $\overline{\nabla{_i}W}{_{ij}}= \frac{1}{2}\,\left(\nabla{_i}W({\bf r}{_{ij}},h{_i}) + \nabla{_i}W({\bf r}{_{ij}},h{_j}) \right)$ and $\mu{_{ij}}= {\rm MIN}(0, {\bf v}{_{ij}}\cdot {\bf r}{_{ij}})$. For artificial viscosity, we use $v_{_{\rm SIG}} = c{_i}+ c{_j}- \beta_{_{\rm AV}}\,{\bf v}{_{ij}}\cdot \hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}$, [where $c{_i}$ and $c{_j}$ are the sound speeds of particles $i$ and $j$ respectively]{} and $\beta_{_{\rm AV}} = 2\,\alpha_{_{\rm AV}}$. The signal speed for artificial conductivity is problem and physics dependent. By default, we chose the @Wadsley2008 prescription, where $v_{_{\rm SIG}}' = |{\bf v}{_{ij}}\cdot\hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}|$ [although the @Price2008 conductivity, $v_{_{\rm SIG}}' = \sqrt{|P{_i}- P{_j}|/\overline{\rho}{_{ij}}}$, is also available in the code.]{}
[Since excessive dissipation is undesirable in hydrodynamical codes, we have implemented two artificial viscosity switches, @1997JCoPh.136...41M and @2010MNRAS.408..669C, in order to reduce the artificial viscosity as much as possible in regions away from shocks.]{}
### Self-gravity
Computing self-gravity in SPH can be done consistently by considering the continuous density field given by Equation \[EQN:SPHRHO\] in the Poisson Equation (Equation \[Eqn:Poisson\]), instead of solving the N-body problem with each particle representing a discrete point mass [@PM2007]. Deriving the Equations of Motion via Lagrangian mechanics leads to a conservative set of Equations with self-gravity. The SPH gravitational acceleration is given by
[**g**]{}[\_i]{}=& -G\_[j=1]{}\^[N]{}[m[\_j]{} [\_[ij]{}]{}]{}\
&- \_[j=1]{}\^[N]{}m[\_j]{}{W[\_i]{}([**r**]{}[\_[ij]{}]{},h[\_i]{})+W[\_i]{}([**r**]{}[\_[ij]{}]{},h[\_j]{})}, \[EQN:SPHSELFGRAV\]
where $$\label{EQN:GRAVFORCEKERNEL}
\phi'({\bf r},h) = \frac{4\,\pi}{r^2}\int\limits_0^r{W({\bf r}',h)\,r'^2\,dr'}\,,$$ $$\label{EQN:GRADHZETA}
\zeta_i = \frac{\partial h{_i}}{\partial \rho{_i}}
\sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} m_j \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial h}({\bf r}{_{ij}}, h{_i})\,,$$ and $\Omega{_i}$ is given by Eqn. \[EQN:OMEGA\]. $\phi'({\bf r},h)$ is often called the gravitational force or gravitational acceleration kernel and in effect calculates the gravitational force between SPH particles accounting for the smoothed density distribution. [Similarly $\phi({\bf r},h)$ is the gravitational potential kernel which gives the smoothed gravitational potential.]{} The $\zeta$ term is an additional term to $\Omega$ in accounting for the spatial variation of $h$ for self-gravity.
### Time integration {#SS:TIMESTEPPING}
The SPH particles can be integrated with two related integration schemes, the Leapfrog kick-drift-kick (KDK) and the Leapfrog drift-kick-drift (DKD) schemes. Leapfrog schemes are symplectic schemes that exhibit accurate but stable integration of gravitational orbits. The KDK and DKD schemes are mathematically equivalent in the case of global, constant time-steps with similar integration errors. However, in the case of non-constant, individual time-steps (see Section \[SS:BLOCKTIMESTEPS\]), they can behave differently with different rates of error growth.
The position and velocity of a particle integrated with the KDK scheme is described by : $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf r}{_i}^{n+1} &=& {\bf r}{_i}^{n} + {\bf v}{_i}^{n}\,\Delta t + \tfrac{1}{2}\,{\bf a}{_i}^{n}\,\Delta t^2\,, \label{EQN:LFKDK1} \\
{\bf v}{_i}^{n+1} &=& {\bf v}{_i}^{n} + \tfrac{1}{2}\,\left( {\bf a}{_i}^{n} + {\bf a}{_i}^{n+1} \right)\,\Delta t\,. \label{EQN:LFKDK2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta t$ is the time-step. Although the acceleration appears twice in Equation \[EQN:LFKDK2\], we only compute it once per step since the second acceleration term, ${\bf a}{_i}^{n+1}$, then becomes the first acceleration term for the next step.
In the DKD scheme, the updates to the positions and velocities are shifted by half a step : $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf r}{_i}^{n+1/2} &=& {\bf r}{_i}^{n} + \tfrac{1}{2}{\bf v}{_i}^{n}\,\Delta t\,, \label{EQN:LFDKD1} \\
{\bf v}{_i}^{n+1/2} &=& {\bf v}{_i}^{n} + \tfrac{1}{2}\,{\bf a}{_i}^{n-1/2}\,\Delta t\,, \label{EQN:LFDKD2} \\
{\bf v}{_i}^{n+1} &=& {\bf v}{_i}^{n} + {\bf a}{_i}^{n+1/2}\,\Delta t\,, \label{EQN:LFDKD3} \\
{\bf r}{_i}^{n+1} &=& {\bf r}{_i}^{n} + \tfrac{1}{2}\,\left( {\bf v}{_i}^{n} + {\bf v}{_i}^{n+1} \right)\,\Delta t\,. \label{EQN:LFDKD4}\end{aligned}$$ The acceleration is computed only once, at the midpoint of the step. This requires in practice the DKD scheme to be computed as a two-step scheme, where particles are ‘drifted’ to the mid-point, the acceleration is computed and then the second half of the step is computed with the updated acceleration.
### Time-stepping {#SS:BLOCKTIMESTEPS}
All SPH schemes use a [Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL)]{}-like condition to compute the time-steps, $\Delta\,t{_i}$, of the form : $$\label {EQN:SPH_DT}
\Delta\,t{_i}= C_{_{\rm CFL}}\,\frac{h{_i}}{|v_{\rm sig,i}|}\,,$$ where [$C_{_{\rm CFL}}$ is a dimensionless timestep multiplier (typically $\sim 0.2$) analogous to the Courant number in grid codes and the signal speed is ]{} $$v_{\rm sig,i} = {\rm MAX}{_j}\left[ { c{_i}+ c{_j}- \beta_{_{\rm AV}}{\rm MIN} \left(0, {\bf v}{_{ij}}\cdot \hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}\right) } \right]\,.$$ The signal velocity, $v_{\rm sig,i}$, is the speed of propagation of information either through sound waves or translational velocity. In effect, Eqn. \[EQN:SPH\_DT\] prevents information from crossing the smoothing kernel in a single time-step. The $\beta_{_{\rm AV}}$ term exists to ensure strong shocks are captured adequately. If additional physics (e.g. self-gravity) are employed, then we use a second criterion called the [*acceleration condition*]{}, i.e. $$\label {EQN:SPH_DTACCEL}
\Delta\,t{_i}= C_{_{\rm GRAV}} \frac{h{_i}}{\sqrt{|{\bf a}{_i}|}}\,$$ [where $C_{_{\rm GRAV}}$ is the dimensionless gravitational acceleration timestep multiplier (typically $\sim 0.5$).]{}
[GANDALF]{} uses a hierarchical block time-stepping scheme, similar to many other SPH and N-body codes [like [GADGET]{} [@Gadget2] and [NBODY6]{} [@Aarseth2003]]{}. The basic principle is that all time-steps are integer power-of-two multiples of some base time-step. In [GANDALF]{}, we fix the maximum time-step, $\Delta\,t_{_{\rm MAX}}$, based on the time-steps available whenever the block time-steps are recomputed. By default, particles on the maximum time-step occupy level $l = 0$. Particles on higher levels $l$ therefore occupy shorter time-steps, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\,t_l &=& \frac{\Delta\,t_{_{\rm MAX}}} {2^{l}}\;\;\; {\rm where\;} l = 0, 1, 2, ..., l_{_{\rm MAX}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ [The time-step level for a given particle]{} is allowed to increase to an arbitrarily high number based on the given time-step criterion when required. However, [the time-step level can only be reduced (a) by one level at a time, and (b) when the new time-step level]{} is correctly synchronised within the time-step hierarchy. When we have completed exactly one full time-step (on the lowest level) then all particles are synchronised and we can recompute the full time-step hierarchy again.
### Time-step limiter {#SS:TIMESTEPLIMITER}
Block time-steps can introduce numerical artifacts in the results of a simulation if particles on very different time-steps are allowed to interact with each other. [As an extreme example, particles in a cold, low density region may have too long time steps to react to the passage of a shock front. In we solve this problem similarly to @SM2009, using a dual approach including both a predictive and reactive component. In the predictive component, for each particle we keep track of the minimum time-step of its neighbours during the hydrodynamic force calculation. When assigning new time-steps to the particle, we ensure that the particle does not have a time-step more than a fixed factor longer than the minimum of its neighbours.]{}
[Additionally, we apply a reactive limiter for two reasons: 1) in the predictive component we employ the *old* time-step of the neighbours. This does not guarantee that the *current* time-step obeys the level constraint, once the new time-step has been computed; 2) the time-step of the neighbours may reduce rapidly, e.g. due to an approaching shock. The reactive limiter works by checking whether the minimum time-step of its neighbours has reduced below the acceptable level. This is achieved by using a scatter gather operation, i.e. active particles inform their inactive neighbours of their time-step during the hydrodynamic force calculation. If the neighbour time-step criterion is found to be violated, the inactive particle’s time-step is reduced and it becomes active as soon as its new time-step is synchronized with the time-step hierarchy.]{}
[We note that the predictive tree-based limiter based on @AREPO included in the meshless scheme is not currently included in SPH. This is for pragmatic reasons: the primary advantage of the tree-based limiter is in maintaining exact conservation, which is already not maintained in SPH when block timesteps are used. Given that it is more expensive than the @SM2009 type limiter (which already performs well) and can introduce unnecessarily small time-steps when gravity is included, we see no clear reason to use it in SPH. However, there is no fundamental reason it could not be easily added.]{}
Meshless Finite-Volume scheme {#SS:MFV}
-----------------------------
The Meshless Finite-Volume (MFV) scheme is a Hydrodynamical scheme developed originally by @LV2008 and further developed for Astrophysical applications by @GN2011 and @GIZMO. The MFV scheme combines elements of both SPH and traditional Finite-Volume schemes [see @ToroBook] where freely-moving particles interact and exchange mass, momentum and energy using a 2nd-order Godunov approach but weighted with a smoothing kernel. We provide here a summary derivation presenting the main assumptions and equations as implemented in [GANDALF]{}.
### Volume discretisation {#SSS:MFVVOLUME}
Similar to SPH, the MFV scheme uses the smoothing kernel to compute various smoothed quantities. We first compute the smoothing length of all the particles using the number density, $n$, instead of the mass density, $\rho$, i.e. $$\label{EQN:MFV_NDENS}
n{_i}= \sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} W({\bf r}{_{ij}},h{_i})\,,$$ where the $n{_i}$ and $h{_i}$ are related by $$\label{EQN:MFV_HN}
h{_i}= \eta_{_{\rm MFV}} {n{_i}}^{-\frac{1}{D}}\,,$$ and $\eta_{_{\rm MFV}}$ is a dimensionless parameter analogous to $\eta_{_{\rm SPH}}$ controlling the number of neighbours. For comparison with our results in Section \[S:TESTS\], [@GIZMO] presents results consistent with $\eta_{_{\rm MFV}} = 1$ in 1 and 3D but with a larger value $\eta_{_{\rm MFV}} \approx 1.13$ in 2D.
In order to discretise the fluid onto a set of $N$ particles, we must chose a method of partitioning the surrounding fluid volume between the different particles. [@AREPO] uses a Voronoi tessellation, which assigns a volume element to its nearest particle. @LV2008 instead use the SPH kernel to calculate the fraction of a volume element $d^{\mu}\,{\bf r}$ that is assigned to particle $i$, $\psi{_i}({\bf r}) = W({\bf r} - {\bf r}{_i}, h({\bf r}))\,n({\bf r})^{-1}$. In effect, the particles ‘share’ the surrounding volume in a similar way to SPH, resulting in an ensemble of overlapping ‘fuzzy’ volume elements [see Figure 1 of @GIZMO for a useful visual aid]. The partition function should be normalised such that $\sum_{1} {\psi{_i}({\bf r})} = 1$ everywhere. The numerical volume of a particle becomes the integral of all the partial volume elements, i.e. $V{_i}= \int { \psi{_i}({\bf r})\,d^{\mu}{\bf r}}$. Since this integral cannot be computed analytically for arbitrary particle distributions, we follow [@GIZMO] in using the second order accurate approximation, $V{_i}\sim n{_i}^{-1} = \left( \eta_{_{\rm MFV}} / h{_i}\right)^{D}$.
### Gradient operators {#SSS:MFVGRADIENTS}
Instead of using a SPH-type gradient operator, @LV2008 use a least-squares matrix operator which is accurate to second-order and is relatively inexpensive to calculate. In this form, the gradient of a general function $f{_i}$ for particle $i$ is given by : $$\left( \nabla^{\alpha}\,f \right){_i}= \sum \limits_{j}^{} { \left( f{_j}- f{_i}\right)\,\tilde{\psi}^{\alpha}_{j}({\bf r}_i) }\,, \label{EQN:MFVGRADIENT}$$ where $j$ is the summation over all (overlapping) neighbouring particles, $$\tilde{\psi}^{\alpha}_{j}({\bf r}_i) = \sum_{\beta = 1}^{\beta = \mu} { {\bf B}^{\alpha\,\beta}_{i}\, \left( {\bf r}_j - {\bf r}_i \right)^{\beta}\, \psi_j ({\bf r}_i) }\,, \label{EQN:MFVPSI}$$ where ${\bf B} \equiv {\bf E}^{-1}$ and $${\bf E}^{\alpha\,\beta}{_i}= \sum \limits_{j} {
\left( {\bf r}_j - {\bf r}_i \right)^{\alpha}\,\, \left( {\bf r}_j - {\bf r}_i \right)^{\beta}\,\psi{_j}({\bf r}_i) }\,. \label{EQN:MFVEMATRIX}$$ In rare cases with pathological particle distributions, the gradient matrix can become close to singular resulting in poor gradient estimation. We follow @GIZMO in using the condition number of the matrix ${\bf E}$ to detect the occurrence of bad gradients. When the condition number exceeds 100, we switch to a direct SPH estimate of the gradient. We use a constant exact linear gradient estimate (equation 72, @Price2012), which is equivalent to making the substitution $$\tilde{\psi}^\alpha{_j}(r) \rightarrow V_i \nabla^\alpha{_i}W{_{ij}}.$$ This substitution is made in both the gradient computation and the face area (${\bf A}{_{ij}}$ below).
### The Euler equations in conserved form {#SSS:MFVEULER}
In traditional Finite-Volume schemes, each fluid cell is a discrete volume where mass, momentum and energy is exchanged at well-defined boundaries between adjacent cells. Traditional grid codes often use the vector ${\bf U} = \left( \rho{_i}, \rho{_i}{\bf v}{_i}, \rho{_i}e{_i}\right)$, which are the conserved quantities (mass, momentum and energy) per unit volume. Since the particle volume can change in MFV, the vector ${\bf Q} \equiv V\,{\bf U} = \left( m{_i}, m{_i}{\bf v}{_i}, E{_i}\right)$ is more appropriate. We also use the vector, ${\bf W} = \left( \rho{_i}, {\bf v}{_i}, P{_i}\right)$, which is the vector of primitive quantities given to the Riemann solver.
The general conservation laws for Hydrodynamics in a moving frame ${\bf v}_{\rm frame}$ are $$\frac{\partial {\bf U}} {\partial t} + \nabla \cdot {\bf F}({\bf U}) = {\bf S}\,, \label{EQN:FV}$$ where ${\bf U}$ is the vector of conserved variables, ${\bf F} = \left( \rho\,{\bf v}, \rho\,{\bf v} \otimes {\bf v} + P\,{\cal I}, (\rho\,e + P) \right)$ is the flux matrix, ${\cal I}$ is the identity matrix, and ${\bf S}$ is the source vector. Following @LV2008 who discretise these Equations using Galerkin-methods with the least-squares gradient operators [see @LV2008; @GN2011; @GIZMO for a complete derivation], we obtain the discrete Euler Equations, $$\frac{d{\bf Q}{_i}}{dt} + \sum \limits_{j}{} {\left[ V_i{\bf F}^{\alpha}_{i}\tilde\psi^{\alpha}_{j}({\bf r}_i) - V_j{\bf F}^{\alpha}_{j}\tilde\psi^{\alpha}_{i}({\bf r}_j) \right] } = {\bf S}{_i}\,V_i\,. \label{EQN:FVEULER}$$
By replacing the two individual fluxes, ${\bf F{_i}}$ and ${\bf F{_j}}$, with a single flux across the interface between the two particles, ${\bf }F{_{ij}}$, we obtain an exactly conservative scheme, $$\frac{d{\bf Q}{_i}}{dt} + \sum \limits_{j}{} {{\bf F}_{ij} \cdot {\bf A}_{ij} } = {\bf S}{_i}\,V_i \,, \label{EQN:MFV_FV}$$ where the quantity ${\bf A}^{\alpha}{_{ij}}\equiv V{_i}\tilde{\psi}^{\alpha}{_j}({\bf r}{_i}) - V{_j}\tilde{\psi}^{\alpha}{_i}({\bf r}{_j})$ is the effective area of the face between the particles.
The flux, ${\bf F}{_{ij}}$, can be found by solving one dimensional Riemann problems between pairs of particles, where we assume that the interface is aligned with the face vector, ${\bf A}{_{ij}}$. We have implemented two Riemann solvers in [GANDALF]{}; (i) the Exact Riemann solver for adiabatic gases [e.g. @ToroBook], and (ii) the HLLC approximate solver [@HLLC; @ToroBook], using the wave-speed estimate of @Batten1996. For isothermal equations of state, the HLLC solver has been modified to ensure that the density is constant across the contact discontinuity as well as the pressure, while still resolving shear waves [e.g. @Mignone2007].
### Face reconstruction
Equation \[EQN:FVEULER\] alone can be used to construct a first order Godunov method without specifying any further information about the location of the face (although its velocity is still needed in a Lagrangian scheme, see below); however, such a scheme is quite diffusive. Second order accuracy in space can be achieved following the standard MUSCL approach [@LV2008; @GN2011; @Hopkins2013], in which the primitive variables evaluated at the cell faces are passed to the Riemann solver (instead of using the particle values). We do this using a slope-limited linear reconstruction to avoid oscillations near discontinuities, $${\bf W}{_i}({\bf r}_{_{\rm face}}) = {\bf W}{_i}({\bf r}{_i}) + \left( {\bf r}_{_{\rm face}} - {\bf r}{_i}\right) \cdot (\chi\nabla {\bf W})\,, \label{EQN:RECONSTRUCTION}$$ where $\chi \nabla {\bf W}$ is the slope-limited gradient and $\nabla {\bf W}$ is computed using Equation \[EQN:MFVGRADIENT\]. The limiters are applied to each primitive variable independently. Both first order and second order (linear) reconstructions are available, including a wide range of slope limiters such as those suggested by @AREPO, @GN2011, @Hess2010 and @GIZMO. The TVD limiter of @Hess2010 is the most diffusive, while the non-TVD limiters of @AREPO and @GN2011 are the least diffusive. The limiter suggested by @GIZMO falls in between.
In the second-order scheme, it is necessary to specify the location of the face. Following @LV2008 and [@GN2011] we take $${\bf r}_{_{\rm face}} = \frac{1}{2} \left( {\bf r}{_i}+ {\bf r}{_j}\right).$$ We are free to choose how the particle positions, ${\bf r}{_i}$, are updated. By default we choose to move the particles at the local fluid velocity, ${\bf v}{_i}$. Finally, the Riemann problem must be solved in a frame that is consistent with the motion of the effective faces[^2], which moves along with the particles. An obvious choice for this is $${\bf v}_{_{\rm face}} = {\ensuremath{\frac{d{\bf r}_{_{\rm face}}}{dt}}} = \frac{1}{2} \left( {\bf \dot{r}}{_i}+ {\bf \dot{r}}{_j}\right),$$ where ${\bf \dot{r}}{_i}$ are the velocities with which the particles are moved. This results in the Meshless Finite Volume (MFV) scheme as described by [@GIZMO]. Since this choice of face velocity may differ from the fluid velocity that comes from solving the Riemann problem, this results in a small amount of mass transferred between neighbouring particles. To construct a fully Lagrangian scheme, [@GIZMO] suggests using the speed of the contact discontinuity in place of ${\bf v}_{_{\rm face}}$. This approach is similar to that employed by @GodunovSPH2002 and ensures that no mass is advected between neighbouring particles. Following @GIZMO, we refer to this modified scheme as the Meshless Finite-Mass (MFM) scheme, which is used by default in .
### Time integration: Second-order MUSCL-Hancock
To achieve second order accurate integration in time we employ an unsplit second order MUSCL-Hancock scheme [@VanLeer1979; @ToroBook]. The conserved quantities are updated according to ${\bf Q}^{n+1}{_i}{} = {\bf Q}^n{_i}{} + \sum \limits_{j}{} d{\bf Q}{_{ij}}$, where $$d{\bf Q}{_{ij}}= - \Delta t \, {{\bf F}{_{ij}}^{n + 1/2} \cdot {\bf A}_{ij}}\,, \label{EQN:MFVdQ}$$ and ${\bf F}{_{ij}}^{n + 1/2}$ is the time-centred estimate of the flux. This is calculated by predicting the primitive quantities passed to the Riemann solver to the mid-point of the time-step along with reconstructing them to the faces. This is done via the Taylor-series expansion, $${\bf W}^{n+1/2}{_i}= {\bf W}^n{_i}+ \left( {\bf r}_{_{\rm face}} - {\bf r}{_i}\right) \cdot \nabla {\bf W} + \frac{\Delta t}{2} {\ensuremath{\frac{\partial {\bf W}{_i}}{\partial t}}},$$ and the primitive form of the Euler equations, $${\ensuremath{\frac{\partial {\bf W}}{\partial t}}} + {\bf A}({\bf W}) \cdot \nabla {\bf W} = 0.
\label{eq:primitve}$$ Eq. \[eq:primitve\] is used with the slope-limited gradients to replace the time derivative, giving $${\bf W}^{n+1/2}{_i}= {\bf W}^n{_i}+
\left[ ({\bf r}_{_{\rm face}} - {\bf r}{_i}) - \frac{\Delta t}{2} {\bf A}({\bf W}^n{_i}) \right] \cdot (\chi\nabla {\bf W}). \label{EQN:EdgeStates}$$ See e.g. Appendix A of @GIZMO for the form of ${\bf A}({\bf W})$.
In the Lagrangian mode, the particle positions are then updated via $${\bf r}^{n+1}{_i}= {\bf r}^n{_i}+ \frac{\Delta t}{2} \left( {\bf v}^n {_i}+ {\bf v}^{*}{_i}\right), \label{EQN:MFVDRIFT}$$ where ${\bf v}^*{_i}= (m^n{_i}{\bf v}^n{_i}+ \Delta {\bf p}{_i}+ m^n{_i}{\bf g}^n{_i}\Delta t) / m^{n+1}{_i}$ and $\Delta {\bf p}{_i}$ is the change in momentum due the fluxes and ${\bf g}^n$ is the gravitational acceleration (see below).
### Self-gravity
We adopt the approach of @GIZMO in treating self-gravity, which is itself an adaption of those used by @AREPO and @PM2007 applied to the MFV schemes. We have only implemented self-gravity for the MFM scheme and present this implementation here. Similar to SPH, the gravitational softening can be calculated self-consistently following @PM2007 but using the MFV definition for the density. The gravitational force, $m{_i}{\bf g}{_i}$, on a particle is then
m[\_i]{}[**g**]{}[\_i]{}=& -G\_[j=1]{}\^[N]{}[m[\_i]{}m[\_j]{} [\_[ij]{}]{}]{}\
&- \_[j=1]{}\^[N]{}{W[\_i]{}([**r**]{}[\_[ij]{}]{},h[\_i]{})+W[\_i]{}([**r**]{}[\_[ij]{}]{},h[\_j]{})}, \[EQN:MFVSELFGRAV\]
where the definitions of $\Omega'{_i}$ and $\zeta'{_i}$ for the MFV schemes are $$\label{EQN:MFV_OMEGA}
\Omega'{_i}= 1 - \frac{\partial h{_i}}{\partial n{_i}}
\sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\partial W}{\partial h}({\bf r}{_{ij}}, h{_i})\,,$$ $$\label{EQN:MFVZETA}
\zeta'{_i}= m{_i}\frac{\partial h{_i}}{\partial n{_i}}
\sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} m_j \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial h}({\bf r}{_{ij}}, h{_i})\,.$$ We apply the gravitational force in a similar way to @GIZMO, updating the new momentum, ${\bf p}{_i}$, and energy, $E{_i}$, according to $$\label{EQN:MFV_MOM_GRAV}
{\bf p}{_i}^{n+1} = {\bf p}{_i}^{n} + \Delta\,{\bf p}{_i}+ \frac{\Delta\,t}{2} \left( m{_i}^{n}{\bf g}^n{_i}+ m{_i}^{n+1} {\bf g}^{n+1}{_i}\right)\,,$$
E[\_i]{}\^[n+1]{} =& E[\_i]{}\^[n]{} + E[\_i]{}\
& + ( m[\_i]{}\^[n]{}[**v**]{}\^n[\_i]{}\^n[\_i]{}+ m\^[n+1]{}[\_i]{}[**v**]{}\^[n+1]{}\^[n+1]{}[\_i]{}) \[EQN:MFV\_ENERGY\_GRAV\]
For the MFM scheme, since there is no mass-flux (i.e. $m^{n} \equiv m^{n+1}$), the gravitational update (along with the update of particle positions, Equation \[EQN:MFVDRIFT\]) reduces exactly to a leapfrog scheme when the pressure forces are negligible. In the original MFV derivation [@GIZMO], there are extra terms relating to the mass flux between neighbouring particles, $dm{_{ij}}/dt$, but these also reduce to zero for the MFM scheme.
### Physical viscosity
Since it is possible to achieve numerical viscosities that are smaller than the physical viscosity in real systems such as accretion discs, we have implemented a physical viscosity in the MFV schemes. The source term in Equation \[EQN:FV\] due to viscosity can be written as,
[**S**]{} =& (0, [****]{}, [****]{} ), \[EQN:ViscSource\]\
[****]{} =& { - () } + (),
where $\eta$ and $\zeta$ are the shear and bulk viscosity coefficients. Since Equation \[EQN:ViscSource\] takes the form of the divergence of a flux (with ${\bf F}_{\rm visc} = - (0, {\bf \Pi}, {\bf \Pi} \cdot {\bf v})$), we follow @Munoz2013 in discretising this term using a finite volume approach, which simply amounts to including the diffusive flux in Equation \[EQN:MFV\_FV\]. To compute the viscous flux, one needs to specify a ‘viscous Riemann solver’ along with the edge states to pass to the Riemann solver. @Munoz2013 suggest using a slope-limited reconstruction of both the primitive variables and the velocity gradients, which are also needed to compute the viscous flux. However, @Hopkins2017 found that reconstructing the velocity gradients makes only a very small difference to the solution (typically less than 1 per cent). [Thus, we take a pragmatic approach in using the primitive variables reconstructed at the edges and the particle-centred velocity gradients, which are already available (Equations \[EQN:MFVGRADIENT\] and \[EQN:EdgeStates\]).]{} For the Riemann solver we simply compute the arithmetic average of the face states and use those to compute the flux.
### Time-stepping {#SSS:MFV_TIMING}
The MFV scheme uses a similar CFL time-stepping condition as used in SPH (ignoring any artificial viscosity terms), i.e. $$\label{EQN:DT_MFV}
\Delta\,t{_i}= C_{\rm CFL}\,\frac{h{_i}}{{\rm MAX}{_j}|v_{\rm sig,ij}|}\,$$ where $$v_{\rm sig,j} = c{_i}+ c{_j}- {\rm MIN} \left(0, {\bf v}{_{ij}}\cdot \hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}\right) \,.$$ Similarly, when viscosity is included the time-step is limited according to $$\Delta\,t{_i}= C_{_{\rm VISC}}\,\frac{h^2{_i}}{2 \nu{_i}}\,$$ where [$C_{_{\rm VISC}}$ is the dimensionless viscosity timestep factor and ]{} $\nu{_i}= (\eta{_i}+ \zeta{_i})/\rho{_i}$ is the total kinematic viscosity for the particles. Finally, when gravity is included the time-step is limited according to the acceleration condition, $$\Delta\,t{_i}= C_{\rm GRAV}\,\frac{h{_i}}{\sqrt{{\bf g}{_i}}}\,.$$
Similarly to SPH, block time-stepping can also be used with MFV. In order to ensure exact conservation, the changes to conserved quantities, $d{\bf Q}{_{ij}}$, are computed on the smallest time-step of the particle pair and built up over the full time-step, following @AREPO. Since particles may be interacting with neighbours both on larger and smaller time-steps, the contribution to the fluxes from some particles will be computed once while others may contribute multiple sub-steps. This means that the conserved quantities only take meaningful values at the beginning and end of the time-steps. Since the primitive quantities may be needed at any point during the particle’s time-step to compute the fluxes with a neighbour on a shorter time-step, we also record $${\ensuremath{\frac{d{\bf Q}_i}{dt}}} = - \sum_j {\bf F}{_{ij}}\cdot {\bf A}{_{ij}}, \label{Eqn:dQdt}$$ at the start of the time-step and use it to predict the primitive quantities throughout the time-step. Once the particle reaches the end of its time-step these are then replaced by the conserved fluxes built up throughout the time-step.
The block time-stepping scheme can suffer from the same problems with the Meshless scheme as in SPH when particles are allowed to interact with neighbours on much longer time-steps. We provide two time-step limiters to solve this problem. Firstly, we have implemented a simple limiter similar to the one used by SPH. When a particle detects that a neighbour is on a time-step lower than the accepted ratio, the particle is ‘woken up’. At this time the fluxes built up during the block time-stepping scheme are likely to be too large as some neighbours may be on the same time-step level as the particle, or longer. For this reason we use $\Delta t{\ensuremath{\frac{d{\bf Q}_i}{dt}}}$ to estimate the new conserved quantities when the particle is woken up. We note that while this breaks the exact conservation, we find that it works well in practice.
Secondly, for cases when exact conservation is required we have also included the more expensive predictive time-step limiter of @AREPO, in which the CFL condition is evaluated for distant particles using a tree walk. By limiting the time-step based upon $|{\bf r}{_{ij}}|/|{\bf v}_{_{\rm sig,ij}}|$ this ensures that particles ‘wake up’ from long time-steps before shocks reach them. In simulations dominated by gravity, pathological configurations can occur where the predictive limiter forces the particles to have much lower time-steps than necessary. In this case the simple limiter will likely work well since the energy conservation errors are likely dominated by the gravitational forces.
N-body methods in GANDALF {#S:NBODY}
=========================
N-body dynamics has been implemented into [GANDALF]{} as an independent class separate from the Hydrodynamical algorithms. [GANDALF]{} can therefore be run for pure N-body problems, albeit not as efficiently compared as dedicated and optimised N-body codes such as NBODY6 [@Aarseth2003] or STARLAB/kira [@kira2001]. In most simulations, the N-body module will be used in tandem with the Hydrodynamics to represent stars in the guise of sink particles (see Section \[S:SINKS\]). Nevertheless, there are situations where one is interested in the outcome of a simulation if there was no gas present, or as a pure N-body simulation after the gas has been removed.
In order to make the N-body algorithms compatible with the Hydrodynamical algorithms and to prevent unphysical 2- or 3-body ejections and/or large energy errors, we give each N-body particle a (constant) smoothing length. The acceleration of an N-body particle due to all other N-body particles is simply : $${\bf a}{_s}= -G\,\sum_{t=1}^{N} { m{_t}\,\phi'({\bf r}{_{st}}, \overline{h}{_s})\,\hat{\bf r}{_{st}}}\,,$$ where $\overline{h}{_{st}}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\left(h{_s}+ h{_t}\right)$.
Integration schemes {#SS:NBODYINTEGRATION}
-------------------
[GANDALF]{} can use several integration schemes for simulating N-body dynamics [independent of the choice of Hydrodynamics scheme]{}. For simple problems or when using accreting sink particles (see Section \[S:SINKS\]), we can use the Leapfrog KDK and DKD schemes outlined in Section \[SS:TIMESTEPPING\] using the same sets of Equations (\[EQN:LFKDK1\] to \[EQN:LFDKD4\]) together with the acceleration time-step condition (Eqn. \[EQN:SPH\_DTACCEL\]). For pure N-body simulations, or hybrid simulations that require higher accuracy, we can use other higher-order schemes.
### 4th-order Hermite scheme
In the 4th-order Hermite scheme [@Hermite1992], we explicitly calculate the 1st time derivative of the acceleration (often called the [*jerk*]{}), $\dot{\bf a}$, in order to achieve higher integration accuracy. At the beginning of the step, we calculate both the acceleration and the jerk, where the jerk is given by :
\^n[\_s]{}=& -G\_[t=1]{}\^[N]{} [[\_[st]{}]{}]{}\
& + 3G \_[t=1]{}\^[N]{} [[\_[st]{}]{}]{}\
& - 4G \_[t=1]{}\^[N]{} [[\_[st]{}]{}]{}. \[EQN:JERK\]
Once calculated for all stars, we predict the star positions and velocities to the end of the step with a Taylor expansion, $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf r}{_s}^{n+1} &=& {\bf r}{_s}^{n} + {\bf v}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t + \frac{1}{2}{\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t^2 + \frac{1}{6}\dot{\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t^3 \,, \\
{\bf v}{_s}^{n+1} &=& {\bf v}{_s}^{n} + {\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t + \frac{1}{2}\dot{\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t^2\,. \end{aligned}$$ We then calculate the acceleration jerk again using Equation \[EQN:JERK\] using the predicted positions and velocities at the end of the step, i.e. ${\bf a}{_s}^{n+1}$ and $\dot{\bf a}{_s}^{n+1}$ . This allows us to construct the higher-order time derivatives for the step, $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{\bf a}{_s}^{n} &=& \frac{2 \left( -3({\bf a}{_s}^{n} - {\bf a}{_s}^{n+1}) - (2\dot{\bf a}{_s}^{n} + \dot{\bf a}{_s}^{n+1})\Delta t \right)}{\Delta t^2}\,, \label{EQN:A2} \\
\dddot{\bf a}{_s}^{n} &=& \frac{6 \left( 2({\bf a}{_s}^{n} - {\bf a}{_s}^{n+1}) + (\dot{\bf a}{_s}^{n} + \dot{\bf a}{_s}^{n+1})\Delta t \right)}{\Delta t^3}\,. \label{EQN:A3} \end{aligned}$$ where $\ddot{\bf a}^{n}$ and $\dddot{\bf a}^{n}$ are the 2nd and 3rd time derivatives of the acceleration respectively. Finally we apply these higher-order derivatives as a correction step to calculate the position and velocity to high-order, $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf r}{_s}^{n+1} &=& {\bf r}{_s}^{n+1} + \frac{1}{24}\ddot{\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t^4 + \frac{1}{120}\,\dddot{\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t^5 \,, \\
{\bf v}{_s}^{n+1} &=& {\bf v}{_s}^{n+1} + \frac{1}{6}\ddot{\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t^3 + \frac{1}{24}\,\dddot{\bf a}{_s}^{n}\,\Delta t^4 \,.
$$ To compute the time-step for each star, we use the Aarseth criterion as used in the NBODY codes [e.g. @Aarseth2003], $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta t{_s}&=& \gamma{_s}\, \sqrt{\frac{|{\bf a}{_s}| |\ddot{\bf a}{_s}| +
|\dot{\bf a}{_s}|^2}{|\dot{\bf a}{_s}| |\dddot{\bf a}{_s}| +
|\ddot{\bf a}{_s}|^2}}\,. \label{EQN:DTAARSETH} \end{aligned}$$
### 4th-order time-symmetric integration scheme
For simulations which require higher stability or more accuracy, particularly with long-term orbital integration (e.g. binary or multiple systems), we can use the @Hut1995 time-symmetric 4th-order Hermite scheme. In this variant, we compute the acceleration and jerk at the beginning of the time-step similar to the standard Hermite scheme. We then predict the position and velocities at the end of the time-step. The corrected position and jerk are recomputed using
[**r**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n+1]{} &= [**r**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n]{} + ([**v**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n+1]{} + [**v**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n]{} )t - ( [**a**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n+1]{} - [**a**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n]{} )t\^2, \[EQN:H4TS\_RCORR\]\
[**v**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n+1]{} &= [**v**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n]{} + ([**a**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n+1]{} + [**a**]{}[\_s]{}\^[n]{} )t - ( [\_s]{}\^[n+1]{} - [\_s]{}\^[n]{} ) t\^2. \[EQN:H4TS\_VCORR\]
A more accurate solution is obtained by iterating the evaluate-correction step until the particle’s position and velocity are converged. Such schemes are often called ${\rm P}\left( {\rm EC} \right)^{n}$ where $n$ is the number of correction iterations. In practice, even using $n = 2$ gives improved results. We note that despite its name, a truly time-symmetric integration is only possible for constant time-steps whereas most N-body codes use adaptive time-steps.
Hybrid SPH and N-body dynamics {#S:HYBRID}
------------------------------
[GANDALF]{} contains an implementation of the @Hybrid2013 hybrid SPH/N-body algorithm. This is designed to simulate small to intermediate size clusters which also have a live gaseous background. One noticeable difference between this and the original @Hybrid2013 implementation is the mode of symmetrising the particle-particle interactions. In @Hybrid2013, the gravitational interactions between all particle pairs (gas-gas, gas-star and star-star) were smoothed using the average smoothing length, i.e. $W({\bf r}, \tfrac{1}{2}(h{_i}+ h{_j}))$. In [GANDALF]{}, this has been modified so gas-gas interactions use the standard @PM2007 form in grad-h SPH with the average of the kernels (Equation \[EQN:SPHSELFGRAV\]), whereas only the gas-star and star-star interactions use the average smoothing length approach. Smoothing the gas-star interactions with the average smoothing length is designed to prevent the situation where the smoothing lengths of gas and star particles are hugely different leading to the unphysical 2-body scattering which softening is designed to prevent. The full equation of motion for gas particles becomes
\[EQN:SPHEOM\] [**a**]{}[\_i]{}=& - \_[j=1]{}\^[N\_g]{} m[\_j]{}\
& - G \_[j=1]{}\^[N\_g]{} m[\_j]{} [\_[ij]{}]{}\
& - \_[j=1]{}\^[N\_g]{} m[\_j]{}\
& - G \_[s=1]{}\^[N\_s]{} m[\_s]{}’[\_[is]{}]{}([\_[is]{}]{})[\_[is]{}]{},
where $$\bar{\chi}{_i}= \frac{\partial h{_i}}{\partial \rho{_i}}
\sum \limits_{j=1}^{N} m{_i}\frac{\partial \phi{_{ij}}}{\partial {\overline{h}{_{ij}}}}(\overline{h}{_{ij}})\,.
\label{EQN:GRADHCHI}$$ [These equations are then numerically integrated using the 2nd-order Leapfrog KDK scheme (Section \[SS:TIMESTEPPING\].]{} The total equation of motion for stars becomes $$\label{EQN:STARGRAV}
{\bf a}{_s}= -G \sum \limits_{t=1}^{N_s} {
m{_t}\,\phi'{_{st}}(\overline{h}{_{st}})\,\hat{\bf r}{_{st}}} \,
- G \sum \limits_{i=1}^{N_g}\,{m{_i}\,\phi'{_{si}}(\overline{h}{_{si}})\,\hat{\bf r}{_{si}}} \,.$$ This modification removes the need for an additional loop over SPH neighbours to calculate the values for $\zeta{_i}$ using averaged smoothing lengths.
[We note that this conservative scheme is not formally implemented to work with the MFV/MFM schemes although the basic 4th-order Hermite scheme can still be utilised together in tandem with the MFV/MFM Hydrodynamics integration scheme.]{}
Sink particles {#S:SINKS}
--------------
Sink particles [@Bate1995] are used in self-gravitating hydrodynamics codes to relieve the problem of high density condensations (e.g. protostars) leading to very short time-steps and prohibitively long CPU run times. In their most basic form, sink particles replace the forming protostar (or other accreting object) with a single particle with an accretion radius $R{_s}$ that accretes any gas particles that enter the accretion radius by adding their mass and momentum to the sink. @NewSinks2013 introduced an improved sink particle algorithm in SPH which computed the accretion rate based on an internal sub-grid model leading to better convergence of results. [GANDALF]{} implements both the simpler ‘vacuum-cleaner’ sink particles and the improved sinks of [@NewSinks2013], both for SPH and for the MFV/MFM schemes.
### Sink formation criteria
A new sink particle is created from an existing gas particle that satisfies a number of criteria. These criteria are designed to ensure that sinks are only formed in genuinely self-gravitating entities, such as in collapsing prestellar cores and protostars. When a sink particle is formed, it is given an accretion radius that is some multiple of the original particle’s smoothing length, $$R{_s}= X_{_{\rm SINK}}\,h{_i}$$ where $X_{_{\rm SINK}}$ is a user-defined factor of order unity and $h{_i}$ is the smoothing length of the original gas particle. For consistency, $X_{_{\rm SINK}}$ is normally chosen so that the sink accretion volume is the same as the smoothing kernel volume (e.g. for the M4-kernel, $X_{_{\rm SINK}} = 2$).
The formation criteria are :
1. The density of a gas particle should exceed the user-defined sink creation density, $\rho_{_{\rm SINK}}$, i.e. $$\rho{_i}> \rho_{_{\rm SINK}}\,.$$
2. A new sink particle formed from a hydrodynamical particle does not overlap any existing sinks upon creation, i.e. $$|{\bf r}{_i}- {\bf r}{_s}| > X_{_{\rm SINK}}\,h{_i}+ R{_s}\,.$$
3. The gravitational potential of a hydrodynamical particle is the minimum (as in most negative) of all of its hydrodynamical neighbours, i.e. $$\phi{_i}< {\rm MIN}\,\left\{ \phi{_j}\right\}\,.$$
4. The density is sufficiently large so local condensations do not lie within the Hill sphere (or equivalently the Roche limit) of all existing sinks, i.e. $$\rho{_i}> \frac{3\,X_{_{\rm HILL}}\,\Delta{\bf r}{_{is}}\cdot \Delta{\bf a}{_{is}}}{4\pi G |\Delta{\bf r}{_{is}}|^2}\,.$$
5. A condensation can undergo freefall collapse before approaching any existing sinks, i.e. $$t_{_{\rm FF}} < \frac{|\Delta{\bf r}{_{is}}|^2}{\Delta{\bf v}{_{is}}\cdot \Delta{\bf r}{_{is}}}\,.$$
### Sink accretion
In the simplest case, accretion of gas particles onto sink particles can be achieved simply by adding the mass, momentum and energy of every gas particle entering the sink radius. Additional criteria may be employed, such as checking if the gas particles are gravitationally bound to the sink particle. @NewSinks2013 introduced a simple two-mode sub-grid model of accretion which we have implemented into . The first mode treats the case of purely spherical collapse, i.e. inward radial velocities. The (smoothed average) radial infall timescale in terms of the particle properties is $$\label{EQN:TRAD}
\left<t_{_{\rm RAD}}\right>_s = \frac{\sum_j\!\left\{m_j\right\}\,{\cal W}}{4\pi\sum\limits_{j}\!\left\{|\Delta{\bf r}_{js}|\Delta{\bf r}_{js}\!\cdot\!\Delta{\bf v}_{js}m_jW(|\Delta{\bf r}_{js}|,H_s)\right\}}\,,$$ where $${\cal W}=\sum_j\!\left\{m_jW(|\Delta{\bf r}_{js}|,H_s)/\rho_j\right\}\,.$$
The second mode treats the case of purely rotational collapse, i.e. where all velocities are tangential with speeds for circular motion. For low-mass discs in approximate Keplerian rotation, the accretion timescale at a radius $R$ is given by the Shakura-Sunyaev prescription, $t_{\rm SS} \sim\alpha_{_{\rm SS}}^{-1}(GM_\star R)^{1/2}a^{-2}$, where $\alpha_{_{\rm SS}}$ is the Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity and $a$ is the local sound speed. A kernel-weighted average of this timescale over all particles in the sink gives $$\label{EQN:TDISC}
\left<t_{_{\rm DISC}}\right> = \frac{(GM_s)^{1/2}}{\alpha_{_{\rm SS}}{\cal W}}\!\sum\limits_{j}\!\left\{\!\frac{|\Delta{\bf r}_{js}|^{1/2}m_jW(|\Delta{\bf r}_{js}|,H_s)}{\rho_ja_j^2}\!\right\}.$$ Since accreting particles will in general fall between these two limits, we use a simple interpolation using a weighted geometric mean to give an overall accretion timescale of $$\label{EQN:t_ACC}
t_{_{\rm ACC}} = \left<t_{_{\rm RAD}}\right>_s^{(1-f)}\,\left<t_{_{\rm DISC}}\right>_s^f\,,$$ where $$f = \mbox{\sc min}\left\{ 2E_{_{\rm ROT}}/|E_{_{\rm GRAV}}|\;,\,1\right\}\,$$ is a simple measure of the centrifugal support using the rotational and gravitational energies of particles inside the sink, where $f = 1$ is expected for circular rotation.
The total mass of gas particles to be accreted in the current time-step is then $$\delta M_{_{\rm ACC}} = M_{_{\rm INT}}\,\left[ 1 - \exp{\left( - \frac{\delta t_s}{t_{_{\rm ACC}} }\right)} \right]\,.$$
Misc {#S:MISC}
====
Dust
----
The dynamics of dust-gas mixtures have been implemented in using the ‘two-fluid’ formalism. An additional set of dust particles can be included, which are coupled to the gas motions via drag forces. The main scheme closely follows @LorenAguilar2015, who provide expressions for a semi-implicit update for the drag force that avoids the need for small time-steps when the drag forces are very strong. We refer the reader to @LorenAguilar2015 for details and only briefly outline the scheme. The Equations of Motion for gas and dust particles are $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\frac{d{\bf v}_g}{dt}}} &= - \frac{\rho_d}{\rho_g}\frac{({\bf v}_g - {\bf v}_d)}{t_s} + {\bf a}_g - \frac{\nabla P}{\rho_g}\,, \\
{\ensuremath{\frac{d{\bf v}_d}{dt}}} &= - \frac{({\bf v}_d - {\bf v}_g)}{t_s} + {\bf a}_d\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $t_s$ is the one-particle stopping time, and the back-reaction of the dust on the gas has been included to conserve the total momentum.
[To solve these equations over a single time-step $\Delta t$, the hydrodynamic and gravitational forces are first calculated as normal. The semi-implicit update is computed by making the ansatz that these forces, along with the densities and $t_s$, are constant throughout the time-step. The above equations can then be solved to give the new velocities,]{} $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf v}_{\rm d}(t + \Delta t) &= \tilde{\bf v}_{\rm d}(t + \Delta t) - \frac{\rho_g}{\rho_d + \rho_g}{\bf S}_{\rm dg} \label{Eqn:DustEqn} \\
{\bf v}_{\rm g}(t + \Delta t) &= \tilde{\bf v}_{\rm g}(t + \Delta t) + \frac{\rho_d}{\rho_d + \rho_g}{\bf S}_{\rm dg}\end{aligned}$$ [where $ \tilde{\bf v}_{\rm d,g}(t + \Delta t) = {\bf v}_{\rm d,g}(t) + {\bf a}_{\rm d,g}(t) \Delta t$. Writing $\Delta \tilde{ \bf v} = \tilde{\bf v}_{\rm d} - \tilde{\bf v}_{\rm g}$ and $\Delta { \bf a} = {\bf a}_{\rm d} - {\bf a}_{\rm g} + \nabla P / \rho_g$, then ${\bf S}_{\rm dg}$ is given by]{} $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf S}_{\rm dg} =& \left(1 - e^{\Delta t/t_s}\right) \Delta \tilde{\bf v}(t + \Delta t) \nonumber \\
& - \left[\left(\Delta t + t_s\right)\left(1 - e^{\Delta t/t_s}\right) - \Delta t\right] \Delta {\bf a}(t). \label{Eqn:DustS}\end{aligned}$$
[To convert this update into SPH form, we project the velocity along the line of sight and sum over the neighbours using a double-hump kernel (which we denote by $\tilde{W}$), in order to ensure angular momentum conservation while computing the drag force accurately [@Laibe2012; @LorenAguilar2015]. The resulting equations are:]{} $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf v}^i_{\rm d}(t + \Delta t, {\bf r}_i) &= \tilde{\bf v}^i_{\rm d}(t + \Delta t, {\bf r}_i) \nonumber \\
&- D\sum_a^{\rm Gas} \frac{m_a}{\rho_i + \rho_a}\left({\bf S}_{ia} \cdot \hat{\bf r}_{ia}\right) \hat{\bf r}_{ia} \tilde{W}({\bf r}_{ia}, h_a) \label{Eqn:DustUpdate1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf v}^a_{\rm g}(t + \Delta t, {\bf r}_a) &= \tilde{\bf v}^a_{\rm g}(t + \Delta t, {\bf r}_a) \nonumber \\
&+ D\sum_i^{\rm Dust} \frac{m_i}{\rho_i + \rho_a}\left({\bf S}_{ia} \cdot \hat{\bf r}_{ia}\right) \hat{\bf r}_{ia} \tilde{W}({\bf r}_{ia}, h_a). \label{Eqn:DustUpdate2}\end{aligned}$$
[The drag force dissipates kinetic energy, which may go into heating the gas, dust or be lost from the system depending on the details of the problem. When using a barotropic equation of state, which is common in astrophysical applications with dust-gas mixtures (e.g. discs, star formation or molecular clouds), we do not explicitly track the kinetic energy dissipated. However, when using an adiabatic equation of state, we assume that the dissipated kinetic energy heats the gas directly. ]{}
[To ensure exact conservation, we compute the change in kinetic energy due to drag forces directly from the above equations, ]{} $$\Delta KE_i = m_i |{\bf v}_i (t + \Delta t) - \tilde{\bf v}_i (t + \Delta t)|^2.$$ [The change in kinetic energy of a gas particle is added directly to the change in its internal energy. For dust particles, we spread its change in kinetic energy amongst its neighbouring gas particles, using the same kernel as for the drag force calculation. The total change in a gas particle’s internal energy is thus]{} $$m_a \Delta u_a = \Delta KE_a + \frac{m_a}{\rho_a} \sum_i^{\rm Dust} \frac{1}{N_i} \Delta KE_i \tilde{W}({\bf r}_{ia}, h_a), \label{Eqn:DustEnergy}$$ [where $N_i$ is a normalization factor, ]{} $$N_i = \sum_a^{\rm Gas} \frac{m_a}{\rho_a} \tilde{W}({\bf r}_{ia}, h_a).$$ [Summing over all gas particles gives $\sum_a^{\rm Gas} m_a \Delta u_a = \sum_a^{\rm Gas} \Delta KE_a + \sum_i^{\rm Dust} \Delta KE_i$, i.e. manifest energy conservation. Finally, we note that this energy update can be implemented simply. We compute $N_i$ during the drag force calculation for the dust. Once the drag force for the single dust particle has been computed, the change in kinetic energy is then ‘given back’ to its neighbours. In practice we use Equations \[Eqn:DustUpdate1\], \[Eqn:DustUpdate2\] and \[Eqn:DustEnergy\] to define time-averaged rates of change in the physical quantities which are included in the standard SPH time integration scheme.]{}
[The dust scheme has been described above in terms of SPH, but can naturally be extended to the MFM integration algorithm. To do this we proceed exactly as in SPH, except that change in velocity is multiplied by the particle mass and added to the change in momentum, $\Delta {\bf p}$. Also, since the MFM method integrates the total rather than the internal energy, only the change in kinetic energy from the dust particles needs to be included. This allows conservation of energy and momentum to machine precision. However, there is one subtlety, in that MFV and MFM use a single hydrodynamical update per time-step, but the gravitational acceleration is treated using the KDK leap frog, i.e. two kicks per time-step. Rather than use two drag kicks per time-step (one with the initial and one with the final gravitational acceleration), we instead take the pragmatic approach of using the time average, $m_1 \bar{\bf a} = (m_0 {\bf a_0} + m_1 {\bf a_1})/2$, where $m_{0,1}$ and ${\bf a_{0,1}}$ are the accelerations and masses computed at the beginning and end of the step. This works well in practice because the drag forces only depend on the difference between the dust and gas accelerations (see @LorenAguilar2015), which for gravitational forces is typically close to zero (except perhaps in very poorly resolved regions close to sink particles). Finally, in the meshless the $\nabla P/\rho_g$ term is taken from the change in momentum computed using the Riemann Solver (Equation \[Eqn:dQdt\]).]{}
[In addition to full two-fluid scheme above, also includes a test-particle scheme. The main advantage of this scheme is that, unlike the full two-fluid scheme, it can naturally handle block time-steps, whereas the full two-fluid scheme becomes inaccurate if not used with global time-steps. While it would be straight-forward to create a test-particle scheme by setting $\rho_i = 0$ in Equation \[Eqn:DustUpdate1\] and neglecting Equations \[Eqn:DustUpdate2\] & \[Eqn:DustEnergy\], in cases where the particle distribution is non-uniform the force accuracy can be improved by using a normalized interpolations scheme, as in @Booth2015. In this scheme Equation \[Eqn:DustUpdate1\] is replaced by Equation \[Eqn:DustEqn\] and ${\bf S}_{\rm dg}$ is computed by interpolating the gas properties to the location of the dust particle and using them directly in Equation \[Eqn:DustS\]. In formula, any given quantity $A_i$, defined on the gas particles, it is interpolated using]{} $$A_d = \sum_i^{\rm Gas} \frac{A_i}{\hat{n}_d} W({\bf r}_{id}, \hat{h}_d)$$ [where ]{} $$\hat{n}_d = \sum_i^{\rm Gas} W({\bf r}_{id}, \hat{h}_d)$$ [and $\hat{h}_d = \eta_{\rm SPH} (1/\hat{n}_d)^{1/D}$, which is evaluated using the standard Newton-Raphson iteration with the same tolerance as the mass density.]{}
As with pure hydrodynamics problems with the MFM method, we find that using the quintic kernel can significantly improve the accuracy of the results due to more accurate density estimates and smaller interpolation errors [see, e.g. @Price2012; @Laibe2012; @Price2015]. We thus recommend use of the quintic kernel in problems involving dust, and use it in the tests presented here.
Tree {#S:KDTREE}
----
In , we have implemented a KD-tree to efficiently determine neighbour list for computing all local quantities (e.g. smoothing lengths) and for computing gravitational forces. Our implementation is loosely based on the one described in @GR2011; we refer the interested reader to that paper and highlight the differences from our implementation in the following text. The tree is built in a top-down approach; starting from a root cell that contains all the particles, each cell is divided in two subcells along a chosen direction until one is left only with *leaf* cells, i.e. cells containing a number of particles equal or smaller than a set maximum, $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$. The slice direction is always chosen to be the one along the cell’s most elongated axis, in order to avoid having cells with large aspect ratios. In contrast to @GR2011, we follow a more traditional KD-tree construction and split cells using the median value of the particle’s positions (what they describe as MPS method). This guarantees that the tree is balanced; i.e., if there are $2^{l}$ particles, the tree will contain $l$ levels (for $N_{_{\rm LEAF}} = 1$), which simplifies the memory management.
Once the tree has been constructed, a number of properties can be computed for each cell and propagated upwards to the parent cells, such as the position of the centre-of-mass, the gravitational moments (needed for computing the gravitational acceleration) and the extent of the smallest box containing all the smoothing spheres of the particles. This box will be used during the tree walk to decide if a given cell potentially contains hydrodynamical neighbours of a given particle.
When including self-gravity, the tree is also used to reduce the expensive $O(N^2)$ calculation to $O(N\log N)$ by grouping the contribution from distant particles together. The tree is walked from the root cell and each cell is tested to see whether the contribution from the cell is sufficiently accurate; if not the cell is opened and its children are tested. This can be done using the classic geometric opening criterion [e.g. @BarnesHut86], [$$|{\bf r}{_i}- {\bf r}{_c}|^2 \geq \frac{l{_c}^2}{\theta_{_{\rm MAX}}^2}$$ where ${\bf r}{_c}$ is the cell position, $l{_c}$ is the cell ‘size’ (i.e. the centre-to-corner distance of the cell) and $\theta_{_{\rm MAX}}$ is the maximum allowed opening angle of the cell (typically $\sim 0.3$). The cell approximation can be used if the inequality is satisfied. Otherwise, we must open the cell and test each of its children cells.]{} Optionally a second criterion can be included whereby cells are opened if the contribution to the force from their quadrupole moment is too large. Either the @Gadget2 criterion, [$$|{\bf r}{_i}- {\bf r}{_c}|^2 \geq \left(\frac{G\,M{_c}l{_c}^2}{\alpha{_c}}\right)^{1/2}\,|{\bf a}_{_{\rm GRAV}}|^{-1/2}$$ where $M{_c}$ is the cell mass, ${\bf a}_{_{\rm GRAV}}$ is the gravitational acceleration from the previous step and $\alpha{_c}$ is the maximum fractional contribution to the total acceleration from the cell quadrupole term (typically $\alpha{_c}\sim 10^{-4}$). ]{} or the eigenvalue-based criterion of [see @Hubber2011 for details] can be used in .
Even with the optimisations provided by using a tree, walking the tree to find neighbours is still an expensive operation that can dominate the total CPU cost of a simulation. We optimise the walk by retrieving the list of neighbours for each leaf cell rather than for each individual particle [@Gasoline]. caches the list of particles and cells found during the tree walk. When self-gravity is included, the gravitational force contribution from the particles is computed directly for all of the particles in the leaf cell. For the contribution from the distant cells, the gravitational force calculation can be computed in one of two ways: either directly for each particle in the leaf cell or using a Taylor series expansion about the centre of the leaf cell similar to @GR2011. Both the monopole and quadrupole moments can be included in the force contribution for the cells; when using the Taylor series method we expand the monopole term to second order (as in @GR2011), but only include the 1st order term in the expansion of the quadrupole. In practice, because the actual force computation takes only a small fraction of the time spent walking the tree, we find that computing the force directly for each particle and including the quadrupole moments is typically the most efficient (see Section \[SS:COLDCOLLAPSE\]). The serial performance and parallel scaling of the tree is found to be sensitive to the choice of value for $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$. This is discussed in detail in Section \[S:PERFORMANCE\].
Finally, rather than rebuilding the complete tree at every step, we can update the properties of the tree cells bottom-up. This is particularly relevant for time-steps where only a small fraction of all particles are active, in which case the cost of rebuilding the tree can become comparable to the cost of the hydro step itself. In practice we rebuild the tree after a fixed number of time-steps (specified by the user). In contrast to @GR2011, we do not perform an integrity check on the tree since the tree-walking algorithm will always retrieve the correct neighbours even if the particles have moved outside of the initial cell (provided that the extent of the cells is updated accordingly).
{width="\textwidth"}
Boundary conditions
-------------------
Both the SPH and MFV schemes can naturally handle isolated systems with no need for explicit boundary conditions. However, boundaries need to be explicitly handled in cases such as the join between computational domains, when modeling systems with reflection symmetry, or in periodic domains. Periodic and reflecting boundaries in are handled using ‘ghost particles’, which are copies of real particles that fall near the edges of the simulation domain. Depending on the type of boundary, these particles may be direct copies on a different processor (MPI domain boundaries), copies of particles that have been translated to a new position (periodic ghosts) or reflected across a boundary.
The ghost particles are constructed in one of two different ways; they can be computed in advance of time or generated on-the-fly as needed. In both approaches are used. For the density and dust force calculations, both the physical and MPI ghosts are computed ahead of time. This is done because these loops may require the smoothing lengths to be iterated to achieve convergence, resulting in the need to export the particles every time the smoothing lengths are changed. As long as enough ghosts are constructed initially there is no need to iterate the density. However, in the hydrodynamical and gravitational force calculations, which do not require iteration, ghosts at physical boundaries are constructed on-the-fly. This is done to simplify the gravitational force calculation in periodic simulations. Similar to [GADGET-2]{}, the contribution to the forces from interactions with particles on external processors is handled by exporting the particles to the other processor before computing the forces and sending back the result.
When employing periodic boundaries with self-gravity, we use the Ewald method [e.g. @Ewald1991] for computing periodic gravity forces. This method assumes that the simulation box is infinitely replicated in all Cartesian directions. A table of periodic gravitational correction terms is generated and used when computing forces between all gravitating particles or tree cells. @Wunsch2017 has recently adapted the original Ewald method to allow periodic gravitational forces for either 1D or 2D periodicity, which has been implemented in . This could be used for example to model an infinitely wide sheet or an infinitely long filament. Although [GANDALF]{} is a multidimensional code, the periodic gravity can only be employed in 3D, whether using 1D, 2D or 3D periodicity.
Generating Initial Conditions {#SS:ICS}
-----------------------------
Constructing initial conditions for arbitrary density fields is in general more complicated for particle methods than grid methods, which can simply set the density field for each grid cell directly. The simplest approach is to use Monte-Carlo rejection sampling of the density field, which gives approximately the correct density field but with a considerable amount of noise. In Figure \[FIG:REG\_IC\](a) (1st column), we use Monte-Carlo rejection sampling to select particles representing a simple sinusoidal density field, $\rho(x) = 1.0 + \tfrac{1}{2}\sin{\{2\pi x\}}$ in 2D. As can be seen, the particle distribution is extremely non-regular (bottom row) leading to considerable scatter in the density field (top row), even when smoothed using Equation \[EQN:SPHRHO\].
@GN2011 mitigate this problem somewhat by regularising the particle distribution at start-up (i.e. after initial conditions generation) to reduce this noise by making the local particle distribution more glass-like (Figure \[FIG:REG\_IC\](b)). Although successful, too many iterations leads to a completely uniform distribution of particles, effectively washing out the original density structure. After $100$ iterations, while generating a more regular distribution with less noise, the amplitude of the sine-wave has been reduced by approximately a half (Figure \[FIG:REG\_IC\](b); top row) and will continue to ‘decay’ with successively more iterations. Alternatively, @IC1995 used a similar method to iterate particle positions towards a given density field (Figure \[FIG:REG\_IC\](c)). While giving a good fit to the density field and an improved particle distribution over the original Monte-Carlo sampling, this leads to a imperfect (i.e. not glass-like) distribution of particles with noticeable particle-particle ‘clumping’ at various points in the distribution.
[GANDALF]{} contains a general IC algorithm that effectively combines the two approaches of @IC1995 and @GN2011 by simultaneously iterating towards a given density profile while moving the particles to a more regular distribution. The full procedure for generating ICs is :
- Calculate the total mass contained in the computational domain, $M_{_{\rm TOT}}$, either by analytically or by numerical integration of the density field. All particles are assigned an equal mass $m = M_{_{\rm TOT}}/N$.
- Use Monte-Carlo rejection sampling to assign the initial positions of all particles. Although our algorithm works in principle from any initial distribution, it converges much faster if the particles are already close to their final positions.
- Iterate the particle positions using $${\bf r}{_i}' = {\bf r}{_i}+ h{_i}\,\sum_{j=1}^{N} { \left\{ \alpha_{_{\rm IC}} - \beta_{_{\rm IC}}\,\left( \frac{\rho({\bf r}{_j}) - \rho{_j}}{\rho({\bf r}{_j})} \right) \right\} W({\bf r}{_{ij}}, h{_i}) \hat{\bf r}{_{ij}}\, }\,. \label{EQN:ITERATE_IC}$$ where $\rho({\bf r}{_j})$ is the analytical (or tabulated) density at the position of particle $j$, $\rho{_j}$ is the smoothed density of particle $j$, $\alpha_{_{\rm IC}}$ is the weighting of the particle regularisation term and $\beta_{_{\rm IC}}$ is the weighting of the density field term. In practice, we find values of $\alpha_{_{\rm IC}} = 0.1$ and $\beta_{_{\rm IC}} = 0.9$ give a good balance between giving a regular particle distribution and an accurate density field. We note that higher values of $\alpha_{_{\rm IC}}$ gives a more regular distribution but can under-resolve density peaks.
- Once the positions have converged, assign the remaining particle and hydrodynamical properties (e.g. velocity, specific internal energy).
One issue not addressed by this algorithm is creating equilibrium ICs, with the exception of trivial uniform density configurations (such as a uniform glass). Hydrodynamical forces (due to 2nd order smoothing errors) are not truly represented by any given density gradient, even if the density field is accurate. Gravitational forces also have a similar (although smaller in magnitude) smoothing error. Therefore exact hydrostatic equilibrium cannot be obtained with this method.
Implementation details {#S:IMPLEMENTATION}
======================
General design and structure of the code {#S:CLASSES}
----------------------------------------
![An (idealised) example showing how we use the strategy pattern in . In multiple places the code needs to compute the pressure of a particle; this is accomplished by calling a function defined in an abstract class “EOS”. At code startup (typically depending on the parameters passed in by the user) it has been decided what the concrete implementation is (e.g., an adiabatic or isothermal equation of state); the code that needs the pressure does not need to be aware of how this is computed.[]{data-label="fig:strategy_pattern"}](strategy-1){width="\columnwidth"}
We have followed many object-oriented principles when designing [GANDALF]{}. In this section we show some examples to demonstrate why an object oriented approach is useful for a Astrophysics hydrodynamical code; we refer the interested reader to the userguide and the codebase for more details on the class structure of [GANDALF]{}. The use of object-oriented design has allowed to follow a philosophy of “compile once for all”; all parameters can be selected at run time from the user, without any need for recompiling the code.
[GANDALF]{} contains multiple implementations of many important algorithmic features, such as hydrodynamics, the SPH smoothing kernel, N-body integration schemes, the spatial decomposition tree and more. If the code were to inquire about the choice of an algorithm (e.g. how to compute the pressure of a particle) every time it is called, this would require an excessive use of [*if-else*]{} statements. Moreover, such a code would be inflexible when adding additional algorithms (e.g. a new equation of state); every time a new algorithm is added, every relevant [*if*]{} statement called in the code-base would need to be modified. To solve this problem, we use the so-called “strategy” pattern proposed in the seminal book of @Gamma. Different algorithms for performing the same task (e.g. an isothermal or adiabatic equation of state; Figure \[fig:strategy\_pattern\]) are coded as different classes inheriting from a common “parent” class (the EOS class). The parent class declares in its interface a virtual pure function (e.g. [*ComputePressure*]{}), that the different strategies implement. “Users” of the algorithm (e.g. the SPH force calculation) only work through a pointer to the parent class, and do not need to behave differently depending on the exact strategy adopted. Using this approach, we can separate the code where we choose the algorithm (typically done at code start-up) from the location where we invoke it, avoiding a long list of [*if*]{}s, for the benefit of code clarity and extensibility.
![A flow chart showing of the flow of the main integration loop of for the SPH case. The circles indicate the class responsible for each action (shown in the rectangle).[]{data-label="fig:flow"}](flow-1){width="\columnwidth"}
Another example of object orientedness is the use of a well-known feature of C++ called *templates*. This is a way of expressing polymorphism at compile time rather than at run time, and as such incurs less overheads. Therefore we use this feature in performance critical sections of the code. For example, in a particle based algorithm the smoothing kernel is a critical part of the code. supports several kernels, and we achieve this by templating the functions that use the kernel with the template class. This has the advantage that the kernel can be inlined (early testing has shown that this can lead to a performance improvement up to 30%) and we can retain this performance while still being able to select the kernel at run time (i.e., there is no need to recompile the code if one wishes to change the kernel).
Finally, the last example of best object oriented practices is the use of composition over inheritance. The top level class present in the code is the simulation class, which governs for example the flow of the main loop (see the flow chart in figure \[fig:flow\]). While we do use inheritance to distinguish the meshless algorithms from SPH (e.g., we have a SPHSimulation class and a MeshlessSimulation class), there are many other [individual algorithms available for use]{} in the code, most of which have different options. This could lead to hundreds of different simulation types. We solve this problem by having multiple classes, each one responsible for one of the main subtasks of the main loop.
Figure \[fig:flow\] shows some of these subclasses; the main simulation class stores a pointer to each one of them. The main loop starts with integrating the particles in time (a task handled by a dedicated integrator class). We then build/update the structure used to retrieve neighbours (the tree) and proceed to the core of the algorithm: computing smoothing length and hydro forces. These tasks are also handled by the tree; the actual calculations of smoothing lengths and forces are subsequently delegated to a Sph class once the neighbours of a particle have been retrieved. At this point we compute the acceleration onto the stars and accrete gas onto the sinks. Then we compute the time-step (this is handled by the simulation class itself), compute the dust forces and finally correct the time integration of the particles with the newly computed accelerations (if necessary, depending on the time integration scheme). The meshless loop closely follows the SPH one, with two important differences. The first one is that the force calculation is replaced by two separate loops, one to update the gradient matrices and one to compute the fluxes. The second one is that, while for SPH we compute the gravitational acceleration together with the hydro forces (if both are present), for the meshless we must do it in two independent loops to preserve the second order accuracy in time of the integration.
Parallelisation {#S:PARALLELISATION}
---------------
Our approach to parallelisation in follows recent trends in high performance computing (HPC). We have parallelised the code using both [OpenMP](http://openmp.org/) and [MPI](http://www.mpi-forum.org/). This hybrid parallelization allows the code to be used flexibly on different architectures. Modern hardware tends to be composed of few machines (“nodes”) containing each several cores, interconnected by high performance, low latency links (such as InfiniBand). An OpenMP only approach has the disadvantage that it is not possible to use more cores than what is available on a single node. Conversely, a pure MPI approach, while capable of running on any arbitrarily large number of nodes, does not take advantage of the fact that the different threads inside the same node are able to share the same memory, and no communication is needed between them. The use of hybrid parallelization allows us to have the best of both approaches.
### OpenMP parallelisation {#SS:OPENMP}
The OpenMP parallelisation strategy in is straightforward in that the majority of the CPU time is spent in simple loops over the active particles, such as the calculation of the smoothing length (common to both SPH and the MFV schemes) and the calculation of the forces (for SPH) or the calculation of gradient matrices and fluxes (for the MFV schemes). In these loops the computation for each particle is independent, which makes adding OpenMP parallelisation trivial. Only in very few places we need locks or atomics, which can limit the scaling. As we mentioned in Section \[S:KDTREE\], we walk the tree for the particles in a cell rather than for single particles; a single unity of work for OpenMP is thus an active cell rather than each active particle.
The parallelisation of the KD tree construction is less straightforward. The tree construction proceeds by bisecting repeatedly the particles on each tree level. The construction of the first level can be performed only by one thread. On the second tree level, there are two sets of particles, each one of which can be processed independently. This allows us to extract parallelism by assigning a thread to each one. We apply this strategy recursively to the each level; we note that, if $N_\mathrm{threads}$ are available, we need $2^l >= N_\mathrm{threads}$, where $l$ is the tree level in order to keep all threads busy and obtain reasonable work-sharing. Typically $N_\mathrm{particles} \gg N_\mathrm{threads}$, so that eventually all the threads are busy building the tree. However, the bisection is typically an operation $\mathcal{O} (N)$ ( uses the algorithm included in the C++ standard library, which is usually introselect), which means that the construction of each level takes roughly the same CPU time. Because the constructions of the first levels is done essentially in serial, it will limit the optimal scaling that can be reached during tree build. Further improvements to our strategy are only possible by parallelizing the select algorithm that performs the bisection.
Finally, for completeness we have also parallelised most of the other operations in the code of order $\mathcal{O}( N_\mathrm{particles})$, [such as time integration, the calculation of the timestep and the calculation of the thermal properties,]{} although they do not dominate the wall clock time.
### Hybrid OpenMP/MPI parallelisation {#SS:MPI}
Typically shared-memory HPC machines contain $16$ cores which limits the problem sizes that can be investigated with . In order to extend this to more processors (a few $10$s, if not $\sim 100$ cores), we have implemented a hybrid OpenMP/MPI parallelisation. The typical usage in is to use OpenMP inside each shared-memory node and use MPI to communicate between nodes.
We use domain decomposition via a KD tree to assign the particles to each MPI process. This imposes the limitation that the number of MPI processes must be a power of 2. Each MPI node constructs “pruned” versions of their trees to send to the other processors. These are simplified trees, with a smaller number of levels than the full trees. The pruned trees allow each node to have an large-scale approximation of the mass distribution in the other domains, which is useful for many purposes. We note that the pruned trees in our implementation are not locally essential trees; i.e. they are not necessarily deep enough to allow other processor to compute the gravitational force resulting from the domain.
Some steps of the algorithms in (e.g. the density calculation, the gradient estimation in the meshless, and the dust forces calculation) need information about the neighbours from other domains. This is accomplished by creating “ghost” particles on each local domain. Each node uses the pruned tree to establish which of its particles might be ghost particles on other nodes. When using periodic boundaries, we also create MPI ghosts of periodic ghosts. Our algorithm is generic and does not need to treat differently this case.
In other steps, where the ghosts would be modified by the interaction with the local particles (e.g. in the SPH force calculations or the MFV/MFM flux calculations), we have decided to use particle exchange rather than ghosts. This has the advantage that it allows us to treat hydrodynamics and gravity in the same way, and avoids the need to send information about all the ghosts even if only few of them are active. Operationally, when we find that a particle is too close to the boundary or the pruned trees of the other domains are not deep enough for gravity calculations, the particle is sent to the neighbouring domain. The other domains compute the contribution to the force from its local particles and then returns back to the original domain this partial force, which can be added to the total force.
Another significant part of the MPI code deals with transferring particles when they move between domains. The boundaries of the domains need to be updated regularly to maintain load balancing. To estimate the new location of the boundary, we assign each particle a fraction of the total CPU work, which depends on its time-step level; the work on each processor is weighted by the CPU wallclock time used by the MPI node to ensure a correct inter-processor normalisation. We use a bisection iteration method to find the best location of the new boundary, using the pruned trees to compute the new work in the domain. Once the domain boundaries have been updated, particles that are now in different domains are transferred via MPI communication.
Automated tests {#S:TRAVIS}
---------------
contains many different algorithms and types of physics; it is thus important to make sure that any change to the code does not invalidate pre-existing code. To achieve this goal and ensure that no bugs are introduced in , we have found invaluable to have a test suite that stresses the different options supported by . The experience has shown us that such a test suite needs to be automated: it is impossible to inspect manually every time the results of many simulations. We use the python library to inspect the results of the simulations run by the test suite, compare them to analytical (or numerical) solutions and check that the overall error is within a given tolerance. Finally, the last requirement is that the test suite must be invoked automatically, or the execution will be procrastinated. We found that the on-line service [TRAVIS-CI]{}[^3], which can be automatically linked to a github repository, perfectly matches this requirement by running the test suite every time a commit is pushed. In this way, during development we receive immediate feedback informing us if a newly added feature has broken any of the existing code.
Python library {#S:PYTHON}
--------------
While most of the effort in developing has been invested in being able to *run* numerical simulations, this is certainly not enough for making science; being able to *visualize* and *analyse* the outputs is equally important. [GANDALF]{} contains a library written in Python dedicated to this task. An excellent software package, called [SPLASH]{} [@SPLASH] for the visualization of particle based simulations[^4] already exists and it is not the purpose of the library to supersede it. We note that [GANDALF]{} snapshot files are fully compatible with SPLASH. While we do provide a very essential subset of the SPLASH functionality in [GANDALF]{} (particle and rendered plots), the design principle of the Python library aims to fill a different gap. The goal of the library is to give the user programmatic access (e.g., save in a variable) to the data in the outputs. The library allows to access the raw data from the simulations (e.g., construct an array containing the smoothing lengths of the particles) and the basic visualisations described before (e.g., construct a 2D array containing a rendered plot). Additional functions permit to compare the simulation with analytical solutions (when known) and to repeatedly apply an analysis function to each snapshot in a simulation, making easy to plot a quantity as a function of time. The goal is to simplify writing analysis scripts. As a bonus, having some plotting capabilities built-in the code allows to inspect the simulation while it is running. We found this feature very convenient while developing the code. In the same way, we hope that future users wanting to add some physics to [GANDALF]{} will find it useful as well. Finally, having interfaced [GANDALF]{} with Python makes it possible to set up the initial conditions directly in Python, in case the user is not familiar with C++.
As already mentioned, following the general trend in scientific computing, the language of choice for this library is Python. This choice is motivated by the extreme flexibility of the language, its easiness to use, and the existence of libraries devoted to numerical analysis and publication-ready plotting (namely matplotlib). As [GANDALF]{} itself is written in C++, we need a “bridge” to make the two languages speak. For this purpose we make use of the [SWIG]{} library. With [SWIG]{} [GANDALF]{} can be compiled as a shared library object and therefore loaded into python as any standard python module.
Tests {#S:TESTS}
=====
In order to demonstrate the fidelity and limitations of the various components of [GANDALF]{}, we have a performed a wide range of tests of the code. Many of these test cases deliberately overlap with those performed both with [ ]{}[@AREPO] and [ ]{}[@GIZMO] in order to more easily compare them to [GANDALF]{}. Since [GANDALF]{} is aimed more towards Star and Planet Formation problems (as opposed to Galaxy and Cosmological problems), we have substituted some Cosmology-oriented tests for others that are important for Star and Planet Formation scenarios. In most hydrodynamical test cases, we perform with three different options; (a) Grad-h SPH, (b) MFV and (c) MFM.
Soundwave test {#SS:SOUNDWAVE}
--------------
![The L1 error norm versus the simulation particle number for the soundwave test using the Grad-h SPH (black crosses), MFV (blue crosses) and MFM (red triangles) methods in 1D. For smooth fluid flows, we would expect the errors to be dominated by the spatial and temporal integration errors of the numerical scheme, which in all cases should be 2nd order. Therefore the L1 error norm should scale as $\propto N^{-2}$ in 1D (red dotted line).[]{data-label="FIG:SOUNDWAVE-L1ERROR"}](soundwave-L1error){width="\columnwidth"}
The goal of this test is to demonstrate that correctly implements the hydrodynamical and time integration algorithms, preserving 2nd order convergence when dealing with smooth flows. We apply a low-amplitude sinusoidal density and velocity perturbation of the form
\(x) &= \_0 (1 + A ), \[EQN:SOUNDWAVE-RHO\]\
v(x) &= Ac\_s, \[EQN:SOUNDWAVE-V\]
where $A$ is the density perturbation amplitude, $c_s$ is the sound-speed of the unperturbed gas and $k = 2\pi/\lambda$ is the wavenumber. To investigate the scaling of the error with resolution, we calculate the L1-error norms of the density field, i.e. $$|{\rm L1}| = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} {| \rho{_i}- \rho(x) |}\,,$$ where $\rho{_i}$ is the particle density and $\rho(x)$ is given by Eqn. \[EQN:SOUNDWAVE-RHO\], as a function of particle number, $N$. The L1-error norm is expected to scale as $\propto N^{-2/D}$, where $D$ is the dimensionality.
The initial conditions are created following @Athena2008. A set of $N$ particles are placed in 1D at equidistant intervals along the x-axis between $x=0$ and $x = 1$. The sinusoidal density perturbation is created by slightly perturbing the positions of the particles along the x-axis to match the correct density profile [see for example @Hubber2006 for a description of creating a sinusoidal density field]. [We use values $\rho_0 = 1$, $A = 10^{-6}$, $c_s = 1$ and $\lambda = 1$ for our perturbation.]{}
Figure \[FIG:SOUNDWAVE-L1ERROR\] shows the L1-error norm as a function of particle number for all simulation modes presented here. The MFV (blue crosses) and MFM (red triangles) schemes all scale with the expected $L1 \propto N^{-2}$ error norm (red dotted line) for both low and high resolutions, similar to the results found by @GIZMO. For the SPH simulations, one important caveat is that the SPH density sum (Eqn. \[EQN:SPHRHO\]) results in a consistent fractional offset/error from the true uniform density of less than one percent [(for the kernels employed in [GANDALF]{})]{}. Normally this is unimportant in simulations but can affect this test where there is a density perturbation of smaller amplitude. @GIZMO attempts to fix this problem by iterating the particle positions; however at high resolutions [this error]{} eventually dominates, breaking the 2nd order convergence. Since here we are interested in showing 2nd order convergence in order to test our implementation, we perform our analysis of the SPH simulations by normalising the average density to $\rho_0$ (as measured from the simulation itself); this removes the 0th order error from the L1 norm. With this normalisation applied, we can see that also the SPH results scale with the expected $L1 \propto N^{-2}$ trend since the spatial error is dominated by the smoothing kernel errors.
Shocktube tests {#SS:SHOCKTUBES}
---------------
Shocktube tests are typically used to test the shock capturing ability of a hydrodynamical code. We use two different equations of state (isothermal and adiabatic) in what follows to test our implementation in both cases (notice that the energy equation is evolved only in the latter case). The initial conditions are set-up in 1D by creating a uniform line of particles in contact to represent the left and right states. The set-up is similar (albeit with slightly higher resolution) to the same test performed by both @AREPO and @GIZMO to allow easy comparison with those two papers. [We use the standard @Monaghan1997 prescription for artificial viscosity without limiters for SPH simulations and the @GIZMO limiter for MFV/MFM simulations.]{} The LHS (i.e. $x < 0$) gas state is $P_L = 1$, $\rho_L = 1$, $v_L = 0$ and the RHS ($x > 0$) is $P_R = 0.1795$, $\rho_R = 0.25$, $v_R = 0$ in a computational domain of size $-20 < x < 20$. For the adiabatic case, the gas obeys an ideal-gas equation of state, $P = (\gamma - 1)\,\rho\,u$, where $\gamma = 1.4$. For the isothermal case, the gas obeys an isothermal equation of state where $c_s = 1$ so $P_L = 1$ and $P_R = 0.25$. We consider two different sets of initial conditions; (i) the LHS contains $240$ particles and the RHS contains $60$ particles (i.e. equal-mass particles); (ii) both the LHS and RHS contains $60$ particles each (i.e. equally-spaced particles).
### Adiabatic shocktube
{width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[FIG:ADSOD\] shows the results for the adiabatic shocktube for all cases at the final simulation time $t = 5$. For all simulation types, the general form of the density, velocity and pressure profiles are captured correctly, in line with the results of @GIZMO, proving the correctness of our implementation of the meshless schemes. We also recover two features noted by @GIZMO; SPH in general has larger overshoots and undershoots at the discontinuities for equal-mass initial conditions (blue open circles) and a slightly higher diffusivity (the jumps are not as sharp).
For the equally-spaced (non-equal mass) initial conditions (black crosses), we find a more significant dip in the density at the contact discontinuity for SPH and MFV in line with @GIZMO; however, they did not show results for MFM. We find that this method has a much stronger ‘blip’ in both the density and energy plots at the discontinuity. We interpret this feature as a wall-heating effect; the lack of mass advection in MFM prevents any (artificial) numerical mixing which can smooth out this blip. SPH and MFV are instead more diffusive due to, respectively, artificial viscosity and mass advection. A slightly more diffusive Riemann solver might allow this blip to be diffused away.
![Plots of the L1 error norm versus the simulation particle number for the adiabatic Sod test using the Grad-h SPH and Meshless-FV methods in 1D. For problems involving shocks, the shock error dominates the total error reducing what are nominally 2nd-order schemes to 1st-order. A line scaling as $L1 \propto N^{-1}$ is shown for comparison.[]{data-label="FIG:ADSOD-L1ERROR"}](adsod-L1error){width="\columnwidth"}
We plot the L1 error norms versus the particle number in Figure \[FIG:ADSOD-L1ERROR\]. In a shocktube problem, errors near the shock-front will dominate the total error in quantities such as the density. In the vicinity of the shock, the numerical schemes should reduce from 2nd (or higher) order to 1st-order since the effect of artificial viscosity, or slope limiters in Godunov codes, is to reduce the scheme to 1st order to satisfy Godunov’s theorem [e.g. @ToroBook]. All the methods broadly follow the expected $L1 \propto N^{-1}$ scaling.
### Isothermal Sod shock {#SSS:ISOSOD}
{width="\textwidth"}
We perform the same test using an isothermal equation of state. The purpose of this test is to test our implementation of the isothermal Riemann solver. In Figure \[FIG:ISOSOD\], all methods give acceptable results using the equal-mass (blue open circles) initial conditions with similar features to the adiabatic case (but with slightly larger overshoots near the tail of the rarefaction wave). All the methods recover correctly a flat density profile at the original contact discontinuity (although with a small oscillation for the MFV case). For the equally-spaced (non-equal mass) case, the methods show instead more prominent numerical artifacts near the contact discontinuity.
{width="\textwidth"}
Sedov blast-wave test
---------------------
The Sedov-Taylor blast-wave is a demanding test of the accuracy of energy conservation and of the individual time-stepping algorithm of a particle code; @SM2009 showed that without a time-step limiter one gets catastrophic results. This is important in many astrophysical applications where a sudden energy input may be triggered by supernovae explosions or high-energy feedback from accreting massive stars. In we provide two different time-step limiters, following @SM2009 and @AREPO, and we perform this test to benchmark them.
We set-up a 2D Sedov-Taylor blast-wave simulation by creating a cubic lattice containing $64^2$ particles in the region $-1 < x < 1$, $-1 < y < 1$. The particles are given an equal mass to give a uniform density of $\rho = 1$. We assign the total energy of the explosion ($E=1$) to the particles within a single smoothing kernel of the origin, where each particle’s contribution is weighted by its smoothing kernel value. For both the grad-h SPH and MFV schemes, we perform simulations with (i) global time-steps, (ii) ten time-step levels using the time-step limiter. For SPH the only option is the @SM2009 limiter, while for the meshless we test also the @AREPO limiter. We also perform additional simulations with multiple time-step levels with no limiter to check that, confirming the results of @SM2009 and @Hubber2011, in this case we fail to reproduce the analytical result, getting a noisy density field and wrongly predicting the location of the shock. In this case we note that the MFV method is less robust than SPH and it is prone to crash when using multiple time-step levels; we cannot run the test to completion without using a time-step limiter.
Figure \[FIG:SEDOV2D\] plots the density profile at $t = 0.06$ for all cases along with the semi-analytical solution (red line). Both the SPH and MFV schemes follow a similar pattern with the various time-step options. For global time-steps (1st column), they both reproduce the semi-analytical solution reasonably well, including most importantly the shock position. All the methods under-resolve the peak shock density due to the finite resolution and the use of smoothing kernels. The MFV scheme resolves the peak slightly better than SPH, with a peak density of just over $3$ (compared to just under $3$ for the SPH), although the difference is smaller than that found by @GIZMO. We note that the kernel weighting at the base of SPH and the meshless methods will always lead to some smoothing of sharp features. Using either of the two implemented time-step limiters, the @SM2009 limiter (2nd column) or the @AREPO limiter (3rd column), improve the simulation results considerably and are nearly indistinguishable from the single time-step level results, proving the correctness of our implementation. As explained in section \[SS:TIMESTEPLIMITER\], the @SM2009 does not enforce energy conservation; for example at the end of the simulation the fractional energy error has gone up to $\sim 10^{-4}$. The @AREPO time-step limiter instead is conservative and ensures energy conservation at a level of $\sim 10^{-13}$, which is similar to the result we get with global time-steps. This does not come for free though; the test with the conservative time-step limiter is roughly 20% more expensive in terms of computational time. Even in this case, the time-step limiter still allows a saving of almost a factor of 3 compared with global time-steps ($\sim 11.4$s compared to $\sim 4.2$s).
{width="\textwidth"}
Gresho-Chan vortex
------------------
The @GC1990 vortex test involves a steady rotating vortex profile in which the rotation is supported by pressure. We study this problem in 2D, $64\times 64$ particles on a cubic lattice on a periodic domain with $-0.5 < x,y <0.5$. The initial pressure profile is $$P(R) =
\begin{cases}
5 + \frac{25}{2}R^2 & 0 \leq R < 0.2 \\
9 + \frac{25}{2}R^2 - 20R + 4 \ln{5R} & 0.2 \leq R < 0.4 \\
3 + 4\ln{2} & R \geq 0.4\,,
\end{cases}$$ and the initial (azimuthal) velocity profile is $$v_{\phi}(R) =
\begin{cases}
5R & 0 \leq R < 0.2 \\
2 - 5R & 0.2 \leq R < 0.4 \\
0 & R \geq 0.4\,.
\end{cases}$$ [The initial density is $\rho = 1$ everywhere and the gas obeys an adiabatic equation of state with $\gamma = 5/3$.]{} The initial radial velocity profile is set to zero.
The azimuthal velocity profile at $t=3$ is shown in Fig. \[FIG:GRESHO\] for the both the MFM and SPH methods. We do not show the results for the MFV method, which are essentially the same as those as the MFM method. In the SPH simulations both the @2010MNRAS.408..669C viscosity limiter and the @Price2008 artificial conductivity were used. For the meshless we show the results for the range of slope limiters included in . Finally, we explore both the cubic and quintic spline kernels.
The poor performance of SPH in this test is already well known, with the high artificial dissipation leading to a fast damping of the vortex. The @2010MNRAS.408..669C switch alleviates this somewhat compared to the behavior of standard SPH (see @Rosswog2015), but the dissipation remains large. The performance of the MFM method is very sensitive to choice of the slope limiter (note that this was reported by @GIZMO, but they did not show the differences in their figures), with the most diffusive limiters (i.e. the 1st order Godunov scheme, or @Hess2010) showing the same poor performance as SPH. The least diffusive limiters (i.e. @GN2011 and @AREPO) show essentially no dissipation, although we do see some broadening of the vortex peak. The @GIZMO limiter falls between the two extremes, showing a modest level of dissipation.
In addition to running the @GC1990 test with ‘standard’ cubic spline kernel we have also run the test using the quintic spline kernel for both the SPH and MFM schemes. This highlights the importance of accurate volume and gradient estimates in the presence of strong shear, which acts to disrupt the ordered particle positions, as shown by @Rosswog2015. In the case of SPH the dissipation is reduced considerably, to a level that is only slightly greater than the MFM with the @GIZMO limiter.
This test demonstrates that using the quintic spline kernel also significantly improves the performance of the MFM methods. The main effect is a reduced level of noise, which consequently results in the slope limiters being triggered less frequently. In practice this does not much affect the least diffusive methods, where the slope limiters are already triggering very rarely. However, in the case of the @GIZMO limiter the reduced noise does reduce the level of dissipation. Finally, for the most diffusive cases the reduced noise does not reduce the triggering of the slope limiter, and thus the predominant effect is one of lower effective resolution (due to the large smoothing volume).
Gravity tree accuracy {#SS:COLDCOLLAPSE}
---------------------
In this test we set up a [random distribution of particles in a uniform spherical volume of radius $1$.]{} We compute the gravitational acceleration on each particle using both the tree and direct sum; the comparison between the two informs us on the accuracy of tree and how it varies with the parameters of the tree. We compute the total net error done in the gravitational acceleration as $$\label{EQN:GRAVERROR}
|\delta {\bf a}| = \left( \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} { \left\{ \frac{|{\bf a}{_i}^{\rm TREE} - {\bf a}{_i}^{\rm DIR}|^2}{|{\bf a}{_i}^{\rm DIR}|^2} \right\} } \right)^{1/2}\,,$$ where ${\bf a}{_i}^{\rm TREE}$ and ${\bf a}{_i}^{\rm DIR}$ are the accelerations computed via the tree and direct-sum respectively. For this tests we have employed a resolution of 16k particles; the number of particles in each leaf cell has been held fixed to 6.
In Figure \[FIG:SPHEREACCELPOT\] we show the mean gravitational acceleration error using different tree opening criteria and different multipole approximations. As expected the errors become smaller in all cases when the tree is required to open more cells. In addition, using higher multipole approximations also improves the accuracy of the tree as expected; we see a clear trend when going from the monopole methods to the cell-quadrupole and then to the full quadrupole.
Figure \[FIG:SPHEREERRORTIME\] shows the CPU time to compute the gravitational forces as a function of the accuracy. In our implementation, the quadrupole method calculates the force to a given accuracy with the least amount of CPU time and is therefore the most optimal choice of multipole expansion. The quadrupole method results in a given accuracy by opening less cells during the tree-walk, but performing more work per cell in computing the extra quadrupole terms. Whether this is more efficient than opening more cells only using the monopole depends largely on the details of the implementation, and for the tree is faster doing more iterations over distant cells, rather than opening more cells overall. One reason for this behaviour might be that we make local copies of the quadrupole moments of the distant cells, and hence iterating over them is relatively fast since they are already held in the CPU cache. In this problem, there is very little difference between the different opening criteria, as they all reach a given accuracy in roughly the same time. However, this might change with different density fields.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
![(a) The x-component of the gravitational acceleration computed at $t = 0$ for the sinusoidal density perturbation used for the Jeans test using periodic corrections with the kd-tree using (i) the Geometric MAC (blue dots), (ii) the GADGET MAC (red open circles) and (iii) Eigenvalue MAC (black crosses). For reference we plot also the analytical solution. (b) The characteristic timescales for the evolution of sinusoidal perturbations in the Jeans instability test. For stable wavelengths (i.e. $\lambda/\lambda_{_{\rm JEANS}} < 1$), the sinusoidal perturbation oscillates with a period given by Equation \[EQN:JEANSOSC\]. For unstable wavelengths (i.e. $\lambda/\lambda_{_{\rm JEANS}} > 1$), the perturbations grow with a timescale given by Equation \[EQN:JEANSCOL\]. The analytical solutions (Equations \[EQN:JEANSOSC\] & \[EQN:JEANSCOL\]) are plotted in red with the blue-dashed line marking the asymptote where $\lambda = \lambda_{_{\rm JEANS}}$ (and where the oscillation/growth timescales tend to infinity). Oscillating simulations (open circles) and collapsing simulations are plotted using the (i) Geometric MAC (blue), (ii) GADGET MAC (red) and (iii) Eigenvalue MAC (black) criteria for walking the kd-tree.[]{data-label="FIG:JEANSINSTABILITY"}](jeansaccel "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![(a) The x-component of the gravitational acceleration computed at $t = 0$ for the sinusoidal density perturbation used for the Jeans test using periodic corrections with the kd-tree using (i) the Geometric MAC (blue dots), (ii) the GADGET MAC (red open circles) and (iii) Eigenvalue MAC (black crosses). For reference we plot also the analytical solution. (b) The characteristic timescales for the evolution of sinusoidal perturbations in the Jeans instability test. For stable wavelengths (i.e. $\lambda/\lambda_{_{\rm JEANS}} < 1$), the sinusoidal perturbation oscillates with a period given by Equation \[EQN:JEANSOSC\]. For unstable wavelengths (i.e. $\lambda/\lambda_{_{\rm JEANS}} > 1$), the perturbations grow with a timescale given by Equation \[EQN:JEANSCOL\]. The analytical solutions (Equations \[EQN:JEANSOSC\] & \[EQN:JEANSCOL\]) are plotted in red with the blue-dashed line marking the asymptote where $\lambda = \lambda_{_{\rm JEANS}}$ (and where the oscillation/growth timescales tend to infinity). Oscillating simulations (open circles) and collapsing simulations are plotted using the (i) Geometric MAC (blue), (ii) GADGET MAC (red) and (iii) Eigenvalue MAC (black) criteria for walking the kd-tree.[]{data-label="FIG:JEANSINSTABILITY"}](jeanstest "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Jeans instability test
----------------------
The Jeans instability test [@Hubber2006] is one of the few problems with periodic gravity with known solutions and can be used to validate the Ewald periodic gravity component of the code. This test sets up a simple sinusoidal density perturbation in an otherwise uniform medium and then monitors the evolution of the density and the velocity field compared to that predicted by the simple Jeans theory [e.g. @GalacticDynamics].
The initial conditions are set-up following @Hubber2006. The density field is set-up in a similar fashion to the 1D soundwave test (Equation \[EQN:SOUNDWAVE-RHO\]), where the particles positions are adjusted to create the required density field (as opposed to altering the particle’s masses). The initial velocity for all particles is zero. These initial conditions lead to solutions which are standing waves rather than traveling waves as in the classical Jeans solution. The time-dependent solution is given in @Hubber2006. For stable ($\lambda \ll \lambda_{\rm J}$) wavelengths, the perturbations oscillate as sound waves. The oscillation period is $$\label{EQN:JEANSOSC}
T_{_{\rm OSC}} = \left( \frac{\pi}{G\,\rho_0} \right)^{1/2} \frac{\lambda}{ \left( \lambda_{_{\rm J}}^2 - \lambda^2 \right)^{1/2}}\,.$$ For unstable ($\lambda \gg \lambda_{\rm J}$) wavelengths, the perturbation growth timescale (defined as the time for the perturbation to grow from an amplitude of $A$ to $A\,\cosh{\{1\}} \sim 1.56 A$ is $$\label{EQN:JEANSCOL}
T_{_{\rm COL}} = \left( \frac{1}{4\,\pi\,G\,\rho_0} \right)^{1/2} \frac{\lambda}{ \left( \lambda^2 - \lambda_{_{\rm J}}^2 \right)^{1/2} }\,.$$
Rather than fix the Jeans length and alter the perturbation wavelength, we fix the perturbation wavelength (so the IC setup is always the same) and instead alter the Jeans length via changing the sound speed of the gas. We perform the simulations only for MFM.
We find that this problem is a stringent test of the tree opening criterion, since the contributions to the gravitational accelerations largely cancel out and sum up to exactly zero for no perturbation. We plot in figure \[FIG:JEANSINSTABILITY\](a) the gravitational acceleration computed with different opening criteria. While the GADGET MAC and the eigenvalue MAC perform quite well in comparison with the analytical solution, the geometric MAC criterion produces a very inaccurate and noisy acceleration. This is not surprising since the criterion does not try to enforce a given error on the acceleration as instead the other two do, which leads to more cells being opened if the acceleration is small. In Figure \[FIG:JEANSINSTABILITY\](b), we plot the oscillation and collapse timescales for various ratios of the perturbation to Jeans wavelength, $\lambda/\lambda_{_{\rm J}}$. We can see that both evolutionary modes of the perturbation (oscillation and collapse) are correctly realised, i.e. oscillation only for $\lambda < \lambda_{_{\rm J}}$ and collapse only for $\lambda > \lambda_{_{\rm J}}$, similar to the results of @Hubber2006 for so-called ‘Vanilla’ SPH. As in the previous case we see that the geometric MAC has a worse agreement with the analytic solution. For the other two criteria, the oscillation period and the collapse timescale are extremely well matched by the simulations to the theory although all simulations to some degree underestimate the oscillation timescale and overestimate the collapse timescale due to smoothing and resolution effects.
Time Integration accuracy {#SS:INTEGRATION}
-------------------------
In this section we investigate how well the different N-body time integration schemes available in conserve energy, which we take as a metric of global accuracy. These tests are in an indirect way a test also of the hydrodynamics schemes since they all employ a variant of the leapfrog integrator. We will highlight in particular how in N-body dynamics integrators of order higher than the leapfrog are necessary to guarantee good energy conservation.
### Binary orbits {#SSS:BINARYORBIT}
A binary star with two masses in a bound orbit is the simplest known N-body test problem with an analytical solution and is useful in demonstrating the fidelity of N-body integration schemes. We have simulated a mildly eccentric ($e = 0.1$) binary orbit for $40$ orbits to highlight the differences in the various schemes. In Figure \[FIG:INTEGRATIONERROR\](a), we plot the energy error as a function of time for three integration schemes, the Leapfrog-KDK (red dotted line), the standard 4th-order Hermite (solid black line) and the time-symmetric 4th-order Hermite (dashed blue line). There are two trends to highlight; an oscillation in the energy error (with the same period as the binary orbit) and a long-term error growth. The two symplectic schemes are characterised by strong oscillations in the energy error which span 3 to 4 orders of magnitude, however they do not show a long-term growth in the error. This is expected since these schemes are time reversible. In contrast, the standard 4th-order Hermite scheme shows a much smaller error oscillation but also a slow long-term increase in the energy error. Initially the energy error is only slightly higher than the time-symmetric Hermite scheme, but it slowly increases towards the regime occupied by the Leapfrog scheme [cf. @GalacticDynamics Figure 3.21].
![The total cumulative fractional energy error for N-body simulations integrating (a) the orbit of an equal mass binary system with a low eccentricity ($e = 0.1$), (b) the evolution of a Plummer sphere containing $N = 200$ stars with global time-steps, and (c) the Plummer sphere using block time-steps with $5$ time-step levels. For all cases, we perform the integrations using the Leapfrog kick-drift-kick (red dotted line), the standard 4th-order Hermite (solid black line) and time-symmetric 4th-order Hermite (dashed blue line) schemes.[]{data-label="FIG:INTEGRATIONERROR"}](integrationerror){width="\columnwidth"}
### Plummer sphere {#SSS:PLUMMERERROR}
A Plummer sphere is a popular and simple stellar cluster profile used often in basic N-body cluster simulations and has been modeled extensively in the literature [e.g. @Aarseth1974; @Aarseth2003; @GalacticDynamics]. The mass density profile for a Plummer sphere is $$\label{EQN:PLUMMERRHO}
\rho(r) = \frac{3\,M}{4\,\pi\,a^3} \left( 1 + \frac{r^2}{a^2} \right)^{-5/2} \,,$$ where $M$ is the total mass and $a$ is the Plummer radius. The 1D velocity dispersion of the stars as a function of radius, $\sigma(r)$, is $$\label{EQN:PLUMMERV}
\sigma^2(r) = \frac{G\,M}{6\,a} \left( 1 + \frac{r^2}{a^2} \right)^{-1/2} \,.$$
A detailed explanation of how to generate initial conditions for a Plummer model with stars is given by @Aarseth1974. When including gas, we set-up the Plummer spheres similar to that outlined in @Hybrid2013. The positions of the particles are selected with the same Monte-Carlo algorithm, but the gas is given a sound speed equal to the local velocity dispersion. We perform a simulation of a Plummer sphere containing $200$ equal-mass stars with total (dimensionless) mass $M = 1$ and Plummer radius $R = 1$. We truncate the Plummer sphere at a radius of $R_{_{\rm MAX}} = 10\,R$. The Plummer sphere is simulated for $40$ crossing times.
The energy errors (Figure \[FIG:INTEGRATIONERROR\](b)) shows markedly different traits to the simple binary orbit. There is no clear oscillatory error although there are some trends for long term error growth. The Leapfrog scheme (red dotted line) is the most stable scheme in terms of energy growth, although it also has the largest average energy error: about 2 - 3 orders of magnitude larger than the other schemes. The Hermite scheme (black line) has a clear long-term growth over the full course of the simulation. The time-symmetric Hermite also has long term error growth, although about an order of magnitude less than the non-symplectic version. The large energy error with the leapfrog shows why it is important to use higher order, time reversible integrators for the N-body dynamics, in contrast to what is done by most contemporary SPH codes.
![Evolution of the $10\%$, $50\%$ and $90\%$ Lagrangian radii in a Plummer sphere containing (a) $N = 500$ equal mass stars and (b) $N = 500$ equal mass stars and $5,000$ SPH gas particles.[]{data-label="FIG:PLUMMERSPHERE"}](hybridplummer){width="\columnwidth"}
### Plummer sphere with block time-steps {#SSS:PLUMMERBLOCKTIMESTEPS}
We simulate the same Plummer sphere as Section \[SSS:PLUMMERERROR\] using block time-steps (5 time-step levels). The total global errors for all schemes (Figure \[FIG:INTEGRATIONERROR\](c)) are much higher than for the global time-steps simulation. This shows how multiple time-step levels break energy conservation: force calculations are no longer symmetric leading to momentum non-conservation and subsequent energy errors. Overall, the Leapfrog scheme has an energy error starting near $10^{-5}$ growing quickly to $10^{-4}$ and finally almost $10^{-2}$ by the end of the simulation. The Hermite schemes both tend to have on average a significantly smaller error, of order $10^{-4}$.
Hybrid SPH/N-body simulations
-----------------------------
Following @Hybrid2013, we perform hybrid simulations containing both stars and gas with Plummer profiles. [The gas is initially set so the local sound speed matches the local velocity dispersion; the initial internal energy is thus $u(r) = \sigma^2(r) / (\gamma - 1)$ and subsequently]{} evolves according to an adiabatic equation of state. Differently from @Hybrid2013, as explained in section \[S:HYBRID\] in we take a different symmetrization of particle-particle interactions. In this section we want to show that we still recover the same behaviour in the evolution of a system comprised of gas and stars.
Figure \[FIG:PLUMMERSPHERE\] shows the evolution of the $10\%$, $50\%$ and $90\%$ Lagrangian radii for both the stellar and gaseous components separately as a function of time. We find the same qualitative evolution as in @Hybrid2013: the stellar components decouple from each other and evolve in separate (and opposite) ways. The stellar Lagrangian radii all contract, most strongly close to the centre. The gaseous Lagrangian radii on the other hand expands at all radii, leading to a general expansion. The reason for this difference is whilst there is still energy exchange in interactions, the energy gained by gas from encounters with stars is converted into heat via shocks leading to a one-way expansion of the gas fed by energy from the stars. After beginning with identical profiles, the two components of several relaxation times eventually decouple.
Dust tests
----------
The two-fluid dust methods included in are essentially identical to the methods presented in @Booth2015 and @LorenAguilar2015. For this reason, we refer the reader to those papers and references therein for details on the performance of the method. Here we include a few simple tests to verify the method.
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dustybox</span>
![Evolution specific kinetic energy in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dustybox</span> test using SPH (circles) and MFM (crosses), with feedback included. [The evolution is shown for stopping times, $t_s$, of 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10 and 100.]{}[]{data-label="FIG:DUSTYBOX"}](dustybox.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
This test consists of two uniform gas and dust fluids which are set up to initially have a velocity difference. We solve this problem in a 3D periodic box with size $1\times 0.5 \times 0.5$ using $32 \times 16 \times 16$ particles arranged on a cubic lattice. We set the [dust density, gas density, and sound speed to 1]{}, using a fixed stopping time and taking the initial gas velocity to be at rest while the dust is given a velocity of 1. In Fig. \[FIG:DUSTYBOX\] we show the evolution of the kinetic energy for different stopping times computed with the full-scheme including feedback. Both methods produce accurate solutions for all stopping times. We ran this test using an adiabatic equation of state to track the conservation of total energy: in the MFM method the energy is conserved to machine precision, while SPH conserves energy up to time-integration errors ($\sim 10^{-9}$).
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dustywave</span>
{width="80.00000%"}
This is the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dustywave</span> test of @Laibe2011, which involves the evolution of two linear sound waves in a dusty fluid. We solve this problem in 1D using 32 particles per phase and dust-to-gas ratio of 0.1. The gas and dust are both given the same initial velocity, a soundwave with initial velocity of $10^{-4}$. The gas is isothermal with sound speed, $c_s = 1$, and the simulations are evolved for three sound crossing times. The results for models in which the feedback is included are shown in Fig. \[FIG:DUSTYWAVE\] for both SPH and MFM, with different values of the drag coefficient, $K$, as defined by @Laibe2011.
Both methods produce similar results even at this low resolution, but the MFM method reproduces the combined sound-speed more closely, which is partly due to the smaller smoothing length ($\eta_{\rm MFV} = 1$, $\eta_{\rm SPH} = 1.2$). Both methods exhibit the well-known over dissipation of the waves when the stopping time is very small $(c_s t_s \ll h$, @Laibe2012 [@LorenAguilar2015]). Here the MFM method shows marginally lower dissipation, which is again mostly due to higher effective resolution. When run with feedback turned off, both the SPH and MFM implementations show essentially no dissipation, which is expected as the gas velocity is not damped [see e.g. @Booth2015]
### Shocks in 2D
{width="80.00000%"}
Here we present the 2D shock problem including dust as set up in @Booth2015, except a dust-to-gas ratio of 0.1 is used. We show this test in both SPH and the MFM method using the test particle dust implementation, and the full two-fluid scheme with feedback in the MFM scheme.
This test is sensitive to level of noise in the gas velocity distribution, which can hide the underlying gas vorticity field and introduce noise into the density fields of both the gas and dust [@Sijacki2012; @Booth2015]. Given the much better performance of the quintic spline kernel in the @GC1990 test, we also employ it here. In SPH the @2010MNRAS.408..669C switch and @Price2008 artificial conduction are used, while in the MFM the @GIZMO limiter is employed with the HLLC Riemann solver.
Fig. \[FIG:SHOCK2D\] shows the resulting density and vorticity distributions. The overall features of both SPH and the MFM agree well here, largely due to the improvement of the SPH results that comes from using the quintic kernel. However, the SPH density and vorticity fields are considerably more smoothed than the MFM results. SPH still shows a small level of noise in the dust density. This density noise is nearly absent in the MFM results, which show close agreement with grid based methods [e.g. @Sijacki2012; @Booth2015].
The MFM simulation with feedback included shows very similar results, demonstrating that the dust particles are not introducing noise into the gas dynamics in this problem. The only significant difference between the test particle and full two-fluid results is that with feedback switched on the peak vorticity is reduced, which is likely due to the physical damping by the feedback.
Spreading-ring {#SS:spread}
--------------
The spreading ring test is a standard test [@Flebbe94; @Artymowicz1994; @Murray1996; @Kley99] in accretion disc theory to measure the shearing viscosity (either numerical or physical) of a numerical method. The MFM scheme should have a much lower numerical viscosity than SPH and we wish to quantify this effect. We follow @Murray1996 to initialise a ring of particles with a Gaussian density profile $\Sigma \propto \exp (-(r-r_\mathrm{centre})/w))$, where $w$ is the width of the ring and $r_\mathrm{centre}$ its position; the two parameters take the value of 0.033 and 1 respectively. We place the particles in a number of rings (equally spaced by a distance $\Delta r$), with a constant inter-particle separation in the azimuthal coordinate $\Delta \phi$; the number of rings is set such that $r \Delta \phi \simeq \Delta r$. Therefore, to generate the desired density profile we employ particles with different mass. To keep the test as clean as possible, we run it in two dimensions.
Previous works [e.g., @Murray1996] have switched off pressure forces to test only the effect of the artificial viscosity term in SPH. This is not possible to do with the meshless schemes since they do not employ artificial viscosity. Therefore, we run the test with pressure forces. The downside is that pressure forces will contribute to the spreading of the ring. To counteract this problem, we modify the rotation curve of the particles so that the pressure forces are in equilibrium with the gravitational and centrifugal acceleration, preventing spreading due to pressure forces. In addition, we explore different temperatures of the disc (we use a isothermal equation of state), sampling both a cold disc ($c_s=10^{-3}$) where the pressure is too little to cause spreading and a hot one ($c_s=0.05$) where it is potentially a significant contribution. Finally, differently from @Murray1996, the particles initially have a vanishing radial velocity, since we do not know a priori the magnitude of viscosity in the meshless schemes.
Cold Hot
----- ---------------------- ----------------------
SPH $2 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$
MFM $7.7 \times 10^{-9}$ $8.4 \times 10^{-8}$
: Values of the kinematical viscosity $\nu$ derived from fitting the evolution of the spreading ring after $t=10$. Notice that the values for the meshless should be considered as upper limits rather than measurements.[]{data-label="table:spread"}
![Evolution of the density of a spreading ring for the cases explained in the text at time $t=10$. The initial conditions are plotted with the red crosses and they are nearly indistinguishable from the MFM cold case. We show the best fit with the numerical solution with a solid line and the results from the simulation (averaged for each ring of particles) with dots.[]{data-label="FIG:spread"}](spreading){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[FIG:spread\] shows the evolution of the density. The calculations have employed a resolution of 250000 particles. To measure the value of the kinematic viscosity $\nu$, we [perform a least squares fit. To define the squared residuals, we compare the average density in each ring of particles after a dimensionless time of 10 to the analytical solution (see e.g. eq. 30 in @Murray1996). As common in differential equation theory, the analytical solution is a convolution between the kernel of the equation and the initial conditions; to the best of our knowledge the convolution cannot be expressed in closed form and therefore we compute the integral numerically.]{} Table \[table:spread\] shows the results of the fit. The difference between SPH and the meshless is already clear by eye. The fact that the meshless has very little viscosity in the cold case is perhaps not surprising; since the pressure forces are weak, the code in this case is effectively a N-body integrator. We can see that instead even in this case the artificial viscosity in SPH ([here used without any switch]{}), due to the shear, has a significant effect on the evolution of the ring, leading to a relatively high value of $\nu$. In this case, because of the low sound speed the quadratic $\beta$ term dominates the artificial viscosity; setting $\beta=0$ yields a $\nu$ of $6 \times 10^{-7}$, a factor of 3 smaller but still significantly higher than the meshless. [Given that $\beta$ dominates, an artificial viscosity switch would not change the resulting shear viscosity as the switches only operate on $\alpha$]{}. [The value obtained by our implementation is consistent with the shear viscosity expected from SPH in an accretion disc. According to @Artymowicz1994, in 2D the shear viscosity expected is $\nu = \frac{1}{8} \alpha_\mathrm{SPH} c_s h$. Substituting the value of $\alpha_\mathrm{SPH}$=1, $c_s=10^{-3}$ and $h=2.7 \times 10^{-3}$, we obtain a value of $3.3 \times 10^{-7}$, which is within a factor of 2 from what we measure.]{}
Additionally, we have used this test to verify the physical viscosity implementation in the meshless. Including a fixed shear viscosity, $\nu = 2 \times 10^{-6}$, we find that the spreading is consistent to within 5 per cent. This confirms that physical viscosity implementation is working as intended, and that the spreading ring test is good measure of the effective viscosity.
In the hot case, the meshless still performs very well; even in this case the ring remains almost indistinguishable from the initial one[^5]. Notice that the value we report for the meshless is effectively an upper limit rather than a measurement; our numerical solution deteriorates for lower value of $\nu$. [For SPH in this case we get a value of $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$. As in the previous case, this compares well to the value expected from the equations in @Artymowicz1994 of $1.7 \times 10^{-5}$]{}. In this case the dominant term in the SPH artificial viscosity is the linear $\alpha$ term; setting $\beta=0$ leads only to a 10% reduction of $\nu$. For this reason, it is worth investigating whether a modern viscosity switch can help reducing the numerical viscosity. We have run this test with both the @1997JCoPh.136...41M switch and the @2010MNRAS.408..669C one. We find that for this particular test they perform very similarly, [with a small advantage for the latter; they yield a kinematic viscosity of $4 \times 10^{-6}$ and of $3 \times 10^{-6}$, respectively. This is an improvement of a factor of 4-5, clearly visible in the figure (we plot only the @2010MNRAS.408..669C case for simplicity)]{}. We note that this comes though at the cost of increased noise in the particle distribution; when running with either of the two switches, the particles very quickly lose the initial ring structure and rearrange in a more continuous (but noisier) structure. Even when using a viscosity switch in SPH, we conclude that the meshless has a significantly lower numerical viscosity than SPH.
Disc-planet interaction
-----------------------
Having established in the previous section in an idealised test that the meshless scheme has a lower numerical viscosity than SPH, we now wish to assess how the scheme performs in a more realistic simulation. For this goal we have decided to run a simulation of a proto-planetary disc with a planet embedded; the setup is loosely based on @deValBorro. We have run the simulation both with SPH and the meshless in 3D employing a resolution of 500k particles. Random placement of particles is used to create the initial conditions. The initial surface density scales with radius as $\Sigma \propto r^{-1}$, extending from a radius of 0.4 to a radius of 2.5, while the sound speed scales as $c_s \propto r^{-0.5}$ and the aspect ratio of the disc at the inner boundary is 0.05. We insert a planet with a mass ratio of $10^{-3}$ with respect to the star (i.e., a Jupiter mass for a solar mass star) in a circular orbit with a semi-major axis of 1 and evolve the simulation for 40 orbits. While in SPH we consider only artificial viscosity, in the meshless we add a physical viscosity with $\nu=2 \times 10^{-5}$. Without physical viscosity, a vortex develops outside the orbit of the planet, due to the Rossby Wave Instability arising at the edge of the planetary gap . In SPH instead the much higher numerical viscosity suppresses vortex formation.
{width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[FIG:DISC\] shows the surface density of the disc after 40 orbits. It can be seen how in SPH the disc inside the orbit of the planet has a significantly lower mass compared to the meshless case, since the numerical viscosity caused a much higher accretion rate onto the star. Quantitatively, the calculation run with SPH is left with 300k particles at this time, while the one with the MFV still has 380k particles. The depletion of gas close to the star partially masks the opening of a gap by the planet in the SPH case, which is instead clearly visible in the meshless. In addition, due to the slightly higher effective resolution of the meshless (observed already in the shock tubes, see section \[SS:SHOCKTUBES\]), the spiral arms created by the planet are much better defined in the meshless case.
{width="\textwidth"}
In Figure \[FIG:DUST\] we show the evolution of a disc containing a planet of a lower mass ($10^{-4}$), a setup similar to @Dipierro. We now use a shallower surface density $\Sigma \propto r^{-0.1}$ and a sound-speed scaling as $c_s \propto r^{-0.35}$, with an aspect ratio at the inner boundary of 0.075. To reduce the numerical viscosity we set $\alpha_\mathrm{SPH} = 0.1$. We run the simulation both with gas and dust to test our dust implementation. We use 300k particles for the dust, which evolves as test particles. The Stokes number of the dust is 10. We confirm the results of @Dipierro that such a planet open up a gap in the dust, but not in the gas.
{width="\textwidth"}
Boss-Bodenheimer test {#SS:BB}
---------------------
The Boss-Bodenheimer test [@BBSIT1979] is a standard test of self-gravitating Astrophysical codes that simulates the collapse and fragmentation of a rotating cloud. Originally this test was performed with an isothermal EOS. However, it has also been performed with a barotropic EOS to mimic the optically-thick adiabatic collapse phase during Star Formation. It provides a simple test-case of combined hydrodynamics with self-gravity in Star Formation and subsequent sink particle formation and evolution.
The initial conditions are set-up similar to that described in @Hubber2011. A spherical cloud of total mass $1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, radius $0.01\,{\rm pc}$ is created with a density profile $$\rho = \rho_{_0}\,\left[ 1 + A\,\sin{(m\phi)} \right]\,$$ where $\rho_{_0} = 1.44 \times 10^{-17}\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$, $A = 0.5$ is the perturbation amplitude, $m = 2$ is the order of the azimuthal perturbation and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle about the z-axis. We generate a hexagonal closed-packed array and then cut-out a uniform-density sphere containing the desired number of particles. The total mass and radius of the sphere is scaled to $1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and $0.01\,{\rm pc}$ respectively. We finally alter the azimuthal positions of the particles to reproduce the required density field. [The barotropic equation of state used in this test gives the temperature as a function of density : $$T(\rho) = T_0 \left\{ 1 + \left( \frac{\rho}{\rho_{_{\rm AD}}} \right)^{\gamma - 1} \right\}\,,$$ where $T_0 = 10\,{\rm K}$, $\rho_{_{\rm AD}} = 10^{-14}\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ and $\gamma = 5/3$. The gas pressure is given by $P(\rho) = k_{_{\rm B}}\,T(\rho)\rho / (\mu\,m_{_{\rm H}})$ where $k_{_{\rm B}}$ is the Boltzmann constant, $m_{_{\rm H}}$ is the mass of hydrogen and the mean-gas-particle mass, $\mu = 2.35$. ]{}
We simulate the evolution until a time of $t_{\rm end} = 0.04\,{\rm Myr}$, by which time the cloud should fragments into two stars (or perhaps more) and the binary should have performed several orbits. The simulations were performed with both SPH and MFM using $32,000$ particles.
### Time evolution {#SSS:BB-TIME}
In Figure \[FIG:BB\], we show the time evolution of the Boss-Bodenheimer test for both the SPH (top row) and MFM (bottom row) schemes. The large-scale evolution is the same for both cases as expected with both simulations forming a bar with two density enhancements at either end which gravitationally collapse to form two protostars (i.e. sink particles). The density enhancements are surrounded by disc-like envelope
Three noticeable differences between the two simulations are apparent. (i) the evolution of the SPH simulation is slightly slower than the MFM scheme (i.e. it seems to lag slightly behind the MFM scheme) and takes slightly longer for the bar to reach the higher densities where it forms two objects at each end. (ii) Once intermediate densities have been reached and the two ends of the bar have reached some state of centrifugal support, the SPH simulations evolves towards higher densities much more quickly than the MFM simulation. In fact, the MFM scheme can never reach the sink density if it is too large compared to the adiabatic density. The main driver of this difference is likely to be the artificial viscosity in the SPH simulations. The artificial viscosity can efficiently (and artificially) transport angular momentum away from the disc-like object allowing it to collapse to higher densities quicker and hence form sinks rapidly. As demonstrated in section \[SS:spread\], the MFM scheme instead has a much lower effective numerical viscosity, leading to less artificial angular momentum transport. In this simulation, we lower the sink density enough to allow comparable sink formation times and to allow a meaningful comparison with other features in the simulation. However this difference highlights that, even though SPH does not artificially cause fragmentation of already unstable regions, other numerical issues can lead to large differences in simulations between SPH and less dissipative methods. This is of particular importance when modeling discs, due to the high shear viscosity of SPH.
Recently @Deng2017 made comparisons between the SPH and MFM by looking at the viscosity-driven angular momentum transport in rotating cores such as the Boss-Bodenheimer test. We confirm that we obtain similar results to @Deng2017 in that SPH tends to lead to more rapid angular momentum transport than MFM, particularly near the edge of the cloud.
Performance & Scaling {#S:PERFORMANCE}
=====================
Gravity tree scaling {#SS:TREESCALING}
--------------------
![Performance and scaling for computing the gravitational acceleration of all particles using the KD-tree in [GANDALF]{} as a function of particle number. For comparison, we plot lines showing the ${\cal O}(N)$ claimed by @GR2011 (red dot-dashed), ${\cal O}(N^2)$ expected for direct-sum (red dotted) and ${\cal O}(N\log{N})$ expected for tree gravity (red dashed).[]{data-label="FIG:TREESCALING"}](treescaling){width="\columnwidth"}
Gravity trees used in particle codes typically scale as ${\cal O}(N\,\log{N})$, i.e. $N$ particles each requiring an average of ${\cal O}(\log{N})$ computations. This is mainly because each particle must walk the tree individually, and then compute all contributions to the force from near (i.e. smoothed) neighbours), distant (i.e. non-smoothed) neighbours and distant cells using the COM approximation. @GR2011 claimed that, if we walk the tree for groups of particles rather than one at a time, we can compute the contributions from the far-cells more efficiently using a multipole expansion around the cell centre and instead approach ${\cal O}(N)$ scaling. As we showed in section \[SS:COLDCOLLAPSE\], we do not find a speed benefit in our implementation using the Taylor expansion around the cell centre, implying that our implementation has a different balance of the time spent computing the interaction with near or far particles. Therefore, it is likely that our tree will scale in a different way with the number of particles compared to @GR2011.
Figure \[FIG:TREESCALING\] shows the performance of [GANDALF]{} using direct-sum gravity and the tree. We set up a uniform sphere of particles with different numbers of particles and compute the time needed to compute the gravitational acceleration. We plot this CPU time as a function of the particle number. The ${\cal O}(N^2)$ scaling of the direct-sum gravity is evident. Instead, it can be seen that, as hypothesized, our implementation of the tree scales as ${\cal O}(N\log{N})$, and not as ${\cal O}(N)$. We note though that the difference between the two scalings is very small; over the almost 5 orders of magnitude spanned by the plot, the difference in wall clock time is a linear factor of 2–3. It is interesting to note also that @GR2011 comment that their scaling is not perfectly ${\cal O}(N)$, with an extra factor very similar in value to ours. This means that in practical terms the difference in scaling between our implementation and the one presented by [@GR2011] is almost negligible.
OpenMP parallel scaling {#SS:OPENMPSCALING}
-----------------------
is parallelised using both OpenMP and MPI to allow the code to be used on much larger problem sizes than are achievable on single core machines. Here we investigate the strong scaling of the OpenMP parallelisation and experiment with the number of particles at the leaf level of the tree to find the most optimal performance. As discussed in detail by @GR2011, the performance of the KD-tree can be very sensitive to the chosen value of $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$, the (maximum) number of particles contained in each leaf cell of the tree. Small values of $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$ result in more tree-walks being required (since there are fewer leaf cells in the tree) whereas large values of $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$ can result in much larger neighbour lists being generated for each leaf cell. @GR2011 empirically determined that the most optimal value of the average number of particles per leaf cell for their tree implementation was $\bar{N}_{_{\rm LEAF}} \sim 12$.
We use the Boss-Bodenheimer test as a benchmark to test the parallel performance, since it is relatively simple to set-up, has a well-known numerical solution and computes both hydrodynamical and gravitational forces, the two most expensive components of the code. We run this test with $\sim 10^6$ particles using $N_{_{\rm CORE}} = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16$ and $32$ parallel cores in a shared-memory machine (parallelised with OpenMP) using various values of $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$ ($1, 4, 8, 16$ and $32$) for 16 steps before terminating the simulation and measuring the time spent in the Main Loop (i.e. ignoring any set-up procedures). We also run with global time-steps, i.e. one time-step level, in order to demonstrate the best-case scaling for the various parameters. In Table \[TAB::NLEAF\], we show the total CPU wallclock time, $t(N_{_{\rm CORE}})$ for each combination of $N_{_{\rm CORE}}$ and $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$ and the scaling, $S(N_{_{\rm CORE}}) \equiv t(1)/t(N_{_{\rm CORE}})$.
We notice some important results from our scaling tests:
1. For almost all values of $N_{_{\rm CORE}}$, there is a broad minimum in the total CPU wallclock time for the simulation, at $N_{_{\rm LEAF}} = 8$. This represents our most optimal value and default choice for $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$ in .
2. The scaling of formally increases with increasing values of $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$ for all values of $N_{_{\rm CORE}}$ (although we note some fluctuations in the timing routines). Although this suggests using as high a value of $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$ as possible, the raw CPU times are a minimum for $N_{_{\rm LEAF}} = 8$ which should be the most important factor. Although not shown in Table \[TAB::NLEAF\], for even larger values of $N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$, achieving good load balancing becomes problematic and the scaling once again drops away.
------------------------- -------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------ --------- ------ ---------
\*[$N_{_{\rm LEAF}}$]{}
Time Time Scaling Time Scaling Time Scaling Time Scaling Time Scaling
1 1388.7 772.0 1.80 405.7 3.40 210.6 6.60 106 13.1 60.2 23.1
4 791.0 402.8 1.96 204.3 3.88 104.9 7.50 55.2 14.3 31.4 25.2
8 732.6 374.2 1.96 192.0 3.82 100.0 7.30 52.2 14.0 28.2 26.0
16 815.0 416.3 1.96 211.4 3.86 109.6 7.50 56.3 14.6 30.7 26.6
32 1066.1 523.4 2.04 271.2 3.93 137.6 7.75 71.2 15.0 37.7 28.2
------------------------- -------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------- --------- ------ --------- ------ ---------
Hybrid parallel scaling {#SS:SCALING}
-----------------------
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
As described in section \[S:PARALLELISATION\], is parallelised both via OpenMP and MPI. The left panel of Figure \[fig:scaling\] shows the strong scaling of in pure OpenMP mode and in hybrid MPI-OpenMP mode. We tested the code on the Darwin supercomputer, hosted at the University of Cambridge, using version 12 of the Intel compiler. All the tests have been run for the Boss-Bodenheimer test as in Section \[SS:OPENMPSCALING\]. Compared to the previous section we employ here a resolution of $\sim 4 \times 10^6$ particles since we test the code up to 128 processors. Up to 8 threads the speed-up is almost ideal (7.3), and still relatively good with 16 threads (12.7). We note that in both cases most of the time is spent computing the forces (both hydro forces and gravitational forces), with a very good scaling of 14.24 with 16 threads. The bottleneck to the scaling is mostly in the tree building routine and in other serial parts of the code.
With hybrid MPI-OpenMP parallelisation, we experiment using different numbers of OpenMP threads. In general we find that the best performance is achieved by using as many OpenMP threads as possible inside a given node (16 physical cores were available on the supercomputer we used for testing), and using MPI to communicate among the nodes. We interpret this result as a consequence of the fact that the MPI version of the code needs to do more work: pruned trees and ghost particles need to be created and sent to the other processors. This extra work adds to the overhead and limits the parallel scaling. In practice, we find that this particular test problem does not scale well using more than 64 processors, with only minimal improvements on 128 processors.
The real benefit of MPI however is to run simulation at higher resolution than what would be possible otherwise. For this reason we also conduct tests of the weak scaling of (right panel of Figure \[fig:scaling\]). The test has been run with a resolution of $2^{18}$ ($\sim$ 250k) particles per processor. When defining a parallel efficiency, we have taken into account the extra $\log N$ factor demonstrated in section \[SS:TREESCALING\]. We use OpenMP only up to 16 cores, and switch to hybrid MPI-OpenMP mode using more processors. Based on the previous findings, we employ here 16 OpenMP threads, using MPI only to communicate between the nodes. We can see that the code exhibits very good weak scaling: even with 128 processors, the parallel efficiency is around 70 percent.
Discussion, future development and conclusions {#S:FUTUREWORK}
==============================================
In this paper we have presented the new hydrodynamical code with details and tests of all implemented algorithms. The code contains the robust and well tested SPH method, as well as the Meshless Finite-Volume numerical schemes presented by @GN2011 and @GIZMO. In addition can handle N-body dynamics with higher order collisional integrators than what is commonly employed in SPH simulations and implements an energy conserving scheme for integrating the dynamics of stars and gas. Both hydrodynamical schemes can also handle dust dynamics, either in the test particle limit or keeping the back reaction of the dust onto gas into account. The object-oriented design of makes the code flexible, easy to adapt with new physics modules and it is relatively easy to add other particle based schemes.
We have presented an extensive suite of tests to demonstrate the correctness of our implementation, mostly recovering the results of @GIZMO in terms of the benefits of the MFV schemes compared to SPH. In addition we have conducted a more rigorous test to quantify the numerical viscosity of the method. In the spreading ring test we have shown that the MFM scheme has a much lower numerical viscosity than SPH and is therefore better suited for accretion disc applications, where the numerical viscosity of SPH is typically too high to perform realistic simulations (unless a very high resolution is used). The same conclusion is reached also looking at the evolution of a proto-planetary disc containing a planet, where the inner part of the disc in SPH is rapidly accreted onto the star due to the high numerical viscosity.
The code is publicly available at [this address](https://github.com/gandalfcode/gandalf) under the GPLv2 license. The code is parallelised with OpenMP and MPI for running on modern supercomputers. In addition we provide a python library to facilitate analysis of the results of the simulations and ease code use and development, since the results of a simulation can be inspected live while it is running.
We plan in the future to implement additional algorithms and physics modules in . Examples of developments which are underway include algorithms for radiation transport and coupling with existing chemistry codes (e.g. @KROME). We encourage users of the code to contact us if there are specific algorithms they are interested in.
We hope that the numerical techniques implemented in , its ease of use and modularity of design will help future research with this code.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research was supported by the DFG cluster of excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe”, DFG Projects 841797-4, 841798-2 (DAH, GPR), the DISCSIM project, grant agreement 341137 funded by the European Research Council under ERC-2013-ADG (GPR, RAB). Some development of the code and simulations have been carried out on the computing facilities of the Computational centre for Particle and Astrophysics (C2PAP) and on the DiRAC Data Analytic system at the University of Cambridge, operated by the University of Cambridge High Performance Computing Service on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk); the equipment was funded by BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant (ST/K001590/1), STFC capital grants ST/H008861/1 and ST/H00887X/1, and STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K00333X/1. We would like to thank the following people for helpful discussions or for contributing code to the public version, including Alexander Arth (discussions on IC generation), Scott Balfour (ionising radiation algorithms), Seamus Clarke (sink particle algorithm refinements and various bug fixes), James Dale (ionising radiation algorithms) Franta Dinnbier (periodic gravity), Stefan Heigl (assisting implementing the MFV schemes), Oliver Lomax (assisting implementing the kd-tree), Judith Ngoumou (assisting implementing the MFV schemes), Margarita Petkova (parallelisation and c2pap support), Paul Rohde (stellar feedback routines), Steffi Walch (supernova feedback routines) and Anthony Whitworth (discussions on trees and radiation algorithms). [We also thank the anonymous referee for helpful and detailed comments which have improved the clarity and readability of this paper.]{}
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E:mail:[email protected]
[^2]: This is done as described in Appendix A of @GIZMO.
[^3]: https://travis-ci.org/
[^4]: Although [SPLASH]{} is designed for SPH, it can also easily handle outputs from the MFV schemes.
[^5]: We have checked in this case that removing the contribution of the pressure forces to the rotation curve leads to a much bigger spread of the ring. Note that in the hot case the centre of the ring moves slightly further out, but we ignore this effect in the analysis since it affects both SPH and the meshless.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report the detection of asymmetry in the transit light curves of the 110-day period companion to KOI-368, a rapidly rotating A-dwarf. The significant distortion in the transit light curve is attributed to spin-orbit misalignment between the transiting companion and the gravity darkened host star. Our analysis was based on 11 Long Cadence and 2 Short Cadence transits of KOI-368.01 from the *Kepler* mission, as well as stellar parameters determined from our follow-up spectroscopic observation. We measured the true obliquity between the orbit normal and the stellar rotation axis to be $69_{-10}^{+9\,\circ}$. We also find a secondary eclipse event with depth $29 \pm 3\,\text{ppm}$ at phase 0.59, from which the temperature of the companion is constrained to $3060\pm50\,\text{K}$, indicating that KOI-368.01 is a late M-dwarf. The eccentricity is also calculated from the eclipse to be $0.1429\pm0.0007$. The long period, high obliquity, and low eccentricity of KOI-368.01 allow us to limit a number of proposed theories for the misalignment of binary systems.'
author:
- 'George Zhou and Chelsea X. Huang'
title: 'A highly inclined orbit for the 110-day period M-dwarf companion KOI-368.01'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Spin-orbit alignment is predicted for binary systems by many prominent star formation theories. Binaries formed in clouds with the same net rotation or with disk fragmentation are naturally expected to be in alignment, as confirmed in the majority of systems by indirect measurements from polarisation of circumstellar disks [e.g. @Monin:1998; @Wheelwright:2011].
Surprisingly, accurate obliquities of close-in stellar binaries are rarely measured. For systems where both the rotation period and spectroscopic rotational line broadening can be measured, the spin-orbit coupling can be estimated [@Hale:1994; @Harding:2013]. Similarly, an approximate obliquity can be estimated by comparing the measured rotational broadening per star against the expected rotation rate of the spectral type [e.g. @Weis:1974; @HoweClarke:2009]. From these measurements, we know that spin-orbit alignment is dominant for close-in stellar binaries. Whilst such arguments are statically meaningful, uncertainties for individual systems are large due to the heavy dependence on stellar age and geometry.
Only five equal-mass [@Albrecht:2011; @Winn:2011; @Albrecht:2013b] and three unequal-mass binaries [@Siverd:2012; @Triaud:2013] have obliquities precisely measured using the Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) effect [@Rossiter:1924]. Of these measured systems, only the B4-B5 binary DI Herculis (period 10.6 days, eccentricity 0.489) is misaligned. The observational limitations of RM measurements, such as the need for well-timed observations, mean that the sampled binary systems are severely biased towards the short period regime ($<40$ days).
On the other hand, the spin-orbit alignment of transiting planets have now been well explored. Some 50 transiting planets have been measured to date, the majority of which also with the RM effect. These observations have revealed the diversity of orbital obliquities for hot-Jupiters [@Albrecht:2012], including planets in retrograde and polar orbits [e.g. @Bayliss:2010; @Addison:2013].
Proposed explanations for the obliquity of stellar binaries are similar to those for planetary systems, including fragmentation of a molecular cloud [@Bonnell:1992; @Bate:2010], tilting of the protoplanetary disk [@Bate:2000], evolution of the stellar spin axis [@RogersLin:2012], or dynamical interactions [e.g. @WuMurray:2003; @FabryckyTremaine:2007].
In this study, we search for the distorted [light curve]{} of transits about rapidly rotating stars due to orbital obliquity. For a gravity darkened rapid rotator [@Zeipel:1924], a companion with non-zero obliquity will successively block different latitudes of the stellar disk that have different levels of gravity darkening, resulting in a distorted and potentially asymmetric light curve [@Barnes:2009]. This is the only known method that probes both the stellar obliquity and the projected companion orbit obliquity, which gives us a good estimate of the true orbit inclination. The only existing detections of this effect includes the planet sized companion to KOI-13, with a period of 1.8 days [@Szabo:2011; @Barnes:2011], and DI Her [@PhilippovRafikov:2013].
KOI-368.01 was identified as a Kepler Object of Interest (KOI) in the @Batalha:2013 Kepler catalog. The planetary candidate transits an A-type star in an 110 day period orbit. We report the detection of asymmetry in the transit of KOI-368.01, indicative of spin-orbit misalignment for this system. We also report the detection of a secondary eclipse for the system, indicating the companion is of stellar mass.
KOI-368 stellar parameters {#sec:host-star-parameters}
==========================
KOI-368 (KIC 6603043) is an A-dwarf with the revised Kepler Input Catalogue stellar atmosphere parameters of $T_{\rm eff} = 9257\pm200\,{\rm K}$, and $\log g=4.1\pm0.3$ [@Pinsonneault:2012].
To validate the stellar parameters, we obtained a high resolution spectrum of KOI-368 on 11 September 2012 using the ARC Echelle Spectrograph (ARCES) mounted on the Apache Point Observatory 3.5-meter telescope (APO 3.5m). ARCES is a cross-dispersed optical spectrograph, with slit width of 1.6$\arcsec$, giving a spectral resolution of $\lambda / \Delta \lambda \approx 31500$ over the wavelength region 3200–10000Å. The spectrum is extracted and reduced using the Echelle package in *IRAF*[^1].
The fundamental stellar atmosphere parameters ([$T_{\rm eff}$]{}, [$\log{g}$]{}, [$\rm [Fe/H]$]{}, [$v \sin{i_{\rm rot}}$]{}) are derived by fitting synthetic spectra to the observed spectrum. A spectral library was generated with the spectral synthesis program SPECTRUM[^2] [@GrayCorbally:1994], using ATLAS9 model atmospheres [@Castelli:2004], and the default isotopic line list provided by SPECTRUM, over the wavelength region 4300–6700Å. For each spectral order, we perform a grid search [$\chi^2$]{}minimisation over the ATLAS9 grid, centred about the KIC stellar parameters. We 1) perform an unrestricted grid search to derive a first iteration of stellar parameters, 2) perform the light curve fit (Section §\[sec:model-fitting\]), using the transit to constrain the [$\log{g}$]{}, and 3) re-perform the spectral grid search with [$\log{g}$]{}fixed. This iterative process is often used in the characterisation of exoplanet host stars, and provides a more constrained [$\log{g}$]{}than possible using spectral fitting alone [@Sozzetti:2007]. The final atmosphere parameters are $T_\text{eff} = 9200\pm200\,{\rm K}$, $\log g = 4.01 \pm 0.01$, $\text{[Fe/H]} = -0.02 \pm 0.05$, $v \sin i_\text{rot} = 79 \pm 4\,\text{km\,s}^{-1}$, $\rho = 0.221\pm0.004\,(\text{g\,cm}^{-3})$, with errors from the scatter between orders. We match these to the Yonsei-Yale isochrones [@Yi:2001], via Monte Carlo sampling over the interpolated isochrones, obtaining the values $M_1 = 2.3 \pm 0.1\,M_\odot$, $R_1 = 2.4 \pm 0.1\,R_\odot$. The full list of derived stellar properties are given in Table \[tab:params\]. The stellar density is later independently derived from the light curve in Section §\[sec:model-fitting\], from which we derive a more accurate iteration of stellar parameters.
We measure the host star rotation period by identifying rotational modulation in the Kepler Long Cadence Pre-search Data Conditioning (PDC) [light curves]{} [@Smith:2012] from Q1-Q9. We masked out the primary transits and performed a Lomb-Scargle periodogram [@Lomb1976] analysis on the [light curves]{}. A significant peak at 1.19 days was identified. Assuming the peak is due to rotational modulation, the star rotates with a true velocity of $\sim100$[$\rm km\,s^{-1}$]{}, and the rotation axis is inclined to our line of sight by $\sim 50^\circ$ (this is later fitted for in Section §\[sec:model-fitting\])
Orbit obliquity from light curve asymmetry {#sec:transit-light-curve}
==========================================
Kepler light curves {#sec:light curve-model}
-------------------
We make use of all available public Kepler [light curves]{} for our analysis of KOI-368. These include 11 transits (Q0-Q15, more than 1300 day) of Long Cadence (29.4min) data and 2 transits (Q8-Q9) of Short Cadence (58.84s) data.
To remove the stellar variability, we use the raw flux $(\rm SAP\_FLUX)$ obtained from the MAST archive [^3], with the out-of-transit variations corrected by the following steps from @Huang:2013:
a\) removal of bad data points;
b\) correction of systematics due to various phenomena of the spacecraft, such as safe modes and tweaks;
c\) a set of cosine functions with minimum period of 1 day;
d\) a 7th order polynomial fit over the out-of-transit regions.
The asymmetry of transit (see Section §\[sec:model-fitting\]) is also reproduced with both the raw [light curves]{} and PDC [light curves]{}. We use the [light curves]{} with above corrections to produce all the fittings below because it gives us the longest flat out-of-transit base line.
Gravity darkening modelling {#sec:grav-model}
---------------------------
The gravity darkening model is generated following @Barnes:2009. The temperature profile on the stellar surface is determined by the local effective gravity $g_{\rm eff}$ [@Zeipel:1924]. We use the passband gravity darkening coefficient $y$ which directly relates the specific intensity profile of the stellar disk to the effective gravity profile: $$y = \left(\frac{\partial\,{\ln I(\lambda)}}{\partial\,{\ln g_{\rm eff}}}\right)_{T_{\rm eff}} \\
+ \left(\frac{{\rm d}\ln T_{\rm eff}}{{\rm d}\ln g_{\rm eff}}\right)\left(\frac{\partial\,{\ln I(\lambda)}}{\partial\,{\ln T_{\rm eff}}}\right)_{g_{\rm eff}} \,.$$ Therefore the ratio of specific intensity $I(\lambda)$ at any position to the intensity at stellar pole $I_{\rm pole}(\lambda)$ can be written as $$\frac{I(\lambda)}{I_{\rm pole}(\lambda)} \propto \left(\frac{g_{\rm eff}}{g_{\rm pole}}\right)^{y} \,.$$ Note that $y$ relates gravity with intensity, while the commonly used exponent $\beta_\text{gravity}$ relates gravity with effective temperature $(y \approx 4\beta_\text{gravity})$. The effective gravity is defined as $$\vec{g}_{\rm eff} = -\Omega_{\rm grav}^2\frac{R_{\rm eq}^3}{R^2}\hat{r} \\
+ \Omega_{\rm rot}^2\,R_{\perp}\hat{r_{\perp}} \,.$$ We define $\Omega_{\rm rot}$ as the stellar rotation rate and $\Omega_{\rm grav} = \sqrt{GMR_{\rm eq}^{-3}}$ to represent the angular velocity due to gravity at the equator. The definition of the other symbols follow the Eq.10 of @Barnes:2009, in which $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the star, $R$ and $R_{\perp}$ are the distance from the stellar center and stellar rotation axis to the point of question, respectively. $\hat{r}$ and $\hat{r_{\perp}}$ are unit vectors indicate the directions of $R$ and $R_{\perp}$. The effective gravity profile $g_{\rm eff}/g_{\rm pole}$ at the stellar surface is then only a function of the oblateness of the star $f=(R_{\rm eq}-R_{\rm pole})/R_{\rm eq}$, the normalised position parameters $r$, $\theta$, and the dimensionless measure of the rotation rate ($w=\Omega_{\rm rot}/\Omega_{\rm grav}=v_{\rm rot}^2(R/M)$). Since $M$ depends proportionally to $R$ for this spectral type, the uncertainty in the gravity darkening profile depends only weakly on the absolute stellar mass and radius, and primarily on the stellar oblateness $f$ and the rotation velocity $v_{\rm rot}$. In Figure \[fig:lightcurve\](a), we demonstrate the flux profile computed for KOI-368. If the companion crosses different latitudes during its transits, the [light curves]{} will show asymmetry depending on the misalignment between the companion orbit and stellar rotation axis.
Secondary eclipse {#sec:secondary-eclipse}
-----------------
We search for a secondary eclipse in the *Kepler* long cadence light curve. We find a possible eclipse event at phase 0.59 via a grid search. The depth, inferred eccentricity, and significance of the eclipse is characterised by the global light curve modelling described in Section \[sec:model-fitting\]. This secondary eclipse event was independently identified by E. Agol and D. Fabrycky, as well as J. Coughlin and the Kepler team.
Fitting of system parameters {#sec:model-fitting}
----------------------------
The transit [light curves]{} are modeled using the @Nelson1972 model, implemented in an adaption of the JKTEBOP code [@Proper1981; @Southworth2004]. The relevant free parameters in the transit model are orbital period $P$, transit centre $T_0$, normalised radius sum $(R_1+R_2) / a$, radius ratio $R_2/R_1$, line of sight inclination $i$. To allow for a secondary eclipse, we also fit for the surface brightness ratio $S_2/S_1$, and eccentricity components $e\cos \omega$ and $e\sin \omega$. The quadratic limb darkening coefficients are fitted for in an initial minimisation routine, then held fixed for subsequent analyses. The final values do not deviate significantly from estimates by @Sing2010. Jump parameters modelling gravity darkening include the sky-projected orbit obliquity angle $\lambda$, stellar oblateness factor $f$, projected stellar obliquity $i_\text{rot}$ (with initial value taken from Section §\[sec:host-star-parameters\]), and the *Kepler* band gravity darkening exponent $y$, with initial value calculated from @Claret:2011. A constant flux baseline offset for each transit is removed before the global fitting. For Kepler long cadence data, the model is modified by a 30 minute boxcar smooth. The best fit parameters and the posterior probability distribution is explored via a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis, using the *emcee* MCMC ensemble sampler [@ForemanMackey2012]. For each transit, we scale the flux errors such that the reduced $\chi^2$ are at unity. This allows for errors other than photon noise to be taken into account.
Figure \[fig:lightcurve\] plots the phase folded transit and eclipse light curves of KOI-368.01 and the best fit standard and gravity darkened models. The best fit standard model cannot explain the significant in-transit asymmetry observed.
The best fit parameters are presented in Table \[tab:params\]. The posterior probability distributions for relevant parameters are plotted in Figure \[fig:posterior\]. We did not detect transit timing variations, consistent with previous studies [e.g. @Mazeh:2013].
[lrrr]{}\
$B$ & 11.30 & - & -\
$V$ & 11.02 & - & -\
$J$ & 11.11 & - & -\
$H$ & 11.09 & - & -\
$K$ & 11.08 & - & -\
$K_p$ & 11.375 & - & -\
\
\
$T_\text{eff}$ (K) & $9257\pm200$ & $9200\pm200$ & -\
$\text{[Fe/H]}$ & -0.3 & $-0.02\pm0.05$ & -\
$v \sin i_\text{rot}$ ([$\rm km\,s^{-1}$]{}) & - & $79 \pm 4$ & -\
\
\
Period (Days) & $110.32160\pm{5}$ & $110.321645_{-5}^{+6}$ & $110.32164_{-1}^{+1}$\
$T_0$ $(\text{BJD}-2454000)$ & $1030.3645\pm2$ & $1030.36409_{-5}^{+3}$ & $1030.36437_{-3}^{+2}$\
$(R_2+R_1)/a$ & $0.02119\pm6$ & $0.02097_{-3}^{+5}$ & $0.0206_{-1}^{+1}$\
$R_2/R_1$ & $0.08453\pm3$ & $0.08408_{-5}^{+2}$ & $0.0863_{-4}^{+4}$\
$i$ & $89.38$ &$89.204_{-2}^{+5}$ & $89.235_{-7}^{+9}$\
$e\cos\omega$ & - &$0.1417_{-1}^{+1}$ & $0.1416_{-1}^{+1}$\
$e\sin\omega$ & - &$-0.012_{-7}^{+3}$ & $-0.019_{-5}^{+4}$\
$S_2/S_1$ & - & $0.0045 _{-2}^{+2}$ & $0.0039 _{-3}^{+3}$\
$f$ & - &- & $0.052_{-3}^{+3}$\
$y$ & - &- & $0.20_{-4}^{+6}$\
$\lambda$ & - &- & $36_{-17}^{+23}$\
$i_\text{rot}$ & - & - & $55_{-10}^{+3}$\
\
\
$\rho_1\,(\text{g\,cm}^{-3})$ & - & $0.216\pm0.003$ & $0.221\pm0.004$\
$M_1\,(M_\odot)$ & - & $2.3 \pm 0.1$ & $2.3\pm0.1$\
$R_1\,(R_\odot)$ & $2.1 \pm 0.9$ & $2.5 \pm 0.1$ & $2.4 \pm 0.1$\
$\log g$ & $4.1\pm0.3 $ & $4.02\pm0.01$ & $4.02\pm0.01$\
Age (Gyr) & $0.51 \pm 0.09$ & $0.49 \pm 0.06$ & $0.48 \pm 0.06$\
Luminosity ($L_\odot$) & - & $38\pm5$ & $38\pm6$\
Distance (kpc) & - & $1.07\pm0.05$ & $1.07\pm0.05$\
$R_2\,(R_\odot)$ & $0.18\pm0.08$ & $0.209 \pm 0.007$ & $0.211 \pm 0.006$\
True Obliquity $(^\circ)$ & - & - & $69_{-10}^{+9}$\
$e$ & - & $0.142\pm0.001$ & $0.1429\pm0.0007$\
$T_\text{2,eff}$ & - & $3080\pm50$ & $3060\pm50$\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(a) The flux ratio distribution at the surface of KOI-368 is plotted on the left, with $i_\text{rot}=45^\circ$ and exaggerated oblateness parameters of $f=0.2$, $y=1.0$. An example transit path with projected obliquity of $30^\circ$ is marked in red (grey). The corresponding light curve is plotted on the right (in red). This is the best fit configuration for KOI-368.01. For comparison, the best fit light curve without considering gravity darkening is also shown in black. (b) Phase folded transit of KOI-368.01. Long cadence observations are plotted in black, short cadence in green. The best fit standard transit model is plotted in blue, gravity darkened model in red. These two models are visually indistinguishable at this scale, but the difference is statistically significant. (c) Residuals to the standard transit model. The long cadence data are plotted in full as gray dots, and as 1 hour binned intervals in black, short cadence binned residuals in green. (d) Residuals to the gravity darkened transit model. (e) The secondary eclipse event is plotted with the best fit model.[]{data-label="fig:lightcurve"}](obliq_model.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"}
![(a) The flux ratio distribution at the surface of KOI-368 is plotted on the left, with $i_\text{rot}=45^\circ$ and exaggerated oblateness parameters of $f=0.2$, $y=1.0$. An example transit path with projected obliquity of $30^\circ$ is marked in red (grey). The corresponding light curve is plotted on the right (in red). This is the best fit configuration for KOI-368.01. For comparison, the best fit light curve without considering gravity darkening is also shown in black. (b) Phase folded transit of KOI-368.01. Long cadence observations are plotted in black, short cadence in green. The best fit standard transit model is plotted in blue, gravity darkened model in red. These two models are visually indistinguishable at this scale, but the difference is statistically significant. (c) Residuals to the standard transit model. The long cadence data are plotted in full as gray dots, and as 1 hour binned intervals in black, short cadence binned residuals in green. (d) Residuals to the gravity darkened transit model. (e) The secondary eclipse event is plotted with the best fit model.[]{data-label="fig:lightcurve"}](lightcurve.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"}
![(a) The flux ratio distribution at the surface of KOI-368 is plotted on the left, with $i_\text{rot}=45^\circ$ and exaggerated oblateness parameters of $f=0.2$, $y=1.0$. An example transit path with projected obliquity of $30^\circ$ is marked in red (grey). The corresponding light curve is plotted on the right (in red). This is the best fit configuration for KOI-368.01. For comparison, the best fit light curve without considering gravity darkening is also shown in black. (b) Phase folded transit of KOI-368.01. Long cadence observations are plotted in black, short cadence in green. The best fit standard transit model is plotted in blue, gravity darkened model in red. These two models are visually indistinguishable at this scale, but the difference is statistically significant. (c) Residuals to the standard transit model. The long cadence data are plotted in full as gray dots, and as 1 hour binned intervals in black, short cadence binned residuals in green. (d) Residuals to the gravity darkened transit model. (e) The secondary eclipse event is plotted with the best fit model.[]{data-label="fig:lightcurve"}](secondary_eclipse.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="12cm"}
We find a best fit projected obliquity value of $\lambda = 36_{-17}^{+23\,\circ}$, and a projected stellar obliquity of $i_\text{rot}=55_{-10}^{+3\, \circ}$. The derived true spin-orbit obliquity of KOI-368.01 is $69_{-10} ^{+9\,\circ}$, indicating that it is orbiting in a highly inclined orbit.
Note that due to the degeneracy between the geometries of $\lambda$ and $(180^\circ - \lambda)$, we cannot distinguish between prograde and retrograde orbits using this method. We conservatively choose the prograde solution for the quoted angles in this paper.
Using the phase and duration of the secondary eclipse, we obtain an eccentricity of $e = 0.1429\pm0.0007$. The expected transit duration for a circular orbit transit is 12.5 hours. The ratio between the observed and circular expected transit durations give an eccentricity estimate of $e = 0.07^{+0.18}_{-0.07}$, with degeneracies constrained by the lack of ingress-egress duration variations. This is consistent with the eccentricity derived from the secondary eclipse phase.
The light curve asymmetry can not be reproduced by the in-transit velocity change of an eccentric orbit [@Barnes2007] or by the photometric RM effect [@Shporer:2012; @Groot:2012], both of which result in light curve distortions at least an order of magnitude smaller than that observed.
We also fit a gravity darkening exponent for KOI-368 of $y=0.20_{-0.04}^{+0.06}$ ($\beta_\text{gravity}\approx 0.05$). This is significantly lower than simple theoretical model predictions, which is also seen for DI Her [@PhilippovRafikov:2013].
Nature of the KOI-368 system {#sec:system-properties}
============================
Excluding blend scenarios {#sec:excluding-blends}
-------------------------
To constrain the possible blend scenarios for KOI-368, we obtained an image of the object using the APO 3.5m Echelle Slitviewer camera. The camera has a field of view of 63.6$\arcsec$ and pixel scale of 0.133[$\rm \arcsec pixel^{-1}$]{}. The full width half maximum of the point spread function is 1$\arcsec$. The closest companion brighter than 20 mag is more than 20$\arcsec$ away from KOI-368 (See Figure \[fig:APO\]). We can exclude blend sources with separations greater than $\sim 1\arcsec$ from the object.
We can also constrain the possibility of blends by searching for centroid displacements in and out of transit. The displacements are given by the flux weighted first momentum centroids produced by Kepler pipeline. We correct for the low frequency ($>5$ day) trends in the centroids with a 7th order polynomial around each transit. The displacements between the mean centroids in- and out-of-transit, weighted by the transit depth [@Chaplin:2013], are shown in Figure \[fig:centroid\]. The uncertainties are computed assuming a Gaussian distribution for centroids in each transit. The lack of displacement allows us to rule out an eclipsing neighbour $> 1\arcsec$ away.
KOI-368.01 is an M-dwarf
------------------------
We can constrain the secondary eclipse to be of depth $29 \pm 3\,\text{ppm}$. Using spectral models from [@Gustafsson:2008], and integrating over the Kepler band, we find the temperature of the companion to be $3060\pm60\,\text{K}$. Given that the derived radius of the companion is $0.211\pm0.006\,\text{R}_\odot$, the companion is most consistent with an M-dwarf.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We characterised the asymmetric transit and eclipse light curve of KOI-368.01, and found it to be an M-dwarf companion orbiting in a highly inclined $(69_{-10} ^{+9\,\circ})$, near-circular $(e = 0.1429\pm0.0007)$ orbit about a rapidly rotating A-dwarf.
KOI-368 is a distinct system in the period-obliquity space, in the context of both binary and planetary systems (Figure \[fig:periodobliq\]). With a period of 110.3 days, KOI-368 is one of the longest period systems for which spin-orbit alignment has been precisely measured. Other measured highly misaligned systems mostly have shorter period orbits, such as DI Her (10.55 days). Curiously, the orbit of KOI-368.01 is almost identical with the planet HD80606b (111.4 day, $e=0.93$) in both period and projected orbit obliquity, but with a much lower eccentricity. HD80606b can be explained satisfactorily with Kozai cycle excited by its main-sequence companion 1000 AU away [@WuMurray:2003; @FabryckyTremaine:2007]. For KOI-368.01 to be in a high eccentricity migration track, one would expect $e\gtrsim\,0.8$, such that the final semi-major axis would be $a<0.1{\rm AU}$. The age of the system is 500 Myrs, whilst the circularisation timescale of this system is much longer than the Hubble time. Alternatively, the high obliquity of this system can be excited by a third body in this system with Kozai mechanism [e.g. @FabryckyTremaine:2007; @Naoz:2011; @Katz:2011] after migrated to the current location. More complex dynamic interactions, such as sequential Kozai migration, can also result in the current configuration [e.g. @Narita:2012].
![The obliquities of binary systems are plotted against their orbital period. Equal-mass (same spectral type components) stellar systems are marked by blue triangles, with the obliquity of the primary and secondary differentiated by the symbol size [@Albrecht:2011; @Winn:2011; @Harding:2013; @Albrecht:2013b]. Unequal-mass system host stars are labelled by magenta squares [@Siverd:2012; @Triaud:2013]. Exoplanet hosts are plotted in black.[]{data-label="fig:periodobliq"}](period_obliq.eps){width="9cm"}
While the obliquity of KOI-368 is also possibly primordial, we can limit the main scenarios for stellar binary misalignment. Simple rotational fragmentation of molecular clouds results in aligned systems. @Bonnell:1992 proposed that rotational fragmentation of a highly elongated, tilted, molecular cloud can form misaligned binaries. However, the systems produced by this mechanism tend to have a high initial eccentricity (0.4-0.9). Chaotic accretion has also been suggested as a mechanism for tilting the circumstellar disk [@Bate:2010], but results in a misaligned low-mass disk that is unlikely to form stellar mass companions.
We highlight the advantages of this technique in measuring spin-orbit alignments for long-period systems. Ground based RM observations require careful planning, fortunate weather, and are limited in transit duration. Observations of KOI-368 are also limited by its high [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}and large [$v \sin{i_{\rm rot}}$]{}. Measuring spin-orbit alignment via star-spot crossings, the only other technique to date to yield results for such long-period systems, is severely biased towards binaries in perfect spin-orbit alignment, and will not identify systems like KOI-368. The high-precision photometry from *Kepler* means that measurements of orbit obliquity from companions about rapidly rotating stars, in conjunction with measurements of the stellar obliquity, are crucial in exploring the dynamics of long-period stellar binaries and planetary systems.
The authors thank the reviewers for their insightful suggestions, G.Á. Bakos for his comments on the letter draft, J.D. Hartman and C. Petrovich for helpful discussions, W.A. Bhatti, J.L. Prieto, and S. Dong for the APO 3.5m observations. We thank independent comments by E. Agol & D. Fabricky and J. Coughlin & the Kepler team for bringing to our attention the secondary eclipse event; A. Shporer for the photometric RM effect. Work by XCH is supported by the NASA NNX12AH91H and NSF AST1108686 grants. Work by GZ is supported by the NASA NNX12AH91H grant and the Princeton University VSRC program.
[51]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, B. C., [Tinney]{}, C. G., [Wright]{}, D. J., [et al.]{} 2013, ArXiv e-prints
, S., [Setiawan]{}, J., [Torres]{}, G., [Fabrycky]{}, D. C., & [Winn]{}, J. N. 2013, , 767, 32
, S., [Winn]{}, J. N., [Carter]{}, J. A., [Snellen]{}, I. A. G., & [de Mooij]{}, E. J. W. 2011, , 726, 68
, S., [Winn]{}, J. N., [Johnson]{}, J. A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 757, 18
, J. W. 2007, , 119, 986
—. 2009, , 705, 683
, J. W., [Linscott]{}, E., & [Shporer]{}, A. 2011, , 197, 10
, N. M., [Rowe]{}, J. F., [Bryson]{}, S. T., [et al.]{} 2013, , 204, 24
, M. R., [Bonnell]{}, I. A., [Clarke]{}, C. J., [et al.]{} 2000, , 317, 773
, M. R., [Lodato]{}, G., & [Pringle]{}, J. E. 2010, , 401, 1505
, D. D. R., [Winn]{}, J. N., [Mardling]{}, R. A., & [Sackett]{}, P. D. 2010, , 722, L224
, I., [Arcoragi]{}, J.-P., [Martel]{}, H., & [Bastien]{}, P. 1992, , 400, 579
, F., & [Kurucz]{}, R. L. 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
, W. J., [Sanchis-Ojeda]{}, R., [Campante]{}, T. L., [et al.]{} 2013, , 766, 101
, A., & [Bloemen]{}, S. 2011, , 529, A75
, D., & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2007, , 669, 1298
, D., [Hogg]{}, D. W., [Lang]{}, D., & [Goodman]{}, J. 2012, ArXiv e-prints
, R. O., & [Corbally]{}, C. J. 1994, , 107, 742
, P. J. 2012, , 745, 55
, B., [Edvardsson]{}, B., [Eriksson]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2008, , 486, 951
, A. 1994, , 107, 306
, L. K., [Hallinan]{}, G., [Konopacky]{}, Q. M., [et al.]{} 2013, , 554, A113
, K. S., & [Clarke]{}, C. J. 2009, , 392, 448
, X., [Bakos]{}, G. [Á]{}., & [Hartman]{}, J. D. 2013, , 429, 2001
, B., [Dong]{}, S., & [Malhotra]{}, R. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 181101
, N. R. 1976, , 39, 447
, T., [Nachmani]{}, G., [Holczer]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2013, ArXiv e-prints
, J.-L., [Menard]{}, F., & [Duchene]{}, G. 1998, , 339, 113
, S., [Farr]{}, W. M., [Lithwick]{}, Y., [Rasio]{}, F. A., & [Teyssandier]{}, J. 2011, , 473, 187
, N., [Takahashi]{}, Y. H., [Kuzuhara]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2012, , 64, L7
, B., & [Davis]{}, W. D. 1972, , 174, 617
, A. A., & [Rafikov]{}, R. R. 2013, , 768, 112
, M. H., [An]{}, D., [Molenda-[Ż]{}akowicz]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 199, 30
, D. M., & [Etzel]{}, P. B. 1981, , 86, 102
, T. M., [Lin]{}, D. N. C., & [Lau]{}, H. H. B. 2012, , 758, L6
, R. A. 1924, , 60, 15
, A., [Brown]{}, T., [Mazeh]{}, T., & [Zucker]{}, S. 2012, New Astronomy, 17, 309
, D. K. 2010, , 510, A21
, R. J., [Beatty]{}, T. G., [Pepper]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 761, 123
, J. C., [Stumpe]{}, M. C., [Van Cleve]{}, J. E., [et al.]{} 2012, , 124, 1000
, J., [Maxted]{}, P. F. L., & [Smalley]{}, B. 2004, , 351, 1277
, A., [Torres]{}, G., [Charbonneau]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2007, , 664, 1190
, G. M., [Szab[ó]{}]{}, R., [Benk[ő]{}]{}, J. M., [et al.]{} 2011, , 736, L4
, A. H. M. J., [Hebb]{}, L., [Anderson]{}, D. R., [et al.]{} 2013, , 549, A18
, H. 1924, , 84, 684
, E. W. 1974, , 190, 331
, H. E., [Vink]{}, J. S., [Oudmaijer]{}, R. D., & [Drew]{}, J. E. 2011, , 532, A28
, J. N., [Albrecht]{}, S., [Johnson]{}, J. A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 741, L1
, Y., & [Murray]{}, N. 2003, , 589, 605
, S., [Demarque]{}, P., [Kim]{}, Y.-C., [et al.]{} 2001, , 136, 417
[^1]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^2]: <http://www1.appstate.edu/dept/physics/spectrum/spectrum.html>
[^3]: http://archive.stsci.edu/kepler/data$\_$search/search.php
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the effect of explicit CP violation in the Higgs sectors of the MSSM in the di-photon decay of the lightest CP-mixed Higgs state. Further it is shown that the gluon fusion production mechanism along with the di-photon decay enhances CP-violating effects for a large set of suitably chosen parameter values.'
address:
- ' $^a$ GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Planckstrasse 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Deutschland'
- ' $^b$ School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK'
- ' $^c$ Department of Physics, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Defence Road, Lahore-54000, Pakistan'
- ' $^d$ Physics Department, IIT Guwahati, Assam 781039, INDIA'
author:
- 'S. Hesselbach$^{a1}$ S. Moretti$^{b2}$ S. Munir$^{c3}$ P. Poulose$^{d4}$'
title: 'CP-violating Higgs sector of the MSSM through $gg\to H_1\to \gamma\gamma$'
---
SHEP-11-07
Introduction
============
Phenomenology of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with CP-violating couplings can be very different from the one of CP-conserving MSSM. While spontaneous CP violation in the MSSM arising from complex vacuum expectation values of the Higgs fields is essentially ruled out, many parameters in the MSSM, which are absent in the Standard Model, can be complex, leading to large possibilities for CP violation. To avoid conflict with the low energy experimental constraints like those coming from measurements of the Electric Dipole Moments (EDMs) of the electron, neutron and muon, the couplings relevant to the first and second generations are considered to be real.
By building on the results of Refs. [@Dedes:1999sj; @Dedes:1999zh] (for the production) and [@Moretti:2007th]–[@Hesselbach:2007gf] (for the decay) – see also Refs. [@Dedes:2001zf]–[@Ellis:2004fs] – we will look here at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) phenomenology of the $gg\to H_1\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ process (where $H_1$ labels the lightest neutral Higgs state of the CP-violating MSSM), which involves the (leading) direct effects of CP violation through couplings of the $H_i$ ($i=1,2,3$ corresponding to the three neutral Higgs bosons) to sparticles in the loops as well as the (sub-leading) indirect effects through scalar-pseudoscalar mixing yielding the CP-mixed state $H_i$. (See Ref. [@Hesselbach:2009st] for some preliminary accounts in this respect.) Here we summarize the results of [@Hesselbach:2009gw] focusing especially on the effects of a light stop in the production of a CP-mixed $H_1$ state by gluon fusion and its decay into two photons.
CP violation in the di-photon Higgs search channel
==================================================
Explicit CP violation arises in the Higgs sector of the MSSM when various related couplings become complex. One consequence is that the physical Higgs bosons are no more CP eigenstates, but a mixture of these [@Pilaftsis:1999qt]–[@Frank:2006yh]. One may then look at the production and decay of the lightest of the physical Higgs particles, hereafter labeled $H_1$. CP-violating effects in the combined production and decay process enter through complex $H_i$-$\tilde f$-$\tilde f^*$ couplings at the production and decay levels plus mixing in the propagator ($\tilde f$ represents a sfermion).
CP-conserving and CP-violating effects enter at [*the same perturbative order*]{} in the cross section for $gg\to {\rm{Higgs}}\to \gamma\gamma$, so that the latter is an ideal laboratory to pursue studies of the complex (or otherwise) nature of the soft supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking parameters concerned. In contrast, notice that CP-violating effects through mixing in the propagator enter only at higher order, through self-energies, as there is already a tree-level CP-conserving contribution to the propagator[^1]. The dynamics of CP-violating effects in the production and decay stages are rather similar, given that the same diagrammatic topologies are involved (see Fig. \[fig:feyn\]), in particular, as shown in our previous work [@Moretti:2007th]–[@Hesselbach:2007gf], we expect a strong impact of a light stop quark in some regions of the parameter space. The propagator is considered in the following way. A Higgs particle, $H_i$, produced through gluon fusion, can be converted into another mass eigenstate, $H_j$, through interaction of fermion or gauge boson loops and their Supersymmetric counterparts (see Fig. \[fig:feyn\]). Therefore, in the following, when talking about results for the $H_1$, we consider the production of any of $H_i,~i=1,2,3$, which, while propagating, converts into $H_1$. However, whenever $M_{H_{2,3}}\le M_{H_1}+2$ GeV (assuming that mass measurements are resolved at about 2 GeV), we consider all the degenerate Higgs particles together.
As intimated, the propagator matrix is obtained from the self-energy of the Higgs particles computed at one-loop level, where we used the expressions provided by [@Ellis:2004fs], which include off-diagonal absorptive parts. The matrix inversion required is done numerically using the Lapack package [@lapack]. All relevant couplings and masses are obtained from CPSuperH version 2 [@Lee:2007gn], which takes into account all applicable experimental constraints including the low energy EDMs. The cross section of the full process shown in Fig. \[fig:feyn\] is computed numerically. The multi-dimensional integration is carried out using the CUHRE program under the CUBA package [@Hahn:2004fe]. For our collider analysis we have used the CTEQ6 Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs) [@Pumplin:2002vw]–[@Lai:2007dq] computed at the factorization/renormalization scale $\mu=\sqrt{\hat{s}}$.
Results
=======
In order to illustrate the typical effects of CP violation in the MSSM, we have considered a few sample parameter space points and studied the effect of, in particular, light sparticles in the loops, chiefly, of stop squarks. We fix the following MSSM parameters which play only a minor role in CP violation studies for Higgs production and decay:\
$M_1=100~{\rm GeV},~~~M_2=M_3=1~{\rm TeV},~~~M_{Q_3}=M_{D_3}=M_{L_3}=M_{E_3}=M_{\rm SUSY}= 1~{\rm TeV}.$\
We consider the case of all the third generation trilinear couplings being unified into one single quantity, $A_f$. All the soft masses are taken to be the same at some unification scale, whose representative value adopted here is 1 TeV. When considering the light stop case we take a comparatively light value for $M_{U_3}\sim 250$ GeV, which corresponds to a stop mass of around 200 GeV, otherwise $M_{U_3}$ is set to 1 TeV. We could, alternatively, consider small values for $M_{Q_3}$ to reach light squarks, but the effects would qualitatively be the same. So, in the following we keep a fixed value of $M_{Q_3}=1 $ TeV. In the Higgs scalar-pseudoscalar mixing the product of $\mu A_f$ is relevant rather than $\mu$ or $A_f$ separately. As argued in our earlier works, the only phase that is relevant is thus the sum of the phases of $\mu$ and $A_f$. In our analysis we have kept $\phi_{A_f}=0$ and studied the effect of CP violation by varying $\phi_\mu$. Regarding the absolute values of $\mu$ or $A_f$, in our numerical analysis, we have varied these parameters between 1 and 1.5 TeV. $M_{H^+}$ is instead varied between 100 and 300 GeV. The mass of the lightest Higgs particle is consequently in the range of 50–130 GeV. We then analyze cases with different values of $\tan\beta$. In particular, low $\tan\beta$ values give very small deviations from the corresponding CP-conserving cases, while large $\tan\beta$ values produce significant differences. Also, we take a representative value of $\tan\beta=20$ to see the effect of the other parameters.
In Fig. \[fig:tb20A1mu1phimu\] we plot the full cross section for $gg\to H_1\to \gamma\gamma$ against $M_{H^+}$. We have considered $\mu=1$ TeV, $A_f=1$ TeV and $\tan\beta=20$. There is appreciable variation of the cross section with $\phi_\mu$. Comparing the two cases of light and heavy stops, it is clear that the effect of the Higgs-stop-stop coupling is significant. Indeed, this was also noticed when we studied the di-photon decay [@Hesselbach:2007jf].
In addition to the stop mass dependence of the $gg\to H_1\to\gamma\gamma$ cross section, we have also studied how the latter varies with the masses of the other (s)particles entering the loops. However, in line with the results of Refs. [@Moretti:2007th]–[@Hesselbach:2007gf] for the case of the $H_1\to\gamma\gamma$ decay, we have found that their impact is largely negligible here too, no matter the value of the CP-violating phases.
Conclusions
===========
Significant effect of CP violation in the process $gg\to H_1\to \gamma\gamma$ is seen for the parameter values considered in this study. Varying the mass of the stop squark from about 1 TeV to around 250 GeV has also a strong quantitative impact on the cross section, possibly changing its dependence on the phases also qualitatively. The discovery channel for the mass range of the Higgs boson considered thus seem to have the potential to also disentangle its CP nature within the context of the MSSM.
Reference {#reference .unnumbered}
=========
[99]{} A. Dedes and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 22 (2000). A. Dedes and S. Moretti, Nucl. Phys. B [**576**]{}, 29 (2000). S. Moretti, S. Munir, P. Poulose, Phys. Lett. B [**649**]{}, 206 (2007). S. Hesselbach, S. Moretti, S. Munir, P. Poulose, Eur. Phys. J. C [**54**]{}, 129 (2008). S. Hesselbach, S. Moretti, S. Munir, P. Poulose, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**110**]{}, 072017 (2008). S. Hesselbach, S. Moretti, S. Munir, P. Poulose, arXiv:0710.4923 \[hep-ph\]. A. Dedes and S. Moretti, [ http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=5258707]{}[*Prepared for Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders, Les Houches, France, 21 May - 1 Jun 2001.*]{} S. Y. Choi and J. S. Lee, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 115002 (2000). S. Y. Choi, K. Hagiwara and J. S. Lee, Phys. Lett. B [**529**]{}, 212 (2002). J. R. Ellis, J. S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 075010 (2004); Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**21**]{}, 1405 (2006). S. Hesselbach, S. Moretti, S. Munir and P. Poulose, AIP Conf. Proc. [**1200**]{}, 498 (2010) S. Hesselbach, S. Moretti, S. Munir and P. Poulose, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 074004 (2010) A. Pilaftsis and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B [**553**]{}, 3 (1999). M. S. Carena, J. R. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B [**586**]{}, 92 (2000). S. Heinemeyer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**21**]{}, 2659 (2006). M. Frank, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak and G. Weiglein, JHEP [**0702**]{}, 047 (2007). See http://www.netlib.org/lapack/. J. S. Lee, M. Carena, J. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis and C. E. M. Wagner, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**180**]{}, 312 (2009). T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**168**]{}, 78 (2005). J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, W. K. Tung, JHEP [**0207**]{}, 012 (2002). D. Stump, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, W. K. Tung, H. L. Lai, S. Kuhlmann, J. F. Owens, JHEP [**0310**]{}, 046 (2003). J. F. Owens [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 054030 (2007). H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W. K. Tung, C. P. Yuan, JHEP [**0704**]{}, 089 (2007).
[^1]: Also notice that there is also an ‘indirect’ CP-violating contribution to the overall cross section of the process under study if one considers that the $H_1$ (and $H_{2,3}$) mass is subject to similar loop effects, though [@Moretti:2007th] has already shown that the consequent effects are marginal (see the left-hand side of Fig. 4 therein), so that they are included here but not dwelt upon.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present recent results obtained with the VLT/MUSE Integral Field Spectrograph[@bacon2014] fed by the 4LGSF[@madec2016] and its laser tomography adaptive optics module GALACSI[@lapenna2016]. While this so-called narrow-field mode of MUSE was not designed to perform directly imaging of exoplanets and outflows, we show that it can be a game changer to detect and characterize young exoplanets with a prominent emission lines (i.e , tracer of accretion), at moderate contrasts. These performances are achieved thanks to the combo of a near-diffraction limited PSF and a medium resolution spectrograph and a cross-correlation approach in post-processing . We discuss this in the context of ground and space, infrared and visible wavelengths, preparing for missions like JWST and WFIRST in great synergy and as pathfinder for future ELT/GSMT (Extremely Large and/or Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes) instruments[@hippler2019].'
author:
- 'Julien H. Girard'
- Jozua de Boer
- Sebastiaan Haffert
- Peter Zeidler
- Alexander Bohn
- 'Rob G. van Holstein'
- Ignas Snellen
- Jarle Brinchmann
- Christoph Keller
- Roland Bacon
- Jaehan Bae
bibliography:
- 'AO4ELT2019.bib'
title: |
Original use of MUSE’s laser tomography adaptive optics\
to directly image young accreting exoplanets
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
Unraveling the keys of planet formation is one great piece of the puzzle that is our quest to understand how our solar system was formed and its singularity or normality with respect to numerous other exoplanetary systems in our galaxy and throughout the Universe. As a community, we have an urgency to understand the links between star and planet formation, the planet-disk interactions, the demographics, accretion, evolution and migration processes of all planets and other constituents of the circumstellar material. There are currently several formation scenarios for planets and a “fauna” of several thousand exoplanets detected with several detection techniques to feed models, confirm or constraint theories. The three main indirect methods - radial velocity, transit, and microlensing - provided most detections and already answered a lot of questions: exoplanets are frequent, they may even outnumber the stars. Small “Earth-like” planets are more frequent than giant gaseous planets. Exoplanetary systems are very diverse.
A golden age for direct imaging of star and planet formation sites
------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct imaging (DI) opens the parameter space to planets at larger physical separations, from 5 to a few 100 of astronomical units (au). So far DI has been successful with HST and from the ground with 6.5 to 10m telescopes operating with adaptive optics in the near to mid IR. Those wavelengths are favorable to image young/hot, self-luminous jupiter analogs which are only a few hundreds to a few tens of thousands fainter than their host star, depending on how young the system is. Nevertheless, the largest surveys so far (GPIES, Nielsen et al. 2019[@nielsen2019] and SPHERE/SHINE, Vigan et al. [*in prep*]{}) of hundreds of young nearby stars tell us - with statistical significance - that giant gaseous planets at large separation like the quatuor around HR8799[@marois2008; @marois2010_hr8799e] are rare. It is non-trivial to converge on which formation scenarii are more likely and questions remain mostly unanswered:
Were these planets formed close to the star or more “in situ”, further out in the disk?
Was migration involved? Both ways?
ALMA, xAO: a lot of disks, gaps
-------------------------------
While the two most productive extreme Adaptive Optics (xAO) systems SPHERE and GPI have only detected 3 nw planets, a huge number of disks have been imaged since they started operations in 2013-2014.
Figure \[fig:where\] shows that both ALMA and xAO have revealed young circumstellar disks, planet formation sites, with a great deal of sharpness and contrast, showing evidence of multipole rings and gaps in young systems. These images have similar spatial resolutions (10 to 100 mas) and that shows the tremendous synergy from such facilities. Sub-mm observation can trace cold gas and dust while near-IR in polarized scattered light can reveal the distribution of warmer dust.
Where are the planets?
How are gas-giant planets and smaller assembled?
What is their distribution of accretion rates and entropies?
How steady or stochastic is planetary accretion?
![Left: ALMA 240 GHz continuum images from the DSHARP[@andrews2018] program that left the community and the public in total awe (Middle, with a couple tweets). Right: The same thing is true for the TTauri disks imaged in scattered light by VLT/SPHERE/IRDIS[@deboer2019dpi; @vanholstein2019dpi] from the DARTTS-S[@avenhaus2018] program.[]{data-label="fig:where"}](Figures/DSHARP-DARTTS.png){width="75.00000%"}
Garufi et al. 2018[@garufi2018] attempted a “taxonomy” of protoplanetary disks and showed possible trends. Disks of younger systems are faint, spirals take time to form, ring disks are very common. Transition disks around intermediate to massive stars have large cavities and seem to evolve on larger time scales than those around lower-mass hosts. Several studies have determined the presence of cold giant planets in systems like, for instance, HD 163296[@pinte2019]. Yet, many times either current facilities do not probe the right parameter space, either detections are vain or ambiguous due to the presence of relatively bright complex disk structures that can mimic or outshine point-source like planets.
PDS 70, a new benchmark system
==============================
PDS 70 is a K5 type, weak emission TTauri star of $\sim$0.85 solar mass and $\sim$5-6 Myr age. It is located in the Upper Centaurus Lupus moving group at 113 pc distance. It has a prominent ring-like gas/dust (transition) disk with an outer semi-major axis of $\sim$140 au and harbors a giant and sharp,$\sim$70 au clear cavity inside. The PDS 70 disk is an ideal site to look for disk-planet(s) interaction. Radial segregation of dust grains as observed with ALMA is possibly generated by a radial pressure gradient in the disk. A potential mechanism is the dynamical clearing of the disk by a planetary-mass companion[@pinilla2013].
PDS 70 from 2005 to 2012
------------------------
With VLT/NACO four-quadrant phase mask coronagraphy at moderate Streh ratios ($\leq$ 10-20%) in the J-band, Riaud et al. 2006 ([@riaud2006] showed a marginally detected disk with the correct position angle. Later, in 2012, Hashimoto et al. [@hashimoto2012] published a Gemini/NICI image in L’-band displaying the disk and the best image thus far using the Subaru/HiCiAO instrument in differential polarimetry. The latter showed a nice ring-link disk ("rim category in the Garufi classification) with a good understanding of the location of near and far sides and a clear gap. The outer disk radius of about 140 au and for the first time, a surface brightness deficit hints a possible disk-planet interaction.
The discovery and confirmations of planet b
-------------------------------------------
And indeed, in 2018, Keppler et al. 2018[@keppler2018] & Müller et al. 2018[@muller2018] claimed the robust detection of a $\sim$4-17 bound protoplanet well in the disk gap at $\sim$0.2separation, the later one with great signal to noise ratio. Both the companion and the disk were imaged simultaneously in the NIR with VLT/SPHERE, NACO and suing the Gemini/NICI archive (one could guess its detection in the 2012 paper but the data had to be reprocessed). Shortly after, Wagner et al. 2018 claimed a low SNR detection of PDS 70 b in (656 nm) with MagAO using narrow-band spectral differential imaging (NBSDI). PDS 70 b is co-moving, accreting and responsible of at least some of the carved gap.
MUSE narrow-field mode (NFM)
============================
MUSE NFM came as the “new kid on the block”, unexpectedly performant. Our team (Julien Girard et al. for a Science Verification project described in figure \[fig:svgirard\], Sebastiaan Haffert for a the commissioning run) decided to capitalize on previous results with long-slit and IFU spectrographs where the gain in contrast was brought by both AO and a somewhat high (R $\geq$ 1,500) spectral resolution. In figure \[fig:parameterspace\] one can see the type of PSF one gets from MUSE/NFM, a interesting parameter/discovery space as shown on figure \[fig:parameterspace\] assuming putative protoplanets accrete a lot and their young host stars not so much.
![Left: The MUSE instrument with its 24 integral field spectrograph units (IFUs) is attached to VLT/UT4. 4 lasers can feed 4 wavefront sensors. The wavefront correction is performed by a 1,100-actuator adaptive secondary mirror. In LTAO mode a 7.5field of view is corrected to a level corresponding to a seeing-enhancement level a factor of a few better than the seeing and a factor of a few worse than the diffraction limit. Right: Typical (median conditions) MUSE NFM Point-Spread Function (PSF) with a Full-Width at Half Maximum of $\sim$ 70 mas at (656 nm) and a Moffat 1D profile. An overlay of a cartoon of the PDS 70 b/c system has been added to show the power of ELSDI, the planets being located in the photon-noise limited halo when collapsed in wavelength.[]{data-label="fig:parameterspace"}](Figures/MUSE_PSF_PDS70_2.png){width="85.00000%"}
Medium resolution spectroscopy and LTAO
---------------------------------------
Medium-resolution IFS at (or close to) the diffraction limit are very powerful to reach decent contrasts, appropriate to detect protoplanets, even in the absence of a coronagraph. This is the case with Keck/OSIRIS[@konopacky2013], Gemini/NIFS and VLT/SINFONI[@hoeijmakers2018] in the NIR and now in the visible with MUSE NFM. Spectral resolutions from $\sim$1,500 to $\sim$5,000 allow to cross-correlate a model spectral template to the data and “lock” on molecular features of the spectrum. This was achieved on the planet $\beta$ Pictoris b[@hoeijmakers2018].
![Initial Science Verification idea to attempt a panchromatic, high contrast imaging of RXJ1615 (top-right image in figure \[fig:where\]) with SPHERE, from 0.7 [$\SI{}{\, \micro\meter}$]{}(ZIMPOL) to 1.7 [$\SI{}{\, \micro\meter}$]{}(IRDIS). MUSE covers 0.48 to 0.93 [$\SI{}{\, \micro\meter}$]{}, At wavelength $\geq$ 0.8[$\SI{}{\, \micro\meter}$]{}we can expect to have a similar image quality than SPHERE?s IFS at 1[$\SI{}{\, \micro\meter}$]{}. On top/left is a hydrodynamic simulation to reproduce our target and its gaps by introducing 3 low-mass ($\leq$ 1 )?, yet giant planets (R. Dong, private com.). The data is being analyzed but it is unfortunately too shallow to achieve our goals.[]{data-label="fig:svgirard"}](Figures/svMUSEgirard.png){width="65.00000%"}
Our team observed PDS 70 during the commissioning of the so-called MUSE narrow-field-mode (MUSE NFM) just prior to its Science Verification[@leibundgut2019] campaign. This mode and facility are unique in the world. They combine a novel Laser Tomographic Adaptive Optics (LTAO) system and a medium resolution Integral Field Spectrograph (IFS) covering the 0.4 to 0.9?m range with 25 milliarcseconds (mas) spaxels. The four-laser LTAO system, under good atmospheric conditions can routinely provide images with a full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of $\sim$50-100 mas at 600-700 nm over the 7.4field of view (FoV). This is unprecedented and well adapted for T Tauri stars which are red and rather faint. Another advantage with MUSE is that the tip/tilt sensing is done in the NIR which is advantageous over most extreme AO systems that require bright natural guide stars (typically R or I $\leq$ 11).
A second planet around PDS 70!
==============================
In Haffert et al. 2019[@haffert2019] (Haffert19 hereafter) our team published the unambiguous detection of not one but two signals around PDS 70[@haffert2019]. One is at the location of planet b, confirming the presence of an accreting protoplanets and the other one is at the gap edge to the East and is most likely a second, accreting protoplanet.
![Top: Our VLT/MUSE detection (SNR map) of both b and c [@haffert2019], Press Release on June 3 2019) with to the right, the SNR versus wavelength around the line integrated in the corresponding color boxes (red for b and purple for c). The ellipse overlays show the orbital radii for both companions assuming circular Keplerian orbits. Bottom left: PDS 70 b as detected by VLT/SPHERE in K1K2[@muller2018]. Planet c is visible though not claimed at the time and called “bridge”.Bottom right: ALMA Cycle 5 350.6 GHz continuum image with contours displaying a “spur” roughly at the location of c [@keppler2019].[]{data-label="fig:pds70c"}](Figures/haffert2019.png){width="65.00000%"}
PDS 70 c is likely less massive, orbits in 2:1 mean motion resonance at the edge of the disk gap. Its location matches well a “spur” seen in the ALMA continuum map (figure \[fig:pds70c\]). Its position corresponds also to a bright “blob” in emission in the high SNR SPHERE K-band image. If one were to deconvolve the disk image in Müller et al. 2018, the protoplanet c would probably be grazing the disk. Something worth noting is that a theoretician had already guessed the necessary existence of c (Bae, private com.) base on hydrodynamical simulations (figure \[fig: bae3D\]) before Haffert19 came out.
MUSE NFM’s formidable sensitivity when these planets are accreting at a rate $\sim$ 10$^{-8}$ to 10$^{-7}$ , which is likely for such massive and young systems. Both detections are unambiguous: the ?signal cannot be stellar, since it is velocity shifted with respect to the line of sight. Also, major advantages of the mid-resolution IFS or emission line SDI technique (ELSDI) include:
The continuum is perfectly subtracted. Thanks to R$\sim$2500 spectral resolution, only is picked up against the continuum, whose gradient is accounted for. We estimate that we are at least a factor $\sim$5 times more efficient than the two other facilities that currently offer differential imaging through narrow (R$\sim$100) filters as the the expected contrast decreases quadratically as R increases: MagAO and VLT/SPHERE/ZIMPOL. As a confirmation to this statement, we have been able to detect again PDS 70 b and c in only 5 min (1 single 300-second cube) of MUSE NFM data while ZIMPOL has failed to reach these detection limits in $\sim$1h of data [@cugno2019].
The accretion rate can be directly determined using the line width, instead of using a continuum contrast measurement like in the NIR, a method which is highly dependent on evolutionary models and the (uncertain) age of the star.
In the newly published high resolution ALMA data[@keppler2019; @isella2019], 3D hydrodynamic simulations[@bae2019] injecting a planet with a mass of 10 does not fully explain the disk morphology (wide gap). On-going calculations show (independently from the discovery announced in Haffert19) that a second, lighter planet in 2:1 mean motion resonance is a likely scenario and that?s precisely what our interpretation of our MUSE detection maps is. This is extremely exciting to have several teams come to similar conclusions using very different approaches and data. Possible limitations to the ELSDI technique are the following:
Optical depth from circumstellar disk material?: planets have to be accessible to the line of sight (as for PDS 70 b) to detect emission. Some of the systems shown in Figure 2 still harbor gas (e.g., TW Hya, HL Tau, Elias 27, detecting could be challenging. No detections are also insightful: upper limits on the presence of companion(s) and constraints on the temperature of the gas, the size of the dust particles that scatter light away.
Accretion rate of the host star?: PDS 70’s rate os 10$^{-11}$ . It can reach 10$^{-6}$ (10$^5$? more) for certain, younger star (age $\leq$10 Myr) and prevent detection of planets whose rate is of the order of 10$^{-8}$ to 10$^{-7}$ (mind the units). In short, it?s trivial for weekly accreting stars. In that the detection space reported in figure \[fig:parameterspace\] is somewhat optimistic.
![The semi-major axis and mass of hypothesized planets assumed to reproduce the observed gaps in protoplanetary disks compiled from literature with an overlay of the parameter space that MUSE/NFM can probe (adapted from Bae [*et*]{} al. 2018[@bae2018a].[]{data-label="fig:parameterspace"}](Figures/museNFM_disks_2.png){width="75.00000%"}
What are we looking at?
=======================
A number of paper have already been published, in particular analyzing new ALMA data. Recently it was reported that there is ALMA an signal at the location of b but not exactly, it is shifted by a few au[@isella2019]. Theoretical work also suggests that what can be imaged at NIR wavelengths are not the planet themselves (too embedded) but rather circumplanetatry disks (CPDs)[@szulagyi2019a].
Hydrodynamic simulations
------------------------
While some theoretical modeling studies determined that a single planet was sufficient to carve the gap observed in PDS 70[@muley2019], others showed that one planet was not enough (Figref[fig:bae3D]{}.
![Left: 3D hydrodynamic simulation of PDS 70 with only one planet (Bae, private com.) which cannot reproduce the observed gap (here a 5 planet). Right: PDS 70 b and c in mean motion resonance[@bae2019]. While the exact masses have yet to be determined these simulations reproduce the observations well (here, the mass of planet c $M_c$ = 2.5 , half that of planet b.[]{data-label="fig:bae3D"}](Figures/bae2019pds70.png){width="85.00000%"}
Evidence of a circumplanetary disk around b
-------------------------------------------
Christiaens et al. published two papers based on VLT/SINFONI observations of PDS 70[@christiaens2019a; @christiaens2019b]. They detect clearly b performing angular differential imaging (ADI) coupled with Spectral Differential Imaging (SDI). They fail to detect Br$\Gamma$ emission at the location of b or c. They also report somewhat complex features within the disk gap in thermal emission, which is surprising.
Last bu not least, in the second 2019 paper, the presence of a CPD around b is revealed because of infrared excess with respect to theoretical models for such a planet. They report accretion compatible accretion rates both with previous measurements. For planet b, they derive an effective temperature of 1500?1600 K, a surface gravity log(g)$\sim$4.0, a radius of about 1.6. times that of Jupiter (R$_{Jup}$) , a mass around 10, and possible thick clouds. This all corroborates well with Haffert2019 and other studies.
Conclusion & future prospects
=============================
In the future, plans are to extend even more the parameter space in angular resolution, contrast and sensitivity to go after objects that were not detectable so far, increasing the bound giant planet and brown dwarf demographics towards colder, fainter objects (i.e with JWST coronagraphy[@beichman2014_nircam; @girard2018spie; @perrin2018_JWST_coro_perfs]). For atmosphere characterization, DI will eventually become the method of choice for future flagship missions when contrasts of 10$^8$ to10$^9$ are routinely achievable (i.e when WFIRST CGI demonstrates wavefront control in space[@bailey2018]). The clear advantage over transit spectroscopy (the method of choice Today) is that the planet is always accessible, not just during transit. In parallel to pushing the limits in contrast through clever wavefront control hardware and algorithms, a somewhat new prospect arose: combine the detection capability of high dispersion spectroscopy (HDS) with high contrast imaging (HCI). There are several adaptations to existing facilities to do that (i.e KPIC at Keck[@wang2017HDS; @mawet2017], CRIRES$+$ and SPHERE at the VLT[@beuzit2019sphere; @vigan2018hirise] and all the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) programs in Europe and North America (ELT, GMT and TMT) have plans for instruments that will combine HDS and HCI[@riaud2007; @snellen2015; @lovis2017]. This is very much complementary to what can be done in space (greater stability, sensitivity, contrast but more constraints on weight and multiplexing to accommodate large and bulky spectrograph optics).\
Meanwhile, MUSE NFM has an edge in that it can, with ELSDI reveal accreting protoplanets in (eventually other lines like ) with greater sensitivity than SPHERE/ZIMPOL or MagAO/Narrow-band SDI. One can regret though the absence of a focal plane coronagraphic mask in MUSE that would allow the studies of brighter targets with high efficiency (as for now, short exposure times and long, readout times are mandatory to avoid saturation around R $\leq$ 8 targets). PDS 70 b/c could be a nice “easy” target for WFIRST CGI low resolution spectroscopy mode with an filter, to measure, for instance, the variability of its accretion rates or simply to demonstrate its capability during the technology demonstration phase at relative low cost (modest contrast without fine tip/tilt and observing time).
Julien Girard thanks the Scientific Organizing Committee for the opportunity to speak (opening talk) at this great conference. We thank Ruobing Dong for useful discussion to prepare the SV program, ESO and its staff for operating and maintaining such a incredible facility and the MUSE consortium and all the technicians, scientists and engineers who have built such a unique instrument. P.Z. acknowledges support by the Forschungsstipendium (ZE 1159/1-1) of the German Research Foundation, particularly via the project 398719443.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'I review here some of the main observational features in microquasars and AGNs as sources of high-energy $\gamma$-rays as well as some of the current models that try to explain the emission in the $\gamma$-ray domain.'
author:
- 'Josep M. Paredes'
title: 'High-energy $\gamma$-ray emission in AGNs and microquasars'
---
Introduction
============
Microquasars are X-ray binary stars which exhibit relativistic jets, i.e., bipolar outflows of relativistic matter ejected perpendicularly to both sides of an accretion disc. The jets contain relativistic electrons that produce the synchrotron radiation detected at radio wavelength. These systems mimic many phenomena seen in quasars at smaller scales (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1999).
The recent detection of TeV $\gamma$-ray emission coming from the microquasars LS 5039 and LS I +61 303 (Aharonian et al. 2005a; Albert et al. 2006a), using the ground-based Cherenkov telescopes HESS and MAGIC, is a remarkable result that consolidate microquasars as a new group of very high-energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray emitters. Moreover, this fact strengthes the analogy quasar/microquasar as it is well known that quasars are also sources of strong $\gamma$-ray emission (Hartman et al. 1999).
AGNs as $\gamma$-ray emitters
=============================
The Third EGRET catalog (Hartman et al. 1999) has shown that active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are strong $\gamma$-ray (E$>$100 MeV) emitters. At least 30% of the 271 sources detected above 100 MeV are AGNs and possibly some more AGNs are present amongst the still unidentified sources (about 60%). All high-confidence identified AGNs are blazars and no radio-quiet AGN was detected by EGRET. This fact can be explained because in blazars there is a highly relativistic outflow of particles that can produce non-thermal emission extending from radio to $\gamma$-rays, being the high-energy emission produced via inverse Compton scattering (IC). The relativistic outflow is almost aligned with the observer’s line of sight, producing relativistic beaming and amplifying the flux by several orders of magnitude.
The $\gamma$-ray sky at VHE (E$>$ 100 GeV) contains a few more than 30 sources at the tome of writing (spring of 2006). Most of them are galactic sources, although there are 12 extragalactic objects (11 blazars and a radio galaxy, M87). Some of these reported blazars have been seen by HESS (Aharonian et al. 2005b) and/or MAGIC (see Albert et al. 2006b and references therein). Although by extrapolation from EGRET sources we should expect to detect many more sources, it is necessary to take into account that VHE $\gamma$-rays are partially absorbed by the low-energy photons of the extragalactic background light (Aharonian et al. 2006), and spectral steepening above GeV energies can occur.
The spectral energy distribution (SED) of blazars exhibits a double-peaked structure. One peak is in the optical/X-ray band and is due to synchrotron emission in the magnetic field of the jet. The other peak, located in the GeV-TeV band, is caused by IC scattering of low-energy photons. These seed photons can come from outside the jet and produce external Compton scattering (Dermer & Schlickeiser 1993) or be generated within the jet as a result of synchrotron radiation (synchrotron self-Compton or SSC) (Maraschi et al. 1992).
How many microquasars do we know?
=================================
Among the known 280 X-ray binaries (Liu et al. 2000, 2001), 43 of them (15%) display radio emission thought to be of synchrotron origin, being 8 high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXB) and 35 low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXB) (Ribó 2005). At least 15 of them have a relativistic jet and are considered microquasars. This relatively low number of microquasars probably will increase in the future due to a better sensitivity of the high resolution radio interferometers, since it might be that the majority of radio emitting X-ray binaries are microquasars (Fender 2001).
The HMXB microquasars are: LS I +61 303, V4641 Sgr, LS 5039, SS 433, Cygnus X-1 and Cygnus X-3, and the LMXB microquasars are: Circinus X-1, XTE J1550$-$564, Scorpius X-1, GRO J1655$-$40, GX 339$-$4, 1E 1740.7$-$2942, XTE J1748$-$288, GRS 1758$-$258 and GRS 1915+105.
Although all of them share the relativistic jet as a common characterisitic, there are some physical properties that make them individually interesting. Eight of them have (or are suspected to have) a black hole as a compact object, six of them display superluminal velocities, others have periodic radio emission, etc. A compilation of the properties of the microquasars in our Galaxy can be found in Paredes (2005).
Microquasars as high-energy $\gamma$-ray sources: Theoretical point of view
===========================================================================
The detection of extended non-thermal radio emission from microquasars provided clear evidence for the presence of relativistic leptons in the jets, although it was not considered that jets could emit significantly at X-rays or beyond until the detection of X-ray extended emission in some microquasars, like for instance SS 433 or XTE J1550$-$564 (Migliari et al. 2002; Corbel et al. 2002).
Two types of approach have been used to model the emission from jets of microquasars. The hadronic approach considers that hadrons lead radiative processes at GeV-TeV $\gamma$-rays and beyond, producing significant amounts of neutrinos, and leaving electrons as possible significant emitters only at lower energies. The other approach, the so-called leptonic models, extends the energy of leptons from synchrotron radio emitting energies up to soft $\gamma$-rays exploring several scenarios that included IC and/or synchrotron emission in the jets.
Leptonic models
---------------
One of the firsts leptonic models that were able to produce VHE $\gamma$-rays was developed to explain the non-thermal flares in GRS 1915+105 (Atoyan & Aharonian 1999). Relativistic electrons, which were suffering radiative, adiabatic and energy-dependent escape losses in fast-expanding plasmoids, caused the flares via synchrotron radiation. If the electrons were accelerated in-situ up to TeV energies, the synchrotron radiation could then extend beyond the X-ray region, and the SSC radiation to high and very high energies (see Fig. \[figgr\]). In this case, since GRS 1915+105 is a LMXB, the contribution of the companion star to the (external) IC is not important, while in the case of HMXBs the contribution of the bright companion can be relevant. Some examples of a leptonic model applied to a HMXB are given by the work of Kaufman Bernadó et al. (2002) and Georganopoulos et al. (2002), in which the authors studied the case where the microquasar jet is exposed to the star photon field. Kaufman Bernadó et al. (2002) proposed as well that recurrent and relatively rapid variability could be explained by the precession of the jet, which results in a variable Doppler amplification. Bosch-Ramon & Paredes (2004) developed a leptonic model in which SSC was taken into account, showing that this mechanism could compete with IC of star photons under certain conditions, and more recently other authors have developed models of high energy emission from microquasars showing that TeV photons could be produced (e.g. Bosch-Ramon et al. 2006, Dermer & Böttcher 2006).
![The synchrotron (thick lines) and IC (thin lines) emission produced in GRS 1915+105 according to the model of Atoyan & Aharonian (1999).[]{data-label="figgr"}](paredes_2006_01_fig01.eps){width="3.9truein"}
Hadronic models
---------------
Several hadronic models to explain the $\gamma$-ray emission from microquasars have been developed in the last years. One of them, developed by Romero et al. (2003), estimates the $\gamma$-ray emission expected from the jet-wind hadronic interaction in a high mass microquasar (see Fig. \[figrom\]). The $\gamma$-ray emission arises from the decay of neutral pions created in the inelastic collisions between relativistic protons, moving in a conical jet at energies of $10^{14}$eV, and ions from the strong wind of the stellar companion. The only requisites for the model are a windy high-mass stellar companion, the presence of multi-TeV protons in the jet and enough mixing of relativistic protons and wind ions.
![Spectral high-energy distribution for models with proton index 2.2 and 2.8, and for different values of the jet/disk coupling parameter $q_{j}$ (Romero et al. 2003).[]{data-label="figrom"}](paredes_2006_01_fig02.ps){width="2.2truein"}
Other hadronic models consider a scenario based on high energy protons that escape from the jet and diffuse through the interstellar medium (ISM) interacting with molecular clouds. Bosch-Ramon et al. (2005) developed a hadronic model that covers the emission from radio to VHE. They computed the spectrum of gamma-rays coming out from the p-p primary interactions via neutral pion decay, as well as the emission (synchrotron, Bremsstrahlung and IC scattering) produced by secondary particles produced from the decay of the charged pions generated in the same p-p collisions. All the relevant energy losses were taken into account and impulsive and permanent microquasar ejections were considered.
Microquasars as high-energy $\gamma$-ray sources: Observational point of view
=============================================================================
Microquasars have been targets for most high-energy instruments. In Table \[detections\] we present some of the results obtained using these instruments. In the second column we report count rates obtained with the IBIS $\gamma$-ray imager on board INTEGRAL, covering the first year of data (Bird et al. 2004). The recent detection of LS I +61 303 in this range of energy has been presented by Chernyakova et al. (2006).
In the third column we have listed the data from BATSE, on board the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO), using the Earth occultation technique (Harmon et al. 2004). Cygnus X-1 and Cygnus X-3 have been studied extensively by BATSE. The microquasars observed by the instrument COMPTEL (Schönfelder et al. 2000), also on board the CGRO, are listed in the fourth column. The source GRO J1823$-$12 is among the strongest COMPTEL sources, and the source region contains several possible counterparts, being LS 5039 one of them (Collmar 2003). In the case of GRO J0241+6119, the most likely counterpart is the microquasar LS I +61 303, although its emission in the range 1$-$30 MeV is possibly contaminated by the quasar QSO 0241+622.
[lccccc]{} Source Name & IBIS/ISGRI & BATSE & COMPTEL & EGRET & CHERENKOV\
& 40$-$100 keV & 160$-$430 keV & 1$-$30 MeV & $>$ 100 MeV & TeV\
& (count/s) & (mCrab) & (GRO) & (3EG) &\
\
LS I +61 303 & yes & 5.1$\pm$2.1 & J0241+6119? & J0240+6103 & MAGIC J0240+6115\
V4641 Sgr & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$\
LS 5039 & $-$ & 3.7$\pm$1.8 & J1823$-$12? & J1824$-$1514 & HESS J1826$-$148\
SS 433 & $<$1.02 & 0.0$\pm$2.8 & $-$ & $-$ &$-$\
Cygnus X-1 & 66.4$\pm$0.1 & 924.5$\pm$2.5 & yes &$-$ & $-$\
Cygnus X-3 & 5.7$\pm$0.1 & 15.5$\pm$2.1 & $-$ & $-$ &$-$\
\
Circinus X-1 & $-$ & 0.3$\pm$2.6& $-$ & $-$ &$-$\
XTE J1550$-$564 & 0.6$\pm$0.07 & $-$2.3$\pm$2.5 & $-$ & $-$ &$-$\
Scorpius X-1 & 2.3$\pm$0.1 & 9.9$\pm$2.2 & $-$ & $-$ & $-$\
GRO J1655$-$40 & $-$ & 23.4$\pm$3.9 & $-$ & $-$ & $-$\
GX 339$-$4 & 0.55$\pm$0.03 & 580$\pm$3.5 & $-$&$-$ & $-$\
1E 1740.7$-$2942& 4.32$\pm$0.03 & 61.2$\pm$3.7 & $-$& $-$ &$-$\
XTE J1748$-$288 & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$\
GRS 1758$-$258 & 3.92$\pm$0.03 & 38.0$\pm$3.0 & $-$ &$-$ &$-$\
GRS 1915+105 & 8.63$\pm$0.13 & 33.5$\pm$2.7 & $-$ & $-$ &$-$\
In the fifth column there are the two microquasars associated to EGRET sources. The discovery of the microquasar LS 5039 and its association with 3EG J1824$-$1514 (Paredes et al. 2000) provided observational evidence that microquasars could also be sources of high-energy $\gamma$-rays. The radio source LS I +61 303 was historically associated with the $\gamma$-ray source 2CG 135+01 (Gregory & Taylor, 1978) and later with the EGRET source 3EG J0241+6103. After the discovery of relativistic jets in LS I +61 303 (Massi et al. 2001, 2004) the source was considered the second microquasar associated with an EGRET source. The association of these two microquasars with high-energy $\gamma$-ray sources has been confirmed after the detection of LS 5039 by HESS (Aharonian et al. 2005a) and of LS I +61 303 by MAGIC (Albert et al. 2006a), as can be seen in the sixth column. In Fig. \[figlsi\] we show the VHE $\gamma$-ray flux of LS I +61 303 as a function of the binary system orbital phase (orbital period of 26.496 days) for the six observed orbital cycles. These are the first observational evidences of variability (and possibly periodicity) of the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission in microquasars.
![MAGIC observations of LS I +61 303 (Albert et al. 2006a), showing hints of a periodic nature of the VHE emission. Periastron is at phase 0.23[]{data-label="figlsi"}](paredes_2006_01_fig03.eps){width="3truein"}
Two striking microquasars: LS 5039 and LS I +61 303
===================================================
After the suggestion that LS 5039 and LS I +61 303 were the radio counterparts of two EGRET sources, several specific models aimed to explain the observed HE emission and to predict the level of VHE emission were developed. After the detection of TeV emission from both sources, more detailed models have been developed to explain the high-energy and VHE spectrum. It is worth noting that any TeV emission model must take into account the strong opacity effects on the $\gamma$-rays introduced by different photon fields, which are particularly strong in massive binaries.
In the context of microquasars, Bosch-Ramon et al. (2006) developed a model based on a freely expanding magnetized jet, in which internal energy is dominated by a cold proton plasma extracted from the accretion disk. The model was applied to LS 5039 (Paredes et al. 2006) to reproduce qualitatively the spectrum of radiation produced in the jet from radio to VHE. In Fig. \[figls\] we show the SED predicted for LS 5039 and the data obtained with several instruments. The effects of the absorption are evident in the SED, where there is a minimum around few 100 GeV (see Fig. \[figls\]).
![SED of LS 5039. The main radiation components are shown, altogether with the total emission, which suffers attenuation by photon photon absorption above 10 GeV (Paredes et al. 2006).[]{data-label="figls"}](paredes_2006_01_fig04.eps){width="3.3truein"}
In the case of LS I +61 303, Romero et al. (2005) presented a hadronic model for $\gamma$-ray production where they calculated the $\gamma$-ray emission originated in p-p interactions between relativistic protons in the jet and cold protons from the wind. The model takes into account the opacity of the ambient photon fields to the propagation of the $\gamma$-rays.
The propagation of VHE $\gamma$-rays inside LS 5039 and LS I +61 303 has been studied recently by Bednarek (2006). Since the massive stars in these systems are very luminous, the high-energy $\gamma$-rays injected relatively close to the massive stars should be strongly absorbed, initiating electromagnetic cascades. A part of the primary $\gamma$-rays and secondary cascade $\gamma$-rays escape from the binary system toward the observer. The cascade processes occurring inside these binary systems significantly reduce the $\gamma$-ray opacity obtained in other works by simple calculations of the escape of $\gamma$-rays from the radiation fields of the massive stars. The maximum in TeV $\gamma$-ray light curve predicted by the propagation effects in LS I +61 303 should occur after periastron passage (as has been observed).
Maraschi & Treeves (1981) proposed an scenario based on the interaction of the relativistic wind from a young non-accreting pulsar with the wind from its stellar companion to explain the high-energy observations of LS I +61 303. Dubus (2006) has used this scenario to model the overall SED of LS 5039 and LS I +61 303. Although it can explain some characteristics of these sources, there are several properties that are difficult to be explained: the jet shape and the persistency in its direction in LS 5039, the radio outbursts in LS I +61 303, the fast precessing radio jets in LS I +61 303 and the GeV $\gamma$-ray fluxes in both sources.
Summary
=======
Up to now there are 66 EGRET blazars and 11 TeV blazars detected. On the other hand, microquasars have consolidated as a new source population of the $\gamma$-ray sky. As emitters of HE and VHE photons, they also mimic the high-energy behaviour of quasars. This fact puts microquasars among the most interesting sources in the Galaxy from the viewpoint of high-energy astrophysics.
Several kind of models predict that radio jets could be natural sites for the production of high-energy photons via both Compton scattering and proton proton collisions in microquasars.
Additional microquasars will very likely be detected soon with the Cherenkov telescopes and GLAST. This will bring more constraints to the physics of these systems and their relationship with AGNs.
Acknowledgements
================
I acknowledge partial support by DGI of the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (Spain) under grant AYA2004-07171-C02-01, as well as additional support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER). I thank Marc Ribó, Valentí Bosch-Ramon and Josep Martí for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments.
Aharonian, F.A., Akhperjanian, A. G., Aye, K.-M. et al., 2005a, [*Science*]{}, [**309**]{}, 746
Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al., 2005b, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**441**]{}, 465
Aharonian, F.A., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al., 2006, [*Nature*]{}, [**440**]{}, 1018
Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al., 2006a, [*Science*]{}, [**312**]{}, 1771
Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al., 2006b, [*ApJ*]{}, in press (astro-ph/0606630)
Atoyan, A., Aharonian, F.A., 1999, [*MNRAS*]{}, [**302**]{}, 253
Bednarek, W., 2006, [*MNRAS*]{}, [**368**]{}, 579
Bird, A.J., Barlow, E.J., Bassani, L., et al., 2004, [*ApJ*]{}, [**607**]{}, L33
Bosch-Ramon, V., Paredes, J. M., 2004, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**425**]{}, 1069
Bosch-Ramon, V., Aharonian, F.A., Paredes, J. M., 2005, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**432**]{}, 609
Bosch-Ramon, V., Romero, G. E., Paredes, J. M., 2006, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**447**]{}, 263
Chernyakova, M., Neronov, A., Walter, R., 2006, [*MNRAS*]{}, in press (astro-ph/0606070)
Collmar, W., 2003, in [*Proc. 4th Agile Science Workshop*]{}, p.177, Frascati (Rome) on 11-13 June 2003
Corbel, S., Fender, R. P., Tzioumis, A. K., et al., 2002, [*Science*]{}, [**298**]{}, 196
Dermer, C.D., Schlickeiser, R., 1993, [*ApJ*]{}, [**416**]{}, 458
Dermer, C.D., Böttcher, M., 2006, [*ApJ*]{}, [**643**]{}, 108
Dubus 2006, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{},in press (astro-ph/0605287)
Georganopoulos, M., Aharonian, F. A., Kirk, J. G., 2002, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**388**]{}, L25
Harmon, B.A., Wilson, C.A., Fishman, G.J., et al., 2004, [*ApJS*]{}, [**154**]{}, 585
Hartman, R.C., Bertsch, D.L., Bloom, S.D., et al., 1999, [*ApJS*]{}, [**123**]{}, 79
Kaufman Bernadó, M.M., Romero, G.E., Mirabel,I. F., 2002, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**385**]{}, L10
Liu, Q.Z., van Paradijs, J., van den Heuvel, E.P.J. 2000, [*A&AS*]{}, [**147**]{}, 25
Liu, Q.Z., van Paradijs, J., van den Heuvel, E.P.J. 2001, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**368**]{}, 1021
Maraschi, L., Treves, A., 1981, [*MNRAS*]{}, [**194**]{}, 1
Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., 1992, [*ApJ*]{}, [**397**]{}, L5
Massi, M., Ribó, M., Paredes, J.M., Peracaula, M., Estalella, R., 2001, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**376**]{}, 217
Massi, M., Ribó, M., Paredes, J.M., et al, 2004, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**414**]{}, L1
Mirabel, I.F., Rodríguez, L.F., 1999, [*Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**37**]{}, 409
Migliari, S., Fender, R., Méndez, M., 202, [*Science*]{}, [**267**]{}, 1673
Paredes, J.M., Martí, J., Ribó, M., Massi, M., 2000, [*Science*]{}, [**288**]{}, 2340
Paredes, J.M., 2005, [*ChJAA*]{}, [**5**]{}, 133
Paredes, J. M., Bosch-Ramon, V., Romero, G. E., 2006, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**451**]{}, 259
Ribó, M., 2005, [*ASPC*]{}, [**340**]{}, 269
Romero, G.E., Torres, D.F., Kaufman Bernadó, M., Mirabel, F., 2003, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**410**]{}, L1
Romero, G.E., Christiansen, H.R., Orellana, M., 2005, [*ApJ*]{}, [**632**]{}, 1093
Schönfelder, V., Bennett, K., Blom, J.J., et al., 2000, [*A&AS*]{}, [**143**]{}, 145
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We calculate the modification of the local electronic structure caused by a local impurity on the surface of a 3D Topological Insulator. We find that the LDOS around the Dirac point of the electronic spectrum at the surface is significantly disrupted near the impurity by the creation of low-energy resonance state(s) – however, this is not sufficient to (locally) destroy the Dirac point. We also calculate the non-trivial spin textures created near the magnetic impurities and discover anisotropic RKKY coupling between them.'
author:
- 'Rudro R. Biswas$^{1,3}$'
- 'A. V. Balatsky$^{2,3}$'
title: 'Impurity-induced states on the surface of 3D topological insulators'
---
The Dirac spectrum of chiral excitations are realized in a wide range of materials including d-wave superconductors[@2006-balatsky-yq], graphene[@2009-neto-ys], and semiconductors[@1986-fradkin-yq]. The Dirac spectrum brings in substantial similarities in electronic properties – like response to defects as well as low energy and low temperature properties. It is thus natural to combine these materials into a category of ‘Dirac materials’. A recent exciting realization of the Dirac spectrum is on the surface of 3D Strong Topological Insulators (STI)[@2009-xia-vn; @2009-roushan-vn; @2009-zhang-vn]. These materials have an ungapped spectrum at the surface while being fully gapped in the bulk. In addition, STIs are unique because the topology of their bulk band structure constrains their surface states to possess an odd number of Dirac nodes[@2007-fu-rt]. Suppressed backscattering inside the odd Dirac cone guarantees that the Dirac dispersion remain essentially unperturbed for any perturbation to the Hamiltonian that preserves time reversal symmetry. This is a manifestation of the topological protection enjoyed by this kind of surface band crossing and makes these materials an attractive candidate for spintronics applications[@2004-murakami-ul] as well as a possible platform for topological quantum computation[@2008-fu-yq]. In this work we focus on the stability of the STI surface nodes as well as the modification of surface states around local impurities. We consider local potential as well as magnetic impurities and calculate the modifications to the Local Density of States (LDOS) and the spin density near the impurity site. These should be accessible by STM measurements. We find the following.\
(i) There is substantial modification of the LDOS near the impurity site for both the nonmagnetic (time reversal preserving) and magnetic impurities (time reversal breaking), especially when impurity scattering is strong (unitary). Near the potential/magnetic impurity, a single/a pair of low energy resonances form near the Dirac point (Figs. \[fig-resonances\], \[fig-ldos\]). These become very sharp and their energies ${\Omega}{\rightarrow}0$ as the impurity strength $|U|{\rightarrow}\infty$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-resscalar}
|{\Omega}| \approx \frac{5\,{\mbox{sgn}}|U|}{|U| \ln |U|}\end{aligned}$$ The scalar impurity resonance is doubly degenerate due to Kramers’ theorem[@2007-wehling-td; @2006-balatsky-yq; @2005-bena-fr]. The magnetic impurity breaks time reversal symmetry and splits the low energy impurity resonance into two spin-polarized resonances on either side of the Dirac point (Fig. \[fig-resonances\]).\
(ii) Modification of the LDOS vanishes quickly for energies less in magnitude than the resonance energy (approaching the Dirac point) for *both* magnetic and nonmagnetic impurities. Thus, modifications to the low energy LDOS does not provide us with a signature of any incipient gap in the spectrum for both potential and magnetic impurities. For $r>>1/{\omega}$, these decay as $1/r^{2}$.\
(iii) In addition to LDOS modifications, magnetic scattering produces non-trivial spin textures near the impurity site (Figure \[fig-spintextures\]) that can be imaged with a magnetic force microscope or spin-resolved STM. These non-trivial spin textures lead to the propagation of unconventional [anti]{}ferromagnetic (AF) RKKY coupling between magnetic impurities, when they are polarized along the line joining them and when the chemical potential is close to the Dirac point. When the spins are perpendicular to the line joining them, they interact strongly and ferromagnetically (FM). The Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction between the spins vanishes at the Dirac point. We thus conclude that random magnetic impurities will tend to align parallel to the normal to the STI surface.
We will model the STI surface states as a single species of non-interacting 2-D Dirac quasiparticles[@2009-liu-ph] with a high energy band cutoff $W$. We shall work in units of $W$, $\hbar$ and $v_{F}$ (the Fermi velocity). The Hamiltonian becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-h0}
{\mathcal}{H}_{0} &= {\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol}{p}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}/2$ is the *actual* spin of the electron (or related by a rotation about $\hat{z}$). We shall consider local impurities of the potential and classical types respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-impurity}
\hat{V}_{{\mbox{\tiny{pot}}}} &= U\, {\mathbb}{I} {\delta}(\hat{{\boldsymbol}{r}}),\; \hat{V}_{{\mbox{\tiny{mag}}}} = U {{\boldsymbol}{S}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}}{\delta}(\hat{{\boldsymbol}{r}})\end{aligned}$$ For the magnetic case we have assumed a local Heisenberg exchange $J$ between the band electrons and the impurity spin $S$, whose direction is given by the *unit vector* ${{\boldsymbol}{S}}$. Thus, $U=JS/2$ in $\hat{V}_{{\mbox{\tiny{mag}}}}$.
To address the effect of impurity scattering we use the T-matrix technique [@2006-balatsky-yq]. The T-matrix is defined via: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{T}({\omega}) &= \hat{V} + \hat{V}\hat{G}_{0}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega})\hat{T}({\omega})\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{0}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}$ is the retarded Green’s function for the impurity-free material and ${\omega}$ is the energy. For ${\omega}\ll 1$ and ${\rho}\gg1/W$ (${{\boldsymbol}{{\rho}}}\equiv {{\boldsymbol}{r}}-{{\boldsymbol}{r}}'$), it has the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-propagator}
{\left}{\langle}{{\boldsymbol}{r}}{\left}|G_{0}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega}){\right}|{{\boldsymbol}{r}}'{\right}{\rangle}&=\frac{|\omega |}{4} {\left}[f_{0}({\omega}, {\rho}){\mathbb}{I} + f_{1}({\omega},{\rho})({{\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}}\cdot\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{{\rho}}}}){\right}]\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0}({\omega}, {\rho}) = \text{s}({\omega})Y_{0} - i J_{0}{\theta}, f_{1}({\omega}, {\rho}) = iY_{1} + \text{s}({\omega}) J_{1}{\theta}\end{aligned}$$ and $|{\omega}|{\rho}$ is the argument of the Bessel functions $J_{0/1}$ and $Y_{0/1}$. Also, $\text{s}(\cdot)\equiv{\mbox{sgn}}(\cdot)$ and ${\theta}\equiv{\Theta}(1 - |{\omega}|)$. We shall also require the unperturbed on-site Green’s function valid for short distances $\lesssim 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-onsiteG}
{\mathbb}{G}_{0}({\omega}) &\equiv {\left}{\langle}{\boldsymbol}{0}{\left}|G_{0}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega}){\right}|{\boldsymbol}{0}{\right}{\rangle}= -{\left}(g_{0}({\omega}) + i g_{1}({\omega}){\right}){\mathbb}{I},\text{ where}{\nonumber}\\
g_{0}({\omega})&= \frac{{\omega}}{4{\pi}}\ln{\left}|\frac{1}{{\omega}^{2}} - 1{\right}|, g_{1}({\omega}) = \frac{|{\omega}|}{4}{\Theta}(1 - |{\omega}|)\end{aligned}$$ In , we have used a local form for the impurity potential ${\langle}{{\boldsymbol}{r}}|\hat{V}|{{\boldsymbol}{r}}'{\rangle}= {\mathbb}{V}\,{\delta}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}){\delta}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}')$, where ${\mathbb}{V}$ is a $2\times2$ matrix in spin-space. The T-matrix also becomes ${\langle}{{\boldsymbol}{r}}|\hat{T}|{{\boldsymbol}{r}}'{\rangle}= {\mathbb}{T}\,{\delta}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}){\delta}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}')$, with ${\mathbb}{T}$ satisfying the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-tmatrix2}
{\mathbb}{T} &= {\mathbb}{V} + {\mathbb}{V}{\mathbb}{G}_{0}{\mathbb}{T} = {\left}({\mathbb}{I}-{\mathbb}{V}{\mathbb}{G}_{0}{\right})^{-1}{\mathbb}{V}\end{aligned}$$ From the algebraic relations involving , and , we analytically calculate the T-matrix, the full Green’s function $\hat{G}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-greens}
\hat{G}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega}) &= \hat{G}_{0}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega}) + \hat{G}_{0}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega})\hat{T}({\omega})\hat{G}_{0}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega})\end{aligned}$$ the full (spin-unresolved) LDOS, $$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}, {\omega}) = -\frac{1}{{\pi}}\text{Im}{\mbox{Tr}}{\left}{\langle}{{\boldsymbol}{r}}{\left}|\hat{G}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega}){\right}|{{\boldsymbol}{r}}{\right}{\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ the local density of spin up/down states (in direction ${\mu}$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-SPldos}
{\rho}_{\pm}^{{\mu}}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}, {\omega}) = -\frac{1}{{\pi}}\text{Im}{\mbox{Tr}}{\left}{\langle}{{\boldsymbol}{r}}{\left}|\hat{G}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega}){\left}(\frac{1\pm{\sigma}_{{\mu}}}{2}{\right}){\right}|{{\boldsymbol}{r}}{\right}{\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ and the energy-resolved spin density averages: $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol}{s}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}, {\omega}) = -\frac{1}{{\pi}}\text{Im}{\mbox{Tr}}{\left}{\langle}{{\boldsymbol}{r}}{\left}|\hat{G}^{{\mbox{\tiny{ret}}}}({\omega})\frac{{\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}}{2}{\right}|{{\boldsymbol}{r}}{\right}{\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ For the scalar and magnetic impurity cases, we find that the additional $GTG\equiv{\delta}G$ pieces in the Green’s function evaluate respectively to (using $g \equiv g_{1}+i g_{2}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-gtg1}
{\delta}G_{\text{pot}} &= \frac{U{\omega}^{2}}{16}\frac{f_{0}^{2} - f_{1}^{2}}{1+Ug}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-gtg2}
&{\delta}G_{\text{mag}} = \frac{U{\omega}^{2}}{16(1-U^{2}g^{2})}\big[-2if_{0}f_{1}{{\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}}\cdot({{\boldsymbol}{S}}\times\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}})+{\nonumber}\\
&(f_{0}^{2} + f_{1}^{2}){{\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol}{S}}- 2f_{1}^{2}({{\boldsymbol}{{\sigma}}}\cdot\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}})({{\boldsymbol}{S}}\cdot\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}})-Ug (f_{0}^{2} - f_{1}^{2}) \big]\end{aligned}$$
As shown in Figures (\[fig-resonances\]) and (\[fig-ldos\]), for both the magnetic and non-magnetic cases we obtain low energy resonance(s) in the LDOS (arising from the minima of the denominators in and ) that approach the Dirac point for large impurity strengths according to [@2007-wehling-td; @2006-balatsky-yq]. These resonances become sharper as they approach the Dirac point with increasing potential strength and while doing so, also increase in amplitude relative to the unperturbed LDOS. For $r\gg1/{\omega}$ and ${\omega}\ll1$, the strength of LDOS modulations diminish with distance as $1/r^{2}$[@2008-bena-fk].
Topological stability of the surface Dirac spectrum in TIs is often discussed as a crucial property of these materials. An important question in this context is whether the appearance of these low-energy resonances is related to the local creation of a gap at/destruction of the Dirac point. Naïve scaling analysis tells us that the potential strength $U$ has a dimension of $-1$ (same as length) near the fixed point corresponding to . As we approach the Dirac point, we should thus see the effects of the impurity become negligible. Indeed, we find that if we move from the resonances to the Dirac point, the density of states gradually settles down to the impurity-free value. We cannot, therefore, find signatures of gap-opening at the Dirac point at the stage of one-impurity scattering. We also note here that the appearance of these resonances *at* the Dirac point is a consequence of the band cutoff being symmetric on the particle and hole sides – in realistic materials[@2009-xia-vn] the band structure is asymmetric and depending on the degree of asymmetry, these resonances may appear at other region(s) of the bands[@2006-balatsky-yq].
In addition to the impurity resonances at small energy we find new states that lie outside the effective band edges – a consequence of using a hard cutoff. These true bound/anti-bound states are located at the positive/negative side for positive/negative sign of a scalar impurity potential $U$. For a magnetic impurity they are located on both sides outside the effective band edges. For large $|U|$, these are located approximately at a distance $U$ from the Dirac point, while as $|U|{\rightarrow}0$ they approach the band edge as $e^{-\frac{4{\pi}}{|U|}}$. In real STI SSs, these may well be located at the same energy as the bulk bands, will hybridize with them and delocalize into the bulk.
Near a magnetic impurity, entanglement of the electron spin and momentum lead to the creation of spin textures, as shown in Figure \[fig-spintextures\]. The energy-resolved spin average is found to be: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-spinaverage}
&{\boldsymbol}{s}({{\boldsymbol}{r}}, {\omega})\\
&= U{\omega}^{2}\text{Im}{\left}(\frac{2if_{0}f_{1}{{\boldsymbol}{S}}\times\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}} - (f_{0}^{2} + f_{1}^{2}){{\boldsymbol}{S}}+ 2f_{1}^{2}\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}}({{\boldsymbol}{S}}\cdot\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}})}{16{\pi}(1-U^{2}g^{2})}{\right}){\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in gives rise to a DM interaction between two impurity spins. When the chemical potential ${\mu}$ is at the Dirac point, considering only the perturbative result (obtained cheaply by putting $g{\rightarrow}0$ in the above expression), the strength of this interaction becomes zero $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{-\infty}^{0}\text{Re}(f_{0}f_{1}){\omega}^{2}d{\omega}{\nonumber}\\
&\sim- \frac{1}{r^{3}} \int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{d}{dx}(J_{0}Y_{0}){\Theta}(r-x)x^{2}dx \stackrel{r\gg1}{\approx} 0\end{aligned}$$ For a finite chemical potential $|{\mu}|\ll 1$, the amplitude of the DM interaction becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{U}{8{\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{{\mu}}\text{Re}(f_{0}f_{1}){\omega}^{2}d{\omega}= \frac{U{\mbox{sgn}}{\mu}}{8{\pi}}\int_{0}^{|{\mu}|}\text{Re}(f_{0}f_{1}){\omega}^{2}d{\omega}{\nonumber}\\
&= \frac{U{\mu}|{\mu}|J_{1}(|{\mu}|r)Y_{1}(|{\mu}|r)}{8{\pi}r}\end{aligned}$$ At large distances, the amplitude of this interaction decays as $\sim U{\mu}/r^{2}$.
The second term in leads to FM RKKY interactions when ${\mu}=0$, in the perturbative approximation. The corresponding spin component is $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{U{{\boldsymbol}{S}}}{16{\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{0}\text{Im}(f_{0}^{2}+f_{1}^{2}){\omega}^{2}d{\omega}= -\frac{U}{32{\pi}r^{3}}{{\boldsymbol}{S}}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the third term in leads to AF RKKY interaction between impurity spin components pointing along the line joining the impurities, when ${\mu}=0$. In the perturbative limit, the corresponding induced spin component is: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{U\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}}({{\boldsymbol}{S}}\cdot\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}})}{8{\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{0}\text{Im}(f_{1}^{2}){\omega}^{2}d{\omega}=\frac{3U}{64{\pi}r^{3}}\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}}({{\boldsymbol}{S}}\cdot\hat{{{\boldsymbol}{r}}})\end{aligned}$$ From these two expressions we conclude that at ${\mu}=0$ the interaction energy gained when two impurity spins point at/away from each other is *half* that gained when they are aligned parallel to each other and perpendicular to the line joining them. Thus, when many impurities are present (and ${\mu}=0$), they will tend to point in the common direction where all gain the FM interaction energy – along the $z$-direction, normal to the surface. This kind of FM ordering will be conducive to opening a gap in the STI surface state spectrum. We would like to note here that the foregoing results are not obvious when observing the energy-resolved spin densities at low energies ${\omega}{\rightarrow}0-$, because of the low density of states there. Naïvely, one would have expected the low energy long wavelength features to determine the $r{\rightarrow}\infty$ spin textures, but the low energy spin textures predict, incorrectly, antiferromagnetic RKKY interactions with short distance ferromagnetic contributions arising from non-perturbative effects. We would also like to note here that we assumed a smooth cutoff when adding up the spin textures at different energies to eliminate cutoff-dependence[@2007-saremi-fk]. We have used multiplicative functions like $e^{-\eta|{\omega}|}$ and $(1-e^{-\eta{\omega}^{2}})/(\eta{\omega}^{2})$ (having different characters as $|{\omega}|{\rightarrow}\infty$) in the energy integrals and then taken the limit $\eta{\rightarrow}0+$ — both these procedures gave the same limit[^1].
When we consider the full nonperturbative spin average obtained by integrating numerically, the aforementioned behaviors seems to hold qualitatively if we look beyond the ‘ringing’ introduced by a sharp cutoff.
In summary, we find that local impurities can strongly disrupt the structure near the Dirac node of 2-D surface states in 3-D topological insulators by forming low energy resonance(s). However, in the asymptotic approach to the Dirac point, the linear DOS is preserved, consistent with the negative scaling dimension of the impurity strength. Thus, the gap-opening mechanism for magnetic impurities is not evident at this stage of analysis. We also find that the induction of non-trivial spin textures near magnetic impurities leads to the mediation of antiferromagnetic RKKY coupling between impurity spin components parallel to the lines joining them, especially if the chemical potential is at the Dirac point (in which case the interaction does not oscillate in sign). The spin components perpendicular to the line joining the impurities, however, exhibit strong FM interaction. While there is, in general, a DM component in the spin interactions, it vanishes at the Dirac point. Finally, when many magnetic impurities are present (and ${\mu}=0$), they will tend to align ferromagnetically normal to the surface.
We are grateful to D. Abanin, D. Basov, Z. Hasan, H. Manoharan, N. Nagaosa, T. Wehling and Y. Xia for useful discussions – especially to D. Abanin for drawing our attention to the method used in [@2009-shytov-yq] to calculate the RKKY interactions. This work was supported by the US DOE thorough BES and LDRD funding and by University of California UCOP program T027-09.
[15]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , **** ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: Calculations by the authors, on the lines of [@2009-shytov-yq], have confirmed these results. These calculations will be presented in a later work.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper describes our approach for the *Disguised Faces in the Wild* (DFW) 2018 challenge. The task here is to verify the identity of a person among disguised and impostors images. Given the importance of the task of face verification it is essential to compare methods across a common platform. Our approach is based on VGG-face architecture paired with Contrastive loss based on cosine distance metric. For augmenting the data set, we source more data from the internet. The experiments show the effectiveness of the approach on the DFW data. We show that adding extra data to the DFW dataset with noisy labels also helps in increasing the gen 11 eralization performance of the network. The proposed network achieves 27.13% absolute increase in accuracy over the DFW baseline.'
author:
- |
Skand Vishwanath Peri Abhinav Dhall\
[*Learning Affect and Semantic Image AnalysIs (LASII) Group,*]{}\
[*Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, India*]{}\
bibliography:
- 'disguisenet.bib'
title: 'DisguiseNet : A Contrastive Approach for Disguised Face Verification in the Wild '
---
Introduction
============
Over the years, the research in the area of face recognition has received tremendous amount of attention. Many innovative and novel methods have been put forward for the tasks visual face recognition and verification [@Zhao]. Due to its importance, in the past, researchers have concentrated over different problems in face recognition ‘in the wild’. Here ‘in the wild’ refers to scenarios with varying illumination and pose [@facenet], prediction over varying age of the same person [@age], prediction across different facial expressions [@dhall2017individual] and prediction across different modality such as sketches and visual medias etc. [@klare_mugshot; @Ouyang_2016_CVPR].
There has been some work on face verification of disguised faces in different imaging modalities like thermal and visual medias [@klare_hetero; @dhamecha] in which they exploit both the modalities to get the best of both worlds, but the problem of “*disguise*” in a single modality has not been explored in detail. The problem of disguise deals with determining whether the given pair of images are of the same person in disguise or of different persons (one of them being the imposter). The Figure \[fig:intro\_\], clearly show examples of disguised people and imposters.
![ The Figure shows examples of disguised and imposters in the DFW database [@dfw]. The first column is a genuine image of a celebrity, the second column is the same person in a disguise and the third columns shows the images of imposters who look like the celebrities in column one. Green bounding box signifies a same identity and red signifies an impostor.](intro.png){width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:intro\_\]
It was found that successful face recognition systems such as the VGG-Face [@Parkhi15] are not efficient, when it comes to the problem of disguise vs impostor recognition [@dfw]. VGG-Face achieves 33.76% Genuine Acceptance Rate (GAR) at 1% False Acceptance Rate (FAR) and 17.73% GAR at 0.1% FAR, which is a clear indication that the usual facial recognition models may not be that helpful to capture the rich representations required for distinguishing the disguised from the imposter images.
Dhamecha et. al. [@dhamecha], proposed a two-stage verification process. During the first stage, a patch classifier is computed to decide if a patch is important wrt the task. The hypothesis is that not all facial parts of a disguised person are equally important (particularly occluded parts of a face). The second stage consisted of a patch based face recognition method, in which texture features are extracted from the biometrics-wise important patches. Further, this information is used to verify the personalities with the help of a support vector machine and $\chi^2$ distance metric.
Singh et. al. [@singh], used spacial convolutional networks [@Pfister15a] to infer the values of fourteen facial key points. Given a disguised image and a gallery of non-disguised images, geometric features are computed based on the angles between the facial key points. The gallery image, which has the least L1 distance based on the geometric feature is assigned as the corresponding non-disguised image of the given disguised image.
Some of the recent face recognition works have also used different loss functions such as the Contrastive loss [@hadsell] and the triplet-loss [@facenet; @Parkhi15] to bring the features representation of the two facial images closer and learn a modality invariant representation.
Disguised faces recognition is an important issue from the perspective of biometrics, as doing this would help surveillance systems recognize imposters trying to steal the identities of other people. The fact that disguised faces increases the *within-class* variation of the faces and imposter faces decreases the *between-class* variation of the faces, makes this task non-trivial. In fact, the imposter images in Figure \[fig:intro\_\] seem to be similar looking to the original identity. Although, when closely observed, we can distinguish between the identities and claim if the person is an imposter or not. From an automated computer vision based method perspective, it is important to extract rich representations of the facial images in-order to distinguish among the identities and verify them correctly.
In recent times, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have been extensively used in computer vision to achieve the state-of-the-art performances [@He2015; @Simonyan14c] in many classification, object detection tasks and many other vision tasks. CNNs have also provided robust face descriptors [@facenet; @face_sun], which have in turn enabled to achieve state-of-art accuracy in face verification and recognition tasks [@Wu2015ALC; @Richardson_2017_CVPR].
{width="145mm"}
\[fig:arch\_\]
In order to learn rich representations of faces, we use CNNs to extract the features from the images via convolution. To differentiate between the disguised and the imposter images, we explicitly impose Contrastive loss constraint on the feature representation extracted via CNN. This is done so as to bring the representation of the identity and the disguised face closer and to make the representation of the identity and imposter far apart by a margin. Apart from just making the representations far apart, we also regress similarity score of the two images (score = 1, if the images are similar and score = 0, if they are not). The major contributions of the paper are as follows:
- We propose a CNN model based on VGG-Face [@Parkhi15] for the verification of disguised images in the same modality unlike other previous works [@dhamecha], which use CNN for cross-modal verification task of disguised faces.
- In order to decrease the *intra-class* variation and increase the *inter-class* variation of the feature representation, we use Contrastive loss with cosine similarity measure.
- To improve the validation accuracy, we also include a regression mean-squared loss apart form the usual classification cross-entropy loss which tells us the similarity of the two images.
- To increase the performance, we extended the DFW dataset with images from the internet. A total of 1380 images of 325 subjects were downloaded using keyword based search. The new images and their corresponding noisy labels (based on the keyword based search) are used to augment the genuine images in the *Train* set.
Disguise Faces in Wild (DFW) Dataset
====================================
We used the Disguise Faces in Wild (DFW) dataset [@dfw; @dfw2], which is so far the largest dataset of disguised and imposter images. There have previously been few datasets on makeup disguise in the wild [@makeup] and datasets on cross-modality (visual and thermal) disguise faces dataset [@iiitd_disguise]. However, to the best of knowledge, there is no dataset, which addresses the issue of disguised faces and imposter faces in the wild. The DFW dataset consists of 1000 identities (400 in training set and 600 in the testing set), with a total of 11155 images. There consists of 3 types of images: genuine images, disguised images and the imposter images. The genuine images are the usual visual image (photograph) of the person, the disguised images is the image of the same identity in disguise and the imposter images are the images consisting of images of other persons who look like the identity. An example of each is shown in Figure \[fig:intro\_\]. We used the coordinates given by the organizers to crop the face out from the image.
Weakly Labelled noisy Data from the Internet
--------------------------------------------
The limitation of the DFW dataset is that for every identity, there is only 1 genuine image for training and 1 genuine image for validation. Our experiments suggested that the data with respect to the genuine images (when compared to imposter and disguised images) were less. To overcome the limitation, we downloaded 2-4 more genuine image (totaling the training images to 3-5 for each of the identities in the *Train* set) using the BING image search API [@BingSearch] and got a total of 1380 images for 325 celebrities in the DFW *Train* set. We cropped out the faces from the newly added genuine images using the OpenFace library [@amos2016openface]. The results of our model with and without the extra data from the internet are mentioned in detail in Table \[table2\].
It is interesting to note that the network’s performance increased considerably, after the downloaded data was used along with the DFW data. No cleaning of the data was performed and the search engine’s results were used to assign the identity to the downloaded images. We noted that in a few cases, images retrieved against the search query generated impostor images too. However, they are used as is in the training without any manual pruning. Some examples of the above mentioned weakly labelled images (which do not belong to the correct identity) are shown in Figure \[fig:extra\]. We refer to this data as weakly labelled as it is possible that an incorrect identity retrieved during the web search can be due to an attribute of the face in the retrieved image, which makes the image as a good candidate for being the disguised representation of the original identity.
{width="80mm"}
\[fig:extra\]
Also it becomes a difficult task for the annotator as well to label the images of the imposter and disguised people. These noisy labels can be generated when the annotator may not be aware about the identity of the subject and other factors such as different ethnicity of the annotator and the subject in the database also add up to the problem of labelling the images.
Protocol
--------
There are three protocols given with the DFW dataset : *Impersonation*, *Obfuscation* and *Overall Performance*. The impersonation protocol consists of image pairs with genuine image and imposter faces, while the obfuscation protocol consists of images of genuine faces with disguised faces. The last protocol consists of all possible pairs (even pair of 2 disguised faces) as a part of the test set.
DisguiseNet[^1]
===============
Let ${ x }_{ i }^{ 1 }$ denote the genuine image of an identity $i$ and ${ x }_{ i }^{ 2 }$ be either the disguised image of identity $i$ or the imposter of identity $i$. We have a Siamese VGG-Face architecture i.e. two sets of 16-layered VGG-Face pre-trained network with tied weights to extract the same features from the input pairs. Note that we need same features as the modality of the images is the same (visual modality). However, the feature representations will be different for genuine image and the disguised/imposter image. We pass the genuine image from the first stream of CNN network and either disguised image or imposter image through the second CNN stream.
Let ${F}_{i}^{m}$ be the feature descriptor of $i^{th}$ identity and $m$={*genuine* / *imposter* / *disguise*}, then ${ F }_{ i }^{m}=Conv\left( { x }_{ i }^{ m },\Theta \right) $, where $\Theta$ is the convolutional net parameters. Further, for a Siamese network, the convolutional net parameters: $\Theta$ is the same for all the $m$. Since we use 16 layer deep CNN, the first four convolutional layers are frozen during the fine tuning. The rationale behind this being the observation of no significant gradient flow through the initial layers during the fine tuning process. We have used the Contrastive loss at the second last fully connected layer, which is defined as follows:
$$L_{C} = \frac { 1 }{ 2B } \sum _{ i=1 }^{ B }{ \left( { y }_{ i }{ d }^{ 2 }+\left( 1-{ y }_{ i } \right) \max { { \left( margin-d,\quad 0 \right) }^{ 2 } } \right) }$$
where $B$ is the batch size, $d$ is a similarity score. In our experiments, cosine similarity distance metric is used for computing $d$. Further, $y_{i}$ is the label of the pair, with $y_{i}=1$ signifying a (genuine, disguise) pair and $y_{i}=0$ signifying a (genuine, imposter) pair. Here, the parameter $margin$ is a scalar value representing the minimum desired distance between a negative (imposter) and positive (disguised) sample.
The second loss, which we include in our network is the verification binary cross-entropy loss. We added this classification task as a regularizer to the Contrastive loss similar to the classification network used as regularizer in [@google_net].
Learning directly the hard label (0/1) can be a problem in data with such wide intra-class and less inter-class variance. So we use the regression based mean-squared error loss between the predicted score and the actual pair label (0/1). We found that doing this was indirectly acting as a regularizer as well as forcing the representations of same labels to be similar.
$$L_{R} = { \left\| { y }_{ i }-{ p }_{ i } \right\| }^{ 2 }$$
where $y_{i}$ is the ground truth label and $p_{i}$ is the predicted value after sigmoid activation. We use sigmoid to make sure that the regressed value is between 0 and 1.
Our final loss function is as follows: $$L = L_{C} + L_{R} + L_{BCE}$$ where $L_{BCE}$, is the binary cross-entropy loss for verification. The contrastive loss is applied on FC2 and hence affecting the weights of all the previous layers of the network and the BCE loss and MSE loss is applied at the end of the network and affects all the layers of the network (except the first four layer as they are freezed). Also since the positive (genuine, disguise) and negative (genuine, imposter) examples generated from the training dataset is not equal (negative samples are little less than the positive samples as some of the identities don’t have imposter images but have only disguised images), so we also use class balancing in the loss i.e weight the negative samples’ loss more and weight the positive samples’ less. The weights are inversely proportional to number of corresponding samples present in the training data. The architecture is shown in Figure \[fig:arch\_\].
***margin*** **Validation Accuracy (%)**
-------------- -----------------------------
0.1 74.59
0.5 **79.86**
0.6 76.07
: Parameter analysis of margin. Note that the validation accuracy is on the *Validation* set created by us from the DFW *Train* set.[]{data-label="table1"}
Experimental Results & Ablations
================================
In order to increase the dataset size for training and also to make our model robust to slight noise and augmentation, we applied data augmentation techniques such as adding Gaussian noise, flipping, random rotation and random translation to the images. This lead to significant increase in the validation accuracy on the test set. We used stochastic gradient descent optimization in all our experiments with a learning rate of $10^{-3}$. Apart from the DFW *Test* dataset, we also selected random pairs of genuine and disguise/imposter images as our *Validation* set. We show the results of all the ablations on this *Validation* set. We later the compare the results of experiments with the organizer’s test set.
Ablations on Contrastive loss margin
------------------------------------
On changing the value of $margin$, we could get the best validation accuracy at $0.5$. We did not go beyond $margin=1$ as the similarity metric, we are using is cosine similarity, which always returns a value between \[0, 1\]. The quantitative results are shown in Table \[table1\]. Note that in the table, we use accuracy metric. This was used for tuning the model parameters on a *Validation* set created by us from the DFW *Training* data.
Is Weakly Labelled Data necessary?
----------------------------------
Yes, because it is extremely evident from the below experiment that doing adding the extra dataset with weak labels helps the model to extract robust features in-turn boosts up the performance by a large margin. The results of this ablation are shown in Table \[table2\] on the *Validation set* created from the DFW *Train set* and the results on DFW Test set are shown in Table \[table4\]. We can see a significant increase in the accuracy after adding the weakly labelled data in both the tables. On the DFW *Test Set* there is an increase of $~10\%$ for GAR@1%. All the mentioned experiments are done with $margin=0.5$.
Ablation with different loss functions
--------------------------------------
We did experiments with Contrastive Loss ($margin=0.5$), Regression loss and binary cross-entropy loss with different combinations of each. It is clear that having regression loss and binary cross-entropy loss act as a regularizer. The results of this are present in Table \[table3\_1\].
\[table3\_1\]
**Loss** **Validation Accuracy (%)**
--------------------------- -----------------------------
$L_{C}$ 76.45
$L_{C} + L_{R}$ 78.95
$L_{C} + L_{R} + L_{BCE}$ **79.86**
: Effect of using different combinations of loss functions on the *Validation* set.
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:roc\_disguise\]
Evaluation on the Test set
--------------------------
The results of DisguiseNet on the Test set (provided by the organizers) is shown in Table \[table4\]. The GAR @ 10% FAR is close to 99% and GAR@1% FAR is around 61%. The results of the model with different combinations of loss function is shown and it has turned out that have the Regression and Binary Cross-Entropy Loss along with the Contrastive Loss has helped the model out-perform the other models. The Figure \[fig:roc\_disguise\], shows the ROC curve for the proposed model.
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:mis1\]
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:mis2\]
Some failure cases of our model for various pairs are shown in Figure \[fig:mis1\] and Figure \[fig:mis2\]. The Figure \[fig:mis1\] shows the cases of **True Negative** i.e. the pairs shown are actually of the same identity but our model has classified them wrongly. In Figure \[fig:mis2\], examples of **False Positives** are shown where in the images are actually of different people but our networks has classified them as the same identity.
Our success cases are shown in Figure \[fig:true\], in which we show both **False Negatives** and **True Positives**. The pairs highlighted in green are of the same identity, one being the genuine image and the other being the disguised image whereas the pairs in which one of the images is highlighted in green and the other in red belong to different identities. In all the image pairs shown, our model has correctly classified if they are disguised or imposter.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we proposed a Contrastive loss based approach for verification of disguised faces in the wild (DisguiseNet). The method exploits, the usage of three different loss functions. It is evident from the experiments that the ensemble of three loss functions is beneficial towards the task. Apart from the DFW data, we also add our own data with weak noisy labels in order to enhance the performance of the model for disguise detection. The increase in the data and the use ensemble of loss functions reflects positively on the final results on the DFW *Test* set, giving an absolute increase of 27.13% over the DFW baseline.
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:true\]
Acknowledgements
================
We would like to thank NVIDIA Corporation for donating the TitanXP GPU used for this research.
[^1]: Code is present at <https://github.com/pvskand/DisguiseNet>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Julian H. Krolik'
- 'John F. Hawley'
title: General Relativistic MHD Jets
---
The Black Hole Connection {#sec:bhconnection}
=========================
Jets can be found in association with many astronomical objects: everything from Saturn’s moon Enceladus to proto-stars to symbiotic stars to planetary nebulae to neutron stars and the subject of this chapter, black holes. What distinguishes the black hole jets, whether they are attached to stellar mass black holes or supermassive black holes, is that they are the only ones whose velocities are relativistic. That this should be so is not terribly surprising because, of course, the immediate vicinity of a black hole is the most thoroughly relativistic environment one could imagine.
Although, as detailed elsewhere in this book, black holes can generate jets in a wide variety of circumstances, the fundamental physics of black holes can be treated in a unified manner. The reason for this simplicity is that the mass of the black hole changes the physical length scale for events in its neighborhood, but little else. Once distance is measured in gravitational radii—$r_g \equiv GM/c^2 \simeq 1.5 (M/M_{\odot})$ km—the mass becomes very nearly irrelevant. Thus, jets from black holes of roughly stellar mass (whether in mass-transfer binaries or in the sources of $\gamma$-ray bursts) can be expected to behave in a way very similar to those ejected from quasars, whose black hole mass can be $10^8$ times larger.
Another unifying theme to the physics of jets from black holes is the central role of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). In almost any conceivable circumstances near black holes, the matter must be sufficiently ionized to make it an excellent conductor. When that is the case, the fluid and the magnetic field cannot move across each other. Because magnetic fields are able to link widely-separated locations, they can provide the large-scale structural backbones for coherent structures like jets.
General Relativity Review {#sec:gr}
=========================
To properly understand the mechanics of matter and electromagnetic fields near black holes, it is, of course, essential to describe them in the language of relativity. This is, therefore, an appropriate point at which to insert a brief review of the portions of this subject most necessary to understand how black holes can drive jets.
Kinematics {#sec:grkinematics}
----------
One of the fundamental tenets of general relativity is that mass-energy induces intrinsic curvature in nearby space-time; what we call gravity is the result. Thus, in order to describe the motion of anything under gravity, it is necessary to find the space-time metric, the relationship that determines differential proper time $ds$, the time as it is perceived by a particle in its own rest-frame, in terms of a differential separation in four-dimensional space-time $dx^\mu$: $$%$$
ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu .
%\ceno$$$$ By standard convention, all Greek indices vary over the integers 0,1,2,3, and the zero-th index is the one most closely associated with time, with the other three associated (more or less) with the usual three spatial dimensions. We will also adopt the (very common, but not universal) convention that the metric signature is $-+++$. Proper time is a physically well-defined quantity that is invariant to frame-transformations; in contrast, motion in space-time can be parameterized in terms of all sorts of different coordinate systems that, on their own, do not necessarily have to possess any sort of physical significance.
Of the many possible ways to erect coordinate systems around black holes, two are most commonly used: Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and Kerr-Schild coordinates. Both are built on conventional spherical coordinates for the spatial dimensions. The former has the advantage that its coordinate time is identical to the proper time of an observer at large distance from the point mass, but the disadvantage that some of the elements in the metric diverge at the black hole’s event horizon. The latter has the advantage of no divergences, but the disadvantage that its time coordinate bears a more complicated relation to time as seen at infinity.
In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, the metric around a rotating black hole is $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
ds^2 = &-&\left( 1- {2Mr \over \Sigma}\right)dt^2 - {4aMr\sin^2\theta \over
\Sigma} dt d\phi + {\Sigma \over \Delta} dr^2 \\
\quad &+& \Sigma d\theta^2 + \left(r^2 + a^2 + {2Mra^2\sin^2\theta \over
\Sigma}\right) \sin^2\theta d\phi^2 ,\\
%}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
\Sigma &\equiv& r^2 + a^2 \cos^2\theta \\
\Delta &\equiv& r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 , \\
%}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ and the polar direction of the coordinates coincides with the direction of the angular momentum. The “spin parameter" $a$ is defined such that the black hole’s angular momentum $J = aM$. Here, and in all subsequent relativistic expressions, we take $G=c=1$.
When $r/M \gg 1$, the Boyer-Lindquist coordinate system clearly reduces to that of spherical spatial coordinates in flat, empty space. On the other hand, when $r/M \sim O(1)$, there are odd-looking complications, most notably a non-zero coupling, proportional to $a$, between motion in the azimuthal direction $\phi$ and the passage of time. That there is such a coupling suggests that particles must rotate around the black hole (i.e., change $\phi$ over time) because of the properties of the space-time itself, rather than because they have intrinsic angular momentum. The truth of this hint is seen clearly after a transformation to a closely-related system of coordinates. In this new system, $r$, $\theta$, and $t$ are the same as in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, but the azimuthal position is described in terms of what would be seen by an observer following a circular orbit in the plane of the black hole’s rotation with frequency $\omega_c = -g_{t\phi}/g_{\phi\phi}.$ The relation between the new azimuthal coordinate and the old is $d\phi^\prime = d\phi - \omega_c dt$, and the resulting metric is $$%$$
ds^2 = -{\Sigma \Delta \over A} dt^2 + {A \over \Sigma} \sin^2\theta
\left(d\phi^{\prime}\right)^2 + {\Sigma \over \Delta} dr^2
+ \Sigma d\theta^2,
%\ceno$$$$ where the new function $A$ is $$%$$
A = (r^2 + a^2)^2 -a^2 \Delta \sin^2\theta.
%\ceno$$$$ This metric is diagonal, so relative to its coordinates there is no required rotation. For this reason, it is sometimes called the “LNRF" (for “Locally Non-Rotating Frame") coordinate system. It is also sometimes called the “ZAMO" (for “Zero Angular Momentum") system because (as one can easily show), particles moving in the equatorial plane with zero angular momentum follow trajectories with $d\phi^\prime = 0$. In other words, near a black hole, even zero angular momentum orbits must rotate relative to an azimuthal coordinate system fixed with respect to distant observers. Another consequence of the metric’s diagonality is that it is easy to read off the lapse function, the gravitational redshift factor: it is $\alpha = \sqrt{\Sigma \Delta/A}$.
Further physical implications of this metric can be found by studying the behavior of the four-velocity $u^\mu \equiv dx^\mu /ds$ for any physical particle with non-zero rest-mass. As a consequence of the Equivalence Principle, particles travel along geodesics, paths that maximize accumulated proper time. The metric can then be viewed as akin to a Lagrangian and framed in terms of canonical coordinates and their conjugate momenta. Because $dx^\mu = u^\mu ds$, the covariant components of the four-velocity effectively become the momenta conjugate to the coordinates. In particular, when the metric is time-steady and axisymmetric about an axis, $u_t$ is the conserved orbital energy and $u_\phi$ is the conserved angular momentum for motion about that axis. This conserved orbital energy is often called the energy-at-infinity ($E_{\infty}$)—after all, if the orbit extends to infinity, that is still the energy it would have there. Consider, for example, a particle in a circular orbit with coordinate orbital frequency $\Omega$; that is, $\Omega = u^\phi/u^t$. With the minus sign demanded by our sign convention, its conserved energy is $$%$$
E_{\infty} = -u_t = -\left(g_{tt}u^t + g_{t\phi}u^\phi\right) =
-u^t\left(g_{tt} + g_{t\phi}\Omega\right).
%\ceno$$$$ Ordinarily, $E_{\infty} > 0$ because $g_{tt} < 0$ and $g_{t\phi}$ is small. However, close to a rapidly-rotating black hole, these sign relations can change: $g_{tt}$ becomes negative when $r < 2M$ (in the equatorial plane) and $g_{t\phi}$ can be $\sim O(1)$. This region is called the “ergosphere". Inside the ergosphere, rotations that are relatively large and retrograde can lead to $-u_t < 0$. That is, the orbital energy, even including rest-mass, can become negative!
The event horizon is found at smaller radius than the edge of the ergosphere when the black hole possesses any spin. It forms the constant-$r$ surface $r/M = 1 + \sqrt{1 - (a/M)^2}$. On that surface, $\Delta = 0$, so $g_{rr}$ (in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates) diverges. As we shall see momentarily, this is only a formal divergence and indicates nothing odd physically (or at least nothing stranger than an event horizon!).
Alternatively, motions around a rotating point-mass can be described in terms of Kerr-Schild coordinates. These differ from Boyer-Lindquist by the coordinate transformation $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
dt_{KS} &=& dt_{BL} + {2Mr \over \Delta}dr \\
dr_{KS} &=& dr_{BL}\\
d\phi_{KS} &=& d\phi_{BL} + {a \over \Delta}dr\\
d\theta_{KS} &=& d\theta_{BL}.\\
%\cr}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding metric is $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
\hskip -0.9pc
ds^2 = -&(&1 - \beta_r)dt^2 + 2\beta_r dt dr+ (1 + \beta_r)dr^2 + \Sigma d\theta^2
- 2a\beta_r\sin^2\theta dt d\phi\\
&+& \left(r^2+a^2 + {2Mra^2\sin^2\theta \over \Sigma}\right) \sin^2\theta d\phi^2
- 2a(1 + \beta_r)\sin^2\theta dr d\phi. \\
%}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ Here $\beta_r = 2Mr/\Sigma$. Note that there is no divergence in any of the metric elements at the event horizon or anywhere else (except the origin). Because physical results cannot depend on our choice of coordinates, this fact demonstrates that the Boyer-Lindquist divergence at the horizon is purely an artifact of that coordinate system. On the other hand, the same divergence occurs in the relation between these two coordinate systems. The closer to the event horizon one probes, the faster Kerr-Schild time advances relative to Boyer-Lindquist time. Similarly, close to the event horizon, the Kerr-Schild azimuthal angle advances rapidly relative to the Boyer-Lindquist azimuthal angle. Thus, the convenience the Kerr-Schild system provides in avoiding divergences is partially offset by a price paid in ease of physical interpretation.
The last comment worth making here is that often the most interesting frame in which to evaluate quantities is that of the local fluid motion itself. To do so most conveniently, one erects a local system of orthonormal unit vectors called a “tetrad". By standard convention, the tetrad element pointing in the local time direction is $\hat e^\mu_{(t)} \equiv -u^\mu$ (the minus sign is the result of our choice of metric signature). In the fluid frame, the only non-zero component of the four-velocity is the rate of advance of proper time ($=1$, of course), so this makes a natural definition of the local sense of time. There is considerable freedom in how the spatial tetrads are oriented, but it is always possible to construct a complete set via a Gram-Schmidt procedure. When such a tetrad is available, any tensor quantity may be evaluated as it would be measured in the fluid frame. All that is required is to project onto the appropriate tetrads: for example, a four-vector $X^\mu$ as seen in the fluid frame is $X^\nu \hat e_\nu^{(\mu)}$.
