text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
Generalizing earlier work of Delbaen & Haezendonck for given compound renewal process $S$ under a probability measure $P$ we characterize all probability measures $Q$ on the domain of $P$ such that $Q$ and $P$ are progressively equivalent and $S$ remains a compound renewal process under $Q$. As a consequence, we prove that any compound renewal process can be converted into a compound Poisson process through a change of measures and we show how this approach is related to premium calculation principles.
[**[Key Words]{}:**]{} [Compound renewal process, Change of measures, Martingale, Martingale measures, Progressively equivalent (martingale) measures, Premium calculation principle.]{}
[**AMS Subject Classification (2010):**]{} Primary 60K05, 91B30 ; secondary 28A35, 60A10, 60G44, 60G55.
author:
- 'N.D. Macheras'
- 'S.M. Tzaninis[^1]'
title: A characterization of equivalent martingale measures in a renewal risk model with applications to premium calculation principles
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
A basic method in mathematical finance is to replace the original probability measure with an equivalent martingale measure, sometimes called a risk-neutral measure. This measure is used for pricing and hedging given contingent claims (e.g., options, futures, etc.). In contrast to the situation of the classical Black-Scholes option pricing formula, where the equivalent martingale measure is unique, in actuarial mathematics that is certainly not the case.
The above fact was pointed out by Delbaen & Haezendonck in their pioneering paper [@dh], as the authors “tried to create a mathematical framework to deal with finance related to risk processes" in the frame of classical Risk Theory. Thus, they were confronted with the problem of characterizing all equivalent martingale measures $Q$ such that a compound Poisson process under an original measure $P$ remains a compound Poisson one under $Q$. They answered to the positive the previous problem in [@dh], and applied their results to the theory of premium calculation principles (see also Embrechts [@em] for an overview). The method provided by [@dh] has been successfully applied to many areas of insurance mathematics such as pricing (re-)insurance contracts (Holtan [@ho], Haslip & Kaishev [@haka]), simulation of ruin probabilities (Boogaert & De Waegenaere [@bw]), risk capital allocation (Yu et al. [@yu]), pricing CAT derivatives (Geman & Yor [@gy], Embrechts & Meister [@emme]), and has been generalized to the case of the mixed Poisson processes (see Meister [@me]).
However, there is one vital point about the (compound) Poisson processes which is their greatest weakness as far as practical applications are considered, and this is the fact that the variance is a linear function of time $t$. The latter, together with the fact that in some interesting real-life cases the interarrival times process associated with a counting process remain independent but the exponential interarrival time distribution does not fit well into the observed data (cf. e.g. Chen et al. [@chen] and Wang et al. [@wang]), implies that the induced counting process is a renewal but not a Poisson one. This raises the question, whether the characterization of Delbaen & Haezendonck can be extended to the more general compound renewal risk model (also known as the Sparre Andersen model), and it is precisely this problem the paper deals with. In particular, if the process $S$ is under the probability measure $P$ a compound renewal one, it would be interesting to characterize all probability measures $Q$ being equivalent to $P$ and converting $S$ into a compound Poisson process under $Q$.
In Section \[CRPPEM\], we prove the one direction of the desired characterization, see Proposition \[thm1\], which provides characterization and explicit calculation of Radon-Nikodým derivatives $dQ/dP$ for well known cases in insurance mathematics, see Examples \[ex1b\] and \[ex3b\]. Since the increments of a renewal process are not, in general, independent and stationary we cannot use arguments similar to those used in the main proof of [@dh], Proposition 2.2. In an effort to overcome this obstacle we inserted Lemma \[lem1\], which holds true for any (compound) counting process, and on which the proof of Proposition \[thm1\] relies heavily.
In Section \[char\], the inverse direction is proven in Proposition \[thm2\], where a canonical change of measures technique is provided, which seems to simplify the well known one involving the markovization of a (compound) renewal process, see Remark \[gen\]. The desired characterization is given in Theorem \[thm!\], which completes and simplifies the proof of the main result of [@dh]. As a consequence of Theorem \[thm!\], it is proven in Corollary \[cor4b\] that any compound renewal process can be converted into a compound Poisson one through a change of measures, by choosing the “correct" Radon-Nikodým derivative. The main result of [@dh], Proposition 2.2, follows as a special instance of Theorem \[thm!\], see Remark \[cla\] (a).
In Section \[CRPM\], we apply our results to the financial pricing of insurance in a compound renewal risk model. We first prove that given a compound renewal process $S$ under $P$, the process $Z(P):=\{Z_t\}_{t\in\R_+}$ with $Z_t:=S_t-t\cdot p(P)$ for any $t\geq 0$, where $p(P)$ is the premium density, is a martingale under $P$ if and only if $S$ is a compound Poisson process under $P$, see Proposition \[thm4\], showing in this way that a martingale approach to premium calculation principles leads in the case of compound renewal processes immediately to compound Poisson ones. A consequence of Theorem \[thm!\] and Proposition \[thm4\] is a characterization of all progressively equivalent martingale measures $Q$ converting a compound renewal process $S$ into a compound Poisson one, see Proposition \[mar\]. Using the latter result, we find out [*canonical*]{} price processes satisfying the condition of no free lunch with vanishing risk, see Theorem \[nfl\], connecting in this way our results with this basic notion of mathematical finance. Finally, we present some applications of Corollary \[cor4b\] and Theorem \[nfl\] to the computation of some premium calculation principles, see Examples \[expcp0\] to \[expcp7\].
Compound renewal processes and progressively equivalent measures {#CRPPEM}
================================================================
[*Throughout this paper, unless stated otherwise, $({\varOmega},{\varSigma},P)$ is a fixed but arbitrary probability space and ${\varUpsilon}:=(0,\infty)$.*]{} The symbols $\mathcal L^{1}(P)$ and $\mathcal L^2(P)$ stand for the families of all real-valued $P$-integrable and $P$-square integrable functions on ${\varOmega}$, respectively. Functions that are $P$-a.s. equal are not identified. We denote by $\sigma(\mathcal G)$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by a family $\mathcal G$ of subsets of ${\varOmega}$. Given a topology ${\mathfrak}{T}$ on ${\varOmega}$ we write ${{\mathfrak}B}({\varOmega})$ for its [**Borel $\sigma$-algebra**]{} on ${\varOmega}$, i.e. the $\sigma$-algebra generated by ${\mathfrak}{T}$. Our measure theoretic terminology is standard and generally follows [@Co]. For the definitions of real-valued random variables and random variables we refer to [@Co], p. 308. Given a real-valued random variable $X$, we denote by $\sigma(X):=\{X^{-1}(B): B\in \B(\R)\}$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X$. The distribution of $X$ is the measure $P_X$ defined by means of $P_X(B):=P(X^{-1}(B))$ for any $B\in\B(\R)$. We apply the notation $P_{X}={\bf{K}}(\theta)$ to mean that $X$ is distributed according to the law ${\bf{K}}(\theta)$, where $\theta\in D\subseteq\R^d$ ($d\in\N$). We denote again by ${\bf K}(\theta)$ the distribution function induced by the probability distribution ${\bf K}(\theta)$. Notation ${\bf Ga}(a,b)$, where $a,b\in(0,\infty)$, stands for the law of gamma distribution (cf. e.g. [@Sc], p. 180). In particular, ${\bf Ga}(a,1)={\bf Exp}(a)$ stands for the law of exponential distribution. For two real-valued random variables $X$ and $Y$ we write $X=Y$ $P$-a.s. if $\{X\neq Y\}$ is a $P$-null set. If $A\subseteq{\varOmega}$, then $A^c:={\varOmega}\setminus A$, while $\chi_A$ denotes the indicator (or characteristic) function of the set $A$. For a map $f:D\longmapsto E$ and for a non-empty set $A\subseteq D$ we denote by $f\upharpoonright A$ the restriction of $f$ to $A$.
[*Henceforth, unless stated otherwise, $N:={\{N_{t}\}_{t\in\mathbb R_{+}}}$ is a counting (or claim number) process with exceptional null set ${\varOmega}_N$ (see [@Sc], p. 17 for the definition), $T:=\left\{T_{n}\right\}_{n\in\N_0}$ and $W:=\left\{W_{n}\right\}_{n\in\N}$ are the associated with $N$ (claim) arrival and interarrival processes, respectively (see [@Sc], p. 6 for the definitions). Without loss of generality we may and do assume that ${\varOmega}_N$ is empty. Moreover, $X:={\{X_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb N}}$ is a claim size process, such that $P(\{X_1>0\})=1$, and $S:={\{S_{t}\}_{t\in\mathbb R_{+}}}$ is an aggregate claims process (see [@Sc], p. 103 for the definitions). The pair $(N,X)$ is a $P$-risk process inducing $S$ (see [@Sc], p. 127 for the definition). Denote by $\F^W:=\{\F^W_n\}_{n\in\N}$, $\F^X:=\Xin$ and $\F:=\Ft$ the natural filtrations of $W$, $X$ and $S$, respectively.*]{}
The next lemma is a general and helpful result, as it provides a clear understanding of the structure of $\F$, and it is essential for the proofs of our main results.
\[lem1\] For every $t\geq 0$ and $n\in\N_0$ the following $$\F_t\cap\{N_t=n\}= \sigma(\F^W_n\cup\F^X_n)\cap\{N_t=n\}$$ holds true.
[**Proof.**]{} Fix on arbitrary $t\geq 0$ and $n\in\N_0$.
Clearly, for $n=0$ we get $\F^X_0=\F^W_0=\{\emptyset,{\varOmega}\}$ and $\F_t\cap\{N_t=0\}=\{\emptyset,{\varOmega}\}\cap\{N_t=0\}$; hence $\F_t\cap\{N_t=0\}=\sigma(\F^W_0\cup\F^X_0)\cap\{N_t=0\}$.
[**(a)**]{} Inclusion $\sigma(\F^W_n\cup\F^X_n)\cap\{N_t=n\}\subseteq \F_t\cap\{N_t=n\}$ holds true.
To show (a), fix on arbitrary $k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Note that $S$ is progressively measurable with respect to $\F$ (cf. e.g. [@ks], p. 4 for the definition), since $S_t$ is $\F_t$-measurable and has right continuous paths (cf. e.g. [@ks], Proposition 1.13). The latter, together with the fact that $T_k$ is a stopping time of $\F$, implies that $S_{T_k}$ is $\F_{T_k}$-measurable, where $\F_{T_k}:=\{A\in{\varSigma}: A\cap\{T_k\leq v\}\in\F_v\,\,\text{for any}\,\, v\geq 0\}$ (cf. e.g. [@ks], Proposition 2.18). But $T_{k-1}<T_k$ yields $\F_{T_{k-1}}\subseteq\F_{T_k}$ (cf. e.g. [@ks], Lemma 2.15), implying that $S_{T_{k-1}}$ is $\F_{T_k}$-measurable. Consequently, the random variable $X_k=S_{T_k}-S_{T_{k-1}}$ is $\F_{T_k}$-measurable; hence $\F^X_n\cap\{N_t=n\}\subseteq \F_t\cap\{N_t=n\}$.
Since $W_k$ is $\F_{T_k}$-measurable, standard computations yield $\F^W_n\cap\{N_t=n\}\subseteq \F_t\cap\{N_t=n\}$, completing in this way the proof of (a).
[**(b)**]{} Inclusion $\F_t\cap\{N_t=n\}\subseteq \sigma(\F^W_n\cup\F^X_n)\cap\{N_t=n\}$ holds true.
To show (b), let $A\in\bigcup_{u\leq t}\sigma(S_u)$. There exist an index $u\in[0,t]$ and a set $B\in\B({\varUpsilon})$ such that $A=S_u^{-1}(B)=\bigcup_{m\in\N_0} (\{N_u=m\}\cap B_m)$, where $B_m:=(\sum^m_{j=1} X_j)^{-1}(B)\in\F^X_m$ for any $m\in\N_0$, implying $$A\cap\{N_t=n\}=D_n\cap\{N_t=n\}),$$ where $D_n:=\big(\bigcup^{n-1}_{m=0} (\{N_u=m\}\cap B_m)\big)\cup (\{T_n\leq u\}\cap B_n)\in\sigma(\F^W_n\cup\F^X_n)$; hence $\bigcup_{u\leq t}\sigma(S_u)\cap\{N_t=n\}\subseteq \sigma(\F^W_n\cup\F^X_n)\cap\{N_t=n\}$, implying (b). This completes the proof of the lemma.$\Box$
A counting process $N$ is said to be a $P$-[**renewal process with parameter $\theta\in D\subseteq\R^d$ and interarrival time distribution $\bf{K}(\theta)$**]{} (written $P$-RP$(\bf{K}(\theta))$ for short), if its associated interarrival process $W$ is $P$-i.i.d. with a common distribution $\mathbf{K}(\theta):\B({\varUpsilon})\longmapsto[0,1]$. If $\theta>0$ and $\mathbf{K}(\theta)=\mathbf{Exp}(\theta)$ then a $P$-RP$(\bf{K}(\theta))$ becomes a $P$-Poisson process with parameter $\theta$ (cf. e.g. [@Sc], p. 23 for the definition). Note that if $N$ is a $P$-RP$(\bf{K}(\theta))$ then $\mathbb E_P[N^m_t]<\infty$ for any $t\geq 0$ and $m\in\N$ (cf. e.g. [@se], Proposition 4, p. 101); hence according to [@Sc], Corollary 2.1.5, it has zero probability of explosion, i.e. $P(\{\sup_{n\in\N} T_n<\infty\})=0$.
An aggregate claims process $S$ induced by a $P$-risk process $(N,X)$ such that $N$ is a $P$-RP$(\bf{K}(\theta))$, is called a $P$-[**[compound renewal process]{}**]{} ($P$-CRP for short)[**[ with parameters $\bf{K}(\theta)$ and $P_{X_1}$]{}**]{}. In the special case where $N$ is a $P$-Poisson process with parameter $\theta$, the induced aggregate claims process $S$ is called a $P$-[**[compound Poisson process]{}**]{} ($P$-CPP for short) [**[with parameters $\theta$ and $P_{X_1}$]{}**]{}.
\[lem2\] Let $Q$ be a probability measure on ${\varSigma}$.
[**(a)**]{} If $X$ is $Q$-i.i.d., $Q_{X_{1}}\sim P_{X_{1}}$ and $h$ is a real-valued, one to one, $\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function, then there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique real-valued $\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\gamma$ such that
1. $\mathbb E_{P}\left[h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}\circ X_{1}\right]=1$;
2. for every $n\in\N_0$ and for all $A\in\F^X_n$ condition $$Q(A)=\mathbb E_P\big[\chi_A\cdot\prod_{j=1}^{n}\,(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}\circ X_j)\big]
\label{lem23b}$$ holds true.
[**(b)**]{} If $W$ is $P$- and $Q$-i.i.d. and $Q_{W_{1}}\sim P_{W_{1}}$, then there exists a $P_{W_1}$-a.s. unique positive function $r\in\mathcal L^1(P_{W_1})$ such that for every $n\in\N_0$ and for all $D\in\F^W_n$ condition $$Q(D)=\mathbb E_P\big[\chi_D\cdot\prod_{j=1}^{n}\,(r\circ W_j)\big]$$ holds true.
[**Proof.**]{} Ad [**(a)**]{}: First note that $h({\varUpsilon}):=\{h(y) : y\in{\varUpsilon}\}\in\B(\R)$ (cf. e.g. [@Co] Theorem 8.3.7) and that the function $h^{-1}$ is $\B(h({\varUpsilon}))$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable (cf. e.g. [@Co] Proposition 8.3.5). Since $P_{X_{1}}\sim Q_{X_{1}}$, by the Radon-Nikodým Theorem there exists a positive Radon-Nikodým derivative $f\in\mathcal{L}^1(P_{X_1})$ of $Q_{X_1}$ with respect to $P_{X_1}$. Put ${\gamma}:=h\circ f$. An easy computation justifies the validity of $(i)$.
To check the validity of $(ii)$, fix on an arbitrary $n\in\N_0$ and consider the family $\mathcal C_n:=\left\{\bigcap^{n}_{j=1} A_j : A_{j}\in\sigma(X_{j})\right\}$. Standard computations show that any $A\in\mathcal C_n$ satisfies condition . By a monotone class argument it can be shown that remains valid for any $A\in\F^X_n$.
Applying similar arguments as above we obtain (b). $\Box$
\[symb1\]
[**(a)**]{} Let $h$ be a function as in Lemma \[lem2\]. The class of all real-valued $\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable functions ${\gamma}$ such that $\mathbb E_{P}\left[h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}\circ X_{1}\right]=1$ will be denoted by $\F_{P,h}:=\F_{P,X_1,h}$.
[**(b)**]{} Let us fix on an arbitrary $\theta\in D\subseteq\R^d$, let $\rho$ be a $\B(D)$-$\B(\R^k)$-measurable function ($d,k\in\N$), and let ${\bf\Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})$ be a probability distribution on $\B({\varUpsilon})$. The class of all probability measures $Q$ on ${\varSigma}$ being [**progressively equivalent**]{} to $P$, i.e. $Q{\upharpoonright}\F_t\sim P{\upharpoonright}\F_t$ for any $t\geq 0$, and $S$ is a $Q$-CRP with parameters ${\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})$ and $Q_{X_1}$ will be denoted by $\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$. In the special case $d=k$ and $\rho:=id_D$ we write $\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}(\theta)}:=\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$, for simplicity.
[*From now on, unless stated otherwise, $h$ is a function as in Lemma \[lem2\], $D$, $\theta$ and $\rho$ are as in Notation \[symb1\] (b), and $P\in\M_{S,{\bf K}(\theta)}$ is the initial probability measure under which $S$ is a CRP with parameters ${\bf K}(\theta)$ and $P_{X_1}$.*]{}
In order to formulate the main result of this section we recall the following notion. Let $\Z:=\{\Z_t\}_{t\in\R_+}$ be a filtration for $({\varOmega},{\varSigma})$. We say that a family $\{Z_t\}_{t\in \R_+}$ of real-valued $\Z_t$-measurable $P$-integrable functions $Z_t$ ($t\geq 0$) on ${\varOmega}$ is a $(P,\Z)$[**-martingale**]{} if whenever $s\leq t$ condition $\int_A Z_s\,dP=\int_A Z_t\,dP$ holds true for all $A\in\Z_s$. A $(P,\Z)$-martingale $\{Z_t\}_{t\in \R_+}$ is [**$P$-a.s. positive**]{} if $Z_t$ is $P$-a.s. positive for each $t\geq 0$.
For $\mathcal Z=\F$ we write $P$-martingale instead of $(P,\F)$-martingale, for simplicity.
For a given aggregate claims process $S$ on $({\varOmega},{\varSigma})$, in order to investigate the existence of progressively equivalent martingale measures (see Section \[CRPM\]), one has to be able to characterize Radon-Nikodým derivatives $dQ/dP$.
\[thm1\] Let $Q$ be a probability measure on ${\varSigma}$ such that $S$ is a $Q$-CRP with parameters ${\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})$ and $Q_{X_1}$. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $Q{\upharpoonright}\F_t\sim P{\upharpoonright}\F_t$ for any $t\geq 0$;
2. $Q_{X_{1}}\sim P_{X_{1}}$ and $Q_{W_{1}}\sim P_{W_{1}}$;
3. there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,h}$ such that $$\tag{RRM}
Q(A)=\int_{A} M^{({\gamma})}_{t}(\theta)\,dP\quad\text{for all}\quad 0\leq u\leq t\quad\text{and}\quad A\in\F_u,
\label{mart}$$ with $$M^{({\gamma})}_{t}(\theta):= \Big[\prod_{j=1}^{N_t}\,(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma})(X_j)\cdot \frac{[{\bf\Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})]^{'}(W_j)}{[{\bf K}(\theta)]^{'}(W_j)}\Big]\cdot\frac{1-{\bf{\Lambda}}({\rho(\theta)})(t-T_{N_t})}{1-{\bf{K}}(\theta)(t-T_{N_t})},$$ where the family $M^{({\gamma})}(\theta):=\{M^{({\gamma})}_{t}(\theta)\}_{t\in\R_+}$ is a $P$-a.s. positive $P$-martingale satisfying condition $\mathbb E_P[M^{({\gamma})}_{t}(\theta)]=1$.
[**Proof.**]{} Fix on an arbitrary $t\geq 0$.
Ad $(i)\Longrightarrow(ii):$ Statement $Q_{X_{1}}\sim P_{X_{1}}$ follows by [@dh], Lemma 2.1. To show statement $Q_{W_{1}}\sim P_{W_{1}}$, note that by the arguments used in step (a) of the proof of Lemma \[lem1\] the random variable $W_1$ is $\F_t$-measurable; hence for given $B\in\B({\varUpsilon})$ with $Q_{W_1}(B)=0$, we get $P_{W_1}(B)=0$. Replacing $Q$ by $P$ leads to $Q_{W_1}\sim P_{W_1}$.
Ad $(ii)\Longrightarrow(iii)$: Let be given $u\in[0,t]$ and $A\in\F_u$. By Lemma \[lem1\], for every $k\in\N_0$ there exists a set $B_{k}\in\sigma(\F^W_k\cup\F^X_k)$ such that $A\cap\{N_{u}=k\}=B_{k}\cap\{N_{u}=k\}$. Thus, due to the fact that $N$ has zero probability of explosion, we get $$\begin{aligned}
Q(A)&=& \sum^{\infty}_{k=0} Q\left(B_{k}\cap\{N_{u}=k\}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum^{\infty}_{k=0} Q(B_{k}\cap\{T_k\leq u\}\cap\{W_{k+1}>u-T_k\}).
\label{1.1}\end{aligned}$$
Fix on arbitrary $n\in\N_0$ and put $G:=\bigcap_{j=1}^{n} (W_j^{-1}(E_j)\cap X_j^{-1}(F_j))\cap\{W_{n+1}>u-T_n\}$ where $E_j,F_j\in\B({\varUpsilon})$ for any $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Then the set $G$ satisfies condition In fact, by Lemma \[lem2\] and Fubini’s Theorem we get $$\begin{aligned}
Q(G)
&=&\int\big[\prod^n_{j=1}\,\chi_{F_j}(x_j)\cdot \chi_{E_j}(w_j)\cdot(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma})(x_j)\cdot r(w_j)\big]\cdot \frac{Q(\{W_{n+1}>u-w\})}{P(\{W_{n+1}>u-w\})}\cdot \\
&&\quad P(\{W_{n+1}>u-w\})\,P_{X_1,\ldots,X_n; W_1,\ldots W_n}(d(x_1,\ldots,x_n;w_1,\ldots,w_n))\\
&=&\int\chi_{G}\cdot\big[\prod^n_{j=1}\,(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma})(X_j)\cdot r(W_j)\big]\cdot\frac{Q(\{W_{n+1}>u-T_n\})}{P(\{W_{n+1}>u-T_n\})}\,dP,\end{aligned}$$ where $w:=\sum_{j=1}^{n} w_j$ and $r(w_j):=\frac{[{\bf\Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})]^{'}(w_j)}{[{\bf K}(\theta)]^{'}(w_j)}$ for any $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$; hence condition follows. By a monotone class argument it can be shown that remains valid for any $G\in\sigma(\F^W_n\cup\F^X_n)\cap\{W_{n+1}>u-T_n\}$.
But since $B_{k}\cap\{T_k\leq u\}\in\sigma(\F^W_k\cup\F^X_k)$, conditions and imply $$Q(A)=\sum^{\infty}_{k=0}\mathbb E_{P}\Big[\chi_{A\cap\{N_{u}=k\}}\cdot\big[\prod^{N_u}_{j=1}\,(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma})(X_j)\cdot r(W_j)\big] \cdot\frac{Q(\{W_{N_{u}+1}>u-T_{N_{u}}\})}{P(\{W_{N_{u}+1}>u-T_{N_{u}}\})}\Big].$$ Thus, $$Q(A)=\mathbb E_{P}[\chi_{A}\cdot M^{({\gamma})}_{u}(\theta)]\quad\text{for all}\quad 0\leq u\leq t\quad\text{and}\quad A\in\F_u,
\label{new}$$ implying $$\int_A M^{({\gamma})}_{u}(\theta)\,dP=\int_A M^{({\gamma})}_{t}(\theta)\,dP\quad\text{for all}\,\, 0\leq u\leq t\,\,\text{and}\,\, A\in\F_u;$$ hence $M^{({\gamma})}(\theta)$ is a $P$-martingale. The latter together with condition proves condition .
By for $A={\varOmega}$ we obtain $$\mathbb E_P[M^{({\gamma})}_{t}(\theta)]=\int_{\varOmega}M^{({\gamma})}_{t}(\theta)\,dP=Q({\varOmega})=1.$$ Finally, it can be easily seen that $P(\{N_t=n\})>0$ and $Q(\{N_t=n\})>0$, implying that $P(\{W_{n+1}>t-T_n\})$ and $Q(\{W_{n+1}>t-T_n\})$ are positive. The latter, together with the fact that $h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}$ and $r$ are $P_{X_1}$- and $P_{W_1}$-a.s. positive functions, respectively, implies $P(\{M^{({\gamma})}_t(\theta)>0\})=1$.
The implication *(iii)*$\Longrightarrow$*(i)* is immediate.$\Box$
Proposition \[thm1\] allows us to explicitly calculate Radon-Nikodým derivatives for the most important insurance risk processes, as the following two examples illustrate. In the first example we consider the case of the Poisson process with parameter $\theta$.
\[ex1b\] Take $h:=\ln$, $\theta\in D:={\varUpsilon}$, let $\rho$ be a $\B(D)$-measurable function, and let $P\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}(\theta)}$ and $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$. By Proposition \[thm1\] there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,\ln}$ defined by means of ${\gamma}:=\ln f$, where $f$ is a Radon-Nikodým derivative of $Q_{X_1}$ with respect to $P_{X_1}$, such that for all $0\leq u\leq t$ and $A\in\F_u$ $$Q(A)=\int_A e^{\sum^{N_{t}}_{j=1}\gamma(X_{j})}\cdot\left(\frac{{\rho(\theta)}}{\theta}\right)^{N_{t}}\cdot e^{-t\cdot({\rho(\theta)}-\theta)}\,dP.$$
In our next example we consider a renewal process with gamma distributed interarrival times.
\[ex3b\] Assume that $h:=\ln$, $\theta=(\xi_1,{\kappa}_1)\in D:={\varUpsilon}\times\N$, let $\rho$ be a $\B(D)$-$\B(D)$-measurable function such that ${\rho(\theta)}=(\xi_2,{\kappa}_2)\in D$, and let $P\in\M_{S,{\bf Ga}(\theta)}$ and $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf Ga}({\rho(\theta)})}$. By Proposition \[thm1\] there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\gamma}\in\F^{\ell}_{P,\ln}$ such that for all $0\leq u\leq t$ and $A\in\F_u$
$$\begin{aligned}
Q(A)&=&\int_A e^{\sum^{N_{t}}_{j=1}\gamma(X_{j})}\cdot\left(\frac{\xi_2^{{\kappa}_2}\cdot \Gamma({\kappa}_1)}{\xi_1^{{\kappa}_1}\cdot \Gamma({\kappa}_2)}\right)^{N_t}\cdot e^{-t\cdot(\xi_2 -\xi_1)}\cdot\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{{\kappa}_2-1}\frac{\left(\xi_2\cdot(t-T_{N_t})\right)^i}{i!}} {\sum_{i=0}^{{\kappa}_1-1}\frac{\left(\xi_1\cdot(t-T_{N_t})\right)^i}{i!}}\\
&&\qquad\qquad\cdot\prod^{N_t}_{j=1} W_j^{{\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_1}\,dP.\end{aligned}$$
The characterization {#char}
====================
We know from Proposition \[thm1\] that under the weak conditions $Q_{X_{1}}\sim P_{X_{1}}$ and $Q_{W_{1}}\sim P_{W_{1}}$, the measures $P$ and $Q$ are equivalent on each $\sigma$-algebra $\F_t$. We first show that this result does not, in general, hold true for $\F_\infty:=\sigma\big(\bigcup_{t\in\R_+}\F_t\big)$, as the following two propositions show. Let us start with the following helpful lemma.
\[lem3\] The following holds true $$\F_\infty=\F^{(W,X)}_\infty:=\sigma\left(\bigcup_{n\in\N_0}\F^{W}_n\cup\bigcup_{n\in\N_0}\F^{X}_n\right).$$
[**Proof.**]{} Inclusion $\F_\infty\subseteq\F^{(W,X)}_\infty$ follows immediately by Lemma \[lem1\] and the fact that $N$ has zero probability of explosion.
To check the validity of the inverse inclusion, fix on arbitrary $n\in\N_0$. Since $X_n$ is $\F_{T_n}$-measurable, we get $X_n^{-1}(B)\cap\{T_n\leq \ell\}\in\F_\infty$ for all $B\in\B({\varUpsilon})$ and $\ell\in\N_0$; hence $X_n^{-1}(B) \in\F_\infty$, implying together with the $\F_\infty$-measurability of $T_n$ that $\F^{(W,X)}_\infty\subseteq\F_\infty$.$\Box$
Note that the above lemma remains true, without the assumption $P\in\M_{S,{\bf K}(\theta)}$, under the weaker assumption that $N$ has zero probability of explosion.
\[lem4\] Let $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$. If $P_{X_1}\neq Q_{X_1}$ or $P_{W_1}\neq Q_{W_1}$ the probability measures $P$ and $Q$ are singular on $\F_\infty$.
In fact, if $P_{X_1}\neq Q_{X_1}$ and $B\in\B({\varUpsilon})$, without loss of generality we may and do assume that $P_{X_1}(B)<Q_{X_1}(B)$, implying that there exists a point $c\in(0,1)$ with $P_{X_1}(B)<c<Q_{X_1}(B)$. Putting $
E:=\{\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\chi_{\{X_k\in B\}}<c\}
$ it follows by Lemma \[lem3\] that $E\in\F_\infty$, and according to the strong law of large numbers we have that $P$ and $Q$ are singular on $\F_\infty$. In the same way it can be shown that $P_{W_1}\neq Q_{W_1}$ implies that $P$ and $Q$ are singular on $\F_\infty$.
\[prop2\] Let $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$. The following are all equivalent:
1. the measures $P$ and $Q$ are equivalent on $\F_\infty$;
2. $P_{X_1}=Q_{X_1}$ and $P_{W_1}=Q_{W_1}$;
3. $P{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty = Q{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty $.
[**Proof.**]{} Ad $(i)\Longrightarrow(ii):$ Assume, if possible, that $P_{X_1}\neq Q_{X_1}$. It then follows by Remark \[lem4\] that the measures $P$ and $Q$ are singular on $\F_\infty$, a contradiction. Thus, we get $P_{X_1}=Q_{X_1}$. In the same way it can be shown that $P_{W_1}=Q_{W_1}$.
Ad $(ii)\Longrightarrow(iii):$ Condition $P_{W_1}=Q_{W_1}$ implies $P_{N_t}=Q_{N_t}$ for all $t\geq 0$ (cf. e.g. [@Sc], Lemma 2.1.2). But the latter together with the fact that $P_{X_1}=Q_{X_1}$ implies $P_{S_t}=Q_{S_t}$ for all $t\geq 0$; hence the measures $P$ and $Q$ coincide on $\bigcup_{t\in\R_+} \F_t$. Consequently, $P{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty = Q{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty $.
The implication $(iii)\Longrightarrow(i)$ is clear.$\Box$
\[prop3\] Let $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$. If $P{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty \neq Q{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty$ then $P$ and $Q$ are singular on $\F_\infty $.
[**Proof.**]{} If $P{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty \neq Q{\upharpoonright}\F_\infty$ then by Proposition \[prop2\] we get $P_{X_1}\neq Q_{X_1}$ or $P_{W_1}\neq Q_{W_1}$; hence according to Remark \[lem4\] we get the desired conclusion.$\Box$
Before we formulate the inverse of Proposition \[thm1\] (i.e. that for a given function ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,h}$ there exists a unique probability measure $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying ) we have to prove the following result concerning the construction of compound renewal processes. To this purpose we recall the following notations concerning product probability spaces.
By $({\varOmega}\times\varXi,{\varSigma}\otimes{H},P\otimes{R})$ we denote the product probability space of the probability spaces $({\varOmega},{\varSigma},P)$ and $(\varXi,H,R)$. If $I$ is an arbitrary non-empty index set, we write $P_I$ for the product measure on ${\varOmega}^I$ and ${\varSigma}_I$ for its domain.
[*[Throughout what follows, we put ${\widetilde}{{\varOmega}}:=\varUpsilon^{\mathbb N}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varSigma}}:=\B({\widetilde}{{\varOmega}})=\B({\varUpsilon})_{\N}$, ${\varOmega}:={\widetilde}{\varOmega}\times{\widetilde}{\varOmega}$ and ${\varSigma}:={\widetilde}{\varSigma}\otimes{\widetilde}{\varSigma}$ for simplicity.]{}*]{}
The following result enables us to construct [*canonical probability spaces*]{} admitting compound renewal processes.
\[prop1\] For all $n\in\N$ and for any fixed $\theta\in D\subseteq\R^d$, let $Q_{n}(\theta):={\bf{K}}(\theta)$ and $R_{n}:=R$ be probability measures on $\mathfrak B(\varUpsilon)$, which are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure $\lambda{\upharpoonright}\B({\varUpsilon})$. Then there exist a probability measure $P:={\bf K}(\theta)_\N\otimes R_\N$ on ${\varSigma}$ and
1. a counting process $N$ being a $P$-RP$({\bf K}(\theta))$;
2. a claim size process $X$ satisfying condition $P_{X_n}=R$ for all $n\in\N$, and such that $(N,X)$ is a $P$-risk process inducing an aggregate claims process $S$ being a $P$-CRP with parameters ${\bf K}(\theta)$ and $P_{X_1}$.
Moreover, ${\varSigma}=\F_\infty^{(W,X)}=\F_\infty$.
[**Proof.**]{} Ad $(i)$: Fix on arbitrary $\theta\in D\subseteq\R^d$. There exists a unique product probability measure ${\widetilde}P:={\widetilde}P(\theta):={\bf K}(\theta)_{\N}$ on ${{\widetilde}\varSigma}$, implying the existence of a sequence $\{{\widetilde}{W}_{n}\}_{n\in\N}$ of ${\widetilde}{P}$-independent random variables on $({\widetilde}{{\varOmega}},{\widetilde}{{\varSigma}})$ such that $${\widetilde}{W}_{n}({\widetilde}w):={\widetilde}w_{n}\quad \text{for each}\quad {\widetilde}w:=({\widetilde}w_1,\ldots,{\widetilde}w_n,\ldots)\in{\widetilde}{{\varOmega}} \quad \text{and}\quad n\in\N$$ satisfying ${\widetilde}P_{{\widetilde}{W}_{n}}={\bf K}(\theta)$ for all $n\in\N$. Define the probability measures $R_\N$ and $P:= {\widetilde}P\otimes R_\N$ on ${{\widetilde}\varSigma}$ and ${\varSigma}$, respectively, and for each $n\in\mathbb N$ set $W_{n}:={\widetilde}{W}_{n}\circ\pi_1$, where $\pi_1$ is the canonical projection from ${\varOmega}$ onto the first factor ${\widetilde}{\varOmega}$ of ${\varOmega}$, and $W:=\{W_n\}_{n\in\N}$. Then $W$ is $P$-independent and $P_{W_{n}}={\bf{K}}(\theta)$ for each $n\in\N$. Put $T_n:=\sum_{k=1}^{n} W_k$ for any $n\in\N_0$ and $T:=\{T_n\}_{n\in\N_0}$, and let $N:=\{N_t\}_{t\in\R_+}$ be the counting process induced by $T$ by means of $
N_t:=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\chi_{\{T_n\leq t\}}$ for all $t\geq 0$ (cf. e.g. [@Sc], Theorem 2.1.1). Consequently, the counting process $N$ is a $P$-RP$({\bf K}(\theta))$.
Ad $(ii)$ : There exists a sequence ${\widetilde}X:=\{{\widetilde}{X}_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ of $R_\N$-independent random variables on $({\widetilde}{{\varOmega}},{\widetilde}{{\varSigma}})$ such that $${\widetilde}{X}_{n}({\widetilde}x):={\widetilde}x_{n}\quad \text{for each}\quad {\widetilde}x:=({\widetilde}x_1,\ldots,{\widetilde}x_n,\ldots)\in{\widetilde}{{\varOmega}}\quad \text{and}\quad n\in\N$$ satisfying $(R_\N)_{{\widetilde}{X}_{n}}=R$ for all $n\in\N$. Put $X_n:={\widetilde}X_n\circ \pi_2$, where $\pi_2$ is the canonical projection from ${\varOmega}$ onto the second factor ${\widetilde}{\varOmega}$ of ${\varOmega}$, and $X:={\{X_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb N}}$. By standard computations it can be proven that $(N,X)$ is a $P$-risk process. Setting $S_t:=\sum_{n=0}^{N_t} X_n$ for all $t\geq 0$ and $S:={\{S_{t}\}_{t\in\mathbb R_{+}}}$, we get that $S$ is a $P$-CRP with parameters ${\bf K}(\theta)$ and $P_{X_{1}}$ induced by the $P$-risk process $(N,X)$.
Moreover, according to Lemma \[lem3\] we have ${\varSigma}=\F_\infty^{(W,X)}=\F_\infty$. $\Box$
\[cl\] Clearly, assuming in Lemma \[prop1\] condition $\int_{\varUpsilon}x^\ell\,R(dx)$ for $\ell=1,2$ we obtain that ${\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1^\ell]<\infty$.
The following proposition shows that after changing the measure the process $S$ remains a compound renewal one if the Radon-Nikodým derivative has the “right" structure on each $\sigma$-algebra $\F_t$. To formulate it, we use the following notation and assumption.
\[symb3\] Let ${\bf K}(\theta)$ and ${\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})$ be probability distributions on $\B({\varUpsilon})$ such that the induced distribution functions are continuously differentiable with positive derivatives $[{\bf{K}}(\theta)]^{'}$ and $[{\bf{\Lambda}}({\rho(\theta)})]^{'}$ on ${\varUpsilon}$. For any $n\in\N_0$ the class of all likelihood ratios $g_n:=g_{\theta,\rho,n}:{\varUpsilon}^{n+1}\longmapsto{\varUpsilon}$ defined by means of $$g_n(w_1,\ldots,w_n,t):=\Big[\prod_{j=1}^{n}\frac{[{\bf{\Lambda}}({\rho(\theta)})]^{'}(w_j)}{[{\bf{K}}(\theta)]^{'}(w_j)}\Big]\cdot\frac{1-{\bf{\Lambda}}({\rho(\theta)})(t-w)}{1-{\bf{K}}(\theta)(t-w)}$$ for any $(w_1,\ldots,w_n,t)\in{\varUpsilon}^{n+1}$, where $w:=\sum^n_{j=1}w_j$, will be denoted by $\mathcal G_{n,\theta,\rho}$. Notation $\mathcal G_{\theta,\rho}$ stands for the set $\{g=\{g_n\}_{n\in\N_0} : g_n\in\mathcal G_{n,\theta,\rho}\,\,\,\text{for any}\,\,\, n\in\N_0\}$ of all sequences of elements of $\mathcal G_{n,\theta,\rho}$.
[*Throughout what follows ${\bf K}(\theta)$, ${\bf\Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})$ and $g\in\mathcal G_{\theta,\rho}$ are as in Notation \[symb3\], and $P$, $S$ are as in Lemma \[prop1\].*]{}
\[thm2\] Let ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,h}$. Then for all $0\leq u\leq t$ and $A\in\F_{u}$ condition $$Q(A)=\int_{A} \big[\prod_{j=1}^{N_t}\,(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}\circ X_j)\big]\cdot g_{N_t}(W_1,\ldots,W_{N_t},t)\,dP$$ determines a unique probability measure $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$.
[**Proof.**]{} Fix on arbitrary $t\geq 0$, and define the set-functions ${\widecheck}Q_n(\theta), {\widecheck}R:\B({\varUpsilon})\longmapsto \R$ by means of ${\widecheck}Q_n(\theta)(B_1):=\mathbb E_{P}[\chi_{W^{-1}_{1}(B_1)}\cdot (\frac{[{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})]^{'}}{[{\bf K} (\theta)]^{'}}\circ W_1)]$ and ${\widecheck}R(B_2):=\mathbb E_{P}[\chi_{X^{-1}_{1}(B_2)} \cdot (h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}\circ X_1)]$ for any $B_1,B_2\in\B({\varUpsilon})$, respectively. Applying a monotone class argument it can be seen that ${\widecheck}Q_n(\theta)={\bf \Lambda} ({\rho(\theta)})$, while Lemma \[lem2\] (a) $(i)$ implies that ${\widecheck}R$ is a probability measure. Therefore, we may apply Lemma \[prop1\] with ${\widecheck}Q_n(\theta)$ and ${\widecheck}R$ in the place of $Q_n(\theta)$ and $R$, respectively, to construct a probability measure ${\widecheck}{Q}$ on ${\varSigma}$ such that $S$ is a ${\widecheck}{Q}$-CRP with parameters ${\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})$ and ${\widecheck}{Q}_{X_{1}}={\widecheck}R$, implying that ${\widecheck}Q_{X_1}\sim P_{X_1}$ and ${\widecheck}Q_{W_1}\sim P_{W_1}$. Applying now Proposition \[thm1\] we obtain ${\widecheck}{Q}{\upharpoonright}\F_t \sim P{\upharpoonright}\F_t$, or equivalently $${\widecheck}Q(A)=\int_{A} \big[\prod_{j=1}^{N_t}(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}\circ X_j)\big]\cdot g_{N_t}(W_1,\ldots,W_{N_t},t)\,dP$$ for all $0\leq u\leq t$ and $A\in\F_u$. Thus $Q{\upharpoonright}\F_u={\widecheck}{Q}{\upharpoonright}\F_u$ for all $u\geq 0$; hence $Q{\upharpoonright}{\widecheck}{\varSigma}={\widecheck}{Q}{\upharpoonright}{\widecheck}{\varSigma}$ where ${\widecheck}{{\varSigma}}:=\bigcup_{u\in\R_+} \F_u$, implying that $Q$ is $\sigma$-additive on ${\widecheck}{\varSigma}$ and that ${\widecheck}{Q}$ is the unique extension of $Q$ on ${\varSigma}=\sigma({\widecheck}{{\varSigma}})$. $\Box$
\[gen\] A well known change of measure technique for compound renewal processes is to markovize the process and then to change the measure (cf. e.g. [@asal], Chapter VI, Proposition 3.4 or [@scm], p. 139). Our method seems to simplify the above one.
The next result is the desired characterization. Its proof is an immediate consequence of Propositions \[thm1\] and \[thm2\].
\[thm!\] The following hold true:
1. for any $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$ there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,h}$ satisfying condition ;
2. conversely, for any function ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,h}$ there exists a unique probability measure $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying condition .
In order to formulate the next results of this section, let us denote by ${\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$ the class of all real-valued $\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable functions ${\beta}_\theta$, such that ${\beta}_\theta:={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta$, where ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,\ln}$ and ${\alpha}$ is a $\B(D)$-measurable function.
The following result allows us to convert any compound renewal process into a compound Poisson one through a change of measure.
\[cor4b\] If $W_1\in\mathcal L^1(P)$ then the following hold true:
1. for any $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ and for any probability measure $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$ satisfying together with $\rho$ and $Q$ conditions $$\label{ast}
{\alpha}_x=\ln\rho(x)+\ln\mathbb E_P[W_1]\quad\text{for all}\quad x\in D
\tag{$\ast$}$$ and $$\label{martPPb}
\tag{RPM}
Q(A)=\int_A M^{({\beta})}_{t}(\theta)\,dP\quad\text{for all}\quad 0\leq u\leq t\quad\text{and}\quad A\in\F_u,$$ where $M^{({\beta})}_{t}(\theta):=\frac{e^{\sum_{j=1}^{N_t} {\beta}_\theta(X_j)-t\cdot {\rho(\theta)}}\cdot(\mathbb E_P[W_1])^{-N_t}}{[\prod_{j=1}^{N_t}[{\bf{K}}(\theta)]^{'}(W_j)]\cdot (1-{\bf{K}}(\theta))(t-T_{N_t})}$;
2. conversely, for any function ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$ there exist a unique $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ and a unique probability measure $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying together with ${\beta}_\theta$ conditions and .
[**Proof.**]{} Fix on arbitrary $t\geq 0$.
Ad $(i):$ Under the assumptions of statement $(i)$, according to Theorem \[thm!\] $(i)$ there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,\ln}$ defined by means of ${\gamma}:=\ln f$, where $f$ is a Radon-Nikodým derivative of $Q_{X_1}$ with respect to $P_{X_1}$, such that $$Q(A)=\int_A \frac{e^{\sum_{j=1}^{N_t} {\gamma}(X_j)}\cdot e^{-t\cdot{\rho(\theta)}}\cdot({\rho(\theta)})^{N_t}}{[\prod_{j=1}^{N_t}[{\bf{K}}(\theta)]^{'}(W_j)]\cdot (1-{\bf{K}}(\theta))(t-T_{N_t})}\,dP
\label{1111c}$$
for all $0\leq u\leq t$ and $A\in\F_u$. Define the real-valued $\B(D)$-measurable function ${\alpha}$ by means of ${\alpha}_x:=\ln\rho(x)+\ln \mathbb E_P[W_1]$ for all $x\in D$, and put ${\beta}_\theta:={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta$. It then follows that ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$ and that condition is valid. The latter together with condition implies condition .
Ad $(ii):$ Let ${\beta}_\theta={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$ and define the $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ by means of $\rho(x):=\frac{e^{{\alpha}_x}}{{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]}$ for any $x\in D$. By Theorem \[thm!\] $(ii)$ for the function ${\gamma}={\beta}_\theta-{\alpha}_\theta$ there exists a unique probability measure $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying condition or equivalently condition . $\Box$
\[cla\] In the special case $P\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}(\theta)}$, Corollary \[cor4b\] yields the main result of Delbaen & Haezendonck [@dh], Proposition 2.2.
[**(b)**]{} Theorem \[thm!\] remains true if we replace the classes $\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}$ and $\F_{P,h}$ by their subclasses $\M^\ell_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})}:= \{Q\in\M_{S,{\bf \Lambda}({\rho(\theta)})} : {\mathbb{E}}_Q[X^\ell_1]<\infty]\}$ and $\F^\ell_{P,h}:=\{{\gamma}\in\F_{P,h} : {\mathbb{E}}_P[X^\ell_1\cdot(h^{-1}\circ{\gamma}\circ X_1)]\}$ for $\ell=1,2$, respectively. As a consequence, Corollary \[cor4b\] remains true if we replace the class ${\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$ by its subclass ${\widetilde}\F^\ell_{P,\theta}:=\{{\beta}_\theta= {\gamma}+ {\alpha}_\theta : {\gamma}\in\F^\ell_{P,\ln}\,\,\text{and}\,\,{\alpha}\,\,\text{is a}\,\,\B(D)\text{-measurable function}\}$ for $\ell=1,2$.
The following example translates the results of Corollary \[cor4b\] to a well known compound renewal process appearing in applications.
\[ex7\] Fix on arbitrary $t\geq 0$, let $\theta:=(\xi,2)\in D:={\varUpsilon}^2$, and let $P\in\M_{S,{\bf Ga}(\theta)}$ such that $P_{X_1}={\bf Ga}(\eta)$, where $\eta:=(b,2)\in D$. Let $\rho$ be an arbitrary $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function and $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ such that $Q_{X_1}={\bf Exp}(\zeta)$ where $\zeta$ is a positive real constant. By Corollary \[cor4b\] $(i)$, there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\beta}_\theta:={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$, where ${\gamma}(x):=\ln \frac{\zeta\cdot e^{-\zeta\cdot x}}{b^2\cdot x\cdot e^{-b\cdot x}}$ for any $x\in{\varUpsilon}$ and ${\alpha}_\theta:=\ln\rho(\theta)+\ln{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]=\ln\frac{2\cdot{\rho(\theta)}}{\xi}$, satisfying together with $\rho$ and $Q$ condition $$Q(A)=\int_A\, \left(\frac{1}{2\xi}\right)^{N_t}\cdot\frac{e^{\sum_{j=1}^{N_t} {\beta}_{\theta}(X_j)-t\cdot {\rho(\theta)}+t \xi}}{[\prod^{N_t}_{j=1}W_j]\cdot\big(1+ \xi\cdot(t-T_{N_t})\big)}\,dP
\label{ex12}$$ for all $0\leq u\leq t$ and $A\in\F_u$.
Conversely, let $\zeta$ be as above and consider the function ${\beta}_\theta:={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta$, where ${\gamma}(x):=\ln \frac{\zeta\cdot e^{-\zeta\cdot x}}{b^2\cdot x\cdot e^{-b\cdot x}}$ for any $x\in{\varUpsilon}$ and ${\alpha}$ is a real-valued $\B(D)$-measurable function. It then follows easily that $\mathbb E_P[e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=1$, implying that ${\gamma}\in\F_{P,\ln}$; hence ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F_{P,\theta}$. Thus, we may apply Corollary \[cor4b\] $(ii)$ to get a unique $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ and a unique probability measure $Q\in\M_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying together with ${\beta}_\theta$ conditions and . But then applying Lemma \[lem2\] (a), we get $$Q_{X_1}(B)=\mathbb E_P[\chi_{X^{-1}_1(B)}\cdot e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=\int_B \zeta\cdot e^{-\zeta\cdot x}\,\lambda(dx)\,\,\text{for any}\,\, B\in\B({\varUpsilon}),$$ implying that $Q_{X_1}={\bf Exp}(\zeta)$.
Applications {#CRPM}
============
In this section we first show that a martingale approach to premium calculation principles leads in the case of CRPs to CPPs, providing in this way a method to find progressively equivalent martingale measures. Next, using our results we show that if ${\widetilde}\F^2_{P,\theta}\neq\emptyset$ then there exist [*canonical*]{} price processes (called [*claim surplus processes*]{} in Risk Theory) satisfying the condition of no free lunch with vanishing risk.
In order to present the results of this section we recall the following notions. For a given real-valued process $Y:=\{Y_t\}_{t\in\R_+}$ on $({\varOmega},{\varSigma})$ a probability measure $Q$ on ${\varSigma}$ is called a [**martingale measure**]{} for $Y$, if $Y$ is a $Q$-martingale. We will say that $Y$ satisfies condition (PEMM) if there exists a [**progressively equivalent martingale measure**]{} (PEMM for short) for $Y$, i.e. a probability measure $Q$ on ${\varSigma}$ such that $Q{\upharpoonright}\F_t\sim P{\upharpoonright}\F_t$ for any $t\geq 0$ and $Y$ is a $Q$-martingale. Moreover, let $T>0$, $\mathbb T:=[0,T]$, $Q_T:=Q{\upharpoonright}\F_T$, $Y_{\mathbb T}:=\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb T}$ and $\F_{\mathbb T}:=\{\F_t\}_{t\in\mathbb T}$. We will say that the process $Y_{\mathbb T}$ satisfies condition (EMM) if there exists an [**equivalent martingale measures**]{} for $Y_{\mathbb T}$, i.e. a probability measure $Q_T$ on $\F_T$ such that $Q_T\sim P_T$ and $Y_{\mathbb T}$ is a $(Q_T,\F_{\mathbb T})$-martingale.
Suppose that $X_1,W_1\in\mathcal L^1(P)$ and define the [**premium density**]{} as $$p(P):=\frac{{\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1]}{{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]}\in{\varUpsilon}.$$ Consider the process $Z(P):=\{Z_t\}_{t\in\R_+}$ with $Z_t:=S_t-t\cdot p(P)$ for any $t\geq 0$. The following auxiliary result could be of independent interest, since it says that if $S$ is under $P$ a CRP and the process $Z(P)$ is a $P$-martingale, then $N_t$ must have a Poisson distribution so that $S$ is actually a CPP.
\[thm4\] Let $g:D\longmapsto{\varUpsilon}$ be the function defined by means of $g(\theta):=\frac{1}{{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]}$ for any $\theta\in D$. Consider the following statements:
1. $P$ is a martingale measure for $Z(P)$;
2. $P\in\M^1_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}$;
3. $P$ is a martingale measure for $Z(P)$ such that $Z_t\in\mathcal L^2(P)$ for any $t\geq 0$;
4. $P\in\M^2_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}$.
Then statements $(i)$ and $(ii)$ as well as statements $(iii)$ and $(iv)$ are equivalent. Moreover, if $X_1\in\mathcal L^2(P)$ then all statements $(i)$ to $(iv)$ are equivalent.
[**Proof.**]{} Fix on arbitrary $t\geq 0$.
Ad $(i)\Longrightarrow (ii):$ Since $P$ is martingale measure for $Z(P)$, we have ${\mathbb{E}}_P[Z_t]=0$ implying ${\mathbb{E}}_P[S_t]=t\cdot\frac{{\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1]}{{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]}$, or equivalently $\mathbb E_P[N_t]=t\cdot g(\theta)$.
Claim. The following are equivalent:
- $N$ is a $P$-Poisson process with parameter $\theta$;
- $\mathbb E_P[N_t] = t\theta$.
Proof.
The above claim should be well known, but since we have not seen its proof anywhere, we insert it for completeness. The implication $(a)\Longrightarrow (b)$ is immediate.
Ad $(b)\Longrightarrow (a):$ To prove this implication, let us recall that the [**renewal function associated with the distribution**]{} ${\bf K}(\theta)$ is defined by $$U(u):=\sum^{\infty}_{n=0} {\bf K}^{\ast n}(\theta)(u)\quad\text{for any}\,\,u\in\R$$ where ${\bf K}^{\ast n}(\theta)$ is the $n$-fold convolution of ${\bf K}(\theta)$ (cf. e.g. [@se], Definition 17, p. 108). Clearly $U(u)=1+ \mathbb E_P[N_u]$ for any $u\geq 0$. Assuming that $\mathbb E_P[N_t]=t\theta$, we get $U(t)=1+t\theta$, implying that the Laplace-Stieltjes transform ${\widehat}{U}(s)$ of $U(t)$ is given by $${\widehat}{U}(s)=\int_{\R_+} e^{-s\cdot u}\,dU(u)=e^{-s\cdot 0}\cdot U(0)+\int_{0}^{\infty}\theta e^{-s\cdot u}\,du=\frac{s+\theta}{s}\quad \text{for every}\,\,\, s\geq 0,$$ where the second equality follows from the fact that $\int_{\R_+} e^{-s\cdot u}\,dU(u)$ is a Riemann-Stieltjes integral and $U$ has a density for $u>0$, $U(u)=0$ for $u<0$ and it has a unit jump at $u=0$ (cf. e.g. [@se], pp. 108-109). It then follows that $${\widehat}{{\bf K}}(\theta)(s)=\frac{{\widehat}{U}(s)-1}{{\widehat}{U}(s)}=\frac{\theta}{\theta+s}\quad\text{for any}\,\,\, s\geq 0,$$ where ${\widehat}{{\bf K}}(\theta)$ denotes the Laplace-Stieltjes transform of the distribution of $W_n$ for any $n\in\N$ (cf. e.g [@se], Proposition 20, p. 109); hence $P_{W_n}={\bf Exp}(\theta)$ for any $n\in\N$. But since $W$ is also $P$-independent, it follows that $N$ is a $P$-Poisson process with parameter $\theta$ (cf. e.g. [@Sc], Theorem 2.3.4).$\Box$
Thus, according to the above claim statement $(ii)$ follows.
Ad $(ii)\Longrightarrow (i):$ Since $P\in\M^1_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}$, it follows that $S$ has independent increments (cf. e.g. [@Sc], Theorem 5.1.3). Thus, for all $u\in[0,t]$ and $A\in\F_u$ we get $$\int_A (S_t-\mathbb E_P[S_t])-(S_u-\mathbb E_P[S_u])\,dP=\int_{\varOmega}\chi_A\,dP\cdot\int_{\varOmega}((S_t-S_u)-\mathbb E_P[S_t-S_u])\,dP=0,$$ implying that the process $\{S_t-\mathbb E_P[S_t]\}_{t\in\R_+}$ is a $P$-martingale. But since $\mathbb E_P[S_t]=t\cdot\mathbb E_P[S_1]$, statement $(i)$ follows.
Ad $(iii)\Longrightarrow (iv):$ Since $P$ is martingale measure for $Z(P)$, it follows by the equivalence of statements $(i)$ and $(ii)$ that $P\in\M^1_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}$. But since $Z_t\in\mathcal L^2(P)$, we have $Var_P[Z_t]=\mathbb E_P[N_t]\cdot Var_P[X_1]+Var_P[N_t]\cdot \mathbb E^2_P[X_1]<\infty$, where $Var_P$ denotes the variance under the measure $P$; hence $Var_P[X_1]<\infty$, implying statement $(iv)$.
Ad $(iv)\Longrightarrow (iii):$ Since $P\in\M^2_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}$ and $\M^2_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}\subseteq \M^1_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}$, it follows again by the equivalence of statements $(i)$ and $(ii)$ that $P$ is a martingale measure for $V$. But $Var_P[Z_t]=Var_P[S_t]=\mathbb E_P[N_t]\cdot Var_P[X_1]+Var_P[N_t]\cdot\mathbb E^2_P[X_1]<\infty$, where the inequality follows by the fact that $P\in\M^2_{S,{\bf Exp}(g(\theta))}$; hence statement $(iii)$ follows.
Moreover, assuming statement $(ii)$ and $X_1\in\mathcal L^2(P)$, we get immediately statement $(iv)$, implying that all statements $(i)$-$(iv)$ are equivalent.$\Box$
In the next proposition we find out a wide class of [*canonical*]{} processes converting the progressively equivalent measures $Q$ of Theorem \[thm!\] into martingale measures. In this way, a characterization of all progressively equivalent martingale measures, similar to that of Theorem \[thm!\], is provided.
\[mar\] If $\ell=1,2$ and $P\in\M^\ell_{S,{\bf K}(\theta)}$ the following hold true:
1. for every $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ and every $Q\in\M^\ell_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F^\ell_{P,\theta}$ satisfying together with $\rho$ and $Q$ conditions , and and a process $V:=\{V_t\}_{t\in\R_+}$, defined by means of $V_t:=S_t-t\cdot\frac{{\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1\cdot e^{{\beta}_\theta(X_1)}]}{{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]}$ for any $t\geq 0$, such that $Q$ is a PEMM for $V$;
2. conversely, for every function ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F^\ell_{P,\theta}$ and for the process $V$ defined in $(i)$, there exist a unique $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ and a unique probability measure $Q\in\M^\ell_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying together with ${\beta}_\theta$ conditions and , and such that $Q$ is a PEMM for $V$.
In both cases $V=Z(Q)$.
[**Proof.**]{} Fix on $\ell=1,2$.
Ad $(i)$: Under the assumptions of $(i)$, by Corollary \[cor4b\] $(i)$ and Remark \[cla\] (b) there exists a $P_{X_1}$-a.s. unique function ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F^\ell_{P,\theta}$ satisfying together with $\rho$ and $Q$ conditions and . It then follows by Lemma \[lem2\] (a) and condition that $V=Z(Q)$; hence by Proposition \[thm4\] we get that $Q$ is a PEMM for $V$.
Ad $(ii)$: Under the assumptions of $(ii)$, by Corollary \[cor4b\] $(ii)$ and Remark \[cla\] (b) there exists a unique $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ and a unique probability measure $Q\in\M^\ell_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying together with ${\beta}_\theta$ conditions and ; hence according to Proposition \[thm4\] the process $Z(Q)$ is a $Q$-martingale. Again by Lemma \[lem2\] (a) and condition we obtain that $V=Z(Q)$. $\Box$
The next theorem connects our results with the basic notion of no free lunch with vanishing risk ((NFLVR) for short) (see [@ds], Definition 8.1.2) of Mathematical Finance.
\[nfl\] Let $P\in\M^2_{S,{\bf K}(\theta)}$, ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F^2_{P,\theta}$ and $V$ as above. There exist a unique $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon}$)-measurable function $\rho$ and a unique probability measure $Q\in\M^2_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying together with ${\beta}_\theta$ conditions and , and such that for every $T>0$ the process $V_{\mathbb T}:=\{V_t\}_{t\in\mathbb T}$ satisfies condition (NFLVR).
[**Proof.**]{} Fix ona arbitrary $T>0$ and let ${\beta}_\theta\in{\widetilde}\F^2_{P,\theta}$. By Proposition \[mar\] $(ii)$ there exist a unique $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon}$)-measurable function $\rho$ and a unique probability measure $Q\in\M^2_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying together with ${\beta}_\theta$ conditions and , and such that $V$ is a $Q$-martingale with $V_t\in\mathcal L^2(Q)$ for any $t\geq 0$; hence $V_{\mathbb T}$ is a $(Q_T,\F_{\mathbb T})$-martingale, implying that it is a $(Q_T,\F_{\mathbb T})$-semi-martingale (cf. e.g. [@vw], Definition 7.1.1). The latter implies that $V_\mathbb T$ is also a $(P_T,\F_{\mathbb T})$-semi-martingale since $Q_T\sim P_T$ (cf. e.g. [@vw], Theorem 10.1.8). But since the process $V$ satisfies condition (PEMM) we have that $V_{\mathbb T}$ satisfies condition (EMM). Thus, applying the Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing (FTAP for short) for unbounded stochastic processes, see [@ds], Theorem 14.1.1, we obtain that the process $V_\mathbb T$ satisfies condition (NFLVR).$\Box$
\[ush\] It is well known that the FTAP of Delbaen & Schachermayer uses P.A. Meyer’s *usual conditions* (cf. e.g. [@vw], Definition 2.1.5). These conditions play a fundamental role in the definition of the stochastic integral with respect to a (semi-)martingale. Nevertheless, the stochastic integral can be defined for any semi-martingale without the usual conditions (see [@vw], pp. 22-23 and p. 150). As a consequence, the *easy* implication of the FTAP of Delbaen & Schachermayer (i.e. (EMM) $\Longrightarrow$ (NFLVR)) holds true without the usual conditions.
We have seen that the initial probability measure $P$ can be replaced by another progressively equivalent probability measure $Q$ such that $S$ is converted into a $Q$-CPP. The idea is to define a probability measure $Q$ in order to give more weight to less favourable events. More precisely $Q$ must be defined in such a way that the corresponding premium density $p(Q)$ includes the [*safety loading*]{}, i.e. $p(P)<p(Q)$. This led Delbaen & Haezendonck to define a [**premium calculation principle**]{} as a probability measure $Q\in\M^1_{S,{\bf Exp}(\lambda)}$, for some $\lambda\in{\varUpsilon}$ (compare [@dh], Definition 3.1).
In the next Examples \[expcp0\] to \[expcp7\], applying Proposition \[mar\] and Theorem \[nfl\], we show how to construct premium calculation principles $Q$ satisfying the desired property $p(P)<p(Q)<\infty$, and such that for any $T>0$ the process $V_{\mathbb T}$ has the property of (NFLVR). For a discussion on how to rediscover some well known premium calculation principles in the frame of classical Risk Theory using change of measures techniques we refer to [@dh], Examples 3.1 to 3.3.
\[expcp0\] Let $\theta:=(\xi,k)\in D:={\varUpsilon}^2$, and let $P\in\M^2_{S,{\bf Ga}(\theta)}$ such that $P_{X_1}={\bf Ga}(\eta)$, where $\eta:=(\zeta,2)\in D$. Consider the real-valued function ${\beta}_{\theta}:={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta$ with ${\gamma}(x):=\ln\frac{\mathbb E_P[X_1]}{2c}-\ln x+\frac{2(c-1)}{c\mathbb E_P[X_1]}\cdot x$ for any $x\in{\varUpsilon}$, where $c>2$ is a real constant, and ${\alpha}_\theta:=\ln(\frac{\xi}{d}\cdot\mathbb E_P[W_1])$, where $d<k$ is a positive constant. It can be easily seen that $\mathbb E_P[e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=1$ and $\mathbb E_P[X_1^2\cdot e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=\frac{2c^2}{\zeta}<\infty$, implying ${\gamma}\in\F^{2}_{P,\ln}$; hence ${\beta}_{\theta}\in{\widetilde}\F^{2}_{P,\theta}$. Define the $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ by means of $\rho(x):= e^{{\alpha}_x}/{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]$. Thus, due to Proposition \[mar\] $(ii)$, there exists a unique premium calculation principle $Q\in\M^{2}_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying conditions and , and such that $Q$ is a PEMM for the process $V$ with $V_t:=S_t-t\cdot \frac{\xi}{d}\cdot\frac{{\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1]}{2c}\cdot{\mathbb{E}}_P\left[e^{\frac{2\cdot(c-1)}{c\cdot{\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1]}\cdot X_1}\right]\in\mathcal L^2(Q)$ for any $t\geq 0$. Therefore, applying Lemma \[lem2\] (a) we get $$Q_{X_1}(B)=\int_B \frac{\zeta}{c}\cdot e^{-\frac{\zeta}{c}\cdot x}\,\lambda(dx)\,\,\text{for any}\,\, B\in\B({\varUpsilon}),$$ implying that $Q_{X_1}={\bf Exp}(\frac{\zeta}{c})$; hence $p(P)<p(Q)<\infty$. In particular, according to Theorem \[nfl\] for any $T>0$ the process $V_{\mathbb T}$ satisfies the (NFLVR) condition.
\[expcp6b\] Let $\theta:=(k,b)\in D:={\varUpsilon}^2$, let ${\bf W}(\theta)$ be the Weibull distribution over $\B({\varUpsilon})$ defined by means of $${\bf W}(\theta)(B):=\int_B \frac{k}{b^k}\cdot x^{k-1}\cdot e^{-(x/b)^k} \,\lambda(dx)\quad\text{for any}\,\, B\in\B({\varUpsilon}),$$ and let $P\in\M^2_{S,{\bf W}(\theta)}$ such that $P_{X_1}={\bf Exp}(\eta)$, where $\eta\in {\varUpsilon}$. Consider the real-valued function ${\beta}_{\theta}:={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta$ with ${\gamma}(x):=\ln(1-c\cdot\mathbb E_P[X_1])+c\cdot x$ for any $x\in{\varUpsilon}$, where $c<\eta$ is a positive constant, and ${\alpha}_\theta:=0$. It can be easily seen that $\mathbb E_P[e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=1$ and $\mathbb E_P[X_1^2\cdot e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=\frac{2}{(\eta-c)^2}<\infty$, implying ${\gamma}\in\F^{2}_{P,\ln}$; hence ${\beta}_{\theta}\in{\widetilde}\F^{2}_{P,\theta}$. Define the $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ by means of $\rho(x):= e^{{\alpha}_x}/{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]$. Applying now Proposition \[mar\] $(ii)$ we get that there exists a unique premium calculation principle $Q\in\M^{2}_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying conditions and , and such that $Q$ is a PEMM for the process $V$ with $V_t:=S_t-t\cdot \frac{(1-c\cdot{\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1])\cdot{\mathbb{E}}_P[X_1\cdot e^{c\cdot X_1}]}{b\cdot\Gamma(1+1/k)}\in\mathcal L^2(Q)$ for any $t\geq 0$. The latter together with Lemma \[lem2\] (a) yields $$Q_{X_1}(B)=\int_B (\eta-c)\cdot e^{-(\eta-c)\cdot x}\,\lambda(dx)\,\,\text{for any}\,\, B\in\B({\varUpsilon}),$$ implying that $Q_{X_1}={\bf Exp}(\eta-c)$. Thus, $p(P)<p(Q)<\infty$. In particular, according to Theorem \[nfl\] for any $T>0$ the process $V_{\mathbb T}$ satisfies the (NFLVR) condition.
In our next example we show how one can obtain the Esscher principle by applying Proposition \[mar\] $(ii)$.
\[expcp7\] Take $\theta:=(\xi,2)\in D:={\varUpsilon}^2$, and let $P\in\M^2_{S,{\bf Ga}(\theta)}$ such that $P_{X_1}={\bf Ga}(\eta)$, where $\eta:=(b,a)\in D$. Consider the real-valued function ${\beta}_{\theta}:={\gamma}+{\alpha}_\theta$ with ${\gamma}(x):=c\cdot x-\ln \mathbb E_P[e^{c\cdot X_1}]$ for any $x\in{\varUpsilon}$, where $c<b$ is a positive constant, and ${\alpha}_\theta:=0$. It can be easily seen that $\mathbb E_P[e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=1$ and $\mathbb E_P[X_1^2\cdot e^{{\gamma}(X_1)}]=\frac{a\cdot (a+1)}{(b-c)^2}<\infty$, implying ${\gamma}\in\F^{2}_{P,\ln}$; hence ${\beta}_{\theta}\in{\widetilde}\F^{2}_{P,\theta}$. Define the $\B(D)$-$\B({\varUpsilon})$-measurable function $\rho$ by means of $\rho(x):= e^{{\alpha}_x}/{\mathbb{E}}_P[W_1]$. Thus, due to Proposition \[mar\] $(ii)$ there exists a unique premium calculation principle $Q\in\M^{2}_{S,{\bf Exp}({\rho(\theta)})}$ satisfying conditions and , and such that $Q$ is a PEMM for the process $V$ with $V_t:=S_t-t\cdot \frac{\xi}{2}\cdot\frac{\mathbb E_P[X_1\cdot e^{c\cdot X_1}]}{\mathbb E_P[e^{c\cdot X_1}]}\in\mathcal L^2(Q)$ for any $t\geq 0$. But then, according to Lemma \[lem2\] (a), we have $$Q_{X_1}(B)=\int_B \frac{(b-c)^a}{\Gamma(a)}\cdot x^{a-1}\cdot e^{-(b-c)\cdot x}\,\lambda(dx)\,\,\text{for any}\,\, B\in\B({\varUpsilon}).$$ The latter yields $Q_{X_1}={\bf Ga}({\widetilde}\eta)$, where ${\widetilde}\eta:=(b-c,a)\in{\varUpsilon}^2$, and $$\mathbb E_Q[X_1]=\frac{\mathbb E_P[X_1\cdot e^{c\cdot X_1}]}{\mathbb E_P[e^{c\cdot X_1}]}=\frac{a}{b-c}>\frac{a}{b}=\mathbb E_P[X_1];$$ hence $p(P)<p(Q)<\infty$. In particular, according to Theorem \[nfl\] for any $T>0$ the process $V_{\mathbb T}$ satisfies the (NFLVR) condition.
[99]{}
\(2010) [*Ruin Probabilities*]{}, World Scientific Publishing, London. (2013). [*Measure Theory*]{}, 2nd edn. Birkhäuser Advanced Texts. (1990). Simulation of ruin probabilities. [*Insur. Math. Econ.*]{} [**9,**]{} 95–99. (2013). A study of earthquake inter-occurrence times distribution models in Taiwan.[*Nat. Hazards*]{} [**69,**]{} 1335–1350.
(1989). A martingale approach to premium calculation principles in an arbitrage free market. [*Insur. Math. Econ.*]{} [**8,**]{} 269–277. (2006). [*The Mathematics of Arbitrage*]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
(2000). Actuarial versus Financial Pricing of Insurance, [*The Journal of Risk Finance*]{} [**1,**]{} 17–26. (1995). Pricing Insurance Derivatives: The Case of CAT-Futures., [*Securitization of Insurance Risk, 1995 Bowles Symposium. SOA Monograph M-FI97-1*]{}, 15–26. (1997). Stochastic time changes in catastrophe option pricing. [*Insur. Math. Econ.*]{} [**21,**]{} 269–277. (2010). Pricing of Reinsurance Contracts in the Presence of Catastrophe Bonds. ASTIN Bull. [**40,**]{} 307–329. (2007). Pragmatic Insurance Option Pricing. Scand. Actuar. J. [**1,**]{} 53–70. (1998). [*Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus*]{}, Springer-Verlag New York.
(1995). Contributions to the mathematics of catastrophe insurance futures. Technical report, Department o f Mathematics, ETH Zürich.
\(1995) Cramér – Lundberg approximations for ruin functions of risk processes perturbed by diffusion. [*Insur. Math. Econ.*]{} [**16,**]{} 135–149. (1996). [*Lectures on Risk Theory*]{}, B.G. Teubner, Stuttgart. (2009). [*Basics of applied stochastic processes*]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. (1990). [*Stochastic Integrals: An Introduction*]{}, Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.
(2012). The frequency distribution of inter-event times of $M\geq 3$ earthquakes in the Taipei metropolitan area: 1973-2010. [*Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci.*]{} [**23,**]{} 269–281.
(2012). Allocating risk capital for a brownfields redevelopment project under hydrogeological and financial uncertainty. [*J. Environ. Manage.*]{} [**100,**]{} 96–108.
[^1]: Corresponding author.\
E-mail addresses: [[email protected]]([email protected]) (N.D. Macheras), [[email protected]]([email protected]) (S.M. Tzaninis)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the robust output regulation of linear boundary control systems by constructing extended systems. The extended systems are established based on solving static differential equations under two new conditions. We first consider the abstract setting and present finite-dimensional reduced order controllers. The controller design is then used for particular PDE models: high-dimensional parabolic equations and beam equations with Kelvin-Voigt damping. Numerical examples will be presented using Finite Element Method.'
---
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Duy Phan$^*$</span>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lassi Paunonen</span>
(Communicated by the associate editor name)
Introduction
============
We consider linear boundary control systems of the form [@TucWei09 Chapter 10] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{w}(t) &= \cA w(t), \qquad w(0) = w_0, \\
\cB w(t) &= u(t), \\
y(t) &= C_0 w(t)\end{aligned}$$ on a Hilbert space $X_0$ where $C_0$ is a bounded linear operator. The main aim of robust output regulation problem for boundary control systems is to design a dynamic error feedback controller so that the output $y(t)$ of the linear infinite-dimensional boundary control system converges to a given reference signal $\yref (t)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\| y(t) - \yref(t)\| \to 0, \quad \text{as~~} t \to \infty. \end{aligned}$$ In addition, the control is required to be robust in the sense that the designed controller achieves the output tracking and disturbance rejection even under uncertainties and perturbations in the parameters of the system.
The robust output regulation and internal model based controller design for linear infinite-dimensional systems and PDEs — with both distributed and boundary control — has been considered in several articles, see [@LogTow97; @HamPohMMAR02; @RebWei03; @Imm07a; @HamPoh10; @Pau16a] and references therein. In [@PauPhan19], two finite-dimensional low-order robust controllers for parabolic control systems with distributed inputs and outputs were constructed. The main aim of this paper is to extend this design for linear boundary control systems. However, the main challenge is that the boundary input generally corresponds to an unbounded input operator. To tackle this issue, we construct an extended system with a new state variable $x = (v, u)^\top = (w - Eu, u)^\top$ where $E$ is an extension operator in such a way that the input operator of the new system is bounded.
The construction of extension operator $E$ is one of key points of this paper. In the literature (for example [@CurZwa95 Section 3.3]), the operator $E$ is chosen to be a right inverse operator of $\cB$. However, finding an arbitrary right inverse operator is not easy. In this paper, we propose the additional conditions to construct the operator $E$. The construction of $E$ is completed by solving static differential equations. The idea comes from recent works on boundary stabilization for PDEs (for example [@Bad09; @PhanRod18; @Rod15]) or boundary control systems in abstract form (see [@Sal87; @Sta05; @TucWei09]) . Under our approach, the theory of partial differential equations guarantees the existence of the extension operator $E$. For simple cases (such as the heat equation with Neumann boundary control in Section \[sec-exHeatNeu\]), the construction of $E$ by the new conditions does not give significant advantages compared to the choice of a right arbitrary inverse operator. Nevertheless, the advantage of our new approach can see clearly in more complicated partial differential equations (for example general linear parabolic equations on multi-dimensional domains, see the numerical example in Section \[sec-numex-para\]). For these cases, the construction of right inverse operators by hand is not possible. In our approach we can approximate the operator $E$ by solving differential equations numerically and use the approximation in the controller design.
For the reference signals, we assume that $\yref: \R \to \C^p$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-refsig}
\yref(t) = a_0(t) + \sum_{k=1}^q \left(a_k(t) \cos(w_k t) + b_k (t) \sin (w_k t)\right) \end{aligned}$$ where all frequencies $\{ w_k \}_{k=0}^q \subset \R$ with $0 = w_0 < w_1 < \dots < w_q$ are known, but the coefficient polynomials vectors $\{a_k (t)\}_{k}$ and $\{b_k (t)\}_{k}$ with real or complex coefficients (any of the polynomials are allowed to be zero) are unknown. We assume the maximum degrees of the coefficient polynomial vectors are known, so that $a_k(t) \in \C^p$ are polynomial of order at most $n_k-1$ for each $k \in \{ 0,\dots,q\}$. The class of signals having the form is diverse. In Section \[sec-numex-para\], we present a numerical example with non-smooth reference signals. To track non-smooth signals, we approximate them by truncated Fourier series. In another numerical example, we track a signal where the coefficients are not constants.
Under certain standing assumptions, we present an algorithm to design a robust controller for boundary control system by employing the finite-dimensional controllers in [@PauPhan19]. To apply the finite-dimensional controllers design for boundary control systems, we need some checkable assumptions to obtain the stabilizability and detectability of the extended systems. The assumptions can be influenced by free choices of some parameters in the construction of the extended systems. The next step is to utilize the controller design for two particular partial differential equations, namely linear diffusion-convection-reaction equations and linear beam equations with Kelvin-Voigt damping. For the case of beam equations, we present two different extended systems which work well both in theoretical and numerical aspects.
The numerical computation is another contribution of this paper. Actually there are several numerical schemes satisfying the approximation assumption \[ass-A1\] below. We also use Finite Element Method (FEM) as in [@PauPhan19] to simulate the controlled solution. We will present two numerical examples: a 2D diffusion-reaction-convection equation and a 1D beam equation with Kelvin-Voigt damping. In both examples, by choosing a suitable family of test functions, we approximate all operators and construct the extension operators $E$ numerically (in case we do not know $E$ explicitly). Then our finite-dimensional controllers can be computed through matrix computations. Another advantage of Finite Element Method is that this method can deal with various types of multi-dimensional domains (see the example in Section \[sec-numex-para\]).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec-RORP\], we construct extended system from boundary control system with two additional assumptions on abstract boundary control systems, propose a collection of assumptions on the system, formulate the robust output regulation problem, and recall the Galerkin approximation. In Section \[sec-DesignCon\], we present the algorithm to design the robust controller for boundary control system and clarify that the controller solves the robust output regulation problem in Theorem \[the-RORP\]. A block diagram of the algorithm for robust output regulation of boundary control systems will be presented in Section \[subsec-Algo\]. Section \[sec-para\] deals with general parabolic PDE models. Section \[sec-beam\] concentrates on beam equations with Kelvin-Voigt damping. Two numerical examples will follow in each section by using Finite Element method.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
For a linear operator $A: X \to Y$ we denote by $D(A),~\cN(A),~\cR(A)$ the domain, kernel, and range of $A$, respectively. $\rho(A)$ denotes the resolvent set of operator $A$, $\sigma(A) = \C \setminus \rho(A)$ denotes the spectrum of operator $A$. The space of bounded linear operators from $X$ to $Y$ is denoted by $\cL(X,Y)$.
Boundary control systems and Robust Output Regulation {#sec-RORP}
=====================================================
Boundary control system {#sec-BcSysExtSys}
-----------------------
We start with the abstract boundary control system
\[eq-abs-bc\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{w}(t) &= \cA w(t), \qquad w(0) = w_0, \\
\cB w(t) &= u(t), \\
y(t) &= C_0 w(t).\end{aligned}$$
with $\cA: D(\cA) \subset X_0 \to X_0$, $u(t) \in U \coloneqq \C^m$, $y(t) \in Y \coloneqq \C^p$ and the boundary operator $\cB: D(\cA) \subset X_0 \to X_0 $.
\[ass-boundsys1\] There exist two operators $\Ad$ and $\Arc$ satisfying $D(\Ad) = D(\cA) \subseteq D(\Arc)$ and the decomposition $\cA = \Ad + \Arc$, and $\Arc$ is relatively bounded with respect to $\Ad$.
$\Arc$ is relatively bounded to $A_d$ if $D(\Ad) \subseteq D(\Arc)$ and there are non-negative constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \Arc x \| \le \alpha \|x\| + \beta \| \Ad x \| \quad
\text{for all~~} x \in D(\Ad). \end{aligned}$$
The notations $\Ad$ and $\Arc$ are motivated by linear parabolic equations where we usually choose $\Ad$ as the diffusion term and $\Arc$ as the reaction-convection term. We assume that the system is a “boundary control system” in the sense of [@Sal87; @TucWei09].
The control system is *a boundary control system* if the followings hold:
a\. The operator $A_0: D(A_0) \to X_0$ with $D(A_0) = D(\cA) \cap \ker(\cB)$ and $A_0 x = \cA x$ for $x \in D(A_0)$ is the infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous semigroup on $X_0$.
b\. $\cR (\cB) = U$.
The condition (b) implies that there exists an operator $E \in \cL(U,X_0)$ such that $\cB E = I$. However, finding an arbitrary right inverse operator of $\cB$ is not easy especially in the cases of multi-dimensional PDEs. Thus we propose the following additional assumption to construct the operator $E$.
\[ass-boundsys2\] There exists a constant $\eta \ge 0$ such that $\eta \in \rho(A_0)$ and $E \in \cL(U,X_0)$ such that $\cR(E) \subset D(\cA)$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
\Ad E u &= \eta E u, \label{ass-cond1} \\
\cB E u &= u, \label{ass-condBC}\end{aligned}$$
for all $u \in U$.
Under Assumptions \[ass-boundsys1\] and \[ass-boundsys2\], $\Arc E$ is a bounded linear operator since $U$ is finite-dimensional and $\| \Arc E u \| \le \alpha \| Eu \| + \beta \| \Ad Eu \| \le (\alpha + \beta \eta ) \|E\| \|u\|_U $.
Comparing with the definition 3.3.2 in [@CurZwa95], the condition is new. For particular PDEs, the construction of extension $E$ based on and leads to solve an ODE or an elliptic PDE. We call $E$ as “an extension” since its role is to transfer the boundary control into the whole domain. Note that the operator $E$ depends on the choice of $\eta \ge 0$. The approach of constructing an extension operator $E$ as a solution of an abstract elliptic equation has also been used, e.g., in [@Bad09; @PhanRod18; @Rod15; @Sal87], [@Sta05 Section 5.2], and [@TucWei09 Remark 10.1.5]).
### Assumptions on the system {#assumptions-on-the-system .unnumbered}
We next introduce two assumptions on the system.
1. $\bullet$ Assumption [[I]{}]{}:\[ass-I1\] The pair $(A_0,\,E)$ is exponentially stabilizable.
2. $\bullet$ Assumption [[I]{}]{}:\[ass-I2\] There exists $L_0\in \Lin(\C,X_0)$ such that $A_0+L_0 C_0$ is exponentially stable and for every $k \in \{ 1, \dots, q\}$ we have $P_L(iw_k) \neq 0$ where $P_L(\gl)=C_0R(\gl,A_0+L_0C_0)E$.
Let $V_0$ be a Hilbert space, densely and continuously imbedded in $X_0$. We denote the inner product on $X_0$ and $V_0$ with $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{X_0}$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{V_0}$, respectively. Analogously denote by $\|\cdot\|_{X_0}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{V_0}$ the norms on $X_0$ and $V_0$.
### Assumptions on the sesquilinear form {#assumptions-on-the-sesquilinear-form .unnumbered}
We assume that operator $A_0$ corresponds with sesquilinear $\sigma_0$ by the formula below $$\begin{aligned}
\langle -A_0 w_1,\, w_2 \rangle = \sigma_0 (w_1,w_2), \qquad \forall w_1, w_2 \in V_0\end{aligned}$$ where $D(A_0) = \{ w \in V_0 \mid \sigma_0(w, \cdot) \text{~~has an extension to~~} X_0 \} $. The sesquilinear form $\sigma_0: V_0 \times V_0 \to \C$ satisfies two assumptions
1. $\bullet$ Assumption [[S]{}]{}(Boundedness):\[ass-S1\] There exists $c_1 > 0$ such that for $w_1,~w_2 \in V_0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
| \sigma_0(w_1, w_2)| \le c_1 \|w_1\|_{V_0} \|w_2\|_{V_0}. \end{aligned}$$
2. $\bullet$ Assumption [[S]{}]{}(Coercivity):\[ass-S2\] There exist $c_2 > 0$ and some real $\lambda_0 > 0$ such that for $w \in V_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\re \sigma_0 (w, w) + \lambda_0 \|w\|^2_{X_0} \ge c_2 \|w\|^2_{V_0}. \end{aligned}$$
Under these assumptions, $A_0 - \lambda_0 I$ generates an analytic semigroup on $X_0$ (see [@BanKun84]).
Construction of the extended system
-----------------------------------
By defining a new variable $v(t) = w(t) - E u (t)
$, we rewrite the equation in a new form
\[eq-abs-Cauchy\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{v}(t) &= A_0 v(t) - E(\dot{u}(t) - \eta u(t) ) + \Arc E u(t), \\
v(0) &= v_0. \end{aligned}$$
Since $A_0$ is the infinitesimal generator of an analytic semigroup, and $E,~\Arc E$ are bounded linear operators, Theorem 3.1.3 in [@CurZwa95] implies that the equation has a unique classical solution for $v_0 \in D(A_0)$ and $u \in C^2([0, \tau]; U)$ for all $\tau >0$. The concept of “classical solution” means that $v(t)$ and $\dot{v}(t)$ are elements of $C((0,\tau), X_0)$ for all $\tau >0$, $v(t) \in D (A_0)$ and $v(t)$ satisfies .
Denoting $\kappa(t) = \dot{u}(t) - \eta u(t)$, we obtain the extended systems with the new state variable $x = (v, u)^\top = \left(w - E u, u \right)^\top \in X \coloneqq X_0 \times U$ and a new control input $\kappa(t)$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-sys-ext}
\dot{x}(t) =
\pmat{A_0 & \Arc E \\ 0 & \eta I} x(t)+ \pmat{-E \\ I} \kappa(t), \qquad x(0)= \pmat{w(0)-Eu(0) \\ u(0)}.\end{aligned}$$ The observation part can be rewritten with the new variable as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-obs-ext}
y(t) = C_0 w(t) = C_0 \left(v(t) + E u(t) \right) = \pmat{C_0 & C_0 E } x(t). \end{aligned}$$
The theorem below shows the relationship between the solutions of , , and . Its proof is analogous to the proof in [@CurZwa95 Theorem 3.3.4].
\[the-change-var\] Consider the boundary control system and the abstract Cauchy equation . Assume that $u \in C^2([0, \tau]; U)$ for all $\tau > 0 $. Then, if $v_0 = w_0 - E u(0) \in D(A_0)$, the classical solutions of and are related by $$\begin{aligned}
v(t) = w(t) - E u (t). \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the classical solution of is unique.\
In addition, if $v_0 \in D(A_0)$, the extended system with $(x_0)_1 = v_0$, $(x_0)_2 = u(0)$ has the unique classical solution $x(t) = (v(t), u(t))^\top$, where $v(t)$ is the unique classical solution of .
The Robust Output Regulation Problem
------------------------------------
We write the system - in an abstract form on a Hilbert space $X = X_0 \times U$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(t) &= A x (t) + B \kappa(t), \\
y (t) &= C x(t)\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-extABC}
A = \pmat{A_0 & \Arc E \\ 0 & \eta I}, \quad
B = \pmat{-E \\ I}, \quad C = \pmat{C_0 & C_0 E}. \end{aligned}$$ Note that $B$ and $C$ are bounded operators.
We consider the design of internal model based error feedback controllers of the form on $Z = \C^{s}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{z}(t) &= \cG_1 z(t) + \cG_2 e(t), \quad z(0) = z_0 \in Z, \\
\kappa (t) &= K z(t), \end{aligned}$$ where $e(t) = y(t) - \yref(t)$ is the regulation error, $\cG_1 \in \C^{s \times s}$, $\cG_2 \in \C^{s \times p}$, and $K \in \C^{m \times s}$. Letting $x_e (t) = (x(t), z(t))^\top$, the system and the controller can be written together as a closed-loop system on the Hilbert space $X_e = X \times Z$ $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_e (t) &= A_e x_e(t) + B_e \yref(t), \quad x_e (0) = x_{e0} \\
e(t) &= C_e x_e(t) + D_e \yref(t) \end{aligned}$$ where $x_{e0} = (x_0, z_0)^\top$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A_e = \pmat{A & BK \\ \cG_2 C & \cG_1}, \quad B_e = \pmat{0 \\ -\cG_2}, \quad C_e = \pmat{C & 0}, \quad D_e = -I. \end{aligned}$$ The operator $A_e$ generates a strongly continuous semigroup $T_e(t)$ on $X_e$.
### The Robust Output Regulation Problem {#the-robust-output-regulation-problem-1 .unnumbered}
The matrices $(\cG_1, \cG_2, K)$ are to be chosen so that the conditions below are satisfied.
\(a) The semigroup $T_e(t)$ is exponentially stable.
\(b) There exists $M_e,~w_e >0$ such that for all initial states $x_0 \in X$ and $z_0 \in Z$ and for all signal $\yref(t)$ of the form we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-yerr}
\| y(t) - \yref(t) \| \le M_e e^{-w_e t} (\| x_{e0} \| + \| \Lambda \|). \end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda$ is a vector containing the coefficients of the polynomials $\{a_k (t) \}_{k} $ and $\{b_k (t) \}_{k} $ in .
\(c) When $(A, B, C)$ are perturbed to $(\tilde{A}, \tilde{B}, \tilde{C})$ in such a way that the perturbed closed-loop system remains exponentially stable, then for all $x_0 \in X$ and $z_0 \in Z$ and for all signals $\yref(t)$ of the form the regulation error satisfies for some modified constants $\tilde{M}_e, \tilde{w}_e >0$.
Galerkin approximation {#sec-GalApp}
----------------------
Let $V_0^N \subset V_0$ be a sequence of finite-dimensional subspaces. We define $A^N_0:~V_0^N \to V_0^N$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle -A^N_0 v_1, v_2 \rangle = \sigma_0(v_1, v_2) \qquad \text{for all}\quad v_1,v_2 \in V^N_0, \end{aligned}$$ that is, $A^N_0$ is defined via restriction of $\sigma_0$ to $V^N_0 \times V^N_0$. Assume that operator $\Arc$ corresponds with sesquilinear $\sigma_{\mathrm{rc}}$ by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\langle -\Arc w_1,\, w_2 \rangle = \sigma_{\mathrm{rc}} (w_1,w_2), \qquad \forall w_1, w_2 \in V_0\end{aligned}$$ where $D(\Arc) = \{ w \in V_0 \mid \sigma_{\mathrm{rc}}(w, \cdot) \text{~has an extension to~} X_0 \} $. We define $\Arc^N:~V_0^N \to V_0^N$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle -\Arc^N v_1, v_2 \rangle = \sigma_{\mathrm{rc}}(v_1, v_2) \qquad \text{for all}\quad v_1,v_2 \in V^N_0, \end{aligned}$$
For a given $E \in \cL (U, X_0)$, we define $E^N \in \cL(U, V^N_0 )$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle E^N \kappa, v_2 \rangle = \langle \kappa, E^* v_2 \rangle_{X_0} \qquad \text{for all~~} \quad v_2 \in V^N_0, \end{aligned}$$ and $C_0^N \in \cL(V^N_0, Y)$ denotes the restriction of $C_0$ onto $V^N_0$.
Let $P^N$ denote the usual orthogonal projection of $X_0$ into $V^N_0$, i.e., for $v_1 \in V_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
P^N v_1 \in V^N_0 \text{~~and~~} \langle P^N v_1, v_2 \rangle = \langle v_1, v_2 \rangle_{X_0} \text{~~for all~~} v_2 \in V^N_0. \end{aligned}$$ We assume an approximation assumption as follows
1. $\bullet$ Assumption [[A]{}]{}:\[ass-A1\] For any $v \in V_0$, there exists a sequence $v^N \in V^N_0$ such that $\|v^N - v\|_{V_0} \to 0$ as $N \to \infty$.
Reduced order finite-dimensional controllers
============================================
The controller {#sec-DesignCon}
--------------
In this section, we recall a finite-dimensional controller design, namely “Observer-based finite dimensional controller” presented in [@PauPhan19 Section III.A] to design robust controller for boundary control system . Another controller, namely “Dual observer-based finite dimensional controller” presented in [@PauPhan19 Section III.B] can be applied analogously.
The finite-dimensional robust controller is based on an internal model with a reduced order observer of the original system and has the form
\[eq:FinConObs\]
with state $(z_1(t),z_2(t))\in Z:= Z_0\times \C^r$. All matrices $(G_1,G_2,A_L^r,B_L^r,K_1^N,K_2^r,L^r)$ are chosen based on the four-step algorithm given below. The matrices $G_1,G_2$ are in the controller. The remaining matrices $A_L^r,~B^r_L,~L^r,~K_1^N,~K_2^r$ are computed based on the Galerkin approximation $(A_0^N, \Arc^N, E^N, C_0^N)$ and model reduction of this approximation.
**Step C1. The Internal Model:**\
We choose $Z_0=Y^{n_0}\times Y^{2n_1} \times \ldots \times Y^{2n_q}$, $G_1 = \diag(J_0^Y, \ldots, J^Y_q)\in \cL(Z_0)$, and $G_2=(G_2^k)_{k=0}^q \in \cL(Y,Z_0)$. The components of $G_1$ and $G_2$ are chosen as follows. For $k=0$ we let $$\begin{aligned}
J^Y_0 = \pmat{
0_p & I_p & & \\
& 0_p & \ddots & \\
& & \ddots & I_p \\
& & & 0_p
}
, \qquad
G_2^0 = \pmat{0_p\\\vdots\\0_p\\I_p}\end{aligned}$$ where $0_p $ and $I_p$ are the $p\times p$ zero and identity matrices, respectively.
For $k \in \{ 1, \ldots, q \}$ we choose $$\begin{aligned}
J^Y_k = \pmat{
\Omega_k & I_{2p} & & \\
& \Omega_k & \ddots& \\
&& \ddots& I_{2p} \\
&& & \Omega_k
}
, \qquad
G_2^k = \pmat{0_{2p}\\\vdots\\0_{2p}\\I_p\\0_p}
$$ where $\Omega_k = \pmatsmall{0_p&\gw_k I_p\\-\gw_k I_p&0_p}$.
**Step C2. The Galerkin Approximation:**
For a fixed and sufficiently large $N\in\N$ we apply the Galerkin approximation described in Section \[sec-GalApp\] in $V_0$ to operators $(A_0, \Arc, E, C_0)$ to get their corresponding approximations $(A_0^N, \Arc^N, E^N, C_0^N)$. Then we compute the matrices $(A^N, B^N, C^N)$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
A^N = \pmat{A_0^N & \Arc^N E^N \\ 0 & \eta I}, \quad
B^N =\pmat{-E^N \\ I}, \quad
C^N = \pmat{C_0^N & C_0^N E^N}.\end{aligned}$$
**Step C3. Stabilization:**\
Denote the approximation $V^N \coloneqq V_0^N \times U$ of the space $V = V_0 \times U$. Let $\ga_1,\ga_2\geq 0$. Let $Q_1 \in \Lin(X,Y_0)$ and $Q_2 \in \Lin(U_0,X)$ with $U_0,Y_0$ Hilbert be such that $(A + \ga_2 I,Q_2)$ is exponentially stabilizable and $(Q_1,A+\ga_1 I)$ is exponentially detectable. Let $Q_1^N$ and $Q_2^N$ be the approximations of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, respectively. Let $Q_0\in \Lin(Z_0,\C^{p_0})$ be such that $(Q_0,G_1)$ is observable, and $R_1\in \Lin(Y)$ and $R_2\in \Lin(U)$ be such that $R_1>0$ and $R_2>0$. We then define the matrices $(A^N_c, B^N_c,\,C^N_c)$ as follows Define $L^N =-\Sigma_N C^N R_1\inv\in \cL(Y, V^N) $ and $K^N := \pmat{K_1^N,\; K_2^N} =-R_2\inv (B^N_c)^\ast\Pi_N \in \cL(Z_0\times V^N ,U )$ where $\Sigma_N$ and $\Pi_N$ are the non-negative solutions of finite-dimensional Riccati equations
**Step C4. The Model Reduction:**\
For a fixed and suitably large $r\in\N$, $r\leq N$, by using the Balanced Truncation method to the stable finite-dimensional system we obtain a stable $r$-dimensional reduced order system
The next theorem claims that the controller above solves Robust Output Regulation Problem for the boundary control systems . In Section \[sec-StabDetExtSys\], we present sufficient conditions for the stabilizablity and detectability of the extended system $(A,\,B,\, C)$ .
\[the-RORP\] Let assumptions \[ass-S1\], \[ass-S2\], \[ass-I1\], \[ass-I2\], and \[ass-A1\] be satisfied. Assume that the extended system $(A,\,B,\, C)$ in is stabilizable and detectable. The finite dimensional controller solves the Robust Output Regulation Problem provided that the order $N$ of the Galerkin approximation and the order $r$ of the model reduction are sufficiently high.
If $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 >0$, the controller achieves a uniform stability margin in the sense that for any fixed $0 < \alpha < \min \{\alpha_1, \alpha_2\} $ the operator $A_e + \alpha I$ will generate an exponentially stable semigroup if $N$ and $r \le N $ are sufficiently large.
The proof of this theorem is an application of Theorem III.2 in [@PauPhan19] under three checkable statements.
**Step 1. “Stabilizability and Detectability”**\
Recall the abstract system $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(t) &= A x (t) + B \kappa(t), \\
y (t) &= C x(t). \end{aligned}$$ We assume that the extended system $(A, B, C)$ is stabilizable and detectable. The sufficient conditions to guarantee the stabilizability and detectability of $(A, B, C)$ will be presented in Section \[sec-StabDetExtSys\].
**Step 2. “Boundedness and Coercivity of the sesquilinear form”**\
Define $V = V_0 \times U$ and $X = X_0 \times U$, the sesquilinear form $\sigma$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sesqui-para}
\sigma (\phi_1, \phi_2) = \sigma \left((v_1, u_1), (v_2, u_2) \right) = \sigma_0 (v_1,v_2) - \langle \Arc E u_1, v_2 \rangle_{X_0} - \eta u_1 u_2^\top. \end{aligned}$$ For $\phi =(v,u)^\top \in V $, we define $\|\phi\|_X^2 = \|v\|_{X_0}^2 + \|u\|_{U}^2$ and $\|\phi\|_V^2 = \|v\|_{V_0}^2 + \|u\|_{U}^2$.
Since $\sigma_0$ satisfies two assumptions \[ass-S1\] and \[ass-S2\], there exist constants $c_1 >0$, $c_2 >0$ and $\lambda_0 > 0$ such that for $v_1, v_2, \text{~and~} v \in V_0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\sigma_0(v_1,v_2)| &\le c_1 \|v_1\|_{V_0} \|v_2\|_{V_0}, \\
\re \sigma_0 (v, v) + \lambda_0 \|v\|^2_{X_0} &\ge c_2 \|v\|^2_{V_0}. \end{aligned}$$ To check the boundedness of $\sigma(\phi_1, \phi_2)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\sigma(\phi_1, \phi_2)| &\le |\sigma_0(v_1, v_2)| + |\langle \Arc E u_1, v_2 \rangle_{X_0}| + \eta u_1 u_2^\top \\
&\le \left(c_1 + k \|\Arc E\|_{\cL(U,X_0)} + \eta \right) \|\phi_1\|_{V} \|\phi_2\|_{V}. \end{aligned}$$ Regarding the coercivity of $\sigma(\phi, \phi)$, let $\phi = (v, u)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\re \sigma(\phi, \phi) &= \re \sigma_0 (v,v) - \re \langle \Arc E u, v \rangle_{X_0} - \eta \|u\|^2_U \\
&\ge c_2 \left( \|v\|_{V_0}^2 + \|u\|^2_U \right) - \left( \lambda_0 + \frac{1}{2} \right) \|v\|^2_{X_0} \\
&\qquad - \left( \frac{1}{2}\|\Arc E\|_{\cL(U,X_0)}^2 + \eta + c_2 \right)\|u\|^2_U. \end{aligned}$$ Define $\lambda_1 = \max \left\{ \lambda_0 + \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\|\Arc E\|_{\cL(U,X_0)}^2 + \eta + c_2 \right\}$, we finally obtain $\re \sigma(\phi, \phi) + \lambda_1 \|\phi\|^2_X \ge c_2 \|\phi\|^2_V $.
In conclusion the sesquilinear form $\sigma$ satisfies two assumptions \[ass-S1\] and \[ass-S2\] in the suitable spaces $X$ and $V$.
**Step 3. “Approximation assumption”**\
Denote analogously $V^n = V_0^n \times U$. Under assumption \[ass-A1\], for any $v \in V_0$, there exists a sequence $v^n \in V_0^n$ such that $\|v^n - v\|_{V_0} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. Then for $x = (v, u) \in V$, define the sequence $x^n = (v^n, u) \in V^n$ satisfying $\|x^n - x\|_V \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$.
Stabilizability and detectability of the extended systems {#sec-StabDetExtSys}
---------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we use three Theorems 5.2.6, 5.2.7, and 5.2.11 in [@CurZwa95]. We introduce new notations as follows. The spectrum of $A_0$ is decomposed into two distinct parts of the complex plane $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^+(A_0) &= \sigma(A_0)\cap \overline{\C_0^+}, \quad \C_0^+ = \{ \lambda \in \C | \re \lambda > 0 \}, \\
\sigma^-(A_0) &= \sigma(A_0)\cap \C_0^-, \quad \C_0^- = \{ \lambda \in \C | \re \lambda < 0 \}.\end{aligned}$$ Under the detectability of $(A_0, C_0)$ or the stabilizability of $(A_0, E)$, Theorems 5.2.6 or 5.2.7 in [@CurZwa95] guarantees that $A_0$ satisfies the spectrum decomposition assumption at 0. The decomposition of the spectrum induces a corresponding decomposition of the state space $X_0$, and of the operator $A$. We follow the definition of $T_0^- (t)$ as in [@CurZwa95 Equation 5.33].
\[lem-detec-extsys\] Assume that $(A_0, C_0)$ is exponentially detectable.
(i.) If $\Arc E = 0$ and $C_0 E$ is injective, the extended system $(A,C)$ is also exponentially detectable.
(ii.) If $\Arc E \neq 0$, assume further that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-detec-cond}
\ker(\eta I - A)~\cap~\ker(C) = \{0\}\end{aligned}$$ then the extended system $(A, C)$ is exponentially detectable.
Since $(A_0, C_0)$ is exponentially detectable, Theorem 5.2.7 in [@CurZwa95] implies that $A_0$ satisfies the spectrum decomposition at 0, $T_0^- (t)$ is exponentially stable, and $\sigma^+(A_0)$ is finite. Then we can apply Theorem 5.2.11 in [@CurZwa95] for the detectable pair $(A_0, C_0)$ to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(sI - A_0) \cap \ker(C_0) = \{0\} \quad \text{for all~~} s \in \overline{\C}_0^+. \end{aligned}$$ Under our choice $\eta \in \rho(A_0)$, the extended operator $A$ satisfies all conditions of Theorem 5.2.11. To prove the detectability of the extended system $(A,C)$, we will verify that $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(sI - A) \cap \ker(C)= \{0\} \quad \text{for all~~} s \in \overline{\C}_0^+. \end{aligned}$$ Take $(v, u)^\top \in \ker(sI - A) \cap \ker(C)$, for any $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-detec-gencon}
\begin{cases}
(sI - A_0) v - \Arc E u = 0, \\
(s - \eta) u = 0, \\
C_0 v + C_0 E u = 0.
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$
(i.) If $\Arc E = 0$, we rewrite the conditions as $(sI - A_0) v = 0$, $(s - \eta) u = 0$, and $C_0 v + C_0 E u = 0$. For $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+ \setminus \eta$, we have that $u = 0$, $(sI - A_0)v = 0$, and $C_0 v = 0$. This implies that $v \in \ker(sI - A_0) \cap \ker(C_0) = \{0\}$, and thus $v = 0$.\
For $s = \eta \in \rho(A_0)$, we get that $v = 0$ and $C_0 E u = 0$. Under the condition that $C_0 E$ is injective, this implies that $u = 0$.
Finally for all $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+$, we obtain that $\ker(sI - A) \cap \ker(C)= \{0\}$. It follows that the extended pair $(A, C)$ is exponentially detectable.
(ii.) If $\Arc E \neq 0$, we first consider $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+ \setminus \eta$. Analogously as in the first case, we get that $u = 0$, $(sI - A_0)v = 0$, and $C_0 v = 0$. This implies that $v = 0$ due to the detectability of the pair $(A_0, C_0)$.
In the case $s = \eta$, we rewrite the condition as $(\eta I - A_0) v - \Arc E u = 0$ and $ C_0 v + C_0 E u = 0$. Under the additional assumption , we get that $(v,u) = 0$.
Since $\ker(sI - A) \cap \ker(C)= \{0\}$ for all $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+$, we conclude that the extended pair $(A, C)$ is exponentially detectable
\[lem-stab-extsys\] Assume that $(A_0, E)$ is exponentially stabilizable.
(i.) If $\Arc E = 0$, the extended system $(A,B)$ is also exponentially stabilizable.
(ii.) If $\Arc E \neq 0$, assume further that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-stab-cond}
\ker\left((sI - A_0)^\ast\right) \cap \ker \left(\left(\Arc E + (\eta - s)E \right)^\ast \right) = \{0\} \qquad \text{for~} s \in \sigma^+(A_0),\end{aligned}$$ the extended system $(A,B)$ is exponentially stabilizable.
The pair $(A_0, E)$ is exponentially stabilizable if and only if $(A_0^\ast, E^\ast)$ is exponentially detectable. Analogously as in Lemma \[lem-detec-extsys\] we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(sI - A_0^\ast) \cap \ker(E^\ast) = \{0\} \quad \text{for all~~} s \in \overline{\C}_0^+. \end{aligned}$$ Since the pair $(A_0, E)$ is exponentially stabilizable, by Theorem 5.2.6 in [@CurZwa95] the extended operator $A$ satisfies all conditions of Theorem 5.2.11 in [@CurZwa95]. To prove the stabilizability of the extended system $(A, B)$, we will check that $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(sI - A^\ast) \cap \ker(B^\ast) = \{0\} \quad \text{for all~~} s \in \overline{\C}_0^+. \end{aligned}$$ If $(v,u)^\top \in \ker(sI - A^\ast) \cap \ker(B^\ast)$, for $s \in \overline{\C}^+_0$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-stab-gencon}
\begin{cases}
(sI - A_0^\ast) v = 0, \\
(-\Arc E)^\ast v + (s - \eta ) u = 0, \\
-E^\ast v + u = 0.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
(i.) If $\Arc E = 0$, the conditions are rewritten as $(sI - A_0^\ast) v = 0$, $(s - \eta) u = 0$, $-E^\ast v + u = 0$. For $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+ \setminus \eta $, it follows that $u = 0$ and $(sI - A_0^\ast) v = 0$ and $E^\ast v = 0$. It is equivalent that $v \in \ker(sI - A^\ast) \cap \ker(E^\ast)$. Thus $v = 0$. For $s = \eta$, since $\eta \in \rho(A_0)$, we get that $v = 0$. It follows that $u = 0$.
Finally, for all $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+$, we get that $\ker(sI - A^\ast) \cap \ker(B^\ast) = \{0\}$. Therefore we conclude that the extended system $(A, B)$ is stabilizable.
(ii.) We consider the case as $\Arc E \neq 0$. For $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+ \cap \rho(A_0^\ast)$, we get that $v=0$ and then $u = 0$.
For $s \in \sigma^+(A_0^\ast)$, we rewrite $u = E^\ast v$ and $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= (\Arc E)^\ast v - (s - \eta) u = (\Arc E)^\ast v + (\eta - s) E^\ast v
= \left(\Arc E + (\eta - \bar{s} ) E \right)^\ast v \end{aligned}$$ It follows that $v \in \ker \left( \left(\Arc E + (\eta - \bar{s} ) E \right)^\ast \right)$. Moreover $v \in \ker \left((\bar{s} I - A_0)^\ast \right)$. Under the additional assumption , we get that $v = 0$, and then $u = 0$.
In conclusion for all $s \in \overline{\C}_0^+$, we have that $\ker(sI - A^\ast) \cap \ker(B^\ast) = \{0\}$ and thus the extended system $(A,B)$ is stabilizable.
In [@CurZwa95 Exercise 5.25], we need the assumption $0 \in \rho (A_0)$ to obtain the detectability and stabilizability of the extended systems $(A,B,C)$. In our approach, we instead require $\eta \in \rho(A_0)$. This condition is less restrictive since we can freely choose $\eta >0$ .
The additional conditions and to guarantee the detectability and stabilizability of the extended system in Lemmas \[lem-detec-extsys\] and \[lem-stab-extsys\] are checkable. We need to check for only $\eta$ and for finite $s \in \sigma^+(A_0)$. Under the Galerkin approximation, we can easily verify these conditions and by using the approximations of all operators. We then check these conditions below $$\begin{aligned}
\ker\left(\eta I - A^N \right)~\cap~\ker\left(C^N\right) &= \{0\}, \\
\ker\left(\left(sI - A_0^N\right)^\ast\right) \cap \ker \left(\left(\Arc^N E^N + (\eta - s)E^N \right)^\ast \right) &= \{0\} \qquad \text{for~} s \in \sigma^+\left(A_0^N\right). \end{aligned}$$
In the following, we present a block diagram of the algorithm for robust regulation of boundary control systems.
The algorithm {#subsec-Algo}
-------------
at (-5,1) \[above=5mm, right=0mm\] [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Extended system</span>]{}; (Ext)[ **Step E1. Extension $E$**\
Construct an extension $E$ by solving a system\
$\Ad E u = \eta E u,\quad \cB E u = u.$ ]{}; (ConExt) \[process, below of=Ext\][ **Step E2. Extended system $(A, B, C)$**\
Construct an extended system $(A, B, C)$ where\
$
A = \pmat{A_0 & \Arc E \\ 0 & \eta I}, \quad
B = \pmat{-E \\ I}, \quad C = \pmat{C_0 & C_0 E}.
$ ]{}; (Ext) – (ConExt); ($(Ext.north west)+(-0.2,0.5)$) rectangle ($(ConExt.south east)+(0.2,-0.5)$);
at (-5,-5) \[above=8mm, right=0mm\] [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">The controller</span>]{}; (InMod) \[process, below of=ConExt, yshift = -0.9cm \] [ **Step C1. The Internal Model**\
Choose $G_1$ and $G_2$ incorporating the internal model. ]{}; (Gar) \[process, below of=InMod\] [ **Step C2. The Galerkin Approximation**\
Fix $N \in \N$, apply the Galerkin approximation to\
operators $(A_0, \Arc, E, C_0)$ to get their corresponding\
matrices $(A_0^N, \Arc^N, E^N, C_0^N)$. Then compute the matrices $(A^N, B^N, C^N)$ as the approximations of $(A,B,C)$. ]{};
(Stab)[ **Step C3. Stabilization**\
Choose $L^N, K_1^N, K_2^N$ by solving finite-dimensional Riccati equations with the matrices $(A^N, B^N, C^N)$ and $(G_1, G_2)$. ]{}; (ModRed) \[process, below of=Stab\] [ **Step C3. The Model Reduction**\
Fix $r \le N$, use Balanced Truncation Method to get a stable $r-$dimensional system $(A_L^r,[B_L^r ,\; L^r] ,K_2^r)$ ]{}; (InMod) – (Gar); (Gar) – (Stab); (Stab) – (ModRed); (ConExt) – (InMod); ($(InMod.north west)+(-0.2,0.5)$) rectangle ($(ModRed.south east)+(0.2,-0.5)$);
Boundary control of parabolic partial differential equations {#sec-para}
============================================================
We consider controlled parabolic equations with Dirichlet boundary controls, for time $t >0$, in a $C^\infty\text{-smooth}$ domain $\Omega \subset \R^d$ with $d$ a positive integer, located locally on one side of its boundary $\partial \Omega = \Gamma_c \cup \Gamma_u,~~\Gamma_c \cap \Gamma_u = \emptyset$ as follows
\[eq-para\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}(\xi, t) - \nu \Delta w (\xi, t) + \alpha(\xi) w(\xi, t)+ \nabla \cdot \left( \beta (\xi) w (\xi, t) \right) &= 0, \quad w(x,0) = w_0(\xi),\\
w (\bar{\xi}, t) = \sum \limits_{i = 1}^m {u_i(t) \psi_i(\bar{\xi})} \text{~~for~~} \bar{\xi}\in \Gamma_c,\quad w (\bar{\xi}, t) &= 0 \text{~~for~~} \bar{\xi}\in \Gamma_u. \end{aligned}$$
In the variable $(\xi, \bar{\xi}, t)\in \Omega \times \Gamma \times (0, +\infty)$, the unknown in the equation is the function $w = w(\xi,t) \in \R$. The diffusion coefficient $\nu$ is a positive constant. The functions $\alpha : \R \to \R$ and $\beta: \R^d \to \R$ are fixed and depend only on $\xi$. Function $w_0$ is known. We also assume that $\alpha \in L^\infty (\Omega, \R)$ and $\beta \in L^\infty (\Omega, \R^d)$.
The functions $ \psi_i (\bar{\xi})$ are fixed and will play the role of boundary actuators. The control input is $u(t) = (u_i(t))_{i=1}^m \in U = \C^m$ (see [@PhanRod18] and example below).