Electromagnetic Fields
----------------------
One way to develop an appropriately covariant formulation of electromagnetism is to begin with a 4-vector potential $A_\mu$. Its elements have the usual interpretation: the time-component is related to the electrostatic potential, while its spatial components determine the 3-vector whose curl is the magnetic field. Thus, we can construct the Maxwell tensor $$%$$
F_{\mu\nu} = \nabla_{\mu}A_\nu - \nabla_{\nu}A_\mu,
% \ceno$$$$ so that what we might call the electric field ${\cal E}^i = F_{ti}$ and the magnetic field is ${\cal B}^i = [ijk]F_{jk}$. Here $[ijk]$ is the antisymmetric permutation operator and the symbol $\nabla_\mu$ denotes a covariant derivative, i.e., a derivative that accounts for changes in the direction of local unit vectors as well as changes in vector components.
To see the electric and magnetic field components as elements of a tensor rather than as vector quantities may seem in conflict with the usual way to think about these fields. However, the Maxwell tensor can be easily related to a vector version of the fields through the construction $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
E^\mu &=& u_\nu \, ^{*}F^{\mu\nu} \\
B^\mu &=& u_\nu \, ^{*}F^{\mu\nu},\\
% \cr}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ where $^{*}F$ is the dual of $F$, i.e., $$%$$
^{*}F^{\mu\nu} = (1/2)[\alpha\beta\mu\nu]F_{\alpha\beta}.
%\ceno$$$$ In the rest frame of the fluid, only the time component of $u_\mu$ is non-zero; thus, the spatial parts of $E^\mu$ and $B^\mu$ may be interpreted as the electric and magnetic fields as they appear in the fluid rest-frame. Moreover, because the field tensor is anti-symmetric, the time-component of both $E^\mu$ and $B^\mu$ is always zero in the fluid frame.
In this language, Maxwell’s equations are simply $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
&\nabla_{\mu}& F^{\mu\nu} = 4\pi J^\nu\\
&\nabla_{\mu}& *F^{\mu\nu} = 0.\\
%\cr}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ Here the four-current density $$%$$
J^\mu = qnu^\mu,
%\ceno$$$$ for particle charge $q$, particle proper number density $n$, and four-velocity $u^\mu$.
Dynamics: the Stress-Energy Tensor
----------------------------------
Mechanics can be thought of as the conservation laws at work in the world. To apply the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in an electromagnetically-active relativistic setting, we first define the stress-energy tensor $$%$$
T^{\mu}_{\nu} = \rho h u^{\mu}u_{\nu} + pg^{\mu}_{\nu} +
{1 \over 4\pi}\left[F^{\mu\alpha}F_{\nu\alpha}
- {1 \over 4}g^{\mu}_{\nu}F^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}\right],
%\ceno$$$$ where $h = 1 + (\epsilon + p)/\rho$ is the relativistic enthalpy, $\rho$ is the proper rest-mass density, $\epsilon$ is the proper internal energy density, and $p$ is the proper pressure. The first two terms in this expression are manifestly the relativistic generalizations of the flux of momentum. The second two terms give the electromagnetic contribution, which can also be written in a more familiar-appearing way: $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
F^{\mu\alpha}F_{\nu\alpha} -
{1 \over 4}g^{\mu}_{\nu}F^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta} =
\left(||E||^2 + ||B||^2 \right)&u^\mu& u_\nu -E^{\mu}E_{\nu} - B^{\mu} B_{\nu} \\
+ &{1 \over 2}&\left(||E||^2 + ||B||^2 \right)g^{\mu}_{\nu}.\\
% \cr}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the electric and magnetic energy densities contribute to: the total energy density conveyed with the fluid (the term $\propto u^\mu u_\nu$); the pressure (the final term); and the momentum flux (the $E^\mu E_\nu$ and $B^\mu B_\nu$ terms).
When the characteristic rate at which the fields are seen to change in the fluid rest-frame is slow compared to the electron plasma frequency $(4\pi_e n e^2/m_e)^{1/2}$, the electrons can quickly respond to imposed electric fields and cancel them. Because the most rapid conceivable rate at which anything can change is $\sim c/r_g$, this criterion translates to $n_e \gg 14 (M/M_{\odot})^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$. If $E^\mu = 0$ in the fluid frame, it must be zero in all frames. In other words, the MHD condition, the limit in which charges can flow freely and quickly in response to imposed fields, places the constraint $$%$$
E^\mu = u_\nu F^{\mu\nu} = 0.
%\ceno$$$$ In the MHD limit, then, which ordinarily is very well-justified in the vicinity of a black hole, energy-momentum conservation is expressed by $$%$$
\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu}_{\nu} = \nabla_{\mu}\left\{\rho h u^{\mu}u_{\nu} +
\left(p + {||B||^2 \over 8\pi}\right)g^{\mu}_{\nu} +
{1 \over 4\pi}\left[||B||^2 u^\mu u_\nu - B^{\mu}B_{\nu}\right]\right\} = 0.
%.\ceno$$$$
Candidate Energy Sources for Jets {#sec:energysources}
=================================
Fundamentally, there are only two possible sources to tap for the energy necessary to drive a jet: the potential energy released by accreting matter and the rotational kinetic energy (more formally, the reducible energy) of a rotating black hole.
Consider the accretion energy first. The net rate at which energy is deposited in a ring of an accretion disk is the difference between the divergences of two energy fluxes: Inter-ring stresses do work, thereby transferring energy outward, while accreting matter brings its energy inward. However, there is an inherent mismatch between these two divergences, which in a steady-state disk is always positive. That is, the energy deposited by the divergence of the work done by stress always outweighs the diminution in energy due to the net inflow of binding energy brought by accretion. If disk dynamics alone are considered, there are only two possible ways to achieve balance: by radiation losses or by inward advection of the heat dissipated along with the accretion flow. However, in principle the heat could also be used to drive an outflow, e.g., a jet.
These qualitative statements are readily translated to the quantitative stress-tensor language just formulated. In the simple case of a time-steady and axisymmetric disk (viewed in the orbiting frame), $$\begin{aligned}
\int \, dz \left\{ \partial_r \left[\rho h u^r u_t
+ \frac{1}{4\pi}\left(||B||^2 u^r u_t - B^r B_t\right)\right]
+ \partial_z T^z_t \right\} &=& 0\\
\partial_r \int \, dz \, \left[T^r_t({\rm matter}) + T^r_t({\rm EM})\right]
+ 2F &=& 0.\\\end{aligned}$$ Here $T^z_t$ is nothing other than the vertical flux of energy, perhaps in radiation, hence the natural identification of $T^z_t$ at the top and bottom surfaces as the outward flux $F$. Because that outward flux cannot be negative in an isolated accretion flow, the net energy deposited by work must always exceed the loss due to inflow.
How this dissipation takes place is, of course, unspecified by arguments based on conservation laws. Given the preeminence of magnetic forces in driving accretion, we can reasonably expect most of the heat to be generated by dissipating magnetic field. Reconnection events and other examples of anomalous resistivity such as ion transit-time damping, etc. are good candidate mechanisms, but little definite is known about this subject (see, e.g., [@kuz07] and references therein). Nonetheless, given the nature of all these mechanisms, which are characteristically triggered by sharp gradients, it is very likely that the heating is highly localized and intermittent. For this reason, it is quite plausible that the dissipation rate is sufficiently concentrated as to drive small amounts of matter to temperatures comparable to or greater than the local virial temperature. If this is the case, disk dissipation could substantially contribute to driving outflows.
Disk heating may also help expel outflows through a different mechanism: radiation forces. As mentioned before, the energy of net disk heating can be carried off by radiation. Because the acceleration due to radiation is $\kappa \vec{\cal F}/c$, wherever the opacity per unit mass $\kappa$ is high enough, radiation-driven outward acceleration may surpass the inward acceleration of gravity. Although most other elements of accretion dynamics onto black holes are insensitive to the central mass, the opacity, through its dependence on temperature, can depend strongly on it. In particular, the opacity of disk matter in the inner rings of AGN disks, where the temperature is only $\sim 10^5$ K, may be several orders of magnitude greater than in the inner rings of Galactic black hole disks, where the temperature is so high ($\sim 10^7$ K) that almost all elements are thoroughly ionized. It may consequently be rather easier for AGN disks to expel radiation-driven winds than for Galactic black holes, even though the accretion rate is still well below Eddington.
Black hole rotation may also power outflows. The Second Law of Black Hole Thermodynamics decrees that the area of a black hole cannot decrease, but diminishing spin (at constant mass) [*increases*]{} the area. Consequently, a black hole of mass $M$ and spin parameter $a$ has a reducible mass, that is, an amount of mass-energy that can be yielded to the outside world, of $1 - [(1+\sqrt{1-(a/M)^2})/2]^{1/2}$.
Given the intuitive picture of a black hole as an object that only accepts mass and energy, one might reasonably ask how one can give up energy. One way to recognize that this may be possible is to observe that the rotational frame-dragging a spinning black hole imposes on its vicinity permits it to do work on external matter, and in that way lose energy. Another way to see the same point is to recall that it is possible for particles inside the ergosphere to find themselves on negative energy orbits. If they cross the event horizon on such a trajectory, their negative contribution to the black hole’s mass-energy results in a net decrease of its mass-energy, or a release of energy to the outside world, as originally pointed out by [@p69]. These negative energy orbits in general involve retrograde rotation, and so likewise bring negative angular momentum to the black hole. Collisions between a pair of positive energy particles that result in one of the two being put onto a negative energy orbit and then captured by the black hole are called the “Penrose process", and are the archetypal mechanism for deriving energy from a rotating black hole. Perhaps regrettably, the kinematic constraints for such collisions are so severe as to make them extremely rare [@bpt72].
It is also possible for electromagnetic fields to bring negative energy and angular momentum through the event horizon. Consider, for example, an accretion flow that is in the MHD limit, so that the magnetic field and the matter are tied together. The Poynting flux at the event horizon can then be outward even while the flow moves inward if the electromagnetic energy-at-infinity is negative. As shown by [@k05], the density of this quantity can be written (in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates) as $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
e_{\infty,EM}/\alpha &=& -T^t_t (EM) \\
&=& -(1/2)g^{tt}\left[ g^{rr} ({\cal E}^r)^2
+ g^{\theta\theta}({\cal E}^\theta)^2 + g^{\phi\phi}({\cal E}^\phi)^2\right]
+ (1/2)\left(g^{t\phi} {\cal E}^\phi\right)^2 \\
&+& \left[ g^{\theta\theta}g^{\phi\phi} ({\cal B}^r)^2
+ g^{rr}g^{\phi\phi}({\cal B}^\theta)^2 +
g^{rr}g^{\theta\theta}({\cal B}^\phi)^2\right].\\
%\cr} \ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ Here $T^\mu_\nu(EM)$ is the electromagnetic part of the stress-energy tensor, and ${\cal E}^i,{\cal B}^i$ are the elements of the Maxwell tensor. If all the spatial metric elements were positive-definite, $e_{\infty,EM}$ would be likewise ($g^{tt} < 0$). However, inside the ergosphere $g^{\phi\phi} < 0$. Thus, wherever inside the ergosphere the poloidal components of the magnetic field and the toroidal component of the electric field are large, the electromagnetic energy-at-infinity can become negative.
There is a close analogy between negative electromagnetic energy-at-infinity and negative mechanical energy-at-infinity. In the case of particle orbits, the energy goes negative when the motion is in the ergosphere, and is sufficiently rapidly retrograde with respect to the black hole spin. As [@kom08] has shown, electromagnetic waves have negative energy-at-infinity when their normalized wave-vector as viewed in the ZAMO frame has an azimuthal component $< -\alpha/\omega_c$. This becomes possible only inside the ergosphere because it is only there that $\alpha < \omega_c$. In addition, this constraint demonstrates that negative electromagnetic energy-at-infinity is also associated with motion that is sufficiently rapidly retrograde.
The Blandford-Znajek Mechanism {#sec:b-z}
==============================
As we have already seen, it is possible for black holes to give up energy to the outside world both by swallowing material particles of negative energy and by accepting negative energy electromagnetic fields. The latter mechanism can be much more effective. That this is so is largely due to the large-scale connections that magnetic fields can provide, as first noticed by [@bz77].
In that extremely influential paper, Blandford and Znajek pointed out that a magnetic fieldline stretching from infinity to deep inside a rotating black hole’s ergosphere can readily transport energy from the black hole outward. For its original formulation, the Blandford-Znajek mechanism was envisioned in an extremely simple way: a set of axisymmetric purely poloidal fieldlines stretch from infinity to the edge of the event horizon and back out to infinity, and are in a stationary state of force-free equilibrium. There is just enough plasma to support the currents associated with this magnetic field and to cancel the electric field in every local fluid frame, but its inertia is entirely negligible. These assumptions were relaxed slightly in the work of [@p83], who showed that inserting just enough inertia of matter to distinguish the magnetosonic speed from $c$ does not materially alter the result.
Given these assumptions, the Poynting flux on the black hole horizon can be found very simply in terms of the magnitude of the radial component of the magnetic field there and the rotation rate of the field lines. Because $E_\mu = 0$, the electromagnetic invariant $\vec E \cdot \vec B = E_\mu B^\mu = 0$. This, in turn, implies that $^{*}F^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu} = 0$. When the fields are both axisymmetric and time-steady, the product of the Maxwell tensors reduces to a single identity $$\label{BZident}
%$$
\left(\partial_\theta A_{\phi}\right)\left(\partial_r A_{t}\right) =
\left(\partial_\theta A_t\right)\left(\partial_r A_\phi\right).
%\ceno$$$$ Also because of the assumed stationarity and axisymmetry, $$\begin{aligned}
%$$\eqalign{
\partial_r A_t &=& {\cal E}^r \\
\partial_\theta A_\phi &=& {\cal B}^r \\
\partial_\theta A_t &=& {\cal E}^\theta \\
\partial_r A_\phi &=& {\cal B}^\theta .\\
% \cr}\ceno$$\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the identity of equation \[BZident\] may be rewritten as $$%$$
{{\cal E}^\theta \over {\cal B}^r} = {{\cal E}^r \over {\cal B^\theta}}.
%\ceno$$$$ Because rotation through a magnetic field creates an electric field, both ratios in the previous equation can be interpreted as a rotation rate $\Omega_F$ associated with the poloidal field lines.
With all these relations in hand, it is straightforward to evaluate the electromagnetic energy flux, i.e., the electromagnetic part of $-T^r_t$. As [@mg04] pointed out, the algebra to do this is more concise in Kerr-Schild coordinates than in Boyer-Lindquist, and the result is: $$%$$
{\cal F} = -\Omega_F\sin^2\theta \left[2({\cal B}^r)^2 r\left(\Omega_F -
\frac{a/M}{2r}\right)
+ {\cal B}^r{\cal B}^\phi \left(r^2 - 2r + (a/M)^2\right)\right]
%\ceno $$$$ At the horizon, $r^2 - 2r + (a/M)^2 = 0$, and the rotation rate of the black hole itself $\Omega_H = (a/M)/(2r)$, so $${\cal F}_H = -2\Omega_F\sin^2\theta({\cal B}^r)^2 r\left(\Omega_F - \Omega_H\right).$$ Note that outgoing flux depends critically on the field lines rotating more slowly than the black hole. Because spacetime itself immediately outside the horizon rotates at $\Omega_H$ (as viewed by a distant observer), if there is some load that always keeps the field lines moving more slowly, there is a consistent stress through which the black hole does work on the field.
This formula neatly describes the Poynting flux in terms of the strength of the magnetic field and its rotation rate, but on its own it cannot tell us the luminosity of the system because both the strength of the field itself and the field line rotation rate are left entirely undetermined. In [@bz77], ${\cal B}^r$ and ${\cal B}^\phi$ are found in terms of a field strength at infinity by assuming a specific field configuration (split monopole or paraboloidal) and performing an expansion in small $a/M$. Separately, MacDonald and Thorne [@mt82] argued that the power generated was maximized when $\Omega_F = (1/2)\Omega_H$, where $\Omega_H$ is the rotation rate of the black hole itself. However, the Blandford-Znajek model [*per se*]{} has no ability to determine either the magnitude of the field intensity or the field line rotation rate.
Raising a specific version of the general question about how rotating black holes can give up energy, Punsly and Coroniti [@p90] questioned whether this mechanism can operate on the ground that no causal signal can travel outward from the event horizon. A summary answer to their question is that the actual conditions determining outward energy flow are determined well outside the event horizon, and that accretion of negative energy is possible when the black hole rotates. In addition, only rotating black holes have reducible mass that can be lost. This summary can be elaborated from several points of view, all of which are equivalent.
One, which we have already mentioned, but was not explored in the original Blandford-Znajek paper, is that EM fields deep in the ergosphere can be driven to negative energy by radiating Alfven waves outward. Accretion of those negative EM energy regions then amounts to an outward Poynting flux on the event horizon. In the special case of stationary flow, a critical surface outside the event horizon can be found within which information travels only inward. The inward flux of negative electromagnetic energy may then be considered to be determined at this critical point [@t90; @bz00].
Another, which can be found in [@tpm86], is to note that the enforced rotation of fieldlines within the ergosphere creates an electric field. This electric field can in turn drive currents that carry usable energy off to infinity. Indeed, [@kom08] argues that such a poloidal current is part-and-parcel of the plasma’s electric field screening.
A third way to look at this same process is that frame-dragging forces fieldlines to rotate that would otherwise be purely radial. As a result, toroidal field components are created—and transverse field is the prerequisite for Poynting flux.
Although the Punsly-Coroniti question has now been put to rest, there are a number of other questions left unanswered by the classical form of the Blandford-Znajek model. Because it is a time-steady solution, by definition it does not consider how the field got to its equilibrium configuration. One might then ask, in the context of trying to understand why certain black holes support strong jets and others don’t, whether [*intrinsic*]{} large-scale field is a prerequisite for jet formation, or whether field structures contained initially within the accretion flow can expand to provide this large-scale field framework. Another question is whether the force-free (or nearly force-free) assumption, while surely valid in much of the jet, yields a complete solution: for example, in the equatorial plane of the accretion flow, one would generally expect a breakdown in this condition; could that affect the global character of the jet generated? Still another question would be how we can extend this model quantitatively to more general field shapes and higher spin parameters. Lastly, if field lines threading the event horizon can carry Poynting flux to infinity, perhaps they can also carry Poynting flux to the much nearer accretion disk: is there an interaction between Blandford-Znajek-like behavior and accretion?
As we shall see, explicit MHD simulations make these approximations and limitations unnecessary and allow us to answer (or at least begin to answer) many of the questions left open by the original form of the Blandford-Znajek idea. These numerical calculations explicitly find the magnetic field at the horizon on the basis of the field brought to the black hole by the accretion flow, as well as the coefficients that replace $\Omega_F$ when, because of time-variability and a breakdown of axisymmetry, it is no longer possible to give that quantity a clear definition. They can also determine the shape of the field, its connection to the disk, etc., and work just as well when $a/M$ approaches unity as when it approaches zero.
What Simulations Can and Cannot Do {#sec:simscant}
==================================
Before presenting the results of jet-launching simulations, it is worthwhile first to put them in proper context by explaining which questions they can answer well, and which not so well. Some of the considerations governing these distinctions are built into the very nature of numerical simulations, but others merely reflect the limitations of the current state-of-the-art.
First and foremost, simulation codes are devices for solving algebraically complicated, nonlinear, coupled partial differential equations. After discretization, these equations can be solved by a variety of numerical algorithms designed so that, when applied properly, the solutions that are found converge to the correct continuous solution as the discretization is made finer and finer. Analytic methods are far weaker at solving problems of this kind, particularly those with strong nonlinearities. The ability to cope with nonlinearity makes numerical methods especially advantageous for studying problems involving strong turbulence (an essential ingredient of accretion disks), as turbulence is fundamentally nonlinear. In addition, algorithms can be devised that maintain important constraints (e.g., $\nabla \cdot \vec B = 0$, energy and momentum conservation, etc.) to machine accuracy. Employing these built-in constraints, most jet/accretion codes are very good, for example, at conserving angular momentum and using the induction equation to follow the time-dependence of the magnetic field.
A brief discussion of the two principal varieties of code that have been employed to date will serve to illustrate how their methods achieve these ends. One such family (exemplified by the Hawley-De Villiers general relativistic MHD code [*GRMHD*]{} [@dVh03]) derives from the [*Zeus*]{} code [@sn92]. In these codes, hyperbolic partial differential equations that are first-order in time but of arbitrary order in space are written as finite difference equations of the form $$U_i^{k+1}(\mathbf{x}) = U_i^{k}(\mathbf{x}) +
\left[S_i^k(\mathbf{x}) + T_i^k(\mathbf{x})\right]\Delta t,$$ where the quantity $U_i^k$ is one of the dependent variables (velocity, density, magnetic field , etc.) at the $k$-th time-step at spatial grid-point $\mathbf{x}$, and $\Delta t$ is the length of the time-step. The various terms that may enter into defining the time-derivative are divided into “source" terms $S_i$, terms that are local in some sense (e.g., the pressure gradient) and “transport" terms $T_i$, terms that describe advection (e.g., the terms describing the passive transport of momentum or energy with the flow). The source and transport terms are generally handled separately. When conserved quantities are carried in the transport terms, time-centered differencing can improve the fidelity with which they are conserved. Organizing the grid so that the dominant velocity component is along a grid axis also improves the quality of conservation for the momentum component in that direction. Although not strictly speaking a requirement of this method, it is most often implemented with an energy equation that follows only the thermal energy of the gas, ignoring any interchange between that energy reservoir and the orbital and magnetic energy, except as required by shocks. Coherent motions automatically conserve orbital energy through the conservation of momentum, but this approximation ignores losses of kinetic and magnetic energy that occur as a result of gridscale numerical dissipation. The reason for this choice is that in many cases the thermal energy is so small compared to the orbital energy that it would be ill-defined numerically if a total energy equation were solved and the thermal energy only found later by subtracting the other, much larger, contributions to the total.
The other family organizes the equations differently. In this approach (e.g., the general relativistic MHD codes [*HARM*]{} [@gmt03] and [*HARM3D*]{} [@nk08]), conservation laws are automatically obeyed precisely because the equations of motion are written in conservation form, i.e., $$\frac{\partial U_i}{\partial t} = -\nabla \cdot \mathbf{F_i} + S_i,$$ with $U_i$ a density, $\mathbf{F_i}$ the corresponding flux, and $S_i$ again the source term. Individual Riemann problems are solved across each cell boundary in order to guarantee conservation of all the quantities that should be conserved. However, because the conserved densities and fluxes are often defined in terms of underlying “primitive variables" (e.g., momentum density is $\rho \vec v$), after the time-advance one must solve a set of nonlinear algebraic equations to find the new primitive variables implied by the new conserved densities. Clearly, in this method, it is hoped that the advantages of conserving total energy outweigh the disadvantages of local thermal energies that may be subject to large numerical error.
In both styles, an initially divergence-free magnetic field can be maintained in that condition by an artful solution of the induction equation called the “constrained transport" or CT method [@eh88; @t00]. The essential idea behind this scheme is to rewrite the differenced form of the induction equation as an integral equation over each cell, and then use Stokes’ Theorem to transform cell-face integrals of $\nabla \times (\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B})$ into cell-edge integrals of $\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}$. Because the latter can be done exactly, the induction equation itself can be solved exactly, and the divergence-free condition preserved.
Unfortunately, however, this list of the strengths of numerical methods does not encompass all possible problems that arise in black hole jet studies. Contemporary algorithms are particularly weak in those aspects involving thermodynamics. Two large gaps in our knowledge, one about algorithms, the other about physics, make this a very difficult subject: First, as in most areas of astrophysics, temperature regulation is the result of photon emission, but there are as yet no methods for solving 3-d time-dependent radiation transfer problems quickly enough that they would not drastically slow down a dynamical simulation code. Second, although the dense and optically thick conditions inside most accretion disks make it very plausible that all particle distribution functions are very close to thermodynamic equilibrium, outside disks, whether in their coronae or, even more so, in their associated jets, this assumption is, to put it mildly, highly questionable. We would need a far better understanding of plasma microphysics to improve upon this situation. The combination of these two gaps makes it very hard to determine reliably the local pressure (whether due to thermalized atoms, non-thermal particles, or radiation), and associated hydrodynamic forces. As a result, the most reliable results of these calculations have to do with dynamics for which gravity and magnetic forces dominate pressure gradients.
Limitations in computing power create the next set of stumbling blocks. The nonlinearities of turbulence may be thought of as transferring energy from motions on one length scale to motions on another. Generally speaking, turbulence is stirred on comparatively long scales, these nonlinear interactions move the energy to much finer scale motions, and a variety of kinetic mechanisms, generically increasing in power as the scale of variation diminishes, dissipate the energy into heat. Unfortunately, the computer time required in order to run a given 3-d simulation with spatial resolution better by a factor of $R$ scales as $R^4$ (three powers from the increased number of spatial cells, one power from the tighter numerical stability limit on the size of the timestep). Consequently, they are generally severely limited in the dynamic range they may describe between the long stirring length scale and the shortest scale describable, the gridscale. The gridscale is therefore almost always many many orders of magnitude larger than the physical dissipation scale.
If MHD turbulence in accretion behaves like hydrodynamic Kolmogorov turbulence in the sense that it develops an “inertial range" in which energy flux from large scales to small is conserved, the fact that the gridscale is much larger than the true dissipation scale wouldn’t matter: all the energy injected on the large scales is ultimately dissipated by dissipation operating on fluctuations of some length scale, and we don’t much care whether that happens on scales smaller by a factor of $10^{-2}$ or $10^{-10}$. However, it is possible that MHD is different because it is subject to (at least) two dissipation mechanisms, resistivity as well as viscosity. If the ratio between these two rates (the Prandtl number) is far from unity, the nature of the turbulence could be qualitatively altered, potentially in a way that influences even behavior on the largest scales [@f07]. These questions are particularly troubling in regard to jet launching because (as we shall see later), the efficiency with which magnetic fields generated by MHD turbulence in accretion disks can be used to power jets may depend on the field topology, and magnetic reconnection, which depends strongly on poorly-understood or modeled dissipation mechanisms, alters topology.
Another problem whose origin lies in finite computational power is the difficulty in using one simulation to predict behavior of the system under different parameters. In contrast to analytic solutions, a single numerical simulation only rarely points clearly to how the result would change if its parameters were altered. However, the scale of the effort required to run simulations makes it nearly impossible to do large-scale parameter studies: Typical computer allocations allow any one person to do at most 5–10 simulations per year; each one may take a month or so to run to completion; and analysis of a single simulation often takes several months of human time. Thus, scaling the results to other circumstances is in general very challenging.
Lastly, there is a fundamental limitation to numerical methods: the solution they find depends on the initial and boundary conditions chosen as well as on the equations and their dimensionless parameters. Our goal is generally to find what Nature does, but the initial and boundary conditions for a simulation are usually chosen on the basis of human convenience. This means, for example, that there may be equilibrium solutions that are never encountered in a simulation because the initial condition was, in some sense, “too far away"; put in other language, the radius of convergence for the iterative solution represented by the time-advance of the simulation may not be large enough for the simulation to find the equilibrium. Similarly, when there are several stable equilibria available, any one simulation can settle into at most one of them. On other occasions, boundary conditions can subtly prevent a simulation from evolving into a configuration that Nature actually permits. In the context of jet maintenance, the most important of these imponderable issues (or at least, the most important ones of which we are currently aware) have to do with the magnetic field structure. We know neither the topology of the field supplied in the accretion flow, nor do we know to what degree it has a fixed large-scale structure imposed by conditions at very large distance from the black hole. It is also very hard to imagine a way in which we might learn more about either of these two questions. Thus, the best we can do is to explore the consequences of a variety of choices; if we are fortunate, we may find that some of the options don’t make much difference to the astrophysical questions of greatest interest.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
As we have seen, what determines the strength and structure of the magnetic field near the black hole is the central question for studies of relativistic jet launching. Any attempt to answer this question must therefore be carefully structured so as to avoid embedding the answer in the assumptions. Because it is not always easy to predict which assumptions are truly innocuous, here we will report what has been found to date and then discuss potential dependences upon parameters, boundary conditions, and the set of physical processes considered.
The simplest case
-----------------
The configuration that has been studied most is arguably the simplest: A finite amount of mass in an axisymmetric hydrostatic equilibrium is placed in orbit a few tens of gravitational radii from the black hole, its equatorial plane identical to the equatorial plane of the rotating spacetime. The initial magnetic field is entirely contained within the matter, so that there is no net magnetic flux and no magnetic field on either the outer boundary or the event horizon. Because the gas density declines monotonically away from a central peak, one can identify the initial magnetic field lines with the density contours, so that they form large concentric dipolar loops [@mg04; @dVhkh05; @hk06].
Starting from this configuration, the field line segments on the inner side of the loops are rapidly pushed toward the black hole, arriving there well before much accretion of matter has taken place. Unburdened by any significant inertia, they expand rapidly into the near-vacuum above the plunging region, where a centrifugal barrier prevents any matter with even a small amount of angular momentum from ever entering. Because the vertical component of the magnetic field on the inner field lines has a consistent sign in both hemispheres, within a short time individual field lines run from far up along the rotation axis in the upper hemisphere to equally far down along the axis in the lower hemisphere, passing close outside the horizon when they cross the equatorial plane. Just as predicted by the Blandford-Znajek picture, a rotating black hole forces an otherwise radial field to develop a transverse component, as shown in Fig. \[fig:rotfieldlines\]. Note how the winding of the field lines is tightest close to the event horizon, where frame-dragging is strongest.
![Field lines near a black hole rotating with $a/M = 0.9$ [@hkh04]. The background colors illustrate matter density on a logarithmic scale, calibrated by a color bar found in the upper left-hand corner. The axes show Boyer-Lindquist radial coordinate.[]{data-label="fig:rotfieldlines"}](chap10_twistedfieldlines.eps){height="6cm"}
We stressed earlier that the classical Blandford-Znajek model predicts the luminosity in terms of the radial component of the magnetic field on the horizon and the rotation rate of the field lines, but gives no guidance about how to estimate the former, and only a guess about the latter. In the Newtonian limit far from the innermost stable circular orbit, the field-strength is tightly coupled to the accretion rate because angular momentum conservation requires $$- \int \, dz \, \langle B_r B_\phi \rangle \simeq {\dot M \Omega \over 2\pi}.$$ Close to the black hole, this relation remains correct as an order of magnitude estimator. Consequently, when the field is directly associated with accretion, its intensity near the black hole should be proportional to $\dot M$. Using simulation data, [@hk06] confirmed this expected proportionality, but found that spin matters, too: $$\langle \frac{B^2}{8\pi} \rangle \simeq \frac{0.01}{1 - a/M}
\frac{\dot M c^5}{(GM)^2},$$ where the magnetic energy is measured in the fluid frame at the event horizon.
Despite the fact that the accretion flow sets the scale of magnetic intensity, the inertia of matter has little to do with field dynamics near the rotation axis. As already mentioned, any matter with even the angular momentum of the last stable orbit is excluded from a cone surrounding the axis. Within that cone, the field is force-free in the sense that $||B||^2/(4\pi \rho h c^2) \gg 1$. However, it should also be recognized that simulations like those done to date are not able to define quantitatively just how large this ratio is. Precisely because the matter’s angular momentum makes the interior of the cone forbidden territory, any matter in the jet cone got there by some numerical artifact, either exercise of a code density floor or through numerical error associated with insufficient resolution of the extremely sharp density gradient at the centrifugal barrier. The enthalpy of the gas is equally poorly known, but that is because the treatment of thermodynamics in global simulations thus far is so primitive. Thus, the most one can say at this point is that, in a purely qualitative sense, the interior of the jet cone should be magnetically dominated. For exactly these reasons, the Lorentz factor of the outflow is equally ill-determined.
Although even defining a field line rotation rate for time-dependent non-axisymmetric fields is a bit dicey, it is possible to do so in an approximate way by monitoring the azimuthal velocity of the matter attached to the field lines, and subtracting off the portion attributable to sliding along the field lines. For example, if one defines the “transport velocity" by $V^i \equiv u^i/u^t$, in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates the local field line rotation rate $\omega$ can be written as $$\omega = V^\phi - B^\phi{V^r B^r g_{rr} + V^\theta B^\theta g_{\theta\theta}
\over (B^r)^2 g_{rr} (B^\theta)^2 g_{\theta\theta}}.$$ As Fig. \[fig:omegafield\] shows, after averaging radially, the rotation rate is close to the MacDonald-Thorne guess, perhaps 10–$20\%$ less, with surprisingly little variation in polar angle through the jet [@mg04; @hk06].
![Radially- and time-averaged local field line rotation rate (solid curve) as a function of polar angle for a simulation in which the black hole has spin parameter $a/M = 0.95$ [@hk06]. The dotted curve is half the black hole’s rotation rate, the dash-dot curve is half the rotation rate of the inner boundary of the simulation, which is slightly outside the event horizon. \[fig:omegafield\]](chap10_omegafield.ps){height="6cm"}
Strikingly, even when the accreting matter orbits [*opposite*]{} the sense of rotation of the black hole, the field lines in the jet rotate with the black hole, not the matter [@hk06]. This fact makes it clear that the primary motive power for the jet is drawn from the black hole, [*not*]{} matter circulating deep inside the ergosphere to which the field lines are attached.
Normalized to the rest-mass accretion rate in traditional fashion, the jet luminosity can be sizable when the black hole spins rapidly. Both [@mg04] and [@hk06] made rough analytic fits to the dependence on spin: $$\eta_{\rm EM} \simeq
\cases{0.068\left\{1 + [1-(a/M)^2] - 2\sqrt{1-(a/M)^2}\right\} &
\hbox{\cite{mg04}}\cr
0.002/(1 - |a/M|) & \hbox{\cite{hk06}}\cr}$$ Although these expressions do not agree precisely, they agree at a qualitative level: the efficiency can be $\sim 0.1$ at the highest spins, but is much smaller for $|a/M| < 0.9$. That the efficiency can be so high when the black hole spins rapidly is of some interest, given qualitative arguments (e.g., [@lop99]) that the luminosities of jets driven directly by a black hole could never be significant.
Because the field lines in the jet rotate, it carries angular momentum as well as energy away from the black hole. The electromagnetic angular momentum delivered to infinity by the jet can be comparable to the conventional angular momentum brought to the black hole by accretion [@gsm04; @hk06; @bhk08], particularly when the black hole spins rapidly. In fact, [@gsm04] argued that the electromagnetic angular momentum lost in the jet rises so steeply with black hole spin that it may limit $a/M$ to $\simeq 0.93$, a level considerably below the limiting spin proposed by [@t74], who suggested that preferential capture of photons emitted by the disk on retrograde orbits would cap $a/M$ at $\simeq 0.998$.
A slightly more complicated case: the effect of field geometry
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beckwith et al. [@bhk08] explored other options for the magnetic field’s initial geometry beyond that of the simplest model, including: a pair of quadrupolar loops, one above and one below the plane, with their field directions coinciding on adjacent edges; a purely toroidal field; and a sequence of four dipolar loops, each rather narrow in radial extent. All of these were far less effective in terms of time-averaged jet luminosity than the large dipolar loop initial state: the quadrupolar case by two orders of magnitude, the toroidal by three!
The explanation for these strong contrasts changes with the geometric symmetry in question. Quadrupolar loops residing in a single hemisphere can rise buoyantly as a single unit and collapse, reconnecting with themselves. Jets arising from that kind of field therefore tend to be highly episodic, with only brief moments of high luminosity. Toroidal fields cannot produce poloidal field on scales larger than roughly the disk thickness, so their jets are always weak. A train of dipolar loops leads to a succession of jet-launching and jet-destruction events, separated in time by the difference in inflow times between their inner and outer edges.
Open questions
--------------
Before directly applying the results of this simplest model to black holes in Nature, we must first answer several questions about its generality.
### Do zero net-flux simulations describe a steady-state jet?
Although these jets are long-lasting, they behave in certain ways as if the flux had been placed on the black hole as an initial condition (it arrives well before the accretion flow and then stays there, with little change). Moreover, although it may take a long time, eventually the far end of the large dipole loops must reach the black hole, and at that point reconnection will eliminate the field driving the jet. To gain a sense of the timescales involved, in the $\sim 10^4 GM/c^3$ duration of these simulations, $\sim 10\%$ of the disk mass was accreted. One might guess, then, that the ultimate field annihilation would occur after $\sim 10^5 GM/c^3$. For Galactic black hole binaries, this is only $\sim 5$ s; for AGN, it might be $\sim 5 \times 10^5$–$5 \times 10^8$ s, or no more than a few decades.
On the other hand, we do not know the true extent of such loops. It is at least conceivable that they might be much larger in radial extent, and the rapid increase of inflow time with radius might lead to much longer intervals between jet-field destruction events. If so, though temporary, these jets (especially in AGN) might be sufficiently long-lived as to be observationally interesting. Alternatively, one of the salient empirical facts about the jets we observe is that they are generally very unsteady. If another field loop follows close upon the heels of the one that just closed, the jet might be restored equally quickly. In this sense, the picture just described could give a better sense of the typical state of the jet.
### What is the generic zero net-flux magnetic configuration?
Different zero net-flux magnetic geometries can lead to jets of drastically different character—how can we know which geometry (or mix of geometries) is present in any particular real object? It might seem “natural" to suppose that Nature is messy and serves up all possibilities at once, but when the different geometries differ in their results by orders of magnitude, the specific proportions matter a great deal. On the other hand, perhaps when the source of the accretion flow is a relatively ordered structure (e.g., a companion star in a binary system), the magnetic field delivered to the black hole, even while possessing no net flux, might be predominantly of a single topological character. One might speculate (as did [@bhk08]) that changes in the predominant topology might be related to observable changes in jet strength, for example, as seen in galactic black hole binaries.
### What would be the effect of net magnetic flux?
Major open questions also remain in regard to a different sort of ill-understood magnetic geometry: the possible presence of large-scale magnetic field threading the accretion disk and possibly the immediate environs of the black hole. This is a very controversial issue: advocates exist for almost the entire range of possible answers, from very large to nil. On the one hand, if the accreting gas is truly infinitely conductive, it should hold onto any large-scale field threading it and bring that flux to the event horizon of the black hole. Even if successive parcels carry oppositely-directed flux, the magnitude of the flux will have a non-zero expectation value $\sim \sqrt{N}\Phi$, where $N$ is the number of accumulated flux ropes and $\Phi$ is their typical individual magnitude [@tpm86]. On the other hand, when gas is accreted by a black hole, the characteristic length scale of variation for the magnetic field contained within it must shrink by many orders of magnitude. Severe bends must then be created in any field lines stretching to large distance, and extremely thorough reconnection may therefore be expected. In principle, [*all*]{} the field within the inner part of the accretion flow may lose contact with large-scale fields by this mechanism. Presumably, the correct story lies somewhere between these two extremes.
A sense of the range of views brought to bear on this problem may be gained by mentioning a few of the contending approaches. [@lpp94] attempted to define the problem in terms of the ratio between the accretion flow’s magnetic diffusivity and effective viscosity (in modern language, $\langle-B_r B_\phi\rangle/(6\pi \rho \Omega)$). They argued that this ratio, an effective magnetic Prandtl number, determines whether fields are locked to the accretion flow (and must therefore bend sharply as they leave the disk) or can slip backwards relative to the flow (and therefore stay pretty much where they started, without being forced to bend substantially). Unfortunately, the distance between this sort of “lumped parameter" approach and the actual microphysics is great enough that this approach hardly suffices to decide the issue. More recently, some (e.g. [@su05]) have argued that clumps of flux could self-induce inflow by losing angular momentum through a magnetic wind, while others (e.g. [@rl08]) have suggested that little net magnetic flux inflow would occur because turbulent resistivity inside the disk effectively disconnects large-scale field lines from the accretion flow in the interior of the disk. As this sampling of the literature indicates, the matter remains highly unsettled.
It is, however, potentially an important question because large-scale flux running through the disk could have important effects both on its accretion dynamics and on its ability to support a jet. Simulational studies of MHD turbulence in shearing boxes suggest that net vertical flux can strongly enhance the saturation level of the turbulence [@sits04]. How much of this effect is automatically embedded in global simulations by field loops that connect different radii remains unclear. In regard to jets, a consistent sense of vertical field would certainly serve to stabilize a base luminosity against the disruption that quadrupolar loops, etc. can create.
This issue could have significant observable consequences because the specific character of the large-scale field may depend strongly on black hole environment. One could well imagine that the field brought to the black hole by accretion from a stellar companion has more organized large-scale structure than the field threading turbulent interstellar gas accreting onto a black hole in a galactic nucleus. It is possible that long-term magnetic cycles in the companion star of a binary black hole system are connected to long-term changes in the state of the accretion flow and jet. There could even be cases intermediate between field entirely contained within the accretion flow and field with large-scale constraints: this might be the situation in a collapsing star in which extremely rapid accretion onto a nascent black hole drives a jet that creates a $\gamma$-ray burst [@bk08].
### Does the condition of the matter matter?
As remarked earlier, neither the density nor enthalpy of the matter in the jet can be determined quantitatively by simulations done to date. Although part of the difficulty is numerical, there are also serious unsolved physics (and astrophysical contextual) problems standing in the way. If there were, for example, a supply of matter with substantially smaller angular momentum than the matter in the accretion flow proper, it would see only a low centrifugal barrier and could enter the jet cone. Its thermal state would surely depend on whether there are numerous low-energy photons passing through the jet for the gas’s electrons to upscatter (as in the case of AGN) or very few (as in the case of a microquasar in a low-hard state). In the sort of collapsing star that might be the central engine for a $\gamma$-ray burst, the thermal state of gas in the vicinity of the jet would depend on its nuclear composition and the neutrino intensity. Although the launching of relativistic jets by black holes may be only weakly-dependent on the state of the matter it carries so long as $B^2/(4\pi \rho h) \gg 1$, the subsequent dynamics of the jet—its ultimate Lorentz factor, for example—are likely sensitive to these considerations.
Conclusions
===========
Because work in this field is moving forward rapidly, any conclusions pronounced at this stage must be limited and preliminary. Nonetheless, results to date are certainly strong enough to give us some confidence that jet-launching mechanisms within the Blandford-Znajek conceptual family play a major role in this process. Magnetic fields that link distant regions with regions deep in the ergosphere have now been shown by explicit example to have the power, at least in principle, to tap the rotational energy of spinning black holes.
The progress that has been achieved so far rests on computational solutions of equations that, at least within the terms of the MHD approximation, express essentially ab initio physics. It is the direct connection to bed-rock physics (momentum-energy conservation, Maxwell’s Equations, etc.) that gives us confidence that their results are meaningful and robust. Greater contact with observations will become possible when the physics contained in these calculations is expanded to include better descriptions both of how matter enters the jet and of how it couples to radiation. Although it will be difficult to build foundations for these parts of the problem as securely-based as those of the dynamics, it may yet be possible to do so at a level permitting some reasonable testing by comparison with real data.
[99.]{}
S.A. Balbus, J.F. Hawley: RMP **70**, 1 J.M. Bardeen, W.H Press, S.A. Teukolsky: Ap.J. **178**, 347 (1972) M.V. Barkov, S.S. Komissarov: M.N.R.A.S. **385**, L28 (2008) K.R.C. Beckwith, J.F. Hawley, J.H. Krolik: Ap.J. **678**, 1180 (2008) V.S. Beskin, I.V. Kuznetsova: Il Nuovo Cimento B **115**, 795 (2000) R.D. Blandford, R.D., R.L. Znajek: M.N.R.A.S. **179**, 433 (1977) J.-P. De Villiers, J.F. Hawley: Ap.J. **589**, 458 (2003) J.-P. De Villiers, J.F. Hawley, J.H. Krolik, S. Hirose: Ap.J. **620**, 878 (2005) C.R. Evans, J.F. Hawley: ApJ **332**, 659 (1988) S. Fromang, J. Papaloizou, G. Lesur, T. Heinemann: A& A **476**, 1123 (2007) C.F. Gammie, J.C. McKinney, G. Tóth: Ap.J. **589**, 444 (2003) C.F. Gammie, S.L. Shapiro, J.C. McKinney: Ap.J. **602**, 312 (2004) J.F. Hawley, J.H. Krolik: Ap.J. **641**, 103 (2006) S. Hirose, J.H. Krolik, J.F. Hawley: Ap.J. **606**, 1083 (2004) Komissarov, S., arXiv:0804.1912 (2008) J.H. Krolik, J.F. Hawley, S. Hirose: Ap.J. **622**, 1008 (2005) M.M. Kuznetsova, M. Hesse, L. Rastätter, A. Taktakishvili, G. Tóth, D.L. De Zeeuw, A. Ridley, T.I. Gombosi: J.G.R.A **112**, 10210 (2007) M. Livio, G.I. Ogilvie, J.E. Pringle: 1999 Ap.J. **512**, 100 (1999) S.H. Lubow, J.C.B. Papaloizou, J.E. Pringle: M.N.R.A.S. **267**, 235 (1994) D. MacDonald, K.S Thorne: M.N.R.A.S. **198**, 345 (1982) J.C. McKinney, C.F. Gammie: Ap.J. **611**, 977 (2004) S.C. Noble, J.H. Krolik, J.F. Hawley: submitted to Ap.J. (2008) R. Penrose: Riv. Nuovo Cimento **1**, 252 (1969) E.S. Phinney: A Theory of Radio Sources, PhD thesis, Cambridge University, Cambridge UK (1983) B. Punsly, F.V. Coroniti: Ap.J. **350**, 518 (1990) D.M. Rothstein, Lovelace, R.V.E.: Ap.J. **677**, 1221 (2008) T. Sano, S. Inutsuka, N.J. Turner, J.M. Stone: Ap.J. **605**, 321 (2004) H.C. Spruit, D.A. Uzdensky: Ap.J. **629**, 960 (2005) J.M. Stone, M.L. Norman: Ap.J.Suppl. **80**, 753 (1992) M. Takahashi, S. Nitta, Y. Tatematsu, A. Tomimatsu: Ap.J. **363**, 206 (1990) K.S. Thorne: Ap.J. **191**, 507 (1974) K.S. Thorne, R.H. Price, D.A. MacDonald: [*Black Holes, The Membrane Paradigm*]{}, Yale University Press: New Haven (1986) G. Tóth: J.Comp.Phys. **161**, 605
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
**Àlex R. Atrio$^1$**, **Toni Badia$^{2}$**, **Jeremy Barnes$^{3}$**\
$^1$ HEIG-VD & EPFL $^2$Universitat Pompeu Fabra $^3$University of Oslo\
\[1pt\][ $^[email protected] $^[email protected] $^[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'lit.bib'
title: |
On the Effect of Word Order\
on Cross-lingual Sentiment Analysis
---
\[firstpage\]
Introduction
============
Cross-lingual Sentiment Analysis (CLSA) exploits resources, [*e.g.*]{}labeled data of a high-resource language, to train a sentiment classifier for low-resource languages. This approach is useful when a target language lacks plentiful labeled data, particularly for specific domains. Machine Translation (MT) is often used to bridge the gap between languages [@Banea2008; @Balahur2014d], but requires abundant parallel data, which may be difficult to find for some low-resource languages. Approaches that use bilingual distributional representations, in contrast, have proven competitive while requiring less parallel data [@Chen2016; @Barnes2018b].
Recently, sentiment classifiers pre-trained on a language modeling task have lead to state-of-the-art results [@Peters2018; @Howard2018; @Devlin2018]. This improvement suggests that sentiment analysis benefits from learning word order and fine-grained relationships between tokens, which can be gleaned from unlabeled data. These approaches, however, have only been applied in a monolingual setting and it is not clear how the difference in word orders would affect them in a cross-lingual setup. In this work, we perform an analysis of the effect of word order on cross-lingual sentiment classifiers that use bilingual embeddings as features. We show that these models are sensitive to word order and benefit from pre-reordering the target-language test data so that it resembles the source-language word order.
Related Work
============
#### Cross-lingual Sentiment Analysis:
Cross-lingual approaches to sentiment analysis attempt to leverage available sentiment annotations in a high-resource language for target languages which lack annotated data. This is especially important when the cost of annotating a high-quality sentiment dataset, such as the Stanford Sentiment Treebank [@Socher2013b], can be prohibitive (215,154 phrases, each annotated by 3 annotators, at 10 cents an annotation would be 64,546€!). Therefore, it is preferable to make use of those datasets that already exist. Although most approaches to cross-lingual sentiment analysis rely on Machine Translation [@Banea2008; @Balahur2014d; @Klinger2015], this requires large amounts of parallel data, making it less helpful for under-resourced languages.
Bilingual word embeddings have enabled cross-lingual transfer with small amounts of parallel data [@Artetxe2017; @Lample2017] or even none at all [@lample2018unsupervised; @Artetxe2018], and are now used as features for state-of-the-art document-level [@Chen2016], sentence-level [@Barnes2018b], and targeted [@Hangya2018] cross-lingual sentiment analysis approaches. The objective of bilingual embeddings is to learn a shared vector space in which translation pairs have similar vector representations. This benefits under-resourced languages as a sentiment classification model trained on the source-language can be applied directly to target-language data, without the need to translate it.
#### Word Order in Sentiment Analysis:
Pre-training sentiment classifiers with a language-modeling task represents a successful transfer learning method. learn to create contextualized embeddings by training a character-level convolutional network to predict the next word in a sequence. Similarly, introduce techniques that improve the fine-tuning of the base language-model. Likewise, introduce a self-attention network and adjust the language modeling task to a cloze task, where they predict missing words in a sentence, rather than the next word given a sequence. They then fine-tune their models on downstream tasks. These models that explicitly learn word order have led to state-of-the-art results on monolingual sentiment tasks.
#### Word Reordering:
Rule-based pre-reordering has a long tradition in Machine Translation (see for a survey), where word order directly affects the quality of the final result. Reordering rules can be determined manually [@Collins2005; @Gojun2012] or with data-driven approaches that either learn POS-tag based [@Crego2006; @Crego2006b] or tree-based [@Neubig2012; @Nakagawa2015] reordering rules. The advantage of POS-tag based rules is that they are simple to implement and do not require full parsing of the target-language sentences.
Methodology
===========
Corpora and Datasets
--------------------
------------------------------------------- --------- ------ ------ ------
(rl)[2-2]{}(l)[3-3]{}(l)[4-4]{}(l)[5-5]{} $+$ 1258 1216 682
$-$ 473 256 467
(rl)[2-2]{}(l)[3-3]{}(l)[4-4]{}(l)[5-5]{} $++$ 379 370 256
$+$ 879 846 426
$-$ 399 218 409
$--$ 74 38 58
(rl)[2-2]{}(l)[3-3]{}(l)[4-4]{}(l)[5-5]{} *Total* 1731 1472 1149
------------------------------------------- --------- ------ ------ ------
: Statistics for the OpeNER English (EN) and Spanish (ES) as well as the MultiBooked Catalan (CA) sentence-level datasets [@Agerri2013; @Barnes2018a][]{data-label="datasetstats"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}* Único punto el que las ventanas de madera tan típicas de la zona
\[3pt\] *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}* Único punto el que las ventanas de tan típicas madera de la zona
\[3pt\] *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Noun-Adj</span>]{}* Único punto el que las ventanas de madera tan típicas de la zona
\[3pt\] *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}* aislar madera típicas de el de zona las ventanas punto Único la tan que
\[3pt\] *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}* UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK
\[3pt\] *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}* Único punto UNK el UNK que las ventanas de madera tan típicas de la zona UNK
\[3pt\] (lr)[0-1]{} *Translation* The only point the that the typical wooden windows in the area to
\[3pt\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At document-level, bag-of-words models are often expressive enough to give good results without relying on word order [@Meng2012; @Iyyer2015]. But because we are interested in word-order effects in cross-lingual sentiment analysis, we require datasets that are annotated at a fine-grained level, [*i.e.*]{}sentence- or aspect-level.
For this reason, we use the English and Spanish OpeNER corpora of hotel reviews [@Agerri2013] as well as the Catalan MultiBooked Dataset [@Barnes2018a]. Statistics on the corpora are shown in Table \[datasetstats\]. Each sentence is annotated for four classes of sentiment (strong positive, positive, negative, and strong negative). We use the English subset for training our classifiers and the Spanish and Catalan for testing the effects of word order on the target languages. Although these datasets are relatively small, they are all annotated similarly and are in-domain, which avoids problems with mapping labels or domain shifts.
Bilingual Word Embeddings
-------------------------
VecMap [@Artetxe2016; @Artetxe2017] creates bilingual embeddings by learning an orthogonal projection between two pre-computed monolingual vector spaces and requires only a small bilingual dictionary. We use the publicly available GoogleNews vectors for the English (available at <https://code.google.com/archive/p/word2vec/>), and for Spanish and Catalan we create skip-gram embeddings with 300 dimensions trained on Wikipedia data. The bilingual dictionaries are translated sentiment lexicons [@HuandLiu2004] with 5700 pairs for English – Spanish (5271 for English – Catalan).
Experimental Setup
------------------
In order to test whether a sentiment classifier trained on bilingual embeddings is sensitive to word order, we test classifiers on six versions of the target-language sentiment data, which we describe in the following section. An example of these six versions is shown in Table \[example\].
#### [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}:
We test the model on the original data with no changes in word order.
#### [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}:
A competing hypothesis is that a full pre-reordering of the target-side sequences will be more familiar to the sentiment classifier trained on English and therefore lead to better results. We implement POS-tag based rewrite rules [@Crego2006; @Crego2006b], which are then applied to the target-language test data before testing.
#### [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Noun-Adj</span>]{}:
Given that adjectives are important for sentiment analysis, we hypothesize that adjusting the order of nouns and adjectives should be beneficial if the classifier is learning source-language word order. Therefore, we implement a simple reordering which places Spanish and Catalan adjectives before, rather than after, the noun they modify.
#### [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}:
We randomly permutate the order of the target-language sentences. If the sentiment classification models take the target language word order into consideration, this should lead to poor results.
#### [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}:
Finally, we provide two baselines for clarification. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}experiment removes all words which do not appear in the Hu & Liu sentiment lexicon [@HuandLiu2004]. If our systems take word order into account, they should be affected negatively by this, as the resulting sentence does not resemble the normal word order. If, however, the models are relying on keywords, this will have little effect.
For the *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}* experiment, we remove all of the words in a phrase which appear in the sentiment lexicon. If the models are attending to sentiment keywords, this approach should lead to the worst performance.
#### Baselines:
We perform additional experiments with monolingual and Machine Translation (MT)-based cross-lingual approaches. For the former, we use the Google API (available at <https://translate.google.com/>) and translate the target-language data to English.
For both baseline setups, we only test the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}reordering, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}approaches. Additionally, the monolingual setup is not comparable to the MT and cross-lingual versions, as we must use the target-language data for training, development, and testing (70%/10%/20%).
[lllcccccccccccc]{} && & &\
, &&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}& SVM & [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}& SVM\
(r)[4-4]{}(r)[5-5]{}(r)[6-6]{}(r)[7-7]{}(r)[8-8]{}(r)[9-9]{} & & [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}& 33.3 & 35.4 & 34.9 & 64.9 & 60.0 & 66.6\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}& & 35.6 & 34.9 & & 60.1 & 66.6\
&& N-ADJ & & & 34.9 & 65.0 & & 66.6\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}& 33.2 & 35.3 & 34.9 & 63.9 & 58.8 & 66.6\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}& 28.2 & 26.9 & 30.7 & 57.6 & 34.2 & 53.0\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}& 31.9 & 33.2 & 33.3 & 61.1 & 57.1 & 63.4\
[(r)[4-4]{}(r)[5-5]{}(r)[6-6]{}(r)[7-7]{}(r)[8-8]{}(r)[9-9]{}]{} & & [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}& 37.0 & 37.4 & 33.2 & 64.0 & 61.9 & 68.2\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}& & 37.9 & 33.2 & & 62.6 & 68.2\
&& N-ADJ & 37.7 & & 33.2 & 65.5 & & 68.2\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}& 35.7 & 35.6 & 33.2 & 63.3 & 60.8 & 68.2\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}& 28.2 & 25.7 & 23.8 & 49.9 & 40.5 & 39.1\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}& 35.9 & 34.3 & 31.2 & 61.7 & 58.1 & 63.1\
\
\
& & [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}& & & 44.6 & & & 70.7\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}& 46.0 & 38.9 & 44.6 & 71.0 & 62.2 & 70.7\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}& 32.9 & 28.2 & 36.2 & 63.0 & 44.6 & 51.9\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}& 41.8 & 37.0 & 41.6 & 63.0 & 54.8 & 66.2\
[(r)[4-4]{}(r)[5-5]{}(r)[6-6]{}(r)[7-7]{}(r)[8-8]{}(r)[9-9]{}]{} & & [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}& & & 46.8 & & & 74.2\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}& 49.7 & 37.7 & 46.8 & 76.5 & 66.4 & 74.2\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}& 32.0 & 32.5 & 36.1 & 58.4 & 57.5 & 43.7\
&& [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}& 48.4 & 40.9 & 46.2 & 75.6 & 65.6 & 70.4\
------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- -- -- -- -- --
, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{} 32.1 52.7
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{} 42.5 32.7 32.1 67.5 63.1 52.7
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{} 27.0 21.2 27.0 45.2 47.9 45.2
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{} 37.9 34.3 30.3 64.7 65.0 51.8
[(r)[4-4]{}(r)[5-5]{}(r)[6-6]{}(r)[7-7]{}(r)[8-8]{}(r)[9-9]{}]{} [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{} 46.8 75.0
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{} 47.4 43.9 46.8 73.6 71.9 75.0
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{} 20.3 27.4 16.7 40.1 56.4 39.6
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{} 47.5 45.8 45.8 75.0 74.5 74.8
------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- -- -- -- -- --
Models
------
To test our hypotheses, we compare three different classifiers: a Support Vector Machine (SVM) with Bag-of-Embeddings feature representations, a Convolutional Neural Network ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}) [@Santos2014; @Severyn2015], and a Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory Network ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}) [@Luong2015]. Each of these classifiers theoretically has an increasing reliance on word order. Note that we do not use the bilingual sentiment model [@Barnes2018b], as it jointly learns both projection and classifier and cannot be used as input to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}. Although the SVM does not take into account word order at all, it is a strong baseline for sentiment analysis [@Kiritchenko2014c]. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}considers only local word order, while the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}relies on both local and long-distance dependencies.
For the neural models, we train five classifiers on five random seeds and report the mean and standard deviation of the macro [$\text{F}_1$]{}score, while we only report the macro [$\text{F}_1$]{}score of a single run for the SVM.
#### [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}
We implement a single-layered [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}classifier with a 100-dimensional hidden layer, which passes the concatenation of the two final hidden states to a softmax layer for classification. The cross-lingual model is initialized with the pre-trained bilingual embeddings (monolingual embeddings for the monolingual and translation models), use dropout of $0.3$ for regularization, and are trained for 30 epochs with a batch size of 32 using Adam as an optimizer. We choose the parameter for training epochs on the source-language development set and test this model on the target-language data.
#### [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}has a single convolutional layer with filters $\in \{3,4,5\}$ followed by a max-pooling layer of length $2$. The pooled representation of the sentence is passed to a feed-forward layer and finally a softmax layer of size ${\mathbb{R}}^{|L|}$ where $L$ is the set of labels. The optimization is the same as the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}, with dropout applied after the feed-forward layer.
#### SVM
Finally, we implement a baseline bag-of-embeddings SVM. For each sentence in the dataset, we create an averaged embedding representation $A= \frac{1}{n} (\sum_{i=1}^{n} e(t_{i}))$ where $e(t_{i})$ is the embedding representation of the $i$th token in the sentence $S \in \{t_{1}, t_{2}, \ldots, t_{n}\}$ of length $n$. For the cross-lingual approaches we use the bilingual embeddings (monolingual embeddings for the monolingual and translation approaches) and tune the $c$ parameter on the source-language development set.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------
model text prediction
[(rl)[1-1]{}(rl)[2-2]{}(rl)[3-3]{}]{}*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}* relación calidad precio muy buena negative
*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}* relación muy buena calidad precio positive
*translation* very good quality price relationship positive
[(rl)[1-1]{}(rl)[2-2]{}(rl)[3-3]{}]{}*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}* hotel perfecto negative
*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}* perfecto hotel positive
*translation* perfect hotel positive
[(rl)[1-1]{}(rl)[2-2]{}(rl)[3-3]{}]{}*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}* el desayuno muy bueno . negative
*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}* el muy bueno desayuno . positive
*translation* the breakfeast (was) very good positive
[(rl)[1-1]{}(rl)[2-2]{}(rl)[3-3]{}]{}*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}* gestión nefasta . positive
*[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}* nefasta gestión . negative
*translation* terrible management negative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------
Results
=======
Table \[results:all\] shows the results of all experiments. Firstly, reordering the test data improves the results on all of the eight experiments (we do not consider SVM experiments to calculate improvements as they are invariant to word order). Specifically, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reordered</span>]{}approach improves the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}results the most on all experiments, while the simpler [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Noun-Adj</span>]{}flip is the best performing setup with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnns</span>]{}. This indicates that local word reordering has more of an effect on [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnns</span>]{}, while the global reordering can be more helpful to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstms</span>]{}. While the improvements from reordering are often small (0.2 - 1.6 percentage points (ppt)), they are stable.
While it is the case that in both of the target languages [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Noun-Adj</span>]{}combinations can have a different meaning if the order is switched (for example “el amigo viejo" and “el viejo amigo"), the practical relevance of these order changes is minimal: in the Spanish dataset, of 978 occurrences of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Noun-Adj</span>]{}, only 23 (2.35%) occur as well with a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Adj-Noun</span>]{}order; in the Catalan dataset, of 745 occurrences of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Noun-Adj</span>]{}, only 8 (1.07%) occur as well with a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Adj-Noun</span>]{}order.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}has a more substantial negative effect on monolingual models (an average decrease of 1.6 ppt for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}and 3.0 ppt for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}) and MT-based models (1.6/4.3 ppt, respectively) than bilingual embedding models (0.8/1.1). This indicates that noise from the embedding projection renders it more difficult for models to use word order in the cross-lingual setup.
Additionally, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Random</span>]{}has a larger effect on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}(an average loss of 1.1 ppt) than on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}(0.8). This is likely because the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}relies on specific combinations of n-grams in order to correctly classify a sentence. If these are not present, the filters are not effective at classification.
Although they are not comparable (the test datasets have fewer examples), the monolingual models generally perform better than the cross-lingual versions, except for the SVM classifiers. The machine translation approaches perform better than the cross-lingual embedding methods.
The classification models display different trends across the setups. On the monolingual and machine translations setups, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}is the strongest model, followed by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}and SVM (SVM and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}, respectively for machine translation). With bilingual embeddings, however, the SVM outperforms both the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}on the Spanish binary setup, while the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}is strongest on the multiclass. This shows that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}displays a different behavior with bilingual embeddings.
The machine translation models perform well and surprisingly suffer less than monolingual models (an average decrease of 15.4 ppt for MT [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}models vs. 20.6 for monolingual) from using only features from the sentiment lexicon ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}). This suggests that MT models rely more on these keywords while ignoring word order effects to a higher degree.
Finally, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}baselines perform poorly, with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Only-Lexicon</span>]{}often more than 20 ppt below the performance of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}. This is due largely to the low coverage of the sentiment lexicon used in this work, as many full sentences were completely unked (38% for Spanish, 43% for Catalan). This also explains the similar performances of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Original</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">No-Lexicon</span>]{}.
Analysis
========
Reordering tends to help both the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiLstm</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cnn</span>]{}models with shorter examples (less than eight tokens long) where adjective order can easily be changed to resemble English word order, such as the examples shown in Table \[helpful\_examples\]. In longer instances (more than ten tokens), however, the reordering either introduces too much noise or does not affect the final prediction. The current reordering models are therefore more adequate for sentiment tasks that deal with shorter texts, such as aspect- or sentence-level, rather than document-level sentiment analysis.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
In this work, we have shown that neural networks that rely on bilingual embeddings as features are sensitive to differences in source- and target-language word order and subsequently benefit from reordering the target language test data. The gains, however, are still relatively small, which suggests that currently bilingual embeddings introduce too much noise for a classifier to generalize well to the target language.
Although our reordering approach does improve the neural models, these more expressive models are still outperformed by the linear SVM with bag-of-embeddings representations. This is likely a side effect of the noise introduced by the bilingual embeddings. At test time, the model receives as input embeddings that are *similar* but not necessarily the same as at training. In the future, it may be helpful to develop models which are more robust to this noise, or alternatively to use low-resource machine translation techniques [@artetxe2018iclr; @lample2018unsupervised; @artetxe2018emnlp; @lample-etal-2018-phrase]
Given that language modeling pre-training is beneficial for state-of-the-art results in monolingual sentiment analysis, it is important to realize that cross-lingual models based on bilingual word embeddings do not currently benefit from word order learned in the source language. In the future, we would like to pre-train bilingual language models for cross-lingual sentiment analysis.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Roger Hughes proposed a macroscopic model for pedestrian dynamics, in which individuals seek to minimize their travel time but try to avoid regions of high density. One of the basic assumptions is that the overall density of the crowd is known to every agent. In this paper we present a modification of the Hughes model to include local effects, namely limited vision, and a conviction towards decision making. The modified velocity field enables smooth turning and temporary waiting behavior. We discuss the modeling in the micro- and macroscopic setting as well as the efficient numerical simulation of either description. Finally we illustrate the model with various numerical experiments and evaluate the behavior with respect to the evacuation time and the overall performance.'
author:
- 'Jose A. Carrillo$^*$'
- 'Stephan Martin$^\text{\textdagger}$'
- 'Marie-Therese Wolfram$^\ddagger$'
bibliography:
- 'localhughes.bib'
title: A local version of the Hughes model for pedestrian flow
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
The mathematical modeling and simulation of pedestrian dynamics, such as large human crowds in public space or buildings, has become a topic of high practical relevance. The complex behavior of these large crowds poses significant challenges on the modeling, analytic and simulation level. These aspects initiated a lot of research in the mathematical community within the last years, which we briefly outline below. Mathematical modeling approaches for pedestrian dynamics can be roughly grouped into the following categories:
1. *Microscopic models* such as the social force model[@helbing1995; @helbing2000; @treuille2006] or cellular automata approaches[@burstedde2001].
2. *Fluid dynamic approaches*[@colombo2012; @moussaid2012; @appert2011] and related *macroscopic models*, see for example the popular Hughes model[@hughes2002; @difrancesco2011; @goatin2013; @burger2014; @VenutiBruno].
3. *Kinetic models* [@bellomo2013; @DARPT2013] which uses ideas from gas kinetics to models interactions between individuals via so-called collisions.
4. In *optimal control*[@hoogendoorn2004] and *mean field game approaches*[@lachapelle2011; @dogbe2010] pedestrians act as rational individuals, which adjust their velocity optimal to a specific cost.
5. *Multiscale models* coupling between different scales to describe for example crowd leader dynamics [@CPT2011; @BPT2012].
A detailed survey on crowd modelling can e.g. be found in Bellomo and Dobge[@BellomoDogbe2011]. Several aspects are considered to be important in the mathematical modeling to capture the complex behavior in a correct way. For example repulsive forces when getting too close to other individuals or obstacles play an important role in the dynamics. Another popular assumption is the fact that individuals act rationally and try to make the optimal decision based on their actual knowledge level. Partial knowledge of the overall pedestrian density or the domain is another important factor which should be taken into account in the modelling. While these nonlocal effects can be implemented quite intuitively on the microscopic level, their translation for macroscopic models is not straightforward. Most macroscopic nonlocal models are based on the continuity equation for the pedestrian density, where the nonlocal effects correspond to the deviation of the crowd from its preferred direction[@colombo2012; @colombo2012-2; @crippa2013]. This deviation is determined by the average density felt by the pedestrians and modelled via a convolution operator acting on the velocity. The development of numerical schemes for conservation laws with nonlocal effects gained substantial interest in the last years. This was, among other factors, also initiated by the development of nonlocal models in traffic flow [@ACT2014; @BG2014].\
The original model of Hughes[@hughes2002] describes fast exit and evacuation scenarios, where a group of people wants to leave a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ with one or several exits/doors and/or obstacles as fast as possible. The driving force towards the exit is the gradient of a potential $\phi = \phi(x,t)$, $x \in \Omega,~t > 0$. This potential corresponds to the expected travel time to manoeuvrer through the present pedestrian density towards an exit. Hughes assumed that the global distribution of pedestrians is known to every individual, an assumption not generally satisfied in real world applications.\
In this paper we present a generalization of the classical Hughes model, which includes local vision via partial knowledge of the pedestrian density. We discuss the proper modeling setup, the implementation of suitable numerical schemes as well as their computational complexity. Furthermore we compare how the reduced perception of each pedestrian effects the overall “performance” of the crowd in evacuation scenarios. Inevitably, one expects the crowd to behave less efficient as less information is available. Quantifying how localised vision influences performance and decision making is a very interesting question in terms of collective behaviour. Surprisingly, it will turn out that evacuation times can even improve. The question we investigate is therefore complementary to mean-field game approaches, where pedestrians anticipate future crowds states and hence are *more* capable than in the original Hughes’ model [@lachapelle2011; @dogbe2010; @burger2014].\
This paper is structured as follows: We start with a review on the modeling and analytic results of the classical Hughes model for pedestrian flow and its microscopic interpretation in section \[s:hughes\]. In section \[s:mathmod\] we present the local version of the Hughes model on the micro- and macroscopic level. Section \[s:computmeth\] presents the numerical strategies for the microscopic and macroscopic model. We compare the behavior and performance of the models in Section \[s:numexp\] and conclude with a discussion of the proposed model in Section \[s:conclusions\].
Hughes’ model for pedestrian flow {#s:hughes}
=================================
Original formulation and analytic results
-----------------------------------------
Let us start by presenting the original modeling assumptions and the corresponding partial differential equation system of the Hughes model for pedestrian flow. Hughes considered an exit scenario, in which a crowd modelled by a macroscopic density $\rho
= \rho(x,t)$ wants to leave a domain as fast as possible. The nonlinear PDE system for $\rho$ and the potential $\phi =
\phi(x,t)$ on the domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ reads as:
\[e:hughes\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}-{\mathrm{div}}(\rho f(\rho)^2 \nabla \phi) &= 0 \label{e:hughescont}\\
{\Vert \nabla \phi \Vert} &= \frac{1}{f(\rho)}. \label{e:hugheseikonal}\end{aligned}$$
The first equation describes the evolution of $\rho$ in time, driven by the gradient of $\phi$ and weighted by a nonlinear mobility $f = f(\rho)$. This mobility includes saturation effects, i.e. degenerate behaviour when approaching a given maximum density $\rho_{\max} \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$. Possible choices are $f(\rho) =
\rho-\rho_{\max}$ or $f(\rho) = (\rho-\rho_{\max})^2$ amongst others. The former is inherited from the Lighthill-Whitham-Richards model for one-dimensional traffic flow [@LW1955; @R1956].\
The potential $\phi$ corresponds to the weighted shortest distance to an exit in the following sense: Solving the eikonal equation determines the optimal path $\nabla \phi$ minimising the expected travel time throughout the crowd towards an exit. This cost is measured as the inverse of $f(\rho)$, hence the cost of walking through dense regions is high. Equation is also a stationary Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation, and the optimal path property of $\nabla\phi$ can be rigorously derived [@BC; @Holm]. The fact that the potential $\phi$ solely determines the direction of the flow can be easily seen as $f^2(\rho)\nabla\phi =
f(\rho)\nabla\phi / {\Vert \nabla\phi \Vert}$ using .\
Hughes model is supplemented with different boundary conditions for the walls and the exits. We assume that the boundary is divided into two parts: either impenetrable walls ${\partial\Omega_{\text{wall}}}\subset \partial \Omega$ or exits/doors ${\partial\Omega_{\text{exit}}}\subset \partial \Omega$, with ${\partial\Omega_{\text{wall}}}\cap {\partial\Omega_{\text{exit}}}=
\emptyset$. Typical conditions for the density $\rho$ in are zero flux boundary conditions at ${\partial\Omega_{\text{wall}}}$, which are either automatically satisfied as $\nabla\phi \cdot \vec
n =0$ or artificially enforced. The flux at ${\partial\Omega_{\text{exit}}}$ has to be defined according to the arriving density and our choices are discussed in Section \[s:mathmod\]. The boundary conditions of are set as $\phi(x,t) = 0$ for all $ x \in
{\partial\Omega_{\text{exit}}}$.
There has been a lot of recent mathematical research on the classical Hughes model [@difrancesco2011; @goatin2013; @amadori2012; @elkhatib2013]. Up to the authors knowledge all analytic results are restricted to 1D only, which is caused by the low regularity of the potential $\phi$. This low regularity, i.e. $\phi \in C^{0,1}$, results in the formation of shocks and rarefaction waves in the conservation law. It is caused particularly by the existence of *sonic points*, which are hypersurfaces in space, where costs towards two or more exists coincide, and therefore $\nabla\phi$ does not exist and the orientational field is discontinuous. In spatial dimension one the system can be reduced to the conservation law with a discontinuous flux function. In this case it is possible to solve the corresponding Riemann problem [@difrancesco2011], which also serves as a basis for different numerical schemes [@goatin2013; @BG2014].
Microscopic interpretation
--------------------------
Hughes motivated system on the macroscopic level only. Recently Burger et al. [@burger2014] were able to give a microscopic interpretation of , which will serve as a basis for our local particle model. Microscopic models based on Hughes’ modelling assumptions are also used in the field of computer vision [@treuille2006].
Let us consider $N$ particles with position $X^j =
X^j(t)$ and velocity $V^j = V^j(t)$, $j=1,\ldots N$. Then the empirical density $\rho^N = \rho^N(t)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:rhon}
\rho^N(t) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \delta(x-X^j(t)).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore we introduce its smoothed approximation $\rho^N_g = \rho^N_g(t)$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^N_g(x,t) = (\rho^N * g)(x,t) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N g(x-X^j(t)),\end{aligned}$$ where the function $g = g(x)$ corresponds to a sufficiently smooth positive kernel. The walking cost is given by the sum of a weighted kinetic energy and the exit time, defined as $T_{exit} =
\sup\lbrace t>0 \mid x \in \Omega \rbrace$. Then the problem reads as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:minC}
\begin{split}
&C(X;\rho(t)) = \min_{(X,V)} \frac{1}2\int_t^{T+t} \frac{{\Vert V(s) \Vert}^2}{f^2(\rho^N_g(\xi(s;t),t))} ds + \frac{1}2 T_{exit}(X,V),\\
&\text{ subject to } ~~\frac{d \xi}{ds}=V(s) \text{ and }
\xi(0)=X(t).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Hence the optimal trajectory is determined by ’freezing’ the empirical density $\rho^N = \rho^N(t)$, in other words it corresponds to extrapolating the empirical density $\rho^N$ in time when looking for the optimal trajectory.\
Burger et al. were able to show that Hughes’ model can be formally derived from the optimality conditions of and letting $T \rightarrow 0$ (corresponding to the long-time behavior of the corresponding adjoint Hamilton-Jacobi equation).\
We will use this microscopic interpretation to propose a numerical approximation by a particle method in Section 4 of Hughes type models. In fact, is seen as a continuity equation with velocity field $v(x,t)=-f(\rho)^2 \nabla \phi$ driven by , and thus particles in are advected by the velocity field $v$, e.g. $$\frac{d X^j}{dt}=v(X^j(t),t)\,,\qquad j=1,\dots N\,.$$
A localized smooth Hughes-type model for pedestrian flow {#s:mathmod}
========================================================
The Hughes model assumes that at any time $t>0$ the global distribution of all other individuals $\rho(x,t)$ is known to every pedestrian. Therefore she chooses her optimal walking direction $\nabla
\phi$ in order to minimise its expected travel time/costs. Here, all walking costs are based on the current density, which means that pedestrians do not anticipate future dynamics of the crowd. Instead they are capable to react to changes in the global density ad-hoc as the path optimisation is repeated continuously in time. In a mean-field game type model, the capabilities of pedestrians would increase, as the planning decision of all agents can be correctly predicted into the future. We follow an opposite approach and reduce the capabilities of pedestrians, to obtain a more realistic model.\
The assumption of continuous and complete perception of global density information at current time is highly questionable in practical situations. Limited vision cones and restricted perception of global information comes through obstacles (walls, buildings), physical distance, visual orientation or the inability to see through a very dense crowd. Some effects of local vision on the behaviour of crowds are obvious: in an evacuation scenario with two exit corridors, which cannot be seen from each other, pedestrians caught in a jam in front of one exit will not be able to see whether the other exit is free or also jammed.
These considerations motivated a new version of Hughes-type pedestrian dynamics based on localised perception of information, which we introduce in this section. The decision of each pedestrian is based on the perceived local density available in a limited domain, which can be e.g. interpreted as a vision cone. Furthermore a local interaction mechanism between individuals as well as a smoothening kernel on the velocity field (to prevent unrealistic high frequency oscillations in the direction of motion) are incorporated. We begin with the detailed introduction of the macroscopic model and discuss the microscopic analogue thereafter.
Macroscopic equations
---------------------
The starting point of our model is the assumption that pedestrians still perform the same path-optimisation selection as in the Hughes’ model, while the crowd state they act upon subjectively depends on their position and the amount of information they are able to perceive. Let $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be an auxiliary variable and $\phi(x,y):{\mathbb{R}}^4\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ a parameterised potential, such that $y\mapsto \phi(x_0,y)
$ denotes the cost potential calculated by pedestrians located at $x_0\in\Omega$. To model space-dependent perception of information, suppose that for every $x$ the domain $\Omega$ decomposes into a visible subdomain $V_x\ni x$ and a hidden or invisible part $H_x = \Omega \backslash V_x$. We propose the following mechanism of restricted vision: If an area is visible its density is known and priced accordingly in the path optimisation. If however an area is not visible, its density is thought to be a constant $\rho_H \in {\mathbb{R}}^+_0$, which we assume to be uniform among all pedestrians. Exemplarily, setting $\rho_H=0$ implies that pedestrians assume that not visible areas to them are empty, hence they will have a strong incentive to explore unseen parts of the domain. On the contrary, pedestrians will avoid invisible areas when $\rho_H\approx \rho_{\max}$, as they assume high costs. An eikonal equation in $\Omega$ is hence solved in the auxiliary variable $y$ for every point $x$ as $${\Vert \nabla_y \phi(x,y ) \Vert} = \displaystyle{\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{f(\rho(y,t))} & y\in V_x \\[1mm]
\frac{1}{f(\rho_H)} & y\in H_x
\end{cases}}, \label{model-local-eikonal}$$ which gives the potential $\phi$ as function of two space variables. Note, that this notion of local perception differs from other recent work[@BG2014], where a local average of the density is used. Each pedestrian uses the cost potential at her own position for the decision process. Computing $\nabla_y
\phi(x,x)$ hence would, after normalisation, give a new orientational vector field to be used in the unchanged transport equation. We however argue that it makes sense to include a notion of conviction to the model, which has previously not been considered. In order to do so, is solved for every single exit. This results in the computation of $M$ potentials $\phi_k=\phi_k(x,t)$, $k=1,\dots, M$, which allows for cost comparison between exits, see Remark 3.2.
In regions of high density, decisions on the walking direction towards any of $k=1,\dots,M$ exits $\partial\Omega_{E_k}$ cannot arbitrarily deviate between neighbours. If a pedestrians prefers to walk against the direction of a predominant local flow, collision or friction losses in the movement will occur. Especially on the macroscopic level, in which we take an aggregate perspective, an incentive to change the flow cannot arise from one point in space alone. As we do not model the granular level of individual collision or friction, we propose the following mechanism:
1. Each pedestrian carries an individual conviction strength $u(x)$ measuring its preference of its chosen exit over all others.
2. There exists a local consensus process within the crowd, which results in the adjustment of the individual walking direction according to the predominant direction around them.
Hence, pedestrians adjust their own direction in order to prevail the flow rather than obstructing it. This can be seen as either a cognitive decision rule or a forced physical restriction. For a compactly supported interaction kernel $\mathcal{K}:{\mathbb{R}}^2\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, we define the final walking direction $\varphi(x)$ at any point $x\in\Omega$ as $$\varphi = \frac{\rho u \star \mathcal{K}}{\rho\star\mathcal{K}},$$ where the conviction $u(x)$ is given as $$u = \frac{\nabla_y \phi_{k^\text{opt}}}{{\Vert \nabla_y
\phi_{k^\text{opt}} \Vert}}(\phi_{k^{\text{opt}+1}}-\phi_{k^\text{opt}}),$$ obtained by comparing the cost potentials $\phi_k$, $k=1,\dots,
M$, associated to each of the exits: $$\begin{gathered}
k^{\text{opt}}(x) = {\operatorname{argmin}}\limits_k \phi_k(x,x), \\
k^{\text{opt+1}}(x) = {\operatorname{argmin}}\limits_{k\neq k^{\text{opt}}} \phi_k(x,x).\end{gathered}$$ Discontinuities in the velocity field due to the heterogeneity of decision making amongst pedestrians are hence partially compensated. To further smooth the model, we relax the strict restriction of ${\Vert \nabla\varphi \Vert}=1$ of Hughes’ model and replace the normalisation operator with a smooth approximation $\mathcal{P}:{\mathbb{R}}^2\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^2$ defined as:
$$\mathcal{P}[x] := \begin{cases}
\frac{x}{{\Vert x \Vert}} & {\Vert x \Vert}>\ell, \\
\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{2 \arctan(k\ell)}\arctan(k{\Vert x \Vert})\right)\frac{x}{{\Vert x \Vert}} & 0<{\Vert x \Vert}\leq\ell, \\
{0} & x=0 ,
\end{cases},
\label{e-relaxation}$$
for some parameters $k,\ell>0.$ We stress that this is not a technicality, as we here allow pedestrians to *stop when being undecided*. This is highly desirable from the modelling point of view, though on the other hand the modulus of the flux now is not a function of density alone, as one can see below.\
Next we discuss the boundary conditions for the eikonal equations. Since we treat each exit separately, we set $\left.\phi_k\right\vert_{\partial \Omega_{E_k}} = 0$ in the computation of $\phi_k$. No boundary conditions are imposed on the rest of the boundary ${\partial\Omega_{\text{wall}}}$.
Near-wall and near-obstacle effects have a strong influence on the dynamics on constrained macroscopic evolutions. We propose that pedestrians take into account walls and obstacles in their computation of optimal paths. Hence it is natural to include these effects as an additional fixed cost $W(x)$ on the right-hand side of the eikonal equation . We introduce a smooth layer profile $\chi_w(x)\in[0,1]$, which identifies areas close to walls but smoothly vanishes elsewhere and around exits to allow outflow. A typical choice of $\chi_w$ is illustrated in Figure \[fig-layerprofile\]. For the sake of simplicity, we set $$W(x) = \frac{\chi_w(x)}{f(\rho_{\max}-\epsilon)},
\label{e:wall}$$ hence areas close to walls are penalised similar to high density areas.
Finally all terms are coupled to the continuity equation with velocity field $v(x,t)= -f(\rho) \mathcal{P}[\nabla \varphi]$ as in the original model. At exits, we prescribe a maximum outflow, given by $v(\xi,t)=-f(\rho) \vec n $ for all $ \xi\in{\partial\Omega_{\text{exit}}}$. Taking all these considerations into account the full macroscopic model reads as:
$$\begin{gathered}
\partial_t \rho(x,t) + \nabla_x \cdot \left(- f(\rho(x,t)) \mathcal{P}[\nabla \varphi(x,t)] \rho(x,t) \right) =0 \\
\varphi(x,t) = \frac{(\rho u \star \mathcal{K})(x,t)}{(\rho\star\mathcal{K})(x,t)} \label{e:localinteraction}\\
u(x,t) = \frac{\nabla_y \phi_{k^\text{opt}}(x,x,t)}{{\Vert \nabla_y \phi_{k^\text{opt}}(x,x,t) \Vert}} (\phi_{k^{\text{opt}+1}}(x,x,t)-\phi_{k^\text{opt}}(x,x,t)) \label{e:conviction}\\
k^{\text{opt}}(x,t) = {\operatorname{argmin}}\limits_k \phi_k(x,x,t) \\
k^{\text{opt+1}}(x,t) = {\operatorname{argmin}}\limits_{k\neq k^{\text{opt}}} \phi_k(x,x,t)\label{e:secondbest} \\
{\Vert \nabla_y \phi_k(x,y,t ) \Vert} = \displaystyle{\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{f(\rho(y,t)} + W(y) & y\in V_x \\[1mm]
\frac{1}{f(\rho_H)} & y\in H_x \\
\end{cases}}\label{e:localeikonal}\\
\text{s.t.:} \,\left.\phi_k\right\vert_{\partial \Omega_{E_k}} = 0 , k=1,\dots,M \, , \forall t \\
\text{s.t.:} \,\mathcal{P}[\varphi(\xi,t)] = \vec n \,,\,\, \forall \xi\in{\partial\Omega_{\text{exit}}}\,,\,\,\, \label{e:maxoutflow}
\text{s.t.:} \,\rho(x,0)=\rho_0(x).\end{gathered}$$
\[e:localmodel\]
We conclude the section with remarks on specific modeling assumptions.
We have set aside formal statements regarding assumptions on the visible set $V_x$, but clearly we think of at least regular, connected and closed sets. A necessary condition is $$\label{e:Vinfo}
x \in V^\circ_x = \operatorname{int} V_x,$$ which implies that every pedestrian perceives some information from all directions. This restriction rules out e.g. angular vision cones (see Degond et.al.[@DRMPT2013]) where pedestrians do not see what is happening behind them. In our model, is necessary to exclude unrealistic situations where the chosen walking direction points outside the visible area. The inclusion of angular-dependent vision cones is certainly possible, but would imply a velocity-dependency and lead towards a second-order macroscopic model.
The introduction of the conviction term $u(x)$ requires the computation of exit costs $\phi_k$ via the eikonal equation for individual exits, which appears to be a significant complication of the model. However, it is worth noting that the mechanism is almost identical to the original model. In equation the costs of walking towards any of the $K$ exits are compared, but only the minimal costs are used. Here, we simply store more information. This connection is also illustrated by looking at the numerical schemes for solving the eikonal equation (see also Section ?): If a Fast Sweeping Method is used in e.g. a corridor with two exists, this essentially corresponds to solving for each exit separately if the minimization step is left out. If a Fast Marching Method is used, the conviction is directly related to the sequence in which vertices are promoted, with the least convinced vertex being assigned a cost the latest.
The relaxation ${\Vert \mathcal{P}[x] \Vert}\leq 1$ implies that the modulus of the flux can be less than $f(\rho)\rho$ when pedestrians are undecided. This makes a rigorous analysis of the model equations a difficult task, which is not tackled in this work. The benefit of our formulation is that the problem of discontinuous velocity fields at sonic points has disappeared. Pedestrians at those hyper surfaces will not move unless the sonic points move.
The one-dimensional case
------------------------
Consider a one-dimensional corridor $\Omega=[0,1]$ with two exits and the uniform radial vision cone $V_x=[x-L/2,x+L/2]\cap \Omega$ of length $L$. Exit costs towards the left and right exit are computed at $y\in V_x$ as $$\begin{gathered}
\phi_L(x,y,t) = \int\limits_{z<y, z\in H_x} \frac{1}{f(\rho_H)} {\mathrm{d}}z + \int\limits_{z<y, z\in V_x} \frac{1}{f(\rho(z,t))} {\mathrm{d}}z, \\
\phi_R(x,y,t) = \int\limits_{z>y, z\in H_x} \frac{1}{f(\rho_H)} {\mathrm{d}}z + \int\limits_{z>y, z\in V_x} \frac{1}{f(\rho(z,t))} {\mathrm{d}}z , \\
u(x,t)=\phi_L(x,x,t)-\phi_R(x,x,t),\end{gathered}$$ as illustrated in Fig. \[fig-1dillustration\].
The cost potential $\phi$ is two-dimensional and $\partial_y
\phi(x,y)$ gives the preferred walking direction that a pedestrian located at $x$ seeing $V_x$ assigns to $y\in[0,1]$. The walking directions chosen prior to the consensus process are hence given as $\partial_y \phi(x,x)$ along the diagonal of $[0,1]^2$. For every fixed $x\in[0,1]$, there is a unique sonic point $z(x)$, where $\phi_L(x,z(x))=\phi_R(x,z(x))$ and $\partial_y
\phi(x,z(x))$ does not exist. As illustrated in Fig. \[f:1Ddirectionswitching\], the individually preferred walking directions can switch multiple times between both exits, depending on the current density and the vision cones. At switching points, the preferred directions can point outwards (separation) or inwards (collision) and only the weighted interaction process - generates a smooth velocity profile. In the Hughes’ model, all vision cones are identical and there is a single separation point.
---------------------- --------------------
\(a) Localized model \(b) Hughes’ model
---------------------- --------------------
Microscopic interpretation
--------------------------
We conclude this section by briefly commenting on the modelling of local vision at the microscopic level. The microscopic modification is straightforward and uses the same ideas as at the macroscopic level. It corresponds to updating the position $X =
X(t)$ according to a potential which depends on local information only. Its calculation is based on the same equations as in the macroscopic model but using the smoothed empirical density $\rho^N_g$ instead of $\rho$. The position update is based on equations -. Hence individuals choose the path towards the exit with the lowest cost, but weigh their decision according to the predominant direction chosen around them. For further details on the implementation we refer to Algorithm \[a:microsim\] presented in Section \[s:computmeth\].
Analysis of the domains of dependence
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will discuss some mathematical properties of the solutions of the eikonal equations . From the construction of the model, the potential $\phi(x,y,t)$ has to be computed for every $x\in \Omega$ on the entire domain $\Omega$, which counterbalances the idea of locality and increases the computational cost considerably. We show here, that the computation of the potential can actually be reduced to a subset of $\Omega$, called the effective domain of dependence, for every $x$. Only this subset, which contains $V_x$, is considered in the individual local planning problem and corresponds to the reduction of the computational cost.
The following proofs rely crucially on the optimal path property of the characteristics associated to the eikonal equation . We recall[@Holm; @BC] that by Fermat’s principle the characteristic paths associated to $\phi(x,y,t)$, given by the solution of: $$\label{e:chareikonal}
\gamma_{x,t}^z(s) \subset \Omega: \gamma(0)=z, \dot{\gamma}(s) =-
\nabla \phi(x,\gamma(s),t) \,\, \mbox{ for all} \, s\geq 0\,,$$ are the optimal paths for the cost defined as $$c(y,t)=\displaystyle{\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{f(\rho(y,t))} + W(y) & y\in V_x \\[1mm]
\frac{1}{f(\rho_H)} & y\in H_x \\
\end{cases}}\,.$$ Moreover, the potential is the value function for that cost. Hence it is decreasing along these paths and satisfies the optimality condition $$\label{e:optimality}
\phi(x,\gamma_{x,t}^z(a),t)-\phi(x,\gamma_{x,t}^z(b),t)= \int_a^b
c(\gamma_{x,t}^z(s),t) \,ds\,, \mbox{ for all } 0\leq a<b\,,$$ being zero at its corresponding exit $\partial
\Omega_{\text{exit}}$. Furthermore, the curves $\gamma_{x,t}^z$ are the optimal paths to achieve the exit, i.e., they verify the following global optimality condition $$\label{e:optimality2}
+\phi(x,z,t)= \int_0^{T_z} c(\gamma_{x,t}^z(s),t) \,ds \leq
\int_0^{\tilde T_z} c(\tilde\gamma(s),t) \,ds \,,$$ for all $\tilde\gamma$ curves joining $z$ to any point in the exit $\partial \Omega_{\text{exit}}$, where $T_z$ is the optimal time to achieve the exit for the point $z\in\Omega$ and $\tilde T_z$ is the time to achieve the exit for the path $\tilde\gamma$.
\[lemma-Mreduction\] Consider any fixed $V_x\subset\Omega$ and that $f(\rho)>0$, $0\leq\rho<\rho_{\max}$. Let $\phi_H$ be the global solution of the eikonal equation ${\Vert \nabla \phi_H \Vert} =
1/f(\rho_H), \phi_H(x)=0 \text{ on } \partial
\Omega_{\text{exit}}$. Define the minimum of $\phi_H$ in $V_x$ as $$m_H:= \min_{z\in V_x} \phi_H(z)$$ and the corresponding superlevel set of $\phi_H$ as $$M_H := \{x\in \Omega: \phi_H(x) \geq m_\phi \}.$$ Then the problem of computing the local potential $\phi(x,y,t)=:
\tilde{\phi}(y)$ out of on $\Omega$ reduces to the following problem on $M_\phi$: $$\begin{cases} {\Vert \nabla_y \tilde{\phi}(y) \Vert}= \frac{1}{f(\rho(y,t))}+W(y) &\text{ in } V_x \\
{\Vert \nabla_y \tilde{\phi}(y) \Vert}= \frac{1}{f(\rho_H)} &\text{ in } M_H \backslash V_x \\
\tilde{\phi}(y) = m_H &\text{ on } \partial M_H \backslash
{\partial\Omega_{\text{wall}}}\,\, (\text{B.C. } )
\end{cases} \,.$$
If an exit is visible then $m_H=0, M_H=\Omega$ and the assertion is trivial. If no exit is visible then by construction $V_x
\subset M_H$ and $\phi_H= m_H>0$ on $\partial M_H$. As the walking costs are always positive, $c(y,t)>0$, we get $\phi(x,y,t)>m_H$ for all $y \in \operatorname{int} M_H$. On the other hand, any point $z\in\Omega\backslash M_H$ satisfies $\phi(x,z,t)<m_H$ and hence $\gamma_{x,t}^z(s)$ does not intersect $V_x$, otherwise the cost should be larger at a middle point than initially contradicting the optimality of the path $\gamma_{x,t}^z(s)$ in . Hence $\partial M_H$ is the maximal level set consisting of points whose optimal paths do not cross $V_x$, and therefore, $\phi(x,z,t)$ can be computed from with constant right-hand side outside $M_H$.
Consider a fixed visibility area $V_x$. For a $z\in\Omega$, denote the *default optimal path* $\gamma_H^z$ as the parameterised curve associated to a gradient walk along $\phi_H$ starting in $z$, that is $$\gamma_H^z(s) \subset \Omega: \gamma(0)=z, \dot{\gamma}(s) =-
\nabla \phi_H(\gamma(s)) \,\, \forall \, s\geq 0.$$ Next, define the *characteristics’ shadow* $V^\#$ as the set of all points, whose default optimal paths crosses the visibility area, hence $$V^\# := \{ z\in\Omega: \gamma_H^z \cap \operatorname{int} V_x \neq
\emptyset \}.$$
Note, that $V^\# \subset M_H$ since any default optimal path outside of $M_H$ cannot intersect with $V_x$ as proven in the previous lemma.
\[lemma-Vreduction\] Consider any fixed $V_x\subset\Omega$ and assume that $f(\rho)>0$ is increasing in $0\leq\rho<\rho_{\max}$, with $\rho_H=0$, then the problem of computing the local potential $\tilde{\phi}(y)$ out of further reduces to the following problem on $V^\#$ $$\begin{cases} {\Vert \nabla_y \tilde{\phi}(y) \Vert}= \frac{1}{f(\rho(y,t))}+W(y) &\text{ in } V_x \\
{\Vert \nabla_y \tilde{\phi}(y) \Vert}= \frac{1}{f(0)} &\text{ in } V^\# \backslash V_x\\
\tilde{\phi} \equiv \phi_H &\text{ on } \partial V^\#
\end{cases}
\,.$$
For any point $z$ whose default optimal path $\gamma_H^z$ that does not intersect with $V$, the claim is that $\tilde{\phi}(z)=\phi_H(z)$ due the monotonicity of the cost function, i.e., $$\frac{1}{f(\rho(y,t))}+W(y) \geq \frac{1}{f(0)}\,.$$
To prove this, let us denote by $T_z^H$ the optimal time to get to the exit for the default optimal path $\gamma_H^z$.
We first take $\gamma_{x,t}^z(s)$ as a candidate path in the global optimality condition for the eikonal equation with right hand side $c_H=\tfrac{1}{f(0)}$. Being $\gamma_{x,t}^z(s)$ a path joining $z$ to a point in the exit and $\gamma_H^z(s)$ the optimal one, we conclude $$\phi_H(z) = T_z^H c_H \leq T_z c_H \leq \int_0^{T_z}
c(\gamma_{x,t}^z(s),t) \,ds = \tilde\phi(z) \,.$$ Now, we take $\gamma_H(z)$ as a candidate path in the global optimality condition for the eikonal equation with right hand side $c(y,t)$. It is an admissible path as it connects $z$ to a point at the exit and the cost along its path coincides with $c_H=c(\gamma_H^z(s),t)$ for all $s\in [0,T_Z^H]$ since the path does not cross $V$. Then, we get $$\tilde\phi(z) \leq \int_0^{T_z^H} c(\gamma_H^z(s),t) \,ds = T_z^H
c_H = \phi_H(z) \,,$$ leading to the stated result.
We illustrate Lemmata \[lemma-Mreduction\] and \[lemma-Vreduction\] in Figure \[fig-MVreduction\]. It can be seen, that the reduction of the computational domain from $M_H$ to $V^{\#}$ can be significant, as the size of $M_H$ depends on the closeness of $V$ to the nearest exit, not on the size of $V$. For the exemplary geometry of Figure \[fig-MVreduction\], the boundary of $V^{\#}$ coincides with the sonic points of $\phi_H$, but this is not true in general. Furthermore, it is easy to see why the computational domain cannot be reduced further. Suppose that $\rho(\cdot,t)$ is spatially homogeneous, then $-\nabla\phi$ in $V^\#\backslash V$ points to the left exit as in the eikonal case. On the other side, one can choose a situation with a large density at the left boundary of $V$ that leads to right-pointing $-\nabla\phi$ in $V^\#\backslash V$.
Computational methods {#s:computmeth}
=====================
In this section we present a microscopic and a macroscopic numerical solver to simulate the classic and the local version of the Hughes model. The proposed methods have been implemented on regular and triangular meshes in 2D to allow for flexible discretizations of polygonal domains with one or several obstacles.
For the macroscopic system we use the following explicit iterative algorithm:
Initialisation:
- A discretisation $\hat\Omega=( \mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E}, \mathcal{T})$ of $\Omega$ consisting of vertices, edges and cells.
- An initial density $\hat\rho_0$ given on $\mathcal{T}$, such that $\int_{T} \rho(x,0){\mathrm{d}}x = \hat\rho_0(T) \,\, \forall \, T \in \mathcal{T}$.
- A list of exits, a list of boundary edges per exit and $|\mathcal{V}|$ subsets of $\mathcal{V}$ containing the vision cones defined in terms of vertices.
1. Compute the cost potential $\hat\phi_k$ for all exits out of the current density $\hat\rho$ by solving along the vertices for every $v\in \mathcal{V}$.
2. Determine the cell values of $\hat\phi_k$ and $\nabla\hat\phi_k$ by an averaging / finite difference approximation of the values at neighbouring vertices, e.g. $\hat\phi_k(T)=\frac{1}{|\{v\in\partial T\}|}\sum_{v\in\partial T} \hat\phi_k(u)$, and obtain $\hat u(T)$ here from.
3. Compute a numerical convolution of $\hat u$ with $\mathcal{K}$, which gives $\hat\varphi$ on the cells.
4. Update the density with a cell-based Finite Volume Method using the velocity field $-f(\hat\rho)\mathcal{P}[\hat\varphi]$ and a suitably chosen time step.
\[algo:macro\]
The discretisation is either a regular grid or an unstructured regular triangular mesh to allow more complex geometries. For solving the eikonal equations, one can chose between Fast Sweeping Methods[@zhao05; @QZZ2007] and Fast Marching Methods[@kimmel1998computing; @SethianRev1999]. The former is based on a Gauss-Seidel iteration, which updates the solution by passing through the computational domain in alternate pre-defined sweeping directions. A rectangular grid provides a natural ordering of all grid points. This ordering does not exist on an unstructured grid and is replaced by a general ordering strategy by introducing reference points, which is done once. Then the solution at each node is consecutively updated by running through the ordered lists. Marching methods update vertices in a monotone increasing order, where in every iteration a list of candidate values is available by finite difference approximation from previously approved values. The smallest value all of candidate values is then promoted and assigned to its vertex.
As a Finite Volume Method we use the first-order monotone FORCE scheme[@toro2009force; @Toro2010]. Some postprocessing between the steps of Algorithm \[algo:macro\] is required: outward-pointing components of $\nabla\hat\phi_k$ are removed along the boundary, suitable values of $\nabla\hat\phi_k$ are ensured at corners of $\Omega$, and the max outflow condition is enforced at cells neighbouring exit edges.
The analogous algorithm used for the numerical simulation of the microscopic model is:
Let us consider a system of $N$ particles, which are initially located at positions $X^j(0) = X^j_0$. In every time step $t^i = i \Delta t$ we update the particle position as follows:
1. Determine the empirical density at time $t^i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^N_g(x,t^i) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N g(x-X^j(t^i)),\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ denotes a Gaussian.
2. Solve the eikonal equation to determine the weighted distance to each exit $\phi^k = \phi^k(x,t^i)$, $k=1, \ldots M$:
\[e:microeikonal\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\Vert \nabla \phi^k(x,y,t^i) \Vert} &=
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{ f(\rho^N_g(y,t^i))} +W(y) &\text{ if } y \in V_x\\
\frac{1}{f(\rho_H)} &\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}\\
\phi^k(x,t^i) &= 0\end{aligned}$$
3. Update the position of each particle $X^j$ via: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{X^j}(t^i) = -f^2(\rho^N_g(x,t^i) \cdot \nabla \varphi(x,t^i))),\label{e:microupdate}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi(x,t^i)$ is determined by .
Results {#s:numexp}
=======
In this section we illustrate the dynamics of the localised model for crowd dynamics with examples in one and two dimensions. In all simulations we consider an evacuation scenario of a corridor, where a given initial distribution of people tries to leave the rectangular domain through either one of the two exits as fast as possible. We compare the evacuation time, i.e. the time at which all individuals have left the domain, with respect to different parameters, e.g. vision cones. In the case of a global vision cone we obtain Hughes’ type dynamics. As a flux law, we chose the LWR function $$f(\rho)=\rho(1-\rho)
\label{fluxlaw},$$ setting $\rho_{\max}=1$ throughout this section.
1D corridor - macroscopic model {#s:1dcorrmac}
-------------------------------
In our first example the domain $\Omega$ corresponds to the unit interval $\Omega=[0,1]$ with two exits located at either end, i.e. at $x=0$ and $x=1$. We consider an evacuation scenario in which two groups, one of them being densly packed, want to leave through either one of the exits: $$\rho_0(x) = \begin{cases}
0.85 & 0\geq x \geq 0.3 \\
0 & 0.3< x < 0.6 \\
0.25 & 0.6\geq x \geq 1
\end{cases},
\label{e:initsymcorridor}$$ and we set the width of the vision cone to $L=0.75$. The resulting dynamics are illustrated at 4 time steps in Fig. \[fig-1Dturnaround\]. Within the left block, some pedestrians decide to walk towards the right exit, as they are aware of the high density on their left and account for a higher walking cost compared to the relatively empty right hand side. After the separation the right-moving part evolves as a rarefaction wave, as known from the LWR model. As the distance between the wave and the left-moving shock grows, the effects of the local vision cone become apparent. At some point pedestrians moving to the right do not see the high density at the left exit anymore and start to turn around. Therefore the rarefaction wave splits again - one part continues while the other one turns around and moves back to the left exit. The turn-around occurs in several stages:
1. A new sonic point arises, where pedestrians are undecided between both exits. The walking direction is unchanged as the local consensus process prevents an immediate switching.
2. When a critical mass of density and conviction opting for walking to the left, the velocity after consensus switches continuously and passing through zero. This creates a temporary collision point, as there a still pedestrians to the left of the sonic point which walk towards the right.
3. The density at the collision point increases, which causes pedestrians to the left of the collision point to turn around too, as a higher density is in their way, as it can bee seen in Fig. \[fig-1Dturnaround\](c).
4. Finally, all pedestrians to the left of the initial sonic point have turned and walk towards the left ( Fig. \[fig-1Dturnaround\](d)).
------------------ ------------------
\(a) $t_0=0 $ \(b) $t_1=0.31 $
\(c) $t_2=0.71 $ \(d) $t_3=1.29 $
------------------ ------------------
This new behavioural pattern is entirely consistent with the idea of constant re-evaluation of the optimal path based on restricted information and cannot be observed in the original Hughes’ model. We note that without the smoothening properties of the model around points of equal costs one obtains strong oscillations in the turning behavior, which causes severe numerical problems. The exact parameters of the simulation can be found in Appendix \[a:1d\]
2D corridor - microscopic model {#s:num2dmicro}
-------------------------------
\
\
We illustrate the dynamics of the microscopic model in a two-dimensional symmetric corridor $\Omega = [0,1] \times [0,
\frac{1}{2}]$ with exits at the left and right side, i.e. $x = 0$ and $x = 1$. The 1D case of section \[s:1dcorrmac\] can be interpreted as a projection of this two-dimensional geometry. We consider the same initial distribution of individuals, i.e. the positions of all $500$ particles are distributed according to the initial pedestrian density . For $L=0.25$, Figure \[f:corridor\_micro\](a)-(f) nicely illustrates a similar turn-around behavior as in the 1D macroscopic simulations. At the beginning the group close to the left exit splits, one part exits through the left exit the other one moves towards the more distant right exit. As the density close to the left exit decreases in time, the group moving towards the more distant exit splits again, i.e. parts of the group turn around and move back again. We marked all individuals, which initially moved towards the right but then turn around, with red triangles. Furthermore, Figure \[f:corridor\_micro\](g) shows the change of the evacuation performance for different sizes of the local vision cones $L$. Here we plot the percentage of the total initial mass outside the domain versus time. Decreasing $L$ and hence the perceived information, we observe that the overall evacuation performance first is merely diminished, and only begins to drop significantly after a certain threshold. The evacuation time will approach the uninformed eikonal case $L=0$, which is not shown. All parameters can be found in Appendix \[a:2dmicro\].
2D non-symmetric corridor - macroscopic model {#s:num2dmacro}
---------------------------------------------
Now we turn to the macroscopic model in two dimensions. Again we consider the corridor $\Omega=[0,1]\times[0,\frac{1}{2}]$, the exits however form only a part of the left and right edges, hence we obtain a fully two-dimensional dynamics where boundary conditions matter. The left exit is located between $(0,0)$ and $(0,0.1)$ and the right exit is the segment connecting $(1,\tfrac{1}{2})$ and $(1,0.4)$. The initial density Figure \[fig-2dmacroglobal\](a) is given as a low density group of pedestrians on the left and a high density group on the right $$\rho_0(x,y) = \begin{cases}
0.1 & 0.05\leq x \leq 0.3 \,,\, 0\leq y \leq 0.25, \\
0.95 & 0.6\leq x \leq 0.95,\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
\
\
\
We first study the case of global vision $L=\infty \Leftrightarrow
V_x=\Omega$ in Figure \[fig-2dmacroglobal\]. In (b), the low density group turns towards left and is quickly vacated. The high density group on the other side splits along a curve of sonic points. Pedestrians turning to the right cause a jam in front of the right exit, whereas left-turning pedestrians occupy the corridor in a rarefaction-type manner inherited by the physical flux law . Upon arrival at the left exit, pedestrians pile up and form a new jam (c). Hence, a fraction of the density turns around again and heads for the right exit (d, around $(0.5,.25$)), having to cross most of the corridor again (e). However, most of the pedestrians are committed to the left exit and do not turn, because the severeness of the left jam does not compensate their expected travel time, and the left exit is vacated later than the right exit (f).
Compared to the classical Hughes model, the relaxation term and the conviction-based interaction - allow for a smooth turning behaviour. The wall-repulsion causes a density gap, which is different to zero-flux conditions as in [@HuangonHughes2009], but prevents any spurious effects of the boundary flux.
\
\
\
It is clear that even the planning algorithm incorporated into the classic Hughes’ model does not lead to an optimal evacuation. One reason for suboptimality in Figure \[fig-2dmacroglobal\] is that pedestrians *have to* keep in motion constantly but cannot predict the occurrence of future jams. Hence, pedestrians are likely to walk towards an exit that will be blocked in the future, as seen in the example.
In Figure \[fig-2dmacrolocal\] we study the same initial configurations with localised perception and a radial vision cone of diameter $L=0.75$. The initial separation phase (a) is similar to Figure \[fig-2dmacroglobal\]. As pedestrians move from the right to the left, the right jam gets out of sight and its influence diminishes. At the same time, the density on the left becomes visible. At a certain point a balance is achieved and pedestrians locally accumulate around an area of equal walking costs, where in this case they are able to stop (b-c). Hence, we observe a waiting behavior which cannot be observed in classical Hughes’ type models. Looking from (c) to (d), a high density jam forms at the left exit, which causes part of the left-walking pedestrians to turn right after enough conviction is gathered. Together with some outflow of the first waiting group, a second waiting group is formed (d). Pedestrians in a waiting group choose to move if one direction becomes favorable. As both jams at the exits reduce at the same rate, the left waiting group walks to the left and vice versa (e). Finally, the waiting groups dissolve and the exits get vacated at a rather similar time (f), and the evacuation time improves compared to Figure \[fig-2dmacroglobal\].
![Evacuation time of the macroscopic model for varying vision cone diameters $L$: The performance can improve with limited vision. $L=0$ corresponds to the eikonal case whereas $L>2.5$ implies unlimited vision in the given corridor.[]{data-label="fig-2dmacroevac"}](evacuationplot){width="60.00000%"}
The fact that evacuation performance can improve under limited perception of information is surprising at first glance. Our simulations give an good explanation for the phenomena: As pedestrians show a waiting behaviour, they are less likely to be trapped in the jam arising at the left exit. In fact, the waiting is made possible by the combined effect of multiple sonic points due to local vision and the smoothed turning mechanism. Naturally, this is not generally the case and cannot be a-priori answered. For small vision lengths $L$, the dynamics will converge to the velocity field given by the eikonal equation, which is our initial configuration will exit almost all pedestrians using the right exit and perform poorly. In Figure \[fig-2dmacroevac\], we study the evacuation time of $99\%$ of the initial mass as a function of the diameter $L$. We unexpectedly find in this case wo optimal values of $L$ for which the evacuation time is minimal. The classical Hughes’ evacuation time ($L$ large) is always less or equal than the eikonal case ($L=0$), however there is no way to generally argue that there will always be a minimum in between.
Conclusion {#s:conclusion}
==========
\[s:conclusions\] In this work we introduced a localized smooth variant of Hughes’s model for pedestrian crowd dynamics. We regularised the original model, composed by an eikonal equation and a continuity equation. First by a local interaction term, which intermediates individual pointwise path optimisation towards conviction-weighted walking directions. Secondly, we allowed pedestrians to stop, if they are undecided, using a smooth approximation of the normalization condition. Most importantly, we restrict the information on the global density each pedestrian can use for her planning algorithm to a local surrounding area. This is a very realistic assumption for large crowds that has not been considered in the literature so far. We presented both a microscopic and a macroscopic version, and illustrated the model components in the one-dimensional case. In terms of analytical results, a rigorous theory for these kind of equations in multiple dimensions is currently out of reach to the best of our knowledge. However, we were able to identify some qualitative properties of the dependence of the optimal path on the vision cone that allow for a reduction of complexity.
The numerical approximation of the model on both levels has been discussed and utilizes several techniques including sweeping and marching methods, particle approximations and finite volume schemes. Though the numerical costs of computing a solution have increased due to the inhomogeneity of vision cones, we observe new effects and phenomena in the model based on our simulations. First, local groups of pedestrians are able to change repeatedly their walking direction towards an exit. This ’multiple turn-around behaviour’ can explained by the multiple sonic points of the estimated walking costs, which by construction cannot occur in the classical case. We stress that the smoothening and conviction terms are crucial to allow a swift turning behavior, which is not trivial to model in first order equations. Second, the model replicates a waiting behaviour in case of undecided pedestrians, i.e. in areas where locally estimated walking costs towards different exits are equal. Surprisingly, we found that this waiting phenomena induced by localized information can improve the overall evacuation performance of the crowd. In our numerical example we observed two local minima when varying the vision cone diameter.
To conclude, we have demonstrated that local vision effects can be implemented into first order models for crowd dynamics. This leads to new unforeseen phenomena and complex behavior, whose partial understanding via qualitative properties is important for the applicability of such equations to social-economic problems. On the other hand, this work illustrates the limitations to first order models such as Hughes’, where planning decisions are instantaneously updated and no social or cognitive memory is taken into account. From our point of view Hughes’ type equations constitute an important building block for crowd models and a mathematically important object of study, but it cannot be expected to be fully realistic.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
JAC acknowledges support from projects MTM2011-27739-C04-02 and the Royal Society through a Wolfson Research Merit Award. JAC and SM were supported by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) grant number EP/K008404/1. MTW acknowledges financial support from the Austrian Academy of Sciences ÖAW via the New Frontiers Group NSP-001. Preprint of an article submitted for consideration in Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, ©2015 World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/m3as.
Simulation parameters
=====================
1d macro parameters in Section \[s:1dcorrmac\] {#a:1d}
----------------------------------------------
The macroscopic simulation in 1D was implemented in `MATLAB`. The domain $[0,1]$ was uniformly discretized with $\Delta x=10^{-4}$. The time step was set to $\Delta t = 5\cdot 10^{-5}.$ The vision cone was defined as $V_x=[x-L/2,x+L/2]\cap [0,1]$ with $L=0.75$. The radial interaction kernel $\mathcal{K}$ was chosen as the indicator function on the interval $[0,0.05]$. The smoothed projection operator was chosen as in with $\ell=0.05$ and $k=25$. The wall repulsion $W(x)$ was neglected in 1D. Absorbing boundary conditions were applied at both exits. The cost function was numerically bounded at $c(\rho)\leq 10^4$.
2d micro parameters in Section \[s:num2dmicro\] {#a:2dmicro}
-----------------------------------------------
The microscopic simulations are implemented using the software package Netgen/NgSolve. The domain was discretized in $1438$ triangles, the time steps were set to $\Delta t = 10^{-2}$, the final time to $T=1.5$. At time $t=0$ we distributed the $500$ particles according to the initial datum $\rho_0$ used in subsection \[s:1dcorrmac\]. The empirical density $\rho^N_g$ was calculated using Gaussians with variance $\sigma = 0.05$ for the smooth approximation $g$. The width of the local vision cone was set to $L = 0.25$ in Figure \[f:corridor\_micro\](a)-(e) and to $L = 0.75, 0.5$ and $L =0.25$ in Figure \[f:corridor\_micro\](f).
2d macro parameters in Section \[s:num2dmacro\] {#a:2dmacro}
-----------------------------------------------
The macroscopic simulation in 2D was implemented in `MATLAB`. The domain $\Omega = [0,1]\times[0,\frac{1}{2}]$ was uniformly discretized with $\Delta x=\Delta y =10^{-3}$. The time step was set to $\Delta t = 5\cdot 10^{-3}.$ A Fast Sweeping Method was used to solve the eikonal equations. The vision cone was defined as $V_x=\{y: {\Vert y-x \Vert}_2\leq \frac{L}{2}\}\cap \Omega$ with varying diameter $L$. The radial interaction kernel $\mathcal{K}$ was chosen as $$\mathcal{K}(x)=\begin{cases}\exp\left(-\frac{b^2}{b^2-{\Vert x \Vert}^2}\right) & {\Vert x \Vert}\leq b, \\
0 & \text{else}.
\end{cases}$$ with $b=0.05$. The smoothed projection operator was chosen as in with $\ell=0.05$ and $k=25$. The wall repulsion $W(x)$ was defined with the width of the boundary layer function $\chi_w$ set to $w=0.025$. The wall costs $W(x)$ were numerically bounded at $W(x)\leq c(0.975)$. The cost function was numerically bounded at $c(\rho)\leq 10^3$. The numerical accuracy for vanishing density was set to $10^{-7}$.
[^1]: $^*$ Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK\
[email protected]
[^2]: $^\text{\textdagger}$ Department of Mathematics RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany &\
Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK\
[email protected], [email protected],
[^3]: $^\ddagger$ Radon Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics,\
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Altenberger Strasse 69, 4040 Linz, Austria\
[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The bag of words (BOW) represents a corpus in a matrix whose elements are the frequency of words. However, each row in the matrix is a very high-dimensional sparse vector. Dimension reduction (DR) is a popular method to address sparsity and high-dimensionality issues. Among different strategies to develop DR method, Unsupervised Feature Transformation (UFT) is a popular strategy to map all words on a new basis to represent BOW. The recent increase of text data and its challenges imply that DR area still needs new perspectives. Although a wide range of methods based on the UFT strategy has been developed, the fuzzy approach has not been considered for DR based on this strategy. This research investigates the application of fuzzy clustering as a DR method based on the UFT strategy to collapse BOW matrix to provide a lower-dimensional representation of documents instead of the words in a corpus. The quantitative evaluation shows that fuzzy clustering produces superior performance and features to *Principal Components Analysis* (PCA) and *Singular Value Decomposition* (SVD), two popular DR methods based on the UFT strategy.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'refrence.bib'
title: Taming Wild High Dimensional Text Data with a Fuzzy Lash
---
dimension reduction, fuzzy clustering, SVD, PCA, classification
Introduction
============
Large electronic archives provide extremely useful and valuable resources to the scholarly community [@karami2015fuzzyiconf]. For example, there are more than 25 million documents in the MEDLINE/PubMed website[^1] and more than 4 million documents in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library website[^2]. This huge amount of documents has created a growing need to develop new methods for processing high dimensional data [@karami2015fuzzy]. This computational area is one of the data-intensive challenges identified by National Science Foundation (NSF) as an area for future study [@council2016future].
Bag-of-words (BOW) is a common method in text data representation. This technique represents documents based on the frequency of words with a matrix [@karami2014fftm]. However, this high dimensional matrix is a sparse matrix for large number of documents [@karami2015flatm]. Sparsity means that most elements in BOW matrix are zero because each document contains a small percentage of all words in a corpus [@aggarwal2012introduction].
Dimension reduction (DR) is a per-processing step for reducing the original BOW dimension. The objectives of dimension reduction strategies are to improve speed and accuracy of data mining [@karami2015fuzzy]. There are four main strategies for DR: Supervised-Feature Selection (SFS), Unsupervised-Feature Selection (UFS), Supervised-Feature Transformation (SFT), and Unsupervised-Feature Transformation (UFT) [@karami2015fuzzy]. Feature selection focuses on finding a feature subset that can describe the data, as good as the original dataset, for supervised or unsupervised learning tasks [@wu2002feature]. Unsupervised means there is no teacher, in the form of class labels [@liu2007computational]. Many existing databases are unlabeled because large amounts of data make it difficult for humans to manually label the categories of each document. Moreover, human labeling is expensive and subjective. Hence, unsupervised learning is needed.
DR reduction methods are based on some approaches such as linear algebra, statistical distributions, and neural network. Fuzzy approach has contributed to decision making [@karami2010risk; @karami2012fuzzy] and data mining in various ways by providing a flexible approach such as fuzzy information granulation and representing vague patterns [@hullermeier2011fuzzy]; however, fuzzy clustering has not been considered as a DR approach.
This paper will discuss the application of fuzzy clustering for dimensionality reduction based on the UFT strategy. This research compares the DR performance of fuzzy clustering, PCA, and SVD, and shows that fuzzy clustering has better performance in document classification and has computational advantages over the current methods.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the related work section, we review the DR research. In the methodology and experiment sections, we provide more details about using fuzzy clustering as a DR method along with an evaluation study to verify the effectiveness of fuzzy clustering. Finally, we present a summary, limitations, and future directions in the last section.
Related Work
============
Big text data have encouraged researchers to propose dimension reduction techniques in four categories [@cunningham2008dimension]: SFS, SFT, UFS, and UFT.
SFS strategy explores the best minimum subset of the original words (features) for labeled data. Assume that $W=\{w_1,w_2,...,w_m\}$ and $L=\{l_1,l_2,...,l_p\}$ denote the words and the class label set where $m$ and $p$ are the number of words and labels, respectively. $D=\{d_1,d_2,...,d_n\}$ is the corpus where $n$ is the number of documents. The goal of SFS strategy is to find $F=\{f_1,f_2,...,f_k\}$ that is a subset of $W$ with $k$ features ($k < m$) with respect to $L$. Several methods were developed based on SFS strategy such as information gain [@yang1997comparative] and Chi-square measure [@gao2017learning].
SFT strategy maps the words to a new basis for labeled data. The goal of SFT strategy is to map the words in $W$ onto clusters, $C=\{c_1,c_2,...,c_k\}$, with respect to $L$ where $k << m$. For example, Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) is a SFT method using Fisher criterion based on maximizing the between class scatter and minimizing the within class scatter [@mika1999fisher].
UFS explores the best minimum subset of the original words for unlabeled data. The goal of unsupervised-feature selection strategy is to find the best minimum subset ($k$) of $F$ without having $L$ where $k < m$. Different methods have been developed based on UFS strategy such as Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) [@lee1999learning] and Laplacian Score (LS) [@he2006laplacian].
the UFT strategy maps the words to a new basis for unlabeled data. The goal of unsupervised-feature transformation strategy is to map the words in $W$ onto $C$ without having $L$ where $k << m$. Several methods have been developed based on the UFT strategy such as Principal Components Analysis (PCA) that is a linear unsupervised-feature transformation to map a set of correlated features into a set of uncorrelated features using orthogonally [@abdi2010principal]. PCA is among the most effective dimension reduction techniques and has shown a better performance than other techniques [@van2009dimensionality]. While PCA uses eigen-decomposition of the covariance matrix, Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) is a similar method using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) for feature transformation [@deerwester1990indexing]. SVD detects the maximum variance of the data in a set of orthogonal basis vectors [@sweeney2014comparison].
Some studies have applied fuzzy approach to develop dimensionality reduction methods based on supervised- and unsupervised- feature selection strategies such as Rough Set Attribute Reduction (RSAR) [@jensen2004semantics]. The current fuzzy-based dimension reduction methods rely on retaining important features, and removing irrelevant and redundant (noisy) features [@mac2013unsupervised]; however, this strategy loses some information. This research investigates the potential of fuzzy clustering as a DR method and compares its performance with powerful current DR methods based on the UFT strategy.
Method
======
The goal of UFT strategy is to obtain a new basis that is a combination of the original basis. Among different methods with respect to this strategy, PCA and LSA are well-known widely used methods [@hinton2006reducing]. PCA converts matrix $X$ that contains $n$ objects or documents with $m$ variables or words to three matrices: linear combination of variables for each object ($t$), vectors of regression coefficients ($P$), and residuals ($E$):
$X= tP^T+E$
LSA applies SVD on matrix $X$ to drop the least significant singular values and keep $k$ singular values. SVD converts matrix $X$ to three matrices: diagonalized $XX^T (U)$, singular values of $X (S)$, and diagonalized $X^TX (V^T)$. In both PCA and SVD, the original basis is represented by a new reduced base with k dimensions ($d<<m$ and $d<<n$):
$X=USV^T$
The traditional reasoning has a precise character that is yes-or-no rather than more-or-less [@zimmermann2010fuzzy]. Fuzzy logic proposes a new approach to move from the classical logic, zero or one, to the truth values between zero and one [@zadeh1973outline; @karami2012fuzzy].
Fuzzy logic assumes that if $X$ is a collection of data points represented by $x$, then a fuzzy set $A$ in $X$ is a set of order pairs, $ A=\{(x,\mu_A (x)|x \in X)\}$. $\mu_A(x)$ is the membership function which maps $X$ to the membership space $M$ which is between 0 and 1 [@karami2012fuzzy].
The goal of most clustering algorithms is to minimize the objective function ($J$) that measures the quality of clusters to find the optimum $J$ which is the sum of the squared distances between each cluster center and each data point. There are two major clustering approaches: hard and fuzzy (soft) [@karami2017fuzzy]. The hard approach assigns exactly one cluster to a document, but the soft approach assign a degree of membership with respect to each of cluster for a document [@karami2015fuzzy]. Among fuzzy clustering techniques, fuzzy C-means (FCM) is the most popular model [@bezdek1981pattern] to minimize an objective function by considering constraints:
$$Min \: \: J_q =\sum_{f=1}^{k} \sum_{j=1}^{n} (\mu_{fj})^q ||d_j-v_f||^2$$
subject to: $$0 \leq \mu_{fj}\leq1;$$ $$\sum_{f=1}^{c} \mu_{fj}=1$$ $$0<\sum_{j=1}^{n} \mu_{fj} < n;$$ Where:\
$n$= number of documents\
$k$= number of clusters\
$\mu$= membership value\
$q$= fuzzifier, $1 < q \le \infty$\
$d$= document vector\
$v$= cluster center vector\
In this research, we use fuzzy clustering to find $\mu_{fj}$ as the membership degree for each document ($d_j$) with respect to each of clusters. The value of $\mu_{fj}$ is between 0 and 1 and is assumed to be a new basis to represent document-term frequency matrix. The number of documents and the number of clusters are represented by $n$ and $k$. We assume that fuzzy clustering converts $X$ with $n$ documents and $m$ words to a new reduced matrix (C) with $k$ variables or dimensions ($k<<m$) (Fig. \[tab:FC\]). It is worth mentioning that fuzzy clustering does not lose information in $X$ and does not need to select a subset of dimensions such as SVD.
(-2.2,0) node \[rotate=90\] [Documents]{}; (0,1.2) node [Words]{};
(4,1.2) node [Fuzzy Clusters]{};
(2.75,0) node \[rotate=90\] [Documents]{};
(-2,-1) rectangle (2,1) node\[pos=.5\] [$X_{n \times m}$]{}; (2.4,0) node [$\rightarrow$]{}; (3,-1) rectangle (5,1) node\[pos=.5\] [$C_{n \times k}$]{};
For example, assume that there are 10 words in a corpus with 5 documents represented by $X$ matrix whose elements show the frequency of the words in each of the documents. For instance, word 1 ($w_1$) is appeared two times in document 2 ($d_2$). Applying fuzzy clustering on $X$ to find two fuzzy clusters creates matrix $C$ that each element is a cluster’s membership degree with respect to a document. For instance, document 1 ($d_1$) with $0.2118281$ membership value belongs to cluster 1 ($c_1$) and with $0.7881719$ membership value belongs to cluster 2 (Fig. \[fig:fcexm\]). In this example, fuzzy clustering converts $X_{5 \times 10}$ matrix to $C_{5 \times 2}$ matrix and reduces the dimension space by 80%.
$$X= \kbordermatrix{
& w_1 & w_2 & w_3 & w_4 & w_5 & w_6 & w_7 & w_8 & w_9 & w_{10} \\
d_1 & 1& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1& 2& 1&0\\
d_2 & 2& 0& 1& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 1 \\
d_3 & 1& 0& 0& 2& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1&0 \\
d_4 & 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1& 0&1 \\
d_5 & 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0
} \rightarrow C=\kbordermatrix{
& c_1 & c_2 \\
d_1 & 0.2118281 & 0.7881719 \\
d_2 & 0.8619096 & 0.1380904 \\
d_3 & 0.0681949 & 0.9318051 \\
d_4 & 0.8301873 & 0.1698127 \\
d_5 & 0.4106981 & 0.5893019
}$$
A large number of fuzzy clustering algorithms has been developed [@baraldi1999surveyI; @baraldi1999surveyII]. To mange text data sparsity, we use a spherical fuzzy clustering, called soft spherical k-means. This method iterates between determining optimal memberships for fixed prototypes and computing optimal prototypes for fixed memberships [@dhillon2001concept].
Experiments
===========
In this section, we evaluate the dimension reduction application of fuzzy clustering against PCA and SVD by document classification using Functional Trees (FT), Random Forest, and Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost). that are among high performance classification algorithms [@chimieski2013association; @sweeney2014comparison; @rao2015performance; @wu2008top; @caruana2006empirical; @qi2006evaluation].
We use two datasets, the irbla R package for computing SVD and PCA [@Baglama2017irlba], the skmeans R package for soft (fuzzy) spherical k-means with 100 iterations and 1e-5 as the minimum improvement in objective function between two consecutive iterations [@Hornik2017skmeans], and the Weka tool[^3] with its default settings for the document classification.
Datasets
--------
We leverage two datasets in this research:
- The Reuters dataset[^4] has 21,578 documents with several news categories. Two classes were created for binary classification. The documents in the Grain class were labeled as “Grain" and the rest of the documents were labeled as “Not Grain".
- The Ohsumed dataset[^5] has 20,000 documents with different cardiovascular diseases categories. Two classes were created for binary classification. The documents in the Virus Diseases class were labeled as “Virus Diseases" and 5000 documents randomly selected from the rest of the documents were labeled as “Not Virus Diseases".
Document Classification
-----------------------
Document classification problem assigns a document to a class. For this purpose, a pre-processing step is needed to extract features from text data. Using words in a corpus as features creates a large sparse matrix. One solution to reduce the feature set is to use DR methods such as fuzzy clustering, SVD, and PCA to reduce the number of the original features.
Three classification methods including Functional Trees (FT), Random Forest, and Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost) were trained on 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 reduced dimensions. To avoid any possible sampling bias, we apply the 5-fold cross validation method that the data is broken into 5 subsets for 5 iterations. Each of the subsets is selected for testing and the rest of them are selected for training.
The output of a classification method is presented as a confusion matrix (Table \[tab:confmx\]) with the following definitions:
[cc|c|c|c|]{} & &\
& & **Negative** & **Positive**\
& & TN & FP\
& & FN & TP\
\[tab:confmx\]
- True Negative (TN) is the number of correct predictions that an instance is negative.
- False Negative (FN) is the number of incorrect of predictions that an instance negative.
- False Positive (FP) is the number of incorrect predictions that an instance is positive.
- True Positive (TP) is the number of correct predictions that an instance is positive.
Classification accuracy of a classifier is an evaluation metric to measure how well the classifier recognizes instances of the various classes. The accuracy of a classifier is the percentage of correctly classified documents in a test set [@chimieski2013association].
$$Accuracy = \frac{TP+TN}{TP+TN+FP+FN}$$
Evaluation Results
------------------
Fig. \[fig:Acc\].a and Fig. \[fig:Acc\].b show the average of the accuracy of the three classifiers along with two fuzzifier values including 1.5 (FC-1.5) and 2 (FC-2) for the two datasets. These two figures indicate that fuzzy clustering illustrates better accuracy performance than PCA and SVD.
In addition, FC-1.5 has better performance in most of the classification experiments and shows the highest stability with the lowest standard deviation value following by FC-2, SVD, and PCA. Although increasing the number of dimensions mostly has the negative effect on the accuracy performance of PCA and SVD based on Fig. \[fig:Acc\], fuzzy clustering shows a stable performance with lower standard deviation than the non-fuzzy ones. While SVD shows more stability than PCA, the latter one has better accuracy than the earlier one with different number of dimensions.
While the complexities for the PCA and the SVD methods are $O(mnlog(k))$ and $O(mnlog(k)+(m+n)k^2)$, respectively [@halko2009finding], the complexity for the fuzzy spherical k-means is $O(n+k)$ [@dhillon2002iterative]. Other than the complexity advantage, there are other benefits for the DR application of fuzzy clustering including not losing information, estimating the number of clusters or dimensions with already developed methods such as silhouette index [@campello2006fuzzy] and Xie-Beni index [@xie1991validity], and working with both discrete and continuous data.
Conclusion
==========
The big text data databases represent extremely useful resources to the scholarly community; however, analyzing individual words in a corpus leads to a high dimensional sparse BOW matrix. DR is a pre-processing step in data mining to reduce BOW matrix dimension for better accuracy. Although a wide range of DR methods has been developed, the exponential growth of data indicates that DR still needs new perspectives. DR methods have been developed based on different strategies. UFT is a popular and efficient strategy using different approaches such as linear algebra, statistical distributions, and neural network. However, fuzzy clustering has not been considered as a DR approach based on the UFT strategy.
This study discusses the potential of fuzzy clustering for DR based on the UFT strategy. Fuzzy clustering processes BOW matrix and creates a new matrix whose elements are membership degree values for each document in a corpus. This research uses the new matrix as a reduced matrix of BOW matrix. The efficiency and effectiveness of fuzzy clustering are demonstrated through accuracy comparisons with PCA and SVD using two public available corpora.
This paper’s results illustrate that fuzzy clustering is a competitor to the powerful methods such as PCA and SVD in the setting of dimensionality reduction for document collections. Indeed, the principal advantages fuzzy clustering include not losing information and having less complexity. Fuzzy clustering also works with both discrete and continuous data and there are developed methods to estimate the optimum number of dimensions. Although this paper has applied fuzzy clustering for text data dimension reduction purpose, this clustering method can be used for other data types such as image and microarray data.
This research has several limitations. First, word weighting methods such as entropy are not considered. Second, the fuzzifier is limited to two values (1.5 and 2). Third, the accuracy improvement of the fuzzy clustering over PCA and SVD is not significant. In our future work, we will apply word weighting methods on fuzzy clustering, investigate different fuzzifier values, and explore other fuzzy clustering methods.
[^1]: <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/licensee/baselinestats.html>
[^2]: <https://www.ieee.org/about/today/at_a_glance.html#sect1>
[^3]: <http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/>
[^4]: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/reuters-21578+text+categorization+collection
[^5]: http://disi.unitn.it/moschitti/corpora.htm
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report the measurement of the anisotropic AC polarizability of ultracold polar $^{40}$K$^{87}$Rb molecules in the ground and first rotationally excited states. Theoretical analysis of the polarizability agrees well with experimental findings. Although the polarizability can vary by more than $30\%$, a “magic” angle between the laser polarization and the quantization axis is found where the polarizability of the $|N=0,m_N=0\rangle$ and the $|N=1,m_N=0\rangle$ states match. At this angle, rotational decoherence due to the mismatch in trapping potentials is eliminated, and we observe a sharp increase in the coherence time. This paves the way for precise spectroscopic measurements and coherent manipulations of rotational states as a tool in the creation and probing of novel quantum many-body states of polar molecules.'
author:
- 'B. Neyenhuis'
- 'B. Yan'
- 'S. A. Moses'
- 'J. P. Covey'
- 'A. Chotia'
- 'A. Petrov'
- 'S. Kotochigova'
- 'J. Ye'
- 'D. S. Jin'
title: 'Anisotropic Polarizability of Ultracold Polar $^{40}$K$^{87}$Rb Molecules'
---
The creation of a gas of ultracold polar molecules with a high phase space density [@Ni.Science.2008] brings new possibilities beyond experiments with ultracold atomic gases. In particular, long-range, anisotropic, and tunable dipole-dipole interactions open the way for novel quantum gases, with applications including strongly correlated many-body systems [@Baranov200871; @Pupillo; @Baranov.PhysRevA.83.043602; @goral.PhysRevLett.88.170406], precision measurement [@Hudson.PhysRevLett.89.023003], and ultracold chemistry [@Krems.PCCP.2008; @Ospelkaus.Science.2010]. Molecules also have complex internal structure with many more internal degrees of freedom than atoms. In particular, the rotational degree of freedom provides a set of long-lived excited states that are easily coupled to the ground state with microwaves. Because of the accessible frequency in the microwave domain and the narrow intrinsic linewidth, the transition between rotational states could be ideal for use as a spectroscopic probe of the system. For example, such a narrow transition could be used to measure small energy shifts due to dipolar interactions [@Hazzard_PhysRevA.84.033608]. In addition, dipole-dipole interactions can be realized without applying a DC electric field but instead by directly coupling the two lowest rotational states with a microwave field. Within the rotating frame of the microwave transition, there is a strong dipolar interaction, which can be used to model novel quantum many-body Hamiltonians [@Goshkov_PhysRevLett.107.115301]. Additionally, the microwave detuning and power can be varied to modify collision dynamics [@Micheli.PhysRevA.76.043604]. This has been proposed as a way to achieve a topological superfluid of paired fermionic polar molecules [@Cooper.PhysRevA.84.013603].
A prerequisite for such experiments is long coherence times for the interaction between a microwave field and the rotational states. However, for molecules confined in an optical dipole trap, the difference in AC (or dynamic) polarizability between different rotational states must be considered [@Ospelkaus.FaradayDiscussion]. A difference in polarizability leads to different trap frequencies and spatially dependent variations in the rotational transition frequency, which can lead to dephasing and decoherence [@Ye.Science.2008.magicwavelength]. For atoms, if the trapping light is far detuned compared to the energy splitting between two states, their AC polarizabilities will be nearly equal. In contrast, for molecules, the ground and the first rotationally excited state with the same angular momentum projection onto the quantization axis have different parity and will therefore couple to different electronic excited states. This can result in AC polarizabilities that differ by more than 30%, even when the light is far detuned [@Kotochigova.PhysRevA.82.063421].
In atomic systems, it is possible to adjust the wavelength of the trapping light such that the polarizabilities of two states of interest (often clock states in alkaline earth atoms) are the same [@Ye.Science.2008.magicwavelength]. Although, in principle, one could find such a “magic” wavelength trap for molecules [@Zelevinsky.PhysRevLett.100.043201], the large number of additional states from rotation and vibration makes it difficult to find a suitable wavelength that is sufficiently detuned such that off-resonant light scattering is negligible. However, molecules provide a different way to adjust the polarizability; the AC polarizability of a molecule depends on the relative orientation of the molecule and the polarization of the trapping light [@Kotochigova.PhysRevA.82.063421].
In this Letter, we explore the interaction between the trapping light and the molecules by examining the real part of the AC polarizability. (The imaginary part of the polarizability was reported in a previous study of the lifetime of molecules trapped in a three-dimensional lattice [@Chotia.PhysRevLett.108.080405].) In particular, we determine how the polarizability of the rotationally excited states depends on the relative orientation of the quantization axis, $\hat{z}$ (which in these experiments is given by a magnetic field of 545.9 G), and the polarization of the trapping light. A “magic” angle exists where the polarizability of the $|N=0,m_N=0\rangle$ (where $N$ is the rotation quantum number, and $m_N$ is its projection onto the quantization axis) and $|N=1,m_N=0\rangle$ states match, making the AC Stark shift the same for these two internal states of the molecule. This “magic” angle is expected at $\cos^2\theta=1/3$, or $\theta \approx54$ degrees [@demille_budker]. We observe this magic angle both through direct measurements of the AC polarizability and through measurements of the coherence time for driving the $|0,0\rangle$ to $|1,0\rangle$ transition. In the theory component of this Letter, we extend the ideas of mixing of rotational levels due to static electric fields of Ref. [@Kotochigova.PhysRevA.82.063421] to include mixing due to the intrinsic nuclear electric-quadrupole and Zeeman interactions discussed in Ref. [@Ospelkaus.PhysRevLett.104.030402]. We compare our experimental results to the analytic results of an approximate Hamiltonian, which mixes the three projections of the first rotationally excited state.
![ (a) Experimental schematic. The lattice beam propagates along $\hat{x}$, the magnetic field points in the $\hat{z}$ direction, and the polarization of the lattice light makes an angle $\theta$ with the magnetic field in the y-z plane. (b) Schematic of rotational energy states. The degeneracy of the $N=1$ level is split in a magnetic field. (c) A sketch of the optical dipole potentials for the $|0,0\rangle$ and $|1,0\rangle$ states. A Gaussian is overlaid to show the density distribution of the molecular cloud in the trap. When the two states are connected by a 2.22 GHz microwave drive, there is effectively a spatially varying detuning across the cloud due to the difference in the trap potentials.[]{data-label="fig:traps"}](figure1.pdf){height="5cm"}
Molecules have a definite orientation that strongly affects their polarizability. In the frame of a diatomic molecule such as KRb, the DC (or far-off-resonance AC) polarizability along the internuclear axis is much stronger than the polarizability perpendicular to the internuclear axis. This has been successfully exploited to align molecules with intense laser pulses in order to study the stereodynamics of chemical reactions [@Herschbach.PhysRevLett.74.4623; @seideman:7887; @sakai.molecularalignment]. The $N=0$ rotational ground state is spherically symmetric and therefore its AC polarizability has no dependence on the relative orientation of the laser polarization and the quantization axis. However, the rotational wavefunctions of the three projections ($m_N$) of the $N=1$ rotationally excited state have well-defined orientations relative to the quantization axis. For example, the $|1,0\rangle$ state corresponds to a $p_z$ orbital that is aligned along the $\hat{z}$-axis, and therefore the polarizability is the largest when the polarization of the AC field is along the $\hat{z}$-axis.
The degeneracy of the three projections of the $N=1$ state is broken by the hyperfine interaction, specifically, the interaction between the nuclear quadrupole moment and the rotation of the molecule [@Ospelkaus.PhysRevLett.104.030402; @Hutson_PhysRevA.80.043410]. In the rotationally excited states, this coupling gives a specific nuclear spin state up to a $5\%$ admixture of other hyperfine states; however, we will ignore these contributions and will work only with states whose dominant nuclear spin character is $m_I^{\mathrm{K}}=-4,m_I^{\mathrm{Rb}}=1/2$ unless otherwise noted, where $m_I^{\mathrm{K}}$ and $m_I^{\mathrm{Rb}}$ are the nuclear spin projections onto the $\hat{z}$ axis. For more discussion of the nuclear quadrupole couplings, see the online supplementary material. At a field of 545.9 G and with no light, we find that the $|1,1\rangle$ state is 58 kHz above the $|1,-1\rangle$ state and the $|1,0\rangle$ state is 268 kHz above the $|1,1\rangle$ state (Fig \[fig:traps\]b). The splitting between the $m_N = \pm$ 1 states is of the same order of magnitude as the AC Stark shifts induced by the trapping lasers. Consequently, we calculate the anglar dependence of the dynamic polarizability of the three rotationally excited states using perturbation theory that includes the light-induced couplings between the bare states (no light).
Using the general formalism of Ref. [@Bonin], the complex dynamic polarizability for the $|0,0\rangle$ state is given by $$\alpha_{|0,0\rangle} = \frac{1}{3}(\alpha_{\parallel} + 2\alpha_{\perp})
\label{m0}$$ where the “reduced” polarizabilities $\alpha_{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\perp}$ are the parallel and perpendicular (with respect to the intermolecular axis) polarizabilities that describe the averaged contributions from ro-vibrational states of all electronically excited $^1\Sigma^+$ and $^1\Pi$ potentials. As mentioned above, the polarizability of the $|0,0\rangle$ state is independent of the angle $\theta$ between $\hat{z}$ and the polarization of the 1D optical lattice used to trap the molecules (see Fig. \[fig:traps\]a).
For the $|1,0\rangle$ and $|1,\pm1\rangle$ states, the dressed or mixed polarizabilities at laser intensity $I$ are given by the total Stark shift divided by the total intensity, $\alpha_{j}=-\frac{E_{j}(I)-E_{j}(0)}{I}$, where $E_{j}$, with $j=1,2,3$, are the eigenvalues of the $3\times3$ Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
&& \begin{array}{ccc}
\quad \quad | 1,0\rangle & \quad\quad|1,-1\rangle & \quad\quad |1,1\rangle
\end{array}\\
H &=&
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-\alpha_{11}I + \epsilon_1 & -\alpha_{12}I & -\alpha_{13}I \\
-\alpha_{12}I & -\alpha_{22}I + \epsilon_2 & -\alpha_{23}I \\
-\alpha_{13}I & -\alpha_{23}I & -\alpha_{33}I + \epsilon_3
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{11}& = & \frac{\alpha_{\parallel}+4\alpha_{\perp}}{5} \sin^2\theta +
\frac{3\alpha_{\parallel}+2\alpha_{\perp}}{5} \cos^2\theta\\
%
\alpha_{22} &= & \alpha_{33} %\\
= \frac{2\alpha_{\parallel}+3\alpha_{\perp}}{5} \sin^2\theta +
\frac{\alpha_{\parallel}+4\alpha_{\perp}}{5}\cos^2\theta \nonumber \\
%
\alpha_{12}& =&-\alpha_{13} = \sqrt{2}\,\frac{ \alpha_{\parallel} - \alpha_{\perp} }{5}\sin\theta \cos\theta\\
\alpha_{23} &=& \frac{1}{5}(\alpha_{\perp} - \alpha_{\parallel})\sin^2\theta \,,\end{aligned}$$ and $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_3$ are the energies for states $|1,0\rangle$, $|1,1\rangle$ and $|1,-1\rangle$, respectively, at $I=0$.
We measure the AC polarizability of the molecules in a one-dimensional optical lattice with a peak intensity, $I_0$, of 2.3 kW/cm$^2$ and a wavelength of $\lambda =$ 1064 nm [@Miranda.NaturePhys.2011; @Chotia.PhysRevLett.108.080405]. Using a single microwave pulse, we can selectively transfer population from the rotational ground state, $|0,0\rangle$, to any of the projections of the $N=1$ state with near $100\%$ efficiency [@Ospelkaus.PhysRevLett.104.030402]. We measure the trap depth, $U_{\mathrm{KRb}}$, from which we can extract the AC polarizability, by measuring the parametric heating resonance (see Fig. \[fig:parametricheating\]). We modulate the intensity of the optical lattice for 4 ms with an amplitude of approximately 10% of the total depth. The modulation frequency is varied to find the resonant frequency where molecules are excited from the lowest band of the lattice to the second excited band. In the deep lattice limit, this resonant frequency is twice the trap frequency. However, we operate our lattice in an intermediate intensity regime where the relationship between the trap depth and the resonant frequency must be extracted from a numerical solution to the lattice potential. We determine the polarizability, without having to characterize the optical beam parameters such as power or beam waist, by comparing the molecular results to a similar measurement of the trap depth for Rb. The polarizability of KRb is then given by $\alpha_{\textrm{KRb}} = \alpha_{\textrm{Rb}} U_{\textrm{KRb}}/U_{\textrm{Rb}}$, where $\alpha_{\textrm{Rb}}/h=3.242\times10^{-5}$ MHz/(W/cm$^2$) at 1064 nm [@Safronova_PhysRevA.69.022509], and $h$ is Planck’s constant.
![Parametric heating resonances in the far-off-resonance optical dipole trap for $\theta=57$ degrees. The y-axis shows the rms size in $\hat{x}$ of an expanded gas of KRb (Rb) after 5 ms (21 ms) of time of flight. The curves have been offset vertically for clarity. Using Gaussian fits (lines), we determine the center of the parametric heating resonances for (from bottom to top) Rb, and KRb in the $|0,0\rangle$, $|1,0\rangle$, $|1,1\rangle$, and $|1,-1\rangle$ states. The resonant frequency allows us to extract the trap depth for each state.[]{data-label="fig:parametricheating"}](figure2.pdf){height="6cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:angle\], we show the polarizabilities of the $N=0$ ground state as well as the three projections of the $N=1$ rotationally excited state as a function of $\theta$, which is varied by adjusting a half-waveplate in the lattice beam. Although the rotation of the half-waveplate allows us to choose $\theta$ with precision better than one degree, the absolute alignment relative to the magnetic field has an estimated systematic uncertainty of $\pm3$ degrees. We fit Eqn. \[m0\] and the polarizabilities from the eigenenergies of $H$ to the experimental data with three free parameters, $\theta_m$, $\alpha_\parallel$ and $\alpha_\perp$. From the best fit, we determine that the “magic” angle $\theta_m=48(4)$ degrees, $\alpha_\parallel/h =10.0(3) \times 10^{-5}$ MHz/(W/cm$^2$), and $\alpha_\perp/h=3.3(1) \times 10^{-5}$ MHz/(W/cm$^2$).
![The AC polarizability of KRb at 1064 nm for the $|0,0\rangle$ (black squares), $|1,0\rangle$ (blue circles), $|1,1\rangle$ (red inverted triangles), and $|1,-1\rangle$ (green triangles) states. Error bars are from the fit uncertainty in the center of the parametric heating resonances and correspond to $\pm1$ standard deviation. Theory lines are a simultaneous fit to Eqn. \[m0\] and the polarizabilities from the solution of $H$ with three free parameters $\theta_m$, $\alpha_\perp$, and $\alpha_\parallel$. Open circles represent a separate measurement where the polarizability is extracted from the shift in the microwave transition frequency.[]{data-label="fig:angle"}](figure3.pdf){height="6cm"}
Hyperfine couplings between the $|1,0\rangle$ and $|1,\pm1\rangle$ states result in a small change of the predicted magic angle from 54 degrees. For the polarizabilities and intensity given above, we expect $\theta_m = 52$ degrees, which agrees with our measurement to within the error. For comparison to the measurement, theoretical values of the polarizabilities $\alpha_{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\perp}$ are obtained using non-relativistic potentials and dipole moments described in Ref. [@Kotochigova.PhysRevA.82.063421], and are $h \times 12.2 \times 10^{-5}$ MHz/(W/cm$^2$) and $h \times 2.01 \times 10^{-5}$ MHz/(W/cm$^2$), respectively. In principle, $\alpha_{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\perp}$ depend on the ro-vibrational state of the molecule, however, we find in the calculation that for small $N$, the polarizabilities $\alpha_{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\perp}$ are independent of $N$ to better than 0.01%.
Because the bare states are mixed by the lattice light, the dresssed state polarizabilities depend on the intensity of the light. This is effect is strongest for the $|1,\pm1\rangle$ states, where the energy splitting of the bare states is relatively small. However, we experimentally verify that at the intensity used here this effect is small. For example, for a $50\%$ increase in intensity with $\theta=93$ degrees, we see only a $3.9(8)\%$ decrease in the polarizability of the $|1,1\rangle$ state.
We can also use an independent measurement of the shift in the microwave transition frequency to determine the polarizability as a function of $\theta$. The difference in polarizability between the $|0,0\rangle$ and $|1,0\rangle$ states results in a shift in the microwave transition frequency: $$f = f_0 + (\alpha_{|0,0\rangle}-\alpha_{|1,0\rangle}) I_0/h + \frac{\omega_{|1,0\rangle}}{4 \pi}-\frac{\omega_{|0,0\rangle}}{4 \pi} + \Delta f,
\label{eq:shift}$$ where $f$ is the measured transition frequency, $f_0$ is the transition frequency from $|0,0\rangle$ to $|1,0\rangle$ with $I=0$ (measured after release from the lattice), $\omega/(4 \pi)=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha I_0}{2 \lambda^2 m}}$ is the trap zero point energy in the lattice divided by $h$, $m$ is the mass, $\Delta f= \frac{\alpha_{|1,0\rangle} - \alpha_{|0,0\rangle}}{\alpha_{|0,0\rangle}} k_B T/h $ is the shift in the center of the transition frequency caused by the spatially dependent detuning, $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $T=400$ nK is the temperature. The transition frequency is only sensitive to the polarizability difference between the $|0,0\rangle$ and $|1,0\rangle$ states, but can be compared with the polarizability from the direct measurement of the trap depth by fixing $\alpha_{|0,0\rangle}$ and then solving Eqn. \[eq:shift\] for $\alpha_{|1,0\rangle}$. The resultant polarizabilities are shown in open symbols in Fig. \[fig:angle\]. We see a good agreement between the two methods.
To study the effect of the magic angle, we measure the rotational excitation coherence time as a function of angle, and the results are shown in Fig. \[fig:decoherence\]. We measured the coherence time between the $|N=0,m_N=0,m_I^{\mathrm{K}}=-4,m_I^{\mathrm{Rb}}=1/2\rangle$ and $|N=1,m_N=0,m_I^{\mathrm{K}}=-3,m_I^{\mathrm{Rb}}=1/2\rangle$ states with Ramsey spectroscopy. The probe pulse is 40 $\mu$s long, and the probe frequency is detuned from the resonance by 3 to 12 kHz. We fit the Ramsey oscillation as a function of time to a damped sine wave to extract the coherence time (see inset of Fig. \[fig:decoherence\]).
The coherence time due to the mismatch in polarizability should scale as one over the difference in $\partial E / \partial I$, which, because of the intensity dependence of the polarizability, is not the same as the difference in polarizability. Technically, the $\Delta f$ term in Eqn. \[eq:shift\] should also use the “local polarizability”, $\partial E / \partial I$, instead of $\alpha$ because the trapped gas experiences only a small range of intensities. However, in Eqn. \[eq:shift\] the difference between $\alpha$ and $\partial E / \partial I$ gives a small correction to a term that accounts for less than $10\%$ of the total frequency shift, and is therefore negligible. On the other hand, because the coherence time depends critically on this polarizability difference, the “local polarizability” must be used.
We fit to the data with a simple model that includes the angular dependence: $$\tau = 1/\sqrt{(1/T_2)^2+\left(\frac{\partial E_{|1,0\rangle} / \partial I - \partial E_{|0,0\rangle} / \partial I}{\partial E_{|0,0\rangle} / \partial I} \Delta E/\hbar \right)^2}
\label{tau},$$ where $T_2$ is the coherence time from all sources of decoherence other than the polarizability, $\Delta E$ is the spread of energy across the cloud in the $|0,0\rangle$ state, and $|\partial E_{|0,0\rangle} / \partial I-\partial E_{|1,0\rangle} / \partial I|$ depends upon $\theta$, $\alpha_\parallel$, $\alpha_\perp$, $I$, $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_3$. Using the measured values of $I$, $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_3$ and the fitted values of $\alpha_\parallel$ and $\alpha_\perp$ from Fig. \[fig:angle\], we use Eqn. \[tau\] and obtain $T_2=1.5(2)$ ms, $\Delta E/\hbar=3.3(4)\times 10^{4}$ s$^{-1}$, and $\theta_m=46.5(5)$ degrees. The expected value of $\theta_m$ for our values of $I$, $\alpha_\perp$, and $\alpha_\parallel$ is 48 degrees, which agrees with the fitted value to within the systematic error. Note that the expected value of $\theta_m$ is different when probing the difference in $\partial E / \partial I$ rather than $\alpha$. Possible sources of $T_2$ range from technical noise to resonant dipole-dipole interactions [@Hazzard_PhysRevA.84.033608], and further study is required to understand this limit to the coherence time.
![The Ramsey coherence time measured in the one-dimensional optical lattice as a function of angle. A sharp increase in coherence time is observed at the “magic” angle where the polarizabilities of the $|0,0\rangle$ and $|1,0\rangle$ states are matched. Inset: A Ramsey oscillation fit to a damped sine wave to extract the coherence time for $\theta=51$ degrees.[]{data-label="fig:decoherence"}](figure4.pdf){height="6cm"}
In conclusion, we have measured the angular dependence of the AC polarizability of ultracold KRb and observed the “magic” angle where the polarizability of the $|0,0\rangle$ and $|1,0\rangle$ states match. At this angle, we are able to increase the coherence time between the two rotational states by an order of magnitude. This opens the way for the use of the rotational states for precision spectroscopy as well as the modification of the collision dynamics in optically trapped molecular samples.
We acknowledge financial support from NIST, NSF, DOE, AFOSR, and DARPA. S. A. M. acknowledges funding from the NDSEG. We thank K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, J. L. Bohn, and G. Quéméner for useful discussions.
[26]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , (, ).
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ** (, ), ed.
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
**Supplementary Information**
As was shown in Ref. [@Ospelkaus.PhysRevLett.sup.104.030402], the nuclear quadrupole moment couples to the rotation of the molecule and mixes rotationally excited states with different hyperfine character. It is precisely this coupling that breaks the degeneracy of the three projections of the $N=1$ state. These energy shifts move the magic angle from the zeroth order value of 54 degrees to 52 degrees. However in the main text, other than to include this broken degeneracy, we completely ignored the couplings between different hyperfine states in the perturbation theory calcuations. To justify this assumption we now compare the results from the approximate $3\times3$ Hamiltonian in the main text to an “exact” model that includes the nuclear quadrupole couplings.
We extend the ideas of mixing of rotational levels due to a static external electric field of Ref. [@Kotochigova.PhysRevA.sup.82.063421] to include mixing of rotational-hyperfine levels due to the intrinsic nuclear electric-quadrupole interactions introduced in Ref. [@Ospelkaus.PhysRevLett.sup.104.030402]. First, we construct the full Hamiltonian for the rotational-hyperfine levels labeled by $|N,m_N,m_I^{\rm K},m_I^{\rm Rb}\rangle$, where $N$ is the rotation quantum number, $m_N$ is its projection onto the quantization axis, $m_I^{\rm K}$ is the projection of the K nuclear spin onto the magnetic-field axis, and $m_I^{\rm Rb}$ is the projection of the Rb nuclear spin onto the magnetic-field axis. It includes the nuclear Zeeman interaction, $-g_{\rm a} \mu_N \vec{I_{\rm a}}\vec{B}$ for atom $a=$ K or Rb, where $g_{\rm a}$ is nuclear g-factor and $\mu_N$ is the nuclear magneton of atom $a$. It also includes the nuclear quadrupole interaction, proportional to $(eqQ)_a/(I_a(I_a-1)) \sum_m (-1)^m C_{2m}(\theta,\phi) T_{2,-m}(I_a,I_a)$, with coupling constants $(eqQ)_a$ for each atom $a$ that couples its nuclear spin to rotational states. Here, $C_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$ is a spherical harmonic and $T_{2m}(I_a,I_a)$ is a rank-2 tensor created from the spin $I_a$, $e$ is the proton charge, $q$ is the electric field gradient, and $Q$ the nuclear quadrupole moment. Finally, we include a polarizability interaction Hamiltonian, $-(\alpha_{\parallel} {\cal O}_{\parallel} + \alpha_{\perp} {\cal O}_{\perp}) I$, with strengths $\alpha_{\parallel}$ and $ \alpha_{\perp}$, tensor operators ${\cal O}_{\parallel}$ and ${\cal O}_{\perp}$ that depend on light polarization and rotational angular momentum $\vec N$, and the laser intensity of the trapping light $I$.
This Hamiltonian couples $(1+3)\times9\times4=144$ channels $|N,m_N, m_I^{\rm K}, m_I^{\rm Rb}\rangle$ and has four parameters: the quadrupole interaction constants for each of the two atoms and the “reduced” polarizabilities $\alpha_{\parallel}$ and $\alpha_{\perp}$, which are the vibrationally-averaged $v=0$ parallel and perpendicular polarizabilities that include contributions from all excited $^1\Sigma^+$ and $^1\Pi$ potentials, respectively. We find transition energies by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian and analyzing its eigenfunctions to connect to the states that have been observed experimentally. Eigenstates are identified by the channel state with the largest contribution. Typically this contribution is more than 90% and we are justified in labeling eigenstates with only one particular set of nuclear spin projections $|N,m_N, m_I^{\rm K}, m_I^{\rm Rb}\rangle$.
The two quadrupole interaction parameters were estimated in Ref. [@Ospelkaus.PhysRevLett.sup.104.030402] based on measurements of transition frequencies between sub-levels of the $N=0$ and $N=1$ states in the optical dipole trap. However, when these measurements were made, the state-dependent polarizability and the effects of the trapping potential on the transition frequency were not yet understood, and the measurements for the different states were not taken at a constant intensity. Here we improve these constants using new measurements of the transition energies for three hyperfine levels of the $N=1$ rotational state where the effects of the trapping potential have been removed by measuring the transition energy directly after turning off the trapping light. These transition energies are given in Table \[frequency\].
$|j\rangle$ Frequency (kHz)
----------------------- -----------------
$|1,0,-4,1/2\rangle $ 2 228 110(1)
$|1,1,-4,1/2\rangle $ 2 227 842(1)
$|1,-1,-4,1/2\rangle$ 2 227 784(1)
: The experimentally measured rotational-hyperfine transition frequencies of the lowest vibrational level of the X$^1\Sigma^+$ potential of KRb at zero laser intensity (i.e. without trapping light) and a bias magnetic field with strength $B=545.9$ G. Transitions start at the $|N=0,m_N=0,m_I^{\rm K}=-4,m_I^{\rm Rb}=1/2\rangle$ state and go to three hyperfine states $|j\rangle$ within the $N=1$ manifold.[]{data-label="frequency"}
We optimize the quadrupole interaction constants to fit to the experimental energies of Table \[frequency\]. We find that $B_e/h$=1.1139514(5) GHz, $(eqQ)_{\rm K}/h$=0.452(9) MHz, and $(eqQ)_{\rm Rb}/h=-1.308$(9) MHz. Here, $B_e$ is the rotational constant and $h$ is Planck’s constant. The first two values are in good agreement with the previous estimate of Ref. [@Ospelkaus.PhysRevLett.sup.104.030402]. The $(eqQ)_{\rm Rb}$ coupling constant has changed by $\approx 7\%$.
![The angle-dependent polarizability for the “exact” model (dashed line) and the approximate $3\time3$ Hamiltonian from the main text.[]{data-label="fig:exactcomparison"}](figureS1.pdf){height="5cm"}
The polarizability of eigenstate $j$ with energy $E_j(I)$ is defined as the total Stark shift divided by the total intensity, $\alpha_{j}=-\frac{E_{j}(I)-E_{j}(0)}{I}$. For comparison to the approximate $3\times3$ Hamiltonian used in the main text, we show the results of the “exact” model using the fitted values of $\alpha_\parallel$ and $\alpha_\perp$. Figure \[fig:exactcomparison\] shows the polarizability as a function of $\theta$ based on the “exact” Hamiltonian (dashed lines), and the approximate Hamiltonian (solid lines) for the four states studied here and laser intensity $I$=2.35 kW/cm$^2$. From this comparison, we conclude that the difference between the two models is sufficiently small that the use of the simplified approximate Hamiltonian is justified given the current experimental precision.
[2]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider a class of fully-nonlinear Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) lattices, consisting of a chain of particles coupled by fractional power nonlinearities of order $\alpha >1$. This class of systems incorporates a classical Hertzian model describing acoustic wave propagation in chains of touching beads in the absence of precompression. We analyze the propagation of localized waves when $\alpha$ is close to unity. Solutions varying slowly in space and time are searched with an appropriate scaling, and two asymptotic models of the chain of particles are derived consistently. The first one is a logarithmic KdV equation, and possesses linearly orbitally stable Gaussian solitary wave solutions. The second model consists of a generalized KdV equation with Hölder-continuous fractional power nonlinearity and admits compacton solutions, i.e. solitary waves with compact support. When $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$, we numerically establish the asymptotically Gaussian shape of exact FPU solitary waves with near-sonic speed, and analytically check the pointwise convergence of compactons towards the limiting Gaussian profile.'
address: |
$^a$ INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes and Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann, Université de Grenoble and CNRS, BP 53, Grenoble Cedex 9, France, 38041\
$^b$ Department of Mathematics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1
author:
- 'Guillaume James$^{a}$ and Dmitry Pelinovsky$^{b}$'
title: ' Gaussian solitary waves and compactons in Fermi-Pasta-Ulam lattices with Hertzian potentials'
---
\[intro\]Introduction
=====================
The problem of analyzing the response of a nonlinear lattice to a localized disturbance arises in many applications, such as the study of stress waves in granular media after an impact [@neste2; @sb], the excitation of nonlinear oscillations in crystals by atom bombardment [@dcer; @dub], or the response of nonlinear transmission lines to a voltage pulse [@afshari]. Several important dynamical phenomena can be captured by the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) model [@cam] consisting of a chain of particles coupled by a pairwise interaction potential $V$. The dynamical equations for a spatially homogeneous FPU chain read $$\label{nc}
\frac{d^2 x_{n}}{dt^2} =
V^\prime(x_{n+1}-x_n)-V^\prime(x_{n}-x_{n-1}),
\ \ \
n\in \mathbb{Z},$$ where $x_{n}(t)\in \mathbb{R}$ is the displacement of the $n$th particle from a reference position. System (\[nc\]) can be rewritten in terms of the relative displacements $u_{n}=x_{n}-x_{n-1}$ and particle velocities $p_n = \dot{x}_n$ as follows $$\label{ncrelham}
\frac{d u_{n}}{dt}=p_{n}-p_{n-1}, \ \ \
\frac{d p_{n}}{dt} = V^\prime(u_{n+1})-V^\prime(u_{n}), \ \ \
n\in \mathbb{Z} .$$ The dynamical evolution of localized solutions of (\[ncrelham\]) is strongly influenced by the properties of the interaction potential $V$. In its most general form, the interaction potential satisfies $$\label{potential-V}
V \in C^2 (\mathbb{R}) \quad \mbox{\rm with} \;\;
V^\prime (x)=\kappa \, x + \mathcal{O}(|x|^\alpha ),$$ where $\alpha >1$ and $\kappa \geq 0$.
In the work [@Mielke], the dispersive stability of the zero equilibrium state is proved for $\kappa >0$ and $\alpha > 4$, i.e. for sufficiently weak nonlinearities near the origin. More precisely, the amplitude (i.e. supremum norm) of the solution of the FPU lattice (\[ncrelham\]) goes to $0$ when $t\rightarrow + \infty$ for all initial conditions sufficiently small in $\ell^1$, where $\ell^1$ denotes the classical Banach space of bi-infinite summable sequences.
In contrast, in many situations nonlinear effects are strong enough to compensate dispersion, yielding the existence of coherent localized solutions of the FPU lattice (\[ncrelham\]) such as solitary waves propagating at constant speed, or time-periodic breathers (see e.g. [@cam] for a review). The first existence result for solitary waves in a general class of FPU lattices was obtained by Friesecke and Wattis [@friesecke], when $V$ has a local minimum (not necessarily strict) at the origin and is superquadratic at one side (see also [@herrmann] and references therein). In addition, the existence of solitary waves near the so-called long wave limit was established in [@pego; @iooss] for smooth ($C^3$) potentials $V$. More precisely, for $\kappa>0$ and $V^{'''}(0)\neq 0$ (i.e. $\alpha =2$ in (\[potential-V\])), there exists a family of small amplitude solitary waves parameterized by their velocity $c \gtrsim c_{\rm{s}} := \sqrt{\kappa}$, where $c_{\rm s}$ defines the “sound velocity" of linear waves. These solutions take the form $$u_n(t)=\kappa \, (4 V^{'''}(0))^{-1}\, \epsilon^2 \, z(\epsilon\, (n-c\, t))+ \mbox{higher order terms},$$ where $\epsilon = \sqrt{24(c-c_{\rm{s}})/c_{\rm{s}}}$ and $z(\eta ) = \rm{sech}^2 (\eta /2)$. In particular, these solitary waves decay exponentially in space and broaden in the limit of vanishing amplitude. Equivalently, one has $$\label{approxkdv}
u_n(t)=\kappa \, (4 V^{'''}(0))^{-1}\, \epsilon^2 \, y(\xi,\tau) + \mbox{higher order terms},$$ where $\xi := \epsilon\, (n-c_{\rm{s}}\, t)$, $\tau := \epsilon^3\, c_{\rm{s}}\, t/24$, and $y(\xi ,\tau ) := z(\xi -\tau )$ is a solitary wave solution of the Korteweg–de Vries (KdV) equation $$\label{kdv}
\partial_\tau y + 3 y \, \partial_\xi y + \partial_\xi^3 y =0.$$ More generally, the solutions $y\, : \, \mathbb{R} \times [0,T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of the KdV equation (\[kdv\]) yield solutions of the FPU system of the form (\[approxkdv\]), valid on a time scale of order $\epsilon^{-3}$ [@bp; @kal; @sw]. In addition, the nonlinear stability of small amplitude FPU solitary waves was proved in [@pego; @hoffman3; @mizu], as well as the existence and stability of asymptotic $N$-soliton solutions [@hoffman2; @mizu3]. These results allow to describe in particular the propagation of compression solitary waves in homogeneous granular chains under precompression [@neste2].
Another interesting case corresponds to fully-nonlinear interaction potentials, where $\kappa =0$ (which corresponds to a vanishing sound velocity, that is, $c_{\rm s} = 0$) and $V$ has a local minimum at the origin. A classical example is given by the Hertzian potential $$\label{vhertz}
V(x)=\frac{1}{1+\alpha}\, |x|^{1+\alpha}\,H(-x)$$ with $\alpha >1$, where we denote by $H$ the Heaviside step function. This potential describes the contact force between two initially tangent elastic bodies (in the absence of precompression) after a small relative displacement $x$ [@johnsonbook]. The most classical case is obtained for $\alpha = 3/2$ and corresponds to contact between spheres, or more generally two smooth non-conforming surfaces. More recently, granular chains involving different orders of nonlinearity have attracted much attention, see [@sekimoto; @sunsen] and references therein. In particular, experimental and numerical studies on solitary wave propagation have been performed with chains of hollow spherical particles of different width [@daraio] and chains of cylinders [@khatri], leading to different values $\alpha$ in the range $1.15 \leq \alpha \leq 1.5$ (see also [@sun] for other systems with $\alpha$ close to unity).
The propagation of stationary compression pulses in the FPU lattice (\[nc\]) with potential (\[vhertz\]) for $\alpha = 3/2$ was first analyzed by Nesterenko [@neste2]. These results rely on a formal continuum limit and provide approximate solitary wave solutions with compact support. An alternate continuum limit problem has been introduced in [@ap] for arbitrary values of $\alpha >1$, leading to different (compactly supported) approximations of solitary waves. The existence of exact solitary wave solutions of the FPU lattice (\[nc\]) with potential (\[vhertz\]) follows from the general result of Friesecke and Wattis [@friesecke] mentioned previously (see also [@mackay; @stef]). The width of these solitary waves is independent of their amplitude due to the homogeneous nonlinearity of the Hertzian potential. In addition, the fully-nonlinear character of the Hertzian potential induces a doubly-exponential spatial decay of solitary waves [@english; @stef].
While the above analytical results provide useful informations on strongly localized solitary waves, they are not entirely satisfactory for several reasons. First of all, the existence result of [@friesecke] does not provide an approximation of the solitary wave profile, and the approximations available in the literature [@ap; @neste2] rely on a “long wave" assumption that is not justified (for example, the solitary waves considered in [@neste2] are approximately localized on five particles). In addition, the dynamical properties of solitary waves in fully-nonlinear FPU lattices are not yet understood. Indeed, no mathematical results are available concerning their stability, the way they are affected by lattice inhomogeneities, or the existence of $N$-soliton solutions. Another interesting problem is to characterize the excitation of one or several solitary waves from a localized initial perturbation [@hinch; @job]. For $c_{\rm{s}} \neq 0$ and small amplitude long waves, this problem can be partially analyzed in the framework of KdV approximation by using the inverse scattering transform methods [@schuur], but such reduction is presently unavailable for fully-nonlinear FPU lattices. These questions are important for the analysis of impact propagation in granular media, and more generally for the design of multiple impact laws in multibody mechanical systems [@hinch; @sb].
In this paper, we attack the problem by considering a suitable long wave limit of fully-nonlinear FPU lattices. We consider the FPU lattice (\[nc\]) with the homogeneous fully-nonlinear interaction potential $$\label{vhom}
V(x)=\frac{1}{1+\alpha}\, |x|^{1+\alpha},$$ with $\alpha >1$. Obviously, all solutions $u_n \leq 0$ of the FPU lattice (\[nc\]) with the potential (\[vhom\]) are also solutions of the Hertzian FPU lattice (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]). The problem can be rewritten in terms of the relative displacements in the following way $$\label{ncrel}
\frac{d^2 u}{dt^2} = \Delta \left( u\, |u|^{\alpha -1}\right),$$ where we denote $u=(u_n )_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$ and $(\Delta\, u )_n=u_{n+1}-2\, u_{n}+u_{n-1}$ is the discrete Laplacian. For approximating the temporal dynamics of (\[ncrel\]) in a continuum limit, fully-nonlinear versions of the Boussinesq equation considered in [@ap; @neste2] possess serious drawbacks, since they may lead to blow-up phenomena in analogy with the classical “bad" Boussinesq equation [@yang]. In section \[bouss\], we numerically show that these models introduce artificial dynamical instabilities with arbitrarily large growth rates, which suggests ill-posedness of these equations [@Wright2]. Instead of using a Boussinesq-type model, we then formally derive a logarithmic KdV (log-KdV) equation as a modulation equation for long waves in fully-nonlinear FPU lattices, obtained in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$ (section \[deriv\]). The log-KdV equation takes the form $$\label{kdv-1}
\partial_\tau v + \partial^3_\xi v + \partial_\xi (v \ln{|v|} )=0$$ and provides approximate solutions $u_n(t) \approx v(\xi , \tau)$ of the original FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) for $\xi := 2\sqrt{3}\, \epsilon (n-t)$, $\tau := \sqrt{3}\, \epsilon^3\, t $, and $\epsilon := \sqrt{\alpha -1} \approx 0$.
The log-KdV equation (\[kdv-1\]) admits Gaussian solitary wave solutions (section \[trav\]), which have been previously identified as solutions of the stationary logarithmic nonlinear Schrödinger equation (log-NLS) in the context of nonlinear wave mechanics [@bm]. Closer to our case, Gaussian homoclinic solutions have been also found to approximate the envelope of stationary breather solutions in Newton’s cradle (i.e. system (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]) with an additional on-site potential) in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$ [@js12]. In section \[trav\], we numerically check that solitary wave solutions of the Hertzian FPU lattice with velocity $v_{\rm{s}}=1+c\, (\alpha -1)$ converge towards Gaussian approximations when $c\in \mathbb{R}$ is fixed and $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. These solitary waves have velocities close to unity, which corresponds to the value of sound velocity in the linear chain with $\alpha =1$. In addition, we check that the FPU solitary waves are well approximated by the compacton solutions derived in [@ap] when $\alpha \in (1,\frac{3}{2}]$. To go beyond the stationary regime, we check numerically that the Gaussian approximation captures the asymptotic shape of a stable pulse forming after a localized velocity perturbation in the Hertzian FPU lattice (\[nc\])-(\[vhertz\]) with $\alpha \approx 1$ (section \[gauss\]). Consistently with the above dynamical simulations, we prove in section \[lstab\] the linear orbital stability of Gaussian solitary waves for the log-KdV equation. Our analysis makes use of a suitable convex conserved Lyapunov function, but negative index techniques developed in recent works [@kapstef; @dmitrystab] for KdV-type equations would also apply.
The link between Gaussian solitary waves and compactons is made explicit is section \[comprev\], where we check the pointwise convergence of the compacton solutions of [@ap] towards Gaussian profiles when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. In addition, following the methodology developed in section \[deriv\], we derive from the fully-nonlinear FPU lattice a generalized KdV equation with Hölder-continuous nonlinearity (H-KdV): $$\label{kdv-2}
\partial_\tau v + \partial^3_\xi v + \frac{\alpha}{\alpha -1}\, \partial_\xi ( v-v\, |v|^{\frac{1}{\alpha} -1} )=0 .$$ When $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$, the H-KdV equation (\[kdv-2\]) is consistent with the FPU lattice in the sense that each solution to this equation “almost" satisfies (\[ncrel\]) up to a small residual error. Equation (\[kdv-2\]) admits explicit compacton solutions whose form is close to the compactons obtained in [@ap] with the use of a Boussinesq–type model. When $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$, these solutions converge towards the Gaussian solitary waves studied in section \[trav\], and thus they provide an (asymptotically exact) approximation of FPU solitary waves with near-sonic speed. This result sheds a new light on the compacton approximations for FPU solitary waves heuristically derived in the literature [@ap; @neste2]. Another interest of the H-KdV equation lies in the (non-differentiable) Hölder-continuous nonlinearity $v\, |v|^{\frac{1}{\alpha} -1}$ which allows for the existence of compactons. This type of degeneracy is quite different from the classical feature of compacton equations which incorporate degenerate nonlinear dispersion [@Wright2; @rh].
We finish this paper with a summary of our results and a discussion of several open questions concerning the qualitative dynamics of the log-KdV and H-KdV equations and their connections with fully-nonlinear FPU chains (section \[alt\]).
\[bouss\]Fully nonlinear Boussinesq equation and compactons
===========================================================
Fully nonlinear Boussinesq equations have been introduced in [@neste2; @ap] as formal continuum limits of FPU chains with Hertzian-type potentials. In [@neste2], the continuum limit is performed on system (\[nc\]) with potential (\[vhom\]) describing particle displacements, whereas [@ap] considers system (\[ncrel\]) for relative displacements. In what follows, we discuss the continuum limit introduced in [@ap], which takes a slightly simpler form than the system derived in [@neste2].
The fully nonlinear Boussinesq equation introduced in [@ap] takes the form $$\label{B}
u_{tt} = (u\, |u|^{\alpha -1})_{xx} + \frac{1}{12} (u\, |u|^{\alpha -1})_{xxxx},$$ where $u_{|x=n}$ denotes an approximation of a solution $u_n$ of (\[ncrel\]). The right side of (\[B\]) is obtained by keeping the first two terms of the formal Taylor expansion of the discrete Laplacian in (\[ncrel\]) $$\Delta = 2(\cosh{\partial_x}-1)=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}{\frac{2}{(2k) ! }\, \partial_x^{2k}}.$$ This truncation is purely formal, but a numerical justification is presented in [@ap] in the particular case of solitary wave solutions. More precisely, the solitary waves $u_n(t) = w(z)$, $z = n-t$ of (\[ncrel\]) are numerically compared with solitary wave solutions $u(x,t)=w(z)$, $z=x-t$ of (\[B\]). For this class of solutions, equation (\[B\]) reduces to a fourth order ordinary differential equation, which can be integrated twice and leads to $$\label{compacton-eq}
w = w\, |w|^{\alpha -1} + \frac{1}{12} \frac{d^2}{d z^2} w\, |w|^{\alpha -1},
\ \ \
z\in \mathbb{R},$$ whereas equation (\[ncrel\]) reduces to the differential advance-delay equation $$\label{diffadvdel-eq}
\frac{d^2 w}{d z^2} = \Delta (w\, |w|^{\alpha -1}),
\ \ \
z\in \mathbb{R},$$ with $(\Delta w )(z)=w(z+1)-2 w(z)+w(z-1)$. The wave velocity can be normalized to unity due to a scaling invariance of the FPU system (\[nc\]) with homogeneous potential (\[vhom\]) (or Hertzian potential (\[vhertz\])), namely each solution $u_n$ generates a one-parameter family of solutions ${| v_{\rm{s}} |}^{\frac{2}{\alpha -1}}\, u_n(v_{\rm{s}} t)$ with $v_{\rm{s}} \in \mathbb{R}$ (the same scaling invariance exists in system (\[B\])).
According to the numerical computations presented in [@ap], the solitary wave of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) is well approximated by the compactly supported solitary wave of the differential equation (\[compacton-eq\]) for $\alpha =3/2$, and the discrepancy increases with $\alpha$. The compacton solution of (\[compacton-eq\]) found in [@ap] takes the form $$\label{compacton}
w_{\rm{c}}(z) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} A \cos^{\frac{2}{\alpha-1}}(B z), & |z| \leq \frac{\pi}{2 B}, \\
0, & |z| \geq \frac{\pi}{2 B}, \end{array} \right.$$ where $$A = \left( \frac{1+\alpha}{2 \alpha} \right)^{\frac{1}{1-\alpha}}, \quad B = \frac{\sqrt{3}(\alpha-1)}{\alpha}.$$
In what follows, we reexamine the consistency of (\[ncrel\]) and (\[B\]) from a dynamical point of view, by analyzing the spectral stability of compactons. Linearizing (\[B\]) at the compacton $w_{\rm{c}}$ in the reference frame travelling with unit velocity, we use the ansatz $u(x,t) = w_{\rm{c}}(x-t) + U(x-t) e^{\lambda t}$, where $\lambda$ is the spectral parameter and $U$ is the perturbation term. We arrive at the spectral problem $$\label{B-lin}
{\left(\lambda - \frac{d}{dz} \right)}^2 U = \left( \frac{d^2}{dz^2} + \frac{1}{12}\, \frac{d^4}{dz^4} \right) \left( k_\alpha\, U \right),$$ where $k_\alpha (z) := \alpha w_{\rm{c}}^{\alpha - 1}(z)=\alpha A^{\alpha -1}\, \cos^2(B\, z) \, \mathbbm{1}_{[-\frac{\pi}{2B},\frac{\pi}{2B}]}(z)$ and $\mathbbm{1}$ denotes the characteristic function. One can notice that $k_\alpha$ and $k_\alpha^{'}$ vanish at the end points $z = \pm \frac{\pi}{2B}$ of the compact support of $w_{\rm{c}}$. We look for eigenvectors in the Hilbert space $$D = \left\{ U \in H^2(\mathbb{R}), \quad k_\alpha\, U \in H^4(\mathbb{R}) \right\} .$$ Since $k_\alpha^{''}$ and $k_\alpha^{'''}$ are discontinuous at $z = \pm \frac{\pi}{2B}$, this yields the condition $$\label{B-bc}
U\left(\pm \frac{\pi}{2B}\right) = 0, \quad U'\left(\pm \frac{\pi}{2B}\right) = 0 .$$ This allows us to reduce the eigenvalue problem (\[B-lin\]) to the compact interval $\left[-\frac{\pi}{2B},\frac{\pi}{2B}\right]$ with boundary conditions (\[B-bc\]), and approximate the spectrum with the standard finite difference method (we have used second-order difference approximations for derivatives and $2000$ grid points). If there exist eigenvalues with ${\rm Re}(\lambda) > 0$, then the solitary wave is spectrally unstable. If all the eigenvalues are located at the imaginary axis, then the solitary wave is called spectrally stable.
Figure \[fig-spectrum\] shows the complex eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the spectral problem (\[B-lin\])-(\[B-bc\]) for $\alpha = 1.05, 1.2, 1.5$. The spectrum is invariant under $\lambda \rightarrow -\lambda$ and $\lambda \rightarrow \bar\lambda$ (note the presence of a small number non-symmetric eigenvalues, which originate from numerical errors). We find the existence of unstable eigenvalues for all values of $\alpha >1$ considered, and the eigenvalues approach the real line far from the origin (this part of the spectrum is not visible in the first two panels of figure \[fig-spectrum\]). Consequently, these results imply the spectral instability of the compacton (\[compacton\]) in system (\[B\]). Note that the usual notion of instability may not be well defined, since the evolution problem (\[B\]) may not be well posed. Indeed, our numerical results indicate that the spectrum of (\[B-lin\])-(\[B-bc\]) is unbounded in the positive half-plane (in fact at both sides of the imaginary axis), and thus the linearized evolution problem may be ill-posed. We conjecture that ill-posedness occurs also in system (\[B\]), in analogy with ill-posedness results recently obtained in [@Wright2] for certain nonlinear degenerate dispersive equations.
Along these lines, it is interesting to consider the limit case of the spectral problem (\[B-lin\])-(\[B-bc\]) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. Since $k_\alpha (z) \rightarrow 1$ for all $z \in \mathbb{R}$ and $B \rightarrow 0$, the limiting spectral problem possesses constant coefficients and is defined on the entire real line. Using the Fourier transform, one can compute the (purely continuous) spectrum explicitly, which yields $$\label{cont-spectrum}
\lambda = \lambda_{\pm}(k) := i k \pm k \sqrt{\frac{1}{12} k^2 - 1}, \quad k \in \mathbb{R}.$$ This limit case is represented in figure \[fig-spectrum\] (red curves). The spectrum being unbounded in the positive half-plane, the corresponding linear evolution problem is then ill-posed.
The above instability phenomena are not physically meaningful since the solitary waves are known to be stable from simulations of impacts in Hertzian chains [@neste2]. In equation (\[cont-spectrum\]) obtained in the limit $\alpha\rightarrow 1^+$, these instabilities occur for short wavelengths (with $k^2 > 12$), whose dynamical evolution cannot be correctly captured by the continuum limit (\[B\]). In the next section, we derive a different asymptotic model free of such artificial instabilities.
![\[fig-spectrum\] Eigenvalues of the spectral problem (\[B-lin\])-(\[B-bc\]) (blue dots) for $\alpha = 1.05$ (top left), $\alpha = 1.2$ (top right), and $\alpha = 1.5$ (bottom). The red dotted curves show the continuous spectrum (\[cont-spectrum\]) obtained in the limit case $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. ](Spectrum1.eps "fig:") ![\[fig-spectrum\] Eigenvalues of the spectral problem (\[B-lin\])-(\[B-bc\]) (blue dots) for $\alpha = 1.05$ (top left), $\alpha = 1.2$ (top right), and $\alpha = 1.5$ (bottom). The red dotted curves show the continuous spectrum (\[cont-spectrum\]) obtained in the limit case $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. ](Spectrum2.eps "fig:") ![\[fig-spectrum\] Eigenvalues of the spectral problem (\[B-lin\])-(\[B-bc\]) (blue dots) for $\alpha = 1.05$ (top left), $\alpha = 1.2$ (top right), and $\alpha = 1.5$ (bottom). The red dotted curves show the continuous spectrum (\[cont-spectrum\]) obtained in the limit case $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. ](Spectrum3.eps "fig:")
A classical model introduced to correct artificial short wavelength instabilities of (\[B\]) corresponds to the regularized Boussinesq equation $$\label{rb}
u_{tt} = (u\, |u|^{\alpha -1})_{xx} + \frac{1}{12} u_{xxtt}$$ (see e.g. [@rosenau]). This model has the inconvenience of altering the spatial decay of solitary waves in the case of fully-nonlinear interaction potentials. Indeed, looking for traveling wave solutions $u(x,t)=w(z)$, $z=x-t$ and integrating equation (\[rb\]) twice, one obtains $$\label{rbs}
\frac{1}{12}\, \frac{d^2 w}{dz^2}=w - w\, |w|^{\alpha-1}$$ after setting two integration constants to $0$. Equation (\[rbs\]) admits nontrivial symmetric homoclinic solutions $\pm w_\alpha (z)$ satisfying $\lim_{z \rightarrow \pm \infty}w_\alpha (z)=0$, corresponding to solitary wave solutions of (\[rb\]). These solutions decay exponentially in space, which is too slow compared with the superexponential decay of the solitary wave solutions of (\[diffadvdel-eq\]).
\[kdvloga\]The log-KdV equation and Gaussian solitary waves
===========================================================
\[deriv\]Formal derivation of the log-KdV equation
--------------------------------------------------
In order to pass to the limit $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$ for long waves, it is convenient to rewrite (\[ncrel\]) in the form $$\label{ncrel2}
\left( \frac{d^2}{dt^2} - \Delta \right)\, u= \Delta\, f_\alpha (u),$$ where $$\label{deffa}
f_\alpha (u) := u\, (|u|^{\alpha -1}-1)
= (\alpha -1)\, u \ln{|u|} + \mathcal{O}((\alpha -1)^2)$$ (uniformly in $u$ on bounded intervals) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. For $\alpha=1$, we have $f_1(u) = 0$ for all $u \in \mathbb{R}$ and system (\[ncrel2\]) reduces to a semi-discrete linear wave equation. In that case, the scaling in (\[approxkdv\]) (with $c_{\rm{s}} =1$) yields a linearized KdV equation for the envelope function $y$. To analyze the limit $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$, we assume the same type of scaling for the solution $u$, i.e. we search for solutions depending on slow variables $\xi := 2\sqrt{3}\, \epsilon (n-t)$ and $\tau := \sqrt{3}\, \epsilon^3\, t $, where $\epsilon > 0$ is a small parameter. We look for solutions of the form $$\label{scal}
u(t)= v(\xi , \tau) + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon).$$ In contrast with (\[approxkdv\]), the leading term $v(\xi,\tau)$ is assumed of order unity and the remainder term in (\[scal\]) is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$. Of course, due to the scaling invariance of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) for $\alpha >1$, solutions with arbitrarily small or large amplitudes can be deduced from any solution of the form (\[scal\]).
From the scaling (\[scal\]) and using a Taylor expansion and the chain rule, we obtain $$\label{oper1}
\Delta = 12\, \epsilon^2 \partial^2_\xi (1+ \epsilon^2 \partial^2_\xi + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^4))$$ and $$\label{oper2}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2} - \Delta = -12\, \epsilon^4\, \partial_\xi (\partial_\tau + \partial^3_\xi )+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^6).$$ To evaluate the right side of (\[ncrel2\]), we use the expansion $$f_\alpha (u) = f_\alpha ( v + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon)) = (\alpha -1)\, v \ln{|v|} +
\mathcal{O}((\alpha -1)^2+|\alpha -1| \, \epsilon\, |\ln{\epsilon}|) ,$$ where the logarithmic remainder term accounts for the possible vanishing of $v$. Setting now $\epsilon := \sqrt{ \alpha -1 } $ and using (\[oper1\]), we obtain $$\label{nl}
\Delta\, f_\alpha (u) = 12\, \epsilon^4\, \partial^2_\xi (v \ln{|v|} )+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^5 |\ln{\epsilon}|) .$$ With this choice of $\epsilon$, the left- and right-hand sides of equation (\[ncrel2\]) have the same order $\epsilon^4$ according to expansions (\[oper2\]) and (\[nl\]). Substituting these expansions in (\[ncrel2\]) yields $$\label{consistency}
\epsilon^4\, \partial_\xi \big(\partial_\tau v + \partial^3_\xi v + \partial_\xi (v \ln{|v|} )\big)+
\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^5 |\ln{\epsilon}|)=0 .$$ Then neglecting the higher order terms and integrating with respect to $\xi$ leads to $$\label{logkdv}
\partial_\tau v + \partial^3_\xi v + \partial_\xi (v \ln{|v|} )=0, \ \ \
\xi \in \mathbb{R} ,$$ where the integration constant has been fixed to $0$ in order to cover the case when $\lim_{\xi \rightarrow +\infty}{v(\xi , \tau )}=0$. We shall call equation (\[logkdv\]) the logarithmic KdV (log-KdV) equation. It can be rewritten $$\label{logkdvpot}
\partial_\tau v + \partial^3_\xi v + \partial_\xi (W^\prime (v) )=0, \ \ \
\xi \in \mathbb{R} ,$$ where the potential $W$ reads $$W (v)= \frac{v^2}{2} \big( \ln{|v|} - \frac{1}{2}\big).$$ Equation (\[consistency\]) shows that the log-KdV equation is consistent with the nonlinear lattice (\[ncrel\]), i.e. each solution of (\[logkdv\]) is almost a solution of (\[ncrel\]) up to a small residual error.
Note that if $v$ is a solution of (\[logkdv\]), so is $-v$. In addition, equation (\[logkdv\]) admits a nonstandard Galilean symmetry involving a rescaling of amplitude, i.e. each solution $v$ generates a one-parameter family of solutions $$\label{scaling}
[\phi(c)\cdot v ] (\xi , \tau) := e^c\, v(\xi - c\, \tau , \tau), \quad c\in \mathbb{R}.$$ In particular, all travelling wave solutions of the log-KdV equation (\[logkdv\]) can be deduced from its stationary solutions. This property is inherited from the scaling invariance of the FPU system (\[ncrel\]) (this point will be detailed in section \[trav\]).
Equation (\[logkdv\]) falls within the class of generalized KdV equations. Systems in this class possess three (formally) conserved quantities [@zhid], namely the mass $$\label{mass}
M(v) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}{v\, d\xi},$$ the momentum $$\label{momentum}
P(v) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}}{v^2\, d\xi},$$ and the energy $$\label{energy}
E(v) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}{(\partial_\xi v)^2 \,d\xi} - \int_{\mathbb{R}}{W(v)\, d\xi}.$$ Well-posedness results for the Cauchy problem associated with (\[logkdvpot\]) are known when $W^{\prime\prime}$ is a $C^2$ function [@zhid], but the existing theory does not apply to our case where $W^{\prime\prime} (v)=1+\ln{|v|}$ diverges logarithmically at the origin.
\[trav\]Stationary solutions
----------------------------
Looking for solutions of the log-KdV equation (\[logkdv\]) depending only of $\xi$, one obtains the stationary log-KdV equation $$\label{slogkdv}
\frac{d^3 v}{d\xi^3} + \frac{d}{d\xi}W^\prime (v)=0.$$ Integrating once under the assumption $\lim_{\xi \rightarrow +\infty}{v(\xi)}=0$, one obtains $$\label{slognls}
\frac{d^2 v}{d\xi^2} + W^\prime (v) =0, \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\frac{d^2 v}{d\xi^2} + v \ln{|v|} =0 .$$ This equation can be seen as a (one-dimensional) stationary log-NLS equation [@bm].
The potential $W$ in (\[slognls\]) has a double-well structure with a local maximum at $v=0$ (see figure \[graphew\]), hence there exists a pair of (symmetric) homoclinic orbits to $0$ and a continuum of periodic orbits. The homoclinic solutions have the explicit form $v(\xi )=\pm v^0 (\xi )$ with $$\label{homlog}
v^0(\xi )= \sqrt{e}\, e^{-\frac{\xi^2}{4}}.$$ Note that these (Gaussian) homoclinic solutions decay super-exponentially, but do not decay doubly-exponentially unlike the solitary wave solutions of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) [@english; @stef].
\[1\]\[Bl\][ $v$]{} \[1\]\[Bl\][ $W(v)$]{}
![\[graphew\] Graph of the double-well logarithmic potential $W$.](graphew.eps)
The homoclinic solution (\[homlog\]) yields an approximate Gaussian solitary wave solution of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) with velocity equal to unity $$\label{approxsolvone}
u_n(t) \approx w_{\rm{G}}(n-t),$$ with $$\label{rgauss}
w_{\rm{G}}(z):=v^0 (2\sqrt{3}\epsilon\, z)=e^{\frac{1}{2}-3 (\alpha -1)\, z^2}.$$ Figure \[Soliton\] compares the solitary wave solution of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) computed numerically with the analytical approximations corresponding to the compactly supported solitary wave (\[compacton\]) and the Gaussian solitary wave (\[rgauss\]). The numerical approximations of solitary wave solutions of (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) were obtained using the algorithm described in [@ap], based on a reformulation of (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) as a nonlinear integral equation and the method of successive approximations (see also [@english; @herrmann] for variants of this method). Figure \[Convergence\] shows the relative error (in $L^{\infty}$ norms) between solitary wave solutions of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) and the two approximations (\[compacton\]) and (\[rgauss\]) as a function of $\alpha$. The Gaussian solitary wave provides a worse approximation compared to the compactly supported solitary wave, but both approximation errors converge to zero as $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. We have in addition $\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1^+}\| w \|_{\infty}=\| w_{\rm{G}} \|_{\infty}=\sqrt{e}$, hence the absolute errors between the exact solitary wave $w$ and the two approximations converge to zero similarly to the relative errors plotted in figure \[Convergence\].
\[1\]\[Bl\][ $z$]{} \[1\]\[Bl\][ $w(z)$]{}
![\[Soliton\] Solitary wave solution (blue dotted line) of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) in comparison with the compactly supported solitary wave (red solid line) given by (\[compacton\]) and the Gaussian solitary wave (green dashed line) given by (\[rgauss\]) for $\alpha = 1.5$ (left) and $\alpha = 1.1$ (right). ](Sol1.eps "fig:") ![\[Soliton\] Solitary wave solution (blue dotted line) of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) in comparison with the compactly supported solitary wave (red solid line) given by (\[compacton\]) and the Gaussian solitary wave (green dashed line) given by (\[rgauss\]) for $\alpha = 1.5$ (left) and $\alpha = 1.1$ (right). ](Sol2.eps "fig:")
\[1\]\[Bl\][ $\alpha$]{} \[1\]\[Bl\]
[-90]{} $\displaystyle{\frac{\| w- w_{\rm{approx}}\|_{\infty}}{\| w\|_{\infty}}}$
![\[Convergence\] Relative error (in supremum norm) between the solitary wave solution $w$ of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) and either the compactly supported solitary wave $w_{\rm{approx}}=w_{\rm{c}}$ given by (\[compacton\]) (blue dots) or the Gaussian solitary wave $w_{\rm{approx}}=w_{\rm{G}}$ defined by (\[rgauss\]) (green dots). Both approximation errors converge to zero as $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$ (absolute errors converge to zero similarly). ](Sol3rel.eps)
So far, we have computed a solitary wave solution of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) with unit velocity and have checked its convergence towards the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsolvone\]) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. We shall now examine the convergence of solitary waves with velocities different from unity. Using the Galilean invariance of (\[logkdv\]), the homoclinic solution (\[homlog\]) yields two (symmetric) families of solitary wave solutions of the log-KdV equation (\[logkdv\]) $$\label{sol}
v(\xi ,\tau )=\pm e^{\frac{1}{2}+\tilde{c}}\, e^{-\frac{(\xi - \tilde{c}\, \tau)^2}{4}}$$ parameterized by the wave velocity $\tilde{c}$. These profiles yield the approximate solitary wave solutions of the original FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) $$\label{approxsol}
u_n(t)\approx \pm\, e^{2c + \frac{1}{2} - 3\,(\alpha -1) (n-v_{\rm{s}}\, t-\xi_0\,)^2},$$ where we have set $\tilde{c}=2\, c$, $$\label{velform}
v_{\rm{s}}=1+c\, (\alpha -1),$$ introduced an additional phase shift $\xi_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and used the fact that $\epsilon = \sqrt{ \alpha -1 }$. One can observe that the width of the approximate solitary wave (\[approxsol\]) diverges as $(\alpha -1)^{-1/2}$ when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. Moreover, similarly to solitary wave solutions of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]), the wave width remains constant if $\alpha$ is fixed and the wave amplitude $a=\exp{(\frac{1}{2}+2\, c)}$ (or equivalently the wave velocity $v_{\rm{s}}$) is varied. In addition, approximation (\[approxsol\]) can be rewritten $$\label{approxsolbis}
u_n(t)\approx \pm\, e^{2c}\, w_{\rm{G}}(n-v_{\rm{s}}\, t-\xi_0\,),$$ where the renormalized Gaussian profile $w_{\rm{G}}$ is defined in (\[rgauss\]). One can notice that ${|v_{\rm{s}}|}^{\frac{2}{\alpha -1}}=e^{2c}+\mathcal{O}( |\alpha -1 |)$ if $c \in \mathbb{R}$ is fixed $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. Consequently, approximation (\[approxsolbis\]) is close to a rescaling of (\[approxsolvone\]) through the invariance $u_n \mapsto {| v_{\rm{s}} |}^{\frac{2}{\alpha -1}}\, u_n(v_{\rm{s}} t)$ of (\[ncrel\]). This observation illustrates why the (nonstandard) Galilean invariance (\[scaling\]) of the log-KdV equation is inherited from the scaling invariance of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]).
Similarly, the solitary wave solution $w$ of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]) yields the family of solitary wave solutions of (\[ncrel\]) $$\label{exactvqqe}
u_n (t) = \pm \, {|v_{\rm{s}}|}^{\frac{2}{\alpha -1}}\, w(n-v_{\rm{s}}\, t - \xi_0) .$$ One can distinguish two contributions to the error between the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsolbis\]) and the exact solution (\[exactvqqe\]), one originating from the profile function $w_{\rm{G}}$ and the other from the wave amplitude. From the numerical results of figure \[Convergence\], we know that $\| w - w_{\rm{G}}\|_\infty \rightarrow 0$ when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. In addition, fixing $c \in \mathbb{R}$ and considering wave velocities (\[velform\]) close to unity when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$, we have seen that $\lim_{\alpha \rightarrow 1^+}{|v_{\rm{s}}|}^{\frac{2}{\alpha -1}}=e^{2c}$. Consequently, the exact solitary wave (\[exactvqqe\]) with velocity (\[velform\]) converges uniformly towards the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsolbis\]) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$.
Note that the convergence result above concerns solitary waves with velocities converging towards unity, i.e. the value of sound velocity in the linear chain with $\alpha =1$. This restriction is due to the specific scaling (\[scal\]) assumed for solutions described by the log-KdV equation. On the contrary, the exact FPU solitary wave (\[exactvqqe\]) with fixed velocity $v_{\rm{s}} \neq \pm 1$ becomes degenerate when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$, since the wave amplitude goes to $0$ if $|v_{\rm{s}}|<1$ and diverges if $|v_{\rm{s}}|>1$.
The compactly supported solitary wave (\[compacton\]) yields approximate solutions $u^{\rm{c}}$ of the FPU system (\[ncrel\]) taking the form $u_n^{\rm{c}} (t) = \pm \, {|v_{\rm{s}}|}^{\frac{2}{\alpha -1}}\, w_{\rm{c}}(n-v_{\rm{s}}\, t - \xi_0)$. This approximation can be compared to the exact FPU solitary wave $u$ defined by (\[exactvqqe\]). The results of figure \[Convergence\] show that $\| w - w_{\rm{c}} \|_{\infty} \to 0 $ as $\alpha \to 1^+$. Consequently, one can infer that the relative error $\| u^{\rm{c}} - u \|_{L^\infty (\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{R})}
/\| u \|_{L^\infty (\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{R})}$ converges to zero when $v_{\rm{s}}$ is fixed and $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$.
\[gauss\]Formation of Gaussian solitary waves
---------------------------------------------
In section \[trav\], we have computed solitary wave solutions of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) and have checked their convergence towards the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsol\]) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. These results are valid in a stationary regime and for prescribed wave velocities converging towards unity. To complete this analysis, we shall study the formation of solitary waves from a localized perturbation of given magnitude, and compare their profiles to Gaussian approximations when $\alpha$ is close to one.
In what follows, we numerically integrate the FPU system (\[nc\]) with Hertzian potential (\[vhertz\]) for different values of $\alpha >1$. We consider the Hertzian potential (\[vhertz\]) rather that the symmetrized potential (\[vhom\]) because of its relevance to impact mechanics. In addition, the differential equations (\[nc\]) are easier to integrate numerically due to the absence of dispersive wavetrains for the above initial condition.
We consider a lattice of $N=2000$ particle with free-end boundary conditions. Computations are performed with the standard ODE solver of the software Scilab. We consider a velocity perturbation of the first particle (at $n=0$), corresponding to the initial condition $$\label{ic}
x_n(0)=0 \
\text{ for~all } \
n \geq 0, \ \ \
\dot{x}_0 (0)=0.1, \ \ \
\dot{x}_n (0)=0 \
\text{ for~all } \
n \geq 1.$$ Due to the scale invariance of system (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]), all positive initial velocities for $\dot{x}_0(0)$ yield a rescaled solution of the form $\tilde{x}_n (t)= v^{\frac{2}{\alpha +1}}\, x_n ( v^{\frac{\alpha -1}{\alpha +1}}\, t)$.
The front edge of the solution evolves into a solitary wave whose profile becomes stationary for large enough times, at least on the timescales of the simulations. When $\alpha$ is sufficiently close to unity, one observes that the asymptotic velocity of the solitary wave is close to unity (this property is also true for any initial velocity $\dot{x}_0 (0)>0$). The solitary wave is of compression type (i.e. with $u_n <0$), hence it also defines a solution of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) with the symmetrized potential (\[vhom\]) and can be compared with approximation (\[approxsol\]).
\[1\]\[Bl\][ $n$]{} \[1\]\[Bl\][ $u_n (t)$]{}
![\[pulse1\_01\] Formation of a localized wave resulting from the initial condition (\[ic\]) in the Hertzian FPU lattice (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]) with $\alpha = 1.01$. Top left : solution profile $u_n$ at $t\approx 30.5$ (note the absence of dispersive wavetrains behind the localized pulse). Top right : the pulse profile at $t\approx 585.6$ (black curve) is compared with the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsol\]) (blue curve). A small mismatch between the two curves is visible at this stage (note the slightly asymmetric shape of the numerical solution). The value of $c$ has been fixed so that the exact and approximate solitary waves have the same amplitude for large values of $t$. Bottom : same comparison at $t\approx 1318.3$, where the approximate and numerical solutions almost perfectly coincide. ](solal1_01t30_5.eps "fig:") ![\[pulse1\_01\] Formation of a localized wave resulting from the initial condition (\[ic\]) in the Hertzian FPU lattice (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]) with $\alpha = 1.01$. Top left : solution profile $u_n$ at $t\approx 30.5$ (note the absence of dispersive wavetrains behind the localized pulse). Top right : the pulse profile at $t\approx 585.6$ (black curve) is compared with the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsol\]) (blue curve). A small mismatch between the two curves is visible at this stage (note the slightly asymmetric shape of the numerical solution). The value of $c$ has been fixed so that the exact and approximate solitary waves have the same amplitude for large values of $t$. Bottom : same comparison at $t\approx 1318.3$, where the approximate and numerical solutions almost perfectly coincide. ](solal1_01t585_6.eps "fig:") ![\[pulse1\_01\] Formation of a localized wave resulting from the initial condition (\[ic\]) in the Hertzian FPU lattice (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]) with $\alpha = 1.01$. Top left : solution profile $u_n$ at $t\approx 30.5$ (note the absence of dispersive wavetrains behind the localized pulse). Top right : the pulse profile at $t\approx 585.6$ (black curve) is compared with the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsol\]) (blue curve). A small mismatch between the two curves is visible at this stage (note the slightly asymmetric shape of the numerical solution). The value of $c$ has been fixed so that the exact and approximate solitary waves have the same amplitude for large values of $t$. Bottom : same comparison at $t\approx 1318.3$, where the approximate and numerical solutions almost perfectly coincide. ](solal1_01t1318_3.eps "fig:")
The results are shown in figure \[pulse1\_01\] for $\alpha = 1.01$. The parameter $c\approx -2.07$ in the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsol\]) is determined from the relation $a=\exp{(\frac{1}{2}+2\, c)}$, where $a$ is the exact solitary wave amplitude obtained by integrating (\[nc\]) with initial data (\[ic\]). The approximation of the solitary wave profile is very accurate in the stationary regime, as shown by the bottom panel. In addition, the measured velocity of the numerical solitary wave solution $v_{\rm{num}} \approx 0.9789$ can be compared with the velocity $v_{\rm{app}}=1+c\, (\alpha -1) \approx 0.9793$ of the approximate solitary wave (\[approxsol\]), which yields a relative error $E=|v_{\rm{app}}-v_{\rm{num}}|/v_{\rm{num}}$ around $0.04\%$.
Discrepancies appear between the profiles of the numerical solution and the Gaussian approximation for larger values of $\alpha$, as already noticed in figures \[Soliton\] and \[Convergence\]. In addition, we find a relative error $E$ between numerical and approximate wave velocities around $7\%$ for $\alpha = 1.222$ and $36\%$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. As a conclusion, while some quantitative agreement is still obtained for $\alpha \approx 1.2$ between the numerical solution and the Gaussian approximation, the latter becomes unsatisfactory for $\alpha = 1.5$.
\[lstab\]Linear stability of Gaussian solitary waves
----------------------------------------------------
The numerical results of section \[gauss\] indicate the long time stability of the solitary wave solutions of system (\[nc\]) with Hertzian potential (\[vhertz\]) that form after a localized perturbation. Therefore, the stability of the Gaussian solitary waves (\[sol\]) appears as a necessary (of course not sufficient) condition to establish the validity of the log-KdV equation (\[logkdv\]) as a modulation equation for the FPU system with Hertzian potential. In this section, we prove the linear orbital stability of solitary waves of the log-KdV equation. We perform the analysis for the stationary Gaussian solution $v^0$ defined by (\[homlog\]). By the scaling transformation (\[scaling\]), the stability result extends to the entire family of solitary waves $e^c\, v^0(\xi - c\, \tau )$ with $c\in \mathbb{R}$.
The log-KdV equation (\[logkdvpot\]) can be written in the Hamiltonian form $$\label{kdvham}
\partial_{\tau} v = \partial_{\xi} E'(v),$$ associated with the energy (\[energy\]). The stationary Gaussian solution $v^0$ is a critical point of the energy $E(v)$, i.e. $E'(v^0) = 0$. The Hessian operator evaluated at this solution reads $$L := E''(v^0) = -\partial_{\xi}^2 - 1 - \log|v^0| = -\partial_{\xi}^2 - \frac{3}{2} + \frac{\xi^2}{4}$$ and corresponds to a Schrödinger operator with a harmonic potential. Equation (\[kdvham\]) linearized at $v^0$ reads $$\label{lkdvham}
\partial_{\tau} v = \partial_{\xi} L\, v.$$ In what follows, we formulate (\[lkdvham\]) as a differential equation in suitable function spaces and derive a linear stability result based on the energy method for KdV-type evolution equations [@bona].
The spectral properties of $L$ are well known [@shubin]. The operator $L$ is self-adjoint in $L^2(\mathbb{R})$ with dense domain $$D(L) = \{\, u\in H^2(\mathbb{R}), \, \xi^2\, u \in L^2(\mathbb{R})\, \}.$$ Its spectrum consists of simple eigenvalues at integers $n - 1$, where $n \in \mathbb{N}_0$ (the set of natural numbers including zero). In particular, $L$ has a simple eigenvalue $-1$ with eigenspace spanned by $\phi_0 = v^0 / \| v^0 \|_2$, a simple zero eigenvalue with eigenspace spanned by $\phi_0^\prime =\partial_\xi \phi_0$, and the rest of its spectrum is bounded away from zero by a positive number. The discreteness of the spectrum comes from the fact that the harmonic potential of the Schrödinger operator $L$ is unbounded at infinity, which implies that the embedding $D(L)\hookrightarrow L^2(\mathbb{R})$ is compact (see e.g. [@shubin], p. 43-44) and $L$ has a compact resolvent in $L^2(\mathbb{R})$.
Hereafter we denote by $\left( \cdot,\cdot \right) $ the usual $L^2$-scalar product. The operator $\partial_{\xi} L\, : \, D(L) \rightarrow H^{-1}(\mathbb{R})$ inherits a double non semi-simple zero eigenvalue, with generalized kernel $E_0$ spanned by the eigenvector $\phi_0^\prime$ and the generalized eigenvector $\phi_0$. The algebraic multiplicity of this eigenvalue is $2$ because equation $\partial_{\xi} L\, u = \phi_0$ has no solution in $D(L)$ (since $\langle \partial_{\xi} L\, u , \phi_0 \rangle = -( u , L\, \phi_0^\prime )=0 \neq \| \phi_0 \|_2^2$). The double zero eigenvalue is linked with the existence of a two-parameter family of solitary waves of the log-KdV equation (\[logkdv\]) parameterized by the location and velocity of the waves. It induces in general a secular growth of the solutions of (\[lkdvham\]) along the eigenvector $\phi_0^\prime$, linked with a velocity change of perturbed solitary waves. In order to prove a linear stability result, we thus have to project (\[lkdvham\]) onto the invariant subspace under $\partial_{\xi} L$ associated with the nonzero part of the spectrum. Following a classical computation scheme [@pw], the spectral projection onto $E_0$ takes the form $P_0\, v = a\, \phi_0^\prime + b\, \phi_0$ with $$a = -\left( v , \int_0^\xi{\phi_0\, dx} \right) , \ \ \
b = \left( v , \phi_0 \right)$$ (one can readily check that $P_0$ commutes with $\partial_{\xi} L$). Note in passing that $a$ is well defined because $D(L) \subset L^1 (\mathbb{R})$. Now, splitting the solutions $v(\cdot ,\tau ) \in D(L)$ of (\[lkdvham\]) into $$v(\xi ,\tau )=a(\tau )\, \phi_0^\prime(\xi) + b(\tau )\, \phi_0 (\xi ) + y(\xi , \tau )$$ with $y(\cdot,\tau ) = (I-P_0)\, v(\cdot,\tau )$, one obtains the following equivalent system $$\label{eq0}
\frac{d a}{d \tau }=-b, \ \ \ \frac{d b}{d \tau }=0,$$ $$\label{eq1}
\partial_{\tau} y = \partial_{\xi} L\, y.$$ In order to prove the linear (orbital) stability of the Gaussian solitary wave, we have to show the Lyapunov stability of the equilibrium $y=0$ of the linear evolution equation (\[eq1\]) for a suitable topology. Let us recall that $P_0 y(\cdot,\tau )=0$, hence $y(\cdot,\tau )$ belongs to the codimension-$2$ subspace of $D(L)$ defined as $$D_1 = \left\{ \, y\in D(L): \quad \left( y , \phi_0 \right) = \left( y , \int_0^\xi{\phi_0\, dx} \right) =0 \, \right\} .$$ Since $L$ is positive on ${\phi_0}^\perp$ and $D_1 \subset {\phi_0}^\perp$, we can define $\| y \|_{L} = (L\, y , y)^{1/2}$. Due to the fact that $L$ is positive-definite on ${\phi_0}^\perp \cap {\phi_0^\prime}^\perp$ and $\phi_0^\prime \notin D_1$, $\| \cdot \|_{L} $ defines a norm on $D_1$ (roughly a weighted $H^1$-norm). Denote by $H_1$ the completion of $D_1$ with respect to the norm $\| \cdot \|_{L}$. This norm defines a convex conserved Lyapunov function for system (\[eq1\]) since $$\label{conserv}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\, \frac{1}{2}\, \| y \|_{L}^2 = (L\, y , \partial_\tau y) = (L\, y , \partial_\xi L y) = 0.$$ For simplicity, let us choose an initial data in the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ of rapidly decreasing $C^\infty$ functions: $$\label{cilin}
y_{|\tau =0}=y_0 \in D_1 \cap \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}).$$ Thanks to property (\[conserv\]), we get from the energy method [@rg] and standard bootstrapping arguments (see e.g. chapter 11.1.4 of [@rg]) a unique global solution of (\[eq1\])-(\[cilin\]) which is infinitely smooth in time and space. We have $y \in L^\infty (\mathbb{R},H_1)$ and $\| y(\cdot , \tau ) \|_{L} = \| y_0 \|_{L}$ for all $\tau \in \mathbb{R}$, which shows the Lyapunov stability of the equilibrium $y=0$ of (\[eq1\]) in $H_1$. Therefore, we have proved the linear orbital stability of the Gaussian solitary wave.
The Lyapunov stability of the equilibrium $y=0$ implies the absence of eigenvalue of $\partial_\xi L$ with positive real part, since such an eigenvalue would lead to exponential growth of the solution along a corresponding eigenvector. In addition, the spectrum of $\partial_{\xi} L$ is invariant by $\lambda \rightarrow -\lambda$ since $\partial_{\xi} L$ possesses a reversibility symmetry, i.e. anticommutes with the symmetry $v(\xi) \mapsto v(-\xi )$. This implies that all the eigenvalues of $\partial_{\xi} L$ lie on the imaginary axis. This result contrasts with the instability of the compacton solutions of the fully nonlinear Boussinesq equation numerically analyzed in section \[bouss\]. Moreover, it is consistent with the absence of solitary wave instabilities observed in section \[gauss\].
The absence of eigenvalues of $\partial_\xi L$ with positive real part could be also obtained from the recent works [@kapstef; @dmitrystab]. This result follows from the main theorems in [@kapstef; @dmitrystab] if the number of negative eigenvalues of $L$ is equal to one and $$\label{last-assumption}
( L^{-1} \partial_{\xi}^{-1} \phi_0^\prime, \partial_{\xi}^{-1} \phi_0^\prime ) < 0 ,$$ where $\partial_{\xi}^{-1} u := \int_{-\infty}^\xi{u\, dx}$. Assumption (\[last-assumption\]) is satisfied since $\partial_{\xi}^{-1} \phi_0^\prime =\phi_0 \in \text{Range}(L)$ (recall $L\, \phi_0=-\phi_0$) and $
( L^{-1} \partial_{\xi}^{-1} \phi_0^\prime, \partial_{\xi}^{-1} \phi_0^\prime ) =
( L^{-1} \phi_0, \phi_0 ) = - \| \phi_0 \|_2^2 < 0 .
$
\[comprev\]Compacton approximation revisited
============================================
The results of figures \[Soliton\] and \[Convergence\] indicate that compacton approximations converge towards solitary wave solutions of the differential advance-delay equation (\[ncrel\]) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. It seems delicate to establish this result directly from the methodology described in section \[bouss\], where equation (\[compacton-eq\]) is heuristically obtained by truncation of the differential advance-delay equation (\[diffadvdel-eq\]). However, it is instructive to compare analytically the compacton approximation $w_{\rm{c}}(z)$ defined in (\[compacton\]) and the Gaussian approximation (\[rgauss\]) when $\alpha$ is close to unity, since our numerical results indicate that both profiles become very close (see figure \[Soliton\], right panel). To check the consistency of (\[compacton\]) and (\[rgauss\]), we note that the compact support $\left[-\frac{\pi}{2 B},\frac{\pi}{2 B}\right]$ of approximation (\[compacton\]) extends to the entire real line as $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. Furthermore, let $\epsilon := \sqrt{\alpha - 1}$, $\xi := 2 \sqrt{3} \epsilon z$, and perform the expansions $$\label{expa}
A = \left( \frac{2+\epsilon^2}{2 (1 + \epsilon^2)} \right)^{-\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}} =
e^{-\frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \log\left( 1- \frac{\epsilon^2}{2(1+\epsilon^2)}\right)} =
\sqrt{e} \left(1 + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \right)$$ and $$\label{expb}
\cos^{\frac{2}{\alpha -1}}(B z) = e^{\frac{2}{\epsilon^2} \log \cos\left(\frac{\epsilon \xi}{2( 1 + \epsilon^2)} \right)} =
e^{\frac{2}{\epsilon^2} \log \left(1 - \frac{\epsilon^2 \xi^2}{8(1 + \epsilon^2)^2} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^4 \xi^4) \right)}
= e^{-\frac{\xi^2}{4}} \left( 1 + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2 ) \right)$$ for all fixed $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$. From expansions (\[expa\]) and (\[expb\]), it follows that the renormalized compacton $w_{\rm{c}}(\xi / \sqrt{12 (\alpha -1 )})$ converges towards the Gaussian solution (\[homlog\]) for any fixed $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$ when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$.
One possible approach for the justification of compactons consists in deriving an asymptotic model consistent with FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) and supporting compacton solutions, in analogy with the derivation of the log-KdV equation. Such a model may be free of the artificial instabilities introduced by the Boussinesq equation (\[B\]), and may lead to a well-posed evolution problem in a suitable function space and for appropriate initial data.
In what follows we show that a generalized KdV equation with nonsmooth fractional power nonlinearity can be derived from (\[ncrel\]) using the method of section \[kdvloga\]. For this purpose, we note that the nonlinearity $f_\alpha (u) $ defined by (\[deffa\]) satisfies $$\label{deffam1}
f_\alpha (u)
= (\alpha -1)\, u \ln{|u|} + \mathcal{O}((\alpha -1)^2)
= \alpha \left( u-u\, |u|^{\frac{1}{\alpha} -1} \right) + \mathcal{O}((\alpha -1)^2)$$ (uniformly in $u$ on bounded intervals) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. Consequently, the generalized KdV equation $$\label{rac}
\partial_\tau v + \partial^3_\xi v + \frac{\alpha}{\alpha -1}\, \partial_\xi ( v-v\, |v|^{\frac{1}{\alpha} -1} )=0$$ is consistent with system (\[ncrel\]) at the same order as the log-KdV equation, and converges towards the log-KdV equation when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$. We call equation (\[rac\]) the Hölderian KdV (H-KdV) equation due to the presence of the Hölder-continuous nonlinearity $v\, |v|^{\frac{1}{\alpha} -1}$. This approximation of the logarithmic nonlinearity is reminiscent of results of [@js12] obtained for a stationary Hölderian NLS equation close to a logarithmic limit.
Note that the H-KdV equation (\[rac\]) admit the same three conserved quantities (\[mass\]), (\[momentum\]), and (\[energy\]) with potential $W$ replaced by $$\tilde{W}(v) = \frac{\alpha}{\alpha - 1} \left( \frac{1}{2} v^2 - \frac{\alpha}{\alpha+1} |v|^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha} }\right).$$ Moreover, equation (\[rac\]) admits a nonstandard Galilean invariance similarly to the log-KdV equation. More precisely, any solution $v$ of (\[rac\]) generates a one-parameter family of solutions $\phi(c) \cdot v$ defined by $$\left[ \phi(c) \cdot v\right](\xi,\tau) := (1-\mu )^{\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}}
v\left((1- \mu )^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi-c\, \tau),(1-\mu )^{\frac{3}{2}} \tau\right) , \ \ \
\mu= c\, \left( 1-\frac{1}{\alpha} \right),$$ and parameterized by $c \in (-\infty , \frac{\alpha}{\alpha -1} ]$. One can check that this symmetry reduces to the Galilean invariance (\[scaling\]) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$.
Let us check that the H-KdV equation admits compacton solutions. Their existence is due to the non-differentiable Hölder-continuous nonlinearity, in contrast to classical compacton equations where degenerate nonlinear dispersion plays a central role [@rh]. The stationary H-KdV equation integrated once reads $$\label{racs}
\frac{d^2 v}{d\xi^2} + \frac{\alpha}{\alpha -1}\, ( v-v\, |v|^{\frac{1}{\alpha} -1} )=0 ,$$ (the integration constant has been set to $0$), or equivalently $\frac{d^2 v}{d\xi^2} + \tilde{W}^\prime (v) =0$. This equation is integrable and the potential $\tilde{W}$ has a double-well structure with a local maximum at $v=0$. This property implies the existence of a pair of symmetric homoclinic orbits to $0$ corresponding to compactons. Using the change of variable $$w(z)=(v\, |v|^{\frac{1}{\alpha} -1})(\xi ), \quad z = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha} \xi}{\sqrt{12(\alpha-1)}},$$ equation (\[racs\]) is mapped to the form (\[compacton-eq\]) which possesses compacton solutions given by (\[compacton\]). Consequently, equation (\[racs\]) admits stationary compacton solutions $$\label{compactonkdv}
v_\alpha (\xi ) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \tilde{A} \cos^{\frac{2 \alpha }{\alpha-1}}(\tilde{B} \xi ), & |\xi | \leq \frac{\pi}{2 \tilde{B}}, \\
0, & |\xi | \geq \frac{\pi}{2 \tilde{B}}, \end{array} \right.$$ where $$\tilde{A} = \left( \frac{1+\alpha}{2 \alpha} \right)^{\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}}, \quad \tilde{B} = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha-1}}{2\sqrt{\alpha}}.$$ In addition, we have as above $\lim_{\alpha \rightarrow 1^+}{v_\alpha (\xi )}= \sqrt{e}\, e^{-\frac{\xi^2}{4}}$ for any fixed $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$, i.e. the compacton approximation (\[compactonkdv\]) converges towards the Gaussian solitary wave approximation (\[homlog\]) when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$.
The compacton approximation $w_{\rm{c}}(\xi / \sqrt{12 (\alpha -1 )})$ defined in (\[compacton\]) and obtained using the Boussinesq equation (\[B\]) differs from the compacton (\[compactonkdv\]) deduced from the H-KdV equation. However, both approximations are equivalent when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$ since they converge towards the Gaussian profile (\[homlog\]). In fact, an infinity of compacton approximations could be constructed, depending on the approximation of the logarithmic nonlinearity introduced in (\[deffam1\]).
Using the Galilean invariance of (\[rac\]), the compacton (\[compactonkdv\]) yields two (symmetric) families of compactly supported solitary waves of the H-KdV equation (\[rac\]) $$\label{soltrav}
v(\xi ,\tau )=\pm (1-\mu )^{\alpha/(1-\alpha)}\, v_\alpha [\, \sqrt{1-\mu}\, (\xi - \tilde{c}\, \tau) \, ],
\ \ \ \mu=\tilde{c}\, (1-\frac{1}{\alpha}),$$ parameterized by the wave velocity $\tilde{c} \in (-\infty , \frac{\alpha}{\alpha -1} ]$. From the expression (\[scal\]), these profiles yield the approximate compacton solutions of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]) $$\label{approxsoltrav}
u_n(t)\approx \pm\,
\tilde{v}_\alpha [\, \sqrt{(\alpha -1)}\, (n-v_{\rm{s}} t -\xi_0 ) \, ],$$ where we have set $\tilde{v}_\alpha (\xi )= (1-\mu )^{\alpha/(1-\alpha)}\, v_\alpha (\sqrt{12(1-\mu )}\, \xi )$, $v_{\rm{s}}=1+c\, (\alpha -1)$, $c=\tilde{c}/2$, introduced an additional phase shift $\xi_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and used the fact that $\epsilon = \sqrt{ \alpha -1 }$. For any fixed value of $c$ and $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$, we have $\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1^+}{\tilde{v}_\alpha (\xi )}=e^{2c + \frac{1}{2}-3\xi^2}\, $. In this limit, the compacton (\[approxsoltrav\]) converges towards the Gaussian approximation (\[approxsol\]), therefore it is also close to the exact FPU solitary wave (\[exactvqqe\]).
\[alt\]Discussion
=================
We have obtained two generalized KdV equations (the log-KdV equation (\[logkdv\]) and the H-KdV equation (\[rac\])) as formal asymptotic limits of Fermi-Pasta-Ulam lattices with Hertzian-type potentials, when the nonlinearity exponent $\alpha >1$ goes to unity and slowly varying profiles are considered. Using numerical computations, we have checked that FPU solitary waves converge towards Gaussian solitary waves and compacton solutions to these KdV equations when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$ and for near-sonic wave speeds. In addition, we have illustrated numerically the formation of stable solitary waves after a localized velocity perturbation in the Hertzian FPU system (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]) when $\alpha \approx 1$, a limit in which the propagating pulse becomes nearly Gaussian. The linearized log-KdV equation preserves the spectral stability of solitary waves, which is lost when using other formal (Boussinesq-type) continuum models. While our study does not yield a complete proof of the asymptotic behaviour of exact FPU solitary waves when $\alpha \rightarrow 1^+$, it provides nevertheless an asymptotic framework to explain classical formal compacton approximations [@ap; @neste2], whose justification remained unclear up to now.
It would be interesting to examine the dynamical properties of the log-KdV and H-KdV equations for different classes of initial conditions. Relevant questions include local well-posedness (or ill-posedness), derivation of a priori bounds, global well-posedness (or blow-up), scattering of some initial data, and nonlinear stability of solitary waves. In our context, the study of the nonlinear orbital stability [@bona] or asymptotic stability [@pw] of solitary waves rises new difficulties, linked with the lack of smoothness of the energy functional (\[energy\]).
In addition, if the well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the log-KdV or H-KdV equation could be established for appropriate initial data, one could then study analytically or numerically their connection with the FPU system (\[nc\]) with homogeneous potentials (\[vhom\]). An open question is to check that well-prepared initial data evolve (up to higher order terms and on long finite times) according to the log-KdV or H-KdV equation (in the same spirit as the justification of the classical KdV equation for FPU chains [@bp; @kal; @sw]). This problem may be extended to the Hertzian FPU system (\[nc\]) and (\[vhertz\]), at least close to a solitary wave solution and for a suitable topology (i.e. using a weighted norm flattening perturbations behind the propagating wave [@pego; @pw]). The construction of appropriate numerical methods for the time-integration of the log-KdV or H-KdV equations is of course also fundamental in this context. Another open problem concerns the dynamical stability of the solitary wave solutions of the FPU lattice (\[ncrel\]). Our proof of the linear orbital stability of solitary waves for the log-KdV equation could be useful in this context, following the lines of [@pego] (using the linearized log-KdV equation instead of the linearized KdV equation). These open questions will be explored in forthcoming works.
[*Acknowledgements:*]{} G.J. is grateful to V. Acary, B. Brogliato, W. Craig and Y. Starosvetsky for stimulating discussions on this topic. Part of this work was carried out during a visit of G.J. to the Department of Mathematics at McMaster University, to which G.J. is grateful for hospitality. G.J. acknowledges financial support from the French Embassy in Canada and the Rhône-Alpes Complex Systems Institute (IXXI). D.P. acknowledges financial support from the NSERC.
[*Author contributions:*]{} G.J. introduced the time-dependent logarithmic and Hölderian KdV equations and their derivations from the Hertzian chain model. Numerical computations were performed by D.P. (figures 1, 3, 4) and G.J. (figure 5). All authors contributed to the linear stability analysis of Gaussian solitary waves. D.P. showed the convergence of the Ahnert-Pikovsky compacton towards a Gaussian for Hertz force exponents close to unity. All authors contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript.
[00]{} E. Afshari and A. Hajimiri. Nonlinear transmission lines for pulse shaping in silicon, [*IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 40*]{} (2005), 744-752. K. Ahnert and A. Pikovsky. Compactons and chaos in strongly nonlinear lattices, [*Phys. Rev. E 79*]{} (2009), 026209. D.M. Ambrose, G. Simpson, J.D. Wright, and D.G. Yang, Ill-posedness of degenerate dispersive equations, [*Nonlinearity 25*]{} (2012), 2655–2680. D. Bambusi and A. Ponno. On metastability in FPU, [*Comm. Math. Phys. 264*]{} (2006), 539-561. I. Bialynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski. Nonlinear Wave Mechanics, [*Annals of Physics 100*]{} (1976), 62-93. J.L. Bona, P.E. Souganidis and W.A. Strauss. Stability and instability of solitary waves of Korteweg-de Vries type, [*Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 411*]{} (1987), 395-412. D.K. Campbell et al, editors. The Fermi-Pasta-Ulam problem : the first $50$ years, [*Chaos 15*]{} (2005). Q. Dou, J. Cuevas, J.C. Eilbeck and F.M. Russell. Breathers and kinks in a simulated breather experiment, [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 4*]{} (2011), 1107-1118. O.A. Dubovsky and A.V. Orlov. Emission of supersonic soliton wave beams - generators of restructuring of nanocrystals under atom bombardment, and the self-organization of a dynamic superlattice of complexes of soliton atomic vibrations, [*Phys. of solid state 52*]{} (2010), 899-903. J.M. English and R.L. Pego. On the solitary wave pulse in a chain of beads, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133*]{}, n. 6 (2005), 1763-1768. . [Solitary waves on FPU lattices : I. Qualitative properties, renormalization and continuum limit]{}, [*Nonlinearity 12*]{} (1999), 1601-1627. [II. Linear implies nonlinear stability]{}, [*Nonlinearity 15*]{} (2002), 1343-1359. [III. Howland-type Floquet theory]{}, [*Nonlinearity 17*]{} (2004), 207-227. [IV. Proof of stability at low energy]{}, [*Nonlinearity 17*]{} (2004), 229-251. G. Friesecke and J.A Wattis. Existence theorem for solitary waves on lattices, [*Commun. Math. Phys. 161*]{} (1994), 391-418. M. Herrmann. Unimodal wavetrains and solitons in convex [F]{}ermi-[P]{}asta-[U]{}lam chains, [*Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A-Math. 140*]{} (2010), 753-785. E. J. Hinch and S. Saint-Jean. The fragmentation of a line of ball by an impact, [*Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 455*]{} (1999), 3201-3220. A. Hoffman and C.E. Wayne. Asymptotic two-soliton solutions in the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam model, [*J. Dyn. Diff. Equat. 21*]{} (2009), 343-351. A. Hoffman and C.E. Wayne. A simple proof of the stability of solitary waves in the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam model near the KdV limit, [*Fields Institute Communications 64*]{} (2013), 185-192. G. Iooss. Travelling waves in the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam lattice, [*Nonlinearity 13*]{} (2000), 849-866. G. James and Y. Starosvetsky. Breather solutions of the discrete $p$-Schrödinger equation, in [*Localized excitations in nonlinear complex systems*]{}, P. Kevrekidis, R. Carretero-González, J. Cuevas-Maraver, D. Frantzeskakis, N. Karachalios and F. Palmero-Acebedo Eds., [*Nonlinear systems and complexity 7*]{}, Springer, 2014. S. Job, F. Melo, A. Sokolow and S. Sen. Solitary wave trains in granular chains: Experiments, theory and simulations, [*Granular Matter 10*]{} (2007), 13-20. K.L. Johnson. [*Contact mechanics*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985. L.A. Kalyakin. Long wave asymptotics. Integrable equations as asymptotic limits of non-linear systems, [*Russian Math. Surveys 44*]{} (1989), 3-42. T. Kapitula and A. Stefanov. A Hamiltonian–Krein (instability) index theory for KdV-like eigenvalue problems, [*Studies in Applied Mathematics*]{} (2013), doi: 10.1111/sapm.12031. D. Khatri, D. Ngo and C. Daraio. Highly nonlinear solitary waves in chains of cylindrical particles, [*Granular Matter 14*]{} (2012), 63-69. R.S. MacKay. Solitary waves in a chain of beads under Hertz contact, [*Phys. Lett. A 251*]{} (1999), 191-192. A. Mielke and C. Patz. Dispersive stability of infinite-dimensional Hamiltonian systems on lattices, [*Applicable Analysis 89*]{} (2010), 1493-1512. T. Mizumachi. Asymptotic stability of lattice solitons in the energy space, [*Commun. Math. Phys. 288*]{} (2009), 125-144. T. Mizumachi. Asymptotic stability of $N$-solitary waves of the FPU lattices, [*Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 207*]{} (2013), 393-457. V.F. Nesterenko. [*Dynamics of heterogeneous materials*]{}, Springer Verlag, 2001. D. Ngo, S. Griffiths, D. Khatri and C. Daraio. Highly nonlinear solitary waves in chains of hollow spherical particles, [*Granular Matter 15*]{} (2013), 149-155. N.-S. Nguyen and B. Brogliato. [*Multiple impacts in dissipative granular chains*]{}, Lecture Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics 72, Springer, 2014. R.L. Pego and M.I. Weinstein. Asymptotic stability of solitary waves, [*Commun. Math. Phys. 164*]{} (1994), 305-349. D.E. Pelinovsky. Spectral stability of nonlinear waves in KdV-type evolution equations, [*Spectral analysis, stability, and bifurcation in modern nonlinear physical systems*]{}, Wiley-ISTE, 2013. M. Renardy and R.C. Rogers. [*An introduction to partial differential equations*]{}, Springer Verlag, New York, 2004. P. Rosenau. Dynamics of nonlinear mass-spring chains near the continuum limit, [*Phys. Lett. A 118*]{} (1986), 222-227. P. Rosenau and J. Hyman. Compactons: solitons with finite wavelength, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. 70*]{} (1993), 564-567. G. Schneider and C.E. Wayne. Counter-propagating waves on fluid surfaces and the continuum limit of the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam model. In B. Fiedler, K. Gröger and J. Sprekels, editors, [*International Conference on Differential Equations Appl. 5*]{} (1), 69-82 (1998). P.C. Schuur. [*Asymptotic analysis of soliton problems*]{}, Lect. Notes in Math. 1232, Springer Verlag, 1986. K. Sekimoto. Newton’s cradle versus nonbinary collisions, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. 104*]{} (2010), 124302. M.A. Shubin, [*Partial differential equations*]{} vol. 7, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, Springer, 1994. A. Stefanov and P.G. Kevrekidis. On the existence of solitary traveling waves for generalized Hertzian chains, [*J. Nonlinear Sci. 22*]{} (2012), 327-349. D. Sun, C. Daraio and S. Sen. Nonlinear repulsive force between two solids with axial symmetry, [*Phys. Rev. E 83*]{} (2011), 066605. D. Sun and S. Sen. Nonlinear grain-grain forces and the width of the solitary wave in granular chains : a numerical study, [*Granular Matter 15*]{} (2013), 157-161. Z. Yang and X. Wang. Blowup of solutions for the “bad" Boussinesq-type equation, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl. 285*]{} (2003), 282-298. P. Zhidkov. [*Korteweg-de Vries and nonlinear Schrödinger equations*]{}, Lect. Notes in Math. 1756, Springer Verlag, 2001.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In terms of the topological diagram approach with the $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry, we study the two-body anti-triplet charmed baryon decays, whereas the symmetry properties of the baryon wave functions are not taken into account. Since each (non-)factorizable topological amplitude can be extracted with the data, we find that only one $W$-exchange decaying process can dominantly contribute to $\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^0 K^+$. Besides, it is found that the non-factorizable contributions can cause the destructive interference, such that our result of ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)=(0.8\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-4}$ agrees with the experimental upper bound. We also predict that ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta^\prime)=(0.5\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-2}$, ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta^\prime)=(1.0\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}$, ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+)=(5.23\pm 0.04)\times 10^{-4}$ and ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda^0\bar K^0,\Xi^-\pi^+)=(0.80\pm 0.20,1.91\pm0.17)\times 10^{-2}$, to be compared with the future BESIII and LHCb experiments.'
author:
- 'H.J. Zhao'
- 'Y.K. Hsiao'
- Yu Yao
title: 'A diagrammatic analysis of two-body charmed baryon decays with flavor symmetry '
---
introduction
============
The two-body ${\bf B}_c\to {\bf B}M$ decays have provided important information for the hadronization in the weak interaction, where ${\bf B}_c=(\Xi_c^{0},-\Xi_c^{+},\Lambda_c^+)$ are the lowest-lying anti-triplet charmed baryon states, and ${\bf B}(M)$ the baryon (meson) octet. According to the factorization approximation, the Cabibbo-allowed $\Lambda_c^+\to p\bar K^0$ and Cabibbo-suppressed $\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0$ decays both go through the color-suppressed tree-level process. Nonetheless, with the data input of ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p \bar K^0)=(3.16\pm 0.16)\times 10^{-2}$ [@pdg], one extracts the effective Wilson coefficient $a_2\simeq {\cal O}(1.0)$, which is as large as $a_1$ for the color-allowed decay modes, whereas ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)<2.7\times10^{-4}$ [@Ablikim:2017ors] causes $a_2<0.5$. In the same approach, one obtains ${\cal B}(\Xi^0_c \to \Xi^- K^+)/{\cal B}(\Xi^0_c \to \Xi^- \pi^+)=1.4 s_c^2$, to be inconsistent with the data of $(0.6\pm 0.2)s_c^2$ with $s_c\equiv \sin\theta_c=0.2245$ [@pdg], where $\theta_c$ denotes the Cabibbo angle. Moreover, the $\Lambda_c^+\to \Sigma^0 M^+$ and $\Lambda_c^+\to \Lambda^0 M^+$ decays with $M^+=(\pi^+,K^+)$ can be depicted as the $\Lambda_c^+$ to $\Sigma^0$ or $\Lambda^0$ transition, together with the $M^+$ production from the external $W$-boson emission. According to $\Sigma^0(\Lambda^0)\sim (ud\pm du)s$, the symmetric quark structure for $\Sigma^0$ does not match $\Lambda_{Q}\sim (ud-du)$Q with $Q=(c,b)$ being transformed as $s$ via the weak current, resulting in ${\cal B}(\Lambda_Q\to \Lambda^0 M^+)\gg
{\cal B}(\Lambda_Q\to \Sigma^0 M^+)=0$ in the factorization [@Hsiao:2017tif; @Geng:2017esc; @Cheng:2018hwl]. Nonetheless, it is measured that ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Sigma^0 M^+)\simeq
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Lambda^0 M^+)$ [@pdg; @Ablikim:2015flg], while ${\cal B}(\Lambda_b^0\to \Sigma^0 M^+)=0$ has not been tested.
The inconsistencies indicate the possibility that, although being often neglected in the $b$-hadron decays [@ali; @Geng:2006jt; @Hsiao:2014mua], the non-factorizable effects are able to give rise to sizeable contributions in the two-body charmed baryon decays. For example, the $\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^0 K^+$ and $\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^{*0} K^+$ decays only proceed through the two non-factorizable $W$-exchange processes, where $\Xi^{*0}\equiv \Xi(1530)^0$. Indeed, the recent measurements of their absolute branching fractions by BESIII present that [@Ablikim:2018bir] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{data_LctoXiK}
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^0 K^+)&=&(5.90\pm 0.86\pm 0.39)\times 10^{-3}\,,\nonumber\\
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^{*0} K^+)&=&(5.02\pm 0.99\pm 0.31)\times 10^{-3}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the more accurate results reconfirm the previous measurements relative to $\Lambda_c^+\to pK^- \pi^+$ [@pdg; @Avery:1993vj; @Albrecht:1994hr]. The approach of the $SU(3)$ flavor ($SU(3)_f$) symmetry is commonly used in the heavy hadron decays [@He:2000ys; @Fu:2003fy; @Hsiao:2015iiu; @He:2015fwa; @He:2015fsa; @Savage:1989qr; @Savage:1991wu; @h_term; @Lu:2016ogy; @Geng:2017esc; @Geng:2018plk; @Wang:2017gxe; @Wang:2017azm; @Geng:2017mxn; @Geng:2018bow; @Geng:2018upx], where the initial and final states are related to the irreducible $SU(3)_f$ representation of the effective Hamiltonian, to derive the $SU(3)_f$ amplitudes. By merging all possible factorizable and non-factorizable effects, the $SU(3)_f$ amplitudes are enabled to explain ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^0 K^+)$ [@Geng:2017esc; @Geng:2018plk; @Geng:2017mxn; @Geng:2018bow]. However, one cannot distinguish which of the two $W$-exchange processes gives more contribution, while the similar $W$-exchange contributions in $\Lambda_b\to p\pi^-(p K^-)$, $\Xi_{bc}^0\to p K^-$, and $\Xi_{cc}^+\to \Sigma_c^{++}(2520)K^-$ have been studied in [@Leibovich:2003tw; @Lu:2009cm; @Li:2017ndo; @Zhang:2018llc]. For ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)$ estimated to be higher than the experimental upper bound [@Geng:2018bow], which corresponds to $a_2\sim {\cal O}(1.0)$ from the observation of ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p \bar K^0)$, the sizeable destructive interferences from the non-factorizable effects are proposed to reduce the estimation [@Cheng:2018hwl]. Therefore, the investigation of the all kinds of non-factorizble effects in ${\bf B}_c\to {\bf B}M$ is necessary, which come from five different processes. In Refs. [@Cheng:2018hwl; @Chau:1995gk], since the topological diagrams have been drawn to identify different decaying processes, with the corresponding parameters extracted from the data, we can systematically analyze the different non-factorizable effects. This should be like the studies with the topological amplitudes in the $D$ decays [@Grossman:2012ry; @Pirtskhalava:2011va; @Cheng:2012xb; @Li:2012cfa]. In this report, by including all the existing data, we will determine the topological amplitudes in the two-body charmed baryon decays, such that we will be able to explain the inconsistent extractions of $a_2$ from $\Lambda_c^+\to p \bar K^0$ and $\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0$, together with the relation of ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Sigma^0 M^+)\simeq
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Lambda^0 M^+)$ and the ratio of ${\cal B}(\Xi^0_c \to \Xi^- K^+)/{\cal B}(\Xi^0_c \to \Xi^- \pi^+)$. Moreover, some of the branching ratios can be predicted.
Diagrammatic approach
=====================
For the two-body charmed baryon decays via the tree-level $c\to s u\bar d$, $c\to u d\bar d$ and $c\to u s\bar s$ transitions, the effective Hamiltonian is given by [@Buras:1998raa] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Heff}
{\cal H}_{eff}&=&\sum_{i=1,2}\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2}c_i
\left(V_{cs}V_{ud}O_i+V_{cd}V_{ud} O_i^d+V_{cs}V_{us}O_i^s\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $c_{1,2}$ are the Wilson coefficients, and $V_{ij}$ the CKM matrix elements. The four-quark operators $O_{1,2}^{(q)}$ are written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O12}
&&
O_1=(\bar u d)(\bar s c)\,,\;O_2=(\bar s d)(\bar u c)\,,\nonumber\\
&&
O_1^q=(\bar u q)(\bar q c)\,,\; O_2^q=(\bar q q)(\bar u c)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $q=(d,s)$ and $(\bar q_1 q_2)=\bar q_1\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)q_2$. The decays with $V_{cs}V_{ud}\simeq 1$ and $V_{cs}V_{us}\simeq-V_{cd}V_{ud}\simeq s_c$ are classified as the Cabibbo-favored (CF) and singly Cabibbo-suppressed (SCS) processes, respectively.
![Topological diagrams for the ${\bf B}_c\to {\bf B}M$ decays.[]{data-label="fig1"}](FeynDiagfig "fig:"){width=".9\textwidth"}\
In terms of the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Heff\]), the amplitudes of ${\bf B}_c\to {\bf B}M$ can be depicted as the quark diagrams [@Cheng:2018hwl; @Chau:1995gk], where the quark lines should be in accordance with the operators in Eq. (\[O12\]). For example, the color-allowed and color-suppressed amplitudes with the external and internal $W$ emissions are drawn in Fig. 1a and b, respectively, being parameterized as $T$ and $C$, instead of being calculated with the QCD-inspired models. Apart from Fig. \[fig1\]a(b) for the factorizable $T(C)$ amplitude, one has Fig. \[fig1\]c for the non-factorizable $C'$ amplitude. It is interesting to note that $C'$ can be seem as the consequence of exchanging ${\bf B}$ and $M$ in Fig. \[fig1\]b for $C$. The $W$-exchange amplitudes of $(E', E_{\bf B}, E_M)$ are drawn in Fig. 1(d,e,f), respectively, where a gluon is added to relate $M$ and ${\bf B}$. Besides, $E_{\bf B}$($E_M$) has the $W$-boson to connect ${\bf B}$ and $M$, with the $c$-quark transition to be a valence quark in ${\bf B}$($M$), while $E'$ is for $M$ unable to connect to the $W$-boson. In contrast with the two-body $D$ decays [@Grossman:2012ry; @Pirtskhalava:2011va; @Cheng:2012xb; @Li:2012cfa], there is no $W$-annihilation amplitude but two additional $W$-exchange ones in ${\bf B}_c\to{\bf B}M$. To preserve the $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry, the amplitude needs the suitable insertions of the final states to match the quark diagrams, such as $\pi^0=\sqrt{1/2}(u\bar u-d\bar d)$, which can add a pre-factor of $\pm\sqrt{1/2}$ to the parameters of $(T,C^{(\prime)},E_{{\bf B}(M)}, E')$. Likewise, the $(\eta,\eta')$ meson states mix with $\eta_q=\sqrt{1/2}(u\bar u+d\bar d)$ and $\eta_s=s\bar s$, whose mixing matrix is presented as [@FKS] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta_mixing}
\left(\begin{array}{c} \eta \\ \eta^\prime \end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos\phi & -\sin\phi \\ \sin\phi & \cos\phi \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c} \eta_q \\ \eta_s \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with the mixing angle $\phi=(39.3\pm1.0)^\circ$. Note that, unlike the topological quark-diagram approach in Ref. [@Chau:1995gk], the symmetry properties of the baryon wave functions are not taken into account, such that the topological amplitudes are presented in the simple forms. Subsequently, we obtain the amplitudes of ${\bf B}_c\to{\bf B}M$ in Table \[tab1\] for the observed ones, of which the decay widths depend on the integration of the phase space for the two-body decays, given by [@pdg] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Gamma({\bf B}_c\to {\bf B} M)=
\frac{|\vec{p}_{{\bf B}}|}{8\pi m_{{\bf B}_c}^2}|{\cal A}({\bf B}_c\to {\bf B} M)|^2\,,\nonumber\\
%
&&|\vec{p}_{{\bf B}}|=\frac{\sqrt{[m_{{\bf B}_c}^2-(m_{{\bf B}}+m_M)^2]
[m_{{\bf B}_c}^2-(m_{{\bf B}}-m_M)^2]}}{2 m_{{\bf B}_c}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Decay mode ${\cal A}({\bf B}_c\to {\bf B}M)/(\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2})$
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda_c^+ \to p \bar K^0$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}(C+E_M)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda \pi^+$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}(T+C^\prime +E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \pi^0$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}\sqrt{1\over 2}(-C^\prime +E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 \pi^+$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}(T+C^\prime +E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Xi^0 K^+$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}(E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}\sqrt{1\over 2}(C^\prime+E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)\cos\phi-V_{cs}V_{ud} E_M\sin\phi$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta^\prime$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}\sqrt{1\over 2}(C^\prime+E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)\sin\phi+V_{cs}V_{ud} E_M\cos\phi$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to p \pi^0$ $V_{cd}V_{ud}\sqrt{1\over 2}(-C-C^\prime-E_M+E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda^0 K^+$ $V_{cs}V_{us}(T+C^\prime)+V_{cd}V_{ud}(E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 K^+$ $V_{cs}V_{us}(T+C^\prime)+V_{cd}V_{ud}(E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ K^0$ $V_{cs}V_{us}C^\prime+V_{cd}V_{ud}E_M$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta$ $V_{cd}V_{ud}\sqrt{1\over 2}(C+C^\prime+E_M+E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)\cos\phi-V_{cs}V_{us} C\sin\phi$
$\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta^\prime$ $V_{cd}V_{ud}\sqrt{1\over 2}(C+C^\prime+E_M+E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)\sin\phi+V_{cs}V_{us} C\cos\phi$
$\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+$ $V_{cs}V_{us}T$
$\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda^0\bar{K}^0$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}(C+C^\prime+E^\prime+E_M)$
$\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+$ $V_{cs}V_{ud}(T+E_{\bf B})$
: The topological amplitudes for the ${\bf B}_c\to{\bf B} M$ decays.[]{data-label="tab1"}
Numerical Results
=================
In our numerical analysis, the topological amplitudes to be extracted with the data are in fact complex, presented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11p}
&&T, Ce^{i\delta_C},C'e^{i\delta_{C'}},
E_{\bf B}e^{i\delta_{E_{\bf B}}}, E_M e^{i\delta_{E_M}}, E' e^{i\delta_{E'}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which are counted to be 11 parameters, with $T$ set to be relatively real. As the theoretical inputs in the amplitudes of ${\bf B}_c\to{\bf B} M$, the CKM matrix elements in the Wolfenstein parameterization are given by [@pdg] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B1}
&&(V_{cs},V_{ud},V_{us},V_{cd})=(1-\lambda^2/2,1-\lambda^2/2,\lambda,-\lambda)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $\lambda=s_c=0.22453\pm 0.00044$. We perform the numerical analysis with the minimum $\chi^2$-fit method, of which the equation is written as [@Geng:2018bow] $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^2=
\sum_{i} \bigg(\frac{{\cal B}^i_{th}-{\cal B}^i_{ex}}{\sigma_{ex}^i}\bigg)^2+
\sum_{j}\bigg(\frac{{\cal R}^j_{th}-{\cal R}^j_{ex}}{\sigma_{ex}^j}\bigg)^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal B}$ (${\cal R}$) denotes (the ratios of) the branching ratios. Besides, the subscripts $th$ and $ex$ stand for the theoretical inputs from the amplitudes in Table \[tab1\] and the experimental data points in Table \[tab2\], respectively, with $\sigma_{i,j}$ the errors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Ratios of) Branching ratios This work Ref. [@Geng:2018bow] Ref. [@Wang:2017gxe] Ref. [@Cheng:2018hwl] Data [@pdg; @Ablikim:2017ors; @ppi0]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------------------
$10^2{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to p \bar K^0)$ $3.2\pm 0.4$ $3.2 \pm 0.1$ $2.72-3.60$ $3.16\pm 0.16$
$10^2{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda^0 \pi^+)$ $1.3\pm 0.3$ $1.3 \pm 0.1$ $1.30\pm 0.17$ $1.30\pm0.07$
$10^2{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 \pi^+)$ $1.3\pm 0.3$ $1.3 \pm 0.1$ $1.27 \pm 0.17$ $1.29\pm 0.07$
$10^2{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \pi^0)$ $1.2\pm 0.2$ $1.3 \pm 0.1$ $1.27 \pm 0.17$ $1.24\pm 0.10$
$10^2{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Xi^0 K^+)$ $0.6\pm 0.1$ $0.6\pm 0.1$ $0.50 \pm 0.12$ $0.59\pm 0.09$
$10^2{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta)$ $0.7\pm 0.1$ $0.70\pm 0.23$
$10^2{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta^\prime)$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ —–
$10^4{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to p \pi^0)$ $0.8 \pm 0.7$ $5.4\pm 1.0$ [^1] 0.8 $0.8\pm1.4$
$<2.7\,(\text{90\% C.L.})$
$10^4{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda^0 K^+)$ $5.7\pm 1.2$ $6.1 \pm 0.9$ 10.6 $6.1\pm 1.2$
$10^4{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 K^+)$ $5.4\pm 1.1$ $5.2\pm 0.7$ 7.2 $5.2\pm 0.8$
$10^4{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ K^0)$ $21.2\pm 1.3$ $10.4 \pm 1.5$ 14.4 —–
$10^4{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta)$ $12.4\pm 2.1$ 12.8 $12.4\pm 3.0$
$10^4{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta^\prime)$ $1.0\pm 0.3$ —–
$10^4{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+)$ $5.23\pm 0.04$ $ 4.6 \pm 1.7 $ —–
$10^2{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda^0\bar K^0)$ $0.80\pm 0.20$ $0.78\pm 0.05$ $0.94\pm 0.16$ —–
$10^2{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+)$ $1.91\pm0.17$ $ 1.52 \pm 0.07 $ $2.24 \pm 0.34$ —–
${\cal R}_1(\Xi_c^0)\equiv $0.027\pm 0.002$ $0.028\pm0.006$
\frac{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+)}{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+)}$
$(0.54\pm0.04)s^2_c$ $(0.6\pm 0.2)s_c^2$ $(0.56\pm0.12)s^2_c$
${\cal R}_2(\Xi_c^0)\equiv $0.42\pm 0.11$ $0.5\pm 0.1$ $0.42\pm0.06$
\frac{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda^0\bar K^0)}{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+)}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The data and numerical results for ${\bf B}_c\to {\bf B} M$, in comparison with the recent theoretical studies.[]{data-label="tab2"}
According to the fit, we determine the parameters in Eq. (\[11p\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{su3_fit}
(T,C,C')&=&
(0.43\pm 0.02,0.18\pm 0.02,0.25\pm 0.01)\,\text{GeV}^3\,,\nonumber\\
%
(E_{\bf B},E_{M},E')&=&
(0.25\pm 0.03,0.38\pm 0.01,0.01\pm 0.02)\,\text{GeV}^3\,,\nonumber\\
%
(\delta_C,\delta_{C'},
\delta_{E_{\bf B}},\delta_{E_M},\delta_{E'})&=&
(95.1\pm 6.7, 195.9\pm 4.4,68.6\pm 3.2,41.6\pm 6.9,-1.7\pm 43.3)^\circ\,,\nonumber\\
\chi^2/d.o.f&=&0.41/1,\end{aligned}$$ with $d.o.f$ representing the degree of freedom. By taking the parameters in Eq. (\[su3\_fit\]) as the inputs, we theoretically reproduce (the ratios of) the branching ratios, together with the predictions for ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta^\prime,p \eta^\prime)$ and ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+,\Lambda^0\bar K^0,\Xi^-\pi^+)$, given in Table \[tab2\].
Discussions and Conclusions
===========================
The value of $\chi^2/d.o.f\simeq 0.4$ presents a reasonable fit, which demonstrates that the topological amplitudes based on the diagrammatic approach can explain the data of the two-body ${\bf B}_c\to {\bf B} M$ decays. The contributions from the factorizable and non-factorizable decaying processes can be specifically quantified in Eq. (\[su3\_fit\]). Moreover, the fit of $|T|\simeq |E_M|\simeq 0.4$ and $|C|\simeq |C'|\simeq |E_{\bf B}|\simeq 0.2$ shows that the non-factorizable effects are extracted to be as large as the factorizable ones, except for $E'\simeq 0$, which can be the hint for the QCD-inspired model calculations. Indeed, the (non-)factorizable effects have been explored in the $\Lambda_b$ decays, which relies on the soft-collinear effective theory [@Leibovich:2003tw]. With $|E_{\bf B}|\gg |E'|\simeq 0$ in ${\cal A}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^0 K^+)\propto V_{cs}V_{ud}(E_{\bf B}+E^\prime)$, it is clear to see that, instead of $E'$, $E_{\bf B}$ as one of the $W$-exchange processes in Fig. \[fig1\] dominantly contribute to the branching ratio, which is pointed out for the first time.
In the factorization approach, one tends to believe that there exist the universal effective Wilson coefficients $a_{1,2}$ for the color-allowed and color-suppressed decay modes, respectively, which is based on the assumption that the non-factorizable effects can give similar contributions to the different decays, and received by $a_{1,2}$. This leads to the relations of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R_eq}
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)&\simeq&
\bigg(\frac{a_2}{\bar a_2}
\frac{f_{\pi}}{2f_K}
\frac{V_{cd}V_{ud}}{V_{cs}V_{ud}}\bigg)^2
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\bar K^0)\,,\nonumber\\
%
{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+)&\simeq&
\bigg(\frac{a_1}{\bar a_1}
\frac{f_K}{f_{\pi}}
\frac{V_{cs}V_{us}}{V_{cs}V_{ud}}\bigg)^2
{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+)\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $a_2$ ($\bar a_2$) for $\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0(p\bar K^0)$ and $a_1$ ($\bar a_1$) for $\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+(\Xi^- \pi^+)$, where $f_M$ is the decay constant, presenting the meson production in the factorizable amplitude of ${\cal A}({\bf B}_c\to {\bf B}_n M)\propto$ $\langle M|(q_1 q_2)|0\rangle \langle {\bf B}|(q_3 c)|{\bf B}_c\rangle$. By means of $a_2=\bar a_2$ and the data input of ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\bar K^0)$ in Table \[tab2\], one estimates that ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)=(5.5\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}$ [@Geng:2018bow] , apparently disagreeing with the experimental upper bound of $2.7\times 10^{-4}$ or $(0.8\pm1.4)\times 10^{-4}$ [@Ablikim:2017ors; @ppi0]. While a large destructive interference between the factorizable and non-factorizable amplitudes for $\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0$ is proposed as the solution [@Cheng:2018hwl], we show that ${\cal A}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\bar K^0)$ $\propto C+E_M$ and ${\cal A}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)$ $\propto-(C+E_M)+(E_{\bf B}-C')+E'$ from Table \[tab1\], where $E_{\bf B}-C'$ can give rise to the sizeable destructive interference, leading to ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)=(0.8\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-4}$ in Table \[tab2\]. With the second relation in Eq. (\[R\_eq\]), $a_1=\bar a_1$ causes ${\cal R}_1(\Xi_c^0)=1.4 s_c^2$ to be far away from the data of $(0.56\pm0.12)s^2_c$. The exact $SU(3)_f$ symmetry also leads to the deviated ${\cal R}_1(\Xi_c^0)\simeq 1.0 s_c^2$, whereas the broken symmetry gives ${\cal R}_1(\Xi_c^0)=(0.6\pm 0.2)s_c^2$ [@Geng:2018bow]. On the other hand, we show that ${\cal R}_1(\Xi_c^0)\simeq 1/(1+E_{\bf B}/T)^2$, where $E_{\bf B}/T$ gives the constructive contribution, resulting in ${\cal R}_1(\Xi_c^0)=(0.54\pm0.04)s^2_c$ to accommodate the data. Although the factorization predicts that ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Lambda^0 M^+)\gg
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to \Sigma^0 M^+)=0$, by disregarding the symmetry properties of the baryon wave functions, we simply have ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda \pi^+)\simeq
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 \pi^+)$ and ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda^0 K^+)\simeq
{\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 K^+)$, in agreement with the data. We hence conclude that, when the non-factorizable effects can be significant in ${\bf B}_c\to{\bf B}M$, the effective Wilson coefficients $a_{1,2}$ cannot have universal values.
Both by the $SU(3)_f$ symmetry, the topological diagrams and $SU(3)_f$ amplitudes can be used to explain the data well. Moreover, they are demonstrated to be the equivalent model-indepent approaches [@He:2018joe], while the diagrammatic one explicitly describes the different decaying processes, and the $SU(3)_f$ amplitudes merge all possible (non-) factorizable contributions. Since the absolute branching fractions of $\Xi_c^0\to {\bf B}M$ have not been measured, we predict that ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+)=(5.23\pm 0.04)\times 10^{-4}$ and ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda^0\bar K^0,\Xi^-\pi^+)=(0.80\pm 0.20,1.91\pm0.17)\times 10^{-2}$, together with ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta^\prime)=(0.5\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-2}$ and ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta^\prime)=(1.0\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}$, to be tested by the future measurements.
In sum, we have globally analyzed all the measured ${\bf B}_c\to{\bf B} M$ decays, which is in terms of the diagrammatic approach with the $SU(3)_f$ symmetry. We have determined the factorizable and non-factorizble amplitudes, being parameterized to correspond to the topological diagrams. Accordingly, we have been able to distinguish one $W$-exchange decaying process from the other, which dominantly contributes to $\Lambda_c^+\to \Xi^0 K^+$. The destructive interference between the factorizable and non-factorizable decaying processes have been given to contribute to ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)$, such that the overestimation of ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0)$ in the factorization could be reduced to agree with the experimental upper bound. For ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+)/{\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+)=(0.56\pm0.12)s_c^2$ measured to disapprove the predicted value of $1.4s_c^2$ in the factorization, it has been regarded to be due to the ignoring of one specific non-factorizble effect for $\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-\pi^+$. We have predicted that ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta^\prime)=(0.5\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-2}$, ${\cal B}(\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta^\prime)=(1.0\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}$, ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Xi^-K^+)=(5.23\pm 0.04)\times 10^{-4}$ and ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^0 \to \Lambda^0\bar K^0,\Xi^-\pi^+)=(0.80\pm 0.20,1.91\pm0.17)\times 10^{-2}$, to be compared with the future BESIII and LHCb experiments, in order to see if the diagrammatic approach with the $SU(3)_f$ symmetry can be further tested to be valid, while the symmetry properties of the baryon wave functions have been disregarded in this work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by National Science Foundation of China (11675030).
[99]{} M. Tanabashi [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, 030001 (2018).
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, 111102 (2017). Y.K. Hsiao, Y. Yao and C.Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, 093001 (2017). C.Q. Geng, Y.K. Hsiao, Y.H. Lin and L.L. Liu, Phys. Lett. B [**776**]{}, 265 (2017). H.Y. Cheng, X.W. Kang and F. Xu, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, 074028 (2018). M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 052001 (2016).
A. Ali, G. Kramer and C.D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D[**58**]{}, 094009 (1998).
C.Q. Geng, Y.K. Hsiao and J.N. Ng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 011801 (2007).
Y.K. Hsiao and C.Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 116007 (2015). M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**783**]{}, 200 (2018). P. Avery [*et al.*]{} \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2391 (1993).
H. Albrecht [*et al.*]{} \[ARGUS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**342**]{}, 397 (1995).
X.G. He, Y.K. Hsiao, J.Q. Shi, Y.L. Wu and Y.F. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 034002 (2001).
H.K. Fu, X.G. He and Y.K. Hsiao, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 074002 (2004).
Y.K. Hsiao, C.F. Chang and X.G. He, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 114002 (2016).
X.G. He and G.N. Li, Phys. Lett. B [**750**]{}, 82 (2015).
M. He, X.G. He and G.N. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 036010 (2015). M.J. Savage and R.P. Springer, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 1527 (1990).
M.J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B [**257**]{}, 414 (1991).
G. Altarelli, N. Cabibbo and L. Maiani, Phys. Lett. [**57B**]{}, 277 (1975).
C.D. Lu, W. Wang and F.S. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 056008 (2016). C.Q. Geng, Y.K. Hsiao, C.W. Liu and T.H. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, 073006 (2018).
C.Q. Geng, Y.K. Hsiao, C.W. Liu and T.H. Tsai, JHEP [**1711**]{}, 147 (2017). C.Q. Geng, Y.K. Hsiao, C.W. Liu and T.H. Tsai, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, 593 (2018). W. Wang, Z.P. Xing and J. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C [**77**]{}, 800 (2017). D. Wang, P.F. Guo, W.H. Long and F.S. Yu, JHEP [**1803**]{}, 066 (2018). C.Q. Geng, Y.K. Hsiao, C.W. Liu and T.H. Tsai, arXiv:1810.01079 \[hep-ph\]. A.K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti, I.W. Stewart and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**586**]{}, 337 (2004).
C.D. Lu, Y.M. Wang, H. Zou, A. Ali and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 034011 (2009). R.H. Li, C.D. Lü, W. Wang, F.S. Yu and Z.T. Zou, Phys. Lett. B [**767**]{}, 232 (2017). Q. A. Zhang, arXiv:1811.02199 \[hep-ph\].
L.L. Chau, H.Y. Cheng and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 2132 (1996).
D. Pirtskhalava and P. Uttayarat, Phys. Lett. B [**712**]{}, 81 (2012). Y. Grossman and D.J. Robinson, JHEP [**1304**]{}, 067 (2013). H.Y. Cheng and C.W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 014014 (2012). H.n. Li, C.D. Lu and F.S. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 036012 (2012).
A.J. Buras, hep-ph/9806471.
T. Feldmann, P. Kroll and B. Stech, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 114006 (1998); Phys. Lett. B [**449**]{}, 339 (1999).
The private communication with Dr. Peilian Li.
C.Q. Geng, presentation at the 2018 BESIII Workshop on Charm Hadron Physics, Nov. 10-11, Wuhan (China).
X.G. He, Y.J. Shi and W. Wang, arXiv:1811.03480 \[hep-ph\].
[^1]: In the revision of the numerical analysis, the values have been fixed as $1.3 \pm 0.7$ [@fix_ppi0].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss the mechanism for the oscillatory behavior of the static interparticle potential in a degenerate electron plasma. This behavior, observed in metallic alloys, is commonly referred to as ’Friedel oscillations’, and its origin associated to the Kohn singularity. We show that, although this interpretation is adequate for large distances, the oscillations at short distances originate from a complex pole of the in-medium photon propagator in the complex q-plane, which exists aside the (purely imaginary) Debye pole. Such short-range oscillations can be physically discriminated if they remain at temperatures for which Friedel oscillations have already disappeared. This is suggested by finite temperature calculations in non-electromagnetic plasma models showing a similar pole structure.'
address:
- |
$^{1}$D.A.R.C., Observatoire de Paris-Meudon\
92195 Meudon (France)\
$^{2}$Departamento de Física\
Facultad de Ciencias\
Universidad de Oviedo.\
33001 Oviedo (Spain)
- |
$^{3}$Departamento de Física Teórica\
Universidad de Valencia.\
46100 Burjassot (Valencia) Spain
author:
- 'H. D. Sivak$^{1}$, A. Pérez$^{3}$ and Joaquin Diaz-Alonso$^{1,2}$'
title: Complex poles and oscillatory screened potential in QED plasmas
---
It is well-known that wave propagation and particle interaction in vacuum are substantially modified by medium effects inside a plasma at a given density and temperature [@FetterWal; @KA89; @LeBellac]. In the case of a QED plasma, ordinary transverse photons (with respect to the wavelength vector) acquire an ’effective mass’, and are governed by a dispersion relation which substantially differs from the vacuum wave equation. In addition to these photons, there appear also longitudinal modes with different propagation properties [@BS93; @R96]. These modes arise from the poles of the photon propagator in the medium, and give raise to a number of phenomena in plasma and solid state physics. It is then important to analyze the structure of the photon propagator and its physical consequences. In this letter, we will concentrate on this study for the static photon propagator at zero temperature in the complex q-plane (where q is the momentum of the photon), and examine some of the consequences of our findings when considering the interparticle potential in the plasma.
We calculate the quasi-photon propagator in the RPA approximation to the dielectric function, and include a local field correction, as given by Ichimaru [@ICH82] (we have also performed calculations with other parameterizations of this correction). The expression of the static potential between two point-like impurities of charge $e$ is obtained from this propagator, and reads :
$$\label{V(r)}
V(r)\, \, =\, \, \frac{e^{2}}{4\pi ^{2}r}{\textit {Im}}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }dq\frac{qe^{iqr}}{D(q)}$$
where $ D(q)=q^{2}\epsilon (\omega =0,q) $, $ \epsilon (\omega ,q) $ is the dielectric function and $ r $ the interparticle distance.
The denominator $ D(q) $ contains the function $ f(q)=\log |\frac{q+2p_{f}}{q-2p_{f}}| $, with $ p_{f} $ the Fermi momentum of the electrons. This function can be written, for real values of $ q $, as follows :
$$\label{extlog}
f(q)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
f_{1}(q)\equiv 2\arg \tanh (\frac{q}{2p_{f}}),|\frac{q}{2p_{f}}|<1\\
f_{2}(q)\equiv 2\arg \tanh (\frac{2p_{f}}{q}),|\frac{2p_{f}}{q}|<1
\end{array}\right.$$
We define the functions $ D_{1}(q) $ and $ D_{2}(q) $, which are obtained by replacing $ f(q)\rightarrow f_{1}(q) $ and $ f(q)\rightarrow f_{2}(q) $, respectively, in $ D(q) $. Then, Eq. (\[V(r)\]) becomes $$V (r)\ =\ \frac{e^{2}}{4\pi ^{2}r}
{\it Im}\left[ \int_{-\infty}^{-2p_{f}}dq
\frac{qe^{iqr}}{D_{2}(q)}+
\int_{2p_{f}}^{\infty }dq \frac{qe^{iqr}}{D_{2}(q)} +
\int_{-2p_{f}}^{2p_{f} }dq \frac{qe^{iqr}}{D_{1}(q)}
\right] \label{V1(r)}$$ We next consider the analytical continuation of the function $D_{1}(q)$ to the complex q-plane, and apply the residue theorem in order to transform the last integration in Eq. (\[V1(r)\]) into the integration domain of the first two integrals in the same equation. After this operation, and with the help of the symmetry properties of the photon propagator due to the Onsager relations, Eq. (\[V(r)\]) can be cast under the form :
$$V(r)=V_{P}(r)+V_{C}(r)$$
Here, $ V_{P}(r) $ is the contribution of the residues of $ 1/D_{1}(q) $ in the region $ Im(q)>0 $. We have also defined
$$V_{C}(r)\ =\ \frac{e^{2}}{2\pi ^{2}r}{\it Im}\left[
\int_{2p_{f}}^{\infty }dq q e^{iqr} \left(
\frac{1}{D [f_{2} (q)]} - \frac{1}{D [f_{2} (q)+ i \pi] } \right)\right]$$
The analytical structure of $ 1/D_{1}(q) $ on the upper half-plane is shown in Fig. \[complexq\], where we have also drawn the integration contour used to perform the integration. As we discuss later, in addition to the well-known ’Debye pole’, lying on the imaginary axis, *there exist complex poles*, which are responsible for strong oscillations of the interparticle potential at short distances.
In fact, while the oscillatory behavior of the screened potential created by a ionic impurity in metallic alloys is known since the works of Friedel [@FR52] (see also [@FetterWal; @KA88]), its algebraic decay with distance has been associated to the existence of the Kohn singularity [@KO59] in the photon self-energy, induced by the sharp edge of the degenerate electron distribution: when considering energy and momentum conservation in the collisions between the electrons and soft quasi-photons, we can easily see that only a fraction of the electrons can interact with quasi-photons and, therefore, screening of a Fermi gas at T=0 K is less effective than screening at finite temperature. At the threshold of the interaction, i. e. at the threshold of electron-hole creation, the momentum of the quasi-photon is equal to the diameter of the Fermi sphere. It must be noticed that the photon self-energy presents a singularity at this point. The presence of a singularity permits to obtain, with the help of Lighthill’s method, the asymptotic form ($r\longrightarrow \infty $) of the potential, as an expansion in terms of the form $\cos (2p_{f}r)$ and $\sin (2p_{f}r)$, damped as negative powers of $r$, and enhanced by powers of $\log(4 p_{f} r)$ [@LI64]. One has to remember, for further discussion, that Lighthill’s method consists essentially in replacing the Fourier (anti) transform of a non-analytical function by the (anti) transform of the (formal) expansion of that function around its singular points.
In Fig. \[Lighthill\] we have plotted the result for the first, dominant term ($\sim \cos (2p_{f})/r^{2}$), of Lighthill’s expansion (dotted line) for the potential around an impurity placed into an electron gas with [^1] $r_{s}=3$, where $ r_{s} $ is the characteristic interparticle distance in units of the Bohr’s radius. In the same figure we have also plotted for comparison (solid line) the result of a numerical calculation of $ V(r) $, as obtained by direct integration from Eq. (\[V(r)\]). As we see, the Lighthill expansion converges to the true result for large values of $ r $. An even better approximation to the exact result is given by $ V_{C}(r) $, as defined above, and represented by the dashed line. The reason for this good agreement is that $ V_{P}(r) $ exponentially goes to zero when $ p_{f}r\gg 1 $, and thus only $ V_{C}(r) $ is important for long distances. Of course, the advantage of the Lighthill’s method for large distances is to provide a systematic way to construct corrections to the simple formula we used here, and to give an analytical expression for these terms, although they become rapidly cumbersome as the order of the approximation increases.
However, as we go to shorter distances, the situation becomes quite different. The reason is that, in this range, the dominant contribution to the form of the potential is given by the poles of the photon propagator in the complex plane, which induce exponentially-damped oscillations. This is clearly seen in Fig. \[shortr\], where we have represented the different contributions to the potential for the same value $ r_{s}=3 $, but for a shorter distance range. As before, the exact result (obtained from direct numerical integration) has also been plotted. In order to calculate $ V_{P}(r) $, we have to locate numerically the zeros of $ D_{1}(q) $ in the upper half-plane, while $ V_{C}(r) $ is calculated by numerical integration. As we already mentioned, we find a zero lying on the imaginary-$ q $ axis, which is commonly referred to as the ’Debye pole’. In addition to this, there exists a genuinely complex pole, with both a real and an imaginary part, which gives raise to exponentially-damped oscillations. As we can see, the contribution from the poles $ V_{P}(r) $, represented by the dashed-dotted line, gives a much closer result to the exact line than the Lighthill term. We have also plotted, for the sake of completeness, the contribution from $ V_{C}(r) $, which accounts for the difference between the poles term and the exact potential[^2]. Thus, for this range of distances, the potential is dominated by the pole contribution. As a matter of fact, for the present value of $ r_{s} $ the contribution of the Debye and complex poles to $ V_{P}(r) $ are of the same order.
As the density is changed, the relative importance of these two contributions to $ V_{P}(r) $ changes. This can be understood from Fig. \[evolrs\], where we have shown the evolution of the real and imaginary parts of the complex pole, and the imaginary part of the Debye pole. For large densities ($ r_{s}\lesssim 2 $), $ V_{P}(r) $ reduces to the well-known Debye screened potential, since the contribution arising from the complex pole is strongly damped. For larger values of $ r_{s} $, however, the situation is reversed, since $ V_{P}(r) $ is dominated by the complex pole and, therefore, this term alone constitutes a good approximation to the exact potential.
Let us summarize our results. We have studied the static interparticle potential in a QED electron plasma at zero temperature. This can be obtained from the knowledge of the dielectric function (or equivalently, of the photon polarization), which was taken from the RPA approximation, with local field corrections included. For the latter, we adopted the formulae given by Ichimaru, although we have performed also calculations with the formulae of Ref. [@FHER93], with very similar results. We found that the potential shows an oscillatory behavior for the whole distance range. This behavior has been traditionally referred to as Friedel oscillations, and its origin attributed to the Kohn singularity. We have shown that one can get a much better insight into this behavior through the study of the analytic structure of the photon propagator in the complex-$ q $ plane. We find that, in addition to the well-known Debye pole on the imaginary axis, there exists a complex pole, which accounts for the oscillations of the potential at short ($ r\gtrsim 1 \AA $) distances.
A similar pole structure, and the associated short-range oscillations, has been found in other (non electromagnetic) plasma models describing the one-pion exchange [@DPS89] and the exchange of other mesons in nuclear matter [@DGP94]. In these cases, one can easily show that the separation of the screened potential into a short-range component and a Friedel-like component is not merely a mathematical artifice, but in fact can have physically observable consequences. Indeed, the phenomenon we have revisited (Friedel oscillations) and the new one obtained here come from two different effects. Friedel oscillations arise from the non-analytical behavior of the Fourier transform of the potential created by an impurity, while our results come from the zeros of the dispersion relation, in the complex plane, of the quasi-photon momentum. Using Maxwell equations, it can be easily obtained the charge distribution from the potential of the system. It comes out that the form of the charge and potential distribution are qualitatively identical. The presence of an impurity, then, leads to the apparition of a spatial static structure of charges in the medium, which is characteristic of a highly-interacting system. As long as the temperature increases, the kinetic energy of particles increases, and this structure breaks down. At the same time, the non-analytic behavior of the photon self-energy disappears at finite temperature, and therefore Friedel oscillations are exponentially damped with temperature.
This effect has been explicitly shown in [@DPS89] for the one-pion exchange. We also found that the complex pole is more stable, and remains present (as well as the associated short-range oscillations), for higher temperatures. This fact should permit to experimentally distinguish between both phenomena.
Even if the immediate extrapolation of these results to the present case might not be justified, the similarity of the analytic structure of the dressed boson propagators in both systems at $ T=0 $ suggest that a similar behavior can be expected for the electronic plasma. If such a thermal behavior is genuine, it could probably be experimentally tested in heated liquid metals, although a calculation of the characteristic temperatures at which Friedel and short-range oscillations disappear will be necessary.
Consequently, in order to get a better understanding of this phenomena and their possible consequences in plasma physics, it would be interesting to perform a study similar to the present one at non-zero temperature. Unfortunately, to do this we need a local-field correction formula valid at finite temperature. To our knowledge, such formula has not been given yet in the literature.
**Acknowledgments**
This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Grants DGES PB97-1432 and AEN99-0692.
A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, [*Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems*]{} (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1971).
J. Kapusta, ”Finite-temperature field theory”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989).
M. Le Bellac, [*Thermal Field Theory*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996).
E. Braaten and D. Segel, [*Phys.Rev.*]{}, [**D48**]{} (1993) 1478.
G. Raffelt. [*Stars as Laboratories for Fundamental Physics*]{}. The University of Chicago Press (1996).
S. Ichimaru, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**54**]{} (1982) 1017.
J. Friedel, [*Phyl. Mag.*]{} [**43**]{} (1952), 153. Nuovo Cim.[**7**]{} (1958), Suppl.2 287.
J. Kapusta, T. Toimela, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D37**]{} (1988) 3731.
W. Kohn, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**2**]{} (1959) 393.
M.J. Lighthill, ”Introduction to Fourier Analysis and Generalized Functions” (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1964).
J. Diaz Alonso, A. Pérez and H. Sivak, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**A205**]{} (1989) 695.
J. Diaz Alonso, E. Gallego, A. Pérez [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**V73**]{} N19 (1994) 2536.
B. Farid, V. Heine, G. E. Engel, and I. J. Robertson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B 48** ]{}(1993) 11602.
W. Jank, J. Hafner [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B42**]{} (1990) 6926.
![Analytical structure of the function $1/D_1(q)$ in the complex $q$- plane. Crosses indicate poles (discussed in the text). Thick lines correspond to branch cuts. The integration contour is shown by thin lines with arrows.[]{data-label="complexq"}](fig1.eps){width="12cm"}
![Two different approximations to the interparticle potential at large distances. The dotted line shows the first term of the Lighthill expansion, and the dashed line corresponds to $V_C(r)$. Also shown for comparison is the exact result obtained by direct numerical calculation (solid line).[]{data-label="Lighthill"}](fig2.eps){width="8cm"}
![A similar comparison as made in the previous figure, but now for shorter distances. We have included here the crucial contribution $V_P(r)$ from the poles (dashed-dotted line).[]{data-label="shortr"}](fig3.eps){width="8cm"}
![Evolution of the real part (dashed line) and the imaginary part (solid line) of the complex pole as the parameter $r_s$ changes. The dotted line shows the purely imaginary Debye pole. All magnitudes in ordinates are expressed in units of the electron mass.[]{data-label="evolrs"}](reimyukydeb.eps){width="8cm"}
[^1]: This is a typical value corresponding to metals.
[^2]: We have verified that the addition of $ V_{C}(r) $ to $ V_{P}(r) $ reproduces the exact potential, within machine-size precision numbers.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI) telescopes located at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory near Cambridge have been significantly enhanced by the implementation of a new digital correlator with 1.2MHz spectral resolution. This system has replaced a 750-MHz resolution analogue lag-based correlator, and was designed to mitigate the effects of radio frequency interference, particularly that from geostationary satellites [which are visible from the AMI site when observing at low declinations]{}. The upgraded instrument consists of 18 ROACH2 Field Programmable Gate Array platforms used to implement a pair of real-time FX correlators – one for each of AMI’s two arrays. The new system separates the down-converted RF baseband signal from each AMI receiver into two [sub-bands, each of which are filtered to a width of 2.3GHz and digitized at 5-Gsps with 8 bits of precision.]{} These digital data streams are filtered into 2048 frequency channels and cross-correlated using FPGA hardware, with a commercial 10Gb Ethernet switch providing high-speed data interconnect. Images formed using data from the new digital correlator show over an order of magnitude improvement in dynamic range over the previous system. The ability to observe at low declinations has also been significantly improved.'
author:
- |
Jack Hickish,$^{1,2}$[^1] Nima Razavi-Ghods,$^{2}$ Yvette C. Perrott,$^{2}$ David J. Titterington,$^{2}$ Steve H. Carey,$^{2}$ Paul F. Scott,$^{2}$ Keith J. B. Grainge,$^{3}$ Anna M. M. Scaife,$^{3}$ Paul Alexander,$^{2}$ Richard D. E. Saunders,$^{2,4}$ Mike Crofts,$^{2}$ Kamran Javid,$^{2}$ Clare Rumsey,$^{2}$ Terry Z. Jin,$^{2}$ John A. Ely, $^{2}$ Clive Shaw,$^{2}$ Ian G. Northrop,$^{2}$ Guy Pooley,$^{2}$ Robert D’Alessandro,$^{2}$ Peter Doherty,$^{2}$ Greg P. Willatt.$^{2}$\
$^{1}$Radio Astronomy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA\
$^{2}$Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, 19 J. J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE\
$^{3}$Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, Alan Turing Building, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester,\
Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL\
$^{4}$The Kavli Institute for Cosmology, Cambridge, CB3 0HA\
bibliography:
- 'ami\_corr\_upgrade\_paper.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: A Digital Correlator Upgrade for the Arcminute MicroKelvin Imager
---
\[firstpage\]
instrumentation: interferometers – techniques: interferometric – telescopes
Introduction
============
The Arcminute Microkelvin Imager (AMI) instrument consists of two synthesis radio telescopes located at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory near Cambridge. AMI, which operates in the 12–18GHz frequency band, was designed primarily for the study of galaxy clusters by observing secondary anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) arising from the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect [@sz].
AMI is made up of two arrays: the Small Array (SA), and the Large Array (LA). The SA telescope comprises ten 3.7m diameter paraboloid dishes in a compact configuration and is designed for observing structures on arcminute scales. The LA, which was created by reconfiguring the eight 12.8m dishes of the Ryle Telescope has an angular resolution of 0.5 arcminutes and has approximately ten times the flux-density sensitivity of the SA. The LA, observing concurrently with the SA, is used to measure the intensities of contaminating small-diameter radio sources.
The original AMI correlator [@Zwart2008] was of an analogue “XF” design, whereby the antenna signals were cross-correlated over a range of delays and then Fourier transformed into spectral channels. The original correlator recorded visibilities in eight frequency channels over AMI’s 12–18GHz band, providing limited capability for recognising and removing interfering signals as well as limited ability to mitigate chromatic aberration out to the edge of field of view. As a result, the sensitivity of the instrument was significantly reduced, particularly at low declinations, where interference from geostationary satellites could result in up to 90% of the data being unusable. The XF system had a performance that was also limited by the path-length inaccuracies of analogue delay compensation and analogue correlation, which resulted in direction-dependent systematic errors and poor dynamic range.
Starting in 2014, a project was undertaken to build a digital correlator for the telescope based on the second-generation Reconfigurable Open Architecture Computing Hardware board (ROACH2[^2]), developed by the Collaboration for Astronomy Signal Processing and Electronics Research (CASPER[^3]) and used extensively in radio-astronomy digital signal processing (DSP) applications [@hickish-casper]. ROACH2 is a powerful real-time signal processing platform based around a Xilinx Virtex 6 Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) which provides up to 80Gbps of [Ethernet-based]{} I/O, and may be interfaced with a variety of analogue to digital converters (ADCs). The primary goal of the project was to equip AMI with a digital correlator providing over one hundred times the frequency resolution of the original system with superior inter-channel rejection, allowing better frequency-confinement of interfering signals as well as overcoming some of the limitations of analogue lag correlator. The wide bandwidth of the AMI receiver required an optimised FPGA correlator design, capable of operating at the relatively high clock speed of 312.5MHz, to be developed. This correlator, which [comprises an independent instrument for each of the AMI arrays uses 18 ROACH2 boards (ten for the SA, and eight for the LA) to digitise, channelise and then cross-correlate analogue inputs from the antennas in the AMI arrays.]{} Communication between boards in each AMI array is achieved using an industry-standard 10Gb Ethernet (10GbE) network, with an off-the-shelf switch providing interconnect. This so-called “Packetized Correlator” architecture was pioneered by the CASPER group [@Parsons2008; @hickish-casper] and has been well proven at multiple radio-telescopes [@kocz-leda; @Foley01082016; @eovsa; @swarm].
In this paper we summarize the design of, and first commissioning results from the new AMI correlator. In Section \[sec:arch-overview\] we describe the architecture of the system deployed, which comprises an overhauled analogue front-end and a new digital back-end. In Section \[sec:dig-implementation\] details of the implementation of the digital back-end are presented. The instrument’s control system and data reduction pipeline are outlined in Sections \[sec:control\] and \[sec:reduction\], respectively, with commissioning results from the new system given in Section \[sec:results\].
Architecture Overview {#sec:arch-overview}
=====================
[The AMI correlator upgrade continues to use the front-end systems developed in [@Zwart2008], with a new final IF stage and digital signal processing backend. A summary of the telescope specifications is given in Table \[table:TECHDATA\].]{}
Small Array Large Array
---------------------------------- ------------- --------------
Antenna diameter (m) 3.7 12.8
Antenna efficiency 0.75 0.67
Number of antennas 10 8
Number of baselines 45 28
Baseline lengths (m) 5–20 18–110
Primary beam ($@$15.5 GHz) 20 5
Synthesized beam $\approx$ 3 $\approx$ 30
Flux sensitivity (mJy s$^{1/2}$) 30 3
Declination range ($^{\circ}$) > -15 > -20
Elevation limit ($^{\circ}$) +20 +5
**Observing frequency (GHz)**
**Number of channels**
**Channel bandwidth (MHz)**
System temperature (K)
Polarisation measurement
: Summary of AMI technical data. Specifications pertaining to frequency coverage (slightly reduced) and frequency resolution (dramatically increased), which have changed since @Zwart2008 appear in bold.[]{data-label="table:TECHDATA"}
Analogue Front-End
------------------
The AMI front-end system consists of a feed assembly, first down-converting mixer and second mixer stage as shown in Figure \[fig:AMIRF\]. Each feed assembly contains the horn antenna, cryostat, radio-frequency (RF) amplifiers, noise injection, bias box and the cryogenic support system. Each cryostat has three temperature zones separated by thermal shielding; 15–20K, 50–70K and 300K. There are two RF amplifiers: the first is mounted on the 20K coldhead of the cryostat, and the second is at 300K. Noise at a constant level may be switched into the front-end via a noise source which is outside the cryostat on the SA, and inside the cryostat at 300K on the LA. A detailed description of the [feed assembly, down-converter, and Automatic Gain Control (AGC) systems, which have not been modified as part of this work,]{} is given in [@Zwart2008].
The RF (12–18GHz) signals from the antenna feeds are down-converted to an intermediate-frequency (IF) band of 6–12GHz using a 24GHz local oscillator (LO). Phase-switching is provided by modulating this LO signal by Walsh functions which are generated by the digital correlator. The IF is fed from the antenna hub to a correlator room where an AGC unit is used to maintain a constant power level prior to further down-mixing.
A second mixer assembly splits the down-converted IF output into two 2.3GHz wide sub-bands by first filtering the low and high bands and then mixing with an 8.5GHz common local oscillator. Custom-manufactured low pass filters are used to further limit the bandpass of the baseband signal prior to being fed into ADCs. The terms “low band” and “high band” used here to describe the two AMI correlator basebands refer to the frequencies of the mixer bandpass filters, not their respective RF input frequencies, as shown in Table \[table:AMIBANDS\]. The second mixer assembly for the new system provides approximately 5GHz of the original 6GHz AMI frequency channel. The improvements in dynamic range are evident even with the loss in sensitivity due to processing less channel bandwidth.
RF (GHz) IF (GHz) Baseband (GHz)
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------------
Low Band 15.6–17.9 6.1–8.4 0.1–2.4
High Band 13.1–15.4 8.6–10.9 0.1–2.4
: The AMI frequency bands.[]{data-label="table:AMIBANDS"}
![The AMI RF and IF system diagram. Isolators and attenuators used in the chain are not shown. The *Mixer* units in the system are newly developed as part of the correlator upgrade.[]{data-label="fig:AMIRF"}](./pictures/rf-overview3.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Digital Back-End
----------------
The AMI digital correlator is implemented using the standard “FX” architecture favoured by most modern correlators. In this architecture analogue signals from each antenna are first digitised before being split into spectral channels using an FFT-based algorithm (the “F” processing stage). Spectra from pairs of antennas are then multiplied and time-averaged on a per-frequency-channel basis (the “X” processing stage). The F-stage processing of such a correlator can be trivially parallelised over the multiple antennas in an array, whilst the X-stage computation is parallel over multiple frequency channels. Interconnect exists between the F and X processors to facilitate a data transpose—often referred to as a *corner-turn*—which allows data to be aggregated appropriately so as to allow parallel processing.
The AMI correlator uses FPGAs to perform the F and X processing, owing to their support for high input and output data rates and ease of interfacing to high-speed ADCs. Interconnect is provided by commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) 10Gb/s Ethernet (10GbE) switches, which offer cost-effective, flexible and reliable performance. Such switches also support useful functionality such as multicast (point to multi-point data transmission) which may be used in future correlator operating modes. This “packetised correlator” architecture has been well-developed by the CASPER collaboration, which provides and maintains software and firmware libraries to facilitate rapid deployment of digital astronomical systems.
Though not required by the packetised architecture, the AMI correlator design uses the same physical processors for its F and X stages (Figure \[fig:top-block\]). This allows the complete system to be efficiently implemented with minimal hardware. Once correlation matrices have been computed and averaged for an appropriate time window, these are sent over a 1Gb Ethernet network where the results are aggregated by a standard x86 GNU/Linux server.
![The top-level correlator architecture. Digitisation is performed by a pair of 5Gsps ADC cards interfaced to a ROACH2. The ROACH2 firmware implements both channelisation and cross-multiplication functionality, with a 10GbE switch providing interconnect between the two phases of processing. Averaged correlation results are output over a separate 1Gb Ethernet network.[]{data-label="fig:top-block"}](./pictures/dcorr_top_block-crop.pdf){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
### Digital Hardware
The digital processing platform chosen for the AMI correlator is the mature and ubiquitous CASPER-designed ROACH2 board[^4]. This is a general-purpose FPGA platform, built around a Xilinx Virtex 6 (XC6VSX475T-1FFG1759C) FPGA, supported by four 72Mb QDR memory chips, 1GB of DRAM, and up to eight 10GbE interfaces via a pair of SFP+ mezzanine cards. The ROACH2 also provides two 40-pair LVDS interfaces via Z-DOK connectors, which can be used to interface the ROACH2’s FPGA to a variety of CASPER-supported ADC cards.
For the AMI correlator, both Z-DOKs are populated with CASPER ADC1x5000[^5] cards. Each of these hosts an e2v EV8AQ160: a quad-core digital sampler capable of sampling a single RF input at up to 5Gsps. The ADC1x5000 was designed by the Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASIAA) and has been extensively characterised by [@Patel2014] as part of the development of a new wideband correlator for the Submillimetre Array [SMA, @swarm].
Each ROACH2 in the AMI system is fed with two timing signals derived from a COTS Trimble Thunderbolt E GPS-disciplined oscillator, which provides a pulse-per-second (PPS) reference and 10MHz frequency standard. The PPS is distributed to each ROACH2 in the system via a 16-way buffered splitter and is used to synchronise and timestamp the data outputs from each board. The 10MHz reference is used to derive a 2500MHz clock, which is amplified and split so that it may drive the 5000Msps ADC samplers synchronously.
The complete ROACH2 processing node is shown in Figure \[fig:ROACH2\]. The node interfaces comprise:
1. An SMA input a for 2.5GHz clock (used to derive the 5Gsps ADC sampling rate).
2. An SMA input for a TTL Pulse-per-second (PPS) time reference.
3. SMA inputs for the high and low baseband inputs from the analogue front-end of a single AMI antenna.
4. Level-shifting circuitry to allow interfacing of the ROACH2 FPGA with the AMI phase and noise modulation infrastructure (see Section \[sec:walsh\]).
5. A 1000BASE-T Ethernet interface to the FPGA, for data output.
6. A 1000BASE-T Ethernet interface to ROACH2’s on-board CPU, which is used for controlling and monitoring the board.
7. Four SFP+ connectors, each providing a 10GbE interface.
![The CASPER ROACH2 platform on which the AMI digital correlator is implemented. Here the board is shown with two 5Gsps ADC daughter cards, a quad-SFP+ mezzanine card, and a Walsh switch interface box.[]{data-label="fig:ROACH2"}](./pictures/Roach_LA_Top_View.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
A key part of the correlator hardware infrastructure is the 10GbE switch facilitating interconnection between the 10 (8) boards in the SA (LA) system. This is a Mellanox SX1012, 12-port, 40Gb Ethernet switch, capable of operating as a 48-port 10GbE switch using interconnecting cables to connect each of the switch’s QSFP+ ports to four independent SFP+ interfaces.
The complete rack of digital equipment for the SA correlator is shown in Figure \[fig:digital-rack\].
![The digital correlator rack for the 10-antenna AMI Small Array.[]{data-label="fig:digital-rack"}](./pictures/dig_rack_sa_annotated.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Correlator Firmware {#sec:dig-implementation}
===================
Analogue-to-Digital Converters
------------------------------
The CASPER collaboration (and in particular CASPER members in the Submillimetre Array correlator group) provide open-source interface firmware[^6] and software[^7] to stream data from the e2v EV8AQ160 ADC into the ROACH2 board via its Z-DOK connector. This interface expects data to be presented to the FPGA at a quarter of the ADC sample rate, over four parallel 8-bit buses. At a maximum sampling rate of 5Gsps, this results in 32 parallel data lines, each running at 1.25Gbps. Once captured by the FPGA, these parallel samples are demultiplexed by a further factor of four, so that on every FPGA clock cycle, 16 samples are processed in parallel. In the AMI design the signal processing pipeline is clocked synchronously with the ADC, at a rate of 312.5MHz. At the time of design, the interface provided by CASPER did not function at the full 5Gsps rate of which the ADCs are capable. As part of this work, the interface has been modified to increase performance and released back to the CASPER community. [We note that since the ADC used by AMI is of multicore design, data are liable to artifacts caused by mismatch in the timing, gain, and voltage offsets of the different sampler cores [@Patel2014]. Currently the AMI system flags the frequency channels associated with artifacts from voltage offsets (this is the channel at the center of the digitized band), but does not correct for timing and gain mismatches. Further work is needed to assess the effect of these mismatches on the broadband images AMI produces, but they are not thought to limit the performance of the array, due to the suppression effects provided by fringe-tracking, and time- and frequency-averaging.]{}
Front-end noise injection & phase switching control {#sec:walsh}
---------------------------------------------------
In the original AMI analogue correlator, phase and noise modulation functions were generated by a bank of look-up tables driven by a 65536Hz counter. In order to simplify the new digital system, it was decided that the correlator FPGAs should be responsible for generation of the switching signals. In this way the switching frequencies are synchronous with the ADC sampling, and can easily be chosen such that an integral number of switching periods occur in each channelisation window and correlator integration period.
In order that the FPGAs are able to drive the existing front-end switching infrastructure, simple interface boards were constructed to convert a pair of 1.5V ROACH2 general-purpose IO (GPIO) outputs to drive 5V differential signals over Category 5 UTP cable. Though unused in the AMI correlator, the interface boards are also capable of converting a pair of differential signals to single-ended 1.5V inputs, which may be used to drive ROACH2 GPIO pins.
F-Engine {#sec:f-engine}
--------
The bulk of the new AMI correlator design comprises the “F-Engine” processing pipeline; the channelisation of pairs of 5Gsps data streams into 2048 critically-sampled subbands, which are output over 10GbE as User Datagram Protocol (UDP) data streams (Figure \[fig:ami-f\]). Stages of the pipeline are:
#### Phase-demodulation {#phase-demodulation .unnumbered}
Immediately after samples are captured into the FPGA, the phase modulation applied in the antenna’s first mixer stage is removed by a simple multiplication of ADC samples by $\pm 1$. The modulation/demodulation pattern used is unique to each antenna, and stored in the firmware in a runtime-programmable look up table. A programmable delay between the modulation GPIO output (Section \[sec:walsh\]) and the internal demodulation signal allows compensation for delays associated with cable lengths of the control and RF signals.
#### Coarse delay {#coarse-delay .unnumbered}
After demodulation, each antenna’s digital data stream may be delayed by up to 16,384 ADC samples. This delay allows for compensation of geometric delays in the array (the largest baseline in the LA is approximately 110m) and RF cabling. The desired delays are calculated by the telescope control computer based on the current pointing of the array, and any pre-computed delay calibration solutions. The frequency resolution of the AMI digital correlator is $1.22$MHz, giving an inverse-channel-bandwidth of around 800ns. This inverse-bandwidth sets the accuracy with which variable delays must be applied to avoid losing coherence of the antenna signals; for AMI, it is sufficient to update coarse delays on $\sim$second timescales. For simplicity of data analysis, the correlator control software ensures that delay updates are applied synchronously with new visibility accumulations, such that no coarse delay changes occur mid-integration.
#### Polyphase Filterbank {#polyphase-filterbank .unnumbered}
The largest component of the F-Engine processing pipeline is a polyphase filterbank (originally proposed by [@bellanger], see [@harris-haines; @price2016spectrometers] for relevant overviews), which breaks the 5Gsps data streams into 2048 critically sampled subbands, each of bandwidth 1.22MHz. The CASPER group provide parameterised finite impulse response (FIR) filter and fast Fourier transform (FFT) libraries for implementing polyphase filterbanks – these have been utilised here, after various optimisations were applied to reduce FPGA resource utilisation and to maximise clock frequency.
These optimisations are publically available[^8] and include:
- Reductions in overall FPGA fabric use by reducing control logic.
- Improved timing performance of reordering blocks when per-clock enabling is not necessary.
- Utilization of FPGA single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) instructions for complex addition and subtraction operations.
- Improved timing performance or integer rounding operations by allowing the use of dedicated FPGA arithmetic cells.
Signals within the channeliser are processed with 18 bits of precision in both channeliser coefficients and data path, resulting in output subbands (spectra) which are complex-valued, with each of the real and imaginary components represented as signed 18-bit numbers.
#### Autocorrelation sub-system {#autocorrelation-sub-system .unnumbered}
After channelisation, the power of each spectrum is computed and fed into a vector accumulator. This provides (without requiring the downstream correlator infrastructure) an averaged power-spectrum for each antenna signal. The autocorrelation subsystem can also demodulate by the Walsh pattern used to drive the noise injection at each of the antenna feeds, providing a measurement of the system-temperature of each antenna. Since the system temperature of antennas varies with weather, constant measurements of these “rain-gauge” values are performed and stored with final data products.
#### Requantization {#requantization .unnumbered}
In order to reduce FPGA output bandwidth, data samples are rounded to 4-bit values – real and imaginary parts in the range $(-7,+7)$ – with saturation logic prior to being streamed over Ethernet. In order to use the available 4-bits of range most efficiently, before quantisation each of the 2048 subbands associated with an ADC data stream are equalised by multiplying by per-antenna, per-subband coefficients. These coefficients are runtime-programmable, and can be calculated either by examining data from the autocorrelation sub-system or the final correlator data products.
#### Data buffering and transmission {#data-buffering-and-transmission .unnumbered}
The CASPER cross-correlation module used in the correlator [@Parsons2008; @HickishThesis] expects data to be presented in windows of 1024 samples from each frequency channel in turn. To achieve this, 1024 spectra, each of 2048 channels, must be re-ordered in memory to gather similar channels into contiguous blocks. This reordering operation requires a buffer of $\sim$MB size. Such memory is not available on the FPGA chip itself, so external 72Mb Quad Data Rate (QDR) memory chips (of which four are provided by the ROACH2 platform) are used for this reorder operation.
Once data are suitably ordered, they are transmitted as streams of UDP packets over an Ethernet network. The destination address of each packet is determined by the frequency channel associated with the data in that packet’s payload, with the end result that each ROACH2 in the network receives data associated with all antennas in the array, but only certain frequency channels.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
Data Interconnect
-----------------
After 4-bit requantization, the data output rate from each dual-band F-engine is 40Gbps. These data are transmitted as a stream of UDP packets, with each packet’s payload comprising 1024 time samples from a single frequency channel. When transmitted over Ethernet as a stream of UDP packets, transmission protocol overhead – Ethernet, Internet Protocol, UDP and application headers – must also be accommodated. In order to transmit the stream over four 10GbE links the AMI system takes advantage of the fact that F- and X-processors are located on the same physical hardware. This allows frequency channels with the same source and destination ROACH2 to be routed internally, bypassing the Ethernet interconnect. Such routing reduces the necessary throughput of the interconnection by 10% (12.5%) for the Small (Large) AMI array. Including transmission protocol overhead, the aggregate output data rate from each 10GbE interface is 9.4 (9.1) Gbps for the Small (Large) array. [The full 2.5GHz digitized bands are output, though in the case of the Small Array only 2040 of the total 2048 frequency channels from each band are processed, in order to equally share channels among the 10 processing nodes in the system.]{}
X-Engine
--------
The second stage in the correlator is the “X-Engine”, which is responsible for performing a per-frequency-channel cross-multiplication of data from different antenna pairs. The X-Engine pipeline is shown in Figure \[fig:ami-x\], and its components comprise:
#### Input buffering {#input-buffering .unnumbered}
Data are received from the Ethernet network on the same four SFP+ interfaces used for transmission, as well as an internal routing path. The order that packets from different antenna sources are received from the network is not known in advance – a circular buffer is used to collect, and appropriately order, data from different antennas prior to cross-multiplication. Once all antenna packets have been received for a given frequency channel, $n$, which is indicated by the arrival of a packet of channel $n+2$, a window of data is streamed into a cross-multiplication engine.
#### Cross-Multiplication {#cross-multiplication .unnumbered}
The cross-multiplication engine is responsible for taking 1024 samples from a single frequency channel from all antennas, and delivering a visibility matrix integrated over these samples. The correlation engine used in AMI is based on a “windowed X-Engine” design by [@Parsons2008] which is now maintained by the CASPER community. The AMI version of this module has been ported to Verilog (rather than the CASPER standard of Xilinx System Generator and MATLAB Simulink). [This makes the module more portable to non-CASPER projects which do not use Simulink and more easily version controlled and simulated using industry-standard tools which are not designed for use with Simulink model files. As part of the porting process, the module was also significantly optimised to minimise FPGA resource utilisation and maximise performance.]{}
Firstly, AMI’s X-engine has a parameterisable input bandwidth, which can be any multiple of the FPGA clock speed. This allows a reduction in control-logic versus multiple instances of a fixed input-bandwidth engine. Secondly, the cross-multiplication and accumulation cores at the heart of the X-engine have been optimised for 4+4-bit complex inputs, allowing a $75\%$ reduction in multiplier use. This is achieved by offsetting the 4-bit correlator inputs to unsigned values, and appropriately packing pairs of them in 18-bit representations such that four 4-bit multiplications may be computed in a single 18 $\times$ 18-bit operation. A full description of this implementation can be found in [@HickishThesis], which builds on the 4-bit packing speed-ups of [@deSouza2007] and is similar to more recent work targeting cross-multiplication of astronomical signals on Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) by [@Chime2015]. As a result, the footprint of the cross-multiplication component of the AMI digital correlator has been reduced to a very small fraction of the overall design (Table \[table:resources\]). [The code for this X-Engine is freely available[^9] and is provided with a parameterized Simulink wrapper for use in CASPER systems. Though not used in the AMI project, a dual-polarization version of this module is under development, which provides a drop-in replacement for the standard CASPER Simulink module and offers a superset of the CASPER block’s parameters.]{}
#### Vector Accumulator {#vector-accumulator .unnumbered}
Per-frequency-channel visibility matrices, which have been integrated over 1024 samples, must be further time-averaged to reduce output data-rate to an acceptable level. This long-term ($\sim$second) averaging uses external Quad Data Rate (QDR) memory for data storage, at the end of which data are transmitted via a 1Gb Ethernet interface to a data acquisition and storage server.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
FPGA Floorplanning
------------------
A significant hurdle in the deployment of the new AMI correlator was achieving timing-closure of the firmware designs at the required 312.5MHz FPGA clock rate. Ultimately, this was achieved by constraining the placement of most of the $\sim$1000 multiplier cores and $\sim$400 RAM blocks in the design to small regions of the FPGA chip. [Placement was manually defined for most modules, but in the case of the FFT cores, a pair of which comprise the majority of the signal processing in the firmware, a set of Python scripts was used to automate constraint generation. These scripts compute the number of multiplier and memory cores needed by each FFT, based on the known number of DSP slices and memory blocks needed by the CASPER FFT butterfly architecture, and the number of butterflies required to implement an FFT meeting the bandwidth and transform length specifications of the AMI channeliser. Constraints are then generated which stripe sequential butterflies over user-defined columns of DSP and memory resources. Having placed these resources, much of the FFT logic, which aims to provide pipelining between arithmetic components, could be removed, resulting in an FFT circuit that is smaller, can be run at higher clock rate, and, critically, has timing performance which is relatively stable when other areas of the FPGA design are modified.]{} To the knowledge of the authors, the AMI design represents the fastest clocked ROACH2 in any deployed packetised-correlator system, with the largest instantaneous processed bandwidth per board. We note, however, that the AMI firmware resource requirements (Table \[table:resources\]) are modest when compared to some other deployments, such as [@swarm]. Experience with newer FPGA platforms also suggests that many of the timing issues encountered during development of the AMI correlator may be unique to the ROACH2’s Virtex 6 FPGA.
DSP slices BRAMs (36kB) LUTs Flip Flops
-------------------------- ------------ -------------- -------- ------------
Coarse Delay (dual-band) 0 16 2024 2314
FIR filter (dual-band) 128 66 3952 11890
FFT (dual-band) 736 112 38206 100748
X-Engine input buffers 0 81 3162 10747
X-Engine 98 18 2002 4722
Total Design 1203 409 105068 166051
FPGA Capacity 2016 1064 297600 595200
% Utilisation 60 38 35 28
\[table:resources\]
Control System {#sec:control}
==============
The control systems for the two arrays are independent, and are described in detail in [@Zwart2008]. In each case, the only modifications needed for the new correlator have been replacement of the correlator microprocessor by the data acquisition and control server, situated in the digital rack and visible in Figure \[fig:digital-rack\], and replacement of the Sun-Microsystems workstation used for telescope and observation control by a Linux desktop system. Apart from the data acquisition components described below, the rest of the control software, written in C for the Solaris operating system, has simply been recompiled for the Linux platform.
Data Acquisition
----------------
The Linux server used for correlator control and data acquisition is a standard single-socket machine, configured with 20TB of local disc storage to accommodate several months of raw data. [Data are captured from the ROACH2 boards over a 1Gbps Ethernet interface (Figure \[fig:top-block\]). A separate 1Gbps interface is used for exchanging quick-look data samples and observation metadata with the telescope control system over a local Ethernet connection, as described in Section \[sec:data-handling\]]{}. This machine also acts as the DHCP/NFS server for the ROACH2 private network.
A suite of Python scripts to configure the ROACH2 boards and perform data collection has been developed for AMI, and is available on github[^10]. There are separate scripts for programming and initialising the ROACH2 boards, and for computing the equalisation coefficients for requantization (Section \[sec:f-engine\]). Acquisition scripts deal with applying coarse path compensation delays to the digital data streams, exchanging metadata and visibilities with the telescope control machine and recording visibility data from the correlator at a programmable dump rate (currently every 0.86s) in HDF5[^11] format on the server’s local discs. The arrangement for monitoring the relative system temperature of each antenna using amplitude-modulated injected noise referred to earlier and described in @Zwart2008 is retained, and samples of the demodulated noise, derived from the autocorrelation measurements, are stored with the data for use during calibration processing.
Important features of the software design include the use of a standard configuration file, which allows the same code to be used for both arrays, and a REmote Dictionary Service (Redis[^12]) key-value data store to share all data among the independently executed processes. A comprehensive set of utilities for monitoring the state of the correlator and visualising the datasets is also included in the AMI software package.
Independently of data acquisition from the correlator, but at a similar sampling rate, metadata such as antenna pointing and instrumental monitoring information (e.g. cryostat temperatures, AGC readings) are collected by the telescope control machine, and exchanged with the correlator server over the local Ethernet.
Data Handling {#sec:data-handling}
-------------
The HDF5 format data files, one per observation, include correlated visibility data, noise-injection measurements and metadata samples, and accumulate on discs local to the correlator control server. Typical raw data rates are shown in Table \[table:DATARATE\]. These files are the primary data products from the telescope and contain uncalibrated, full spectral resolution data.
Small Array Large Array
------------------------- ------------- -------------
Sampling rate (Mbps) 16.8 11.0
Recording rate (GBph) 8 5.2
8-hour observation (GB) 64 42
: Typical AMI data rates.[]{data-label="table:DATARATE"}
After each observation the HDF5 dataset is converted to FITS-IDI[^13] format for calibration and further processing using standard reduction packages, and is transferred from the observatory to a data repository at the Cavendish Laboratory. The conversion script is based on the pyFitsidi[^14] Python module, and also performs the following operations:
- [removal of spike artefacts in a few fixed channels of the ADC readout which are contaminated by ADC core offset mismatches, by flagging these channels to zero.]{}
- removal of the channel readout delay phase shift.
- re-ordering of the ADC channels into increasing RF order.
- fringe rotation to remove the astronomical path difference over each sub-band.
- [amplitude correction to compensate for loss-of-signal due to averaging over 0.86s time windows; this is a function of the fringe rate and can be as much as a few % for some of the Large Array baselines.]{}
- amplitude calibration for system temperature using the noise-injection system.
- flagging for instrumental problems (e.g. AGCs, cryostats, pointing, shadowing).
- optional binning of frequency channels, to reduce the dataset size.
In parallel to the above, the raw data samples received from the correlator are binned to 8 $\times$ 0.625 GHz frequency channels by a new task added to the real-time software on the telescope control system, and are recorded in legacy format for quick-look using the in-house software tool, REDUCE. These 8 channels are chosen to correspond to those used by the old analogue correlator, and availability of these datasets has proved invaluable for data evaluation and diagnostics throughout the development process and during routine operation.
Data Reduction {#sec:reduction}
==============
The FITS-IDI files contain visibility data to which instrumental flagging and some initial calibration steps have been applied, and these can now be imported to the standard reduction packages for radio interferometric data such as AIPS[^15] and CASA[^16] for full calibration, radio-frequency interference (RFI) flagging and map-making. A generalised pipeline script has been developed to process these datasets within the CASA framework, and deals with:
- RFI flagging, both broad-band and at full frequency channel resolution.
- bandpass (amplitude and phase) and flux calibration, using observations of standard calibrators.
- phase calibration, using data from interleaved visits to nearby high flux density, unresolved radio sources.
- imaging.
Primary beam correction and mosaicing is currently done in AIPS due to difficulties in importing new primary beam models into CASA.
This is the recommended route for processing AMI data for science. The 8-channel legacy format datasets described above are also available and can be processed using the in-house REDUCE software to provide useful results for some projects, but lose the benefits of the full spectral resolution that the new correlator provides.
Commissioning Results {#sec:results}
=====================
RFI rejection
-------------
One of the main motivators for constructing a correlator with such improved spectral resolution was to be able to identify and remove radio-frequency interference (RFI), which is typically confined to narrow frequency bands. RFI is generally worse at low elevation, due to the location of geostationary satellites. With the old correlator, this limited the useable declination range, particularly for the SA with its larger primary beam. [RFI flagging levels on the SA reached $\approx$85% at $\delta \approx\,2^{\circ}$; in practice observations were rarely made below $\delta=20^{\circ}$. In Figure \[Fi:RFI\] we show part of an observation of a low-declination ($\approx\,0^{\circ}$) field on both the LA and the SA with the new correlator. The RFI is clearly localized in time- and frequency-space and affected regions of data can be easily excised using automated algorithms such as ‘rflag’ as implemented in CASA, which searches for deviations from the median r.m.s. of the data in time and frequency space; see the AIPS cookbook, Section E.5 [^17] for more detail on the algorithm. This removal process is illustrated in Fig. \[Fi:RFI\_flagging\]. At $\delta \approx\,0^{\circ}$ the RFI flagging level is now $\approx$20% on the LA and $\approx$25 – 35% on the SA. These are comparable to flagging percentages in similar frequency bands at other facilities, for example the Very Large Array which loses $\approx$15% at Ku-band[^18], accounting for the fact that the AMI arrays are more compact and therefore more sensitive to ground-based RFI, and have larger primary beams.]{}
Dynamic range
-------------
The uneven lag spacings of the old correlator limited the dynamic range, since maps of fields near high flux density sources would be contaminated by artefacts introduced by the correlator. The digital correlator has removed this issue and consequently the dynamic range of the telescope, defined as the ratio of the brightest believable flux to brightest non-believable flux on the map, has increased from $\sim$100 to $\sim$1000. Figure \[Fi:3C147\_LA\] and Figure \[Fi:3C286\_SA\] show example maps of a bright source produced on the LA and the SA, in comparison to similar maps using old correlator data. The improved dynamic range of the new AMI system is enabling, for example, the observation of galaxy clusters containing bright radio galaxies, which were previously excluded from cluster samples potentially introducing unquantifiable biases.
Scientific Collaboration
------------------------
AMI has been operating routinely with the upgraded correlator since January 2016. [The telescope operates under the terms of a Scientific Collaboration Agreement involving the University of Cambridge and the University of Manchester, but welcomes external collaborators. The current scientific programmes include: SZ observations of galaxy clusters, for example extending the previous follow-up of *Planck* galaxy clusters [@Perrott2015]; source surveys, extending the 10C source counts (e.g. @10Ccont) to lower flux densities and adding to the multi-wavelength legacy datasets available in fields such as Stripe 82 (e.g. @Stripe82 and COSMOS (e.g. @COSMOS); monitoring of variable and transient radio sources such as supernovae, GRBs, quasars and X-ray binaries; observations of supernova remnants with reported anomalous microwave emission (AME) detections at low resolution (@QUIJOTE_W44, @Onic_IC443), to test for the presence of AME at the angular scales measured by AMI. In each case, the new correlator has allowed AMI to operate more effectively in challenging radio source environments than was previously possible. This is a result of the greater RFI containment – which allows observations of low-declination fields – and enhanced dynamic range – which allows significant improvements in source subtraction capability – of the new instrument.]{}
[The first results using data taken with the upgraded correlator have been published [@Munoz-Darias; @Mooley2017], with some work leveraging the new instrument in reobservations of sources originally detected by AMI’s analogue correlator [@perrott2018]. More results are currently in preparation.]{}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this paper we have presented a new digital correlator system for the AMI telescope, which replaces the telescope’s previous analogue lag-correlator. This real-time FX correlator is implemented using the popular “packetised correlator” architecture, in which interconnect between processors is provided by commercial Ethernet switches. Processing in the new correlator is performed on CASPER open-source hardware; FPGA-based ROACH2 platforms are used to digitise, filter into 1.2MHz-wide channels, and correlate a pair of down-converted sub-band signals at 5 Gsps, providing a usable RF band of 13.1–17.9 GHz. This wideband performance has been achieved by clocking the signal processing pipelines on the ROACH2’s Xilinx Virtex 6 FPGAs at 312.5MHz, requiring optimisation and floorplanning of the firmware design.
The improvement in performance of the new instrument when compared to the original analogue XF correlator is evident; the new correlator achieves over an order of magnitude improvement in imaging dynamic range, and is far more effective at operating in the presence of RFI – paricularly interference at low-declination observations from geostationary satellites – owing to superior spectral resolution. As a result of the improved performance, a new scientific collaboration has been established for the operation of AMI, and a broad range of observations are currently being performed with the telescope, which is now highly subscribed.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge support from the European Research Council under grant ERC-2012- StG-307215 LODESTONE. The images in Figures \[Fi:RFI\] to \[Fi:3C286\_SA\] were prepared using the [Cubehelix]{} colour palette [@Green2011]. This work has been supported by the generous donation of FPGA hardware and programming tools by the Xilinx University Program.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: <https://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/ROACH-2_Revision_2>
[^3]: <https://casper.berkeley.edu>
[^4]: <https://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/ROACH-2_Revision_2>
[^5]: <https://casper.berkeley.edu/wiki/ADC1x5000-8>
[^6]: <https://github.com/casper-astro/mlib_devel>
[^7]: <https://github.com/sma-wideband/adc_tests>
[^8]: See the `ami_devel` branch of the CASPER libraries at <https://github.com/jack-h/mlib_devel/tree/ami-devel>
[^9]: See the `ami_devel` branch of the CASPER libraries at <https://github.com/jack-h/mlib_devel/tree/ami-devel>
[^10]: <https://github.com/jack-h/ami_correlator_sw.git>
[^11]: <https://www.hdfgroup.org/HDF5/>
[^12]: <http://redis.io/>
[^13]: <http://www.nrao.edu/aips/FITSIDI.pdf>
[^14]: <http://telegraphic.github.io/pyfitsidi>
[^15]: <http://www.aips.nrao.edu/>
[^16]: <http://casa.nrao.edu>
[^17]: <ftp://ftp.aoc.nrao.edu/pub/software/aips/TEXT/PUBL/COOKE.PS.gz>
[^18]: see, e.g. <https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vla/observing/RFI/jul-2014-d-configuration/Ku-Band_spectra_201407D>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for multilinear multiplier operators with symbols in $L^r$-based product-type Sobolev spaces uniformly over all annuli to be bounded from products of Hardy spaces to a Lebesgue space. We consider the case $1<r\le 2$ and we characterize boundedness in terms of inequalities relating the Lebesgue indices (or Hardy indices), the dimension, and the regularity and integrability indices of the Sobolev space. The case $r>2$ cannot be handled by known techniques and remains open. Our result not only extends but also establishes the sharpness of previous results of Miyachi, Nguyen, Tomita, and the first author [@Gr_Mi_Tom; @Gr_Mi_Ng_Tom; @Gr_Ng; @Mi_Tom], who only considered the case $r=2$.'
address:
- 'L. Grafakos, Department of Mathematics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA'
- 'B. Park, School of Mathematics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 02455, Republic of Korea'
author:
- Loukas Grafakos
- Bae Jun Park
title: Characterization of multilinear multipliers in terms of Sobolev space regularity
---
[^1]
Introduction {#intro}
============
Given a bounded function $\sigma$ on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ the linear Fourier multiplier operator $T_{\sigma}$ acting on a Schwartz function $f$ is given by $$T_{\sigma}f(x):=\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{\sigma(\xi){\widehat}{f}(\xi)e^{2\pi i\langle x,\xi\rangle}}d\xi ,$$ where ${\widehat}{f}(\xi):=\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{f(x)e^{-2\pi i\langle x,\xi\rangle}}dx$ is the Fourier transform of $f$. The classical Mikhlin multiplier theorem [@Mik] states that $T_{\sigma}$ admits an $L^p$-bounded extension for $1<p<\infty$ whenever $$\big| \partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}\sigma(\xi)\big|\lesssim_{\alpha}|\xi|^{-|\alpha|}, \quad \xi\not= 0$$ for all multi-indices $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|\leq [n/2]+1$. Hörmander [@Ho] refined this result, introducing the weaker condition $$\label{Hocondition}
\sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big\Vert \sigma(2^j\cdot){\widehat}{\psi}\big\Vert_{L_s^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}}<\infty$$ for $s>n/2$, where $L_s^2({\mathbb{R}^n})$ denotes the standard fractional Sobolev space of order $s$ on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ and $\psi$ is a Schwartz function on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ whose Fourier transform is supported in the annulus $1/2<|\xi|<2$ and satisfies $\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{{\widehat}{\psi}(\xi/2^j)}=1$ for $\xi\not= 0$. Calderón and Torchinsky [@Ca_To] proved that if (\[Hocondition\]) holds for $s>n/p-n/2$, then $T_{\sigma}$ is bounded on $H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for $0<p\leq 1$. They also showed that $L_s^2$ in (\[Hocondition\]) can be replaced by $L_s^r$ for the $L^p$-boundedness, using a complex interpolation method, and their assumptions were weakened by Grafakos, He, Honzík, and Nguyen [@Gr_He_Ho_Ng].
The multilinear counterparts of the Fourier multiplier theory have analogous formulations but substantially more complicated proofs. Let $m$ be a positive integer greater than $1$; this index will serve as the degree of the multilinearity of a Fourier multiplier. For a bounded function $\sigma$ on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ we define the corresponding $m$-linear multiplier operator $T_{\sigma}$ by $$T_{\sigma}\big(f_1,\dots,f_m \big)(x):={\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}{\sigma(\xxxi)\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{m}\widehat{f_j}(\xi_j)\Big)e^{2\pi i\langle x,\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\xi_j} \rangle}}d\xxxi}$$ for Schwartz functions $f_j$ on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$, where $\xxxi:=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)$ and $d\xxxi:=d\xi_1\cdots d\xi_m$. As a multilinear extension of Mikhlin’s result, Coifman and Meyer [@Co_Me2] proved that if $L$ is sufficiently large and $\sigma$ satisfies $$\big| \partial_{\xi_1}^{\alpha_1} \cdots\partial_{\xi_m}^{\alpha_m}\sigma(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)\big|\lesssim_{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m}\big(|\xi_1|+\dots+|\xi_m|\big)^{-(|\alpha_1|+\dots +|\alpha_m|)}$$ for multi-indices $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m$ satisfying $|\alpha_1|+\dots+|\alpha_m|\leq L$, then $T_{\sigma}$ is bounded from $L^{p_1}\times \cdots\times L^{p_m}$ to $L^p$ for all $1<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$ and $1<p<\infty$ with $1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m=1/p$. This result was extended to $p\leq 1$ by Kenig and Stein [@Ke_St] and Grafakos and Torres [@Gr_To].
Let $\Psi^{(m)}$ be the $m$-linear counterpart of $\psi$. That is, $\Psi^{(m)}$ is a Schwartz function on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ having the properties: $$\textup{Supp}(\widehat{\Psi^{(m)}})\subset \big\{\xxxi\in ({\mathbb{R}^n})^m: 1/2\leq |\xxxi|\leq 2 \big\}, \qquad \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\widehat{\Psi^{(m)}}(\xxxi/2^j)}=1, \quad \xxxi\not= \vec{\boldsymbol{0}}.$$ Let $ (\vec{I}-\vec{\Delta})^{s/2}F=\Big( \big(1+4\pi^2( |\cdot_1|^2 +\dots+|\cdot_m|^2)\big)^{s/2}{\widehat}{F}\Big)^{\vee}$ for a nice function on $ ({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$, where $F^{\vee}(\xxxi):={\widehat}{F}(-\xxxi)$ is the inverse Fourier transform of $F$. For $s\geq 0$ and $0<r<\infty$ we define the Sobolev space $L_s^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)$ in terms of the finiteness of the norm: $$\label{HHocondition}
\Vert F\Vert_{L_s^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}:=\big\Vert (\vec{I}-\vec{\Delta})^{s/2}F\big\Vert_{L^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}.$$
Tomita [@Tom] was the first to obtain an $L^{p_1}\times\cdots\times L^{p_m}$ to $L^p$ boundedness for $T_{\sigma}$ in the range $1<p_1,\dots,p_m,p<\infty$, under a condition analogous to (\[Hocondition\]) for the Sobolev space $L_s^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)$. Grafakos and Si [@Gr_Si] extended this result to $p\leq 1$ using $L^r$-based Sobolev norms of $\sigma$ for $1<r\leq 2$:
[A]{}([@Gr_Si]) \[knownresult1\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $r\leq p_1,\dots,p_m<\infty$, $0<p<\infty$, and $1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m=1/p$. Suppose that $$s>mn/r.$$ If $\sigma$ satisfies $$\label{Sob9988}
\sup_{j\in {\mathbb{Z}}}\big\Vert \sigma(2^j\cdot_1,\dots,2^j\cdot_m){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big\Vert_{L^{r}_s(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}<\infty,$$ then we have $$\big\Vert T_{\sigma}\big(f_1,\dots,f_m \big) \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \sup_{j\in {\mathbb{Z}}}\big\Vert \sigma(2^j\cdot_1,\dots,2^j\cdot_m){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big\Vert_{L^{r}_s(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)} \prod_{i=1}^{m}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}$$ for functions $f_1,\dots,f_m\in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$.
In the preceding theorem and in the rest of this paper, $\SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$ denotes the space of all Schwartz functions on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$.
The standard Sobolev space in in many recent multiplier results is replaced by a product type Sobolev space where the different powers of the Laplacian fall on different variables $\xi_i\in {\mathbb{R}^n}$. For $s_1,\dots,s_m\geq 0$ and a function $F$ on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ let $$(I-\Delta_1)^{s_1/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_m)^{s_m/2}F:=\big((1+4\pi^2|\cdot_1|^2)^{s_1/2}\cdots (1+4\pi^2|\cdot_m|^2)^{s_m/2}{\widehat}{F}\big)^{\vee}$$ and for $0<r<\infty$ and $\sss:=(s_1,\dots,s_m)$, define $$\Vert F\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{r}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}:=\big\Vert (I-\Delta_1)^{s_1/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_m)^{s_m/2} F\big\Vert_{L^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}.$$ Here $\Delta_i$ is the Laplacian acting in the $i$th variable and $s_i\ge 0$. For a function $\sigma $ on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$, throughout this work we will use the notation: $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]:=\sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big\Vert \sigma(2^j\cdot_{1},\dots,2^j\cdot_{m}){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}}.$$
Research work has also focused on boundedness properties of $T_\sigma$ under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$ for given $\sss$. Under this assumption with $r=2$, Fujita and Tomita [@Fu_Tom1] provided weighted estimates for $T_\sigma$. Miyachi and Tomita [@Mi_Tom] obtained boundedness for bilinear multipliers (i.e., $m=2$) in the full range of indices $0<p,p_1,p_2\leq \infty$ extending a result of Calderón and Torchinsky [@Ca_To] to the bilinear setting; here Lebesgue spaces in the domain are replaced by Hardy spaces when $p_i\le 1$. Multilinear extensions were later provided by Grafakos, Miyachi, and Tomita [@Gr_Mi_Tom], Grafakos and Nguyen [@Gr_Ng], Grafakos, Miyachi, Nguyen, and Tomita [@Gr_Mi_Ng_Tom], but all these results were proved only in the case $r=2$. We review most of these results in one formulation:
[B]{}([@Gr_Mi_Tom; @Gr_Mi_Ng_Tom; @Gr_Ng; @Mi_Tom])\[knownresult2\] Let $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, $0<p<\infty$, and $1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m=1/p$. Suppose that $$\label{minimal0}
s_1,\dots,s_m>n/2,\qquad \sum_{k\in J}\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)>-{1}/{2}$$ for every nonempty subset $J$ of $ \{1,\dots,m\}$. If $\sigma$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{2,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$, then we have $$\label{boundresult0}
\big\Vert T_{\sigma}\big(f_1,\dots,f_m \big) \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{2,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] \prod_{i=1}^{m}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}$$ for Schwartz functions $f_1,\dots,f_m\in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$.
Here and in the sequel, $H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})$ denotes the classical real Hardy space of Fefferman and Stein [@Fe_St2]. This space is defined for $ 0<p\leq \infty$ and coincides with $L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for $1<p\leq \infty$.\
The optimality of (\[minimal0\]) was also studied in [@Gr_Ng; @Gr_Mi_Ng_Tom; @Mi_Tom] and indeed, if (\[boundresult0\]) holds, then we must necessarily have $$s_1,\dots,s_m\geq n/2,\qquad \sum_{k\in J}\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)\geq -{1}/{2}$$ for every nonempty subset $J$ of $\{1,\dots,m\}$. However, this does not guarantee the validity of (\[boundresult0\]) in the critical case $$\label{criticalcase}
\min{(s_1,\dots,s_m)}=n/2 \quad\text{or}\quad \sum_{k\in J}\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)= -{1}/{2} \quad \text{for some } ~J\subset \{1,\dots,m\}$$ and recently, it was proved in Park [@Park4] that (\[boundresult0\]) fails in the case (\[criticalcase\]) as well.
[C]{}([@Park4])\[knownresult3\] Let $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, $0<p<\infty$, and $1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m=1/p$. Suppose that $\sigma$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{2,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$ for $s_1,\dots,s_m>0$. Then (\[boundresult0\]) does not hold if $$\min{(s_1,\dots,s_m)}\leq n/2 \qquad\text{or}\qquad \sum_{k\in J}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)\leq -{1}/{2}} \quad \text{for some }~ J\subset \{1,\dots,m\}.$$
Therefore (\[minimal0\]) is a necessary and sufficient condition for (\[boundresult0\]) to hold.\
In this paper, we focus on the case $1<r\le 2$ and we prove necessary and sufficient conditions for bounded functions $\sigma $ on $(\mathbb R^{n})^m$ that satisfy the Hörmander condition $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$ to be bounded multilinear multipliers. The case $r<2$ was also considered in [@Gr_He_Ng_Yan] but the results obtained there were non optimal. The characterization we provide is given in terms of explicit inequalities relating different relevant indices and provides generalizations for Theorems \[knownresult2\] and \[knownresult3\], and an extension of Theorem \[knownresult1\]. The main result of this article is the following:
\[main\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $s_1,\dots,s_m\geq 0$, $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, $0<p<\infty$, and $1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m=1/p$. Suppose that $\sigma$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$. Then the conditions $$\label{minimal}
s_1,\dots,s_m>n/r \qquad \textup{and} \qquad\sum_{k\in J}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k}\big)}>-{1}/{r'}$$ hold for every nonempty subset $J$ of $ \{1,2,\dots,m\}$ if and only if $$\label{boundresult}
\Vert T_{\sigma}(f_1,\dots,f_m)\Vert_{ L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\,\,
\prod_{i=1}^{m}\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$$ for $f_1,\dots,f_m\in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$.
The implicit constant in depends only on the dimension $n$, the degree of multilinearity $m$, and the indices $p_j$, $s_j$, and $r$. Here $r'=r/(r-1)$. We remark that, when $r=2$, Theorem \[main\] coincides with Theorem \[knownresult2\] and \[knownresult3\]. Moreover, since $$s_1,\dots,s_m>n/r ~ \text{ implies }~ \sum_{k\in J}\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)>-{1}/{r'} ~\text{ for all }~ J \quad \text{ when }~ r\leq p_1,\dots,p_m,$$ and $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\leq \sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big\Vert \sigma(2^j\cdot_1,\dots,2^j\cdot_m){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big\Vert_{L_s^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}} \quad \text{for }~s\geq s_1+\dots+s_m,$$ Theorem \[main\] also covers Theorem \[knownresult1\] and extends its range of indices to $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$.
Necessary condition
-------------------
In order to prove the direction $(\ref{boundresult})\Rightarrow (\ref{minimal})$ in Theorem \[main\], two different multipliers will be constructed based on an idea contained in [@Park4]. However, the methods in [@Park4] essentially rely on Plancherel’s theorem to obtain the upper bound of $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{2,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]=\sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\Big\Vert \Big(\prod_{k=1}^{m}(1+4\pi^2|\cdot_k|^2)^{s_k/2}\Big)\big( \sigma(2^j\cdot_1,\dots,2^j\cdot_m){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big)^{\vee}\Big\Vert_{L^2(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}}$$ and this cannot be applied in the case $1<r<2$ anymore.
To overcome this difficulty, we benefit from a recent calculation of Grafakos and Park [@Gr_Park] concerning a variant of the Bessel potentials that involve a logarithmic term. For any $0<t,\gamma<\infty$ we define $$\label{hdefinition}
\mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}(x):=\frac{1}{(1+4\pi^2|x|^2)^{t/2}}\frac{1}{(1+\ln{(1+4\pi^2|x|^2)})^{\gamma/2}}.$$ We first observe that for any $t,\gamma>0$ $$\label{hproperty1}
\mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}(x-y)\geq \mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}(x)\mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}(y)$$ and $$\label{hproperty2}
\Vert \mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}<\infty \quad \text{if and only if}\quad t>n/p \quad \text{or} \quad t=n/p, \gamma>2/p.$$ Moreover, it was shown in [@Gr_Park] that $$\big| {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}}(\xi)\big|\lesssim_{t,\gamma,n}e^{-|\xi|/2} \quad \text{for }~ |\xi|>1$$ and when $0<t<n$, $$\big| {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}}(\xi)\big|\approx_{t,\gamma,n} |\xi|^{-(n-t)}(1+2\ln|\xi|^{-1})^{-\gamma/2}\quad \text{for }~ |\xi|\leq 1.$$ The estimates imply that $$\label{hproperty4}
\big\Vert {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(t,\gamma)}}\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}<\infty \quad \text{if and only if} \quad t>n-n/p \quad \text{or}\quad t=n-n/p, \gamma>2/p.$$
These properties provide us with tools that allow us to prove the following two propositions:
\[main21\] Let $1<r<\infty$, $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, $0<p<\infty$, and $1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m=1/p$. Suppose that $$s_1\leq s_2,\dots,s_m\qquad \text{and} \qquad s_1\leq n/r.$$ Then there exists a function $\sigma$ on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ such that $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$, but $$\Vert T_{\sigma}\Vert_{H^{p_1}\times\cdots\times H^{p_m}\to L^p}=\infty .$$
\[main22\] Let $1<r<\infty$, $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, $0<p<\infty$, and $1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m=1/p$. Let $1\leq l\leq m$. Suppose that $s_1,\dots,s_m>n/r$ and $$\sum_{k=1}^{l}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k}\big)}\leq -{1}/{r'}.$$ Then there exists a function $\sigma$ on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ such that $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$, but $$\Vert T_{\sigma}\Vert_{H^{p_1}\times\cdots\times H^{p_m}\to L^p}=\infty .$$
The necessity part of Theorem \[main\] is a consequence of the preceding two propositions along with a rearrangement argument.\
Sufficiency condition
---------------------
The sufficiency condition part in Theorem \[main\] is a consequence of the following four propositions combined with a rearrangement argument.
\[propo1\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $r\leq p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, and $1/p=1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m$. Suppose that $$\label{conditionsss}
s_1,\dots,s_m>n/r.$$ If $\sigma$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$, then (\[boundresult\]) holds.
\[propo2\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $1\leq l\leq m$, $0<p_1,\dots,p_l\leq 1$, $p_{l+1},\dots,p_m=\infty$, and $1/p=1/p_1+\dots+1/p_l$. Suppose that $$\label{conditionss}
s_{l+1},\dots,s_m>n/r,\qquad \sum_{k\in J}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \Big)}>-{1}/{r'}$$ for every nonempty subset $J\subset \{1,\dots,l\}$. If $\sigma$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$, then (\[boundresult\]) holds.
\[propo3\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $1\leq l<\rho\leq m$, $0<p_1,\dots,p_l\leq 1$, $r\leq p_{l+1},\dots,p_{\rho}<\infty$, $p_{\rho+1},\dots,p_m=\infty$, and $1/p=1/p_1+\dots+1/p_{\rho}$. Suppose that (\[conditionss\]) holds for every nonempty subset $J\subset \{1,\dots,l\}$. If $\sigma$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$, then (\[boundresult\]) holds.
\[propo4\] Let $1<r\leq 2$ and $1\leq l\leq m$. Suppose that $\mathfrak{L}$ be a subset of $\{1,\dots,m\}$ with $|\mathfrak{L}|=l$, and $$1<p_i<r \qquad \text{ for }~ i\in\mathfrak{L}$$ and $$0<p_i\leq 1 \quad \text{or} \quad r\leq p_i\leq \infty \qquad \text{ for }~i\in \{1,\dots,m\}\setminus\mathfrak{L}.$$ Suppose that (\[minimal\]) holds for every nonempty subset $J$ of $ \{1,\dots,m\}$. If the function $\sigma$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$, then (\[boundresult\]) holds.
The statements in the above propositions can be thought of as extensions of Theorems \[knownresult1\] and \[knownresult2\] from $r=2$ to $1<r\leq 2$. However, the ingredients of their proofs are significantly more involved than in the case $r=2$, in view of the lack of Plancherel’s identity. The proofs we employ depend on the Littlewood-Paley theory for the Hardy space $H^p$, but this certainly does not work for $H^{\infty}=L^{\infty}$ or $BMO$, and this is the reason the case $p_i=\infty$ was excluded in Theorem \[knownresult1\]. It was addressed in the proof of Theorem \[knownresult2\] by applying a modified version of the Carleson measure estimate related to $BMO$ functions, which is contained in [@Gr_Mi_Tom]. We provide a new method to deal with this issue, using a generalization of Peetre’s maximal function, saying $\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^tf$, introduced by Park [@Park3]. As we have an $L^{\infty}(\ell^2)$ characterization of $BMO$ with this maximal function, stated in Lemma \[equivalence\], we may still utilize the Littlewood-Paley theory to obtain $H^{p_i}$ bounds for all $0<p_i\leq \infty$.
The proof of Proposition \[propo1\] is based on that of Theorem \[knownresult1\] for which the pointwise estimate in Lemma \[keyestilemma\] below is essential. In Propositions \[propo2\] and \[propo3\] at least one index $p_i$ satisfies $0<p_i\leq 1$ and the $H^{p_i}$ atomic decomposition is very useful. In this case we need to employ an approximation argument for $\sigma$ as we don’t know that we can interchange infinite sums of atoms and the action of the operator as in $$T_{\sigma}\big(f_1,\dots,f_m\big)=\sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_m=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{1,k_1},\cdots \lambda_{l,k_l}T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_l},\dots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)$$ for functions $f_i\in H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ with atomic representation $f_i=\sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{\lambda_{i,k_i}a_{i,k_i}}$, $1\leq i\leq l$. This regularization of the multiplier was also used in [@Gr_Ng] but here it is stated in Lemma \[switchsum\]. Afterwards, we apply the method of Grafakos and Kalton [@Gr_Ka] and a pointwise estimate of the form $$\label{keypointest}
\big| T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_1},\dots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big|\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]b_1(x)\cdots b_l(x) F_{l+1}(x)\cdots F_{m}(x)$$ where $\Vert b_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1$ and $\Vert F_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$. Since the above estimate separates the left-hand side to $m$ functions of $x$, we may now apply Hölder’s inequality with exponents $1/p=1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m$. The main idea in the proof of Proposition \[propo4\] is a multilinear extension of the complex interpolation method of Calderón [@Ca] and Calderón and Torchinsky [@Ca_To]. Specifically, we apply the interpolation to Propositions \[propo1\], \[propo2\], and \[propo3\] to obtain (\[boundresult\]) in the entire range $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$.\
Section \[preliminary\] contains some preliminary facts that are crucial in the proof of the preceding propositions. The proof of Propositions \[main21\] - \[propo4\] are given in Sections \[proofpropo1\] - \[proofpropo6\]. Some key lemmas that appear in the proofs of the propositions are contained in the last section.\
[**Notation.**]{} We denote by ${\mathbb{N}}$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}$ the sets of natural numbers and integers, respectively. We use the symbol $A\lesssim B$ to indicate that $A\leq CB$ for some constant $C>0$ independent of the variable quantities $A$ and $B$, and $A\approx B$ if $A\lesssim B$ and $B\lesssim A$ hold simultaneously. The set of all dyadic cubes in ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{D}$, and for each $j\in\mathbb{Z}$ we designate $\mathcal{D}_{j}$ to be the subset of $\mathcal{D}$ consisting of dyadic cubes with side length $2^{-j}$. For each $Q\in\mathcal{D}$, $\chi_Q$ denotes the characteristic function of $Q$. We also use the notation $\fff:=(f_1,\dots,f_m)$, $\vv:=(v_1,\dots,v_m)$, and $\langle x\rangle:=(1+4\pi^2|x|^2)^{1/2}$.
Preliminaries {#preliminary}
=============
Let $\phi$ be a Schwartz function on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ with ${\widehat}{\phi}(0)= 1$. For $0<p\leq \infty$ the Hardy space $H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})$ contains all tempered distributions $f$ on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ which satisfy $$\Vert f\Vert_{H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}:=\big\Vert \sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{|\phi_j\ast f|} \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}<\infty$$ where $\phi_j:=2^{jn}\phi(2^j\cdot)$. It is known in [@Fr_Ja2; @Tr] that the definition of the Hardy space does not depend on the choice of the function $\phi$. In this paper we fix a Schwartz function $\psi$ on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ whose Fourier transform is supported in the annulus $1/2<|\xi|<2$ and satisfies $\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{{\widehat}{\psi}(\xi/2^j)}=1$ for $\xi\not= 0$. Set ${\widehat}{\psi}(\cdot /2^j)= {\widehat}{\psi_j} $. Then we define a function $\phi \in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$ by $$\label{phidef}
{\widehat}{\phi}(\xi):=\begin{cases}
\sum_{j\leq 0}{{\widehat}{\psi_j}(\xi)}, & \xi\not= 0\\
1,& \xi=0,
\end{cases}$$ and let $\phi_j:=2^{jn}\phi(2^j\cdot)$ so that ${\widehat}{ \phi_j} ={\widehat}{ \phi } (\cdot/2^j)$. Note that $H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})=L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for all $1<p\leq \infty$. A nice feature of the Hardy spaces $H^p$ for $0<p\leq 1$ is their atomic decomposition. More precisely, when $N$ is a positive integer greater or equal to $[n/p-n]+1$, every $f$ in $H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})$, $0<p\leq 1$, can be written as $ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\lambda_k a_k}$, where $\lambda_k$ are coefficients satisfying $\big( \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_k|^{p}}\big)^{1/p}\lesssim \Vert f\Vert_{H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}$ and $a_k$ are $L^{\infty}$-atoms for $H^p$; this means that there exist cubes $Q_k$ such that $\textup{Supp}(a_k)\subset Q_k$, $\Vert a_k\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq |Q_k|^{-1/p}$, and $\int_{Q_k}{x^{\alpha}a_k(x)}dx=0$ for all multi-indices $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|\leq N$.
The Hardy space $H^p$ can be characterized in terms of Littlewood-Paley theory. For $0<p<\infty$ we have $$\label{littlewood}
\Vert f\Vert_{H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\approx \Big\Vert \Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big| \psi_j\ast f\big|^2} \Big)^{1/2}\Big\Vert_{L^{p}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$$ where $\psi_j$ is a Littlewood-Paley function defined above. This property is also independent of the choice of functions $\psi_j$ because of the Calderón reproducing formula and the Fefferman-Stein vector-valued maximal inequality [@Fe_St] which states that $$\label{maximal1}
\big\Vert \big\{ \mathcal{M}_tf_j\big\}_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^q)}\lesssim \Vert \{f_j\}_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\Vert_{L^p(\ell^q)} \qquad \text{ for }~ t<p,q<\infty$$ where $\mathcal{M}f(x):=\sup_{Q:x\in Q}{|Q|^{-1}\int_Q{|f(y)|}dy}$ is the Hardy-Littlwood maximal functions and $\mathcal{M}_tf(x):=\big(\mathcal{M}(|f|^t)\big)^{1/t}$ for $0<t<\infty$. Note that (\[maximal1\]) also holds for $0<p<\infty$, $q=\infty$ or for $p=q=\infty$.
For $j\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $\sigma>0$, and $0<t\leq \infty$ we now define $$\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^{t}f(x):=2^{jn/t}\Big\Vert \frac{f(x-\cdot)}{(1+2^j|\cdot|)^{\sigma}}\Big\Vert_{L^t({\mathbb{R}^n})},$$ which is a generalization of the Peetre’s maximal function $\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}f(x):=\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^{\infty}f(x)$. It is easy to verify that if $0<t<\infty$ and $\sigma>n/t$, then $$\label{maximalcompare}
\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^{t}f(x)\lesssim \mathcal{M}_tf(x), \quad \text{ uniformly in }~j\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$ Moreover, for $\sigma>0$, $0<t\leq s\leq \infty$, and $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, we have $$\label{mcomposition}
\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^{s}\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^tf(x)\lesssim \mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^tf(x).$$ See [@Park3] for more details.
Elementary considerations reveal that for $\sigma>0$ and $Q\in\mathcal{D}_j$ $$\sup_{y\in Q}{|f(y)|}\lesssim \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}f(y)}$$ and then it follows from (\[mcomposition\]) that for $0<t< \infty$ $$\label{infmax2}
\sup_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^tf(y)}\lesssim \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^{t}f(y)}\lesssim \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^tf(y)}.$$ In addition, the following maximal inequality holds.
\[maximal2\] Let $0<p,q,t \leq \infty$ and $\sigma>n/\min{(p,q,t)}$. Suppose that the Fourier transform of $f_j$ is supported in a ball of radius $A2^j$ for some $A>0$.
1. For $0<p<\infty$ or $p=q=\infty$, we have $$\big\Vert \big\{ \mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^tf_j\big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^q)}\lesssim \big\Vert \{f_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^q)}.$$
2. For $p=\infty$, $0<q<\infty$, and $\mu\in\mathbb{Z}$, we have $$\sup_{P\in\mathcal{D}_{\mu}}{\Big( \frac{1}{|P|}\int_P{\sum_{j=\mu}^{\infty}{\big(\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^tf_j(x) \big)^q}}dx\Big)^{1/q}}\lesssim \sup_{P\in\mathcal{D}_{\mu}}{\Big( \frac{1}{|P|}\int_P{\sum_{j=\mu}^{\infty}{|f_j(x) |^q}}dx\Big)^{1/q}}$$ where the constant in the inequality is independent of $\mu$.
Using Lemma \[maximal2\] we can prove the following result.
\[equivalence\] Let $0<p\leq \infty$, $0<t\leq \infty$, $0<\gamma<1$, and $\sigma>{n}/{\min{(p,2,t)}}$. Then for any dyadic cubes $Q\in\mathcal{D}$, there exists a proper measurable subset $S_Q$ of $Q$, depending on $\gamma,\sigma,t,f$, such that $|S_Q|>\gamma |Q|$ and $$\Vert f\Vert_{X^p}\approx \Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^t\big(\psi_j\ast f\big)(y) }\Big)\chi_{S_Q}}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p}(\ell^2)}$$ where $X^p=H^p$ for $0<p<\infty$ and $X^{\infty}=BMO$.
We observe that if $S_Q$ is a measurable subset of $Q\in\mathcal{D}$ with $|S_Q|>\gamma|Q|$ for some $0<\gamma<1$, then we have $$\label{chamaximal}
\chi_{Q}(x)\lesssim_{\tau,\gamma} \mathcal{M}_{\tau}(\chi_{S_Q})(x),$$ which is due to the fact that for $x\in Q$ $$\label{inversechi}
1<\frac{1}{\gamma^{1/{\tau}}}\frac{|S_Q|^{1/{\tau}}}{|Q|^{1/{\tau}}}=\frac{1}{\gamma^{1/{\tau}}}\Big(\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q{\chi_{S_Q}(y)}dy \Big)^{1/{\tau}}\leq \gamma^{-1/{\tau}}\mathcal{M}_{\tau}(\chi_{S_Q})(x).$$
Based on the $L^{\infty}(\ell^2)$ characterization of $BMO$ from Lemma \[equivalence\], we have the following lemma, which will be essential in obtaining $L^{\infty}$ bounds in the proof of our main theorem.
\[bmoboundlemma\] Let $0<p,t<\infty$, $N\geq 3$, and $$s_1>{n}/{\min{(p,t)}}, \qquad s_i>{n}/{\min{(2,t)}} \quad 2\leq i\leq N.$$ Let $\varphi_j,\vartheta_j\in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$, $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, satisfy $\textup{Supp}({\widehat}{\varphi_j})\subset \{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: |\xi|\leq C2^j\}$ and $\textup{Supp}({\widehat}{\vartheta_j})\subset \{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: D^{-1}2^j\leq |\xi|\leq D2^j\}$ for some $C,D>1$. Suppose that $T^1$ and $T^2$ are the bilinear operators and $T^3$ is the $N$-linear operator, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
T^1(f_1,f_2)(x)&:=\Big[ \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big( \mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\varphi_j\ast f_1\big)(x)\big)^2\big( \mathfrak{M}_{s_2,2^j}^{t}\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_2\big)(x)\big)^2}\Big]^{1/2},\\
T^2(f_1,f_2)(x)&:= \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_1\big)(x) \mathfrak{M}_{s_2,2^j}^{t}\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_2\big)(x),\\
T^3(f_1,\dots,f_N)(x)&:=\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\varphi_j\ast f_1\big)(x)\prod_{i=2}^{N}\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^{t}\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_i\big)(x)\end{aligned}$$ for $f_1,\dots,f_N\in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$ and $x\in {\mathbb{R}^n}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert T^1(f_1,f_2)\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})} &\lesssim \Vert f_1\Vert_{H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\Vert f_2\Vert_{BMO({\mathbb{R}^n})} \label{t1est} \\
\big\Vert T^2(f_1,f_2)\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})} &\lesssim \Vert f_1\Vert_{H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\Vert f_2\Vert_{BMO({\mathbb{R}^n})} \label{t2est} \\
\big\Vert T^3(f_1,\dots,f_N)\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})} &\lesssim \Vert f_1\Vert_{H^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\prod_{i=2}^{N}\Vert f_i\Vert_{BMO({\mathbb{R}^n})}. \label{t3est}\end{aligned}$$
We will only be concerned with (\[t1est\]) and (\[t3est\]) as the proof of (\[t2est\]) is very similar to that of (\[t3est\]) with $N=3$.
Since dyadic cubes with the same side length are pairwise disjoint, the left-hand side of (\[t1est\]) can be written as $$\Big\Vert \Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j} \big( \mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\varphi_j\ast f_1\big)\big)^2\big( \mathfrak{M}_{s_2,2^j}^{t}\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_2\big)\big)^2 \chi_Q \Big)^{1/2}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}$$ and the estimate (\[infmax2\]) implies that the preceding expression is dominated by a constant multiple of $$\label{squarecharacter}
\Big\Vert \Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j} \Big( \inf_{y\in Q}\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\varphi_j\ast f_1\big)(y)\Big)^2\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}\mathfrak{M}_{s_2,2^j}^{t}\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_2\big)(y)\Big)^2 \chi_Q \Big)^{1/2}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$ According to Lemma \[equivalence\], for each $Q\in \mathcal{D}$ we can choose a proper measurable subset $S_Q$ of $Q$ such that $|S_Q|>\frac{1}{2}|Q|$ and $$\label{BMOcha}
\Vert f_2\Vert_{BMO}\approx \Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_2,2^j}^t\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_2\big)(y) }\Big)\chi_{S_Q}}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\ell^2)}.$$ Here, we may use $\vartheta_j$, instead of $\psi_j$, because of the Calderón reproducing formula and (\[mcomposition\]). Now, using (\[chamaximal\]) with $\tau<\min{(p,2)}$ and the vector-valued maximal inequality (\[maximal1\]) of $\mathcal{M}_{\tau}$ with the index set $\{Q\}_{Q\in\mathcal{D}}$, $\chi_Q$ can be replaced by $\chi_{S_Q}$ in (\[squarecharacter\]) and then Hölder’s inequality yields that (\[squarecharacter\]) is less than a constant times $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert \sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\varphi_j\ast f_1\big)}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_2,2^j}^t\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_2\big)(y) }\Big)\chi_{S_Q}}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\ell^2)}.\end{aligned}$$ The second term is definitely comparable to $\Vert f_2\Vert_{BMO}$ due to (\[BMOcha\]) and the first one can be estimated by $$\Big\Vert \sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big| \varphi_j\ast f_1\big|}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\approx \Vert f_1\Vert_{H^{p}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$$ in view of Lemma \[maximal2\]. This proves (\[t1est\]).
Similarly, for each $Q\in\mathcal{D}$ we choose proper measurable subsets $S_{Q}^{2}$ and $S_Q^{3}$ of $Q$ such that $|S_Q^{2}|, |S_Q^{3}|>\frac{3}{4} |Q|$ and $$\Vert f_k\Vert_{BMO}\approx \Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^t\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_k\big)(y) }\Big)\chi_{S_Q^k}}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\ell^2)}, \quad k=2,3.$$ We note that $|S_Q^2\cap S_Q^3|>\frac{1}{2}|Q|$ and thus (\[chamaximal\]) implies $$\chi_Q(x)\lesssim_{\tau}\mathcal{M}_{\tau}\big(\chi_{S_Q^2\cap S_Q^3}\big)(x), \quad \text{ for all }~ 0<\tau<\infty.$$ Choose $\tau<\min{(1,p)}$. Then we can prove that the left-hand side of (\[t3est\]) is smaller than a constant times $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\Vert \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j} \Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\varphi_j\ast f_1\big)(y)}\Big) \prod_{k=2}^{N}\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^{t}\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_k \big)(y)}\Big) \chi_{S_Q^2}\chi_{S_Q^{3}} \Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\leq \Big\Vert \sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t\big(\varphi_j\ast f_1\big)}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})} \prod_{k=2}^{3}\Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^t\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_k\big)(y) }\Big)\chi_{S_Q^k}}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\ell^2)}\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \times \prod_{k=4}^{N}\big\Vert \big\{ \mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^t\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_k\big)\big\}_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\ell^{\infty})} \\
&\lesssim \Vert f_1\Vert_{H^{p_1}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\prod_{k=2}^{N}\Vert f_k\Vert_{BMO}\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Here, we used the fact that for $4\leq k\leq N$, $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert \big\{ \mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^t\big(\vartheta_j\ast f_k\big)\big\}_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\ell^{\infty})}\lesssim \big\Vert \{\vartheta_j\ast f_k\}_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\ell^{\infty})}\approx \Vert f_k\Vert_{\dot{F}_{\infty}^{0,\infty}}\lesssim \Vert f_k\Vert_{\dot{F}_{\infty}^{0,2}}\approx \Vert f_k\Vert_{BMO}\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{F}_p^{0,q}$ is the homogeneous Triebel-Lizorkin space, and Lemma \[maximal2\], the embedding $\dot{F}_{\infty}^{0,2}\hookrightarrow \dot{F}_{\infty}^{0,\infty}$, and the characterization $BMO=\dot{F}_{\infty}^{0,2}$ are applied. We refer to [@Park3] for more details.
The following lemma is the main tool used to derive pointwise estimates like (\[keypointest\]). In fact, similar results can be found in [@Gr_Mi_Tom; @Gr_Mi_Ng_Tom; @Gr_Ng; @Gr_Si; @Mi_Tom] with the maximal function $\mathcal{M}_t$, but here we replace $\mathcal{M}_t$ by $\mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^t$ in order to apply the arguments in Lemmas \[equivalence\] and \[bmoboundlemma\].
\[keyestilemma\] Let $1<t \leq 2$ and $s_1,\dots,s_m>n/t$. Suppose that $\sigma$ is a bounded function with a compact support in $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$. Then we have $$\big| T_{\sigma}\fff(x)\big|\lesssim \big\Vert \sigma(2^j\cdot)\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\prod_{k=1}^{m}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^tf_k(x)}, \qquad \text{ uniformly in }~ j\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$$
Using the Hölder inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\big| T_{\sigma}\fff(x)\big|&= \Big|\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}{\sigma^{\vee}(\vv)\prod_{k=1}^{m}f_k(x-v_k)}d\vv \Big|\\
&\leq 2^{-jmn/t}\bigg[ \int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}{\Big( \prod_{k=1}^{m}\langle 2^jv_k\rangle^{s_kt'}\Big)|\sigma^{\vee}(\vv)|^{t'}}d\vv \bigg]^{1/t'}\prod_{k=1}^{m}\mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^{t}f_k(x)\end{aligned}$$ where we applied the simple inequality that $$\big\Vert f(x-\cdot)\langle 2^j\cdot\rangle^{-s_k}\big\Vert_{L^t({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 2^{-jn/t}\mathfrak{M}_{s_k,2^j}^tf(x).$$ Then the Hausdorff Young inequality with $1<t\leq 2$ yields that $$\bigg[ \int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}{\Big( \prod_{k=1}^{m}\langle 2^jv_k\rangle^{s_kt'}\Big)|\sigma^{\vee}(\vv)|^{t'}}d\vv \bigg]^{1/t'}\lesssim 2^{jmn/t} \big\Vert \sigma(2^j\cdot )\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^t(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}$$ and this completes the proof.
The next lemma is a multi-parameter inequality of Kato-Ponce type.
\[katoponce\] Let $1< t<\infty$ and $s_1,\dots,s_m\geq 0$. Suppose that $g$ is a function in $L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)$ and $\Xi\in \SS(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)$. Then we have $$\big\Vert \Xi \cdot g \big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\lesssim \Vert g \Vert_{L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}.$$
The above lemma is clear when $s_1,\dots,s_m$ are even integers as the derivatives of $\Xi$ are bounded functions, using the embedding $L^{t}_{\sss^{(1)}}\hookrightarrow L_{\sss^{(2)}}^{t}$ for $\sss^{(2)}:=(s_1^{(2)},\dots,s_m^{(2)}) \leq \sss^{(1)}:=(s_1^{(1)},\dots,s_m^{(1)})$, which means $s_k^{(2)}\leq s_k^{(1)}$ for each $1\leq k\leq m$. Then a complex interpolation technique completes the proof for the general $s_1,\dots,s_m\geq 0$. We refer to [@Gr2 Section 5] for more details.
We now discuss a regularization of multipliers.
\[regularization\] Let $1<r\leq 2$ and $\sigma$ satisfy $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$ for $s_k>n/r$, $1\leq k\leq m$. Then there exists a family of Schwartz functions $\{\sigma^{\epsilon}\}_{0<\epsilon<1/2}$ such that ${\widehat}{\sigma^{\epsilon}}$ has a compact support in $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$, $$\label{sigmaapprox}
\sup_{0<\epsilon<1/2}\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma^{\epsilon}]\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma],$$ and $$\label{l2approx}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\big\Vert T_{\sigma}\fff-T_{\sigma^{\epsilon}}\fff\big\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}=0$$ for Schwartz functions $f_1,\dots,f_m$ on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$.
The above lemma can be verified with a very similar argument as described in [@Gr_Ng Theorem 3.1], by using Lemma \[katoponce\] and just replacing $L_{\sss}^2$ by $L_{\sss}^r$. Therefore, the proof will not be pursued here. As shown in [@Gr_Ng], the $L^2$ convergence in (\[l2approx\]) implies the existence of a sequence of positive numbers $\{\epsilon_j\}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, converging to $0$ as $j\to \infty$, such that $$\lim_{j\to \infty}{T_{\sigma^{\epsilon_j}}\fff(x)}=T_{\sigma}\fff(x) \qquad \text{ a.e. } ~x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}.$$ Then Fatou’s lemma and (\[sigmaapprox\]) yield that $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert T_{\sigma}\fff\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}& \leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}{\big\Vert T_{\sigma^{\epsilon_j}}\fff\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}}\lesssim \sup_{0<\epsilon<1/2}\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma^{\epsilon}]\prod_{i=1}^{m}\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^{m}\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.\end{aligned}$$ In view of this reduction, in the proof of the main theorem we may actually assume that $\sigma$ is a Schwartz function such that ${\widehat}{\sigma}$ has a compact support. Our estimates will depend only on $ \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]$ and not on other quantities related to $\sigma$.
With the regularization in Lemma \[regularization\], we may apply the following lemma in the case that for at least one $i$ with $1\leq i\leq m$ we have $p_i \le 1$, so that the $H^{p_i}$-atomic decomposition is applied.
\[switchsum\] Let $1\leq l\leq m$, $0<p_1, \dots, p_l\le 1$, and $1<p_{l+1}, \dots, p_m\le \infty$. Let $\sigma$ be a Schwartz function on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ whose Fourier transform has compact support (as $\sigma^{\epsilon}$ does in Lemma \[regularization\]). Suppose that $f_i\in H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})$, $1\le i\le l$, have atomic representations $f_i = \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{i,k_i}a_{i,k_i},$ where $a_{i,k_i}$ are $L^{\infty}$-atoms for $H^{p_i}$ and $\big( \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|{\lambda_{i,k_i}}|}^{p_i}\big)^{1/p_i}\leq \Vert{f_i}\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$. Suppose $f_i \in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for $l + 1\le i \le m$. Then $$T_{\sigma}\fff(x) = \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{1,k_1}\cdots\lambda_{l,k_l} T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m\big) (x)$$ for almost all $x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}$.
In order to establish an inequality such as (\[keypointest\]), the vanishing moment condition of $a_{i,k_i}$ will be exploited in the following way.
\[smalllemma\] Suppose that $a\in L^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ is a bounded function with a compact support and has vanishing moments in the sense that there is a $M\in {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{0\}$ such that $$\label{momentcondition}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{x^{\alpha}a(x)}dx=0, \quad |\alpha|\leq M.$$ Then for any $K\in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$ and $c_0\in{\mathbb{R}^n}$, we have $$\label{smallgoal}
\big|K\ast a(x)\big|\lesssim \int_0^1{\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{|y-c_0|^{M+1}\sum_{|\alpha|=M+1}{\big|\partial^{\alpha}K\big(x-c_0-t(y-c_0)\big) \big||a(y)|}}dy}dt.$$
We recall Taylor’s formula saying that for any $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $M\in{\mathbb{N}}\cup \{0\}$ we have $$f(x+y)=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq M}{\frac{\partial^{\alpha}f(x)}{\alpha !}y^{\alpha}}+(M+1)\sum_{|\alpha|=M+1}{\frac{1}{\alpha !}\Big( \int_0^1{(1-t)^M\partial^{\alpha}f(x+ty)}dt\Big) y^{\alpha}}.$$ Then (\[momentcondition\]) yields that the left-hand side of (\[smallgoal\]) is dominated by a constant times $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{|\alpha|=M+1}{\frac{1}{\alpha !}\int_0^1{(1-t)^M\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{\big| \partial^{\alpha}K\big(x-c_0-t(y-c_0)\big)\big||y-c_0|^{M+1}|a(y)|}dy}dt} \end{aligned}$$ and this is clearly less than the right-hand side of (\[smallgoal\]).
The argument in Lemma \[smalllemma\] will help us estimate the $L^{r'}$ norm of the product of $\langle x_1\rangle^{s_1}\cdots \langle x_m\rangle^{s_m}$ and derivatives of $\big( \sigma(2^j\cdot ){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big)^{\vee}$ to obtain the quantity $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]$, as the Hausdorff-Young inequality $\Vert F^{\vee}\Vert_{L^{r'}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\lesssim \Vert F\Vert_{L^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}$ is applicable for $1<r\leq 2$. The following lemma will play a significant role in this.
\[lem:LInfL2\] Let $1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty$, and $s_k\geq 0$ for $1\leq k\leq m$. Let ${\sigma}$ be a function defined on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ and $K={\sigma}^{\vee}$ be the inverse Fourier transform of $\sigma$. Suppose that $\sigma$ is supported in a ball of a constant radius. Then for $1\le l\le m$ and any multi-index $\aaa$ in $({\mathbb{Z}^n})^l$ there exists a constant $C_{\aaa}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\big\Vert{\langle\cdot_1\rangle^{s_{1}} \cdots\langle\cdot_l\rangle^{s_{l}}\partial^{\aaa}K(\cdot_1,\dots,\cdot_l,y_{l+1},\dots,y_m)}\big\Vert_{L^{q}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^l)}\\
&\leq C_{\aaa} \big\Vert{\langle \cdot_1\rangle^{s_{1}}\cdots\langle\cdot_l\rangle^{s_{l}}K(\cdot_1,\dots,\cdot_l,y_{l+1},\dots,y_m)}\big\Vert_{L^{p}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^l)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial^{\aaa}$ denotes $\aaa$ derivatives in the first $l$ variables.
We end this section by reviewing the technique of Grafakos and Kalton [@Gr_Ka], which will be very useful in estimating the $L^p$ norm of the sum of functions having a compact support for $0<p\leq 1$.
[@Gr_Ka Lemma 2.1]\[grkalemma\] Let $0<p\leq 1$ and $\{f_Q\}_{Q\in \mathcal{J}}$ be a family of nonnegative integrable functions with $\textup{Supp}(f_Q)\subset Q$ for all $Q\in\mathcal{J}$, where $\mathcal{J}$ is a finite or countable family of cubes in ${\mathbb{R}^n}$. Then we have $$\Big\Vert{\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{J}} f_Q}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Big\Vert{\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{J}} \Big(\frac1{{\left\vert{Q}\right\vert}}\int_Q f_Q(y) dy\Big)\chi_{Q}}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})},$$ where the constant in the inequality depends only on $p$.
Proof of Proposition \[main21\] {#proofpropo1}
===============================
Let $\theta$ and ${\widetilde}{\theta}$ denote Schwartz functions on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ having the properties $$\begin{aligned}
&\textup{Supp}({\widehat}{\theta})\subset \big\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: \tfrac{999}{1000\sqrt{m}}\leq |\xi|\leq \tfrac{1001}{1000\sqrt{m}}\big\} \\
& \textup{Supp}({\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\theta}})\subset \big\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: \tfrac{99}{100\sqrt{m}}\leq |\xi|\leq \tfrac{101}{100\sqrt{m}}\big\} &\end{aligned}$$ and $ {\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\theta}}(\xi)=1 $ for $\frac{999}{1000\sqrt{m}}\leq |\xi|\leq \frac{1001}{1000\sqrt{m}}.$ Then it is clear that $\theta\ast {\widetilde}{\theta}=\theta$.
Choose $2/r<\delta\leq 2$ and let $N>0$ be a sufficiently large number to be chosen later. Recall that our fixed Schwartz function $\phi_j$ satisfies $\textup{Supp}(\phi_j)\subset \{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: |\xi|\leq 2^{j+1}\}$ and ${\widehat}{\phi_j}(\xi)=1$ for $|\xi|\leq 2^j$. We define $$\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}(x):=\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}(x){\widehat}{\phi_N}(x), \qquad x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}$$ and $$\sigma^{(N)}(\xxxi):={\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{N}}(\xi_1){\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\theta}}(\xi_1){\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\theta}}(\xi_2)\cdots {\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\theta}}(\xi_m), \qquad \xxxi\in ({\mathbb{R}^n})^m ,$$ where $\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}$ is defined in (\[hdefinition\]).
It follows from the support of ${\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\theta}}$ that $\sigma^{(N)}$ is supported in $\{\xxxi\in ({\mathbb{R}^n})^m: \frac{99}{100} \leq |\xxxi| \leq\frac{101}{100}\}$, which implies that $\sigma(2^l\xxxi){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}(\xxxi)$ vanishes unless $-1\leq l\leq 1$. Moreover, in view of Lemma \[katoponce\] we have $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma^{(N)}]\lesssim \max_{-1\leq l\leq 1}{\big\Vert \sigma^{(N)}(2^l\cdot_1,\dots,2^l\cdot_m)\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{r}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}},$$ which can be estimated, via scaling, by a constant times $$\label{scalingargument}
\Vert \sigma^{(N)}\Vert_{L_{\sss}^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\lesssim \Big\Vert {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}}\cdot{\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\theta}}\Big\Vert_{L_{s_1}^{r}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \big\Vert {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}}\big\Vert_{L_{s_1}^{r}({\mathbb{R}^n})},$$ where we used Lemma \[katoponce\] in the last inequality. We observe that $$(I-\Delta)^{s_1/2}{\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}}(\xi)={\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n-s_1,\delta)}^{(N)}}(\xi)=\phi_N\ast {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n-s_1,\delta)}}(\xi)$$ and ${\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n-s_1),\delta}}\in L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})$, using (\[hproperty4\]) with $\delta >2/r$ and $s_1=n/r$. Since $\{\phi_N\}_{N\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ is an approximate identity, we have $$\lim_{N\to \infty}\Big\Vert \phi_N\ast {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n-s_1,\delta)}}-{\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n-s_1,\delta)}}\Big\Vert_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})}=0,$$ which proves $$\label{lsigmabound}
\limsup_{N\to\infty}\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma^{(N)}]\lesssim \lim_{N\to \infty}\Big\Vert \phi_N\ast {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n-s_1,\delta)}}\Big\Vert_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq \big\Vert {\widehat}{\mathcal{H}_{(n-s_1,\delta)}} \big\Vert_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})}<\infty.$$
On the other hand, for $0<\epsilon<1/100$, let $$f^{(\epsilon)}_j(x):=\epsilon^{n/p_j}{\theta}(\epsilon x), ~~1\leq j\leq m.$$ Then it is clear, from the Littlewood-Paley theory for Hardy spaces and scaling arguments that for each $1\leq j\leq m$ $$\label{secondest}
\big\Vert f_j^{(\epsilon)}\big\Vert_{H^{p_j}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\approx \big\Vert f_j^{(\epsilon)}\big\Vert_{L^{p_j}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\Vert \theta\Vert_{L^{p_j}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1,\qquad \text{ uniformly in }~~\epsilon.$$ Moreover, we observe that $$\Big| T_{\sigma^{(N)}}\big(f_1^{(\epsilon)},\dots,f_m^{(\epsilon)}\big)(x) \Big|=\epsilon^{n/p}\Big|\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}\ast \big( \theta(\epsilon\cdot)\big)(x) \Big| \big|\theta(\epsilon x)\big|^{m-1}$$ and this, together with scaling, yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert T_{\sigma^{(N)}}\big(f_1^{(\epsilon)},\dots,f_m^{(\epsilon)} \big)\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\Big\Vert \big|\theta\big|^{m-1}\Big( \mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}\ast\big(\theta(\epsilon\cdot)\big)\Big)(\cdot/\epsilon)\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying (\[secondest\]) and Fatou’s lemma, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert T_{\sigma^{(N)}}\big\Vert_{H^{p_1}\times\cdots\times H^{p_m}\to L^p}&\gtrsim \liminf_{\epsilon\to 0} \Big\Vert T_{\sigma^{(N)}}\big(f_1^{(\epsilon)},\dots,f_m^{(\epsilon)} \big)\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\nonumber\\
&\geq \Big\Vert \big| \theta\big|^{m-1}\Big| \liminf_{\epsilon\to 0}\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{\theta(x-\epsilon y)\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}(y)}dy\Big|\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}.\label{continueest}\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\big| \theta(x-\epsilon y)\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}(y)\big|\lesssim \mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}(y) \quad \text{ uniformly in }~\epsilon>0, x\in{\mathbb{R}^n}$$ and $$\big\Vert \mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}\big\Vert_{L^1({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq \big\Vert {\widehat}{\phi_N}\big\Vert_{L^1({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim N^n<\infty,$$ the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem yields $$(\ref{continueest})=\big\Vert | \theta |^m\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}^{(N)}(y)}dy\approx \int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}(y){\widehat}{\phi_N}(y)}dy.$$ Taking $\liminf_{N\to \infty}$, we finally obtain that $$\liminf_{N\to\infty}\big\Vert T_{\sigma^{(N)}}\big\Vert_{H^{p_1}\times\cdots\times H^{p_m}\to L^p}\gtrsim \big\Vert \mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}\big\Vert_{L^1({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\infty$$ where we applied the monotone convergence theorem and the fact that $\mathcal{H}_{(n,\delta)}\not\in L^1({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for $\delta\leq 2$ because of (\[hproperty2\]).
This fact combined with (\[lsigmabound\]) completes the proof.
Proof of Proposition \[main22\]
===============================
We first consider the case $1\leq l<m$. Let $\mu_1:=(m^{-1/2},0,\dots,0)\in{\mathbb{R}^n}$. The condition $$\sum_{k=1}^{l}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k}\big)}\leq- {1}/{r'}$$ is equivalent to $$\label{equivcondition}
s_1+\dots +s_l+n/r' \leq n/p_1+\dots+n/p_l=n/p-\big(n/p_{l+1}+\dots+n/p_m).$$ On the other hand, it follows from the condition $s_j>n/r$, $1\leq j\leq m$, that $$s_1+\dots+s_l+n/r'>ln/r+n/r',$$ which further implies, combined with (\[equivcondition\]), that $$2l/r+2/r'<2/p-\big(2/p_{l+1}+\dots+2/p_m \big).$$ Now we choose $\tau, \tau_{l+1},\dots, \tau_m>0$ such that $$\tau_{l+1}>2/p_{l+1},\dots,\tau_m>2/p_m$$ and $$\label{taucondition}
2/r<\tau<2l/r+2/r'<2/p-(\tau_{l+1}+\dots+\tau_m)<2/p-(2/p_{l+1}+\dots+2/p_m).$$
Let $\varphi,{\widetilde}{\varphi}\in S({\mathbb{R}^n})$ be radial functions having the properties that $\varphi\geq 0$, $\varphi(0)\not= 0$, $\textup{Supp}({\widehat}{\varphi})\subset \{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: |\xi|\leq \frac{1}{200lm}\}$, $\textup{Supp}({\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\varphi}})\subset \{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: |\xi|\leq \frac{1}{100m}\}$, and ${\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\varphi}}(\xi)=1$ for $|\xi|\leq \frac{1}{200m}$. In what follows, we denote $\mathcal{H}_{(s_1+\dots+s_l+n/r',\tau)}$ by $\mathcal{H}$ for notational convenience. We define $$K^{(l)}(x):=\mathcal{H}\ast \varphi(x), \quad x\in{\mathbb{R}^n},$$ and $$M^{(l)}(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_l):={(K^{(l)})}^{\vee}\Big(\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(\xi_k-\mu_1)} \Big) \prod_{j=2}^{l} {\varphi}^{\vee}\Big(\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(\xi_k-\xi_j)} \Big)$$ where $M^{(l)}$ is defined on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^l$. Then the multiplier $\sigma$ on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ is defined by $$\sigma(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m):=M^{(l)}(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_l){{\widetilde}{\varphi}}^{\vee}(\xi_{l+1}-\mu_1)\cdots {{\widetilde}{\varphi}}^{\vee}(\xi_{m}-\mu_1).$$ To investigate the support of $\sigma$ we first look at the support of $M^{(l)}$. From the support of ${\varphi}^{\vee}$, we have $$\big| \xi_1+\dots+\xi_l-l\mu_1\big|\leq \frac{1}{200m},$$ and for each $2\leq j\leq l$ $$\label{jest}
\big| \xi_1+\dots+\xi_l-l\xi_j\big|\leq \frac{1}{200m}.$$ By adding up all of them, we obtain $$\label{1est}
\big| \xi_1-\mu_1\big|\leq \frac{1}{200m}$$ and the sum of (\[jest\]) and (\[1est\]) yields that for each $2\leq j\leq l$ $$\big| \mu_1+\xi_2+\dots+\xi_l-l\xi_j\big|\leq \frac{1}{100m}.$$ Let us call the above estimate $\mathcal{E}(j)$. Then for $2\leq j\leq l$, it follows from $$\mathcal{E}(j)+\sum_{k=2}^{l}\mathcal{E}(k)$$ that $$\big|\xi_j-\mu_1\big|\leq \frac{1}{100m},$$ which proves, together with (\[1est\]), that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{supportm}
\textup{Supp}(M^{(l)})&\subset \Big\{ (\xi_1,\dots,\xi_l)\in ({\mathbb{R}^n})^l: |\xi_j-\mu_1|\leq \frac{1}{100m}, ~ 1\leq j\leq l \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\varphi}}$ is also supported in $\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: |\xi|\leq \frac{1}{100{m}}\}$, it is clear that $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{Supp}(\sigma)&\subset \Big\{ (\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)\in ({\mathbb{R}^n})^m: |\xi_j-\mu_1|\leq \frac{1}{100m}, ~ 1\leq j\leq m \Big\}\\
&\subset \Big\{\xxxi:=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m)\in ({\mathbb{R}^n})^m: \frac{99}{100}\leq |\xxxi|\leq \frac{101}{100} \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ which shows that $\sigma(2^l\xxxi ){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}(\xxxi)$ vanishes unless $-1\leq l\leq 1$. Furthermore, using Lemma \[katoponce\] and the scaling argument in the derivation of (\[scalingargument\]), we have $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\lesssim \sup_{-1\leq l\leq 1}{\Big\Vert \sigma(2^l\cdot){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\Big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{r}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}} \lesssim \Vert \sigma\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{r}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}$$ and this is clearly less than a constant times $$\big\Vert M^{(l)}\big\Vert_{L_{(s_1,\dots,s_l)}^{r}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^l)}\prod_{j=l+1}^{m}{\big\Vert {{\widetilde}{\varphi}}^{\vee}\big\Vert_{L_{s_j}^{r}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}\lesssim \big\Vert (I-\Delta_1)^{s_1/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_l)^{s_l/2}M^{(l)}\big\Vert_{L^{r}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^l)}.$$ We observe that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\widehat}{M^{(l)}}(x_1,\dots,x_l)\\
&=\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^l}{ ({K^{(l)}})^{\vee}\Big(\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(\xi_k-\mu_1)} \Big)\Big[ \prod_{j=2}^{l} {\varphi}^{\vee}\Big(\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(\xi_k-\xi_j)} \Big)\Big] \Big(\prod_{j=1}^{l}e^{-2\pi i\langle x_j,\xi_j\rangle}\Big)}d\xi_1\cdots d\xi_l.\end{aligned}$$ Using a change of variables with $$\zeta_1:=\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(\xi_k-\mu_1)}, \qquad \text{ and }\qquad \zeta_j:=\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(\xi_k-\xi_j)}, \quad 2\leq j\leq l$$ so that $$\label{system}
\xi_1=\zeta_1+\dots+\zeta_l+\mu_1, \qquad \text{ and }\qquad \xi_j=\zeta_1-\zeta_j+\mu_1, \quad 2\leq j\leq l,$$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mlexpression}
{\widehat}{M^{(l)}}(x_1,\dots,x_l)&= le^{-2\pi i\langle \sum_{k=1}^{l}x_k,\mu_1\rangle}\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^l}{({K^{(l)}})^{\vee}(\zeta_1)\Big(\prod_{j=2}^{l}{{\varphi}^{\vee}(\zeta_j)}\Big)e^{-2\pi i\langle \sum_{k=1}^{l}x_k,\zeta_1\rangle}}\nonumber \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \quad \times {\Big(\prod_{j=2}^{l}{e^{-2\pi i\langle x_1-x_j,\zeta_j\rangle} }\Big) }d\zeta_1\cdots d\zeta_l\nonumber\\
&=l K^{(l)}(x_1+\dots+x_l)\varphi(x_1-x_2)\cdots \varphi(x_1-x_l)e^{-2\pi i\langle x_1+\dots+x_l,\mu_1\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ since the Jacobian of the system (\[system\]) is $l$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
&(I-\Delta_1)^{s_1/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_l)^{s_l/2}M^{(l)}(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_l)\\
&=l\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^l}{ \Big( \prod_{j=1}^{l}\langle x_j \rangle^{s_j}\Big) K^{(l)}(x_1+\dots+x_l)\varphi(x_1-x_2)\cdots \varphi(x_1-x_l)}\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad {e^{-2\pi i\langle x_1+\dots+x_l,\mu_1\rangle} e^{2\pi i\langle x_1,\xi_1\rangle}\cdots e^{2\pi i\langle x_l,\xi_l\rangle} }dx_1\cdots dx_l\end{aligned}$$ and we perform another change of variables with $$y_1:=x_1+\dots+x_l, \qquad \text{ and }\qquad y_j:=x_1-x_j, \quad 2\leq j\leq l,$$ which is equivalent to $$x_1=\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{y_k}, \qquad \text{ and }\qquad x_j=\frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)}, \quad 2\leq j\leq l,$$ to obtain that the last expression is controlled by a constant times $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^l}{\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{s_1} \Big( \prod_{j=2}^{l}\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{s_j}\Big) K^{(l)}(y_1)\Big( \prod_{j=2}^{l}\varphi(y_j)\Big)}\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \times e^{2\pi i\langle y_1,\frac{1}{l}(\xi_1+\dots+\xi_l)-\mu_1\rangle }\Big(\prod_{j=2}^{l}e^{2\pi i\langle y_j,\frac{1}{l}(\xi_1+\dots+\xi_l)-\xi_j\rangle} \Big) dy_1\cdots dy_l.\end{aligned}$$ In conclusion, using a change of variables, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conclude}
\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]&\lesssim \Big\Vert \int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^l}{\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{s_1} \Big( \prod_{j=2}^{l}\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{s_j}\Big)}\\
& \qquad \qquad \quad \times K^{(l)}(y_1)\Big( \prod_{j=2}^{l}\varphi(y_j)\Big)\Big(\prod_{j=1}^{l}e^{2\pi i\langle y_j,\xi_j\rangle} \Big) dy_1\cdots dy_l\Big\Vert_{L^r( \xi_1,\dots,\xi_m )}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For sufficiently large $M>0$, let $$\mathcal{N}_{(M)}(y_1,\dots,y_l):=\dfrac{ \Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{s_1} \prod_{j=2}^{l}\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{s_j}}{\langle y_1\rangle^{s_1+\dots+s_l}\prod_{j=2}^{l}{\langle y_j\rangle^{M}} }.$$ Then the right-hand side of (\[conclude\]) can be written as $$\label{mainterm}
\Big\Vert T_{\mathcal{N}_{(M)}}\Big((K^{(l)}_{s_1+\dots+s_l})^{\vee}\otimes (\varphi^{(M)})^{\vee}\otimes \cdots\otimes(\varphi^{(M)})^{\vee}\Big) \Big\Vert_{L^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^l)}$$ where $$K_{(s_1+\dots+s_l)}^{(l)}(y_1):=\langle y_1\rangle^{s_1+\dots+s_l}K^{(l)}(y_1), \qquad \varphi^{(M)}(y):=\langle y\rangle^{M}\varphi(y).$$ Now we need the following lemma whose proof will be provided in Section \[prooflemmas\].
\[nmmultiplier\] Let $M>s_1+\dots+s_l+n+2$. Then $\mathcal{N}_{(M)}$ is an $L^r$ multiplier on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^l$.
By choosing $M>s_1+\dots+s_l+n+2$ and using Lemma \[nmmultiplier\] and \[katoponce\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(\ref{mainterm})&\lesssim \big\Vert (K^{(l)}_{(s_1+\dots+s_l)})^{\vee}\otimes (\varphi^{(M)})^{\vee}\otimes \cdots\otimes(\varphi^{(M)})^{\vee}\big\Vert_{L^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^l)}\\
&\lesssim \big\Vert (I-\Delta)^{(s_1+\dots+s_l)/2}(K^{(l)})^{\vee}\big\Vert_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})}= \big\Vert (I-\Delta)^{(s_1+\dots+s_l)/2}\big( \mathcal{H}^{\vee}\varphi^{\vee}\big)\big\Vert_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \big\Vert (I-\Delta)^{(s_1+\dots+s_l)/2}\mathcal{H}_{(s_1+\dots+s_l+n/r',\tau)}^{\vee}\big\Vert_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\big\Vert{\widehat}{ \mathcal{H}_{(n/r',\tau)}}\big\Vert_{L^r({\mathbb{R}^n})}\end{aligned}$$ and this is finite because of (\[hproperty4\]) with $\tau>2/r$, which concludes that $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty.$$
To achieve $$\label{achieve}
\Vert T_{\sigma}\Vert_{H^{p_1}\times \dots\times H^{p_m}\to L^p}=\infty,$$ let $$f_1(x)=\dots=f_l(x):=2^n{\widetilde}{\varphi}(2x)e^{2\pi i\langle x,\mu_1\rangle},$$ $$f_j(x):=\mathcal{H}_{(n/p_j,\tau_j)}\ast \varphi(x)e^{2\pi i\langle x,\mu_1\rangle}, \quad l+1\leq j\leq m.$$ Clearly, $\Vert f_j\Vert_{H^{p_j}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1$ for $1\leq j\leq l$ and $$\Vert f_j\Vert_{H^{p_j}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\approx \Vert f_j\Vert_{L^{p_j}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \big\Vert \mathcal{H}_{(n/p_j,\tau_j)}\big\Vert_{L^{p_j}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1, \quad l+1\leq j\leq m$$ due to (\[hproperty2\]) with $\tau_j>2/p_j$, where the pointwise estimate $\mathcal{H}_{(n/p_j,\tau_j)}\ast \varphi(x)\lesssim \mathcal{H}_{(n/p_j,\tau_j)}(x)$ is applied. On the other hand, using (\[supportm\]) and the facts that $\varphi\ast {\widetilde}{\varphi}=\varphi$ and $${\widehat}{f_j}(\xi)=1 \qquad \text{ for }~~ |\xi-\mu_1|\leq \frac{1}{100m} ~ \text{ and }~ ~ 1\leq j\leq l,$$ we see that $$\sigma(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_m){\widehat}{f_1}(\xi_1)\cdots{\widehat}{f_m}(\xi_m)=M^{(l)}(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_l){\widehat}{f_{l+1}}(\xi_{l+1})\cdots{\widehat}{f_m}(\xi_{m}),$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\big| T_{\sigma}\fff (x)\big|&= \big| \big( M^{(l)}\big)^{\vee}(x,\dots,x)\big| \big|f_{l+1}(x)\big|\cdots \big|f_{m}(x)\big|\\
&=l \big| K^{(l)}(lx)\big|\big| \varphi(0)\big|^{l-1} \prod_{j=l+1}^{m}\big|\mathcal{H}_{(n/p_{j},\tau_{j})}\ast \varphi(x)\big|\end{aligned}$$ where we applied (\[mlexpression\]) and the fact that $K^{(l)}$ is a radial function. Now, since $$\mathcal{H}_{(s,\gamma)}\ast \varphi(x)\gtrsim \mathcal{H}_{(s,\gamma)}(x) \quad \text{ for any }~ s,\gamma>0,$$ which follows from the fact that $\varphi, \mathcal{H}_{(s,\gamma)}\geq 0$ and (\[hproperty1\]), we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert T_{\sigma}\fff(x)\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}&\gtrsim \Big\Vert \mathcal{H}(l\cdot)\prod_{j=l+1}^{m}{\mathcal{H}_{(n/p_j,\tau_j)}}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\approx\Big\Vert \mathcal{H}_{(s_1+\dots+s_l+n/r',\tau)}\prod_{j=l+1}^{m}{\mathcal{H}_{(n/p_j,\tau_j)}}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&= \big\Vert \mathcal{H}_{(s_1+\dots+s_l+n/p_{l+1}+\dots+n/p_m+n/r',\tau+\tau_{l+1}+\dots+\tau_m)} \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}. \end{aligned}$$ Since $s_1+\dots+s_l+n/p_{l+1}+\dots+n/p_m+n/r'\leq n/p$ due to (\[equivcondition\]), the last expression is greater than $$\big\Vert \mathcal{H}_{(n/p,\tau+\tau_{l+1}+\dots+\tau_m)}\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\infty$$ because of (\[hproperty2\]) with $\tau+\tau_{l+1}+\dots+\tau_{m}<p/2$, which follows from (\[taucondition\]). This completes the proof of (\[achieve\]).
When $l=m$, exactly the same argument is applicable with $2/r<\tau<2m/r+2/r'<{2}/{p}$, $\sigma:=M^{(m)}$, and $f_j(x):=2^d{\widetilde}{\varphi}(2x)e^{2\pi i\langle x,\mu_1\rangle}$ for $1\leq j\leq m$. Since the proof is just a repetition, we omit the details.
Proof of Proposition \[propo1\]
===============================
Let ${\Theta^{(m)}}$ be a Schwartz function on $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$ such that $0\leq {\widehat}{\Theta^{(m)}}\leq 1$, ${\widehat}{\Theta^{(m)}}(\xxxi)=1$ for $2^{-2}m^{-1/2}\leq |\xxxi|\leq 2^2m^{1/2}$, and $\textup{Supp}({\widehat}{\Theta^{(m)}})\subset \big\{ \xxxi \in({\mathbb{R}^n})^m: 2^{-3}m^{-1/2}\leq |\xxxi|\leq 2^{3}m^{1/2}\big\}$. Then using the Littlewood-Paley partition of unity $\big\{2^{jmn}\Psi^{(m)}(2^j\cdot)\big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$, the triangle inequality, and Lemma \[katoponce\], we first see that $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,{\Theta^{(m)}}}[\sigma]\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma].$ Thus it suffices to prove the estimate $$\big\Vert T_{\sigma}\fff \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,{\Theta^{(m)}}}[\sigma] \prod_{i=1}^{m}\Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$$ as $L^{p_i}=H^{p_i}$ for $1<p_i\leq \infty$. We adopt the notation $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]:= \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,{\Theta^{(m)}}}[\sigma] $ for simplicity.
It follows from (\[conditionsss\]) that there exists $1<t<r$ such that $$s_1,\dots,s_m>n/t>n/r.$$ Since $\sigma(2^j\vec{\; \cdot\;} ){\widehat}{\Theta^{(m)}}$ has a compact support in an annulus of a constant size, independent of $j$, we have $$\label{compactembedding1}
\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{t}[\sigma]\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]$$ as $1<t<r$. See [@Gr2 Section 5] for more details.
Using the Littlewood-Paley partition of unity $\{\psi_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}$, we decompose $\sigma(\xxxi)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigmadecompo}
\sigma(\xxxi)&=\sum_{j_1,\dots,j_m \in \mathbb{Z}}{\sigma(\xxxi)\widehat{\psi_{j_1}}(\xi_1)\cdots \widehat{\psi_{j_m}}(\xi_m)}\\
&=\Big(\sum_{j_1\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{j_2,\dots,j_m\leq j_1}{\cdots}\Big)+\Big(\sum_{j_2\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{\substack{j_1<j_2\\j_3,\dots,j_m\leq j_2}}{\cdots}\Big)+\dots+ \Big(\sum_{j_m\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{j_1,\dots,j_{m-1}<j_m}{\cdots}\Big)\nonumber\\
&=:\sigma^{(1)}(\xxxi)+\sigma^{(2)}(\xxxi)+\dots+\sigma^{(m)}(\xxxi).\label{sigmakappa}\end{aligned}$$ We are only concerned with $\sigma^{(1)}$ appealing to symmetry for the other cases. Thus, our goal is to show that $$\big\Vert T_{\sigma^{(1)}}\fff \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \prod_{i=1}^{m}\Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$
We write $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{(1)}(\xxxi)&=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{j_2,\dots,j_m\leq j}{\sigma(\xxxi)\widehat{\psi_j}(\xi_1)\widehat{\psi_{j_2}}(\xi_2)\cdots\widehat{\psi_{j_m}}(\xi_m)}\\
&=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}{\sigma(\xxxi){\widehat}{\Theta^{(m)}}(\xxxi/2^j) \widehat{\psi_j}(\xi_1)\sum_{j_2,\dots,j_m\leq j}\widehat{\psi_{j_2}}(\xi_2)\cdots\widehat{\psi_{j_m}}(\xi_m)}, \end{aligned}$$ since ${\widehat}{\Theta^{(m)}}(\xxxi/2^j)=1$ for $ 2^{j-1}\leq |\xi_1|\leq 2^{j+1}$ and $|\xi_i|\leq 2^{j+1}$ for $2\leq i\leq m$. Let $$\sigma_j(\xxxi):=\sigma(\xxxi){\widehat}{\Theta^{(m)}}(\xxxi/2^j).$$ Then we note that $$\label{mkbound}
\big\Vert \sigma_j(2^j\cdot )\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^t(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\leq \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^t[\sigma]$$ and $$\sigma^{(1)}(\xxxi)=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}{\sigma_j(\xxxi) \widehat{\psi_j}(\xi_1)\sum_{j_2,\dots,j_m\leq j}\widehat{\psi_{j_2}}(\xi_2)\cdots\widehat{\psi_{j_m}}(\xi_m)}.$$ We further decompose $\sigma^{(1)}$ as $$\sigma^{(1)}(\xxxi)=\sigma^{(1)}_{low}(\xxxi)+\sigma^{(1)}_{high}(\xxxi)$$ where $$\sigma^{(1)}_{low}(\xxxi):=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\sigma_j(\xxxi)\widehat{\psi_j}(\xi_1)\sum_{\substack{j_2,\dots,j_m\leq j\\ \max_{2\leq i\leq m}{(j_i)}\geq j-3-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor}}{\widehat{\psi_{j_2}}(\xi_2)\cdots\widehat{\psi_{j_m}}(\xi_m)},$$ $$\label{highdef}
\sigma^{(1)}_{high}(\xxxi):=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\sigma_j(\xxxi)\widehat{\psi_j}(\xi_1)\sum_{j_2,\dots,j_m\leq j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}{\widehat{\psi_{j_2}}(\xi_2)\cdots\widehat{\psi_{j_m}}(\xi_m)}.$$ We refer to $T_{\sigma_{low}^{(1)}}$ as the low frequency part and $T_{\sigma_{high}^{(1)}}$ as the high frequency part of $T_{\sigma^{(1)}}$ $\big($due to the Fourier supports of the summands in $T_{\sigma_{low}^{(1)}}\fff$ and $T_{\sigma_{high}^{(1)}}\fff$$\big)$.
Low frequency part {#lowfrequencypart}
------------------
To establish the estimate for the operator $T_{\sigma^{(1)}_{low}}$, we first observe that $$T_{\sigma^{(1)}_{low}}\fff(x)=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{\substack{j_2,\dots,j_m\leq j\\ \max_{2\leq i\leq m}{(j_i)}\geq j-3-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor}} {T_{\sigma_j}\big( (f_1)_j,(f_2)_{j_2},\dots,(f_m)_{j_m}\big)(x)}$$ where $(g)_l:=\psi_l\ast g$ for $g\in \SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$ and $l\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. It suffices to treat only the sum over $j_3,\dots,j_m\leq j_2$ and $j-3-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor \leq j_2\leq j$, and we will actually prove that $$\label{goal1}
\Big\Vert \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{\substack{j-3-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor \leq j_2\leq j\\ j_3,\dots,j_m\leq j_2 }}T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)_{j_2},\dots,(f_m)_{j_m} \big)\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^{m}\Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$ Let $\phi$ be a Schwartz function, defined in (\[phidef\]) and $\phi_j:=2^{jn}\phi(2^j\cdot)$ for $j\in\mathbb{Z}$. Let $(g)^l:=\phi_l\ast g$ for $g\in\SS({\mathbb{R}^n})$. Then we can write $$\sum_{j_3,\dots,j_n\leq j_2}T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)_{j_2},\dots,(f_m)_{j_m} \big)(x)=T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)_{j_2},(f_3)^{j_2},\dots,(f_m)^{j_2} \big)(x).$$ Since the sum over $j_2$ in the left-hand side of (\[goal1\]) is a finite sum over $j_2$ near $j$, we may consider only the case $j_2=j$ and thus our claim is $$\label{mainmainclaim}
\Big\Vert \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}{T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)_j,(f_3)^j,\dots,(f_m)^j \big)}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^{m}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}.$$
Using Lemma \[keyestilemma\], (\[mkbound\]), and (\[compactembedding1\]), we obtain the pointwise estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{keyestimate}
&\big|T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)_j,(f_3)^j,\dots,(f_m)^j \big)(x) \big|\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{2}\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^{t}(f_i)_j(x)\Big)\Big(\prod_{i=3}^{m}\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^{t}(f_i)^j(x)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Since $s_1,s_2>n/t=n/\min{(p_1,2,t)}=n/\min{(p_2,2,t)}$, it follows from Lemma \[equivalence\] that for any dyadic cube $Q\in\mathcal{D}$ there exists measurable proper subsets $S_{Q}^1$ and $S_{Q}^2$ of $Q$ such that $|S_Q^1|,|S_Q^2|>\frac{3}{4}|Q|$ and $$\label{equivX}
\Vert f_i\Vert_{X^{p_i}}\approx \Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^t(f_i)_j(y) }\Big)\chi_{S_Q^i}}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}(\ell^2)}, \quad i=1,2.$$ Note that $|S_Q^{1}\cap S_Q^{2}|\geq \frac{1}{2}|Q|$ and thus, for any $\tau>0$ $$\label{intersectionchi}
\chi_Q(x)\lesssim_{\tau}\mathcal{M}_{\tau}\big(\chi_{S_Q^{(1)}\cap S_Q^{(2)}}\big)(x)\chi_Q(x),$$ using the argument in (\[inversechi\]). Clearly, the constant in the inequality is independent of $Q$. Now we choose $\tau<\min{(1,p)}$, and apply (\[keyestimate\]), (\[intersectionchi\]), and (\[maximal1\]), as in the proof of Lemma \[bmoboundlemma\], to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\Vert \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}{T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)_j,(f_3)^j,\dots,(f_m)^j \big)}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\Big\Vert \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}{\sum_{Q\in \mathcal{D}_j}{\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{2}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^t(f_i)_j}\Big)\Big(\prod_{i=3}^{m}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^t(f_i)^j}\Big) \chi_Q }}\Big\Vert_{L^{p}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma] \Big\Vert \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}{\sum_{Q\in \mathcal{D}_j}{\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Omega_{s_i,t}^{Q,1}f_i\Big)\Big( \prod_{i=3}^{m} \Omega_{s_i,t}^{Q,2}f_i\Big) \mathcal{M}_{\tau}{(\chi_{S_Q^{1}\cap S_Q^{2}}) }}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma] \Big\Vert \sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}{\sum_{Q\in \mathcal{D}_j}{\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Omega_{s_i,t}^{Q,1}f_i\Big)\Big( \prod_{i=3}^{m} \Omega_{s_i,t}^{Q,2}f_i\Big) {\chi_{S_Q^{1}} }{\chi_{S_Q^{2}} }}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p}({\mathbb{R}^n})} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_{s,t}^{Q,1}g:=\inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s,2^j}^t(g)_j(y)}$ and $\Omega_{s,t}^{Q,2}g:=\inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s,2^j}^t(g)^j(y)}$ for all $Q\in\mathcal{D}_j$.
Using Hölder’s inequality and the fact that $\Omega_{s_i,t}^{Q,2}f_i\leq \mathfrak{M}_{s_i,t}^t(f_i)^j(x)$ for all $x\in Q\in\mathcal{D}_j$, the $L^p$ norm in the last displayed expression is bounded by a constant times $$\begin{aligned}
& \Big( \prod_{i=1}^{2}\Big\Vert \Big\{\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{ \Omega_{s_i,t}^{Q,1}f_i \cdot \chi_{S_Q^{i}} }\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}(\ell^2)}\Big) \Big(\prod_{i=3}^{m}{\big\Vert \big\{ \mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^{t}(f_i)^j\big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\big\Vert_{L^{p_i}(\ell^{\infty})}}\Big)\\
&\lesssim \Vert f_1\Vert_{X^{p_1}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\Vert f_2\Vert_{X^{p_2}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\prod_{i=3}^{m}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}} , \end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from Lemma \[maximal2\], \[equivalence\], and the definition of Hardy space $H^p$. Since $H^p=L^p\subset X^p$ when $1<p\leq \infty$, we finally obtain (\[mainmainclaim\]).
High frequency part
-------------------
The proof for the high frequency part relies on the fact that if $\widehat{g_j}$ is supported on $\{\xi\in {\mathbb{R}^n}: C^{-1} 2^{j}\leq |\xi|\leq C2^{j}\}$ for some $C>1$, then $$\label{marshall}
\Big\Vert \Big\{ \psi_j\ast \Big(\sum_{l=j-h}^{j+h}{g_l}\Big)\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^q)}\lesssim_{h,C} \big\Vert \big\{ g_j\big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^q)}, \qquad 0<p<\infty$$ for $h\in \mathbb{N}$. The proof of (\[marshall\]) is elementary and standard, so it is omitted here. Just use the estimate $|\psi_j\ast g_l(x)|\lesssim_{\sigma} \mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^l}g_l(x)$ for $0<\sigma<p,q$ and $j-h\leq l\leq j+h$, and apply Lemma \[maximal2\].
We note that $$T_{\sigma_{high}^{(1)}}\fff(x)=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}{T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)^{j,m},\dots, (f_m)^{j,m} \big)(x)}$$ where $\phi_l$ is defined as in the previous subsection and $(f_i)^{j,m}:=\phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor}\ast f_i$ for $2\leq i\leq m$. Observe that the Fourier transform of $T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)^{j,m},\dots,(f_m)^{j,m} \big)$ is supported in $\big\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^n}: 2^{j-3}\leq |\xi|\leq 2^{j+3} \big\}$ and thus (\[marshall\]) yields that $$\label{squareexpression}
\big\Vert T_{\sigma_{high}^{(1)}}\fff \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim \big\Vert \big\{ T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)^{j,m},\dots,(f_m)^{j,m} \big)\big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^{2})}.$$ Moreover, it follows from Lemma \[keyestilemma\], (\[mkbound\]), and (\[compactembedding1\]), that $$\big| T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)_j,(f_2)^{j,m},\dots,(f_m)^{j,m} \big)(x)\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^{t}(f_1)_j(x)\prod_{i=2}^{m}\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^{t}(f_i)^{j,m}(x).$$
For $Q\in\mathcal{D}$ let $S_Q^1$ be a measurable proper subset of $Q$ such that $|S_Q^1|>\frac{3}{4}|Q|$ and (\[equivX\]) holds for $i=1$ as before, and we proceed the similar arguments to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&\big\Vert T_{\sigma_{high}^{(1)}}\fff \big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\Big\Vert \Big\{ \mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^{t}(f_1)_j\prod_{i=2}^{m}\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^{t}(f_i)^{j,m}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \Big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^2)}\\
&\qquad \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{ \Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^{t}(f_1)_j(y)}\Big) \Big[\prod_{i=2}^{m}\Big(\inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^{t}(f_i)^{j,m}(y)\Big) }\Big]\chi_{S_Q^1}} \Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \Big\Vert_{L^p(\ell^2)}\\
&\qquad \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\Big\Vert \Big\{ \sum_{Q\in\mathcal{D}_j}{\Big( \inf_{y\in Q}{\mathfrak{M}_{s_1,2^j}^t(f_1)(y)}\Big)\chi_{S_Q^1}}\Big\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_1}(\ell^2)} \prod_{i=2}^{m}{\Big\Vert \sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|\phi_{j}\ast f_i\big|\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}\\
&\qquad \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\Vert f_1\Vert_{X^{p_1}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\prod_{i=2}^{m}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^{m}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}.\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Proposition \[propo2\]
===============================
We consider only the case $l<m$ as a similar and simpler procedure is applicable to the case $l=m$. Let $1\leq l<m$, $0<p_1,\dots,p_l\leq 1$, $p_{l+1}=\dots=p_m=\infty$, and $1/p=1/p_1+\dots+1/p_l$. For simplicity we assume that $\Vert f_{l+1}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\cdots=\Vert f_{m}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$. Then the aim is to show that $$\label{equ:TSigSmP}
\big\Vert{T_{\sigma}\fff}\big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] \prod_{i=1}^{l} \Vert{f_i}\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$ Let $f_i\in H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for $1\leq i\leq l$. Using atomic representations, we write $$f_i = \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{i,k_i}a_{i,k_i},\quad 1\le i\le l,$$ where $a_{i,k_i}$ are $L^\infty$-atoms for $H^{p_i}$ satisfying $$\label{atomproperty1}
\textup{Supp}(a_{i,k_i})\subset Q_{i,k_i},\quad \Vert{a_{i,k_i}}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\le {|{Q_{i,k_i}}|}^{-1/p_i},\quad \int_{Q_{i,k_i}}x^{\alpha}a_{i,k_i}(x)dx=0$$ for ${\left\vert{\alpha}\right\vert}<N_i$ with $N_i$ large enough, and $$\label{atomproperty2}
\Big(\sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{\left\vert{\lambda_{i,k_i}}\right\vert}^{p_i}\Big)^{1/p_i} \lesssim\Vert{f_i}\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$ By the regularization in Lemma \[regularization\], we can assume that $\sigma$ is a Schwartz function whose Fourier transform has a compact support in $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$. Then Lemma \[switchsum\] yields that $$\label{exchangesumoperator}
T_{\sigma}\fff(x) = \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{1,k_1}\ldots \lambda_{l,k_l} T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m\big)(x)$$ for a.e. $x\in\mathbb R^n.$
For a cube $Q $ we denote by $Q^*$ its concentric dilate by a factor $10\sqrt{n}.$ Now we can split $T_{\sigma}\fff$ into two parts and estimate $$\big|T_{\sigma}\fff(x)\big|\leq G_1(x) +G_2(x),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G_1&:= \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}{|{\lambda_{1,k_1}}|}\cdots{|{\lambda_{l,k_l}}|}{\big|{T_{\sigma}(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m)}\big|}\chi_{Q^*_{1,k_1}\cap\cdots\cap Q^*_{l,k_l}},\\
G_2&:= \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}{|{\lambda_{1,k_1}}|}\cdots {|{\lambda_{l,k_l}}|} {\big|{T_{\sigma}(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m)}
\big|}\chi_{(Q^*_{1,k_1}\cap\cdots\cap Q^*_{l,k_l})^c}.
\end{aligned}$$
The first part $G_1$ can be dealt with via Lemma \[grkalemma\]. Suppose that $Q^*_{1,k_1}\cap\cdots\cap Q^*_{l,k_l} \neq \emptyset$, as if this intersection is empty we are done. From these cubes, choose a cube that has the minimum side length, and denote it by $R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}$. Then $$Q^*_{1,k_1}\cap\cdots\cap Q^*_{l,k_l} \subset R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}\subset Q^{\ast\ast}_{1,k_1}\cap\cdots\cap Q^{\ast\ast}_{l,k_l},$$ where $Q^{**}_{i,k_i}:=(Q_{i,k_i}^*)^*$ denotes a dilation of $Q^{*}_{i,k_i}$ . We shall prove $$\label{avgest}
\frac{1}{|{R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}}|}\int_{R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}}{\big|{T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m\big)(y)}\big|} dy \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^l{\left\vert{Q_{i,k_i}}\right\vert}^{-1/{p_i}}.$$ To verify this, we may assume, without loss of generality, $R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}=Q_{1,k_1}^{*}$. Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the left-hand side of (\[avgest\]) is majored by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{|Q_{1,k_1}^*|^{1/2}}\Big\Vert T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m\big)\Big\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}\end{aligned}$$ and this is less than a constant multiple of $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\frac{1}{|Q_{1,k_1}^*|^{1/2}}\Vert{a_{1,k_1}}\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}\prod_{i=2}^l\Vert{a_{i,k_i}}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^l{\left\vert{Q_{i,k_i}}\right\vert}^{-1/p_i}$$ in view of Proposition \[propo1\]. This proves .
We now apply Lemma \[grkalemma\], the estimate , and the Hölder inequality to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert G_1\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}&\lesssim \Big\Vert \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty} \Big(\prod_{i=1}^{l} |{\lambda_{i,k_i}}| \Big)\chi_{R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}} \frac{1}{|{R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}}|}\\
&\qquad\qquad\times\int_{R_{k_1,\ldots,k_l}}\big|{T_{\sigma} \big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m\big)(y) }\big| dy \Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] \Big\Vert{ \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{l} |{\lambda_{i,k_i}}||{Q_{i,k_i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q^{\ast\ast}_{i,k_i}}\Big) \Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}}\\
&\leq \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] \prod_{i=1}^{l}\Big\Vert{\sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}|{\lambda_{i,k_i}}| |{Q_{i,k_i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q^{**}_{i,k_i}}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})},
\end{aligned}$$ and this clearly implies that $$\label{equ:G1Part}
\Vert G_1\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^{l}\Vert{f_i}\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$$ as $$\Big\Vert{\sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}|{\lambda_{i,k_i}}| |{Q_{i,k_i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q^{**}_{i,k_i}}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq \Big( \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}|\lambda_{i,k_i}|^{p_i}\Big)^{1/p_i}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$
To obtain the estimate for $G_2$, we need the following lemma whose proof will be given in Section \[prooflemmas\].
\[keylemma1\] Let $1\le l<m$ and $0<p_1, \dots, p_l\le 1$. Let $a_i$, $1\leq i\leq l$, be atoms supported in the cube $Q_i$ such that $$\label{atomconditions}
\Vert{a_i}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\le {\left\vert{Q_i}\right\vert}^{-1/p_i},\qquad \int_{Q_i}x^{\alpha}a_i(x)dx=0$$ for all ${\left\vert{\alpha}\right\vert}< N_i$ with $N_i$ sufficiently large. Let $\Vert f_{l+1}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=\cdots=\Vert f_m\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$. Suppose that (\[conditionss\]) holds for all $J\subset \{1,\dots,l\}$ and ${\sigma}$ satisfies $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$. Then for any nonempty subset $J_0$ of $\{1,\dots,l\}$, there exist nonnegative functions $b_1^{J_0},\ldots,b_{l}^{J_0}$ such that $$\big\Vert{b_i^{J_0}} \big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1 \quad \text{ for }~ 1\le i\le l,$$ and $$\big|{T_{\sigma}(a_1,\ldots,a_l,f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m)(x)}\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]b_1^{J_0}(x)\cdots b_{l}^{J_0}(x)$$ for all $x\in \big(\bigcap_{i\notin J_0}Q_i^*\big)\setminus \big(\bigcup_{i\in J_0}Q_i^*\big)$.
Let $J_0$ be a nonempty subset of $\{1,\dots,l\}$. Then Lemma \[keylemma1\] ensures the existence of nonnegative functions $b_{1,k_1}^{J_0},\ldots,b_{l,k_l}^{J_0}$ such that $$\big|T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m\big)(x)\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] b_{1,k_1}^{J_0}(x) \cdots b_{l,k_l}^{J_0}(x)$$ for all $x\in \big(\bigcap_{i\notin J_0}Q_{i,k_{i}}^*\big)\setminus \big(\bigcup_{i\in J_0}Q_{i,k_{i}}^*\big)$ and $\Vert{b_{i,k_i}^{J_0}}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim 1$.
Now set $$b_{i,k_i}:= \sum_{\emptyset \ne J_0\subset\left\{1,2,\ldots,l\right\}}b_{i,k_i}^{J_0}.$$ Since it is finite sum, we first note that $\Vert{b_{i,k_i}}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim 1$. In addition, we have the pointwise estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\big|{T_{\sigma}\big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m\big)(x)}\big| \chi_{(Q^*_{1,k_1}\cap\ldots\cap Q^*_{l,k_l})^c}(x) \nonumber
\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] b_{1,k_1}(x) \cdots b_{l,k_l}(x),
\end{aligned}$$ which yields that $$G_2(x)\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\prod_{i=1}^l\Big( \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|{\lambda_{i,k_i}}|}b_{i,k_i}(x) \Big).$$ Then we apply Hölder’s inequality to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:G2Part}
\Vert{G_2}\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] \prod_{i=1}^{l}\Big\Vert \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_{i,k_i}|b_{i,k_i}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] \prod_{i=1}^{l}\Vert{f_i}\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}
\end{aligned}$$ because $$\Big\Vert \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_{i,k_i}|b_{i,k_i}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq \Big( \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_{i,k_i}|^{p_i}\Vert b_{i,k_i}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{p_i}}\Big)^{1/p_i}\lesssim \Big( \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_{i,k_i}|^{p_i}}\Big)^{1/p_i}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$
Combining (\[equ:G1Part\]) and (\[equ:G2Part\]), we finally obtain as desired. This completes the proof.
Proof of Proposition \[propo3\]
===============================
Let $1<r\leq 2$, $1\leq l < \rho \leq m$, and $$\label{indexset}
\mathrm{I}:=\{1,\dots,l\}, \quad \mathrm{II}:=\{l+1,\dots,\rho\},\quad \mathrm{III}:=\{\rho+1,\dots,m\},\quad \Lambda:=\mathrm{I}\cup \mathrm{II}\cup \mathrm{III}.$$ Assume that $0<p_i\leq 1$ for $i\in\mathrm{I}$, $r\le p_{i}<\infty$ for $i\in\mathrm{II}$, and ${1}/{p_1}+ \dots + {1}/{p_\rho} = {1}/{p}$. Let $\Vert f_{i}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$ for $i\in\mathrm{III}$. As in (\[sigmadecompo\]), we write $$\sigma(\xxxi)=\sum_{j_1,\dots,j_m \in \mathbb{Z}}{\sigma(\xxxi)\widehat{\psi_{j_1}}(\xi_1)\cdots \widehat{\psi_{j_m}}(\xi_m)}.$$ If $\max{(j_1,\dots,j_m)}=j_k$, then there are two cases $$j_k-3-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor \leq \max_{j_i\not= j_k}{(j_i)}\leq j_k \tag{\textbf{Case1}}\label{case1},$$ $$\max_{j_i\not= j_k}{(j_i)}\leq j_k-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor \tag{\textbf{Case2}}\label{case2}.$$
For (\[case1\]), we utilize the argument in Section \[lowfrequencypart\]. That is, we need to prove that for $1\leq \kappa_1<\kappa_2\leq m$ $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\label{case1claim}
&\Big\Vert \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big| T_{\sigma_j}\big( (f_1)^j,\dots,(f_{\kappa_1-1})^j,(f_{\kappa_1})_j,(f_{\kappa_1+1})^j,\dots} \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad{,(f_{\kappa_2-1})^j,(f_{\kappa_2})_j,(f_{\kappa_2+1})^j,\dots,(f_m)^j \big)\big|} \Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}\cup\mathrm{II}}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $(g)_j:=\psi_j\ast g$ and $(g)^j:=\phi_j\ast g$ as before.
We remark that (\[case2\]) is a high frequency part for which $T_{\sigma_{high}^{(\kappa)}}\big(f_1,\dots,f_m \big)$ is written as the sum, over $j_{\kappa}\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, of terms whose Fourier transform is supported in an annulus of size $2^{j_{\kappa}}$ where $\sigma^{(\kappa)}$ is defined as in (\[sigmakappa\]) and $\sigma_{high}^{({\kappa})}$ is similarly as in (\[highdef\]). Thus, the square function characterization of $H^p$ will be applied to deal with this case as in (\[squareexpression\]). We will actually prove that for each $1\leq {\kappa}\leq m$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{case2claim}
&\Big\Vert \Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big|T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)^{j,m},\dots,(f_{{\kappa}-1})^{j,m},(f_{\kappa})_j ,(f_{{\kappa}+1})^{j,m},\dots, (f_m)^{j,m}\big) \big|^2} \Big)^{1/2}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}\cup\mathrm{II}}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}\end{aligned}$$ where $(g)^{j,m}:=\phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}\ast g$.
Proof of (\[case1claim\]) for $1\leq {\kappa}_1<{\kappa}_2\leq m$
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let ${\widetilde}{\psi_j}:=\psi_{j-1}+\psi_{j}+\psi_{j+1}$ so that ${\widetilde}{\psi_j}\ast \psi_j=\psi_j$ and for each $1\leq {\kappa}_1<{\kappa}_2\leq m$ we define
$$\sigma_{j,1}^{{\kappa}_1,{\kappa}_2}:=\big( \textup{ $ \underbrace{ \phi_{j}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j} }_{({\kappa}_1-1)\textup{ times }} $} \otimes {\psi_j}\otimes \textup{ $ \underbrace{\phi_{j}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j}}_{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_1-1) \textup{ times }} $} \otimes {\psi_j}\otimes \textup{ $ \underbrace{\phi_{j}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j}}_{(m-{\kappa}_2) \textup{ times }} $}\big)^{\wedge} \cdot \sigma_j,$$
$$\sigma_{j,2}^{{\kappa}_1,{\kappa}_2}:=\big( \textup{ $ \underbrace{ \phi_{j}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j} }_{({\kappa}_1-1)\textup{ times }} $} \otimes {\widetilde}{\psi_j}\otimes \textup{ $ \underbrace{\phi_{j}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j}}_{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_1-1) \textup{ times }} $} \otimes {\widetilde}{\psi_j}\otimes \textup{ $ \underbrace{\phi_{j}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j}}_{(m-{\kappa}_2) \textup{ times }} $}\big)^{\wedge} \cdot \sigma_j.$$
Then both $\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}$ and $\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}$ can be expressed in the form $${\Xi}({\cdot}/2^j)\big) \cdot \sigma_j$$ for some $\Xi\in\SS(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)$ whose support is in a ball of a constant radius in $({\mathbb{R}^n})^m$. We observe that, thanks to Lemma \[katoponce\], for any $1<t<\infty$ $$\label{katogeneral}
\big\Vert \Xi\cdot \sigma_j(2^j\cdot )\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\lesssim \big\Vert \sigma_j(2^j\cdot)\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\lesssim\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{t}[\sigma],$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\fff \nonumber\\
&=T_{\sigma_j}\big( (f_1)^j,\dots,(f_{{\kappa}_1-1})^j,(f_{{\kappa}_1})_j,(f_{{\kappa}_1+1})^j,\dots(f_{{\kappa}_2-1})^j,(f_{{\kappa}_2})_j,(f_{{\kappa}_2+1})^j,\dots,(f_m)^j \big)\label{1express}\\
&=T_{\sigma_{j,2}^{{\kappa}_1,{\kappa}_2}}\big(f_1,\dots,f_{{\kappa}_1-1},(f_{{\kappa}_1})_j,f_{{\kappa}_1+1},\dots,f_{{\kappa}_2-1},(f_{{\kappa}_2})_j,f_{{\kappa}_2+1},\dots,f_m \big).\label{2express}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if $1\leq \kappa_1<l+1<{\kappa}_2\leq m$, $T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\fff $ can be also written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3express}
T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\fff &=T_{\sigma_{j,2}^{{\kappa}_1,{\kappa}_2}}\big(f_1,\dots,f_{\kappa_1-1},(f_{\kappa_1})_{j},f_{\kappa_1+1},\dots, \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad ,f_{{l}},(f_{l+1})^{j+1},f_{l+2},\dots,f_{{\kappa}_2-1},(f_{{\kappa}_2})_j,f_{{\kappa}_2+1},\dots,f_m \big)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ since $\phi_{j+1}\ast \phi_{j}=\phi_{j}$. Similarly, for $l+1<{\kappa}_1<{\kappa}_2\leq m$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4express}
T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\fff &=T_{\sigma_{j,2}^{{\kappa}_1,{\kappa}_2}}\big(f_1,\dots,f_{l},(f_{l+1})^{j+1},f_{l+2},\dots, \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad ,f_{{\kappa}_1-1},(f_{{\kappa}_1})_j,f_{{\kappa}_1+1},\dots,f_{{\kappa}_2-1},(f_{{\kappa}_2})_j,f_{{\kappa}_2+1},\dots,f_m \big)\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Now we write, as in (\[exchangesumoperator\]), $$\label{atomsepa}
T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\fff (x)=\sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}{\lambda_{1,k_1},\dots,\lambda_{l,k_l}T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big( a_{1,k_1},\dots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x) }$$ where $a_{i,k_i}$ are $L^{\infty}$-atoms for $H^{p_i}$ satisfying (\[atomproperty1\]) and (\[atomproperty2\]). Then we apply the following lemma that will be proved in Section \[prooflemmas\].
\[keylemma2\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $1\leq l<\rho\leq m$, and let $\mathrm{I}$, $\mathrm{II}$, $\mathrm{III}$, and $\Lambda$ be defined as in (\[indexset\]). Suppose that $0<p_i\leq 1$ for $i\in\mathrm{I}$, $r\leq p_{i}<\infty$ for $i\in\mathrm{II}$, and $1/p=1/p_1+\dots+1/p_{\rho}$. Let $a_i$, $i\in\mathrm{I}$, be atoms supported in the cube $Q_i$ such that (\[atomconditions\]) holds for all $|\alpha|<N_i$ with $N_i$ sufficiently large. Suppose that $(\ref{conditionss})$ holds for all $J\subset \mathrm{I}$. Let $f_i\in L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for $i\in\mathrm{II}$ and $\Vert f_{i}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$ for $i\in\mathrm{III}$. Then there exist nonnegative functions $b_i$, $i\in\mathrm{I}$, and $F_{i}$, $i\in\mathrm{II}$, on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ such that $$\label{kl2condition1}
\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big( a_{1},\dots,a_{l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}b_i(x)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}F_i(x)\Big),$$ $$\Vert b_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1, \qquad \Vert F_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$
Lemma \[keylemma2\] proves the existence of functions $b_{i,k_i}$ for $i\in\mathrm{I}$, $k_i\in \mathbb Z$, and $F_i$ for $i\in\mathrm{II}$, having the properties that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{property1}
& \big|{T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big(a_{1,k_1},\ldots, a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1}, \ldots, f_{m}\big)(x)}\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}} b_{i,k_i}(x)\Big) \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}F_i(x)\Big),
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{property2}
\Vert{b_{i,k_i}}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1, \qquad \Vert F_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$ By using (\[1express\]) and (\[atomsepa\]), the left-hand side of (\[case1claim\]) is less than $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots \sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty} |\lambda_{1,k_1}|\cdots |\lambda_{l,k_l}|\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big(a_{1,k_1},\dots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\dots, f_m\big) \big|\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})} .\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[property1\]) and Hölder’s inequality yield that the preceding expression is dominated by a constant times $$\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}\Big\Vert \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_{i,k_i}|b_{i,k_i}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}\Vert F_i \Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\Big).$$ It is obvious that $\Vert F_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$, and we also have $$\Big\Vert{\sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty} | \lambda_{i,k_i}| b_{i,k_i} }\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \leq \Big(\sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty} |{\lambda_{i,k_i}}|^{p_i} \Vert{b_{i,k_i}}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{p_i}\Big)^{1/p_i} \lesssim \Big(\sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty} |{\lambda_{i,k_i}}|^{p_i}\Big)^{1/p_i} \lesssim \Vert{f_i}\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}$$ having used (\[property2\]). This proves (\[case1claim\]).
Proof of (\[case2claim\]) for $1\leq \kappa\leq m$
--------------------------------------------------
Let ${\widetilde}{\psi_j}:=\psi_{j-1}+\psi_{j}+\psi_{j+1}$ as above, and for each $1\leq \kappa\leq m$ we define $$\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}:=\big( \textup{ $ \underbrace{ \phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor} }_{(\kappa-1)\textup{ times }} $} \otimes {\psi_j}\otimes \textup{ $ \underbrace{\phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}}_{(m-\kappa) \textup{ times }} $}\big)^{\wedge} \cdot \sigma_j.$$ $$\sigma_{j,2}^{\kappa}:=\big( \textup{ $ \underbrace{ \phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor} }_{(\kappa-1)\textup{ times }} $} \otimes {\widetilde}{\psi_j}\otimes \textup{ $ \underbrace{\phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}\otimes\cdots\otimes \phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2m\rfloor}}_{(m-\kappa) \textup{ times }} $}\big)^{\wedge} \cdot \sigma_j.$$ Then the argument in (\[katogeneral\]) yields that for any $1<t<\infty$ $$\label{sigmajkest}
\big\Vert \sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}(2^j\cdot)\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}, \big\Vert \sigma_{j,2}^{\kappa}(2^j\cdot)\big\Vert_{L_{\sss}^{t}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\lesssim\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{t}[\sigma].$$ Moreover, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\fff&=T_{\sigma_j}\big((f_1)^{j,m},\dots,(f_{{\kappa}-1})^{j,m},(f_{\kappa})_j ,(f_{{\kappa}+1})^{j,m},\dots, (f_m)^{j,m}\big)\nonumber\\
&=T_{\sigma_{j,2}^{\kappa}}\big(f_1,\dots,f_{{\kappa}-1},(f_{\kappa})_j,f_{{\kappa}+1},\dots,f_m \big) \label{condexpression1}\end{aligned}$$ and if $l+1<{\kappa}\leq m$, it can be also written as $$\label{secondexpression2}
T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\fff=T_{\sigma_{j,2}^{\kappa}}\big(f_1,\dots,f_{l},(f_{l+1})^{j+1,m},f_{l+2},\dots,f_{{\kappa}-1},(f_{\kappa})_j,f_{{\kappa}+1},\dots,f_m \big)$$ since $\phi_{j-3-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor}\ast \phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor}=\phi_{j-4-\lfloor \log_2{m}\rfloor}$. Therefore, (\[case2claim\]) is reduced to $$\label{case2reduction}
\Big\Vert \Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big| T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\fff \big|^2\Big)^{1/2}\Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma]\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}\cup\mathrm{II}}{\Vert f_i\Vert_{H^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}}.$$
Now we write, as in (\[exchangesumoperator\]), $$\label{case2express}
T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\fff(x)=\sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}{\lambda_{1,k_1},\dots,\lambda_{l,k_l}T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\big( a_{1,k_1},\dots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x) }$$ where $a_{i,k_i}$ are $L^{\infty}$-atoms for $H^{p_i}$ satisfying (\[atomproperty1\]) and (\[atomproperty2\]). Then we need the following lemma whose proof will be given in Section \[prooflemmas\].
\[keylemma3\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $1\leq l<\rho\leq m$, and let $\mathrm{I}$, $\mathrm{II}$, $\mathrm{III}$, and $\Lambda$ be defined as in (\[indexset\]). Suppose that $0<p_i\leq 1$ for $i\in\mathrm{I}$, $r\leq p_{i}<\infty$ for $i\in\mathrm{II}$, and $1/p=1/p_1+\dots+1/p_{\rho}$. Let $a_i$, $i\in\mathrm{I}$, be atoms supported in the cube $Q_i$ such that (\[atomconditions\]) holds for all $|\alpha|<N_i$ with $N_i$ sufficiently large. Suppose that $(\ref{conditionss})$ holds for all $J\subset \mathrm{I}$. Let $f_i\in L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})$ for $i\in\mathrm{II}$ and $\Vert f_{i}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$ for $i\in\mathrm{III}$. Then there exist nonnegative functions $b_i$, $i\in\mathrm{I}$, and $F_{i}$, $i\in\mathrm{II}$, on ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ such that $$\label{kl3condition1}
\Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\big( a_{1},\dots,a_{l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big|^2\Big)^{1/2} \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}b_i(x)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}F_i(x)\Big),$$ $$\Vert b_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1,\qquad \Vert F_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$
According to the above lemma, we can choose nonnegative functions $b_{i,k_i}$, $i\in\mathrm{I}$, and $F_i$, $i\in\mathrm{II}$, such that $$\label{property11}
\Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^k}\big( a_{1,k_1},\dots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big|^2\Big)^{1/2} \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}b_{i,k_i}(x)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}F_i(x)\Big),$$ $$\label{property22}
\Vert b_{i,k_i}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1, \qquad \Vert F_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$
Using (\[case2express\]), a triangle inequality in $\ell^2$, (\[property11\]), and the Hölder inequality, the left-hand side of (\[case2reduction\]) is less than $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\Vert \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots \sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty} |\lambda_{1,k_1}|\cdots |\lambda_{l,k_l}|\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\big( a_{1,k_1},\dots,a_{l,k_l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)\big|^2 \Big)^{1/2} \Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \Big\Vert \sum_{k_1=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{k_l=1}^{\infty}|\lambda_{1,k_1}|\cdots |\lambda_{l,k_l}| \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}b_{i,k_i}\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}F_i\Big) \Big\Vert_{L^p({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\leq \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}\Big\Vert \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty}{|\lambda_{i,k_i}|b_{i,k_i}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \Big)\Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}\Vert F_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \Big).\end{aligned}$$ This is clearly majored by the right-hand side of (\[case2reduction\]) and in view of (\[property22\]) and the proof is concluded.
Proof of Proposition \[propo4\] {#proofpropo6}
===============================
The proof will be based on the following interpolation method for multilinear multipliers.
\[interpolation\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $0<p_1^0,\dots,p_m^0\leq \infty$, $0<p_1^1,\dots,p_m^1\leq \infty$, $1/p^0=1/p_1^0+\dots+1/p_m^0$, and $1/p^1=1/p_1^1+\dots+1/p_m^1$. Let $s_1^0,\dots,s_m^0\geq 0$ and $s_1^1,\dots,s_m^1\geq 0$. Suppose that $$\label{boundassumption}
\big\Vert T_{\sigma} \big\Vert_{H^{p_1^l}\times\cdots\times H^{p_m^l}\to L^{p^{l}}}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{(s_1^l,\dots,s_m^l)}^{r, \Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma], \quad l=0,1.$$ Then for any $0<\theta<1$, $0<p,p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, and $s_1,\dots,s_m\geq 0$ satisfying $$1/p=(1-\theta)/p^0+\theta/p^1, \qquad 1/p_k=(1-\theta)/p_k^0+\theta/p_k^1 \quad\text{ for }~1\leq k\leq m,$$ $$s_k=(1-\theta)s_k^0+\theta s_k^1 \quad \text{ for }~1\leq k\leq m,$$ we have $$\label{interpolationresult}
\big\Vert T_{\sigma}\big\Vert_{H^{p_1}\times \cdots \times H^{p_m}\to L^p}\lesssim \mathcal{L}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}_{(s_1,\dots,s_m)}[\sigma].$$
Since the proof is more or less standard, we only provide a sketch of it.
Let ${\widetilde}{\Psi^{(m)}}:=2^{-mn}\Psi(\vec{\;\cdot\;}/2)+\Psi^{(m)}+2^{mn}\Psi^{(m)}(2\vec{\;\cdot\;})$ so that ${\widetilde}{\Psi^{(m)}}\ast \Psi^{(m)}=\Psi^{(m)}$. We construct a family of multilinear Fourier multipliers $\sigma^z$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^z(\xxxi)&:=\frac{(1+\theta)^{mn+1}}{(1+z)^{mn+1}}\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}(I-\Delta_1)^{-(s_1^0(1-z)+s_1^1z)/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_m)^{-(s_m^0(1-z)+s_m^1z)/2}\\
&\qquad\qquad \qquad \Big( (I-\Delta_1)^{s_1/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_m)^{s_m/2}\big( \sigma(2^j\vec{\;\cdot\;}){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big)\Big)(\xxxi/2^j){\widehat}{{\widetilde}{\Psi^{(m)}}}(\xxxi/2^j).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\sigma^{\theta}=\sigma$ and it follows from the interpolation theorem for analytic families of operators that $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert T_{\sigma}\Vert_{H^{p_1}\times\cdots\times H^{p_m}\to L^p}\leq \Big( \sup_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}\mathcal{L}_{(s_1^0,\dots,s_m^0)}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[ \sigma^{it}]\Big)^{1-\theta} \Big( \sup_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}\mathcal{L}_{(s_1^1,\dots,s_m^1)}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[ \sigma^{1+it}]\Big)^{\theta}\end{aligned}$$ by applying (\[boundassumption\]). We refer to [@Ca; @Ca_To; @Fe_St2; @Ja_Jo; @Str_To] for more details.
We now observe that for each $l=0,1$, due to compact support conditions and Lemma \[katoponce\], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{(s_1^l,\dots,s_m^l)}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma^{l+it}]&=\sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\Big\Vert \sigma^{l+it}(2^j\cdot ){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\Big\Vert_{L^{r}_{(s_1^l,\dots,s_m^l)}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{(1+|t|)^{mn+1}}\sup_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\Big\Vert (I-\Delta_1)^{-it(s_1^0-s_1^1)/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_m)^{-it(s_m^0-s_m^1)/2}}\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad {(I-\Delta_1)^{s_1/2}\cdots (I-\Delta_m)^{s_m/2}\big(\sigma(2^j\cdot){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}}\big)\Big\Vert_{L^r(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}}\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{(s_1,\dots,s_m)}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\end{aligned}$$ where we applied the Marcinkiewicz multiplier theorem in the last inequality. This proves (\[interpolationresult\]).
We now state the following delicate interpolation result whose proof is based on that of [@Gr_Mi_Ng_Tom Lemma 3.7].
\[interpolation2\] Let $1<r\leq 2$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty$. For $\ppp:=(p_1,\dots,p_m)$ let $$\Gamma_m(\ppp):=\Big\{\sss:\sum_{k\in J}{\big( {s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)}\geq -{1}/{r'}\quad \text{ for any }~ J\subset \{1,\dots,m\}\Big\}$$ and for each $1\leq u\leq m$ $$\Lambda_m^{u}(\ppp):=\big\{\sss:s_u\geq {n}/{p_u}-{n}/{r'}, \quad s_i\geq {n}/{p_i} ~\text{ for all }~i\not= u \big\}.$$ Then $\Gamma_m(\ppp)$ is the convex hull of $\Lambda_m^u(\ppp)$ for $1\leq u\leq m$.
Let $H_m(\ppp)$ be the convex hull of $\Lambda_m^u(\ppp)$ for $1\leq u\leq m$ and then we need to show that $H_m(\ppp)=\Gamma_m(\ppp)$.
We first note that $\Gamma_m(\ppp)$ is convex as it is the intersection of $2^m-1$ convex sets. Since $\Gamma_m(\ppp)$ contains $\Lambda_m^u(\ppp)$ for all $1\leq u\leq m$, it is clear that $H_m(\ppp)\subset \Gamma_m(\ppp)$.
We now verify $\Gamma_m(\ppp)\subset H_m(\ppp)$. For this one we restrict the size of $s_i$, $1\leq i\leq m$. Let $M$ be a sufficiently large number such that $M>mn(1/p_1+\dots+1/p_m)$ and let $$\Gamma_m^M(\ppp):=\Gamma_m(\ppp)\cap \big\{\sss:s_i\leq M ~1\leq i\leq m\big\},$$ $$\Lambda_m^{u,M}(\ppp):=\Lambda_m^u(\ppp)\cap \big\{\sss:s_i\leq M ~1\leq i\leq m\big\},$$ $$H_m^{M}(\ppp):=H_m(\ppp)\cap \big\{\sss:s_i\leq M ~1\leq i\leq m\big\},$$ and we actually prove that $$\label{gammah}
\Gamma_m^M(\ppp)\subset H_m^M(\ppp) \quad \text{ for all }~ 0<p_1,\dots,p_m\leq \infty,$$ from which we obtain the desired result by taking $M\to \infty$. We use an induction argument beginning with the case $m=2$.
When $m=2$, it is trivial because $\Gamma_2^M(\ppp)$ is the convex hull of the five points $(M,M)$, $(n/p_1-n/r',M)$, $(n/p_1-n/r',n/p_2)$, $(n/p_1,n/p_2-n/r')$, and $(M,n/p_2-n/r')$.
Now we fix $m>2$ and assume that (\[gammah\]) holds with $m$ replaced by $m-1$. We denote $$\Gamma_m^{0,M}(\ppp):=\big\{\sss\in \Gamma_m^M(\ppp):n/p_l-n/r'\leq s_l\leq n/p_l ~ \text{ for all }~ 1\leq l\leq m \big\},$$ $$\Gamma_m^{l,M}(\ppp):=\big\{\sss\in \Gamma_m^M(\ppp):n/p_l\leq s_l\leq M \big\},\qquad 1\leq l\leq m.$$ It is easy to see that $\Gamma_m^M(\ppp)=\bigcup_{l=0}^{m}\Gamma_m^{l,M}(\ppp)$ and thus it is enough to show that $$\label{gamma0}
\Gamma_m^{0,M}(\ppp)\subset H_m^M(\ppp),$$ $$\label{gamma1}
\Gamma_m^{l,M}(\ppp)\subset H_m^M(\ppp) \quad \text{ for all }~ 1\leq l\leq m.$$
We note that $\Gamma_m^{0,M}(\ppp)$ is the intersection of the two sets $$\big\{ \sss: n/p_l-n/r'\leq s_l\leq n/p_l \quad \text{ for all }~ 1\leq l\leq m\big\}$$ and $$\big\{\sss: s_1+\dots+s_m\geq n/p_1+\dots+n/p_m-n/r' \big\},$$ which would be a standard $m$-simplex with the $m+1$ vertices $$(n/p_1,\dots,n/p_m),~ (n/p_1-n/r',n/p_2,\dots,n/p_m),~\dots,~ (n/p_1,\dots,n/p_{m-1},n/p_m-n/r').$$ Since the vertices of the simplex are contained in the convex set $H_m^M(\ppp)$, (\[gamma0\]) holds.
To achieve (\[gamma1\]) we consider only the case $l=m$ as the other cases will follow from a rearrangement. We additionally define $$\Gamma_{m,1}^{m,M}(\ppp):=\big\{\sss\in \Gamma_m^M(\ppp):s_m=n/p_m \big\},\quad \Gamma_{m,2}^{m,M}(\ppp):=\big\{\sss\in \Gamma_m^M(\ppp):s_m=M \big\}$$ and then (\[gamma1\]) with $l=m$ follows once we prove $$\label{inductionclaim}
\Gamma_{m,1}^{m,M}(\ppp), \Gamma_{m,2}^{m,M}(\ppp)\subset H_m^M(\ppp)$$ as $H_{m}^M(\ppp)$ is a convex set. Therefore, let us prove (\[inductionclaim\]). For simplicity, we denote $\ppp^{*m}:=(p_1,\dots,p_{m-1})$ and $\sss^{*m}:=(s_1,\dots,s_{m-1})$ so that $\ppp=(\ppp^{*m},p_m)$ and $\sss=(\sss^{*m},s_m)$. We observe that $$\Gamma_{m,1}^{m,M}(\ppp)=\big\{\sss:\sss^{*m}\in \Gamma_{m-1}^M(\ppp^{*m}),~s_m=n/p_m \big\}.$$ By using the induction hypothesis on $m-1$, we obtain $$\Gamma_{m,1}^{m,M}(\ppp)\subset \big\{\sss:\sss^{*m}\in H_{m-1}^M(\ppp^{*m}),~s_m=n/p_m \big\}$$ where the right-hand side is the convex hull of the sets $$\big\{\sss:\sss^{*m}\in \Lambda_{m-1}^u(\ppp^{*m}),~s_m=n/p_m \big\}\subset \Lambda_m^u(\ppp), \quad 1\leq u\leq m-1.$$ From the definition of $H_m^M(\ppp)$, it follows that $\Gamma_{m,1}^{m,M}(\ppp)\subset H_m^M(\ppp)$. Similarly, we have $$\Gamma_{m,2}^{m,M}(\ppp)\subset \big\{\sss:\sss^{*m}\in H_{m-1}^M(\ppp^{*m}),~s_m=M \big\}\subset H_m^M(\ppp)$$ because $M>n/p_m$ is sufficiently large. This proves (\[inductionclaim\]).
Now we prove Proposition \[propo4\] by induction.
Assume $l=1$ and treat only the case $$1<p_1<r,\quad 0<p_2,\dots,p_{\rho}\leq 1, \quad r\leq p_{\rho+1},\dots,p_m\leq \infty.$$ In this case, condition (\[minimal\]) is equivalent to $$s_1, s_{\rho+1},\dots,s_m>n/r, \quad \text{ and }\quad \sum_{k\in J}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k}\big)}>-{1}/{r'}$$ for all nonempty subset $J\subset \{1,\dots,\rho\}$. Then Lemma \[interpolation2\] yields that $\sss$ satisfying the above conditions belongs to one of the following sets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{S}_u&:=\{\sss: s_u>n/p_u-n/r', \quad s_i>n/p_i ~\text{ for }~i\not= u, ~ 1\leq i \leq \rho \} \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \cap \{\sss:s_1,s_{\rho+1},\dots,s_m>n/r\}, \quad 1\leq u\leq \rho, \\
\mathfrak{S}_0&:=\{\sss=\theta_1\sss_1+\dots+\theta_{\rho}\sss_{\rho}: \theta_1+\dots+\theta_{\rho}=1,~ 0<\theta_i<1,~\sss_i\in\mathfrak{S}_i,~1\leq i\leq \rho \}.\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to show that for $1\leq u\leq \rho$, $\sss\in \mathfrak{S}_u$ implies (\[boundresult\]) because the case when $\sss\in\mathfrak{S}_0$ can be proved by using Lemma \[interpolation\] at most $\rho-1$ times. If $\sss\in\mathfrak{S}_1$, then the assumptions in Lemma \[interpolation\] hold with $$(p_1^0,\dots,p_m^0)=(1,p_2,\dots,p_m), \quad (s_1^0,\dots,s_m^0)=(s_1,\dots,s_m)$$ and $$(p_1^1,\dots,p_m^1)=(r,p_2,\dots,p_m), \quad (s_1^0,\dots,s_m^0)=(s_1,\dots,s_m),$$ due to Proposition \[propo1\], \[propo2\], and \[propo3\], and now (\[boundresult\]) follows from Lemma \[interpolation\]. Note that $s_1>n/r=n-n/r'$.
If $\sss\in \mathfrak{S}_u$ for $2\leq u\leq \rho$, then we choose $0<\theta<1$ such that $$s_1>n/p_1=(1-\theta) n+\theta n/r.$$ We also select $t^0>n$ and $t^1>n/r$ satisfying $s_1=(1-\theta)t^0+\theta t^1$. Then we interpolate between the two cases $$(p_1^0,\dots,p_m^0)=(1,p_2,\dots,p_m), \quad (s_1^0,\dots,s_m^0)=(t^0,s_2,\dots,s_m)$$ and $$(p_1^1,\dots,p_m^1)=(r,p_2,\dots,p_m), \quad (s_1^1,\dots,s_m^1)=(t^1,s_2,\dots,s_m)$$ using Lemma \[interpolation\]. Here, the assumptions in Lemma \[interpolation\] with the above two cases follow from Proposition \[propo1\], \[propo2\], and \[propo3\]. This finally yields (\[boundresult\]).
We now consider the cases $l\geq 2$ and suppose, by induction, that the claimed assertion holds for $|\mathfrak{L}|=l-1$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $1<p_1,\dots,p_l<r$, $0<p_{l+1},\dots,p_{\rho}\leq 1$, and $r\leq p_{\rho+1},\dots,p_m\leq \infty$, and accordingly, we have $$s_1,\dots,s_l,s_{\rho+1},\dots,s_m>n/r, \quad \text{ and } \quad \sum_{k\in J}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/b{p_k} \big)}>-{1}/{r'}$$ for any nonempty subset $J\subset \{1,\dots,\rho\}$. Similarly as in the case $l=1$, we need to handle only the case that for $1\leq u\leq \rho$ $$s_1,\dots,s_l,s_{\rho+1},\dots,s_m>n/r,\qquad s_u>n/p_u-n/r', ~s_i>n/p_i ~\text{ for }~ i\not= u, ~1\leq i\leq \rho.$$ Since $l\geq 2$, we may choose $1\leq v\leq l$ such that $v\not= u$. Clearly, $$\label{svcondition}
s_v>n/p_v~ (>n/r)$$ since $1<p_v<r$, and $s_u>\max{\big( n/p_u-n/r',n/r \big)}$. Let $0<\theta<1$ be the number satisfying $1/p_v=(1-\theta)+\theta/r$ and then there exist $t^0>n$ and $t^1>n/r$ so that $s_v=(1-\theta)t^0+\theta t^1$ because of (\[svcondition\]). We apply the induction hypothesis to obtain the boundedness with $$(p_1^0,\dots,p_m^0)=(p_1,\dots,p_{v-1},1,p_{v+1},\dots,p_m), ~ (s_1^0,\dots,s_m^0)=(s_1,\dots,s_{v-1},t^0,s_{v+1},\dots,s_m)$$ and another one with $$(p_1^1,\dots,p_m^1)=(p_1,\dots,p_{v-1},r,p_{v+1},\dots,p_m), ~ (s_1^0,\dots,s_m^0)=(s_1,\dots,s_{v-1},t^1,s_{v+1},\dots,s_m).$$ Since these are the assumptions in Lemma \[interpolation\], (\[boundresult\]) holds as a result of the lemma. This completes the proof of Proposition \[propo4\].
Proofs of the key lemmas {#prooflemmas}
========================
Proof of Lemma \[nmmultiplier\]
-------------------------------
Let $1\leq l\leq m$. The sufficiently large number $M>0$ shall be chosen later. We utilize an argument of the Marcinkiewicz multiplier theorem. Indeed, we will actually show that for any multi-indices $\alpha_{(1)}$,…, $\alpha_{(l)}$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ with $|\alpha_{(j)}|\leq n/2+1$ for $1\leq j\leq l$, $$\label{marcin}
\big|\partial_1^{\alpha_{(1)}}\cdots\partial_l^{\alpha_{(l)}}\mathcal{N}_{(M)}(y_1,\dots,y_l) \big|\lesssim_{\alpha_{(1)},\dots,\alpha_{(l)}}|y_1|^{-|\alpha_{(1)}|}\cdots |y_l|^{-|\alpha_{(l)}|}.$$ We first observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{multiplierpoint}
\big|\partial_1^{\alpha_{(1)}}\cdots\partial_l^{\alpha_{(l)}} \mathcal{N}_{(M)}(y_1,\dots,y_l)\big|& \lesssim \sum_{u=1}^{l}\sum_{\alpha^1_{(u)}+\dots+\alpha^{l+1}_{(u)}=\alpha_{(u)}} \Big| \partial_1^{\alpha^1_{(1)}}\cdots \partial_l^{\alpha^1_{(l)}} \Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{s_1}\Big|\\
&\qquad \quad \times \bigg(\prod_{j=2}^{l}\Big| \partial_1^{\alpha_{(1)}^j}\cdots\partial_l^{\alpha_{(l)}^{j}}\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{s_j}\Big|\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\qquad \quad \times \Big|\partial_1^{\alpha^{l+1}_{(1)}}{\langle y_1\rangle^{-(s_1+\dots+s_l)}} \Big| \bigg( \prod_{j=2}^{l}\Big| \partial_j^{\alpha_{(j)}^{l+1}} {\langle y_j\rangle^{-M}}\Big| \bigg).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Using the argument in [@Gr0 p450], we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big| \partial_1^{\alpha^1_{(1)}}\cdots \partial_l^{\alpha^1_{(l)}} \Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{s_1}\Big|&\lesssim \Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{s_1-(|\alpha_{(1)}^{1}|+\dots+|\alpha_{(l)}^{1}|)},\\
\Big| \partial_1^{\alpha_{(1)}^j}\cdots\partial_l^{\alpha_{(l)}^{j}}\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{s_j}\Big|&\lesssim \Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{s_j-(|\alpha_{(1)}^j|+\dots+|\alpha_{(l)}^{j}|)},\\
\Big|\partial_1^{\alpha^{l+1}_{(1)}}{\langle y_1\rangle^{-(s_1+\dots+s_l)}} \Big|&\lesssim {\langle y_1\rangle^{-(s_1+\dots+s_l+|\alpha_{(1)}^{l+1}|)}},\\
\Big| \partial_j^{\alpha_{(j)}^{l+1}} \langle y_j\rangle^{-M}\Big|&\lesssim {\langle y_j\rangle^{-(M+|\alpha_{(j)}^{l+1}|)}}.\end{aligned}$$ We choose a positive number $N$ such that $M>N+n+2>s_1+\dots+s_l+n+2$. Since $$\dfrac{\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{s_1} \prod_{j=2}^{l} \Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{s_j}}{\langle y_1\rangle^{s_1+\dots+s_l}\prod_{j=2}^{l}{\langle y_j\rangle^{N}} }\lesssim 1,$$ we finally obtain that the right-hand side of (\[multiplierpoint\]) is dominated by a constant times the product of $$\begin{aligned}
I_1:={ \Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}y_k \Big\rangle^{-(|\alpha_{(1)}^{1}|+\dots+|\alpha_{(l)}^{1}|)}},&\qquad I_2:=\prod_{j=2}^{l} {\Big\langle \frac{1}{l}\sum_{k=1}^{l}{(y_k-y_j)} \Big\rangle^{-(|\alpha_{(1)}^{j}|+\dots+|\alpha_{(l)}^j|)}}, \\
I_3:={\langle y_1\rangle^{-|\alpha_{(1)}^{l+1}|}},& \qquad I_4:=\prod_{j=2}^{l}{\langle y_j\rangle^{-(M-N+|\alpha_{(j)}^{l+1}|)}}.\end{aligned}$$
If $|y_1|>2l|y_j|$ for all $2\leq j\leq l$, then $$I_1\lesssim { \langle y_1 \rangle^{-|\alpha_{(1)}^{1}|}}\quad\text{and}\quad I_2\lesssim \prod_{j=2}^{l} {\langle y_1\rangle^{-|\alpha_{(1)}^{j}|}},$$ which implies that $$I_1\times I_2\times I_3\times I_4 \lesssim {\langle y_1\rangle^{-|\alpha_{(1)}|}}\prod_{j=2}^{l}{\langle y_j\rangle^{-(M-N)}}\lesssim |y_1|^{-|\alpha_{(1)}|}\cdots |y_l|^{-|\alpha_{(l)}|}$$ for $M-N>n+2>n/2+1$.
Now assume that $|y_1|\leq 2l \max{(|y_2|,\dots,|y_l|)}$ and actually, only the case $|y_1|\leq 2l |y_2|$ will be considered. In that case, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
I_1\times I_2\times I_3\times I_4\leq I_4&\lesssim {\langle y_1\rangle^{-|\alpha_{(1)}|}} {\langle y_2\rangle^{-(M-N-|\alpha_{(1)}|)}}\prod_{j=3}^{l}{\langle y_j\rangle^{-(M-N)}}\\
&\lesssim |y_1|^{-|\alpha_{(1)}|}\cdots |y_l|^{-|\alpha_{(l)}|}\end{aligned}$$ for $M-N\geq M-N-|\alpha_{(1)}|>n+2-|\alpha_{(1)}|\geq |\alpha_{(j)}|$ for $2\leq j\leq l$.
This proves (\[marcin\]).
Proof of Lemma \[keylemma1\]
----------------------------
Without loss of generality, we assume that $J_0=\{1,\ldots,v\}$ for some $1\le v\leq l$, and $\Vert{f_i}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$ for all $l+1\leq i\leq m$. Fix $$x\in \Big(\bigcap_{i=v+1}^lQ_i^*\Big)\setminus \Big(\bigcup_{i=1}^{v}Q_i^*\Big) .$$ (When $v=l,$ just fix $x\in \mathbb R^n\setminus (\bigcup_{i=1}^lQ_i^*)$.) Now we write $$T_{\sigma}(a_1,\ldots,a_l, f_{l+1},\ldots,f_m)(x) = \sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}g_j(x),$$ where $$\label{gjx}
g_j(x):= \int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}2^{jmn} K_j\big(2^j(x-y_1), \ldots, 2^j(x-y_m)\big)\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{l}a_i(y_i)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i=l+1}^{m} f_{i}(y_{i})\Big) d\yyy$$ with $K_j:= \big(\sigma(2^j\cdot){\widehat}{\Psi^{(m)}} \big)^{\vee}$. Let $c_i$ be the center of the cube $Q_i$ $(1\le i\le l)$. For $1\le i\le v$, since $x\notin Q_i^*$, we have ${|{x-c_i}|}\approx {|{x-y_i}|}$ for all $y_i\in Q_i$. Fix $1\le k\le v$ and for $1\leq u\leq w\leq m$ denote $$K_j^{(u,w)}(x,\yyy):=K_j\big(y_1,\dots,y_{u-1},2^j(x-y_u),\dots,2^j(x-y_{w}),y_{w+1},\dots,y_m\big)$$ for convenience of notation. We see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}\langle2^j(x-c_i)\rangle^{s_i}\Big){|{g_j(x)}|}\\
& \lesssim 2^{jmn} \Big(\prod_{i=1}^l\Vert{a_i}\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\Big) \int_{Q_1\times\cdots\times{Q_{l}}\times ({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-l}} \Big(\prod_{i=1}^{v}\langle2^j(x-y_i)\rangle^{s_i}\Big){\big|{K_j^{(1,m)}\big(x,\yyy\big)}\big|}d\yyy
\end{aligned}$$ and the integral in the preceding expression is less than $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{Q_1\times\cdots\times Q_v\times ({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-v}}{\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{v}\langle 2^j(x-y_i)\rangle^{s_i} \Big)\big|K_j^{(1,m)}\big(x,\yyy\big) \big| }d\yyy\\
&=2^{-jn(m-v)}\int_{Q_1\times\cdots\times Q_v\times ({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-v}}{\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{v}\langle 2^j(x-y_i)\rangle^{s_i} \Big) \big|K_j^{(1,v)}\big(x,\yyy\big) \big| }d\yyy\\
&\leq 2^{-jn(m-v)}\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}{|Q_i|}\Big)\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-v}}{\Big[\int_{y_k\in Q_k}{|Q_k|^{-1}\langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k}}} \\
&\qquad \times {{\Big\Vert \Big( \prod_{\substack{i=1\\i\not= k}}^{v}\langle y_i\rangle^{s_i}\Big)K_j^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy\big) \Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(y_1,\dots,y_{k-1},y_{k+1},\dots,y_v)}}dy_k \Big]}dy_{v+1}\cdots dy_m.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lem:LInfL2\], the integral in the last expression is majored by a constant multiple of $$\begin{aligned}
&2^{-jn(m-v)}\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}{|Q_i|}\Big)\int_{y_k\in Q_k}{|Q_k|^{-1}\langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k}} \\
&\qquad \times {\Big[ \int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-v}}}{{\Big\Vert \Big( \prod_{\substack{i=1\\i\not= k}}^{v}\langle y_i\rangle^{s_i}\Big)K_j^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy\big) \Big\Vert_{L^{r'}(y_1,\dots,y_{k-1},y_{k+1},\dots,y_v)}} }dy_{v+1}\cdots dy_m \Big]dy_k\end{aligned}$$ and this is further estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
&2^{-jn(m-v)}\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}|Q_i|\Big)\int_{y_k\in Q_k}{|Q_k|^{-1}\langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k}} \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \times {\Big\Vert \Big( \prod_{\substack{i=1\\i\not= k}}^{m}\langle y_i\rangle^{s_i}\Big)K_j^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy\big) \Big\Vert_{L^{r'}(y_1,\dots,y_{k-1},y_{k+1},\dots,y_m)} }dy_k ,\end{aligned}$$ by applying Hölder’s inequality, as $s_i>n/r$ for $v+1\leq i\leq m$. We finally obtain $$\label{noderivativeest}
\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}\langle 2^j(x-c_i)\rangle^{s_i}\Big)|g_j(x)| \leq 2^{jvn}\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{v}{|Q_i|^{1-1/p_i}}\Big)\Big(\prod_{i=v+1}^{l}{b_i(x)} \Big)h_j^{(k,0)}(x),$$ where $b_i(x):= {\left\vert{Q_i}\right\vert}^{-1/{p_i}}\chi_{Q_i^*}(x)$ for $v+1\le i\le l$ and $$h_j^{(k,0)}(x):= \dfrac1{{|{Q_k}|}}\int_{Q_k}\langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k} {\Big\Vert \Big( \prod_{\substack{i=1\\i\not= k}}^{m}\langle y_i\rangle^{s_i}\Big)K_j^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy\big) \Big\Vert_{L^{r'}(y_1,\dots,y_{k-1},y_{k+1},\dots,y_m)} }dy_k.$$ The functions $b_i$, $v+1\le i\le l$, obviously satisfy the estimate $\Vert{b_i}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim 1$, and the Minkowski inequality with $1<r'<\infty$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hr'}
\big\Vert{h_j^{(k,0)}}\big\Vert_{L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}&\leq \frac{1}{|Q_k|}\int_{Q_k}{\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}^n}}{\langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{r's_k}\Big\Vert \cdots \Big\Vert_{L^{r'}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-1})}^{r'}}dx \Big)^{1/r'}}dy_k\nonumber\\
&\lesssim 2^{-jn/r'}\Big\Vert \Big( \prod_{i=1}^{m}{\langle \cdot_i\rangle^{s_i}\Big)K_j}\Big\Vert_{L^{r'}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^m)}\lesssim 2^{-jn/r'}\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]
\end{aligned}$$ where we made use of a change of variables and applied the Hausdorff-Young inequality in the preceding inequalities.
On the other hand, using the vanishing moment condition of $a_k$ and Lemma \[smalllemma\], we write $$\begin{aligned}
\big|g_j(x)\big| &\lesssim 2^{jmn}\sum_{|\alpha|=N_k+1}\int_0^1{\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}{\big( 2^j|y_k-c_k|\big)^{N_k+1}}}\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{l}{|a_i(y_i)|}\Big)\\
&\times {{{\Big|\partial_k^{\alpha}K_j\big(2^j(x-y_1),\dots,2^j(x-y_{k-1}),2^jx_{c_k,y_k}^{t},2^j(x-y_{k+1}),\dots,2^j(x-y_m)\big) \Big|} }d\yyy}dt
\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{c_k,y_k}^t:=x-c_k-t(y_k-c_k)$ and $\partial^{\alpha}_{k}K_j (z_1, \dots, z_m):= \partial_{z_k}^{\alpha} K_j (z_1, \dots, z_m)$. Notice that $|{x_{c_k,y_k}^t}|\approx |{x-c_k}|$ for $x\not\in Q_k^{\ast}$, $y_k\in Q_k$, and $0<t<1$. Repeating the preceding argument that is used to establish (\[noderivativeest\]), we also obtain $$\label{equ:H1NFunc}
\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}\langle 2^j(x-c_i)\rangle^{s_i}\Big){|{g_j(x)}|}\lesssim 2^{jvn}\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{v}{|{Q_i}|}^{1-1/{p_i}} \Big)\Big(\prod_{i=v+1}^lb_i(x)\Big) h_j^{(k,1)}(x),$$ where $b_i(x):=|Q_i|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_i^*}(x)$ as before, and $$\begin{aligned}
h_j^{(k,1)}(x)&:=\big( 2^jl(Q_k)\big)^{N_k+1}\sum_{|\alpha|=N_k+1} \dfrac1{{|{Q_k}|}}\int_0^1\int_{Q_k}\langle 2^jx_{c_k,y_k}^{t}\rangle^{s_k}\\
& \quad \times \Big\Vert{\Big( \prod_{\substack{i=1\\i\ne k}}^{m}\langle\cdot_i\rangle^{s_i} \Big)\partial_k^{\alpha}K_j\big(\cdot_1,\ldots,\cdot_{k-1},2^jx_{c_k,y_k}^{t},\cdot_{k+1}, \dots,\cdot_m\big)}\Big\Vert_{L^{r'}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-1})}dy_k dt.
\end{aligned}$$ Now Minkowski’s inequality and Lemma \[lem:LInfL2\] yield that $$\label{hr1'}
\big\Vert{h_j^{(k,1)}}\big\Vert_{L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 2^{-\frac{jn}{r'}}\big(2^jl(Q_k)\big)^{N_k+1}\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma].$$ which is the counterpart of (\[hr’\]) for $h_j^{(k,1)}$.
Combining and , we obtain $$\label{equ:GjQ2}
|g_j(x)| \lesssim 2^{jvn}\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{v}{|Q_i|}^{1-1/{p_i}}\langle2^j(x-c_i)\rangle^{-s_i}\Big)\Big(\prod_{i=v+1}^l b_i(x)\Big)\min\Big( h_j^{(k,0)}(x),h_j^{(k,1)}(x)\Big)$$ for all $x\in \big(\bigcap_{i=v+1}^lQ_i^*\big)\setminus \big(\bigcup_{i=1}^{v}Q_i^*\big)$ and all $1\le k\le v.$
Now we will construct nonnegative functions $u_{i,j}$ for $1\leq i \leq v$ such that $$|{g_j(x)}|\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}u_{i,j}(x)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i=v+1}^lb_i(x)\Big)$$ for all $x\in \big(\bigcap_{i=v+1}^lQ_i^*\big)\setminus \big(\bigcup_{i=1}^{v}Q_i^*\big)$ and $$\label{ujkest}
\Big\Vert{\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}u_{i,j}}\Big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1.$$ Then the lemma follows by taking $$b_i:=\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}u_{i,j} \quad 1\leq i\leq v.$$ For this, we choose $\lambda_{i}$, $1\le i\le v$, such that $$0\leq \lambda_i<{1}/{r'}, \quad {s_i}/{n}>{1}/{p_i}-{1}/{r'}+\lambda_i, \quad \sum_{i=1}^{v}\lambda_i= {(v-1)}/{r'}.$$ This is possible since the second condition in (\[conditionss\]), with $J\subset \{1,\dots,v\}$, yields $$\sum_{i=1}^{v}{\min{\big( 0,{s_i}/{n}-{1}/{p_i} \big)}}>-{1}/{r'},$$ which further implies $$\sum_{i=1}^v\min\big({1}/{r'},{s_i}/{n}-{1}/{p_i}+{1}/{r'}\big)>{(v-1)}/{r'}.$$ We set $$\label{betak}
\alpha_{i}:= {1}/{p_i}-{1}/{r'}+\lambda_i \quad \text{and} \quad \beta_{i}:= 1-r'\lambda_i.$$ Then we have $\alpha_i >0$, $\beta_i >0$, and $\sum_{i=1}^{v}\beta_i =1$. Letting $$u_{i,j}(x):= \big( \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\big)^{-\beta_i}2^{jn}{\left\vert{Q_i}\right\vert}^{1-1/{p_i}}\langle2^j(x-c_i)\rangle^{-s_i}\chi_{(Q_i^*)^c}(x)
\min\Big( h_j^{(i,0)}(x),h_j^{(i,1)}(x)\Big)^{\beta_i}$$ for $1\leq i\leq v$, it is easy to see, from , that $$\label{gjpointest}
|g_j(x)|\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i=1}^{v}u_{i,j}(x)\Big)\Big(\prod_{i=v+1}^lb_i(x)\Big)$$ for all $x\in (\cap_{i=v+1}^lQ_i^*)\setminus (\cup_{i=1}^{v}Q_i^*).$
It remains to verify (\[ujkest\]). Since $1/{p_i} = \alpha_i+{\beta_i}/{r'},$ Hölder’s inequality yields $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert{u_{i,j}}\big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}&\leq \big(\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]\big)^{-\beta_i}2^{jn}{|{Q_i}|}^{ 1- 1/{p_i}}\big\Vert{\langle 2^j(\cdot-c_i)\rangle^{-s_i}\chi_{(Q_i^*)^c}}\big\Vert_{L^{{1}/{\alpha_i}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\qquad \qquad \times \min{\Big(\big\Vert h_j^{(i,0)}\big\Vert_{L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i}, \big\Vert h_j^{i,1} \big\Vert_{L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i}\Big)}.
\end{aligned}$$ We observe that $$\big\Vert{\langle 2^j(\cdot-c_i)\rangle^{-s_i}\chi_{(Q_i^*)^c}}\big\Vert_{L^{1/\alpha_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \approx 2^{-jn\alpha_i}\min\big(1,\big(2^jl(Q_i)\big)^{-(s_i-\alpha_in)}\big)$$ since ${s_i}/{\alpha_i}>n$. In addition, it follows from (\[hr’\]) and (\[hr1’\]) that $$\min{\Big(\big\Vert h_j^{(i,0)}\big\Vert_{L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i}, \big\Vert h_j^{(i,1)} \big\Vert_{L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i}\Big)}\lesssim 2^{-jn\beta_i/r'}\big(\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma] \big)^{\beta_i}\min{\big(1,\big( 2^jl(Q_i)\big)^{\beta_i(N_i+1)} \big)}.$$ In conclusion, we have $$\label{uijest}
\big\Vert{u_{i,j}}\big\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \begin{cases}
{ (2^{j}l(Q_i) )^{- (n/p_i-n) + \beta_i(N_i+1)} }, & { \quad \text{if} \quad 2^{j} l(Q_i) \le 1 }\\
{ (2^{j}l(Q_i) )^{- (n/p_i-n) -(s_i- \alpha_i n)} }, & { \quad \text{if} \quad 2^{j} l(Q_i) > 1 }.
\end{cases}$$ We choose $N_i$ sufficiently large so that $- (n/p_i-n) + \beta_i(N_i+1)>0$, and then (\[ujkest\]) follows immediately.
The proof of Lemma \[keylemma1\] is done.
Proof of Lemma \[keylemma2\]
----------------------------
It follows from (\[conditionss\]) that there exists $1<t<r$ such that $$\label{stot2}
s_1,\dots,s_m>n/t>n/r, \qquad \sum_{k\in J}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)}>-{1}/{t'}>-{1}/{r'}$$ for every nonempty subset $J\subset \{1,\dots,l\}$. Then (\[compactembedding1\]) holds.
For each $J_0\subset \mathrm{I}$, let $$E_{J_0}:=\Big( \bigcap_{i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus J_0}Q_i^*\Big)\setminus \Big( \bigcup_{i\in J_0}{Q_i^*}\Big)$$ where $E_{\emptyset}=\bigcap_{i\in \mathrm{I}}Q_i^*$ for $J_0=\emptyset$, and $E_{\mathrm{I}}=\big( \bigcup_{i\in \mathrm{I}}{Q_i^*}\big)^c$ for $J_0=\mathrm{I}$. Then we see that the left-hand side of (\[kl2condition1\]) can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{J_0\subset \mathrm{I}}\Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big( a_{1},\dots,a_{l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big|\Big)\chi_{E_{J_0}}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Since it is a finite sum over $J_0$, it suffices to show that for each $J_0\subset \mathrm{I}$, there exist functions $b_i^{J_0}$, $1\leq i\leq l$, and $F_i^{J_0}$, $l+1\leq i\leq \rho$ having the properties that for $x\in E_{J_0}$ $$\label{kl22condition1}
\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big( a_{1},\dots,a_{l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}b_i^{J_0}(x)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}F_i^{J_0}(x)\Big),$$ $$\label{kl22condition2}
\Vert b_i^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1,\quad \text{ for }~ i\in\mathrm{I},$$ $$\label{kl22condition3}
\Vert F_i^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}, \quad \text{ for }~ i\in \mathrm{II}.$$
We first consider the case $J_0=\emptyset$ and divide the proof into six cases based on the location of $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$. Let $x\in E_{J_0}$.
[**Case1 : $\kappa_1,\kappa_2\in \mathrm{I}.$**]{} By applying (\[2express\]), Lemma \[keyestilemma\], (\[katogeneral\]), (\[compactembedding1\]), and (\[maximalcompare\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\big| T_{\sigma_{j,2}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big(a_1,\dots,a_l,f_{l+1},\dots,f_m \big)(x)\big|\\
&\lesssim\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\mathcal{M}_t(a_{\kappa_1})_j(x)\mathcal{M}_t(a_{\kappa_2})_j(x)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa_1,\kappa_2\}}\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\Big)\Big(\prod_{i\in \mathrm{II}}{\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x)} \Big),\end{aligned}$$ since $\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x)\leq \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$ for $i\in\mathrm{III}$. Now we take the sum over $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ to both sides and apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Then (\[kl22condition1\]) follows from taking $$\begin{aligned}
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \big( \mathcal{M}_t(a_i)_j(x)\big)^2 \Big)^{1/2}\chi_{Q_i^*(x)},\qquad i\in \{\kappa_1,\kappa_2\}\\
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i^*}(x), \qquad i\in\mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa_1,\kappa_2\},\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \qquad i\in \mathrm{II}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, using Hölder’s inequality, (\[maximal1\]) with $t<2$, and (\[littlewood\]), we obtain $$\Vert b_i^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq |Q_i^*|^{1/p_i-1/2}\big\Vert \big\{ \mathcal{M}_t(a_i)_j\big\}_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big\Vert_{L^2(\ell^2)}\lesssim |Q_i|^{1/p_1-1/2}\Vert a_i\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1, ~ i\in \{\kappa_1,\kappa_2\},$$ $$\Vert b_i^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq |Q_i^*|^{1/p_i-1/2}\big\Vert \mathcal{M}_ta_i\big\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim |Q_i|^{1/p_i-1/2}\Vert a_i\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1, \quad i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa_1,\kappa_2\},$$ $$\Vert F_i^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})},\quad i\in \mathrm{II},$$ which completes the proof of (\[kl22condition2\]) and (\[kl22condition3\]).
[**Case2 : $\kappa_1,\kappa_2\in \mathrm{II}.$**]{} Similarly, (\[kl22condition1\]) holds with $$\begin{aligned}
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i^*}(x),\qquad i\in \mathrm{I},\\
F_{i}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big(\mathcal{M}_t(f_{i})_j(x)\big)^2\Big)^{1/2}, \qquad i\in\{ \kappa_1,\kappa_2\},\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \qquad i\in \mathrm{II}\setminus \{\kappa_1,\kappa_2\}.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, (\[kl22condition2\]) and (\[kl22condition3\]) are clear as (\[littlewood\]) is applied when $i\in \{\kappa_1,\kappa_2\}$.
[**Case3 : $\kappa_1,\kappa_2\in \mathrm{III}.$**]{} In this case, we cannot use the classical Littlewood-Paley theory as $L^{\infty}$ norm is not characterized by $L^{\infty}$ norm of a square function. Instead, we can benefit from Lemma \[bmoboundlemma\], using $\mathfrak{M}_{\sigma,2^j}^t$, not $\mathcal{M}_t$. By applying (\[4express\]), Lemma \[keyestilemma\], (\[katogeneral\]), (\[compactembedding1\]), and (\[maximalcompare\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\big| T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big(a_1,\dots,a_l,f_{l+1},\dots,f_m \big)(x)\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}} \mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\Big) \mathfrak{M}_{s_{l+1},2^j}^t(f_{l+1})^{j+1}(x) \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad \times \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}\setminus \{l+1\}}{\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x)} \Big)\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa_1},2^j}^{t}(f_{\kappa_1})_j(x)\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa_2},2^j}^{t}(f_{\kappa_2})_j(x).\end{aligned}$$ Now we take $$\begin{aligned}
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i^*}(x),\qquad i\in \mathrm{I},\\
F_{l+1}^{J_0}(x)&:=\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\mathfrak{M}_{s_{l+1},2^j}^t(f_{l+1})^{j+1}(x)\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa_1},2^j}^{t}(f_{\kappa_1})_j(x)\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa_2},2^j}^{t}(f_{\kappa_2})_j(x),\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \qquad i\in \mathrm{II}\setminus \{l+1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[kl22condition1\]), (\[kl22condition2\]), and (\[kl22condition3\]) are immediate for $i\not= l+1$, and the case $i=l+1$ follows from Lemma \[bmoboundlemma\].
[**Case4 : $\kappa_1\in \mathrm{I}$, $\kappa_2\in \mathrm{II}$.**]{} Using the arguments in [**Case1**]{} and [**Case2**]{}, we are done with the choices $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\kappa_1}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \big( \mathcal{M}_t(a_{\kappa_1})_j(x)\big)^2 \Big)^{1/2}\chi_{Q_{\kappa_1}^*}(x),\\
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i^*}(x),\qquad i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa_1\},\\
F_{\kappa_2}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big(\mathcal{M}_t(f_{\kappa_2})_j(x)\big)^2\Big)^{1/2},\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \qquad i\in \mathrm{II}\setminus \{\kappa_2\}.\end{aligned}$$
[**Case5 : $\kappa_1\in \mathrm{I}$, $\kappa_2\in \mathrm{III}$.**]{} It follows from (\[3express\]), Lemma \[keyestilemma\], (\[katogeneral\]), (\[compactembedding1\]), and (\[maximalcompare\]) that (\[kl22condition1\]) holds with $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\kappa_1}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \big( \mathcal{M}_t(a_{\kappa_1})_j(x)\big)^2 \Big)^{1/2}\chi_{Q_{\kappa_1}^*}(x),\\
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i^*}(x),\qquad i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa_1\},\\
F_{l+1}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big( \mathfrak{M}_{s_{l+1},2^j}^t(f_{l+1})^{j+1}(x)\big)^2\big(\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa_2},2^j}^{t}(f_{\kappa_2})_j(x)\big)^2\Big)^{1/2},\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \qquad i\in \mathrm{II}\setminus \{l+1\},\end{aligned}$$ and it is clear that (\[kl22condition1\]), (\[kl22condition2\]), and (\[kl22condition3\]) hold. Especially, (\[kl22condition3\]) for $i=l+1$ is due to Lemma \[bmoboundlemma\].
[**Case6 : $\kappa_1\in \mathrm{II}$, $\kappa_2\in \mathrm{III}$.**]{} The similar arguments can be applied with $$\begin{aligned}
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i^*}(x),\qquad i\in \mathrm{I},\\
F_{\kappa_1}^{J_0}(x)&:=\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa_1},2^j}^t(f_{\kappa_1})_j(x)\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa_2},2^j}^t(f_{\kappa_2})_j(x), \\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \quad i\in \mathrm{II}\setminus \{\kappa_1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that Lemma \[bmoboundlemma\] implies $$\Vert F_{\kappa_1}^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_{\kappa_1}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_{\kappa_1}\Vert_{L^{p_{\kappa_1}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\Vert f_{\kappa_2}\Vert_{BMO}\lesssim \Vert f_{\kappa_1}\Vert_{L^{p_{\kappa_1}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}.$$
Next we consider the case $J_0\not=\emptyset$. In this case the proof is based on the idea in the proof of Lemma \[keylemma1\]. For notational convenience, let $$\label{gjdef}
\mathcal{G}_j:=T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}}\big( a_{1},\dots,a_{l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big).$$ Here, the notation $\mathcal{G}_j$ does not contain two parameters $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ as the arguments below are universal for any $1\leq \kappa_1<\kappa_2\leq m$. We note that $\mathcal{G}_j$ plays a similar role as $g_j$ in (\[gjx\]).
We shall prove that there exist nonnegative functions $u^{J_0}_{i,j}$, $i\in J_0$, such that for $x\in E_{J_0}$ and $j\in \mathbb Z$, $$\label{equ:019}
\big|\mathcal{G}_j(x)\big| \lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \Big(\prod_{i\in J_0} u^{J_0}_{i,j}(x)\Big)\Big(\prod_{i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0} |{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i} \chi_{Q_{i}^{\ast}}(x)\Big) \Big(\prod_{i\in \mathrm{II} } \mathcal{M}_{t}(f_{i})(x)\Big),$$ and $$\label{equ:020}
\Vert{u^{J_0}_{i,j}}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim \min \big( \big(2^{j}\ell (Q_{i})\big)^{\gamma_i}, \big(2^{j}\ell (Q_{i})\big)^{-\delta_i}\big)$$ for some $\gamma_i, \delta_i>0$, which are the counterparts of (\[gjpointest\]) and (\[uijest\]), respectively.
If we have such functions $u^{J_0}_{i,j}$, then holds with the functions $$\label{bjidef}
b^{J_0}_{i}:=\sum_{j\in {\mathbb{Z}}}u^{J_0}_{i,j} \quad\text{ for }~ i\in J_0, \qquad \qquad b^{J_0}_{i}= |{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}^*} \quad \text{ for }~ i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0,$$ $$\label{fiidef}
F^{J_0}_{i}:=\mathcal{M}_t(f_i) \qquad\text{ for }\quad i\in \mathrm{II}.$$ The estimate (\[kl22condition2\]) for $i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0$ is obvious and when $i\in J_0$ it follows from (\[equ:020\]). In addition, (\[kl22condition3\]) holds via the $L^{p_i}$-boundedness of $\mathcal{M}_{t}$.
From now on, let us construct $u_{i,j}^{J_0}$ having the properties (\[equ:019\]) and $(\ref{equ:020})$. Fix $x\in E_{J_0}$ and write $$\mathcal{G}_j(x)=\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}{2^{jmn}K_j\big(2^j(x-y_1),\dots,2^j(x-y_m) \big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}} a_{i}(y_i)\Big) \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}\cup\mathrm{III}}f_{i}(y_i)\Big)}d\yyy$$ where $K_j:=\big(\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa_1,\kappa_2}(2^j\cdot) \big)^{\vee}$. Let $c_i$ denote the center of the cube $Q_i$ and use the notation $$K_j^{(u,w)}(x,\yyy):=K_j\big(y_1,\dots,y_{u-1},2^j(x-y_u),\dots,2^j(x-y_w),y_{w+1},\dots,y_m\big)$$ for simplicity, as before.
Since $|{x-c_i}|\approx |{x-y_i}|$ for $x\not\in Q_{i}^{\ast}$ and $y_{i}\in Q_{i}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big( \prod_{i\in J_0}\langle 2^j(x-c_i) \rangle^{s_i}\Big) |{\mathcal{G}_j(x)}|\\
&\lesssim 2^{jmn}\int_{({{\mathbb{R}^n}})^{m}} \Big( \prod_{i\in J_0}\langle 2^j(x-y_i) \rangle^{s_i}\Big) \big|{K_{j}^{(1,m)}\big(x,\yyy\big)}\big| \Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{I}}|{a_{i}(y_i)}|\Big) \Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II} \cup \mathrm{III} }|{f_{i}(y_i)}|\Big) d\yyy\\
&\leq 2^{jmn}\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m} \Big( \prod_{i\in J_0}\langle 2^j(x-y_i) \rangle^{s_i}\Big) \big|{K_{j}^{(1,m)}\big(x,\yyy\big)}\big| \Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{I}} |{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}}(y_i)\Big) \Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}} |{f_{i}(y_i)}|\Big) d\yyy.\end{aligned}$$ We now fix $k\in J_0$ and estimate the last integral by $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{y_k\in{\mathbb{R}^n}} \Big\Vert{\Big( \prod_{i\in J_0\cup \mathrm{II}} \langle 2^j(x-y_i) \rangle^{s_i} \Big) K_{j}^{(1,m)}\big(x,\yyy\big)}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})L^{t'}(\yyy_{\mathrm{II}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{III}})}\\
&\qquad \qquad \times \Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in J_0}|{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{1}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})} \Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0}|{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})}\\
&\qquad \qquad \times \Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in \mathrm{II}}\langle 2^j(x-y_i) \rangle^{-s_i} f_{i}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{t}(\yyy_{\mathrm{II}})} dy_{k},\end{aligned}$$ where we used the notations $\displaystyle \yyy_J:=\otimes_{i\in J}y_i$ for all $J$ (for example, $\yyy_{\mathrm{I}}=(y_1,\dots,y_l)$, $\yyy_{\mathrm{II}}=(y_{l+1},\dots,y_{\rho})$, and so on), and $$\Vert{F(z_1,z_2)}\Vert_{L^{p}(z_1)L^{q}(z_2)}:=\big\Vert \Vert F(z_1,z_2)\Vert_{L^p(z_1)} \big\Vert_{L^q(z_2)}.$$ Using a change of variables we write $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\Vert{\Big( \prod_{i\in J_0\cup \mathrm{II}}\langle 2^j(x-y_i) \rangle^{s_i}\Big) K_{j}^{(1,m)}\big(x,\yyy \big) }\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})L^{t'}(\yyy_{\mathrm{II}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{III}})}\\
&=2^{-jn \textup{Card}(\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0)}2^{-(jn/t')\textup{Card}(\mathrm{II})}2^{-jn \textup{Card}(\mathrm{III})} \\
&\qquad \times \Big\Vert \langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k}\Big( \prod_{i\in J_0\cup \mathrm{II}\setminus \{k\}}\langle y_i\rangle^{s_i}\Big) K_j^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy \big)\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})L^{t'}(\yyy_{\mathrm{II}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{III}})}.\end{aligned}$$ Now Hölder’s inequality with $s_i>n/t$ and Lemma \[lem:LInfL2\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\Vert \langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k}\Big( \prod_{i\in J_0\cup \mathrm{II}\setminus \{k\}}\langle y_i\rangle^{s_i}\Big) K_j^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy \big)\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})L^{t'}(\yyy_{\mathrm{II}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{III}})}\\
&\lesssim \Big\Vert \langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k} {\Big( \prod_{i\in \Lambda\setminus \{k\}} \langle y_i \rangle^{s_i} \Big) K_{j}^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy\big) }\Big\Vert_{ L^{\infty}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}}) L^{t'}(\yyy_{\Lambda \setminus J_0})}\\
&\lesssim \Big\Vert \langle 2^j(x-y_k) \rangle^{s_k} \Big( \prod_{i\in \Lambda\setminus \{k\}} \langle y_i \rangle^{s_i} \Big) K_{j}^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy \big) \Big\Vert_{L^{t'}(\yyy_{\Lambda\setminus \{k\}})}.\end{aligned}$$ Morover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in J_0}|{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{1}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})}&\lesssim \Big(\prod_{i\in J_0}|Q_i|^{1-1/p_i} \Big)\chi_{Q_k}(y_k)|Q_k|^{-1},\\
\Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0}|{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})}&\leq \prod_{i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus J_0}{|Q_i|^{-1/p_i}},\\
\Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in \mathrm{II}}\langle 2^j(x-y_i) \rangle^{-s_i} f_{i}(y_i) }\Big\Vert_{L^{t}(y_{\mathrm{II}})}&\lesssim 2^{-(jn/t)\textup{Card}(\mathrm{II})}\prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}\mathfrak{M}_{s_i,2^j}^tf_i(x) \\
&\lesssim 2^{-(jn/t)\textup{Card}(\mathrm{II})} \prod_{i\in \mathrm{II}} \mathcal{M}_{t}(f_{i})(x),\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from (\[maximalcompare\]) with $s_i>n/t$.
Combining the above inequalities, we obtain that for $x\in E_{I_0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Big( \prod_{i\in J_0}\langle 2^j(x-c_i) \rangle^{s_i}\Big) |{\mathcal{G}_j(x)}| &\lesssim 2^{jn \textup{Card}(J_0)} H_j^{(k,0)}(x) \Big(\prod_{i\in J_0}|{Q_i}|^{1-1/p_i} \Big) \\
&\qquad \qquad \times\Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0}|{Q_i}|^{-1/p_i}\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{II} }\mathcal{M}_{t}(f_i)(x)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ where $H_j^{(k,0)}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
H_j^{(k,0)}(x)&:= \dfrac1{{|{Q_k}|}}\int_{Q_k}\langle 2^j(x-y_k)\rangle^{s_k} \Big\Vert{\Big( \prod_{i\in\Lambda\setminus \{k\}}\langle y_i\rangle^{s_i} \Big) K_j^{(k,k)}\big(x,\yyy\big)}\Big\Vert_{L^{t'}(\yyy_{\Lambda\setminus \{k\}})}dy_k,
\end{aligned}$$ which is the counterpart of $h_j^{(k,0)}$ in the proof of Lemma \[keylemma1\]. Then the argument that led to (\[hr’\]), with (\[compactembedding1\]), proves that $$\label{equ:025}
\Vert H_j^{(k,0)} \Vert_{L^{t'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 2^{-jn/t'}\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^r[\sigma].$$
On the other hand, applying the vanishing moment condition of $a_k$ and Lemma \[smalllemma\], we write $$\begin{aligned}
\big|\mathcal{G}_j(x)\big| &\lesssim 2^{jmn}\sum_{|\alpha|=N_k+1}\int_0^1{\int_{({\mathbb{R}^n})^m}{\big( 2^j|y_k-c_k|\big)^{N_k+1}}}\Big(\prod_{i\in I}{|Q_i|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_i}(y_i)}\Big)\\
&\quad \times {{{\Big|\partial_k^{\alpha}K_j\big(2^j(x-y_1),\dots,2^j(x-y_{k-1}),2^jx_{c_k,y_k}^{t},2^j(x-y_{k+1}),\dots,2^j(x-y_m)\big) \Big|} }}\\
&\quad \times \Big( \prod_{i\in \mathscr{II}}{|f_i(y_i)|}\Big)d\yyy dt
\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{c_k,y_k}^t:=x-c_k-t(y_k-c_k)$. Since $|{x_{c_k,y_k}^t}|\approx |{x-c_k}|$ for $x\not\in Q_k^{\ast}$, $y_k\in Q_k$, and $0<t<1$, arguing as in (\[equ:H1NFunc\]), we obtain that for $x\in E_{J_0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big( \prod_{i\in J_0}\langle 2^j(x-c_i)\rangle^{s_i}\Big){|{\mathcal{G}_j(x)}|}\\
&\lesssim 2^{jmn}\big(2^jl(Q_k) \big)^{N_k+1} \sum_{|\alpha|=N_k+1}\int_0^1 \int_{y_k\in{\mathbb{R}^n}} \Big\Vert \langle 2^jx_{c_k,y_k}^t \rangle^{s_k} \Big( \prod_{i\in J_0\cup {II}\setminus \{k\}}{ \langle 2^j(x-y_i)\rangle^{s_i}}\Big)\\
&\qquad \times \partial^{\alpha}_k K_j\big(2^j(x-y_1),\dots ,2^j(x-y_{k-1}),2^j x_{c_k,y_k}^t,2^j(x-y_{k+1}),\dots,\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad , 2^j(x-y_m)\big) \Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})L^{t'}(\yyy_{\mathrm{II}})L^{1}(\yyy_{\mathrm{III}})} \\
&\qquad \times \Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in J_0}|{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{1}(\yyy_{J_0\setminus \{k\}})} \Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0}|{Q_{i}}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_{i}}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{\infty}(\yyy_{\mathrm{I} \setminus J_0})}\\
& \qquad \times \Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in \mathrm{II}}\langle 2^j(x-y_i) \rangle^{-s_i} f_{i}(y_i)}\Big\Vert_{L^{t}(\yyy_{\mathrm{II}})} dy_{k} dt\\
& \lesssim 2^{jn \textup{Card}(J_0)} H_j^{(k,1)}(x) \Big(\prod_{i\in J_0}|{Q_i}|^{1-1/p_i} \Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0}|{Q_i}|^{-1/p_i}\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{II} }\mathcal{M}_{t}(f_i)(x)\Big)
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_j^{(k,1)}(x)&:=\big( 2^jl(Q_k)\big)^{N_k+1}\sum_{|\alpha|=N_k+1} \dfrac1{{|{Q_k}|}}\int_0^1\int_{Q_k}\langle 2^jx_{c_k,y_k}^{t}\rangle^{s_k}\\
& \quad \times \Big\Vert{\prod_{i\in\Lambda\setminus \{k\}}\langle\cdot_i\rangle^{s_i} \partial_k^{\alpha}K_j\big(\cdot_1,\ldots,\cdot_{k-1},2^jx_{c_k,y_k}^{t},\cdot_{k+1}, \dots,\cdot_m\big)}\Big\Vert_{L^{t'}(({\mathbb{R}^n})^{m-1})}dy_k dt.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Minkowski’s inequality, Lemma \[lem:LInfL2\] and (\[compactembedding1\]), we deduce $$\label{equ:027}
\Vert{H_j^{(k,1)}}\Vert_{L^{t'}({\mathbb R}^n)}\lesssim 2^{-jn/t'} \big( 2^jl(Q_k)\big)^{N_k+1}\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma].$$
So far, we have proved that for $x\in E_{J_0}$ and $k\in J_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gjest}
|{\mathcal{G}_{j}(x)}| &\lesssim 2^{jn \textup{Card}(J_0)} \Big(\prod_{i\in J_0}\langle 2^j(x-c_i) \rangle^{-s_i} |{Q_i}|^{1-1/p_i }\chi_{(Q_i^*)^c}(x)\Big)\\
&\quad \times \Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{I} \setminus J_0}|{Q_i}|^{-1/p_i}\chi_{Q_i^*}(x)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{II} }\mathcal{M}_{t}(f_i)(x)\Big) \min{\big(H_j^{(k,0)}(x), H_j^{(k,1)}(x)\big)}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We choose $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in I_0}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i\in I_0}$ as in (\[betak\]) by replacing $\{1,\dots,v\}$ and $r'$ by $J_0$ and $t'$, respectively, which is possible since $$\sum_{i\in J_0}{\min{\big(0,{s_i}/{n}-{1}/{p_i} \big)}}>-{1}/{t'}$$ by virtue of condition (\[stot2\]). Then we have $$\alpha_i,\beta_i >0, \quad {s_i}/{n}>{1}/{p_i}- {\beta_{k}}/{t'}=\alpha_i, \quad \sum_{i\in J_0}\beta_i =1.$$ Now if we set $$u_{i,j}^{J_0}(x):= \big(\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \big)^{-\beta_i}2^{jn}|{Q_i}|^{1-1/p_i} \langle 2^j(x-c_i) \rangle^{-s_i} \chi_{(Q_i^*)^{c}}(x) \Big( \min{\big(H_j^{(i,0)}(x), H_j^{(i,1)}(x)\big)} \Big)^{\beta_i},$$ (\[equ:019\]) is immediate from (\[gjest\]) since $\sum_{i\in J_0}\beta_i=1$.
It remains to verify (\[equ:020\]). Hölder’s inequality with $1/p_i=\beta_i/r'+\alpha_i$ yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert{u_{i,j}^{J_0}}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} &\leq \big( \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\big)^{-\beta_i}2^{jn}l(Q_i)^{n(1-1/p_i)} \big\Vert{\langle 2^j(\cdot-c_i) \rangle ^{-s_i}\chi_{(Q_i^*)^{c}}}\big\Vert_{L^{1/\alpha_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\\
&\qquad \qquad \times \min{\Big(\Vert H_j^{(i,0)}\Vert_{L^{t'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i},\Vert H_j^{(i,1)}\Vert_{L^{t'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i} \Big)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $s_i >\alpha_i n$, we have $$\big\Vert{\langle 2^j(\cdot-c_i) \rangle ^{-s_i} \chi_{(Q_i^*)^{c}}}\big\Vert_{L^{1/\alpha_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})} \lesssim 2^{-jn\alpha_i}\min{\big(1,\big(2^jl(Q_i)\big)^{-(s_i-\alpha_i n)} \big)},$$ and the estimates and prove $$\begin{aligned}
\min{\Big(\Vert H_j^{(i,0)}\Vert_{L^{t'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i},\Vert H_j^{(i,1)}\Vert_{L^{t'}({\mathbb{R}^n})}^{\beta_i} \Big)} \lesssim 2^{-jn\beta_i/t'} \big(\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \big)^{\beta_i}\min{\big( 1,\big( 2^jl(Q_i)\big)^{\beta_i(N_i+1)}\big)}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\Vert u_{i,j}^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \begin{cases}
\big( 2^jl(Q_i)\big)^{-(n/p_i-n)+\beta_i(N_i+1)},\quad & \text{ if }~ 2^jl(Q_i)\leq 1\\
\big( 2^jl(Q_i)\big)^{-(n/p_i-n)-(s_i-\alpha_i n)}, \quad & \text{ if }~ 2^j(Q_i)>1
\end{cases}$$ since $1-\alpha_i-\beta_i/t'=1-1/p_i$. This implies with $\gamma_j= -(n/p_i-n)+\beta_i(N_i+1)$ and $\delta_i=n/p_i-n+s_i-\alpha_i n$. We have $\gamma_k,\delta_k>0$ as $N_k$ is sufficiently large and $s_i>\alpha_i n$.
This completes the proof of Lemma \[keylemma2\].
Proof of Lemma \[keylemma3\]
----------------------------
The proof is similar to that of Lemma \[keylemma2\]. As in the proof of Lemma \[keylemma2\], we choose $1<t<r$ such that $$s_1,\dots,s_m>d/t>d/r, \qquad \sum_{k\in J}{\big({s_k}/{n}-{1}/{p_k} \big)}>-{1}/{t'}>-{1}/{r'}$$ for every nonempty subset $J\subset \mathrm{I}$, and observe that (\[compactembedding1\]) holds.
For each $J_0\subset \mathrm{I}$, let $$E_{J_0}:=\Big( \bigcap_{i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus J_0}Q_i^*\Big)\setminus \Big( \bigcup_{i\in J_0}{Q_i^*}\Big)$$ and we decompose the left-hand side of (\[kl3condition1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{J_0\subset \mathrm{I}}\Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{1,j}^{\kappa}} \big( a_{1},\dots,a_{l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big|^2\Big)^{1/2}\chi_{E_{J_0}}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Since it is a finite sum over $J_0$, we need to prove that for each $J_0\subset I$, there exist nonnegative functions $b_i^{J_0}$, $i\in \mathrm{I}$, and $F_i^{J_0}$, $ i\in \mathrm{II}$ satisfying that for all $x\in E_{J_0}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kl33condition1}
&\Big( \sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big|T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\big( a_{1},\dots,a_{l},f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big)(x)\big|^2\Big)^{1/2}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}b_i^{J_0}(x)\Big)\Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}F_i^{J_0}(x)\Big),\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{kl33condition2}
\Vert b_i^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1,\quad \text{ for }~ i\in \mathrm{I},$$ $$\label{kl33condition3}
\Vert F_i^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{p_i}({\mathbb{R}^n})}, \quad \text{ for }~ i\in \mathrm{II}.$$
Let us first assume $J_0=\emptyset$. In this case, the proof consists of three cases.
[**Case1 : $\kappa \in \mathrm{I}$.** ]{} Using (\[condexpression1\]), Lemma \[keyestilemma\], (\[maximalcompare\]), (\[sigmajkest\]), and (\[compactembedding1\]), we obtain $$\big| T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\big(a_1,\dots,a_l,f_{l+1},\dots,f_m \big)(x)\big|\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\mathcal{M}_t(a_{\kappa})_j(x)\Big( \prod_{i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa\}}\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\Big)\Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}}{\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x)} \Big),$$ where we applied $\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x)\leq \Vert f_i\Vert_{L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}^n})}=1$ for $i\in\mathrm{III}$. We now take $$\begin{aligned}
b_{\kappa}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \big( \mathcal{M}_t(a_{\kappa})_j(x)\big)^2 \Big)^{1/2}\chi_{Q_{\kappa}^*}(x),\\
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i^*}(x),\qquad i\in \mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa\},\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \qquad i\in \mathrm{II}\end{aligned}$$ and then (\[kl33condition1\]) holds. Furthermore, (\[kl33condition2\]) and (\[kl33condition3\]) follow from Hölder’s inequality, (\[maximal1\]) with $t<2$, and (\[littlewood\]). To be specific, the estimates for $i\in\mathrm{I}\setminus \{\kappa\}$ or for $i\in\mathrm{II}$ are clear, and $$\Vert b_{\kappa}^{J_0}\Vert_{L^{p_{\kappa}}({\mathbb{R}^n})}\leq |Q_{\kappa}^*|^{1/p_{\kappa}-1/2}\big\Vert \big\{ \mathcal{M}_t(a_\kappa)_j\big\}_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big\Vert_{L^2(\ell^2)}\lesssim |Q_{\kappa}|^{1/p_{\kappa}-1/2}\Vert a_{\kappa}\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}^n})}\lesssim 1.$$
[**Case2 : $\kappa \in \mathrm{II}$.** ]{} It can be proved in a similar way. Indeed, (\[kl33condition1\]) holds with $$\begin{aligned}
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i}(x),\qquad i\in\mathrm{I},\\
F_{\kappa}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big(\mathcal{M}_t(f_{\kappa})_j(x)\big)^2\Big)^{1/2},\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \qquad i\in\mathrm{II}\setminus \{\kappa\}.\end{aligned}$$ It is also obvious that (\[kl33condition2\]) and (\[kl33condition3\]) hold as (\[littlewood\]) is applied in the case $i=\kappa$.
[**Case3 : $\kappa \in \mathrm{III}$.** ]{} We utilize Lemma \[bmoboundlemma\] as we did in [**Case3**]{} that appeared in the proof of Lemma \[keylemma2\]. Using (\[secondexpression2\]), Lemma \[keyestilemma\], (\[maximalcompare\]), (\[sigmajkest\]), and (\[compactembedding1\]), we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&\big| T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\sigma+1}}\big(a_1,\dots,a_l,f_{l+1},\dots,f_m \big)(x)\big|\\
&\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma] \Big( \prod_{i\in\mathrm{I}}\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\Big) \mathfrak{M}_{s_{l+1},2^j}^t(f_{l+1})^{j+1,m}(x) \Big(\prod_{i\in\mathrm{II}\setminus \{l+1\}}{\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x)} \Big)\mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa},2^j}^{t}(f_{\kappa})_j(x).\end{aligned}$$ Now we take $$\begin{aligned}
b_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_ta_i(x)\chi_{Q_i}(x),\qquad i\in\mathrm{I},\\
F_{l+1}^{J_0}(x)&:=\Big(\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\big(\mathfrak{M}_{s_{l+1},2^j}^t(f_{l+1})^{j+1,m}(x)\big)^2 \big( \mathfrak{M}_{s_{\kappa},2^j}^t(f_{\kappa})_j(x)\big)^2 \Big)^{1/2},\\
F_i^{J_0}(x)&:=\mathcal{M}_tf_i(x), \quad i\in \mathrm{II}\setminus \{l+1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[kl33condition1\]), (\[kl33condition2\]), and (\[kl33condition3\]) are all true for $i\not= l+1$, and (\[kl33condition3\]) for $i=l+1$ follows from Lemma \[bmoboundlemma\].
Now we consider the case $J_0\not=\emptyset$. The proof is immediate from the argument in the proof of Lemma \[keylemma2\]. We define, like (\[gjdef\]), $$\mathcal{G}_j:=T_{\sigma_{j,1}^{\kappa}}\big(a_1,\dots,a_l,f_{l+1},\dots,f_m\big).$$ Then (\[equ:019\]) still holds in the present case with (\[equ:020\]). Let $b_i^{J_0}$, $i\in \mathrm{I}$, and $F_i^{J_0}$, $i\in \mathrm{II}$, be defined as in (\[bjidef\]) and (\[fiidef\]), and apply the embedding $\ell^1\hookrightarrow \ell^2$ to obtain that the left-hand side of (\[kl33condition1\]) is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}{\big| \mathcal{G}_j(x)\big|}\lesssim \mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r}[\sigma]\Big(\prod_{i=1}^{l}b_i^{J_0}(x) \Big)\Big(\prod_{i=l+1}^{\rho}F_{i}^{J_0}(x) \Big),\end{aligned}$$ which proves (\[kl33condition1\]). In addition, (\[kl33condition2\]) and (\[kl33condition3\]) are obvious from (\[kl22condition2\]) and (\[kl22condition3\]), respectively.
This completes the proof.
Final remarks
=============
We note that the direction $(\ref{boundresult})\Rightarrow (\ref{minimal})$ is valid even for $2<r<\infty$, in view of Propositions \[main21\] and \[main22\]. Thus, under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_{\sss}^{r,\Psi^{(m)}}[\sigma]<\infty$ conditions $(\ref{minimal})$ are necessary for the boundedness of $T_\sigma$ for all $r$ in the range $1<r<\infty$. However the sufficiency of $(\ref{minimal})$ for the boundedness of $T_\sigma$, i.e., the direction $(\ref{minimal}) \Rightarrow (\ref{boundresult})$ is missing in the case $r>2$. It seems that our techniques are not applicable in this case. We hope to address this problem in the future but we welcome interested researchers to investigate this topic as well.
[**Acknowledgment:**]{} We would like to thank Professors M. Mastylo and N. Tomita for providing us important references related to complex interpolation.
[99]{}
A.P. Calderón, *Intermediate spaces and interpolation, the complex method*, Studia Math. **24** (1964) 113-190.
A.P. Calderón and A. Torchinsky, *Parabolic maximal functions associated with a distribution, II*, Adv. in Math. **24** (1977) 101-171.
R. R. Coifman and Y. Meyer, *Au delà des opérateurs pseudo-différentiels*, Astérisque **57** (1978) 1-185.
C. Fefferman and E. M. Stein, *Some maximal inequalities*, Amer. J. Math. **93** (1971) 107-115.
C. Fefferman and E. M. Stein, *$H^p$ spaces of several variables*, Acta Math. **129** (1972) 137-193.
M. Frazier and B. Jawerth, *A discrete transform and decomposition of distribution spaces*, J. Func. Anal. **93** (1990) 34-170.
M. Fujita and N. Tomita, *Weighted norm inequalities for multilinear Fourier multipliers*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **364** (2012) 6335-6353.
L. Grafakos, *Classical Fourier Analysis*, 3rd Edition, GTM 249, Springer, New York, 2014.
L. Grafakos, *An improvement of the Marcinkiewicz multiplier theorem*, submitted.
L. Grafakos, D. He, P. Honzík, and H. V. Nguyen, *The Hörmander multiplier theorem I : The linear case revisited*, Illinois J. Math. **61** (2017) 25-35.
L. Grafakos, D. He, H. V. Nguyen, and L. Yan, *Multilinear multiplier theorems and applications*, J. Fourier Anal. Appl., **25** (2019), 959–994.
L. Grafakos and N. Kalton, *Multilinear Calderón-Zygmund operators on Hardy spaces*, Collect. Math. **52** (2001) 169-179.
L. Grafakos, A. Miyachi, and N. Tomita, *On multilinear Fourier multipliers of limited smoothness*, Can. J. Math. **65** (2013) 299-330.
L. Grafakos, A. Miyachi, H.V. Nguyen, and N. Tomita, *Multilinear Fourier multipliers with minimal Sobolev regularity, II*, J. Math. Soc. Japan **69** (2017) 529-562.
L. Grafakos and H.V. Nguyen, *Multilinear Fourier multipliers with minimal Sobolev regularity, I*, Colloquium Math. **144** (2016) 1-30.
L. Grafakos and B. Park, *Sharp Hardy space estimates for multipliers*, submitted.
L. Grafakos and Z. Si, *The Hörmander multiplier theorem for multilinear operators*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **668** (2012) 133-147.
L. Grafakos and R. Torres, *Multilinear Calderø’n-Zygmund theory*, Adv. Math. **165** (2002) 124-164.
L. Hörmander, *Estimates for translation invariant operators in $L_p$ spaces*, Acta Math. **104** (1960) 93-140.
S. Janson and P. W. Jones, *Interpolation between $H^p$ spaces*, The complex method, J. Funct. Anal. **48** (1982) 58-80.
C. Kenig and E. M. Stein, *Multilinear estimates and fractional integrals*, Math. Res. Lett. **6** (1999) 1-15.
S. G. Mihlin, *On the multipliers of Fourier integrals*, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) **109** (1956) 701-703 (Russian).
A. Miyachi and N. Tomita, *Minimal smoothness conditions for bilinear Fourier multipliers*, Rev. Mat. Iberoamer. **29** (2013) 495-530.
B. Park, *Equivalence of (quasi-)norms on a vector-valued function space and its applications to multilinear operators*, Indiana Univ. Math. J., to appear.
B. Park, *On the failure of multilinear multiplier theorem with endpoint smoothness conditions*, submitted.
J. Strömberg and A. Torchinsky, *Weighted Hardy Spaces*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1989).
N. Tomita, *A Hörmander type multiplier theorem for multilinear operators*, J. Func. Anal. **259** (2010) 2028-2044.
H. Triebel, *Theory of Function Spaces*, Birkhauser, Basel-Boston-Stuttgart (1983).
[^1]: The first author would like to acknowledge the support of the Simons Foundation grant 624733. The second author is supported in part by NRF grant 2019R1F1A1044075 and by a KIAS Individual Grant MG070001 at the Korea Institute for Advanced Study
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the excitonic phase transition in a system of conduction band electrons and valence band holes described by the three-dimensional extended Falicov-Kimball (EFKM) model with tunable Coulomb interaction $U$ between both species. By lowering the temperature the electron-hole system may become unstable with respect to the formation of the excitons i.e, electron-hole pairs at temperature $T=T_{\Delta}$, exhibiting a gap $\Delta$ in the particle excitation spectrum. We prove that for large values of $U$ the excitons form the incoherent pairs uncorrelated with each other until they undergo the excitonic Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) at lower $T=T_{c}$ driven by the phase stiffness between the excitonic pairs. We found that the true condensate transition temperature $T_{c}$ appears to be much smaller than the exciton pair formation temperature $T_{\Delta}$. In this context a BEC to Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) type crossover could be expected: in the strong interaction case the system is first driven into the gaped excitonic insulator (EI) state and subsequent condensation of incoherent exciton pairs at $T_{c}<T_{\Delta}$ driven by the phase stiffness, while in the small $U$ the temperature $T_{c} \sim T_{\Delta}$ implying that the excitonic condensate is governed by the pair formation as in the BCS-like regime. To this end we implement the functional integral formulation of the EFKM, where the Coulomb interaction term is expressed in terms of U(1) quantum phase variables conjugate to the local particle number, providing a useful representation of strongly correlated system. The effective action formalism allows us to formulate a problem in the phase only action in the form of the quantum rotor model and obtain analytical formula for the critical lines.'
author:
- 'V. A. Apinyan'
- 'T. K. Kopeć'
title: 'Exciton condensation in a three-dimensional extended Falicov-Kimball model'
---
\[sec:level1\]Introduction
==========================
The Coulomb interaction between the conduction band electrons and the valence band holes causes in some solid state materials the formation of the new bound states of these two quasiparticles called the excitons.[@Moskalenko] The low-density system of excitons behaves like a weakly non-ideal Bose-gas.[@Keldysh_1] These new formations lead to the various interesting physical phenomena in solid state materials and they are the subjects of the intensive experimental and theoretical researches.[@Neuenschwander; @Wachter_1; @Wachter_2; @Wachter; @Keldysh_0; @Cloizeaux; @Kohn; @JEROME; @Keldysh_2; @Snoke_1; @Snoke_2] In the scenario of the semiconductor-metal phase transition a new phase develops approaching to the transition from the semiconductor side.[@JEROME] This state is called as the “excitonic insulator”[@Halperin] (EI) and is characterized by the strong binding between the conduction band electrons and valence band holes. For example, series of the recent experimental investigations [@Neuenschwander; @Wachter; @Wachter_1; @Wachter_2] in TmSe$_{0.45}$Te$_{0.55}$ suggested the existence of the EI state in that material. Another example of the material with a well defined EI state is the quasi-one-dimensional Ta$_{2}$NiSe$_{5}$ with highly polarizable Se. The angle-resolved photoemission spectra (ARPES) on these compounds [@wakisaka] demonstrate that the ground state therein is an excitonic insulator. The evidence in favor of the EI state is proved also in the transition metal layered compound $1T$-TiSe$_{2}$, [@Berger] where the EI scenario is driving to the charge-density wave transition in such a material.
The importance of the phase coherence in the system of excitonic pair plasma is discussed recently, [@Snoke_1; @Snoke_2] where a classification of two distinct transitions of the excitonic plasma is given and discussion about the exciton condensation conditions is provided. It is well known that reducing the temperature leads to the quantum degeneracy of the exciton system and to Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC).[@Moskalenko; @Keldysh_1] The experimental proof of the spontaneous phase coherence in an excitonic bose gas and the possible BEC transition at the low-energy state is given recently, [@High; @Ivanov] concerning 2D GaAs/AlGaAs coupled quantum well structure. Mainly, the phase coherence is found in the region of macroscopically ordered excitonic state [@High] and also the BEC of the quasi-two-dimensional excitons at the bottom of the in-plane potential traps for the specially designed semiconductor heterostructure is proved.[@Ivanov] In addition, the exciton temperature relaxation to that of the lattice is discussed, [@Ivanov] and it is shown that for the realization of the true BEC state the critical temperature should be much lower (about six orders of magnitude) than the exciton formation temperature in the initial photo-generation.
Turning to the theory, there have been a number of works on the excitonic systems. Using the band structure calculation and the mean-field analysis for the EI state [@Kaneko] it was found that a structural phase transition driven by the BEC takes place in the layered chalcogenide material such as the recently corroborated sample of Ta$_{2}$NiSe${_5}$. In the small interaction region the system is in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) state[@Bardeen] with weakly bound electron-hole pairs, while approaching from the semiconductor side the system shows typical BEC behavior with tightly bound excitons,[@Ihle; @Pethick] thus exhibiting a BCS-BEC type crossover.[@Chen] This type of crossover mechanism is found in a study of the electron-hole plasma condensation in highly excited semiconductors.[@Kremp] In another work, a BEC-BCS crossover was studied using the effective-mass model for valence and conduction band electrons.[@Bronold] In this context, the three-dimensional extended spinless Falicov-Kimball model (EFKM) with the dispersive $f$-orbital electrons at half-filling has been analyzed recently.[@Zenker_1; @Zenker_11] The spontaneous symmetry breaking for the EI state and the BCS-BEC like crossover for the two-dimensional extended Falicov-Kimball model is discussed also in Ref. . The spectrum of low-energy collective excitations in the EFKM is discussed recently.[@Golosov] The mean field stability of the EI state observed within the EFKM model is attributed to the broken degeneracy due the presence of the finite $f$-band hopping. It is shown that the EI state is unstable when the case of the pure Falicov-Kimball model (FKM) (fully localized bands) is approached. Also the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations were implemented using the exact diagonalization method and the Hartree-Fock type (HF) self-consistent equations for the ground state of the spinless EFKM model are derived in two and three dimensions. [@Farkasovsky_2] Based on the analysis of electron-hole pairing in the extended Falicov-Kimball model, the authors in Ref. show that tuning the Coulomb attraction between both species, a continuous BCS-BEC like crossover might be achieved. Moreover, it has been shown that the $f$-$f$ hopping mechanism could be also responsible for the exciton formation.[@Batista_1; @Batista_2; @Czycholl]
In the present paper we explore the quantum collective behavior of the excitons and extend the theoretical works mentioned above, by showing that the formation of the excitonic condensate is directly related to the *[phase stiffness]{}* between the conduction band electrons and valence band holes. To this end we study the excitonic phase transition in a system of conduction band electrons and valence band holes described by the three-dimensional extended Falicov-Kimball [@Falicov; @Ramirez_1] model with tunable Coulomb interaction $U$ between both species. We found, in agreement with previous studies that by lowering the temperature the electron-hole system may become unstable with respect to the formation of excitons i.e, electron-hole pairs at temperature $T=T_{\Delta}$, exhibiting a gap $\Delta$ in the particle excitation spectrum. Moreover, we prove that for large values of $U$ the excitons form the incoherent pairs uncorrelated with each other until they undergo the excitonic Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) at lower $T=T_{c}$ driven by the phase stiffness between the electrons and holes. We found that the true condensate transition temperature $T_{c}$ appears to be much smaller than the exciton pair formation temperature $T_{\Delta}$. In this context a BEC to Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) type crossover could be expected: in the strong interaction case the system is first driven into the gaped excitonic insulator (EI) state and subsequent condensation of incoherent exciton pairs at $T_{c}<T_{\Delta}$ driven by the phase stiffness, while in the small $U$ the temperature $T_{c} \sim T_{\Delta}$ implying that the excitonic condensate is governed by the pair formation as in the BCS-like regime. To this end we implement the functional integral formulation of the EFKM model, where the Coulomb interaction term is expressed in terms of U(1) quantum phase variables conjugate to the local particle number, providing a useful representation of strongly correlated systems. As a result the electrons and holes emerge as composite particles involving “flux tubes” with the quantum phase variable dual to the particle number density. The effective action formalism allows us to formulate a problem in the phase only action in the form of the quantum rotor model and obtain analytical formula for the critical lines. Using the suitable symmetry of the EFKM Hamiltonian we employ a U(1) gauge transformation to the new fermionic and phase-bosonic variables. Then, integrating out the gauge fermions we obtain the effective phase stiffness action. Furthermore, we derive numerically the phase stiffness parameter for various values of the Coulomb interaction and we derive the phase stiffness action basing on the effective quantum rotor model to alternate the effective phase action.
The plan of the paper is as follows: in the Section \[sec:HAMILTONIAN\] we provide the Hamiltonian of the model EFKM, then in the Section \[sec:Decoupling\_fields\] we introduce the new decoupling potentials and we handle with the four fermion interaction term in the initial Hamiltonian. In Section \[sec:EQUATIONS\] we discuss the role of the phase stiffness for the exciton condensation. Furthermore, in the Section \[sec:the\_solution\_for\_gap\], we derive the excitonic gap parameter, excitonic pair formation transition temperature, excitonic coherence length and the charge transfer gap for different values of the $f$-band hopping integral. In Section \[sec:SPHERICALMODEL\] we show how the phase stiffness parameter could be derived from the effective phase action and using the quantum rotor approach. At the end of the Section \[sec:SPHERICALMODEL\] a self-consistent equation for the excitonic BEC critical temperature $T_{c}$ is derived and solved numerically. Conclusions are given in Section \[sec:SUMMARY\]. A number of technical details is given in Appendices.
\[sec:HAMILTONIAN\]The Hamiltonian
==================================
We consider the Hamiltonian of the extended Falicov-Kimball model $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{H}}=-t\sum_{\left\langle {\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\left[\bar{c}({{\bf{r}}})c({{\bf{r}}}')+h.c.\right]-\left(\mu-\epsilon_{c}\right)\sum_{{\bf{r}}}n_{c}({\bf{r}})
\nonumber\\
&&-\tilde{t}\sum_{\left\langle {\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\left[\bar{f}({{\bf{r}}})f({{\bf{r}}}')+h.c.\right]-\left(\mu-\epsilon_{f}\right)\sum_{{\bf{r}}}n_{f}({\bf{r}})
\nonumber\\
&&+U\sum_{{\bf{r}}}n_{c}({{\bf{r}}})n_{f}({{\bf{r}}}),
\label{HAMILTONIAN_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{c}({{\bf{r}}})$ (${c}({{\bf{r}}})$) are the creation (annihilation) operators of the electron of the $c$-orbitals at the site with the position ${\bf{r}}$ and $\left\langle {\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle$ runs over pairs of nearest neighbor sites of the three-dimensional cubic lattice. Furthermore $t$ is the hopping integral for the $c$-electrons and $\epsilon_{c}$ is the on-site energy level. Similarly, $\bar{f}({{\bf{r}}})$ (${f}({{\bf{r}}})$) are the creation (annihilation) operators of the $f$-orbital electrons and $\tilde{t}$ is the hopping integral for the $f$-electrons. The EFKM Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_1\]) is equivalent to the asymmetric Hubbard model if we associate to the orbitals $c$ and $f$ the spin variables, thus replacing the fermion Hilbert space by the pseudo-fermionic one and linearizing the interaction term via the bosonic states. [@Zenker_1] Furthermore, $\epsilon_{f}$ is the on-site energy level of the $f$-orbital and $\mu$ is the chemical potential. The equilibrium value of the chemical potential $\mu$ will be determined from the half-filling condition, i.e., $n_{c}=1- n_{f}$, where $n_{x}\equiv\left\langle n_{x}({\bf{r}})\right\rangle$ is the average particle density with $x=c, f$ for the $c$ and $f$-orbital electrons respectively. Furthermore, we suppose that the chemical potentials of both orbitals are the same as in the work in Ref. . Parameter $U$, entering in the last term of the Hamiltonian, is the Coulomb repulsion between two types of electrons. Furthermore $n_{c}({\bf{r}})$ and $n_{f}({\bf{r}})$ are the $c$- and $f$-electron density operators and they are defined as usual by the relation $n_{x}({\bf{r}})=\bar{x}({\bf{r}})x({\bf{r}})$.
We consider also the following values for the band parameters $\epsilon_{c}=0$ and $\epsilon_{f}=-1$. With this consideration the $c$- electrons are itinerant and the $f$-electrons are quasilocalized on the atomic sites. Throughout the paper, we set $k_{B} = 1$ and $\hbar=1$.
\[sec:Decoupling\_fields\] The method
=====================================
In the first step, we transform the fermionic interaction term in the Hamiltonian by rewriting the density product in the last term in Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_1\]) in the equivalent form $$\begin{aligned}
n_{c}({{\bf{r}}})n_{f}({{\bf{r}}})=\frac{n^{2}({\bf{r}})}{4}-\frac{\tilde{n}^{2}({\bf{r}})}{4},\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the short-hand notations $$\begin{aligned}
n({\bf{r}})=n_{c}({\bf{r}})+n_{f}({\bf{r}}),
\newline\\\tilde{n}({\bf{r}})=n_{c}({\bf{r}})-n_{f}({\bf{r}}).\end{aligned}$$ With the new notations we can rewrite the Hamiltonian Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_1\]) of the system as $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{H}}=-t\sum_{\left\langle {\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\left[\bar{c}({{\bf{r}}})c({{\bf{r}}}')+h.c.\right]-\bar{\mu}\sum_{{\bf{r}}}n({\bf{r}})
\nonumber\\
&&-\tilde{t}\sum_{\left\langle {\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\left[\bar{f}({{\bf{r}}})f({{\bf{r}}}')+h.c.\right]+\frac{\epsilon_{c}-\epsilon_{f}}{2}\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\tilde{n}({\bf{r}})
\nonumber\\
&&+U\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\frac{1}{4}\left[n^{2}({\bf{r}})-\tilde{n}^{2}({\bf{r}})\right].
\label{HAMILTONIAN_2}\end{aligned}$$ We put here $\bar{\mu}=\mu-\bar{\epsilon}$ and $\bar{\epsilon}=\left(\epsilon_{c}+\epsilon_{f}\right)/2$ is the average energy level parameter. The Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_2\]) is now suitable for decoupling the quadratic density terms using the Gaussian path integral method. [@Negele]
\[sec:Section\_functional\_integral\_formalism\] Functional integral formalism: decoupling of interactions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dealing with fermions within the path integral method requires introduction of the Grassmann variables ${c}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)$ and ${f}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)$ at each site ${\bf{r}}$ and imaginary time $\tau$ varying in the interval $0\leq \tau \leq\beta$, where $\beta=1/k_{B}T$ (with $T$ being the thermodynamic temperature). The variables ${c}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)$ and ${f}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)$ satisfy the anti-periodic boundary conditions ${x}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)=-{x}({{\bf{r}}}\tau+\beta)$. The partition function of the system of fermions written as a functional integral over the Grassmann field is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}=\int \left[{\cal{D}}\bar{c}{\cal{D}}c\right]\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{f}{\cal{D}}f\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}[\bar{c},c, \bar{f},f]},
\label{INITIAL_PARTITION_FUNCTION}\end{aligned}$$ where the action in the exponential is given in the path integral formulation as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}[\bar{c},c, \bar{f},f]={\cal{S}}_{B}[\bar{c},c]+{\cal{S}}_{B}[\bar{f},f]+\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau {\cal{H}}(\tau).
\label{BERRY_TERMS}\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\cal{S}}_{B}[\bar{c},c]$ and ${\cal{S}}_{B}[\bar{f},f]$ are the fermionic Berry terms for the $c$ and $f$-electrons respectively. They are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{B}[\bar{x},x]=\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \bar{x}({\bf{r}}\tau)\frac{\partial}{\partial{\tau}}x({\bf{r}}\tau).\end{aligned}$$ Next, we decouple the quadratic density terms in Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_2\]) using the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation [@Negele] by introducing the new variables $V({\bf{r}}\tau)$ and ${\cal{ \varrho}}({\bf{r}}\tau)$ conjugated to the density terms $n({\bf{r}}\tau)$ and $\tilde{n}({\bf{r}}\tau)$ respectively. For the quadratic term proportional to $n^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)$ in the exponential of the partition function in Eq.(\[INITIAL\_PARTITION\_FUNCTION\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\exp\left[{-\frac{U}{4}\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau n^{2}\left({\bf{r}}\tau\right)}\right]
\nonumber\\
&&=\int\left[{\cal{D}}V\right]e^{-\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\frac{V^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)}{U}-iV({\bf{r}}\tau)n({\bf{r}}\tau)\right]}.
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{N_DECOUPLING}\end{aligned}$$
After combining the exponential in Eq.(\[N\_DECOUPLING\]) with the effective $\bar{\mu}$ chemical potential term proportional to the total electron density $n({\bf{r}})$ in Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_2\]) we can decompose the variables $V({\bf{r}}\tau)$ into a static and the periodic parts $$\begin{aligned}
V({\bf{r}}\tau)=V_{0}({\bf{r}})+\tilde{V}({\bf{r}}\tau),
\label{FARADEY}\end{aligned}$$ where $\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \tilde{V}({\bf{r}}\tau)=0$. As a result, the integration over $V({\bf{r}}\tau)$ variables now becomes the integration over the scalar static variables $V_{0}({\bf{r}})$ and the integration over the periodic field $\tilde{V}({\bf{r}}\tau)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\int\left[{\cal{D}}V\right]...=\int\left[{\cal{D}}V_{0}\right]\int\left[{\cal{D}}\tilde{V}\right]... \; .\end{aligned}$$ For the periodic part in Eq.(\[FARADEY\]), using Faraday-type relation, [@Kopec_1] we introduce the U$(1)$ phase field $\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)$ according to the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{V}({\bf{r}}\tau)=\frac{\partial{\varphi}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)}{\partial{\tau}}\equiv \dot{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau).