Analogously we assume the system has $p$ measured outputs so that\
$y(t) = (y_k(t))_{k=1}^p \in Y = \R^p$ and $$\begin{aligned}
y_k(t) = \int_\Omega {w(\xi,t) c_k (\xi) d\xi}, \end{aligned}$$ for some fixed $c_k(\cdot) \in L^2(\Omega,\R)$. The output operator $C_0 \in \cL(X_0,Y)$ is such that $C_0 w = \left( \langle w, c_k \rangle_{L^2(\Omega)} \right)_{k=1}^p$ for all $w \in X_0$.
Constructing the extended system
--------------------------------
We choose $X_0 = L^2(\Omega, \R)$, $V_0 = H_0^1 (\Omega, \R)$ and denote $X = X_0 \times U,~~V = V_0 \times U$. Denote $v = w - Eu$, $\Ad w \coloneqq \nu \Delta w$ and $\Arc w \coloneqq -\alpha w - \nabla \cdot (\beta w)$.\
For each actuator $\psi_i \in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma)$, we choose the extension $\Psi_i \in H^2(\Omega)$ which solves the elliptic equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-ext-elliptic}
\nu \Delta \Psi_i = \eta \Psi_i, \qquad \Psi_i\mid_{\Gamma_c} = \psi_i, \qquad \Psi_i\mid_{\Gamma_u} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We then set the operator $E: U \to S_\Psi$ with $S_\Psi \coloneqq \Span \{ \Psi_i \mid i \in \{1,2,\dots, m \} \} $ as $$\begin{aligned}
Eu \coloneqq \sum_{i=1}^m u_i \Psi_i. \end{aligned}$$
We rewrite the boundary control problem with the new state variable $x = (v, u)^\top = (w-Eu, u)^\top$. The new dynamic control variable $\kappa(t) \in U$ is defined as $\kappa_i (t) = \dot{u}_i(t) - \eta u_i(t)$ for all $i \in \{1, \dots, m \}$. The new input operator $B \in \cL(U, X)$ is such that $B \kappa = \pmat {-E \\ I} \kappa = \pmat {-\sum_{i=1}^m \kappa_i \Psi_i \\ \kappa}$ for all $\kappa \in U$. The new output operator $C \in \cL (X, Y)$ is such that $$\begin{aligned}
C x = \left(\int_\Omega v(\xi)c_k(\xi) d\xi + \sum_{i=1}^m u_i \int_\Omega \Psi_i (\xi) c_k (\xi) d\xi \right)_{k=1}^p\end{aligned}$$ for all $x \in X$. We get an extended system with $(A,B,C)$ as in .
As shown in [@PauPhan19 Section V. B.], the sesquilinear $\sigma_0$ corresponding with operator $A_0$ is bounded and coercive. Thus the sesquilinear form $\sigma$ corresponding with the extended operator $A$ here has the same properties (as shown in the proof of ).
A 1D heat equation with Neumann boundary control {#sec-exHeatNeu}
------------------------------------------------
In this section we consider a 1D heat equation with Neumann boundary control and construct the extended system by our approach. Reformulating this control system as an extended system was also considered in [@CurZwa95 Example 3.3.5] with the choice of right inverse operator. We first introduce the PDE model $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial w}{\partial t} (\xi,t) &= \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial \xi^2} (\xi,t), \quad \frac{\partial w}{\partial \xi} (0,t) = 0,~~\frac{\partial w}{\partial \xi} (1,t) = u(t), \\
w(\xi,0) &= w_0(\xi). \end{aligned}$$ To construct the extended system, we define $X_0 = L^2(0,1),~U = \C$. The operator $\cA =\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2}$ is with domain $
D(\cA) = \big\{ h \in H^2(0,1) \mid \frac{dh}{d\xi} (0) = 0 \big\}
$ and the boundary operator $\cB h = \frac{dh}{d\xi} (1)$ with $D(\cB) = D(\cA)$.
We define operator $A_0 = \frac{d^2}{d \xi^2}$ with domain $$\begin{aligned}
D(A_0) = D(\cA) \cap \ker(\cB) = \Big\{ h \in H^2(0,1) \mid \frac{dh}{d\xi} (0) = \frac{dh}{d\xi} (1) = 0 \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ By choosing $\Ad = A_0$, we define $Eu(t) = g(\xi) u(t)$ where $g(\xi)$ solves the following second order ODE $$\begin{aligned}
g'' (\xi) = g(\xi),\quad g'(0) = 0,\quad g'(1) = 1. \end{aligned}$$ By solving this ODE, we get $g(\xi) = \frac{2 \mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}^2-1} \cosh \xi$. By denoting an extended variable $x = (v, u)^\top$, we get an abstract system $\dot{x}(t) = A x(t) + B\kappa(t)$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A = \pmat{\frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} & 0 \\0 & 1}, \quad B = \pmat{-E \\ 1}. \end{aligned}$$ In [@CurZwa95], the function $g(\xi) = \frac{1}{2}\xi^2$ was chosen and also defined $Eu(t) = g(\xi) u(t)$. This choice leads to another extended system with $
A = \pmat{\frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} & 1 \\0 & 0}
$ and the same $B$. We emphasize that the corresponding operator $A$ does not coincide with the choice of $\eta = 0$ in our approach. We then apply the controller design in Section \[sec-DesignCon\] for the extended systems.
For simple PDE models, the construction of extension $E$ using our approach does not yet give significant advantages over the method presented in [@CurZwa95]. We will next present a two-dimensional PDE model where the construction of $E$ would not be possible by hand.
A 2D diffusion-reaction-convection model {#sec-numex-para}
----------------------------------------
In this example, we consider the equation on a domain $\Omega = \left(\bigcup\limits_{i = 1}^6 \Omega_i \right) \setminus \Omega_7$ (plotted in ) where $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_1 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2 \mid -2 < \xi_1 < 0,~~ -1 < \xi_2 \le 1 \}, \\
\Omega_2 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2)\in \R^2 \mid \xi_1^2 + \xi_2^2 < 1,~~ \xi_1 \ge 0,~~\xi_2 \le 0 \} , \\
\Omega_3 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2 \mid -1 \le \xi_1 \le 1,~~0 < \xi_2 < 2 \}, \\
\Omega_4 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2 \mid \xi_1^2 + (\xi_2 - 2)^2 < 1,~~ \xi_2 \ge 2 \}, \\
\Omega_5 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2 \mid (\xi_1+2)^2 + (\xi_2 - 2)^2 > 1,~~ -2 < \xi_1 \le -1,~~1 \le \xi_2 < 2 \}, \\
\Omega_6 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2 \mid (\xi_1 + 2)^2 + \xi_2^2 < 1,~~\xi_1 \le -2 \} \\
\Omega_7 &= \left\{ (\xi_1, \xi_2) \in \R^2 \mid \left(\xi_1 + \frac{3}{2} \right)^2 + \left(\xi_2 - \frac{1}{4} \right)^2 \le \frac{4}{25} \right \}. \end{aligned}$$ The boundary $\Gamma$ can be described as seven segments $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1 &= \{ (\xi_1,-1 ) \in \R^2 \mid -2 < \xi_1 < 0 \},\\
\Gamma_2 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2)\in \R^2 \mid \xi_1^2 + \xi_2^2 = 1,~~ \xi_1 \ge 0,~~\xi_2 \le 0 \},\\
\Gamma_3 &= \{ (1, \xi_2) \in \R^2 \mid 0 < \xi_2 < 2 \} \\
\Gamma_4 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2)\in \R^2 \mid \xi_1^2 + (\xi_2 - 2)^2 = 1,~~\xi_2 \ge 2 \}, \\
\Gamma_5 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2)\in \R^2 \mid (\xi_1+2)^2 + (\xi_2 - 2)^2 = 1,~~\xi_1 > -2,~~\xi_2 < 2 \}, \\
\Gamma_6 &= \{ (\xi_1, \xi_2)\in \R^2 \mid (\xi_1 + 2)^2 + \xi_2^2 = 1,~~\xi_1 \le -2 \} \\
\Gamma_7 &= \left\{ (\xi_1, \xi_2)\in \R^2 \mid \left(\xi_1 + \frac{3}{2} \right)^2 + \left(\xi_2 - \frac{1}{4} \right)^2 = \frac{4}{25} \right\}. \end{aligned}$$
![Boundary controls located on red segments and regions of observations (blue).[]{data-label="fig_domain2D"}](Para_Domain){width=".5\textwidth"}
We take $\nu = 0.5$, $\alpha (\xi) = 3 (\xi_1 + \xi_2),~\beta_1(\xi)= \cos (\xi_1) - \sin (2 \xi_2) - 2,~\beta_2 (\xi) = \sin (3 \xi_1) + \cos (4 \xi_2),~\beta = (\beta_1, \beta_2)$ in .
We consider with two boundary inputs located in two distinct segments $\Gamma_3$ and $\Gamma_6$ (see red segments of boundary in Figure \[fig\_domain2D\]), i.e. $\Gamma_c = \Gamma_3 \cup \Gamma_6$ and $\Gamma_c = \Gamma_1 \cup \Gamma_2 \cup \Gamma_4 \cup \Gamma_5 \cup \Gamma_7$ . On these segments, for $\bar{\xi} = \left( \bar{\xi_1}, \bar{\xi_2} \right) \in \Gamma$, we take $\psi_1 (\bar{\xi}) = \sin \left( \frac{\pi \bar{\xi_2}}{2}\right) \chi_{\Gamma_3}(\bar{\xi})$ and $\psi_2 (\bar{\xi}) = \sin \left( 3\left(\theta(\bar{\xi}) - \frac{\pi}{2} \right) \right) \chi_{\Gamma_6}(\bar{\xi})$ where $\theta(\bar{\xi}) = \arctan2 \left( \frac{\bar{\xi_1}+2}{\bar{\xi_2}} \right) $. Next we define two extensions of boundary controls by solving elliptic equations with $\eta = \nu = 0.5$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nu \Delta \Psi_i = \eta \Psi_i, \qquad \Psi_i\mid_{\Gamma_c} = \psi_i, \quad \Psi_i\mid_{\Gamma_u} = 0 \quad i \in \{1,~2\}. \end{aligned}$$ Two corresponding solutions $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ are plotted in Figure \[fig\_para\_ext\].
In the theoretical results, we have asked the boundary actuators to be in $H^\frac{3}{2}(\Gamma)$. Two actuators $\psi_1 (\bar{\xi})$ and $\psi_2 (\bar{\xi})$ above are actually in $H^s(\Gamma)$ with $s < \frac{3}{2}$, but not necessarily in $H^\frac{3}{2}(\Gamma)$. This lack of regularity will be neglected in simulation.
Two measurements act on blue rectangular subdomains of $\Omega$ (see Figure \[fig\_domain2D\]). The rectangular $\Omega_{m1}$ has four corners $$(-1,~-.75),~~(-.5,~-.75),~~(-.5,~-.25),~~(-1,~-.25),$$ and the rectangular $\Omega_{m2}$ has four corners $$(-.3,~1.9464),~~(.0536,~2.3),~~(-.3,~2.6536),~~(0.6536,~2.3).$$ More precisely, we choose $c_1(\cdot) = \chi_{\Omega_{m1}} (\cdot) ,~~ c_2(\cdot) = \chi_{\Omega_{m2}} (\cdot)$. Our aim is to track a non-smooth periodic reference signal $\yref(t+2) = \yref(t) = (y_1(t), y_2(t)),~~\forall t \ge 0$ where $$\begin{aligned}
y_1(t) = \begin{cases}
1 \qquad &\text{if~~} 0 \le t < \frac{1}{2}, \\
-2 t + 2 \qquad &\text{if~~} \frac{1}{2} \le t < 1, \\
0 \qquad &\text{if~~} 1 \le t < \frac{3}{2}, \\
2 t -3 \qquad &\text{if~~} \frac{3}{2} \le t < {2},
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
y_2(t) = \begin{cases}
-t \qquad &\text{if~~} 0 \le t < 1, \\
t-2 \qquad &\text{if~~} 1 \le t < 2. \\
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ This type of signals is approximated by truncated Fourier series $$\begin{aligned}
\yref(t) \approx a_0 (t) + \sum \limits_{k=1}^q (a_k (t) \cos ( k \pi t ) + b_k (t) \sin ( k \pi t )).\end{aligned}$$ Here we use $q = 10$ and the corresponding set of frequencies is $\{ k \pi \mid k \in \{ 0, 1, \dots, 10 \} \}$ and $n_k = 1$ for all $k \in \{ 0, 1, \dots, 10 \}$. The domain $\Omega$ is approximated by a polygonal domain $\Omega_D$ and we consider a partition of $\Omega_D$ into non-overlapping triangles to discretize the extended system using Finite Element Method. We construct the observer-based controller using a Galerkin approximation with order $N = 1956$ and subsequent Balanced Truncation with order $r = 30$. The internal model has dimension $\dim Z_0 = 2 \times 2 \times 10 + 2 \times 1 \times 1 = 42$. The parameters of the stabilization are chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 = 0.65,~~ \alpha_2 = 0.95,~~R_1 = I_2,~~R_2 = 10^{-2}I_2. \end{aligned}$$ The operators $Q_0,~ Q_1$, and $Q_2 $ are freely chosen such that $Q_2 Q_2^\ast = I_X$ and $C_c^\ast C_c = I_{Z_0 \times X}$. Another Finite Element approximation with $M = 2688$ is constructed to simulate the original system. The initial states to solve the controlled system are $v_0 (\xi) = 0.25 \sin (\xi_1)$ and $u_0 = 0 \in \R^{42 + 30}$. The tracking signals are plotted in Figure \[fig\_track2D\]. In Figure \[fig\_hsv2D\], the first Hankel singular values of the Galerkin approximation are plotted.
![Output tracking of the boundary control of the 2D parabolic equation.[]{data-label="fig_track2D"}](Para_Tracking){width=".8\textwidth"}
![Hankel singular values.[]{data-label="fig_hsv2D"}](Para_Hsv){width=".8\textwidth"}
Boundary control of a beam equation with Kelvin-Voigt damping {#sec-beam}
=============================================================
Consider a one-dimensional Euler-Bernoulli beam model on $\Omega = (0,l)$
\[eq-beam\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial t^2} (\xi,t) &+ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi^2} \left( \alpha \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial \xi^2} (\xi,t) + \beta \frac{\partial^3 w}{\partial \xi^2 \partial t} (\xi,t) \right) + \gamma \frac{\partial w}{\partial t} (\xi,t) = 0,
\\
w(\xi,0) &= w_0 (\xi), \qquad \frac{\partial w}{\partial t}(\xi,0) = w_1 (\xi), \\
y(t) &= C_1 w(\cdot, t) + C_2 \dot{w}(\cdot, t), \end{aligned}$$
with the constants $\alpha, \beta > 0$ and $\gamma \ge 0$. The measurement operators for the deflection $w(\cdot,t)$ and the velocity $\dot{w}(\cdot, t)$ are such that $C_j w = \left(\langle w, c^j_k \rangle_{L^2} \right)_{k=1}^p \in Y = \R^p$ for $w \in L^2(0,l)$ and $j = 1,2$ for some fixed functions $c^j_k(\cdot) \in L^2 (0,l)$. We consider boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
w(0,t) = \frac{\partial w}{\partial \xi} (0,t) = \frac{\partial^3 w}{\partial \xi^3} (l,t) = 0, \quad \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial \xi^2} (l,t) = u(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $u(t)$ is the boundary input at $\xi = l$. This type of boundary controls was considered in [@TucWei09 Section 10.4] and [@Guo14] (with boundary disturbance signals).
Let $W_0 = \left\{ w \in H^2(0, l) \mid w(0) = \frac{dw}{d\xi}(0) = 0 \right\}$ and define the inner product on $W_0$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle w_1 , w_2 \rangle_{W_0} = \int_0^l w_1 (\xi) w_2(\xi) d\xi, \quad \forall w_1, w_2 \in W_0. \end{aligned}$$ We define the spaces $X_0 = W_0 \times L^2 (0,l) $, $V_0 = W_0 \times W_0$ and the operator $$\begin{aligned}
\cA &= \pmat{0 & \bI \\ -\alpha \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} & -\beta \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} - \gamma}, \\
\text{with~} D(\cA) &= \left \{ (w_1, w_2) \in V_0 \mid \alpha \frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} w_1 + \beta \frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} w_2 \in H^2(0,l), ~~ \frac{d^3 w_1}{d\xi^3}(l) = 0 \right \}. \end{aligned}$$ The boundary operator $\cB: X_0 \to \C$ denotes by $\cB \pmat{w_1 \\ w_2} = \frac{d^2 w_1}{d\xi^2} (l)$.\
The operator $A_0$ is given by $
A_0 = \pmat{0 & \bI \\ -\alpha \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} & -\beta \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} - \gamma}
$ with the domain $$\begin{aligned}
D(A_0) &= D(\cA)~\cap~\cN (\cB) \\
&= \left \{ (v_1, v_2) \in V_0 \mid \alpha \frac{d^2 v_1}{d\xi^2} + \beta \frac{d^2 v_2}{d\xi^2 } \in H^2(0,l), ~~ \frac{d^2 v_1}{d\xi^2}(l) = \frac{d^3 v_1}{d\xi^3}(l) = 0 \right \}.\end{aligned}$$
The extended system {#sec-beam-1stext}
-------------------
Choose $\Ad = \pmat{0 & \bI \\ -\alpha \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} & -\beta \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4}}$ and\
$\Arc = \pmat{0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\gamma} $ with $D(\Ad) = D(\cA)$ and $D(\Arc) = X_0$. We construct $Eu(t) = \pmat{g_1(\xi)\\ g_2(\xi)} u(t)$ satisfying both conditions and as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\pmat{0 & \bI \\ -\alpha \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} & -\beta \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4}} \pmat{g_1(\xi)\\ g_2(\xi)} &= \eta \pmat{g_1(\xi)\\ g_2(\xi)}, \qquad
\cB \pmat{g_1(\xi)\\ g_2(\xi)} = 1. \\
g_1(0) = g_1'(0) = g_1'''(l) &= 0, \quad g_2(0) = g_2'(0) = 0. \end{aligned}$$ We need to solve a system of ODEs as follows
\[eq-beam-1stode\] $$\begin{aligned}
g_2(\xi) &= \eta g_1(\xi), \\
g_1''''(\xi) &= \frac{-\eta^2}{\alpha + \beta \eta} g_1(\xi), \\
g_1(0) = g_1'(0) = g_1'''(l) &= 0, \quad g_1''(l) = 1, \\
g_2(0) = g_2'(0) &= 0.\end{aligned}$$
We have freedom of choices on boundary conditions of $g_2$. Here we choose $g_2'''(l) = 0$, and $g_2''(l) = \eta$. The condition $\alpha g''_1 + \beta g_2'' \in H^2(0,l)$ can be verified after solving the system.
Define the change of variable $
\pmat{v \\ \dot{v}} = \pmat{w \\ \dot{w}} - Eu(t),
$ and the new control $\kappa(t) = \dot{u}(t) - \eta u(t)$. The extended system can be rewritten in terms of the new state $x = (v, \dot{v}, u)^\top $in the abstract form $\dot{x}(t) = A x(t) + B\kappa(t) $ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beam-eq-1stext}
A = \pmat{0 & \bI & 0 \\
-\alpha \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} & -\beta \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} - \gamma & -\gamma g_2(\xi) \\
0 & 0 & \eta \\
}, \quad
B= \pmat{-g_1(\xi) \\ -g_2(\xi) \\ 1 }. \end{aligned}$$ The sesquilinear associated to the operator $A_0$ is bounded and coercive (see[@ItoMor98] and [@PauPhan19 Section V.C.]). Thus the sesquilinear generated by operator $A$ in is also bounded and coercive as shown in the proof of Theorem \[the-RORP\].
The observation part can be rewritten in the new state $$\begin{aligned}
y(t) = C_1 v(\cdot, t) + C_2 \dot{v}(\cdot, t) = C_1 (w (\cdot, t) + g_1(\cdot) u(t) ) + C_2( \dot{w}(\cdot, t) + g_2(\cdot) u (t) )\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $C = \pmat{C_1 & C_2 & C_1 g_1 + C_2 g_2} $. Under this setting, the extended system $(A,B,C)$ can be rewritten in the abstract form as in -.
An alternative extended system {#sec-beam-2ndext}
------------------------------
For second-order (in time) PDE models, we can use an alternative approach to construct the extended system. For this class of system, this approach here is more natural than the first one. However it still has some disadvantages that we will discuss below.
Let us define $v(\xi,t) = w(\xi,t) - g(\xi) u(t)$ where $g(\xi)$ solves the ODE
\[eq-beam-2ndode\] $$\begin{aligned}
g'''' (\xi) - \eta g (\xi) &= 0, \\
g(0) = g'(0) = g'''(l) &= 0, \\
g''(l) &= 1\end{aligned}$$
where $\eta$ is a positive constant. Then we can rewrite the equation as follows
\[eq-pde-ext\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial t^2}(\xi,t) &+ \alpha \frac{\partial^4 v}{\partial \xi^4}(\xi,t) + \left( \beta \frac{\partial^4 }{\partial \xi^4} + \gamma \right) \frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(\xi,t) \\
&= - \left( u''(t) + (\beta \eta + \gamma) u'(t) + \alpha \eta u(t) \right) g(\xi), \\
v(0,t) &= \frac{\partial v}{\partial \xi} (0,t) = \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial \xi^2} (l,t) = \frac{\partial^3 v}{\partial \xi^3} (l,t) = 0. \end{aligned}$$
Defining $\kappa(t) = u''(t) + (\beta \eta + \gamma) u'(t) + \alpha \eta u(t)$, we get an alternative extended system $\dot{x}(t) = A x(t) + B \kappa(t)$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beam-eq-2ndext}
A = \pmat{0 & \bI & 0 & 0 \\
-\alpha \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} & -\beta \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} - \gamma & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & -\alpha \eta & - \beta \eta - \gamma
\\}, \quad
B = \pmat{ 0 \\ - g(\xi) \\ 0 \\ 1 }. \end{aligned}$$ The observation part can be rewritten in the new state as $$\begin{aligned}
y (t) = C_1 v(\cdot, t) + C_2 \dot{v}(\cdot, t) = C_1 (w (\cdot, t) + g(\cdot) u(t) ) + C_2( \dot{w}(\cdot, t) + g(\cdot) u' (t) ), \end{aligned}$$ which leads to the output operator $
C = \pmat{C_1 & C_2 & C_1 g & C_2 g}
$.
Consider the abstract differential equation $\dot{x}(t) = A x(t) + B \kappa(t)$ where $A$ and $B$ are defined in . Assume that $u \in C^3([0, \tau]; \R)$ for all $\tau >0$ and $(v_0, v_1) = (w_0 - gu(0), w_1 - gu'(0)) \in D(A_0)$. The extended system with $(x_0)_1 = v_0,~(x_0)_2 = v_1,~(x_0)_3 = u(0),~(x_0)_4 = u'(0)$ has a unique solution $x(t) = (v(t), \dot{v}(t), u(t), u'(t))^\top$.
By denoting $A_1 = \pmat{0 & \bI \\ -\alpha \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} & -\beta \frac{\partial^4}{\partial \xi^4} - \gamma}$ and $A_2 = \pmat{0 & 1\\ -\alpha \eta & -\beta \eta - \gamma}$, we rewrite $A = \pmat{A_1 & 0 \\ 0 & A_2}$. Then we analogously apply Lemma 3.2.2 in [@CurZwa95] and the procedure of Theorem \[the-change-var\] to get the result.
Comparing with the case of parabolic equations in Section \[sec-para\], the difference is that we can find the extension $Eu(t)$ explicitly by solving ODE or .
Considering the system of ODE , the characteristic equation is $\lambda + \frac{\eta^2}{\alpha + \beta \eta} = 0$. By denoting $\tilde{\eta} = \sqrt[4]{\frac{\eta^2}{4(\alpha + \beta \eta)}}$, the solution of characteristic equation is $\lambda = \pm \tilde{\eta} \pm i \tilde{\eta}$. Thus the general solution is $$\begin{aligned}
g_1 (\xi) = m_1 \mathrm{e}^{\tilde{\eta} \xi} \cos (\tilde{\eta} \xi) +
m_2 \mathrm{e}^{\tilde{\eta} \xi} \sin (\tilde{\eta} \xi) +
m_3 \mathrm{e}^{-\tilde{\eta} \xi} \cos (\tilde{\eta} \xi) +
m_4 \mathrm{e}^{-\tilde{\eta} \xi} \sin (\tilde{\eta} \xi)\end{aligned}$$ and $g_2(\xi) = \eta g_1(\xi)$. Obviously $g_1 (\xi)$ and $g_2(\xi)$ belong to $H^2(0,l)$. On the other hand, for the ODE , the corresponding characteristic equation is $
\lambda^4 - \eta = 0
$ whose solutions are $\lambda =\pm \sqrt[4]{\eta}$ and $\lambda =\pm i \sqrt[4]{\eta}$. The general solution is $$\begin{aligned}
g(\xi) = m_1 \mathrm{e}^{\sqrt[4]{\eta} \xi} + m_2 \mathrm{e}^{-\sqrt[4]{\eta} \xi} + m_3 \cos(\sqrt[4]{\eta} \xi) + m_4 \sin(\sqrt[4]{\eta} \xi).\end{aligned}$$
All unknown parameters $m_1,~m_2,~m_3,~m_4$ can be determined from the boundary conditions by solving a corresponding linear algebraic system.
Two approaches with other types of boundary control
---------------------------------------------------
The type of boundary condition below was presented before in some works [@ItoMor98 Section 3] or [@PauPhan19 Section V.C]. Here we design a boundary control. The construction of extension operator $Eu(t)$ in section \[sec-beam-1stext\] can be modified to adapt with this type of boundary condition
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-beam-anotherBC}
w(0,t) = \frac{\partial w}{\partial \xi} (0,t) &= 0, \\
\alpha \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial \xi^2} (l,t) + \beta \frac{\partial^3 w}{\partial \xi^2 \partial t} (l,t) &= u(t),\\
\alpha \frac{\partial^3 w}{\partial \xi^3} (l,t) + \beta \frac{\partial^4 w}{\partial \xi^3 \partial t} (l,t) &= 0,\end{aligned}$$
By denoting $M(\xi, t) = \alpha \frac{\partial^2 w}{\partial \xi^2} (\xi,t) + \beta \frac{\partial^3 w}{\partial \xi^2 \partial t} (\xi,t) $, we modify the domain of $\cA$ as $$\begin{aligned}
D(\cA) &= \left \{ (w_1, w_2) \in V \mid \alpha \frac{d^2 w_1}{d\xi^2} + \beta \frac{d^2 w_2}{d\xi^2} \in H^2(0,l), ~~ \frac{d M}{d \xi} (l,\cdot) = 0 \right \}.\end{aligned}$$ The boundary operator $\cB: X_0 \to \C$ denotes by $\cB \pmat{w_1 \\ w_2} = \alpha \frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} w_1(l) + \beta \frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} w_2(l)$ with $D(\cB) = D(\cA)$.\
The domain of operator $A_0$ is denoted by $$\begin{aligned}
D(A_0) = \left \{ (v_1, v_2) \in V \mid \alpha \frac{d^2 v_1 }{d\xi^2} + \beta \frac{d^2 v_2}{d\xi^2} \in H^2(0,l), ~~ M (l, \cdot) = \frac{d M}{d \xi}(l,\cdot) = 0 \right \}.\end{aligned}$$ With the same choice of $\Ad$ and $\Arc$, we get the system of ODEs as follows $$\begin{aligned}
g_2(\xi) = \eta g_1(\xi), \quad g_1''''(\xi) = \frac{-\eta^2}{\alpha + \beta \eta} g_1(\xi)\end{aligned}$$ whose boundary conditions are modified as $$\begin{aligned}
g_1(0) = g_1'(0) = g_1'''(l) &= 0,\quad g_1''(l) = \frac{1}{\alpha + \beta \eta}, \\
g_2(0) = g_2'(0) &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ Again, we can choose $g_2'''(l) = 0$ and $g_2''(l) = \frac{\eta}{\alpha + \beta \eta}$.
However the approach in section \[sec-beam-2ndext\] does not work with this type of boundary conditions.
A numerical example
-------------------
In this example, we consider the system with $l=7, \alpha = 10, \beta = 0.01$, and $\gamma = 10^{-5}$. The observation is $$\begin{aligned}
y(t) = \int_2^4 {w(\xi,t) + \frac{\partial w}{\partial t} (\xi,t) d\xi}, \quad \text{i.e.} \quad C_1 = C_2 = \chi_{(2,4)}(\cdot). \end{aligned}$$ With the choice of parameters, the stability margin of the system is very small (approximately $10^{-3}$). In this example, we use the boundary control to improve the stability of the original system and obtain an acceptable closed-loop stability margin.
We want to track the reference signal $\yref(t) = \frac{1}{10}(t^2 - t)\sin(3t)$. The set of frequency has only one element $\{ 3 \}$ with $n_k = 3$.
We also used two different meshes. Again, we use Finite Element Method with cubic Hermit shape functions as in [@PauPhan19 Section V.C.]. We construct the observer-based finite-dimensional controller based on the algorithm in Section \[sec-DesignCon\] using a coarse mesh with $N = 34$ (the corresponding size of the matrix $A^N$ is 138) and subsequent Balanced Truncation with order $r = 50$. The internal model has dimension $\dim Z_0 = 2 \times 3 = 6$.
For the controller in Section \[sec-beam-1stext\], we choose $\eta = 0.12$ in system . The corresponding solutions $g_1$ and $g_2$ are plotted in Figure \[fig\_extbeam1\]. The parameters of the stabilization are chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 = 0.65, \quad \alpha_2 = 0.5, \quad R_1 = 0.1, \quad R_2 = 1. \end{aligned}$$ For the alternative extended system in Section \[sec-beam-2ndext\], we choose $\eta = 10$ in . The solution $g$ of with $\eta = 10$ is plotted in Figure \[fig\_extbeam2\]. We choose other parameters of stabilization to improve the stability margin as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 = 0.75, \quad \alpha_2 = 0.5, \quad R_1 = 1, \quad R_2 = 10^{-3}. \end{aligned}$$
For the simulation of the original system , we use another Finite Element approximation with $M = 86$. The corresponding size of matrix $A^M$ is 346. The initial state of the original systems $v_0 (\xi) = 0.25 (\cos (5 \xi) - 2)$, $v_1 (\xi) = 0.25 \sin (5\xi) $, and $z_0 =\{ v \in \R^{6+40} \mid v_i = -0.3 \}$.
The tracking controlled signals under two different extensions are plotted in Figure \[fig\_trackbeam\] where the blue line corresponds with the extension and the green one corresponds with the extension .
![Output tracking of the boundary controlled beam equation with two different extensions.[]{data-label="fig_trackbeam"}](Beam_Tracking){width=".8\textwidth"}
Final remarks
=============
We have presented new methods for design finite-dimensional reduced order controllers for robust output regulation problems of boundary control systems. The controllers are constructed based on an extended system. Theorem \[the-RORP\] shows that the controllers solve the robust output regulation problem. The construction of extended system is completed by two additional assumptions. Comparing with the choice of arbitrary right inverse operators in the literature, our construction is efficient in PDE models with multi-dimensional domains. Concerning with the boundary disturbance signals, some examples was also introduced before in [@PauPhan19 Section V. A.] or [@Guo14]. We remark that the method can be analogously applied to construct a new bounded disturbance operator. We can then extend the control design here for the case with boundary disturbance signals.
We must assume the boundedness of output operators because the extension approach does not have an analogue for the output operators. Moreover, the controller design method in [@PauPhan19] requires a bounded output operator, and extending the results for unbounded $C$ is an important topic for future research.
As shown in the proofs in [@PauPhan19], the possibility for model reduction in the controller design (for a fixed $N\in \N$) is based on the smallness of the $H_\infty$-error between the transfer functions of the stable finite-dimensional systems $(A_L^r,[B_L^r,L^r],K_2^r)$ and $(A^N+L^NC^N,[B^N+L^ND^N,L^N],K_2^N)$. Our results do not provide lower bounds for a suitable value of $r$, but the results on Balanced Truncation show that for a given $r\leq N$ the error between these transfer functions is determined by the rate of decay of the Hankel singular values of the latter system. Because of this, rapid decay of the Hankel singular values of $(A^N+L^NC^N,[B^N+L^ND^N,L^N],K_2^N)$ can be used as an indicator that reduction of the controller order is possible for the considered system and its approximation $(A^N,B^N,C^N)$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research is supported by the Academy of Finland grants number 298182 and 310489 held by L. Paunonen. D. Phan is partially supported by Universität Innsbruck.
[10]{}
M. Badra, , *ESAIM: COCV*, **15** (2009), 934–968, [URL ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1051/cocv:2008059>.
H. T. Banks and K. Kunisch, , *SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization*, **22** (1984), 684–698.
R. F. Curtain and H. Zwart, *[An Introduction to Infinite–Dimensional Linear Systems Theory]{}*, vol. 21 of Texts in Applied Mathematics, Springer-Verlag New York, 1995.
B.-Z. Guo, H.-C. Zhou, A. S. AL-Fhaid, A. M. M. Younas and A. Asiri, , *Journal of Dynamical and Control Systems*, **20** (2014), 539–558.
T. H[ä]{}m[ä]{}l[ä]{}inen and S. Pohjolainen, Robust regulation for exponentially stable boundary control systems in [H]{}ilbert space, in *Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics*, Szczecin, Poland, 2002, 171–178.
T. H[ä]{}m[ä]{}l[ä]{}inen and S. Pohjolainen, Robust regulation of distributed parameter systems with infinite-dimensional exosystems, *SIAM J. Control Optim.*, **48** (2010), 4846–4873.
E. Immonen, On the internal model structure for infinite-dimensional systems: [T]{}wo common controller types and repetitive control, *SIAM J. Control Optim.*, **45** (2007), 2065–2093.
K. Ito and K. Morris, , *SIAM J. Control Optim.*, **36** (1998), 82–99.
H. Logemann and S. Townley, Low-gain control of uncertain regular linear systems, *SIAM J. Control Optim.*, **35** (1997), 78–116.
L. [Paunonen]{} and D. [Phan]{}, Reduced order controller design for robust output regulation, *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, 1–1.
L. Paunonen, Controller design for robust output regulation of regular linear systems, *IEEE Trans. Automat. Control*, **61** (2016), 2974–2986.
D. Phan and S. S. Rodrigues, , *Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems*, **30** (2018), 11.
R. Rebarber and G. Weiss, Internal model based tracking and disturbance rejection for stable well-posed systems, *Automatica J. IFAC*, **39** (2003), 1555–1569.
S. S. Rodrigues, , *ESAIM: COCV*, **21** (2015), 723–756, [URL ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1051/cocv/2014045>.
D. Salamon, Infinite-dimensional linear systems with unbounded control and observation: [A]{} functional analytic approach, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*, **300** (1987), 383–431.
O. Staffans, *Well-Posed Linear Systems*, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
M. Tucsnak and G. Weiss, *[Observation and Control for Operator Semigroups]{}*, , 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we first review one of difficult parts of the proof of Witten’s conjecture by Kontsevich that had not been emphasized before. In the derivation of the KdV equations, we review the boson-fermion correspondence method [@K] to show that the trajectory of $\rm GL_\infty$ action on 1 as an element of the ring $\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\cdots]$ yields the solutions of KP hierarchies. Then we consider the corresponding theory in which the target manifold is a Kähler manifold. We conjecture that this nonlinear sigma model is equivalent to a “planar graph” theory. Assuming the conjecture holds, we are able to get the Virasoro constraints in the Virasoro conjecture.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
The University of Iowa\
Iowa City, IA 52242
author:
- 'Da Xu, Palle Jorgensen'
title: ' Large matrices,Planar graphs and Virasoro Conjecture'
---
[^1]
introduction
============
In this paper we consider a problem from string theory whose solution involves moduli spaces from algebraic geometry, unitary representations of infinite-dimensional Lie groups arising as central extensions. We shall adopt standard terminology from algebraic geometry, for example, “a moduli space of a Riemann surface of genus $g$ with $n$ points punched” is a geometric space which is the collection of the complex structure with the $n$ points on the Riemann surface [@Mirror]. Such spaces arise generally (as in our present analysis) as solutions to classification problems: For example, if one can show that a collection of smooth algebraic curves of a fixed genus can be given the structure of a geometric space, this then leads to a new parametrization; so an object viewed as an entirely separate space. This in turn is accomplished by introducing coordinates on the resulting space. In this context, the term “modulus” is used synonymously with “parameter”; moduli spaces are understood as spaces of parameters rather than as spaces of objects.
Examples: The real projective space $\mathbb{R}P^n$ is a moduli space. It is the space of lines in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ which pass through the origin. Similarly, complex projective space is the space of all complex lines in $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$. More generally, the Grassmannian $Gk(V)$ of a vector space $V$ over a field $F$ is the moduli space of all k-dimensional linear subspaces of V. The Hilbert scheme $\operatorname{Hilb}(X)$ is a moduli scheme. Every closed point of $\operatorname{Hilb}(X)$ corresponds to a closed subscheme of a fixed scheme $X$, and every closed subscheme is represented by such a point.
Moduli spaces are defined more generally in terms of the moduli functors, and spaces representing them, as is the case for the classical approaches and problems using Teichmüller spaces in complex analytical geometry. Our presentation here will take place within this generally framework of moduli spaces.
On the physics side, due to intensive study of string theory, in particular, nonlinear sigma model, the intersection number of moduli spaces play a fundamental role, see [@Mirror], where the readers can find other references.
Notation
--------
Let us recall some definitions in this subsection.\
$\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}$ is the compactification of the parameter space of the complex structures of a Riemann surface with genus $g$ and $n$ points punched out.\
$\mathcal{L}_i$ denotes the line bundle on $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}$ ,which fiber at point $\{C;x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n \}$ is the cotangent space $T^*_{x_i}(C)$.\
$c_1(\mathcal{L}_i)$ denotes the first chern class of the line bundle $\mathcal{L}_i$.\
When $n=0$, $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,0}$ is the quotient space of the space of metrics $\mathcal{G}_g$ by the group action of $(\operatorname{Diff}\times \operatorname{Weyl}$, where $\operatorname{Diff}$ and $\operatorname{Weyl}$ denotes diffeomorphism and Weyl transformations [@P].\
The compactification of $\mathcal{M}_{g,n}$ is denoted by $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}$ [@D].\
The following definitions are often used in this paper:\
*Amplitude*: $$\langle \tau_{d_1} \tau_{d_2}
\cdots \tau_{d_n}\rangle=\int_{\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}} \Pi_{i=1}^n (c_i(\mathcal{L}_i))^{d_i}.$$ Another notation that will be used is $$\langle \tau_0^{r_0}\tau_1^{r_1}\tau_2^{r_2}\cdots \rangle:=\langle \tau_{d_1} \tau_{d_2}
\cdots \tau_{d_n}\rangle,$$ where $r_0$ of the $d_i$s are equal to 0;$r_1$ of them are equal to 1,etc.\
*Free energy of genus $g$*:$$\begin{aligned}
F_g(t_0,t_1,\cdots)=\langle \exp(\sum_{i=0}^\infty t_i \tau_i)\rangle=\sum_{(k)}\langle \tau^{k_0}_0 \tau^{k_1}_1
\cdots \rangle \prod_{i=0}^\infty \frac{t^{k_i}_i}{k_i !}, \label{1}\end{aligned}$$\
*Partition function*: $$\begin{aligned}
Z(t_*)=\exp \sum_{g=0}^\infty F_g(t_*),\end{aligned}$$ where the free energy $F_g(t_*)$.
Witten’s 1990 conjecture
-------------------------
Witten’s conjecture (1990) asserts that *the partition function $Z(t_*)=\exp \sum_{g=0}^\infty F_g(t_*)$ [@W1] is the $\tau$-function of the KdV hierarchy*. A $\tau$-function for the KdV hierarchy means from the $\tau$-function, we can construct the solution of the KdV equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial U}{\partial t_1}=U\frac{\partial U}{\partial t_0}+\frac{1}{12}\frac{\partial^3 U}{\partial t_0^3},\label{KdV}\end{aligned}$$ where $U=\frac{\partial^2 \ln Z(t_*)}{\partial t_0^2}$.
The Korteweg-de Vires equations(KdV) have their origins in the story of water waves in a shallow channel, and have numerous of applications different from their origin. If $x$ is the space variable, the standard form of KdV is $$\begin{aligned}
u_t+u_{xxx}+6uu_x=0. \label{KdV1}\end{aligned}$$ This equation is known to have soliton solutions, i.e., $u(x,t)=f(x-ct)$ where $f$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
-cf^{'}+f^{'''}+6ff^{'}=0. \label{KdV2}\end{aligned}$$ so, $$\begin{aligned}
f=\frac{c}{2\cosh^2(\frac{\sqrt{c}}{2}(x-a))}\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ and $c$ are constants. Since this initial discovery, other after invariants have been found. The first such sequence of invariants came in 1960s from P.Lax’s commutator method: Let $u=u(x,t)$ be a function in two variables, and consider $$\begin{aligned}
(L_u(t)f)(x)=-f^{''}+u(x,t)f(x),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ i.e., the Schrödinger operator $$\begin{aligned}
L_u(t)=-(\frac{d}{dx})^2+u(x,t) \label{KdV3}\end{aligned}$$ acting on function $f(x)$.
Lax (1968) found that if $$\begin{aligned}
A=4(\frac{\partial}{\partial x})^3-3 (u\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}u). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}L_u(t)=[L_u,A]=L_u A-AL_u,\label{KdV4}\end{aligned}$$ and this accounts for one infinite family of “integrals” or invariants. Specifically with $u=u(x,t)$, consider $L=L_u$ as in (\[KdV3\]), we then obtain that eigenvalues of (\[KdV3\]) yield invariants, and the relevant $u$ in (\[KdV4\]) is from the solutions to the KdV equation (\[KdV1\]).
KdV hierarchy
-------------
Kontsevich’s proof mainly consists of three steps:\
1.Based on a theorem of Strebel, the one to one correspondence of the space $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_i \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^n$ with the “fat graphs”. And then the main identity is proved: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d_*:\sum d_i=d}\langle \tau_{d_1}\cdots \rangle \prod_{i=1}^n \frac{{(2d_i-1)!!}}{\lambda_i^{2d_i+1}}
=\sum_{\Gamma\in G_{g,n}} \frac{2^{-v(\Gamma)}}{|Aut \Gamma|} \prod_{e\in E}\frac{2}{\tilde{\lambda}(e)}. \label{main}\end{aligned}$$\
2.By the main identity and the Feynman diagram techniques, the partition function which is the exponential of the free energy $F(t_0(\Lambda),t_1(\Lambda),\cdots)$, where $$t_i(\Lambda)=-(2i-1)!! tr \ (\Lambda^{-(2i+1)})$$ is the asymptotic expansion of the random matrix integral $$\begin{aligned}
I_N(\Lambda)=\int \exp(\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{6} tr \ (M^3) d\mu_{(\Lambda)}(M),\label{2}\end{aligned}$$ where the measure $d\mu_{(\Lambda)}(M)=\frac{- \frac{tr \ (M^2 \Lambda)}{2}dM }{\int - \frac{tr \ (M^2 \Lambda)}{2}dM }$.\
3. By expansion of matrix Airy function and some properties of $\tau$-functions of KdV hierarchy,the author shows the integral (\[2\]) is the $\tau$-function is the asymptotic expansion of (\[2\]) as the rank of $\Lambda$ goes to infinity.
the first step
--------------
A *quadratic differential* $\phi$ on a Riemann surface $C$ of finite type is a holomorphic section of the line bundle $(T^*)^{\otimes 2}$. A nonzero quadratic differential defines a metric in a local coordinates $z$: $$\begin{aligned}
|\phi(z)|^2 |dz|^2, \ where \ \phi=\phi(z)dz^2.\end{aligned}$$ A *horizontal trajectory* of a quadratic differential is a curve along which $\phi(z)dz^2$ is real and positive. JS quadratic differentials are those for which the union of nonclosed trajectories has measure zero. Strebel proved in 1960s the following
For any connected Riemann surface $C$ and $n$ distinct points $x_1,\cdots,x_n\in C, n>0,n>\chi(C)$ and $n$ positive real numbers $p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_n$ there exists a unique $JS$ quadratic differential on $C/ \{x_1,\cdots, x_n \}$ whose maximal ring domains are $n$ punctured disks $D_i$ surrounding points $x_i$ with circumference $p_i$.
Based on Strebel’s theorem, Kontsevich found the one to one correspondence between the fat graphs, which are formed by the closed horizontal trajectories, which end at the zeros of the JS forms. and the product space $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}\times \mathbb{R}^n_{+}$. Each graph carries the following structures\
(1)for each vertex a cyclic order on the set of germs of edges meeting this vertex is fixed;\
(2) to each edge is attached a positive real number, its length(which is determined by the metric);\
(3)the valency of each vertex of a fat graph is three(we can derive that each valency is at least 3 by changing to polar system);\
(4) the loops of the graph is numbered by $1,2,\cdots,n$;\
(5) we make these graphs double-line graphs(this is not required by the one to one correspondence theorem).\
For a fat graph, denote $l_e$ the length of a edge(double) $e$ and for each face $f$, the perimeter $p_f=\sum_{e \subset f}l_e$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
E-n-V=2g-2,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
2E=3V.\end{aligned}$$ Kontsevich proved the first chern class $c_1(\mathcal{L}_i)$ can be written as (this step is not hard) $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_i=\sum_{a,b\in f_i} d(l_1/p_i)\wedge d(l_b/p_i),\end{aligned}$$ and we can define a volume form on the fat graph space which is $\Omega^d/d!$, where $\Omega=\sum_i p_i^2 \omega_i$.
Now since the volume form on the fat graph space $M^{comb}$ is defined, we can compute the Laplace transform with respect to $p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_n$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \prod_{i=1}^n (\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda_i p_i}dp_i) \int \frac{(\sum_i p_i^2 \omega_i)^{d}}{(d)!}\nonumber\\
=& 2^{d} \sum_{d_1+d_2+\cdots+d_n=d} \langle \tau_{d_1}\cdots\tau_{d_n}\rangle \prod_{i=1}^n (2d_i-1)!! \lambda_i^{-2d_i-1}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by a very very delicate argument on complex cohomology, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.9}
1/d! \prod_i dp_i \wedge (\sum_i \sum_{a,b\subset f_i} dl_1\wedge dl_b)^d=2^{5g-5+2n} dl_1\wedge dl_2\cdots dl_E.\end{aligned}$$ In the right hand side, we endow a orientation. Therefore we get the main identity $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d_*:\sum d_i=d}\langle \tau_{d_1}\cdots \rangle \prod_{i=1}^n \frac{{(2d_i-1)!!}}{\lambda_i^{2d_i+1}}
=\sum_{\Gamma\in G_{g,n}} \frac{2^{-V(\Gamma)}}{|Aut \Gamma|} \prod_{e\in E}\frac{2}{\tilde{\lambda}(e)}. \label{main}\end{aligned}$$
In the derivation of the factor in the right hand side of (\[1.9\]), the torsion of chain complex plays an important role(see Appendix C [@K]). The following definitions and theorems are useful.
The chain complex $C$ is said to be acyclic if the homology $H_i(C)=0$ for all $i$. The chain complex $C$ is said to be based if each $C_i$ has a distinguished basis $c_i$.
Then the torsion is defined by
The torsion of $C$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(C)= \prod_i [b_i b_{i-1}/c_i]^{(-1)^{i+1}} \in \mathbb{F}^*.\end{aligned}$$
Let $0\rightarrow C'\rightarrow C \rightarrow C^{''}\rightarrow 0$ be a short exact sequence of chain complexes. For a fixed $i$, we have a short exact sequence $A_i$ $$\begin{aligned}
0\rightarrow C_i'\rightarrow C_i\rightarrow C_i^{''}.\end{aligned}$$ The following formula is straightforward $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(C)=(\text{sign} \prod_i \tau(A_i)) \tau(C')\tau(C^{''}).\end{aligned}$$
Let $V$ be a vector space over the field $\mathbb{F}$. Then let $\Omega_i=\wedge^i V$. For an acyclic chain complex $C$, if each $C_i$ is a linear subspace of $\Omega_i$, we can define a generalized torsion on this chain complex
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau(C)=[b_i \wedge b_{i-1}/(\wedge_{i=1}^n e_i ]^{(-1)^{i+1}},\end{aligned}$$
where $b_i$ is the wedge product of the basis elements of $B_i=\text{Im} (\partial_i: C_{i+1}\rightarrow C_i)$. $\{e_i\}$ is a basis of the vector space $V$.
By the virtue of the following theorem, we are able to transfer the torsion of $C\otimes \mathbb{R}$ to a computation of cohomology of $C$ [@Tu]:
Let $R$ be a Noetherian unique factorization domain. Let $C=(C_m\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow C_0)$ be a based free chain complex of finite rank over $R$ such that $\text{rk} H_i(C)=0$ for all $i$. Let $\tilde{R}$ be the field of fractions of $R$. Then the based chain complex $\tilde{C}=\tilde{R}\otimes_R C$ is acyclic and $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(\tilde{C})=\prod_{i=0}^m (\operatorname{ord} H_i(C))^{(-1)^{i+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
KP and KdV hierarchy
====================
Solutions of KP hierarchy as the orbit of $GL_{\infty}$ action on $\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\cdots,]$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Kac’s presentation, the infinite dimensional group $\rm GL_{\infty}$ has a representation on infinite wedge space $\Lambda^\infty V$. By the fermion-boson correspondence, $\rm GL_{\infty}$ has a representation on the space $B=\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\cdots]$, the polynomial ring of infinite many variables. Then we have a representation of $\rm GL_\infty$ on $B$. Then the KP hierarchy is the orbit $\Omega$ of the the vacuum 1 in $B$ under the action of $\rm GL_\infty$, i.e., $\Omega=\rm GL_\infty \cdot 1$. Also, Dirac’s positron theory can be given a representation-theoretic interpretation and used to obtain highest weight representations of these Lie algebras. The following are the relevant definitions and theorems.
**Representation theory**.We will follow Jorgensen’s book [@J] and Kac’s book [@K] to derive KP hierarchy. We offer a simple philosophy to get the the KP hierarchy , which is a set of infinite many PDEs. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the Heisenberg algebra, the complex Lie algebra with a basis $\{a_n,n\in\mathbb{Z};\hbar\}$, with the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
[\hbar, a_n]& =0, \ (n\in\mathbb{Z}),\nonumber\\
[a_m,a_n]&= m \delta_{m,-n}\hbar \ (m,n\in\mathbb{Z}).\end{aligned}$$, and $\{L_n\}$ denotes the Virasoro algebra with central extension $c$,i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
[L_n,L_m]=(n-m)L_{n+m}+\frac{\delta_{m,-n}}{12}c.\end{aligned}$$
One thing that is nice in the context of our two infinite systems of operators $a_n$ and $L_k$ below in sections 4 and 5 is the following close analogue to an important family of unitary representations of Lie groups. It is in fact a natural extension of what was first realized for finite dimensional groups as the Weil-Segal-Shale representations of the metaplectic groups. Details below: Consider the following setting for a finite-dimensional Heisenberg group $H$. Let $G$ be the corresponding group of automorphisms of $H$ which fix the center. Then $G$ is a finite dimensional Lie group, the metaplectic group. Pick a Schröedinger representation of $H$, and compose it with an automorphism, so an element in $G$. The result is a second representation of $H$. By the Stone-von Neumann uniqueness theorem the two representations are unitarily equivalent, and so the equivalence is implemented by a unitary operator $U(g)$. By passing to a double cover of $\tilde{G}$ one can show that $U(g)$ in fact then defines a unitary representation of $\tilde{G}$. If we now pass to the corresponding Lie algebras $L(H)$ and $L(G)$ we see that $L(H)$ is normalized by $L(G)$. Moreover $L(H)$ in the Schröedinger representation is spanned by Heisenberg’s canonical operators $P$, $Q$, and the one-dimensional center; here we write $P$ for momentum and $Q$ for position, possibly with several degrees of freedom.
**Highest Weights.** By comparison, in the Weil representation, the Lie algebra $L(G)$ is then spanned by all the quadratic polynomials in the $P$s and the $Q$s. Now the Stone-von Neumann uniqueness theorem is not valid for an infinite number of degrees of freedom, but nonetheless, the representations of the two Lie algebras we present by the infinite systems of operators $a_n$ and $L_k$ in sections 4 present themselves as a close analogy to the Weil representations in the case of Lie groups, i.e., the case of a finite number of degrees of freedom. Our infinite-dimensional Virasoro Lie algebra spanned by the infinite system $\{a_n\}$, and it is a central extension; hence a direct analogue of the Heisenberg Lie algebra. Similarly, our infinite-dimensional Lie algebra of quantum fields spanned by $\{L_k\}$ normalizes the Virasoro Lie algebra, and so it is a direct analogue of the Lie algebra of operators $L(G)$ in the finite-dimensional case. In both of these cases of representations, the operators in the respective Lie algebras are unbounded but densely defined in the respective infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. We show that our representations of the Lie algebra of quantum fields spanned by $\{L_k\}$ may be obtained with the use of highest weight vectors, and weights.
Define the Fock space $B:=\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\cdots]$. Given $\mu,\hbar\in \mathbb{R}$, define the following representation of $\mathcal{A}$ on $B$ ($n\in\mathbb{N}$): $$\begin{aligned}
a_n &=\epsilon_n \partial/\partial x_n,\nonumber\\
a_{-n} &=\hbar \epsilon^{-1}_n n x_n,\nonumber\\
a_0 &=\mu I,\nonumber\\
\hbar &=\hbar I.\end{aligned}$$ When $\hbar\neq 0$, the representation is irreducible, since one can get any polynomial
Let $V=\oplus_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C}v_j$ be an infinite dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{C}$ with a basis $\{v_j;j\in \mathbb{Z}\}$.
The Lie algebra $gl_\infty :=\{(a_{ij})_{i,j\in\mathbb{Z}}; \text{all but a finite number of the $a_ij$ are 0}\}$, with the Lie bracket being the ordinary matrix commutator.
The Lie algebra $gl_\infty$ is the Lie algebra of the Lie group $$\begin{aligned}
\rm GL_\infty=\{A=(a_{ij})_{i,j\in\mathbb{Z}};\text{$A$ invertible and all but a finite number of $a_{ij}-\delta_{ij}$ are zero} \}\end{aligned}$$. The group action is matrix multiplication. Define the shift operator $\Lambda_k$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_k v_j=v_{j-k}.\end{aligned}$$
Then the representation of $Vect$ in $V_{\alpha,\beta}$ in the vector space $V$ can be $$\begin{aligned}
L_n(v_k)=(k-\alpha-\beta(n+1))v_{k-n},\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
L_n=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} (k-\alpha-\beta(n+1))E_{k-n,k}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $L_n\in \bar{a_\infty}$.
The elementary Schur polynomials $S_k(x)$ are polynomials belonging to $\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\cdots]$ and are defined by the generating function $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} S_k(x) z^k= \exp(\sum_{k=1}^\infty) x_k z^k.\end{aligned}$$
We list the following propositions and theorems in Kac’s book [@K] without proofs. These propositions or theorems are useful in this paper. Then in [@K], there are the following
The generating series are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
X(u):=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} u^j \hat{v}_j, \ X^*(u)=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} u^{-j} \check{v}_j^*,\end{aligned}$$ where $u$ is a nonzero complex number.
$\Gamma(u)$ and $\Gamma^*(u)$ have the following form on $B^{(m)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(u)|_{\hat{B}^{(m)}}=u^{m+1} z \exp(\sum_{j\geq 1}u^j x_j)\exp(-\sum_{j\geq 1} \frac{u^{-j}}{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}),\nonumber\\
\Gamma^*(u)|_{\hat{B}^{(m)}}=u^{-m} z^{-1} \exp(-\sum_{j\geq 1}u^j x_j)\exp(\sum_{j\geq 1} \frac{u^{-j}}{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}).\end{aligned}$$
Then the representation $g\ell_\infty$ can be determined by the isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_m:F^{(m)}\rightarrow B^{(m)}.\end{aligned}$$
$E_{ij}$ is represented by $\hat{v}_i\check{v}_j$.
Consider the generating function $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j\in\mathbb{Z}}u^{i}v^{-j}E_{ij}.\end{aligned}$$
The representation in $\hat{F}$ of this generating function under $r$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j\in\mathbb{Z}} u^i v^{-j} r^B(E_{ij})\equiv \sigma_m(X(u)X^*(v))\sigma_m^{-1}=\frac{(u/v)^m}{1-(v/u)}\Gamma(u,v),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(u,v)$ is the vertex operator $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(u,v)=\exp(\sum_{j\geq 1}(u^j-v^j)x_j)\exp(-\sum_{j\geq 1}\frac{u^{-j}-v^{-j}}{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}).\end{aligned}$$
If $\tau\in\Omega$, then $\tau$ is a solution of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}} \check{v_j}(\tau)\otimes \hat{v_j}(\tau)=0. \label{7.2}\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if $\tau\in F^{(0)}$, $\tau\neq 0$ and $\tau$ satisfies (\[7.2\]), then $\tau\in\Omega$.
The Schur polynomials $S_{\lambda}(x)$ are contained in $\Omega$.
A nonzero element $\tau$ of $\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\cdots]$ is contained in $\Omega$ if and only if the coefficient of $\mu^0$ vanishes in the expression: $$\begin{aligned}
u\exp(-\sum_{j\geq 1} 2u^j y_j)\exp(\sum_{j\geq 1}
\frac{u^{-j}}{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j})\tau(x-y)\tau(x+y).
\end{aligned}$$
(Kashiwara and Miwa,1981) A nonzero polynomial $\tau$ is contained in $\Omega$ if and only if $\tau$ is a solutioin of the following system of Hirota bilinear equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^\infty S_j(-2y)S_{j+1}(\tilde{x})\exp(\sum_{k\geq 1}y_k x_k)\tau(x)\cdot \tau(x)=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $y_1,y_2,\cdots$ are free parameters.
Then it becomes the Kadomtzev-Petviashvili(KP) equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{3}{4}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}-\frac{3}{2}u \frac{u}{\partial x}-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\partial^3 u}{\partial x^3}).\end{aligned}$$
The functions $2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}(\log S_\lambda(x,y,t,c_4,c_5,\cdots))$, where $c_4,c_5,\cdots$ are arbitrary constants, are the solutions of the $KP$ equation.
highest weight condition
------------------------
The $\tau$-function of the KdV hierarchy is annihilated by a sequence of differential operators, which form a half branch of the Virasoro algebra. ([@D],[@F], and [@Kac1]). For the partition function here According to [@K], the Virasoro algebra with central charge $c_\beta$ can be represented by $$\begin{aligned}
L_i & =\hat{r}(d_i) \ \text{if} \ i\neq 0,\nonumber\\
L_0 & =\hat{r}(d_0)+h_0,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_\beta=-12\beta^2+12\beta-2$, $h_m=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha-m)(\alpha+2\beta-1-m)$.
Now we can compute the highest weight condition: under what condition, a function $Z\in \mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\cdots,]$ can be annihilated by $L_n$, $n\geq -1$. In fact, when $i\neq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
L_i=\hat{r}(d_i)&=\hat{r}(\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}(k-\alpha-\beta(i+1))E_{k-i,k})\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}(k-\alpha-\beta(i+1))\hat{r}(E_{k-i,k})\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}(k-\alpha-\beta(i+1))r(E_{k-i,k}),\end{aligned}$$ and when $i=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
L_0 &=\hat{r}(d_0)+h_0\nonumber\\
&=\hat{r}(\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}(k-\alpha-\beta)E_{k,k})+h_0\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}(k-\alpha-\beta)\hat{r}(E_{k,k})+h_0\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{k>0}(k-\alpha-\beta)(r(E_{k,k})-I)+\sum_{k\leq 0}(k-\alpha-\beta)r(E_{k,k})+h_0\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, since the transported representation $\hat{r}^B_m=\sigma_m\hat{r}_m \sigma_{m}^{-1}$ of $\mathcal{A}$ on $B^{(m)}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{r}^B_m(\Lambda_k)&=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}, \nonumber\\
\hat{r}^B_m (\Lambda_{-k})& =k x_k,\nonumber\\
\hat{r}^B_m (\Lambda_0)&=m,\end{aligned}$$ which is a representation of Heisenberg algebra on $B^{(m)}$. Then by a result of Fairlie [@CT], there is a oscillator representation of Virasoro algebra for arbitrary $\lambda$, $\mu$ $$\begin{aligned}
L_0 &=(\mu^2+\lambda^2)/2+\sum_{j>0} a_{-j}a_j,\nonumber\\
L_k &=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{-j}a_{j+k}+i\lambda ka_k,\end{aligned}$$ for $k\neq 0$(take $\hbar =1$ and $a_0=\mu$). It is easy to verify that the central charge for this Virasoro algebra is $1+12\lambda^2$.
Then in this case the representation of the Virasoro algebra on $B^{(m)}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
L_0 &=(\mu^2+\lambda^2)/2+\sum_{j>0}jx_j \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j},\nonumber\\
L_k &=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}jx_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j+k}}+i\lambda k\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}, \ k\geq 0,\nonumber\\
L_k &=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}jx_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j+k}}+i\lambda k^2 x_k, \ k\leq 0.\end{aligned}$$
the difficulty of a conjecture of Kontsevich
--------------------------------------------
Kontsevich also proposed some conjectures in [@K]. Let us see the some of them that are concerned with the KdV hierarchies. First of all, one can introduce variables $s$ : $$\begin{aligned}
Z(t_0,t_1,\cdots,;s_0,s_1,\cdots)=\exp(\sum_{n_* m_*} \langle \tau_{d_1}\cdots\tau_{d_n}\rangle_{m_0,m_1,\cdots} \prod_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{t_i^{n_i}}{n_i!}\prod_{j=0}^\infty s_j^{m_j}).\end{aligned}$$ It can be shown ([@K]) that that $Z(t_*(¦«), s_*)$ is an asymptotic expansion of $$\begin{aligned}
I_N(\Lambda)=\int \exp(\sqrt{-1}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} (-1/2)^j s_j \frac{\text{tr} \ M^{2j+1} }{2j+1})d\mu_\Lambda(M).\end{aligned}$$ Then we can list the statements of these conjectures are\
*1. $Z(t,s)$ is a $\tau$-function for KdV-hierarchy in variables $T_{2i+1}:=\frac{t_i}{(2i+1)!!}$ for arbitrary $s$.\
2. $Z(t,s)$ is a $\tau$-function for KdV-hierarchy in variables $T_{2i+1}:=\frac{s_i}{(2i+1)!!}$ for arbitrary $t$.\
3. Let $T$ be any formal $\tau$-function for the KdV-hierarchy considered as a matrix function. Then $\int T(X)d\mu_{\Lambda}(X)$ is a matrix $\tau$-function for the KdV-hierarchy in $\Lambda$.*
We shall explain the difficulty of the first conjecture in this subsection. We recall the Harish-Chandra formula [@H].
\[4.1\] If $\Phi$ is a conjugacy invariant function on the space of hermitian $N\times N$-matrices, then for any diagonal hermitian matrix $Y$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int \Phi(X) e^{-\sqrt{-1} \text{tr} XY}dX=(-2\pi \sqrt{-1})^{N(N-1)/2} (V(Y))^{-1}\int \Phi(D) e^{-\sqrt{-1}\text{tr} DY}V(D)dD,\end{aligned}$$ where the last integral is taken over the space of diagonal hermitian matrices $D$;$V$ is the Vandermonde Polynomial determinant which is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
V(\text{diag}(X_1,X_2,\cdots,X_n):= \prod_{i<j} (X_j-X_i)=\det (X_i^{j-1}).\end{aligned}$$
Harish-Chandra generalized the above fact: [@Harish]:
Let $G$ be a compact simple Lie group, $L$ its Lie algebra of order $N$ and rank $n$, $W$ the Weyl group of $L$,$R_{+}$ the set of positive roots, and $m_i=d_i-1$ its Coxerter indexes. Also $X$ and $Y$ elements of $L$. Let $(X,Y)$ be a bilinear form which is invariant under $G$,i.e.,$(gX,gY)=(X,Y)$,for $\forall g\in G$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{g\in G} \exp(c(X,gYg^{-1}) dg=\text{const} \sum_{w\in W} \epsilon_w \exp(c(X,wY)/\prod_{\alpha\in R_{+}} (\alpha,X)(\alpha,Y).\end{aligned}$$ We have the following
\[4.3\] $$\begin{aligned}
\int \Phi(X) e^{- \frac{1}{2}\text{tr} \Lambda X^2}dX=\text{const}\int \Phi(D)V(D) \frac{\sum_{w\in S_N} \text{sign}(w) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(\Lambda w(D^2))}}{ V(\Lambda)\prod_{i<j}(D_i+D_j)} dD.\end{aligned}$$
We apply Harish-Chandra’s result to the unitary group $\rm U(N)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
& \int \Phi(X) e^{- \frac{1}{2}\text{tr} \Lambda X^2}dX \nonumber\\
=& \text{const}\int \Phi(D) (\int e^{- \frac{1}{2}\text{tr} \Lambda UD^2 U^{-1}}dU)V^2(D) dD\nonumber\\
=& \text{const}\int \Phi(D) \nonumber\\
& \cdot(\sum_{w\in S_N} \text{sign}(w) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(\Lambda U^{-1} D^2 U)}/\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N}\text{tr}((\epsilon_j-\epsilon_i)\Lambda)\text{tr}((\epsilon_j-\epsilon_i)D^2)V^2 (D)dD\nonumber\\
=& \text{const}\int \Phi(D) \nonumber\\
& \cdot(\sum_{w\in S_N} \text{sign}(w) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(\Lambda U^{-1} D^2 U)}/\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N}\text{tr}((\epsilon_j-\epsilon_i)\Lambda)\text{tr}((\epsilon_j-\epsilon_i)D^2)V^2(D)dD\nonumber\\
=& \text{const}\int \Phi(D)V(D) \frac{\sum_{w\in S_N} \text{sign}(w) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(\Lambda w(D^2))}}{ V(\Lambda)\prod_{i<j}(D_i+D_j)} dD\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
We need the following
\[field\] $I_N(\Lambda)$ is symmetric with respect to $\Lambda$ and $I_N(\Lambda)$ is in the field $\mathbb{C}(\Lambda)$, which is the field of polynomial ring of $\Lambda$.
By direct computation, $$\begin{aligned}
\int \exp(-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr} \Lambda M^2)dM=2^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}(2\pi)^{\frac{N^2}{2}} \prod_{r=1}^N \lambda_r^{-\frac{1}{2}} \prod_{i<j}(\lambda_i+\lambda_j)^{-1}. \label{4.8}\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma (\[4.3\]), (\[4.8\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\text{const}\int V(D) \frac{\sum_{w\in S_N} \text{sign}(w) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(\Lambda w(D^2))}}{ V(\Lambda)\prod_{i<j}(D_i+D_j)} dD=2^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}(2\pi)^{\frac{N^2}{2}} \prod_{r=1}^N \lambda_r^{-\frac{1}{2}} \prod_{i<j}(\lambda_i+\lambda_j)^{-1}\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\text{const}\int V(D) \frac{\sum_{w\in S_N} \text{sign}(w) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(\Lambda w(D^2))}}{ \prod_{i<j}(D_i+D_j)} dD=2^{\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}(2\pi)^{\frac{N^2}{2}}V(\Lambda) \prod_{r=1}^N \lambda_r^{-\frac{1}{2}} \prod_{i<j}(\lambda_i+\lambda_j)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Acting on both sides by operator $\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda_i}$ and multiplying $$\frac{2^{-\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}(2\pi)^{-\frac{N^2}{2}} \prod_{r=1}^N \lambda_r^{\frac{1}{2}}, \prod_{i<j}(\lambda_i+\lambda_j)}{V(\Lambda)}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
& = \text{const}\frac{2^{-\frac{N(N-1)}{2}}(2\pi)^{-\frac{N^2}{2}} \prod_{r=1}^N \lambda_r^{\frac{1}{2}} \prod_{i<j}(\lambda_i+\lambda_j)}{V(\Lambda)}\nonumber\\
&\cdot\int (\sum_{i=1}^N D_i^2)V(D) \frac{\sum_{w\in S_N} \text{sign}(w) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}(\Lambda w(D^2))}}{\prod_{i<j}(D_i+D_j)} dD \nonumber\\
&= -\sum_{r=1}^N \frac{1}{\lambda_r}-\sum_{r<k} \frac{2}{\lambda_r+\lambda_k}.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we can prove for all symmetric polynomials $P(\Lambda)$, $\langle P(\Lambda) \rangle\in \mathbb{C}(\Lambda)$, but not in $\mathbb{C}[\Lambda]$. This is the main reason why the first conjecture is hard to prove, since the $\tau$-function of KP hierarchy is in $\mathbb{C}[\Lambda]$.
Virasoro conjecture and matrix model
====================================
Let us recall the definition of $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(M,\beta)$ and some properties [@Mirror].
Let $M$ be a non-singular projective variety. A morphism $f$ from a pointed nodal curve to $X$ is a stable map if every genus 0 contracted component of $\Sigma$ has at least three special points, and every genus 1 contracted component has at least one special point.
A stable map represents a homology class $\beta\in H_2(M,\mathbb{Z})$ if $f_*(C)=\beta$.
The moduli space of stable maps from n-pointed genus $g$ nodal curves to $M$ representing the class $\beta$ is denoted $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(M,\beta)$. The moduli space $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(M,\beta)$ is a Deligne-Mumford stack. It has the following properties:\
(1)There is an open subset $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(M,\beta)$ corresponding maps from non-singular curves.\
(2)$\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(M,\beta)$ is compact.\
(3)There are $n$ “evaluation maps” $\operatorname{ev}_i:\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(M,\beta)\rightarrow M$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{ev}_i(\Sigma,p_1,\cdots,p_n,f)=f(p_i), \ 1\leq i\leq n.\end{aligned}$$ (4)If $n_1\geq n_2$, there is a “forgetful morphism” $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{M}_{g,n_1}(M,\beta)\rightarrow \bar{M}_{g,n_2}(M,\beta).\end{aligned}$$ so long as the space on the right exists.\
(5)There is a “universal map” over the moduli space: $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde{\Sigma},\tilde{p_1},\cdots, \tilde{p_n})\xrightarrow{\bar{f}} M,\nonumber\\
(\tilde{\Sigma},\tilde{p_1},\cdots, \tilde{p_n})\xrightarrow{\pi} \bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(M,\beta).\end{aligned}$$
(6)Given a morphism $g:X\rightarrow Y$, there is an induced morphism $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(X,\beta)\rightarrow \bar{M}_{g,n_2}(Y,g_*\beta),\end{aligned}$$ so long as the space on the right exists. (7)Under certain nice circumstances, if $M$ is convex, $\bar{M}_{0,n}(M,\beta)$ is non-singular of dimension $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\beta c_1(T_M)+\operatorname{dim} M+n-3.\end{aligned}$$
At each point $[\Sigma, p_1,\cdots,p_n,f]$ of $\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}(X,\beta)$, the cotangent line to $\sigma$ at point $p_i$ is a one dimensional vector space, which gives a line bundle $\mathbb{L}_i$, called the $i$th tautological line bundle.
Traditionally, given classes $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\cdots,\gamma_k\in H^*(M,\mathbb{Q})$,the gravitational descendant invariants are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle \tau_{n_1}(\gamma_1)\tau_{n_2}(\gamma_2)\cdots\tau_{n_k}(\gamma_k)\rangle:\nonumber\\
=& \sum_{A\in H_2(M,\mathbb{Z})}q^A \int_{[\bar{M_{g,k}}(M,A)]^{\text{Virt}}} c_1(\mathbb{L}_1)^{n_1}\cup \text{ev}^*_1(\gamma_1)\cup c_1(\mathbb{L}_2)^{n_2}\cup \text{ev}^*_2(\gamma_2)\cdots \nonumber\\
& c_1(\mathbb{L}_k)^{n_k}\cup \text{ev}^*_1(\gamma_k)\rangle\end{aligned}$$ The free energy $F_g^M$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
F_g^M(t):=\langle \exp(\sum_{n,\alpha} t^\alpha_n \tau_n(\alpha))\rangle_g,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{O}_1,\mathcal{O}_2,\cdots,\mathcal{O}_N$ form a basis of $H^*(M,\mathbb{Q})$; $\alpha$ ranges from $1$ to $N$; $n$ ranges over nonnegative integers; only finite $t^\alpha_n$ are nonzero.
In 1997,T. Eguchi, K. Hori and C. Xiong and S.Katz proposed a conjecture which generalized Witten 1990 conjecture [@E]: Then the partition function is $$\begin{aligned}
Z^M(t):=\exp(\sum_{g\geq 0}\lambda^{2-2g}F^M_g(t)). \label{partition}\end{aligned}$$ The statement of Virasoro conjecture is that $Z^M(t)$ is annihilated by $L_n$, $n\geq -1$, which forms part of Virasoro algebra with central charge $c=\chi(M)$,i.e., $\{L_n\}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
[L_n,L_m]=(n-m)L_{n+m}+\frac{\delta_{m,-n}}{12}\cdot \chi(M),\end{aligned}$$ for $m,n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Since this conjecture was proposed, there have been lots of efforts on it. It has been confirmed up to genus 2 [@Lee] and there have been good results [@Liu1][@FP][@Liu2][@Liu3] and etc.
The representation of $L_n$, $n\geq -1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
L_{-1}&=\sum_{\alpha=0}^N \sum_{m=1}^\infty m t^\alpha_m \partial_{m-1,\alpha}+\frac{1}{2\lambda^2}\sum_{\alpha=0}^N t^\alpha t_\alpha,\nonumber\\
L_0 &=\sum_{\alpha=0}^N \sum_{m=0}^\infty (m+b_\alpha)t^\alpha_m \partial_{m,\alpha}+(N+1)\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N-1}\sum_{m=0}^\infty m t^\alpha_m \partial_{m-1,\alpha+1}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2\lambda^2} \sum_{\alpha=0}^{N-1}(N-1)t^\alpha t_{\alpha+1}-\frac{1}{48}(N-1)(N+1)(N+3),\nonumber\\
L_n & =\sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_j C^{(j)}_\alpha(m,n)(\mathcal{C}^j)_\alpha^\beta t^\alpha_m \partial_{m+n-j,\beta}\nonumber\\
& +\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_j \sum_{m=0} D^{(j)}_\alpha(\mathcal{C})_\alpha^\beta \partial_m^\alpha \partial_{n-m-j-1,\beta}+\frac{1}{2\lambda^2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}(\mathcal{C}^{n+1})_\alpha^\beta t^\alpha t_\beta,
\label{48}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
b_\alpha=q_\alpha-\frac{\operatorname{dim}M-1}{2},\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_\alpha^\beta=\int_M c_1(M)\wedge \omega_\alpha\wedge\omega^\beta,\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathcal{C}^j$ is the $j$-th power of the matrix $\mathcal{C}$; $$\begin{aligned}
C^{(j)}_\alpha(m,n)=& \frac{(b_\alpha+m)(b_\alpha+m+1)\cdots (b_\alpha+m+n)}{(m+1)(m+2)\cdots (m+n)}\nonumber\\
& \sum_{m\leq l_1<l_2<\cdots<l_j\leq m+n}\prod_j (\frac{1}{b_\alpha+l_j});\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D^{j}_\alpha(m,n)=&\frac{b^\alpha (b^\alpha+1)\cdots (b^\alpha+m)b_\alpha(b_\alpha+1)\cdots (b_\alpha+n-m-1)}{m! (n-m-1)!}\nonumber\\
& \sum_{-m\leq l_1<l_2<\cdots<l_j\leq n-m-1}\prod_j (\frac{1}{b_\alpha+l_j}\end{aligned}$$
The operators (\[48\]) form a Virasoro algebra with a central charge $c=\sum_\alpha 1=\chi(M)$, if the following condition is satisfied $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4}\sum_\alpha b^\alpha b_\alpha=\frac{1}{24}(\frac{3-\operatorname{M}}{2}\chi(M)-\int_M c_1(M)\wedge c_{\operatorname{M}M-1}(M)).\end{aligned}$$ It was found that the above definition really forms a Virasoro algebra [@E]. It is instructive to verify it really forms an algebra here:
$$\begin{aligned}
& [L_{n_1},L_{n}]\nonumber\\
&=[\sum_{m_1=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1} C^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)(\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1} t^{\alpha_1}_{m_1} \partial_{m_1+n_1-j_1,\beta_1}\nonumber\\
& +\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1} \sum_{m_1=0} D^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)(\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1} \partial_{m_1}^\alpha \partial_{n_1-m_1-j_1-1,\beta}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2\lambda^2}\sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}(\mathcal{C}^{n_1+1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1} t^{\alpha_1} t_{\beta_1},
\sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_j C^{(j)}_\alpha(m,n)(\mathcal{C}^j)_{\alpha}^{\beta} t^{\alpha}_{m} \partial_{m+n-j,\beta}\nonumber\\
& +\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_j \sum_{m=0}^\infty D^{(j)}_\alpha(m,n)(\mathcal{C}^{j})_\alpha^\beta \partial_m^\alpha \partial_{n-m-j-1,\beta}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2\lambda^2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}(\mathcal{C}^{n+1})_\alpha^\beta t^\alpha t_\beta]\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{m_1=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1} \sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_j C^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)\nonumber\\
& (\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}
C^{(j)}_\alpha(m,n)(\mathcal{C}^j)_{\alpha}^{\beta}(\delta_{\alpha,\beta_1}\delta_{m_1+n_1-j_1,m}
t^{\alpha_1}_{m_1}\partial_{m+n-j,\beta}-\delta_{m+n-j,m_1}\delta_{\beta,\alpha_1}t^\alpha_m \partial_{m_1+n_1-j_1,\beta_1} )\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{m_1=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_j \sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{\lambda^2}{2}C^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)\nonumber\\
& (\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}D^{(j)}_\alpha(m,n)(\mathcal{C}^{j})_\alpha^\beta
(\eta^{\alpha\gamma}\delta_{m_1,m}\delta_{\gamma,\alpha_1}\partial_{n-m-j-1,\beta}\partial_{m_1+n_1-j_1,\beta_1}+\delta_{n-m-j-1,,m_1}\delta_{\alpha_1,\beta}\partial^\alpha_m \partial_{m_1+n_1-j_1,\beta_1})\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{m_1=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{1}{2\lambda^2}C^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)(\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}(\mathcal{C}^{n+1})_\alpha^\beta (t^{\alpha_1}_{m_1}(\delta_{\beta_1,\alpha}t_{m_1+n_1-j_1,\beta}+\eta_{\beta,\gamma}t^{\alpha}_{m_1+n_1-j_1}\delta_{\beta_1,\gamma}))\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&+ \sum_{m_1=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\sum_j \sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{\lambda^2}{2}C^{(j)}_{\alpha}(m,n)\nonumber\\
& (\mathcal{C}^{j})_{\alpha}^{\beta}D^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)(\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}
(\eta^{\alpha\gamma}\delta_{m,m_1}\delta_{\gamma,\alpha_1}\partial_{n_1-m_1-j_1-1,\beta}\partial_{m+n-j,\beta_1}+\delta_{n_1-m_1-j_1-1,,m}\delta_{\alpha_1,\beta}\partial^\alpha_{m_1} \partial_{m+n-j,\beta_1})\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1} \sum_{m_1=0}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{1}{4} D^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)(\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}(\mathcal{C}^{n+1})_\alpha^\beta
(\delta_{\alpha,\beta}\delta_{m_1,n_1-m_1-j_1-1}+\eta^{\alpha\alpha}\eta_{\beta\beta}\delta_{m_1,n_1-m_1-j_1-1}\nonumber\\
&+\delta_{\alpha,\beta}t_{n_1-m_1-j_1-1}\partial_{m_1}^\alpha+t_{n_1-m_1-j_1-1}^\alpha \eta_{\beta\beta}\partial_{m_1}^\alpha+\eta^{\alpha\alpha}t_{m_1,\beta}\partial_{n_1-m_1-j_1-1,\beta}+\delta_{\alpha,\beta}t_{m_1}^\beta \partial_{n_1-m_1-j_1-1,\beta})\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{1}{2\lambda^2}C^{(j)}_{\alpha}(m,n)(\mathcal{C}^{j})_{\alpha}^{\beta}(\mathcal{C}^{n_1+1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1} (t^{\alpha}_{m}(\delta_{\beta,\alpha}t_{m+n-j,\beta}+\eta_{\beta_1,\gamma}t^{\alpha_1}_{m+n-j}\delta_{\beta,\gamma}))\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&-\sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j} \sum_{m=0}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta}\frac{1}{4}D^{(j)}_\alpha(m,n)(\mathcal{C}^j)_{\alpha}^{\beta}(\mathcal{C}^{n_1+1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}
(\delta_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\delta_{m,n-m-j-1}+\eta^{\alpha_1\alpha_1}\eta_{\beta_1\beta_1}\delta_{m,n-m-j-1}\nonumber\\
&+\delta_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}t_{n-m-j-1}\partial_{m}^{\alpha_1}+t_{n-m-j-1}^{\alpha_1} \eta_{\beta_1\beta_1}\partial_{m}^{\alpha_1}+\eta^{\alpha_1\alpha_1}t_{m,\beta_1}\partial_{n-m-j-1,\beta_1}+\delta_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}t_{m}^{\beta_1} \partial_{n-m-j-1,\beta_1})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&=(n_1-n)(\sum_{m_1=0}^\infty \sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1} C^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1+n)(\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1} t^{\alpha_1}_{m_1} \partial_{m_1+n_1+n-j_1,\beta_1}\nonumber\\
& +\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}\sum_{j_1} \sum_{m_1=0} D^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n+n_1)(\mathcal{C}^{j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1} \partial_{m_1}^\alpha \partial_{n_1+n-m_1-j_1-1,\beta}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2\lambda^2}\sum_{\alpha_1,\beta_1}(\mathcal{C}^{n_1+n+1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1} t^{\alpha_1} t_{\beta_1})\nonumber\\
& =(n-n_1)L_{n+n_1}\end{aligned}$$
Similar to [@E], we have used identities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j_1=0}^j(\mathcal{C}^{j-j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}C^{(j-j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1)C^{(j_1)}_{\beta_1}(m_1+n_1-j_1,n)\nonumber\\
&=(\mathcal{C}^{j-j_1})_{\alpha_1}^{\beta_1}((b_{\alpha_1}+m_1+n_1)C^{(j)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1+n)\nonumber\\
&+(m_1+n+n_1-j-j_1+1)C^{(j-1)}_{\alpha_1}(m_1,n_1+n));\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j_1=0}^j (\mathcal{C}^{j-j_1})_{\alpha}^{\alpha_1}D^{(j-j_1)}_\alpha(m,n)C^{(j_1)}_{\alpha_1}(n-m-j+j_1,n_1)\nonumber\\
&=(\mathcal{C}^{j-j_1})_{\alpha}^{\alpha_1}((b_\alpha+n-m-1)D^{(j)}_\alpha(k,n+n_1)+(n+n_1-m-j)D^{(j-1)}_\alpha(m,n+n_1)).\end{aligned}$$
the planar graph interpretation of Virasoro constraints
-------------------------------------------------------
The constraints $L_{-1}Z=0$ and $L_0 Z$ have been obtained in [@DW] and [@H]. We shall provide a planar graphic interpretation for $L_n Z=0$, $n\geq 1$. This interpretation is not rigorous so far.
Two dimensional quantum gravity have been proved to be equivalent to hermitian matrix theories. It is well known ,for a very general one matrix model is in fact a planar graph theory [@t'Hooft][@B][@Fran], $$\begin{aligned}
Z_N(t_1,t_2,\cdots)&=\langle e^{N\sum_{i\geq 1}\operatorname{Tr}(M^i/i)}\rangle \nonumber\\
&=\sum_{n_1,n_2,\cdots\geq 0}\prod_{i\geq 1}\frac{(Nt_i)^{n_i}}{i^{n_i}n_i!}\langle \prod_{i\geq 1}\operatorname{Tr}(M^i)^{n_i}\rangle\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{n_1,n_2,\cdots\geq 0}\prod_{i\geq 1}\frac{(Nt_i)^{n_i}}{i^{n_i}n_i!} \nonumber\\
&\sum_{\text{ all labeled fat graphs $\Gamma$ with $n_i$ $i$-valent vertices }}
N^{-E(\Gamma)}N^{F(\Gamma)}\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\text{fat graphs $\Gamma$}} \frac{N^{V(\Gamma)-E(\Gamma)+F(\Gamma)}}{\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma)}\prod_{i\geq 1}g_i^{n_i(\Gamma)},\end{aligned}$$ where $n_i(\Gamma)$ denotes the total number of $i$-valent vertices of $\Gamma$ and $V(\Gamma)=\sum_i n_i(\Gamma)$ is the total number of vertices of $\Gamma$. We don’t know if there is a matrix theory that is equivalent to the theory (\[partition\]). However, we would like to propose
**Conjecture** *The theory (\[partition\]) is equivalent to a planar graph theory*.
This conjecture is of course weaker than the statement “the theory (\[partition\]) is equivalent to a matrix theory.” We expect that this conjecture can be generalized to some other conformal theories.
In the rest of this subsection, we assume that this conjecture holds, then we shall show how the Virasoro constraints arise: To show that the partition function (\[partition\]) is annihilated by $L_n$, we will show that $L_n$ is the generator of particle antiparticle symmetry of the theory.
There are three terms in the right hand side of (\[48\]), we claim that the first term corresponds the annihilation of a vertex and creation of a vertex, such that the weight on the target increases $n$. There are two factors to realize this: once a particle with target weight $m+n-j$ is annihilated and a particle with target weight $m$ is created, from the graph, it is in fact a $m+n-j$ valent vertex becomes a $m$ valent vertex. This makes $n-j$ to the contribution of the $n$ extra target weight. The rest $j$ target weight comes from directly from the factor $(\mathcal{C}^j)_\alpha^\beta$. The factor $D^{j}(m,n)$ is the ratio of the process from the graph:when $2(n-j)$ gluons or edges are decoupled from a $2m+2n-2j$ target weight vertex, to form the new graph, we need to divide it by $\frac{1}{(2m+2)(2m+4)\cdots (2m+2n-2j)}$. Mean while, when the new vertex is created, those gluons get new freedoms to couple(it is different from decoupling. When decoupling happens, there is no restriction) to the new vertex and the extra weights, we need a factor which is $(2q_\alpha+2m-(N-1))(2q_\alpha+2m+2-(N-1))\cdots (2q_\alpha+2m+2n-(N-1))(\sum_{m\leq l_1< l_2\cdots \l_j\leq m+n}\prod (\frac{1}{2q_\alpha+2l_j}-(N-1))$(there is $N-1$ but not $2(N-1)$ in these parenthesis because the maps in the moduli spaces are holomorphic). That is the explanation of the first term.
For the second term, the process is that two vertices form one more genus. This annihilation increases the target weight $(m+n-j-1+1)$. The last 1 in the parenthesis is because two vertices are annihilated.The rest of the factors have the similar explanation except the factor $\lambda^2$. In fact, this is because when the two vertices are annihilated,the Euler number increases by 2. The denominator 2 under $\lambda^2$ is because of the symmetry of the vertices.
The third term’s explanation can be realized similarly to the second term, by splitting a genus into two vertices. But the target weight increases totally from the $\mathcal{C}^j$.
Since $Z$ is invariant under conformal transformation, and according to our analysis above, $L_n$, $n\geq 1$ is the representation of generator of this conformal transformation. Therefore $Z$ is annihilated by $L_n$, i.e., $L_n Z=0$.
this explanation of the Virasoro constraints is based on the existence of the corresponding planar graph theory. More knowledge about this conjectural planar graph theory is appreciated for deeper understanding of this explanation.
Virasoro constraints and conformal invariance
---------------------------------------------
Now let us turn to physics. To prove the partition function of a conformal field theory is annihilated by the family $\{L_n\}$, $n\geq -1$, one may wants to prove that function is invariant under the action of conformal transformation, which is a local coordinate transformation by a holomorphic function. Let us consider a sigma model from a Riemann surface to the smooth projective manifold $M$. The Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}&=\mathcal{L}_0-( (\int_\Sigma \sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_\alpha t^\alpha_m\tau_m(\alpha)
+\sum_{i=1}^r (\ln q_i) X^*(q_i))+(\ln \lambda )\chi(\Sigma)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ is the coordinate of the Riemann surface and $g^{ab}$ is the metric on the Riemann surface;$\xi_m$s are fixed points on the Riemann surface; $X^\mu$ is the coordinate of the target space and $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric on the target space; $q_i$ in the front of $X(q_i)$ denotes an indeterminate which corresponds a basis element of $H_2(M,\mathbb{Q})$ and by abuse of notation, in $X(q_i)$, $q_i$ also represents the dual basis element in $H^2(M,\mathbb{Q})$; $\{\mathcal{O}_i\}$ form a basis of $H^*(M,\mathbb{Q})$.
Classically, this action is invariant under conformal transformation. If the genus $g$ is fixed, the path integral of the above classical action is the free energy for stable curve with genus $g$, so let us consider the partition function in which the genus $g$ is summed up: we consider the following partition function $$\begin{aligned}
Z(t)^M= \sum_{\Sigma\in S}\frac{1}{\operatorname{Aut}(\Sigma)}\int \frac{[dX dg]}{\text{Diff}\times\text{Weyl}}\exp(-\mathcal{L}). \label{partition2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $S$ is the collection of finite stable curves.This partition function is exactly the partition defined in (\[partition\]), by the definition of it. The partition function in (\[partition\]) is invariant under the conformal transformation. Therefore the partition function in (\[partition2\]) is also invariant under conformal transformation. conformal transformation can also be realized by local coordinate transformation $$z'=z+\epsilon v(z)=z+\sum_{n=-1}^\infty \epsilon_n z^{n+1}$$. Since the conformal transformation is local, we would like to conjecture:
*The representation of the generators of conformal transformation with central extension is* (\[48\]).
Locally a point in the moduli space can be represented as $(z,g_{ij}(z), X^\mu(z))$ (here we only write out the coordinate of one punched point) , which is an infinite dimensional space. We could define the hermitian metric on this infinite dimensional space, as the following $$\begin{aligned}
\langle dz^a,dz^b\rangle&= g^{ab},\nonumber\\
\langle dz^c, dg^{ab}\rangle &=g^{cd}\partial_d g^{ab},\nonumber\\
\langle dg^{ab},dg^{cd}\rangle &=g^{ac}g^{bd},\nonumber\\
\langle dz^a, dX^\mu\rangle &= g^{ab} G_{\mu\nu}\partial_b X^{\nu},\nonumber\\
\langle dX^\mu, dX^\nu \rangle &=G^{\mu\nu}.\end{aligned}$$ where all the indexes run over complex coordinate index and their conjugates. Then it might be possible, but very complicated, to explicitly compute the first chern class of the vector bundle $\mathcal{L}_i$ and check the Virasoro condition.
Bessis, D.; Itzykson, C.; Zuber, J. B.,Quantum field theory techniques in graphical enumeration. Adv. in Appl. Math. 1 (1980), no. 2, 109–157. R. Dijkgraaf, H. Verlinde and E. Verlinde, Loop equations and Virasoro constraints in nonperturbative two-dimensional quantum gravity, Nuclear Phys. B 348 (1991) No. 3, 435-456. R. Dijkgraaf and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B342 (1990) 486. P.Deligne and D.Mumford, The irreduciblity of the space of curves of given genus, Inst.Hautes Études Sci. Publ.Math.45(1969)75. Eguchi, Tohru; Hori, Kentaro; Xiong,Chuan-Sheng;,Quantum cohomology and Virasoro algebra,Phys. Lett. B 402 (1997), no. 1-2, 71–80.
M. Fukuma, H. Kawai and R. Nakayama, Continuum Schwinger-Dyson equations and universal structures in two-dimensional quantum gravity, Internat. J. Modern Phys. A6 (1991) No. 8, 1385-1406.
P.Di Francesco, 2D Quantum Gravity, Matrix Models and Graph Combinatorics, Applications of Random Matrices in Physics. Liu, Xiaobo; Tian, Gang,Virasoro constraints for quantum cohomology.J. Differential Geom. 50 (1998), no. 3, 537–590. Hodge integrals and Gromov-Witten theory. Invent. Math. 139 (2000), no. 1, 173–199. Liu, Xiaobo, Elliptic Gromov-Witten invariants and Virasoro conjecture. Comm. Math. Phys. 216 (2001), no. 3, 705–728. Liu, Xiaobo, Genus-2 Gromov-Witten invariants for manifolds with semisimple quantum cohomology. Amer. J. Math. 129 (2007), no. 2, 463–498. Lee, Y.-P.,Witten’s conjecture and the Virasoro conjecture for genus up to two. Gromov-Witten theory of spin curves and orbifolds, 31–42, Contemp. Math., 403, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006. K. Hori, Nucl. Phys. B439 (1995) 395. Harish-Chandra, Differential operators on a semisimple Lie algebra. Am. J. Math. 79, 87-120(1957). V.G.Kac and A.K.Raina, Highest weight representation of infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Advanced Series in Mathematical PHysics Vol.2,World Scientific. V. Kac and A. Schwarz, geometric interpretation of the partition function of 2D gravity, Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) No. 3-4, 329-334. Kontsevich, intersection theory on the moduli space of curves and the Matrix Airy Function, Commun.Math.Phys. 147,1-23(1992). Itzykson,Zuber, Combinatorics of the modular group.II.the Kontsevich integrals, International Journal of modern physics A,vol 7,no.(23),5661-5705. E.Witten,Two dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space, Surveys in Diff.Geom.1,243-310(1991). Polchinski, String Theory Vol I,II, Cambridge University Press, 1998. Singurdur Helgason, Groups and Geometric Analysis,Mathematical Surveys and Monographs Volume 83. Kentaro Hori, Sheldon Katz, Albrecht Klemm, and Rahul Pandharipande,Mirror Symmetry (Clay Mathematics Monographs, V. 1),American Mathematical Society; illustrated edition edition (July 2003). L.M.Mehta, Random Matrices, third Edition. G.’t Hooft, Nuclear Phys. B72(1974)461. Vladimir Turaev,*Introduction to Combinatorial Torsions*, Birkhauser (April 2001). V.G.Turaev, *Reidemeister torsion in knot theory* , Russian Math. Surveys 41,119-182,1986. Palle E.T.Jorgensen, *Operators and Representation theory:Canonical Models for Algebras of Operators Arising Quantum Mechanics*, Edward Witten,Two-Dimensional Gravity and Intersection Theory on Moduli Space, Surveys in Differential Geometry,1(1991)243-310. Edward Witten, Topological Sigma Model,Surveys in Diffrential Geometry 1(1991)243-310. D.P.Želobenko, *Compact Lie groups and their Representations*, Translations of Mathematical Monographs Volume 40. D.J.Gross and W.Taylor IV, Two dimensional QCD is a string theory, Nucl. Phys.B400(1993) 181-210,hep-th/9301068 D.P.Želobenko, *Compact Lie groups and their Representations*, Translations of Mathematical Monographs Volume 40.
[^1]: The second named author was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $X$ and $Y$ be length metric spaces. Let ${\mathcal{H}}^n$ denote the $n$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. The Lipschitz-Volume Rigidity is a property that if there exists a 1-Lipschitz map $f\colon X\to Y$ and $0<{\mathcal{H}}^n(X)={\mathcal{H}}^n(f(X))<\infty$, then $f$ preserves the length of path. This property holds for smooth manifolds but doesn’t hold for all singular spaces. We survey the Lipschitz-Volume Rigidity Theorems on singular spaces with lower curvature bounds and discuss some related open problems.'
author:
- Nan Li
title: 'Lipschitz-Volume Rigidity and Globalization'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
In this paper, we let $\dim_{\mathcal{H}}$ denote the Hausdorff dimension and ${\mathcal{H}}^n$ denote the $n$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. A map $f$ is called a path isometry if it preserves the length of path. Note that a local isometry is always a path isometry but the converse may not be true, since a path isometry is not necessary a one-to-one map. The Lipschitz-Volume Rigidity property, abbreviated as LV-Rigidity is stated as follows.
\[p:lv-rig\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be length metric spaces. If there exists a 1-Lipschitz map $f\colon X\to Y$ and $0<{\mathcal{H}}^n(X)={\mathcal{H}}^n(f(X))<\infty$, then $f$ is a path isometry.
By a co-area formula type of argument, one can show that this property holds for smooth manifolds.
\[t:LV-rig-mfd\] The LV-Rigidity holds if $X$ and $Y$ are both closed Riemannian manifolds.
Suppose $\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(X)=\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(Y)=n$. Let $L(\sigma)$ denote the length of a curve $\sigma$. Fix a geodesic $\gamma\subset X$. It’s clear that $\mathcal L(\gamma)\ge \mathcal L(f(\gamma))$, since $f$ is 1-Lipschitz. For $r>0$ small, we have $${\text{vol}\left(B_r(\gamma)\right)}=c(n)\cdot r^{n-1}\mathcal L(\gamma)+O(r^n).$$ Because $f(B_r(\gamma))\subseteq B_r(f(\gamma))$, we have $${\text{vol}\left(f(B_r(\gamma))\right)}\le {\text{vol}\left(B_r(f(\gamma))\right)}\le c(n)\cdot r^{n-1}\mathcal L(f(\gamma))+O(r^n).$$ Note that ${\text{vol}\left(B_r(\gamma)\right)}={\text{vol}\left(f(B_r(\gamma))\right)}$. We have $$\mathcal L(\gamma)\le \mathcal L(f(\gamma))+O(r).$$ Let $r\to 0$. We get $\mathcal L(\gamma)\le \mathcal L(f(\gamma))$.
LV-Rigidity doesn’t hold in general, even if $f$ is in addition a bi-Lipschitz map. Let ${\mathcal L}_d(\gamma)$ denote the length of curve $\gamma\subset X$ with respect to the metric $d$ on $X$.
\[eg.cube.edge\] Given $n\ge 2$, let $(X,d)$ be an $n$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold and $A\in X$ be a closed subset with ${\mathcal{H}}^n(A)=0$, but ${\mathcal{H}}^1(A)>0$. For example, $A$ can be a minimizing geodesic. Given $\lambda\in(0,1)$, let length metric $d_\lambda$ be induced by the following length structure: $${\mathcal L}_{d_\lambda}(\sigma)
\equiv\lambda\cdot{\mathcal{H}}^1(\sigma\cap A)+{\mathcal{H}}^1(\sigma\setminus A)
={\mathcal L}_d(\sigma)-(1-\lambda)\cdot {\mathcal{H}}^1(\sigma\cap A).$$ Here ${\mathcal{H}}^1$ is the $1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure with respect to the metric $d\,|_{\,\sigma}$, re-normalized so that ${\mathcal{H}}^1(\sigma)={\mathcal L}_d(\sigma)$. Let $f\colon (X,d)\to (X,d_\lambda)$ be the identity map. Note that $f$ is 1-Lipschitz, bi-Lipschitz onto and volume preserving. However, $f$ is not a path isometry.
If $\lambda=0$, the length structure ${\mathcal L}_{d_0}(\sigma)
\equiv{\mathcal{H}}^1(\sigma\setminus A)$ induces a pseudometric $d_0$. By identifying the points with zero $d_0$-distance, i.e., the points in $A$, we obtain a length metric space $(X/d_0, \bar d_0)$. In this case, the projection map $f\colon X\to X/d_0$ is 1-Lipschitz onto and volume preserving, but not a bi-Lipschitz map or path isometry. It’s also worth to point out that $X/d_0$ has only one singular point $p=f(A)$.
In the above example, $(Y,d_Y)=(X,d_\lambda)$ is a singular space. Note that $f$ is still a local isometry on the regular part $X\setminus A$. A main reason that the local isometry $f\,|_{\,X\setminus A}$ can’t be extended to the entire $X$ is that not every geodesic in $(X, d_\lambda)$ can be approximated by curves in $(X\setminus f(A), d_{X\setminus f(A)})$ with converging length. In particular, this shows that the metric completion of $(X\setminus f(A), d_{X\setminus f(A)})$ is not isometric to $(X, d_\lambda)$. In the case of $\lambda=0$, we have that Example \[eg.cube.edge\] doesn’t satisfy the following property.
\[p:glob\] Let $Y$ be a complete length metric space and $\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(Y)=n$. Let $\mathcal U\subset Y$ be a subset with ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}(Y\setminus \mathcal U)=0$, equipped with the intrinsic (length) metric $d_{\mathcal U}$. Then the metric completion of $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})$ is isometric to $(Y, d_Y)$.
For simplicity, let $X$ be a closed $2$-dimensional manifold and $A\subset X$ be a minimizing geodesic. If $\lambda=0$, then $p=f(A)$ is a single point. Consider $(Y,d_Y)=(X/d_0,\bar d_0)$ and $\mathcal U=Y\setminus \{p\}$. Note that the intrinsic metric on $\mathcal U$ is the same as the intrinsic metric on $X\setminus A$. Thus the metric completion of $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})$ is isometric to the metric completion of $(X\setminus A, d_{X\setminus A})$, which is not isometric to $(Y, d_Y)$ or $(X,d)$. Moreover, given $\lambda\in[0,1)$, let $\gamma=f(\sigma)\in Y$ be a minimizing geodesic passing through $f(A)$, where $\sigma\subset X$ is a curve with ${\mathcal{H}}^1(\sigma\cap A)>0$. We claim that for any minimizing geodesics $\gamma_i\in Y$ that converges to $\gamma$, there is a subsequence $i\to\infty$ for which $\gamma_i\cap f(A)\neq\varnothing$. Arguing by contradiction, suppose $\gamma_i\cap f(A)=\varnothing$ for all $i\ge N$, then $$\lim_{i\to \infty}\,{\mathcal L}_{d_\lambda}(\gamma_i)
=\lim_{i\to \infty}\,{\mathcal L}_d(\gamma_i)= {\mathcal L}_d(\gamma)
>{\mathcal L}_{d_\lambda}(\gamma).$$ This contradicts to ${\displaystyle}\lim_{i\to \infty}\,{\mathcal L}_{d_\lambda}(\gamma_i)={\mathcal L}_{d_\lambda}(\gamma)$, provided that $\gamma_i$ and $\gamma$ are all minimizing geodesics and $\gamma_i\to\gamma$. Therefore, the metric $d_\lambda$ on $Y$ can’t be determined by the intrinsic metric over $\mathcal U=Y\setminus f(A)$. In the case $\lambda=0$, we have $p\in\gamma_i$ for a subsequence $i\to\infty$. Thus these $\gamma_i$ are all bifurcated geodesics.
The following is an obvious lemma. Let ${[\,xy\,]}$ denote a geodesic connecting $x$ and $y$.
\[l:metric\_c\] Let $(X,d)$ be a complete length metric space and $\mathcal U\subset X$ be a subset. If for every $x,y\in X$ and every $\epsilon>0$, there exist $x', y'\in X$ so that $|xx'|+|yy'|<\epsilon$ and ${[\,x' y'\,]}\subseteq \mathcal U$, then the metric completion of $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})$ is isometric to $(X,d)$.
In Section \[sec:LV-rig\], we survey the results related to Property \[p:lv-rig\] and Property \[p:glob\]. In Section \[sec:glob\], we discuss some open questions related to the LV-Rigidity.
Lipschitz-Volume Rigidity {#sec:LV-rig}
=========================
It turns out that Property \[p:glob\] holds if the curvature on singular space $Y$ is bounded from below in some sense. In this paper, we mainly focus on the singular spaces with (synthetic) lower Ricci curvature bounds or (synthetic) lower sectional curvature bounds.
Ricci limit spaces
------------------
Let ${\mathcal M(n,\kappa,v)}$ be the collection of $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifolds $(M,p)$ with Ricci curvature bounded from below by $-(n-1)\kappa$ and ${\mathcal{H}}^n(B_1(p))\ge v>0$. By Cheeger-Gromov Compactness Theorem, ${\mathcal M(n,\kappa,v)}$ is pre-compact in the pointed Gromov-Hausdorff topology. Let ${\mathcal M_\infty(n,\kappa,v)}$ be the closure of ${\mathcal M(n,\kappa,v)}$.
\[t:m.c.Ric\] Let subset $\mathcal U\subset X\in {\mathcal M_\infty(n,\kappa,v)}$, $n\ge 2$, be equipped with the intrinsic metric $d_{\mathcal U}$. If ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}(X\setminus \mathcal U)=0$, then the metric completion of $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})$ is isometric to $(X, d_X)$.
If $\mathcal U$ is open, then the above theorem follows from Lemma \[l:metric\_c\] and the proof of Theorem 3.7 in [@CC00-II]. For the general case, it follows from Lemma \[l:metric\_c\] and the following lemma. Assume $M_i\to X$. A geodesic $\gamma\subset X$ is called a limit geodesic if there exists geodesics $\gamma_i\subset M_i$ for which $\gamma_i\to \gamma$. We let ${[\,pq\,]}_\infty$ denote the collection of limit geodesics connecting $p$ and $q$. Given $p\in X$ and $E\subseteq X$, define $H_R(p,E)=\{y\in \bar B_R(p)\colon ({[\,py\,]}_\infty\cap E)\setminus\{p\}\neq\varnothing\}$.
Let $p\in X\in {\mathcal M_\infty(n,\kappa,v)}$ and $E\subseteq X$. If ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}(E)=0$, then ${\mathcal{H}}^n(H_R(p,E))=0$.
Not losing generality, we assume $R=1$. We will need the following Bishop-Gromov volume comparison on the limit space $X$. Given $p,x\in X$ with $0<d(p,x)=r_0<1$ and $0<r<\min\{r_0, 1-r_0\}/100$, let $A_r(p,x)=\{y\in B_1(p)\colon{[\,py\,]}_\infty\cap B_r(x)\neq\varnothing\}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal H^n(A_r(p,x))\le c(n,\kappa,r_0)r^{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ This follows from Bishop-Gromov comparison on manifolds and the volume convergence theorem in [@CC97-I].
Now for any $\epsilon>0$, cover $E_\epsilon=E\cap (B_{1-\epsilon}(p)\setminus B_\epsilon(p))$ by countably many balls $\{B_{r_\alpha}(x_\alpha)\}$ for which $\sum r_\alpha^{n-1}<\epsilon$ and $r_\alpha<\epsilon\le\min\{d(p,x_\alpha), 1-d(p,x_\alpha)\}/100$. Note that $H_1(p,E_\epsilon)\subseteq\cup_\alpha A_{r_\alpha}(p,x_\alpha)$. We have $${\mathcal{H}}^n(H_1(p,E_\epsilon))\le \sum_\alpha \mathcal H^n(A_{r_\alpha}(p,x_\alpha))\le \sum_\alpha c(n,\kappa,r_0)r_\alpha^{n-1}<c(n,\kappa,r_0)\epsilon.$$ Therefore, $${\mathcal{H}}^n(H_1(p,E))\le{\mathcal{H}}^n(H_1(p,E_\epsilon))+{\mathcal{H}}^n(\bar B_\epsilon(p))+{\mathcal{H}}^n(\bar B_1(p)\setminus B_{1-\epsilon}(p))\le c(n,\kappa,r_0)\epsilon.$$
For LV-Rigidity, we have the following theorem.
\[t:LW-rig\] Let $X, Y\in {\mathcal M_\infty(n,\kappa,v)}$ and $n\ge 2$. Suppose that there is a 1-Lipschitz map $f\colon X\to Y$. If ${\mathcal{H}}^n(X)={\mathcal{H}}^n(f(X))$, then $f$ is an isometry with respect to the intrinsic metrics of $X$ and $f(X)$. In particular, if $f$ is also onto, then $Y$ is isometric to $X$.
\[t:LW-a.rig\] For any $n\ge 2$, $\kappa,v,D>0$ and $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta=\delta(n,\kappa,v,D,\epsilon)>0$ such that the following holds for any $X,Y\in {\mathcal M_\infty(n,\kappa,v)}$ that satisfies $\max\{{{\rm diam}}(X), {{\rm diam}}(Y)\}\le D$ and $|{\mathcal{H}}^n(X)-{\mathcal{H}}^n(Y)|<\delta$. If map $f:X\to Y$ satisfies $|f(x)f(y)|_Y\le |xy|_X+\delta$, for all $x,y\in X$, then $|f(x)f(y)|_Y\ge |xy|_X-\epsilon$ for any $x,y\in X$. Consequently, $f$ is an $\epsilon$-Gromov-Hausdorff approximation.
A special case of Corollary \[t:LW-a.rig\] was proved by Bessières, Besson, Courtois, and Gallot in [@BBGG]. They used it to prove the following stability theorem.
\[t:BBGG\] For any integer $n\ge 3$ and $D>0$, there exists $\epsilon(n,D)>0$ so that the following holds. Let $(Y,g)\in \mathcal M(n,-1,v)$ and $(X,g_0)$ be an $n$-dimensional closed hyperbolic manifold with ${{\rm diam}}(X)\le D$. Suppose that there exists a degree-one map $f\colon Y\to X$. Then $vol_g(Y)\le (1+\epsilon)vol_{g_0}(X)$ if and only if $f$ if homotopic to a diffeomorphism.
Alexandrov spaces
-----------------
Let ${\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ denote the collection of $n$-dimensional Alexandrov spaces with curvature $\ge\kappa$. For $X\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ the Toponogov comparison holds in the sense that the geodesic triangles are “fatter" than the corresponding triangles in the space form ${\mathds{S}}^2_\kappa$. For example, the Gromov-Hausdorff limits of Riemannian manifolds with $\sec\ge\kappa$ are Alexandrov spaces with curvature $\ge \kappa$. The quotient space $M/G\in{\text{Alex\,}}(\kappa)$, where $M$ is a Riemannian manifold with $sec_{M}\ge\kappa$ and group $G$ acts on $M$ isometrically.
To compare with Ricci limit spaces, we would like to point out that not every Alexandrov space is isometric to a non-collapsed limit of Riemannian manifolds with uniform lower sectional curvature bound, due to some topological obstruction (c.f. [@Kap07]). It is an open question whether every Alexandrov space is a collapsed limit of Riemannian manifolds with uniform lower sectional curvature bound.
Similar to Theorem \[t:m.c.Ric\], we have the following result.
\[t:met.comp.Alex\] Let $n\ge 2$ and subset $\mathcal U\subset X\in {\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ be equipped with the intrinsic metric $d_{\mathcal U}$. If $\dim_{{\mathcal{H}}}(X\setminus \mathcal U)< n-1$, then the metric completion of $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})$ is isometric to $(X, d_X)$.
This follows from Lemma \[l:metric\_c\] and the following lemma for which we will outline the proof.
\[map.dim\] Let $\Omega_0\subseteq X\in{\text{Alex}^n(\kappa)}$ be a subset and $p\in X$ be a fixed point. Let $\Omega\subseteq X$ be a subset such that $d(p,\Omega)>0$. If for each $x\in \Omega_0$ there exists a geodesic ${[\,px\,]}$ such that $\Omega\cap{[\,px\,]}\neq\varnothing$, then $$\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(\Omega)\ge\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(\Omega_0)-1.$$
Let $\Gamma=\Omega\times[0,\infty)$ be equipped with the metric $$d((x_1,t_1),(x_2,t_2))=|x_1x_2|_X+|t_1-t_2|,$$ where $x_i\in\Omega$ and $t_i\in[0,\infty)$, $i=1,2$. Define map $h: \Omega_0\to\Gamma$, $x\mapsto (\bar x,|px|_X)$, where ${[\,px\,]}$ is selected such that ${[\,px\,]}\cap\Omega\neq\varnothing$ and $\bar x\in {[\,px\,]}\cap\Omega$ is selected arbitrarily. By Toponogov’s Comparison Theorem, one can show that there is a constant $c>0$ so that for any $x_1,x_2\in \Omega_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|h(x_1)h(x_2)|_{\Gamma}\ge c\cdot|x_1x_2|_X.
\label{map.dim.e1}
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(\Omega)+1\ge\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(\Gamma)\ge \dim_{\mathcal{H}}(\Omega_0).$$
Let us begin with some special cases of LV-Rigidity. Let $X\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(1)$ and $p\in X$. Because Topogonov comparison holds on $X$ with respect to the space form $\mathds S^2_1$, we naturally have a distance non-decreasing map $h\colon X\to\mathds S^n_1$. If ${\mathcal{H}}^n(X)={\mathcal{H}}^n(\mathds S^n_1)$, one can find a 1-Lipschitz onto map $f\colon \mathds S^n_1 \to X$ for which ${\mathcal{H}}^n(\mathds S^n_1)={\mathcal{H}}^n(f(\mathds S^n_1))={\mathcal{H}}^n(X)$. This is in turn a type of LV-Rigidity problem.
If $X\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(1)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}^n(X)={\mathcal{H}}^n(\mathds S^n_1)$, then $X$ is isometric to $\mathds S^n_1$.