\label{Faradey_relation}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for the dynamic part, we transform the integration over the gauge variables $\tilde{{V}}({\bf{r}}\tau)$ into the integration over the generic phase variables $\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\int\left[{\cal{D}}\tilde{V}\right]... \rightarrow \int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]...\;.
\label{Integration_measure}\end{aligned}$$ In performing the integration over the phase field one should take into account that the field configurations satisfy the condition [@Kopec_2; @Trombettoni] $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi({\bf{r}}\beta)-\varphi({\bf{r}}0)=2\pi{m({\bf{r}})},
\label{boundary_condition}\end{aligned}$$ where $m({\bf{r}})=0,\pm1,\pm2,...$ are the U$(1)$ integer winding numbers. The integration measure in Eq.(\[Integration\_measure\]) over $\varphi$ variables is defined as[@Kopec_2] $$\begin{aligned}
\int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]...\equiv \sum_{\left[m({\bf{r}})\right]}\int^{2\pi}_{0}\prod_{{\bf{r}}}d\varphi_{0}({\bf{r}})
\nonumber\\
\times \int^{\varphi({\bf{r}}\beta)=\varphi({\bf{r}})+2{\pi}m({\bf{r}})}_{\varphi({\bf{r}}0)=\varphi({\bf{r}})}\prod_{{\bf{r}}}d\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)... \; \end{aligned}$$ and includes summation over winding numbers defined in Eq.(\[boundary\_condition\]). For the scalar static part $V_{0}({\bf{r}})$ we have the following functional integral $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\left[{{d}}V_{0}\right]e^{\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau -\frac{V^{2}_{0}({\bf{r}})}{U}+iV_{0}({\bf{r}})\left[n({\bf{r}}\tau)-\frac{2\bar{\mu}}{U}\right]}.
\label{INTEGRAL_1}\end{aligned}$$ The saddle-point value of ${V}_{0}({{\bf{r}}})$ is given as ${{V}^{sp}_{0}}=i\frac{Un}{2}-i\bar{\mu}$, where $n$ is the total average particle density $n=n_{c}+n_{f}$. And we have the contribution to the partition function in Eq.(\[INITIAL\_PARTITION\_FUNCTION\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\left[{-{\cal{S}}\left[\varphi\right]-\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\tilde{\mu}n({\bf{r}}\tau)}\right],
\label{AFTER_RESULT}\end{aligned}$$ where the effective phase only action ${\cal{S}}[\varphi]$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}[\varphi]=\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\left[\frac{\dot{\varphi}^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)}{U}-\frac{2\bar{\mu}}{iU}\dot{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)-i\dot{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)n({\bf{r}}\tau)\right]
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{PHASE_ONLY}\end{aligned}$$ and the effective chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$ attached to the total density operator is introduced: $\tilde{\mu}=\frac{Un}{2}-\bar{\mu}$.
The decoupling of the quadratic term proportional to $\tilde{n}^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)$ in the exponential of the partition function in Eq.(\[INITIAL\_PARTITION\_FUNCTION\]) is also straightforward. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\exp\left[{\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \frac{U}{4}\tilde{n}^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)}\right]
\nonumber\\
&&=\int\left[{\cal{D}}{\varrho}\right]e^{-\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\frac{\varrho^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)}{U}-\varrho({\bf{r}}\tau)\tilde{n}({\bf{r}}\tau)\right]}.
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{RHO_INTEGRATION}\end{aligned}$$ Combining the expression in the exponential in Eq.(\[RHO\_INTEGRATION\]) with the similar linear in $\tilde{n}$ term in the expression of the transformed Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\left[{\cal{D}}{\varrho}\right]e^{\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau-\frac{\varrho^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)}{4U}+\varrho({\bf{r}}\tau)\left[\tilde{n}({\bf{r}}\tau)-\frac{\epsilon_{c}-\epsilon_{f}}{2U}\right]}.
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ The saddle-point evaluation gives for $\varrho$ $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho_{0}=\frac{U\tilde{n}}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_{c}-\epsilon_{f}}{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{n}=\left\langle \tilde{n}({\bf{r}}\tau)\right\rangle$. As the result of the decoupling we obtain the following “Zeeman-like” contribution in the partition function $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\left[{-\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\mu_{\varrho}\tilde{n}({\bf{r}}\tau)}\right]
\label{Zeeman}\end{aligned}$$ with the attached effective chemical potential $\mu_{\varrho}=\frac{\epsilon_{c}-\epsilon_{f}}{2}-\frac{U\tilde{n}}{2}$.
To summarize, the partition function of the system after decoupling procedures will be $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}=\int \left[{\cal{D}}\bar{c}{\cal{D}}c\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{f}{\cal{D}}f\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}[\bar{c},c,{\bar{f}},f,\varphi]},\end{aligned}$$ where the action ${\cal{S}}[\bar{c},c,{\bar{f}},f,\varphi]$ in the exponential is $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{S}}[\bar{c},c,{\bar{f}},f,\varphi]={\cal{S}}\left[\varphi\right]+{\cal{S}}_{B}\left[\bar{c},c\right]+{\cal{S}}_{B}\left[\bar{f},f\right]
\nonumber\\
&&-t\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\bar{c}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)c({{\bf{r}}}'\tau)+h.c.\right]
\nonumber\\
&&-\tilde{t}\sum_{\left\langle {\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\bar{f}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)f({{\bf{r}}}'\tau)+h.c.\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\ +\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\tilde{\mu}n({\bf{r}}\tau)+\mu_{\varrho}\tilde{n}({\bf{r}}\tau)\right]
\label{ACTION_BEFORE_U1}
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ suitable for derivation of the effective phase and fermionic actions.
\[sec:U1\_TRANSFORMATION\]The U$(1)$ gauge transformation
---------------------------------------------------------
To proceed, we perform the local gauge transformation to the new fermionic Grassmann variables $a({\bf{r}}\tau)$ and $b({\bf{r}}\tau)$ in order to eliminate the last imaginary term appearing in the expression of the phase action in Eq.(\[PHASE\_ONLY\]). For the $c$-orbital electrons the U$(1)$ transformation is $$\begin{aligned}
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
c({\bf{r}}\tau) \\
\bar{c}({\bf{r}}\tau)
\end{array}
\right]=\hat{{\cal{U}}}(\varphi)\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
a({\bf{r}}\tau) \\
\bar{a}({\bf{r}}\tau)
\end{array}
\right],
\label{U(1)_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\cal{U}}(\varphi)$ is the U(1) transformation matrix $\hat{\cal{U}}(\varphi)=\hat{I}\cos\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)+i\hat{\sigma}_{z}\sin\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)$ with the unit matrix $\hat{I}$ and $\sigma_{z}$ being the Pauli matrix. where we used the bosonic phase variables $\varphi$ introduced in Eq.(\[Faradey\_relation\]). For the $f$-orbital electrons the similar transformation is $$\begin{aligned}
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
f({\bf{r}}\tau) \\
\bar{f}({\bf{r}}\tau)
\end{array}
\right]=\hat{{\cal{U}}}(\varphi)\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
b({\bf{r}}\tau) \\
\bar{b}({\bf{r}}\tau)
\end{array}
\right].
\label{U(1)_2}\end{aligned}$$ As a result, the electron appears in the theory like a composite object composed of fermion with the attached U(1) $e^{i\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)}$ phase “flux-tube”. After those transformations the total action of the system reads $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{S}}[\bar{a},a,{\bar{b}}, b,\varphi]={\cal{S}}_{0}[\varphi]+{\cal{S}}_{B}\left[\bar{a},a\right]+{\cal{S}}_{B}\left[\bar{b},b\right]
\nonumber\\
&&-t\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\bar{a}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)a({{\bf{r}}}'\tau)e^{-i\left[\varphi({{\bf{r}}}\tau)-\varphi({{\bf{r}}}'\tau)\right]}+h.c.\right]
\nonumber\\
&&-\tilde{t}\sum_{\left\langle {\bf{r}} {\bf{r}}' \right\rangle}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\bar{b}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)b({{\bf{r}}}'\tau)e^{-i\left[\varphi({{\bf{r}}}\tau)-\varphi({{\bf{r}}}'\tau)\right]}+h.c.\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ +\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \left[\tilde{\mu}n({\bf{r}}\tau)+\mu_{\varrho}\tilde{n}({\bf{r}}\tau)\right],
\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \
\label{ACTION_AFTER_U1}\end{aligned}$$ with the new phase action ${\cal{S}}_{0}[\varphi]$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{0}[\varphi]=\sum_{{\bf{r}}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\left[\frac{\dot{\varphi}^{2}({\bf{r}}\tau)}{U}-\frac{2\bar{\mu}}{iU}\dot{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)\right].
\label{PURE_PHASE_ACTION}\end{aligned}$$ Then the partition function of the system in new variables is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}=\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{a}{\cal{D}}a\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{b}{\cal{D}}b\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right] e^{-{\cal{S}}[\bar{a},a,{\bar{b}}, b,\varphi]}.
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{PARTITION_1}\end{aligned}$$ This form of the partition function will be the starting point for deriving the effective actions for the fermions and for the phase sector.
\[sec:EQUATIONS\] Pairing and coherence in exciton condensate
=============================================================
The excitonic order parameter in terms of the $c$ and $f$ variables is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi=\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0^{+}}\langle \bar{c}({\bf{r}}\tau)f({\bf{r}}\tau+\delta)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Here, an infinitesimal increment $\delta$ is added to the Matsubara time variables for the proper definition of the equal time correlation functions. [@Negele] After the U$(1)$ transformations in Eqs.(\[U(1)\_1\]) and (\[U(1)\_2\]), the order parameter takes the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi=&&\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0^{+}}\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}\tau)b({\bf{r}}\tau+\delta)\rangle\langle z({\bf{r}}\tau)\bar{z}({\bf{r}}\tau+\delta)\rangle=
\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{\Delta}{U}\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0^{+}}{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}\tau+\delta),
\label{REF_ADD_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $z({\bf{r}}\tau)=e^{-i\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)}$. The averages in Eq.(\[REF\_ADD\_1\]) are performed with respect to the corresponding fermionic and phase actions given in the Section \[sec:SPHERICALMODEL\]. Furthermore, $\Delta$ is the excitonic gap parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta=U\left\langle \bar{a}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)b({{\bf{r}}}\tau)\right\rangle.
\label{local_excitonic_gap_parameter}\end{aligned}$$ The non-zero value of $\Delta$ signals the appearance of the electron-hole bound pairs, which manifests as a gap in the excitation spectrum and signals the presence of the EI state. Subsequently, ${\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}\tau+\delta)$ is the local, equal-time phase-phase correlation function. In general, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0}{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}\tau+\delta)=1
\label{REF_ADD_2}\end{aligned}$$ reflecting the unimodularity of the $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$-field ($|z({\bf{r}}\tau)|^{2}\equiv1$). However, in the case of the spontaneous U(1) symmetry breaking in the phase sector, an anomalous expectation value of $\langle e^{i\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)}\rangle\neq 0$ appears signaling of the presence of the phase coherence in the system. In Section \[sec:SPHERICALMODEL\] we will show that this is indeed the case, because the phase action contains the *phase stiffnesses* originating from the existence of the gap parameter $\Delta$. As a result, the values of the function in Eq.(\[REF\_ADD\_2\]) will be depleted by the amount of the condensed $e^{i\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)}$ fields, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0^{+}}{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}\tau+\delta)=1-|\psi_{0}|^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{0}$ is the condensate transition amplitude $\psi_{0}=\langle e^{i\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)}\rangle$. It is important to understand what we mean by coherence in the present context. One type of coherence refers to the coherence of the wave function of the single electron and hole forming an exciton. This will be seen for example in a electrical transport properties of the system. Another type of coherence, which is crucial to the notion of a condensate is a macroscopic coherence of many excitons in the same quantum state. This is precisely what we mean by evaluating expectation value of $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$-field. Therefore, from the Eqs.(\[REF\_ADD\_1\]) and (\[local\_excitonic\_gap\_parameter\]) we have for the excitonic order parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi=\frac{\Delta}{U}\left(1-|\psi_{0}|^{2}\right).
\label{exciton_condensation_and_order_parameter}\end{aligned}$$ From the equation Eq.(\[exciton\_condensation\_and\_order\_parameter\]) it follows in general that the pairing and condensation are not the same. However, in the weak coupling limit $U/t\ll1$, where dynamics and spatial fluctuation of the phase variables is unimportant $z({\bf{r}}\tau)\equiv e^{i\varphi}$ with constant (space and time independent) value of $\varphi$ condensation and pairing occur at the same critical temperature controlled by $\Delta$. This is what happens in the excitonic insulator in the weak coupling limit and has its analogue in a standard BCS superconductor: because the binding energy of the pair is small, the pair breaking controls the temperature. For this reason, the two different transitions the coherence and pairing are usually equated, while dealing with the exciton condensation problem. However, in a excitonic system with strong pairing, i.e., $U/t \gg 1$, we have the situation, in which pairs are strongly bound (thus non-zero value of $\Delta$), but these are incoherent pair, uncorrelated with each other until they eventually undergo the BEC at low temperatures. Therefore, the fact that the EI state can be described by $\Delta$ is not the same as showing the coherence in the system. It must be shown that the experimental results can not be described by an ensemble of the independent pairs. For example, the tunneling experiments in excitonic system can be explained simply by electron-hole pairing without resorting to the coherence among excitons. Exciton coherence may be evidenced by coherence of their light emission, [@Lin] which can be studied by interferometry measurements.[@High]
\[sec:the\_solution\_for\_gap\] Excitonic pairing gap
=====================================================
Effective fermionic action
--------------------------
We start the derivation of the EI gap equation with the phase averaged action obtained by the U$(1)$ transformations given by the Eqs.(\[U(1)\_1\]) and (\[U(1)\_2\]). Within the HF approximation[@Czycholl] the many-body (interaction) part of the original Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[HAMILTONIAN\_1\]) is decoupled according to $$\begin{aligned}
&&n_{a}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)n_{b}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)\approx\left\langle n_{a}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)\right\rangle n_{b}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)+\left\langle n_{b}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)\right\rangle n_{a}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)
\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{U}\bar{\Delta}\bar{a}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)b({{\bf{r}}}\tau)-\frac{1}{U}{\Delta}\bar{b}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)a({{\bf{r}}}\tau).\end{aligned}$$ Here $n_{a}({\bf{r}}\tau)$ and $n_{b}({\bf{r}}\tau)$ are the electron densities after the U$(1)$ gauge transformation.
The Fourier transformation of the fermionic variables $a({\bf{r}}\tau)$ and $b({\bf{r}}\tau)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
x({\bf{r}}\tau)=\frac{1}{{\beta{N}}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}x_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})e^{i({\bf{k}}{\bf{r}}-\nu_{n}\tau)}
\label{Fourier_for_x}\end{aligned}$$ with $x=a,b$ for the $a$ and $b$ type electrons. $N$ is the number of lattice sites and $\nu_{n}={\pi(2n+1)}/{\beta}$ are the Fermi-Matsubara frequencies with $n=0,\pm1,\pm2,...$. Using Eq.(\[Fourier\_for\_x\]) the effective action of the fermionic sector takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}\right]&&=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}\bar{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})\left({\mu}^{a}_{\rm eff}-i\nu_{n}-{t}_{{\bf{k}}}\right)a_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}\bar{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})\left({\mu}^{b}_{\rm eff}-i\nu_{n}-\tilde{t}_{{\bf{k}}}\right)b_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})
\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{\bar{\Delta}}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}\bar{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})b_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})
\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{{\Delta}}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}\bar{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})a_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})
\label{ACTION_FOURIER}\end{aligned}$$ with the effective chemical potentials ${\mu}^{a}_{\rm eff}$ and ${\mu}^{b}_{\rm eff}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{a}_{\rm eff}=\epsilon_{a}-\mu+Un_{b}+i\left\langle\dot{\varphi}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)\right\rangle,
\label{EFFECTIVE_1}
\newline\\
\mu^{b}_{\rm eff}=\epsilon_{b}-\mu+Un_{a}+i\left\langle\dot{\varphi}({{\bf{r}}}\tau)\right\rangle.
\label{EFFECTIVE_2}\end{aligned}$$ $n_{a}$ and $n_{b}$ in Eqs.(\[EFFECTIVE\_1\]) and ([\[EFFECTIVE\_2\]]{}) are the fermion densities $n_{x}=\left\langle n_{x}({\bf{r}}\tau)\right\rangle$. The renormalized hopping amplitudes ${t}_{{\bf{k}}}$ and $\tilde{t}_{{\bf{k}}}$ are given by the relations $$\begin{aligned}
{t}_{{\bf{k}}}=2tg\epsilon\left({{\bf{k}}}\right),
\newline\\
\tilde{t}_{{\bf{k}}}=2\tilde{t}g\epsilon\left({{\bf{k}}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the bandwidth renormalization factor and $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon\left({{\bf{k}}}\right)=\cos(d_{x}k_{x})+\cos(d_{y}k_{y})+\cos(d_{z}k_{z})
\label{lattice_dispersion}\end{aligned}$$ is the three-dimensional lattice dispersion relation with $d_{\alpha}$ ($\alpha=x,y,z$), being the components of the lattice spacing vector ${\bf{d}}={\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}'$ with ${\bf{r}}$ and ${\bf{r}}'$ nearest neighbors positions. For the simple cubic geometry they are equal $d_{\alpha}\equiv d$. The factor $g$ is $$\begin{aligned}
g=\left.\left\langle e^{-i[\varphi({{\bf{r}}}\tau)-\varphi({{\bf{r}}}'\tau)]} \right\rangle\right|_{|{\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}'|={{d}}}.
\label{bandwidth_renormalization}\end{aligned}$$
Introduction of the Nambu notations $$\begin{aligned}
{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
{a}_{\bf{k}}(\nu_{n})\\
{b}_{\bf{k}}(\nu_{n})
\end{array}
\right],
\ \
\bar{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})=\left[\bar{a}_{\bf{k}}(\nu_{n}),\bar{b}_{\bf{k}}({\nu_{n}})\right],\end{aligned}$$ permits to rewrite the action in Eq.(\[ACTION\_FOURIER\]) in the compact form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[{\bar{{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}},{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}}\right]=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}\bar{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})\hat{\cal{G}}^{-1}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n}){{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n}),
\label{Fourier_Action}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\cal{G}}^{-1}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})$ is the inverse of the Green function matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal{G}}^{-1}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})=
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})
& -\bar{\Delta} \\
-\Delta & {\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})
\end{array}
\right],
\label{INVERSE_MATRIX}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})$ and ${\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})={\mu}^{a}_{\rm eff}-i\nu_{n}-{t}_{{\bf{k}}},
\newline\\
{\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})={\mu}^{b}_{\rm eff}-i\nu_{n}-\tilde{t}_{{\bf{k}}}.\end{aligned}$$
The normal propagator ${\cal{G}}^{xx}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')$ is defined in terms of the fermionic variables $x({\bf{r}}\tau)$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}^{xx}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=-\left\langle x({\bf{r}}\tau)\bar{x}({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right\rangle.
\label{NORMAL_GREEN_FUNCTION}\end{aligned}$$ The anomalous or the excitonic propagator is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}^{ab}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=\left\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}\tau)b({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right\rangle.
\label{EXCITONIC_GREEN_FUNCTION}\end{aligned}$$ The averages in the Eqs.(\[NORMAL\_GREEN\_FUNCTION\]) and (\[EXCITONIC\_GREEN\_FUNCTION\]) are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle ... \rangle =\frac{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}}{\cal{D}}{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}\right]...e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[\bar{{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}},{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}\right]}}{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}}{\cal{D}}{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[\bar{{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}},{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}\right]}}
\label{quantum_field_averaging_definition}\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, using Eqs.(\[INVERSE\_MATRIX\]) and (\[quantum\_field\_averaging\_definition\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}^{aa}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=-\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})\frac{e^{i\left[{\bf{k}}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')-\nu_{n}(\tau-\tau')\right]}}{{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n}){\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})-|\Delta|^{2}}.
\label{AA_PROPAGATOR}
\nonumber\\
\ \ \\end{aligned}$$ with similar expression for ${\cal{G}}^{aa}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')$ with the replacement ${\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})\rightarrow {\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})$. Furthermore, the anomalous propagators are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}^{ab}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=-\frac{\bar{\Delta}}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}} \frac{e^{-i\left[{\bf{k}}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')-\nu_{n}(\tau-\tau')\right]}}{{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n}){\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})-|\Delta|^{2}},
\label{AB_PROPAGATOR}
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \end{aligned}$$ while ${\cal{G}}^{ba}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')$ is obtained by the substitution $\bar{\Delta}\rightarrow \Delta$. The anomalous propagators in the form given in Eq.(\[AB\_PROPAGATOR\]) will determine furthermore the phase stiffness parameter (see the Section \[sec:sub\_section\_A\] and the Appendix \[sec:STIFFNESS\_CALCULATION\] for details).
\[sec:solution\_for\_Delta\] Self-consistent solution for $\Delta$, $\Delta_{g}$ and $\Delta_{c}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the expression of the Green functions in Eqs.(\[AA\_PROPAGATOR\]) and (\[AB\_PROPAGATOR\]) obtained above, we have the equations for the average electron densities $n_{a}$ and $ n_{b}$ corresponding to the $a$- and $b$-orbitals respectively and also a self-consistent equation for the excitonic gap parameter $\Delta$. We have
$$\begin{aligned}
&&n_{a}={\cal{G}}^{aa}({\bf{0}},0),
\nonumber\\
&&n_{b}={\cal{G}}^{bb}({\bf{0}},0),
\nonumber\\
&&\Delta=U{\cal{G}}^{ab}({\bf{0}},0).
\label{GREEN_SYSTEM}\end{aligned}$$
Using the propagators in Eqs.(\[AA\_PROPAGATOR\]) and (\[AB\_PROPAGATOR\]), we can rewrite the Eq.(\[GREEN\_SYSTEM\]) in an equivalent explicit form $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\bf{k}}}\left[n_{F}(E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}})+n_{F}(E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}})\right]=1,
\label{EQUATION_FOR_MU}
\newline\\
&&\tilde{n}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\bf{k}}}\xi_{{\bf{k}}}\frac{n_{F}(E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}})-n_{F}(E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}})}{\sqrt{\xi^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}+4\Delta^{2}}},
\label{EQUATION_FOR_DELTAN}
\newline\\
&&\Delta=-\frac{U\Delta}{N}\sum_{{\bf{k}}}\frac{n_{F}(E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}})-n_{F}(E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}})}{\sqrt{\xi^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}+4\Delta^{2}}}.
\label{EQUATION_FOR_DELTA} \end{aligned}$$ Here we assumed a half-filled band case ${n}=n_{a}+ n_{b}=1$ and we defined the density difference $\tilde{n}=n_{a}- n_{b}$. Furthermore, $n_{F}$ denotes the Fermi-Dirac distribution function $n_{F}(\epsilon)=1/\left(e^{\beta\epsilon}+1\right)$. Next, we have introduced the band-energy parameters $E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}}$ and $E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&E^{\pm}_{{\bf{k}}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(-A_{{{\bf{k}}}}\pm{\sqrt{\xi^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}+4\Delta^{2}}}\right),
\label{SOLUTIONS}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{{{\bf{k}}}}=\tilde{t}_{{\bf{k}}}-{\mu}^{b}_{\rm eff}+{t}_{{\bf{k}}}-{\mu}^{a}_{\rm eff}$ with the quasiparticle dispersion $\xi_{{\bf{k}}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{{\bf{k}}}=\tilde{t}_{{\bf{k}}}+{\mu}^{a}_{\rm eff}-{t}_{{\bf{k}}}-{\mu}^{b}_{\rm eff}.\end{aligned}$$ The energy difference $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{c}=E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}}-E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}}
\label{CTG}\end{aligned}$$ defines the *[charge-transfer gap]{}*, which we will discuss later on in this Section. The quantities $n_{a}$, $n_{b}$, $\Delta$ and also $\mu$ can be determined by solving numerically the Eqs.(\[EQUATION\_FOR\_MU\]-\[EQUATION\_FOR\_DELTA\]) in a self-consistent way.
Summations over the wave vectors can be simplified by introducing the appropriate density of states (DOS) for the three-dimensional lattice $\rho_{3D}(x)$. Using Eq.(\[lattice\_dispersion\]) we write $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{3D}(x)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\bf{k}}}\delta\left[x-\epsilon({\bf{k}})\right].
\label{DOS_3D}\end{aligned}$$ For the simple cubic lattice the density of states is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{3D}(x)=\frac{1}{\pi^{3}}\int^{\min(1,2-x)}_{\max(-1,-2-x)}dy \frac{\Theta\left(1-\frac{|x|}{3}\right)}{\sqrt{1-y^{2}}}
\times
\nonumber\\
\times{{\bf{K}}\left[\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{y}{2}+\frac{x}{2}\right)^{2}}\right]},
\label{DOSIK}
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function and ${\bf{K}}(x)$ is the elliptic function of the first kind.[@Abramovich]The plot of the function $\rho_{3D}(x)$ is presented in the inset in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_1\], where the electronic density difference $\tilde{n}$ between conduction and valence bands $\tilde{n}$ is plotted as a function of the Coulomb interaction parameter $U$ in units of $t$ in the region where $\Delta\neq 0$. It is clear in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_1\] that in the strong coupling limit $U/t\gg 1$ the system is in the band-insulator regime, because at the upper bound of the Coulomb interaction the $f$-band is fully occupied ($n_{b}=1$) and the $c$-band is totally empty ($n_{a}=0$).
![\[fig:Fig\_1\] (Color online) The difference $\tilde{n}$ between conduction and valence band average densities as a function of the interaction parameter $U/t$ for a number of values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$. In the inset the density of states (DOS) for the three-dimensional cubic lattice is presented. ](Fig_1)
In Fig. \[fig:Fig\_2\] the solution for the excitonic pairing gap $\Delta$ is plotted as a function of the Coulomb interaction energy $U/t$ for different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$. The excitonic gap is non-zero for a rather large domain of the Coulomb interaction in agreement with the result of Ref. and in contrast with the results for the two-dimensional square lattice in Ref. . The obtained values for the lower and upper bounds of the Coulomb interaction in Ref. are about $(U_{c1},U_{c2})=(0.66, 6.95)$, which differ considerably from our results especially for the large hopping. The solutions of Eqs.(\[EQUATION\_FOR\_MU\]-\[EQUATION\_FOR\_DELTA\]) for the chemical potentials for $\Delta\neq 0$ in the intermediate and strong interaction limits, forms a well defined band for all values of the $\tilde{t}$ implying the formation of the single particle excitation gap $\Delta_{g}=\mu^{max}-\mu^{min}$, where $\mu^{max}$ and $\mu^{min}$ are the upper and lower bounds of the chemical potential (see Fig. \[fig:Fig\_3\]). The evolution of the *upper bound* of the chemical potential as a function of the Coulomb interaction $U$ is presented in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_4\]. Moving from the weak to intermediate coupling regime, single particle $\Delta_{g}$ and pairing $\Delta$ gaps both are increasing while in the strong coupling limit ($U/t >8$ for $\tilde{t}=-0.3t$ for example) $\Delta$ decreases rapidly with increasing $U/t$ while $\Delta_{g}$ remains open. For vanishing of the pairing gap $\Delta=0$ the single particle gap collapses $\Delta_{g}=0$ and the solution for the chemical potential is single valued (see Fig. \[fig:Fig\_5\]).
![\[fig:Fig\_2\] (Color online) The excitonic gap parameter $\Delta$ as a function of the normalized Coulomb interaction energy $U/t$ for different values of the hopping parameter $\tilde{t}$. ](Fig_2)
For the completeness the density difference between the conduction and valence bands at the EI transition boundary $\tilde{n}$ is presented in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_6\].
![\[fig:Fig\_3\] (Color online) The solution for the chemical potential $\mu$ as a function of the Coulomb energy calculated for different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$ as indicated in the plot.](Fig_3)
![\[fig:Fig\_4\] (Color online) Upper bound of the chemical potential $\mu$ accompanying the excitonic pair formation as a function of the Coulomb interaction $U/t$ for different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$. In the inset, the variation of $\tilde{n}$ is presented as a function of the normalized excitonic gap parameter $\Delta/t$ for $\tilde{t}=-0.3t$.](Fig_4)
![\[fig:Fig\_5\] (Color online) The chemical potential $\mu$ along the pair formation transition boundary ($\Delta=0$) as a function of the Coulomb energy $U/t$. Different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$ are considered.](Fig_5)
![\[fig:Fig\_6\] (Color online) The average particle density difference $\tilde{n}$ between conduction and valence bands along the pair formation boundary ($\Delta=0$) as a function of the interaction parameter $U/t$. Different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$ are considered.](Fig_6)
The charge-transfer gap $\Delta_{c}$ defined in Eq.(\[CTG\]) is calculated as a function of the Coulomb interaction $U$. The results are presented in Figs. \[fig:Fig\_7\] and \[fig:Fig\_8\].
![\[fig:Fig\_7\] (Color online) Momentum dependence of the charge-transfer gap $\Delta_{c}$ along the direction $(0,0,0)\rightarrow(\pi,\pi,\pi)$ for $\tilde{t}=-0.3t$ in the extended zone scheme. The wave vector ${\bf{k}}$ is measured in units of $2\pi/d$. The plots are given for different values of the Coulomb energy $U/t$.](Fig_7)
We see in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_7\] that for the small values of the Coulomb interaction the charge-transfer gap is nearly zero. The small value of it is the manifestation of the semimetallic or the BCS limit. Augmenting the interaction parameter $U$, the gap $\Delta_{c}$ is gradually opening. In Fig. \[fig:Fig\_8\] we presented the charge-transfer gap for a smaller value of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}=-0.1t$. With decreasing the hopping amplitude we are decreasing also the charge-transfer gap. This is consistent with the results for the excitonic gap parameter presented in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_2\] and with the single particle excitation gap behavior in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_3\].
![\[fig:Fig\_8\] (Color online) Momentum dependence of the charge-transfer gap $\Delta_{c}$ along the direction $(0,0,0)\rightarrow(\pi,\pi,\pi)$ for $\tilde{t}=-0.1t$ in the extended zone scheme. The wave vector ${\bf{k}}$ is measured in units of $2\pi/d$. The plots are given for different values of the Coulomb energy $U/t$.](Fig_8)
Finally, in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_9\] we have presented the solution of the equation $\Delta(T, U)=0$, which determines the temperature $T_{\Delta}$ for which the pairing gap vanishes. Our calculation regarding the pairing gap $\Delta$ and resulting pair formation temperature $T_{\Delta}$ agree very well with the analogous results in previous works (see Refs. ). However, as we will show in the Section \[sec:SPHERICALMODEL\], the excitonic pair formation temperature $T_{\Delta}$ is not coinciding in general with the excitonic condensation critical temperature, which requires the phase coherence among excitons, a feature that was not considered in the previous works.
![\[fig:Fig\_9\] (Color online) The gap formation temperature $T_{\Delta}$ as a function of the interaction parameter $U/t$ for different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$.](Fig_9)
The coherence length and momentum distribution functions
---------------------------------------------------------
We can associate a characteristic decay of $F({\bf{k}})$ with the coherence length $\xi_{c}$ defined by the relation [@Seki] $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{c}=\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{{\bf{k}}}|\nabla_{{\bf{k}}}{{F}}({\bf{k}})|^{2}}{\sum_{{\bf{k}}}|{{F}}({\bf{k}})|^{2}}}.
\label{coherence_length}\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $\xi_{c}$ provides the quantitative information about the properties of the system. To proceed we define the frequency-summed normal and anomalous momentum-dependent functions $$\begin{aligned}
n_{a}({{\bf{k}}})=\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{{\nu_{n}}}{\cal{G}}^{aa}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n}),
\nonumber\\
F({{\bf{k}}})=\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{{\nu_{n}}}{\cal{G}}^{ab}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n}),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal{G}}^{aa}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})$ and ${\cal{G}}^{ab}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})$ are the Fourier transformations of the local normal and anomalous propagators. Using Eqs.(\[AA\_PROPAGATOR\]) and (\[AB\_PROPAGATOR\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
n_{a}({{\bf{k}}})=\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{{\nu_{n}}} \frac{{\mu^{b}_{\rm eff}}-i\nu_{n}-\tilde{t}}{{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n}){\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})-|\Delta|^{2}},
\nonumber\\
F({{\bf{k}}})=-\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{{\nu_{n}}} \frac{\bar{\Delta}}{{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n}){\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})-|\Delta|^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Summing over the fermionic Matsubara frequencies, we get $$\begin{aligned}
n_{a}({\bf{k}})=v^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}n_{F}(E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}})-u^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}n_{F}(E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}}),
\nonumber\\
F({{\bf{k}}})=u_{{\bf{k}}}v_{{\bf{k}}}\left[n_{F}\left(E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}}\right)-n_{F}\left(E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}}\right)\right],
\label{Na_and_F}\end{aligned}$$ while the function $n_{b}({\bf{k}})$ for the $b$-orbital is simply $n_{b}({\bf{k}})=1-n_{a}({\bf{k}})$. The coefficients appearing in Eq.(\[Na\_and\_F\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&u^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\xi_{{\bf{k}}}}{\sqrt{\xi^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}+4\Delta^{2}}}\right),
\nonumber\\
&&v^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}=\frac{1}{2}\left (1-\frac{\xi_{{\bf{k}}}}{\sqrt{\xi^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}+4\Delta^{2}}}\right),
\nonumber\\
&&u_{{\bf{k}}}v_{{\bf{k}}}=\frac{\bar{\Delta}}{\sqrt{\xi^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}+4\Delta^{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ In analogy with the HF approximation, [@Seki] we will suppose that $2|F({{\bf{k}}})|=1$ at ${\bf{k}}={\bf{k}}_{F}$, which is the definition of the Fermi momentum ${\bf{k}}_{F}$, i.e, $n_{a}({\bf{k}}_{F})=n_{b}({\bf{k}}_{F})=0.5$. In Figs. \[fig:Fig\_10\]-\[fig:Fig\_12\] we presented the ${\bf{k}}$-dependence of the normal $a$-band and anomalous $F({{\bf{k}}})$ function.
![\[fig:Fig\_10\] (Color online) The normal momentum distribution function $n_{a}({\bf{k}})$ and anomalous function $2F({\bf{k}})$ along the direction $(0,0,0)\rightarrow(\pi,\pi,\pi)$ at $T=0$ for different values of the normalized Coulomb interaction parameter $U/t$ and for $\tilde{t}=-0.01t$. The wave vector ${\bf{k}}$ is given in units of $2\pi/d$.](Fig_10)
![\[fig:Fig\_11\] (Color online) The normal momentum distribution function $n_{a}({\bf{k}})$ and anomalous function $2F({\bf{k}})$ along the direction $(0,0,0)\rightarrow(\pi,\pi,\pi)$ at $T=0$ for different values of the normalized Coulomb interaction parameter $U/t$ and for $\tilde{t}=-0.1t$. The wave vector ${\bf{k}}$ is given in units of $2\pi/d$.](Fig_11)
![\[fig:Fig\_12\] (Color online) The normal momentum distribution function $n_{a}({\bf{k}})$ and anomalous function $2F({\bf{k}})$ along the direction $(0,0,0)\rightarrow(\pi,\pi,\pi)$ at $T=0$ and for different values of the normalized Coulomb interaction parameter $U/t$ and for $\tilde{t}=-0.3t$. The wave vector ${\bf{k}}$ is given in units of $2\pi/d$.](Fig_12)
![\[fig:Fig\_13\] (Color online) The temperature dependence of the anomalous momentum distribution function $2F({\bf{k}})$ along $(0,0,0)\rightarrow(\pi,\pi,\pi)$ for $U/t=2.0$ and for $\tilde{t}=-0.3t$. The wave vector ${\bf{k}}$ is given in units of $2\pi/d$.](Fig_13)
In the weak coupling regime the normal distribution function $n_{a}({\bf{k}})$ drops at ${\bf{k}}_{F}$ and anomalous momentum function is picked at the Fermi level. With increasing the Coulomb interaction $n_{a}({\bf{k}})$ spread out in the ${\bf{k}}$-space and also ${\bf{k}}_{F}$becomes broad with the Fermi level $k_{F}$ displaced to the value $(0,0,0)$ in the momentum space. Across the crossover regime, the anomalous momentum function decreases for all momenta of the reciprocal space and this is consistent with the behavior of the excitonic gap parameter $\Delta$ in the strong coupling regime presented in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_2\]. Subsequently, in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_13\] we have presented the temperature dependence of the anomalous distribution function.
The ${\bf{k}}$ -summations in the analytical expression of $\xi_{c}$ were done with the $\left(100\times100\times100\right)$ ${\bf{k}}$-points in the FBZ. Calculating the coherence length given by Eq.(\[coherence\_length\]) for different values of the Coulomb interaction parameter $U/t$, we can see directly the spatial extension of excitons. In the Figs. \[fig:Fig\_14\] and \[fig:Fig\_15\] a rapid growth
![\[fig:Fig\_14\] (Color online) The coherence length $\xi_{c}$ as a function of the Coulomb interaction parameter $U/t$ in units of the lattice constant $d$ and at $T=0$. Two different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$ are considered: $\tilde{t}=-0.01t$ and $\tilde{t}=-0.1t$.](Fig_14)
![\[fig:Fig\_15\] The coherence length $\xi_{c}$ as a function of the Coulomb interaction parameter $U/t$ in units of the lattice constant $d$ and at $T=0$. Two different values of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$ are considered: $\tilde{t}=-0.2t$ and $\tilde{t}=-0.3t$.](Fig_15)
of the coherence length for the small values of the Coulomb interaction parameter is anticipated as the excitons cooled down below the temperature of their quantum degeneracy. On the other hand, opposite to this behavior, the coherence length decreases rapidly with increasing $U/t$, which physically means that with increasing the interaction parameter we are destroying the spatial correlations between electrons and holes.
\[sec:SPHERICALMODEL\]Excitonic phase coherence
===============================================
\[sec:sub\_section\_A\] Phase stiffness
---------------------------------------
In this section we examine the system of excitons by considering the phase stiffnesses of the conduction band electrons and valence band holes. We will show how the macroscopic phase coherence between these two solid state bands is important for the excitonic condensation at the very low temperatures. In order to consider the phase stiffness, we are interesting in purely phase action and thus we will integrate out the fermions in Eq.(\[PARTITION\_1\]) to obtain the effective phase action in the model. The partition function of the phase-only model is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}=\int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[\varphi\right]},
\label{effective_phase_field_partition}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]={\cal{S}}_{0}[\varphi]-\frac{1}{2}\left\langle{\cal{S}}^{2}\right\rangle_{{\cal{S}_{\rm eff}}\left[\bar{a},a,{\bar{b}},b\right]},
\label{THE_EFFECTIVE_PHASE_ACTION_2}\end{aligned}$$ and the action ${\cal{S}}_{0}[\varphi]$ is given in Eq.(\[PURE\_PHASE\_ACTION\]). The detailed calculation of the average of the second order term in Eq.(\[THE\_EFFECTIVE\_PHASE\_ACTION\_2\]) is given in the Appendix \[sec:STIFFNESS\_CALCULATION\]. As a result, we have for the phase-only action $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{S}}_{{{J}}}\left[\varphi\right]=-J\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}{\bf{r}}'\right\rangle}\cos{2\left[{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)-{\varphi}({\bf{r}}'\tau)\right]},
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{STIF_ACTION_0}\end{aligned}$$ where $J$ is the phase stiffness parameter with the help of the lattice DOS in Eq.(\[DOSIK\]) we have (see Appendix \[sec:STIFFNESS\_CALCULATION\] )
$$\begin{aligned}
J=\frac{4\Delta^{2}t\tilde{t}}{9}\int\int\frac{\rho_{3D}(x)\rho_{3D}(y)\epsilon\left(x\right)\epsilon\left(y\right)}{{\sqrt{\xi^{2}(x)+4\Delta^{2}}}}\left[\Lambda_{1}(x,y)\tanh\left(\frac{\beta E^{+}(x)}{2}\right)-\Lambda_{2}(x,y)\tanh\left(\frac{\beta E^{-}(x)}{2}\right)\right]
\label{J_STIFFNESS}\end{aligned}$$
with the parameters $\Lambda_{1}(x,y)$ and $\Lambda_{2}(x,y)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{1}(x,y)=\frac{1}{E^{+}(x) - E^{+}(y)}\cdot\frac{1}{E^{+}(x) - E^{-}(y)},
\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{2}(x,y)=\frac{1}{E^{-}(x) - E^{-}(y)}\cdot\frac{1}{E^{-}(x) - E^{+}(y)},
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \end{aligned}$$ where $E^{+}(x)$ and $E^{-}(x)$ are given by Eq.(\[SOLUTIONS\]). From the phase stiffness in Eq.(\[J\_STIFFNESS\]) it follows that the non-zero value of $J$ is linked with the pairing gap $\Delta$ since $J(\Delta=0)=0$. Therefore, the pairing in the excitonic system is the necessary prerequisite for the phase coherence. In Fig. \[fig:Fig\_16\] we presented the phase stiffness parameter $J$ as a function of the hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$. As the figures show, the values of $J$ are strictly positive for all
![\[fig:Fig\_16\] (Color online) The phase stiffness parameter $J$ at $T=0$ as a function of the interaction parameter $U/t$ and for two different values of the $f$-band hopping amplitude $\tilde{t}$.](Fig_16)
regions of the normalized Coulomb interaction parameter $U/t$. The phase stiffness in units of the hopping parameter is very small $J/t\ll 1$, but is persistent in the whole region with non-vanishing pairing gap $\Delta$.
\[sec:CONDENSATE\] Quantum rotor representation
-----------------------------------------------
In the discussion above, we derived the effective phase-only action ${\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[\varphi\right]={\cal{S}}_{0}\left[\varphi\right]+{\cal{S}}_{J}\left[\varphi\right]$. In the following we cast the ${\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[\varphi\right]$ into the quantum rotor representation, [@Kopec_2] which enables us to study a spontaneous U(1) symmetry breaking resulting in global phase coherent state among electron-hole pairs. To proceed, we replace the phase degrees of freedom by the complex unimodular field $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$, which satisfy the periodic boundary conditions $z({\bf{r}}\beta)=z({\bf{r}}0)$, as it was implemented in the Section \[sec:EQUATIONS\] for the description of the pairing order parameter $\Psi$: $$z({\bf{r}}\tau)=e^{i\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)}.
\label{unimodular_comp_var}$$ Now we introduce the new variables into the partition function in Eq.(\[effective\_phase\_field\_partition\]) using the following identity $$\begin{aligned}
\int{\cal{D}}\bar{z}{\cal{D}}{z} \delta\left(\frac{}{}\sum_{{\bf{r}}}|z({\bf{r}}\tau)|^{2}-N\frac{}{}\right)\times
\nonumber\\
\times\delta\left(z-e^{i{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)}\right)\delta\left(\bar{z}-e^{-i{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)}\right)=1.
\label{INTRODUCTION_OF_Z}\end{aligned}$$ The inherent unimodular constraint on the complex variables $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$ ($|z({\bf{r}}\tau)|^{2}=1$) implies that on average the following condition holds $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\bf{r}}}|z({\bf{r}}\tau)|^{2}=1,
\label{spherical_constraint}\end{aligned}$$ which forms a kind of spherical constraint on a set of unimodular variables $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$. The spherical constraint in Eq.(\[spherical\_constraint\]) can be resolved by introducing the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ resulting from the Laplace transform of the functional delta representation. [@Kopec_2] $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\left(\frac{}{}\sum_{{\bf{r}}}|z({\bf{r}}\tau)|^{2}-N\frac{}{}\right)=\int^{+i\infty}_{-i\infty}\left[\frac{{\cal{D}}\lambda}{2\pi{i}}\right]\times
\nonumber\\
\times e^{-i\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\sum_{{\bf{r}}} \lambda\left(\frac{}{}|z({\bf{r}}\tau)|^{2}-1\frac{}{}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ This adds a quadratic term (in the $z$-field) to the phase action. Next, the phase stiffness action in Eq.(\[STIF\_ACTION\_0\]) can be rewritten in more convenient form using the trigonometric half-angle transformation formula $$\begin{aligned}
\cos 2\left[{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)-{\varphi}({\bf{r}}'\tau)\right]=2\cos^{2}\left[{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)-{\varphi}({\bf{r}}'\tau)\right]-1.
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{QUADRATIC_ADD_1}\end{aligned}$$ Then, in terms of the complex variables $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$, the transformation in Eq.(\[QUADRATIC\_ADD\_1\]) leads to a biquadratic form of the phase stiffness action in Eq.(\[STIF\_ACTION\_0\]). We have $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{S}}_{{{J}}}\left[\varphi\right]\rightarrow{\cal{S}}_{{{J}}}\left[\bar{z},z\right]
\nonumber\\
&&=-\frac{J}{2}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}{\bf{r}}'\right\rangle}\left[\bar{z}({\bf{r}}\tau)z({\bf{r}}'\tau)+c.c.\right]^{2}.
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{QUADRATIC_ADD_2}\end{aligned}$$ The four order term in Eq.(\[QUADRATIC\_ADD\_2\]) could be decoupled with the help of the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation by introducing the complex variables $w({\bf{r}}\tau{\bf{r}}'\tau)$ at each bond of the lattice $$\begin{aligned}
&&e^{\frac{J}{2}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}{\bf{r}}'\right\rangle}\left[\bar{z}({\bf{r}}\tau)z({\bf{r}}'\tau)+c.c.\right]^{2}}=
\nonumber\\
&&=\int\left[{\cal{D}}w\right]e^{-\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}{\bf{r}}'\right\rangle}\frac{w({\bf{r}}\tau{\bf{r}}'\tau)^{2}}{2J}}\times
\nonumber\\
&&\times e^{\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}{\bf{r}}'\right\rangle}w({\bf{r}}\tau{\bf{r}}'\tau)\left[\bar{z}({\bf{r}}\tau)z({\bf{r}}'\tau)+c.c.\right]}.
\label{biquadrature_decoupling}
\nonumber\\
\ \ \\end{aligned}$$
The integral in Eq.(\[biquadrature\_decoupling\]) over the $w({\bf{r}}\tau{\bf{r}}'\tau)$ fields could be calculated using the saddle-point method, which amounts in replacing $w({\bf{r}}\tau{\bf{r}}'\tau)$ variables by their saddle-point value $$\begin{aligned}
w_{0}=J\left\langle \left[\bar{z}({\bf{r}}\tau)z({\bf{r}}'\tau)+c.c.\right] \right\rangle\equiv 2Jg,
\label{saddle_point_w}\end{aligned}$$ where we used the expression of the bandwidth renormalization factor $g$ given in the Eq.(\[bandwidth\_renormalization\]). Substituting the value of $w_{0}$ in Eq.(\[saddle\_point\_w\]) back into the Eq.(\[biquadrature\_decoupling\]) we obtain the part of the effective phase action pertaining to the stiffness ${\cal{S}}_{J}[\bar{z},z]$ in a form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{J}[\bar{z},z]=-4gJ\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}{\bf{r}}'\right\rangle}\bar{z}({\bf{r}}\tau)z({\bf{r}}'\tau).
\label{J_stiffness_action}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, after integrating out the phase variables in Eq.(\[effective\_phase\_field\_partition\]), the partition function assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}={\cal{Z}}_{0}\int\left[{\cal{D}}\lambda\right]\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{z}{\cal{D}}{z}\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\lambda}[\bar{z},z]},
\label{spherical_action}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal{Z}}_{0}$ is the statistical sum of the non-interacting set of quantum rotators $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}_{0}=\int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi \right] e^{-{\cal{S}}_{0}[\varphi]},\end{aligned}$$ while the action ${\cal{S}}_{\lambda}[\bar{z},z]$ in Eq.(\[spherical\_action\]) after the Fourier transformation $$\begin{aligned}
z({\bf{r}}\tau)=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\omega_{n}}z({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})e^{i\left({\bf{k}}{\bf{r}}-\omega_{n}\tau\right)}
\label{Fourier_form}\end{aligned}$$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\lambda}[\bar{z},z]&&=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\omega_{n}}\bar{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n}){\cal{G}}^{-1}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})z({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})-\lambda,
\nonumber\\
\label{PHASE}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}^{-1}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})=\lambda-8gJ\epsilon({\bf{k}})+\gamma^{-1}(\omega_{n})
\label{SPHERICAL_1}\end{aligned}$$ and $\omega_{n}$ in Eq.(\[PHASE\]) are the Bose-Matsubara frequencies $\omega_{n}=\frac{2\pi{n}}{\beta}$ with ($n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...$). Furthermore, $\gamma^{-1}(\omega_{n})$ is the inverse of the Fourier transformation of the two-point phase correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=\frac{1}{{\cal{Z}}_{0}}\int \left[{\cal{D}}{\varphi}\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{0}[{\varphi}]}e^{i\left[{\varphi}({\bf{r}}\tau)-{\varphi}({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right]}.
\label{GAMMA}\end{aligned}$$ The calculation of the Fourier transformation $\gamma(\omega_{n})$ of the function in Eq.(\[GAMMA\]) is straightforward [@Kopec_2] $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(\omega_{n})=\frac{8}{U{\cal{Z}}_{0}}\sum^{+\infty}_{{m}=-\infty}\frac{e^{-\frac{U\beta}{4}\left({{m}}-\frac{2\bar{\mu}}{U}\right)^{2}}}{1-16\left[\frac{i\omega_{n}}{U}-\frac{1}{2}\left({{m}}-\frac{2\bar{\mu}}{U}\right)\right]^{2}},
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \label{WIND_NUMB_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}_{0}=\sum^{+\infty}_{{m}=-\infty}e^{-\frac{U\beta}{4}\left({{m}}-\frac{2\bar{\mu}}{U}\right)^{2}}.
\label{WIND_NUMB_2}\end{aligned}$$ The summations in Eqs.(\[WIND\_NUMB\_1\]) and (\[WIND\_NUMB\_2\]) are over the winding numbers $m$ of the U(1) group (see the Section \[sec:Section\_functional\_integral\_formalism\]).
\[sec:phase\_coherence\_line\] Phase coherence line
---------------------------------------------------
In the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow \infty$ the integration over $\lambda$-field in Eq.(\[spherical\_action\]) and (\[PHASE\]) can be performed exactly using the saddle-point method $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \frac{\delta {\cal{S}}_{\lambda}[\bar{z},z]}{\delta \lambda}\right|_{\lambda=\lambda_{0}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ As a result, one can write the constraint for the saddle-point value of the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_{0}$ $$\begin{aligned}
1=\lim_{\delta \rightarrow 0^{+}} \langle z({\bf{r}}\tau)\bar{z}({\bf{r}}\tau+\delta),
\label{rotor_average}\end{aligned}$$ where the average in Eq.(\[rotor\_average\]) is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle ... \rangle\equiv\frac{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{z}{\cal{D}}{z}\right] ... e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\lambda_{0}}[\bar{z},z]}}{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{z}{\cal{D}}{z}\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\lambda_{0}}[\bar{z},z]}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then with the help of the Eq.(\[PHASE\]) we can write explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
1=\frac{1}{(\beta{N})^{2}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\omega_{n}}\langle z({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})\bar{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\omega_{n}}{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n}).
\nonumber\\
\label{Limiting_constraint_lambda}\end{aligned}$$
Due to the presence of the phase stiffnesses $J$ (see the Eq.(\[J\_stiffness\_action\])) we have the possibility of the spontaneous breaking of the U(1) symmetry of the phase filed leading to the non-vanishing expectation value of the $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$-filed. In order to demonstrate this, we separate the single particle state ${\bf{k}}=0$ and the frequency mode $\omega_{n}=0$ for the $z({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})$-field by using the Bogoliubov displacement operation (see for example in Ref. ). We write for the complex variable $z({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})$ $$\begin{aligned}
z({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})=\beta{N}\psi_{0}\delta_{{\bf{k}},0}\delta_{\omega_{n},0}+\tilde{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})(1-\delta_{{\bf{k}},0})\times
\nonumber\\
\times (1-\delta_{\omega_{n},0}),
\label{FLUCTUATION_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{0}$ measures the amount of the condensed modes of the $z({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})$-field into the ${\bf{k}}=0$, $\omega_{n}=0$ state. Substituting Eq.(\[FLUCTUATION\_1\]) into the expression Eq.(\[Limiting\_constraint\_lambda\]) we get the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
1-|\psi_{0}|^{2}=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{\substack{{\bf{k}}\neq 0 \\ \omega_{n}\neq 0}}{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})
\label{Critical_equation_1}\end{aligned}$$ From the equation Eq.(\[Critical\_equation\_1\]) we see that the presence of $\psi_{0}$ of the condensed modes depletes the sum rule for the function ${\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})$ by the amount of the condensed modes signified by $\psi^{2}_{0}$. This feature has its analogue to the ordinary Bose condensation, where the density of particles in the normal state is depleted by the condensed fraction.
At the critical point, where $\psi_{0}=0$, the inverse of the uniform static order parameter susceptibility vanishes [@Kopec_2] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}^{-1}_{z}({\bf{k}}={{0}},\omega_{n}=0)=0,
\label{SPHERICAL_2}\end{aligned}$$ which fixes the Lagrange multiplier to the value $\lambda=\lambda_{0c}$ given by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{0c}-8gJ\epsilon({\bf{k}}=0)+\gamma^{-1}(\omega_{n}=0)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, find $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{0c}=-\frac{U}{8}+24gJ+\frac{2\bar{\mu}^{2}}{U}.\end{aligned}$$ The Eq.(\[Critical\_equation\_1\]) takes now the following form $$\begin{aligned}
1-|\psi_{0}|^{2}=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{\substack{{\bf{k}}\neq 0 \\ \omega_{n}\neq 0}}\frac{1}{\lambda_{0c}-8gJ\epsilon({\bf{k}})+\gamma^{-1}(\omega_{n})}.
\nonumber\\
\label{CRITICAL}\end{aligned}$$
Performing the Bose-Matsubara frequency summations in Eq.(\[CRITICAL\]), we obtain the following equation for the critical temperature at the phase coherent transition boundary ($\psi_{0}=0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{U}{4N}\sum_{{\bf{k}}} \frac{n_{B}\left(\zeta_{1{\bf{k}}}\right)-n_{B}\left(\zeta_{2{\bf{k}}}\right)}{\sqrt{\bar{\mu}^{2}+4Ug{J}\left[\epsilon({{\bf{0}}})-\epsilon({{\bf{k}}})\right]}}=1,
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{CRITICAL_LINE}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{B}\left(\epsilon\right)$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function $n_{B}\left(\epsilon\right)=1/\left(e^{\beta\epsilon}-1\right)$ and the variables $\zeta_{1{\bf{k}}}$ and $\zeta_{2{\bf{k}}}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{\alpha{\bf{k}}}=-\bar{\mu}+(-1)^{\alpha}{\sqrt{\bar{\mu}^{2}+4U{J}g\left[\epsilon({{\bf{0}}})-\epsilon({{\bf{k}}})\right]}},
\label{phase_coherent_bandwidth}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=1,2$. The simultaneous solution of the equations Eq.(\[CRITICAL\_LINE\]) and Eqs.(\[EQUATION\_FOR\_MU\]-\[EQUATION\_FOR\_DELTA\]) from the Section \[sec:EQUATIONS\] gives the critical temperature $T_{c}(U)$ for the transition to the phase coherent excitonic condensate (see the Fig. \[fig:Fig\_17\] and Fig. \[fig:Fig\_18\]). The upper curve on the same plots represents the temperature $T_{\Delta}$ as a function of the Coulomb energy along which the excitonic gap $\Delta$ vanishes.
![\[fig:Fig\_17\] (Color online) The transition temperatures for the pair formation $T_{\Delta}$ and phase coherence $T_{c}$ as a function of the Coulomb interaction energy $U/t$ for $\tilde{t}=-0.3t$ . The upper curve $T_{\Delta}(U)$ separates the excitonic paired state (EP) with $\Delta\neq 0$ and $\psi_{0}=0$ from the normal band insulator (N). The lower curve $T_{c}(U)$ delineates the boundary for the phase coherent excitonic condensate (EC) with $\Delta\neq 0$ and $\psi_{0}\neq 0$. ](Fig_17.eps)
![\[fig:Fig\_18\] (Color online) The transition temperatures for the pair formation $T_{\Delta}$ and phase coherence $T_{c}$ as a function of the Coulomb interaction energy $U/t$ for $\tilde{t}=-0.1t$ . The upper curve $T_{\Delta}(U)$ separates the excitonic paired state (EP) with $\Delta\neq 0$ and $\psi_{0}= 0$ from the normal band insulator (N). The lower curve $T_{c}(U)$ delineates the boundary for the phase coherent excitonic condensate (EC) with $\Delta\neq 0$ and $\psi_{0}\neq 0$. ](Fig_18.eps)
We observe, that for $U/t\ll 1$ the temperatures $T_{\Delta}$ and $T_{c}$ coincide, signaling that in the weak coupling regime the formation of the excitonic condensate is dominated by pair breaking effects, in close analogy with the BCS superconducting systems. In the region of the intermediate values of the Coulomb interaction the BEC transition temperature is different from the pair formation transition temperature $T_{\Delta}$ (about two order of magnitude). The reason for this is that these two critical temperatures are set by different energy scales: the pair breaking critical temperature $T_{\Delta}$ is controlled by the Coulomb energy $U$, while $T_{c}$ depends on phase stiffness $J$. Furthermore, the maximum of the condensate transition temperature $T^{\rm max}_{c}$ coincides with the maximum of the phase stiffness parameter $J^{\rm max}$ and this is due to the fact that both transitions are strongly interrelated. From the behavior of the excitonic gap parameter (Fig. \[fig:Fig\_2\]) it is clear that the gap maximums does not coincide with that of the phase stiffness and $T_{c}$ (see Fig. \[fig:Fig\_16\] and \[fig:Fig\_17\]). As we mentioned previousely, the EFKM is equivalent with the negative-$U$ Hubbard model, when the hopping integrals of the $c$ and $f$ electrons are the same. In this model the weak-coupling regime the physics is dominated also by a pair-breaking mechanism, while in the strong-coupling regime the two effects, pair formation and their coherence, are no longer connected and can take place in two different temperatures. [@Kopec_Hubbard]
Now it is interesting to relate results of our calculations on the 3D excitonic system to the experimental results, e.g., for the compound TmSe$_{0.45}$Te$_{0.55}$, which is an intermediate-valent semiconductor. [@Neuenschwander; @Wachter; @Wachter_1; @Wachter_2] The hopping parameter $\tilde{t}$ is estimated for $|\tilde{t}|=0.3|t|=5$ meV (see Ref. ). Using these values we find the maximum for the excitonic pair transition temperature $T^{\rm max}_{\Delta}=186.6$ K at $U=8|t|$. The maximum of the phase coherence transition temperature is estimated to be smaller about two orders of magnitude at $T^{\rm max}_{c}=0.44$ K for $U=4.8|t|$. We present also the values for the other important physical quantities: the maximum of the phase stiffness parameter is of order $J^{\rm max}=1.76\times 10^{-6}$ eV at $U\cong 5|t|$, while the charge-gap bandwidth was found to be $W=|\Delta^{\rm min}_{c}|=0.0682$ eV and the single particle excitation gap is of order $\Delta_{g}=0.057$ eV at $U=10.6|t|$. The obtained values fit into the experimental results on TmSe$_{0.45}$Te$_{0.55}$, where $T_{\Delta}$ is found to be of order $250$ K and below [@Wachter_2]. However, the fact that the excitonic gap $\Delta$ can be used to explain some experimental results is not the same as the macroscopic coherence in the excitonic system. As discussed above, the resistivity measurements can be explained by an ensemble of independent pairs signified by $\Delta$ without invoking coherence among them. If excitons are incoherent, then their motion under varying electric field should follow an Ohm’s low, in which their velocity is proportional to the force. The exciton in a superfluid phase-coherent state should have an acceleration proportional to the force. This could in principle be measured by optical imaging of the exciton motion. For example, the exciton phase coherence may be evidenced by the coherence of their light emission, which can be studied by interferometry. [@High] Exciton decay by emitting photons upon electron-hole recombination. Therefore, measurements of the intensity of the line-shape of this decay may be a powerful probe of the velocity spectrum in the excitonic system especially as to whether the global phase-coherent phase below the temperature $T_{c}$ exists. [@Shi]
Phase coherence and spectral functions
--------------------------------------
### Excitonic correlation function
As discussed in Ref. , the luminescence line-shapes $I(\omega)$ in the excitonic system can be analyzed in terms of the spectral density $A_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\omega)$ of the interacting exciton gas, which also determines the exciton center-of-mass distribution. Quite generally, the line shape $I(\omega)$ is the sum of two distinct contributions: a narrow peak at ${\bf{k}}=0$, associated with the excitonic condensate and a broader distribution associated with the decay of excitons outside the condensate ${\bf{k}}\neq 0$. Because within our theoretical approach we can access a variety of correlation functions, we concentrate now on the excitonic propagator in terms of the initial fermionic variables $c$ and $f$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{\rm cf}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=\langle \bar{c}({\bf{r}}\tau)f({\bf{r}}'\tau')\rangle .
\label{Excitonic_propagator_cf}\end{aligned}$$ After introducing the U(1) transformations in Eqs. (\[U(1)\_1\]) and (\[U(1)\_2\]), we will have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{\rm cf}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau')={\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau'){\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau'),
\label{Exc_1}\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the ${\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau')$ fermionic and ${\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau')$ phase-phase propagator, which are defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau')=\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}\tau)b({\bf{r}}'\tau')\rangle,
\nonumber\\
{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau')=\langle e^{-i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)-\varphi({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right]}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Then we write the Fourier transformations $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau')=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\nu_{n}}{\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})e^{i\left[{\bf{k}}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')-\nu_{n}(\tau-\tau')\right]},
\nonumber\\
{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau, {\bf{r}}'\tau')=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}\omega_{n}}{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})e^{i\left[{\bf{k}}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}')-\omega_{n}(\tau-\tau')\right]},
\label{Exc_2}
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the Fourier transformation of the function in Eq.(\[Exc\_1\]) could be written as a convolution in the reciprocal space: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{G}}_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})=\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{{\bf{q}}\omega_{n}}{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{q}}\omega_{n}){\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}-{\bf{q}},\nu_{n}-\omega_{n}).
\nonumber\\
\label{convolution_k}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, following the Section \[sec:phase\_coherence\_line\], the phase-phase propagator ${\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')$ will be rewritten in terms of the U(1) complex variables $z({\bf{r}}\tau)=e^{i\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=\left\langle z({\bf{r}}\tau)\bar{z}({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right\rangle.
\nonumber\\
\label{phase-phase}\end{aligned}$$ The complex variables $z({\bf{r}}\tau)$ will be used for calculating the Fourier transformation of the phase-phase propagator. Putting Eq.(\[FLUCTUATION\_1\]) into the expression for ${\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})$ in Eq.(\[Limiting\_constraint\_lambda\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})=\beta{N}|\psi_{0}|^{2}\delta_{{\bf{k}},0}\delta_{\omega_{n},0}+\tilde{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n}).
\label{BEC_STATE}\end{aligned}$$ At the sufficiently low temperatures, the Eq.(\[BEC\_STATE\]) defines the coherent macroscopic state, i.e, the BEC state. We can separate now the mode $\left\{ {\bf{q}}={{0}},\omega_{n}=0 \right\}$ for the condensate state of the function in Eq.(\[convolution\_k\]). Using the Eq.(\[BEC\_STATE\]) above we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{G}}_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})=|\psi_{0}|^{2}{\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})+
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{\beta{N}}\sum_{\substack{{\bf{q}}\neq 0 \\ \omega_{n}\neq 0}}\tilde{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{q}}\omega_{n}){\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}-{\bf{q}},\nu_{n}-\omega_{n}).
\label{k_space_convolution}\end{aligned}$$ As we see, the excitonic propagator composes of two parts: one responsible for the excitonic condensate and the on-condensate excitation part.
### \[sec:Spectral\_functions\] Spectral functions and the density of states (DOS)
Using Eq.(\[k\_space\_convolution\]) for the total excitonic propagator we can calculate the analytical form of the excitonic spectral function $A_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\omega)$ and, later on, the excitonic density of states (DOS) profiles for the condensate and non-condensate states in the system. We introduce here the excitonic spectral function $A_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})$ that carries the same physical information as the correlation function ${\cal{G}}_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})$ itself. For this, it is sufficient to write the Cauchy formula for the correlation function by renaming it as the spectral function under the integral $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{A_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\omega)}{i\nu_{n}-\omega}d\omega.\end{aligned}$$ The integration here is over the continuous frequencies $\omega$. In the same way we can introduce the spectral functions $A_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega)$ and $A_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}\omega)$ associated to the bosonic and pure fermionic parts and corresponding to the correlation functions ${\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})$ and ${\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})$ respectively $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega_{n})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{A_{z}({\bf{k}}\omega)}{i\omega_{n}-\omega}d\omega\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{G}}_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}\nu_{n})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{A_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}\omega)}{i\nu_{n}-\omega}d\omega.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, using Eq.(\[k\_space\_convolution\]) we can write for the total spectral function $A_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\omega)$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&A_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\omega)=|\psi_{0}|^{2}A_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}\omega)+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\bf{q}}\neq 0}\int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}A_{\rm z}({\bf{q}}\omega)\times
\nonumber\\
&&\times A_{\rm ab}({\bf{k}}-{\bf{q}}\omega-\omega')\left[n_{B}(-\omega')+n_{F}(\omega-\omega')\right].
\label{convolution_relation_for_spectral_function}\end{aligned}$$
From the spectral functions we can obtain the density of states (DOS) by summing over the reciprocal wave vectors ${\bf{k}}$ with and appropriate normalization factor, hence, the total density of states is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm cf}(\omega)=-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{{\bf{k}}}A_{\rm cf}({\bf{k}}\omega).\end{aligned}$$ For the total excitonic DOS, we have an equation analogue to the Eqs.(\[BEC\_STATE\]) and (\[convolution\_relation\_for\_spectral\_function\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm cf}(\omega)=|\psi_{0}|^{2}\rho_{\rm ab}(\omega)+\tilde{\rho}_{\rm cf}(\omega),
\label{density_separation_formula}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\rho}_{\rm cf}(\omega)$ is the density of states corresponding to the on-condensate part of the system and is given as a convolution in terms of the continuous frequency-modes $$\begin{aligned}
&&\tilde{\rho}_{\rm cf}(\omega)=\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\rho_{\varphi}(\omega')\rho_{\rm ab}(\omega-\omega')
\nonumber\\
&&\times \left[n_{B}\left(-\omega'\right)+n_{F}\left(\omega-\omega'\right)\right]d\omega'.
\label{spectral_function_non_condensate}
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ A key feature of the result in Eq.(\[density\_separation\_formula\]), is that we have separated contributions from the condensate in a form of a sharp peak proportional to the amplitude $\psi_{0}$ and broader incoherent part $\tilde{\rho}_{\rm cf}(\omega)$. Within the thermal equilibrium the coherent part of the function $\rho_{\rm cf}(\omega)$ in Eq.(\[density\_separation\_formula\]) is sharp and is unaffected by the collisional broadening. This is the result of the long-range phase coherence in the excitonic system, which arises when a condensate of excitons has formed as shown in the real experiments on luminescence in the cuprous oxide excitonic system. [@Lin]
\[sec:SUMMARY\] Conclusion and outlook
======================================
We have studied the excitonic phase transition in a system of conduction band electrons with transfer parameter $t$ and valence band holes described by the three-dimensional extended Falicov-Kimball model with tunable Coulomb interaction $U$ between both species. To this end we implement the functional integral formulation of our model, where the Coulomb interaction term is expressed in terms of U(1) quantum phase variables $\varphi$ conjugated to the local particle number, providing a useful representation of strongly correlated systems. At low temperatures the electron-hole system may become unstable with respect to the formation of the excitons at $T=T_{\Delta}$, exhibiting a gap $\Delta$ in the particle excitation spectrum controlled by the parameter $U$, which gives the relevant energy scale for the excitonic insulator state. Furthermore, we have shown that for the large values of $U$ the excitons form the incoherent pairs uncorrelated with each other until they undergo the excitonic Bose-Einstein condensation at lower temperature $T_{c}<T_{\Delta}$ controlled by the phase stiffness $J\ll U$ between the excitonic pairs. Here, as a result the spontaneous U(1) symmetry breaking, an expectation value of $\langle e^{i\varphi}\rangle\neq 0$ appears, signaling of the presence of the phase coherence in the system. Therefore, pairing and condensation are not generally the same, however, in the weak coupling limit $U/t\ll 1$, the binding energy of exciton pairs is small, thus the pair breaking controls the condensation. This is what happens in a standard BCS superconductor, where dynamics of the phase variables is unimportant. However, in the excitonic system with the strong pairing $U/t\gg 1$ we have the situation, where the pairs are strongly bound, but can be mutually uncorrelated with each other until they become phase coherent at $T_{c}$. Although, the excitonic gap can be used to explain some experimental results (like tunneling data and resistivity measurements), $\Delta$ is not signifying the macroscopic coherence in the excitonic system. For example, the exciton phase coherence may be evidenced by the coherence of their light emission, which can be studied by interferometry (see e.g., Ref. ) and the experiments on luminescence in the cuprous oxide excitonic system. [@Lin] Therefore, a possible direction for future work will be the determination of the single-particle excitation spectra, which would be instrumental for interpretation of the coherent light emission measurements in the excitonic system.
\[sec:The\_method \_of\_effective\_actions\] Effective actions
===============================================================
Fermionic action
----------------
We would like now to derive the effective action for fermions. Our starting point is the partition function given in the Eq.(\[PARTITION\_1\]) derived with the help of the U$(1)$ gauge transformation as it is introduced in the Section \[sec:Decoupling\_fields\], which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}=\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{a}{\cal{D}}a\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{b}{\cal{D}}b\right] e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}]},\end{aligned}$$ where the effective fermionic action ${\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}]$ in the exponential is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}]=-\ln\int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}[\bar{a},a,{\bar{b}},b,\varphi]}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we expand the logarithm keeping only the terms up to second order in ${\cal{S}}$. As a result we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}]=&&{\cal{S}}_{0}+\left\langle{\cal{S}}\right\rangle_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]}
\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{1}{2}\left[\left\langle{\cal{S}}^{2}\right\rangle_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]}-\left\langle{\cal{S}}\right\rangle^{2}_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]}\right].
\label{effective_phase_action_self_consistent_appr}
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \end{aligned}$$ Here, the averages with respect to the phase variables are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle...\right\rangle_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]}=\frac{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]...e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]}}{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]}}.
\label{SELF_CONSISTENCY_1}\end{aligned}$$
Phase action
------------
In a similar way, the integration over the fermions in Eq.(\[PARTITION\_1\]) gives the effective action for the phase sector. The partition function in this case is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}}=\int\left[{\cal{D}}\varphi\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]},\end{aligned}$$ where the effective phase action in the exponential is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]=-\ln\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{a}{\cal{D}}a\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{b}{\cal{D}}b\right] e^{-{\cal{S}}}.
\label{effective_action_to_expand}\end{aligned}$$ Again, expanding the logarithm in the Eq.(\[effective\_action\_to\_expand\]) we will have up to second order in ${\cal{S}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}[\varphi]
=&&\tilde{\cal{S}}_{0}+\left\langle{\cal{S}}\right\rangle_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}\right]}
\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{2}\left[\left\langle{\cal{S}}^{2}\right\rangle_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}{\left[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}\right]}}-\left\langle{\cal{S}}\right\rangle^{2}_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}\right]}\right],
\label{effective_fermionic_action_self_consistent_appr}
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\cal{S}}_{0}$ is an unimportant constant. Here the fermionic average $\langle ... \rangle_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle...\right\rangle_{{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}\right]}=\frac{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{a}{\cal{D}}a\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{b}{\cal{D}}b\right]...e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}\right]}}{\int\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{a}{\cal{D}}a\right]\left[{\cal{D}}\bar{b}{\cal{D}}b\right]e^{-{\cal{S}}_{\rm eff}\left[{\bar{a},a,\bar{b},b}\right]}}.
\nonumber\\
\label{SELF_CONSISTENCY_2}\end{aligned}$$
The Eq.(\[effective\_phase\_action\_self\_consistent\_appr\]) is important for deriving the excitonic gap equation, while the relation in Eq.(\[effective\_fermionic\_action\_self\_consistent\_appr\]) is crucial for deriving the phase stiffnesses.
\[sec:STIFFNESS\_CALCULATION\] The phase stiffness
==================================================
We present here derivation of the phase stiffnesses, which are proportional to $t\tilde{t}$ terms in the effective phase action in Eq.(\[effective\_fermionic\_action\_self\_consistent\_appr\]). The derivation of the other term, proportional to $\tilde{t}t$, is very similar. Using Eq.(\[effective\_fermionic\_action\_self\_consistent\_appr\]) and Eq.(\[ACTION\_AFTER\_U1\]) we get for the mixed term $t\tilde{t}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}_{1}{\bf{r}}'_{1}\right\rangle}\sum_{\left\langle{\bf{r}}_{2}{\bf{r}}'_{2}\right\rangle}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau d\tau' \left[ t({\bf{r}}_{1}{\bf{r}}'_{1})\tilde{t}({\bf{r}}_{2}{\bf{r}}'_{2})\times
\right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau){a}({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\bar{b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau'){b}({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right\rangle\times \right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.
\times e^{-i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau)-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\right]}e^{-i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right]}\right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.+t({\bf{r}}_{1}{\bf{r}}'_{1})\tilde{t}({\bf{r}}'_{2}{\bf{r}}_{2})\left\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau){a}({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\bar{b}({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau'){b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')\right\rangle\times \right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.
\times e^{-i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau)-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\right]}e^{i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right]}\right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.+t({\bf{r}}'_{1}{\bf{r}}_{1})\tilde{t}({\bf{r}}_{2}{\bf{r}}'_{2})\left\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau){a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau)\bar{b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau'){b}({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right\rangle\times \right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.
\times e^{i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau)-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\right]}e^{-i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right]}\right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.+t({\bf{r}}'_{1}{\bf{r}}_{1})\tilde{t}({\bf{r}}'_{2}{\bf{r}}_{2})\left\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau){a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau)\bar{b}({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau'){b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')\right\rangle\times \right.
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left.
\times e^{i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau)-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\right]}e^{i\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')-\varphi({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right]}\right].
\label{AVERAGE_1}\end{aligned}$$ As an example, we give the Wick averaging result of the first four-fermion term in the expression of Eq.(\[AVERAGE\_1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau){a}({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\bar{b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau'){b}({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right\rangle=
\nonumber\\
&&
=\left\langle \bar{a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau){a}({\bf{r}}'_{1}\tau)\right\rangle \left\langle\bar{b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau'){b}({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&-\left\langle\bar{a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau)\bar{b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')\right\rangle \left\langle a({{\bf{r}}'_{1}{\tau}})b({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&+\left\langle\bar{a}({\bf{r}}_{1}\tau){b}({\bf{r}}'_{2}\tau')\right\rangle \left\langle a({{\bf{r}}'_{1}{\tau}})\bar{b}({\bf{r}}_{2}\tau')\right\rangle=
\nonumber\\
&&={\cal{G}}^{aa}({\bf{r}}'_{1}-{\bf{r}}_{1},0){\cal{G}}^{bb}({\bf{r}}'_{2}-{\bf{r}}_{2},0)
\nonumber\\
&&-{\cal{G}}^{ab}({\bf{r}}_{1}-{\bf{r}}'_{2},\tau-\tau'){\cal{G}}^{ba}({\bf{r}}_{2}-{\bf{r}}'_{1},\tau'-\tau).
\label{WICK_AVERAGE_1}\end{aligned}$$ We kept in Eq.(\[WICK\_AVERAGE\_1\]) only the terms proportional to excitonic gap. We neglected other terms like $\left\langle\bar{a}({\bf{r}}\tau)\bar{b}({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right\rangle$ or $\left\langle{a}({\bf{r}}\tau){b}({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right\rangle$, which vanish due to the symmetry of the action in Eq.(\[ACTION\_FOURIER\]). Contributions, proportional to fermionic densities $\left\langle\bar{a}({\bf{r}}\tau)a({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle\bar{b}({\bf{r}}\tau)b({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right\rangle$ could be also omitted, since they are not contributing directly to the excitonic pair formation.
After calculating all averages in Eq.(\[AVERAGE\_1\]) and recombining them with the similar terms coming from the component proportional to $\tilde{t}t$, we obtain the relevant portion of the phase action in the form
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{S}}_{J}\left[\varphi\right]=&&\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau \int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau' \sum_{{\bf{r}}{\bf{r}}'}\left\{J({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')\cos\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)+\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau')-\varphi({\bf{r}}'\tau)-\varphi({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right]\right.
\nonumber\\
&&\left.+{\cal{G}}_{ab}({\bf{0}},\tau-\tau'){\cal{G}}_{ba}({\bf{0}},\tau'-\tau)\cos\left[\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)-\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau')-\varphi({\bf{r}}'\tau)+\varphi({\bf{r}}'\tau')\right]\right\},
\label{STIFFNESS_ACTION}\end{aligned}$$
containing phase stiffness parameter $J$ $$\begin{aligned}
J({\bf{r}}\tau,{\bf{r}}'\tau')=-{4t\tilde{t}}{\cal{G}}_{ab}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}',\tau-\tau'){\cal{G}}_{ba}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}',\tau'-\tau).
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{STIFFENESS_1}\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, in order to simplify the non-local (in time variable) effective phase action in Eq.(\[STIFFNESS\_ACTION\]) we resort to the gradient expansion of the phase field in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau')=\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)+\left(\tau'-\tau\right)\partial_{\tau}\varphi({\bf{r}}\tau)+O\left[\left(\tau'-\tau\right)^{2}\right].
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ As a result we can introduced the phase stiffness parameter in the form $$\begin{aligned}
J=-{4t\tilde{t}}\int^{\beta}_{0}d\tau'{\cal{G}}_{ab}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}',\tau-\tau'){\cal{G}}_{ba}({\bf{r}}-{\bf{r}}',\tau'-\tau),
\nonumber\\
\ \ \
\label{STIFFENESS_2}\end{aligned}$$ while the phase stiffness action in E.(\[STIFFNESS\_ACTION\]) simplifies to that given in Eq.(\[STIF\_ACTION\_0\]), which now is local in time variable $\tau$. For the product of the anomalous propagators in Eq.(\[STIFFENESS\_2\]) we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal{G}}_{ab}(\tau-\tau'){\cal{G}}_{ba}(\tau'-\tau)
=\frac{4\Delta^{2}U^{2}}{z^{2}(\beta{N})^{2}}\sum_{\substack{{\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}'}}
\sum_{\nu_{n} \nu'_{n}}\frac{\epsilon\left({{\bf{k}}}\right)\epsilon\left({{\bf{k}}}'\right)e^{-i(\nu'_{n}-\nu_{n})\delta}}{\left[{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n}){\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}}(\nu_{n})-|\Delta|^{2}\right]\left[{\cal{E}}^{a}_{{\bf{k}}'}(\nu_{n}'){\cal{E}}^{b}_{{\bf{k}}'}(\nu_{n}')-|\Delta|^{2}\right]}.
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \
\label{PROPAGATOR}\end{aligned}$$
Here $z=6$ is the number of the nearest neighbor sites on the three-dimensional cubic lattice. After integrating over the imaginary time $\tau'$ in Eq.(\[STIFFENESS\_2\]), we perform the Matsubara frequency summations in Eq.(\[PROPAGATOR\]) and obtain the phase stiffness parameter $J$ in Eq.(\[STIFFENESS\_2\]) in the final form
$$\begin{aligned}
J=\frac{16\Delta^{2}t\tilde{t}}{z^{2}{N^{2}}}\sum_{{\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}'}\frac{\epsilon\left({{\bf{k}}}\right)\epsilon\left({{\bf{k}}}'\right)}{{\sqrt{\xi^{2}_{{\bf{k}}}+4\Delta^{2}}}}\left[\Lambda_{1}({\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}')\tanh\left(\frac{\beta E^{+}_{{\bf{k}}}}{2}\right)-\Lambda_{2}({\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}')\tanh\left(\frac{\beta E^{-}_{{\bf{k}}}}{2}\right)\right].
\label{TILDE_STIFFNESS}\end{aligned}$$
The parameters $\Lambda_{1}({\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}')$ and $\Lambda_{2}({\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}')$ entering in Eq.(\[TILDE\_STIFFNESS\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{1}({\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}')=\frac{1}{E^{+}({\bf{k}}) - E^{+}({\bf{k}}')}\cdot\frac{1}{E^{+}({\bf{k}}) - E^{-}({\bf{k}}')},
\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{2}({\bf{k}}{\bf{k}}')=\frac{1}{E^{-}({\bf{k}}) - E^{-}({\bf{k}}')}\cdot\frac{1}{E^{-}({\bf{k}}) - E^{+}({\bf{k}}')}.
\nonumber\\
\ \ \ \end{aligned}$$ Following the Section \[sec:solution\_for\_Delta\], the summations over the ${\bf{k}}$ wave vectors in Eq.(\[TILDE\_STIFFNESS\]) could be transformed into the integrations with the help of the density of states given in Eq.(\[DOSIK\]). As we see, Eq.(\[TILDE\_STIFFNESS\]) relates the phase stiffness parameter $J$ with the local pairing gap $\Delta$. The physical significance of this fact is that the excitonic pair formation is a precondition for the appearance of the phase stiffness and subsequent phase coherence of the preformed excitonic pairs. The numerical evaluations of the expression in Eq.(\[TILDE\_STIFFNESS\]) for $T=0$ K are presented in Fig. \[fig:Fig\_16\] and discussed in the Section \[sec:SPHERICALMODEL\] of the present paper.
Moskalenko S. A., Snoke D. W., *Bose-Einstein Condensation of Excitons and Biexcitons* (Cambridge University Press, 2005). L. V. Keldysh and A. N. Kozlov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **54**, 978–993 (1968), Sov. Phys. JETP **27**, 521–528 (1968). J. Neuenschwander, P. Wachter, Phys. Rev. B **41** (1990) 12693. B. Bucher, P. Steiner, and P. Wachter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 2717 (1991). P. Wachter, Solid State Commun. **118**, 645, (2001). P. Wachter, B. Bucher, J. Malar, Phys. Rev. B **69** (2004) 094502. L. V. Keldysh and Y. V. Kopaev, Soviet Phys. Solid State **6**, 2219 (1964). J. des Cloizeaux, J. Chem. Phys. Solids. 26, 259 (1965). W. Kohn, in Many Body Physics, edited by C. de Witt and R. Balian (Gordon & Breach, New York, 1968). D. Jérome, T. M. Rice, and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. **158**, 462 (1967). A. Griffin, D.W. Snoke and S. Stringari, eds *Bose-Einstein Condensation*, (Cambridge University Press, 1995). D.W. Snoke, *Coherence and Optical Emission from Bilayer Exciton Condensates*, Advances in Condensed Matter Physics **2011**, 938609 (2011). D. Snoke, Science **15**, 1368, (2002). B. I. Halperin and T. M. Rice, in Solid State Physics, edited by F. Seitz, D. Turnbull, and H. Ehrenreich, Academic, New York, (1967). (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1995). Y. Wakisaka, T. Sudayama, K. Takubo, T. Mizokawa, M. Arita, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, N. Katayama, M. Nohara, and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 026402 (2009). H. Cercellier, C. Monney, F. Clerc, C. Battaglia, L. Despont, M. G. Garnier, H. Beck, P. Aebi, L. Patthey, H. Berger and L. Forró, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 146403 (2007). A. A. High, J. R. Leonard, A. T. Hammack, M. M. Fogler, L. V. Butov, A. V. Kavokin, K. L. Campman and A. C. Gossard, Nature **483** (2012). L.V. Butov, C.W. Lai , A.L. Ivanov, A. C. Gossard, D. S. Chemla, Nature, 417, **47**(2002). T. Kaneko, T. Toriyama, T. Konishi and Y. Ohta, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 035121 (2013). J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. **106**, 162, (1957). D. Ihle, M. Pfafferott, E. Burovski, F. X. Bronold, and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 193103 (2008). C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, *Bose Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases*, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001). Qijin Chen, Jelena Stajic, Shina Tan, Kathryn Levin, Physics Reports **412**, 1-88 (2005). D. Kremp, D. Semkat, and K. Henneberger, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 125315 2008. F. X. Bronold and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 165107 (2006). B. Zenker, D. Ihle, F. X. Bronold, and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 115122 March (2010). B. Zenker, D. Ihle, F. X. Bronold, and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 235123 (2011). K. Seki, R. Eder, and Y. Ohta, [ Phys. Rev. B]{}, **84**, 245106 (2011). D. I. Golosov, Phys. Rev. B, **86**, 155134 (2012). P. Farkasovsky, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 155130 (2008). B. Zenker, D. Ihle, F. X. Bronold, and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 121102 (2012). C. D. Batista, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 166403, (2002). C. D. Batista, J. E. Gubernatis, J. Bonca, and H. Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 187601, (2004). C. Schneider and G. Czycholl, Eur. Phys. J. B **64**, 43 (2008). L. M. Falicov and J. C. Kimball, Phys. Rev. Lett. **22**, 997 (1969). R. Ramirez, L. M. Falicov, and J. C. Kimball, [ Phys. Rev. B]{}, **2**, 3383 (1970). J. W. Negele and H. Orland, *Quantum Many-Particle Systems*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, (1988). J. L. Lin and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 1222, (1993). T. K. Kopeć, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 132512 (2006). T. K. Kopeć, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 104505 (2006). T. K. Kopeć, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 054509 (2002). H. Shi, G. Verechaka, and A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. B, **50**, 1119 (1994). G. Grignani, A. Mattoni, P. Sodano, and A. Trombettoni, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 11676 (2000). E. Fradkin, *Field Theories of Condensed Matter Systems*, (Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, 1991). M. Abramovitz and I. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Dover, New York, 1970).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this work, we present an effective discrete Edwards-Wilkinson equation aimed to describe the single-file diffusion process. The key physical properties of the system are captured defining an effective elasticity, which is proportional to the single particle diffusion coefficient and to the inverse squared mean separation between particles. The effective equation gives a description of single-file diffusion using the global roughness of the system of particles, which presents three characteristic regimes, namely normal diffusion, subdiffusion and saturation, separated by two crossover times. We show how these regimes scale with the parameters of the original system. Additional repulsive interaction terms are also considered and we analyze how the crossover times depend on the intensity of the additional terms. Finally, we show that the roughness distribution can be well characterized by the Edwards-Wilkinson universal form for the different single-file diffusion processes studied here.'
author:
- 'P. M. Centres'
- 'S. Bustingorry'
bibliography:
- 'steps.bib'
title: 'Effective Edwards-Wilkinson equation for single-file diffusion'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Single file diffusion (SFD) is one of the simplest and non-trivial problems in statistical physics [@harris1965; @fedders1978; @alexander1978; @beijeren1983]. In this problem a one-dimensional collection of particles diffuses with hard-core repulsion as the basic constraint. In one dimension, hard-core repulsion implies the non-passing rule, i.e. a given particle can not cross over its neighbor particles. This restricts the phase space generating an inherent entropic interaction. Despite its simplicity the SFD problem still attracts much attention due mostly to the possibility of applying different analytical formalisms [@lin2005; @lizana2008; @lizana2009; @taloni2008; @barkai2009].
A direct experimental observation of SFD processes has become possible during the last decade. The improvement of experimental techniques has permitted studying systems ranging from interacting colloidal particles on channels or rings at the microscopic scale [@wei1999; @wei2000], to charged metallic balls on rings at the macroscopic scale [@coupier2006]. Other interesting problems in which single-file diffusion is important are the longitudinal relaxation of a single polymer [@amitai2010; @doi1986] or the transverse fluctuation of vecinal surfaces [@giesen2001].
The simple hard-core interaction gives rise to non-trivial diffusion properties. If the diffusion of a tagged particle is followed, it first presents a normal diffusion regime, i.e. $\Delta(t)=\langle [r(t) - \langle r \rangle(t)]^2 \rangle = 2Dt$, where $r(t)$ is the instantaneous position of the particle, $\langle \dots \rangle$ is an ensemble average, and $D$ is the diffusion coefficient. This relation is valid up to a characteristic time, beyond which, in average, particles start colliding with their neighbors. Then, as a consequence of the interaction between particles and the one-dimensional character of the problem, the tagged particle shows a subdiffusive behavior of the form $\Delta(t) = 2Ft^{1/2}$, where $F$ is a characteristic coefficient. This subdiffusive regime last for ever in infinite systems, but it crosses over to saturation or normal diffusion in finite systems, depending on the applied boundary conditions [@beijeren1983]. The subdiffusive regime of a single tagged particle is the signature of the interacting system. On the contrary, the diffusion of the center of mass is always normal, i.e. it increases linearly with time, without showing any signature of the interacting system.
Different analytical approaches to the SFD problem have been recently proposed. Among others, we can mention a Langevin formulation [@taloni2008], the calculation of the probability density function for the position of a tagged particle using a Bethe ansatz [@lizana2008; @lizana2009], an approach based on fractional Brownian motion with a variable Hurst exponent [@lim2009], or a formulation for the tagged particle motion using classical reflection and transmission coefficients [@barkai2009]. In the present work, we propose a different and complementary approach based on an effective description of the SFD problem in terms of a discrete Edwards-Wilkinson equation (DEWE). The two parameters of the DEWE are the noise intensity and the elasticity of the system. In order to present an effective equation, effective values for these parameters are given, relating them to the SFD parameters, i.e. to the mean particle separation and to the single particle diffusion coefficient. Then, we describe the SFD process using the global roughness of the system of particles, which gives information on how the particles diffusion becomes correlated with time. It is shown that the description using the DEWE successfully accounts for the case of a pure hard-core interaction. In order to extend our analysis, we consider two further cases of interacting particles, one with a purely harmonic repulsion term, and the other with an interaction term proportional to the reciprocal of the squared distance between two consecutive particles. Finally we discuss some aspects of the universal properties of the distribution function of the global roughness.
Model system {#sec:model}
============
Let us first briefly describe the model system under study. We consider a set of $N$ particles of unitary size in a discrete one-dimensional system. The particles are in average a distance $L$ apart and thus the size of the system is $LN$ and the particle density is $\rho = 1/L$, as depicted in Fig. \[f:model\]. For the sake of simplicity, we use periodic boundary conditions. The $j$ label is used for the particles, so the instantaneous position for the $j\text{-th}$ particle at time $t$ is $r_j(t)$. Instead of this instantaneous particle position, let us consider the displacement field $u_j(t)=r_j(t)-jL$, which measures the displacement with respect to an ideal ordered lattice $r_j = j L$.
We shall consider the motion of the particles in a discrete medium. The dynamics of each particle consists of a random displacement to one of its two neighboring sites, with equal transition probabilities $\Gamma_{u,u+1}=\Gamma_{u,u-1}=\Gamma=1/2$, only if the new site is not occupied by one of the neighboring particles. This means that the hard-core repulsion restricts the position of the $j$ particle to $r_{j-1}(t) < r_j(t) < r_{j+1}(t)$ for all times. This represents indeed an entropic repulsion between particles. Note that, expressed in terms of the displacement field, the non-passing rule may be written as $$\label{eq:non-pass}
u_{j-1}(t) - L < u_j(t) < u_{j+1}(t) + L.$$
Within this simple model, the interacting particles follow a SFD process. Thence the single particle diffusion shows three characteristic regimes: a single particle normal diffusion regime $\Delta = \langle [r_j(t)-\langle r_j(t) \rangle ]^2 \rangle \sim t$, an interacting particles subdiffusive regime $\Delta \sim t^{1/2}$, and a center-of-mass normal diffusion regime $\Delta \sim t$. The subdiffusive regime is the key signature of the interaction between particles.
As described here, this simple model with hard-core repulsion and constant diffusion coefficient $\Gamma$ does not depend on temperature. One can think of other interaction terms which allow for a temperature dependence. For instance, by including a simple harmonic repulsion between particles given by the Hamiltonian $$H_K = \frac{K}{2} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \left[ u_{j+1}(t) - u_j(t) + L \right]^2.$$ Periodic boundary conditions are implicitly assumed in the sum. We shall analyze the model containing the hard-core repulsion plus the harmonic contribution as the simplest model with an energetic (non-entropic) interaction term. We shall also consider another energetic interaction term where the interaction is proportional to $1/r^2$, being $r$ the distance between two consecutive particles. We are interested in this interaction form since it is relevant for the vecinal surface problem [@giesen2001]. In such case, the Hamiltonian reads $$H_A = A \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \left[ u_{j+1}(t) - u_j(t) + L \right]^{-2}.$$
In order to compare with the effective DEWE description of the process we present in the following results from direct numerical simulations of the present model. A Monte Carlo scheme can be implemented to perform numerical simulations of the model described so far. For the single-file diffusion mechanism a random particle is selected and one of its two neighbors randomly chosen with equal probability, and then the particle moves only if the new site is empty, which implements the non-passing rule Eq. . When an energetic contribution is considered, it is taken into account in the dynamics of the particles with a Metropolis rule. The new site for a given particle is randomly selected as before, then the energy difference $\Delta H$ is considered and the probability $P = \exp(-\Delta H/T)$ is computed. The new particle moves to the new site if $P > \xi$, where $\xi$ is a random number uniformly distributed in $(0,1]$. This Monte Carlo scheme will be used to compare with the effective description of the model in terms of the DEWE, which is presented in the following section.
 Schematic representation of the model single-file diffusion system. Each particle of unitary size diffuses in a discrete one-dimensional system with periodic boundary conditions. The mean separation between particles is $L$. Each particle can move with equal transition probability $\Gamma =1/2$ to one of its next nearest neighbor sites if they are not occupied by other particle.](figure1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Discrete Edwards-Wilkinson equation
===================================
In this section we present the effective DEWE which allows for a description of the main physical properties of the SFD problem. We shall first present the well-known general solution of the equation and we will then discuss how its parameters can be effectively related to the parameters of the interacting particle system. Notice that although we use here a continuous-time Edwards-Wilkinson equation for the sake of simplicity, the results we will present here can be directly translated to the discrete-time version.
General results
---------------
![\[f:w2-regimes\]Roughness of the DEWE for parameters $N=128$, $\nu=1$ and $D=1/2$. Dashed lines correspond to the three asymptotic regimes, which are separated by the crossover points $y_1=(t_1,W^2_1)$ and $y_2=(t_2,W^2_2)$, as shown in the figure.](figure2.eps){width="8.5cm"}
The Edwards-Wilkinson equation [@edwards1982] is characterized by the amplitude of the thermal noise $D$ and the elastic constant $\nu$. In a discrete form it can be written as $$\label{e:dew}
\partial_t u_j(t) = \nu \left[ u_{j+1}(t) + u_{j-1}(t) -2\,u_j(t) \right] + \eta_j(t),$$ with $j=0,...,N-1$ and periodic boundary conditions. The noise term has a zero mean and the correlations $\langle \eta_j(t) \eta_{j'}(t') \rangle= 2 D \delta_{j,j'} \delta(t-t')$ have intensity $D$. The average over the white noise is denoted by angular brackets. Notice that we write the DEWE directly in terms of the displacement field variable, thus elastically connecting a system of $N$ interacting beads. We consider the center of mass of the displacement field as $$\overline{u(t)} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} u_j(t)$$ which serves to define the Fourier transform $$\label{e:dewF}
c_n(t) = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \left[ u_j(t) - \overline{u(t)} \right] e^{-i k_n j},$$ with $k_n = 2 \pi n /N$. Then the DEWE is transformed to a set of independent equations for the time evolution of the Fourier modes, $$\partial_t c_n(t) = - \nu_n c_n(t) + \eta_n(t),$$ with $$\label{e:defnun}
\nu_n = 4 \nu \sin^2 (\pi n/N).$$ The sinusoidal character of this damping constant is associated to the discreteness of the original equation. When one considers the continuum Edwards-Wilkinson equation $\nu_n \to \nu (2\pi n/N)^2 = \nu k_n^2$. The solution to the set of equations for $c_n$ reads $$c_n(t) = c_n(0) e^{- \nu_n t} +\int_0^t dt' \, e^{-\nu_n (t-t')} \eta_n(t).$$ From now on we shall consider the flat initial condition $c_n(0)=0$, the generalization to arbitrary initial conditions being straightforward.
The global roughness of the system is defined as $$W^2(t) = \left\langle \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \left[ u_j(t) - \overline{u(t)} \right]^2 \right\rangle,$$ which in terms of the Fourier modes can be written as $$W^2(t) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j,n,m} \left\langle c_n(t) c_m(t) \right\rangle e^{i(k_n+k_m) j}.$$ Finally, giving that $$\left\langle c_n(t) c_m(t) \right\rangle = \frac{2D}{N} \frac{\delta_{n,-m}}{\nu_n+\nu_m}\left[ 1-e^{-(\nu_n+\nu_m)t} \right],$$ one arrives at the result for the global roughness of the system, $$\label{e:w2DEW}
W^2(t) = \frac{D}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{1-e^{-2 \nu_n t}}{\nu_n},$$ which includes the time dependence, the finite size $N$, and the discreteness of the system through $\nu_n$ given by Eq. .
The complete solution of the roughness, Eq. , has three time regimes. In the context of surface growth, where the Edwards-Wilkinson equation was originally proposed [@barabasi-stanley], the three regimes correspond to random deposition of particles on a substrate, correlated growth of the surface, and roughness saturation due to boundary conditions. The different regimes are described by $$\label{eq:w2nu}
W^2(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
2Dt&\text{for}&t \ll t_1 \\
D \sqrt{\frac{2t}{\pi \nu}}&\text{for}& t_1 \ll t \ll t_2 \\
\frac{DN}{12 \nu}&\text{for}&t_2 \ll t
\end{array}
\right.$$ with the crossover times given by
\[eq:ynu1\] $$t_1 = \frac{1}{2 \pi \nu},$$ $$t_2 = \frac{\pi N^2}{288 \nu}.$$
The roughness associated to this crossover times are consequently given by
\[eq:ynu2\] $$W^2(t_1)= W^2_1 = \frac{D}{\pi \nu},$$ $$W^2(t_2)= W^2_2 = \frac{DN}{12 \nu}.$$
Figure \[f:w2-regimes\] depicts the different discussed regimes for the roughness obtained with the DEWE, Eq. . The solid line represents the roughness of a system with size $N=128$, elastic constant $\nu=1$ and noise intensity $D=1/2$. As can be observed, the three characteristic regimes are present, with the asymptotic forms indicated with dashed lines. Also shown in the figure are the two crossover points $y_1=(t_1,W^2_1)$ and $y_2=(t_2,W^2_2)$.
SFD effective elasticity
------------------------
{width="16cm"}
In order to use the DEWE to describe the SFD problem, we have to relate its parameters with those of the SFD model presented in Sec. \[sec:model\]. Since the noise intensity should describe the diffusion of a single particle, it is directly mapped to the single particle diffusion coefficient, thus setting $D \equiv \Gamma$. Regarding the effective value for the elasticity $\nu$, it can in principle depend on both, the mean separation between particles $L$, and the diffusion coefficient $D$. One can argue that $\nu$ should increase with decreasing $L$, since the particles tend to see each other more frequently, thus further restricting the fluctuation of its neighbors. It can also be argued that $\nu$ should be proportional to the diffusion coefficient, i.e. for larger values of $D$ the system becomes more rigid. This is also akin to the compressibility of a simple gas, which is proportional to the temperature of the system. As we will show below in detail, the value $$\label{eq:nuSFD}
\nu_{\text{SFD}}=\frac{D}{(L-1)^2},$$ gives a very good description of the SFD problem in terms of the DEWE. Note that in the last equation we have used the actual distance between two consecutive particles $L-1$ (see Fig. \[f:model\]), which takes into account the size of the particle, that in the present case is equal to one. This is important for small separations, but for the case $L \gg 1$, one has that $\nu_{\text{SFD}} \sim 1/L^2$.
One can now use the general results given in the last subsection taking $D=\Gamma$ and $\nu = \nu_{\text{SFD}}$. The next point to be considered is that the flat initial condition in the DEWE, $u_j(0)=0$, corresponds to a system of particles which are initially located in an ordered structure, i.e. $r_j(0)=jL$. For future reference in the present work, let us recall that using $\nu_{\text{SFD}}$, and from Eq. , the three regimes of the roughness for the SFD problem read now $$W^2(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
2\Gamma t&\text{for}&t \ll t_1 \\
(L-1)\sqrt{\frac{2 \Gamma t}{\pi}}&\text{for}& t_1 \ll t \ll t_2 \\
\frac{N(L-1)^2}{12}&\text{for}&t_2 \ll t
\end{array}
\right.$$ with the crossover parameters given by
\[eq:y0\] $$t_1 = \frac{(L-1)^2}{2 \pi \Gamma}$$ $$W^2_1 = \frac{(L-1)^2}{\pi}$$ $$t_2 = \frac{\pi N^2 (L-1)^2}{288 \Gamma}$$ $$W^2_2 = \frac{N (L-1)^2}{12}.$$
It follows that for the SFD problem the three roughness regimes should be interpreted as follow. For $t \ll t_1$ single particles move independently, and thus this regime corresponds to normal diffusion. The first crossover time marks the time needed for a particle to diffuse over a distance of the order of the mean particle separation. Then, for times larger than $t_1$ particles start colliding with each other and the diffusion of the particles becomes correlated. Therefore, the second regime, $t_1 \ll t \ll t_2$, corresponds to the subdiffusive motion of particles. In this regime, there exists a growing correlation length which characterizes the number of particles whose motion is correlated at time $t$. The crossover time $t_2$ indicates when this correlation length reaches the size of the system and all particles “know” about the presence of all the other particles. Therefore, for $t \gg t_2$ the size of the system restricts the growth of the roughness of the system, thus corresponding to the saturation regime.
Figure \[f:w2-num\] shows numerical results for the dynamic global roughness of the SFD model together with the analytical roughness obtained with the DEWE using the effective elasticity $\nu_{\text{SFD}}$. Each panel corresponds to a different number of particles $N$, and for each $N$ different $L$ values are shown. In Fig. \[f:w2-num\], symbols correspond to numerical simulations of the interacting particle system described in Sec. \[sec:model\], while the continuous lines correspond to Eq. with $\nu=\nu_{\text{SFD}}$ and $D=\Gamma$. As can be observed, the proposed form for the elasticity does describe the numerical data accurately, specially for large values of $L$.
 Scaling of the dynamic global roughness shown in Fig. \[f:w2-num\] for different values of the SFD parameters.](figure4.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Roughness scaling function
--------------------------
All the different curves shown in Fig. \[f:w2-num\], also described through the DEWE, can be cast into a single universal form depicting the three regimes. When analyzing surface growth problems, the roughness is commonly scaled in terms of the Family-Vicsek form [@family1985; @barabasi-stanley]. However, this very usefull scaling form is well suited for roughness presenting two characteristic regimes, as the correlated growth and saturation regimes. Here, we are dealing with three regimes and thus the Family-Vicsek scaling form can not collapse all the data simultaneously. The problem of properly scaling a dynamic roughness with three regimes has been recently addressed by Chou and Pleimling [@chou2009]. Based on a phenomenological construction, it has been shown that, once the two crossover points for each curve are estimated, the scaling can be described through $$\label{eq:scal-chou}
\frac{\log \left( \frac{W^2}{W^2_1} \right)}{\log \left( \frac{W^2_2}{W^2_1} \right)} =
F\left[ \frac{\log \left( \frac{t}{t_1} \right)}{\log \left( \frac{W^2_2}{W^2_1} \right)} \right],$$ where $F(x)$ is a given scaling function containing the three characteristic regimes. In order to use this scaling form the two crossover points must be estimated with all the prefactors. It is not enough to only know just its functional dependence on the key parameters of the problem.
Figure \[f:scal-chou\] shows how all the data contained in Fig. \[f:w2-num\] can be collapsed into a single universal function according to the proposed form, Eq. . The data have been collapsed using the theoretical values for the crossover points, Eqs. , and not the numerical estimates of the crossover points. This stresses the relevance of the DEWE solution for the SFD problem.
Additional Interaction terms
============================
In this section we analyze the effects of an additional interaction between particles. We shall consider two different energetic contributions giving rise to repulsive interactions, namely a purely harmonic term of intensity $K$ and a term including a repulsive interaction decaying with the inverse of the squared distance with intensity $A$. It is important to understand the effects of an harmonic term since, in principle, any interaction term can be reduced to the harmonic case in a strong interaction limit. On the other hand, the other interaction term is commonly used in the vecinal surface system [@giesen2001] and will be analyzed as a typical non-trivial example.
Roughness
---------
 Behavior of the global roughness for the case of an additional harmonic interaction term and for $N=128$. The mean separation between particles is $L=32$ in panel (a) and $L=16$ in panel (b), and the different $K$ values are indicated.](figure5.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Let us first show the general trend of the roughness with different interaction intensities. Figure \[f:w2deK\] shows the behavior of the roughness in the harmonic case and for a fixed system size $N=128$. The intensity of the harmonic term varies in the range $0.001 \le K \le 0.016$ while the mean separation between particles is fixed at $L=32$ in Fig. \[f:w2deK\](a) and $L=16$ in Fig. \[f:w2deK\](b).
As can be observed, the three regimes are still present. The saturation value of the roughness $W^2_2$ decreases with increasing $K$. In addition, for a fixed $K$, $W^2_2$ grows with the mean separation $L$. In fact, this behavior can be rationalized by considering that when increasing the intensity $K$, the *effective* mean separation between particles decreases since the harmonic interaction generates an effective collision before two consecutive particles actually touch each other. Therefore, this effective decrease of $L$ makes the saturation value of the roughness to decrease.
 Behavior of the roughness for the case of an additional interaction term proportional to $1/r^2$ and for $N=128$. The mean separation is fixed at $L=16$ in panel (a) and $L=8$ in panel (b), with the different $A$ values indicated in the keys.](figure6.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Figure \[f:w2deA\] shows the behavior of the roughness for an interaction term proportional to $1/r^2$. The number of particles is $N=128$ and the mean separation is fixed at $L=16$ in Fig. \[f:w2deA\](a) and $L=8$ in Fig. \[f:w2deA\](b). The intensity of the interaction takes values in the range $1 \le A \le 16$. The general trend is the same as in the harmonic case. For larger intensities, the saturation values decrease. This can also be rationalized in terms of a decreasing effective separation between particles. The fact that the separation between particles is effectively changing with the additional interaction terms affects all the crossover values, as we shal discuss in the next subsection.
Crossover points and scaling functions
--------------------------------------
We analyze here how the crossover points $y_1=(t_1,W^2_1)$ and $y_2=(t_2,W^2_2)$ depend on the interaction intensities $K$ and $A$. For clarity, let us call $y_1^0$ and $y_2^0$ the values these parameters take in the pure entropic case, given by Eqs. .
For an harmonic interaction between particles it is clear that when $K$ is very large particles will oscillate around their initial positions. Then, since two particles would hardly be in neighboring sites the hard core repulsion can be neglected in the large $K$ limit. The system will then be very well described by the DEWE with the elastic constant given directly by $\nu=K$. The crossover parameters $y_1$ and $y_2$ will take the values given by Eqs. and with $\nu=K$ and $D=\Gamma$.
Therefore, the crossover parameters change from the $K=0$ value given by Eqs. to the large $K$ values given by Eqs. and with $\nu=K$. One can expect the crossover between these values to be given in terms of the quotient $K/\nu_{\text{SFD}}$, since this is the effective variable which is changing. We then expect that the scaled values $y_1/y_1^0$ be only a function of $KL^2/D$; and the same for $y_2/y_2^0$. We can thus write that $$\label{eq:scalyK}
\widetilde y_m = \frac{y_m}{y_m^0} = f\left( \frac{KL^2}{D} \right),$$ with $m=1,2$, and the scaling function behaving as $$\label{eq:fK}
f(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
1 &\text{for}&x \ll 1, \\
x^{-1}&\text{for}& x \gg 1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The $x^{-1}$ behavior at large $K$ results directly from Eqs. and . Furthermore, since the dependence of all the crossover parameters with $\nu$ is the same, we expect the same scaling function $f(x)$ for all of them.
From the data in Fig. \[f:w2deK\] we have estimated the two crossover points for all curves, which are shown in Fig. \[f:y1y2scal\](a) according to the proposed scaling form, Eq. . In this figure, close (open) symbols correspond to $L=32$ ($L=16$). The crossover parameters are: $t_1$ (squares), $t_2$ (circles), $W^2_1$ (triangles up), and $W^2_2$ (triangles down). As a guide to the eye we have also plotted in the figure, using a dashed line, a simple function that behaves as the scaling function Eq.. This function is given by $f(x) = (1 + x)^{-1}$. Although the error bar of the estimated values of the crossover points is of the order of the scatter of all the points in the figure, one can fairly observe that the data follow the general trends of the proposed scaling form.
 Scaling of the crossover points for the cases with additional interaction terms. (a) The harmonic case, see Eq. , with $L=32$ (closed symbols) and $L=16$ (open symbols). (b) The $1/r^2$ case, see Eq. , with $L=16$ (closed symbols) and $L=8$ (open symbols). In both panels the crossover parameters are: $t_1$ (squares), $t_2$ (circles), $W^2_1$ (triangles up), and $W^2_2$ (triangles down).](figure7a.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}  Scaling of the crossover points for the cases with additional interaction terms. (a) The harmonic case, see Eq. , with $L=32$ (closed symbols) and $L=16$ (open symbols). (b) The $1/r^2$ case, see Eq. , with $L=16$ (closed symbols) and $L=8$ (open symbols). In both panels the crossover parameters are: $t_1$ (squares), $t_2$ (circles), $W^2_1$ (triangles up), and $W^2_2$ (triangles down).](figure7b.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
 Roughness scaling for the (a) harmonic and (b) $1/r^2$ interaction terms.](figure8a.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}  Roughness scaling for the (a) harmonic and (b) $1/r^2$ interaction terms.](figure8b.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
In the case of the $1/r^2$ potential, it is convenient to consider the large $A$ limit performing a small $u$ expansion. To this end, let us consider a simplified situation where one particle can diffuse between its two neighboring particles which are at fixed positions, $+L$ and $-L$ respectively. Then, if $A$ is large, the particle will oscillate around $u=0$ and the energy can be approximated by $$\delta U \approx \frac{12 A}{L^4} \delta u^2 = \frac{\nu_A}{2} \delta u^2.$$ Therefore, in an harmonic approximation, one can consider the effective elastic constant to be $\nu_A = 24 A/L^4$.
Since in the large $A$ limit the system can be considered within an harmonic approximation, the arguments we followed for the harmonic potential can be straightforwardly used here. In this case, the parameters $y_m$ change from the $y_m^0$ value to the values given by Eqs. and but this time with $\nu_{\text{SFD}}=\nu_A$. It follows that $$\label{eq:scalyA}
\widetilde y_m = \frac{y_m}{y_m^0} = g\left( \frac{24 A}{D L^2} \right),$$ with the scaling function behaving as $$g(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
1 &\text{for}&x \ll 1, \\
x^{-1}&\text{for}& x \gg 1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ It is also tempting to see if the two functions $f$ and $g$ are approximately the same, although this is not obvious *a priori*.
From the data in Fig. \[f:w2deA\] we have estimated the values of the crossover points, as shown in the scaled form Eq. in Fig. \[f:y1y2scal\](b). Closed (open) symbols correspond to $L=16$ ($L=8$) and the crossover parameters are plotted with the same symbols as in Fig. \[f:y1y2scal\](a). The dashed line corresponds to $g(x) = (1+x)^{-1}$ and is plotted as a guide to the eye. As compared with the harmonic case, these data points seem to be closer to the saturation of $g(x)$ at very small values. In order to properly reach the large $A$ regime one should go to larger system sizes. Besides, it should be mentioned here that although we expect the large $A$ limit to be described with the scaling form Eq. , the small $A$ limit will not necessarily be described with this scaling form since the small $\delta u$ expansion is not valid in this limit.
Finally, since we have already estimated the values of the crossover points, we can also present the roughness scaling covering the three characteristic regimes by using the form given by Eq. . Figure \[f:w2scalKA\] shows the roughness scaling for (a) the harmonic case and (b) the $1/r^2$ case. As can be observed, the data collapse in terms of the estimated crossover points is very good.
Universal roughness distribution
================================
 Universal scaling of the roughness distribution for the pure hard-core case ($N=64$ and $L=8$), the harmonic potential ($N=64$, $L=32$ and $K=0.008$), and the $1/r^2$ potential ($N=64$, $L=8$ and $A=6$). The continuous line corresponds to the analytical solution of the Edwards-Wilkinson equation, from Ref. [@foltin1994].](figure9.eps){width="8.5cm"}
As a final characterization of the roughness behavior for the SFD problem, we shall discuss here the form of the roughness distribution. As has been already shown, the roughness distribution can be used as a test of the surface growth universality class [@racz1994; @plischke1994; @marinari2002; @racz2003]. For instance, let $w^2$ be a given instantaneous value of the roughness at saturation, i.e. for $t \gg t_2$. The roughness distribution $P(w^2)$ can then be written in the scaling form [@racz1994] $$\label{eq:scalPhi}
P(w^2) = \frac{1}{W^2} \Phi \left( \frac{w^2}{W^2} \right),$$ where $W^2$ is the average value of the global roughness at saturation and thus corresponds to the mean value of $P(w^2)$. The function $\Phi(x)$ is a given scaling function characteristic of the universality class. The form of $\Phi(x)$ for the Edwards-Wilkinson universality class has been analytically calculated in Ref. [@foltin1994] in the saturation regime and in Ref. [@antal1996] in the correlated growing regime. In Fig. \[f:scalPhi\] we show the scaled roughness distribution for three data sets corresponding to the purely hard-core, harmonic, and $1/r^2$ repulsion cases. The analytical form of $\Phi(x)$ for the Edwards-Wilkinson case is also shown. As can be observed all three cases are very well collapsed into the same scaling function according to Eq. .
Concluding remarks
==================
Summarizing, we have shown that the DEWE with an effective elasticity $\nu_{\text{SFD}}=D/(L-1)^2$ describes the SFD process with hard-core repulsion. We have given a description of the process in terms of the roughness, which is a global measure of particle fluctuations. With the characteristic values of the roughness at the two crossover times $t_1$ and $t_2$, we were able to scale the roughness in terms of a scaling function showing the three regimes. Although the phenomenological scaling form works very well, we note that it is not clear how it is present in the exact solution for the DEWE.
We have as well explored the effects of different additional repulsive interaction potentials between the particles. For large intensity values, the dynamics of both the harmonic and $1/r^2$ potentials cases can be described in terms of the DEWE with an effective elasticity $K$ and $\nu_A$ respectively. We have shown how the values of the crossover points scale with the effective elasticity and we have properly scaled the global roughness.
Finally, we have shown that for all cases the roughness distribution in the saturation regime can be recast into the universal form of the Edwards-Wilkinson equation. This indicates that all the relevant parameters of the SFD process are taken into account by the mean value of the roughness.
We have offered here a simple description of the SFD process using the roughness of the associated effective DEWE, providing an alternative tool to describe the SFD problem, which can be complementary to other analytical approaches like the ones presented in Refs. [@lizana2008; @barkai2009]. Furthermore, the use of the effective DEWE opens up the possibility of exploring the problem from a new perspective. For instance, related equations also used in surface growth phenomena, like the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang or the Mullins-Herring equations [@barabasi-stanley], could be potentially used to describe processes when the non-passing rule is slightly relaxed. In this cases an effective mass transport could be considered using these equations. It can be also important to consider the effective Edwards-Wilkinson equation with quenched disorder to describe SFD processes in a disordered substrate as the one considered in Ref. [@ben-naim2009]. Thus, we expect that the potential relation between SFD processes and surface growth equations can be further exploited.
Regarding the experimental relevance of our results, one should note that the interplay between SFD and the DEWE could also be exploited. In the field of vecinal surfaces it is well known that transverse fluctuations can be described with and Edwards-Wilkinson equation, but it is also accepted that the statistical distribution of the separation between surface steps is typically given by a Wigner surmise, commonly observed in SFD problems [@giesen2001]. Thus, the relation presented here between SFD processes and the Edwards-Wilkinson equation could give new insights in this and related physical systems.
PMC acknowledges the INTER-U program (Secretaría de Políticas Universitarias-Miniterio de Educación, (Argentina) for financial support. This work was also supported in part by CONICET (Argentina) under project numbers PIP 5596 and PIP 112-200801-01332, Universidad Nacional de San Luis (Argentina) under project 32200, and the National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion (Argentina) under project 33328 PICT 2005.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**Causality Aspects of the Parton Cascade Approach to Ultarelativistic Heavy Ion Reactions** [^1] ]{}
*Institut f[ü]{}r Theoretische Physik Universit[ä]{}t Bremen,\
D–28334 Bremen, Germany\
e-mail: `[email protected] `*
{#section .unnumbered}
=
Parton cascade codes that take a space-time approach to model the microscopic processes [^2] of an ultrarelativistic heavy-ion interaction are – in spite of their QCD bells and whistles – by necessity based on some kind of *classical many-particle dynamics*.
{#section-1 .unnumbered}
-
- space-time-based cascade models suffer from the consequences of the
[@Cur63]:\
- the procedure to determine the sequence of the binary parton interactions (“SBPI”) – an essential aspect of space-time-based cascade models – is by necessity an artificial and ad-hoc feature of these codes.
The only way to circumvent the NIT is to loosen its assumptions:
1. forget about Poincar[é]{} covariance $\Longrightarrow$**VNI**\
In this approach the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SBPI</span> depends on the initially chosen frame of reference. Einstein causality remains a problem.
2. introduce a many-times formalism, e.g. by formulating the model in $8N$-dimensional phase space ($N$ is the particle number) [^3]\
$\Longrightarrow$**pcpc**\
The Poincar[é]{} covariance of this model seems to guarantee Einstein causality; the SBPI of the code, however, deserves closer scrutiny.
{#section-2 .unnumbered}
=
**pcpc** is a hybrid of a *classical* dynamics approach that governs the evolution of the system between binary parton interactions, and a parton interaction model with QCD ingredients (parton distribution functions, pQCD cross sections and ‘DGLAP evolution’) [^4].
- The dynamical evolution of the system is parametrized by a Poincar[é]{} scalar, $s$ (in contrast to the usual $t$, the proper time of an external observer, as measured in some external frame)
- The phase-space variables of the $N$ partons (quarks, gluons) are covariant 4-vectors ${x_i\,}^\mu(s)$, ${p_i\,}^\mu(s)$ . Between binary interactions $N$ is fixed, but can (and does) vary due to parton creation in the QCD-governed parton interactions
- The ($8N$-dimensional) interaction term of the Poincar[é]{}-*invariant* ‘Hamiltonian’ depends on the following Poincar[é]{}-invariant ‘4-distances’ $${d_{ij}\,}^2(s) := -{\hat{x}\,}^2 = -(x\hat{x}) = -(\hat{x}x)$$ $$\hat{x}\,^\mu := x\,^\mu - \frac{(xp)}{p^2}p\,^\mu$$ \[ $x\,^\mu(s):={x_i}\,^\mu(s) -{x_j}\,^\mu(s), p\,^\mu(s):=
{p_i}\,^\mu(s) +{p_j}\,^\mu(s)$ are the relative 4-distance and total 4-momentum of particles $i$ and $j$ \]
The physical reasons why in Poincar[é]{}-covariant dynamics the interactions can only depend on these “orthogonal projections” ${\hat{x}}^\mu$ have been given before [@Pet94].
- Binary parton interactions occur at the $s$ determined by ${d_{ij}}^2(s)$ being at a minimum [^5] (in the cms of partons i, j, ${d_{ij}}^2$ is the minimal 3-distance of approach)
- Between interactions, partons move along free trajectories: $${x_i\,}^\mu(s) = \frac{{p_i\,}^\mu(s)}{m_i}(s -s_0)
+{x_i\,}^\mu(s_0)$$
{#section-3 .unnumbered}
=
In contrast to most other cascade codes, the ‘time step’ in **pcpc** is not a computational artifice, but is given by the formalism itself:
- if there were only 2 partons, their interaction would occur at the value of the evolution parameter $s$ at which they would reach their minimal ${d_{ij}\,}^2(s)$ if they were indeed alone in the world,
- so a ‘time table’ is kept, containing, for every pair $i,j$ of partons, its potential minimal approach ${d_{ij}\,}^2(s)$ (i.e. their minimal approach if $i,j$ were the only partons in the whole system), and the corresponding $s$,
- then this table is searched for the *smallest* (‘earliest’) $s$. At this $s$ the potential interaction of the corresponding pair *will actually occur* (because all other potential interactions are ‘later’),
- the interaction of the pair $i,j$ will change the world lines of these two partons (and possibly create further partons). Therefore, the time table is updated, with new values of ${d_{ij}\,}^2(s)$ for all pairs involving either parton $i$ or parton $j$ (or the newly created partons); and the code loops.
Thus the code follows exactly the sequence of binary parton interactions as parametrized by the monotonically increasing *Poincar[é]{}-invariant* evolution parameter $s$. The logic is summarized in the following flow diagram:
{#section-4 .unnumbered}
=
Prima facie this does not seem to be so: the 4-vector ${x_i\,}^\mu
-{x_j\,}^\mu$ is space-like, and so no signal can be transmitted between events $x_i$ and $x_j$. But this argument is fallacious: while it would be correct in the frame work of a $6N$-dimensional phase space formalism and physical observer time, it does not follow in a many-times formalism with an $8N$-dimensional phase space.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the representation of the (QCD) physics of the heavy-ion reaction in terms of cross sections, parton distribution functions etc. is tantamount to the description of intrinsically quantum processes in a *classical* terminology. But as long as we refrain from trying to look *inside* an individual binary parton interaction with classical concepts, Einstein causality is not infringed upon by such a model (for details on this point cf.[@Pet94]).
{#section-5 .unnumbered}
=
In terms of the cascade picture, a heavy-ion reaction can be seen as one or several disjoint graphs of connected particle world lines. In every connected subgraph, the Poincar[é]{}-covariant dynamics guarantees Einstein causality.
Separate disjoint subgraphs, however, can have no causal connection. But by construction, no signals are transmitted between them. Imagining a full quantum-mechanically description of such a system, unconnected subgraphs would correspond to subamplitudes which would simply be multiplied in obtaining the total amplitude.
{#section-6 .unnumbered}
=
There is no physically convincing argument for how to set the time components of the initial parton 4-vectors $a_i :=
{x_i\,}^{\mu=0}(s=s_0)$; so these must be fixed phenomenologically with some arbitrary prescription. In **pcpc** they are all set to zero.
Does this imply the choice of a particular initial frame of reference, thus invalidating covariance, or spoiling the Einstein causality of the model? The answer is
To see this, suppose that we *do not* set the initial $a_i=0$, but retain them as free (arbitrary) parameters. We would then find the minimum of the ${d_{ij}\,}^2$ to be formally dependent on the $a_i$. But since for any two time-like 4-vectors the invariant quantity $(x\hat{y})$ is simply $\left.\rule[-1.5ex]{0pt}{4ex}
-\vec{x}\cdot\vec{y}\,\right|_{\text{cms}}$, we find that the ${d_{ij}\,}^2$ are actually *independent of the* (time components of the) *initial parton positions*. It follows that the parton interactions are implemented in a Poincar[é]{}-covariant way, even though their sequence (SBPI) *does* depend on how the initial parameters are chosen.
{#section-7 .unnumbered}
=
To sum up, causality is *not an issue* in discussing the physical validity of a cascade model that uses a space-time approach to the dynamical evolution (provided the model is Poincar[é]{}-covariant).
It is, however, important to realize that in such codes the sequence of binary parton interactions (SBPI) is to be considered an essential *part of the model*, and that it is *necessarily phenomenological* in character. In Poincar[é]{}-covariant cascade codes, such as **pcpc**, the SBPI (although remaining a phenomenological prescription) is independent of choice of the frame of reference in which the code is run.
The difficulties with Einstein causality incurred by non-covariance of the SBPI have been discussed many years ago [@Kod84]. In contrast to the situations described in that paper, Einstein causality is preserved in a Poincar[é]{}-covariant model such as **pcpc**, both for the individual binary interactions and for the dynamic evolution of the system as a whole.
[Cur63]{} D. Currie, T. Jordan, and E. Sudarshan, Rev.Mod.Phys. **35**, 350 (1963)
T. Kodama, S. Duarte, K. Chung, R. Donangelo and R. Nazareth, Phys.Rev. **C 29**, 2146 (1984)
G. Peter, C. Noack, and D. Behrens, Phys.Rev. **C 49**, 3253 (1994).
V. B[ö]{}rchers, J. Meyer, S. Gieseke, G. Martens and C.C. Noack, Phys.Rev. **C 62**, 064903 (2000)
[^1]: Poster presented at *Quark Matter 2004*, January 13, 2004
[^2]: Prominent examples are **VNI** and **pcpc**; cf. the OSCAR archive at\
`http://nt3.phys.columbia.edu/people/molnard/OSCAR/` .
[^3]: We have shown previously that for $N=2$ all known Poincar[é]{}-covariant formalisms are equivalent to ours (cf. [@Pet94]).
[^4]: For details, cf. [@Pet94; @Boe00]
[^5]: The interaction term in the Hamiltonian thus can be thought of as a sum of $\delta$-functions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract:
- |
Drift-diffusion analysis has been introduced in physics as a method to study turbulent flows. In the current study, it is proposed to use the method to identify underlying dynamical models of particulate matter smog, ozone and nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Data from Chiangmai are considered, which is a major city in the northern part of Thailand that recently has witnessed a dramatic increase of hospitalization that are assumed to be related to extreme air pollution levels. Three variants of the drift-diffusion analysis method (kernel-density, binning, linear approximation) are considered. It is shown that all three variants explain the annual pollutant peaks during the first half of the year by assuming that the parameters of the physical-chemical evolution equations of the pollutants vary periodically throughout the year. Therefore, our analysis provides evidence that the underlying dynamical models of the three pollutants being considered are explicitly time-dependent.
drift-diffusion analysis, particulate matter, air pollutants 02.50.Ey, 05.10.Gg, 05.40.-a, 92.60.Sz
- |
Дрейф-дифузійний аналіз увійшов у фізику як метод дослідження турбулентних потоків. У даному дослідженні пропонується використовувати цей метод для ідентифікації базових динамічних моделей різних концентрацій твердих частинок смогу, озону і діоксиду азоту. В роботі досліджуються дані з Чіангмаї, найбільшого міста у північній частині Таїланду, яке нещодавно стало свідком драматичних шпиталізацій, вочевидь пов’язаних з екстремальними рівнями забруднення повітря. Розглянуто три варіанти дрейф-дифузійного аналізу (щільність ядра, бінінг та лінійне наближення). Показано, що всі три варіанти дають пояснення щорічним пікам забруднень впродовж першої половини року з урахуванням того, що параметри рівнянь фізико-хімічної еволюції забруднювачів повітря періодично змінюються впродовж року. Отже, даний аналіз надає докази, що базові динамічні моделі трьох забруднювачів повітря, розглянутих у дослідженні, є явно залежними від часу.
дрейф-дифузійний аналіз, частинки речовини, забруднювачі повітря
author:
- 'T. Varapongpisan, L. Ingsrisawang, T.D. Frank'
- 'T. Варапонгпісан, Л. Інгрісвванг, Т.Д. Френк'
date: 'Received March 14, 2019, in final form April 22, 2019'
title: 'Здійснення дрейф-дифузійного аналізу через дослідження турбулентних потоків та динаміки частинок речовини смогу і забруднювачів повітря '
---
An important task of nonlinear physics and statistics is to identify the underlying mechanisms that determine the evolution of systems on the basis of experimental data. In this regard, in physics, a method has been developed to investigate turbulent flows [@friedrich97prl] that is nowadays frequently called drift-diffusion analysis. The method was in part motivated by the self-similarity hypothesis of turbulent flows that in its own merit has been investigated in various systems (see e.g., [@khomenko10fnl]). In recent years, various studies have examined turbulence using the drift-diffusion analysis approach [@friedrich97physd; @naert97pre; @tutkun04; @kuwahara17], see also [@friedrich11]. However, the method turned out to have a broad spectrum of applications (for a review see [@friedrich11]). For example, sport and movement sciences have been taken advantage of drift-diffusion analysis to identify movement- and posture-related dynamical systems [@davieskurz13; @kurz13; @mourik06physletta; @frank06pre; @gottpeinkelippensnagel09pla]. Bistable lasers [@frank05jnpcs; @chiangga10] and engineering problems [@gradisek00pre; @lindpeinke14; @noiray17] have been examined. In what follows, the drift-diffusion analysis approach will be used to identify underlying laws determining the evolution of air pollutants. Those laws are assumed to reflect the relevant physical-chemical evolution equations of the pollutants under consideration as well as the impacts of meteorological conditions. Monthly extreme value data of air pollutants will be considered because such extreme air pollutant concentrations are assumed to come with serious health risks [@lid18; @maji17; @pope06] and are likely to increase death rates [@giri07; @monterolorenzo11]. We will analyze data from the city of Chiangmai, Thailand. While Chiangmai is not the largest city of Thailand, it is the largest city in the northern part of Thailand. Importantly, in recent years, the number of hospitalizations that are due to high air pollutants concentrations is dramatically increasing in Thailand, in general, and in Chiangmai, in particular [@vichit11]. Therefore, a better understanding of the dynamics of the monthly extreme scores of air pollutant concentrations would be beneficial. We will consider the following three air pollutants: particulate matter that is of 10 micrometers of less (PM$_{10}$), ozone (O$_3$), and nitrogen dioxide (NO$_2$).
Our departure point is a time-discrete sequence of observations of pollutant concentrations. This sequence will be referred to as historical trajectory $X^{h}(n)$ given for the time points $n=1,\dots,N$ (with $N=60$, see below). In what follows, $n$ will denote consecutive months. Our goal is to derive a stochastic model from the historical trajectory in analogy to the proposal by Friedrich-Peinke-Renner for historical financial data and to take seasonal effects into account. Following the Friedrich-Peinke-Renner method [@friedrich00aprl], we consider the increments $Y_n(\tau)$ defined by $Y_n(\tau) = X(n+\tau) - X(n) \Rightarrow X(n+\tau)=Y_n(\tau) + X(n)$ for $\tau\geqslant 0$ and $Y_n(0)=0$. Parameter $\tau$ defines a time scale. The increments $Y_n$ are assumed to satisfy an evolution equation that describes how $Y_n(\tau)$ evolves from small scales of a few months (e.g., $\tau \approx 1,2,3$) to large scales of a year (e.g., $\tau \approx 12,13,14$). In order to determine that evolution equation, we consider $R$ increment trajectories of length $S$ with $\tau = 0,\dots,S$, $n=1,\dots,R$, and $R+S=N$. The evolution equation for $Y_n$ is then obtained using the drift-diffusion analysis [@friedrich97prl].
Although drift-diffusion analysis [@friedrich97prl] is as such a non-parametric data analysis method, it requires to fix *a priori* the type of the stochastic model under consideration. In what follows, we consider a model given in terms of the stochastic iterative map $$\label{eq2}
Y_n(\tau+1)= f\big(Y_n(\tau),m(n,\tau)\big) + g\big(m(n,\tau)\big) \epsilon(\tau) \ .$$ In equation (\[eq2\]), $f$ will be referred to as drift function (in analogy to the drift function of a Fokker-Planck equation [@risken89book; @frank05book]). The drift function $f$ is assumed to depend on the month $m$ of the year, where $m$ depends on $n$ and $\tau$ like $m(n,\tau) = v \ \mbox{if} \ v \in [1,11]$ and $m(n,\tau) = 12 \ \mbox{if} \ v=0$ with $v=(n+\tau) \ \mbox{mod} \ 12$. In equation (\[eq2\]) $\epsilon(\tau)$ denotes statistically independent random variables distributed like a normal distribution with mean zero and variance $2$. The parameter $g\geqslant 0$ is the noise strength or noise amplitude and, in general, may depend on the month of the year. Moreover, $g^2$ is the noise variance. For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that $g$ does not depend on the state $Y_n$ (i.e., an additive noise model is considered). In early studies by Friedrich and Peinke [@friedrich97prl] and Stanton [@stanton97] on the drift-diffusion analysis, Friedrich, Peinke, and Stanton have determined representations for drift and diffusion coefficients of Markov diffusion processes in terms of conditional averages. In analogy to those representations, from equation (\[eq2\]) we obtain the Friedrich-Peinke-Stanton representation of the drift in terms of the conditional average $$\label{eq4}
f(z,m) = {\left\langle{Y_n(\tau+1)}\right\rangle}\big|_{Y_n(\tau)=z} .$$ For the noise variance we obtain $$\label{eq5}
g^2(m)=\frac{1}{2}{\left\langle{ \big[Y_n(\tau+1)-f\big(Y_n(\tau),m\big)\big]^2}\right\rangle} ,$$ which is not a conditional average because we assume that the noise term is state-independent (i.e., additive). The drift function $f$ can approximately be described by means of several methods. The Friedrich-Peinke binning method [@friedrich97prl; @friedrich97physd] yields the estimator $$\label{eq6}
f(z,m) \approx \sum_{j=1}^K c_j(m) \chi_j(z) , \qquad
c_j(m) =
\frac{1}{Z_{jm}}
\sum_{\tau=0}^S \left[
\sum_{n=1,Y_n(\tau) \in I_j}^R
\delta_{mn} Y_n(\tau+1)
\right] ,$$ where $\chi_j$ are indicator functions equal to 1 in appropriately defined intervals. We consider $Y_n \in [A,B)$ and use $K$ bins of width $\Delta y$ such that $y_1=A$, $y_{K+1}=B$, and $y_j=A+(j-1)\Delta y$. The bin-intervals are $I_j=[y_j,y_{j+1})$. The indicator function is $\chi_j(z)=1$ if $z \in I_j$ and $\chi_j(z)=0$ otherwise. In equation (\[eq6\]), $\delta_{mn}$ is the Kronecker function that equals 1 if the (running) month $n$ corresponds to a particular month $m$ of the year and zero otherwise. That is, only those pairs $Y_n(\tau)$, $Y_n(\tau+1)$ contribute to $c_j(m)$ for which the (running) month $n$ is the month of the year $m$ of interest. Moreover, we have $Z_{jm}=
\sum_{\tau=0}^S [
\sum_{n=1,Y_n(\tau) \in I_j}^R
\delta_{mn}]$. The kernel density estimation method suggested by Stanton [@stanton97] yields $$\label{eq8}
f(z,m) \approx
\frac{1}{Z_m}
\sum_{\tau=0}^S \sum_{n=1}^R \delta_{mn} Y_n(\tau+1)
\exp\left\{ -\frac{[z-Y_n(\tau)]^2}{2h^2} \right\} ,$$ where the standard deviation $h$ is given by $h=s L^{-0.2}$, where $s$ is the sample standard deviation of all $Y_n$ scores that belong to a particular month $m$ of the year (i.e., that show up on the sum and for which $\delta_{mn}=1$ holds — these are the scores from which the density is estimated) and $L$ is the number of such scores [@silverman86book; @frank08aphysa]. Moreover, $Z_m=
\sum_{\tau=0}^S \sum_{n=1}^R \delta_{mn}
\exp\{ -[z-Y_n(\tau)]^2/(2h^2) \}$. The interpolation modelling method (or regression model method) assumes that $
f(z,m) \approx A_0(m) + \sum_{j=1}^p A_j(m) z^j$. For the relative small data sets that will be considered below, we will use the model that describes some dependency of $f$ on $z$ and features the smallest number of parameters. That is, we will consider the order $p=1$. In this case, equation (\[eq2\]) becomes the linear regression model $$\label{eq10}
f(z,m) \approx A(m) + B(m) z \ \Rightarrow \
Y_n(\tau+1)= A(m) + B(m) Y_n(\tau) + g(m) \, \epsilon(\tau)$$ with $A=A_0$ and $B=A_1$. The intercept and slope parameters $A(m)$ and $B(m)$ can be estimated by fitting the linear regression model equation (\[eq10\]) to scatter plots of $Y_n(\tau+1)$ versus $Y_n(\tau)$ given for every month $m$. In fact, the $Y_n(\tau+1)$ versus $Y_n(\tau)$ scatter plots are used to determine $f$ for all three approximations defined by equations (\[eq6\]), (\[eq8\]) and (\[eq10\]) since equations (\[eq6\]), (\[eq8\]) and (\[eq10\]) involve the data pairs $Y_n(\tau+1)$ and $Y_n(\tau)$ for a fixed month $m$, that is, all pairs $Y_n(\tau+1)$ and $Y_n(\tau)$ for which $n$ corresponds to a particular month $m$ of the year. Moreover, from equation (\[eq5\]) it follows that $g$ of the linear regression model equation (\[eq10\]) can be estimated from the root-mean-squared error RMSE of the regression model like $g(m)=\mbox{RMSE}(m)/\sqrt{2}$.
![Extreme value pollutant concentrations (solid lines) measured in Chiangmai, North Thailand, over the five years (i.e., 60 months) period from January 2010 to December 2014. Panels A, B, C show PM$_{10}$, O$_3$, and NO$_2$, respectively. Dashed lines show model fits obtained from the linear regression model equation (\[eq10\]) in the deterministic case.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1newresub_){width="75.00000%"}
Data were taken from the Pollution Control Department (PCD) of Thailand [@PCD18]. Pollutant data for PM$_{10}$, O$_3$, and NO$_2$ in $N=60$ months from January 2010 to December 2014 were retrieved for the Provincial Hall measurement station in Chiangmai. Figure \[fig1\] shows the pollutant time series. The station measured raw PM$_{10}$ concentrations (in g/m$^3$) as averaged values for every day. From the daily raw data, the PCD determined for each month the maximum scores. By contrast, O$_3$ and NO$_2$, raw concentrations (in ppb) were measured by the station every hour. From those hourly raw data, maximum scores of the day and maximum values for the month were determined. The monthly extreme value data for PM$_{10}$, O$_3$, and NO$_2$ published on the PCD website [@PCD18] were retrieved and analyzed. As mentioned above, the study of extreme value data is of importance because extreme pollutant concentrations are related to increased health risks [@lid18; @maji17; @pope06] and death rates [@giri07; @monterolorenzo11]. All three pollutants PM$_{10}$, O$_3$, and NO$_2$ showed periodic annual patterns (i.e., seasonal effects), see figure \[fig1\]. PM$_{10}$ extreme value concentrations peaked in the month of March. Similarly, O$_3$ extreme value concentrations reached maximum values during February, March, and April. NO$_2$ extreme value concentrations were the largest in February and March.
For each pollutant trajectory $X(n)$, increment trajectories $Y_n(\tau)$ were derived for reference time points $n$ in the first three years (i.e., $n=1,\dots, R$ with $R=36$) such that each trajectory covered a two years period (i.e., $\tau=0,\dots,S$ with $S=23$). From the trajectories $Y_n$, scatter plots for each month $m$ showing $Y_n(\tau+1)$ versus $Y_n(\tau)$ were obtained. From the scatter plots, the drift functions $f$ were determined by means of the 3 different approximations defined by equations (\[eq6\]), (\[eq8\]) and (\[eq10\]). Figure \[fig2\] shows the drift functions $f(Y,m)$ thus obtained for PM$_{10}$ for the first four months of the year, January to April. The dashed lines represent diagonals. For January and February, all three approximations of $f$ were above the diagonals indicating that PM$_{10}$ increment concentrations increased during those months. That is, if increments were positive in January (February), then they tended to be positive and larger in magnitude in February (March). This describes the increase of the PM$_{10}$ pollutant concentration $X(n)$ towards the peaks in March (see figure \[fig1\]A). By contrast, for March and April, the drift functions were found to be below the diagonals indicating the PM$_{10}$ increment concentrations decayed during those months. More precisely, if increments were positive in March (April), then they tended to be smaller (closer to zero) or negative in April (May). This corresponds to the decay of the PM$_{10}$ pollutant concentration $X(n)$ from March to May \[see figure \[fig1\] (A) again\].
![Drift functions $f(Y,m)$ for $Y=\rm{PM}_{10}$ extreme value concentrations determined for January, February, March, and April (panels A, B, C, and D) by means of three approximations: binning method (stair-step graphs), kernel density estimation method (solid smooth nonlinear lines), and linear regression model (solid straight lines). Dashed lines represent diagonals.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2resub_){width="69.00000%"}
By visual inspection of figure \[fig2\], the kernel density estimation method has the advantage to account for nonlinear characteristics of $f$ in a smooth fashion. It has the disadvantage of being described by the whole data sets of $Y_n(\tau+1)$ and $Y_n(\tau)$ pairs that contribute to the relevant scatter plots. That is, each smooth function $f$ is characterized by a relatively large set of parameters given in terms of $Y_n(\tau+1)$ and $Y_n(\tau)$ pairs. The linear approximation has the advantage of being conveniently characterized by two parameters $A$ and $B$. It has the disadvantage of not capturing nonlinear effects. The drift function approximation by means of the binning method can be regarded as a compromise between the two other approximations. The stair-case like approximate drift functions obtained from the binning method account for nonlinearities. They can be described by a bin width $\Delta y$, the bin centers $y_{k,\text{c}}=(y_{k+1}+y_{k})/2$, and the function values $f_k$. Consequently, to describe $f$ with $K$ bins, we need $2K+1$ parameters. Therefore, the number of parameters to describe $f$ with the binning method is larger as compared to the number of parameters that characterize the linear regression model but smaller as compared to the number of $Y_n(\tau+1)$ and $Y_n(\tau)$ parameters that are needed to approximate $f$ by means of the kernel density estimation method.
The linear regression model approximation, that has the advantage of requiring the smallest number of characterizing parameters, was determined in detail for all three pollutants. That is, the parameters $A$, $B$ and $g$ were estimated as described above. Figure \[fig3\] shows the model parameters thus obtained. For all three pollutants, the intercept parameter $A$ varied across the months of the year in a characteristic pattern. For PM$_{10}$ and O$_3$ in January and February and for NO$_2$ in January it was positive and assumed the largest positive values. Subsequently, in March and April (PM$_{10}$), April and May (O$_3$ and NO$_2$), parameter $A$ was negative and assumed the largest-in-the-amount negative values. These patterns, as discussed above in the context of PM$_{10}$ and figure \[fig2\], describe the mechanism that leads to the peaks in the original trajectories $X(n)$ around February, March, and April, see figure \[fig1\]. For the remaining months from May to December, the intercept parameters $A$ were overall relatively small (i.e., close to zero). PM$_{10}$ and O$_3$ showed exceptions from this rule in September, where the parameter values $A$ were positive and assumed 20% (PM$_{10}$) and 45% (O$_3$) of their respective maximal positive $A$ parameters. For all three pollutants, the slope parameter $B$ was found to be relatively close to unity. For PM$_{10}$ and NO$_2$, the noise amplitude $g$ showed clear seasonal peaks around January, February, and March (PM$_{10}$) and March and April (NO$_2$).
![Model parameters $A$, $B$, and $g$ as functions of month $m$ of the linear regression model equation (\[eq10\]) for the pollutants PM$_{10}$ (panel A), O$_3$ (panel B), and NO$_2$ (panel C). Here, $*$ in panel A means g/m$^3$. Panels D, E, F: Lag-$s$ autocorrelation coefficients of residuals for PM$_{10}$ (panel D), O$_3$ (panel E), and NO$_2$ (panel F) with thresholds for statistical significance (see text).[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3resub_){width="78.00000%"}
In order to validate the model, we tested the residuals $\epsilon$ occurring in equation (\[eq10\]). We determined the first ten lag-$s$ autocorrelation coefficients of the residuals for each trajectory $Y_n(\tau)$. The coefficients are shown in figure \[fig3\] (panels D, E, F) together with single-time-series thresholds [@diggle90book] (solid lines) for statistically significant and Bonferroni adjusted [@keppel04book] multiple-tests thresholds (dashed lines). We found that some of the correlation coefficients (in particular, lag-1 correlation coefficients of O$_3$ and NO$_2$) violated the single-time-series criterion for being not statistically significant. However, all correlation coefficients were found to be within the boundaries of the multiple-tests thresholds. Residuals of trajectories $Y_n(\tau)$ were also tested for violation of normality using the Anderson-Darling normality test. For all PM$_{10}$ and NO$_2$ trajectories $Y_n(\tau)$, the residuals did not violate the normality assumption. For O$_3$, the normality assumption was violated in 4 out of $R=36$ trajectories $Y_n$. Overall, the correlation and normality tests supported the model assumptions.
We showed how to identify stochastic dynamical models for the evolution of air pollutants on the basis of single, historical trajectories of pollutant concentrations. To this end, we followed the earlier work on financial data and considered pollutant increments rather than the raw pollutant data. In addition, three different representation methods of the drift functions of the dynamical models were used. In doing so, we derived three main results: First, we found that all three representation methods were consistent with each other, see figure \[fig2\]. Second, we were able to show that experimentally observed annual air pollutant peaks were caused by drift functions of physical-chemical air pollutant systems that change qualitatively from the pre-peak months (e.g., January and February) to the post-peak months (e.g., March and April), see figure \[fig2\] again. These qualitative changes in the drift functions are assumed to reflect periodic changes in the physical-chemical laws determining the evolution of the PM$_{10}$, O$_3$, and NO$_2$ pollutant concentrations. Third, it was found that the linear approximation representation method of drift functions (which is the most parsimony method) is sufficient to reproduce the emergence of the yearly pollutant peaks, see figure \[fig1\].
[99]{}
Friedrich R., Peinke J., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1997, **78**, 863, .
Khomenko A.V., Lyashenko I.A., Borisyuk V.N., Fluctuation Noise Lett., 2010, **9**, 19,\
.
Friedrich R., Peinke J., Physica D, 1997, **102**, 147, .
Naert A., Friedrich R., Peinke J., Phys. Rev. E, 1997, **56**, 6719, .
Tutkun M., Mydlarski L., New J. Phys., 2004, **6**, 49, .
Kuwahara J., Miyata H., Konno H., AIP Conf. Proc., 2017, **1872**, 020013, .
Friedrich R., Peinke J., Sahimi M., Tabar M.R.R., Phys. Rep., 2011, **506**, 87, .
Davies B.L., Kurz M.J., Res. Dev. Disabilities, 2013, **34**, 3648, .
Kurz M.J., Arpin D.J., Davies B.L., Harbourne R., Ann. Biomed. Eng., 2013, **41**, 1703,\
.
Van Mourik A.M., Daffertshofer A., Beek P.J., Phys. Lett. A, 2006, **351**, 13, .
Frank T.D., Friedrich R., Beek P.J., Phys. Rev. E, 2006, **74**, 051905, .
Gottschall J., Peinke J., Lippens V., Nagel V., Phys. Lett. A, 2009, **373**, 811, .
Frank T.D., Sondermann M., Ackemann T., Friedrich R., Nonlinear Phenom. Complex Syst., 2005, **8**, 193.
Chiangga S., Frank T.D., Nonlinear Phenom. Complex Syst., 2010, **13**, 32.
Gradišek J., Siegert S., Friedrich R., Grabec I., Phys. Rev. E, 2000, **62**, 3146, .
Lind P.G., Wächter M., Peinke J., J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2014, **524**, 012179, .
Noiray N., J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 2016, **139**, 041503, .
Li D., Wang J., Zhang Z., Shen P., Zheng P., Jin M., Lu H., Lin H., Chen K., Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2018, **25**, 16135, .
Maji K.J., Dikshit A.K., Deshpande A., Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2017, **24**, 4709,\
.
Pope C.A. III, Dockery D.W., J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 2006, **56**, 709,\
.
Giri D., Murthy V.K., Adhikary P.R., Khanal S.N., Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2007, **4**, 183,\
.
Montero Lorenzo J.M., Sánchez-Ollero J.L., Fernandez-Aviles G., Int. J. Environ. Res., 2011, **5**, 23, .
N., Vajanapoom N., Environ. Health Perspect., 2011, **119**, 197, .
Friedrich R., Peinke J., Renner Ch., Phys. Rev. Lett., 2000, **84**, 5224, .
Risken H., The Fokker-Planck Equation: [M]{}ethods of Solution and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 1989.
Frank T.D., Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Equations: [F]{}undamentals and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 2005.
Stanton R., J. Finance, 1997, **52**, 1973, .
Silverman B.W., Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, Chapman and Hall, London, 1986.
Frank T.D., Physica A, 2008, **387**, 773, .
, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand, accessed 2018, <http://air4thai.pcd.go.th/webV2/download.php> (in Thai).
Diggle P.J., Time Series: a Biostatistical Introduction, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.
Keppel G., Wickens T.D., Design and Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The medical field stands to see significant benefits from the recent advances in deep learning. Knowing the uncertainty in the decision made by any machine learning algorithm is of utmost importance for medical practitioners. This study demonstrates the utility of using Bayesian LSTMs for classification of medical time series. Four medical time series datasets are used to show the accuracy improvement Bayesian LSTMs provide over standard LSTMs. Moreover, we show cherry-picked examples of confident and uncertain classifications of the medical time series. With simple modifications of the common practice for deep learning, significant improvements can be made for the medical practitioner and patient.'
author:
- |
Jos van der Westhuizen Joan Lasenby\
University of Cambridge\
`{jv365,jl221}@cam.ac.uk`\
bibliography:
- 'References/references.bib'
- 'References/My\_Library.bib'
title: Bayesian LSTMs in medicine
---
Introduction
============
Life and death decisions are commonplace in the medical domain. When making medical decisions, doctors mostly evaluate multiple parameters and make decisions based on a complex mixture of intuition and assumptions. Machine learning has demonstrated groundbreaking performance in recent studies [@krizhevsky_imagenet_2012; @mnih_human-level_2015; @silver_mastering_2016; @goodfellow_generative_2014] and shows promise as an augmentation to aid doctors in day-to-day care [@clifton_health_2015; @lipton_learning_2015; @zhang_when_2016]. One of the most promising current techniques is deep learning. For the specific class of temporal data that is ubiquitous in medicine, the branch of deep neural networks called Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), has yielded some of the best results [@lipton_learning_2015; @choi_doctor_2015; @jagannatha2016bidirectional; @harutyunyan_multitask_2017].
Although RNNs and other temporal models have shown much promise in analyzing sequential medical data, the models don’t provide practitioners with a certainty measure of their decisions. Thus doctors have no quantitative measure of the importance they should place on the decisions made by their computational assistants. Clinicians typically determine the course of treatment given the current health status of the patient as well as some internal estimate of the outcome of possible future treatments. The effect of treatments for a given patient is non-deterministic (uncertain), and predicting the effect of a series of treatments over time compounds the uncertainty [@bennett_artificial_2013]. Uncertainty in medical decisions is of paramount importance.
Bayesian probability theory offers a mathematically grounded technique to reason about model uncertainty [@gal_dropout_2016]. However, these Bayesian techniques are often accompanied by a prohibitive computational cost. Previous research has explored the benefits of Bayesian techniques in medicine [@temko_eeg-based_2011; @kononenko2001machine; @meyfroidt_machine_2009; @murphy_machine_2012; @mani_medical_2014; @ghassemi_multivariate_2015; @guiza_grandas_gaussian_2006]. However, these proposals do not harness the representative power exhibited by deep learning [@ongenae_time_2013]. Our work follows that of @gal_theoretically_2015 to show that deep learning tools can be used as Bayesian models without changing the model for optimization.
But, do we not get confidence measures from the probabilities produced by the softmax function at the end of most neural networks? The probabilities obtained from Bayesian approaches is significantly different to the “probabilities” obtained from the softmax classifier [@kendall_bayesian_2015]. The softmax function provides estimates of the relative probabilities between classes, but not an overall measure of the model’s uncertainty [@gal_dropout_2016].
Our work demonstrates two key benefits of employing Bayesian deep learning: (i) an increase in the classification accuracy of medical signals, and (ii) a measure of confidence in the model decisions. Although conventional Bayesian approaches are computationally expensive, the implementation proposed here would enable online classification in a clinical setting.
Related work {#sec:related}
============
@lipton_learning_2015 made use of LSTMs to diagnose patients with 128 different codes (one code for each medical condition). Similarly, @choi_doctor_2015 made use of gated recurrent units to predict medication and diagnosis codes. Both of these studies demonstrate the efficacy of LSTMs for sequential medical data, albeit on low-resolution (<0.0003 Hz) signals.
Bayesian Neural Networks (NNs) are a class of NNs which are able to model uncertainty [@denker1990transforming; @mackay1992practical]. These models provide a variance (uncertainty) of the predictions by learning distributions over the weights. Often they are computationally expensive, increasing the number of model parameters without increasing model capacity significantly [@kendall_bayesian_2015]. Conventional Bayesian NNs mostly employ variational inference to approximate the posterior [@graves2011practical].
*Dropout* is a regularization technique commonly used in NNs to prevent overfitting and co-adaption of features [@srivastava_dropout:_2014]. The technique entails removing a percentage of random units within a network during each iteration of stochastic gradient descent. The standard approach is to rescale the weights at test time through multiplication of the learned weights by the probability of the weights being present during training, known as *weight averaging*.
Rather conveniently, dropout can be used as approximate Bayesian inference over the weights of a network [@gal_bayesian_2015], mitigating the computational complexity of Bayesian NNs. This is achieved by sampling from the network with random units removed at test time. Thus the NN does not require any additional parameters and a Bernoulli distribution is imposed over the weights. The samples can be considered as Monte Carlo samples obtained from the posterior distribution over models, giving rise to the name *Monte Carlo (MC) dropout*. Using RNNs with MC dropout has seen success in [@gal_theoretically_2015] and in @sennrich2016edinburgh.
Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) RNNs are easier to train and perform better than standard RNNs [@hochreiter_long_1997]. Here we aim to demonstrate the efficacy of Bayesian LSTMs in medicine to improve accuracy and decrease the uncertainty in the final decisions that doctors make. @fortunato_bayesian_2017 proposed a technique for obtaining uncertainty estimates using an adaptation of Bayes by Backprop [@graves2011practical]. Although the proposed technique yields accuracies superior to the technique in @gal_theoretically_2015, we choose to employ techniques proposed by the latter, which requires a smaller adaptation of commonly used techniques.
The Physionet/Computation in Cardiology 2016 Challenge provides an appropriate dataset for benchmarking the performance of LSTMs [@liu2016open; @clifford2016classification]. This comprehensive dataset was recently collected, is multi-center, and has multiple reported performance scores. The dataset comprises 4,430 heart sound recordings lasting from several seconds to over 100s with a resolution of 2 kHz. The data have long and short-term features paramount for classification of the signal. Moreover as detailed in @springer2016automated accurate classification of these signals is vital in developing communities. Among the top performing techniques for the official challenge were convolutional NNs, an ensemble of support vector machines, regularized NNs, and random forests. @harutyunyan_multitask_2017 proposed an easy to use benchmark system for medical data that is based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III). The benchmark includes four different medical tasks based on low-resolution data. However, owing to more information being available in medical signals collected at higher resolution we feel it is important to also benchmark temporal models on the latter.
Methods
=======
The LSTM implemented is based on the model described in @hochreiter_long_1997 and implemented in Tensorflow [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper]. Each cell in the LSTM has *input*, *output*, *forget*, and *input modulation* gates $ \textbf{i}, \textbf{o}, \textbf{f}$ and $\textbf{g} $. $$\begin{aligned}
&\textbf{i}=\sigma(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_i+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_i +\textbf{b}_i) & &\textbf{f}=\sigma(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_f+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_f +\textbf{b}_f) \\
&\textbf{o}=\sigma(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_o+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_o +\textbf{b}_o) & &\textbf{g}=\tanh(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_g+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_g +\textbf{b}_g) \\
&\textbf{c}_t=\textbf{f}\odot\textbf{c}_{t-1}+\textbf{i}\odot\textbf{g} &
&\textbf{h}_t=\textbf{o}\odot\tanh(\textbf{c}_t) {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{lstm_eq} \end{aligned}$$ The internal state $ \textbf{c}_t $ is referred to as *cell* and is updated additively. The non-linear sigmoid activation is represented by $ \sigma $, and $\textbf{W}_* $ and $ \textbf{U}_* $ are the input and hidden weight matrices respectively with biases $ \textbf{b}_* $. We re-parameterize the model to have a single weight matrix $ \textbf{W}_l $ for layer $ l $. For a specific layer, the input to each gate’s non-linearity is then computed by the single matrix multiplication: $$\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{x}_t & \textbf{h}_{t-1} & 1
\end{bmatrix}\textbf{W}_l
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{x}_t & \textbf{h}_{t-1} & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{W}_i & \textbf{W}_f & \textbf{W}_o & \textbf{W}_g \\
\textbf{U}_i & \textbf{U}_f & \textbf{U}_o & \textbf{U}_g \\
\textbf{b}_i & \textbf{b}_f & \textbf{b}_o & \textbf{b}_g
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_i+\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_i+\textbf{b}_i &
\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_f+\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_f+\textbf{b}_f &
\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_o+\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_o+\textbf{b}_o &
\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_g+\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_g+\textbf{b}_g
\end{bmatrix}
{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:reparam}\end{aligned}$$ with the resulting vector partitioned into the sum terms for input to the non-linearities in Equation \[lstm\_eq\]. This results in a single distribution being placed over one weight matrix $ \textbf{W}_l $ when applying dropout. The implication of the single weight matrix is a faster forward-pass with slightly diminished results [@gal2016uncertainty].
Bayesian LSTM {#sec:bayes}
-------------
We perform approximate inference in a Bayesian LSTM [@gal_dropout_2016] by using dropout [@srivastava_dropout:_2014]. Therefore, dropout can be considered as a way of getting samples from the posterior distribution of models. This technique is linked to variational inference in a Bayesian NN with Bernoulli distributions over the network’s weights [@gal_dropout_2016]. We leverage this method to perform Bayesian inference with LSTMs.
We are interested in finding the posterior distribution of the LSTM weights, $ \omega $, given the observed labels $ \textbf{Y} $, and data $ \textbf{X} $. $$p(\omega|\textbf{X},\textbf{Y})$$ This posterior distribution is not tractable in general, and we use variational inference to approximate it [@kendall_bayesian_2015; @gal_dropout_2016; @denker1990transforming; @graves2011practical]. This allows us to learn over the network’s weights, $ \omega~=~\{\textbf{W}_1,...,\textbf{W}_L\}$, by minimizing the reverse Kullback Leibler (KL) divergence between this approximating distribution and the full posterior; $$KL(q(\omega)||p(\omega|\textbf{X},\textbf{Y}))$$ where $ q(\omega) $ is a distribution over matrices whose columns are randomly set to zero. For the LSTM, these matrices, $ \textbf{W}_l $ (Equation \[eq:reparam\]), are all the weights on a single layer $ l $ and each matrix $ \textbf{W}_l $ has dimensions $ K_{l-1} \times K_l $. $ q(\omega) $ can be defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\textbf{W}_l =\textbf{M}_l \cdot \mathrm{diag}([z_{l,k}]^{K_l}_{k=1})
\\
&z_{l,k} \sim \mathrm{Bernoulli}(p_l) \quad \mathrm{for} \quad l = 1,...,L, \quad k = 1,...,K_{l}
{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:dropout}\end{aligned}$$ given some probabilities $ p_l $ and matrices $ \textbf{M}_l $ as variational parameters. The binary variable $ z_{l,k} = 0$ corresponds to the output of a unit $ k $ in layer $ l $ being dropped. Note that we can left multiply the matrices $ \textbf{M}_l $ with a similar diagonal matrix in Equation \[eq:dropout\] to apply dropout over the rows (unit inputs).
Given the LSTM definitions in \[lstm\_eq\], we can re-write the operation (omitting biases for brevity) as a function $ f_h $: $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{h}_t &= f_h(\textbf{x}_t,\textbf{c}_{t-1},\textbf{h}_{t-1})
\\ &=
\sigma(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_o+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_o)\odot\tanh(\sigma(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_f+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_f)\odot\textbf{c}_{t-1}
\\ & \qquad +\sigma(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_i+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_i)\odot\sigma(\textbf{h}_{t-1}\textbf{U}_g+\textbf{x}_t\textbf{W}_g)) {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:h}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \textbf{c}_{t-1} $ is the hidden unit memory from the previous time step and is determined by a recursive function on $ \textbf{h}_{t-2} $. The output can be defined as $ f_y(\textbf{h}_T)=\textbf{h}_T\textbf{W}_y+\textbf{b}_y$. This LSTM can be viewed as probabilistic model by regarding the weights, $ \omega = \{\textbf{W}_*,\textbf{U}_*,\textbf{b}_*\}$ to be random variables (following normal prior distributions). The functions are written as $ f_h^\omega $ and $ f_y^\omega $ to emphasize the dependence on $ \omega $. Approximating the posterior distribution $ q(\omega) $ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\int q(\omega)\log p(\textbf{y}|f_y^\omega(\textbf{h}_T)){\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\omega
&=
\int q(\omega)\log p\left(\textbf{y}|f_y^\omega(f_h^\omega(\textbf{x}_T,\textbf{c}_{T-1},\textbf{h}_{T-1}))\right){\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\omega
\\ &=
\int q(\omega)\log p\big(\textbf{y}|f_y^\omega(f_h^\omega(\textbf{x}_T,\textbf{c}_{T-1},f_h^\omega(...f_h^\omega(\textbf{x}_1,\textbf{c}_0,\textbf{h}_0)...)))\big){\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\omega\end{aligned}$$ with $ \textbf{h}_0 = \textbf{c}_0 = 0 $. We approximate this via MC integration with a single sample: $$\approx \log p\big(\textbf{y}|f_y^{\hat{\omega}}(f_h^{\hat{\omega}}(\textbf{x}_{T},\textbf{c}_{T-1},f_h^{\hat{\omega}}(...f_h^{\hat{\omega}}(\textbf{x}_1,\textbf{c}_0,\textbf{h}_0)...)))\big), \qquad \qquad \hat{\omega}\sim q(\omega)$$ resulting in an unbiased estimator of each sum term. Our minimization objective then becomes: $$\label{eq:objective}
\mathcal{L} \approx - \sum_{i=1}^{N}\log p\big(\textbf{y}_i|f_y^{\hat{\omega}_i}(f_h^{\hat{\omega}_i}(\textbf{x}_{i,T},\textbf{c}_{T-1},f_h^{\hat{\omega}_i}(...f_h^{\hat{\omega}_i}(\textbf{x}_{i,1},\textbf{c}_0,\textbf{h}_0)...)))\big) + \mathrm{KL}(q(\omega)||p(\omega))$$ From Equation \[eq:dropout\], we define our approximating distribution $ q(\omega) $ to factorize over the weight matrices and their columns in $ \omega $ [@gal_theoretically_2015]. For each layer $ l $ every weight matrix column $ \textbf{w}_{lk} $ the approximating distribution is: $$q(\textbf{w}_{lk})=p\mathcal{N}(\textbf{w}_{lk};\textbf{m}_{lk},\sigma^2I)+(1-p)\mathcal{N}(\textbf{w}_{lk};\textbf{0},\sigma^2I)$$ with $ \textbf{m}_{lk} $ variational parameter (column vector), small $ \sigma^2 $, and $ 1-p $ the dropout probability provided in advance. We optimize over the variational parameters of the random weight matrices; these correspond to the LSTM weight matrices in the standard view. The KL term in Equation \[eq:objective\] can be approximated as $ \sum_{l=1}^{L}\frac{p_l}{2N}(||\textbf{M}_l||_2^2 +||\textbf{b}_l||_2^2)$, summing over the variational parameters $ \textbf{M}_l $ of each weight matrix $ \textbf{W}_l $ in our model (each composed of weight vectors $ \textbf{m}_{lk} $) [@gal_dropout_2016].
Evaluating the model output $ f_y^{\hat{\omega}}(\cdot) $ with sample $ \hat{\omega} $ corresponds to randomly zeroing (masking) columns in each weight matrix $\textbf{W}_l$ during the forward pass – i.e. performing dropout. Further, our objective $ L $ is identical to that of the standard LSTM. In the LSTM setting with a sequence input, each weight matrix row is randomly masked.
Predictions can be approximated using the standard forward pass for LSTMs, i.e., propagating the mean of each layer to the next (*standard dropout approximations*), or by approximating the posterior with $ q(\omega) $ for a new input $ \textbf{x}^* $, $$\begin{aligned}
p(\textbf{y}^*|\textbf{x}^*,\textbf{X}, \textbf{Y}) &\approx \int p(\textbf{y}^*|\textbf{x}^*,\omega)q(\omega){\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\omega \\
&\approx \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^{K}p(\textbf{y}^*|\textbf{x}^*,\hat{\omega}_k)\end{aligned}$$ with $ \hat{\omega}_k \sim q(\omega) $, i.e. by performing dropout at test time and averaging the results (*MC dropout*).
@gal_theoretically_2015 emphasizes that for each sample $ \textbf{x}_i $ a single realization $ \hat{\omega}_i = \{\hat{\textbf{W}}_*^i,\hat{\textbf{U}_*^i},\hat{\textbf{b}}_*^i\}$ is sampled, and that element in the sequence $ \textbf{x}_i =[\textbf{x}_{i,1},...,\textbf{x}_{i,T}]$ is passed through a function with the same parameters $ f_h^{\hat{\omega}_i} $. This is referred to as *Variational* dropout. Intuitively, having the same dropout mask per sequence element makes sense from a recurrent and Monte Carlo integration approximation perspective. However, empirically we found that *naive* dropout, with different samples at each time step $ {\hat{\omega}_{i,1},...,\hat{\omega}_{i,T}} \sim q(\omega) $ still improves the classification performance when using MC dropout compared to the standard dropout approximation.
When sampling a different $ \hat{\omega}_{i,t} $ for each recursion function $ f_h^{\hat{\omega}_{i,t}} $ (i.e. each time step in $ \textbf{x}_i $) in Equation \[eq:objective\], the function is no longer strictly recursive. At each level of recursion a different function $ f_h^{\hat{\omega}_{i,t}} $ is applied to the $ t^{\text{th}} $ element of $ \textbf{x}_i $. However, if an optimum is reached during training, each sample $ \hat{\omega}_{i,t} $ would produce a similar function $ f_h^{\hat{\omega}} $, making Equation \[eq:objective\] approximately recursive. With naive dropout the minimization objective becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} \approx &- \sum_{i=1}^{N}\log p\big(\textbf{y}_i|f_y^{\hat{\omega}_{i,k}}(f_h^{\hat{\omega}_{i,T}}(\textbf{x}_{i,T},\textbf{c}_{T-1},f_h^{\hat{\omega}_{i,T-1}}(...f_h^{\hat{\omega}_{i,1}}(\textbf{x}_{i,1},\textbf{c}_0,\textbf{h}_0)...)))\big) \\ &+ \mathrm{KL}(q(\omega)||p(\omega)) {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eq:naive}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \hat{\omega}_{i,k} $ represents an arbitrary dropout mask for the linear mapping $ f_y $ defined earlier. $ T $ represents the number of elements in $ \textbf{x}_i $. The first term in Equation \[eq:naive\] pushes the posterior $ q(\omega) $ towards a Dirac delta function in order to have the function be the same at each time step.
The difference between the variational and naive dropout approaches is depicted in Figure \[fig:samples\]. The distributions of the hidden outputs (Equation \[eq:h\]) after dropout (sampled parameters) are plotted over 150 epochs for a model trained on the MNIST dataset described in Section \[sec:exp\]. The graphs show the percentiles of the hidden layer outputs over all time steps for the same arbitrary input sample at each epoch. Although both approaches result in similar performance (Table \[tab:acc\]), the converged hidden output distributions are quite different. In accordance with the hypothesis above, the naive approach results in a narrow distribution on the first layer with a standard deviation of 0.1224 compared to the variational approach (0.2818). The second layers in both approaches seem to counter the distributions of the first layers – the wide range of parameter exploration in the first layer of the variational approach has a concurrent narrow band of exploration in the second layer. During experimentation, it was found that the distribution of the variational approach is the same for any training simulation, where the distributions over time for the naive approach would vary between different training simulations.
[.49]{} ![Hidden unit output distributions for the naive and variational dropout approaches. From top to bottom, the lines represent the maximum, $ 93^{rd} $, $ 86^{th} $, $ 69^{th} $, $ 31^{st} $, $ 14^{th} $, $ 7^{th} $ percentiles, and the minimum. The output values exceed the (-1,1) range due to the Tensorflow implementation of dropout scaling the weights by $ 1/(keep\ probability) $ during training [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper].[]{data-label="fig:samples"}](Figs/naive.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} ![Hidden unit output distributions for the naive and variational dropout approaches. From top to bottom, the lines represent the maximum, $ 93^{rd} $, $ 86^{th} $, $ 69^{th} $, $ 31^{st} $, $ 14^{th} $, $ 7^{th} $ percentiles, and the minimum. The output values exceed the (-1,1) range due to the Tensorflow implementation of dropout scaling the weights by $ 1/(keep\ probability) $ during training [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper].[]{data-label="fig:samples"}](Figs/variational.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Intuitively the variational dropout should be easier to train than the naive approach because the naive approach is not strictly recursive during the initial stages of training. The inherent leakiness of the LSTM memory [@neil_phased_2016] could be one reason why the LSTMs converge during training with naive dropout. The leakiness of the network results in bad samples from the posterior to be leaked (forgotten over time).
Experimental implementation {#sec:exp}
---------------------------
We demonstrate the efficacy of Bayesian LSTMs by means of 5 datasets described in the following sections. The same LSTM model with a different architecture was used for each dataset (see the following sections for details). The outputs of the last hidden layer were linearly mapped to the output dimension. The resulting vectors were then average pooled before being subjected to the softmax function. A validation set was used in each case for early stopping of training. Dropout was used on only the input and output LSTM connections. Optimization was performed with Adam [@kingma_adam:_2014], a learning rate of 0.01, and a minibatch size of 256. The standard and Bayesian LSTMs referred to hereafter are the same models, but for the Bayesian LSTM, MC dropout was used during testing to provide a measure of uncertainty.
### MNIST
The MNIST handwritten digit dataset [@lecun1998mnist] provided by Tensorflow [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper] was processed in scanline order [@cooijmans2016recurrent]. The model architecture was 2 hidden layers with 128 units in each. A dropout value ($ 1-keep\ probability $) of 0.2 was used.
### MIT-BIH arrhythmia dataset
This dataset contains 48 half-hour excerpts of electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings from 47 patients [@moody2001impact; @goldberger_physiobank_2000]. The 5 heartbeat classes selected from the database were: normal beat, right bundle branch block beat, left bundle branch block beat, paced beat, and premature ventricular fibrillation. Single heart beats were extracted using the Pan-Tompkins algorithm [@pan_real-time_1985], which has a reported accuracy of 0.99 on this dataset. The resulting dataset contained 106,848 samples of 216 time steps at 360 Hz. A random split of 50:40:10 (train:test:validation) was used. A model with a single hidden layer of 128 units and a dropout probability of 0.3 was used.
### Physionet/Compute in cardiology challenge 2016
Of the 4,430 phonocardiogram (PCG) recordings in this dataset (see Section \[sec:related\]), 3,126 were provided for training. The 301 validation samples (selected by the challenge organizers) were extracted from the training dataset. Each PCG signal was normalized independently to have a zero mean and unit standard deviation. Thereafter each signal was decimated to a frequency of 1 kHz. Owing to LSTMs not being able to handle long sequences [@neil_phased_2016], we segmented the signals into samples with a length of at most 1000 time steps.
The data were provided with 2 classes; normal and abnormal heart beats. During online evaluation for the challenge, the models are allowed to classify a signal into a third class; noisy, resulting in a lower penalty on the model’s score compared to an incorrect classification. To determine the class of a signal we first averaged the softmax probabilities over all the segments of the signal. For the standard LSTM we then classified a signal as noisy if the averaged softmax probabilities were between 0.45 and 0.55. For the Bayesian LSTM the signal was classified as noisy if the standard deviation (averaged over all the signal’s segments) was higher than 0.13.
The online submission imposed a strong computational constraint on the model, with the virtual machine for the scoring having a single CPU core and 2GB of RAM. A model with 2 hidden layers of 128 units and a dropout probability of 0.25 was used. Model performance was evaluated by means of online submission that returns a score based on the specificity and sensitivity [@clifford2016classification].
### Neonatal intensive care unit dataset
This dataset contains the first 48 hours of vital signs for 3 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients collected as part of the study by @sortica_da_costa_complexity_2017. The signals used for analysis were ECG, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation. The data were segmented into samples with a length of 200 time steps at 60 Hz, resulting in a total of 134,812 samples from 3 different classes: normal, dying, and intraventricular hemorrhage. Oxygen saturation values are the second-long averages, and clinicians were consulted to establish factors that scale the inputs to range from approximately 0 to 1. The employed model had a single hidden layer of 64 units and a dropout probability of 0.1. A random split of 50:40:10 was used.
### Traumatic brain injury dataset {#sec:tbi}
Data were collected from traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients as part of a larger study directed by the Department of Clinical Neurosciences at Addenbrookes. The dataset contains 19 variables recorded for 101 patients of which 34 were females, and the age ranged from 15 to 76. The dynamic variables comprised 5s averaged values for intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure, arterial blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure; the 5s amplitudes of arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate, and respiratory pulse; the minimum and maximum of ICP over the 5s; the peak-to-peak timing values for arterial blood pressure and ICP; the slow wave ICP; and the pressure-reactivity index values [@czosnyka1997continuous]. The static variables include age and gender. The duration of the recorded signals ranged from 1h to 12 days. The patients were classified according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) [@jennett_assessment_1975], providing a number between 1 and 5 to patients based on their health status 6 months after admission to the intensive care unit, with 5 being a good outcome and 1 being death. This dataset only contained patients with a GOS of 1 or 5. A random split of 50:40:10 was used. The model had a single hidden layer of 128 units and a dropout probability of 0.4. This dataset has a lower resolution than those introduced earlier and is used to demonstrate that the Bayesian approach is also beneficial for lower resolution longitudinal data.
Results
=======
Table \[tab:acc\] summarizes the results for the datasets analyzed in this study. The values shown are the averages for 10 runs. For the Bayesian LSTM 100 samples were used for MC dropout. Using MC dropout at test time improved the model accuracy on all the datasets, even though naive dropout was employed. In brackets we show the accuracies yielded for the variational dropout approach on the MNIST and MIT-BIH dataset. The variational approach significantly improved the accuracies for the MIT-BIH dataset, but yielded lower accuracies for the MNIST dataset. For the best model on the Physionet dataset the sensitivity and specificity values obtained were 0.675 and 0.880 for the standard LSTM, and 0.707 and 0.889 for the Bayesian LSTM respectively.
Dataset Standard LSTM Bayesian LSTM
--------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
MNIST 0.9889 (0.987) **0.9891** (0.9879)
Physionet 2016 [^1] 0.778 **0.798**
MIT-BIH 0.9815 (0.98463) **0.9834** (0.98468)
NICU 0.9972 **0.9979**
TBI 0.9449 **0.9521**
: Model Accuracies[]{data-label="tab:acc"}
As mentioned before, using a Bayesian LSTM for the classification of medical time series provides the imperative benefit of a confidence measure alongside the estimated class. In Figure \[fig:uncertainties\] we juxtapose confident and uncertain Bayesian LSTM classified medical signals from the datasets analyzed in this study. It should be noted that for standard LSTMs, only the estimated class is produced as output. The figure shows that the model is uncertain when the signals look abnormal or noisy. The uncertainty value indicates when practitioners should further investigate signals and could help researchers understand how LSTM models work.
[.42]{} ![Examples of confident classifications (top row) and uncertain classifications (bottom row) by the Bayesian LSTM on the different datasets. The medical samples displayed have been normalized and segmented. The NICU samples comprise the ECG, blood pressure (BP), and oxygen saturation signals (SpO2). Refer to Section \[sec:tbi\] for details about the TBI signals.[]{data-label="fig:uncertainties"}](Figs/MIT_uncertainty.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.42]{} ![Examples of confident classifications (top row) and uncertain classifications (bottom row) by the Bayesian LSTM on the different datasets. The medical samples displayed have been normalized and segmented. The NICU samples comprise the ECG, blood pressure (BP), and oxygen saturation signals (SpO2). Refer to Section \[sec:tbi\] for details about the TBI signals.[]{data-label="fig:uncertainties"}](Figs/PCG_uncertainty.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.14]{} ![Examples of confident classifications (top row) and uncertain classifications (bottom row) by the Bayesian LSTM on the different datasets. The medical samples displayed have been normalized and segmented. The NICU samples comprise the ECG, blood pressure (BP), and oxygen saturation signals (SpO2). Refer to Section \[sec:tbi\] for details about the TBI signals.[]{data-label="fig:uncertainties"}](Figs/mnist_uncertainty.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} ![Examples of confident classifications (top row) and uncertain classifications (bottom row) by the Bayesian LSTM on the different datasets. The medical samples displayed have been normalized and segmented. The NICU samples comprise the ECG, blood pressure (BP), and oxygen saturation signals (SpO2). Refer to Section \[sec:tbi\] for details about the TBI signals.[]{data-label="fig:uncertainties"}](Figs/NICU_uncertainty.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} ![Examples of confident classifications (top row) and uncertain classifications (bottom row) by the Bayesian LSTM on the different datasets. The medical samples displayed have been normalized and segmented. The NICU samples comprise the ECG, blood pressure (BP), and oxygen saturation signals (SpO2). Refer to Section \[sec:tbi\] for details about the TBI signals.[]{data-label="fig:uncertainties"}](Figs/TBI_uncertainty.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Discussion
==========
The model yielded performance slightly below the benchmark performance on the Physionet 2016 challenge dataset [@clifford2016classification]. We believe that the LSTMs have the capacity to compete with the benchmark models for the Physionet 2016 Challenge. However, LSTMs are known to have poor performance on signals longer than 1000 time steps [@neil_phased_2016]. The original signals had to be split into subsegments of 1000 steps each. When splitting medical signals such as these, the subsegments of the original signal could be indicative of a different class, and assigning them with the same label as the original will confuse the model during training. Moreover, the strong computational constraints (single CPU core, and processing time limit) imposed by the competition does not allow for an LSTM model that has sufficient explanatory power. The model performance on the MNIST dataset is similar to that found in @cooijmans2016recurrent and @zhang2016architectural, 0.989 and 0.981 respectively.
As a practical guide to the implementation of dropout, our study found that ideal keep probabilities should be larger than 0.8 (dropout < 0.2) for LSTMs. LSTMs were found to converge to poor optimums and even overfit strongly when using keep probabilities around 0.5. Although higher keep probabilities result in weaker Bayesian uncertainties for the proposed implementations, the yielded variance still provides sufficient measures of confidence. Moreover, MC dropout is more computationally expensive than standard weight averaging, but owing to the samples being independent, it is a highly parallelizable method.
Conclusion
==========
This study showed that a simple adaptation of the conventional deep learning technique for time series can (i) provide a vital additional output for quantifying model decisions, and (ii) improve model accuracy. Furthermore, we showed examples of applying this simple LSTM adaptation to medical data, where the contribution from a model confidence measure is greatly beneficial. In this work, we only focused on epistemic uncertainty - model uncertainty which can be explained away given enough data [@kendall_what_2017]. Methods for quantifying aleatoric uncertainty – uncertainty inherent in observations could also provide valuable benefits to the medical machine learning field.
[^1]: Online score, not accuracy.\
Values in brackets are the accuracies using variational dropout.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Although quadrotors, and aerial robots in general, are inherently active agents, their perceptual capabilities in literature so far have been mostly passive in nature. Researchers and practitioners today use traditional computer vision algorithms with the aim of building a representation of general applicability: a 3D reconstruction of the scene. Using this representation, planning tasks are constructed and accomplished to allow the quadrotor to demonstrate autonomous behavior. These methods are inefficient as they are not task driven and such methodologies are not utilized by flying insects and birds. Such agents have been solving the problem of navigation and complex control for ages without the need to build a 3D map and are highly task driven.\
In this paper, we propose this framework of bio-inspired perceptual design for quadrotors. We use this philosophy to design a minimalist sensori-motor framework for a quadrotor to fly though unknown gaps without an explicit 3D reconstruction of the scene using only a monocular camera and onboard sensing. We successfully evaluate and demonstrate the proposed approach in many real-world experiments with different settings and window shapes, achieving a success rate of 85% at 2.5ms$^{-1}$ even with a minimum tolerance of just 5cm. To our knowledge, this is the first paper which addresses the problem of gap detection of an unknown shape and location with a monocular camera and onboard sensing.
author:
- 'Nitin J. Sanket, Chahat Deep Singh, Kanishka Ganguly, Cornelia Ferm[ü]{}ller, Yiannis Aloimonos [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'Ref.bib'
title: 'GapFlyt: Active Vision Based Minimalist Structure-less Gap Detection For Quadrotor Flight'
---
@addto@macromaketitle
![Different parts of the pipeline: (a) Detection of the unknown gap using active vision and TS$^2$P algorithm (cyan highlight shows the path followed for obtaining multiple images for detection), (b) Sequence of quadrotor passing through the unknown gap using visual servoing based control. The blue and green highlights represent the tracked foreground and background regions respectively. Best viewed in color.[]{data-label="fig:Overview"}](Images/Overview-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
******
Supplementary Material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered}
======================
The supplementary hardware tutorial, appendix, code and video are available at [prg.cs.umd.edu/GapFlyt.html](prg.cs.umd.edu/GapFlyt.html).
Introduction and Philosophy
===========================
quest to develop intelligent and autonomous quadrotors [@Exploration; @Inspection; @SearchAndRescue] has taken a center stage in the recent years due to their usefulness in aiding safety and intuitive control. To achieve any form of autonomy, quadrotors need to have perceptual capabilities in order to sense the world and react accordingly. A generic and fairly common solution to providing perceptual capabilities is to acquire a 3D model of its environment. Creating such a model is very useful because of its general applicability – one could accomplish many tasks using the same model. The process of obtaining a 3D model of the environment using onboard sensing and a myriad of different sensors has gained momentum in the last few years [@SLAMSurvey]. Sensors like the LIDAR, RGB-D and stereo camera cannot be used on a small quadrotor due to their size, weight, and power limitations. This constrains us to a monocular camera along with the already present onboard inertial sensor (IMU) and many algorithms have been developed based on the same principle [@VINS][@ROVIO].
Instead of attempting to recover a 3D model of the scene, we want to recover a “minimal” amount of information that is sufficient to complete the task under consideration. We conceptualize an autonomous quadrotor as a collection of processes that allow the agent to perform a number of behaviors (or tasks) (Table \[tab:MinimalistPhiloshopy\]). At the bottom of the hierarchy is the task of kinetic stabilization (or egomotion). Next comes the ability for obstacle avoidance, where the obstacles could be static or dynamic, followed by ability to perform homing, i.e., to find a specific location in an environment. Last in the hierarchy comes the ability to land (on a static or a dynamic surface) and the ability to pursue, or escape from, another agent. This hierarchy of competences, with each competence needing the one before it, constitutes the sensorimotor system of the quadrotor agent. These behaviors can be accomplished without an explicit 3D reconstruction because of the “active” nature of the quadrotor. The quadrotor can perform maneuvers and control the image acquisition process, thus introducing new constraints that were not there before - this is called “active” vision [@ActiveVision; @SukhtameActive; @BajcsyActive]. This methodology was inspired by the fruit fly [@FruitFly]. Prior research has shown that fruit flies, and other insects [@ExploratoryMovement] [@LocustsAndMantids], do not perceive depth directly. It is achieved by a balance of active and exploratory procedures. In this paper, we focus on the second competence of obstacle avoidance. Specifically, the question this paper deals with is: *“Can a quadrotor manage to go through an arbitrarily shaped gap without building an explicit 3D model of a scene, using only a monocular camera?”* We develop the visual mathematics of the solution, evaluate and demonstrate the proposed approach in many real experiments with different settings and window shapes.
Traditional computer vision based approaches such as sparse or dense reconstruction [@GeoSLAM; @RGBDSLAM; @SLAMDunk; @DSO] have been used to obtain a 3D structure of the scene over which sophisticated path planners have been used to plan collision free paths. Lately, deep-learning driven approaches have taken a center stage in solving the problem of fast collision avoidance and safe planning on quadrotors [@TrailPaper]. Most of these neural network approaches compute Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs) for large filter sizes [@FFT]. Such approaches can be processed on a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), rather than a Graphical Processing Unit (GPU) to drastically improve the computation performance and power efficiency [@FPGA1][@FPGA2].
To our knowledge, this is the first paper which addresses the problem of gap detection with a monocular camera and onboard sensing. However, the problem of going through gaps has fascinated researchers from many years and some of the recent works which present algorithms for planning and control can be found in [@KumarWindow] [@ScaramuzzaWindow]. Some of the works which paved way to the bio-inspired approach used in this paper can be found in [@franceschini1992insect; @srinivasan1999robot; @serres2017optic; @scheper2016behavior].
The key contributions of this paper are given below:
- Active vision based structure-less minimalist gap detection algorithm – Temporally Stacked Spatial Parallax or TS$^2$P (Fig. \[fig:Overview\]a).
- Visual servoing on a contour for the quadrotor to fly through unknown gaps (Fig. \[fig:Overview\]b).
Organization of the paper:
--------------------------
Sec. \[sec:TS2P\] presents the detection algorithm of a gap in an arbitrary shaped window using Deep Learning based optical flow *and the role of active vision in such algorithms.* Sec. \[sec:VisualServo\] describes the algorithm used for tracking the gap/safe point and the quadrotor control policy. Sec. \[sec:Expts\] illustrates the experimental setup and provides error analyses and comparisons with traditional approaches. We finally conclude the paper in Sec. \[sec:Conc\] with parting thoughts on future work.
Problem Formulation and Proposed Solutions
------------------------------------------
A quadrotor is present in a static scene (Fig. \[fig:FgBgDist\]), where the absolute depth of each point as ‘seen’ from the camera can be modelled as an univariate bimodal gaussian distribution. The location at which there is a maximum spatial depth discrepancy between pixels (projected point) is defined as the Contour ($\mathcal{C}$) of the opening. In this paper, the words boundary, gap, window or opening refer to the same entity and will be used interchangeably. Any pixel close to the mode corresponding to the lower depth value is defined as the Foreground ($\mathcal{F}$) and similarly that corresponding to the higher depth value is defined as the Background ($\mathcal{B}$). A simple way of solving the problem of finding the gap for a near fronto-parallel pose is to find the depth discrepancy which is a trivial clustering problem when the depth is known. The depth can be known if multiple calibrated cameras are used or the entire scene is reconstructed in 3D. These methods are computationally expensive [@SLAMSurvey]. In this paper, we propose a ‘minimalist’ solution to find any arbitrary shaped gap for the quadrotor to go through using Temporally Stacked Spatial Parallax (TS$^2$P) algorithm. A control policy based on contour visual servoing is used to fly through unknown gaps.
![Components of the environment. On-set Image: Quadrotor view of the scene.[]{data-label="fig:FgBgDist"}](Images/FgBgDist-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Gap Detection using TS$^2$P {#sec:TS2P}
===========================
Before we explain the procedure for gap detection, we need to formally define the notation used. $\left(\prescript{a}{}{X}_b,\prescript{a}{}{Y}_b,\prescript{a}{}{Z}_b\right)$ denotes the coordinate frame of $b$ represented in the reference of $a$. The letters $I$, $C$, $B$ and $W$ are used as sub/superscript to denote quantities related to Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), Camera, Body and World respectively. If a sub/superscript is omitted, the quantity can be assumed to be in $W$. $C$ and $I$ are assumed to be rigidly attached to each other with known intrinsics and extrinsics. $B$ is defined to be aligned with $I$ (Fig. \[fig:CoordinateFrames\]). A pinhole camera model is used for the formation of the image. The world point $\mathbf{X}$ gets projected onto the image plane point $\mathbf{x}$.
![Representation of co-ordinate frames.[]{data-label="fig:CoordinateFrames"}](Images/CoordinateFrames-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
The camera captures images/frames at a certain frequency. Let the frame at time $t^i$ be denoted as $\mathbb{F}^i$ and is called the $i^{\text{th}}$ frame. Optical flow [@MotionField] between $i^{\text{th}}$ and $j^{\text{th}}$ frames is denoted by $\prescript{j}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}}}$ which is a sum of both translational $\left(\prescript{j}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, T}}\right)$ and rotational $\left(\prescript{j}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, R}}\right)$ components and are given by:
$$\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
$\prescript{j}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, T}} = \dfrac{1}{Z_\mathbf{x}}
\begin{bmatrix}
x V_z - V_x \\
y V_z - V_y \\
\end{bmatrix}; \,\, \prescript{j}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, R}} = \begin{bmatrix}
xy & -(1+x^2) & y \\
(1+y^2) & -xy & -x \\
\end{bmatrix} \Omega $}$$
where $\mathbf{x}=\begin{bmatrix} x & y \end{bmatrix}^T$ denotes the pixel coordinates in the image plane, $Z_\mathbf{x}$ is the depth of $\mathbf{X}$ (world point corresponding to pixel $\mathbf{x}$), $V = \begin{bmatrix} V_x & V_y & V_z \end{bmatrix}^T$ and $\Omega$ are the linear and angular velocities of the $C$ in $W$ between $t^i$ and $t^j$ respectively.
The otherwise complex depth estimation problem can be trivialized by moving in a certain way[@ActiveVision]. These “active” vision principles dictate us to control the quadrotor’s movements so as to make the interpretation of optical flow easier. Since the quadrotor is a differentially flat system [@DifferentialFlatness], the rotation about $\left(X_B, Y_B, Z_B\right)$ or roll, pitch and yaw can be decoupled. As an implication, the movements can be controlled in a way to simplify the depth $\left( Z_\textbf{x}\right)$ estimation problem. The quadrotor is controlled in such a way that $\Omega\approx0$, $V_z \ll V_x$ and $V_z \ll V_y$, then the optical flow can be modelled as:
$$\prescript{j}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}}}=
\prescript{j}{i}{Z_{\mathbf{x}}}^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}
-\prescript{j}{i}{V_x} &
-\prescript{j}{i}{V_y}
\end{bmatrix}^{T} + \eta$$ where $\eta$ is the approximation error. This shows that using the aforementioned “active” control strategy, we obtain an implicit 3D structure of the environment in the optical flow. The inverse depth in this “controlled” case manifests as a linear function of the optical flow.
The optical flow equation can be written for both foreground $\left(\mathcal{F}\right)$ and background $\left(\mathcal{B}\right)$ pixels independently. The magnitude of optical flow for $\mathcal{F}$ is given by,
$${\left\lVert\prescript{j}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{F}}}\right\rVert}_2=
\prescript{j}{i}{Z_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{F}}}^{-1}
\sqrt{\prescript{j}{i}{V_x^2} + \prescript{j}{i}{V_y^2}}
+ \nu$$ where $\nu\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma)$ is assumed to be an additive white Gaussian noise and is independent of the scene structure or the amount of camera movement between two frames ($V, \Omega$). For such assumptions to be valid, the optical flow algorithm needs to work well for a wide range of camera movements in a variety of scene structures. Using fast traditional optical flow formulations based on methods like [@LucasKanadeFlow] or [@HornSchunckFlow] voids such assumptions. This motivated us to use deep-learning based flow algorithms which excel at this task while maintaining a reasonable speed when running on a GPU. In this paper, FlowNet2 [@FlowNet2] is used to compute optical flow unless stated otherwise.
A simple method to reduce noise is to compute the mean of the flow magnitudes across a few frames. Let $\xi = \{{\mathbb{F}^j, ..., \mathbb{F}^k}\}$ be a set of $N$ frames from which the optical flow is computed with respect to some reference frame $\mathbb{F}^i$ where the complete gap is assumed to be visible. Here, $N=\overline{\overline{\xi}}$ is the cardinality of the set $\xi$. The mean flow magnitude at $\mathbf{x}$ for $\mathcal{F}$ $\left({\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{F}}}\right\rVert}_2\right)$ and $\mathcal{B}$ $\left({\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{B}}}\right\rVert}_2\right)$ is given by,
$${\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{F/B}}}\right\rVert}_2=
\left({N Z_{\mathbf{x},\mathcal{F/B}}}\right)^{-1}\sum_{r = j}^{k}{\prescript{r}{i}{V}} + \nu'$$
where $\nu'\sim\mathcal{N}\left(0,N^{-0.5}\sigma \right)$ and $V=\sqrt{V_x^2 + V_y^2}$. Clearly, the noise varies inversely with $N$.
Since $Z_{\mathbf{x},\mathcal{F}} < Z_{\mathbf{x},\mathcal{B}}$, we can say that ${\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{F}}}\right\rVert}_2 > {\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{B}}}\right\rVert}_2$. Now, ${\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{F}}}\right\rVert}_2 - {\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{B}}}\right\rVert}_2 \geq \tau$ can be used as a criterion for finding possible boundary regions. It was found experimentally that using inverse flow differences ${\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{B}}}\right\rVert}_2^{-1} - {\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{F}}}\right\rVert}_2^{-1} \geq \tau'$ gave better numerical stability and better noise performance due to the scale compression by the inverse function. This is inherently the spatial derivative of inverse average (stacked) flow magnitudes and it can be written as $\Xi = \nabla\cdot{\left\lVert\prescript{\xi}{i}{\dot{p}_{\mathbf{x}}}\right\rVert}_2^{-1}$, where, $\nabla = \begin{bmatrix} \nicefrac{\partial}{\partial x} & \nicefrac{\partial}{\partial y}\end{bmatrix}^T$. Note that this is the same as solving the edge detection problem in computer vision and any kernel or method like the Sobel operator or the Canny edge detection algorithm can be used.
High Speed Gap Tracking For Visual Servoing Based Control {#sec:VisualServo}
=========================================================
This section presents a targeted solution for tracking a contour using label sets propagated using Focus of Expansion (FOE) constraints. A pixel at location $\mathbf{x}$ is associated with a score $\chi\left(\mathbf{x}\right) \in \left[-1,1 \right]$ which denotes its score as foreground or background. The foreground and background pixel locations are defined by $\mathcal{F} = \left\{ \mathbf{x} \vert \chi \left( \mathbf{x}\right) = +1 \right\}$ and $\mathcal{B} =\left\{ \mathbf{x} \vert \chi \left( \mathbf{x}\right) = -1 \right\} $ respectively.
We define the opening $\mathcal{O}$ on the image plane as $\mathcal{O} = \left\{ \mathbf{x} \vert \chi \left( \mathbf{x} \right) < 0 \right\}$. The pixel locations which cannot be perfectly classified as foreground or background belong to the uncertainty zone and are defined as $\mathcal{U} =\left\{ \mathbf{x} \vert \chi \left( \mathbf{x}\right) \in \left(-1, +1\right) \right\} $. The contour location is defined as $\mathcal{C} =\left\{ \mathbf{x} \vert \chi \left( \mathbf{x}\right) = 0 \right\}$. Fig. \[fig:LabelSets\] gives a visual representation of the different sets on a sample image.
![Label sets used in tracking. *(blue: foreground region, green: background region, orange: uncertainty region, black line: contour, brighter part of frame: active region and darker part of frame: inactive region.)*[]{data-label="fig:LabelSets"}](Images/LabelSets-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The problem statement dictates the tracking of contour location $\mathcal{C}$ across time. This problem is hard as the contour tracking relies on updating $\chi\left( \mathbf{x} \right)\, \forall \, \mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{U}$ over time which is non-trivial and computationally expensive. To simplify the problem, we use the dual formulation of the problem which is to track the pixel locations which belong to the set defined by $\left\{ \mathbf{x} \notin \mathcal{U}\right\} = \mathcal{F} \cup \mathcal{B}$. This enables us to track the contour indirectly at high speeds as corner tracking is comparatively faster [@KLT]. The trade-off in using the dual formulation is that we don’t obtain the actual contour location across time - which might be needed for aggressive maneuvers, but this is not dealt in the scope of this paper. The label set propagation algorithm is described in Algorithm \[algo:LabelSetProp\]. Here, $\mathbb{C}_\mathcal{F}^i$ and $\mathbb{C}_\mathcal{B}^i$ represents a set of corner/feature points for the foreground and background pixels respectively in $\mathbb{F}^i$. $A^\dagger$ denotes the pseudo inverse of the matrix $A$ and $\begin{bmatrix} x_{0,\mathcal{F}} & y_{0,\mathcal{F}} \end{bmatrix}^T$ is the FOE for the foreground. Intuitively, we solve the linear equations of the horizontal flow field to obtain the divergence/time-to-contact $\alpha$. The divergence in x-direction is used to also predict the y-coordinates.
$\mathbb{C}_\mathcal{F}^j$ = FeatureTracker$\left(\mathbb{C}_\mathcal{F}^i, \mathbb{F}^i, \mathbb{F}^j\right)$ $A = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F},x}^i & -\mathds{1}\\
\end{bmatrix}$ $B = \left[ \mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F},x}^j - \mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F},x}^i\right]$ $\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha\\ \beta
\end{bmatrix} = A^\dagger B$ $x_{0,\mathcal{F}} = \nicefrac{\beta}{\alpha};\qquad y_{0,\mathcal{F}} = \Big\langle \mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F},y}^j \dfrac{1}{\alpha} \left( \mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F},y}^j - \mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F},y}^i\right)\Big\rangle$ $\mathcal{F}^j = \alpha \begin{bmatrix} \mathcal{F}^i_x - x_{0,\mathcal{F}} \\ \mathcal{F}^i_y - y_{0,\mathcal{F}} \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} \mathcal{F}^i_x \\ \mathcal{F}^i_y\end{bmatrix} $ Repeat steps 1 through 6 for $\mathcal{B}$ in parallel
Safe Point Computation and Tracking
-----------------------------------
We can assume that the real-world points corresponding to the background $\mathcal{B} \cup \mathbb{U}_{B}$ are far enough that we can approximate them to lie on a plane. The foreground points under consideration $\mathcal{F} \cup \mathbb{U}_{F}$ occupy a small area around the contour which can be assumed to be planar. Here, $\mathbb{U}_{F} \subset \mathcal{U} \text{ and } \mathbb{U}_{B} \subset \mathcal{U}$ are the sets which actually belong to the foreground and background respectively.
Now, the quadrotor can be represented as an ellipsoid with semi-axes of lengths $a, b$ and $c$. As an implication of the above assumptions, the projection of the quadrotor on the window at any instant is an ellipse. Let us define the projection of the quadrotor on the image as $\mathcal{Q}$. The largest $\mathcal{Q}$ can be written in terms of matrix equation of the ellipse centered at $\left[ h, k\right]^T$ defined as $Q(h,k,R_\theta)=0$.
Here, $R_\theta$ is a two-dimensional rotation matrix and $\theta$ is the angle the largest semi-axis of the ellipse makes with the $X_C$ axis. The projection of the quadrotor on the image is given by $\mathcal{Q} = \left\{ \mathbf{x} \vert Q(\mathbf{x})\le 0\right\}$. The safe region $\mathcal{S}$ can be computed as $$\mathcal{S} = \bigcup_{\forall \theta} \mathcal{O}\ominus \mathcal{Q}$$ where $\ominus$ denotes the Minkowski difference of sets. Now, we define the ‘safest point’ ($\mathbf{x}_s$) as the barycentric mean of $\mathcal{S}$.
The above optimization problem can only be solved using convex optimization with a guaranteed global solution when both $\mathcal{O}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ are convex sets. A conservative solution to the above problem is fitting the largest scaled version of $\mathcal{Q}$ inside $\mathcal{O}$ when $\mathcal{O}$ is a non-convex set and $\mathcal{Q}$ is a convex set.
Note that as $\mathcal{Q}$ is a chosen model, it can always be chosen to be a convex set, i.e., convex hull of the non-convex set. Also, from the above remark, the ‘safest point’ ($\mathbf{x}_s$) can be defined as the center of the largest ellipse which can be fit inside $\mathcal{S}$ whilst maintaining the eccentricity equal to that defined by $\mathcal{Q}$. The optimization problem becomes,
$$\operatorname*{argmax}_{a,\theta} \mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{Q} \text{ s.t. } \mathcal{Q} \subseteq \mathcal{S} \text{ and } {\left|\theta\right|} \le \theta_{max}$$
This problem can be solved using the procedure described in [@Potato]. However, a desirable property of the safe region is that it should favor less-aggressive maneuvers. This can be modelled as a regularization penalty in the above formulation, $$\operatorname*{argmax}_{a,\theta} \mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{Q} + \lambda \theta \text{ s.t. } \mathcal{Q} \subseteq \mathcal{S} \text{ and } {\left|\theta\right|} \le \theta_{max}$$
Solving the above optimization problem is computationally intensive and not-possible without the prior knowledge of the scale/depth. For obtaining the minimalist solution, we assume that *the gap is large enough for the quadrotor to pass through* and replace the above optimization problem by an empirically chosen approximation. A simple and efficient safe point computation can be performed as the median of the convex set $\mathcal{O}$ and is given by $\mathbf{x}_s \approx \operatorname*{argmin}_{\mathbf{x}} \sum_{\forall o \in \mathcal{O}} \Vert o - \mathbf{x}\Vert_2$.
If the above approximation is used when $\mathcal{O}$ is non-convex, the amount of deviation from the ‘actual’ safe point is a function of $\sfrac{\overline{\overline{\text{Conv}\left( \mathcal{O}\right)}}}{\,\overline{\overline{\mathcal{O}}}}$. Here $\overline{\overline{\text{Conv}\left( \mathcal{O}\right)}}$ is the convex hull of $\mathcal{O}$.
![Tracking of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ across frames. (a) shows tracking when $\overline{\overline{\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F}}^i}}> k_\mathcal{F}$ and $\overline{\overline{\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{B}}^i}}> k_\mathcal{B}$. (b) When $\overline{\overline{\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{B}}^i}}\le k_\mathcal{B}$, the tracking for $\mathcal{B}$ will be reset. (c) When $\overline{\overline{\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F}}^i}}\le k_\mathcal{F}$, the tracking for $\mathcal{F}$ will be reset. (d) shows tracking only with $\mathcal{B}$, when $\mathcal{F} =\emptyset$. *(blue: $\mathcal{F}$, green: $\mathcal{B}$, yellow: $\mathcal{O}$, yellow dots: $\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F}}^i$, red dots: $\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{B}}^i$, blue Square: $\mathbf{x}_{s,\mathcal{F}}$, red Square: $\mathbf{x}_{s,\mathcal{B}}$.)*[]{data-label="fig:Tracking"}](Images/Tracking-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Keen readers would note that the formulation for the safe point is in-terms of $\mathcal{O}$ which we wanted to avoid tracking in the first place. Indeed this is true and a simple solution takes care of this. Because we are propagating $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ with FOE constraints, the cross-ratios of $\left\{{\left\lVerto,f\right\rVert}_2 \vert o\in\mathcal{O}, f\in\mathcal{F}\right\}$ and $\left\{{\left\lVerto,b\right\rVert}_2 \vert o\in\mathcal{O}, b\in\mathcal{B}\right\}$ are preserved. Here, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are computed from the detected opening $\mathcal{O}$ as follows: $\mathcal{F} = \left\{\mathcal{O} \oplus \epsilon_1 - \mathcal{O} \oplus \epsilon_2\right\}$ and $\mathcal{B} = \left\{\mathcal{O} \ominus \epsilon_3\right\}$. Here, $\epsilon_i$ is a user chosen kernel (circular in this paper).
The $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are propagated from $\mathbb{F}^i$ onwards where the detection was performed. The ‘safest point’ ($\mathbf{x}_s$) is computed as follows: $$\mathbf{x}_s =
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{x}_{s,\mathcal{F}} , &\quad \overline{\overline{\mathcal{F}}}\geq\overline{\overline{\mathcal{B}}} \\
\mathbf{x}_{s,\mathcal{B}}, &\quad \text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}$$ where $\mathbf{x}_{s, \mathcal{F}}$ and $\mathbf{x}_{s, \mathcal{B}}$ are the safest points computed individually for $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ by taking their median respectively. Fig. \[fig:Tracking\] shows the tracking of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ across time and how the tracking algorithm actively switches between $\mathbf{x}_{s,\mathcal{F}}$ and $\mathbf{x}_{s,\mathcal{B}}$ for the safest point $\mathbf{x}_s$. When $\overline{\overline{\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{F}}^i}}\le k_\mathcal{F}$ or $\overline{\overline{\mathbb{C}_{\mathcal{B}}^i}}\le k_\mathcal{B}$, the tracker/feature points are reset in the current $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ sets respectively. Here, $k_\mathcal{F}$ and $k_\mathcal{B}$ are empirically chosen thresholds. For all experiments $k_\mathcal{F}=40$ and $k_\mathcal{B}=20$. Due to resetting and active switching, $\mathbf{x}_{s}$ can jump around making the control hard, hence a simple Kalman filter with a forward motion model is used to smooth out the value of $\mathbf{x}_{s}$. From here on, safe point refers to the safest point $\mathbf{x}_{s}$.
Control Policy
--------------
We propose a control policy such that it follows the tracked $\mathbf{x}_s$. The quadrotor follows the dynamic model as given in [@MinimumSnapTrajectory]. The controller uses the traditional backstepping approach based on [@MinimumSnapTrajectory] and contains the following loops: Inner loop and outer loop controllers. Inner loop controls the attitude stability while the outer loop controller is responsible for the quadrotor position. It is important to note that frames are transformed from $C$ to $B$.
Since the quadrotor is differentially flat, the altitude $Z_B$ can be controlled independently from $X_B$ and $Y_B$ [@DifferentialFlatness]. The control policy is to align the projection of the body center on the image plane with $\mathbf{x}_s$. The difference between the two centers is called the error $e$. The $x$ and $y$ component of the error $e$ can be minimized by varying roll $\left(\phi\right)$ and net thrust $\left(u_1\right)$ respectively. A simple Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller on $e$ is used. This control policy only deals with the alignment of $B$ to $\mathbf{x}_s$ and does not deal with moving forward ($Z_C$). To move forward, the quadrotor pitch $\left(\phi\right)$ needs to be controlled. The rate of forward motion is controlled by the pitch angle $\theta_0$ which is empirically chosen. The bigger the value of $\theta_0$ the faster the quadrotor will fly towards the gap. It is important to note the implicit assumption made in this paper that the gap is large enough for the quadrotor to go through safely.
Experiments {#sec:Expts}
===========
Experimental Setup
------------------
The proposed framework was tested on a modified hobby quadrotor, Parrot$^\text{\textregistered}$ Bebop 2, for its cost effectiveness and ease of use. The Bebop 2 is equipped with a front facing camera, a 9-axis IMU and a downward facing optical flow sensor coupled with a sonar. The Parrot$^\text{\textregistered}$ Bebop 2 allows only high level controls in terms of body frame velocities using ROS. An NVIDIA Jetson TX2 GPU is mounted on the Bebop 2 as shown in Fig. \[fig:QuadrotorParts\] and is used to run all the perception and control algorithms onboard. The TX2 and Bebop 2 communicate via a WiFi connection, where the images are received at 30Hz. The overall weight of the flight setup is $680$g with the dimensions being $32.8 \times 38.2 \times 12$cm.\
![The platform used for experiments. (1) The front facing camera, (2) NVIDIA TX2 CPU+GPU, (3) Downward facing optical flow sensor (camera+sonar) which is only used for position hold.[]{data-label="fig:QuadrotorParts"}](Images/QuadrotorParts-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
All the experiments were prototyped on a PC running Ubuntu 16.04 with an Intel$^\text{\textregistered}$ Core i7 6850K 3.6GHz CPU, an NVIDIA Titan-Xp GPU and 64GB of RAM in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Matlab</span> using the Robotics Toolbox. The deep learning based optical flow runs on Python with TensorFlow back-end. All the final versions of the software were ported to Python to run on the NVIDIA Jetson TX2 running Linux for Tegra$^\text{\textregistered}$ (L4T) 28.2. A step-by-step tutorial on using Bebop 2 as a research platform is available at [prg.cs.umd.edu/GapFlyt.html](prg.cs.umd.edu/GapFlyt.html).\
The environmental setup for the experiments consists of a rigid scene which has two near-planar structures, one for the foreground and the other for the background. As shown in Fig. \[fig:FgBgDist\], let us denote the initial perpendicular distance between the quadrotor body center and the foreground as $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}}$ and the background as $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}}$. The near-planar structures are made of foam-core with newspapers stuck on them to add texture to the scene. The gap is located near the center of the foreground and is of an arbitrary shape. For the detection of the window, the quadrotor executes a fixed diagonal straight line trajectory in the $X_W-Z_W$ plane as shown in Fig. \[fig:QuadrotorDetectionAndServo\] while taking a number of images along its path. The number of images used for the detection stage is a parameter denoted by $N$. Once the window is detected, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are tracked across time in order for quadrotor to go through the gap using visual servoing based control.
![First two rows: $\left(X_W,Y_W\right)$, $\left(Y_W,Z_W\right)$ and $\left(X_W,Z_W\right)$ Vicon estimates of the trajectory executed by the quadrotor in different stages (gray bar indicates the gap). $\left(X_W,Z_W\right)$ plot shows the diagonal scanning trajectory (the lines don’t coincide due to drift). Last row: Photo of the quadrotor during gap traversal. *(cyan: detection stage, red: traversal stage.)*[]{data-label="fig:QuadrotorDetectionAndServo"}](Images/QuadrotorDetectionAndServo-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Experimental Results
--------------------
The pipeline was evaluated on different variations of the environmental setup. In the first experiment, we test our pipeline on five different arbitrarily shaped gaps as shown in Fig. \[fig:AllWindows\]. Unless otherwise stated $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}} \sim 2.6$m and $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}} \sim 5.7$m. The aim here is to find biases in the detection pipeline. The windows were chosen to have a diversity in the geometrical sharpness of the corners, convexity of the shape and the size. As stated earlier, the only constraint imposed on the gaps is that they are large enough to go through with the quadrotor pitch angle close to zero and near-convex. The outputs of TS$^2$P algorithm for different windows are shown in Fig. \[fig:AllWindows\] with $N=4$ along with their inverse average (stacked) flow magnitudes $\Xi$, illustrating that our detection algorithm is independent of shape and size of the opening. A canny edge detector is run on $\Xi$ followed by morphological operations to obtain $\mathcal{C}$.
The second experiment is designed to test the noise sensitivity of TS$^2$P. The intuition is that as $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}}\to\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}}$, noisier the detection result . The outputs for different $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}}$ and $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:DiffDist\] when $N=4$. This is because the fidelity of $\Xi$ becomes less and is more prone to noise. By increasing $N$ the noise gets averaged out across frames improving the fidelity of $\Xi$.
![Top Row (left to right): Quadrotor view at $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}} = 1.5, 2.6, 3$m respectively with $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}}=5.7$m. Bottom Row: Respective $\Xi$ outputs for $N=4$. Observe how the fidelity of $\Xi$ reduces as $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}} \to \prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}}$, making the detection more noisy. *(white boxes show the location of the gap in Figs. \[fig:DiffDist\] to \[fig:DiffN\].)*[]{data-label="fig:DiffDist"}](Images/DiffDist-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In the third experiment, we present detection outputs for different values of $N$, image baselines and image sizes. The effect of $N$ has been already discussed previously. Having a very small baseline results in effectively dropping the value of $N$ and vice-versa. The results from different sized images as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:DiffImageSizes\] show that the detection algorithm can work even on a very small quadrotor which can only carry a very low-resolution camera (as low as 32 $\times$ 48 pixels). Our algorithm can also handle dynamic noises very well though being modelled as a gaussian for the discussion. However, one can notice that the results improve significantly with increase in $N$ (Fig. \[fig:DiffN\]) demonstrating the advantage of TS$^2$P.
Gap detection using TS$^2$P almost always results in an eroded version of the true gap. This is good for safe maneuvers like the one considered in this paper. However, aggressive flight algorithms might suffer due to conservative results. This can be mitigated by tuning the values of image baselines, $N$ and the trajectory of the quadrotor to obtain minimum erosion results. Tuning these parameters is easy when a prior about the scene is known or the flow algorithms are so fast that one can actively change the detection trajectory so as to maximize the coverage on the part of the contour least ‘seen’. The dynamic choice of these parameters comes into the scope of our future work.
In the last experiment we present alternative approaches including state-of-the-art methods which can be used to find the gap. The methods can be subdivided into structure based approaches and stuctureless approaches. The structure based approaches can be defined as the set of approaches where a full 3D reconstruction of the scene is computed, whereas, stuctureless approaches do not. The structure based approaches presented are DSO [@DSO] – Direct Sparse Odometry, depth from hardware stereo cameras [@SLAMDunk] and Stereo SLAM – Simultaneous Localization and mapping using Stereo Cameras and IMU [@SLAMDunk]. The data for the structured approaches were collected using a Parrot$^\text{\textregistered}$ SLAMDunk [@SLAMDunk]. The structureless approaches presented are MonoDepth [@MonoDepth] – deep learning based monocular depth estimation and the proposed TS$^2$P on two different deep learning based dense optical flow algorithms, namely, FlowNet2 [@FlowNet2], SpyNet [@SpyNet] and DIS [@DIS]. Table \[tab:DetectionTable\] shows the comparison of the stated methods averaged over 150 trials.
![Comparison of different philosophies to gap detection. Top row (left to right): DSO, Stereo Depth, MonoDepth, TS$^2$P. Bottom row shows the detected gap overlayed on the corresponding input image. *(green: $\mathcal{G} \cap \mathcal{O}$, yellow: false negative $\mathcal{G} \cap \mathcal{O}^{\prime}$, red: false positive $\mathcal{G}^{\prime} \cap \mathcal{O}$.)*[]{data-label="fig:StructuredVsUnstructuredApproaches"}](Images/StructuredVsUnstructuredApproaches-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:StructuredVsUnstructuredApproaches\] compares the results of DSO, stereo depth, MonoDepth and our method (TS$^2$P) with the ground truth. It can be inferred that the MonoDepth results are extremely noisy (even with different models) making it impossible to detect the gap as the images in our paper were never “seen” during training. Note that we don’t retrain or finetune any of the deep learning models in this paper. Retraining MonoDepth and other deep learning based methods used in this paper on our dataset might lead to better results. Whereas, DSO and stereo depth results can used to detect the opening with some filtering. Stereo SLAM and DSO are slow in the map building stage (taking about 6s and 12s respectively), however, once the map is built and the algorithms are in the localization stage the depth (or scaled depth) are obtained at 20Hz. The Stereo SLAM and Stereo Depth were run on the SLAMDunk with an NVIDIA Jetson TK1 processor which is much slower than the NVIDIA Jetson TX2 processor used for running DSO and other methods.
Fig. \[fig:DiffFlowAlgorithms\] compares different optical flow methods used for TS$^2$P. Though SpyNet and DIS optical flow are faster, FlowNet2 outputs significantly better results at the edges which is important for obtaining a good gap detection – this can be observed by looking at $\Xi$ for each algorithm.
After the gap detection has been performed, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are computed from the detected gap $\mathcal{C}$. Fig. \[fig:Tracking\] shows $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ being propagated across time as the quadrotor is in pursuit of going through the gap with the update of $\mathbf{x}_s$. A comparison of tracking using different methods are given in Table \[tab:TrackingTable\]. Clearly, KLT outperforms all other methods with a theoretical maximum quadrotor speed of 8 ms$^{-1}$ in the given scene. The theoretical maximum speed is calculated for a global shutter camera in such a way that the motion parallax is constrained within one pixel for the scene with $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}} \sim 2.6$m and $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}} \sim 5.7$m. The calculation assumes that none of the tracking/matching methods work when the motion blur is more than one pixel. However, most of the methods can work well upto some pixels of motion blur, this will in-turn increase the theoretical maximum speed by this factor. If a rolling shutter camera is used without rolling shutter compensation, the theoretical maximum speed value has to be divided by the factor of blur caused by rolling shutter. We achieved a practical maximum speed of 2.5ms$^{-1}$ in our experiments. We were limited to this speed due to the acceleration constraints on the Bebop 2 and the rolling shutter camera.
We achieved a remarkable success rate of 85$\%$ over 150 trials for different arbitrary shaped windows under a wide range of conditions which includes a window with a minimum tolerance of just 5cm (Fig. \[fig:QuadRectWindow\]). Success is defined as window detection output $\mathcal{O}$ having at least 75% overlap with the ground truth and traversal through the gap without collision. Failure cases also include the optimization failures and/or feature tracking failures for structure based approaches. For TS$^2$P, we define Detection Rate (DR), Average False Negative (AFN) and Average False Positive (AFP) as follows (AFN and AFP are computed only for successful trails):
![Left Column: Images used to compute $\Xi$. Middle Column (top to bottom): $\Xi$ outputs for DIS Flow, SpyNet and FlowNet2. Right Column: Gap Detection outputs. *(green: $\mathcal{G} \cap \mathcal{O}$, yellow: false negative $\mathcal{G} \cap \mathcal{O}^{\prime}$, red: false positive $\mathcal{G}^{\prime} \cap \mathcal{O}$.*[]{data-label="fig:DiffFlowAlgorithms"}](Images/DiffFlowAlgorithms-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Top row (left to right): Quadrotor view at image sizes of $384 \times 576$, $192 \times 288$, $96 \times 144$, $48 \times 72$, $32 \times 48$. Note all images are re-scaled to $384 \times 576$ for better viewing. Bottom row shows the respective $\Xi$ outputs for $N=4$.[]{data-label="fig:DiffImageSizes"}](Images/DiffImageSizes-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Top two rows show the input images. The third row shows the $\Xi$ outputs when only the first 2, 4 and all 8 images are used.[]{data-label="fig:DiffN"}](Images/DiffN-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Quadrotor traversing an unknown window with a minimum tolerance of just 5cm. *(red dashed line denotes $\mathcal{C}$.)*[]{data-label="fig:QuadRectWindow"}](Images/QuadRectWindow2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
\
$$\resizebox{0.75\columnwidth}{!}{$\text{DR} = \cfrac{\sum_{k=1}^{\text{Num. Trails}}\left(\lambda_D^k\right)}{\text{Num. Trails}}; \lambda_D^k = \left(\cfrac{\overline{\overline{\mathcal{G}\cap \mathcal{O}}}}{{\overline{\overline{\mathcal{G}}}}}\right)^k \geq 0.75$}$$
$$\resizebox{0.65\columnwidth}{!}{$\text{AFN} = \cfrac{\sum_{k=1}^{\text{Num. Succ. Trails}}\left(\lambda_N^k\right)}{\text{Num. Succ. Trails}}; \lambda_N^k = \left(\cfrac{\overline{\overline{\mathcal{G}\cap \mathcal{O^{\prime}}}}}{{\overline{\overline{\mathcal{G}}}}}\right)^k$}$$
$$\resizebox{0.65\columnwidth}{!}{$\text{AFP} = \cfrac{\sum_{k=1}^{\text{Num. Succ. Trails}}\left(\lambda_P^k\right)}{\text{Num. Succ. Trails}}; \lambda_P^k = \left(\cfrac{\overline{\overline{\mathcal{G^{\prime}}\cap \mathcal{O}}}}{{\overline{\overline{\mathcal{G}}}}}\right)^k$}$$
where $\mathcal{A}^\prime$ is the negation of the set $\mathcal{A}$.
Conclusions {#sec:Conc}
===========
We present a minimalist philosophy to mimic insect behaviour to solve complex problems with minimal sensing and active movement to simplify the problem in hand. This philosophy was used to develop a method to find an unknown gap and fly through it using only a monocular camera and onboard sensing. A comprehensive comparison and analysis is provided. To our knowledge, this is the first paper which addresses the problem of gap detection of an unknown shape and location with a monocular camera and onboard sensing. As a parting thought, IMU data can be coupled with the monocular camera to get a scale of the window and plan for aggressive maneuvers.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Konstantinos Zampogiannis for helpful discussions and feedback.
Robustness of TS$^2$P against different textures
------------------------------------------------
Optical flow algorithms are generally biased to specific textures, and there is a high correlation between highly textured surfaces and good optical flow computation. To demonstrate the robustness of our approach (TS$^2$P) we test the algorithm against ten additional setups. The various scenarios are tabulated in Table \[tab:CasesTable\]. Each scenario is a combination of different textures from the following set: Bumpy, Leaves, Door, Newspaper, Wall, Low-Texture and Cloth. We now describe each of textures used.
*Bumpy* texture provides an uneven texture over the original newspaper scenario. These “bumps” are made of crumpled paper. The depth (protrusion) of the bumps are large and are about 25% of the distance to gap from the quadrotor’s initial position. This scenario mimics the uneven texture on rock walls around a cave opening, for example.
*Leaves* texture mimics foliage. In this setup magnolia and .. leaves are glued onto foam-board. The two leaves used are of very different sizes and shapes. The leaves texture are also uneven with depth variation as large as 10% of the distance to the quadrotor’s initial position. We use both sides of the leaves. The front-side of the leaves are of a glossy texture with very high reflectance while the back-side are of matte texture with very low reflectance. Also, the leaves look similar to each other. This texture provides similar repeating patterns and large changes in reflectance.
*Door* texture is a wall with a door. Both these are white with very low texture.
*Newspaper* texture is the setup similar to the one used in the main paper. Newspaper is glued onto foam-board. This presents an artificial high-texture scenario.
*Wall* texture is foam-core with a small amount of logos. We consider this as a medium-texture scenario.
*Low-Texture* is white foam-core with a few scribbles near the window which are required for tracking. This is artificially crafted to mimic a minimal-textured plain wall with windows.
*Cloth* texture is created by the usage of wrinkled bed sheets. This scenario mimics hanging curtains, hanging paintings and hanging flags.
A combination of the aforementioned textures creates scenarios which test the bias of the TS$^2$P algorithm. In all the above cases, $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{F}}} \sim 2.8$m and $\prescript{0}{}{Z_{\mathcal{B}}} \sim 5.6$m and $N=3$ frames are used for stacking/averaging in all the cases.
Our approach works in most of the scenarios as presented in Fig. \[fig:ExtraCases\] since it uses deep learning based optical flow to estimate the position of the gap in the image plane. Even in the low-textured scenarios, the window detection output $\mathcal{O}$ still has at least 75% overlap with the ground truth as mentioned in our paper. TS$^2$P works even with no textures on one of the foreground or background. Though tracking the $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ without any textures is not possible.
{width="\textwidth"}
[^1]: Manuscript received February 15, 2018; accepted May 19, 2018. Date of publication June 4, 2018; date of current version June 15, 2018. This letter was recommended for publication by Associate Editor V. Lippiello and Editor J. Roberts upon evaluation of the reviewers’ comments. This work was supported in part by the Brin Family Foundation, in part by the Northrop Grumman Corporation, and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants SMA 1540917 and CNS 1544797, respectively. *(Nitin J. Sanket and Chahat Deep Singh contributed equally to this work.) (Corresponding author: Nitin J. Sanket.)*
[^2]: All authors are associated with University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, College Park. Emails: {[nitin, chahat, kganguly, fer, yiannis]{}} [@umiacs.umd.edu]{}
[^3]: Digital Object Identifier (DOI): see top of this page.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present explicit models for Shimura curves $X_D$ and Atkin-Lehner quotients $X_D/\langle {{\omega }}_m \rangle $ of them of genus $2$. We show that several equations conjectured by Kurihara are correct and compute for them the kernel of Ribet’s isogeny $J_0(D)^{new}\rightarrow J_D$ between the new part of the Jacobian of the modular curve $X_0(D)$ and the Jacobian of $X_D$.'
address: 'Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada IV (EUPVG), Av. Victor Balaguer s/n, 08800 Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain.'
author:
- 'Josep González, Victor Rotger'
title: Equations of Shimura curves of genus $2$
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $B_D$ be the indefinite quaternion algebra over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ of reduced discriminant $D=p_1\cdot ... \cdot p_{2r}$ for pairwise different prime numbers $p_i$ and let $X_D/{\mathbb{Q}}$ be the Shimura curve attached to $B_D$. As it was shown by Shimura [@Sh67], $X_D$ is the coarse moduli space of abelian surfaces with quaternionic multiplication by $B_D$.
Let $W=\{ {{\omega }}_m: m\mid D\}\subseteq {\operatorname{Aut}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}(X_D)$ be the group of Atkin-Lehner involutions. For any $m\mid D$, we shall denote $X_D^{(m)}=X_D/\langle {{\omega }}_m\rangle $ the quotient of the Shimura curve $X_D$ by ${{\omega }}_m$. The importance of the curves $X_D^{(m)}$ is enhanced by their moduli interpretation as curves embedded in Hilbert-Blumenthal surfaces and Igusa’s threefold $\mathcal A _2$ (cf.[@Ro2],[@Ro3]).
The classical modular case arises when $D=1$. In this case, automorphic forms of these curves admit Fourier expansions around the cusp of infinity and we know explicit generators of the field of functions of such curves. Also, explicit methods are known to determine bases of the space of regular differentials of them, which are used to compute equations for quotients of modular curves.
When $D\not =1$, the absence of cusps has been an obstacle for explicit approaches to Shimura curves. Explicit methods to handle with functions and regular differential forms on these curves are less accessible and we refer the reader to [@Bay] for progress in this regard. For this reason, at present few equations of Shimura curves are known, all of them of genus $0$ or $1$ (cf. [@Kur], [@JoLi], [@Elk]). In addition, in a later work, Kurihara conjectured equations for all Shimura curves of genus $2$ and for several curves of genus $3$ and $5$, though he was not able to give a proof for his guesses (cf. [@Kur2]).
In this paper, we present equations for thirteen genus two bielliptic Shimura curves and Atkin-Lehner quotients of them.
In particular, we prove that the equations suggested in [@Kur2] for $X_{26}$, $X_{38}$ and $X_{58}$ are unconditionally correct. In turn, this has allowed us to explicitly determine the kernel of Ribet’s isogeny $J_0(D)^{new}{{\rightarrow }}{\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D)$ and to prove that Ogg’s prediction in [@Ogg2] is also correct for these cases.
The remaining $10$ curves presented here are the only bielliptic curves $X_D^{(m)}$, $m\not =1$, of genus $2$. Phrased in other terms, this is the complete list of all genus two curves $X_D^{(m)}$ whose hyperelliptic involution is not of Atkin-Lehner type. Note that a phenomenon of this kind was already encountered in the modular setting by the curve $X_0(37)$. Our method can also be used to determine equations for genus two bielliptic Shimura curves with nontrivial $\Gamma _0$-level structure, of which there exist $89$. For the sake of brevity, these will not be considered in this work.
Explicit models of bielliptic curves of genus $2$
=================================================
\[explicit\] Let $C$ be a genus two curve defined over a field $k$ of characteristic not $2$ or $3$ and $w$ its hyperelliptic involution. Assume ${\operatorname{Aut}}_k (C)$ contains a subgroup $\langle
u_1,u_2=u_1. w\rangle $ isomorphic to $({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^2$ and let us denote by $C_{u_i}$ the elliptic quotient $C/\langle u_i\rangle$. If the two elliptic curves $$E_1: Y^2=X^3+ A_1 X+B_1\,,\quad E_2: Y^2=X^3+ A_2 X+B_2\,,$$ are isomorphic to $C_{u_1}$ and $C_{u_2}$ resp. over $k$, then $C$ admits a hyperelliptic equation of the form $y^2=a x^6+ b x^4+ c
x^2 +d$, where $a\in k^*$, $b\in k$ are solutions of the following system: $$\label{eq1}
\left \{
\begin{array}{ccc}
27 a^3 B_2&= &2A_1^3+ 27 B_1^2 + 9A_1 B_1 b+ 2A_1^2b^2 -B_1 b^3
\\ 9 a^2 A_2&=&-3 A_1^2 + 9 B_1 b+ A_1 b^2
\end{array} \right. \,,$$ $c=(3A_1 + b^2)/(3a)$, $ d=(27 B_1+9 A_1 b + b^3)/(27 a^2)$ and the involution $u_1$ on $C$ is given by $(x,y)\mapsto (-x,y)$.
[**Proof.**]{} If $C$ has a nonhyperelliptic involution $u_1$ defined over $k$, then $C/k$ admits an equation of the form $$\label{eq2}
y^2 = a x^6+ b x^4+ c x^2 + d\,, \quad a,b,c,d\in k\,,$$ and the involution $u_1$ acts sending $(x,y)\mapsto (-x,y)$. Indeed, due to the fact that the morphisms $C\rightarrow C/\langle u_i\rangle$ are defined over $k$ there are $\omega_1, \omega_2\in
H^0(C,\Omega_{C/k}^1)$ such that $u_1^{*}\omega_1=\omega_1$, $u_1^{*}\omega_2=-\omega_2$. The functions $x=\omega_1/\omega_2$, $y= dx/\omega_2$ must satisfy a relation of the form $y^2=f(x)$, where $f\in k[x]$ has degree $5$ or $6$ and does not have double roots (see Proposition 2.1 in [@gogo]). Then, $u_1^{*}(x)=-x$ and $u_1^{*}(y)=y$. It follows $f(-x)=x$ and, in particular, $\deg
f=6$.
Given an equation for $C$ as (\[eq2\]), the elliptic curves $$C_1: Y^2= a X^3+ b X^2+ c X+d\,,\quad C_2: Y^2= d X^3+ c X^2+ b X+
a$$ are $k$-isomorphic to $C_{u_1}$ i $C_{u_2}$ respectively, due to the fact that the nonconstant morphisms $\pi_1: C\rightarrow C_1$, $(x,y)\mapsto (x^2\,, \,y)$ i $\pi_2: C\rightarrow C_2$, $(x,y)\mapsto (1/x^2\,, \,\, y/x^3)$ are defined over $k$ and satisfy $\pi_i\circ u_i=\pi_i$, $i\leq 2$. Therefore, every curve $C_{u_i}$ is isomorphic over $k$ to the curve $ Y^2= X^3+ A_{u_i}
X+ B_{u_i}$, where $$\label{sist}\left \{
\begin{array}{cc}
A_{u_1}=-b^2/3 + a.c\,, & B_{u_1}=2\,b^3/27 - a.b.c/3 + a^2.d\,,\\
A_{u_2}=-c^2/3 + b.d \,, & B_{u_2}=2\,c^3/27 - b.c.d/3 + a.d^2\,,
\end{array}
\right.$$ and, thus, there exist $\mu_i \in k^{*}$, $i\leq 2$, such that: $$A_{u_i} \mu_i^4=A_i\,,\quad B_{u_i} \mu_i^6=B_i \,.$$ It can be easily checked that the curve $$y^2= a \frac{\mu_1^4}{\mu_2^2} x^6+ b\mu_1^2 x^4+ c \mu_2 ^2 x^2
+d \frac{\mu_2 ^4}{\mu_1^2}$$ is $k$-isomorphic to $C$. The statement is an immediate consequence of rewriting the system (\[sist\]) for this equation, since $a\neq 0$ and now $ A_{u_i} =A_i$, $B_{u_i} =B_i$. $\Box$
Given two elliptic curves $E_1$, $E_2$ over $k$ and a group isomorphism $\psi:E_1[2](\bar k)\rightarrow E_2[2](\bar k)$ which is not the restriction of an isomorphism between $E_1$ and $E_2$ over $\bar k$, Proposition 4 in [@HoLePo] yields a genus two curve $C/\bar k$ such that ${\operatorname{Jac}}C\simeq (E_1\times E_2
)/\{(P,\psi (P)):P\in E_1[2]\}$.
In our case, when we consider the elliptic curves defined over $k$ $$C_1: Y^2= a X^3+ b X^2+ c X+d\,,\quad C_2: Y^2= d X^3+ c X^2+ b X+
a$$ and the isomorphism of $G_k$-modules $\psi: C_1[2](\bar
k)\rightarrow C_2[2](\bar k)$, $(x,0)\mapsto (1/x,0)$, the formula of the quoted proposition yields a curve which is shown to be isomorphic to $C:y^2=a x^6+ b x^4+c x^2+d$ over $k$.
Hence, system (\[eq1\]) can be viewed as a different way to collect all curves $C$ obtained from all $\psi$ as above. By Proposition 3 of [@HoLePo], if $E_1\not \simeq E_2$ over $\bar
k$, the system has six different solutions $(a,b,c,d)\in\bar k^4$ and there is a unique solution defined over $k$ if and only $(E_1\times E_2)(\bar k) $ has a unique nontrivial $G_k$-stable subgroup $G$ isomorphic to $({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^2$, and in this case ${\operatorname{Jac}}C=(E_1\times E_2)/G$. Here, by the trivial $G_k$-stable subgroups, we mean $E _1[2](\bar k)\times \{0\}$ and $\{0\}\times
E _2[2](\bar k)$.
Shimura curves of genus two
===========================
Let $B$ be an indefinite quaternion algebra over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ of discriminant $D$ and let $X_D$ denote the Shimura curve attached to it. For any integer $N\geq 1$, let $X_0(N)$ be the modular curve of level $N$ and $J_0(N) = {\operatorname{Jac}}(X_0(N))$. By $J_0(N)^{new}$, we shall denote the new part of $J_0(N)$ viewed as an optimal quotient of it. Ribet’s isogeny theorem establishes the existence of a Hecke invariant isogeny $$J_0(D)^{new}{{\rightarrow }}{\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D)$$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, though its proof relies on the fact that both abelian varieties have the same $L$-series and therefore is not explicit (cf.[@Ri], see also [@Ar]).
The problem of determining the possible kernels of the isogeny has been studied by Ogg in [@Ogg2], the underlying idea being that the knowledge of the group of connected components of the Néron models of $J_0(D)^{new}$ and ${\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D)$ at a prime $p\mid D$ yields necessary conditions to be satisfied by the isogenies between them. As in [@Ogg2], the component groups of ${\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D)$ can be handled by Raynaud’s method and the theory of Čerednik-Drinfeld. However, the component groups of the optimal quotients $J_0(D)^{new}$ were only recently determined by Conrad and Stein in [@CoSt].
The aim of this section is to provide equations for the three Shimura genus two curves and to make Ribet’s isogeny explicit for these examples.
\[26\]
The curves $X_D$ with $D=26,38,58$ are the unique Shimura curves of genus two. Moreover,
1. Equations for the curves $X_D$ are given in the following table: $$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
D & X_D \\
\hline
26 & y^2 =-2 x^6+19 x^4- 24 x^2-169 \\
\hline
38 & y^2=-19 x^6 -82 x^4 -59 x^2 -16 \\
\hline
58 & 2 y^2= - x^6-39 x^4- 431x^2- 841 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
2. In all of three cases $J_0(D)^{new}$ is the Jacobian of a genus two curve $C_D$ defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and there is a cuspidal divisor $c(D)$ in $J_0(D)^{new}$ and an exact sequence $$0{{\rightarrow }}\langle c(D)\rangle {{\rightarrow }}J_0(D)^{new}{{\rightarrow }}{\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D){{\rightarrow }}0.$$
Equations for the curves $C_D$, the cuspidal divisors $c(D)$ and their orders are given in the following table:
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
D & C_D & c(D) & |\langle c(D)\rangle |\\
\hline
26 & y^2= 13x^6 + 10x^4 - 3x^2-4& (1/13)-(\infty) & 7\\
\hline
38 & y^2 = x^6 + 2x^4 + x^2+ 76 & (1/19)-(\infty) & 5 \\
\hline
58 & y^2= x^6 + 6x^4- 7x^2+16& (1/29)-(\infty) & 5\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
[**Proof.**]{} It follows from Ogg’s list of hyperelliptic Shimura curves (cf. [@Ogg1]) that $D=26, 38$ and $58$ are the only values of $D$ for which $g(X_D)=2$. These curves are bielliptic; more precisely, in Cremona’s notation, by [@Rob], it follows that for these values of $D$, $X_D/\langle w_2\rangle$ is the elliptic curve $B2$ of conductor $D$ while $X_{26}/\langle w_{13}\rangle$, $X_{38}/\langle w_{19}\rangle$, $X_{58}/\langle w_{58}\rangle$ are the elliptic curves $26A_1$, $38A_1$ and $58A_1$, respectively. It can be checked that for these values of $D$, the classes of isomorphism over $\bar {\mathbb{Q}}$ of both curves are different. Applying Proposition \[explicit\], we obtain that in all these cases the system (\[eq1\]) gives a unique genus two curve defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, which is given in the first table of the statement.
Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be the two normalized newforms of $S_2(\Gamma_0(D))$ and let $E_A$ and $E_B$ be the elliptic curves over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ which are the strong Weil curve in the class of isogeny $A$ and $B$ respectively. We know that $J_0(D)^{new}$ and $E_A\times E_B$ are isogenous over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We compute the following lattices of ${\mathbb{C}}$: $$\Lambda_i=\{ \int_{\gamma}f_i(q)dq/q:\gamma \in H_1(X_0(D),{\mathbb{Z}})\}\,,
\quad 1\leq i\leq 2\,,$$ and the lattice of ${\mathbb{C}}^2$: $$\Lambda=\{
(\int_{\gamma}f_1(q)dq/q,\int_{\gamma}f_2(q)dq/q):\gamma \in
H_1(X_0(D),{\mathbb{Z}})\}.$$ We obtain $(\Lambda_1\times \Lambda_2)/\Lambda\simeq ({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^2$ with $\Lambda$ being different from the lattices $ (1/2\cdot
\Lambda_1)\times \Lambda_2$ and $\Lambda_1\times(1/2\cdot
\Lambda_2)$. This result implies that there exists a nontrivial $G_{{\mathbb{Q}}}$-stable subgroup $G$ of $E_A\times E_B$ isomorphic to $({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^2$ such that $J_0(D)^{new}=(E_A\times E_B)/G$. In consequence, by [@HoLePo], we know that $J_0(D)^{new}$ is the Jacobian of a genus two curve $C_D/{\mathbb{Q}}$ (of course, for $D=26$, it was already known). Again, applying Proposition \[explicit\], we obtain a unique genus two curve defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, which is given in the table of the statement. Note that equations for $X_0(26)$ were already known (cf. [@Go]).
Now, we consider the morphism $\phi$ obtained as the composition of the following morphisms defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ $$J_0(D)^{new}\stackrel{\mu}\longrightarrow E_A\times
E_B\stackrel{{\operatorname{id}}_A\times \phi_B}\longrightarrow E_{A}\times
E_{B_2}\stackrel{\nu}\longrightarrow {\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D)\,,$$ where $\ker\mu,\ker \nu\simeq ({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^2$, ${\operatorname{id}}_A$ is the identity on $E_A$ and $\phi_B$ is the cyclic isogeny from $E_B$ to $E_{B_2}$. One can check (see [@Cre]) that in all these cases the group $\ker
({\operatorname{id}}_A\times\phi_B )$ is a subgroup of $E_A({\mathbb{Q}})\times E_B({\mathbb{Q}})$ of cardinality $ 7$, $ 5$, $ 5$ depending on whether $D$ is $26$, $38$ or $58$ and, moreover, this group is the unique subgroup of rational points of $E_A({\mathbb{Q}})\times E_B({\mathbb{Q}})$ with such a cardinality. Since ${\operatorname{id}}_A\times \phi_B $ has odd degree, this morphism maps the kernel of $\hat \mu$ to the kernel of $\nu$ because both kernels are the unique nontrivial $G_{{\mathbb{Q}}}$-stable subgroups isomorphic to $({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^2$ in their abelian varieties. Then, there is a morphism $\phi':J_0(D)^{new}\rightarrow {\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D)$ such that $
\phi=[2]\phi'$ and, thus, $|\ker \phi'|=|\ker ({\operatorname{id}}_A\times
\phi_B)|=|\ker (\phi_B)|$.
Since $D$ is square-free, we recall that cuspidal divisors are rational points in $J_0(D)$ and in particular in $J_0(D)^{new}$. The cuspidal divisors $c(D)$ given in the table have order $7$, $15$ and $35$ in $J_0(D)$ for $D=26,38$ and $58$ respectively. For the cases $D=38$ and $58$, we compute $(\int_{c(D)}f_1(q)
dq/q,\int_{c(D)}f_2(q) dq/q)\in {\mathbb{Q}}\otimes \Lambda$ and check that its order in $({\mathbb{Q}}\otimes \Lambda)/\Lambda$ is $5$. This concludes the proof. $\Box$
The three equations agree with the equations suggested in [@Kur2]. Moreover, Ogg suggested in [@Ogg2 p. 213], that the minimal degree of Ribet’s isogeny should be the numerator of $\frac{p+1}{12}$ whenever $D=2 p$. This agrees with the table above. More precisely, when $D=26$, $(0)-(1/2)+(1/13)-(\infty)=2(1/13)-2(\infty)$ in $J_0(26)$, which proves that the prediction done by Ogg in [@Ogg2] about the kernel of this isogeny is again right.
It can also be checked that for $D=26,38$ the group $\langle c(D)\rangle $ is generated by $3(0)-3(\infty)$ while for $D=58$ it is generated by $(0)-(\infty)$, and in all three cases the kernel of the isogeny is a subgroup of $\langle
(0)-(\infty)\rangle$. It would be interesting to know whether the pattern suggested by the examples holds in greater generality.
Theorem \[26\] provides an explicit model $y^2=ax^6+bx^4+cx^2+d$ for $X_{26}$, $X_{38}$ and $X_{58}$ which is known to have a cusp singuarity at the only point $P_{\infty }=[0:1:0]$ of infinity. A smooth model of the curve is obtained by blowing up the point; the preimage of $P_{\infty }$ by the normalizing map are two points and the coordinates of everyone of them generates ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt {a})$. In the three cases above ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt {a})$ is quadratic imaginary, as it was expected since Shimura curves fail to have real points [@Sh2].
Explicit models of Atkin-Lehner quotients of Shimura curves
===========================================================
Let $D=p_1\cdot ...\cdot p_{2 r}$, $r\geq 1$, and $m\mid D$. Let $X_D^{(m)} = X_D/\langle {{\omega }}_m\rangle $ be the quotient of the Shimura curve $X_D$ by the Atkin-Lehner involution ${{\omega }}_m$.
Let $\mathbb T = \langle T_{\ell }, {{\omega }}_p: \ell \nmid D, p\mid D
\rangle _{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ and $\underline{\mathbb T} = \langle
\underline{T}_{\ell }, \underline{{{\omega }}}_p: \ell \nmid D, p\mid D
\rangle _{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ denote the Hecke algebra regarded as $\mathbb T =
{\operatorname{End}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}({\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D))\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}$ and $\underline{\mathbb T}
={\operatorname{End}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}(J_0(D)^{new})\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}$, respectively. Ribet’s isogeny ${\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D){{\rightarrow }}J_0(D)^{new}$ provides an isomorphism between the vector spaces of regular differentials and identifies $T_{\ell }$ with $\underline{T}_{\ell }$ and ${{\omega }}_m$ with $\mu
(m) \underline{{{\omega }}}_m$ for any $m\mid D$, where $\mu
(m)=(-1)^{\sharp \{ \mathrm{primes }\ p\mid m \}}$.
\[g2\] The genus of $X_D^{(m)}$ is $2$ if and only if $(D,m)\in \{
(35,5),(39,3),(51,17),\\(55,11),(57,3),
(62,31),(65,5),\,(65,13),(69, 23),(74,2),(74,37),(82,2),\,(85, 5),
(85,\\ 85),\, (86, 2),\,(86,43),\,(87,3),\,(91,91),\,
(93,93),\,(94,47),\,(106,2),\,(115,115),\,(118,2),\\(122,61),\,(123,123),
(129,43),\,
(141,141),\,(142,2),\,(142,142),\,(155,155),\,(158,158),\\(161,
161),(166,83),(178,178),(183,183),(237,79),(254,254),(326,326),(446,446)\}.$
[**Proof.**]{} Assume that the pair $(D, m)$ is such that $g(X_D^{(m)})=2$. Since ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X_D^{m})\supseteq W/\langle {{\omega }}_m
\rangle \simeq ({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^{2 r -1}$ and curves of genus two contain at most two copies of the cyclic group of order $2$, it follows that necessarily $r=1$ and hence $D=p\cdot q$.
Let $\ell \nmid D$ be a prime of good reduction of the curve. Following [@Ogg1 §5], we obtain $\varphi (D)(\ell
-1)/12\leq |\widetilde{X}_D ({\mathbb{F}}_{\ell ^2})|\leq 2
|\widetilde{X}_D^{(m)} ({\mathbb{F}}_{\ell ^2})|$, where $\widetilde{X}_D$ denotes the special fiber of Morita’s integral model of $X_D$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\ell }$. Since $\widetilde{X}_D^{(m)}$ is hyperelliptic, it admits a map of degree $2$ onto the projective line and hence $|\widetilde{X}_D^{(m)}({\mathbb{F}}_{\ell ^2})|\leq 2 (\ell ^2 + 1)$. Thus, $\varphi (D)\leq 48 (\ell ^2 + 1)/(\ell -1)$. Since $g(X_6)=0$, we may choose either $\ell =2$ or $\ell = 3$ and hence $\varphi (D)\leq 240$. A computation of genera now yields the lemma. $\Box $
\[AL\]
A Shimura curve $X_D^{(m)}$ of genus two admits a bielliptic involution if and only if $(D, m) \in \{(91, 91), (123, 123),\,
(141, 141),\, (142, 2),\, (142, 142),\,(155, \\ 155),(158, 158),
(254, 254), (326, 326), (446,446)\} $.
In all these $10$ cases, the hyperelliptic involution $w$ on $X_D^{(m)}$ is not an Atkin-Lehner involution and ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X_D^{(m)})=\langle w\rangle \times W/\langle {{\omega }}_m\rangle \simeq
{\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}$.
[**Proof.** ]{} By the same arguments as in [@Ro], Proposition 1, since ${\operatorname{Jac}}(X_D^{(m)})$ is isogenous to a product of simple abelian varieties of real ${\operatorname{GL}}_2$-type, it follows that the group of automorphisms of $X_D^{(m)}$ is abelian and only contains involutions defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
As it is checked from the genus formulas in [@Ogg1], the $10$ cases in the above table are exactly those of Lemma \[g2\] for which the single Atkin-Lehner involution $u$ in $W/\langle {{\omega }}_m\rangle\subseteq {\operatorname{Aut}}(X_D^{(m)})$ is not the hyperelliptic involution $w$, and hence is bielliptic. Since $\langle w,
u\rangle \subseteq {\operatorname{Aut}}(X_D^{(m)})\simeq ({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})^s$ for some $s\geq 1$ and $g(X_D^{(m)})=2$, it follows that $s\leq 2$ and hence $s=2$.
For the $29$ remaining cases not quoted in Proposition \[AL\], the single Atkin-Lehner involution in $W/\langle {{\omega }}_m\rangle\subseteq {\operatorname{Aut}}(X_D^{(m)})$ is the hyperelliptic involution of the genus two curve $X_D^{(m)}$. We know from Kuhn [@Ku] that every quotient of a genus two curve $C/{\mathbb{Q}}$ by a nonhyperelliptic involution defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ has a rational point and thus is an elliptic curve over ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
Among these $29$ curves, it turns out by checking Cremona tables, that their Jacobians are all simple over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ except for $(D, m)= (57,3), (106,2)$ and $(118,2)$. Indeed, this follows from the fact that these are the unique three cases such that there exist two different isogeny classes of elliptic curves of conductor $D$ and invariant by $\mu (m)\underline{{{\omega }}}_m$. It is then clear that these $26$ curves $X_D^{(m)}$ whose Jacobian is simple over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ can not be bielliptic. As for the values $(D,
m)= (57,3), (106,2)$ and $(118,2)$ is concerned, there exactly two isogeny classes of elliptic curves of level $D$ and invariant by $\mu (m) \underline{{{\omega }}}_m$. Namely, $57B, 57C$; $106A, 106C$; $118B, 118C$, respectively. For each possible choice of elliptic curves $E$ and $E'$ in these two isogeny classes, the abelian surface $E\times E'$ contains no nontrivial $G_{{\mathbb{Q}}}$-stable subgroups isomorphic to $({\mathbb{Z}}/2 {\mathbb{Z}})^2$. In other words, the system (\[eq1\]) admits no rational solution and therefore, $X_D^{(m)}$ can not be a bielliptic curve. $\Box $
\[equations\] Equations for the curves in Proposition \[AL\] and their elliptic quotients are given in the following table:
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline D=p\cdot q & m & X_D^{(m)} & X_D^{(m)}/\langle {{\omega }}_q\rangle &
X_D^{(m)}/\langle w\cdot {{\omega }}_q\rangle \\
\hline
91 = 7\cdot 13 & 91 & y^2=-x^6+19 x^4-3x^2+1 & 91B1 & 91A1 \\
\hline
123 = 3\cdot 41& 123 & y^2 = - 9x^6 + 19x^4+ 5 x^2+1& 123A1 & 123B1 \\
\hline
141 = 3\cdot 47 & 141 & y^2 = 27x^6 - 5x^4 - 7x^2 + 1 & 141A1 & 141D1 \\
\hline
142 = 2\cdot 71 & 2 & y^2 = -16x^6 - 87x^4 - 146x^2 - 71 & 142A1 & 142D2 \\
\hline
142 = 2\cdot 71 & 142 & y^2 = 16x^6 + 9x^4 - 10x^2 + 1 & 142A1 & 142B1 \\
\hline
155 = 5\cdot 31 & 155 & y^2 = 25x^6 - 19x^4 + 11x^2 - 1 & 155A1 & 155C1 \\
\hline
158 = 2\cdot 79 & 158 & y^2 = -8x^6 + 9x^4 + 14x^2 + 1 & 158A1 & 158B1 \\
\hline
254= 2\cdot 127 & 254 & y^2 = 8x^6 + 25x^4 - 18x^2 + 1 & 254A1 & 254C1 \\
\hline
326 = 2\cdot 163 & 326 & y^2 = x^6 + 10 x^4 - 63 x^2+4& 326B1 & 326A1 \\
\hline
446 = 2\cdot 223 & 446 & y^2 = -16 x^6 - 7 x^4 + 38 x^2 + 1 & 446B1 & 446A1 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$ Moreover, for all these equations the action of $w_q$ on them is $(x,y)\mapsto (-x,y)$.
[**Proof.**]{} We note that, in all $10$ cases, it follows from Proposition \[AL\] that $m=D$ except for the single case $(D,m)=(142,2)$. Hence, the class of ${{\omega }}_q$ in ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X_D^{(m)})$ is the unique bielliptic involution of the curve that is of Atkin-Lehner type. We have split the proof in five parts in order to ease its reading.
0.3cm [*Step 1: Isogeny and isomorphism classes of the elliptic quotients.*]{}
We firstly determine the isogeny classes of the elliptic curves $E=X_D^{(m)}/\langle {{\omega }}_q\rangle$ and $E'=X_D^{(m)}/\langle
w\cdot {{\omega }}_q\rangle $ of conductor $D$. There are exactly two normalized newforms $f$, $f'$ for $\Gamma _0(D)$ with rational Fourier coefficients whose signs of the eigenvalues for the action of the Atkin-Lehner involutions are the following, depending on whether $m=D$ or $m=p$:
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
m=D & \underline{{{\omega }}}_p & \underline{{{\omega }}}_q \\
\hline f & - & - \\
\hline f' & + & + \\
\hline
\end{array}
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
m=p & \underline{{{\omega }}}_p & \underline{{{\omega }}}_q \\
\hline f & - & - \\
\hline f' & - & + \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Then, the elliptic curves $E$ and $E'$ are isogenous to $A_f$ and $A_f'$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$, respectively. An examination of the $10$ cases shows that, for $(D,m)\in \{ (141,141), (142,142),\\ (158, 158),
(326, 326), (446,446)\}$, the isomorphism classes of $E$ and $E'$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ are determined, because every isogeny class contains a single isomorphism class. These are quoted in the table of the statement. For the remaining cases, we have the following possibilities: $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
(D, m) & E & E' \\
\hline
(91,91) & B_1,B_2,B_3 & A_1 \\
\hline
(123, 123) & A_1, A_2 & B_1 \\
\hline
(142, 2) & A_1 & D_1, D_2 \\
\hline
(155, 155) &A_1, A_2 & C_1 \\
\hline
(254, 254) & A_1, A_2, A_3 & C_1 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
0.3cm [*Step 2: Candidate equations.*]{}
We now proceed to determine a finite set of candidate equations for the $10$ curves $X_D^{(m)}$. We do so by applying Proposition \[explicit\] to every possible pair $(E, E')$ obtained in Step $1$. For every pair, it turns out that system (\[eq1\]) yields one rational solution. This means that, in the five cases $(D, m)$ where there is a single possibility for $(E,E')$, we have already determined an equation for the curve $X_D^{(m)}$, as quoted in Theorem \[equations\]. In the five remaining cases, we obtain the following candidates: $$\begin{array}{|c|c|cccc|}
\hline
(D, m) & (E, E') &C: & a y^2&=&f(x) \\
\hline
(91,91) & (B_1,A_1) & C_{91,1}: & y^2&=&-x^6+19 x^4-3x^2+1 \\
& (B_2,A_1) & C_{91,2}: & y^2& =& 91 x^6+ 43 x^4 + 9 x^2+1 \\
& (B_3,A_1) & C_{91,3}: & 5y^2& =& 2401 x^6-403 x^4+3 x^4-1\\
\hline
(123, 123) & (A_1,B_1) & C_{123,1}: & y^2& =&- 9x^6 + 19x^4+ 5 x^2+1 \\
& (A_2,B_1) & C_{123,2}: & y^2& =& 1681 x^6-419 x^4+35 x^2-1 \\
\hline
(142, 2) & (A_1,D_1) & C_{142,1}: & y^2 &=& 8 x^6 + 33x^4 + 22x^2 + 1 \\
& (A_1,D_2) & C_{142,2}: & y^2 &= &-16x^6 - 87x^4 - 146x^2 - 71 \\
\hline
(155, 155) &(A_1,C_1) & C_{155,1}: & y^2 &=& 25x^6 - 19x^4 + 11x^2 - 1 \\
& (A_2,C_1) & C_{155,2}: & 3 y^2 &=& 961 x^6 - 483x^4 - 45x^2 - 1 \\
\hline
(254, 254) & (A_1,C_1) & C_{254,1}: & y^2& =& 8x^6 + 25x^4 - 18x^2 + 1 \\
& (A_2,C_1) & C_{254,2}: & y^2 & = & 127x^6 - 461x^4 - 51x^2 + 1 \\
& (A_3,C_1) & C_{254,3}: & 71 y^2 & =& x^6 - 76888x^4 - 891x^2 + 2 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$ These equations have been computed such that the bielliptic involution ${{\omega }}_q$ acts as $(x, y)\mapsto (-x, y)$ and hence its two fixed points are those whose $x$-coordinates are $0$. We devote the rest of the proof to discard the wrong equations for $X_D^{(m)}$ from the above in the table, by using suitable sieves.
0.3cm [*Step 3: The sieve of Heegner points fixed by the involutions.*]{}
Let us only consider in this part the four cases when $m=D$. From Proposition \[AL\], ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X_D^{(D)}) = \langle {{\omega }}_q, w\rangle
$. The two fixed points $P$, $Q$ of ${{\omega }}_q$ acting on $X_D^{(D)}$ are the projection from $X_D$ onto $X_D^{(D)}$ of the four points fixed by ${{\omega }}_p$, when we regard it as an automorphism of $X_D$. When $h(-4 p)=1$, it follows from the class field theory on Heegner points (cf. [@JoPh]) that $P$, $Q\in X_D^{(D)}({\mathbb{Q}})$. When $h(-4 p)=2$, it follows that $P$, $Q\in X_D^{(D)}(K)$, where $K$ is a quadratic field such that $K(\sqrt {-p})$ is the Hilbert class field of ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt {-p})$. We thus obtain that, when $(D,
m)=(91,91)$, $(123,123)$ or $(254,254)$ the fixed points $P$, $Q$ lie on $X_D^{(D)}({\mathbb{Q}})$, whereas when $(D,m)=(155,155)$, $P$, $Q\in X_{155}^{(155)}(K)$ for either $K={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt {5})$ or ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt {-1})$.
On the other hand, on the bielliptic model $a y^2 = b x^6 + c x^4
+ d x^2 +e$, the coordinates of the two points fixed by ${{\omega }}_q$ generate ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt {e/a})$. This allows us to discard the equations $C_{91,3}$, $C_{123,2}$, $C_{155,2}$ and $C_{254,3}$. We have thus already determined an equation for $X_{123}^{(123)}$ and $X_{155}^{(155)}$.
0.3cm [*Step 4: The real points sieve.*]{}
Shimura proved in [@Sh2] that $X_D({{\mathbb R}})=\emptyset $. Later, Ogg [@Ogg1] studied the question whether the Atkin-Lehner quotients of Shimura curves admit real points. Namely, he proved that $X_D^{(m)}({{\mathbb R}})\not =\emptyset $ if and only if $(\frac{m}{p})\not =1$ for all $p\mid D$, $p\nmid m$.
Since $(\frac{2}{71})=1$, we deduce that $X_{142}^{(2)}({{\mathbb R}})=\emptyset $ and hence $X_{142}^{(2)}\simeq C_{142,2}$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
0.3cm [*Step 5: The Čerednik-Drinfeld sieve.*]{}
Let us recall the theory of Čerednik-Drinfeld on the bad reduction of the Atkin-Lehner quotients $X_D^{(m)}$ at a fixed prime $p\mid D$ (cf.[@Ba], [@JoLi], [@Kur], [@Ogg2]).
Let $K_p$ denote the quadratic unramified extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ and let $R_p$ be its ring of integers. Over $K_p$, the curves $X_D$ are generalized Mumford curves that admit a $p$-adic uniformization by a Schottky group which is often non-torsion-free. In the terminology of [@JoLi], these are called admissible curves.
Let $h(\delta ,\nu )$ denote the class number of a quaternion Eichler order of level $\nu $ in a quaternion algebra of discriminant $\delta $ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. As shown in [@Kur], $X_D$ admits a proper but often non regular integral model $\mathcal
{X}_D$ over $R_p$ whose special fibre $\widetilde {X}_D/{\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ is the union of $2 h(\frac {D}{p},1)$ irreducible rational components meeting transversally at a total number of $h(\frac
{D}{p},p)$ points. The intersection points of the special fibre are the only possible non regular points of $\mathcal{X}_D$ and the only allowed multiplicities are $m=1,2$ and $3$. The reduction type of $\mathcal{X}_D$ at $p$ is described by a weighted graph by interpreting each component as a vertex, an intersection point $P$ between two components as an edge joining the two vertices and the multiplicity $m$ of $P$ as the weight of the edge.
For every prime $q\leq 13$, it turns out that the dual graph of $X_{p q}$ at $p$ consists of exactly two vertices joined by $g(X_{p q})+1$ edges.
Moreover, the Atkin-Lehner involution ${{\omega }}_{p q}$ lifts to $\mathcal {X}_D$ and switches the two vertices and the quotient graph consists of a single vertex with several loops of multiplicity $1, 2$ or $3$ around it. In consequence, the special fibre of $\mathcal {X}_D/\langle {{\omega }}_{p q}\rangle $ has a single and possibly singular irreducible component. After blowing up the non regular closed points of $\mathcal {X}_D/\langle {{\omega }}_{p
q}\rangle $ as in [@Kur p. 288], we deduce that any two irreducible components of the special fibre of the minimal regular model of $X_D^{(m)}$ meet at most at two different intersection points.