This was generalized to the so-called $\kappa$-tangent cone rigidity by N. Li and X. Rong. Let $C^R_\kappa(\Sigma)$ be the metric cone over $\Sigma_p$, on which the Euclidean cosine law is replaced by the cosine law on the space form $S^2_\kappa$. In particular, if $\kappa>0$, then $C^R_\kappa(\Sigma)$ is the $\kappa$-suspension of $\Sigma$. Given $\Sigma\in{\text{Alex\,}}^{n-1}(1)$, $n\in{\mathds{N}}$, $\kappa\in{\mathds{R}}$ and $R>0$, let $\mathcal A^R_{n,\,\kappa}(\Sigma)$ denote the collection of Alexandrov spaces $(X,p)\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ so that $X\subseteq\bar B_R(p)$ and there exists a 1-Lipschitz map $\varphi\colon \Sigma\to\Sigma_p$. For any $(X,p)\in \mathcal A^R_{n,\,\kappa}(\Sigma)$, we have $${\mathcal{H}}^n(X)\le{\mathcal{H}}^n(B_R(p))\le {\mathcal{H}}^n(C^R_\kappa(\Sigma))=v(\Sigma,n,\kappa,R).$$
Now fix $\Sigma\in{\text{Alex\,}}^{n-1}(1)$, $n\in{\mathds{N}}$, $\kappa\in{\mathds{R}}$ and $R>0$. Given any isometric involution $\phi\colon\Sigma\to\Sigma$, the quotient space $\bar C^R_\kappa(\Sigma)
/((x,R)\sim (\phi(x),R))\in \mathcal A^R_{n,\,\kappa}(\Sigma)$, whose $n$-dimensional Hausdorff measure is equal to $v(\Sigma,n,\kappa,R)$. This gives us some model spaces in $\mathcal A^R_{n,\,\kappa}(\Sigma)$ which have the maximum volume.
\[t:rmv-rig\] Let $X\in\mathcal A^R_{n,\,\kappa}(\Sigma)$ such that ${\mathcal{H}}^n(X)={\mathcal{H}}^n(C^R_\kappa(\Sigma))$. Then $X$ is isometric to $\bar C^R_\kappa(\Sigma)/((x,R)\sim (\phi(x),R))$, where $\phi: \Sigma\to\Sigma$ is an isometric involution. Moreover, if $\kappa>0$, then either $R\le \frac \pi{2\sqrt \kappa}$ or $R=\frac \pi{\sqrt \kappa}$.
As an outline of the proof, the first step is to construct a 1-Lipschitz onto map $f\colon \bar C^R_\kappa(\Sigma)\to X$. Then an LV-Rigity theorem was proved for this special case. The map $f$ may not be a local isometry since $\phi$ can be a non-trivial involution. If the fixed point set of $\phi$ is of dimension smaller than $n-2=\dim(\Sigma)-1$, then $X$ may not be a topological manifold. The topological types of $X$ can be classified if it is known to be a topological manifold.
Let the assumptions be the same as in Theorem \[t:rmv-rig\]. If $X$ is a topological manifold without boundary, then $X$ is either homeomorphic to $\Bbb S^n$ or homotopy equivalent to $\Bbb{RP}^n$. In particular, $\dim(\text{Fix}_\phi)=n-2=\dim(\Sigma)-1$.
This is also the counterpart of K. Grove and P. Petersen’s results in Riemannian Geometry in [@GP92].
Note that in Theorem \[t:rmv-rig\], $f$ is a local isometry restricted to the interior of $\bar C^R_\kappa(\Sigma)$ and there is possibly a gluing structure over the boundary, induced by an isometric involution $\phi$. It was asked whether this kind of boundary gluing structure still holds for general Alexandrov spaces, provided a 1-Lipschitz, volume preserving onto map $f\colon X\to Y$. This was confirmed in [@Li15-1].
By $(\amalg_\ell X_\ell, d)$ we denote the disjoint union of length metric spaces $\{(X_\ell,d_\ell)\}$, where $d(p,q)=d_\ell(p,q)$ if $p,q\in X_\ell$ for some $\ell$ and $d(p,q)=\infty$ otherwise. Let $ X^\circ=\amalg_\ell X_\ell^\circ$ denote the interior of $X$ and $\partial X=\amalg_\ell\partial X_\ell$ be the boundary.
\[t:Li15-1-1-lip\] Let $Y\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ and $X={\underset{\ell=1}{\overset{N_0}\amalg}} X_\ell$, where $X_\ell\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ for all $1\le \ell\le N_0$. If a 1-Lipschitz map ${\displaystyle}f\colon X\to Y$ satisfies ${\mathcal{H}}^n(X)={\mathcal{H}}^n(f(X))$, then $f$ is a path isometry and $f\,|_{\, X^\circ}$ is an isometry with respect to the intrinsic metrics.
Let $\mathcal R$ be an equivalence relation on $(X,d)$. The quotient pseudometric $d_{\mathcal{R}}$ on $X$ is defined as $$d_{\mathcal{R}}(p,q)
=\inf\left\{\sum_{i=1}^Nd(p_i,q_i):p_1=p, q_N=q, p_{i+1}\overset {\mathcal{R}}\sim q_i,
N\in{\mathds{N}}\right\}.$$ See $\S3$ in [@BBI] for more details. By identifying the points with zero $d_{\mathcal{R}}$-distance, one obtains a length metric space $(X/d_{\mathcal{R}}, \bar d_{\mathcal{R}})$, which is called the space glued from $\{X_\ell\}$ along the equivalence relation $d_{\mathcal{R}}$. The projection map $f\colon X\to X/d_{\mathcal{R}}$ is always a 1-Lipschitz onto.
In Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-lip\], we can define an equivalence relation $\mathcal R$ on $(X,d)$ by $x_1\sim x_2$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $f(x_1)=f(x_2)$. It’s clear that if $f$ is onto, then $Y$ is isometric to the glued space $(X/d_{\mathcal{R}}, \bar d_{\mathcal{R}})$. If $f$ is a path isometry, then any two glued paths have the same length. In fact, suppose that $\gamma_1, \gamma_2\subset X$ are glued. That is, $f(\gamma_1(t))=f(\gamma_2(t))$ for all $t$. Then $$\mathcal L_{d_X}(\gamma_1)=\mathcal L_{d_Y}(f(\gamma_1))=\mathcal L_{d_Y}(f(\gamma_2))=\mathcal L_{d_X}(\gamma_2).$$ Such a gluing structure is called gluing by isometry.
To guarantee $Y\in{\text{Alex}^n(\kappa)}$, there are more restrictions on the way how $X_\ell\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ are glued. Let $G_Y=\{y\in Y\colon |f^{-1}(y)|>1\}$ and $G_X=f^{-1}(G_Y)$. There is a natural stratification of the glued and gluing points. Namely, $$G_Y^m=\left\{y\in Y\colon\; \left|f^{-1}(y)\right|=m\right\}
\text{\quad and \quad} G_X^m=f^{-1}(G_Y^m).$$
\[t:Li15-1-1-onto\] Let the assumptions be the same as in Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-lip\]. If $f$ is onto, then the following hold.
1. $G_X\subseteq\partial X$.
2. For any $y\in Y$, we have $\big|f^{-1}(y)\big|<\infty$. Moreover, $$\max\{m:G_Y^m\neq\varnothing\}\le C(n,\kappa,d_0,v_0),$$ where $d_0=\underset{1\le\ell\le N_0}\max\{\text{diam}(X_\ell)\}$ and $v_0=\underset{1\le\ell\le N_0}\min\{{\text{vol}\left(X_\ell\right)}\}$.
3. If $G_X\neq\varnothing$, then for any point ${x}\in G_X$ and $r>0$, we have $$\dim_{\mathcal{H}}\Big(G_X^2 \cap B_r({x})\Big)=\dim_{\mathcal{H}}\Big(G_Y^2 \cap B_r(f(x))\Big)=n-1.$$
4. $$\dim_{\mathcal{H}}\left({\underset{m=3}{\overset{\infty}\cup}}G_X^m\right) =\dim_{\mathcal{H}}\left({\underset{m=3}{\overset{\infty}\cup}}G_Y^m\right)
\le n-2.$$
By (3) and (4), the gluing structure is uniquely determined by the way how $G_X^2$ is glued. The gluing in the case $N_0=1$ (for example, Theorem \[t:rmv-rig\]) is called [*self-gluing*]{}. In fact, Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-onto\] shows that without losing volume or increasing the distance, the metric on a connected Alexandrov space is “rigid” up to a boundary gluing by isometry.
The map $f$ is an isometry in some special cases.
\[shrinking.cor\] Under the same assumptions as in Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-onto\], if any of the following is satisfied then $N_0=1$ and $f$ is an isometry.
1. $\partial X_\ell=\varnothing$ for some $\ell$.
2. $G_X=\varnothing$, i.e., $f$ is injective.
3. $G_Y\subseteq\partial Y$.
4. $f(\partial X)\subseteq \partial Y$.
In the last of this section, we discuss some applications of the Lipschitz-Rigidity Theorem in ALexandrov Geometry. First, Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-onto\] implies Theorem \[t:rmv-rig\] with some extra work on the involution part. For applications on gluing, let’s recall the following theorem.
\[pet.glu\] The gluing of $X_1, X_2\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ via an isometry $\phi\colon \partial X_1\to\partial X_2$ produces an Alexandrov space with the same lower curvature bound.
The following result, conjectured by A. Petrunin, follows from Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-onto\] and Petrunin’s Gluing Theorem.
\[pet.iff\] Assume that $X_1, X_2\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ are glued via an identification $x\sim \phi(x)$, where $\phi:\partial X_1\to\partial X_2$ is a bijection. Then the glued space $Y=X_1\amalg X_2/(x\sim \phi(x))$ is an Alexandrov space if and only if $\phi$ is an isometry with respect to the intrinsic metrics of $\partial X_1$ and $\partial X_2$.
Let $p\in X\in{\text{Alex}^n(\kappa)}$ and $\Sigma_p$ denote the space of directions of $X$ at $p$. It is known that there is a distance non-decreasing map ${\displaystyle}h\colon \Sigma_p\to\lim_{i\to\infty}\Sigma_{p_i}$, provided $p_i\to p$ and ${\displaystyle}\lim_{i\to\infty}\Sigma_{p_i}$ exists (Theorem 7.14, [@BGP]). However, it may happen that ${\displaystyle}\lim_{i\to\infty}\Sigma_{p_i}\neq\Sigma_p$. For example, regular points can converge to a singular point. In [@Pet98], it was proved that $\Sigma_q$ is isometric to $\Sigma_p$ if they are interior points along a fixed geodesic. As an application of Corollary \[shrinking.cor\] (3), we have the following theorem.
\[shrink.spd\] Let $X_i\in{\text{Alex}^n(\kappa)}$. Suppose that $(X_i, p_i)\overset{d_{GH}}{\longrightarrow}(X, p)$. Then ${\displaystyle}\lim_{i\to\infty}\Sigma_{p_i}=\Sigma_p$ if and only if ${\displaystyle}\lim_{i\to\infty}{\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}\left(\Sigma_{p_i}\right)={\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}\left(\Sigma_p\right)$.
Globalization in ALexandrov Geometry {#sec:glob}
====================================
Let us start with Petrunin’s Gluing Theorem (Theorem \[pet.glu\]). Using the notion of Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-onto\], Petrunin’s Theorem requires that $N_0=2$ and $G_X=G_X^2=\partial X=\partial X_1\amalg\partial X_2$. One can ask whether such a gluing theorem can be generalized to the gluing of more than two Alexandrov spaces and $G_X\neq G_X^2$. Note that Theorem \[t:Li15-1-1-onto\] in fact provides some of the necessary conditions. However, these conditions are not sufficient.
\[eg.non.extremal\] Let $\triangle A_1B_1C_1$ and $\triangle A_2B_2C_2$ be two triangle planes in ${\mathds{R}}^2$, with $|B_1C_1|=|B_2C_2|$. Glue the two triangles via identification $B_1C_1\sim B_2C_2$. The resulted space $Y\in{\text{Alex\,}}^2(0)$ if and only if $$\max\Big\{\measuredangle A_1B_1C_1+\measuredangle A_2B_2C_2, \, \measuredangle A_1C_1B_1+\measuredangle A_2C_2B_2\Big\}\le\pi.$$ If the above inequality is not satisfied, then $Y$ is strictly concave. Thus it is not an Alexandrov space.
Based on this observation, we have the following conjecture.
\[conj:g.Alex\] A gluing along boundaries of $n$-dimensional Alexandrov spaces produces an Alexandrov space $Y$ if and only if the gluing is by isometry and for each $p\in Y$, the tangent cone ${\displaystyle}T_p(Y)=\lim_{r\to 0}(Y, p, r^{-1}d)$ is a metric cone over $\Sigma_p$, where $\Sigma_p\in{\text{Alex\,}}^{n-1}(1)$.
If the gluing only happens along the boundaries, then for most points, such as interior points, there exist neighborhoods in which Toponogov comparison holds. In this sense, the above conjecture might be related to the following Globalization Problem.
Let $\mathcal U$ be a length metric space, not necessarily complete. An open set $U\subseteq \mathcal U$ is said to be a $\kappa$-Alexandrov domain, if $\kappa$-Toponogov comparison holds for any geodesic triangle in $U$. A length metric space $\mathcal U$ is said to be a local $\kappa$-Alexandrov space, if for any $p\in \mathcal U$ there is a $\kappa$-Alexandrov domain $U_p\ni p$. Let ${\text{Alex\,}}^n_{loc}(\kappa)$ be the collection of all $n$-dimensional local $\kappa$-Alexandrov spaces. Note that local Alexandrov spaces are not necessarily (global) Alexandrov spaces if it is incomplete. For example, any open domain $\mathcal U\subset{\mathds{R}}^n$ is a local Alexandrov space, but the closure $\bar{\mathcal U}$ is not Alexandrov if $\mathcal U$ is strictly concave.
\[conj:glob\] Let $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n_{loc}(\kappa)$. Under what condition is the metric completion $\overline{(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})}\in {\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$?
Establishing a Globalization Theorem like this might help us to prove a space to be an Alexandrov space. For example, to prove $X\in {\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$, one can take $\mathcal U\subset X$ with ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}(X\setminus \mathcal U)=0$ and carry out the following three steps.
1. Prove $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n_{loc}(\kappa)$.
2. Prove that the metric completion $\overline{(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})}\in {\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ by some Globalization Theorems.
3. Prove that $\overline{(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})}$ is isometric to $(X, d_X)$. Note that this doesn’t follow from Theorem \[t:met.comp.Alex\] directly, since $X$ is not known to be an Alexandrov space.
Note that $X\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$ requires that triangle comparison holds for any size of triangles in $X$. Thus Problem \[conj:glob\] is even not trivial when $\mathcal U=X$. This turns out to be a fundamental theorem in ALexandrov Geometry.
Let $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n_{loc}(\kappa)$. If $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})$ is complete, then $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})=\overline{(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})}\in {\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$.
This was generalized by A. Petrunin to the following result.
\[t:Pet.glob\] Let $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n_{loc}(\kappa)$. If $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})$ is totally geodesic, then $\overline{(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})}\in {\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$.
A basic example for the above result is that $\mathcal U$ is an open convex domain in ${\mathds{R}}^n$, $n\ge2$. In this case, if we take $\mathcal V=\mathcal U\setminus \{A\}$, where $A\subset \mathcal U$ and $\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(A)\le n-2$, then $\overline{(\mathcal V, d_{\mathcal V})}=\overline{(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})}\in {\text{Alex\,}}^n(0)$. However, in general, we can’t simply conclude $\overline{(\mathcal V, d_{\mathcal V})}=\overline{(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})}$ and use Theorem \[t:Pet.glob\] directly. This is in particular because we don’t know wether points in $A$ admit Alexandrov domains in general. See Example \[eg.cube.edge\] and the discussion below Property \[p:glob\]. Nevertheless, we would like to have a theorem to handle this case.
Let $\mathcal U$ be a locally compact length metric space. Given a point $p\in\mathcal U$ and a subset $S\subseteq\mathcal U$, let $${{S}^{*p}}=\Big\{q\in S: \text{there is a geodesic } {[\,pq\,]}\subseteq\mathcal U \text{ connecting } p \text{ and } q \Big\}.$$ Some classical convexities can be rephrased as follows using this terminology. Assume $\dim_{\mathcal{H}}(\mathcal U)=n<\infty$
- Convex: ${[\,pq\,]}\subseteq\mathcal U$ for every $p,q\in\mathcal U$. $\Longleftrightarrow$ ${{\mathcal U}^{*p}}=\mathcal U$ for every $p\in\mathcal U$.
- A.e.-convex: ${[\,pq\,]}\subseteq\mathcal U$ for almost every $p,q\in\mathcal U$.\
$\Longleftrightarrow$ $\mathcal H^n(\mathcal U\setminus{{\mathcal U}^{*p}})=0$ for almost every point $p\in\mathcal U$.
- Weakly a.e.-convex: For every $p\in\mathcal U$, there exists $p_i\to p$ such that ${[\,p_iq\,]}\subset\mathcal U$ for a.e. $q\in \mathcal U$.\
$\Longleftrightarrow$ For every $p\in\mathcal U$, there exists $p_i\to p$ such that $\mathcal H^n(\mathcal U\setminus{{\mathcal U}^{*p_i}})=0$.
- Weakly convex: For every $p,q\in\mathcal U$, there exists $p_i\to p$ and $q_i\to q$ such that ${[\,p_iq_i\,]}\subset\mathcal U$.\
$\Longleftrightarrow$ For every $p, q\in \mathcal U$ and any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $p_1\in B_\epsilon(p)$ such that ${{B_\epsilon(q)}^{*p_1}}\neq\varnothing$.
The following notion of probabilistic convexity was introduced in [@Li15-2]. Let $p\in\mathcal U$ and ${[\,qs\,]}$ be a geodesic in $\mathcal U$. Consider the probability that a point on ${[\,qs\,]}$ can be connected to $p$ by a geodesic in $\mathcal U$: $${\bf Pr}\left({[\,qs\,]}^{*p}\right)=\frac{\mathcal
H^1\left({{{[\,qs\,]}}^{*p}}\right)} {\mathcal
H^1\left({[\,qs\,]}\right)}.$$ Here $\mathcal H^1$ denotes the $1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. We say that $\mathcal U$ is weakly $\mathfrak p_\lambda$-convex if for any $p,q,s\in\mathcal U$ and any $\epsilon>0$, there are points $p_1\in B_\epsilon(p)$, $q_1\in B_\epsilon(q)$, $s_1\in B_\epsilon(s)$ and a geodesic ${[\,q_1s_1\,]}\subset\bar{\mathcal U}$ so that ${\bf Pr}({[\,q_1 s_1\,]}^{*p_1})>\lambda-\epsilon$. By choosing the point $s\in B_\epsilon(q)$, we see that if $\lambda>0$, then weak $\mathfrak p_\lambda$-convexity implies weak convexity. If $\mathcal U\in{\text{Alex\,}}_{loc}(\kappa)$, then weak a.e.-convexity implies weak $\mathfrak p_1$-convexity (c.f. [@Li15-2]).
\[t:Li15-2-p1\] If $\mathcal U\in{\text{Alex\,}}_{loc}(\kappa)$ is weakly $\mathfrak p_1$-convex, then its metric completion $\bar{\mathcal U}\in{\text{Alex\,}}(\kappa)$.
\[cor.t:Li15-2-p1\] If $\mathcal U\in{\text{Alex\,}}_{loc}(\kappa)$ is weakly a.e.-convex then its metric completion $\bar{\mathcal U}\in{\text{Alex\,}}(\kappa)$.
If $\bar{\mathcal U}$ is known to be an Alexandrov space, then its optimal lower curvature bound is rigid, provided $\lambda>0$.
\[t:Li15-2-p2\] Suppose that $\mathcal U\in{\text{Alex\,}}_{loc}(\kappa)$ is weakly $\mathfrak p_\lambda$-convex for some $\lambda>0$. If $\bar{\mathcal U}\in{\text{Alex\,}}(\kappa_1)$ for some $\kappa_1>-\infty$, then $\bar{\mathcal U}\in{\text{Alex\,}}(\kappa)$.
The answers for the following two questions remain unknown to the author.
- [*Is Theorem \[t:Li15-2-p1\] still true if $\mathcal U$ is weakly $\mathfrak p_\lambda$-convex for some $\lambda\in(0,1)$?*]{}
- [*Is Theorem \[t:Li15-2-p2\] still true if $\mathfrak p_\lambda$-convexity is replaced by weak convexity?*]{}
Inspired by Conjecture \[conj:g.Alex\] and the Globalization Problem, we have the following conjecture.
\[conj:glob.cone\] Let $(X,d_X)$ be a length metric space and $\mathcal U\subset X$ be an open subset with ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}(X\setminus \mathcal U)=0$. Assume that $(\mathcal U, d_{\mathcal U})\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n_{loc}(\kappa)$ and for every $p\in X$, the tangent cone ${\displaystyle}T_pX=\lim_{r\to 0}(X,p,r^{-1}d)$ exists and isometric to a metric cone $C(\Sigma_p)$, where $\Sigma_p\in{\text{Alex\,}}^{n-1}(1)$. Then $(X,d_X)\in{\text{Alex\,}}^n(\kappa)$.
This conjecture is true for polytopes in Euclidean spaces. This is because the convexity of tangent cone at a point $p$ implies that $B_r(p)$ is convex for $r>0$ small. Then the result follows from that local convexity implies global convexity. More generally, we have the following result.
Conjecture \[conj:glob.cone\] is true if $X\setminus \mathcal U$ is a discrete set.
[A]{}
D. Burago, Y. Burago, S. Ivanov, *A Course in Metric Geometry*, Graduate studies in mathematics, AMS, **33** (2001).
L. Bessières, G. Besson, G. Courtois, and S. Gallot, *Differentiable rigidity under Ricci curvature lower bound*, Duke Math. J. **161** (2012), no.1, 29-67
Y. Burago, M. Gromov, G. Perel’man, *A.D. Alexandrov spaces with curvature bounded below*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, **47:2** (1992), 3-51; translation in Russian Math. Surveys, **47:2** (1992), 1-58.
J. Cheeger, T. Colding, *On the structure of spaces with Ricci curvature bounded below I*, J. Differential Geom., **45** (1997), 406–480.
J. Cheeger, T. Colding, *On the structure of spaces with Ricci curvature bounded below II*, JDG, **54** (2000), 12-35.
K. Grove, P. Petersen, *Volume comparison á la Alexandrov*, Acta. Math., **169** (1992), 131 – 151.
V. Kapovitch, *Perelman’s Stability Theorem*, Surveys in Differential geometry, Metric and Comparison geometry, **vol XI**, International press, (2007), 103 – 136
N. Li, [*Lipschitz-Volume rigidity in Alexandrov geometry*]{}, Adv. Math., **275**, (30 April 2015), 114 – 146. N. Li, [*Globalization with probabilistic convexity*]{}, J. Topol. Anal., **07**, (2015) pp. 719 – 735. N. Li, J. Ge, [*Globalization with discrete singularities*]{}, in preparation.
N. Li, F. Wang, [*Lipschitz-Volume rigidity on limit spaces with Ricci curvature bounded from below*]{}, Differential Geom. Appl., **35**, (2014), 50 – 55. N. Li, X. Rong, [*Relatively maximum volume rigidity in Alexandrov geometry*]{}, Pacific J. Math., **259**, (2012) no. 2, 387 – 420.
A. Petrunin, [*A globalization for non-complete but geodesic spaces*]{}, Math. Ann., **366**, (2016) 387 – 393.
A. Petrunin, *Applications of Quasigeodesics and Gradient Curves*, Comparison Geometry, MSRI Publications, **Vol. 30** (1997), 203-219.
A. Petrunin, *Parallel transportation for Alexandrov spaces with curvature bounded below*, GAFA., **Vol. 8** (1998), 123-148.
P. Storm, *Minimal volume Alexandrov spaces*, J.Differential. Geom., **61** (2002), 195–225.
P. Storm, *Rigidity of minimal volume Alexandrov spaces*, Annales Academi[æ]{} Scientiarum Fennic[æ]{} Mathematica, **31** (2006), 381–389.
[^1]: The author was partially supported by the PSC-CUNY Research Award \#61533-00 49.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of recovering low-rank matrices from random rank-one measurements, which spans numerous applications including covariance sketching, phase retrieval, quantum state tomography, and learning shallow polynomial neural networks, among others. Our approach is to directly estimate the low-rank factor by minimizing a nonconvex quadratic loss function via vanilla gradient descent, following a tailored spectral initialization. When the true rank is small, this algorithm is guaranteed to converge to the ground truth (up to global ambiguity) with near-optimal sample complexity and computational complexity. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first guarantee that achieves near-optimality in both metrics. In particular, the key enabler of near-optimal computational guarantees is an implicit regularization phenomenon: without explicit regularization, both spectral initialization and the gradient descent iterates automatically stay within a region incoherent with the measurement vectors. This feature allows one to employ much more aggressive step sizes compared with the ones suggested in prior literature, without the need of sample splitting.'
author:
- 'Yuanxin Li[^1]'
- 'Cong Ma[^2]'
- 'Yuxin Chen[^3]'
- 'Yuejie Chi[^4]'
bibliography:
- 'bibfileNonconvex.bib'
title: 'Nonconvex Matrix Factorization from Rank-One Measurements'
---
**Keywords:** matrix factorization, rank-one measurements, gradient descent, nonconvex optimization
Introduction
============
This paper is concerned with estimating a low-rank positive semidefinite matrix ${{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ from a few [*rank-one measurements*]{}. Specifically, suppose that the matrix of interest can be factorized as $${{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural}={{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural\top} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n},$$ where ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ ($r\ll n$) denotes the low-rank factor. We collect $m$ measurements $\{y_i\}_{i=1}^{m}$ about ${{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural}$ taking the form $$y_i = {{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top} {{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural} {{\boldsymbol a}}_i = \big\| {{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\|_2^2, \quad i = 1,\cdots,m,$$ where $\left\{{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}\right\}_{i=1}^{m}$ represent the measurement vectors known [*a priori*]{}. One can think of $\{{{\boldsymbol a}}_i {{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}\}_{i=1}^{m}$ as a set of linear sensing matrices (so that $y_i = \langle {{\boldsymbol a}}_i {{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}, {{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural} \rangle$), which are all rank-one[^5]. The goal is to recover ${{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural}$, or equivalently, the low-rank factor ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$, from a limited number of rank-one measurements. This problem spans a variety of important practical applications, with a few examples listed below.
- **Covariance sketching.** Consider a zero-mean data stream $\{{{\boldsymbol x}}_t\}_{t\in \mathcal{T}}$, whose covariance matrix ${{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural}:=\mathbb{E}[{{\boldsymbol x}}_t{{\boldsymbol x}}_t^{\top}]$ is (approximately) low-rank. To estimate the covariance matrix, one can collect $m$ aggregated quadratic sketches of the form $$y_i = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{T}|}\sum_{t\in \mathcal{T}} ({{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top} {{\boldsymbol x}}_t)^2,$$ which converges to $\mathbb{E}[({{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_t)^2]= {{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top} {{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural} {{\boldsymbol a}}_i$ as the number of data instances grows. This quadratic covariance sketching scheme can be performed under minimal storage requirement and low sketching cost. See [@chen2013exact] for detailed descriptions.
- **Phase retrieval and mixed linear regression.** This problem subsumes as a special case the phase retrieval problem [@candes2015phase], which aims to estimate an unknown signal ${{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ from intensity measurements (which can often be modeled or approximated by quadratic measurements of the form $y_i=({{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural})^2$). This problem has found numerous applications in X-ray crystallography, optical imaging, astronomy, etc. Another related problem in machine learning is mixed linear regression with two components, where the data one collects are generated from one of two unknown regressors; see [@chen2014convex] for precise formulation.
- **Quantum state tomography.** Estimating the density operator of a quantum system can be formulated as a low-rank positive semidefinite matrix recovery problem using rank-one measurements, when the density operator is [*almost pure*]{} [@kueng2017low]. A problem of similar mathematical formulation occurs in phase space tomography [@tian2012experimental], where the goal is to reconstruct the correlation function of a wave field.
- **Learning shallow polynomial neural networks.** Taking $\{{{\boldsymbol a}}_i,y_i\}_{i=1}^m$ as training data, our problem is equivalent to learning a one-hidden-layer, fully-connected neural network with a quadratic activation function [@livni2014computational; @soltanolkotabi2017theoretical; @soltani2018towards], where the output of the network is expressed as $y = \sum_{i=1}^r \sigma({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_i^{\natural})$ with ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}=[{{\boldsymbol x}}_1^{\natural}, {{\boldsymbol x}}_2^{\natural}, \cdots,{{\boldsymbol x}}_r^{\natural}] \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ and the activation function $\sigma(z) =z^2$.
Main Contributions
------------------
Due to the quadratic nature of the measurements, the natural least-squares empirical risk formulation is highly nonconvex and in general challenging to solve. To be more specific, consider the following optimization problem: $$\label{eq:loss}
\text{minimize}_{{{\boldsymbol X}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}} \quad f\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}\right) : = \frac{1}{4m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left(y_{i} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2}\right)^{2},$$ which aims to optimize a degree-4 polynomial in ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ and is NP hard in general. The problem, however, may become tractable under certain random designs, and may even be solvable using simple methods like gradient descent. Our main finding is the following: under i.i.d. Gaussian design (i.e. ${{\boldsymbol a}}_i\sim \mathcal{N}(\bm{0},{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n})$), [*vanilla gradient descent*]{} combined with spectral initialization achieves appealing performance guarantees both statistically and computationally.
- Statistically, we show that gradient descent converges exactly to the true factor ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$ (modulo unrecoverable global ambiguity), as soon as the number of measurements exceeds the order of $O(nr^4\log n)$. When $r$ is fixed independent of $n$, this sample complexity is near-optimal up to some logarithmic factor.
- Computationally, to achieve $\epsilon$-accuracy, gradient descent requires an iteration complexity of $O(r^2 \log(1/\epsilon))$ (up to logarithmic factors), with a per-iteration cost of $O(mnr)$. When $r$ is fixed independent of $m$ and $n$, the computational complexity scales linearly with $mn$, which is proportional to the time taken to read all data.
These findings significantly improve upon existing results that require either resampling (which is not sample-efficient and is not the algorithm one actually runs in practice [@zhong2015efficient; @lin2016non; @soltani2018towards]), or high iteration complexity (which results in high computation cost [@sanghavi2017local]). In particular, our work is most related to [@sanghavi2017local] that also studied the effectiveness of gradient descent. The results in [@sanghavi2017local] require a sample complexity on the order of $nr^6\log^{2}{n}$, as well as an iteration complexity of $O(n^{4}r^{2} \log(1/\epsilon))$ (up to logarithmic factors) to attain $\epsilon$-accuracy. In comparison, our theory improves the sample complexity to $O(nr^4\log n)$ and, perhaps more importantly, establishes a much lower iteration complexity of $O( r^{2} \log(1/\epsilon))$ (up to logarithmic factor). To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first nonconvex algorithm (without resampling) that achieves both near-optimal statistical and computational guarantees with respect to $n$.
Surprising Effectiveness of Gradient Descent
--------------------------------------------
Recently, gradient descent has been widely employed to address various nonconvex optimization problems due to its appealing efficiency from both statistical and computational perspectives. Despite the nonconvexity of , [@sanghavi2017local] showed that within a local neighborhood of ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$, where ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} & \le \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \label{eq:local-region}\end{aligned}$$ $f({{\boldsymbol X}})$ behaves like a strongly convex function, at least along certain descending directions. However, this region itself is not enough to guarantee computational efficiency, and consequently, the smoothness parameter derived in [@sanghavi2017local] is as large as $n^2$ (even ignoring additional polynomial factors in $r$), leading to a step size as small as $O(1/n^4)$ and an iteration complexity of $O(n^4 \log(1/\epsilon))$. These are fairly pessimistic.
In order to improve computational guarantees, it might be tempting to employ appropriately designed regularization operations — such as truncation [@ChenCandes15solving] and projection [@chen2015fast]. These explicit regularization operations are capable of stabilizing the search direction, and make sure the whole trajectory is in a basin of attraction with benign curvatures surrounding the ground truth. However, such explicit regularizations complicate algorithm implementations, as they introduce more tuning parameters.
Our work is inspired by [@ma2017implicit], which uncovers the “implicit regularization” phenomenon of vanilla gradient descent for nonconvex estimation problems such as phase retrieval and low-rank matrix completion. In words, even without extra regularization operations, vanilla gradient descent always follows a path within some region around the global optimum with nice geometric structure, at least along certain directions. The current paper demonstrates that a similar phenomenon persists in low-rank matrix factorization from rank-one measurements. To describe this phenomenon in a precise manner, we need to specify which region enjoys the desired geometric properties. To this end, consider a local region around ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$ where ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ is “incoherent”[^6] with all sensing vectors in the following sense: $$\label{eq:incoherent}
\max_{1\le l\le m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \big\Vert_{2} \le \frac{1}{24} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}.$$ We term the intersection of and the [*Region of Incoherence and Contraction*]{} (RIC). The nice feature of the RIC is this: within this region, the loss function $f({{\boldsymbol X}})$ enjoys a smoothness parameter that scales as $O(\max\{r, \log n\})$ (namely, $\|\nabla^2 f({{\boldsymbol x}}) \| \lesssim \max\{r, \log n\}$, which is much smaller than $O(n^2)$ provided in [@sanghavi2017local]). As is well known, a region enjoying a smaller smoothness parameter enables more aggressive progression of gradient descent. A key question remains as to how to prove that the trajectory of gradient descent never leaves the RIC. This is, unfortunately, not guaranteed by standard optimization theory, which only ensures contraction of the Euclidean error. To address this issue, we resort to the leave-one-out trick [@ma2017implicit; @zhong2017near; @chen2017spectral] that produces auxiliary trajectories of gradient descent that use all but one sample. This allows us to establish the incoherence condition by leveraging the statistical independence of the leave-one-out trajectory w.r.t. the corresponding sensing vector that has been left out. Our theory refines the leave-one-out argument and further establishes linear contraction in terms of the entry-wise prediction error.
Notations
---------
We use boldface lowercase (resp. uppercase) letters to represent vectors (resp. matrices). We denote by $\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol x}}\right\Vert_{2}$ the $\ell_2$ norm of a vector ${{\boldsymbol x}}$, and ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}$, $\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert$ and $\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$ the transpose, the spectral norm and the Frobenius norm of a matrix ${{\boldsymbol X}}$, respectively. The $k$th largest singular value of a matrix ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ is denoted by $\sigma_{k}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}\right)$. Moreover, the inner product between two matrices ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol Y}}$ is defined as $\langle {{\boldsymbol X}}, {{\boldsymbol Y}}\rangle = \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right)$, where $\mathrm{Tr}\left(\cdot\right)$ is the trace. We also use $\mathrm{vec}({{\boldsymbol V}})$ to denote vectorization of a matrix ${{\boldsymbol V}}$. The notation $f(n) \lesssim g(n)$ or $f(n)=O(g(n))$ means that there exists a universal constant $c >
0$ such that $|f(n)| \leq c|g(n)|$. In addition, we use $c$ and $C$ with different subscripts to represent positive numerical constants, whose values may change from line to line.
Algorithms and Main Results {#sec_problem_formulation}
===========================
To begin with, we present the formal problem setup. Suppose we are given a set of $m$ rank-one measurements as follows $$y_{i} = \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{2}^{2}, \qquad i = 1,\cdots,m,$$ where ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the $i$th sensing vector composed of i.i.d. standard Gaussian entries, i.e. ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i} \sim \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{0}, {{\boldsymbol I}}_n\right)$, for $i=1,\cdots,m$. The underlying ground truth ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ is assumed to have full column rank but not necessarily having orthogonal columns. Define the condition number of ${{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural} = {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural\top}$ as $$\kappa = \frac{\sigma_{1}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}.$$ Throughout this paper, we assume the condition number is bounded by some constant independent of $n$ and $r$, i.e. $\kappa = O(1)$. Our goal is to recover ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$, up to (unrecoverable) orthonormal transformation, from the measurements ${{\boldsymbol y}}=\left\{y_{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{m}$ in a statistically and computationally efficient manner.
Vanilla Gradient Descent
------------------------
The algorithm studied herein is a combination of vanilla gradient descent and a judiciously designed spectral initialization. Specifically, consider minimizing the squared loss: $$f\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}\right) : = \frac{1}{4m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left(y_{i} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2}\right)^{2},$$ which is a nonconvex function. We attempt to optimize this function iteratively via gradient descent $${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1} = {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} - \mu_{t} \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}\right), \qquad t = 0,1,\cdots,$$ where ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}$ denotes the estimate in the $t$th iteration, $\mu_{t}$ is the step size/learning rate, and the gradient $\nabla f({{\boldsymbol X}})$ is given by $$\nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}\right) = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m } \left( \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i} \right) {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}.$$
For initialization, similar to [@sanghavi2017local],[^7] we apply the spectral method, which sets the columns of ${{\boldsymbol X}}_0$ as the top-$r$ eigenvectors — properly scaled — of a matrix ${{\boldsymbol Y}}$ as defined in . The rationale is this: the mean of ${{\boldsymbol Y}}$ is given by $$\mathbb{E}\left[{{\boldsymbol Y}}\right] = \frac{1}{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\,{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} + {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top},$$ and hence the principal components of ${{\boldsymbol Y}}$ form a reasonable estimate of ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$, provided that there are sufficiently many samples. The full algorithm is described in Algorithm \[alg:ncvx\_sketching\].
**Input:** measurements ${{\boldsymbol y}}= \left\{y_{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{m}$, and sensing vectors $\left\{{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{m}$.
**Parameters:** step size $\mu_{t}$, rank $r$, and number of iterations $T$.
**Initialization:** set ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{0} = {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}^{1/2}$, where the columns of ${{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} \in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ contain the normalized eigenvectors corresponding to the $r$ largest eigenvalues of the matrix $$\label{def_Y}
{{\boldsymbol Y}}= \frac{1}{2m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} y_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top},$$ and $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}$ is an $r\times r$ diagonal matrix, with the entries on the diagonal given as $$\label{equ_initial_eigenvalue}
\left[\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}\right]_{i} = \lambda_{i}\big({{\boldsymbol Y}}\big) - \lambda, \quad \ i=1,\cdots,r,$$ where $\lambda = \frac{1}{2m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} y_{i}$ and $\lambda_{i}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}\right)$ is the $i$th largest eigenvalue of ${{\boldsymbol Y}}$.
**Gradient loop:** for $t = 0:1:T-1$, do $${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1} = {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} - \mu_{t} \cdot \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m } \left( \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} \big\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i} \right) {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}.$$
**Output:** ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{T}$.
Performance Guarantees
----------------------
Before proceeding to our main results, we specify the metric used to assess the estimation error of the running iterates. Since $\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} {{\boldsymbol P}}\right)\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} {{\boldsymbol P}}\right)^{\top} = {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}$ for any orthonormal matrix ${{\boldsymbol P}}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$, ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$ is recoverable up to orthonormal transforms. Hence, we define the error of the $t$th iterate ${{\boldsymbol X}}_t$ as $$\mathrm{dist} \big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) = \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}},$$ where ${{\boldsymbol Q}}_t$ is given by $${{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} := {\mathrm{argmin}}_{{{\boldsymbol P}}\in\mathcal{O}^{r\times r}} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol P}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
\label{eq:defn-Qt}$$ with $\mathcal{O}^{r\times r}$ denoting the set of all $r \times r$ orthonormal matrices. Accordingly, we have the following theoretical performance guarantees of Algorithm \[alg:ncvx\_sketching\].
\[main\_theorem\] Suppose that $m\ge c n r^{3} (r + \sqrt{\kappa}) \kappa^{3} \log{ n}$ with some large enough constant $c>0$, and that the step size obeys $0<\mu_{t}:= \mu = \frac{c_{4}}{( r\kappa + \log{n})^{2} \sigma_r^2({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural})}$. Then with probability at least $1 - O(mn^{-7})$, the iterates satisfy $$\label{equ_main_theorem_estbound}
\mathrm{dist} \big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \leq c_1 \left( 1- 0.5\mu \sigma_r^2({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \right)^t \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},$$ for all $t \ge 0$. In addition, $$\label{equ_main_theorem_incoherence}
\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \big( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big) \right\Vert_{2} \le c_{2} \left( 1- 0.5\mu \sigma_r^2({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \right)^t \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},$$ for all $0 \le t \le c_{3}n^{5}$. Here, $c_{1},\cdots,c_{4}$ are some universal positive constants.
The precise expression of required sample complexity in Theorem \[main\_theorem\] can be written as $m\ge c \max\left\{ \frac{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{\sigma_{r}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \sqrt{r}, \kappa \right\} \frac{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{5}}{\sigma_{r}^{5}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } n \sqrt{r} \log{\left(\kappa n\right)}$ with some large enough constant $c>0$. By adjusting constants, with probability at least $1 - O(mn^{-7})$, holds for $0\le t \le O(n^{c_{5}})$ in any power $c_{5}\geq 1$.
Theorem \[main\_theorem\] has the following implications.
- [*Near-optimal sample complexity when $r$ is fixed:*]{} Theorem \[main\_theorem\] suggests that spectrally-initialized vanilla gradient descent succeeds as soon as $m=O(nr^4\log n)$. When $r=O(1)$, this leads to near-optimal sample complexity up to logarithmic factor. In fact, once the spectral initialization is finished, a sample complexity at $m=O(nr^3\log n)$ can guarantee the linear convergence to the global optima. To the best of our knowledge, this outperforms all performance guarantees in the literature obtained for any nonconvex method without requiring [*resampling*]{}.
- [*Near-optimal computational complexity:*]{} In order to achieve $\epsilon$-accuracy, i.e. $\mathrm{dist} \left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \leq \epsilon \|{{\boldsymbol X}}\|_{{{\mathsf F}}}$, it suffices to run gradient descent for $T= O\left( r^{2} \mathrm{poly}\log(n) \log(1/\epsilon) \right)$ iterations. This results in a total computational complexity of $O\left(mnr^3 \mathrm{poly}\log(n) \log(1/\epsilon) \right)$.
- [*Implicit regularization:*]{} Theorem \[main\_theorem\] demonstrates that both the spectral initialization and the gradient descent updates provably control the entry-wise error $\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \big( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big) \right\Vert_{2}$, and the iterates remain incoherent with respect to all the sensing vectors. In fact, the entry-wise error decreases linearly as well, which is not characterized in [@ma2017implicit].
Theorem \[main\_theorem\] is established using a fixed step size. According to our theoretical analysis, the incoherence condition has a significant impact on the convergence rate. After a few iterations, the incoherence condition can be bounded independent of $\log n$, which leads to a larger step size and faster convergence. Specifically, we have the following corollary.
Under the same setting of Theorem \[main\_theorem\], after $T_{a} = c_{6} \max\{\kappa^{2}r^{2}\log{n}, \log^{3}{n}\}$ iterations, the step size can be relaxed as $0 < \mu_{t}:=\mu = \frac{c_{7}}{ r^{2} \kappa^{2} \sigma_r^2({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural})} $, with some universal constant $c_{6}, c_{7}>0$, then the iterates satisfy $$\mathrm{dist} \big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \leq c_{1} \left( 1- 0.5 \mu \sigma_r^2({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \right)^t \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},$$ for all $t \ge T_{a}$, with probability at least $1 - O(mn^{-7})$.
Related Work
============
Instead of directly estimating ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$, the problem of interest can be also solved by estimating ${{\boldsymbol M}}^{\natural} = {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural\top}$ in higher dimension via nuclear norm minimization, which requires $O(nr)$ measurements for exact recovery [@chen2013exact; @cai2015rop; @kueng2017low; @li2017low]. See also [@candes2013phaselift; @candes2014solving; @demanet2014stable; @waldspurger2015phase] for the phase retrieval problem. However, nuclear norm minimization, often cast as the semidefinite programming, is in general computationally expensive to deal with large-scale data.
On the other hand, nonconvex approaches have drawn intense attention in the past decade due to their ability to achieve computational and statistical efficiency all at once. Specifically, for the phase retrieval problem, Wirtinger Flow (WF) and its variants [@candes2015phase; @ChenCandes15solving; @cai2016optimal; @ma2017implicit; @zhang2017reshaped; @soltanolkotabi2017structured; @wang2017solving] have been proposed. As a two-stage algorithm, it consists of spectral initialization and iterative gradient updates. This strategy has found enormous success in solving other problems such as low-rank matrix recovery and completion [@chen2015fast; @tu2016low], blind deconvolution [@DBLP:journals/corr/LiLSW16], and spectral compressed sensing [@cai2017spectral]. We follow a similar route but analyze a more general problem that includes phase retrieval as a special case.
The paper [@sanghavi2017local] is most close to our work, which studied the local convexity of the same loss function and developed performance guarantees for gradient descent using a similar, but different spectral initialization scheme. As discussed earlier, due to the pessimistic estimate of the smoothness parameter, they only allow a diminishing learning rate (or step size) of $O(1/n^4)$, leading to a high iteration complexity. We not only provide stronger computational guarantees, but also improve the sample complexity, compared with [@sanghavi2017local].
Algorithms with resampling Sample complexity Computational complexity
---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
AltMin-LRROM [@zhong2015efficient] $O(nr^4\log^2{n}\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$ $O(mnr\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$
gFM [@lin2016non] $O(nr^3\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$ $O(mnr\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$
EP-ROM [@soltani2018towards] $O(nr^2\log^4{n}\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$ $O(mn^{2}\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$
AP-ROM [@soltani2018towards] $O(nr^3\log^4{n}\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$ $O(mnr\log{n}\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$
Algorithms without resampling Sample complexity Computational complexity
Convex [@chen2013exact] $O(nr)$ $O(mn^{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}})$
GD [@sanghavi2017local] $O(nr^{6}\log^{2}{n})$ $O(mn^{5}r^{3}\log^{4}{n}\log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$
GD (Algorithm \[alg:ncvx\_sketching\], Ours) $O(nr^{4}\log{n})$ $O(mnr \max\{\log^{2}{n}, r^{2}\} \log{(\frac{1}{\epsilon})})$
: Comparisons with existing results in terms of sample complexity and computational complexity to reach $\epsilon$-accuracy. The top half of the table is concerned with algorithms that require resampling, while the bottom half of the table covers algorithms without resampling. []{data-label="table:existing"}
Several other existing works have suggested different approaches for low-rank matrix factorization from rank-one measurements, of which the statistical and computational guarantees to reach $\epsilon$-accuracy are summarized in Table \[table:existing\]. We note our guarantee is the only one that achieves simultaneous near-optimal sample complexity and computational complexity. Iterative algorithms based on alternating minimization or noisy power iterations [@zhong2015efficient; @lin2016non; @soltani2018towards] require a [*fresh*]{} set of samples at every iteration, which is never executed in practice, and the sample complexity grows unbounded for [*exact*]{} recovery.
Many nonconvex methods have been proposed and analyzed recently to solve the phase retrieval problem, including the Kaczmarz method [@wei2015solving; @tan2017phase; @jeong2017convergence] and approximate message passing [@ma2018optimization]. In [@chi2016kaczmarz], the Kaczmarz method is generalized to solve the problem studied in this paper, but no theoretical performance guarantees are provided.
The local geometry studied in our paper is in contrast to [@sun2016geometric], which studied the global landscape of phase retrieval, and showed that there are no spurious local minima as soon as the sample complexity is above $O(n\log^3 n)$. It will be interesting to study the landscape property of the generalized model in our paper.
Our model is also related to learning shallow neural networks. [@zhong17a] studied the performance of gradient descent with resampling and an initialization provided by the tensor method for various activation functions, however their analysis did not cover quadratic activations. For quadratic activations, [@livni2014computational] adopts a greedy learning strategy, and can only guarantee sublinear convergence rate. Moreover, [@soltanolkotabi2017theoretical] studied the optimization landscape for an over-parameterized shallow neural network with quadratic activation, where $r$ is larger than $n$.
Outline of Theoretical Analysis
===============================
This section provides the proof sketch of the main results, with the details deferred to the appendix. Our theoretical analysis is inspired by the work of [@ma2017implicit] for phase retrieval and follows the general recipe outlined in [@ma2017implicit], while significant changes and elaborate derivations are needed. We refine the analysis to show that both the signal reconstruction error and the entry-wise error contract linearly, where the latter is not revealed by [@ma2017implicit]. In below, we first characterize a region of incoherence and contraction that enjoys both strong convexity and smoothness along certain directions. We then demonstrate — via an induction argument — that the iterates always stay within this nice region. Finally, the proof is complete by validating the desired properties of spectral initialization.
Local Geometry and Error Contraction
------------------------------------
We start with characterizing a local region around ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$, within which the loss function enjoys desired restricted strong convexity and smoothness properties. This requires exploring the property of the Hessian of $f({{\boldsymbol X}})$, which is given by $$\label{eq:hessian}
\nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}})
= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left(\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i}\right){{\boldsymbol I}}_{r} + 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right] \otimes \big( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \big).$$ Here, we use $\otimes$ to denote the Kronecker product and hence $\nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}}) \in \mathbb{R}^{nr \times nr}$. Now we are ready to state the following lemma regarding this local region, which will be referred to as the region of incoherence and contraction (RIC) throughout this paper. The proof is given in Appendix \[proof\_lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\].
\[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\] Suppose the sample size obeys $m\ge c \frac{ \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) } n r \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}$ for some sufficiently large constant $c>0$. Then with probability at least $1 - c_{1} n^{-12} - m e^{-1.5n} - m n^{-12} $, we have $$\label{eq:lower_bound}
\mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)^{\top} \nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}}) \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \ge 1.026 \sigma_{r}^{2} ({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} ) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2},$$ and $$\label{eq:upper_bound}
\left\Vert \nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}})\right\Vert \le 1.5 \sigma_{r}^{2} ({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} ) \log{n} + 6\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}$$ hold simultaneously for all matrices ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol V}}$ satisfying the following constraints:
\[eq:def\_RIC\] $$\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} & \le \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \label{eq:def_local} \\
\max_{1\le l\le m} \Big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \Big\Vert_{2} & \le \frac{1}{24} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},
\label{eq:def_incoherence} \end{aligned}$$
and ${{\boldsymbol V}}= {{\boldsymbol T}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{{{\boldsymbol T}}} - {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}$ satisfying $$\label{eq:cond_direction}
\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert \le \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert} ,$$ where ${{\boldsymbol Q}}_{{{\boldsymbol T}}} := {\mathrm{argmin}}_{{{\boldsymbol P}}\in\mathcal{O}^{r\times r} } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol T}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol P}}- {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$. Here, $c_1$ is some absolute positive constant.
The condition on ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ formally characterizes the RIC, which enjoys the claimed restricted strong convexity (see (\[eq:lower\_bound\])) and smoothness (see (\[eq:upper\_bound\])). With Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\] in mind, it is easy to see that if ${{\boldsymbol X}}_t$ lies within the RIC, the estimation error shrinks in the presence of a properly chosen step size. This is given in the lemma below whose proof can be found in Appendix \[proof\_lemma\_induction\].
\[lemma:lemma\_induction\] Suppose the sample size obeys $m\ge c \frac{ \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) } n r \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}$ for some sufficiently large constant $c>0$. Then with probability at least $1 - c_{1} n^{-12} - m e^{-1.5n} - m n^{-12} $, if ${{\boldsymbol X}}_t$ falls within the RIC as described in , we have $$\mathrm{dist} \big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \leq \left( 1- 0.513\mu \sigma_r^2({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \right) \mathrm{dist}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) ,$$ provided that the step size obeys $0<\mu_{t} \equiv \mu \le \frac{1.026 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\big(1.5 \sigma_{r}^{2} ({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \log{n} + 6\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\big)^{2}}$. Here, $c_1>0$ is some universal constant.
Assuming that the iterates $\{{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}\}$, stay within the RIC (see ) for the first $T_{c}$ iterations, according to Lemma \[lemma:lemma\_induction\], we have, by induction, that $$\mathrm{dist} \big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{T_{c}+1}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \leq \left( 1- 0.513\mu \sigma_r^2({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \right)^{T_{c}+1} \mathrm{dist}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \leq \frac{1}{24\sqrt{6}} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{\log{n}}}{\sqrt{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$$ as soon as $$\label{eq:iterations}
T_{c} \ge c \max{\left\{\log^{2}{n}, \frac{ \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}} { \sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)} \right\}} \log n,$$ for some large enough constant $c$. The iterates when $t\geq T_{c}$ are easier to deal with; in fact, it is easily seen that ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}$ stays in the RIC since $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \big( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big) \right\Vert_{2}
& \le \max_{1\le l\le m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l} \big\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert \nonumber \\
& \le \sqrt{6n} \cdot \frac{1}{24\sqrt{6}} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{\log{n}}}{\sqrt{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \label{equ_t_alog_asquare}\\
& = \frac{1}{24} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where follows from Lemma \[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\] for all $t\geq T_{c}$. Consequently, contraction of the estimation error $\mathrm{dist}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}, {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) $ can be guaranteed by Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\] for all $t\geq T_{c}$ with probability at least $1 - c_{1} n^{-12} - m e^{-1.5n} - m n^{-12} $.
Introducing Leave-One-Out Sequences
-----------------------------------
It has now become clear that the key remaining step is to verify that the iterates $\{{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}\}$ satisfy for the first $T_{c}$ iterations, where $T_{c}$ is on the order of . Verifying (\[eq:def\_incoherence\]) is conceptually hard since the iterates $\{{{\boldsymbol X}}_t\}$ are statistically dependent with all the sensing vectors $\{{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{m}$. To tackle this problem, for each $1 \leq l \leq m$, we introduce an auxiliary leave-one-out sequence $\{{{\boldsymbol X}}^{(l)}_{t}\}$, which discards a single measurement from consideration. Specifically, the sequence $\{{{\boldsymbol X}}^{(l)}_{t}\}$ is the gradient iterates operating on the following leave-one-out function $$f^{(l)}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}\right) := \frac{1}{4m} \sum_{i: i\neq l} \left(y_{i} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2}\right)^{2}.$$ See Algorithm \[alg:loo\] for a formal definition of the leave-one-out sequences. Again, we want to emphasize that Algorithm \[alg:loo\] is just an auxiliary procedure useful for the theoretical analysis, and it does not need to be implemented in practice.
**Input:** Measurements $\left\{y_{i}\right\}_{i:i\neq l}$, and sensing vectors $\left\{{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right\}_{i:i\neq l}$.
**Parameters:** Step size $\mu_{t}$, rank $r$, and number of iterations $T$.
**Initialization:** ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)} = {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}^{(l) 1/2}$, where the columns of ${{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} \in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ contain the normalized eigenvectors corresponding to the $r$ largest eigenvalues of the matrix $${{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)} = \frac{1}{2m} \sum_{i: i\neq l} y_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top},$$ and $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}^{(l)}$ is an $r\times r$ diagonal matrix, with the entries on the diagonal given as $$\left[\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}^{(l)}\right]_{i} = \lambda_{i}\big({{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\big) - \lambda^{(l)}, \quad \ i=1,\cdots,r,$$ where $\lambda^{(l)} = \frac{1}{2m} \sum_{i: i\neq l} y_{i}$ and $\lambda_{i}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\right)$ is the $i$th largest eigenvalue of ${{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}$.
**Gradient loop:** For $t = 0:1:T-1$, do $${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} = {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu_{t} \cdot \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i: i\neq l } \left( \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \big\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i} \right) {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}.$$
**Output:** ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{T}^{(l)}$.
Establishing Incoherence via Induction {#sec_inductive_update}
--------------------------------------
Our proof is inductive in nature with the following induction hypotheses:
\[eq:induction\_hyp\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& \le C_{1} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \label{equ_inductive_att_c1}\\
\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& \le C_{3} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \label{equ_inductive_att_c3}\\
\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}-{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2}
& \le C_{2} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \label{equ_inductive_att_c2}\end{aligned}$$
where ${{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} = {\mathrm{argmin}}_{{{\boldsymbol P}}\in\mathcal{O}^{r\times r}} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol P}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} $, and the positive constants $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_3$ satisfy $$\label{eq:constant_cond}
C_{1} + C_{3} \le \frac{1}{24}, \quad C_{2} + \sqrt{6}C_{3} \le \frac{1}{24},\quad 5.86 C_{1} + 29.3 C_{3} + 5\sqrt{6}C_{3} \le C_{2}.$$ Furthermore, the step size $\mu$ is chosen as $$\label{equ_induc_stepsize}
\mu = \frac{c_{0}\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\big( \sigma_{r}^{2} ({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \log{n} + \Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\big)^{2}}$$ with appropriate universal constant $c_{0}>0$.
Our goal is to show that if the $t$th iteration ${{\boldsymbol X}}_t$ satisfies the induction hypotheses , then the $(t+1)$th iteration ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}$ also satisfies . It is straightforward to see that the hypothesis has already been established by Lemma \[lemma:lemma\_induction\], and we are left with and . We first establish in the following lemma, which measures the proximity between ${{\boldsymbol X}}_t$ and the leave-one-out versions ${{\boldsymbol X}}_t^{(l)}$, whose proof is provided in Appendix \[proof:lemma\_proximity\].
\[lemma:proximity\] Suppose the sample size obeys $m\ge c \frac{ \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) } n r \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}$ for some sufficiently large constant $c>0$. If the induction hypotheses hold for the $t$th iteration, with probability at least $1 - c_{1} n^{-12} - me^{-1.5n} - mn^{-12} $, we have $$\max_{1\le l\le m}\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t+1}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
\le C_{3} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},$$ as long as the step size obeys . Here, $c_1>0$ is some absolute constant.
In addition, the incoherence property of ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}$ with respect to the $l$th sensing vector ${{\boldsymbol a}}_l$ is relatively easier to establish, due to their statistical independence. Combined with the proximity bound from Lemma \[lemma:proximity\], this allows us to justify the incoherence property of the original iterates ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}$, as summarized in the lemma below, whose proof is given in Appendix \[proof\_incoherence\_induction\].
\[lemma:incoherence\_induction\] Suppose the sample size obeys $m\ge c \frac{ \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) } n r \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}$ for some sufficiently large constant $c>0$. If the induction hypotheses hold for the $t$th iteration, with probability exceeding $1 - c_{1} n^{-12} - me^{-1.5n} - 2mn^{-12}$, $$\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) \right\Vert_{2}
\le C_{2} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$$ holds as long as the step size satisfies . Here, $c_1>0$ is some universal constant.
Spectral Initialization
-----------------------
Finally, it remains to verify that the induction hypotheses hold for the initialization, i.e. the base case when $t=0$. This is supplied by the following lemma, whose proof is given in Appendix \[proof\_lemma\_initialization\].
\[lemma:initialization\] Suppose that the sample size exceeds $m\ge c \max\left\{ \frac{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{\sigma_{r}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \sqrt{r}, \kappa \right\} \frac{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{5}}{\sigma_{r}^{5}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } n \sqrt{r} \log{n}$ for some sufficiently large constant $c>0$. Then ${{\boldsymbol X}}_0$ satisfies with probability at least $1 - c_{1}n^{-12} - me^{-1.5n} - 3mn^{-12}$, where $c_1$ is some absolute positive constant.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have shown that low-rank positive semidefinite matrices can be recovered from a near-minimal number of random rank-one measurements, via the vanilla gradient descent algorithm following spectral initialization. Our results significantly improve upon existing results in several ways, both computationally and statistically. In particular, our algorithm does not require resampling at every iteration (and hence requires fewer samples). The gradient iteration can provably employ a much more aggressive step size than what was suggested in prior literature (e.g. [@sanghavi2017local]), thus resulting in much smaller iteration complexity and hence lower computational cost. All of this is enabled by establishing the implicit regularization feature of gradient descent for nonconvex statistical estimation, where the iterates remain incoherent with the sensing vectors throughout the execution of the whole algorithm.
There are several problems that are worth exploring in future investigation. For example, our theory reveals the typical size of the fitting error of ${{\boldsymbol X}}_t$ (i.e. $y_i - \| {{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top} {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \|_2$) in the presence of noiseless data, which would serve as a helpful benchmark when separating sparse outliers in the more realistic scenario. Another direction is to explore whether implicit regularization remains valid for learning shallow neural networks [@zhong17a]. Since the current work can be viewed as learning a one-hidden-layer fully-connected network with a quadratic activation function $\sigma(z)=z^2$, it would be of great interest to study if the techniques utilized herein can be used to develop strong guarantees when the activation function takes other forms.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of Y. Li and Y. Chi is supported in part by AFOSR under the grant FA9550-15-1-0205, by ONR under the grant N00014-18-1-2142, and by NSF under the grants CAREER ECCS-1818571 and CCF-1704245.
Appendices {#appendices .unnumbered}
==========
Technical Lemmas
================
In this section, we document a few useful lemmas that are used throughout the proof.
[@tu2016low Lemma 5.4]\[lemma\_fronorm\_lowbound\] For any matrices ${{\boldsymbol X}}$, ${{\boldsymbol U}}\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times r}$, we have $$\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol U}}{{\boldsymbol U}}^{\top} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \ge \sqrt{2(\sqrt{2}-1)} \sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}\right) \mathrm{dist}({{\boldsymbol X}},{{\boldsymbol U}}).$$
[@candes2011tight Lemma 3.1]\[lemma\_covering\_net\] Let $\mathcal{S}_r = \{{{\boldsymbol X}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2},\mathrm{rank}(\boldsymbol{X})\leq r, \| \boldsymbol{X}\|_{{{\mathsf F}}}=1\}$. Then there exists an $\epsilon$-net $\bar{\mathcal{S}}_r\subset \mathcal{S}_r$ with respect to the Frobenius norm obeying $ \left\vert \bar{\mathcal{S}}_{r} \right\vert \leq (9/\epsilon)^{(n_1+n_2+1)r}$.
[@bentkus2003inequality; @candes2015phase] \[lemma\_oneside\_tail\_bound\] Suppose $x_{1}, \cdots, x_{m}$ are i.i.d. real-valued random variables obeying $x_{i} \le b$ for some deterministic number $b >0$, $\mathbb{E}\left[x_{i}\right] = 0$, and $\mathbb{E}\left[x_{i}^{2}\right] = d^{2}$. Setting $\sigma^{2} = m \cdot \max\{b^{2}, d^{2}\}$, we have $$\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m} x_{i} \ge t\right) \le \min\left\{\exp{\left(-\frac{t^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}\right)}, 25\left(1 - \Phi\left(\frac{t}{\sigma}\right) \right)\right\},$$ where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the cumulative distribution function of a standard Gaussian variable.
[@Vershynin2012 Theorem 5.39]\[lemma\_aaT\_operator\_concentration\] Suppose the ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}$’s are i.i.d. random vectors following ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{0}, {{\boldsymbol I}}_n\right)$, $i=1,\cdots,m$. Then for every $t\ge0$ and $0< \delta\le 1$, $$\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} - \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right\Vert \le \delta$$ holds with probability at least $1 - 2e^{-ct^{2}}$, where $\delta = C\sqrt{\frac{n}{m}} + \frac{t}{\sqrt{m}}$. On this event, for all ${{\boldsymbol W}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, there exists $$\left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol W}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} - \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol W}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \right\vert \le \delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol W}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}.$$
[@candes2015phase]\[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\] Suppose the ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}$’s are i.i.d. random vectors following ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{0}, {{\boldsymbol I}}_n\right)$, $i=1,\cdots,m$. Then with probability at least $1-me^{-1.5n}$, we have $$\max_{1\le i\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right\Vert_{2} \le \sqrt{6n}.$$
\[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\] Fix ${{\boldsymbol W}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$. Suppose the ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}$’s are i.i.d. random vectors following ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{0}, {{\boldsymbol I}}_n\right)$, $i=1,\cdots,m$. Then with probability at least $1 - m r n^{-13}$, we have $$\max_{1\le i\le m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol W}}\big\Vert_{2} \le 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol W}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}.$$
Define ${{\boldsymbol W}}= [{{\boldsymbol w}}_{1}, {{\boldsymbol w}}_{2}, \cdots, {{\boldsymbol w}}_{r} ]$, then we can write $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol W}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} = \sum_{k=1}^{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol w}}_{k} \right)^{2}$. Recognize that $\left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \frac{{{\boldsymbol w}}_{k}}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol w}}_{k}\right\Vert_{2}} \right)^{2}$ follows the $\chi^2$ distribution with $1$ degree of freedom. It then follows from [@laurent2000adaptive Lemma 1] that $$\mathbb{P}\left( \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \frac{{{\boldsymbol w}}_{k}}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol w}}_{k}\right\Vert_{2}} \right)^{2} \ge 1 + 2\sqrt{t} + 2t \right) \le \exp{\left(-t\right)},$$ for any $t > 0$. Taking $t = 13 \log{n}$ yields $$\mathbb{P}\left( \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol w}}_{k} \right)^{2} \le 34.3 \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol w}}_{k}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \log{n} \right) \ge 1- n^{-13}.$$ Finally, taking the union bound, we obtain $$\max_{1\le i\le m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol W}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \le \sum_{k=1}^{r} 34.3 \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol w}}_{k}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \log{n} = 34.3 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol W}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \log{n}$$ with probability at least $1 - m r n^{-13}$.
\[lemma\_expectation\_gaussian\] Suppose ${{\boldsymbol a}}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{0}, {{\boldsymbol I}}_{n}\right)$. Then for any fixed matrices ${{\boldsymbol X}}$, ${{\boldsymbol H}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2}\right]
& = \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2};\\
\mathbb{E}\left[\big({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}\big)^{2}\right]
& = \left( \mathrm{Tr}\big({{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big)\right)^{2} + \mathrm{Tr}\big({{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big) + \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for any order $k\geq 1$, we have $\mathbb{E}\big[ \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}\Vert_{2}^{2k}\big]
\le c_k \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2k}$, where $c_k>0$ is a numerical constant that depends only on $k$.
Let ${{\boldsymbol X}}=[ {{\boldsymbol x}}_{1}, {{\boldsymbol x}}_{2}, \cdots, {{\boldsymbol x}}_{r}] $ and ${{\boldsymbol H}}= [{{\boldsymbol h}}_{1}, {{\boldsymbol h}}_{2}, \cdots, {{\boldsymbol h}}_{r} ]$. Based on the simple facts $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[({{\boldsymbol x}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}})^{2}{{\boldsymbol a}}{{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}\right] & = \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol x}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} + 2{{\boldsymbol x}}{{\boldsymbol x}}^{\top},\\
\mathbb{E}\left[({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{i})({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}){{\boldsymbol a}}{{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}\right] & = {{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}^{\top} + {{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}^{\top} + {{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n},\end{aligned}$$ we can derive $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2}\right]
& = \sum_{i=1}^{r}\sum_{j=1}^{r}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}\right)^{2} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}\right)^{2}\right] \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{r}\sum_{j=1}^{r} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2\left({{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}\right)^{2} \right] \\
& = \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[\left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}\right)^{2}\right]
& = \mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{i=1}^{r}\left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}\right)^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}\right)^{2} + \sum_{ i \neq j} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol h}}_{j}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}\right) \right] \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{r} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2\left({{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right] \\
& \quad + \sum_{ i \neq j} \left[ \left({{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol h}}_{j}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}\right) + \left({{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol h}}_{j}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}\right) + \left({{\boldsymbol h}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_{j}\right)\left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol h}}_{j}\right) \right] \\
& = \left( \mathrm{Tr}\big({{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big)\right)^{2} + \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + \mathrm{Tr}\big({{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big).\end{aligned}$$
Finally, to bound $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2k}\right]$ for an arbitrary ${{\boldsymbol H}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, we write the singular value decomposition of ${{\boldsymbol H}}$ as ${{\boldsymbol H}}= {{\boldsymbol U}}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}$, where ${{\boldsymbol U}}=[ {{\boldsymbol u}}_{1}, {{\boldsymbol u}}_{2}, \cdots, {{\boldsymbol u}}_{r} ]\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, $\boldsymbol{\Sigma} = \mathrm{diag}\left\{\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2}, \cdots, \sigma_{r}\right\}$, and ${{\boldsymbol V}}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$. This gives $$\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} =\sum_{i=1}^r \sigma_{i}^2({{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol u}}_{i})^2.$$ Let $b_{i} = \sigma_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol u}}_{i}$ for $i=1,\cdots,r$, which are independent random variables obeying $b_i \sim \mathcal{N}\left(0, \sigma_{i}^{2}\right)$ due to the fact ${{\boldsymbol U}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol U}}= {{\boldsymbol I}}_{r}$. Since $\mathbb{E}\left[b_{i}^{2t}\right] = \sigma_{i}^{2t} \left(2t-1\right)!! \le c_k \sigma_{i}^{2t}$ for any $i=1,\cdots,r$ and $t=1,\cdots,k$, where $c_k$ is some large enough constant depending only on $k$, we arrive at $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left(\sum_{i=1}^{r} b_{i}^{2} \right)^{k}\right] \le c_k \left(\sum_{i=1}^{r} \sigma_{i}^{2} \right)^{k} = c_{k} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2k}$$ as claimed.
\[lemma\_intial\_weighted\_mat\_concen\] Fix ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times r}$. Suppose the ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}$’s are i.i.d. random vectors following ${{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{0}, {{\boldsymbol I}}_n\right)$, $i=1,\cdots,m$. For any $0< \delta \le 1$, suppose $m \ge c\delta^{-2} n \log{n}$ for some sufficiently large constant $c>0$. Then we have $$\left\Vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\|{{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\|_2^2{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\,{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} - 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert \le \delta \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2},$$ with probability at least $1 - c_{1} r n^{-13}$, where $c_1>0$ is some absolute constant.
This proof adapts the results of [@candes2015phase Lemma 7.4] with refining the probabilities. Let ${{\boldsymbol a}}(1)$ be the first element of a vector ${{\boldsymbol a}}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{0}, {{\boldsymbol I}}_n\right)$. Based on [@schudy2011concentration Theorem 1.9], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{2} - 1 \right\vert \ge \delta \right)
& \le e^{2} \cdot e^{ - \left(c_{1} \delta^{2} m \right)^{1/2}};\\
\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{4} - 3 \right\vert \ge \delta \right)
& \le e^{2} \cdot e^{ - \left(c_{2} \delta^{2} m \right)^{1/4}};\\
\mathbb{P}\left( \left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{6} - 15 \right\vert \ge \delta \right)
& \le e^{2} \cdot e^{ - \left(c_{3} \delta^{2} m \right)^{1/6}}.\end{aligned}$$ So, by setting $m \gg \delta^{-2} n $, we have $$\label{equ_groundtruth_weight_mat_concen_moment}
\left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{2} - 1 \right\vert \le \delta, \ \left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{4} - 3 \right\vert \le \delta, \ \mathrm{and} \ \left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{6} - 15 \right\vert \le \delta,$$ with probability at least $1 - c_{4} n^{-13}$ for some constant $c_4 >0$. Moreover, following [@laurent2000adaptive Lemma 1], we know $$\mathbb{P}\left( \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{2} \ge 1 + 2\sqrt{t} + 2t \right) \le \exp{\left(-t\right)},$$ which gives $$\mathbb{P} \left( \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right)^{2} \ge 36.5 \log{m} \right) \le \exp{\left(- 14 \log{m} \right)} = m^{-14},$$ if setting $t = 14 \log{m}$. Therefore, as long as $m \ge c n$, we have $$\label{equ_groundtruth_weight_mat_concen_max}
\max_{1\le i\le m} \left\vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}(1)\right\vert \le \sqrt{36.5 \log{m}},$$ with probability at least $1 - c_{5} n^{-13}$ for some constant $c_5 > 0$.
With and , the results in [@candes2015phase Lemma 7.4] imply that for any $0 <\delta \le 1$, as soon as $m \ge c\delta^{-2} n \log{n}$ for some sufficiently large constant $c$, with probability at least $1-c_1 n^{-13}$, $$\left\Vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}\big)^{2} {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} - \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}- 2 {{\boldsymbol x}}{{\boldsymbol x}}^{\top} \right\Vert \le \delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2}$$ holds for any fixed vector ${{\boldsymbol x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Let ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} =[ {{\boldsymbol x}}_{1}^{\natural}, {{\boldsymbol x}}_{2}^{\natural}, \cdots, {{\boldsymbol x}}_{r}^{\natural} ]$. Instantiating the above bound for the set of vectors ${{\boldsymbol x}}_k^{\natural}$, $k=1,\ldots, r$ and taking the union bound, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\|{{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\|_2^2 \,{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}- 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert
& \le \sum_{k=1}^r \left\Vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big({{\boldsymbol a}}_i^{\top}{{\boldsymbol x}}_k^{\natural} \big)^2{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_k^{\natural} \big\Vert_{2}^{2}\,{{\boldsymbol I}}- 2{{\boldsymbol x}}_k^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol x}}_k^{\natural \top} \right\Vert
\\
& \quad \leq \delta \sum_{k=1}^r \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_k^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} = \delta \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\] {#proof_lemma_restrict_concen_hessian_neighbor}
=============================================================
The crucial ingredient for proving the lower bound is the following lemma, whose proof is provided in Appendix \[proof\_lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_lower\_looseconst\].
\[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_lower\_looseconst\] Suppose $m\ge c \frac{ \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) } n r \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}$ with some large enough positive constant $c$, then with probability at least $1 - c_{1} n^{-12} - m e^{-1.5n}$, we have $$\mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)^{\top} \nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}}) \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \ge 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 1.204 \sigma_{r}^{2} ({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} ) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2},$$ for all matrices ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol V}}$ where ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ satisfies $\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}\le \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$. Here, $c_{1} > 0$ is some universal constant.
With Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_lower\_looseconst\] in place, we are ready to prove . Let ${{\boldsymbol V}}= {{\boldsymbol T}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{{{\boldsymbol T}}} - {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}$ satisfy the assumptions in Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\], then we can demonstrate that $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \nonumber\\
& = \mathrm{Tr}\left( \big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}-{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}+{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}\big)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}-{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}+{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}\big)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \nonumber\\
& = \mathrm{Tr}\left(\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} - {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}\big)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} - {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}\big)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 2\mathrm{Tr}\left(\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}-{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}\big)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \nonumber\\
& \ge \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} - {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2} \big\Vert^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} - {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2} \big\Vert\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2} \right\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \nonumber\\
& = \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}-{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2} \big\Vert^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}-{{\boldsymbol T}}_{2} \big\Vert\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2} \right\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \label{equ_hessian_lower_loose_symm}\\
& \ge - \left[ \left( \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert}\right)^{2} + 2\cdot \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert} \cdot \left( \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert} + \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert\right) \right] \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \label{equ_hessian_lower_loose_invoking_lemma2}\\
& \ge - 0.0886 \sigma_{r}^{2} ({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} ) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}, \label{equ_hessian_lower_loose_finalbound}\end{aligned}$$ where follows from the fact that ${{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ is a symmetric matrix [@ten1977orthogonal Theorem 2], arises from the fact $\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol T}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \geq 0$ as well as the assumptions of Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\], and is based on the fact $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert \ge \sigma_{r}({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} ) $. Combining with Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_lower\_looseconst\], we establish the lower bound .
To prove the upper bound asserted in the lemma, we make the observation that the Hessian in satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\Vert \nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}})\right\Vert \nonumber\\
& = \left\Vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left( \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\Vert_{2}^{2} - \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{2}^{2} \right){{\boldsymbol I}}_{r} + 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right] \otimes \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right) \right\Vert \nonumber\\
& \le \left\Vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left| {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \left({{\boldsymbol X}}+ {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)^{\top} {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i} \right| {{\boldsymbol I}}_{r} + 2 \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}_{r} \right] \otimes \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right) \right\Vert \nonumber\\
&\le \left\Vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left( \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\Vert_{2} + \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{2} \right) \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}-{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big)\right\Vert_{2} + 2\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \right] {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right\Vert \label{equ_hessian_upper_kron_spectral}\\
& = \Bigg\Vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left( \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\Vert_{2} + \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\Vert_{2} \right) \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}-{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big)\right\Vert_{2} + 2 \left(\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} - \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \right) \right] \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right) \nonumber\\
& \quad\quad + \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} 2\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right) - 2 \left(\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} + 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}\right) + 2 \left(\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} + 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}\right) \Bigg\Vert \nonumber\\
& \le \underbrace{\left\Vert \frac{3}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left( \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\Vert_{2} + \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{2} \right) \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}-{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big)\right\Vert_{2} \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right) \right\Vert}_{:=B_1} \nonumber\\
& \ \ + \underbrace{2\left\Vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right) - \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} - 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert }_{:=B_2}+ \underbrace{2 \left\Vert \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}_{n} + 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert}_{:=B_3} , \label{eq:B1-B2-B3}\end{aligned}$$ where follows from the fact $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol I}}\otimes {{\boldsymbol A}}\right\Vert = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol A}}\right\Vert$. It is seen from Lemma \[lemma\_intial\_weighted\_mat\_concen\] that $$B_2 \leq \delta \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \le 0.02 \sigma_{r}^{2}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big),$$ when setting $\delta \le 0.02 \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big)}{\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}}$. Moreover, it is straightforward to check that $$B_3\leq 6\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}.$$ With regards to the first term $B_1$, note that by Lemma \[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\] and , we can bound $$\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2} \leq \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2} + \left \Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}({{\boldsymbol X}}-{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}) \right\Vert_{2} \leq 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \frac{1}{24} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$$ for $1\leq i\leq m$, and therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 & \le 1.471 \sigma_{r}^{2}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \log{n} \left\Vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right\Vert \le 1.48 \sigma_{r}^{2}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \log{n} ,\label{equ_hessian_upper_aaT_con}\end{aligned}$$ where the last line follows from Lemma \[lemma\_aaT\_operator\_concentration\]. The proof is then finished by combining with the preceding bounds on $B_1$, $B_2$ and $B_3$.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_lower\_looseconst\] {#proof_lemma_restrict_concen_hessian_lower_looseconst}
======================================================================
Without loss of generality, we assume $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$. Write $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)^{\top} \nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}}) \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)^{\top} \left[ \left[ \left(\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i}\right){{\boldsymbol I}}_{r} + 2{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right] \otimes \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} \right) \right] \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \nonumber\\
& = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left(\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i}\right) \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)^{\top}\mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right)+ \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)^{\top} \mathrm{vec}\left(2 {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right) \nonumber\\
& = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left(\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{2}^{2}\right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right]. \label{eq:p-original}\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, we let ${{\boldsymbol X}}={{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}$ with $t \le 1/24$ and $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$ which immediately obeys $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \frac{1}{24} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$, and express the right-hand side of as $$\begin{aligned}
&p\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) \nonumber \\
& := \underbrace{\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right] }_{:=q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right)} - \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2}. \label{eq:def_pVH}\end{aligned}$$ The aim is thus to control $p\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right)$ for all matrices satisfying $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$ and $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$, and for all $t$ obeying $t\le {1}/{24}$.
We first bound the second term in . Let ${{\boldsymbol V}}= [{{\boldsymbol v}}_{1}, {{\boldsymbol v}}_{2}, \cdots, {{\boldsymbol v}}_{r}]$, then by Lemma \[lemma\_intial\_weighted\_mat\_concen\], $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \right\vert \\
& = \left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \sum_{k=1}^{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol v}}_{k}\right)^{2} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \sum_{k=1}^{r} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol v}}_{k}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - 2 \sum_{k=1}^{r} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol v}}_{k}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \right\vert\\
& \le \sum_{k=1}^{r} \left\vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \left( {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol v}}_{k}\right)^{2} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol v}}_{k}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol v}}_{k}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \right\vert\\
& = \sum_{k=1}^{r} \left\vert {{\boldsymbol v}}_{k}^{\top} \left( \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right) {{\boldsymbol v}}_{k} \right\vert\\
& \le \sum_{k=1}^{r} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol v}}_{k} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top} - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert \\
& \le \delta \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \sum_{k=1}^{r} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol v}}_{k} \right\Vert_{2}^{2}
= \delta \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ By setting $\delta \le \frac{1}{24}\frac{ \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}}$, we see that with probability at least $1 - c_{1} r n^{-13}$, $$\label{equ_hessian_loose_secondterm}
\frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \le \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2},$$ holds simultaneously for all matrices ${{\boldsymbol V}}$, as long as $m\gtrsim \frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)} n \log{n}$.
Next, we turn to the first term $q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right)$ in , and we need to accommodate all matrices satisfying $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$ and $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$, and all scalars obeying $t\le {1}/{24}$. The strategy is that we first establish the bound of $q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right)$ for any fixed ${{\boldsymbol H}}$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}$ and $t$, and then extend the result to a uniform bound for all ${{\boldsymbol H}}$, ${{\boldsymbol V}}$ and $t$ by covering arguments.
Bound with Fixed Matrices and Scalar
------------------------------------
Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right)& = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \underbrace{\left[ \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \big({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\big)^{2} \right]}_{:=G_{i}}.\end{aligned}$$ We will start by assuming that ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol V}}$ are both fixed and statistically independent of $\{{{\boldsymbol a}}_i\}_{i=1}^{m}$. In view of Lemma \[lemma\_expectation\_gaussian\], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ G_{i} \right]
& = \mathbb{E}\left[ \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \right] + 2 \mathbb{E}\left[ \big({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\big)^{2}\right] \nonumber\\
& = \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left( \mathrm{Tr}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big)\right)^{2} + 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big) \nonumber\\
& \le \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \nonumber\\
& \le 9 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}
= 9 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \label{equ_expectation_G_invokex} \\
&\le 18 \left( \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + t^{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \right)
\le 18.002 \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} , \label{equ_expectation_G_invokeht}\end{aligned}$$ where follows $\|{{\boldsymbol V}}\|_{{{\mathsf F}}}=1$ and ${{\boldsymbol X}}={{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}$, and arises from the calculations with $\|{{\boldsymbol H}}\|_{{{\mathsf F}}}=1$ and $t \le 1/24$. Therefore, if we define $T_{i} = \mathbb{E}\left[ G_{i} \right] - G_{i}$, we have $\mathbb{E}\left[T_{i}\right] = 0$ and $$T_{i} \le \mathbb{E}\left[G_{i}\right] \le 18.002 \big \Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2},$$ due to $G_{i} \ge 0$. In addition, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ T_{i}^{2} \right] = \mathbb{E}\left[ G_{i}^{2} \right] - \left( \mathbb{E}\left[G_{i}\right] \right)^{2}
\le \mathbb{E}\left[ G_{i}^{2} \right] \nonumber\\
& = \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \big({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\big)^{2} \right)^{2} \right] \nonumber\\
& = \mathbb{E}\left[ \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{4} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{4} \right] + 4 \mathbb{E}\left[ \big({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\big)^{4} \right] + 4 \mathbb{E}\left[ \big({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\big)^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{2}\right] \nonumber\\
& \le 9 \mathbb{E}\left[ \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{2}^{4} \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{2}^{4} \right] \label{equ_tsqure_upperbound_cauchy}\\
& \le 9 \sqrt{ \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{8}\right] \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{8} \right]} \label{equ_tsqure_upperbound_holder}\\
& \le 9c_{4} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4} = 9c_{4} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4} \label{equ_tsqure_upperbound_gaussian}\\
& = 9c_{4} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4} \lesssim \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, comes from the Hölder’s inequality, and is a consequence of Lemma \[lemma\_expectation\_gaussian\]. Apply Lemma \[lemma\_oneside\_tail\_bound\] to arrive at $$\mathbb{P}\left( \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} T_{i} \ge \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right) \le \exp\left(-c\frac{m\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}\right),$$ which further leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} G_{i}= \mathbb{E}\left[G_{i}\right] - \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} T_{i} \nonumber\\
& \ge \mathbb{E}\left[G_{i}\right] - \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \nonumber\\
& = \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left( \mathrm{Tr}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big)\right)^{2} + 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) - \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \nonumber\\
& \ge \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) - \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) . \label{equ_q_interim_lowerbound}\end{aligned}$$
Substituting ${{\boldsymbol X}}={{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}$ for ${{\boldsymbol X}}$, and using the facts $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$, $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$ and $t \le 1/24$, we can calculate the following bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}
& = \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + t^2 \frac{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^2 } \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \mathrm{Tr}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right)\\
& \ge \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \ge \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - \frac{1}{12} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right);\\
\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}
& = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + t^2 \frac{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \mathrm{Tr}\left( {{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol H}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) \\
& \ge \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \ge \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - \frac{1}{12} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right);\\
\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}
& = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + t^{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \mathrm{Tr}\left( {{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\right) \\
& \ge \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \ge \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - \frac{1}{12} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right);\\
\mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right)
& = \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 2 t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \mathrm{Tr}\left( {{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + t^{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}} \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol H}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right)\\
& \ge \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) - 2 t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - t^{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert^{2}\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\\
& \ge \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) - \left( \frac{1}{12} + \frac{1}{24^{2}}\right) \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which, combining with , yields $$\begin{aligned}
& q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) \\
& \ge \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) - \left(\frac{15}{24} + \frac{1}{12\cdot 24} \right) \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\\
& \ge \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 2 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) - \left(\frac{15}{24} + \frac{1}{12\cdot 24} \right) \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\\
& \ge \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 1.371 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Covering Arguments
------------------
Since we have obtained a lower bound on $q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) $ for fixed ${{\boldsymbol V}}$, ${{\boldsymbol H}}$ and $t$, we now move on to extending it to a uniform bound that covers all ${{\boldsymbol V}}$, ${{\boldsymbol H}}$ and $t$ simultaneously. Towards this, we will invoke the $\epsilon$-net covering arguments for all ${{\boldsymbol V}}$, ${{\boldsymbol H}}$ and $t$, respectively, and will rely on the fact $\max_{1\le i\le m}\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right\Vert_{2} \le \sqrt{6 n}$ asserted in Lemma \[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\]. For notational convenience, we define $$\begin{aligned}
g\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right)
& = q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right)\\
& \quad - \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) - 1.371 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right).\end{aligned}$$
First, consider the $\epsilon$-net covering argument for ${{\boldsymbol V}}$. Suppose ${{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}$ and ${{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}$ are such that $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}_{1} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$, $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}_{2} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$, and $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}_{1} - {{\boldsymbol V}}_{2} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \epsilon$. Then, since $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \right\vert \le \left( \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \right) \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}-{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right)\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le 2\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2} \epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\vert \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right) - \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right) \right\vert\\
&\le \left\vert \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right) - \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right) \right\vert + \left\vert \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right) - \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right) \right\vert \\
& \le \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}_{1} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}_{1} -{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}_{2} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol V}}_{1} -{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le 2\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2}\epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\vert g\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) - g\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) \right\vert\\
& \le \left\vert q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) - q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) \right\vert + 2\left\vert \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \right\vert \\
&\quad + 2 \left\vert \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right) - \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right) \right\vert\\
& \le \left\vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right] - \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right]\right\vert\\
& \quad + 8 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2}\epsilon \\
& \le \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \right\vert + \frac{2}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\vert \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} - \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right\vert + 8 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2}\epsilon \\
& \le \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \cdot \left( \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}\right\Vert_{2} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right\Vert_{2} \right) \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{1} - {{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right) \right\Vert_{2}\\
& \quad + \frac{2}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}+{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i} \right\vert \cdot \left\vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}_{1}-{{\boldsymbol V}}_{2}\right)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i} \right\vert + 8 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2}\epsilon \\
& \le 6 n \cdot \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert^{2} \cdot 2\sqrt{6 n } \cdot \sqrt{6 n } \cdot \epsilon + 2 \cdot 12 n \cdot \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert \cdot 6 n \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}\right\Vert \epsilon + 8 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2}\epsilon \\
& = 216 \epsilon n^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert^{2} + 8 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2}\epsilon \\
& \le 432 \epsilon n^{2} \left( \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert^{2} + t^{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}\right\Vert^{2}\right) + 8 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert^{2}\epsilon \\
& \le \left(432.75 n^{2} + 8\right) \epsilon \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert^{2}
\le \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ as long as $\epsilon = \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{10584 n^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert^{2}}$. Based on Lemma \[lemma\_covering\_net\], the cardinality of this $\epsilon$-net will be $$\left(\frac{9}{\epsilon}\right)^{(n+r+1)r} = \left(\frac{9 \cdot 10584 n^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert^{2}}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}\right)^{(n+r+1)r} \le \exp{\left(cnr \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}\right)}.$$
Secondly, consider the $\epsilon$-net covering argument for ${{\boldsymbol H}}$. Suppose ${{\boldsymbol H}}_{1}$ and ${{\boldsymbol H}}_{2}$ obey $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}_{1} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$, $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}_{2} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = 1$, and $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol H}}_{1} - {{\boldsymbol H}}_{2} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \epsilon$. Then one has $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\vert g\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}_{1}, t\right) - g\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}_{2}, t\right) \right\vert\\
& = \left\vert q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}_{1}, t\right) - q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}_{2}, t\right) \right\vert \\
& = \Bigg\vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{1}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{1}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right] \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{2}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{2}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right] \Bigg\vert\\
& \le \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \cdot \left\vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{1}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{2}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \right\vert\\
& \quad + \frac{2}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\vert \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{1}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} - \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}_{2}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right\vert \\
& \le 6 n \cdot \sqrt{6 n } \cdot t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}\epsilon \cdot 2\sqrt{6 n } \cdot \frac{25}{24}\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert + 2\cdot 6 n \cdot t\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}\epsilon \cdot 12 n \cdot \frac{25}{24}\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert\\
& \le \frac{75}{8} \epsilon n^{2} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert
\le \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ as long as $\epsilon = \frac{1}{225 n^{2}} \cdot \frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert}$. Based on Lemma \[lemma\_covering\_net\], the cardinality of this $\epsilon$-net will be $$\left(\frac{9}{\epsilon}\right)^{(n+r+1)r} = \left(9 \cdot 225 n^{2} \cdot \frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \right)^{(n+r+1)r} \le \exp{\left(cnr \log{n}\right)}.$$
Finally, consider the $\epsilon$-net covering argument for all $t$, such that $t\le {1}/{24}$. Suppose $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ satisfy $t_{1}\le {1}/{24}$, $t_{2}\le {1}/{24}$ and $\left\vert t_{1} - t_{2} \right\vert\le \epsilon$. Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\vert g\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t_{1}\right) - g\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t_{2}\right) \right\vert\\
& = \left\vert q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t_{1}\right) - q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t_{2}\right) \right\vert \\
& = \Bigg\vert \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{1}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{1}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right] \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + 2 \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right] \Bigg\vert\\
& \le \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \cdot \left\vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{1}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} - \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right)\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \right\vert\\
& \quad + \frac{2}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\vert \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{1}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} - \left({{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + t_{2}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{{\boldsymbol H}}\right){{\boldsymbol V}}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}\right)^{2} \right\vert \\
& \le 6 n \cdot \sqrt{6 n } \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}\epsilon \cdot 2\sqrt{6 n} \cdot \frac{25}{24}\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert + 2\cdot 6 n \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}\epsilon \cdot 12 n \cdot \frac{25}{24}\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert\\
& \le 225 \epsilon n^{2} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert
\le \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ as long as $\epsilon = \frac{1}{5400 n^{2}} \cdot \frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert}$. The cardinality of this $\epsilon$-net will be $\frac{1/24}{\epsilon} \le c n^{2} \cdot \frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$.
Therefore, when $m\ge c \frac{ \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{4}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) } n r \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}$ with some large enough constant $c$, for all matrices ${{\boldsymbol V}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ such that $\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}-{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}\le \frac{1}{24}\frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$, we have $$\label{equ_hessian_q_finallowerbound}
q\left({{\boldsymbol V}}, {{\boldsymbol H}}, t\right) \ge \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 1.246 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) ,$$ with probability at least $1 - e^{-c_{1}nr \log{\left(n \kappa\right)}} - m e^{-1.5n}$.
Finishing the Proof
-------------------
Combining and , we can prove $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)^{\top} \nabla^{2}f({{\boldsymbol X}}) \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol V}}\right)
& \ge \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 1.246 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{2}^{2}\\
& \ge \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 1.246 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\\
& \quad - \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} - \frac{1}{24} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \\
& \ge 2 \mathrm{Tr}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top}{{\boldsymbol V}}\right) + 1.204 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:lemma\_induction\] {#proof_lemma_induction}
=========================================
We first note that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \label{equ_induc_to_groundtruth_qt}\\
& = \left\Vert \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} - \mu \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}\right)\right) {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \nonumber\\
& = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - \mu \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}\right) - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \label{equ_induc_to_groundtruth_gradeq}\\
& = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} - \mu \cdot \mathrm{vec}\left(\nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}\right) - \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\right) \right\Vert_{2}^{2}, \label{equ_induc_to_groundtruth_zerogd} \end{aligned}$$ where we write $${{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} := \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} \right) \quad \text{and}\quad {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} := \mathrm{vec}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big).$$ Here, follows from the definition of ${{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}$ (see ), holds owing to the identity $\nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}\right) {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} = \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}\right)$ for ${{\boldsymbol Q}}_t\in\mathcal{O}^{r\times r}$, and arises from the fact that $\nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) = \boldsymbol{0}$. Let $${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) = {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} + \tau \big( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big), $$ where $\tau\in[0,1]$. Then, by the fundamental theorem of calculus for vector-valued functions [@lang1993real], $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{RHS of \eqref{equ_induc_to_groundtruth_zerogd} }
& = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} - \mu \cdot \int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right) d\tau \right\Vert_{2}^{2}\label{equ_induc_to_groundtruth_meanvalue}\\
& = \left\Vert \left({{\boldsymbol I}}- \mu \cdot \int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right) \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2}^{2}\nonumber\\
& = \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right)^{\top} \left({{\boldsymbol I}}- \mu \cdot \int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right)^{2} \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right)\nonumber\\
& = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - 2\mu \cdot \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right)^{\top} \left(\int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right) \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right) \nonumber\\
& \qquad + \mu^{2} \cdot \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right)^{\top} \left(\int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right)^{2} \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right) \nonumber\\
&\le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - 2\mu \cdot \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right)^{\top} \left(\int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right) \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right) \nonumber\\
& \qquad + \mu^{2} \cdot \left\Vert\int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right\Vert^{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} .\label{eq:decom_bound}\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to verify that ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau)$ satisfies for any $\tau\in[0,1]$, since $$\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = \tau\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \frac{1}{24} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},$$ and $$\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2} = \tau \cdot\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2} \leq \frac{1}{24} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}.$$ Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\] then implies that $$\left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right)^{\top} \left(\int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right) \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural}\right) \ge 1.026 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2},$$ and $$\left\Vert\int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right\Vert \le 1.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \log{n} + 6\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}.$$ Substituting the above two inequalities into and gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\\
&\le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - 2\mu \cdot 1.026 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} + \mu^{2} \cdot \left( 1.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \log{n} + 6\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \right)^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2}\\
& = \left[ 1 - 2.052 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu + \left(1.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \log{n} + 6\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\right)^{2} \mu^{2} \right] \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\\
& \le \left(1 - 1.026 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2},\end{aligned}$$ with the proviso that $\mu \le \frac{1.026 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left(1.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \log{n} + 6\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\right)^{2}}$. This allows us to conclude that $$\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \left(1 - 0.513 \sigma_{r}^{2}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \mu \right) \big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}.$$
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:proximity\] {#proof:lemma_proximity}
==================================
Recognizing that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \\ &= \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}^{\top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
= \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}},\end{aligned}$$ we will focus on bounding $\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
& {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}
= \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} - \mu \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}\right) \right) {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu \nabla f^{(l)} \left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right) \right) {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}\\
& = {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}\right) {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} + \mu \nabla f^{(l)}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}\right){{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}\\
& = {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m } \left( \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i} \right) {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} \\
& \quad + \mu \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m} \left( \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{i} \right) {{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{i}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu \frac{1}{m} \left( \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{l} \right) {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}\\
& = \underbrace{{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}\right) + \mu \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}\right)}_{:={{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,1}^{(l)}} - \underbrace{ \mu \frac{1}{m} \left( \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{l} \right) {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}}_{:={{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,2}^{(l)}},\end{aligned}$$ we aim to control $\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,1}^{(l)}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$ and $\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,2}^{(l)} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$ separately.
We first bound the term $\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,2}^{(l)}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$, which is easier to handle. Observe that by Cauchy-Schwarz, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{l} \right\vert & = \left\vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} + {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l} \right\vert \nonumber\\
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\right\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} + {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\right\Vert_{2} .\label{equ_inductive_leaveapprox_s2_dis_cauchy}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\right\Vert_{2} \nonumber\\
& \leq\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}\right)\right\Vert_{2} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\right\Vert_{2} \nonumber\\
& \leq \sqrt{6n} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} \right\Vert + C_{2} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \nonumber \\
& \le \sqrt{6n} C_{3} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} + C_{2} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t}\sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \nonumber\\
&\le (\sqrt{6}C_3+C_2) \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \sqrt{\log{n}} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},\label{eq:incoherence_diff}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the triangle inequality, Lemma \[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\], as well as the induction hypotheses and . Similarly, the second term in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} + {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\right\Vert_{2} & \leq \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\right\Vert_{2} + 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{2} \nonumber\\
&\le \left(\sqrt{6}C_{3}+C_{2}\right) \sqrt{\log{n}} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} + 11.72 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
&\le \left(\sqrt{6}C_{3}+C_{2} + 11.72 \right)\sqrt{\log{n}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}, \label{eq:incoherence_sum} \end{aligned}$$ where we have used , Lemma \[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\], and $\sigma_r^2\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\leq \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^2$. Similarly, we can also obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2} \le \left(\sqrt{6}C_{3}+C_{2} + 5.86 \right)\sqrt{\log{n}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting and into , and using the above inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,2}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& = \mu \frac{1}{m} \cdot \left\vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} - y_{l} \right\vert \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le C_4^2 \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \cdot \mu \frac{1}{m} \cdot \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \log{n} \cdot \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}\right\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2} \nonumber\\
& \le \sqrt{6}C_4^3 \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \cdot \mu \frac{1}{m} \cdot \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \log{n} \cdot \sqrt{n} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \sqrt{\log{n}} \nonumber\\
& = \sqrt{6}C_4^3 \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \cdot \mu \frac{\sqrt{n}\cdot\left(\log{n}\right)^{3/2}}{m} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)\big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} ,\label{equ_induc_leaveapp_s2}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_4: = \sqrt{6}C_{3}+C_{2} + 11.72 $.
Next, we turn to $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,1}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$. By defining $${{\boldsymbol s}}_{t,1}^{(l)} = \mathrm{vec}\big({{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,1}^{(l)}\big), \quad {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} = \mathrm{vec}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}\right), \quad \text{and} \quad {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)} = \mathrm{vec}\big( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} \big),$$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
{{\boldsymbol s}}_{t,1}^{(l)} & = {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu \cdot \mathrm{vec}\left( \nabla f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t}\right) - \nabla f ({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} ) \right)\\
& = {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)} - \mu \cdot \int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau) \right) \left({{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)}\right) \mathrm{d}\tau\\
& = \left({{\boldsymbol I}}- \mu \cdot \int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right) \left( {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, the second line follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus for vector-valued functions [@lang1993real], where $${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau) = {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} + \tau \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} \right), $$ for $\tau\in[0,1]$. Using very similar algebra as in Appendix \[proof\_lemma\_induction\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,1}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} & \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} + \mu^{2} \left\Vert \int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau \right\Vert^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{2}^{2} \nonumber\\
& \quad - 2\mu \cdot \left( {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)}\right)^{\top} \left(\int_{0}^{1} \nabla^{2} f\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau) \right) \mathrm{d}\tau\right) \left( {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol x}}_{t}^{(l)}\right).\label{bound_St1}\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to verify that for all $\tau\in[0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau) - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& = \left\Vert \left(1-\tau\right)\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} \right) + {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le ( 1-\tau) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
&\le C_{3} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} + C_{1} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \label{equ_loo_induc_s1_invokehypo}\\
& \le \left(C_{3} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} + C_{1}\right) \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \le \frac{1}{24} \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \label{equ_loo_induc_s1_setc}\end{aligned}$$ where follows from the induction hypotheses and , and follows as long as $C_{1}+C_{3} \le \frac{1}{24}$. Further, for all $1\leq l \leq m$, by the induction hypothesis and , $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau) - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2}
& \le ( 1-\tau) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} \right) \right\Vert_{2} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) \right\Vert_{2} \\
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}\right\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} \right\Vert + C_{2} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}\\
& \le \sqrt{6n} C_{3} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}+ C_{2} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}\\
&\le \left(\sqrt{6}C_{3} + C_{2}\right) \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \le \frac{1}{24} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},\end{aligned}$$ as long as $ \sqrt{6}C_{3} + C_{2} \le \frac{1}{24}$. Therefore, Lemma \[lemma\_restrict\_concen\_hessian\_neighbor\] holds for ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}(\tau)$, and similar to Appendix \[proof\_lemma\_induction\], can be further bounded by $$\label{equ_induc_leaveapp_s1}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,1}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \left(1 - 0.513 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$$ as long as $\mu \le \frac{1.026 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left(1.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \log{n} + 6\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}\right)^{2}}$. Consequently, combining and , we can get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t+1}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,1}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol S}}_{t,2}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \left(1 - 0.513 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \quad + \sqrt{6}C_4^3 \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t} \cdot \mu \frac{\sqrt{n}\cdot\left(\log{n}\right)^{3/2}}{m} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le C_{3} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \label{equ_loo_induc_finalbound_setm}\end{aligned}$$ where follows from the induction hypothesis , as long as $m\ge c \kappa \frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)} n\log{n}$ for some large enough constant $c>0$.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:incoherence\_induction\] {#proof_incoherence_induction}
===============================================
For any $1\leq l\leq m$, by the statistical independence of ${{\boldsymbol a}}_l$ and ${{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}$ and by Lemma \[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\], we have $$\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2} \leq 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} .$$ Since following Lemma \[lemma:lemma\_induction\], $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert \\
& \le C_{1} \left(1 - 0.513 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert \\
& \le \frac{1}{2} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ as long as $C_{1} \le \frac{1}{2}$, and following Lemma \[lemma:proximity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert\\
& \le C_{3} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert\\
& \le \frac{1}{4} \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ as long as $C_{3} \le \frac{1}{4}$, we can invoke Lemma 37 in [@ma2017implicit] and get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le 5 \kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}.\end{aligned}$$
Further, by the triangle inequality, Lemma \[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\], Lemma \[lemma:proximity\] and Lemma \[lemma:lemma\_induction\], we can deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
& \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) \right\Vert_{2}
\le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right) \right\Vert_{2} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2} \nonumber\\
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}\right\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \sqrt{6n} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
&\quad + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \left(\sqrt{6n} + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le 5 \left(\sqrt{6n} + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \right) \kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{t+1}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{t+1}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{t+1} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le 5 \left( \sqrt{6n} + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \right) \kappa \cdot C_{3} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \nonumber\\
& \quad + 5.86 \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot C_{1} \left(1 - 0.513 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \nonumber \\
& \le \left( 5\sqrt{6}C_{3} + 5.86 C_{1} + 29.3 C_{3} \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \right) \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \nonumber\\
&\le C_{2} \left(1 - 0.5 \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \mu \right)^{t+1} \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the last line follows as long as $5\sqrt{6}C_{3} + 5.86 C_{1} + 29.3 C_{3} \le C_{2}$. The proof is then finished by applying the union bound for all $1\leq l\leq m$.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:initialization\] {#proof_lemma_initialization}
=======================================
Define $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0} &= \mathrm{diag}\left\{ \lambda_{1}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}\right), \lambda_{2}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}\right), \cdots , \lambda_{r}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}\right) \right\} = \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0} + \lambda{{\boldsymbol I}}\\ \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)} &= \mathrm{diag} \left\{ \lambda_{1}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\right), \lambda_{2}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\right), \cdots , \lambda_{r}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\right) \right\} = \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}^{(l)} + \lambda^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol I}}, \quad 1\leq l\leq m,\end{aligned}$$ then by definition we have ${{\boldsymbol Y}}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} = {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}$, ${{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} = {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)}$, and $$\label{eq:one_sample}
\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)} = \frac{1}{2m} y_{l}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}.$$ Moreover, let ${{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}$ and ${{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)}$ be the complement matrices of ${{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}$ and ${{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}$, respectively, such that both $\left[ {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}, {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c} \right]$ and $\left[ {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}, {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right]$ are orthonormal matrices. Below we will prove the induction hypotheses in the base case when $t=0$ one by one.
Proof of
---------
From Lemma \[lemma\_fronorm\_lowbound\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} & \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)} \sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)} \sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \frac{\sqrt{r}}{\sqrt{2\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)} \sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} - \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} \right\Vert . \label{eq_fronorm_lowerbound}\end{aligned}$$ The last term in can be further bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
& \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} - \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} \right\Vert \nonumber \\
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Y}}- \frac{1}{2} \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert
+ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} -{{\boldsymbol Y}}+ \frac{1}{2} \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{\top} \right\Vert + \left\Vert \frac{1}{2} \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} \right\Vert \nonumber\\
& \le \delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + \delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} + \delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} = 3\delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}, \label{equ_initial_spectral_method_dis}\end{aligned}$$ where follows from $$\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Y}}- \mathbb{E}[{{\boldsymbol Y}}]\right\Vert = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Y}}- \frac{1}{2}\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}{{\boldsymbol I}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural \top} \right\Vert \le \delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}$$ via Lemma \[lemma\_intial\_weighted\_mat\_concen\], the Weyl’s inequality, and $$\left\vert \lambda - \mathbb{E}\left[\lambda\right] \right\vert = \left\vert \lambda - \frac{1}{2} \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \right\vert \le \delta \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}$$ via Lemma \[lemma\_aaT\_operator\_concentration\]. Plugging into , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} & \le \frac{3}{\sqrt{2\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)}} \cdot \frac{\delta \sqrt{r} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}}{\sigma_{r}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) },\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Setting $\delta = c \frac{\sigma_{r}^{3}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) }{\sqrt{r}\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{3}}$ for a sufficiently small constant $c$, i.e. $m\gtrsim \frac{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{6}}{\sigma_{r}^{6}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } nr\log n $, we get $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \allowbreak \le C_1 \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$. Following similar procedures, we can also show $ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \allowbreak \le C_1 \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$.
Proof of
---------
Following Weyl’s inequality, by , we have $$\left\vert \sigma_{i}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}\right) - \sigma_{i}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\vert \le C_1 \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},$$ and similarly, $\left\vert \sigma_{i}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}\right) - \sigma_{i}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\vert \le C_1 \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}$, for $i=1,\cdots,r$. Combined with Lemma \[lemma\_fronorm\_lowbound\], there exists some constant $c$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{0}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)} \sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \frac{c}{\sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& = \frac{c}{\sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& = \frac{c}{\sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} - \lambda{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} + \lambda^{(l)} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
&\le \frac{c}{\sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \frac{c}{\sigma_{r} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) } \left\Vert \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - \lambda^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}. \label{equ_initial_leaveoneout_approx_bound}\end{aligned}$$ We will bound each term in , respectively. For the first term, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} = \left\Vert \left[ {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)}, {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right] \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol Y}}\right\Vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} \cdot \frac{1}{2m} y_{l}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\big\Vert + \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol Y}}\right\Vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} , \label{equ_initial_leave_approx_first_angle} \end{aligned}$$ where the last line follows from . Note that the first term in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} \cdot \frac{1}{2m} y_{l}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} & \leq \frac{1}{2m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} \right\Vert_{2} \nonumber \\
& \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{n} \cdot \left(\log{n}\right)^{3/2} \cdot \sqrt{r}}{m} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} , \label{eq:bound_first_term}
\end{aligned}$$ which follows Lemma \[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\] and Lemma \[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\]. The second term in can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} & = \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}\left({{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{0}^{(l)}\right)^{\top} + \left({{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{0}^{(l)}\right) \left({{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{0}^{(l)}\right)^{\top}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \\
& \leq 2 \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \leq 2\sqrt{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\boldsymbol T}}_{t}^{(l)} = {\mathrm{argmin}}_{{{\boldsymbol P}}\in\mathcal{O}^{r\times r} } \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{t} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{t}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol P}}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}$, and the last line follows from the fact $\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol T}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \sqrt{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} $ [@yu2014useful]. Putting this together with the third term in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \big\Vert{{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\big\Vert & + \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol Y}}\right\Vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le \left(2\sqrt{2}\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol Y}}^{(l)}\right\Vert + \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol Y}}\right\Vert \right) \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0,c}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber \\
& \lesssim \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} \frac{\left\Vert \left(\frac{1}{m}y_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}{{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\right){{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)} \label{equ_intial_leave_approx_first_daviskahan}\\
& \lesssim \frac{ \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2}^{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l} \right\Vert_{2}}{m}\frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)} \nonumber\\
& \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{n} \cdot \left(\log{n}\right)^{3/2} \cdot \sqrt{r}}{m}\frac{ \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}, \label{equ_initial_leave_approx_first_conbound}\end{aligned}$$ where follows from Lemma \[lemma\_intial\_weighted\_mat\_concen\] and the Davis-Kahan $\sin\Theta$ theorem [@davis1970rotation], and follows from Lemma \[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\] and Lemma \[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\].
For the second term in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - \lambda^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& = \left\Vert \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} + \lambda {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} - \lambda^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \le \lambda \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{\top} - {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left|\lambda - \lambda^{(l)}\right| \cdot \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Z}}_{0}^{(l) \top} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \nonumber\\
& \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{n} \cdot \left(\log{n}\right)^{3/2} \cdot \sqrt{r}}{m}\frac{ \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)} + \frac{y_l }{2m} \sqrt{r} \label{equ_intial_leave_approx_second_lambda}\\
& \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{n} \cdot \left(\log{n}\right)^{3/2} \cdot \sqrt{r}}{m}\frac{ \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}+ \frac{\sqrt{r} \cdot \log{n}}{m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2} ,\label{equ_intial_leave_approx_second}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term of is bounded similarly as , and follows from Lemma \[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\]. Combining , , and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{0}^{(l)}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
\lesssim \frac{\sqrt{n} \cdot \left(\log{n}\right)^{3/2} \cdot \sqrt{r}}{m}\frac{ \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{4}}{\sigma_{r}^{3}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}
\lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality holds as long as $m \gtrsim \kappa \frac{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{5}}{\sigma_{r}^{5}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)} n\sqrt{r}\log{n} = O(nr^3\log n)$.
Proof of
---------
Since from and , $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert
\le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert
\lesssim \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and for every $1\leq l\leq m$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert
\le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert
\lesssim \sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with proper constants, following Lemma 37 in [@ma2017implicit], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \le 5 \kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}},\end{aligned}$$ which implies that for every $1\leq l\leq m$ we can get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}
& \le \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}\\
& \lesssim \kappa \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} + \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}} \\
& \lesssim \kappa \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} + \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This further gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right) \right\Vert_{2} \nonumber \\
& \le \max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top} \left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} \right) \right\Vert_{2} + \max_{1\le l\le m}\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2} \nonumber\\
& \le \max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}\right\Vert_{2} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert + \max_{1\le l\le m}\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\left( {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right) \right\Vert_{2} \nonumber \\
& \lesssim \sqrt{n} \cdot \max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert + \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \max_{1\le l\le m}\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2} \label{equ_intial_twoabound} \\
& \lesssim \sqrt{n} \cdot \kappa \max_{1\le l\le m} \left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0} - {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol R}}_{0}^{(l)} \right\Vert + \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \max_{1\le l\le m}\left\Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}_{0}^{(l)}{{\boldsymbol Q}}_{0}^{(l)} - {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \right\Vert_{2} \nonumber \\
& \lesssim \sqrt{n} \cdot \kappa \sqrt{\frac{\log{n}}{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\kappa \left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} + \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}} \label{equ_intial_abound_logtight}\\
& \lesssim \sqrt{\log{n}} \cdot \frac{\sigma_{r}^{2}\left({{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right)}{\left\Vert{{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\right\Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where follows from Lemma \[lemma\_a\_sqrtroot\_concen\] and Lemma \[lemma\_a\_log\_tight\_concen\], and follows from .
Finishing the Proof
-------------------
The proof of Lemma \[lemma:initialization\] is now complete by appropriately adjusting the constants.
[^1]: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA; Email: <[email protected]>
[^2]: Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA; Email: <[email protected]>
[^3]: Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA; Email: <[email protected]>
[^4]: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA; Email: <[email protected]>
[^5]: Given that $y_i$ is a quadratic function with respect to both ${{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}$ and ${{\boldsymbol a}}_i$, the measurement scheme is also referred to as [*quadratic sampling*]{}.
[^6]: This is called incoherent because if ${{\boldsymbol X}}$ is aligned (and hence coherent) with the sensing vectors, $\big\Vert {{\boldsymbol a}}_{l}^{\top}\big({{\boldsymbol X}}- {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural}\big) \big\Vert_{2}$ can be $O(\sqrt{n})$ times larger than the right-hand side of .
[^7]: Compared with [@sanghavi2017local], when setting the eigenvalues in , we use the sample mean $\lambda$ rather than $\lambda_{r+1}\left({{\boldsymbol Y}}\right)$ to estimate $\frac{1}{2} \Vert {{\boldsymbol X}}^{\natural} \Vert_{{{\mathsf F}}}^{2}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate escape of cosmic ray (CR) electrons from a supernova remnant (SNR) to interstellar space. We show that CR electrons escape in order from high energies to low energies like CR nuclei, while the escape starts later than the beginning of the Sedov phase at an SNR age of $10^3-7\times10^3~{\rm yrs}$ and the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons is below the knee about $0.3-50~{\rm TeV}$ because unlike CR nuclei, CR electrons lose their energy due to synchrotron radiation. Highest energy CR electrons will be directly probed by AMS-02, CALET, CTA and LHAASO experiments, or have been already detected by H.E.S.S. and MAGIC as a cutoff in the CR electron spectrum. Furthermore, we also calculate the spatial distribution of runaway CR electrons and their radiation spectra around SNRs. Contrary to common belief, maximum-energy photons of synchrotron radiation around $1~{\rm keV}$ are emitted by runaway CR electrons which have been caught up by the shock. Inverse Compton scattering by runaway CR electrons can dominate the gamma-ray emission from runaway CR nuclei via pion decay, and both are detectable by CTA and LHAASO as clues to the CR origin and the amplification of magnetic fluctuations around the SNR. We also discuss middle-aged and/or old SNRs as unidentified very-high-energy gamma-ray sources.'
author:
- |
Yutaka Ohira$^{1}$[^1], Ryo Yamazaki$^{1}$, Norita Kawanaka$^{2}$ and Kunihito Ioka$^{3,4}$\
$^{1}$Department of Physics and Mathematics, Aoyama Gakuin University, 5-10-1 Fuchinobe, Sagamihara 252-5258, Japan\
$^{2}$Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel\
$^{3}$Theory Center, Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, KEK, Oho 1-1, Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan\
$^{4}$The Graduate University for Advanced Studies (Sokendai), Oho 1-1, Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan
date: 'Accepted 2012 August 9. Received 2012 August 7; in original form 2012 March 19'
title: 'Escape of cosmic-ray electrons from supernova remnants'
---
\[firstpage\]
acceleration of particles – cosmic rays – gamma rays – shock waves – supernova remnants.