We can contrast this information with the explicit computation of the reduction type of the equations in the above tables at the primes $p\mid D$. This can be accomplished by means of Liu’s package [*genus2reduction*]{}, that computes the minimal regular model of any curve of genus $2$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}[\frac{1}{2}]
$.
The reduction type of $C_{91,1}$ and $C_{91,2}$ at $p=7$ are $I_{\{ 1-1-0\} }$ and $I_{\{ 1-1-1\}}$, respectively. It follows from [@NaUe], the former is the symbol for a single irreducible rational component with two nodes while the latter corresponds to two rational components meeting at three points. Hence, we discard $C_{91,2}$ and conclude that $X_{91}^{(91)}\simeq C_{91,1}$. Similarly, the reduction type of $C_{254,1}$ and $C_{254,2}$ at $p=127$ are $I_{\{1-1-0\}}$ and $I_{\{1-1-1\}}$, respectively. This allows us to show that $X_{254}^{(254)}\simeq C_{254,1}$. $\Box$
$\\ $[*Acknowledgements.*]{} The first author thanks the Number Theory Group of the University of Nottingham for the warm hospitality during the spring semester of 2003.
[99]{}
A. Arenas, On the traces of Hecke operators, [*J. Number Theory*]{} [**100**]{} (2003), 307-312.
S. Baba, Shimura curve quotients with odd Jacobian, [J. Number Theory]{} [**87**]{} (2001), 96-108.
P. Bayer, Uniformization of certain Shimura curves, in [*Differential Galois Theory*]{}, Banach Center Publications, [**58**]{}, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2002.
B. Conrad, W. Stein, Component groups of purely toric quotients, [Math. Research Letters]{} [**8**]{} (2001), 745-766.
J. E. Cremona, [*Algorithms for modular elliptic curves*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK,1992.
N. Elkies, Shimura Curve Computations, [*Lect. Notes Comp. Sc. *]{} [**1423**]{}, Proceedings of ANTS-3, 1998; J.P.Buhler, ed. , 1-49.
E. González-Jiménez, J. González, Modular curves of genus $2$, [*Math. Comp. *]{} [**72 (241)**]{} (2003), 397-418.
J. González Rovira, Equations of hyperelliptic modular curves, [*Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) *]{} [**41 (4)**]{} (1991), 779-795.
E. W. Howe, F. Leprévost ans B. Poonen, Large torsion subgroups of split Jacobians of curves of genus two or three, [*Forum Math. *]{} [**12**]{} (2000), 315-364.
B. W. Jordan, [*On the Diophantine arithmetic of Shimura curves*]{}, Harvard Ph. D. Thesis, 1981.
B. W. Jordan, R. Livné, Local diophantine properties of Shimura curves, [*Math. Ann. *]{} [**270**]{} (1985), 235-248.
R. M. Kuhn, Curves of genus 2 with split jacobian, [*Trans.Amer. Math. Soc. *]{} [**307**]{} (1988), 41-49.
A. Kurihara, On some examples of equations defining Shimura curves and the Mumford uniformization, [*J. Fac. Sci. Univ.Tokyo, Sec. IA*]{} [**25**]{} (1979), 277-301.
A. Kurihara, On $p$-adic Poincaré series and Shimura curves, [*Intern. J. Math. *]{} [**5**]{} (1994), 747-763.
Y. Namikawa, K. Ueno, The complete classification of fibres in pencils of curves of genus two, [*Manuscripta Math. *]{} [**9**]{} (1973), 143-186.
A. P. Ogg, Real points on Shimura curves, [*Arithmetic and geometry*]{}, Progr. Math. [**35**]{}, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, (1983), 277-307.
A. P. Ogg, Mauvaise réduction des courbes de Shimura, [*Séminaire de théorie des nombres*]{}, Progr. Math. [**59**]{} Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, (1983-84), 199-217.
K. A. Ribet, Sur les varietés abéliennes à multiplications réelles, [*C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris*]{} [**291**]{} (1980), 121-123.
D. P. Roberts, [*Shimura curves analogous to $X_0(N)$*]{}, Harvard Ph. D. Thesis, 1989.
V. Rotger, On the group of automorphisms of Shimura curves and applications, [*Compos. Math. *]{} [**132**]{} (2002), 229-241.
V. Rotger, Modular Shimura varieties and forgetful maps, to appear in [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. *]{}
V. Rotger, Shimura curves embedded in Igusa’s threefold, to appear in [*Modular curves and abelian varieties*]{}, Progress in Mathematics, Birkhõuser.
G. Shimura, Construction of class fields and zeta functions of algebraic curves, [*Ann. Math. *]{} [**85**]{} (1967), 58-159.
G. Shimura, On the real points of an arithmetic quotient of a bounded symmetric domain, [*Math. Ann. *]{} [**215**]{} (1975), 135-164.
[^1]: The first author is supported in part by DGICYT Grant BFM2000-0794-C02-02 and the second author is partially supported by Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología BFM2000-0627
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The energy spectrum of incommensurate spin fluctuations in superconducting Sr-doped La$_2$CuO$_4$ has been studied by inelastic neutron scattering experiments. An energy gap in the spin excitation spectrum is observed in the superconducting state of optimally doped (x=0.15) and slightly overdoped (x=0.18) samples. At temperatures well below T$_{c}$, the incommensurate peaks diminish rapidly in intensity with decreasing energy below $\sim$8meV and merge into the background below $\sim$3.5meV for x=0.15 and $\sim$4.5meV for x=0.18. For both samples, the energy spectrum of the q-integrated spin susceptibility, $\chi^{\prime
\prime}(\omega)$, exhibits an enhancement around 7meV, which is caused by a broadening in the momentum width of the incommensurate peaks. The gap-like structure in the energy spectrum and the enhancement of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ survive at T$_{c}$. On the other hand, for both underdoped (x=0.10) and heavily overdoped (x=0.25) samples there is neither a clear energy gap nor an enhancement of $\chi^{\prime \prime} (\omega)$ below T$_{c}$.\
\
KEYWORDS: La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$, high-T$_c$ superconductor, spin fluctuation, neutron scattering
author:
- |
Chul-Ho Lee[^1], Kazuyoshi Yamada[^2], Yasuo Endoh\
[*Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Aramaki Aoba, Sendai 980-77, Japan*]{}\
Gen Shirane\
[*Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973-5000, USA*]{}\
R. J. Birgeneau, M. A. Kastner, M. Greven[^3], Y-J. Kim\
[*Department of Physics and Center for Materials Science and Enginnering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA*]{}
date: 'November 12, 1999'
title: 'Energy Spectrum of Spin Fluctuations in Superconducting La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ ($0.10 \leq x \leq 0.25$)'
---
Introduction {#sec:level1}
============
The interplay between magnetism and superconductivity is one of the most interesting and important issues in the physics of the cuprate high temperature superconductors \[1\]. For more than ten years, experimental studies on the spin fluctuations in these materials have been performed by neutron scattering and NMR measurements. NMR first revealed a suppression of the low-energy spin excitations below what is called the spin gap temperature \[2\]. In the underdoped region, it is thought that above T$_c$ a pseudo-gap opens up in the spin fluctuation spectrum. Since the spin-gap state is believed to be related to the pairing mechanism, a large number of experimental and theoretical studies have focused on the origin of the spin gap.
Unlike NMR, neutron scattering can determine both the momentum and the energy dependence of the magnetic excitations, providing information about the anisotropy of the energy gap of the high-T$_c$ cuprates. In fact, neutron scattering has been used to observe the spin-gap of YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-y}$ by determining the energy spectrum of the dynamical spin susceptibility $\chi^{\prime \prime}(q,\omega)$ around $(\pi,
\pi)$ as a function of T \[3,4,5\]. However, the energy spectrum of the spin fluctuations and its doping dependence in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ have not yet been determined over a wide range of x, most especially for x above the optimal doping value. This is in part because it is difficult to separate the weak magnetic signals from the non-magnetic background originating from phonons for example. Further, it is difficult to grow large homogeneous single crystals over a wide doping region.
Several years ago an overview of the low energy spectrum of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(q, \omega)$ associated with the incommensurate peaks of La$_{1.85}$Sr$_{0.15}$CuO$_4$ was presented \[6\]. Shortly thereafter, a well-defined energy gap of $\stackrel{>}{\sim}$ 3.5meV was observed in the superconducting state of the optimally Sr-doped La$_2$CuO$_4$ \[7\]. The latter measurements were limited to low energies $\stackrel{<}{\sim}$ 6meV. For higher energies, pulsed neutron scattering measurements were performed on La$_{1.85}$Sr$_{0.15}$CuO$_4$ and revealed a broad peak between $\omega = 40$ and 70meV \[8\] in $\chi^{\prime \prime} (\omega)$. The dynamical spin susceptibility was integrated over q around the incommensurate peaks. This result was recently reconfirmed by more comprehensive experiments and analysis on the same crystals \[9\].
However, Hayden [*et al.*]{} \[10\] reported a somewhat sharper peak in the energy spectrum of $\chi^{\prime \prime} (\omega)$ at around $\omega =
20$meV in La$_{1.86}$Sr$_{0.14}$CuO$_4$ by combining data taken by pulsed neutron scattering with that of 3-axis neutron spectroscopy. Furthermore, the latter group studied the energy and temperature dependence of $\chi^{\prime \prime} (\omega)$ using the same crystal and suggested that they were observing the effects of a nearby quantum critical point at T=0 K. They reported that the q-width of the spin fluctuations monotonically increased with increases in either temperature or energy \[11\] although their observed correlation length at low temperatures was in fact quite short in apparent contradiction with the quantum critical interpretation. They found no evidence for a gap in the spin fluctuation spectrum above T$_c$, in conflict with NMR measurements \[12\].
To reconcile these apparent inconsistencies a more systematic neutron scattering study is required. In particular, it is important to measure the doping dependence of the energy spectrum over a wide doping region. To accomplish this we have grown large single crystals of superconducting Sr-doped La$_2$CuO$_4$ over a wide range of Sr concentrations extending from the underdoped to the highly overdoped region. Although the energy region in the present study is still limited to that of conventional low energy 3-axis neutron scattering measurements, the doping dependence provides new insights into the spectrum of the spin fluctuations in this system. We describe the experimental details in section \[sec:level2\], the results and data analysis are presented in section \[sec:level3\], a discussion is given in section \[sec:level4\] and a brief summary is presented in section \[sec:level5\].
Experimental Detail {#sec:level2}
===================
Single crystals of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ have been grown by the traveling solvent floating zone (TSFZ) method using lamp-image furnaces \[13,14\]. The furnaces have been improved in order to tune the temperature gradient near the molten zone. We have found that a steep temperature gradient around the liquid allows us to grow homogeneous large single crystals. As-grown single crystals have been kept under oxygen flow at $900^{\circ}$C for 50 hours to remove oxygen defects.
To characterize the Sr content and homogeneity we determined the phase transition temperature (T$_s$) between the high temperature tetragonal (HTT) and the low temperature orthorhombic (LTO) phases by neutron diffraction. The values for T$_s$ of our single crystals \[15\] agree quite well with those previously deduced from powder data \[16,17,18\]. T$_s$ depends primarily on the Sr concentration and specifically a small amount of oxygen non-stoichiometry does not change T$_s$ appreciably \[19,20\]. Therefore, the agreement of the measured T$_s$ for our single crystals with the results obtained from measurements on powders confirms the Sr concentration of our single crystals. The values of the Sr concentration measured by electron probe microanalysis were also consistent with the results from the T$_s$ measurements within the instrumental resolution.
Superconducting magnetic shielding effects were measured by a SQUID magnetometer in a magnetic field of 10 $Oe$. The onset temperature of the superconducting transition (T$_c$) in the $x=0.15$ single crystal, T$_c$=37.5K, is almost the same as the maximum value found in powder samples \[18,21\]. For $x=0.10, 0.18$ and 0.25 the values of T$_c$ = 29K, 36.5K and 15K, respectively, also agree with those of powder samples \[15\]. Since T$_c$ is very sensitive to any deviation from stoichiometry in the oxygen concentration \[20,22\], this agreement suggests that the oxygen content and ordering of our crystals is nearly optimal.
Normal state magnetic susceptibilities were also measured using a SQUID magnetometer with a magnetic field of 1T. We observed a broad peak at a temperature T$_{max} $=200K for x=0.18 which depends on both the Sr and the oxygen concentration \[22\]. T$_{max}$ of the single crystal is in good agreement with that of a powder sample with the same Sr concentration \[22, 23, 24\]. Lattice parameters of pulverized single crystals measured by x-ray diffraction at room temperature are also consistent with previous data \[15\].
Inelastic neutron scattering measurements were performed with the triple-axis spectrometer, TOPAN at JRR-3M in the Tokai Establishment of JAERI for crystals with x=0.15, 0.18, and 0.25 and with H7 at the HFBR at Brookhaven National Laboratory for crystals with $x=0.10$ and 0.15. The incident (final) neutron energy was typically fixed at E$_i$ (E$_f$) = 14.75meV for TOPAN and E$_i$ (E$_f$) = 14.7meV for H7. A typical sequence of the horizontal collimators was 40’-100’-S-60’-B for TOPAN and 40’-40’-S-80’-80’ for H7 where S denotes the sample position. Pyrolytic graphite crystals were used both as monochromator and analyzer. A pyrolytic graphite filter was used to reduce the intensity of higher order neutrons. Moreover, in TOPAN, a sapphire crystal was inserted to reduce significantly the flux of high energy neutrons. The single crystals were mounted in an Al container filled with He gas as a heat exchanger. For cooling, a closed cycle He refrigerator was used.
Results {#sec:level3}
=======
The four panels in Fig. 1 show representative q-spectra of the magnetic fluctuations measured at and below T$_c$. Constant-energy scans were performed through the two peaks at ($\pi,\pi(1 \pm \delta)$) as illustrated in the inset of panel (c). For $x=0.18$, due to some
non-magnetic contamination in the scan, we present only one of the peaks, at ($\pi,\pi(1-\delta)$). For T $\stackrel{>}{\sim}$ T$_c$ well-defined peaks are observed at incommensurate positions for all samples. Below T$_c$, the peaks at 3 meV and 3.5 meV vanish into the background for $x=0.15$ and 0.18 respectively. As is shown by the energy spectra discussed below, this dramatic change occurs due to the opening of an energy gap in the spin excitation spectrum at the same temperature as that for the onset of superconductivity. In contrast, for $x=0.10$ and 0.25 substantial peak intensities at low energies are observed even at temperatures well below T$_c$
We present the results of the same q-scan as that shown in Fig. 1 at several different energies for x=0.10 and 0.15 in Figs. 2 and 3
respectively. Below T$_c$, the peak intensities for x=0.10 are comparable at all energies between 2 and 10 meV. On the other hand, for x=0.15 the intensities dramatically decrease with decreasing energy and no peak remains outside of the errors at 3 meV. Although our collaboration has reported the observation of an energy gap for
x=0.15 previously \[7\] the change in peak intensities below $\sim$7 meV appears to be more dramatic in these experiments. A similar energy dependence of the incommensurate peak intensity is found for x=0.18 as shown in Fig. 4(c).
The q-spectrum of the incommensurate peaks was fitted using the following dynamical structure factor S(q,$\omega$) convoluted with the instrumental resolution function: $$S(q,\omega)=\frac{I}{1-exp(- \frac{\omega}{\kappa_BT})} \cdot \chi^{\prime
\prime}(q, \omega)$$ with
$$\chi^{\prime\prime}(q, \omega) = A_{\omega} \sum_{\delta=1,4} \left\{
\frac{\kappa_{\omega}}{|q-q_{\delta}|^2+\kappa_{\omega}^2} \right\}$$
where $q_g, \kappa_{\omega}, k_B$ and $A_{\omega}$ are the peak positions of the magnetic peaks around $(\pi, \pi)$, the q-width at a given $\omega$, the Boltzman constant and an overall scale factor, respectively. $\kappa_{\omega}$ is assumed to be isotropic in the Cu$O_2$ plane.
The imaginary part of the q-integrated dynamical susceptibility averaged over the Brillouin zone is defined as: $$\chi^{\prime \prime} (\omega) / \omega=\int \chi^{\prime
\prime}(q,\omega)dq / (\omega \cdot \int dq)$$
Note that in this case, the q-integration is carried out for the four incommensurate peaks around $(\pi, \pi)$ over the Brillouin zone.
In Fig. 4, we show the energy-dependence of the peak intensities at the incommensurate positions for $x=0.10, 0.15, 0.18$ and 0.25 together with the resolution-corrected $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)/\omega$, which is obtained by fitting the q-spectrum
and integrating over q for the four incommensurate peaks around $(\pi,
\pi)$. The absolute value of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)/\omega$ for each sample was calculated by using phonon intensities for the same sample as described in the Appendix. We present $\chi^{\prime
\prime}(\omega)/\omega$ instead of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ to reveal any gap structure in the spectrum because the latter quantity may go to zero as the energy approaches zero even if there is no gap. Fig. 4 again exhibits two types of energy dependencies for the incommensurate peaks for the four samples. There exists a well-defined energy gap for $x= 0.15$ and 0.18, accompanied by an enhancement of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)/\omega$ around 6 meV to 7 meV while no gap-like structure is seen for $x=0.10$ and 0.25.
The energy dependence of the resolution-corrected q-width of the incommensurate peak below T$_c$ is shown in Fig. 5. We
only show the data above 5 and 6 meV for $x=0.15$ and 0.18, respectively because of the energy gap. We note that the q-width has a rather different $\omega$ dependence depending on whether or not there is a gap. For the gapped samples, above the gap energy the q-width is small and it increases with decreasing energy as the gap energy is approached. Furthermore, as will be shown later in Fig. 8, for T $\sim$T$_c$ the q-width appears to exhibit a peak for excitation energies near the gap energy. On the other hand, for the gapless samples the q-width is constant with energy at least up to 12 meV.
Next, we show $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ for temperatures T$\sim$T$_c$ for $\rm
La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ crystals with x=0.15 and 0.18 in Fig. 6. Although the peak in the intensity appears at slightly
lower energies compared to the data below T$_c$, a gap-like structure and an enhancement in $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ still remains. In the upper panel of Fig. 6, we show using a dashed line the data obtained by Hayden [*et al.*]{} for the same system with x=0.14 \[10\]. No peak in $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ is observed in their data. As shown in Fig. 7, for
the gapless sample of $\rm La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ with x=0.10, both the energy and temperature variation of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ is weak, although we see a slight suppression of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ around 4 to 6 meV at T=9K.
In Fig. 8 we show the energy variation of the q-width of the incommensurate peak for T$\sim$T$_c$ for x=0.15 and in the inset for x=0.18. In the figure, we have plotted results from several different crystals. We observe a peak in the q-width at around the same energy as that at which the enhancement of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ is observed. In
contrast, the energy variation of the q-width for the sample with x=0.14 of Aeppli [*et al.*]{} \[11\] shows a linear energy dependence. It should be noted that the peak width for energies of order 8 to 10 meV is substantially narrower below T$_c$ than that at T$_c$ for the gapped samples, particularly for x=0.18.
Discussion {#sec:level4}
==========
The present study has revealed two types of energy spectra for the spin fluctuations in Sr-doped superconducting La$_2$CuO$_4$. For $x=0.15$ and 0.18, a well-defined energy gap appears below T$_c$, whereas for the underdoped sample, $x=0.10$, and highly overdoped sample, x=0.25, no gap is observed even though they exhibit bulk superconductivity with T$_c$ =29K for $x=0.10$ and T$_c$=15K for x=0.25.
In order to discuss the results shown in Figure 4 quantitatively, we introduce a phenomenological dynamical spin susceptibility of the form:
$$\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)/\omega =
\left(B{\gamma\over{\gamma^2+\omega^2}}\right)\cdot
Re\left({\omega-i\Gamma}\over{\sqrt{(\omega-i\Gamma)^2-\Delta^2}}\right)$$
This corresponds to Lorentzian spin fluctuations in the normal state multiplied by a gap-function in the superconducting state. The gap function includes the gap-energy $\Delta$ together with a broadening $\Gamma$; $\gamma$ is the inverse of lifetime of the spin fluctuations. The parameters B, $\Delta$ and $\Gamma$ are assumed to be constant in the q-region of the incommensurate peaks. It should be noted that in Eq. (4), $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)/\omega$ is a simple Lorentzian in energy for $\Delta=0$. On the other hand, in the superconducting state, Eq. (4) describes the gap-structure with a non-zero value of $\Delta$. As required, the above dynamical spin susceptibility satisfies detailed balance for the dynamical structure factor S(q, $\omega$).
The observed energy spectra were fitted using Eq. (4) convoluted with the instrumental energy resolution. The value of $\Delta$ so-obtained is $6
\pm 0.3$ meV for both x=0.15 and 0.18 while $\Gamma = 0.6 \pm 0.3$ meV for x=0.15 and $= 0 \pm 0.2$ meV for x=0.18. Quite recently, Lake [*et al.*]{} reported a similar value for the energy-gap for a sample of $La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ with x=0.16 \[25\]. We note that $\Delta$ is significantly larger than the value previously quoted by our collaboration which was around 3.5 meV for x=0.15 \[7\]. However, this latter value for the energy-gap was simply the energy below which the magnetic intensity disappeared entirely below T$_c$. This energy is naturally less than our fitted value simply due to the non-zero broadening of the gap-structure for x=0.15 together with the effects of instrumental resolution. We note that for samples with x=0.14 and 0.16, Lake [*et al.*]{} \[25\] find $\Gamma$ = 1.2 meV and 0.1 meV respectively albeit using a somewhat different functional form than Eq. (4). Thus, $\Gamma$ decreases smoothly with increasing x reaching 0 within the errors for x=0.18 while the gap energy $\Delta$ appears to be independent of x for x between 0.14 and 0.18.
In Ref. 6 the gap-energy, $\Delta_m^{inc}$ of the spin fluctuations at the incommensurate peak position was converted into the value at ($\pi$,0) by assuming a d(x$^2$-y$^2$)-type q-dependence. The previous value $\Delta_m^{inc}$ $\sim$3.5 meV implied a full gap of $\sim$10 meV which is consistent with the full superconducting gap of $\sim$8 meV inferred from photoemission spectroscopy \[26\]. However, the new value of $\Delta_m^{inc}$ determined here implies a full gap of $\sim$18 meV which corresponds to $\Delta=5.6
kT_c$ which seems too high compared with the BCS weak coupling value of 1.77 kT$_c$. This fact, therefore, suggests that $\Delta_m^{inc}$ may not be simply related to the superconducting gap. It is possible that $\Delta_m^{inc}$ instead relates to the so-called pseudo-gap or the larger energy gaps reported by photoemission and tunneling spectroscopies.
The gapped samples exhibit an anomalous broadening in the q-width of the incommensurate peaks for energies around the gap value of $\Delta_m^{inc}$. Qualitatively, we can interpret the peak-broadening as arising from the energy independent dispersion surface of the quasiparticle excitations around the energy-gap. In other words, if the magnetic scattering occurs through interband excitations of quasiparticles, the momentum change can be widely distributed for excitation energies close to the gap. As shown in Fig. 8, a broadening in q of the peak width for energies of order $\Delta$ is observed at T$_c$ which again indicates the robustness of the gap structure of $\chi^{\prime \prime} (\omega)$ for the gapped samples.
We discuss next the possible reasons for the absence of an energy-gap in the gapless samples with x=0.10 and x=0.25. At present, it is widely speculated without any direct experimental evidence that the disorder introduced by dopant substitution at the La-sites degrades the lifetime of the quasiparticles and smears out the gap structure. However, this is contradicted by the fact that no gap is observed in either stage-6 or stage-4 $\rm La_2CuO_{4+y}$ in spite of the fact that structural disorder is minimal in these systems \[27,28\]. Further, neutron scattering experiments on the Y1-2-3 system reveal the robustness of the magnetic energy-gap against Zn-impurities \[29,30\]. In the Zn-doped Y1-2-3 system, although low energy spin fluctuations appear at low temperatures, the gap-like or pseudo-gap structure appears at higher temperatures.
For the x=0.10 sample, the low energy spin excitations are simply explained as originating from the spin wave excitations concomitant with the elastic magnetic order which occurs in the superconducting state. Such order is observed for all x between 0.02 and 0.135 in $\rm La_2CuO_4$. However, a different explanation is required for the highly overdoped gapless sample, x=0.25, because in that case there is no evidence for magnetic order coexisting with the superconductivity. Here, we simply point out that there is a dramatic degradation of the spacial coherence of the spin correlations in the overdoped region particularly near the upper critical doping value for the superconductivity as pointed out by Yamada et al. \[15\]. In this doping region, the spatial coherence length for the low energy spin fluctuations becomes comparable to or shorter than the superconducting coherence length. Therefore, the energy gap in this region is probably vitiated by the degradation of the lifetime of quasiparticles due to the short ranged spin fluctuations.
Summary {#sec:level5}
=======
We have studied the energy dependence of the spin fluctuations for superconducting La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ ($x$=0.10, 0.15, 0.18, 0.25) using neutron inelastic scattering. Below T$_c$ a well-defined energy gap in the incommensurate spin fluctuations is observed in the superconducting state of the optimally doped ($x=0.15$) and slightly over doped ($x=0.18$) samples. An enhancement in $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ caused by the peak-broadening is also observed at $\sim$6 meV which remains even at T$_c$. For the underdoped sample with $x=0.10$ and the highly overdoped sample with $x=0.25$, no clear gap is ovserved even though these samples show bulk superconductivity.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
The authors acknowledge K. Nemoto and M. Onodera for their technical assistance at JAERI and Tohoku University. We wish to thank H. Fukuyama, T. Tanamoto, H. Kohno, S. Hosoya, K. Hirota and H. Kimura for valuable discussions. We also thank S. Wakimoto for his help in crystal growth of x=0.15 samples. The present work was supported in part by a Grant-In-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Japan and a Grant for the Promotion of Science from the Science and Technology Agency of CREST. Work at Brookhaven National Laboratory was carried out under contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886, Division of Material Science, U. S. Department of Energy. The research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR97-04532 and the MRSEC Program of the National Science Foundation under Award No. DMR98-08941.
[**Appendix**]{}
We have converted the observed magnetic intensity into the absolute value of $\chi^{\prime \prime}(\omega)$ by comparing with the intensity of phonon scattering. The phonon intensity is given by $$I_\nu
=\alpha\cdot\left({d\sigma}\over{d\Omega}\right)$$ where $\alpha$ is the detector efficiency and $I_\nu$ is the energy-integrated phonon intensity measured by constant-Q scans. The energy integrated phonon scattering cross section is given by: $$\left({d\sigma}\over{d\Omega}\right)=C{{|F|^2}\over{M}}{{|Q|^2 cos^2
\beta\cdot N}\over{\hbar\omega}}e^{-2W}<n+1>$$ where C=2.09 barns, $F$ is the nuclear structure factor, $M$ is the total atomic mass in a unit cell, $\beta$ is the angle between Q and the phonon polarization direction, $N$ is the number of unit cells, $e^{-2W}$ is the Debye-Waller factor and $<n+1>$ is the population factor. We have measured the integrated inensity of the acoustic phonons by constant-Q scans at (2, -0.13, 0) for $x=0.10$ and (2, -0.17, 0) for $x=0.15$, 0.18, and 0.25. The magnetic scattering intensity is measured by constant-$\omega$ scans. To scale the magnetic scattering intensity with the phonon intensity measured in a different scan mode, $I_\nu$ is divided by the sound velocity. The absolute value of $\chi^{\prime \prime} (q,\omega)$ is estimated using the following magenetic cross section per formula unit for a Heisenberg system without Néel ordering: $$\left({d^2\sigma}\over{d\Omega
d\omega}\right)=r^2_0{{k_f}\over{k_i}}\left[{g\over2}f(Q)e^{-W}\right]^2
\sum_\alpha (1-\hat k^2_\alpha)S^\alpha(Q,\omega)$$
$$S^\alpha(Q,\omega)={1\over\pi}{1\over{g^2\mu^2_B}}<n+1>Im
\chi^\alpha(Q,\omega)$$
Here $r^2_0=0.291$ barns, $f(Q)$ is magnetic form factor and $\hat k =
Q/|Q|$.
[99]{}
For a review, see M. A. Kastner, R. J. Birgeneau, G. Shirane and Y. Endoh, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 897 (1998).
H. Yasuoka, T. Imai and T. Shimizu, Springer Series in Solid State Science 89, Strong Correlation and Superconductivity, ed. H. Fukuyama, S. Maekawa and A. P. Malozemoff (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989)
J. Rossat-Mignod, L. P. Regnault, C. Vettier, P. Bourges, P. Burlet, J. Bossy, J. Y. Henry and G. Lapertot, Physica C [**185-189**]{}, 86 (1991)
T. E. Mason, G. Aeppli and H. A. Mook, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1414 (1992)
J. M. Tranquada, P. M. Gehring, G. Shirane, S. Shamoto and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B. [**46**]{}, 5561 (1992)
M. Matsuda, K. Yamada, Y. Endoh, T. R. Thurston, G. Shirane, R. J. Birgeneau, M. A. Kastner, I. Tanaka and H. Kojima, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 6958 (1994)
K. Yamada, S. Wakimoto, G. Shirane, C. H. Lee, M. A. Kastner, S. Hosoya, M. Greven, Y. Endoh, and R. J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1626 (1995)
K. Yamada, Y. Endoh, C. H. Lee, S. Wakimoto, M. Arai, K. Ubukata, M. Fujita, S. Hosoya and S. M. Bennington, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**64**]{}, 2742 (1995)
M. Arai, T. Arakawa, M. Fujita, S. Wakimoto, K. Yamada, Y. Endoh, G. Aeppli, T. E. Mason and S. M. Hayden, Czech. J. Phys. [**46**]{}, Suppl. S2, 1147 (1996)
S. M. Hayden, G. Aeppli, H. A. Mook, T. G. Perring, T. E. Mason, S.-W. Cheong and Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1344 (1996)
G. Aeppli, T. E. Mason, S. M. Hayden, H. A. Mook, J. Kulda, Science [**278**]{}, 1432 (1997)
Y. Itoh, M. Matsumura and H. Yamagata, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{}, 3383 (1997)
S. Hosoya, C. H. Lee, S. Wakimoto, K. Yamada and Y. Endoh, Physica C [**235-240**]{}, 547, (1994)
C. H. Lee, N. Kaneko, S. Hosoya, K. Kurahashi, S. Wakimoto, K. Yamada and Y. Endoh, Supercond. Sci. Techonol. [**11**]{}, 891, (1998)
K. Yamada, C. H. Lee, K. Kurahashi, J. Wada, S. Wakimoto, S. Ueki, H. Kimura, Y. Endoh, S. Hosoya, G. Shirane, R. J. Birgeneau, M. Greven, M. A. Kastner and Y. J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 6165 (1998)
R. M. Fleming, B. Batlogg, R. J. Cava and E. A. Rietman, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 7191 (1987)
H. Takagi, R. J. Cava, M. Marezio, B. Batlogg, J. J. Krajewski, W. F. Peck, Jr., P. Bordet and D. E. Cox, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3777 (1992)
T. Nagano, Y. Tomioka, Y. Nakayama, K. Kishio and K. Kitazawa, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 9689 (1993)
C. H. Lee, K, Yamada, M. Arai, S. Wakimoto, S. Hosoya, Y. Endoh, Physica C [**257**]{}, 264 (1996)
K. Kurahashi, S. Wakimoto, C. H. Lee, K. Yamada and S. Hosoya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{}, 3994 (1996)
H. Takagi, T. Ido, S. Ishibashi, M. Uota, S. Uchida and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 2254 (1989)
R. Yoshizaki, N. Kuroda, S. Nakamura and N. Ishikawa, Physica C [**199**]{}, 143 (1992)
T. Nakano, M. Oda, C. Manabe, N. Momono, Y. Miura, and M. Ido, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 16000 (1994)
D. C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 957 (1989)
B. Lake, G. Aeppli, T. E. Mason, A. Schr$\ddot{o}$der, D.F. McMorrow, K. Lefmann, M. Isshiki, M. Nohara, H. Takagi and S. M. Hayden, Nature [**400**]{}, 43 (1999).
T. Sato, T. Yokoya, Y. Naitoh, T. Takahashi, K. Yamada and Y. Endoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83,**]{} 2254 (1999).
B. O. Wells, Y. S. Lee, M. A. Kastner, R. H. Christianson, R. J. Birgeneau, K. Yamada, Y. Endoh and G. Shirane, Science [**277**]{}, 1067 (1997).
Y. S. Lee, R. J. Birgeneau, M. A. Kastner, Y. Endoh, S. Wakimoto, K. Yamada, R. W. Erwin, S. -H. Lee and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 3643 (1999).
H. Harashina, S. Shamoto, T. Kiyokura, M. Sato, K. Kakurai and G. Shirane, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn, [**62**]{}, 4009 (1993).
P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, B. Hennion, R. Villeneuve, J. F. Marucco and G. Collin, Czech. J. Phys. [**46**]{}, Suppl. S2, 1155 (1996).
[^1]: [*Permanent address:*]{} Electrotechnical Laboratory, Umezono 1-1-4 Tsukuba, 305-8568, Japan
[^2]: [*Permanent address:*]{} Institute for Chemical Research, Kyoto University, Uji 611-0011, Japan
[^3]: [*Permanent address:*]{} Dept. of Applied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The development of compact indirect microwave holographic set-up by the implementation of low cost, specifically designed directive antennae as transmitter and receiver is proposed. Microwave holograms are recorded by 2D scanning over a plane using motorized translation stage. The recorded interference pattern i.e. holograms are then processed numerically to reconstruct the amplitude and phase information employing the angular spectrum diffraction method. The quality of the reconstructed amplitude image is further enhanced through the deep neural network, in order to combat with the low resolution of reconstructed images. The qualitative experimental results exploit the possibility of developing the miniaturized, and low cost indirect microwave holographic system for near field applications.'
author:
- Vineeta Kumari
- Aijaz Ahmed
- Gyanendra Sheoran
- Tirupathiraju Kanumuri
- Chandra Shakher
title: Indirect Microwave Holography with Resolution Enhancement in Metallic Imaging
---
Introduction
============
Microwave holography consists of the acquisition of scattered wave-field from an object and provides the amplitude and phase information of the same. It is a non-destructive and non-invasive technique which is based on interference while recording the hologram and diffraction principle for reconstructing the hologram. Microwave holography is categorized as - direct and indirect. In direct holography, the complex scattered field is measured over a selected aperture in the near field using Vector Network Analyzer (VNA) to image the objects. This technique is very expensive and computationally complex as it is based on vector calculations [@r0; @r1]. On the other hand, indirect holography is a two-step process that employs the methods of recording and reconstruction of an object. The hologram is acquired in the form of interference pattern produced by the interference of the synthesized reference wave [@r2] and the object wave-front scattered from its surface. The whole information (i.e.amplitude and phase) of an object can be retrieved from a single hologram. In accordance of the phase shifting digital holography [@r3], the phase shift of reference wave in microwave holography is introduced by using a phase shifter of application specific frequency band.
Earlier, the indirect holographic technique was used for the determination of antenna radiation characteristics [@r4]. Thereafter, its usage in imaging of concealed metal objects has also been well documented in the literature [@r5; @r6]. The technique also finds its apt use in imaging the objects in security and biomedical applications [@r7; @r8; @r9].
The literature for indirect holography has used open ended wave guide probe antennae for the recording of the hologram [@r5; @r6; @r7; @r8; @r9]. Generally, a probe antenna is bulky and has a fixed dimension for a specified frequency band; the gain of a probe antenna is fixed for a certain design and application. Thus, such types of antenna have limitations to be used in different (multiple/various) imaging applications, e.g. it cannot be well utilized in the field of medical imaging, where the required gain of the antenna varies from negative to certain positive values. The size of the whole set-up could not be reduced due to the large size of probe antenna. These snags in the transmitting and receiving antennas motivated the authors to utilize a small size, low cost and lightweight patch antenna in the indirect holographic system.
Previously, we have proposed the use of microstrip patch antenna for receiving the scattered wave-fields in the indirect holographic set-up with a horn antenna as transmitter [@r10]. Although, the results were in good agreement with the original scanned objects but it was limited due to its low directivity and narrow band range of operations. For developing an imaging system of better accuracy, the antennae need to be highly directive and of wideband range.
In this paper, the holographic arrangement using specifically designed UWB Vivaldi antennae with a maximum gain at ${45^o}$ as transmitter and receiver has been demonstrated experimentally. It has been depicted that there is considerable reduction in the size of the system. The amplitude and phase are reconstructed effectively with the use of small size Vivaldi antennae. The vivaldi antennae have benefits over the traditionally used probe antennae in terms of their size scalability for use at multiple frequencies, cost effectiveness and broadband characteristics. Further, the resolution of the reconstructed amplitude has also been improved using a well trained deep neural network i.e. VDSR network [@r11]. To the best of authors’ knowledge, it is the maiden attempt to explore Vivaldi antenna for use in indirect microwave holography.
Materials and Methods
=====================
The whole experimental set-up of indirect microwave holography comprises of - (i) Design and fabrication of antennae and (ii) Recording and reconstruction of holograms.
Antenna design
--------------
![Schematic of the proposed antenna (a) conductive layer (b) capacitive strip feed (c) fabricated antenna (d) Directive gain of the antenna (dB)[]{data-label="f1"}](fig1.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Vivaldi antenna is a kind of tapered slot UWB antenna which has wide bandwidth, high directivity and is able to produce symmetrical radiation pattern [@r212]. The proposed Vivaldi antenna is specifically designed and fabricated to work in the frequency range of 3.8-4.5 GHz and 5.2 - 17 GHz, with the peak gain of 3.53 dB at ${45^o}$. Therefore, it eliminates the design and fabrication of multiple antennae for near field holographic imaging applications. Here, this aforesaid ${45^o}$ field directionality is achieved by introducing the non-identical flanges to the standard structure of Vivaldi antenna. A slant is provided on the one side of the flange corresponding to the other flange to achieve the additional field length along the direction of propagation. This brings in the bending of the radiation field in a particular direction. The bending of radiation is required in the proposed set-up for keeping the isolation in between the radiation fields of the transmission and receiving antennas. The antenna structure is simulated with High-Frequency Structure Simulator (HFSS) and designed on a dielectric substrate FR-4 with a dimensions of 50mm $\times$ 25mm $\times$ 0.8 mm.
![Comparison of the simulated and the measured return loss graph of the designed antenna []{data-label="f2"}](fig2.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Figs. \[f1\](a) and (b) show the schematic of the designed antenna with detailed marking of designed parameters. The designing parameters of antenna are given in Table 1. Apart from that, the closed and open ends of the conductive layer are given as 0.4 mm and 16 mm respectively and ‘Fp’ is the 50 $\Omega$ feed line of the antenna.
Fig. \[f1\](c) depicts the in-house fabricated antenna, here, a ruler has also been shown to define the size of the fabricated antenna. Also, the gain of the antenna is shown in Fig. \[f1\](d), which shows the parametric evaluation of the designed antenna to demonstrate the effect of the change in the upper flange in the direction of radiation pattern. The directivity of the radiation pattern is not solely dependent on the change of upper flange’s length but it also depends on the irregularity introduced in the upper flange.
Fig. \[f2\] compares the simulated and the experimental return loss of the antenna, which describes the simulated frequency band and experimental frequency band achieved at desired frequency range. Two identical antennae acting as a transmitter and receiver are designed and fabricated for conducting the experiments.
The conceptual arrangement of antennae in the experimental setup and its simplified form is shown in Fig. \[f3\]. The separation between the object and the antennae is
![Conceptual arrangement of the antenna in the measurement setup.[]{data-label="f3"}](fig3.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
calculated using right-angle property of triangle. The distance ‘ds’ between the antenna and object can vary in the near-field region of the antenna. In order to maintain a specific recording distance of the object, the value of the separation distance ‘da’ is calculated by keeping in mind that ‘d1’ should be equal to ‘d2’ to have a common field of view. The experimental setup arrangement for the antennae with the calculated proper separation distance from the object is shown in Fig. \[f4\].
![Setup arrangement for imaging of copper sheets with shape ‘X’.[]{data-label="f4"}](fig4.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Mathematical Formulation of Microwave Holography
------------------------------------------------
The ability to reconstruct the interference pattern utilizing the scalar power measurement techniques is the fundamental of indirect microwave holography. By combining the complex field of the scattering wave from the object, with a synthesized reference wave [@r2], of known phase and amplitude, holographic information can be derived. Here, the object wave is combined with a known reference wave with constant amplitude and linearly increasing phase shift. The resulting interference pattern i.e. hologram (H(x, y)) is recorded using elementary and economical power meter utilizing hybrid Tee junction. The resultant hologram or interference pattern is given in Eq.\[e1\]: $${\rm{H(x,y) = }}{\left| {{\rm{O(x, y) }} \pm {\rm{R(x, y) }}} \right|^2} \label{e1}$$ Where O(x, y) defines the scattered field detected by the antenna from the object, and R(x, y) denotes the reference wave. The plus and minus signs are corresponding to the resultant intensities recorded from the sum and difference port of the Hybrid Tee respectively. This is employed in order to reduce the overlapping in between the diffraction orders in the Fourier domain.
Taking the Fourier transform of Eq. \[e1\], we obtain the spectrum for interference pattern or hologram, $$\begin{array}{l}
{\rm{F\{ H(x, y)\} = F\{ }}{\left| {{\rm{O(x, y)}}} \right|^2}{\rm{\} + F\{ }}{\left| {{\rm{R(x, y)}}} \right|^2}{\rm{\} }}...\\
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,{\rm{ ...+ F\{ O(x,y)}} . {{\rm{R}}^*}{\rm{(x,y)\} + F\{ }}{{\rm{O}}^*}{\rm{(x,y)}} . R{\rm{(x,y)\} }}
\end{array} \label{e2}$$ The hologram spectrum consists of three diffraction orders: DC term or zero order, +1 order and -1 order. Fig. \[f5\] is representing the 1D line profile of the frequency spectrum of the recorded hologram. Here, ‘${{\rm{k}}_r}$’ defines the offset vector occurs due to the phase sift in reference wave, where as, ‘${{\rm{k}}_x}$’ is the function of wave propagation in x-direction.
![Frequency spectrum representation of the interferogram[]{data-label="f5"}](fig5.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Here, the zero order is in the center of the frequency domain spectrum and the +1, -1 orders are shifted on the axis according to the linear phase shift of the reference wave, which is given in Eq.\[e3\], $${\rm{R(x,y) = }}{{\rm{E}}_{\rm{0}}}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{ - j}}{{\rm{k}}_{\rm{r}}}{\rm{(x}}\,{\rm{ + y)}}}}\label{e3}$$ In Eq.\[e3\], ${{\rm{k}}_r}$ represents the offset wave vector, which depends on the sample spacing during scanning in the x and y axis i.e. $\Delta{\rm{x}}$ and $\Delta{\rm{y}}$. This offset wave vector is used to synthesize reference wave by introducing the phase shift of $\Delta\phi = 2\pi/3$ rad between the sample spacing of $\Delta x =\lambda/6$, which produces an electronically synthesized reference wave with a offset of ${{\rm{k}}_r} \geq 2k$. The benefits of the synthetically generated reference wave is that the linear phase gradient generation enables the measurements in the near field of the antenna.
A suitable and precise sampling separation must be provided to reconstruct the object image (both amplitude and phase). The image reconstruction is done by a diffraction technique i.e. Angular Spectrum Method (ASM). The recorded and reconstructed pixel size of hologram remains same in ASM. In this method, the recorded complex signal’s plane wave spectrum in x-y plane is defined by Fourier spectrum as shown in Eq. \[e2\]. The signal is back propagated to the object plane and inverse Fourier transform is performed to reconstruct the object using Eq.\[e4\]. $$\begin{array}{l}
{\rm{e(x,y) = FT}}_{{\rm{2D}}}^{{\rm{ - 1}}}\left[ {{\rm{F}}{{\rm{T}}_{{\rm{2D}}}}\left[ {{\rm{I}}{\rm{(x,y)}}} \right]{\rm{exp( - j}}{{\rm{z}}_{\rm{0}}}\sqrt {{\rm{4}}{{\rm{k}}^{\rm{2}}}{\rm{ - }}\,{\rm{k}}_{\rm{x}}^{\rm{2}}{\rm{ - }}\,{\rm{k}}_{\rm{y}}^{\rm{2}}} )} \right]\\\\
where,\,\,{k_x} = \frac{{2\pi }}{{N\Delta x}},\,\,{k_y} = \frac{{2\pi }}{{N\Delta y}}
\end{array}\label{e4}$$
Where, $z_0$ is representing the distance in between the object plane and the recording plane (where the holograms are recorded) and in between the recording and reconstruction plane, the complex amplitude is reconstructed at $z_0=0$ i.e at object plane.
The phase of the complex amplitude is calculated by: $$\phi (x,y) = {\tan ^{ - 1}}\left( {\frac{{im\,{\rm{(e(x,y))}}}}{{re\,{\rm{(e(x,y))}}}}} \right)\label{e5}$$ The phase obtained from Eq. \[e5\] is wrapped in the range of (-$\pi$, +$\pi$), the reconstructed phase images are shown in the results section.
Experimental Setup
------------------
![Schematic of the experimental setup of Near Field Indirect Microwave Holography.[]{data-label="f6"}](fig6.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The schematic of the experimental microwave holographic set-up is shown in Fig.\[f6\]. The microwave source (Rohde and Schwarz- Model No. SMB100A) is used to be operated at 9.1 GHz frequency and a power of 0 dBm while recording the hologram.
![Isolation graph of both the antennas []{data-label="f71"}](fig7.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
A microwave signal is propagated from the source to the directional coupler with coupling factor -10 db, through probe, which is used to tape off the wave into two parts. One part behaves as an object wave, which is made to fall on the object under investigation through the transmitting Vivaldi antenna. The identical transmitting and receiving antennas should be isolated to the field of each other. For isolation, the S21 and S12 parameters are to be measured and it should be below -15dB. The measured isolation for the antennas is below the desired value as shown in Fig. \[f71\].
The other part is forwarded from the directional coupler to the attenuator, which is used to generalize the whole experimental set-up for both low and high gain antennas based on various application. The attenuator is utilized to adjust the level of the reference and scattered signals according to the gain of the antenna and to increase the dynamic range of the hologram. The attenuated signal is further used to generate a synthesized reference wave by providing a 3-step linear phase shift in ‘x’ and ‘y’ direction to separate the twin images and dc term. The receiving second antenna is used to collect the scattering wavefield from the object surface at the receiver side. This antenna is connected to a linear XY motorized translation stage to perform a 2D scan across the image plane. The sample spacing of x and y (i.e. $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$) is taken as 5mm. The corresponding receiving power at each scanning step of the antenna is made to interfere with the reference wave and measured. The power meter, which is connected to a personal computer controlling the movement of the antennas across the scanning aperture and imports the power meter data, reads the received power consisting of the combination of the scattered signal with the tapped coherent reference signal.Holograms have been recorded with a linear phase increment of $2\pi/3$ rad for each sample spacing.
The whole scanning aperture is shielded using microwave absorbers to minimize the scattering effects of outer objects while performing the experiments. A reference hologram was recorded without placing any object to subtract the background noise from the resultant hologram. The post processing is done by reconstructing the amplitude and phase of the recorded hologram numerically.
Resolution Enhancement
----------------------
Since, the hologram recorded is with 40$\times$40 pixels so it is having low resolution, because the lower spatial frequencies are recorded due to the less number of samples, which are limited because of longer wavelength of the microwaves. Hence, the quality of the reconstructed amplitude images is improved from lower resolution to higher resolution by applying a well-trained VDSR network [@r11], which has used a training data set of 291 images along with a network of depth 20. The loss function of the network has been given as $\frac{1}{2}{\left\| {r - f(x)} \right\|^2}$ where ‘$r$’ is the residual image and ‘$f(x)$’ is the network prediction [@r11]. Since, this network is having very high learning rates and better accuracy as compared to other existing networks, therefore it has been implemented for the improvement of reconstructed amplitude images. This network uses a residual image learning strategy for enhancing the resolution. The residual image depicts the variation of the low and high-resolution images and it contains the high frequency details. The network approximates the residual image and improves the image resolution by appending the same into the low-resolution images. The mechanism for improving the quality of the reconstructed amplitude images is shown in flow chart in Fig. \[f81\].
![Process Flow of VDSR Network[]{data-label="f81"}](fig8.pdf){width="0.45\linewidth"}
Subsequently, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) has also been improved. To evaluate the deep neural network technique, SNR and Structural Similarity Index (SSI) are calculated as[@r12]- $${\rm{Speckle}}\,{\rm{Index}} = \,\sqrt {\frac{{{\rm{local}}({\mathop{\rm var}} (\overline x ))}}{{{\rm{local}}(E(\overline {x)} )}}}\label{e6}$$ $${\rm{SNR = }}\frac{{\rm{1}}}{{{\rm{Speckle}}\,{\rm{Index}}}}\label{e7}$$ and, $${\rm{SSI(x,y) =}} \,\frac{{(2{\mu _x}{\mu _y} + {c_1})(2{\sigma _{xy}} + {c_2})}}{{({\mu _x}^2 + {\mu _y}^2 + {c_1})({\sigma _x}^2 + {\sigma _y}^2 + {c_2})}}\label{e8}$$
Where, $\mu_x$ and $\mu_y$ are means of images x and y respectively, $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ are variances for the respective images, $\sigma_{xy}$ shows the co-variance and ${c_1}$ and ${c_2}$ are the variables used to stabilize the division. Structural similarity index is calculated for the resolution enhanced images to define that there are no structural variations after applying the neural network. The calculated values of aforesaid evaluation measures for resolution enhanced object images are shown in Table II. Since, there is a very sharp transition in phase values wrapped in ranging from - $\pi$ to + $\pi$, therefore approximation method may distort the phase values and hence the wrapped phase can’t be unwrapped without error. Hence, to avoid any phase error, the resolution of the reconstructed wrapped phase images is not improved with neural network method.
Results and Discussion
======================
The performance of the proposed experimental set-up is demonstrated on 4 types of metallic objects having different shapes, sizes and scattering properties. The object is placed at 25mm from the scanning aperture. Fig. \[f4\] shows the experimental arrangement of placing an object in the vicinity of the transmitted and receiving antenna. The preliminary tests have been carried out on two thin copper sheets of size 185mm $\times$ 25mm, each sheet is arranged in ‘X’ shape as object.
Fig. \[f7\](a) shows the recorded 3-step phase shifted hologram consisting of 40 $\times$ 40 pixels, after taking its Fourier transform, all the frequency orders are separated as +1 order, -1 order and zero order representing the real image, virtual image and DC term respectively as shown in Fig. \[f7\](b).
The +1 order from the frequency spectrum is filtered out and back propagated on the object plane for reconstructing the hologram using Eq. \[e4\]. The reconstructed amplitude image is shown in Fig. \[f8\](a). The resolution-enhanced image is shown in Fig. \[f8\](b). The reconstructed wrapped phase image is shown in Fig. \[f8\](c). It gives an admirable resemblance with the original object. The figures are acquainted with red marking lines to show the size and shape of the actual object.
![(a) Recorded hologram of the object (b) Frequency spectrum.[]{data-label="f7"}](fig9.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
To investigate the ability of the Vivaldi antennae as both transmitter and receiver in the proposed indirect holographic set-up, the experiments are repeated with different metallic objects like wire scrapper and spanner. The experiments have been carried out with the same experimental parameters. The reconstructed amplitude and phase images for aforesaid objects are shown in Figs. \[f9\], \[f10\] and \[f11\]. In Fig. \[f9\](b), the amplitude image shows that the structure of wire scrapper has been reconstructed correctly. Although, the shape is in good agreement with the original object’s shape, but the upper portion of the wire scrapper has not been resolved precisely because of the presence of multiple scattering sources intact closely with different heights and thickness levels.
![(a) Reconstructed amplitude image of ‘X’ copper strip (b) Resolution enhanced image (c) Reconstructed wrapped phase Image.[]{data-label="f8"}](fig10.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[f10\](a) the upper portion of the spanner is not covered under the scanning space, and it is noticed in the reconstructed image in Fig. \[f10\](b) that the spanner outside the scanning area has not been detected. Thus, it can be inferred that due to the high directivity of Vivaldi antenna, the scattering field from the object only has been received and reconstructed. The obtained reconstructed images have been shown with the reconstructed images for visual comparison as in Figs. \[f9\](c) and \[f10\](c).
![(a) Object image (b) Reconstructed amplitude image of wire scrapper as object (c) Resolution enhanced image.[]{data-label="f9"}](fig11.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The phase for the objects are also reconstructed and the resultant phase images of wire scrapper and spanner are shown in Figs. \[f11\](a) and (b). The reconstructed phase in the following images is in much similitude with the shape of the original objects. The testing parameters of resolution enhanced holographic images are calculated utilizing Eq. \[e7\] and \[e8\] and are shown in Table 2. Moreover, to investigate the ability of the experimental setup for separating two close objects, two steel keys of different sizes, each of 110mm and 49mm respectively with a separation of 30mm are used as object. The reconstructed results are shown in Fig. \[f12\](b). The reconstructed image shows the presence of two keys with a proper separation. These reconstructed images show that intensity difference as expected but the exact shape of the keys is not reconstructed because the dimension of the lower part of each key is of the order single pixel i.e. (5mm or less).
![(a) Object image (b) Reconstructed amplitude image of spanner as object (c) Resolution enhanced image.[]{data-label="f10"}](fig12.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Reconstructed wrapped phase images of objects (a) wire scrapper (b) Spanner.[]{data-label="f11"}](fig13.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![(a) Object image (b) Reconstructed Amplitude image.[]{data-label="f12"}](fig14.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Post experimentation, it has been noted that however the performance of the Vivaldi antenna is good but as receiver it depends on some factors which needed to be taken care of. The transmitter and receiver provide the best result when both of them are having common field of view. In such geometrical conditions the perturbed scattering signals can be avoided. However, in case of microwaves it is bit difficult to do the holographic experimental alignment as microwaves are not visible to human eye. So, one should know the properties of the antenna and then can find the best location by geometry and repeated experimental realisation. Further, the experimental arrangement must be aligned to satisfy the condition of interference. Failing to which no fruitful reconstruction of holograms can be done.
Conclusion
==========
The implementation of Vivaldi antennae with a maximum gain at ${45^o}$, as transmitter and receiver in an indirect microwave holography is proposed. The design concept is novel, economic, compact, simple and promising, perceived with a combination of reconstruction and super resolution method. This work has given details of various experiments in the proof of concept while utilizing the small size directive antennae for holographic system to reduce the size of the overall set-up. The qualitative results show that the usage of Vivaldi antennae as transmitter and receiver has a significant potential in imaging applications of indirect microwave holography. Here, we have measured and demonstrated the results for metallic objects. The proposed microwave holographic set-up could be utilized and modified in terms of designing a specific antenna for various applications e.g. metal detection, biomedical imaging for cancer detection etc. This technique can be further ameliorated with more precise antenna structures and experimental design for better holographic recording and reconstruction.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
**Funding** - This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
**Disclosure of conflict of interest** - The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
[1]{} Amineh RK, Ravan M, Khalatpour A, Member S, and Nikolova NK. Three-dimensional near-field microwave holography using reflected and transmitted signals. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag 2011;59:4777-4789. Wang L, Simpkin R, and Aljumaily AM. Holographic microwave imaging for medical applications. J. Biomedical Sci. Eng. 2013;6:823-833. Schejbal V, Pidanic J, Kovarill V, and Cermak D. Accuracy analyses of synthesized reference-wave holography for determining antenna radiation characteristics. IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2008;50:89-98. Yamaguchi I and Zhang T. Phase-shifting digital holography. Opt. Lett. 1997;22:1268-1270. Leach M, Elsdon M, Fbti SJ, and Smith D. Indirect holographic techniques for determining antenna radiation characteristics and imaging aperture fields. IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2007;49:54-67. Leach M, Smith D and Skobelev SP. A Modified Holographic Technique for Planar Near-Field Antenna Measurements. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 2008;56:3342-3345. Yurduseven O, Smith D, Livingstone B, Schejbal V, and You Z. Investigations of resolution limits for indirect microwave holographic imaging. International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-Aided Engineering 2013;23:410-416. Elsdon M, Yurduseven O, and Smith D.Early stage breast cancer detection using indirect microwave holography. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2013 ;143:405-419. Yurduseven O. Indirect microwave holographic imaging of concealed ordnance for airport security imaging systems. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2014 ;146:7-13. Smith D, Livingstone B, Elsdon M, and Schejbal V. The development of indirect microwave holography for measurement and imaging applications. in IEEE 15th Mediterranean Microwave Symposium (MMS) 2015:1-4. Kumari V, Ahmed A, Sheoran G, Kanumuri T. Development of Microstrip Patch Antenna for Indirect Microwave Holographic System. International Microwave and RF Conference (IMaRC -2018), Kolkata, India (in press). Jiwon K, Lee JK and Lee KM. Accurate Image Super-Resolution Using Very Deep Convolutional Networks. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)2016: 1646-1654. Hamzah N and Othman KA. Designing Vivaldi Antenna with Various Sizes using CST Software. in Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2011;II:4-8. Sharma A, Sheoran G, Jaffery ZA, and Moinuddin. Improvement of signal-to-noise ratio in digital holography using wavelet transform. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2008;46:42-47.
[0.6]{}[>X>X]{} Antenna Design Parameters & Values (in mm)\
a & 3.86\
b & 4.55\
c & 4.8\
d & 5\
e & 19.93\
f & 3.51\
g & 20.01\
h & 0.8\
i & 13.54\
J & 11.6\
K & 10.36\
M & 5.3\
N & 6.9\
O & 5.2\
P & 6\
\[tab:addlabel\]
[XXXX]{} Object & & & SSIM (resolution enhanced image)\
‘X’ copper sheet & 3.8834 & 8.2544 & 0.9951\
Wire Scrapper & 4.0587 & 9.9495 & 0.992\
Spanner & 5.5695 & 11.248 & 0.9909\
\[tab:addlabel\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Radiative losses have traditionally been neglected in the calculation of thermal noise of transmissive optical elements because for the most commonly used geometries they are small compared to losses due to thermal conduction. We explore the use of such transmissive optical elements in extremely noise-sensitive environments such as the arm cavities of future gravitational-wave interferometers. This drives us to a geometry regime where radiative losses are no longer negligible. In this paper we derive the thermo-refractive noise associated with such radiative losses and compare it to other known sources of thermal noise.'
author:
- Sheila Dwyer
- 'Stefan W. Ballmer'
bibliography:
- 'LongIFO.bib'
title: 'Radiative Thermal Noise for Transmissive Optics in Gravitational-Wave Detectors'
---
Introduction
============
The Gravitational wave interferometers currently under construction, Advanced LIGO [@Harry2010], Advanced Virgo [@2013ASPC..467..151D] and Kagra [@Somiya:2011np] are expected to be limited by thermal noise in their most sensitive frequency band. This has driven a theoretical [@Braginsky1991; @Braginsky2000; @Levin1998; @Levin2008; @Levin2009; @Evans2008] and experimental [@Harry:2001iw; @Harry:06; @Harry2010; @Cole2013] interest in understanding and improving the fundamental thermal noise of optical elements in reflection and transmission.
Thermal noise is a displacement noise. Its contribution to the strain sensitivity gets diluted with the arm length $L$. One of the most promising ways to overcome the sensitivity limitation due to thermal noise in future gravitational wave interferometers is to significantly increase the interferometer arm length from the current $4km$ (LIGO), or $3km$ (Virgo, Kagra). Inclusion of transmissive optical elements, such as lenses or wedges, in the interferometer arms, could make the design of such long interferometers more practical, at the cost of potentially introducing transmissive thermal noise. We are therefore interested in the transmissive thermo-refractive noise in the limit of relatively large beams and thin optical elements. Radiative losses as source for temperature fluctuations in thin films and semiconductors have previously been explored in van Vliet et. al. [@:/content/aip/journal/jap/51/6/10.1063/1.328104], as well as van Vliet and Mehta [@PSSB:PSSB2221060102]. Braginsky et. al. [@coatingbook2012] and Heinert et. al. [@Heinert:11] point out that such losses also lead to Stefan-Boltzmann radiation noise. For the most commonly used geometries radiative losses are however small compared to losses due to thermal conduction, and the literature then ignores radiative noise. In the regime of large beam radii and thin optical elements this assumption is no longer true. In this paper we derive the radiative thermo-refractive noise associated with such radiative losses, also referred to as Stefan-Boltzmann radiation noise.
The outline of this paper is as follows: Section \[TTRNintro\] recapitulates the previously published transmissive thermo-refractive noise due to dissipation from thermal conduction. Section \[RTTRNcalc\] gives the derivation of radiative transmissive thermo-refractive noise. This noise calculation is done using the Fluctuation-Dissipation theorem [@Callen1951], which highlights the link between thermal noise and energy dissipation at a fundamental level. Section \[compare\] compares the result to other known noise sources, and we conclude in section \[conclusion\].
Transmissive Thermo-Refractive Noise {#TTRNintro}
====================================
The power spectral density of the transmissive thermo-refractive noise due to thermal diffusion was first calculated by Braginsky [@Braginsky2004] and is given by $$\label{eq:oldTTRTN}
S_x(f) = \beta_{eff}^2 a^2 S_{\delta T}(f) = \frac{16 k_B \kappa T^2 \beta_{eff}^2 a}{\pi C^2 \rho^2 {{\rm w}}^4 \omega^2} \,\, ,$$ where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $\kappa$ is the thermal conductivity, $T$ is the temperature, $\beta_{eff}=dn/dT + (n-1)\alpha$ is the effective coupling accounting for the total phase shift due to a change in temperature, $\alpha$ is the thermal expansion coefficient, $a$ is the optic thickness, $C$ is the heat capacity per mass, $\rho$ is the density, ${{\rm w}}$ is the beam radius of the Gaussian read-out beam and $\omega=2 \pi f$ is the frequency. Here $S_{\delta T}(f)$ is the temperature spectrum in the mode relevant for the optical readout. The derivation of equation \[eq:oldTTRTN\] neglects radiative losses at the mirror surface. We will shown in this paper that those losses lead to additional noise given by $$\label{eq:newTTRTNtop}
S_x(f) = \frac{16 k_B \epsilon \sigma T^5 \beta_{eff}^2}{\pi C^2 \rho^2 {{\rm w}}^2 \omega^2} \cdot N \,\, .$$ Here $\sigma$ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, $\epsilon$ is the emissivity and $N$ is the number of emitting surfaces, i.e. $N=2$ for a single transmissive element.
Derivation {#RTTRNcalc}
==========
The transmissive thermo-refractive noise can be elegantly calculated using the approach described by Levin [@Levin1998; @Levin2008]: i) determine the read-out function for local thermal fluctuations, $q(\vec{x})$. ii) Apply a harmonic entropy (heating) profile of shape $q(\vec{x})$, frequency $f$ and arbitrary amplitude $F_0$. iii) Calculate the cycle-averaged dissipative losses $W_{\rm diss} = \frac{1}{\Delta t} \oint T \dot{S} dt$ for the geometry under consideration. The power spectral density of the associated thermal noise is then given by $$\label{eq:MasterNoise}
S_{\delta T}(f) = \frac{8 k_B T}{\omega^2} \frac{W_{\rm diss}}{F_0^2}$$
We can now apply this to the transmissive thermo-refractive noise: i) The measured path length fluctuation $\Delta x$ is given by $$\Delta x = \left< \beta a \delta T \right> = \beta_{eff} a \int_0^a dz \int dr^2 \delta T(z,\vec{r}) q(z,\vec{r})$$ The readout function $q$ describes the weighting of fluctuations at different locations in the optic due to the average phase measurement. It is normalized to $$\int_0^a dz \int dr^2 q(z,\vec{r}) = 1.$$ If a Gaussian beam (field amplitude $\Psi \propto \exp{-\frac{r^2}{{{\rm w}}^2}}$) is used for the read-out, we find for the read-out function q $$q(z,\vec{r}) = \frac{1}{a} \frac{2}{\pi {{\rm w}}^2} e^{-2\frac{r^2}{{{\rm w}}^2}}$$ We should point out here that we neglect any effects due to the standing-wave intensity pattern in a Fabry-Perot cavity. Benthem and Levin [@Levin2009] point out that this pattern leads to an increase of thermal noise once the diffusion length becomes comparable to the laser wavelength, which for fused silica fortunately happens above the gravitational wave observation band.
ii\) We heat the test mass with $$\frac{dQ}{dV} = T ds = T F_0 \cos{(\omega t)} q(z,\vec{r})$$ where $s$ is the entropy per unit volume. We need to solve the diffusion equation $$C \rho \delta \dot{T} - \kappa \Delta \delta T = \frac{d}{dt} \frac{dQ}{dV} \,\, .$$ For the application in mind the diffusion length $l_{th}=\sqrt{\kappa/(\omega C \rho)}$ is much smaller than the beam radius ${{\rm w}}$, $l_{th}<<{{\rm w}}$. For example the diffusion length for fused silica at the frequency of interest for gravitational wave interferometers (100Hz) is about $37 \mu m$, compared to a beam radius of several centimeters. Since the beam radius determines the sharpest gradient in the heating profile, we can neglect the 2nd term and get for the temperature fluctuations $$\label{eq:dT}
\delta {T} = \frac{1}{C \rho } \frac{dQ}{dV} = \frac{1}{C \rho } T F_0 \cos{(\omega t)} q(z,\vec{r})$$ iii) To calculate the dissipative loss $W_{\rm diss}$ we note that the rate of change of the entropy density is given by [@LandauLifshitz] $$\dot{s}=-\frac{\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j}}{T}$$ where $\vec{j}$ is the heat flow per unit area. For the total increase of entropy we get $$\dot{S}=-\int dV \frac{\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j}}{T} = -\oint d\vec{A} \cdot \frac{\vec{j}}{T} + \int dV \vec{j} \cdot \vec{\nabla} (\frac{1}{T})$$ The second term describes the thermal dissipation in the bulk of the material, which gives rise to the previously known thermo-refractive noise, while the surface term gives rise to the radiative thermo-refractive noise. Using the fact that $\vec{j}=-\kappa \nabla T $, the 2nd term leads to the well-know dissipation formula $$T\dot{S}_{\rm bulk}= - \int dV \frac{1}{T} \vec{j} \cdot \vec{\nabla} T = \int dV \frac{\kappa}{T} (\vec{\nabla} T)^2$$ Applying it to the temperature fluctuations from equation \[eq:dT\] yields the loss $$W_{\rm diss} = \frac{1}{\Delta t} \oint T\dot{S}_{\rm bulk} dt = \frac{2 \kappa T F_0^2}{C^2 \rho^2} \frac{1}{a} \frac{1}{\pi {{\rm w}}^4}$$ which, together with equation \[eq:MasterNoise\], gives the known thermo-refractive noise in equation \[eq:oldTTRTN\].
To calculate the contribution of the surface term we assume that the optic is in radiative thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, such that the average radiative heat flow is zero. We can again look at small temperature variations $\delta T$ around the average temperature $T$. For the surface term, we get $$T \dot{S}_{\rm surf}=+ \frac{1}{T} \oint d\vec{A} \cdot \vec{j} \delta T$$ We can now use the linearized Stefan-Boltzmann law $\vec{j}=4 \epsilon \sigma T^3 \delta T$, with $\sigma$ the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and $\epsilon$ the emmissivity, to calculate the surface heat flow and average over one cycle of the fluctuation: $$W_{\rm diss} = \frac{1}{\Delta t} \oint T\dot{S}_{\rm surf} dt = \frac{2 \epsilon \sigma T^4 F_0^2}{C^2 \rho^2} \frac{1}{a^2} \frac{1}{\pi {{\rm w}}^2} \cdot N$$ where $N$ is the number of optical surfaces and $\Delta t$ is the period of the fluctuation. This results in the radiative transmissive thermo-refractive noise of $$\label{eq:newTTRTN}
S_x(f) = \frac{16 k_B \epsilon \sigma T^5 \beta_{eff}^2}{\pi C^2 \rho^2 {{\rm w}}^2 \omega^2} \cdot N$$ To compare this to the conductive transmissive thermo-refractive noise (equation \[eq:oldTTRTN\]) we calculate the total optic thickness for which the noises are equal $$\label{eq:newTTRTN}
a_{\rm eq}= \frac{\epsilon \sigma T^3 {{\rm w}}^2}{\kappa} \cdot N = \frac{w^2}{l_{ch}} \cdot N$$ For fused silica, the most promising material for transmissive elements due to its extraordinary low absorption, the characteristic length scale $l_{ch} = \kappa/(\epsilon \sigma T^3)$ is about $1~{\rm meter}$ at room temperature. As example, for an optical beam with radius ${{\rm w}}=7cm$ and two surfaces ($N=2$), the radiative and conductive transmissive thermo-refractive noise are equal for an optic thickness of $a_{\rm eq}=1cm$. In other words, if we imagine placing lenses with a thickness of equal or less than about one centimeter in an interferometer arm, the radiative term would dominate the thermo-refractive thermal noise.
Comparison to anti-reflective coating thermal noise {#compare}
===================================================
We want to compare the radiative thermal noise to the coating thermal noise from an anti-reflective (AR) coating. First, for thermo-refractive noise we can refer to the calculation in [@Evans2008] and find $$S_x(f) = \frac{2 \sqrt{2} k_B T^2}{\pi {{\rm w}}^2 \sqrt{\kappa C \rho \omega}} (\beta_{eff}^{coat} d)^2 \cdot N$$ where $d$ is the coating thickness. The effective coupling $\beta_{eff}^{coat}$ is given by the details of the coating. For a simple 1-layer AR coating we have $$\beta_{eff}^{coat}= t_p \beta + (t_p n_c - 1) \alpha$$ where $n_c$ is the coating index of refraction, and $t_p=\frac{d}{d\phi} (-i) \log t(\phi)$, where $t(\phi)$ is the coating transmission coefficient as function of the one-way propagation phase $\phi$ in the coating. For an ideal 1-layer AR coating with $n_c=\sqrt{n}$, $n$ the substrate index of refraction, $t_p$ is given by $$t_p=\frac{1+n}{2\sqrt{n}}$$ Note that for AR coatings this phase-enhancement in the coating does not need to be extreme, and $t_p$ is of order unity. We then find that transmissive coating thermo-refractive noise is equal to radiative thermo-refractive noise for a coating thickness of $$d_{\rm eq}=\left( \frac{4 \sqrt{2} \epsilon \sigma T^3}{\kappa} \right)^{1/2} \left(\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{C \rho \omega}}\right)^{3/2} \frac{\beta_{eff}}{\beta_{eff}^{coat}}$$ Again using the parameters for fused silica at room temperature, and a reference frequency of $100~{\rm Hz}$ we find $d_{\rm eq}\approx 0.5 \mu m \frac{\beta_{eff}}{\beta_{eff}^{coat}}$. That is the transmissive radiative and coating thermo-refracting noises are about equal in the band of interest of gravitational-wave detectors, with the radiative transmissive thermo-refractive noise dominating at lower frequencies.
Second, we would like to compare our result to the expected level of Brownian thermal noise, both due to internal and coating mechanical losses. To our knowledge there is no specific literature for transmissive Brownian noise. We therefore start with the known result for reflective Brownian noise [@Nakagawa:2001di; @Harry:2001iw] $$\label{coatingBrown}
\begin{array}{cc}
S_x(f) = & \frac{2 k_B T}{\sqrt{\pi^3} f} \frac{1-\eta^2}{{{\rm w}}Y}
\\ & \times \left( \phi_{\rm substrate}
+ \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{1- 2 \eta}{1-\eta} \frac{d_{\rm coating}}{{{\rm w}}} \phi_{\rm coating} \right)
\end{array}$$ where $d_{\rm coating}$ is the coating thickness, $\phi_{\rm substrate}$ and $\phi_{\rm coating}$ are the effective loss angles for substrate and coating, and $\eta$ is Poisson’s ratio for the substrate. The coupling to transmissive noise is reduced because (i) the coupling to optical path length is only $(n-1)$, and (ii) an AR coating is significantly thinner than an HR coating, resulting in less mechanically lossy material being used. We should note though that for an optic thickness comparable or smaller than the beam radius, $a <{{\rm w}}$ equation \[coatingBrown\] will break down, and the spot size scaling will change from $1/{{\rm w}}$ to $a/{{\rm w}}^2$. Using parameters for fused silica, $Y=72.8~{\rm Gpa}$, $\phi_{\rm substrate}=4 \cdot 10^{-10}$ [@Penn:2005jt] we find that the substrate Brownian noise is roughly equal to transmissive radiative thermo-refractive noise in the band around 100 Hz, but has a different dependence on spot size ${{\rm w}}$ and frequency $f$. The Ti-doped ${\rm Ta_2O_5}$ coatings used in Advanced LIGO have a loss angle of about $\phi_{\rm coating}=4.4 \cdot 10^{-4}$ [@Harry:06]. Even with the reduced coupling to transmitted light and smaller coating thickness coating Brownian noise would still dominate the total noise. However, if the coating loss can be reduced by a factor of 10, as demonstrated in [@Cole2013], this will no longer be true.
Conclusion
==========
We showed that the previously published expression for transmissive thermo-refractive noise, equation \[eq:oldTTRTN\], needs a correction in the limit of large spot sizes and thin optical elements. This noise term, given in equation \[eq:newTTRTNtop\], is due to radiative losses. We gave a short derivation using Levin’s approach [@Levin2008]. Using fused silica transmissive optical elements in a gravitational wave detector arm as an example, we compared the result to other know sources of thermal noise. We found that in such a geometry transmissive thermo-refractive noise is of the same order of magnitude as coating thermo-refractive noise and substrate Brownian thermal noise. Coating Brownian thermal noise will still dominate the total noise, although this will no longer be true for crystalline coatings previously demonstrated in [@Cole2013].
We would like to thank Kiwamu Izumi and Daniel Sigg for many fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grants PHY-0823459 and PHY-1068809. This document has been assigned the LIGO Laboratory document number LIGO-P1400123.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
To coexist with Wi-Fi friendly, a standalone long-term evolution network over unlicensed spectrum (LTE-U) under listen-before-talk (LBT) mechanism can only access channel in a random and intermittent way, which results in random and time-variant delay in both data and signaling transmissions. In this work, we explore the impact of randomly delayed channel state information (CSI) on the performance of a standalone LTE-U network by analyzing its downlink throughput and users’ energy efficiency (EE) under different CSI feedback schemes and frequency-domain schedulers. Further, aiming at maximizing users’ EE of a standalone LTE-U network while guaranteeing fair coexistence with Wi-Fi, joint optimization on the medium access control (MAC) protocol and CSI feedback scheme is studied. Due to the non-convex and non-concave characteristic of the formulated optimization problems, decomposition-based low-complexity yet efficient algorithms are proposed. Simulation results not only verify the analysis and the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms but also show diverse impacts of CSI feedback scheme, frequency-domain scheduler, and traffic load of Wi-Fi on the standalone LTE-U network performance.
**Keywords**: Standalone LTE-U network, randomly delayed channel state information, throughput, energy efficiency, coexistence awareness, cross-layer optimization.
author:
- 'Hangguan Shan, Taojie Qin, Guanding Yu, Lin X. Cai, Yu Cheng, and Tony Q. S. Quek'
bibliography:
- 'PassiveCom.bib'
title: 'Throughput Analysis and Energy Efficiency Optimization for Standalone LTE-U Networks with Randomly Delayed CSI '
---
sect1 sect2 sect3 sect4 sect5 sect6 sect7 sect8 appendix
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a multiscale approach to efficiently compute approximate optimal transport plans between point sets. It is particularly well-suited for point sets that are in high-dimensions, but are close to being intrinsically low-dimensional. The approach is based on an adaptive multiscale decomposition of the point sets. The multiscale decomposition yields a sequence of optimal transport problems, that are solved in a top-to-bottom fashion from the coarsest to the finest scale. We provide numerical evidence that this multiscale approach scales approximately linearly, in time and memory, in the number of nodes, instead of quadratically or worse for a direct solution. Empirically, the multiscale approach results in less than one percent relative error in the objective function. Furthermore, the multiscale plans constructed are of interest by themselves as they may be used to introduce novel features and notions of distances between point sets. An analysis of sets of brain MRI based on optimal transport distances illustrates the effectiveness of the proposed method on a real world data set. The application demonstrates that multiscale optimal transport distances have the potential to improve on state-of-the-art metrics currently used in computational anatomy.'
author:
- |
Samuel Gerber$^1$ [email protected]\
Mauro Maggioni$^{2,3,4}$ [email protected]\
$^1$Kitware, NC, U.S.A\
Department of $^2$Mathematics, $^3$Applied Mathematics, $^4$Institute for Data Intensive Engineering and Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.
bibliography:
- 'MyPublications.bib'
- 'sgerber.bib'
- 'optimal-transport.bib'
- 'multiscale.bib'
- 'DiffusionBib.bib'
title: Multiscale Strategies for Computing Optimal Transport
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The study of maps between shapes, manifolds and point clouds is of great interest in a wide variety of applications. There are many data types, e.g. shapes (modeled as surfaces), images, sounds, and many more, where a similarity between a pair of data points involves computing a map between the points, and the similarity is a functional of that map. The map between a pair of data points however contains much more information than the similarity measure alone, and the study of networks of such maps have been successfully used to organize, extract functional information and abstractions, and help regularize estimators in large collections of shapes [@bigdata5; @bigdata10; @bigdata8]. The family of maps to be considered depends on the type of shape, manifold or point cloud, as well as on the choice of geometric features to be preserved in a particular application. These considerations are not restricted to data sets where each point is naturally a geometric object: high-dimensional data sets of non-geometric nature, from musical pieces to text documents to trajectories of high-dimensional stochastic dynamical systems, are often mapped, via feature sets, to geometric objects. The considerations above therefore apply to a very wide class of data types.
In this paper we are interested in the problem where each object is a point cloud – a set of points in $\mathbb{R}^D$ – and will develop techniques for computing maps from one point cloud to another, in particular in the situation where $D$ is very large, but the point clouds are close to being low-dimensional, for example they may be samples from a $d$-dimensional smooth manifold $\mathcal{M}$ ($d\ll D$). The two point clouds may have a different number of points, and they may arise from a sample of a low-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{M}$ perturbed by high-dimensional noise (for more general models see the works by @LMR:MGM1, @MMS:NoisyDictionaryLearning and @LiaoMaggioni). In this setting we have to be particularly careful in both the choice of maps and in their estimation since sampling and noise have the potential to cause significant perturbations.
We find optimal transport maps rather well-suited for these purposes. They automatically handle the situation where the two point clouds have different cardinality, they handle in a robust fashion noise, and even changes in dimensionality, which is typically ill-defined, for point clouds arising from real-world data [@LMR:MGM1]. Optimal transport has a very long history in a variety of disciplines and arises naturally in a wide variety of contexts, from optimization problems in economics and resource allocation, to mathematics and physics, to computer science (e.g. network flow algorithms). Thus, applications of optimal transport range from logistics and economics [@beckmann:eco1952; @carlier:jcc2008], geophysical models [@cullen:book2006], image analysis [@rubner:iccv1998; @haker:ijcv2004] to machine learning [@cuturi:arxiv2013; @cuturi:jmlr2014]. Despite these widespread applications, the efficient computation of optimal transport plans remains challenging, especially in complex geometries and in high dimensions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:multiscale-strategy\] Optimal transport between two noisy elliptical shapes in $2$-D. We visualize coarse-to-fine approximations to the source (purple dots) and target (yellow dots) point clouds, together with the optimal transportation plan at each scale (gray edges). The intensity of the points is proportional to mass – at coarser scales each point represents an agglomerate of points at finer scales, and its mass is the sum of the masses of the points it represents. Similarly the intensity of the lines is proportional to the amount of mass transported along the line. Notice that the optimal transport formulation permits multiple lines exiting a source point or entering a target point.](scale-3 "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![\[fig:multiscale-strategy\] Optimal transport between two noisy elliptical shapes in $2$-D. We visualize coarse-to-fine approximations to the source (purple dots) and target (yellow dots) point clouds, together with the optimal transportation plan at each scale (gray edges). The intensity of the points is proportional to mass – at coarser scales each point represents an agglomerate of points at finer scales, and its mass is the sum of the masses of the points it represents. Similarly the intensity of the lines is proportional to the amount of mass transported along the line. Notice that the optimal transport formulation permits multiple lines exiting a source point or entering a target point.](scale-5 "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
![\[fig:multiscale-strategy\] Optimal transport between two noisy elliptical shapes in $2$-D. We visualize coarse-to-fine approximations to the source (purple dots) and target (yellow dots) point clouds, together with the optimal transportation plan at each scale (gray edges). The intensity of the points is proportional to mass – at coarser scales each point represents an agglomerate of points at finer scales, and its mass is the sum of the masses of the points it represents. Similarly the intensity of the lines is proportional to the amount of mass transported along the line. Notice that the optimal transport formulation permits multiple lines exiting a source point or entering a target point.](scale-7 "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![\[fig:multiscale-strategy\] Optimal transport between two noisy elliptical shapes in $2$-D. We visualize coarse-to-fine approximations to the source (purple dots) and target (yellow dots) point clouds, together with the optimal transportation plan at each scale (gray edges). The intensity of the points is proportional to mass – at coarser scales each point represents an agglomerate of points at finer scales, and its mass is the sum of the masses of the points it represents. Similarly the intensity of the lines is proportional to the amount of mass transported along the line. Notice that the optimal transport formulation permits multiple lines exiting a source point or entering a target point.](scale-9 "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For point sets the optimal transport problem can be solved by a specialized linear program, the minimum network flow problem [@Ahuja:1993:NFT:137406; @Tarjan1997]. The minimum network flow problem has been extensively studied in the operations research community and several fast algorithms exist. However, these algorithms, at least on desktop hardware, do not scale beyond a few thousand source and target points. Our framework extends the applications of these algorithms to problem instances several orders of magnitude larger, under suitable assumptions on the geometry of the data. We exploit a multiscale representation of the source and target sets to reduce the number of variables in the linear program and quickly find good initial solutions, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:multiscale-strategy\]. The optimal transport problem is solved (with existing algorithms) at the coarsest scale and the solution is propagated to the next scale and refined. This process is repeated until the finest scale is reached. This strategy, discussed in detail in Section \[sec:mdop\], is adaptable to memory limitations and speed versus accuracy trade-offs. For some of the refinement strategies, it is guaranteed to converge to the optimal solution.
Our approach draws from a varied set of work that is briefly summarized in Section \[sec:background\]. The proposed approach generalizes and builds on previous and concurrently developed hierarchical methods [@glimm:arxiv2011; @schmitzer2013hierarchical; @schmitzer2015sparse; @oberman2015efficient]. The work in this paper adds the following contributions:
The description of a general multiscale framework for discrete optimal transport that can be applied in conjunction with a wide range of optimal transport algorithms.
A set of propagation and refinement heuristics, including approaches that are similar and/or refine existing ones [@glimm:arxiv2011; @oberman2015efficient; @schmitzer2015sparse] as well as novel ones. In particular we propose a novel propagation strategy based on capacity restrictions of the network flow problem at each scale. This new approach proves to be very efficient and accurate in practice. Overall, the heuristics result empirically in a linear increase in computation time with respect to data set size.
An implementation in the R package [*mop*]{} that allows the combination of multiple heuristics to tailor speed and accuracy to the requirements of particular applications.
Compared to other linear programming based approaches, the multiscale approach results in a speedup of up to multiple orders of magnitude in large problems and permits to solve approximately transportation problems of several orders of magnitudes larger than previously possible. Comparing to PDE based approaches is difficult and PDE based methods are limited to low-dimensional domains and specific cost metrics. The proposed framework is demonstrated on several numerical examples and compared to the state-of-the-art approximation algorithm by @cuturi:nips2013.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Optimal transport is the problem of minimizing the cost of moving a source probability distribution to a target probability distribution given a function that assigns costs to moving mass from source to target locations. The classical formulation by @monge:book1781 considers the minimization over mass preserving mappings. Later @kantorovitch:ms1958 considered the same problem but as a minimization over couplings between the two probability measures, which permits to split mass from a single source across multiple target locations. More precisely, for two probability measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ on probability spaces ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}$ and ${{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$ respectively, a coupling of $\mu$ and $\nu$ is a measure ${\pi}$ on ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}\times{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$ such that the marginals of ${\pi}$ are $\mu$ and $\nu$, i.e. ${\pi}(A\times{{{\mathbf{Y}}}})=\mu(A)$ for all ($\mu$-measurable) sets $A\subseteq{{{\mathbf{X}}}}$ and ${\pi}({{{\mathbf{X}}}}\times B)=\nu(B)$ for all ($\nu$-measurable) sets $B\subseteq{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$. We denote by $\mathcal{C}(\mu,\nu)$ the set of couplings between $\mu$ and $\nu$. Informally, we may think of $d{\pi}(x,y)$ as the amount of infinitesimal mass to be transported from source $x$ to destination $y$, with the condition that ${\pi}$ is a coupling guaranteeing that the source mass is distributed according to $\mu$ and the destination mass is distributed according to $\nu$. Such couplings always exist: we always have the trivial coupling ${\pi}=\mu\times\nu$. The trivial coupling is uninformative, every source mass $d\mu(x)$ is transported to the same target distribution $\nu$. In Monge’s formulation the coupling is restricted to the special form ${\pi}(x,y)=\delta_{T(x)}$ where $\delta_y$ is the Dirac-$\delta$ measure with mass at $y\in{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$, and $T$ is a function ${{\mathbf{X}}}\rightarrow{{\mathbf{Y}}}$: in this case the coupling is “maximally informative” in the sense that there is a function mapping each source $x$ to a single destination $y$; in particular the mass $d\mu(x)$ at $x$ is not split into multiple portions that are shipped to different target $y$’s.
To define optimal transport and optimal couplings, we need a cost function ${\mathtt{c}}(x,y)$ on ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}\times{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$ representing the work or cost needed to move a unit of mass from $x$ to $y$. Then for every coupling ${\pi}$ we may define the cost of ${\pi}$ to be $$\mathbb{E}_{(X,Y)\sim{\pi}}[{\mathtt{c}}(X,Y)]\,,$$ with $(X,Y)$ being a pair of random variables distributed according to ${\pi}$. An optimal coupling ${\pi}$ minimizes this cost over all choices of couplings. When seeking an optimal transportation plan, the above becomes $$\mathbb{E}_{X\sim\mu}[{\mathtt{c}}(X,T(X))]=\int_{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}} {\mathtt{c}}(x,T(x)) d\mu(x)\,,$$ and one minimizes over all (measurable) functions $T:{{{\mathbf{X}}}}\rightarrow{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$. One often designs the cost function $c$ in an application-dependent fashion, and the above framework is extremely general. When ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}={{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$ is a metric space with respect to a distance $\rho$ (with suitable technical conditions relating the metrics and the measures $\mu$, $\nu$ that we will not delve into, referring the reader to [@villani:book2009]), then distinguished choices for the cost are those that are related to the metric structure. The natural choice of ${\mathtt{c}}(x,y)=\rho(x,y)^p$, for some $p>0$ leads to the definition of the Wasserstein-Kantorovich-Rubinstein metric on the space of probability measures on ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}$: $$W_p(\mu,\nu):=\min_{{\pi}\in\mathcal{C}(\mu,\nu)}\left(\int_{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\int_{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}
\rho(x,y)^p d{\pi}(x,y)\right)^{\frac1p}\,.$$
Computational solutions to optimal transport split roughly in two settings: Approaches based on the solution of partial differential equations derived from the continuous optimal transport formulation, briefly discussed in Section \[sec:continuous\] and, more relevant to this paper, combinatorial optimization methods to directly solve for a discrete optimal transport plan discussed in Section \[sec:lp\].
Continuous Optimal Transport {#sec:continuous}
----------------------------
In case that at least the source distribution admits a density, and when the cost function is the squared Euclidean distance, the optimal coupling is deterministic, i.e. there exists a transport map, and the optimal solution is the gradient of a convex function [@brenier:cpam1991]. This has been exploited to solve the optimal transport problem by numerical partial differential equation approaches [@benamou:nm2000; @angenent:jma2003; @haker:ijcv2004; @iollo:jcp2011; @papadakis:arxiv2013; @benamou2014numerical].
An alternative formulation proposed by @aurenhammer:algorithmica1998 shows that the optimal transport from a source density to a target distribution of a set of weighted Dirac delta’s can be solved through a finite dimensional unconstrained convex optimization. @merigot:cgf2011 proposes a multiscale approach for the formulation of @aurenhammer:algorithmica1998. Both the numerical PDE based approaches as well as the unconstrained convex optimization require a discretization of the full domain which is generally not feasible for higher dimensional domains. For arbitrary cost functions and distributions the optimal transport problem does typically not result in a deterministic coupling and can not be solved through PDE based approaches.
Discrete Optimal Transport and Linear Programming {#sec:lp}
-------------------------------------------------
For two discrete distributions $\mu = \sum_1^n w(x_i) \delta(x_i)$ and $ \nu =
\sum_1^m v(y_i) \delta(y_i)$ with $\sum w(x_i) = \sum v(y_i) = 1$ the optimal transport problem is equivalent to the linear program $$\min_{\pi}\sum_{\substack{i=1,\dots,n\\ j=1,\dots,m}}
{\mathtt{c}}(x_i, y_j) {\pi}(x_i, y_j) \quad \text{s.t.}\quad
\begin{cases}
\sum_j {\pi}(x_i, y_j) = \mu(\{x_i\})= w(x_i) & \\
\sum_i {\pi}(x_i, y_j) = \nu(\{y_j\}) = v(y_j) & \\
{\pi}(x_i,y_j)\ge 0
\end{cases}\,.
\label{e:LPformulation}$$ The solution is called an optimal coupling ${\pi}^*$, and the minimum value attained at ${\pi}^*$, is called the cost of $\pi^*$, or the optimal cost of the transport problem, and is denoted by ${\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}^*)=\sum_{i,j} {\mathtt{c}}(x_i,y_j)\pi^*(x_i,y_j)$. The constraints enforce that ${\pi}$ is a coupling. The variables ${\pi}(x_i, y_j)$ correspond to the amount of mass transported from source $x_i$ to target $y_j$, at cost ${\mathtt{c}}(x_i, y_j)$. The linear constraints are of rank $n+m-1$: when $n+m-1$ of the constraints are satisfied, either the $n$ constraints of the source density or the $m$ constraints of the target density are satisfied. Since the sum of outgoing mass is equal to the sum of incoming mass, i.e. $\mu({{\mathbf{X}}}) = \nu({{\mathbf{Y}}})$, it follows that all constraints must be satisfied. The optimal solution lies, barring degeneracies, on a corner of the polytope defined by the constraints, i.e. is a basic feasible solution. This implies that exactly $n+m-1$ entries of the optimal coupling ${\pi}$ are non-zero, i.e. $\pi$ is a sparse matrix. The optimal coupling is a Monge transport map if and only if all the mass of a source $x_i$ is transported to exactly one target location. A Monge solution does not exist for every optimal transport problem, in fact a small perturbation of $\mu$ will always suffice to make a Monge solution impossible.
For source and target data sets with the same cardinality and equally weighted $\delta$-functions, Kantorovich’s optimal transport problem reduces to an assignment problem, whose solution is a Monge optimal transport map. In this special case, the optimal transport problem can be efficiently solved by the Hungarian algorithm [@kuhn:nrlq1955]. The assignment problem results in a degenerate linear program since only $n$ entries are non-zero (instead of $2n-1$). We can therefore think of optimal transport as a robust version of assignments. This can also be seen from the point of view of convexity: in the assignment problem, ${\pi}$ is a permutation matrix deciding to which $y_j$ each $x_i$ is transported. The convex hull of permutation matrices is exactly the set of doubly-stochastic matrices, to which a coupling $\pi$ belongs as a consequence of the constraints in .
For point sets with different cardinalities and/or points with different masses the optimal transport problem can be solved by a linear program and is a special case of the minimum cost network flow problem. The minimum cost flow problem is well studied and a number of algorithms [@ford:ms1956; @klein:ms1967; @cunningham:mp1976; @goldberg:stoc1987; @bertsekas:or1988; @orlin:mp1997] exist for its solution. This discrete solution approach is not constrained to specific cost functions and can work with arbitrary cost functions.
However, the linear programming approach neglects possibly useful geometric properties of the measures and the cost function. Our work makes assumptions about the underlying geometry of the measure spaces and the associated cost function, and in this way is a mixing of the low-dimensional “geometric PDE” approaches with the discrete non-geometric optimization approaches. It exploits the geometric assumptions to relieve the shortcomings of either approach, namely it scales to high-dimensional data, provided that the intrinsic dimension is low in a suitable sense, and does not require a mesh data structure. At the same time we use the geometry of the data to speed up the linear program, which per–se does not leverage geometric structures.
The refinement strategies of the proposed multiscale approach add subsets of paths among all pairwise paths at each subsequent scale to improve the optimal transport plan. This strategy of adding paths, is akin to column generation approaches [@desrosiers:book2005]. Column generation, first developed by @dantzig:informs1960 and @ford:ms1956, reduces the number of variables in a linear program by solving a smaller linear program on a subset of the original variables and introducing new variables on demand. However, the proposed approach exploits the geometry of the problem instead of relying on an auxiliary linear program [@dantzig:informs1960] or shortest path computations [@ford:ms1956] to detect the entering variables.
Approximation Strategies
------------------------
In the computer vision literature, the Earth Movers distance or equivalently the Wasserstein-1 distance, which is simply the cost of the optimal coupling, is a successful similarity measure for image retrieval [@rubner:iccv1998]. In this application the transport plan is not of interest but only the final transport cost. For this purpose @indyk2003fast, @shirdhonkar:cvpr2008 and @andoni:soda2008 developed algorithms that compute an approximate cost but do not yield a transport plan. Some of these approaches are based on the dual formulation of optimal transport, which involves testing against Lipschitz functions, and observing that Lipschitz functions may be characterized by decay properties of their wavelet coefficients. In this sense these approaches are multiscale as well.
To speed up computations in machine learning applications @cuturi:nips2013 proposes to [*smooth*]{} transport plans by adding a maximum entropy penalty to the optimal transport formulation. The resulting optimization problem is efficiently solved through matrix scaling with Sinkhorn fixed-point iterations. Because of the added regularization term, the solution will in general be different from the optimal transportation. It may however be the case that these particular (or perhaps other) regularized solutions are better suited for certain applications.
Related Work
------------
Very recently a number of approaches have been proposed to solve the optimal transport in a multiscale fashion [@glimm:arxiv2011; @schmitzer2013hierarchical; @schmitzer2015sparse; @oberman2015efficient]. @glimm:arxiv2011 design an iterative scheme to solve a discrete optimal transport problem in reflector design and propose a heuristic for the iterative refinements based on linear programming duality. This iterative scheme can be interpreted as a multiscale decomposition of the transport problem based on geometry of the source and target sets. The proposed potential refinement strategy extends the heuristic proposed by @glimm:arxiv2011 to guarantee optimal solutions and adds a more efficient computation strategy: Their approach requires to check all possible variables at the next scale. In Section \[sec:potential\] we introduce a variation of the approach by @glimm:arxiv2011 by adding a branch and bound strategy to avoid checking all variables, and an iterative procedure that guarantees optimal solutions.
@schmitzer2013hierarchical propose a multiscale approach on grids that uses a refinement strategy based on spatial neighborhoods, akin to the neighborhood refinement described in Section \[sec:neighborhood\]. @schmitzer2015sparse uses a multiscale approach to develop a modified auction algorithm with guaranteed worst case complexity and optimal solutions. We use data structures that enable us to quickly construct neighborhoods, even for point clouds that live in high-dimensions, but have low-intrinsic dimension; we also exploit these structures to not compute all the pairwise possible costs, as well as the candidate neighborhoods in our propagation steps. This can result in substantial savings in the scaling of the algorithm, from $|\mathbf{X}|^3$ to just $|\mathbf{X}|\log|\mathbf{X}|$. We are therefore able to scale to larger problem, solving on a laptop problems an order of magnitude larger than those in @oberman2015efficient for example, and showing linear scaling on a large range of scales. @schmitzer2015sparse use the c–cyclical monotonicity property of optimal transport plans [@villani:book2009 Chapter 5] to construct “shielding neighborhoods” that permit to exclude paths from further consideration. The idea of shielding neighborhoods is combined with a multiscale strategy that permits to quickly refine initial neighborhood estimates.
Finally, in our work we emphasize that the multiscale construction is not only motivated by its computational advantage, but also as a way of revealing possibly important features of the optimal transportation map. As we show in Section \[s:brainMR\], features collected from the multiscale optimal transportation maps leads to improved predictors for brain conditions. More generally, we expect multiscale properties of optimal transportation maps to be useful in a variety of learning tasks; the connections between learning and optimal transportation are still a very open field, to be explored and exploited.
Multiscale Optimal Transport {#sec:mdop}
============================
Solving the optimal transport problem for two point sets ${{\mathbf{X}}}$ and ${{\mathbf{Y}}}$ directly requires $|{{\mathbf{X}}}||{{\mathbf{Y}}}|$ variables, or paths to consider. In other words, the number of paths along which mass can be transported grows quadratically in the number of points and quickly yields exceedingly large problems. The basic premise of the multiscale strategy is to solve a sequence of transport problems based on increasingly accurate approximations of the source and target point set. The multiscale strategy helps to reduce the problem size at each scale by using the solution from the previous scale to inform which paths to include in the optimization at the next finer scale. Additionally, the solution at the previous scale helps to find a good initialization for the current scale which results in fewer iterations to solve the reduced size linear program.
The multiscale algorithm (see Algorithm \[f:algo\] and Figure \[fig:multiscalepic\] for a visual illustration) comprises of three key elements:
- A way of [***coarsening** the sets*]{} of source points ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}$ and measure $\mu$ in a multiscale fashion, yielding a chain $$({{{\mathbf{X}}}},\mu)=:({{{\mathbf{X}}}}_J,\mu_J) \rightarrow({{{\mathbf{X}}}}_{J-1},\mu_{J-1})
\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow({{{\mathbf{X}}}}_j,\mu_j)
\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow({{{\mathbf{X}}}}_0,\mu_0)$$ connecting the scales from fine to coarse, with ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}_j$ of decreasing cardinality as the scale decreases, and the discrete measure $\mu_j$ “representing” a coarsification of $\mu$ at scale $j$, with $\mathrm{supp}(\mu_j)={{{\mathbf{X}}}}_j$ (the support of $\mu_j$ is the set of points with positive measure). Similarly for ${{\mathbf{Y}}}$ and $\nu$ we obtain the chain $$({{{\mathbf{Y}}}},\mu)=:({{{\mathbf{Y}}}}_J,\nu_J) \rightarrow({{{\mathbf{Y}}}}_{J-1},\nu_{J-1})
\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow({{{\mathbf{Y}}}}_j,\nu_j)
\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow({{{\mathbf{Y}}}}_0,\nu_0)$$ This coarsening step is described in Section \[sec:coarsening\] and the resulting multiscale family of transport problems is discussed in Section \[sec:multiscaleproblems\].
- A way of [***propagating** a coupling*]{} ${\pi}_j$ solving the transport problem $\mu_j\rightarrowtail\nu_j$ at scale $j$ to a coupling ${\pi}_{j+1}$ at scale $j+1$. This is described in Section \[sec:propagation\].
- A way of [***refining** the propagated solution*]{} to the optimal coupling at scale $j$. This is described in Section \[sec:refinement\].
Construct multiscale structures $\{\{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}_j,\mu_j)\}_{j=0}^J$ and $\{\{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}_j,\nu_j)\}_{j=0}^J$.
Let $\tilde {\pi}_0$ be an arbitrary coupling $\mu_0\rightarrowtail\nu_0$.
The Coarsening Step: Multiscale Approximations to ${{\mathbf{X}}}$, $\mu$ and ${\mathtt{c}}$ {#sec:coarsening}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To derive approximation bounds for the error of the multiscale transport problem at each scale we rely on the notion of a regular family of multiscale partitions formally described in Section \[sec:mspartitions\]. The multiscale partition is used to define approximations to $\mu$ and ${\mathtt{c}}$ at all scales. An integral part of the definitions is that the constructions can be interpreted as a tree, with all nodes at a fixed height corresponding to one scale of the multiscale partitioning.
We start with some notation needed for the definition of the multiscale partitions. Let $({{{\mathbf{X}}}},\rho,\mu)$ be a measure metric space with metric $\rho$ and finite measure $\mu$. Without loss of generality assume that $\mu({{\mathbf{X}}})=1$. The metric ball of center $z$ and radius $r$ is $B_z(r)=\{
x\in{{{\mathbf{X}}}} : \rho(x,z)<r\}$. We say that ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}$ has doubling dimension $d$ if every ball $B_z(r)$ can be covered by at most $2^d$ balls of radius $r/2$ [@assouad1983plongements]. Furthermore, a space has a doubling measure if $\mu(B_z(r))\asymp r^d$, i.e. if there exist a constant $c_1$ such that for every $z\in{{\mathbf{X}}}$ and $r>0$ we have $c_1^{-1}r^d\le\mu(B_z(r))\le
c_1r^d$. Here and in what follows, we say that $f\asymp g$ if there are two constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that for every $z$ in the domain of both functions $f,g$ we have $c_1 f(z)\le g(z)\le c_2 f(z)$ (and therefore a similar set of inequalities holds with the roles of $f$ and $g$ swapped), and we say that $f$ and $g$ have the same order of magnitude. Having a doubling measure implies having a doubling metric, and up to changing the metric to an equivalent one, one may choose the same $d$ in the doubling condition for the metric and in that for the measure: we assume this has been done from now on. This family of spaces is rather general, it includes regular domains in $\mathbb{R}^D$, as well as smooth compact manifolds $\mathcal{M}$ endowed with volume measures.
### Multiscale Approximations to ${{\mathbf{X}}}$ and $\mu$ {#sec:mspartitions}
A regular family of multiscale partitions, with scaling parameter $\theta>1$, is a family of sets $\{\{C_{j,k}\}_{k=1}^{K_j}\}_{j=0}^J$, where $j$ denotes the scale and $k$ indexes the sets at scale $j$, such that:
- the sets $\{C_{j,k}\}_{k=1}^{K_j}$ form a partition of ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}$, i.e. they are disjoint and $\cup_{k=1}^{K_j}C_{j,k} = {{{\mathbf{X}}}}$;
- either $C_{j+1,k'}$ does not intersect a $C_{j,k}$, or it is completely contained in it;
- there exists a constant $A>0$ such that for all $j,k$ we have the diameter $\mathrm{diam}(C_{j,k})\le A\theta^{-j}$;
- each $C_{j,k}$ contains a “center” point $c_{j,k}$ such that $B_{c_{j,k}}(\theta^{-j})\subseteq C_{j,k}$.
To ease the notation we will fix $\theta=2$ in what follows, but the constructions and results hold, mutatis mutandis, for general $\theta>1$. The properties (i) and (ii) above imply that there exists a tree $\mathcal{T}$, with nodes at scale $j$ (i.e. at distance $j$ from the root) in bijection with $\{C_{j,k}\}_{k=1}^{K_j}$, such that $(j+1,k')$ is a child of $(j,k)$ if and only if $C_{j+1,k'}$ is contained in $C_{j,k}$. Moreover properties (iii) and (iv), together with the properties of spaces with a doubling measure, imply that $\mu(C_{j,k})\asymp 2^{-jd}$ and $K_j\asymp 2^{jd}$. These partitions are classical in harmonic analysis, mimicking dyadic cubes in Euclidean space, and they have recently been used to construct multiscale decompositions of data sets in high-dimensions [@LMR:MGM1; @CM:MGM2; @IM:GMRA_CS; @6410789]. We say that $C_{j+1,k'}$, or even $(j+1,k')$, is a child of $C_{j,k}$ (respectively, of $(j,k)$) if $C_{j+1,k'}\subseteq C_{j,k}$, and that such $C_{j,k}$ (respectively $(j,k)$) is a parent of $C_{j+1,k'}$ (resp. $(j+1,k')$).
Given two discrete sets ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}$ and ${{{\mathbf{Y}}}}$ in a doubling metric space of homogeneous type with dimension $d$, we construct the corresponding families of multiscale partitions $\{\{C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\}_{k=1}^{K^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_j}\}_{j=0}^J$ and $\{\{C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k}\}_{k=1}^{K^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_j}\}_{j=0}^J$ (we assume the same range of scales to keep the notation simple). The construction of the multiscale approximations is illustrated in Figure \[fig:multiscalepic\].
![ \[fig:multiscalepic\] An illustration of the multiscale framework. The coarsening step constructs from a set of weighted points ${{\mathbf{X}}}_{j+1}$ at scale $j+1$ a smaller set of weighted points at scale $j$ (blue bars). An equivalent coarsening is performed on the target point set ${{\mathbf{Y}}}_{j+1}$ Neighboring points at scale $j+1$ are combined into a single representative at scale $j$ with mass equivalent to the weights of the combined points. The optimal transport plan (green arrows) is solved at the coarser scale $j$, then propagated to scale $j+1$ and refined. ](figures/MultiscalePic.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
The space ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}_j$ will be the partition at scale $j$, namely the set $\{C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\}_{k=1}^{K^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_j}$, of cardinality $K^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_j$. The measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ may be coarsened in the natural way, by letting $\mu_j$ be defined recursively on ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}_j$ by $$\mu_j( C_{j,k}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}} )= \sum_{(j+1,k')\text{ child of } (j,k)} \mu_{j+1}( C_{j+1,k'}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}} )\,,
\label{e:muj}$$ and similarly for $\nu_j$. These are in fact projections of these measures, and may also be interpreted as conditional expectations with respect to the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the multiscale partitions. We can associate a point $\overline c_{j,k}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}$ to each $C_{j,k}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}$ in various ways, by “averaging” the points in $C_{j+1,k'}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}$, for $(j+1,k')$ a child of $(j,k)$. At the finest scale we may let $\overline{c}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{J,k}={c}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{J,k}$ (this being a “center” for $C_{J,k}$ as in item (iv) in the definition of multiscale partitions), and then recursively we defined the coarser centers step from scale $j+1$ to scale $j$ in one of the following ways:
- If the metric space is also a vector space a natural definition of $x_{j,k}:=\overline c_{j,k}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}$ is a weighted average of the $\overline
c_{j+1,k'}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}$ corresponding to children: $$\overline{c}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k} =
\sum_{(j+1,k')\text{ child of } (j,k)} \mu_{j+1}(\{\overline c_{j+1,k'}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\}) \overline c_{j+1,k'}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\,.$$
- In general we can define $x_{j,k}:=\overline c_{j,k}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}$ as the point $$\overline{c}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}=\mathrm{argmin}_{c \in{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\,\,
\sum_{(j+1,k')\text{ child of } (j,k) } \rho^p( c, \overline c_{j+1,k'}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}} ) \,,$$ for some $p \geq 1$, typically $p=1$ (median) or $p=2$ (Fréchet mean).
Of course similar constructions apply to the space ${{{\mathbf{Y}}}}_j$, yielding points $y_{j,k}:=\overline c_{j,k}^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}$. We discuss algorithms for these constructions in Section \[s:multiscalepointsets\].
### Coarsening the cost function ${\mathtt{c}}$
The multiscale partition provides several ways to coarsen the cost function: for every $x_{j,k}$ and $y_{j,k'}$ we consider
- the pointwise value $${\mathtt{c}}_j(c_{j,k}^{{{\mathbf{X}}}}, c_{j,k'}^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}) :=
{\mathtt{c}}(x_{j,k}^{{{\mathbf{X}}}},y_{j,k'}^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}})\,,
\label{e:costpointwise}$$ where $x_{j,k}$ and $y_{j,k'}$ are defined in any of the ways above;
- the local average $${\mathtt{c}}_j(c_{j,k}^{{{\mathbf{X}}}}, c_{j,k'}^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}) :=
\argmin_{\alpha} \sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k},\,y \in
C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}\left(\alpha-{\mathtt{c}}(x,y)\right)^2
= \frac{\sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k},\,y\in
C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}{\mathtt{c}}(x,y)}{|C_{j,k}^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}| |C_{j,k'}^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}|}\,;
\label{e:costlocalave}$$
- the local weighted average $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathtt{c}}_j(c_{j,k}^{{{\mathbf{X}}}},c_{j,k'}^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}})
&:=\argmin_{\alpha}\sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k},\, y\in
C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}\left(\alpha-{\mathtt{c}}(x,y)\right)^2
{\pi}^*_{j-1}(x_{j-1,k_1},y_{j-1,k'_1})\\
&=\frac{\sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k},\,y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}{\mathtt{c}}(x,y){\pi}^*_{j-1}(x_{j-1,k_1},y_{j-1,k'_1})}{
\sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k},\,y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}{\pi}^*_{j-1}(x_{j-1,k_1},y_{j-1,k'_1})
}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi^*_{j-1}$ is the optimal or approximate transportation plan at scale $j-1$, defined in ; $k_1$ is the unique index for which $C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\subseteq C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j-1,k_1}$ and $k'_1$ is the unique index for which $C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k}\subseteq C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j-1,k'_1}\,.$
Multiscale Family of Optimal Transport Problems {#sec:multiscaleproblems}
-----------------------------------------------
With the definitions of the multiscale family of coarser spaces ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}_j$ and ${{{\mathbf{Y}}}}_j$, corresponding measures $\mu_j$ and $\nu_j$, and corresponding cost ${\mathtt{c}}_j$, we may consider, for each scale $j$, the following optimal transport problem: $$\begin{aligned}
{\pi}_j^*&: = \argmin_{\pi}\!\!\!\sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\ k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}}
\!\!\!\!{\mathtt{c}}_j(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'}) {\pi}(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'})
\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\,
\begin{cases}
\sum_{k'} {\pi}(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'}) = \mu_j(\{x_{j,k}\}) & \forall k\in K_j^{{\mathbf{X}}}\\
\sum_{k} {\pi}(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'}) = \nu_j(\{y_{j,k'}\}) & \forall k'\in K_j^{{\mathbf{Y}}}\\
{\pi}(x_{j,k},y_{j,k'})\ge 0
\end{cases}
\label{e:LPformulation_j}
\end{aligned}$$
The problems in this family are related to each other, and to the optimal transportation problem in the original spaces. We define the cost of a coupling as $${\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}_j) = \sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\
k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}} {\mathtt{c}}_j(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'}) {\pi}_j(x_{j,k},
y_{j,k'}) \, .$$ The cost of the optimal coupling ${\pi}_j^*$ at scale $j$ is provably an approximation to the cost of the optimal coupling ${\pi}^*$ (which is equal to ${\pi}_J^*$):
Let ${\pi}^*$ be the optimal coupling, i.e. the solution to , and ${\pi}^*_j$ the optimal coupling at scale $j$, i.e. the solution to . Define $$E_j({\pi}^*) := \sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\ k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}}
\sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\\ y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}
\left({\mathtt{c}}_j(x_{j,k},y_{j,k'})-{\mathtt{c}}(x,y)\right) {\pi}^*(x,y)\,.$$ Then $${\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}_j^*)\le{\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}^*)+E_j({\pi}^*)\,,
\label{e:UBcouplingcostpij}$$ and if ${\mathtt{c}}_j={\mathtt{c}}$ and ${\mathtt{c}}$ is Lipschitz with constant $||\nabla{\mathtt{c}}||_\infty$, we have $${\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}_j^*)\le{\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}^*)+2^{-j}A||\nabla {\mathtt{c}}||_\infty\,,
\label{e:UBcouplingcostpijboundednabld}$$ where $A$ is such that $\max_{k,k'}\{\mathrm{diam}(C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}),\mathrm{diam}(C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'})\}\le
A\cdot2^{-j}$.
Consider the coupling ${\pi}_j$ induced at scale $j$ by the optimal coupling ${\pi}^*$, defined by $${\pi}_j(x_{j,k},y_{j,k'}) = \sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\,,
y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}} {\pi}^*(x,y)\,.$$ First of all, since $\{C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\}_k$ and $\{C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}\}_{k'}$ are partitions, it is immediately verified that ${\pi}_j$ is a coupling. Secondly, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}_j)
&=\sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\ k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}}
{\mathtt{c}}_j(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'}) {\pi}_j(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'})
=\sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\ k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}}
\sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\\ y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}
{\mathtt{c}}_j(x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'}) {\pi}^*(x,y)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x\in{{{\mathbf{X}}}}\\ y\in{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}} {\mathtt{c}}(x,y){\pi}^*(x,y)+
\sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\ k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}}
\sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\\ y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}
\left({\mathtt{c}}_j(x_{j,k},y_{j,k'})-{\mathtt{c}}(x,y)\right) {\pi}^*(x,y)\\
&= {\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}^*) + \underbrace{ \sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\
k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}} \sum_{\substack{x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\\ y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}}
\left({\mathtt{c}}_j(x_{j,k},y_{j,k'})-{\mathtt{c}}(x,y)\right) {\pi}^*(x,y)}_{=:E_j({\pi}^*)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}^*_j)\le{\mathtt{cost}}({\pi}_j)$ (since ${\pi}^*_j$ is optimal), we obtain . When ${\mathtt{c}}_j={\mathtt{c}}$ and ${\mathtt{c}}$ is Lipschitz with constant $||\nabla{\mathtt{c}}||_\infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
E_j({\pi}^*)
&\le \sum_{\substack{k\,:\,x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\\
k'\,:\,y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}} \sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\
k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}}||\nabla{\mathtt{c}}||_\infty\cdot ||(x_{j,k},y_{j,k'})-(x,y)||{\pi}^*(x,y)\\
&\le \sum_{\substack{k\,:\,x\in C^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}_{j,k}\\
k'\,:\,y\in C^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}_{j,k'}}} \sum_{\substack{k=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}}\\
k'=1,\dots,K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}}}||\nabla{\mathtt{c}}||_\infty 2^{-j}A{\pi}^*(x,y)\\
&\le 2^{-j}A||\nabla{\mathtt{c}}||_\infty \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $A$ as in the claim.
In the discrete, finite case that we are considering, $\mu_j\rightarrow\mu$ and $\nu_j\rightarrow\nu$ trivially since $\mu_J=\mu$ and $\nu_J=\nu$ by construction. If $\mu$ and $\nu$ were continuous, and at least when ${\mathtt{c}}(x,y)=\rho(x,y)^p$ for some $p\ge1$, then if $\mu$ and $\nu$ have finite $p$-moment (i.e. $\int_{{\mathbf{X}}}\rho(x,x_0)^pd\mu$ and similarly for $\nu$), we would obtain convergence of a subsequence of ${\mathtt{c}}({\pi}^*_j)$ to ${\mathtt{c}}({\pi}^*)$ by general results (e.g. as a simple consequence of Lemma 4.4. in [@villani:book2009]).
Note that the approximations do not guarantee that the transport plans are close in any other sense but their cost. Consider the arrangement in Figure \[fig:counter-approximation\], the transport plans are $\epsilon$-close in cost but the distances between the target locations of the sources are far no matter how small $\epsilon$ gets.
[VV]{} ![ \[fig:counter-approximation\] An example that illustrates that closeness in cost does not indicate closeness of the transport plan. The transport plans (green arrows) between the sources A and B (purple) and the targets Y and Z (orange) in (a) and (b) are $\epsilon$-close but their respective target locations are very far. ](counter-approximation "fig:"){width="0.99\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:counter-approximation\] An example that illustrates that closeness in cost does not indicate closeness of the transport plan. The transport plans (green arrows) between the sources A and B (purple) and the targets Y and Z (orange) in (a) and (b) are $\epsilon$-close but their respective target locations are very far. ](counter-approximation2 "fig:"){width="0.99\linewidth"}\
(a) & (b)
Propagation Strategies {#sec:propagation}
----------------------
The approximation bounds in Section \[sec:multiscaleproblems\] show that the optimal solution ${\pi}_{j}$ at scale $j$ is $| E_{j+1} - E_j |$ close to optimal solution ${\pi}_{j+1}^*$ at scale $j+1$. This suggests that the solution at scale $j$ can provide a reasonably close to optimal initialization for scale $j+1$.
As proposed by @glimm:arxiv2011 the solution at a given scale can be interpolated at the next scale (or finer discretization). The most direct approach to initialize the transport problem at scale $j+1$ given the solution ${\pi}_{j}^*$ at scale $j$ is to distribute the mass ${\pi}_{j}^*(x_k,
y_{k'})$ equally to all combinations of paths between ${\operatorname{children}}(x_k)$ and ${\operatorname{children}}(y_{k'})$. This propagation strategy results in a reduction in the number of iterations required to find an optimal solution at the subsequent scale. This warm-starting alone is often not sufficient, however. At the finest scale the problems still requires the solution of a problem of size $O(n^2)$. This quickly reaches memory constraints with $\Omega(10^4)$ points, and a single iteration of Newton’s method or a pivot step of a linear program becomes prohibitively slow. Thus, we consider reducing the number of variables, which substantially speeds up the algorithm, albeit we may lose guarantees on its computational complexity and/or its ability to achieve arbitrary accuracy, so that only numerical experiments will support our constructions. These reductions are achieved by considering only a subset $\mathbf{R}_{j+1}$ of all possible paths $\mathbf{A}_{j+1}$ at scale $j+1$.
To distinguish the optimal solution on the reduced set of paths at scale $j$ from the optimal solution over all paths we introduce some notation. Let $\mathbf{A}_{j+1}$ be the set of all possible paths between sources and targets at scale $j+1$. Let $\mathbf{R}_{j+1} \subseteq \mathbf{A}_{j+1}$ be the set of paths propagated from the previous solution (e.g. children of mass-bearing paths found at scale $j$). Let ${\pi}^*_{j+1} |_{\mathbf{P}}$ be the optimal solution to the transport problem restricted to a set of paths $\mathbf{P} \subset \mathbf{A}_{j+1}$. With this notation, $ {\pi}_{j+1}^*
|_{\mathbf{A}_{j+1}} = {\pi}_{j+1}^*$. The optimal coupling ${\pi}_{j+1}^*|_{\mathbf{R}_{j+1}}$ on the reduced set of paths problem does not need to match the optimal coupling ${\pi}_{j+1}^*$ on all paths. However $ {\pi}_{j+1}^* |_\mathbf{R_{j+1}}$ does provide a starting point for further refinements discussed in Section \[sec:refinement\].
### Simple Propagation {#sec:simple}
The most direct approach to reduce the number of paths considered at subsequent scales is to include only paths at scale $j+1$ whose endpoints are children of endpoints of mass-bearing paths at scale $j$. The optimal solution at scale $j$ has exactly $K_j^{{{\mathbf{X}}}} + K_j^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}} - 1$ paths with non-zero weight. Thus, the number of paths at scale $j+1$ reduces to $O( C^2(K_{j}^{{{\mathbf{X}}}} + K_j^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}))$, where $C$ is the maximal number of children of any node at scale $j$. In particular, $C\asymp 2^{d}$ for a doubling space of dimension $d$. This reduces the number of variables from “quadratic”, $O(K_{j}^{{{\mathbf{X}}}} K_j^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}} )$, to linear, $O(K_{j}^{{{\mathbf{X}}}}+K_j^{{{\mathbf{Y}}}} )$. This propagation strategy by itself, however, often leads to a dramatic loss of accuracy in both the cost the transportation plan, and the transportation plan itself.
### Capacity Constraint Propagation {#sec:capacity}
This propagation strategy solves a modified minimum flow problem at scale $j$ in order to include additional paths at scale $j+1$ that are likely to be included in the optimal solution ${\pi}_{j+1}^*$. This is achieved by adding a capacity constraint to the mass bearing paths at scale $j$ in the optimal coupling $ {\pi}_j^* |_{\mathbf{R}_j}$: The amount of mass of a mass bearing path $ {\pi}_j^* |_{\mathbf{R}_j}( x_{j,k}, y_{j,k'} )$ is constrained to $\lambda \min \left ( \mu_j(x_{j,k}), \nu_j(y_{j,k'}) \right)$ with $\lambda$ random uniform on $[0.1, 0.9]$. The randomness is introduced to avoid degenerate constraints. The solution of this modified minimum–flow problem forces the inclusion of $n_c$ additional paths, where $n_c$ is the number of constraints added. There are various options for adding capacity constraints, we propose to constrain all mass bearing paths of the optimal solution at scale ${\pi}_j^*|_{\mathbf{R}_j}$. The capacity constrained problem thus results in a solution with twice the number of paths as in the coupling ${\pi}_j^*|_{\mathbf{R}_j}$. The solution of the capacity constrained minimum flow problem is propagated as before to the next scale.
To increase the likelihood of including paths required to find an optimal solution at the next scale, the capacity constrained procedure can be iterated multiple times. Each time the mass bearing paths in the modified solution are constrained and a new solution is computed. Each iteration doubles the number of mass bearing paths and the number of iterations controls how many paths are propagated to the next scale. Thus, the capacity constraint propagation strategy bounds the number of paths considered in the linear program. The optimal transport plan on a source set ${{\mathbf{X}}}$ and ${{\mathbf{Y}}}$ results in a linear program with $|{{\mathbf{X}}}| + |{{\mathbf{Y}}}|$ constraints and $|{{\mathbf{X}}}| |{{\mathbf{Y}}}|$ variables and the optimal transport plan has $|{{\mathbf{X}}}| + |{{\mathbf{Y}}}| - 1$ mass bearing paths. It follows that the capacity constraint propagation strategy considers linear programs with at most $O\left( 2^i (|{{\mathbf{X}}}| + |{{\mathbf{Y}}}|) \right)$ constraints, where $i$ is the number of iterations of the capacity propagation scheme. This results in a significant reduction in problem size, since at each scale we only consider a number of paths scaling as $O(|{{\mathbf{X}}}|+|{{\mathbf{Y}}}|)$ instead of $O(|{{\mathbf{X}}}|
|{{\mathbf{Y}}}|)$.
Refinement Strategies {#sec:refinement}
---------------------
Solving the reduced transport problem at scale $j+1$, propagated from scale $j$, can not guarantee an optimal solution at scale $j+1$. Propagating a sub-optimal solution further may lead to an accumulation of errors. This section describes strategies to refine the reduced transport problem to find closer approximations or even optimal transport plans at each scale. These refinement strategies are essentially batch column generation methods [@desaulniers:book2002], that take advantage of the multiscale structure.
### Potential Refinement {#sec:potential}
This refinement strategy exploits the potential functions, or dual solution, to determine additional paths to include given the currently optimal solution on the reduced set of paths from the propagation. The dual formulation of the optimal transport can be written as: $$\max_{\phi, \psi}
\sum_{i=1,\dots,n} \mu(\{x_i\}) \phi(x_i) -
\sum_{j=1,\dots,m} \nu(\{y_j\}) \psi(y_j)
\quad \text{s.t.} \quad
\phi(x_i) - \psi(y_j) \leq {\mathtt{c}}(x_i, y_j) \,.
\label{e:DualLPformulation}$$ The functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ are called dual variables or potential functions. From the dual formulation it follows that at an optimal solution the [*reduced cost*]{} ${\mathtt{c}}(x, y) - \phi(x) + \psi(y)$ is larger or equal to zero. This also follows from the Kantorovich duality of optimal transport [@villani:book2009 Chapter 5].
The potential refinement strategy uses the potential functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ from the solution of the reduced problem to determine which additional paths to include. If the solution on the reduced problem is not optimal on all paths, then there exist paths with negative reduced cost. Thus, we check the reduced cost between all paths and include the ones negative reduced cost. A direct implementation of this strategy would require to check all possible paths between the source and target points. To avoid checking all pairwise paths between source and target point sets at the current scale, we introduce a branch and bound procedure on the multiscale structure that efficiently determines all paths with negative reduced cost.
Let $ \phi_j^* |_\mathbf{P}$ and $ \psi_j^*|_\mathbf{P}$ the dual variables, i.e., the potential functions, at the optimal solution ${\pi}_j^*|_\mathbf{P}$ on the set of paths $\mathbf{P}$ for the source and target points, respectively. Define $\mathbf{V}_j( {\pi}_j^*|_\mathbf{P} )$ as the set of paths with non-positive reduced cost with respect to $ \phi_j^*
|_\mathbf{P}$ and $\psi_j^* |_\mathbf{P}$ $$\mathbf{V}_j( {\pi}_j^* |_\mathbf{P}) = \left \{ {\pi}_j(x_k, y_{k'})
\in \mathbf{A}_j : {\mathtt{c}}(x_k, y_{k'}) - \phi_j^* |_\mathbf{P}(x_k) - \psi_j^*
|_{\mathbf{P}}(y_{k'}) \le 0 \right \} \, .$$ The [*potential*]{} refinement strategy now refines the propagated solution ${\pi}_j^*|_{\mathbf{R}_j}$ by including all negative reduced cost paths $\mathbf{Q}_j^0 = \mathbf{V}_j( {\pi}_j^* |_{\mathbf{R}_j})$. Let ${\pi}_j^*|_{\mathbf{Q}_j^0}$ be the associated optimal transport. This new solution changes the potential functions which in turn may require to include additional paths. Thus the potential refinement strategy can be iterated with $\mathbf{Q}_j^i = \mathbf{V}_j(
{\pi}_j^*|_{\mathbf{Q}_j^{i-1}})$ leading to monotonically decreasing optimal transport plans ${\pi}_j^*|_{Q_j^i}$. Since a solution is optimal if and only if all reduced cost are $\ge 0$ this iterative strategy converges to the optimal solution.
The set of paths with negative reduced cost given $ \phi_j^*|_\mathbf{P}$ and $
\psi_j^* |_\mathbf{P}$ are determined by descending the tree and excluding nodes that can not contain any negative reduced cost paths. This requires bounds on the potential functions for any node at scale smaller than $j$. The bound is achieved by storing at each target node of the multiscale decomposition the maximal $ \psi_j^* |_\mathbf{P}$ of any of its descendants at scale $j$. Now for each source node $x_k$ the target multiscale decomposition is descended, but only towards nodes at which a potential negative reduced cost can exist.
Depending on the properties of $ \phi_j^* |_\mathbf{P}$ and $\psi_j^*
|_\mathbf{P}$, this refinement strategy may reduce the number of required cost function evaluations drastically. In empirical experiments the total number of paths considered in the iterative potential refinement was typically reduced to $O( 2^d ( K_j^{{\mathbf{X}}}+ K_i^{{\mathbf{X}}}) )$, with $d$ being the doubling dimension of the data set.
The potential refinement strategy is also employed by @glimm:arxiv2011 without the branch and bound procedure. The shielding neighborhoods proposed by @schmitzer2015sparse similarly uses the potentials to define which variables are needed to define a sparse optimal transport problem and also suggests to iterate the neighborhood shields in order to arrive at an optimal solution.
### Neighborhood Refinement {#sec:neighborhood}
This section presents a refinement strategy that takes advantage of the geometry of the data. The approach is based on the heuristic that most paths at the next scale are sub-optimal due to boundary effects when moving from one scale to the next, induced by the sharp partitioning of the space at scale $j$. Such artifacts from the multiscale structure are mitigated by including paths between spatial neighbors in the source and target locations of the optimal solution on the propagated paths. This refinement strategy is also employed by @oberman2015efficient.
Let $\mathbf{N}_j\left({\pi}_j, r\right)$ be the set of paths such that the source and target of any path are within radius $r$ of the source and target of a path with non-zero mass transfer in ${\pi}_j$. The neighborhood refinement strategy is to expand the reduced set of paths using the union of paths in the current reduced set and its neighbors: $$\mathbf{E}_j = \mathbf{R}_j \cup \mathbf{N}_j \left( {\pi}_j^*|_{\mathbf{R}_j}, r\right) \,$$ When moving from one scale to the next the cost of any path can change at most two times the radius $r$ of the parent node which suggests to set the radius of the neighborhood in consideration as two times the node radius.
This heuristics does not guarantee an optimal solution, but does reduce the number of paths to consider at scale $j$ to $O( q_r^2 (K_j^{{{{\mathbf{X}}}}} +
K_j^{{{{\mathbf{Y}}}}}))$ with $q_r$ being the number of neighbors within radius $2^{-j}r$, for a doubling space with dimension $d$, $q_r\asymp r^d$.
The neighborhood strategy requires to efficiently compute the set of points within a ball of a given radius and location. Depending on the multiscale structure there are different ways to compute the set of neighbors. A generic approach that does not depend on any specific multiscale structure is to use a branch and bound strategy. For this approach, each node requires an upper bound $u(c_i)$ on the maximal distance from the representative of node $c_i$ to any of its descendants. Using these upper bounds the tree is searched, starting from the root node, while excluding any child nodes for which ${\mathtt{c}}(x, c_i) - u(c_i) >
r$ from further consideration. For multiscale structures such as regular grids more efficient direct computations are possible. For this paper we implemented the generic branch and bound strategy that works with any multiscale structure.
Remark on Errors
----------------
The error induced by this multiscale framework stems from two sources. First, if $J_0<J$, i.e., the optimal transport problem is only solved up to scale $J_0$, the solution at scale $J_0$ has a bounded approximation error, as detailed in Section \[sec:multiscaleproblems\]. By solving the transport problem only up to a certain scale permits to trade-off computation time versus precision with guaranteed approximation bounds. However, to speed up computation we rely on heuristics that, depending on the refinement strategy, yield solutions at each scale that might not be optimal. This second type error is difficult to quantify; however, for the potential refinement strategy that we introduce Section \[sec:potential\], an optimal solution can be guaranteed. The propagation and refinement strategies introduced in Sections \[sec:propagation\] and \[sec:refinement\] permit trade-offs between accuracy and computational cost.
Numerical Results and Comparisons {#sec:results}
=================================
We tested the performance of the proposed multiscale transport framework with respect to computational speed as well as accuracy for different propagation and refinement strategies on various source and target point sets with different properties.
The multiscale approach is implemented in C++ with an front end in the package [*mop*]{}[^1]. For comparisons, we also implemented the Sinkhorn distance approach [@cuturi:nips2013] in C++ with an front end in the package [*sinkhorn*]{}. Our C++ implementation uses the Eigen linear algebra library [@eigen], which resulted in faster runtimes than the MATLAB implementation by @cuturi:nips2013.
Implementation Details
----------------------
The package [*mop*]{} provides a flexible implementation of the multiscale framework and is adaptable to any multiscale decomposition that can be represented by a tree. The package permits to use different optimization algorithms to solve the individual transport problem. Currently the multiscale framework implementation supports the open source library GLPK [@glpk] and the commercial packages MOSEK [@mosek] and CPLEX [@cplex] (both free for academic use). MOSEK and CPLEX support a specialized network simplex implementation that runs 10-100 times faster than a typical primal simplex implementation. Both the MOSEK and CPLEX network simplex run at comparable times, with CPLEX slightly faster in our experiments. Furthermore CPLEX supports starting from an advanced initial basis for the network simplex algorithm which improves the multiscale run-times significantly. Thus, the numerical test are all run using the CPLEX network simplex algorithm.
### Algorithms for Constructing Multiscale Point Set Representations {#s:multiscalepointsets}
Various approaches exist to build the multiscale structures described in Section \[sec:coarsening\], such as hierarchical clustering type algorithms [@ward:jasa1963], or in low dimensions constructions such as quad and oct-trees [@finkel:ai197; @jackins:cgip1980] or kd-trees [@bentley:acm1975] are feasible. Data structures developed for fast nearest neighbor queries, such as navigating nets [@krauthgamer:soda2004] and cover trees [@beygelzimer:icml2006] induce a hierarchical structure on the data sets with guarantees on partition size and geometric regularity of the elements of the partition at each scale, under rather general assumptions on the distribution of the points. The complexity of cover trees [@beygelzimer:icml2006] is $O(C^d D n\log n)$, for some constant $C$, where $n=|{{{\mathbf{X}}}}|$, $d$ is the doubling dimension of ${{{\mathbf{X}}}}$, and $D$ is the cost of computing a distance between a pair of points. Therefore the algorithm is practical only when the intrinsic dimension is small, in which case they are provably adaptive to such intrinsic dimension. The optimal transport approach does not rest on a specific multiscale structure and can be adapted to application-dependent considerations. However, the properties of the multiscale structure, i.e., depth and partition sizes, do affect run-time and approximation bounds. In our experiments we use an iterative $K$-means strategy to recursively split the data into subsets. The tree is initialized using the mean of the complete data set as the root node. Then K-means is run resulting in $K$ children. This procedure is recursively applied for each leaf node, in a breadth first fashion, until a desired number of of leaf nodes, a maximal leaf radius or the leaf node contains only a single point. For the examples shown we select $K =
2^d$ with $d$ the dimensionality of the data set. For high-dimensional data $K$ could be set to an estimate of the intrinsic dimensionality. Since in all experiments we are equipped with a metric structure we use the pointwise coarsening of the cost function as in Equation . The reported results include the computation time for building the hierarchical decomposition, which is, however, negligible compared to solving the transport problem at all scales.
### Multiscale Transport Implementation for Point Sets
Algorithm \[f:algo-detailed\] details the steps for computing multiscale optimal transport plans using the newtork simplex for solving the optimization problems at each scale and iterated $K$–means to construct the multiscale structures.
Construct multiscale point sets $\{ {{\mathbf{X}}}_j \}_{j=0}^N$ and $\{ {{\mathbf{Y}}}_j \}_{j=0}^M$ using iterated K–means.
Set $J = \max(N, M)$
Form the measures $\mu_j$ and $\nu_j$ as in equation .
Compute optimal transport ${\pi}_0$ at coarsest scale with the network simplex.
Propagation and Refinement Strategy Performance
-----------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:strategies\] illustrates the behaviour of the different propagation and refinement strategies on two examples: The ellipses example in Figure \[fig:multiscale-strategy\] and Caffarelli’s smoothness counter example described in @villani:book2009 [Chapter 12] and illustrated in Figure \[fig:datasets\]. The ellipse example consists of two uniform samples (source and target data set) of size $n$ from the unit circle with normal distributed noise added with zero mean and standard deviation $0.1$. The source data sample is then scaled in the x-Axis by $1.3$ and in the y-Axis by $0.9$, while the target data set is scaled in the x-Axis by 0.9 and in the y-Axis by $1.1$. Caffarelli’s example consists of two uniform samples on $[-1,1]^2$ of size $n$. Any points outside the unit circle are then discarded. Additionally, the target data sample is split along the x-Axis at $0$ and shifted by $+2$ and $-2$ for points with positive and negative x-Axis values, respectively.
[VV]{} ![ \[fig:datasets\] Optimal transport plans on the (a) ellipse and (b) Caffarelli data sets with 5000 points for the source and target point set each. The optimal transport plans are indicated by black lines with transparency indicating the amount of mass being transported from source to target. ](scale-9 "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:datasets\] Optimal transport plans on the (a) ellipse and (b) Caffarelli data sets with 5000 points for the source and target point set each. The optimal transport plans are indicated by black lines with transparency indicating the amount of mass being transported from source to target. ](caffarelli-plan "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}\
(a) & (b)
We tested 7 different strategies of different combinations of propagation strategies from Section \[sec:propagation\] with refinement strategies from Section \[sec:refinement\]:
(ICP) Iterated capacity propagation (Section \[sec:capacity\]) with $0$ to $5$ iterations with no refinements. Note iterated capacity with $0$ iterations is equivalent to simple propagation (Section \[sec:simple\]).
(NR) Simple propagation (Section \[sec:simple\]) with neighborhood refinement (Section \[sec:neighborhood\]) with radius factor ranging from $0.5$ to $2.5$ in $0.5$ increments.
(ICP + NR) Iterated capacity propagation with $1$ to $5$ iterations combined with neighborhood refinement with radius factor fixed to $1$.
(CP + NR) A single iteration of capacity propagation combined with neighborhood refinement with radius factor from $0.5$ to $2.5$ with $0.5$ increments.
(IPR) Simple propagation with iterated potential refinement (Section \[sec:potential\]) with $1$ to $5$ iterations.
(ICP + PR) Iterated capacity propagation with $1$ to $5$ iterations combined with a single potential refinement step.
(CP + IPR) A single iteration of capacity propagation combined with $1$ to $5$ iterations of potential refinement.
Figure \[fig:strategies\] shows that almost all strategies have less than one percent relative error. The exception is the simple propagation with no refinements applied (i.e. iterated capacity propagation with no iterations). The randomness of the iterated capacity constrained algorithm can results in worse results despite a larger number of iterations. However, it will always perform better than using the simple propagation strategy. The neighborhood refinement strategy improves the results significantly, but after a radius factor of one the improvements start to level out. The potential refinement strategy finds the optimal solution when iterated a few times. Combining the refinement strategy with capacity propagation reduces relative error and computation time. The computation time is reduced because the capacity propagation yields a closer initialization to the optimal solution. The combination of potential refinement strategy and capacity propagation has the additional benefit that the branch and bound strategy is more efficient since fewer comparisons need to be made when checking for paths and smaller linear programs have to be solved in each refinement step.
[VV]{} ![ \[fig:strategies\] A comparison of different multiscale propagation and refinement strategies on the (a) ellipse and (b) Caffarelli data sets with 5000 points for the source and target point set each. For a description of the different strategies see text, the lines in the relative error graphs indicate increasing number of iterations or radius factor for the different strategies. Both the time and accuracy axes are in logarithmic scale. All strategies, except capacity propagation with $0$ iterations (ICP) and neighborhood refinement (NR) with radius factor 0.5, find solution with relative error less than one percent. The capacity propagation strategies can find optimal solutions up to numerical precision.](ellipses-performance-strategies "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:strategies\] A comparison of different multiscale propagation and refinement strategies on the (a) ellipse and (b) Caffarelli data sets with 5000 points for the source and target point set each. For a description of the different strategies see text, the lines in the relative error graphs indicate increasing number of iterations or radius factor for the different strategies. Both the time and accuracy axes are in logarithmic scale. All strategies, except capacity propagation with $0$ iterations (ICP) and neighborhood refinement (NR) with radius factor 0.5, find solution with relative error less than one percent. The capacity propagation strategies can find optimal solutions up to numerical precision.](caffarelli-performance-strategies "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"}\
(a) & (b)
For very small relative error $( < 10^{-11} )$ the optimal solution is sometimes not achieved. This is due to tolerance settings in the network simplex algorithm which are on the order of $10^{-11}$. Thus, depending how the network simplex approaches the optimum it might stop at different basic feasible solutions.
Figure \[fig:strategies\] shows that the computation time and relative error for problem of equal sizes depends on the type of problem. An important aspect of the problem type is the ratio of the transport distance to the diameters of the source and target point sets. To illustrate this effect we computed optimal transport plans for two data sets with source and target distributions uniform on $[0,1]^2$. In the first case the distributions are perfectly overlapping and in the second case the target distributions shifted by 2 units in the x direction. Figure \[fig:distance-strategies\] shows that for large ratios the relative error is typically much smaller. This is expected since variations in the transport plan only change the cost marginally. For small ratios, i.e. source and target distributions that are almost identical, a small variation in the transport plan leads to a large relative error.
[cc]{}\
![ \[fig:distance-strategies\] The effect of distance to support size ratio on computation time and relative error for the different multiscale propagation and refinement strategies source and target point sets of $5000$ points each sampled uniformly from a square of side length one and ground truth transport distance (a) $0$ and (b) $2$. Both the time and accuracy axes are in logarithmic scale. ](uniform-d0-performance-strategies "fig:"){width="0.47\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:distance-strategies\] The effect of distance to support size ratio on computation time and relative error for the different multiscale propagation and refinement strategies source and target point sets of $5000$ points each sampled uniformly from a square of side length one and ground truth transport distance (a) $0$ and (b) $2$. Both the time and accuracy axes are in logarithmic scale. ](uniform-d2-performance-strategies "fig:"){width="0.47\linewidth"}\
\
(a) & (b)
Another observation is the following: the potential strategy is less effective for transport problems where most mass is transported very far, relative to the distances within source and target point set. This is because a small change in the length of a path can include many possible source and target locations and the transport polytope has many suboptimal solutions with similar cost. If on the other hand most mass is transported on the order of the nearest neighbor distances within the source and target point set, there are many fewer possible paths within a small change in path length and the transport polytope is “steep” in the direction of the cost function.
Comparison to Network Simplex and Sinkhorn Transport
----------------------------------------------------
In this section we compare the CPLEX network simplex algorithm [@cplex] and the Sinkhorn approach [@cuturi:nips2013] to three different multiscale strategies:
(CP) Capacity propagation strategy using a single iteration with no further refinements.
(CP + NR) Capacity propagation combined with neighborhood refinement with radius factor fixed to one and a single capacity constraint iteration.
(CP + PR) Capacity propagation combined with potential refinement with a single iteration each.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[fig:npoints\] (a) A comparison of computation time (solid) and relative error ( dashed ) with respect to the network simplex solution for the CPLEX network simplex, Sinkhorn distance and the proposed multiscale strategy with increasing number of points. (b) The number of total paths considered is roughly constant with four times the number of points in the problem, i.e., the multiscale approach results in only a linear increase in problem size instead of quadratic for a direct approach. The number of points on the x-axis denotes the number of source points $|{{\mathbf{X}}}|$ which is approximately equal to the number of target points $|{{\mathbf{Y}}}|$. The Sinkhorn approach is competitive in computation time for smaller problems. For larger problems only the multiscale strategies outperform the Sinkhorn approach quickly, and are the only algorithms that remain viable. ](ellipses-performance-npoints "fig:"){width="0.65\linewidth"} ![ \[fig:npoints\] (a) A comparison of computation time (solid) and relative error ( dashed ) with respect to the network simplex solution for the CPLEX network simplex, Sinkhorn distance and the proposed multiscale strategy with increasing number of points. (b) The number of total paths considered is roughly constant with four times the number of points in the problem, i.e., the multiscale approach results in only a linear increase in problem size instead of quadratic for a direct approach. The number of points on the x-axis denotes the number of source points $|{{\mathbf{X}}}|$ which is approximately equal to the number of target points $|{{\mathbf{Y}}}|$. The Sinkhorn approach is competitive in computation time for smaller problems. For larger problems only the multiscale strategies outperform the Sinkhorn approach quickly, and are the only algorithms that remain viable. ](ellipses-performance-npoints-used "fig:"){width="0.28\linewidth"}
(a) (b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:npoints\] shows computation time, relative error and problem size for increasing sample size on the ellipse data set. The Sinkhorn transport employs a regularization term and is thus not expected to converge to the actual transport distance. The comparison of the relative error provides an indication of how far the regularization strays from the true transport distance. For small size problems the Sinkhorn transport is as comparable in speed to the multiscale approach.. The multiscale approach outperforms both competitors for moderate data sizes of a few thousand source and target points. The multiscale approach scales roughly linear in the problem size while both the Sinkhorn and network simplex scale approximately quadratically. The capacity propagation without refinement runs an order of magnitude faster than including refinements and results in relative errors less than one percent for more than a few hundred points. The network simplex and Sinkhorn approach run out of memory on a 16GB computer for problems larger than around $2\cdot10^4$ constraints and about $10^8$ variables. The proposed multiscale framework results in a linear increase in problem size for the propagation and refinement strategies tested and, on the same 16GB computer, can solve instances with $2\cdot10^6$ constraints (source and target points) in a few hours, which would result in about $10^{12}$ variables (paths) for the full optimal transport problem. The computation times are comparable to the results reported by @oberman2015efficient [@schmitzer2015sparse] on examples on regular grids that result in similar sized problems.
The relative error and computation time depend again on the type of problem. Figure \[fig:dimensions\](a) shows computation time and relative error on transport problems on source and target data sets sampled uniformly from $[0,1]^2$ with different shifts in the target distribution. If required, the relative error can be reduced using multiple capacity propagation and potential refinement iterations as illustrated in Figure \[fig:distance-strategies\]. In these experiments we set the tolerance parameter for Sinkhorn to $1e^{-5}$, and tried also $1e^{-2}$ to see if this would result in significant speed ups, with minimal accuracy loss, but it resulted in only approximately a $10\%$ speedup, and no fundamental change in the behavior for large problem sizes. The tolerance parameter for CPLEX is set to $1e^{-8}$. The approach by @schmitzer2015sparse is similar to the refinement property strategy, we expect that computation time grows similarly as for the potential strategy for problems with large transport distances compared to the source and target support size.
The final experiment tests the performance with respect to the dimensionality of the source and target distributions. We used two uniform distributions $[0,1]^d$ with $d$ varying from $2$ to $5$ and the target shifted such that the actual transport distance is 0 and 2.
[ccc]{} ![ \[fig:dimensions\] Computation time (solid) and relative error (dashed) with respect to (a) changes transport distance to support size ratio in two dimensions and (b,c) dimensionality with ground truth transport distance (b) 0 and (c) 2. The source and target distributions are uniform on a square of side length 1 with approximately 5000 points each. The potential refinement increases proportional to the transport distance to support ratio. The neighborhood strategy is less effective in higher dimensions, due to the curse of dimensionality, but performs better than the Sinkhorn approach. The capacity propagation strategy is less affected by the dimensionality of the problem. ](uniform-performance-distance "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:dimensions\] Computation time (solid) and relative error (dashed) with respect to (a) changes transport distance to support size ratio in two dimensions and (b,c) dimensionality with ground truth transport distance (b) 0 and (c) 2. The source and target distributions are uniform on a square of side length 1 with approximately 5000 points each. The potential refinement increases proportional to the transport distance to support ratio. The neighborhood strategy is less effective in higher dimensions, due to the curse of dimensionality, but performs better than the Sinkhorn approach. The capacity propagation strategy is less affected by the dimensionality of the problem. ](uniform-d0-performance-dimensions "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:dimensions\] Computation time (solid) and relative error (dashed) with respect to (a) changes transport distance to support size ratio in two dimensions and (b,c) dimensionality with ground truth transport distance (b) 0 and (c) 2. The source and target distributions are uniform on a square of side length 1 with approximately 5000 points each. The potential refinement increases proportional to the transport distance to support ratio. The neighborhood strategy is less effective in higher dimensions, due to the curse of dimensionality, but performs better than the Sinkhorn approach. The capacity propagation strategy is less affected by the dimensionality of the problem. ](uniform-d2-performance-dimensions "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"}\
\
(a) & (b) & (c)
Application to Brain MR Images {#s:brainMR}
==============================
An important building block for the analysis of brain MRI populations is the definition of a metric that measures how different two brain MRI are. A mathematically well motivated and popular approach for distance computations between brain images is based on large deformation diffeomorphic metric mappings (LDDMM [@miller2002metrics]). Here we explore optimal transport distance as an alternative metric for comparing brain images.
To solve for the optimal transport map between two 3D brain images we extract for each image a point cloud from the intensity volumes. Each point represents a voxel as a point in 3-dimensional space, the location of the voxel. The mass of the point is equal to the intensity value of the voxel, normalized to sum to one over all points. For illustration, Figure \[fig:brains\] shows a single slice extracted from the original volumes and optimal transport maps between the two slices. This 2D problem resulted in point set of approximately $20,000$ points.
[cc]{}\
![ \[fig:brains\] Slice of (a) source and (b) target brain image and optimal transport map for (c) Euclidean and (d) squared Euclidean cost function. For the squared Euclidean cost the optimal transport solutions typically prefer to move many locations small distances, i.e. shift mass among nearest neighbors. For images the neighborhoods are on regular grids resulting in a staircase appearance of the transport plan. ](slice00000 "fig:"){height="0.375\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:brains\] Slice of (a) source and (b) target brain image and optimal transport map for (c) Euclidean and (d) squared Euclidean cost function. For the squared Euclidean cost the optimal transport solutions typically prefer to move many locations small distances, i.e. shift mass among nearest neighbors. For images the neighborhoods are on regular grids resulting in a staircase appearance of the transport plan. ](slice00001 "fig:"){height="0.375\linewidth"}\
\
(a) & (b)\
![ \[fig:brains\] Slice of (a) source and (b) target brain image and optimal transport map for (c) Euclidean and (d) squared Euclidean cost function. For the squared Euclidean cost the optimal transport solutions typically prefer to move many locations small distances, i.e. shift mass among nearest neighbors. For images the neighborhoods are on regular grids resulting in a staircase appearance of the transport plan. ](brains-p1-map-v2 "fig:"){width="0.375\linewidth"} & ![ \[fig:brains\] Slice of (a) source and (b) target brain image and optimal transport map for (c) Euclidean and (d) squared Euclidean cost function. For the squared Euclidean cost the optimal transport solutions typically prefer to move many locations small distances, i.e. shift mass among nearest neighbors. For images the neighborhoods are on regular grids resulting in a staircase appearance of the transport plan. ](brains-p2-map-v2 "fig:"){width="0.375\linewidth"}\
\
(c) & (d)
To compare the optimal transport distance to the LDDMM distance we compare how well the distances can be used to predict clinical parameters. Using the pairwise distances, we employ classical multidimensional scaling (MDS) to embed the pairwise distances into Euclidean space. In this embedding each point corresponds to a 3D brain image and thus provides a coordinate system for the relative locations between the brain MRI’s. The Euclidean structure of the embedding permits to use standard statistical tools to form prediction models, in our case linear regression.
Within this framework we compare Euclidean, LDDMM and optimal transport distances as the input to the multidimensional scaling step. Note, for the Euclidean distance, i.e. treating each brain MRI as a point in Euclidean space, classical multidimensional scaling is equivalent to a principal component analysis. For the comparisons we used the OASIS brain database [@oasis-brains]. The OASIS database consists of T1 weighted MRI of 416 subjects aged 18 to 96. One hundred of the subjects over the age of 60 are diagnosed with mild to moderate dementia. The images in the OASIS data set are already skull-stripped, gain-field corrected and registered to the atlas space of @talaraich:book88 with a 12-parameter affine transform. Associated with the data are several clinical parameters. For the linear regression from the MDS embeddings we restrict our attention to the prediction of age, mini mental state examination (MMSE) and clinical dementia rating (CDR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Residual $R^2$ $F$–statistic $p$–value
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------
${\rm age} = a_0 + \sum_{i=1}^5 a_i l_i$ [**10.5**]{} [**0.82**]{} [**404.9**]{} $ <\epsilon$
${\rm age} = a_0 + \sum_{i=1}^3 a_i x_i$ 10.87 0.82 639.5 $ <\epsilon$
${\rm age} = a_0 + \sum_{i=1}^5 a_i z_i$ 12.04 0.78 297 $ <\epsilon$
${\rm age} = a_0 + a_1 z^1_1 + a_2 z^1_2 + a_3 z^2_1 + a_4 z^2_2 + a_5 z^3_1 + 10.9 0.82 239 $<\epsilon$
a_6 z^4_2 + a_7 z^4_5 + a_8 z^5_1$
${\rm MMSE} = a_0 + a_1 {\rm age} $ 3.59 0.06 15.82 9.3e-05
${\rm MMSE} = a_0 + a_1 l_1 $ 3.40 0.16 43.13 3.3e-10
${\rm MMSE} = a_0 +a_1 x_1$ 3.36 0.18 50.30 1.6e-11
${\rm MMSE} = a_0 + a_1 z_1 + a_2 z_3 + a_3 z_5$ 3.38 0.17 16.31 1.2e-09
${\rm MMSE} = a_0 + a_1 z^2_2 + a_2 z^3_2 + a_3 z^3_4 + a_4 z^4_5 + [**3.14** ]{} [**0.30** ]{} [**14.03**]{} [**4.3e-15** ]{}
a_5 z^5_1 + a_6 z^5_3 + a_7 z^6_3$
${\rm CDR} = a_0 + a_1 {\rm age} $ 0.27 0.25 144.5 $ <\epsilon$
${\rm CDR} = a_0 + a_1 l_1$ 0.26 0.34 223.9 $ <\epsilon$
${\rm CDR} = a_0 + a_1 x_1$ 0.25 0.36 248.5 $ <\epsilon$
${\rm CDR} = a_0 + a_1 z_1 + a_2 z_3 + a_3 z_5$ 0.26 0.35 77.5 $ < \epsilon$
${\rm CDR} = a_0 + a_1 z^3_4 + a_2 z^5_1 + a_3 z^5_3 + a_4 z^5_5 + a_5 a^6_3$ [**0.25**]{} [**0.38**]{} [**53.1**]{} $ < \epsilon$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Optimal linear regression models from the OASIS data set, for age, mini mental state examination (MMSE) and clinical dementia rating (CDR). The PCA coordinates from the Euclidean distances are denoted with $l_i$, the diffeomorphic manifold coordinates with $x_i$, the transport coordinates by $z_i$ and the multiscale transport coordinates with $z_i^j$ from coarsest $j=1$ to finest $j=6$ scale. An entry with “$ <\epsilon$” denotes quantities smaller than machine precision. The best results are indicated in bold. []{data-label="tab:regression_oasis"}
The MDS computation requires pairwise distances. To speed up computations we reduce the number of points by downsampling the volumes to size $44 \times 52
\times 44$. This results, discarding zero intensity voxels, in point clouds of approximately $40,000$ points for each brain MRI. A single distance computation with capacity propagation takes on the order of 10 seconds resulting in a total computation time of around 2 weeks for all pairwise distances. For embedding the optimal transport distance we consider two approaches:
A five dimensional MDS embedding based on the transport cost at the finest scale.
A multiscale embedding using multiple five dimensional MDS embeddings, one for the transport cost at each scale.
From the embeddings we build linear regression models, using the embedding coordinates as independent variables and the clinical variables as dependent variables. As in @gerber:media10 we use the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) on all regression subsets to extract a models that trade-off complexity, i.e. number of independent variables, with the quality of fit. Table \[tab:regression\_oasis\] shows the results of the optimal transport, with squared Euclidean cost, distances compared to the results reported in @gerber:media10. The transport based approach shows some interesting behaviours. The single scale model performs worse on age while performing similar on MMSE and CDR. The multiscale transport models perform similar to the LDDMM approach except for MMSE where it almost doubles the explained variance $R^2$. This suggests that the multiscale approach captures information about MMSE not contained in a single scale and prompts further research of multiscale based models to predict clinical parameters.
Conclusion
==========
The multiscale framework extends the size of transport problems that can be solved by linear programming by one to two orders of magnitude in the size of the point sets.
The framework is flexible, the linear program at each scale can be solved by any method. Depending on the refinement strategy a dual solution would need to be constructed as well. The method can also be applied to solve the linear assignment problem. The solution at the finest scale will be binary if $n=m$, however, at intermediate steps a binary solution is not guaranteed unless at each scale the source and target sets have the same number of points. This could be enforced during the construction of the multiscale structures. As currently defined the method requires point set inputs for the multiscale constructing of the transport problems. However, one could design methods that construct such a multiscale structure from a cost matrix only. However, for large problems pairwise computations of all costs is typically prohibitively expensive.
The multiscale transport framework provides several options for further research. The framework can be combined with various regularizations, e.g. depending on scale and location and induces a natural multiscale decomposition of the transport map. This decomposition can be used to extract information about relevant scales in a wide variety of application domains. We are currently investigating the use of such multiscale decompositions for representation and analysis of sets of brain MRI.
The capacity constraint propagation approach suggests a different venue for further exploration. The capacity propagation strategy does not hinge on a geometrical notion of neighborhoods and is a suitable candidate to extend the multiscale framework to non-geometric problems. Studying the interdependency between the cost function, hierarchical decomposition of the transport problem (or possibly more generic linear programs) and the efficiency of the capacity constraint propagation is a challenging but interesting problem.
[^1]: available on <https://bitbucket.org/suppechasper/optimaltransport>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[The light scattering in the periodic dielectric cylinder array is studied. We analytically calculate the diffusive-ballistic transport crossover and find the weak localization superimposing on it. Possible experimental observations are analyzed. ]{}'
author:
- 'Chushun Tian$^{1,2}$ and Luwei Zhou$^3$'
title: 'Universal high-frequency transport in perfect photonic crystals'
---
[*Introduction*]{}—Experimental studies [@Fishman07; @Maret06] are offering new boost to interest in transport of optical systems. A traditional subject is the light scattering in fully [@Maret06] or partially [@Fishman07; @Vos00] disordered media. Irrespective of the absence/presence of the periodic background disorders turn out to be essential in both kinds of materials. There, the Anderson localization of light originates at the multiple disorder scattering. The latter leads to the enhanced constructive interference between two counterpropagating optical paths and, thus, suppresses the light diffusion.
For perfect periodic dielectric materials (namely photonic crystals) the low-frequency transport is protocoled by sample-specific band structures, the analysis of which is nowadays a well-established industry. By contrast, the high-frequency transport in perfect photonic crystals is a largely unexplored subject which might find practical applications. There, localization and periodicity may interplay with each other. Theoretically, no localization signatures have been found for periodic quantum mapping [@Dorfman04], which might suggest that localization is incompatible with perfect periodicity. Contrary to this, for realistic quantum particle motion in some perfect crystals, the weak localization correction to the classical diffusion coefficient is analytically shown [@Tian05]. Experimentally, to detect localization signals in periodic structures, if any, turns out to be extremely difficult. Indeed, in usual systems (e.g. electrons) ubiquitous particle interactions complicate analysis of wave interference effects such as (weak) localization. Although this problem is circumvented in optical systems, traditional transmission/reflection measurements do not allow directly probing the dynamical (bulk) diffusion coefficient.
The recent experiment [@Fishman07] offers the very opportunity to study the diffusive-ballistic transport crossover. The experimental scope consists of two crucial steps: (i) to fabricate the dielectric material which is uniform in the longitudinal direction (but might be arbitrary in the transverse plane) and, (ii) to launch a probe laser beam, parallel to the longitudinal direction, into the material (Fig. \[section\]). Then, the dynamical process of the dispersion in the transverse plane is recorded by the intensity profile at different propagating distances, which allows the direct measurement of the dynamical diffusion coefficient. It is the purpose of this letter to analytically study the crossover in perfect photonic crystals and to show that weak localization superimposes on this crossover. Furthermore, we examine the possibility of confirming these predictions within this experimental scope.
[*Qualitative results based on band structure*]{}—To be specific we will consider the following photonic crystals. Dielectric cylinders of a radius $r_0$, uniform in the “longitudinal” ($z$-) direction, are periodically embedded into the host material of a refractive index $n_0$ forming a triangular lattice in the “transverse” ($x$-$y$) plane with a lattice constant $a$ (Fig. \[section\]). For this lattice let us choose the coordinate system as $(x,y)={\bf l} + {\bf r}$, where ${\bf l} \in
\mathfrak{B}$ (the Bravis lattice) is chosen to be the cylinder center, and ${\bf r}$ specifies the position inside the unit cell. A probe beam of frequency $\Omega_0$, parallel to the $z$-axis, is launched into the host dielectric material, then expands as propagates along the $z$-direction. The transverse wave number $k_\perp$ is inversely proportional to the initial width of the beam, which is narrow enough such that $k_\perp^{-1}\ll \min
(a-2r_0, r_0)$. Then, the propagation of the scalar field (for simplicity) denoted as $E(x,y,z)$ inside the photonic crystal is described by the Helmholtz equation (The light velocity in the vacuum is set to be unity.): $[\nabla^2 + \Omega_0^2 n^2(x,y)]E(x,y,z)=0$ with $n(x,y)$ the refractive index profile. Introduce the slow-varying envelope $\psi(x,y;z)$ such that $E(x,y,z) \equiv
\psi(x,y;z)\, e^{i\Omega_0 n_0z}$ and insert it into the Helmholtz equation. In the paraxial limit $|\partial_z^2 \psi|\ll \Omega_0 n_0
|\partial_z \psi| $ the second order derivative may be ignored [@Fishman07], consequently we arrive at the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation: $$\left\{i\, \partial_z + \frac{1}{2\Omega_0 n_0}\, (\partial_x^2 +
\partial_y^2) - V(x,y) \right\}\psi(x,y;z) = 0 \,,
\label{wave}$$ where $V(x,y)\equiv -\frac{\Omega_0}{2n_0} [n^2(x,y)-n_0^2]$. This shows that the beam propagates in the manner fully analogous to the two-dimensional quantum particle motion in the “potential” $V(x,y)$, and $z$ plays the role of the usual time.
In periodic potentials exists the band structure $\epsilon_n ({\bf
k})$, where $n$ is the band index and ${\bf k}$ is the quasimomentum in the first Brioullin zone ($\mathbb{B}.\mathbb{Z}.$). As to be detailed below (for a large class of potentials [@potential]) the ray optics inside a unit cell is ergodic characterized by the positive Lyapunov exponent $\lambda$. Following the well-known Bohigas-Giannoni-Schmit (BGS) conjecture, then, given ${\bf k}$ (away from symmetry points or lines) the high-frequency bands display universal level fluctuations [@Mucciolo94].
If a single band is excited the motion of (Bloch) photons is ballistic. However, because the beam initially is narrow enough it excites a number of high-frequency bands centered at $\epsilon=
k_\perp^2/(2\Omega_0 n_0)$ with an amount of $\sim \lambda/\Delta
\gg 1$, where $\Delta$ is the mean level spacing. At early times the rays are successively bent by dielectric cylinders which, equivalently, may be viewed as that Bloch photons experience considerable inelastic scattering. Consequently, the beam dispersion (expansion), defined as $\sigma^2 (z)\equiv \int\!\!\!\!\int dxdy
(x^2+y^2) |\psi(x,y;z)|^2$, is dominated by the interband transition factor: $e^{i \{\epsilon_n ({\bf k})-\epsilon_{n'} ({\bf
k})\}z}$. Then, the large number of excited bands allows us to average this factor with respect to the universal level correlator, which is $\sim \{\epsilon_n ({\bf k})-\epsilon_{n'} ({\bf
k})\}^{-2}$ [@Efetov97; @Tian08b]. Consequently, the normal diffusion, i.e., $\sigma^2 (z)\sim z$ is recovered for early times $\lambda^{-1}\lesssim z \ll \Delta^{-1}$. At later times $z\gtrsim
\Delta^{-1}$ individual bands are resolved and the interband transition becomes negligible. The transport, in turn, becomes ballistic, i.e., $\sigma^2 (z)\sim \Delta z^2$ [@Tian08b].
For intermediate times $\lambda^{-1} \ll z \lesssim \Delta^{-1}$ photons move in the regime of size $\sim \sqrt{D_{cl}/\Delta}$, where the periodic structure is not resolved and the dielectric cylinders thereby resemble random scatterers. As usual while two optical paths diffusively propagate they find a significant probability to form a common loop and counter-propagate along it. Such constructive interference suppresses the normal diffusion coefficient $D_{cl}$ and the weak localization correction results, which is order of $(\nu D_{cl})^{-1}$ with $\nu$ the photon density of states. Accordingly, the linear dispersion is suppressed. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2(z) \sim \bigg\{ \begin{array}{cc}
z \,, \qquad \qquad \qquad & z \gtrsim \lambda^{-1}\,, \\
z \left(1 - \frac{\ln \lambda z}{\nu D_{cl}} \right)\,, & \lambda^{-1} \ll z \lesssim \Delta^{-1}\,, \\
\Delta z^2\,,\qquad \qquad \qquad & z\gtrsim \Delta^{-1}\,.
\end{array}
\label{widthresult}\end{aligned}$$
We now turn to the detailed analysis of wave dynamics described by Eq. (\[wave\]) and derive the rigorous results. Below a finite system composed of ${\cal N}$ unit cells will be considered with the periodic boundary condition implemented. In the final results the limit: ${\cal N}\rightarrow +\infty$ is set.
[*Field-theoretic formalism*]{}—First we present the general formalism used throughout this work. Consider the propagation on the lattice from ${\bf l}$ to ${\bf l}'$, described by the so-called two-point correlator: ${\cal Y}({\bf l}-{\bf l}';\omega) \equiv
{\cal N}\int \!\!\!\!\int \! d{\bf r}d{\bf r}'
G^R_{\epsilon+\frac{\omega}{2}}\left({\bf r}+{\bf l}, {\bf r}'+{\bf
l}'\right)G^A_{\epsilon-\frac{\omega}{2}}\left({\bf r}'+{\bf
l}',{\bf r}+{\bf l}\right)$, noticing that ${\bf r}$, ${\bf r}'$ are the coordinates in the unit cell. Here $G^{R/A}$ is the retarded/advanced Green function of Eq. (\[wave\]) in the frequency domain. The translational symmetry implies that ${\cal Y}$ depends merely on ${\bf l}-{\bf l}'$.
Following Ref. [@Tian08a] the Green functions are written down explicitly in the Bloch basis $|n{\bf k}\rangle$. In doing so the wave dynamics is reduced into the one in a two-torus. For the latter we invoke the Wigner transform and pass to the phase space ${\mathbb
T}$. The coordinate is denoted as $X \equiv ({\bf r},{\bf p})$ (after appropriate rescaling) and satisfies $\int_{\mathbb T}
dX=1$. Then, it is a canonical procedure [@Efetov97; @Tian08a; @Andreev96] to express the spatial Fourier transform of ${\cal Y}({\bf l}-{\bf l}';\omega)$, denoted as ${\cal Y}({\bf q},\omega)$, in terms of the functional integral over the supermatrix field $Q=T\Lambda T^{-1}$, where both $Q$ and $T$ depend on $X$. Moreover, $Q(X)={\rm K}{\rm C}^{\rm T}Q^{\rm
T}({\bar X}){\rm C}{\rm K}$ and $T^\dagger(X)={\rm C}T^{\rm T}({\bar
X}){\rm C}^{\rm T}$ with ${\bar X}\equiv ({\bf r},-{\bf p})$. After tedious calculations we find (Throughout this work we are interested in the low-lying modes, i.e., ${\bf q}\rightarrow 0$.) $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}({\bf q},\omega) = \frac{(\pi\nu)^2}{64 {\cal N}}
\tilde{\sum_{{\bf k}_\pm}}\int\!\!\!\!\int _{{\mathbb T}} \!\!
dXdX'e^{i{\bf q}\cdot ({\bf r}-{\bf r}')}
\!\!\int \!\! DQ e^{-F[Q,{\bf a}]} \nonumber\\
\times {\rm str}
\left[k(1+\Lambda)(1-\tau_3)Q(X)k(1-\Lambda)(1-\tau_3)Q(X')\right]\,,
\label{propagator1}
% \\
% F[Q,{\bf a}]=\frac{\pi}{2\Delta}\int_{\mathbb T} dX \, {\rm str}
% \left\{T\Lambda {\hat {\cal L}}_{\rm a}T^{-1} + \frac{i\omega}{2}
% \Lambda Q\right\}\,. \qquad \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tilde \Sigma}_{{\bf k}_\pm}\equiv \Sigma_{{\bf k}_\pm \in
{{\mathbb{B}.\mathbb{Z}.}}}\delta_{{\bf k_+}-{\bf k}_-,{\bf q}}$, ${\rm str}$ is the supertrace, and the action is $$\begin{aligned}
F[Q,{\bf a}]=\frac{\pi\nu}{2}\int_{\mathbb T} dX \, {\rm str}
\left\{T\Lambda {\hat {\cal L}}_{\rm a}T^{-1} + \frac{i\omega^+}{2}
\Lambda Q\right\}\,. \label{freeenergy}\end{aligned}$$ Here all the constant supermatrices: $\Lambda$, $\tau_3$, $k$, ${\rm K}$ and ${\rm C}$, as well as the supermatrix fields $Q$ and $T$ are $8\times 8$ matrices defined on the retarded/advanced, bosonic/fermonic and time-reversal sector (for the details of which we refer to Ref. [@Efetov97]). In Eq. (\[propagator1\]) ${\hat
{\cal L}}_{\rm a} =
% (\Omega_0 n_0)^{-1}
{\bf p}\cdot (\partial_{\bf r}+[i{\bf
a}\tau_3,\,])-\partial_{\bf r}V\cdot
\partial_{\bf p}$ is the covariant Liouvillian, where the supermatrix ${\bf a}={\rm diag}({\bf k}_+,{\bf k}_-)^{\rm
ra}$ with the superscript standing for the retarded/advanced sector. Eqs. (\[propagator1\]) and (\[freeenergy\]) are the exact starting point of the succeeding analysis.
We remark that the coarse graining $\mathbb{T}$, with the element commensurating with the uncertainty intrinsic to wave dynamics [@Altland07], suffices to regularize the field theory. (The results below, however, are insensitive to the details which, therefore, are not presented.) Indeed, the Liouvillian ${\hat {\cal
L}}_0$ induces a deterministic flow on $\mathbb{T}$: $X\mapsto
X(t)\equiv ({\bf r}(t),{\bf p}(t))$. The flow (i) has positive $\lambda$ and is ergodic and, (ii) enjoys exponential decay of correlations and the central limiting theorem for sufficiently regular (H$\ddot{\rm o}$lder-continuous) functions. They lead to singular hydrodynamic (steady) states [@Gaspard96] (and justify the application of the BGS conjecture in the qualitative discussions), as we also show below. Then, associated with the coarse graining $\mathbb{T}$ the Gibb’s entropy production results which can be shown to be positive-definite [@Gaspard96], signaling a stable field theory.
Notice that properties (i) and (ii) follow directly from the choice of the potential $V$ [@potential]. Indeed, the former is given by the Donnay-Liverani theorem [@Donnay91]. To justify the latter we introduce the Birkhoff coordinate: $(\theta,\varphi)$, where $\theta$ is the position of the incident ray at the dielectric cylinder boundary ($r=r_0$), and $\varphi\in [0,\pi]$ is the angle made between the incident ray and the tangential direction of the cylinder boundary. Then, we observe that the rotation function $\Delta \theta(\varphi)$ defined in [@rotationfunction], as well as its first-order derivative, is discontinuous at $\varphi=\frac{\pi}{2}$ while continuous at each interval. From the B$\acute{\rm a}$lint-T$\acute{\rm o}$th theorem [@Donnay91] property (ii) immediately follows.
[*Hydrodynamic relaxation and Gaspard nonequilibrium steady state*]{}—Let us start from the ray optics limit: $\Delta /\lambda
\rightarrow 0$ and present a field-theoretic proof of the [*deterministic*]{} diffusion. The emergence of hydrodynamic relaxation from the Liouvillian dynamics is a long standing problem [@Prigogine62]. It has been exactly solved for the periodic Lorentz gases [@Gaspard96] as discussed here. To calculate Eq. (\[propagator1\]) we employ the so-called rational parametrization: $T=1+iW$. Here $W\Lambda+\Lambda W=0$ and, moreover, $W(X)=-{\rm K}{\rm C}W^{\rm T}({\bar X}){\rm C}^{\rm
T}{\rm K}$. Inserting it into the action $F$ the perturbative expansion in $W$ shows that $W^2$ is order of $\Delta/\lambda$. Because of $\Delta /\lambda \rightarrow 0$ in the expansion of both $F$ and the prefactor only the quadratic terms are to be kept. Upon fixing the $U(1)$ gauge the succeeding calculations are formally parallel to disordered systems [@Efetov97], but, there is a crucial difference namely the resolvent: $\{-i\omega^+ + {\hat {\cal
L}}_0 + {\bf p}\cdot i{\bf g}\}^{-1}$. Recall that, in disordered systems, this field propagator is replaced by the heat kernel recovering the diffusion. Upon passing to the time domain the resolvent, denoted as ${\cal D}_{{\bf g},t}$, solves $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{{\bf g},t} = e^{-t{\hat {\cal L}}_0} - \int_0^t d\tau
e^{-(t-\tau){\hat {\cal L}}_0} {\bf p}\cdot i{\bf g}\, {\cal
D}_{{\bf g},\tau} \,. \label{propagator2}\end{aligned}$$
For low-lying modes the functional equation (\[propagator2\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{{\bf g},t} = \bigg\{1- \int_0^t d\tau {\bf p}(-\tau)\cdot
i{\bf g} \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\label{classicalnonequilibrium}\\
- \int_0^t \! d\tau \int_0^{t-\tau} \! d\tau' {\bf g}{\bf g}:{\bf
p}(-\tau){\bf p}(-\tau-\tau') \bigg\}\, e^{-t {\hat {\cal L}}_0}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the second-order iteration. Combined with property (i) Eq. (\[classicalnonequilibrium\]) shows that, given a generic initial distribution, for vanishing ${\bf g}$ it converges to the invariant microcanonical measure in the limit $t\rightarrow
+\infty$. A small concentration gradient $i{\bf g}$ drives the system out of equilibrium: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{{\bf g},t\rightarrow +\infty} = 1- \int_0^{+\infty} d\tau
{\bf p}(-\tau)\cdot i{\bf g} + o({\bf g}^2)\,, \label{steadystate}\end{aligned}$$ where the second term is the singular microscopic nonequilibrium steady state found by Gaspard [@Gaspard96]. Furthermore, by inserting Eq. (\[classicalnonequilibrium\]) into Eq. (\[propagator1\]) and returning back to the frequency domain, we find ${\cal Y}({\bf q},\omega) = 2\pi\nu/(-i\omega+D_{cl} {\bf
q}^2)$ and, with the help of property (ii), rigorously justify the Green-Kubo formula: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{cl} = \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb T} dX \int_0^{+\infty} dt\, {\bf
p}(t)\cdot {\bf p}(0)\,.
\label{GreenKubo}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[steadystate\]) and (\[GreenKubo\]) confirm that the normal diffusion appears as the Pollicott-Ruelle resonance as shown earlier [@Gaspard96]. There, a completely different technique–the $\zeta$-function theory–is used informing its far-reaching relation to the field-theoretic approach. In obtaining the diffusive two-point correlator the integration over $X$ and $X'$ is essential by which the scaling regime is recognized.
[*Weak localization*]{}—For $\Delta /\lambda \ll 1$ wave interference accounts for fluctuations. Keeping the $W$-expansion up to the fourth order the resolvent is modified to be $\{-i\omega^+ +
{\hat {\cal L}}_0 +\delta {\hat {\cal L}} +{\bf p}\cdot i{\bf
g}\}^{-1}$. Here the perturbed operator $\delta {\hat {\cal L}}$ is explicitly expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {\hat {\cal L}}_{XX'} &=& - \frac{1}{\cal N}\sum_{{\bf g}\in
\mathbb{B}.\mathbb{Z}.}\int_0^{+\infty} \!\! dt e^{-i\omega^+t}
\langle
{\bar X} | {\cal D}_{{\bf g},t} |X\rangle \nonumber\\
&& \times \{\langle X|X'\rangle - \delta (X-X')\}
\label{decomposition}\end{aligned}$$ which, in the ray optics limit, is nullified by the fine-grained phase space structure because the bases $\langle X|$ and $|X'\rangle$ satisfy $\langle X|X'\rangle = \delta (X-X')$. In wave dynamics such point-like structure is smeared by the uncertainty. Indeed, a famous theorem of periodic Lorentz gases suggests that the bases $|X\rangle$/$\langle X|$ must instead be constructed as a distribution supported by a small neighborhood of $X$ and normalized to unity, with $\langle X|X'\rangle$ defined as the overlap between two coarse grained representing points $X$ and $X'$ [@Sinai85]. (Notice that the point-like distribution cannot be spanned by these bases.) Furthermore, it was rigorously shown [@Sinai85] that $|X\rangle$ relaxes to the microcanonical measure at some short time scale ($\gtrsim \lambda^{-1}$) when the support of $|X\rangle$ uniformly covers ${\mathbb T}$. Upon combined with Eq. (\[classicalnonequilibrium\]) the matrix element $\langle {\bar X} | {\cal D}_{{\bf g},t}|X\rangle$, in turn, acquires a universal value while vanishes at shorter times $t\lesssim \lambda^{-1}$. (For chaotic cavities this fact was noticed by M[ü]{}ller and Altland [@Altland07].) Importantly, such an interference correction conserves the probability (obeying the so-called Ward identity) guaranteed by $\int_{\mathbb T} dX
\{\langle X|X'\rangle - \delta (X-X')\} = \int_{\mathbb T} dX'
\{\langle X|X'\rangle - \delta (X-X')\} =0$.
Repeat the same procedure of Eqs. (\[propagator2\])-(\[GreenKubo\]) taking into account the third order iteration. After tedious calculations we arrive at a similar diffusive two-point correlator but, crucially, $D_{cl}$ is renormalized into $$\begin{aligned}
D_0(\omega) &=& D_{cl}\left[1-{1\over {\pi \nu}}\,
\int\!\! \frac{d {\bf q}} {(2\pi)^2}\,
\frac{1}{-i\omega+D_{cl} {\bf q}^2}\right]
\label{D}
% \\
% l_E &=& \frac{1}{2\lambda}\, \ln [k_\perp\, {\rm min}\, (r_0, a-2r_0)]
% \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $\Delta \lesssim \omega \ll \lambda$. The second term fully agrees with earlier theoretical prediction for periodic Lorentz gases [@Tian05], and resembles the well-known weak localization correction of disordered systems. In the latter systems strong localization develops for lower $\omega$. Nevertheless here such a scenario breaks down which we now come to study.
[*Diffusive-ballistic transport crossover*]{}—For $\omega\ll
\lambda$ the zero mode (uniform component) of the $T$ field, denoted as $T_0$ is established recognizing the microcanonical measure over $\mathbb{T}$. Therefore, we factorize $T$ as $T=T_0 T_>$ and insert it into the action, where $T_>$ are the fluctuating component. With $T_>$ integrated out Eq. (\[propagator1\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}({\bf q}\rightarrow 0,\omega) = \frac{(\pi\nu)^2}{64 {\cal
N}} \tilde{\sum_{{\bf
k}_\pm}} \int DQ_0\, e^{-{\tilde F}[Q_0,{\bf a}]} \qquad \qquad \nonumber\\
\times {\rm str}
\left[k(1+\Lambda)(1-\tau_3)Q_0k(1-\Lambda)(1-\tau_3)Q_0\right]\,,
\label{propagatorfield}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_0=T_0\Lambda T_0^{-1}$ and the zero mode action: ${\tilde
F}[Q_0,{\bf a}]=\frac{\pi\nu}{8}\, {\rm str}\{D^* [i{\bf
a}\tau_3,Q_0]^2 + \frac{i\omega^+}{2} \Lambda Q_0\}$. Here $D^*={\rm Re}\, D_0 (\max\{\omega,\Delta\})$ with $\max\{\omega,\Delta\}$ playing the role of the infrared cutoff.
To proceed further we invoke the Efetov parametrization for $Q_0$ [@Efetov97]. Then, the hydrodynamic (i.e., ${\bf a}$-) expansion for Eq. (\[propagatorfield\]) is performed and kept up to the second order. The remaining integral can be exactly done giving $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}({\bf q}\rightarrow 0,\omega) =
\frac{2\pi\nu}{-i\omega+D(\omega) {\bf
q}^2} \,, \,\, \omega \ll \lambda\,, \nonumber\\
D(\omega)= D^*\left[1-\frac{\Delta^2}{2\pi \omega^2}(1-e^{2i\pi
\omega/\Delta})\right]. \label{propagatorresult}\end{aligned}$$ Strikingly, the diffusive-ballistic transport crossover is universal despite that the present unit cell drastically differs from a disordered one [@Taniguchi93]. The fundamental structure difference at the unit cell level profoundly affects the ray optics and thereby the field theory construction. Notice that $D_{cl}$ is now renormalized into $D^*$ which is not reported for periodic disordered systems [@Taniguchi93]. These low-lying modes are diffusive for sufficiently large frequencies, i.e., $\Delta \ll
\omega \lesssim \lambda$, while ballistic in the opposite limit, i.e., $\omega\ll \Delta$ because of $D(\omega)\approx
D_0(\Delta)\Delta/(-i\pi\omega)$.
[*Possible experimental observations*]{}—Eqs. (\[steadystate\]), (\[GreenKubo\]), (\[D\]) and (\[propagatorresult\]) are the main results of this work. To confirm the universal diffusive-ballistic crossover might be within the reach of the experimental scope of Ref. [@Fishman07] utilizing the optical induction technique [@Segev02]. The incident probe beam is of $10\, \mu{\rm m}$ full-width at half-maximum. The refractive index is required to vary over a scale of $100\, \mu {\rm m}$ which, we expect, might be possible by tuning the optical interference pattern. The output light intensity profile $I(x,y;z)$ then determines the dispersion through $\sigma^2(z) =\int\!\!\!\!\int
dxdy\, (x^2+y^2) I(x,y;z)$. The latter is directly transferred into $D(\omega)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2(z)-\sigma^2(0) = \int \frac{d\omega}{\pi}\,
\frac{1-e^{-i\omega
z}}{\omega^2}\,D(\omega) \,,
\label{dispersion}\end{aligned}$$ giving Eq. (\[widthresult\]) with Eq. (\[propagatorresult\]) inserted. Finally, we stress that the universality of high-frequency transport relies on the normal diffusion in the ray optical limit. Thus, the predictions are applicable for a large class of periodic dielectric structures. In particular, the weak localization is stronger for the quasi-one-dimensional transverse plane.
We are grateful to M. Garst for a valuable contribution. We have also enjoyed discussions with A. Altland, J. R. Dorfman, P. Gaspard, F. Haake, and Z. Q. Zhang, and were encouraged by Bambi Hu. This work is supported by Transregio SFB 12 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, NNSF of China (No. 10334020 and 10574027), and partly by the Hongkong Baptist University.
T. Schwartz, [*et. al.*]{}, Nature **446**, 52 (2007). M. St[ö]{}zer, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 063904 (2006).
A. F. Koenderink, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. A **268**, 104 (2000). D. K. W$\acute{\rm o}$jcik and J. R. Dorfman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 230602 (2003); Physica D **187**, 223 (2004).
C. Tian and A. Larkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 246601 (2005).
The refractive index inside the cylinder is central symmetric and is denoted as $n(r)\,, r\in
(0,r_0)$. It satisfies a) $V\in C^3((0,r_0))$, b) $h'(r) > 0$ for all $r \in (0,r_0)$, c) $\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} r^2 V(r) =0,\,
V(r_0)=0\,, V'(r_0^-)<0$, d) $\Omega(r)< 0$ and e) $a-2r_0
> -2 / V'(r_0^-)$. Here $h(r)\equiv r^2
[k_\perp^2-2\Omega_0 n_0 \,V(r)]$ and $\Omega(r)\equiv
rh'(r)/h(r)$. These conditions, together with the cylinder geometry are merely for technical reasons. Furthermore, $a$ satisfies $2r_0<a\leq
\frac{4}{\sqrt 3}r_0$ so that the mean free path is bounded from above.
E. R. Mucciolo, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **50**, 8245 (1994).
K. B. Efetov, [*Supersymmetry in disorder and chaos*]{} (Cambridge, UK, 1997).
C. Tian and M. Garst, unpublished.
C. Tian, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **86**, 651 (2007) \[JETP Lett. **86**, 566 (2008)\]; Phys. Rev. B **77**, 064205 (2008).
A. V. Andreev, [*et. al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B **482**, 536 (1996).
C. Tian, A. Kamenev, and A. Larkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 124101 (2004); J. M[ü]{}ller and A. Altland, J. Phys. A **38**, 3097 (2005); J. M[ü]{}ller T. Micklitz, and A. Altland, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 056204 (2007).
P. Gaspard, Phys. Rev. E **53**, 4379 (1996); J. R. Dorfman, P. Gaspard, and T. Gilbert, [*ibid.*]{}, **66**, 026110 (2002).
V. Donnay and C. Liverani, Comm. Math. Phys. **135**, 267 (1991); P. B$\acute{\rm a}$lint and I. P. T$\acute{\rm o}$th, [*ibid.*]{}, **243**, 55 (2003).
The rotation function is defined as $ \Delta\theta(\varphi) \equiv 2r_0\cos \varphi \int_{{\hat
r}(\varphi)}^{r_0}\, r^{-1}\{h(r)-(r_0\cos \varphi)^2\}^{-1/2}dr
$, where $\hat r(\varphi)$ is the minimal distance as the trajectory approaches the cylinder center, and $h(r)$ is defined in [@potential].
I. Prigogine, [*Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1962).
L. A. Bunimovich and Ya. G. Sinai, Comm. Math. Phys. **78**, 247 (1980). The accurate numerical prefactor of $\lambda^{-1}$ is difficult to compute and logarithmically depends on the size of the support of $|X\rangle$.
N. Taniguchi and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 4031 (1993).
N. K. Efemidis, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 046602 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this work we give a concise definition of information loss from a system-theoretic point of view. Based on this definition, we analyze the information loss in memoryless input-output systems subject to a continuous-valued input. For a certain class of multiple-input, multiple-output systems the information loss is quantified. An interpretation of this loss is accompanied by upper bounds which are simple to evaluate.
Finally, a class of systems is identified for which the information loss is necessarily infinite. Quantizers and limiters are shown to belong to this class.
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- '/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/project/IT4SP/1\_d/Papers/InformationProcessing.bib'
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/project/IT4SP/1\_d/Papers/ProbabilityPapers.bib
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/user/bgeiger/includes/textbooks.bib
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/user/bgeiger/includes/myOwn.bib
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/user/bgeiger/includes/UWB.bib
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/project/IT4SP/1\_d/Papers/InformationWaves.bib
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/project/IT4SP/1\_d/Papers/ITBasics.bib
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/project/IT4SP/1\_d/Papers/HMMRate.bib
- |
%
/afs/spsc.tugraz.at/project/IT4SP/1\_d/Papers/ITAlgos.bib
title: 'On the Information Loss in Memoryless Systems: The Multivariate Case'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In the XXXI. Shannon lecture Han argued that information theory links information-theoretic quantities, such as entropy and mutual information, to operational quantities such as source, channel, capacity, and error probability [@Han_Musing]. In this work we try to make a new link to an operational quantity not mentioned by Han: information loss. Information can be lost, on the one hand, in erasures or due to superposition of noise as it is known from communication theory. Dating back to Shannon [@Shannon_TheoryOfComm] this loss is linked to the conditional entropy of the input given the output, at least in discrete-amplitude, memoryless settings. On the other hand, as stated by the data processing inequality (DPI, [@Gray_Entropy]), information can be lost in deterministic, noiseless systems. It is this kind of loss that we will treat in this work, and we will show that it makes sense to link it to the same information-theoretic quantity. The information loss in input-output systems is very sparsely covered in the literature. Aside from the DPI for discrete random variables (RV) and static systems, some results are available for jointly stationary stochastic processes [@Pinsker_InfoEngl]. Yet, all these results just state that *information is lost*, without quantifying this loss. Only in [@Watanabe_InfoLoss] the information lost by collapsing states of a discrete-valued stochastic process is quantified as the difference between the entropy rates at the input and the output of the memoryless system.
Conversely, energy loss in input-output systems has been deeply analyzed, leading to meaningful definitions of transfer functions and notions of passivity, stability, and losslessness. Essentially, it is our aim to develop a system theory not from an energetic, but from an information-theoretic point of view. So far we analyzed the information loss of discrete-valued stationary stochastic processes in finite-dimensional dynamical input-output systems [@Geiger_NLDyn1starXiv], where we proposed an upper bound on the information loss and identified a class of information-preserving systems (the information-theoretic counterpart to lossless systems). In [@Geiger_ISIT2011arXiv] the information loss of continuous RVs in memoryless systems was quantified and bounded in a preliminary way. In this work, extending [@Geiger_ISIT2011arXiv], we analyze the information loss for static multiple-input, multiple-output systems which are subject to a continuous input RV. Unlike in our previous work, we permit functions which lose an infinite amount of information and present the according conditions. Aside from that we provide a link between information loss and differential entropy, a quantity which is not invariant under changes of variables. The next steps towards an information-centered system theory are the analysis of discrete-time dynamical systems with continuous-valued stationary input processes and a treatment of information loss in multirate systems.
In the remainder of this paper we give a mathematically concise definition of information loss (Section \[sec:defLoss\]). After restricting the class of systems in Section \[sec:problem\], in Section \[sec:mainResults\] we provide exact results for information loss together with simple bounds, and establish a link to differential entropies. Finally, in Section \[sec:extension\] we show under which conditions the information loss becomes infinite.
A Definition of Information Loss {#sec:defLoss}
================================
When talking about the information loss induced by processing of signals, it is of prime importance to accompany this discussion by a well-based definition of information loss going beyond, but without lacking, intuition.
\[def:loss\] Let $X$ be an RV[^1] on the samples space $\dom{X}$, and let $Y$ be obtained by transforming $X$. We define the information loss induced by this transform as $$L(X\to Y) = \sup_{\partit{}} \left(\mutinf{\hat{X};X}-\mutinf{\hat{X};Y}\right)$$ where the supremum is over all partitions $\partit{}$ of $\dom{X}$, and where $\hat{X}$ is obtained by quantizing $X$ according to the partition $\partit{}$ (see Fig. \[fig:sysmod\]).
This Definition is motivated by the data processing inequality (cf. [@Gray_Entropy]), which states that the expression under the supremum is always non-negative: Information loss is the worst-case reduction of information about $\hat{X}$ induced by transforming $X$. We now try to shed a little more light on Definition \[def:loss\] in the following
(1,1)(8,3.5) (1,2)[x]{}[$\hat{X}$]{} (3,1)[n]{}[$\partit{}$]{} (3,2)[oplus]{}[$Q(\cdot)$]{} (6,2)[c]{}[$g(\cdot)$]{} (8,2)[y]{}[$Y$]{} \[naput\][oplus,c $X$,y]{} (2,2.75)(4,2.75) (2,2.25)(2,2.75) (4,2.25)(4,2.75) (1.75,3.25)(7.25,3.25) (1.75,2.25)(1.75,3.25) (7.25,2.25)(7.25,3.25) (3,2.75) (4.5,3.25)
\[thm:defEq\] The information loss of Definition \[def:loss\] is given by the conditional entropy of the input given the output, i.e., $$L(X\to Y) = \ent{X|Y}\label{eq:diffEnt}.$$
We start by noticing that $$\mutinf{\hat{X};X}-\mutinf{\hat{X};Y} = \ent{\hat{X}|Y}\leq\ent{X|Y}\label{eq:boundIL}$$ by the definition of mutual information and since both $\hat{X}$ and $Y$ are functions of $X$. The inequality in is due to data processing ($\hat{X}$ is a function of $X$). We now show that in the supremum over all partitions equality can be achieved.
To this end, observe that among all partitions of the sample space of $X$ there is a sequence $\{\partit{n}\}$ of increasingly fine partitions[^2] such that $$\limn\hat{X}_n=X\label{eq:partLim}$$ where $\hat{X}_n$ is the quantization of $X$ induced by partition $\partit{n}$. By the axioms of entropy (e.g., [@Papoulis_Probability Ch. 14]), $\ent{\hat{X}_n|Y}$ is an increasing sequence in $n$ with limit $\ent{X|Y}$. Thus, equality in is achieved, which completes the proof.
This Theorem shows that the supremum in Definition \[def:loss\] is achieved for $\hat{X}\equiv X$, i.e., when we compute the difference between the *self-information* of the input and the information the output of the system contains about its input. In addition to that, the Theorem suggests a natural way to measure the information loss via measuring mutual informations, as it is depicted in Fig. \[fig:sysmod\]. As we will see later (cf. Theorem \[thm:WisX\]), the considered partition does not have to be infinitely fine, but indeed a comparably coarse partition can deliver the correct result.
Problem Statement {#sec:problem}
=================
Let $\Xvec=[X_1, X_2,\dots, X_N]$ be an $N$-dimensional RV with a probability measure $P_\Xvec$ absolutely continuous w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure $\mu$ ($P_\Xvec \ll \mu$). We require $P_\Xvec$ to be concentrated on $\dom{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^N$. This RV, which possesses a unique probability density function (PDF) $f_\Xvec$, is the input to the following multivariate, vector-valued function:
\[def:function\] Let $\gvec{:}\ \dom{X}\to\dom{Y}$, $\dom{X},\dom{Y}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^N$, be a surjective, Borel-measurable function defined in a piecewise manner: $$\gvec(\xvec) = \begin{cases}
\gvec_1(\xvec), & \text{if } \xvec\in\dom{X}_1\\
\gvec_2(\xvec), & \text{if } \xvec\in\dom{X}_2\\
\vdots
% \gvec_L(\xvec), & \text{if } \xvec\in\dom{X}_L
\end{cases}$$ where $\xvec=[x_1, x_2, \dots, x_N]$ and $\gvec_i{:}\ \dom{X}_i\to\dom{Y}_i$ bijectively. Furthermore, let the Jacobian matrix $\Jac{\gvec}{\cdot}$ exist on the closures of $\dom{X}_i$. In addition to that, we require the Jacobian determinant, $|\det\Jac{\gvec}{\cdot}|$, to be non-zero $P_\Xvec$-almost everywhere.
In accordance with previous work [@Geiger_ISIT2011arXiv] the $\dom{X}_i$ are disjoint sets of positive $P_\Xvec$-measure which unite to $\dom{X}$, i.e., $\bigcup_{i} \dom{X}_i=\dom{X}$ and $\dom{X}_i \cap \dom{X}_j=\emptyset$ if $i\neq j$. Clearly, also the $\dom{Y}_i$ unite to $\dom{Y}$, but need not be disjoint. This definition ensures that the preimage $\preimV{\yvec}$ of each element $\yvec\in\dom{Y}$ is a countable set.
Using the method of transformation [@Papoulis_Probability pp. 244] one obtains the PDF of the $N$-dimensional output RV $\Yvec=[Y_1,Y_2,\dots ,Y_N]$ as $$f_\Yvec(\yvec) = \sum_{\xvec_i\in\preimV{\yvec}} \frac{f_\Xvec(\xvec_i)}{|\det\Jac{\gvec}{\xvec_i}|}\label{eq:fy}$$ where the sum is over all elements of the preimage. Note that since $\Yvec$ possesses a density, the corresponding probability measure $P_\Yvec$ is also absolutely continuous w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure.
Main Results {#sec:mainResults}
============
We now state our main results:
\[thm:loss\] The information loss induced by a function $\gvec$ satisfying Definition \[def:function\] is given as $$\ent{\Xvec|\Yvec} = \int_{\dom{X}} f_\Xvec(\xvec) \log\left( \frac{\sum_{\xvec_i\in\preimV{\gvec(\xvec)}} \frac{f_\Xvec(\xvec_i)}{|\det\Jac{\gvec}{\xvec_i}|}}{\frac{f_\Xvec(\xvec)}{|\det\Jac{\gvec}{\xvec}|}}\right) d\xvec.\label{eq:loss}$$
\[cor:diffLoss\] The information loss induced by a function $\gvec$ satisfying Definition \[def:function\] is given as $$\ent{\Xvec|\Yvec} = \diffent{\Xvec}-\diffent{\Yvec} + \expec{\log|\det\Jac{\gvec}{\Xvec}|}$$
The proof is obtained by recognizing the PDF of $\Yvec$ inside the logarithm in and by splitting the logarithm.
This result is particularily interesting because it provides a link between information loss and differential entropies already anticipated in [@Papoulis_Probability pp. 660]. There, it was claimed that $$\diffent{\Yvec} \leq \diffent{\Xvec} + \expec{\log|\det\Jac{\gvec}{\Xvec}|}\label{eq:papDiff}$$ where equality holds iff $\gvec$ is bijective. While is actually another version of the DPI, Corollary \[cor:diffLoss\] quantifies how much information is lost by processing. In addition to that, a very similar expression denoted as *folding entropy* has been presented in [@Ruelle_EntropyProduction], although in a completely different setting analyzing the entropy production of *autonomous* dynamical systems.
We now introduce a discrete RV $W$ which depends on the set $\dom{X}_i$ from which $\Xvec$ was taken. In other words, for all $i$ we have $W=w_i$ iff $\xvec\in\dom{X}_i$. One can interpret this RV as being generated by a vector quantization of $\Xvec$ with a partition $\partit{}=\{\dom{X}_i\}$. With this new RV we can state
\[thm:WisX\] The information loss is identical to the uncertainty about the set $\dom{X}_i$ from which the input was taken, i.e., $$\ent{\Xvec|\Yvec} = \ent{W|\Yvec}.$$
The proof follows closely the proof provided in [@Geiger_ISIT2011arXiv] and thus is omitted. However, this equivalence suggests a way of measuring information loss by means of proper quantization: Since $\ent{W|\Yvec}=\mutinf{W;\Xvec}-\mutinf{W;\Yvec}$ the loss can be determined by measuring mutual informations, which in this case are always finite (or, at least, bounded by $\ent{W}$). The interpretation derived from Theorem \[thm:WisX\] allows us now to provide upper bounds on the information loss:
\[thm:bounds\] The information loss is upper bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\ent{\Xvec|\Yvec} &\leq& \int_{\dom{Y}} f_\Yvec(\yvec) \log|\preimV{\yvec}| d\yvec\\
&\leq& \log\left(\sum_i\int_{\dom{Y}_i}f_\Yvec(\yvec)d\yvec\right)\\
&\leq& \max_{\yvec}\log|\preimV{\yvec}|.\end{aligned}$$
We give here only a sketch of the proof: The first inequality results from bounding $\ent{W|\Yvec=\yvec}$ by the entropy of a uniform distribution on the preimage of $\yvec$. Jensen’s inequality yields the second line of the Theorem. The coarsest bound is obtained by replacing the cardinality of the preimage by its maximal value.
In this Theorem, we bounded the information loss given a certain output by the cardinality of the preimage. While the first bound considers the fact that the cardinality may actually depend on the output itself, the last bound incorporates the maximum cardinality only. In cases where the function from Definition \[def:function\] is defined not on a countable but on a finite number of subdomains this finite number can act as an upper bound (cf. [@Geiger_ISIT2011arXiv]). Another straightforward upper bound, which is independent from the bounds in Theorem \[thm:bounds\] is obtained from Theorem \[thm:WisX\] by removing conditioning: $$\ent{\Xvec|\Yvec}\leq\ent{W}=-\sum_i p_i\log p_i$$ where $p_i=P_\Xvec(\dom{X}_i)=\int_{\dom{X}_i} f_\Xvec(\xvec)d\xvec$. It has to be noted, though, that depending on the function $\gvec$ all these bounds can be infinite while the information loss remains finite.
A further implication of introducing this discrete RV $W$ is that it allows us to perform investigations about reconstructing the input from the output. Currently, a Fano-type inequality bounding the reconstruction error by the information loss is under development. In addition to that, new upper bounds on the information loss related to the reconstruction error of optimal (in the *maximum a posteriori* sense) and of simpler, sub-optimal estimators are analyzed.
Functions with Infinite Information Loss {#sec:extension}
========================================
We now drop the requirement of local bijectivity in Definition \[def:function\] to analyze a wider class of surjective, Borel-measurable functions $\gvec{:}\ \dom{X}\to\dom{Y}$. We keep the requirement that $P_\Xvec \ll \mu$ and thus $\Xvec$ possesses a density $f_\Xvec$ (positive on $\dom{X}$ and zero elsewhere). We maintain
\[thm:infLoss\] Let $\gvec{:}\ \dom{X}\to\dom{Y}$ be a Borel-measurable function and let the continuous RV $\Xvec$ be the input to this function. If there exists a set $B\subseteq\dom{Y}$ of positive $P_\Yvec$-measure such that the preimage $\preimV{\yvec}$ is uncountable for every $\yvec\in B$, then the information loss is infinite.
We notice that since $B\subseteq\dom{Y}$
[RCL]{} && \_[B]{}dP\_()
where the integral now written as Lebesgue integral, since $P_\Yvec$ now not necessarily possesses a density.
Since on $B$ the preimage of every element is uncountable, we obtain with [@Pinsker_InfoEngl] and the references therein $ \ent{\Xvec|\Yvec=\yvec}=\infty$ for all $\yvec\in B$, and, thus, $\ent{\Xvec|\Yvec}=\infty$.
Note that the requirement of $B$ being a set of positive $P_\Yvec$-measure cannot be dropped, We immediately obtain the following
Let $\gvec{:}\ \dom{X}\to\dom{Y}$ be a Borel-measurable function and let the continuous RV $\Xvec$ be the input to this function. If the probability measure of the output, $P_\Yvec$, possesses a non-vanishing discrete component, the information loss is infinite.
According to the Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym theorem [@Rudin_Analysis3 pp. 121] every measure can be decomposed in a component absolutely continuous w.r.t. $\mu$ and a component singular to $\mu$. The latter part can further be decomposed into a singular continuous and a discrete part, where the latter places positive $P_\Yvec$-mass on points. Let $\yvec^*$ be such a point, i.e., $P_\Yvec(\yvec^*)>0$. As an immediate consequence, $P_\Xvec(\preimV{\yvec^*})>0$, which is only possible if $\preimV{\yvec^*}$ is uncountable ($P_\Xvec \ll \mu$).
This result is also in accordance with intuition, as the analysis of a simple quantizer shows: While the entropy of the input RV is infinite ($\mutinf{\hat{\Xvec};\Xvec}\to\infty$ for $\hat{\Xvec}\to\Xvec$; cf. [@Papoulis_Probability pp. 654]), the quantized output can contain only a finite amount of information ($\mutinf{\hat{\Xvec};\Yvec}\to\ent{\Yvec}<\infty$). In addition to that, the preimage of each possible output value $\yvec$ is a set of positive $P_\Xvec$-measure. The loss, as a consequence, is infinite.
While for the quantizer the preimage of each possible output value is a set of positive measure, there certainly are functions for which some outputs have a countable preimage and some whose preimage is a non-null set. An example of such a system is the limiter [@Papoulis_Probability Ex. 5-4]. For such systems it can be shown that both the information loss $L(\Xvec\to \Yvec)=\ent{\Xvec|\Yvec}$ and the information transfer $\mutinf{\Xvec;\Yvec}$ are infinite.
Finally, there exist functions $\gvec$ for which the preimages of all output values $\yvec$ are null sets, but which still fulfill the conditions of Theorem \[thm:infLoss\]. Functions which project $\dom{X}$ on a lower-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^N$ fall into that category.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we proposed a mathematically concise definition of information loss for the purpose of establishing a system theory from an information-theoretic point of view. For a certain class of multivariate, vector-valued functions and continuous input variables this information loss was quantified, and the result is accompanied by convenient upper bounds. We further showed a connection between information loss and the differential entropies of the input and output variables.
Finally, a class of systems has been identified for which the information loss is infinite. Vector-quantizers and limiters belong to that class, but also functions which project the input space onto a space of lower dimensionality.
[^1]: Note that $X$ and all other involved RVs need not be scalar-valued.
[^2]: i.e., $\partit{n+1}$ is a refinement of $\partit{n}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $C(n,p)$ be the set of $p$-compositions of an integer $n$, i.e., the set of $p$-tuples ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p)$ of nonnegative integers such that $\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_p=n$, and $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_p)$ a vector of indeterminates. For ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}$ two $p$-compositions of $n$, define $(\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}
=(x_1+\alpha_1)^{\beta_1}\cdots (x_p+\alpha_p)^{\beta_p}$. In this paper we prove an explicit formula for the determinant $\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\in
C(n,p)}((\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})$. In the case $x_1=\cdots=x_p$ the formula gives a proof of a conjecture by C. Krattenthaler.
**Key words.** composition, polynomial determinant, power-composition, combinatorial determinant.
**AMS subject classifications.** 11C20, 15A36, 05A10, 05A19.
author:
- |
Josep M. Brunat and Antonio Montes\
Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada II,\
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain.\
{josep.m.brunat, antonio.montes}@upc.edu\
http://www-ma2.upc.edu/$\sim$montes
date: 'July 12, 2005.'
title: |
A polynomial generalization of the\
power-compositions determinant[^1]
---
Introduction
============
Let us start with some notation. If $\mathbf{u}=(u_1,\ldots,u_\ell)$ and $\mathbf{v}=(v_1,\ldots, v_{\ell})$ are two vectors of the same length, we define $\mathbf{u}^\mathbf{v}=u_1^{v_1}\cdots u_\ell^{v_\ell}$ (where, to be consistent $0^0=1$). In our case, the entries $u_i$ and $v_i$ of $\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ will be nonnegative integers or polynomials. We use $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_p)$ to denote a vector of indeterminates and $\mathbf{1}=(1,\ldots,1)$. The lengths of $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{1}$ will be clear from the context. If $\mathbf{u}=(u_1,\ldots,u_\ell)$, then $s(\mathbf{u})$ denotes the sum of the entries of $\mathbf{u}$, i.e. $s(\mathbf{u})=u_1+\cdots+u_\ell$, and $\bar{\mathbf{u}}$ denotes the vector obtained from $\mathbf{u}$ by deleting the last coordinate, $\bar{\mathbf{u}}=(u_1,\ldots,u_{\ell-1})$.
Let $C(n,p)$ be the set of $p$-compositions of an integer $n$, i.e., the set of $p$-tuples ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p)$ of nonnegative integers such that $\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_p=n$. If ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p)$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_p)$ are two $p$-compositions of $n$, using the above notation, we have ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}=\alpha_1^{\beta_1}\cdots
\alpha_p^{\beta_p}$. In [@BrMo] the following explicit formula for the determinant $\Delta(n,p)=\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C(n,p)}
\left({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\right)$ was proved: $$\label{BM}
\Delta(n,p)=\prod_{k=1}^{\min\{n,p\}}\left( n^{n-1 \choose k}
\prod_{i=1}^{n-k+1} i^{(n-i+1){n-i-1 \choose k-2}}\right)^{p\choose k}.$$ In a complement [@K2] to his impressive *Advanced Determinant Calculus* [@K1], C. Krattenthaler mentions this determinant, and after giving the alternative formula $$\label{K}
\Delta(n,p)=n^{n+p-1\choose p}\prod_{i=1}^{n} i^{(n-i+1){n+p-i-1\choose p-2}}$$ he states as a conjecture a generalization to univariate polynomials. Namely, let $x$ be an indeterminate and $$\Delta(n,p,x)=\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C(n,p)}
\left((x\cdot \mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\right).$$ Note that $(x\cdot \mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}
=(x+\alpha_1)^{\beta_1}\cdots (x+\alpha_p)^{\beta_p}$.
**Conjecture** \[C. Krattenthaler\]: $$\label{Kxp}
\Delta(n,p,x)=
(px+n)^{{n+p-1 \choose p}}\prod_{i=1}^n i^{(n-i+1){n+p-i-1\choose p-2}}.$$ As $(n-i+1){n+p-i-1\choose p-2}=(p-1){n+p-i-1\choose p-1}$, formula (\[K\]) can be written in the form $$\Delta(n,p)=n^{n+p-1\choose p}\prod_{i=1}^{n} i^{(p-1){n+p-i-1\choose p-1}}$$ and Krattenthaler’s Conjecture (\[Kxp\]) in the form $$\label{Kx}
\Delta(n,p,x)=
(px+n)^{{n+p-1 \choose p}}\prod_{i=1}^n i^{(p-1){n+p-i-1\choose p-1}}.$$ The main goal of this paper is to prove a generalization of formula (\[Kx\]) for $p$ indeterminates. For this, let $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_p)$ be a vector of indeterminates, and let $$\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})=\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in
C(n,p)}\left((\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\right).$$ (Recall that $(\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}=(x_1+\alpha_1)^{\beta_1}\cdots
(x_p+\beta_p)^{\beta_p}$). Then, we prove the following formula (Theorem \[TBMx\]): $$\label{BMx}
\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})
=(s(\mathbf{x})+n)^{n+p-1\choose p}
\prod_{i=1}^{n} i^{(p-1){n+p-i-1\choose p-1}}.$$ As $s(\mathbf{x})=x_1+\cdots+x_p$, if $x_1=\cdots=x_p=x$, then $s(\mathbf{x})=px$ and the conjectured identity (\[Kx\]) follows.
We also prove a variant of this result for proper compositions. A *proper $p$-composition* of an integer $n$ is a $p$-composition ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p)$ of $n$ such that $\alpha_i\ge 1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$. Denote by $C^*(n,p)$ the set of proper $p$-compositions of $n$ and define $$\Delta^*(n,p,\mathbf{x})
=\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C^*(n,p)}
\left((\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\right).$$ The determinant $\Delta^*(n,p,\mathbf{x})$ has the following factorization (Theorem \[TBMPx\]): $$\label{proper}
\Delta^*(n,p,\mathbf{x})=(s(\mathbf{x})+n)^{n-1\choose p}
\left(\prod_{j=1}^p
\prod_{i=1}^{n-p+1}(x_j+i)^{n-i-1\choose p-2}
\right)\prod_{i=1}^{n-p+1}i^{(p-1){n-i-1\choose p-1}}.$$
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we collect some combinatorial identities for further reference. In Section \[equivalence\] we prove the equivalence between the formula (\[K\]) given by Krattenthaler and (\[BM\]). In Section \[recurrence\] we prove two lemmas. The first one is a generalization of the determinant $\Delta(n,2,\mathbf{x})$. The second lemma uses the first and corresponds to a property of a sequence of rational functions which appear in the triangulation process of the determinant $\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})$. Section \[main\] contains the proof of the main result, Theorem \[TBMx\]. Finally, Section \[sproper\] is devoted to proving (\[proper\]).
Auxiliary summation formulas {#auxiliary}
============================
\[ci\] Let $a,b,c,d,m$ and $n$ be nonnegative integers. Then, the following equalities hold.
1. $\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} {a\choose c+k}{b\choose d-k}
={a+b\choose c+d}$;
2. $\sum_{k\le n}{a+k\choose a}=\sum_{k\le n}{a+k\choose k}
={n+a+1\choose a+1}$;
3. $\sum_{r=1}^n r{n+a-r\choose a}={n+a+1\choose a+2}$;
\(i) is the well known Vandermonde’s convolution, see [@GrKnPa p. 169]. The formulas in (ii) are versions of the parallel summation [@GrKnPa p. 159]. Part (iii) follows from [$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{r=1}^n r{n+a-r\choose a}
&=&
\sum_{r=1}^n r{n+a-r\choose n-r}
=
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \sum_{i=0}^{k}{a+i\choose a} \\
&=& \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} {a+k+1\choose a+1}
= {a+n+1\choose a+2}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
Equivalence between the two formulas for $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{0}$ {#equivalence}
================================================================
Here we prove the equivalence beetween the formulas (\[BM\]) and (\[K\]) for $\Delta(n,p)$. Obviously, the result of substituting $x=0$ in formula (\[Kxp\]) of the Conjecture gives formula (\[K\]) for $\Delta(n,p)$.
Formulas *(\[BM\])* and *(\[K\])* are equivalent.
We derive formula (\[K\]) from (\[BM\]), which was already proved in [@BrMo]. First, note that if $p<k\le n$, the binomial coefficient ${p\choose k}$ is zero. Thus, we can replace $\min\{p,n\}$ by $n$ in formula (\[BM\]). Analogously, if $n-k+1<i\le n$, the binomial coefficient ${n-i-1\choose k-2}$ is zero, and we can replace the upper value $n-k+1$ by $n$ in the inner product. Second, the case $a=n-1$, $b=d=p$ and $c=0$ of Lemma \[ci\] (i) yields [$$\sum_{k=1}^n {n-1\choose k}{p\choose k} =
-1+\sum_{k=0}^n {n-1\choose k}{p\choose p-k}={n+p-1\choose p}-1,$$ ]{}and, if $i\ge 1$, by taking $a=n-i-1$, $b=d=p$ and $c=-2$ in Lemma \[ci\] (i), we obtain [$$\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{n-i-1\choose k-2}{p\choose k}=
\sum_{k}^{n-1}{n-i-1\choose k-2}{p\choose p-k}
={n+p-i-1\choose p-2}.$$ ]{} Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(n,p)
&=& \prod_{k=1}^{\min\{n,p\}}\left( n^{n-1 \choose k}
\prod_{i=1}^{n-k+1} i^{(n-i+1){n-i-1 \choose k-2}}\right)^{p\choose k}\\
&=&\prod_{k=1}^n\left( n^{n-1 \choose k}
\prod_{i=1}^n i^{(n-i+1){n-i-1 \choose k-2}}\right)^{p
\choose k}\\
&=& \left(\prod_{k=1}^n n^{{n-1\choose k}{p\choose k}}\right)
\left(\prod_{k=1}^n
\prod_{i=1}^n
i^{(n-i+1){n-i-1\choose k-2}{p\choose k}}
\right)\\
&=& n^{{n+p-1 \choose p}-1}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} i^{(n-i+1){n+p-i-1\choose p-2}}\right)
n^{\sum_{k=1}^n {-1\choose k-2}{p\choose k}}\\
&=& n^{{n+p-1\choose p}+p-1}\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} i^{(n-i+1){n+p-i-1\choose p-2}}\\
&=& n^{n+p-1\choose p}\prod_{i=1}^{n} i^{(n-i+1){n+p-i-1\choose p-2}}.\end{aligned}$$
A recurrence {#recurrence}
============
The next lemma evaluates the determinant $$D_r(n,y,z)=\det_{0\le i,j\le r}\left((y-i)^{n-j}(z+i)^j\right),$$ by reducing it to a Vandermonde determinant. Note that $D_n(n,x_1+n,x_2)=\Delta(n,2,\mathbf{x})$.
\[xy\] $$D_r(n,y,z)=(y+z)^{r+1\choose 2}
\left(\prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^{n-r}\right)
\left(\prod_{i=1}^r i^{r-i+1}\right).$$
[$$\begin{aligned}
D_r(n,y,z)
&=&\left|\begin{array}{cccc}
(y-0)^n(z+0)^0 & (y-0)^{n-1}(z+0)^1 & \cdots & (y-0)^{n-r}(z+0)^r \\
(y-1)^n(z+1)^0 & (y-1)^{n-1}(z+1)^1 & \cdots & (y-1)^{n-r}(z+1)^r \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
(y-r)^n(z+r)^0 & (y-r)^{n-1}(z+r)^1 & \cdots & (y-r)^{n-r}(z+r)^r
\end{array}
\right| \\
&=&
\left( \prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^n \right)
\left|\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & (z+0)/(y-0) & \cdots & (z+0)^r/(y-0)^r \\
1 & (z+1)/(y-1) & \cdots & (z+1)^r/(y-1)^r \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
1 & (z+r)/(y-r) &\cdots & (z+r)^r/(y-r)^r
\end{array}
\right| \\
&=&
\left(
\prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^n\right)
\prod_{0\le i<j\le r}\left( \frac{z+j}{y-j}-\frac{z+i}{y-i} \right) \\
&=& \left(\prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^n \right)
\prod_{0\le i<j\le r} \frac{(y+z)(j-i)}{(y-j)(y-i)} \\
&=&\left(
\prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^n \right)
(y+z)^{r+1\choose 2}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^r i^{r-i+1}}{\prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^r} \\
&=&(y+z)^{r+1\choose 2}
\left(\prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^{n-r}\right)
\left(\prod_{i=1}^r i^{r-i+1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
\[rec\] Define $f_r\colon \mathbb{N}_0\times\mathbb{N}_0 \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}(y,z)$ recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
f_0(i,j) &=& (z+i)^j; \\
f_{r+1}(i,j) &=& f_r(i,j) \quad \mbox{if}\quad j\le r; \\
f_{r+1}(i,j) &=& f_r(i,j)
-\left(\frac{y-i}{y-r}\right)^{j-r}\frac{f_r(i,r)f_r(r,j)}{f_r(r,r)}
\quad \mbox{if} \quad j> r.\end{aligned}$$ Then
1. $f_{r+1}(r,j)=0$ for $j\ge r+1$;
2. $\displaystyle f_r(r,r)=(y+z)^r\frac{r!}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} (y-i)}$.
Part (i) is trivial using induction. To obtain $f_r=f_r(r,r)$, we take $n\ge
r$ and calculate $D(n,y,z)=D_n(n,y,z)$ by Gauss triangulation method.
The entry $(i,j)$ of $D(n,y,z)$ is $(y-i)^{n-j}(z+i)^j=(y-i)^{n-j}f_0(i,j)$. If $j\ge 1$, add to the column $j$ the column $0$ multiplied by $$-\frac{1}{(y-0)^{j-0}}\frac{f_0(0,j)}{f_0(0,0)}.$$ Then, the entry $(i,j)$ with $j\ge 1$ is modified to $$\begin{aligned}
&&
(y-i)^{n-j}f_0(i,j)-(y-i)^{n-0}f_0(i,0)\frac{1}{(y-0)^{j-0}}\frac{f_0(0,j)}{f_0(0,0)} \\
&=&(y-i)^{n-j}\left\{ f_0(i,j)-\left(\frac{y-i}{y-0}\right)^{j-0}
\frac{f_0(i,k)f_0(k,j)}{f_0(0,0)}\right\} \\
&=& (y-i)^{n-j}f_{1}(i,j).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $D(n,y,z)=\det_{0\le i,j\le r}\left((y-i)^{n-j}f_1(i,j)\right)$ and $f_1(0,j)=0$ for $j\ge 1$.
Now, assume that $D(n,y,z)=\det_{0\le i,j\le
n}\left((y-i)^{n-j}f_k(i,j)\right)$ for $k\ge 1$ with $f_k(i,j)=0$ for $k,j>i$. Add to the column $j\ge k+1$ the column $k$ multiplied by $$-\frac{1}{(y-k)^{j-k}}\frac{f_k(k,j)}{f_k(k,k)}.$$ The entry $(i,j)$ is modified to $$\begin{aligned}
&&
(y-i)^{n-j}f_k(i,j)-(y-i)^{n-k}f_k(i,k)
\cdot
\frac{1}{(y-k)^{j-k}}\cdot\frac{f_k(k,j)}{f_k(k,k)}\\
&=&
(y-i)^{n-j}\left\{ f_k(i,j)-\left(\frac{y-i}{y-k}\right)^{j-k}
\frac{f_k(i,k)f_k(k,j)}{f_k(k,k)}\right\}\\
&=&
(y-i)^{n-j}f_{k+1}(i,j).\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $f_{k+1}(k,j)=0$ for $j>k$. After $n$ iterations, we get the determinant of a triangular matrix. Hence $$D(n,y,z)=\det_{0\le k\le n}\left((y-k)^{n-k}f_k(k,k)\right)=\prod_{r=0}^n
(y-k)^{n-k}f_k.$$ The principal minor of order $r+1$ is $D_r(n,y,z)=\prod_{k=0}^r (y-k)^{n-k}f_k$. Therefore, $$\label{quotient}
\frac{D_r(n,y,z)}{D_{r-1}(n,y,z)}=(y-r)^{n-r}f_r.$$ On the other hand, by Lemma \[xy\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{D_r(n,y,z)}{D_{r-1}(n,y,z)}
&=&
\frac{ (y+z)^{r+1\choose 2}
\left(\prod_{i=0}^r (y-i)^{n-r}\right)
\left(\prod_{i=1}^r i^{r-i+1}\right) }
{ (y+z)^{r\choose 2}
\left(\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} (y-i)^{n-r-1} \right)
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{r-1} i^{r-i} \right)} \\
&=&
(y+z)^r\cdot r!\cdot \frac{(y-r)^{n-r}}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} (y-i)}.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing with (\[quotient\]), we have arrived at $$f_r=(y+z)^r\frac{r!}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} (y-i)}.$$
Proof of the main theorem {#main}
=========================
We sort $C(n,p)$ in lexicographic order. For instance, for $n=5$, and $p=3$, we obtain $$\begin{array}{rl}
C(5,3)=& \{ \, (5,0,0), (4,1,0), (3,2,0), (2,3,0), (1,4,0), (0,5,0), \\
&\phantom{\{}\, (4,0,1), (3,1,1), (2,2,1), (1,3,1), (0,4,1), \\
&\phantom{\{}\, (3,0,2), (2,1,2), (1,2,2), (0,3,2), \\
&\phantom{\{}\, (2,0,3), (1,1,3), (0,2,3), \\
&\phantom{\{}\, (1,0,4), (0,1,4), \\
&\phantom{\{}\, (0,0,5) \, \}.
\end{array}$$ Let $M(n,p,\mathbf{x})$ be the matrix with rows and columns labeled by the $p$-compositions of $n$ in lexicographic order and with the entry $({\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$ equal to $(\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}$. We have $\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})=\det M(n,p,\mathbf{x})$.
An entry $(\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}$ in $M(n,p,\mathbf{x})$ can be written in the form $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}
(x_p+\alpha_p)^{\beta_p}$. For $0\le i,j\le n$, let $S_{ij}$ be the matrix with entries $(\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}$ where ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ satisfy $\alpha_p=i$ and $\beta_p=j$. Thus, the submatrix of $M(n,p,\mathbf{x})$ formed by the entries labeled $({\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$ with $\alpha_p=i$ and $\beta_p=j$ can be written $\left(S_{ij}(x_p+i)^j\right)$. Note that $$S_{kk}=M(n-k,p-1,\bar{\mathbf{x}}).$$ Define $f_0(i,j)=(x_p+i)^j$. Therefore, $M(n,p,\mathbf{x})$ admits the block decomposition $$M(n,p,\mathbf{x})=(S_{ij}f_0(i,j))_{0\le i,j\le n}.$$ The idea is to put $M(n,p,\mathbf{x})$ in block triangular form in such a way that at each step only the last factor of each block is modified.
\[TBMx\] $$\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})=
(s(\mathbf{x})+n)^{{n+p-1 \choose p}}
\prod_{i=1}^n i^{(p-1){n+p-i-1\choose p-1}}.$$
The proof is by induction on $p$. For $p=1$, $\Delta(n,p,x)$ is the determinant of the $1\times 1$ matrix $((x+n)^n)$. Hence $\Delta(n,p,x)=(x+n)^n$. This value coincides with the right hand side of the formula for $p=1$.
Consider now the case $p=2$. Any 2-composition of $n$ is of the form $(n-i,i)$ for some $i$, $0\le i\le n$. The determinant to be calculated is $\Delta(n,2,\mathbf{x})
= \det_{0\le i,j\le n} \left((x_1+n-i)^{n-j}(x_2+i)^j\right)$. By taking $r=n$, $y=x_1+n$ and $z=x_2$ in Lemma \[xy\], we get $$\Delta(n,2,\mathbf{x})=D_n(n,x_1+n,x_2)=
(x_1+x_2+n)^{n+1\choose 2}\prod_{i=1}^n i^{n-i+1}.$$ Therefore, the formula holds for $p=2$.
Now, let $p>2$ and assume that the formula holds for $p-1$. Begin with the block decomposition of the matrix $M(n,p,\mathbf{x})=(S_{ij}f_0(i,j))_{0\le
i,j\le n}$.
Assume $\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})=\det (S_{ij}f_r(i,j))$ where $S_{ij}
=((\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}})$, with $\alpha_p=i$, $\beta_p=j$, and $f_r(i,j)=0$ for $i<r$ and $j>i$.
Fix a column ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ with $\beta_p=j>r$. For each ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\in C(n,p)$ with $\gamma_p=r$ and $\gamma_k\ge \beta_k$ for $k\in[p-1]$, add to the column ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ the column ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ multiplied by $$-\frac{1}{(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-r)^{j-r}}
{j-r \choose \bar{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}-\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}
\frac{f_r(r,j)}{f_r(r,r)}.$$ The differences $\bar{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}=\bar{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}-\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}$ are exactly the $(p-1)$-compositions of $j-r$. Also note that by the multinomial theorem,[$$\left(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-i\right)^{j-r}
=\left((x_1+\alpha_1)+\cdots+(x_{p-1}+\alpha_{p-1})\right)^{j-r}
=\sum_{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}}{j-r \choose \bar{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}}
\left(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\right)^{\bar{\delta}}.$$ ]{}Then, a term of column ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ is modified to [$$\begin{aligned}
&&
(\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}f_r(i,j)
-\sum_{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}\frac{1}{(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-r)^{j-r}}
{j-r \choose \bar{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}-\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}
\frac{f_r(r,j)}{f_r(r,r)}(\bar{\mathbf{x}}
+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}}f_r(i,r) \\
&=&
(\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}
\left\{
f_r(i,j)-\frac{1}{(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-r)^{j-r}}
\left(
\sum_{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}}{j-r \choose \bar{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}}
(\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}}
\right)
\frac{f_r(r,j)f_r(i,r)}{f_r(r,r)}
\right\}\\
&=&
(\bar{\mathbf{x}}+\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}
\left\{
f_r(i,j)-\frac{(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-i)^{j-r}}{(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-r)^{j-r}}
\frac{f_r(r,j)f_r(i,r)}{f_r(r,r)}
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Now, define $f_{r+1}(i,j)=f_r(i,j)$ for $j\le r$ and $$f_{r+1}(i,j)
=f_r(i,j)-\frac{(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-i)^{j-r}}{(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-r)^{j-r}}
\frac{f_r(r,j)f_r(i,r)}{f_r(r,r)}$$ for $j>r$. Note that $f_{r+1}(r,j)=0$ for $j>r$. After $n$ iterations, we arrive at the block matrix $(S_{ij}f_n(i,j))_{0\le i,j\le n}$ where $f(i,j)=0$ for $j>i$. Thus, the determinant $\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})$ is the product of the determinants of the diagonal blocks: $$\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})=\prod_{r=0}^n \det (S_{rr}f_r(r,r)).$$ Now, $S_{rr}=M(n-r,p-1,\bar{\mathbf{x}})$, a square matrix of order ${n-r+p-2\choose p-2}$. Therefore $$\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})=\prod_{r=0}^n
\left(\Delta(n-r,p-1,\bar{\mathbf{x}}) f_r(r,r)^{{n-r+p-2\choose p-2}}\right).$$ Now, observe that the rational funcions $f_r$ satisfy the hypothesis of Lema \[rec\] with $y=s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n=x_1+\cdots+x_{p-1}+n$ and $z=x_p$. Thus, $$f_r=f_r(r,r)=(s(\mathbf{x})+n)^r\cdot \frac{r!}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-i)}.$$ By the induction hypothesis, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(n,p,\mathbf{x})
&=&
\prod_{r=0}^n \left(
(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-r)^{n-r+p-2\choose p-1}
\prod_{i=1}^{n-r} i^{(p-2){n-r+p-i-2\choose p-2}}
\right) \\
&& \cdot
\prod_{r=0}^n \left(
(s(\mathbf{x})+n)^r\cdot r!\cdot \frac{1}
{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}(s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-i)}
\right)^{n-r+p-2\choose p-2}\end{aligned}$$ It remains to count how many factors of each type there are in the above product.
The number of factors $(s(\mathbf{x})+n)$ is $\sum_{r=1}^{n} r{n+p-r-2\choose p-2}$. From Lemma \[ci\] (iii) for $a=p-2$ this coefficient is ${n+p-1\choose p}$.
The number of factors $s(\bar{\mathbf{x}})+n-i$, for $0\le i\le n-1$, is (by using Lemma \[ci\] (ii) with $a=p-2$) [$${n-i+p-2 \choose p-1}-\sum_{r=i+1}^{n}{n-r+p-2\choose p-2}
=
{n-i+p-2\choose p-1}-{n-i+p-2\choose p-1}
= 0.$$]{} Finally, for $1\le i\le n$, the number of factors equal to $i$ is [$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{(p-2)\sum_{r=0}^{n-i}{n+p-i-r-2\choose p-2}
+\sum_{r=i}^n {n+p-r-2\choose p-2}=} \\
&&
(p-2){n+p-i-r-1\choose p-1}+{n+p-r-1\choose p-1}=
(p-1){n+p-r-1\choose p-1}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
Proper compositions {#sproper}
===================
A *proper $p$-composition* of an integer $n$ is a $p$-composition ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p)$ of $n$ such that $\alpha_i\ge
1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$. We denote by $C^*(n,p)$ the set of proper $p$-compositions of $n$. In [@BrMo] the following formula was given: $$\Delta^*(n,p)=\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C^*(n,p)}
({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}) =n^{n-1\choose
p}\prod_{i=1}^{n-p+1} i^{(n-i+1){n-i-1\choose p-2}}.$$ Here, we study the corresponding generalization $$\Delta^*(n,p,\mathbf{x})=\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C^*(n,p)}
\left((\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\right).$$
\[TBMPx\] If $p\le n$, then $$\Delta^*(n,p,\mathbf{x})=
(s(\mathbf{x})+n)^{n-1\choose p}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-p+1}\prod_{j=1}^p (x_j+i)^{n-i-1\choose p-2}
\right)
\prod_{i=1}^{n-p}i^{(p-1){n-i-1\choose p-1}}.$$
The mapping $C^*(n,p)\rightarrow C(n-p,p)$ defined by ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p)
\mapsto {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}-\mathbf{1}
=(\alpha_1-1,\ldots, \alpha_p-1)$ is bijective. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^*(n,p,\mathbf{x})
&=&
\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C^*(n,p)}
\left((\mathbf{x}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\right) \\
&=&
\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C^*(n,p)}
\left(
(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}-\mathbf{1})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}-\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{1}}
\right) \\
&=&
\det_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in C(n-p,p)}
\left(
(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}
(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^\mathbf{1}
\right)\\
&=&
\Delta(n-p,p,\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1})
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in C(n-p,p)}
(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^\mathbf{1}.\end{aligned}$$ The number of times that an integer $i$, $0\le i\le n-p$ appears as the first entry of $p$-compositions of $n-p$ is the number of solutions $(\alpha_2,\ldots, \alpha_{n-p})$ of $i+\alpha_2+\cdots+\alpha_p=n-p$, which is ${n-p-i+p-2\choose p-2}={n-i-2\choose p-2}$. The count is the same for every coordinate. Then, in the product $\prod_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in
C(n-p,p)}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^\mathbf{1}$, the number of factors equal to $x_j+1+i$ is ${n-i-2\choose p-2}$; equivalently, for $1\le
i\le n-p+1$, the number of factors equal to $x_j+i$ is ${n-i-1\choose p-2}$. Therefore, [$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^*(n,p,\mathbf{x})&=&\Delta(n-p,p,\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1})
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in C(n-p,p)}
(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{1}+{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})^\mathbf{1}\\
&=& (s(\mathbf{x})+n)^{n-1\choose p}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-p+1}\prod_{j=1}^p (x_j+i)^{n-i-1\choose p-2}
\right)
\prod_{i=1}^{n-p}i^{(p-1){n-i-1\choose p-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank the referee very much for valuable suggestions, corrections and comments, which result in a great improvement of the original manuscript.
[99]{}
J. M. Brunat and A. Montes, The power-compositions determinant and its application to global optimization, [*SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.*]{} [**23**]{} (2001), 459–471.
R. L. Graham, D. E. Knuth and O. Patashnik, [ *Concrete Mathematics, A Foundation for Computer Science*]{}, (Addison-Wesley), (1989).
C. Krattenthaler, Advanced Determinant Calculus, [*Séminaire Lotharingien Combin.*]{} [**42**]{}, Article B42q, (1999).
C. Krattenthaler, Advanced Determinant Calculus: A complement, Ar$\chi$iv number math. CO/0503507, (2005), Available on line at: http://igd.univ-lyon1.fr/$\sim$kratt, [*Linear Algebra Appl.*]{} (to appear).
[^1]: Work partially supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología under projects BFM2003-00368 and MTM2004-01728 and Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología and by the Generalitat de Catalunya under project 2005 SGR 00692
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use methods for computing Picard numbers of reductions of K3 surfaces in order to study the decomposability of Jacobians over number fields and the variance of Mordell-Weil ranks of families of Jacobians over different ground fields. For example, we look at surfaces whose Picard numbers jump in rank at all primes of good reduction using Mordell-Weil groups of Jacobians and show that the genus of curves over number fields whose Jacobians are isomorphic to a product of elliptic curves satisfying certain reduction conditions is bounded. The isomorphism result addresses the number field analogue of some questions of Ekedahl and Serre on decomposability of Jacobians of curves into elliptic curves.'
author:
- Soohyun Park
title: |
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>\
\[25pt\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Decomposability and Mordell-Weil ranks of Jacobians using Picard numbers\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
---
Introduction
============
Given a family of curves, we can associate a family of Jacobians to it. Then, it is natural to consider the following question:
\[Q1\] How does the Mordell-Weil rank of a family of Jacobians vary as we change the base field?
By Mordell-Weil ranks of families, we mean the Mordell-Weil rank of a Jacobian over a function field. Other than being an interesting question to think about in general, studying the function field case of a problem on properties of rational points has been useful for understanding what happens in other global fields such as number fields and some other questions that we may be interested in. One topic we will study is the relationship between Picard numbers of products of curves and Jacobians of certain curves.\
The other question that we will spend most of our time studying is the following geometric question:
\[Q2\] Is there an upper bound on the genus of curves over a fixed number field which have Jacobians isomorphic to a product of elliptic curves?
This is motivated by some questions raised by Ekedahl and Serre [@ES] for curves over $\mathbb{C}$. More specifically, they asked the following questions on the decomposability of Jacobians of smooth projective curves over $\mathbb{C}$ into products of elliptic curves up to isogeny or isomorphism:
1. Does there exist a Jacobian of a curve of genus $g$ which is decomposable into a product of elliptic curves up to isogeny for *every* $g > 0$?
2. Is the set of such $g$ bounded?
3. Does there exist $g > 3$ such that some curve of genus $g$ has its Jacobian *isomorphic* to a product of elliptic curves?
There has been some previous work on the second problem (e.g. [@P], [@R]) which has been successful in producing a large number of explicit decompositions coming from representations of the endomorphism algebra of the Jacobian of a curve induced by a finite group action. Another perspective on the problem has to do with unlikely intersections involving (weakly) special subvarieties of Shimura varieties (e.g. [@LZ]). One example of the tools used is analogues of positivity results from complex algebraic geometry in Arakelov theory such as slope inequalities. Motivated by the second approach, Chen, Lu, and Zuo [@CLZ] prove a finiteness result for Jacobians of curves over number fields in the self-product case assuming the Sato-Tate conjecture. This is interesting since some of the authors working on curves over $\mathbb{C}$ seem to guess that the genus is unbounded in the second question posed by Ekedahl and Serre.\
In general, products of elliptic curves tend to large Picard numbers. This is especially true for self-products of elliptic curves $E^g$, which have the maximal Picard number $g^2$ if $E$ is a CM elliptic curve and $\frac{g(g + 1)}{2}$ otherwise [@HL]. This would mean that Jacobians isogenous to a product of elliptic curves would have a large Picard number. However, this is something possible. In fact, Beauville [@Bea] gives examples of Jacobians of curves of genus $4$ and $10$ which are *isomorphic* to a product of isogenous CM elliptic curves. This gives a positive answer to the third question of Ekedahl and Serre stated at the beginning since it examples of curves of genus $g > 3$ whose Jacobians are isomorphic to a product of elliptic curves. Given the second question of Ekedahl and Serre, one may ask whether the genus of such curves is bounded as in Question \[Q2\].\
Instead of attempting to directly compute the Picard number over the ground field or its algebraic closure, the main tool which we will use to try to understand Question \[Q2\] is computation of Picard numbers of reductions of a product of curves $C \times C$ for a curve $C$ over a number field. In Theorem \[gbound\], we use this to obtain a result analogous to that of Chen, Lu, and Zuo [@CLZ] without assuming the Sato-Tate conjecture. The distribution modulo reductions at different primes was recently studied for K3 surfaces in recent work of Costa, Elsenhans, and Jahnel [@CEJ]. Although this has not been done yet for products of curves, many of the main observations made here also seem to carry over to our case since the Tate conjecture holds for products of curves.\
The connection of this work with Question \[Q1\] comes from a formula of Ulmer (Theorem 6.4 of [@U]) which expresses the Mordell-Weil rank of certain Jacobians over function fields in terms of homomorphisms between two Jacobians and some terms that depend on the geometry of the construction. More specifically, the behavior of both the Picard number and the Mordell-Weil rank of Jacobians in these families mainly depend on the how the same object under reduction at good primes.\
The methods used by Costa, Elsenhans, and Jahnel [@CEJ] which are used to understand this jumping behavior will be described in further detail in Section 2. Next, we will apply the observations made in [@CEJ] to a product of curves in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 will contain applications of these methods to the the questions we mentioned at the beginning (\[Q1\], \[Q2\]). Section 4.1 will give examples of applications of this work to Question \[Q1\] as we consider the Mordell-Weil rank over function fields over an algebraically closed field and its residue fields. Question \[Q2\] and other properties of decomposable Jacobians over number fields will be considered in Section 4.2 mostly through the proof of Theorem \[gbound\].
Distribution of Picard numbers of reductions of surfaces
========================================================
In this section, we will describe some of the tools used by Costa, Elsenhans, and Jahnel in [@CEJ] to analyze Picard numbers of reductions of $K3$ surfaces following the first section of their paper [@CEJ].\
Some of the techniques originate from explicit computations of Picard numbers of K3 surfaces over number fields using reductions modulo good primes in work of van Luijk [@vL] which was later further extended by Elsenhans in Jahnel in various directions.\
Given a surface $S$ over a number field $K$, it is well-known that $\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}}_\mathfrak{p}} \ge \operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}S_{\overline{K}}$. However, it is not as clear how to determine exactly when the rank actually jumps after specialization.\
Some of the main tools they use to try to measure this are certain characters depending on the action of the (absolute) Frobenius map on $\operatorname{Pic}S_{\overline{K}}$, $H^2_{\'et}(S_{\overline{K}}, \mathbb{Q}_l(1))$, and transcendental part $T$ of $H^2_{\'et}(S_{\overline{K}}, \mathbb{Q}_l(1))$.\
The character which is most directly connected to their main results on jumping of Picard numbers after reduction is the *jump character* $$\left( \frac{\Delta_{H^2}(S)\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(S)}{\mathfrak{p}} \right),$$
where $K(\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(S))$ is the minimal field of definition of $\bigwedge^{\max} \operatorname{Pic}S_{\overline{K}}$ and $\Delta_{H^2}(S)$ is defined similarly.\
The relation of these objects to the results of [@CEJ] on jumping of Picard numbers of K3 surfaces after reduction is summarized in the following theorem:
\[jumping\] (Costa, Elsenhans, Jahnel [@CEJ]) Let $K$ be a number field and $S$ be a K3 surface over $K$. Moreover, let $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathcal{O}_K$ be a prime of good reduction and residue characteristic $\ne 2$.
1. The following two questions hold:
- $\det(\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}} : H^2_{\'et}(S_{\overline{K}}, \mathbb{Q}_l(1)) ) = \left( \frac{\Delta_{H^2}(S)}{\mathfrak{p}} \right)$
- $\det(\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}} : T ) = \left( \frac{\Delta_{H^2}(S)\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(S)}{\mathfrak{p}} \right)$
2. If $\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}S_{\overline{K}}$ is even, then $$\left( \frac{\Delta_{H^2}(S)\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(S)}{\mathfrak{p}} \right) = -1 \Rightarrow \operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}}_{\mathfrak{p}}} \ge \operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}S_{\overline{K}} + 2.$$
In other words, the Picard number jumps at the primes $\mathfrak{p}$ which are inert in $K(\sqrt{\Delta_{H^2}(S)\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(S)})$.
Applications to products of curves
==================================
We can show that the main theoretical observation of [@CEJ] on the distribution of Picard numbers of K3 surfaces over number fields under specialization (Proposition 2.4.2) carries over to products of curves.
Let $C$ be a smooth projective curve over a number field $K$ and $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathcal{O}_K$ be a prime of good reduction. If $\det\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}|_T = -1$, then $\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_{\overline{\mathbb{F}}_{\mathfrak{p}}} \ge \operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_{\overline{K}} + 2$.
Most of the proof is same as that of Proposition 2.4.2 since the Tate conjecture holds for products of curves. So, it suffices to show the Picard number of $C \times C$ over $\mathbf{F}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is always even.\
As in [@Y], let $f(C, T) = \prod_{i = 1}^{2g} (1 - \alpha_i T)$ be the Weil polynomial for $C$. Then, we have that $$P_2(C \times C, T) = (1 - qT)^2 \prod_{i = 1}^{2g} \prod_{j = 1}^{2g} (1 - \alpha_i \alpha_j T)$$
is the reverse characteristic polynomial the action of $\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ on $H^2_{\'et}(C \times C, \mathbb{Q}_l)$ for $l \ne |\mathbf{F}_{\mathfrak{p}}|$. So, the eigenvalues are actually the $\alpha_i\alpha_j$. Recall that the Picard number is the multiplicity of $q$ as a root of $P_2(C \times C, T)$ since the Tate conjecture holds for this surface. Since $\alpha_i\alpha_j = \alpha_j\alpha_i$ for $i \ne j$, we have that these eigenvalues always have even multiplicity. Now suppose that $\alpha_i^2 = q$. Then, we also have $\alpha_{2g - i}^2 = q$ since $\alpha_i \alpha_{2g - i} = q$ by the Weil conjectures. Thus, the $\alpha_i$ such that $\alpha_i^2 = q$ always come in pairs and the Picard number must be even.
If $\det\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}|_T = -1$, the density of jump primes is at least $\frac{1}{2}$.
This follows from the Chebotarev density theorem and the definition of the jump character since the inert primes have density $\frac{1}{2}$ in a quadratic extension.
To find when $\det\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}|_T = -1$, it suffices to find the discriminant of the Picard representation in our case. Since the leading coefficient in the characteristic polynomial above is $q^{2g + 2}$ and twisting by $1$ divides each of the eigenvalues by $q$, we have that $\left( \frac{\Delta_{H^2}(C \times C)}{\mathfrak{p}} \right) = 1$ for all good primes $\mathfrak{p}$. The means that the jump character is $\left( \frac{\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(C \times C)}{\mathfrak{p}} \right)$ and it it suffices to find the field of definition of $\bigwedge^{\max} \operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_{\overline{K}}$ in order to determine the jump character. If the determinant of the action of $\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ on $\operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)$ is $-1$, $K(\sqrt{\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(C \times C)})$ is actually a quadratic number field. Otherwise, $K(\sqrt{\Delta_{\operatorname{Pic}}(C \times C)}) = K$.
Recall that $\operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_k \cong (\operatorname{Pic}(C))^2 \times \operatorname{End}_k J(C)$ if $C$ has a $k$-rational point (which is always true when $k = \overline{K}$). The elements of $\mathbb{Z}^2$ are classes corresponding to horizontal and vertical divisors. So, it suffices to compute $\operatorname{End}_k J(C)$ in order to find the minimal field of definition of $\bigwedge^{\max} \operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_{\overline{K}}$. By recent work in [@CMSV], such an algorithm actually exists for a curve of arbitrary genus $g$. To find the jump character, it suffices to find the determinant of the action of the Galois group of the field of definition on the endomorphism ring.
We can give examples of products of curves $C \times C$ of when the jump character is trivial and nontrivial.
\[trivial\] (Trivial character) By [@UZ], we have that $\operatorname{End}_{\overline{K}} J(C) = \mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p]$ for $C : y^p = f(x)$ with $p \ge 5$ an odd prime and $f$ a polynomial of degree $p$ with distinct roots such that the Galois group of the splitting field is $S_p$ or $A_p$.\
Then $\operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_{\overline{K}} = \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p]$. Note that the field of definition is $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p)$. To find the field of definition of $\bigwedge^{\max} \operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_{\overline{K}}$, we find the determinant of the action of multiplication by $\zeta_p$ on $\operatorname{Pic}(C \times C)_{\overline{K}} = \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p]$. Then, the $(p - 1) \times (p - 1)$ matrix of this action with respect to the basis $\zeta_p, \ldots, \zeta_p^{p - 1}$ is $$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \cdots & 0 & -1 \\ 1 & \cdots & 0 & -1 \\ \vdots & \cdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 0 & \cdots & 1 & -1
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Since the determinant of this matrix is $1$, the field of definition is just $\mathbb{Q}$ and the jump character is trivial.
(Nontrivial character) On the other hand, the character is nontrivial in the main higher genus example of [@CMSV] (Example 8.2.1). In this case, the endomorphism algebra is $\mathbb{Q} \times \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{17})$. Since the jump character is nontrivial, our earlier density result applies.
Mordell-Weil ranks and decomposable Jacobians
=============================================
Mordell-Weil ranks and endomorphism rings of Jacobians
------------------------------------------------------
Endomorphism rings of Jacobians are also connected to Mordell-Weil ranks of Jacobians of certain curves. The most well-known example of ths is the Shioda-Tate formula.
(Shioda-Tate[@U]) Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a smooth and proper surface over $k$ and $X \longrightarrow \operatorname{Spec}K$ be the generic fiber of $\pi$.\
Then, we have $$\operatorname{rank}NS(\mathcal{X}) = \operatorname{rank}MW(J_X) + 2 + \sum_v (f_v - 1),$$ where the sum is over closed points of $\mathbb{P}_k^1$ and $f_v$ is the number of irreducible components in the fiber of $\pi$ over $v$.
Using this formula along with a construction of Berger [@Ber] which generates families of curves with Jacobians where BSD holds, Ulmer [@U] gives a new more explicit formula which gives ranks over certain types of function fields (Theorem 6.4 of [@U], Theorem 9.4 of [@UCJ]).
\[rkformula\](Ulmer [@U]) Assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Choose smooth proper irreducible curves $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ over $k$ and non-constant separable rational functions $f : \mathcal{C} \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}_k^1$ and $g : \mathcal{D} \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}_k^1$ satisfying condition (4.1.1) on p. 7 of [@U].\
Let $X$ be the smooth proper model of $$\{ f - tg = 0 \} \subset \mathcal{C} \times_k \mathcal{D} \times_k \operatorname{Spec}K$$ over $K := k(t)$ constructed in Section 4 of [@U]. If $(d, \operatorname{char}k) = 1$, then $$\operatorname{rank}MW(J_d) = \operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Hom}_k\left( J_{\mathcal{C}'_{d/e_{d, f}}}, J_{\mathcal{D}'_{d/e_{d, g}}} \right)^{\mu_{d/(e_{d, f} e_{d, g})}} - c_1(d) + c_2(d),$$ where $K_d = k(t^{\frac{1}{d}})$. The superscript $\mu_r$ means that the homomorphisms commute with the action of $\mu_r$ on the two Jacobians, where $\mu_r$ denotes the $r^{\text{th}}$ roots of unity in $k$.\
If $e_{d, f} = e_{d, g} = 1$, the rank formula simplifies to $$\operatorname{rank}MW(J_d) = \operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Hom}_k(J_{\mathcal{C}_d}, J_{\mathcal{D}_d})^{\mu_d} - c_1(d) + c_2(d).$$
The terms in this formula depend on the homomorphisms between Jacobians of certain curves and the terms $c_1(d)$ and $c_2(d)$, which depend on geometric properties of these curves.
The assumption that $k$ is algebraically closed is not strictly necessary. It can be removed given some adjustments on the parameters. See Remark 6.5 of [@U] for more details.
Although exactly determining the endomorphism ring is difficult, there is an algorithm for computing the endomorphism ring of the Jacobian of a curve of arbitrary genus [@CMSV]. Nevertheless, we will focus on cases where computation of the endomorphism algebra is feasible as noted by Ulmer [@UCJ]. More specifically, we will consider superelliptic curves whose Jacobians have products of cyclotomic fields as their endomorphism algebras.
\[UZ\] Let $C_{f, d}$ be the smooth projective curve over $k$ with $z^d = f(x)$ as an affine model, where $\deg f = m$ with distinct roots and $d = p^r$ for some prime $p$. Let $J_{f, q} = J(C_{f, q})$ with $q = p^r$. According to [@UZ], $J_{f, q}$ is isogenous to $$\prod_{i = 1}^r J^{(f, p^i)},$$ where $J^{(f, q)}$ is the kernel of the homomorphism of Jacobians induced by the projection $C_{f, q} \longrightarrow C_{f, \frac{q}{p}}$ defined by the map $(x, z) \mapsto (x, z^p)$. By Theorem 2.5.1 of [@UZ], $\operatorname{End}J^{(f, q)} = \mathbb{Z}[\zeta_q]$ if $m \ge 5$ and $\operatorname{Gal}(f) = S_m$ or $A_m$.\
Fixing $f$ and $m$ satisfying the conditions above, we find that we can use the simplified rank formula from Theorem \[rkformula\]. Taking $d = q$ in Theorem \[rkformula\], we find that any element of the endomorphism ring actually commutes with the action of $\mu_d$ and we just get the original endomorphism ring.\
Since $c_1(d)$ and $c_2(d)$ depend entirely on geometric properties, jumping after reduction mod $p$ depends entirely on the endomorphism term. Rewriting this in terms of Picard numbers of $C_{f, d} \times C_{f, d}$, we can see that the characters from [@CEJ] can be used to describe where the Mordell-Weil rank of $J(C_{f, d})$ jumps.\
To determine the jump character from [@CEJ] as in Section 3, we can multiply the determinants of the action each component of the product and see whether it is $1$ or $-1$.
Although an algorithm exists (in principle) to study the jumping of Picard numbers, using this to give a precise general answer is difficult. However, there is still an interesting example of a surface where the Picard number jumps after reduction at every good prime.
To give an example of such a surface, we use the construction from Theorem 7.5 of [@U].
\[jumpexp\](Ulmer [@U]) Take $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{D} = \mathbb{P}_k^1$, $f(x) = x(x - 1)$, and $g(y) = \frac{y^2}{1 - y}$ in Theorem \[rkformula\]. Note that $e_{d, f} = e_{d, g}$ in this case.\
If $\operatorname{char}k = 0$, then $\operatorname{rank}X_d(K_d) = 0$ for all $d$. If $\operatorname{char}k = p > 0$, then $\operatorname{rank}X_d(K_d)$ is unbounded as $d$ varies. Suppose that $k = \mathbb{F}_q$ and $d = p^n + 1$. Then, $$\operatorname{rank}X_d(K_d) \ge \sum_{e|d, e > 2} \frac{\varphi(e)}{o_e(q)} \ge \frac{p^n - 1}{2n}.$$
If $k$ contains the $d^{\text{th}}$ roots of unity, then $\operatorname{rank}X_d(K_d) = p^n - 1$ if $p$ is odd and $\operatorname{rank}X_d(K_d) = p^n$ if $p = 2$.
If $d = 1$, then the first term of Theorem \[rkformula\] is exactly the ring of homomorphisms and we have the simplified formulas for $\operatorname{rank}X(K)$ above ($K = k(t)$). We also have that $c_1(d) = c_2(d)$ for all values of $d$ (see section 7.2 of [@U]). Then, the jumping in the Mordell-Weil rank after reduction is exactly due to the change in rank of the homomorphism ring after reduction since $$NS(C \times D) \cong \mathbb{Z}^2 \times \operatorname{Hom}_k(J(C), J(D))$$ if $C$ and $D$ have $k$-rational points. This means that we can translate this into jumping of the Picard number in this case. In general, we can use the same idea if $\frac{d}{e_{d, f} e_{d, g}} = 1$.
There are some more general results which can help provide heuristics about where to expect the Mordell-Weil rank of curves in Theorem \[rkformula\] to jump and how much they should jump.
1. Work on a conjecture of Murty and Patankar [@MP] on the splitting of simple abelian varieties over a number field can be used to guess how often the rank of the endomorphism algebra should jump. More specifically, they conjectured that the set of good places where the reduction of a simple abelian variety is also simple has density 1 if and only if the geometric endomorphism ring is commutative. Although Zywina [@Z] has shown that this conjecture is false without possibly replacing the ground field by a finite extension, he has proven results that point toward the general conjecture of Murty and Patankar (see Theorem 1.2 and Corollary 1.3 of [@Z]).\
For example, the Jacobians of the curves discussed in Example \[UZ\] are simple abelian varieties which we expect to stay simple after reduction by primes in a set of density $1$ if they satisfy additional conditions given in Corollary 1.3 of [@Z]. This is consistent with the jump character of the self-product of the curves being trivial in Example \[trivial\]. It would be interesting to compare how consistent the jump character is with results related to the Murty-Patankar conjecture in general.
2. For curves in Theorem \[rkformula\], the variance of the Mordell-Weil rank mainly varies on how the rank of the homomorphism ring varies. Since $NS(C \times D) \cong \mathbb{Z}^2 \times \operatorname{Hom}_k(J(C), J(D))$, how much the rank of the homomorphism ring jumps is equivalent to finding how much the Picard number jumps. Consider the case where $C = D$ (i.e. the endomorphism ring). The analysis of Picard numbers used to prove Theorem \[gbound\] can be used to give heuristics on the distribution of the Picard numbers of reductions of a product of curves $C \times C$. For a “random” hyperelliptic curve $C$ of genus $g$, the trace of a random matrix in the group $USp(2g)$ of $2g \times 2g$ unitary symplectic matrices gives upper bounds on the distribution of Picard numbers of reductions of $C \times C$ mod good primes.\
By the proof of Theorem \[gbound\], we have that $\operatorname{Tr}\varphi_2^* = 2q + F_1^2$ and that the Picard number over $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q$ is the multiplicity of $q$ as an eigenvalue of the action of Frobenius on $H^2_{\'et}((C \times C)_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_q}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$. This means that the Picard number is bounded above by $\frac{F_1^2}{q} = \left( \frac{F_1}{\sqrt{q}} \right)^2$. By work of Katz and Sarnak [@KS], the distribution of $\frac{F_1}{\sqrt{q}}$ is the trace of a random matrix in the group $USp(2g)$ of $2g \times 2g$ unitary symplectic matrices.\
Thus, this kind of analysis can also be used to control jumps of Picard numbers of products of curves $C \times C$ after reduction modulo good primes. From work of Ulmer [@U], this also applies to changes of Mordell-Weil ranks of Jacobians of certain curves after specialization.
Decomposable Jacobians and Picard numbers of reductions
-------------------------------------------------------
Assuming the Sato-Tate conjecture and building on the work of Kukulies [@K], Chen, Lu, and Zuo [@CLZ] prove that the genus of smooth projective curves over number fields of bounded degree whose Jacobians are isogenous to a self-product a single elliptic curve is bounded (see Theorem 1.2 of [@CLZ]). By considering the Picard numbers of self-products of such curves, we are able prove a result on decomposable Jacobians over number fields without assuming the Sato-Tate conjecture. This depends on showing that decomposability has implications for point counting.\
\[gbound\]
1. - Suppose that the Jacobian $J(C)$ of a smooth projective curve $C$ of genus $g$ over a number field $K$ is isogenous to $E^g$ for some elliptic curve $E$ over $K$ with supersingular reduction at a prime of norm $\le N$. Then, $g \le G(K, N)$ for some constant $G(K, N)$ depending on $K$ and $N$.
- Suppose that $C$ and $J(C)$ have good reduction at the same places. If we bound the Faltings height of $E$ above by $h$, the degree of the isogeny by $d$, and the degree of the number field by over which $C$ is defined by $m$, then $g \le G(h, d, m)$ for a constant $G(h, d, m)$ depending on $h$, $d$, and $m$.
- Suppose that $[K : \mathbb{Q}]$ is odd or $K$ has a real place and $J(C)$ is isogenous to $E^g$ over $K$ for some elliptic curve $E$ over $K$. Then, there are infinitely many primes $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathcal{O}_K$ such that the reduction of $C$ mod $\mathfrak{p}$ is maximal after a field extension of degree $\le 3$.
2. A curve over $\mathbb{C}$ is said to have *many automorphisms* if it cannot be deformed nontrivially with its automorphism group (see p. 2 of [@MP1] and the definition on p. 66 of [@Po]) Let $K = \mathbb{Q}(i)$ and $C : y^2 = f(x)$ be a hyperelliptic smooth projective curve over $K$ of given genus $g \ge 25$ with many automorphisms with a cyclic automorphism group. Then, $C$ is not isogenous to $E^g$ for any elliptic curve $E$ with CM by an order in $K$.
3. Let $C$ be a curve over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ with $J(C)$ isogenous to $E^g$ over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ for some elliptic curve $E$ over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ with $j$-invariant $j$. Suppose that $E$ has CM by an order in an imaginary quadratic field $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$. Let $L = \mathbb{Q}(j)$ and suppose that $C$ and $E$ have $L$ as a minimal field of definition. Then, there are infinitely many primes $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathcal{O}_L$ such that the reduction of $C$ mod $\mathfrak{p}$ is maximal or minimal in the following cases:
- $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ such that $d$ is not a quadratic residue mod $p$ for infinitely many primes $p$ such that $p \equiv 1 \pmod {12}$ and $L = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{2^k})$ for some $k \ge 2$ and contains $K$, where $\zeta_m$ is a primitive $m^{\text{th}}$ root of unity.
- $K$ is the same as above and $L = K$.
<!-- -->
1. In part 2, we can say something similar about any hyperelliptic curve with many automorphisms of odd degree with sufficiently large genus if $C$ and $E$ are taken to be over a number field where the curve $y^2 = x^{2g + 1} - x$ is isomorphic to the curve $y^2 = x^{2g + 1} + x$. Then, we can use Theorem 3.6 of [@KNT] and the fact that our elliptic curve must have CM. The results of Theorem 3.6 and congruence conditions from Deuring’s criterion to get incompatible congruence conditions (see proof of part 2).
2. We can obtain a result similar to part 3 and actually get infinitely many primes where the reductions of curves of the form $C : x^n + y^m = 1$ mod $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathbb{Q}(i)$ are *maximal* for infinitely many primes $\mathfrak{p}$ in $\mathbb{Q}(i)$ if $E$ has CM by an order in $\mathbb{Q}(i)$ and $C$ is taken to be a curve over $\mathbb{Q}(i)$ using Theorem 5 of [@TT].
3. Parts 2 gives restrictions on jumping of Picard numbers of $C \times C$ for certain curves $C$ with Jacobians isogenous to powers of elliptic curves and part 3 gives an example where it jumps at infinitely many primes for certain curves $C$.
<!-- -->
1. Suppose that we have a curve $C$ over $K$ such that $J(C)$ is isogenous to $E^g$ over $K$ for some $E$ satisfying the conditions above. Let $\mathfrak{p} \subset \mathcal{O}_K$ be a prime where $E$ has supersingular reduction. Let $q$ be the size of the residue field $\mathbb{F}_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Since the Tate conjecture holds for a product of curves, the Picard number is the multiplicity of $q$ as an eigenvalue of the action of $\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ on $H_{\'et}^2 ((C \times C)_{\overline{\mathbb{F}}_{\mathfrak{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$ at a good prime $\mathfrak{p}$ if $l \ne \operatorname{char}\mathbb{F}_{\mathfrak{p}}$. This means that we can interpret the Picard number in terms of point counting on $C$.\
Our method of analyzing the Picard number follows the specialization method outlined in van Luijk’s thesis [@vL]. Let $F_1$ be the trace of the action of $\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ on $H^1_{\'et}(C_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{ \mathfrak{p}}} }, \mathbb{Q}_l)$ and $f(C, T)$ be the numerator of the Weil zeta function $Z(C, T)$ as in [@Y]. Let $X = C \times C$. Write $P_i(X, T)$ for the reverse characteristic polynomial of the action of the absolute Frobenius map $\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ on $H^i_{\'et}(X_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{ \mathfrak{p}}} }, \mathbb{Q}_l)$. Then, we have $P_0(X, T) = 1 - T$ and $P_4(X, T) = 1 - q^2 T$ by definition.\
By Lemma 1.1 of [@Y], we can use a Künneth formula for étale cohomology to find that $P_1(X, T) = f(C, T)^2$ and $P_3(X, T) = f(C, qT)^2$. Writing $q = p^r$ for a prime $p$, let $\varphi$ be the $r^{\text{th}}$ power of the absolute Frobenius map for $X$ and $\varphi_i^*$ for the induced map on $H^i_{\'et}(X_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{ \mathfrak{p}}} }, \mathbb{Q}_l)$. Since the $P_i$ give *reverse* characteristic polynomials of the action of the Frobenius map, the coefficient of the linear term multiplied by $-1$ gives us the trace of the action of the this map. This means that $\operatorname{Tr}\varphi_0^* = 1$, $\operatorname{Tr}\varphi_1^* = 2F_1$, $\operatorname{Tr}\varphi_3^* = 2qF_1$, and $\operatorname{Tr}\varphi_4^* = q^2$.\
To compute the remaining trace $\operatorname{Tr}\varphi_2^*$, we use the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula, which gives $$\#X(\mathbb{F}_q) = \sum_{i = 0}^4 (-1)^i \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_i^*$$ in our case. Since $X = C \times C$ and $\#C(\mathbb{F}_q) = q + 1 - F_1$, this means that
$$\begin{aligned}
(q + 1 - F_1)^2 &= \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_0^* - \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_1^* + \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_2^* - \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_3^* + \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_4^* \\
&= 1 - 2F_1 + \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_2^* - 2q F_1 + q^2 \\
\Rightarrow \operatorname{Tr}\varphi_2^* &= (q + 1 - F_1)^2 - 1 + 2F_1 + 2q F_1 - q^2 \\
&= (q + 1)^2 - 2F_1(q + 1) + F_1^2 - 1 + 2F_1 + 2q F_1 - q^2 \\
&= q^2 + 2q + 1 - 2q F_1 - 2F_1 + F_1^2 - 1 + 2F_1 + 2q F_1 - q^2 \\
&= 2q + F_1^2.