Introduction
============
The origin of cosmic rays (CRs) is a longstanding problem in astrophysics. Supernova remnants (SNRs) are thought to be the origin of Galactic CR nuclei and electrons. The most popular SNR acceleration mechanism is the diffusive shock acceleration [@axford77; @krymsky77; @bell78; @blandford78]. In fact, [*Fermi*]{} and [*AGILE*]{} show that middle-aged SNRs interacting with molecular clouds emit GeV gamma rays [e.g. @abdo09; @tavani10] and the origin of the GeV gamma rays can be interpreted as the decay of neutral pions produced by CR nuclei [e.g., @ohiraetal11]. In addition, X-ray observations provide an evidence that electrons are accelerated to highly relativistic energies in SNR shocks [@koyama95]. SNRs have been also observed by ground-based Cherenkov telescopes [e.g. @muraishi00; @aharonian06a]. However, it is still unclear whether the origin of TeV gamma rays is inverse Compton scattering by CR electrons or the decay of neutral pions produced by inelastic collisions between CR protons and ambient thermal nuclei. In addition, there are many unidentified very-high-energy gamma-ray sources in our Galaxy, and their emission mechanism is also still unclear.
Escape of CR nuclei from SNRs has been investigated by several authors [e.g., @ptuskin05; @ohiraetal10; @caprioli10; @ohira11; @drury11], and emission from runaway CR nuclei has also been investigated [@aharonian96; @gabici09; @ohiraetal11; @ohiraetal12; @ellison11]. Runaway CR nuclei can emit gamma rays from the exterior of accelerators and its radiation spectrum is softer than that from the interior because of energy-dependent diffusion of CRs [@aharonian96]. The escape process of CRs from accelerators is important because it changes the CR spectrum. The runaway CR spectrum depends not only on the CR spectrum at accelerators but also on the evolution of the maximum energy and the evolution of the number of accelerated CRs [@ohiraetal10]. In addition, considering the escape effect, one can explain the spectral difference between CR protons and helium observed by CREAM [@ahn10; @ohira11].
However, the same processes for CR electrons suffering cooling effects have never been investigated so far. Cooling processes via synchrotron radiation and inverse Compton scattering are important for CR electrons because their cooling times can be smaller than other characteristic timescales. Therefore, it is unclear whether CR electrons can escape from SNRs or not, and whether the electron cooling affects the spectrum of runaway CRs electrons or not, as in the energy spectrum of CR electrons inside the SNRs. Runaway CR electrons can produce gamma rays outside accelerators. In the low density region, these gamma rays probably dominate over those from runaway CR nuclei and may be observed as unidentified very-high-energy gamma-ray sources. This is because CR nuclei can not produce sufficient gamma rays there electrons can always produce enough gamma rays via inverse Compton scattering of CMB photons [see equation (7) of @katz08]. Furthermore, distant SNRs can not be easily identified by radio observations because of brighter emission from molecular clouds than synchrotron radiation.
Direct measurements of the CR electron spectrum may also bring us important information on escape of CR electrons. So far, [*Fermi*]{}, H.E.S.S. and MAGIC have revealed the spectrum of CR electrons and positrons up to a few ${\rm TeV}$ [@aharonian09; @ackermann10; @tridon11]. Future experiments, such as AMS-02, CALET, CTA, and LHAASO, will measure the spectrum of CR electrons up to $1-100~{\rm TeV}$ with good accuracy [@kounine10; @torii08; @cta10; @cao10]. @kobayashi04 pointed out that a few nearby sources like Vela and Cygnus loop may leave their own signatures in the TeV energy band, and that we will be able to see a spectral shape of CR electrons and positrons from a single source. Moreover, @kawanaka11 have pointed out that escape of CR electrons can be investigated by future observations of CR electrons, in particular, with a low-energy spectral cutoff.
In this paper, we investigate escape of CR electrons from an SNR. Our stance in this paper is that because the evolution of the magnetic field has not been understood theoretically, we predict observable quantities by using phenomenological approaches and restrict the phenomenological models by comparing the predicted values and observations. Assuming the evolution of the maximum energy of CR protons (hereafter we treat nuclei as protons) during the Sedov phase [@gabici09; @ohiraetal10], we obtain the evolution of the diffusion coefficient, the magnetic field, and the maximum energy limited by synchrotron cooling (section \[sec:2\]). Moreover, we calculate spatial distributions of runaway CR electrons around the SNR (section \[sec:3\]), and radiation spectra from runaway CR electrons (section \[sec:4\]). Finally, we discuss our results (section \[sec:5\]).
Escape of CR electrons {#sec:2}
======================
Evolution of SNRs {#sec:2.1}
-----------------
In this paper, in order to understand essential features of escape of CR electrons, we assume simple evolutions of the shock radius, $R_{\rm sh}(t)$, and the shock velocity, $u_{\rm sh}(t)$, as in the following forms: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\rm sh}(t)=R_{\rm S}\times \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right) & ~(~t \leq t_{\rm S}~) \\
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\frac{2}{5}} & ~(~t_{\rm S}\leq t~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:rsh}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
u_{\rm sh}(t)=\frac{R_{\rm S}}{t_{\rm S}}\times \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & ~(~t \le t_{\rm S}~) \\
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\frac{3}{5}} & ~(~t_{\rm S}\leq t~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:ush}\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ is the SNR age, and $R_{\rm S}$ and $t_{\rm S}$ are the SNR shock radius and the SNR age at the beginning of the Sedov phase, respectively (see Table \[table1\] for summary). The Sedov phase starts when the swept-up mass, $4\pi n_{\rm ISM}m_{\rm p}R_{\rm S}^3/3$ becomes comparable with the ejecta mass $M_{\rm ej}$, where $n_{\rm ISM}$ and $m_{\rm p}$ are the number density of the interstellar medium (ISM) and the proton mass, respectively. The free expansion velocity, $u_{\rm free}=R_{\rm S}/t_{\rm S}$, is obtained from $E_{\rm SN}=M_{\rm ej}u_{\rm free}^2/2$, where $E_{\rm SN}$ is the explosion energy of a supernova. Then, $R_{\rm S}$ and $t_{\rm S}$ are represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rs}
R_{\rm S}&=& 2.13~{\rm pc}~\left(\frac{M_{\rm ej}}{1M_{\odot}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \left(\frac{n_{\rm ISM}}{1~{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}~~, \\
t_{\rm S}&=& 209~{\rm yr}~\left(\frac{E_{\rm SN}}{10^{51}~{\rm erg}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{M_{\rm ej}}{1M_{\odot}}\right)^{\frac{5}{6}} \left(\frac{n_{\rm ISM}}{1~{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}~~.
\label{eq:ts}\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we assume $R_{\rm S}=2~{\rm pc}$ and $t_{\rm S}=200~{\rm yr}$ in this paper.
Relevant timescales
-------------------
The maximum energy of accelerated particles is limited by a finite SNR age, their cooling, or escape. Hence it is obtained by comparisons of timescales, which are given as functions of a CR energy, $E$, and the SNR age, $t$, (see Table \[table1\]). The acceleration time of DSA, $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)$, is represented by $$t_{\rm acc}(E,t) = \eta_{\rm acc}\frac{D(E,t)}{u_{\rm sh}(t)^2}~~,
\label{eq:tacc1}$$ where $D(E,t)$ is the diffusion coefficient around the shock, and $\eta_{\rm acc}\approx10$ is a numerical factor which depends on the shock compression ratio and the spatial dependence of $D(E,t)$ [@drury83]. First, we assume the Bohm-type diffusion of relativistic particles although the diffusion coefficient is still unclear when the magnetic field is strongly amplified [e.g. @reville08]. The Bohm-type diffusion means that the mean free path of CRs is proportional to the gyroradius of CRs, where the constant of proportionality, $\eta_{\rm g}(t)$, is the gyrofactor and $\eta_{\rm g}=1$ for the Bohm limit. Then, the diffusion coefficient of CRs is represented by $$D(E,t) = \eta_{\rm g}(t)\frac{cE}{3eB(t)}~~,
\label{eq:diffc}$$ where $c$, $E$, $e$, and $B(t)$ are the velocity of light, the energy of CRs, the elementary charge and the magnetic field strength in the upstream region, respectively. In section \[sec:magneticfield\], we will give explicit forms of time dependence of $B(t)$ and $\eta_{\rm g}(t)$ \[see Eqs. (\[eq:b\]) and (\[eq:etag\])\]. Then, the acceleration time can be expressed by $$t_{\rm acc}(E,t) = \eta_{\rm acc}\eta_{\rm g}(t)\frac{cE}{3eB(t)u_{\rm sh}(t)^2}~~.
\label{eq:tacc2}$$
The escape time due to diffusion, $t_{\rm esc}(E,t)$, is written by $$t_{\rm esc}(E,t) = \eta_{\rm esc}\frac{R_{\rm sh}(t)^2}{D(E,t)}
=\frac{\eta_{\rm esc}}{\eta_{\rm g}(t)}\frac{3eB(t)R_{\rm sh}(t)^2}{cE}~~.
\label{eq:stesc}$$ where $\eta_{\rm esc}(<1)$ is a numerical factor.
The energy loss of CR protons above $1~{\rm GeV}$ is due to the pion production by inelastic collisions, and the cooling time of CR protons, $t_{\rm cool,p}(t)$, is represented by $$t_{\rm cool,p}(t) \approx \frac{1}{0.5n \sigma_{\rm pp}c}~~,
\label{eq:tcoolp}$$ where $n$ and $\sigma_{\rm pp}\approx 3\times10^{-26}~{\rm cm}^2$ are the number density ($\sim 4n_{\rm ISM}$ in the downstream region) and the cross section of the nuclear interaction, respectively. A factor of 0.5 is the inelasticity of the nuclear interaction. Cooling of CR electrons above $1~{\rm GeV}$ is due to synchrotron emission, inverse Compton scattering, or bremsstrahlung emission. For typical SNRs, the energy loss is dominated by synchrotron emission in the downstream region when the maximum energy is limited by cooling. The cooling time of CR electrons due to synchrotron emission in the downstream region, $t_{\rm cool,e}(E,t)$, is represented by $$t_{\rm cool,e}(E,t) = \frac{9m_{\rm e}^4c^7}{4e^4B_{\rm d}(t)^2E}~~,
\label{eq:tcoolsyn}$$ where $m_{\rm e}$ is the electron mass and $B_{\rm d}(t)$ is the magnetic field strength in the downstream region. In this paper, we assume $B_{\rm d}(t)=4B(t)$ because of the shock compression.
Maximum energy of CR protons
----------------------------
For CR protons, cooling is usually not important for a determination of the maximum energy. One can obtain the age-limited maximum energy, $E_{\rm m,age}(t)$, from the condition $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm m,age}(t)
=\frac{3eB(t)R_{\rm S}^2}{\eta_{\rm acc}\eta_{\rm g}(t)ct_{\rm S}}
\times \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right) & ~(~t \leq t_{\rm S}~) \\
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{5}}& ~(~t_{\rm S}\leq t~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:emage1}\end{aligned}$$ while the escape-limited maximum energy, $E_{\rm m,esc}(t)$, is obtained from the condition $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t_{\rm esc}(E,t)$ as $$E_{\rm m,esc}(t) = \sqrt{\eta_{\rm esc}\eta_{\rm acc}}E_{\rm m,age}(t)~~.
\label{eq:emesc1}$$ Note that $E_{\rm m,age}(t)$ is comparable to $E_{\rm m,esc}(t)$ because $\sqrt{\eta_{\rm esc}\eta_{\rm acc}}$ is on the order of unity [@drury11]. In this paper, we assume $E_{\rm m,age}(t)=E_{\rm m,esc}(t)$ for simplicity (that is, $\sqrt{\eta_{\rm esc}\eta_{\rm acc}}=1$). If the maximum energy is limited by escape, CRs above $E_{\rm m,esc}(t)$ leave the shock front upstream. However, they are caught up by the shock during the free expansion phase because the diffusion length is proportional to $t^{1/2}$ but the shock radius is proportional to $t$. Therefore, the maximum energy is limited by the SNR age during the free expansion phase. On the other hand, CRs can leave the shock front during the Sedov phase because $R_{\rm sh}\propto t^{2/5}$, which is slower than diffusion. Therefore, the maximum energy is limited by escape during the Sedov phase.
As shown in Equations (\[eq:emage1\]) and (\[eq:emesc1\]), the maximum energy depends on the evolution of the magnetic field around the shock [e.g. @ptuskin03]. Although the magnetic field amplification around the shock is studied by linear analyses [@bell04; @reville07; @ohira09b; @ohira10; @bykov11; @schure11] and numerical simulations [@lucek00; @giacalone07; @niemiec08; @riquelme09; @inoue09; @ohira09a; @vladimirov09; @gargate10], the saturation of the magnetic-field amplification and the diffusion coefficient have not been understood yet in detail. Here we use a phenomenological approach based on the assumption that young SNRs are responsible for observed CRs below the knee [@gabici09]. The maximum energy of CR protons, $E_{\rm m,p}$(t), is expected to increase up to the knee energy $E_{\rm knee}=10^{15.5}~{\rm eV}$ until the beginning of the Sedov phase $t_{\rm S}$ and decreases from that epoch. We may assume a functional form of $E_{\rm m,p}(t)$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm m,p}(t)=E_{\rm knee}\times \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right) & ~(~t \leq t_{\rm S}~) \\
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\alpha} & ~(~t_{\rm S}\leq t~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:emaxp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is a parameter to describe the evolution of the maximum energy during the Sedov phase. In this paper, we assume that $E_{\rm m,p}=1~{\rm GeV}$ at the end of the Sedov phase $t=10^{2.5}t_{\rm Sedov}$ to reproduce Galactic CRs, then $\alpha=2.6$. Hereafter, we adopt $\alpha=2.6$. This assumption is consistent with the following fact. So far, about 300 radio SNRs have been observed in a part of our Galaxy [@case98]. From @case98, we expect that there are about $5 \times 300$ radio SNRs in our Galaxy. Assuming the supernova rate of $0.03~{\rm yr}^{-1}$, the lifetime of radio SNRs is about $5\times 10^{4}~{\rm yr}$ which is comparable to the end time of the Sedov phase. Radio synchrotron photons are emitted by electrons with energies of a few GeV, so that we can expect that the lifetime of radio SNRs corresponds to the escape time of $1~{\rm GeV}$ particles. Therefore, the assumption, $E_{\rm m,p}(t=10^{2.5}t_{\rm Sedov})=1~{\rm GeV}$, is reasonable. The transition time from the Sedov phase to the radiative phase is somewhat ambiguous. @truelove99 and @petruk05 thought the end of the Sedov phase is $1.2\times10^4~{\rm yr}$ and $3\times10^4~{\rm yr}$, respectively. In these cases, $\alpha$ becomes 3.66 and 2.99, respectively. Future direct observations of CR electrons, AMS-02, CALET, CTA and LHAASO will be able to provide useful informations about $\alpha$ [@kawanaka11; @thoudam12].
Assuming Equation (\[eq:emaxp\]), the age-limited maximum energy $E_{\rm m,age}$ for $t\leq t_{\rm S}$ can be expressed by $$E_{\rm m,age}(t) = E_{\rm knee} \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)~~,
\label{eq:emage2}$$ while for $t\geq t_{\rm S}$, the escaped-limited maximum energy $E_{\rm m,esc}$ can be expressed by $$E_{\rm m,esc}(t) = E_{\rm knee} \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\alpha}~~.
\label{eq:emesc2}$$ Moreover, from Equation (\[eq:emesc2\]), the time when CRs with an energy of $E$ escape from the SNR, $T_{\rm esc}(E)$, can be expressed by $$T_{\rm esc}(E) = t_{\rm S} \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm knee}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}~~.
\label{eq:tesc}$$ From Equations (\[eq:rsh\]) and (\[eq:tesc\]), the escape radius of CRs, that is, the SNR radius at which CRs with an energy of $E$ escape, can be expressed by $$R_{\rm esc}(E) = R_{\rm S} \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm knee}}\right)^{-\frac{2}{5\alpha}}~~.
\label{eq:resc}$$
Magnetic field {#sec:magneticfield}
--------------
Equations (\[eq:emage1\]), (\[eq:emesc1\]), and (\[eq:emaxp\]) determine the evolution of $B(t)/\eta_{\rm g}(t)$. During the free-expansion phase, both the upstream magnetic field and the gyrofactor are constant with time: $B(t<t_{\rm S})=B_{\rm free}$ and $\eta_g(t<t_{\rm S})=\eta_{\rm g,free}$, because these quantities may depend on the shock velocity which is constant in this phase. For the Sedov phase, we assume that the upstream magnetic field strength is $B \propto t^{-\alpha_{\rm B}}$ as long as it is larger than the value of the ISM, $B_{\rm ISM}$, and that after the end time of the magnetic field amplification $t_B$ at which $B(t_{\rm B})=B_{\rm ISM}$, $B$ is equal to $B_{\rm ISM}$. Then, the upstream magnetic field, $B(t)$, and the gyrofactor, $\eta_{\rm g}(t)$, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
B(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
B_{\rm free} & ~(~t \leq t_{\rm S}~) \\
B_{\rm free}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\alpha_{\rm B}}& ~(~t_{\rm S} \leq t \leq t_{\rm B}~) \\
B_{\rm ISM} & ~(~t_{\rm B} \leq t ~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:b}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{\rm g}(t)=\eta_{\rm g,free} \times \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & ~(~t \leq t_{\rm S}~) \\
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\alpha-\alpha_{\rm B}-\frac{1}{5}} & ~(~t_{\rm S} \leq t \leq t_{\rm B}~) \\
\left(\frac{t_{\rm B}}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\alpha_{\rm B}}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\alpha-\frac{1}{5}} & ~(~t_{\rm B} \leq t ~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:etag}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{\rm free}$ is the amplified magnetic field during the free expansion phase and given by $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\rm free} &=& \frac{\eta_{\rm g,free}\eta_{\rm acc}ct_{\rm S}E_{\rm knee}}{3eR_{\rm S}^2} \nonumber \\
&=& 174~{\rm \mu G}\left(\frac{\eta_{\rm g,free}}{1}\right)\left(\frac{\eta_{\rm acc}}{10}\right) \nonumber \\
&&\times \left(\frac{E_{\rm knee}}{10^{15.5}~{\rm eV}}\right) \left(\frac{t_{\rm S}}{200~{\rm yr}}\right) \left(\frac{R_{\rm S}}{2~{\rm pc}}\right)^{-2}~~,
\label{eq:bfree}\end{aligned}$$ and $\eta_{\rm g,free}\approx1$ is the gyrofactor during the free expansion phase, and the end time of the magnetic field amplification $t_{B}$ is given by $$t_{\rm B} = t_{\rm S} \left(\frac{B_{\rm free}}{B_{\rm ISM}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\alpha_{\rm B}}} ~~.
\label{eq:tb1}$$ The downstream magnetic field is $B_{\rm d}=4B_{\rm free}=697~{\rm \mu G}$ during the free expansion phase. In this paper, we consider the following three evolution models of $B(t)$ for $t_{\rm S}<t<t_{\rm B}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{\rm B}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\alpha-\frac{1}{5} & ~(~{\rm for}~~ \eta_{\rm g}=\eta_{\rm g,free}~) \\
\frac{9}{10} & ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^3~) \\
\frac{3}{5} & ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^2~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~.
\label{eq:alphab}\end{aligned}$$ The first model originates from the assumption that the gyrofactor, $\eta_{\rm g}$, is constant during $B>B_{\rm ISM}$. In this case, $B^2\propto t^{-4.8}\propto u_{\rm sh}^8$ for $\alpha=2.6$. The second model is proposed by @bell04. The third model originates from the assumption that the pressure of the amplified magnetic field is proportional to the shock ram pressure [e.g. @voelk05]. Observations of the velocity dependence of the magnetic field can be found in @vink08 that suggests $B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^3$.
From Equations (\[eq:bfree\]) - (\[eq:alphab\]), the end time of the magnetic field amplification, $t_{\rm B}$, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\rm B}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1.09\times 10^3~{\rm yr} & ~(~{\rm for}~~ \eta_{\rm g}=\eta_{\rm g,free}~) \\
1.82\times 10^4~{\rm yr} & ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^3~) \\
1.74\times 10^5~{\rm yr} & ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^2~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:tb2}\end{aligned}$$ where we assume $\alpha=2.6$ and $B_{\rm ISM}=3~{\rm \mu G}$. Note that we do not discuss the density dependence of the magnetic field in this paper. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the magnetic field evolution is expressed by a power law form [@ptuskin03; @yan12]. However, the Galactic CR spectrum is approximated by a single power law below the knee energy, that is, CR observations suggest absence of characteristic scale. Moreover, the power-law behavior of the gyrofactor, $\eta_{\rm g}\propto t^{\alpha-1/5}$, is expected by @ptuskin03 [@yan12]. Therefore, we assume that all evolutions have power law dependences. We believe that this approximation is useful to extract essential features.
Maximum energy of CR electrons
------------------------------
Characteristic times
------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
$t_{\rm acc}(E,t)$ acceleration time Eqs. (\[eq:tacc1\]), (\[eq:tacc2\])
$t_{\rm esc}(E,t)$ escape time due to diffusion Eq. (\[eq:stesc\])
$t_{\rm cool,p}(t)$ cooling time of CR protons Eq. (\[eq:tcoolp\])
$t_{\rm cool,e}(E,t)$ cooling time of CR electrons Eq. (\[eq:tcoolsyn\])
$t_{\rm c}$ start time of cooling Eq. (\[eq:tc\])
$t_{\rm S}=200$ yr start time of Sedov phase Eqs. (\[eq:rsh\]), (\[eq:ts\])
$t_{\rm e}$ start time of escape of CR electrons Eq. (\[eq:te\])
$t_{\rm B}$ end time of magnetic field amplification Eqs. (\[eq:tb1\]), (\[eq:tb2\])
$T_{\rm esc}(E)$ time when CRs with an energy of $E$ escape from the SNR Eq. (\[eq:tesc\])
Characteristic energies
$E_{\rm m, age}(t) $ given by $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t$ Eqs. (\[eq:emage1\]), (\[eq:emage2\])
$E_{\rm m, esc}(t) $ given by $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t_{\rm esc}(E,t)$ Eqs. (\[eq:emesc1\]), (\[eq:emesc2\])
$E_{\rm m, cool}(t)$ given by $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t_{\rm cool}(E,t)$ Eq. (\[eq:emaxcool\])
$E_{\rm b}(t)$ given by $t_{\rm cool}(E,t)=t$ Eq. (\[eq:eb\])
$E_{\rm m,p}(t)$ maximum energy of CR protons Eq. (\[eq:emaxp\])
$E_{\rm m,e}(t)$ maximum energy of CR electrons ($\min \{E_{\rm m, age}(t), E_{\rm m, esc}(t), E_{\rm m, cool}(t) \}$) Eqs. (\[eq:eme1\]), (\[eq:emaxe\]), (\[eq:emaxe2\])
$E_{\rm m,S}=E_{\rm m,cool}(t<t_{\rm S})$ cooling-limited maximum energy during the free expansion phase Eq. (\[eq:ems\])
$E_{\rm b,S}=E_{\rm b}(t_{\rm S})$ break energy at the beginning of the Sedov phase Eq. (\[eq:ebs\])
Other quantities evolving with time
$R_{\rm sh}(t)$ SNR shock radius Eq. (\[eq:rsh\])
$u_{\rm sh}(t)$ shock velocity Eq. (\[eq:ush\])
$D(E,t)$ diffusion coefficient around shocks Eqs. (\[eq:tacc1\]), (\[eq:diffc\])
$B(t)$ upstream magnetic field Eqs. (\[eq:diffc\]), (\[eq:b\])
$B_{\rm d}(t)=4B(t)$ downstream magnetic field
$\eta_{\rm g}(t)$ gyrofactor Eqs. (\[eq:diffc\]), (\[eq:etag\])
Others
$t$ SNR age
$E$ CR energy
$e$ electron charge
$c$ velocity of light
$R_{\rm S} =2$ pc SNR radius at $t_{\rm S}$ Eqs. (\[eq:rsh\]), (\[eq:rs\])
$R_{\rm esc}(E)$ escape radius of CRs Eq. (\[eq:resc\])
$D_{\rm ISM}(E)$ diffusion coefficient in ISM Eq. (\[eq:dism\])
$E_{\rm knee}=10^{15.5}$eV maximum energy of CR protons at $t_{\rm S}$ Eq. (\[eq:emaxp\])
$B_{\rm ISM}=3~\mu$G ISM magnetic field strength Eqs. (\[eq:b\]), (\[eq:tb1\])
$B_{\rm free}=174~\mu$G amplified field strength during the free expansion phase Eqs. (\[eq:b\]), (\[eq:bfree\])
$\eta_{\rm g,free}=1$ gyrofactor during the free expansion phase Eq. (\[eq:etag\])
$\eta_{\rm acc}=10$ numerical factor for the acceleration time Eq. (\[eq:tacc1\])
$\eta_{\rm esc}=0.1$ numerical factor for the escape time Eq. (\[eq:stesc\])
$n_{\rm ISM}=1$ cm$^{-3}$ ISM density Eq. (\[eq:rs\])
$\alpha_{\rm B}$ temporal decay index of the magnetic field ($B\propto t^{-\alpha_{\rm B}}$) Eqs. (\[eq:b\]), (\[eq:alphab\])
$\alpha=2.6$ temporal decay index of the maximum energy of CR protons ($E_{\rm m,p}\propto t^{-\alpha}$) Eqs. (\[eq:emaxp\]), (\[eq:nesc\])
$\beta=0.6~(t>t_{\rm S})$ temporal index of the number of CRs electrons inside SNRs (${\rm d}N/{\rm d}E\propto t^{\beta}E^{-s}$) Eq. (\[eq:nesc\])
$s=2.0$ spectral index of CR electrons inside SNRs (${\rm d}N/{\rm d}E\propto t^{\beta}E^{-s}$) Eq. (\[eq:nesc\])
$A$ normalization of the spectrum of runaway CR electrons (${\rm d}N_{\rm esc}/{\rm d}E =AE^{-(s+\beta/\alpha)}$) Eq. (\[eq:nesc\])
{width="80mm"}
, and the end time of the magnetic field amplification, respectively. $E_{\rm m,e}(t_{\rm e})$ is the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons. \[fig:1\]
![The same as Figure \[fig:1\], but for $B^2\propto u_{\rm sh}^2~{\rm or}~u_{\rm sh}^3$.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](f2.eps){width="80mm"}
The maximum energy of CR electrons is limited by the SNR age at early stages. As the maximum energy increases, synchrotron cooling becomes significant and limits the maximum energy. From the condition $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t_{\rm cool,e}(E,t)$ and Equations (\[eq:b\]) and (\[eq:etag\]), we obtain the cooling-limited maximum energy, $E_{\rm m,cool}(t)$, as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm m,cool}(t)=E_{\rm m,S} \times\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & (t \leq t_{\rm S}) \\
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha_{\rm B}-\alpha-1}{2}}& (t_{\rm S} \leq t\leq t_{\rm B} ) \\
\left(\frac{t_{\rm B}}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\alpha_{\rm B}}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}& (t_{\rm B} \leq t)\\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:emaxcool}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{\rm m,S}$ is the cooling-limited maximum energy during the free expansion phase ($t<t_{\rm S}$) and given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm m,S} &=& \frac{9m_{\rm e}^2c^{5/2}R_{\rm S}^2}{8\eta_{\rm g,free}\eta_{\rm acc}et_{\rm S}^{3/2}E_{\rm knee}^{1/2}} \nonumber \\
&=&2.02\times10^{13}~{\rm eV} \left(\frac{\eta_{\rm g,free}}{1}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{\eta_{\rm acc}}{10}\right)^{-1} \nonumber \\
&& \times \left(\frac{E_{\rm knee}}{10^{15.5}~{\rm eV}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{t_{\rm S}}{200~{\rm yr}}\right)^{-\frac{3}{2}} \left(\frac{R_{\rm S}}{2~{\rm pc}}\right)^2~~.
\label{eq:ems}\end{aligned}$$ $E_{\rm m,S}$ can be obtained from only physical values at the beginning of the Sedov phase. In this paper, SNRs are characterized by only $t_{\rm S}$ and $R_{\rm S}$. Therefore, our results during $t>t_{\rm S}$ do not depend on any assumptions during $t<t_{\rm S}$ in our formalism.
The evolution of the maximum energy of CR electrons, $E_{\rm m,e}(t)$, is given by $$E_{\rm m,e}(t) = \min \left \{E_{\rm m,age}(t), E_{\rm m,cool}(t), E_{\rm m,esc}(t)\right \}~~.
\label{eq:eme1}$$ Conditions $E_{\rm m,age}(t_{\rm c})=E_{\rm m,cool}(t_{\rm c})$ for the free expansion phase ($t<t_{\rm S}$) and $E_{\rm m,cool}(t_{\rm e})= E_{\rm m,esc}(t_{\rm e})$ for the Sedov phase ($t_{\rm S}<t$) provide two transition times, $t_{\rm c}$ and $t_{\rm e}$, respectively (see Figures (\[fig:1\]) and (\[fig:2\])).
### The case of $t_{\rm e}<t_{\rm B}$ {#sec:2.5.1}
We find $t_{\rm e}<t_{\rm B}$ for typical SNRs with $\alpha\approx2.6$. In this case, the maximum energy of CR electrons, $E_{\rm m,e}$, can be expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm m,e}(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
E_{\rm knee} \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right) & (t \leq t_{\rm c}) \\
E_{\rm m,S}& (t_{\rm c} \leq t\leq t_{\rm S} ) \\
E_{\rm m,S}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha_{\rm B}-\alpha-1}{2}}& (t_{\rm S} \leq t<t_{\rm e})\\
E_{\rm knee}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\alpha}&(t_{\rm e} \leq t)\\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:emaxe}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\rm c}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\rm c} &=& t_{\rm S} \frac{E_{\rm m,S}}{E_{\rm knee}} \nonumber \\
&=&1.28~{\rm yr} \left(\frac{\eta_{\rm g,free}}{1}\right)^{-1} \left(\frac{\eta_{\rm acc}}{10}\right)^{-1} \nonumber \\
&& \times \left(\frac{E_{\rm knee}}{10^{15.5}~{\rm eV}}\right)^{-\frac{3}{2}} \left(\frac{t_{\rm S}}{200~{\rm yr}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{R_{\rm S}}{2~{\rm pc}}\right)^2~~,
\label{eq:tc}\end{aligned}$$ and $t_{\rm e}$ is the start time of escape of CR electrons and given by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\rm e}&=&t_{\rm S}\left(\frac{E_{\rm m,S}}{E_{\rm knee}}\right)^{-\frac{2}{\alpha+2\alpha_{\rm B}-1}} \nonumber \\
&=& \left(\frac{9m_{\rm e}^2c^{5/2}R_{\rm S}^2}{8\eta_{\rm g,free}\eta_{\rm acc}eE_{\rm knee}^{3/2}} \right)^{-\frac{2}{\alpha+2\alpha_{\rm B}-1}}t_{\rm S}^{\frac{\alpha+2\alpha_{\rm B}+2}{\alpha+2\alpha_{\rm B}-1}} \nonumber \\
&=&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
9.70\times 10^2~{\rm yr}& ~(~{\rm for}~~ \eta_{\rm g}=\eta_{\rm g,free}~) \\
3.91\times 10^3~{\rm yr}& ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^3~) \\
7.39\times 10^3~{\rm yr}& ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^2~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:te}\end{aligned}$$ where we assume $\alpha=2.6$, Equation (\[eq:alphab\]) for $\alpha_{\rm B}$ and normalizations of Equation (\[eq:ems\]).
In Figure \[fig:1\], we show the schematic picture of the evolution of the maximum energy as a function of time (red dashed line) for $\eta_{\rm g}=\eta_{\rm g,free}$ (see also Table 1). In Figure \[fig:2\], we show the same figure as Figure \[fig:1\], but for $B^2\propto u_{\rm sh}^2~{\rm or}~u_{\rm sh}^3$. Initially, the maximum energy increases linearly with time ($t<t_{\rm c}$), then the maximum energy is constant until the beginning of the Sedov phase ($t_{\rm c}<t<t_{\rm S}$). During $t_{\rm S}<t<t_{\rm e}$, the maximum energy of CR electrons increases with time for $\eta_{\rm g}=\eta_{\rm g,free}$ (Figure \[fig:1\]) and decreases for $B^2\propto u_{\rm sh}^2~{\rm or}~u_{\rm sh}^3$ (Figure \[fig:2\]). Finally, CR electrons start to escape from the SNR at $t=t_{\rm e}$. The maximum energy of runaway CR electrons is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm m,e}(t_{\rm e}) &=& E_{\rm knee}\left(\frac{E_{\rm m,S}}{E_{\rm knee}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha+2\alpha_{\rm B}-1}} \nonumber \\
&=& \left(\frac{9m_{\rm e}^2c^{5/2}R_{\rm S}^2}{8\eta_{\rm g,free}\eta_{\rm acc}et_{\rm S}^{3/2}} \right)^{\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha+2\alpha_{\rm B}-1}}E_{\rm knee}^{-\frac{2\alpha-2\alpha_{\rm B}+1}{\alpha+2\alpha_{\rm B}-1}} \nonumber \\
&=&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
5.21 \times 10^{13}~{\rm eV}& ~(~{\rm for}~~ \eta_{\rm g}=\eta_{\rm g,free}~) \\
1.39 \times 10^{12}~{\rm eV}& ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^3~) \\
2.66 \times 10^{11}~{\rm eV}& ~(~{\rm for}~~ B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^2~) \\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:eescmax}\end{aligned}$$ where we assume $\alpha=2.6$, Equation (\[eq:alphab\]) for $\alpha_{\rm B}$ and normalizations of Equation (\[eq:ems\]). Therefore, SNRs can produce the Galactic CR electrons up to about $0.3-50~{\rm TeV}$ which depends on the evolution of the magnetic field. Interestingly, the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons becomes smaller as the maximum energy of CR protons ($E_{\rm knee}$) becomes larger.
### The case of $t_{\rm e}>t_{\rm B}$ {#sec:2.5.2}
If $\alpha$ is smaller, $t_{\rm e}$ can be larger than $t_{\rm B}$. In this case, $E_{\rm m,e}$ can be expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm m,e}(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
E_{\rm knee} \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right) & (t \leq t_{\rm c}) \\
E_{\rm m,S}& (t_{\rm c} \leq t\leq t_{\rm S} ) \\
E_{\rm m,S}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha_{\rm B}-\alpha-1}{2}}& (t_{\rm S} \leq t<t_{\rm B})\\
E_{\rm m,S}\left(\frac{t_B}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{\alpha_{\rm B}} \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}& (t_{\rm B} \leq t<t_{\rm e})\\
E_{\rm knee}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-\alpha}&(t_{\rm e} \leq t)\\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:emaxe2}\end{aligned}$$ where we assume $\alpha>1$, otherwise $E_{\rm m,cool}$ is always smaller than $E_{\rm m,esc}$, that is, CR electrons can not escape from the SNR until the SNR shock disappears. The start time of escape of CR electrons, $t_{\rm e}$, for $t_{\rm e}>t_{\rm B}$ is obtained by the condition $E_{\rm m,esc}(t)=E_{\rm m,cool}(t)$ for $t_{\rm B}<t$, $$t_{\rm e} = t_{\rm S} \left( \frac{E_{\rm m,S}}{E_{\rm knee}} \right)^{ -\frac{2}{\alpha-1}} \left(\frac{t_{\rm B}}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{ -\frac{2\alpha_{\rm B}}{\alpha-1} }~~.$$
Cooling break of CR electrons {#sec:2.6}
-----------------------------
The evolution of the CR spectrum inside SNRs is necessary to understand those of runaway CRs [@ohiraetal10]. CR electrons accumulate in SNRs with time, and they cool down due to synchrotron radiation during the accumulation. Hence, the numbers of cooling CR electrons and non-cooling CR electrons are approximately given by $t_{\rm cool,e}(E) q(E)\propto E^{-1}q(E)$ and $t q(E)$, respectively, where $q(E)$ is an injection spectrum per unit time. Therefore, the CR electron spectrum inside SNRs has a broken power law form (this is, so called, the cooling break). The break energy, $E_{\rm b}(t)$, is obtained by $t_{\rm cool,e}(E_{\rm b},t)=t$. From Equations (\[eq:tcoolsyn\]) and (\[eq:b\]), the break energy can be represented by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm b}(t)=E_{\rm b,S} \times \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-1} & (t\leq t_{\rm S}) \\
\left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{2\alpha_{\rm B}-1}& (t_{\rm S} \leq t\leq t_{\rm B} ) \\
\left(\frac{t_{\rm B}}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{2\alpha_{\rm B}} \left(\frac{t}{t_{\rm S}}\right)^{-1}& (t_{\rm B} \leq t)\\
\end{array} \right. ~~,
\label{eq:eb}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{\rm b,S}$ is the break energy at the beginning of the Sedov phase ($t=t_{\rm S}$) and given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm b,S} &=& E_{\rm knee}\left(\frac{E_{\rm m,S}}{E_{\rm knee}}\right)^2\nonumber \\
&=&1.29\times10^{11}~{\rm eV} \left(\frac{\eta_{\rm g,free}}{1}\right)^{-2} \left(\frac{\eta_{\rm acc}}{10}\right)^{-2} \nonumber \\
&& \times \left(\frac{E_{\rm knee}}{10^{15.5}~{\rm eV}}\right)^{-2} \left(\frac{t_{\rm S}}{200~{\rm yr}}\right)^{-3} \left(\frac{R_{\rm S}}{2~{\rm pc}}\right)^{4} ~~.
\label{eq:ebs}\end{aligned}$$
In Figures \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\], we show the evolution of the break energy $E_{\rm b}(t)$ as a function of time (Cyan line). During $E_{\rm b}(t)<E_{\rm m,e}(t)$, the spectrum of CR electrons inside the SNR has the cooling break. Interestingly, the break energy becomes the same as the maximum energy of CR electrons ($E_{\rm m,e}=E_{\rm b}$) at the start time of escape of CR electrons ($t=t_{\rm e}$). The reason is as follows. Characteristic energies, $E_{\rm m,age}(t)$, $E_{\rm m,esc}(t)$, $E_{\rm cool,e}(t)$, and $E_{\rm b}(t)$ are obtained from the conditions $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t$, $t_{\rm esc}(E,t)=t_{\rm acc}(E,t)$, $t_{\rm acc}(E,t)=t_{\rm cool,e}(E,t)$, and $t_{\rm cool,e}(E,t)=t$, respectively (see also Table \[table1\]). The SNR age is approximately the same as the escape time of just escaping CRs ($t \approx t_{\rm esc}$) because of $E_{\rm m,age}(t) \approx E_{\rm m,esc}(t)$ during the Sedov phase. CR electrons start to escape when the cooling-limited maximum energy becomes the same as the escape-limited maximum energy ($E_{\rm cool,e}=E_{\rm m,esc}$), that is, the cooing time of CR electrons becomes the same as the escape time ($t_{\rm cool,e} \approx t_{\rm esc}$). Therefore, the SNR age is approximately the same as the cooling time $(t\approx t_{\rm cool,e})$ at $t_{\rm e}$. This is the condition to derive the break energy. Hence, all the characteristic energies have the same energy, $E_{\rm m,e}(t_{\rm e})$, at $t_{\rm e}$.
Namely, the spectrum of CR electrons inside the SNR has a cooling break before CR electrons escape ($t< t_{\rm e}$). However, it does not appear while CR electrons escape ($t> t_{\rm e}$).
Spectrum of runaway CR electrons
--------------------------------
As mentioned above, the spectrum of runaway CR electrons is unaffected by synchrotron cooling below $E_{\rm m}(t_{\rm e})$. Moreover, the spectrum of runaway CR electrons does not depend on the magnetic field evolution except for the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons.
According to @ohiraetal10 [@ohira11], the energy spectrum of runaway CR electrons, ${\rm d}N_{\rm esc}/{\rm d}E$, can be expressed by $$\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}}{{\rm d}E} = A E^{-\left(s+\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\right)}~~,
\label{eq:nesc}$$ where $A$ is the normalization factor, $s\approx2$ is the index of the energy spectrum of CR electrons inside the SNR and $\beta$ is a parameter to describe the evolution of the number of CR electrons inside the SNR (${\rm d}N/{\rm d}E\propto t^{\beta}E^{-s}$ where ${\rm d}N/{\rm d}E$ is the CR spectrum inside the SNR). Lower-energy CRs can be produced for a longer time than high-energy CRs, so that the time-integrated spectrum becomes softer than the instantaneous one. Note that $\beta$ is not understood well for CR electrons and protons because their injection processes for particle acceleration have not been understood well. In this paper, we assume that CR electrons and protons have the same value of $\beta=0.6$ during the Sedov phase and $\beta=3$ during the free expansion phase where we consider the thermal leakage model as the injection model [@ohiraetal10]. For $s=2.0, \alpha=2.6$ and $\beta=0.6$, the spectral index of runaway CRs is $s+\beta/\alpha=2.23$, which is consistent with the index expected as the source of Galactic CRs [@ohiraetal10].
Spatial distribution of runaway CR electrons around an SNR {#sec:3}
==========================================================
![Diffusion length $R_{\rm diff}$ (Equation (\[eq:rd\])) and escape radius $R_{\rm esc}$ (Equation (\[eq:resc\]) with $\alpha=2.6$) as functions of electron energy. The black line shows the escape radius. The red, green, and blue lines show the diffusion length at $t=10^3, 10^4,~{\rm and}~10^5~{\rm yr}$, respectively. The solid line shows the case of $\chi=0.01$ and $\delta=0.3$ and the dashed line shows the case of $\chi=1$ and $\delta=0.6$ where $\chi$ and $\delta$ are the normalization factor and the energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient of the ISM, respectively (Equation (\[eq:dism\])).[]{data-label="fig:3"}](f3.eps){width="80mm"}
In this section, we derive the distribution of runaway CR electrons at a given distance $r$ from the SNR center and at a given time $t$ from the explosion time, $f(t,r,E)~[{\rm particles~cm^{-3}~eV^{-1}}]$. CRs propagate around SNRs after escaping from the SNRs, so that CR halos are produced around the SNRs. Suppose that the system is spherically symmetric and the diffusion coefficient in the ISM, $D_{\rm ISM}(E)$, is spatially uniform. Then, we solve the diffusion equation given by $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}f - D_{\rm ISM}(E)\Delta f +\frac{\partial}{\partial E}(P(E)f)= q_{\rm s}(t,E,{\bf r})~~,
\label{eq:diffusion}$$ where $P(E)$ and $q_{\rm s}(t,E,{\bf r})$ are the energy loss rate of CR electrons and the source term of CR electrons, respectively. Considering the escape process [@ptuskin05; @ohiraetal10], CRs with an energy of $E$ escape from an SNR at $t=T_{\rm esc}(E)$. Let ${\rm d}N_{\rm esc}/{\rm d}E$ be the total spectrum of runaway CR electrons, that is, $$\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}}{{\rm d}E} = \int {\rm d}t\int{\rm d}^3r~q_{\rm s}(t,r,E) = AE^{-(s+\frac{\beta}{\alpha})}
~~.$$ Then, the Green function, which is the solution in the case of an instantaneous point source, $q_{\rm s}(t,E,{\bf r})=\delta({\bf r})\delta(t-t_{\rm esc}(E)){\rm d}N_{\rm esc}/{\rm d}E$, is [@atoyan95] $$f_{\rm point}(t,r,E)=\frac{e^{-\left(\frac{r}{R_{\rm diff}(t,E)}\right)^2}}{\pi^{3/2}R_{\rm diff}(t,E)^3}\frac{P(E_0)}{P(E)}\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}(E_0)}{{\rm d}E}~~,
\label{eq:fpoint}$$ where $E_0(t,E)$ is the initial energy defined by $$\int_{E}^{E_0(t,E)} \frac{{\rm d}\epsilon}{|P(\epsilon)|}=t-T_{\rm esc}(E_0)~~,
\label{eq:e0}$$ and the diffusion length while CR electrons cool from $E_0$ to $E$ is $$R_{\rm diff}(E)
= 2\left( \int_{E}^{E_0(t,E)} \frac{D_{\rm ISM}(\epsilon)}{|P(\epsilon)|}
{\rm d}\epsilon\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}~~.
\label{eq:rd}$$
The diffusion coefficient around an SNR has not been understood well so far. Although there is no guarantee that the diffusion coefficient has a power law form, $D_{\rm ISM}\propto E^{\delta}$, [e.g. @fujita10; @fujita11], such a diffusion coefficient can explain gamma-ray spectra of middle-aged SNRs observed by [*Fermi*]{} [e.g. @ohiraetal11; @li11]. Therefore, we assume the diffusion coefficient to be $$D_{\rm ISM}(E)=10^{28}~\chi \left( \frac{E}{10~{\rm GeV}}\right)^{\delta} {\rm cm^2~s^{-1}}~~.
\label{eq:dism}$$ The values of $\delta$ and $\chi$ are uncertain. The Galactic mean values are $\delta\approx0.3-0.6$ and $\chi\approx1$ [@berezinskii90]. However, $\chi$ is expected to be much smaller than unity ($\chi\approx0.01$) around SNRs because CRs amplify magnetic fluctuations around SNRs [@fujita09; @fujita10; @fujita11; @giuliani10; @torres10; @li10].
We find that the effect of finite source size is important. To see this, we show, in Figure \[fig:3\], the diffusion length $R_{\rm diff}(E)$ (color lines) and the escape radius $R_{\rm esc}(E)$ (black solid line); the former is obtained from Equations (\[eq:tesc\]), (\[eq:e0\]) and (\[eq:rd\]), while the latter is obtained from Equation (\[eq:resc\]), where we consider synchrotron cooling with $B=3~{\rm \mu G}$ and inverse Compton cooling with the Galactic radiation field provided by the $8~{\rm kpc}$ model of @porter08. We fully consider the Klein-Nishina effect for inverse Compton scattering [@blumenthal70]. As shown in Figure \[fig:3\], $R_{\rm diff}(E)$ has low- and high-energy cutoffs. The lower cutoff corresponds to the energy of just escaping CR electrons at the SNR age, $t=t_{\rm esc}(E_0)$. The higher cutoff shows the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons at the SNR age $t$. It is found that for $t=10^3~{\rm yr}$ and $\chi=0.01$ (red solid line), CR electrons above $50~{\rm TeV}$ escape from the SNR and the diffusion length of runaway CR electrons is smaller than the escape radius. Similarly, for $t=10^4~{\rm yr}$ and $\chi=0.01$ (green solid line), CR electrons above $\sim 100~{\rm GeV}$ escape from the SNR and the diffusion length of runaway CR electrons with a few TeV is comparable to the escape radius. Therefore, the point source approximation is not well, that is, the finiteness of the source size is important. We also remind that even if SNRs produce CR electrons with $100~{\rm TeV}$, the SNRs should be younger than about $10^4~{\rm yr}$ (cooling time) and locate within about $500~{\rm pc}$ from the Earth to observe the CR electrons directly.
Now, taking into account the fact that CRs escape from the SNR surface [@ohiraetal10], the source term is replaced with $$q_{\rm s}=\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}}{{\rm d}E} \delta(r-R_{\rm esc}(E)) \delta(t-T_{\rm esc}(E))~~,$$ where $R_{\rm esc}(E)$ is the radius where the CRs with an energy of $E$ escape from the SNR. Then, we find the solution to equation (\[eq:diffusion\]) as [@ohiraetal11] $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\rm ext}(t,r,E)&=&\frac{e^{-\left(\frac{r-R_{\rm esc}(E_0)}{R_{\rm diff}(t,E)}\right)^2}-e^{-\left(\frac{r+R_{\rm esc}(E_0)}{R_{\rm diff}(t,E)}\right)^2}}{4\pi^{3/2}R_{\rm diff}(t,E)R_{\rm esc}(E_0)r} \nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&&\times\frac{P(E_0)}{P(E)}\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}(E_0)}{{\rm d}E}~~.
\label{eq:fext}\end{aligned}$$ The finiteness of the source size is important in the vicinity of the escape radius ($r\approx R_{\rm esc}$) for $R_{\rm esc}\gg R_{\rm diff}$. This means $r-R_{\rm esc} \ll R_{\rm diff}$ and $r+R_{\rm esc} \gg R_{\rm diff}$, so that $f_{\rm ext}$ is approximately given by [@ohiraetal11] $$f_{\rm ext}(t,r,E)\approx \frac{1}{4\pi^{3/2}R_{\rm diff}(t,E)R_{\rm esc}(E_0)r} \frac{P(E_0)}{P(E)}\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}(E_0)}{{\rm d}E}~~.$$
Radiation spectra due to runaway CR electrons from SNRs {#sec:4}
=======================================================
![Radiation spectra for $d=3~{\rm kpc}, U_{\rm CR,e}=10^{48}~{\rm erg},
t=10^4~{\rm yr}, \chi=0.01$, and $\delta=0.6$ where $\chi$ and $\delta$ are the normalization factor and the energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient of the ISM, respectively. The red and blue lines show synchrotron radiation and inverse Compton scattering, respectively. The thick solid line shows a contribution from runaway CR electrons outside the SNR ($R_{\rm sh}<\rho \leq \rho_{\rm size}$) (Equation (\[eq:nprojout\])), the thin solid line shows a contribution from trapped CR electrons which have not escaped (Equation (\[eq:ntrap\])), the long dashed line shows a contribution from runaway CR electrons which have been caught up by the shock (Equation (\[eq:ncaught\])), and short dashed lines show a contribution from runaway CR electrons which have not been caught up by the shock but are inside the SNR projected on the sky ($\rho \leq R_{\rm sh}$) (Equation (\[eq:nprojin\])), respectively. The thick and thin black lines show CTA $50~{\rm h}$ [@cta10] and LHAASO (where the MAGIC-II-type telescopes improves the low energy LHAASO sensitivity) [@cao10] integral sensitivities of point sources, respectively. []{data-label="fig:4"}](f4.eps){width="80mm"}
![Time evolution of radiation spectra from the SNR ($0\leq \rho \leq \rho_{\rm size}=1.2 R_{\rm sh}$) for $d=3~{\rm kpc}, U_{\rm CR,e}=10^{48}~{\rm erg},
\chi=0.01$ and $\delta=0.6$. The thin and thick color lines show total synchrotron spectra and total inverse Compton spectra, respectively. The red, green, and blue lines correspond to spectra at the age of $10^3, 10^4$, and $10^5~{\rm yr}$, respectively. The thick and thin black lines show CTA $50~{\rm h}$ [@cta10] and LHAASO (where the MAGIC-II-type telescopes improves the low energy LHAASO sensitivity) [@cao10] integral sensitivities of point sources, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](f5.eps){width="80mm"}
![The same as Figure \[fig:5\], but for $\delta=0.3$.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](f6.eps){width="80mm"}
![The same as Figure \[fig:5\], but for $\chi=1$.[]{data-label="fig:7"}](f7.eps){width="80mm"}
In this section, radiation spectra from runaway CR electrons are calculated. They should be calculated using their volume-integrated distribution function. At first, we consider the energy spectrum of runaway CR electrons contributing to the radiation spectrum, ${\rm d} N_{\rm proj}/{\rm d} E$. Emission far outside the SNR is too dim to be detected because the number of emitting electrons is too small. Taking into account an observation sensitivity, we should consider the projected distance $\rho_{\rm size}$ from the SNR center on the sky. We adopt $\rho_{\rm size} = 1.2R_{\rm sh}$. Then, we obtain $$\frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm proj}}{{\rm d} E}=\int_{0}^{\rho_{\rm size}} {\rm d}\rho ~2\pi \rho \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{\rm d}z ~f_{\rm ext}(t,\sqrt{z^2+\rho^2},E) ~~,
\label{eq:f}$$ where the $z$-direction is along the line of sight. In the energy region satisfying the condition $\rho \ll R_{\rm diff}(t,E)$, the $z$-integration becomes approximately $f_{\rm point}R_{\rm diff}$. Then, ${\rm d} N_{\rm proj}/{\rm d} E$ can be written by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm proj}}{{\rm d} E}&\propto& \left(\frac{\rho_{\rm size}}{R_{\rm diff}(t,E)}\right)^2\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}}{{\rm d}E} \nonumber \\
&\propto& \chi^{-1}E^{-\left(\delta+s+\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\right)} ~~,
\label{eq:fapp}\end{aligned}$$ where radiative losses are neglected.
We further divide runaway CR electrons into three groups as in the following:
- The energy spectrum of runaway CR electrons outside the SNR projected on the sky ($R_{\rm sh}<\rho \leq \rho_{\rm size}$), ${\rm d} N_{\rm proj,out}/{\rm d} E$, is obtained by $$\frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm proj,out}}{{\rm d} E}=\int_{R_{\rm sh}}^{\rho_{\rm size}} {\rm d}\rho ~2\pi \rho \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{\rm d}z ~f_{\rm ext}(t,\sqrt{z^2+\rho^2},E) ~~,
\label{eq:nprojout}$$
- Some of runaway CR electrons are caught up by the SNR shock because the SNR shock expands in the halo of runaway CR electrons. Note that most runaway CR electrons are outside the SNR because the diffusion length increases with time faster than the SNR shock. The energy spectrum of runaway CR electrons which have been caught up by the shock, ${\rm d} N_{\rm caught}/{\rm d} E$, is obtained by $$\frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm caught}}{{\rm d} E}=\int_0^{R_{\rm sh}} {\rm d}r~4\pi r^2 f_{\rm ext}(t,r,E)~~.
\label{eq:ncaught}$$
- The energy spectrum of runaway CR electrons which have not been caught up by the shock but are inside the SNR projected on the sky ($\rho \leq R_{\rm sh}$), ${\rm d} N_{\rm proj,in}/{\rm d} E$, is obtained by $$\frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm proj,in}}{{\rm d} E}= \frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm proj}}{{\rm d} E} -\frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm proj,out}}{{\rm d} E}- \frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm caught}}{{\rm d} E}~~,
\label{eq:nprojin}$$
Finally, we consider trapped CR electrons. CR electrons with an energy smaller than the escape-limited maximum energy $E_{\rm m,esc}(t)$ are still trapped in the SNR. Their energy spectrum for $t>t_{\rm e}$, ${\rm d}N_{\rm trap}/{\rm d}E$ is given by $$\frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm trap}}{{\rm d}E}=A\left( E_{\rm m,esc}\left(t\right) \right)^{-\left(s+\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\right)}\left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm m,esc}(t)}\right)^{-s}~~.
\label{eq:ntrap}$$ In order to calculate each energy spectrum described above, several model parameters in section 2 and 3 are fixed. Throughout this section, we only consider the model of $\eta_{\rm g}=\eta_{\rm g,free}$ for the magnetic field evolution, that is, [the start time of escape of CR electrons]{} is $t_{\rm e}=9.70\times10^2~{\rm yr}$. In our formulation shown in Section [\[sec:2\]]{}, the spectral index of runaway CR electrons does not depend on models of the magnetic field evolution, while the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons, $E_{\rm m,e}$, and the start time of escape of CR electrons, $t_{\rm e}$, do depend. We adopt $R_{\rm S}=2~{\rm pc}$, $t_{\rm S}=200~{\rm yr}$, $B_{\rm ISM}=3~{\rm \mu G}$, $\eta_{\rm acc}=10$, $s=2.0$, $\alpha=2.6$, $\beta=0.6$, $d=3~{\rm kpc}$, $n_{\rm ISM}=1~{\rm cm}^{-3}$, and $U_{\rm CR,e}=10^{48}~{\rm erg}$, where $d$, $n_{\rm ISM}$, and $U_{\rm CR,e}$ are the source distance, the number density of the ISM, and the total energy of runaway CR electrons from $1~{\rm GeV}$ to $E_{\rm knee}$, respectively. We calculate inverse Compton scattering with the Galactic radiation field provided by the $8~{\rm kpc}$ model of @porter08 and synchrotron radiation. We fully consider the Klein-Nishina effect for inverse Compton scattering [@blumenthal70]. We use the downstream magnetic field $B_{\rm d}=4B$ for synchrotron radiation emitted inside the SNR.
For given distributions of CR electrons (Equations (\[eq:nprojout\])–(\[eq:ntrap\])), radiation spectra are calculated. Figure \[fig:4\] shows the spectral components of four CR electron groups given by Equations (\[eq:nprojout\])–(\[eq:ntrap\]), where $t=10^4~{\rm yr}~(>t_{\rm e})$, $\chi=0.01$, and $\delta=0.6$ ($\chi$ and $\delta$ are the normalization factor and the energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient: see Equation (\[eq:dism\])). We also show in the figure the integral sensitivities of point sources of the future TeV gamma-ray telescopes, CTA $50~{\rm h}$ [@cta10] and LHAASO [@cao10] (black lines). The thin and thick lines show the radiation spectra coming from the interior of the SNR region projected onto the sky (that is $\rho \leq R_{\rm sh}$) and from the exterior of the SNR ($R_{\rm sh}<\rho \leq \rho_{\rm size}=1.2R_{\rm sh}$) (Equation (\[eq:nprojout\])), respectively. The thin-solid lines show spectra emitted by trapped CRs which have not escaped from the SNR yet (Equation (\[eq:ntrap\])). The long and short-dashed lines show the spectra emitted by runaway CR electrons which have been caught up by the shock (Equation (\[eq:ncaught\])) and have not been caught up by the shock (Equation (\[eq:nprojin\])), respectively.
One can see from Figure \[fig:4\] that maximum-energy photons of synchrotron radiation are emitted by runaway CR electrons which have been caught up by the shock. This is completely different from the standard picture that maximum energy synchrotron photons are produced by CR electrons accelerating at the SNR shock. Note that this new picture can be applied after CR electrons start to escape ($t>t_{\rm e}$). In previous works [e.g. @berezhko10; @zirakashvili10; @edmon11], synchrotron emission comes from CR electrons advected downstream at any time, that is, there is no halo of runaway CRs. In our model, the diffusion coefficient rapidly increases with time compared with the previous work. Therefore, in our model, CR electrons can escape from inside SNRs over advection and the halo of runaway CRs is produced.
Radiation spectra from runaway CRs are softer than that from trapped CRs. This is because higher-energy CRs are more diluted by diffusion and the spectrum of runaway CRs becomes softer than that of trapped CRs (see Equation (\[eq:nesc\])). From Equations (\[eq:fpoint\]) and (\[eq:ncaught\]), the energy spectrum of caught-up CR electrons can be written by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\rm d} N_{\rm caught}}{{\rm d} E}&\propto& \left( \frac{R_{\rm sh}}{R_{\rm diff}}\right)^3 \frac{{\rm d}N_{\rm esc}}{{\rm d}E} \nonumber \\
&\propto&\chi^{-\frac{3}{2}}E^{-\left(s+\frac{\beta}{\alpha}+1.5\delta \right)} \nonumber \\
&\propto&E^{-3.13}~~.
\label{eq:ncaught2}\end{aligned}$$ where we assume $s=2.0, \beta=0.6, \alpha=2.6$ and $\delta=2.6$ at the last equation. Therefore, the energy spectrum of synchrotron radiation from caught-up CR electrons becomes flat (long-dashed line). In addition, we predict that inverse Compton scattering outside the middle-aged SNR (thick blue line) will be observed by CTA and LHAASO if the SNR produces sufficient CR electrons ($U_{\rm CR,e}=10^{48} ~{\rm erg}$) and $\chi=0.01$.
In Figures \[fig:5\]–\[fig:7\], we show time evolutions of radiation spectra around the SNR ($\rho<\rho_{\rm size}=1.2R_{\rm sh}$) for three parameter sets of the diffusion coefficient of the ISM, $(\chi,\delta)=(0.01,0.6), (0.01,0.3)$, and $(1,0.6)$. Integral sensitivities of point sources of the future ground-based Cherenkov telescopes, CTA $50~{\rm h}$ [@cta10] and LHAASO [@cao10] (black lines), are also shown. The thick solid and thin solid lines show total synchrotron radiation and total inverse Compton scattering, respectively. Figures \[fig:5\] and \[fig:6\] (small diffusion coefficient case) show that even though the SNR age is $10^5~{\rm yr}$, the future Cherenkov telescopes can detect radiation from runaway CR electrons.
Figures \[fig:5\] and \[fig:7\] show that radiation from runaway CR electrons depends on the normalization of the diffusion coefficient, $\chi$. As shown in Equation (\[eq:fapp\]), the flux of inverse Compton scattering is large for small $\chi$. Therefore, if $\chi<0.1$, radiation due to runaway CRs from middle-aged and old SNRs can be potentially observed by CTA and LHAASO. Similarly, as shown in Equation (\[eq:ncaught2\]), the flux of synchrotron radiation from caught-up CR electrons is large for small $\chi$. It should be noted that if the evolution of the magnetic field is $B^2 \propto u_{\rm sh}^3$ or $u_{\rm sh}^2$, the maximum energy of caught-up CR electrons is too small to produce synchrotron X-ray photons (Equation (\[eq:eescmax\])). However, if the magnetic field at the SNR shock is suddenly amplified by interactions of molecular clouds [@inoue09], X-ray photons could be produced by synchrotron radiation from caught-up CR electrons.
Discussion {#sec:5}
==========
![Time evolution of gamma-ray spectra from the SNR (with the projected distance $\rho_{\rm size}<1.2 R_{\rm sh}$) for $U_{\rm CR,p}=10^{50}~{\rm erg}, n_{\rm ISM}=1~{\rm cm}^{-3}, \chi=0.01, \delta=0.3$, and other parameters are the same as Figure \[fig:5\]. The thick and thin lines show the total inverse Compton spectra and the gamma rays ($\pi^0\rightarrow2\gamma$) from runaway CR protons, respectively. The red, green, and blue lines correspond to spectra at the age of $10^3, 10^4$, and $10^5~{\rm yr}$, respectively. The thick and thin black lines show CTA $50~{\rm h}$ [@cta10] and LHAASO [@cao10] sensitivities, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:8"}](f8.eps){width="80mm"}
In this paper, taking into account escape of CR electrons from SNRs, we have investigated the evolution of the maximum energy of CR electrons, as well as that of the magnetic field and the maximum energy of CR protons. We found the followings:
- CR electrons start to escape from SNRs later than CR nuclei (Equation (\[eq:te\])).
- SNRs can produce CR electrons up to about $0.3-50~{\rm TeV}$, which depends on the evolution of the magnetic field (Equation (\[eq:eescmax\])).
- If the magnetic field decays slowly, the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons becomes small (Equation (\[eq:eescmax\])).
- The maximum energy of CR electrons is anticorrelated with that of CR nuclei (Equation (\[eq:eescmax\])).
- The spectrum of runaway CR electrons is unaffected by the cooling break of synchrotron radiation (Section (\[sec:2.6\])).
In addition, we calculated the spatial distribution of runaway CR electrons around SNRs. Using this distribution, we calculated synchrotron radiation and inverse Compton scattering from the runaway CR electrons around SNRs. We found the followings:
- Inverse Compton radiation of the runaway CR electrons can be observed by future ground-based Cherenkov telescopes, such as CTA and LHAASO. Because the cosmic microwave background is inevitably present, CTA and LHAASO can impose tight constraint on the amount of CR electrons.
- Maximum-energy photons of synchrotron radiation are emitted by runaway CR electrons which have been caught up by the shock.
- Radiation spectra from runaway CR electrons depend on the diffusion coefficient of ISM.
Although there are many parameters in determining the evolution of the maximum energy ($R_{\rm S}$, $t_{\rm S}$, $B_{\rm ISM}$, $E_{\rm knee}$, $\eta_{\rm acc}$, $\eta_{\rm esc}$, $\eta_{\rm g,free}$, $\alpha$ and $\alpha_{\rm B}$; see Table 1), all except $\alpha_{\rm B}$ have typical or appropriate values. The value of $\alpha_{\rm B}$, which is a parameter to describe the evolution of the magnetic field, is highly uncertain. We have derived some relations for the general $\alpha_{\rm B}$ and especially discussed three cases. We have assumed that the end of the Sedov phase is $200~{\rm yr} \times 10^{2.5} \sim 63~{\rm kyr}$. On the other hand, @truelove99 and @petruk05 thought that it is $12~{\rm kyr}$ and $30~{\rm kyr}$, respectively. Even when we take these values, $12$ or $30~{\rm kyr}$, our results do not change significantly. In this paper, we have considered only one fiducial model of SNRs ($t_{S}=200~{\rm yr}$ and $R_{\rm S}=2~{\rm pc}$). It is also an interesting future work to examine the individual SNR detected by H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS. It should be noted that the age of most young SNRs is about the beginning of the Sedov phase and smaller than [the start time of escape of CR electrons]{}, that is, $t\sim t_{\rm S}<t_{\rm e}$ [see the table 1 of @truelove99]. Therefore, CR electrons have not escaped from those SNRs.
We consider three evolution models of the magnetic field in Section \[sec:2\]. Different models predict different evolutions of the maximum energy limited by synchrotron cooling during $t_{\rm S}<t< \min \{t_{\rm e},t_{\rm B}\}$. Maximum photon energies of synchrotron radiation and inverse Compton scattering depend on evolution models of the magnetic field. Furthermore, the maximum energy of runaway CR electrons also depends on the evolution model of the magnetic field ($0.3-50~{\rm TeV}$). Figures \[fig:5\], \[fig:6\], and \[fig:7\] show that CTA and LHAASO can observe the maximum value. Hence, CTA and LHAASO can provide constraints on evolution models of the magnetic field. To make a more accurate radiation spectrum, we should consider escaping and trapped CR spectra in detail [@caprioli09; @reville09] and solve SNR dynamics and the diffusion-convection equation [@zirakashvili10].
Fermi and H.E.S.S. show the spectral break or the cut off of the CR electron spectrum at around $1~{\rm TeV}$. The magnetic field evolution model of $B^2\propto u_{\rm sh}^3$ could explain the break as the maximum energy of CR electrons that can escape from SNRs (see Equation (\[eq:eescmax\])). This model is suggested by other observations [@vink08] and by @bell04. A local source may contribute to high energy CR electrons and the maximum energy of CR electrons may be limited by cooling during the propagation [e.g. @kobayashi04; @thoudam12]. Even so, we can rule out any models that predict a smaller maximum energy of CR electrons than that of observed CR electrons. A more tight constraint on the magnetic field evolution will be given by future observations of the CR electron spectrum, AMS-02 and CALET. To make a more realistic prediction, we should perform time-dependent fluid simulations [@schure10] and consider the CR back reaction [e.g. @drury89; @ellison90; @berezhko97; @blasi02; @kang02].
In this paper, we have focused on escape of accelerated electrons. SNRs produce CR protons as well as CR electrons, so that the hadronic gamma-ray radiation due to the neutral pion decay should be compared to the leptonic gamma rays. In figure \[fig:8\], we show an example of the gamma-ray spectrum. We adopt $U_{\rm CR,p}=10^{50}~{\rm erg}, n_{\rm ISM}=1~{\rm cm}^{-3},
\chi=0.01, \delta=0.3$, and otherparameters are the same as in the previous section. We use the code provided by @kamae06 [@karlsson08] to obtain gamma-ray spectra from CR protons. Note that if the ratio of CR electrons to CR protons is $U_{\rm CR,e}/U_{\rm CR,p}=10^{-2}$ and the number density of the ISM is $n_{\rm ISM}=1~{\rm cm}^{-3}$, inverse Compton scattering due to runaway CR electrons dominates over the hadronic component at the TeV energy region. The maximum photon energy and its flux decrease with time for synchrotron radiation and inverse Compton scattering because of cooling and diffusion. On the other hand, the maximum energy of gamma rays from CR protons does not change because the cooling time of CR protons is longer than the SNR age. Therefore, radiation from CR protons can dominate over that from CR electrons at the $100~{\rm TeV}$ energy region for middle-aged and/or old SNRs.
We comment on a possible origin of unidentified very-high-energy gamma-ray sources (so called, TeV-unIDs) discovered by H.E.S.S. [@aharonian05; @aharonian06b; @aharonian08]. Figures \[fig:5\], \[fig:6\], and \[fig:7\] tell us that old SNRs ($t\sim10^{5}~{\rm yr}$) could be the origin of TeV-unIDs. These figures show that inverse Compton scattering from runaway CR electrons can be observed in the TeV region, but synchrotron radiation can not produce X-ray photons for old SNRs. The maximum energy of runaway CR electrons decreases with time owing to synchrotron and inverse Compton cooling and the maximum energy is a few TeV at $t=10^5~{\rm yr}$ [see also @yamazaki06; @ioka2010]. Electrons with energies of a few TeV can produce TeV gamma-rays by inverse Compton scattering with optical photons, but can not produce X-ray photons by synchrotron radiation with the magnetic field of $3~{\rm \mu G}$. This is the same reason why pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) are plausible candidates for TeV-unIDs [@dejager08]. Radiation from runaway CR electrons depends on the number of CR electrons, the diffusion coefficient around the SNR, the SNR age, and the source distance. For example, if the value of $\chi$ is larger than 0.1, the flux of inverse Compton scattering from runaway CR electrons around an SNR older than $10^{4}~{\rm yrs}$ with the distance $3~{\rm kpc}$ is smaller than the sensitivity of H.E.S.S., so that the number of currently detected TeV unIDs is not so large. However, even in this case, we expect that future observations by CTA will increase the number.
In addition, we comment on escape of CR electrons from PWNe. @kawanaka11 investigated CR electron spectra from a young pulsar embedded in the SNR, but did not take into account synchrotron cooling while CR electrons cross the SNR shell. If the diffusion escape time from the SNR is longer than the cooling time, @kawanaka11 is not valid. However, CR electrons are not produced at SNR shocks for PWNe. That is, the maximum energy of CR electrons produced in PWNe could be larger than that produced at SNR shocks. In this case, CR electrons produced in PWNe can escape from SNRs as long as the diffusion escape time is smaller than the cooling time. This depends on the evolution of the magnetic field. @kawanaka11 proposed that the low energy cutoff of CR electrons escaping from nearby sources could be observed in the above TeV band. Therefore, @kawanaka11 is complementary to this paper that investigated the high energy cutoff.
Finally, we emphasize that escape of accelerated particles is common in other high energy particle accelerators (e.g. microquasars, gamma ray bursts and active galactic nuclei), so that radiation of runaway accelerated particles from the accelerators can also be expected.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank A. Bamba, E. A. Helder and K. M. Schure for useful discussions and comments. We also thank the referee for valuable comments to improve the paper. This work is supported in part by grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, No. 24$\cdot$8344(Y. O.), No. 21740184 (R. Y.), Nos. 22244019, 22244030 (K. I.), No. 22740131 (N. K.), No. 21684014 (Y. O. and K. I.), No. 19047004 (R. Y. and K. I.), and ERC advanced research grant (N. K.).
[99]{} Abdo, A. A., et al., 2009, ApJ, 706, L1 Abdo, A. A., et al., 2010, Science, 327, 1103 Ackermann, M. et al. 2010, PRD, 82, 092004 Aharonian, F. A., & Atoyan, A., 1996, A&A, 309, 917 Aharonian, F. et al. 2005, Science, 307, 1938 Aharonian, F. et al. 2006a, A&A, 449, 223 Aharonian, F. et al. 2006b, ApJ, 636, 777 Aharonian, F. et al. 2008, A&A, 477, 353 Aharonian, F. A. et al. 2009, A&A, 508, 561 Ahn, H. S. et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L89 Atoyan, A. M., Aharonian, F. A. & V[ö]{}lk, H. J., 1995, PRD, 52, 3265 Axford, W. I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G., 1977, Proc. 15th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Plovdiv, 11, 132 Bell, A. R., 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147 Bell, A. R., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550 Berezhko, E. G., & V[ö]{}lk, H. J., 1997, Astropart. Phys., 7, 183 Berezhko, E. G., & V[ö]{}lk, H. J., 2010, A&A, 511, A34 Berezinskii, V. S., Bulanov, S. V., Dogiel, V. A., Ginzburg, V. L., Ptuskin, V. S., 1990, Astrophysics of Cosmic Rays. North Holland, Amsterdam Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P., 1978, ApJ, 221, L29 Blasi, P., 2002, Astropart. Phys., 16, 429 Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J., 1970, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 237 Bykov, A. M., Osipov, S. M., & Ellison, D. C., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 39 Cao, Z., 2010, Chinese Physics C, 34, 249 Caprioli, D., Blasi, P., & Amato, E., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2065 Caprioli, D., Amato, E., & Blasi, P., 2010, Astropart. Phys., 33, 160 Case & Bhattacharya, 1998, ApJ, 504, 761 CTA consortium, 2010, arXiv:1008.3703 de Jager, O. C., & Djannati-Ataï, A., 2008, in Springer Lecture Notes on Neutron Stars and Pulsars: 40 Years after Their Discovery, eds. W. Becker (arXiV:0803.0116) Drury, L. O’C., 1983, Rep. Prog. Phys., 46, 973 Drury, L. O’C. et al., 1989, A&A, 225, 179 Drury, L. O’C., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1807 Edomn, P. P., Kang, H., Jones, T. W., & Ma, R., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3521 Ellison, D. C., Möbius, E & Paschmann, G. 1990, ApJ, 352, 376 Ellison, D. C., & Bykov, A. M., 2011, ApJ, 731, 87 Fujita, Y., Ohira, Y., Tanaka, S. J., & Takahara, F., 2009, ApJ, 707, L179 Fujita, Y., Ohira, Y., & Takahara, F., 2010, ApJ, 712, L153 Fujita, Y., Takahara, F., Ohira, Y., & Iwasaki, K., 2011, arXiv:1105.0683 Gabici, S., Aharonian, F. A., & Casanova, S. 2009, MNRAS, 369, 1629 Gargaté, L., Fonseca, R. A., Niemiec, J., Pohl, M., Bingham, R., & Silva, L. O., 2010, ApJ, 711, L127 Giacalone, J., & Jokipii, J.R., 2007, ApJ, 663, L41 Giuliani, A. et al., 2010, A&A, 516, L11 Inoue, T., Yamazaki, R. & Inutsuka, S., 2009, ApJ, 695, 825 Ioka, K. & Mészáros, P. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1337 Kamae, T., Karlsson, N., Mizuno, T., Abe, T., & Koi, T., 2006, ApJ, 647, 692 Kang, H., Jones. T. W., & Gieseler, U. D. J., 2002, ApJ, 579, 337 Karlsson, N., & Kamae, T., 2008, ApJ, 674, 278 Katz, B., & Waxmann, E., 2008, JCAP, JCAP01(2008)018 Kawanaka, N., Ioka, K., Ohira, Y., & Kashiyama, K., 2011, ApJ, 729, 93 Kobayashi, T., Komori, Y., Yoshida, K. & Nishimura, J., 2004, ApJ, 601, 340 Koyama, K., Petre, R., Gotthelf, E. V., Hwang, U., Matsuura, M., Ozaki, M., & Holt, S. S., 1995, Nature, 378, 225 Krymsky, G. F., 1977, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 234, 1306 Kounine, A., 2010, arXiv:1009.5349 Li, H., & Chen, Y.,2010, MNRAS, 409, L35 Li, H., & Chen, Y.,2011, arXiv:1108.4541 Lucek, S. G. & Bell, A. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 65 Muraishi, H. et al., 2000, A&A, 354, L57 Niemiec, J., Polh, M., & Nishikawa, K., 2008, ApJ, 684, 1174 Ohira, Y., Reville, B., Kirk, J. G., & Takahara, F., 2009a, ApJ, 698, 445 Ohira, Y., Terasawa, T., & Takahara, F., 2009b, ApJ, 703, L59 Ohira, Y., & Takahara, F., 2010, ApJ, 721, L43 Ohira, Y., Murase, K., & Yamazaki, R., 2010, A&A, 513, A17 Ohira, Y., & Ioka, K., 2011, ApJ, 729, L13 Ohira, Y., Murase, K. & Yamazaki, R., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1577 Ohira, Y., Kohri, K., & Kawanaka, N., 2012, MNRAS, 421, L102 Petruk, O., 2005, J. Phys. Studies, 9, 364 Porter, T. R., Moskalenko, I. V., Strong, A. W., Orlando, E., & Bouchet, L, 2008, ApJ, 682, 400 Ptuskin, V. S., & Zirakashvili, V. N., 2003, A&A, 403, 1 Ptuskin, V. S., & Zirakashvili, V. N., 2005, A&A, 429, 755 Reville, B., Kirk, J. G., Duffy, P. & O’Sullivan, S., 2007, A&A, 475, 435 Reville, B., O’Sullivan, S., Duffy, P., & Kirk, J. G., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 509 Reville, B., Kirk, J. G., & Duffy, D., 2009, ApJ, 694, 951 Riquelme, M. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2009, ApJ, 694, 626 Schure, K. M., Achterberg, A., Keppens. R., & Vink, J., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2633 Schure, K. M., & Bell, A. R., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 782 Tavani, M. et al., 2010, ApJ, 710, L151 Thoudam, S., & H[ö]{}randel, J. R., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 624 Torres, D. F., Rodríguez Marrero, A. Y., & de Cea Del Pozo, E. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1257 Torii, S. et al., 2008, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 120, 062020 Tridon, D. B., Colin, P., Doro, M., Scalzotto, V., on behalf of the MAGIC collaboration, 2011, arXiv:1110.4008 Truelove, J. K., & McKee, C. F., 1999, ApJS, 120, 299 Vladimirov, A. E., Bykov, A. M., & Ellison, D. C. 2009, ApJ, 703, L29 Vink, J., 2008, in AIP Conf. Ser. 1085, High Energy Gamma-ray Astronomy, ed. F. A. Aharonian, W. Hofmann, & F. Rieger (Melville, NY: AIP), 169 V[ö]{}lk, H. J., Berezhko, E. G., & Ksenofontov, L. T., 2004, A&A, 433, 229 Yamazaki, R. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1975 Yan, H., Lazarian, A., & Schlickeiser, R. 2012, ApJ, 745, 140 Zirakashvili, V. N., & Aharonian, F., 2010, ApJ, 708, 965
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We apply the asymptotic iteration method (AIM) to obtain the solutions of Schrödinger equation in the presence of Pöschl-Teller (PT) potential. We also obtain the solutions of Dirac equation for the same potential under the condition of spin and pseudospin (p-spin) symmetries. We show that in the nonrelativistic limits, the solution of Dirac system converges to that of Schrödinger system. Rotational-Vibrational energy eigenvalues of some diatomic molecules are calculated. Some special cases of interest are studied such as $S$-wave case, reflectionless-type potential and symmetric hyperbolic PT potential. Furthermore, we present a high temperature partition function in order to study the behavior of the thermodynamic functions such as the vibrational mean energy $U$, specific heat $C$, free energy $F$ and entropy $S$.'
---
=0.26in
****
Approximate Analytical Solutions to Relativistic and Nonrelativistic Pöschl-Teller Potential with its Thermodynamic Properties
[^1]\
[*Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Near East University,\
922022 Nicosia, Northern Cyprus, Turkey.*]{}\
and\
[^2]\
[^3]\
[**Keywords**]{}: Dirac equation; Schrödinger equation; Pöschl-Teller potential; AIM method;
thermodynamic property
Introduction
============
The exact solutions of various quantum potential models have attracted much attention from many authors since they contain all necessary information to study quantum models. As well-known, there are several traditional techniques used to solve Schrödinger-like differential equation with various quantum potentials [@SM1; @HA3; @ER1; @ER2; @ER3; @ER4]. Few of these mothods include the asymptotic iteration method (AIM) [@BJ1; @BJ2], the Nikiforov-Uvarov (NU) method [@SM2; @HA2; @SM3; @HA4]. The algebraic techniques are related to the inspection of the Hamiltonian of quantum system as in the supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSYQM) [@SM4; @HA1; @HA6] and closely to the factorization method [@SM5; @SM6]. Other methods are based on the proper and exact quantization rule [@SM7; @SM8; @SM9; @SM10] and the SWKB method [@SM11]. Except for the previous methods, quasilinearization method (QLM) is dealing with physical potentials numerically [@SM12; @SM13].
In the present work, we investigate the Schrödinger equation and Dirac equation for the PT potential within the framework of AIM [@BJ1; @BJ2]. This potential has been investigated by some authors under different wave equations of quantum mechanics which include the Klein-Gordon, the Dirac and the Schrödinger equations for the vibrational $\ell=0$ and rotational $\ell\ne0$ states [@KG2; @KG3; @KG4; @KG5; @KG6; @KG7; @KG7B; @KG8; @KG9; @DT1; @DT2]. The priority purpose for studying this potential is due fact that it has been used to accounted for the physics of many systems which includes the excitons, quantum wires and quantum dots [@QD1; @QD2; @QD3; @QD4; @QD5; @QD6; @QD7]. For certain ranges of parameters it behaves like the Kratzer potential.
In recent years, an asymptotic iteration method for solving second order homogeneous linear differential equations has been proposed [@BJ1; @BJ2]. This method is a powerful tool in finding the eigensolutions (energy eigenvalues and wave functions) of all solvable quantum potential models [@BJ1; @BJ2]. This method has been so far applied to solve both the relativistic the non-relativistic quantum mechanical problems [@FA1; @FA1b; @FA1c; @FA1d; @FA2; @FA3]. The purpose of this work is to apply AIM to obtain approximate energy levels and wave functions of the PT potential in the framework Schrödinger equation and Dirac equation with the spin and p-spin symmetries by considering an appropriate approximation to the centrifugal (pseudo centrifugal) kinetic energy term and study its thermal properties including vibrational mean energy $U$, specific heat $C$, free energy $F$ and entropy $S$ as given in Ref. [@SM14]. Further, the nonrelativistic limit is obtained and some special cases of this potential are investigated.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we briefly outline the methodology. In Section 3, we present the bound state solutions of the Schrödinger equation with the PT potential. Furthermore, we consider the solution of the PT potential in the framework of the Dirac equation under the spin and p-spin symmetries. The nonrelativistic limit is also obtained. Section 4 presents eigensolutions for some special cases. The thermodynamic properties of the Schrödinger equation with PT potential are investigated in section 5. Section 6 is devoted for our numerical results and discussions. Finally we give our conclusion in Section 7.
Method of Analysis
==================
One of the calculational tools utilized in solving the Schr$\ddot{o}$dinger-like equation including the centrifugal barrier and/or the spin-orbit coupling term is the so called asymptotic iteration method (AIM). For a given potential the idea is to convert the Schr$\ddot{o}$dinger-like equation to the homogenous linear second-order differential equation whose solution is a special function and having the form [@BJ1]: $$y''(x)=\lambda_o(x)y'(x)+s_o(x)y(x),
\label{E1}$$ where $\lambda_o(x)$ and $s_o(x)$ have sufficiently many continous derivatives and defined in some interval which are not necessarily bounded. The differential equation (\[E1\]) has a general solution [@BJ1; @BJ2] $$y(x)=\exp\left(-\int^x\alpha(x')dx'\right)\left[C_2+C_1\int^x\exp\left(\int^{x'}\left[\lambda_o(x'')+2\alpha(x'')\right]dx''\right)dx'\right].
\label{E2}$$ If $k>0$, for sufficiently large $k$, we obtain the $\alpha(x)$ $$\frac{s_k(x)}{\lambda_k(x)}=\frac{s_{k-1}(x)}{\lambda_{k-1}(x)}=\alpha(x) \ ,\ \ k=1, 2, 3.....
\label{E3}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_k(x)&=&\lambda'_{k-1}(x)+s_{k-1}(x)+\lambda_o(x)\lambda_{k-1}(x),\nonumber\\
s_k(x)&=&s'_{k-1}(x)+s_o(x)\lambda_{k-1}(x) \ ,\ \ k=1, 2, 3.....
\label{E4}\end{aligned}$$ The energy eigenvalues are obtained from the quantization condition of the method together with equation (\[E4\]) and can be written as follows: $$\delta_k(x)=\lambda_k(x)s_{k-1}(x)-\lambda_{k-1}(x)s_{k}(x)=0,\ \ \ k=1, 2, 3....
\label{E5}$$ The energy eigenvalues are then obtained from (\[E5\]), if the problem is exactly solvable. If not, for a specific $n$ principal quantum number, we choose a suitable $x_0$ point, determined generally as the maximum value of the asymptotic wave function or the minimum value of the potential and the aproximate energy eigenvalues are obtained from the roots of this equation for sufficiently large values of $k$ with iteration.
Bound State Solutions
=====================
Schrödinger equation for PT potential
-------------------------------------
The PT potential we shall study is defined as [@DT1; @PT2; @PT3; @CS1; @SI4] $$V(r)=\frac{A}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)}+\frac{B}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}, \ \ \ 0<\alpha r<\frac{\pi}{2}
\label{E6}$$ where $A$, $B$ and $\alpha$ are constant coefficients. If we insert this potential into the Schrödinger equation, the radial part of the Schrödinger equation takes the following form: $$\frac{d^2R_{n\ell}(r)}{dr^2}+\left[\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}E_{n\ell}-\frac{\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}A}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)}-\frac{\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}B}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}-\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2}\right]R_{n\ell}(r)=0,
\label{E7}$$ where $n$ and $\ell$ denote the radial and orbital angular momentum quantum numbers, respectively, and $E_{n\ell}$ denote the bound-state energy eigenvalues. It is clear that the above equation cannot be exactly solved for $\ell\neq0$ because of the centrifugal barrier. To obtain the exact bound-state solution, we have to include some approximation to deal with the centrifugal term. It is found that the following [@KG7; @DT2] $$\frac{1}{r^2}\approx\alpha^2\left[4d_0+\frac{1}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}\right],
\label{E8}$$ where $d_0=1/12$, is a good approximation to the centrifugal term in short potential range. Now, if we replace the $1/r^2$ with equation (\[E8\]) and further defining the following notations $$A_1=\frac{2\mu A}{\hbar^2},\ \ \ \ \ B_1=\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}B+\ell(\ell+1)\alpha^2,\ \ \ \ \ K_1=\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}E_{n\ell}-4\ell(\ell+1)\alpha^2d_0,
\label{E9}$$ equation (\[E7\]) can be easily transformed into $$\frac{d^2R_{n\ell}(r)}{dr^2}+\left[K_1-\frac{A_1}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)}-\frac{B_1}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}\right]R_{n\ell}(r)=0.
\label{E10}$$ In order to solve with the AIM, equation (\[E10\]) must be transformed into form of equation (\[E1\]). The reasonable wave function we propose is as follows $$R_{n\ell}(r)=\cosh^\gamma(\alpha r)\sinh^\beta (\alpha r)F_{n\ell}(r),
\label{E11}$$ where $\gamma=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{4A_1}{\alpha^2}}\right)$ and $\beta=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\sqrt{1+\frac{4B_1}{\alpha^2}}\right)$. On putting this wave function into equation (\[E10\]), we then arrive at the following second-order homogeneous linear differential equation of the form $$F_{n\ell}''(r)+2\alpha\left[\frac{\gamma\sinh(\alpha r)}{\cosh(\alpha r)}+\frac{\beta\cosh(\alpha r)}{\sinh(\alpha r)}\right]F_{n\ell}'(r)+K_2F_{n\ell}(r)=0,
\label{E12}$$ where we have introduced a new parameter $K_2=K_1+\alpha^2(\beta+\gamma)^2$ for the sake of simplicity. Now, before we apply the AIM, let us introduce a new variable of the form $z=\sinh(\alpha r)$ in order to avoid the cumbersome calculations. Therefore, equation (\[E12\]) can be re-written as $$F_{n\ell}''(z)+\left[\frac{(2\gamma+1)z^2+2\beta(z^2+1)}{z(z^2+1)}\right]F'(z)+\frac{K_2}{\alpha^2(1+z^2)}F(z)=0
\label{E13}$$ By making a comparism between equations (\[E1\]) and (\[E13\]), we can write $\lambda_0(z)$ and $s_0(z)$ values and be using equation (\[E4\]), we can calculate $\lambda_k(z)$ and $s_k(z)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_0(z)&=&\frac{(2\gamma+1)z^2+2\beta(z^2+1)}{z(z^2+1)},\nonumber\\ s_0(z)&=&\frac{K_2}{\alpha^2(1+z^2)},\nonumber\\
\lambda_1(z)&=&2z^2\frac{2\gamma+1}{(z^2+1)^2}+2\frac{\beta}{z^2}-\frac{2\gamma+1}{z^2+1}-\frac{K_2}{\alpha^2(z^2+1)}+\left(z\frac{2\gamma+1}{z^2+1}+2\frac{\beta}{z}\right)^2,\nonumber\\
s_1(z)&=&K_2\frac{(3+2\beta+2\gamma)z^2+2\beta}{\alpha^2z(1+z^2)},\nonumber\\
\ldots etc.
\label{E14}\end{aligned}$$ By using the quantization condition given by equation (\[E5\]), we can establish the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1&=&0\ \ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \ K_2=0,\nonumber\\
\delta_2&=&0\ \ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \ K_2=-4\alpha^2(\gamma+\beta+1),\nonumber\\
\delta_3&=&0\ \ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \ K_2=-4\alpha^2(\gamma+\beta+2),\nonumber\\
\delta_4&=&0\ \ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \ K_2=-4\alpha^2(\gamma+\beta+3),\nonumber\\
\ldots etc.
\label{E15}\end{aligned}$$ We generalize the above expression by induction and substituting for $K_2$, the eigenvalues becomes $$K_1+\alpha^2(\gamma+\beta+2n)^2=0,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ n=0, 1, 2,\ldots.
\label{E16}$$ By using the notations in equation (\[E9\]), we obtain a more explicit expression for the energy eigenvalue equation as: $$E_{n\ell}=\frac{2\alpha^2\hbar^2}{\mu}\left[\ell(\ell+1)d_0-\left(n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-\frac{8\mu A}{\alpha^2\hbar^2}}-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{(2\ell+1)^2+\frac{8\mu B}{\alpha^2\hbar^2}}\right)^2\right].
\label{E17}$$ Now, let us study the eigenfunction of the system. To perform this task, the differential equation we wish to solve should be transformed to the form [@BJ2]: $$y^{\prime \prime }(x)=2\left( \frac{\Lambda x^{N+1}}{1-bx^{N+2}}-\frac{m+1}{x}\right) y^{\prime }(x)-\frac{Wx^{N}}{1-bx^{N+2}},
\label{E18}$$ where $\Lambda$, $b$ and $m$ are constants. The general solution of equation (\[E18\]) can be found as [[@BJ2]]{} $$y_{n}(x)=(-1)^{n}C_{2}(N+2)^{n}(\sigma )_{_{n}}{_{2}F_{1}(-n,t+n;\sigma;bx^{N+2})},
\label{E19}$$ where the following parameters have been used $$(\sigma )_{_{n}}=\frac{\Gamma {(\sigma +n)}}{\Gamma {(\sigma )}}\ \ ,\ \
\sigma =\frac{2m+N+3}{N+2}\ \ and\ \ \ t=\frac{(2m+1)b+2\Lambda }{(N+2)b}.
\label{E20}$$ By comparing equations (\[E19\]) with (\[E13\]), we can easily determine the parameters $\Lambda$, $b$, $N$, $m$ and $\sigma$. Consequently, the radial eigenfunction for the Schrödinger equation with the PT potential can be found as $$R_{n\ell}(r)=2^n(-1)^nC_2\cosh^\gamma(\alpha r)\sinh^\beta(\alpha r)\frac{(\beta+n)!}{\beta!}\ {_2F_1}\left(-n,\beta+\gamma+n;\beta+1;-\sinh(\alpha r)\right),
\label{E21}$$ where $C_2$ is the normalization factor.
Dirac equation for the PT potential
-----------------------------------
Using Dirac wave equation and Dirac spinor wave functions, the two-coupled second-order ordinary differential equations for the upper and lower components of the Dirac wave function can be obtained as [[@DT1; @DT2; @SI1; @SI2; @SI3; @SI4]]{} $$\left(\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)F_{n\kappa}(r)=\left[M+E_{{n\kappa}}-\Delta(r)\right]G_{n\kappa}(r),
\label{E22}$$ $$\left(\frac{d}{dr}-\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)G_{n\kappa}(r)=\left[M-E_{{n\kappa}}+\Sigma(r)\right]F_{n\kappa}(r).
\label{E23}$$ where $\Delta(r)=V(r)-S(r)$ and $\Sigma(r)=V(r)+S(r)$. On solving equation (\[E22\]), we obtain the following Schrödiger-like differential equation with coupling to the $r^{-2}$ singular term and satisfying $F_{n\kappa}(r)$: $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}+\frac{\frac{d\Delta(r)}{dr}\left(\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)}{M+E_{n\kappa}-\Delta(r)}
-\left(M+E_{n\kappa}-\Delta(r)\right)\left(M-E_{n\kappa}+\Sigma(r)\right)\right]F_{n\kappa}(r)=0,
\label{E24}$$ where $E_{n\kappa}\neq-M$ when $\Delta(r)=0$ and $\kappa(\kappa+1)=\ell(\ell+1)$. Since $E_{n\kappa}=+M$ is an element of the positive energy spectrum of the Dirac Hamiltonian, this relation with upper spinor component is not valid for the negative energy spectum solution. Furthermore, a similar equation satisfying $G_{n\kappa}(r)$ can be obtained as: $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa-1)}{r^2}+\frac{\frac{d\Sigma(r)}{dr}\left(\frac{d}{dr}-\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)}{M-E_{n\kappa}+\Sigma(r)}
-\left(M+E_{n\kappa}-\Delta(r)\right)\left(M-E_{n\kappa}+\Sigma(r)\right)\right]G_{n\kappa}(r)=0,
\label{E25}$$ where $E_{n\kappa}\neq+M$ when $\Sigma(r)=0$ and $\kappa(\kappa-1)=\tilde{\ell}(\tilde{\ell}+1)$. Since $E_{n\kappa}=-M$ is an element of the negative energy spectrum of the Dirac Hamiltonian, this relation with the lower spinor component is not valid for the positive energy spectrum solution. In the next subsections, we shall study the PT potential within the framework the Dirac theory in the presence of spin and p-spin symmetries.
### Bound states in pseudospin symmetry limit
Under the condition of the p-spin symmetry, i.e. ,$\frac{d\Sigma(r)}{dr}=0$, equation (\[E25\]) turns to $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa-1)}{r^2}-\left(M+E_{n\kappa}-\Delta(r)\right)\left(M-E_{n\kappa}+C_{ps}\right)\right]G_{n\kappa}(r)=0.
\label{E26}$$ Now taking $\Delta(r)$ as the PT potential, using approximation expression (\[E8\]), defining the following parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A_3}&=&\left(E_{n\kappa}-M-C_{ps}\right)\frac{A}{\alpha^2}, \ \tilde{B_3}=\left(E_{n\kappa}-M-C_{ps}\right)\frac{B}{\alpha^2}+\kappa(\kappa-1),\nonumber\\ \tilde{K_3}&=&4\kappa(\kappa-1)d_0+\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\left(M-E_{n\kappa}+C_{ps}\right)\left(M+E_{n\kappa}\right),
\label{E27}\end{aligned}$$ and introducing a new transformation of the form $z=\cosh^2(\alpha r)$, equation (\[E26\]) can be transformed easily to $$G_{n\kappa}''(z)+\left[\frac{1-2z}{2z(1-z)}\right]G_{n\kappa}'(z)+\frac{1}{4z(1-z)}\left[\frac{\tilde{A_3}}{z}-\frac{\tilde{B_3}}{1-z}+\tilde{K_3}\right]G_{n\kappa}(z)=0.
\label{E28}$$ In order to solve this equation with AIM, the wave function sitisfies the boundary conditions is being proposed as $$G_{n\kappa}(z)=(1-z)^{\tilde{\gamma_2}} z^{\tilde{\beta_2}}g_{n\kappa}(z),
\label{E29}$$ where $\tilde{\gamma_2}=\frac{1}{4}\left(1-\sqrt{1+4\tilde{B_3}}\right)$ and $\tilde{\beta_2}=\frac{1}{4}\left(1-\sqrt{1-4\tilde{A_3}}\right)$. Inserting this wave function into equation (\[E28\]), leads us to write $$g_{n\kappa}''(z)+2\left(\frac{\tilde{\beta_2}+\frac{1}{4}}{z(1-z)}-\frac{\tilde{\beta_2}+\tilde{\gamma_2}+\frac{1}{2}}{1-z}\right)g_{n\kappa}'(z)+\left(\frac{\tilde{K_3}-4(\tilde{\beta_2}+\gamma_1)^2}{4z(1-z)}\right)g_{n\kappa}(z)=0.
\label{E30}$$ Following same procedures as in the previous section, we can use equation (\[E30\]) to calculate the $\lambda_k(z)$ and $s_k(z)$ then combine the result with the quantization condition given by equation (\[E5\]). This yields $$\begin{aligned}
s_0\lambda_1-s_1\lambda_0&=&0\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \tilde{A_3}=4(\tilde{\gamma_2}+\tilde{\beta_2})^2\nonumber\\
s_1\lambda_2-s_2\lambda_1&=&0\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \tilde{A_3}=4(\tilde{\gamma_2}+\tilde{\beta_2}+1)^2\nonumber\\
s_2\lambda_3-s_3\lambda_2&=&0\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \tilde{A_3}=4(\tilde{\gamma_2}+\tilde{\beta_2}+2)^2\nonumber\\
\ldots etc.
\label{E31}\end{aligned}$$ By generalizing the above expression and using the notations in equation (\[E27\]), the relativistic energy spectrum becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&4\alpha^2\left[d_0\kappa(\kappa-1)-\left[n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+\frac{4A}{\alpha^2}\left(M-E+C_{ps}\right)}-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{(2\kappa-1)^2-\frac{4B}{\alpha^2}\left(M-E_{n\kappa}+C_{ps}\right)}\right]^2\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\left(M+E_{n\kappa}\right)\left(M-E_{n\kappa}+C_{ps}\right)=0,
\label{E32}\end{aligned}$$ which is identical to Ref. [@DT2] if $B \rightarrow \alpha ^{2} B(B-\alpha)/(2M)$ and $A \rightarrow -\alpha ^{2} A(A+\alpha)/(2M)$. Let us now turn to the calculations of the corresponding wave functions for this system. Thus using the procedure described by equation (\[E18\])-(\[E20\]), the wave functions can be easily found as $$G_{n\kappa}(r)=\tilde{N}_{n\kappa}\frac{\Gamma\left(2\tilde{\beta_2}+n+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(2\tilde{\beta_2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}\cosh^{2\tilde{\beta_2}}(\alpha r)\sinh^{2\tilde{\gamma_2}}(\alpha r) \ _2F_1\left(-n,2(\tilde{\beta_2}+\tilde{\gamma_2})+n;2\tilde{\beta_2}+\frac{1}{2};\sinh^2(\alpha r)\right),
\label{E33}$$ where $\tilde{N}_{n\kappa}$ is the normalization constant.
### Bound states in spin symmetry liimit
Under the condition of the spin symmetry, i.e. ,$\frac{d\Delta(r)}{dr}=0$, equation (\[E24\]) reduces to $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}-\left(M-E_{n\kappa}+\Sigma(r)\right)\left(M+E_{n\kappa}-C_{s}\right)\right]F_{n\kappa}(r)=0.
\label{E34}$$ Now taking the sum potential as the PT potential along with the approximation expression given by equation (\[E8\]) and then introducing a new parameter of the form $z(r)=\sinh(\alpha r)$, the equation (\[E26\]) can be easily decomposed into a Schrödinger-like equation in the spherical coordinates for the upper-spinor component $F_{n\kappa}(r)$, $$F_{n\kappa}''(z)+\left[\frac{1-2z}{2z(1-z)}\right]F_{n\kappa}'(z)+\frac{1}{4z(1-z)}\left[\frac{A_3}{z}-\frac{B_3}{1-z}+K_3\right]F_{n\kappa}(z)=0,
\label{E35}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_3&=&\left(E_{n\kappa}+M-C_{s}\right)\frac{A}{\alpha^2}, \ B_3=\left(E_{n\kappa}+M-C_{s}\right)\frac{B}{\alpha^2}+\kappa(\kappa+1),\nonumber\\ K_3&=&4\kappa(\kappa+1)+\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\left(M+E_{n\kappa}-C_{s}\right)\left(M-E_{n\kappa}\right),
\label{E36}\end{aligned}$$ In order to avoid repetition of algebral, a first inspection for the relationship between the present set of parameters ($A_3$, $B_3$, $K_3$) and the previous set ($\tilde{A_3}$, $\tilde{B_3}$, $\tilde{K_3}$) enable us to know that the positive solution for the above equation (\[E35\]), can be easily obtain by using the parameter parameter map [@BJ3; @BJ4] $$\begin{aligned}
G_{n\kappa}\leftrightarrow F_{n\kappa},\ \ \ V(r)\rightarrow-V(r),\ \ \ E_{n\kappa}\rightarrow-E_{n\kappa},\ \ \ \kappa \rightarrow \kappa+1 \ \ \ and \ \ \ C_{ps}\rightarrow-C_{s}.
\label{E37}\end{aligned}$$ Using the above transformations and following the previous results, we obtain the relativistic energy spectrum as $$\begin{aligned}
&&4\alpha^2\left[d_0\kappa(\kappa+1)-\left[n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\sqrt{1-4A\frac{M+E-C_{s}}{\alpha^2}}-\sqrt{(2\kappa+1)^2+\frac{4B}{\alpha^2}\left(M+E_{n\kappa}-C_{s}\right)}\right)\right]^2\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\left(M-E_{n\kappa}\right)\left(M+E_{n\kappa}-C_{s}\right)=0,
\label{E38}\end{aligned}$$ which is identical to Ref. [@DT2] if $B \rightarrow \alpha ^{2} B(B-\alpha)/(2M)$ and $A \rightarrow -\alpha ^{2} A(A+\alpha)/(2M)$, and the corresponding wave functions as $$F_{n\kappa}(r)={N_{n\kappa}}\frac{\Gamma\left(2{\beta_2}+n+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(2{\beta_2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}\cosh^{2{\beta_2}}(\alpha r)\sinh^{2{\gamma_2}}(\alpha r) \ _2F_1\left(-n,2({\beta_2}+{\gamma_2})+n;2{\beta_2}+\frac{1}{2};\sinh^2(\alpha r)\right),
\label{E39}$$ where $N_{n\kappa}$ is the normalization constant.
Some special cases of the PT potential
======================================
In this section, we shall study four special cases of the energy eigenvalues (\[E32\]) and (\[E38\]) for the p-spin and spin symmetry, respectively.
S-wave case
-----------
By considering the case $\tilde{\ell}=0$ $(\kappa=1)$ and $\ell=0$ $(\kappa=-1)$, the relativistic energy spectra for the exact p-spin ($C_{ps}=0$) and exact spin symmetry ($C_{s}=0$) become $$\begin{aligned}
M^2-E^2_{n,+1}=4\alpha^2\left[n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+\frac{4A}{\alpha^2}\left(M-E_{n,+1}\right)}-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-\frac{4B}{\alpha^2}\left(M-E_{n,+1}\right)}\right]^2,
\label{E40}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
M^2-E^2_{n,-1}=4\alpha^2\left[n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-\frac{4A}{\alpha^2}\left(M+E_{n,-1}\right)}-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+\frac{4B}{\alpha^2}\left(M+E_{n,-1}\right)}\right]^2,
\label{E41}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Equation (\[E41\]) is the same as the energy equation obtained by equation (22) of Ref. [@PT2] and (35) of Ref. [@PT3] by taking $A\rightarrow -2A(A+\alpha)$, $B\rightarrow 2B(B-\alpha)$.
Reflectionless-type potential
-----------------------------
Choosing $B=0$, $A=-\eta(\eta+1)/2$ in potential (\[E1\]) then it becomes the reflectionless-type potential [@BJ5; @BJ6] $$V(r)=-\frac{\eta(\eta+1)}{2\cosh^2(\alpha r)},
\label{E42}$$ where $\eta$ is an integer. The eigenvalue equation for exact p-spin and spin symmetry become $$\begin{aligned}
M^2-E^2_{n,+1}=4\alpha^2\left[n+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-\frac{2\eta(\eta+1)}{\alpha^2}\left(M-E_{n,+1}\right)}\right]^2,
\label{E43}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
M^2-E^2_{n,-1}=4\alpha^2\left[n+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+\frac{2\eta(\eta+1)}{\alpha^2}\left(M+E_{n,-1}\right)}\right]^2,
\label{E44}\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
Symmetric hyperbolic modified PT potential
------------------------------------------
On puting $\alpha=1$, $B=0$, and $A=\frac{1}{4}-\eta^2$ in the potential equation (\[E1\]), we have [@BJ5; @BJ6] $$V(r)=\frac{\frac{1}{4}-\eta^2}{\cosh^2(r)},
\label{E45}$$ with the relativistic energy equation $$\begin{aligned}
M^2-E^2_{n,+1}=4\left[n+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+(1-4\eta^2)\left(M-E_{n,+1}\right)}\right]^2,
\label{E46}\end{aligned}$$ and $$M^2-E^2_{n,-1}=4\left[n+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-(1-4\eta^2)\left(M+E_{n,-1}\right)}\right]^2,
\label{E47}$$ for p-spin and spin symmetries, respectively.
The non-relativistic limit
--------------------------
As it can be seen the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation is bosonic in nature, i.e., spin does not involve in it. On the other hand, relativistic Dirac equation is for a spin$-1/2$ particles. It implicitly suggests that there may be a certain relationship between the solutions of the two fundamental equations [@BJ7]. de Souza Dutra et al [@BJ7] also noted that there is possibility of obtaining approximate nonrelativistic (NR) solutions from relativistic (R) ones. Very recently, H. Sun [@BJ7] proposed a little bit crude but meaningful approach for deriving the bound state solutions of NR Schrödinger equation (SE) from the bound state of R equations. The essence of the approach was that, in NR limit, the SE may be derived from the R one when the energies of the two potential $S(r)$ and $V(r)$ are small compared to the rest mass $mc^2$, then the NR energy approximated as $E^{NR}\rightarrow E-mc^2$ and NR wave function is the $\psi^{NR} (r)\rightarrow\psi(r)$. That is, its NR energies, $E^{NR}$ can be determined by taking the NR limit values of the R eigenenergies $E$. Therefore, taking $C_s=0$, and using the following transformations $M+E_{n\kappa}\rightarrow 2\mu$ and $M-E_{n\kappa}\rightarrow-E_{n\ell}$ together with $\kappa \rightarrow \ell$ [@BJ7], the relativistic energy equation (\[E38\]) reduces to $$E_{n\ell}=\frac{2\alpha^2}{\mu}\left[\ell(\ell+1)d_0-\left(n+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-\frac{8\mu A}{\alpha^2}}-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{(2\ell+1)^2+\frac{8\mu B}{\alpha^2}}\right)^2\right],
\label{E48}$$ where $\hbar=1$. Let us remark that the non-relativistic solution is identical with the one we obatained for Schrödinger case in equation (\[E17\]). Similarly, we find the non-relativistic of equations (\[E44\]) and (\[E47\]) as $$E_{n}=-\frac{2\alpha^2}{\mu}\left[n+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+4\mu\eta\frac{(\eta+1)}{\alpha^2}}\right]^2,
\label{E49}$$ and $$E_{n}=-\frac{2}{\mu}\left[n+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-2\mu\left(1-4\eta^2\right)}\right]^2,
\label{E50}$$ for reflectionless-type and symmetric hyperbolic modified PT potential, respectively. It should be noted that equations (\[E49\]) and (\[E50\]) can be obtained as special cases of equation (\[E17\]).
Thermodynamic properties of the Schrödinger-PT problem
======================================================
In this section, we study the thermodynamic properties of the PT potential model. The eigenvalues $E_{n\ell}$ of this system that we obtained by equation (\[E17\]) can be re-written as $$E_{n\ell}=\frac{2\alpha^2\hbar^2}{\mu}\left[\ell(\ell+1)d_0-\left[n-\zeta\right]^2\right], \ \ \ \ n=0, 1, 2, ......<n_{max}=[\zeta],
\label{E51}$$ where we have introduced $\zeta=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1+\frac{8\mu B}{\alpha^2\hbar^2}}-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1-\frac{8\mu A}{\alpha^2\hbar^2}}-\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)d_0}$ for mathematical simplicity and $[\zeta]$ means the largest integer inferior to $\zeta$. Secondly, we obtain the vibrational partition function calculated by $$Z(\beta,\zeta)=\sum^\zeta_{n=0}e^{-\beta E_{n\ell}}\ , \ \ \ \beta=\frac{1}{kT},
\label{E52}$$ where $k$ is the Boltzman constant. Now, the substitution of equation (\[E51\]) into equation (\[E52\]) yields: $$Z(\beta,\zeta)=e^{-\frac{2\alpha^2\hbar^2}{\mu}\ell(\ell+1)\beta d_0}\sum^\zeta_{n=0}e^{\left(\frac{n-\zeta}{\gamma}\right)^2}, \ \ \ \gamma=\frac{\tau}{\sqrt \beta}, \ \ \tau=\frac{1}{\alpha\hbar} \sqrt \frac{\mu}{2},
\label{E53a}$$ Since $e^{-\frac{2\alpha^2\hbar^2}{\mu}\ell(\ell+1)\beta d_0}\approx 1$, the partition function $Z$ can therefore be witten as $$Z(\beta,\zeta)=\sum^\zeta_{n=0}e^{\left(\frac{n-\zeta}{\gamma}\right)^2}.
\label{E53b}$$ In the classical limit, at high temperature $T$ for large $\zeta$ and small $\beta$, the sum can be replaced by the following integral $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\beta,\zeta)&=&\gamma \int^{\frac{\zeta}{\gamma}}_{0}e^{y^2}dy=\frac{ \sqrt{\pi} \tau \mbox{Erfi} \left(\frac{\zeta}{\tau} \sqrt{\beta} \right)}{2 \sqrt{\beta}}, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ y=\frac{\left(n-\zeta\right)}{\gamma},
\label{E54}\end{aligned}$$ Having determined the vibrational partition function, we can easily obtain the thermodynamic properties for the system as follows:
1. The vibrational mean energy $U$ $$\begin{aligned}
U(\beta,\zeta)&=&-\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}1nZ(\beta,\zeta)=\frac{1}{2\beta}\left[1-\frac{\chi}{\mbox{DawsonF}(\chi)}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{2\chi}{\sqrt{\pi}\mbox{Erfi}(\chi)}\left[\frac{e^{\chi^2}}{2\beta}-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\mbox{Erfi}(\chi)}{4\beta\chi}\right],\ \ \ \ \chi=\chi(\beta, \zeta)=\frac{\zeta}{\tau}\sqrt{\beta},
\label{E55}\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $U(\beta, \zeta)=-\zeta^2/(3\tau^2)$ when $\beta<<1$.
2. The vibrational specific heat $C$ $$\begin{aligned}
C(\beta,\zeta)&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial T}U(\beta, \zeta)=-k\beta^2\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}U(\beta, \zeta)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}k\left[1-\frac{\chi\left[2\chi e^{\chi^2}+\sqrt{\pi}\left(1-2\chi^2\right)\mbox{Erfi}(\chi)\right]}{4e^{\chi^2}\mbox{DawsonF}(\chi)^2}\right]
\label{E56}\end{aligned}$$ which yields $C(\beta, \zeta)=0$ when $\beta<<1$.
3. The vibrational mean free energy $F$. It can be calculated as $$F(\beta,\zeta)=-kT\ln Z(\beta,\zeta)=-\frac{1}{\beta}\ln\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi} \tau \mbox{Erfi}\left(\chi\right)}{2 \sqrt{\beta}}\right)
\label{E57}$$
4. The vibrational entropy $S$ $$\begin{aligned}
S(\beta,\zeta)&=&k1nZ(\beta,\zeta)+kT\frac{\partial}{\partial T}1nZ_{vib}(\beta,\zeta)\nonumber\\
&=&k1nZ(\beta,\zeta)-k\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial \beta}1nZ(\beta,\zeta)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}k\left[1-\frac{\chi}{\mbox{DawsonF}(\zeta)}+2\log\left(\frac{\tau\mbox{Erfi}(\chi)}{\sqrt{\beta}}\right)+\log\left(\frac{\pi}{4}\right)\right].
\label{E58}\end{aligned}$$
Here, in this section, we have obtained the thermodynamics properties in terms of two mathemathecal functions namely: the Dawson function and the imaginary error function. In mathematics, the Dawson function or Dawson integral (named for John M. Dawson) can be denoted as [@NEW1] $$F(x)=e^{-x^2}\int_0^x e^{y^2}dy=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}e^{-x^2}erfi(x).$$ Thus the Dawson’s integral is implemented in Mathematica as $DawsonF[x]$. On the other hand, the imaginary error function is an entire function defined by $$erfi(x)=ierf(ix),$$ where $erf$ denotes the error function (also called the Gauss error function) is a special function (non-elementary) of sigmoid shape which occurs in probability, statistics and partial differential equations. In mathematics, the error function can be denoted as [@NEW1] $$erf(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_0^xe^{-t^2}dt.$$ The imaginary error function is implemented in Mathematica as Erfi\[x\].
Numerical Results
=================
The experimental data of $\mu$ (in amu) and $\alpha$ (in $\AA^{-1}$) are taken from the recent literature [@DAT1] as inputs in expression \[E17\] to calculate the energy states $E_{n\ell}$(in $eV$) of 12 molecules; namely, $I_2$, $CO$, $TiH$, $TiC$, $N_2$, $NO$, $CrH$, $NiC$, $O_2$, $LiH$, $VH$, and $ScN$ for different values of the vibrational $n$ and rotational $\ell$ quantum numbers. The experimental data are presented in Table 1. The calculated energy values are listed Table 2 shows that the PT potential is suitable to describe the diatomic molecules. We selected quantum no $n=0,n=5, n=7$ so as to cover wide energy spectrum in order to see the behavior of energy for large states
In Figure \[fig1\], we plot the variation of the vibrational energy levels with the potential parameter $\alpha$ for $ns$ states, where $n=1, 2, 3, 4$. The energy is purely attractive (negative). It is found that energy is increasing in the positive direction with increasing $n$ when $\alpha<0.1$. However, when $\alpha>0.1$, the energy is sharply changing toward the negative direction with the increasing of energy state $n$, i.e., it becomes strongly attractive. For given $\zeta$ and unit of $\tau$, the dependence of the vibrational partition function $Z$ on $\beta$ and $\zeta$ are shown for 4 diatomic molecules; namely, $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$, in Figures \[fig2\] and \[fig3\], respectively. It is found that the $Z$ increases monotonically as $\beta$ and $\zeta$ increase for the first three molecules and linearly increases for the $I_2$ molecule. This means that $I_2$ is not sensitive to the various values $\zeta$ and $\beta$ in Figures \[fig2\] and \[fig3\], respectively. It is shown in Figures \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] that the vibrational mean energy $U$ decrease monotonically with the increasing parameters $\beta$ and $\zeta$, respectively. The vibrational specific heat $C$ ($k=1$) first increases with the increasing $\beta$ and $\zeta$ to the maximum value and then decreases with it as shown in Figures \[fig6\] and \[fig7\]. In the $I_2$ molecule, $C$ increases monotonically for wide range of $\beta$. The vibrational free energy $F$ increases and then decrases with the increasing parameter $\beta$ in long (short) range for small (large) values of $\zeta$ as shown in Figure \[fig8\]. On the other hand, $F$ decreases with the increasing $\zeta$ for various values of $\beta$ and overlapping at a specific value of $\zeta$ as shown in Figure \[fig9\]. It is shown in Figure \[fig10\] that the entropy $S(k=1)$ decreases with the parameter $\beta$ for various values of $\zeta$ and overlapping at some specific value $\beta$ in the range. On the other hand, $S$ first increases with the $\zeta$ to the maximum value and then decreases with it as shown in Figure \[fig11\]. The curves for different $\beta$ are splitting away from each others at higher values of $\zeta$.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we have solved the Schrodinger equation for the PT potential in the framework of AIM by considering an approximation to deal with the centrifugal term and obtained the energy eigenvalues and the wave functions. The method is also used to obtain approximate energy states and wave functions of the spin-$1/2$ particle in the field of PT potential and Coulomb-like coupling interaction under spin and p-spin symmetries. Some special cases of interest of the present solution are obtained as the $s$ wave case, reflectionless-type potential, symmetric hyperbolic PT potential and the nonrelativistic solution. Further, the nonrelativistic ro-vibrational energy levels of 12 diatomic molecules are obtained using a set parameter values in Tanle 1 for each molecule. Our results are displayed in Table 2. We plotted the variation of vibrational energy levels with the potential parameter $\alpha$ in Figure \[fig1\]. On the other hand, we have derived the vibrational partition function $Z$ and then calculated the thermodynamic parameters like the vibrational mean energy $U$, specific heat $C$, free energy $F$ and the entropy $S$. The variations of these thermodynamic parameters with $\beta$ and $\zeta$ are shown in Figures 2-11 for 4 diatomic molecules in presence of PT potential field. The behaviour of the thermodynamic properties changes from one diatomic molecule to another.
**Acknowledgements**\
S. M. Ikhdair thanks the partial support provided by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).
[99]{} D. ter Haar, Problems in Quantum Mechanics, 3rd edition (Pion Ltd, London, 1975). H. Hassanabad, E. Maghsoodi, S. Zarrinkamar and H. Rahimov, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2012**]{} (2012) 707041. S. M. Ikhdair and M. Hamzavi, Z. Naturforsch. [**68a**]{} (2013) 279.\
M. Hamzavi, S. M. Ikhdair and K. -E. Thylwe, Z. Naturforsch. [**67a**]{} (2012) 567. O. J. Oluwadare, K. J. Oyewumi, C. O. Akoshile and O. A. Babalola, Phys. Scr. [**86**]{} (2012) 035002. K. J. Oyewumi and C. O. Akoshile, Eur. Phys. J. A [**45**]{} (2010) 311. S. M. Ikhdair, M. Hamzavi and A. A. Rajabi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E. [**22**]{} (2013) 1350015. H. Ciftci, R. L. Hall and N. Saad, J. Phys. A: Math Gen. [**36**]{} (2003) 11807. H. Ciftci, R. L. Hall and N. Saad, Phys. Lett. A: [**340**]{} (2005) 388. A. F. Nikiforov and V. B. Uvarov, Special Functions of Mathematical physics (Basle, Birkhauser, 1988). O. Aydogdu, E. Maghsoodi and H. Hassanabadi, Chin. Phys. B [**22**]{} (2013) 010302. S. M. Ikhdair, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**20**]{} (2009) 1563. H. Hassanabad, E. Maghsoodi, S. Zarrinkamar and H. Rahimov, Chin. Phys. B [**21**]{} (2012) 120302. F. Cooper, A. Khare and U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rep. [**251**]{} (1995) 267. H. Hassanabadi, L. L. Lu, S. Zarrinkamar, G. Liu and H. Rahimov Acta Pol. A [**122**]{} (2012) 650. E. Maghsoodi, H. Hassanabadi and O. Aydogdu, Phys. Scr. 86 (2012) 015005 L. Infeld and T. E. Hull, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**23**]{} (1951) 21. S. H. Dong, Factorizaion Method in Quantum Mechanics, (Springer, Amesterdam, 2007). Z. Q. Ma and B. W. Xu, Europhys. Lett. [**69**]{} (2005) 685. Z. Q. Ma and B. W. Xu, Acta Phys. Sin. [**55**]{} (2006) 1571 (in Chinese). W. C. Qiang and S. H. Dong, Europhys. Lett. [**89**]{} (2010) 10003. S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, J. Math. Chem. [**45**]{} (2009) 1137. A. Comtet, A. Bandrauk and D. Compbell, Phys. Lett. B [**150**]{} (1985) 159. R E. Bellman and R. E. Kalaba, Quasilinearization and Nonlinear Boundary Value Problems (elsevier, New York, 1965). E. Z. Leverts and V. B. Mandelzweig, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [**324**]{} (2009) 388 and references therein. S. Odake and R. Sasaki, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**44**]{} (2011) 195203. Y. Xu, S. He and C. -S. Jia, Phys. Scr. [**81**]{} (2010) 045001. G. Wei and S.-H. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. A [**43**]{} (2010) 185. T. Chen, Y. Diao and C. -S. Jia, Phys. Scr. [**79**]{} (2009) 065014. G. Wei and S. -H. Dong, Phys. Lett. A [**373**]{} (2009) 2428. C. -S. Jia, T. Chen and L. Cui, Phys. Lett. A [**373**]{} (2009) 1621.\
Z. -Y. Chen, M. Li and C. -S. Jia, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**23**]{} (2009) 1863. S. -H. Dong, W. Qiang and J. Garcia-Ravelo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**23**]{} (2008) 1537. O. Yesiltas, Phys. Scr. [**75**]{} (2007) 41. H. Hassanabadi, H. B.Yazarloo and L. L. Lu, Chin. Phys. Lett. [**29**]{} (2012) 020303. H. Hassanabadi, E. Maghsoodi, S. Zarrinkamar and H. Rhimov, J. Math. Phys. [**53**]{} (2012) 022104. S. M. Ikhdair, Eur. Phys. J. A [**39**]{} (2009) 307.\
S. M. Ikhdair and M. Hamzavi, Phys. Scr. [**86**]{} (2012) 045002. Y. Hasan and M. Tomak, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{} (2005) 115340. A. Rodriuez and J. Cervero, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{} (2006) 104201. U. Roy et al., Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{} (2009) 052115. H. Yildirim and M. Tomak, J. Appl. Phys. [**99**]{} (2006) 093103. W. Xie, Commun. Theor. Phys. [**46**]{} (2006) 1101. J. Radovanovic et al., Phys. Lett. A [**269**]{} (2000) 179. M. Mora Ramos, M. Barseghyan and C. A. Duque, Physica E [**43**]{} (2010) 338. B. J. Falaye, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. [**10**]{} ( 2012) 960. B. J. Falaye, Few Body Sys [**53**]{} (2012) 557. B. J. Falaye, Few Body Sys [**53**]{} (2012) 563. B. J. Falaye, J. Math. Phys. [**53**]{} (2012) 082107. O. Bayrak and I. Boztosun, Phys. Scr. [**76**]{} (2007) 92. O. Bayrak, I. Boztosun and H. Ciftci, Int. J. Quantum Chem. [**107**]{} (2007) 540. S. H. Dong, M. Lozada-Casson, J. Yu, F. Jimenez-Angles and A. L. Rivera, Int. J. Quant. Chem. [**107**]{} (2007) 366. C. S. Jia, P. Guo, Y. F. Diao, L. Z. Yi, and X. J. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. A [**34**]{} (2007) 41. X. C. Zhang, Q.W. Liu, C.S. Jia, L.Z. Wang, Phys. Lett. A [**340**]{} (2005) 59. C. S Jia, Y. Li, Y. Sunb, J. Y. Liu and L. T. Sun, Phys. Lett. A [**311**]{} (2003) 115. S. M. Ikhdair, J. Math. Phys. [**52**]{} (2011) 052303. S. M. Ikhdair, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. [**10**]{} (2012) 361. S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**44**]{} (2011) 355301. M. Hamzavi and S. M. Ikhdair, Mol. Phys. [**110**]{} (2012) 3031.\
M. Hamzavi, S. M. Ikhdair and K. -E. Thylwe, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**21**]{} (2012) 1250097. C. Berkdemir and Y. -F. Cheng, Phys. Scr. [**79**]{} (2009) 035003. S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, J. Math. Phys. [**52**]{} (2011) 122108. K. J. Oyewumi, T. T. Ibrahim, S. O. Ajibola and D A Ajadi JVR [**5**]{} (2010)19. X. Q. Zhao, C. S. Jia, and Q. B. Yang, Phys. Lett. A [**337**]{} (2005) 189. H. Sun, Phys. Lett. A [**374**]{} (2009) 116.\
H. Sun, Bull. Korean Chem.Soc. [**31**]{} (2010) 3573.\
A. de Souza Dutra and G. Chen, Phys. Lett. A [**349**]{} (2006) 297.\
A. S. de Castro, Phys. Lett. A [**338**]{} (2005) 81.\
R. L. Hall, Phys. Lett. A [**372**]{} (2007) 12.\
R. L. Hall and W. Lucha, Phys. Lett. A [**374**]{} (2010) 1980.\
S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, J. Math. Chem. [**42**]{} (2007) 461.\
S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, Ann. Phys. (Leibzig) [**16**]{} (2007) 218.\
S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**19**]{} (2008) 221.\
S. M. Ikhdair, Chin. J. Phys. [**46**]{} (2008) 291.\
S. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. [**6**]{} (2008)141. M. Abramowitz and I. A. AStegun (Eds.) [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables*]{}, 9th printing. New York: Dover, pp. 295 and 297, 1972. K. J. Oyewumi, and K. D. Sen, J. Math. Chem. [**50**]{} (2012) 1059.
![[The variation of the energy eigenvalues as a function of potential parameter $\alpha$.]{}[]{data-label="fig1"}](AEN_1.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational partition function $Z$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\beta$ for different $\zeta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig2"}](AFIG_1.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational partition function $Z$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\zeta$ for different $\beta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig3"}](AFIG_2.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational mean energy $U$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\beta$ for different $\zeta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig4"}](AFIG_3.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational mean energy $U$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\zeta$ for different $\beta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig5"}](AFIG_4.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational specific heat $C$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\beta$ for different $\zeta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig6"}](AFIG_5.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational specific heat $C$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\zeta$ for different $\beta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig7"}](AFIG_6.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational free energy $F$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\beta$ for different $\zeta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig8"}](AFIG_7.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational free energy $F$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\zeta$ for different $\beta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig9"}](AFIG_8.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational mean energy $S$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\beta$ for different $\lambda$.]{}[]{data-label="fig10"}](AFIG_9.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
![[Vibrational free energy $S$ of $N_2$, $TiH$, $NiC$ and $I_2$ diatomic molecules as a function of $\zeta$ for different $\beta$.]{}[]{data-label="fig11"}](AFIG_10.eps){height="100mm" width="180mm"}
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected].
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Fredrick Michael\*\
*[written 01/2001, revised 11/2008]{}*
title: 'Interacting Many-Investor Models, Opinion Formation and Price Formation with Non-extensive Statistics.'
---
Introduction
============
As is known from economics, the price of a security (for example) can be related to the law of supply and demand. That is to say, the excess demand is proportional to the price such that we can write approximately $$\includegraphics[width=40mm]{eqn1.png} \label{eqn1}$$
and here $\lambda$ is the market depth [@4; @5]. In the past decade or so, there have been many models [@4; @5] proposed that attempt to capture the dynamics and statistics of market participants. These range from minority game models [@11], multi-agent models, and lattice super-spin models that encode the many degrees of freedom available to an interacting investor as the degrees of freedom of the variables and spins of the models. These models attempt to quantify the excess demand brought about by the mismatch of supply and demand between interacting investors in a market. The hallmark for the success of a model has been the ability of the model in reproducing the stylized facts of real markets. These are the heavy tails (power-law) of the distributions, anomalous (super) diffusion, and therefore statistical dependence (long-range correlations) of subsequent price changes.
Recently we reported on an application of the C.Tsallis nonextensive statistics to the S$\&$P500 stock index [@1; @3]. There we argued that the statistics are applicable to a broad range of markets and exchanges where anamolous (super) diffusion and ’heavy’ tails of the distribution are present, as they are in the S$\&$P500 [@3]. In effect we have characterized the statistics of the price changes (the left hand side of Eq.(1) ) as being well-modeled by the non-extensive statistics. We now seek to examine the demand-side of the equation in light of our recent findings that the non-extensive statistics models well the statistics of the price changes in real markets. As such, we will seek to outline a method by which one can obtain many-investor models within the context of the Tsallis nonextensive statistics. We will derive our specific models utilizing the well-known techniques of the maximum entropy approach [@6; @8]. Let us briefly review the maximum entropy approach to be utilized here. The nonextensive, least-biased probability distribution function (PDF) $P(z,t)$ of an underlying observable $z(t)$ is obtained by maximizing an incomplete information theoretic measure equivalent to the Tsallis entropy $S_q$ [@1; @6; @8] $$\includegraphics[width=80mm]{eqn2.png} \label{eqn2}$$ Here $P(z ,t)$ is the probability distribution function and will be shown to be of a power-law form, and is the degree of non-extensivity or equivalently the incompleteness of the information measure. The inverse of the normalization is the partition function $Z(t)$, and $\beta(t)$ is a Lagrange multiplier associated with the constraint(s). In order to build our model(s), we must specify the constraints to be utilized in our maximization procedure. These constraints will be the known (or assumed) observables of interest, and that are presumed to capture the deterministic behavior of our many-investor system. An interesting model for the investors is the model of investor bias and demand developed by Cont and Bouchaud and generalized to super-spins by Chowdhury [@4; @5; @9]. This model assumes that the generalized spins are representative of the magnitude and direction of demand (the bias) of the investors. We will adopt this model, with suitable modifications, as a first approximation for characterizing the deterministic investor dynamics as observables from within the context of the nonextensive statistics. Following the work of Chowdhury et. al. let us define the demand function of a system of interacting investors as a classical Hamiltonian-like function in physics. This Hamiltonian will then be dependent on the magnitude of the demand, and the other degree of freedom, the direction of the demand or the bias. The bias in this model will be taken in this initial model to be discrete and will be represented as a spin. Also, for simplicity, let us initially assume that the magnitude is fixed. The N-investor interaction potential in the Hamiltonian then is taken to be made of discrete terms with simple constant ferromagnetic coupling strengths $(J_{ij} = J >0)$ and an anti-ferromagnetic coupling $ (L_{ij} =L >0)$ which we treat in the global mean field sense of the Bornholdt model [@9; @10] such that $$\includegraphics[width=100mm]{eqn3.png} \label{eqn3}$$
The first potential term can be seen to be the usual form of a ferromagnetic spin-spin interaction with a coupling strength and models the herd-like, or collective opinion formation of investors. The spins represent discrete bias, though the generalization to a continuous degree of bias is straightforward, and can take on the values $$\includegraphics[width=50mm]{eqn4.png} \label{eqn4}$$ and therefore when two investors minimize their risk and both agree in their bias $\sigma_i \sigma_j= 1$ the overall energy is minimized. Note that in this simple model if one of two investors is neutral, the interaction term is zero. The second potential term is anti-ferromagnetic $(L>0)$ and models contrarian investor behavior as in the Bornholdt model. We can simplify the interactions by assuming a mean field approximation. Now let us assume that the bias fluctuates. This is a reasonable assumption, and leads us to the necessity of describing the averages of the fluctuations in terms of the mean and the variance. These moments can be written for the $i$th investor as $q$-parametrized averages [@6; @8]
$$\includegraphics[width=80mm]{eqn5.png} \label{eqn5}$$
In order to obtain a tractable solution that retains the essential interaction dynamics to lowest order, let us make a mean field approximation to our Hamiltonian. This will allow us to linearize the spin-spin interaction and will allow us to derive a closed form solution which, it is supposed, will allow us to qualify and approximately quantify the inherent behavior of the system. The full solution to this model would perforce involve the complicated spin-spin terms and will result in corrections to our solved form mean field solution. As stated then, the mean field solution will give us approximately the first order response of the system, given the interactions. We then have ($H_{mf}$ is the mean field Hamiltonian) $$\includegraphics[width=80mm]{eqn6.png} \label{eqn6}$$ Here m is the average bias per investor and can be seen to be the analog to the average magnetization per particle. Next let us build into this model the open nature of a market. That is, the number of investors is not a constant in a market, and we will account for this fact by the inclusion of the number of investors as a further constraint (observable) in our model. As such the observable (per investor) to be included in our maximization procedure will be $$\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eqn7.png} \label{eqn7}$$ $$\includegraphics[width=30mm]{eqn8.png} \label{eqn8}$$
and $\mu$ is a total investor number $N$ constraint multiplier which from the usual thermodynamic analogies goes as the ‘chemical potential’. We therefore can write for the $i$th investor the following observables to be included in our entropy maximization (and dropping the $i$ sub- and superscripts) $$\includegraphics[width=70mm]{eqn9.png} \label{eqn9}$$
The maximum entropy approach then allows us to vary the entropy given the constraints such that $$\includegraphics[width=40mm]{eqn10.png} \label{eqn10}$$ and we obtain our least biased probability density function as a Tsallis non- extensive statistics power-law form $$\includegraphics[width=70mm]{eqn11.png} \label{eqn11}$$ and here the partition function is related to the normalization and is given by $Z_q = \sum\limits{ \sigma}{}P(\sigma)$
We now wish to examine the average bias in this model. Following the usual magnetic systems argument, the average bias can be written as (recall $\uparrow= +1, \downarrow =-1$) $$\includegraphics[width=50mm]{eqn12.png} \label{eqn12}$$
The question then is how to obtain $( N\uparrow, N\downarrow ) $ given that $N=N_{+}+ N_{0}+N_{-}$. We can write as before $$\includegraphics[width=50mm]{eqn13.png} \label{eqn13}$$ This expression can then be related to the average price change by the market depth and we obtain our desired result. That is, the Tsallis power-law statistical distribution for the price and price changes, as reported elsewhere [@1] for stock market indices such as the S$\&$P500 high frequency price data, is obtained from the individual investor bias distributions with a proportionality factor of market depth converting the excess demand to price in currency. We make use of the market depth $\lambda$ and write ($x$ is the price) $$\includegraphics[width=30mm]{eqn14.png} \label{eqn14}$$
continuous spin model
=====================
We now wish to generalize beyond the limitations of the approximations we have built into the pure spin model. To do this, let us assume that the state vector for the system is of two dimensions, the magnitude and the bias. We will then work with continuum spins as in the Kosterlitz-Thouless Hamiltonian. Let us write down the observables for the interacting investors in the two dimensions (y= magnitude,$\theta $=bias ‘angle’) of magnitude and bias as $V$. We then have
$$\includegraphics[width=80mm]{eqn15gtha.png} \label{eqn15gtha}$$
and here $V_{int}$ is the Kosterlitz-Thouless interaction, relegated to the role of the potential. This total Hamiltonian with the inclusion of the previously discussed total number $N$ of investors as a further observable will comprise the constraints in the maximization of the entropy that we will perform next. But first, let us simplify the interaction term in the potential again by averaging over the $j$th spins such that ($ \pi\le\theta\le 0$ here) $$\includegraphics[width=90mm]{eqn15gthb.png} \label{eqn15gthb}$$ again we can maximize the non-extensive entropy (per-investor) given the constraints of the potential and the first two central moments of the fluctuating variables of individual magnitude and bias such that for the $i$th investor we have $$\includegraphics[width=90mm]{eqn16.png} \label{eqn16}$$
The maximum entropy method then states that we must maximize the entropy given the observables as constraints. This yields the following variation of the $q$-averaged observables
$$\includegraphics[width=100mm]{eqn17.png} \label{eqn17}$$
The least biased PDF will again be of the non-extensive form and can be written as $$\includegraphics[width=110mm]{eqn18.png} \label{eqn18}$$ where the partition function is again related to the normalization and is now $Z_q =\int\limits_{0}{\pi}d\theta$
We wish to obtain the average bias and relate it to the price change. We then write the regular statistical average as $M$ and utilize the market depth to obtain the correspondence $$\includegraphics[width=80mm]{eqn19.png} \label{eqn19}$$
continuous model
================
We now wish to relax all of the approximations and the simplifications we built into the previous spin based models. To do this let us assume that the state vector for the system is comprised of two continuous degrees of freedom, the magnitude and the bias. Without restating the problem, let us write down the Hamiltonian for the investors in the two dimensions (y=magnitude,$\theta$=bias ‘angle’) of magnitude and bias as $H_o$ (denotes the non-interacting investor Hamiltonian). Also, let us propose some general interaction potential $V$ the form of which will be examined subsequently . The important point here is that we are seeking to cast the problem of building a model for many interacting-investors into the powerful language of the many-particle physics as we feel this allows us to map some questions of modeling financial markets and investor behavior directly to well known physics-based paradigms. We have already touched upon this in our specific models discussed above, and now we wish to generalized the application of the technique.
The model will consist of the free and interacting parts of the Hamiltonian. That is, the $i$th investor will have $i(y(t),\sigma(t)) $ magnitude of demand , with a bias of buy, sell or hold, at time t. The magnitude of demand can be assumed to be the demand for number of shares of a stock, and with the total number being considered fixed as a long-term constant $n=\int_{0}^{max}y(t)dy$. The direction of demand, is
discrete $(-1,0,+1)$ corresponding to buy, sell or hold. The Hamiltonian is $$\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eqn20.png} \label{eqn20}$$
with the constraints of the moments $$\includegraphics[width=80mm]{eqn21b.png} \label{eqn21b}$$ the maximization of the entropy then obtains the least biased distribution and with the normalization, $\sum \int P(\sigma_i, t)dy_{\sigma_i}= 1$ to unity. The extremization yields the least biased probability distribution function, $P(\sigma_i, t)$ which upon taking the mean field approximation $\sum< \sigma_j>=M$ gives $$\includegraphics[width=110mm]{eqn223b.png} \label{eqn223b}$$
The expectation value for the demand is the expression $< \sigma >=\sum_{\sigma,i}^{}\int { \sigma_i} P(y_{\sigma_i},\sigma_i , t) {dy_{\sigma_i}}$, which explicitly is $$\includegraphics[width=110mm]{eqn22.png} \label{eqn22}$$
in terms of the number of shares demanded to be bought or sold or held for the moment at time t, the expectation value of excess demand is
$$\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eqn24c.png} \label{eqn24c}$$
This excess demand is proportional to the price and with the market depth $\lambda$ as the proportionality factor we obtain the price and change in price if the definition of the variables of excess demand is relative $y=x-x'$ $$\includegraphics[width=40mm]{eqn24.png} \label{eqn24}$$ This model is perhaps the most detailed of the three discussed . It is also the most robust and points the way to the inclusion of interaction terms that describe interactions observed factors in real world markets. These could include the independent investor, institutional investor clustering, floor trader and outside trader time lags, non-constant market depths, more complex herding behavior etc. These can all be included as observables multiplied by Lagrange multipliers as constraints in the maximization, and the derived least biased distributions though perhaps complicated can be solved numerically.
conclusion
==========
The models presented here are of increasing complexity. However the three models, discrete and continuous can be generalized further and can easily be applied. The numbers of shares being bought, sold or held at any moment determine the instantaneous excess demand. This in turn is related to the instantaneous price or price change if relative variables are used, by the market depth proportionality factor, here assumed constant. The statistical distributions of price changes and price have been shown to be well fitted by the students-T distribution and more recently the Tsallis nonex- tensive statistics distribution . The information theoretic approaches taken here assume the nonextensive entropy as a starting point, and obtains not surprisingly a power-law distribution for the numbers of shares to bought, sold or held. These are then summed and the time-dependent price change distributions obtained. A question to be answered in subsequent work is , what form of nonlinear interaction causes to arise a power-law distribution of price changes from a Gibbs-Boltzmann form of extensive entropy or information measure. How do nonlinear interactions modify the Gaussian distributions obtained from the extensive entropy. Also, how does the numerical simulation of the model, by Monte Carlo or stochastic trajectory methods, compare to actual market data price changes. Previous numerical simulations of power-law distributions have been shown by us to fit very well the high frequency stochastic time series data of price changes of the S$\&$P500 and we have also applied the power-law statistics to generalized Black-Scholes equations of prices for options and derivatives secondary markets for the underlying stocks and stocks indices etc. We expect the present models especially the power-law distributed model to fit accurately the market price data , and given the parameters extracted from market data, the model can be a theory that begins to describe the statistical uncertainties, and on the average the microscopic interactions that occur between investors in a financial market and which then the theoretical model can subsequently be utilized for minimization of risk and the design of investment strategies in economics and finance. The author wishes to state that most of this manuscript was written in 20 Nov 2001 with M.D. Johnson and John Evans at the University of central Florida Physics Department, Orlando, Florida. Recent research of the author’s has refocused on this area of research, and the publication follows.
[99]{} Fredrick Michael and M.D. Johnson. cond-mat/0204261. Published in Physica A. arXiv:cond-mat/0108017 and published in physica A. Fredrick Michael, M.D. Johnson and John Evans arXiv:cond-mat/0207376. F. M. Ramos, C. Rodrigues Neto, R. R. Rosa. cond-mat/9907348. Submit- ted to Europhysics Letters R. N. Mantegna, H. E. Stanley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000). Rama Cont, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. cond-mat/9801279. European Jour- nal of Physics B. Debashish Chowdhury, Dietrich Staufer. cond-mat/9810162. European Physical Journal B. Rama Cont, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. cond- mat/9712318 . cond-mat/9810162. European Physical Journal B C. Tsallis and D.J. Bukman. Phys. Rev. E, 2197 (1996). E. M. F. Curado and C. Tsallis. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. vol.24 (1991) L69-L72. D.H. Zanette. cond-mat/9905064 (1999). Q.A. Wang. cond-mat/0009343 (2000). S. Abe and A.K. Rajagopal. quant- ph/0003145 (2000), and references therein. Stefan Bornholdt. cond-mat/0105224 (2001). K. Sznajd-Weron, R. Weron. cond-mat/0101001 Dafang Zheng, P. M. Hui, N. F. Johnson. cond-mat/0105474. Dafang Zheng, G.J. Rodgers, P.M. Hui, R. D’Hulst. cond-mat/0108399
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
24.cm
24.cm
.03in
[*Bibhas Bhattacharyya$^\dag$ and Shreekantha Sil$^\ddag$*]{} .02in $^\dag$ Department of Physics, Scottish Church College, 1 & 3 Urquhart Square, Calcutta 700 006, India\
$^\ddag$ Institut f$\ddot{\rm u}$r Theoretische Physik, Universit$\ddot{\rm
a}$t zu K$\ddot{\rm o}$ln, Z$\ddot{\rm u}$lpicher Strasse 77, D-50937, K$\ddot{\rm o}$ln, Germany
.03in
**Abstract**
[We have studied the Hubbard model with bond-charge interaction on a triangular lattice for a half-filled band. At the point of particle-hole symmetry the model could be analyzed in detail in two opposite regimes of the parameter space. Using a real space renormalization group we calculate the ground state energy and the local moment over the whole parameter space. The RG results obey the exact results in the respective limits. In the intermediate region of the parameter space the RG results clearly show the effects of the non-bipartite geometry of the lattice as well as the absence of symmetry in the reversal of the sign of the hopping matrix element.]{}\
[**PACS No.:**]{} 71.10.Fd, 64.60.Ak, 71.10.Hf
.04in [**I. Introduction**]{} .03in
In spite of an extensive effort over the last few years the problem of electronic correlation in low dimensional systems remains yet to be clearly understood. Models of interacting electrons are difficult to handle in one and two dimensions owing to strong fluctuations. While there are a few exact solutions in one dimension (1-D) \[1\] and in infinite dimensions \[2\] the situation is worse in two dimensions (2-D) . Standard techniques like mean field approximation or perturbative calculations are of very limited use in treating the intermediate to strong correlation in low dimensional systems which are typically dominated by strong fluctuations. Numerical simulations and exact diagonalizations are also limited by small cluster size because the dimension of the Hilbert space soon becomes too large to be handled as one goes from one to two dimensions. Therefore, it seems enterprising to apply an approximate real space renormalization group (RG) known as the block RG (BRG) \[3,4\] in this context. This works reasonably well for 1-D systems \[5– 7\] and over the whole range of the coupling constants. This method employs a truncation of the Hilbert space, retaining only a few low lying states only, to bring out the essential ground state properties. Although the efficacy of the truncation procedure is much more satisfactorily handled in a recently developed RG scheme known as the density matrix RG (DMRG) \[8\], the latter is yet to be developed for a truly 2-D system. The BRG has already been applied to interacting electrons in 2-D \[9\] but only for bipartite lattices. It is interesting to see how does it work in case of a non-bipartite lattice like the triangular one. On the other hand the problem of interacting electrons on a triangular lattice has been addressed for a long time \[10– 13\] in view of a rich phase structure including the possibility of frustration \[14\]. Particularly, $^3$He on graphite was considered to be a good example of the Hubbard model \[15\] on a triangular lattice \[10\]. Recent works on the organic superconductors like $\kappa$-BEDT-TTF compounds also investigate the phase diagrams of interacting-electron models on anisotropic triangular lattices \[16\]. In the present work we study a generalized Hubbard model with bond-charge interaction on the 2-D triangular lattice at half-filling by using the BRG. In Sec. II we present the model and the renormalization scheme as suitably adapted to the present problem. Sec. III summarizes some of the exact solutions of this problem in limiting cases. In Sec. IV we focus on our results obtained from the RG and make comparisons with the exact solutions. Sec. V concludes the present work.
.04in [**II. The Model and the RG scheme**]{} .03in
The generalized Hubbard model with bond-charge interaction is defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-t \sum_{ \langle ij \rangle ,\sigma}c^{\dag}_{i \sigma}c_{j \sigma}
+ X \sum_{ \langle ij \rangle ,\sigma}
c^{\dag}_{i \sigma}c_{j \sigma}(n_{i -\sigma} + n_{j
-\sigma}) - \mu \sum_i n_i \nonumber \\
& &+ U \sum_i n_{i \uparrow}n_{i \downarrow} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $c^{\dag}_{i \sigma}(c_{i \sigma})$ creates (annihilates) a particle with spin $\sigma$ in a Wannier orbital located at the site $i$; the corresponding number operator is $n_{i \sigma} = c^{\dag}_{i
\sigma}c_{i \sigma}$. Here $n_i = n_{i \sigma} + n_{i -\sigma}$. Sum over $ \langle ij \rangle $ denotes contributions from distinct nearest neighbour pairs of sites on a triangular lattice. $\mu$ is the chemical potential. We focus our attention to the special case with $X=t$ for which the present model becomes particle-hole (p-h) symmetric even on the triangular lattice. In fact it has been shown that for some realistic systems $X \simeq t$ \[17\]. Further the choice $X=t$ results in some simplification in implementing the RG and forces $\mu=U/2$ for half-filling. Moreover, at this special value of $X$ we have some exact results for comparison. One should remember, however, that there is no $t \rightarrow -t $ symmetry due to the non-bipartite nature of the lattice.
Now, for $X=t$ and for a half-filled band ($\langle n_i \rangle=1$) one can put $\mu=U/2$ to rewrite the Hamiltonian (2) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-t \sum_{\langle ij \rangle ,\sigma}c^{\dag}_{i \sigma}c_{j \sigma}(1 - n_{i
-\sigma} - n_{j -\sigma}) + U \sum_i\left(\frac{1}{2} - n_{i
\uparrow}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2} - n_{i \downarrow}\right)\nonumber\\
& & + D \sum_i {\bf 1}_i +\frac{U}{2}N,\end{aligned}$$ where, the constant $D=-\mu/2$ will account for the renormalization of the vacuum energy. Here we have added a constant term $NU/2$ to the Hamiltonian given by (1) to compensate for the chemical potential term subtracted thereof. We just keep aside this constant term for the purpose of renormalizing the parameters in the Hamiltonian and then add up the same to the ground state energy at the end. The Hamiltonian has several conserved quantities: total number of particles $\nu$, total spin $S$ and the $z$-component $S_z$ of the total spin besides the p-h symmetry pointed out earlier. We divide the 2-D lattice with $N$ sites into $N/3$ triangular blocks of three sites each (Fig. 1). The block-Hamiltonian is then diagonalized for the three-site block. Since we are interested in the ground state properties of the system we truncate the Hilbert space for the three-site blocks and retain only four low-lying states of the block-Hamiltonian governed by the symmetries mentioned above together with the point group symmetry of the block. It is easy to see that the block-Hamiltonian is block-diagonalizable in terms of the good quantum numbers $\nu$, $S$ and $S_z$. The states with $\{ \nu=2, S=S_z=0\}$, $\{ \nu=3,S= S_z = 1/2 \}$, $\{ \nu=3,S=- S_z = 1/2 \}$ and $\{ \nu=4, S=S_z=0 \}$ are considered for this purpose. Of these the states in the first and the fourth group are connected by the p-h symmetry while those in the second and third by spin-reversal symmetry. However, the point group symmetry in the 2-D lattice imposes further restriction on the choice of the states \[9\].
To resolve this point we consider the symmetry group $C_{3v}$ \[18\] of the basic triangular block. We take our eigenstates of the block-Hamiltonian to also be the eigenstates of $R(C_{3v})$, the matrix representations of the group elements of $C_{3v}$. While choosing the four states to be retained, we simply take one from each of the four groups so that all of them lie in the same representation of $C_{3 v}$ such that the contribution to the ground state energy be the minimum. This leads to the following RG equations which relate the renormalized parameters (primed quantities) to the original parameters (unprimed ones) in the Hamiltonian : $$\begin{aligned}
U'&=&2(E_2-E_3),\nonumber\\
D'&=&3D + (E_2+E_3)/2,\nonumber\\
t'&=& 2 Re[~\lambda^{\ast} (\lambda-2\lambda')~]~t~,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_2$ and $E_3$ are the lowest eigenvalues in the subspaces $\{\nu=2,~S=S_z=0\}$ and $\{\nu=3,~S=S_z=1/2\}$ respectively; and, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lambda = \langle \nu=2,~S=S_z=0|c_{b \uparrow}|\nu=3,~S=S_z=\frac{1}{2}
\rangle \nonumber \\
&&\lambda' = \langle \nu=2,~S=S_z=0|c_{b \uparrow}n_{b \downarrow}|
\nu=3,~S=S_z=\frac{1}{2} \rangle~. \end{aligned}$$ $\lambda^{\ast}$ is the complex conjugate of $\lambda$ and $Re$ denotes the real part. Here the subscript $b$ refers to the site index of a [*boundary*]{} site of the block. For a triangular block, however, this could be any of the three sites. The factor of 2 appears in the renormalization of the hopping due to the two connecting paths between the two neighbouring three-site blocks (Fig. 1). We illustrate the scheme of the RG calculations using the recursion relations (3) in the Appendix.
Using these recursion relations one can find out the ground state energy $E_0$ by $$E_0=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} D^{(n)}+NU/2~,$$ where the superscript refers to the $n$-th stage of iteration. The term $NU/2$ in the above expression comes from the constant term added in (2). One could study the recursion of any suitable operator to calculate any other physical quantity within this approximation. For example, we calculate the local moment $L_0$ given by $$L_0=\frac{3}{4}\left( n_{\uparrow} -n_{\downarrow} \right)^2$$ The recursion relation for $L_0$ turns out to be $$L_0= A +B\,L'_0$$ where $A$ and $B$ are numbers depending on the components of the basis states retained in course of basis-truncation. Since all the three sites in the basic triangular block are in the same status (after adapting the $C_{3v}$ symmetry) one can use any of them for finding the recursion of $L_0$.
It is interesting to note that due to the group theoretical restriction on the choice of the truncated basis it is not possible, in general, to select the lowest energy states from all the four groups at a time. The states with the lowest energies in all the four groups do not necessarily belong to the same irreducible representation of $C_{3v}$. If such states are retained then the matrix element $\lambda$ defined in (4) will be zero. So instead of the states with lowest energy one targets the states belonging to the same irreducible representation. This problem was not present in the 1-D cases. Therefore, it is possible here to choose any of the possible combinations of four states (from the four groups) compatible with the symmetry group. Again from (3) one can see that the contribution to the ground state energy from each iteration is $\propto (E_2+E_3)$. Then it is natural to seek for the combination which gives the lowest value of this quantity. However, one should be careful about the value of the renormalized hopping $t'$ thus generated, because this in turn will seriously affect the contribution to the energy in the subsequent iteration. We have, therefore, taken into consideration all the possible channels permitted by the symmetry group up to three subsequent iterations and then considered the energetically best ones for the next iterations. For example, consider that we have an optimum choice of five distinct channels (each with a unique set of four states belonging to a given irreducible representation) to start with. In three successive iterations it gives rise to 125 ($=5\times 5\times 5$) channels out of which we retain the best twenty five for the next step. This is an optimized way to achieve the true ground state. Different possible combinations of the two- and three-particle states are shown in Table 1 in terms of the irreducible representation, and corresponding energies $E_2$ and $E_3$. It is evident from the table that the contribution $(E_2+E_3)/2$ to the constant term $D$ in the Hamiltonian (2) makes only a few combinations preferable in constructing the RG scheme. .02in .01in
---------------------------- ----------- ------------------- -------------------
Combination given by $E_2$ $E_3$ $E_2+E_3$
irreducible representation
$A_1$ $-2t-U/4$ $U/4$ $-2t$
$A_1$ $3U/4$ $U/4$ $U$
$E$ $t-U/4$ $-3U/4$ $t-U$
$E$ $t-U/4$ $-\sqrt{3}t+U/4 $ $(\sqrt{3}+1)t$
$E$ $t-U/4$ $\sqrt{3}t+U/4 $ $-(\sqrt{3}-1)t $
$E$ $3U/4$ $-3U/4$ $0$
$E$ $3U/4$ $-\sqrt{3}t+U/4 $ $ \sqrt{3}t+U$
$E$ $3U/4$ $\sqrt{3}t+U/4$ $\sqrt{3}t+U$
---------------------------- ----------- ------------------- -------------------
.01in [**Table 1:**]{} Energies of the eigenstates of the block-Hamiltonian corresponding to $\nu=2$ and $\nu=3$ are $E_2$ and $E_3$ respectively. These are tabulated for different possible combinations of states belonging to different irreducible representations of $C_{3v}$. We adopt standard group theoretical notation \[18\] ($A_i$ for 1-D irreducible representations while $E$ for the 2-D one). .04in [**III. Exact Results for the Model**]{} .03in
Exact ground state energy could be calculated for the present model (2) in two opposite extremal ranges of the parameter space in $U/t$. To do this we try to match a variational upper bound $E_{\rm up}$ to the exact energy to a lower bound $E_{\rm lo}$. To find out the upper bound $E_{\rm up}$ we choose a trial state $\mid \Psi_{\rm trial} \rangle$ and calculate, by variational principle, $$E_{\rm up} = \frac{\langle \Psi_{\rm trial} \mid H \mid \Psi_{\rm trial} \rangle}
{\langle \Psi_{\rm trial} \mid \Psi_{\rm trial} \rangle}~.$$ To calculate the lower bound $E_{\rm lo}$ we break up the Hamiltonian (2) into a sum of the cluster-Hamiltonians corresponding to the smallest triangular clusters. These could be exactly diagonalized. Then, again by variational principle, $E_{\rm lo}$ is given by $$E_{\rm lo}= \sum_{\alpha} E_{\rm min}^{\alpha} +C$$ where $E_{\rm min}^{\alpha}$ is the lowest eigenvalue for the $\alpha$-th cluster and $C$ is the constant term, if any, appearing in the Hamiltonian. To find out the lower bound we rewrite the Hamiltonian (1) in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\sum_{\alpha = 1}^{2N}\left[-\frac{t}{2} \sum_{\langle ij \rangle \epsilon \alpha,\sigma}c^{\dag}_{i \sigma}c_{j
\sigma}\left(1 - n_{i
-\sigma} - n_{j -\sigma}\right) + \frac{U}{12} \sum_{i \epsilon \alpha}
\left( n_{i \uparrow} - n_{i \downarrow}\right)^2 \right]\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{U}{2}N~ ~, \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2N} H_{\rm cluster}(\alpha)+\frac{U}{2}N ~,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $\mu=U/2$ and compensated for the same by adding a term $NU/2$, $N$ being the number of lattice sites. So, here, $C=NU/2$. In the above form of the Hamiltonian we have summed over all possible ($2N$ in number) triangular clusters $\alpha$. The fractional numbers appearing with $t$ and $U$ are due to the over counting of the bonds (twice each) and the sites (each being shared by six adjacent triangles). $H_{\rm cluster}
(\alpha)$ is the cluster Hamiltonian of the $\alpha$-th cluster for which we have to find out the lowest eigenvalue $E_{\rm min}^{\alpha}$.
We categorize the results in two regimes as follows:
I. $U>0$: For very large positive values of $U$ the system is expected to go over to a phase with singly occupied sites \[17\]. We choose the trial wavefunction as $$|\Psi \rangle = \prod_{i \in {\cal L}} c_{i \uparrow}^{\dag}\prod_{j \in {\cal L'}}
c_{j \downarrow}^{\dag}~\mid \! 0 \rangle,$$ where $\mid \!0\rangle$ is a site-vacuum and $\cal L$ and $\cal L'$ are arbitrary disjoint sets of lattice sites, each containing $N/2$ lattice points, which together build up the whole lattice. Using this $|\Psi\rangle$ we obtain an upper bound $E_{\rm up}=0$. We find that the different energy eigenvalues belonging to different values of $\nu$ in a basic triangular plaquette $\alpha$ to be as shown in Table 2. Now the lowest of these, $E_{\rm min}^{\alpha}$, will be $-U/4$ if $$-U/4\le {\rm Min}\left[ \pm t-U/12, \pm t/2-U/12, -t-U/6, t/2-U/6, 0 \right]~.$$ This is true for $U\ge12 \mid t\mid$. Then $E_{\rm min}=-U/4$. Consequently, $E_{\rm lo}=2N\times(-U/4)+NU/2=0=E_{\rm up}$.
So, in the $U>0$ sector exact ground state energy $E_0=0$ for $U \ge 12 \mid t
\mid$ and the ground state becomes a paramagnetic insulator with all sites singly occupied. .02in
$\nu$ Energy
------- --------------------------------------
0, 6 0
1, 5 $-t-U/12$, $t/2-U/12$
2, 4 0, $-t-U/6$, $t/2-U/6$
3 $\pm t-U/12$, $-U/4$, $\pm t/2-U/12$
.01in [**Table 2:**]{} Eigenvalues of the cluster-Hamiltonian $H_{\rm cluster}(\alpha)$ as given in (5) corresponding to different number ($\nu$) of particles. .02in
II\. $U<0$: Here we choose the trial wavefunction as follows: $$|\Psi \rangle = \prod_{i \in {\cal L}} c_{i \uparrow}^{\dag}
c_{i \downarrow}^{\dag}~\mid \! 0 \rangle,$$ where $\cal L$ denotes a set of arbitrarily chosen $N/2$ sites. This choice gives $E_{\rm up}=NU/2$. Now using the possible values of the lowest energies in a triangular plaquette as listed in Table 2 we find that $E_{\rm min}=0$ if $$0\le {\rm Min}\left[ \pm t-U/12, \pm t/2-U/12, -t-U/6, t/2-U/6, -U/4 \right]~.$$ This corresponds to $U\le -12 \mid t \mid$ and consequently $E_{\rm lo}=NU/2=E_{\rm up}$ .
So, in the $U<0$ sector exact ground state energy $E_0=NU/2$ for $U \le -12 \mid t
\mid $ and the ground state becomes an insulator composed of $N/2$ “doublon”s. .04in [**IV. Results obtained in the RG**]{} .03in
The ground state energy as a function of the coupling constant $U/t$, calculated in the RG, is shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) for the two cases, $t>0$ and $t<0$ respectively. It appears that the curves completely agree with the asymptotic solutions given above. In fact $E_0$ reaches the zero value well before the threshold value of $U$, $U_{c_1}=12 \mid t \mid$ as one increases the value of $U/t$. However, there appears a difference between the two values of $U_{c_1}$ for $t>0$ and $t<0$. This merely reflects the lack of $t \rightarrow -t$ symmetry owing to the tripartite nature of the lattice. Also on the other side of $U/t=0$ the energy curves are in complete agreement with the available exact results. Here also $E_0$ takes up the value $NU/2$ at a much higher value of $U$ compared to the threshold value $U_{c_2}=-12 \mid t \mid$ as the value of $U/t$ is decreased. It appears that the wide region in the parameter space ($-12\mid t\mid \le
U\le 12 \mid t \mid$) for which the exact solution could not be obtained is much narrower in reality. The energy curve obtained in the RG calculation smoothly interpolates between the two exactly solvable opposite limits. In the intermediate region we find that $t>0$ always gives the lower energy. This can be checked against a naive calculation for any reasonable size of a cluster having a triangular geometry.
The local moment, which measures the proliferation of “doublons” in the ground state, is plotted against $U/t$ for $t>0$ and $t<0$ in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) respectively. As we can readily see the singly occupied insulating phase given by the wavefunction (6) corresponds to $L_0=3/4=0.75$ for $U\ge 12 \mid t \mid$. Similarly, for $U\le -12 \mid t \mid$, the wavefunction (8) corresponds to $L_0=0$. These are reproduced in the RG in accordance with the energy curves. The parameter space in between these two insulating phases shows a non-trivial discrepancy between the cases $t>0$ and $t<0$. A large plateau at $L_0=0.5$ appears for $t>0$ which is totally absent in the case of $t<0$. For the latter we find a wide plateau at $ L_0=0.25$. Other small structures in the local moment curves may be consequences of finite size effects. The plot of the local moment clearly shows that the extent of pairing (in the form of doublons) is different in the two cases although both of them possibly correspond to a metallic ground state. It is important to note that such a metallic phase in the same model on 1-D chain gives free fermionic local moment $L_0=0.375$ \[6\]. These plots also show that the phase transitions occurring at $U_{c_1}$ and $U_{c_2}$ are abrupt as in the 1D case \[6\]. The departure from $L_0=0.375$ in the metallic case is a fall-out of the lattice geometry. To naively illustrate this point let us consider the specific case of $U=\mid t\mid=1.0$. As one can readily check from Table 2 the lowest energy in each triangular plaquette $\alpha$ comes from $\nu=2,4$ if $t>0$; typical configurations corresponding to this is shown in Fig. 4(a). Clearly such configurations will dominate in the global wavefunction and the value of $L_0$ will be pushed towards $0.5$. On the other hand, a similar observation reveals that in case of $t<0$ lowest contribution comes from the $\nu=3$ sector with configurations similar to those shown in Fig. 4(b). These obviously lower the value of $L_0$ towards $0.25$. In reality, however, $L_0$ is slightly greater than $0.25$ at this point for $t<0$ as one can see from Fig. 3(b). This is because of the mixing of other configurations for optimization of the hopping process between different clusters. Also the finite-size effects might be there.
The difference in the values of $U_{c_2}$ for $t>0$ and $t<0$ is distinctly visible from the plots of the local moment. Thus the local moment plot very clearly captures the lack of $t \rightarrow -t$ symmetry which is essential for the lattice under consideration.
.04in [**V. Conclusion**]{} .03in
Summarizing, we have studied the Hubbard model with the bond-charge interaction on a triangular lattice at the special point of particle-hole symmetry. At this point we obtain exact results in two opposite limits of the parameter space. The system behaves as paramagnetic insulator above a certain value $U_{c_1}$ of the on-site correlation. Below the critical value $U_{c_2}$ it undergoes a transition to an insulating state of disordered doublons. To explore the full parameter space we employ a real space version of the RG. The RG scheme is suitably adapted for this purpose. The ground state energy and the local moment values calculated in the RG reproduce the exact results as it did in the 1-D case \[6\] too. This lends some support for the present RG approximations. In the intermediate range of the parameter space, where no exact solution has been available, the RG results indicate that the degree of pairing (in terms of the formation of local doublons) is different from that in the 1-D counterpart of this problem. The triangular geometry plays a crucial role there. Moreover, in this region, both the energy and the local moment plots show up the effect of loosing the $t \rightarrow -t $ symmetry. The parameter space between $U_{c_1}$ and $U_{c_2}$, corresponding to a possible metallic phase (as it was in the 1-D counterpart \[6, 19\]), appears to be less wider in the RG calculations compared to the exact solution. The present study gives an indication that the RG scheme used here could be successfully used to other cases in 2-D. Extension to the cases $X \neq t$ seems interesting although it is well known that the lack of particle-hole symmetry creates some problem with the present form of the RG on a non-bipartite lattice. It is interesting to look for the short-ranged correlations, if any, in the intermediate region of the parameter space. It is also interesting to know the effect of the finite block-size on the satellite plateaus in the local moment plot; this requires a larger block in the RG analysis (a body-centered hexagon is the choice next to a triangle). However, the convergence of the RG results to the exact ones is often slow with the increasing block-size, and the effect of the discarded states may be important in determining the global wavefunction \[8, 20\]. Therefore, a better way of supplementing the present study is to use the DMRG algorithm, which can take into account a larger number of configurations within a block in a controlled and systematic way. Of course the DMRG algorithm has to be suitably adapted (on a 2-D lattice in the thermodynamic limit) for this purpose. .02in
[**Acknowledgment**]{}
One of the authors (SS) acknowledges the financial support given by Sonderforschungsbereich 341 supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Computational facilities enjoyed at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Calcutta are also gratefully acknowledged.
.04in [**Appendix**]{} .03in In the present appendix we give a brief sketch of the derivation of the recursion relation (3) quoted in the text. We have retained a suitable state of low energy in each of the subspaces $\{ \nu=2, S=S_z=0\}$, $\{ \nu=3,S=S_z=\frac{1}{2} \}$, $\{ \nu=3, S=-S_z=\frac{1}{2} \}$ and $\{ \nu=4,S=S_z=0 \}$. These states are designated by $\mid \! 0'\rangle$, $\mid\uparrow '\rangle $, $\mid\downarrow '\rangle $ and $\mid\uparrow \downarrow'\rangle $ respectively. Let the corresponding energy eigenvalues be $E_{0'}$, $E_{\uparrow'}$, $E_{\downarrow'}$, $E_{\uparrow\downarrow'}$ respectively. As we have mentioned earlier the first and the fourth states are connected by the particle-hole symmetry while the second and the third, by spin-reversal symmetry. It follows, therefore, that $E_{0'}=E_{\uparrow\downarrow'}=E_2$ and $E_{\uparrow'}=E_{\downarrow'}=E_3$. These four states closely resemble the single-site states $\mid \! 0\rangle$, $\mid\uparrow \rangle $, $\mid\downarrow \rangle $ and $\mid\uparrow \downarrow\rangle$ in that the spin quantum numbers are the same and there is a one-to-one correspondence between the total number of electrons, $\nu $, in such a state and the occupation number of the corresponding single-site state (they differ by two). We, therefore, identify a three-site block as a “renormalized” site in the scaled lattice and the retained states of the three-site block as the “renormalized” single-site states \[3, 4\].
The intrablock Hamiltonian could be written within the subspace of the truncated basis in terms of the new block-fermion operators $$H_o ' = \frac{1}{2} (E_2 + E_3 )
+2( E_2-E_3)
\left(\frac{1}{2} - n_{
\uparrow'}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2} - n_{ \downarrow'}\right)$$ where the prime denotes the renormalized block-fermion operators. Comparison of this “renormalized” block Hamiltonian with the single site part of the Hamiltonian (2) leads to the renormalization formulae for $U$ and $D$ in (3).
To obtain the interblock part of the Hamiltonian we calculate the matrix elements of the old fermion operators on the boundary site $b$, $c_{b \uparrow}$ and $c_{b \uparrow} n_{b \downarrow}$, between the states we have retained. This leads to the renormalization of $t$ as follows $$t' = 2 ( \lambda \lambda^* - \lambda \lambda'^* -\lambda' \lambda^*)$$ which is equivalent to the last relation in (3). $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$ are already given in (4).
Let us now illustrate the scheme of calculation of the renormalized parameters as given by Eqn. (3). We refer to a specific case with a choice of states belonging to the $E$-representation (Table 1) from all the subspaces. We find from the Table 1 that there could be several sets of states from the subspaces with $\nu=2$ and $\nu=3$ i.e. with eigenvalues $E_2$ and $E_3$ respectively. For example, we pick up the case with $E_2= t-U/4$ and $E_3=-3U/4$.
The block-state $|0' \rangle$ (with $S_z=0$ and $\nu=2$) which is an eigenvector of the block-Hamiltonian belonging to the eigenvalue $E_2=t-U/4$ and is simultaneously an eigenvector of the rotation operators $R(C_{3v})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
|0'\rangle &&= \frac{1}{2\sqrt{6}} \left[~ |0~\uparrow~\downarrow \rangle -
|0~\downarrow~\uparrow \rangle - 2 |\uparrow~0~\downarrow \rangle +
2 |\downarrow~0~\uparrow \rangle \right. \nonumber \\
&&+\left. |\uparrow~\downarrow~0 \rangle - |\downarrow~\uparrow~0 \rangle~\right]
+\frac{i}{2 \sqrt{2}} \left[~|0~\uparrow~\downarrow \rangle -
|0~\downarrow~\uparrow \rangle \right. \nonumber \\
&& - \left. |\uparrow~\downarrow~0 \rangle +
|0~\downarrow~\uparrow \rangle ~\right]~.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the block-state $|\uparrow' \rangle$ (with $S_z=1/2$ and $\nu=3$) which is an eigenvector of the block-Hamiltonian belonging to the eigenvalue $E_3=-3U/4$ and is simultaneously an eigenvector of the rotation operators $R(C_{3v})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\uparrow' \rangle &&= \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} \left[~|\uparrow~\downarrow~\uparrow \rangle -
2 |\uparrow~\uparrow~\downarrow \rangle + |\downarrow~\uparrow ~\uparrow \rangle \right] \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{i}{2} \left[~|\uparrow~\downarrow~\uparrow\rangle -
|\downarrow~\uparrow~\uparrow \rangle ~\right]~.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have expressed a given configuration of the triangular block by $|\beta~\gamma~\delta \rangle$ ($\beta, \gamma, \delta = 0, \uparrow, \downarrow
~{\rm or}~ \uparrow \downarrow$) such that the configuration obeys the ordering of the site indices $1 \rightarrow \beta$, $2 \rightarrow \gamma$ and $3 \rightarrow \delta$ (see Fig. 1 for the site indices).
For the choice of these particular set of states, $$\lambda=\langle 0' | c_{1 \uparrow} | \uparrow' \rangle = -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}+
\frac{i}{2 \sqrt{6}}~,$$ while $$\lambda'= \langle 0' | c_{1 \uparrow } n_{1 \downarrow} |\uparrow' \rangle =0~.$$ $\lambda'$ may have non-zero value for other sets of states. Instead of using $c_{1 \uparrow}$ and $n_{1 \uparrow}$ one could use operators belonging to site no. 2 or 3 to land up with the same result. This is because all the three sites are “boundary sites” (as pointed out earlier) and, therefore, equivalent to each other. These lead to the following RG equations $$\begin{aligned}
&&U' = 2(E_2-E_3)=2t+U \nonumber \\
&&D' = 3D + (E_2+E_3)/2 = 3D + t/2 -U/2 \nonumber \\
&&t' = 2 Re[~\lambda^{\ast} (\lambda - 2 \lambda')~]~ t = \frac{1}{6} t~.\end{aligned}$$
The renormalized parameters could be easily calculated in a similar way for any other choice of states shown in Table 1.
.04in [**References**]{}
\[1\] Lieb E and Wu F 1968 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**20**]{} 1445
\[2\] Vollhardt D 1993 [*Correlated Electron Systems*]{} ed V J Emery (World Scientific) vol 9
\[3\] Hirsch J E 1980 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**22**]{} 5259
\[4\] Dasgupta C and Pfeuty P 1981 [*J. Phys.*]{} C [**14**]{} 717
\[5\] Bhattacharyya B and Roy G K 1995 [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**7**]{} 5537
\[6\] Bhattacharyya B and Sil S 1995 [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**7**]{} 6663\
Bhattacharyya B and Sil S 1996 [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**8**]{} 911
\[7\] Sil S and Bhattacharyya B 1997 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**54** ]{} 14349
\[8\] White S R 1992 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{} 2863 White S R 1993 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**48**]{} 10345
\[9\] Perez-Conde J and Pfeuty P 1993 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**47**]{} 856\
Vanderzande C 1985 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**18**]{} 889
\[10\] Machida K and Fujita M 1990 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**42**]{} 2673
\[11\] Krishnamurthy H R, Jayaprakash C, Sarker S and Wenzel W 1990 [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**64**]{} 950\
Jayaprakash C, Krishnamurthy H R, Sarker S and Wenzel W 1991 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**15**]{} 625
\[12\] Kato M and Kokubo F 1994 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**49**]{} 8864
\[13\] Pecher Udo and B$\ddot{\rm u}$ttner H 1995 [*Z. Phys.*]{} B [**98**]{} 239
\[14\] Gazza C J, Trumper A E and Ceccatto H A 1994 [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**6**]{} L624
\[15\] Hubbard J 1963 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London*]{} A [**276**]{} 238
\[16\] Kino H and Kotani H [*preprint*]{} cond-mat/9807147\
Kondo H and Moriya T [*preprint*]{} cond-mat/9807322
\[17\] Strack R and Vollhardt D 1993 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**17**]{} 2637
\[18\] Cotton F A 1971 [*Chemical Applications of Group Theory*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, 2nd ed)
\[19\] Arrachea L and Aligia A A 1994 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{} 2240
\[20\] Bhattacharyya B and Sil S 1996 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} A [**210**]{} 129
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the problem of planning Pareto-optimal journeys in public transit networks. Most existing algorithms and speed-up techniques work by computing subjourneys to intermediary stops until the destination is reached. In contrast, the trip-based model [@Witt2015] focuses on trips and transfers between them, constructing journeys as a sequence of trips. In this paper, we develop a speed-up technique for this model inspired by principles behind existing state-of-the-art speed-up techniques, Transfer Patterns [@Bast2010] and Hub Labelling [@Cohen2003]. The resulting algorithm allows us to compute Pareto-optimal (with respect to arrival time and number of transfers) 24-hour profiles on very large real-world networks in less than half a millisecond. Compared to the current state of the art for bicriteria queries on public transit networks, this is up to two orders of magnitude faster, while increasing preprocessing overhead by at most one order of magnitude.'
author:
- |
Sascha Witt\
`[email protected]`\
\
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)\
Karlsruhe, Germany
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Trip-Based Public Transit Routing Using Condensed Search Trees'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Finding optimal journeys in public transit networks is a complex problem. Efficient algorithms are required to allow real-time answering of queries by users in online systems such as Google Maps Transit[^1] or those of local providers such as `bahn.de` or `fahrplan.sbb.ch`. In these systems, users enter a source location, a destination, and a rough point in time and expect a number of journeys that are optimal in some sense.
Precisely what constitutes an optimal journey is non-trivial to define, as it often depends on individual user preferences. Generally, passengers want to arrive as quickly as possible, so travel time should usually be minimized. However, some users may prefer a slightly longer journey with fewer transfers between different vehicles, as transfers reduce travel comfort and introduce additional uncertainty — connecting trains might be missed due to delays. How much extra travel time someone is willing to accept in exchange for fewer transfers differs from user to user and might depend on several factors, such as arrival time or even purpose of the journey.
Since no system can capture all these variables to compute the optimal journey for each query, we usually compute a set of possible journeys and let the user choose among them, possibly after applying some filtering [@Delling2013; @Farina2004]. A general approach to this is to define a number of criteria, such as arrival time and number of transfers, and compute a set of Pareto-optimal journeys, i.e. a set such that no journey is better than any other in all criteria.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
------------
In the past, several algorithms based on different principles have been proposed. For an extensive survey, please refer to Bast et al. [@Bast2014a]. Pyrga et al. [@Pyrga2008] reduce the problem of finding optimal journeys in public transit networks to finding shortest paths in graphs. They propose the time-extended and time-dependent model along with some speed-up techniques such as goal directed search, and optimize both travel time and number of transfers in the Pareto sense. Geisberger [@Geisberger2010] applies the concept of contraction hierarchies, which have proved successful on road networks, to public transit networks. Only travel time is optimized. Berger et al. [@Berger2010] introduce SUBITO and k-flags, two speed-up techniques that optimize both travel time and number of transfers in the Pareto sense.
RAPTOR [@Delling2012] foregoes modelling the data as a graph and instead operates directly on the timetable data. In addition to travel time and number of transfers, they also consider price as a criteria. The Connection Scan Algorithm (CSA) [@Dibbelt2013] also eschews graphs and instead works on an ordered array of connections to find Pareto-optimal journeys with respect to travel time and number of transfers. Accelerated CSA [@Strasser2014] is a speed-up technique for CSA that works via partitioning of the network. Unlike the original CSA, it was only evaluated as a single-criterion algorithm, using the number of transfers as a tiebreaker between journeys with identical arrival time.
Public Transit Labelling (PTL) [@Delling2015] uses, as the name implies, a hub labelling approach. It requires extensive preprocessing and produces a very large amount of auxiliary data, but leads to very low query times, even for multi-criteria queries. Timetable Labelling (TTL) [@Wang2015] is another labelling-based approach, which has been extended in the context of databases by Efentakis [@Efentakis2016]. However, TTL only performs single-criterion queries regarding arrival time.
Transfer Patterns (TP) [@Bast2010; @Bast2016; @Bast2014] is a speed-up technique that precomputes the eponymous transfer patterns between all stops in the network. These transfer patterns are formed by the sequence of stops where passengers transfer between vehicles. At query time, these patterns are then used to quickly find all Pareto-optimal journeys.
Our Contribution {#sec:contribution}
----------------
In this work, we present a speed-up technique based on Trip-Based Public Transit Routing (TB) [@Witt2015]. Unlike other approaches, TB conceptually works on a graph where nodes represent trips, not stops. Edges represent possible transfers between trips, and are qualified using the indices of the stops where passengers exit or board a trip. These transfers are precomputed and can be looked up quickly during query processing. This has the advantage that minimum change times and footpaths do not have to be evaluated at query time, and allows fine-grained modelling without query-time overhead.
Inspired by the principles behind Transfer Patterns [@Bast2010] and Hub Labelling [@Cohen2003], our speed-up technique achieves sub-millisecond query times for profile queries on country-sized networks, while keeping preprocessing overhead low.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
A public transit network is defined by an aperiodic *timetable*, which contains a set of stops, a set of footpaths, and a set of trips. A *stop* is a physical location where passengers can enter or exit a vehicle, such as a bus or train. Depending on the granularity of the model, a stop may represent an entire train station, a single platform, or some subset of all platforms within a train station. Transferring from one vehicle to another at the same stop $s$ may require a certain amount of time, which we call minimum change time ${\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{ch}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(s{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$. If the time between the arrival of the previous vehicle and the departure of the subsequent one is less than ${\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{ch}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(s{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$, no transfer between them is possible at this station. *Footpaths* connect two stops and indicate the time required to walk from one to the other. We use the most general model of directed, non-transitive footpaths. We denote the time required to walk from stop $s_1$ to $s_2$ as ${\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{fp}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(s_1,s_2{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$, with ${\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{fp}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(s_1,s_2{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} := \infty$ if no footpath from $s_1$ to $s_2$ exists.
*Trips* represent vehicles. Each trip $t$ travels along a sequence of stops ${\vec{s}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(t{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} = {{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<{t\textrm{\scriptsize @}1},\dots,{t\textrm{\scriptsize @}n}{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$. A trip may visit a stop multiple times. For each ${t\textrm{\scriptsize @}i}$, the timetable contains the arrival time time ${\tau_{\mathrm{arr}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t\textrm{\scriptsize @}i}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$ and the departure time ${\tau_{\mathrm{dep}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t\textrm{\scriptsize @}i}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$ of trip $t$ at that stop index. Trips that travel along the same sequence of stops are grouped into *lines*. We require that trips never overtake another trip of the same line; more specifically, we require that the trips of a line can be totally ordered with respect to $$t_1 \preceq t_2 \iff \forall i \in {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}[1, {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}|{\vec{s}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(t_1{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}{\aftergroup\egroup\right}|{\aftergroup\egroup\right}]:
{\tau_{\mathrm{arr}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}i}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} \leq {\tau_{\mathrm{arr}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}i}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}\text{.}$$ Trips that violate this requirement are assigned to different lines. We denote the line of a trip $t$ as ${L{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(t{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$, and define ${\vec{s}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({L{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(t{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} := {\vec{s}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(t{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$.
*Transfers* indicate connections between trips. We denote transfers as ${{t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}e} \rightarrow {t_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}}$, meaning that passengers can exit trip $t_1$ at stop index $e$ in order to board trip $t_2$ at stop index $b$. Transfers may occur at a single stop, in which case $${\tau_{\mathrm{arr}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}e}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} + {\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{ch}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}e}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} \leq {\tau_{\mathrm{dep}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}$$ must hold, or they may involve a footpath, in which case the requirement is $${\tau_{\mathrm{arr}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}e}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} + {\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{fp}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}e},{t_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}
\leq {\tau_{\mathrm{dep}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}\text{.}$$ A *journey* describes how and when to get from a source stop $s_\mathrm{src}$ to a destination stop $s_\mathrm{dest}$. It can be defined by a sequence ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<{t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}b_1},{t_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}b_2},\dots,{t_n\textrm{\scriptsize @}b_n}{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$ with the following requirements: $$\begin{gathered}
s_\mathrm{src} = {t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}b_1}
\lor {\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{fp}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(s_\mathrm{src},{t_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}b_1}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})}
< \infty\label{eq:journey_fp_src}\\
\forall i \in {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}[1,n{\aftergroup\egroup\right}): \exists e > b_i:
{{t_i\textrm{\scriptsize @}e} \rightarrow {t_{i+1}\textrm{\scriptsize @}b_{i+1}}}\label{eq:journey_transfers}\\
\exists i: {t_n\textrm{\scriptsize @}i} = s_\mathrm{dest} \lor
{\Delta\tau_{\mathrm{fp}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}({t_n\textrm{\scriptsize @}i},s_\mathrm{dest}{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} < \infty\label{eq:journey_fp_dest}
\text{.}\end{gathered}$$ These requirements ensure that the first trip can be reached , that transfers are possible between subsequent trips , and that the final trip arrives at the destination .
We consider two well-known bicriteria problems, optimizing arrival time and number of transfers required. It has been shown [@Muller-Hannemann2006] that for these criteria, computing the full set of Pareto-optimal journeys is feasible. A journey is Pareto-optimal if no other journey dominating it exists. A journey dominates another if it is better or equal in all criteria — if they are equal in all criteria, we break the tie arbitrarily and keep only one of them in the set.
The input to the *earliest arrival query* consists of a source stop $s_\mathrm{src}$, a destination stop $s_\mathrm{dest}$, and a departure time $\tau$. The result is a set of tuples ${\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(\tau_\mathrm{dest}, n{\aftergroup\egroup\right})$, one for each Pareto-optimal journey leaving $s_\mathrm{src}$ no earlier than $\tau$ and arriving at $s_\mathrm{dest}$ at time $\tau_\mathrm{dest}$ after $n$ transfers. For the *profile query*, we are given a source stop $s_\mathrm{src}$, a destination stop $s_\mathrm{dest}$, an earliest departure time $\tau_\mathrm{edt}$, and a latest departure time $\tau_\mathrm{ldt}$. Here, we consider the departure time of journeys as an additional criterion, with later departures dominating earlier ones. Thus, we compute all Pareto-optimal journeys departing at $s_\mathrm{src}$ at some time $\tau_\mathrm{src}$ with $\tau_\mathrm{edt} \leq \tau_\mathrm{src} \leq \tau_\mathrm{ldt}$ and arriving, after $n$ transfers, at $s_\mathrm{dest}$ at time $\tau_\mathrm{dest}$. The answer to the query is then the set of tuples ${\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(\tau_\mathrm{src},\tau_\mathrm{dest},n{\aftergroup\egroup\right})$ corresponding to these journeys.
Trip-Based Public Transit Routing {#sec:tbptr}
=================================
This section provides a quick explanation of the Trip-Based Public Routing (TB) algorithm [@Witt2015]. For more details, please refer to the original publication.
Preprocessing
-------------
As mentioned in section \[sec:contribution\], TB uses trips and transfers between them as its basic building blocks. During a short preprocessing phase, all possible transfers between trips are computed. However, it can be shown that many of these transfers can never be part of an optimal journey, for example transfers that lead to trips that run in the opposite direction, or transfers to several trips of the same line. Therefore, the second step of preprocessing is discarding these superfluous transfers, which may constitute up to 90% of total transfers. Since each trip can be processed separately, preprocessing is trivially parallelized and can be performed within minutes even for very large networks.
Queries {#sec:tb_queries}
-------
Queries are similar to a breadth-first search on the graph formed by trips and the transfers between them. For an earliest arrival query, we first identify the trips reachable from the source stop, and insert them into a queue. Then, each trip is processed by scanning its outgoing transfers. Newly reached trips are in turn added to the queue. Trips are marked as reached by, conceptually, assigning labels consisting of trip, stop index, and number of transfers needed to reach that trip to lines.[^2] Branches of the search are pruned if they are dominated by existing labels. The graph is explored until all Pareto-optimal journeys to the destination stop are found.
For a profile query, we essentially repeat the above multiple times. Observe that the departure time is an additional criteria for journeys in profile queries, with later journeys dominating earlier ones. If all other criteria are equal, the journey with the later departure has less travel time and is therefore preferable. Thus, we start with the latest possible departure at the source stop, and perform an earliest arrival query. We can add the resulting journeys to the result set. Then, without resetting labels, we perform an earliest arrival query for the second-latest departure, and so on. By preserving the labels between runs, we allow later journeys to dominate earlier ones, avoiding redundant work.
Storing One-to-All Search Trees {#sec:algorithm}
===============================
In this section, we show how some of the principles behind Transfer Patterns [@Bast2010] can be applied to the Trip-Based model. The core idea of the Transfers Patterns algorithm is to precompute, for all pairs of source and destination stop, the *transfer patterns* for all optimal journeys. The transfer pattern of a journey is the sequence of stops where a change of vehicle occurs. In practice, optimal journeys between two given stops share a limited number of transfer patterns. If all optimal transfer patterns between source and destination are known, queries can be answered quickly by looking up direct connections between the stops forming the transfer patterns.
We use the same property as the foundation for our speed-up technique. Since we operate on trips — or more generally, lines, which are ordered sets of trips — we do not precompute sequences of stops where transfers occur. Instead, we precompute the sequence of *lines* that correspond to an optimal journey, together with the stop indices where each of these lines is boarded. As we show in the next section, these line sequences form a natural generalization of one-to-all profile search trees.
Prefix Trees {#sec:prefix_trees}
------------
We compute one-to-all profiles from each stop to find all potential line sequences. These one-to-all profiles are at their core identical to the one-to-one profiles described in the original publication [@Witt2015] and summarized in section \[sec:tb\_queries\].
First, all departures at the source stop are ordered by departure time and then processed backwards. For each distinct departure time, we then perform a breadth-first search as described in section \[sec:tb\_queries\]. This results in a breadth-first tree, with the source stop as the root node, the visited trips as internal nodes, and the reached stops as leaves. In contrast to one-to-one profiles, we also assign labels to all stops, consisting of arrival time and number of transfers. We update these using the breadth-first tree, pruning branches that do not lead to an improved stop label. The remaining tree is generalized by replacing all trips with their respective line and the index of the stop where the trip was boarded. We then restart the search using the next (earlier) departure, preserving all labels.
Finally, the trees are merged, resulting in one *prefix tree* [@DeLaBriandais1959] for each source stop, containing the optimal line sequences to all destination stops. In essence, this prefix tree represents a condensed, time-independent result of a one-to-all profile search. Note that prefix trees are functionally equivalent to the transfer pattern graphs used by Transfer Patterns [@Bast2010], except that internal nodes represent lines instead of stops.
Queries {#sec:queries}
-------
We can use these prefix trees to quickly answer queries. First, we construct the *query graph*. To do so, we find the nodes corresponding to the destination stop in the prefix tree of the source stop. We follow the paths from these nodes to the root, adding edges from parent to child nodes to the query graph. Multiple occurrences of the same ${L\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}$ in the prefix tree are mapped onto the same node in the query graph. Again, note the similarity to the query graph used by Transfer Patterns [@Bast2010].
To answer the query, we run a simple multi-criteria label-correction shortest path algorithm [@Disser2008] on the query graph. Labels consist of a trip, the number of transfers, and, for profile queries, the departure time at the source stop. Finding the initial trips at the source stop is straightforward. Given a label $(t, n, \tau_{dep})$, we relax an edge between ${L_1\textrm{\scriptsize @}i}$ and ${L_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}j}$ by finding a transfer ${{t\textrm{\scriptsize @}k} \rightarrow {s\textrm{\scriptsize @}j}}$ such that $k > i$ and ${L{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}(s{\aftergroup\egroup\right})} = L_2$. We then add a label $(s, n+1, \tau_{dep})$ to the node representing ${L_2\textrm{\scriptsize @}j}$. Once the algorithm terminates, we can extract the arrival times at the destination stop from the labels. Intuitively, the prefix tree tells us which paths through the networks optimal journeys can take. The query then follows these paths to find the actual journeys for the given departure time(s).
Splitting Trees {#sec:splitting_trees}
===============
Unfortunately, for large networks, prefix trees grow unfeasibly large, and memory usage becomes an issue. Each tree spans the entire network, and in addition, many subtrees are duplicates of each other, with slightly different prefixes. Furthermore, subtrees are often duplicated across different trees, since stops can only be reached through a limited set of lines.
We can reduce this redundancy by removing branches from the prefix trees and instead storing them in *postfix trees*. These postfix trees are essentially reverse prefix trees: They are rooted at a *destination* stop and describe optimal line sequences for reaching that stop. Storing these sequences once for each destination stop instead of once or even multiple times for each source stop greatly improves space efficiency. Optimal line sequences can be recovered by concatenating branches of the source’s prefix tree with matching branches of the destination’s postfix tree.
Postfix Trees {#sec:postfix_trees}
-------------
We construct the postfix trees from the prefix trees as follows. For each path from the root (that is, the source stop) to a leaf (a destination stop), we select an internal node ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ where we “cut” this path. Section \[sec:cut\_selection\] explains how this node is chosen. We add the subpath from ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ (inclusive) to the leaf — in reverse order — to the postfix tree for the destination node. Then, we remove the leaf node and, recursively, all internal nodes that no longer have any children from the prefix tree, until we reach ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$. Thus, if the prefix tree originally contained the path ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<S,N_1,\dots,N_l,{N_\mathrm{cut}},N_{l+1},\dots,N_n,T{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$, we end up with ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<S,N_1\dots,N_l,{N_\mathrm{cut}}{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$ in the prefix tree and ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<T,N_n,\dots,N_{l+1},{N_\mathrm{cut}}{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$ in the postfix tree.
However, recall that each internal node represents a line together with the stop index where the line is boarded, ${L\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}$. This breaks the symmetry between prefix and postfix trees. As a result, we end up with many postfixes that are identical except for the board index at ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ — depending on the source stop, there are many ways to reach a line, but only a limited number of (optimal) ways from that line to the destination stop. We can merge these nodes by setting the index to the *exit* of the next transfer, which is identical for all of them. Note that we only do this for the ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ in postfix trees, not for any other nodes in either prefix or postfix trees. Thus, if ${N_\mathrm{cut}}{\overset{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}{=}}{L\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}$ and the original path was ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<S,N_1,\dots,{L\textrm{\scriptsize @}b},\dots,N_n,T{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$, we now have ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<S,N_1,\dots,{L\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$ in the prefix tree for $S$ and ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<T,N_n,\dots,{L\textrm{\scriptsize @}e}{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$ in the postfix tree for $T$, with $b < e$. This results in a greatly reduced number of leaves in postfix trees, while still allowing us to recover the original line sequence.
Since we no longer store destination stops in prefix trees (or source stops in postfix trees), but still want to preserve directional information, a bit vector is stored with each ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$. We partition the stops and set the $i$th bit if ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ connects to the postfix tree of a stop in partition $i$, and vice versa for the ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ in postfix trees. In practice, we use 64-bit integers and simply partition the stops by ID, taking advantage of the pre-existing locality in the data sets.
Queries {#sec:split_query_graph}
-------
The algorithm for query graph construction follows from the construction of the postfix trees. First, we take the prefix tree for the source stop and select all ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ where the bit vector has the bit corresponding to the destination stop set. Similarly, we select the ${N_\mathrm{cut}}'$ from the postfix tree for the destination stop where the bit corresponding to the source stop is set. Then, we find all pairs $({N_\mathrm{cut}},{N_\mathrm{cut}}')$ such that ${N_\mathrm{cut}}{\overset{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}{=}}{L\textrm{\scriptsize @}b}$ and ${N_\mathrm{cut}}' {\overset{\scriptscriptstyle\wedge}{=}}{L\textrm{\scriptsize @}e}$ with $b < e$. Each such pair defines a path ${{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\left}<S,N_1,\dots,N_l,{N_\mathrm{cut}},N_{l+1},\dots,N_n,T{\aftergroup\egroup\right}>}$, and we need to ensure that the query graph contains all edges in that path. By ordering the nodes by their corresponding line, we can find these pairs using an algorithm similar to a coordinated sweep. Due to the generalizations performed during postfix tree construction, we will find some prefix-postfix combinations that do not correspond to an optimal line sequence. Thus, the resulting query graph will usually be larger than in section \[sec:queries\], but this only affects performance of the query, not correctness. The query algorithm itself is the same as before.
Essentially, we find optimal paths during preprocessing, split them at some intermediary node for more efficient storage, and then reassemble them at query time. Note the similarity to the concept of hub labelling [@Cohen2003]. In hub labelling, optimal journeys are split at some intermediary hub, then stored in compressed form at the source and destination. We do the same, except we only store the more general line sequences instead of the journeys, which we can then reconstruct at query time. Indeed, as we show in section \[sec:experiments\], our approach shares some properties with existing labelling approaches.
The flags we use to filter possible connections are reminiscent of arc flags [@Mohring2007]. Without them, many long prefixes would connect to long postfixes for stops that are close together on the network, without a corresponding optimal journey. Exploring these unnecessary nodes during the query would be costly and is avoided by this pre-filtering.
Cut Selection {#sec:cut_selection}
-------------
It is clear that the choice of ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$ has a large effect on the resulting trees. In general, we want smaller trees, which are more space efficient. We examined two fundamentally different strategies.
The first is to simply cut paths in half. Unsurprisingly, this results in rather large trees, since paths are cut at more or less arbitrary lines. This results in many different prefixes and postfixes for each stop, which translates to large trees.
The second strategy exploits the underlying network’s structure by selecting the most “important” lines. To find these lines, we construct the *line graph* [@Bermond1977] of the network. In the (undirected) line graph, nodes correspond to lines, and two nodes share an edge if and only if a transfer between these lines is possible. We then use this line graph to compute the betweenness centrality [@Freeman1977] of each line using Brandes’ algorithm [@Brandes2001].[^3] This gives us an ordering of the lines, and when choosing ${N_\mathrm{cut}}$, we select the node which corresponds to the most central line on the path. This ensures that the choice is consistent across different paths, which allows better merging of prefixes and postfixes. As we show in section \[sec:experiments\], this strategy gives good results on country-sized networks, which typically exhibit good structure. Unfortunately, it is less successful on the less structured metropolitan networks. On these, using the simpler strategy of cutting paths into two equal halves leads to better results. Exploration of further criteria for selecting cut nodes is a subject of future research.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
We performed experiments using a quad $8$-core Intel Xeon E5-4640 clocked at $2.4$GHz with $512$GB of DDR3-1600 RAM, using $64$ threads for parallel preprocessing. Except where otherwise noted, computations are sequential. Code was written in C++ and compiled using g++ 5.2.0 with optimizations enabled. We consider five real-world data sets, three covering countries of varying size and two metropolitan networks: Germany, provided to us by Deutsche Bahn, Switzerland, available at `gtfs.geops.ch`, and Sweden, available at `trafiklab.se`, contain both long-distance and local transit, and cover two consecutive days to allow for overnight journeys. London, available at `data.london.gov.uk`, and Madrid, available at `emtmadrid.es`, cover a single day only. For Madrid, we computed footpaths using a known heuristic [@Delling2010], for all other instances, they are part of the input. These data sets are summarized in Table \[tab:data\_sets\].
Instance Stops Conn. Trips Lines Footp. Transfers
------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ---------- --------- ------------
Germany $247.9$k $27\,061$k $1\,432$k $192.8$k $98.8$k $84\,950$k
Sweden $50.7$k $6\,054$k $261$k $17.6$k $0.8$k $16\,455$k
Switzerland $27.8$k $4\,650$k $611$k $14.4$k $34.3$k $12\,626$k
London $20.8$k $4\,991$k $129$k $2.2$k $27.6$k $15\,883$k
Madrid $4.6$k $5\,280$k $190$k $1.4$k $1.4$k $9\,256$k
: Instances used for experiments.[]{data-label="tab:data_sets"}
Preprocessing figures can be found in Table \[tab:preprocessing\]. Due to scheduling conflicts, sequential preprocessing of the Germany instance was performed on a different machine[^4]. We report the total time required to perform the computation of prefix and postfix trees, as described in section \[sec:splitting\_trees\]. This includes the time required to compute the betweenness centrality, which is negligible in most cases. For Germany, Switzerland and Sweden we use the betweenness centrality to select cut nodes; for London and Madrid we use the simpler method of cutting paths in half. The reverse generally leads to larger trees and therefore higher memory consumption. For most instances, the difference is about $1$–$2$GB; for Germany, the difference is almost $50$GB. It is interesting to note that the metropolitan networks require more space than the two small country-sized networks. This indicates that the topology of the network is more important than the raw size in terms of stops or connections. A similar effect can be seen in the labelling approaches, Public Transit Labelling (PTL) [@Delling2015] and Timetable Labelling (TTL) [@Wang2015].
------------- ------------ -------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- --------
Instance
Germany $2\,143.6$ $(231$:$16)$ $13$:$48$ $(16.8$x$)$ $7\,305$ $23.2$
Sweden $166.7$ $4$:$33$ $0$:$18$ $15.2$x $2\,433$ $1.6$
Switzerland $209.3$ $3$:$18$ $0$:$12$ $16.5$x $4\,315$ $1.6$
London $1\,368.1$ $15$:$19$ $0$:$42$ $21.9$x $20\,390$ $6.0$
Madrid $497.3$ $1$:$22$ $0$:$04$ $17.0$x $32\,293$ $2.0$
------------- ------------ -------------- ----------- ------------- ----------- --------
: Preprocessing figures. Listed are the average time required to compute the full prefix tree for a stop, the total time required to compute the split trees for all stops (sequential and parallel), the average number of nodes in those trees (per stop, i.e. the sum of prefix and postfix), and the total space consumption. Sequential preprocessing for the Germany instance was performed on a different machine. []{data-label="tab:preprocessing"}
We evaluate query times in Table \[tab:queries\]. We measured the average times for $10\,000$ queries with source and destination stop chosen uniformly at random. For earliest arrival queries, the departure time was chosen uniformly at random on the first day; for profile queries, the departure time range is the entire first day. We evaluated queries for three different variants: The basic trip-based algorithm (TB), using prefix trees as described in section \[sec:algorithm\] (PT), and using both prefix and postfix trees as described in section \[sec:splitting\_trees\] (ST). The ST variant leads to larger query graphs than the PT variant. This is to be expected, as some information gets lost in the transformation, and some prefixes may connect to more postfixes than required. This does not affect correctness, because all optimal line sequences are still contained in the query graph. It does, however, lead to increased query times for ST in comparison to PT. Nevertheless, the time required to construct the query graph on the Germany instance is lower for ST, since the split trees contain fewer nodes in total than the original prefix tree. Profile query times are much higher on the metropolitan networks than on the generally larger country-sized networks. In part, this is because they are less structured than the larger networks, which leads to larger query graphs. However, on the metropolitan networks, the set of optimal journeys is also much larger than on the others, which slows down the query algorithm.
------------- ------- -------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
Query graph Query graph EA profile
Instance Var. size \[N+E\] time \[s\] \[s\] \[s\]
Germany TB — — $30\,856$ $192\,952$
Sweden TB — — $2\,760$ $16\,532$
Switzerland TB — — $1\,780$ $18\,104$
London TB — — $1\,374$ $96\,114$
Madrid TB — — $711$ $54\,118$
Germany PT $41+58$ $994.4$ $63.3$ $155.0$
Sweden PT $23+32$ $24.6$ $40.4$ $88.6$
Switzerland PT $38+59$ $34.0$ $45.8$ $155.9$
London PT $91+196$ $138.2$ $101.1$ $2\,786.6$
Madrid PT $150+407$ $306.9$ $81.7$ $6\,913.8$
Germany ST $124+232$ $81.1$ $75.0$ $430.5$
Sweden ST $66+122$ $32.5$ $27.2$ $207.1$
Switzerland ST $118+233$ $76.1$ $32.7$ $327.6$
London ST $331+1242$ $1\,583.3$ $141.4$ $14\,545.4$
Madrid ST $456+2073$ $11\,822.9$ $165.8$ $28\,919.0$
------------- ------- -------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
: Query figures. Listed are the query graph size (nodes + edges), the time required to construct the query graph, and the time required to perform an earliest arrival and a 24h profile query. The first block refers to the basic trip-based algorithm, where no query graph is used. The second block uses a prefix tree for each source stop, as in section \[sec:algorithm\]. The third block uses the split trees for source and destination stop, as in section \[sec:splitting\_trees\]. []{data-label="tab:queries"}
[l l r r c c r r r]{} algorithm & instance & stops & conn.& tr.& pr.& mem. & pre. & query\
& & \[$10^3$\] & \[$10^6$\] & & & \[GB\] & \[h\] & \[s\]\
CSA [@Strasser2014] & Germany & $252.4$ & $46.2$ & $\circ$ & $\circ$ & — & — & $298.6$k\
ACSA [@Strasser2014] & Germany & $252.4$ & $46.2$ & $\circ$ & $\circ$ & n/a & $0.2$ & $8.7$k\
TP [@Bast2014] & Germany & $248.4$ & $13.9$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $140.0$ & $372.0$ & $300.0$\
Sc-TP [@Bast2016] & Germany & $250.0$ & $15.0$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $1.2$ & $16.5$ & $32.0$k\
TB & Germany & $247.9$ & $27.1$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $23.2$ & $231.3$ & $156.1$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTL [@Wang2015] & Sweden & $51.4$ & n/a & $\circ$ & $\circ$ & $\approx0.5$ & $0.2$ & $\approx10.0$\
PTL [@Delling2015] & Sweden & $51.1$ & $12.7$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $12.3$ & $36.2$ & $27.6$\
TB & Sweden & $50.7$ & $6.1$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $1.6$ & $3.8$ & $59.7$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTL [@Delling2015] & Switzerland & $27.1$ & $23.7$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $12.7$ & $61.6$ & $21.7$\
TB & Switzerland & $27.8$ & $4.7$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $1.6$ & $2.7$ & $108.8$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA [@Dibbelt2013] & London & $20.8$ & $4.9$ & $\circ$ & $\circ$ & — & — & $1.8$k\
PTL [@Delling2015] & London & $20.8$ & $5.1$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $26.2$ & $49.3$ & $30.0$\
TB & London & $20.8$ & $5.0$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $6.0$ & $11.6$ & $1.7$k\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTL [@Wang2015] & Madrid & $4.6$ & n/a & $\circ$ & $\circ$ & $\approx0.4$ & $0.1$ & $\approx30.0$\
PTL [@Delling2015] & Madrid & $4.7$ & $4.5$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $9.9$ & $10.9$ & $64.3$\
TP [@Bast2014a] & Madrid & $4.6$ & $4.8$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & n/a & $185.0$ & $3.1$k\
TB & Madrid & $4.6$ & $5.3$ & $\bullet$ & $\circ$ & $2.0$ & $1.1$ & $12.0$k\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSA [@Strasser2014] & Germany & $252.4$ & $46.2$ & $\circ$ & $\bullet$ & n/a & $0.2$ & $171.0$k\
TP [@Bast2014] & Germany & $248.4$ & $13.9$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $140.0$ & $372.0$ & $5.0$k\
TB & Germany & $247.9$ & $27.1$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $23.2$ & $231.3$ & $511.6$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTL [@Delling2015] & Sweden & $51.1$ & $12.7$ & $\circ$ & $\bullet$ & $0.7$ & $0.5$ & $12.1$\
TB & Sweden & $50.7$ & $6.1$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $1.6$ & $3.8$ & $239.6$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTL [@Delling2015] & Switzerland & $27.1$ & $23.7$ & $\circ$ & $\bullet$ & $0.7$ & $0.7$ & $24.5$\
TB & Switzerland & $27.8$ & $4.7$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $1.6$ & $2.7$ & $403.7$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTL [@Delling2015] & London & $20.8$ & $5.1$ & $\circ$ & $\bullet$ & $1.3$ & $0.9$ & $74.3$\
CSA [@Dibbelt2013] & London & $20.8$ & $4.9$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & — & — & $466.0$k\
TB & London & $20.8$ & $5.0$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $6.0$ & $11.6$ & $16.1$k\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTL [@Delling2015] & Madrid & $4.7$ & $4.5$ & $\circ$ & $\bullet$ & $0.4$ & $0.4$ & $111.9$\
TB & Madrid & $4.6$ & $5.3$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $2.0$ & $1.1$ & $40.7$k\
We compare variant ST, using prefix and postfix trees, to other state of the art algorithms in Table \[tab:comparison\]. Algorithms based on labelling approaches are generally the fastest. In particular, for single criterion queries, they dominate other preprocessing-based approaches with regard to query times, preprocessing time and memory consumption. PTL [@Delling2015] supports multi-criteria queries, at the cost of massive increases in both preprocessing time and memory consumption, while TTL [@Wang2015] only performs single-criterion queries. TP [@Bast2010; @Bast2016; @Bast2014] can answer bicriteria profile queries in a few milliseconds, even on large networks. The original TP had the drawbacks of very long preprocessing times and a large memory consumption. More recently, Scalable Transfer Pattern [@Bast2016] has made impressive improvements on this front, at the cost of increased query times.
On the metropolitan networks, our algorithm performs notably worse than could be expected, although query times are still in the low milliseconds. As previously mentioned, this is mostly due to the much higher number of journeys compared to the country-sized networks. For bicriteria queries on the country-sized networks, our algorithm has preprocessing costs one order of magnitude less than PTL, while query times are similar. Note, however, that PTL has not been evaluated for bicriteria profile queries, making direct comparison difficult. In comparison to Scalable TP, our query times are two orders of magnitude lower, at the cost of one order of magnitude for preprocessing costs. As such, our algorithm enables the currently fastest bicriteria profile queries on large realistic instances, with reasonable preprocessing overhead. On very large instances, such as Germany, preprocessing time and memory consumption may be prohibitive for some use cases. This is a subject of future research.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusions}
==========
We introduced a speed-up technique for the basic trip-based public transit routing algorithm [@Witt2015]. This technique applies principles sharing some similarities to those behind Transfer Patterns [@Bast2010; @Bast2014] and Hub Labelling [@Cohen2003] to the trip-based model and expands on them. The resulting algorithm enables query times on the microsecond scale on large realistic public transit networks with moderate preprocessing cost, occupying a Pareto-optimal spot among current state of the art algorithms.
Future work includes the study of different methods for cut node selection, with the goal of further reducing memory consumption and query graph size, developing tailored query algorithms to speed up queries on metropolitan networks, and making preprocessing more scalable by avoiding the computation of full one-to-all queries for all stops. We are also interested in adapting this speed-up technique to different scenarios, such as other and/or more criteria, and stop-based routing.
[^1]: `https://maps.google.com/transit`
[^2]: In the implementation, we unroll the “trip” and “number of transfers” dimensions for faster lookup and to allow the use of SIMD instructions.
[^3]: We chose this algorithm for simplicity; since the exact centrality is not required, one could also use an approximate algorithm [@Brandes2007] instead.
[^4]: Dual $8$-core Intel Xeon E5-2650sv2, $2.6$GHz, $128$GB DDR3-1600 RAM, $20$MB L3 cache
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe an analysis of the First International Pulsar Timing Array Data Challenge, which was designed to test the ability of new and existing algorithms to constrain the properties of a stochastic gravitational-wave background influencing the arrival-times of pulsar signals. We employ a robust, unbiased Bayesian framework developed by van Haasteren to study the three <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span> datasets of the IPTA data-challenge. We test various models for each dataset and use <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> to recover the evidence for the purposes of Bayesian model-selection. The parameter constraints of the favoured model are confirmed using an adaptive MCMC technique. Our results for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>1 favoured a gravitational-wave background with strain amplitude at $f=1\text{ yr}^{-1}$, $A$, of $(1.1\pm 0.1)\times10^{-14}$, power spectral-index $\gamma=4.30\pm0.15$ and no evidence for red-timing noise or single-sources. The evidence for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>2 favours a gravitational-wave background with $A=(6.1\pm 0.3)\times10^{-14}$, $\gamma=4.34\pm 0.09$ with no red-timing noise or single-sources. Finally, the evidence for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>3 favours the presence of red-timing noise and a gravitational-wave background, with no single-sources. The properties of the background were $A=(5\pm 1)\times10^{-15}$ and $\gamma=4.23\pm0.35$, while the properties of the red-noise were $N_{\rm red}=(12\pm 4)$ ns and $\gamma_{\rm red}=1.5\pm0.3$. In all cases the redness of the recovered background is consistent with a source-population of inspiraling supermassive black-hole binaries. We also investigate the effect that down-sampling of the datasets has on parameter constraints and run-time. Finally we provide a proof-of-principle study of the ability of the Bayesian framework used in this paper to reconstruct the angular correlation of gravitational-wave background induced timing-residuals, comparing this to the Hellings and Downs curve.'
author:
- 'Stephen R. Taylor'
- 'Jonathan R. Gair'
- 'L. Lentati'
bibliography:
- 'pta\_refs.bib'
title: |
Weighing The Evidence For A Gravitational-Wave Background\
In The First International Pulsar Timing Array Data Challenge
---
Introduction
============
There is a large international effort focussed towards the first direct detection of gravitational waves (GWs). The existing and planned ground-based instruments, such as AdLIGO [@AdvLIGO], AdVirgo [@AdvVirgo] and KAGRA [@kagra2012], are kilometre-scale interferometers sensitive to frequencies $\sim10-10^3$ Hz, and will likely be operating at design sensitivity by the end of this decade. In addition, it is hoped that a space-based interferometer with arm-lengths of $\sim10^9$ m, such as eLISA/NGO [@elisa-ngo], will be operable by the end of 2020s, and sensitive in the range $\sim 0.1-100$ mHz.
The first indirect confirmation of the existence of GWs came from precision timing of the pulsar PSR B1913+16 [@taylor-weisberg-1989], whose inferred binary orbital-energy loss was found to be consistent with the prediction of general relativity. This precision analysis was made possible by the often sub-$\mu$s level of timing precision achieved through the measurements of pulsar-signal time-of-arrivals (TOAs) [@pulsar-precision-1; @pulsar-precision-2] whose accuracy can rival that of atomic clocks.
The precision of millisecond pulsars can be exploited for GW detection through the use of pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) [@foster-backer-1990], which can effectively use the Milky Way as a kpc-scale GW-detector. Tens of Galactic millisecond pulsars have been observed over several years to search for the influence of a GW perturbing the space-time metric along each pulsar-Earth line-of-sight [@sazhin-1978; @detweiler-1979; @estabrook-1975; @burke-1975]. PTAs are sensitive to low GW frequencies ($1-10$ nHz), where this range is set by the observational time-span ($f_{\rm low}\sim1/T$) and the cadence ($f_{\rm high}\sim1/(2\Delta T)$), and as such are complementary to other GW detection experiments.
It is not only GWs which can induce deviations of the TOAs from a timing model. The dominant perturbation is caused by the deterministic spin-down of the pulsar itself, as its rotational energy is extracted to power the EM outflow. There are also stochastic contributions to the deviations caused by a variety of sources, including clock noise, receiver noise and variations of the dispersion measure of the intervening interstellar medium. These effects must be accounted for and removed from the TOAs to produce the timing residuals, which then contain only the influence of unmodelled phenomena, including GWs. While there is a rich literature on the subject of the detection of single GW-sources using pulsar-timing (e.g., [@sesana-vecchio-volonteri-2009; @babak-sesana-2012; @sesana-vecchio-2010; @lee-wex-2011; @sesana-vecchio-colacino-2008; @petiteau-ga-2012]), the most likely source of GWs for PTAs is a stochastic gravitational-wave background (GWB).
An isotropic, stochastic GWB may be created by a superposition of many single sources which are not individually resolvable. In the PTA band, the largest contribution will likely come from a cosmological population of inspiraling supermassive-black-hole-binary (SMBHB) systems, with typical masses $\sim 10^4 - 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$.
The fractional energy-density of the Universe in a GW-background is usually given as, $$\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) = \frac{1}{\rho_{\rm{c}}}\frac{d\rho_{\rm GW}(f)}{d(\ln f)} = \frac{\pi}{4}f^2h_c(f)^2,$$ where $f$ is the observed GW-frequency, $\rho_{\rm{c}}=3H^2/8\pi G$ is the energy-density required for a flat Universe, and $h_c(f)$ is the characteristic strain of the GW-background in a frequency interval centred at $f$.
The characteristic strain spectrum of a GW-background resulting from inspiraling binary systems is approximately $h_c(f)\propto f^{-2/3}$ [@begelman1980; @phinney2001; @jaffe-backer-2003; @wyithe-loeb-2003]. We can approximate the characteristic strain spectrum of a GW-background from other sources as a power-law also. Some measurable primordial background contributions may have a power-law index of $-1$ [@grishchuk-1976; @grishchuk-2005], while the background from decaying cosmic strings [@vilenkin-1981a; @vilenkin-1981b; @olmez-2010; @sanidas-2012] may have $-7/6$ [@damour-vilenkin-2005]. For most models of interest, we can describe an isotropic, stochastic GW-background by [@jenet-2006], $$h_c(f) = A\left(\frac{f}{\rm{yr}^{-1}}\right)^{\alpha}.$$ This characteristic strain spectrum is related to the one-sided power spectral density of the induced timing residuals by, $$S(f) = \frac{1}{12\pi^2}\frac{1}{f^3}h_c(f)^2 = \frac{A^2}{12\pi^2}\left(\frac{f}{\rm{yr}^{-1}}\right)^{-\gamma}\rm{yr}^3,$$ where $\gamma\equiv3-2\alpha$.
@hellings-downs-1983 developed a simple cross-correlation technique for pulsars affected by the same stochastic, isotropic GWB, showing that the cross-correlation of the induced timing-residuals has a distinctive angular signature dependant only on the angular-separation of the pulsars: $$\label{eq:hell-down}
\zeta_{ab} = \frac{3}{2}x\ln(x) - \frac{1}{4}x + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\delta_{ab},$$ where $x = (1-\cos\theta_{ab})/2$, and $\theta_{ab}$ is the angular separation of the pulsar sky-locations.
While a GWB induces correlated residuals which typically have a steep, red spectrum, there may be additional uncorrelated red-noise contributions from rotational irregularities in each individual pulsar [@shannon-cordes-2010], for which the spectrum is given as, $$S(f) = N_{\rm red}^2\left(\frac{1}{1\text{yr}^{-1}}\right)\left(\frac{f}{1\text{yr}^{-1}}\right)^{-\gamma_{\rm red}}.$$ Over the last several years constraints on the amplitude of an isotropic GWB have been published by the three major PTA collaborations [@demorest-2012; @yardley-2011; @van-haasteren-limits-2011], the European Pulsar Timing Array (EPTA) [@epta-site], the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav) [@nanograv-site], and the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array (PPTA) [@ppta-site]. The International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA) [@ipta-site] consortium combines these three efforts and recently initiated the first “IPTA Data Challenge” [@first-ipta-challenge] whose aim was to test new and existing algorithms for the purpose of constraining the properties of a background of GWs using PTAs.[^1]
In this paper we describe an analysis of the first IPTA data challenge. We use the time-domain Bayesian framework developed by @van-haasteren-limits-2011,[@van-haasteren-levin-2012]. Although faster implementations of this method have recently been suggested [@van-haasteren-compression-2012; @lentati-spectrum-2012], we employ the original framework and analyse the uncompressed data for the purposes of model-selection with the recovered Bayesian evidence. To evaluate the evidence of posterior parameter distributions, we use the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> nested sampling algorithm, and confirm favoured-model parameter constraints with an adaptive MCMC algorithm.
This paper is organised as follows. In Sec. \[sec:bayesian-inference\] we describe Bayesian inference and how the evidence, which is the key quantity for model-selection, is computed. Section \[sec:pulsar-timing-analysis\] describes pulsar timing analysis, including how the raw data is processed and a derivation of the likelihood of the timing-residuals given the timing-model and GWB parameters. The stochastic sampling techniques we have employed are described in Sec. \[sec:stochastic-sampling-techniques\], followed by a description of the IPTA challenge data in Sec. \[sec:data-description\]. Results are presented in Sec. \[sec:results\], followed in Sec. \[sec:accel-down-sample\] by brief studies of acceleration of the algorithm via down-sampling of the data and using the data to recover the Hellings and Downs correlation curve. We finish with our conclusions in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
Bayesian inference {#sec:bayesian-inference}
==================
Bayes’ theorem states that the *posterior* probability density function (PDF), $p(\vec{{\mu}}|D,\mathcal{H})$, of the parameters $\vec{{\mu}}$ describing a hypothesis model $\mathcal{H}$, and given data $D$ is $$\label{eq:bayes-theorem}
p(\vec{{\mu}}|D,\mathcal{H}) = \frac{p(D|\vec{{\mu}},\mathcal{H})p(\vec{{\mu}}|\mathcal{H})}{p(D|\mathcal{H})},$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
p(D|\vec{{\mu}},\mathcal{H})&\equiv\mathcal{L}(\vec\mu)=\text{likelihood of data given parameters,}\nonumber\\
p(\vec{{\mu}}|\mathcal{H})&\equiv\pi(\vec\mu)=\text{prior PDF of parameters,}\nonumber\\
p(D|\mathcal{H})&=\mathcal{Z}=\text{Bayesian evidence.}\end{aligned}$$
The Bayesian evidence, $\mathcal{Z}$, is the probability of the observed data given the model ${\cal H}$ $$\label{eq:evidence}
\mathcal{Z} = \int \mathcal{L}(\vec\mu)\pi(\vec\mu)d^N\mu.$$ For posterior inference within a model, ${\cal Z}$ plays the role of a normalisation constant and can be ignored. However, if we want to perform model selection then this evidence value becomes key. In Bayesian model comparison we compute the Bayes factor $$\frac{p(\mathcal{H}_2|\vec D)}{p(\mathcal{H}_1|\vec D)} = \frac{p(\vec D|\mathcal{H}_2)p(\mathcal{H}_2)}{p(\vec D|\mathcal{H}_1)p(\mathcal{H}_1)}=\frac{\mathcal{Z}_2\times p(\mathcal{H}_2)}{\mathcal{Z}_1\times p(\mathcal{H}_1)}.$$ where $p(\mathcal{H}_2)/p(\mathcal{H}_1)$ is the prior probability ratio for the two competing models. This can often be set to one, and we will do so in the remainder of this analysis. The Bayes factor is then just the evidence ratio. Since the evidence is the average of the likelihood over the prior volume, it automatically incorporates Occam’s razor, which states that, all else being equal, a model with fewer parameters is favoured. Hypothesis ${\cal H}_1$ is chosen if the Bayes factor is sufficiently large. Jeffreys [@jeffreys1983] gave a scale interpretation for the Bayes factor, which is shown in Table \[tab:jeffreys-scale-bayes\].
We employ Bayesian model-selection in the following study to determine which phenomena provide the best explanation for the observed pulsar TOAs in the first IPTA data challenge.
Bayes factor, $\mathcal{K}$ $\ln(\mathcal{K})$ Strength of evidence
----------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------
$< 1:1$ $< 0$ Negative (supports $\mathcal{H}_1$)
$1:1$ to $3:1$ $0 -1.1$ Barely worth mentioning
$3:1$ to $10:1$ $1.1 - 2.3$ Substantial
$10:1$ to $30:1$ $2.3 - 3.4$ Strong
$30:1$ to $100:1$ $3.4 - 4.6$ Very strong
$> 100:1$ $> 4.6$ Decisive
: \[tab:jeffreys-scale-bayes\]An interpretation of the Bayes factor in determining which model is favoured, as given by Jeffreys [@jeffreys1983].
Pulsar Timing Analysis {#sec:pulsar-timing-analysis}
======================
Observations of pulsars lead to measurements of the pulsar TOAs. The emission-time of a pulse is given in terms of the observed TOA by [@tempo2-1; @tempo2-2], $$t_{\rm em}^{\rm psr} = t_{\rm arr}^{\rm obs} - \Delta_{\odot} - \Delta_{\rm IS} - \Delta_{\rm B},$$ where $\Delta_{\odot}$ is the transformation from the site TOAs to the Solar-system barycentre, $\Delta_{\rm IS}$ accounts for the delaying-effects as the pulse propagates through the interstellar medium, and $\Delta_{\rm B}$ converts to the pulsar-frame for binary pulsars.
In the first IPTA data challenge [@first-ipta-challenge] the raw data is in the form of pulsar parameter files (“.par”) and timing files (“.tim”). The parameter file contains first estimates of the pulsar timing-model parameters; these parameters describe deterministic contributions to the arrival times. The vector of measured arrival times will be composed of a deterministic and a stochastic contribution (from time-correlated stochastic signals which are modelled by a random Gaussian process), $$\vec{t}^{\rm{arr}} = \vec{t}^{\rm{det}} + \delta \vec{t}^{\rm{rgp}}.$$ The stochastic process has auto-correlation, $$\label{eq:pre-fit-stoch-cov}
C_{ij}=\langle\delta t_i^{\rm{rgp}}\delta t_j^{\rm{rgp}}\rangle,$$ where the elements of the covariance matrix are parametrised by a set of parameters, $\vec\phi$. Using the Wiener-Khinchin theorem, we can then define the auto-correlation as the Fourier transform of the power spectral density, $$C(\tau_{ij}) = \int_0^{\infty}S(f)\cos(f\tau_{ij})df,$$ where $\tau_{ij}=2\pi\vert t_i - t_j \vert$, and $S(f)$ is the power spectral density of the time-series $\delta \vec{t}^{\rm{rgp}}$. A closed-form expression for the auto-correlation of a time-series influenced by an underlying power-law PSD is given in @van-haasteren-limits-2011, and is used in the following.
Processing raw arrival-times
----------------------------
The “.par” and “.tim” files are fed to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span> software package [@tempo2-1; @tempo2-2; @tempo2-3] which processes the raw arrival-times. A vector of “pre-fit” timing-residuals are computed using the first guesses, $\beta_{0,i}$, of the “$m$” timing-model parameters from the “.par” files. This first guess is usually precise enough so that a linear approximation can be used in the TOA fitting procedure, so that the post-fit timing residual are $$\delta \vec{t} = \delta \vec{t}^{\rm{prf}} + M\vec\xi,
\label{eq:postfit}$$ where $\delta \vec{t}^{\rm{prf}}$ are the pre-fit timing-residuals (length $n$), $\vec\xi$ is the vector of deviations from the pre-fit parameters (length $m$) defined as $\xi_a = \beta_a - \beta_{0,a}$, and $M$ is the $(n\times m)$ “design-matrix”, describing how the residuals depend on the timing-model parameters. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span> does not take into account the possible time-correlated stochastic signal in the TOAs, but performs a weighted least-squares fit for the timing-model parameter values. Hence it is possible that some of the time-correlated stochastic signal is absorbed in this fitting procedure, which is undesirable.
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span> analysis provides output-residuals and the design matrix, $M$. The design matrix describes the dependence of the timing residuals on the timing-model parameters. The output-residuals form the input data vector for further study.
Generalised least-squares (GLS) estimator of stochastic and deterministic parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now want to use the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span> output-residuals to determine any correlated stochastic signal affecting the pulse arrival times. We assume that the part of the stochastic signal removed by the fitting procedure is small, so that the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span> output-residuals are related linearly to the stochastic contribution to the residuals $$\delta \vec{t} = \delta \vec{t}^{\rm{rgp}} + M\vec\xi,$$ where, in this case, $\delta \vec{t}$ refers to the output-residuals from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span>. We note that the $\vec\xi$ appearing in this equation is different from that appearing in Eq. (\[eq:postfit\]).
The stochastic timing residuals, $\delta \vec{t}^{\rm rgp}$, arise from a time-correlated stochastic process with covariance matrix $C$. This covariance matrix may contain contributions from the GWB, white-noise from TOA-errors, and possibly red-timing noise which is uncorrelated between different pulsars. The likelihood of measuring post-fit residuals, $\delta \vec{t}$, given the fit parameters $\vec\xi$ and stochastic parameters, $\vec\phi$, is, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(\delta\vec{t}\vert\vec{\xi},\vec{\phi}) =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^n{\rm{det}} C}}\times\nonumber\\
&\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta\vec{t} - M\vec{\xi}\right)^{T}C^{-1}\left(\delta\vec{t} - M\vec{\xi}\right)\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ This likelihood expression is effectively a GLS estimator, and is the basis for the framework used in this paper to study the first IPTA data challenge.
If we assume flat priors on the timing-model parameters then these parameters can be analytically marginalised over. The posterior distribution marginalised over timing-model parameters is [@van-haasteren-2011], $$\label{eq:long-vh-marge}
P(\vec\phi\vert\delta\vec{t})\propto\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\rm{det}}C\times{\rm{det}}(M^{T}C^{-1}M)}}\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\delta\vec{t}^{T}C'\delta\vec{t}\right)},$$ where $C' = C^{-1} - C^{-1}M\left(M^{T}C^{-1}M\right)^{-1}M^{T}C^{-1}$. When dealing with large datasets and many pulsars, $C'$ involves the multiplication and inversion of high dimensional matrices. In the case of multiple pulsars, the design matrix, covariance matrix and total residual vector are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\rm{tot}} &= \begin{pmatrix}C_{11} & C_{12} & \ldots\\C_{21} & C_{22} & \ldots\\\vdots & \vdots & \ddots\end{pmatrix},\nonumber\\
M_{\rm{tot}} &= \begin{pmatrix}M_1 & & & \\ & M_2 & & \\ & & \ddots &\end{pmatrix}, \nonumber\\
\delta\vec{t}_{\rm{tot}} &= \begin{pmatrix}\delta\vec{t}_1 \\ \delta\vec{t}_2 \\ \vdots\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$
where $C_{ab}$ is the auto-covariance matrix between pulsars $a$ and $b$, $M_a$ are the individual pulsar design matrices and $\delta\vec{t}_a$ are the individual pulsar residual vectors. We can split $C_{ab}$ into contributions from various stochastic sources. So, the covariance between the $i$th residual of pulsar $a$ and the $j$th residual of pulsar $b$ is, $$C_{(ai)(bj)} = C^{\rm GW}_{(ai)(bj)} + C^{\rm TOA}_{(ai)(bj)} + C^{\rm EQUAD}_{(ai)(bj)} + C^{\rm RN}_{(ai)(bj)},$$ where,
$$\begin{aligned}
C^{\rm GW}_{(ai)(bj)} =& \frac{A^{2}}{12\pi^{2}}\zeta_{ab}\left(\frac{1\rm{ yr}^{-1}}{f_{l}}\right)^{\gamma-1}\left[\Gamma(1-\gamma)\sin{\left(\frac{\pi\gamma}{2}\right)}(f_{l}\tau_{ij})^{\gamma-1}-\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n\frac{\left(f_{l}\tau_{ij}\right)^{2n}}{(2n)!(2n+1-\gamma)}\right],\nonumber\\
C^{\rm TOA}_{(ai)(bj)} =& (\text{EFAC}_a)^2\Delta t_{(ai)}^2\delta_{ab}\delta_{ij},\nonumber\\
C^{\rm EQUAD}_{(ai)(bj)} =& (\text{EQUAD}_a)^2\delta_{ab}\delta_{ij},\nonumber\\
C^{\rm RN}_{(ai)(bj)} =& N_{{\rm red},a}^2\delta_{ab}\left(\frac{1\rm{ yr}^{-1}}{f_{l}}\right)^{\gamma_{\rm red}-1}\left[\Gamma(1-\gamma_{\rm red})\sin{\left(\frac{\pi\gamma_{\rm red}}{2}\right)}(f_{l}\tau_{ij})^{\gamma_{\rm red}-1}-\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n\frac{\left(f_{l}\tau_{ij}\right)^{2n}}{(2n)!(2n+1-\gamma_{\rm red})}\right].\end{aligned}$$
In the order listed, these are i) the GW-background covariance, $C^{\rm GW}_{(ai)(bj)}$,which depends on $\zeta_{ab}$, the Helling-Downs correlation between pulsars $a$ and $b$; ii) the TOA error-bar covariance, $C^{\rm TOA}_{(ai)(bj)}$, arising from white noise in each individual pulsar, which is characterised by a separate, pre-specified and fixed, amplitude $\Delta t_{(ai)}$ for each pulsar $a$ and time $i$, plus an overall scaling factor, EFAC, which is common to all pulsars but is allowed to vary as a model parameter; iii) the covariance, $C^{\rm EQUAD}_{(ai)(bj)}$, of an additional white-noise which is common to all pulsars and time-stamps and characterised by a single amplitude parameter EQUAD; and iv) the covariance, $C^{\rm RN}_{(ai)(bj)}$, of a red timing-noise in each pulsar, which is modelled as a power-law with amplitude $N_{\rm red}$ and slope $\gamma_{\rm red}$. The timing-model fit reduces the sensitivity of the residuals to the low-frequency cutoff, $f_l$, which is required when $\gamma\geq1$. Hence, provided $f_lT<<1$ we can ignore all terms with $n\geq2$ in the infinite summation. To avoid numerical artefacts we choose $f_l = 10^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$.