\end{aligned}$$
Since the Tate conjecture holds for $X = C \times C$, the Picard number is the multiplicity of $q$ as an eigenvalue of the action of $\operatorname{Frob}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ on $H^2(X_{\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$. We also have that the maximal Picard number $4g^2 + 2$ is attained after some finite extension since $E$ has supersingular reduction at $\mathfrak{p}$. In order for the maximal Picard number $4g^2 + 2$ to be attained, we need $F_1^2 = 4g^2q \Rightarrow |F_1| = 2g\sqrt{q}$.\
This means that $\#C(\mathbb{F}_q)$ must either reach the upper or lower bound given by the Hasse-Weil bound over some finite extension (of degree $\le 3$ – see below) in order for this to happen. As mentioned in [@Y], this assumes $q$ is a large even power since we take the Frobenius endomorphisms on $J(C)$ to be rational. When the genus of $C$ is sufficiently large, a result of Ihara [@Iha] (e.g. see Theorem 2.6 in [@V]) says that the upper bound cannot be obtained if the genus is large compared to $q$. As observed by Lauter [@L], the lower bound given by the Hasse-Weil bound is negative when $q$ is small compared to the genus $g$ (i.e. the same situation as above).\
So far, we have shown that the genus is bounded given a *specific* prime of $K$ where $J(C)$ has good reduction and $E$ has supersingular reduction for some elliptic curve $E$. Since the number of prime ideals of a given number field with norm $\le N$ is bounded, we still get a bound for primes of norm $\le N$ for a fixed number field $K$.\
Then, the result after assuming a bound on the Faltings height follows from the proof of Proposition 4.4 of [@CLZ].\
If $\operatorname{char}\mathbb{F}_{\mathfrak{p}} >> 0$, then the Hasse-Weil bound is attained after an extension of degree $\le 2$ by Theorem 2.5 of [@Y] since $C \times C$ attains has the maximal Picard number $4g^2 + 2$ in this case. Combining this with the fact that there are infinitely many supersingular primes in the cases listed above ([@E], [@E2]) gives us infinitely many primes where the third statement holds.
2. Since $g \ge 25$ and $C$ has many automorphisms as a curve over $\mathbb{C}$ with cyclic automorphism group, we have that $C$ is the curve $y^2 = x^{2g + 1} - 1$. By Theorem 3.6 of [@KNT] (also see Theorem 2 of [@Va]), the reduction of $C$ mod $\mathfrak{p}$ lying above $p$ in $K$ is maximal or minimal over $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}$ if $p \equiv -1 \pmod {4g}$ for sufficiently large $p$ since we are considering a curve of a fixed genus $g$. Recall that Deuring’s criterion states that an elliptic curve with CM by an order in an imaginary quadratic field $K$ has supersingular reduction at a good prime $\mathfrak{p}$ lying over $p$ if and only if only one prime lies above $p$ in $K$. For example, this includes inert primes. In our case, this occurs when $p \equiv 3 \pmod 4$. On the other hand, we have ordinary reduction if $p \equiv 1\pmod 4$. Combining this with the condition for $p \equiv -1 \pmod{4g}$, we find that there are infinitely many primes of $K$ where $J(C)$ should be supersingular and $E$ has ordinary reduction by Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions. Thus, $J(C)$ cannot be isogenous to $E^g$ over $\mathbb{Q}(i)$.
3. In [@KP], Karemaker and Pries classified supersingular abelian varieties over finite fields according to the maximality or minimality of point counts after a finite extension. They put the supersingular abelian varieties $A$ over finite fields $\mathbb{F}_q$ in the following categories:
- If each of the $\mathbb{F}_q$-twists of $A$ has a finite extension of $\mathbb{F}_q$ where it attains the Hasse-Weil upper bound, then $A$ is *fully maximal*.
- If none of the $\mathbb{F}_q$-twists of $A$ have this property, then $A$ is *fully minimal*.
- If some (but not all) of the $\mathbb{F}_q$-twists of $A$ attain the Hasse-Weil upper bound over some finite extension, then $A$ is *mixed*.
Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a prime where $E$ has supersingular reduction and $p = \operatorname{char}\mathbb{F}_{\mathfrak{p}}$. By Theorem 6.3 of [@KP] and Theorem 4.6(3) of [@KP], $E^g$ is mixed and $J(C)$ must be mixed if it is isogenous to $E^g$ over $\mathbb{F}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ and the $j$-invariant of the specialization $\tilde{E}/\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$ is not in $\mathbb{F}_p$. Recall from the previous part that the the reduction of the curve $C$ mod $\mathfrak{p}$ must attain the upper or lower bound given by the Hasse-Weil bound after a finite extension.\
Let the *period* be the minimal degree of such an extension as in [@KP]. From part $1$, this is at most $3$ if $p >> 0$. By Deuring’s criterion, an elliptic curve $E$ with CM by $K$ has supersingular reduction at $\mathfrak{p}$ if and only if there is a unique prime of $K$ lying above $p$. For example, this includes the inert primes. By the conditions listed in the above, there are infinitely many inert $p$ in $K$ such that $p \equiv 1 \pmod{12}$. Suppose that $L = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{2^k})$. Since $L/\mathbb{Q}$ is a Galois extension, we have that $[L : \mathbb{Q}] = efg$, where $e$ is the ramification index, $f := [\mathbb{F}_{\mathfrak{p}} : \mathbb{F}_p ]$ is the residue field extension (also called inertia degree), and $g$ is the number of primes lying above $p$. We would like to show that there are infinitely many $p$ where $f$ is even and $g \ne [L : \mathbb{Q}]$. Note that $f$ is even if $f \ne 1$ in our case since $f$ divides $[L : \mathbb{Q}] = \varphi(2^k) = 2^{k - 1}$ and $k \ge 2$.\
We also have that $p$ is unramified in $L$ for $p \ne 2$ (see Proposition 2.3 of [@W]). This means that $e = 1$ for $p \equiv 1 \pmod {12}$. By Theorem 2.13 of [@W], $p$ does not split completely as long as $p \not\equiv 1 \pmod {2^k}$. Fixing a suitable residue mod $2^k$, it follows from Dirichlet’s theorem on prime numbers in arithmetic progressions that there are infinitely many primes $p \equiv 1 \pmod {12}$ such that $p$ does not split completely. Comparing this with the conditions on $r$ and $p$ in Table 1 below Lemma 6.1 of [@KP], we see that the reduction of $C$ is fully maximal or fully minimal at these primes.\
Suppose that $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ is an imaginary quadratic field such that $d$ is not a quadratic residue mod $p$ for infinitely many primes such that $p \equiv 1 \pmod {12}$ and $L = K$. Then, the reduction of $C$ is maximal or minimal at these primes by Table 1 below Lemma 6.1 of [@KP].
Using the fact that a Jacobian has an irreducible principal polarization (see Lemma 2.2 of [@La]), we obtain the following corollary:
\[isombound\] The genus $g$ of a smooth projective curve $C$ over a number field $K$ such that $J(C)$ isomorphic to a product of elliptic curves is bounded in each of the conditions listed in part 1 of Theorem \[gbound\].
Note that $J(C)$ is isomorphic to a product of elliptic curves only if it is isogenous to a self-product of elliptic curves $E^g$. Otherwise, the only polarizations of $J(C)$ would be reducible although the canonical polarization from the theta divisor is irreducible (see Lemma 2.2 of [@La]). This reduces our problem to Theorem \[gbound\].
[37]{}
A. Beauville, Some surfaces with maximal Picard number (Quelques surfaces dont le nombre de Picard est maximal), Journal de l’École polytechnique – Mathématiques 1 (2014), 101 – 116.
L. Berger, Towers of surfaces dominated by products of curves and elliptic curves of large rank over function fields, Journal of Number Theory 128.12 (2008), 3013 – 3030.
C. Birkenhake and H. Lange, Complex abelian varieties, second augmented edition. Grundlehren 302, Springer (2004).
E. Costa, N. Mascot, J. Sijsling, J. Voight, Rigorous computation of the endomorphism ring of a Jacobian, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09248>
E. Costa, A.-S. Elsenhans, and J. Jahnel, On the distribution of the Picard ranks of the reductions of a K3 surface, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.07823>
K. Chen, X. Lu, K. Zuo, On a question of Ekedahl and Serre, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10377>
M. Deuring, Die Typen der Multiplikatorenringe elliptischer Funktionenkörper, Abhandlungen aus dem mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg, Vol. 14, No. 1, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 1941.
T. Ekedahl and J.-P. Serre, Exemples de courbes algébriques à jacobienne complètement décomposable, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences. Série 1, Mathématique 317.5 (1993), 509 – 513.
N. Elkies, Supersingular primes for elliptic curves over real number fields, Compositio Math 72.2 (1989): 165 – 172.
N. Elkies, The existence of infinitely many supersingular primes for every elliptic curve over $\mathbb{Q}$, Inventiones mathematicae 89.3 (1987), 561 – 567.
G. Faltings, “Finiteness theorems for abelian varieties over number fields”, in Arithmetic geometry (Storrs, Conn., 1984), Springer, New York, 1986, 9 – 27.
K. Hulek and R. Laface, On the Picard numbers of abelian varieties, <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05882.pdf> (2017)
Y. Ihara, Some remarks on the number of rational points of algebraic curves over finite fields, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 28 (1981), no. 3, 721 – 724.
V. Karemaker and R. Pries, Fully maximal and fully minimal abelian varieties, <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10076.pdf>
T. Kohl and D. Replogle, Cyclotomic Swan subgroups and primitive roots, Finite Fields and their Applications 11.4 (2005): 655 – 666.
N. Katz and P. Sarnak, Random Matrices, Frobenius Eigenvalues, and Monodromy, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ., vol. 45, American Mathematical Society, Providence RI, 1999.
A. Kazemifard, A. Naghipour, S. Tafazolian, A note on superspecial and maximal curves, Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society 39.3 (2013): 405 – 413.
S. Kukulies, On Shimura curves in the Schottky locus, <https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4432>
P. Kurlberg and Z. Rudnick, The fluctuations in the number of points on a hyperelliptic curve over a finite field, Journal of Number Theory 129.3 (2009), 580 – 587.
H. Lange, Principal polarizations on products of elliptic curves, Contemporary Mathematics 397 (2006), 153 – 162, arXiv: <https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0508458.pdf>
K. Lauter, The maximum or minimum number of rational points on curves of genus three over finite fields, Compositio Mathematica 134.1 (2002): 87 – 111.
X. Lu and K. Zuo, The Oort conjecture on Shimura curves in the Torelli locus of curves, <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.4751.pdf> (2014)
N. Müller and R. Pink, Hyperelliptic curves with many automorphisms, <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.06599.pdf>
V. Murty and V. Patankar, Splitting of abelian varieties, International Mathematics Research Notices 2008 (2008).
J. Paulhus, Decomposing Jacobians of curves with extra automorphisms, Acta Arithmetica 132.3 (2008): 231 – 244.
H. Popp, On a conjecture of H. Ruach on theta constants and Riemann surfaces with many automorphisms, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 253 (1972): 66 – 77.
A. Rojas, Group actions on Jacobian varieties, Revisita Matem[á]{}tica Iberoamericana 23.2 (2007): 397 – 420.
S. Tafazolian and F. Torres, On maximal curves of Fermat type, Advances in Geometry 13.4 (2013): 613 – 617.
D. Ulmer, Curves and Jacobians over function fields, Arithmetic geometry over global function fields, Springer Basel, 2014: p. 281 – 337.
D. Ulmer, On Mordell-Weil groups of Jacobians over function fields, Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu, 12.1(2013), 1 – 29.
D. Ulmer and Y. Zarhin, Ranks of Jacobians in towers of function fields, Mathematical Research Letters 17.4 (2010), 637 – 645.
R. Valentini, Hyperelliptic curves with zero Hasse-Witt matrix, manuscripta mathematica 86.1 (1995): 185 – 194.
R. van Luijk, Rational points on K3 surfaces, Doctoral dissertation, University of California Berkeley (2005).
J. Voight, Curves over finite fields with many points: An introduction.
L. Washington, Introduction to cyclotomic fields, Vol. 83, Springer Science & Business Media, 1997.
N. Yui, The arithmetic of the product of two algebraic curves over a finite field, Journal of Algebra 98.1 (1986), 102 – 142.
D. Zywina, The splitting of reductions of an abelian variety, International Mathematics Research Notices 2014.18 (2013): 5042 – 5083.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have proposed a qualitative model for the structure of binary systems similar to Pd–Er alloys, which explains their nonmonotonic relaxation after the hydrogen saturation. It is based on the assumption that such a solid solution involves two kind heterogeneities. The former are caused by spinodal decomposition of the initially homogeneous state of the solid solution into the phases enriched and depleted of Er atoms. The latter are crystalline defects that trap an additional amount of Er atoms, which leads also to their local accumulation, changing the defect properties. Hydrogen atoms penetrating into the solid disturb the equilibrium of both the phase separation and the defect saturation with Er atoms, causing redistribution of Er atoms. The diffusion fluxes give rise to the motion of the interface between the two phases that is responsible for time variations, for example, in the relative volume of the enriched phase observed experimentally. We have found the conditions when the interface motion can change the direction during the system relaxation to a new equilibrium state. The latter effect is, from our point of view, the essence of the hydrogen induced nonmonotonic relaxation observed in such systems. The numerical simulation confirms the basic assumptions.'
author:
- |
A.A. Katsnelson[^1], I.A. Lubashevskiy, A.Yu. Lavrenov\
*Department of Solid State Physics,*\
*Faculty of Physics, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University,*\
*119899, Moscow, Russia*
title: 'Hydrogen induced nonmonotonic relaxation in binary mixtures similar to Pd–Er alloys as a transition process in nonequilibrium heterogeneous systems with spinodal decomposition'
---
Introduction
============
Metal-hydrogen systems are singled out with the fact that they can remain in nonequilibrium states for a long time because of the ability of hydrogen atoms to migrate relatively fast through metallic matrices. Therefore, a metallic matrix initially saturated with hydrogen inevitably loses its main amount during a certain time period which may be sufficiently long [@1; @2; @3]. Hydrogen atoms penetrating into the metallic matrix cause the reformation of the defects structure and as a result, the system structure becomes substantially heterogeneous, moreover, it can be of multiscale geometry [@4; @5]. When the heterogeneity scales expand over several levels these systems may be treated as fractals (see, e.g., [@6a; @6b; @6c]) and their evolution goes in a sophisticated manner. In particular, under certain conditions [@7] the dynamics of such a systems is described by strange attractor, which reflects in nonmonotonic or even chaotic time variations in its structure and occurring phase transitions [@8].
The characteristics of structure transformations during the hydrogen saturation and the following relaxation have been studied for metallic alloys based on Pd [@8; @9; @10; @12; @13]. For example, for the Pd–Er alloys undergone deformation the hydrogen saturation gives rise to the change in the sign of the elastic tension at the initial stage of relaxation [@13]. This effect is due to variations in the image forces that are induced by the transformation of the defect-metal (D–M) complexes into the hydrogen-defect-metal (H–D–M) ones because of the high binding energy between hydrogen atoms and defects in Pd matrix [@14]. Having changed the sign, the tensions grow during two days, then, drop and decrease by 25% in eight days. In parallel with it oscillatory variations in the relative volume of the phases enriched and depleted of Er atoms occur practically right after the hydrogen saturation. The difference in the concentration of Er atoms between the two phases evolves in the same manner. These oscillations are chaotic rather than regular [@8; @10].
The given phenomena were observed in such Pd–Er alloys where the atomic concentration of Er atoms was about 10% [@10]. So their structure has to be sufficiently simple, namely, should comprise only two phases formed of the Pd matrix depleted of or enriched with Er atoms. So the relaxation after the hydrogen saturation seems to go only through time variations in the relative volume of these phases without complex structural transformations in the Pd–Er system that should appear for high values of the Er concentrations [@19].
The stochastic behavior of the relaxation process in the Pd–Er–H system has been demonstrated in a frameworks similar to the Lorenz model proposed for analysis of turbulent phenomena in atmosphere [@15] and, then, applied to the description of plastic deformation [@16]. It should be pointed out that time variations in the structure of the given alloys after the hydrogen saturation enable us to consider diffusion flux in them also turbulent. It can be justified at least for some stages of the relaxation if we take into account not only the stochastic evolution of the alloy structure but also the difference in the rate of nonmonotonic structure transformations for different coherent diffraction regions, as it was noted for the first time in [@12]. The analysis presented in [@8] has been carried out in the frameworks of macroscopic approach, so, in order to complete it, we should develop a microscopic mechanism by which these phenomena can be implemented. The latter problem is actually the purpose of the present paper.
Papers [@8; @12] demonstrate that the macroscopic model to be developed for the hydrogen induced relaxation in alloys similar to Pd–Er–H has to take into account the following.
1. In such systems the hydrogen saturation initiates several interacting processes, in particular, the transformation of the D–M complexes into D–M–H ones and the diffusion of Er atoms between the enriched and depleted phases of the Pd-matrix. These two processes cause nonmonotonic time variations not only in the relative volume of these phases but also in the Er concentration inside them.
2. The correlated variations in the Er concentration and the phase relative volume suggest that the two processes stem from the same phenomenon. Besides, their nonmonotonicity points out that diffusion of Er atoms does not obey conventional Fick’s low, at least, everywhere in the alloy.
3. The D–Er–H complexes induced by the hydrogen saturation have to be enriched not only with hydrogen atoms but also with Er atoms because of high affinity of H and Er atoms. So we meet four type regions (fig. 2): two regular phases of the Pd-matrix and regions with two type defects D–Er–H (inside each of the phases). Besides, substantial difference in the specific volumes of the regular phases and complexes can lead to the appearance of transitional regions between the matrix and complexes.
4. The complexes are the source of additional nonuniformity in the distribution of Er atoms, causing an additional diffusion flux in the system.
5. The variations in the phase relative volume mean displacement of the phase boundaries among with diffusion of Er atoms. So dealing with the nonmonotonic relaxation on systems similar to Pd–Er alloys we first of all should explain why a nonmonotonic motion of the phase boundaries occur.
It should be pointed out that the system Pd–Er–H is not unique keeping in mined the aforesaid properties. Even more pronounced chaotic behavior of the structural evolution has been observed in the Pa–Ta–H system [@12], which suggests the multiscale organization of its structure and the substantially nonequilibrium state of the defects and the adjacent regions of the Pd-matrix.
In spite of the available number of theoretical models cited above, physics of the hydrogen induced relaxation in such metallic systems is far from being understood well. So at the first step of developing a microscopic model able to explain the aforesaid phenomena, it is reasonable to confine ourselves to the analysis of the interaction between the D–M–H complexes and the phase boundaries through diffusion of Er atoms. In this study we should also take into account that the distribution of Er atoms around the D–M–H defect can be nonmonotonic because under certain conditions the deformation field in their neighborhood exhibits a nonmonotonic behavior. Nevertheless in the present paper we consider only defects with a sufficiently simple structure and propose a model which qualitatively explains the nonmonotonic motion of the phase boundaries due to the hydrogen saturation. We do not claim on a sophisticated theory of this relaxation process but only show the feasibility of its qualitative explanation in the frameworks of the proposed model and single out the main clues to its understanding.
Model
=====
The model to be developed uses the basis of the molecular-kinetic theory of solid solutions [@18; @20; @o1; @o2] and the state diagram of the Pd-Er alloys (in the $cT$-plane, where $c$ is the atomic concentration of Er atoms, $T$ is temperature) [@19]. Namely, we assume that difference in the atomic radii and electro-chemical characteristics of Er and Pd results in instability of the homogeneous state of the given solid solution Pd–Er. The instability gives rise to domains $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ with an increased value $c_{+}(T)$ of the Er concentration whose composition approximately corresponds to the intermetallic ErPd$_{7}$, the first equilibrium phase in the state diagram after the primary solid solution of Er atoms in the Pd-matrix [@19]. These domains are surrounded by the maternal phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ (primary solid solution) with a lower value $c_{-}(T)$ of the Er concentration equal to the limit of Er solubility in the Pd-matrix. In equilibrium for the regular solid solution the relationship between the values $c_{+}(T)$ and $c_{-}(T)$ is specified by the “arms rule” [@18]. However crystalline defects such as vacancies, interstitial atoms, their complexes, dislocations, grain boundaries, and so on can trap Er atoms. Furthermore we cannot exclude that other phases more enriched with Er atoms, ErPd$_{3}$, Er$_{10}$Pd$_{21}$, etc., appear in the neighborhood of these defects. A multiscale hierarchical structure can form itself in this system in general.
Penetrated into the alloy hydrogen atoms disturb the equilibrium in two ways. First, the hydrogen saturation converting the solid solution Pd–Er into the ternary system Pd–Er–H changes the phase equilibrium in the metal subsystem. The higher affinity between H and Er in comparison with the Pd and H should give rise to the complexes {Er–H} that contain not only binary bonds Er–H but also many bond structures, for example, Er–H–Er. The first type clusters, Er–H, seem to be typical for regions with low values of the Er concentration, whereas in the Er enriched phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ as well as near the solubility limit of Er atoms in the Pd-matrix the amount of the second type clusters should be essential. The presence of the Er–H–Er bonds effectively makes the interaction of Er atoms with each other stronger, which has to cause the state diagram of the triple solution Pd–Er–H take a form shown at fig. \[F1\]. Drawing this diagram we were keeping in mind one presented in [@19] for the binary solution Pd–Er and treating hydrogen atoms as a source of the additional Er–Er attraction. Let us explain the proposed form of this diagram in more details. Under the adopted assumptions the instability of the system homogeneous state is to occur at lower concentrations of Er atom than it would be in the absence of hydrogen atoms. Correspondingly, the solubility limit $c_{-}(c_{\mathrm{H}},T)$ of Er atoms in the Pd-matrix has to depend on the hydrogen concentration decreasing with the value of $c_{\mathrm{H}}$ grows. In its turn, the composition of the intermetallic ErPd$_{x(\mathrm{H})}$ or, what is the same, the value $c_{+}(c_{\mathrm{H}},T)$ seems also to depend on the local values of the hydrogen concentration $c_{\mathrm{H}}$ going into the region of higher value with $c_{\mathrm{H}}$ grows. We assume the intermetallic ErPd$_{x(\mathrm{H})}$ to originate from ErPd$_{7}$ and to form a certain phase in the nonequilibrium system under consideration. We note that the concept of true intermetallic concerns a rigorously ordered phase with specific stoichiometric composition. So the concept of intermetallic for nonequilibrium systems requires an individual consideration. For given system the experimental data demonstrate the presence of a certain phase containing hydrogen atoms where the concentration of Er atoms closely matches the composition of the intermetallic ErPd$_{7}$. However, whether this phase can be treated as a true intermetallic ErPd$_{7}$ or it comprises its small clusters, equilibrium or nonequilibrium, containing hydrogen atoms is of low importance in the present study. We need only the presense of a certain quasiequilibrium phase experimentally observed, where the atomic concentration of Er atoms is about 10%. We suggest this phase to be relative to the true intermetallic ErPd$_{7}$ so below we also will refer to it as to “intermetallic” enclosing with quotation marks.
Second, due to higher affinity between hydrogen and the defects in comparison with the regular structure of the Pd-matrix hydrogen atoms have to be attracted by defects containing also an increased amount of Er atoms. By the same reasons as discussed in the previous paragraph hydrogen atoms penetrating into the defects located in the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ have to density the Er distribution in them, and, so, these defects gain the ability to absorb new Er atoms. In another words, hydrogen atoms penetrating into phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ increase the “capacity” of defects being activated by them as traps or sinks of Er atoms. Hydrogen atoms penetrating into the “intermetallic” $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ also affect the state of its defects make variations in the “intermetallic” composition possible. In fact, without hydrogen the composition of ErPd$_7$ is fixed (in the state diagram the intermetallic ErPd$_7$ corresponds to a line rather than two-dimensional region [@19]). So, defects located in this intermetallic are to contain other phases enriched with Er atoms to higher degrees, e.g., ErPd$_3$. Now, these local phases gain the possibility to dissolve in the “intermetallic” $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ injecting new Er atoms into in it. In other words, the hydrogen saturation into the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ activates its defects as local sources of Er atoms.
The interface $\mathcal{T}$ separating the phases $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ is of atomic size. Therefore during the relaxation course this interface locally must be in quasiequilibrium, i.e. the concentration of Er atoms in the regions of the phases $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ adjacent to the interface $\mathcal{T}$ must be equal to $c_{+}(c _{\mathrm{H}},T)$ and $c_{-}(c_{\mathrm{H}},T)$, respectively. This quasiequilibrium is the result of practically instantaneous redistribution of Er atoms on atomic scales in the vicinity of the interface $\mathcal{T}$. The following diffusion of Er atoms into the bulk of the phases $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ tends to make their individual composition uniform, causing the interface $\mathcal{T}$ to move. In fact, generally the diffusion flux at the interface $\mathcal{T}$ on the side of the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ and that of the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ is different. Thus, due to atom conservation the interface $\mathcal{T}$ is to move to compensate this difference giving rise to an effective source of Er atoms proportional to $v[c_{+}(c_{\mathrm{H}},T)- c_{-}(c_{\mathrm{H}},T)]$, where $v$ is the normal velocity of the interface $\mathcal{T}$.
Nonmonotonic motion of the interface $\mathcal{T}$ being the essence of the observed relaxation process is due to change in the profile of Er distribution as time goes on. Fig. \[F2\] sketches the Er distribution at the initial stage of relaxation after the hydrogen saturation. Light arrows point the diffusion direction of Er atoms in phases $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$. Whence it follows that for each of the phases individually the change in the Er equilibrium concentration near the interface $\mathcal{T}$ and the presence of the activated defects cause the diffusion flux in the opposite directions. At the initial stage the distant defects cannot affect the interface motion, so, it is governed by the change in the equilibrium state only. As time goes on the diffusion flux induced by the activated defects can become dominant and the interface $\mathcal{T}$ will move in the opposite direction.
We suppose that this phenomenon is a backbone of the nonmonotonic relaxation induce by the hydrogen saturation into systems like the Er–Pd alloy.
Before passing to a specific mathematical model we would like to note the following. As seen from the present analysis the individual role of the two phases is approximately the same. The latter enables us to confine our consideration to only one of them, for example, the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$. Taking into account both of them only numerical coefficients in the expressions to be obtained can be changed, makes no sense at the current stage of the theory development.
Master equations
================
Taking into account aforesaid we write the diffusion equation for the atomic concentration $c$ of Er atoms in the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ regarded as the half-space $z>0$ (we have attached the coordinate system to the interface $\mathcal{T}$ moving at the velocity $v$ in the laboratory frame): $$\frac{\partial c}{\partial t}-v\frac{\partial c}{\partial z}=D\frac{\partial
^{2}c}{\partial z^{2}}-\frac{1}{\tau_{\mathrm{tr}}}qcl\delta (z-z_{\mathrm{tr}})\,,
\label{1}$$ where $D$ is the diffusion coefficient of Er atoms treated as a constant and the second term in the right-hand side of equation (\[1\]) describes the Er atom trapping by a defect approximated by the $\delta$-function located at a point $z_{\mathrm{tr}}$. This trap-defect is characterized by the following parameters, $l$ is its real physical size, $q$ is the capacity, i.e. the number of free seats for Er atoms at the current time, and $\tau_{\mathrm{tr}}$ is the characteristic time during which, on the average, the defect traps an Er atom located in its neighborhood (not to be confused with the lifetime of Er atoms inside the defects regarded infinitely long in the given model). In the frame $\{z,t\}$ attached to the interface $\mathcal{T}$ the trap-defect moves towards the interface at the velocity $v$, i.e. $$\frac{dz_{\mathrm{tr}}}{dt}=-v\,.
\label{2}$$ Here $z_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}$ is the initial position of the defect (at $t=0$) and is one of the model parameters. Since the newly trapped atoms occupy vacant places inside the defect its capacity decreases in time according to the equation: $$\frac{dq}{dt}=-\frac{qlc(z_{\mathrm{tr}},t)}
{a\tau_{\mathrm{tr}}}\,,
\label{3}$$ and $q_{0}$, the initial capacity of the trap-defect activated by the hydrogen saturation, is also a model parameter ($a$ is a period of the lattice).
At the interface $\mathcal{T}$ ($z=0$) the Er concentration is set equal to: $$c_{i}=c_{0}-\Delta _{\mathrm{Pd}}\,,
\label{4}$$ where $c_{0}$ is the initial concentration of Er atoms in the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ before the hydrogen saturation and $\Delta_{\mathrm{Pd}}$ is a change in this concentration caused by the hydrogen effect on thermodynamical equilibrium of the phase boundary. Ignoring diffusion of Er atoms inside the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Er}}$ we can represent the law of Er atom conservation at the interface $\mathcal{T}$ in the form $$\Delta v=D\left.
\frac{\partial c}{\partial z}\right| _{z=0}\,,
\label{4a}$$ where $\Delta =c_{+}(c_{H},T)-c_{-}(c_{H},T)$ (fig. \[F2\]).
At the initial fast state of the system relaxation only the phase boundaries attain new equilibrium and the defect activation is completed, whereas the state of the phase bulk remains unchanged. The latter enables us to adopt the following initial conditions for the Er concentration *inside* the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{Pd}}$: $$c(z,t)=c_{0}\quad \mathrm{for}\quad z>0,\ t=0\,.
\label{5}$$
The system of equations (\[1\])–(\[5\]) forms the required relaxation model for Pd–Er–H system. Let us discuss its features in detail.
The proposed model contains four principal parameters: $$\frac{\Delta }{c_{0}}\,,\quad \frac{\Delta _{\mathrm{Pd}}}{c_{0}}\,,\quad
\Omega =\frac{q_{0}lz_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}}{D\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}\,,\quad \Lambda
=\frac{c_{0}z_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}}{q_{0}a}\,.
\label{6}$$ For the sake of simplicity we rewrite system (\[1\])–(\[5\]) in the dimensionless form by introducing the normalized variable $\eta
=c/c_{0}$ and $\theta=q/q_{0}$, and the dimensionless spatial and temporal coordinates $\xi =z/z_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}$ and $\tau =(Dt)/(z_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0})^{2}$: $$\frac{\partial \eta }{\partial \tau }-\vartheta \frac{\partial \eta
}{\partial \xi }=\frac{\partial ^{2}\eta }{\partial \xi ^{2}}-\Omega
\theta \eta \delta (\xi -\xi _{\mathrm{tr}})\,,
\label{7}$$ where $\xi _{\mathrm{tr}}=z_{\mathrm{tr}}/z_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}$, and $\vartheta =vz_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}/D$ is the dimensionless velocity of the interface $\mathcal{T}$. The scales of the spatial coordinate and time are chosen so that the unit value of $\xi$ correspond to the defect position ($z_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}$) at initial time and the unit value of $\tau$ characterize the diffusive penetration of Er atoms over scales about $z_{\mathrm{tr}}^{0}$. Equation (\[7\]) is subject to the boundary conditions: $$\left. \eta \right| _{\xi =0}=1-\frac{\Delta _{\mathrm{Pd}}}{c_{0}}\,,\quad
\left. \frac{\partial \eta }{\partial \xi }\right| _{\xi =0}=\frac{\Delta
}{c_{0}}\vartheta
\label{8}$$ and to the initial condition at $\tau =0$: $$\eta (\xi )=1\quad \mathrm{for}\quad \xi >0\,.
\label{9}$$ In the chosen frame the “motion” of the trap-defect $\xi_{\mathrm{tr}}(\tau)$ and its capacity $\theta (\tau )$ obey the equations: $$\frac{d\xi _{\mathrm{tr}}}{d\tau }=-\vartheta \quad \mathrm{and}\quad
\frac{d\theta }{d\tau }=-\Lambda \Omega \theta \eta (z_{\mathrm{tr}},\tau)\,.
\label{10}$$
If we ignore the influence of the defect on the interface motion and on the Er atom distribution near $\mathcal{T}$ (which is well justified at the beginning of the relaxation process for $\tau\ll 1$) then equation (\[7\]) under conditions (\[8\])-(\[9\]) admits the automodel solution: $$\eta ^{\ast }(\xi ,\tau )=1-\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\Delta }{c_{0}}\vartheta
_{0}\exp \left( \vartheta _{0}^{2}\right) \left[ 1-{\text{erf}\,}\left(
\frac{\xi }{2\sqrt{\tau }}+\vartheta _{0}\right) \right] \,,
\label{11}$$ where parameter $\vartheta _{0}$ is the root of the transcendental equation $$\vartheta _{0}\exp \left( \vartheta _{0}^{2}\right) \left[
1-{\text{erf}\,}\left( \vartheta _{0}\right) \right] =\frac{\Delta
_{\mathrm{Pd}}}{\sqrt{\pi }\Delta }
\label{12}$$ and the interface velocity is given by the ratio $\vartheta=\vartheta
_{0}/\sqrt{\tau }$. Numerical analysis has shown, in particular, that for $\Delta
/c_{0}=1.5$ and $\Delta_{\mathrm{Pd}}/c_{0}=0.5$ the value $\vartheta_{0}\approx 0.2$ and on time scales $\tau \lesssim 1$ the interface velocity $\mathcal{T}$ is also about 1. Therefore, on one side, for the given values of the parameters the interface $\mathcal{T}$ is to reach the defect in time $\tau$ being about 10.
On the other side, if the parameter $\Omega \gg 1$, because the characteristic time $\tau_{\mathrm{tr}}$ of trapping Er atoms by the defect is small, and its initial capacity $q_{0}$ is such that $\Lambda
\lesssim 1$ then, by virtue of equation (\[7\]), the defect will trap all the Er atoms located near it within a sufficiently short time $\tau\sim\Omega^{-2}$. As the result the distribution of Er atoms in the vicinity of the defect will take the form shown in fig. \[F3\]$a$ and it is characterized by small values of variable $\eta (z_{\mathrm{tr}}, \tau)$. As follows from the inequality $\Omega \gg 1$ and equations (\[10\]) this form does not change until the interface $\mathcal{T}$ comes sufficiently close to the defect or until the defect is filled up with Er atoms. As it must, the width of the defect neighborhood depleted of Er atoms increases in time as $\sqrt{\tau }$. Therefore, for time scales $\Omega ^{-2}\ll \tau \ll 1$ and the defect neighborhood of thickness about several $\sqrt{\tau }$ equation (\[7\]) gives the distribution of Er atoms approximately of the form: $$\eta (\xi ,\tau )={\text{erf}\,}\left( \frac{\left| \xi -\xi
_{\mathrm{tr}}\right| }{2\sqrt{\tau }}\right)
\label{12a}$$ and, in addition, the dimensionless rate of Er atom trapping is estimated as $$\int\limits_{\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{tr}}}d\xi \,\Omega \theta \eta \delta (\xi
-\xi _{\mathrm{tr}})\approx \Omega \eta (z_{\mathrm{tr}},\tau )\approx 2\left.
\frac{\partial \eta }{\partial \xi }\right| _{\xi =\xi
_{\mathrm{tr}}+0}\approx \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi \tau }}\,,
\label{12b}$$ Whence, in particular, setting $\eta (z_{\mathrm{tr}},\tau )\ll 1$ we have got the estimate of the time during which distribution (\[12a\]) develops.
After a lapse of time about $\tau \lesssim 1$ the regions near the interface $\mathcal{T}$ and the defect where the Er concentration exhibits substantial spatial variations begin to overlap and the resulting form of the Er distribution is shown on fig. \[F3\]$b$. It is essential that in the given case the gradient of the Er concentration at the interface $\mathcal{T}$ changes the sign, causing the interface to move in the opposite direction. As time passes further and the defect is filled with Er atoms its effect on distribution of Er atoms becomes weaker and the Er concentration in its immediate neighborhood starts to grow (fig. \[F3\]$c$). Then as follows from the second equation of (\[10\]) and estimate (\[12b\]) after a time $\tau \sim \Lambda ^{-2}$ the defect has practically no effect on diffusion of Er atoms and their distribution takes again the automodel form (\[11\]) (fig. \[F3\]$d$). In this case the gradient of Er concentration at the interface $\mathcal{T}$ changes the sign again and the interface motion returns to the initial direction.
The described process is the basis of the proposed model for the nonmonotonic relaxation in system Pd–Er–H. So, to substantiate our speculations we present also curves describing the interface motion that have been obtained by solving equations (\[7\])–(\[10\]) numerically. Fig. \[FN\] illustrates the interface motion for various values of the defect capacity in the interval $0.1\leq\Lambda\leq
0.8$, with the other parameters being fixed, $\Delta /c_{0}=1.5$, $\Delta_{\mathrm{Pd}}/c_{0}=0.5$, and $\Omega=1000$. When the defect capacity is large enough so the parameter $\Lambda< 0.8$ we see the nonmonotonic motion of the interface $\mathcal{T}$. We have taken the abscissa as the square root of time, $\sqrt{\tau}$, to make the results more clear. It is due to the fact that the second stage of the interface motion, i.e., when the interface moves in the direction opposite to the initial one, is characterized by the duration exceeding substantially the one of the first initial stage. It should be noted similar behavior of the relaxation processes has been observed experimentally [@8; @12], where each of the points of time variations in the phase relative volumes changing sign is distant from preceding one by a more and more prolonged time interval. We point out once more that obtained results are of qualitative level and to compare quantitatively the experimental data and theoretical results a more sophisticated model is required.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors are grateful to A.L. Udovsky for the discussion and useful remarks, Russian Foundation of Basic Research for support, Grant 99-02-16135, and Universities of Russia, fundumental researching program, Grant 990156.
[99]{}
*Hydrogen in metals* (eds. G. Alefeld and J. Volki), Moscow, Mir publ., 1981, 467 p.
V.M. Avdjukhina, A.A. Katsnelson, G.P. Revkevich, Surf. Invest. (RSNI),**14**, n. 2, 30, 1999.
V.A. Goltzov, V.A. Lobanov, RAS USSR, **283**, n. 3, 598, 1985
G.P. Revkevich, A.A. Katsnelson, V.M. Khristov, Metallophisika, **11**, n. 3, 57, 1989
A.A. Katsnelson, M.A. Knyazeva, A.I. Olemskoi, Phys.Sol.St., **41**,n. 9, 1621, 1999
E. Feder, *Fractals*, Moscow, Mir publ., 1991, 260 p.
M.B. Isichenko, Rev. Mod. Phys., **64**, n. 4, p. 961, 1992.
V.S. Ivanova, A.S. Balankin, I.Zh. Bunin, A.A. Oksogoev, *Synergy and fractals in science of material*, Moscow, Nauka, 1994, 384 c.
A.I. Olemskoi, A.V. Khomenko, JETP, **110**, n. 6, 2144, 1996
V.M. Avdjukhina, A.A. Katsnelson, D.A. Olemskoi, A.I. Olemskoi, G.P. Revkevich, Phys.Met.Met., **88**, n. 6, 63, 1999
A.A. Katsnelson, A.I. Olemskoi, I.V. Sukhorukova, G.P. Revkevich, Physics-Uspekhi, **165**, n. 3, 331, 1995
V.M. Avdjukhina, A.A. Katsnelson, G.P. Revkevich, Crystallogr.Rep., **44**, n. 1, 49, 1999
V.M. Avdjukhina, A.A. Katsnelson, G.P. Revkevich, Khan Kha Sok and other, Alternative Energy and Ecology, **1**, n. 1, 11, 2000
V.M. Avdjukhina, A.A. Katsnelson, N.A. Prokofiev, G.P. Revkevich, Mosc.Univ.Phys.Bull., **3**, n. 2, 70, 1998
M. Myers, M.S. Baskes, H.K. Birnbaum et.al., Rev. Mod. Phys. **64**, n. 2, 559, 1992
Z. Du, H. Yang, J. Alloys Comp. **299**, 199, 2000
E. Lorenz, J. Atmosph. Scienc. **20**, 130, 1963
A.I. Olemskoi, I.A. Sklyar, Physics-Uspekhi **162**, n. 6, 29, 1992
A. Damask, J. Dins, *Point defects in metals*, Moscow, Mir publ., 1966, 291 p.
A.A. Smirnov, *Molecular-kinetic theory of metals*, Moscow, Nauka, 1966, 488 p.
A.A. Katsnelson, A.I. Olemskoi, *Microscopic Theory of Nonhomogeneous Structures*), Mir publ. (Moscow), AIP (New York), 1990, 357 p.
K. Kawasaki, T. Ohta, Prog. Theor. Phys., **67**, 147, 1982
K. Kawasaki, T. Ohta, Prog. Theor. Phys., **68**, 129, 1982
![Supposed state diagram for the triple system Pd–Er–H in the region of small Er atom concentration. In drawing this diagram we have based on the results of the paper [@19] for Pd–Er system and on the general assumptions about the hydrogen effect on the state of the Pd–Er alloy. \[F1\]](fig1.eps)
![Illustration of Er distribution at the beginning of the relaxation process.\[F2\]](fig2.eps)
![Illustration of evolution of Er distribution inside the phase $\mathcal{Q}_{\text{Pd}}$ during the interface motion ($t_a < t_b <
t_c <t_d$). \[F3\]](fig3.eps)
![Results of numerical simulation of the interface motion (in dimensionless form): *a)* the interface velocity $\vartheta$ vs. the square root of time $\sqrt{\tau}$, *b)* the interface position, $\int_{0}^{\tau}
\vartheta(\tau')d\tau'$, vs. square root of time $\sqrt{\tau}$. ($\Delta /c_{0}=1.5$, $\Delta_{\text{Pd}}/c_{0}=0.5$, $\Omega=1000$) \[FN\]](fig4a.eps)
![Results of numerical simulation of the interface motion (in dimensionless form): *a)* the interface velocity $\vartheta$ vs. the square root of time $\sqrt{\tau}$, *b)* the interface position, $\int_{0}^{\tau}
\vartheta(\tau')d\tau'$, vs. square root of time $\sqrt{\tau}$. ($\Delta /c_{0}=1.5$, $\Delta_{\text{Pd}}/c_{0}=0.5$, $\Omega=1000$) \[FN\]](fig4b.eps)
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use a result of Barron, Dong and Mason to give a natural isomorphism between the category of twisted modules and the category of quasi-modules of a certain type for a general vertex operator algebra.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Harbin Normal University, Harbin, China'
author:
- Haisheng Li
title: 'Twisted modules and quasi-modules for vertex operator algebras'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In the theory of vertex operator algebras, for a vertex operator algebra $V$, in addition to the notion of $V$-module one has the notion of $\sigma$-twisted $V$-module where $\sigma$ is a finite order automorphism of $V$. For a $V$-module $W$, each element $v\in V$ is represented by a vertex operator $$Y_{W}(v,x)\in \Hom (W,W((x)))\subset (\End W)[[x,x^{-1}]],$$ where these vertex operators are mutually local in the sense that for $u,v\in V$, there exists a nonnegative integer $k$ such that $$(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k}[Y_{W}(u,x_{1}),Y_{W}(v,x_{2})]=0.$$ Twisted modules were first introduced and used by Frenkel, Lepowsky and Meurman in their construction of the moonshine module vertex operator algebra $V^{\natural}$ (see [@lep1], [@flm]). Let $V$ be a vertex operator algebra and let $\sigma$ be an automorphism of order $N$. For a $\sigma$-twisted $V$-module $W$ ([@lep1], [@flm], [@ffr], [@dong]), each element $v$ of $V$ is represented by a twisted vertex operator $$Y_{W}(v,x)\in \Hom (W,W((x^{1/N})))
\subset (\End W)[[x^{1/N},x^{-1/N}]],$$ where these twisted vertex operators are also mutually local.
In a recent work [@li-ga], to associate certain (infinite-dimensional) Lie algebras with vertex algebras, we studied what we called quasi local vertex operators (cf. [@gkk]). Let $W$ be any vector space. A subset $S$ of $\Hom (W,W((x)))$ is said to be quasi local if for any $a(x), b(x)\in S$ there exists a nonzero polynomial $p(x_{1},x_{2})$ such that $$p(x_{1},x_{2})a(x_{1})b(x_{2})=p(x_{1},x_{2})b(x_{2})a(x_{1}).$$ It was proved therein that any maximal quasi local subspace has a natural vertex algebra structure and any quasi local subset generates a vertex algebra. This particular result generalizes the main result of [@li-local], which states that for any vector space $W$, any set of mutually local vertex operators on $W$ generates a vertex algebra with $W$ as a natural module. However, the space $W$ under the natural action is not a module for vertex algebras generated by quasi local vertex operators on $W$, though a certain weaker version of Jacobi identity was proved to hold. This motivated us to introduce a new notion of quasi module for a vertex algebra. For a quasi module $W$ for a vertex algebra $V$, each element $v$ of $V$ is represented by a vertex operator $$Y_{W}(v,x)\in \Hom (W,W((x)))\subset (\End W)[[x,x^{-1}]]$$ and the vertex operators $Y_{W}(v,x)$ for $v\in V$ form a quasi local subspace.
On twisted modules for vertex operator algebras there is a conceptual work [@bdm], in which for any vertex operator algebra $V$ and for any positive integer $k$, a canonical isomorphism was established between the category of $V$-modules and the category of twisted modules for the tensor product vertex operator algebra $V^{\otimes k}$ with respect to permutation automorphisms. In [@bdm], a central role was played by the geometric change-of-coordinate $x=z^{k}$. It has been known ([@zhu], \[H1-3\], cf. [@lep2]) that for any vertex operator algebra $V$ and for any $f(z)\in z\C[[z]]$ with $f'(0)\ne 0$, the change-of-coordinate $x=f(z)$ gives rise to a “new” vertex operator algebra structure on $V$, which was proved to be isomorphic to $V$. A special change-of-coordinate played a very important role in the study of modular invariance of graded characters ([@zhu], [@dlm-modular]).
It has been well known (cf. [@fz]) that (untwisted) affine Lie algebras together with their highest weight modules can be naturally associated with vertex operator algebras and their modules. Furthermore, twisted affine Lie algebras together with their highest weight modules (see [@kac]) can be associated with twisted modules for those vertex operator algebras (cf. [@flm], [@li-twisted]). On the other hand, it was proved in [@li-ga] that twisted affine Lie algebras, which are represented in a different form, together with their highest weight modules, can be naturally associated with quasi-modules for the vertex operator algebras associated with the untwisted affine Lie algebras. This suggests that there exist a natural connection between twisted modules and quasi modules for a general vertex operator algebra.
The main purpose of this paper is to give a natural connection between twisted modules and quasi-modules for a general vertex operator algebra. Indeed, the goal has been achieved by using [@bdm], thanks to Barron, Dong and Mason for their beautiful work. What we have proved is that the same change-of-coordinates, used by Barron, Dong and Mason, give rise to a natural isomorphism between the category of twisted modules and the category of quasi-modules of a certain special type.
We thank Yi-Zhi and Kailash for organizing this great conference, in honor of Professors James Lepowsky and Robert Wilson. I am very grateful for having Jim and Robert as teachers and as friends as well.
Twisted modules and quasi-modules
=================================
We here present the main result, a natural isomorphism between the category of twisted modules and the category of quasi-modules of a certain type for a general vertex operator algebra.
First, we recall the definitions of the notions of twisted module and quasi-module. Let $V=\coprod_{n\in \Z}V_{(n)}$ be a vertex operator algebra, fixed throughout this section. For the definition and basic properties we refer to [@flm] and [@fhl]. Let $\sigma$ be an automorphism of $V$ of order $N$ (a positive integer). Then $V=\coprod_{j=0}^{N-1}V^{j}$, where $V^{j}=\{ u\in V\;|\; \sigma
(u)=\omega_{N}^{j}u\}$ and $\omega_{N}=\exp (2\pi \sqrt{-1}/N)$, the principal primitive $N$-th root of unity.
A [*weak $\sigma$-twisted $V$-module*]{} (cf. [@lep1], [@flm], [@ffr], [@dong], [@dlm-twisted]) is a vector space $W$ equipped with a linear map $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{W}:& & V\rightarrow \Hom (W,W((x^{\frac{1}{N}})))\subset
(\End W)[[x^{\frac{1}{N}},x^{-\frac{1}{N}}]]\nonumber\\
& &v\rightarrow Y_{W}(v,x)\end{aligned}$$ such that $$Y_{W}({\bf 1},x)=1_{W}\;\mbox{(the identity operator on $W$)},$$ and for $u, v\in V$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{etwistedmodule-def}
& &x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}-x_{2}}{x_{0}}\right)
Y_{W}(u,x_{1})Y_{W}(v,x_{2})
-x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}-x_{1}}{-x_{0}}\right)
Y_{W}(v,x_{2})Y_{W}(u,x_{1})\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ =\frac{1}{N}\sum_{r=0}^{N-1}x_{1}^{-1}\delta\left(
\omega_{N}^{r}\left(\frac{x_{2}+x_{0}}{x_{1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{N}}\right)
Y_{W}(Y(\sigma^{r}u,x_{0})v,x_{2})\end{aligned}$$ (the [*twisted Jacobi identity*]{}). Note that as a convention, for $\alpha\in \R$, the expressions $(x_{1}\pm x_{2})^{\alpha}$ are understood as the formal series in the nonnegative integral powers of the second variable $x_{2}$. That is, $$(x_{1}\pm x_{2})^{\alpha}=\sum_{i\in \N}\binom{\alpha}{i}(\pm 1)^{i}
x_{1}^{\alpha-i}x_{2}^{i}
\in x_{1}^{\alpha}\R[x_{1}^{-1}][[x_{2}]].$$
If $u\in V^{j}$ with $0\le j\le N-1$, the twisted Jacobi identity becomes $$\begin{aligned}
& &x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}-x_{2}}{x_{0}}\right)
Y_{W}(u,x_{1})Y_{W}(v,x_{2})
-x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}-x_{1}}{-x_{0}}\right)
Y_{W}(v,x_{2})Y_{W}(u,x_{1})\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ =x_{1}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}+x_{0}}{x_{1}}\right)
\left(\frac{x_{2}+x_{0}}{x_{1}}\right)^{-\frac{j}{N}}Y_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2}).\end{aligned}$$ By taking $v={\bf 1}$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{W}(u,x)\in x^{\frac{j}{N}}\Hom (W,W((x))).\end{aligned}$$ This particular property amounts to $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{W}(\sigma u,x)=\lim_{x^{1/N}\rightarrow \omega_{N}x^{1/N}}Y_{W}(u,x).\end{aligned}$$
The twisted Jacobi identity is equivalent to the following [*weak commutativity and associativity*]{} ([@dl], [@li-twisted]): For $u,v\in V$, there exists a nonnegative integer $k$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k}[Y_{W}(u,x_{1}),Y_{W}(v,x_{2})]=0,\end{aligned}$$ and for $u\in V^{j},\; v\in V,\; w\in W$, $0\le j\le N-1$, there exists a nonnegative integer $l$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& &(x_{0}+x_{2})^{l-j/N}Y_{W}(u,x_{0}+x_{2})Y_{W}(v,x_{2})w\\
&=&(x_{2}+x_{0})^{l-j/N}Y_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})w.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
From now on we fix an automorphism $\sigma$ of order $N$ for the fixed vertex operator algebra $V$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
G=\<\sigma\>\subset \Aut (V)
\mbox{ (the full automorphism group of $V$)}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\phi: G\rightarrow \C^{\times}$ be the (injective) group homomorphism defined by $\phi(\sigma^{j})=\omega_{N}^{j}$ for $j=0,\dots,N-1$.
A [*quasi $V$-module*]{} [@li-ga] is a vector space $W$ equipped with a linear map $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{W}: & &V\rightarrow \Hom (W,W((x)))\subset (\End W)[[x,x^{-1}]],\\
& &v\rightarrow Y_{W}(v,x)\end{aligned}$$ such that $$Y_{W}({\bf 1},x)=1_{W},$$ and for $u,v\in V$, there exists a nonzero polynomial $p(x_{1},x_{2})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equasi-jacobi}
& &x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}-x_{2}}{x_{0}}\right)
p(x_{1},x_{2})Y_{W}(u,x_{1})Y_{W}(v,x_{2})\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{2cm}-x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}-x_{1}}{-x_{0}}\right)
p(x_{1},x_{2})Y_{W}(v,x_{2})Y_{W}(u,x_{1})\nonumber\\
&=&x_{2}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}-x_{0}}{x_{2}}\right)p(x_{1},x_{2})
Y_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})\end{aligned}$$ (the [*quasi Jacobi identity*]{}).
Follow [@bdm] to define $a_{n}\in \C$ for $n\in \Z_{+}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\exp \left(-\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}a_{n}x^{n+1}\frac{d}{dx}\right)\cdot x
=\frac{1}{N}(1+x)^{N}-\frac{1}{N},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Z_{+}$ denotes the set of positive integers, and then set $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{N}(x)=\exp\left(\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}a_{n}x^{-n/N}L(n)\right)
N^{-L(0)}x^{(1/N-1)L(0)},\end{aligned}$$ an invertible element of $(\End V)[[x^{1/N},x^{-1/N}]]$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{N}(x^{N})^{-1}
=(Nx^{N-1})^{L(0)}\exp\left(-\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}a_{n}x^{-n}L(n)\right).\end{aligned}$$ As in [@bdm] we shall also heavily use the expression $\Delta_{N}(x^{N})^{-1}$. For convenience we set $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(x)=\Delta_{N}(x^{N})^{-1}\in \Hom (V,V[x,x^{-1}]).\end{aligned}$$
The following result was proved in [@bdm]:
For any $u\in V$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ebdm1}
\ \ \ \ \Delta_{N}(x)Y(u,x_{0})\Delta_{N}(x)^{-1}
=Y(\Delta_{N}(x+x_{0})u,(x+x_{0})^{1/N}-x^{1/N})\end{aligned}$$ in $(\End V)[[x_{0}^{\pm 1},x^{\pm \frac{1}{N}}]]$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ebdm2}
\Phi(x)Y(u,x_{0})
=Y(\Phi(x+x_{0})u,(x+x_{0})^{N}-x^{N})\Phi(x)\end{aligned}$$ in $(\End V)[[x_{0}^{\pm 1},x^{\pm 1}]]$.
[*Warning:*]{} The following expansion $$\begin{aligned}
(z-x^{\alpha})^{n}|_{z=(x+x_{0})^{\alpha}}&=&
\sum_{i\in \N}(-1)^{i}\binom{n}{i}(x+x_{0})^{\alpha (n-i)}x^{\alpha i}\\
&=&\sum_{i\in \N}\sum_{j\in \N}(-1)^{i}
\binom{n}{i}\binom{(n-i)\alpha}{j}x^{n\alpha-j}x_{0}^{j}\end{aligned}$$ is an infinite divergent sum if $n<0$.
We shall need the following simple result:
For any $\alpha\in \C^{\times}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& &\Phi(x)\alpha^{-L(0)}=\alpha^{-NL(0)}\Phi(\alpha x),\\
& &\alpha^{L(0)}\Delta_{N}(x)
=\lim_{x^{1/N}\rightarrow \alpha x^{1/N}}\Delta_{N}(x)\alpha^{NL(0)}\end{aligned}$$ hold in $\Hom (V,V[x,x^{-1}])$ and in $\Hom (V,V[x^{\frac{1}{N}},x^{-\frac{1}{N}}])$, respectively.
We shall just prove the first identity, as the second will follow easily. Since $[L(0),L(n)]=-nL(n)$ for $n\in \Z$, it follows that $$\alpha^{L(0)}L(n)\alpha^{-L(0)}=\alpha^{-n}L(n).$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{L(0)}\left(\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}a_{n}x^{-n}L(n)\right)\alpha^{-L(0)}
&=&\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}\alpha^{-n}a_{n}x^{-n}L(n)\\
&=&\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}a_{n}(\alpha x)^{-n}L(n).\end{aligned}$$ Using this we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(x)\alpha^{-L(0)}
&=&(Nx^{N-1})^{L(0)}\alpha^{-L(0)}
\alpha^{L(0)}\exp\left(-\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}a_{n}x^{-n}L(n)\right)
\alpha^{-L(0)}\\
&=&\alpha^{-NL(0)}(N(\alpha x)^{N-1})^{L(0)}
\exp\left(-\sum_{n\in \Z_{+}}a_{n}(\alpha x)^{-n}L(n)\right)\\
&=&\alpha^{-NL(0)}\Phi(\alpha x),\end{aligned}$$ proving the assertion.
The following is the first half of our main result of this paper:
Let $(W,Y_{W})$ be a weak $\sigma$-twisted $V$-module. For $u\in V$, as in [@bdm] set $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,x)=Y_{W}(\Phi(x)u,x^{N})\in (\End W)[[x,x^{-1}]].\end{aligned}$$ Then $(W,\tilde{Y}_{W})$ carries the structure of a $(G,\phi)$-quasi $V$-module.
First, for $u\in V$, as $\Phi(x)u\in V[x,x^{-1}]$, we have $$\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,x)\in \Hom (W,W((x))).$$ Second, we have $$\tilde{Y}_{W}({\bf 1},x)=Y_{W}({\bf 1},x^{N})=1_{W},$$ as $\Phi(x){\bf 1}={\bf 1}$, which is due to the fact that $L(n){\bf 1}=0$ for $n\ge 0$.
Third, from Lemma \[leasy\], for any $N$-th root of unity $\alpha$, we have $$\Phi(x)\alpha^{-L(0)}=\Phi(\alpha x).$$ For $g\in G,\; u\in V$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Y}_{W}(\phi(g)^{-L(0)}g (u),x)
&=&Y_{W}(\Phi(x)\phi(g)^{-L(0)}g (u),x^{N})\\
&=&Y_{W}(\Phi(\phi(g)x)g (u),x^{N})\\
&=&\lim_{z\rightarrow \phi(g)x}Y_{W}(\Phi(\phi(g)x)u,z^{N})\\
&=&\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,\phi(g)x),\end{aligned}$$ noticing that $g\Phi(x)=\Phi(x)g$.
Now it remains to prove the quasi Jacobi identity. Let $u,v\in V$. Since $\Phi(x)u,\; \Phi(x)v\in V[x,x^{-1}]$, there exists a nonnegative integer $k$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e2.26}
z^{k}Y(\Phi(x_{1})u,z)\Phi(x_{2})v \in V[x_{1}^{\pm 1},x_{2}^{\pm 1},z].\end{aligned}$$ Then $$(z_{1}-z_{2})^{k}[Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{1})u,z_{1}),
Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{2})v,z_{2})]=0,$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eweak-comm-proof}
(x_{1}^{N}-x_{2}^{N})^{k}[\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1}),\tilde{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})]=0.\end{aligned}$$ Let $r$ be a nonnegative integer such that $x^{r}\Phi(x)u\in V[x]$. Then $$(x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u
=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{r}\Phi(x_{2}+x_{0})u\in V[x_{0},x_{2}].$$ Furthermore, let $w\in W$. In view of Remark \[rsubstitutions\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &(x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,x_{0}+x_{2})\tilde{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w\\
&=&(x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u,(x_{0}+x_{2})^{N})
Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N})w\\
&=&\left((x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u,z_{0}+x_{2}^{N})
Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N})w\right)\\
& &\hspace{6cm}|_{z_{0}=(x_{0}+x_{2})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{0}>>x_{2}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &(x_{2}+x_{0})^{r}\tilde{Y}_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})w\\
&=&(x_{2}+x_{0})^{r}Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{2})Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2}^{N})w\\
&=&(x_{2}+x_{0})^{r}
Y_{W}\left(Y(\Phi(x_{2}+x_{0})u,(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N})
\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N}\right)w\\
&=&\left((x_{2}+x_{0})^{r}
Y_{W}\left(Y(\Phi(x_{2}+x_{0})u,z_{0})
\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N}\right)w\right)|_{z_{0}
=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{2}>>x_{0}},\end{aligned}$$ using (\[ebdm2\]).
Assume $u\in V^{j}$ with $0\le j\le N-1$. There exists a positive integer $l$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& &(z_{0}+x_{2}^{N})^{l-\frac{j}{N}}
Y_{W}((x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u,z_{0}+x_{2}^{N})
Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N})w\nonumber\\
&=&(x_{2}^{N}+z_{0})^{l-\frac{j}{N}}
Y_{W}(Y((x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u,z_{0})\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N})w,\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
& &z_{0}^{k}(z_{0}+x_{2}^{N})^{l-\frac{j}{N}}Y_{W}((x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u,z_{0}+x_{2}^{N})
Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N})w\\
&=&z_{0}^{k}(x_{2}^{N}+z_{0})^{l-\frac{j}{N}}
Y_{W}(Y((x_{0}+x_{2})^{r}\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u,z_{0})\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N})w,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is the nonnegative integer as in (\[e2.26\]). Now, we shall perform the substitution $z_{0}=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{0}>>x_{2}$ on both sides. Notice that the expression on the right-hand side involves nonnegative integral powers of $z_{0}$ only, so that the substitutions $z_{0}=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{0}>>x_{2}$ and $z_{0}=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{2}>>x_{0}$ agree on the right-hand side. Performing the substitution $z_{0}=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{0}>>x_{2}$ on both sides and using Remark \[rsubstitutions\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& &(x_{0}+x_{2})^{r+Nl-j}((x_{0}+x_{2})^{N}-x_{2}^{N})^{k}\cdot \\
& &\hspace{2cm}\cdot
Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{0}+x_{2})u,(x_{0}+x_{2})^{N})Y_{W}(\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N})w\\
&=&\left((x_{2}+x_{0})^{r}(x_{2}^{N}+z_{0})^{l-\frac{j}{N}}z_{0}^{k}
Y_{W}\left(Y(\Phi(x_{2}+x_{0})u,z_{0})
\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N}\right)w\right)\\
& &\hspace{6cm}|_{z_{0}=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{0}>>x_{2}}\\
&=&\left((x_{2}+x_{0})^{r}(x_{2}^{N}+z_{0})^{l-\frac{j}{N}}z_{0}^{k}
Y_{W}\left(Y(\Phi(x_{2}+x_{0})u,z_{0})
\Phi(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{N}\right)w\right)\\
& &\hspace{6cm}|_{z_{0}=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N},x_{2}>>x_{0}}\\
&=&(x_{2}+x_{0})^{r+Nl-j}\left((x_{2}+x_{0})^{N}-x_{2}^{N}\right)^{k}
\tilde{Y}_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})w.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eweak-assoc-proof}
\lefteqn{(x_{0}+x_{2})^{r+Nl-j}((x_{0}+x_{2})^{N}-x_{2}^{N})^{k}
\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,x_{0}+x_{2})\tilde{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w}\\
&=&(x_{0}+x_{2})^{r+Nl-j}((x_{0}+x_{2})^{N}-x_{2}^{N})^{k}
\tilde{Y}_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})w.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[eweak-comm-proof\]) and (\[eweak-assoc-proof\]) we obtain the following quasi Jacobi identity $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}-x_{2}}{x_{0}}\right)
(x_{1}^{N}-x_{2}^{N})^{k}\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})\tilde{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w}
\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{1cm}-x_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}-x_{1}}{-x_{0}}\right)
(x_{1}^{N}-x_{2}^{N})^{k}\tilde{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})\tilde{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})w\nonumber\\
&=&x_{2}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}-x_{0}}{x_{2}}\right)(x_{1}^{N}-x_{2}^{N})^{k}
\tilde{Y}_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})w.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $(W,\tilde{Y}_{W})$ carries the structure of a $(G,\phi)$-quasi $V$-module.
Next we present the second half of our main result of this paper.
Let $(W,Y_{W})$ be a $(G,\phi)$-quasi $V$-module. For $u\in V$, as in [@bdm] set $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x)
=Y_{W}(\Delta_{N}(x)u,x^{\frac{1}{N}})
\in (\End W)[[x^{\frac{1}{N}},x^{-\frac{1}{N}}]].\end{aligned}$$ Then $(W,\bar{Y}_{W})$ carries the structure of a weak $\sigma$-twisted $V$-module.
For convenience, let us simply use $\Delta(x)$ for $\Delta_{N}(x)$ in the proof. First, for $u\in V$, as $\Delta(x)u\in V[x^{1/N},x^{-1/N}]$, we have $$\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x)=Y_{W}(\Delta(x)u,x^{\frac{1}{N}})
\in \Hom (W,W((x^{\frac{1}{N}}))).$$ Second, $$\bar{Y}_{W}({\bf 1},x)=Y_{W}(\Delta(x){\bf 1},x^{\frac{1}{N}})
=Y_{W}({\bf 1},x^{\frac{1}{N}})=1_{W}.$$ Third, for $u\in V$, as $\phi(\sigma)=\omega_{N}$, we have $Y_{W}(\omega_{N}^{-L(0)}\sigma(u),x)=Y_{W}(u,\omega_{N}x)$. Using Lemma \[leasy\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elimit-property}
\bar{Y}_{W}(\sigma(u),x)
&=&Y_{W}(\Delta(x)\sigma (u),x^{\frac{1}{N}})\nonumber\\
&=&Y_{W}(\omega_{N}^{-L(0)}\sigma \omega_{N}^{L(0)}
\Delta(x)u,x^{\frac{1}{N}})\nonumber\\
&=&\lim_{z^{\frac{1}{N}}\rightarrow \omega_{N}x^{\frac{1}{N}}}
Y_{W}(\omega_{N}^{L(0)}\Delta(x)u,z^{\frac{1}{N}})\nonumber\\
&=&\lim_{x^{\frac{1}{N}}\rightarrow \omega_{N}x^{\frac{1}{N}}}
Y_{W}(\Delta(x)u,x^{\frac{1}{N}})\nonumber\\
&=&\lim_{x^{\frac{1}{N}}\rightarrow \omega_{N}x^{\frac{1}{N}}}\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x).\end{aligned}$$ Next, we prove the weak commutativity and the weak associativity, which amount to the twisted Jacobi identity. Let $u,v\in V$. As $\Delta(x)u,\; \Delta(x)v
\in V[x^{1/N},x^{-1/N}]$, from the quasi Jacobi identity there exists a nonnegative integer $k$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ejacobi-deform}
& &z_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}^{1/N}-x_{2}^{1/N}}{z_{0}}\right)
(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{1cm}-z_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}^{1/N}-x_{1}^{1/N}}{-z_{0}}\right)
(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k}\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})
\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})\nonumber\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}^{1/N}+z_{0}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k}
Y_{W}(Y(\Delta(x_{1})u,z_{0})\Delta(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{1/N}).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that there exists a nonnegative integer $k'\ge k$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elocality-twisted}
(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}[\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1}),\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})]=0.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we establish the weak associativity. Let $w\in W$. Assume $u\in V^{j}$ for some $0\le j\le N-1$, i.e., $\sigma (u)=\omega_{N}^{j}u$. From (\[elimit-property\]), we have $$x^{-j/N}\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x)\in (\End W)[[x,x^{-1}]].$$ Let $l$ be a nonnegative integer such that $$x^{l-j/N}\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x)w\in W[[x]].$$ Using the commutation relation (\[elocality-twisted\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
x_{1}^{l-j/N}(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u, x_{1})\bar{Y}_{W}(v, x_{2})w
\in W[[x_{1},x_{2}^{1/N}]][x_{2}^{-1/N}].\end{aligned}$$ With (\[elocality-twisted\]), from (\[ejacobi-deform\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
& &x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}^{1/N}+z_{0}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
Y_{W}(Y(\Delta(x_{1})u,z_{0})\Delta(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{1/N})w\\
&=&\left(z_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{1}^{1/N}-x_{2}^{1/N}}{z_{0}}\right)
-z_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}^{1/N}-x_{1}^{1/N}}{-z_{0}}\right)
\right)\\
& &\hspace{2cm}\cdot \left((x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w\right)\nonumber\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{x_{2}^{1/N}+z_{0}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
\left((x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w\right).\end{aligned}$$ In view of Remark \[rsubstitutions1\], substituting $z_{0}=(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}-x_{2}^{1/N},x_{2}>>x_{0}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
& &x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \cdot (x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
Y_{W}(Y(\Delta(x_{1})u,(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}-x_{2}^{1/N})
\Delta(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{1/N})w\nonumber\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
\left((x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w\right).\end{aligned}$$ For the expression on the left-hand side, using Proposition \[pbdm\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
x_{1}^{l-j/N}(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}\\
& &\ \ \ \ \cdot Y_{W}(Y(\Delta(x_{1})u,(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}-x_{2}^{1/N})
\Delta(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{1/N})w\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
x_{0}^{k'}(x_{2}+x_{0})^{Nl-j}\\
& &\ \ \ \ \cdot Y_{W}(Y(\Delta(x_{2}+x_{0})u,(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}-x_{2}^{1/N})
\Delta(x_{2})v,x_{2}^{1/N})w\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
x_{0}^{k'}(x_{2}+x_{0})^{Nl-j}
Y_{W}(\Delta(x_{2})Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2}^{1/N})w\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
x_{0}^{k'}(x_{2}+x_{0})^{Nl-j}\bar{Y}_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})w.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
& &x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
x_{0}^{k'}(x_{2}+x_{0})^{Nl-j}\bar{Y}_{W}(Y(u,x_{0})v,x_{2})w\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
\left(x_{1}^{l-j/N}(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u,x_{1})\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w\right)\\
& &\hspace{9cm}|_{x_{1}=x_{2}+x_{0}}\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
\left(x_{1}^{l-j/N}(x_{1}-x_{2})^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u, x_{1})\bar{Y}_{W}(v, x_{2})w\right)\\
& &\hspace{9cm}|_{x_{1}=x_{0}+x_{2}}\\
&=&x_{1}^{-1/N}\delta\left(\frac{(x_{2}+x_{0})^{1/N}}{x_{1}^{1/N}}\right)
\left((x_{0}+x_{2})^{l-j/N}x_{0}^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u, x_{0}+x_{2})\bar{Y}_{W}(v, x_{2})w\right).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &(x_{0}+x_{2})^{l-j/N}x_{0}^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(u, x_{0}+x_{2})
\bar{Y}_{W}(v,x_{2})w\\
&=&(x_{2}+x_{0})^{l-j/N}x_{0}^{k'}
\bar{Y}_{W}(Y(u, x_{0})v,x_{2})w,\end{aligned}$$ proving the weak associativity. Therefore, $(W,\bar{Y}_{W})$ is a weak $\sigma$-twisted $V$-module.
[AAGBP]{}
K. Barron, C. Dong and G. Mason, Twisted sectors for tensor product vertex operator algebras associated to permutation groups, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**227**]{} (2002), 349-384.
C. Dong, Twisted modules for vertex algebras associated with even lattices, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**165**]{} (1994), 91-112.
C. Dong and J. Lepowsky, [*Generalized Vertex Algebras and Relative Vertex Operators*]{}, Progress in Math., Vol. 112, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1993.
C. Dong, H.-S. Li and G. Mason, Twisted representations of vertex operator algebras, [*Math. Annalen*]{} [**310**]{} (1998), 571-700.
C. Dong, H.-S. Li and G. Mason, Modular-invariance of trace functions in orbifold theory and generalized moonshine, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**214**]{} (2000), 1-56.
A. J. Feingold, I. B. Frenkel and J. F. X. Ries, [*Spinor Construction of Vertex Operator Algebras, Triality, and $E_{8}^{(1)}$*]{}, Contemporary Math. [**121**]{}, 1991.
I. B. Frenkel, Y.-Z. Huang and J. Lepowsky, On axiomatic approaches to vertex operator algebras and modules, [*Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**104**]{}, 1993.
I. B. Frenkel, J. Lepowsky and A. Meurman, [*Vertex Operator Algebras and the Monster,*]{} Pure and Applied Math., Vol. 134, Academic Press, Boston, 1988.
I. Frenkel and Y.-C. Zhu, Vertex operator algebras associated to representations of affine and Virasoro algebras, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**66**]{} (1992), 123-168.
M. Golenishcheva-Kutuzova and V. Kac, $\Gamma$-conformal algebras, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**39**]{} (1998), 2290-2305.
Y.-Z. Huang, Geometric interpretation of vertex operator algebras, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} [**88**]{} (1991), 9964-9968.
Y.-Z. Huang, Applications of the geometric interpretation of vertex operator algebras, in: [*Proc. 20th International Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics, New York, 1991*]{}, ed. by S. Catto and A. Rocha, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992, Vol. 1, 333-343.
Y.-Z. Huang, [*Tow-Dimensional Conformal geometry and Vertex Operator Algebras*]{}, Progress in Math. Vol. 148, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1997.
V. G. Kac, [*Infinite-dimensional Lie Algebras*]{}, 3rd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990.
J. Lepowsky, Calculus of twisted vertex operators, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} [**82**]{} (1985), 8295-8299.
J. Lepowsky, Remarks on vertex operator algebras and moonshine, in: [*Proc. 20th International Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretic Physics, New York, 1991,*]{} ed. by S. Catto and A. Rocha, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992, 361-370.
J. Lepowsky and H.-S. Li, [*Introduction to Vertex Operator Algebras and Their Representations*]{}, Progress in Math. Vol. 227, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2003.
H.-S. Li, Local systems of vertex operators, vertex superalgebras and modules, [*J. Pure Appl. Alg.*]{} [**109**]{} (1996), 143-195.
H.-S. Li, Local systems of twisted vertex operators, vertex superalgebras and twisted modules, in: [*Moonshine, the Monster and related topics, Proc. Joint Summer Research Conference (Mount Holyoke, 1994)*]{}, Contemporary Math. [**193**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1996, 203-236.
H.-S. Li, A new construction of vertex algebras and quasi modules for a vertex algebra, [*Adv. Math.*]{} (2006), in press.
Y. Zhu, Modular invariance of characters of vertex operator algebras, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**9**]{} (1996), 237-302.
[^1]: The author was supported in part by an NSA Grant.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The aim of this paper is twofold. One is to give a definition of the Euler characteristic of infinite acyclic categories with filtrations and the other is to prove the invariance of the Euler characteristic under the subdivision of finite categories.'
author:
- 'Kazunori Noguchi [^1]'
title: The Euler characteristic of infinite acyclic categories with filtrations
---
Introduction
============
The Euler characteristic of a finite simplicial complex is given by the alternating sum of the numbers of simplices in each dimension. On the other hand, Rota defined the Euler characteristic of finite posets [@Rot64]. The relation of these two Euler characteristics is explained by the following commutative diagram:
$$\xymatrix{
{\displaystyle \textbf{Finite posets} } \ar[dr]_{\chi_{\text{Rota}}} \ar[rr]^(0.40){\text{order complex}}&& { \displaystyle \textbf{Finite simplicial complexes} }\ar[dl]^{\chi}\\
&\mathbb{Z}
}$$ Here, the order complex of a finite poset $P$ consists of totally ordered $(n+1)$-subsets of $P$ as its $n$-simplices.
A poset $(P,\le)$ can be regarded as a small category whose set of objects is $P$ and set of the morphisms is the set of pairs $(x,y)$ such that $x\le y$ in $P$. Leinster extended Rota’s Euler characteristic [@Leia]. He defined the Euler characteristic for finite categories satisfying certain conditions and it agrees with Rota’s one when applied to finite posets. Since Leinster’s Euler characteristic is also related to another variants such as the cardinality of groupoids [@BD] and the rational Euler characteristic of groups [@Wal], it values in the rational numbers. Note that groups are regarded as small categories with one object. The following commutative diagram explains the relation of Leinster’s Euler characteristic and Rota’s theory $$\xymatrix{
\chi_{\text{L}}\textbf{-categories}\ar[d]_{\chi_\text{L}}&{\displaystyle \textbf{Finite posets} } \ar[d]_{\chi_{\text{Rota}}} \ar@{_{(}->}[l] \ar[r]^(0.45){\text{order} \atop \text{complex}}& { \displaystyle \textbf{Finite} \atop \displaystyle \textbf{simplicial complexes} }\ar[d]^{\chi}\\
\mathbb{Q}&\mathbb{Z}\ar@{_{(}->}[l] \ar@{=}[r] &\mathbb{Z}
}$$ where $\chi_{\text{L}}\textbf{-categories}$ denotes the category of finite categories for which Leinster’s Euler characteristic can be defined.
On the other hand, the Euler characteristic of simplicial complexes is invariant under the barycentric subdivision. Moreover, small categories also have a notion of the barycentric subdivision. The definition can be found in [@DK], [@dH]. It is a functor from the category of small categories to itself $$\mathrm{Sd}:\textbf{Small categories}\longrightarrow\textbf{Small categories}$$ and it is homotopy invariant, that is, for any small category $\mathcal{J}$, $\mathcal{J}$ is homotopy equivalent to its barycentiric subdivision Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ after applied the classifying space functor $B$ $$B(\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J})) \simeq B(\mathcal{J}).$$
In this paper, we will investigate the invariance of the Euler characteristic of finite categories under the barycentric subdivision. The difficulty is that the category of finite categories is not closed under the operation of the barycentric subdivision. Any small category which has an endomorphism other than the identity morphisms becomes an infinite category after applied the functor Sd. So we have to extend the Euler characteristic to the class of infinite categories that includes the image of Sd on the category of finite categories.
The barycentric subdivision of small categories is defined by using the notion of *non-degenerate nerve*. Berger and Leinster defined another Euler characteristic $\chi_{\sum}(\mathcal{I})$ of a finite category $\mathcal{I}$, called *series Euler characteristic* [@Leib], in terms of non-degenerate nerves. So it seems to be better to use the series Euler characteristic to investigate the relation between the Euler characteristic of finite categories and the barycentric subdivision of categories. And it coincides Leinster’s first Euler characteristic for the important class of finite categories including finite posets and finite groups.
We introduce the Euler characteristic $\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathcal{A}, \mu)$ of an infinite acyclic category $\mathcal{A}$ with a filtration $\mu$, called $\mathbb{N}$*-filtered acyclic category* (see Definition \[n-fil\]). For a small category $\mathcal{J}$, its barycentric subdivision Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ is an acyclic category and it naturally has an $\mathbb{N}$-filtration (see Example \[length\]).
Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a finite category for which the series Euler characteristic can be defined. Then, $\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{I}), L)$ is also defined and they coincide $$\chi_{\Sigma}(\mathcal{I})=\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{I}), L),$$ that is, we have the following commutative diagram. $$\xymatrix{
\chi_{\sum}\textbf{-categories} \ar[dr]_{\chi_{\sum}} \ar[rr]^(0.45){\mathrm{Sd}}&& \chi_{\text{fil}}\textbf{-categories} \ar[dl]^{\chi_{\text{fil}}}\\
&\mathbb{Q}
}$$ where $\chi_{\sum} \textbf{-categories}$ denotes the category of finite categories for whicjhthe series Euler characteristic can be defined and $\chi_{\text{fil}}\textbf{-categories}$ denotes the category of $\mathbb{N}$-filtered acyclic categories for which its Euler characteristic can be defined.
The series Euler characteristic has the invariance under the barycentric subdivision of small categories in the sense of the following commutative diagram.
$$\xymatrix{
&\chi_{\text{fil}}\textbf{-categories} \ar@{.>}[ddl]^(0.65){\chi_\text{fil}}&\textbf{Finite posets}\ar@/^1pc/[ddl]^(0.65){\chi_\text{fil}} \ar@{_{(}->}[l]\ar[r]^(0.5){\text{order} \atop \text{complex}}&{ \displaystyle \textbf{Finite} \atop \displaystyle \textbf{simp. comp.} }\ar[ddl]^{\chi}\\
\chi_{\sum}\textbf{-categories}\ar[ur]^{\mathrm{Sd}}\ar[d]_{\chi_\text{L}}&{\displaystyle \textbf{Finite posets} } \ar[ur]^{\mathrm{Sd}}\ar[d]_{\chi_{\text{Rota}}} \ar@{_{(}->}[l] \ar[r]^(0.5){\text{order} \atop \text{complex}}& { \displaystyle \textbf{Finite} \atop \displaystyle \textbf{simp. comp.} }\ar[d]^{\chi}\ar[ur]^{\mathrm{Sd}}&\\
\mathbb{Q}&\mathbb{Z}\ar@{_{(}->}[l] \ar@{=}[r] &\mathbb{Z}&
}$$
This paper is organized as follows.
In section \[Pre\], some conventions and elementary knowledge are recalled. All the keywords in this section can be found in [@Koz08].
In section \[sub\], the definition of the barycentric subdivision of small categories is given and some elementary properties are proved. This definition is the one introduced in [@DK].
In section \[inv\], we define the Euler characteristic of $\mathbb{N}$-filtered acyclic categories. And we give a proof of the main theorem, theorem \[comm\].
**Acknowledgements.** I wish to thank Dai Tamaki, Katsuhiko Kuribayashi for very useful discussions and Akihide Hanaki for very helpful suggestions to solve Proposition \[Hanaki\]. And I also thank Matias Luis del Hoyo who answered my questions about the barycentric subdivision of small categories.
Preliminaries {#Pre}
=============
We mean the natural numbers are non-negative integers. So the set of natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ contains $0$. $$\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$$ $\mathbb{N}$ is regarded as a poset by $0<1<2<\dots$.
\[def\] Define a small category $\mathcal{A}$ to be an *acyclic category* if all the endomorphisms are only identity morphisms and if there exists an arrow ${f:X \rightarrow Y}$ such that $X\not = Y$, then there does not exist an arrow ${g:Y \rightarrow X}$.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an acyclic category. Define an order on the set of objects of $\mathcal{A}$ by $x \le y$ if there exists a morphism from $x$ to $y$.
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category. The *nerve* $N_*(\mathcal{J})$ of $\mathcal{J}$ is the simplicial set whose set of $n$-simplices $N_n(\mathcal{J})$ is defined as follows [@Koz08] [@ML98]: $$N_n( \mathcal{J})=\{ (f_1,f_2,\dots, f_n)\mid\text{each $f_i$ and $f_{i+1}$ are composable} \}$$
The *non-degenerate nerve* of $\mathcal{J}$ ${\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{J})}$ is the $\mathbb{N}$-graded subset of $N_*(\mathcal{J})$ equipped the restrictions of the face operators of $N_*(\mathcal{J})$ $${d_i:{\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{J})} \longrightarrow N_{n-1}(\mathcal{J})}$$ and each ${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{J})}$ is defined by the following: $${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{J})}=\{ (f_1,f_2,\dots, f_n) \in N_n( \mathcal{J}) \mid\text{none of $f_i$ is the identity morphism} \}$$ where ${\overline{N_{0}}(\mathcal{J})}$ is defined by ${\overline{N_{0}}(\mathcal{J})}=N_0( \mathcal{J})$.
Let $\Delta_{\text{inj}}$ be the category whose objects are $$[n]=\{0,1,\dots, n\}$$ for any $0\le n$ and morphisms are order-preserving injections between them. Then, define a *$\Delta$-set* $X$ to be a contravariant functor from $\Delta_{\text{inj}}$ to the category of sets. $${X:(\Delta_{\text{inj}} )^{\text{op}} \longrightarrow \textbf{Sets}}$$
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an acyclic category. Then, ${\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{A})}$ is a $\Delta$-set, since it is closed under the operation of the face operators. Moreover, ${\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{-})}$ is a functor from the category of acyclic categories to the category of $\Delta$-sets. The morphisms in the formar are functors ${F:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}}$ between acyclic categories $\mathcal{A, B}$ satisfying $F(x)<F(y)$ in Ob$(\mathcal{B})$ for $x<y$ in Ob$(\mathcal{A})$. The category of the latter consists of $\Delta$-sets as its objects and natural transformations as its morphisms.
$${\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{-})}: \textbf{Acyclic categories}\longrightarrow \Delta\textbf{-sets}$$
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an acyclic category and ${\mu:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}}$ be a functor satisfying $\mu (x)<\mu (y)$ in Ob$(\mathcal{B})$ for $x<y$ in Ob$(\mathcal{A})$. By applying the functor ${\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{-})}$ to $\mu$, we have the natural transformation ${{\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{\mu})}:{\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{A})} \rightarrow {\overline{N_{*}}(\mathcal{\mathbb{N}})}}$. Here, each ${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{\mathbb{N}})}$ is the set of proper increasing sequences of $(n+1)$-natural numbers. $${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{\mathbb{N}})}=\{(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_n) \in \mathbb{N}^{n+1} \mid i_0<i_1<\dots < i_n\}$$ For $$\mathbf{f}=\xymatrix{(x_0\ar[r]^{f_1}&x_1\ar[r]^{f_2}&\dots\ar[r]^{f_n}&x_n)}$$ of ${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{A})}$, ${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{\mu})}(\mathbf{f})=(\mu(x_0),\mu(x_1),\dots, \mu(x_n))$.
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category and $X$ be an element of $N_n(\mathcal{J})$. We often denote the length of $X$ by $q_X$, that is, $q_X =n$. Then, $X$ has the following form. $$\xymatrix{X=(x_0\ar[r]^(0.6){f_1}&x_1\ar[r]^{f_2}&\dots\ar[r]^{f_{q_X}}&x_{q_X})}$$
The barycentric subdivision of small categories {#sub}
===============================================
Let us recall the definition of the barycentric subdivision of small categories from [@DK].
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category. Then, *the barycentric subdivision* $\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J})$ of $\mathcal{J}$ is a small category whose objects are elements of the non-degenerate nerve of $\mathcal{J}$ and the set of morphisms between $X$ and $Y$ is the quotient set of order-preserving maps ${f:[q_X] \rightarrow [q_Y]}$ satisfying $Y\circ f=X$ under the relation defined below. Here, $X$ and $Y$ are regarded as functors from posets $[q_X]$ and $[q_Y]$ to $\mathcal{J}$ respectively. So the condition $Y\circ f=X$ means the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
&\mathcal{J}&\\
[q_X]\ar[ru]^X\ar[rr]^f&&[q_Y]\ar[lu]_Y
}$$ in the category of small categories.
The equivalence relation is generated by the following relation: Given order-preserving maps ${f,g:[q_X] \rightarrow [q_Y]}$ satisfying $Y\circ f=X, Y\circ g=X$ respectively. Define $f\sim g$ if for any $0\le i \le q_X$, $Y(\min\{f(i), g(i)\}\rightarrow \max\{f(i), g(i)\})$ is an identity morphism. Here, $$\min\{f(i), g(i)\}\rightarrow \max\{f(i), g(i)\}$$ is a morphism in $[q_Y]$. The composition in Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ is defined by the composition of order-preserving maps.
We would like to use the properties stated in [@dH], but the definition above is different from the one defined in [@dH]. So we give proofs of them here.
The relation given above is an equivalence relation and compatible with the composition, that is, if $[f]=[f']$ and $[g]=[g']$ and they are composable, then $[g\circ f]=[g'\circ f']$.
It is easy to show that the relation is an equivalence relation.
To prove the second statement it suffices to show that if $f\sim f'$, then $g\circ f \sim g\circ f'$ and if $g\sim g'$, then $g\circ f \sim g'\circ f$, but the latter one is clear. Suppose $f \sim f'$ and $g$ is composable with them and we have the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
&\mathcal{J}& \\
[q_X]\ar[ru]^X\ar@<1ex>[r]^f \ar@<-1ex>[r]_{f'}&[q_Y]\ar[u]_Y\ar[r]^g&[q_Z]\ar[lu]_Z.
}$$ For any $0\le i \le q_X$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\min\{g\circ f(i), g\circ f'(i)\}\rightarrow \max\{g\circ f(i), g\circ f'(i)\}) & = & \\
Z\circ g(\min\{f(i), f'(i)\}\rightarrow \max\{f(i),f'(i)\})&=& \\
Y(\min\{f(i), f'(i)\}\rightarrow \max\{f(i),f'(i)\})&=&1.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude the relation is compatible with the composition.
\[inj\] Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category. For any morphism ${[f]:X \rightarrow Y}$ in Sd$(\mathcal{J})$, ${f:[q_X] \rightarrow [q_Y]}$ is an injection.
Suppose $f$ is not an injection. Then, there exist $i,j$ such that $f(i)=f(j)$ but $i\not =j$. Suppose $i<j$. Then, we have the inequality $i<i+1\le j$. Since $f$ is an order-preserving map, we have $f(i)\le f(i+1)\le f(j)$. Since $f(i)=f(j)$, so $f(i)=f(i+1)$.
For the morphism $i\rightarrow i+1$ in $[q_X]$, we apply the commutative diagram $X=Y\circ f$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
X(i\rightarrow i+1) & = & Y\circ f(i\rightarrow i+1)\\
&=& Y(f(i)\rightarrow f(i)) \\
&=&1_{Y(f(i))}.\end{aligned}$$ But $X$ is an element of the non-degenerate nerve. So $f$ must be an injection.
\[acyclic\] For any small category $\mathcal{J}$, Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ is an acyclic category.
Given an endomorphism ${[i]:X \rightarrow X}$, $i$ is an order-preserving map from $[q_X]$ to $[q_X]$. Lemma $\ref{inj}$ implies $i$ is an injection. The only order preserving injection from $[q_X]$ to itself is the identity map. So all the endomorphisms of Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ are identity morphisms.
Let ${[f]:X \rightarrow Y}$ be a morphism such that $X\not = Y$. Since $f$ is an injection, $q_X\le q_Y$. If there exists ${[g]:Y \rightarrow X}$, then we have $q_Y\le q_X$. Therefore, we obtain $q_X=q_Y$. The same argument above implies $f$ is the identity map, but $X\not = Y$.
Thus, we conclude that Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ is an acyclic category.
\[End\] Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category. Then, $\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J})$ is a poset if and only if $\mathrm{End}(x)=1$ for any object $x$ of $\mathcal{J}$.
Suppose Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ is a poset. If ${i:x \rightarrow x}$ is not an identity map, then we have two maps ${i_0, i_1:[0] \rightarrow [1]}$ defined by $i_k(0)=k$ for $k=0,1$ and they are morphisms from $x$ to $i$ in Sd$(\mathcal{J})$. $$\xymatrix{
&\mathcal{J}&\\
[0]\ar[ru]^x\ar@<1ex>[rr]^{i_0}\ar@<-1ex>[rr]_{i_1}&&[1]\ar[lu]_i
}$$ But they are not equivalent. Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
i(\min\{i_0(0), i_1(0)\}\rightarrow \max\{i_0(0), i_1(0)\}) & = & i(0\rightarrow 1)\\
&=& i \\
&\not =&1 \end{aligned}$$ So we have $\#\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J})}(x,i)\ge 2$ where $\#$ means the cardinality of sets. This contradicts to the fact that Sd($\mathcal{J}$) is a poset.
Conversely, suppose End$(x)=1$ for all objects $x$ of $\mathcal{J}$. Then, it suffices to show that $\#\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J})}(X,Y)\le 1$ for any $X,Y$. Take two morphisms ${[f],[g]:X \rightarrow Y}$. Then, $f$ is equivalent to $g$. Indeed, for any $0\le i\le q_X$, the commutative diagrams $X=Y\circ f=Y\circ g$ imply $X(i)=Y\circ f(i)=Y\circ g(i)$. So we have $$Y(\min\{f(i), g(i)\}\rightarrow \max\{f(i), g(i)\}) \in \text{End}(X(i)).$$ Since End$(X(i))=1$, $f$ is equivalent to $g$.
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category. Then, $\mathrm{Sd}^2(\mathcal{J})$ is a poset.
Lemma $\ref{acyclic}$ implies Sd($\mathcal{J}$) is an acyclic category. And Proposition $\ref{End}$ implies $\mathrm{Sd}^2(\mathcal{J})$ is a poset.
The invariance of the Euler characteristic {#inv}
==========================================
\[n-fil\] Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an acyclic category. A functor ${\mu:\mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}}$ satisfying $\mu (x)<\mu (y)$ in Ob$(\mathcal{B})$ for $x<y$ in Ob$(\mathcal{A})$, $\mu (x) < \mu (y)$ is called *an $\mathbb{N}$-filtration of $\mathcal{A}$*. A pair $(\mathcal{A}, \mu )$ is called *an $\mathbb{N}$-filtered acyclic category*.
\[length\] Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category. Proposition \[acyclic\] implies Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ is an acyclic category. The length functor $L$ gives a natural $\mathbb{N}$-filtration to Sd$(\mathcal{J})$ where the functor $L$ is defined by $L(\mathbf{f})=n$ for $\mathbf{f}$ of $\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{J})$. Thus, we obtain an $\mathbb{N}$-filtered acyclic category $(\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J}),L)$.
We have the following commutative diagram.
$$\xymatrix{
\mathbb{Z}[t] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \ar@{^{(}->}[r]&\mathbb{Z}[[t]] \ar@{^{(}->}[d]&\\
\mathbb{Q}(t)\ar[r]\ar@{^{(}->}[r]&\mathbb{Q}((t))
}$$ Here, $\mathbb{Z}[t]$ is the polynomial ring with the coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}[[t]]$ is the ring of formal power series over $\mathbb{Z}$. $\mathbb{Q}(t)$ and $\mathbb{Q}((t))$ are the quotient fields of them respectively.
Let $f(t)$ be a formal power series over $\mathbb{Z}$. If there exists a rational function $g(t)/h(t)$ in $\mathbb{Q}(t)$ such that $f(t)=g(t)/h(t)$ in $\mathbb{Q}((t))$, then define $$f|_{t=-1}= g(-1)/h(-1) \in \mathbb{Q}$$ if $h(-1) \not = 0.$
Let $(\mathcal{A}, \mu)$ be an $\mathbb{N}$-filtered acyclic category. Then, define $\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathcal{A}, \mu)$ as follows.
We have the pair of the $\Delta$-set and the natural transformation $$(\overline{N_*}(\mathcal{A}), \overline{N_*}(\mu)).$$ Let $$\overline{N_i}(\mathcal{A})_n=\{ \mathbf{f}\in \overline{N_i}(\mathcal{A})\mid \max(\overline{N_i}(\mu)(\mathbf{f}))=n \}$$ for natural numbers $i,n$. Suppose each $\overline{N_i}(\mathcal{A})_n$ is finite and $\overline{N_i}(\mathcal{A})_n$ is an empty-set if $n<i$. Define the formal power series $f_{\chi}(\mathcal{A}, \mu)(t)$ over $\mathbb{Z}$ by
$$f_{\chi}(\mathcal{A}, \mu)(t)=\sum^\infty_{n=0}(-1)^n\left(\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i\# \overline{N_i}(\mathcal{A})_n \right)t^n$$ where the symbol $\#$ means the cardinality of sets. And define $$\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathcal{A}, \mu)=f_{\chi}(\mathcal{A}, \mu)(t)|_{t=-1}$$ if it exists.
Equip the poset $\mathbb{N}$ with the identity functor Id as its $\mathbb{N}$-filtration. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{N_i}(\mathbb{N})_n&=&\{ \mathbf{m}=(m_0,m_1,\dots, m_i) \in \overline{N_i}(\mathbb{N}) \mid \max(\overline{N_i}(\text{Id})(\mathbf{m}))=n \}\\
&=&\{(m_0,m_1,\dots, m_{i-1}, n) \mid 0\le m_0< m_1< \dots < m_{i-1}< n) \}\end{aligned}$$ for any $i, n$. Therefore, we obtain $\#\overline{N_i}(\mathbb{N})_n$ is $ n \choose i$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\chi}(\mathbb{N}, \text{Id})(t)&=&\sum^\infty_{n=0}(-1)^n\left(\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i\# \overline{N_i}(\mathbb{N})_n \right)t^n \\
&=&\sum^\infty_{n=0}(-1)^n\left(\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i {n \choose i} \right)t^n \\
&=&1.\end{aligned}$$ So we have $$\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathbb{N}, \text{Id})=1.$$ Since the classifying space of $\mathbb{N}$ is contractible, from a topological viewpoint, the Euler characteristic of $\mathbb{N}$ should be $1$, too.
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of our main theorem. We reduce it to a combinatorial problem in the form of the following Proposition.
\[Hanaki\] Let $n$ be a natural number. Suppose $\sim$ is an equivelence relation on $[n]$ with the property that if $i\sim j$, then $i+1\not = j$ and $i\not = j+1$. Let $$A_k^{(n)}=\{(i_0,i_1, \dots , i_k) \in [n]^{k+1}\mid i_0 < \dots <i_k \}$$ and $$B_k^{(n)}=\{(i_0,i_1, \dots , i_k) \in A_k^{(n)}\mid \exists m \text{ s.t. } i_m \sim i_{m+1}\}$$ and $$C_k^{(n)}=(A_k^{(n)}-B_k^{(n)})/\approx$$ where $ (i_0,i_1, \dots , i_k) \approx (j_0,j_1, \dots , j_k)$ is defined by $i_m \sim j_m$ for any $m$. Let $A_{-1}^{(n)}=\{ () \} \cong *$, $B_{-1}^{(n)}= \emptyset$ and $ C_{-1}^{(n)}=*$. Let $\beta_k^{(n)}=\#B_k^{(n)}$ and $\gamma_k^{(n)}=\sum_{[x]\in C_k^{(n)}} (\#[x]-1)$. Then, we have $$\sum^{n-1}_{k=0}(-1)^k(\beta_k^{(n)}+\gamma_k^{(n)})=0.$$
We assume this Proposition and we are going to complete the proof of the main theorem. The proof of this Proposition is given later.
Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a finite category. We denote $${\overline{N_{i}}(\mathcal{{\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J})}})}_{\mathbf{f}}=\{ \xymatrix{(\mathbf{f}_0\ar[r]^(0.6){\varphi_1}&\mathbf{f}_1\ar[r]^{\varphi_2}&\dots\ar[r]^{\varphi_i}&\mathbf{f}_i)} \in {\overline{N_{i}}(\mathcal{{\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{J})}})}\mid \mathbf{f}_i = \mathbf{f} \}$$ for any element $\mathbf{f}$ of ${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{I})}$ and any $i$. Then, we have the equation $$1=(-1)^n\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i\#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_{\mathbf{f}}$$ proved in the next theorem. By summing the equations over all elements of $\mathbf{f}$ of ${\overline{N_{n}}(\mathcal{I})}$, we have $$\#\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})=(-1)^n\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i\#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_n.$$
We work on the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[s]$ before substituting $s$ by $-1$ to make calculations easy to see.
\[main\] Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a small category and $n$ be a natural number. Then, for any $\mathbf{f}$ of $\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{J})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^n_{i=0}(\#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J}))_{\mathbf{f}})s^i-s^n&=&(1+s)P_{\mathbf{f}}(s)\label{XX}\end{aligned}$$ for some $P_{\mathbf{f}}(s)$ of $\mathbb{Z}[s]$.
We will give an inductive proof.
At $n=0$, the equation holds as $P_{\mathbf{f}} (s)=0$.
Suppose the equation holds for any $k$ less than $n$. Then, we have $$\#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J}))_{\mathbf{f}}=\sum^{n-1}_{k=i-1} \sum_{\mathbf{g}\in \overline{N_k}( \mathcal{J})}\#\overline{N_{i-1}}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J}))_{\mathbf{g}} \times \# {\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})}(\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f})$$ for any $1\le i \le n.$ The left hand side of $(\ref{XX})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&\displaystyle 1-s^n+\sum^n_{i=1}(\#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J}))_{\mathbf{f}})s^i \\
=&\displaystyle 1-s^n + \sum_{i=1}^{n} \{ \sum^{n-1}_{k=i-1} \sum_{\mathbf{g}\in \overline{N_k}( \mathcal{J})}\# \overline{N_{i-1}}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J}))_{\mathbf{g}} \times \# \text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})}(\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f})\}s^i \notag \\
=&\displaystyle 1-s^n + \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \{ \sum^{n-1}_{k=i} \sum_{\mathbf{g}\in \overline{N_k}( \mathcal{J})}\# \overline{N_{i}}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J}))_{\mathbf{g}} \times \# \text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})}(\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f}) \} s^{i+1} \notag \\
=&\displaystyle 1-s^n +\sum^{n-1}_{k=0} \sum_{\mathbf{g}\in \overline{N_k}( \mathcal{J})} \# \text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})}(\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f})s(\sum^k_{i=0} \#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J}))_{\mathbf{g}}s^i) \label{kogatsura}\end{aligned}$$ The assumption implies $(\ref{kogatsura})$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&\displaystyle 1-s^n +\sum^{n-1}_{k=0} \# \text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})}(\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f})s( \sum_{\mathbf{g}\in \overline{N_k}( \mathcal{J})} (1+s)P^k_{\mathbf{g}}(s) + s^k ) \notag\\
=&\displaystyle 1-s^n +\sum^{n-1}_{k=0} \sum_{\mathbf{g}\in \overline{N_k}( \mathcal{J})} \# \text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})}(\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f})s^{k+1} + (1+s)P_{\mathbf{f}}(s) \label{YY}\end{aligned}$$ for some $P_{\mathbf{f}}(s)$ in $\mathbb{Z}[s].$
Note that $\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})} (\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f})$ is an empty-set for most $\mathbf{g}$ in $\overline{N_i}( \mathcal{J})$, since they have to satisfy the following commutative diagram. $$\xymatrix{
&\mathcal{J}&\\
[i]\ar[ru]^{\mathbf{g}}\ar[rr]^\varphi&&[n]\ar[lu]_{\mathbf{f}}
}$$ Since $\mathbf{g}=\mathbf{f}\circ \varphi$ and $\mathbf{f}$ is fixed, $\mathbf{g}$ is exactly determined by $\varphi$. Lemma \[inj\] implies $\varphi$ is an injection. There are $n+1 \choose i+1$ order-preserving injections from $[i]$ to $[n]$. We can express the set of such injections by the set of proper increasing sequences of $(i+1)$ elements in $[n]$. $$\text{Inj}([i],[n])\cong \{ (k_0, \dots, k_i)\in [n]^{i+1}\mid k_0<\dots <k_i\}$$ We apply Proposition \[Hanaki\] to the set in the right hand side which corresponds to $A_i^{(n)}$ in the Proposition. Define an equivalence relation $\sim_{\mathbf{f}}$ on $[n]$ by $j\sim_{\mathbf{f}} j'$ if $\mathbf{f}(\min\{j,j'\}\rightarrow \max\{j,j'\})$ is an identity morphism. Then, we have a one-to-one correspondence between $$\{\varphi \in \text{Inj}([i],[n])\mid \exists j \text{ s.t. } \mathbf{f}(\varphi(j)\rightarrow \varphi(j+1))=1\}$$ and $$\{(k_0,k_1, \dots , k_i) \in A_k^{(n)}\mid \exists m \text{ s.t. } i_m \sim_{\textbf{f}} i_{m+1}\}.$$The latter one has been denoted by $B_i^{(n)}$ in Proposition \[Hanaki\] in the case that the equivalence relation is $\sim_{\textbf{f}}$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\mathbf{g} \in \overline{N_i}( \mathcal{J} )}\#\{\varphi: \mathbf{g}\rightarrow \mathbf{f}\}&=&{n+1 \choose i+1}-\# B^{(n)}_i \\
&=& {n+1 \choose i+1}-\beta^{(n)}_i.\end{aligned}$$
The remainder of the proof is devoted to counting the number of morphisms eliminated by the equivalence relation in the definition of the barycentric subdivision. The number is expressed by $\gamma^{(n)}_i$ of Proposition \[Hanaki\]. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\mathbf{g}\in \overline{N_i}( \mathcal{J} )} \#\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{J})} (\mathbf{g},\mathbf{f})&=&{n+1 \choose i+1}-\beta^{(n)}_i-\gamma^{(n)}_i.\end{aligned}$$
So the right hand side of (\[YY\]) is
$$\begin{aligned}
&\displaystyle 1+\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}\{ {n+1 \choose i+1}-\beta^{(n)}_i-\gamma^{(n)}_i \}s^{i+1}-s^n+(1+s)P_{\mathbf{f}} (s)\\
=&\displaystyle 1+\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}{n+1 \choose i+1}s^{i+1}-s\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}(\beta^{(n)}_i+\gamma^{(n)}_i)s^i-s^n+(1+s)P_{\mathbf{f}} (s)\\
=&\displaystyle \sum^{n}_{i=0}{n+1 \choose i}s^i -s\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}(\beta^{(n)}_i+\gamma^{(n)}_i)s^i-s^n+(1+s)P_{\mathbf{f}} (s)\\
=&\displaystyle (1+s)^{n+1}-s^{n+1}-s^n -s\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}(\beta^{(n)}_i+\gamma^{(n)}_i)s^i+(1+s)P_{\mathbf{f}} (s)\\
=&\displaystyle -s\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}(\beta^{(n)}_i+\gamma^{(n)}_i)s^i+(1+s)Q_{\mathbf{f}} (s)\end{aligned}$$
for some $Q_{\mathbf{f}} (s)$ in $\mathbb{Z}[s]$. Here, note that $\sim_{\mathbf{f}}$ satisfies the property that if $k\sim_{\mathbf{f}}k'$, then $k\not = k'+1$ and $k+1\not = k'$ since $\mathbf{f}$ is non-degenerate. So we can apply Proposition \[Hanaki\]. Therefore, $\sum^{n-1}_{i=0}(\beta^{(n)}_i+\gamma^{(n)}_i)s^i$ can be factored by $(1+s)$.
\[function\] Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a finite category and $n$ be a natural number. Then, $$\#\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})=(-1)^n\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i\#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_n.$$
Theorem \[main\] implies $$\sum^n_{i=0}(\#\overline{N_i}(\mathrm{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_{\mathbf{f}})s^i-s^n=(1+s)P_{\mathbf{f}}(s)$$ for all $\mathbf{f}$ of $\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})$. Sum this equation over all $\mathbf{f}$ of $\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})$. Then, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\mathbf{f} \in \overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})} \sum^n_{i=0}(\#\overline{N_i}(\text{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_{\mathbf{f}})s^i- \sum_{\mathbf{f} \in \overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})} s^n&=&(1+s) \sum_{\mathbf{f} \in \overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})} P_{\mathbf{f}}(s) \\
\sum^n_{i=0}(\#\overline{N_i}(\text{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_n s^i-\#\overline{N_n}(\mathcal{I})s^n &=& (1+s) \sum_{\mathbf{f} \in \overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})} P_{\mathbf{f}}(s). \\\end{aligned}$$
At $s=-1$, we have $$\#\overline{N_i}( \mathcal{I})=(-1)^n\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i\#\overline{N_n}(\text{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_n.$$
\[comm\] Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a finite category for which the series Euler characteristic can be defined. Then, $\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{I}), L)$ is also defined and they coincide $$\chi_{\Sigma}(\mathcal{I})=\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{I}), L)$$ where $L$ is the length functor defined in Example \[length\].
Recall that the series Euler characteristic of $\mathcal{I}$ is defined by $$\chi_{\sum}(\mathcal{I})=(\sum_{n=0}^\infty \#\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})t^n )|_{t=-1}.$$ Corollary \[function\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \#\overline{N_n}( \mathcal{I})t^n &=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left( (-1)^n\sum^n_{i=0}(-1)^i\#\overline{N_i}(\text{Sd}( \mathcal{I}))_n\right) t^n .\end{aligned}$$ Since they coincide as formal power series, if $\chi_{\sum}(\mathcal{I})$ exists, the other also does. We obtain $$\chi_{\text{fil}}(\mathrm{Sd}(\mathcal{I}), L).$$
We have completed the proof of our main theorem under the assumption of Proposition \[Hanaki\], whose proof is given below.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_k^{(n)} & = & \sum_{[x]\in C_k^{(n)}} (\#[x]-1)\\
&=& \sum_{[x]\in C_k^{(n)}} \#[x]- \sum_{[x]\in C_k^{(n)}} 1 \\
&=& (\#A_k^{(n)}-\#B_k^{(n)})- \#C_k^{(n)}\\
&=& {n+1 \choose k+1} - \beta_k^{(n)} - \#C_k^{(n)}.\end{aligned}$$ So we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{n-1}_{k=0}(-1)^k \left( \beta_k^{(n)}+\gamma_k^{(n)}\right) & = & \sum^{n-1}_{k=0}(-1)^k \left( {n+1 \choose k+1}-\#C_k^{(n)} \right) \label{eqn:Ck}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $A_n^{(n)}=\{(0,1, \dots , n)\}$ and any two numbers which are next to each other are not equivalent, $B_n^{(n)}=\emptyset$. This implies $C_n^{(n)}$ is a one-point set. Thus, the right hand side of $(\ref{eqn:Ck})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{n}_{k=-1}(-1)^k \left( {n+1 \choose k+1}-\#C_k^{(n)} \right) &=& \sum^{n}_{k=-1}(-1)^k{n+1 \choose k+1} - \sum^{n}_{k=-1}(-1)^k\#C_k^{(n)}\\
&=& - \sum^{n}_{k=-1}(-1)^k\#C_k^{(n)}.\end{aligned}$$ To prove this Lemma it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{n}_{k=-1}(-1)^k\#C_k^{(n)}=0.\label{eqn:Ck2}\end{aligned}$$ We prove this by induction on $n$.
At $n=0$, the left hand side of $(\ref{eqn:Ck2})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{0}_{k=-1}(-1)^k \#C_k^{(0)} & = &(-1)\#C_{-1}^{(0)} + \#C_{0}^{(0)}\\
&=& -1+1\\
&=& 0.\end{aligned}$$
We need some preparations for the next step. Let $n_0$ be the maximum number of all numbers which are equivalent to $n$ and less than $n$. $$n_0 = \max \{ m \in [n] \mid m\sim n , m<n \}$$ If it does not exist, formally we let $n_0=-1$. We denote $ \bigcup^\infty_{k=-1} A_k^{(n)}$ by simply $A^{(n)}$. $B^{(n)}$ and $C^{(n)}$ are also defined in the same way. Define a map ${\psi_n:A^{(n-1)} \rightarrow A^{(n)}}$ by $\psi_n(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_k)= (i_0,i_1,\dots, i_k,n)$. Then, it is clear $\psi$ is an injection. We give a lexicographic order to $A_k^{(n)}$. Then, $A_k^{(n)}$ is an well-ordered set. Define the map ${M_k^{(n)}:C_k^{(n)} \rightarrow A_k^{(n)}}$ by taking the mininum element of each equivalence classes, that is, $M_k^{(n)}[(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_k)]=\min [(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_k)]$. Since $[(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_k)]$ is an non-empty subset of $A_k^{(n)}$, there certainly exists the minimum element. We denote ${\bigcup^\infty_{k=-1} M_k^{(n)}:C^{(n)} \rightarrow A^{(n)}}$ by $M^{(n)}$. It is clear $M^{(n)}$ is an injection. So we count the number of elements of ${\text{Im}M}_k^{(n)}$ instead of the number of elements of $C_k^{(n)}$.
Divide ${\text{Im}M}^{(n)}$ into disjoint sets ${\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}$ and $(\psi_n({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)})\cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)})$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Im}M}^{(n)}& = & {\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)} \cup (\psi_n({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)})\cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)})\label{n}\end{aligned}$$ And divide ${\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}$ into three disjoint sets ${\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)}$, ${\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)}$ and ${\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}$. $$\begin{gathered}
{\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}={\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)} \cup ({\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)} )\cup \\
({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}) \label{udon}\end{gathered}$$ Then, we have $$\begin{gathered}
(\psi_n({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)})\cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)})= \\
(\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)})\cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}) \\
\cup (\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)}) \cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)})\\
\cup (\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}) \cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}).\label{n-1}\end{gathered}$$ Here, note that $\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)})\cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}$ is an empty-set. Indeed, for any $(i_0,i_1\dots, i_{k-1}, n)$ of $\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)})$, we have $$(i_0,i_1\dots, i_{k-1}, n) >(i_0,i_1\dots, i_{k-1}, n_0)$$ and $$(i_0,i_1\dots, i_{k-1}, n)\approx (i_0,i_1\dots, i_{k-1}, n_0).$$ So $(i_0,i_1\dots, i_{k-1}, n)$ is not minimum in its equivalence class. Moreover, $$\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)})\cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}$$ is also an empty-set. Since all the elements of $$\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)})$$ have the form of $(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_{k-1},n_0,n)$, they belong to $B^{(n)}$. Therefore, we obtain $(\ref{n-1})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
(\psi_n({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)})\cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}) &=&(\psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}) \cap {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}) \\
&=& \psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}).\end{aligned}$$ This implies $(\ref{n})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Im}M}^{(n)}& = & {\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)} \cup (\psi_n({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)})- {\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}).\label{finally}\end{aligned}$$
Let $l$ be the length function defined by $$l(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_k)=k$$ for $(i_0,i_1,\dots, i_k) \in A^{(n)}$.
We finally start to calculate the left hand side of $(\ref{eqn:Ck2})$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{n}_{k=-1}(-1)^k\#C_k^{(n)}&=&\sum^{n}_{k=-1}(-1)^k\#{\text{Im}M}_k^{(n)} \\
&=&\sum^{n}_{k=-1} \sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}_k^{(n)}}(-1)^{l(x)}\\
&=&\sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}}(-1)^{l(x)}.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{Here, $(\ref{finally})$ implies }&&\\
\sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n)}}(-1)^{l(x)}&=& \sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}}(-1)^{l(x)} + \sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}}(-1)^{l(x)}.\end{aligned}$$
$(\ref{udon})$ implies the right hand side of the above is equal to $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)} }(-1)^{l(x)} +\sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)} }(-1)^{l(x)} + \\
\sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}}(-1)^{l(x)} + \sum_{x\in \psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)})}(-1)^{l(x)} \label{kagawa}\end{gathered}$$ Since $\psi_n$ is an injection, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x\in \psi_n ({\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)})}(-1)^{l(x)+1} =
\sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n-1)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}}(-1)^{l(x)}. \notag\end{aligned}$$ This implies $(\ref{kagawa})$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&\displaystyle \sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)} }(-1)^{l(x)} +\sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)}-{\text{Im}M}^{(n_0-1)} }(-1)^{l(x)} \\
=& \displaystyle \sum_{x\in {\text{Im}M}^{(n_0)} }(-1)^{l(x)} \\
=&\displaystyle \sum_{k=-1}^{n_0}(-1)^k \# C_k^{(n_0)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $n_0 < n$, the assumption of the induction completes the proof. If $n_0=-1$, we can use the same argument above as ${\text{Im}M}^{(-1)}$ and ${\text{Im}M}^{(-2)}$ are empty-sets.
[AAA99]{}
Donald. W. Anderson. Fibrations and geometric realizations, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc*. 84 (1978), no. 5, 765–788.
John C. Baez and James Dolan. From finite sets to Feynman diagrams, In *Mathematics Unlimited-2001 and Beyond,* vol. 1, eds. Björn Engquist and Wilfried Schmid, Springer, Berlin, 2001, pp. 29-50.
Clemens Berger and Tom Leinster. The Euler characteristic of a category as the sum of a divergent series, *Homology, Homotopy Appl.,* 10(1):41-51, 2008, arXiv:0707.0835.
William G. Dwyer and Henn Hans-Werner. Homotopy theoretic methods in group cohomology, Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona. *Birkhauser Verlag, Basel*, 2001.
William G. Dwyer and Daniel M. Kan. Function complexes for diagrams of simplicial sets, *Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math.* 45 (1983), no. 2, 139-147.
Thomas M. Fiore, Wolfgang Lück, and Roman Sauer. Finiteness obstructions and Euler characteristics of categories, arXiv:0908.3417
Godfrey Harold Hardy. Divergent series, Oxford, 1949.
Matias Luis del Hoyo. Subdivision of categories and the homotopy category of Cat. *Topology and its Applications*, Vol. 155, Iss. 11 (2008) 1189-1200, arXiv:0707.1718.
Dmitry Kozlov. Combinatorial algebraic topology, volume 21 of Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2008.
Tom Leinster. The Euler characteristic of a category, *Doc. Math.*, 13:21-49, 2008, arXiv:math.CT/0610260
Wolfgang Lück. Dimension theory of arbitrary modules over finite von Neumann algebras and applications to $L^2$-Betti numbers, J. *Reine Angew. Math.,* 495:135-162, 1998.
Wolfgang Lück. $L^2$-Invariants from the Algebraic Point of View, arXiv:math.GT/0310489.
Wolfgang Lück. *$L^2$-invariants: theory and applications to geometry and K-theory, volume 44 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics \[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics\].* Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
Saunders Mac Lane. Categories for the working mathematician, volume 5 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
Liviu I. Nicolaescu. Regularization of certain divergent series of polynomials, arXiv:0905.0617
Gian-Carlo Rota. On the foundations of combinatorial theory. I. Theory of Möbius functions. *Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete*, 2:340-368 (1964), 1964.
Roman Sauer. $L^2$-Betti Numbers of Discrete Measured Groupoids, *Internat. J. Algebra Comput*. vol 15(2005), no. 5-6, 1169-1188, arXiv:math.AT/0312411.
Charles Terence Clegg Wall. Rational Euler characteristic, *Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.* 57 (1961), 182-184.
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Mode conversion and resonant absorption are crucial mechanisms for wave transport and absorption. Scaling behavior of mode conversion or resonant absorption is well-known for electromagnetic and MHD waves in planar geometry. Our recent study showed that such a scaling behavior of resonant absorption could also exist for coronal loop oscillations with cylindrical geometry, but it was only tested for one density profile. Here we generalise our previous study on the scaling behavior of resonant absorption by considering multiple density profiles. Applying an invariant imbedding method to the ideal MHD wave equations, we show that the scaling behavior also exists for these density models. We thus generalise our earlier results and show that such a universal scaling exists in cylindrical geometry, too. Given these results and the earlier results in planar geometry, we formulate a hypothesis that a universal scaling behavior exists regardless of the type of mode conversion or resonant absorption.'
author:
- 'D. J. Yu'
- 'T.'
bibliography:
- 'mc\_kink0\_ref.bib'
title: Universal scaling behavior of resonant absorption
---
Mode conversion and resonant absorption can often occur in inhomogeneous plasmas such that two different waves are coupled with an exchange of energy. This mechanism has been considered as crucial for plasma heating and transport [@Chen1974; @Ionson1978; @Kivelson1986; @Davila1987; @Poedts1990; @Steinolfson1993; @Ofman1995; @Nakariakov1999; @Johnson2001; @EHKim2007; @EHKim2008; @Okamoto2015]. The previous literature is mainly concerned with mode conversion between electromagnetic waves and electrostatic waves or between magnetoacoustic waves and Alfvén waves [e.g., @Kivelson1986; @Yu2016b]. From theoretical and numerical studies, it is well established that a scaling behavior exists for the mode conversion coefficient in a planar geometry [@Forslund1975; @Kivelson1986; @Hinkel1989; @Mjolhus1990; @Hinkel1991; @Hinkel1992; @Hinkel1993; @Willes2001; @Kim_Lee2005; @Kim_Lee2006; @EHKim2008; @Yu2013b; @Schleyer2014]. The scaling parameter has in general a certain relation with the density gradient, wave vector, and wave frequency [see, e.g., @Willes2001; @Kim_Lee2005; @Kim_Lee2006; @EHKim2008; @Schleyer2014]. The mode conversion coefficient, which denotes the ratio of energy transformation from one mode to another mode, has a maximum value of about 0.5 for the linear or parabolic density profile. When the density profile is more complex, the scaling behavior is broken and the conversion coefficient can vary greatly [@Willes2003; @Yu2010; @Yu2013a; @Yu2016a]. While this scaling behavior is well-known in planar geometry, its behavior in cylindrical geometry was unknown until recently. In our recent study, we considered kink modes in coronal loops, where the coronal loop was assumed as a infinitely long, straight, and axisymmetric cylinder with a radial inhomogeneity. We found that resonant absorption of the kink modes in the Alfvén resonance also show a certain scaling behavior. We called this behavior *sub-universal* therein. However, we only considered a sinusoidal density profile in the transitional layer [@Yu2016b]. Given that it was studied only for a particular density profile, it was unclear whether this behavior would be generally valid, as it is for planar geometry. This motivates the question if the results from our previous paper can be generalised to other density profiles. If they can be generalised, it would imply that the scaling behavior is universal in inhomogeneous plasma, regardless of the geometry, density profile, or mode conversion.
In this work, to answer this question if the scaling law also occurs for other density profiles, we extend our previous study on resonant absorption by comparing linear, sinusoidal, and parabolic density profiles. Adding to our previous results on the sinusoidal profile, we show that this kind of scaling behavior exists also for linear and parabolic density profiles. Thus, we show that the scaling behavior also exists in cylindrical geometry, for monotonic density profiles. Based on these results, we speculate that a scaling feature of mode conversion (or resonant absorption) can generally occur regardless of the geometry, by synthesizing the newly-found scaling behaviors in cylindrical geometry with the previous ones in planar geometry.
The governing equation for the wave amplitude that describes the mode conversion usually contains a singularity in it, which makes it difficult to get exact solutions. The invariant imbedding method (IIM) transforms the concerned differential equations with boundary conditions into differential equations with initial conditions. It is an efficient and powerful tool for this kind of problems when one considers a one-dimensional inhomogeneity in the wave equations [@Babkin1980; @Doucot1987; @Rammal1987; @Klyatskin1994; @Kim1998; @Kim_etal2001; @Kim_Lee2005; @Klyatskin2005]. We apply the recently used invariant imbedding method [see @Yu2016b and references therein] to resonant absorption of externally-driven standing kink modes in the Alfvén continuum.
From the ideal MHD equations, the wave equation for the perturbed total pressure $P$ under coronal conditions is written as, by assuming a dependence $\exp[i(m\phi+k_zz-\omega t)]$ in cylindrical coordinates, [e.g., @Soler2013; @Yu2016b] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2 P}{d r^2}+\bigg[\frac{1}{r}-&&\frac{\omega^2}{\rho_0(\omega^2-\omega_A^2)}\frac{d\rho_0}{dr}\bigg]\frac{d P}{d r}+\bigg[\frac{\omega^2}{v_A^2}-k_z^2-\frac{m^2}{r^2}\bigg]P=0,\nonumber\\\label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$where $P\approx\mathbf{B}\cdot\mathbf{b}/\mu_0=B_{0}b_z/\mu_0$, $b_z$ is the perturbed magnetic field, the background magnetic field is $\mathbf{B}=(0,0,B_{0})$, $\omega_A^2(r)=k_z^2v_A^2=k_z^2B_{0}^2/\rho_0(r)\mu_0$, $k_z$ is the longitudinal wave number, $m$ is the azimuthal wavenumber, and $\mu_0$ is the magnetic permeability.
We assume that the density varies from $\rho_i$ inside the loop to $\rho_e$ outside the loop through the transitional layer of thickness $l$ ($\rho_t$): $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_0(r)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\rho_i & \mbox{ if $r\leq R_0-l/2$ }\\
\rho_t(r) & \mbox{ if $R_0-l/2<r<R_0+l/2$ }\\
\rho_e & \mbox{ if $r\geq R_0+l/2$}
\end{array} \right.,\label{eq:2}\end{aligned}$$where $R_0$ represents the radius of the loop. For the density $\rho_t(r)$ of the transitional layer we consider linear $(li)$, parabolic $(p)$, and sinusoidal $(s)$ profiles [@Soler2013]: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{li}(r)&=& (\rho_e-\rho_i)(r-R_0)/{l}+(\rho_e+\rho_i)/{2}\label{eq:3},\\
\rho_p(r)&=& \rho_i-(\rho_{i}-\rho_e)(r-R_0+l/2)^2/l^2\label{eq:4},\\
\rho_s(r)&=& [(\rho_{e}+\rho_i)+(\rho_{e}-\rho_i)\sin(\pi(r-R_0)/l)] /2,\label{eq:5}\end{aligned}$$ which are shown in Fig. \[f1\].
For mode conversion and the related resonant absorption to occur, the wave frequency should reside in the Aflvén continuum ($\omega_{Ae}<\omega<\omega_{Ai}$) of the loop. We consider that an external wave is incident on a coronal loop with the frequency of the fundamental standing kink mode, $\omega_k=k_zB_0\sqrt{2/\mu_0(\rho_i+\rho_e)}$ with $k_z=\pi/L_0$, where $L_0$ is the loop length. Thus mode conversion occurs where $\omega_A=\omega_k$ or, in other words, $\rho(r)=(\rho_e+\rho_i)/2$. We consider the frequency dependence of mode conversion afterward. The wave outside the loop can be described with an incident wave and a scattered wave, which is $$\begin{aligned}
P(r,\phi)&=&\sum_m a_m e^{i m\phi} \big\{J_m[k(r-R)+c]\nonumber\\
&&+H_m^{(1)}[k(r-R)+c]r_m(R)\big\},~~~~r> R,\label{eq:6}\end{aligned}$$where $J_m(H_m^{(1)})$ is the Bessel (Hankel) function of the first kind, $r_m$ the scattering coefficient, $c$ a constant equivalent to $kR$, and $k(=\sqrt{(\omega^2/v_{A}^2)-k_z^2})$ the radial wave number for $r>R$. A constant $c$ is used both to apply the invariant imbedding method and for Eq. (\[eq:6\]) to be eigenfunctions for $r>R$ [@Yu2016b]. The value $a_m$ depends on the form of the incident wave. For instance, when a plane wave is incident to the $x$ direction, $a_m=i^m$ [@Stratton2007]. Applying IIM to Eq. (\[eq:1\]) with Eq. (\[eq:6\]) and using the thickness $R$ as a new variable (imbedding parameter), we obtain for $r_m$ [@Yu2016b] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dr_m(R)}{dR}&=&\frac{k}{H_m}\frac{\mu(R)}{\mu_1}[J_m'+{H_m^{(1)}}'r_m(R)]\label{eq:7}\\
&&+k\bigg[\frac{\mu(R)}{\mu_1}\frac{{H_m^{(1)}}'}{H_m^{(1)}}+\frac{1}{k R}\bigg]
\nonumber\\
&&\times\frac{[J'_m+{H_m^{(1)}}'r_m(R)][J_m+H_m^{(1)}r_m(R)]}{J'_mH_m^{(1)}-{H_m^{(1)}}'J_m}\nonumber\\
&&+k\bigg[\frac{\epsilon(R)}{\epsilon_1}
-\frac{\mu_1}{\mu(R)}\frac{m^2}{k^2 R^2}
\bigg]\frac{[J_m+H_m^{(1)}r_m(R)]^2}{J'_m H_m^{(1)}-{H_m^{(1)}}' J_m},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$where $\mu(r)=\rho_0(r)(\omega^2-\omega_A^2(r))$, $\epsilon(r)=\mu_0/k_0^2B_0^2$, $k_0=\omega/c_0$, and $c_0$ is the speed of the electromagnetic wave in vacuum, and $\mu_1$ and $\epsilon_1$ are the values of $\mu$, $\epsilon$ for $r>R$, prime denotes $df(x)/dx$ for $f(x)$, $J_m=J_m(c)$, and $H_m^{(1)}=H_m^{(1)}(c)$. Eq. (\[eq:7\]) is a first order ordinary differential equation with $R$ as an integration variable. We integrate Eq. (\[eq:7\]) from $0$ to $R$ using initial conditions $r_m(0)=0$ to obtain $r_m(r=R)$ [@Yu2016b], where the $1/kR$ term gives rise to a singularity at $R=0$ which we avoid by letting the values of parameters for $R<\delta$ equal those for $R=\delta\ll1$. This singularity is due to the cylindrical geometry we consider here. The value of $\delta$ needs to be sufficiently small to not affect the results. We also set $\omega=\omega_k+i\gamma$ to avoid the singularity at the resonance position ($\mu=0$) where $\gamma\ll1$, not affecting the results. We define the mode conversion (absorption) coefficient $A$ as [@Hanson2014; @Yu2016b] $$\begin{aligned}
A=-\sum_{m=\pm1}\textmd{Re}(r_m+|r_m|^2),\label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$where two kink modes ($m=\pm1$) are considered.
In Fig. \[f2\], we show the mode conversion coefficient $A$ versus $l/R_0$ for each density profile when $\Delta\rho(=\rho_e/\rho_i)=$ 2 and 10, and $L_0/R_0=$ 50, 100, and 150, while other fixed parameters are $\omega=\omega_k$, $k_z=\pi/L_0$, $R=3R_0$, $\rho_i=1.67353\times10^{-12}kg/m^3$, $B_0=10^{-3}T$, $R_0=2\times10^6m$, $\gamma=10^{-8}s^{-1}$, and $\delta=10^{-6}$. We find that the mode conversion is strong when $l/R_0$ is small, depending on the loop length and density contrast. The peak positions shift towards a lower value of $l/R_0$ as $\Delta\rho$ decreases and $L_0/R_0$ increases. The figure shows that mode conversion for the parabolic profile is less effective than the other two density profiles, which is due to the difference of the resonance point.
In Fig. \[f3\] (a)-(c), we plot the mode conversion coefficient $A$ versus $L_0/R_0$ for each density profile when $l/R_0=$ 0.002, 0.2 and 2.0, and $\Delta\rho=$ 2, 5, and 20. For each $l/R_0$, the peak value of $A$ for each density profile has the same value regardless of $\Delta\rho$, which draws us to a finding below. The mode conversion coefficient can be plotted as a single curve when expressed with a scaling factor for some simple density (or Alfvén speed) profiles [@Forslund1975; @Kivelson1986; @Hinkel1992; @Hinkel1993; @Kim_Lee2005]. Approximating the density profile near the resonance (mode conversion) position $r=R_*$ as a linear function $\rho_t(r)=a(r-R_*)+b$ ($a$ and $b$ are constants) and including $\omega=\omega_k+i\gamma$, the wave equation reduces to [@Yu2016b] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2 P}{d \bar{r}^2}&+&\bigg(\frac{1}{\bar{r}}-\frac{1}{\bar{r}-q+i\bar{\gamma}}\bigg)\frac{d P}{d \bar{r}}+\bigg(\bar{r}-q+i\bar{\gamma}-\frac{m^2}{\bar{r}^2}\bigg)P=0,\nonumber\\\label{eq:9}\end{aligned}$$where $\bar{r}=\kappa r$, $q=\kappa R_*$, $\bar{\gamma}=2(a/b)^{-2/3}{k_z}^{2/3}(\eta/\omega_k)$ and $\kappa=(a/b)^{1/3}(k_z)^{2/3}$. In the limit $\bar{\gamma}~(\gamma)\to 0$, this equation only depends on the value of $q$ for a given $m$ [@Kim_Lee2005; @Kim_etal2008; @Yu2016b]. Thus one can expect a single curve of the mode conversion coefficient in terms of $q$ for simple density profiles. For the linear, sinusoidal, and parabolic density profiles, we obtain that $q$ equals $[(\pi R_0/l)(\Delta\rho-1)/(\Delta\rho+1)]^{1/3}(k_zR_0)^{2/3}$, $[(2R_0/l)(\Delta\rho-1)/(\Delta\rho+1)]^{1/3}(k_zR_0)^{2/3}$, and $[(2\sqrt{2}R_0/l)(\Delta\rho-1)/(\Delta\rho+1)]^{1/3}(k_zR_0)^{2/3}$, respectively [cf., @Yu2016b]. With those scaling factors, the mode conversion coefficient $A$ in Fig. \[f3\] (a)-(c) reduces to a single curve in Fig. \[f3\] (d)-(f) for each density profile. A difference from the results in planar geometry is that $A$ has some dependence on $l/R_0$ despite $q$ is a function of $l/R_0$. However, Fig. \[f3\] points out that the scaling behavior is a general property if the density profile can approximately be linearized at the resonance point, reinforcing and extending the results from planar geometry. It is straightforward to apply these results to the mode conversion of electromagnetic waves into electrostatic modes by using the mathematical analogy of the two governing wave equations [@Kim_Lee2005; @Kivelson1986; @Yu2016b]. Comparing the scaling behavior in planar and cylindrical geometries, we propose that a scaling behavior can exist regardless of the geometry for density configurations that are approximately linear around the resonant point.
In contrast with previous results, we here consider the frequency dependence of the mode conversion. Fig. \[f4\] presents the dependence of the mode conversion on the wave frequency. We draw ${A}$ versus $\omega/\omega_k$ for $\Delta\rho$=5, $l/R_0$=0.002, 0.2 and 2.0, and $L_0/R_0$=20 and 100. Mode conversion is strongest when $\omega\approx\omega_k$ and $l/R_0$ is small, but the peak position shifts downwards as $l/R_0$ increases. Comparing the top and bottom rows, the shape of the mode conversion coefficient is almost independent of $L_0/R_0$.
\[sec4\] In this paper, we have generalised our earlier results on universal scaling in resonant absorption to systems with different density profiles. We have done this using the invariant embedding approach. We found, irrespective of the particular density profile, that mode conversion (resonant absorption) is efficient when the thickness of the transitional layers ($l/R_0$) is small and the loop length ($L_0/R_0$) is relatively large. From this dependence irrespective of the density profile (as long as it is approximately linear near the resonant point), we thus infer that a universal scaling behavior of mode conversion is found for coronal loops exhibiting kink oscillations. In this particular case, the scaling formulas is useful, because it could be possible to infer the wave energy absorption due to resonant absorption from the observed wave parameters [@Arregui2018]. We expect that a similar scaling behavior is expected for resonant absorption of usual coronal loop oscillations for which the density contrast $\Delta\rho<1$.
The results of our study also have implications beyond the field of solar physics. Our results show that the universal scaling behaviour for mode conversion in resonant absorption extends to cylindrical geometry, adding to the previous knowledge on planar geometry. The universal scaling is thus truely universal, and happens irrespective of geometry. It is generally applicable to other forms of mode conversion as well. In particular, we can infer that the universal scaling also applies to mode conversion of electromagnetic waves into electrostatics waves in unmagnetized plasmas or in metamaterials [@Ding2013; @Kim_etal2008; @Sun2015] in cylindrical (or spherical) geometry, because that is also described with the same mathematical analogy of the wave equations [@Yu2016b] as here. Furthermore, going beyond mode conversion of electromagnetic or magnetohydrodynamic waves, other kind of mode conversion like e.g. between gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves are also possible [@Brodin1999; @Marklund2000]. Our results allow us to postulate that, even for these exotic cases, a scaling behavior also exists. We can thus conclude the paper by formulating the hypothesis: “a scaling behavior of the mode conversion coefficient is possible for monotonic density profiles regardless of the geometry and the type of mode conversion.”
This work was based on the presentation in 43rd European Physical Society (EPS) Conference on Plasma Physics (2016). D.J.Y. thanks the support from the BK21 plus program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education of Korea. T.V.D. thanks the support from GOA-2015-014 (KU Leuven), and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union¡¯s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 724326).
{width=".35\textwidth"}
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="80.00000%"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study modulation spectroscopy of the potassium D$_2$ transitions at $766.7$ nm. The vapour pressure, controlled by heating a commercial reference cell, is optimized using conventional saturated absorption spectroscopy. Subsequent heterodyne detection yields sub-Doppler frequency discriminants suitable for stabilizing lasers in experiments with cold atoms. Comparisons are made between spectra obtained by direct modulation of the probe beam, and those using modulation transfer from the pump via nonlinear mixing. Finally, suggestions are made for further optimization of the signals.'
address: 'Midlands Ultracold Atom Research Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK'
author:
- 'L. Mudarikwa, K. Pahwa and J. Goldwin'
title: 'Sub-Doppler modulation spectroscopy of potassium for laser stabilization'
---
\[sec:Intro\]Introduction
=========================
Laser cooling has revolutionized our ability to probe and manipulate atomic gases. In order to perform experiments with cold atoms, lasers first need to be stabilized near strong cooling transitions with residual frequency fluctuations well below the natural linewidth (a few MHz for alkali atoms). The standard technique for obtaining sub-Doppler spectra in room-temperature gases is known as saturated absorption [@Han71]. In this method a laser beam is divided into a relatively intense pump and weak probe, which counter-propagate through a gas. For simplicity, consider the case of two-level atoms. Since the pump and probe have equal and opposite wave-vectors, atoms with zero Doppler shift along the optical axis will be simultaneously resonant with both beams. The pump excites these atoms, reducing the ground state atomic population and causing reduced probe absorption in the vicinity of the resonance. The resulting transmission of the probe therefore shows a Doppler-broadened background with a narrow peak of reduced absorption known as the Lamb dip [@Pap80; @Ber11].
For laser stabilization, an electronic frequency discriminant is needed with approximately linear slope around zero volts at the lock point [@Fox03; @Bec05]. One can lock directly to the side of a saturated absorption peak by subtracting an electronic offset, but this results in undesirable sensitivity to fluctuations and drifts in optical power, vapour pressure, and offset voltage. A more stable discriminant can be obtained through phase or frequency modulation and subsequent phase-sensitive detection. There are a variety of heterodyne techniques which have been used for studying sub-Doppler spectroscopy [@Lev79; @Bjo80; @Raj80; @Sny80; @Hal81a; @Cam82]. These vary in the details of the optical configuration, the number of frequency components and how they are produced, and the relative strengths and detunings of the contributing beams. Beams may be generated by phase, frequency, or amplitude modulation, frequency shifting, or from independent sources. For small modulation depths, and modulation frequencies much smaller than the natural linewidth, phase modulation of the probe results in a signal which is approximately proportional to the derivative of the absorption feature [@Bjo83]. For large modulation frequencies, spectra exhibit multiplet structures, similar to those obtained with the popular Pound-Drever-Hall method for stabilizing lasers to optical cavities [@Dre83; @Bla01; @Fox03].
Here we investigate two methods which utilize similar experimental arrangements, but which give rise to very different locking signals. The first method involves weak phase modulation of the probe beam, with a modulation frequency on the order of the natural linewidth. This method is similar to traditional lock-in detection [@Moo09]; we refer to this as *direct* modulation. In the second method, only the pump beam phase is modulated. Through various nonlinear mixing processes, this can generate probe sidebands which beat with the carrier at the detector [@Shi82; @Blo83; @Blo83err]. This is known as modulation *transfer* spectroscopy.
Figure \[fig:schematic\] shows the D$_2$ energy levels for the two most abundant isotopes of potassium, [$^{39}$K]{} and [$^{41}$K]{}, with natural abundances of 93.3% and 6.7%, respectively. The natural half-width at half-maximum (HWHM) is MHz [@Wan97], which is on the order of the excited-state hyperfine splittings. Additionally, there exist so-called crossover resonances in saturated absorption at frequencies half-way between each pair of excited state transitions. These features are due to moving atoms whose Doppler shifts equal half the frequency difference between transitions. This leads to a group of six overlapping features for each hyperfine ground state of each isotope. Since the Doppler half-width at half-maximum, $\Delta$, exceeds the ground-state hyperfine splittings ($\Delta=2\pi\!\times 390$ MHz for [$^{39}$K]{} at $300$ K), there are also nearby pairs of *ground-state* crossover resonances for each isotope. This type of crossover resonance leads to *reduced* transmission, as the pump beam transfers greater population to the probed ground state via hyperfine pumping. The significant overlap between various transitions makes it extremely difficult to resolve individual features, and off-resonant excitation means cycling or closed transitions are effectively absent. In practice, the useful features are limited to the composite feature comprising the [$^{39}$K]{}, $F=2\rightarrow F^\prime=1,2,3$ transitions and the one due to the two [$^{39}$K]{} ground-state crossovers. For brevity, we will refer to these features as A and B, respectively (see figure \[fig:schematic\]). These two features will be the focus of this work.
![(Colour online.) Energy level schematics for naturally abundant potassium isotopes. Above: energy level diagrams for [$^{39}$K]{} and [$^{41}$K]{}. Hyperfine frequencies obtained from [@Fal06] are given in MHz, with excited states expanded by 10$\times$ for clarity; $F$ is the total (electronic plus nuclear) angular momentum. The vertical grey bars in the excited and ground states show the natural width $\pm \gamma/(2\pi)$ and the Doppler width $\pm\Delta/(2\pi)$, respectively. Below: transition frequencies for [$^{39}$K]{} (red circles) and [$^{41}$K]{} (blue squares). Upward-pointing features are normal transitions, and downward-pointing features are ground-state crossovers; excited-state crossovers have been omitted for clarity. The heights of normal transitions reflect the relative oscillator strengths. The centre frequency is taken to be the midpoint between the [$^{39}$K]{} ground state crossovers. The horizontal grey bars are the natural and Doppler widths as above.[]{data-label="fig:schematic"}](figure1.eps)
Potassium is widely used in experiments with cold atoms due to the existence of both bosonic and fermionic species, and the availability of inexpensive laser diodes at the cooling wavelengths. Although we are aware of research groups using heterodyne spectroscopy with potassium for laser locking, to our knowledge there are no published examples showing what the resulting spectra should look like or how they may be optimized. It is therefore our aim to provide a practical study of these methods for people working in this field. As our interest is in laser stabilization, we attempt to optimize the slope of the discriminant — *i.e.* the rate of signal variation in V/MHz around the zero-crossing. This sets the gain for feedback control. In contrast to electronic gain, there is no inherent compromise between optical gain and total loop bandwidth, making it beneficial to maximize the slope optically. Despite the overlap of multiple transitions, we will show that narrow ($< 10$ MHz) dispersive features can still be observed.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:SatAbs\] we study conventional saturated absorption, and examine the feature amplitudes and widths as functions of vapour pressure. Perhaps surprisingly, the apparent half-width of saturated absorption features can decrease with increasing vapour pressure. This is shown to be due to the departure from the linear absorption regime. In section \[sec:DM\], we investigate heterodyne detection using direct modulation of the probe. The signals we obtain are well approximated by derivative signals. In section \[sec:MT\] we perform modulation transfer spectroscopy by moving the modulation to the pump beam. This method results in a flatter background and steeper slope for the [$^{39}$K]{} $F=2\rightarrow F^\prime=3$ feature, at the expense of eliminating the crossover. For modulation transfer, varying the pump and probe powers reveals information regarding the physical origins of the signal. Finally, in section \[sec:Discussion\], we compare the relative benefits and drawbacks of the two methods, and suggest some ways that they could be improved.
\[sec:SatAbs\]Saturated Absorption
==================================
We begin with conventional saturated absorption spectroscopy [@Han71]. Our experiments use a home-built external-cavity diode laser loosely based on the design presented in [@thesisPapp]. The diode is anti-reflection coated, with a centre wavelength of 770 nm (Eagleyard, EYP-RWE-0790-04000-0750-SOT01-0000[^1]). Measurements with a home-built fibre ring resonator set an upper limit of $\sim 1$ MHz for the laser linewidth. The laser frequency is scanned by moving a diffraction grating on a kinematic mirror mount with a piezo-electric transducer. The elliptically elongated beam emitted from the laser is made approximately circular with an anamorphic prism pair before passing through a Faraday isolator to prevent feedback to the laser. Measurements of the power transmitted past a razor on a translation stage give $1/e^2$ intensity radii of $w_x=1.18\pm0.03$ mm and $w_y=1.15\pm0.02$ mm in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, at a distance of $0.4$ m from the laser (uncertainties are from fits only). Similar measurements at 4 m give $w_x=1.59\pm0.03$ mm and $w_y=1.506\pm0.006$ mm. All spectra presented here were obtained at intermediate distances.
Spectra were taken with a 75 mm Pyrex reference cell (Thorlabs, CP25075-K), containing potassium isotopes in their natural abundance. Because of the low vapour pressure of potassium at room temperature, we began by heating the cell and recording saturated absorption spectra at various temperatures. The reference cell was wrapped in a flexible resistive heater (Minco HK5464R14.6L12A) and a layer of thermal insulation, and the temperature was monitored with a sensor (Minco S665PDZ40B) pressed between the heater and the cell. Example spectra are shown in figure \[fig:satAbsTemp\]. Because the isotope shift is smaller than the Doppler shift, and due to the preponderance of [$^{39}$K]{}, only a single Doppler-broadened background is evident in each scan. This background absorption varies strongly with relatively small changes in temperature. At [$50^\circ$C]{} the A and B features are both clearly visible. It is also possible to see the conglomeration of [$^{39}$K]{}, $F=1\rightarrow F^\prime$ transitions, which nearly overlap with the [$^{41}$K]{} ground-state crossovers, causing a slightly dispersive shape near 230 MHz.
![(Colour online.) Saturated absorption at varying cell temperature. From top to bottom, the curves correspond to temperatures of [$21^\circ$C]{}, [$50^\circ$C]{}, and [$67^\circ$C]{}.[]{data-label="fig:satAbsTemp"}](figure2.eps)
In order to quantify the temperature dependence, we take alternating scans with and without the pump beam. By subtracting a purely Doppler-broadened spectrum from one with a saturating beam present, we obtain a single trace with a flat background and narrow peak (dip) for the A (B) feature. For simplicity we fit the features to Lorentzian functions and extract the amplitudes and widths (HWHM). The frequency scale throughout this work was calibrated by comparing the difference between the A and B line centres with a Fabry-Perot spectrum analyser with variable mode spacing [@Bud00]. This yielded a frequency difference between A and B features of 224 MHz, with a 4 MHz uncertainty estimated from variations over time and under different conditions (*e.g.*, cavity length, cell temperature, pump and probe intensities).
We model the temperature dependence as follows. For a weak (*i.e.*, non-saturating) probe, the transmitted signal, normalized to the incident intensity, is given by $\exp(-\alpha)$ where $\alpha$ is the absorption coefficient. For a two-level system, with $\Delta\gg\gamma$, the saturating beam leads to a Lamb dip in the probe absorption coefficient [@Pap80; @Ber11] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alphaS}
\alpha_S &=& \alpha_D\,(1-\mathcal{L})\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_D$ is the Doppler-broadened absorption coefficient, and $\mathcal{L}=a_L/(1+\delta^2/\Gamma^2)$ is a Lorentzian function of detuning $\delta$ from the centre of the Doppler-free feature. The amplitude and width of $\mathcal{L}$ are functions of the pump beam intensity. We allow different centre frequencies for the Doppler background and $\mathcal{L}$ (recall figure \[fig:satAbsTemp\]), and take $\alpha_D$ as the value of the Doppler absorption coefficient at the resonance. Since $\alpha_D$ is proportional to the vapour pressure ${P_{\rm vap}}$, we explicitly write $\alpha_D=a_G{P_{\rm vap}}$. The difference between transmission with and without the saturating beam is then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DeltaS}
\Delta S = e^{-a_G{P_{\rm vap}}}\left[e^{a_La_G{P_{\rm vap}}/(1+\delta^2/\Gamma^2)}-1\right]\end{aligned}$$ The amplitude and width are now easily obtained, using the dependence of ${P_{\rm vap}}$ on temperature described in [@Alc84]. For the B feature, we simply take $a_L<0$ to obtain a negative feature.
The observed dependence of the feature amplitudes and widths on cell temperature are shown in figure \[fig:satAbsHWTemp\], together with the predictions of (\[eq:DeltaS\]). The agreement between experiment and theory is excellent. The crossover (B) amplitude peaks first, around [$50^\circ$C]{}, but is then compressed by the deep Doppler absorption; feature A is largest at [$62^\circ$C]{}. Note that these temperatures depend on the length of the cell. Both features have similar maximum amplitudes for these data, but this may depend in general on the intensities of the pump and probe beams. The observed linewidths are larger than the natural width $\sim 3$ MHz of a single transition. However, due to the composite nature of each feature, this is not too surprising. The A feature comprises three transitions distributed over 30 MHz, and the B feature is due to a pair of transitions $9.4$ MHz apart. Including power broadening, this is in reasonable agreement with our observations. Since our model neglects temperature-dependent broadening mechanisms such as collisions and finite transit times, the observed variations in width can be attributed solely to the exponential dependence of transmitted signal on the absorption coefficients.
\
Based on the results of figure \[fig:satAbsHWTemp\], we typically keep our cell around 46–[$48^\circ$C]{}, corresponding to a maximum Doppler-broadened absorption of 35–40% for a weak probe. This is sufficient to produce a strong signal at each feature, with minimal experimental complexity.
\[sec:DM\]Direct Probe Modulation
=================================
We now turn our attention to heterodyne detection, beginning with direct phase modulation of the probe beam. Our optical setup was similar to the one presented in [@McC08]; a simplified schematic is shown in figure \[fig:FMvSatAbs\]. The counter-propagating pump and probe beams had orthogonal linear polarizations. To obtain the phase modulation, we used a home-built electro-optic modulator (EOM). The LiNbO$_3$ crystal (Casix Optics) was Y-cut, measuring $2\times2\times25$ mm, with anti-reflection coating on the input and output faces, and gold coating on the sides (Z-faces) to form electrodes. An operational amplifier and resonant resistor-inductor-capacitor (RLC) circuit were used to drive the crystal at $9.62$ MHz. This frequency was chosen to be about half the linewidths observed in figure \[fig:satAbsHWTemp\](b), as a compromise between obtaining a large slope and maintaining a derivative lineshape [@Bjo83; @Bla01]. The modulation was generated by a four-channel direct digital synthesis evaluation board (Analog Devices, AD9959/PCBZ-ND) which allowed adjustment of the relative phase between the local oscillator (LO) and the radio-frequency (RF) signal from the photodiode during demodulation. The transmitted probe beam was detected with an amplified silicon photodiode having $100\,\mathrm{k}\Omega$ transimpedance gain and 50 MHz bandwidth (Thorlabs PDA8A/M). A bias-T (Mini-Circiuts ZFBT-4R2GW) was used to separate the low- and high-frequency components of the signal. The low-frequency port was fed directly to an oscilloscope, allowing us to observe saturated absorption spectra. The high-frequency component was amplified (Mini-Circuits ZFL-500LN), mixed down with a double-balanced mixer (Mini-Circuits ZRPD-1), and filtered with a home-built active low-pass filter ($4^{\rm th}$-order Butterworth) with cutoff frequency $200$ kHz and a gain of 2. The LO power was $+7$ dBm. We found that higher LO powers increased the noise without significantly improving the signal, while lower powers resulted in nonlinear behaviour of the phase detector at low RF power.
\
An example of a typical signal obtained *via* direct probe modulation is shown in figure \[fig:FMvSatAbs\]. The signal is compared to a background-subtracted saturated absorption spectrum for reference. As expected, the modulation signal looks like the derivative of the absorption. At these lower pump and probe powers, a number of features which were obscured in figure \[fig:satAbsTemp\] can now be seen. For example, the internal structure of the A and B transitions leads to kinks in the modulation signal. This is especially problematic for the crossover, as the asymmetry pushes the kink towards the zero-crossing lock point. We will return to this point below. As mentioned previously, the feature to the blue of the B feature, is due predominantly to the [$^{39}$K]{}, $F=1\rightarrow F^\prime$ transitions (there is a small contribution of opposite sign due to the [$^{41}$K]{} ground-state crossovers). This feature leads to a distorted zero crossing and saturates at much lower powers than the A and B features. We therefore neglect it in the rest of our analysis.
The behaviour of the direct modulation signal as a function of pump intensity is shown in figure \[fig:FMPump\]. The slope at the zero crossing of the A feature increases until the saturated absorption amplitude begins to saturate and the width broadens, causing the derivative signal to roll over. The result is an optimum slope for the A feature of $\sim 70$ mV/MHz just below 1 mW/cm$^2$. The B feature slope is complicated by the kink which occurs at low intensities, when the two crossover transitions (separated by $9.4$ MHz) are partially resolved. At $50\,\mu$W ($0.85\pm 0.16$ mW/cm$^2$) the kink moves below zero, and then is washed out completely as the pump power increases (dashed blue line). The amplitude shows this transition more dramatically. The A feature amplitude saturates at much lower intensity than we expected. The saturation intensity for the cycling transition is $1.75$ mW/cm$^2$ [@Wan97; @Fal06]. Assuming isotropic populations of the atomic Zeeman substates, this increases to $3.75$ mW/cm$^2$. Additional relaxation mechanisms (*e.g.*, de-phasing or transit time) tend to further increase the saturation intensity [@Pap80]. We speculate that optical pumping may play a role in our observations. The importance of hyperfine pumping has been previously demonstrated for rubidium [@Smi04], and the reduced level splittings in potassium could exacerbate this effect by increasing the of-resonant excitation to the non-cycling transitions. As our aim here is simply to optimize the locking signal, we leave the origins of this effect for future study.
\
Figure \[fig:FMProbe\] shows the effect of varying the probe intensity. For this choice of pump intensity ($4.2\pm 0.8$ mW/cm$^2$), the two features show similar slopes and amplitudes. For the highest probe intensities we have tested (limited by beam size and saturation of the photodiode), we do not see any clear saturation.
\
\[sec:MT\]Modulation Transfer
=============================
If the phase modulation is moved from the probe to the saturating beam, we obtain modulation transfer spectra, shown schematically in figure \[fig:MTvSatAbs\]. We found that modulation transfer worked better at lower frequency. An example is shown in figure \[fig:MTvSatAbs\], with the modulation at $1.82$ MHz. This frequency was chosen based on results in other labs with rubidium [@McC08; @Neg09]. We could not achieve a high-$Q$ RLC circuit at this frequency, apparently due to the parasitic properties of available inductors. We therefore replaced the op-amp driving the EOM with a higher power amplifier (Amplifier Solutions Corporation ASC2832). We also found that the signal amplitude more than doubled if we used $\sigma^+$-$\sigma^+$ polarizations (*i.e.*, right-hand circular probe and left-hand circular pump), at the expense of nearly complete suppression of the already small B feature. Polarization-dependent effects have been investigated for linear pump and probe polarizations in $^{87}$Rb [@Zha03; @Noh11], but to our knowledge the $\sigma^+$-$\sigma^+$ configuration has not been studied. No enhancement was observed in our experiments with direct modulation.
\
The modulation transfer spectrum in figure \[fig:MTvSatAbs\] differs from the direct modulation spectrum (figure \[fig:FMvSatAbs\]) in a few important ways. As mentioned above, there is virtually no B feature, and the A feature is noticeably steeper, and with flatter background. The locking signal is well described by the derivative of a single Lorentzian, with observed widths (HWHM) as small as $4.51\pm0.11$ MHz. These charactersitics are all attributed to the nonlinear nature of the processes generating the probe sidebands. Modulation transfer spectroscopy is typically strongest for cycling transitions [@McC08; @Zha03; @Noh11], which allow the inherently weak four-wave mixing of pump and probe fields to occur many times. This also strongly suppresses the Doppler background.
Figure \[fig:MTPump\] shows the dependence of the modulation transfer signal on the pump beam intensity. The amplitude and slope grow linearly at first, eventually giving way to broadening as in the case of direct modulation. However, for modulation transfer the optimum pump intensity is much higher and the slope is an order of magnitude greater.
\
The dependence of the modulation transfer spectrum on the probe intensity is shown in figure \[fig:MTProbe\]. The slope grows linearly and then begins to roll over. The amplitude is also linear for small probe intensity. Together with the linear dependence on pump intensity in figure \[fig:MTPump\](a), this suggests the physical mechanism of *modulated hole burning* [@Shi82]. The pump carrier and either sideband combine to generate a Lamb dip of oscillating depth. This generates a probe sideband which beats with the carrier at the detector. For comparison, we show the data obtained with $9.62$ MHz modulation, together with a fit to a power law giving an exponent $2.01\pm0.05$. This behaviour is characteristic of *reflection*, which can arise in two ways. First, the pump and probe beams burn a standing wave in the atomic ground-state population. A pump sideband then Bragg-reflects in the backwards direction, creating a sideband on the probe. Alternatively, a pump sideband can interfere with the probe to form a moving population grating. In this case the pump carrier is back-reflected and Doppler-shifted, again resulting in a probe sideband. Third-order perturbation theory predicts that these features vanish under thermal averaging when $\Delta\gg\gamma$, but higher-order interactions were shown to result in a signal which is proportional to pump intensity (not shown) and quadratic in probe intensity [@Shi82], consistent with our observations.
\
\[sec:Discussion\]Discussion
============================
We have investigated saturated absorption spectroscopy of the D$_2$ lines of potassium, and heterodyne spectroscopy using direct phase modulation of the probe and modulation transfer from the pump. It was shown that the saturated absorption signal strength can be increased by an order of magnitude or more with moderate heating of the vapour, and the exponential absorption of the probe beam can lead to either an increase or decrease in the apparent half-width of the features. The comparison between direct modulation and modulation transfer showed that the two methods differ significantly despite the similar experimental arrangements. The direct modulation signal is roughly proportional to the derivative of the saturated absorption, yielding frequency discriminants for both dominant spectroscopic features. In contrast, the modulation transfer spectrum showed narrower features with essentially no Doppler background. Although there was no crossover feature, the maximum slope near the cycling transition was significantly higher than could be obtained by direct modulation. Investigation of the dependence of pump and probe intensities suggested this feature was dominated by modulated hole burning at low modulation frequency, and by Bragg-reflection from atomic population gratings at high frequency.
As our main interest is in laser stabilization, we should assess whether these signals are sufficient for our experiments. As discussed above, a larger slope increases the overall servo gain, which reduces the amplitude of frequency fluctuations when locked. To set the relevant scale, we compare our results to the tuning transfer functions of our laser: $260\pm13$ MHz/V by piezo and $5000\pm250$ MHz/V by injection current.[^2] Conservatively taking the piezo value, this sets the overall gain (without PID loop) to be $\sim 25$ for direct modulation and $\sim 150$ for modulation transfer. With added gain from a PID controller, which can easily exceed 100 over our 200 kHz bandwidth, we therefore expect either method to be sufficient. We should also consider the noise level, which was typically $\sim 15$ mV$_{\rm rms}$ for both methods under optimum conditions. In terms of signal-to-noise ratio, both methods again seem sufficient. However, taking the ratio of noise to slope gives estimated lower bounds on the short-term frequency fluctuations of $\sim 150$ kHz and $\sim 25$ kHz for direct modulation and modulation transfer, respectively. Since these estimates neglect limitations due to finite servo bandwidth and additional technical noise, modulation transfer may be preferred for more demanding applications. Finally, we consider the capture range, defined as the frequency range around the zero crossing over which the slope preserves its sign. This was typically about 15 MHz for direct modulation, and 5 MHz for modulation transfer. The optimum capture range represents some compromise between tightness of lock and stability against perturbations. A preference for large or small capture range therefore depends on the details of the experimental arrangement and application.
In comparing the two methods it is clear that modulation transfer produces a far greater slope, but is unsuitable for locking in the vicinity of the crossover (B) feature. Due to the strong suppression of the Doppler background, modulation transfer is expected to give a more well-defined lock point, in the sense of being very near the $F=2\to F^\prime=3$ resonance. In contrast, the direct modulation signal exhibits contributions from numerous transitions, and the Doppler background causes an additional shift in the actual lock point. However, as stated above, the small capture range of the modulation transfer signal, which is in many ways a virtue, may cause the laser to become more easily unlocked under the influence of environmental disturbances. We therefore expect direct modulation to be more robust under such circumstances.
There are a number of further investigations which could be undertaken. For example, it may be worth iteratively optimizing the vapour temperature and pump and probe intensities. This could be especially useful for modulation transfer, which bears relatively little resemblance to saturated absorption. We were also unable to perform a satisfactory optimization of the modulation frequency and sideband fraction, which can strongly affect the signal shapes and amplitudes [@Bjo83; @McC08]. For this purpose, it would be better to have a wideband EOM and high-voltage amplifier, which were not available to us. One can in principle also improve the signal by expanding the beams with a telescope [@McC08]. In cases when one is limited by the beam intensity in the vapour, but not optical power at the detector, this can increase the signal amplitude and slope.
This work was funded by an EPSRC Science and Innovation award (EP/E036473/1). We acknowledge useful discussions with S. Cornish and members of the Cold Atoms group at the University of Birmingham, and thank P. Petrov for providing feedback on the manuscript. S. Doravari advised on the laser design, and parts were built with expert technical assistance from J. Dyne of the Centre for Cold Matter at Imperial College, London. The EOM system was designed by J. Kronjaeger and built with the assistance of N. Meyer, and R. Culver assisted with the Fabry-Perot and fibre ring cavities.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Hänsch T W, Levenson M D and Schawlow A L 1971 [**]{} [**26**]{} 946–9
Pappas P G, Burns M M, Hinshelwood D D, Feld M S and Murnick D E 1980 [**]{} A [**21**]{} 1955–68
Berman P R and Malinovsky V S 2011 [*Principles of Laser Spectroscopy and Quantum Optics*]{} (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
Fox R W, Oates C W and Hollberg L W 2003 Stabilizing diode lasers to high-finesse cavities [*Cavity Enhanced Spectroscopies*]{} ([*Experimental Methods in the Physical Sciences*]{} vol 40) ed R D van Zee and J P Looney (Boston: Academic Press) pp 1–46
Bechhoefer J 2005 [**]{} [**77**]{} 783–836
Levenson M and Eesley G 1979 [*Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process.*]{} [**19**]{} 1–17
Bjorklund G C 1980 [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**5**]{} 15–7
Raj R K, Bloch D, Snyder J J, Camy G and Ducloy M 1980 [**]{} [**44**]{} 1251–4
Snyder J J, Raj R K, Bloch D and Ducloy M 1980 [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**5**]{} 163–5
Hall J L, Hollberg L, Baer T and Robinson H G 1981 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**39**]{} 680–2
Camy G, Bord C and Ducloy M 1982 [*Opt. Commun.*]{} [**41**]{} 325–30
Bjorklund G C, Levenson M D, Lenth W and Ortiz C 1983 [*Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt.*]{} [**32**]{} 145–52
Drever R W P, Hall J L, Kowalski F V, Hough J, Ford G M, Munley A J and Ward H 1983 [*Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt.*]{} [**31**]{} 97–105
Black E D 2001 [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**69**]{} 79–87
Moore J H, Davis C C and Coplan M A 2009 [*Building Scientifc Apparatus*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Shirley J H 1982 [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**7**]{} 537–9
Bloch D and Ducloy M 1983 [**]{} [**73**]{} 635–46
Bloch D and Ducloy M 1983 [**]{} [**73**]{} 1844–5
Wang H, Gould P L and Stwalley W C 1997 [**]{} [**106**]{} 7899–912
Falke S, Tiemann E, Lisdat C, Schnatz H and Grosche G 2006 [**]{} A [**74**]{} 032503
Papp S B 2001 PhD thesis, Unversity of Colorado, Boulder
Budker D, Rochester S M and Yashchuk V V 2000 [**]{} [**71**]{} 2984–7
Alcock C B, Itkin V P and Horrigan M K 1984 [*Can. Metall. Q.*]{} [**23**]{} 309–13
McCarron D J, King S A and Cornish S L 2008 [**]{} [**19**]{} 105601
Smith D A and Hughes I G 2004 [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**72**]{} 631–7
Negnevitsky V 2009 BSc thesis, Monash University
Zhang J, Wei D, Xie C and Peng K 2003 [*Opt. Express*]{} [**11**]{} 1338–44
Noh H-R, Park S E, Li L Z, Park J-D and Cho C-H 2011 [*Opt. Express*]{} [**19**]{} 23444–52
[^1]: Product names and part numbers are used for identification purposes only, and do not constitute an endorsement by the authors or their institution.
[^2]: Our diode tunes $250\pm12$ MHz/mA, and our current controller (Thorlabs LDC202C) has a modulation input with $1/(50\Omega)$ transconductance.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the photoinduced manipulation of charge carriers in monolayer silicene subject to intense electromagnetic terahertz radiation. Considering the Dirac cone approximation and going beyond the off resonant condition for large frequencies of the radiation field, where only virtual photon processes are allowed, we present the exact zero-momentum pseudospin polarization and numerical results for the quasienergy band structure and time-averaged density of states. We find that resonant processes, due to real photon emission and absorbtion processes, induce a band inversion that qualitatively modifies the quasienergy spectrum. These band structure changes manifest themselves as an inversion of the averaged pseudospin polarization. Through the analysis of the time-averaged density of states we find that effective photoinduced gap manipulation can only be achieved in the intermediate and strong matter-radiation coupling regime where the off resonant approximation breaks down.'
author:
- 'Alexander López$^{1,2}$'
- 'Andreas Scholz$^{2}$'
- 'Benjamin Santos$^{3}$'
- 'John Schliemann$^{2}$'
title: Photoinduced pseudospin effects in silicene beyond the off resonant condition
---
Introduction
============
The dynamical control of the electronic properties of Dirac fermions in the solid state environment by means of time periodic fields is currently an intense research topic. [@fti; @foa; @foa2] Among the two-dimensional materials supporting these Dirac fermions we have as prominent examples graphene[@novoselov1; @geim; @guinearmp] and silicene[@silicene1; @silicene2]. In this work we focus our attention on silicene which consists of a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice structure made of silicon atoms analogous to that of graphene. From the experimental point of view some recent works have reported the synthesis of silicene[@silicene3; @silicene4; @silicene5]. As well as in the case of graphene, the silicene honeycomb lattice consists of two triangular sublattices. However, silicene has a corrugated or buckled lattice structure that makes the silicon atoms in one sublattice to be perpendicularly displaced with respect to those atoms lying on the other sublattice. In the low energy Hamiltonian description of silicene, this sublattice degree of freedon is formally associated to a quantity called pseudospin which resembles the real spin. Moreover, in momentum space there are two degenerate energy extrema called Dirac points, denoted by momenta $\pm K$, that are related by time reversal symmetry and they lie at opposite corners of the hexagonal Brillouin zone. To this energy extrema one can associate a valley degree of freedom which in turn can also be described as a pseudospin[@guinearmp]. This degree of freedom has been shown to be suitable for the potential realization of [*valleytronics*]{}, i.e., the analogous to spintronics based on the real spin (for a review on spintronics see [@zutic]).\
In the case of the sublattice pseudospin there have also been proposals to realize the so called [*pseudospintronics*]{}, where physical operations such as pseudospin magnetism in bilayer graphene[@min] can in principle be performed by means of this physical quantity. This in turn steems from the chiral nature of the Hamiltonian eigenstates for which the pseudospin is locked to the charge carrier’s momentum. This chirality has profound consequences that include an unusual sequencing of plateaus in measurements of the quantum Hall effect[@uno]. In addition, in the conduction band of valley $K$ pseudospin is parallel to the momentum while in the valence band, pseudospin is antiparallel to the charge carriers momenta. Therefore, another physical manifestation of this pseudospin degree of freedom in graphene is that chiral states can be perfectly transmitted through a potential barrier which constitutes a realization of the Klein paradox in condensed matter[@novoselov-klein]. In silicene, another pseudospin effect has been predicted to appear when a perpendicular electric field $E_z$ is applied since, in this case, the atoms belonging to each sublattice would respond differently to $E_z$, giving rise to an staggered potential[@ezawa1]. Due to this peculiar pseudospin response to applied electric fields, the electronic properties of silicene are predicted to considerably differ from those of graphene, despite their formal similarities. In particular, one can induce a pseudospin polarization in the silicene sample by means of a perpendicular static electric field. Since the pseudospin degree of freedom mus be included in the total angular momentum operator[@regan], this pseudospin polarization can be interpreted as a differential population of the charge carriers on each sublattice as a response of the charge carriers to the angular momentum content of the circularly polarized radiation field. Moreover, the linear spectrum of the low energy Hamiltonian (near the Dirac points) for both graphene and silicene leads to a Fermi velocity that is independent of momentum. In fact, within the Dirac cone approximation, the velocity operator is proportional to the pseudospin operator describing the sublattice degree of freedom[@guinearmp]. In presence of a radiation field, the pseudospin gets coupled (via the minimal prescription) to the electromagnetic field, and thus, dynamical modulation has been predicted to appear both in graphene[@foa] and silicene[@ezawa2] either at zero or finite momentum.[@andreas]
Another interesting feature of silicene is that its intrinsic spin-orbit coupling is much larger than that of pristine graphene. Therefore, an interesting interplay among intrinsic spin-orbit coupling and electric field effects was predicted to appear because the bandgap can be electrically controlled. Moreover, the addition of an exchange potential term (which physically could represent the proximity effect due to coupling to ferromagnetic leads) allows for topological quantum phase transitions in the static regime.[@ezawa1] Furthermore, in presence of circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation it has been recently proposed the realization of the so called single Dirac cone phase[@ezawa2]. At this topological phase, it is found that well defined spin polarized states are supported at every Dirac point. Within this configuration, different spin components propagate in opposite directions giving rise to a pure spin current at finite momentum.[@ezawa2] Yet, these photoinduced topological phase changes[@kane; @z2; @rmp; @topological1; @topological2] reported by Ezawa[@ezawa2] were derived under the off resonant assumption, i.e., dynamical processes such that the frequency (coupling strength) of the radiation field is much larger (smaller) than any other energy scale in the problem. Under these assumptions it is possible to derive an effective time-independent Floquet Hamiltonian[@milena; @chu] with a tiny photoinduced bandgap correction that stems from virtual photons that dress the static energy eingenstates. Since the sign of the bandgap term (i.e., the effective bandgap) determines important topological properties of the material, it is vital both for potential practical implementations, for instance in techonological realizations of silicene-based devices, as well as from a fundamental point of view, to effectively achieve manipulation of this quantity.\
In this work we show that in order to detect relevant photoinduced effects in the band structure of silicene under strong circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation in the terahertz (frequency) domain one needs to go beyond the aforementioned off resonant approximation. At intermediate coupling regime we reproduce the single valley Dirac phase reported by Ezawa[@ezawa2] and we show that effective dynamical gap closing occurs at or above the intermediate coupling regime of the Dirac fermions to the radiation field. By exact evaluation of the zero-momentum pseudospin polarization we find that pseudospin inversion can only be dynamically achieved at intermediate or strong coupling of the charge carriers to the radiation field and thus, the off resonant modifications induced in the band structure turn out to be a rather small effect. This is verified by a numerical evaluation of the time-averaged density of states.\
The paper is organized as follows. In section II we present the model and obtain the quasienergy spectrum along with the exact zero-momentum dynamical polarization. In section III we present our results for the finite momentum quasienergy spectrum as well as the Density of States (DoS). In section IV we discuss the main results and give some concluding remarks.
model
=====
We adopt the Dirac cone approximation to describe the dynamics of non interacting charge carriers in silicene subject to a perpendicular, uniform and constant electric field ${\bf E}=E_z\hat{z}$. This is given by the $8\times8$ Hamiltonian[@ezawa1] ($\hbar=e=1$, with $e$ being the electron’s charge) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e1}
\mathcal{H}^\eta&=&v_F( k_x\sigma_x+\eta k_y\sigma_y)+\sigma_z(\eta s_z\lambda_{so}-\ell E_z)\\\nonumber
&&+\eta\sigma_zh_{11}+h_{22}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_F=\frac{\sqrt{3}at_b}{2}\approx 8.1\times10^5\,\textrm{m/s}$ is the Fermi velocity for charge carriers in silicene, with $a = 3.86$ Å the lattice constant and $t_b=1.6\, \textrm{eV}$ the hopping parameter within a tight-binding formulation, whereas $\ell=0.23\,$Å measures half the separation among the two sublattice planes. In addition, $\eta=\pm 1$ describes the Dirac point, $\sigma_i$ and $s_i$ ($i=x,y,z$) are Pauli matrices describing pseudo and real spin degrees of freedom, respectively, whereas the time reversal symmetry of the two Dirac points can be encoded in the momentum as $\vec{k}=(k_x,\eta k_y)$, i.e., it is the momentum measured from the corresponding Dirac point $\eta=\pm1$. Following reference, we are using a cooordinate system with the $x$ axis being perpendicular to the two inequivalent silicon atoms in the unit cell. The parameter $\lambda_{so}=3.9\, \textrm{meV}$ represents the strength of the intrinsic spin-orbit contribution. Moreover, the two contributions given by the terms $$\begin{aligned}
h_{11}&=& a\lambda_{R2}(k_ys_x-k_xs_y),\\
h_{22}&=& \lambda_{R1}(\eta\sigma_x s_y-\sigma_ys_x)/2, \end{aligned}$$ describe the spin-orbit coupling associated to the next nearest neighbor hopping and nearest neighbors tight binding formulation, respectively.\
The term $h_{11}$ has its origin in the buckled structure of silicene whereas $h_{22}$ is induced by the application of an external static electric field $E_z$. Using first principle calculations, the authors of reference [@sili-rashba] found that $\lambda_{R1}=0.2\, \textrm{meV}$ for a typical electric field $E_z= (50V)/300nm$ whereas $h_{22}$ is of order $10\mu\textrm{eV}$ for a critical electric field $E_c=\lambda_{so}/\ell=17\textrm\,{meV}$. In this manner, $h_{22}$ is much smaller than the other energy scales in the problem. Therefore, these two non conserving contributions will be neglected in the following, although in the appendix we show that the largest contribution $h_{11}$ can be easily incorporated in the solution to the dynamical evolution presented below. Yet, we have verified that our results do not qualitatively change by the introduction of these two small corrections.
Within the approximation $h_{22}=0$, let us now consider the pseudospin dynamics under an [*intense*]{} radiation field represented by the time-dependent vector potential $${\bf A}(t)=A\left(\cos\Omega t,\sin\Omega t\right),$$ with $A=\mathcal{E}/\Omega$ and $\Omega$ its amplitude and frequency, respectively. It describes a monochromatic electromagnetic wave incident perpendicular to the sample. This vector potential can in turn be derived from the corresponding electric field by means of ${\bf E}(t)=-\partial_t {\bf A}(t)$, where $\mathcal{E}$ is the amplitude of the time-dependent electric field.
Using the standard minimal coupling prescription given as $\vec{k}\rightarrow \vec{k}+\vec{A}$, we get the dynamical generator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e11t}
\nonumber\mathcal{H}^\eta(\vec{k},t)&=&v_F(\sigma_xk_x+\eta\sigma_y k_y)+\sigma_z(\eta s_z\lambda_{so}-\ell E_z)\\
&&v_FA[\sigma_x\cos\Omega t+ \eta\sigma_y\sin\Omega t].\end{aligned}$$ In the following we will explore the emerging photoinduced dynamical features at different momentum scenarios. For this purpose, we explore the low, intermediate and strong coupling regimes of the charge carriers in silicene under the radiation field.
Physics at $\textrm{k}=0$
-------------------------
At zero momentum the extrinsic spin-orbit term $h_{11}$ vanishes and the z-component of spin $s_z=\pm1$ is a good quantum number. Therefore, the following analysis is independent of taking into account the aforementioned spin-orbit contribution. Setting for notational convenience $\alpha=v_FA$ and $V_z=\ell E_z$, the physics at zero momentum $\vec{k}=0$ is described by the dynamical generator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e1t}
\mathcal{H}^\eta(0,t)&=&\nonumber(\eta s\lambda_{so}-V_z)\sigma_z+\alpha[e^{i\eta\Omega t}\sigma_-+ e^{-i\eta \Omega t}\sigma_+].\\\end{aligned}$$ From this equation we note that the sublattice degree of freedom must be included in the total angular momentum of the system in order to account for conservation of this quantity as a consequence of the rotational invariance of the system that is preserved in absence of Rashba spin-orbit terms. This was another motivation for studying the zero-momentum pseudospin modifications induced by the radiation field. Now if we apply the unitary transformation $$\mathcal{P}^\eta(t)=e^{-i\eta(\mathbb{1}+\sigma_z)\Omega t/2}$$ we get the effective time-independent Floquet Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_F(k=0)=(\mathcal{P}^\eta)^\dagger(t)\mathcal{H}^\eta(0,t)\mathcal{P}^\eta(t)-i(\mathcal{P}^\dagger)^\eta(t)\dot{\mathcal{P}}^\eta(t)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{flo0}
\mathcal{H}_F(k=0)&=&\nonumber -\frac{\eta\Omega}{2}\mathbb{1}+\Bigg[\eta\Bigg( s_z\lambda_{so}-\frac{\Omega}{2}\Bigg)-V_z\Bigg]\sigma_z+\alpha\sigma_x.\\\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
{height="6cm"} {height="6cm"}
{height="6cm"} {height="6cm"}
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
Thus, the static Floquet Hamiltonian (\[flo0\]) shows that the radiation field couples in a non diagonal form to the pseudospin degree of freedom through the last term and therefore, can induce pseudospin dynamical modulation, even at zero momentum. The Hamiltonian (\[flo0\]) resembles that of the Rabi problem for a real spin in an external oscillating magnetic field. Therefore, the radiation field could be used to coherently control the pseudospin degree of freedom in analogy to the coherent manipulation of the real spin by means of electric fields in GaAs semiconducting quantum dots[@coherent]. To explicitly show this, we find the zero momentum quasienergy spectrum wich is given as $$\varepsilon^\eta_{s\sigma}(k=0)=-\frac{\eta\Omega}{2}+\sigma\sqrt{\alpha^2+(\Delta^\eta_s)^2},$$ where $s,\sigma=\pm 1$ represent the real and pseudospin degrees of freedom, respectively. In addition, we have defined the effective gap $$\Delta^\eta_s=\eta\Big(s\lambda_{so}-\frac{\Omega}{2}\Big)-V_z.$$ We can also introduce the Rabi frequency, defined as $\Gamma=\sqrt{\alpha^2+(\Delta^\eta_s)^2}$, that would dictate the coherent oscillations between the two static pseudospin eigenstates of $\sigma_z$. On the other hand, the zero-momentum exact Floquet eigenstates are $$\label{basis00}
|\psi^\eta_{s\sigma}(t)\rangle=\frac{e^{-i\varepsilon^\eta_{s\sigma}t}}{\sqrt{2\Gamma}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
e^{-i\eta\Omega t}\sqrt{\Gamma+\sigma\Delta^\eta_ s}\\
\sigma \sqrt{\Gamma-\sigma\Delta^\eta_s}
\end{array}
\right),$$ In order to analyze the dynamical manipulation of the pseudospin degree of freedom, let us now assume that the system is initially prepared in the arbitrary state $$\label{phi0}
|\Phi(0)\rangle=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos\frac{\theta}{2}e^{i\phi/2}\\
\sin\frac{\theta}{2}e^{-i\phi/2}
\end{array}
\right),$$
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
{height="6.25cm"} {height="6.25cm"}
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
with $0\le\theta\le\pi$ and $0<\phi\le2\pi$ being spherical coordinates over the Bloch sphere describing any possible pseudospin configuration. Thus, the evolution of the out of plane pseudospin polarization $\sigma_z$ is given by the standard relation $\sigma_z(t)=\langle\Phi(0)|U_F^\dagger(t)\sigma_zU_F(t)|\Phi(0)\rangle$, with $U_F(t)$ being the unitary Floquet evolution operator $U_F(t)=\mathcal{P}^\eta(t)e^{-i\mathcal{H}_Ft}$ (note that $\sigma_z$ and $\mathcal{P}^\eta(t)$ commute with each other). The initial polarization in the state (\[phi0\]) is given by $\sigma_z(0)=\cos\theta$. After some algebra we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zetat}
\nonumber \sigma_z(t)&=&\frac{2\alpha}{\Gamma}\sin\theta\sin\Gamma t\Bigg(\frac{\Delta^\eta_s}{\Gamma}\sin\Gamma t\cos\phi-\cos\Gamma t\sin\phi\Bigg)+\\
&&\cos\theta\Big(1-\frac{2\alpha^2}{\Gamma^2}\sin^2\Gamma t\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Using this expression, the one-period mean value pseudospin polarization $$\langle\sigma_z\rangle=\frac{1}{T}\int^T_0\sigma_z(t)dt,$$ with $T=2\pi/\Omega$ being the period of oscillations of the driving field, is found to be given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zetapro}
\nonumber\langle\sigma_z\rangle&=&\alpha\sin\theta\Bigg[\frac{\Delta^\eta_ s}{\Gamma^2}\cos\phi\big(1-{{\rm sinc}}(2\Gamma T)\big)-T\sin\phi~{{\rm sinc}}^2(\Gamma T)\Bigg]\\
\nonumber&&+\cos\theta\Bigg[1-\frac{\alpha^2}{\Gamma^2}\Bigg(1-{{\rm sinc}}(2\Gamma T)\Bigg)\Bigg],\\\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\rm sinc}}(x)=\frac{\sin(x)}{x}$.
In particular, for initial states that have zero polarization ($\theta=\pi/2$), we get the simplified expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zetapro0}
\nonumber\langle\sigma_z\rangle&=&\alpha\Bigg[\frac{\Delta^\eta_s}{\Gamma^2}\cos\phi\big(1-{{\rm sinc}}(2\Gamma T)\big)-T\sin\phi{{\rm sinc}}^2(\Gamma T)\Bigg].\\\end{aligned}$$ Setting the symmetric value $\phi=\pi/4$ and a frequency in the far infrared region $\Omega = 3\textrm{THz}$, we plot in FIG.\[fig:figure1\] the mean pseudospin polarization for the different spin and valley $s\eta$ product combinations.\
From this figure we find that within the low coupling regime ($\alpha\le0.1\Omega$), it is in general not possible to induce appreciable changes of the pseudospin polarization and this is related to the fact that the quasienergy behaviour is essentially controlled by the parameters $V_z$ and $\lambda_{so}$ which determine the gap behaviour in the static regime. On the other hand, for intermediate ($\alpha=0.5\Omega$) and large ($\alpha=0.75\Omega$) values of the coupling to the driving field, i.e., beyond the off resonant condition, effective pseudospin inversion is achievable and therefore, a qualitatively different behaviour emerges within this coupling regime.\
The exact results for the pseudospin polarization shown in FIG.\[fig:figure1\] at vanishing momentum motivate the need to go beyond the off resonant condition for finite values of the particle’s momentum, as we discuss in the following two sections.
Finite momentum: Off resonant regime and beyond
===============================================
Quasienergy spectrum
--------------------
The dynamics of our system at finite momentum does in general not allow for a closed analytic solution, and one needs to resort to numerics. A practical route here is to employ the Fourier expansion of the periodic part of the Floquet states which turns, after an approprite truncation, the Schrödinger equation into a finite matrix eigenvalue problem. Yet, before we perform any explicit calculation we physically motivate the need to fully diagonalize the Floquet Hamiltonian, going beyond the so called off resonant regime which corresponds to very large frequencies (large compared to any other energy scales in the problem) and small coupling strength presented in reference.[@ezawa2] Within this scheme, the frequency of the driving field is much larger than the unperturbed energy separations. Therefore, only virtual single emission-absortion photon processes are allowed. These virtual photons would dress the static eigenstates but could not directly excite electronic transitions as happens when real photons are exchanged among the charge carriers. Thus the off resonant and the resonant scenarios are clearly physically distinguishable from each other.\
For ease of notation let us set $\mathcal{H}_0=\mathcal{H}^\eta$ and $V(t)$ for the static and time-dependent contributions to the full Hamiltonian (\[e11t\]) which is now written as $$\label{general}
\mathcal{H}(t)=\mathcal{H}_0+V(t).$$ Then, within the off resonant approximation we have $\alpha/\Omega\ll1$, and thus one can derive an effective gapped Floquet Hamiltonian (see appendix B. for a detailed derivation) $$\label{off}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{F}=\mathcal{H}_0+\frac{[V_{-1},V_1]}{\Omega},$$ where the $Nth$ harmonic contribution is defined as $$V_{N}=\frac{1}{T}\int^T_0V(t)e^{-iN\Omega t}dt.$$ The second term in equation (\[off\]) represents virtual photon emission-absortion processes that would dress the static eigenstates. Doing the explicit calculation one finds that equation (\[off\]) becomes $$\label{offfin}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{F}=\mathcal{H}_0-\eta\frac{\alpha^2}{\Omega}\sigma_z,$$ and therefore, a photoinduced modulation of the gap would be possible.\
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
{height="6.25cm"} {height="6.25cm"}
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Yet, under intense terahertz radiation, the conditions that lead to the derivation of the last term in eq. (\[offfin\]) are not satisfied and therefore, appreciable photoinduced effective gap modulation requires a full tratment of the dynamical equations. For instance, if we consider values of the electric field intensities[@wu] $\mathcal{E}\sim 0.15\, \textrm{MV/m}$ and frequencies in the far infrared domain[@ganichev] for which $\Omega\approx 10\, \textrm{meV}$, one gets for the coupling constant $\alpha\approx \Omega\approx 10\, \textrm{meV}$ (for a chosen frequency value of $\Omega=3$ THz). Therefore, higher order harmonics do contribute and the dynamics must be given a full numerical treatment by Fourier transforming the Schrödinger equation, and solving the resulting infinite dimensional static eigenvalue problem.\
However, we still can get a time-independent formulation since the static Hamiltonian (\[e1\]) commutes with the total angular momentum operator $$J^\eta_z=xk_y-yk_x+\eta\left(\frac{\sigma_z+s_z}{2}\right).$$ Thus, applying the unitary transformation $$\mathcal{P}^\eta_z(t)=e^{-iJ^\eta_z\Omega t}$$ we get the effective time-independent Floquet Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{flot}
\mathcal{H}_F&=&\mathcal{H}_0-\Omega J^\eta_z+\alpha\sigma_x.\end{aligned}$$ This form of the Floquet Hamiltonian is appropriate to evaluate approximate analytical solutions to the dynamics, but we will not follow this semi analytic approach. Instead, in the following we present numerical solutions to the finite momentum dynamics for the coupling regime $\alpha\le\Omega\ll t_b$, with $t_b\approx1.6\, \textrm{eV}$ the hopping parameter in the tight binding formulation.\
Now we present the quasienergy spectra at finite momentum which are obtained by a numerical diagonalization of the periodic Hamiltonian given in equation (\[e11t\]). In FIG.\[fig:figure2\] we present the momentum dependence of the quasienergy spectrum within the low ($\alpha=0.1\Omega$) and intermediate ($\alpha=0.5\Omega$) coupling regimes to the radiation field. Here we have neglected the extrinsic spin-orbit contributions $h_{11}$ and $h_{22}$. Yet, the effects of the most important contribution $h_{11}$ can be readily incorporated as it is described in the appendix. We have checked that our results do not qualitatively differ when this extrinsic spin-orbit contribution is included.
Since the static band structure properties are determined by the sign of the static bandgap $\Delta=\lambda_{so}-V_z$, we have selected two sets of significant values of this parameter as it is shown by the red (black), thick curves in FIG.\[fig:figure2\] for positive (negative) values of the static gap at low $\Delta=0.1\Omega$ and intermediate $\Delta=0.4\Omega$ absolute values of the static gap, respectively. The changes in the static bandgap are controlled through the static electric field $E_z$. Since the circularly polarized radiation introduces an isotropic modulation of the quasienergy spectrum, we can set the value of one of the momentum components, say $k_y=0$ without loss of generality.\
From the zero energy solution discussed above we have to take into account that the radiation field also modulates the gap, both through its frequency and amplitude. Therefore, in order to have a reference for indicating qualitative changes in the band structure we have chosen the quasienergy spectrum for $\Delta=0$ (thin lines in FIG.\[fig:figure2\]). In addition, for finite values of $\Delta$, we use thick arrows that point, for either subband, away from the zero bandgap curve signaling how the energy bands are “pulled away” in presence of the radiation field. From the results shown in FIG.\[fig:figure2\] we see that at low coupling ($\alpha\le0.1\Omega$), the main modifications of the energy spectrum are due to the value of the static bandgap. This is true for both positive (red, thick curves) and negative (black, thick curves) values of $\Delta$. Yet, at intermediate values of the light-matter coupling strength ($\alpha=0.5\Omega$), we can infer that the driving field is the leading mechanism in modifying the quasienergy spectrum. In fact, as can be seen in the red thick curve (corresponding to $\Delta=0.4\Omega$), at intermediate coupling regime ($\alpha=0.5\Omega$), the effective bandgap of one of the pseudospin states can be closed at $\Delta=0.4\Omega$. This in turn signals the onset of the single Dirac cone configuration (red, thick curve in the rightmost panel). However, it is physically distinct in nature to that reported by Ezawa in [@ezawa2] since it is due to real instead of virtual photon emission and absortion processes.
Density of states
-----------------
To complement the physical picture given before, in this section we present the results for the time-averaged density of states obtained through the expression[@andreas] $$\textrm{DoS}(E)=\sum_{{\bf k},\nu\mu}\sum^\infty_{n=-\infty}\langle\Xi^n_{{\bf k},\mu\nu}|\Xi^n_{{\bf k},\mu\nu}\rangle\delta
[E-\epsilon_{{\bf k},\mu\nu}+n\Omega],$$ where the Floquet eigenstates $|\Xi^n_{{\bf k},\mu,nu}\rangle$ and the quasienergies $\epsilon_{{\bf k},\mu\nu}$ are defined via $$\mathcal{H}_F|\Xi^n_{{\bf k},\mu\nu}\rangle=\epsilon_{{\bf k},\mu\nu}|\Xi^n_{{\bf k},\mu\nu}\rangle.$$
In FIG.\[fig:figure3\] we show the resulting time-averaged DoS within the low (intermediate) coupling regime $\alpha=0.1\Omega$ ($\alpha=0.5\Omega$) of the Dirac fermions to the radiation field. We have taken as a reference the driven ungapped scenario $\Delta=0$, shown by the black dashed curve in order to explicitly show the interplay among the driving field and the static gap since for $\Delta=0$ no physical configuration of the two pseudospin components would lead to the single Dirac cone phase. However, in the inset (d) we can see that for a finite value of $\Delta=0.4\Omega$ and at intermediate coupling regime, one configuration is non gapped (black, continous curve) for $\Delta=0.4\Omega$, whereas the other (red, continous curve) for $\Delta=-0.4\Omega$, is gapped and thus one can achieve the driven single- Dirac cone configuration by properly tuning the ratio of the amplitude/frequency of the driven field at this intermediate light-matter coupling values.
Conclusions
===========
We have theoretically analyzed the photoinduced effects on a monolayer of silicene subject to intense terahertz circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation. We have shown that dynamical gap modulation of the quasienergy spectrum can only occur for large enough coupling strenght regimes of the light-matter interaction effective parameter $\alpha$. We found that for frequencies $\Omega$ within the range of the undriven bandgap real photon emission and absortion resonant processes induce a “band inversion“ that changes the qualitative bandgap structure of driven silicene. Therefore, the intermediate coupling regime qualitatively reproduces the single Dirac dynamical structure predicted in reference[@ezawa2] but with real instead of virtual photon resonant processes and therefore, the obeservation of the physical realization of this topological phase could be achieved at more realistic values of the strength of the light-matter coupling parameter. These distinct phases are correlated to the averaged out of plane pseudospin polarization parameter oscillations which in turn stem from the angular momentum exchange among the charge carries and the electromagnetic field.
We would like to add that performing a rotating wave approximation (RWA) would not be suitable to the regime under consideration since the corresponding RWA solutions can only properly describe the dynamics for small values of the coupling constant ($\alpha\approx 0.1\Omega$). We also note that considering another semianalytical approximation, such as the Magnus expansion[@magnus1] could provide some explicit formulae for both the quasienergy spectrum and Floquet eigenstates. Yet, this approach has the drawback that truncating the series leads to a violation of the stroboscopic relation which should be a general property of solutions to the dynamics of the periodically driven systems[@magnus2]. From an experimental point of view we consider that the angular momentum exchange between the radiation field and the pseudospin degree of freedom could be detected by measuring the changes in the polarization state of the reflected radiation from the silicene sample by means of the magneto optic Kerr effect as it has already been used for detecting real spin effects in semiconducting structures[@detection]. We consider that our proposed scheme could shed light on the relevance of the pseudospin for practical implementations of this degree of freedom in realistic pseudospintronics applications. We would also briefly discuss two additional points that are in order to better understand the physics of our proposed model. On the one hand, we mention that in order to take into account non-radiative recombination processes one should introduce an electron-phonon coupling which was considered in a recent paper by Mariani and von Oppen[@mariani] where they have shown that inclusion of this electron-phonon interaction due to transverse or flexural phonos in graphene could lead to distinguishable temperature dependences of the single layer graphene resistivity. This is in turn due to the fact that flexural phonons dominate the phonon contribution to the resistivity. We could expect that these effects should be present in monolayer silicene and would be the focus of future work where one could discuss the interplay between photon and phonon couplings to the Dirac fermions in silicene. On the other hand, one could also be interested in addressing the role of scattering effects at finite momenta. In this context, it has been recently shown by Zhai and Jin in reference[@zhai] that, within the off resonant approximation for epitaxial graphene, the photon dressing of the static eigenstates leads to an assymetry between the scattering amplitudes for the inter and intravalley conductances. This is explained as a consequence of the degeneracy lifting of the valley degree of freedom which is due to the time reversal symmetry breaking introduced by the electromagnetic radiation field. Therefore, we propose that within our setup the pseudospin conductance would have a similar asymmetry but the measurability of this asymmetry could be experimentally tested within a more realistic set of parameters since, as we have previously discussed in this work, the measurable effects of physical changes within the off resonant assumption are far to small to have observable consequences.
Appendix
========
Block diagonalization of the Hamiltonian
----------------------------------------
Following the discussion presented in section III, in this appendix we summarize the block diagonalization procedure of the Hamiltonian to take into account the extrinsic spin-orbit correction $h_{11}$. For simplicity, let us focus on the ${\bf K}$ Dirac point ($\eta=+1$) where we have the $4\times4$ Hamiltonian $$\label{e2}
\mathcal{H}_+(\vec{k})=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\Delta_-&v_F k_-&iv_2k_-& 0 \\
v_F k_+&-\Delta_-&0& -iv_2k_- \\
-i v_2k_+&0&-\Delta_+& v_F k_-\\
0&iv_2k_+&v_F k_+& \Delta_+
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $k_\pm=k_x\pm ik_y$, $\Delta_\pm=\lambda_{so}\pm\ell E_z$ and $v_2=a\lambda_{R2}$. If we now define $\tan\phi=k_y/k_x$ and perform a unitary transformation with $$\label{t1}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_0(k)=R^\dagger_\phi\mathcal{H}_+(\vec{k})R_\phi$$ with $R_\phi=\textrm{Diag}(e^{-i\phi},1,1,e^{i\phi})$, we get $$\label{e3}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_0(k)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\Delta_-&v_F k&iv_2k& 0 \\
v_F k&-\Delta_-&0& -iv_2k \\
-i v_2k&0&-\Delta_+& v_F k\\
0&iv_2k&v_F k& \Delta_+
\end{array}
\right).$$ We can further transform the previous Hamiltonian as $\mathcal{H}_0=T^\dagger_\xi\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_0(k)T_\xi$ to get a block diagonal form $$\label{1}
\mathcal{H}_0=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
H^-_0(k)& 0 \\
0&H^+_0(k)
\end{array}
\right),$$ where the unitary transformation has the explicit form $T_\xi=\exp(-i\xi\Sigma_0/2)$ and $\xi$ is chosen to get rid of the off-diagonal terms. For this purpose we have introduced the $4\times4$ matrix $$\label{e0}
\Sigma_0=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0& \sigma_0\\
\sigma_0 & 0
\end{array}
\right),$$ with $\sigma_0$ the $2\times2$ identity matrix. After some straightforward algebra one gets the condition for block diagonalization to fix the angle by the parameter relation $\tan\xi=v_2k/\lambda_{so}$. Then, the diagonal subblocks in Eq.(\[1\]) read $$\label{emenos}
H^\pm_0(k)=\mp(\Lambda_k\pm\ell E_z)\sigma_z+v_F k\sigma_x,$$ where the effective momentum dependent spin-orbit correction is defined as $\Lambda_k=\sqrt{\lambda^2_{so}+(v_2k)^2}$.
Under inversion of the transformation (\[t1\]), i.e., $R_\phi\mathcal{H}_0R^\dagger_\phi=\mathcal{H}_0(\vec{k})$, we find that the upper diagonal subblock of equation (\[1\]) reads now $$H_0(\vec{k})=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Delta_k& v_Fke^{-i\phi} \\
v_Fke^{i\phi}&-\Delta_k
\end{array}
\right),$$ where we have simplified the notation by setting the static gap as $\Delta\equiv\Lambda_k-\ell E_z$.
Derivation of the effective Hamiltonian within the off resonant condition {#appendixB}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the decimation method presented by Medina and Pastawski [@medina], we present now a brief discussion on the derivation of the effective Hamiltonian within the off resonant approximation for the periodic Floquet Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(t)=\mathcal{H}_0+V(t)$, as it is given in equation (\[general\]), where $\mathcal{H}_0$ is the static contribution and $V(t+T)=V(t)$ is the time-periodic interaction. Transforming to Fourier space we get the Floquet Hamiltonian for a monochromatic perturbation in matrix form given in tridiagonal form as $$\left(
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
\ddots\\
\cdots&V_{-1}&\mathcal{H}_{-2}&V_{+1}&0&0&0&\cdots\\
\cdots&0&V_{-1}&\mathcal{H}_{-1}&V_{+1}&0&0&\cdots\\
\cdots&0&0&V_{-1}&\mathcal{H}_0&V_{+1}&0&\cdots\\
\cdots&0&0&0&V_{-1}&\mathcal{H}_{1}&V_{+1}&\cdots\\
&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&0&V_{-1}&\mathcal{H}_{2}&\cdots\\
&&&&&&&\ddots&&&
\end{array}\right),
\label{floquecino2}$$ where the interaction submatrices are defined as $$V_{N}=\frac{1}{T}\int^T_0~dtV(t)e^{-iN\Omega t},$$ and we have set $\mathcal{H}_N=\mathcal{H}_0+N\Omega$. If we set out the eigenstate for a given number of Fourier modes $N$ we will have $$\Phi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi_{-N}\\
\phi_{-N+1}\\
\vdots\\
\phi_{-1}\\
\phi_{0}\\
\phi_{1}\\
\vdots\\
\phi_{N-1}\\
\phi_{N}\\
\end{array}\right),$$\
with each $\phi_{N}$ being a vector of dimensionality determined by $\mathcal{H}_0$. For instance, if we approximate the problem in such a way that we only consider one Fourier mode ($N=1$), we have to solve the following system of coupled equations $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&&\mathcal{H}_{-1}\phi_{-1}+V_{+1}\phi_{0}=E\phi_{-1}\\
\nonumber&&V_{-1}\phi_{-1}+\mathcal{H}_{0}\phi_{0}+V_{+1}\phi_{+1}=E\phi_{0}\\
\nonumber&&\mathcal{H}_{+1}\phi_{+1}+V_{-1}\phi_{0}=E\phi_{+1}.\\\end{aligned}$$ From the first and last equations we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&&\phi_{-1}=(E-\mathcal{H}_{-1})^{-1}V_{+1}\phi_{0}\\
\nonumber&&\phi_{+1}=(E-\mathcal{H}_{+1})^{-1}V_{-1}\phi_{0},\\ \end{aligned}$$ such that we get an effective equation for $\phi_0$
$$\begin{aligned}
[V_{-1}(E-\mathcal{H}_{-1})^{-1}V_{+1}+\mathcal{H}_{0}+V_{+1}(E-\mathcal{H}_{+1})^{-1}V_{-1}]\phi_{0}=E\phi_{0}\end{aligned}$$
For $\Omega\gg ||\mathcal{H}_0||$, i.e., frequencies much larger than the typical energy scales of the static problem, we can simplify the denominators and approximate the previous equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\mathcal{H}_{0}+\frac{V_{-1}V_{+1}}{\Omega}-\frac{V_{+1}V_{-1}}{\Omega}\right)\phi_{0}\approx E\phi_{0},\end{aligned}$$ so we get the effective approximate Floquet Hamiltonian, valid for large frequencies $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_\text{F}\approx \mathcal{H}_{0}+\frac{[V_{-1},V_{+1}]}{\Omega}.\end{aligned}$$ With a similar procedure one can show that for $N=2$ one gets the approximate Floquet Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}^{'}_\text{F}\approx \mathcal{H}_{0}+\frac{[V_{-1},V_{+1}]}{\Omega}-\frac{1}{2\Omega}\frac{[V^2_{-1},V^2_{+1}]}{\Omega^2}.\end{aligned}$$ [*[Acknowledgments]{}–*]{} This work has been supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via GRK 1570 and by Yachay EP through a grant from SENESCYT.
J. Cayssol, B. Dóra, F. Simon and R. Moessner, [*Phys. Stat Sol. RRL*]{} [**7**]{}, 101 (2013) H. L. Calvo, H. M. Pastawski, S. Roche and L. E. F. Foa Torres, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 232103 (2011) P. M. Perez-Piskunow, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, and L. E. F. Foa Torres, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**89**]{}, 121401 (R) (2014) K. S. Novoselov et al, [*Science*]{} [**306**]{}, 666 (2004) A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, [*Nature Mater.*]{} [**6**]{}, 183 (2007) A. H. Castro Neto et al, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**81**]{}, 109 (2009) K. Takeda and K. Shiraishi, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**50**]{}, 14916 (1994) G. G. Guzmán-Verri and L. C. Lew Yan Voon, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**76**]{}, 075131 (2007) P. Vogt et al, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{}, 155501 (2012) A. Fleurence et al, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{}, 245501 (2012) L. Chen et al, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**109**]{}, 056804 (2012) I. Zutic, J. Fabian and S. Das Sarma, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**76**]{}, 323 (2004) H. Min, G. Borghi, M. Polini and A.H. MacDonald, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**77**]{}, 041407 (R) (2008) K. S. Novoselov et al., [*Nature (London)*]{} [**438**]{}, 197 (2005), Y. B. Zhang et al., [*Nature (London)*]{} [**438**]{}, 201 (2005), K. S. Novoselov et al., [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**2**]{}, 177 (2006) M. I. Katsnelson,K. S. Novoselov and A. K. Geim, [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**2**]{}, 620 (2006) M. Ezawa, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**109**]{}, 055502 (2012) M. Mecklenburg and B. C. Regan, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**106**]{}, 116803 (2011) M. Ezawa, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**110**]{}, 026603 (2013) A. Scholz, A. López and J. Schliemann, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**88**]{}, 045118 (2013) C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{}, 226801 (2005) C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{}, 146802 (2005) M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**82**]{}, 3045 (2010) T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner and E. Demler, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**82**]{}, 235114 (2010) T. Kitagawa,T. Oka, A. Brataas, L. Fu and E. Demler, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**84**]{}, 235108 (2011) M. Grifoni and P. Hänggi, [*Physics Reports*]{} [**304**]{}, 229 (1998) S.-I Chu and D. A. Telnov, [*Physics reports*]{} [**390**]{}, 1 (2004) C. -C. Liu, H. Jiang and Y. Yao, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**84**]{}, 195430 (2011) K. C. Nowack, F. H. L. Koppens, Yu. V. Nazarov and L. M. K. Vandersypen, [*Science*]{} [**318**]{}, 1430 (2007) Y. Zhou and M. W. Wu, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**83**]{}, 245436 (2011) J. Karch et al, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**105**]{}, 227402 (2010) W. Magnus, [*Commun. Pure Applied Math.*]{} [**VII**]{}, 649673 (1954), S. Blanes et al, [*Physics reports*]{} [**470**]{}, 151 (2009), S. Blanes, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**31**]{}, 259 (1998), Ch. Moan and J. Niesen, [*Found. Comput. Math.*]{} [**8**]{}, 291 (2008) A. López, A. Scholz, Z. Z. Sun and J. Schliemann, [*Eur. Phys. J. B*]{} [**86**]{}, 366 (2013) E. Mariani and F. von Oppen, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{}, 076801 (2008) X. Zhai and G. Jin, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**89**]{}, 235416 (2014) G. Schmidt [*J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.*]{} [**38**]{}, R107 (2005) E. Medina and H. Pastawski, [*Rev. Mex. Phys.*]{} [**47**]{}, 1 (2001)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
(1) Institut de Physique Nucleaire de Lyon, 4 rue Enrico Fermi,\
domaine scientifique de la DOUA 69622 Villeurbanne CEDEX , France\
(2) Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822
author:
- 'N. Bonhomme$^{(1)}$ , H.M.Courtois$^{(1)}$ , R.B.Tully$^{(2)}$'
title: 'DERIVATION OF DISTANCES WITH THE TULLY-FISHER RELATION: THE ANTLIA CLUSTER'
---
Selecting galaxies in Antlia cluster
====================================
The authors have an ongoing large project of measuring 14 clusters for purpose of calibrating the slope of the LLW relation at large distances. In this proceedings, we present an example using the Antlia Cluster. The selection steps use the extensive LEDA [@patu] database as follows:\
1.List all galaxies that are possible members of the cluster : based on radial velocities, and coordinates above a given magnitude limit (Mk $\leq$ -21 , 2MASS survey) [@jar].\
2.Using the morphological type, discriminate between elliptical and spiral galaxies. Only galaxies of type later than $S0$ (not included) have enough HI gas to be reliably detected with radio observations.\
3.The candidates should have an inclination $(i)$ between 90 and 45 degrees in order to measure the Doppler shift due to the gas rotation in the galaxy and to obtain an accurate optical measurement of the inclination $(i)$ . The galaxy should also not be an interacting or have a confusing nearby galaxy in the radio telescope beam.\
Photometry
==========
It has been shown [@tu] that the use of shorter exposures as in 2MASS survey can lead to systematics in the distance derivation for the LLW, since the extended part of the galaxy disk are not probed by short exposures. This is clearly understood by the fact that the radio HI profile is correlated to the outer parts of the disk. Deep exposures (300 sec) in I band are currently obtained at UH2.2m telescope (Hawaii). The archangel software [@sch] is used to compute the surface brightness and total integrated magnitudes of a galaxy. Flux calibration is provided by standard Landolt star exposures taken throughout the night. Critical points in the magnitude determination are the stars masking and the sky level determination since we try to extend the measurements to the farther outskirts of the galaxy. In the example, the measure of the apparent magnitude of pgc31995 with Archangel [@sch] gives $ m_I = 11.32 \pm 0.03$, the inclination $i = 78^o$ and the apparent magnitude in I band, corrected by extinction of our galaxy $(b)$, inclination of the target galaxy $(i)$ and the redshift effect $(k)$ is $m_I^{b,i,k} = 10.45 \pm 0.04$.
HI linewidth
============
The authors are involved in a large program involving the collection of HI spectra from Arecibo, GBT, Parkes and Nancay radiotelescopes. The critical points in the linewidth measurement are:\
-Clearly defining the beginning and the end of the spectral lines edges.\
-Measuring the width at a constant physically meaningfull level independent of the line profile shape (single peak, double peak, narrow, high or low). The literature is abundant with discussions about which way the HI line should be measured. The authors have been developping a new algorithm to measure the profile at 50% of the integrated line rather than 20% or 50% of the peaks level. The linewidth measurement gives in our example: $W_R = 396 \pm 8$ $kms^{-1}$ .
![Archangel photometry + HI profile \[fig:arc\]](pgc31995_proc.ps){width="15"}
Results
=======
The most recent calibration of the LLW with cepheids [@tu] gives: $M_I^{b,i,k} = -21.43 - 8.11 (logW_R^i -2.5)$. $M_I^{b,i,k}$ is the absolute magnitude in I band and $W_R^i$ is the linewidth corrected by the inclination $(i)$ of the target galaxy: $W_R^i = W_R / sin(i)$. Once the slope of the LLW is calibrated from clusters studies, the LLW can be used to derive distances of field galaxies in the local universe volume up to 10,000 km/s. A distance allows a subtraction of expansion velocity $H_0d$, from the observed velocity $V_{obs}$ to give a peculiar velocity: $V_{pec}$ = $V_{obs}-H_od$ . For pgc31995, $M_I^{b,i,k}=-22.30 \pm 0.35$ and then $d = 35.5 \pm 6$ $Mpc$. One realize that an accuracy of better than 17% is reached for a single galaxy. We might reached 4 or 5% for a cluster with $\sqrt{N}$ improvement. Thus with $H_0 = 73$ $kms^{-1} Mpc^{-1}$ , $V_{pec} = 357 \pm 21$ $kms^{-1}$. Finally, the peculiar flows are used as a tracer of the luminous and dark matter gravitational fields in the local universe [@tu].
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Jarrett, T.H. [*et al*]{}, . Paturel [*et al*]{}, . Schombert,J., . Tully, R.B. and M.J. Pierce, . Tully, R.B. [*et al*]{}, .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'From a [*Chandra*]{} survey of nine interacting galaxy systems the evolution of X-ray emission during the merger process has been investigated. From comparing [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{} and [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} it is found that the X-ray luminosity peaks $\sim$300 Myr before nuclear coalescence, even though we know that rapid and increasing star formation is still taking place at this time. It is likely that this drop in X-ray luminosity is a consequence of outflows breaking out of the galactic discs of these systems. At a time $\sim$1 Gyr after coalescence, the merger-remnants in our sample are X-ray dim when compared to typical X-ray luminosities of mature elliptical galaxies. However, we do see evidence that these systems will start to resemble typical elliptical galaxies at a greater dynamical age, given the properties of the 3 Gyr system within our sample, indicating that halo regeneration will take place within low [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} merger-remnants.'
date: '?? and in revised form ??'
title: 'The X-ray Evolution of Merging Galaxies'
---
Introduction
============
One of the most important factors in galaxy evolution is the effect of galaxy collisions and mergers. It is likely that most galaxies have been shaped or created through an interaction or merger with another galaxy. In particular, many astronomers believe that the formation of many elliptical galaxies is the product of the merger of two spiral galaxies. This was first proposed by Toomre in 1977, illustrated by the ‘Toomre’ sequence ([@Toomre77]). This shows 11 examples from the New General Catalogue (NGC) of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars, from approaching disc systems to near-elliptical remnants. The systems within this sequence have been well studied over a range of wavelengths, including X-ray.
X-ray observations are of particular importance when observing interacting galaxies as they are able to probe the dusty nucleus of the system, enabling the nature of the point source population to be established. Imaging of the the soft X-ray emission allows us to map out the diffuse gas and observe galactic-winds outflowing from the system, enabling constraints to be placed on the energetics of the outflows. From observing a selection of these interacting systems, at different stages of evolution, the processes involved in the merging of galaxies pairs can be characterised. Here we briefly describe the behaviour of the evolutionary sequence for our selected sample and discuss the mechanisms involved at key stages in this merger process.
The Sample
===========
Our sample contains nine merging systems, selected using the following criteria;
1. All systems have been observed with [*Chandra*]{}.
2. Systems comprise of, or, originate from, two similar mass spiral galaxies.
3. Multi-wavelength information is available for each system.
4. The absorbing column is low, maximising the sensitivity to soft X-ray emission.
5. A wide chronological sequence is covered; from detached pairs to merger-remnants.
The main problem when working with a chronological study is assigning each system a merger age. This problem has been addressed through a combination of; N-body simulations, dynamical age estimates and stellar population synthesis models. From this we have established an evolutionary sequence for the nine systems in our sample, this can be seen in Table \[tab:gals\] where; column (1) gives the system name, column (2) the distance (assuming [$H_{\mathrm{0}}$]{} = 75 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$), column (3) the merger age of the system (assigning 0 Myr at the time of nuclear coalescence), column (4) the total (0.3$-$6.0 keV) X-ray luminosity ([$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}) of the system, column (5) the percentage of luminosity arising from the diffuse gas and column (6) the paper reference of a detailed [*Chandra*]{} study of the system.
-------------- ---------- ------------ ------------------------------- ------------- ------------------- -- -- --
Galaxy Distance Merger Age [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} %L$_{diff}$ Paper reference
System (Mpc) (Gyr) ($\times10^{40}$erg s$^{-1}$)
Arp 270 28 -0.65 2.95 28 [@Brassington05a]
The Mice 88 -0.5 7.43 25 [@Read03]
The Antennae 19 -0.4 8.40 45 [@Fabbiano04]
Mkn 266 115 -0.3 73.18 51 [@Brassington05b]
NGC 3256 56 -0.2 90.00 59 [@Lira02]
Arp 220 76 0 26.70 49 [@McDowell03]
NGC 7252 63 1.0 6.91 30 [@Nolan04]
Arp 222 23 1.2 1.46 45 [@Brassington05b]
NGC 1700 54 3.0 17.58 83 [@Diehl05]
-------------- ---------- ------------ ------------------------------- ------------- ------------------- -- -- --
: Key properties of the nine interacting systems. \[tab:gals\]
The Evolution Plot
==================
We have obtained the B-band, K-band and FIR luminosities for each system, in addition to their [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} value, as shown in Table \[tab:gals\]. With this information we have compared the activity levels, indicated by [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} (a proxy for star-formation normalised by the galaxy mass) and [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}, scaled by galaxy mass for each system. For the normalisation of [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} we have used both the B-band and the K-band luminosities, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} and [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{}. This is to observe how [$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} varies from [$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{}, as it is known that [$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} is affected by star-formation.
These ratios are shown in Figure \[fig:lbage\], where we have plotted, not only the luminosity ratios, but also the percentage of luminosity arising from diffuse gas (%[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{}), as a function of merger age. [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} (solid line), [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} (dot-dash line) and [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{} (dashed line) have been normalised by the typical spiral galaxy, NGC 2404. Whilst %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{} (dotted line) is plotted on the right y-axis of the image, as an absolute value, where %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{} for NGC 2403 is 12%. The horizontal lines to the right of the plot indicate [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{}, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{}, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{} and %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{} for NGC 2434, a typical elliptical galaxy ([@Diehl05]).
![The evolution of X-ray luminosity in merging galaxies. Shown are [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} (solid line), [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} (dot-dash line), [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{} (dashed line) and %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{}, plotted as a function of merger age, where 0 age is defined to be the time of nuclear coalescence. All luminosity ratios ([$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{}, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} and [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{}) are normalised by the spiral galaxy NGC 2403. %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{} is plotted on a linear scale, shown on the right y-axis of the image and is an absolute value. %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{} for NGC 2403 is 12%. The horizontal lines to the right of the plot indicate [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{}, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{}, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{} and %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{} for NGC 2434, a typical elliptical galaxy. []{data-label="fig:lbage"}](lbandlk.ps){height="0.6\linewidth"}
From this figure, it can be seen that the activity increases with merger age up to the point of nuclear coalescence. At this time the activity peaks, showing that this point of evolution is the most violent stage in the merger process. After coalescence, the activity decreases for $\sim$1.2 Gyr and then flattens. At this point it exhibits a value of activity similar to that observed in typical elliptical galaxies, as indicated by NGC 2434.
Both of the normalised X-ray luminosity ratios, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{} and [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{}, exhibit broadly the same trends, with values increasing until $\sim$300 Myr before nuclear coalescence takes place, and then dropping until $\sim$1.2 Gyr after the nuclei have coalesced. Both of these values then begin to rise again, and, from the indication of the trend lines, seem likely to resemble an elliptical galaxy, at a later time, although this exceeds the evolution time within our sample. %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{} exhibits a similar trend, with the value peaking at a time before coalescence (although the peak is at $\sim$200 Myr) and then dropping, before rising once more, exhibiting a similar value to that of NGC 2434.
The results from this study are initially surprising, given that a similar study carried out with [*ROSAT*]{} observations ([@Read98]), albeit a study that does not include all the same systems as ours, found that the peak in [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} was coincident with the peak in [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} and nuclear coalescence. It is likely that this difference is due to the inclusion of the merging galaxy NGC 520 (a system which has been described as an ’anomalous half-merger’ ([@Read05])), in the [@Read98] study. We suggest that the reason that [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} peaks at a time before nuclear coalescence is a consequence of large-scale diffuse outflows being driven out of the interacting systems by the starbursts taking place within these galaxies.
Starburst-driven winds are responsible for the transport of gas and energy out of star forming galaxies. The energetics of these galactic winds were investigated in [@Strickland00], via two-dimensional hydro-dynamical simulations. From modelling [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} they found that, once superbubbles had broken out of the galactic disc and formed galactic winds, [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} dropped rapidly ($\sim$10 Myr). It was also found that the soft X-ray emission from these winds arises from the cooler, denser, low volume filling factor gas ($\eta =0.01-$2 %) which contains only $\sim$10% of the energy of the wind. Because of this, [*Chandra*]{} can only provide lower limits on the mass and energy content of the galactic winds. Consequently, more evolved, pre-merger systems that have wide-spread galactic winds exhibit lower [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} than starburst systems that have yet to experience large-scale diffuse outflows.
Another interesting result from this survey is the increase in [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} in the older merger-remnants. In previous studies post-merger systems have been found to be X-ray dim when compared to elliptical galaxies. In this study we have extended the merger sequence to include a 3 Gyr system, and, in doing so, have observed that these under-luminous systems seem likely to have increased [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} at a greater dynamical age. Given that these merger-remnants have been shown to be quiescent, we know that this increase in [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} is not due to any starburst activity within the system. Coupling this, with the increase in %[$L_{\mathrm{diff}}$]{}, indicates that diffuse X-ray gas is being produced, leading to the creation of X-ray haloes, as observed in mature elliptical galaxies. [@Osul01] investigated the relationship between [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{} and spectroscopic age in post-merger ellipticals and found that there was a long term trend ($\sim$10 Gyr) for [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} to increase with time. The mechanism by which they explain the regeneration of hot gas haloes in these galaxies is one in which an outflowing wind to hydrostatic halo phase is driven by a declining SNIa rate. They argue that a scenario in which gas, driven out during the starburst, infalls onto the existing halo is not the dominant mechanism in generating X-ray haloes as this mechanism would only take $\sim$1$-$2 Gyr and would therefore not produce the long-term trend they observe. With the current information from our sample, neither scenario can be ruled out.
Conclusions
===========
From our sample of nine interacting galaxy systems we have compared [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{K}}$]{} and [$L_{\mathrm{FIR}}$]{}/[$L_{\mathrm{B}}$]{}, and shown that there is a peak in [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} $\sim$300 Myr before nuclear coalescence takes place. We suggest that the reason for this decrease in [$L_{\mathrm{X}}$]{} at a time before coalescence is due to hot gaseous outflows breaking out of the galactic discs of these systems. We have also shown that the X-ray dim merger-remnant systems seem likely to evolve into more luminous systems at a greater dynamical age, given the properties observed in the 3 Gyr system within our sample. This indicates that halo regeneration will take place within low luminosity merger-remnant systems. Greater detail of this work can be found in [@Brassington05b].
2005, *MNRAS* 360, 801
2005, in preparation
2005, in preparation
2004, *ApJ* (Letters) 605, L21
2002, *MNRAS* 330, 259
2003, *ApJ* 591, 154
2004, *MNRAS* 353, 221
2001, *MNRAS* 324, 420
2003, *MNRAS* 342, 715
2005, *MNRAS* 359, 455
1998, *MNRAS* 297, 143
2000, *MNRAS* 314, 511
1977, in: Tinsky B. M. & Larson T. B. eds *Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Popultations*, Yale University Observatory, New Haven. p.401
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the length of the period of validity of a classical description for the cosmic axion field. To this end, we first show that we can understand the oscillating axion solution as expectation value over an underlying coherent quantum state. Once we include self-interaction of the axion, the quantum state evolves so that the expectation value over it starts to deviate from the classical solution. The time-scale of this process defines the quantum break-time. For the hypothetical dark matter axion field in our Universe, we show that quantum break-time exceeds the age of the Universe by many orders of magnitude. This conclusion is independent of specific properties of the axion model. Thus, experimental searches based on the classical approximation of the oscillating cosmic axion field are fully justified. Additionally, we point out that the distinction of classical nonlinearities and true quantum effects is crucial for calculating the quantum break-time in any system. Our analysis can also be applied to other types of dark matter that are described as classical fluids in the mean field approximation.'
author:
- Gia Dvali
- 'Sebastian Zell[^1]'
title:
- Axion
- 'Classicality and Quantum Break-Time for Cosmic Axions\'
---
Quantum Breakdown of Classicality
==================================
Classicality is an approximate notion, applicable to macroscopic systems with a large number of quantum constituents. The dynamics of such systems is usually well-described by classical equations of motion. However, since the underlying dynamics is quantum, it is legitimate to ask how fast a given macroscopic system can deviate from the classical evolution, due to quantum effects. This question was addressed in [@nico] using a prototype many-body system of $N$ interacting bosons in a box with periodic boundary conditions. The bosons experienced a simple attractive four-point interaction controlled by a quantum coupling constant $\alpha$. The usefulness of this model lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it is complex enough to exhibit both regimes of interest, i.e., approximately classical versus fully quantum. On the other hand, it is simple enough to explicitly track the exact quantum evolution and determine when the classical description breaks down. Following [@nico], we shall refer to this phenomenon as [*quantum breaking*]{} and to the corresponding time-scale as [*quantum break-time*]{}. In [@nico] it was observed that the quantum break-time was the shortest (scaling as $\sim \ln(N)$) for states that exhibited a classical instability with large Lyapunov exponent and a strong collective coupling $\lambda \equiv \alpha N$. At the same time, for the states with weak collective coupling and/or no classical instability, the quantum breaking time is macroscopically-long and scales as power-law in $N$. For describing the time-evolution of such states, the classical approximation therefore remains valid during a time that is power-law sensitive to the occupation number of bosons.
Since [@nico], the question of the duration of a classical description in quantum many-body systems has been studied for various multi-boson states of interacting spin-2 and spin-0 particles [@compositenessDS; @kuhnel; @sikivieCoherent; @hertzbergClassical; @berezhiani; @us]. In the present paper, we shall adopt the approach of [@us], where the concept of quantum break-time was applied to the field theoretic system of an oscillating nonlinear scalar field and certain universal relations among different time-scales were derived. As we shall see, these relations allow to clearly separate the effects of quantum interactions from those of classical nonlinearities. This analysis confirms that for weak collective coupling and in the absence of classical Lyapunov exponents, the quantum breaking-time is macroscopically long. In particular, our goal in the present paper is to apply the above analysis to a cosmic axion field and to understand the domains of validity of its classical description.
Importance of a Classical Description of Dark Matter Axions
===========================================================
The axion [@weinberg; @wilczek] is a well-known hypothetical particle which is predicted by the Peccei-Quinn (PQ) solution [@pecceiquinn] to the strong CP problem. It is a pseudo-Goldstone boson of spontaneously-broken global chiral PQ symmetry. The explicit breaking of this symmetry by the chiral anomaly through non-perturbative QCD effects results in a non-zero mass of the axion. One of the beauties of axion physics is that its low energy dynamics is extremely constrained due to the Goldstone nature and the power of anomaly. The mass $m_a$ and the decay constant $f_a$ of the axion field are related via a non-perturbative scale $\Lambda$: $m_a \, = \, {\Lambda^2 \over f_a}$. Note that in any theory in which the sole source of the PQ symmetry breaking is the QCD anomaly, the scale $\Lambda$ is entirely determined by the non-perturbative QCD sector and the low-energy parameters of the Standard Model (such as the Yukawa coupling constants of quarks) and is insensitive to the precise embedding of the axion into a high-energy theory, i.e., low energy axion physics is insensitive with respect to UV-completion.
Phenomenological constraints put a lower bound on the scale $f_a$ approximately around $10^{9}\,$GeV (see e.g., [@review]). This speaks in favor of so-called invisible axion models [@invisible], in which the PQ symmetry can be broken at a very high scale around $f_a \gtrsim 10^{9}\,$GeV. Such a weak coupling implies that the axion is essentially stable on cosmological scales. This fact makes the axion a very interesting dark matter candidate. In this scenario, the role of dark matter energy is played by the energy of coherent oscillations of the axion field. Of course, the current energy of the axion field depends on the cosmological epoch of the onset of axion oscillations as well as on its initial amplitude $A_{\text{in}}$. Some conservative estimates are based on the assumptions that the axion oscillations first started in the epoch of thermal phase transition of QCD and with the maximal initial amplitude $A_{\text{in}} \sim f_a$. This gives the famous cosmological upper bound: $f_a \lesssim 10^{12}\,$GeV [@cosmicbound]. We must notice that there exist loopholes [@gia] which soften this upper bound and allow for much higher values of $f_a$. For the present study, however, this change is unimportant and we can safely assume $f_a$ to be below its conservative upper bound, $f_a \lesssim 10^{12}\,$GeV.
The search for the dark matter axion has been an active field of research since no signs of it have been found so far (see e.g., [@experiments] for current experimental efforts). Several of the proposed experiments heavily rely on the approximation of the gas of axions by a coherently oscillating classical scalar field $a(t)$. There has been a recent discussion of the axion field on the quantum level (see e.g., [@sikivieFirst; @sikivieDetailed; @sikivieAngular]). Although the main motivation there was astrophysical, it was also suggested that quantum effects can significantly correct the classical description of axions. Obviously, it is important to clarify this issue both from a fundamental as well as an experimental point of view. In doing so, we will not discuss the astrophysical consequences proposed in [@sikivieFirst; @sikivieDetailed; @sikivieAngular]. Instead, we will only be concerned with the general question if the classical description as oscillating scalar field is valid for axions.
In the present paper, we will therefore calculate a lower bound on the quantum break-time of the cosmic axion field, i.e., the minimal required time-scale before the true quantum evolution of a multi-axion quantum state can depart from its classical mean field description. As said above, the study of the quantum break-time phenomenon for an oscillating scalar field was given in [@us], and we shall apply this analysis to the axion field. Using these quantum field-theoretic arguments, we will show that if for some initial time the approximation of an axion gas by a classical field is good, it remains good – with an extraordinary accuracy – for time-scales exceeding the current age of the Universe by many orders of magnitude. Hence, experimental searches relying on the classical field approximation are safe for all practical purposes.
We start in section \[sec:scaling\] by discussing the scaling of the quantum break-time in a generic system. We turn to the axion field in section \[sec:classical\] and review some of its classical properties. Subsequently, we restrict ourselves to a simplified setup which possesses an explicit solution. In section \[sec:quantum\], we will show that we can reproduce this simple classical solution as expectation value over a coherent state of axions. Once we include the selfcoupling of axions, this coherent state starts to evolve so that the expectation value over it departs from the classical solution. The time-scale of this process is the sought-after quantum break-time and thereby the main result of our paper. Afterwards, we show in section \[sec:simplifications\] that the approximations we used to find our simple classical solution do not alter our conclusion. In particular, we show that Hubble damping has no influence on the quantum break-time. We supplement this discussion by elaborating on the collective coupling of the axion in section \[sec:collective\]. While it is weak for the hypothetical dark matter axion in our Universe, we demonstrate that it would not lead to an arbitrarily short break-time even if it were infinitely strong. We conclude in section \[sec:otherWork\] by discussing in more detail the relationship of our work to the results presented in [@sikivieFirst; @sikivieDetailed; @sikivieAngular]. In particular, we argue that the effects observed there also occur in a classical mean field description and do not lead to quantum breaking.
General $\hbar$-Scaling of Time-Scales {#sec:scaling}
======================================
Before going into axion specifics, it is useful to discuss some general features of classicality for a generic multi-particle quantum system. A key characteristic of any quantum field-theoretic system is the strength of interaction between its quanta, which can be parameterized by a dimensionless quantity $\alpha$. In the quantum language, $\alpha$ controls the magnitude of scattering amplitudes. Typically, it is convenient to use $2 \rightarrow 2$-scattering as a reference point. Of course, the system may possess more than one type of interaction, and correspondingly more than one type of $\alpha$. However, for purposes of this discussion a single $\alpha$ is sufficient.
We can always normalize fields in such a way that $\alpha \ll 1$ corresponds to a weak-coupling domain, in which a perturbative expansion in powers of $\alpha$ can be performed. Correspondingly, $\alpha > 1$ describes a [*strong coupling*]{} regime, for which perturbation theory in $\alpha$ breaks down. In our analysis we shall restrict ourselves to systems with weak coupling since the axion satisfies this property. Even for $\alpha \ll 1$, however, the system can become strongly interacting in a [*collective*]{} sense. This can happen if the system is put in a state in which the occupation number of interacting quanta $N$ is large enough. In that case, the strength of interaction is determined by the collective coupling $$\lambda \equiv \alpha N \,.
\label{collectiveGeneral}$$ The regimes of interest can be then split according to whether it is weak ($\lambda < 1$), strong ($\lambda > 1$) or critical ($\lambda = 1$).
Let us investigate how the various quantities scale when we take the classical limit. This limit can be defined in several equivalent ways. One possibility is to take $\hbar \rightarrow 0$, while keeping all the classically-measurable expectation values fixed, i.e., all the parameters in the classical Lagrangian are kept finite. In particular, the collective coupling $\lambda$ is a classical quantity since it characterizes the strength of classical nonlinearities. Therefore, it is independent of $\hbar$ and stays finite in the classical limit. Since the quantum coupling vanishes, $\alpha \rightarrow 0$, for $\hbar \rightarrow 0$, this implies that in the classical limit we have $N \rightarrow \infty$. Therefore, states which behave approximately-classically are characterized by a large occupation number of quanta $N$. In particular, this is true for the coherently oscillating axion field.
Keeping in mind that we are at large $N$, small $\alpha$ and some fixed $\lambda$, we can now perform some dimensional analysis. We assume that the system is well-described classically at some initial time $t=0$ and we wish to estimate how long it will take for the classical description to break down. Obviously, this time-scale should satisfy the scaling property of becoming infinite in the classical limit $\hbar \rightarrow 0$. Then assuming a simple analytic dependence, the quantum break-time should scale to leading order as $$t_{\text{q}} = ({\rm fixed~classical~quantity } ) \times N^{\beta} = ({\rm fixed~classical~quantity}) \times
\alpha^{-\beta} \,,
\label{scaling}$$ where $\beta > 0$ is an integer and we used that $\lambda = \alpha N$ is a fixed constant. Already for $\beta = 1$, this time-scale is very large for macroscopically-occupied weakly-interacting systems. As we shall see, this is exactly the case for the axion field.
For completeness, we want to point out that there is another possible functional dependence which fulfills a simple scaling behavior in the classical limit and which requires special attention: $$t_{\text{q}} = ({\rm fixed~classical~quantity} ) \times \ln(N) = ({\rm fixed~classical~quantity} ) \times
\ln(\alpha^{-1}) \,.
\label{scalingLog}$$ Such a scaling cannot be excluded on the basis of general dimensional analysis. In fact, it was explicitly shown in [@nico] that it does take place, but under the following conditions:\
1) the system must be in an overcritical state, i.e., in a state with $\lambda > 1$; and\
2) the system in this state must exhibit a classical instability, i.e., a Lyapunov exponent which is independent of $\hbar$.\
Under such conditions, the quantum break-time was found to be given by $$t_{\text{q}} = \Omega^{-1} \times \ln(N) \, ,
\label{scalingLog1}$$ where $\Omega$ is the Lyapunov exponent.
As we shall discuss in detail in section \[sec:collective\], the axion field of cosmological interest does not satisfy either of the above conditions: 1) it is well under-critical, $\lambda \ll 1$; and 2) no classical Lyapunov exponent exists. Correspondingly, when modeling the axion field as a many-body quantum system, one should remember to keep $\lambda$ small.
Moreover, as we shall explain later in the paper, once the underlying Goldstone nature of the axion field is taken into account, the validity of the effective field theory description of the axion precludes taking the limit $\lambda \gg 1$. Thus, a short quantum break-time cannot be achieved even at such an expense. Of course, such a regime is not of any obvious phenomenological interest since, as said above, the realistic cosmic axion field corresponds to $\lambda \ll 1$. Nevertheless, it is illuminating to clarify this point.
Classical Solutions {#sec:classical}
===================
### General Properties {#general-properties .unnumbered}
We are now ready to specialize to the axion case. In order to derive a lower bound on the time-scale over which the classical evolution can be a good approximation for an oscillating axion field, the precise form of its potential $V(a/f_a)$ is not so important. For our analysis, it suffices to assume that it is a periodic function of $a/f_a$. Only later, for concreteness, we shall use a specific form which is widely used in the literature. In general, the energy-density of a time-dependent classical axion field $a(t)$ is given by $$\rho_a = {1 \over 2} \dot{a}^2 \, + \, V(a/f_a) \,.
\label{Edensity}$$ Since the purpose of this paper is to distinguish classical and quantum effects, we shall for a moment keep $\hbar$ explicit, while setting the speed of light equal to one. Therefore, the fields and parameters in (\[Edensity\]) have the following dimensions: $[a] = [f_a] = \sqrt{(energy)/(time)}$ and $[V] = (energy)/(time)^3$.
Of course, for a generic non-singular function $V(a/f_a)$, the exact form of $a(t)$ can be very complicated and the oscillation-period can have a non-trivial dependence on the amplitude. However, as long as the axion field does not reach the maxima of the potential during its oscillations, the order of magnitude of the characteristic oscillation period $t_{\text{osc}}$ is given by the inverse curvature of potential $V(a)$ at its minimum, about which the axion oscillates. Without loss of generality, we can set the minimum to be at $a=0$. Then, $t_{\text{osc}}^{-2} \sim {\partial^2 V(a) \over \partial^2a}|_{a=0}\, \equiv \, \bar{m}_a^2$, where $\bar{m}_a$ represents the frequency of small oscillations (with infinitesimal amplitude). We put a bar on this quantity in order to distinguish it from its quantum counterpart $m_a$, which represents the mass of the axion [*particle*]{} in the quantum theory. The two quantities are related via $\hbar$ as $m_a \equiv \hbar \bar{m}_a$.
In the cosmological environment, the coherent oscillations of a homogeneous axion field are described by an equation similar to a damped anharmonic oscillator: $$\ddot{a} \, + \, \gamma \, \dot{a} \, + \, {\partial V(a) \over \partial a} \, = \, 0 \,,
\label{axionGeneric}$$ where the friction term $\gamma$ predominantly comes from the Hubble damping, $\gamma \simeq 3H$, due to the expansion of the Universe. The contribution from the axion decay is negligible. Note that for $\gamma \ll \bar{m}_a$, which is the case for most of the situations of our interest, we can still identify certain important properties of the time-evolution $a(t)$ without actually knowing the explicit forms of the functions $V(a)$ and $a(t)$. The usual trick to achieve this is to first rewrite equation (\[axionGeneric\]) in the following form: $$\dot{\rho_a} \, = \, - \gamma \, \dot{a}^2 \,.
\label{average}$$ Next we can average this expression over a time-scale of order $\bar{m}_a^{-1}$, on which the variation of $\gamma$ is negligible and it can be treated as constant. Moreover, if the axion oscillation amplitude is smaller than $f_a$, nonlinearities are not important and oscillations are dominated by the mass term. In such a case, the average values over a period of oscillation of the kinetic and potential energies of the axion field are equal and each carry half of the total energy density, ${1 \over 2} \overline{\dot{a}^2} \, = \, \overline{V(a)} = {1 \over 2} \overline{\rho_a} $, so that we can replace $\overline{\dot{a}^2}$ on the r.h.s. of (\[average\]) by $\overline{\rho_a}$. Finally, applying the resulting average expression for the evolution on time-scales longer than the Hubble-time $t \sim \gamma^{-1} \gg \bar{m}_a^{-1}$, we get the following equation describing the time-evolution of the axion energy density: $$\dot{\rho_a} \, = \, - \gamma \, \rho_a \,,
\label{avolved}$$ where we drop the bar from now on. This can be easily integrated to give $$\rho_a(t) \, = \rho_a(t_{\text{in}})\, \exp\left(-\limitint_{t_{\text{in}}}^{t} \gamma(t')\, {\mathrm{d}}t'\right) \,,
\label{densityEvolve}$$ where $t_{\text{in}}$ is some initial time. Taking into account that $\gamma = 3H$, we immediately get the well-known result that the axion energy density dilutes as the inverse-cube of the cosmological scale factor, i.e., redshifts just like dust.
Correspondingly, we can use the temperature of the microwave background radiation in the Universe as a useful clock for keeping track of the axion energy density. Thus, we represent the evolution of the axion energy density in the following frequently-used form: $$\rho_a(T) \, = \rho_a(T_{\text{in}})\, {T^3 \over T_{\text{in}}^3} \,.
\label{densityTemperature}$$ In the language of the oscillating classical field $a(t)$, this means that due to Hubble damping, the amplitude $A(t)$ of the axion field reduces in proportionality to $T^{3/2}$. The fact that the classical axion energy density redshifts as dust nicely matches the quantum intuition according to which the time-dependent classical axion field represents a mean field description of a quantum gas of cold bosons.
In section \[sec:simplifications\], we will show that the friction term, which reduces the density of axions, does not affect the validity of the classical description: The axion evolution is still well-described by a classical solution of damped oscillations. We shall therefore structure our analysis in the following way. First, we will ignore the contribution from the friction term and develop a coherent-state picture of the axion in the absence of dilution. In this setup, we identify the effects which lead to a quantum break-time of the axion field. We show that the time-scale is enormous. We shall later take into account the underlying quantum effects which lead to friction in the classical theory and show that the original assumption that they do not contribute to quantum-breaking is consistent at the fundamental level.
### The Setup {#the-setup .unnumbered}
For concreteness, we model the axion potential by the following widely-considered form: $V(a/f_a) = \Lambda^4 (1 - \cos(a/f_a)) $, where the scale $\Lambda$ set by QCD and quark masses has dimensionality $[\Lambda^4] = (energy)/(time)^3$. The time-dependent classical axion field then satisfies the following equation: $$\ddot{a} \, + \, {\Lambda^4 \over f_a} \sin(a/f_a) \, = \, 0 \,,
\label{axionEQ}$$ where we have set $\gamma =0$ as explained above. Now we assume that $a(t)$ is a solution of (\[axionEQ\]) which describes a would-be classical evolution of the system.
Our task is to understand how strong the quantum effects are which give a departure from the classical description in terms of $a(t)$. Thus, we need to compare the full quantum evolution of the system with the classical one, i.e., we need to check how well the classical field $a(t)$ approximates the expectation value of the quantized axion field $\hat{a}$ over its quantum state $\ket{N}$ which describes the true quantum evolution of the system. To this end, we need to resolve the axion field in its quantum constituents. In order to make our bound maximally stringent, we shall choose as initial state of the axion field a coherent state, i.e., a quantum state which is maximally classical.
The key difficulty in representing the axion field in form of a coherent state consists in identifying the proper creation and annihilation operators, $\hat{c}_{{\vv}{k}}^{\dagger} $, $\hat{c}_{{\vv}{k}}$. For the coherent state which describes anharmonic oscillations, the creation and annihilation operators are the eigenstates of the interaction Hamiltonian and in particular do not satisfy the dispersion relation of free quanta. In order to circumvent this difficulty, we shall follow the treatment of [@us]. The idea is to first approximate the axion field by a free field, and then to construct the coherent state using the creation and annihilation operators of free quanta. For the quantum state constructed in this way, it is straightforward to calculate the quantum break-time $t_{\text{q}}$.
However, the approximation as free field introduces a second time-scale, namely the classical break-time $t_{\text{cl}}$, after which classical nonlinearities become important. They modify the harmonic evolution but do not jeopardize the classicality of the description. Even though $t_{\text{cl}}$ is generically shorter than $t_{\text{q}}$, it is possible to extrapolate the quantum break-time to get an estimate for the corresponding time-scale in the full nonlinear theory. In order to show this, we make use of the general relation $$t_{\text{q}} \, = \, {t_{\text{cl}} \over \alpha} \,,
\label{relation}$$ where $\alpha$ is the quantum coupling. This formula was derived in [@us] and we shall explicitly reproduce it for the axion case. It reflects the fact that the two corrections are of fundamentally different nature and can be varied independently by appropriately adjusting $\alpha$. This means that also in a full nonlinear theory, the effects which lead to the quantum break-time occur on a similar time-scale as in the free theory. We refer the reader to [@us] for a more detailed discussion.
### Approximation as Free Field {#approximation-as-free-field .unnumbered}
In order to approximate the classical axion solution, we expand in powers of $a/f_a$: $$(\partial_t^2\, + \, \bar{m}_a^2) a - { 1 \over 6} \bar{\alpha}_a a^3 \, + \, \ldots = 0 \,,
\label{eqaxion}$$ where $\bar{m}_a = \Lambda^2/f_a$ is the oscillation frequency and $\bar{\alpha}_a \equiv {\bar{m}_a^2 \over f_a^2}$ is the nonlinear interaction strength. For a small amplitude $A \ll f_a$, the nonlinear terms can be ignored and we can approximate the solution by $$a_{0}(t) = A \cos (\bar{m}_a t) \,.
\label{eqn:freeSolution}$$ This is the solution which we will resolve as expectation value over an underlying quantum state. But before that, we determine the classical break-time, i.e., how long the solution represents a valid approximation to the full nonlinear classical solution. We do so by estimating the first anharmonic correction $a_1$ to in a series expansion in powers of $\bar{\alpha}_a$. Plugging in the split $$a = a_0 + \bar{\alpha}_a a_1
\label{eqn:aSplit}$$ in , we obtain the equation of a driven harmonic oscillator: $$(\partial_t^2 + \bar{m}_a^2 ) a_1 = \frac{A^3}{6} \cos^3(\bar{m}_a t) \,.
\label{eqn:drivenOscillator}$$ Using the identity $\cos^3(x) = \left(\cos(3x) + 3 \cos(x)\right)/4$, it is easy to check that $$a_1 = A \frac{A^2}{192 \bar{m}_a^2} \left(\cos(\bar{m}_a t) - \cos(3 \bar{m}_a t) + 12\, \bar{m}_a t \,\sin(\bar{m}_a t)\right)
\label{eqn:A1}$$ is the solution for the initial conditions $a_1(0) = \partial_t a_1(0) = 0$. Thus, the leading deviation from the free solution is caused by the resonant term $\propto (\bar{m}_a t)$. It can be neglected as long as $$\bar{\alpha}_a \frac{A^2}{\bar{m}_a^2} \bar{m}_a t \ll 1 \,.
\label{eqn:conditionClassicalBreakTime}$$ This leads to the classical break-time $$t_\text{cl} =\bar{m}_a^{-1} \frac{\bar{m}_a^2}{\bar{\alpha}_a A^2} \,,
\label{eqn:classicalBreakTime}$$ in accordance with equation (4) of [@us]. The nonlinear corrections which lead to this time-scale correspond to an expansion in the dimensionless quantity $$\lambda \equiv \bar{\alpha}_a \frac{A^2}{\bar{m}_a^2} \,,
\label{collective}$$ which is classical in the sense that it is independent of $\hbar$. It will become clear shortly that it corresponds to the collective coupling of axions in the quantum theory, as defined in equation . Already at this point, it is important to stress that corrections which scale like $\lambda$ correspond to classical nonlinearities and therefore cannot lead to quantum breaking.
Deviations from the Classical Evolution {#sec:quantum}
=======================================
### A Quantum Description of the Classical Solution {#a-quantum-description-of-the-classical-solution .unnumbered}
We proceed to discuss the axion field on the quantum level. The fundamental Lagrangian, which corresponds to , is $$\hat{\mathcal{L}} = {1 \over 2} \partial_{\mu} \hat{a} \partial^{\mu} \hat{a}\, - \, { 1 \over 2\hbar^2} m_a^2 \hat{a}^2 + {1\over \hbar 4!} \alpha_a \hat{a}^4 \,.
\label{axionL2}$$ Since we are in the quantum theory now, we switched to the relevant quantum quantities, such as the mass of the axion particle $m_a \equiv \hbar \bar{m}_a$ and the dimensionless quantum coupling $\alpha_a \equiv \hbar \bar{\alpha}_a$.
Our overall goal is to investigate corrections which lead to a departure of the true quantum evolution from the classical solution. To this end, the next step is to understand the classical solution as expectation value in an underlying quantum state. As explained, we will neglect interaction in doing so, $\alpha_a = 0$. In that case, we expand the full Heisenberg operator $\hat{a}$ in creation and annihilation operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a} = \sum_{{\vv}{k}} { \sqrt{\hbar \over 2 V\omega_{{\vv}{k}}}}
\left(\hat{c}_{{\vv}{k}}e^{-ikx} + \hat{c}_{{\vv}{k}}^\dagger e^{ikx}\right) \,, \label{eqn:Exp:ModeExpansion}\end{aligned}$$ where $kx \equiv \hbar^{-1}{\vv}{k} {\vv}{x} - \omega_{{\vv}{k}} t$ and $\omega_{{\vv}{k}} = \hbar^{-1}\sqrt{m_a^2 + |{\vv}{k}|^2}$. The creation and annihilation operators satisfy the standard commutation relations $[\hat{c}_{{\vv}{k}},\hat{c}_{{\vv}{k}'}^\dagger] = \delta_{{\vv}{k},{\vv}{k}'}$.
The simplest quantum state $\ket{N}$ of the scalar field $\hat{a}$ over which the expectation value is the classical harmonic oscillator solution $a_0(t)$ of equation is a coherent state of zero momentum quanta: $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{N} \equiv \ \text{e}^{-\frac{1}{2}N + \sqrt{N} \hat{c}_{0}^\dagger }
\ket{0}\, = &\,
\text{e}^{-\frac{1}{2}N} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{N^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\sqrt{n!}} \ket{n} \,\text{, with} \label{eqn:Exp:QuantumState}\\
N =&\ V {m_aA^2 \over 2 \hbar^2} \,.\label{eqn:Exp:N}\end{aligned}$$ In this formula, $\ket{n} = (\hat{c}_{{\vv}{0}}^\dagger)^n (n!)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \ket{0}$ are normalized number eigenstates of $n$ quanta with zero momentum. Because of (\[eqn:Exp:ModeExpansion\]), it is obvious that the state $\ket{N}$ indeed yields the correct expectation value: $$\begin{aligned}
\bra{N}\hat{a}\ket{N} = A \cos(\bar{m}_at) \,,
\label{eqn:Cla:ExpectationValue}\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\hat{c}_{{\vv}{0}} \ket{N} = \sqrt{N} \ket{N}$. From the point of view of the non-interacting quantum theory (i.e., for $\alpha_a = 0$), the oscillating classical axion field $a_0(t)$ therefore is a coherent state of zero-momentum axions of mean occupation number density $$n_a = m_aA^2\hbar^{-2} \,,
\label{occupationDensity}$$ where we dropped an irrelevant factor of $2$. Consequently, the energy density is $$\rho_a = m_a^2A^2\hbar^{-2} \,.
\label{energyDensity}$$ If we restrict ourselves to the volume $V = \bar{m}_a^{-3}$, we get the mean occupation number $$N= \hbar^{-1} {A^2 \over \bar{m}_a^2} \, .
\label{N}$$ As already discussed in section \[sec:scaling\], we observe that $N$ scales as $\hbar^{-1}$. This means that it becomes infinite in the classical limit $\hbar \rightarrow 0$. Furthermore, we see that the quantity (\[collective\]) indeed has the meaning of the collective coupling in the quantum language: $\lambda = \alpha_aN$. Since we have switched to the quantum theory, we can set $\hbar =1$ from now on.
### Inclusion of Quantum Coupling {#inclusion-of-quantum-coupling .unnumbered}
As soon as we consider $\alpha_a \neq 0$, the interaction terms create quantum Hamiltonian processes which lead to a departure from the coherent state on the time-scale of the quantum break-time $t_{\text{q}}$. After this time, the initial coherent state generically will evolve in something non-coherent and the expectation value of the quantum field will no longer match the classical solution. Since we want to put a lower bound on $t_{\text{q}}$, it is not important for us what the resulting (“departed”) state will be. We just want to figure out the shortest time $t_{\text{q}}$ before the coherent state approximation and therefore the classical description can break down.
This can be estimated in the following way. The Hamiltonian processes which lead to a departure from the coherent state are due to the rescattering of axions. The simplest such process would be the scattering due to four-point coupling. However, in the approximation in which the initial and final particles are treated as free, the rate is suppressed due to momentum conservation: Since both initial and final axions carry vanishing momentum, the phase space for such a process is zero.
Therefore, the lowest order non-vanishing process involves the participation of six axions. For instance, four coherent state axions can annihilate into two axions with non-zero momenta, as is depicted in figure \[fig:Scattering42\].
![Four coherent state axions annihilate into two axions of 4-momentum $k_1$ and $k_2$, whose momenta are non-zero. []{data-label="fig:Scattering42"}](Scattering42.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
The final state of such a process can be a tensor product of two one-particles states of 4-momenta $k_1=(E_1,{\vv}{k}_1)$ and $k_2=(E_2,{\vv}{k}_2)$ with a coherent state $\ket{N-4}$ of zero momentum axions of reduced mean occupation number $N-4$. By energy-momentum conservation, we have ${\vv}{k_1} = -{\vv}{k_2}$ and $E_1 = E_2 = 2 m_a^2$. The tree-level matrix element for the transition $\ket{N} \rightarrow \ket{N-4}\ket{{\vv}{k_1}} \ket{{\vv}{k_2}}$ comes from six-point interaction in the Hamiltonian (or from four-point interactions with one virtual axion exchange): $${\alpha_a\over f_a^2}\bra{N-4} \bra{{\vv}{k_1}} \bra{{\vv}{k_2}}
( \hat{c}_{{\vv}{k_1}}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{{\vv}{k_2}}^{\dagger} \hat{c}_0\hat{c}_0
\hat{c}_0\hat{c}_0 )\ket{N} = {\alpha_a\over f_a^2}N^2{\text{e}}^{-{2 \over N}} \,,
\label{process}$$ where the factor ${\text{e}}^{-{2 \over N}}$ is due to the overlap of coherent states with different mean occupation number. For large $N$, we can approximate it as ${\text{e}}^{-{2 \over N}} \approx 1 - 2/N$. Thus, a different final coherent state leads to a correction which scales like $1/N$. The rate of the scattering process is: $$\Gamma_{4\rightarrow 2} \sim m_a (\alpha_a N)^4 = m_a \lambda^4\,,
\label{rate}$$ where we used the collective coupling $\lambda$ as defined in . This is the rate at which the axion coherent state loses its constituents and *declassicalizes*. Roughly speaking, for a small enough $\Delta N$, the rate of a process in which the coherent state looses $\Delta N$ constituents goes as $\Gamma_{N \rightarrow (N - \Delta N)} \sim m_a \lambda^{\Delta N}$.
Note that for tree-level multi-particle amplitudes with a large enough number of axion legs, perturbation theory is expected to break down due to a factorial growth of the diagrams. This breakdown will not affect our conclusions because of the following two reasons. First, non-perturbative arguments indicate that multi-particle quantum processes – e.g., a process in which the axion coherent state looses order-one fraction of its constituents during one oscillation time – must be exponentially suppressed.
Secondly, the breakdown of perturbation theory due to the factorial growth of diagrams only takes place for a number of axion legs exceeding $\alpha_{a}^{-1}$, i.e., they occur for $N > \alpha_{a}^{-1}$ or equivalently $\lambda >1$. Such amplitudes are outside of the domain of our interest since – as it will become clear below – the occupation number of axions, which could serve as a viable dark matter candidate, is much smaller than this perturbative bound. In other words, for axions we have $N \ll \alpha_{a}^{-1} $ and $\lambda \ll 1$. In this domain, multi-particle processes, in which e.g., of order $N$ cold axions annihilate into few energetic ones, can be reliably computed and are exponentially suppressed. The exponential suppression of such processes can be explicitly seen by adopting the results of [@graviton], where analogous multi-particle amplitudes have been computed for gravitons. For reading out the exponential suppression, the difference between axions and gravitons is inessential.
Hence, we can safely conclude that the leading order process which leads to declassicalization of the spatially-homogeneous time-dependent axion field has the rate (\[rate\]).
### Quantitative Estimates {#quantitative-estimates .unnumbered}
In order to make quantitative estimates, it is useful to express the rate in terms of the oscillation amplitude and the decay constant: $$\Gamma \, = \, m_a {A^8 \over f_a^8} \,.
\label{rate1}$$ Since this is the rate of the leading process, we have dropped the subscript. We recall that according to (\[densityTemperature\]), the axion energy density drops as temperature-cubed because of Hubble friction. Therefore, it follows from that the amplitude decreases as $A \propto T^{3/2}$. Expressing $A$ in (\[rate1\]) as function of temperature and evaluating it for today’s value $T = T_{\text{today}}$, we get a minuscule rate for the decay of the axion coherent state in the present epoch: $$\Gamma \sim m_a \left ({T_{\text{today}} \over T_{\text{in}} } \right )^{12} \sim m_a\, 10^{-144}\,,
\label{gamma}$$ where $T_{\text{in}} \sim 100\,$MeV is taken as QCD phase transition temperature and we also conservatively assumed $A_{\text{in}} \sim f_a$. Thus, the characteristic rescattering time required to reduce the coherence of today’s axion field by a factor of order $1/N$ already exceeds the age of the Universe by many orders of magnitude.
However, the time-scale $\Gamma^{-1}$ is not yet the quantum break-time. The quantum break-time $t_{\text{q}}$ is much longer. Since the mean occupation number in the coherent state is $N$, quantum rescattering is able to give a significant departure from the coherent state only after a sufficiently large fraction of particles (i.e., of order $N$) experience rescattering. This process takes the time $$t_{\text{q}} = N\,\Gamma^{-1} = m_a^{-1} {f_a^8 \over m_a^2 A^6} \, .
\label{time}$$ We see that the quantum break-time increases as $A^{-6}$. Let us evaluate it at different epochs. First, we consider it at the onset of oscillations assuming the initial amplitude to be maximal: $A_{\text{in}}=f_a$. For example, taking the axion mass $m_a \sim 10^{-5}\,$eV, which implies $f_a \sim 10^{12}\,$GeV, we get $t_{\text{q}} \sim 10^{52}\,$cm. Even in this crude estimate, in which we ignore Hubble dilution, the quantum break-time exceeds the current age of the Universe by a factor of approximately $10^{24}$.
In order to estimate the quantum break-time for the present epoch, we can express it in the form $$t_\text{{q}} = m_a^{-1} \frac{f_a^8 m_a^4}{\rho_a^3} \,,
\label{time4to2}$$ where we plugged in the energy density . Using the energy density of dark matter, $\rho_a \sim (10^{-3}\,\text{eV})^4$, we obtain $t_{\text{q}} \sim 10^{184}\,$cm, which exceeds the current age of the Universe by a factor of approximately $10^{156}$. Thus, the coherent state approximation for describing the axion field in the present epoch is extremely accurate.
### Effect of Non-Zero Axion Momenta {#effect-of-non-zero-axion-momenta .unnumbered}
So far, we have only considered $2 \rightarrow 4$-scattering. In reality, since the classical axion field in the Universe is a distribution over different wavelengths, the $2 \rightarrow 2$-rescatterings can also contribute to decoherence. For completeness, we therefore give an estimate of the quantum break-time due to such processes. A coherent state of axions which includes different momenta has the form $$\ket{a} = \prod_{{\vv}{k}}\otimes \ket{N_{{\vv}{k}}} \,, \label{difK}$$ where a direct product is taken over the coherent states $\ket{N_{{\vv}{k}}} $ of different momenta ${\vv}{k}$ and mean occupation numbers $N_{{\vv}{k}}$: $$\ket{N_{{\vv}{k}}} \equiv \ \text{e}^{-\frac{1}{2}N_{{\vv}{k}} + \sqrt{N_{{\vv}{k}}} \hat{c}_{{\vv}{k}}^\dagger }
\ket{0}\,.
\label{CohK}$$ Of course, since axion dark matter is cold, most of the energy is carried by axions with $|{\vv}{k}| \ll m_a$. However, in order to make our bound more conservative, we shall allow the axion momenta to be comparable to $m_a$, which would make the rescattering rate higher. In that case, the two body rescattering rate is given by $$\Gamma_{2\rightarrow 2} \, = \, m_a \alpha_a^2 N^2 = m_a {A^4 \over f_a^4} \,.
\label{rate2}$$ For today’s axion density, we get $\Gamma_{2\rightarrow 2} \sim m_a\, T_{\text{today}}^6 / T_{\text{in}}^6 \sim m_a\, 10^{-72}$, which is again minuscule.
The corresponding quantum break-time is given by $$t_{\text{q}} = N\, \Gamma_{2\rightarrow 2}^{-1} = m_a^{-1} {f_a^4 \over m_a^2 A^2} =
m_a^{-1} {f_a^{4} \over \rho_{a}} \, .
\label{time2to2}$$ Evaluating this expression at the onset of oscillations with maximal amplitude $A = f_a$, we get the same result as for the $4\rightarrow2$-scattering: $t_{\text{q}} \sim 10^{52}\,$cm. On the other hand, if we evaluate the quantum break-time for the current epoch, in which the axion energy density is taken to be the dark matter density, we get $t_{\text{q}} \sim 10^{96}\,$cm, which exceeds the current age of the Universe by a factor of approximately $10^{68}$. Thus, the inclusion of $2\rightarrow2$-scattering by taking into account the distribution of coherent state axions over different momenta does not change our conclusion that the coherent state description for dark matter axions is extremely accurate.
Finally, we note that comparing the result to the classical break-time , we recover relation , $t_{\text{q}} = t_{\text{cl}}/\alpha$, for the process of $2\rightarrow2$-scattering.
Validity of Our Simplifications {#sec:simplifications}
===============================
In order to conclude our argument, we wish to point out that the simplifying assumptions which we have made in our estimates do not significantly change the exact result. For example, one could wonder whether particle production, which takes place in an expanding universe, could have any significant effect. In particular, one might be worried about produced free axions, which could scatter off the coherent axion state and lead to decoherence. However, this does not happen since not enough particles are produced: Because of $\gamma = 3 H \ll m_a$, particle production is exponentially suppressed by the Boltzmann factor $\exp(-m_a/H)$.
A similar argument holds for the effect of the QCD phase transition, which leads to a change of the axion mass. The corresponding transition time $t_{\text{QCD}}$, which is of order of the Hubble time around the QCD-temperature, $t_{\text{QCD}} \sim {M_P \over
\Lambda^2}$, is much longer than the axion Compton wavelength: $t_{\text{QCD}} \gg m_a^{-1}$. Therefore, $\dot{m}_a \ll m^2_a$, i.e., the transition is adiabatic. Consequently, the quantum creation of free axions due to the time dependence of the mass is suppressed by $\exp(-m_a^2/ \dot{m}_a)$ and there are not enough produced particles to have a significant effect on the coherence of the axion state.
Finally, we turn to the dilution of the axion number-density. In a cosmological context, this dilution originates from the Hubble expansion as well as the decay of axions into some lighter particle species, e.g., photons. For realistic values of the axion mass, the decay is a subdominant process. Therefore, we focus on the effect of Hubble friction. Since it describes a classical process, namely the dilution of gas in the background of an expanding universe, we intuitively expect that it does not lead to quantum decoherence.
Our goal, however, is to make this statement more precise. Thus, we generalize Lagrangian : $$\hat{\mathcal{L}} = \frac{\textswab{a}^3}{2} \left(\partial_\mu \hat{a} \partial^\mu \hat{a} - m_a^2 \hat{a}^2\right) \,,$$ where $\textswab{a}$ is the scale factor. We do not consider self-interaction of the axion since our present goal is only to investigate possible decoherence due to Hubble friction. The canonically conjugate momentum $\hat{\Pi}_a = \textswab{a}^3 \partial_0 \hat{a}$ gives the Hamiltonian $$\hat{\mathcal{H}} = \frac{\hat{\Pi}_a^2}{2 \textswab{a}^3} + \frac{\textswab{a}^3}{2} \left((\textswab{a}{\vv}{\partial} \hat{a})^2 + m_a^2 \hat{a}^2\right)\,.$$ Specializing to a spatially homogeneous field, the Heisenberg equation of motion is $$\ddot{\hat{a}} + \gamma \dot{\hat{a}} + m^2\hat{a} =0 \,,
\label{dampedHeisenbergEom}$$ since $\gamma = 3H = 3\dot{\textswab{a}}/\textswab{a}$. As the Heisenberg equation is linear, we can apply the Ehrenfest-theorem, i.e, we can take its expectation value to conclude that for any quantum state, the expectation value of the time-evolved quantum operator is equal to the classical solution given by . Thus, the fact that friction is a linear term suffices to show that it cannot destroy classicality.