Expression (\[eq:long-vh-marge\]) can be written more compactly and in a way which is slightly faster to compute [@van-haasteren-levin-2012]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vh-marg}
P(\vec\phi\vert\delta\vec{t})&=\pi(\vec\phi)\times\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^{n-m}{\rm{det}}(G^{T}CG)}} \nonumber\\
&\quad\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\delta\vec{t}^{T}G\left(G^{T}CG\right)^{-1}G^{T}\delta\vec{t}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $G$ is the matrix constructed from the final $(n-m)$ columns of the matrix $U$ in the SVD of the design matrix, $M=U\Sigma V^*$. The matrix $G$ can be pre-computed and stored in memory for use in each likelihood calculation.
Equation (\[eq:vh-marg\]) provides a robust, unbiased Bayesian framework for the search for correlated signals in PTAs, and is used in all of the following analysis.
Including single-sources in the search
--------------------------------------
While this analysis focuses on the detection and characterisation of a background of GWs, we will also consider the possible presence of a single monochromatic or burst source perturbing the arrival times of pulses. In practice, it may be necessary to include single-source models in all background searches to allow the background-induced residuals to be described by Gaussian statistics [@ravi-2012]. There is a large literature on the subject of single-source detection in the context of PTAs. In particular, @sesana-vecchio-colacino-2008 describe how the commonly used approximation of a single power-law spectrum for a stochastic background from inspiraling SMBHBs breaks down at frequencies higher than $10^{-8}$ Hz due to the dominance of single sources. Likewise, the authors of [@sesana-vecchio-volonteri-2009; @babak-sesana-2012; @sesana-vecchio-2010; @lee-wex-2011; @petiteau-ga-2012] have studied the ability of a PTA to infer the presence of multiple resolvable monochromatic sources, and to constrain their properties.
We use the formalism of [@van-haasteren-2011] to combine the search for single sources with the search for a background. The formalism is a simple modification to the background search, in which the residuals are now described by, $$\delta\vec{t} = \delta\vec{t}^{\rm rgp} + \vec{s} + M\vec\xi,$$ where $\vec{s}$ is the deterministic contribution to the residuals from a single source.
Models for the $+$,$\times$ GW polarisation amplitudes can be used to compute the frequency-shift of pulses induced by the GW. The redshift of signals from a pulsar in the direction of unit vector $\hat{p}$, induced by the passage of a GW coming from direction $\hat{\Omega}$ is, $$\label{eq:pulse-freq-shift}
z(t,\hat\Omega) = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\hat{p}^i\hat{p}^j}{1+\hat\Omega\cdot\hat{p}}\Delta h_{ij},$$ where $\Delta h_{ij}\equiv h_{ij}(t_p,\hat\Omega)-h_{ij}(t_e,\hat\Omega)$, is the difference in the metric perturbation at the pulsar and at the solar system barycentre. We ignore the uncorrelated pulsar-term in this analysis.
This frequency-shift is integrated over time to give the induced timing residuals, $$\label{eq:induced-residuals}
R(t)\equiv\int_0^tz(t')dt'.$$ We will search for monochromatic and burst sources and descriptions of the models used to describe these sources are given in Appendix \[sec:single-source-description\].
Stochastic sampling techniques {#sec:stochastic-sampling-techniques}
==============================
We now discuss two different stochastic sampling techniques used to reconstruct the posterior PDF of the model parameters and to calculate the evidence value for Bayesian model-selection.
Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling
----------------------------------------
Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques provide an efficient way to explore a model parameter space. An initial point, $\vec{x_0}$, is drawn from the *prior* distribution and then at each subsequent iteration, $i$, a new point, $\vec{y}$, is drawn from a *proposal distribution*, $q({\vec{y}}|{\vec{x}})$ and the Metropolis-Hastings ratio evaluated, $$R=\frac{{\pi}(\vec{y}){\mathcal{L}}(D|{\vec{y}},\mathcal{H})q({\vec{x_i}}|\vec{y})}{{\pi}(\vec{x_i}){\mathcal{L}}(D|{\vec{x_i}},\mathcal{H})q({\vec{y}}|{\vec{x_i}})}.$$ A random sample is drawn from a uniform distribution, $u\in U[0,1]$, and if $u<R$ the move to the new point is accepted and we set ${\vec{x}_{i+1}}={\vec{y}}$. If $u>R$, the move is rejected and we set ${\vec{x}_{i+1}}={\vec{x_i}}$.
The MCMC samples can be used to carry out integrals over the posterior $$\int f(\vec{x})p(\vec{x}|D,\mathcal{H})d\vec{x}\approx{\frac{1}{N}}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^Nf(\vec{x_i}).$$ The $1$D marginalised posterior probability distributions in individual model parameters then follow by binning the chain samples in that parameter.
The trick to using this technique efficiently is to choose an appropriate proposal distribution. In our analysis we employ an adaptive MCMC procedure, which utilises an ‘in-flight’ estimation of the sampled-chain’s covariance matrix to construct an updating proposal distribution. This covariance matrix is updated at each iteration, with a certain chain memory [@haario1999; @haario2001; @dunkley2005]. We use several of the procedures outlined in [@dunkley2005]. A full description of this technique can be found in @taylor-gair-et-2012 [and references therein].
A single likelihood calculation on one core can take as much as $\sim40$ seconds, so it is very important that we achieve a fast burn-in. We do this for each dataset by using the built-in threading capability of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">LAPACK</span> [@lapack-site]. This allows as many as $12$ cores to speed-up a single matrix multiplication operation, and ultimately reducing the likelihood calculation time to $\sim5$ seconds. Hence we use $5$ independent chains with threading to burn-in. After approximately $2$ hours burn-in is achieved, and we can sample from the end of these chains to initiate a larger run of $512$ cores, with no threading, to collect posterior samples. Collecting $\sim10^5$ samples takes approximately $3$ hours.
Nested Sampling & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nested sampling algorithm is a Monte Carlo method, originally proposed by Skilling [@skilling2004] for evaluating the Bayesian evidence, $\mathcal{Z}$. For a full description of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> algorithm see @feroz2008 [@feroz2009], but we describe the basics in the following section.
The basic idea is to populate parameter space with “live” points drawn from the prior. These points move as the algorithm proceeds, climbing together through nested contours of increasing likelihood. At each iteration, the points are ordered in terms of their likelihood, and the point with lowest likelihood is replaced by a point with higher likelihood than this lowest-likelihood point.
The biggest difficulty in nested sampling is to efficiently sample points of higher likelihood to allow the live-points to climb. If we were to simply draw points from the prior volume, then the acceptance rate of new points in the live-set would steadily decrease, since at later iterations the live-set occupies a smaller and smaller volume of the prior space as it climbs. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> overcomes this drawback by using a sophisticated ellipsoidal rejection-sampling technique, whereby the current live-set is enclosed by (possibly overlapping) ellipsoids, and a new point drawn uniformly from the enclosed region. This technique successfully copes with multimodal distributions and parameter spaces with strong, curving degeneracies.
The evidence is calculated by transforming the multi-dimensional integral in Eq. (\[eq:evidence\]) into a one-dimensional integral which is easily numerically evaluated. We define the prior volume, $X$ as, $$dX = \pi(\vec\mu)d^N\mu,$$ such that, $$X(\lambda) = \int_{\mathcal{L}(\vec\mu)>\lambda}\pi(\vec\mu)d^N\mu,$$ where the integral extends over the region of the $N$-dimensional parameter space contained within the iso-likelihood contour $\mathcal{L}(\vec\mu)=\lambda$. Hence, Eq. (\[eq:evidence\]) can be written as, $$\mathcal{Z} = \int_0^1\mathcal{L}dX,$$ where $\mathcal{L}(X)$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $X$. If we order the $X$ values ($0<X_M<\ldots<X_1<X_0=1$), then the evidence, $\mathcal{Z}$ can be approximated numerically using the simple trapezium rule, $$\mathcal{Z} = \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^M\mathcal{L}_iw_i,$$ where the weights, $w_i$, are given by $w_i = \left(X_{i-1}-X_{i+1}\right)/2$.
As a by-product of the exploration of the parameter space by the evolving live-set, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> also permits reconstruction of the parameter posterior PDFs. Once $\mathcal{Z}$ is found, the final live-set, as well as the discarded points, are collected and assigned probability weights to give the posterior probability of each point. These points can be binned to give full and marginalised posterior PDFs.
With <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span>’s built-in MPI routines we use $\sim800$ live-points for all runs, and typically employ $160$ cores such that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> finishes in less than $12$ hours.
Description of data {#sec:data-description}
===================
The first IPTA data challenge consists of three “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>” and three “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>” datasets. For the “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>” datasets, the properties of the noise and background were given, allowing the calibration and testing of algorithms. The parameters of the “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>” datasets are not due to be revealed until after the deadline. However the format of the data is the same in both sections. In all data sets, we have $36$ pulsars distributed across the sky, each having $130$ pulse arrival times measured over an average time span of $5$ years.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span> data
-------------------------------------------------------
The open section of the challenge consisted of three separate sets of data, increasing in the level of complexity. All three data sets contained a GWB background with a power spectral density slope given by $\gamma\equiv 3-2\alpha=13/3$, which is consistent with a background induced by a population of inspiraling SMBHBs. Each data set was for a total time span of $5$ years with $130$ observations per pulsar. The data sets differed in their sampling cadence and in the TOA noise in the pulsars.
In “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1” the intrinsic noise in the pulsar TOAs was white, with the same amplitude of $100$ ns in each pulsar, and the sampling cadence was uniform with a rate of one sample every two weeks. The characteristic strain-spectrum amplitude of the GWB at $f=1\text{ yr}^{-1}$ was $A=5\times 10^{-14}$.
In “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>2” the intrinsic TOA noise was again white, but the amplitude was different for each pulsar,with nominal values as given in Table \[tab:open2-white-noise\]. These white noise levels are consistent with realistic levels measured for IPTA pulsars. In addition, the sampling rate was no longer uniform but random, with an average cadence of $2$ weeks $\pm 5$ days.The characteristic strain-spectrum amplitude of the GWB was $A=5\times 10^{-14}$.
Pulsar RMS WN ($\mu$s) Pulsar RMS WN ($\mu$s) Pulsar RMS WN ($\mu$s) Pulsar RMS WN ($\mu$s)
------------ ----------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ -----------------
J0030+0451 0.31 J1022+1001 0.37 J1730-2304 0.83 J1910+1256 0.17
J0218+4232 4.81 J1024-0719 0.25 J1732-5049 1.74 J1918-0642 0.87
J0437-4715 0.03 J1045-4509 2.68 J1738+0333 0.24 J1939+2134 0.02
J0613-0200 0.45 J1455-3330 1.60 J1741+1351 0.19 J1955+2908 0.18
J0621+1002 9.58 J1600-3053 0.23 J1744-1134 0.14 J2019+2425 0.66
J0711-6830 1.32 J1603-7202 0.70 J1751-2857 0.90 J2124-3358 1.52
J0751+1807 0.78 J1640+2224 0.19 J1853+1303 0.17 J2129-5721 0.87
J0900-3144 1.55 J1643-1224 0.53 J1857+0943 0.25 J2145-0750 0.40
J1012+5307 0.32 J1713+0747 0.04 J1909-3744 0.04 J2317+1439 0.25
In “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>3” the intrinsic pulsar noise has both a white component with levels as in “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>2” and an uncorrelated red component, which had the same power spectrum for each pulsar, but with a different realisation for each pulsar’s TOAs. The red-noise power spectrum is $S(f)=5.77\times 10^{-22}\text{sec}^{1.3}f^{-1.7}$, where $f$ is in Hz. This is equivalent to the expression, $$S(f) = N_{\rm red}^2\left(\frac{1}{1\text{yr}^{-1}}\right)\left(\frac{f}{1\text{yr}^{-1}}\right)^{-\gamma_{\rm red}},$$ where $\gamma_{\rm red}=1.7$ and $N_{\rm red}=10.1$ ns. The characteristic strain-spectrum amplitude of the GWB was $A=10^{-14}$.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
We used <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> to compute evidence values for model selection and confirmed parameter constraints for the favoured model with adaptive MCMC. Except in certain circumstances which we will discuss, we made no attempt to recover the individual white-noise levels of each pulsar, nor have we permitted the pulsars in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>3 to have individual red-noise amplitude/index parameters. Rather, where necessary, pulsars share a global TOA error-bar scaling (GEFAC), extra white-noise contribution (GEQUAD), red-noise amplitude and red-noise index. However, all white-noise and red-noise is uncorrelated between different pulsars.
From experience with the open datasets, we found that uniform priors on all GWB and red-noise parameters was reasonable. A test-run on <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 with uniform priors on the log of the GWB-amplitude yielded similar results. The posterior distribution was narrow compared to the prior which covered eight decades in amplitude, which explains why the results of uniforms priors on amplitudes and log-amplitudes were similar. When fitting for the EQUAD or white-noise parameters, our prior was $\log_{10}\left(\sigma_{\rm EQUAD/WN}\right)\in\left[-11.0,-3.0\right]$. To allow for the influence of prior choice on the evidence calculation, we only consider a model disfavoured if the evidence is lower than another model by at least $\Delta\ln(\mathcal{Z})=3$, which was the typical difference seen when different prior choices were tested. However, if two models have similar evidence but one has many more unconstrained parameters, we naturally favour the simpler model.
Tables \[tab:all-open-models\] and \[tab:all-closed-models\] show all tested models for all datasets with the associated evidence. The strength with which certain models are favoured can be gauged using Table \[tab:jeffreys-scale-bayes\]. We quote maximum-a-posteriori values and $1\sigma$ errors (half-width of $68\%$ credible region) for each parameter. All plots were made with GetDist in the CosmoMC package [@cosmomc-site].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span> Datasets
-----------------------------------------------------------
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1
[![\[fig:open1\]The $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1. The star and dashed lines show the injected values of parameters.](Open1 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
This dataset provided the first test of the analysis pipeline. The time-stamp of each data sample and the white noise level in the pulsar were read in as input, along with the post-fit residuals. Although these were constant for all pulsars in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1, this implementation allowed easy generalisation to the other data sets. The timing-models of all pulsars converged after a single <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 fitting procedure.
From Table \[tab:all-open-models\] it is clear that the evidence decisively favours the presence of a GWB. The properties of this background are $A=(4.8\pm 0.2)\times 10^{-14}$ and $\gamma=4.42\pm 0.08$. Figure \[fig:open1\] shows the $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions for these parameters. These recovered parameters are consistent with the injected values.
[l c]{} Model & $\ln(\mathcal{Z})$\
\
Null (TOA-errors only) & $-190502$\
[**GWB, TOA-errors**]{} & $\mathbf{61405.2\pm 0.1}$\
\
Null (TOA-errors only) & $-821338$\
GWB, TOA-errors & $55466.2\pm 0.1$\
GWB, GEFAC, GEQUAD, TOA-errors & $55471.7\pm 0.1$\
[**GWB, WN(J1857+0943)**]{} & $\mathbf{55574.8\pm 0.1}$\
GWB, WN(J0437-4715, J1857+0943, & $55568.2\pm 0.2$\
J1909-3744) &\
WN(J1857+0943) & $-819198$\
\
Null (TOA-errors only) & $37379$\
GWB, TOA-errors & $56038.9\pm 0.1$\
[**GWB, RN, TOA-errors**]{} & $\mathbf{56037.8\pm 0.1}$\
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>2
[{width="100.00000%"}]{}
The differences between this dataset and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 were the random observation-cadence, and different white intrinsic TOA errors in each pulsar. These provided no difficulties for the pipeline.
From Table \[tab:all-open-models\] it is clear that the evidence decisively favours the presence of a GWB, although the recovered background-amplitude showed a $2\sigma$ deviation from the injected value. Adding in GEFAC and GEQUAD parameters improved the evidence and reported $\text{GEFAC}=1.06\pm 0.01$ and GEQUAD consistent with zero. This was revisited after the analysis of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>2 described below. Visual inspection of the output-residuals showed “glitchy” behaviour in J1857+0943, and reprocessing the arrival-times by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 indicated that the timing-solution had not converged after one fitting-iteration. Rather than re-fit we allowed the total white-noise in this pulsar to be a model parameter to be fitted. This created a huge improvement in the evidence and the recovery of the injected GWB parameters.
Fitting for the white-noise of several other pulsars which showed “glitchy” behaviour shifted the max-a-posteriori background-amplitude slightly closer to the injected value, but the evidence was slightly worse. We thus conclude that J1857+0943 was the main source of the inconsistency between the injected and recovered background-amplitude. This was the only pulsar whose timing-solution did not converge after a single <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 fitting procedure. The recovered properties of the GWB are $A=(5.4\pm 0.3)\times10^{-14}$ and $\gamma=4.33\pm0.09$, with an effective EFAC on J1857+0943 of $2.2\pm 0.2$. Figure \[fig:open2\] shows the $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions for these parameters. The recovered GWB properties are consistent with the injected values.
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>3
[{width="100.00000%"}]{}
This dataset had all of the complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>2 with the addition of red timing-noise. This red-noise had a common amplitude and index for all pulsars, but was uncorrelated between different pulsars. The timing-models of all pulsars converged after a single <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 fitting procedure.
From Table \[tab:all-open-models\] it is clear that the evidence decisively favours the presence of a GWB. The low-frequency behaviour in the residuals was dominated by the GWB, such that in the model with a GWB and red timing-noise the red-noise properties remained largely unconstrained. The model with only a GWB gave slightly better evidence and the GWB parameter constraints were consistent with the GWB+RN model. We present results for the GWB+RN model since we know that that this is the true description of the dataset, but in a blind analysis we would not have inferred the presence of red-noise. The properties of the GWB are $A=(1.17\pm 0.14)\times10^{-14}$ and $\gamma=4.1\pm 0.2$, which are consistent with injected values. Figure \[fig:open3\] shows the $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions for all parameters. The null model, where only TOA-errors are used to fit the timing-residuals, provides much greater evidence in this case than in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>2 since the injected GWB amplitude is five times smaller than in the previous two datasets.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span> Datasets
-------------------------------------------------------------
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>1
[![\[fig:closed1\]The $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>1.](Closed1 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
[l c]{} Model & $\ln(\mathcal{Z})$\
\
Null (TOA-errors only) & $51584.5$\
[**GWB, TOA-errors**]{} & $\mathbf{62028.1\pm 0.1}$\
RN, TOA-errors & $62015.8\pm 0.1$\
GWB, RN, TOA-errors & $62026.7\pm 0.1$\
GWB, RN, GEFAC, GEQUAD, TOA-errors & $62022.7\pm 0.1$\
GWB, GEFAC, TOA-errors & $62025.2\pm 0.1$\
GWB, Monochromatic-source, TOA-errors & $62028.3\pm 0.1$\
\
Null (TOA-errors only) & $-815557$\
GWB, TOA-errors & $53807.4\pm 0.1$\
GWB, RN, TOA-errors & $54149.9\pm 0.1$\
GWB, GEFAC, GEQUAD, TOA-errors & $54178.3\pm 0.1$\
GEFAC, GEQUAD, TOA-errors & $50082.4\pm 0.1$\
GWB, GEFAC, GEQUAD, Burst-source, & $54235.0\pm 0.2$\
TOA-errors &\
GWB, GEFAC, GEQUAD, Monochromatic-source, & $54222.8\pm 0.2$\
TOA-errors &\
[**GWB, WN(J0437-4715)**]{} & $\mathbf{55246.3\pm 0.1}$\
GWB, WN(J0437-4715, J1455-3330, & $55235.2\pm 0.2$\
J1741+1351, J1909-3744) &\
GWB, WN(J0437-4715), Monochromatic-source, & $55245.9\pm 0.1$\
TOA-errors &\
GWB, WN(J0437-4715), RN, TOA-errors & $55245.4\pm 0.1$\
RN, WN(J0437-4715) & $55227.3\pm 0.1$\
WN(J0437-4715) & $-240920$\
\
Null (TOA-errors only) & $53886.6$\
RN, TOA-errors & $56168.9\pm 0.1$\
[**GWB, RN, TOA-errors**]{} & $\mathbf{56185.6\pm 0.1}$\
GWB, RN, GEFAC, GEQUAD, TOA-errors & $56180.3\pm 0.1$\
GWB, RN, Monochromatic-source, TOA-errors & $56185.6\pm 0.1$\
A list of the models tested and the associated $\ln\mathcal{Z}$ values are in Table \[tab:all-closed-models\]. The timing-models of all pulsars converged after a single <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 fitting procedure. We analysed <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>1 using the same method as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1. Including a GWB and TOA errors provides evidence which, when compared to the null evidence, decisively proves the presence of a GWB. Comparing the evidence for a GWB to that for an uncorrelated red-noise process in each pulsar favours the correlated GWB. Red timing-noise in addition to the GWB is not strongly disfavoured, but did not improve the fit either. Adding in GEFAC and GEQUAD parameters did not improve the fit, as GEFAC was consistent with $1$ and GEQUAD was consistent with zero. The model with a GWB, GEFAC and TOA-errors implied a GEFAC of $0.98\pm 0.01$ i.e., a $2\sigma$ deviation. However, this model did not significantly improve the fit. Including a monochromatic source did not improve the fit and all the parameters of the single source were unconstrained.
We conclude that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>1 contains only a GWB with no red-noise or single GW sources. The properties of this GWB are $A=(1.1\pm 0.1)\times10^{-14}$ and $\gamma=4.30\pm0.15$. Figure \[fig:closed1\] shows the $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions for these parameters.
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>2
[{width="100.00000%"}]{}
This dataset provided an interesting challenge. A list of the models tested and the associated $\ln\mathcal{Z}$ values are in Table \[tab:all-closed-models\].
We found that assuming a model composed of a GWB and TOA-errors only did not provide a satisfactory fit. Including red timing-noise provided much higher evidence, however the index of the red-noise reached the edge of it’s prior at $\gamma_{\rm red}=1$ (where the closed-form expression for the auto-covariance of a power-law PSD breaks down). A model with $\gamma_{\rm red}=0$ would effectively be a white noise model, which can also be included by the EQUAD parameter introduced earlier. The model with a GWB, GEFAC and GEQUAD provided the best evidence of these initial three models. This model implied $A=(5.9\pm 0.5)\times10^{-14}$, $\gamma=4.45\pm 0.15$, $\text{GEFAC}=0.89\pm 0.01$ and $\text{GEQUAD}=289\pm6$ ns.
We then tested for the presence of a single-source in the dataset. The evidence did appear to favour a single-source, either a monochromatic source or a GW burst. However, the recovered parameters favoured a source with a frequency several orders of magnitude above Nyquist, and a very well constrained sky-location close to the pulsar J0437-4715. As a sanity check, we removed this pulsar from the dataset and again tested for the presence of the source. In this case, all source properties were unconstrained, which is inconsistent with the presence of a single source, since the $35$ remaining widely separated pulsars should provide adequate triangulation. Furthermore, the GEFAC and GEQUAD parameters were then consistent with $1$ and $0$ respectively. Pulsar J0437-4715 has arrival-times with nominally measured timing precision of $0.03$ $\mu$s. A visual inspection of the post-fit residuals showed that such small error-bars were not sufficient to explain the high-frequency fluctuations that were present in this pulsar in addition to the red-noise induced by the GWB. We reprocessed the arrival times through several <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 iterations, which indicated that the residuals had not converged after a single fitting iteration.
We therefore allowed the total white-noise in J0437-4715 to be a parameter to fit in our analysis. This created a very significant improvement in the evidence. Fitting for the white-noise of several other pulsars which showed “glitchy” behaviour did not improve the fit, so we conclude that the anomalous effects were dominated by J0437-4715. This was the only pulsar whose timing-solution did not converge after a single <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 fitting procedure. The insufficient white-noise in this pulsar was mimicking a single, high-frequency GW-source in the pulsar’s vicinity. Testing a model which fits for a GWB, the white-noise in J0437-4715 and a single-source left the source-parameters unconstrained, although the evidence was only slightly lower.
Our final results for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>2 were $A=(6.1\pm 0.3)\times10^{-14}$, $\gamma=4.34\pm 0.09$. The effective EFAC on J0437-4715 was $30\pm 2$, but this was entirely due to the poor timing-model fit in this pulsar. Figure \[fig:closed2\] shows the $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions for these parameters. When we performed a final analysis of this data, where the residuals had been cycled through <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 multiple times to ensure convergence of the timing-model fits, we found GWB parameter constraints consistent with these results, and again no compelling evidence for a monochromatic source.
### <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>3
[{width="100.00000%"}]{}
For the analysis of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>3 we used the same model as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>3, including a red timing-noise component. A list of the models tested and the associated $\ln\mathcal{Z}$ values are in Table \[tab:all-closed-models\]. The timing-models of all pulsars converged after a single <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 fitting procedure.
The evidence decisively favours the presence of red timing-noise and a GWB. A model with GEFAC+GEQUAD gave values consistent with $1$ and $0$, respectively. A model with a monochromatic-source left the source-parameters unconstrained. We conclude that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>3 contains a GWB with red-noise and no single GW sources. The properties of the GWB were $A=(5\pm 1)\times10^{-15}$ and $\gamma=4.23\pm0.35$, while the properties of the red-noise were $N_{\rm red}=(12\pm 4)$ ns and $\gamma_{\rm red}=1.5\pm0.3$. Figure \[fig:closed3\] shows the $1$D and $2$D marginalised posterior distributions for these parameters.
Acceleration by down-sampling {#sec:accel-down-sample}
=============================
------------------ ----------------- ------------------------ ----------------- -----------
Fraction of data Cadence / weeks Approx run-time
$A$ / $\times10^{-14}$ $\gamma$
$0.1$ $20$ $2.04$ $0.48$ $1$ min
$0.125$ $16$ $0.65$ $0.21$ $2.5$ min
$0.167$ $12$ $0.37$ $0.15$ $5$ min
$0.2$ $10$ $0.32$ $0.13$ $8$ min
$0.333$ $6$ $0.25$ $0.11$ $37$ min
$0.5$ $4$ $0.22$ $0.097$ $2$ hr
$1.0$ $2$ $0.18$ $0.084$ $11.5$ hr
------------------ ----------------- ------------------------ ----------------- -----------
Cores <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> run-time
------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
$16$ $11$ hr $30$ min
$160$ $2$ hr $30$ min
$768$ $0$ hr $45$ min
: \[tab:mpi-multinest-speedup\]<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> run-times for the full dataset with varying numbers of computer cores.
The algorithm used in this work is computationally expensive and two recent proposals have been made of approaches to PTA data analysis that are faster. @van-haasteren-compression-2012 used a high-fidelity data-compression technique, which utilises an interpolation scheme of the compressed covariance matrix elements to constrain $A$ and $\gamma$. The Fisher information is used to determine how much of the data might be redundant. @lentati-spectrum-2012 proposed a method that avoids the dense-matrix multiplications and inversions altogether by rephrasing the likelihood in terms of matrix-vector operations and banded-matrix inversions. This is achieved by modelling the effect of the GWB on the timing residuals directly in the time-domain by a small number of independent Fourier components, effectively eliminating the off-diagonal components with $i\neq j$ in the GW correlation matrix, and avoiding an a-priori prescription for the GWB spectrum. Using a reduced number of frequency components is analogous to down-sampling the data in the time domain, so we investigated a very simple down-sampling of the data in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 to determine if reasonable parameter constraints could be derived when using a subset of the data. We would expect that a GWB induces a low-frequency variation of the timing-residuals, such that short cadence observations are redundant.
Table \[tab:down-sample-error-time\] and Fig. \[fig:down-sample-error-time\] show the parameter constraints obtained using down-sampled datasets comprising different fractions of the total data. The downsampling is accomplished by increasing the length of time between observations, by selecting every $n$’th time sample. The timing-model is first derived using the entire dataset then the subset of timing residuals to be used in the analysis are selected. The appropriate $G$ matrix is derived by keeping only the corresponding rows of the design matrix and deleting all other rows.
We see that, at least for the case of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1, using only $20\%$ of the full <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 dataset (corresponding to a cadence of $10$ weeks) is sufficient to achieve parameter constraints which are comparable to constraints from the full dataset, in approximately $\sim1\%$ of the time. The posterior widths $\Delta A$ and $\Delta\gamma$ are respectively $\sim 80\%$ and $\sim 50\%$ wider than those obtained from an analysis of the full dataset. If each $20\%$ subset of data contained the same information as the full dataset, we would expect the relative decrease in performance going from $100\%$ to $20\%$ of the data to be $\sim \sqrt{5}$, which would mean a $\sim 125\%$ increase in posterior width. We do better than this expectation since we are discarding high frequency information, while the gravitational wave background power is predominantly at lower frequencies. We do not do much better than this, however, although the analysis is much quicker. The corresponding $2$D posterior distributions for batches of data with $10\%$, $20\%$ and $50\%$ of the total <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 dataset are shown in Fig. \[fig:down-sample-2d-plots\].
For completeness, in Fig. \[fig:open3-twenty-percent\] we show the result of an analysis of a $20\%$ batch of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>3 data, comparing the GWB and intrinsic red-noise parameter constraints to the analysis of the complete dataset. Once again we see that, as a first-cut analysis of the data, this down-sampling technique allows us to narrow our search space when following-up with a full-dataset analysis, while also achieving comparable parameter constraints. However, much more work is required to determine the optimal way to down-sample in the more realistic case where we may have long gaps in data-taking.
We also show in Table \[tab:mpi-multinest-speedup\] the speed-up achieved when more cores are used to exploit the built-in MPI routines in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span>. This speed-up is clearly not linear, so the appropriate compromise between computational expenditure and run-time is left at the discretion of the user.
Stacking the down-sampled posteriors
------------------------------------
[![\[fig:down-sample-compare\]The 2D posterior distribution from a full coherent analysis of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 dataset (blue) is compared to using the posterior distributions from the analyses of $4$ batches of $20\%$ of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 dataset as priors on the analysis of the final batch (red). Credible regions are $68\%$ and $95\%$, and the injected parameters are indicated by the star.](Open1_Full_PriorChain_compare_2 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
Ideally we would like to use all of the data in our analysis, requiring a method to stack the posterior distributions from each batch of data. Unfortunately, each batch of data is not an independent sample since the post-fit residuals are the result of a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span> fit to the entire dataset. Furthermore, even without pre-fitting a timing-model to the entire dataset, if we were to combine posteriors from analyses of separate batches of raw-arrival times we would still effectively be assuming that each batch contained GWB-induced residuals drawn from a different realisation of the GWB-spectrum, which is not the case.
Modulo these issues, it is still worthwhile to investigate the posterior widths and parameter bias that are obtained when using the naïve approach of taking the posterior distributions obtained from analysing $(n-1)$ distinct subsets comprising $1/n$’th of the data as a prior for an analysis of the remaining $n$’th batch of data. We compared the result of using the posterior distributions from the analyses of $4$ batches of $20\%$ of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open1</span> data as priors on the final batch to the full coherent analysis of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open1</span> dataset, and this is shown in Fig. \[fig:down-sample-compare\]. In this case, the stacking of the down-sampled posteriors produces a narrower final posterior, since by assuming each batch of data is an independent sample we gain a factor of $\sqrt{5}$ by combining them, while as pointed out above the individual $20\%$ posteriors are less than a factor of $\sqrt{5}$ wider than the posterior for the full dataset. The difference is not that large and the bias in the maximum a-posteriori values appears to be quite small. Most importantly, the stacked posterior remains consistent with the injected parameters in this case. For these reasons, and the fact that the analysis took $\sim 5\%$ of the run-time of the full analysis, we advocate this technique as a useful first-cut analysis of PTA data. More studies are required to understand under what circumstances the stacked posterior will no longer be consistent with the injected values.
Recovering the angular-correlation function
-------------------------------------------
[![\[fig:hell-downs-constrain1\]The reconstructed angular-correlation of the isotropic, stochastic GWB in $20\%$ of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 data. We parametrise the correlation at $\theta_{\rm sep}=\{1^{\circ},30^{\circ},60^{\circ},100^{\circ},140^{\circ},180^{\circ}\}$. A cubic-spline is then used to interpolate the correlation at all pulsar angular separations between $1^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$, with the correlation at $\theta_{\rm sep}=0^{\circ}$ fixed at unity. The Hellings and Downs curve is shown as a black line, the max-a-posteriori correlation function is shown as a dotted line and the envelope of splines in the $95\%$ credible region of this reconstruction is shown in red.](hd6_envelope_30-10-2012_better "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
[![\[fig:hell-downs-constrain2\]The reconstructed angular-correlation of the isotropic, stochastic GWB in $20\%$ of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 data. We parametrise the angular correlation with the same functional form as the Helling and Downs curve, but vary the numerical co-efficients as model parameters. The Hellings and Downs curve is shown as a black line, the max-a-posteriori correlation function is shown as a dotted line and the envelope of correlation functions in the $95\%$ credible region of this reconstruction is shown in red.](hd_curve_prefactors_better "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
The acceleration of the likelihood-evaluation due to down-sampling allows us to perform a novel test. If we have an isotropic, stochastic GWB with general relativity as the correct description of gravity then the angular correlation of GWB-induced residuals will be the Hellings and Downs curve. However if we have more than the usual two general relativity polarisations then the angular correlation could deviate from this curve [@kj-lee-2011; @chamberlin2012]. We use $20\%$ of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 dataset to reconstruct the angular correlation of the GWB-induced timing-residuals.
We replace the angular-correlation function $\zeta_{ab}$ by,
$$\label{eq:hd-ansatz-1}
\zeta'_{ab} =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if}\quad\theta_{\rm sep}=0^{\circ},\\
c_1, & \text{if}\quad\theta_{\rm sep}=1^{\circ},\\
c_2, & \text{if}\quad\theta_{\rm sep}=30^{\circ},\\
c_3, & \text{if}\quad\theta_{\rm sep}=60^{\circ},\\
c_4, & \text{if}\quad\theta_{\rm sep}=100^{\circ},\\
c_5, & \text{if}\quad\theta_{\rm sep}=140^{\circ},\\
c_6, & \text{if}\quad\theta_{\rm sep}=180^{\circ},
\end{cases}$$
where $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6$ are allowed to vary as model parameters, with prior range $\in[-0.5,1.0]$. A cubic-spline interpolation of the correlations between $1^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$ is then used to calculate the correlation at all other pulsar angular-separations. The result of this analysis is shown in Fig. \[fig:hell-downs-constrain1\], where the reconstructed angular correlation is shown to be consistent with the Hellings and Downs curve.
An alternative technique to probe the angular correlation is to assume the correlation has the same functional form as the Hellings and Downs curve, but with different numerical coefficients, $$\label{eq:hd-ansatz-2}
\zeta'_{ab} = p_0x\ln(x) + p_1x + p_2 + (1-p_2)\delta_{ab},$$ where $x=(1-\cos\theta_{\rm sep})/2$ and $p_0,p_1,p_2$ are varied as model parameters, with prior ranges chosen to be symmetric around the true Hellings and Downs values. The numerical coefficients for the Hellings and Downs curve are $p_0=1.5$, $p_1=-0.25$ and $p_2=0.5$, so we chose parameter prior ranges of $p_0\in[0.0,3.0]$, $p_1 \in[-0.5,0.0]$, $p_2\in[0.0,1.0]$ respectively. However, we verified that our results were not dependent on the exact width of these priors by checking the posterior distributions was not influenced by the prior restrictions. The result of this analysis is shown in Fig. \[fig:hell-downs-constrain2\], where the reconstructed angular correlation is again shown to be consistent with the Hellings and Downs curve.
Using the ansatzes in Eq. (\[eq:hd-ansatz-1\]) and Eq. (\[eq:hd-ansatz-2\]) we have reconstructed the angular-correlation of the GWB without massively expanding the dimensionality of our parameter space, and the fact that we have demanded smooth variation of the angular-correlation reduces the susceptibility of our constraints to intrinsic pulsar noise-processes. The technique which exploits the ansatz in Eq. (\[eq:hd-ansatz-1\]) is more general, where we have performed a model-independent reconstruction of the angular-correlation.
This is a proof-of-principle that illustrates how a Bayesian framework can be used to infer that any GWB present in PTA data is correlated with the distinctive angular signature expected in general relativity. Further work is required to quantify how the precision of the correlation reconstruction depends on the quality of the data, the number of pulsars etc. and to explore its sensitivity to non-GR polarisation states and anisotropy in the background.
Model-independent probes of the GWB spectrum
--------------------------------------------
[![\[fig:open1-spec-recover\]The recovered spectrum of the GWB from the analysis of $20\%$ batches of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open1</span> dataset. We parameterise $S(f)$ at $fT=\{0.5,1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.0\}$, where $T=5$ yr. We compute the autocovariance in the time-series by performing a simple trapezoidal integration over $S(f)\cos(f\tau_{ij})$, where $\tau = 2\pi|t_{i}-t_{j}|$. As expected, we have very little sensitivity to frequencies below $1/T$, however the recovered spectrum is consistent with the injected power-law spectrum.](Open1_5batches_Spec_Recover_2 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
Finally, rather than assume that the GWB spectrum is described by a power-law, we could parameterise the power-spectral density, $S(f)$, at certain frequencies to probe the spectrum in a model-independent way [@lentati-spectrum-2012]. One would expect this approach to fail and simply return the characteristic $\propto f^{-2}$ spectrum associated with spectral leakage that results from windowing a finite time-series, since the underlying background spectrum is steeper than $f^{-2}$. However, this model-independent technique was shown to be successful in [@lentati-spectrum-2012] and we believe that spectral-leakage is avoided since the model fitting by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo2</span> removes the low-frequency power in the time-series which would dominate the leakage signature. Meanwhile, the information about the background is preserved through our knowledge of the design-matrix, $M$, which encodes information about the fitting procedure.
Using batches of $20\%$ of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open1</span> dataset, we repeated the stochastic background search but replaced the closed-form expression for the autocovariance of a time-series induced by a power-law background by a simple trapezoidal integration over $S(f)\cos(f\tau_{ij})$ (exploiting the Wiener-Khinchin theorem), where $\tau = 2\pi|t_{i}-t_{j}|$ and $S(f)$ is parametrised at certain frequencies. Since we are investigating a steep, red spectrum we parameterise $S(f)$ at $fT=\{0.5,1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.0\}$, where $T$ is the observation span. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:open1-spec-recover\], where we see that, as expected, we have very little sensitivity to frequencies below $1/T$, and the recovered spectrum is consistent with the injected power-law spectrum.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have used a Bayesian time-domain method to compute solutions to the first International Pulsar Timing Array data challenge, providing constraints on the properties of the injected isotropic, stochastic gravitational-wave background. The posterior probability distribution of the stochastic background parameters is analytically marginalised over all deterministic pulsar timing-model parameters. We tested this algorithm on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span> datasets, successfully recovering the values of the injected parameters.
We made use of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiNest</span> algorithm to calculate the Bayesian evidence value for various models and to provide posterior parameter distributions. Posterior PDFs were also obtained using an adaptive MCMC code to provide a cross-check of the results. Various models were tested for each dataset, including null models where only TOA error-bars were present. The computed evidence values were then used for model-selection, determining which collection of astrophysical sources provided the best explanation for the observed pulsar TOA deviations.
The results for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span> datasets were as follows. The evidence for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>1 favoured a gravitational-wave background with strain amplitude at $f=1\text{ yr}^{-1}$, $A$, of $(1.1\pm 0.1)\times10^{-14}$, spectral-index $\gamma=4.30\pm0.15$ and no compelling evidence for uncorrelated red timing-noise or single-sources. The evidence for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>2 favoured a gravitational-wave background with $A=(6.1\pm 0.3)\times10^{-14}$, $\gamma=4.34\pm 0.09$, and, again, no compelling evidence for red timing-noise or single-sources. Finally, the evidence for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closed</span>3 favoured the presence of red timing-noise and a gravitational-wave background, with no single-sources. The properties of the background were $A=(5\pm 1)\times10^{-15}$ and $\gamma=4.23\pm0.35$, while the properties of the red-noise were $N_{\rm red}=(12\pm 4)$ ns and $\gamma_{\rm red}=1.5\pm0.3$. The adaptive MCMC sampling procedure provided consistent results in all cases.
We found it was necessary to cycle the output-residuals through the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tempo</span>2 software package (which performs a weighted least-squares fit of a deterministic timing-model to the pulse arrival-times) several times for some pulsars. Timing-model fits should be inspected to ensure convergence has been attained, otherwise a poor fit in even a single pulsar can severely bias any parameter constraints.
Following our analysis of the full challenge datasets, we investigated the effect that down-sampling of the datasets has on parameter constraints and an the analysis run-time. This was achieved by only selecting every $n$th residual in the data set and design matrix. Given that the bottle-neck steps of the likelihood evaluation are $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ matrix-matrix operations, down-sampling provided a significant speed-up in the algorithm. When tested on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 data, we found that using $20\%$ of the full data could achieve comparable parameter constraints to the full dataset, but in only $\sim1\%$ of the time. Stacking the posterior distributions of $(n-1)$ batches of data as priors for the analysis of the remaining $n$th batch of data resulted in a small bias in the posterior width, but this was not severe and the posterior remained consistent with the injected parameters.
As a final test, we used $20\%$ of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Open</span>1 data to investigate whether we could constrain the angular correlation of the GWB-induced timing-residuals. If we have an isotropic, stochastic GWB, and general relativity is the correct description of gravity, then this angular correlation should be described by the Hellings and Downs curve, Eq. (\[eq:hell-down\]). We parametrised the correlation at various pulsar angular-separations, employing a cubic spline interpolation to compute the correlations at all other separations. Doing so we found that the reconstructed angular correlation was not consistent with zero or full correlation, but rather showed a distinctive angular signature which was consistent with the Hellings and Downs curve. This was the first test of a novel procedure, and significantly more work is required to fully understand what can be accomplished in practice. We intend to further extend this line of inquiry, given that the determination of the angular correlation of GWB-induced residuals is key to understanding the effects of finiteness in the background [@ravi-2012] and possible modifications to general relativity [@kj-lee-2011; @chamberlin2012].
In our future work we will explore the optimal formalism to allow both background and single-source extraction, as well as the effect that finiteness of the background has on inferred background parameter constraints and the signature of the angular correlation. This first IPTA data challenge will be followed up by more complex and realistic challenges designed to push current techniques to their limit and encourage more optimal methods to be developed. We plan to analyse these future IPTA mock datasets, and real IPTA data, employing similar techniques as used here.
Inferring the presence and properties of both a gravitational-wave background and individual gravitational-wave sources is a key aim of pulsar timing array projects. Data challenges such as this first IPTA challenge allows established members of the field and newcomers to test a variety of different approaches so that optimal techniques can be determined. By the end of the 2020’s we are likely to have precision instrumental coverage over a wide range of GW frequencies, in the form of possible follow-ups to the advanced ground-based interferometers, the commissioning of a space-based interferometer, and the full operation of the SKA [@ska-site], which will be the most sophisticated radio telescope ever built. These complementary instruments will all contribute to the goal of gravitational-waves becoming a precision astronomical tool.
S.R.T and L.L. are supported by the STFC. J.R.G is supported by the Royal Society. We thank Rutger van Haasteren for advice and discussions regarding the Bayesian framework used in this paper. We acknowledge the IPTA data challenge committee for their work in establishing the first IPTA data challenge. This work was performed using the Darwin Supercomputer of the University of Cambridge High Performance Computing Service (http://www.hpc.cam.ac.uk/), provided by Dell Inc. using Strategic Research Infrastructure Funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Single GW sources {#sec:single-source-description}
=================
Monochromatic sources
---------------------
A monochromatic source in the PTA-band is likely to be an SMBHB in the very early inspiral stage. @sesana-vecchio-2010 have shown that it is reasonable to ignore eccentricity, spin-effects and frequency-evolution for these systems. Hence the quadrupolar approximation for GW-emission can be used to describe the waveform.
In our analysis, we use the residual signal model of @sesana-vecchio-2010. The polarisation amplitudes for a monochromatic source of frequency $f$ are, $$\begin{aligned}
h_+ &= \mathcal{A}\left(1+\cos^2\iota\right)\cos\left(\Phi(t)+\Phi_0\right),\nonumber\\
h_{\times} &= \mathcal{A}\cos\iota\sin\left(\Phi(t)+\Phi_0\right).\end{aligned}$$ Hence for pulsar $\alpha$, $$\begin{aligned}
s^{\alpha}(t) &= \mathcal{R}\left[\left(1+\cos^2\iota\right)F^{\alpha}_+\left(\sin\left(\Phi(t)+\Phi_0\right)-\sin\Phi_0\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad\left.+2\cos\iota\left(\cos\left(\Phi(t)+\Phi_0\right)-\cos\Phi_0\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{A}/(2\pi f)$, and, $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\alpha}_+ &= F^{\alpha}_c\cos\left(2\psi\right) + F^{\alpha}_s\sin\left(2\psi\right),\nonumber\\
F^{\alpha}_\times &= -F^{\alpha}_c\sin\left(2\psi\right) + F^{\alpha}_s\cos\left(2\psi\right),\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\alpha}_c =\quad&\left\{\frac{1}{4}(\sin^2(\chi_{\alpha})-2\cos^2(\chi_{\alpha}))\sin^2\theta\right.\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\cos(\chi_{\alpha})\sin(\chi_{\alpha})\sin(2\theta)\cos(\phi-\gamma_{\alpha})\nonumber\\
&\left.-\frac{1}{4}(1+\cos^2\theta)\sin^2(\chi_{\alpha})\cos(2\phi-2\gamma_{\alpha})\right\}\frac{1}{1+\hat{n}^{\alpha}\cdot\hat{k}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\alpha}_s =\quad&\left\{-\cos(\chi_{\alpha})\sin(\chi_{\alpha})\sin(\theta)\sin(\phi-\gamma_{\alpha})\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.-\frac{1}{2}\sin^2(\chi_{\alpha})\cos(\theta)\sin(2\gamma_{\alpha}-2\phi)\right\}\frac{1}{1+\hat{n}^{\alpha}\cdot\hat{k}},\end{aligned}$$ [[and]{}]{} $\{\gamma_{\alpha},\chi_{\alpha}\}$ and $\{\phi,\theta\}$ are the sky-locations of the pulsar and GW-source in spherical polar co-ordinates, respectively. The azimuthal angle in spherical polars is equivalent to right ascension, while the polar angle is related to declination by $\theta = \left(\pi/2 - \text{dec}\right)$. Further details of the polarisation basis formalism can be found in [@sesana-vecchio-2010; @pitkin-2012].
Burst sources
-------------
Various types of source could generate short-lived GW “bursts” in the PTA band, including cosmic strings, where cusps (sections of the string travelling at close to the speed of light) emit highly beamed radiation. Waveform models of these cusp bursts exist, and take into account the spectrum of radiation when viewed slightly off the emission axis [@bursts-multinest-2010 and references therein]. Bursts of gravitational radiation may also be emitted when two SMBHs pass close to one another on a highly eccentric orbit, which can occur shortly after a major galactic merger [@finn-lommen-2010]. However, for the purposes of identifying the presence of a burst we adopt a simple sine-Gaussian waveform model, which is sufficiently generic to provide a good fit to many different burst sources. The waveform is centred on a particular frequency, $f_0$, and exponentially suppressed at nearby frequencies. In the time-domain this has the form [@ligo-grb-search-2008; @abadie-burst-2012], $$\begin{aligned}
h_+(t) &= h_{+,0}\sin\left(2\pi f_0t + \Phi_0\right)\exp\left[-\frac{\left(2\pi f_0(t-t_b)\right)^2}{2Q^2}\right],\nonumber\\
h_\times(t) &= h_{\times,0}\cos\left(2\pi f_0t + \Phi_0\right)\exp\left[-\frac{\left(2\pi f_0(t-t_b)\right)^2}{2Q^2}\right].\end{aligned}$$
As described before, the induced residuals at the Earth are given by modulating the metric perturbation by the PTA antenna response function for each polarisation, and then integrating over time. A sine-Gaussian integrated over time is qualitatively similar to a sine-Gaussian. We therefore adopt the approach of [@pitkin-2012] by searching for a residual-signal of sine-Gaussian form. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
s^{\alpha}(t) &= R_+F^{\alpha}_+\cos\left(2\pi f_0t + \Phi_0\right)\exp\left[-\frac{\left(2\pi f_0(t-t_b)\right)^2}{2Q^2}\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad+ R_\times F^{\alpha}_\times\sin\left(2\pi f_0t + \Phi_0\right)\exp\left[-\frac{\left(2\pi f_0(t-t_b)\right)^2}{2Q^2}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $R_+=\mathcal{R}\left(1+\cos^2\iota\right)/2$ and $R_\times=\mathcal{R}\cos\iota$.
[^1]: Full details of this first challenge will be made available in a forthcoming IPTA data-challenge paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The flare produced when a star is tidally disrupted by a supermassive black hole holds potential as a diagnostic of both the black hole mass and the star mass. We propose a new method to realize this potential based upon a physical model of optical/UV light production in which shocks near the apocenters of debris orbits dissipate orbital energy, which is then radiated from that region. Measurement of the optical/UV luminosity and color temperature at the peak of the flare leads directly to the two masses. The black hole mass depends mostly on the temperature observed at peak luminosity, while the mass of the disrupted star depends mostly on the peak luminosity. We introduce [TDEmass]{}, a method to infer the black hole and stellar masses given these two input quantities. Using [TDEmass]{}, we find, for 21 well-measured events, black hole masses between $5\times 10^5$ and $10^7 M_\odot$ and disrupted stars with initial masses between 0.6 and $13M_\odot$. An open-source [python]{}-based tool for [TDEmass]{} is available at <https://github.com/taehoryu/TDEmass.git>.'
author:
- Taeho Ryu
- Julian Krolik
- Tsvi Piran
title: 'Measuring stellar and black hole masses of tidal disruption events.'
---
Introduction
============
Among the most interesting questions concerning Tidal Disruption Events (TDEs) are the mass ${M_{\rm BH}}$ of the disrupting supermassive black hole and the mass ${M_{\star}}$ of the disrupted star. Knowledge of these masses is clearly essential for understanding and modeling the event. A statistical sample of these values would enable us to understand better the population of stars around galactic centers and at the same time provide an alternative method to establish the masses of these black holes. Although stellar kinematics can be used to measure larger black hole masses, it is difficult to do so for the mass range associated with the most common galaxies.
Nearly all previous efforts to estimate the stellar and black hole masses associated with a TDE have done so using [Mosfit]{} [@Mockler+2019] to fit a multi-parameter phenomenological model to the lightcurve. [Mosfit]{} assumes rapid “circularization" of the debris stream and formation of a small accretion disk that powers the event. However, this idea has been questioned recently and the pace of circularization is currently a matter of debate (e.g., as reviewed by @BonnerotStone2020). Here we provide a parameter-inference method consistent with slow “circularization".
This new method, [TDEmass]{}, is based upon a physical model [@Piran+2015] in which the optical/UV emission originates in the outer shocks that form due to intersections of the debris streams near their orbital apocenters. An early version of this model that was motivated by the numerical simulation of [@Shiokawa+2015] was applied successfully to ASASSN-14li [@Krolik+2016], showing consistency with the optical/UV luminosity as well as with the X-ray and radio emission. In that simulation, the stellar debris were not “circularized". Instead, as the stellar debris returned to the black hole it formed a large extended flattened structure (an elliptical disk). The observed optical/UV luminosity is then powered by shocks that dissipate the debris’ kinetic energy.
For fixed $M_{\rm BH}$, the observed peak luminosity, temperature and time scale of a TDE depend only on ${M_{\star}}$ and $\Delta E$, the width of the energy distribution of the bound debris. The energy available is proportional to ${M_{\star}}$; $\Delta E$ determines both the time scale of the mass return time $t_0$, the orbital period at energy $-\Delta E$, and $a_0$, the apocenter distance for that energy and nearly zero angular momentum. The apocenter also sets the characteristic length scale at which the returning streams dissipate their kinetic energy and then radiate it.
We have recently completed a study of TDEs incorporating both realistic main-sequence internal stellar structure and full general relativity [@Ryu1+2020; @Ryu2+2020; @Ryu3+2020; @Ryu4+2020]. In this work, we determined two correction factors, $\Psi$ and $\Xi$, which correct traditional order-of-magnitude estimates. The first, $\Psi$, relates the physical tidal radius, the maximum orbital pericenter such that the star is totally disrupted, to the “tidal radius" $r_{\rm t} \equiv ({M_{\rm BH}}/{M_{\star}})^{1/3} {R_{\star}}$, where ${R_{\star}}$ is the stellar radius. Although $\Psi$ is an important quantity for determining event rates, it plays no role in determining observable features of an individual event. The second, $\Xi$, relates the real spread in specific energy $\Delta E$ to the corresponding order of magnitude estimate $\Delta \epsilon = G {M_{\rm BH}}{R_{\star}}/r_{\rm t}^2$ and plays a crucial role in the present work.
Building upon these results, in this paper we will show how ${M_{\star}}$ and ${M_{\rm BH}}$ can be inferred from the peak luminosity and temperature of a TDE. In §\[sec:correction\] we describe the correction factor $\Xi$. We then turn to our physical model and explain how ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ determine observables in §\[sec:model\]. Inverting these equations in §\[sec:from\_obs\_to\_par\], we show how to obtain ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ from the observations. We then employ our method to estimate the masses of a sample of TDEs in §\[sec:results\]. We discuss implications of our method and possible future extensions to improve it in § \[sec:discussion\]. We conclude and summarize our results in § \[sec:conclusions\].
Debris Energy For Main Sequence Stars {#sec:correction}
=====================================
In , we simulated the disruption events of main-sequence stars using hydrodynamics simulations in full general relativity ([[Harm3d]{}]{}, @Noble+2009) and solving the Poisson equation for the stars’ self-gravity in a relativistically consistent fashion. The initial structures of stars spanning a wide range of mass ${M_{\star}}$ ($0.15-10{~M_{\odot}}$) were taken from [[MESA]{}]{} [@Paxton+2011] evolutions to stellar middle-age, and their disruptions were studied for black hole masses over an even wider range ($10^5 - 5 \times 10^7 M_\odot$). These improvements (exact relativistic tidal stresses with accurate self-gravity, realistic internal structure and wide ranges of ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$) permitted quantitative determination of the outcome with significantly greater realism. Although other parameters (e.g., stellar age, orbital pericenter) may also affect $\Delta E$, they do so much more weakly than ${M_{\star}}$ and ${M_{\rm BH}}$ [@Law-Smith2019; @Tejeda+2017; @Gafton2019]. Throughout the rest of this paper, ${M_{\star}}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$ will be given in units of $M_\odot$.
The width $\Delta E$ of the debris’ specific energy distribution plays a key role in determining quantitative properties of the resulting flare. $\Delta E$ can be factored into three parts [@Ryu1+2020]: the traditional order-of-magnitude estimate $\Delta\epsilon \equiv G{M_{\rm BH}}{R_{\star}}/r_{\rm t}^2$; a function $\Xi_{\star}({M_{\star}}$) describing the dependence arising from the star’s internal structure: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Xi_star}
\Xi&_{\star}(M_{\star}) = \frac{0.62+\exp{[(M_{\star}-0.67)/0.21]}}{1 + 0.55~\exp{[(M_{\star}-0.67)/0.21]}} \ , \end{aligned}$$ and a function $\Xi_{\rm BH}$ describing additional ${M_{\rm BH}}$-dependence due to relativistic effects: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Xi_BH}
\Xi&_{\rm BH}(M_{\rm BH}) =1.27 - 0.3{M_{\rm BH,6}}^{0.242},\end{aligned}$$ where ${M_{\rm BH}}= 10^{6}{M_{\rm BH,6}}$. We define the product $\Xi \equiv \Xi_{\star} \Xi_{\rm BH} $, thus $\Delta E = \Xi ~\Delta\epsilon$. While $\Xi$, shown in Figure \[fig:xi\], is almost always within a factor of 2 of unity over the span of ${M_{\star}}$ and ${M_{\rm BH}}$ examined, its appearance at high powers in some of the expressions can make significant changes to the mass estimates.
![The correction factor $\Xi\equiv \Delta E/ \Delta \epsilon$. []{data-label="fig:xi"}](inference/contour/Xi.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
The model: from parameters to observables {#sec:model}
=========================================
@Piran+2015 proposed a model in which the optical/UV light of tidal disruption events is powered by shocks within an irregular, asymmetric, mildly-flattened, eccentric accretion flow formed from the bound debris. The bolometric luminosity at optical/UV wavelengths tracks the rate at which orbital energy is dissipated into heat by the shocks, which occur at a distance from the black hole $\sim a_0$, the apocenter for highly eccentric orbits with energy $-\Delta E$. This model is based upon the results of a global hydrodynamical simulation of stellar debris dynamics that evolved the system until $\simeq 12~t_0$ after the tidal disruption [@Shiokawa+2015]. Its results should be qualitatively valid so long as the apsidal precession angle of the debris stream upon returning to the pericenter is $< O(1)$. Large precession happens only for the small fraction of the events in which the disruption takes place at less than about 10 gravitational radii from the black hole [@Dai+15; @Krolik+2020]. Because the orbital energy loss in shocks near the apocenter is insufficient to circularize the tidal streams, and the formerly stellar matter has low specific angular momentum, the bound gas settles into an elliptical disk with a characteristic length scale $\sim a_{\rm 0}$, which is a factor $\sim (M_{\rm BH}/{M_{\star}})^{1/3} \sim 100\times$ larger than the compact circular disk (radius $\simeq 2r_{\rm t}$) often assumed to be the result of this process.
As demonstrated in @Piran+2015, this model predicts the characteristic scale of the peak luminosity, blackbody temperature, and line widths of TDEs. When extended to consider X-ray and radio observations, it also matches quite well the multiwavelength properties of an individual event, ASASSN 14li [@Krolik+2016]. However, these earlier efforts made cruder estimates of what we now call $\Xi$, making use of the correction factor for the energy width suggested by @Phinney1989. We improve their model by taking into account the $\Xi$ correction and then demonstrating how this model can be used for inferring ${M_{\star}}$ and ${M_{\rm BH}}$ more generally.
As the typical energy of the bound material doesn’t depend strongly on the star’s pericenter provided it is greater than a few gravitational radii [@Tejeda+2017; @Gafton2019; @Ryu4+2020] and small enough to produce a full disruption, the system is characterized by three parameters, the black hole mass ${M_{\rm BH}}$, the stellar mass ${M_{\star}}$ and the stellar radius ${R_{\star}}$. Adopting a phenomenological ${M_{\star}}-{R_{\star}}$ relation [@Ryu2+2020] $$\begin{aligned}
{R_{\star}}=0.93\left(\frac{{M_{\star}}}{{~M_{\odot}}}\right)^{8/9} {~R_{\odot}}\\end{aligned}$$ reduces this list to two.
![The apocenter distance $a_{0}$ in units of cm (Equation \[eq:a0\]). In our model $c_1 a_0$ is the size of the emitting region.[]{data-label="fig:a0"}](inference/contour/a0.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
The energy is produced by the infall of tidal streams to the previously described irregular accretion flow; we quantify the dissipation by supposing this flow has size $c_1 a_0$ and the shocks dissipate the associated free-fall kinetic energy. The period of peak mass fallback begins at $t_0$ after stellar pericenter passage. Here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a0}
a_0&=
\frac{G {M_{\rm BH}}}{\Delta E }=
6.5 \times 10^{14}~{\rm cm} ~ {M_{\rm BH,6}}^{2/3} {M_{\star}}^{2/9}~ \Xi^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ and
![The characteristic return time $t_{0}$ in units of seconds (Equation \[eq:t0\]). []{data-label="fig:t0"}](inference/contour/t0.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:t0}
t_{0}= \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{a_0^{3/2}} {G^{1/2} {M_{\rm BH}}^{1/2} }
=3.2 \times 10^6 ~{\rm s}~ {M_{\rm BH,6}}^{1/2} {M_{\star}}^{1/3} ~ \Xi^{-3/2}.
\end{aligned}$$
As shown in Figure \[fig:a0\], the apocenter distance $a_0$ is determined almost entirely by $M_{\rm BH}$ and is nearly independent of ${M_{\star}}$. This occurs because the ${M_{\star}}^{2/9}$ dependence (Equation \[eq:a0\]) is almost canceled by the gradual decrease of $\Xi^{-1}$ with ${M_{\star}}$. Note that $c_1 a_0 (\Delta\Omega/4\pi)^{1/2}$ is equivalent to what is often called the “blackbody radius".
Because $t_0$, which is shown in Figure \[fig:t0\], is the orbital period for semimajor axis $a_0/2$, the shocks at $\sim a_0$ from the black hole begin at a time $1.5 t_0$ after the star passes pericenter, shortly after the peak mass fallback rate is reached. At this time, the peak fallback rate is ${M_{\star}}/(3t_0)$ if the mass fallback rate post-peak is $\propto t^{-5/3}$, which is generally a good approximation for full disruptions. Consequently, the maximal rate at which the outer shocks dissipate energy $L_{\rm max}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Lmax}
L_{\rm max} &= \frac{G {M_{\rm BH}}\dot{M}_{\rm max}}{c_{1}a_{0}}
= 4.3\times 10^{43}~c_{1}^{-1} {M_{\star}}^{4/9} {M_{\rm BH,6}}^{-1/6}~\Xi^{5/2}~{\rm erg/s}. \end{aligned}$$ We take $c_1=1$ as a fiducial value in the absence of more information.
Figure \[fig:lmax\] shows a contour plot for $L_{\rm max}$. As this figure clearly shows, $L_{\rm max}$ is more strongly dependent on ${M_{\star}}$ than on $M_{\rm BH}$. In fact, the explicit dependence of $L_{\rm max}$ on $M_{\rm BH}$ is so weak, it depends on $M_{\rm BH}$ principally through $\Xi$. The net result is that $L_{\rm max}$ is greatest for small $M_{\rm BH}$ and large ${M_{\star}}$ and least for large $M_{\rm BH}$ and small ${M_{\star}}$.
![The maximal luminosity $L_{\rm max}$ in units of ${{\rm erg}}~ {{\rm s}}^{-1}$ for $c_{1}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:lmax"}](inference/contour/Lmax.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Assuming an emitting region with an effective surface area $\Delta \Omega ~( c_1 a_{0})^{2}$ , where $\Delta \Omega $ is the solid angle, the peak blackbody temperature $T_{\rm max}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\rm max} &= \left[ \frac{L_{\rm max}} { \sigma \Delta \Omega c_{1}^2 a_{0}^2 }\right]^{1/4},\nonumber\\
&=
2.3 \times 10^{4}~\left(\frac{ \Delta \Omega}{2 \pi}\right)^{-1/4} c_{1}^{-3/4} {M_{\rm BH,6}}^{-3/8}~\Xi^{9/8}~{\rm K},
\label{eq:Tmax}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. We set $2\uppi$ as the fiducial value of $\Delta\Omega$ because we expect the emission surface to be somewhat flattened, and not all the surface will be equally heated. Figure \[fig:Tmax\] depicts the contour map for $T_{\rm max}$. Unlike $L_{\rm max}$, $T_{\rm max}$ depends predominantly on ${M_{\rm BH}}$; its only connection to ${M_{\star}}$ is via $\Xi$.
![The maximal blackbody temperature $T_{\rm max}$ (Equation \[eq:Tmax\]) in units of K for $c_{1}=1$ and $\Delta\Omega=2\pi$.[]{data-label="fig:Tmax"}](inference/contour/Tmax.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
This model also predicts the characteristic orbital speed of matter in the accretion flow: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deltav}
\Delta v = \big[ \frac{2 \Delta E}{c_{1}}\big]^{1/2} = 6400~{M_{\rm BH,6}}^{1/6} {M_{\star}}^{-1/9}c_{1}^{-1/2}~\Xi^{1/2}~{\rm km/s}.
\end{aligned}$$ This dependence is illustrated in Figure \[fig:linewidth\]. As the algebraic relation demonstrates, $\Delta v$ is extremely insensitive to all the parameters. That it is in the middle of the observed range is encouraging, but its insensitivity to $M_{\rm BH}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ makes it not very useful for parameter inference. Moreover, quantitative matching to [*observed*]{} line profiles involves the line-of-sight velocity $\Delta v \left(c_1 a_0/r-1\right)^{1/2}\sin i\ f(\varpi)$, where $r$ is the radius of a fluid element from the black hole as it follows an eccentric orbit with apocenter $c_1 a_0$, $i$ is the inclination of the orbital plane to our line-of-sight, and $\varpi$ is the angle between the line of apses and our line-of-sight[^1]. We therefore don’t use it in our mass estimates. However, it provides a useful approximate consistency check.
![Contour lines for the line width $\Delta v$ in units of $10^{3}~$km$~{{\rm s}}^{-1}$ for $c_{1}=1$ and $\Delta\Omega=2\uppi$.[]{data-label="fig:linewidth"}](inference/contour/Linewidth.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
{width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"}
From observables to parameters {#sec:from_obs_to_par}
==============================
Inversion of the model equations
--------------------------------
Consider an event with an observed peak luminosity ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and observed temperature ${T_{\rm obs}}$ at the time of peak luminosity. Although most of the events discovered so far were found after they reached their peak, recently a number of TDEs have been identified in which the peak was observed [e.g., @nicholl+2020; @Hinkle+2020b]. In this case ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$ correspond to $L_{\rm max} $ and $T_{\rm max}$[^2]. Inverting Equations \[eq:mbh\_Tobs\] and \[eq:mstar\_Lobs\] we find the two key equations of our model: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mbh_Tobs}
{M_{\rm BH,6}}&= 0.5~T_{\mathrm{obs},4.5}^{-8/3} ~\left(\frac{ \Delta \Omega}{2 \uppi}\right)^{-2/3}~ c_{1}^{-2} ~\Xi^{3},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mstar_Lobs}
{M_{\star}}&= 5~ L_{\rm obs,44}^{9/4} ~ T_{\mathrm{obs},4.5}^{-1} ~(\frac{ \Delta \Omega}{2 \uppi})^{-1/4} ~c_{1}^{3/2}~\Xi^{-9/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $L_{\rm obs} = 10^{44}~{{\rm erg}}~{{\rm s}}^{-1}~L_{\rm obs,44}$ and $T_{\rm obs}= 30000{~\mathrm{K}}~T_{\rm obs,4.5}$. Note that ${M_{\rm BH}}$ is primarily determined by ${T_{\rm obs}}$ (Equation \[eq:mbh\_Tobs\]) and ${M_{\star}}$ by ${L_{\rm obs}}$ (Equation \[eq:mstar\_Lobs\]). Both are strongly dependent on $\Xi$.
{width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"}
![${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ inferred from ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$ for the a selected TDE sample with $c_{1}=1$ and $\Delta\Omega=2\uppi$. Each filled marker indicates the solutions for given ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$. The horizontal (vertical) error bar is the range between the extreme values of the inferred masses with the uncertainties of ${L_{\rm obs}}$ (${T_{\rm obs}}$). The background contour plot show the characteristic time scale ($1.5t_{0}$) for the date at peak luminosity since disruption in units of days.[]{data-label="fig:inferredmass"}](inference/c1_1_del_omega_2pi_inferred_mass_double_errorbar_coverage.png){width="8.5cm"}
Because $\Xi$ depends non-linearly on ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$, Equations \[eq:mbh\_Tobs\] and \[eq:mstar\_Lobs\] must be solved numerically. We do this either by interpolating within precalculated tables of $L_{\rm max}({M_{\rm BH}},{M_{\star}})$ and $T_{\rm max}({M_{\rm BH}},{M_{\star}})$ or by using a 2-dimensional Newton-Raphson method. Solutions of Equations \[eq:mbh\_Tobs\] and \[eq:mstar\_Lobs\] are shown in Figure \[fig:mbh\_mstar\_sol\] for the ranges of ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$ relevant for observed TDE events (Table \[tab:tdecandidates\]). The [Python]{} code implementing our solution is available at <https://github.com/taehoryu/TDEmass.git>.
An example
----------
Figure \[fig:example\] shows an example illustrating both our method and the importance of the $\Xi$ factor: ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ inferred for ASASSN18pg/AT2018dyb [@Leloudas+2019]. The red and blue strips demarcate the ranges of the solutions for Equations \[eq:mbh\_Tobs\] (${T_{\rm obs}}$) and \[eq:mstar\_Lobs\] (${L_{\rm obs}}$), respectively. The solutions shown in the *right* panel assume $\Xi=1$. The inferred black hole mass using $\Xi \neq 1$ is $2.8_{-1.9}^{+2.2}\times10^{6}$ and the inferred stellar mass is $1.3_{-0.5}^{+2.2}$. The errors are defined by the range between the extreme values of the inferred mass arising from the uncertainties of ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$. The inferred black hole mass from our model is consistent with the black hole mass estimated by @Leloudas+2019 using the $M_{\rm BH} - \sigma$ relation of @McConnellMa2013, $3.3 _{ -2.0 }^{+ 5.0 }\times10^{6}$, which is indicated by an arrow in both panels. Without the $\Xi$ correction, the inferred ${M_{\rm BH}}$ is smaller by a factor of 3.5 and it is only marginally consistent with the bulge-inferred black hole mass, while the inferred ${M_{\star}}$ is larger by a factor that could be as much as $\sim 6$. In the following section, we will apply our method to a larger sample.
Application to a TDE sample {#sec:results}
===========================
To further demonstrate the method, we apply our model to 21 UV/optical TDE candidates for which the date of first observation is more than 10 days before the time of peak luminosity (longer than twice the typical cadence) so that the peak luminosity and temperature can be well-measured. This set provides enough examples to explore the use of our method on real cases. Ten of our examples are from @velzen+2020 (AT2019qiz, AT2018hco, AT2018iih, AT2018lni, AT2018lna, AT2019cho, AT2019dsg, AT2019ehz, AT2019mha and AT2019meg). Eight more are included at least once in the samples collected in @nicholl+2020 and @Hinkle+2020b: ASASSN-18pg/AT2018dyb [@Leloudas+2019], ASASSN-19dj/AT2019azh [@Hinkle+2020], ASASSN-19bt/AT2019ahk [@Holoien+2019b], PS1-11af [@Chornock+2013], PS1-10jh [@Gezari+2012], PS17dhz/AT2017eqx [@Nicholl+2019], PS18kh/AT2018zr [@Holoien+2019] and iPTF-15af [@Blagorodnova+2019]. The last three are from @Arcavi+2014: PTF-09djl, PTF-09axc, PTF-09ge.
Using the published data for $L_{\rm obs}$ and $T_{\rm obs}$ for each case, we infer the black hole mass and stellar mass, as well as the characteristic orbital period $t_0$ they together imply (see Equation \[eq:t0\]). The results for ${M_{\star}}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$, also including $t_0$, are shown in Table \[tab:tdecandidates\]. We find values of ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ for 20 of the 21 events within the expected range. Although it is encouraging that our model yields plausible parameters for nearly every case, it is not surprising because, when applied to generic values of $M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$, our model [*predicts*]{} values of ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$ in the middle of the range of observed values, and with relatively weak dependence on $M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$. However, it is also very striking and encouraging that omission of $\Xi$ significantly degrades its performance: if $\Xi$ is ignored, for 7 of the 21 events, the inferred $M_{\star}$ is $\gtrsim 20{~M_{\odot}}$, so large as to make it implausible given the stellar mass distribution. This fact immediately emphasizes the importance of using careful calculations of $\Delta E$. In addition, the fact that use of realistic physics improves performance supports the viability of the underlying model. This point is strengthened by the fact that in nearly all these cases, the degree to which $\Xi \neq 1$ in our full solution is almost entirely due to $M_{\star}$, rather than $M_{\rm BH}$; in other words, correct treatment of the $M_{\star}$-dependence of $\Xi$ changes an unreasonable inferred value of $M_{\star}$ to a reasonable one.
AT2018iih is the one case in which an inferred mass appears to be outside the reasonable range: for this object, we find ${M_{\star}}= 75$. However, examination of the discovery paper (see in particular Figures 1 and 11 of @velzen+2020) reveals that this event is an outlier with respect to the rest. In addition to its high luminosity and low temperature, it also has a very slow decay rate, so that its observed total radiated energy is an order of magnitude or more greater than any of the others. It may possibly be a misidentified different variety of transient.
Finally, we show in Figure \[fig:inferredmass\] the inferred ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ for the observed ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$ superimposed on contours of $1.5~t_{0}$, the expected delay between stellar pericenter passage and peak light. Note that the range of $M_{\star}$ shown excludes AT2018iih. We find that the events are concentrated within the ranges ${M_{\star}}\simeq 1-3$ and ${M_{\rm BH}}\simeq 1 \times10^{6}-10^{7}$. Our sample size is too small and too heterogeneous to support any statistical analysis of the distribution of ${M_{\rm BH}}$ or ${M_{\star}}$. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that we find few events with ${M_{\star}}\lesssim 0.5-1{~M_{\odot}}$ despite the large population of stars in this mass range. Smaller ${M_{\star}}$ leads to less luminous, hence harder to detect, TDEs. It follows that one possible explanation for the paucity of smaller mass stars is that events with $L_{\rm max}$ large enough to be discovered well before the peak are likely to have larger values of ${M_{\star}}$ (see the *right* panel of Figure \[fig:mbh\_mstar\_sol\]).
[c c c c |c c c |c]{} Candidate name & ${L_{\rm obs}}[10^{44}{{\rm erg}}/{\mathrm s}]$ & ${T_{\rm obs}}[10^4\mathrm{K}]$ & $M_{\rm BH, bulge}[10^6~M_{\odot}]$ & ${M_{\rm BH}}[10^6~M_{\odot}]$ & ${M_{\star}}[M_{\odot}]$ & $t_{0}$ \[days\] & Reference\
ASASSN-18pg/AT2018dyb &$ 1.1_{ -0.5 }^{+ 0.5 }$& $ 2.5 _{ -0.5 }^{+ 0.5 }$ &$^{i}3.3_{-2.0}^{+5.0}$ & $ 2.8 _{- 1.9 }^{+ 2.2 }$ & $ 1.3 _{- 0.5 }^{+ 2.2 }$ & $ 36 _{- 19 }^{+ 38 }$ &\
ASASSN-19dj/AT2019azh & $ 6.2 _{ -0.2 }^{+ 0.2 }$& $ 5.0 _{ -0.3 }^{+ 0.3 }$ & $^{a,k}12_{-4}^{+7}$, $^{a}< 4$ & $ 0.74_{- 0.09 }^{+ 0.09 }$ & $ 13_{- 2 }^{+ 2 }$ & $ 31 _{- 4 }^{+ 5}$ &\
ASASSN-19bt/AT2019ahk &$ 1.2_{ -0.0 }^{+ 0.0 }$& $ 1.8_{ -0.0 }^{+ 0.0 }$ & $^{k}6.0_{-2.4}^{+4.1}$ & $ 6.2 _{- 0.2 }^{+ 0.2 }$ & $ 2.5_{- 0.2 }^{+ 0.2 }$ & $ 70 _{- 4 }^{+ 4 }$ &\
PS1-11af &$ 0.85_{ -0.02 }^{+ 0.02 }$& $ 1.5 _{ -0.2 }^{+ 0.3 }$ & $^{j}8_{-2}^{+2}$ & $ 8.9 _{- 2.7 }^{+ 1.8 }$ & $ 1.8_{- 0.4 }^{+ 0.6 }$ & $ 84 _{- 22 }^{+ 21 }$ &\
PS1-10jh &$ 2.9 _{ -0.4 }^{+ 0.4 }$ & $ 2.9 _{ -0.2 }^{+ 0.2 }$ & $^{j}4_{-2}^{+2}$ & $ 2.4 _{- 0.3}^{+ 0.3 }$ & $ 6.5 _{- 2.3 }^{+ 3.5 }$ & $ 51 _{- 10 }^{+ 13 }$ &\
PS17dhz/AT2017eqx &$ 0.65_{ -0.06 }^{+ 0.05 }$& $ 2.1 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.1 } $ & $^{b,k}6.8_{-2.3}^{+ 3.5}$ & $ 2.6 _{- 0.5 }^{+ 0.5 }$ & $ 0.96 _{- 0.06 }^{+ 0.05 }$ & $ 41 _{- 7 }^{+ 9 }$ &\
PS18kh/AT2018zr &$ 0.68_{ -0.20 }^{+ 0.53 }$ & $ 1.5 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.1 } $ & $^{k}7.7_{-3.3}^{+ 5.8}$ & $ 7.2 _{- 2.5 }^{+ 1.8 }$ & $ 1.3_{- 0.3 }^{+ 2.7 }$ & $ 70_{- 21 }^{+ 39 }$&\
PTF-09djl &$2.5 _{ -0.5 }^{+ 0.7 }$ & $ 2.6 _{ -0.3 }^{+ 0.3 }$ & $ ^{j}3.6_{ -3.0 }^{+10 }$ & $ 3.0 _{- 0.6 }^{+ 0.8 }$ & $ 5.9_{- 3.0 }^{+ 6.4 }$ & $ 57_{- 18 }^{+ 29 }$ &\
PTF-09axc &$ 0.31_{ -0.03 }^{+ 0.04 }$ & $ 1.2 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.1 }$ & $ ^{c,j}2.7 _{ -0.6 }^{+ 0.7 }$, $^{c,i}0.48_{-0.32}^{+0.97}$ & $ 6.2 _{- 1.7 }^{+ 2.5 }$ & $ 0.84 _{- 0.07}^{+ 0.09 }$ & $ 83_{- 25 }^{+ 37 }$ &\
PTF-09ge & $ 1.3 _{ -0.3 }^{+ 0.3}$ & $ 2.2 _{ -0.2 }^{+ 0.2 }$ & $^{j} 5.7 _{ -1.0 }^{+ 3.0 }$ & $ 4.1 _{- 1.1 }^{+ 0.9 }$ & $ 1.8_{- 0.6 }^{+ 1.8 }$ & $ 48 _{- 11 }^{+ 20 }$&\
iPTF-15af &$ 1.5_{ -0.5 }^{+ 0.8 }$ & $ 4.9 _{ -0.7 }^{+ 0.9 }$ & $ ^{i}7.6 _{ -4.4 }^{+ 11 }$ &$ 0.53_{- 0.32 }^{+ 0.54 }$ & $ 1.1 _{- 0.3 }^{+ 1.0}$ & $ 14 _{- 7 }^{+ 13 }$ &\
AT2019qiz &$ 0.29 _{ -0.01 }^{+ 0.01 }$& $ 1.9 _{ -0.0 }^{+ 0.0 } $ &$-$ & $ 1.5 _{- 0.1 }^{+ 0.1 }$ & $ 0.65 _{- 0.01 }^{+ 0.01 }$ & $ 43_{- 3 }^{+ 4 }$&\
AT2018hco &$ 1.7 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.2 }$ & $ 2.5 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.1 } $ &$-$ & $ 3.3_{- 0.2 }^{+ 0.1 }$ & $ 2.6 _{- 0.6 }^{+ 0.7 }$ & $ 47_{- 5 }^{+ 5 }$ &\
AT2018iih & $ 5.3_{ -0.4 }^{+ 0.4 }$& $ 1.7 _{ -0.0 }^{+ 0.0 }$&$-$ & $ 6.8 _{- 0.2}^{+ 0.2}$ & $ 75 _{- 13}^{+ 14 }$ & $ 234 _{- 20 }^{+ 18}$ &\
AT2018lni &$1.1 _{ -0.2 }^{+ 0.6}$& $ 2.4 _{ -0.3 }^{+ 0.4 } $&$-$ & $ 3.0 _{- 1.5}^{+ 1.3 }$ & $ 1.3 _{- 0.3 }^{+ 2.1 }$ & $ 38_{- 14}^{+ 23 }$ &\
AT2018lna &$ 3.5 _{ -0.4 }^{+ 0.6 }$& $ 3.9 _{ -0.3 }^{+ 0.3 } $&$-$ & $ 1.3_{- 0.2 }^{+ 0.2}$ & $ 5.7_{- 1.8 }^{+ 3.5 }$ & $ 33 _{- 6 }^{+ 9 }$ &\
AT2019cho &$ 1.0 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.1 }$& $1.6_{ -0.0 }^{+ 0.0} $ &$-$ & $ 8.0 _{- 0.3 }^{+ 0.3 }$ & $ 2.2 _{- 0.3}^{+ 0.3 }$ & $ 82 _{- 6 }^{+ 7 }$ &\
AT2019dsg &$ 2.9 _{ -0.3 }^{+ 0.4 }$& $ 3.9 _{ -0.2 }^{+ 0.2 } $ &$-$ & $ 1.3 _{- 0.1}^{+ 0.1 }$ & $ 3.8 _{- 1.0 }^{+ 1.0 }$ & $ 29 _{- 4 }^{+ 5 }$&\
AT2019ehz &$ 1.1 _{ -0.0 }^{+ 0.1 }$ & $ 2.2 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.1 } $ &$-$ & $ 3.9 _{- 0.3 }^{+ 0.3 }$ & $ 1.4_{- 0.1 }^{+ 0.1 }$ & $ 45 _{- 2}^{+ 3 }$&\
AT2019mha &$ 1.3 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.2 }$ & $ 2.2_{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.2 } $ &$-$ & $ 4.0 _{- 0.7 }^{+ 0.6 }$ & $ 1.9 _{- 0.5 }^{+ 1.0 }$ & $ 48_{- 8 }^{+ 12 }$ &\
AT2019meg &$ 2.3 _{ -0.2 }^{+ 0.2 }$ & $ 2.8 _{ -0.1 }^{+ 0.1 } $ &$-$ & $ 2.6 _{- 0.1 }^{+ 0.1 }$ & $ 4.3_{- 0.7 }^{+ 1.1 }$ & $ 47_{- 4 }^{+ 5 }$ &\
References: 1) @Leloudas+2019; 2) @Hinkle+2020; 3) @Holoien+2019b; 4) @Chornock+2013; 5) @Gezari+2012; 6) @Nicholl+2019; 7) @Holoien+2019; 8) @Arcavi+2014; 9) @Blagorodnova+2019 ;10) @velzen+2020
\[tab:footnotea\] $^{a}$ : @Hinkle+2020 find $M_{\rm BH, bulge}=12_{-4}^{+7}\times10^{6}$, using the ${M_{\rm BH}}-M_{\rm bulge}$ relation of @McConnellMa2013; @vanVelzen+2019b find $M_{\rm BH,bulge}<4\times10^{6}$, using the ${M_{\rm BH}}-\sigma$ relation of @Gultekin2009 and a measured upper bound on the bulge dispersion.
$^{b}$ : This black hole mass was determined using the black hole mass – bulge luminosity of @KormendyHo2013, but applying it to the [*total*]{} stellar luminosity.
$^{c}$ : @Arcavi+2014 estimated $M_{\rm BH, bulge}=2.7 _{ -0.6 }^{+ 0.7 }\times10^{6}$ using the relations of @Gadotti2009 and @HaringRix2004, whereas @Wevers+2017 found $M_{\rm BH, bulge}=5.7_{-0.5}^{+0.5}\times10^{6}$, using the ${M_{\rm BH}}-\sigma$ relation from @FerrareseFord2005. We define the uncertainty for both as the linear sum of the measurement error and systematic error due to scatter in the bulge relation.
$^{i}$ The cited references define the uncertainty as the linear sum of the systematic uncertainty from the bulge relation used and the measurement uncertainty.
$^{j}$ We quote the uncertainties from the cited references, but their authors do not clearly define how they were determined.
$^{k}$ The cited references provide only the central value without any uncertainty. The uncertainty shown is the scatter in the bulge relation used to estimate the central value.
![A comparison of ${M_{\rm BH}}$ obtained using [TDEmass]{} (red circles) and $M_{\rm BH, bulge}$ (black symbols) for 11 candidates for which $M_{\rm BH, bulge}$ is available (See Table \[tab:tdecandidates\] for references). For two candidates (ASASSN19dj/AT2019azh and PTF-09axc), we show two $M_{\rm BH, bulge}$ estimates taken from published papers, distinguished by different symbols (crosses and stars). The downward arrow attached to one of the two $M_{\rm BH, bulge}$ estimates for ASASSN19dj/AT2019azh indicates an upper bound.[]{data-label="fig:mbh_mbh_bulge"}](inference/mbh_mbulge.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Comparing our $M_{\rm BH}$ with bulge-inferred black hole mass
--------------------------------------------------------------
We have just introduced a new way in which central black hole masses can be inferred from TDE observations. However, central black hole masses can also be estimated from stellar bulge properties, providing a measurement of ${M_{\rm BH}}$ independent of any number derived from TDE properties. In Figure \[fig:example\], we showed a case in which our estimate of $M_{\rm BH}$ and that of a bulge-based method coincide quite closely. In fact, as shown in Figure \[fig:mbh\_mbh\_bulge\], for 8 of the 11 cases in our sample for which bulge data is available, the two estimates are consistent (see Table \[tab:tdecandidates\]). We find this agreement encouraging.
Regrettably, the encouragement we take from this consistency is limited by the difficulties of applying bulge-based estimates. First, as has been well-known for a while [@Wevers+2017], black hole-bulge correlations can differ substantially. These contrasts are particularly great for the black hole mass range of greatest interest in the TDE context, $M_{\rm BH} < 10^7$, because these correlations have been determined primarily by galaxies hosting black holes 1–2 orders of magnitude larger, and the relatively small number of low-mass cases in these samples do not adequately constrain the correlation in this mass range. Three of our cases illustrate this challenge. In one case (ASASSN-19dj/AT2019azh), our inference is consistent with one bulge-based estimate, but not with another. In another (iPTF-15af), our model predicts a value considerably smaller than estimated on the basis of any version of the bulge dispersion correlation. However, as shown by @Xiao+2011 and @Baldassare+2020, when the dispersion correlations indicate $M_{\rm BH} \lesssim 10^7$, the black hole mass found by emission line widths (when there is an AGN) is generally smaller by factors of several and in some instances is more than an order of magnitude smaller. In a third (PTF-09axc), different bulge correlations yield $M_{\rm BH}$ estimates differing by a factor $\simeq 5$, but the larger of the two is about a factor of 2 smaller than our inferred value, inconsistent by $\sim 2\sigma$.
Another difficulty is illustrated by a different discrepant case, PS17dhz/AT2017eqx: it can be difficult to resolve the host galaxy well enough to measure the bulge properties. In this case, the published black hole mass estimate [@Nicholl+2019] was made assuming the total stellar mass is the bulge mass; this assumption may explain why our estimate is factor $\sim 2 - 3$ smaller than the “bulge"-based estimate.
Lastly, uncertainties in these estimates are often quoted as the amount resulting from measurement error in the bulge dispersion or stellar mass. However, there is intrinsic scatter in all the correlations: e.g., 0.2-0.5 dex for the [@McConnellMa2013] relation and 0.6-0.8 dex for that of [@FerrareseFord2005]. This, too, contributes to the uncertainty.
The parameters $c_{1}$ and $\Delta \Omega$
------------------------------------------
Our model includes two unspecified parameters, $c_{1}$ and $\Delta\Omega$. As seen in Equations \[eq:mbh\_Tobs\] and \[eq:mstar\_Lobs\], for fixed ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$, larger $\Delta\Omega$ results in smaller ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$, but the dependence is weak. The sensitivity of both ${M_{\star}}$ and ${M_{\rm BH}}$ to $c_{1}$ is stronger. For fixed ${L_{\rm obs}}$ and ${T_{\rm obs}}$, $d\log {M_{\rm BH}}/ d\log c_{1} \simeq -(1.2-2)$ and $d\log {M_{\star}}/ d\log c_{1} \simeq 0.8-1.5$.
In this work, we assume $c_{1}=1$ and $\Delta \Omega=2\uppi$ at peak luminosity for all of our TDE sample. Although both assumed values are likely correct to within factors of a few, it will be important to determine both, especially $c_{1}$, more accurately, including any possible dependence on ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ or perhaps on the stellar pericenter $r_{\rm p}$. @Tejeda+2017 and @Gafton2019 have shown that $\Delta E$ varies only weakly with $r_{\rm p}$ for most pericenters inside the physical tidal radius, but acquires greater sensitivity to $r_{\rm p}$ when it is in the highly-relativistic region, so it could, in principle, influence these two parameters. If an independent estimate of either $c_1$ or $\Delta\Omega$ becomes available (whether using some new observational constraint or incorporating results from full numerical simulations), it would be possible to constrain these potential dependences. Without such an estimate we recommend keeping them fixed.
Characteristic time scale $t_{0}$
---------------------------------
Our model implies that the peak luminosity should be observed when the tightly bound debris reach apocenter a second time, $\simeq 1.5~t_{0}$ after the star’s pericenter passage. This is slightly later than the $\simeq t_0$ delay if a compact accretion disk forms when the debris first return to pericenter. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:t_constraint}
t_{\rm obs}\gtrsim 1.5~ t_{0}, \end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\rm obs}$ is the time from the beginning of the disruption event (stellar pericenter passage) to the time of peak light.
This constraint is usable only when it is possible to identify the time at which the disruption began, even though the flare doesn’t begin until well after that moment. To accomplish this, one might consider fitting the post-peak light curve assuming the conventional $t^{-5/3}$ power-law, where $t=0$ is the disruption time [e.g., @Miller+2015]. However, this method can be problematic. There is always the question of the relationship between the mass fallback rate as a function of time and the light curve. In addition, now that numerous TDES have been observed, it has become clear that their light curves exhibit considerable diversity beyond $t^{-5/3}$: for example, exponentials are better fits to the first few months of ASASSN-14li [@Holoien+2015], ASASSN-14ae [@Holoien+2014] and iPTF-16fnl [@Blagorodnova+2017].
An alternative way to identify the disruption moment is to use the radio emission that accompanies some TDEs. @Krolik+2016 found that the radio emission region in ASASSN-14li grew at a constant speed quite close to the propagation speed of the fastest-moving unbound ejecta. By tracing the size of the radio emitting region backwards in time, they inferred the time when the disruption took place, finding it to be $\simeq 70$ days before the TDE was discovered. We can compare this estimate with the magnitude of $t_0$ derived from the model of this paper, using $L_{\rm obs}$ and $T_{\rm obs}$ rather than lightcurve analysis. From our new method, we infer ${M_{\rm BH}}= 0.52 _{- 0.25 }^{+ 0.54 }\times10^{6}$ and $ {M_{\star}}= 0.75 _{- 0.11 }^{+ 0.14 }$ for the event, giving $t_{0}=20_{- 5 }^{+ 6 }$ days. Thus, it appears that ASASSN-14li was discovered $\simeq 3.5t_0$ after disruption. While longer than expected as there were no observations of this source during this priod this is not inconsistent. It is also noteworthy that ASASSN-14li is not a good candidate for light curve-fitting with any simple analytic form because both optical and X-ray luminosities were nearly constant for the first $\simeq 30$ days, and only then began to decline.
When information on the moment of disruption is missing, but the flare has been followed from well before the peak, the time constraint (Equation \[eq:t\_constraint\]) can be interpreted as a bound on $t_0$: the time from first observation to peak light should be less than $1.5t_{0}$. Indeed, in the sample presented in this paper, for all our examples $1.5t_0$ is longer than the time from discovery to peak. This ratio is $\simeq 2 - 10$ except for one case, iPTF-15af. In this instance, although $1.5t_0$ is only $\simeq 2/3$ the discovery to peak time, the range of masses permitted by the uncertainties in $L_{\rm obs}$ and $T_{\rm obs}$ is such that $1.5 t_0 \simeq 40$ d is only $1\sigma$ from the central value.
Outliers and exceptions
-----------------------
There can be cases in which our model doesn’t apply. This could be because the disruption was only partial or the pericenter was small and the debris circularized rapidly. In such cases, application of our model may yield values of ${M_{\star}}$ or $M_{\rm BH}$ outside its range of validity.
### Partial disruptions
A significant fraction of all TDEs result in only partial disruption [@Krolik+2020]. In partial disruptions, ${L_{\rm obs}}$ is suppressed by a factor comparable to the ratio of the debris mass to the mass of the star before being disrupted. Partial disruptions also differ from total disruptions in the shape of their energy distributions: full disruptions generally have nearly-flat distributions from $-\Delta E$ to $+\Delta E$, while partial distributions create less debris mass with $|E| < \Delta E$ [@Guillochon+2013; @Goicovic+2019; @Ryu3+2020]. This contrast leads to partial disruptions having more steeply declining mass fallback rates post-peak, and therefore possibly steeper lightcurves than full disruptions. On the other hand, because $\Delta E$ for partial disruptions resulting in significant mass loss is almost the same as for total disruptions, $t_0$ is little changed. Because the basic mechanics of apocenter shocks would still operate, their timescales to reach peak should resemble those of full disruptions, while reaching a lower luminosity and then likely declining faster.
A few candidates have been discovered showing hints of these effects, e.g., AT2019qiz [@nicholl+2020] and iPTF-16fnl [@Blagorodnova+2017]; they might be partial disruption events. In fact, @Hinkle+2020b found that in a sample of 21 UV/optical candidates with well-characterized post-peak light curves, less luminous TDEs tended to have steeper slopes post-peak than more luminous TDEs.
### Higher $M_{\rm BH}$ and circularization
In our model, the main source of the observed bolometric luminosity is the heat dissipated by shocks near apocenter. However, for large ${M_{\rm BH}}$ ($\gtrsim (5-10)\times10^{6}$: @Ryu1+2020), the tidal radius, when measured in gravitational radii, becomes small, strengthening all relativistic effects, and in particular, apsidal precession. A fraction of events at smaller $M_{\rm BH}$ may involve similarly small pericenters. In this regime, dissipation of the orbital energy into heat takes place in shocks closer to the black hole, on a radial scale closer to the tidal distance $r_{\rm t}$, so that more energy can be dissipated in the shocks, and accretion may proceed more rapidly. Such a situation also implies considerably higher optical depth, and therefore time-dependent radiation transfer leading to slower radiation losses. The degree to which our model may apply in these conditions is unclear. On the other hand, such events should be rare because a large fraction of all passages by stars this close to the black hole result in direct capture by the black hole [@Krolik+2020].
### Examples
AT2018iih is a good example of how implausible inferred parameters can signal possible inapplicability or our model: in this case our analysis yielded a nominal ${M_{\star}}=75$. As mentioned earlier, other properties of that event (i.e., beyond $L_{\rm obs}$ and $T_{\rm obs}$) are so different from those of other TDEs that it may not be a TDE at all.
To a lesser extent, it is possible that ASASSN-19dj/AT2019azh, with its inferred stellar mass of $13$ combined with a rather low SMBH mass, is also an outlier. But in this case it may be a TDE with different characteristics. In particular, in our model its high luminosity (the greatest in our sample), leads to a large stellar mass; if this were instead a case with a small pericenter, more energy would have been dissipated, through either more efficient stream shocks or accretion. If the resulting structure has a photosphere on a scale $\sim a_0$ (plausible because the energy per unit mass doesn’t change as a result of dissipation), effects like these may explain the high temperature and luminosity in this case.
Contrast in approach with other methods {#sec:mosfit}
---------------------------------------
[TDEmass]{} is a tool to infer ${M_{\rm BH}}$ and ${M_{\star}}$ for TDEs with optical/UV data. It differs in many ways from the method most commonly used hitherto, [Mosfit]{} with the TDE module [@Mockler+2019]. The contrast begins with their physical foundation. [Mosfit]{} is built upon the assumption that the debris joins an accretion disk of radius $\simeq2~r_{\rm t}$ immediately upon fallback. Soft X-rays are radiated from this disk (after an optional “viscous" delay) with relativistic radiative efficiency, and the entire X-ray luminosity is reradiated to the optical/UV band by a posited distant reprocessing shell. To apply this model to a specific event demands 6 free parameters in addition to $M_*$ and $M_{\rm BH}$. By contrast, [TDEmass]{} ascribes the optical/UV emission to the apocenter shocks inevitably caused by small-angle apsidal precession. Using two order-unity parameters held fixed for all cases, it directly determines $M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$ for each TDE from $L_{\rm obs}$ and $T_{\rm obs}$ as measured in that event. Thus, the two methods are based on strongly contrasting dynamical pictures and use observational data very differently. Not surprisingly, they can typically lead to different results.
More recently @Wen+2020 suggested a different fitting method based on the X-ray spectrum. This model posits a slim disk to produce the X-rays. Like [Mosfit]{} it, too, supposes quick formation of thin disk, but differs from [Mosfit]{} in tying the light curve to the long-term evolution of the disk rather than to the mass fallback rate.
Conclusions and summary {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
We present, [TDEmass]{}, a new method to infer black hole mass and stellar mass for optical/UV TDEs (available at <https://github.com/taehoryu/TDEmass.git>). The method uses the UV/optical luminosity and the black body temperature at the time of peak luminosity. It is based on the model by @Piran+2015, in which the optical/UV luminosity arises due to shocks dissipating orbital energy into heat at a distance $\sim a_{0}$. A critical element of this new method is that it incorporates a correction factor, $\Xi$ [@Ryu1+2020], that quantitatively adjusts the classical order of magnitude estimate of the debris energy spread. It is important to point out that since only spectral data at peak are used, no assumptions for the temporal trends of light curves and their relations to mass fallback rates are made.
Applying our model to 21 examples of TDEs with light curves observed well before peak, we find black hole and stellar masses within the range ${M_{\star}}\simeq 0.65-13$ and ${M_{\rm BH}}\simeq 0.5\times10^{5}-10^{7}$ for 20 of the 21 (see Table \[tab:tdecandidates\]). The one exception, AT2018iih, is sufficiently an outlier to the others in many respects that it may be a different sort of transient. For nearly all cases with a black hole mass estimated from bulge properties, our inferred $M_{\rm BH}$ is consistent with the bulge inference, but this is a weak consistency because there can be significant systematic uncertainties in the bulge inference.
[TDEmass]{} is completely direct—our two inferred quantities may be computed in terms of analytic expressions involving $L_{\rm obs}$ and $T_{\rm obs}$. No other parameters are tuned to fit the data of individual objects. The theory underlying it does, however, possess two order-unity parameters whose proper calculation as functions of $M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$ demands numerical simulation—for numerous pairs of $M_{\star}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$—of entire TDEs, from disruption to energy dissipation and light emission. The black hole mass is particularly sensitive to one of these parameters ($c_1$); the generally good agreement between our inferences setting $c_1=1$ and values estimated from bulge properties suggests that $c_1 \simeq 1$, as we have chosen here, may not be a bad approximation.
Interestingly, the black hole mass in this model is almost solely determined by the optical/UV effective temperature observed at peak luminosity (see Equations \[eq:Tmax\] and \[eq:mbh\_Tobs\] and Figure \[fig:mbh\_mstar\_sol\]), or alternatively, the blackbody radius (see Equation \[eq:a0\] and Figure \[fig:a0\]). The one-to-one functional relation between $T_{\rm obs}$ and $M_{\rm BH}$ is modified only through the ${M_{\star}}$ dependence of $\Xi$. Thus, $T_{\rm obs}$ all by itself can provide a first rough estimate of ${M_{\rm BH}}$. On the other hand, the stellar mass ${M_{\star}}$ depends mostly on the peak luminosity (see Figure \[fig:mbh\_mstar\_sol\]). Therefore, within this model these two quantities are determined almost independently; they are coupled primarily in the parameter range for which $\Xi$ changes rapidly as a function of ${M_{\star}}$ (see Figure \[fig:xi\]).
The close connection between tidal disruption dynamics and light production in its underlying model makes [TDEmass]{} an attractive tool for physical parameter inference in these dramatic events. Because it is founded upon a clear physical model, its applicability has well-defined limits; in particular, it is best-justified for total disruptions whose stellar pericenter is large enough that circularization is slow. Cases outside this range, whether it is because they are partial disruptions, the black hole mass is too large, the pericenter is too small, or they are not TDEs at all can be readily recognized. Lastly, in the future, when TDE samples with clear selection criteria become available, this method could be used to infer population properties of both supermassive black holes and stars in galactic nuclei.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Iair Arcavi and Nicholas Stone for helpful comments. This research was partially supported by an advanced ERC grant TReX and by NSF grant AST-1715032.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{} \[1\][[\#1](#1)]{} \[1\][doi: [](http://doi.org/#1)]{} \[1\][[](http://ascl.net/#1)]{} \[1\][[](https://arxiv.org/abs/#1)]{}
Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Sullivan, M., [et al.]{} 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 38,
, V. F., [Dickey]{}, C., [Geha]{}, M., & [Reines]{}, A. E. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.15150.
Blagorodnova, N., Gezari, S., Hung, T., [et al.]{} 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 46,
Blagorodnova, N., Cenko, S. B., Kulkarni, S. R., [et al.]{} 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 92,
, C., & [Stone]{}, N. C. 2020, (in preparation)
Chornock, R., Berger, E., Gezari, S., [et al.]{} 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 44,
, L., [McKinney]{}, J. C., & [Miller]{}, M. C. 2015, , 812, L39,
, L., & [Ford]{}, H. 2005, , 116, 523,
, D. A. 2009, , 393, 1531,
, E., & [Rosswog]{}, S. 2019, , 487, 4790,
Gezari, S., Chornock, R., Rest, A., [et al.]{} 2012, Nature, 485, 217–220,
, F. G., [Springel]{}, V., [Ohlmann]{}, S. T., & [Pakmor]{}, R. 2019, arXiv e-prints.
, J., & [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E. 2013, , 767, 25,
, K., [Richstone]{}, D. O., [Gebhardt]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2009, , 698, 198,
, N., & [Rix]{}, H.-W. 2004, , 604, L89,
, J. T., [Holoien]{}, T. W. S., [Shappee]{}, B. J., [et al.]{} 2020, , 894, L10,
, J. T., [Holoien]{}, T. W. S., [Auchettl]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.06690.
Holoien, T. W.-S., Prieto, J. L., Bersier, D., [et al.]{} 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 3263–3277,
Holoien, T. W.-S., Kochanek, C. S., Prieto, J. L., [et al.]{} 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 2918–2935,
, T. W. S., [Vallely]{}, P. J., [Auchettl]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2019, , 883, 111,
Holoien, T. W.-S., Huber, M. E., Shappee, B. J., [et al.]{} 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 120,
, T. W. S., [Auchettl]{}, K., [Tucker]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.13693.
Hung, T., Gezari, S., Blagorodnova, N., [et al.]{} 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 29,
, J., & [Ho]{}, L. C. 2013, , 51, 511,
, J., [Piran]{}, T., & [Ryu]{}, T. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.03234.
, J., [Piran]{}, T., [Svirski]{}, G., & [Cheng]{}, R. M. 2016, , 827, 127,
, J., [Guillochon]{}, J., & [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E. 2019, , 882, L25,
, G., [Dai]{}, L., [Arcavi]{}, I., [et al.]{} 2019, , 887, 218,
, N. J., & [Ma]{}, C.-P. 2013, , 764, 184,
, J. M., [Kaastra]{}, J. S., [Miller]{}, M. C., [et al.]{} 2015, , 526, 542,
Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 151,
Nicholl, M., Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., [et al.]{} 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 1878–1893,
, M., [Wevers]{}, T., [Oates]{}, S. R., [et al.]{} 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.02454.
, S. C., [Krolik]{}, J. H., & [Hawley]{}, J. F. 2009, , 692, 411,
, B., [Bildsten]{}, L., [Dotter]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 192, 3,
, E. S. 1989, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 136, The Center of the Galaxy, ed. M. [Morris]{}, 543
, T., [Svirski]{}, G., [Krolik]{}, J., [Cheng]{}, R. M., & [Shiokawa]{}, H. 2015, , 806, 164,
, T., [Krolik]{}, J., [Piran]{}, T., & [Noble]{}, S. C. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.03501.
—. 2020, arXiv e-prints (ApJ in press), arXiv:2001.03502.
—. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.03503.
—. 2020, arXiv e-prints (ApJ in press), arXiv:2001.03504.
, H., [Krolik]{}, J. H., [Cheng]{}, R. M., [Piran]{}, T., & [Noble]{}, S. C. 2015, , 804, 85,
, E., [Gafton]{}, E., [Rosswog]{}, S., & [Miller]{}, J. C. 2017, , 469, 4483,
, S., [Gezari]{}, S., [Hung]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12568, 1
van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., [et al.]{} 2020, Seventeen Tidal Disruption Events from the First Half of ZTF Survey Observations: Entering a New Era of Population Studies.
, S., [Jonker]{}, P. G., [Stone]{}, N. C., [Zabludoff]{}, A. I., & [Psaltis]{}, D. 2020, , 897, 80,
Wevers, T., van Velzen, S., Jonker, P. G., [et al.]{} 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1694–1708,
, T., [Barth]{}, A. J., [Greene]{}, J. E., [et al.]{} 2011, , 739, 28,
[^1]: $f(\varpi) = (q\sin\phi \cos\varpi + \sin\varpi)/(1 + q^2\sin^2\phi)^{1/2}$, where $q=2er/[a_0(1-e^2)]$ and the line of apses defines $\phi=0$.
[^2]: When $L_{\rm obs} < L_{\rm max}$, ${M_{\star}}$ can be underestimated. Often, ${T_{\rm obs}}$ is almost constant through the event [@Hung+2017; @Hinkle+2020b]; if so, the sensitivity of ${M_{\star}}$ on ${L_{\rm obs}}$ is reduced by $\Xi^{-9/2}$ for $0.5\lesssim{M_{\star}}\lesssim1.5$, resulting in ${M_{\star}}\propto {L_{\rm obs}}^{0.4-0.7}$. But for other values of ${M_{\star}}$, the weak dependence of $\Xi$ on ${M_{\star}}$ restores the sensitivity of ${M_{\star}}$ to $L_{\rm obs}$ (${M_{\star}}\propto {L_{\rm obs}}^{9/4}$). This issue will become less important in future surveys with short cadences.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study the class of Azéma–Yor processes defined from a general semimartingale with a continuous running supremum process. We show that they arise as unique strong solutions of the Bachelier stochastic differential equation which we prove is equivalent to the Drawdown equation. Solutions of the latter have the drawdown property: they always stay above a given function of their past supremum. We then show that any process which satisfies the drawdown property is in fact an Azéma–Yor process. The proofs exploit group structure of the set of Azéma–Yor processes, indexed by functions, which we introduce.
Secondly we study in detail Azéma–Yor martingales defined from a non-negative local martingale converging to zero at infinity. We establish relations between Average Value at Risk, Drawdown function, Hardy-Littlewood transform and its generalised inverse. In particular, we construct Azéma–Yor martingales with a given terminal law and this allows us to rediscover the Azéma–Yor solution to the Skorokhod embedding problem. Finally, we characterise Azéma–Yor martingales showing they are optimal relative to the concave ordering of terminal variables among martingales whose maximum dominates stochastically a given benchmark.
author:
- |
Laurent Carraro\
Telecom Saint-Etienne, Université Jean Monnet\
42023 Saint-Etienne Cedex 2, France
- |
Nicole El Karoui[^1]\
LPMA, UMR 7599, Université Paris VI\
BC 188, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France\
- |
Jan Obłój[^2]\
Mathematical Institute *and*\
Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance,\
University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3LB, UK
bibliography:
- 'ay\_mart.bib'
date: |
First version: Nov 2006\
This version: August 2009
title: ' On Azéma–Yor processes, their optimal properties and the Bachelier–Drawdown equation[^3]'
---
In [@ay1] Azéma and Yor introduced a family of simple local martingales, associated with Brownian motion or more generally with a continuous martingale, which they exploited to solve the Skorokhod embedding problem. These processes, called Azéma–Yor processes, are simply functions of the underlying process $X$ and its running maximum $\ovl X_t=\sup_{s\leq t}X_s$. They proved to be very useful especially in describing laws of the maximum or of the last passage times of a martingale and were applied in problems ranging from Skorokhod embeddings, through optimal inequalities, to Brownian penalisations (cf. Azéma and Yor [@ay2], Obłój and Yor [@oy], Roynette, Vallois and Yor [@RVY06]). The appearance of Azéma–Yor martingales in all these problems was partially explained with a characterisation in Obłój [@ja_martcarac] as the only local martingales which can be written as a function of the couple $(X,\ovl X_t)$.
Recently these processes have seen a revived interest with applications in mathematical finance including re-interpration of classical pricing formulae (see Madan, Roynette and Yor [@MRY08]) and portfolio optimisation under pathwise constraints (see El Karoui and Meziou [@ELKM06; @ELKM08]). In this paper we uncover a more general structure of these processes and present new characterisations. We explore in depth their properties and present some further applications of Azéma–Yor processes. We work in a general setup and extend the concept of Azéma–Yor processes $M^U(X)$, as defined in below, to the context of an arbitrary semimartingale $(X_t)$ with a continuous running supremum process $\ovl X_t$.
We start by studying the (sub)set of Azéma–Yor processes $M^U(X)$, indexed by increasing absolutely continuous functions $U$, and show that it has a simple group structure. This allows to see any semimartingale with continuous running supremum as an Azéma–Yor process. The main contribution of the Section \[sec:bach\] is to study how such representation arise naturally. We show that Azéma–Yor processes allow to solve explicitly the Bachelier equation, which we also identify with the Drawdown equation. The solutions to the latter satisfy the Drawdown constraint $Y_t\geq w(\ovl Y_t)$. Conversely, if $(Y_t)$ satisfies Drawdown constraint up to time $\zeta$ then it can be written as $M^U_{t\land \zeta}(X)$ for some non-negative $X$. Further, if $Y_\zeta=w(\ovl Y_\zeta)$ a.s., then the inverse process $(X_{t\land \zeta})$ is stopped upon hitting $0$ or $b$. We provide explicit relation between function $U$ which generates Azéma–Yor process and functions $w$ and $\varphi$ which feature in the Drawdown constraint and in the SDEs. This characterises the processes both in a pathwise manner and differential manner.
Then in Section \[sec:max\_HL\_AVaR\] we specialise further and investigate Azéma–Yor processes defined from $X=N$ a non-negative local martingale with continuous supremum process and with $N_t\to 0$ as $t\to\i$. We show how one can identify explicitly Azéma–Yor processes from their terminal values. In Section \[sec:AVaR\_HL\] we discuss the Average Value at Risk and the Hardy-Littlewood transform in a unified manner using tail quantiles of probability measures. Then we construct Azéma–Yor martingales with a prescribed terminal law. This allows us to re-discover, in Section \[sec:skoro\], the Azéma–Yor [@ay1] solution to the Skorokhod embedding problem and give it a new interpretation.
Finally, in the last section, we apply the previous results to uncover optimal properties of Azéma–Yor martingales. More precisely, we show that all uniformly integrable martingales whose maximum dominates stochastically a given floor distribution are dominated by an Azéma–Yor martingale in the concave ordering of terminal values. This problem is an extension of the more intuitive problem, motivated by finance, to find an optimal martingale for the concave order dominating (pathwise) a given floor process. It is rather surprising to find that the two problems have the same solution. We recover in this way the $\Delta$ operator of Kertz and Rösler [@KertzRosler:92b] and give a direct way to compute it. These dual results are compared with the classical primal result stating that among all uniformly integrable martingales with a fixed terminal law the Azéma–Yor martingale has the largest maximum (relative to the stochastic order). Furthermore, in both problems we can show that any optimal martingale is necessarily an appropriate Azéma–Yor martingale.
The set of Azéma–Yor processes {#sec:def}
==============================
Throughout, all processes are defined on $\operatorname{(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, (\mathcal
F_t),\mathnormal{P})}$ a filtered probability space satisfying the usual hypothesis and assumed to be taken right-continuous with left limits (*càdlàg*), up to $\i$ included if needed. All functions are assumed to be Borel measurable. Given a process $(X_t)$ we denote its running supremum $\ovl
X_t=\sup_{s\le t}X_s$. In what follows, we are essentially concerned with semimartingales with continuous running supremum, that we call [*max-continuous semimartingales*]{}. Observe that under this assumption, the process $\ovl X_t=\sup_{s\le t}X_s$ only increases when $\ovl X_t=X_t$ or equivalently $$\label{eq:max}
\int_0^T (\ovl X_t-X_t)\td \ovl X_t=0\ .$$ We let $\tau^b(X)=\tau^b_X=\inf\{t\geq 0: X_t \geq b\}$ be the first up-crossing time of the level $b$ by process $X$, with the standard convention that $\inf\{\emptyset\}=\i$. Note that by max-continuity $X_{\tau^b(X)}=b,$ if $0<\tau^b(X)<\infty$. With a slight abuse of notation, $\tau^\i_X$ denotes the explosion time of $X$.\
Definition and Properties
-------------------------
There are two different ways to introduce Azéma–Yor processes, and their equivalence has been proven by several authors (see the comments below).
\[def:ay\] Let $(X_t)$ be a max-continuous semimartingale starting from $X_0=a$, and $\ovl X_t$ its (continuous) running supremum.\
With any locally bounded Borel function $u$ we associate the primitive function $U(x)=a^*+\int_a^x u(s)\td s$ defined on $[a,+\infty)$. The Azéma–Yor process associated with $U$ and $X$ is defined by one of these two equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:aydevelop} M^U_t(X)&:=&U(\ovl X_t)-u(\ovl X_t)(\ovl
X_t-X_t)\\
\mbox{or}&=&a^*+\int_0^t u(\ovl X_s) \td X_s.\label{eq:aystochinteg}\end{aligned}$$ In consequence, $M^U(X)$ is a semimartingale and it is a local martingale when $X$ is a local martingale.
Observe that the process $M^U(X)$ is càdlàg, since $U(\ovl X)$ is continuous and $u(\ovl X_t)(\ovl X_t-X_t)$ is nonzero only on the intervals of constancy of $\ovl X_t$, where the non regular process $u(\ovl X_t)$ is constant. Moreover the jumps of $M^U_t(X)$ are given explicitly by $-u(\ovl X_t)(X_{t}-X_{t-})$ and $M^U_{t-}(X)=M^U(X_{t-})$.\
We note also that when $u$ is defined only on some interval $[a,b)$ but $U(b)\leq \i$ is well defined then we can still define $M^U_t(X)$ for $t\leq\tau^b(X)$ and $M^U_{\tau^b(X)}(X)=U(b)\leq \i$. Further, using regularity of paths of $(X_t)$ we have that - hold with $t\land \tau^b(X)$ instead of $t$ and $u(b):=0$.
The symbol $M^U(X)$ is a slight abuse of notation since this process depends explicitly on the derivative $u$ rather than the function $U$. Azéma and Yor [@ay1] were the first to introduce these processes when $(X_t)$ is a continuous local martingale. The equivalence between and is easy to establish when $u$ is smooth enough to apply Itô’s formula, since the continuity of the running supremum implies from that $\int_0^t(\ovl X_t-X_t)\td u(\ovl X_t)\equiv
0$. This results may be extended to all bounded functions $u$ via monotone class theorem and to all locally bounded functions $u$ via a localisation argument. Alternatively, the equivalence can be argued using the general balayage formula, see Nikeghbali and Yor [@NY06]. The case of locally integrable function $u$ can be attained for continuous local martingale $X$, as shown in Obłój and Yor [@oy].
The importance of the family of Azéma–Yor martingales is well exhibited by Obłój [@ja_martcarac] who proves that in the case of a continuous local martingale $(X_t)$ all local martingales which are functions of the couple $(X_t,\ovl X_t)$, $M_t=H(X_t,\ovl X_t)$ can be represented as a $M=M^U(X)$ local martingale associated with a locally integrable function $u$. We note that such processes are sometimes called *max-martingales*.
Monotonic transformations and Azéma–Yor processes {#subsection:monotonic}
--------------------------------------------------
We want to investigate further the structure of the set of Azéma–Yor processes associated with a max-continuous semimartingale $(X_t)$. One of the most remarkable properties of these processes is that their running supremum can be easily computed, when the function $U$ is non decreasing ($u\geq 0$).\
We denote by $\operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$ the set of such functions, that is absolutely continuous functions defined on an appropriate interval with a locally bounded and non negative derivative. This set is stable by composition, that is if $U$ and $F$ are in $\operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$, and defined on appropriate intervals then $U\circ F(x)=U(F(x))$ is in $\operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$. We let $\operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ be the set of increasing functions $U\in \operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$, with inverse function $V \in \operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$, or equivalently of functions $U$ such that $u=U'>0$ and both $u$ and $1/u$ are locally bounded. Throughout, when we consider an inverse function $V$ of $U\in \operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ then we choose $v(y)=V'(y)=1/u(V(y))$.
In light of , then we have
\[prop:group\] a) Let $U\in\operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$, $X$ be a max-continuous semimartingale and $M^U(X)$ be the (U,X)-Azéma–Yor process in . Then $$\label{eq:maxAY} \ovl{M^U_t(X)}=U(\ovl X_t),$$ and $M^U(X)$ is a max-continuous semimartingale.\
b) Let $F\in\operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$ defined on an appropriate interval, so that $U\circ F$ is well defined. Then $$M^U_t\big(M^F(X)\big)=M^{U\circ F}_t(X).$$
[It follows from point b) above that the set of Azéma–Yor processes indexed by $U \in
\operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ defined on whole $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ with $U(\operatorname{\mathbb{R}})=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$, is a group under the operation $\otimes$ defined by $$M^U\otimes
M^F:=M^{U\circ F}.$$ ]{}
a\) In light of , when $u$ is non negative, the Azéma–Yor process $M^U_t(X)$ is dominated by $U(\ovl X_t)$, with equality if $t$ is a point of increase of $ \ovl X_t$. Since $U$ is non decreasing we obtain . Moreover, since $U(\ovl X)$ is a continuous process, $M^U(X)$ is a max-continuous semimartingale and we may take an Azéma–Yor process of it.\
b) Let $F$ be in $\operatorname{\mathcal U_m}$, $f=F'>0$, such that $U\circ F$ is well defined. We have from $$\begin{split}
M^U_t\big(M^F(X))&=U\big(F({\overline}X_t)\big)-u\big(F({\overline}X_t)\big)f({\overline}X_t)\big({\overline}X_t-X_t)\\
&=M^{U\circ F}_t(X),
\end{split}$$ where we used $\big(U(F(x))\big)'=u(F(x))f(x)$.
The two properties described in Proposition \[prop:group\] are rather simple but at the same time extremely useful. As we will see, they will be crucial tools in most of the proofs in the paper. We phrase part b) above for stopped processes and for $F=V=U^{-1}$ as a separate corollary.
\[cor:dual\] Let $a<b\le \infty$, $U\in \operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ a primitive function of a locally bounded $u:[a,b)\to (0,\i)$ such that $U(a)=a^*$. Let $V:[a^*,U(b))\to [a,b)$ be the inverse of $U$ with locally bounded derivative $v(y)=1/u(V(y))$.\
Then for any max-continuous semimartingale $(X_t)$, $X_0=a$, stopped at the time $\tau^b=\tau^b(X)=\inf\{t:X_t\geq b\}$ we have $$\label{eq:inverse}
X_{t\land \tau^b}=M^V_{t\land \tau^b}(M^U(X)).$$ From the differential point of view, on $[0,\tau^b)$, $$\label{eq:inversedif}
\td Y_t:=\td M^U_t(X)=u\big(\ovl X_t\big)\td X_t,\quad dX_t=v\big(\ovl Y_t\big)\td Y_t.$$
Consider $u$ as above with $b=U(b)=\infty$. As a consequence of the above, any max-continuous semimartingale $(X_t)$ can be seen as an Azéma–Yor process associated with $U$. Indeed, $X_t=M^U_t(Y)$ with $Y_t=M^V_t(X)$. In the following section we study how such representations arise in a natural way.
The Bachelier–Drawdown equation {#sec:bach}
===============================
In his paper “Théorie des probabilités continues”, published in 1906, French mathematician Louis Bachelier [@Bach] was the first to consider and study stochastic differential equations. Obviously, he didn’t prove in his paper existence and uniqueness results but focused his attention on some particular types of SDE’s. In this way, he obtained the general structure of processes with independent increments and continuous paths, the definition of diffusions (in particular, he solved the Langevin equation), and generalized these concepts to higher dimensions.
The Bachelier equation {#subsection:Bachequation}
----------------------
In particular, Bachelier [@Bach pp.287–290] considered and “solved” an SDE depending on the supremum of the solution, $\td Y_t=\f(\ovl Y_t)\td X_t$ which we call the Bachelier equation. Let $U\in \operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ and $V\in \operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ its inverse function with derivative $v$. From and we see that the Azéma–Yor process $Y=M^U(X)$ verifies the Bachelier equation for $\f(y)=1/v(y)$. Now, we can solve the Bachelier equation as an inverse problem. We present a rigorous and explicit solution to this equation which proves to be surprisingly simple. We note that a similar approach is developed in Revuz and Yor [@ry Ex.VI.4.21].
\[thm:bach\] Let $(X_t:t\ge 0)$, $X_0=a$, be a max-continuous semimartingale. Consider a positive Borel function $\f:[a^*,\i)\to (0,\i)$ such that $\f$ and $1/\f$ are locally bounded. Let $V(y)=a+\int_{a^*}^y\frac{\td
s}{\f(s)}$, and $U$ its inverse defined on $(a,V(\i))$.\
The Bachelier equation $$\label{eq:bach}
\td Y_t=\f(\ovl Y_t)\td X_t, \quad Y_0=a^*$$ has a strong, pathwise unique, max-continuous solution defined up to its explosion time $\tau^\i_Y=\tau^{V(\i)}_X$ given by $Y_t=M^U_t(X),\quad t< \tau^{V(\i)}_X$.\
When $X$ is a continuous local martingale it suffices to assume that $1/\f$ is a locally integrable function.
The assumptions on $\f$ imply that $V$ and therefore $U$ are in $\operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ with $U(a)=a^*$. With the version of $u=\varphi(V)$ we choose, Definition \[def:ay\] gives that the Azéma–Yor process $M^U(X)$ verifies $$\td M^U_t(X):= u(\ovl X_t)\td X_t = \f(\ovl {M^U_t(X)})\td X_t,\quad t<\tau^{V(\i)}_X.$$ Furthermore, on $\tau^{V(\i)}(X)<\infty,$ $M^U_{
\tau^{V(n)}}(X)=U(V(n))=n$ and we see that if $V(\i)<\i$ then $\tau^{V(\i)}_X$ is the explosion time of $M^U(X)$. So, $M^U$ is a solution of .\
Now let $Y$ be a max-continuous solution to the equation . Definition \[def:ay\] and imply that $\td M^V_t(Y)=\td X_t $ on $[0,\tau^\i_Y)$. It follows from Corollary \[cor:dual\] that $Y_t=M^U_t(X)$ and $\tau^{V(\i)}_X$ is the explosion time $\tau^\i_Y$ of $Y$.\
The above extends to more general $\f$ whenever $U,V$ and $M^U(X)$ are well defined. When $X$ is a continuous local martingale, to define $V$ and $U$ it is sufficient (and necessary) to assume $1/\f$ is locally integrable. That $M^U(X)$ is then well defined follows from Obłój and Yor [@oy].
The above extends naturally to the case when $a$ and $a^*$ are some $\mathcal{F}_0$-measurable random variables. It suffices to assume that $\f$ is well defined on $[l,\infty)$ where $-\i\le l$ is the lower bound of the support of $a^*$. We could also consider $X$ which is only defined up to its explosion time $\tau^\i_X$ which would induce $\tau^\i_Y=\tau^\i_X\land
\tau_X^{V(\i)}$.\
In Section \[sec:max\_HL\_AVaR\] we will also consider the case when $\varphi\equiv 0$ on $(r,\infty)$ and then $(Y_t)$ is stopped upon hitting $r$.\
Finally note that under a stronger assumption that $X$ has no positive jumps, *any* solution of the Bachelier equation has no positive jumps and hence is a max-continuous semimartingale.
Drawdown constraint and Drawdown equation {#sec:dd}
-----------------------------------------
In various applications, in particular in financial mathematics one is interested in processes which remain above a (given) function $w$ of their running maximum. The purpose of this section is to show that Azéma–Yor processes provide a direct answer to this problem when the underlying process $X$ is positive. The following notion will be central throughout the rest of the paper.
\[def:DD\] Given a function $w$, we say that a càdlàg process $(M_t)$ satisfies $w$-*drawdown* ($w$-DD) constraint up to the (stopping) time $\zeta$, if $\min\{M_{t-},M_t\}> w(\ovl M_t)$ for all $0\leq t<\zeta$ a.s.
We will see in Section \[sec:max\_HL\_AVaR\] that for a local martingale $M$ it suffices to impose $M_t>w(\ovl M_t)$ in the above definition.
Azéma–Yor processes, $Y=M^U(X)$ defined from a [*positive*]{} max-continuous semimartingale $X$ and function $U\in \operatorname{\mathcal U_{m}^+}$ provide an example of such processes with DD-constraint function $w$ defined from $U$ and $V=U^{-1}$ by: $$\label{eq:DDfunction}
w(y)=h(V(y))=y-V(y)/v(y),\quad \mbox{where}\quad h(x)=U(x)-x u(x).$$ Indeed, thanks to the positivity of $X$ and $u$, and to the characterisation of the left-continuous process $Y_{t-}$ in D have: $$\label{eq:DDforAY}
Y_{t-}=U(\ovl X_t)-u(\ovl X_t)\ovl X_t+u(\ovl X_t)X_{t-}> U(\ovl
X_t)-u(\ovl X_t)\ovl X_t=h(\ovl X_t)=w(\ovl Y_t)\ .$$ The converse is possibly more interesting. We show below that if we start with a given $w$ then $M^U(X)$, where $U=V^{-1}$ and $V$ is given in , satisfies the $w$-DD constraint. Furthermore, it turns out that all processes which satisfy a drawdown constraint are of this type. More precisely, given a max continuous semimartingale $Y$ satisfying the $w$-DD constraint we can find explicitly $X$ such that $Y$ is the Azéma–Yor process $M^U(X)$. Moreover, the first instant $Y$ violates the drawdown constraint is precisely the first hitting time to zero of $X$. For a precise statement we need to introduce the set of admissible functions $w$:
\[def:w-DD\] We say that $w:[a^*,\i]\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ is a *drawdown function* if it is non-decreasing and there exists $r_w\leq \i$ such that $y-w(y)>0$ is locally bounded and locally bounded away from zero on $[a^*,r_w)$ and $w(y)=y$ for $y\geq
r_w$.
We impose $w$ non-decreasing as it is intuitive for applications. It will also arise naturally in Section \[sec:max\_HL\_AVaR\]. We introduced here $r_w$ as it gives a convenient way to stop the process upon hitting a given level and again it will be used in Section \[sec:max\_HL\_AVaR\]. If a drawdown function $w$ is defined on $[a^*,\i)$ then we put $w(\i)=\lim_{y\uparrow \i} w(y)$ and the above definition requires that $w(\i)=\i$. In fact for the results in this section it is not necessary to require any monotonicity from $w$ or that $w(\infty)=\infty$, we comment this below.\
We let $\tau_0(X)=\tau_0^X=\inf\{t: \min\{X_{t-},X_t\}\leq 0\}$ and note that when $X$ is non-negative then $X_{\tau_0^X}\geq 0$. Further let \[page:zeta\_DD\] $\zeta_w(Y)=\zeta_w^Y=\inf\{t: \min\{Y_{t-},Y_t\}\leq w(\ovl Y_t)\}$. As mentioned before, definitions of both $\tau_0$ and $\zeta_w$ simplify for local martingales, see Lemma \[lem:Nstop\] and Corollary \[cor:N-DD\] in Section \[sec:max\_HL\_AVaR\].
\[thm:DD\] Consider a drawdown function $w$ of Definition \[def:w-DD\] and $V$ solution of the ODE , $V(a^*)=a>0$, given as $$\label{eq:DDEquation}V(y)=a\exp\left(\int_{a^*}^y\frac{1}{u-w(u)}\td u\right),\quad y\geq a^*.$$ For $(X_t)$, $X_0=a$, a non-negative max-continuous semimartingale and $\zeta:=\tau_0(X)\land \tau^{V(r_w-)}(X)$ the Drawdown equation $$\label{eq:bachDD}
\td Y_t=\big(Y_{t_-}-w(\ovl Y_t)\big)\frac{\td X_t}{X_{t_-}},\quad t<\zeta,$$ has a pathwise unique max-continuous solution, $Y_0=a^*$, which satisfies $w$-DD constraint on $[0,\zeta)$, given by $Y_t=M^U_t(X)$, where $U$ is the inverse of $V$. We have $\zeta_w\left(Y\right)=\zeta$ and further $Y_{\zeta_w^Y}=w(\ovl Y_{\zeta_w^Y})$ on $\{X_\zeta\in \{0,V(r_w-)\}\}$.\
Conversely, given $(Y_t)$, $Y_0=a^*$, a max-continuous semimartingale satisfying $w$-DD constraint up to $\zeta:=\zeta_w(Y)$, there exists a pathwise unique max-continuous semimartingale $(X_t:t< \zeta)$, $X_0=a$, which solves . $X$ may be deduced from $Y$ by the Azéma–Yor bijection $X_t=M^V_t(Y)$ and $\zeta=\tau_0(X)\land \tau^{V(r_w-)}(X)$.
[Naturally $V(y)\equiv \i$ for $y\geq r_w$. However $V(r_w-)$ could be both finite or infinite and consequently $\tau^{V(r_w-)}(X)$ can be both a hitting time of a finite level or the explosion time for $X$.\
Observe that $\{X_\zeta\in \{0,V(r_w-)\}\}$ could be larger than $\{\zeta<\i\}$. This will be the case in Section \[sec:max\_HL\_AVaR\] where $X_t\to 0$ as $t\to \i$ and in fact $X_\zeta\in \{0,V(r_w-)\}$ a.s. Naturally, we also have $Y_{\zeta_w^Y-}=w(\ovl Y_{\zeta_w^Y})$ on $\{X_{\zeta-}\in \{0,V(r_w-)\}\}$. Note also that in the converse part of the theorem we could have $Y_\zeta<w(\ovl Y_\zeta)$ which would correspond to $X_\zeta<0$. ]{}
[It will be clear from the proof that the theorem holds without assuming any monotonicity on $w$ or that $w(\infty)$ is defined and equal to $\infty$. The only change is that $Y_{\zeta_w^Y}=w(\ovl Y_{\zeta_w^Y})$ on $\{X_\zeta=V(r_w-)\}$ if and only if $w(r_w)=r_w$ and if $V(\i)<\i$, for which $w$ would have to decrease faster than linear, then $Y$ explodes at $\tau^{V(\i)}_X$. ]{}
Expression for $V$ in terms of $w$ follows as $v(y)=V(y)/(y-w(y))$. Note that $V(\i)=\i$. Hence, for $t<\zeta$, $Y_t=M_t^U(X)$ is well defined and recall from Corollary \[cor:dual\] that $X_t=M_t^V(Y)$ and $\ovl X_t=V(\ovl Y_t)$. Direct computation yields $$Y_{t-}-w(\ovl Y_t)=Y_{t-}-U(\ovl X_t)+u(\ovl X_t)\ovl X_t=u(\ovl X_t)X_{t-}\ .$$ Thanks to the positivity of $u$ and $X$ and $X_-$ on $\> t<\zeta$, we have that $Y_{t-}, Y_t> w(\ovl Y_t)$ and it follows from that $Y=M^U(X)$ solves .\
Now consider any $Y$, a max-continuous solution of , $\min\{Y_{t-},Y_t\}>w(Y_t)$ for $t<\zeta$. Then, using and , we have $$\frac{\td Y_t}{Y_{t_-}-w(\ovl Y_{t_-})}=
\frac{v(\ovl Y_t)}{M^V_{t_-}(Y)}\td Y_t=
\frac{\td M^V_t(Y)}{M^V_{t_-}(Y)}\ .$$ Since $Y$ is solution of , $X$ and $M^V(Y)$ have the same relative stochastic differential, and the same initial condition. Then, there are undistinguable processes and Corollary \[cor:dual\] yields $Y_t=M^U_t(X)$.\
Finally, when $X_\zeta = 0$ (resp. $X_\zeta=V(r_w-)$) we have $Y_\zeta = U(\ovl X_\zeta)-u(\ovl
X_\zeta)\ovl X_\zeta=w(V(\ovl X_\zeta))=w(\ovl Y_\zeta)$ (resp.$Y_\zeta=r_w=\ovl Y_\zeta=w(\ovl Y_\zeta)$) and $\zeta=\zeta_w(Y)$. If $X_\zeta\notin \{0,V(r_w-)\}$ then $X_{\zeta-}=0$ or $\zeta=\i$ and in both cases $\zeta=\zeta_w(Y)$. that $\zeta=\zeta_w(Y)$.
Consider now the second part of the theorem. We can rewrite as $$\label{eq:DD}
\frac{\td Y_t}{Y_{t_-}-w(\ovl Y_t)}=\frac{\td X
_t}{X_{t_-}},\qquad t< \zeta.$$ This equation defines without ambiguity a positive process $X$ starting from $X_0=a>0$. By assumption on $w$, the solution $V$ of is a positive finite increasing function on $[a^*,r_w)$, $V(y)/v(y)= y-w(y)$. Put $\widehat X_t=M^V_t(Y)$, and observe that the differential properties of $V$ imply that $\widehat X_t=v(\ovl Y_t)(Y_t-w(\ovl
Y_t))>0$, for $t<\zeta$. Then, the stochastic differential of $M^V_t(Y)=\widehat X_t$ is $$d\widehat X_t=v(\ovl Y_t) dY_t=\widehat X_{t-}(Y_{t-}-w(\ovl
Y_t))^{-1}dY_t,$$ and hence both $\widehat X$ and $X$ are solutions of the same stochastic differential equation and have the same initial conditions. So, they are undistinguishable processes. Identification of $\zeta$ follows as previously.
Naturally, since $Y=M^U(X)$ solves both the Bachelier equation and the Drawdown equation these equations are equivalent. We phrase this as a corollary in the case $\zeta=\i$ a.s. in .
\[coro:DD\] Let $(X_t:t\ge 0)$, $X_0=a$, be a positive max-continuous semimartingale, $\tau_0^X=\i$ a.s., and $\varphi,V$ as in Theorem \[thm:bach\] with $V(\i)=\i$. Then, the Bachelier equation is equivalent to the Drawdown equation where $w$ and $V$ are linked via or equivalently via .
The Drawdown equation was solved previously by Cvitanić and Karatzas [@CK95] for $w(y)=\gamma y$, $\gamma\in (0,1)$ and recently by Elie and Touzi [@ET08]. The use of Azéma–Yor processes simplifies considerably the proof and allows for a general $w$ and $X$. We have shown that this equation has a unique strong solution and is equivalent to the Bachelier equation.
Note that we assumed $X$ is positive. The quantity $\td X_t/X_{t-}$ has a natural interpretation as the differential of the stochastic logarithm of $X$. In various applications, such as financial mathematics, this logarithm process is often given directly since $X$ is defined as a stochastic exponential in the first place.\
[**An Illustrative Example.**]{} \[page:ill\_ex\]Let $X$ be a positive max-continuous semimartingale such that $X_0=1$. Let $U$ be the power utility function defined on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+$ by $U(x)=\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\, x^{1-\gamma}$ with $0<\gamma< 1$ and $u(x)=x^{-\gamma}$ its derivative. The inverse function $V$ of $U$ is $V(y)=((1-\gamma)y)^{1/(1-\gamma)}$ and its derivative is $v(y)=((1-\gamma)y)^{\gamma/(1-\gamma)}$.\
Then the (power) Azéma–Yor process is $$M^U_t(X)=Y_t=\frac{1}{1-\gamma}(\ovl X_t)^{1-\gamma}
\Big(\gamma+(1-\gamma)\frac{X_t}{\ovl X_t}\Big)= \ovl
Y_t\Big(\gamma+(1-\gamma)\frac{X_t}{\ovl X_t}\Big).$$ Since $X$ is positive, $Y_t> w(\ovl Y_t)=\gamma \ovl Y_t$. The drawdown function $w$ is the linear one, $w(y)=\gamma y$.\
The process $(Y_t)$ is a semimartingale (local martingale if $X$ is a local martingale) starting from $Y_0=1$, and staying in the interval $[\gamma \ovl Y_t,\ovl Y_t]$. Since the power function $U$ is concave, we also have an other floor process $Z_t=U(X_t)$. Both processes $Z_t$ and $\gamma\ovl Y_t=\gamma \ovl Z_t$ are dominated by $Y_t$. They are not comparable in the sense that in general at time $t$ either of them can be greater. We study floor process $Z$ in more detail in Section \[sec:floor\].\
The Bachelier-Drawdown equation - becomes here $$\begin{split}
\td Y_t&={\ovl X}_t^{-\gamma}\td X_t=\left((1-\gamma)\ovl Y_t\right)^{-\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}}\td X_t\\
&=(Y_{t-}-\gamma\ovl Y_t)\frac{\td X_t}{X_{t-}}\ .
\end{split}$$
As noted above, this equation, for a class of processes $X$, was studied in Cvitanić and Karatzas [@CK95]. Furthermore, in [@CK95] authors in fact introduced processes $M^U(X)$ where $U$ is the a power utility function, and used them to solve the portfolio optimisation problem with drawdown constraint of Grossman and Zhou [@GZ93] (see also [@ET08]). Using our methods we can simplify and generalize their results and show that the portfolio optimisation problem with drawdown constraint, for a general utility function and a general drawdown function, is equivalent to an unconstrained portfolio optimisation problem with a modified utility function. We develop these ideas in a separate paper.
Setup driven by a non-negative local martingale converging to zero {#sec:max_HL_AVaR}
==================================================================
In previous section we investigated Azéma–Yor processes build from a non-negative semimartingale as solutions to the Drawdown equation . We specialise now further and study in detail Azéma–Yor processes associated to $X=N$ a non-negative local martingale converging to zero at infinity. The maximum of $N$ has a universal law which, together with $N_\i=0$, allows to write Azéma–Yor martingales explicitly from terminal values, see Sections \[sec:maximum\]-\[sec:ay\_given\_values\]. Our study exploits tail quantiles of probability measures and is intimately linked with the Average Value at Risk and the Hardy–Littlewood transform of a measure, as explored in Section \[sec:AVaR\_HL\]. Finally, combining these results with Theorem \[thm:DD\], we construct Azéma–Yor martingales with prescribed terminal distributions and in particular obtain the Azéma–Yor [@ay1] solution of the Skorokhod embedding problem.
Universal properties of $X=N$ {#sec:maximum}
-----------------------------
A non-negative local martingale $(N_t)$ is a supermartingale and it is a (true) martingale if and only if $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}N_t=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}N_0$, $t\geq 0$. We also have that if $N_t$ or $N_{t-}$ touch zero then $N_t$ remains in zero (see e.g. Dellacherie and Meyer [@DellacherieMeyer:80 Thm VI.17]).
\[lem:Nstop\]Consider a non-negative local martingale $(N_t)$ with $N_{0-}:=N_0>0$. Then $$\label{eq:Nstop}
\tau_0(N)=\inf\{t: N_t=0\textrm{ or }N_{t-}=0\}=\inf\{t: N_t=0\}$$ and $N_u\equiv 0$, $u\geq \tau_0(N)$.
This yields an immediate simplification of the $w$-DD condition. In fact in Definition \[def:DD\] and definition of $\zeta_w(Y)$ on page it suffices to compare $w(\ovl Y_t)$ with $Y_t$ instead of $Y_t$ *and* $Y_{t-}$.
\[cor:N-DD\] Let $w$ be a drawdown function of Definition \[def:DD\] and $(Y_t)$ a max-continuous local martingale with $ Y_\zeta =w(\ovl Y_\zeta)$ a.s. on $\{\zeta<\i\}$, where $\zeta=\inf\{t: Y_t\leq w(\ovl Y_t)\}$. Then $Y$ satisfies $w$-DD condition up to time $\zeta_w(Y)=\zeta$.
Assume $r_w=\i$ and let $N_t=M^V_t(Y)$ where $V$ is given via . Using –, similarly as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:DD\], and Definition \[def:ay\], $(N_t:t\leq \zeta)$ is a non-negative max-continuous local martingale and $\zeta=\inf\{t: N_t=0\}$. Using we have $\zeta=\tau_0(N)$ and our assumptions also give $N_\zeta=0$ on $\{\zeta<\i\}$. It follows from Theorem \[thm:DD\] that $Y_t=M^U(X)_t$, $U=V^{-1}$ satisfies the $w$-DD constraint up to $\zeta$ and $\zeta=\tau_0(N)=\zeta_w(Y)$. For the case $r_w<\i$ it suffices to note that all processes are max-continuous and hence the first hitting times for $\ovl N_t$ and $\ovl N_{t-}$ are equal.
Throughout this and following sections, we assume that $$\label{eq:Ndef}
(N_t:t\geq 0) \textrm{ is a non-negative max-continuous local martingale}, N_t\operatorname{\xrightarrow[t\to\infty]{}}0\textrm{ a.s.}$$ We recall some well known results on the distribution of the maximum of $N$ (see Exercice III.3.12 in Revuz-Yor [@ry]). We assume that $N_0$ is a constant. If $N_0$ is random all results should be read conditionally on $\operatorname{\mathcal F}_0$.
\[prop:uniform\] Consider $(N_t)$ in with $N_0>0$ a constant.\
a) The random variable $N_0/\ovl N_\i$ is uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$.\
b) The same result holds for the conditional distribution in the following sense: let $\ovl N_{t,\i}= \sup_{t\leq u\leq \i} N_u$ then $$\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(K>\ovl N_{t,\i}|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t)=(1-N_t/K)^+$$ i.e. $\ovl N_{t,\i}$ has the same $\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t$-conditional distribution as $N_t/\xi$ where $\xi$ is an independent uniform variable on \[0,1\].\
c) Let $\zeta=\tau_0(N)\wedge \tau^b(N)=\inf\{t: N_t\notin (0,b)\}$, $b>N_0$. $(N_{t\wedge \zeta})$ is a bounded martingale and $N_{\zeta}\in\{0,b\}$. Furthermore, ${\ovl N}_{\zeta}={\ovl N}_\i \wedge b$ is distributed as $(N_0/\xi)\wedge b$, where $\xi$ is uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$.
[**Remark.**]{} a) Given the event $\{\ovl
N_{\zeta}\,<\,b\}=\{N_{\zeta}=0\}$, $N_0/\ovl N_{\zeta}$ is uniformly distributed on $(N_0/b,1]$. The probability of the event $\{\ovl N_{\zeta}\,=\,b\}$ is $N_0/b$.\
b) Any non-negative martingale $N$ stopped at $\zeta$, with $N_{\zeta}\in\{0,b\}$ a.s., may be extended into a local martingale (still denoted by $N$) as in , by putting $N_t:=N_\zeta+\1_{\{\ovl N_\zeta=b\}}(N'_t-N'_\zeta),$ $t>\zeta$, where $N'$ is another local martingale as in .
a\) Let us consider the Azéma–Yor martingale associated with $(N_t)$ and the function $U(x) = (K-x)^+$, where $K$ is a fixed real $\geq 1$. Thanks to the positivity of $(N_t)$, the martingale $M^U(N)$ is bounded by $K$, $$0 \leq M^U_t(N) = (K - \ovl N_t)^+ + \1_{\{K > \ovl N_t \}}(\ovl N_t- N_t)=
\1_{\{K > \ovl N_t \}}(K-N_t)\leq K.$$ So $M^U_t(N)$ is a uniformly integrable martingale, and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}M^U_\i(N)=M^U_0(N)$. In other terms, for $K>N_0$, $K \operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(K > {\ovl N}_\i ) = K - N_0$, or equivalently $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}\big(\frac{N_0}{{\ovl N}_\i} \leq \frac{N_0}{K} \big) =
\frac{N_0}{K}$, for any $K\geq N_0$. That is exactly the desired result.\
b) This result is the conditional version of the previous one. The reference process is now the process $(N_{t+h}: h\geq 0)$ adapted to the filtration $\operatorname{\mathcal F}_{t+h}$, local martingale for the conditional probability measure $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(.|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t)$.\
c) From and since $N$ is non-negative and max-continuous it follows that $\tau_0(N)\wedge \tau^b(N)=\inf\{t: N_t\notin (0,b)\}$ and that $N_{\zeta}=b,\>\mbox{or}\> 0$. Then, we have that $\ovl N_{\zeta}=\ovl N_\i \wedge b$ since when $N_{\zeta}=b$, the maximum $\ovl N_{\zeta}$ is also equal to $b$.
**Remark about last passage times.** Recently, for a continuous local martingale $N$, Madan, Roynette and Yor [@MRY08] have interpreted the event $\{K>\ovl N_{T,\zeta}\}$ in terms of the last passage time $g_K(N)$ over the level $K$, as $\{K>\ovl
N_{T,\zeta}\}=\{g_K(N)<T\}$. Our last Proposition yields immediately their result: the normalized Put pay-off is the conditional probability of $\{g_K(N)<T\}$: $(1-N_T/K)^+= \operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(g_K(N)<T|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_T)$. In particular we obtain the whole dynamics of the put prices: $$\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\left[(K-N_T)^+|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t\right]= K\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(g_K(N)<T|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t),\quad t\leq T,$$ and the initial prices $(t=0)$ are deduced from the distribution of $g_K$. In the geometrical Brownian motion framework with $N_0=1$, the Black-Scholes formula just computes the distribution of $g_1(N)$ as $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(g_1<t)={\cal N}(\sqrt t/2)-{\cal N}(-\sqrt t/2)=\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(4B_1^2\leq
t)$, where $B_1$ is a standard Gaussian random variable and ${\cal
N}(x)=\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(B_1\leq x)$ the Gaussian distribution function (See also Madan, Roynette and Yor [@MRY08]).\
[**Financial framework.**]{} Assume $S$ to be a max-continuous non negative submartingale whose instantaneous return by time unit is an adapted process $\lambda_t\geq 0$ defined on a filtered probability spaced $(\Omega,\mathcal F, (\mathcal{F}_t), \mathbb P)$. For instance, $S$ is the current price of a stock under the risk neutral probability in a financial market with short rate $\lambda_t$. Put differently, $\tilde{S}_t=\exp(-\int_0^t\lambda_s\td s)S_t$ is an $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-martingale. We assume that $\int_0^\i \lambda_s\td s=\i$ a.s. Let $\zeta$ be an additional r.v. with conditional tail function $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\zeta \geq t|\mathcal F_\i)=\exp(-\int_0^t\lambda_s \td s)$. Then $X_t=S_t\mathbf 1_{t<\zeta}$ is a positive martingale with negative jump to zero at time $\zeta$ with respect to the enlarged filtration $\mathcal G_t=\sigma(\mathcal F_t,\zeta\wedge t).$ Since the $\mathbb G$-martingale $X$ goes to zero at $\infty$, the random variable ${\overline X}_\zeta={\overline S}_\zeta$ is distributed as $1/\xi$, where $\xi$ is uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$. In particular, for any bounded function $h$ $$\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[h({\overline S}_\zeta)]=
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^\infty\,e^{-\int_0^\alpha\lambda_s\td s}h({\overline S}_\alpha)\lambda_\alpha \td\alpha\right]=
\int_0^1h(S_0/u)\td u.$$ In consequence we have access to the law of the properly discounted maximum of the positive submartingale $S$. We stress that this is contrast to the more usual setting when one only has access to the maximum of the discounted price process, cf. Grossman and Zhou [@GZ93]. We could also derive a conditional version of the equation above representing $U(S_t)$ as a potential of the future supremum $\ovl S_{t,u}$. Such representation find natural applications in financial mathematics, see Bank and El Karoui [@BankElKaroui:04].
Azéma–Yor martingales with given terminal values {#sec:ay_given_values}
------------------------------------------------
We describe now all local martingales whose terminal values are Borel functions of the maximum of some non-negative local martingale. This will be used in subsequent sections, in particular to construct Azéma–Yor martingales with given terminal distribution and solve the Skorokhod embedding problem. We start with a simple lemma about solutions to a particular ODE.
\[lem:analytic\] Let $h$ be a locally bounded Borel function defined on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^+$, such that $h(x)/x^2$ is integrable away from zero. Let $U$ be the solution of the ordinary differential equation (ODE) $$\label{eq:odeayequation}
\forall x>0\quad U(x)-xU'(x)=h(x),\> \mbox{ such that}\>\lim_{ x \rightarrow
\i}U(x)/x=0\ .$$ a) The solution $U$ is given by $$\label{eq:Ui}
U(x)=x\>\int_x^\i\frac{h(s)}{s^2}\td
s\>=\int_0^1\,h(\frac{x}{s})\td s,\quad x>0.$$ b) Let $h_b(x) :=h(x\wedge b)$ be constant on $(b,\i)$. The associated solution $U_b(x)=\int_0^1\,h(\frac{x}{s}\wedge b)\td s=U_b(x\wedge b)$ is constant on $(b,\i)$, and $U_b(x)=h_b(x)=h(b)$.\
c) Let $h(m,x)=h(x\vee m)$ be constant on $(0,m)$. The associated solution $U(m,x)$ is affine $U(m,x)=U(m)-U'(m)(m-x)$ for $x\in (0,m)$.
\[rem:moreonU\] [We considered here $U$ on $(0,\infty)$ but naturally if $h$ is only defined for $x>a>0$ then we consider $U$ also only for $x>a>0$. Note that to define $U_b$ it suffices to have a locally integrable $h$ defined on $(0,b]$. We then put $h(x)=h(b)$, $x>b$. ]{}
Formula is easy to obtain using the transformation $(U(x)/x)'=-h(x)/x^2$ and the asymptotic condition in . Both b) and c) follow simply from general solution .
This analytical lemma allow us to characterize Azéma–Yor martingales from their terminal values. This extends in more details the ideas presented in El Karoui and Meziou [@ELKM08 Propositon 5.8].
\[prop:terminalvalues\] Consider $(N_t)$ in with $N_0>0$ a constant.\
a) Let $h$ be a Borel function such that $h(x)/x^2$ is integrable away from $0$, and $U$ the solution of the ODE given via . Then $h(\ovl N_\i)$ is an integrable random variable and the closed martingale $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\big(h(\ovl
N_\i)|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_{t}\big)$, $t\geq 0$, is the Azéma–Yor martingale $M^{U}(N)$.\
b) For a function $U$ with locally bounded derivative $U'$ and with $U(x)/x\to 0$ as $x\to\i$, the Azéma–Yor local martingale $M^U(N)$ is a uniformly integrable martingale if and only if $h(x)/x^2$ is integrable away from zero, where $h$ is now defined via .
We start with the proof of a). We have $$\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}|h(\ovl N_\i)|=\int_0^1 |h(N_0/s)|\td s =N_0 \int_{N_0}^\i\,|h(s)|/s^2\>\td s<\i,$$ since we assumed that $h(x)/x^2$ is integrable away from $0$. To study the martingale $H_t=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\big(h(\ovl N_\infty)|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t)$, we use that $\ovl N_\i= \ovl N_t \vee \ovl N_{t,\infty}$. From Proposition \[prop:uniform\], the running supremum $\ovl N_{t,\i}$ is distributed as $N_t/\xi$, for an independent r.v. $\xi$ uniform on $[0,1]$. The martingale $H_t$ is given by the following closed formula $H_t=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\big(h\big(\ovl N_t\vee(N_t/\xi))|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t\big)$ that is $$H_t=\int_0^1h(\ovl N_t\vee(N_t/s))\td s=U(\ovl N_t,N_t)=U(\ovl N_t)-U'(\ovl N_t)(\ovl N_t-N_t),$$ where in the last equalities, we have used Lemma \[lem:analytic\].\
To prove part $b)$ it suffices to observe that $M_t^U(N)\to M_{\i_-}^U(N)=M^U_\i(N)=h(\ovl N_\i)$ a.s. and hence integrability of $h(\ovl N_\i)$, i.e. integrability of $h(x)/x^2$ away from zero, is necessary for uniform integrability of $M^U(N)$. That it is sufficient we proved in part $a)$.
It is not necessary to assume that $N_0$ is a constant in Proposition \[prop:terminalvalues\]. However if $N_0$ is random we have to further assume that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\int_0^1 |h(N_0/s)|\td s=\int_1^\i \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}|h(xN_0)|\frac{\td x}{x^2}<\i$. This holds for example if $N_0$ is integrable and $N_0>\epsilon>0$ a.s. We can apply the same reasoning to the process $(N_{t+u}: u\geq 0)$ to see that if $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\int_0^1 |h(N_t/s)|\td s<\i$ then $U(N_t)=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\big(h(\ovl N_{t,\i})|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_{t}\big)$.\
Finally, we note that similar consideration as in $a)$ above were independently made in Nikeghbali and Yor [@NY06].
We stress that the boundary condition $U(x)/x\to 0$ as $x\to\i$ for is essential in part $a)$. Indeed, consider $N_t=1/Z_t$ the inverse of a three dimensional Bessel process. Note that $N_t$ satisfies our hypothesis and it is well known that $N_t$ is a strict local martingale (cf. Exercise V.2.13 in Revuz and Yor [@ry]). Then for $U(x)=x$ we have $M^U_t(N)=N_t$ is also a strict local martingale but obviously we have $U(x)-U'(x)x=0$.
Observe that $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(N_\zeta\in\{0,b\})=1$ if $\zeta=\inf\{t\geq 0: N_t\notin (0,b)\}$. Then, if $h$ is constant on $[b,\i)$ then $h(\ovl N_\i)=h(\ovl N_{\zeta})$ and the closed martingale $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\big(h(\ovl N_{\zeta})|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_{t\wedge \zeta}\big)$, $t\geq 0$, is the Azéma–Yor martingale $M^{U_b}_{t}(N)=M^{U_b}_{t\wedge \zeta}(N)$, where $U_b$ the solution of the ODE given in point b) of Lemma \[lem:analytic\].
As shown in Sections \[sec:def\] and \[sec:bach\], Azéma-Yor processes $Y=M^U(N)$ generated by an increasing function $U$ have very nice properties based on the characterisation of their maximum as $\ovl Y=U(\ovl N)$. In particular, from Theorem \[thm:DD\], the process $Y$ satisfies a DD-constraint and can also be characterized from its terminal value. Recall Definitions \[def:DD\], \[def:w-DD\] and the stopping time $\zeta_w(Y)$ from page .
\[prop:increasing\_function\] Let $h$ be a right-continuous non-decreasing function such that $h(x)/x^2$ is integrable away from $0$ and put $b=\inf\{x: h(y)=h(x)\ \forall y\geq x\}$.\
a) The solution $U$ of the ODE is then a strictly increasing concave function on $(0,b)$ and constant and equal to $h(b)$ on $(b,\i)$.\
b) Let $V$ be the inverse of $U$. Function $w(y)=h(V(y))$ given for $y<U(b)$ by , or equivalently , and by $w(y)=y$ for $y\geq U(b)$, is a right-continuous drawdown function and $r_w=U(b)=h(b)$.\
c) Consider $(N_t)$ in with $N_0>0$ a constant. The uniformly integrable martingale $Y_t=M^U_t(N)=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[h(\ovl N_\i)|\operatorname{\mathcal F}_t]$ satisfies $w$-DD constraint. Furthermore, $Y_t=Y_{t\land \zeta_w(Y)}$, $Y_{\zeta_w(Y)}=w(\ovl Y_{\zeta_w(Y)})$ a.s. and $\zeta_w^Y=\inf\{t: N_t\notin (0,b)\}$.\
Conversely, let $w$ be a right-continuous drawdown function, with functions $V,U,h$ satisfying a) and b). Then any uniformly integrable martingale $Y$, satisfying the w-DD constraint and $Y_{\zeta_w(Y)}=w(\ovl Y_{\zeta_w(Y)})$ a.s., is an Azéma–Yor martingale $M^U(N)$ for some $(N_t)$ as in with $N_0=V(Y_0)>0$ and such that $N_{t\land \zeta_w(Y)}=M^V_{t\land \zeta_w(Y)}(Y)$ and $\zeta_w^Y=\inf\{t: N_t\notin (0,V(r_w-)\}$.
[Note that $h$, and in consequence $U$, need to be defined only for $x\geq N_0$. Then $V(y)$ is defined for $U(N_0)\leq y\leq U(b)$ with $V(U(b))=b\leq \i$ and the drawdown function $w(y)$ is defined for $y\geq U(N_0)$.\
A solution $U$ of the ODE is strictly increasing if and only if $U>h$. But only increasing and concave solutions are easy to characterize. ]{}
a\) When $h$ is non-decreasing, from and it is clear that $U$ is strictly increasing until that $h$ becomes constant, and constant after that. If $h$ is differentiable, concavity of $U$ follows since $-xU_b''(x)=h'(x).$ The general case follows by regularisation or can be checked directly using which yields to $U'(x)=\int_x^\i(h(s)-h(x))/s^2ds=\int_0^\i(h(s)-h(x))^+/s^2ds$.\
b) In consequence, $V$ is increasing and convex on $[U(0),U(b))$ and hence by $w(y)$ is increasing and $w(y)<y$ for $y\in (U(0),U(b))$. We thus have $r_w=U(b)$ but note that we could have $w(U(b)-)$ both less then or equal to $U(b)$. Integrability properties of $w$ in Definition \[def:w-DD\] follow since $V$ and $U$ are well defined and we conclude that $w$ is a drawdown function. Right-continuity of $w$ follows from right-continuity of $h$. More precisely, from , $u=U'$ is right continuous and hence also $V'(y)=1/u(V(y))$ is right-continuous and non decreasing.\
c) Identification of $Y$ is given in part a) of Proposition \[prop:terminalvalues\]. The rest follows from Lemma \[lem:Nstop\], Theorem \[thm:DD\] and the fact that $N_\zeta\in\{0,b\}$ a.s. for $\zeta=\inf\{t: N_t\notin (0,b)\}$ upon noting that $V(r_w-)=b$.
On relations between ${\rm AVaR}_\mu$, Hardy-Littlewood transform and tail quantiles {#sec:AVaR_HL}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we present results about probability measures, their tail quantile function, the Average Value at Risk and the Hardy-Littlewood transform. The presentation is greatly simplified using tail quantiles of measure.
The notation and quantities now introduced will be used throughout the rest of the paper. For $\mu$ a probability measure on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ we denote $l_\mu,r_\mu$ respectively the lower and upper bound of the support of $\mu$. We let $\ovl \mu(x)=\mu\big([x,\i)\big)$ and $\ovl q_\mu: (0,1]\to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\i\}$ be the tail quantile function defined as the left-continuous inverse of $\ovl \mu$, $\ovl
q_\mu(\lambda ):= \inf\{x\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}:\, \ovl \mu(x) < \lambda\}$. When ${\ovl q}_\mu(\lambda )$ is a point of continuity of $\ovl \mu$, then ${\ovl \mu}({\ovl q}_\mu(\lambda
))=\lambda$, whereas if not, ${\ovl \mu}({\ovl q}_\mu(\lambda
)^+)<\lambda\leq {\ovl \mu}({\ovl q}_\mu(\lambda ))$. In particular, if ${\ovl \mu}(r_\mu)>0$, $r_\mu=\ovl q(0^+)$ is a jump of ${\ovl \mu}$ and $r_\mu=\ovl q(0^+)=\ovl q(\lambda)$, if $0<\lambda \leq {\ovl \mu}(r_\mu)$.
We write $X\sim \mu$ to denote that $X$ has distribution $\mu$ and recall that ${\ovl q}_\mu(\xi)\sim \mu$ for $\xi$ uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$.
Assume $\int_{\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}} |s|\mu(\td s)<\i$ and let $m_\mu=\int_{\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}} s\mu(\td s)$. We define Call function[^4] ${\rm C}_\mu$ and barycentre function $\psi_\mu$ by $$\label{eq:call+barycentre}
{C}_\mu(K)=\int_{[K,\infty)}(s-K)^+\mu(ds),\quad
\psi_{\mu}(x)=
\frac{1}{{\ovl \mu}(x)}\int_{[x,\infty)}s\mu(ds),$$ where $K\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}},x<r_\mu$. We put $\psi_\mu(x)=x$ for $x\geq r_\mu$.\
Finally, we also introduce the *Average Value at Risk* at the level $\lambda\in (0,1)$, given by $$\label{eq:AVaR}
{\rm AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\lambda}\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_\mu(u)\,\td u$$ which is strictly decreasing on $({\ovl \mu}(r_\mu),1)$, equal to $r_\mu={\ovl q}_\mu(0^+)$ on $(0,\ovl \mu(r_\mu))$ and ${\rm AVaR}_\mu(1)=m_\mu$.\
The average value at risk $\mathrm{AVaR}_\mu$ is thus a quantile function of some probability measure $\mu^{HL}$ with support $(m_\mu,r_\mu)$, which can be defined by $$\label{eq:HL_definition} \mu^{HL}\sim \mathrm{AVaR}_\mu(\xi),\quad
\xi \textrm{ uniform on }[0,1].$$ This distribution, called the *Hardy–Littlewood transform* of $\mu$ has been intensively studied by many authors, from the famous paper of Hardy and Littlewod [@HL30]. We will describe its prominent rôle in the study of distributions of maxima of martingales in Section \[sec:optimal\_prop\] below. Recently Föellmer and Schied [@FS04] studied properties of ${\rm
AVaR}_{\mu}$ as a coherent risk measure. Finally note that here $\mu$ is the law of losses (i.e. negative of gains) and some authors refer to $\mathrm{AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)$ as $\mathrm{AVaR}_\mu(1-\lambda)$.
As in [@FS04 pp 179–182, p 408, Lemma A.22], it is easy to characterize the Fenchel transform of the concave function $\lambda \mathrm{AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)$ as the Call function. From this property, we infer a non classical representation of the tail function $\ovl \mu^{HL}(y)$ as an infimum.
\[prop:AVaR\] Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$, $\int |s|\mu(\td s)<\i$.\
i) The Average Value at Risk $\rm{AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)$ can be described as, $\lambda\in (0,1)$, $$\label{eq:AVaR_2}
\rm{AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)\ =\frac{1}{\lambda}C_\mu(\ovl
q_\mu(\lambda))+\ovl q_\mu(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\lambda}\inf_{K\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}}(C_\mu(K)+\lambda
K).$$\
ii) The Call function is the Fenchel transform of $\lambda \rm{AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)$, so that $$\label{eq:calls_via_AVaR}
C_\mu(K)=\sup_{\lambda\in (0,1)} (\lambda {\rm AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)-\lambda K),\quad K\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}.$$ iii) The Hardy-Littlewood tail function ${\ovl \mu}^{HL}$ is given for any $y\in(m_\mu,r_\mu) $ by $$\label{eq:HL_dual}
{\ovl \mu}^{HL}(y)
=
\inf_{z>0} \frac{1}{z}C_\mu(y-z).$$ iv) The barycentre function and its right continuous inverse are related to the Average Value at Risk and Hardy-Littlewood tail function by $$\label{eq:barycentre and dual}
\psi_{\mu}(x)={\rm AVaR}_\mu({\ovl \mu}(x)),\ x\leq r_\mu,\qquad \psi_{\mu}^{-1}(y)=\ovl q_\mu(\,{\ovl \mu}^{HL}(y)),\ y\in [m_\mu, r_\mu].$$
[From we have $\psi_\mu(x)=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[X|X\geq x]$, where $X\sim\mu$. Then gives ${\rm AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[X|X\geq \ovl q_\mu(\lambda)]$, $\td \ovl q_\mu(\lambda)$-a.e., which justifies names *expected shortfall*, or *Conditional Value at Risk* used for ${\rm AVaR}_\mu$. ]{}
We write $\ovl q=\ovl q_\mu$.\
i) The proof is based on the classical property, ${\ovl
q}(\xi)\sim \mu$ for $\xi$ uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$. Then $$C_\mu(\ovl q(\lambda))=\int_0^1(\ovl q(u)-\ovl q(\lambda))^+\>\td u=
\int_0^\lambda(\ovl q(u)-\ovl q(\lambda))\>\td u= \lambda({\rm
AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)-\ovl q(\lambda)).$$ Moreover, the convex function $G_\lambda(K):=C_\mu(K)+\lambda K$ attains its minimum in $K_\lambda$ such that $\ovl \mu(K_\lambda)=\lambda$.\
When ${\ovl \mu}({\ovl q}(\lambda))=\lambda$, ${\ovl q}(\lambda)$ is a minimum of the function $G_\lambda(K)$, $\lambda {\rm
AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)=G_\lambda(\ovl q(\lambda))$, and holds true.\
If ${\ovl \mu}({\ovl q}(\lambda))>\lambda>\,{\ovl \mu}({\ovl
q}(\lambda)+)$ then $\mu$ has an atom in $x:={\ovl q}(\lambda)$. $G_\lambda$ has a minimum in $x$ and $G'_\lambda$ changes sign discontinuously in $x$. Then we see that $G_\lambda(\ovl q(\lambda)=G_\lambda(x)$ is linear in $\lambda \in (\ovl \mu(x+),\ovl \mu(x))$.\
ii) Convex duality for Fenchel transforms yields from .\
iii) Using we have, for any $y>m_\mu$ and $\lambda \in(0,1)$: $$\label{eq:HLCaracterisation}
\begin{split}
&{\rm AVaR}(\lambda)<y \> \Leftrightarrow \exists \,K\> \mbox{such
that}\> y>\frac{C_\mu(K)}{\lambda}+K\\
&\Leftrightarrow \exists \,K<y\mbox{ such that}\>
\lambda>\frac{C_\mu(K)}{y-K} \Leftrightarrow
\lambda>\inf_{K<y}\frac{C_\mu(K)}{y-K}
\end{split}$$ The function $\inf_{K<y}\frac{C_\mu(K)}{y-K}=\inf_{z>0}\frac{1}{z}C_\mu(y-z)
$ is decreasing and left-continuous. We conclude that it is the left-continuous inverse function of ${\rm AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)$ which is $\ovl \mu^{HL}$.\
iv) By definition, $\ovl \mu(x){\rm AVaR}_\mu(\ovl \mu(x))=\int_0^{\ovl \mu(x)} \ovl q_\mu(u)\,\td u=\int_{[x,\infty)}s\mu(ds)$.\
The right-continuous inverse $\psi_{\mu}^{-1}(y)$ of the non decreasing left-continuous function $\psi_{\mu}$ is defined by $\psi_{\mu}^{-1}(y)=\sup\{x:\psi_{\mu}(x)\leq y\}=
\sup\{x:{\rm AVaR}_\mu({\ovl \mu}(x))\leq y\}$. Since, $\ovl \mu^{HL}$ is the left continuous inverse of ${\rm AVaR}_\mu$, the following inequalities hold true for $y\in [m_\mu,r_\mu]$: $\psi_{\mu}^{-1}(y)=\sup\{x:{\ovl \mu}(x)
\geq \ovl \mu^{HL}(y)\}=\sup\{x:\,x\leq \ovl q(\ovl \mu^{HL}(y))\}=\ovl q(\ovl \mu^{HL}(y)).$
We now describe the relationship between $\mu$, ${\rm AVaR_\mu}$, $\psi_\mu$ and $\mu^{HL}$ on one hand, and $w_\mu$, solutions $U_\mu$ of when $h(x)=\ovl q_\mu(1/x)$ and the associated Azéma–Yor martingales $M^{U_\mu}(N)$ on the other hand. It turns out all these objects are intimately linked together in a rather elegant manner. Some of our descriptions below, in particular characterisation of ${\rm AVaR}$ in a), appear to be different from classical forms in the literature. We note that we start with $\mu$ and define $h$ but equivalently we could start with a non-decresing right-cotninuous $h$ and use $h(x)=\ovl q_\mu(1/x)$ to define $\mu$.\
Recall Definitions \[def:DD\], \[def:w-DD\] and the stopping time $\zeta_w(Y)$ from page .
\[prop:q\_to\_U\] Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$, $\int |s|\mu(\td s)<\i$.\
a) $U_\mu(x):={\rm AVaR}_\mu(1/x)$ solves with $h_\mu(x)=\ovl q_\mu(1/x)$, $x\geq 1$, and $h_\mu(x)/x^2$ is integrable away from zero. In particular $U_\mu$ is given by and $U_\mu(x)=U_\mu(x\wedge b_\mu)$ with $b_\mu=1/\ovl \mu(r_\mu)$. $U_\mu$ is concave and $V_\mu(y)=1/\ovl \mu^{HL}(y)$ is the inverse function of $U_\mu$.\
b) Let $w_\mu(y)=h_\mu(V_\mu(y))=q_\mu(\ovl \mu^{HL}(y))$ be the function associated with $\mu$ by or equivalently , for $y\in (m_\mu,r_\mu)$, and extended via $w_\mu(y)=y$ for $y\geq r_\mu$. Then $w_\mu$ is a drawdown function, $r_w=r_\mu$ and $w_\mu$ is the right-continuous inverse of the barycentre function $\psi_\mu$. Furthermore, $w_\mu$ is the hyperbolic derivative of $V_\mu$ as defined by Kertz and Rösler [@KertzRosler:93].\
c) Let $N$ be as in with $N_0=1$ and $Y_t=M_{t}^{U_\mu}(N)$. Then $Y_t\geq U_\mu(N_t)$, $Y_\i=Y_{\zeta_{w_\mu}(Y)}=\ovl q_\mu\big(1/\ovl N_\zeta\big)$ is distributed according to $\mu$ and $\ovl Y_\infty=U_\mu(\ovl N_\zeta)=\mathrm{AVaR}_\mu(1/\ovl N_\zeta)$ is distributed according to $\mu^{HL}$. Furthermore, the process $(Y_t)$ is a uniformly integrable martingale which satisfies $w_\mu$-DD constraint and $\zeta_{w_\mu}^Y=\inf\{t: N_t\notin (0,b_\mu)\}=\inf\{t: \psi_\mu(Y_t)\leq \ovl Y_t\}$.\
The same properties hold true for any max-continuous uniformly integrable martingale $Y$ satisfying the $w_\mu$-DD constraint up to $\zeta=\zeta^Y_{w_\mu}$ and $Y_{\zeta}=w(\ovl Y_{\zeta})$ a.s.
We write $\ovl q=\ovl q_\mu$, $r=r_\mu$, $b=b_\mu=1/\ovl \mu(r_\mu)=V_\mu(r_\mu-)$.\
a) From definition we have ${\rm AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)=\int_0^1 \ovl q(\lambda s)\td s\ $ which is exactly the formula . Note that in the case $\ovl\mu(r)>0$ we have $h(x)=h(b)$, $x\geq b$ with $b=1/\ovl\mu(r)$. $U_\mu$ is concave by Proposition \[prop:increasing\_function\]. The rest follows since ${\rm AVaR}_\mu$ is the tail quantile of $\mu^{HL}$, see .\
b) This follows by part iv) in Proposition \[prop:AVaR\] and the last statement follows from and Theorem 4.3 in [@KertzRosler:93].\
c) We have $Y_t\geq U(N_t)$ from concavity of $U_\mu$. The rest follows easily from points a) and b) above together with Proposition \[prop:increasing\_function\], properties of $\ovl q$, universal law of $\ovl N_\zeta$ given in point c) of Proposition \[prop:uniform\] and the definition of $\mu^{HL}$ in .
[**An illustrative example**]{} (continued from page ) We come back to the example with linear DD-constraint $w(y)=\gamma y$, $0<\gamma<1$, resulting from function $U(x)=\frac{1}{1-\gamma} x^{1-\gamma}$, $x\geq 1$. Using Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\] we have $Y_\i\sim \mu$ and $\ovl Y_\i \sim \mu^{HL}$ which we can now easily describe. We have $\ovl \mu^{HL}(y)=1/V(y)=((1-\gamma)y)^{1/(\gamma-1)}$ for $y\geq m_\mu={\rm AVaR}_\mu(1)=U(1)=\frac{1}{1-\gamma}$. In consequence, the random variable $\ovl Y_\i$ is distributed according to a *Pareto distribution*, with shape parameter $a=m_\mu=\frac{1}{1-\gamma}$ and location parameter $m=m_\mu$. The mean of $\ovl Y_\i$ is $a m/(a-1)=(\gamma(1-\gamma))^{-1}$. Since $Y_\i=w(\ovl Y_\i)=\gamma \ovl Y_\i$ we see that $Y_\i$ is still distributed according to a Pareto distribution, with same shape parameter, and location parameter $m_{1}=m \gamma=\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}$. Naturally, we could also describe $\mu$ using $\ovl q_\mu(\lambda)=h(1/\lambda)=\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}\lambda^{\gamma-1}$ which, taking inverses, gives $\ovl \mu(x)=\left(\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}\frac{1}{x}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\gamma}}$ as required.\
As a consequence we see that if $(Y_t)$ is a max-continuous martingale which satisfies a linear drawdown constraint $Y_t> \gamma \ovl Y_t$ until $\zeta=\zeta_w(Y)<\i$ a.s. then necessarily $Y_{\zeta}=\gamma \ovl Y_{\zeta}$ has a Pareto distribution.
The Skorohod embedding problem revisited {#sec:skoro}
----------------------------------------
The Skorokhod embedding problem can be phrased as follows: given a probability measure $\mu$ on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ find a stopping time $T$ such that $X_T$ has the law $\mu$, $X_T\sim\mu$. One further requires $T$ to be *small* in some sense, typically saying that $T$ is minimal. We refer the reader to Obłój [@genealogia] for further details and the history of the problem.\
In [@ay1] Azéma and Yor introduced the family of martingales described in Definition \[def:ay\] and used them to give an elegant solution to the Skorokhod embedding problem for $X$ a continuous local martingale (and $\mu$ centered). Namely, they proved that $$\label{eq:aystop}
T_{\psi}(X)=\inf\{t\geq 0: \psi_\mu(X_t)\le \ovl X_t\},$$ where $\psi_\mu$ in the barycentre function , solves the embedding problem.
We propose to rediscover their solution in a natural way using our methods, based on the observation that the process $X$ satisfies the $w_\mu$-DD constraint up to $T_{\psi}(X)$. If we show the equality $X_\zeta=w_\mu(\ovl X_\zeta)$ at time $\zeta=T_{\psi}(X)$ , Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\] gives us the result.
\[th:AYor\] Let $(X_t)$ be a continuous local martingale, $X_0=0$, $\langle X\rangle_\i=\i$ a.s. and $\mu$ a centered probability measure on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$: $\int |x|\mu(\td x)<\i$, $\int x\mu(\td x)=0$. Then $T_\psi<\i$ a.s., $(X_{t\land T_{\psi}})$ is a uniformly integrable martingale and $X_{T_{\psi}}\sim \mu, \quad \ovl X_{T_{\psi}}\sim \mu^{HL}$, where $T_{\psi}$ is defined via .\
With notation of Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\], define $N_t=M^{V_\mu}_{t\land \tau^{r_\mu}(X)}(X)$. Then $$\label{eq:AYisDD}
T_{\psi} = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t\leq w_\mu(\ovl X_t)\}=\inf\{t\geq 0: N_t\leq 0\}\wedge \tau^{b_\mu}(N)$$ and $X_{t\wedge T_\psi}=M^{U_\mu}_{t\wedge T_\psi}(N)$.
Let $\tau=\tau^{r_\mu}(X)$. $(N_t:t<\tau)$ is a continuous local martingale with $N_0=1$ since $U_\mu(1)=0$ thanks to $\mu$ being centred. If $b_\mu<\i$ then $r_\mu<\infty$ and $(N_t:t\leq \tau)$ is a local martingale stopped at $\inf\{t: N_t=b_\mu\}=\tau<\i $ a.s. Suppose $b_\mu=\i$. Then $\ovl N_{\tau-}=\lim_{x\to r_\mu}V(x)=\i$. This readily implies that $\langle N\rangle_{\tau-}=\i$ a.s. and in particular $\tau_0(N)<\tau$ a.s. (cf. Proposition V.1.8 in Revuz and Yor [@ry]). Note that this applies both for the case $r_\mu$ finite and infinite. We conclude that $N_{t\land \tau_0(N)}$ is as in and furthermore that $\tau_0(N)\wedge \tau^{b_\mu}(N)<\i$ a.s. Theorem now follows from part c) in Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\].
\[rem:skoro\_maxcont\] [Note that in general only max-continuity of $(X_t)$ would not be enough. More precisely we need to have $X_{T_\psi}=w_\mu(\ovl X_{T_\psi})$ a.s. or equivalently that the process $N_t$ crosses zero continuously. Also, unlike in Propostion \[prop:q\_to\_U\], we need to assume that $\mu$ is centred to ensure that $N_0=M^{V_\mu}_0(X)=1$. Finally note that we do *not* necessarily have that $\psi_\mu(X_{T_\psi})=\ovl X_{T_\psi}$. ]{}
On optimal properties of AY martingales related to HL transform and its inverse {#sec:optimal_prop}
===============================================================================
In this final section we investigate the optimal properties of Azéma–Yor processes and of the Hardy-Littlewood transform $\mu\to\mu^{HL}$ and its (generalised) inverse operator $\Delta$. We use two orderings of probability measures. We say that $\mu$ dominates $\nu$ in the *stochastic order* (or stochastically) if $\ovl \mu(y)\geq \ovl \nu(y)$, $y\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$. We say that $\mu$ dominates $\nu$ in the *increasing convex order* if $\int g(y)\mu(\td y)\geq \int g(y)\nu(\td y)$ for any increasing convex function $g$ whenever the expectations are defined. Observe that the latter order is equivalent to $C_\mu(K)\geq C_\nu(K)$, $K\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ (cf. Shaked and Shanthikumar [@ShakedShanthikumar:94 Thm. 3.A.1]).\
From we deduce instantly that if $\mu,\rho$ are probability measures on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ which admit first moments, then $$\label{eq:AVaR_to_calls} {\rm AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)\leq {\rm
AVaR}_\rho(\lambda),\ \lambda\in (0,1)\Leftrightarrow C_\mu(K)\leq
C_\rho(K),\ K\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}.$$ Using ${\rm AVaR}_\mu(\lambda)=\ovl q_{\mu^{HL}}(\lambda)$ we then obtain $$\label{eq:HL_to_calls}
\begin{split}
{\ovl \mu}^{HL}(y)\leq {\ovl \rho}^{HL}(y),\ y\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}&
\Leftrightarrow \ {\ovl q}_{\mu^{HL}}(\lambda)\leq \ovl q_{\rho^{HL}}(\lambda),\ \lambda\in [0,1] \\ \ &
\Leftrightarrow \ C_\mu(K)\leq C_\rho(K),\ K\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}},
\end{split}$$ so that $\rho^{HL}$ dominates $\mu^{HL}$ stochastically if and only if $\rho$ dominates $\mu$ in the convex order.
Optimality of Azéma–Yor stopping time and\
Hardy-Littlewood transformation
------------------------------------------
The Azéma–Yor stopping time has a remarkable property that the distribution of maximum of the martingale stopped at this time is known, as a Hardy-Littlewood maximum r.v. associated with $\mu$ (cf. Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\]). The importance of this result comes from the result of Blackwell and Dubins [@BD63] (see also the concise version of Gilat and Meljison [@GM88]) showing that:
\[thm:BD\] Let $(P_t)$ be a uniformly integrable martingale and $\mu$ the distribution of $P_\infty$. Then, $$\label{eq:BD_domination}
\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\ovl P_\infty\geq y)\leq \mu^{HL}([y,\infty)),\quad y\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}.$$ In other words, any Hardy-Littlewood maximal r.v. associated with $P_\infty$ dominates stochastically $\ovl P_\infty$.
In fact $\mu^{HL}$ is sometimes defined as the smallest measure which satisfies . One then proves the representation .
Azéma–Yor martingales, stopped appropriately, are examples of martingales which achieve equality in . We can reformulate this result in terms of optimality of the Azéma–Yor stopping time, which has been studied by several authors ([@ay2], [@GM88], Kertz and Rösler [@KR90] and Hobson [@Hob98]).
\[cor:ay\_optimality\] In the setup and notation of Theorem \[th:AYor\], the distribution of $\ovl X_{T_\psi}$ is $\mu^{HL}$. In consequence, $\ovl X_{T_\psi}$ dominates stochastically the maximum of any other uniformly integrable martingale with terminal distribution $\mu$.
The result is a corollary of Theorem \[thm:BD\] and the fact that the maximum $\ovl X_{T_\psi}$ is a Hardy-Littlewood maximal r.v. associated with $\mu$, which follows from Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\]. We present however an independent proof based on arguments in Brown, Hobson and Rogers [@BHR:01].
Let $(P_t)$ be a uniformly martingale with terminal distribution $\mu$ and chose $y\in (0,r_\mu)$. Observe that for any $K<y$ the following inequality holds a.s. $$\label{eq:bhr}
\mathbf{1}_{\ovl P_\infty\geq y}\leq \frac{(P_\infty-K)^+}{y-K}+\frac{y-P_\infty}{y-K}\mathbf{1}_{\ovl P_\infty\geq y}\ .$$ If $P$ is max-continuous then the last term on the RHS is simply $-M^F_\infty(P)$ for $F(z)=\frac{(z-y)^+}{y-K}$ and has zero expectation. In general, we can substitute the last term with a greater term $\frac{P_{\tau^y(P)}-P_\infty}{y-K}\mathbf{1}_{\ovl P_\infty\geq y}$ which has zero expectation. Hence, taking expectations in we find $$\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\overline{P}_\i\geq y)\leq \frac{1}{y-K}\int_K^\infty (x-K)\mu(\td x).$$ Taking infimum in $K<y$ and using we conclude that $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\overline{P}_\i\geq y)\leq \ovl \mu^{HL}(y)$. To end the proof it suffices to observe from the definition of $T_\psi$ that $X_{T_\psi} = w_\mu(\ovl X_{T_\psi})$ and hence, with $P_t=X_{t\land T_\psi}$, we have a.s. equality in for $K=w_\mu(y)$ and in consequence $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\overline{X}_{T_\psi}\geq y)=\ovl \mu^{HL}(y)$.
We identified so far $\mu^{HL}$ as the maximal, relative to stochastic order, possible distribution of supremum of a uniformly integrable martingale with a fixed terminal law $\mu$. We look now at the dual problem: we look for a maximal terminal distribution of a [uniformly]{} integrable martingale with a fixed law of supremum. We saw in that stochastic order of HL transforms translates into increasing convex ordering of the underlying distributions, and we expect the solution to the dual problem to be optimal relative to increasing convex order.
Let us fix a distribution $\nu$ and look at measures $\rho$, $\int |x|\rho(\td x)<\infty$, such that $\rho^{HL}$ stochastically dominates $\nu$: $\ovl \nu(x)\leq \ovl \rho^{HL}(x)$, $x\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$. We note $\mathcal{S}_\nu$ the set of such measures. Passing to the inverses, we can express the condition on $\rho\in\mathcal{S}_\nu$ in terms of tail quantiles: $$\label{eq:def_S_set}
\rho\in\mathcal{S}_\nu\Leftrightarrow
\ovl q_\nu(\lambda)\leq \ovl q_{\rho^{HL}}(\lambda)={\rm AVaR}_{\rho}(\lambda)=\frac{1}{\lambda}\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_\rho(u)\td u,\quad \lambda\in [0,1],$$ and where we used -. Note that for existence of $\rho\in\mathcal{S}_\nu$ it is necessary that $$\label{eq:assume_nu}
\lambda \ovl q_\nu(\lambda)\xrightarrow[\lambda\to 0]{} 0\textrm{ which is equivalent to }x\ovl \nu(x)\xrightarrow[x\to\infty]{} 0\ .$$ We have the following theorem which synthesis several results from Kertz and Rösler [@KertzRosler:92b; @KertzRosler:93] as well as adds new interpretation of $\Delta$ operator as the inverse of $\mu\to\mu^{HL}$ and gives a construction of $\nu_\Delta$. The proof is greatly simplified using tail quantiles.
\[thm:nu\_delta\] Let $\nu$ be a probability measure on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$. The set $\mathcal{S}_\nu$ is non-empty if and only if $\nu$ satisfies . Under , $\mathcal{S}_\nu$ admits a minimal element $\nu_\Delta$ relative to the increasing convex order, which is characterised by $$\lambda \ovl q_{\nu_\Delta^{HL}}(\lambda)=\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_{\nu_\Delta}(u)\td u\textrm{ is the concave envelope of }\lambda \ovl q_\nu(\lambda).$$ Furthermore, if $\nu=\mu^{HL}$ for an integrable probability measure $\mu$, then $\nu_\Delta=\mu$.
Assume and let $G(\lambda)$ be the concave envelope (i.e. the smallest concave majorant) of $\lambda \ovl q_\nu(\lambda)$. If there exists a measure $\nu_\Delta$ such that $G(\lambda)=\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_{\nu_\Delta}(u)\td u$ then clearly $\nu_\Delta \in \mathcal{S}_\nu$ by definition in . Furthermore, since $\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_\rho(u)\td u$ is a concave function, we have that $$\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_{\nu_\Delta}(u)\td u \leq \int_0^\lambda \ovl q_\rho(u)\td u,\quad \lambda\in [0,1],\ \forall \ \rho\in\mathcal{S}_\nu\ .$$ This in turn, using , is equivalent to $\nu_\Delta$ being the infimum of $\rho\in\mathcal{S}_\nu$ relative to increasing convex ordering of measures and thus being a solution to our dual problem.
It remains to argue that $\nu_\Delta$ exists. Recall that $-\infty\leq l_\nu<r_\nu\leq \infty$ are respectively the lower and the upper bounds of the support of $\nu$. Let $\tilde{G}(x)$ be the (formal) Fenchel transform of $\lambda \ovl q_\nu(\lambda)$: $$\label{eq:G_pseudo_Fenchel}
\tilde{G}(x)=\sup_{\lambda\in (0,1)}\left(\lambda \ovl q_\nu(\lambda)-\lambda x\right),\quad x\in [l_\nu,r_\nu].$$ Observe that $\tilde{G}(x)\geq 0$ thanks to assumption and by definition $\tilde{G}(x)$ is convex, decreasing and $\tilde{G}'(x)\in [-1,0]$. This implies that there exists a probability measure $\nu_\Delta$ such that $\tilde{G}(x)=\int (y-x)^+\nu_\Delta(\td y)=C_{\nu_\Delta}(y)$. In fact we simply have $\ovl \nu_\Delta (x) := - \tilde{G}'(x-)$. Since $G$ was the concave envelope of $\lambda \ovl q_\nu(\lambda)$ we can recover it as the dual Fenchel transform of $\tilde{G}$ and, using \[eq:AVaR\_2\], we have $$G(\lambda)=\inf_{x\in [l_\nu,r_\nu]}\left(\tilde{G}(x)+x\lambda\right)=\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_{\nu_\Delta}(u)\td u,\quad \lambda\in [0,1],$$ as required. Note that we could also take $x\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ above since the infimum is always attained for $x\in [l_\mu,r_\mu]$. Finally, if $\nu=\mu^{HL}$ then $\lambda\ovl q_{\nu}(\lambda)$ is concave and equal to $\int_0^\lambda \ovl q_\mu(u)\td u$ and hence $\nu_\Delta =\mu$.
We stress that in the proof we obtain in fact a rather explicit representation which can be used to construct $\nu_\Delta$. Namely we have $\ovl \nu_\Delta(x)=-\tilde{G}'(x)$ with $\tilde{G}$ defined in .\
We find it is useful to rephrase conclusions of Theorem \[thm:nu\_delta\] in martingale terms. Furthermore, we also show that any max–continuous martingale $(P_t)$, $P_\i\sim\mu$, which achieves the upper bound on the law of supremum, $\ovl P_\infty\sim \mu^{HL}$, is of the form $P_t=X_{t\land T_\psi}=M^{U_\mu}_t(N)$ for some $N$ as in .
\[thm:HLconvexorder\] Let $\nu$ be a distribution satisfying . For any uniformly integrable martingale $(P_t)$ such that $\ovl P_\i$ dominates $\nu$ for the stochastic order, $P_\infty$ dominates $Y_\infty\sim\nu_{\Delta}$ for the increasing convex order, where $Y_t=M^{U_{\nu_\Delta}}(N)_t$ is the Azéma–Yor martingale associated with $\nu_\Delta$ by Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\].\
Furthermore, if $\nu=\mu^{HL}$ and $(P_t)$ as above is max–continuous with $P_\infty\sim \mu$ then $P$ is the Azéma–Yor martingale $M^{U_{\mu}}(N)$ for some $(N_t)$ as in .
Let $\mu\sim P_\infty$. By Corollary \[cor:ay\_optimality\] the distribution of $\ovl P_\infty$ is dominated stochastically by $\mu^{HL}$. Hence $\mu^{HL}$ dominates stochastically $\nu$ and $\mu\in \mathcal{S}_\nu$. The first part of Theorem is then a corollary of Theorem \[thm:nu\_delta\].\
It remains to argue the last statement of the Theorem. Since $P_\infty\sim \mu$ and the distribution of $\ovl P_\infty$ dominates stochastically $\mu^{HL}$ it follows from Theorem \[thm:BD\] that $\ovl P_\infty \sim \mu^{HL}$. We deduce from the proof of Corollary \[cor:ay\_optimality\] that we have an a.s. equality in for any $y>0$ and $K=w_\mu(y)$ and hence $$\{P_\infty\geq w_\mu(y)\}\supseteq \{\ovl P_\infty>y\}\supseteq \{P_\infty> w_\mu(y)\}.$$ It follows that $P_\infty=w_\mu(\ovl P_\infty)$. Further, from uniform integrability of $(P_t)$, $$\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}P_\i = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}P_{\zeta_{w_\mu}(P)}\leq \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}w_\mu(\ovl P_{\zeta_{w_\mu}(P)})\leq \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}w_\mu(\ovl P_\infty).$$ In consequence $P_t=P_{t\land \zeta_{w_\mu}(P)}$ and the statement follows with $N_t=M^{V_\mu}_{t\land \tau^{r_\mu}(P)}(P)$, see Theorem \[th:AYor\] and Remark \[rem:skoro\_maxcont\].
Floor Constraint and concave order {#sec:floor}
----------------------------------
In this final section we study how Theorem \[thm:HLconvexorder\] can be used to solve different optimization problems motivated by portfolio insurance. Our insight comes in particular from constrained portfolio optimization problems discussed by El Karoui and Meziou [@ELKM06]. In such problems it is more natural to consider conditions of pathwise domination. We note that it is quite remarkable that these turn out to be equivalent to, potentially weaker, conditions of ordering of distributions. Finally we remark that in financial context we often use the increasing concave order between two variables (rather then convex). This is simply a consequence of the fact that utility functions are typically concave.
Consider $g$ an increasing function on $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}_+$ whose increasing concave envelope $U$ is finite and such that $\lim_{x\to\infty}U(x)/x=0$. Let $N_t$ be as in with $N_0=1$. In the financial context, the floor underlying is modelled by $F_t=g(N_t)$. Financial positions can be modelled with uniformly integrable martingales and we are interested in choosing the optimal one, among all which dominate $F_t$ for all $t\geq 0$.
Let $F_t=g(N_t)$ be the floor process and ${\mathcal M}^s_F$ denote the set of uniformly integrable martingales $(P_t)$, with $P_0=U(N_0)$ and $P_t\geq F_t$, $t\geq 0$. Then the Azéma–Yor martingale $M^U_t(N)$ belongs to ${\mathcal M}_F^s$ and is optimal for the concave order of the terminal values, i.e. for any increasing concave function ${G}$ and $P\in\mathcal{M}_F^s$, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{G}(M^U_\infty(N))\geq \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{G}(P_\infty)$.\
In fact the same result holds in the larger set ${\mathcal M}^w_F$ of uniformly integrable martingales $(P_t)$ with $P_0=U(N_0)$ and $\operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\ovl P_\infty\geq x)\geq \operatorname{\mathbb{P}}(\ovl F_\infty\geq x)$, for all $x\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$.
[The process $(U(N_t))$ is the Snell envelop of $(g(N_t))$, that is the smallest supermartingale dominating $g(N)$, as shown in Galtchouk and Mirochnitchenko [@gm] using that $U$ is an affine function on $\{x: U(x)>g(x)\}$. ]{}
From concavity of $U$ we have $M_t^U(N)\geq U(N_t)\geq F_t$ which shows that $M^U_t(N)$ belongs to $\mathcal{M}^s_F$. Naturally, it suffices to prove the statement for the larger set ${\mathcal M}^w_F$. Observe that $\lambda U(\frac{1}{\lambda})$ is the concave envelope of $\lambda g(\frac{1}{\lambda})$ on $\lambda\in (0,1)$. If we define a probability measure $\nu$ by $\nu\sim g(\ovl N_\infty)$ then $\ovl \nu(x)=\frac{1}{g^{-1}(x)}$, $x\in [g(1),g(\infty))$. In consequence $\lambda U(\frac{1}{\lambda})$ is the concave envelope of $\lambda \ovl q_\nu(\lambda)$. Theorem \[thm:nu\_delta\] and properties of ${\rm AVaR}$ in - imply that $$U(\frac{1}{\lambda})=\ovl q_{\nu_\Delta^{HL}}(\lambda)={\rm AVaR}_{\nu_\Delta}(\lambda).$$ Using Proposition \[prop:q\_to\_U\] we have $U=U_{\nu_\Delta}$ and $h$ defined via is given by $h(x)=\ovl q_{\nu_\Delta}(1/x)$. Finally note that, since $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}P_\infty = F_0=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}M^U_\infty(N)$, increasing convex order, increasing concave order and convex order on $P_\infty$ and $M^U_\infty(N)$ are all equivalent (cf. Shaked and Shanthikumar [@ShakedShanthikumar:94 Thms 3.A.15 and 3.A.16]). The rest now follows from Theorem \[thm:HLconvexorder\].
If we want show the above statement only for the smaller set $\mathcal{M}^s_F$ then we can give a direct proof as in [@ELKM08]. Any martingale $X$ which dominates $F_t$ dominates also the smallest supermartingale $Z_t$ which dominates $F_t$ and it is easy to see that $Z_t=U(N_t)$. From Propositon \[prop:terminalvalues\] we know that $M_t=\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[h(\ovl N_\infty)|\mathcal{F}_t]$ is a uniformly integrable martingale and we also have $\ovl M_t=U(\ovl N_t)=\ovl Z_t$ (cf. Proposition \[prop:group\]). We assume $G$ is twice continuously differentiable, the general case following via a limiting argument. Since $h$ is concave, $G(y)-G(x)\le G'(x)(y-x)$ for all $x,y\ge 0$. In consequence $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\Big[G(P_\infty)-G(M_\infty)\Big]\leq\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\Big[G'(M_\infty)(P_\infty-M_\infty)\Big]=
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\Big[G'(h(\ovl
N_\infty))(P_\infty-M_\infty)\Big]\\
\leq \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\int_0^\infty G'(h(\ovl N_t))d(P_t-M_t)+
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\int_0^\infty (P_t-M_t)G''(h(\ovl N_t))d(h(\ovl N_t)).
\end{split}$$ The first integral is a difference of two uniformly integrable martingales (note that $\ovl N_0>0$) and its expectation is zero. For the second integral, recall that $h$ is increasing and the support of $d(h(\ovl N_t))$ is contained in the support of $d\ovl N_t$ on which $M_t=\ovl M_t=\ovl Z_t=Z_t\leq P_t$. As $G$ is concave we see that the integral is a.s. negative which yields the desired inequality.
[^1]: Author supported by the Chaire “Financial Risk” of the Risk Foundation, Paris.
[^2]: Corresponding author: `[email protected]`. Research supported by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship at Imperial College London within the $6^{th}$ European Community Framework Programme.
[^3]: Dedicated to Marc Yor on the occasion of his $60^{\rm th}$ birthday.
[^4]: This denomination is used in financial literature while the actuarial literature uses rather the notion of stop-loss function, cf. [@Hu98].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Jorge-Koutrofiotis [@jorge-koutrofiotis] & Pigola-Rigoli-Setti [@prs-memoirs] proved sharp sectional curvature estimates for extrinsically bounded submanifolds. Alias, Bessa and Montenegro in [@alias-bessa-montenegro], showed that these estimates hold on properly immersed cylindrically bounded submanifolds. On the other hand, in [@alias-bessa-dajczer], Alias, Bessa and Dajczer proved sharp mean curvature estimates for properly immersed cylindrically bounded submanifolds. In this paper we prove these sectional and mean curvature estimates for a larger class of submanifolds, the properly immersed $\phi$-bounded submanifolds, Thms. \[thmMain-intro\] & \[thmMain-2\]. Thse ideas, in fact, we prove stronger forms of these estimates, see the results in section \[sec:OM-Pairs\].
**keywords:** Curvature estimates, $\phi$-bounded submanifolds, Omori-Yau pairs, Omori-Yau maximum principle. **Mathematics Subject Classification 2010:** Primary 53C42; Secondary 35B50
author:
- 'G. Pacelli Bessa[^1]'
- 'Barnabe P. Lima'
- 'Leandro F. Pessoa'
title: 'Curvature estimates for properly immersed $\phi_{h}$-bounded submanifolds'
---
=300
Introduction {#intro}
============
The classical isometric immersion problem asks whether there exists an isometric immersion $\varphi \colon M\to N$ for given Riemannian manifolds $M$ and $N$ of dimension $m$ and $n$ respectively, with $m<n$. The model result for this type of problem is the celebrated Efimov-Hilbert Theorem [@efimov], [@hilbert] that says that there is no isometric immersion of a geodesically complete surface $M$ with sectional curvature $K_{M}\leq -\delta^2<0$ into $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, $\delta\in \mathbb{R}$. On the other hand, the Nash Embedding Theorem shows that there is always an isometric embedding into the Euclidean $n$-space $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ provided the codimension $n-m$ is sufficiently large, see [@nash]. For small codimension, meaning in this paper that $n-m\leq m-1 $, the answer in general depends on the geometries of $M$ and $N$. For instance, a classical result of C. Tompkins [@tompkins] states that a compact, flat, $m$-dimensional Riemannian manifold can not be isometrically immersed into $\mathbb{R}^{2m-1}$. C. Tompkin’s result was extended in a series of papers, by Chern and Kuiper [@chern-kuiper], Moore [@moore], O’Neill [@oneil], Otsuki [@otsuki] and Stiel [@stiel], whose results can be summarized in the following theorem.
\[thmTompkins\]Let $\varphi\colon M\to N$ be an isometric immersion of compact Riemannian $m$-manifold $M$ into a Cartan-Hadamard $n$-manifold $N$ with small codimension $n-m\leq m-1$. Then the sectional curvatures of $M$ and $N$ satisfy $$\sup_{M} K_{M}> \inf_{N} K_{N}. \label{eqTompkins}$$
L. Jorge and D. Koutrofiotis [@jorge-koutrofiotis], considered complete extrinsically bounded[^2] submanifolds with scalar curvature bounded from below and proved the curvature estimates . Pigola, Rigoli and Setti [@prs-memoirs] proved an all general and abstract version of the Omori-Yau maximum principle [@cheng-yau], [@yau] and in consequence they were able to extend Jorge-Koutrofiotis’ Theorem to complete $m$-submanifolds $M$ immersed into regular balls of any Riemannian $n$-manifold $N$ with scalar curvature bounded below as $s_{_M}\geq - c\cdot\rho^{2}_{_M}\cdot\prod_{j=1}^{k}\Big(\log^{(j)}(\rho_{_M})\Big)^2,\,\, \rho_{_M}\gg 1$.
Their version of Jorge-Koutrofiotis Theorem is the following.
\[thmJK\]Let $\varphi\colon M\to N$ be an isometric immersion of a complete Riemannian $m$-manifold $M$ into a $n$-manifold $N$, with $n-m \leq m-1$, with $\varphi(M)\subset B_N(r)$, where $B_{N}(r)$ is a regular geodesic ball of $N$. If the scalar curvature of $M$ satisfies $$s_{_M}\geq -c\cdot \rho^{2}_{_M}\cdot\prod_{j=1}^{k}\Big(\log^{(j)}(\rho_{_M})\Big)^2,\,\, \rho_{_M}\gg 1,
\label{eqScalar}$$ for some constant $c>0$ and some integer $k\geq 1$, where $\rho_{_M}$ is the distance function on $M$ to a fixed point and $\log^{(j)}$ is the $j$-th iterate of the logarithm. Then $$\label{eqJorge-koutrofiotis}
\sup_{M}K_{M}\geq C_{b}^{2}(r)+\inf_{B_{N}(r)}K_{N},$$ where $b=\sup_{B_{_N}(r)}K_{N}^{{\mathrm{rad}}}\leq b$ $$\label{eqCb}
C_b(t)=
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{b}\cot(\sqrt{b}\,t) & \mbox{\rm if $b>0$ and $0<t<\pi/2\sqrt{b}$}\\
1/t & \mbox{\rm if $b=0$ and $t>0$}\\
\sqrt{-b}\coth(\sqrt{-b}\,t) & \mbox{\rm if $b<0$ and $t>0$}.
\end{cases}$$
If $B(r)\subset \mathbb{N}^{n}(b)$ is a geodesic ball of radius $r$ in the simply connected space form of sectional curvature $b$, $\partial B(r)$ its boundary and $\varphi \colon \partial B(r-\epsilon) \to B(r)$ is the canonical immersion, where $\epsilon>0$ is small, then we have $$\sup_M K_M=K_{\partial B(r-\epsilon)}=
\begin{cases}
{b}/{\sin^2(\sqrt{b}\,(r-\epsilon))} & \mbox{\rm if $b>0$} \\
1/(r-\epsilon)^2 & \mbox{\rm if $b=0$ }\\
{-b}/\sinh^2(\sqrt{-b}\,(r-\epsilon)) & \mbox{\rm if $b<0$ }.
\end{cases}$$ Therefore, $
\sup_M K_M-[C_{b}^{2}(r)+\inf K_{\mathbb{N}^{n}(b)}]= [C_b^2(r-\epsilon)-C_b^2(r)]\to 0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$, showing that the inequality (\[eqJorge-koutrofiotis\]) is sharp.
One may assume without loss of generality that $\sup_M K_M<\infty$. This together with the scalar curvature bounds implies that $$K_{M}\geq - c^{2}\cdot \rho^{2}_{_M}\cdot\prod_{j=1}^{k}\Big(\log^{(j)}(\rho_{_M})\Big)^2,\,\, \rho_{_M}\gg 1$$ for some positive constant $c>0$. This curvature lower bound implies that $M$ is stochastically complete, which it is equivalent to the fact that $M$ hold the weak maximum principle, (a weaker form of Omori-Yau maximum principle, see details in [@PRS-PAMS]), and that is enough to reproduce Jorge-Koutrofitis original proof of the curvature estimate . \[remark4\]
Recently, Alias, Bessa and Montenegro [@alias-bessa-montenegro] extended Theorem \[thmJK\] to the class of cylindrically bounded, properly immersed submanifolds, where an isometric immersion $\varphi \colon M\hookrightarrow N\times \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ is cylindrically bounded if $\varphi (M)\subset B_{N}(r)\times \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$. Here $B_{N}(r)$ is a geodesic ball in $N$ of radius $r>0$. They proved the following theorem.
\[thmABM\] Let $\varphi \colon M\rightarrow N\times{\mathbb{R}}^{\ell}$ be a cylindrically bounded isometric immersion, $\varphi(M)\subset B_N(r)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{\ell}$, where $B_N(r)$ is a regular geodesic ball of $N$ and $b=\sup K^{{\mathrm{rad}}}_{B_{N}(r)}$. Let ${\rm dim}(M)=m$, ${\rm dim}(N)=n-\ell$ and assume that $n-m\leq m-\ell -1$. If either
- the scalar curvature of $M$ is bounded below as (\[eqScalar\]), or
- - the immersion $\varphi$ is proper and $$\sup_{\varphi^{-1}(B_{N}(r)\times \partial B_{\mathbb{R}^{\ell}}(t))}\Vert\alpha\Vert\leq \sigma(t),
\label{growth}$$
where $\alpha$ is the second fundamental form of $\varphi$ and $\sigma:[0,+\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a positive function satisfying $\int_0^{+\infty}dt/\sigma(t)=+\infty$, then $$\sup_{M}K_{M}\geq C_{b}^{2}(r)+\inf_{B_{N}(r)}K_{N}.
\label{eq-ABM}$$
The idea is to show that the hypotheses, in both items i. $\&$ ii. implies that $M$ is stochastically complete, then Remark \[remark4\] applies.
In the same spirit, Alias, Bessa and Dajczer [@alias-bessa-dajczer], had proved the following mean curvature estimates for cylindrically bounded submanifolds properly immersed into $N\times \mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ immersed submanifolds.
\[thm-Alias-Bessa-Dajczer\]Let $\varphi \colon M\rightarrow N\times{\mathbb{R}}^{\ell}$ be a cylindrically bounded isometric immersion, $\varphi(M)\subset B_N(r)\times{\mathbb{R}}^{\ell}$, where $B_N(r)$ is a regular geodesic ball of $N$ and $b=\sup K^{{\mathrm{rad}}}_{B_{N}(r)}$. Here $M$ and $N$ are complete Riemannian manifolds of dimension $m$ and $n-\ell$ respectively, satisfying $m\geq \ell+1$. If the immersion $\varphi$ is proper, then $$\label{eqABD-mean}
\sup_{M}\vert H\vert \geq (m-\ell)\cdot C_{b}(r).$$
Main results
=============
The purpose of this paper is to extend these curvature estimates to a larger class of submanifolds, precisely, the properly immersed $\phi$-bounded submanifolds. To describe this class we need to introduce few preliminaries.
$\phi$-bounded submanifolds {#sec:phi-bounded}
----------------------------
Consider $G \in C^{\infty}([0, \infty))$ satisfying $$\label{buonacurva2}G_{-}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+}),\,\,\,\,\,
t \int_{t}^{+\infty} G_-(s) {\mathrm{d}}s \le \frac{1}{4} \,\,\,\, \text{on }\,\, {\mathbb{R}}^+,$$ and $h$ the solution of the following differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqg}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
h''(t)-G(t)h(t)=0, \\[0.1cm]
h(0)=0, \,\,\,\,\; h'(0)=1.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ In [@bianchini-mari-rigoli Prop. 1.21], it is proved that the solution $h$ and its derivative $h'$ are positive in ${\mathbb{R}}^+=(0, \infty)$, provided $G$ satisfies and furthermore $h {\rightarrow}+\infty$ whenever the stronger condition $$\label{buonacurva}
G(s) \ge -\frac{1}{4s^2} \qquad \text{on } {\mathbb{R}}^+$$ holds. Define $\phi_h\in C^{\infty}([0, \infty))$ by $$\phi_{h}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}h(s)ds.\label{eq-phi}$$Since $h$ is positive and increasing in ${\mathbb{R}}^+$, we have that $\lim_{t\to \infty}\phi_h(t)=+\infty$. Moreover, $\phi_h$ satisfies the differential equation $$\phi_h''(t) - \displaystyle\frac{h'}{h}(t)\phi_h'(t)=0$$ for all $t\in [0, \infty)$.
#### Notation.
In this paper, $N$ will always be a complete Riemannian manifold with a distinguished point $z_0$ and radial sectional curvatures along the minimal geodesic issuing from $z_0$ bounded above by $K_{N}^{rad} (z)\leq -G(\rho_N(z))$, where $G$ satisfies the conditions . Let $h$ be the solution of associated to $G$ and $\phi_{h}=\int h(s)ds$. Finally, $\rho_{N}(z)={\rm dist}_{N}(z_0,z)$ will be the distance function on $N$. For any given complete Riemannian manifold $(L,y_0)$ with a distinguished point $y_0$ and radial sectional curvature[^3] bounded below ($K^{{\mathrm{rad}}}_{L}\geq - \Lambda^{2}$) and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ consider the subset $\Omega_{\phi_{h}}(\epsilon)\subset N\times L$ given by $$\Omega_{\phi_{h}}(\epsilon)=\left\{ (x,y)\in N\times L\colon \phi_{h}(\rho_{N}(x)) \leq \log (\rho_{L}(y)+1)^{1-\epsilon}\right\}.$$ Here $\rho_{L}(y)={\rm dist}_{L}(y_0, y)$, $y_0\in L$.
An isometric immersion $\varphi \colon M \to N\times L$ of a Riemannian manifold $M$ into the product $N\times L$ is said to be $\phi_{h}$-bounded if there exists a compact $K\subset M$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ such that $\varphi (M\setminus K)\subset \Omega_{h}(\epsilon)$.
The class of $\phi$-bounded submanifolds contains the class of cylindrically bounded submanifolds.
Curvature estimates for $\phi$-bounded submanifolds {#sec:curvEst}
----------------------------------------------------
In this section, we extend the cylindrically bounded version of Jorge-Koutrofiotis’s Theorem, Thm.\[thmABM\]-ii. and the mean curvature estimates of Thm.\[thm-Alias-Bessa-Dajczer\] to the class of $\phi_{h}$-bounded properly immersed submanifolds. These extensions are done in two ways. First: the class we consider is larger than the class of cylindrically bounded submanifolds. Second: there are no requirements on the growth on the second fundamental form as in Thm.\[thmABM\]. We also should observe that although $\phi$-bounded properly immersed submanifolds, ($\varphi \colon M \to N\times L$) are stochastically complete, provided $L$ has an Omori-Yau pair, see Section \[sec:OM-Pairs\], we do not need that to prove the following result.
\[thmMain-intro\] Let $\varphi\colon M\rightarrow N^{n-\ell}\times L^{\ell}$ be a $\phi_{h}$-bounded isometric immersion of a complete Riemannian $m$-manifold $M$ with $n-m\leq m-\ell -1$. If $\varphi$ is proper and $- G\leq b\leq 0$ then $$sup_{M}K_{M}\geq \vert b\vert +\inf_{N}K_{N}.
\label{eq-ABM-2}$$ With strict inequality $\sup_{M}K_{M}>\inf_{N}K_{N}$ if $b=0$.
\[CorMain-2\] Let $\varphi\colon M\rightarrow N^{n-\ell}\times L^{\ell}$ be a properly immersed, cylindrically bounded submanifold, $\varphi (M)\subset B_{N}(r)\times L^{\ell}$, where $B_{N}(r)$ is a regular geodesic ball of $N$. Suppose that $n-m \leq m-\ell-1$. Then the sectional curvature of $M$ satisfies the following inequality $$\sup_{M}K_{M}\geq C_{b}^2(r) +\inf_{N}K_{N},
\label{eq-ABM-4}$$where $b=\sup_{ B_{N}(r)}K_{N}^{rad}$ and $C_{b}$ is defined in .
Our next main result extends the mean curvature estimates to $\phi$-bounded submanifolds.
Let $\varphi\colon M\rightarrow N^{n-\ell}\times L^{\ell}$ be a $\phi_{h}$-bounded isometric immersion of a complete Riemannian $m$-manifold $M$ with $m\geq \ell+1$. If $\varphi$ is proper then the mean curvature vector $H={\rm tr}\, \alpha$ of $\varphi$ satisfies\[thmMain-2\] $$\sup_{M}\vert H \vert \geq (m-\ell)\cdot\inf_{r\in [0, \infty)} \frac{h'}{h}(r)\cdot$$ If $-G\leq b\leq 0$ then $$\sup_{M}\vert H \vert \geq (m-\ell)\cdot\sqrt{\vert b\vert}.$$With strict inequality $\sup_{M}\vert H \vert >0$ if $b=0$.
Proof of the main results
=========================
Basic results
-------------
Let $M$ and $W$ be Riemannian manifolds of dimension $m$ and $n$ respectively and let $\varphi\colon M\to W$ be an isometric immersion. For a given function $g\in C^\infty(W)$ set $f=g\circ\varphi\in C^\infty(M)$. Since $$\langle{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_M}f,X\rangle=\langle{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_W}g, X\rangle$$ for every vector field $X\in TM$, we obtain $${{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_W}g={{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_M}f +({{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_W}g)^{\perp}$$ according to the decomposition $TW=TM\oplus T^\perp M$. An easy computation using the Gauss formula gives the well-known relation (see e.g. [@jorge-koutrofiotis]) $$\label{eqBF2}
{{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}f(X,Y)= {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_W}g(X,Y) +\langle{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_W}g,\alpha(X,Y)\rangle$$ for all vector fields $X,Y\in TM$, where $\alpha$ stands for the second fundamental form of $\varphi$. In particular, taking traces with respect to an orthonormal frame $\{ e_{1},\ldots, e_{m}\}$ in $TM$ yields $$\label{eqBF3}
\triangle_{_M}f =\sum_{i=1}^{m}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_W}g(e_i,e_i)+ \langle{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_W}g,H\rangle.$$ where $H=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha(e_i,e_i)$.
In the sequel, we will need the following well known results, see the classical Greene-Wu [@GW] for the Hessian Comparison Theorem and Pigola-Rigoli-Setti’s must looking atbook [@prs-vanishing Lemma 2.13], see also [@swanson], [@bianchini-mari-rigoli Thm.1.9] for the Sturm Comparison Theorem.
\[HCT\] Let $W$ be a complete $n$-manifold and $\rho_{_W}(x)={\rm dist}_{_W}(x_0,x)$, $x_0\in W$ fixed. Let $D_{x_{0}}=W\setminus (\{x_0\}\cup {\rm cut}(x_0))$ be the domain of normal geodesic coordinates at $x_0$. Let $G\in C^{0}([0, \infty))$ and let $h$ be the solution of . Let $[0, R)$ be the largest interval where $h>0$. Then
- If the radial sectional curvatures along the geodesics issuing from $x_0$ satisfies $$K_{_W}^{rad}\geq -G(\rho_{_W}),\,\,{\rm in} \,\,B_{_W}(R)$$ then $${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_W}\rho \leq \frac{h'}{h}(\rho_{_W})\left[ \langle, \rangle - {\mathrm{d}}\rho \otimes {\mathrm{d}}\rho \right]\,\,{\rm on}\,\,D_{x_0}\cap B_{_W}(R)$$
- - If the radial sectional curvatures along the geodesics issuing from $x_0$ satisfy $$K_{_W}^{rad}\leq -G(\rho_{_W}),\,\,{\rm in} \,\,B_{_W}(R)$$ then $${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_W}\rho_{_W} \geq \frac{h'}{h}(\rho)\left[ \langle, \rangle - {\mathrm{d}}\rho \otimes {\mathrm{d}}\rho \right]\,\,{\rm on}\,\,D_{x_0}\cap B_{_W}(R)$$
\[sturm\]Let $G_1, G_2\in L^{\infty}_{loc}(\mathbb{R})$, $G_1\leq G_2$ and $h_1$ and $h_2$ solutions of the following problems: $$\begin{array}{ll}a.)\left\{ \begin{array}{rll} h_1''(t)-G_1 (t)h_1 (t) &\leq&0 \\
h_1(0)= 0,\,\,\, \,\,
h'_1(0)&>&0\end{array}\right. &\,\,\, b.)\left\{ \begin{array}{rll} h_2''(t)-G_2 (t)h_2 (t) &\geq &0 \\
h_2(0)=0,\,\,\,\,\,
h'_2(0)&>&h'_1(0),\end{array}\right.
\end{array}$$and let $I_1=(0, S_1)$ and $I_{2}=(0,S_2)$ be the largest connected intervals where $h_1>0$ and $h_2>0$ respectively. Then
- $S_1\leq S_2.$ And on $ I_1$, $\displaystyle\frac{h'_1}{h_1}\leq \frac{h'_2}{h_2}$ and $h_1\leq h_2$.
- - If $h_1(t_o)=h_2(t_o)$, $t_o\in I_1$ then $h_1\equiv h_2$ on $(0,t_o)$.
For a more detailed Sturm Comparison Theorem one should consult the beautiful book [@prs-vanishing Chapter 2.]. If $-G=b\in \mathbb{R}$ then the solution of $h_{b}''(t)-G\cdot h_{b} (t)=0$ with $h_{b}(0)=0$ and $h_{b}'(0)=1$ is given by $$h_{b}(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{clrll}\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{-b}}\cdot \sinh( \sqrt{-b}\,t) &{\rm if}& b&<&0\\
&&&&\\
t &{\rm if}& b&=&0 \\
&&&&\\ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}\cdot\sin(\sqrt{b}\,t) &{\rm if}& b&>&0.\end{array}\right.$$ In particular, if the radial sectional curvatures along the geodesics issuing from $x_0$ satisfy $K_{_W}^{rad}(x)\leq- G(\rho_{_W}(x))\leq b$, $x\in B_{_W}(R)=\{x,{\rm dist}_{_W}(x_0,x)= \rho_{_W}(x)<R\}$, then the solution $h$ of , satisfies $\displaystyle (h'/h)(t)\geq (h_{b}'/h_{b})(t)=C_{b}(t),$ $t\in (0, R)$, $R< \pi/2\sqrt{b}$, if $b>0$. Therefore, ${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{_W}\rho_{_W}\geq C_{b}(\rho_{_W})\left[\langle, \rangle -{\mathrm{d}}\rho_{_W}\oplus{\mathrm{d}}\rho_{_W}\right]$. Likewise, if $K_{_W}^{rad}(x)\geq -G(\rho_{_W}(x))\geq b$, $x\in B_{_W}(R)$ then $\displaystyle (h'/h)(t)\leq C_{b}(t),$ $t\in (0, R)$ and ${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{_W}\rho_{_W}\leq C_{b}(\rho_{_W})\left[\langle, \rangle -{\mathrm{d}}\rho_{_W}\oplus{\mathrm{d}}\rho_{_W}\right]$.
Proof of Theorem \[thmMain-intro\].
-----------------------------------
Assume without loss that there exists a $x_0\in M$ such that $\varphi(x_0)
=(z_0,y_0)\in N\times L$, $z_0$, $y_0$ the distinguished points of $N$ and $L$. For each $x\in M$, let $\varphi (x)=(z(x), y(x))$. Define $ g \colon N\times L \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ by $ g(z,y) = \phi_{h}(\rho_{_N}(z))+1 $, recalling that $\phi_{h}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}h(s)ds$, and define $ f=g\circ \varphi \colon M \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ by $ f(x) = g(\varphi(x))=\phi_{h}(\rho_{_N}(z(x)))+1$. For each $k\in \mathbb{N}$, set $g_{k}(x) = f(x) - \frac{1}{k}\cdot \log(\rho_{_L}(y(x))+1)$. Observe that $g_{k}(x_0)=1$ for all $k$, since $\rho_{_N}(z_0)= \rho_{_L}(y_0)=0$. First, let us prove the item i.
If $x \to \infty$ in $M$ then $\varphi (x)\to \infty$ in $N\times L$ since $ \varphi $ is proper. On the other hand, $\varphi (M\setminus K)\subset \Omega_{h}(\epsilon)$ for some compact $K\subset M$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$. This implies that $y(x)\to \infty$ in $L$ and $$\frac{g_{k}(x)}{\log(\rho_{_L}(y(x))+1)}=\frac{f(x)}{\log(\rho_{_L}(y(x))+1)}-\frac{1}{k} <\frac{1}{\log(\rho_{_L}(y(x))+1)^{\epsilon}}-\frac{1}{k}<0$$for $\rho_{_M}(x)\gg 1.$ This implies that $g_{k}(x)<0$ for $\rho_{_M}(x)\gg 1$. Therefore each $g_{k}$ reach a maximum at a point $x_{k}\in M$. This yields a sequence $ \{x_{k}\}\subset M$ so that ${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M}g_{k}(x_k)(X,X)\leq 0$ for all $X\in T_{x_k}M$, this is, $\forall X\in T_{x_{k}}M $ $${{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}f(x_{k})(X,X)\leq \frac{1}{k}\cdot {{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}\log(\rho_{_L}( y(x_{k}))+1)(X,X).\label{eqHessiano-1}$$
Observe that $\log(\rho_{_L}( y(x_{k}))+1)= \log(\rho_{_L}\circ \pi_{L} +1) \circ \varphi (x_k)$, $\pi_{_L}\colon N\times L \to L$ the projection on the second factor, thus the right hand side of , using the formula , is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}\log(\rho_{_L}( y(x_{k}))+1)(X,X)&=&{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{N\times L}}\log(\rho_{_L}\circ \pi_{L} +1)(\varphi (x_k))(X,X)\nonumber \\
&&\label{eqHessiano2}\\
&+& \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{N\times L}} \log(\rho_{_L}\circ \pi_{L} +1), \alpha(X,X) \rangle\nonumber\end{aligned}$$Where $\alpha$ is the second fundamental form of $\varphi$. For simplicity, set $\psi(t)=\log (t+1)$, $z_k=z(x_k)$, $y_{k}=y(x_{k})$, $s_k=\rho_{_N}(z_k)$ and $t_{k}=\rho_{_L}(y_k)$. Decomposing $X\in TM$ as $X=X^{N}+X^{L}\in TN\oplus TL$, we see that the first term of the right hand side of is $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{N\times L}}\psi\circ \rho_{_L}\circ y(x_{k})(X,X) &=& \psi''(t_k)\vert X^{L}\vert^{2}+\psi'(t_k){{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L} \rho_{_L}(y_k)(X,X)\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\label{eqHessiano3-1} \\
&\leq & \psi''(t_k)\vert X^{L}\vert^{2}+ C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)\frac{\vert X^{N}\vert^{2}}{(t_k+1)}\\
&&\nonumber \\
&\leq & C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)\frac{\vert X^{N}\vert^{2}}{(t_k+1)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$since ${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L} \rho_{_L}(y_k)(X,X)\leq C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)\vert X^{N}\vert^{2} $ (by Theorem \[HCT\]) and $\psi'' \leq 0$.
The second term of the right hand side of is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{N\times L}} \psi\circ \rho_{_L}\circ y(x_{k}), \alpha(X,X)\rangle &=& \psi'(t_k)\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_L} \rho_{_L}(y_k), \alpha (X, X)\rangle \nonumber\\
&& \nonumber \\
&\leq & \frac{1}{(t_k+1)}\Vert \alpha\Vert \cdot \vert X \vert^{2} \label{eqHessiano4-1} \end{aligned}$$
From and we have the following $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M}\psi\circ \rho_{_L}\circ y(x_{k})(X,X)&\leq & \frac{C_{-\Lambda^2}(t_k)+ \Vert \alpha\Vert }{(t_k+1)}\cdot \vert X\vert^{2}\label{eqHessiano5-1}
\end{aligned}$$And from and we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M}f(x_{k})(X,X)& \leq &
\frac{1}{k}\frac{(C_{-\Lambda^2}(t_k)+ \Vert \alpha\Vert)}{(t_k+1)}\vert X\vert^{2}\label{eqHessianoI-1}
\end{aligned}$$
We will compute the left hand side of . Using the formula again we have $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M}f(x_{k}) &=& {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{N\times L}} g(\varphi (x_k)) + \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{N\times L}}\, g, \alpha \rangle\label{eqHessiano6-1}\end{aligned}$$Recalling that $f=g\circ\varphi$ and $g$ is given by $ g(z,y) = \phi_{h}(\rho_{_N}(z)) $, where $\phi_{h}$ is defined in and $ \rho_{_N}(z) = dist_{N}(z_{0},z) $. Let us consider an orthonormal basis $$\{\stackrel{\in TN}{\overbrace{ {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{\!_N}, \partial/\partial \theta_{\!_1}, \ldots, \partial/\partial \theta_{\!_{n-\ell-1}}}}, \stackrel{\in TL}{\overbrace{ \partial/\partial \gamma_{\!_1}, \ldots, \partial/\partial \gamma_{\!_\ell} }}\}\label{base}$$ for $T_{\varphi (x_k)}(N\times L)$. Thus if $X\in T_{x_k}M$, $\vert X\vert =1$, we can decompose $$X=a\cdot {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{_N}+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1}b_{j}\cdot \partial/\partial \theta_{j} + \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}c_{i}\cdot \partial/\partial \gamma_i$$ with $a^2+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1} b_{j}^{2}+ \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} c_{i}^{2}=1$. Recalling that $s_k=\rho_{_N}(z(x_k))$, we can see that the first term of the right hand side of $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{N\times L}} g(\varphi (x))(X,X)\!&=&\!\phi_{h}''(s_k)\!\cdot \! a^2+ \phi_{h}'(s_k)\!\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1}\!b_j^{2}\cdot \!{{{\rm Hess}\,}}\rho_{_N}\!(z_k)(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_{j}},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_{j}})\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber \\
&\geq &\!\phi_{h}''(s_k)\cdot a^2+ \phi_{h}'(s_k)\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1}\!b_j^{2}\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k)\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber \\
&=& \phi_{h}''(s_k)\cdot a^2+ (1-a^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\!c_i^{2})\cdot \phi_{h}'(s_k)\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k)\nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&=& \left[\stackrel{\equiv 0}{(\overbrace{\phi_{h}''-\frac{h'}{h}\cdot \phi_{h}'})}a^2 + (1- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\!c_i^{2})\cdot \phi_{h}'\cdot \frac{h'}{h}\right](s_k) \nonumber\\
&&\nonumber \\
&=& (1- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\!c_i^{2})\cdot \phi_{h}'(s_k)\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Thus $$\label{eqHessiano7}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{N\times L}} g(\varphi (x))(X,X)\geq (1- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\!c_i^{2})\cdot \phi_{h}'(s_k)\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k).$$
The second term of the right hand side of is the following $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{N\times L}} g, \alpha (X,X)\rangle & = & \phi_{h}'(s_k)\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_N} \rho_{_N}(z_k), \alpha (X,X)\rangle\nonumber\\
&& \label{eqHessiano8}\\
&\geq & -\phi_{h}'(s_k)\vert \alpha(X,X) \vert\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
From , , we have that,
$${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M}f(x_{k})(X,X) \geq \left[(1- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\!c_i^{2})\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \vert \alpha (X ,X) \vert\right]\phi_{b}'(s_k)\label{eqHessiano9-1}$$
Recall that $n+\ell\leq 2m-1$. This dimensional restriction implies that $m\geq \ell + 2$, since $n\geq m+1$. Therefore, for every $x\in M$ there exists a sub-space $V_x\subset T_xM$ with ${\rm dim}(V_x)\geq (m-\ell)\geq 2$ such that $V\perp TL$, this is equivalent to $c_i=0$. If we take any $X\in V_{x_k}\subset T_{x_k}M$, $\vert X\vert=1$ we have by that
$$\frac{(C_{-\Lambda^2}(t_k)+ \vert \alpha(X,X)\vert)}{k(t_k+1)}\geq {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M}f(x_{k})(X,X) \geq \left[ \frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \vert \alpha (X ,X) \vert\right]\phi_{h}'(s_k)\label{eqHessiano10}$$
Thus, reminding that $\phi'_h=h$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqHessiano11-p} \left[\frac{1}{k(t_k+1)} + h(s_k)\right]\vert \alpha (X ,X) \vert\geq h'(s_k)-\frac{C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{k(t_k+1)}\end{aligned}$$
Since $-G\leq b \leq 0$, we have by Lemma \[sturm\] (Sturm’s argument) that the solution $h$ of satisfies $ \displaystyle (h'/h)(t)\geq C_{b}(t)>\sqrt{\vert b\vert}$ and that $h(t)\to +\infty$ as $t\to +\infty$, where $C_b$ is defined in . Let us assume that $x_{k}\to \infty$ in $M$, (the case $\rho_{M}(x_k)\leq C^{2} < \infty$ will be considered later), then $s_{k}\to \infty$ as well as $t_{k}\to \infty$. Thus from , for sufficiently large $k$, we have at $\varphi (x_k)$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqHessiano11-b} \left[\frac{1}{k(t_k+1)h(s_k)} + 1\right]\vert \alpha (X ,X) \vert &\geq & \frac{h'(s_k)}{h(s_k)}-\frac{C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{k(t_k+1)h(s_k)}\nonumber \\
&\geq & C_{b}(s_k)-\frac{C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{k(t_k+1)h(s_k)}\nonumber\\
&>& 0\end{aligned}$$ Thus, at $x_k$ and $X\in T_{x_k}M$ with $\vert X\vert=1$ we have $$\label{eq27}\vert\alpha (X,X)\vert \geq\left[ C_{b}(s_k)-\frac{C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{k(t_k+1)h(s_k)}\right]\left[\frac{1}{k(t_k+1)h(s_k)} + 1\right]^{-1}>0.$$ We will need the following lemma known as Otsuki’s Lemma [@kobayashi-nomizu p.28].