For completeness, we will nevertheless explicitly study the quantum time evolution, where we use the calculation of [@chenFung]. In the Schrödinger picture, this paper derives the following eigenvalue equation for an initially coherent state $\ket{N}$: $$\left(\text{e}^{imt}\cosh(\frac{\gamma t}{2})\, \hat{c}_{{\vv}{0}} + \text{e}^{imt}\sinh(\frac{\gamma t}{2})\, \hat{c}_{{\vv}{0}}^\dagger \right)\ket{N(t)} = \sqrt{N} \ket{N(t)} \,,
\label{evolvedEigenvalue}$$ where the creation and annihilation operators $\hat{c}_{{\vv}{0}}^\dagger$, $\hat{c}_{{\vv}{0}}$ are still defined by the mode expansion (at $t=0$). In order to make the formulas more transparent, we wrote down the solution only to leading order in $\gamma/m$ and neglected $\dot{\gamma}/(m\gamma)$. As explained above, both simplifications are reasonable in a cosmological context. In this limit, shows that $\ket{N(t)}$ is a squeezed coherent state with real squeezing parameter $s= \gamma t/2$. The uncertainty is no longer equally distributed: $$\Delta a \propto \text{e}^{-\gamma t/2} \,, \ \ \ \Delta \Pi \propto \text{e}^{\gamma t/2} \,,$$ but still minimal.[The emerging physical picture has a straightforward interpretation. In terms of the physical field $\partial_0 \hat{a}$, we have $$\Delta a = \Delta \partial_0 a \propto \text{e}^{-\gamma t/2} \,.$$ From this point of view, $\ket{N(t)}$ is therefore still coherent. Time evolution only reduces the overall uncertainty in physical space. This is in accordance with the commutation relations $\left[\hat{a}(t,{\vv}{x}), \hat{\Pi}_a(t,{\vv}{y})\right] = i \delta({\vv}{x}-{\vv}{y})$, which read in physical space $$\left[\hat{a}(t,{\vv}{x}), \partial_0 \hat{a}(t,{\vv}{y})\right] = i \textswab{a}^{-3} \delta({\vv}{x}-{\vv}{y}) \,.
\label{commutationRelationsPhysical}$$ This means that uncertainty is conformally conserved but dilutes with the physical volume.]{} Thus, $\ket{N(t)}$ continues to be maximally classical. Including higher terms in $\gamma/m$ does not change these conclusions significantly.[In this case, the state $\ket{N(t)}$ is no longer exactly squeezed at all times, but the deviation of $\Delta a \Delta \Pi$ from 1 vanishes periodically and is bounded by a constant which scales as $\gamma^2/m^2$.]{} This means that also in the presence of classical Hubble friction, the classical description of the free axion field remains valid indefinitely. It does not lead to a quantum break-time.
Subcriticality of Axion Gas {#sec:collective}
===========================
### The Role of Classical Instabilities in Fast Quantum Breaking {#the-role-of-classical-instabilities-in-fast-quantum-breaking .unnumbered}
As we have already discussed in section \[sec:scaling\], it was demonstrated in [@nico] that a simple system of cold bosons can exhibit a remarkably short quantum break-time in the regime in which the boson gas is overcritical and unstable. In that case, this time-scale is determined by the Lyapunov exponent of the classical instability, which the system exhibits in this regime.
In this section, we would like to clarify what such a regime would imply for the axion field and how far the cosmic dark matter axions are from criticality. As a useful reference point, we shall confront the axion gas with the quantum gas studied in [@nico]. This system consists of non-relativistic bosons of mass $M$, which are contained in a periodic $d$-dimensional box of radii $R$ and exhibit a simple attractive interaction. The Hamiltonian has the following form: $$\mathcal{\hat{H}} \, = \, {\limitint \!}{ \ifthenelse{\isempty{d}}{ {\mathrm{d}}{\vv}{x}}{{\mathrm{d}}^d{\vv}{x}} \,} \, \hat{\psi}^{\dagger} \frac{- \hbar^2 \Delta}{2M} \hat{\psi} \, - \, \frac{g}{2} \
{\limitint \!}{ \ifthenelse{\isempty{d}}{ {\mathrm{d}}{\vv}{x}}{{\mathrm{d}}^d{\vv}{x}} \,} \, \hat{\psi}^{\dagger}\hat{\psi}^{\dagger} \,\hat{\psi} \hat{\psi} \,,
\label{Hnonderivative}$$ where the parameter $g > 0$ controls the strength of the [*attractive*]{} interaction among the bosons.
We can represent $\hat{\psi}$ as a classical mean field and the quantum fluctuations, $\hat{\psi} \, = \, \psi_{\text{cl}} + \hat{\delta \psi}_{\text{q}}$, where $\psi_{\text{cl}}$ satisfies the Gross-Pitaevskii equation: $$i \hbar \partial_t \psi_{\text{cl}} =
\left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{ 2M} \Delta - g |\psi_{\text{cl}}|^2
\right ) \psi_{\text{cl}} =
\mu \psi_{\text{cl}} \,.
\label{GPeq}$$ The parameter $\mu$ is the chemical potential, which plays the role of a Lagrange multiplier for imposing the constraint ${\limitint \!}{ \ifthenelse{\isempty{d}}{ {\mathrm{d}}{\vv}{x}}{{\mathrm{d}}^d{\vv}{x}} \,} |\psi_{\text{cl}}|^2 = N$. We shall focus on the homogeneous solution, $$|\psi_{\text{cl}}|^2 = -{\mu \over g} = {N \over V} \,,
\label{homogeneousSolution}$$ where $V\, = \, (2\pi R)^d$ is the $d$-dimensional volume. It represents a mean field description of the quantum state in which only the zero-momentum mode is macroscopically occupied. This solution exists for all non-zero values of the parameters. However, beyond a certain critical point it becomes unstable and the system undergoes a quantum phase transition. In the overcritical regime, the instability of the homogeneous solution manifests itself as Lyapunov exponent which is independent of $\hbar$.
The role of the criticality parameter is played by the effective collective coupling $$\lambda_{\text{nr}} \equiv 4gN \frac{M R^2}{\hbar^2 V}\,,
\label{colNR}$$ where the subscript $nr$ serves to distinguish it from the analogous collective coupling in the axion case. In order to investigate stability, we go to momentum space: $\hat{\psi} \, = \, \sum_{{\vv}{l}} \frac{1} {\sqrt{V}} {\rm e}^{i {{\vv}{l} \over R} {\vv}{x}} \, \hat{a}_l$. Here ${\vv}{l}$ is the $d$-dimensional wave-number vector, which determines the momentum as ${\vv}{k} = \hbar {{\vv}{l} \over R}$. The operators $\hat{a}_{{\vv}{l}}^\dagger, \hat{a}_{{\vv}{l}}$ are the creation and annihilation operators of bosons of momentum-number vector ${{\vv}{l}}$ and satisfy the usual algebra: $[\hat{a}_{{\vv}{l}}, \hat{a}_{{\vv}{l'}}^\dagger] = \delta_{{\vv}{l}{\vv}{l'}}$ and all other commutators zero. Then the Bogoliubov-de Gennes frequencies are given by [@bogoliubovDeGennes]: $$\hbar \omega_{{\vv}{l}} = |{\vv}{l}
|\frac{\hbar^2}{ 2M R^2} \sqrt{(|{\vv}{l}|^2 - \lambda_{nr})} \,.
\label{omega}$$ They become imaginary for all modes with $|{\vv}{l}|^2 < \lambda_{\text{nr}}$. Thus, instability sets in for $\lambda_{\text{nr}}>1$, and the number of unstable $l$-modes depends on the magnitude of the criticality parameter $\lambda_{\text{nr}}$. In the regime in which only the $|{\vv}{l}|=1$-mode is unstable, the explicit analysis of [@nico] shows that the quantum break-time scales as $t_{\text{q}} \sim \omega_{{\vv}{1}}^{-1} \ln(N)$. By increasing $\lambda_{\text{nr}}$, one can destabilize higher and higher momentum modes and correspondingly make the Lyapunov exponents large. Finally we note that $\omega_{{\vv}{l}}$ are classical quantities because $\hbar/M$ is classical and represents a zero mode oscillation frequency of an underlying classical field, whose quanta are the bosons in question. Thus, an important message which we take from the results of [@nico] recounted above is: The quantum break-time can be shortened in the overcritical regime, provided that the initial state exhibits a classical instability, i.e., an instability characterized by an $\hbar$-independent Lyapunov exponent.
However, the following clarification is in order. The expression (\[omega\]) creates the impression that we can make the quantum break-time arbitrarily short time if the system is sufficiently overcritical, i.e., if we increase the collective coupling $\lambda_{\text{nr}}$, e.g., by keeping all the other parameters fixed and increasing the occupation number of zero-momentum quanta. However, one has to be very careful with this limiting case. Although in the non-relativistic model given by the Hamiltonian (\[Hnonderivative\]) taking the limit $\lambda_{\text{nr}} \rightarrow \infty$ is legitimate, an underlying fundamental relativistic quantum field theory may go out of the validity. For example, in the case of cold bosons, one reason is that they can only be described by the Hamiltonian (\[Hnonderivative\]) as long as the gas is sufficiently dilute. As we shall discuss below, similar limitations prevent the axion field from entering into a deep overcritical regime.
### Level of Criticality of Cosmic Axions {#level-of-criticality-of-cosmic-axions .unnumbered}
In order to identify the instability domain of the axion model, we first consider the truncated theory (\[axionL2\]). The potential has a minimum at $a=0$, a maximum at $a_{\text{cr}}^2 = 6 {m_a^2 \over \alpha_a} = 6 f_a^2$ and is unbounded from below for larger values of $a$. Also here, the collective coupling (\[collective\]) of zero momentum axions plays the role of the criticality parameter (with critical value $\lambda = 6$). Overcriticality of the axion gas would mean that the amplitude of oscillations $A$ exceeds $a_{\text{cr}}$ and the classical field $a_{\text{cl}}(t)$ grows unbounded. This classical growth is accompanied by an instability of modes with momenta $ |{\vv}{k}| < \sqrt{{\alpha_a \over 2} a_{\text{cl}}(t)^2 - m_a^2}$ so that finally all the modes become unstable. Of course, in such a situation the quantum breaking can be efficient, but it is also meaningless since in this regime the truncated model no longer describes physics of the axion gas correctly. The truncation is only meaningful as long as the amplitude of oscillations does not exceed $a_{\text{cr}}$. So the short quantum breaking in a would-be overcritical regime of axion gas is unphysical and is an artifact of an invalid description.
Let us now go to the full axion model with periodic potential, where we use as before $V(a) = \Lambda^4 (1- \cos(a/f_a))$. [Naturally, in doing so, we ignore a possible back reaction from the axion field on QCD dynamics.]{} We can make the axion overcritical by assuming a high number density of zero momentum axions. In the classical language, this means that we are looking for a time-dependent solution with energy density $\rho_a \gg \Lambda^4$. In this regime, the solution, up to corrections ${\mathcal O} (\Lambda^4/\rho_a)$, has the form: $$a_{\text{cl}}(t) = \sqrt{2\rho_a} t \, .
\label{freeT}$$ This solution has an obvious physical meaning. Since the energy of the axion field exceeds the height of the axion potential, the evolution is the one of a free field with a constant energy density. Let us examine the stability of this solution. The momentum modes of the linearized perturbations around it satisfy the following equation: $$\ddot{a}_{{\vv}{k}}(t) + \left (\hbar^{-2}{\vv}{k}^2 + \bar{m}_a^2 {\rm cos}\left( \sqrt{2\lambda} \bar{m}_at \right ) \right) a_{{\vv}{k}}(t) = 0 \,,
\label{Meq}$$ where we have used the collective coupling in the form $$\lambda = {\rho_a \over f_a^2 m_a^2} \,,
\label{collectiveRho}$$ which follows from when we express the amplitude $A$ in terms of the energy density . Introducing a new variable $y \equiv \sqrt{{\lambda \over 2}}\bar{m}_a t$, we can rewrite (\[Meq\]) in the form $$\partial_y^2 a_{{\vv}{k}}(y) + \left (A + {2 \over \lambda} \cos(2y) \right) a_{{\vv}{k}}(y) = 0 \,,
\label{Meq1}$$ where $A \equiv {2{\vv}{k}^2 \over \lambda m_a^2}$.
This is the Mathieu equation, which is known to exhibit instability bands around certain values of $A$ [@mclachlan_theory_1951]. However, it is important to remember that we work in the approximation $\rho_a \gg \Lambda^4$, which is equivalent to a large collective coupling: $\lambda \gg 1$. Therefore, the term $\propto \cos(2y)$ responsible for generating the instability is suppressed. For this reason, the instability bands get narrower as $\lambda$ increases so that the phase space for the production of the corresponding modes is suppressed.[In this regime, the most relevant instability is the lowest-lying one around $A=1$, i.e., for modes with ${\vv}{k}^2 \approx \lambda m_a^2/2$.]{} Additionally, we study the scaling of the time-scale of instability. To this end, we investigate how an unstable solution $a_{{\vv}{k}}(\sqrt{\lambda/2}\bar{m}_a t)$ of changes at a fixed $t$ when we increase $\lambda$. In doing so, we change ${\vv}{k}$ in order to keep $A$ fixed near an unstable value. Numerical analysis shows that the time-scale of instability for a given mode indeed becomes longer as the collective coupling $\lambda$ increases, i.e., the instability disappears for $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$. This is not surprising since becomes the equation of a free particle in this limit. The result for the dominant instability around $A=1$ is displayed in figure \[fig:mathieu\]. Therefore, we conclude that the increase of stability caused by the narrowing of the instability bands outweighs the reduction of the break-time due to the scaling $t\propto y/\sqrt{\lambda}$. In summary, this shows that once the full axion potential is taken into account, the quantum break-time cannot be made arbitrarily short even in the overcritical regime.
![ Behavior of the solution of for fixed $t$ and $A$ when the collective coupling $\lambda$ changes. The maximal value of $ a_{\protect {\vv}{k}}|(\sqrt{\lambda/2}\bar{m}_a t)|$ in the interval $20 \leq\bar{m}_a t \leq 25$ is plotted. The values for A are 0.85 (purple), 0.95 (red), 1.05 (orange, dashed) and 1.15 (blue, dashed). The closer $A$ is to the critical value $1$, the stronger the instability is and the longer it persists. In each case, the instability disappears for big $\lambda$.[]{data-label="fig:mathieu"}](Mathieu.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
As a final remark, we note that $\dot{a}$ cannot be arbitrarily large due to the fact that it back-reacts on the Peccei-Quinn field. In particular, there is an absolute bound on $\dot{a}$ given by $\dot{a} \sim f_a^2$ because at this point, the back reaction from the axion field on the VEV of the modulus of the Peccei-Quinn field, $\Phi_{PQ} \, \equiv
f_a \text{e}^{i {a \over f_a}}$, becomes order one and the axion decay constant $f_a$ changes. This must be taken into account. So the simple description in terms of a pseudo-scalar $a$ with a periodic potential breaks-down and one has to consider the full theory. For the collective coupling of the axion gas, this restriction translates as the bound $\lambda < \alpha^{-1}_a$.
In conclusion, in the overcritical domain the quantum break-time can in principle be made shorter at the expense of Lyapunov instabilities along the lines of mechanism of [@nico]. However, this domain is irrelevant for the cosmic axion field because of the following reasons. First, this regime cannot be reached within the validity of axion effective field theory model (\[axionL2\]), due to back reaction. Secondly, the would-be overcritical domain – in which potentially a fast quantum breaking could occur – is way outside of the realistic parameter space of dark matter axions in our Universe. The axion gas is clearly under-critical. For example, using the present energy density of dark matter as for equation , we get from : $\lambda = 10^{-44}$, which is minuscule.
Relationship to Other Work {#sec:otherWork}
==========================
We conclude by discussing in more detail the relationship of our work to the results presented in [@sikivieFirst; @sikivieDetailed; @sikivieAngular]. Also there, the classical axion field is resolved as a multi-particle quantum state. Subsequently, the authors investigate the axionic self-interaction. They do so by calculating the process of $2\rightarrow2$-scattering, which we also considered. In full agreement with our result, they obtain the quantum break-time (see $\Gamma_s$, which is defined before equation (8) of [@sikivieFirst]). Therefore, they also conclude that the time-scale of this process vastly exceeds the age of our Universe and does not play any role for current observations. They proceed, however, to study processes of $2\rightarrow2$-scattering in which also the final state is macroscopically occupied. Clearly, this enhances the scattering rate by $N$ and leads to the time-scale $$\tilde{t} = \frac{t_q}{N} = \bar{m}_a^{-1}\frac{1}{(\alpha_a N)^2}\,.
\label{timeSikivie}$$ At the onset of oscillations, it can indeed be short: $\tilde{t} = \bar{m}_a^{-1}$. They argue that this process leads to Bose-Einstein condensation of the axions, i.e., they increasingly occupy the mode of zero momentum.[Our approach is even more radical with respect to the distribution in momentum space. We already start with a fully condensed state in which all axions are in the mode of zero momentum.]{} We are, however, not interested in implications of this process. Our key point is that $\tilde{t}$ only depends on the collective coupling $\lambda=\alpha_a N$ (see equation ) and therefore is a *classical* quantity independent of $\hbar$. It is the time-scale of classical nonlinearities, i.e., it has the same status as the classical break-time . Thus, the existence of this time-scale does not jeopardize the classical description of the axion field or lead to a quantum break-time. This agrees with the discussion in reference [@condensation], which is cited in [@sikivieFirst]. Also there, it is noted that the process of condensation corresponds to a classical interaction of different momentum modes and can be described as scattering of classical waves.[ That condensation can be described classically was also discussed more recently in [@guthCondensation].]{} As a second step, [@sikivieFirst; @sikivieDetailed; @sikivieAngular] contains the study of gravitational self-interaction of the axions. It is argued that it becomes strong at late times. Also there, short time-scales only appear when classical processes are considered, i.e., ones in which also the final state of scattering is macroscopically occupied.[We can explicitly conclude this from equation (11) of [@sikivieFirst]. Writing the time-scale of gravitational interaction as $$\tilde{t}_g = \bar{m}_a^{-1} \frac{1}{\alpha_g N} \,,$$ where $\alpha_g = \hbar G m_a^2$, and taking into account that $N$ scales like $\hbar^{-1}$, we conclude that $\tilde{t}_g$ is independent of $\hbar$, i.e., classical.]{} As before, we do not want to make any statement about these effects.[We would be surprised, however, if the gravitational self-interaction were strong. If we look at e.g., the cross section in equation (3.30) of [@sikivieDetailed], $$\sigma_g = \frac{G^2 m_a^2}{\delta v^4} \,,$$ where $\delta v$ is the spread of speed of the axions, we note that it only diverges as a result of the forward scatting pole $\delta v \rightarrow 0$. It is not clear how this leads to a physical effect. Moreover, if any effect due to gravity exists, it is not evident to us why it should only occur for axions and not also for other potential forms of light dark matter.]{} For us, it is only important that whatever the effect is, it can be described as classical gravitational self-interaction. A quantum treatment is not necessary. In particular, there is no reason why classical simulations of dark matter evolution should fail.
Finally, we want to make a brief remark about the classicality of coherent states. In [@sikivieCoherent], it is claimed that coherent states fail to reproduce a classical evolution even when their occupation number $N$ is infinite. We want to point out that this observation is only an artifact of an unphysical limit. Namely, the authors of [@sikivieCoherent] take $N\rightarrow \infty$ while keeping the coupling $\alpha_a$ fixed. This does not correspond to the classical limit but to an infinite amplitude of oscillations: $A\rightarrow \infty$. When we write the quantum break-time due to $2\rightarrow2$-scattering as $$t_{\text{q}} = \bar{m}_a^{-1} \frac{1}{\alpha_a^2 N} \,,
\label{time2to2aN}$$ we see that the limit of infinite amplitude implies that $t_{\text{q}} \sim 1/N$. This is the scaling also observed in [@sikivieCoherent] (see figure 2 there).
As is clear from equation , the limit $N\rightarrow \infty$ with fixed coupling $\alpha_a$ corresponds to an infinite collective coupling: $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$. In the language of many-body analysis [@nico], this means that the axion gas is [*infinitely*]{} overcritical. Thus, what we observe is not surprising. As we know from [@nico], the quantum break-time can shorten significantly in the overcritical regime. This happens because in this regime, the attractive homogeneous Bose-gas is unstable, with Lyapunov exponent set by $\lambda$. Since $\lambda$ scales as $N$ in the above limit ($N\rightarrow \infty$ with fixed $\alpha_a$), the quantum break-time must scale as $1/N$.[ See [@hertzbergClassical] for a suggestion to extend the validity of the classical solution in the overcritical regime by averaging over a set of random initial conditions.]{}
In any case, the instabilities developed in the artificial limit $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$ are irrelevant for axion physics since as we have shown explicitly in section \[sec:collective\], this domain is not applicable for the realistic axion field, which is safely subcritical: $\lambda \ll 1$.
As discussed in section \[sec:scaling\], one obtains the correct form of the classical limit by taking $\hbar\rightarrow0$. In this case, we have $N\rightarrow \infty$ while the collective coupling $\alpha_a N$ stays fixed. Since this implies that $\alpha_a \sim 1/N$, equation leads to the scaling $t_{\text{q}} \sim N$. Thus, the classical description stays valid indefinitely in the classical limit $N\rightarrow \infty$.
Conclusion
==========
The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, we wanted to determine the quantum break-time of the hypothetical dark matter axion field in our Universe, i.e., the time-scale during which it can be described classically. The phenomenon of quantum breaking for a coherently oscillating nonlinear scalar field was studied previously in [@us] and we have adopted a similar approach for axions. First, we represented the classical axion field as expectation value over an underlying quantum state. Subsequently, we calculated the rate of scattering among individual axions to estimate the quantum break-time as time-scale on which the expectation value over this state deviates from the classical solution. Equations and constitute our result, from which we concluded that the quantum break-time exceeds the age of the Universe by many orders of magnitude. Concerning experimental axion searches, we therefore have the clear-cut message: The approximation of the axion field as classical oscillating gas is extremely accurate and safe for all practical purposes.
The second goal of our paper was to study quantum breaking in general. First, we discussed in section \[sec:scaling\] that a generic quantum system possesses two fundamentally different couplings: the quantum coupling $\alpha$, which describes the interaction between individual quanta and vanishes in the classical limit $\hbar \rightarrow 0$, and the collective coupling $\lambda$, which parameterizes the strength of classical nonlinearites and is independent of $\hbar$. The collective coupling is a property of a given state as it depends on the occupation number of interacting quanta. Since the quantum break-time becomes infinite for $\hbar \rightarrow 0$ in any system, it cannot solely depend on the collective coupling $\lambda$. Instead, it must necessarily also have a dependence on the quantum coupling $\alpha$. From this reasoning, it became apparent in section \[sec:otherWork\] that any short time-scale associated to axion dynamics originates from classical nonlinearities, which are controlled by $\lambda$, and is not related to quantum breaking. In section \[sec:collective\], generalizing the results of [@nico], we additionally studied the possibility that a system can exhibit fast quantum breaking if it is overcritical, $\lambda > 1$, and exhibits a classical instability quantified by a non-zero Lyapunov exponent. For the case of the axion, we showed that neither condition is fulfilled so that fast quantum breaking cannot occur. Our general conclusions equally apply to other light scalar or pseudo-scalar candidates of dark matter that are treated as classical fields.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank César Gómez and Georg Raffelt for useful discussions. The work of G.D. was supported by the Humboldt Foundation under Alexander von Humboldt Professorship, the ERC Advanced Grant “Selfcompletion” (Grant No. 339169), FPA 2009-07908, CPAN (CSD2007-00042), HEPHACOSP-ESP00346, and by TR 33 “The Dark Universe”.
[10]{}
G. Dvali, D. Flassig, C. Gomez, A. Pritzel, and N. Wintergerst, [ *[Scrambling in the Black Hole Portrait]{}*]{}, [Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) no. 12, 124041](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.124041), [[arXiv:1307.3458 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3458).
G. Dvali and C. Gomez, [*[Quantum Compositeness of Gravity: Black Holes, AdS and Inflation]{}*]{}, [J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**2014**]{} no. 01, 023](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2014/01/023), [[arXiv:1312.4795 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4795).\
G. Dvali and C. Gomez, [*[Quantum Exclusion of Positive Cosmological Constant?]{}*]{}, [[arXiv:1412.8077 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.8077).
F. K[ü]{}hnel and M. Sandstad, [*[Corpuscular Consideration of Eternal Inflation]{}*]{}, [Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{} (2015) no. 10, 505](http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3736-7), [[arXiv:1504.02377 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02377).
P. Sikivie and E. M. Todarello, [*Duration of classicality in highly degenerate interacting Bosonic systems*]{}, [Phys. Lett. B [ **770**]{} (2017) 331–334](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.04.069), [[ arXiv:1607.00949 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.00949)
M. P. Hertzberg, [*Quantum and Classical Behavior in Interacting Bosonic Systems*]{}, [J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**2016**]{} no. 11, 037](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/037), [[arXiv:1609.01342 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01342).
L. Berezhiani, [*On Corpuscular Theory of Inflation*]{}, [Eur. Phys. J. C [**77**]{} (2017) no. 2, 106](http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4672-5), [[ arXiv:1610.08433 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08433).
G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and S. Zell, [*[Quantum Break-Time of de Sitter]{}*]{}, [J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**2017**]{} no. 06, 028](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/028), [[arXiv:1701.08776 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08776).
S. Weinberg, [*A new light boson?*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**40**]{} (1978) no. 4, 223-226](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223).
F. Wilczek, [*Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**40**]{} (1978) no. 5, 279-282](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279).
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, [*CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**38**]{} (1977) no. 25, 1440-1443](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789814329057_0016).
J. E. Kim, [*Light pseudoscalars, particle physics and cosmology*]{}, [Phys. Rep. [**150**]{} (1987) no. 1-2, 1-177](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(87)90017-2).\
M. S. Turner, [*Windows on the axion*]{}, [Phys. Rep. [**197**]{} (1990) no. 2, 67-97](http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90172-X).\
G. G. Raffelt, [*Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena*]{}, [Phys. Rep. [**198**]{} (1990) no. 1, 1-113](http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90054-6).
J. E. Kim, [*Weak-interaction singlet and strong CP invariance*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**43**]{} (1979) no. 2, 103-107](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.103).\
M. A. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, [*Can confinement ensure natural CP invariance of strong interactions?*]{}, [Nucl. Phys. B [**166**]{} (1980) no. 3, 493-506](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(80)90209-6).\
A. Zhitnitskii, *Possible suppression of axion-hadron interactions* (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**31**]{} (1980), 260.\
M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, [*A simple solution to the strong CP problem with a harmless axion*]{}, [Phys. Lett. B [**104**]{} (1981) no. 3, 199-202](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(81)90590-6).
J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, [*Cosmology of the invisible axion*]{}, [Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{} (1983) no. 1-3, 127-132](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(83)90637-8).\
L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, [*A cosmological bound on the invisible axion*]{}, [Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{} (1983) no. 1-3, 133-136](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(83)90638-X).\
M. Dine and W. Fischler, [*The not-so-harmless axion*]{}, [Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{} (1983) no. 1-3, 137–141](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(83)90639-1).
G. Dvali, [*[Removing the cosmological bound on the axion scale]{}*]{}, [[arXiv:hep-ph/9505253 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9505253).
, [*Resonant laser power build-up in [ALPS]{} – a “light-shining-through-walls” experiment*]{}, [Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A [**612**]{} (2009) no. 1, 83–96](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2009.10.102), [[arXiv:0905.4159 \[physics.ins-det\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4159).\
, [*A [SQUID]{}-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **104**]{} (2010) no. 4, 041301](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.041301), [[ arXiv:0910.5914 \[astro-ph.CO\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5914).\
, [*[CAST]{} search for sub-[eV]{} mass solar axions with 3He buffer gas*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **107**]{} (2011) no. 26, 261302](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.261302), [[ arXiv:1106.3919 \[hep-ex\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3919).\
D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajendran, and A. O. Sushkov, [ *Proposal for a Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment ([CASPEr]{})*]{}, [Phys. Rev. X [**4**]{} (2014) no. 2, 021030](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.021030), [[ arXiv:1306.6089 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6089).\
, [*Conceptual Design of the International Axion Observatory ([IAXO]{})*]{}, [J. Instrum. [**9**]{} (2014) T05002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/9/05/T05002), [[arXiv:1401.3233 \[physics.ins-det\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3233).\
, [*Dielectric Haloscopes: A New Way to Detect Axion Dark Matter*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **118**]{} (2017) no. 9, 091801](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.091801), [[ arXiv:1611.05865 \[physics.ins-det\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05865).
P. Sikivie and Q. Yang, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation of Dark Matter Axions*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{} (2009) no. 11, 111301](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.111301), [[arXiv:0901.1106 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1106).
O. Erken, P. Sikivie, H. Tam, and Q. Yang, [*Cosmic axion thermalization*]{}, [Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) no. 6, 063520](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.063520), [[ arXiv:1111.1157 \[astro-ph.CO\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1157).
P. Sikivie, [*The Case for Axion Dark Matter*]{}, [Phys. Lett. B [ **695**]{} (2011) no. 1, 22–25](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.11.027), [[ arXiv:1003.2426 \[astro-ph.GA\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2426).\
N. Banik and P. Sikivie, [*Axions and the Galactic Angular Momentum Distribution*]{}, [Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) no. 12, 123517](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.123517), [[arXiv:1307.3547 \[astro-ph.GA\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3547).
G. Dvali, C. Gomez, R. Isermann, D. L[ü]{}st, and S. Stieberger, [*[Black hole formation and classicalization in ultra-Planckian 2 $\rightarrow$ N scattering]{}*]{}, [Nucl. Phys. B [ **893**]{} (2015) 187–235](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.02.004), [[arXiv:1409.7405 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7405).
C. Cheng and P. Fung, [*The evolution operator technique in solving the Schrodinger equation, and its application to disentangling exponential operators and solving the problem of a mass-varying harmonic oscillator*]{}, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**21**]{} (1988) no. 22, 4115-4131](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/21/22/015).
N. Bogoliubov, [*On the theory of superfluidity*]{}, J. Phys [**11**]{} no. 1, 23.\
G. P. de Gennes, [*Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys*]{}. Westview Press, 1999.
N. W. McLachlan, [*Theory and application of Mathieu functions*]{}. Clarendon Press, 1951.
D. V. Semikoz and I. I. Tkachev, [*Condensation of bosons in kinetic regime*]{}, [Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} (1997) no. 2, 489-502](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.489), [[arXiv:hep-ph/9507306]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9507306).
A. H. Guth, M. P. Hertzberg, and C. Prescod-Weinstein, [*Do Dark Matter Axions Form a Condensate with Long-Range Correlation?*]{}, [Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{} (2015) no. 10, 103513](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.103513), [[ arXiv:1412.5930 \[astro-ph.CO\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5930).
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the collection of all the mid- and far-IR observations ($\lambda$=3-170$\mu$m) of the young eruptive variable PV Cep available so far in the literature. These data allow us to confirm that flux variability is a prominent feature at mid-IR wavelength ($\lambda$=3-25$\mu$m). Color-magnitude plots clearly indicate that the observed variability is not extinction-driven, but mainly influenced by fluctuations of the mass accretion rate. We interpret such variability as due to a hot spot created onto the stellar surface by the column of accreting matter, which heats the inner parts of the disk and determines the observed increase of the near- mid-IR luminosity. A quantitative characterization is given for both the spot itself and the additional thermal component created by it. Far-IR data ($\lambda$=60-170$\mu$m) are consistent with the presence of a temperature stratification in a massive and quite un-evolved circumstellar disk.'
author:
- 'D.Lorenzetti, S.Antoniucci, T. Giannini, G.Li Causi, A. Di Paola'
- 'A.A. Arkharov'
- 'V.M. Larionov'
title: 'Mid- and Far-Infrared Variability of PV Cep'
---
Introduction
============
After the very early phases of the cloud collapse the formation of an accretion disk around the central protostar is a natural consequence of both the initial cloud rotation and the angular momentum conservation. Once the disk is formed the accretion can proceed by transferring angular momentum toward the external regions and matter toward the central object through the disk itself. This is not a continuous but an intermittent process characterized by episodes during which matter from the inner disk regions falls onto the protostar following its magnetic field interconnection lines (e.g. Shu et al. 1994). The accreting matter produces a shock that cools by emitting a hot continuum. Moreover, as a consequence of the accretion event, strong winds (in some cases also collimated jets) emerge from the rotating star/disk system.
Disk accretion phenomena (during which the mass accretion rate increases up to orders of magnitude) give origin to repetitive outbursts (Hartmann & Kenyon 1985) that are typical of many (if not all) young stellar objects (YSO’s). Recently, D’Angelo & Spruit (2010) provided quantitative predictions for the episodic accretion on magnetized stars and indication that the cycle time of the bursts increases with a decreasing accretion rate. The outbursts of largest intensity ([$\stackrel {>}{_{\sim}}$]{} 4 mag) are classified into two major classes: ([*i*]{}) EXor events (Herbig 1989) lasting one year or less, with a recurrence time of months to years, characterized by emission line spectra; ([*ii*]{}) FUor events (Hartmann & Kenyon 1985) of longer duration ([$\stackrel {>}{_{\sim}}$]{} tens of years) with spectra dominated by absorption lines.
Circumstellar disks survive few million years before dissipating and undergo different phases of evolution: from accretion, through transitional, to passive disks, that make them crucial structures to investigate accretion modalities, matter outflowing, disk excavation and planet formation. Detailed studies on the correlations between optical, near-, and mid-infrared (IR) variability of protostellar objects are very important since they can elucidate on the physical mechanism(s) responsible for the fluctuations themselves. Of particular interest is the mid-IR domain (3-25 $\mu$m) where many of the eruptive variables emit most of their energy (Antoniucci et al. 2013). The spectral behaviour at these wavelengths is strictly related to disk and envelope regions located at radial distances from the central star where disk fragmentation and planet formation may occur. The difficult access to facilities operating in this spectral range has hampered this kind of studies, apart few important exceptions (eg. Kun et al. 2011, hereinafter K11; Kóspál et al. 2012 and references therein; Antoniucci et al. 2013). One of the few eruptive YSOs observed in the mid- far-IR in several occasions is PV Cephei ($\alpha_{2000}$ = 20$^{h}$45$^{m}$53.96$^{s}$, $\delta_{2000}$ = +67$^{\circ}$57$^{\prime}$38.9$^{\prime \prime}$), which is a pre-main sequence star in the northeastern edge of the L1158 and L1155 groups of dark clouds, at a distance of 325 pc (Straizys et al. 1992). Its strong and irregular variability (up to about 4-5 mag) was recently studied in the optical and near-IR bands \[K11; Lorenzetti et al. 2011 (Paper I), 2013\]. The aims of the present work are twofold: ([*i*]{}) to provide a mid- far-IR database of PV Cep, collecting all the observations obtained so far; ([*ii*]{}) to understand whether photometric variations at longer wavelengths present some analogies with those occurring in the optical/near-IR range in which case they could originate from the same mechanism(s). Sect. 2, summarizes the results of the recent optical/near-IR monitoring. In Sect.3 the mid-and far-IR data are presented and discussed in Sect.4. Sect.5 summarizes our conclusions.
PV Cep NIR-IR variability
=========================
As mentioned above, K11 and Paper I independently report on the optical/near-IR variability of PV Cep since 2004. The optical/near-IR variability of PV Cep is firmly ascertained and its origin is often attributed to a variable accretion rate, albeit some aspects remain still open. K11 suggest that the large and spectacular fading (reaching 4 mag in I$_C$ band) started in 2005, can not be due only to the accretion rate decrease (responsible, at most of about 1 mag), but also to a substantial extinction variation. Their interpretation, although correct in a general sense, should be applied with some caveats to this specific case. Indeed, ([*i*]{}) accretion rates are empirically derived from the Ca II infrared triplet emission lines, whose diagnostic capability suffer from some uncertainties (e.g. Antoniucci et al. 2011); ([*ii*]{}) the magnitude variation as a function of the \[R-I\] color (Figure 2 of K11) is surprisingly almost orthogonal to the extinction vector. In Paper I the presented behaviour of PV Cep refers to a period of less intense activity in the optical and near-IR range. Noticeably, both the near-IR and optical col-col plots (Figures 2 and 3 of Paper I) indicate that, beside a constant extinction A$_V$ of about 5-7 mag, phenomena other than extinction have a significant role in producing all the observed fluctuations. Admittedly, the near-IR color variations could be misinterpreted as due to extinction variations with A$_V$ values between 7 and 20 mag, but the optical colors demonstrate that this visual extinction range is definitely inconsistent.
PV Cep mid-and far-IR photometry
================================
To ascertain if PV Cep presents significant fluctuations in the mid- far-IR range, as it certainly does in the optical/near-IR, we have collected in Table \[variab:tab\] all the observations available in the literature taken in the L ($\sim$3$\mu$m), M ($\sim$5$\mu$m), N ($\sim$10$\mu$m), and Q ($\sim$20$\mu$m) bands and at 60, 100, and 170 $\mu$m. A similar kind of analysis, essentially based on [*Spitzer*]{} data taken in different epochs, was already presented by K11. The selected bands are those where photometry has been performed in at least three occasions. To construct the table we have adopted all the photometry obtained with ground-based facilities, IRAS (12, 25, 60 and 100 $\mu$m), [*Spitzer*]{} (IRAC 3.4 and 4.5 $\mu$m; MIPS 24, 70 $\mu$m), and [*WISE*]{} (3.6, 4.6, 12 and 22 $\mu$m). No counterpart is given in MSX Catalogue. Data taken in different, although adjacent, bands (eg. IRAC 5.8 and 8.0 $\mu$m, AKARI 9 $\mu$m) have not been considered because of the large difference between the effective wavelengths and band-passes. We signal that in 1987 PV Cep resulted too weak to be detected by [*KAO*]{} (Kuiper Astronomical Observatory) at 50 and 100 $\mu$m (Natta et al. 1993). The epoch of each observation and the effective wavelengths of the used band-passes are also provided in Table \[variab:tab\]. All values are given as flux density (in Jansky); when necessary, the magnitude values found in the literature have been converted by adopting the zero-magnitude fluxes given in the web pages of the Gemini Observatory[^1], whenever the conversion values are not given in the original paper. This procedure, together with the comparison between band-passes which are not perfectly coincident, is affected by instrumental and calibration effects and may cause a scatter that we conservatively estimate to be up to 50%. Therefore, fluctuations up to that amplitude will be considered negligible in the present work, unless the measurements have been performed with the same instrumentation: in these latter cases the fluctuations are assumed to be significant if their amplitude is larger than the 3$\sigma$ uncertainty. In the far-IR, PV Cep was observed in different occasions and the resulting photometry is given in the last part of Table \[variab:tab\]. As for the WISE measurements, the average L and M bands magnitudes from the All Sky Source Catalog (2.43 Jy and 8.15 Jy, respectively, not reported in Table 1) show a flux variation of opposite sign in the two bands with respect to previous photometries. To verify the reliability of this result, we scrutinized the single WISE measurements and noted that these are characterized by a very high dispersion (around 3 Jy). This dispersion becomes even higher in later Post Cryo WISE observations (NEO WISE Catalog). Moreover, all the WISE data are significantly affected by saturation effects, an inconvenient overcome by [*Spitzer*]{} data, obtained in High Dynamic Range (HDR) mode (i.e. co-adding very short exposures). Because of these reasons, we opted to discard the WISE L and M bands measurements in this work.
Far-IR fluxes have to be cautiously treated in any merging with other bands, because they are typically obtained with a beam size much larger than that of other observations. In particular, the IRAS measurements reported in the Table are not used in the following analysis because the large beam size affects especially the longest wavelength. Photometry in the 25-100 $\mu$m range indicates a marginal degree of variability (mainly at the shorter wavelengths). This could be likely due to beam differences rather than to intrinsic fluctuations.
Analysis and discussion
=======================
Mid-IR behaviour
----------------
Photometric data collected in the L and M bands (see Table \[variab:tab\]) are presented in Figure \[col\_LM:fig\] in terms of a color-magnitude plot. The extinction vector (Rieke & Lebofsky 1985), depicted as a red line, has been arbitrarily superposed to the data in a way such as to overlap the value of A$_V$ = 5 mag with the photometric point corresponding to the brightest status of PV Cep. We note two facts: ([*i*]{}) comparing the mid-IR variations with the extinction vector, we conclude they cannot be extinction driven, thus confirming what we already inferred in the near-IR (Paper I); ([*ii*]{}) the source becomes bluer while brightening, a behaviour that is typical of the EXor eruptive variables (Lorenzetti et al. 2012 - Paper II).
As noted for the near-IR variations (Sect. 2), also the fluctuations depicted in Figure \[col\_LM:fig\] could be interpreted not correctly if completely attributed to a visual extinction variations between 5 and 20 mag. Although with a very poor statistics the same behaviour is recognizable in the \[N-Q\] versus N color-magnitude plot reported in Figure \[col\_NQ:fig\]. A further case of interest is offered by mid-IR low resolution spectroscopy of the source. This was obtained twice by means of the facilities on board the satellites IRAS and ISO. ISO spectroscopy provided evidence for a 9.7 $\mu$m silicate absorption band and PAH emission at 11.2 $\mu$m (Acke & van den Ancker 2004). In fact, a silicate absorption band had been previously detected in the IRAS-LRS spectrum (Chen, Wang & He 2000) as well, although this feature was significantly deeper than the one observed by ISO. These absorption bands formally correspond to an optical depth $\tau_{9.7}$([*IRAS*]{}) = 1.8 and $\tau_{9.7}$([*ISO*]{}) = 0.3. According to the relationship A$_V$ (mag) = 16.6 $\times$ $\tau_{9.7}$ (Rieke & Lebofsky 1985), the different measurements of $\tau_{9.7}$ correspond in turn to A$_V$ values of about 30 and 5 mag, respectively. Since line absorption might be related to the column material, which is independent on the beam-size for an illuminating point-like source, the detected difference in A$_V$ would seem to support the presence of local intrinsic extinction variations. However, such range of A$_V$ variability is not compatible with the fact that PV Cep remains visible at optical wavelengths even during its quiescence periods.
In sum, all these considerations indicate that interpreting the PV Cep fluctuations in terms of an A$_V$ variation of about 20-25 mag is most likely not correct, so that an alternate mechanism is required, which would reproduce the observed variation of the optical and near-IR colors and change in the silicate absorption depth. In accordance with our conclusion, K11 remark how the wavelength dependence of the mid- and far-IR variations of PV Cep is different from that expected for dust extinction.
### SED modeling
The color-magnitude plot depicted in Figure \[col\_LM:fig\] indicates that the L-band fluctuations of PV Cep were sampled between a lower (corresponding to about 5.5 mag) and a higher (around 4.5 mag) state. Following the approach described in Paper II, we tried to investigate what happened between these two levels of brightness, checking if the difference between the SED relative to the brighter state and that of the fainter one can be fitted with a single black-body (BB). If this were the case, the appearance of a single temperature associated to the outburst event could effectively account for the observed fluctuation. To perform our check, we need two SEDs (outburst and quiescence) sampled at least in four photometric bands so as to make our two-parameter fit (see below) statistically meaningful. A conventional error of $\pm$10% was arbitrarily assigned to any flux in order to take into account, in addition to the formal errors, also the effects due to differences in the adopted band-passes, effective wavelengths, and photometric systems. Among the cases presented for PV Cep (see Table \[variab:tab\]), the two for which we have been able to reconstruct a SED sampled in four bands (H, K, L, and M) are that prior to 1984, considered as the high state, and that on Nov. 26, 2006, the low state. The H, K photometry was obtained simultaneously to L, M for the first epoch (H = 8.3 mag, K = 6.8 mag, Neckel & Staude 1984), and two weeks later for the second epoch (H = 9.2 mag, K = 7.5 mag, our unpublished photometry). The free parameters of our simple model are $T$, the BB temperature, and $R$, the radius of the emitting region, while for the extinction value A$_V$ we assumed 5 mag and 7 mag for the lower and higher state, respectively, which are the limits determined by all previous optical observations (see Sect.2). The fit of the differential SED is depicted in Figure \[fit:fig\], while the relevant parameters are given in Table \[fit:tab\]. As also noticed in Paper II, we point out that the shape of the true emitting area (that we do not model) is likely very different from the assumed uniform disk: for example it could be the inner wall of the circumstellar disk or anything else: the radius $R$, derived by the fit, simply provides an indication of the length scale of the emission region. Being the fit acceptable (reduced $\chi^2$ = 1.08), we should consider the hypothesis that an emitting region (assumed to be a uniform disk) at about 1300 K, with a radius R of about 0.27 AU, appeared as an additional component while the source moved from the low to the high state we have considered. The scale length of 0.27 AU is typical of the inner portions of the circumstellar disks of Herbig Ae stars (Vinković 2006), as PV Cep is often classified. We can explain the increase of $T$ in PV Cep in the same scenario we demonstrated to be valid to describe all the EXor outbursts (Paper II), and adopting for the spot emission the same model by Calvet & Gullbring (1998) which predicts spot temperatures ($T_{spot}$) between 10,000 and 18,000 K. Since the appearance of this kind of black-body has been never observed, we assume that the energy irradiated by the spot equals that emitted by the surrounding region. The power emitted by the spot linearly depends on two factors: ([*i*]{}) the time interval $\tau$ during which the spot temperature remains at its maximum value, expressed as a fraction of the observed bright state duration, and ([*ii*]{}) the spot surface $\Sigma_{spot}$, expressed as a fraction of the stellar surface. Given such linearity, we treated the product $\tau \cdot \Sigma_{spot}$ as a single variable. Figure \[maps:fig\] depicts the results of our analysis. Two extreme values of the product $\tau \cdot \Sigma_{spot}$ are considered: 0.001 ($\tau$ = 0.1 $\times$ $\Sigma_{spot}$ = 0.01) and 0.05 ($\tau$ = 0.5 $\times$ $\Sigma_{spot}$ = 0.1), indicated in blue and green, respectively. The considered upper value for $\tau$ is compatible with the typical light curve of EXors (see e.g. V1118 Ori - Audard et al 2010) where the maximum flux level lasts about half of the total bright state duration. The lower value for $\Sigma_{spot}$ is compatible with the sizes predicted by Calvet & Gullbring (1998). In Figure \[maps:fig\], the area of intersection between the $\chi^2$ minima and model predictions represent the ranges of $T$ and $R$ for which our simple spot model can account for the observations. The derived ranges are depicted as confidence contours (in yellow-orange) superposed on the $\chi^2$ maps and are listed in Table \[fit:tab\]. The event considered here is different from that presented in Paper II for the same source, nevertheless it is still associated with the appearance of a single black-body (and not with a stratification of temperatures), so reinforcing conclusions given in Paper II. These both events, maybe fortuitously, are associated to black-bodies with very similar temperatures (T = 1320 K instead of 1550 K) and very compact size (R = 0.14 AU and 0.27 AU). Noticeably, minimum $\chi^2$ corresponds to $\Sigma_{spot}$ = 0.1 and $\tau$ = 0.5, for a spot temperature of 15,000 K. In practice, a very reasonable spot having an area of about 10% of the stellar surface, persisting about 50% of the bright state duration, and with a temperature well compatible with the PV Cep mass accretion rate, is able to account for the observed behaviour.\
In this scenario, it is reasonable to expect that the energy input would induce a variable silicate emission feature from the outer disk, which could explain the observed variation in the silicate absorption band.
Far-IR behaviour
----------------
Concerning the far-IR detections at 60, 100, and 170 $\mu$m, no significant variability can be recognized above a 3$\sigma$ level. Analysing a fading phase, also K11 found the range 10-60 $\mu$m unaffected by variability, although they noted a concordant dimming in the 70-90 $\mu$m region. The three observations (see bottom of Table \[variab:tab\]) that cover all the three band-passes allow us to estimate the \[60-100\] and \[100-170\] colors of PV Cep, where we define the color as \[$\lambda_1 - \lambda_2$\] = log($F_{\lambda_1}/F_{\lambda_2}$)). The colors derived from the three observations are not compatible with the presence of a single temperature black-body, but rather correspond to a stratification of temperatures (see Fig. 2 of Elia et al. 2005). Hamidouche (2010) was able for the first time to resolve the PV Cep disk by means of sub arc-second interferometry at $\lambda$ = 1.3 and 2.7 mm. He derived a quite high value for the exponent of the dust absorption coefficient in the relation $\kappa \sim \lambda^{-\beta}$, obtaining $\beta$ = 1.75 (which is a value indicative of small dust grains) and inferred the presence of a quite massive disk of 0.8 $M_{\sun}$. Far-IR fluxes (given in Table \[variab:tab\]) are fully compatible (we suspect they are exactly the same he used) with the spectral energy distribution modelled by Hamidouche (2010 - its Figure 8). To summarize, the far-IR measurements collected here are consistent with the presence of a young massive disk mainly composed by unprocessed (small grains of) dust.
Final remarks
=============
The outbursting young object PV Cep has been observed in the mid- far-IR range ($\lambda$=3-170$\mu$m) several times. Mid-IR photometry ($\lambda$=3-25$\mu$m) is affected by a certain degree of variability whose modality confirms what already suggested by optical/near-IR monitoring observations, namely that variable accretion, more than variable extinction, is the dominant mechanism. Far-IR photometry ($\lambda$=60-170$\mu$m) does not seem affected by a significant variability, and speaks in favour of a stratification of temperatures likely occurring in a very young massive circumstellar disk.
Ábrahám, P., Leinert, Ch., Burkert, A., Henning, Th., & Lemke, D. 2000, A&A, 354, 965
Acke, B. & van den Ancker, M.E. 2004, A&A, 426, 151
Antoniucci, S. et al. 2011, A&A, 534, 32
Antoniucci, S., Giannini, T., & Lorenzetti, D. 2013, New Astronomy, 23-24, 98
Audard, M., Stringfellow, G.S., Güdel, M. et al. 2010 A&A 511, 63
Calvet, N., & Gullbring, E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 802
Chen, P.S., Wang, X,H., & He, J.H. 2000, Ap&SS, 271, 259 D’Angelo, C.R., & Spruit, H.C. 2010, MNRAS 406, 1208
Elia, D., et al. 2005, New Astronomy, 10, Issue 7, July 545
Hamidouche, M. 2010, ApJ, 722, 204
Hartmann, L., & Kenyon, S. 1985, ApJ, 299, 462 Herbig, G.H. 1989 Proc. of the ESO Workshop on [*Low Mass Star Formation and Pre-Main Sequence Objects*]{}, ed. B. Reipurth, p.233
Kóspál, Á. et al. 2012, ApJS, 201, 11
Kun, M. et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2689 (K11)
Lorenzetti, D. et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 69 (Paper I)
Lorenzetti, D. et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 188 (Paper II)
Lorenzetti, D. et al. 2013, Ap&SS, 343, 535
Natta, A., Palla, F., Butner, H.M., Evans II, N.J., & Harvey, P.M. 1993 ApJ, 406, 674
Neckel, T., & Staude, H.J. 1984, A&A, 131, 200
Rieke, G.H. & Lebofsky, M.J. 1985, ApJ 288, 618
Shu, F.H., Najita, J.R., Ostriker, E., Wilkin, F., Ruden, S., & Lizano, S. 1994, ApJ 429, 781
Straizys, V., Cernis, K., Kazlauskas, A., & Meistas, E. 1992 Balt. Astr., 1, 149
Weaver, W.B. & Jones, G. 1992, ApJS 78, 239
Vinković, D. 2006, ApJ 651, 906
![\[col\_LM:fig\] PV Cep color-magnitude plot (\[L-M\] versus mag L). Solid line represents the reddening law by Rieke & Lebofsky (1985), where different values of A$_V$ are indicated by solid dots.](col_LM.jpg){width="14cm"}
![\[col\_NQ:fig\] PV Cep color-magnitude plot (\[N-Q\] versus mag N). Solid line represents the reddening law by Rieke & Lebofsky (1985), where different values of A$_V$ are indicated by solid dots.](col_NQ.jpg){width="14cm"}
![\[fit:fig\] Best fit to the SED difference between high and low states of PV Cep. The curve represents a single temperature BB, whose value is given in Table \[fit:tab\].](PV_Cep_fit.png){width="14cm"}
![\[maps:fig\] $\chi^2$ map (grey-scale) projected on the ($T$, $R$) parameters plane with superposed 1$\sigma$ to 3$\sigma$ confidence contours (in yellow and orange, respectively). The dashed horizontal line indicates the stellar radius (assumed 2 R$_{\odot}$), whereas the shaded stripes show the parameters region allowed by the spot model and the energy conservation in a range of spot temperatures T$_{spot}$ (10000 K to 18000 K) for two values (10$^{-3}$ and 5 10$^{-2}$ in blue and green, respectively) of the $\tau\cdot\Sigma_{spot}$ product (see text). The color bars relative to these two values, for different spot temperatures, are given in the two right panels. The black cross indicates the ($T$, $R$) pair corresponding to the absolute minimum of $\chi^2$.](PV_Cep_Map_R_T_revised.png){width="16cm"}
----------------- ------------------ --------------------------- ---------------- --------------------------- ------------- ---------------------------
Epoch
(Jy) \[$\lambda_{eff}$\] - Ref (Jy) \[$\lambda_{eff}$\] - Ref (Jy) \[$\lambda_{eff}$\] - Ref
1984 51.87 $\pm$ 0.06 \[60\] - 5 51.2 $\pm$ 0.2 \[100\] - 5 ... ...
1996 40.3 \[60\] - 6 51.0 \[100\] - 6 56.1 \[170\] - 6
Jun 96 - Jan 98 37 $\pm$ 9 \[60\] - 2 37 $\pm$ 9 \[100\] - 2 50 $\pm$ 13 \[170\] - 2
May 06 - Aug 07 51 $\pm$ 2 \[65\] - 7 39 $\pm$ 2 \[90\] - 7 46 $\pm$ 2 \[160\] - 7
Feb 26, 2007 35 $\pm$ 2 \[70\] - 3 ... ... ... ...
----------------- ------------------ --------------------------- ---------------- --------------------------- ------------- ---------------------------
: Continued. \[variab:tab\]
- References to the Table: (1) Neckel & Staude 1984; (2) Ábrahám et al. 2000; (3) Kun et al. 2011; (4) [*WISE*]{} Catalog; (5) Weaver & Jones 1992; (6) Elia et al. 2005; (7) [*AKARI*]{} Catalog;\
$^a$ - This date (prior to 1984) is not specified in the original paper and refers to an observation in J, H, K, L, and M bands conducted in the same date.\
$^b$ - Photometric data taken during the indicated dates have been averaged: the mean value and the standard deviation are given.
Parameter Value
-------------------------- ---------------------------
Distance 500 pc
A$_V$ (higher state) 7.0 mag
A$_V$ (lower state) 5.0 mag
fit reduced $\chi^2$ 1.08
BB temperature $T$ 1320$^{+32}_{-238}$ K
Radius (emit.region) $R$ 0.27$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ AU
Spot surface $\Sigma$ 10% stellar surface
Spot duration $\tau$ 50% outburst duration
: Adopted and derived parameters for PV Cep. \[fit:tab\]
[^1]: http://www.gemini.edu/?q=node/11119
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Innovations in batteries take years to formulate and commercialize, requiring extensive experimentation during the design and optimization phases. We approached the design and selection of a battery electrolyte through a black-box optimization algorithm directly integrated into a robotic test-stand. We report here the discovery of a novel battery electrolyte by this experiment completely guided by the machine-learning software without human intervention. Motivated by the recent trend toward super-concentrated aqueous electrolytes[@suo_water--salt_2015; @zheng_understanding_2018; @yokoyama_origin_2018] for high-performance batteries, we utilize Dragonfly - a Bayesian machine-learning software package[@kandasamy_tuning_2019] - to search mixtures of commonly used lithium and sodium salts for super-concentrated aqueous electrolytes with wide electrochemical stability windows. Dragonfly autonomously managed the robotic test-stand, recommending electrolyte designs to test and receiving experimental feedback in real time. In 40 hours of continuous experimentation over a four-dimensional design space with millions of potential candidates, Dragonfly discovered a novel, mixed-anion aqueous sodium electrolyte with a wider electrochemical stability window than state-of-the-art sodium electrolyte. A human-guided design process may have missed this optimal electrolyte. This result demonstrates the possibility of integrating robotics with machine-learning to rapidly and autonomously discover novel battery materials.'
author:
- 'Adarsh Dave$^{1,4}$, Jared Mitchell$^{2}$, Kirthevasan Kandasamy$^{3}$, Sven Burke$^{2}$, Biswajit Paria$^{3}$, Barnabas Poczos$^{3}$, Jay Whitacre$^{2,4,*}$, Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan$^{1,4,*}$'
bibliography:
- 'ML\_otto.bib'
title: 'Autonomous discovery of battery electrolytes with robotic experimentation and machine-learning'
---
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213, USA.
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213, USA.
Department of Machine Learning, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213, USA.
Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, 15213, USA.
Corresponding Authors: [email protected] (J. W.), [email protected] (V. V.)
Energy-dense and safe batteries are crucial for electrification of transportation[@Deng:2018aa] and aviation[@Viswanathan2019]. But even incremental improvements to battery materials can take years to deliver, involving many rounds of iterative testing to optimize numerous material parameters to achieve multiple objectives[@tabor_accelerating_2018]. The battery design problem is fundamentally a complex function that takes battery formulation as input and returns performance measurements as output. Machine-learning methods can be used to optimize these black-box functions, even under multiple objectives[@pmlr-v37-kandasamy15; @pmlr-v97-kandasamy19a; @PariaKP19; @kandasamy_tuning_2019; @HernandezLobato16]. Machine-learning coupled with automated evaluation - whether via robotic experimentation or automated simulation workflows, able to immediately act on the model’s recommendations - can “close the loop” and enable inverse material design[@kusne_fly_2014; @zunger_inverse_2018; @granda_controlling_2018; @bhowmik_perspective_2019; @bai_accelerated_2019; @sun_accelerated_2019]. Bayesian optimization in particular has proven effective in solving chemical design problems over minimal experimental iterations, with successful examples in fields such as carbon nanotube[@nikolaev_discovery_2014] and polymer fiber synthesis[@li_rapid_2017], metamaterial design[@bessa2019], and organic photovoltaic devices[@macleod_self-driving_2019]. While similar approaches have been attempted in several fields of study, to our knowledge, this is the first attempt to apply this framework to the design of functional materials in electrochemistry.
![Schematic figure of Otto system illustrating test-stand and software architecture. The test-stand is capable of mixing arbitrary mixtures of chosen feeder solutions (salts dissolved into water near saturation) and measuring pH, ionic conductivity, and electrochemical properties in a symmetric platinum electrode cell. The control software takes in an experiment request (i.e. an electrolyte mixture to be characterized) and returns measurements and metadata (e.g. temperature) over HTTP to a Python API. Dragonfly - the Bayesian optimization software utilized in this paper - plugs into the Python API for requesting experiments and receiving feedback. A more detailed version on test-stand components and logic is available as Extended Data Figure 8.[]{data-label="fig:schematic_lite"}](schematic_lite2.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
We have built a robotic platform for characterizing battery electrolytes[@whitacre_autonomous_2019; @dave_benchmarking_2020], shown in schematic in Figure 1; we allow this platform to run autonomously, guided by a machine-learning optimizer that plans each experimental iteration sequentially based on real-time experimental feedback. In this work, we demonstrate the use of this platform to optimize for a single objective - the electrolyte’s electrochemical stability window - in both lithium-ion and sodium-ion aqueous electrolytes. We report a novel, high-performing dual-anion sodium electrolyte discovered by this platform over just 40 hours of continuous experimentation given four common sodium salts to choose from. The blended electrolyte is measured to have a wider electrochemical stability window than state-of-the-art sodium electrolyte[@lee_toward_2019], suggesting a longer calendar life and improved high-rate capability over the state-of-the-art system. This result illustrates the promise of using machine-learning coupled to robotic experiments to rapidly optimize material designs and discover designs that human experimenters may miss.
The non-aqueous electrolytes commonly used in modern batteries are highly flammable, and present significant safety hazards and manufacturing costs relating to safety, storage, and management[@luo_raising_2010; @suo_water--salt_2015]. Aqueous electrolytes are an attractive alternative. They are safer, lower-cost, and more conductive that non-aqueous counterparts[@li_towards_2013; @whitacre_polyionic_2015]. High conductivity particularly suits large-format batteries that may be used in the electrical grid to smooth out the intermittent generation of power from renewable sources[@wu_relating_2015].
Aqueous electrolytes have a narrow electrochemical stability window, limited by the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) at low electrochemical potentials and the oxygen evolution reaction (OER) at high potentials[@li_rechargeable_1994]. These parasitic reactions preclude the use of the modern, high-voltage electrode couples that enable the high energy density of non-aqueous batteries[@luo_raising_2010], and lead to poor cycling capability, calendar life, and diminished high-rate performance[@luo_aqueous_2007]. A recent trend in aqueous electrolyte design uses very high salt concentrations to suppress these reactions, either by deposition of a kinetically passivating electrode film (generally via anionic reduction) or by modifying interfacial hydration structures to achieve similar effects. These “water-in-salt” electrolytes have been shown to expand the electrochemical stability window from less than 2V for a standard aqueous electrolyte up to 3V, with effects demonstrated for a wide variety of salts [@suo_water--salt_2015; @zheng_understanding_2018; @yokoyama_origin_2018; @lee_toward_2019]. Water concentration alone has been shown to have asymmetric influence on electrolyte resistance to HER and OER[@yokoyama_origin_2018]. Blending salts in electrolytes can positively impact performance, opening the possibility for mixed-anion electrolytes to have an optimal electrochemical window[@weber_long_2019; @suo_advanced_2016]. This creates a design problem where the electrochemical stability window of an aqueous electrolyte could be optimized by choosing and blending salts.
Improvements in stability for aqueous electrolytes that do not reduce into a passivating film are not fully explained from first principles[@zheng_understanding_2018; @yokoyama_origin_2018; @wessells_investigations_2010]. Water-in-salt solutions are difficult to model with theories based on ideal solution behavior, and their properties are computationally expensive to calculate from first principles, with no guarantee of fidelity when compared to experiments. Thus, the rational design or computational screening of aqueous electrolytes may be challenging and time-consuming with very limited guarantee of success.
We reformulate aqueous electrolyte design as a black box optimization problem, where the electrolyte formulation is given as input and measured properties are output as optimization objectives. Our robotic electrolyte test-stand, named *Otto*, mixes together aqueous electrolyte salts, pre-dissolved near saturation into feeder solutions, and measures two electrolyte objectives - ionic conductivity and electrochemical stability - along with temperature and pH. Electrochemical stability is tested with constant current holds at four current levels (111, 22, 5, then 1 mA/cm$^2$, first testing OER onset potentials then HER onset potentials) on two platinum wires with an Ag/AgCl reference electrode. As described previously [@whitacre_autonomous_2019], we utilize a slope-extrapolation method between 22 and 5 mA/cm$^2$ to the zero-current axis to characterize electrolyte stability. This method will over-estimate electrolyte stability compared to longer measurements done at a lower currents (e.g. 50$\mu$ A/cm$^2$), but using this quantity during survey and optimization enables a 60 second measurement of electrolyte stability against HER and OER with consistent variance. Dosing, mixing, measurement, flushing, and washing steps meant that each experimental iteration took less than 25 minutes. In-depth details on the design, calibration, and performance of Otto and the fast electrochemical assessment are previously published[@whitacre_autonomous_2019], but a detailed schematic of the test-stand mechanics and visualizations of the test are shown in the Extended Data Figs 1-4 and 8.
![A manual grid survey of stability response to salt concentration for common aqueous electrolytes shows that a choice of salt greatly affects stability window. Figure (A) gives HER onset potential, and (B) for OER, using slope extrapolation method shifted to pH 0. This frames a design problem as choosing the best salt combination in water for widest stability window against HER and OER.[]{data-label="fig:figure2"}](figure2_labeled.png){width="75.00000%"}
Otto first surveyed stability against HER and OER as a function of salt concentration on a manually-defined grid across common lithium and sodium electrolytes, without the machine-learning optimizer. Stability values are summarized using the slope-extrapolation method - results are shown as a function of mole fraction of salt in the electrolyte in Figure 2(A) and (B). All potentials reported in Figure 2 have been shifted to pH 0 with the Nernst equation, based on measured pH (see SI). Anions clearly perform differently in suppressing anode or cathode reactions on platinum. Outliers include and that diverge from nitrate and perchlorate salts, possibly due to unique stoichiometry or bromide oxidation respectively. Significant differences between nitrate and perchlorate salts are evident particularly on HER suppression. These results further motivate a design problem where salts are chosen and blended to discover a novel electrolyte with optimal stability window.
It is prohibitively time-consuming to exhaustively search mixtures of these anions for optimal formulations as the complexity of mixed electrolyte design spaces exhibits “combinatorial explosion”. For example, Otto utilizes a testing volume of 7 mL. Exhaustively searching a space of 3-salt mixtures in 0.1 mL increments would require 62,000 evaluations, and a space of 4-salt mixtures would require 1.15 million evaluations. To make optimiztion over this design space practical, we connected Otto to Dragonfly, a Bayesian optimization software package developed by our team. Dragonfly harnesses a suite of acquisition strategies and evolutionary algorithms for scalable and robust treatment of black-box functions[@kandasamy_tuning_2019; @PariaKP19]. Given only solubility constraints on mixtures, Dragonfly optimized for the electrochemical stability window - as measured by via the fast electrochemical assessment and summarized into a single number with slope-extrapolation method - over the design spaces of 1) mixtures of , , , and and 2) mixtures of , , and . Dragonfly operated fully autonomously, running experiments with no human guidance. Results are illustrated in Figure 3(A-F). Concentrations of feeder solutions for each salt are given in Table 1; compositions of the best blended electrolytes discovered by Dragonfly are given in Table 2.
![Results for autonomous optimization of sodium (left column) and lithium (right column) aqueous electrolytes. Top figures A and D shows Dragonfly’s optimization routine, black circles are individual evaluations and the red line shows maximum found over iterations. Shown in color are the top blends found by Dragonfly, whose compositions are given in Table 1. For each top blend, 4 additional experiments were carried out against baselines of and and potentials (via slope-extrapolation method) are reported in Figures B, C, E, and F. Blend E is the best performing sodium electrolyte and is the best lithium electrolyte.[]{data-label="fig:figure3"}](fig3_slope2.png)
Feeder Solution Molality
----------------- ----------
16.03
10.03
1.5
8
7.02
3.01
5.01
: Concentrations of feeder solutions[]{data-label="tab:table1"}
Blend Composition (mL of feeder solutions)
------------ --------------------------------------
D 6.1 , 0.8 , 0.1
E 6.7 , 0.3
$\epsilon$ 6.4 , 0.6
$\beta$ 5.7 , 0.9 , 0.4
: Composition of electrolyte blends discovered; test volume was kept constant at 7mL.[]{data-label="tab:table2"}
The optimization curve over sodium electrolytes illustrated in Figure (A) is steep but flat in a middle portion, wherein Dragonfly was learning that any amount of in the electrolyte significantly lowered cathode stability. This is an excellent illustration of the algorithm learning a nonlinear chemical response. Top blends from this optimization were run for an additional 4 experiments each against a pure feeder solution benchmark. The four measured potentials and their averages are reported in Figure 3 (B) and (C). Blend E showed an improved OER stability of 20 mV over to pure .
The optimization over lithium electrolytes is illustrated in Figure 3(D). Dragonfly initializes by randomly sampling the design space in the first five runs, which, in the lithium case, included a strong electrolyte. The three-dimensional design space is much smaller than the sodium design space. The lithium optimization converges much faster than the sodium optimization. The optimizer converged on two blends and pure feeder solution as three candidates with optimal stability windows - other high performing candidates were dilutions of and not tested. These electrolytes were run for an additional 4 experiments each; the measured potentials are shown in Figure 3(E) and (F). The concentrated electrolyte is the strongest performer tested by the optimizer and has been used extensively in literature[@li_rechargeable_1994; @zheng_understanding_2018].
![Results for 7 runs on Blend E against control suggest that the blend is better at suppressing OER than . The potential for an acceptable leakage current (30$\mu$A/cm$^2$) is 24 mV higher in the blend, and the blend illustrates significantly improved high-rate capability with a 58% (-0.37 log units) suppression of current density at 2V compared to . The two electrolytes are close in pH (near 8.8); the potentials given are therefore not pH shifted.[]{data-label="fig:figure4"}](figure3.png){width=".9\textwidth"}
Blend E and were run for a longer, detailed evaluation of OER stability in Otto, illustrated in Figure 4. Current density was varied in half log-decade steps from $j=10^{-1}$ to $10^{-5} A/cm^2$. A Tafel equation was fit to the average of 7 sequential runs, ignoring high current steps $j=10^{-1}$ and $10^{-1.5} A/cm^2$. Otto has previously been used to replicate the Tafel slope of 1M KOH standard for OER posited in literature[@damjanovic_kinetics_1966] to within experimental error (Extended Data Fig.5). Full data figures and methods for this run are given in the SI and Extended Data Fig. 6 and 7. The results suggest that Blend E is more to stable to OER than - a high-performing state-of-the-art sodium electrolyte extensively evaluated in past work[@lee_toward_2019]. The potential at an acceptable OER leakage current[@wessells_investigations_2010] (30$\mu A/cm^2$) is 24 mV higher in the blend than in the feeder solution, suggesting a longer calendar life for a potential aqueous battery built with the blend. The blend also shows significantly improved high-rate capability with a 58% suppression of OER current density at 2V compared to the feeder solution.
It is not a priori intuitive why a blend of two common sodium salts would better suppress OER compared to its pure counterparts - these two salts together may form a novel passivating film[@lee_toward_2019] or better suppress water activity[@zheng_understanding_2018]. Previous rationalization of OER suppression via the latter mechanism leveraged the Hofmeister series, a scale for relative interaction strength between a specific anion and water[@lee_toward_2019]. This may not apply to the potentially complex interactions in high-concentration, blended salts. Further theoretical and experimental analysis would be required to characterize the precise role nitrate anions play in the perchlorate electrolyte.
A machine-learning-guided robotic test-stand has explored a design space of previously reported aqueous electrolyte components, and discovered previously unknown, non-intuitive, but higher performing aqueous electrolyte. We believe this result serves as proof-of-principle that autonomous battery design can generate materials that a human designer may miss. More complex mixtures, whether aqueous or non-aqueous, and co-optimizing electrode and electrolyte can be tested without changing the principle of our approach.
Materials
---------
Sodium perchlorate (CAS 7601-89-0, Anhydrous 98.0-102.0%, ACS Grade) was purchased from VWR International; sodium nitrate (CAS 7631-99-4, ACS reagent, >99.0%), sodium sulfate (CAS 7757-82-6, ACS reagent, Anhydrous, >99.0%), sodium bromide (CAS 767-15-6, anhydrous >99%), lithium perchlorate (CAS 7791-03-9, ACS reagent, >95.0%), lithium nitrate (CAS 7790-69-4, Reagentplus), lithium sulfate (CAS 10377-48-7, Titration >98.5%), and lithium bromide (CAS 7550-35-8, anhydrous, >99.%) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich and were used without further purification.
Material storage
----------------
Bromide solids were stored and massed in a dry Argon atmosphere; sodium perchlorate solids were stored only as unopened containers; all other solids were stored in ambient lab atmosphere in parafilm sealed containers; massing of all non-bromide solids was conducted in ambient lab atmosphere. Electrolyte solutions were stored in sealed Fisher Scientific brand Kimble Kimax GL 45 containers at ambient lab conditions (22$^{\circ}$C $\pm$ 2$^{\circ}$C). Deionized water used for in test-stand dilution of solutions was stored exclusively in Fisher Scientific brand Kimble Kimax GL 45 containers.
Preparation of solutions
------------------------
All solutions were mixed in ambient atmosphere, beakers were sealed off with parafilm once all solid was added to the deionized water. Solutions were mixed with VWR brand magnetic stir bars for a minimum of 30 min past the dissolution of the last visible solid. Temperature was regulated by setting hot plates to maximum of 30 $^{\circ}$C for endothermic solutions and through water baths at ambient temperature for exothermic solutions; all solutions were mixed for at least 30 minutes at ambient conditions before density measurements were performed.
Experimental details
--------------------
Details on test-stand components for each measured property can be found in abundance in a previous publication[@whitacre_autonomous_2019]. As reported previously, each experimental iteration consisted of 3 separate Otto runs - a wash with deionized water, then an initial run with the requested mixture, then a second, “production” run that was reported as data. This procedure was shown to have highest fidelity against benchmark cases[@whitacre_autonomous_2019]. Testing volume was held constant at 7mL. Each machine learning optimization consisted of four days of experimentation, divided into daily runs of 10-15 iterations. Solutions were restocked as needed, and made according to above section in preparation. For detailed evaluations, see Extended Data Fig 6 and 7 for information. Platinum surfaces were cleaned in between the evaluation of and Blend E with 1200 grit wet paper, rinsed with isopropyl alcohol and deionized water.
pH corrections
--------------
The Nernst Equation shows that half-cell potential changes by 59mV for each pH unit change. Thus, to standardize for performance across the Pourbaix diagram, all reported potentials (unless otherwise noted) are shifted to pH zero, i.e.: $E_{reported}=E_{measured}+0.0591 pH_{measured}$
Tafel equation
--------------
The Tafel equation is derived from the Butler Volmer kinetic law: $j=j_0 \Big( exp\big[\frac{\alpha_a z e \eta}{k_b T}\big] - exp\big[\frac{-\alpha_c z e \eta}{k_b T}\big]\Big)$. Tafel approximation ignores the backward reaction and thus arrives at a functional form: $\eta = A\big[log(j)-log(j_0)\big]$. For Tafel plots presented in Figure 3, and Extended Data 5, 6, and 7, current density was converted to A/cm$^2$ and electrode potentials were reported on the standard hydrogen electrode scale.
Combinatoric estimation of design spaces
----------------------------------------
The design space for testing the mixtures described in this paper is constrained by Otto’s testing volume (7mL) and can be described in equation form as: $x_1+x_2+...+x_d+x_{water}=7$ where each $x_i$ is the volume of feeder solution $i$ in the mixture, up to $d$ salts then diluting water (if present). If the design space were discretized into integer volumes, this becomes a form of the classic combinatorics problem in “stars and bars”. For any pair of positive integers n and k, the number of k-tuples of non-negative integers whose sum is n is equal to: ${n+k-1}\choose{n}$. All electrolyte optimizations mentioned in paper occurred in discretizations of 0.1 mL. This maps directly to the above solution if the equation is multipled by 10, i.e.: $10 x_1 + 10 x_2 + ... + 10 x_d + 10 x_{water} = 70$. Thus, our analytic solution for the complexity of optiming across $d$ salts ($+1$ for $x_{water}$): ${70+(d+1)-1}\choose{70}$. ${73}\choose{70}$ = 62196. ${74}\choose{70}$ = 1150626.
Data availability
-----------------
The supporting data for the included graphs within this paper, as well as other findings from this study, are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Code availability
-----------------
The code for the plots presented in this paper is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
This work was supported by Toyota Research Institute through the Accelerated Materials Design and Discovery program. The authors acknowledge insightful discussions with Brian Storey, Abraham Anapolsky, Linda Hung and Chirranjeevi Gopal from the Toyota Research Institute.
J. W., V. V. and Barnabas P. conceived the project. J. M. designed, machined, and assembled the test-stand and wrote Labview control software. J.M. designed the fast electrochemical assessment. A. D. designed Python software and data layer and web-server interface. S. B. prepared all feeder solutions and stocked the test-stand. A. D. managed experiments (data input and output for test-stand both in manually defined and machine-learning operated modes) and analyzed results. K. K. and Biswajit P. wrote Dragonfly, consulted on its applicability to this problem, and implemented required features for running Otto from Dragonfly. A. D. and V. V. wrote the paper with input from all the authors. A. D. and J. M. produced all the figures.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Jay Whitacre, (email: [email protected]) and Venkat Viswanathan, (email: [email protected]).
The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'As gravitational-wave detectors become more sensitive and broaden their frequency bandwidth, we will access a greater variety of signals emitted by compact binary systems, shedding light on their astrophysical origin and environment. A key physical effect that can distinguish among different formation scenarios is the misalignment of the spins with the orbital angular momentum, causing the spins and the binary’s orbital plane to precess. To accurately model such precessing signals, especially when masses and spins vary in the wide astrophysical range, it is crucial to include multipoles beyond the dominant quadrupole. Here, we develop the first [*multipolar*]{} precessing waveform model in the effective-one-body (EOB) formalism for the entire coalescence stage (i.e., inspiral, merger and ringdown) of binary black holes: `SEOBNRv4PHM`. In the nonprecessing limit, the model reduces to `SEOBNRv4HM`, which was calibrated to numerical-relativity (NR) simulations, and waveforms from black-hole perturbation theory. We validate the `SEOBNRv4PHM` by comparing it to the public catalog of 1405 precessing NR waveforms of the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) collaboration, and also to 118 SXS precessing NR waveforms, produced as part of this project, which span mass ratios 1-4 and (dimensionless) black-hole’s spins up to 0.9. We stress that `SEOBNRv4PHM` is not calibrated to NR simulations in the precessing sector. We compute the unfaithfulness against the [1523]{} SXS precessing NR waveforms, and find that, for ( ) of the cases, the maximum value, in the total mass range $20\mbox{--}200 M_\odot$, is below $3\%$ ($1\%$). Those numbers change to ( ) when using the inspiral-merger-ringdown, multipolar, precessing phenomenological model `IMRPhenomPv3HM`. We investigate the impact of such unfaithfulness values with two Bayesian, parameter-estimation studies on synthetic signals. We also compute the unfaithfulness between those waveform models as a function of the mass and spin parameters to identify in which part of the parameter space they differ the most. We validate them also against the multipolar, precessing NR surrogate model `NRSur7dq4`, and find that the `SEOBNRv4PHM` model outperforms `IMRPhenomPv3HM`.'
author:
- Serguei Ossokine
- Alessandra Buonanno
- Sylvain Marsat
- Roberto Cotesta
- Stanislav Babak
- |
\
Tim Dietrich
- Roland Haas
- Ian Hinder
- 'Harald P. Pfeiffer'
- Michael Pürrer
- 'Charles J. Woodford'
- Michael Boyle
- 'Lawrence E. Kidder'
- 'Mark A. Scheel'
- Béla Szilágyi
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Multipolar Effective-One-Body Waveforms for Precessing Binary Black Holes:\
Construction and Validation
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
Since the Laser Interferometer Gravitational wave Observatory (LIGO) detected a gravitational wave (GWs) from a binary–black-hole (BBH) in 2015 [@Abbott:2016blz], multiple observations of GWs from BBHs have been made with the LIGO [@TheLIGOScientific:2014jea] and Virgo [@TheVirgo:2014hva] detectors [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @LIGOScientific:2018mvr; @Zackay:2019tzo; @Venumadhav:2019lyq; @Nitz:2019hdf]. Two binary neutron star (BNSs) systems have been observed [@TheLIGOScientific:2017qsa; @Abbott:2020uma], one of them both in gravitational and electromagnetic radiation [@GBM:2017lvd; @Monitor:2017mdv], opening the exciting new chapter of multi-messenger GW astronomy. Mergers of compact-object binaries are expected to be detected at an even higher rate with LIGO and Virgo ongoing and future, observing runs [@Aasi:2013wya], and with subsequent third-generation detectors on the ground, such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer, and the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). In order to extract the maximum amount of astrophysical and cosmological information, the accurate modeling of GWs from binary systems is more critical than ever. Great progress has been made in this direction, both through the development of analytical methods to solve the two-body problem in General Relativity (GR), and by ever-more expansive numerical-relativity (NR) simulations.
One of the key areas of interest is to improve the modeling of systems where the misalignment of the spins with the orbital angular momentum causes the spins and the orbital plane to precess [@Apostolatos:1994mx]. Moreover, when the binary’s component masses are asymmetric, gravitational radiation is no longer dominated by the quadrupole moment, and higher multipoles need to be accurately modeled [@Blanchet:2013haa]. Precession and higher multipoles lead to very rich dynamics, which in turn is imprinted on the GW signal. Their measurements will be able to shed light on the formation mechanism of the observed systems, probe the astrophysical environment, break degeneracy among parameters, allowing more accurate measurements of cosmological parameters, masses and spins, and more sophisticated tests of GR.
Faithful waveform models for precessing compact-object binaries have been developed within the effective-one-body (EOB) formalism [@Taracchini:2013wfa; @Pan:2013rra; @Babak:2016tgq], and the phenomenological approach [@Hannam:2013oca; @Khan:2015jqa; @Khan:2018fmp; @Pratten:2020fqn; @Garcia-Quiros:2020qpx] through calibration to NR simulations. Recently, an inspiral-merger-ringdown phenomenological waveform model that tracks precession and includes higher modes was constructed in Ref. [@Khan:2019kot] (henceforth, `IMRPhenomPv3HM`) [^1] The model describes the six spin degrees of freedom in the inspiral phase, but not in the late-inspiral, merger and ringdown stages. In the co-precessing frame [@Buonanno:2002fy; @Schmidt:2010it; @Boyle:2011gg; @O'Shaughnessy:2011fx; @Schmidt:2012rh], in which the BBH is viewed face-on at all times and the GW radiation resembles the nonprecessing one, it includes the modes $(\ell, m)= (2,\pm 2), (2,\pm 1), (3,\pm 3), (3,\pm 2),
(4,\pm 4)$ and $(4,\pm 3)$. Here, building on the multipolar aligned-spin EOB waveform model of Ref. [@Bohe:2016gbl; @Cotesta:2018fcv], which was calibrated to 157 NR simulations [@Mroue:2013xna; @Chu:2015kft], and 13 waveforms from BH perturbation theory for the (plunge-)merger and ringdown [@Barausse:2011kb], we develop the first EOB waveform model that includes both spin-precession and higher modes (henceforth, `SEOBNRv4PHM`). The model describes the six spin degrees of freedom throughout the BBH coalescence. It differs from the one of Refs. [@Pan:2013rra; @Babak:2016tgq], not only because it includes in the co-precessing frame the $(3,\pm 3)$, $(4,\pm 4)$ and $(5,\pm 5)$ modes, beyond the $(2,\pm 2)$ and $(2,\pm 1)$ modes, but also because it uses an improved description of the two-body dynamics, having been calibrated [@Bohe:2016gbl] to a large set of NR waveforms [@Mroue:2013xna]. We note that `IMRPhenomPv3HM` and `SEOBNRv4PHM` are not completely independent because the former is constructed fitting (in frequency domain) hybridized waveforms obtained by stitching together EOB and NR waveforms. We stress that both `SEOBNRv4HM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM` are not calibrated to NR simulations in the precessing sector. Finally, the surrogate approach, which interpolates NR waveforms, has been used to construct several waveform models that include higher modes [@Varma:2018mmi] and precession [@Blackman:2017pcm]. In this paper, we consider the state-of-the-art surrogate waveform model with full spin precession and higher modes [@Varma:2019csw] (henceforth, [NRSur7dq4]{}), developed for binaries with mass ratios 1-4, (dimensionless) BH’s spins up to $0.8$ and binary’s total masses larger than $\sim 60 M_\odot$. It includes in the co-precessing frame all modes up to $\ell =4$. Table \[tbl:wf\_models\] summarizes the waveform models used in this paper.
Model name Modes in the co-precessing frame Reference
-------------------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
[SEOBNRv3P]{} $(2,\pm2)$, $(2,\pm1)$ [@Pan:2013rra; @Babak:2016tgq]
[SEOBNRv4P]{} $(2,\pm2)$, $(2,\pm1)$ this work
[SEOBNRv4PHM]{} $(2,\pm2)$, $(2,\pm1)$, $(3,\pm3)$, $(4,\pm4)$
$(5,\pm5)$ this work
[IMRPhenomPv2]{} $(2,\pm2)$ [@Hannam:2013oca]
[IMRPhenomPv3]{} $(2,\pm2)$ [@Khan:2018fmp]
[IMRPhenomPv3HM]{} $(2,\pm2)$, $(2,\pm1)$, $(3,\pm3)$, $(3,\pm2)$,
$(4,\pm 4)$, $(4,\pm3)$ [@Khan:2019kot]
[NRSur7dq4]{} all with $\ell\leq4$ [@Varma:2019csw]
: The waveform models used in this paper. We also specify which modes are included in the co-precessing frame[]{data-label="tbl:wf_models"}
The best tool at our disposal to validate waveform models built from approximate solutions of the Einstein equations, such as the ones obtained from post-Newtonian (PN) theory, BH perturbation theory and the EOB approach, is their comparison to NR waveforms. So far, NR simulations of BBHs have been mostly limited to mass ratio $\leq 4$ and (dimensionless) spins $\leq 0.8$, and length of $15\mbox{--}20$ orbital cycles before merger [@Jani:2016wkt; @Healy:2017psd; @Healy:2019jyf; @Huerta:2019oxn; @Boyle:2019kee] (however, see Ref. [@Hinder:2018fsy] where simulations with larger spins and mass ratios were obtained through a synergistic use of NR codes). Here, to test our newly constructed EOB precessing waveform model, we enhance the NR parameter-space coverage, while maintaining a manageable computational cost, and perform $118$ new NR simulations with the pseudo spectral Einstein code (SpEC) of the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) collaboration. The new NR simulations span BBHs with mass ratios $1\mbox{--}4$, and dimensionless spins in the range $0.3\mbox{--}0.9$, and different spins’ orientations. To assess the accuracy of the different precessing waveform models, we compare them to the NR waveforms of the public SXS catalogue [@Boyle:2019kee], and to the new $118$ NR waveforms produced for this paper.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:NR\] we discuss the new NR simulations of BBHs, and assess their numerical error. In Sec. \[sec:multiEOB\] we develop the multipolar EOB waveform model for spin-precessing BBHs, `SEOBNRv4PHM`, and highlight the improvements with respect to the previous version [@Pan:2013rra; @Babak:2016tgq], which was used in LIGO and Virgo inference analyses [@Abbott:2016izl; @Abbott:2017vtc; @LIGOScientific:2018mvr]. In Sec. \[sec:compEOBNR\] we validate the accuracy of the multipolar precessing EOB model by comparing it to NR waveforms. We also compare the performance of `SEOBNRv4PHM` against the one of `IMRPhenomPv3HM`, and study in which region of the parameter space those models differ the most from NR simulations, and also from each other. In Sec. \[sec:peEOBNR\] we use Bayesian analysis to explore the impact of the accuracy of the precessing waveform models when extracting astrophysical information and perform two synthetic NR injections in zero noise. In Sec. \[sec:concl\] we summarize our main conclusions and discuss future work. Finally, in Appendix \[sec:comparisonNRSurr\] we compare the precessing waveform models to the NR surrogate [NRSur7dq4]{}, and in Appendix \[sec:NRparam\] we list the parameters of the 118 NR simulations done for this paper.
In what follows, we use geometric units $G=1=c$ unless otherwise specified.
New numerical-relativity simulations of spinning, precessing binary black holes {#sec:NR}
===============================================================================
Henceforth, we denote with $m_{1,2}$ the two BH masses (with $m_1 \geq m_2$), ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_{1,2} \equiv
m_{1,2}^2\,{\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1,2}$ their spins, $q = m_1/m_2$ the mass ratio, $M = m_1+m_2$ the binary’s total mass, $\mu= m_1m_2/M$ the reduced mass, and $\nu = \mu/M$ the symmetric mass ratio. We indicate with ${\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}= {\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}$ the total angular momentum, where ${\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}= {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_1 +{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_2$, are the orbital angular momentum and the total spin, respectively
New $\mathbf{118}$ precessing numerical-relativity waveforms
------------------------------------------------------------
![Parameter space coverage in $q\mbox{--}\chi_{1}$ space for [SpEC]{} waveforms. For runs from the [SpEC]{} catalog [@Boyle:2019kee] the opacity was changed so that runs with similar parameters are clearly visible. We indicate with squares precessing BBH runs performed as part of this paper. \[fig:Param\_space\]](fig01.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The spectral Einstein code ([SpEC]{}) [^2] of the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) collaboration is a multi-domain collocation code designed for the solution of partial differential equations on domains with simple topologies. It has been used extensively to study the mergers of compact-object binaries composed of BH [@Scheel:2014ina; @Lovelace:2014twa; @Szilagyi:2015rwa; @Lovelace:2016uwp; @Afle:2018slw; @Boyle:2019kee] and NSs [@Foucart:2015gaa; @Haas:2016cop; @Foucart:2018lhe; @Vincent:2019kor], including in theories beyond GR [@Okounkova:2018abo; @Okounkova:2019dfo; @Okounkova:2019zjf; @Okounkova:2020rqw]. SpEC employs a first-order symmetric-hyperbolic formulation of Einstein’s equations [@Lindblom:2005qh] in the damped harmonic gauge [@Lindblom:2009tu; @Szilagyi:2009qz]. Dynamically controlled excision boundaries are used to treat spacetime singularities [@Hemberger:2012jz; @Scheel:2014ina] (see Ref. [@Boyle:2019kee] for a recent, detailed overview).
Significant progress has been made in recent years by several NR groups to improve the coverage of the BBH parameter space [@Jani:2016wkt; @Healy:2017psd; @Healy:2019jyf; @Huerta:2019oxn; @Boyle:2019kee; @Hinder:2018fsy], mainly motivated by the calibration of analytical waveform models and surrogate models used in LIGO and Virgo data analysis. While large strides have been made for aligned-spin cases, the exploration of precessing waveforms has been mostly limited to $q\leq 4, \chi_{1,2} \equiv
|{\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1,2}| \leq 0.8$, typically $15\mbox{--}20$ orbital cycles before merger, and a large region of parameter space remains to be explored. Simulations with high mass ratio ($q\ge4$) and high spin ($|{\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1}|>0.5$) are challenging, primarily due to the need to resolve the disparate length scales in the binary system, which increases the computational cost for a given level of accuracy. Furthermore, for high spin, the apparent horizons can be dramatically smaller, which makes it more difficult to control the excision boundaries, further increasing the computational burden.
Here, we want to improve the parameter-space coverage of the SXS catalog [@Boyle:2019kee], while maintaining a manageable computational cost, thus we restrict to simulations in the range of mass ratios $q=1\mbox{--}4$ and (dimensionless) spins $\chi_{1,2}=0.3\mbox{--}0.9$, with the spin magnitudes decreasing as the mass ratio increases. In Fig. \[fig:Param\_space\] we display, in the $q\mbox{--} \chi_1$ parameter space, the precessing and non-precessing waveforms from the published SXS catalogue [@Boyle:2019kee], and the new precessing waveforms produced as part of this work.
We choose to start all the simulations at the same (angular) orbital frequency, $M\Omega_0 \approx 0.0157$, where the value is not exact as it was modified slightly during the eccentricity-reduction procedure in [SpEC]{} [@Buonanno:2010yk]. This corresponds to a physical GW starting frequency of $20$ Hz at $50 M_{\odot}$ and results in the number of orbits up to merger varying between $15$ and $30$ in our new catalog.
We parametrize the directions of the spins by three angles, the angles $\theta_{1,2}$ between the spins and the unit vector along the Newtonian orbital angular momentum, ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}_{\rm N}$, and the angle $\Delta \phi$ between the projections of the spins in the orbital plane. Explicitly,
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{i} &=\arccos ({\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{i} \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}_{\rm N})\,, \\
\Delta \phi &= \arccos \left(\frac{\cos\theta_{12}-\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2}{\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$
where $\cos\theta_{12}={\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{2}$. We make the choice that ${\mathbf \chi}_{1}$ lies in the ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}_{\rm N}-\mathbf{n}$ plane, where $\mathbf{n}$ is the unit vector along the binary’s radial separation, at the start of the simulation. The angles are chosen to be $\theta_{i,0}\in \{60^{\circ},\theta_{\rm
max}\}$, and $\Delta\phi_0 \in \{0,90^{\circ}\}$. Here $\theta_{max}$ is the angle that maximizes the opening angle of ${\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}_{\rm N}$ around the total angular momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}$ and is computed assuming that the two spins are co-linear, giving $$\cos \theta_{\rm max} = -\frac{|\mathbf{S}|}{|{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}_{\rm N}|} =
-\frac{m_{1}^{2}\,\chi_{1}+m_{2}^{2}\,\chi_{2}}{|{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}_{\rm N}|}\,,$$ with $|{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}_{\rm N}|=\mu M^{2/3}\Omega^{-1/3}$ for circular orbit, being $\Omega$ the orbital angular frequency. For each choice of $\{q,\chi\}$ we choose 10 different configurations divided into two categories: i) $\chi_{1}=\chi_{2}=\chi,\theta_{i,0}\in\{60^{\circ},\theta_{\rm
max}\},\ \Delta \phi_0\in\{0,90^{\circ}\}$ giving eight runs, and ii) $\chi_{1} = \chi, \chi_{2}=0, \theta_{1,0} \in \{60^{\circ},\theta_{\rm
max}\}$ giving two runs. The detailed parameters can be found in Appendix \[sec:NRparam\].
These choices of the spin directions allow us to test the multipolar precessing model `SEOBNRv4PHM` in many different regimes, including where the effects of precession are maximized, and where spin-spin effects are significant or diminished.
Unfaithfulness for spinning, precessing waveforms
-------------------------------------------------
The gravitational signal emitted by non-eccentric BBH systems and observed by a detector depends on 15 parameters: the component masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ (or equivalently the mass ratio $q = m_1/m_2 \geq 1$ and the total mass $M = m_1 + m_2$), the dimensionless spins ${\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_1(t)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_2(t)$, the direction to observer from the source described by the angles $(\iota,\varphi_0)$, the luminosity distance $d_L$, the polarization $\psi$, the location in the sky $(\theta,\phi)$ and the time of arrival $t_c$. The gravitational strain can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:det_strain}
h(t) \equiv & F_+(\theta,\phi,\psi) \ h_+(\iota,\varphi_0, d_L, \boldsymbol{\xi},t_{\mathrm{c}};t) \nonumber \\
&+ F_\times(\theta,\phi,\psi)\ h_\times(\iota,\varphi_0, d_L, \boldsymbol{\xi},t_\mathrm{c};t)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where to simplify the notation we introduce the function $\boldsymbol{\xi} \equiv \left(q, M, {\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1}(t), {\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{2}(t)\right)$. The functions $F_+(\theta,\phi,\psi)$ and $F_\times(\theta,\phi,\psi)$ are the antenna patterns [@Sathyaprakash:1991mt; @Finn:1992xs]:
$$\begin{aligned}
F_+(\theta,\phi,\psi) &= \frac{1+ \cos^2(\theta)}{2} \ \cos(2\phi) \ \cos(2\psi)+\\ \nonumber
& -\cos(\theta) \ \sin(2\phi)\ \sin(2\psi),\\
F_\times(\theta,\phi,\psi) &= \frac{1+ \cos^2(\theta)}{2} \ \cos(2\phi) \ \sin(2\psi)+\\ \nonumber
&+ \cos(\theta) \ \sin(2\phi)\ \cos(2\psi).\end{aligned}$$
Equation can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:det_strain_kappa}
h(t) \equiv & \mathcal{A}(\theta,\phi)\big[\cos\kappa(\theta,\phi,\psi) \ h_+(\iota, \varphi_0, d_L, \boldsymbol{\xi}, t_{\mathrm{c}};t) \nonumber \\
&+ \sin\kappa(\theta,\phi,\psi) \ h_\times (\iota, \phi, d_L, \boldsymbol{\xi},t_{\mathrm{c}};t) \big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa(\theta,\phi,\psi)$ is the *effective polarization* [@Capano:2013raa] defined as: $$e^{i \kappa(\theta,\phi,\psi)} = \frac{F_+(\theta,\phi,\psi) + i F_\times(\theta,\phi,\psi)}{\sqrt{F_+^2(\theta,\phi,\psi) + F_\times^2(\theta,\phi,\psi)}},$$ which has support in the region $[0, 2\pi)$, while $\mathcal{A}(\theta,\phi)$ reads: $$\mathcal{A}(\theta,\phi) = \sqrt{F_+^2(\theta,\phi,\psi) + F_\times^2(\theta,\phi,\psi)}\,.$$ Henceforth, to ease the notation we suppress the dependence on $(\theta,\phi,\psi)$ in $\kappa$.
Let us introduce the inner product between two waveforms $a$ and $b$ [@Sathyaprakash:1991mt; @Finn:1992xs]: $$\left( a, b\right) \equiv 4\ \textrm{Re}\int_{f_{\rm in}}^{f_{\rm max}} df\,\frac{\tilde{a}(f) \ \tilde{b}^*(f)}{S_n(f)},$$ where a tilde indicates the Fourier transform, a star the complex conjugate and $S_n(f)$ is the one-sided power spectral density (PSD) of the detector noise. We employ as PSD the Advanced LIGO’s “zero-detuned high-power” design sensitivity curve [@Barsotti:2018]. Here we use $f_{\rm in} = 10 {\rm Hz}$ and $f_{\rm max} = 2 {\rm kHz}$, when both waveforms fill the band. For cases where this is not the case (e.g the NR waveforms) we set $f_{\rm in}=1.05f_{\rm start}$, where $f_{\rm start}$ is the starting frequency of the waveform.
To assess the closeness between two waveforms $s$ (e.g., the signal) and $\tau$ (e.g., the template), as observed by a detector, we define the following *faithfulness* function [@Cotesta:2018fcv]: $$\label{eq:faith}
\mathcal{F}(M_{\textrm{s}},\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\kappa_{\textrm{s}}) \equiv \max_{t_c, {\varphi_0}_{\tau}, \kappa_{\tau}} \left[\left . \frac{ \left( s,\,\tau \right)}{\sqrt{ \left( s,\,s \right) \left( \tau,\,\tau \right)}}\right \vert_{\substack{\iota_{\mathrm{s}} = \iota_{\tau} \\\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{s}}(t_{\mathrm{s}} = t_{0_\mathrm{s}}) = \boldsymbol{\xi}_{\tau}(t_\tau = t_{0_\mathrm{\tau}})}} \right ].$$ While in the equation above we set the inclination angle $\iota$ of signal and template waveforms to be the same, the coalescence time $t_c$ and the angles ${\varphi_0}_{\tau}$ and $ \kappa_{\tau}$ of the template waveform are adjusted to maximize the faithfulness. This is a typical choice motivated by the fact these quantities are not interesting from an astrophysical perspective. The maximizations over $t_c$ and ${\varphi_0}_{\tau}$ are performed numerically, while the maximization over $\kappa_{\tau}$ is done analytically following the procedure described in Ref. [@Capano:2013raa] (see Appendix A therein).
The condition $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{s}}(t_{\mathrm{s}} =
t_{0_\mathrm{s}}) = \boldsymbol{\xi}_{\tau}(t_\tau =
t_{0_\mathrm{\tau}})$ in Eq. enforces that the mass ratio $q$, the total mass $M$ and the spins ${\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1,2}$ of the template waveform at $t = t_0$ (i.e., at the beginning of the waveform) are set to have the same values of the ones in the signal waveform at its $t_0$. When computing the faithfulness between NR waveforms with different resolutions this condition is trivially satisfied by the fact that they are generated using the same initial data. In the case of the faithfulness between NR and any model from the `SEOBNR` family, it is first required to ensure that $t_0$ has the same physical meaning for both waveforms. Ideally $t = t_{0_\mathrm{\tau}}$ in the `SEOBNR` waveform should be fixed by requesting that the frequency of the `SEOBNR` $(2,2)$ mode at $t_{0_\mathrm{\tau}}$ coincides with the NR (2,2) mode frequency at $t_{0_\mathrm{s}}$. This is in practice not possible because the NR (2,2) mode frequency may display small oscillations caused by different effects — for example the persistence of the junk radiation, some residual orbital eccentricity or spin-spin couplings [@Buonanno:2010yk]. Thus, the frequency of the `SEOBNR` $(2,2)$ mode at $t = t_{0_\mathrm{\tau}}$ is chosen to guarantee the same time-domain length of the NR waveform. [^3]. In practice, we require that the peak of $\sum_{\ell, m} |h_{\ell m}|^2$, as elapsed respectively from $t_{0_\mathrm{s}}$ and $t_{0_\mathrm{\tau}}$, occurs at the same time in NR and `SEOBNR`. For waveforms from the `IMRPhenom` family we adopt a different approach, and following the method outlined in Ref. [@Khan:2018fmp], also optimize the faithfulness numerically over the reference frequency of the waveform.
The faithfulness defined in Eq. is still a function of 4 parameters (i.e., $M_{\textrm{s}},\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\kappa_{\textrm{s}}$), therefore it does not allow to describe the agreement between waveforms in a compact form. For this purpose we define the *sky-and-polarization-averaged faithfulness* [@Babak:2016tgq] as: $$\overline{\mathcal{F}}(M_\mathrm{s}, \iota_\mathrm{s}) \equiv \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int_{0}^{2\pi} d\kappa_{\mathrm{s}} \int_{0}^{2\pi} d{\varphi_0}_{\mathrm{s}} \ \mathcal{F}(M_\mathrm{s},\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\kappa_{\textrm{s}}).
\label{eq:avg_faith}$$ Despite the apparent difference, the sky-and-polarization-averaged faithfulness $\overline{\mathcal{F}}$ defined above is equivalent to the one given in Eqs. (9) and (B15) of Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq]. The definition in Eq. is less computationally expensive because, thanks to the parametrization of the waveforms in Eq. , it allows one to write the sky-and-polarization-averaged faithfulness as a double integral instead of the triple integral in Eq. (B15) of Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq]. We also define the sky-and-polarization-averaged, signal-to-noise (SNR)-[*weighted*]{} faithfulness as:
$$\overline{\mathcal{F}}_{\mathrm{SNR}}(M_\mathrm{s},\iota_{\mathrm{s}}) \equiv \sqrt[3]{\frac{\int_{0}^{2\pi} d\kappa_ {\mathrm{s}} \int_{0}^{2\pi} d{\varphi_0}_{\mathrm{s}} \ \mathcal{F}^{3}(M_{\textrm{s}},\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\kappa_{\textrm{s}}) \ \mathrm{SNR}^3(\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\kappa_{\textrm{s}})}{\int_{0}^{2\pi} d\kappa_{\mathrm{s}} \int_{0}^{2\pi} d{\varphi_0}_{\mathrm{s}} \ \mathrm{SNR}^3(\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\kappa_{\textrm{s}})}}.$$
where the $\mathrm{SNR}(\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\theta_\textrm{s}, \phi_\textrm{s},\kappa_{\textrm{s}},{D_{\mathrm{L}}}_{\mathrm{s}},
\boldsymbol{\xi}_\mathrm{s},{t_c}_\mathrm{s})$ is defined as: $$\mathrm{SNR}(\iota_{\textrm{s}},{\varphi_0}_{\textrm{s}},\theta_\textrm{s}, \phi_\textrm{s}, \kappa_{\textrm{s}},{D_{\mathrm{L}}}_{\mathrm{s}},\boldsymbol{\xi}_\mathrm{s},{t_c}_\mathrm{s}) \equiv \sqrt{\left(h_{\mathrm{s}},h_{\mathrm{s}}\right)}.$$ This is also an interesting metric because weighting the faithfulness with the SNR takes into account that, at fixed distance, the SNR of the signal depends on its phase and on the effective polarization (i.e., a combination of waveform polarization and sky-position). Since the SNR scales with the luminosity distance, the number of detectable sources scale with the $\mathrm{SNR}^3$, therefore signals with a smaller SNR are less likely to be observed. Finally, we define the unfaithfulness (or mismatch) as $$\overline{\mathcal M} = 1 - \overline{\mathcal{F}}\,.
\label{mismatch}$$
Accuracy of new numerical-relativity waveforms
----------------------------------------------
To assess the accuracy of the new NR waveforms, we compute the sky-and-polarization-averaged unfaithfulness defined in Eq. (\[eq:avg\_faith\]) between the highest and second highest resolutions in the NR simulation.
Figure \[fig:unfaith\_NRNR\] shows a histogram of the unfaithfulness, evaluated at $\iota_{s}={\pi}/{3}$ maximized over the total mass, between 20 and 200 $M_\odot$. It is apparent that the unfaithfulness is below $1 \%$ for most cases, but there are several cases with much higher unfaithfulness. This tail to high unfaithfulness has been observed previously, when evaluating the accuracy of SXS simulations in Ref. [@Varma:2019csw]. Therein, it was established that, when the non-astrophysical junk radiation perturbs the parameters of the simulation sufficiently, the different resolutions actually correspond to different physical systems. Thus, taking the difference between adjacent resolutions is no longer an appropriate estimate of the error.
We also find that the largest unfaithfulness occurs when the difference in parameters is largest, thus confirming that it is the difference in parameters that dominates the unfaithfulness.
![The sky-and-polarization-averaged unfaithfulness between the highest and second highest resolutions in the NR simulation maximized over the total mass for the new 118 NR precessing waveforms. The inclination used is $\pi/3$. The vertical dashed line shows the median.[]{data-label="fig:unfaith_NRNR"}](fig02.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Effect of mode asymmetries in numerical-relativity waveforms {#sec:mode_asymm}
------------------------------------------------------------
The gravitational polarizations at time $t$ and location $(\varphi_0,\iota)$ on the coordinate sphere from the binary can be decomposed in $-2$–spin-weighted spherical harmonics, as follows $$h_{+}(\varphi_0,\iota;t) - i h_{\times}(\varphi_0,\iota;t) = \sum_{\ell =2} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{m=+\ell} {}_{-2} Y_{\ell m}(\varphi_0,\iota)\,h_{\ell m}(t) \,.$$ For nonprecessing binaries, the invariance of the system under reflection across the orbital plane (taken to be the $x\mbox{--}y$ plane) implies $h_{\ell m}= (-1)^\ell h_{\ell -m}^*$. The latter is a very convenient relationship — for example it renders unnecessary to model modes with negative values of $m$. However, this relationship is no longer satisfied for precessing binaries.
As investigated in previous NR studies [@Pekowsky:2013ska; @Boyle:2014ioa], we expect the asymmetries between opposite-$m$ modes to be small as compared to the dominant $(2,2)$-mode emission (at least during the inspiral) in a co-rotating frame that maximizes emission in the $(2,\pm 2)$ modes, also known as the *maximum-radiation frame* [@Boyle:2011gg; @Boyle:2013nka]. However, while the asymmetries are expected to be small during the inspiral, the difference in phase and amplitude between positive and negative $m$-modes might become non-negligible at merger.
As we discuss in the next section, when building multipolar waveforms (`SEOBNRv4PHM`) for precessing binaries by rotating modes from the co-precessing [@Buonanno:2002fy; @Schmidt:2010it; @Boyle:2011gg; @O'Shaughnessy:2011fx; @Schmidt:2012rh] to the inertial frame of the observer, we shall neglect the mode asymmetries. To quantify the error introduced by this assumption, we proceed as follows. We first take NR waveforms in the co-precessing frame and construct *symmetrized* waveforms. Specifically, we consider the combination of waveforms in the co-precessing frame defined by (e.g., see Ref. [@Varma:2019csw]) $$h_{\ell m}^{\pm} = \frac{h_{\ell m}^{P}\pm h_{\ell -m}^{P*}}{2}\,.$$ Note that if the assumption of conjugate symmetry holds (i.e., if $h^P_{\ell -m} = (-1)^{\ell}h^{P*}_{\ell m}$), then for even (odd) $\ell$ modes, $h_{\ell m}^{+}$ ($h_{\ell m}^{-}$) is non-zero while the other component vanishes. If the assumption does not hold, it is still true that at given $\ell$, one of the components is much larger than the other, as shown in top panel of Fig. \[fig:example\_symm\_waveform\]. Motivated by this, we define the symmetrized modes (for $m>0$) as [@Varma:2019csw] $$\mathfrak{h}_{\ell m}^{P} =
\begin{cases}
h_{\ell m}^{+} & \text{if}\ \ell\ \text{is even}\,, \\
h_{\ell m}^{-} & \text{if}\ \ell\ \text{is odd}\,.
\end{cases}$$ The other modes are constructed as $\mathfrak{h}_{\ell -m}^{P}=\mathfrak{h}_{\ell m}^{P*}$ for $m<0$, and we set $m=0$ modes to zero. The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:example\_symm\_waveform\] shows an example of asymmetrized waveform for the case `PrecBBH000078` of the SXS catalogue, in the co-precessing frame. It is obvious that the asymmetry between the modes has been removed and that the symmetrized waveform does indeed represent a reasonable “average” between the original modes. The symmetrized waveforms in the inertial frame are obtained by rotating the co-precessing frames modes back to the inertial frame.
![*Top*: the behavior of $h_{\ell m}^{\pm}$ in the NR simulation [`P`recBBH000078]{}. Note that especially during the inspiral, $|h_{22}^{+}|$ is much larger than $|h_{22}^{-}|$ while $|h_{33}^{-}|$ is much larger than $|h_{33}^{+}|$. *Bottom*: an example of waveform symmetrization for the same NR case, shown in the co-precessing frame. The symmetrized waveform obeys the usual conjugation symmetry as expected, and represents a reasonable average to the behavior of the unsymmetrized modes.[]{data-label="fig:example_symm_waveform"}](fig03.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:unfaith\_NRNR\_symm\], we show the sky-and-polarization averaged unfaithfulness between the NR waveforms and the symmetrized waveforms described above, maximized over the total mass, including all modes available in the NR simulation, that is up to $\ell=8$. For the vast majority of the cases, the unfaithfulness is $\sim0.5\%$, and all cases have unfaithfulness below $2\%$. This demonstrates that the effect of neglecting the asymmetry is likely subdominant to other sources of error such as the modeling of the waveform phasing, although the best way of quantifying the effect is to perform a Bayesian parameter-estimation study, which we leave to future work.
![The sky-and-polarization-averaged unfaithfulness between NR and symmetrized NR waveforms, maximized over the total mass for the new 118 NR precessing waveforms. The inclination used is $\pi/3$. The vertical dashed line shows the median.[]{data-label="fig:unfaith_NRNR_symm"}](fig04.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Multipolar EOB waveforms for spinning, precessing binary black holes {#sec:multiEOB}
====================================================================
We briefly review the main ideas and building blocks of the EOB approach, and then describe an improved spinning, precessing EOBNR waveform model, which, for the first time, also contains multipole moments beyond the quadrupolar one. The model is already available in the LIGO Algorithm Library [@LAL] under the name of `SEOBNRv4PHM`. We refer the reader to Refs. [@Taracchini:2012ig; @Taracchini:2013rva; @Pan:2013rra; @Babak:2016tgq; @Cotesta:2018fcv] for more details of the EOB framework and its most recent waveform models. Here we closely follow Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq], highlighting when needed differences with respect to the previous precessing waveform model developed in Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq] (`SEOBNRv3P` [^4]).
Two-body dynamics
-----------------
The EOB formalism [@Buonanno:1998gg; @Buonanno:2000ef; @Damour:2000we; @Damour:2001tu] can describe analytically the GW emission of the entire coalescence process, notably inspiral, merger and ringdown, and it can be made highly accurate by including information from NR. For the two-body conservative dynamics, the EOB approach relies on a Hamiltonian $H_{\textrm{EOB}}$, which is constructed through: (i) the Hamiltonian $H_{\textrm{eff}}$ of a spinning particle of mass $\mu \equiv m_1 m_2/(m_1 + m_2)$ and spin ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_* \equiv {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_*(m_1,m_2,{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_2)$ moving in an effective, deformed Kerr spacetime of mass $M\equiv m_1 + m_2$ and spin ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_{\textrm{Kerr}} \equiv {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_1 +
{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_2$ [@Barausse:2009aa; @Barausse:2009xi; @Barausse:2011ys], and (ii) an energy map between $H_{\textrm{eff}}$ and $H_{\textrm{EOB}}$ [@Buonanno:1998gg] H\_ M-M, where $\nu = \mu/M$ is the symmetric mass ratio. The deformation of the effective Kerr metric is fixed by requiring that at any given PN order, the PN-expanded Hamiltonian $H_{\textrm{EOB}}$ agrees with the PN Hamiltonian for BBHs [@Blanchet:2013haa]. In the EOB Hamiltonian used in this paper [@Barausse:2009xi; @Barausse:2011ys], the spin-orbit (spin-spin) couplings are included up to 3.5PN (2PN) order [@Barausse:2009xi; @Barausse:2011ys], while the non-spinning dynamics is incorporated through 4PN order [@Cotesta:2018fcv]. The dynamical variables in the EOB model are the relative separation ${\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}$ and its canonically conjugate momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}$, and the spins ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_{1,2}$. The conservative EOB dynamics is completely general and can naturally accommodate precession [@Pan:2013rra; @Babak:2016tgq] and eccentricity [@Hinderer:2017jcs; @Liu:2019jpg; @Chiaramello:2020ehz].
When BH spins have generic orientations, both the orbital plane and the spins undergo precession about the total angular momentum of the binary, defined as ${\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}\equiv {\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_1 + {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_2$, where ${\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}\equiv
\mu\, {\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}\times {\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}$. We also introduce the Newtonian orbital angular momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}_N\equiv \mu\, {\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}\times \dot{{\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}}$, which at any instant of time is perpendicular to the binary’s orbital plane. Black-hole spin precession is described by the following equations = \_[1,2]{}.
In the EOB approach, dissipative effects enter in the equations of motion through a nonconservative radiation-reaction force that is expressed in terms of the GW energy flux through the waveform multipole moments [@Buonanno:2005xu; @Damour:2007xr; @Damour:2008gu; @Pan:2010hz] as \[RRforce\] \_[=2]{}\^[8]{}\_[m=-]{}\^ m\^2d\_ h\_[m]{}\^2, where $\Omega \equiv |{\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}\times \dot{{\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}}|/|{\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}|^2$ is the (angular) orbital frequency, $d_{\textrm L}$ is the luminosity distance of the BBH to the observer, and the $h_{\ell m}$’s are the GW multipole modes. As discussed in Refs. [@Cotesta:2018fcv; @Bohe:2016gbl], the $h_{\ell m}$ used in the energy flux are not the same as those used for building the gravitational polarizations in the inertial frame, since the latter include the nonquasi-circular corrections, which enforce that the SEOBNR waveforms at merger agree with the NR data, when available.
![Frames used in the construction of the [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} model: the observer’s frame (blue), defined by the directions of the initial orbital angular momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}(0)$ and separation ${\mbox{\boldmath${r}$}}(0)$, and co-precessing frame (red), instantaneously aligned with ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}(t)$ and described by the Euler angles $(\alpha, \beta,
\gamma)$ (see text below for details). \[F:Pframe\]](fig05.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Inspiral-plunge waveforms
-------------------------
For the inspiral-plunge waveform, the EOB approach uses a factorized, resummed version [@Damour:2007xr; @Damour:2008gu; @Pan:2010hz; @Cotesta:2018fcv] of the frequency-domain PN formulas of the modes [@Arun:2008kb; @Mishra:2016whh]. As today, the factorized resummation has been developed only for quasicircular, nonprecessing BBHs [@Damour:2008gu; @Pan:2010hz], and it has been shown to improve the accuracy of the PN expressions in the test-particle limit, where one can compare EOB predictions to numerical solutions of the Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli and Teukolsky equations [@Bernuzzi:2011aj; @Barausse:2011kb; @Taracchini:2013wfa; @Harms:2015ixa].
The radiation-reaction force $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}}$ in Eq. (\[RRforce\]) depends on the amplitude of the individual GW modes $|h_{\ell m}|$, which, in the non-precessing case, are functions of the constant aligned-spin magnitudes $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{1,2}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}$. In the precessing case, these modes depend on time, as $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{1,2}(t)\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}(t)$, and they depend on the generic, precessing orbital dynamics through the radial separation $r$ and orbital frequency $\Omega$, which carry modulations due to spin-spin couplings whenever precession is present. However, we stress that with this choice of the radiation-reaction force and waveform model, not all spin-precession effects are included, since the PN formulas of the modes [@Arun:2008kb] also contain terms that depend on the in-plane spin components.
For data-analysis purposes, we need to compute the GW polarizations in the inertial-frame of the observer (or simply *observer’s frame*). We denote quantities in this frame with the superscript $I$. The observer’s frame is defined by the triad $\{{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}^I_{(i)}\}$ ($i=1,2,3$), where ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1)}^I\equiv\boldsymbol{\hat{r}}(0)$, ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}^I_{(3)} \equiv
{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}_N(0)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(2)}^I\equiv{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(3)}^I \times {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1)}^I$. Moreover, in this frame, the line of sight of the observer is parametrized as $\boldsymbol{\hat{N}} \equiv
(\sin{\iota}\cos{\phi_o},\sin{\iota}\sin{\phi_o},\cos{\iota})$ (see Fig. \[F:Pframe\]). We also introduce the observer’s frame with the polarization basis $\{{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1)}^r,{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(2)}^r\}$ such that ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1)}^r \equiv
({\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}^I_{(3)}\times\boldsymbol{\hat{N}})/|{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}^I_{(3)}\times\boldsymbol{\hat{N}}|$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(2)}^r \equiv \boldsymbol{\hat{N}} \times {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1)}^r$, which spans the plane orthogonal to $\boldsymbol{\hat{{\mbox{\boldmath${N}$}}}}$.
To compute the observer’s-frame modes $h_{\ell m}^I$ during the inspiral-plunge stage, it is convenient to introduce a non-inertial reference frame that tracks the motion of the orbital plane, the so-called *co-precessing frame* (superscript $P$), described by the triad $\{{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}^P_{(i)}\}$ ($i=1,2,3$). At each instant, its $z$-axis is aligned with ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}$: ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(3)}^P \equiv {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}(t)$ [^5]. In this frame, the BBH is viewed face-on at all times, and the GW radiation looks very much nonprecessing [@Buonanno:2002fy; @Schmidt:2010it; @Boyle:2011gg; @O'Shaughnessy:2011fx; @Schmidt:2012rh]. The other two axes lie in the orbital plane and are defined such as they minimize precessional effects in the precessing-frame modes $h_{\ell
m}^P$ [@Buonanno:2002fy; @Boyle:2011gg]. After introducing the vector $\boldsymbol{\Omega}_e \equiv {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}\times {\textrm
d}{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}/{\textrm d}t$, we enforce the minimum-rotation condition by requiring that ${\textrm d}{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1),(2)}^P/{\textrm d}t =
\boldsymbol{\Omega}_e\times {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1),(2)}^P$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}_{(1),(2)}^P(0) =
{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{e}}$}}^I_{(1),(2)}$ (see also Fig. \[F:Pframe\]). As usual, we parametrize the rotation from the precessing to the observer’s frame through time-dependent Euler angles $(\alpha(t),\beta(t),\gamma(t))$, which we compute using Eqs. (A4)–(A6) in Appendix A of Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq]. We notice that the minimum-rotation condition can also be expressed through the following differential equation for $\gamma$: $\dot{\gamma} = -\dot{\alpha}\cos{\beta}$ with $\gamma(0)=-\alpha(0) =
\pi/2$.
We compute the precessing-frame inspiral-plunge modes just like we do for the GW flux, namely by evaluating the factorized, resummed nonprecessing multipolar waveforms along the EOB precessing dynamics, and employing the time-dependent spin projections $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{1,2}(t)\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}(t)$. Finally, the observer’s-frame inspiral-plunge modes are obtained by rotating the precessing-frame inspiral-plunge modes using Eq. (A13) in Appendix A of Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq].
Following Ref. [@Cotesta:2018fcv], where an EOBNR nonprecessing multipolar waveform model was developed (`SEOBNRv4HM`), here we include in the precessing frame of the `SEOBNRv4PHM` model the $(2,\pm 2), (2,\pm 1), (3,\pm 3), (4,\pm 4)$ and $(5,\pm 5)$ modes, and make the assumption $h^P_{l-m} = (-1)^{l}h^{P*}_{lm}$. As shown in Sec. \[sec:mode\_asymm\], we expect that inaccuracies due to neglecting mode asymmetries should remain mild, or at most at the level of other modeling errors.
Merger-ringdown waveforms
-------------------------
The description of a BBH as a system composed of two individual objects is of course valid only up to the merger. After that point, the EOB model builds the GW emission (ringdown stage) via a phenomenological model of the quasinormal modes (QNMs) of the remnant BH, which forms after the coalescence of the progenitors. The QNM frequencies and decay times are known (tabulated) functions of the mass $M_f$ and spin ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_f \equiv M_f^2 \boldsymbol{\chi}_f$ of the remnant BH [@Berti:2005ys]. Since the QNMs are defined with respect to the direction of the final spin, the specific form of the ringdown signal, as a linear combination of QNMs, is formally valid only in an inertial frame whose $z$-axis is parallel to $\boldsymbol{\chi}_f$.
A novel feature of the `SEOBNRv4PHM` waveform model presented here is that we attach the merger-ringdown waveform (notably each multipole mode $h_{\ell m}^{\rm mergr-RD}$) directly in the co-precessing frame, instead of the observer’s frame. As a consequence, we can employ here the merger-ringdown multipolar model developed for non-precessing BBHs (`SEOBNRv4HM`) in Ref. [@Cotesta:2018fcv] (see Sec. IVE therein for details). By contrast, in the `SEOBNRv3P` waveform model [@Babak:2016tgq], the merger-ringdown waveform was built as a superposition of QNMs in an inertial frame aligned with the direction of the remnant spin. This construction was both more complicated to implement and more prone to numerical instabilities.
To compute the waveform in the observer’s frame, our approach requires a description of the co-precessing frame Euler angles $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ that extends beyond the merger. To prescribe this, we take advantage of insights from NR simulations [@OShaughnessy:2012iol]. In particular, it was shown that the co-precessing frame continues to precess roughly around the direction of the final spin with a precession frequency approximately equal to the differences between the lowest overtone of the (2,2) and (2,1) QNM frequencies, while the opening angle of the precession cone decreases somewhat at merger. We find that this behavior is qualitatively correct for the NR waveforms used for comparison in this paper.
To keep our model generic for a wide range of mass ratios and spins, we need an extension of the behavior noticed in Ref. [@OShaughnessy:2012iol] to the retrograde case, where the remnant spin is negatively aligned with the orbital angular momentum at merger. Such configurations can occur for high mass-ratio binaries, when the total angular momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}$ is dominated by the spin of the primary ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_{1}$ instead of the orbital angular momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}$. This regime is not well explored by NR simulations, and includes in particular systems presenting transitional precession [@Apostolatos:1994mx]. In our model we keep imposing simple precession around the direction of the remnant spin at a rate $\omega_{\rm prec} \geq 0$, but we distinguish two cases depending on the direction of the final spin $\bm{\chi}_{f}$ (approximated by the total angular momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}= {\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_{1}+ {\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_{2}$ at merger) relative to the final orbital angular momentum ${\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}_{f}$: $$\label{eq:postmergerprec}
\dot{\alpha} = \omega_{\rm prec}= \left\{\begin{aligned}
&\omega^{\rm QNM}_{22}(\chi_{f})-\omega^{\rm QNM}_{21}(\chi_{f}) \quad \text{if} \quad \bm{\chi}_{f} \cdot \bm{L}_{f} > 0\\
&\omega^{\rm QNM}_{2-1}(\chi_{f})-\omega^{\rm QNM}_{2-2}(\chi_{f}) \quad \text{if} \quad \bm{\chi}_{f} \cdot \bm{L}_{f} < 0
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $\chi_{f} = |\bm{\chi}_{f}|$, and the zero-overtone QNM frequencies for negative $m$ are taken on the branch $\omega^{\rm QNM}_{lm} > 0$ that continuously extends the $m>0$, $\omega^{\rm QNM}_{lm} > 0$ branch [@Berti:2005ys] (the QNM refers to zero overtone). In both cases, $\dot{\alpha} \geq 0$. We do not attempt to model the closing of the opening angle of the precession cone and simply consider it to be constant during the post-merger phase, $\beta = \mathrm{const}$. The third Euler angle $\gamma$ is then constructed from the minimal rotation condition $\dot{\gamma} =
-\dot{\alpha} \cos\beta$. The integration constants are determined by matching with the inspiral at merger. We find that the behavior of Eq. in the case $\bm{\chi}_{f} \cdot
\bm{L}_{f} < 0$ is qualitatively consistent with an NR simulation investigated by one of us [@Ossokine:2020]. However, we stress that this prescription for the retrograde case is much less tested than for the prograde case.
Furthermore, one crucial aspect of the above construction is the mapping from the binary’s component masses and spins to the final mass and spin, which is needed to compute the QNM frequencies of the merger remnant. Many groups have developed fitting formulae based on a large number of NR simulations (e.g., see Ref. [@Varma:2018aht] for an overview). To improve the agreement of our EOB merger-ringdown model with NR, and to ensure agreement in the aligned-spin limit with `SEOBNRv4` [@Bohe:2016gbl] and `SEOBNRv4HM` [@Cotesta:2018fcv], we employ the fits from Hofmann et al. [@Hofmann:2016yih]. In Fig. \[fig:final\_spin\] we compare the performance of the fit used in the previous EOB precessing model `SEOBNRv3P` [@Pan:2013rra; @Taracchini:2013rva; @Babak:2016tgq] to the fit from Hofmann et al. that we adopt for `SEOBNRv4PHM`. It is clear that the new fit reproduces NR data much better. This in turn improves the correspondence between NR and EOB QNM frequencies.
For the final mass we employ the same fit as in previous EOB models, and we provide it here since it was not given explicitly anywhere before:
&=& 1 - {\[1 - E\_[ISCO]{}(a)\] + 16\^[2]{} }, where $a = {\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}\cdot ({\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1}+{\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{2}/q^{2})/(1+1/q)^{2}$, and $E_{\rm ISCO}(a)$ is the binding energy of the Kerr spacetime at the innermost stable circular orbit [@Bardeen:1972fi].
Finally, for precessing binaries, the individual components of the spins vary with time. Therefore, in applying the fitting formulae to obtain final mass and spin, one must make a crucial choice in selecting the time during the inspiral stage at which the spin directions are evaluated. In fact, even if one considers a given physical configuration, evaluating the final spin formulae with spin directions from different times yields different final spins and consequently different waveforms. We choose to evaluate the spins at a time corresponding to the separation of $r=10M$. This choice is guided by two considerations: by the empirical finding of good agreement with NR (e.g., performing better than using the time at which the inspiral-plunge waveform is attached to the merger-ringdown waveform [@Cotesta:2018fcv]), and by the restriction that the waveform must start at $r>10.5 M$ in order to have small initial eccentricity [@Babak:2016tgq]. Thus, our choice ensures that a given physical configuration always produces the same waveform regardless of the initial starting frequency.
![Comparison of the magnitude of the final spin between the [SEOBNRv3P]{} and [SEOBNRv4P]{} models and NR results. For simplicity, the fits are evaluated using the NR data at the relaxed time. The black line is the identity. It is obvious that [SEOBNRv4P]{} gives final-spin magnitudes much closer to the NR values.[]{data-label="fig:final_spin"}](fig06.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
To obtain the inspiral-merger-ringdown modes in the inertial frame, $h^{\rm I}_{\ell m}$, we rotate the inspiral-merger-ringdown modes $h^{\rm P}_{\ell m}$ from the co-precessing frame to the observer’s frame using the rotation formulas and Euler angles in Appendix A of Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq]. The inertial frame polarizations then read $$h^{\rm I}_{+}(\varphi_0,\iota;t) - i h^{\rm I}_{\times}(\varphi_0,\iota;t) = \sum_{\ell, m} {}_{-2} Y_{\ell m}(\varphi_0,\iota)\,h^{\rm I}_{\ell m}(t) \,.$$
On the fits of calibration parameters in presence of precession
---------------------------------------------------------------
The `SEOBNRv4PHM` waveform model inherits the EOB Hamiltonian and GW energy flux from the aligned-spin model `SEOBNRv4` [@Bohe:2016gbl], which features higher (yet unknown) PN-order terms in the dynamics calibrated to NR waveforms. These calibration parameters were denoted $K,d_{\rm SO}$ and $d_{\rm SS}$ in Ref. [@Bohe:2016gbl], and were fitted to NR and Teukolsky-equation–based waveforms as polynomials in $\nu,\chi$ where $\chi \equiv {S_{\rm Kerr}^{z}}/({1-2\nu}$) with ${{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{\rm Kerr}={\mathbf S}_{1}+{\mathbf S}_{2}$ the spin of the EOB background spacetime. In contrast to the `SEOBNRv3P` waveform model, which used the EOB Hamiltonian and GW energy flux from the aligned-spin model `SEOBNRv2`[@Taracchini:2013rva], the fits in Ref. [@Bohe:2016gbl] include odd powers of $\chi$ and thus the sign of $\chi$ matters when the BHs precess.
The most natural way to generalize these fits to the precessing case is to project ${\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}_{\rm Kerr}$ onto the orbital angular momentum $\hat{{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}}$ in the usual spirit of reducing precessing quantities to corresponding aligned-spin ones. To test the impact of this prescription, we compute the sky-and-polarization-averaged unfaithfulness with the set of 118 NR simulations described in Sec. \[sec:NR\], and find that while the majority of the cases have low unfaithfulness ($\sim 1$%), there are a handful of cases where it is significant($\sim10$%), with many of them having large in-plane spins.
To eliminate the high mismatches, we introduce the *augmented spin* that includes contribution of the in-plane spins: $$\tilde{\chi}=\frac{{{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{\rm Kerr}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}}}{1-2\nu}+\alpha\frac{({{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{1}^{\perp}+{{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{2}^{\perp})\cdot
{{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{\rm Kerr}}{|{{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{\rm Kerr}|(1-2\nu)}\,.
\label{eq:defn}$$ Here ${{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{i}^{\perp}\equiv {{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{i}-({{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{i}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}}) {{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}}$ and $\alpha$ is a *positive* coefficient to be determined. Note that the extra term in the definition of the augmented spin $\ge0$ for any combination of the spins. We set $\tilde{\chi}=0$ when ${{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}}_{\rm Kerr}=0$. Fixing $\alpha={1}/{2}$ insures that the augmented spin obeys the Kerr bound. Using the augmented spin eliminates all mismatches above $6\%$, and thus greatly improves the agreement of the model with NR data.
Comparison of multipolar precessing models to numerical-relativity waveforms {#sec:compEOBNR}
============================================================================
To assess the impact of the improvements incorporated in the `SEOBNRv4PHM` waveform model, we compare this model and other models publicly available in LAL (see Table \[tbl:wf\_models\]) to the set of simulations described in Sec. \[sec:NR\], as well as to all publicly available precessing [SpEC]{} simulations [^6].
We start by comparing in Fig. \[fig:time\_domain\_waveform\], the precessing NR waveform `PrecBBH00078` with mass ratio $4$, BH’s spin magnitudes $0.7$, total mass $M=70 M_\odot$ and modes $\ell \leq 4$ from the new 118 SXS catalog (see Appendix \[sec:NRparam\]) to the precessing waveforms `IMRPhenomPv3` and `SEOBNRv4P` with modes $\ell = 2$ (upper panels), and to the precessing multipolar waveforms `IMRPhenomPv3HM` and `SEOBNRv4PHM` (lower panels). This NR waveform is the most “extreme” configuration from the new set of waveforms and has about 44 GW cycles before merger, and the plot only shows the last $7$ cycles. More specifically, we plot the detector response function given in Eq. (\[eq:det\_strain\_kappa\]), but we leave out the overall constant amplitude. We indicate on the panels the unfaithfulness for the different cases. We note the improvement when including modes beyond the quadrupole. `SEOBNRv4PHM` agrees particularly well to this NR waveform, reproducing accurately the higher-mode features throughout merger and ringdown.
![Sky-and-polarization averaged, SNR weighted unfaithfulness for an inclination $\iota=\pi/3$ between NR waveforms with $\ell =2$ and [SEOBNRv4P]{}, and also [SEOBNRv3P]{} and [IMRPhenomPv2]{}, which were used in LIGO/Virgo publications. The vertical dashed lines show the medians. It is evident the better performance of the newly developed precessing model [SEOBNRv4P]{}.[]{data-label="fig:all_approximants_ell2"}](fig08.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Sky-and-polarization averaged, SNR weighted unfaithfulness for an inclination $\iota=\pi/3$ between NR waveforms and [SEOBNRv4PHM]{}, including and omitting higher modes. The vertical dashed lines show the medians. Not including higher modes in the model results in high unfaithfulness. However, when they are included, the unfaithfulness between [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} and NR is essentially at the same level as when only $\ell=2$ modes are compared (see Fig. \[fig:all\_approximants\_ell2\]).[]{data-label="fig:higher_mode_effects"}](fig09.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
We now turn to the public precessing SXS NR catalog of 1404 waveforms. First, to quantify the performance of the new precessing waveform model `SEOBNRv4P` with respect to previous precessing models used in LIGO and Virgo inference studies, we compute the unfaithfulness [^7] against the precessing NR catalog, including only the dominant $\ell=2$ multipoles in the co-precessing frame. Figure \[fig:all\_approximants\_ell2\] shows the histograms of the largest mismatches when the binary total mass varies in the range $[20,200]M_\odot$. Here, we also consider the precessing waveform models used in the first GW Transient Catalog [@LIGOScientific:2018mvr] of the LIGO and Virgo collaboration (i.e., `SEOBNRv3P` and `IMRPhenomPv2`). Two trends are apparent: firstly, `SEOBNRv3P` and `IMRPhenomPv2` distributions are broadly consistent, with both models having mismatches which extend beyond $10\%$ , although `SEOBNRv3` has more cases at lower unfaithfulness; secondly, `SEOBNRv4P` has a distribution which is shifted to much lower values of the unfaithfulness and does not include outliers with the largest unfaithfulness below $7\%$.
Next, we examine the importance of higher modes. To do so, we use `SEOBNRv4PHM` with and without the higher modes, while always including all modes up to $\ell=5$ in the NR waveforms. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:higher\_mode\_effects\], if higher modes are omitted, the unfaithfulness can be very large, with a significant number of cases having unfaithfulness $>7\%$, as has been seen in many past studies. On the other hand, once higher modes are included in the model, the distribution of mismatches becomes much narrower, with all mismatches below $9\%$. Furthermore, the distribution now closely resembles the distribution of mismatches when only $\ell=2$ modes were included in the NR waveforms. Thus, we see that higher modes play an important role and are accurately captured by `SEOBNRv4PHM` waveform model.
Moreover, in Fig. \[fig:spaghetti\_public\] we display, for a specific choice of the inclination, the unfaithfulness versus the binary’s total mass between the public precessing SXS NR catalog and `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM`. We highlight with curves in color the NR configurations having worst maximum mismatches for the two classes of approximants. For the majority of cases, both models have unfaithfulness below 5%, but `SEOBNRv4PHM` has no outliers beyond 10% and many more cases at lower unfaithfulness ($<2\times 10^{-3}$). We find that the large values of unfaithfulness above $10\%$ for `IMRPhenomPv3HM` come from simulations with $q\gtrsim4$ and large anti-aligned primary spin, i.e. $\chi_{1}^{z}=-0.8$. An examination of the waveforms in this region reveals that unphysical features develop in the waveforms, with unusual oscillations both in amplitude and phase. For lower spin magnitudes these features are milder, and disappear for spin magnitudes $\lesssim0.65$. These features are present also in `IMRPhenomPv3` and are thus connected to the precession dynamics, a region already known to potentially pose a challenge when modeling the precession dynamics as suggested in Ref. [@Chatziioannou:2017tdw], and adopted in Ref. [@Khan:2019kot].
We now focus on the comparisons with the 118 SXS NR waveforms produced in this paper. In Fig. \[fig:spaghetti\_PrecBBH\] we show the unfaithfulness for `IMRPhenomPv3(HM)` and `SEOBNRv4P(HM)` in the left (right) panels. We compare waveforms without higher modes, to NR data that has only the $\ell=2$ modes, and the other models to NR data with $\ell\leq4$ modes. The performance of both waveform models on this new NR data set is largely comparable to what was found for the public catalog. Both families perform well on average, with most cases having unfaithfulness below 2% for models without higher modes and 3% for models with higher modes. However, for some configurations [IMRPhenomPv3(HM)]{} reaches unfaithfulness values above $3\%$ for total masses below $125 M_\odot$. Once again, the overall distribution is shifted to lower unfaithfulness values for `SEOBNRv4P(HM)`.
{width="\linewidth"}
When studying the distribution of unfaithfulness for these 118 cases across parameter space, it is useful to introduce the widely used effective $\chi_{\rm eff}$ [@Damour:2001tu; @Racine:2008qv; @Santamaria:2010yb] and precessing $\chi_{p}$ [@Schmidt:2014iyl] spins. These capture the leading order aligned-spin and precession effects respectively, and are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\rm eff} &= \frac{(m_1{\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{1}+m_2{\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_{2})}{m_1+m_2}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}_N\,, \\
\chi_{\rm p} &= \frac{1}{B_{1}m_{1}^{2}}\max(B_{1}m_{1}^{2}\chi_{1\perp},B_{2}m_{2}^{2}\chi_{2\perp})\,,\end{aligned}$$
where with $B_{1} = 2+3{m_{2}}/{m_{1}}$, $B_{2}=2+3{m_1}/{m_2}$ and we indicate with $\chi_{i\perp}$ the projection of the spins on the orbital plane. We find that the unfaithfulness shows 2 general trends. First, it tends to increase with increasing $\chi_{\rm eff}$ and $\chi_{\rm p}$. Secondly, that cases with positive $\chi_{\rm eff}$ (i.e. aligned with Newtonian orbital angular momentum) tend to have larger unfaithfulness. This is likely driven by the fact that inspiral is longer for such cases and the binary merges at higher frequency. We do not find any other significant trends based on spin directions. It is interesting to note that the distribution of mismatches from the 118 cases is quite similar to the distribution from the much larger public catalog. This suggests that the 118 cases do indeed explore many different regimes of precession.
To further quantify the results of the comparison between the precessing multipolar models `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM` and the NR waveforms, we show in Figs. \[fig:all\_runs\_percentiles\] and \[fig:all\_runs\_hist\] the median and $95\%$-percentile of all cases, and the highest unfaithfulness as function of the total mass, respectively. These studies also demonstrate the better performance of `SEOBNRv4PHM` with respect to `IMRPhenomPv3HM`.
To summarize the performance against the entire SXS catalog (including the new 118 precessing waveforms) we find that for `SEOBNRv4PHM`, out of a total of [1523]{} NR simulations we have considered, 864 cases ( ) have a maximum unfaithfulness less than $1\%$, and 1435 cases ( ) have unfaithfulness less than $3\%$. Meanwhile for `IMRPhenomPv3HM` the numbers become 300 cases ( ) below $1\%$, 1256 cases ( ) below $3\%$ [^8]. The accuracy of the semi-analytical waveform models can be improved in the future by calibrating them to the precession sector of the SXS NR waveforms.
An interesting question is to examine the behavior of the precessing models outside the region in which their underlying aligned-spin waveforms were calibrated. To this effect we consider 1000 random cases between mass ratios $q\in[1,20]$ and spin magnitudes $\chi_{1,2}\in[0,0.99]$ and compute $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\rm SNR}$ between `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM`. Figure \[fig:v4PHM\_vs\_Pv3HM\] shows the dependence of the unfaithfulness on the binary parameters, in particular the mass ratio, and the effective and precessing spins. We find that for mass ratios $q< 8$, $50\%$ of cases have unfaithfulness below 2% and 90% have unfaithfulness below 10%. The unfaithfulness grows very fast with mass ratio and spin, with the highest unfaithfulness occurring at the highest mass ratio and precessing spin. This effect is enhanced due to the fact that we choose to start all the waveforms at the same frequency and for higher mass ratios, the number of cycles in band grows as $1/\nu$ where $\nu$ is the symmetric mass ratio. These results demonstrate the importance of producing long NR simulations for large mass ratios and spins, which can be used to validate waveform models in this more extreme region of the parameter space. To design more accurate semi-analytical models in this particular region, it will be relevant to incorporate in the models the information from gravitational self-force [@Damour:2009sm; @Bini:2018ylh; @Antonelli:2019fmq], and also test how the choice of the underlying EOB Hamiltonians with spin effects [@Rettegno:2019tzh; @Khalil:2020mmr] affects the accuracy.
Finally, in Appendix \[sec:comparisonNRSurr\] we quantify the agreement of the precessing multipolar waveform models `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM` against the NR surrogate model `NRSur7dq4` [@Varma:2019csw], which was built for binaries with mass ratios $1\mbox{--}4$, BH’s spins up to $0.8$ and binary’s total masses larger than $\sim 60 M_\odot$. We find that the unfaithfulness between the semi-analytic models and the NR surrogate largely mirrors the results of the comparison in \[fig:all\_runs\_percentiles,fig:all\_runs\_hist\]. Notably, as it can be seen in Fig. \[fig:models\_vs\_NRsurr\], the unfaithfulness is generally below 3% for both waveform families, but `SEOBNRv4PHM` outperforms `IMRPhenomPv3HM` with the former having a median at $3.3 \times 10^{-3}$, while the latter is at $1.5 \times 10^{-2}$.
![Summary of unfaithfulness as a function of the total mass, for all NR simulations considered as shown in Fig. \[fig:spaghetti\_public\] and Fig \[fig:spaghetti\_PrecBBH\]. The solid (dotted) line represents the median (95%-percentile) of all cases. For all total masses, we find that the median mismatch with [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} is lower than 1%, about a factor of 2 lower than [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{}. The 95th-percentile shows a stronger dependence on total mass for [SEOBNRv4PHM]{}, with mismatches lower than [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{} at low and medium total masses, becoming comparable at the highest total masses.[]{data-label="fig:all_runs_percentiles"}](fig12.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![The highest unfaithfulness over total mass for all cases shown in Fig. \[fig:all\_runs\_percentiles\]. The median of unfaithfulness is around 1% for [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} and 2% for [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{} (shown as dashed vertical lines). Note that for [SEOBNRv4PHM]{}, the worst unfaithfulness is below 10% and the distribution is shifted to lower values.[]{data-label="fig:all_runs_hist"}](fig13.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
Bayesian analysis with multipolar precessing waveform models {#sec:peEOBNR}
============================================================
We now study how the accuracy of the waveform model `SEOBNRv4PHM` (and also `IMRPhenomPv3HM`), which we have quantified in the previous section through the unfaithfulness, affects parameter inference when synthetic signal injections are performed. To this end, we employ two mock BBH signals and do not add any detector noise to them (i.e., we work in zero noise), which is equivalent to average over many different noise realizations. This choice avoids arbitrary biases introduced by a random-noise realization, and it is reasonable since the purpose of this analysis is to estimate possible biases in the binary’s parameters due to inaccuracies in waveform models.
We generate the first precessing-BBH mock signal with the `NRSur7dq4` model. It has mass ratio $q = 3$ and a total source-frame mass of $M = 70 M_\odot$. The spins of the two BHs are defined at a frequency of $20$ Hz, and have components ${\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_1 =
(0.30, 0.00, 0.50)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_2 = (0.20,0.00,0.30)$. The masses and spins” magnitudes ($0.58$ and $0.36$) of this injection are compatible with those of BBH systems observed so far with LIGO and Virgo detectors [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @LIGOScientific:2018mvr; @Zackay:2019tzo; @Venumadhav:2019lyq; @Nitz:2019hdf]. Although the binary’s parameters are not extreme, we choose the inclination with respect to the line of sight of the BBH to be $\iota = \pi/3$, to emphasize the effect of higher modes. The coalescence and polarization phase, respectively $\phi$ and $\psi$, are chosen to be 1.2 rad and 0.7 rad. The sky-position is defined by its right ascension of 0.33 rad and its declination of -0.6 rad at a GPS-time of 1249852257 s. Finally, the distance to the source is set by requesting a network-SNR of $50$ in the three detectors (LIGO Hanford, LIGO Livingston and Virgo) when using the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo PSD at design sensitivity [@Barsotti:2018]. The resulting distance is $800$ Mpc. The unfaithfulness against this injection is $0.2\%$ and $1\%$ for `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM`, respectively. Although the value of the network-SNR is large for this synthetic signal, it is not excluded that the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors at design sensitivity could detect such loud BBH. With this study we want to test how our waveform model performs on a system with moderate precessional effect when detected with a large SNR value, considering that it has an unfaithfulness of $0.2\%$.
For the second precessing-BBH mock signal, we use a binary with larger mass ratio and spin magnitude for the primary BH. We employ the NR waveform `SXS:BBH:0165` from the public SXS catalog having mass ratio $q = 6$, and we choose the source-frame total mass $M = 76 M_\odot$. The BH’s spins, defined at a frequency of $20$ Hz, have values ${\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_1 = (-0.06, 0.78, -0.47)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath$\chi$}}_2 =(0.08,-0.17,-0.23)$. The BBH system in this simulation has strong spin-precession effects. We highlight that this NR waveform is one of the worst cases in term of unfaithfulness against `SEOBNRv4PHM`, as it is clear from Fig. \[fig:spaghetti\_public\]. For this injection we choose the binary’s inclination to be edge-on at $20$ Hz to strongly emphasize higher modes. All the other binary parameters are the same of the previous injection, with the exception of the luminosity distance, which in this case is set to be $1.2$ Gpc to obtain a network-SNR of $21$. The NR waveform used for this mock signal has unfaithfulness of $4.4\%$ for `SEOBNRv4PHM` and $8.8\%$ for `IMRPhenomPv3HM`, thus higher than in the first injection.
For the parameter-estimation study we use the software `PyCBC`’s `pycbc_generate_hwinj` [@alex_nitz_2020_3630601] to prepare the mock signals, and we perform the Bayesian analysis with `parallel Bilby` [@Smith:2019ucc], a highly parallelized version of the parameter-estimation software `Bilby` [@Ashton:2018jfp]. We choose a uniform prior in component masses in the range $[5,150]
M_\odot$. Priors on the dimensionless spin magnitudes are uniform in $[0,0.99]$, while for the spin directions we use prior isotropically distributed on the unit sphere. The priors on the other parameters are the standard ones described in Appendix C.1 of Ref. [@LIGOScientific:2018mvr].
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="\textwidth"}
We summarize in Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_3\] the results of the parameter estimation for the first mock signal for `SEOBNRv4PHM` (blue), `IMRPhenomPv3HM` (red) and `NRSur7dq4` (cyan). We report the marginalized 2D and 1D posteriors for the component masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ in the source frame (top left), the effective spin parameters $\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ (top right), the spin magnitude of the more massive BH $a_1$ and its tilt angle $\theta_1$ (bottom left) and finally the angle $\theta_{\mathrm{JN}}$ and the luminosity distance (bottom right). In the 2D posteriors, solid contours represent $90\%$ credible intervals and black dots show the value of the parameter used in the synthetic signal. In the 1D posteriors, they are represented respectively by dashed lines and black solid lines. As it is clear from Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_3\], when using the waveform models `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `NRSur7dq4`, all the parameters of the synthetic signal are correctly measured within the statistical uncertainty. Moreover, the shape of the posterior distributions obtained when using `SEOBNRv4PHM` are similar to those recovered with `NRSur7dq4` (the model used to create the synthetic signal). This means that the systematic error due to a non perfect modeling of the waveforms is negligible in this case.
For the model `IMRPhenomPv3HM` while masses and spins are correctly measured within the statistical uncertainty, the luminosity distance $D_{\rm L}$ and the angle $\theta_{\rm JN}$ are biased. This is consistent with the prediction obtained using Lindblom’s criterion in Refs. [@Flanagan:1997kp; @Lindblom:2008cm; @McWilliams:2010eq; @Chatziioannou:2017tdw] [^9]. In fact, according to this criterion, an unfaithfulness of $1\%$ for [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{} would be sufficient to produce biased results at a network-SNR of $19$. Thus, it is expected to observe biases when using `IMRPhenomPv3HM` at the network-SNR of the injection, which is $50$. In the case of `SEOBNRv4PHM` the unfaithfulness against the signal waveform is $0.2\%$ and according to Lindblom’s criterion we should also expect biases for network-SNRs larger than $42$, but in practice we do not observe them. We remind that Lindblom’s criterion is only approximate and it has been shown in Ref. [@Purrer:2019jcp] to be too conservative, therefore the lack of bias that we observe is not surprising.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_6\] we summarize the results of the second mock-signal injection. The plots are the same as in Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_3\] with the only exception that we do not have results for the `NRSur7dq4` model since it is not available in this region of the parameter space. In this case the unfaithfulness between `SEOBNRv4PHM` (`IMRPhenomPv3HM`) and the NR waveform used for the mock signal is $4.4\%$ ($8.8\%$). According to Lindblom’s criterion, at the network-SNR of this mock signal we should expect the bias due to non-perfect waveform modeling to be dominant over the statistical uncertainty for an unfaithfulness $\gtrsim
1\%$. Therefore we might expect some biases in inferring parameters for both models. Lindblom’s criterion does not say which parameters are biased and by how much. The results in Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_6\] clearly show that both models have biases in the measurement of some parameters, but unfaithfulness of $4.4\%$ and $8.8\%$ induce different amount of biases and also on different set of parameters (intrinsic and extrinsic).
In particular for the component masses (top left panel of Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_6\]), the 2D posterior distribution obtained with `SEOBNRv4PHM` barely include the value used for the mock signal in the $90\%$ credible region. This measurement looks better when focusing on the 1D posterior distributions for the individual masses for which the injection values are well within the $90\%$ credible intervals. The situation is worst for the `IMRPhenomPv3HM` model, for which the 2D posterior distribution barely excludes the injection value at $90\%$ credible level. In this case also the true value of $m_1$ is excluded from the $90\%$ credible interval of the marginalized 1D posterior distribution. Furthermore, $\chi_{\rm eff}$ and $\chi_{\rm p}$ (top right panel of Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_6\]) are correctly measured with `SEOBNRv4PHM` while the measurement with `IMRPhenomPv3HM` excludes the true value from the 2D $90\%$ credible region. From the 1D posterior distributions it is clear that the source of this inaccuracy is the incorrect measurement of $\chi_{\rm p}$, while $\chi_{\rm eff}$ is correctly recovered within the $90\%$ credible interval. A similar situation is observed in the measurement of $a_1$ the spin magnitude of the heavier BH and $\theta_1$ its tilt angle (bottom left panel of Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_6\]). Also in this case `SEOBNRv4PHM` correctly measures the parameters used in the mock signal, while `IMRPhenomPv3HM` yields an incorrect measurement due to a bias in the estimation of $a_1$. Finally, we focus on the measurement of the angle $\theta_{\rm JN}$ and the luminosity distance $D_L$ (bottom left panel of Fig. \[fig:PE\_q\_6\]). In this case the value of these parameters used in the synthetic signal is just slightly measured within the $90\%$ credible region of the 2D posterior distribution obtained with `SEOBNRv4PHM`. As a consequence the luminosity distance is also barely measured within the $90\%$ credible interval from the marginalized 1D posterior distribution and the measured value of $\theta_{\rm JN}$ results outside the $90\%$ credible interval of the 1D posterior distribution. The posterior distributions obtained using `IMRPhenomPv3HM` are instead correctly measuring the parameters of the mock signal. We can conclude that even with an unfaithfulness of $4.4\%$ against the NR waveform used for the mock signal the `SEOBNRv4PHM` model is able to correctly measure most of the binary parameters, notably the intrinsic ones, such as masses and spins.
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
In this paper we have developed and validated the first inspiral-merger-ringdown precessing waveform model in the EOB approach, `SEOBNRv4PHM`, that includes multipoles beyond the dominant quadrupole.
Following previous precessing SEOBNR models [@Pan:2013rra; @Taracchini:2013rva; @Babak:2016tgq], we have built such a model twisting up the aligned-spin waveforms of `SEOBNRv4HM` [@Bohe:2016gbl; @Cotesta:2018fcv] from the co-precessing [@Buonanno:2002fy; @Schmidt:2010it; @Boyle:2011gg; @O'Shaughnessy:2011fx; @Schmidt:2012rh] to the inertial frame, through the EOB equations of motion for the spins and orbital angular momentum. With respect to the previous precessing SEOBNR model, `SEOBNRv3P` [@Babak:2016tgq], which has been used in LIGO/Virgo data analysis [@Abbott:2016izl; @Abbott:2017vtc; @LIGOScientific:2018mvr], the new model (i) employs a more accurate aligned-spin two-body dynamics, since, in the non-precessing limit, it reduces to `SEOBNRv4HM`, which was calibrated to 157 SXS NR simulations [@Mroue:2013xna; @Chu:2015kft], and 13 waveforms [@Barausse:2011kb] from BH perturbation theory, (ii) includes in the co-precessing frame the modes $(2,\pm 2), (2,\pm 1), (3,\pm 3), (4,\pm 4)$ and $(5,\pm 5)$, instead of only $(2,\pm 2), (2,\pm 1)$, (iii) incorporates the merger-ringdown signal in the co-precessing frame instead of the inertial frame, (iv) describes the merger-ringdown stage through a phenomenological fit to NR waveforms [@Bohe:2016gbl; @Cotesta:2018fcv], and (v) uses more accurate NR fits for the final spin of the remnant BH.
The improvement in accuracy between `SEOBNRv4` and `SEOBNRv3P` (i.e., the models with only the $\ell = 2$ modes) is evident from Fig. \[fig:all\_approximants\_ell2\], where we have compared those models to the public SXS catalog of 1405 precessing NR waveforms, and the new 118 SXS NR waveforms produced for this work. The impact of including higher modes in semi-analytical models to achieve higher accuracy to multipolar NR waveforms is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:higher\_mode\_effects\]. Figures \[fig:spaghetti\_public\], \[fig:spaghetti\_PrecBBH\], \[fig:all\_runs\_percentiles\] and \[fig:v4PHM\_vs\_Pv3HM\] quantify the comparison of the multipolar precessing `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM` to all SXS NR precessing waveforms at our disposal. We have found that for the `SEOBNRv4PHM` model, ( ) of the cases have maximum unfaithfulness value, in the total mass range $20\mbox{--}200 M_\odot$, below $3\%$ ($1\%$). Those numbers change to ( ) when using the `IMRPhenomPv3HM`. The better accuracy of `SEOBNRv4PHM` with respect to `IMRPhenomPv3HM` is also confirmed by the comparisons with the NR surrogate model `NRSur7dq4`, as shown in Fig. \[fig:models\_vs\_NRsurr\]. We have investigated in which region of the parameter space the unfaithfulness against NR waveforms and [NRSur7dq4]{} lies, and have found, not surprisingly, that it occurs where both mass ratios and spins are large (see Fig. \[fig:2d\_models\_vs\_NRsurr\]). When comparing [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} and [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{} outside the region in which their corresponding aligned-spin underlying models were calibrated, we have also found that the largest differences reside when mass ratios are larger than 4 and spins larger than 0.8 (see Fig. \[fig:v4PHM\_vs\_Pv3HM\]). To improve the accuracy of the models in those more challenging regions, we would need NR simulations, but also more information from analytical methods, such as the gravitational self-force [@Damour:2009sm; @Bini:2018ylh; @Antonelli:2019fmq], and resummed EOB Hamiltonians with spins [@Rettegno:2019tzh; @Khalil:2020mmr].
To quantify how the modeling inaccuracy, estimated by the unfaithfulness, impacts the inference of binary’s parameters, we have perfomed two parameter-estimation studies using Bayesian analysis. Working with the Advanced LIGO and Virgo network at design sensitivity, we have injected in zero noise two precessing-BBH mock signals with mass ratio 3 and 6, having SNR of 50 and 21, with inclination of $\pi/3$ and $\pi/2$ with respect to the line of sight respectively, and recovered them with [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} and [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{}. The unfaithfulness values of those models against the synthetic signals considered (i.e., [NRSurd7q4]{} and [SXS:BBH:0165]{}) range from $0.2\%$ to $8.8\%$. The results are summarized in Figs. \[fig:PE\_q\_3\] and \[fig:PE\_q\_6\]. Overall, we have found that Lindblom’s criterion [@Flanagan:1997kp; @Lindblom:2008cm; @McWilliams:2010eq; @Chatziioannou:2017tdw; @Purrer:2019jcp] is too conservative and predicts visible biases at SNRs lower than what we have obtained through the Bayesian analysis. In particular, we have found, when doing inference with [SEOBNRv4PHM]{}, that an unfaithfulness of $0.2\%$ may produce no biases up to SNR of 50, while an unfaithfulness of $2.2\%$ can produce biases only for some extrinsic parameters, such as distance and inclination, but not for binary’s masses and spins at SNR of 21. A more comprehensive Bayesian study will be needed to quantify, in a more realistic manner, the modeling systematics of [SEOBNRv4PHM]{}, if this model were used during the fourth observation run of Avanced LIGO and Virgo in 2022 (i.e., the run at design sensitivity).
{width="0.49\linewidth"} {width="0.49\linewidth"}
The improvement in accuracy between `SEOBNRv4` and `SEOBNRv3P` (i.e., the models with only the $\ell = 2$ modes) is evident from Fig. \[fig:all\_approximants\_ell2\], where we have compared those models to the public SXS catalog of 1405 precessing NR waveforms, and the new 118 SXS NR waveforms produced for this work. The impact of including higher modes in semi-analytical models to achieve higher accuracy to multipolar NR waveforms is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:higher\_mode\_effects\]. Figures \[fig:spaghetti\_public\], \[fig:spaghetti\_PrecBBH\], \[fig:all\_runs\_percentiles\] and \[fig:v4PHM\_vs\_Pv3HM\] quantify the comparison of the multipolar precessing `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM` to all SXS NR precessing waveforms at our disposal. We have found that for the `SEOBNRv4PHM` model, ( ) of the cases have maximum unfaithfulness value, in the total mass range $20\mbox{--}200 M_\odot$, below $3\%$ ($1\%$). Those numbers change to ( ) when using the `IMRPhenomPv3HM`. We have found several cases with large unfaithfulness ($>10\%$) for [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{}, coming from a region of parameter space with $q\gtrsim 4$ and large ($\simeq0.8$) spins anti-aligned with the orbital angular momentum, which appear to be connected to unphysical features in the underlying precession model, and cause unusual oscillations in the waveform’s amplitude and phase. The better accuracy of `SEOBNRv4PHM` with respect to `IMRPhenomPv3HM` is also confirmed by the comparisons with the NR surrogate model `NRSur7dq4`, as shown in Fig. \[fig:models\_vs\_NRsurr\]. We have investigated in which region of the parameter space the unfaithfulness against NR waveforms and [NRSur7dq4]{} lies, and have found, not surprisingly, that it occurs where both mass ratios and spins are large (see Fig. \[fig:2d\_models\_vs\_NRsurr\]). When comparing [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} and [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{} outside the region in which the aligned-spin underlying model was calibrated, we have also found that the largest differences reside when mass ratios are larger than 4 and spins larger than 0.8 (see Fig. \[fig:v4PHM\_vs\_Pv3HM\]). To improve the accuracy of the models in those more challenging regions, we would need NR simulations, but also more information from analytical methods, such as the gravitational self-force [@Damour:2009sm; @Bini:2018ylh; @Antonelli:2019fmq], and resummed EOB Hamiltonians with spins [@Rettegno:2019tzh; @Khalil:2020mmr].
The newly produced 118 SXS NR waveforms extend the coverage of binary’s parameter space, spanning mass ratios $q=1\mbox{--}4$, (dimensionless) spins $\chi_{1,2}=0.3\mbox{--}0.9$, and different orientations to maximize the number of precessional cycles. As we have emphasized, the waveform model `SEOBNRv4HM` is not calibrated to NR waveforms in the precessing sector, only the aligned-spin sector was calibrated in Refs. [@Bohe:2016gbl; @Cotesta:2018fcv]. Despite this, the accuracy of the model is very good, and it can be further improved in the future if we calibrate the model to the $1404$ plus $118$ SXS NR precessing waveforms at our disposal. This will be an important goal for the upcoming LIGO and Virgo O4 run in early 2022. Furthermore, `SEOBNRv4HM` assumes the following symmetry among modes $h_{\ell m}= (-1)^\ell h_{\ell -m}^*$ in the co-precessing frame, which however no longer holds in presence of precession. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:mode\_asymm\], forcing this assumption causes unfaithfulness on the order of a few percent. Thus, to achieve better accuracy, when calibrating the model to NR waveforms, the mode-symmetry would need to be relaxed.
Finally, `SEOBNRv4HM` uses PN-resumed factorized modes that were developed for aligned-spin BBHs [@Damour:2008gu; @Pan:2010hz], thus they neglect the projection of the spins on the orbital plane. To obtain high-precision waveform models, it will be relevant to extend the factorized modes to precession. Considering the variety of GW signals that the improved sensitivity of LIGO and Virgo detectors is allowing to observe, it will also be important to include in the multipolar SEOBNR waveform models the more challenging $(3,2)$ and $(4,3)$ modes, which are characterized my mode mixing [@Buonanno:2006ui; @Berti:2014fga; @Mehta:2019wxm]. Their contribution is no longer negligible for high total-mass and/or large mass-ratio binaries, especially if observed away from face-on (face-off).
Lastly, being a time-domain waveform model generated by solving ordinary differential equations, `SEOBNRv4HM` is not a fast waveform model, especially for low total-mass binaries. To speed up the waveform generation, a reduced-order modeling version has been recently developed [@Gadre:2020a]. Alternative methods that employ a fast evolution of the EOB Hamilton equations in the post-adiabatic approximation during the long inspiral phase have been suggested [@Nagar:2018gnk], and we are currently implementing them in the simpler nonprecessing limit in LAL.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is our pleasure to thank Andrew Matas for providing us with the scripts to make the parameter-estimation plots, and Sebastian Khan for useful discussions on the faithfulness calculation. We would also like to thank the SXS collaboration for help and support with the [SpEC]{} code in producing the new NR simulations presented in this paper, and for making the large catalog of BBH simulations publicly available. The new 118 SXS NR simulations were produced using the high-performance compute (HPC) cluster [ Minerva]{} at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, on the [Hydra]{} cluster at the Max Planck Society at the Garching facility, and on the [ SciNet]{} cluster at the University of Toronto. The data-analysis studies were obtained with the HPC clusters [Hypatia]{} and [ Minerva]{} at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. The transformation and manipulation of waveforms were done using the [ GWFrames]{} package [@GWFrames; @Boyle:2013nka].
{width="\linewidth"}
Comparison of multipolar precessing models to numerical-relativity surrogate waveforms {#sec:comparisonNRSurr}
======================================================================================
In this appendix we compare directly `SEOBNRv4PHM` and `IMRPhenomPv3HM` to the NR surrogate model `NRSur7dq4`. We choose a starting frequency corresponding to 20 Hz at 70 $M_{\odot}$ (this is essentially the limit of the length for NR surrogate waveforms). We generate 1000 random configurations, uniform in mass ratio $q\in[1,4]$ and in spin magnitudes $\in[0,0.8]$, and with random directions uniform on the unit sphere. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:models\_vs\_NRsurr\] shows the summary of the unfaithfulness as a function of total mass for all the cases considered, for `IMRPhenomPv3HM` and `SEOBNRv4PHM`. We see that the median and 95th percentile values for both models are close to the values in Fig. \[fig:all\_runs\_percentiles\], with `SEOBNRv4PHM` having a median unfaithfulness below 1% and `IMRPhenomPv3HM` about a factor of 3 larger. The right panel of Fig. \[fig:models\_vs\_NRsurr\] shows the maximum unfaithfulness distribution and the same trends are also observed. `SEOBNRv4PHM` outperforms `IMRPhenomPv3HM`, with the median of the former being 4 times smaller than the one of the latter. Finally, to gain further insight into the behavior of the waveform models across the parameter space, we show in Fig. \[fig:2d\_models\_vs\_NRsurr\] the maximum unfaithfulness as a function of mass ratio and the effective spin.
Parameters of the new 118 NR simulations {#sec:NRparam}
========================================
[^1]: During the final preparation of this work, a new frequency-domain phenomenological model with precession and higher modes ([IMRPhenomXPHM]{} [@Pratten:2020ceb]), and a time-domain phenomenological precessing model with the dominant mode ([IMRPhenomTP]{} [@Estelles:2020c]) were developed. We leave the comparison to these models for future work.
[^2]: [www.black-holes.org](www.black-holes.org)
[^3]: The difference between the NR (2,2) mode frequency and the [SEOBNRv4PHM]{} (2,2) frequency chosen at $t = t_0$ is never larger than $5\%$.
[^4]: We note that whereas in LAL the name of this waveform approximant is [SEOBNRv3]{}, here we add a “P” to indicate “precession”, making the notation uniform with respect to the most recent developed model [SEOBNRv4P]{} [@Babak:2016tgq].
[^5]: Note that in Ref. [@Babak:2016tgq], the $z$-axis is aligned with ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}_{\rm N}$ instead of ${\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}$.
[^6]: The list of all SXS simulations used can be found in <https://arxiv.org/src/1904.04831v2/anc/sxs_catalog.json>
[^7]: We always use the sky-and-polarization averaged, SNR-weighted faithfulness or unfaithfulness $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\rm SNR}$ unless otherwise stated.
[^8]: Due to technical details of the [IMRPhenomPv3HM]{} model, the total number of cases analyzed for this model is 1507 instead of 1523.
[^9]: The criterion says that a sufficient, but not necessary condition for two waveforms to become distinguishable is that the unfaithfulness $
\geq (N_{\rm intr}-1)/(2{\rm SNR}^2)$, where $N_{\rm intr}$ is the number of binary’s intrinsic parameters, which we take to be 8 for a precessing-BBH system. Note, however, that in practice this factor can be much larger, see discussion in Ref. [@Purrer:2019jcp].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We calculate the Collins fragmentation function in the framework of a spectator model with pseudoscalar pion-quark coupling and a Gaussian form factor at the vertex. We determine the model parameters by fitting the unpolarized fragmentation function for pions and kaons. We show that the Collins function for the pions in this model is in reasonable agreement with recent parametrizations obtained by fits of the available data. In addition, we compute for the first time the Collins function for the kaons.'
author:
- Alessandro Bacchetta
- 'Leonard P. Gamberg'
- 'Gary R. Goldstein'
- Asmita Mukherjee
bibliography:
- 'mybiblio.bib'
title: Collins fragmentation function for pions and kaons in a spectator model
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
The Collins fragmentation function [@Collins:1993kk] measures how the orientation of the quark spin influences the direction of emission of hadrons in the fragmentation process and can thus be used as a quark spin analyzer. It contributes to several single spin asymmetries (SSA) in hard processes, such as semi inclusive deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS), $pp$ collisions and $e^+e^-$ annihilation into hadrons. We shall henceforth use the term “Collins asymmetries” to denote any asymmetry where the Collins function plays a role.
The first experimental evidence of a nonzero Collins function for pions came from the measurement of a Collins asymmetry in SIDIS on a proton target by the HERMES collaboration [@Airapetian:2004tw]. The same asymmetry, but on a deuteron target, was found to be consistent with zero by the COMPASS collaboration [@Ageev:2006da]. At the moment, the most convincing evidence of a nonzero pion Collins function comes from the measurements of a Collins asymmetry in $e^+e^-$ annihilation [@Abe:2005zx]. First extractions of the pion Collins function were performed in Ref. [@Vogelsang:2005cs; @Efremov:2006qm]. A recent fit to SIDIS and $e^+e^-$ annihilation allowed the simultaneous extraction of the Collins fragmentation function and of the transversity parton distribution function [@Anselmino:2007fs], clearly showing the importance of the Collins function as a tool to investigate the structure of hadrons. The kaon Collins function is at the moment unknown.
A few model calculations of the Collins function for pions have been presented in the literature [@Bacchetta:2001di; @Bacchetta:2002tk; @Gamberg:2003eg; @Bacchetta:2003xn; @Amrath:2005gv] and used to make predictions and/or compare to available data [@Schweitzer:2003yr; @Gamberg:2003eg; @Gamberg:2003pz; @Gamberg:2004wt]. However, the above calculations have been found to be inadequate to describe the data.
The aim of the present work is to show that a Collins function in reasonable agreement with the available parametrizations can be obtained in a model with pseudoscalar pion-quark coupling and Gaussian form factors at the pion-quark vertex. We also present, for the first time, the Collins function for the fragmentation of quarks into kaons. This calculation is relevant for the interpretation of recent kaon measurements done at HERMES [@Diefenthaler:2006vn] as well as COMPASS [@Bradamante:2007ex] and for future measurements at BELLE and JLab.
Model calculation of the unpolarized fragmentation function
===========================================================
In the fragmentation process, the probability to produce hadron $h$ from a transversely polarized quark $q$, in, e.g., the $q \bar{q}$ rest frame if the fragmentation takes place in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation, is given by (see, e.g., [@Bacchetta:2004jz]) $$D_{h/q^\uparrow}(z, K_T^2) = D_1^q(z, K_T^2) + H_1^{\perp q}(z, K_T^2) \,
\frac{(\hat{\bm k} \times {\bm K}_{T}) \cdot {\bm s}_q}{z M_h},$$ where $M_h$ the hadron mass, $k$ is the momentum of the quark, $s_q$ its spin vector, $z$ is the light-cone momentum fraction of the hadron with respect to the fragmenting quark, and $K_{T}$ the component of the hadron’s momentum transverse to $k$. $D_1^q$ is the unintegrated unpolarized fragmentation function, while $H_1^{\perp q}$ is the Collins function. Therefore, $H_1^{\perp q} > 0$ corresponds to a preference of the hadron to move to the left if the quark is moving away from the observer and the quark spin is pointing upwards.
In accordance with factorization, fragmentation functions can be calculated from the correlation function [@Bacchetta:2006tn] $$\begin{split}
\Delta(z,k_T) &= \frac{1}{2z} \int {d}k^+ \Delta(k,P_h)
\\&
=\frac{1}{2z}\sum_X \, \int
\frac{{d}\xi^+ {d}^2\bm{\xi}_T}{(2\pi)^{3}}\; e^{{i}k \cdot \xi}\,
\langle 0|\, {\cal U}^{n_+}_{(+\infty,\xi)}
\,\psi(\xi)|h, X\rangle
\langle h, X|
\bar{\psi}(0)\,
{\cal U}^{n_+}_{(0,+\infty)}
|0\rangle \Bigr|_{\xi^-=0}\,,
\label{e:delta}
\end{split}$$ with $k^- = P_h^-/z$. A discussion on the structure of the Wilson lines, ${\cal U}$, can be found in Ref. [@Bacchetta:2006tn]. Here, we limit ourselves to recalling that in Refs. [@Metz:2002iz; @Collins:2004nx] it was shown that the fragmentation correlators are the same in both semi-inclusive DIS and $e^+e^-$ annihilation, as was also observed earlier in the context of a specific model calculation [@Metz:2002iz] similar to the one under consideration here. In the rest of the article we shall utilize the Feynman gauge, in which transverse gauge links at infinity give no contribution and can be neglected [@Ji:2002aa; @Belitsky:2002sm; @Boer:2003cm].
![\[treelevel\] Tree-level diagram for quark to meson fragmentation process.](treelevel){width="5cm"}
The tree-level diagram describing the fragmentation of a virtual (timelike) quark into a pion/kaon is shown in Fig. \[treelevel\]. In the model used here, the final state $|h, X\rangle$ is described by the detected pion/kaon and an on-shell spectator, with the quantum numbers of a quark and with mass $m_s$. We take a pseudoscalar pion-quark coupling of the form $g_{q\pi} \gamma_5 \tau_i$, where $\tau_i$ are the generators of the SU(3) flavor group. Our model is similar to the ones used in, e.g., Refs. [@Ji:1993qx; @Londergan:1996vf; @Jakob:1997wg; @Kitagawa:2000ji]. The most important difference from previous calculations that included also the Collins function, i.e., those in Refs. [@Bacchetta:2001di; @Bacchetta:2002tk; @Gamberg:2003eg; @Bacchetta:2003xn; @Amrath:2005gv], is that the mass of the spectator $m_s$ is not constrained to be equal to the mass of the fragmenting quark.
The fragmentation correlator at tree level, for the case $u\to \pi^+$, is $$\begin{split}
\Delta_{(0)}(k,p) & =
- \frac{2\,g_{q\pi}^2}{(2\pi)^4}\,
\frac{({\rlap{/} k}+ m)}{k^2 - m^2} \, \gamma_5 \, ({\rlap{/} k}- {\rlap{\,/} P}_h +m_s)
\gamma_5 \,\frac{({\rlap{/} k}+ m)}{k^2 - m^2}\,
2\pi\,\delta\bigl((k-P_h)^2 -m_s^2\bigr) \,
\end{split}$$ and, using the $\delta$-function to perform the $k^+$ integration, $$\Delta_{(0)}(z,k_T) = \frac{2\,g_{q\pi}^2}{32 \pi^3}\,
\frac{({\rlap{/} k}+ m) \, ({\rlap{/} k}- {\rlap{\,/} P}_h -m_s)
\,({\rlap{/} k}+ m)}{(1-z)P_h^-(k^2 - m^2)^2},
\label{D0}$$ where $k^2$ is related to $k_T^2$ through the relation $$k^2=z k_T^2/(1-z)+ m_s^2/(1-z)+M_h^2/z
\label{e:k2kt2}$$ which follows from the on-mass-shell condition of the spectator quark of mass $m_s$. We take $m$ to be the same for $u$ and $d$ quarks, but different for $s$ quarks. Isospin and charge-conjugation relations imply $$\begin{gathered}
D_1^{u\to \pi^+}= D_1^{\bar{d}\to \pi^+} = D_1^{d\to \pi^-} = D_1^{\bar{u}\to
\pi^-},
\\
D_1^{u\to K^+} = D_1^{\bar{u}\to K^-},
\\
D_1^{\bar{s}\to K^+} = D_1^{s\to K^-}.
$$ For later purposes it is useful to spell out the relations coming from isospin and charge-conjugation relations for the unfavored functions $$\begin{gathered}
D_1^{\bar{u}\to \pi^+} = D_1^{d\to \pi^+} = D_1^{\bar{d}\to \pi^-} = D_1^{u\to
\pi^-}
,
\label{unfisocharge1}
\\
D_1^{s\to \pi^+} = D_1^{\bar{s}\to \pi^+}=
D_1^{s\to \pi^-}=
D_1^{\bar{s}\to \pi^-}
,
\label{unfisocharge2}
\\
D_1^{\bar{u}\to K^+} = D_1^{\bar{d}\to K^+}= D_1^{d\to K^+} =
D_1^{\bar{d}\to K^-}= D_1^{d\to K^-} = D_1^{u\to K^-}
,
\label{unfisocharge3}
\\
D_1^{s\to K^+} = D_1^{\bar{s}\to K^-}
.
\label{unfisocharge4}\end{gathered}$$ We assume the above relations hold for all fragmentation functions, in particular for the Collins function.
The unpolarized fragmentation function is projected from Eq. (\[D0\]) $$D_1(z, k_T^2)= {\mbox{Tr}\,}[\Delta_{0}(z, k_T) \gamma^+]/2$$ leading to the result $$D_1(z, k_T^2)= \frac{g_{q\pi}^2}{8 \pi^3}
\frac{\bigl[z^2 \bm{k}_T^2 + (z m + m_s-m)^2 \bigr]}
{z^3\,(\bm{k}_T^2 + L^2)^2},$$ with $$L^2= \frac{(1-z)}{z^2}\, M_h^2 +m^2 +\frac{m_s^2-m^2}{z}.$$ In the limit $m_s=m$ and setting the form factor to $1$, our result for $D_1$ reduces to Eq. (3) of Ref. [@Amrath:2005gv] (multiplied by two because in that paper the results refer to $u \to \pi^0$). The two nonzero kaon fragmentation functions $D_1^{u\to K^+}$ and $D_1^{\bar{s}\to K^+}$ are given by the same functional form, but with different masses $m$, $m_s$, $M_h$.
The integrated unpolarized fragmentation function is defined as $$D_1(z)= \pi z^2 \int_0^\infty dk_T^2\, D_1 (z, k_T^2).
\label{integral}$$ Here the integration is over the transverse momentum of the produced hadron $K_T = -z k_T$ with respect to the quark direction, which is why an extra factor of $z^2$ appears in the above equation. The above integral is divergent. In Ref. [@Amrath:2005gv], a cutoff on $k_T$ has been used. On the other hand, in Ref. [@Gamberg:2003eg], a Gaussian form factor depending on $k_T^2$ has been introduced at the pion-quark vertex, which effectively cuts off the higher $k_T$ region in the integration. Similarly, in this work we use a Gaussian form factor of the form $$\begin{aligned}
g_{q\pi} &\mapsto \frac{g_{q\pi}}{z}\,
e^{-\frac{k^2}{\Lambda^2}}
&
\text{with}
&&
\Lambda^2 &= \lambda^2 z^\alpha (1-z)^\beta.
\label{e:ff}\end{aligned}$$ at the pion-quark vertex. Due to Eq. , the above form factor effectively cuts off the higher $k_T$ region of the integration. The form of the vertex is chosen merely on the basis of phenomenological motivations, in order to reasonably reproduce the unpolarized fragmentation function. With the chosen form factor, the integration in Eq. can be carried out analytically and yields: $$\begin{split}
D_1(z) =\frac{g_{q\pi}^2}{8 \pi^2}\,\frac{e^{-\frac{2 m^2}{\Lambda^2}}}{z^3
L^2} \biggl[&(1-z)\Bigl((m_s-m)^2-M_h^2\Bigr)\,
\exp\Bigl( -\frac{2 z L^2}{(1-z) \Lambda^2}\Bigr)
\\&+
\biggl(z^2\Lambda^2-2z\Bigl((m_s-m)^2-M_h^2\Bigr)\biggr)\frac{L^2}{\Lambda^2}\,\Gamma\Bigl(0,\frac{2 z L^2}{(1-z) \Lambda^2}\Bigr)
\biggr],
\end{split}$$ where the incomplete gamma function is, $$\Gamma(0,z) \equiv \int_z^\infty \frac{e^{-t}}{t}\, {d}t.$$
The parameters of the model are $\lambda$, $\alpha$, $\beta$, together with the mass of the spectator $m_s$ and the mass of the initial quark $m$. For the latter, we choose a constituent quark mass $m=0.3$ GeV for the $u$ and $d$ quarks, and $m=0.5$ GeV for the $s$ quark. To fix the values of the other parameters, we performed a fit to the parametrization of Ref. [@Kretzer:2000yf] (NLO set) at the lowest possible scale, i.e., $Q_0=0.4$ GeV$^2$. The resulting values for the parameters are $$\begin{aligned}
g_{q\pi}&= 4.78,
&
\lambda&= 3.33 ~\mathrm{GeV},
&
\alpha&=0.5~\mathrm{(fixed)},
&
\beta&=0~\mathrm{(fixed)},\end{aligned}$$ which are common to both pion and kaon fragmentation functions. The only parameters that change according to the type of fragmentation function are $$\begin{aligned}
u \to \pi^+&:
&
m_s&=0.792~\mathrm{GeV},
&
m=&0.3 ~\mathrm{GeV~(fixed)},
\\
u \to K^+&:
&
m_s&=1.12 ~\mathrm{GeV},
&
m=&0.3 ~\mathrm{GeV~(fixed)},
\\
\bar{s} \to K^+&:
&
m_s&=0.559 ~\mathrm{GeV},
&
m=&0.5 ~\mathrm{GeV~(fixed)}.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, also the mass of the hadron changes: we take $m_h=0.135$ GeV for the pions and $m_h=0.494$ GeV for the kaons. We remark that it is not possible to estimate the errors in the parameters in a meaningful way because the fragmentation functions in Ref. [@Kretzer:2000yf] have no error bands. It could be in principle possible to use the recent parametrizations with error bands [@Hirai:2007cx], but the lowest scale they reach is 1 GeV$^2$, which we consider to be too high to compare to our model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$u \to \pi^+$ $u \to K^+$ $\bar{s} \to K^+$
![\[D1\] Unpolarized fragmentation function $zD_1(z)$ vs. $z$ for the fragmentation (a) $u \to \pi^+$, (b) $u \to K^+$, (c) $\bar{s} \to K^+$ in the spectator model (solid line), with parameters fixed from a fit to the parametrization of [@Kretzer:2000yf] (dashed line).](zD1_upi+ "fig:"){height="4cm"} ![\[D1\] Unpolarized fragmentation function $zD_1(z)$ vs. $z$ for the fragmentation (a) $u \to \pi^+$, (b) $u \to K^+$, (c) $\bar{s} \to K^+$ in the spectator model (solid line), with parameters fixed from a fit to the parametrization of [@Kretzer:2000yf] (dashed line).](zD1_uK+ "fig:"){height="4cm"} ![\[D1\] Unpolarized fragmentation function $zD_1(z)$ vs. $z$ for the fragmentation (a) $u \to \pi^+$, (b) $u \to K^+$, (c) $\bar{s} \to K^+$ in the spectator model (solid line), with parameters fixed from a fit to the parametrization of [@Kretzer:2000yf] (dashed line).](zD1_sbK+ "fig:"){height="4cm"}
(a) (b) (c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. \[D1\] show the plots of the unpolarized fragmentation function $D_1(z)$ multiplied by $z$ for $u \to \pi^+$, $u \to K^+$, and $\bar{s} \to K^+$. The parametrization of [@Kretzer:2000yf] (NLO set, $Q_0=0.4$ GeV$^2$) is also shown for comparison.
Model calculation of the Collins fragmentation function
=======================================================
We use the following definition of the Collins function [@Amrath:2005gv][^1] $$\frac{\epsilon_T^{ij} k_{Tj}}{M_h} H_1^\perp(z, k_T^2)=\frac{1}{2}\,{\rm Tr}[\Delta(z,
{k_T}) i \sigma^{i-} \gamma_5].$$ As is well known [@Amrath:2005gv], using the tree-level calculation of the correlator function is not sufficient to produce a non-vanishing Collins function, due to the lack of imaginary parts in the scattering amplitude. In order to obtain the necessary imaginary part, we take into account gluon loops. In fact, gluon exchange is essential to ensure color gauge invariance of the fragmentation functions. Contributions come from the four diagrams in Fig. \[gluonloop\].
![\[gluonloop\] Single gluon-loop corrections to the fragmentation of a quark into a pion contributing to the Collins function in the eikonal approximation. “H.c.” stands for the hermitian conjugate diagrams which are not shown.](gluonloop){width="10cm"}
Diagrams (a) and (b) represent the quark self-energy and vertex diagrams, respectively. Diagrams (c) and (d) can be called hard-vertex and box diagrams, respectively. For the calculation of the diagrams with the eikonal line, the Feynman rules to be used are $$\begin{aligned}
\includegraphics[width=0.7cm]{eikver}\hspace{2mm} &= {i}g \, t^{a}\, \delta^-_{\nu},
&
\includegraphics[width=1cm]{eikprop} &= \frac{{i}}{-l^- \pm{i}\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the QCD coupling. Note that the sign of the ${i}\epsilon$ in the eikonal propagator is different for semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering $(+)$ and $e^+e^-$ annihilation $(-)$, but this does not influence the computation of the Collins function [@Metz:2002iz; @Collins:2004nx]. The resulting formula for the fragmentation correlator corresponding to Fig. \[gluonloop\] (d) is $$\begin{split}
\Delta_{1(d)}(k,p) &= \frac{4\alpha_s}{(2 \pi)^3}\, \frac{{i}({\rlap{/} k}+ m)}{k^2 -
m^2}\, g_{q \pi} \gamma_5
\,({\rlap{/} k}-{\rlap{\,/} P}_h +m_s)\,2\pi\, \delta((k-P_h)^2-m_s^2) \\
&\quad\int\frac{d^4 l}{(2 \pi)^4} \,
\frac{{i}\gamma_{\mu} t^a \,{i}({\rlap{/} k}- {\rlap{\,/} P}_h - {\rlap{/} l}+m_s)\,
g_{q \pi} \gamma_5\,
{i}({\rlap{/} k}-
{\rlap{/} l}+m)\, {i}\,(-{i}g^{\mu -})\, ({i}t^a)}{((k-P_h-l)^2 -
m_s^2+{i}\varepsilon ) ((k-l)^2 - m^2 +{i}\varepsilon) (-l^- \pm i
\varepsilon)(l^2 - m_g^2 +{i}\varepsilon)}.
\end{split}$$ Note that one of the form factors $g_{q\pi}$ is inside the loop integral. When using a form factor as in Eq. , it would seem reasonable to replace $k^2$ with $(k-l)^2$. However, since the form factor is introduced to the purpose of cutting off the high-$k_T$ region, we prefer to maintain the form factor depending only on $k^2$, so that it can be pulled out of the integral and simplify the calculation. This choice is similar to imposing a sharp cutoff on $k^2$ — as done in Ref. [@Bacchetta:2002tk; @Bacchetta:2003xn; @Amrath:2005gv] — and not on $(k-l)^2$.
The Collins function is given by (we take always $m_g=0$) $$H_1^\perp (z, k_T^2)= -\frac{2\,\alpha_s g_{q\pi}^2}{(2 \pi)^4}\,C_F\,\frac{e^{-\frac{2k^2}{\Lambda^2}}}{z^2}\,\frac{M_h}{(1 - z)}\,\frac{1}{k^2 - m^2}
\Bigl(\tilde{H}_{1(a)}^\perp (z, k_T^2) + \tilde{H}_{1(b)}^\perp (z, k_T^2) +
\tilde{H}_{1(d)}^\perp(z, k_T^2)\Bigr),$$ where the subscripts in the r.h.s. refer to the contributions from diagrams \[gluonloop\] (a), (b) and (d) plus their Hermitean conjugate, respectively. Diagram (c) gives no contribution to the Collins function. The separate contributions read, for the fragmentation of $u \to \pi^+$, $$\tilde{H}_{1(a)}(z, k_T^2) = \frac{m}{k^2 - m^2}\,\biggl(3-\frac{m^2}{k^2}\biggr)\,I_{1g},$$ $$\tilde{H}_{1(b)}(z, k_T^2) = 2\,m_s\,
I_{2g},$$ $$\begin{split}
\tilde{H}_{1(d)}(z, k_T^2) & = \frac{1}{2 z \bm{k_T}^2}\,
\Bigl\{- I_{34g}\, (2 z m + m_s - m) +
I_{2g} \Bigl[2 zm\Bigl(k^2-m^2+M_h^2(1-2/z)\Bigr)
\\ &\quad
+(m_s-m)\Bigl((2z-1)k^2 - M_h^2 +m_s^2-2zm(m+m_s) \Bigr)\Bigr]\Bigr\}.
\end{split}$$ The loop integrals $I_{1g}$, $I_{2g}$ and $I_{34g}$ [@Amrath:2005gv][^2] are given by $$\begin{aligned}
I_{1g} &= \frac{\pi \sqrt{\lambda(m, m_g)}}{2 k^2},
\\
I_{2g} &= \frac{\pi}{2 \sqrt{\lambda(m_s, M_h)}}\,
\ln \biggl[\frac{k^2 + m_s^2 -M_h^2 - \sqrt{\lambda(m_s, M_h)}}
{k^2 + m_s^2-M_h^2 + \sqrt{\lambda(m_s, M_h)}}\biggr],
\\
I_{34g} &= \pi\, \ln \biggl[ \frac{\sqrt{k^2} (1 - z)}{m_s} \biggr],\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda(m_1, m_2) = (k^2 - (m_1 + m_2)^2)~(k^2 - (m_1 - m_2)^2)$. In the limit $m_s=m$ and setting the form factor to $1$, our result for $H_1^\perp$ reduces to Eq. (15) of Ref. [@Amrath:2005gv] (multiplied by two because in that paper the results refer to $u \to \pi^0$). It is important to note that the Collins function should obey the positivity bound [@Bacchetta:1999kz; @Bacchetta:2002tk] $$\frac{|\bm{k}_T|}{M_h} H_1^\perp (z, k_T^2) \le D_1 (z, k_T^2).$$ Integration over $k_T^2$ gives the simplified expression $$\frac{H_1^{\perp (1/2)} (z)}{D_1(z)} \le \frac{1}{2},
\label{intpositivity}$$ where the half moment of the Collins function is defined as $$H_1^{\perp (1/2)} (z) = \pi z^2 \int_0^\infty dk_T^2 \,
\frac{|\bm{k}_T|}{2 M_h}\, H_1^\perp (z, k_T^2).$$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$u \to \pi^+$ $u \to \pi^+$
![\[collpion\]Half moment of the Collins function for $u \to \pi^+$ in our model. (a) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ at the model scale (solid line) and at a different scale under the assumption in Eq. (dot-dashed line), compared with the error band from the extraction of Ref. [@Efremov:2006qm], (b) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ at the model scale (solid line) and at two other scales (dashed and dot-dashed lines) under the assumption in Eq. . The error band from the extraction of Ref. [@Anselmino:2007fs] is shown for comparison.](half_upi+ "fig:"){height="5.1cm"} ![\[collpion\]Half moment of the Collins function for $u \to \pi^+$ in our model. (a) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ at the model scale (solid line) and at a different scale under the assumption in Eq. (dot-dashed line), compared with the error band from the extraction of Ref. [@Efremov:2006qm], (b) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ at the model scale (solid line) and at two other scales (dashed and dot-dashed lines) under the assumption in Eq. . The error band from the extraction of Ref. [@Anselmino:2007fs] is shown for comparison.](ratio_upi+ "fig:"){height="5cm"}
(a) (b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[collpion\] (a), we have plotted the half moment of the Collins functions vs.z for the case $u \to \pi^+$. In the same panel, we plotted the 1-$\sigma$ error band of the Collins function extracted in Ref. [@Efremov:2006qm] from BELLE data, collected at a scale $Q^2=(10.52)^2$ GeV$^2$. In order to achieve a reasonable agreement with the phenomenology, we choose a value of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s=0.2$. Such a value is particularly small, especially when considering that our model has been tuned to fit the function $D_1$ at a scale $Q_0^2=0.4$ GeV$^2$, where standard NLO calculations give $\alpha_s\approx 0.57$ [@Kretzer:2000yf; @Gluck:1998xa]. In any case, the problem of the choice of $\alpha_s$ is intimately related with the problem of the evolution of the Collins function (see below).
In Fig. \[collpion\] (b), we have plotted the ratio $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ and compared it to the error bands of the extraction in Ref. [@Anselmino:2007fs]. Also in this case the agreement is good, with the above mentioned choice of $\alpha_s=0.2$.
At this point, some comments are in order concerning the evolution of the Collins function (or of its half-moment) with the energy scale. Such evolution is presently unknown, except for some work done in Ref. [@Henneman:2001ev], which is however based on questionable assumptions. Some authors (e.g. Refs. [@Efremov:2006qm; @Anselmino:2007fs]) assume $$\frac{H_1^{\perp (1/2)}}{D_1}\biggr|_{Q_0^2} =
\frac{H_1^{\perp (1/2)}}{D_1}\biggr|_{Q^2},
\label{e:rationoevolve}$$ i.e., that the evolution of $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ is equal to that of $D_1$. This seems unlikely, in view of the fact that the Collins function is chiral-odd and thus evolves as a non-singlet. An alternative choice could be to assume $$H_1^{\perp (1/2)}\Bigr|_{Q_0^2} =
H_1^{\perp (1/2)}\Bigr|_{Q^2}
\label{e:collinsnoevolve}$$ i.e., that $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ does not evolve with the energy scale. This is an extreme hypothesis, which cannot be true because at some point the positivity bound would be violated at large $z$. We demonstrate this in Fig. \[collpion\] (b) where we show how the ratio $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ behaves at at three different energy scales if only $D_1$ is evolved (we use the unpolarized fragmentation function of Ref. [@Kretzer:2000yf] for this purpose). Clearly, in this case the ratio grows more steeply with $z$ at higher energies, due to the decreasing of $D_1$ in the large-$z$ region. While the evolution of the T-odd parton distribution and fragmentation functions remain an outstanding issue, these results show that different assumptions on the Collins function scale dependence have a significant impact and should be considered with care.
For the fragmentation $u \to K^+$, the same analytic formulas are used but with the other set of parameter values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$u \to K^+$ $u \to K^+$
![\[colluK\]Half moment of the Collins function for $u \to K^+$ in our model. (a) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ at the model scale of 0.4 GeV$^2$, (b) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ at the model scale (solid line) and at two other scales (dashed and dot-dashed lines) under the assumption in Eq. .](half_uK+ "fig:"){height="5.1cm"} ![\[colluK\]Half moment of the Collins function for $u \to K^+$ in our model. (a) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ at the model scale of 0.4 GeV$^2$, (b) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ at the model scale (solid line) and at two other scales (dashed and dot-dashed lines) under the assumption in Eq. .](ratio_uK+ "fig:"){height="5cm"}
(a) (b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\bar{s} \to K^+$ $\bar{s} \to K^+$
![\[collsbarK\]Half moment of the Collins function for $\bar{s} \to K^+$ in our model. (a) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ at the model scale of 0.4 GeV$^2$, (b) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ at the model scale (solid line) and at two other scales (dashed and dot-dashed lines) under the assumption in Eq. .](half_sbK+ "fig:"){height="5.1cm"} ![\[collsbarK\]Half moment of the Collins function for $\bar{s} \to K^+$ in our model. (a) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$ at the model scale of 0.4 GeV$^2$, (b) $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ at the model scale (solid line) and at two other scales (dashed and dot-dashed lines) under the assumption in Eq. .](ratio_sbK+ "fig:"){height="5cm"}
(a) (b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asymmetries in $e^+e^-$ annihilation
====================================
The BELLE collaboration has reported measurements of various asymmetries in $e^+ + e^- \rightarrow \pi^\pm + \pi^\pm +X$ that can isolate the Collins functions [@Abe:2005zx]. In particular, the number of pions in this case has an azimuthal dependence [@Boer:1998qn] $$\begin{split}
N_{h_1 h_2}(z_1,z_2)\propto \sum_{q}{e_q}^2 \;\Bigg(&
D_{1 (q \to h_1)}(z_1)D_{1 (\bar q \to h_2)}(z_2) \\
&+ \frac{\sin^2\theta}{1+\cos^2\theta}\;\cos(\phi_1+\phi_2)\;
H_{1 (q \to h_1)}^{\perp(1/2)}(z_1)\overline H_{1 (\bar q \to
h_2)}^{\perp(1/2)}(z_2)
\Bigg),
\label{a12}
\end{split}$$ where $\phi_{1,2}$ are the azimuthal angles of the two pions relative to their jet axes (or thrust direction) and the 2 jet production plane. Normalizing this distribution and extracting the azimuthal asymmetry gives a measure of the product of moments of Collins functions. BELLE noted that there are QCD radiative corrections that compete with the leading twist effects. To cancel out those corrections they take the ratio of the asymmetry for unlike sign events ($\pi^+ \pi^-$) to the asymmetry for like sign events. This super ratio has the form [@Anselmino:2007fs] $$A_{12}(z_1,z_2)=\frac{\langle \sin^2\theta \rangle}
{\langle 1+\cos^2\theta \rangle}\,(P_U-P_L )\,,
\label{A12}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P_U&= \frac{\sum_q e^2_q \; \Bigl(H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(q \to \pi^+)}(z_1)\,
H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(\bar q \to\pi^-)}(z_2) + H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(q
\to\pi^-)}(z_1)\, H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(\bar q \to\pi^+)}(z_2)\Bigr)}
{\sum_q e^2_q \;\Bigl(D_{1\,(q \to \pi^+)}(z_1)\, D_{1\,(\bar q
\to\pi^-)}(z_2) + D_{1\,(q \to\pi^-)}(z_1)\, D_{1\,(\bar q
\to\pi^+)}(z_2)\Bigr)} \,,
\\
P_L&= \frac{\sum_q e^2_q \; \Bigl(H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(q \to \pi^+)}(z_1)\,
H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(\bar q \to\pi^+)}(z_2) + H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(q
\to\pi^-)}(z_1)\, H^{\perp (1/2)}_{1\,(\bar q \to\pi^-)}(z_2)\Bigr)}
{\sum_q e^2_q \;\Bigl(D_{1\,(q \to \pi^+)}(z_1)\, D_{1\,(\bar q
\to\pi^+)}(z_2) + D_{1\,(q \to\pi^-)}(z_1)\, D_{1\,(\bar q
\to\pi^-)}(z_2)\Bigr)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that Eq. is a linear approximation for $P_L<<1$. For numerical studies, we take the unpolarized fragmentation functions from Ref. [@Kretzer:2000yf] (NLO set) at the scale of the BELLE measurements, i.e., $Q^2=(10.52)^2$ GeV$^2$. We take also $\langle \sin^2\theta \rangle /
\langle 1+\cos^2\theta \rangle \approx 0.79$.
For the calculation of the asymmetry we have to make some assumptions on the unfavored Collins fragmentation functions. In order to have a guiding principle for our assumptions, we consider the Schäfer–Teryaev sum rule [@Schafer:1999kn], which states that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_h \int_0^1 {d}z H_{1 (q\to h)}^{\perp (1)}(z) &= 0 & \text{with} &&
H_1^{\perp (1)} (z) &= \pi z^2 \int_0^\infty dk_T^2\, \frac{\bm{k}_T^2}{2
M_h^2}\, H_1^\perp (z, k_T^2).\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the sum rule holds in a strong sense, i.e., for pions and kaons separately and at the integrand level, for each value of $z$ and $k_T$. For pions, it follows that $$H_{1 (u \to \pi^-)}^{\perp (1/2)} = - H_{1 (u \to \pi^+)}^{\perp (1/2)}.$$ The other $\bar{u}$, $d$, $\bar{d}$, unfavored Collins functions are related to the above by isospin and charge symmetries, Eq. . Our strong interpretation of the Schäfer–Teryaev sum rule together with Eq. (with $D_1$ replaced by $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}$) implies $$H_{1 (s \to \pi^-)}^{\perp (1/2)} = - H_{1 (s \to \pi^+)}^{\perp (1/2)} =0.$$
For kaons, the same considerations lead to the following assumptions $$\begin{aligned}
H_{1 (u \to K^-)}^{\perp (1/2)} &= - H_{1 (u \to K^+)}^{\perp (1/2)},
\\
H_{1 (\bar{s} \to K^-)}^{\perp (1/2)} &= - H_{1 (\bar{s} \to K^+)}^{\perp
(1/2)},
\\
H_{1 (d \to K^-)}^{\perp (1/2)} &= - H_{1 (d \to K^+)}^{\perp (1/2)} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
![Azimuthal asymmetry $A_{12}(z_1,z_2)$ for the production of two pions as a function of $z_2$ and integrated in bins of $z_1$ at $Q^2=110.7~\text{GeV}^2$. Dashed lines are obtained assuming Eq. , solid lines assuming Eq. . Note that the last $z_1$ bin in our calculation is narrower than in the corresponding experimental measurement.[]{data-label="A12_p"}](A12_p){height="9cm"}
In Fig. \[A12\_p\] we show the values of the pion azimuthal asymmetry for four different ranges of $z_1$, as a function of $z_2$. The dashed curves and solid curves are obtained respectively under the assumptions in Eq. and Eq. , respectively. The upper curves exceed the data for the higher $z_2$ values, which either reflects the need for corrections to the linear approximation in Eq. , or more likely that assuming no evolution for the Collins function may be too severe an approximation.
We calculated the corresponding $K K$ asymmetry, Fig. \[A12\_k\], and obtained even larger values, suggesting that there will be more dramatic effects in this accessible channel.
![Azimuthal asymmetry $A_{12}(z_1,z_2)$ for the production of two kaons as a function of $z_2$ and integrated in bins of $z_1$ at $Q^2=110.7~\text{GeV}^2$. Dashed lines are obtained assuming Eq. , solid lines assuming Eq. . []{data-label="A12_k"}](A12_k){height="9cm"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we performed a new calculation of the Collins fragmentation function for $u \to \pi^+$, along the lines of Refs. [@Bacchetta:2003xn; @Amrath:2005gv] but with some important differences: (i) we assumed the mass of the spectator is different from the mass of the fragmenting quark, (ii) we introduced a form factor at the hadron-quark vertex, (iii) we fitted the values of the model parameters to reproduce the unpolarized fragmentation function $D_1$ at a scale $Q_0^2 =
0.4$ GeV$^2$. We compared the results of our model calculation to the available parametrizations of the Collins function [@Efremov:2006qm; @Anselmino:2007fs] extracted from $e^+ e^-$ annihilation and SIDIS data and found a reasonable agreement. We stressed the importance of critically considering different assumptions on the evolution of the Collins function with the energy scale.
For the first time we presented an estimate of the Collins function for $u \to K^+$ and $\bar{s} \to K^+$. In particular, we found that the ratio $H_1^{\perp (1/2)}/D_1$ for $u \to K^+$ is almost identical to that for $u \to
\pi^+$, while the ratio for $\bar{s} \to K^+$ is about twice as big.
Using the results of our model, we presented estimates for pion and kaon Collins asymmetries in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation at the BELLE experiment. In order to calculate the unfavored Collins functions we adopted the “strong interpretation” of the Schäfer–Teryaev sum-rule [@Schafer:1999kn]. Our results are in qualitative agreement with the available BELLE data on the pions, but large uncertainties arise from making different assumptions on the evolution of the Collins function as well as from determining the unfavored Collins fragmentation function. For the kaons, we predict the asymmetries to be larger than the pions.
The work of L. G and G.R.G. are supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contracts DE-FG02-07ER41460 and DE-FG02-92ER40702 respectively. A.M. wishes to thank the hospitality of the DESY Theory Group, where part of the present work was carried out.
[^1]: The factor $1/2$ is due to a slightly different definition of the correlator in Eq. with respect to Ref. [@Amrath:2005gv]
[^2]: The expression $I_{34g}$ used here corresponds to Eq. (24) in Ref. [@Amrath:2005gv] multiplied by $k^-$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'M. Orienti'
- 'D. Dallacasa'
- 'C. Stanghellini'
date: 'Received ; accepted ?'
subtitle: Evidence of the influence of the ambient medium
title: 'Constraining the spectral age of very asymmetric CSOs:'
---
[We constrain the spectral ages for two very asymmetric Compact Symmetric Objects (CSO) from the B3-VLA-CSS sample, and we investigate the role of the ambient medium potentially able to influence the individual source evolution.]{} [ Multi-frequency VLBA observations have been carried out to study the distribution of the break frequency of the spectra across different regions of each source.]{} [ From the analysis of synchrotron spectra and assuming an equipartition magnetic field, we find radiative ages of about 2$\times$10$^{3}$ and 10$^{4}$ years for B0147+400 and B0840+424, respectively. The derived individual hot-spot advance speed is in the range between 0.03c and 0.3c, in agreement with kinematic studies carried out on other CSOs. The very asymmetric morphology found in both sources is likely related to an inhomogeneous ambient medium in which the sources are growing, rather than to different intrinsic hot-spot pressures on the two sides.]{}
Introduction
============
Powerful and intrinsically compact ($\leq$ 1”) radio sources with convex radio spectra peaking between 100 MHz and a few GHz represent a significant fraction ($\sim$ 15%) of the objects in flux density-limited radio source catalogues. When imaged with parsec-scale resolution, they often display a symmetric radio structure dominated by hot-spots and mini-lobes, namely a scaled-down version (from 0.1 to a few kpc) of powerful, edge-brightened radio galaxies known as classical doubles. These radio sources, termed “Compact Symmetric Objects” (CSOs) by Wilkinson et al. ([@wil94]), are currently considered the early stages of the large radio sources (Fanti et al. [@cf95]; Readhead et al. [@rh96]; Snellen et al. [@sn00]).\
Two independent pieces of evidence strongly support the [*youth scenario*]{}: the kinematic study of hot-spot separation velocities (e.g. Polatidis & Conway [@pc03]; Gugliucci et al. [@gu05]), and the measure of radiative age from the analysis of the source spectrum (Murgia [@mm03]; Murgia et al. [@mm99]); both find ages of about 10$^{3}$ – 10$^{5}$ years.\
On the other hand, the alternative model, the [*frustration scenario*]{} (Baum et al. [@baum90]; van Breugel et al. [@breu84]), which postulates that the radio source is trapped by an unusually dense gas, lacks any observational evidence, at least for the CSOs observed so far (see e.g. Fanti et al. [@cf00]; Siemiginowska et al. [@sa05]).\
Synchrotron spectral ageing is based on the determination of the spectral break, which occurs at progressively lower frequencies as time passes. Indeed, according to various source growth models (i.e. Kardashev [@karda62]; Pacholczyk [@pacho70]; Jaffe & Perola [@jp74]), relativistic electrons located in different source regions have been deposited at different times, and locally the electron age measures the time elapsed since their production and/or latest acceleration ($t_{\rm syn}$) when they crossed the hot-spot during its outward motion. The radiative age can be easily computed once the break frequency ($\nu_{\rm br}$) and the magnetic field ($B$) are known:\
$$t_{\rm syn} \propto B^{-3/2} \nu_{\rm br}^{-1/2}.
\label{equation1}$$ So far, most if not all the works on the measure of the source radiative age are based on the spectral break derived from the source-integrated spectra. One disadvantage of this approach is that the contributions of the various source components (core, jets, hot-spots and lobes), each one with its own spectral shape, are all mixed together. The brightest component is the one that influences the age determination the most; if we consider a source whose emission is dominated by the hot-spots where electrons are likely to be re-accelerated, the spectral ages derived can be completely unrelated to the source age.\
On the other hand, the radiative age of the back-flow tail in the lobes measures the time elapsed since the last acceleration of those particles, namely when the hot-spot crossed that location during its outward expansion. The best (i.e. oldest) measure of the radiative age then comes from the innermost edges of the lobes, where the electrons were deposited at the very beginning.\
Multi-frequency NRAO VLBA images can be very effective in constraining the source age in small radio sources whose radio emission contains a substantial contribution from the mini-lobes. Using multi-frequency images with pc-scale resolution it is possible to study the spectral ageing in intrinsically very small radio galaxies: it is important to distinguish regions in which electrons are injected/accelerated (i.e. core and hot-spots) from those in which electrons age, like in the back-flow tails of the mini radio lobes.\
This paper reports the results of new multi-frequency L (1.4-1.6 GHz), C (4.5-4.9 GHz) and X (8.1-8.5 GHz) bands) VLBA observations of two CSOs from the B3-VLA-CSS sample (Fanti et al. [@cf01]): B0147+400 and B0840+424. For both sources the core has been clearly detected.
Throughout this paper, we assume H$_{0}$= 71 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm M}$ = 0.27 and $\Omega_{\rm \lambda}$ = 0.73, in a flat Universe.\
----------- ------- ------------ ---------- --------------- --------------- ------ ------ --------- ----------
Source $\nu$ Obs. date Missing $u_{\it min}$ $u_{\it max}$ Beam Noise
B1950 GHz antennas M$\lambda$ M$\lambda$ mas mas $\circ$ mJy/beam
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
B0147+400 1.407 09/06/2004 0.16 41 9.3 5.3 -3 0.21
1.643 0.18 50 8.3 4.7 -4 0.38
4.543 0.49 110 2.9 1.7 -7 0.11
4.893 0.50 140 2.7 1.6 -5 0.10
8.115 0.99 230 1.7 1.0 5 0.08
8.493 1.05 250 1.6 0.9 5 0.07
B0840+424 1.407 11/24/2004 HN 0.15 40 12.0 7.5 -2 0.19
1.643 HN 0.18 46 10.5 6.9 0 0.17
4.543 SC 0.48 110 3.5 1.9 -20 0.15
4.893 SC 0.50 125 3.4 1.8 -20 0.14
8.115 SC 0.83 210 2.0 1.6 -23 0.16
8.493 SC 0.88 230 2.0 1.5 -18 0.12
----------- ------- ------------ ---------- --------------- --------------- ------ ------ --------- ----------
Observations and data reduction
===============================
Pc-scale resolution observations were carried out in two different runs using the VLBA plus a single VLA antenna, on September 6th (B0147+400) and November 24th 2004 (B0840+424), in full polarization mode with a recording band-width of 16 MHz at 128 Mbps, for a total of 18 hours. Each source was observed for about 100, 150 and 210 minutes in L, C and X bands respectively, spread into short scans at various hour angles to improve the [*uv*]{} coverage. In order to achieve a wider frequency coverage, in each observing band we observed with two 8-MHz sub-bands widely spaced in frequency, obtaining 6 independent images, which improve the ability to constrain the spectral models. Details on the observations are summarized in Table [\[taboss\]]{}.\
The correlation was performed at the VLBA correlator in Socorro, and data reduction was carried out with the NRAO AIPS package. After the application of system temperature and antenna gain information, the amplitudes were checked using the data on DA193 (J0555+398) which is unresolved on a large subset of baselines at all frequencies, and whose flux density is monitored at the VLA in C and X bands.\
In both observations the sources DA193 and J0927+3902 were both used to generate the bandpass correction.\
The error on the absolute flux density scale can be estimated within 3 - 5% on the basis of the fluctuations of the amplitude gain solutions.\
In C and X bands the instrumental polarization was removed by using the AIPS task PCAL; the absolute orientation of the electric vector of DA193 and J0927+3902 was compared with the VLA/VLBA polarization calibration database to derive the corrections. The values derived from the two sources were in excellent agreement ($\leq$ 2$^{\circ}$). The calibration of the instrumental polarization was not performed for the L band data.\
The images at each individual frequency were obtained after a number of phase-only self-calibration iterations. Information on the full resolution Stokes I images is given in Table \[taboss\]. Stokes U and Q images were produced from the final dataset.
As last step, we produced images at 1.6, 4.5, 4.9, 8.1 and 8.5 GHz, using natural grid weighting and the same [*uv-range*]{} common to all the observing frequencies for each source (1.05 - 41 M$\lambda$ and 0.88 - 40 M$\lambda$ for B0147+400 and B0840+424 respectively), in order to have almost the same [*uv*]{} and image sampling, as well as restoring beam, as for the 1.4 GHz data.\
For each source, these [*low-resolution*]{} images were combined to produce a multi-frequency data cube, which was then analyzed by the synage++ software (Murgia [@mmphd]) for subsequent spectral studies. Image registration was checked by comparing the location of optically thin bright features. In this paper, we do not show the [*full-resolution*]{} images since they do not add any new information to those presented by Dallacasa et al. ([@dd02]) and Orienti et al. ([@mo04]).\
Multi-frequency spectral analysis
=================================
Spectral index imaging is quite a hard task for VLBI experiments, since it is difficult to obtain well matched [*uv-*]{}coverages at the various observing frequencies. In particular there is a lack of short spacings at high frequencies.\
In our VLBA observations, the key addition of a single VLA antenna makes the differences in the sampling density at short spacing less effective, allowing us to produce high-resolution spectral index images. Furthermore, the availability of 6 independent frequencies allows us to determine the source age by fitting the spectra in each pixel, with a good confidence level.\
The multi-frequency high-resolution images provided by VLBA allow the determination of the nature of the source components (core, jets, lobes and hot-spots) and therefore, allow us to choose the best model to fit the observed spectral shapes. Indeed, although the radiative losses always imply a high-frequency steepening, the local spectral shape is strongly related to the evolution of the emission from an electron population and by the possible presence of injection of fresh relativistic electrons. For example, in the hot-spots, we expect that the observed spectra are well fitted by models predicting a continuous injection of fresh particles, while lobes and extended features will be better fitted by single-injection models (i.e. JP, Jaffe & Perola [@jp74]; KP, Kardashev [@karda62]; Pacholczyk [@pacho70]) where the radiative losses play an important role in modifying the initial spectral shape.\
A previous work on the spectral ageing in two CSOs (Murgia [@mm03]) has shown that the break frequency decreases if we move from regions near the hot-spot toward those located at the inner edges of the lobe, in the core direction. This is consistent with the dynamical scenario in which the electrons deposited at the centre of the source are older than those found closer to the hot-spot, which is what is expected if the source is expanding with time and the principal site of particle acceleration is the hot-spot.\
Therefore, to obtain a measure of the source age, it is possible to investigate how the break frequency changes across the lobes, where electrons age without any further substantial acceleration and, locally, without any new supply of fresh particles.\
Multi-frequency images of CSOs: constraining the age from the spectra
=====================================================================
As mentioned in Section 3, the pc-scale resolution achieved by the VLBA enables us to study extremely compact source components, found to be unresolved with other radio telescopes. We perform a detailed spectral ageing study of the CSO sources B0147+400 and B0840+424 from the B3-VLA-CSS sample (Fanti et al. [@cf01]). Both radio sources are characterized by a weak core and two very asymmetric, both in arm-length ratio and brightness, well-resolved mini-lobes. In B0147+400 the two mini-lobes lie roughly in the East-West direction, and are connected by an extended, steep-spectrum ($\alpha$ $>$ 2) bridge visible in the L band only, while in B0840+424 the mini-lobes are deployed roughly in the North-South direction.\
In the standard source model, the brightest component is also the farthest from the core, since the differences in brightness and arm-length ratio are due to beaming effects and path delay. In radio galaxies where the radio axis is oriented at large angles to the line of sight, such asymmetries are expected to be quite small. On the contrary, in the two sources in this paper, the brightest lobe is the one closest to the core, while the faintest one is much further away, suggesting a strong influence exerted by the ambient medium, which can be quite complex and inhomogeneous on such small scales. For a more detailed description of the morphologies and the physical parameters of both sources, see Orienti et al. ([@mo04]) and Dallacasa et al. ([@dd02]).\
The hot-spots
-------------
The radio source B0147+400 displays two rather compact features that can be interpreted as hot-spots (labeled C in Fig. \[synage\]), located $\sim$ 9 mas South-East and $\sim$ 55 mas North-West of the core, with a flux density ratio of S$_{SE}$/S$_{NW}$ $\sim$ 2.1 and 5.2 at C and X bands (Orienti et al. [@mo04]).\
The brightest hot-spot (labeled SH in Fig. \[synage\]) is embedded in the SE component and, with its flux density (208, 158 and 121 mJy at L, C and X band respectively, Dallacasa et al. [@dd02]; Orienti et al. [@mo04]), dominates the radio emission ($\sim$ 68%) in C and X bands. It is best fitted by a power-law with an [*injection*]{} spectral index of $\alpha_{\rm
inj}$ $\sim$ 0.40. This implies that there is a continuous supply and re-acceleration of fresh relativistic electrons, in agreement with what is predicted by the source growth models.\
On the other hand, the faint hot-spot embedded in the NW component (labeled NH) is well fitted by a higher injection spectral index of $\alpha_{\rm inj}$ $\sim$ 0.65.\
In the source B0840+424 the Northern and Southern components are $\sim$15 and $\sim$100 mas apart from the core (labeled C in Fig. \[synage\]), with a flux density ratio of S$_{N}$/S$_{S}$ $\sim$ 6.0 and 7.1 at C and X bands (Orienti et al. [@mo04]).\
The brightest hot-spot (labeled NH) is located at the centre of the Northern component. The hot-spot can only be fitted by a single-injection model, with an $\alpha_{\rm inj}$ of $\sim$ 0.40, similarly to what is found in the bright hot-spot of B0147+400. However, this can be easily explained by considering a strong contamination by the lobe emission. The hot-spot embedded in the Southern component (labeled SH) is not bright and well-defined as in the Northern lobe, and it displays a higher injection spectral index of $\alpha_{\rm inj}$ $\sim$ 0.50.\
In both sources, the faintest hot-spots have $\alpha_{\rm inj}$ steeper than what is found by Orienti et al. ([@mo04]). However, that work, based on 3 independent frequencies only, provided good fits for a range of injection spectral indices. The availability of 6 independent spectral points in this study allows us to set stronger constraints on the fits and their parameters.\
The lobes
---------
The lobes represent the ideal loci where the radiative age can be computed with a high degree of accuracy. To estimate the source age, we determine the variation of the break frequency across different regions of the extended components, such as the lobes. To improve the reliability of the analysis, we consider only those regions with a good signal-to-noise ratio at all frequencies. Indeed, at high frequencies (i.e. X band), low surface brightness regions are almost completely resolved out, causing the fits to fail.\
Since the electrons in the lobes have likely received the last acceleration in the corresponding hot-spot, we fit their spectra with a single-injection model with the $\alpha_{\rm inj}$ derived for the hot-spot.\
We try to fit the spectra with both the JP and KP models. The JP model assumes that the [*pitch angle $\theta_{p}$*]{} between the electron velocity and the magnetic field direction is continuously re-isotropized, making the electrons age in the same way. In the KP model, the [*pitch angles*]{} of the electrons populations are constant, making electron populations with different $\theta_{p}$ age in different ways.\
Although both models provide similar fits to our spectra, the fits with the JP model have smaller reduced $\chi^{2}$ than the KP.\
In B0147+400, we studied the break frequency across the Northern lobe (labeled NL). Using the injection spectral index of $\alpha_{\rm inj}
= 0.65$ as derived for the northern hot-spot, we find a minimum break frequency $\nu_{\rm br}$ = 14 GHz.\
In the case of B0840+424, we fitted the spectra across the Southern lobe (labeled SL) with a JP model with $\alpha_{\rm inj}$ of 0.50, obtaining the lowest break frequency of 7.4 GHz.\
For both sources, we have considered different regions across the lobe, and the final choice was made on the best compromise between the largest distance from the hot-spot and the need for significant emission at the highest frequencies.
The cores
---------
In both B0147+400 and B0840+400 the core, labeled C in Fig. \[synage\], has been definitely identified by means of the inverted spectrum displayed ($\alpha$ $\sim$ -0.5 and -0.03 for B0147+400 and B0840+424, respectively; Orienti et al. [@mo04]).\
These compact components are better visible in the full resolution images at the highest observing frequency. Indeed, in the X band they account for almost 10% of the total flux density of the whole source.\
Neither core shows any significant flux density variability in the X band in our data.\
----------- -------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------- ------------------ ---------------
Source z LLS B$_{eq}$ t$_{\rm syn}$ LS Dist$_{\rm v$_{fhs}$ Age Dist$_{\rm bhs}$ v$_{bhs}$
fhs}$
pc mG 10$^{3}$yr pc pc c 10$^{3}$yr pc c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
B0147+400 0.20 210 3.0 2.6 64 188 0.08 7.5 29 0.01
0.35 316 3.0 2.6 97 258 0.13 7.5 44 0.02
0.40 344 3.0 2.6 106 307 0.13 7.5 48 0.02
0.60 429 3.3 2.2 132 383 0.19 6.5 60 0.03
0.80 488 3.6 2.0 149 432 0.25 5.6 67 0.04
1.00 518 4.0 1.7 159 462 0.31 4.8 72 0.05
B0840+424 0.20 362 1.2 14.0 64 301 0.015 70.0 49 0.002
[**0.35**]{} [**544**]{} [**1.6**]{} [**9.4**]{} [**97**]{} [**452**]{} [ **0.034**]{} [**44.0**]{} [**73**]{} [**0.005**]{}
0.40 592 1.6 9.1 106 492 0.038 42.0 79 0.006
0.60 740 1.7 8.3 132 614 0.052 38.0 100 0.009
0.80 834 1.9 7.0 149 692 0.069 32.5 112 0.011
1.00 892 2.1 6.0 159 740 0.086 28.0 120 0.014
----------- -------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------- ------------------ ---------------
Radiative ages and the nature of CSOs sources
---------------------------------------------
From equation \[equation1\], it is clear that the synchrotron age is strictly related to the break frequency $\nu_{\rm br}$, which can be derived from the fits to the observed radio spectrum, and the magnetic field. Direct measurements of the magnetic field are very difficult, often impossible to carry out. Ideally, it can be measured from the turnover frequency and component sizes, if both are known, but the uncertainties remain quite large. Alternatively, we can measure it by comparing synchrotron and inverse Compton losses, but X-ray observations of small and young radio sources have not provided strong constraints so far.\
In this paper, the magnetic field of the source components has been computed assuming minimum energy and equipartition conditions, and using standard formulae (Pacholczyk [@pacho70]). Furthermore, proton and electron energies have been assumed to be equal, with a filling factor of unity (i.e. the source volume is fully and homogeneously filled by relativistic plasma); an ellipsoidal geometry and an average optically thin spectral index of 0.7 have been adopted. The observational parameters involved, such as the flux density and the projected linear size of the source components, are from Orienti et al. ([@mo04]).\
We also point out that the magnetic field of CSS sources is of a few orders of magnitude higher than that ’equivalent’ to the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation photons. Inverse Compton losses are, therefore, neglected, the synchrotron being the main cooling mechanism.\
Furthermore, even adiabatic losses are negligible, since the energy spent due to the adiabatic expansion is three orders of magnitude smaller than the synchrotron emission.\
Unfortunately, both sources lack spectroscopic redshifts. The source B0147+400 has no optical identification, while B0840+400 can be identified with a galaxy in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). With the magnitudes provided by the SDSS for the source B0840+424, we made use of the HyperZ code (Bolzonella et al. [@mb00]) to infer the photometric redshift. We obtained a photometric redshift of 0.35, with a probability of 83%.\
Since most of the intrinsic physical parameters, such as the magnetic field (B$_{eq}$) and the linear size (LS), critically depend on the redshift, for each source we provide a set of values considering a few cases in which z is in the range of 0.2 - 1.0 (Table \[age\]). The radiative ages found in this way are in the range of 10$^{3}$ - 10$^{4}$ years. However, as previously mentioned, this should not be considered as the source age. Models of source evolution predict that relativistic electrons are deposited in the region of last acceleration, where they age, while the hot-spot continues through the interstellar medium. Therefore, the electrons considered for the previous computation have no memory of the original injection by the core, since they have already been re-accelerated by the hot-spot. The radiative ages derived give us an indication of the time elapsed since the last acceleration in the hot-spot.\
Measuring the distance between the region considered for the radiative age and the hot-spot, we can estimate the hot-spot advance speed. In both sources, the hot-spot has covered a distance of $\sim$ 20 mas from the region where we could measure the radiative age, which implies a range of [*mean*]{} hot-spot velocities of 0.08c to 0.31c for B0147+400 and between 0.038c and 0.086c for B0840+424, depending on the source redshift (Table \[age\]). Since we know the distance between the hot-spot and the core component, and assuming a mean hot-spot velocity over the whole lifetime of the source (Polatidis & Conway [@pc03]), we can constrain the true source age. In the case of B0147+400, the core-hot-spot separation is 53 mas, which leads to a source age in the range of 4.8$\times$ 10$^{3}$ and 7.5$\times$ 10$^{3}$. For the source B0840+424, the distance between the core and the hot-spot is larger (97 mas), and we derive ages between 2.8$\times$ 10$^{4}$ and 7.0$\times$ 10$^{4}$ years, (4.4$\times$ 10$^{4}$ years, considering the photometric redshift of 0.35).\
We can also estimate the mean advance speed of the brightest hot-spot, dividing its distance from the core by the source age. We obtain velocities ranging from 0.01c to 0.05c and 0.002c and 0.014c for the brightest hot-spots of B0147+400 and B0840+424 respectively (Table \[age\]). With such velocities, it is not possible to detect any hot-spot advance over a short period of time. We compared the data at the two epochs available, observed about three years apart, by means of the MODELFIT and the JMFIT, but we did not find any significant variation in the position of the most compact source components. The accuracy in the determination of the component position is in agreement with the above results.
Linearly Polarized Emission
---------------------------
Images in the U and Q Stokes’ parameters have been derived for both the target sources, as well as for the calibration objects in C and X bands. Calibration sources proved to have integrated VLBA polarized emission in agreement with VLA measurement carried out at a very near epoch, as available from the VLA/VLBA polarization calibration database.\
No significant ($\geq$ 3$\sigma$ noise level) polarized emission was detected for the target sources in C and X bands, consistent with previous VLA observations (Fanti et al. [@cf01]) at the same frequencies, where both sources appear unresolved and unpolarized at a resolution of $\sim$ 0”.4.\
Polarization images are not shown.\
The local upper limits we could infer are of 0.03% and 0.14% for the Southern and Northern components of B0147+400 respectively, and of 0.01% and 0.08% for the Northern and Southern components of B0840+424.\
Our results are in good agreement with those found by Fanti et al. ([@cf04]). In fact, although we do not know the redshift of both sources, we can estimate their projected linear sizes $\leq$ 520 and 900 pc for B0147+400 and B0840+424, respectively (Table \[age\]). Following the work of Fanti et al. ([@cf04]), both sources fall in the interval of unpolarized CSS sources even in the X band, suggesting that the source size is not large enough to lead the radio emission to emerge out of the “Faraday screen”.\
----------- ----------- --------------- -------------------- -------------- ----------------------
Source Component S$_{\rm 8.4}$ $\theta_{\rm maj}$ $\theta_{\rm p$_{\rm min}$
min}$
mJy mas mas dyne/cm$^{2}$
B0147+400 HS 119 3 2 3.4$\times$10$^{-6}$
HN 22 9 6 4.9$\times$10$^{-7}$
B0840+424 HN 249 8 3 2.1$\times$10$^{-6}$
HS 26 13 8 1.4$\times$10$^{-7}$
----------- ----------- --------------- -------------------- -------------- ----------------------
: The hot-spot pressure. Column 1: the source name; Column 2: the source component; Column 4: VLBA flux density at 8.4 GHz; Columns 5, 6: deconvolved angular size of the major and minor axis of the source component; Column 7: the minimum pressure, computed assuming the minimum energy condition, and an indicative redshift of 0.35.[]{data-label="pressure"}
Discussion
==========
From the analysis of the synchrotron spectra in two CSOs, we estimate radiative ages of about 5$\times$10$^{3}$ and 5$\times$10$^{4}$ years, in good agreement with kinematic and radiative studies carried out on the same class of objects (Polatidis & Conway [@pc03]; Murgia et al. [@mm99]). Our measurements are not aimed to find the “accurate” source age (which may be revised as new measurements are added), but rather to determine whether the target sources are to be considered [*young*]{} radio galaxies.\
The approach used to infer the source age, described in Section 4.3, is based on the strong assumption that the hot-spot velocity derived is truly representative of the [*mean individual hot-spot advance speed*]{}. However, there are several mechanisms that would cause the [*instantaneous*]{} hot-spot speed to vary, such as hydrodynamically introduced internal pressure changes (Norman [@norman96]), as well as an inhomogeneous external medium.\
The large asymmetries both in arm-ratio and brightness shown by B0147+400 and B0840+424 strongly suggest that at least one of the two aforementioned possibilities applies. In Table \[pressure\], we report the hot-spot internal pressures computed assuming that the source components are in the minimum energy condition. Contrary to expectations, we find that in both sources the hot-spot with the highest pressure is the slowest one, suggesting that the asymmetric morphology is more likely due to an inhomogeneous clumpy ambient medium.\
Using simple one-dimensional ram-pressure arguments, the advance speed $v$ of the hot-spot is determined by the equilibrium between the internal pressure $p_{i}$ and the ram-pressure of the external medium:\
$$p_{i} \propto n_{ext} m_{p} v^{2}
\label{equation2}$$
where $n_{ext}$ is the particle density of the external medium and $m_{p}$ is the proton mass. We assume an external density profile of the King type, as suggested by X-ray observations of early-type galaxies (i.e. Trinchieri et al. [@tr86]). Since the total linear sizes of both sources are smaller than the core radius ($<$ 1 kpc), we can assume a roughly constant external gas density.\
If in equation \[equation2\] we consider the average hot-spot velocity (Table \[age\]) and the minimum pressure (Table \[pressure\]), computed at an indicative redshift of 0.35, for both sources we find that the brightest and closest hot-spot is likely digging its way through a quite dense medium ($n_{ext}$ $\sim$ 5.7 and 50.0 cm$^{-3}$, for B0147+400 and B0840+424 respectively), similar to what one can expect in a cloud, while the farthest component is likely moving through an intercloud medium ($n_{ext}$ $\sim$ 0.02 and 0.08 cm$^{-3}$, for B0147+400 and B0840+424 respectively) where the external density is about 3 orders of magnitude smaller.\
Such clouds, indicating the presence of a rich and clumpy interstellar medium interacting with a CSS/GPS radio source, have been found by means of high-resolution spectral studies of the neutral hydrogen (Morganti et al. [@rm04]; Labiano et al. [@al06]).\
In the GPS ULIRG galaxy 4C12.50, Morganti et al. ([@rm04]) detected a cloud with an mass of a few 10$^{5}$ to 10$^{6}$ M$_{\odot}$ and $\sim$ 20$\times$66 pc in size, corresponding to a density of $\sim$ 2$\times$10$^{3}$ cm$^{-3}$.\
Labiano et al. ([@al06]) studied the absorption in the two very asymmetric CSS sources 3C49 and 3C268.3, in which the brightest lobe is also the closest to the core, as in our targets.\
In both sources, absorption was detected in the brightest (and closest) lobe only. The absorber medium has been interpreted in terms of clouds which are in the environment of the GPS/CSS radio source, with densities of 220/$c_{f}$ cm$^{-3}$ (0.04$<$ $c_{f}$ $<$ 1, for 3C49) and 360/$c_{f}$ cm$^{-3}$ (0.025$<$ $c_{f}$ $<$ 1, for 3C268.3), where $c_{f}$ is the covering factor.\
These values are in good agreement with the characteristics of the ISM in the Narrow Line Region (NLR; Fanti et al. [@cf95]), in which the hot-spots of the aforementioned sources actually reside.\
Our results on B0147+400 and B0840+424 are consistent with a picture in which one side of the radio source is strongly interacting with a dense cloud, while the other is expanding through an intercloud medium. The interaction with the cloud causes the lobe to propagate more slowly, and favours radio emission by means of compression and shocks (Jeyakumar et al. [@jeya05]; Bicknell et al. [@gb03]), which increase the energy production efficiency. Furthermore, the clouds can also act as a Faraday screen, leading to the observed depolarization as found in both sources.\
The detection of such asymmetric CSOs may be favoured by a selection effect. The interaction with a dense ambient medium may enhance the radio emission, making these objects more detectable. This is in agreement with other studies based on the asymmetries of CSOs (Saikia et al. [@saikia03]), in which on such a small scale, the probability that the brightest component is also the closest one to the core is higher than in larger sources.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented the results of a new spectral analysis based on multi-frequency VLBA observations for two Compact Symmetric Objects from the B3-VLA-CSS sample (Fanti et al. [@cf01]). The radiative ages derived from the analysis of the break frequency are of about 5$\times$10$^{3}$ and 5$\times$10$^{4}$ years, supporting the hypothesis that these are young objects. The individual hot-spot advance velocities range from 0.03c to 0.3c for the farthest lobe, and from 0.005 to 0.05 for the closest one.\
The strong asymmetries in the arm ratio and brightness found in both sources are more likely due to a strong influence exerted by a clumpy and inhomogeneous medium, rather than a change in the hot-spot internal pressure. The brightest and closest component is partially and temporarily confined by a dense cloud which slows its propagation, while the other component is expanding through a more diluted ambient medium.\
From this result, we infer that the knowledge of the properties of the ambient medium surrounding the radio source is of fundamental importance in order to draw a complete and reliable picture of the individual source evolution.\
We like to thank the anonymous referee for carefully reading the manuscript and valuable suggestions. The VLBA is operated by the US National Radio Astronomy Observatory which is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This work has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database NED which is operated by the JPL, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Baum, S.A., O’Dea, C.P., de Bruyn, A.G., Murphy, D.W. 1990, A&A, 232, 19
Bicknell, G.v., Saxton, C.J., Sutherland, R.S. 2003, PASA, 20, 102
Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., Pelló, R. 2000, A&A, 363, 476
Dallacasa, D., Tinti, S., Fanti, C. et al. 2002, A&A, 389, 115
Fanti, C., Fanti, R., Dallacasa D., Schilizzi, R.T. et al. 1995, A&A, 302, 317
Fanti, C., Pozzi, F., Fanti, R. et al. 2000, A&A, 358, 499
Fanti, C., Pozzi, F., Dallacasa, D. et al. 2001, A&A, 369, 380
Fanti, C., Branchesi, M., Cotton, W.D. et al. 2004, A&A, 427, 465
Gugliucci, N.E., Taylor, G.B., Peck, A.B., Giroletti, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 136
Jaffe, W.J., Perola, G.C. 1974, A&A, 26, 463
Jeyakumar, S., Wiita, P.J., Saikia, D.J., Hooda, J.S. 2005, A&A, 432, 823
Kardashev, N.S. 1962, SvA, 6, 317
Labiano, A., Vermeulen, R.C., Barthel, C.P. et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 481
Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T.A., Tadhunter, C.N. et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 119
Murgia, M., Fanti, C., Fanti, R. et al. 1999, A&A, 345, 769
Murgia, M. 2000, PhD Thesis
Murgia, M. 2003, PASA, 20, 19
Norman, M. 1996, ASPC, 100, 405
Orienti, M., Dallacasa, D., Fanti, C. et al. 2004, A&A, 426, 463
Pacholkczyk, A.G. 1970, Radio Astrophysics (San Francisco: Freeman & Co.)
Polatidis, A.G., Conway, J.E. 2003, PASA, 20, 69
Readhead, A.C.S., Taylor, G.B., Xu, W. et al. 1996, ApJ, 460, 612
Saikia, D.J., Jeyakumar, S., Mantovani, F. et al. 2003, PASA, 20, 50
Siemiginowska, A., Cheung, C.C., LaMassa, S. et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 110
Snellen, I.A.G., Schilizzi, R.T., Miley, G.K. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 445
Trinchieri, G., Fabbiano, G., Canizares, C.R. 1986, AJ, 310, 637
van Breugel, W., Miley, G., Heckman, T. 1984, AJ, 89, 5
Wilkinson, P.N., Polatidis, A.G., Readhead, A.C.S. et al. 1994, ApJ, 432, 87
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The KVN+VERA array is a joint VLBI project of seven VLBI stations spread throughout Korea and Japan. Since the first fringe detection in 2008, the early phase observations of the KVN+VERA have been carried out every several months. Currently, two observing bands of 22 and 43 GHz are available. We are aiming for early realization of science observations with the 1-Gbps recording system from 2012.'
address:
- '$^1$Mizusawa VLBI Observatory, NAOJ, Oshu, Iwate 023-0861, Japan'
- '$^2$Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Daejeon 305-348, Korea'
author:
- 'S. Sawada-Satoh$^1$, VERA team$^1$ and KVN team$^2$'
title: Early Phase Observations of the KVN+VERA Joint Array
---
The KVN+VERA array
==================
VERA (VLBI Exploration of Radio Astrometry), led by NAOJ in cooperation with several Japanese universities, is a VLBI array to aim for obtaining 3-dimensional map of the Milky Way galaxy. It consists of four 20-m antennas located at Mizusawa, Iriki, Ogasawara and Ishigaki in Japan, to achieve baselines longer than 1000 km up to 2300 km.
KVN (Korean VLBI Network), promoted by KASI, is the first dedicated mm-wavelength VLBI array, which consists of three 21-m antennas located at Yonsei (Seoul), Ulsan and Tamna (Jeju island). The baseline length ranges between 300 and 500 km.
On the basis of the VLBI collaboration agreement between KASI and NAOJ, we have started the joint observation with the KVN+VERA array. The KVN+VERA array complements baseline length range up to 2300 km fully, and can achieve a good imaging quality. The early phase observations have been carried out using the K4/VSOP terminal at 128 Mbps sampling, alternatively. The experiments history for the early phase test observations with the KVN+VERA array is listed in Table \[his\].
[llll]{} Date & Bands & Antennas & Notes\
2008 nov & 22 & KVN-Yonsei, VERA & The fringe detection test.\
2009 mar & 43 & KVN-Yonsei, VERA & The fringe detection test.\
2009 oct & 22, 43 & All of the KVN+VERA & The fringe detection test.\
2010 apr & 22, 43 & All of the KVN+VERA & The first imaging test.\
![\[label\] The location of the KVN and the VERA antennas. ](array.eps){width="75mm"}
Imaging ability
===============
Continuum source : 1928+738
---------------------------
The imaging test observations at 22 GHz toward a continuum radio source 1928+738 were carried out on 26 January 2011 with the KVN+VERA array. This source is known to exhibit an extended jet structure along the north-south direction [@hum92]. The KVN+VERA image succeeds to detect the extended jet structure toward south, although the VERA image at 22 GHz does not show the structure clearly. (Figure \[1928\]).
![\[1928\] Two VLBI images of 1928+738 obtained by (a) the KVN+VERA and (b) the VERA only. Achieved image rms level is (a) 2.67 mJy beam$^{-1}$ and (b) 5.34 mJy beam$^{-1}$, respectively. ](1928+738.eps){width="120mm"}
SiO maser v=2 in Orion KL
-------------------------
The Orion KL region contains strong SiO maser emissions, which have been imaged with VLBI techniques. Those images show that the 43 GHz SiO masers are distributed in four regions that make X shape [@gre98][@doe99][@kim08]. Distribution and velocity field of SiO $v$=2 maser spots in the image obtained by the KVN+VERA array are consistent with the image in 2008 with the VERA [@kim08]. The number of detected maser spots ($> 10 \sigma$) are around 250, and it is twice more than the VERA image in spite of shorter observation time.
KJJVC and observing modes
=========================
KASI and NAOJ have been developing compatible data acquisition system and a common correlator, KJJVC (Korea-Japan Joint VLBI Correlator). KJJVC is able to process 16 stations, at the maximum sampling rate of 8 Gbps/station. KJJVC can accept data from several different VLBI playback systems such as Mark 5b, VERA2000 and K-5, and correlate Gbps sampling data between the KVN Mark 5b and the VERA2000 backend terminals [@oh11]. Possible observational modes for the KVN+VERA array are shown in Table \[mode\].
[cccccc]{} Mode & IF Num. & Bandwidth & Bits & Max data rate & Compatible\
& & (MHz) & &(Mbps) & VERA modes\
1 & 1 & 256 & 2 & 1024 & –\
2 & 1,2 & 128 & 2 & 1024 & VERA1\
3 & 1,2,3,4 & 64 & 2 & 1024 & VERA2\
4 & 1,2,3,4 & 32 & 2 & 1024 & VERA4\
5 & 1,2,3,4 & 16 & 2 & 1024 & VERA7, VERA9\
& & & & & GEO1, GEO2\
6 & 1,2,3,4 & 8 & 2 & 512 & GEO3, GEO4\
7 & 1,2,3 & 64/128 & 2 & 1024 & VERA3\
8 & 1,2,3,4 & 32/64/128 & 2 & 1024 & VERA5\
9 & 1,2,3,4 & 32/128 & 2 & 1024 & VERA6\
10 & 1,2,3,4 & 16/32/128 & 2 & 1024 & VERA8\
Current and future works
========================
The KVN+VERA array adopts a priori amplitude calibration. Each KVN and VERA antenna has the chopper wheel of the hot load and the system noise temperature is obtained by R-Sky method. VERA antennas measure the sky power even during scans, which allow frequent system temperature measurements. The similar frequent measurement system will be installed to the KVN.
The elevation dependence of the aperture efficiency of the KVN and VERA antennas was measured by observing bright H$_2$O and SiO maser sources at 22 and 43GHz. For both of KVN and VERA, the aperture efficiencies are flat at elevation of $> 20^{\circ}$. The aperture efficiency in low elevation of $< 20^{\circ}$ decreases slightly, but this decrease is less than about $10\%$ [@vera11][@lee11].
Currently, several test observations have been scheduled for the KVN+VERA array. First, geodetic VLBI observation will be carried out to obtain accurate KVN antenna locations. After that, we have several plans for observations in multi-frequency mode. The KVN has introduced a simultaneous multifrequency receiver system that performs simultaneous observations at four frequencies of 22, 43, 86, and 129 GHz [@han08]. The system allows to calibrate the atmospheric fluctuations at 43, 86, or 129 GHz from the visibility phase at 22 GHz [@jun11]. Korea-Japan joint science WG has started to discuss about the early science observations with the KVN+VERA array, and the observations will be scheduled end of 2011.
We are grateful to all members of KVN and VERA for their support for the KVN+VERA observations.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[4]{} Hummel, C.A., Schalinski, C. J., Krichbaum, T. P., Rioja, M. J., et al. 1992 , 257,489 Greenhill, L. J., Gwinn, C. R., Schwartz, C., Moran, J. M. & Diamond, P. J. 1998, Nature, 396, 650 Doeleman, S. S., Lonsdale, C. J., & Pelkey, S. 1999, ApJ, 510, L55 Kim, M., Hirota, T., Honma, M., Kobayashi, H., et al. 2008 , 60, 991 Oh, S.-J., Roh, D.-G., Wajima, K., Kawaguchi, N., et al. 2011, , 63, 1229 VERA Status Report, 2011, http://veraserver.mtk.nao.ac.jp/restricted/CFP2011/status11.pdf Lee, S.-S., Byun, D.-Y., Oh, C.S., Han, S.-T., et al. 2011, , 123, 1398 Han, S.-T., Lee, J.-W., Kang, J., Je, D.-H., et al. 2008, International Journal of Infrared and Millimeter Waves, 29, 69 Jung, T., Sohn, B.W., Kobayashi, H., Sasao, T., et al. 2011, , 63, 375
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Eigenstate thermalization is widely accepted as the mechanism behind thermalization in generic isolated quantum systems. Using the example of a single magnetic defect embedded in the integrable spin-1/2 XXZ chain, we show that locally perturbing an integrable system can give rise to eigenstate thermalization. Unique to such setups is the fact that thermodynamic and transport properties of the unperturbed integrable chain emerge in properties of the eigenstates of the perturbed (nonintegrable) one. Specifically, we show that the diagonal matrix elements of observables in the perturbed eigenstates follow the microcanonical predictions for the integrable model, and that the ballistic character of spin transport in the integrable model is manifest in the behavior of the off-diagonal matrix elements of the current operator in the perturbed eigenstates.'
author:
- Marlon Brenes
- Tyler LeBlond
- John Goold
- Marcos Rigol
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Eigenstate Thermalization in a Locally Perturbed Integrable System
---
How do statistical ensembles and thermal behavior emerge from the fundamental unitary dynamics of isolated quantum systems? This question, first posed in the earliest days of quantum mechanics [@Schrodinger:1927; @Vonneumann:1929; @Goldstein:2010], is still at the forefront of modern research in quantum statistical mechanics [@Alessio:2016; @Eisert:2015; @Polkovnikov:2011]. The current interest in this foundational topic can be attributed to advances in ultra-cold atomic experiments where many-body systems can be time-propagated coherently over unprecedented time scales [@langen2015ultracold; @Bloch:2012; @Lewenstein:2007]. In particular, seminal experiments have demonstrated that integrability inhibits thermalization [@Kinoshita:2006], and that integrability breaking perturbations can be used to controllably bring a the system to thermal equilibrium [@tang_kao_18].
The latter experimental results are consistent with the expectation that generic isolated quantum systems thermalize to a microcanonical distribution consistent with their energy density. The accepted mechanism for this is eigenstate thermalization, as prescribed by the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) [@Deutsch:1991; @Srednicki:1994; @Srednicki:1999; @Rigol:2008; @Alessio:2016]. For an observable $\hat O$, the ETH for the matrix elements $O_{nm}=\langle n|\hat O|m\rangle$ in the energy eigenbasis ($\hat H|m\rangle=E_m|m\rangle$) reads $$\label{eq:eth}
O_{n m} = O(\bar{E}) \delta_{n m} + e^{-S(\bar{E}) / 2}f_{O}(\bar{E}, \omega)R_{n m},$$ where $\bar{E} {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}(E_{n} + E_{m}) / 2$ and $\omega {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}E_{m} - E_{n}$. $S(\bar{E})$ is the thermodynamic entropy at energy $\bar{E}$, $R_{n m}$ is a random variable with zero mean and unit variance, and $O(\bar{E})$ and $f_{O}(\bar{E}, \omega)$ are smooth functions. The first term in Eq. advances that the diagonal matrix elements of observables are smooth functions of the energy $E_n$ (the eigenstate to eigenstate fluctuations are exponentially small in the size of the system [@steinigeweg:2013; @Kim_Huse_14; @beugeling2014finite; @Mondaini:2016; @yoshizawa2018numerical; @Vidmar_Fabian_19; @Leblond:2019]). From the second term we see that the off-diagonal matrix elements are exponentially small in the system size (because of $e^{-S(\bar{E}) / 2}$) and that, up to random fluctuations, they are characterized by smooth functions $f_{O}(\bar{E}, \omega)$ [@Khatami:2013; @Moessner:2015; @Alessio:2016; @Mondaini:2017; @Vidmar_Fabian_19; @Leblond:2019]. Those functions carry important information on fluctuation dissipation relations [@Srednicki:1999; @Khatami:2013; @Alessio:2016], and even on the multipartite entanglement structure of the energy eigenstates [@Brenes2].
Integrable systems, which possess extensive sets of nontrivial conserved quantities, do not follow the ETH. The diagonal matrix elements of observables exhibit eigenstate to eigenstate fluctuations that do not vanish in the thermodynamic limit [@Rigol:2008; @rigol2009breakdown; @*rigol_offd_int1; @rigol_offd_int2; @steinigeweg:2013; @beugeling2014finite; @vidmar2016; @Leblond:2019], while their variance vanishes as a power law in the system size [@biroli2010effect; @ikeda2013finite; @alba2015; @Leblond:2019]. Because of this, in general, integrable systems do not thermalize [@rigol_16]. They do equilibrate and, after equilibration, they are described by generalized Gibbs ensembles (GGEs) [@rigol_dunjko_07; @vidmar2016; @essler_fagotti_review_16; @caux_review_review_16]. For the off-diagonal matrix elements of observables in interacting integrable systems, it was recently shown that their variance is a well defined (exponentially small in system size) function of the average energy and the energy difference of the eigenstates involved [@mallayya; @Leblond:2019], like in systems that satisfy the ETH.
Integrability is believed to be unstable to perturbations [@Alessio:2016]. Surprisingly, it has been shown that even a single magnetic impurity perturbation at the center of the integrable spin-1/2 XXZ chain is enough to induce level repulsion and random matrix statistics in the spectrum [@Santos:2004; @santos2011domain; @torres2014local; @Torres_Herrera_2015; @XotosIncoherentSIXXZ; @Metavitsiadis1; @Brenes:2018]. Recently, a careful study of both linear response and steady-state transport showed that this model displays ballistic transport [@Brenes:2018], challenging our expectation that quantum chaotic systems (those exhibiting random matrix statistics in the spectrum) should exhibit diffusive transport. In this letter we show that the matrix elements of observables in such a model are fully consistent with the ETH. Unique to breaking integrability with local perturbations, we argue that thermodynamic and transport properties of the unperturbed integrable model end up embedded in properties of the eigenstates of the perturbed (quantum chaotic) one.
The Hamiltonian of the spin-1/2 XXZ (in short, the XXZ) chain can be written as (we set $\hbar = 1$): $$\label{eq:h_xxz}
\hat{H}_{\textrm{XXZ}} = \sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\left(\hat{\sigma}^x_{i}\hat{\sigma}^x_{i+1} + \hat{\sigma}^y_{i}\hat{\sigma}^y_{i+1} + \Delta\,\hat{\sigma}^z_{i}\hat{\sigma}^z_{i+1}\right),$$ where $\hat{\sigma}^\nu_{i}$, $\nu = x,y,z$, correspond to Pauli matrices in the $\nu$ direction at site $i$ in a chain with $N$ (taken to be even) sites and open boundary conditions. In Eq. , $\Delta$ is the anisotropy parameter. We set $\Delta = 0.55$ to be in the easy-plane regime, in which spin transport is ballistic [@2020arXiv200303334B].
The XXZ chain is a quintessential interacting integrable model [@ShastryBethe1990; @Cazalilla:2011]. We study properties of its eigenstates along with properties of eigenstates of the nonintegrable model obtained by perturbing it with a magnetic impurity about the center of the chain. This local perturbation produces an energy spectrum with a Wigner-Dyson distribution of nearest neighbors level spacings [@Santos:2004; @santos2011domain; @torres2014local; @XotosIncoherentSIXXZ; @Metavitsiadis1; @Brenes:2018]. The single-impurity Hamiltonian has the form $$\label{eq:h_si}
\hat{H}_{\textrm{SI}} = \hat{H}_{\textrm{XXZ}} + h\, \hat{\sigma}^z_{N/2},$$ where $h$ is the strength of the magnetic impurity. We henceforth set $h = 1$ so that all energy scales in our perturbed Hamiltonian are $\mathcal{O}(1)$.
Both Hamiltonians of interest in this work, Eqs. and , commute with the total magnetization operator in the $z$ direction, $[\hat{H}_{\textrm{XXZ}}, \sum_i\hat{\sigma}^z_i]=[\hat{H}_{\textrm{SI}}, \sum_i\hat{\sigma}^z_i]=0$, so they are $U(1)$-symmetric. We focus on the zero magnetization sector, $\sum_i \braket{\hat{\sigma}^z_i} = 0$, which is the largest sector. Reflection symmetry is present in $\hat{H}_{\textrm{XXZ}}$. We explicitly break it by adding a very weak magnetic field at site $i=1$, $h_1=10^{-1}$ (like open boundary conditions, this perturbation does not break integrability [@Santos:2004]). We use state of the art full exact diagonalizations to carry out a systematic analysis of the matrix elements of various observables in the energy eigenbasis. We study chains with up to $N = 20$ sites, for which the Hilbert space dimension $\mathcal{D} = N! / [(N/2)!]^2 = 184\,756$.
*Diagonal ETH*.— Let us first study the diagonal matrix elements of two related local observables. We choose the local kinetic energy at site $i = N/4$ (far away from the boundary and the impurity), $$\label{eq:kobs}
\hat{K} {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}\hat{K}_{\frac{N}{4}, \frac{N}{4}+1} = \left( \hat{\sigma}^x_{\frac{N}{4}}\hat{\sigma}^x_{\frac{N}{4}+1} + \hat{\sigma}^y_{\frac{N}{4}}\hat{\sigma}^y_{\frac{N}{4} + 1} \right),$$ and the total kinetic energy per site, the average local kinetic energy, defined as $$\label{eq:tobs}
\hat{T} {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} \left( \hat{\sigma}^x_{i}\hat{\sigma}^x_{i+1} + \hat{\sigma}^y_{i}\hat{\sigma}^y_{i+1} \right).$$ The contrast between the two shows the effect of averaging in non-translation invariant systems. Qualitatively similar results were obtained for other local observables.
![Diagonal matrix elements of the total per site \[(a) and (b)\] and a local \[(c) and (d)\] kinetic energy operator in the eigenstates of the (integrable) XXZ \[(a) and (c)\] and (nonintegrable) single-impurity \[(b) and (d)\] models. The black lines correspond to microcanonical averages (within windows with $\delta \epsilon_n = 0.008$) in the integrable model for the largest system size $N = 20$. The insets show the equivalence of the microcanonical predictions in both models for each observable.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](Figure1.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:1\], we show the diagonal matrix elements of $\hat K$ and $\hat T$ in the eigenstates of the Hamiltonians in Eqs. and . The results are plotted as functions of the energy density defined as $\epsilon_{n} {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}E_{n} - E_{\textrm{min}} / E_{\textrm{max}} - E_{\textrm{min}}$, where $E_{n}$ is the $nth$ energy eigenvalue, and $E_{\textrm{min}}$ ($E_{\textrm{max}}$) is the lowest (highest) energy eigenvalue. Despite the quantitative differences in the behavior of the two observables in each model (at each energy, the spread of $[\hat T]_{nn}$ is smaller than that of $[\hat K]_{nn}$), they both exhibit a qualitatively similar behavior depending on whether the model is integrable ($\hat{H}_{\textrm{XXZ}}$) or nonintegrable ($\hat{H}_{\textrm{SI}}$). In the integrable model, the spread of $[\hat T]_{nn}$ and $[\hat K]_{nn}$ at each energy does not change with changing system size (the system does not satisfy the ETH), while in the nonintegrable model it decreases (away from the edges of the spectrum) with increasing system size suggesting that $[\hat T]_{nn}$ and $[\hat K]_{nn}$ satisfy the ETH [@torres2014local; @Torres_Herrera_2015].
Since the single impurity is a sub-extensive local perturbation to the XXZ chain, it does not affect the microcanonical predictions (away from the edges of the spectrum) for local observables (away from the impurity) in sufficiently large system sizes. This is confirmed in the insets in Figs. \[fig:1\](b) and \[fig:1\](d). Hence, a remarkable consequence of the single impurity producing eigenstate thermalization (something that is achieved via mixing nearby unperturbed energy eigenstates) is that the smooth functions $[\hat T]_{nn}$ and $[\hat K]_{nn}$ are nothing but the microcanonical ensemble predictions for the integrable model. Another interesting consequence of it is that if one evolves highly excited eigenstates of $\hat{H}_{\textrm{SI}}$ under the integrable dynamics generated by $\hat{H}_{\textrm{XXZ}}$, thermalization will occur at long times (as in the limit of vanishingly small but extensive integrability breaking perturbations [@rigol_16; @rigol_srednicki_12]).
*Off-diagonal ETH*.— Next we study the off-diagonal matrix elements of the total kinetic energy per site $\hat T$ \[Eq. \], and of the spin current operator per site $\hat J$, $$\label{eq:jobs}
\hat{J} {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} \left( \hat{\sigma}^x_{i}\hat{\sigma}^y_{i+1} - \hat{\sigma}^y_{i}\hat{\sigma}^x_{i+1} \right).$$
Since $\hat T$ and $\hat J$ have Hilbert-Schmidt norms that scale as $1/\sqrt{N}$, the off-diagonal part of the ETH needs to be modified to read [@Leblond:2019; @vidmar2020] $$\label{eq:eth_scaled}
O_{nm} = \frac{e^{-S(\bar{E})/2}}{\sqrt{N}}f_{\hat{O}}(\bar{E}, \omega)R_{nm}.$$ We focus in the “infinite-temperature” regime, in which $\bar{E}\approx 0$ and $S(\bar{E}) \approx \ln{\mathcal{D}}$.
![\[(a) and (b)\] Off-diagonal matrix elements of $\hat T$ for $\bar{E} \approx 0$ (center of the spectrum), and the corresponding coarse-grained average \[continuous (black) line\], plotted vs $\omega$ for chains with $N = 18$ sites. \[(c) and (d)\] Coarse-grained averages of $[\hat T]_{nm}$, including the ones reported in (a) and (b), for different system sizes. \[(e) and (f)\] Coarse-grained averages of $[\hat J]_{nm}$ for different system sizes. The panels on the left \[(a), (c), and (e)\] show the results for the XXZ chain, while the panels on the right \[(b), (d), and (f)\] show the ones for the single-impurity model. The matrix elements were computed from pairs of states whose $\bar{E}$ lie within the interval $[\bar{E} - 0.025\varepsilon/2, \bar{E} + 0.025\varepsilon/2]$, where $\varepsilon {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}E_{\textrm{max}} - E_{\textrm{min}}$ denotes the bandwidth. The coarse-grained averages were computed using a window $\delta \omega = 0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](Figure2.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Figs. \[fig:2\](a) and \[fig:2\](b), we show the off-diagonal matrix elements $|T_{nm}|^2$ in the XXZ and single-impurity models, respectively. As expected, their overall dispersion is larger in the former (integrable) model than the latter (nonintegrable) one. For both models, Figs. \[fig:2\](a) and \[fig:2\](b) show that the coarse-grained average $\overline{|T_{nm}|^2}$ (which corresponds to the variance of the off-diagonal matrix elements as $\overline{T_{nm}}=0$) is a smooth function of $\omega$ [@Leblond:2019]. In Ref. [@Leblond:2019], it was shown that the variance of the off-diagonal matrix elements of observables like the ones of interest here satisfies $\overline{|O_{nm}|^2} \propto (N\mathcal{D})^{-1}$ both for integrable interacting and nonintegrable models. Figures \[fig:2\](c) and \[fig:2\](d) for $\overline{|T_{nm}|^2}$, and Figs. \[fig:2\](e) and \[fig:2\](f) for $\overline{|J_{nm}|^2}$, show that such a scaling is satisfied by our observables in the XXZ and single-impurity models.
Figures \[fig:2\](c) and \[fig:2\](d) \[Figs. \[fig:2\](e) and \[fig:2\](f)\] also show that the variances $\overline{|T_{nm}|^2}$ ($\overline{|J_{nm}|^2}$) are very similar in the two models (the differences are consistent with being finite-size effects). This opens the question of whether there is any fundamental difference between the off-diagonal matrix elements of the observables in both models. We find that there is. The off-diagonal matrix elements of the observables are normally distributed in the (nonintegrable) single-impurity model (qualitatively similar results have been obtained in other nonintegrable models [@Moessner:2015; @Mondaini:2017; @Leblond:2019]), while they are close to log-normally distributed in the (integrable) XXZ chain [@Leblond:2019]. In order to test how well the normal distribution describes the results in the single-impurity model for different values of $\omega$, and to contrast them to the results for the XXZ chain, we compute the ratio [@Leblond:2019] $$\label{eq:gamma}
\Gamma_{\hat{O}}(\omega) {\mathrel{\vcenter{\baselineskip0.5ex\lineskiplimit0pt\hbox{\scriptsize.}\hbox{\scriptsize.}}}=}\overline{|O_{nm}|^2} / \overline{|O_{nm}|}^2.$$ $\Gamma_{\hat{O}} = \pi / 2$ for normally distributed matrix elements.
![$\Gamma_{\hat{O}}(\omega)$, see Eq. , for the total kinetic energy per site \[(a) and (b)\] and for the current operator \[(c) and (d)\], in the XXZ \[(a) and (c)\] and single-impurity \[(b) and (d)\] models. The horizontal line in (b) and (d) marks $\pi/2$. The matrix elements were computed using the same energy window as in Fig. \[fig:2\], while the coarse-graining parameter was chosen to be $\delta \omega = 0.05$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Figure3.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:3\], we show results for $\Gamma_{\hat{T}}(\omega)$ \[Figs. \[fig:3\](a) and \[fig:3\](b)\] and $\Gamma_{\hat{J}}(\omega)$ \[Figs. \[fig:3\](c) and \[fig:3\](d)\] in the XXZ \[Figs. \[fig:3\](a) and \[fig:3\](c)\] and single-impurity \[Figs. \[fig:3\](b) and \[fig:3\](d)\] models. For all values of $\omega$ shown in Figs. \[fig:3\](b) and \[fig:3\](d) for the single-impurity model, $\Gamma_{\hat T}(\omega)$ and $\Gamma_{\hat J}(\omega)$, respectively, approach $\pi / 2$ as $N$ increases, i.e., the off-diagonal matrix elements are well described by a normal distribution. On the other hand, in Figs. \[fig:3\](a) and \[fig:3\](c) for the XXZ model, $\Gamma_{\hat T}(\omega)$ and $\Gamma_{\hat J}(\omega)$, respectively, depend on the system size, i.e., the off-diagonal matrix elements are not normally distributed.
The results discussed so far for the matrix elements of local operators in the single-impurity model show that they are fully consistent with the ETH, as found for other (more traditional) nonintegrable models in the past. The fact that the off-diagonal matrix elements are normally distributed (the variance sets all central moments) means that one can define a meaningful $f_{O}(\bar{E}, \omega)$, while this is not the case for the XXZ chain. The final question to be addressed is related to the ballistic character of spin transport in the single-impurity model [@Brenes:2018], which is in stark contrast to the diffusive transport usually found in nonintegrable models.
*Ballistic transport*.— Within linear response, the real part of the conductivity reads ($k_B = 1$) [@kubo1957statistical; @kubo1957statistical2; @ShastryKubo2008; @RigolDrude:2008; @2020arXiv200303334B] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kuboformula}
\textrm{Re}[\sigma_N(\omega)] &= \pi D_N\delta(\omega) + \\
\frac{\pi}{N}&\left(\frac{1-e^{-\beta \omega}}{\omega}\right)\sum_{\epsilon_n \neq \epsilon_m} p_n|J_{nm}|^2\delta(\epsilon_m - \epsilon_n - \omega),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $D_N$ is known as the Drude weight, $\beta$ is the inverse temperature, $p_n = e^{-\beta E_n} / Z$ is the Boltzmann weight of eigenstate $\ket{n}$, and $Z$ is the partition function. $J_{nm}$ are the matrix elements of the spin current operator. In integrable systems with open boundary conditions (e.g., our XXZ chain), $D_N$ can be proved to be identically zero no matter the nature of the spin transport [@RigolDrude:2008]. When transport is ballistic, a peak (or peaks) appear in $\textrm{Re}[\sigma_N(\omega)]$ at a nonzero frequency (frequencies) proportional to $1/N$. When $N\rightarrow\infty$, the peak (peaks) move toward $\omega\rightarrow0$ resulting in a peak in $\textrm{Re}[\sigma_N(\omega=0)]$ that signals ballistic transport [@RigolDrude:2008]. Exactly the same was shown to occur in our single impurity model in Ref. [@Brenes:2018]. Therefore, in our integrable and nonintegrable models ballistic transport emerges because of the $\omega\rightarrow 0$ behavior of the off-diagonal matrix elements of the current operator.
![Scaled variances of the off-diagonal matrix elements of $\hat J$ in the XXZ (a) and single-impurity (b) models plotted vs $N\omega$. The insets show the unscaled variances plotted vs $\omega$. The matrix elements were computed within a small window of energies around $\bar{E} \approx 0$ of width $0.075\varepsilon$. For the binned averages, we used $\delta \omega = 0.075$ in (a) and $\delta \omega = 0.01$ in (b) such that a smooth curve is obtained that is robust against small changes in $\delta \omega$.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](Figure4.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:4\](a), we show the scaled variances of the matrix elements of $\hat J$ in XXZ chains with $N=16$, 18, and 20 as functions of $N\omega$. A large peak can be seen at a frequency that scales as $1/N$ whose area does not change with increasing $N$. This is consistent with the behavior of $\textrm{Re} [\sigma_N(\omega)]$ [@RigolDrude:2008; @Brenes:2018] signaling coherent transport [@ZnidaricXXZspintransport]. The smaller (second) peak follows a different scaling. The inset in Fig. \[fig:4\](a) shows that its position is nearly $N$ independent, appearing to mark the onset of the $N$-independent behavior shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]. The variances of the matrix elements of $\hat J$ in the (nonintegrable) single-impurity model, which, remarkably, define a novel $N$-independent ETH function $|f_{\hat{J}}(\bar{E}\approx 0, N\omega)|^2/N$ \[Fig. \[fig:4\](b)\], display the same low-frequency behavior as in the (integrable) XXZ chain.
*Conclusions*.— We have shown that the ETH is fully fulfilled when breaking integrability with a local perturbation and that, in such setups, it inherits thermodynamics and transport properties of the integrable model. Specifically, we showed that the diagonal matrix elements of observables in the perturbed energy eigenstates follow the microcanonical predictions for the integrable model, while ballistic transport in the integrable model results in a novel $N$-independent ETH function $|f_{\hat{J}}(\bar{E}\approx 0, N\omega)|^2/N$ that characterizes the off-diagonal matrix elements of the current operator in the perturbed energy eigenstates. Local perturbations offer a unique venue to controllably study the effects in the ETH of being close to integrability. For example, whether it is possible to advance prethermal dynamics and slow thermalization [@tang_kao_18]. Global quenches in the single-impurity model are guaranteed to generate long lived prethermal states described GGEs of the XXZ chain [@wouters_denardis_14; @pozsgay_mestyan14; @ilievski_medenjak_15; @ilievski_denardis_15] because thermalization must occur via scattering of quasi-particles at the impurity. How (if) this is reflected in the ETH is an open question.
*Acknowledgements*.— This work was supported by the European Research Council Starting Grant ODYSSEY Grant No. 758403 (M.B. and J.G.), the Royal Society (M.B.), a SFI-Royal Society University Research Fellowship (J.G.), and the National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-1707482 (T.L. and M.R.). M.B. and J.G. acknowledge the DJEI/DES/SFI/HEA Irish Centre for High-End Computing (ICHEC) for the provision of computational facilities and support, project TCPHY118B, and the Trinity Centre for High-Performance Computing.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose two methods to obtain exact solutions for the Almgren-Chriss model about optimal execution of portfolio transactions. In the first method we rewrite the Almgren-Chriss equation and find two exact solutions. In the second method, employing a general reparametrized time, we show that the Almgren-Chriss equation can be reduced to some known equations which can be exactly solved in different cases. For this last case we obtain a quantity conserved. In addition, we show that in both methods the Almgren-Chriss equation is equivalent to a Riccati equation.'
author:
- |
Juan M. Romero[^1] and Jorge Bautista[^2]\
*Departamento de Matemáticas Aplicadas y Sistemas,\
*Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Cuajimalpa,\
*México, D.F 05300, México\
***
title: Exact solutions for optimal execution of portfolios transactions and the Riccati equation
---
Introduction
============
In all financial phenomena there are many random variables, this is the reason why it is so difficult to construct mathematical models that provide realistic predictions in markets. Frequently, when in a model all financial variables are considered, the model can not be tractable and then it is not useful. Meanwhile, when not all important variables are taken into account, the model may not yield realistic predictions. Then, the challenge to construct a financial model is to consider all important variables, but without sacrificing model tractability. It is worth mentioning that in some cases it is possible to construct simple models that provide realistic predictions. An example is given by the Black-Scholes equation for the european option price [@black; @merton]. Amazingly, this equation can be exactly solved. Now, an important problem in finance is to obtain an optimal execution of portfolios transactions. In this regard, Merton proposed a model with constant volatility that can be analyticaly solved [@merton1; @merton2]. The Merton’s model has been extended for more realistic situations [@magill], [@dumas], [@liu]. A particular case of optimal execution problem is given when an investor wants to buy (or sell) a large amount of options with the investment strategy which provides the major profit. In this case rapid buying may increasing stock price while order slicing may add to the uncertainty in the stoke price. For this last problem, using the market impact $\eta,$ the volatility $\sigma$ and supposing that the risk aversion $\lambda$ is a constant, Almgren and Chriss showed that if an investor at time $t$ has $x_{0}$ orders and at the final time $T$ must have zero orders, the optimal cost for trading is given by the optimal value of the functional [@almgren1; @almgren2] $$\begin{aligned}
C=\int_{t}^{T}ds\left( \eta(s)\left(\frac{dx}{ds}\right)^{2}+\lambda \sigma^{2}(s) x^{2}(s)\right) \label{eq:cost}.
\end{aligned}$$ From calculus of variations, it is well known that a functional as $C$ reaches its optimal value when is evaluated in the function $x(s)$ which satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation [@elsgoc]. For the cost (\[eq:cost\]) the Euler-Lagrange is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(s)\frac{d^{2} x}{ds^{2}}+\frac{d\eta(s)}{ds}\frac{d x}{ds} =\lambda \sigma^{2}(s) x(s),
\label{eq:elal}\end{aligned}$$ which must be solved with the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
x(t)=x_{0}, \qquad x(T)=0.
\label{eq:elal-bc}\end{aligned}$$ The case when $\eta$ and $\sigma$ are constants can be exactly solved. However, when $\eta$ and $\sigma$ are not constants, is not easy to find solutions to the equation (\[eq:elal\]). Now, it is worth pointing out that some systems have a “natural time”, for example the affine parameter to study geodesic curves [@eisen]. In fact, in some financial models the “natural time” is a stochastic time [@gema]. Frequently, the equation of motions are more friendly when are rewritten with the “natural time”. In this respect, Almgren and Chriss shown that using the time parameter $$\begin{aligned}
d\hat s=\sigma^{2}(s) ds \label{eq:a-c-para}\end{aligned}$$ and imposing the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(\hat s)\sigma^{2}(\hat s)={\rm constant} \label{eq:a-c-c}\end{aligned}$$ the equation (\[eq:elal\]) can be exactly solved for some realistic cases. Some extensions of the Almgren-Chriss model can be seen in [@obizhaeva], [@schied], [@gatheral1],\
[@gatheral2].\
It is clear that to obtain optimal investment strategies in the Almgren-Chriss model is important to understand what kind of solutions this model has. With this in mind, in this paper we propose two methods to obtain exact solutions for the Almgren-Chriss equation. In the first method we rewrite the Almgren-Chriss equation and find two exact solutions for this equation. Furthermore, using a Riccati equation, we show that the Almgren-Chriss can be solved. In this sense we can say that the Almgren-Chriss equation is equivalent to a Riccati equation. In the second method we take the time as function of a general parameter, $\tau$, namely we take $s=s(\tau).$ Moreover, using a particular time parameter we find an exact solution for the Almgren-Chriss equation. Futhermore, we show that using a “special time” the Almgren-Chriss equation can be reduced a known equation which can be exactly solved in different cases. In addition we show that using this “special time” the Riccati equation equivalent to the Almgren-Chriss equation can be simplified.\
This paper is organized as follow: in the section $2$ we provide the first method and obtain two exact solutions for the Almgren-Chriss equation, in addition we show that the Almgren-Chriss equation is equivalent to a Riccati equation; in the section $3$ we provide the second method and obtain an exact solution for the Almgren-Chriss equation; in the section $4$ we give a summary.
First case
===========
In order to obtain some exact solution for the Almgren-Chriss equation (\[eq:elal\]) we propose $$\begin{aligned}
x(s)= \frac{u(s)}{\sqrt{\eta(s)}}\label{eq:n-norm},\end{aligned}$$ in this case the cost (\[eq:cost\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&\int_{t}^{T}ds \left( \left(\frac{du}{ds }\right)^{2}+\left( \frac{\frac{ d^{2} \eta(s)}{ds^{2}}}{2 \eta(s)} + \lambda \frac{\sigma^{2}(s)}{\eta(s) }
-\frac{\left(\frac{ d \eta(s)}{ds } \right) ^{2} }{4 \eta^{2}(s) }\right) u^{2}(s) \right)\nonumber\\
& & -\left( \frac{u^{2}(s)}{2} \frac{\frac{ d \eta(s)}{ds } }{ \eta(s) }\right) \Bigg|_{t}^{T}. \label{eq:ac-nor}
\end{aligned}$$ From this expression we obtain the following Euler-Lagrange equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} u(s) }{ds ^{2}}=\left(\frac{\frac{ d^{2} \eta(s)}{ds^{2}}}{2 \eta(s)} + \lambda \frac{\sigma^{2}(s)}{\eta(s) } -\frac{\left(\frac{ d \eta(s)}{ds } \right) ^{2} }{4 \eta^{2}(s) }\right) u(s ),\label{eq:norm}\end{aligned}$$ which should be solved with the boundary condition $$\begin{aligned}
u(t)=x_{0}\sqrt{\eta(t)}, \qquad u(T)=0.
\label{eq:norm-bc}\end{aligned}$$ Now, by an integration by parts, the cost (\[eq:ac-nor\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&-\int_{t}^{T}ds u(s)\left[\frac{d^{2}u}{ds^{2}} -\left( \frac{\frac{ d^{2} \eta(s)}{ds^{2}}}{2 \eta(s)} + \lambda \frac{\sigma^{2}(s)}{\eta(s) } -\frac{\left(\frac{ d \eta(s)}{ds } \right) ^{2} }{4 \eta^{2}(s) }\right) u(s)\right]\nonumber\\
& &+ \left[u(s) \frac{du(s)}{ds} -\left( \frac{u^{2}(s)}{2} \frac{\frac{ d \eta(s)}{ds } }{ \eta(s) }\right) \right]\Bigg|_{t}^{T}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, if $u(s)$ satisfies the equation of motion (\[eq:norm\]) and the boundary conditions (\[eq:norm-bc\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&- \left[u(s) \frac{du(s)}{ds} -\left( \frac{u^{2}(s)}{2} \frac{\frac{ d \eta(s)}{ds } }{ \eta(s) }\right) \right]\Bigg|_{s=t}.\label{eq:c-norm}
\end{aligned}$$
Exact solution 1
-----------------
Let us consider the case $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(s)&=&\eta_{0}\gamma^{2} (\cosh as)^{2},\\
\sigma(s)&=&\sigma_{0} \gamma \cosh as,
\end{aligned}$$ where $a, \eta_{0}, \gamma$ and $\sigma_{0}$ are constants. Substituting these functions in the equation (\[eq:norm\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} u(s) }{ds ^{2}}=\left(a^{2} +
\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}}{ \eta_{0} } \right) u(s ),\end{aligned}$$ which is solved by the function $$\begin{aligned}
u(s)=\frac{\sqrt{ \eta_{0} } \gamma x_{0} (\cosh at )}{\sinh \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T-t) }
\sinh \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T- s).
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, using the equation (\[eq:n-norm\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
x(s)= x_{0} \frac{ (\cosh at)}{ \sinh \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T-t) }\frac{ \sinh \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T-s) }{ \left( \cosh as \right) }
\end{aligned}$$ and the cost (\[eq:c-norm\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&\frac{\eta_{0} \gamma^{2} x_{0}^{2} \cosh^{2}(at) }{ \sinh \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}} (T-t) } \Bigg( \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}}
\cosh \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}} (T-t)\nonumber\\
& &+ a\left( \frac{\sinh as}{\cosh as} \right)\sinh \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}} (T-t) \Bigg)\nonumber\\
&=& \eta_{0} \gamma^{2} x_{0}^{2} \cosh^{2}(at) \left( \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}}
\coth \sqrt{ a^{2}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}} (T-t) + a \tanh as\right) .\qquad
\end{aligned}$$
Exact solution 2
----------------
Now, considering the case $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(s)&=&\eta_{0} e^{\zeta_{0} s},\\
\sigma(s)&=&\sigma_{0}e^{\frac{\zeta_{0} }{2} s}, \qquad \zeta_{0}={\rm constant},\end{aligned}$$ the equation (\[eq:norm\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} u(s) }{ds ^{2}}=\left( \frac{\zeta^{2} _{0} }{4}+ \lambda \frac{\sigma^{2}_{0} }{\eta_{0} }\right) u(s ),\end{aligned}$$ which has the solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(s)=x_{0}\sqrt{\eta_{0} } e^{\frac{\zeta_{0}}{2} t} \frac{ \sinh \sqrt{ \frac{\zeta^{2}_{0}}{4}+\frac{\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T-s)}{\sinh \sqrt{\frac{\zeta^{2}_{0}}{4}+\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T-t) }.
\end{aligned}$$ In addition, using the equation (\[eq:n-norm\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
x(s)=x_{0}e^{-\frac{\zeta_{0}}{2} (s-t) }\frac{ \sinh \sqrt{ \frac{\zeta^{2}_{0}}{4}+\frac{\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T-s)}{\sinh \sqrt{\frac{\zeta^{2}_{0}}{4}+\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (T-t) }.
\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this last expression in the equation (\[eq:c-norm\]), we obtain the following cost $$\begin{aligned}
C&=& \eta_{0} x_{0}^{2} e^{\zeta_{0} t} \left( \sqrt{ \frac{\zeta_{0}^{2}}{4}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}}
\coth \sqrt{ \frac{\zeta_{0}^{2}}{4}+\frac{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} }{\eta_{0}}} (T-t) + \frac{\zeta_{0}}{2}\right). \qquad
\end{aligned}$$
General case and Ricatti equation
---------------------------------
In general, given the functions $\sigma(s)$ and $\eta(s),$ to obtain a solution for the Almgren-Chriss equation is a difficult task. However, the problem can be reduced to solve a known equation. In fact, due that $\sigma$ and $\eta$ are positive functions, we can propose $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(s)=\eta_{0} e^{2\zeta_{1} (s)},\qquad \sigma(s)=\sigma_{0}e^{\zeta_{2} (s) }.\end{aligned}$$ Using these expressions in the equation (\[eq:norm\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} u(s) }{ds ^{2}}=\left( \frac{ d^{2} \zeta_{1} (s)}{ds^{2}}+ \left( \frac{ d \zeta_{1}(s)}{ds } \right) ^{2} +
\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}}{ \eta_{0} } e^{2( \zeta_{2}(s)- \zeta_{1} (s))} \right)u(s). \label{eq:norm-ric}\end{aligned}$$ This equation is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
u(s)=\frac{\sqrt{\eta(t)} }{ e^{g(t)} \int_{t}^{ÊT} dz e^{-2g(z) } } e^{g(s)}\int_{s}^{ÊT} dz e^{-2g(z)},\label{eq:n-norm-s}
\end{aligned}$$ where the function $g(s)$ must solve the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} g(s)}{ds^{2} }+\left( \frac{d g(s)}{ds }\right)^{2}=\left( \frac{ d^{2} \zeta_{1} (s)}{ds^{2}}+ \left( \frac{ d \zeta_{1}(s)}{ds } \right) ^{2} +
\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}}{ \eta_{0} } e^{2( \zeta_{2}(s)- \zeta_{1} (s))} \right).\label{eq:r1}
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that in this case the equation (\[eq:n-norm-s\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
x(s)=x_{0} \frac{ \sqrt{ \eta(t)} } { e^{g(t)} \int_{t}^{ÊT} dz e^{-2g(z) } } \frac{ e^{g(s)} }{Ê\sqrt{\eta(s) }} \int_{s}^{ÊT} dz e^{-2g(z)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if we take $$\begin{aligned}
G(s)=\frac{d g(s)}{ds}
\end{aligned}$$ the equation (\[eq:r1\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d G(s)}{ds }+ G^{2}(s)=\omega^{2}(s) , \label{eq:r2}
\end{aligned}$$ here $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{2}(s)=\left( \frac{ d^{2} \zeta_{1} (s)}{ds^{2}}+ \left( \frac{ d \zeta_{1}(s)}{ds } \right) ^{2} +
\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}}{ \eta_{0} } e^{2( \zeta_{2}(s)- \zeta_{1} (s))} \right).\end{aligned}$$ We can see that the expression the expression (\[eq:r2\]) is a Riccati equation [@arfken]. Then, if the Riccati equation (\[eq:r2\]) can be solved, the equation (\[eq:norm-ric\]) can be solved too. There is not a general method to solve the Riccati equation, however some solutions for this equation are known.
Time reparametrization
======================
Some systems have a natural time, for instance relaxation time in thermodynamic, mean lifetime in particle physicsand proper time in relativistic physics. Frequently, using the natural time the equations of motion are more kindly.\
In this section we propose a general time parameter and study different cases that can be exactly solved. First, let us take the general parametrization $$\begin{aligned}
s=s(\tau).\end{aligned}$$ Using this parametrization, the cost (\[eq:cost\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
C=\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F}}d\tau \left( \frac{\eta(\tau)}{\frac{ds(\tau )}{d\tau} }\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau }\right)^{2}+\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau)\frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau} x^{2}(\tau) \right),\label{eq:crepa}
\end{aligned}$$ which implies the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} x(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}}+\frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}\left( \frac{\frac{d\eta(\tau)}{d\tau }}{\eta(\tau)}-\frac{\frac{d^{2} s(\tau)}{d\tau^{2} }}{\frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau}}\right)=\frac{ \lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau)}{\eta(\tau)}\left( \frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau} \right)^{2} x(\tau). \label{eq:repa}
\end{aligned}$$ The boundary conditions for this last equation are given by $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau_{0})=x_{0}, \qquad x(\tau_{F})=0. \label{eq:bc-repa}
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the cost (\[eq:crepa\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&-\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F}}d\tau \frac{\eta(\tau) x(\tau)}{ \frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau }} \Bigg[\frac{d^{2} x(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}}+\left( \frac{\frac{d\eta(\tau)}{d\tau }}{\eta(\tau)}-\frac{\frac{d^{2} s(\tau)}{d\tau^{2} }}{\frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau}}\right) \frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau} \nonumber\\
& &- \frac{ \lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau)}{\eta(\tau)}\left( \frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau} \right)^{2} x(\tau) \Bigg]
+ \frac{\eta(\tau) x(\tau)}{ \frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau }} \frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}\Bigg|_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F} }.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, when $x(\tau)$ satisfies the equation (\[eq:repa\]) and the boundary conditions (\[eq:bc-repa\]), we obtain the cost $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&- \frac{\eta(\tau) x(\tau)}{ \frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau }} \frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}\Bigg|_{\tau=\tau_{0}}.\label{eq:cos-rep}
\end{aligned}$$ We can see that taking the Almgren-Chriss parameter (\[eq:a-c-para\]), that is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ds}{d\tau}=\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}(\tau)},
\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the cost $$\begin{aligned}
C=\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F}}d\tau \left( \eta(\tau) \sigma^{2}(\tau)\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau }\right)^{2}+\lambda x^{2}(\tau) \right),
\end{aligned}$$ and the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} x(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}}+\frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau} \frac{d \ln\left( \eta(\tau) \sigma^{2}(\tau) \right)}{d\tau }
=\frac{ \lambda}{\eta(\tau) \sigma^{2}(\tau) } x(\tau).\label{eq:rep-ac}
\end{aligned}$$ Almgren and Chriss shown that this equation is tractable when $\eta(\tau) \sigma^{2}(\tau)$ is a constant [@almgren1; @almgren2].\
In the following subsections we introduce two additional useful time parameters.
First parameter
----------------
Due that $\sigma$ and $\eta$ are positive quantities, we can propose $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(\tau)=\eta_{0}e^{\zeta_{1}(\tau) },\qquad \sigma(\tau)=\sigma_{0}e^{\zeta_{2}(\tau)}. \label{eq:im-vol}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the equation (\[eq:repa\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} x(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}}+\frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}\left( \frac{d\zeta_{1}(\tau)}{d\tau }-\frac{\frac{d^{2} s(\tau)}{d\tau^{2} }}{\frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau}}\right)=\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}}{\eta_{0} }e^{ 2\zeta_{2}(\tau)-\zeta_{1}(\tau) } \left( \frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau} \right)^{2} x(\tau).
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, using the parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau}=e^{\frac{ \zeta_{1}(\tau)-2\zeta_{2}(\tau) }{2}},\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} x(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}}+\frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}\left( \frac{1}{2}\frac{d\zeta_{1}(\tau)}{d\tau }+\frac{d \zeta_{2} (\tau)}{d\tau }\right)=\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}}{\eta_{0} } x(\tau).\label{eq:repa1}
\end{aligned}$$ We can see that when $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\zeta_{1}(\tau)}{d\tau }+\frac{d \zeta_{2} (\tau)}{d\tau }=\alpha, \qquad \alpha={\rm constant }\end{aligned}$$ namely $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{2} (\tau)=\alpha \tau +\beta-\frac{\zeta_{1}(\tau)}{2}, \qquad \beta={\rm constant }, \label{eq:rep-con}\end{aligned}$$ the equation (\[eq:repa1\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} x(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}}+\alpha \frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}=\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}}{\eta_{0} } x(\tau).\label{eq:expo}
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that using the functions (\[eq:im-vol\]), the condition (\[eq:rep-con\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(\tau)\sigma^{2}(\tau)=A e^{2\alpha \tau},\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is a constant. Furthermore, the solution for the equation (\[eq:expo\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau)=x_{0}\frac{ e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2} (\tau-\tau_{0} )}\sinh\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\alpha^{2}+ \frac{ 4\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (\tau_{F}-\tau)} { \sinh\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\alpha^{2}+ \frac{ 4\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (\tau_{F}-\tau_{0} )},
\end{aligned}$$ while the cost is $$\begin{aligned}
C=\frac{x_{0}^{2} }{2} \eta_{0} e^{\alpha \tau_{0} +\beta}\left( \alpha +\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\alpha^{2}+ \frac{ 4\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} \coth\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\alpha^{2}+ \frac{ 4\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} }{ \eta_{0} }} (\tau_{F}-\tau_{0})\right) .
\end{aligned}$$
Second parameter
-----------------
Now, if we take the parameter $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ds}{d\tau}=\eta(\tau),
\end{aligned}$$ the cost (\[eq:crepa\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
C=\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F}}d\tau \left( \left(\frac{dx}{d\tau }\right)^{2}+\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau)\eta(\tau) x^{2}(\tau) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ This functional implies the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} x(\tau) }{d\tau ^{2}}=\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau) x(\tau ).\label{eq:aceq}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, when $x(\tau)$ satisfies the equation (\[eq:aceq\]) and the boundary conditions (\[eq:bc-repa\]), the cost (\[eq:cos-rep\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&- x(\tau) \frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}\Bigg|_{\tau=\tau_{0}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the original equation (\[eq:elal\]) depends on both functions $\sigma(s)$ and $\eta(s).$ While the equation (\[eq:aceq\]) only depends on the product $\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau).$ In addition, we can see that the equation (\[eq:aceq\]) is simpler than the original equation (\[eq:elal\]) and the equation (\[eq:rep-ac\]).\
The equation (\[eq:aceq\]) has some interesting properties. For example, if the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ d^{2}\rho(\tau)}{d\tau^{2} } + \lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau) \rho(\tau)-\frac{1}{\rho^{3}(\tau)}=0
\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied, then the function $$\begin{aligned}
I= \frac{1}{2}\left[ \left(\rho(\tau) \frac{ dx(\tau)}{d\tau } - x(\tau) \frac{ d\rho(\tau)}{d\tau }\right)^{2}- \left( \frac{ x(\tau)}{\rho (\tau) }\right)^{2} \right],
\end{aligned}$$ is a conserved quantity. In particular, when $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau)=\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}\eta_{0}={\rm constant}, \label{eq:rep-con1}
\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the conserved quantity $$\begin{aligned}
I= \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}\eta_{0} }} \left( \frac{ dx(\tau)}{d\tau }\right)^{2}- \sqrt{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}\eta_{0}}x^{2}(\tau) \right],
\end{aligned}$$ which can be interpreted as the energy for a particle with mass $ 1/ \sqrt{\lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}\eta_{0} }$ under the repulsive force $\sqrt{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2}\eta_{0}}x(\tau),$ see [@gol]. For the case (\[eq:rep-con1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau)= x_{0} \frac{\sinh \sqrt{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0}} ( \tau_{F} -\tau) }{\sinh \sqrt{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0}} ( \tau_{F} -\tau_{0} ) },
\end{aligned}$$ and the cost $$\begin{aligned}
C= x_{0}^{2} \sqrt{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0}} \frac{\cosh \sqrt{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0}} ( \tau_{F} -\tau_{0}) }{\sinh \sqrt{\lambda\sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0}} ( \tau_{F} -\tau_{0} ) }.
\end{aligned}$$
In addition, it is possible to obtain solutions for the equation (\[eq:aceq\]) for other functions $\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau).$ For instance, when $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau)= \left(\alpha+\frac{\beta}{\tau +b}+\frac{\gamma }{(\tau+b)^{2} }\right) \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{1+4\gamma} \pm \frac{\beta }{\alpha }\end{aligned}$$ is an integer, the equation (\[eq:aceq\]) is completely solved [@erma]. Other cases where the equation (\[eq:aceq\]) is completely solved can be seen in [@erma].\
Riccati equation
----------------
Furthermore, in order to solve the equation (\[eq:aceq\]), we can propose the function $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau)=\frac{x_{0}}{ e^{f(\tau_{0} ) } \int_{\tau_{0}}^{Ê\tau_{F} } dz e^{-2f(z) } } e^{f(\tau)} \int_{\tau}^{Ê\tau_{F} } dz e^{-2f(z)},
\label{eq:sr}
\end{aligned}$$ where the function $f(\tau)$ must satisfy the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2} f(\tau)}{d\tau^{2} }+\left( \frac{d f(\tau)}{d\tau }\right)^{2}=\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau) .\label{eq:ac-r}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if we find a solution for this last equation, we can solve the equation (\[eq:aceq\]). In addition, using the equation (\[eq:sr\]) we obtain the cost $$\begin{aligned}
C=x^{2}_{0} \left( \frac{ e^{-2 f(\tau_{0})} } { \int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F} } dz e^{-2f(z) } } -\frac{df(\tau)}{d \tau}\Bigg|_{\tau=\tau_{0}} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that if we take $$\begin{aligned}
F(\tau)=\frac{d f(\tau)}{d\tau},
\end{aligned}$$ the equation (\[eq:ac-r\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d F(\tau)}{d\tau }+ F^{2}(\tau)=\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau), \label{eq:rr2}
\end{aligned}$$ which is a Ricatti equation [@arfken]. Then, if the Riccati equation (\[eq:rr2\]) can be solved, the equation (\[eq:aceq\]) can be solved too.\
For instance, when $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda \sigma^{2}(\tau) \eta(\tau)= \lambda \sigma^{2}_{0} \eta_{0}\left( 1+\lambda \sigma^{2}_{0} \eta_{0} \tau^{2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
F(\tau)=\lambda \sigma^{2}_{0} \eta_{0} \tau,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
f(\tau)=\lambda \sigma^{2}_{0} \eta_{0} \frac{\tau^{2}}{2}+B,\qquad B={\rm constant}.\end{aligned}$$ In this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau)=\frac{x_{0}}{ \int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F} } dz e^{- \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0} z^{2} } } e^{\frac{ \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0} }{2} \left( \tau^{2}-\tau_{0}^{2}\right) } \int_{\tau}^{\tau_{F} } dz e^{- \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0} z^{2} },
\label{eq:sr}
\end{aligned}$$ and the cost is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C=x^{2}_{0} \left( \frac{ e^{- \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0} \tau_{0}^{2} } } { \int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{F} } dz e^{- \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0} z^{2} } } - \lambda \sigma_{0}^{2} \eta_{0} \tau_{0} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Summary
=======
In this paper two methods to obtain exact solutions for the Almgren-Chriss equation were proposed. In the first method the Almgren-Chriss equation was rewritten and two exact solutions for this equation were found. Furthermore, using a Riccati equation, we shown that the Almgren-Chriss can be solved. In this sense we can say that the Almgren-Chriss equation is equivalent to a Riccati equation. In the second method the Almgren-Chriss equation was reparametrized on the time. Moreover, using a particular parameter “time” we found an exact solution for the Almgren-Chriss equation. Futhermore, we shown that using a special reparametrization the Almgren-Chriss equation can be reduced to a known equation which can be exactly solved for different cases. For this last case we obtained a conserved quantity.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by Conacyt-SEP project CB-2011-180111 (J.M.R).
[9]{}
G. B. Arfkend & H. J. Weber (2005) [*Mathematical methods for physics.*]{} London, Elsevier Academic Press.
R. Almgren & N. Chriss (1999) Value under liquidation, [*Risk*]{} [**12**]{}, 61.
R. Almgren & N. Chriss (2001) Optimal execution of portfolio transactions, [*Journal of Risk*]{} [**3**]{}, 5.
F. Black & M. Scholes (1973) The pricing options and corporate liabilities, [*Journal of Political Economy*]{} [**81**]{}, 637.
B. Dumas & E. Luciano (1991) An exact solution to a dynamics portfolio choice problem under transactions costs, [*The Journal of Finance*]{} [**46**]{} (2), 577.
L. P. Eisenhart (2005) [*Non Riemannian Geometry.*]{} Dover Publication, New York.
L. D. Elsgoc (2007) [*Calculus of variations.*]{} New York, Dover.
V. P. Ermakov (2008) Second Order Differential Equation: Conditions of Complete Integrability, [*Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics*]{} [**2**]{}, 123.
J. Gatheral & A. Schied (2011) Optimal trade execution under geometry Brownian motion in the Almgren and Chriss framework, [*International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance*]{} [**14**]{} (03) 353.
J. Gatheral & A. Schied (2013) Dynamics models of market impact and algorithms for order execution. In: [*Handbook on systemic risk,*]{} (J-P.Fouque, J. A. Langsam, eds.) pages 579.
H. Gema, D. B. Madan & M. Yor (2001) Time changes for Lévy processes, [*Mathematical Finance*]{} [**11**]{} (1), 79.
H. Goldstein (1980) [*Classical Mechanics.*]{} New York, Addison-wesley.
H. Liu & M. Loewenstein (2002) Optimal portfolio selection with transaction costs and finite horizons, [*Review of Financial Studies*]{} [**15**]{} (2), 805.
M. J. Magill & G. M. Constantinides (1976) Portfolio selection with transaction costs, [*Journal of Economics Theory*]{} [**13**]{} (2) 245.
R.C. Merton (1969) Lifetime portfolio selection under uncertainty: The continuous-time case, [*The Review of Economics and Statistics*]{} [**51**]{} (3), 247.
R.C. Merton (1971) Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model, [*Journal of economics theory*]{} [**3**]{} (4), 373.
R.C. Merton (1973) Theory of Rational Option Pricing, [*Bell J. Econ. and Management Sci*]{} [**4**]{}, 141.
A. A. Obizhaeva & J. Wang (2013) Optimal trading strategy and supply/demand dynamics, [*Journal of Financial Markets*]{} [**16**]{} (1), 1.
A. Schied & T. Schöneborn (2009) Risk aversion and the dynamics of optimal liquidation strategies in illiquid markets, [*Finance and Stochastics*]{} [**13**]{} (2), 181.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, a general entropy-corrected FRW cosmological model has been presented in which a deceleration-to-acceleration transition occurs according to recent observations. We found that the case for the flat universe ($k=0$), supported by observations, is the most stable one where it successfully passes all stability tests. The stability of the model has been studied through testing the sound speed, the classical and the new nonlinear energy conditions. The model predicts a positive pressure during the early-time decelerating epoch, and a negative pressure during the late-time accelerating epoch in a good agreement with cosmic history and dark energy assumption. We have investigated all possible values of the prefactors $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the corrected entropy-area relation to find the best values required for a stable flat universe. We have also made use of the evolution of the equation of state parameters $\omega(t)$ in predicting the correct values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The jerk and density parameters have been calculated where a good agreement with observations and $\Lambda$CDM model has been obtained. Two dark energy proposals have been investigated in this model, the entropy-corrected holographic dark energy and the modified holographic Ricci dark energy.'
---
\
\
\
\
PACS: 98.80.-k, 95.36.+x, 65.40.gd\
Keywords: Cosmology, entropy-corrected universe, dark energy.
Introduction and motivation
===========================
A major development in modern cosmology was the discovery of the late-time cosmic acceleration [@11; @13; @14] which also represents a challenge to our understanding of the standard models of gravity. Observations also show that the universe is flat, highly homogeneous and isotropic on large scales [@teg; @ben; @sp]. To explain this accelerating expansion, an exotic form of energy with negative pressure, dubbed as dark energy, has been assumed. Such small positive energy with negative pressure represents a repulsive gravity that can accelerate the expansion. Several approaches have been proposed to explain late-time cosmic acceleration and several dark energy models have been constructed through modified gravity theories [@quint]-[@ark22] and dynamical scalar fields [@1; @moddd; @39], [@noj1]-[@nass22].
Hawking radiation [@hawkk] is a quantum phenomenon in which the black hole’s entropy $S$ is proportional to its horizon area $A$, the discovery of this phenomenon indicated a deep connection between gravity and thermodynamics [@therm]. The horizon entropy $S=\frac{A}{4G}$ and the Hawking temperature $T=\frac{\left|\kappa_{sg}\right|}{2\pi}$ are connected through the first law of black hole thermodynamics $T dS = dE$, where $\kappa_{sg}$ is the surface gravity and $dE$ is the energy change [@61; @62; @63]. In general, we have $dE=T dS+ \it{work~terms}$ where the work terms depend on the type of black hole. This equation indicates the possibility of the thermodynamic interpretation of Einstein equations near horizon, because geometric quantities of black hole solutions to Einstein equations are related to thermodynamic quantities [@80; @81]. Jacobson [@64] derived Einstein equations using Clausius relation $T dS = \delta Q$ and the horizon- entropy area relation, where $\delta Q$ and $T$ are the energy flux across the horizon and Unruh temperature respectively. The so called unified first law of black hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics $dE=TdS+WdV$ was derived by Hayward [@82] in spherically symmetric space-times, where $W$ is the work density defined by $-\frac{1}{2} T^{ab}h_{ab}$.
In cosmology, the FRW cosmological equations have been derived from the first law of thermodynamics by applying Clausius relation to the apparent horizon of the FRW universe [@65; @bo; @boo]. Later [@60], it has been shown that the FRW cosmological equations can be expressed as $dE=TdS+WdV$ at the apparent horizon where $E=\rho V$ is the total energy and $W=\frac{1}{2}(\rho-p)$ is the work density [@82]. Here $\rho$ and $p$ denotes the energy density and pressure of cosmic matter, while $T$ and $S$ are temperature and entropy associated with the apparent horizon. The entropy-area formula holds only for General Relativity, and so it needs corrections when some higher order curvature term appears [@basic1]. The question whether it is still possible to derive modified Friedmann equations after the modifications of the entropy-area relation has been discussed in [@basic1] where modified Friedmann equations have been derived by applying the corrected entropy-area relation $$\label{ent}
S=\frac{A}{4G}+\alpha \ln \frac{A}{4G}+\beta \frac{4G}{A}.$$ Here $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are dimensionless constants whose values are in debate and not yet determined even within loop quantum gravity [@salehi]. The correction terms in (\[ent\]) appear in the black hole entropy in loop quantum gravity due to thermal equilibrium fluctuations, quantum fluctuations, or mass and charge fluctuations (see [@echde] and references therein). The second correction term has also appeared in the entropic cosmology model presented in [@caii] where a unification of the holographic inflation and late-time acceleration has been suggested. While some works suggest positive or negative values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ [@zer1]-[@zer5], it has been argued in [@zer] that the “best guess” might simply be zero. One of the aims of the current work is to find the best possible values for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ required to describe a stable flat universe in which a deceleration-to-acceleration transition occurs according to recent observations.
The paper is organized as follows: section 1 is an introduction. In section 2, we present a solution to the modified entropy-corrected cosmological equations and obtain the formulas for the pressure, energy density, EoS parameter and the jerk parameter. We then analyze the evolution of these functions with cosmic time. The stability of the model has been discussed in section 3. In section 4, we calculate the total density parameter using two different proposals for dark energy, and compare the result with observations. The final conclusion is included in section 5.
Cosmological equations and solutions {#sol}
====================================
Taking into account the corrected entropy-area relation (\[ent\]), the following modified FRW equations have been derived [@basic1] $$\begin{aligned}
H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{\alpha G}{2 \pi}\left(H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)^2-\frac{\beta G^2}{3\pi^2}\left(H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)^3&=&\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho. \label{cosm1}\\
2\left(\dot{H}-\frac{k}{a^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{\alpha G}{\pi} \left(H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right) - \frac{\beta G^2}{\pi^2}\left(H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right)^2 \right)&=&-8\pi G (\rho+p).\label{cosm2}\end{aligned}$$ Where $k=0,1, -1$ for a flat, closed and open universe respectively. Since recent observations indicate that the universe accelerates after an epoch of deceleration [@11; @rrr], we can explore new solutions through physically reasonable empirical forms of $a(t)$ that allow the deceleration parameter $q$ to change sign from positive (decelerating phase) to negative (accelerating phase): $$\label{ansatz}
a(t)=A\sqrt{\sinh(\xi t)}$$ In addition to the agreement with observations, such hyperbolic form of the scale factor appears in many contexts of cosmology. A generalization of the ansatz (\[ansatz\]), $a(t)=(\sinh(\xi t))^{\frac{1}{n}}$, has been used in the study of Bianchi cosmological models where a good agreement with observations has been obtained [@pr]. A Quintessence model with double exponential potential has been constructed in [@sen] assuming the form $a(t)= \frac{a_o}{\alpha}[\sinh(t/t_o)]^{\beta}$, where $t_o$ is the present time, $R_o$ is the present day scale factor, $\beta$ is a constant and $\alpha = [\sinh(1)]^{\beta}$. As has been mentioned in [@sen], the main motivation for assuming this form is its consistency with observations as it gives both early-time deceleration and late-time acceleration. For $\beta <1$, the universe is decelerating for $t \ll t_o$ and exponentially accelerating for $t \gg t_o$. For example, setting $\beta=\frac{2}{3}$ gives $a(t) \propto t^{\frac{2}{3}}$ for $t \ll t_o$, and $a(t) \propto e^{t}$ for $t \gg t_o$. In the study of Ricci dark energy in Chern-Simons modified gravity, it has been shown that the evolution of the scale factor is given by $a(t)=\left(\frac{2\zeta}{3c_1}\right)^{\frac{1}{6}} \sinh^{\frac{1}{3}}(3\sqrt{c_1t})$ [@sent], where $\zeta$ and $c_1$ are constants. In the context of $\Lambda CDM$ model, a unified analytic solution is obtained for the scale factor as $a(t)=\left(\frac{\Omega_m}{\Omega_{\Lambda}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \sinh^{\frac{2}{3}}(\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\Omega_{\Lambda}}H_ot)$, describing the cosmic evolution from the matter-dominated epoch up to the late-time future [@sz] where $\Omega_m=0.27$, $\Omega_m=0.73$ and $H_o$ is the current value of the Hubble constant.
Since the main of the current work is investigating the true values of the prefactors $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and not the analytical solutions of the system (\[cosm1\]) and (\[cosm2\]), exploring the cosmic behaviour through an empirical ansatz represents an alternative way to achieve our task. The use of such scale factor should lead to a stable solution which is a good opportunity to investigate the best allowed values of the prefactors. The same investigation has been done in [@nasastro] using a different empirical ansatz where exactly the same results have been reached which represents a great support to the current work. Investigating relation (\[ent\]) in different cosmological contexts can provide an accurate estimation to the true values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on the cosmological scale. Depending on the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, The existence of bouncing solutions of the system (\[cosm1\]) and (\[cosm2\]) has been discussed in details in [@salehi]. The modified Friedmann equations derived from the corrected entropy-area relation without the last $\beta$ term have been derived in ([@basic1]) where some possible analytical solutions have been discussed depending on the values of $\alpha$. Taking (\[ansatz\]) into account, the expression for deceleration parameter $q$ can now be written as $$\label{q1}
q(t)=-\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^2}=\frac{-\cosh^2(t)+2}{\cosh^2(t)}$$ Solving (\[cosm1\]) and (\[cosm2\]) with the ansatz (\[ansatz\]), the expressions for the pressure $p(t)$, energy density $\rho(t)$, and EoS parameter $\omega(t)$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
p(t)&=&\frac{1}{512}\frac{1}{\pi^3\sinh^6(t)}[ (-48\pi^2-6\pi \alpha+\beta) \cosh^6(t) \\ \nonumber
&+&( -64(\pi^2+\frac{1}{4}\pi\alpha-\frac{1}{16}\beta)k\sinh(t)+160\pi^2+ (32\alpha k^2+22\alpha)\pi-16\beta k^2-4\beta ) \cosh^4(t) \\ \nonumber
&-&(64(-2\pi^2-\frac{5}{4}\pi\alpha+\beta (k^2+\frac{1}{2})) k\sinh(t)-176\pi^2+(-64\alpha k^2-16\alpha)\pi-48\beta k^2) \cosh^2(t) \\ \nonumber
&+& 64 k (\beta k^2-\pi^2-\pi \alpha) \sinh(t)+32 \pi \alpha k^2+64 \beta k^2+64 \pi^2]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t)&=&\frac{1}{512}\frac{1}{\pi^3\sinh^6(t)}[ (48\pi^2+6\pi \alpha-\beta) \cosh^6(t) \\ \nonumber
&+& (192(\pi^2+\frac{1}{4}\pi\alpha-\frac{1}{16}\beta)k\sinh(t)-96\pi^2+(96\alpha k^2-6\alpha)\pi-48\beta k^2) \cosh^4(t) \\ \nonumber
&+& (-64k(\beta k^2+6\pi^2+\frac{3}{4}\pi\alpha)\sinh(t)-192\pi\alpha k^2+48\beta k^2+48\pi^2) \cosh^2(t) \\ \nonumber
&+& (64\beta k^3+192\pi^2 k)\sinh(t)+96\pi\alpha k^2]\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{omega}
\omega(t)=\frac{f(t)}{g(t)}$$ Where the functions $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ are given as $$\begin{aligned}
f(t)&=& (48\pi^2+6\pi\alpha-\beta)\cosh^6(t)\\ \nonumber
&+&((64(\pi^2+\frac{1}{4}\pi\alpha-\frac{1}{16}\beta))k\sinh(t)-160\pi^2+(-32\alpha k^2-22\alpha)\pi+16\beta k^2+4\beta)\cosh^4(t) \\ \nonumber
&+&((64(-2\pi^2-\frac{5}{4}\pi\alpha+\beta (k^2+\frac{1}{2})))k\sinh(t)+176\pi^2+(64\alpha k^2+16\alpha)\pi+48\beta k^2)\cosh^2(t) \\ \nonumber
&-&64k(\beta k^2-\pi^2-\pi\alpha)\sinh(t)-32\pi\alpha k^2-64\beta k^2-64\pi^2.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
g(t)&=& (-48\pi^2-6\pi\alpha+\beta)\cosh^6(t) \\ \nonumber
&+&(-(192(\pi^2+\frac{1}{4}\pi\alpha-\frac{1}{16}\beta))k\sinh(t)+96\pi^2+(-96\alpha k^2+6\alpha)\pi+48\beta k^2)\cosh^4(t) \\ \nonumber
&+&(64k(\beta k^2+6\pi^2+\frac{3}{4}\pi\alpha)\sinh(t)+192\pi\alpha k^2-48\beta k^2-48\pi^2)\cosh^2(t) \\ \nonumber
&+&(-64\beta k^3-192\pi^2 k)\sinh(t)-96\pi\alpha k^2.\end{aligned}$$ The jerk parameter in cosmology is defined as [@j1; @j2] $$\label{jerk}
j=\frac{\dddot{a}}{aH^3}=q+2q^2-\frac{\dot{q}}{H}$$ where $q$ is the deceleration parameter and $\dddot{a}$ is the third derivative of the scale factor with respect to the cosmic time. The jerk parameter provides a convenient method to describe models close to $\Lambda CDM$. The deceleration-to-acceleration cosmic transition happens for models with positive value of $j$ and negative value of $q$ [@paplo1], flat $\Lambda CDM$ models have $j = 1$ [@j3]. For the current model we get the jerk parameter as $$j=1+\frac{2}{\cosh^2(t)}.$$ The variation of $q(t)$, $p(t)$, $\rho(t)$ and $\omega(t)$ versus cosmic time $t$ is shown in Fig. 1. The deceleration parameter $q$ shows a change in sign from positive (decelerating phase) to negative (accelerating phase). It starts at $q=1$ describing a decelerating radiation-dominated universe in a good agreement with the complete cosmic history investigated in [@peri], passes the matter dominated universe at $q=\frac{1}{2}$ and ends with an accelerating universe at $q=-1$ (de Sitter universe). We have tried several positive, negative and zero values for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ with $k=0$, $1$ and $-1$. Some of these values are summerized in table $1$. Fig. 1(b) shows a wrong behavior of the energy density $\rho(t)$ where it goes to $-\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$, this behavior happens for all positive values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ which means that positive values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are not allowed. All other plots in Fig. 1 have been plotted with $\alpha=\beta=-0.01$. The energy density in Fig. 1(c) is a positive decreasing function that goes to $+\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$. The evolution of the pressure is shown in Fig. 1(d), it starst as a positive decreasing function during the early-time where the expansion was decelerating, and then becomes negative in the late-time accelerating universe. It is generally believed that a negative pressure is required to achieve a repulsive gravity producing the accelerated expansion in the FRW cosmology. So, this behavior of the pressure in the current model agrees with the standard cosmological model where the early Universe ($z \rightarrow \infty$) is decelerating and filled with positive pressure component, while in far future with dark energy domination the expansion is accelerated [@stt]. It has also been shown that the positive pressure with viscosity leads to a decelerated expansion in the framework of the causal Israel-Stewart formalism [@460]. Setting $\alpha=\beta=0$ gives exactly the same behavior of the pressure and energy density illustrated in Fig. 1(c),(d).
\[tap\]
$\alpha$ 1 0.5 0.2 0.002 0 0.02 0 -0.5 -0.01 0 -0.2
----------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
$\beta$ 1 0.5 0.1 0.001 0.01 0 0 0 0 -0.01 -0.1
$\rho(t)$ $\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ $\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ $\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ $\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ $\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ +ve and $\rightarrow \infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ +ve and $\rightarrow \infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ $\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ $\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ +ve and $\rightarrow \infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$ +ve and $\rightarrow \infty$ as $t \rightarrow 0$
: The behavior of $\rho(t)$ for different values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. This behavior is the same for $k=0$, $1$ and $-1$.
In order to understand the nature of dark energy, it is essential to detect the value and evolution of the EoS parameter $\omega = \frac{p}{\rho}$. The value of $\omega$ is $0$ for dust, $1/3$ for radiation and $-1$ for vacuum energy (cosmological constant). In some scalar field models we can have $\omega \leq -1$ for phantom field and $-1 \leq \omega \leq 1$ for quintessence field. $\omega$ can evolve across the cosmological constant boundary $\omega = -1$ for quintom field. The largest value of $\omega$ consistent with causality is $\omega=1$ for some exotic type of matter called stiff matter [@zeld] where the speed of sound is equal to the speed of light.
The evolution of the EoS parameter $\omega(t)$ is shown in Fig. 1(e). We can see that for $k=0, 1$ the behavior agrees with recent observations which show the consistency of the cosmological constant dark energy scenario (a perfect fluid with $\omega=-1$). We also notice there is no evolution across the cosmological constant boundary $\omega=-1$ (the phantom divide line), i.e. there is no crossing to the phantom era $\omega < -1$. The conditions to have a phantom universe in a specific model have been investigated in [@nogo] where a no-go theorem has been suggested. According to this theorem, the EoS parameter of a single perfect fluid or a single scalar field can not cross the phantom divide line $\omega=-1$. Since the modified cosmological equations (\[cosm1\]) and (\[cosm2\]) have been derived considering the perfect fluid matter as source in the universe, the proved no-go theorem explains the non-existence of the phantom behaviour in the current model.
Since we are interested in finding the correct values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ required for a stable flat universe in which a deceleration-to-acceleration transition occurs, we have examined the evolution of $\omega(t)$ for several values of these two prefactors (table 2). As we can see from table 2, a violation of causality ($\omega >1$) is allowed for all values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ except for $\alpha=0$ and $\beta=0$ (Fig. 2(a)) where the maximum allowed value is $\omega$ $\approx \frac{1}{3}$. So, according to the current model, the evolution of the EoS parameter suggests zero values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. This agrees with the analysis presented in [@zer] where it has been shown that the zero value is the unique choice consistent with both the holographic principle [@topo] and statistical mechanics.
\[tap2\]
$\alpha$ 0.02 0 -0.5 -0.01 0 -0.2
------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------- ------------------------------
$\beta$ 0 0 0 0 -0.01 -0.1
$\omega(t)$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 1.65$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 0.33$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 1.85$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 1.7$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 3$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 3$
$\alpha$ -0.8 -1.5 -2 -3 -4 -4.5
$\beta$ -0.5 -1.5 -2 -3 -4 -4.5
$\omega(t)$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 3.15$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \lesssim 3.15$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 3.25$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 3.5$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 4$ $-1 \leq \omega(t) \leq 4.7$
: The range of $\omega(t)$ for different values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ ($k=0$).
Fig. 2(d) shows that the jerk parameter decreases with cosmic time until it becomes constant $j=1$ at late-time. So, at late-time of the universe the current entropy-corrected model tends to a flat $\Lambda CDM$ model .
Stability of the model
======================
The physical acceptability of the current entropy-corrected model can be checked through testing the classical linear energy conditions [@ec11; @ec12], the sound speed, and the new nonlinear energy conditions [@ec; @FEC1; @FEC2; @detec]. It has been shown that the classical linear energy conditions (namely, the null $\rho + p\geq 0$; weak $\rho \geq 0$, $\rho + p\geq 0$; strong $\rho + 3p\geq 0$ and dominant $\rho \geq \left|p\right|$ energy conditions) should be replaced by other nonlinear energy conditions in the presence of semiclassical quantum effects [@ec; @detec]. It has also been pointed out that these linear energy conditions can not be valid in completely general situations and then they are not fundamental physics [@ec2; @parc]. The nonlinear energy conditions we consider in this work are (i) The flux energy condition (FEC): $\rho^2 \geq p_i^2$ [@FEC1; @FEC2], first presented in [@FEC1] when obtaining entropy bounds for uncollapsed systems. (ii) The determinant energy condition (DETEC): $ \rho . \Pi p_i \geq 0$ [@detec]. (ii) The trace-of-square energy condition (TOSEC): $\rho^2 + \sum p_i^2 \geq 0$ [@detec].
The strong energy condition (SEC) expresses the ‘highly restrictive’ statement that gravity should always be attractive. However, it has been shown that even in the classical regime this condition fails when describing the universe in the current accelerated epoch and during inflation [@ec3; @ec4; @ec5]. For the current model, and because the negative pressure represents a repulsive gravity, we don’t expect the SEC to be fulfilled in the late-time epoch dominated by negative pressure (dark energy dominated epoch). We can see that clearly in Fig. 1(h) where the SEC becomes invalid during the late-time accelerating DE dominated epoch for all values of $k$. The dominant energy condition (DEC) expresses the fact that energy density should be non-negative and should propagate in a causal way. Fig. 1(i) shows that this condition is always valid for $k=0,1$. The same happens for the WEC (Fig. 1(g)) which is valid all the time for $k=0,1$. The behavior of the nonlinear energy conditions has been plotted in Fig. 1(j),(k),(l). Fig. 1(j) shows that the flux energy condition FEC is always valid for $k=0,1$, while Fig. 1(k),(l) show that the determinant energy condition DETEC and the trace-of-square energy condition TOSEC are always valid for all $k$ values.
The adiabatic square sound speed $c_s^2=\frac{dp}{d\rho}$ should be positive and less than $1$. This is because causality implies that sound speed must be less than the speed of light and so the condition $0 \leq \frac{dp}{d\rho} \leq 1$ should be always satisfied ($c=G=1$ in relativistic units). For the current model, we get $$c_s^2 = \frac{f_1(t)}{g_1(t)}$$ Where $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(t)&=& \left(32 (\pi^2+\frac{1}{4} \pi \alpha-\frac{1}{16} \beta) k \sinh(t)+(-32 \pi \alpha+16 \beta) k^2-16 \pi^2-4 \pi \alpha+\beta\right) \cosh^4(t) \\ \nonumber
&+& \left((\beta k^2-\frac{2}{3}\pi^2-\frac{11}{12}\pi\alpha+\frac{5}{12}\beta)96k\sinh(t)+(64\pi\alpha+128\beta)k^2+32\pi^2-12\pi\alpha+8\beta\right)\times \\ \nonumber
&&\cosh(t)^2 -96\left(\beta k^2-\frac{1}{3}\pi^2-\frac{5}{6}\pi \alpha-\frac{1}{4}\beta\right)k\sinh(t)+(-32\pi \alpha-144 \beta)k^2-16\pi (\pi-\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ And $$\begin{aligned}
g_1(t)&=& \left(-96 (\pi^2+\frac{1}{4} \pi \alpha-\frac{1}{16} \beta) k \sinh(t)+(-96 \pi \alpha+48 \beta) k^2-16 \pi^2-4 \pi \alpha+\beta\right) \times \\ \nonumber
&&\cosh^4(t) + \left((\beta k^2+2\pi^2-\frac{1}{4}\pi\alpha+\frac{1}{4}\beta)96k\sinh(t)+ 192\pi( \alpha k^2+\frac{1}{2}\pi+\frac{1}{16}\alpha)\right)\times \\ \nonumber
&& \cosh(t)^2 -96\left(\beta k^2+\pi^2-\frac{1}{2}\pi \alpha\right)k\sinh(t)+(-96\pi \alpha-48 \beta)k^2-48\pi^2.\end{aligned}$$ Fig. 1(f) shows that this stability condition is satisfied only for the flat universe case. Hence, in the current entropy-corrected model, the flat universe is the most stable one in a good agreement with recent observations which favor a flat universe.
The total density parameter
===========================
Entropy-corrected holographic dark energy
-----------------------------------------
For a universe dominated by the holographic dark energy and the pressureless matter, the total density parameter $\Omega$ can be written as $$\Omega=\Omega_{m}+\Omega_{\Lambda}$$ Where $\Omega_m$ is the density parameter for dark matter, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is the density parameter for dark energy. The energy density of the so-called entropy-corrected holographic dark energy (ECHDE) has been proposed by Wei in the form [@echde]. $$\label{echde}
\rho_{\Lambda}=3c^2M^2_pL^{-2}+\gamma L^{-4} \ln(M^2_pL^2)+\eta L^{-4},$$ In units where $M_p^2=8\pi G=1$, $M_p$ is the reduced Planck mass, $L$ is the characteristic length scale (the IR cut-off) of the system and $c$ is a constant. Some observations suggested that the value of $c$ is close to unity for a flat universe [@Lib]. If $\gamma=\eta=0$, equation (\[echde\]) gives the well-known holographic dark energy (HDE) density: $$\label{hde}
\rho_{\Lambda}=3c^2M^2_pL^{-2},$$ when $L$ is very small, the last two terms in (\[echde\]) become comparable to the first one which means that these corrections make sense only at the early-time evolution of the universe. As $L$ increases, the universe gets larger and the ECHDE (\[echde\]) reduces to the ordinary HDE (\[hde\]). Since inflation happens at a very early stage of cosmic evolution, the last two terms in (\[echde\]) are important during inflation epoch. Then, during the radiation and matter-dominated epochs the universe is large enough for such terms to be ignored. The simplest choice for the characteristic length scale $L$ is the Hubble scale $L=\frac{1}{H}$, which leads to energy density comparable to the present-day dark energy [@le1; @le2]. It has been suggested in [@hsu] that this choice cannot be used at late-times application since it cannot lead to an accelerating universe. However, it has been shown in [@antihsu] that in a flat universe, and as soon as an interaction between dark energy and dark matter is taken into account, the choice $L=\frac{1}{H}$ can simultaneously drive accelerated expansion and solve the coincidence problem. An important feature of the current model is that the late-time cosmic acceleration is generated by ad-hoc mechanism (we generate it by hand through an empirical ansatz). Consequently, there are no worries about not obtaining the late-time cosmic acceleration in case of using the Hubble scale as the IR cutoff. It has been shown in [@exx] that, Contrary to the case of late-time application, the Hubble scale can be used in inflationary applications. Despite the drawbacks with the Hubble scale as the IR cutoff, it has been used in [@ir] to explore the properties of holographic ellipsoidal cosmologies and the possibility to develop observationally testable cosmologies has been proved. Since the flat universe is the most stable case in the current entropy-corrected model, we can now consider only a flat universe. Hence, $\Omega_{M}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ can be expressed as $$\Omega_{m}=\frac{\rho(t)}{3H^2}=\frac{(48\pi^2+6\pi\alpha-\beta)\cosh^6t-6\pi(16\pi+\alpha)\cosh^4t+48\pi^2\cosh^2t}{384 \pi^3 \sinh^4(t)\cosh^2(t)}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\Lambda}&=&\frac{3c^2H^2+\gamma H^4 \ln \frac{1}{H^2}+\eta H^4}{3H^2}\\ \nonumber
&=&\frac{1}{12\sinh^2(t) } \left[ \gamma \cosh^2(t)\ln\left(\frac{\sinh(t)}{\cosh(t)}\right)^2+(2 \gamma \ln(2)+\eta+12c^2)\cosh^2(t)-12c^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ Some observations suggest that for a flat universe $c=0.818^{+0.113}_{-0.097}$ [@Lib]. In Fig. 2(b), we have plotted the evolution of the total density parameter $\Omega$ versus cosmic time $t$ for $c=0.818+0.113$, $c=0.818-0.097$ and $c=1$. we observe that $\Omega\rightarrow 1$ as $c \rightarrow 1$. For $c=1$, $\Omega=1$ at late-time in a good agreement with observations [@sp]. The ratio of dark matter energy density to the dark energy density defines the coincidence parameter $r=\frac{\rho_{m}}{\rho_{\Lambda}}$: $$r=\frac{ \left( 48\,{\pi}^{2}+6\,\pi\,\alpha-\beta \right) \cosh^4 t- \left( 96\,{\pi}^{2}+6\,\pi\,\alpha
\right) \cosh^2t +48\,{\pi}^{2}
}{ 32\,\sinh^2t \left( a \cosh^2t \,\ln (\tanh^2t) + \left( 2\, a \ln 2 +12\,{c}^{2}+b \right) \cosh^2t -12\,{c}^{2} \right) {\pi}^{3}
}$$ While observations show that this ratio is constant at the present time [@coin], the standard $\Lambda CDM$ model doesn’t agree with this observations. Fig. 2(e) shows that the coincidence parameter varies at the early-time evolution and remains constant at the late-time evolution.
Modified holographic Ricci dark energy
--------------------------------------
The energy density of the so-called modified holographic Ricci dark energy density (MHRDE) has been suggested in [@de2]. In this dark energy proposal, the energy density is a function of the Hubble parameter $H$ and its time derivative. It is given by $$\rho_{\Lambda}=3(\alpha_1H^2+\beta_1\dot{H}+\gamma_1\ddot{H}H^{-1})$$ Where the behavior of $\rho_{\Lambda}$ depends heavily on the parameters $\alpha_1$, $\beta_1$ and $\gamma_1$. This model reduces to the modified Ricci dark energy model [@de3; @de4] for $\alpha_1=0$. For the current model, $\rho_{\Lambda}$ can be expressed as $$\label{MHRDE}
\rho_{\Lambda}=\frac{\alpha_1 \cosh^2(t)-2\beta_1+8\gamma_1}{\cosh^2(t)}$$ The evolution of the total density parameter $\Omega=\Omega_M+\Omega_{MHRDE}$ has been plotted in Fig. 2(c) for different values of the parameters $\alpha_1$, $\beta_1$ and $\gamma_1$. We have found that $\Omega=1$ for $\alpha_1=\beta_1=\gamma_1=1$. The coincidence parameter r is given by: $$\label{coin}
r=-\frac{ \cosh^2t \left( \left( {\pi}^{2}+
\frac{1}{8}\,\pi\,\alpha-\frac{\beta}{48} \right) \cosh^4t -2\,\pi\, \left( \pi+\frac{\alpha}{16} \right) \cosh^2t +{\pi}^{2} \right)
}{16 \left( -\frac{1}{2}\,\alpha_{1}\, \cosh^2t
+\beta_{1}-4\,\gamma_{1} \right) {\pi}^{3} \sinh^4t
}$$ The behavior of (\[coin\]) is shown in Fig. 2(f) .
Conclusion
==========
A stable flat entropy-corrected FRW cosmological model has been constructed. The modified FRW cosmological equations have been solved using an ansatz $a(t)=A\sqrt{\sinh(\xi t)}$ which allows a deceleration-to-acceleration transition. We have found that this ansatz perfectly describes a stable flat universe for certain values of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. While positive values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ don’t lead to physically acceptable solutions, we can get physically acceptable solutions with negative and zero values.
The pressure in this model is positive during the early-time decelerating expansion, and negative during the late-time accelerating epoch dominated by dark energy. The evolution of $\omega(t)$ has been investigated for several values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. We found that a violation of causality ($\omega >1$) is allowed for all values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ except for $\alpha=\beta=0$ where $-1 \leq \omega(t) \lesssim \frac{1}{3}$.
Based on the stability analysis, the most stable solution is the flat one where only the flat case ($k=0$) passes the sound speed test plus the old classical and new nonlinear energy conditions. Another support for the flat universe in the current model comes from the jerk parameter where it tends to a flat $\Lambda$CDM with $j=1$ at late-time.
We have calculated the total density parameter $\Omega$ using two different proposals for dark energy. For the case of the entropy-corrected holographic dark energy, we found that $\Omega \rightarrow 1$ at late-time of cosmic evolution in a good agreement with observations. In case of considering the modified holographic Ricci dark energy, we found that $\Omega \rightarrow 1$ at late-time for $\alpha_1=\beta_1=\gamma_1=1$.
Finally, Some important previous results in literature must be considered. Entropy corrections can be related to the Shannon-Von Neumann entropy already discussed in cosmology [@note1; @note2; @note3]. In [@note1] it has been shown that the Von Neumann entropy can be compared to the thermodynamical entropy in FRW universe, it has also been found in [@note3] that the evaluation of the Shannon-Von Neumann entropy can be directly related to the cosmological constant. On the other hand, the adopted energy conditions can be related to a general approach recently proposed for modified theories of gravity [@note4; @note5]. It has been shown that in spite of the energy conditions can be rewritten as in general relativity, their meaning can be totally different since the causal structure, geodesic structure and gravitational interaction may be changed. Also, the energy conditions have to be considered in a wider sense where the validity of the inequalities does not guarantee the attractive nature of gravity. The modified gravity model proposed here can work for other higher-order models as reported in [@note6; @note7].
\
\
\
[paper]{} S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae ,Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999). W. J. Percival et al., The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The power spectrum and the matter content of the universe , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 327, 1297 (2001). D. Stern et al., straining the Equation of State of Dark Energy. $I: H(z)$ Measurements, J. Cosm. Astrop. Phys. 008, (2010). A. Riess et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant , Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998). T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri & S. D. Odintsov, $f(R,T)$ gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024020 (2011). M. Tegmark et al., Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP ,Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004). C.L. Bennett et al., First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 1 (2003). D.N. Spergel et al., First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175 (2003a). P. de Bernardis et al., A Flat Universe from High-Resolution Maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation , Nature 404, 955 (2000); S. Hanany et al., MAXIMA-1: A Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy on angular scales of 10 arcminutes to 5 degrees , Astrophys. J. 545, L5 (2000). S. Tsujikawa, Quintessence: A Review, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 214003 (2013). A. Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella & V. Pasquier, An alternative to quintessence, Phys. Lett. B511, 265 (2001). R. R. Caldwell, A Phantom Menace? Cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state , Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002). T. Chiba, T. Okabe & M. Yamaguchi, Kinetically driven quintessence , Phys. Rev. D62, 023511 (2000). A. Sen, Tachyon Matter, JHEP 0207, 065 (2002). N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Cheng, M. A. Luty & S. Mukohyama, Ghost Condensation and a Consistent Infrared Modification of Gravity , JHEP 0405, 074 (2004). Nasr Ahmed & Sultan Z. Alamri, A stable flat universe with variable Cosmological constant in $f(R,T)$ Gravity , Res. Astron. Astrophys., Vol 18, No. 10 (2018); A cyclic universe with varying cosmological constant in $f(R, T)$ gravity Can. J. Phys. (2019) https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2018-0635. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov & V. K. Oikonomou, Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017). S. Nojiri & S. D. Odintsov, Modified $f(R, T)$ gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From a matter dominated epoch to a dark energy universe, Phys. Rev. D 74, 086005 (2006). Nasr Ahmed & H. Rafat, Topological origin of holographic principle: Applications to wormholes, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15 1850131 (2018). S. W. Hawking & G. F. R. Ellis, The large scale structure of spacetime (Cambridge University Press, England 1973). R. M. Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1984). S. Nojiri & s. D. Odintsov, Modified $f(R, T)$ gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From a matter dominated epoch to a dark energy universe, Phys. Rev. D74, 086005 (2006). S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov & P. V. Tretyakov, From Inflation to Dark Energy in the Non-Minimal Modified Gravity, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 172, 81 (2008). R. Ferraro & F. Fiorini, Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without an inflaton , Phys. Rev. D 75, 084031 (2007). G. R. Bengochea & R. Ferraro, Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124019 (2009). A. De Felice & S. Tsujikawa, $f(R)$ theories, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010). M. E. S. Alves, O. D. Miranda & J. C. N. de Araujo, Can massive gravitons be an alternative to dark energy?, Physics Letters B 700 (5), (2011). A. Maeder, Dynamical Effects of the Scale Invariance of the Empty Space: The Fall of Dark Matter?, The Astro. J. Vol 849, 2 (2017). J. Gagnon and J. Lesgourgues, Dark goo: bulk viscosity as an alternative to dark energy , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (026), 2011 \[1107.1503\] Nasr Ahmed & I. G. Moss, Gaugino condensation in an improved heterotic M-theory, JHEP 12, 108 (2008). Nasr Ahmed & I. G. Moss, Balancing the vacuum energy in heterotic M-theory, Nucl. Phys. B 833,1-2 (2010). P. Martın–Moruno and M. Visser, Semiclassical energy conditions for quantum vacuum states, JHEP 1309, 050 (2013) . C. Barcel´o and M. Visser, Twilight for the energy conditions? , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 1553 (2002). M. Visser, Energy conditions in the epoch of galaxy formation , Science 276, 88 (1997). M. Visser, General Relativistic Energy Conditions: The Hubble expansion in the epoch of galaxy formation , Phys. Rev. D 56, 7578 (1997) . M. Visser, Energy conditions and galaxy formation, gr-qc/9710010. S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975). J.M. Bardeen, B. Carter & s. W. Hawking, The four laws of black hole mechanics , Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973). T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstein Equation of State , Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995). R. G. Cai & S. P. Kim, First Law of Thermodynamics and Friedmann Equations of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe, JHEP 02, 050 (2005). R. Bousso, A Covariant Entropy Conjecture, JHEP. 9907, 004 (1999). S. Nojiri & S. D. Odintsov, Unifying phantom inflation with late-time acceleration: scalar phantom-non-phantom transition model and generalized holographic dark energy, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 38, (2006) 1285. T. Padmanabhan, Thermodynamics and/of Horizons: A Comparison of Schwarzschild,RINDLER and desitter Spacetimes, Mod. Phys. Letts. A17, 923 (2002); Gravity and the Thermodynamics of Horizons , Phys. Rept. 406, 49 (2005). M. Akbar, Thermodynamic Interpretation of Field Equations at Horizon of BTZ Black Hole , Chin.Phys.Lett. 24:1158 (2007). S. A. Hayward, S. Mukohyana & M. C. Ashworth, Dynamic black-hole entropy, Phys. Lett. A256, 347(1999). j. M. Bardeen, B. Carter & S. W. Hawking, The four laws of black hole mechanics , Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973). S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975). J. D. Bekenstein, Black Holes and Entropy , Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973). M. Akbar & R. G. Cai, Thermodynamic Behavior of Friedmann Equation at Apparent Horizon of FRW Universe , Phys. Rev. D75, 084003 (2007). R. G. Cai, L. Cao, H. Ya-Peng, Corrected Entropy-Area Relation and Modified Friedmann Equations, JHEP 0808, 090 (2008). A. Salehi & M. Fard, Bouncing universe of entropy-corrected Friedmann equations, Eur. Phys. J. C 78:232 (2018). A. J. M. Medved, A comment on black hole entropy or does Nature abhor a logarithm? , Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 133 (2005). J. L. Jing and M. L. Yan, Effect of spin on the quantum entropy of black holes , Phys. Rev. D 63, 024003 (2001). G. Gour, Algebraic approach to quantum black holes: Logarithmic corrections to black hole entropy,Phys. Rev. D 66, 104022 (2002). S. Hod, Higher-order corrections to the entropy and area of quantum black holes, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 14 (2004). J.Q. Xia, H. Li, X. Zhang, Dark energy constraints after the new Planck data, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063501 (2013). W. Yang, L. Xu, Cosmological constraints on interacting dark energy with redshift-space distortion after Planck data, Phys. Rev. D 89, 083517 (2014). G. Abreu, C. Barcel´o & M. Visser, Entropy bounds in terms of the w parameter, J.High Energy Physics JHEP12, 092 (2011). P. Mart´ın-Moruno & M. Visser, Classical and quantum flux energy conditions for quantum vacuum states, Phys. Rev. D 88 (6) 061701 (2013). P. MartnMoruno and M. Visser, Semiclassical energy conditions for quantum vacuum states, JHEP 1309, 050 (2013). C. Barcelo and M. Visser, Twilight for energy conditions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 1553 (2002). Yu.L. Bolotin, V.A. Cherkaskiy & O.A. Lemets et al, Cosmology In Terms Of The Deceleration Parameter. Part I, arXiv:1502.00811 M. Cruz, N. Cruz & S. Lepe, Accelerated and decelerated expansion in a causal dissipative cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 96, 124020 (2017). H. Wei, Entropy-Corrected Holographic Dark Energy, Commun. Theor. Phys. 52, 743 (2009). Li, M., Li, X.-D., Wang, S., & Zhang, X. 2009b, Planck Constraints on Holographic Dark Energy, J. Cosmol. and Astropart. Phys. 09: 021 (2013).
P. Horava, D. Minic, Probable Values of the Cosmological Constant in a Holographic Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 16101613 (2000). S. Thomas, Holography Stabilizes the Vacuum Energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 081301 (2002). E.L.D. Perico, J.A.S. Lima & S. Basilakos, Complete Cosmic History with a dynamical $\Lambda=\Lambda(H)$ term - Perico, E.L.D. et al. Phys.Rev. D88, 063531 (2013). S. D. H. Hsu, Entropy Bounds and Dark Energy, Phys. Lett. B 594, 13 (2004). D. Pavon, and W. Zimdahl, Holographic dark energy and cosmic coincidence, Phys. Lett. B 628, 206 (2005). S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov & E. N. Saridakis, Holographic inflation, arXiv:1904.01345v1 \[gr-qc\]. M. Cataldo & N. Cruz, The Hubble IR cutoff in holographic ellipsoidal cosmologies, Eur. Phys. J. C 78: 50 (2018). K. Adhav, G. B. Tayade, G.B. & A. S. Bansod, Interacting dark matter and holographic dark energy in an anisotropic universe, Astrophys. Space Sci. 353(1):249-257. S. Chen, J. Jing, Dark energy model with higher derivative of Hubble parameter, Phys. Lett. B 679, 144 (2009). L. N. Granda and A. Oliveros, New infrared cut-off for the holographic scalar fields models of dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 671, 199 (2009). L. N. Granda, Reconstructing the potentials for the quintessence and tachyon dark energy, from the holographic principle , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18 2009:1749-1764 (2009). T. Chiba and T. Nakamura, The Luminosity Distance, the Equation of State, and the Geometry of the Universe ,Prog. Theor. Phys. 100, 1077 (1998). M. Visser, Jerk, snap, and the cosmological equation of state, Class. Quantum Grav. 21, 2603 (2004); M. Visser, Cosmography: Cosmology without the Einstein equations , Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 37, 1541 (2005). Nasr Ahmed & Sultan Z. Alamri, Cosmological determination to the values of the pre-factors in the logarithmic corrected entropy-area relation, Astrophys Space Sci. (2019) 364:100. N. J. Poplawski, The cosmic jerk parameter in $f(R)$ gravity, Phys. Lett. B640, 135-137 (2006). D. Rapetti, S. W. Allen, M. A. Amin, and R. D. Blandford, A kinematical approach to dark energy studies, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.375:1510-1520 (2007). Nasr Ahmed & A. Pradhan, Bianchi type-V cosmology in $f(R,T)$ gravity with $\Lambda(T)$, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 53:289–306 (2014). A. A. Sen & S. Sethi, Quintessence Model With Double Exponential Potential , Phys. Lett. B532, 159 (2002). J. G. Silva & A. F. Santos, Ricci dark energy in Chern–Simons modified gravity , Eur Phys J C 73 (2500) 2013. M. V. Sazhin & O. S. Sazhina, The scale factor in a Universe with dark energy, Astron. Rep. 60,4 (2016). Y. F. Cai, J. Liu & H. Li, Entropic cosmology: A unified model of inflation and late-time acceleration, Phys. Lett. B 690, 213, (2010). Y. F. Cai et. al., Quintom Cosmology: Theoretical implications and observations, Phys. Rept. 493:1-60 (2010). Y. B. Zeldovich, A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the entropy of the Universe, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 160, 1P ( 1972). S. Capozziello & O. Luongo, Dark energy from entanglement entropy, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 52: 2698 (2013). S. Capozziello, O. Luongo & S. Mancini, Cosmological dark energy effects from entanglement, Phys. Lett. A 377, 1061-1064 (2013). S. Capozziello & O. Luongo, Entangled States in Quantum Cosmology and the Interpretation of $\Lambda$, Entropy 13(2), 528-541 (2011). S. Capozziello, F. S. N. Lobo & Jos´e P. Mimoso, Generalized energy conditions in extended theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D. 91: 124019 (2015). S. Capozziello, F. S. N. Lobo & Jos´e P. Mimoso, Energy conditions in modified gravity, Phys. Lett. B730:280-283 (2014). S. Capozziello & M. De Laurentis, Extended Theories of Gravity, Phys. Rept. 509:167-321 (2011). S. Capozziello, Curvature Quintessence, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11:483-492 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study inelastic neutrino scattering off hot nuclei for temperatures relevant under supernova conditions. The method we use is based on the quasiparticle random phase approximation extended to finite temperatures within the thermo field dynamics (TQRPA). The method allows a transparent treatment of upward and downward transitions in hot nuclei, avoiding the application of Brink’s hypothesis. For the sample nuclei $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge we perform a detailed analysis of thermal effects on the strength distributions of allowed Gamow-Teller (GT) transitions which dominate the scattering process at low neutrino energies. For $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge the finite temperature cross-sections are calculated by taking into account the contribution of allowed and forbidden transitions. The observed enhancement of the cross-section at low neutrino energies is explained by considering thermal effects on the GT strength. For $^{56}$Fe we compare the calculated cross-sections to those obtained earlier from a hybrid approach that combines large-scale shell-model and RPA calculations.'
author:
- 'Alan A. Dzhioev'
- 'A. I. Vdovin'
- 'J. Wambach'
- 'V. Yu. Ponomarev'
title: Inelastic neutrino scattering off hot nuclei in supernova environments
---
Introduction
============
The significant role played by processes involving neutrinos in core-collapse supernovae (type II supernovae) is well known [@Janka_PhysRep442]. Until the core reaches densities of $\rho\sim 10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$, a substantial amount of the gravitational energy of the collapse is radiated by neutrinos that leave the star freely. However, at higher densities neutrino interactions with matter become important on the time-scale of the collapse, leading to neutrino trapping and thermalization. Supernova core-collapse simulations require a detailed description of neutrino transport and should in principle include all potentially important neutrino reactions.
It was first pointed by Haxton [@Haxton_PRL60] that the neutral-current inelastic neutrino scattering on nuclei involving the excitation of giant resonances can lead to significant neutrino cross-sections and, therefore, this process should be incorporated into core-collapse simulations. Shortly thereafter, this was done by Bruenn and Haxton [@Bruenn_APJ376]. They found that the inelastic neutrino-scattering on nuclei plays the same important role as the neutrino-electron scattering in equilibrating neutrinos with matter (see also Ref. [@Langanke_PRL100]).
In their study Bruenn and Haxton approximated the nuclear composition of the core by a single representative nucleus, $^{56}$Fe. Moreover, the relevant cross-sections were calculated by assuming that only allowed Gamow-Teller and first-forbidden upward transitions from the nuclear ground-state contribute to neutrino scattering. However, supernova matter has a temperature of an order of 1 MeV or higher and the neutrinos scatter off nuclei which are in thermally populated excited states. As was first realized in Ref. [@Fuller_APJ376], upward and downward transitions from nuclear excited states to lower-lying states completely remove the energy threshold for the inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in the supernova environment and contribute to a significant enhancement of the cross-section for low-energy neutrinos. Moreover, and this is more important, due to downward transitions from nuclear excited states to lower-lying states neutrinos can gain energy after interacting with the nucleus, thereby assisting in cooling the core and reducing its entropy. This is different to inelastic scattering with electrons where due to the degeneracy of electrons neutrinos mainly loose energy.
An explicit calculation of reaction rates and cross-sections at finite temperature can be performed by summing over Boltzmann-weighted, individually determined contributions from nuclear excited states. However, for $T\gtrsim1\,\mathrm{MeV}$ a state-by-state evaluation includes too many states to derive the cross section for each individual state and, hence, is unfeasible. To overcome this difficulty an approximate method to treat thermal effects on the inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering was proposed in [@Juodagalvis_NPA747] (see also Ref. [@Sampaio_PLetB529]) within the so-called hybrid approach [@Kolbe_PRC63; @Toivanen_NPA694]. In this method the contributions of the allowed Gamow-Teller transitions to the neutrino-nucleus cross-section are derived from large-scale shell-model (SM) calculations, while the forbidden contributions are considered within the RPA.
To treat thermal effects within the hybrid approach, the Gamow-Teller contribution to the cross-section is split into the neutrino down-scattering ($E_{\nu'}<E_\nu$) and neutrino up-scattering ($E_{\nu'}>E_\nu$) parts, where $E_\nu,~E_{\nu'}$ denote the neutrino energies in the initial and final states, respectively. For the down-scattering part the Brink hypothesis was applied which states that GT distributions built on nuclear excited states are the same as those for the nuclear ground state but shifted by the excitation energy. Under this assumption, the down-scattering part of the cross-section becomes temperature independent. The temperature dependence arises from the up-scattering part which accounts for contributions of downward transitions from nuclear excited states. These contributions are determined by ’inversion’ of the shell-model GT distributions for the low-lying states.
Large-scale shell-model calculations provide a detailed strength distribution of charge-neutral Gamow-Teller (GT$_0$) transitions that strongly dominate the inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering at low neutrino energies ($E_\nu\lesssim
15\,\mathrm{MeV}$). However, being applied to hot nuclei, this method has its own shortcomings mainly because it partially employs the Brink hypothesis when treating GT$_0$ transitions from nuclear excited states. As follows from experimental studies of giant dipole resonances (GDR) in hot nuclei, the GDR strength function exhibits a temperature dependence (see, e.g., the monograph [@Bortignon1998] and one of the latest reviews [@Santonocita_EPJA30]), i.e., the validity of the Brink hypothesis is not obvious. Moreover, theoretical calculations performed for charge-exchange GT transitions in the framework of the shell-model Monte Carlo (SMMC) method demonstrate that with increasing temperature the GT centroid shifts to lower energies and the width of the distribution increases with the appearance of low-lying states [@Radha_PRC56]. In addition, the present computer capabilities allow application of large-scale shell-model calculations only to iron group nuclei ($pf$-shell, $A=45-65$), whereas neutrino scattering on more massive and neutron-rich nuclei also may play an important role in various astrophysical scenarios. Thus, the problem of an accurate description of inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in the supernova environment is not solved completely yet and alternative methods are desirable.
In [@Dzhioev_PAN74], we have developed such an alternative approach to treat thermal effects on inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering cross-sections. This approach is based on the thermal quasiparticle random phase approximation (TQRPA). We apply it in the context of the thermo field dynamics (TFD) formalism [@Takahashi_IJMPB10; @Umezawa1982; @Ojima_AnPhys137] which enables a transparent treatment of upward and downward transitions from thermally excited nuclear states and opens possibilities for systematic improvements. This approach was also recently used in studies of the electron capture on hot nuclei under supernova conditions [@Dzhioev_PRC81].
In [@Dzhioev_PAN74], the thermal effects on the inelastic neutrino scattering off the hot $^{54}$Fe nucleus were investigated. It was shown that the TQRPA does not support Brink’s hypothesis and leads to temperature dependent strength distributions for allowed and forbidden transitions. As a result, both the up- and down-scattering parts of the cross-section are temperature dependent. Despite the differences between the two approaches, the TQRPA revealed the same thermal effect as was found in [@Juodagalvis_NPA747]. Namely, a temperature increase results in considerable enhancement of the cross-section for neutrino energies lower than the energy of the GT$_0$ resonance.
In the present paper, we extend our previous study by also considering inelastic neutrino scattering off neutron-rich nuclei beyond $pf$-shell. In our calculations, we take into account not only the first-forbidden transitions but also contributions from higher multipoles. For the selected iron isotope, ${}^{56}$Fe, we perform a detailed comparison of the calculated TQRPA cross-sections with the hybrid approach results and discuss the reason for the observed discrepancy at low neutrino energies.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[formalism\] we present some important features of the TFD formalism and briefly outline how to treat upward and downward transitions in a hot nucleus within the TQRPA. The details of our approach are expounded in [@Dzhioev_PRC81; @Dzhioev_PAN74; @Dzhioev_IJMPE18]. In Sec. \[formalism\], we also provide the necessary formulas to calculate inelastic neutrino-nucleus cross-sections at finite temperatures. The results of the numerical calculations are presented and discussed in Sec. \[results\] for the sample nuclei $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge. The conclusions are summarized in Sec. \[conclusion\].
Formalism
=========
In the stellar environment during the core-collapse phase all nuclear reactions mediated by the strong and electromagnetic interaction are in equilibrium with their inverse [@Janka_PhysRep442]. Neglecting weak-interaction mediated reactions, nuclei are in thermal equilibrium with heat and particle reservoirs and, therefore, can be described as a thermal ensemble. In TFD, such an equilibrium ensemble is represented by a temperature-dependent state termed the thermal vacuum $|0(T)\rangle$ [^1]. The thermal vacuum is determined as the zero-energy eigenstate of the thermal Hamiltonian, ${\mathcal H} = H - \widetilde H$, and it satisfies the thermal state condition $$\label{TSC}
A|0(T)\rangle = \sigma_A \mathrm{e}^{\mathcal{H}/2T}\widetilde A^\dag |0(T)\rangle.$$ In the above equations $H$ is the original nuclear Hamiltonian and $\widetilde H$ is its tilde counterpart acting in the auxiliary Hilbert space; an operator $A$ acts in the physical Hilbert space, $\widetilde A$ is its tilde partner, and $\sigma_A$ is a phase factor. The thermal state condition guarantees that the expectation value $\langle 0(T)|A|0(T)\rangle$ is equal to the (grand)canonical average of $A$. In this sense, relation is equivalent to the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger condition for an equilibrium (grand)canonical density matrix [@Kubo_JPSJ12; @*Martin_PRev115].
Weak-interaction processes, such as inelastic neutrino scattering, induce transitions from the thermal vacuum to excited states of the thermal nuclear Hamiltonian. As follows from the definition of ${\mathcal H}$, each of its eigenstates with positive energy has a counterpart — the tilde-conjugate eigenstate — with negative but same absolute value of energy. Transitions from the thermal vacuum to positive energy states (upward transitions) correspond to excitation of the nucleus, while transitions to negative energy states (downward transitions) describe the decay of thermally excited states.
Thermal quasiparticle RPA {#TQRPA}
-------------------------
Let us now consider a general nuclear Hamiltonian consisting of mean fields for protons and neutrons, pairing interactions, and residual two-nucleon interactions: $$H = H_\mathrm{mf} + H_\mathrm{pair} + H_\mathrm{res}.$$ To fix an average number of protons and neutrons we introduce the respective chemical potentials into $H_\mathrm{mf}$. The residual interaction can contain both particle-hole and particle-particle terms. We assume a spherically symmetric nucleus, although the deformation can be easily included into the theory. Within the TQRPA, to find excited states of a hot nucleus, we first introduce thermal quasiparticle creation ($\beta^\dag,~\widetilde\beta^\dag$) and annihilation ($\beta,~\widetilde\beta$) operators which account for pairing correlations at finite temperature. The structure of this operators is found by diagonalizing the $\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{mf} + \mathcal{H}_\mathrm{pair}$ part of the thermal Hamiltonian and simultaneously demanding that the vacuum of thermal quasiparticles obeys the thermal state condition . Then, to account for the long-range residual interaction, we introduce thermal phonon operators $Q^\dag_{JMi},~\widetilde Q^\dag_{JMi}$ of given total angular momentum $(J,M)$ whose action on the thermal vacuum $|0(T)\rangle$ creates thermal excited states, while the thermal vacuum itself is the vacuum for the $Q_{JMi},~\widetilde
Q_{JMi}$ operators.
The structure and the energy of thermal phonons can be found by applying either the variational principle or the equation of motion method under two additional constraints: (i) phonon operators commute like bosonic ones; (ii) the vacuum of thermal phonons obeys the thermal state condition . The resulting phonon operators have the following form [^2]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{phonon}
Q^\dag_{J M i}=\sum_{j_1j_2}
\Bigl\{\psi^{Ji}_{j_1j_2}[\beta^\dag_{j_1}\beta^\dag_{j_2}]^J_M +
%
\widetilde\psi^{J i}_{j_1j_2}[\widetilde\beta^\dag_{\overline{\jmath_1}}
\widetilde\beta^\dag_{\overline{\jmath_2}}]^J_M
\\ +
%
\eta^{J i}_{j_1j_2}[\beta^\dag_{j_1}
\widetilde\beta^\dag_{\overline{\jmath_2}}]^J_M
%
+
\phi^{J i}_{j_1j_2}[\beta_{\overline{\jmath_1}}\beta_{\overline{\jmath_2}}]^J_M \\
%
+ \widetilde\phi^{J i}_{j_1j_2}[\widetilde\beta_{j_1}
\widetilde\beta_{j_2}]^J_M +
\xi^{J i}_{j_1j_2}[\beta_{\overline{\jmath_1}}
\widetilde\beta_{j_2}]^J_M\Bigr\}\end{gathered}$$ and they diagonalize the thermal Hamiltonian $${\cal H}\simeq\sum_{JM i}\omega_{J i}(T)
(Q^\dag_{JM i}Q^{\phantom{\dag}}_{JM i}
-\widetilde Q^\dag_{JM i}\widetilde Q^{\phantom{\dag}}_{JM i})$$ within the TQRPA. The phonon amplitudes $\psi,\, \widetilde\psi,\,\mathrm{etc.}$ as well as the phonon energies $\omega$ are the solution of the TQRPA equations. It should be emphasized that in the zero-temperature limit the TQRPA method turns into the standard QRPA.
In [@Dzhioev_PRC81], we have performed a detailed analysis of finite temperature effects on the spectrum of charge-exchange thermal phonons. Here we repeat the main conclusions which remain valid for the charge-neutral excitations as well. Due to the terms in involving tilde thermal quasiparticle operators (terms like $\beta^\dag\widetilde\beta^\dag$ and $\widetilde\beta^\dag\widetilde\beta^\dag$) the spectrum of thermal phonons contains negative- and low-energy states which do not exist at zero temperature. Since (see [@Dzhioev_PRC81] for more details) the creation of a tilde quasiparticle is equivalent to the annihilation of a thermally excited Bogoliubov quasiparticle, the excitation of the aforementioned “new” phonon states can be interpreted as thermally unblocked transitions from nuclear excited states. Furthermore, both the energies of thermal quasiparticles and the interaction strength between them are temperature dependent. As a result, after solving the TQRPA equations we obtain a temperature-dependent spectrum of thermal phonons.
Once the structure of thermal phonons is determined, one can evaluate transition strengths (probabilities) from the thermal vacuum to thermal one-phonon states. For a given transition operator $\mathcal{T}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trans_ampl}
\Phi_{J i}&=\bigl|\langle Q_{J
i}\|\mathcal{T}\|0(T)\rangle\bigr|^2,
\notag\\
\widetilde \Phi_{J i}&=\bigl|\langle\widetilde Q_{J
i}\|\mathcal{T}\|0(T)\rangle\bigr|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_{J i}$ and $\widetilde \Phi_{J i}$ are the strengths of upward and downward transitions, respectively. They are connected by the relationship $$\label{balance}
\widetilde\Phi_{J i}=\exp\Bigl(-\frac{\omega_{J i}}{T}\Bigr)\Phi_{J
i},$$ where $\omega_{Ji}$ is a positive solution of the TQRPA equations. This relation links the probabilities to transfer and gain energy $E=\omega_{Ji}$ from a hot nucleus. It is interesting to note that the same relationship between the upward and downward transition strengths is used in [@Fischer_arxiv1309.4271v1] when considering the thermal strength functions for emission and absorption of neutrino-antineutrino pairs by hot nuclei. In [@Fischer_arxiv1309.4271v1], the relation results from the principle of detailed balance. In TFD, it arises from the thermal state condition imposed on the thermal vacuum. We also would like to point out that in [@Fischer_arxiv1309.4271v1], due to the application of Brink’s hypothesis, the absorption (upward) strength is considered to be temperature independent and only the emission (downward) strength depends on temperature due to the Boltzmann factor $\exp(-E/T)$. In contrast, within the present approach, both the upward and downward transition strengths are temperature dependent.
Cross-section at finite temperatures
------------------------------------
Deriving the inelastic neutrino-nucleus cross-section at finite temperature we follow the Walecka-Donnelly formalism [@Walecka1975; @Donnelly_PRep50] which is based on the standard current-current form of the weak interaction Hamiltonian. Then the temperature-dependent differential cross-section for a transition from the thermal vacuum to the final thermal one-phonon state takes the form $$\label{dif_cr_sect}
\frac{d}{d\Omega} \sigma_{Ji}(E_\nu,T)= \frac{2G^2_F}{\pi}\, E_{\nu'}^2 \cos^2\frac{\Theta}{2}
\bigl\{\sigma^J_{CL} + \sigma^J_{T} \bigr\}.$$ Here, $G_F$ is the Fermi constant of the weak interaction and $\Theta$ the scattering angle. The Coulomb-longitudinal, $\sigma^J_{CL}$, and transverse, $\sigma^J_{T}$, terms in Eq. are given by $$\label{CL}
\sigma^J_{CL} = |\langle J i\| \hat M_J \pm \frac{\omega_{Ji}}{q} \hat L_J\|0(T)\rangle|^2,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{T}
\sigma^J_{T}=\Bigl(-\frac{q^2_\mu}{2q^2} + \tan^2\frac{\Theta}{2} \Bigr)
\Bigl[ |\langle J i\| \hat T^\mathrm{mag}_J\|0(T)\rangle|^2 +\\
|\langle J i\| \hat T^\mathrm{el}_J\|0(T)\rangle|^2 \Bigr]
-\tan\frac{\Theta}{2}\sqrt{-\frac{q^2_\mu}{2q^2} + \tan^2\frac{\Theta}{2}} \\
\times\Bigl[ 2 \mathrm{Re} \langle J i\| \hat T^\mathrm{mag}_J\|0(T)\rangle\langle J i\| \hat T^\mathrm{el}_J\|0(T)\rangle^* \Bigr],\end{gathered}$$ where $q_\mu=(\pm\omega_{J i}, \vec q)$ ($q=|\vec q|=\sqrt{\omega^2_{Ji}+4E_{\nu'}E_\nu\sin^2\frac{\Theta}{2})}$) is the 4-momentum transfer and the notation $|Ji\rangle$ is used to denote both the non-tilde and the tilde states. The upper sign in the above equations refers to upward transitions from the thermal vacuum to non-tilde states ($E_{\nu'}=E_\nu - \omega_{Ji}$), while the lower sign corresponds to downward transitions to tilde states ($E_{\nu'}=E_\nu + \omega_{Ji}$). The multipole operators $\hat M_J$, $\hat L_J$, $\hat J^\mathrm{el}_J$, and $\hat J^\mathrm{mag}_J$ denote the charge, longitudinal, and transverse electric and magnetic parts of the hadronic current, respectively, as defined in [@Walecka1975; @Donnelly_PRep50]. For the vector, axial-vector, and pseudoscalar form-factors which describe the internal structure of the nucleon we use parametrization from Ref. [@Singh_NPB77] (see also Ref. [@Djapo_PRevC86]).
From Eq., the total cross-section, $\sigma(E_\nu,T)$, as a function of temperature and incoming neutrino energy is obtained by integrating over the scattering angle and summing over all possible final thermal excited states $$\begin{aligned}
\label{total_CrSect}
\sigma(E_\nu,T) = &~ 2\pi\sum_{Ji}\int^{-1}_{1} \frac{d\sigma_{Ji}}{d\Omega}\, d\cos\Theta
\notag\\
&~ = \sigma_\mathrm{down}(E_\nu,T) + \sigma_\mathrm{up}(E_\nu,T).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we follow Ref. [@Juodagalvis_NPA747] and split the total cross-section into two parts: $\sigma_\mathrm{down}(E_\nu,T)$ describes the neutrino down-scattering process and includes only transitions to non-tilde phonon states, while $\sigma_\mathrm{up}(E_\nu,T)$ corresponds to the neutrino up-scattering associated with transitions to tilde states.
For inelastic scattering of low-energy neutrinos, i.e., in the long wavelength limit ( $q\to 0$), only two multipole operators survive, $\hat L_1$ and $\hat T^\mathrm{el}_1$, which contribute to $1^+$ transitions. Then the integration over the scattering angle in Eq. can be performed analytically and, in view of the detailed balance principle , the low-energy cross-section can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cr_sect_GT0}
\sigma(E_\nu,T) =&\frac{G^2_F}{\pi}{\sum_i}' (E_\nu - \omega_{i})^2\Phi_{i}
\notag\\
+& \frac{G^2_F}{\pi}\sum_i (E_\nu + \omega_{i})^2\exp\Bigl(-\frac{\omega_{i}}{T}\Bigr)\Phi_{i},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_{i}$ is the transition strength for the Gamow-Teller operator (see Eq. below). The sum ${\sum_i}'$ in the first, down-scattering, term implies summation over $1^+$ non-tilde thermal phonon states with the energy $\omega_{i}<E_\nu$. Apparently, for vanishing neutrino energies, $E_\nu\approx 0$, only the second, up-scattering, term persists at finite temperatures. We also note that although the Boltzmann factor suppresses the contributions of downward transitions from high-lying thermally excited states, the phase-space factor $(E_\nu + \omega_{i})^2$ acts in the opposite direction and favors them.
Results and discussion {#results}
======================
The formalism presented above is employed to study thermal effects on the inelastic neutrino scattering off the two sample nuclei, $^{56}\mathrm{Fe}$ and $^{82}\mathrm{Ge}$. The iron isotope is among the most abundant nuclei at the early stage of the core-collapse, while the neutron-rich germanium isotope can be considered as the average nucleus at later stages [@Cooperstein_NPA420].
Let us now specify the nuclear Hamiltonian which will be used in the present study. Like in [@Dzhioev_PAN74; @Dzhioev_PRC81], we apply a phenomenological Hamiltonian containing separable particle-hole residual interactions with isoscalar and isovector parts. We neglect particle-particle interactions except for the BCS pairing forces. This Hamiltonian is usually referred to as the quasiparticle-phonon model (QPM) [@Soloviev1992]. For $^{56}\mathrm{Fe}$ and $^{82}\mathrm{Ge}$, the single-particle energies and wave-functions are derived from an appropriate Woods-Saxon mean-field potential [@Chepurnov_SJNP6]. The depth of the Wood-Saxon potential as well as the pairing strength parameters are fixed in the same manner as in [@Dzhioev_PAN74; @Dzhioev_PRC81]. In the obtained single-particle level schemes $^{56}\mathrm{Fe}$ has two neutron holes in the $1f_{7/2}$ subshell and two protons in the $2p_{3/2}$ subshell, while $^{82}\mathrm{Ge}$ has closed $1g_{9/2}$ neutron and $2p_{3/2}$ proton subshells. It is notable that the sequence of single-particle levels for $^{82}\mathrm{Ge}$ is close to that used in Ref. [@Cooperstein_NPA420] for the same nucleus in spite of different Woods-Saxon parameterizations. Solving the BCS equations at zero-temperature we get the proton and neutron pairing gaps: $\Delta_{p(n)} = 1.57(1.36)~\mathrm{MeV}$ for $^{56}\mathrm{Fe}$ and $\Delta_{p(n)} = 1.22(0.0)~\mathrm{MeV}$ for $^{82}\mathrm{Ge}$. Thus, the critical temperature $T_\mathrm{cr}\approx 0.5\Delta(T=0)$ above which the pairing gap collapses, according to the BCS theory (see Refs. [@Goodman_NPA352; @Civitarese_NPA404] for more details), is $T_\mathrm{cr}\approx 0.8\,\mathrm{MeV}$ for $^{56}$Fe and $T_\mathrm{cr}\approx 0.6\,\mathrm{MeV}$ for $^{82}$Ge.
In the present study, multipoles up to $J^\pi = 3^\pm$ contributing to the neutrino-scattering cross-section are included in the calculations. To generate the thermal one-phonon excited states, we use both multipole and spin-multipole components of the residual interaction $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mult}
H^{\rm ph}_{\rm M}&=-\frac12\sum_{\lambda\mu}\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{\tau=n,p}{\rho=\pm1}}
(\kappa_0^{(\lambda)}+\rho\kappa_1^{(\lambda)})M^\dag_{\lambda\mu}(\tau)M^{\phantom{+}}_{\lambda\mu}(\rho\tau),
\notag \\
H^{\rm ph}_{\rm SM} &=
-\frac12\sum_{L\lambda\mu}\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{\tau=n,p}{\rho=\pm1}}(\kappa^{(L\lambda)}_0+\rho\kappa^{(L\lambda)}_1)
S^\dag_{L\lambda\mu}(\tau)
S^{\phantom{\dag}}_{L\lambda\mu}(\rho\tau).\end{aligned}$$ Here $M^\dag_{\lambda\mu}$ and $S^\dag_{L\lambda\mu}$ are single-particle multipole and spin-multipole operators [@Soloviev1992], and changing the sign of the isotopic index $\tau$ means changing $n
\leftrightarrow p$. The excitations of natural parity ($\pi=(-1)^J$) are generated by the multipole and spin-multipole $L=\lambda$ interactions , while the spin-multipole interactions with $L=\lambda\pm1$ are responsible for the states of unnatural parity ($\pi=(-1)^{J+1}$). To generate $0^+$ excitations, we take into account both the particle-hole residual interaction and the particle-particle interaction stemming from the pairing part of the Hamiltonian. Here we would like to emphasize that the inclusion of the particle-particle residual interaction into the Hamiltonian does not affect the strength distributions and the cross-sections for temperatures above the critical one.
In contrast to [@Dzhioev_PAN74; @Dzhioev_JPhys410], in the present study the radial form-factors of multipole and spin-multipole operators in Eq. have the $r^\lambda$ form. We found that this form of the radial form-factors gives better agreement with results of relativistic self-consistent QRPA calculations [@Djapo_PRevC86] when comparing multipole composition of the cross-sections (see the discussion below). The respective isoscalar and isovector strength parameters, $\kappa_{0,1}^{(\lambda)}$ and $\kappa_{0,1}^{(L\lambda)}$, are first roughly estimated following Refs. [@Castel_PLetB65; @Bes_PRep16] and then partly refined on the basis of available experimental data. For example, in $^{56}$Fe the isovector strength parameters $\kappa^{(01)}_1$ and $\kappa^{(21)}_1$ are slightly readjusted to reproduce the experimental centroid energies of the GT$_-$ and GT$_+$ resonances [@Rapaport_NPA410; @Ronnqvist_NPA563]. We find that the isovector strength parameter $\kappa^{(1)}_1$ estimated according to [@Bes_PRep16] reproduces the experimental position of the GDR centroid ($\sim18~\mathrm{MeV}$) in $^{56}$Fe [@Bowles_PRevC24] quite well. In addition, the isoscalar strength parameters $\kappa_0^{(1)}$ for $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge are fitted to exclude the spurious $1^-$ state due to the center of mass motion of the nucleus.
Zero temperature
----------------
![(Color online) Inelastic neutrino scattering cross-sections off the ground states of $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge as functions of the incoming neutrino energy $E_\nu$. The total cross-sections include contributions of $J^\pi = 0^\pm - 3^\pm$ multipoles (solid lines). The dashed lines show the cross-sections calculated when the $1^+$ contributions are omitted. The dash-dotted lines display the $1^+$ contributions to the cross-sections calculated with the full $q$-dependent transition operator whereas the $1^+$ contributions calculated with the GT$_0$ operator are shown by the dash-double dotted lines.[]{data-label="CrSect_T0"}](figure1){width="\columnwidth"}
Before proceeding to thermal effects we consider the inelastic neutrino-nucleus cross-sections at zero temperature and perform a comparison with the available results of other approaches. We note once again that at $T=0$ our calculations are equivalent to the QRPA. The calculated ground-state cross-sections for $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge are shown in Fig. \[CrSect\_T0\] for incoming neutrino energies $E_\nu=0-60\,\mathrm{MeV}$. As one can see in the figure, for neutrinos with $E_\nu<30\,\mathrm{MeV}$ the total cross-sections are dominated by $1^+$ transitions. Due to the energy gap in the $1^+$ nuclear states the cross-sections drop rapidly to zero as the neutrino energy approaches the reaction threshold. Within the present QRPA calculations, the lowest $1^+$ states in $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge have energies 4.06 and 2.67 MeV, respectively. Note, that the experimental energy of the first $1^+$ excited state in $^{56}$Fe is $3.12$ MeV.
For the ground-state cross-sections we also analyze the effect due to the exploitation of the full $q$-dependent $1^+$ transition operator instead of its long wavelength limit. In the latter case the $1^+$ operator reduces to the Gamow-Teller operator $$\label{GT0}
\mathrm{GT}_0 =\Bigl(\frac{g_A}{g_V}\Bigr)\vec\sigma t_0,$$ where $(g_A/g_V) =-1.2599$ [@Towner1995] is the ratio of the axial and vector weak coupling constants and $t_0$ denotes the zero component of the isospin operator in spherical coordinates. Here we would like to remind that within the hybrid approach [@Kolbe_PRC63; @Toivanen_NPA694; @Juodagalvis_NPA747], the GT contribution to the cross-section is obtained by using the large-scale shell-model calculations. Therefore, to make a comparison with the hybrid approach calculation more transparent, we use the same quenching factor for the axial weak coupling constant, $g^*_A=0.74g_A$, when calculating the matrix elements of the $1^+$ transition operator.
![(Color online) The distributions of the GT$_0$ strength in $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge.[]{data-label="GT0_0"}](figure2){width="\columnwidth"}
Let us first demonstrate the calculated QRPA (quenched) GT$_0$ strength distributions. Referring to Fig. \[GT0\_0\], at zero temperature the GT$_0$ strength is concentrated in the resonance state around $E=10\,\mathrm{MeV}$. According to our QRPA calculations, the main contribution to the GT$_0$ resonance in $^{56}$Fe comes from the proton and neutron single-particle transitions $1f_{7/2}\to
1f_{5/2}$. In $^{82}$Ge, the neutron transition $1g_{9/2}\to1g_{7/2}$ also contributes to the resonance. In addition, for both nuclei our QRPA calculations predict a weak low-lying GT$_0$ strength ($E\approx 4\,\mathrm{MeV}$) arising from the $2p_{3/2}\to 2p_{1/2}$ single-particle transitions. For $^{56}$Fe, the gross-structure of the GT$_0$ strength distribution agrees quite well with the shell-model results [@Toivanen_NPA694], meaning that the GT$_0$ strength is concentrated in the resonance region around 10 MeV with a small bump at low energy. The same good agreement can be found if we compare the shell-model GT$_0$ distributions for $^{54}$Fe (see Ref. [@Toivanen_NPA694]) with our previously reported QRPA result [@Dzhioev_PAN74]. However, although our calculations reproduce the resonance positions in $^{54,56}$Fe, it is a well-known fact that the QRPA fails to recover all nuclear correlations needed to correctly describe the full resonance width and produces only a part of it, the so-called Landau width. The latter is quite small for the GT$_0$ resonance. As a result, the fine structure of GT distributions in the vicinity of the resonance is not reproduced in our calculations. In this respect the shell-model calculations are clearly advantageous.
Using the calculated strength distributions we apply Eq. and calculate the GT contribution to the ground-state cross-sections. In Fig. \[CrSect\_T0\], these contributions are shown by the dash-double dotted lines. From the figure we conclude that for neutrino energies $E_\nu<20$ MeV, when $1^+$ transitions dominate the cross-section, application of the GT$_0$ operator instead of the $q$-dependent $1^+$ operator is fully justified. However, for neutrinos with the energy $30~\mathrm{MeV}< E_\nu< 60~\mathrm{MeV}$ the GT$_0$ operator overestimates the cross-sections by about 25%.
$E_\nu$ (MeV) QRPA QRPA[@Djapo_PRevC86] QRPA[@Chasioti_PPNP59] Hybrid[@Kolbe_PRC63]
--------------- ---------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------
10 1.69(-2) 1.87(-1) 1.01(+0) 1.91(-1)
20 5.64(+0) 9.78(+0) 5.79(+0) 6.90(+0)
30 2.41(+1) 4.08(+0) 1.87(+1) 2.85(+1)
40 6.65(+1) 1.05(+2) 5.51(+1) 7.86(+1)
50 1.49(+2) 2.16(+2) 1.43(+2) 1.72(+2)
60 2.87(+2) 3.89(+2) 3.09(+2) 3.20(+2)
70 4.83(+2) 6.33(+2) 5.63(+2) 5.25(+2)
80 7.36(+2) 9.59(+2) 8.82(+2) 7.89(+2)
90 1.03(+3) 1.38(+3) 1.22(+3) 1.11(+3)
100 1.36(+3) 1.92(+3) 1.52(+3) 1.49(+3)
: The cross-sections (in units of $10^{-42}~\mathrm{cm}^2$) for inelastic neutrino scattering on the ground state of $^{56}$Fe. The present QRPA results (second column) are compared with those from [@Djapo_PRevC86; @Chasioti_PPNP59] and with the hybrid approach results [@Kolbe_PRC63].
\[56Fe\_comparison\]
In Table \[56Fe\_comparison\], we compare the calculated ground-state cross-sections for $^{56}$Fe with those obtained with the hybrid approach [@Kolbe_PRC63], the relativistic self-consistent QRPA [@Djapo_PRevC86], and the QRPA-based framework from Ref. [@Chasioti_PPNP59]. The range of incoming neutrino energies is $10\le E_\nu\le 100$ MeV. As it follows from the table, except for low neutrino energies ($E_\nu=10$ MeV), the cross-sections of all four models are in good qualitative agreement. It is interesting to note that for $E_\nu\ge20$ MeV the present results are generally closer to the hybrid approach results than the results of the other two QRPA-based methods.
To explain the discrepancy between our calculations and those of the hybrid approach at low neutrino energies, we note that at $E_\nu\approx 10\,\mathrm{MeV}$ the calculated cross-sections are strongly sensitive to the fine details of the GT$_0$ distribution in the resonance region. As it was already discussed above, the large-scale shell-model calculations adequately reproduce the fragmentation of the GT$_0$ resonance strength whereas the QRPA calculations predict its much stronger concentration near the excitation energy $E\approx
10\,\mathrm{MeV}$. For this reason, our cross-section calculated for $E_\nu= 10\,\mathrm{MeV}$ is considerably smaller than the hybrid approach result.
![Relative contributions of multipole transitions $J^\pi =
0^\pm-3^\pm$ in the cross-sections for the inelastic neutrino scattering on the ground-states of $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge at incoming neutrino energies $E_\nu=30$ and 60 MeV. For $^{56}$Fe, the results of the present analysis (grey bars) are compared with the results of relativistic self-consistent QRPA calculations (black bars). The latter are obtained from Fig. 3 in Ref. [@Djapo_PRevC86].[]{data-label="Mult_contributions"}](figure3){width="\columnwidth"}
We also study how relative contributions of different multipoles to the total cross-sections depend on the energy of incoming neutrinos. In Fig. \[Mult\_contributions\], the relative contributions are shown for $E_\nu=30~\mathrm{and}~60~\mathrm{MeV}$ neutrinos. Even at $E_\nu=30~\mathrm{MeV}$ a largely dominant multipole is $1^+$, although contributions coming from the other multipoles are not negligible. For $^{82}$Ge this contribution reaches about 30% of the total cross-section. This is due to the neutron excess which makes possible spin-dipole $1^-$ and $2^-$ $1\hbar\omega$ transition at relatively low neutrino energies. The situation is quite different for $E_\nu=60~\mathrm{MeV}$ where the multipole transitions $J^\pi = 1^+,\,1^-\,\mathrm{and}\,2^-$ contribute about equally to the cross-sections.
In Fig. \[Mult\_contributions\], we compare the obtained multipole composition of the cross-section for $^{56}$Fe with that from relativistic self-consistent QRPA calculations [@Djapo_PRevC86]. Although our cross-sections are somewhat smaller than those in Ref. [@Djapo_PRevC86] (compare the second and the third columns of Table \[56Fe\_comparison\]), one can observe an excellent agreement between the two models based on rather different backgrounds. In accordance with Ref. [@Djapo_PRevC86], we find that $0^+$ allowed transitions only marginally contribute to the inelastic cross-section and this finding is true for finite temperatures as well. For this reason, in the discussion below, we will always mean only the $1^+$ multipole channel when considering the allowed transitions.
![(Color online) Normalized differential cross-sections as a function of the scattering angle. []{data-label="angular"}](figure4){width="\columnwidth"}
The angular distributions of the scattered neutrinos are shown in Fig. \[angular\] for two incoming neutrino energies, $E_\nu=30~\mathrm{and}~60\,\mathrm{MeV}$. To make the presentation more transparent, we normalize the calculated differential cross sections to their value at $\Theta=0^\circ$. As shown in the figure, neutrinos scatter predominately in the backward direction. For $E_\nu=30\,\mathrm{MeV}$, when $1^+$ transitions dominate, the momentum transfer is small and the angular dependence of the differential cross-section essentially corresponds to $d\sigma/d\Omega\sim (1 + \sin^2(\Theta/2))$ [@Donnelly_PRep50]. The small deviation for $^{82}$Ge is due to a non-negligible contribution from the forbidden multipoles (see Fig. \[Mult\_contributions\]). For $E_\nu=60\,\mathrm{MeV}$ neutrinos, owing to the dominant contribution of forbidden multipoles, the backward-to-forward asymmetry of the differential cross-sections becomes more pronounced.
Finite temperatures
-------------------
Now we turn our discussion to thermal effects on the inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering. We start by considering the temperature evolution of the strength distributions for GT$_0$ transitions which dominate low-energy neutrino scattering. In Fig. \[GT0\_T\], we display on a logarithmic scale the GT$_0$ strength distributions at three different temperatures relevant in the supernova context [@Juodagalvis_NPA747]: $T=0.86$ MeV corresponds to the condition in the core of a presupernova model for a $15\text{M}_{\odot}$ star; $T=1.29$ MeV and $T=1.72$ MeV relate approximately to neutrino trapping and neutrino thermalization stages, respectively. The transition energy $E$ refers to the excitation energy of a thermal one-phonon state and is equivalent to the neutrino energy transfer. To make the thermal effects more visible, the ground-state GT$_0$ distributions are displayed in Fig. \[GT0\_T\] as well.
![(Color online) Temperature evolution of GT$_0$ strength distributions for $^{56}$Fe (left panels) and for $^{82}$Ge (right panels) vs. transition energy. The latter is equivalent to the neutrino energy transfer. The arrows indicate the zero-temperature threshold $E_{\mathrm{exp}}({1^+_1}) = 3.12\,\mathrm{MeV}$ for inelastic neutrino scattering off $^{56}$Fe.[]{data-label="GT0_T"}](figure5){width="\columnwidth"}
Since the Brink hypothesis is not valid within our approach, in Fig. \[GT0\_T\] we observe a redistribution of the GT$_0$ strength for upward transitions ($E>0$). Namely, at temperatures above the critical one no extra energy has be paid to break a Cooper pair. Therefore, by virtue of the vanishing of pairing correlations, both the GT$_0$ resonance and its low-energy tail move to lower energies. Our calculations indicate that, with increasing temperature up to 1.72 MeV, the resulting resonance energy shift reaches about 1.5 MeV in $^{56}$Fe and 1.2 MeV in $^{82}$Ge. It is interesting to note that within the present TQRPA calculations for $^{56}$Fe the low-lying GT$_0$ strength shifts below the zero-temperature threshold (i.e., below the experimental energy of the first $1^+$ state). Furthermore, the thermal smearing of the nuclear Fermi surface makes low-energy particle-particle and hole-hole transitions possible which are Pauli-blocked at zero temperature. Such thermally-unblocked transitions enhance the low-lying component of the GT$_0$ distributions and make it more fragmented. Since the $^{82}$Ge nucleus has a larger single-particle level density near the Fermi surface, the temperature-induced enhancement and fragmentation of the low-lying GT$_0$ upward strength is more significant than in $^{56}$Fe.
![(Color online) Comparison of the running sums for GT$_0$ downward strength distributions obtained using (dashed lines) and without using (solid lines) the Brink hypothesis. Note, that the values are scaled by a factor of $10^3$ ( $T=0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$) and $10^2$ ($T=1.72\,\mathrm{MeV}$).[]{data-label="GT0_running"}](figure6){width="\columnwidth"}
Here we would like to stress that the appearance of a sizeable amount of the low-lying transition strength in nuclei at $T \neq 0$ is predicted in all theoretical studies of hot nuclei. For example, this was found already in one of the first papers on the subject Ref.[@Vautherin_NPA422], where the distributions of the electric $E1$ and $E3$ transitions at $T \neq 0$ in $^{208}$Pb were calculated and in many subsequent studies (see, e.g., [@Bortignon1998; @Santonocita_EPJA30; @Niu_PLB681]. The same effect is predicted for the charge-exchange allowed and first-forbidden transitions as well [@Dzhioev_PRC81; @Cooperstein_NPA420]. For the charge-exchange Gamow-Teller transitions this feature was also obtained within the shell-model Monte-Carlo theory [@Radha_PRC56]. Moreover, shell-model Monte-Carlo calculations demonstrate that with increasing temperature the centroid of the GT$_+$ resonance shifts to lower energies.
Focusing our attention on the negative energy downward transitions we observe from Fig. \[GT0\_T\] that the corresponding GT$_0$ strength increases with increasing temperature. This is just a consequence of detailed balance : the higher the temperature, the more substantial is the population of nuclear excited states and hence, the higher is the probability to gain energy from a hot nucleus. Note that the GT$_0$ strength around $E_\nu\approx - 9\,\mathrm{MeV}$ can be attributed to the deexcitation of the GT$_0$ resonance. Given the importance of thermal effects on the upward strength distributions, it is worthwhile to examine how the violation of Brink’s hypothesis affects the downward strength. It is obvious that the shift of the GT$_0$ distributions to lower energies and the appearance of low-energy transitions should magnify the strength of downward transitions. This effect is clearly demonstrated in Fig. \[GT0\_running\] which shows running sums for the GT$_0$ downward strength distributions derived by using the Brink hypothesis or not. The former are obtained from the ground-state ($T=0$) distributions by multiplication with the Boltzmann factor $\exp(-E/T)$. Referring to the figure, the considerable increase of the overall downward strength is mainly caused by the thermal effects on the low-energy tail in the GT$_0$ distributions. This is most pronounced at low temperatures ($T=0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$). However, at high temperatures ($T=1.72\,\mathrm{MeV}$) the GT$_0$ resonance becomes thermally populated and its shift to lower energies also contributes to the downward strength increase.
![(Color online) Upper panels: Total inelastic neutrino scattering cross sections for $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge at three different temperatures relevant for core-collapse. For comparison the ground-state cross-sections are also shown. Middle panels: Contributions of forbidden transitions to the finite-temperature cross-sections. Lower panels: Temperature dependence of the fraction of down-scattered neutrinos in the thermal enhancement of the cross-section.[]{data-label="CrSect_T"}](figure7){width="\columnwidth"}
The detailed discussion above allows us to understand better the thermal effects on the inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering. In the top panels of Fig. \[CrSect\_T\], we compare the ground-state cross-sections with those calculated at the three core-collapse temperatures. As follows from our calculations, temperature effects are unimportant for $E_\nu > 20$ MeV when neutrinos have sufficiently large energy to excite the GT$_0$ resonance and collective excitations with other multipolarities. Note that a downward shift of the GT$_0$ resonance only marginally affects the cross-sections at such high neutrino energies. However, as one can see from the plots, the cross-sections significantly depend on temperature for low-energy neutrinos. Namely, the reaction threshold disappears and the cross-sections are enhanced by up to two orders of magnitude when the temperature rises from $0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$ to $1.72\,\mathrm{MeV}$. It is significant that all these features have pointed out in [@Fuller_APJ376; @Juodagalvis_NPA747; @Dzhioev_PAN74] as well.
In Fig. \[CrSect\_T\], we also demonstrate the overall contribution of the forbidden transitions $J^\pi=0^-,\,1^-,\,2^\pm,\,3^\pm$ to the cross-sections. In contrast to hybrid approach calculations [@Juodagalvis_NPA747] their contributions are temperature dependent. However, comparing the upper and middle panels of Fig. \[CrSect\_T\], one concludes that the enhancement of the cross-sections at finite temperatures is essentially due to thermal effects on the GT$_0$ transition strengths.
At vanishing neutrino energies, $E_\nu\approx 0$, the finite temperature cross-sections are given by the second, up-scattering, term in Eq. which accounts for the GT$_0$ downward transitions from thermally excited nuclear states. As shown in Fig. \[GT0\_T\] and pointed out previously, the strength of such transitions increases with temperature thereby enhancing the cross-sections. However, in our approach due to the violation of the Brink hypothesis, the down-scattering part of the cross-section, $\sigma_\mathrm{down}$, is also temperature dependent and it increases with temperature owing to the thermally unblocked low-energy GT$_0$ transitions and the downward shift of the GT$_0$ resonance. This effect is clearly shown in Ref. [@Dzhioev_PAN74] for $^{54}$Fe.
To analyze relative importance of the two types of neutrino scattering processes in the thermal enhancement of the cross-section, we introduce the ratio $\alpha$ $$\alpha = \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{up}(T)}{\sigma(T) - \sigma_\mathrm{g.s.}},$$ where the difference $\sigma(T) - \sigma_\mathrm{g.s.}$ represents an overall enhancement of the cross-section due to thermal effects. Note that within the hybrid approach $\alpha=1$, because $\sigma(T) =\sigma_\mathrm{g.s.}+\sigma_\mathrm{up}(T)$ in this approach. We plot the ratio $\alpha$ in the lower panels of Fig. \[CrSect\_T\] as a function of $E_\nu$ for the selected temperatures. As expected, the ratio $\alpha\sim 1$ for low-energy neutrinos and then, with increase of $E_\nu$, $\alpha$ gradually decreases indicating a rising contribution of the up-scattering process to the cross-section thermal enhancement. It is seen from the plots that for $5\,\mathrm{MeV} < E_\nu < 10\,\mathrm{MeV}$ neutrinos, both from the up-scattering and down-scattering processes contribute to the noticeable enhancement of the cross-sections, although their relative importance depends on temperature: the higher the temperature the more important is the contribution of the up-scattering process. Consequently, even for $E_\nu\approx 10\,\mathrm{MeV}$ neutrinos, when the excitation of the GT$_0$ resonance becomes possible, the up-scattering component of the cross-section appears to be comparable with the down-scattering one for temperatures $T\geq1.29\,\mathrm{MeV}$.
![(Color online) Comparison of the cross-sections of neutrino inelastic scattering off the hot nucleus $^{56}$Fe calculated within the present TQRPA approach and the hybrid approach (Ref. [@Juodagalvis_NPA747], Fig.11). The solid and dashed lines show the present results for $T=0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$ and $T=1.72\,\mathrm{MeV}$, respectively. The dash-dotted and dash-double-dotted lines show results from Ref. [@Juodagalvis_NPA747] for the same $T$ values.[]{data-label="CrSect_T_comparison"}](figure8){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[CrSect\_T\_comparison\], we compare our results for $^{56}$Fe with those obtained within the hybrid approach [@Juodagalvis_NPA747]. The comparison is made for temperatures $T=0.86~\mathrm{and}~1.72~\mathrm{MeV}$. As one can see, at $E_\nu<10\,\mathrm{MeV}$ there is noticeable disagreement between the results of the two approaches: The TQRPA cross-sections are larger by a factor of 2 to 5 than the hybrid approach ones. To understand the cause of the discrepancy, we calculate the spectrum of outgoing neutrinos scattered off $^{56}$Fe at the same temperatures as in Fig. \[CrSect\_T\_comparison\] and compare the results with the hybrid approach calculations (see Fig.13 of Ref. [@Juodagalvis_NPA747]). In Fig. \[spectra\], the spectra are shown for the same initial neutrino energies as in Ref. [@Juodagalvis_NPA747]: $E_\nu=5,\,10,~\mathrm{and}~15~\mathrm{MeV}$. Note that for a clearer presentation and for comparison convenience, the TQRPA spectra are normalized to unity and folded with the Breit-Wigner function with a width of $1\,\mathrm{MeV}$.
![(Color online) Normalized spectra of outgoing neutrinos for $^{56}$Fe at $T = 0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$ and $1.72\,\mathrm{MeV}$ and three initial neutrino energies: $E_\nu=5\,\mathrm{MeV}$ (solid line), $10\,\mathrm{MeV}$ (dashed line, all values shifted by 0.2), and $15\,\mathrm{MeV}$ (dash-dotted line, all values shifted by 0.4). The triangles correspond to the energy of the incoming neutrino. []{data-label="spectra"}](figure9){width="\columnwidth"}
At low temperatures, the downward transitions from the thermally excited GT$_0$ resonance are strongly suppressed by the Boltzmann factor. Therefore, for $T=0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$ and ${E_\nu = 5\,\mathrm{MeV}}$ the spectrum is dominated by neutrinos up- and down-scattered due to the low-energy GT$_0$ transitions. In Fig. \[spectra\], such transitions correspond to the sizable peaks in the spectrum at around $E_{\nu'}\sim
(E_\nu\pm 2.5\,\mathrm{MeV})$. The dominance of low-energy up- and down-transitions in the scattering of low-energy neutrinos off $^{56}$Fe at $T=0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$ is also supported by the hybrid approach studies (see the upper-middle panel of Fig. 13 in Ref. [@Juodagalvis_NPA747]). However, the energy and the strength of such transitions calculated with the TQRPA and the hybrid approach are different. As discussed in detail above, within the TQRPA thermal effects shift the low-lying GT strength in $^{56}$Fe to energies below the zero-temperature threshold (Fig. \[GT0\_T\]) and significantly increase the strength of the corresponding inverse downward transitions (Fig. \[GT0\_running\]), thus favoring neutrino inelastic scattering. No such effects are expected within the hybrid approach due to the application of the Brink hypothesis. For this reason, the low-energy ($E_\nu < 10\,\mathrm{MeV}$) TQRPA cross-section at $T=0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$ appears to be larger than the hybrid approach one. With increasing energy of incoming neutrinos, the excitation of the GT$_0$ resonance comes into play as evidenced by peaks in the spectra around $E_{\nu'}\sim (E_\nu\ - 9\,\mathrm{MeV})$. Consequently, the cross-section becomes less sensitive to thermal effects on the low-lying GT$_0$ strength. As a consequence for $E_\nu > 10\,\mathrm{MeV}$ we observe excellent agreement between the TQRPA and the hybrid approach results.
The situation is slightly different for the higher temperature, $T=1.72\,\mathrm{MeV}$. Now downward transitions from the thermally excited GT$_0$ resonance are possible, and owing to a large phase-space factor they can contribute significantly to the up-scattering of low-energy neutrinos. In the spectra this contribution corresponds to the peak at around $E_{\nu'}\sim (E_\nu\ + 9\,\mathrm{MeV})$. As indicated in Fig. \[GT0\_running\], at $T=1.72~\mathrm{MeV}$ thermal effects increase the strength of downward transitions from the GT$_0$ resonance. Although this increase is not of the same magnitude as for the low-lying GT$_0$ strength, due to a larger phase-space factor, its contribution to the cross-section enhancement is substantial. Therefore, one can conclude that at $T=1.72\,\mathrm{MeV}$ the joint action of thermal changes in both the low-lying GT$_0$ strength and the GT$_0$ resonance enhances the absolute value of the TQRPA cross-section at $E_\nu\lesssim 10~\mathrm{MeV}$ in comparison with the hybrid approach. Like for the $T=0.86\,\mathrm{MeV}$ case, thermal effects become less important for higher neutrino energies, and both approaches yield very similar results for the cross-sections.
Considering thermal effects on angular distributions of outgoing neutrinos we find that they are rather unimportant. For up-scattered neutrinos these distributions are only slightly more backward peaked than those for down-scattered neutrinos owing to the larger momentum transfer.
Conclusion
==========
We have studied thermal effects on the inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in the supernova environment. The thermal effects were treated within the thermal quasiparticle random phase approximation. The calculations were performed for $^{56}$Fe and $^{82}$Ge.
We find that the TQRPA calculations do not support the Brink hypothesis and lead to temperature-dependent strength distributions for both allowed and forbidden transitions involved in the neutrino inelastic scattering. It is shown that thermal effects shift the GT$_0$ centroid to lower energies and make low-energy GT$_0$ transitions possible. As a result, in contrast to hybrid approach calculations [@Juodagalvis_NPA747], both the up-scattering and down-scattering components of the cross-section exhibit a noticeable temperature dependence at low-energy neutrinos.
Our calculations reveal the same thermal effects as the hybrid approach based calculations. Namely, the reaction threshold for inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering is removed at finite temperatures and the cross-section for low-energy neutrinos is significantly enhanced.
However, the calculated cross-sections for $^{56}$Fe at low neutrino energies are several times larger than those obtained within the hybrid approach. We have shown that the discrepancy is due to the violation of Brink’s hypothesis in our approach. This is the main result of the present study. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the TQRPA approach can be used to study inelastic neutrino scattering off massive neutron-rich nuclei at finite temperatures. Another advantage of our approach is that it incorporates the detailed balance principle, whereas in the hybrid approach detailed balance is violated.
There are several directions to improve our approach. At present, its predictive power is limited by the phenomenological Hamiltonian with schematic separable residual interactions. It would therefore be desirable to combine our TFD-based TQRPA method with self-consistent QRPA calculations based on more realistic effective interactions. For neutrino scattering and neutrino absorption reactions at zero temperature, such calculations were performed recently within the relativistic nuclear density functional theory [@Djapo_PRevC86; @Paar_PRevC87]. This improvement would also allow to take into account the effects of nuclear deformation. For supernova electron-capture rates in $pf$-shell nuclei, deformation was recently included in self-consistent QRPA calculations with the Skyrme interaction [@Sarriguren_PRevC87]. The other direction of improvement is the inclusion of correlations beyond the TQRPA by taking into account the coupling of thermal phonons with more complex (e.g. two-phonon) configurations. At zero temperature this problem was considered within the QPM [@Soloviev1992] by exploiting separable schematic effective interactions. However, with the separable approximation for the Skyrme interaction [@Giai_PRevC57] one could consider phonon coupling at finite temperatures within a self-consistent theory.
The collaboration with Prof. T. S. Kosmas and Dr. V. Tsakstara from the University of Ioannina is acknowledged. We are also greatly indebted to Prof. G. Martínez-Pinedo for helpful discussions and important comments on this paper. This work was supported in part by the Heisenberg-Landau Program, the CNRS-RFBR grant 11-091054, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grant No. SFB 634.
[47]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.002), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.1999) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/170316) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.011101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/170317) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.09.005) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01502-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.63.025802) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(01)00992-7) [**](http://books.google.ru/books?id=CeABFYSkw-cC), Contemporary concepts in physics (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1140/epja/i2006-10116-7) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.56.3079) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1134/S1063778811080059) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S0217979296000817) [**](http://books.google.ru/books?id=Ra7vAAAAMAAJ) (, ) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(81)90058-0) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.81.015804) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S0218301309013695) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1143/JPSJ.12.570) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.115.1342) @noop () in [**](http://books.google.ru/books?id=l9IC3gt578gC), (, ) p. [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(79)90010-3) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01761-9) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.035804) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(84)90673-0) [**](http://books.google.ru/books?id=lY3_c3zG3qUC) (, ) @noop [****, ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(81)90557-1) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(83)90411-6) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/410/i=1/a=012172) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(76)90526-8) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(75)90056-3) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(83)90632-2) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(93)90603-U) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.24.1940) in [**](http://books.google.ru/books?id=I1BjQgAACAAJ), (, ) p. [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.01.003) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(84)90434-2) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.10.046) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.025801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.045801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.57.1204) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01323673) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/24/i=22/a=225304)
[^1]: The correspondence between the thermo field dynamics and the superoperator formalism is discussed in [@Schmutz_ZPhysB30]. The latter is used by one of the authors (A.D.) to study nonequilibrium transport phenomena (see, e.g., [@Dzhioev_JPhys24])
[^2]: In Eq. , $[\,]^J_M$ denotes the coupling of two single-particle angular momenta $j_1,\,j_2$ to the total angular momentum $J$. The bar over index $j$ means time-inversion.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This contribution demonstrates the potential gain for the quality of results in a simulation of pedestrians when estimated remaining travel time is considered as a determining factor for the movement of simulated pedestrians. This is done twice: once for a force-based model and once for a cellular automata-based model. The results show that for the (degree of realism of) simulation results it is more relevant if estimated remaining travel time is considered or not than which modeling technique is chosen – here force-based vs. cellular automata – which normally is considered to be the most basic choice of modeling approach.'
author:
- |
Tobias Kretz\
PTV Group\
Haid-und-Neu-Stra[ß]{}e, D-76131 Karlsruhe\
bibliography:
- 'PED-DDPF.bib'
nocite: '[@_Ency2009book; @_ACRI2010]'
title: The Effect of Integrating Travel Time
---
Introduction
============
Users of crowd simulation software tools have noted that these tools mostly produce a too high pedestrian density close to a corner when a large group of pedestrians has to walk around this corner compared to real people in the same situation [@Rogsch2010]. This leads to considerably increased travel times of simulated pedestrians compared to real people as well as compared to travel times of simulated pedestrians on a straight path of the same length. The same authors express their conviction that real people on contrast organize smarter in such a situation. Real people do not insist to walk a short path, but rather accept a longer walking path in exchange for a moderate local density and therefore can maintain their walking speed and in final consequence achieve a smaller travel time, respectively a travel time which is only slightly increased compared to them walking a straight path with the same length. Concerning a first, qualitative empirical evidence, someone reading this article in an office in a busy CBD area can witness this behavior by looking out the window. For everyone with a less busy window view, YouTube can help [@Youtube2012].
Even if one had no empirical indications of human walking behavior in such a situation, it would be a good guess that people desire mostly to minimize their travel time and not their travel distance. After all traffic planning for road networks rests on the assumption that one of the most important factors – if not [*the*]{} most important one – for route choice of vehicle drivers is travel time and not route length. The same people who steer vehicles make up for a large share of pedestrians in most situations where pedestrians occur. They may move in different circumstances with different implications of their route and speed choices for their personal effort, but they are the same people.
Integrating Travel Time in(to) Models of Pedestrian Dynamics
============================================================
As real people, when we are in a hurry and desire most to minimize time to arrival, we are faced with the problem that we do not know which direction will be the one that allows earliest arrival – imagine for example to walk through a busy train station while being late in time for the train. Even in retrospective when having arrived it is not always possible to tell if the arrival actually was the earliest possible or if along the path one of the many decisions for a movement direction was wrong with regard to minimizing travel time. This is not only a consequence of the complexity of the problem, but also simply of incomplete information.
Simulating pedestrians we are in a similar situation. If with given constraints for every point in time, every position, and every destination the exact remaining travel time was known for every type of pedestrian, it would in fact not be necessary to simulate anymore. For what would be the additional information one could gain from such a simulation? The simulation would be more or less a discrete representation or instance of the multi-dimensional field of remaining travel times. Furthermore such a simulation would show an optimal solution which most probably would not be a realistic one.
Therefore what is possible is to [*estimate*]{} a map of remaining travel times in each time step and make pedestrians choose their desired or preferred walking direction according to this map respectively field. The estimation process at first should model realistically the travel time estimation real people do about the direction options they have and second it should be self-consistent with the actual model of pedestrian dynamics in which the travel time estimation module is used.
This is not a simple task and as a consequence models of pedestrian dynamics usually set the direction of the shortest path as the main or preferred walking direction [@Schadschneider2009; @Schadschneider2009b]. However, in the last few years at least two such combined systems of a remaining travel time estimation and its usage in a pedestrian simulation have been introduced. Both have in common that the travel time estimation (or delay time estimation) is first done for small areas and then numerically integrated to receive the field of remaining travel time from a spot to the destination, which then is used in the pedestrian model where it amends or replaces (the impact of) the field of remaining distance to destination (aka “static potential”).
The first model is the F.A.S.T. model [@Kretz2006f; @Kretz2007a; @Kretz2006d; @Kretz2007b]. The F.A.S.T. model has developed out of a cellular automata approach. It is arguable if it still is a cellular automata [@Kretz2010f], however, the important property that the pedestrians move like chess figures on a regular grid is preserved, making the model both: very fast for execution [@Kretz2010b] and rather coarse-grained in the results. A second property is that it is attractiveness of spots which are used in the computation for the next movement step. This distinguishes it from the Social Force Model, where the property which is directly calculated is acceleration (and locations follow via integration over time). The method to estimate travel times considers only the spatial distribution of pedestrians and not their dynamic movement properties[^1] [@Kretz2009]. The method for numerical integration is the so called [*variant 2*]{} as introduced in [@Kretz2010a]. Compared to the Euclidean metric – if a field of constant local distances or travel times is integrated – it includes some artifacts, but the way it is used in the pedestrian model reduces them largely and the computation time of [*variant 2*]{} is below the exact methods mentioned in the next paragraph. In this way a main intention of the F.A.S.T. model – having a very fast pedestrian simulation – is preserved, even when the travel time estimation module is active.
The second model is the Social Force Model [@Johansson2007; @Helbing2009] respectively its implementation in PTV Viswalk [@VISSIM2011; @Kretz2008b]. In this approach of a combination of a pedestrian dynamics model with a travel time estimation the velocity of a pedestrian is considered when it is estimated which delay time he will impose to another pedestrian in his surrounding [@Kretz2011e][^2]. For the numerical integration the Fast Iterative or Fast Marching Method is used. Either method – in case of distance computation – yields the nearly correct Euclidean distances [@Kimmel1998; @Jeong2007; @Jeong2007b; @Jeong2008]. In the Social Force Model the negative gradients of the resulting field of estimated remaining travel time are used as direction of the desired velocity of a pedestrian being located at the field’s corresponding position. Apart from that PTV Viswalk’s Social Force Model remains unchanged.
Both models have been used with their travel time estimation module in different use cases [@Kretz2009c; @Kretz2010c; @Kretz2010x; @Kretz2011f; @Kretz2012c; @Youtube2012b]. However, in this contribution it is not intended to solely demonstrate the effect of the usage of the field of remaining travel times, but to argue that the decision to use it or not is more important (i.e. has a greater effect) than the decision which basic modelling approach – force-based or cellular automata-based – is applied.
Implications and Interpretation
-------------------------------
Normally this would be the place to define the math of the travel time estimation module(s). However, this has been done extensively before [@Kretz2009; @Kretz2011e]. Instead of a repetition this subsection discusses some implications of the method, i.e. it takes some interpretative steps.
It has been observed [@Moussaid2009; @Chraibi2010] and sometimes criticized [@Steffen2008] that the Social Force Model (and most if not all of its variants) strictly superpose the repulsive forces of pedestrians. Superposition means that the effect of any pedestrian $A$ on pedestrian $B$ is absolutely independent of any other pedestrian in a scenario.
Superposition is easiest noticed for the Social Force Model due to the similarities with Newtonian Mechanics, however, if one thinks of superposition of [*effects*]{} not only forces, then many models with a different modeling approach are just as well superposing effects of pedestrians.
In physics superposition is so common that one might even wonder, how else a model should be constructed. One approach to the answer is to formulate the extreme opposite: “the effect of any pedestrian $A_i$ onto a specific pedestrian $B$ is depends on all other pedestrians $A_j$ and their states”. This phrase is a concretion for (the simulation of) pedestrians of Sherif’s general statement on social systems: “the properties of any part are determined by its membership in the total functional system” [@Sherif1936] and it is a [*holistic*]{} position. Figure \[fig:holisitc\] shows a simple situation, where a superposition of effects does not yield a fully realistic effect and where therefore applying a holisitc approach improves the results.
![An inequality with regard to the [*effects*]{} of the displayed situations. The idea is that the observer here basically wants to move straight on, but is faced with pedestrians walking the opposite direction. The two white pedestrians alone would eventually “channel” the observer to pass between them. In a force-based model their deviation triggering effects – at least for this very moment – would largely cancel. The red pedestrian alone would make the observer do a small detour to the left or to the right. However, together the three trigger the observer to do a larger detour to the left or to the right. The effect of all three – especially the red one – on the observer is determined by their membership in the total functional system.[]{data-label="fig:holisitc"}](holistic.png){width="61.20000%"}
The module of travel time estimation by construction is a holistic approach. One single pedestrian either can have a negligible effect in one setting and a very large one in a different setting, depending on the distribution and dynamic properties of all other pedestrians (and obstacles) in the system, even if his position and dynamic properties are the same in both settings. Therefore the holistic travel time estimation module is an ideal supplement to the superposing force approach.
This line of argumentation shall not mislead to the conclusion that a holistic (concrete: travel time estimating) approach alone is sufficient or superior to a superposing (concrete: force-based) approach. There are situations which are better addressed with forces. Imagine for example in Figure \[fig:holisitc\] that there are walls to the left and the right of the group of three pedestrians. Then the observer would be [*forced*]{} to slow down, even be [*forced*]{} to stop. This is better modeled with [*forces*]{}. The travel time estimation module then is not of much help, as it is there to compute a good walking direction. Confined between two walls there would be no more really good direction, but just the task to slow down and resolve the situation without collisions.
A different example which fits better for force-based modeling is when the density is high enough that each pedestrian is [*forced*]{} to go with the flow.
On the contrary scenarios which are only sparsely populated with individual pedestrians can be addressed with both approaches alike.
It is possible to some extend to use only one of the two approaches to model effects which are better modeled with the other approach (only forces and a simple determination of the desired walking direction as has been done usually or only a holistic approach and only a basic treatment of forces and accelerations [@Rascle2012]), but it makes life easier if both are applied, each for its own “natural” purpose.
With the emphasis in the previous lines it has already been insinuated: in a nutshell it appears that it is more natural and therefore easier to use [*forces*]{} to model behavior which is experienced to be [*forced*]{}[^3]. A main reason for this experience often is the small time available to react on a stimulus which does not allow for decent planning. On the contrary the holistic approach with its potentially unlimited range for strong interactions is better suited to model conscious planning, intentions or desires.
The Effect of Integrating Travel Time into Models of Pedestrian Dynamics
========================================================================
Example 1
---------
The scenario as shown in Figure \[fig:geometry\] is simulated both with the F.A.S.T. model and the Social Force Model of PTV Viswalk [*without*]{} applying their modules of estimated remaining travel time. The geometry mimics a simplified part of a stadium and its exterior. In the beginning two groups with each 5,000 pedestrians start their movement in the interior of the stadium.
![Scenario. Pedestrians can move on light grey areas, while dark grey areas denote obstacles. Pedestrians are set on the light red and light blue areas into the scenario and have to move to the green area at the upper right.[]{data-label="fig:geometry"}](geometry.png){width="61.80000%"}
The first observation is that it is possible to find parameters for both models with which the simulation results become very similar first for the total evacuation times, second for the average individual egress time and third for the spatial en gros distribution of pedestrians all throughout the simulation. If one has a detailed look at the trajectories, these look differently for both models. However, the idea here is demonstrating equivalence for someone interested in an overview, i.e. envisioned as “looking from high above on the whole scenario”.
These are the parameters that were used with the F.A.S.T. model: $k_S=1.0$, $k_D=0.0$, $k_I=k_W=0.6$, $\mu=0.0$; and these with PTV Viswalk: $\tau=0.41$, $A_{soc,iso}=1.0$, $B_{soc,iso}=0.2$, $\lambda=0.0$, $A_{soc,mean}=0.4$, $B_{soc,mean}=2.8$, $VD=1.7$, $noise=1.2$. The latter parameters are identical or close to the default values except for $A_{soc,iso}$, whose value has been clearly reduced to achieve the relatively high densities which occur in the F.A.S.T model with a comparable regularity.
In both cases the free (or desired or preferred) speeds have been (nearly) equally distributed between 1.2 and 2.0 m/s. As they are defined with different methods in both models, the distribution of free speeds is be not exactly identical, however very similar. Note that it has been found to be crucial for the equivalence of the results of both approaches to have a very similar distribution of free speeds.
Someone familiar with one of the models will immediately see that neither the chosen parameters nor the free speeds are extreme in any way.
With these settings the individual egress and the total evacuation times result as shown in Table \[tab:results1\].
---------- -------- -------------------- -------- -------- -------------------- --------
Min., Average $\pm$ STD, Max. Min., Average $\pm$ STD, Max.
F.A.S.T. 1317.1 1332.2 $\pm$ 4.9 1347.9 2529.0 2558.9 $\pm$ 9.3 2590.0
Viswalk 1324.0 1337.4 $\pm$ 4.6 1350.6 2528.2 2555.9 $\pm$ 9.1 2584.3
---------- -------- -------------------- -------- -------- -------------------- --------
: Results statistics from 1,000 simulation runs with each of the models. “Av. Individual Egress Time” means the average of egress times of all pedestrians of one simulation run. Over 1,000 runs there are 1,000 averages of which the minimum, average, and maximum are displayed.[]{data-label="tab:results1"}
Selecting for both models the simulation run which has the least sum of mean square deviations from the averages for total evacuation and individual egress times Figure \[fig:screenshots\] in this way compares the average simulation runs of both models and shows that the results are very similar all through time and space.
![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](FAST0500.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"} ![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](VISWALK0500.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"}\
![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](FAST1000.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"} ![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](VISWALK1000.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"}\
![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](FAST1500.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"} ![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](VISWALK1500.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"}\
![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](FAST2000.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"} ![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](VISWALK2000.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"}\
![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](FAST2500.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"} ![Snapshots from the simulations without dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, at times 500 sec., 1000 sec., 1500 sec., 2000 sec., and 2500 sec..[]{data-label="fig:screenshots"}](VISWALK2500.png "fig:"){height="0.17\textheight"}\
While these snapshots show how similar the results are, a second look reveals that the pedestrians move unrealistically close around the corners. As a consequence they ignore all but two or three of the exit gates shortly before the destination area. One may therefore expect that the times as shown in Table \[tab:results1\] are much larger than would be realistic. Someone familiar with one or both of the models (better: model classes) will know that this cannot be fixed by just modifying the parameters. Of course simulated egress and evacuation times can be reduced to some degree with different parameters, but only at the cost of having the models yield unrealistic results somewhere else in this geometry and even more so in different geometries. A reader not familiar with these models here needs to trust the author that this is in fact the case as demonstrating this would by far exceed the available space of this contribution and a strict formal prove is simply not possible.
Using the module of remaining travel time estimation on contrast greatly reduces egress and evacuation times and strongly influences the walking behavior in both models. For these simulations the same parameters as above have been used and in addition for the travel time estimation module used with the F.A.S.T. model it has been set $k_{Sdyn}=1.0$ and $s_{add}=10$ (see [@Kretz2009; @Kretz2009c]) and for the one of PTV Viswalk $g=1.5$, $h=0.7$ and the impact strength has been set to 100% (see [@Kretz2011e]). For this second stage of simulations it has not been attempted actively to find parameters with which the results of the two approaches match, i.e. these values are something like the defaults of the methods judged by previous experience.
---------- ------- -------------------- ------- -------- -------------------- --------
Min., Average $\pm$ STD, Max. Min., Average $\pm$ STD, Max.
F.A.S.T. 784.6 787.6 $\pm$ 1.8 789.9 1345.0 1352.7 $\pm$ 4.9 1363.0
Viswalk 666.5 672.0 $\pm$ 2.4 676.2 1227.4 1234.9 $\pm$ 4.6 1244.2
---------- ------- -------------------- ------- -------- -------------------- --------
: Results statistics from 15 simulation runs with each of the models when the travel time estimation module is used.[]{data-label="tab:results2"}
Figure \[fig:screenshots2\] shows snapshots from both simulations. By comparing with Figure \[fig:screenshots\] it can be seen that the travel time estimation module modifies the simulation dynamics of both models into the same direction: pedestrians utilize the available space at corners better, they utilize the full width of the long corridor to the right better and they utilize the exit gates better compared to the simulations without travel time estimation method as shown in Figure \[fig:screenshots\] and the red pedestrians – respectively a center line through the stream of red pedestrians – in the open area do not head for the corner of the obstacle but (about) for the edge of the group of blue pedestrians. Last but not least: for both models the evacuation and egress times are about halved as a comparison of Tables \[tab:results1\] and \[tab:results2\] shows.
![Snapshots from the simulations with dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, each at time 350 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:screenshots2"}](FAST-DP-350.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Snapshots from the simulations with dynamic potential: left: F.A.S.T., right: Viswalk, each at time 350 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:screenshots2"}](VISWALK-DP-350.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Example 2
---------
The first example was composed of a number of basic elements: corridors, corners, gates. To clarify the effect of the travel time modules this is now to be amended by a most simple example: a group of pedestrians walks around a corner and this is compared with examples where the same number of pedestrians walks comparable distances straight on. Details of the geometry are shown in Figure \[fig:example2\]
![The corner and the two straight geometries for comparison. 500 pedestrians have to walk from the dark red to the dark green area. The red line is 38 m (28 + 10) long, the cyan one 69.4 m (28 + 10 $\pi$ + 10) long. The width of the areas is 20 m. The dark red insertion area has a length of 6 m.[]{data-label="fig:example2"}](ecke.png){width="61.20000%"}
The corner situation is simulated once without and once with activated travel time estimation module. For the straight examples the travel time estimation is not used it would not have much effect there anyway. So why simulate it at all? The straight geometries are only there to set a reference frame which makes the results less dependent on specific parameter settings. The value of the simulations in the straight geometries will become apparent with the results.
The results for the F.A.S.T. model are given in Table \[tab:results3\] and for PTV Viswalk in Table \[tab:results4\]. In this second example it was not intended to achieve agreement between both models. Instead PTV Viswalk was run with default parameters and for the desired speed a population composition was chosen as in the RiMEA [@Rimea2009] test cases (50% male, 50% female; 4% mobility impaired and beyond that the age groups ($<$30, 30-50, and $>$50) with equal ratios) with their desired walking speeds according to [@Weidmann1993]. In this way much smaller desired speeds were involved than for the F.A.S.T. model where preferred speeds between 1.2 and 2.0 m/s were used. The other parameters were set as in example 1.
---------------- ------- -------------------- ------ ------- -------------------- -------
Min., Average $\pm$ STD, Max. Min., Average $\pm$ STD, Max.
Corner w/o 79.3 84.0 $\pm$ 1.2 88.6 142.0 154.2 $\pm$ 3.4 171.0
Corner w 66.2 69.4 $\pm$ 0.8 72.6 109.0 114.8 $\pm$ 2.3 127.0
Straight short 41.8 43.4 $\pm$ 0.5 45.0 65.0 70.1 $\pm$ 1.9 80.0
Straight long 67.2 69.8 $\pm$ 0.8 72.5 102.0 107.4 $\pm$ 2.2 118.0
---------------- ------- -------------------- ------ ------- -------------------- -------
: Results statistics from 3000 simulation runs with the F.A.S.T. model. The first line gives the times when no travel time estimation module is used, the second when it is.[]{data-label="tab:results3"}
---------------- ------- -------------------- ------- ------- ------------------- -------
Min., Average $\pm$ STD, Max. Min., Average$\pm$ STD, Max.
Corner w/o 104.2 110.5 $\pm$ 1.9 117.0 229.4 248.1 $\pm$ 6.6 274.4
Corner w 78.2 82.5 $\pm$ 1.4 88.3 157.9 174.2 $\pm$ 5.0 191.9
Straight short 52.0 55.1 $\pm$ 0.9 58.3 96.6 111.1 $\pm$ 3.4 123.2
Straight long 81.9 86.6 $\pm$ 1.4 90.9 150.4 176.2 $\pm$ 5.4 188.8
---------------- ------- -------------------- ------- ------- ------------------- -------
: Results statistics from 3000 simulation runs with PTV Viswalk. The first line gives the times when no travel time estimation module is used, the second when it is.[]{data-label="tab:results4"}
Although two different models, two different methods for travel time estimation, and different distributions of the desired speed were used, and although for this reason the total evacuation time and the individual average egress time differ in their absolute value for F.A.S.T. and PTV Viswalk, the results shown in Tables \[tab:results3\] and \[tab:results4\] are similar with regard to a number of properties (numbers with regard to average values):
[–]{}
The individual average egress time in the corner geometry is 120% (F.A.S.T) respectively 128% (PTV Viswalk) compared to the case of the straight long corridor if no travel time estimation is made. However, it drops to 99% respectively 95%, if the travel time estimation module is active. Simpler spoken: they are clearly longer without and similar with travel time estimation.
For the total evacuation time about the same relation holds: there the time drops from 144% (F.A.S.T) respectively 141% (PTV Viswalk) to 107% respectively 99%, if the travel time estimation module is active. Again the summary is that the time is clearly longer in the corner geometry compared to the straight long corridor if the travel time estimation module is not used, but it is about the same with both models if it is used.
With the corner geometry the average individual egress time is 83% (F.A.S.T.) respectively 75% (PTV Viswalk) when the travel time estimation module is used compared to if it is not used.
With the corner geometry the average total evacuation time is 74% respectively 70% when the travel time estimation module is used compared to if it is not used.
If the travel time estimation module is active the individual average egress time in the corner geometry is 160% (F.A.S.T.) respectively 150% (PTV Viswalk) of the one in the straight short corridor.
If the travel time estimation module is active the total egress time in the corner geometry is 164% (F.A.S.T.) respectively 157% (PTV Viswalk) of the one in the straight short corridor.
As the properties for F.A.S.T. and PTV Viswalk in all cases are separate by a maximum of ten percent points, while the effect of the travel time estimation module is much larger, these relations show that the details of the pedestrian model, its parameters (especially walking speeds) and the details of the travel time estimation module method and its parameters are of minor relevance. The effect is clear and distinguishes the case when it is used from the case when it is not used. This implies that with empirical data it should be clearly possible to decide if real people move in such a situation rather based on a shortest or a quickest path paradigm, i.e. if it enhances the degree of realism when the travel time estimation module is used. In addition it should be possible to compute those relations above where times at the corner geometry are related with times in one of the straight corridors with any pedestrian simulation model available. If then for example total evacuation time at the corner is about 150% of the one in the straight long corridor it can be concluded that pedestrians in the model navigate according to a shortest path paradigm, while if the times are about equal or the time in the corner geometry is even shorter than the one in the long straight corridor it can be conclued that they follow a quickest path paradigm.
For completeness Figures \[fig:screenshots3\] and \[fig:screenshots4\] show snapshots from the simulations.
![Snapshots from the simulations with the F.A.S.T. model at 70 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:screenshots3"}](example2FAST1.png "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Snapshots from the simulations with the F.A.S.T. model at 70 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:screenshots3"}](example2FAST2.png "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Snapshots from the simulations with the F.A.S.T. model at 70 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:screenshots3"}](example2FAST3.png "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Snapshots from the simulations with the F.A.S.T. model at 70 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:screenshots3"}](example2FAST4.png "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
![Snapshots from the simulations with Viswalk at 70 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:screenshots4"}](example2VISWALK.png){width="80.00000%"}
Summary
=======
In this contribution it was argued that it is of greater relevance for the degree of simulation results of a pedestrian simulation model that pedestrians walk into the direction of estimated earliest arrival instead of the direction of the shortest path than the details of a) the model of pedestrian dynamics and b) the details of the travel time estimation module. For this it was first shown that in a non-trivial example two different approaches to modeling pedestrian dynamics can yield very similar results on a moderate level of aggregation if one sets the model parameters appropriately. It was then shown that for both approaches the degree of realism is increased, if one changes from a shortest path direction to a quickest path direction paradigm.
The examination of a simple example scenario confirmed this. With two different models and different desired walking speed distributions and different travel time estimation modules it was found that the effect of using a travel time estimation module (or using it not) had about the same impact on certain relative properties. This implies a comfortable situation for comparison with empirical data.
A first obvious conclusion is that it would be very interesting to have empirical data for situations as the ones in example 2: where between the results for the two straight corridors do the results of the corner geometry lie for real people?
The second conclusion is that because it is a) possible to have some cellular automata-based model yield such similar results and b) not possible for both modeling approaches to enhance the degree of realism in certain situations, variants of the Social Force Model which modify exclusively or mainly the forces and do not include a travel time estimation module [@Lakoba2005; @Yu2005; @Chraibi2010] most probably cannot help to improve the realism of results to the same degree as the travel time estimation module can.
Finally one can summarize that in the formulation of a pedestrian simulation model we can let guide ourselves by a quote which is ascribed to Blaise Pascal: [*“Desire [**and**]{}[^4] Force are responsible for all our actions.”*]{} A general way to interpret it in this context is that one equally has to take care for desired (planned or conscious) and for enforced (reactive, unplanned) determinants of motion. A more concrete way to interpret it for a force-based approach to pedestrian dynamics is that one has to put equally much effort in modeling the desired velocity as in modeling the forces.
[^1]: Of course obstacles are also considered. Considering only them would be no big deal, as they are static. The field of remaining travel times would then be identical or at least very similar to the field of remaining distances. And it would only be necessary to compute it once in advance of the simulation. One of the difficulties of considering travel time is that the field has to be recalculated in every time step or at least frequently.
[^2]: Also see that paper for an extensive discussion of related work.
[^3]: Note that not in every language the same word is used for physical force and an (en)forced action. In German it is for example “Kraft” and “Zwang”.
[^4]: Emphasize added by the author of the facing work.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Since the early days of neurophysiology we have evidence of biological mechanisms serving as the basis for learning and information processing in the brain. Cajal’s pictures showing networks of intertwined nerve cells readily lead to the hypothesis of information flow and processing in these networks [@Cajal11]. Subsequently formulated theoretical models of the neuron, as by McCulloch and Pitts [@MCPitts43], and the Hebbian learning rule, postulating synaptic strengthening for simultaneous pre- and postsynaptic activity [@Hebb49], sparked the development of algorithms for neuronal learning and memory. The development of learning algorithms, however, took place almost decoupled from biological validation, partly due to lack of detailed knowledge of the neurophysiology of learning, but also due to their success in applied fields (“connectionism”, “machine learning”). Among the first models were layered assemblies of formal neurons (Perceptrons) combined with gradient rules defining the synaptic weights [@Rosenblatt62]. Later, combining Hebb’s strictly local rule with symmetrically connected formal neurons defined the Hopfield model of simple associative learning [@Hopfield88]. However, only a complicated non-local learning rule, now known as error backpropagation, finally was able to solve simple non-linear learning problems as the learning of the exclusive-or (XOR) function [@Backprop86]. This complicated form of reverse information transfer, however, has not been observed in biological circuits [@ZipserAndersen88].
For computation in biological nervous systems the question remains, which underlying biological processes are capable of the most general form of learning [@Crick89], including problems of the XOR class. A more biologically plausible learning concept is learning by reinforcement and recently a number of models along this line have been formulated [@Reinforce96; @SuttonBarto98]. One such model by Barto and Anandan combines a local mechanism of synaptic plasticity changes with a global feedback signal indicating information worth memorizing [@BartoAnandan85; @Barto85]. A remaining problem in these models is the regulation of mean activity level in large networks which has been attacked by Alstrøm and Stassinopoulos [@AlstrStass95] and Stassinopoulos and Bak [@StassBak95; @Bak96]. An even more elegant mechanism has been proposed by Chialvo and Bak [@ChialvoBak99] with reinforcement through negative feedback which is motivated by the observed long-term depression (LTD) in biological networks. In this algorithm, the dynamics of synaptic plasticity comes to a halt when learning reaches its goal, just by definition. While we think that this is a very interesting approach to formulating a biologically plausible learning mechanism, this model suffers a severe restriction in learning capabilities. It has been shown to work well on simple tasks as non-overlapping pattern sets, however, it is not able to learn tasks as the XOR function, at least not without unreasonably large numbers of neurons and very long learning times. It is, therefore, nearly as limited as the early single layer perceptron models that, for this reason, nearly paralyzed the research in neural networks in the seventies (mainly following the sobering analysis of perceptron capabilities by Minsky and Papert [@MinskyPapert69; @AndersenRosenfeld88]).
In the following we will study a model in this spirit which, however, does not exhibit this restriction. Let us first define the model, then report numerical results on its learning capabilities. We will then discuss the robustness of our model in the presence of noise. The letter concludes with a discussion of the motivation of our model from current findings in neurobiology.
Consider a layered network of binary formal neurons $x_i\in\{0,1\}$, with $I$ input sites $x_0,
\dots, x_{I-1}$, $J$ hidden sites $x_I, \dots,
x_{I+J-1}$, and $K$ output units $x_{I+J},
\dots, x_{I+J+K-1}$. The adjacent layers are completely connected by weights $w_{ji}$ from each input to each hidden unit and from each hidden unit to each output unit. In addition, each weight is assigned an internal degree of freedom, acknowledging the finite time scale of synaptic plasticity induction as will be discussed below. In the model this is represented by an additional discrete variable $c_{ji}$ associated to each weight $w_{ji}$ serving as a synaptic memory during learning.
The network dynamics is defined by the following steps. The input sites are activated with external stimuli $x_0,\dots,x_{I-1}$. Each hidden node $j$ then receives a weighted input $h_j=\sum_{i=0}^{I-1} w_{ji} x_i$. Its state is chosen according to a probabilistic rule s.t. each hidden neuron fires with probability $p_j = a^{-1} \exp(\beta h_j)$ with the normalization $a = \sum_j \exp(\beta h_j)$. We consider the low activity limit of the network where only one hidden neuron fires at a time. Each output neuron $k$ now receives an input sum $h_k=\sum_{j=I}^{I+J-1} w_{kj} x_j$ with the only non-zero contribution from the firing hidden neuron $j^\ast$ such that $h_k=w_{kj^\ast}$. The above probabilistic rule applies to the output layer as well, determining one firing output neuron $x_{k^\ast}$ which represents the output of the network corresponding to a given input pattern. Note that in the low activity limit used here, the probabilistic rule is a stochastic approximation of the winner-take-all rule [@WTA]. We think our variant based on local dynamics is biologically more realistic than supplying global information of which neuron has the highest input sum within a layer. In the limit $\beta \rightarrow \infty$, the neuronal activity in our model follows exact winner-take-all dynamics, since then $\max_j p_j= a^{-1}
\exp(\beta \max_j h_j) \rightarrow 1$. This deterministic case has been used in the network model of Chialvo and Bak [@ChialvoBak99]. Here, however, we consider stochastic models with finite values of $\beta$.
Now it remains to specify the learning dynamics of the network weights $w_{ji}$ themselves. For each activation pattern, the network output is compared to the target output and a feedback signal $r$ returned to the network, with $r=+1$, if its output neurons represent the predefined target output, given the current input, and $r=-1$ otherwise. Depending on this binary feedback, connections and corresponding counter values are updated. All “active” synapses $w$ (and corresponding counter values $c$) for which pre- and postsynaptic sites have been simultaneously active are updated as follows. The feedback signal is subtracted from the memory $c$ of each active synapse according to: $$\label{eq:updatec}
c \rightarrow c^\prime = \left\{
\begin{array}{llrcl}
\Theta, & {\rm if}\, & & c-r & >\Theta \quad (\ast) \\
c-r, & {\rm if}\, & \Theta \geq & c-r & \geq 0\\
0, & {\rm if}\, & 0 > & c-r. & \\
\end{array} \right.$$ Thus, each counter $c$ is an error account of the corresponding synapse. The capacity of the account is given by the memory size $\Theta$. In case this threshold is exceeded \[marked by $(\ast)$ in equation (\[eq:updatec\])\] the synapse is penalized, i. e., it is weakened by a constant amount $\delta$: $$w \rightarrow w^\prime = w - \delta.$$ (Alternatively, a multiplicative penalty combined with a constant growth of weights has been successfully checked, too.) Therefore, the counter averages over the record of a synapse, instead of penalizing each single error at the moment it occurs. Note that the model by Chialvo and Bak [@ChialvoBak99] is just this latter case and is obtained by setting $\Theta=0$ and $\beta=\infty$. After these changes to weights and counters the learning cycle is iterated by presenting another—possibly different—pattern of stimuli to the network.
Note that $\beta$ and $\delta$ are not independent parameters; changing the value of $\delta$ does not affect the dynamics, as long as the product $\beta \delta$ is kept constant and the weights are rescaled correspondingly. Furthermore, the firing probabilities are conserved under transformations that add the same value to all outgoing connections of one neuron. We could therefore keep the values of the weights in a bounded domain without changing the model dynamics.
Let us next demonstrate the learning capability and robustness of the model by simulating an XOR learning task. The network used has $I=3$ input sites $x_0$, $x_1$, and $x_2$, with the input site $x_0\equiv 1$ serving as bias. The hidden layer has $J=3$ neurons, the minimum number necessary to represent the XOR function in the present architecture. $K=2$ output neurons represent the two possible outcomes with only one of them active at a time. The initial values of the weights $w$ are uniformly chosen random numbers $\in [0,1]$, all counters $c$ are set to $0$, and $\delta=1$. The four patterns of the XOR function are presented with equal probability. Fig. \[fig:lcurves\] shows learning curves for memory sizes $\Theta=0,1,2$ with $\beta=10$ and averaged over 10000 independent runs each.
=N =Y
N
The displayed error $E$ is the fraction of simulation runs that have produced an incorrect output at the considered time step. We find that learning takes place with $\Theta\geq1$ only, where the error quickly converges to zero, whereas with $\Theta=0$ as in the model of Chialvo and Bak [@ChialvoBak99] no learning takes place at all. The error remains constant hardly below the “default” of $0.5$ (this holds for the whole simulation time of 100,000 trials, not shown here).
The obviously dramatic effect of the synaptic memory can be understood in the following way: Any synapse that is involved in failure—meaning that pre- and postsynaptic firings have occured prior to unsuccessful output of the network—is a candidate for decrement. In the case $\Theta=0$ all such “failing” synapses are weakened, such that on repeated presentation of the same stimuli the activity is likely to be lead to a different output neuron. This is a simple and reasonable principle as long as our learning goal is the mapping of just one pattern of stimuli or a set of non-overlapping patterns. However, the task of learning a non-trival logical operation as the one we are facing here, requires a more elaborate mechanism: The immediate weakening of all synapses, that are involved in failure for a certain pattern, eventually destroys a useful structure for the successful mapping of other patterns. This is avoided by the synaptic memory considered here: Only if a synapse is repeatedly involved in failure, its efficacy is reduced.
The idea of averaging over errors and updating the weights on a slower time scale than sample presentation is well known from batch learning methods [@Heskes96]. In those methods, errors are determined over a whole sweep through the pattern set and subsequently weights are updated synchronously. However, those algorithms fail to explain learning in biological neural systems as they rely on biologically implausible mechanisms as, for example, back-propagating errors. In fact, what we wish to define here is a learning method based on purely local dynamics, where weight changes are based only on information that is locally available (the two adjacent neurons of a synapse) with nothing more than a single global reinforcement signal—exactly the information that is available to a biological synapse. A first step in this direction would be a trivial “localized” version of batch learning where weight changes are based on the global reinforcement signal, only. Indeed, this works for single layer networks, however, fails for learning XOR-type problems in multi-layer networks. Here, our work proposes a solution, using a synaptic error account combined with asynchronous updating of the synaptic weights. It can be viewed as a generalization of the Hebbian learning rule: While the Hebb rule alone is not able to make a network learn the XOR, the above extension does so. The resulting network is a self-contained dynamical system with local dynamical rules defined in a way that the overall network dynamics results in adaptive learning of general logical functions including the XOR problem. Besides learning XOR as shown here, the algorithm also proved to learn logical functions of higher dimensions and complexity.
The aspect of protecting synapses from too quick changes has further implications with regard to the network’s robustness against noise. Fig. \[fig:transitions\] demonstrates the effect of the inverse noise level $\beta$ on the mean residual error after 90,000 trials.
=N =Y
N
For fixed memory length $\Theta$ we find a sharp transition from a regime of non-learning, characterized by $E=0.5$, to a regime of effective learning with $E\rightarrow0$. We conclude that the network is able to learn just as long as the information gain provided by the feedback signal is larger than the information loss caused by the uncertainty of the stochastic neural dynamics. The effect of increasing the memory length $\Theta$ is obvious: The critical point between the two regimes is shifted to lower values of $\beta$, i. e., higher noise. Synapses with larger memory can average out the uncertainty and therefore enable stochastically firing networks to adapt to their environment.
Now let us briefly discuss the biological motivations for the choice of mechanisms used in the model above. First, observations in experimental neurobiology show clear evidence that modulation of long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) via external signals occurs (i.e., modulation of plasticity of weights). In one example from the hippocampus CA1 region, which is involved in learning and memory formation, modulation mediated by dopamine has been verified [@Dopamine98]. In particular, when dopamine is applied during or shortly after LTD activity, one observes that LTD is suppressed (and LTP can appear instead). Learning activity can thereby receive feedback via dopamine which then modulates synaptic plasticity, in particular LTD. Indeed, hormone signals are widely known to interfere with learning and memory formation. For example adrenal hormones have been shown to enhance susceptibility for LTD [@Coussens97], an effect which has even been found following behavioral stress in living animals [@Kim]. A broad class of other factors that modulate synaptic plasticity have been classified, sometimes summarized as “metaplasticity” [@metaplasticity]. We believe that further research in this area will provide new insights in the computational mechanics of biological nervous systems.
Furthermore, progress has been made in exploring the mechanisms of retrograde feedback in LTP and LTD. Evidence accumulates in favor of some physiological mechanisms that feed back the postsynaptic activity to the presynaptic site. A possible mechanism recently proposed for LTD is the messenger nitric oxide evoking a specific presynaptic biochemical cascade which, eventually, interacts with the intracellular mechanisms for vesicle formation and loading [@NO]. The subsequently reduced transmitter release establishes a long term depression of this synaptic pathway. An interesting observation is the long time scale of this process of the order of 15 minutes [@NO], especially when compared to that of neuronal firing packages. This opens up the possibility that considerable time averaging may occur in the course of inducing LTD. The effect of such a synaptic averaging on learning has been simulated above by an internal counter associated with each synaptic weight. Further experimental research on the timing of externally induced LTD and the lifetimes of the biochemical agents involved in the retrograde signaling cascade may show to what extent synaptic averaging in the induction of plasticity changes is established in nature.
To summarize, we studied a biologically motivated model for goal-directed learning in multilayer neural networks. In contrast to existing models, synaptic plasticity is based on a time-averaged individual failure rate of each synapse. Thereby, learning of general logical functions (including XOR) is possible on the basis of local synaptic plasticity alone, combined with homogeneous failure feedback. In particular, no error backpropagation is needed. The presented algorithm also works in the presence of noise, where internal errors are compensated for by the averaging of each synapse: only persistent failure is punished.
[99]{} S. Ramón y Cajal, [*Histologie du Systéme Nerveux*]{} (Maloine, Paris, 1911).
W. S. McCulloch and W. Pitts, Bull. Math. Biophys. [**5,**]{} 115–133 (1943). Reprinted in [@AndersenRosenfeld88].
D. O. Hebb, [*The Organization of Behavior*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1949). Reprinted in parts in [@AndersenRosenfeld88].
F. Rosenblatt, [*Principles of Neurodynamics*]{} (Spartan, New York, 1962).
J. J. Hopfield, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**79,**]{} 2554 (1988). Reprinted in [@AndersenRosenfeld88].
D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, Nature [**323,**]{} 533 (1986). Reprinted in [@AndersenRosenfeld88].
D. Zipser and R. A. Andersen, Nature (London) [**331,**]{} 679 (1988).
F. H. C. Crick, Nature (London) [**337,**]{} 129 (1989).
L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littmann and A. W. Moore, J. Artif. Intell. Res. [**4,**]{} 237 (1996).
R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, [*Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction*]{} (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).
A. G. Barto and P. Anandan, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. [**15,**]{} 360 (1985).
A. G. Barto, Human Neurobiol. [**4,**]{} 229 (1985).
P. Alstrøm and D. Stassinopoulos, Phys. Rev. E [**51,**]{} 5027 (1995).
D. Stassinopoulos and P. Bak, Phys. Rev. E [**51,**]{} 5033 (1995).
P. Bak, [*How Nature Works*]{} (Springer, New York, 1996).
D. R. Chialvo and P. Bak, Neuroscience [**90,**]{} No. 4, 1137–1148 (1999).
M. L. Minsky and S. A. Papert, [*Perceptrons. An Introduction to Computational Geometry*]{} (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969).
, edited by J.A. Anderson and E. Rosenfeld (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988).
A. L. Yuille and D. Geiger, in [*The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks*]{}, edited by M. A. Arbib (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995), pp. 1056–1060.
T. Heskes and W. Wiegerinck, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. [**7,**]{} 919–924 (1996).
N. A. Otmakhova and J. E. Lisman, J. Neurosci. [**18,**]{} 1270–1279 (1998).
C.M. Coussens, D.S. Kerr, and W.C. Abraham, J. Neurophysiol. [**78,**]{} 1–9 (1997).
J.J. Kim, M.R. Foy, and R.F. Thompson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**93,**]{} 4750–4753 (1996).
W. C. Abraham and W. P. Tate, Prog. Neurobiol. [**52,**]{} 303–323 (1997); W. C. Abraham and M. F. Bear, Trends Neurosci. [**19,**]{} 126–130 (1996).
M. Reyes-Harde, R. Empson, B.V.L. Potter, A. Galione, and P.K. Stanton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**96,**]{} 4061–4066 (1999).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We give a Wong-Zakai type characterisation of the solutions of quasilinear heat equations driven by space-time white noise in $1+1$ dimensions. In order to show that the renormalisation counterterms are local in the solution, a careful arrangement of a few hundred terms is required. The main tool in this computation is a general ‘integration by parts’ formula that provides a number of linear identities for the renormalisation constants.'
author:
- Máté Gerencsér
bibliography:
- 'quasi.bib'
title: 'Nondivergence form quasilinear heat equations driven by space-time white noise'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The main goal of the present paper is to ‘solve’ the equation
\[eq:main\] \_t u - a(u)\_x\^2 u=
on ${\mathbb{T}}={{\mathbb{R}}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, locally in time, with some initial condition $u(0,\cdot)=u_0(\cdot)$, where $a:{{\mathbb{R}}}\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ is a sufficiently regular function (${\mathcal{C}}^{5}$ suffices) with values in $[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]$ for some $\lambda>0$, and $\xi$ is the space-time white noise.
While equation looks like a simple nonlinear variation of the stochastic heat equation, a major problem arises due to the fact that the product $a(u)\d_x^2u$ is not actually meaningful for $u$ with parabolic regularity less than $1$. Since the white noise $\xi$ has regularity less than $-3/2$, any reasonable solution of should have no more regularity than $1/2$, making the interpretation of the product on the left-hand side, and thus the equation, far from obvious. One might try a naïve approximation: take a nonnegative symmetric (under the involution $x \mapsto -x$) smooth function $\rho$ supported in the unit ball and integrating to 1, set $\rho^\eps(t,x)=\eps^{-3}\rho(\eps^{-2} t,\eps^{-1}x)$, $\xi^\eps=\rho^\eps\ast\xi$, and solve with $\xi^\eps$ in place of $\xi$. While this sequence of solutions does not converge, one can ‘renormalise’ the divergencies as follows.
\[thm:main\] Let $u_0\in{\mathcal{C}}^{2\delta}({\mathbb{T}})$ for some $\delta\in(0,1/2)$. Then for any $\rho$ as above there exist deterministic smooth functions $C^\eps_\cdot,\bar C^\eps_\cdot,\tilde C^\eps_\cdot$ such that the following holds. Let $u^\eps$ be the classical solution of
\[eq:main approx\] \_tu\^-a(u\^)\_x\^2u\^=\^+C\^\_[a(u\^)]{}a’(u\_) +|C\^\_[a(u\^)]{}(a’)\^3(u\^) +C\^\_[a(u\^)]{}(a’a”)(u\^)
on ${\mathbb{T}}$ with initial condition $u^\eps(0,\cdot)=u_0(\cdot)$. There exist some (random) $T>0$ and $u\in{\mathcal{C}}^{\delta}([0,T]\times {\mathbb{T}})$ that do not depend on $\rho$, such that $u^\eps\to u$ in probability in ${\mathcal{C}}^{\delta}([0,T]\times {\mathbb{T}})$.
In the case of semilinear SPDEs involving ill-defined products, statements of the above kind on constructing renormalised solution theories have been plentiful in recent years, let us just mention the seminal works [@H0; @GIP; @Kup] from which most of them stem. As for quasilinear equations, slight variations of with noise regularity in $(-4/3,-1)$ were considered around the same time in three different works [@OW; @FGub; @BDH]. The former was later extended to the regime $(-3/2,-1)$ in [@OWSS], albeit only in the space-time periodic case. Removing the latter assumption in the regime $(-4/3,-1)$ or extending to more irregular noises (including space-time white noise as in our situation) is to our best knowledge work in progress [@Otto_Initial; @OWSS2]. We also remark that the divergence form version of , i.e. when $a(u)\d_x^2u$ is replaced by $\d_x(a(u)\d_x u)$, does not require the machinery of singular SPDEs, and has recently been treated in [@OWeb_Div2; @OWeb_Div].
A quite different approach was introduced in [@GH_Q], which we will build on in the present article. It relies on a transformation that brings to a form whose abstract counterpart in the language of regularity structures is relatively easily seen to be well-posed. This argument is quite short and works for all range of noise regularity, and therefore provides a general solution theory. In fact, the object $u$ from Theorem \[thm:main\] that we will show to be the limit of $u^\eps$, is constructed in [@GH_Q]. The drawback of this solution theory, however, is that it does not come with a natural approximation result, and therefore it is not a priori clear what, if anything, this abstract solution has to do with classical quasilinear PDEs. Statements like Theorem \[thm:main\] have the key role of relating the abstractly well-defined equation to classicaly well-defined equations. It is actually natural to conjecture, but out of the scope of the current state of the theory, that this relation is ‘always’ possible, as was proved in the semilinear case in [@BCCH].
Let us now briefly outline what the source of difficulty is in obtaining such approximation results. To loosely recall the transformation of [@GH_Q] (its precise formulation is stated in Section \[sec:setup\]), the key observation is that quasilinear equations of the type are (locally in time) equivalent to systems of the type
(u,v)=I(F(,u,v)),
where $I$ is a convolution map satisfying certain Schauder estimates and $F$ is a subcritical nonlinearity. In particular, $v$ is a nonlocal function of $u$. This system can be also written abstractly within regularity structures:
(U,V)=((,U,V)),
where the lift $\Xi$ of $\xi$ and the lift of ${\mathcal{F}}$ of $F$ are as in [@H0], and ${\mathfrak{I}}$ is the natural lift of $I$. This already shows the first main issue: if one solves this equation with respect to a renormalised smooth model, then the counterterms generated by the renormalisation will involve both $U$ and $V$. Since in the renormalisation of the original equation one only expects to see local functions of the solution, we would then need that when reversing the transformation, the counterterms involving $V$ all magically disappear.
This is far from easy to verify: the number of these terms quickly blows up as the regularity of the noise decreases. In the case of the space-time white noise, to calculate the counterterms at a single space-time point, the relevant dimension of the regularity structure is in the range of a few hundred. It is worth noting that there is no symbolic cancellation between the terms that contribute to the renormalisation, and so the elimination of $V$ has to rely on cancellations between the renormalisation constants that different symbols generate.
This is our first main step: in Section \[sec:cancel\] we establish a number of symmetries that renormalisation constants satisfy. This can be of interest on its own, for example one can deduce the chain rule for the class of scalar-valued generalised KPZ equations from such cancellations, a question that goes back to [@H0 Rem 1.14]. Since such chain rule is part of a much more general study in the very recent work [@BGHZ], we do not pursue this direction in any more detail here. Armed with a sufficiently large class of cancellations, it then remains to put them to use in simplifying the above mentioned large expression to the form stated in Theorem \[thm:main\]. This is the main combinatorial task of the paper and is the content of Section \[sec:proof\].
Throughout the article we use concepts and terminology from the theory of regularity structures [@H0] without repeating any of the definitions, and to a low-level extent, from their renormalisation, see e.g. [@H_Takagi Sec 5] for a gentle introduction.
Generalisations
---------------
There are several directions for extensions of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Some of them are immediate, some require mild improvement of known methods, and some would likely need new ideas.
The argument immediately extends to any Gaussian driving noise $\xi$ with regularity strictly above $-5/3$ and with compactly supported covariance function that satisfies the assumption of [@CH Sec 2.4].
Instead of a spatially periodic setting, one can solve the equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions. This direction for singular SPDEs was initiated in [@GH17]. However, the application of its results is not completely automatic, as the construction of the extension $\hat{\mathcal{R}}$ of the reconstruction operator ${\mathcal{R}}$ below regularity $-1$ in highly nonlinear situation does require some work. We believe that as long as one considers Dirichlet problems, this can be avoided, and everything above regularity $-2$ can be completely automatised. A result of this flavor, but not of this generality, recently appeared in [@Cyril_Ham Sec 3]. For Neumann boundary conditions such a statement is certainly not expected to hold. In light of the results of [@GH17], one in fact expects a boundary renormalisation to appear in the Neumann problem for .
For non-Gaussian noise, the regularity range $(-3/2,-1)$ would require a much simplified version of the computations in Section \[sec:proof\]: instead of $17$ trees with $4$ noises, one needs to handle $6$ trees with $3$ noises. When the regularity is between $-3/2$ and $-8/5$, one also gets an additional $6$ trees with $4$ noises, we briefly address this in Remark \[rem:Gauss\].
One could complicate the right-hand side to a general KPZ-like one, that is, to $f(u)(\d_x u)^2+g(u)\xi$. While the computations would get somewhat messier, the order of magnitude of the terms would not increase.
Both of the two latter generalisations (and even more the case of more irregular noise, where the ad hoc computations would get humanly infeasible) point to the need of a systematised algebraic/combinatorial treatment, as has been developed in the semilinear case in [@BHZ; @BCCH]. One main difference to their setup is that our abstract integration operator ${\mathfrak{I}}$, while relatively easy to handle from the analytic point of view, makes the algebra more involved, see e.g .
**Acknowledgements.** MG was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Lise Meitner programme M2250-N32.
Integration by parts in renormalisation {#sec:cancel}
=======================================
In this section we formulate some identities that renormalisation constants arising from the renormalisation of regularity structures satisfy. It is worth noting that here we do not use any Gaussianity assumption. Concerning the main assumption below, Assumption \[as:reno\] does restrict the generality compared to e.g. [@BHZ; @CH] quite significantly, but it allows us to work without the major algebraic complications therein, and still obtain a number of cancellations that will suffice for the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Certain symmetries were obtained in the very recent work [@BGHZ] for multicomponent generalised KPZ equations driven by space-time white noise. Our approach here is different and the identities follow from relatively down-to-earth integration by parts-like arguments. The formulation below furthermore fits well our purposes in Section \[sec:proof\], as it keeps track of which edges are and which are not required to have the same integration parameter (denoted by $c$ below) for the identities to hold.
Formulation
-----------
Take a regularity structure ${\mathscr{T}}=({\mathcal{T}},A,G)$ as in [@H0]. We assume the notation
=\_[A]{} \_,\_=,
with some index sets $I_\alpha$, where $\overline{\,\cdot\,}$ denotes the topological closure. We denote $\hat{\mathcal{W}}=\cup_{\alpha\in A}\{\tau_i:i\in I_\alpha\}$, $\hat{\mathcal{W}}_-=\cup_{\alpha\in A\cap(-\infty,0)}\{\tau_i:i\in I_\alpha\}$, by $\tilde {\mathcal{W}}$ and $\tilde {\mathcal{W}}_-$ subset of these sets containing $\tau_i$-s without any nonzero power of $X$ and by $\bar{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{W}}_-$ the further subset of symbols with at least $2$ noise components. We assume that the scaling is parabolic and that all $\tau\in\hat{\mathcal{W}}$ satisfies $|\tau|>-2$. We furthermore assume that ${\mathscr{T}}$ is equipped with an integration operator ${\mathcal{I}}={\mathcal{I}}_c$ of order $2$ that corresponds to a kernel $K=K_c$ that is $2$-smoothing in the sense of [@H0 As 5.1], is supported in the unit ball, and satisfies
(\_t-c\_x\^2)K\_c=\_0+f\_c,
where $c>0$ is some constant and $f=f_c$ is a smooth function.
We assume that elements of $\hat{\mathcal{W}}$ are obtained after repeated uses of integration (possibly different ones from ${\mathcal{I}}_c$) and multiplication operators and therefore can be canonically represented by trees. We understand the notion of subtrees in the natural way. If $\tau$ has $k$ subtrees isomorphic to $\bar \tau$, we denote by $\iota^i_\tau\bar \tau$, $i=1,\ldots,k$, all possible embeddings of $\bar\tau$ in $\tau$. If $k>0$, we denote it by $\bar\tau\prec\tau$. If $\sigma$ is a subtree of $\tau$, let $L_\sigma\tau$ be the tree obtained by contracting $\sigma$ to a node. The action of these contractions on powers of $X$ appearing in the symbols will not play a role in our setting, for details on that we refer to [@H_Takagi] and for even more details to [@BHZ]. For any map $g:\bar{\mathcal{W}}_-\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ we define $M_{[g]}:{\mathcal{T}}\to{\mathcal{T}}$ by the linear and continuous extension of
\[eq:reno map\] M\_[\[g\]]{}:=+\_[||\_- ]{}g(|)\_[i]{}L\_[\^i\_|]{}, .
Note that even in case $\bar{\mathcal{W}}_-$ is infinite (which is the situation of Section \[sec:proof\]), the sum in has finitely many nonzero contributions.
Fix a set of canonical models ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ built from a class of approximate noises of a ‘target’ noise $\xi$ (which may have multiple components). We will refer to elements of ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ by $\PPi_\eps^\theta$, where $\eps\in(0,1]$ and $\theta$ runs over some parameter set $\Theta$. In the context of Theorem \[thm:main\], for example, $\Theta$ would be the set of all mollifiers $\rho$ of the form prescribed preceding the theorem. As usual, we assume the translation invariance of the laws of the approximations, and we also assume that the $\sigma$-algebras $\sigma\big((\PPi_\eps^\theta\tau_1)(z):\,z\in D_1\big)$ and $\sigma\big((\PPi_\eps^\theta\tau_2)(z):\,z\in D_2\big)$ are independent if the distance between $D_1,D_2\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^d$ is bigger than $R$, for some $R$ uniformly in $\eps,\theta, \tau_1,\tau_2$. In a rather large generality [@CH] showed that one can find maps $\hat M_\eps^\theta:{\mathcal{T}}\to{\mathcal{T}}$ satisfying some natural conditions such that for all $\theta\in\Theta$ the models $\hat\PPi_\eps^\theta:=\PPi_\eps^\theta \hat M_\eps^\theta$ converge in $L_p$ (in the probabilistic sense) to an admissible model $\hat\PPi$ as $\eps\to0$. In a general situation these maps $\hat M_\eps^\theta$ and what the ‘natural conditions’ really mean can be quite complicated, here we restrict our attention to the following simplified case.
\[as:reno\] The maps $\hat M_\eps^\theta$ are of the form $M_{[\hat g_\eps^\theta]}$, with
\[eq:BPHZ g\] g\_\^()=-(\_\^)(0)+ \_[||\_- ]{}g\_\^(|) \_[i]{}(\_\^L\_[\^i\_|]{})(0).
Moreover, for all $\tau\in\hat{\mathcal{W}}$, $\bar\tau\in \bar{\mathcal{W}}_-$, and embedding $\iota_\tau\bar\tau$, one has $(\hat M_\eps^\theta-\id) L_{\iota_\tau\bar\tau}\tau=0$.
As for the notion of convergence, which is also somewhat involved, the only fact we will explicitly use is that for some $\alpha\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all $\tau\in\hat{\mathcal{W}}$, $\hat\PPi_\eps^\theta\tau$ converges to $\hat\PPi\tau$ in $L_p(\Omega,{\mathcal{C}}^{\alpha}_{\mathop{\mathrm{loc}}})$. It then follows that since ${\mathbf{E}}\hat\PPi\tau$ (as well as ${\mathbf{E}}(h\ast\hat\PPi\tau)\hat\PPi\bar\tau$ for any smooth function $h$) is a translation invariant distribution, it is actually a constant function, and its value depends only on the law of $\xi$. Viewing as a recursive definition of $\hat g_\eps^\theta$, it guarantees that $({\mathbf{E}}\hat\PPi_\eps^\theta\tau(0))=0$ for all $\tau\in\bar{\mathcal{W}}_-$. Assumption \[as:reno\] also implies that for any $g$, $\hat\PPi_\eps^\theta M_{[g]}$ converges to $\hat\PPi M_{[g]}$, and the latter is also an admissible model.
Assumption \[as:reno\] depends not only on ${\mathscr{T}}$ but also on the choice of the approximations ${\mathcal{M}}_0$. It is general enough to cover for example symmetric (but not necessarily Gaussian) approximations of generalised KPZ equations. It fails however, for example, for non-symmetric approximations of the KPZ equation: when contracting in $\<BBB>$ the middle subtrees isomorphic to $\<7>$, one again gets $\<7>$, which in the non-symmetric case is not invariant under the renormalisation map.
Let us extend $g$ as above as $0$ on $\hat{\mathcal{W}}\setminus\bar{\mathcal{W}}_-$. With this convention, denoting the set ${\mathcal{N}}\subset\hat{\mathcal{W}}$ such that for all $\tau\in{\mathcal{N}}$ and all $\theta\in\Theta$ one has $\hat g^\theta_\eps(\tau)=0$, ${\mathcal{N}}$ always contains all symbols of positive degree.
The root of a tree $\tau$ is denoted by $\rho$ (with the understanding that it inherits the indices, so for example the root of a tree called $\tau_1$ will be denoted by $\rho_1$). In the following $\tau_0$ always denotes a tree with a distinguished node (which may or may not be its root) $\rho_0^\ast$. By $\tau\circ\tau_0$ we denote the tree obtained from gluing $\tau$ and $\tau_0$ together by identifying $\rho$ and $\rho_0^\ast$. In the special case $\rho_0=\rho_0^\ast$, one has simply $\tau\circ\tau_0=\tau\tau_0$.
Denote by $\bar\tau\subset_{\rho'}\tau$ if $\bar\tau$ can be embedded as a subtree in $\tau$ that includes a certain node $\rho'$ of $\tau$. Introduce the following sets
\_1&={(\_1 & & ,…,\_n): n2,\_i, (’|\_[i(1)]{})[\_[k=2]{}\^]{}|\_[i(k)]{}\
& & & , i(1)i(), |\_[i(k)]{}\_[\_[i(k)]{}]{}\_[i(k)]{} },\
\_2&={(\_0 & & ,…,\_n): n2,\_i, (\_1,…,\_n)\_1, ((’|\_[i(1)]{})[\_[k=2]{}\^]{}|\_[i(k)]{})|\_0\
& & &, i(1)i(), |\_0\_[\_0\^]{}\_0, |\_[i(k)]{}\_[\_[i(k)]{}]{}\_[i(k)]{}},\
\_3&={(\_0 & & ,…,\_n): n2,\_i, (\_1,…,\_n)\_1, ’((’|\_[i(1)]{})[\_[k=2]{}\^]{}|\_[i(k)]{})|\_0\
& & &, i(1)i(), |\_0\_[\_0\^]{}\_0, |\_[i(k)]{}\_[\_[i(k)]{}]{}\_[i(k)]{} }.
Finally, if a real valued sequence $a_\eps$ converges to a finite limit depending only on the law of $\xi$, we denote it by $a_\eps\sim 0$. Our ‘integration by parts’ formulae then read as follows.
\[lem:Symmetry\] Under Assumption \[as:reno\], one has for all $(\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_n)\in{\mathcal{A}}_1$
\[eq:Symmetry\] \_[i=1]{}\^n g\_\^(\_i[\_[ki]{}\_k]{}) - c\_[i=1]{}\^n\_[ij=1]{}\^n g\_\^((’\_i)(’\_j) ) \~0,
for all $(\tau_0,\ldots,\tau_n)\in{\mathcal{A}}_2$
\_[i=1]{}\^ng\_\^((\_i &[\_[ki]{}]{}\_k)\_0) -g\_\^(([\_[k]{}]{}\_k)\_0)\
&- c\_[i=1]{}\^n\_[ij=1]{}\^n g\_\^(((’\_i)(’\_j) )\_0) \~0,
and for all $(\tau_0,\ldots,\tau_n)\in{\mathcal{A}}_3$
\_[i=1]{}\^ng\_\^(’(\_i &[\_[ki]{}]{}\_k)\_0) -\_[i=1]{}\^ng\_\^(((’\_i)[\_[ki]{}]{}\_k)\_0)\
&- c\_[i=1]{}\^n\_[ij=1]{}\^n g\_\^(’((’\_i)(’\_j) )\_0) \~0.
The following corollary is immediate.
\[cor:main\] Under Assumption \[as:reno\] there exist maps $g_\eps^\theta:\bar{\mathcal{W}}_-\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and such that
The identities -- are satisfied with equality;
The sequence of models $\PPi_\eps^\theta M_{[g_\eps^\theta]}$ converge and the limit is of the form $\hat\PPi M_{[g]}$ for some $g$ depending only on the law of $\xi$;
If for $\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_k\in\bar{\mathcal{W}}_-$ the system of equations
g\_\^(\_i)=0i=1,…,k
is linearly independent of --, then $g_\eps^\theta$ can be chosen to agree with $\hat g_\eps^\theta$ on $\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_k$.
\[example\] Let us list a couple of examples in the case $c=1$. With the notation (as in, for example, [@H_String]) of $\<0>$ denoting the noise, $\<black>$ denoting ${\mathcal{I}}$ and $\<red>$ denoting ${\mathcal{I}}'$, one has:
g\^\_(AMM>)&=3g\^\_(BMM>) && , n=4, \_1=\_2=\_3=\_4=0>,\
&=2g\^\_(AMB>)-g\^\_(AMA>) && , n=2, \_1=0>,\_2=tmp>,\
&=4g\^\_(ABM>)+2g\^\_(S4>)-2g\^\_(AAM>) && , n=3, \_1=\_2=0>,\_3=3>,\
6g\_\^(BMA>)&=3g\_\^(AMA>)-g\_\^(AMM>) && , n=3, \_0=\_1=\_2=\_3=0>,\
2g\_\^(BBB>) &=2g\_\^(ABB>)-2g\_\^(BMB>) && , n=2, \_0=7>,\_1=\_2=0>,\
&=g\_\^(BAB>)+g\_\^(BMB>)-g\_\^(BBM>)-g\_\^(S5>) && , n=2, \_0=r1>, \_1=0>, \_2=3>.
Note that in the second to last example $\rho_0^\ast\neq\rho_0$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:Symmetry\]
-------------------------------
We will sometimes use $\d^{[z]}_\alpha$ to emphasise that a differential operator $\d_\alpha$ acts on the $z$ variable. We say that a function $Q$ in $n$ $d$-dimensional variables is translation-invariant if $T_{\bar z}Q(z_1,\ldots,z_n):=Q(z_1+\bar z,\ldots,z_n+\bar z)=Q(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$ for all $\bar z\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^d$. Notice that if $Q$ is a translation-invariant smooth function and $\eta$ is a compactly supported distribution, then for any nonzero multiindex $\alpha$
\[eq:translation vanish\] (\_\^[\[|z\]]{}(T\_[|z]{}))(Q) =0.
To ease the notation, we drop the $\theta$ index, but it will be clear that the conclusion is approximation-independent. We start with the proof of . Denote
\[eq:something\] =[\_[k]{}\_k]{},\^i=\_i[\_[ki]{}\_k]{},\^i=[\_[ki]{}\_k]{},\_[ij]{}=(’\_i)(’\_j),
as well as
Q\_(z\_1,…,z\_n)=(\_\_1(z\_1)\_\_n(z\_n)).
Clearly $Q_\eps$ is a translation invariant smooth function which is $0$ on $\{\max_{i}\min_{j\neq i}|z_i-z_j|\geq R\}$. Let us take a smooth compactly supported function $\chi^R$ that is $1$ on the ball of radius $R+2$ around the origin and denote $f^R=f\chi^R$. From the Leibniz rule
\[eq:Leibniz\] [\_i]{} &(\_0+f)(|z-z\_i)[\_[ki]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k) -c [\_[ij]{}]{}K’(|z-z\_i)K’(|z-z\_j) [\_[ki,j]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k)\
&= (\_t-c)\^[\[|z\]]{}(K(z\_0-|z)[\_[k]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k))
we get
[\_i]{} & (\_\^i)(|z) -c[\_[ij]{}]{}(\_\_[ij]{})(|z)\
&=Q\_(z\_1,…,z\_n) (\_t-c)\^[\[|z\]]{} ([\_[k]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k))dz\_1dz\_n\
&- [\_i]{}Q\_(z\_1,…,z\_n) f(|z-z\_i) [\_[ki]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k) dz\_1dz\_n\
&=-[\_i]{}((f\^R\_\_i)(\_\^i))(|z),
where we used that the integral in the second line vanishes due to .
There are two essentially different scenarios in which one has $\bar\tau\prec\sigma^i.$ First, when $\iota_{\sigma^i}\bar\tau$ is obtained from an embedding $\iota_{\tau_\ell}\bar\tau$ for some $\ell$. This has obvious corresponding embeddings $\iota_{\sigma^j}\bar\tau$, $\iota_{\sigma_{ij}}\bar\tau$, and $\iota_{\mathring\sigma^j}\bar\tau$, and moreover the results of contracting these subtrees are exactly of the form , with $\tau_\ell$ replaced by $L_{\iota_{\tau_\ell}\bar\tau}\tau_\ell$. In this case therefore one has an identity analogous to .
If $\bar\tau\prec\sigma^i$ is not of this form, then it can be written as $\bar\tau=\tilde\sigma^i:=\tilde\tau_i{\textstyle\prod_{k}{\mathcal{I}}\tilde\tau_{\ell(k)}}$ with some indices $\ell(k)$ distinct from each other and from $i$, and with $\tilde\tau_j\subset_{\rho_j}\tau_j$. Denote the set of indices $\ell(k)$ along with $i$ by $I$. One can pair these subtrees with those of $\sigma^j$ and $\sigma_{jm}$ whenever $j,m\in I$: simply define $\tilde\sigma^j\prec\sigma^j$ and $\tilde\sigma_{ij}\prec\sigma_{ij}$ as in , replacing each $\tau_k$ with $\tilde\tau_k$. One then has $L_{\tilde\sigma^j}\sigma^j=L_{\tilde\sigma^{j'}}\sigma^{j'}
=L_{\tilde\sigma_{mm'}}\sigma_{mm'}=:\hat\tau$ for all $j,j',m,m'\in I$. Denote the set of all the possible $\hat\tau$-s obtained this way (with multiplicities) by $A$. By Assumption \[as:reno\], for all $\hat\tau\in A$ one has $\PPi_\eps\hat\tau=\hat\PPi_\eps\hat\tau$.
The definition of ${\mathcal{A}}_1$ guarantees that these two cases exhaust all the contributions to the renormalisation of $\sigma_{ij}$ as well: the only subtrees not covered so far are of the form $\bar \tau=({\mathcal{I}}'\tilde\tau_i){\textstyle\prod_{k}{\mathcal{I}}\tilde\tau_{\ell(k)}}$ with some indices $\ell(k)$ distinct from each other and from $i$ and $j$. By definition, all $\bar\tau$ of this form belongs to ${\mathcal{N}}$, so does not contribute to the renormalisation.
Therefore we have
[\_i]{} & (\_\^i)(|z) -c[\_[ij]{}]{}(\_\_[ij]{})(|z)+[\_i]{}((f\^R\_\_i)(\_\^i))(|z)\
&=\_[A]{} (\_)(|z)([\_i]{} g\_(\^i) -c[\_[ij]{}]{}g\_(\_[ij]{})).
After testing with any function integrating to $1$ and recalling that ${\mathbf{E}}\hat\PPi\tau$ is a constant distribution, we pass to the $\eps\to 0 $ limit and rearrange the above as
\_[0]{} & [\_i]{} g\_(\^i) -c[\_[ij]{}]{}g\_(\_[ij]{})= \_[A]{} ()(0)\_[0]{}([\_i]{} g\_(\^i) -c[\_[ij]{}]{}g\_(\_[ij]{}))\
&+[\_i]{} (\^i)(0) -c[\_[ij]{}]{}(\_[ij]{})(0)+[\_i]{}((f\^R\_i)(\^i))(0).
Therefore by a simple induction argument we get the claim.
The proof of the other two claims goes along very similar lines. There are two slight differences, the first one of which is the definition of $Q_\eps$: we now set
Q\_(z\_0,z\_1,…,z\_n)=(\_\_0\^(z\_0)\_\_1(z\_1)\_\_n(z\_n)),
where $\tau_0^\ast$ is the tree obtained by viewing $\tau_0$ as a tree with root $\rho_0^\ast$. The other difference is the application of the Leibniz rule: we simply replace the identity with, in the case of
K(z\_0-|z) &[\_i]{} (\_0+f)(|z-z\_i)[\_[ki]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k) -(\_0+f)(|z-z\_0)[\_[k]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k)\
&-cK(z\_0-|z) [\_[ij]{}]{}K’(|z-z\_i)K’(|z-z\_j) [\_[ki,j]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k)\
&=\_t\^[\[|z\]]{}(K(z\_0-|z)[\_[k]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k))\
&-c\_x\^[\[|z\]]{}( K(z\_0-|z) [\_i]{} K’(|z-z\_i)[\_[ki]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k) +K’(z\_0-|z)[\_[k]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k) ),
while in the case of we make use of
K’(z\_0-|z)&[\_i]{} (\_0+f)(|z-z\_i)[\_[ki]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k) -(\_0+f)(|z-z\_0)[\_i]{}K’(|z-z\_i)[\_[ki]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k)\
&-cK’(z\_0-|z) [\_[ij]{}]{}K’(|z-z\_i)K’(|z-z\_j) [\_[ki,j]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k)\
&=\_t\^[\[|z\]]{}(K’(z\_0-|z)[\_[k]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k)) -\_x\^[\[|z\]]{}((\_t K)(z\_0-|z)[\_[k]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k))\
&-c\_x\^[\[|z\]]{} (K’(z\_0-|z)[[\_[i]{}]{}K’(|z-z\_i)\_[ki]{}]{}K(|z-z\_k)).
The integral of $Q_\eps$ against the right-hand sides of and vanishes as before due to , and hence the proof can be concluded precisely as before.
Proof of the main theorem {#sec:proof}
=========================
The setup {#sec:setup}
---------
We briefly recall the setup of [@GH_Q]. For simplicity for certain ‘sufficiently large’ indices from therein we simply take $10$, which suffices for , but which does not play any important role. The approach of [@GH_Q] relies on a transformation, which is of course formal for rough $\xi$, but is elementary to check for smooth $\xi$. Let, for $c\in[\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]$, $P(c,\cdot)$ be the Green’s function of the operator $\d_t-c\d_x^2$. The aforementioned transformation then establishes that is equivalent, locally in time, to
u & =I(a(u),f)\
f &=(1-a’(u)I\_c(a(u),f))+ (aa”)(u)(\_x u)\^2 I\_c (a(u),f)\
&+ (a (a’)\^2)(u)(\_x u)\^2 I\_[cc]{}(a(u),f) + 2(aa’)(u)(\_x u) I\_[cx]{}(a(u),f),
where the operators $I_\alpha$, for multiindices $\alpha$ in $c$ and $x$ are defined as
\[eq:I\] I\_(b,f)(z)=(\_P)(b(z),z-z’)f(z’)dz’
and $I=I_\emptyset$. Note that $I$ actually extends to $f$ with regularity above $-2$, in which case of course needs to be interpreted in the appropriate distributional sense.
One can formulate in the theory of regularity structures as follows. Start with the regularity structure built as in [@H0; @BHZ] for the generalised KPZ equation and denote the set of basis vectors (‘symbols’) by ${\mathcal{W}}$, and the ones with negative degree by ${\mathcal{W}}_-$. Define the ‘number of integrations’ $[\tau]$ recursively by setting
=\[\]=0,=\[\]+\[|\],=\[’\]=\[\]+1.
Denote ${\mathcal{B}}={\mathcal{C}}^{-10}([\lambda,\lambda^{-1}])$ and write ${\mathcal{B}}_k$ for the $k$-fold tensor product of ${\mathcal{B}}$ with itself, completed under the projective cross norm. In particular, we have a canonical dense embedding of ${\mathcal{B}}_k\otimes {\mathcal{B}}_\ell$ into ${\mathcal{B}}_{k+\ell}$. We also use the convention ${\mathcal{B}}_0={{\mathbb{R}}}$. We then construct a regularity structure ${\mathscr{T}}$ in such a way that each symbol $\tau \in{\mathcal{W}}$ determines an infinite-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal{T}}_\tau$ of the structure space ${\mathcal{T}}$, isometric to ${\mathcal{B}}_{[\tau]}$. To wit, we set
\[eq:T\] =\_ \_,\_:=\_[|| = ]{} T\_,\_:= \_[\[\]]{}{},
and equip the spaces ${\mathcal{T}}_\alpha$ with their natural norms. The structure group plays no explicit role for us in this article so we do not address it, the interested reader can find the details in [@GH_Q]. The abstract differentiation, multiplication, and integration operators on ${\mathcal{T}}$ are defined by
() & =D,\
() (||) & = (|)|,\
\^ (|) & = (|).
Note in particular that the we have a whole family of integration operators $({\mathcal{I}}^\zeta)_{\zeta\in{\mathcal{B}}}$. Take a family of kernels $(K^{(c)})_{c\in [\lambda,\lambda^{-1}]}$, which, along with their derivatives with respect to $c$ up to any finite order, are uniformly compactly supported and $2$-smoothing in the sense of [@H0 As 5.1]. We will denote $K^\zeta=\zeta(K^{(\cdot)})$ for $\zeta\in{\mathcal{B}}$ and $K^{c;\ell}=K^{\d^\ell\delta_c}$. In the notation of Section \[sec:cancel\] we set $\hat{\mathcal{W}}$ to be the set of all symbols obtained by repeated uses of integration and multiplication. Let $\PPi_\eps$ be the canonical model built from $\xi^\eps$ for $\eps>0$, where the dependence on the mollifier $\rho$, which corresponds to $\theta$ in the framework of Section \[sec:cancel\], is suppressed. The fact that Assumption \[as:reno\] holds follow from that, due to the spatial symmetry, one has
& \_(\_c\_[c’]{}\_[c”]{}7>)(0) =\_(\_c\_[c’]{}4>)(0) =\_(\_c\_[c’]{}5>)(0)\
& =\_(\_c3x>)(0) =\_(\_c3x2>)(0) =\_(\_c\_[c’]{}2x>)(0) =0
where $\<0x>$ stands for $X\Xi$. We then set $\PPi_\eps^{\Sym}:=\PPi_\eps M_{[g_\eps]}$, where $g_\eps$ is from Corollary \[cor:main\], and denote the limiting model by $\PPi^{\Sym}=\hat\PPi M_{[g]}$.
We define the maps the ${\mathcal{K}}^\zeta$ by replacing ${\mathcal{I}}$ and $K$ in [@H0 Eq 5.15] by ${\mathcal{I}}^{\zeta}$ and $K^\zeta$, respectively. As before, we denote ${\mathcal{K}}^{c;\ell}:={\mathcal{K}}^{\partial^\ell\delta_c}$ We can now introduce the lift of the operator $I_\alpha$. Take two modelled distributions $b$ and $f$ and set $\bar b=\scal{b,{\mathbf{1}}}$, $\hat b=b-\bar b$. If $\d_\alpha=\d_c^k\d_x^m$, then we define
\[frI\] \_(b,f)(z):=\_[||10]{} (\^m\^[|b(z);k+]{} f)(z).
It is shown in [@GH_Q] that the maps ${\mathfrak{I}}_\alpha$ satisfy the natural Schauder-estimates on appropriate spaces of modelled distributions. Assuming for the moment $u_0=0$, the abstract counterpart of then yields the object $u$ claimed in Theorem \[thm:main\]: We set $u={\mathcal{R}}U$, where $U$ is the obtained by solving, with respect to the model $\PPi^{\Sym}$, the system of abstract equations
U &= (a(U), ) ,\
&= (1- V\_c a’(U) )+ 2 V\_[cx]{} a(U)a’(U)U + V\_[cc]{} a(U) (a’(U))\^2 (U)\^2\
&+ V\_c a(U) a”(U) (U)\^2 ,\
V\_&= \_(a(U), ),=c,cc,cx.
We will also encounter $V_{ccc}$, although it does not explicitly appear in the equation . For general initial condition $u_0$, one has to include an additional variant of the operators ${\mathfrak{I}}$ (denoted by $\hat{\mathfrak{I}}$ in [@GH_Q Eq 4.6]) in the first and third component of , but since they do not effect main line of the argument at all, they will be omitted for simplicity.
To prove the theorem, we need to show that if $U^\eps$ is obtained from solving with respect to $\PPi_\eps^{\Sym}$, then $u^\eps:={\mathcal{R}}U^\eps$ solves .
Notational conventions {#sec:notations}
----------------------
To organise our calculation, let us introduce a couple of shorthand notation. Firstly, we drop the index $\eps$, but keep it in mind that the solution $(U,\hat{\mathcal{F}},V_\alpha)$ we are considering is with respect to the renormalised smooth model $\PPi_\eps^{\Sym}$. Fix a space-time point $z$ and in the sequel omit the argument $z$ from any function of space-time (scalar-valued and ${\mathcal{T}}$-valued alike). We also omit the $u$ argument from $a$ or any of its derivatives.
In additional to the graphical conventions of Example \[example\], we use squares like $\<Z>\,,\<Z2>\,,$ for generic trees, and their color simply serves to distinguish between different ones in the same formula. Since all symbols appearing in the expansion of the solution are of the form $\zeta\otimes\tau$, where $\zeta$ is a tensor product of derivatives of $\delta_{a}$, we set the shorthand $\scal{i_1,\ldots, i_k}=\d^{i_1}\delta_{a}\otimes\cdots\otimes\d^{i_k}\delta_{a}$. Furthermore, to ease the reading, we rearrange the order of tensor products. Given a pictorial representation of a tree, the ordering is always top-bottom, left-right, but which one takes precedence will change occasionally. In the notation $\scal{\cdot}$ the order is a) vertical position of the parents b) horizontal position of the parents c) horizontal position of the children (recall that the parent vertex of an edge is the one closer to the root). For example,
AMA>=(\^[\^2\_[a]{}]{} ((\^[\_[a]{}]{})(\^[\_[a]{}]{})).
From time to time different ordering of the parameters will be more natural. In $\scal{\cdot}^{\rightarrow}$ we list the parameters in order of a) horizontal position of the parents b) horizontal position of the children c) vertical position of the children. Finally, in $\scal{\cdot}^{\downarrow}$ the order is based on a) vertical position of the parents b) vertical position of the children c) horizontal position of the children. As examples,
\^S1>=S1>, \^S4>=S4>.
We emphasize that these notions all depend on the given pictorial representation. We further set
\_=\_[\_i=k]{}.
The notation is set up to condense more complicated cancellations. For example, while Lemma \[lem:Symmetry\] at first sight only gives
g\_(3>) = g\_( a\_22>),
one can differentiate this $k$ times with respect to the parameter and obtain
g\_(3>) = g\_((a\_2+k\_2)2>).
The notations $\sscal{k}^{\rightarrow}_\ell,\sscal{k}^{\downarrow}_\ell$ are understood analogously.
Recall that $u={\mathcal{R}}U$ and write $v_\alpha={\mathcal{R}}V_\alpha$. In general, the coefficient of a symbol $\tau\in{\mathcal{W}}$ in $U$ will be denoted by $u_\tau$, and similarly for $\hat{\mathcal{F}}$ and $V_\alpha$. Some combination of these functions will repeatedly occur:
q=1-v\_ca’,
p\_[c]{}=(v\_[c]{}a”+v\_[cc]{}(a’)\^2),p\_[cc]{}=(v\_[cc]{}a”+v\_[ccc]{}(a’)\^2),p\_c=(2 v\_[cc]{}a’a”+v\_ca”’).
One important role of $q$ is that, precisely as in [@GH_Q], for short times it is nonzero and $u$ solves an equation just like , but with an additional term
\[eq:correction\] \_[\_-]{} g\_(f\_ ).
appearing on the right-hand side. Note that while ${\mathcal{W}}_-$ is the usual set of negative degree symbols for the generalised KPZ equation, for each $\tau$, $\hat f_\tau$ is the linear combination of many different distributions, see e.g. below, and so is in fact a sum of several hundred terms. Our goal to show that this sum is nothing but the counterterm specified in , with the appropriate choice of $C^\eps_\cdot,\bar C^\eps_\cdot,\tilde C^\eps_\cdot$.
To this end, given $\tau\in {\mathcal{W}}_-$, for any $k, i_1,\ldots i_{[\tau]}\in{\mathbf{N}}$, and any function of the form $h=qa^ka', qa^k(a')^3,qa^ka'a''$, $k\in{\mathbf{N}}$, we denote $h\scal{i_1,\ldots,i_{[\tau]}}\asymp 0$. This reflects that the contributions of all terms of the form $h\scal{i_1,\ldots,i_{[\tau]}}\otimes\tau$ to the renormalisation are precisely as required. We will repeatedly apply integration by parts identities from Section \[sec:cancel\]. By writing
\[id n\] \_1\_1\~\_2\_2
we mean $g_\eps(\zeta_1\otimes\tau_1)=g_\eps(\zeta_2\otimes\tau_2)$. Given such an identity, we may simplify the expansions of $\hat f_{\tau_1}$ and $\hat f_{\tau_2}$ simultaneously, provided they contain the same multiple of $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$, respectively. This will be denoted by
f\_[\_1]{}&= h\_1+|\_1 |\_1,\
f\_[\_2]{}&= h\_2+|\_2|\_2.
Here $n$ will be some Roman numeral and $h$ some function. We emphasise that $\app{n}$ is not a single relation but has to be read in pairs (or, in more complicated situations, triples, quadruples, etc.). By $\approx$ we mean the summary of all previous simplifications of the coefficient of a given symbol, either by $\asymp$ or $\app{n}$.
It is clear from Gaussianity that only $\tau$-s with $2$ or $4$ instances of $\Xi$ contribute to , we denote the corresponding subsets of ${\mathcal{W}}_-$ by ${\mathcal{W}}_-^2,{\mathcal{W}}_-^4$. With all this, our goal can be summarised as showing $\hat f_\tau\approx0$ for all $\tau\in{\mathcal{W}}_-^2,{\mathcal{W}}_-^4$.
Finally, let us mention that often the integration by parts will look a bit simpler due to symbols in ${\mathcal{W}}_-^G:=\{\<AMA>\,,\<AMB>\,,\<AMM>\,,\<BMA>\,,\<BMB>\,,\<BMM>\}$ having vanishing contribution to the renormalisation. This is again a consequence of Gaussianity. For example, the second to last line in Example \[example\] simplifies to
\_5ABB>\~a\_6BBB>.
It is also worth noting and will be often used that these formulae do not require all edges to have the same parameter. In particular, edges that do not ‘play’ in a given integration by parts, can have arbitrary derivatives, so for example the above relation is true more generally:
ABB>\~aBBB>.
\[rem:Gauss\] One possible way to extend our result to the non-Gaussian case would be to 1) calculate the coefficient $\hat f_\tau$ for $\tau\in{\mathcal{W}}^G_-$; 2) keep track of how the performing the steps below effect these coefficients; 3) use the cancellations relating only elements of ${\mathcal{W}}_-^G$ to each other (there are in fact $5$ of these) to further simplify all of these coefficient to $0$ in the sense of $\approx$. To avoid cluttering the already lengthy computation below, we refrain from this generality.
Some recursions for the coefficients
------------------------------------
First we want to treat the contributions from ${\mathcal{W}}^2_-$, but for later use some steps are formulated in a more general way. In fact, the terms in ${\mathcal{W}}^2_-$ had already been treated in [@GH_Q], but for the sake of completeness, as well as to illustrate the use of some of the notations above, we include the argument.
First of all, it will be repeatedly used that for any $\<Z>\in{\mathcal{W}}_-$ one has
\[eq:integral with the q\] u\_[ZI>]{}=f\_[Z>]{}.
Indeed, this follows from the fact that in ${\mathfrak{I}}(a(U),\hat{\mathcal{F}})$ the symbol $\<ZI>$ appears twice: once in the $\ell=0$ and once in the $\ell=1$ term. Since, by definition, ${\mathcal{K}}^{a(u),1}\hat{\mathcal{F}}=v_c{\mathbf{1}}+(\ldots)$, one gets the equation
\[eq:fixed point coeff\] u\_[ZI>]{}=f\_[Z>]{}+a’u\_[ZI>]{}v\_c ,
and from it, . One therefore also has
(v\_[c]{})\_[ZI>]{}&=f\_[Z>]{}+a’u\_[ZI>]{}v\_[cc]{}= f\_[Z>]{}(+a’v\_[cc]{}),\
(v\_[cc]{})\_[ZI>]{}&=f\_[Z>]{}+a’u\_[ZI>]{}v\_[ccc]{}= f\_[Z>]{}(+a’v\_[ccc]{}),\
(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJ>]{}&=f\_[Z>]{}.
Let $2^*$ denote $2$ for $\<Z>\neq\<Z2>$ and $1$ for $\<Z>=\<Z2>$. The above then yields the following recursions
f\_[ZA>]{} &=-(v\_c)\_[ZI>]{}a’-v\_ca”u\_[ZI>]{}\
&=-p\_cf\_[Z>]{}-a’f\_[Z>]{}, \[eq:rec1\]\
f\_[ZZ2>]{}&=2\^\*aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJ>]{}\^u\_[Z2I>]{}+2\^\*aa’u\_[ZI>]{}\^(v\_[cx]{})\_[Z2J>]{} +2\^\*v\_[cc]{}a(a’)\^2u\_[ZI>]{}\^u\_[Z2I>]{}+2\^\*v\_caa”u\_[ZI>]{}\^u\_[Z2I>]{}\
&= f\_[Z>]{}f\_[Z2>]{}(2\^\*aa’\_2 +2\^\*ap\_c\_2) ,\[eq:rec2\]
where we denoted by $\otimes^\ast$ when the parameter derivatives are slightly rearranged after concatenation (since the way they should be arranged is pretty obvious, we prefer to avoid making this completely precise by introducing further notations). One obviously has $\hat f_{\<0>}=q$ and we recall the cancellation
\[id: i\] 3>\~a\_22>.
Thus we can write
f\_[3>]{}&=-qp\_c-qa’ -qa’ 0,\
f\_[2>]{} &=qaa’\_2 +qap\_c\_2 qaa’\_2 0.
The rest of the article is devoted to show $\hat f_{\tau}\approx 0$ for
{ AAA>,AAB>,AAM>,ABA>,ABB>,ABM>, BAA>,BAB>,BAM>,BBA>,BBB>,BBM>, S1>,S2>,S3>,S4>,S5>, }.
The recursions - yield the coefficient of all $8$ of the above symbols that are built from the repeated operations $\<Z>\to\<ZA>$, $\<Z>\to\<ZB>$, as well as those of $\<S1>$, $\<S2>$, $\<S3>$. For the $6$ remaining symbols, however, we have to take into account the fact that $u$ does not only contain symbols of the form $\<ZI>$. Indeed, one has, by a similar argument as the one leading to ,
u\_[ZIZ2I>]{} &=( a’u\_[ZI>]{}\^f\_[Z2>]{}+a’f\_[Z>]{}u\_[Z2I>]{}\^)\
&+a’u\_[ZIZ2I>]{}v\_c +(a”u\_[ZI>]{}\^u\_[Z2I>]{}v\_c +(a’)\^2u\_[ZI>]{}\^u\_[Z2I>]{}v\_[cc]{})\
& =a’u\_[ZIZ2I>]{}v\_c+ f\_[Z>]{}f\_[Z2>]{}(a’\_[2]{}+p\_c\_2)\
&= f\_[Z>]{}f\_[Z2>]{}(a’\_2+p\_c\_2) .
One also easily gets
(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZIZ2J>]{} =a’u\_[ZI>]{}\^f\_[Z2>]{} =a’f\_[Z>]{}f\_[Z2>]{}.
From $u_{\<ZIZ2I>}$ we also obtain (here we will only need the case $\<Z>\neq\<Z2>$)
(v\_[c]{})\_[ZIZ2I>]{}&=a’u\_[ZI>]{}\^f\_[Z2>]{} +a’f\_[Z>]{}u\_[Z2I>]{}\^\
&+a’u\_[ZIZ2I>]{}v\_[cc]{} +a”u\_[ZI>]{}\^u\_[Z2I>]{}v\_[cc]{}+(a’)\^2u\_[ZI>]{}\^u\_[Z2I>]{}v\_[ccc]{}\
&= f\_[Z>]{}f\_[Z2>]{}.
It turns out that due to the regularity and the Gaussianity of our noise, we will not need to calculate the contributions to $u$ of products with more than $2$ terms. From now on all product of parameter derivatives will denote a simple concatenation so we drop $\otimes$ from the notation. The above formulae then yield the three more complicated recursions: for $\<Z>=\<3>\;,\<2>$ (although we only really need $\<Z>\neq\<0>$) we have
f\_[ZAM>]{} &=-a”(v\_c)\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{}-a”u\_[ZI>]{}(v\_c)\_[1>]{}-v\_ca”u\_[ZIM>]{}-a’(v\_c)\_[ZIM>]{}-v\_ca”’u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{}\
&=-a”f\_[Z>]{} \_[2]{} -2a’a”v\_[cc]{}f\_[Z>]{} \_2 -p\_cf\_[Z>]{} (a’\_[2]{}+p\_c\_2)\
&-f\_[Z>]{} ((a’)\^2+(a’)\^2+a’p\_[cc]{}\_2) -v\_ca”’f\_[Z>]{} \_2\
&=f\_[Z>]{} .
Next, we have
f\_[SZ>]{}&=2aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZIJM>]{}u\_[1>]{} +2((a’)\^2+aa”)(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{}u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{} +2aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{}u\_[ZIM>]{}\
&+2v\_[cc]{}a(a’)\^2u\_[1>]{}u\_[ZIM>]{} +u\_[1>]{}((v\_[cc]{})\_[ZI>]{}a(a’)\^2+v\_[cc]{}((a’)\^3+2aa’a”)u\_[ZI>]{})u\_[1>]{}\
&+2v\_[c]{}aa”u\_[1>]{}u\_[ZIM>]{} +u\_[1>]{}((v\_[c]{})\_[ZI>]{}aa”+v\_[c]{}(a’a”+aa”’)u\_[ZI>]{})u\_[1>]{}\
&= 2aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZIJM>]{}u\_[1>]{} +2((a’)\^2+aa”)(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{}u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{} +2aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{}u\_[ZIM>]{}\
&+2 q a p\_c u\_[1>]{}u\_[ZIM>]{} + q a’ p\_c u\_[1>]{} u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{} + q a p\_c u\_[1>]{} u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{}\
&+a(a’)\^2 u\_[1>]{} (v\_[cc]{})\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{} + aa” u\_[1>]{} (v\_[c]{})\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{}\
&= f\_[Z>]{}\
&= f\_[Z>]{} .
Finally, one can write
f\_[ZBM>]{}&=2aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJM>]{}u\_[1>]{} +2aa’u\_[ZI>]{}(v\_[cx]{})\_[0JM>]{} +2((a’)\^2+aa”)(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJ>]{}(u\_[1>]{})\^2 +4aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJ>]{}u\_[0IM>]{}\
&+2((a’)\^2+aa”)u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{}(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{} +2aa’u\_[ZIM>]{}(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{}\
&+2v\_[cc]{}a(a’)\^2(u\_[ZIM>]{}u\_[1>]{}+2u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[0IM>]{}) +2u\_[ZI>]{}((v\_[cc]{})\_[1>]{}a(a’)\^2+v\_[cc]{}((a’)\^3+2aa’a”)u\_[1>]{})u\_[1>]{}\
&+2v\_[c]{}aa”(u\_[ZIM>]{}u\_[1>]{}+2u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[0IM>]{}) +2u\_[ZI>]{}((v\_[c]{})\_[1>]{}aa”+v\_[c]{}(a’a”+aa”’)u\_[1>]{})u\_[1>]{}\
&=2aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJM>]{}u\_[1>]{} +2aa’u\_[ZI>]{}(v\_[cx]{})\_[0JM>]{} +2((a’)\^2+aa”)(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJ>]{}(u\_[1>]{})\^2 +4aa’(v\_[cx]{})\_[ZJ>]{}u\_[0IM>]{}\
&+2((a’)\^2+aa”)u\_[ZI>]{}u\_[1>]{}(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{} +2aa’u\_[ZIM>]{}(v\_[cx]{})\_[r1>]{}\
&+2 q a p\_c (u\_[ZIM>]{}u\_[1>]{}+u\_[ZI>]{}2u\_[0IM>]{}) +2 q a’ p\_c u\_[ZI>]{}(u\_[1>]{})\^2 +2 q a p\_c u\_[ZI>]{}(u\_[1>]{})\^2\
&+2a(a’)\^2u\_[ZI>]{}(v\_[cc]{})\_[1>]{}u\_[1>]{} +2aa”u\_[ZI>]{}(v\_[c]{})\_[1>]{}u\_[1>]{} \[eq:large\]\
&= f\_[Z>]{}\
&= f\_[Z>]{} .
Exploiting the cancellations
----------------------------
To simplify the above complicated expressions, a number of application of the identities from Section \[sec:cancel\] will be needed. To give some structure to this lengthy computation, in each smaller step we aim to eliminate (in the sense of $\approx$) some terms of a given type.\
*Eliminating coefficients with $\hat p_c$, $p_{cc}$, and $a''$*
The coefficients in the above expressions can be viewed as polynomials in the $6$ variables $a,a',a'',p_c,\hat p_c,p_{cc}$, but terms containing three of these can easily be eliminated. We have the cancellations
\[id ii\] \_2ZAM>\~(a\_3+\_3)(SZ>+2ZBM>).
Applying this with $\ell=0$, and using the notation $\hat f_{\<Z2>}/\hat f_{\<Z>}=\zeta$ to denote $\hat f_{\<Z2>}=\hat f_{\<Z>}\otimes\zeta$, we can write:
f\_[ZAM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & -p\_c\^2\_2 -(p\_ca’+a”)\_2 -(a’)\^2\_2 + 2(a’)\^2,\
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & (2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +(aa”+2aa’p\_c)\_3 +a(a’)\^2\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2-2a(a’)\^2,\
f\_[ZBM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & 2(2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +2(aa”+2aa’p\_c)\_3 +2a(a’)\^2\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2+2(a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2-2a(a’)\^2.
Next we apply with $\ell=1$
f\_[ZAM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & -p\_c\^2\_2 -p\_ca’\_2 -(a’)\^2\_2 + 2(a’)\^2,\
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & (2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c-a”)\_3 +2aa’p\_c\_3 +a(a’)\^2\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2-2a(a’)\^2,\[eq: one of many\]\
f\_[ZBM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & 2(2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c-a”)\_3 +4 aa’p\_c\_3 +2a(a’)\^2\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2+2(a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2-2a(a’)\^2.\[eq: one of many’\]
We now write
f\_[S4>]{} &q p\_c a” \_3 + q a’ a” \_3 + [(…)]{},\
f\_[S5>]{} &- q a p\_c a”\_2 \_3 - q a a’ a” \_2 \_3 + [(…)]{},
where ${(\ldots)}$ stands for all the terms coming from not including $a''$. Recalling
\[id iii\] S4>\~aS5>
for any $i$ and $j$ (although for the moment we only use $i=j=0$), we have
f\_[S4>]{} & q a’ a” \_3 + [(…)]{}[(…)]{},\
f\_[S5>]{} & - q a a’ a” \_2 \_3 + [(…)]{}[(…)]{}.
We therefore have
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &(2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +2aa’p\_c\_3 +a(a’)\^2\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2-2a(a’)\^2,
and performing the similar steps in , also
f\_[ZBM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &2(2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +4 aa’p\_c\_3 +2a(a’)\^2\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2+2(a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2-2a(a’)\^2.
\
*A remark and eliminating second derivatives*
Note that above argument could of course be easily repeated with $(a')^2$ in place of $a''$. Therefore, whenever we arrive to
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{}c a\^k(a’)\^2+[(…)]{},
for some $c\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$, $i,j,k\in{\mathbf{N}}$, we can infer
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{}[(…)]{}.
This simplification will reappear later in the proof, and will be denoted by $\app{S}$. The analogous statement of course also holds for $\<ZBM>$. Keep in mind that the parameter in the latter case has to be of the form $\scal{0,i,j}$. We can therefore readily simplify the above to
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & (2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +2aa’p\_c\_3 +a(a’)\^2\_3\
&-2a(a’)\^2,\
f\_[ZBM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & 2(2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +4 aa’p\_c\_3 +2a(a’)\^2\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2.
To remove the term with $2$ derivatives, simply apply with $\ell=2$:
f\_[ZAM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & -p\_c\^2\_2 -p\_ca’\_2 + 2(a’)\^2,\
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & (2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +(2aa’p\_c-2(a’)\^2)\_3\
&-2a(a’)\^2,\
f\_[ZBM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & 2(2a(p\_c)\^2+a’p\_c)\_3 +2 (2aa’p\_c-2(a’)\^2)\_3\
&+2(a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2.
\
*Eliminating symbols of the form $\<ZAA>\;,\<ZBA>\;,\<ZAB>\;,\<ZBB>$*
Next we use the identities
\[id iv\] ZAA>+ZAM> \~2 (a\_2+2\_2) ZAB>,
Using this with $i=0,1$, $\ell=0,1$, we get
f\_[ZAA>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &= p\_c\^2+a’p\_c+a’p\_c+(a’)\^2\
& 0,\
f\_[ZAM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &-p\_c\^2\_2 -a’p\_c\_2 + 2(a’)\^2,\
& -2p\_c\^2\_2 -2a’p\_c\_2 +(a’)\^2,\
f\_[ZAB>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &=-2ap\_c\^2 \_2 -2aa’p\_c \_2 -2aa’p\_c \_2 -2a(a’)\^2 \_2\
& 2a’p\_c \_2 +2(a’)\^2 \_2. \[eq: hmk\]
Now we can use again
f\_[ZAM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & (a’)\^2.\
f\_[SZ>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & -a’p\_c\_3 -2(a’)\^2\_3 -2a(a’)\^2,\
& -a’p\_c\_3 -2(a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2,\
f\_[ZBM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} & -2a’p\_c\_3 -4 (a’)\^2\_3 +2(a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2\
& -2a’p\_c\_3 -2 (a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2.
Similarly to , we have
\[id v\] ZBA>+ZBM>\~2 (a\_2+\_2) ZBB>,
Hence, just as above, we can write
f\_[ZBA>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &= -2a( p\_c\^2\_2 +a’p\_c\_2 +a’p\_c\_2 +(a’)\^2\_2 )\
& 0,\
f\_[ZBM>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &-2a’p\_c\_3 -2 (a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2\
& -2a’p\_c\_3 -2 (a’)\^2 -2a(a’)\^2\
&+2a p\_c\^2\_3+2aa’p\_c\_3+2a(a’)\^2+2a(a’)\^2\
& (2ap\_c\^2-2a’p\_c)\_3 +2aa’p\_c\_3 -2 (a’)\^2,\
f\_[ZBB>]{}/f\_[Z>]{} &= 4a\^2( p\_c\^2\_2 \_2 +a’p\_c\_2 \_2 +a’p\_c\_2 \_2 +(a’)\^2\_2 \_2 )\
& -4aa’p\_c\_4 -4a(a’)\^2\_2 \_2,
Let us now compare the coefficients of $\<AAB>$ and $\<BAB>\;$. Using and that $q(a')^3\scal{1,1} \sscal{0}_2$, $qa(a')^3\sscal{1}_2 \scal{1} \sscal{0}_2\asymp 0$, one can write
f\_[AAB>]{}&-2qa’ (p\_c\^2+a’p\_c+a’p\_c) \_2,\
f\_[BAB>]{}&2qaa’ ( p\_c\^2 +a’p\_c +a’p\_c ) \_2.
Using
\[id vi\] \_2\_2AAB> \~(a\_3 + \_3 ) \_2 BAB>
with $\ell=0,1$, we get
f\_[AAB>]{}& 0, f\_[BAB>]{}& -2q(a’)\^2p\_c\_5.
Very similar calculation shows
f\_[ABB>]{}&0, f\_[BBB>]{}&4qa(a’)\^2p\_c\_6.
Hence, by
\[vii\] \_5BAB> -\_5BBM> -\_5S5> \~2a\_6BBB>,
we obtain
f\_[BAB>]{} 0, f\_[BBB>]{} 0,
and we momentarily postpone the effect of on $\hat f_{\<BBM>}$, $\hat f_{\<S5>}$.\
*Eliminating $\<ABMvar>\;,\<BBMvar>$*
So far the coefficients of the symbols $\<S1>\;,\<S2>\;,\<S3>$ have not at all been simplified. First, notice that
f\_[S1>]{}=2qa(a’)\^3\^+[(…)]{}[(…)]{},
and similarly for $\<S2>\;,\<S3>$. The terms ${(\ldots)}$ then only contain parameter derivatives of which at most two is $1$ and the rest is $0$. From - it is easy to see that these terms are
f\_[S1>]{} &qa\_2\^( p\_c\^3\_2\^+2a’p\_c\^2\_2\^+2(a’)\^2p\_c\^)\
&+2qa(a’)\^2p\_c\_2\^\^-qa(a’)\^2p\_c\^,\
f\_[S2var>]{} &-2qa\^2\_3\^( p\_c\^3\_2\^+a’p\_c\^2\_2\^+(a’)\^2p\_c\^)\
&-2qa\^2\_3\^( a’p\_c\^2\_2\^+(a’)\^2p\_c\^)\
&-2qa\^2(a’)\^2p\_c\_2\^\_2\^\^
Thus, from the cancellations
\_2\^\^S1> - & \_2\^\^ABMvar>\
&\~(a \_3\^+\_3\^) \^S2var>
we have
f\_[S1>]{} &-qa(a’)\^2p\_c\^,\
f\_[S2var>]{} & -qa\^2p\_c\^3\_5\^+2qa(a’)\^2p\_c\_3\^ \^\
&-2qa\^2\_3\^ a’p\_c\^2\_2\^-2qa\^2(a’)\^2p\_c\_2\^\_2\^\^,\[whoa\]
as well as
f\_[ABMvar>]{} & -q ( p\_c \^+ a’ \^)\
&+qa\_2\^( p\_c\^3\_2\^+2a’p\_c\^2\_2\^+2(a’)\^2p\_c\^)\
&+2qa(a’)\^2p\_c\_2\^\^\
&(-qap\_c\^3+2qa’p\_c\^2)\_4\^+2q(a’)\^2p\_c \_2\^\_2\^-2qaa’p\_c\^2 \_2\^\_2\^
where the last step consists of a simple (but somewhat lengthy) rearrangement of terms and the fact that $q(a')^3\scal{0,0,1,1}\asymp0$. One can also rearrange as
f\_[S2>]{} &-qa\^2\_2\^( p\_c\^3\_3\^+2a’p\_c\^2\_3\^+2(a’)\^2p\_c\^\_2\^)\
&-2qa\^2(a’)\^2p\_c\_2\^\^\_2\^\
&+2q a (a’)\^2 p\_c \^\_3\^+2q a\^2 (a’)\^2 p\_c \^\^\_2\^.
We also have from
f\_[S3>]{} &qa\^3\_3\^( p\_c\^3\_3\^+2a’p\_c\^2\_3\^+2(a’)\^2p\_c\^\_2\^)\
&+2qa\^3(a’)\^2p\_c\_3\^\^\_2\^-qa\^3(a’)\^2p\_c\_2\^\_2\^\_2\^.
Very similar to the above, we have the cancellations
\_2\^\^S2> - & \_2\^\^BBMvar>\
&\~(a \_3\^+\_3\^) \^S3>,
and so
f\_[S3>]{} & -qa\^3(a’)\^2p\_c\_2\^\_2\^\_2\^- 2q a\^2 (a’)\^2 p\_c \_4\^\_2\^\
f\_[S2>]{} & 2q a (a’)\^2 p\_c \^\_4\^+2q a\^2 (a’)\^2 p\_c \^\^\_2\^,
and also, similarly to but keeping in mind the postponed contribution coming from to $\<BBMvar>$,
f\_[BBMvar>]{} &-2q(a’)\^2p\_c\_5+ (qa\^2p\_c\^3-2qaa’p\_c\^2)\_5\^\
&-2qa(a’)\^2p\_c \_2\^\_3\^+2qa\^2a’p\_c\^2 \_2\^\_3\^.
From - and the identity
\[x\] \_2\^\_2\^ABMvar> \~\_2\^(a\_3\^+\_3\^) BBMvar>
we easily conclude
f\_[ABMvar>]{} 0, f\_[BBMvar>]{} 0.
\
*Finishing up*
Notice next that all remaining terms of $\<S1>\;,\<S2>\;,\<S3>$ have $0$ derivatives on the bottom edges, so integrating by parts there is relatively straightforward. Using
\[id xi\] \^AAM>\~a\^S1>,
we have, with introducing the shorthand $r=q (a')^2 p_c$
f\_[S1>]{} & 0\
f\_[AAM>]{} &-q(a’)\^2(p\_c\^+a’\^) \^-q(a’)\^2p\_c\^\
& -r\_2\^.
Similarly we obtain, also recalling the postponed contribution from to $\<S5>\,$,
f\_[S3>]{} &0,\
f\_[S5>]{} & -2q(a’)\^2p\_c\_5\
&-qa( p\_c \_2 + a’ \_2 ) ( a’ p\_c \_3 + 2 (a’)\^2 + 2 a (a’)\^2 )\
&- a\^2 r \_2\^\^\_2\^- a r \_2\^\^\_2\^- a r \_2\^\^\_2\^\
&-2r\_5-qaa’p\_c\^2\_5\
&-a r ( 2 \_2\^\_3\^+2\_2\^\^\_2\^+ \_2\^\^\_2\^)\
&-a\^2 r \_3\^\_2\^.
From the identity
\[xii\] \^BAM> + \^S4> \~2 a \^S2>
we have
f\_[S2>]{} & 0\
f\_[BAM>]{} & q a (a’)\^2 ( p\_c \_2+ a’ \_2)\
&+q (a’)\^2 p\_c ( \_2 + a \_2 )\
&r \_3 + a r \_3 ,\
f\_[S4>]{} & q( p\_c + a’ ) ( a’ p\_c \_3 + 2 (a’)\^2 + 2 a (a’)\^2 )\
&+q (a’)\^2 p\_c ( \^\_2\^+ a \^\_2\^)\
&q a’ p\_c\^2 \_4 +r ( 2 \^\_2\^+ 2 \^\_2\^)\
&+ a r \_2\^\_2\^.
Now we have
\[id: xiii\] \_2 AAM> \~( a \_3 + \_3 ) BAM>
which immediately yields
f\_[AAM>]{} 0, f\_[BAM>]{} 0.
Finally, let us restate a version of with the ordering $\scal{\cdot}^{\downarrow}$:
\[id xiv\] \_2\^\_2\^S4> \~ ( a\_3\^+\_3\^) \_2\^. S5>
Using first with $\ell=i=0$, then with $\ell=i=1$, and finally with $\ell=1$, $i=0$:
f\_[S5>]{} & -2r\_5\
&-a r ( 2 \_2\^\_3\^+2\_2\^\^\_2\^+ \_2\^\^\_2\^)\
&-a\^2 r \_3\^\_2\^\
& -2r\_5-2 ar \_3\^\_2\^ 0,\
f\_[S4>]{} & r ( 2 \^\_2\^+ 2 \^\_2\^) + a r \_2\^\_2\^.\
& 2r\_2\^\_2\^ 0.
The proof is complete.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
$^1$ Department of Applied Physics, Nagoya University and JST, TRIP, Furo-cho, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan.\
$^2$ Department of Physics, Nagoya University and JST, TRIP, Furo-cho, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan.
author:
- 'Seiichiro <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Onari</span>$^{1}$, and Hiroshi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kontani</span>$^{2}$'
title: ' Reply to Comment on “Neutron-Inelastic-Scattering Peak by Dissipationless Mechanism in the $s_{++}$-wave State in Iron-based Superconductors” \[arXiv:1106.2376\] by Y. Nagai and K. Kuroki'
---
In 2009, we proposed the “dissipationless mechanism” [@onari-kontani] to explain the hump structure in the neutron scattering spectrum Im$\chi^s(Q,\omega)$ in terms of the $s_{++}$-wave state: While Im$\chi^s(Q,\omega)$ in the normal state is suppressed by the large inelastic scattering $\gamma(\w)$, Im$\chi^s(Q,\omega)$ is increased to form a hump structure in the superconducting (SC) state since $\gamma(\w)=0$ for $|\w|<3\Delta$. Later, Nagai and Kuroki revisited this issue using [*the same numerical method developed in Ref.*]{} [@onari-kontani], and claimed that the hump structure becomes small for a realistic gap size $\Delta=5$meV [@nagai-kuroki]. However, their results fails to reproduce the particle-hole (p-h) gap $2\Delta$ in the spectrum, which is a mathematical requirement at $T=0$. After their report, we improved our numerical method that satisfies this mathematical requirement for any $\Delta$, and clarified that large hump appears even for $\Delta=5$meV [@onari-kontani2].
This article is a reply to the comment by Nagai and Kuroki [@nagai-kuroki2] for our [unpublished paper]{} in arXiv [@onari-kontani2]. Their main claim is that (i) “the main difference between Onari-Kontani’s calculation [@onari-kontani2] and ours [@nagai-kuroki] lies in the choice of the quasiparticle damping in the normal state $\gamma_0$, not in the method or the accuracy of the calculation.” In Ref. [@onari-kontani2], we put $\gamma_0=20$meV at $T=T_{\rm c}$ and $\gamma_s=10$meV in the SC state for $|\w|>4\Delta$ at $T=0$, considering the thermal effect in the normal state. On the other hand, Nagai and Kuroki put $\gamma_0=\gamma_s=10$meV. See details in Refs. [@onari-kontani2; @nagai-kuroki2].
![(a) Im$\chi^s(Q,\omega)$ obtained by the [old numerical method]{} [@onari-kontani] for $U=1.33$eV, in both the $s_{++}$-wave state with $\Delta=5$meV and $\gamma_s=10$meV and the normal state. We also show the Nagai’s results in Refs. [@nagai-kuroki; @nagai-kuroki2]. (b) Im$\chi^s(Q,\omega)$ obtained by the [new numerical method]{} [@onari-kontani2]. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig2\], we show our numerical results given by the (a) old numerical method proposed in Ref. [@onari-kontani] that was also used by Nagai and Kuroki [@nagai-kuroki; @nagai-kuroki2], and by the (b) improved method developed in Ref. [@onari-kontani2], for $\Delta=5$meV, $\gamma_s=10$meV, $\gamma_0=10$ or 20meV, the cutoff energy $\Delta E=0.02$eV, and $U=1.33$eV. The used model parameters are the same as those used by Nagai and Kuroki [@nagai-kuroki; @nagai-kuroki2] except for $U$, since we get the SDW state for $U=1.375$eV. [*Contrary to the comment (i), we obtain large and clear hump structure in both (a) and (b) even when*]{} $\gamma_s=\gamma_0=10$. (In reality, $\gamma_0$ is always larger than $\gamma_s$ due to the thermal effect.) The hump structure becomes prominent when the system is closer to the SDW state as shown in Ref. [@onari-kontani2]. For $U=1.33$eV, [*the hump in the new numerical method (b) is apparently larger than that in (a)*]{}. Comparing the peak positions in the normal states, the present Stoner enhancement is smaller than that in Nagai’s result for $U=1.375$eV,
In Fig. \[fig2\], we also show Nagai’s results by normalizing the scale to fix the value at $\w=0.03$eV: We magnify Nagai’s results for $U=1.375$ and $1.35$eV by 0.42 and 0.57, respectively. Based on these results, they claimed the smallness of the hump for $\Delta=5$meV. However, even for $U=1.375$eV, the hump structure is still smaller than ours with smaller Stoner enhancement, while the p-h gap (=mathematical requirement at $T=0$) is shallower than ours. Especially, in Fig. 1 (a) of Nagai’s paper [@nagai-kuroki], Im$\chi^s(Q,\omega)$ in the $s_{\pm}$-wave state for $|\w|<2\Delta$ is always larger than that in the normal state, meaning that the p-h gap is failed to be reproduced. Since the “dissipationless mechanism” is expected to work when $\gamma/\Delta\sim O(1)$ independently of the value of $\Delta$ [@onari-kontani2], we consider that the Onari’s results with larger hump are closer to the true numerical results, and [Nagai’s results might be insufficient for a quantitative discussion, such as the size of the hump structure.]{}
In summary, contrary to Nagai-Kuroki’s claim [@nagai-kuroki2], we obtain a large hump structure in the $s_{++}$-wave state due to the “dissipationless mechanism”, even for $\gamma_0=\gamma_s\sim\Delta$. As discussed in Ref. [@onari-kontani2], we cannot distinguish between $s_{++}$- and $s_\pm$-wave states by the spectrum at $\q=(\pi,\pi)$.
We are grateful to Kuroki and Nagai for the discussion in the workshop “Fe-based superconducutor” at Yukawa Institute in Kyoto, on June 16-17, 2011.
[99]{} S. Onari, H. Kontani and M Sato, Phys Rev B [**81**]{}, 060504(R) (2008). Y. Nagai and K. Kuroki, arXiv:1103.0586. S. Onari and H. Kontani, arXiv:1105.6233. Y. Nagai and K. Kuroki, arXiv:1106.2376.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Based on the proposed representation of the Mott corrections $\Delta_\textrm{M} $ to the Bethe stopping formula in the form of rapidly convergent series of quantities bilinear in the Mott partial amplitudes, the numerical calculations were performed for these corrections over the range of nuclear charge number $ 4 \leq Z \leq 92 $ of the incident particles at various values of their relative velocity $\beta$.'
author:
- 'O. Voskresenskaya'
title: '**Corrections to the Bethe formula for average ionization energy loss of relativistic charged particles in solids. I. Mott’s corrections**'
---
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow Region, 141980 Russia
Introduction
============
Stopping power (the average energy loss of a particle per unit path length) is a necessary ingredient for many parts of nuclear and particle physics, as well as for a wide variety of application areas within materials and surface science and engineering, micro and nano science and technology, radiation medicine and biology [@1; @2; @3]. Stopping power of a relativistic particle is described by the relativistic version of the Bethe formula [@Bethe1; @Bethe3]
$$\label{Bethe}
-\frac{d \bar E}{dx}=2\zeta\left[\ln\left(\frac{E_m}{I}\right)-\beta^2\right]\nonumber$$
with $$\zeta=K\left(\frac{Z}{\beta}\right)^2\frac{Z^\prime}{A},\quad K=2\pi N_A\frac{e^4}{mc^2},\quad
E_m\approx \frac{2m c^2\beta^2}{1-\beta^2}\,.$$ Here, $x$ is the distance traveled by a particle, $E_m$ denotes the maximum transferrable energy to an electron in a collision with the particle of velocity $\beta c$, $m$ is the electron mass, $Z^\prime$ and $A$ are the atomic number and the weight of an absorber, respectively, $N_A$ is the Avogadro number, and $I$ is its mean excitation potential. F. Bloch showed that the mean excitation potential of the atoms is approximately given by $I=(10\,\mbox{eV})Z^\prime$ [@Bloch]. In this approximation the formula (1) is often called the ‘Bethe–Bloch formula’ [@Ams].
The importance of the Mott higher-order-correction term $\Phi_{Mott}/2$ [@Mott] to the formula (1) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BetheM}
-\frac{d\bar E}{dx}=2\zeta\left[\ln\left(\frac{E_m}{I}\right)-\beta^2 +\frac{\Phi_{Mott}}{2}\right]\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\Phi_{Mott} = \frac{1}{\zeta}\Delta_{Mott}\!\!\left(\frac{d\bar E}{dx}\right),\quad
\Delta_{Mott}\!\!\left(\frac{d\bar E}{dx}\right)=N\!\!\int\!\!\left(\frac{d\sigma_{Mott}}{d\varepsilon}-
\frac{d\sigma_{Born}}{d\varepsilon}\right)\!\varepsilon d\varepsilon,
\label{Bethe3}$$ was noted in various works (see, e.q., [@GSI1]). In the above formula $\Delta_{Mott}$ denotes the Mott correction (MC), $N=N_A Z^\prime/A$ is the number of target electrons per unit volume, and $\sigma_{Born}$ represents the first-order Born approximation to the Mott exact cross section $\sigma_{Mott}$.
The expression for the MCs in (\[Bethe3\]) is extremely inconvenient for practical application. In this regard, obtaining convenient and accurate representations for the MCs become significant. Ref. [@VSTT] gives an exact expression for the Mott correction in the form of a rather fast converging series of the quantities bilinear in the Mott partial amplitudes, which can be quite simply calculated.
The aim of the presented work is to obtain numerical results for the Mott corrections to the Bethe formula over a wide range of nuclear charge number of the incident particles at various values of their relative velocity $\beta$ based on results of [@VSTT] and also to estimate the Bloch and total corrections to (1) over the $Z$ and $\beta$ ranges under consideration. The presented communication is organized as follows. Section 2 considers an analytical result for the $\Delta_\textrm{Mott} $ correction in the form of a quite rapidly converging series. Section 3 gives the numerical results of their computation over the ranges $ 4 \leq Z \leq 92 $ and $ 0.75 \leq \beta \leq 0.95 $. In Section 4 we briefly sum up our results and outline some prospects.
Analytical result for Mott’s correction to the Bethe stopping formula
=====================================================================
Switching in expression for $\Delta_{Mott}$ (3) from integration over the energy $\varepsilon$ energy transferred to an target electron to integration over the a center-of-mass scattering angle $\vartheta$, we rewrite this expression in the form $$\Delta_{Mott}\!\!\left(\frac{d\bar E}{dx}\right)=N\frac{\pi}{m}\!\!\int_{\vartheta_0}^{\pi}\!\!\left[\omega_{Mott}(\vartheta)-
\omega_{Born}(\vartheta)\right]\!\sin^2(\vartheta/2)\sin\vartheta d\vartheta\,,
\label{M}$$ where $$\omega_{Mott}(\vartheta)=\frac{\hbar^2}{4p^2\sin^2(\vartheta/2)}
\Bigl[\xi^{2}\vert F_{Mott}(\vartheta)\vert^{2}+\vert G_{Mott}(\vartheta)\vert^2\Bigl],$$ $$F_{Mott}(\vartheta)=\sum_{l}F_lP_l(x),~x=\cos \vartheta,\quad
G_{Mott}(\vartheta)=\sum_{l}G_lP_l(x)\, ,$$ $$F_l=lC_l-(l+1)C_{l+1},\quad G_l=l^2C_l+(l+1)^2C_{l+1},
\quad C_l=\frac{\Gamma(\rho_l-i\nu)}{\Gamma(\rho_l+1+i\nu)}e^{i\pi(l-\rho_l)},$$ $$\label{sigma}
p=mc\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}},\quad\xi=\nu\sqrt{1-\beta^2},\quad
\rho_l=\sqrt{l^2-(Z\alpha)^2},\quad \nu=\frac{Z\alpha}{\beta}\,.$$ $$\omega_{Born}(\vartheta)=\frac{\nu^2}{\sin^4(\vartheta/2)}\left[1-
\beta^2\sin^2(\vartheta/2)\right]\,.$$ Here, $P_l$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $l$ and $\Gamma(\mu)$ designates the Euler gamma function.
For what follows, instead of the original expression (6) for $G_{Mott}(\vartheta)$, it is convenient to employ a somewhat different expression in terms of $F_{Mott}(\vartheta)$. Writing $$G_{Mott}(\vartheta)=\sum_{l}\left[l^2C_l+(l+1)^2C_{l+1}\right]P_l(x)\equiv
\sum_{l}(l+1)^2C_{l+1}\left[P_l(x)+P_{l+1}(x)\right]$$ and taking account of the relation [@Ryzh] $$(l+1)\left[P_l(x)+P_{l+1}(x)\right]=\cos(\vartheta/2)\left[P^{(1)}_{l+1}(x)+P^{(1)}_{l}(x)\right]\,,$$ we obtain by an elementary calculation $$G_{Mott}(\vartheta)=\cos(\vartheta/2)\sum_{l}\left[lC_l-(l+1)^2C_{l+1}\right]P^{(1)}_l(x)=
-\cos(\vartheta/2)F^\prime(\vartheta)\,,$$ and, in consequence, $$\omega_{Mott}(\vartheta)=\frac{\hbar^2}{4p^2\sin^2(\vartheta/2)}
\Bigl[\xi^{2}\vert F_{Mott}(\vartheta)\vert^{2}+\vert F^{\prime}_{Mott}(\vartheta)\vert^2\Bigl]\,.$$
It can now be shown that in terms of the quantities $$\tilde C_l=\frac{\Gamma(\rho_l-i\nu)}{\Gamma(\rho_l+1+i\nu)}\,,$$ which are obtained from the $C_l$ by the substitution $\rho_l\to l$ and correspond the Sommerfeld–Moyer–Furry approximation [@SMF] in the theory of $eZ$ scattering, and the corresponding quantities $$\tilde F_l=l\tilde C_l-(l+1)\tilde C_{l+1}\,,$$ as well as using the orthogonality relation for the Legendre function $$\int\limits_{-1}^{1}P_{l}^{(m)}(\cos \vartheta)P_{l}^{(n)}(\cos \vartheta)\sin \vartheta d\vartheta=\frac{2}{2l+1}\,
\frac{(l+\vert m\vert) !}{(l-\vert m\vert)!}\delta_{ll'}\,,$$ the Mott correction can be expressed finally as $$\Delta_{Mott}\left(\frac{d\bar E}{dx}\right)=\frac{2\pi ZN_A}{mA}\sum_{l=0}^{L}\frac{\left[l(l+1)+\xi^2\right]}{2l+1}\left[\vert F_l\vert^2-
\vert \tilde F_l\vert^2\right]\,.
\label{Tarasov}$$ It is easy to show that the terms of the series (\[Tarasov\]) behave asymptotically as as $l^{-2}$ and that the series converges absolutely.
Numerical results for Mott’s corrections to the Bethe formula
=============================================================
The obtained result (16) allows us to reduce the calculation of the Mott corrections $\Delta_{Mott}\left(d\bar E/dx\right)$ (3) to the summation of a series consisting of quantities bilinear in the Mott partial amplitudes. The computation results for the corrections $\Phi_{Mott}/2$ are given in Table; they give the dependence of the $\Phi_{Mott}/2$ corrections on the nuclear charge number of the incident particles and the values of their relative velocity.
[**Table 1.**]{} $Z$ and $\beta$ dependence of the Mott corrections $\Phi_{Mott}/2$ corrections to the Eq. (1).
[lllll]{}\
Particle& $~~~~~~~Z~~~~~~~$&$\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{Mott}\vert_{\beta=0.75}$& $\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{Mott}\vert_{\beta=0.85}$& $\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{Mott}\vert_{\beta=0.95}$\
\
Be&04.000& 00.031& 00.035& 00.039\
C &06.000& 00.041& 00.049& 00.075\
Al&13.000& 00.118& 00.151& 00.160\
Ti&22.000& 00.237& 00.248& 00.279\
Fe&26.000& 00.283& 00.302& 00.348\
Ni&28.000& 00.302& 00.339& 00.384\
Mo&42.000& 00.516& 00.552& 00.631\
Sn&50.000& 00.560& 00.670& 00.782\
Ta&73.000& 00.981& 01.142& 01.302\
W &74.000& 00.998& 01.158& 01.333\
Pt&78.000& 01.060& 01.241& 01.431\
Au&79.000& 01.076& 01.267& 01.450\
Pb&82.000& 01.118& 01.335& 01.499\
U &92.000& 01.251& 01.502& 01.759\
It can be seen from Table that the Mott corrections $\delta_n(\mu)$ are becoming increasingly important with the growth of $Z$ and $\beta$, and they are significant for nuclei of high $Z$.
Summary and outlook
===================
- Based on the representation (16) of the Mott corrections $\Delta_{Mott}\left(d\bar E/dx\right)$ to the Bethe formula (1) in the form of quite rapidly converging series whose terms are bilinear in the Mott partial amplitudes, an algorithm is proposed to compute the $\Phi_{Mott}/2$ values in the wide ranges of $Z$ and $\beta$.
- This algorithm reduces the $\Phi_{Mott}/2$ computation to a summing the fast converging series (16) and can be simply implemented using the numerical summation methods of converging series for a given level of precision.
- Using the latter result, the $\Phi_{Mott}/2$ corrections to the Bethe stopping formula were calculated for charged particles over the ranges $ 4 \leq Z \leq 92 $ and $ 0.75 \leq \beta \leq 0.95 $.
- It is shown that these corrections are significant for nuclei of high $Z$.
- It is of interest to find the Coulomb and total corrections to the Bethe-Bloch stopping formula.
- Comparison of the computational results with the available experimental data will be the subject of a further research.\
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was financially supported by a grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project nos. 17-01-00661-à) and partially supported by a grant of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Republic of Bulgaria at the JINR.
[99]{}
*ICRU Report 73: Stopping of Ions heavier than Helium*. Journal of the ICRU. **5**, No. 1 (Oxford Univ. Press., 2005).
P. Sigmund. *Particle Radiation and Radiation Effects. Springer Series in Solid State Sciences*, **151** (Springer-Verlag, Berlin–Heidelberg, 2006).
H. Paul. Nucl. Instrum. Methods B **247**, No. 2, 166 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.nimb. 2006.01.059
H. Bethe. Ann. Phys. (Leipz.). **5**, 325 (1930); Z. Phys. **76**, 293 (1932). H. A. Bethe and J. Ashkin. *Experimental Nuclear Physics*, edited by E. Segre (Wiley, New York, 1953).
F. Bloch. Ann. Phys. (Leipz.). **5**, 285 (1933).
C. Amsler et al. Phys. Lett. B **667**, 1 (2008).
N. F. Mott. Proc. Roy. Soc. **A 124**, 425 (1929); http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing. org/content/royprsa/124/794/425.full.pdf.
C. Scheidenberger, H. Geissel, H. H. Mikkelsen et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. **73**, No. 1, 51 (1994); Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, No. 19, 3987 (1996).
O. O. Voskresenskaya, A. N. Sissakyan, A. V. Tarasov et al. JETP Lett. **64**, No. 9, 648 (1996).
I. S. Gradstein and I. M. Ryzhik. *Tables of Integrals, Series, and Products* (Academic Press, New York, 1980).
W. H. Furry. Phys. Rev. **46**, 391 (1934).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.