Let $ \beta \colon \mathbb{R}^{q}\times\mathbb{R}^q \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d $, $ d \leq q-1 $, be a symmetric bilinear form satisfying $ \beta(X,X)\neq 0 $ for $ X\neq 0 $. Then there exists linearly independent vectors $ X,Y $ such that $\beta(X,X)=\beta(Y,Y) $ and $ \beta(X,Y)=0 $.
The [*horizontal*]{} subspace $V_{x_k}$ has dimension ${\rm dim}(V_{x_k})\geq m-\ell\geq 2$. Thus, by the inequality and $n-m\leq m-\ell-1\leq {\rm dim}(V_{x_k})-1 $, we may apply Otsuki’s Lemma to $\alpha (x_k)\colon V_{x_k}\times V_{x_k}\to T_{x_k}M^{\perp}\simeq \mathbb{R}^{n-m}$ to obtain $X, Y\in V_{x_k}$, $\vert X\vert \geq \vert Y\vert \geq 1$ such that $\alpha (x_k)(X,X)= \alpha (x_k)(Y,Y)$ and $\alpha (x_k)(X,Y)=0$.
By the Gauss equation we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{curvaturek}
K_{M}(x_k)(X,Y) - K_{N}(\varphi(x_k))(X,Y) &=& \frac{\langle \alpha (x_k)(X,X),\alpha (x_k)(Y,Y)\rangle }{\vert X\vert^{2}\vert Y\vert^{2} - \langle X,Y\rangle^{2}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\vert \alpha (x_k)(X,X)\vert^{2}}{\vert X\vert^{2}\vert Y\vert^{2}} \nonumber \\
&\geq & \left(\frac{\vert \alpha (x_k)(X,X)\vert }{\vert X\vert^{2}}\right)^{2}\nonumber \\
&=& \left\vert \alpha (x_k)\left(\frac{X}{\vert X\vert },\frac{X}{\vert X\vert }\right)\right\vert^{2}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$This implies by that $$\sup K_{M}-\inf K_{N}>\left( \left[\frac{h'(s_k)}{h(s_k)}-\frac{C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{k(t_k+1)h(s_k)}\right]\left[\frac{1}{k(t_k+1)h(s_k)} + 1\right]^{-1}\right)^{2}>0.$$ Therefore, $ \sup K_{M}-\inf K_{N}>0$ regardless $b=0$ or $b<0$. If $b<0$ we let $k \to +\infty$ and then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sup K_{M}-\inf K_{N}&\geq& \lim_{s_{k}\to \infty} \left[\frac{h'}{h} (s_k)\right]^2= \vert b\vert\end{aligned}$$
The case where the sequence $ \{x_k\} \subset M $ remains in a compact set, we proceed as follows. Passing to a subsequence we have that $ x_k \rightarrow x_{\infty} \in M $. Thus $t_{k}\to t_{\infty}<\infty$ and $s_{k}\to s_{\infty}<\infty$. By $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{M}f(x_{\infty})(X,X)& \leq &
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{(C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_{\infty})+ \vert \alpha (x_{\infty})(X,X)\vert )}{k(t_{\infty}+1)}=0,\label{eqHessianoI-I}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $ X \in T_{x_0}M $. Using the expression on the right hand side of we obtain for every $ X \in V_{x_\infty} $ $$\begin{aligned}
0 \geq {{{\rm Hess}\,}}f(x_\infty)(X,X) \geq \left[(1- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\!c_i^{2})\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_\infty) - \vert \alpha (X ,X) \vert\right]\phi_{b}'(s_\infty) .\end{aligned}$$There exists a sub-space $V_x\subset T_xM$ with ${\rm dim}(V_x)\geq (m-\ell)\geq 2$ such that $V\perp T\mathbb{R}^{\ell}$, this is equivalent to $c_i=0$. If we take any $X\in V_{x_\infty}\subset T_{x_\infty}M$, $\vert X\vert=1$ we have hence $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \alpha_{x_\infty}(X,X)\vert \geq \frac{h'}{h}(s_{\infty})\vert X\vert^2 .\end{aligned}$$
Again, using Otsuki’s Lemma and Gauss equation, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{M}K_{M} - \inf_{B_{N}(r)}K_{N} \geq \frac{h'}{h}(s_{\infty}) > \vert b\vert.\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[thmMain-2\].
--------------------------------
We will follow the proof of Theorem \[thmMain-intro\] closely. Recall that $g_{k}$ reaches a maximum at $ x_{k}\in M$, $k=1,2,\ldots$, thus so that $\triangle_{\!_M}g_{k}(x_k)\leq 0$. Thus $$\triangle_{_M}f(x_{k})\leq \frac{1}{k}\cdot \triangle_{_M}( \log(\rho_{_L}\circ \pi_{L} +1) \circ \varphi (x_k)).\label{eqLaplacianoP}$$ Using the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle_{_M}( \log(\rho_{_L}\circ \pi_{L} +1) \circ \varphi (x_k))&=&\sum_{i=1}^{m}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{N\times L}\log(\rho_{\mathbb{R}^{\ell}}\circ \pi_{L} +1)(\varphi (x_k))(X_{i},X_{i})\nonumber \\
&&\label{eqHessiano2A}\\
&&+\, \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{N\times L}} \log(\rho_{_L}\circ \pi_{L} +1), H \rangle\nonumber\end{aligned}$$where $H=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha(X_i,X_i)$ is the mean curvature vector while $\alpha$ is the second fundamental form of the immersion $\varphi$ and $\{X_i\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $T_{x_k}M$.
As before, decomposing $X\in TM$ as $X=X^{N}+X^{L}\in TN\oplus TL$ and setting $\psi(t)=\log (t+1)$, $y_{k}=y(x_{k})$ and $t_{k}=\rho_{_L}(y_k)$ we have that the right hand side of $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{N\times L}\psi\circ \rho_{_L}\circ y(x_{k})(X_i,X_i) &=& \psi''(t_k)\sum_{i=1}^{m}\vert X_{i}^{L}\vert^{2}\nonumber \\ && +\,\psi'(t_k)\sum_{i=1}^{m}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{L} \rho_{_L}(y_k)(X_i,X_i)\nonumber\\
&&\label{eqHessiano3} \\
&\leq & \frac{C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{(t_k+1)}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\vert X_{i}^{N}\vert^{2},\nonumber\\
&& \nonumber \\
& \leq & \frac{m\cdot C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{(t_k+1)}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$since $\psi'' \leq 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{N\times L} \psi\circ \rho_{_L}\circ y(x_{k}), H\rangle &=& \psi'(t_k)\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{_L}(y_k), H\rangle \nonumber\\
&& \nonumber \\
&\leq & \frac{1}{(t_k+1)}\vert H\vert \label{eqHessiano4} \end{aligned}$$
From , and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle_{M} \log(\rho_{_L}( y(x_{k}))+1)&\leq & \frac{m\cdot C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)+ \vert H\vert }{(t_k+1)}\label{eqHessiano5}
\end{aligned}$$And from and we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle_{M}f(x_{k})& \leq &
\frac{m\cdot C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)+ \vert H\vert }{k(t_k+1)}\label{eqHessianoI}
\end{aligned}$$
We will compute the left hand side of . Recall that $f=g\circ\varphi$ and $g$ is given by $ g(z,y) = \phi_{h}(\rho_{_N}(z)) $, where $\phi_{}$ is defined in . Using the formula again we have $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle_{M}f(x_{k})&=& \sum_{i=1}^{m}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{N\times L} g(\varphi (x_k))(X_i,X_i) + \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\, g, H\rangle\label{eqHessiano28}\end{aligned}$$ Consider the orthonormal basis for $T_{\varphi (x_k)}(N\times L)$. Thus if $X_i\in T_{x_k}M$, $\vert X_i\vert =1$, we can decompose $$X_i=a_i\cdot {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{_N}+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1}b_{ij}\cdot \partial/\partial \theta_{j} + \sum_{l=1}^{\ell}c_{il}\cdot \partial/\partial \gamma_l$$ with $a_i^2+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1} b_{ij}^{2}+ \sum_{l=1}^{\ell} c_{il}^{2}=1$. Set $z_k=z(x_k)$ and $s_k=\rho_{_N}(z_k)$. We have as in $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{N\times L} g(\varphi (x))(X_i,X_i)&\geq &(1- \sum_{l=1}^{\ell}\!c_{il}^{2})\cdot \phi_{h}'(s_k)\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k)\label{eqHessiano29}\end{aligned}$$
The second term of the right hand side of is the following, if $\vert X\vert =1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}g, H\rangle & = & \phi_{h}'(s_k)\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{_N}(z_k), H\rangle\nonumber\\
&& \label{eqHessiano30}\\[-1mm]
&\geq & -\phi_{h}'(s_k)\vert H \vert\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Therefore from , , we have that,
$$\triangle_{M}f(x_{k}) \geq \left[(m- \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{l=1}^{\ell}\!c_{il}^{2})\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \vert H \vert\right]\phi_{b}'(s_k)\label{eqHessiano31}$$
From and we have
$$\frac{m\cdot C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)+ \vert H\vert }{k(t_k+1)}\geq \triangle_{M}f(x_{k}) \geq \left[ (m-\ell)\cdot\frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \vert H \vert\right]\phi_{h}'(s_k)\label{eqHessiano10-B}$$
Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqHessiano33} \sup_{M}\vert H \vert\left[\frac{1}{h(s_k)\cdot k \cdot (t_k+1)} + 1\right] & \geq & (m-\ell)\cdot\frac{h'}{h}(s_k) -\frac{m\cdot C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{h(s_k)\cdot k \cdot (t_k+1)}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Letting $k\to \infty$ we have $$\sup_{M}\vert H \vert \geq (m-\ell)\cdot\lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{h'}{h}(s_k)\cdot$$
If in addition, we have that $-G\leq b \leq 0$ then $ \displaystyle (h'/h)(s)\geq C_{b}(s)$. The case that $b=0$ we have $\displaystyle (h'/h)(s_k) \geq 1/s_k$ and $h(s_k)\geq s_k$. Since the immersion is $\phi$-bounded we have $s_{k}^{2} \leq 2\log (t_{k}+1)^{(1-\epsilon)} $. Thus for sufficient large $k$ $$\sup_{M}\vert H \vert\left[\frac{1}{s_k\cdot k \cdot (t_k+1)} + 1\right]\geq \frac{ m-\ell}{s_k} -\frac{m\cdot C_{-\Lambda^{2}}(t_k)}{s_k\cdot k \cdot (t_k+1)}>0.$$ This shows that $\sup_{M}\vert H\vert >0$.
In the case $b<0$, we have $ (h'/h)(s_k)\geq C_{b}(s_k)\geq \sqrt{\vert b\vert}$ and $$\sup_{M}\vert H \vert \geq (m-\ell)\cdot\lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{h'}{h}(s_k)\geq \sqrt{\vert b\vert}.$$
The statements of Theorems \[thmMain-intro\] and \[thmMain-2\] are also true in a slightly more general situation. This is, if, instead a proper $\phi$-bounded immersion, one asks a proper immersion $\varphi\colon M\to N\times L$ with the property $$\lim_{x\to \infty_{in\,M}} \frac{\phi_{h}(\rho_{_N}(z(x)))}{\log (\rho_{_L}(y(x))+1)}=0 ,$$ where $\varphi(x)=(z(x),y(x))\in N\times L$.
Omori-Yau pairs {#sec:OM-Pairs}
================
Omori, in [@omori], discovered an important global maximum principle for complete Riemannian manifolds with sectional curvature bounded below. Omori’s maximum principle was refined and extended by Cheng and Yau, [@cheng-yau], [@yau], [@yau2], to Riemannian manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded below and applied to find elegant solutions to various analytic-geometric problems on Riemannian manifolds. There were others generalizations of the Omori-Yau maximum principle under more relaxed curvature requirements in [@chen-xin], [@dias] and an extension to an all general setting by S. Pigola, M. Rigoli and A. Setti in their beautiful book [@prs-memoirs]. There, they introduced the following terminology.
The Omori-Yau maximum principle holds on a Riemannian manifolds $W$ if for any $u\in C^{2}(W)$ with $u^{\ast}\colon=\sup_{\!_W}u<\infty$, there exists a sequence of points $x_{k}\in W$, depending on $u$ and on $W$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-omori-2}
\lim_{k\to \infty}u(x_{k}) =u^{\ast},& \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}u\vert (x_{k}) < \displaystyle \frac{1}{k},& \triangle u(x_{k}) < \displaystyle \frac{1}{k}.\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, the Omori-Yau maximum principle *for the Hessian* holds on $W$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-omori}
\lim_{k\to \infty}u(x_{k}) =u^{\ast},& \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}u\vert (x_{k}) < \displaystyle \frac{1}{k},& {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_W} u(x_{k})(X,X) < \displaystyle \frac{1}{k}\cdot \vert X \vert^{2},\end{aligned}$$for every $X\in T_{x_k}W$.
A natural and important question is, what are the Riemannian geometries the Omori-Yau maximum principle holds on? It does hold on complete Riemannian manifolds with sectional curvature bounded below holds [@omori], it holds on complete Riemannian manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded below [@cheng-yau], [@yau], [@yau2]. Follows from the work of Pigola-Rigoli-Setti [@prs-memoirs] that the Omori-Yau maximum principle holds on complete Riemannian manifolds $W$ with Ricci curvature with strong quadratic decay, $$Ric_{_W} \geq - c^{2}\cdot\rho_{\!_W}^{2}\cdot\Pi_{i=1}^{k}(\log^{(i)}(\rho_{\!W}+1),\,\,\,\rho_{\!_W}\gg 1.$$ The notion of Omori-Yau pair was formalized in [@alias-bessa-montenegro-piccione], after the work of Pigola-Rigoli-Setti. The Omori-Yau pair is, here, described for the Laplacian and for the Hessian however, it certainly can be extended to other operators or bilinear forms.
\[def:OY-pair\]Let $W$ be a Riemannian manifold. A pair $ (\mathcal{G},\gamma)$ of smooth functions $ \mathcal{G} \colon [0,+\infty) \rightarrow (0,+\infty) $, $ \gamma \colon W \rightarrow [0,+\infty) $, $\mathcal{G}\in C^{1}([0, \infty)),\,\gamma \in C^{2}([0, \infty))$, forms an Omori-Yau pair for the Laplacian in W, if they satisfy the following conditions:
- $\gamma (x) \rightarrow +\infty $ as $x\rightarrow \infty$ ${\rm in\;W} $.
- - $\mathcal{G}(0)>0$, $ \mathcal{G}'(t) \geq 0$ and $\displaystyle{\int_{0}^{+\infty}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} = +\infty}.$
- - $\exists A>0$ constant such that $ \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_W} \gamma\vert \leq A \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}}+1\right) $ off a compact set.
- - $\exists B>0$ constant such that $\triangle_{_W} \gamma \leq B \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}}+1\right)$ off a compact set.
The pair $ (\mathcal{G},\gamma)$ forms an Omori-Yau pair for the Hessian if instead h.4) one has
- $\exists C>0$ constant such that ${{{\rm Hess}\,}}\gamma \leq C \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}}+1\right) $ off a compact set, in the sense of quadratic forms.
The result [@prs-memoirs Thm.1.9] captured the essence of the Omori-Yau maximum principle and it can be stated as follows.
If a Riemannian manifold $M$ has an Omori-Yau pair $(\mathcal{G}, \gamma)$ then the Omori-Yau maximum principle on it.
The main step in the proof of Alias-Bessa-Montenegro’s Theorem (Thm.\[thmABM\]) and Alias-Bessa-Dajczer’s Theorem (Thm.\[thm-Alias-Bessa-Dajczer\]) is to show that a cylindrically bounded submanifold, properly immersed into $ N\times L$, with [*controlled*]{} second fundamental form or [*controlled*]{} mean curvature vector, has an Omori-Yau pair, provided $L$ has an Omori-Yau pair. Thus, the Omori-Yau maximum principle holds on those submanifolds and their proof follows the steps of Jorge-Koutrofiotis’s Theorem. On the other hand, the idea behind the proof of Theorems \[thmMain-intro\] & \[thmMain-2\] is that: the factor $L$ has bounded sectional curvature it has a natural Omori-Yau pair ($\mathcal{G}, \gamma$). This Omori-Yau pair together with the geometry of the factor $N$ allows us to consider an unbounded region $\Omega_{\phi}$ such that if $\varphi \colon M \to \Omega_{\phi} \subset N\times L$ is an isometric immersion then there exists a function $f\in C^{2}(M)$, not necessarily bounded, and a sequence $x_k\in M$ satisfying $\triangle f (x_k)\leq 1/k$. We show that a properly immersed $\phi$-bounded submanifold has an Omori-Yau pair for the Laplacian, provided the fiber $L$ has an Omori-Yau pair for the Hessian. We show in Theorem \[thm-OYBFL\] that an Omori-Yau pair for the Hessian guarantee the Omori-Yau sequence for certain unbounded functions, as this unbounded function $f$ we are working. This leads to stronger forms of Theorem \[thmMain-intro\]. & Theorem \[thmMain-2\].
Let $M$, $N$, $L$ be complete Riemannian manifolds of dimension $m$, $n-\ell$ and $\ell$, with distinguished points $x_0$, $z_0$ and $y_0$ respectively. Suppose that $K_{N}^{{\mathrm{rad}}}\leq - G(\rho_{_N})$, $G$ satisfying . Let $h$ solution of and $\phi_{h}$ as in . Suppose in addition that $L$ has an Omori-Yau pair for the Hessian $(\gamma, \mathcal{G})$. Let $\Omega_{h, \gamma, \mathcal{G}}(\epsilon)\subset N\times L$ be the region defined by $$\Omega_{h, \gamma, \mathcal{G}}(\epsilon) =\{(z, y)\in N\times L\colon \phi_{h}\circ\rho_{_N}(z(x))\leq \left[\psi\circ\gamma (y(x))\right]^{1-\epsilon}\},$$ where $ \displaystyle{\psi(t) = \log\left(\int_{0}^{t}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}}+1\right)}$. In this setting we have the following result.
\[ThmBFP\] Let $ \varphi \colon M \to N\times L$ be a properly immersed submanifold such that $\varphi (M\setminus K )\subset \Omega_{h, \gamma, \mathcal{G}}(\epsilon) $ for some compact $K\subset M$ and positive $\epsilon \in (0,1)$.
- If $K_{N}^{{\mathrm{rad}}}\leq -G\leq b\leq 0$ and the codimension satisfies $n-m\leq m-\ell -1$ then $$\sup_{M}K_{M}\geq \vert b\vert + \inf_{N}K_{N}.$$ With strict inequality $\sup_{M}K_{M}>\inf_{N}K_{N}$ if $b=0$.
- If $m\geq \ell +1$ then $$\sup_{M}\vert H \vert \geq (m-\ell)\cdot\inf_{r\in [0, \infty)} \frac{h'}{h}(r)\cdot$$ If $-G\leq b\leq 0$ then $$\sup_{M}\vert H \vert \geq (m-\ell)\cdot\sqrt{\vert b\vert}.$$With strict inequality $\sup_{M}\vert H \vert >0$ if $b=0$.
Assume without loss of generality that there exists $x_0\in M$ such that $\varphi(x_0)
=(z_0,y_0)\in N\times L$. As before, $\varphi (x)=(z(x), y(x))$ and $g,p\colon N\times L \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $g(z, y)=\phi_{h}(\rho_{N}(z)) + \psi(\gamma (y))$, $p(z,y)=\psi(\gamma(y))$.
For each $k\in \mathbb{N}$, let $g_{k}\colon M \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $g_{k}(x)=g\circ \varphi (x) - p\circ \varphi(x)/k$. Observe that $g_k(x_0)=1$ and for $\rho_{_M}(x)\gg 1$, we have that $g_{k}(x)<0$. This implies that $g_k$ has a maximum at a point $x_k$, yielding in this way a sequence $\{x_k\}\subset M$ such that ${{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}g_k(x_k)\leq 0$ in the sense of quadratic forms. Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[thmMain-intro\] we have that for $X\in T_{x_k}M$, $${{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}g\circ \varphi (x_k)(X,X)\leq \frac{1}{k} {{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}p \circ \varphi(x_k)(X,X). \label{eqHessGP-1}$$ We have to compute both terms of this inequality. Considering once more the orthonormal basis for $T_{\varphi (x_k)}(N\times L)$ we can decompose, $X\in T_{x_k}M$, $\vert X\vert =1$, (after identifying $X$ with $d\varphi X$), as $$X=a\cdot {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{_N}+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1}b_{j}\cdot \partial/\partial \theta_{j} + \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}c_{i}\cdot \partial/\partial \gamma_i$$ with $a^2+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1} b_{j}^{2}+ \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} c_{i}^{2}=1$. Setting $s_k=\rho_{N}(z(x_k))$, $t_k=\gamma(y(x_k))$, we have as in , $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}g\circ \varphi (x_k)(X,X)&=&{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{N\times L}} g (\varphi(x_k))(X,X)+ \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{N\times L}}g, \alpha(X,X)\rangle\nonumber \\ \label{eqHessGP-2}
&\geq &\left[(1- \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\!c_i^{2})\cdot \frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \vert \alpha (X ,X) \vert\right]\phi_{b}'(s_k)\\
&& \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm {{{\rm Hess}\,}}}_{\!_M}}p \circ \varphi(x_k)(X,X)&=&{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{N\times L}} p (\varphi(x_k))(X,X)+ \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{N\times L}}p, \alpha(X,X)\rangle\nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&=&\psi''(t_k)\langle X, {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L}\! \gamma \rangle^{2} \! +\!\psi'(t_k){{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L} \gamma (X, X)\nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
& &+\,\,\psi'(t_k)\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{L}}\gamma , \alpha(X,X)\rangle \nonumber\\
&& \nonumber \\
&\leq & \psi'(t_k)\left({{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L} \gamma (X, X) + \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{\!_{L}}\gamma\vert \cdot \vert \alpha(X,X)\vert \right) \label{eqHessGP-3} \\
&& \nonumber \\
&\leq & \displaystyle\frac{\left[\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma (t_k))}\displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{t_{k}} \frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma (s))}}+1\right)\right]\left(C+ A \cdot \vert \alpha(X,X)\vert\right)}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma (t_k))}\displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{t_{k}} \frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma (s))}}+1\right)}\nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&=& C+ A \cdot \vert \alpha(X,X)\vert,\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ since $\psi''\leq 0$. Taking in consideration the bounds & , the inequality yields, ($\phi'(s)=h(s)$), $$\left[\frac{A}{k\cdot h(s_k)} + 1\right]\vert \alpha (X,X)\vert \geq (1-\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}c_{i}^{2})\frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \frac{C}{k \cdot h(s_k)}\label{eqHessGP-4}.$$ Under the hypotheses of item 1. we have that $(h'/h)(s)\geq C_{b}(s)>\sqrt{\vert b\vert}$ and $h(s)\to \infty$ as $s\to \infty$. Moreover, there exists a subspace $V_{x_k}\subset T_{x_k}M$, ${\rm dim}V_{x_k}\geq 2$, such that if $X\in V_{x_k}$ then $X=a\cdot {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{_N}+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1}b_{j}\cdot \partial/\partial \theta_{j}.$ Therefore, for $X\in V_{x_k}$, $\vert X\vert=1$, we have for $k\gg 1$. $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{A}{k\cdot h(s_k)} + 1\right]\vert \alpha (X,X)\vert & \geq & \frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \frac{C}{k \cdot h(s_k)} \nonumber \\
&>& \vert b\vert -\frac{C}{k \cdot h(s_k)} \\
&>& 0.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$The proof follows exactly the steps of the proof of Theorem \[thmMain-intro\] and we obtain that $\sup_{_M} K_{M}\geq \vert b\vert + \inf_{_N}K_{N}$ if $b<0$ and $\sup_{_M} K_{M}>\inf_{_N}K_{N}$ if $b=0$.
To prove item 2., take an orthonormal basis $X_1,...,X_q,...,X_m\in T_{x_k}M$, $$X_q=a_q\cdot {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\rho_{_N}+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1}b_{jq}\cdot \partial/\partial \theta_{j} + \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}c_{iq}\cdot \partial/\partial \gamma_i$$ with $a_q^2+\sum_{j=1}^{n-\ell-1} b_{jq}^{2}+ \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} c_{iq}^{2}=1.$ Tracing the inequality to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{A}{k\cdot h(s_k)} + 1\right]\vert H\vert &\geq & (m-\sum_{q=1}^{m}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}c_{iq}^{2})\frac{h'}{h}(s_k) - \frac{C}{k \cdot h(s_k)}\nonumber \\ \label{eqHessGP-5}
&\geq &(m-\ell) C_b(s_k)- \frac{C}{k \cdot h(s_k)}\\
&>&0\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ for $k\gg 1$. If $b=0$ then $C_b(s)=1/s$ then, coupled with the estimate $h(s)\geq s \sqrt{s}$, see [@bianchini-mari-rigoli], we deduce that $\sup_{_M}\vert H\vert >0$. And if $b<0$ then $C_b(s)\geq \sqrt{\vert b\vert }>0$, then letting $k\to \infty$ we have $\sup_{_M} \vert H \vert \geq (m-\ell) \sqrt{\vert b\vert }>0$ if $b<0$. We can see these curvature estimates as geometric applications of the following extension of the Pigola, Rigoli, Setti [@prs-memoirs Thm.1.9].
\[thm-OYBFL\]Let $W$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with an Omori-Yau pair $(\mathcal{G}, \gamma)$ for the Hessian $($Laplacian$)$. If $u \in C^{2}(W)$ satisfies $
\displaystyle{\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\frac{u(x)}{\psi(\gamma(x))}} = 0 ,
$ where $
\displaystyle{\psi(t) = \log\left(\int_{0}^{t}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}}+1\right)},
$ then there exist a sequence ${x_{k}} \in M$, $k \in \mathbb{N} $ such that $$\begin{array}{lllllllllll} \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_W} u\vert(x_{k})& \leq& \displaystyle\frac{A}{k}, &&
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{_W} u(x_{k}) & \leq & \displaystyle\frac{C}{k} && ( \triangle_{_W} u(x_{k})&\leq & \displaystyle\frac{B}{k})\end{array}$$ If $u^{\ast}=\sup_{M}u<\infty$ then $u(x_{k})\to u^{\ast}$. The constants $A$, $B$ and $C$ come from the Omori-Yau pair $(\mathcal{G}, \gamma)$, see Definition \[def:OY-pair\].
This result above should be compared with [@prs-jfa Cor. A1.], due to Pigola, Rigoli, and Setti where they proved an Omori-Yau for quite general operators, applicable to certain unbounded functions with growth to infinity faster than ours. However, we could replace the distance function of their result by an Omori-Yau pair. It would be interesting to understand these facts.
Assume that the Omori-Yau pair $(\mathcal{G}, \gamma)$ is for the Hessian. The case of the Laplacian is similar. Fix a point $x_0\in M$ such that $\gamma (x_0)>0$ and define for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$, $g_{k}\colon M \to \mathbb{R}$ by $g_{k}(x) = u(x) - \displaystyle\frac{1}{k}\psi(\gamma(x)) + 1- u(x_0) - \displaystyle\frac{1}{k}\psi (\gamma(x_0))$. We have that $g_{k}(x_0)=1$ and $g_{k}(x)\leq 0$ for $\rho_{_W}(x)={\rm dist}_{_W}(x_0, x)\gg 1$. Thus there is a point $x_k$ such that $g_{k}$ reaches a maximum. This way we find a sequence $x_k\in M$ such that for all $X\in T_{x_{k}}W$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{_W}u(X,X) &\leq & \frac{1}{k}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{_W}\psi (\gamma)(X,X)\nonumber \\ &=&\frac{1}{k}\left[ \psi''(\gamma)\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_W}\gamma, X \rangle^{2}+ \psi'(\gamma){{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{_W}\gamma (X,X)\right] \nonumber\\
&\leq & \frac{1}{k}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}} \, \displaystyle\frac{1}{\displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma} \displaystyle\frac{ds}{\mathcal{G}(s)}\,+\,1\right)}\, C \, \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\, \displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma} \displaystyle\frac{ds}{\mathcal{G}(s)}\,+\,1\right) \right]\vert X\vert^{2}\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{C}{k}\vert X \vert^{2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$We used that $\psi''\leq 0$ and ${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{_W}\gamma (X,X)\leq C \, \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\, \displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma} \displaystyle\frac{ds}{\mathcal{G}(s)}+1\right)$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_W}u\vert &=& \displaystyle\frac{1}{k}\vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_W}\psi(\gamma)\vert\nonumber \\ &\leq & \displaystyle\frac{1}{k}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}} \, \displaystyle\frac{1}{\displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma} \displaystyle\frac{ds}{\mathcal{G}(s)}+1\right)}\, A \, \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\, \displaystyle\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma} \displaystyle\frac{ds}{\mathcal{G}(s)}+1\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq & \displaystyle\frac{A}{k}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Omori-Yau pairs and warped products
------------------------------------
Let $(N, g_{_N})$ and $(L, g_{_L})$ be complete Riemannian manifolds of dimension $n-\ell$ and $\ell$ respectively and $\xi\colon L \to \mathbb{R}_{+}$ be a smooth function. Let $\varphi \colon M \to L\times_{\xi}N$ be an isometric immersion into the warped product $L\times_{\xi}N=(L\times N, ds^{2}= g_{_L}+ \xi^2g_{_N})$. The immersed submanifold $\varphi(M)$ is cylindrically bounded if $\pi_{N}(\varphi(M))\subset B_{N}(r)$, where $\pi_{N}\colon L\times N \to N$ is the canonical projection in the $N$-factor and $B_{N}(r)$ is a regular geodesic ball of radius $r$ of $N$. Alías and Dajczer in the proof of [@alias-dajczer Thm.1], showed that if $ \varphi $ is proper in $L\times N$ then the existence of an Omori-Yau pair for the Hessian in $ L $ induces an Omori-Yau pair for the Laplacian on $M$ provided the mean curvature $ \vert H \vert $ is bounded. We can prove a slight extension of this result.
\[pullbackomoriyau\] Let $ \varphi \colon M \rightarrow L\times_{\xi}N $ be an isometric immersion, proper in the first entry, where $ L $ carries an Omori-Yau pair $(\mathcal{G},\gamma) $ for the Hessian, $ \xi \in C^{\infty}(L) $ is a positive function satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hipeta}
\vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\log \xi (y)\vert \leq \ln\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma(y)}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $\varphi(x)=(y(x), z(x))$ and if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hipcurvmedia}
\vert H(\varphi(x))\vert \leq \ln\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma (y(x))}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}}+1\right),\end{aligned}$$then $ M$ has an Omori-Yau pair for the Laplacian. In particular, $M$ holds the Omori-Yau maximum principle for the Laplacian.
The idea of the proof is presented in [@alias-dajczer] and therefore will try to follow the same notation to simplify the demonstration. Let ($\mathcal{G}, \gamma$) the Omori-Yau pair for the Hessian of $L$. Assume w.l.o.g. that $ M $ is non-compact and denote $ \varphi(x) = (y(x), z(x)) $. Define $ \Gamma(y,z) = \gamma(y) $ and define $ \vartheta (x)= \Gamma\circ \varphi = \gamma(y(x)) $. We will show that $ (\mathcal{G},\vartheta) $ is an Omori-Yau pair for the Laplacian in $ M $. Indeed, let $ q_k \in M $ a sequence such that $ q_k \rightarrow \infty $ in $ M $ as $ k \rightarrow +\infty $. Since $ \varphi $ is proper in the first entry, we have that $ y(q_k) \rightarrow \infty $ in $ L $. Since $\vartheta(q_k)= \gamma (y(q_k)) $ we have $ \vartheta(q_k) \rightarrow \infty $ as $ q_{k} \rightarrow \infty $ in $M$.
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gradGama}
{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}} \,\Gamma(z,y) = {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma (z) .\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \xi = \Gamma\circ\varphi $, we obtain at $\varphi (q)$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}}\, \Gamma& = &({{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}} \Gamma)^{T} + ({{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}} \Gamma)^{\perp}\nonumber \\
&=& {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_M} \xi + ({{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}} \Gamma)^{\perp}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By hypothesis we have $$\begin{aligned}
\vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_M}\, \xi \vert(q) &\leq & \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}}\, \Gamma\vert (\varphi(q))
= \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L}\,\gamma\vert(y(q)) \nonumber \\
&&\\
&\leq & \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma(y(q)))}\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma(y(q))}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ out of a compact subset of $ M $.
Let $T,S\in TL$, $X,Y\in TN$ and $\nabla^{L\times_{\xi} N}$, $\nabla^{L}$ and $\nabla^{N}$ be the Levi-Civita connections of the metrics $ds^{2}=g_{L}+ \xi^2g_{N}$, $g_{L}$ and $g_{N}$ respectively. It is easy to show that $\nabla^{^{L\times_{\xi} N}}_{S}T= \nabla^{^{L}}_{S}T$ and $ \nabla^{^{L\times_{\xi} N}}_{X}T = \nabla^{^{L\times_{\xi} N}}_{T}X = T(\eta)X $ where $ \eta = \log\xi $. Therefore, $$\begin{array}{lll}\nabla^{^{L\times_{\xi} N}}_{T}{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}} \Gamma &=& \nabla^{^{L}}_{_T}{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma \\
&& \\
\nabla^{^{L\times_{\xi} N}}_{X}{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_{L\times_{\xi} N}} \Gamma &=& {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma(\eta)\,X .
\end{array}$$ Hence, $$\begin{array}{lllll}{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{L\times_{\xi} N}}\Gamma(T,S)& = & {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L}\gamma(T,S), \,\,\, {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{L\times_{\xi} N}}\Gamma(T,X)& =& 0\\
&&&&\\ {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{L\times_{\xi} N}}\Gamma(X,Y)&=&\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \eta,{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma\rangle\langle X,Y\rangle.&&\end{array}$$
For any unit vector $ e \in T_{q}M $, decompose $ e = e^L + e^N $, where $ e^L \in T_{y(q)}L $ and $ e^N \in T_{z(q)}N $. Then we have at $\varphi (q)$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{L\times_{\xi} N}}\Gamma(e,e) = {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L}\gamma(y(q))(e^L,e^L) + \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma,{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \eta\rangle(y(q))\vert e^N\vert^2 .\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, ${{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M} \xi(q)(e,e)= {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_{L\times_{\xi} N}}\Gamma(e,e)+ \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{L\times_{\xi} N} \Gamma,\alpha(e,e)\rangle$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expression1}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M} \xi(q)(e,e) &=& {{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L}\gamma(e^L,e^L) + \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma,{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \eta\rangle(z(q))\vert e^P\vert^2 \nonumber \\
&& \\
&&+ \,\,\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma,\alpha(e,e)\rangle.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
However, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expressionI}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_L}\gamma \leq \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right),\end{aligned}$$ out of a compact subset of $ L $. By hypothesis, see , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expressionII}
\langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma,{{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \eta\rangle(y(q)) \!&\leq & \!\vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L}\gamma\vert \cdot \vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L}\eta\vert \nonumber \\
&\leq & \!\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right)\ln\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right).\end{aligned}$$
Considering $(\ref{expressionI})$, $(\ref{expressionII})$ and $(\ref{expression1})$ we have that (off a compact set) $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Hess}\,}}_{\!_M} \xi(q)(e,e) &\leq & C\cdot \sqrt{\mathcal{G}(\gamma)}\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right)\ln\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right)\nonumber \\
&& \\
&& + \langle {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}_{_L} \gamma,\alpha (e,e)\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $C$. Thus, by $(\ref{hipcurvmedia})$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle \gamma \leq B\sqrt{G(\gamma)}\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right)\ln\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right)\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $B$. Concluding that $(\mathcal{G}, \xi)$ is an Omori-Yau pair for the Laplacian in $M$. The proof of [@alias-dajczer Thm.1] coupled with Lemma \[pullbackomoriyau\] allows us to state the following technical extension of Alias-Dajczer’s Theorem [@alias-dajczer Thm.1].
\[Thm-AD\]Let $ \varphi \colon M \rightarrow L\times_{\xi}N $ be an isometric immersion, proper in the first entry, where $ L $ carries an Omori-Yau pair $(\mathcal{G},\gamma) $ for the Hessian, $ \xi \in C^{\infty}(L) $ is a positive function satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hipeta-B}
\vert {{{\rm{grad}\,}}}\log \xi (y)\vert \leq \ln\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma(y)}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}} + 1\right).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $\varphi(x)=(y(x), z(x))$ and if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hipcurvmedia-B}
\vert H(\varphi(x))\vert \leq \ln\left(\int_{0}^{\gamma (y(x))}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{\mathcal{G}(s)}}+1\right).\end{aligned}$$Suppose that $\varphi (M)\subset \{ (y,z): y\in L,\,z\in B_{_N}(r)\}$ then $$\sup_{M}\xi\vert H\vert \geq (m-\ell)C_{b}(r),$$ where $b=\sup_{B_{_N}(r)}K^{{\mathrm{rad}}}_{_N}$.
The Theorems \[thmMain-intro\] & \[thmMain-2\] should have versions for $\phi$-bounded submanifold of warped product $L\times_{\xi}N$. Specially interesting should be the Jorge-Koutrofiotis Theorem in this setting. We leave to the interested reader to pursue it.
As a last application of Theorem \[thm-OYBFL\], let $ N^{n+1} = I\times_{\xi}P^n $ the product manifold endowed with the warped product metric, $ I \subset \mathbb{R} $ is a open interval, $ P^n $ is a complete Riemannian manifold and $ \xi \colon I \to \mathbb{R}_{+} $ is a smooth function. Given an isometrically immersed hypersurface $ \varphi \colon M^{n} \to N^{n+1} $, define $ h : M^{n} \to I $ the $ C^{\infty}(M^{n}) $ height function by setting $ h = \pi_{I}\circ \varphi $, where $\pi_{I}\colon I\times P\to I$ is a projection. This result below is a technical extension of [@alias-impera-rigoli Thm.7] its proof is exactly as there, we just relaxed the hypothesis guaranteeing an Omori-Yau sequence.
\[hypersufacetheorem\] Let $ \varphi \colon M^{n} \to N^{n+1} $ be an isometrically immersed hypersurface. If $ M^n $ has an Omori-Yau pair $(\mathcal{G}, \gamma)$ for the Laplacian and the height function $ h $ satisfies $
\displaystyle{\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\frac{h(x)}{\psi(\gamma(x))}} = 0$ then $$\sup_{M^n}\vert H \vert \geq \inf_{M^n}\mathcal{H}(h) ,$$ with $ H $ being the mean curvature and $ \displaystyle{\mathcal{H}(t) = \frac{\rho'(t)}{\rho(t)}} $.
**Acknowledgements.** We want to express our gratitude to our friend Newton Santos for their suggestions along the preparation on this paper.
[llll]{}
L. J. Alias, G. P. Bessa, M. Dajczer, The mean curvature of cylindrically bounded submanifolds, Math. Ann. **345**(2), 367–376 (2009)
L. J. Alías, G. P. Bessa, J. F. Montenegro, An Estimate for the sectional curvature of cylindrically bounded submanifolds. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **364**(7), 3513–3528 (2012)
L. J. Alías, G. P. Bessa, J. F. Montenegro, P. Piccione Curvature estimates for submanifolds in warped products. Results Math. **60**, 265–286 (2011)
L. J. Alías, M. Dajczer, A mean curvature estimate for cylindrically bounded submanifolds. Pacific J. Math. **254**(1), 1–9 (2011).
L. J. Alías, D. Impera, M. Rigoli, Hypersurfaces of constant higher order mean curvature in warped products. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **365** 591–621 (2013) B. Bianchini, L. Mari, M. Rigoli, On some aspects of Oscillation Theory and Geometry. To appear in Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.
Q. Chen, Y. L. Xin, A generalized maximum principle and its applications in geometry. Amer. J. of Math., [**114**]{}, 355–366, (1992).
S. Y. Cheng and S. T. Yau, Differential equations on Riemannian manifolds and their applications. Comm. Pure. Appl. Math. **28**, 333–354 (1975)
S. S. Chern and N. H. Kuiper, Some theorems on the isometric imbedding of compact Riemannian manifolds in Euclidean space. Ann. of Math. (2) **56** 442–430 (1952)
C. C. Dias, Isometric immersions with slow growth of curvature. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. **54**, 293–29, (1982). N. Efimov, [*Hyperbolic problems in the theory of surfaces.*]{} Proc. Int. Congress Math. Moscow (1966); Am. Math. Soc. translation **70**, 26–-38 (1968) R.E. Greene, H. Wu, [*Function theory on manifolds which possess a pole.*]{} Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. **699**, Springer, Berlin, 1979. D. Hilbert, [*Über Flächen von konstanter Krümmung.*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **2** (1901), 87-99. L. Jorge and D. Koutrofiotis, An estimate for the curvature of bounded submanifolds. Amer. J. Math. **103** 711–725 (1980)
S. Kobayashi, K. Nomizu, Foundations of Differential Geometry vol II. Interscience Tracts in Pure and Appl. Math., no. 15, New York, (1969). J. D. Moore, An application of second variation to submanifold theory. Duke Math. J. **42**, 191–193 (1975) J. Nash, The imbedding problem for Riemannian manifolds. Ann. of Math. (2) **63**, 20–63 (1956) H. Omori, Isometric immersions of Riemannian manifolds. J. Math. Soc. Japan **19**(2), 205–214 (1967).
B. O’Neill, Immersions of manifolds of non-positive curvature. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **11** 132–134 (1960)
T. Otsuki, Isometric imbedding of Riemannian manifolds in a Riemannian manifold. J. Math. Soc. Japan, **6**, 221–234 (1954) S. Pigola, M. Rigoli, A. G. Setti, [*Maximum principles and singular elliptic inequalities.*]{} J. Funct. Anal. **193**, 224–260 (2002) S. Pigola, M. Rigoli and A. G. Setti, A remark on the maximum principle and stochastic completeness. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **131** 1283–-1288 (2003),
S. Pigola, M. Rigoli, A. G. Setti, Maximum Principles on Riemannian Manifolds and Applications. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, vol. **174**, no. **822** (2005). American Mathematical Society - AMS, Providence, Rhode Island.
S. Pigola, M. Rigoli A. G. Setti, Vanishing and Finiteness Results in Geometric Analysis. Progress in Mathematics vol. **266**, (2008), Birkhäuser, Basel-Boston-Berlin. E. Stiel, Immersions into manifolds of constant negative curvature. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **18**, 713–715 (1967)
C. A. Swanson, Comparison and Oscillation Theory for Linear differential operators. Academic press, New York and London, (1968). C. Tompkins, Isometric embedding of flat manifolds in Euclidean spaces. Duke Math. J. **5**, 58–61 (1939) S. T. Yau, Harmonic functions on complete Riemannian manifolds. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **28**, 201-228 (1975) S. T. Yau, A general Schwarz lemma for Kähler manifolds. Amer. J. Math. **100**, 197–203 (1978)
[^1]: The authors were partially supported by CNPq-Brazil, PROCAD-PICME-CAPES-Brazil and The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics - ICTP, Italy.
[^2]: Meaning: immersed into regular geodesic balls of a Riemannian manifold.
[^3]: Along the geodesics issuing from $y_0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Nishita Desai
- Ushoshi Maitra
- Biswarup Mukhopadhyaya
bibliography:
- 'hrad.bib'
title: 'An updated analysis of radion-higgs mixing in the light of LHC data'
---
Introduction
============
The announced discovery of a boson in the mass range 125-126 GeV, by both the ATLAS [@Aad:2012tfa] and CMS [@Chatrchyan:2012ufa] collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment, has naturally generated a lot of enthusiasm among particle physicists. As of now, the properties of the particle whose signature has been avowedly noticed are consistent with those of the Standard Model (SM) higgs boson. However, the present data also leave some scope for it being a scalar with a certain degree of non-standard behaviour. The analysis of such possibilities, both model-independently and on the basis of specific theoretical scenarios, has consumed rather substantial efforts in the recent months.
One scenario of particular interest in this context is one with a warped extra spacelike dimension. First proposed by Randall and Sundrum (RS), it has a non-factorizable geometry with an exponential warp factor [@Randall:1999ee]. Furthermore, the extra dimension is endowed with an $S_1 /Z_2$ orbifold symmetry, with two 3-branes residing at the orbifold fixed points, the SM fields being confined to one of the branes (called the ‘visible brane’, at $y = r_c \pi$, where $r_c$ is the radius of the compact dimension and $y$ is the co-ordinate along that dimension). When the warp-factor in the exponent has a value of about 35, mass parameters of the order of the Planck scale in the ‘bulk’ get scaled down to the TeV scale on the visible branch, thus providing a spectacular explanation of the hierarchy between these two scales.
A bonus in the low-energy phenomenology of this model is the occurrence of TeV-scale Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the spin-2 graviton on the visible brane, with coupling to the SM fields suppressed by the TeV scale [@Davoudiasl:1999jd; @Davoudiasl:2000wi; @Chang:1999yn]. The mass limit on the lowest excitation of the graviton in this scenario has already gone beyond 2 TeV (with certain assumptions on the model parameters) [@ATLAS-CONF-2013-017; @Chatrchyan:2013qha]. However, another interesting and testable feature of this theory results from the mechanism introduced to stabilize the radius of the compact dimension, where the radius is envisioned as arising from the vacuum expectation value (vev) of a modular field. This field can be naturally given a vev by hypothesizing a brane-dependent potential for it, resulting in a physical field of geometrical origin, popularly called the radion field, with mass and vev around the electroweak scale, which couples to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor [@Goldberger:1999uk; @Goldberger:1999un]. Consistency with general covariance demands the addition of terms giving rise to mixing between the SM higgs and the radion [@Giudice:2000av; @Csaki:2000zn; @Csaki:1999mp; @Dominici:2002jv; @Csaki:2007ns]. Consequently, speculations have been made on whether the 125-126 GeV state, instead of being a pure SM higgs, could instead be the radion, or a mixture of the two.
A number of studies have already taken place in this direction, based on both the ‘pure radion’ and ‘radion-higgs mixing’ hypotheses [@Mahanta:2000zp; @Gunion:2003px; @Toharia:2004pv; @Toharia:2008tm; @Frank:2012nb; @Rizzo:2002bt; @Cheung:2005pg; @Han:2001xs; @Chaichian:2001rq; @Battaglia:2003gb; @Bhattacherjee:2011yh; @Goncalves:2010dw; @Barger:2011hu; @Cheung:2011nv; @Davoudiasl:2012xd; @Low:2012rj; @Soa:2012ra; @Chacko:2012vm; @Barger:2011qn; @Grzadkowski:2012ng; @deSandes:2011zs; @Kubota:2012in; @Ohno:2013sc; @Cho:2013mva]. In the present work, we perform a global analysis of the available data, assuming that both of the physical states arising from radion-higgs mixing contribute to the event rates in various channels. Using both the 2011 and 2012 data, we obtain the best fit points in terms of the parameters of the model. Furthermore, we obtain the 95% confidence level contours in the parameter space, which indicate the extent to which new physics can be accommodated in the light of the available results. Side by side, we identify the regions which are disallowed by data in one or more channels, as obtained from the published 95% C.L. exclusion limits on the signal strength, defined as $\mu = \sigma/\sigma_{SM}$, where $\sigma$ is the predicted cross-section in the relevant channel for a specific combination of the model parameters, and $\sigma_{SM}$ is the corresponding prediction for the SM higgs boson. The region that is left after such exclusion can be treated as one where the presence of a radion-like (higgs-like) scalar is compatible with the data as of now. A comparison of this region with the 95% C.L. contours around the best fit values of the parameters indicates the viability (or otherwise) of this particular new physics scenario.
Our work improves upon other recent studies based on LHC data [@Kubota:2012in; @Grzadkowski:2012ng; @deSandes:2011zs; @Cho:2013mva] in a number of ways. This is the first global analysis, following a $\chi^2$-minimisation procedure, of radion-higgs mixing, using the latest available data from 7 and 8 TeV LHC runs to obtain best fit parameters and significance contours. We include the possibility of an additional scalar mass eigenstate coexisting with the 125 GeV state, with both of them contributing to the final states looked for, subject to event selection criteria pertaining to the 125 GeV higgs. While it is unlikely that the contribution from the additional scalar will be confused with the signal of a 125 GeV scalar in the $\gamma\gamma$ and $ZZ^{(*)}$ final states (as the reconstructed invariant mass will point to two distinct resonances), it cannot [ *a priori*]{} be ruled out for the $WW^{(*)}$ channel. The presence of two neutrinos in the di-lepton final state makes it impossible to reconstruct the mass of the parent particle and one would therefore expect some enhancement to the signal strength due to the extra contribution from the second state which must be estimated by simulating the effect of the selection cuts used by the correponding experimental analyses. This makes the best-fit regions different from what one finds with the assumptions that the entire contribution in every channel comes from one scalar resonance only.
Secondly, we also use the strategy of simulating the full cut-based analysis in restricting the allowed regions from the available upper limit on $\sigma/\sigma_{SM}$ for an addition scalar with different mass, demanding not only (a) the extra contribution at 125 GeV be smaller than the current upper limit, but also (b) the combined contribution using cuts correponding to the SM higgs search at the mass of the extra resonance be smaller than the upper limit at that mass. Again, this makes a difference mainly in the $WW^{(*)}$ channel. The contribution here (as also in the case of global fits) is the sum of those from two distinct mass eigenstates, so that the acceptance of the cuts does not factor out when taking the ratio to expected SM cross section.
Thirdly, we have taken into account the interference between processes mediated by radion-higgs mixed mass eigenstates whenever they are close to each other. And finally, we have explicitly included processes where a relatively heavy, radion(higgs)-dominated state decays into two higgs(radion)-dominated scalars at 125 GeV, each of which can go to the decay channels searched for. In a way, this leads to an additional production mechanism of the 125 GeV state, which we have felt should be included in a full analysis.
The presentation of our paper is as follows. We outline the RS model with higgs-radion mixing in the next section. The strategy of our analysis is described in section 3, while section 4 contains the numerical results. We summarise and conclude in section 5.
The model and its parameters
============================
The minimal Randall-Sundrum model and the radion
------------------------------------------------
In the minimal version of Randall-Sundrum (RS) model, one has an extra warped spacelike compact dimension $y = r_c \phi$, where $r_c$ is the radius of compactification. An $S_1/Z_2$ orbifolding is applied with a pair of 3-branes at the orbifold fixed points (at $\phi = 0$ and $\phi
= \pi$). Gravity, propagating in the bulk, peaks at the first of these branes, usually called the Planck (hidden) brane (at $\phi = 0$), while the SM fields are confined to the visible brane (at $\phi =
\pi$).[^1]
The action for the above configuration is given by [@Randall:1999ee] $$\begin{aligned}
S & = & S_{gravity} + S_{v} + S_{h} \nonumber \\
S_{gravity} & = & \int d^4x \int _{-\pi} ^{\pi} d\phi \sqrt{-G} \{-\Lambda + 2M_5^3R\} \nonumber \\
S_{v} & = & \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_{v}} \{{\cal{L}}_{v} - V_{v}\} \nonumber \\
S_{h} & = & \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g_{h}} \{{\cal{L}}_{h} - V_{h}\} \end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts $v$ and $h$ refer to the visible and hidden branes respectively, $G$ is the determinant of the five dimensional metric $G_{MN}$ and the metrics on the visible and hidden branes are given by $$g^{v}_{\mu\nu}(x^\mu) \equiv G_{\mu\nu}(x^\mu,\phi = \pi) , g^{h}_{\mu\nu}(x^\mu) \equiv G_{\mu\nu}(x^\mu,\phi = 0)$$ the greek indices being representation of (1+3) dimensional coordinates on the visible (hidden) brane. $M_{5}$ is the 5-dimensional Planck mass and $\Lambda$ is the bulk cosmological constant. $V_{v}$ and $V_{h}$ are the brane tensions of visible and hidden branes respectively.
The bulk metric obtained after solving Einstein’s equations is then $$ds^2 = e^{-2k|y|} \eta_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu - dy^2$$ where $k = \sqrt{\frac{-\Lambda}{24 M_{5}^3}}$ and $$V_{h} = -V_{v} = 24M_5^3k.$$
$M_5$ is related to the 4-dimensional Planck mass $M_{Pl}$ by $$M^2_{Pl} = \frac{M^3_{5}}{k}[1 - e^{-2kr_c\pi}]$$
The 5-dimensional metric consists solely of mass parameters whose values are around the Planck scale. For the choice $kr_c \simeq 12$, which requires barely an order of disparity between the scales $k$ and $1/r_c$, the mass parameters on the visible brane are suppressed with respect to the Planck scale by the exponential factor $e^{kr_c\pi}
\simeq 10^{16}$, thus offering a rather appealing explanation of the hierarchy between the Planck and TeV scales. The Kaluza-Klein (KK) decomposition of the graviton on the visible brane leads to a discrete tower of states, with one massless graviton and a series of TeV-scale spin-2 particles. The massless graviton couples to all matter fields with strength $\sim 1/{M_P}$, while the corresponding couplings for the massive modes (in the TeV range) receive an exponential enhancement, thus opening up the possibility of observing signals of the massive gravitons in TeV-scale experiments [@Davoudiasl:1999jd; @Davoudiasl:2000wi; @Chang:1999yn]. Current experimental limits from the LHC rule out any mass for the lowest graviton excitation below $1.15(2.47)$ TeV for $k/M_P \le 0.01(0.1)$ [@ATLAS-CONF-2013-017].
The radius of compactification $r_c$, was an input by hand in the original model, however, it can be given a dynamic origin by linking it to the vev of a $\phi$-independent modulus field, $T(x)$, so that $r_c = \langle T \rangle$. We can define a new field $$\varphi(x) = \Lambda_\varphi e^{-k(T(x) - r_c)\pi}$$ with its vev given by $\Lambda_\varphi =
\sqrt{{\frac{24M_{5}^3}{k}}}e^{-k\pi r_c}$.
A vev for the modulus field can be dynamically generated if it has a potential. To generate the potential for $\varphi(x)$, a scalar field with bulk action is included along with interaction terms on the hidden and visible branes. The terms on the branes cause the scalar field to develop a $\phi$-dependent vev. Inserting this solution into the bulk scalar action and integrating over $\phi$ yields an effective potential for $\varphi(x)$ of the form $$V_{\varphi} (r_c) = k\epsilon v_h ^2 + 4ke^{-4kr_c\pi}(v_v - v_he^{-\epsilon kr_c\pi})^2(1+\epsilon/4) - k\epsilon v_he^{-(4+\epsilon)kr_c\pi}(2v_v - v_he^{-\epsilon kr_c\pi})$$ where $\epsilon \simeq m^2/4k^2$ $$V(\varphi) = \frac{k^3}{144M_{5}^6} \varphi^4(v_v - v_h(\frac{\varphi}{\Lambda_\varphi exp(k\pi r_c)})^\epsilon),$$
where $v_v$ and $v_h$ are interaction terms on the visible and hidden branes respectively and by assumption $\epsilon \ll 1$ This new massive filed $\varphi$ is the radion field, where mass is obtained from $\frac{\partial^{2}V(\varphi)}{\partial\varphi^{2}}$. Furthermore, one obtains the minimum of V($\varphi$) for $kr_c \approx
12$ for $ln(\frac{v_v}{v_h}) \sim 1$.
The radion mass, $m_\varphi$, and the vev $\Lambda_\varphi$, constitute the set of free parameters of the theory in the radion sector, which now has the distinction of ‘naturally’ generating a TeV-scale vev on the visible brane. They have implications on particle phenomenology within the reach of the LHC. In particular, the radion mass may turn out to be a little below a TeV, thus making the detection of radion somewhat easier that that of the KK mode of the graviton [@Goldberger:1999uk; @Goldberger:1999un].
Integrating over the orbifold coordinates it can be shown that the radion field couples to the trace of energy-momentum tensor $(T^{\mu}_{\nu})$. The canonically normalized effective action is $$S_\varphi = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}[\frac{2M_5^3}{k}(1 - \frac{\varphi^2}{\Lambda_\varphi^2}e^{-2k\pi r_c})R + \frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\varphi\partial^\mu\varphi - V(\varphi) + (1 - \frac{\varphi}{\Lambda_\varphi})T_\mu^\mu]$$
It should be noted that, while the radion has couplings that are very similar to those of the SM higgs, it has additional interaction with massless gauge boson (photon, gluon) pairs via the trace anomaly terms.
Radion-Higgs mixing
-------------------
In addition to the above action, general covariance also allows a higgs-radion mixing term [@Giudice:2000av], parametrized by the dimensionless quantity $\xi$. Such a term couples the higgs field to the Ricci scalar of the induced metric ($g_{ind}$) on the visible brane $$S = -\xi\int d^4x \sqrt{-g_{ind}}R(g_{ind})H^{\dagger}H$$ where $H = [(v + h)/\sqrt{2},0]$ with $v = 246$ GeV
For phenomenological purpose, we are interested in terms in $T^\mu_\mu$, which are bilinear in the SM fields. Retaining such terms only, one has $$T^{\mu}_{\mu} = T^{(1)\mu}_{\mu} + T^{(2)\mu}_{\mu}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(1)\mu}_{\mu} & = & 6\xi v\Box h \nonumber \\
T^{(2)\mu}_{\mu} & = & (6\xi - 1)\partial_\mu h\partial^\mu h + 6\xi h \Box h + 2 m_h^2 h^2 + m_{ij}\bar{\psi}_i\psi_j - M_v^2V_{A\mu}V^{\mu}_{A}\end{aligned}$$
$T^{(1)\mu}_\mu$ induces a kinetic mixing between $\varphi$ and h. After shifting $\varphi$ with respect to its vacuum expectation value $\Lambda_\varphi$ we obtain $${\cal{L}} = -\frac{1}{2} \varphi(\Box + m_\varphi ^2)\varphi - \frac{1}{2} h(\Box + m_h ^2)h - 6 \xi \frac{v}{\Lambda_\varphi}\varphi\Box h$$
We confine our study to a region of the paremeter space where the radion vev $\Lambda_\varphi$ is well above the vev of the SM higgs. Besides, it is phenomenologically safe not to consider $\xi$ with magnitude much above unity, since a large value may destabilise the geometry itself through back-reaction. Thus one can make the further approximation $6\xi \frac{v}{\Lambda_\varphi} << 1$. In this approximation, the kinetic energy terms acquire a canonical form under the basis transformation from $(\varphi, h)$ to $(\varphi^{'},h^{'})$, such that
$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi & = & (\sin\theta-\sin\rho \cos\theta)h^{'}+(\cos\theta+\sin\rho \sin\theta)\varphi^{'}\nonumber\\
h & = & \cos\rho \cos\theta h^{'}-\cos\rho \sin\theta \varphi^{'}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\tan\rho = 6\xi\frac{v}{\Lambda_\varphi}, ~~~~ \tan2\theta = \frac{2\sin\rho m_\varphi^2}{\cos^2\rho(m_{\varphi}^{2} - m_{h}^{2})}
\label{eqn:theta}$$ and one ends up with the physical masses $$\label{eqn:mass}
m_{\varphi^{'},h^{'}}^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left[(1 + \sin^{2}\rho) m_\varphi^{2} + \cos^{2}\rho m_h^{2} \pm \sqrt{\cos^4\rho (m_\varphi^2 - m_h^2)^2 + 4\sin^2\rho m_\varphi^4}\right]$$
The interactions of $\varphi^{'}$ and $h^{'}$ with fermions ($f$) and massive gauge bosons ($V$) is given by
$${\cal{L}}_{1} = \frac{-1}{v}(m_{ij}\bar{\psi_i}\psi_{j} - M_{v}^2 V_{A\mu}V_{A}^{\mu})(A_{h}h{'} + \frac{v}{\Lambda_{\varphi}} A_{\varphi} \varphi^{'})$$
As has been mentioned above, the coupling of $\varphi$ to a pair of gluons also includes the trace anomaly term. Taking it into account, the gluon-gluon couplings for both of the mass eigenstates are given by $${\cal{L}}_{2} = \frac{-1}{v}\frac{\alpha_s}{16\pi}G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu}(B_{h}h^{'} + \frac{v}{\Lambda_{\varphi}} B_{\varphi} \varphi{'})$$ while the corresponding Lagrangian for the photon is $${\cal{L}}_{3} = \frac{-1}{v}\frac{\alpha_{EM}}{8\pi}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}(C_{h}h^{'} + \frac{v}{\Lambda_{\varphi}} C_{\varphi} \varphi{'})$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber a_{h}^{1} & = & \frac{v}{\Lambda_{\varphi}}(\sin \theta - \sin \rho \cos \theta),\\
\nonumber a_{h}^{2} & = & \cos \rho \cos \theta,\\
\nonumber a_{\varphi}^{1} & = & \cos \theta + \sin \rho \sin \theta,\\
\nonumber a_{\varphi}^{2} & = & \frac{\Lambda_{\varphi}}{v}(\cos \rho \sin \theta),\\
\nonumber A_{h} & = & a_{h}^{1} + a_{h}^{2}, \\
\nonumber A_{\varphi} & = & a_{\varphi}^{1} - a_{\varphi}^{2}, \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber B_{h} & = & A_{h} F_{1/2}(\tau_{t}) - 2b_{3}a_{h}^{1}, \\
\nonumber B_{\varphi} & = & A_{\varphi} F_{1/2}(\tau_{t}) - 2b_{3}a_{\varphi}^{1}, \\
\nonumber C_{h} & = & A_{h} (\frac{4}{3}F_{1/2}(\tau_{t}) + F_{1}(\tau_{W})) - (b_{2} + b_{y})a_{h}^{1},\\
\nonumber C_{\varphi} & = & A_{\varphi} (\frac{4}{3}F_{1/2}(\tau_{t}) + F_{1}(\tau_{W})) - (b_{2} + b_{y})a_{\varphi}^{1} \\
\nonumber \tau_t & = & \frac{4m^{2}_t}{q^2}, \\
\nonumber \tau_W & = & \frac{4m^{2}_W}{q^2}, \\
b_3 & = & 7,~ b_2 = 19/6, ~ b_Y = -41/6.\end{aligned}$$ where $q^2 = m^2_{h^{'}}(m^2_{\varphi^{'}})$ depending on $h^{'}(\varphi^{'})\rightarrow gg,\gamma\gamma$. $b_{2}, b_{3}$ and $b_{Y}$ are the SM $\beta$-function coefficients in $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)\times U(1)_{Y}$ respectively. $F_{1}(\tau_W)$ and $F_{1/2}(\tau_t)$ are the form factor for W and top loop respectively. The form of these functions are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber F_{1/2}(\tau) & = & -2\tau[1 + (1 - \tau)f(\tau)], \\
\nonumber F_{1}(\tau) & = & 2 + 3\tau + 3\tau(2 - \tau)f(\tau), \\
\nonumber f(\tau) & = & [\sin^{-1}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau}})]^2, ~~~~ if~~\tau \geq 1 \\
\nonumber & = & \frac{1}{4}[ln(\frac{\eta_+}{\eta_{-}}) - \imath\pi]^2,~~~ if~~ \tau<1 \\
\eta_{\pm} & = & 1 \pm \sqrt{ 1 - \tau}.\end{aligned}$$
The coupling of $\varphi$ to $h$ depends on the Goldberger-Wise stabilization potential $V(\varphi)$. On assuming the self-couplings of $\varphi$ in $V(\varphi)$ to be small, we have $$\Gamma(\varphi^{'}\rightarrow h^{'} h^{'}) = \frac{m_{\varphi'}^{3}}{32\pi\Lambda_{\varphi}^2}[1 - 6\xi + 2\frac{m_{h'}^2}{m_{\varphi'}^2}(1 + 6\xi)]^2\sqrt{[1 - 4\frac{m_{h'}^2}{m_{\varphi{'}}^2}]}$$
Obviously, all interactions of either physical state are now functions of $m_{\varphi^{'}}, m_{h^{'}}, \Lambda_{\varphi}$ and $\xi$. In our subsequent calculations, we use these as the basic parameters, obtaining in each case the quantities $m_\varphi, m_h$ by inverting (Eqn. \[eqn:mass\]). Requiring that the discriminant in (Eqn. \[eqn:mass\]) to remain positive implies a restriction on the parameter $\xi$ as a function of the remaining three parameters. This constitutes a “theoretically allowed” region in $\xi$ for given ($m_{h^{'}}$, $m_{\phi^{'}}$, $\Lambda_\varphi$). Within this region, we have two solutions corresponding to $m_\varphi > m_h$ and $m_\varphi < m_h $ in (Eqn. \[eqn:mass\]). In the first case we have $m_{\varphi^{'}} \rightarrow m_\varphi$ and $m_{h^{'}}
\rightarrow m_{h}$ in the limit $\xi \rightarrow 0$. Exactly the opposite happens in the other case, with $m_{\varphi^{'}} \rightarrow
m_{h}$ and $m_{h^{'}} \rightarrow m_\varphi $ as $\xi$ approaches zero. A further constraint on $\xi$ follows when one requires $m_\varphi > m_h$. This is because one has in that case, $$m_\varphi^2 - m_h^2 = \frac{\sqrt{D} - \sin^{2}\rho(m_{\varphi^{'}}^2 + m_{h^{'}}^2)}{1 - \sin^{4}\rho}$$ where, $$D = (m_{\varphi^{'}}^2 + m_{h^{'}}^2)^2 - 4(1 + \sin^{2}\rho)m_{\varphi^{'}}^2 m_{h^{'}}^2$$ One thus ends up with the condition $ \sqrt{D} > \sin^{2}{\rho} (m_{\varphi^{'}}^2 + m_{h^{'}}^2) $, thus yielding an additional constraints on $\xi$.
In the other case described above one has $$m_\varphi^2 - m_h^2 = -\frac{\sqrt{D} + \sin^{2}\rho(m_{\varphi^{'}}^2 + m_{h^{'}}^2)}{1 - \sin^{4}\rho}$$ which trivially ensures $m_\varphi < m_h$.
We now define the convention for our analysis. (Eqn. \[eqn:mass\]) implies that the lightest state will always be $h'$. Thus, when $m_\varphi < m_h$, $h'$ becomes the radion-dominated state i.e. $m_{h'}\rightarrow m_{\varphi}$ when $\xi \rightarrow 0$. On the other hand, when $m_\varphi > m_h$, we have $m_{h'}\rightarrow
m_{h}$ when $\xi \rightarrow 0$. Let us label $\varphi^{'}(h^{'})$ as the mixed radion state $(R)$ if, on setting $\xi= 0$, one recovers $m_{\varphi^{'}} = m_\varphi~(m_{h^{'}} = m_\varphi)$. The other state is named the mixed higgs state (H).
Basically, the two interchangeable limits of the states $h^{'}$ and $\varphi^{'}$ for $\xi = 0$ in the two cases arise from the fact that the angle $\theta$ in (Eqn. \[eqn:theta\]) is 0 or $\pi/2$, depending on whether $m_\varphi > m_h$ or $m_\varphi < m_h$. Both of the above mass inequalities are thus implicit in (Eqn. \[eqn:mass\]).
Strategy for analysis
=====================
We propose to scan over the parameter space in terms of masses of the observable physical eigenstates $m_H$ and $m_R$ for all allowed values of the mixing parameter $\xi$ for a given $\Lambda_\varphi$. Since one scalar has been discovered at the LHC, two possibilities arise — viz. we identify the resonance near 125 GeV with either $H$ or $R$. To cover both these, we present two scenarios based on the conventions defined in the previous section. In the first case, we will fix mass of the mixed higgs state ($m_H = 125$ GeV) and scan over the mass of the mixed radion state ($m_R$) from 110 to 600 GeV. Exactly the opposite is done in the other case. We describe our analysis using the first case with the understanding that the identical arguments apply when $m_R$ is held fixed at 125 GeV. To improve the efficiency of our scan, we restrict it to two parameters viz. $(m_R,\xi)$ and take snapshot values of $\Lambda_\varphi$ at 1.5, 3, 5 and 10 TeV.
While it is possible to constrain $\Lambda_\varphi$ further using either heuristic arguments or from searches for KK excitation of the RS graviton [@Tang:2012pv], we refrain from doing so to examine whether the current higgs search data can provide a complementary method for constraining the parameters of the RS model. Thus we start our study with the lowest value radion vev at 1.5 TeV. Taken together with the mass limits on the first excitation of the RS graviton, this might imply values of the bulk cosmological constant well into the trans-Planckian region where quantum gravity effects may in principle invalidate the classical RS solution. However, it may also be possible to reconcile a low radion vev with rather large gravition masses in some extended scenarios, such as one including a Gauss-Bonnet term in the 5-dimensional action [@Kim:1999dq; @Kim:2000pz; @Rizzo:2004rq; @Choudhury:2013yg; @Maitra:2013cta].
We simulate the kinematics of the signal (higgs production and decay) using Pythia 8.160 [@Sjostrand:2007gs] and reweighting according to the changed couplings. In the region where the second resonance lies between 122-127 GeV, we use Madgraph 5 [@Alwall:2011uj] to calculate the full cross section for $pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow
WW^{(*)}/ZZ^{(*)}/\gamma\gamma$ to include interference from both states. The SM rates are taken from [@Dittmaier:2011ti; @Denner:2011mq].
The overall scheme {#sec:scheme}
------------------
In this study, we ask two questions: first, what fraction of the radion-higgs mixing parameter space survives the observed exclusion limits on signal strengths in various search channels for the SM higgs; and second, if a radion-higgs scenario can explain the current data with a better fit than the SM?
Having framed these questions, we compare the theoretical predictions with observed data in various channels, namely, $\gamma\gamma$, $ZZ^{(*)} \rightarrow 4\ell$, $WW^{(*)} \rightarrow 2\ell + MET$, $b
\bar b$ and $\tau \bar{\tau}$. Each channel recieves contribution from both of the states $H$ and $R$. Since the production channels for both $H$ and $R$ are same as the SM higgs (denoted henceforth as $h_{SM}$), albeit with modified couplings to SM particles, the production cross section of a given scalar can be written in terms of the SM higgs production cross section multiplied by a function of the modified couplings. We denote this function by $p_{mode}^{R,H}$, e.g. in the gluon-fusion mode, $$p_{gg}^R(m) = \left. \frac{\sigma(gg \rightarrow R)}{\sigma(gg \rightarrow h_{SM})} \right|_{m_R=m_h=m} =
\frac{B(R \rightarrow gg)}{B(h_{SM} \rightarrow gg)}$$ In general, we expect the acceptance of the cuts to depend on (a) the production mode, and (b) mass of the resonance. Let us denote the acceptance of cuts applied for a candidate mass $m$ by the experimental analysis in a given channel as $a(m)_{prod-channel}$. Thus the predicted signal strength at a particular mass $\mu(m) =\sigma/\sigma_{SM}(m_{h_{SM}} = m)$ in any given decay channel $c$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\mu(m;c) = \displaystyle\sum\limits_{j = gg, VBF, VH} \left \{ p_j^H \frac{a(m;H)_{j}}{a(m;h_{SM})_{j}} \frac{ \mathrm{B}(H \rightarrow c )}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow c) } \right. \\
\left. + p_j^R \frac{a(m;R)_{j}}{a(m;h_{SM})_{j}} \frac{ \mathrm{B}(R \rightarrow c )}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow c) }\right\}\end{gathered}$$
In this analysis, we will be assuming that the state discovered at the LHC is the higgs-like $H$ ($m_H = m_{h_{SM}} = 125$ GeV) for the first case and the radion like state $R$ ($m_R = m_{h_{SM}} = 125$ GeV) for the second. Therefore, we expect the acceptances to cancel for one of the terms but not for the other where the second physical state has a different mass. For the rest of this section, we derive the formulae assuming the first case with the understanding that the expressions for the second case can be obtained merely by switching $m_R$ and $m_H$.
For channels where the resonance is fully reconstructible viz. $\gamma \gamma$, $b \bar b$ and $ZZ^{(*)}$, the analyses use reconstructed mass to identify the resonance and therefore contribution from the second state are negligible if the resonance is narrow. Furthermore, by restricting the number of jets in the final state, it is possible to restrict contribution to the dominant production mode. Since the Lorentz structure of the couplings of $R$ or $H$ is the same as the SM higgs $h_{SM}$, the acceptances also factor out. Therefore, for $\mathrm{h}+0~\mathrm{jets}$, in $\gamma
\gamma$ and $ZZ^{(*)}$ channels, $\mu =\sigma/\sigma_{SM}$ takes the simplified form $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(c) = p^H_{gg}\frac{ \mathrm{B}(H \rightarrow c)}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow c)} = \frac{ \mathrm{B}(H \rightarrow c) \mathrm{B}(H \rightarrow gg)}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow c)\mathrm{B}(h \rightarrow gg)}
\label{eqn:simpleratio}\end{aligned}$$
However, in the $WW^{(*)}$ channel, the final state is not fully reconstructible and therefore we need to consider contributions from both the scalar physical states. Even on restricting to zero- and one-jet final states (which are largely due to $gg$ fusion), we still have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:WWstrength}
\mu(m;WW) & = & p_{gg}^H \frac{a(m;H)}{a(m;h_{SM})} \frac{
\mathrm{B}(H \rightarrow WW )}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow WW) } +
p_{gg}^R \frac{a(m;R)}{a(m;h_{SM})} \frac{ \mathrm{B}(R \rightarrow
WW)}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow WW)}\end{aligned}$$
The branching fraction $R \rightarrow WW^{(*)}$ reaches its maximal value when its mass passes the threshold $m_{R} = 2 m_W$. At this point, the largest contribution to the dilepton final state can come from decay of $R$ rather than $H$. Therefore, even with fixed mass of $H$ at 125 GeV, the presence of another state that can contribute to the signature results in much stronger bounds on the radion-higgs mixed scenario. To estimate the effect of this, we have implemented the kinematical cuts on the leptons, jets and missing energy as described by the respective ATLAS [@ATLAS-CONF-2013-030] and CMS [@CMS-PAS-HIG-13-003] analyses. We verify that our simulation of these analyses reproduce the expected number of signal events for a SM higgs within the errors quoted by the respective analyses.
In the $\mathrm{h}+2~\mathrm{jets}$ channel, the requirement of two well-separated jets means the dominant contribution comes to VBF instead of $gg$ fusion. However, the gluon-fusion contribution is still a significant fraction and therefore, the correct estimate would require simulation of the kinematics of $gg \rightarrow
R(H)+2~\mathrm{jets}$ to high accuracy as well as full detector simulation. A possible way out is to use the $gg$-fusion subrtacted numbers as have been reported by ATLAS. However, to extract this contribution the ATLAS analysis uses the estimate of gluon fusion production for SM higgs as a background which requires, by definition, to assume the SM. We have therefore neglected the VBF mode in our study.
Another important effect arises when the mass of both the scalar eigenstates is close to each other. In such cases, the interference effects cannot be neglected. We have therefore calculated the full interference effects when $122 < m_R < 127$ GeV. As we shall see in the next section, this has important effects both on exclusions as well as on the global best-fit regions.
In addition, there is the possibility that the branching ratio for the decay $\varphi^{'} \rightarrow h^{'} h^{'}$ can be substantial in certain regions of the parameter space, resulting in an enhancement even in fully reconstructible channels. Such signals are relatively suppressed for the $WW^{(*)}$ channel because of various vetos on aditional leptons and jets. However they contribute to the $ZZ^{(*)}$ and $\gamma\gamma$ channels where the analysis is by and large inclusive. We have included this kind of processes whenever the resultant enhancement is more than 5% of the direct production rate i.e. $\sigma(pp\longrightarrow \varphi^{'}) \times B(\varphi^{'}
\longrightarrow h^{'}h^{'}) \ge 0.05 \sigma(pp\longrightarrow h^{'})$ for the sake of completeness.
We end this subsection by reiterating the parameters used in our scan. They are $\Lambda_{\varphi}, \xi$ and mass of either of the mixed radion state $m_R$ (or the mixed higgs state $m_H$), with the other fixed at 125 GeV. We use four representative values of $\Lambda_{\varphi}$, namely 1.5 TeV, 3 TeV, 5 TeV and 10 TeV. $\xi$ is varied over the entire theoretically allowed region according to the criteria discussed earlier.
Allowed regions of the parameter space
--------------------------------------
First, we remember that the experiments have provided 95$\%$ upper limits on the signal strength in each channel, which can be used to rule out regions of our parameter space incompatible with observed data. For the $\gamma\gamma$ and $ZZ^{(*)}$ channel-based exclusions, we make use of the simplified formula given in (Eqn. \[eqn:simpleratio\]) for the entire range of $m_{R}$.
The case for $WW^{(*)}$ is more complicated in the region where $m_R$ lies in the range 110 - 160 GeV since contribution from both the eigenstates are of comparable magnitude. Therefore, we add the contributions from both states (Eqn. \[eqn:WWstrength\]). For example, for calculating the cross section at say 150 GeV, we consider the contribution from $m_R=150$ GeV as well as the contribution from $m_H=125$ GeV to cuts designed for the 150 GeV analysis. As $m_R$ approaches 160 GeV, the contribution from the 125 GeV state becomes smaller and smaller till after 160, it is dominated entirely by $m_R$. After this point, we continue with the simple ratio treatment viz. $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(125;WW) = \frac{ \mathrm{B}(R \rightarrow WW) \mathrm{B}(R
\rightarrow gg)}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow WW)\mathrm{B}(h
\rightarrow gg)}
\label{eqn:simpleratio2}\end{aligned}$$
A second source of upper limits comes from demanding that the total signal strength at 125 GeV does not exceed the upper limit at that mass. The cuts based on transverse mass e.g. the ATLAS cut on transverse mass demanding $0.75 m_H < m_T < m_H $ cuts off part of the contribution from $m_R$ state. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:WWstrength2}
\mu(WW) = p_{gg}^H \frac{ \mathrm{B}(H \rightarrow WW )}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow WW) } + p_{gg}^R \frac{a(125;R)}{a(125;h_{SM})} \frac{ \mathrm{B}(R \rightarrow WW)}{\mathrm{B}(h_{SM} \rightarrow WW)}\end{aligned}$$
In the ATLAS analysis, the kinematical cuts for higgs search up to mass of 200 GeV are identical excepting the transeverse mass cut. In the CMS analysis, the cuts vary continuously with mass. We refer the reader to the relevant papers [@Aad:2012uub; @ATLAS-CONF-2013-030; @CMS-PAS-HIG-13-003] for details of the cuts used.
Best fit contours {#sec:chisq}
-----------------
**Channel** **ATLAS** **CMS** **Tevatron**
----------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
$WW^*$ $1.0 \pm 0.3 $ $0.68 \pm 0.20$
$ZZ^*$ $1.5 \pm 0.4 $ $0.92 \pm 0.28$
$\gamma \gamma$ $1.6 \pm 0.3$ $0.77 \pm 0.27$
$\tau \tau$ $0.8 \pm 0.7$ $1.10 \pm 0.41$
$b \bar b$ (Tevatron) $1.97 \pm 0.71$
: Best-fit values of signal strength used for global fits [@ATLAS-CONF-2013-014; @CMS-PAS-HIG-13-005; @Aaltonen:2012qt]. \[tab:bestfit\]
To answer the second question posed at the begining of Sec. \[sec:scheme\], we wish to obtain the best fit values for $\xi$ and the varying scalar mass ($m_R$ or $m_H$) for each value of $\Lambda_\phi$. We primarily use data in the $\gamma\gamma, ZZ^{(*)}$ and $WW^{(*)}$ channels, which are the most robust. We also use $\tau
\bar \tau$ data, however, we find that the error bars for these are so large its role in deciding the favoured region of the parameter space is somewhat inconsequential. For the $b\bar{b}$ final state, we use data in the associated production channels $WH, ZH$ [@Aaltonen:2012qt]. We do not use the data from LHC in this channel as its error bars are larger even than the $\tau \bar \tau$ channel and therefore do not restrict any of the parameter space.
To find the best fit, our task is to scan the parameter space and find the values of $m_{\varphi^{'}}$ and $\xi$ for any $\Lambda_\phi$, which minimise
$$\chi^2 = \sum_i \frac{(\mu_i - \hat{\mu_i})^2}{\bar{\sigma_i}^2}$$
where $\mu_i = \sigma/ \sigma_{SM}$ is the signal strength at 125 GeV as calculated in the [*i*]{}th channel, $\hat{\mu_i}$ denotes the experimental best fit value for that channel, and $\bar{\sigma_i}$ being the corresponding standard deviation. Changing $\xi$ and $m_R$ affect the signal strength of $H$ even though $m_H$ is held fixed at 125 GeV. Again, we use the simple ratio-based formulae for $\gamma
\gamma$, $ZZ^{(*)}$, $b \bar b$ and $\tau \bar \tau$ (using associated production instead of gluon fusion for $b \bar b$). For $WW^{(*)}$, the formula (Eqn. \[eqn:WWstrength2\]) is used. The data points used for performing global fit are summarised in Table \[tab:bestfit\].
The 68% and 95 % contours are determined using $$\chi^2 = \chi^2_{min} + \Delta \chi^2$$ where $\Delta \chi^2$ values corresponding to the confidence levels for seven degrees of freedom (8.15, 14.1) are used. Since the best-fit values reported by the experiments are based on combination of 7 and 8 TeV runs, we combine our signal strengths at 7 and 8 TeV weigted by the luminosity.
Since the upper limits are based on signal strength mainly due to the second resonance whereas the best-fit requires the correct signal strength at 125 GeV, there may be regions with a small chi-squared that are already ruled out due to constraints on signal from the second resonance. We therefore also perform the best fit in the region left out after the exclusion limits are applied. However, to avoid overconstraining the parameter space, we do not include the exclusions arising from upper limit on the signal strength at 125 GeV as given by (Eqn. \[eqn:WWstrength2\]) while performing the chi-squared minimisation.
![\[fig:WWchange\] The effect on the excluded parmeter space (shown in red) from various contributions. The top-left panel shows the excluded region using ratios of branching fractions of $m_R$ alone. The top-right panel is the exclusion when contribution from both states are taken into account. The bottom-left panel shows the exclusion from applying the limit on signal strength at 125 GeV. Finally, the bottom-right panel shows the total excluded parameter space. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = 3$ TeV and 95% CL limits from the ATLAS collaboration.](plots/WW-sigma-combined "fig:") ![\[fig:WWchange\] The effect on the excluded parmeter space (shown in red) from various contributions. The top-left panel shows the excluded region using ratios of branching fractions of $m_R$ alone. The top-right panel is the exclusion when contribution from both states are taken into account. The bottom-left panel shows the exclusion from applying the limit on signal strength at 125 GeV. Finally, the bottom-right panel shows the total excluded parameter space. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = 3$ TeV and 95% CL limits from the ATLAS collaboration.](plots/WW-combined "fig:") ![\[fig:WWchange\] The effect on the excluded parmeter space (shown in red) from various contributions. The top-left panel shows the excluded region using ratios of branching fractions of $m_R$ alone. The top-right panel is the exclusion when contribution from both states are taken into account. The bottom-left panel shows the exclusion from applying the limit on signal strength at 125 GeV. Finally, the bottom-right panel shows the total excluded parameter space. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = 3$ TeV and 95% CL limits from the ATLAS collaboration.](plots/WW-from-125 "fig:") ![\[fig:WWchange\] The effect on the excluded parmeter space (shown in red) from various contributions. The top-left panel shows the excluded region using ratios of branching fractions of $m_R$ alone. The top-right panel is the exclusion when contribution from both states are taken into account. The bottom-left panel shows the exclusion from applying the limit on signal strength at 125 GeV. Finally, the bottom-right panel shows the total excluded parameter space. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = 3$ TeV and 95% CL limits from the ATLAS collaboration.](plots/WW-full "fig:")
Results and discussions
=======================
The most recent CMS and ATLAS search results exclude the Standard Model higgs in the mass range $128$ to $600$ GeV at $95\%$ CL [@ATLAS-CONF-2013-014; @CMS-PAS-HIG-13-005]. In this section we present the regions of the RS parameter space that allow the presence of an extra scalar consistent with observed upper limits.
We illustrate the effect of taking signal contributions from both states in Fig. \[fig:WWchange\]. The top-left panel shows the excluded region when the upper limits are placed on signal strength of the extra R state alone using only the multiplicative correction of Eqn. \[eqn:simpleratio\]. This was the approach used e.g. in [@Kubota:2012in]. However, the presence of two states means there are two sources of limits — firstly, we require the total signal strength at 125 GeV to be less than the observed upper limit at 125 GeV (bottom-left panel) and secondly, we also require that the combined signal strength be smaller than the observed limit at the mass of the radion-like resonance $m_R$ (top-right panel). Finally we show the effects of both these taken together to give the full exclusion (bottom-right panel).
![Comparison of $m_{T}$ distribution after contribution from both scalars is taken into account for a parameter point that is ruled out and one that is not by the ATLAS limits. The parameters for illustration are $\xi = 0.045$ (left; disallowed) and $\xi=0.065$ (right; allowed), $m_H=125$ GeV, $m_R=164$ GeV and $\Lambda_{\varphi} = 3$ TeV. The label “SM” refers to the total SM background as extracted from [@Aad:2012uub; @ATLAS-CONF-2013-030]. \[fig:mtdist\]](plots/MT-045.pdf "fig:") ![Comparison of $m_{T}$ distribution after contribution from both scalars is taken into account for a parameter point that is ruled out and one that is not by the ATLAS limits. The parameters for illustration are $\xi = 0.045$ (left; disallowed) and $\xi=0.065$ (right; allowed), $m_H=125$ GeV, $m_R=164$ GeV and $\Lambda_{\varphi} = 3$ TeV. The label “SM” refers to the total SM background as extracted from [@Aad:2012uub; @ATLAS-CONF-2013-030]. \[fig:mtdist\]](plots/MT-065.pdf "fig:")
A caveat in the above result is that the likelihood function used by the experiments to place limits makes use of not just on the total number of events but also the shape of certain distributions like the lepton invariant mass $m_{\ell \ell}$ or the transverse mass $m_T$.[^2]
The presence of a shoulder, in e.g. the $m_T$ distribution, can be indicative of a second state and could possibly lead to stronger exclusions in the region where $m_R > m_H$. For a fixed $\xi$, the branching fraction $R \rightarrow WW^*$ reaches it’s maximum value for about 160 GeV. For masses greater than this threshold, the change in total signal strength is governed mainly by the change the production cross section. However, since the production cross section decreases with increasing $m_R$, the distortion in $m_T$ distribution from the extra state also becomes smaller with increasing $m_R$ and is maximal around 160 GeV.
We present the $m_T$ distribution showing extra contribution from $R$ for $m_R = 164$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:mtdist\] for two nearby values of $\xi$ viz. 0.045 and 0.065. Our calculation of the $m_T$ distribution is superimposed over the estimated background reported by ATLAS [@ATLAS-CONF-2013-030]. There are in principle, regions of parameter space where the contribution at 125 GeV from $R$ even exceeds that from $H$. However, we find that the current upper limits on signal strength in $WW$ channel are so strong that this always results in a very large total signal strength at $m_R$ and is consequently ruled out. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:mtdist\] where the point with $\xi=0.045$ shows a significant contribution from $R$ but we find is already disallowed by the 95% upper limits on signal strength at 164 GeV.
This observation justifies our assumption that the distortion in the $m_T$ distribution is not too large even for $m_R \gsim 160$ GeV. We therefore present our results with the assumption that the upper limits on total signal strength give a reasonably good approximation of the true exclusion limits even though in principle it corresponds to a limit on the overall normalisation of the distribution only.
Exclusion of the Parameter Space
--------------------------------
![\[fig:exclmH\] Excluded parameter space for the case with $m_H = 125$ GeV (shown in red) using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = $1.5 TeV(top), 3 TeV(mid) and 5 TeV(bottom).](plots/Excl-All-1500 "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmH\] Excluded parameter space for the case with $m_H = 125$ GeV (shown in red) using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = $1.5 TeV(top), 3 TeV(mid) and 5 TeV(bottom).](plots/Excl-All2-1500 "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmH\] Excluded parameter space for the case with $m_H = 125$ GeV (shown in red) using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = $1.5 TeV(top), 3 TeV(mid) and 5 TeV(bottom).](plots/Excl-All-3000 "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmH\] Excluded parameter space for the case with $m_H = 125$ GeV (shown in red) using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = $1.5 TeV(top), 3 TeV(mid) and 5 TeV(bottom).](plots/Excl-All2-3000 "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmH\] Excluded parameter space for the case with $m_H = 125$ GeV (shown in red) using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = $1.5 TeV(top), 3 TeV(mid) and 5 TeV(bottom).](plots/Excl-All-5000 "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmH\] Excluded parameter space for the case with $m_H = 125$ GeV (shown in red) using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi = $1.5 TeV(top), 3 TeV(mid) and 5 TeV(bottom).](plots/Excl-All2-5000 "fig:")
We show the regions of parameter space ruled out from current ATLAS and CMS data in Fig. \[fig:exclmH\]. As expected, the allowed parameter space for low $\Lambda_\varphi$ is more restricted than for higher values. We find that barring a small sliver close to $\xi =
0$, almost the entire parameter space is ruled out for $\Lambda_\varphi = 1.5$ TeV. For $\Lambda_\varphi = 3,~5$ TeV, the exclusion is less severe. However, the region with nearly degenerate $R$ and $H$ states is ruled out. At large $m_R$, the most stringent limits come from $ZZ$. We therefore find regions where a significant branching fraction $R \rightarrow t \bar t$ reduces the constraints after $m_R > 350$ GeV. However limits are still restrictive for negative $\xi$ values as the production via gluon fusion is enhanced in this region.
We also find that CMS constraints are much stronger than ATLAS. This is expected in $WW^{(*)}$ since CMS has provided limits based on the full 7 and 8 TeV dataset whereas ATLAS has provided only partial results [@CMS-PAS-HIG-13-003; @ATLAS-CONF-2013-030]. We list here the corresponding conference notes from ATLAS that have been used for determining the ATLAS limits. Both experiments give limits in $ZZ$ channel based on the full dataset [@CMS-PAS-HIG-13-002; @ATLAS-CONF-2013-013].
The $\gamma \gamma$ limits are available only in the range 110-150 GeV [@CMS-PAS-HIG-13-001; @ATLAS-CONF-2012-168], presumably since the SM higgs decays into the diphoton channel becomes negligibly small beyond this range. However, since there can be enhancements to this rate in the radion-higgs mixed scenario, it may be useful to have the limits in the full range. Taking interference of both states when their masses lie between 122 and 127 GeV pushes the predicted signal strength beyond the observed upper limits thus ruling out the degenerate region entirely. The $b\bar{b}$ limits, from ATLAS, CMS or Tevatron are found to not affect the extent of the region of exclusion.
Whenever the limits are based on combined datasets, we combine our calculated signal strength at 7 and 8 TeV with the luminosities serving as weights. For $\Lambda_\varphi = 10$ TeV, we do not find any significant exclusions.
![\[fig:exclmR\] Excluded parameter space (shown in red) for the case with $m_R = 125$ GeV using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi =
$1.5 TeV(top) and 3 TeV (bottom). Almost the entire parmeter space is excluseded for $\Lambda_\varphi = $5 TeV and higher.](plots/Excl-All-1500r "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmR\] Excluded parameter space (shown in red) for the case with $m_R = 125$ GeV using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi =
$1.5 TeV(top) and 3 TeV (bottom). Almost the entire parmeter space is excluseded for $\Lambda_\varphi = $5 TeV and higher.](plots/Excl-All2-1500r "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmR\] Excluded parameter space (shown in red) for the case with $m_R = 125$ GeV using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi =
$1.5 TeV(top) and 3 TeV (bottom). Almost the entire parmeter space is excluseded for $\Lambda_\varphi = $5 TeV and higher.](plots/Excl-All-3000r "fig:") ![\[fig:exclmR\] Excluded parameter space (shown in red) for the case with $m_R = 125$ GeV using 95% CL limits from the ATLAS and CMS. This illustration uses $\Lambda_\varphi =
$1.5 TeV(top) and 3 TeV (bottom). Almost the entire parmeter space is excluseded for $\Lambda_\varphi = $5 TeV and higher.](plots/Excl-All2-3000r "fig:")
A natural question to follow this analysis is what happens if the boson found at 125 GeV is the $m_R$ state and not the $m_H$ one. The exclusions resulting from reversing our analysis in accord with this change is shown in Fig. \[fig:exclmR\]. We find here that larger values of $\Lambda_\varphi$ have larger exclusions with almost the entire parameter space being excluded for $\Lambda_\varphi >
5$ TeV. This is in accordance with [@Barger:2011hu] where they show that a pure radion at 125 GeV is already ruled out. As $\Lambda_\varphi$ increases, $H$ becomes more and more like the SM higgs (and equivalently $R$ becomes a pure radion). As the lmits on SM higgs already rule it out in most of the mass range, we find that nearly the entire parameter space is ruled out too. In performing the reverse analysis, we have not considered the interference from both states, therefore the small allowed region near 125 GeV should be taken with a pinch of salt. Since the result should not change from the earlier case as $m_R \simeq m_H$ in this region and we may assume that it will be ruled out if a full calculation with interference is made.
Regions of best-fit with the data
---------------------------------
Using the chi-squared analysis outlined in the Sec. \[sec:chisq\], we perform a global fit using the values of signal strength shown in Table \[tab:bestfit\]. We also perform the same excercise after removing the regions excluded by the upper limits. Of course, while doing so, we do not apply the upper limit on signal strength at 125 GeV. So the only exclusions considered are those resulting from limits on signal from $m_R$ only. For illustraion, we show the results at $\Lambda_\varphi = 3$ TeV in Fig. \[fig:BFplots\]. The first panel shows the regions that agree with the data within 68% and 95%. The second panel shows the reduction in the best-fit region when the exclusions reported in Fig. \[fig:exclmR\] are imposed as well. The bottom panel shows the best-fit region after exclusions for the reverse case where $m_R=125$ GeV and $m_H$ is varied.
![\[fig:BFplots\] Regions that agree with current data within 68% (green) and 95.4% (yellow) for $\Lambda_\varphi =
3$ TeV. The top-left plot shows the case where no exclusions have been taken into account. The top-right side shows the change after taking exclusions into account. The bottom plot is for the case where we hold $m_R=125$ GeV instead of $m_H$.](plots/BFplot-3000 "fig:") ![\[fig:BFplots\] Regions that agree with current data within 68% (green) and 95.4% (yellow) for $\Lambda_\varphi =
3$ TeV. The top-left plot shows the case where no exclusions have been taken into account. The top-right side shows the change after taking exclusions into account. The bottom plot is for the case where we hold $m_R=125$ GeV instead of $m_H$.](plots/BFplot2-3000 "fig:") ![\[fig:BFplots\] Regions that agree with current data within 68% (green) and 95.4% (yellow) for $\Lambda_\varphi =
3$ TeV. The top-left plot shows the case where no exclusions have been taken into account. The top-right side shows the change after taking exclusions into account. The bottom plot is for the case where we hold $m_R=125$ GeV instead of $m_H$.](plots/BFplot2-3000r "fig:")
The chi-squared value for the SM is 10.93 for nine degrees of freedom. We find that in the first case with $m_H=125$ GeV, there is always a small region of parameter space that fits with a similar $\chi^2/dof$ as the SM. For $\Lambda_\varphi = 1.5$ TeV, the minumum chi-squared value found is 9.06 without exclusions and 11.57 with exclusions at point $m_R = 600$ GeV and $\xi=0.15$ (after excl.). For 3 TeV, the numbers are (9.03, 9.08) respectively with the best-fit point at $m_R
= 407$ GeV and $\xi=0.15$ and for 5 TeV, they are (9.03, 9.04) with the best-fit point at $m_R = 383$ GeV and $\xi=-0.25$. Thus, the exclusions affect less and less as we increase $\Lambda_\varphi$, which is expected as the excluded parameter space also reduces. In particular, as the exclusions on negative $\xi$ are relaxed, these values seem to give a slightly better fit. Altough, as seen from the change in $\chi^2$ with and without exclusion, the distribution is rather flat for large $m_R$. Also, as the best-fit value for $m_R$ is at the edge of our scan for $\Lambda_\varphi = 1.5$ TeV, it is possible that the fit would be further improved by increasing $m_R$. For larger values of $\Lambda_\varphi$ however, increasing $m_R$ seems to increase the $\chi^2/dof$ slightly.
The chi-squared for the reverse case is decidedly worse than in the normal case. We find that the minimum values of chi-squared after exclusions are 35.6, 18.22, 52.0 for (1.5, 3, 5 TeV). Therefore, we can say that this scenario is strongly disfavoured compared to the SM.
Conclusions
===========
We have examined the possibility that the currently observed scalar is one of the two states of a mixed radion-higgs scenario. To perform this analysis, we have considered the contribution from both states in the $WW^{(*)}$ channel, differently affected by cuts, to calculate the signal strength. We also take into account effects of intereference when both states are nearly degenerate.
We find that if the 125 GeV state is radion-dominated, only a very small region of the parameter space with a small $\Lambda_\varphi$ is consistent with current upper limits. Even in these regions, the goodness of fit with data is decidedly worse than in the SM. Therefore, we may conclude that the idea that the discovered boson at 125 GeV is dominantly radion-like is largely disfavoured.
The second possiblity, namely that the LHC has found a 125 GeV higgs-dominated scalar, but a radion-dominated state, too, hangs around to contribute to the observed signals (especially the $WW^{(*)}$ signal), can not be ruled out with current data. We find the scenario with small (but non-zero) mixing and an accompanying radion-dominated state with high mass results in a good fit for almost all values of $\Lambda_\varphi$. However, if we include exclusions on the presence of the second, radion-dominated boson that would surely accompany the higgs-dominated state, the goodness of fit is reduced for TeV-range values of $\Lambda_\varphi$. We find that for $\Lambda_\varphi$ up to 5 TeV, the SM still provides a better fit. As a special case, we find that situations where the two mass eigenstates are degenerate enough to warrant the inclusion of interference terms, are ruled out. Finally $\Lambda_\varphi=10$ TeV is mostly indistinguishable from the SM as the modifications to signal strengths are too small to be significant.
Acknowledgements
================
We would like to thank Soumitra SenGupta for helpful discussions. UM would like to thank Taushif Ahmed, Shankha Banerjee, Atri Bhattacharya, Nabarun Chakraborty, Ujjal Kumar Dey, Anushree Ghosh, Sourav Mitra , Manoj Mandal, Tanumoy Mandal and Saurabh Niyogi for discussions and assistance. We would also like to thank the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Kolkata for hospitality while this study was in progress. ND is supported partly by the London Centre for Terauniverse Studies (LCTS), using funding from the European Research Council via the Advanced Investigator Grant 267352. UM and BM are partially supported by funding available from the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India for the Regional centre for Accelerator-based Particle Physics, Harish-Chandra Research Institute. Computational work for this study was partially carried out at the cluster computing facility in the Harish Chandra Research Institute (http:/$\!$/cluster.hri.res.in).
[^1]: While various modifications, including for example, gauge fileds in the bulk have been considered [@Goldberger:1999wh; @Davoudiasl:1999tf; @Pomarol:1999ad; @Agashe:2006hk; @Agashe:2004ay; @Agashe:2004cp; @Agashe:2003zs], we have, however, confined ourselves to the minimal RS scenario.
[^2]: The transverse mass variable is defined as $m_{T} =
\sqrt{(E_{T}^{\ell \ell} + E_{T}^{miss})^2 - |(p_T^{\ell \ell} +
E_{T}^{miss})|^{2}}$, where $E_{T}^{\ell\ell}$ is the transverse energy of the leptonic system, $p_{T}^{ll}$ is the total transverse momentum of the leptonic system and $E_{T}^{miss}$ is the missing energy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Variational Auto-Encoders (VAEs) have shown great potential in the unsupervised learning of data distributions. An VAE trained on normal images is expected to only be able to reconstruct normal images, allowing the localization of anomalous pixels in an image via manipulating information within the VAE ELBO loss. The ELBO consists of KL divergence loss (image-wise) and reconstruction loss (pixel-wise). It is natural and straightforward to use the later as the predictor. However, usually local anomaly added to a normal image can deteriorate the whole reconstructed image, causing segmentation using only naive pixel errors not accurate. Energy based projection was proposed to increase the reconstruction accuracy of normal regions/pixels, which achieved the state-of-the-art localization accuracy on simple natural images. Another possible predictors are ELBO and its components gradients with respect to each pixels. Previous work claimed that KL gradient is a robust predictor. In this paper, we argue that the energy based projection in medical imaging is not as useful as on natural images. Moreover, we observe that the robustness of KL gradient predictor totally depends on the setting of the VAE and dataset. We also explored the effect of the weight of KL loss within beta-VAE and predictor ensemble in anomaly localization.'
author:
- Leixin Zhou
- Wenxiang Deng
- Xiaodong Wu
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Unsupervised anomaly localization using VAE and beta-VAE'
---
Introduction
============
Automating anomaly detection in medical imaging with artificial intelligence has gained popularity and interest in recent years. Indeed, the analysis of images to localize potential abnormality seems well suited to supervised computer vision algorithms. However these solutions remain data hungry and require knowledge transfer from human to machine via image annotations. Furthermore, the classification in a limited number of user-predefined categories such as healthy, tumor and so on, will not generalize well if a previously unseen anomaly appears. For visual inspection, a better-suited task is unsupervised anomaly detection, in which the localization of the abnormality must be done only via prior knowledge of normal samples.
From a statistical point of view, an anomaly may be seen as *an observation that deviates so much from other observations as to arouse suspicion that it was generated by a different mechanism*[@hawkins1980identification]. In this setting, deep generative models such as Variational AutoEncoders (VAEs)[@kingma2013auto] and $\beta$-VAE [@higgins2017beta], are especially interesting because they are capable to infer possible sampling mechanisms for a given dataset. The VAE jointly learns an encoder model, which compresses input samples into a low dimensional space, and a decoder, which decompresses the low dimensional samples into the original input space, by simultaneously minimizing the distance between the input of the encoder and the output of the decoder, and the distance between latent distribution and a prior distribution (usually Gaussian). The output decompressed sample for a given input is often called the *reconstruction*, and is used as some sort of projection of the input on the support of the normal data distribution, usually called the *normal manifold*. In most unsupervised anomaly localization methods based on VAE, models are trained on normal data and anomaly localization is then performed using a distance metric between the input sample and its reconstruction [@bergmann2019mvtec; @baur2018deep; @chen2018unsupervised]. The localization part in those studies is solely based on the reconstruction error, thus outlining regions as suspicious if they cannot be adequately reconstructed by the model. One obvious deficiency is that the capability of a VAE to reconstruct anomalies is by design tightly coupled to the expressiveness (size and configuration) of the latent space. Then to further improve the localization performance, there are at least two branches to explore: 1) searching for other predictors that are not highly dependent on the modeling capacity of VAE; 2) principally improving the projection quality such that normal regions in the projected normal image are the same as that in the input image. The loss of VAE, called the evidence lower bound (ELBO), consists of two parts: reconstruction loss and Kullback-Leibler (KL)-divergence loss. Zimmerer *et al*. [@zimmerer2019unsupervised; @zimmerer2019case] found that KL loss gradient with respect to input is one robust predictor. For the latter branch, instead of using the VAE reconstruction, Dehaene *et al*. [@dehaene2020iterative] proposed to iteratively project the abnormal data to the normal manifold more accurately by optimizing a specific energy function. For natural images, they found that their reconstruction error based method outperforms [@zimmerer2019unsupervised; @zimmerer2019case] significantly.
In this paper, we argue that the performance of different predictors are highly dependent on the VAE settings, e.g. the size of latent space and the weight of KL loss (VAE becomes $\beta$-VAE). We also test the energy minimization projection based method [@dehaene2020iterative] in the medical imaging (T2 MRI Brain images) scenario, and found that it is not as powerful as on simple natural images.
Method
======
VAE and $\beta$-VAE
-------------------
In unsupervised anomaly detection, the only available data during training are samples $\mathbf{x}$ from a normal dataset $\mathbb{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^d$. In a generative setting, we assume the existence of a probability function of density $q$, having its support on all $\mathbb{R}^d$. The generative objective is to model an estimate of $q$, from which one can obtain new samples close to the dataset.
Popular deep generative models are generative adversarial networks (GAN) [@goodfellow2014generative] and VAE. The advantages of GANs are that they can generate sharp and realistic samples, as a discriminator is trained simultaneously to guide the generator. However, disadvantages of GANs are that they are notoriously difficult to train [@goodfellow2016nips], and suffer from mode collapse, meaning that they have the tendency to only generate a subset of the original dataset. This can be problematic for anomaly detection, in which we do not want some subset of the normal data to be considered as anomalous [@bergmann2019mvtec]. Recent works such as [@thanh2019improving] propose substantial upgrades, however other works such as [@ravuri2019classification] still supports that GANs have more trouble than other generative models to cover the whole distribution support.
Another deep generative model is VAE, which consists of an encoder and a decoder. The decoder, similar to a GAN generator, tries to approximate the conditional dataset distribution $p(\mathbf{x|z})$ on a simple latent variables prior $p(\mathbf{z}),\mathbf{z}\in \mathbb{R}^l$. We would like to maximize the estimate $p(\mathbf{x})=\int p(\mathbf{x|z}) p(\mathbf{z}) dz$ on the dataset. To make the learning tractable, importance sampling by introducing density functions $q(\mathbf{z|x})$ output of an encoder is utilized, and the variational evidence lower bound (ELBO) $\mathcal{L}$ can be deduced as: $$\begin{split}
\log p(\mathbf{x})&=\log \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{z}\sim q(\mathbf{z|x})} \frac{p(\mathbf{x|z})p(\mathbf{z})}{q(\mathbf{z|x})} \\
&\geq \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{z}\sim q(\mathbf{z|x})} \log p(\mathbf{x|z}) - D_{KL}(q(\mathbf{z|x}) || p(\mathbf{z})) = ELBO = -\mathcal{L}
\end{split}$$ $\mathcal{L}$, the opposite of ELBO, is utilized as the loss function of VAE for training. VAEs are known to produce blurry reconstructions and generations. The advantages are that VAEs probably do not suffer the mode collapse problem [@razavi2019generating] and VAEs can generate projection of new input to the training dataset manifold in one forward pass, without need of iterative optimization if using GANs [@schlegl2017unsupervised]. $\beta$-VAEs share all the merits with VAEs, and its loss function is formulated as: $$- \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{z}\sim q(\mathbf{z|x})} \log p(\mathbf{x|z}) + \beta \cdot D_{KL}(q(\mathbf{z|x}) || p(\mathbf{z}))$$ By putting more weight ($\beta > 1$) on the KL term, the trained $\beta$-VAEs encourage disentangled factor learning in the latent space.
Predictors for Pixel-wise Anomaly Localization
----------------------------------------------
We will consider that an anomaly is a sample with low probability under our estimation of the normal dataset distribution. The VAE loss, being a lower bound on the density, is a proxy to classify samples between the normal and abnormal categories. To this effect, a threshold $T$ can be defined on the loss function, where anomalous samples with $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{x}) \geq T$ and normal samples with $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{x}) < T$. However, according to Nalisnick *et al*. [@nalisnick2018deep], the likelihood of a data point $p(\mathbf{x})$ in deep generative models is not a reliable measure for detecting abnormal samples. Also according to Matsubara *et al*. [@matsubara2018anomaly], the regularization term $\mathcal{L}_{KL}(\mathbf{x})=D_{KL}(q(\mathbf{z|x}) || p(\mathbf{z}))$ has a negative influence in the computation of anomaly scores. They proposed instead an unregularized score $\mathcal{L}_{r}=-\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{z}\sim q(\mathbf{z|x})} \log p(\mathbf{x|z})$, which is equivalent to the reconstruction loss of a standard autoencoder. Going from anomaly detection to anomaly localization, this reconstruction term becomes crucial to most of existing solutions. Indeed, the inability of the model to reconstruct a given part of an image is used as a way to segment the anomaly, using a pixel-wise threshold on the reconstruction error [@bergmann2019mvtec; @baur2018deep; @chen2018unsupervised]. We call it a reconstruction-loss based predictor. However, according to [@zimmerer2019case; @zimmerer2019unsupervised], the magnitude of the loss gradient with respect to $\mathbf{x}$, such as $|\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_i}|$, $|\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{KL}}{\partial x_i}|$ and so on, is useful and maybe more robust predictor. To clarify the notations, we list out all the predictors and their formulations, as follows.
- **“Rec-Error"**: $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{z}\sim q(\mathbf{z|x})} \log p(\mathbf{x|z})$. We parameterize $q(\mathbf{z|x})$ as diagonal Gaussian $\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{z}; f_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}), f_{\sigma}(\mathbf{x})^2)$, and parameterize $p(\mathbf{x|z})$ as $\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{x}; g_{\mu}(\mathbf{z}), \mathcal{I})$. During inference, we approximate it as $\log p(\mathbf{x}|f_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}))$, which is basically the pixel-wise L2 distance between input and reconstruction.
- **“ELBO-grad"**: $|\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_i}|$
- **“KL-grad"**: $|\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{KL}}{\partial x_i}|$
- **“Rec-grad"**: $\frac{\partial \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{z}\sim q(\mathbf{z|x})} \log p(\mathbf{x|z})}{\partial x_i}$
- **“Combi"**: $|\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{KL}}{\partial x_i}| \odot \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{z}\sim q(\mathbf{z|x})} \log p(\mathbf{x|z})$
Improve Performance of different predictors
-------------------------------------------
For the two classes of predictors, different strategies can be utilized to improve their respective performance on anomaly localization. For “Rec-Error" predictor, we apply one iterative projection method, similar to adversarial sample generation, to medical imaging and test its effectiveness. For other predictors, we propose to utilize $\beta$-VAE to capture other balance between latent space information and reconstruction accuracy for better anomaly localization.
**Iterative projection for more accurate reconstruction error** For “Rec-Error" predictor, the assumption is that the trained VAE has the capability to alter anomalous pixels and keep normal pixels untouched during reconstruction. In other words, for this predictor, the ideal generative model has the following functional: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ideal}
[\text{VAE}_{ideal}(\mathbf{x})]_i = x_i ~~~~~~~~~~&\text{if pixel}~~ i~~ is ~~\text{abnormal} \nonumber\\
|[\text{VAE}_{ideal}(\mathbf{x})]_i - x_i| \geq \epsilon ~~~~&\text{otherwise}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is some positive number. However, practical VAEs can not be guaranteed to have the aforementioned property held, which makes the “Rec-Error" predictor sub-optimal. To make the projection more accurate with respect to Eqn. \[eqn:ideal\], Dehaene *et al*. propose to apply adversarial samples generation idea, that is to say, starting from a sample $\mathbf{x}_0$, iterate gradient descent steps over the input $\mathbf{x}$, constructing samples $\mathbf{x}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_N$, to minimize the energy $E(\mathbf{x})$, defined as $$E(\mathbf{x}_t)=\mathcal{L}_r(\mathbf{x}_t) + \lambda\cdot ||\mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_0||_1$$ An iteration is done by calculating $\mathbf{x}_{t+1}$ as $$\label{eqn:proj}
\mathbf{x}_{t+1} = \mathbf{x}_t - \alpha \cdot \nabla_{\mathbf{x}} E(\mathbf{x}_t),$$ where $\alpha$ is the learning rate, and $\lambda$ is a parameter trading off the inclusion of $\mathbf{x}_t$ in the normal manifold, given by $\mathcal{L}_r(\mathbf{x}_t)$, and the proximity between $\mathbf{x}_t$ and the input $\mathbf{x}_0$, assured by the regularization term $||\mathbf{x}_t - \mathbf{x}_0||_1$. This method enables the “Rec-Error" predictor to significantly outperform all gradient based predictors on simple natural images. However, the effectiveness of this method on more challenging dataset, e.g. brain MRI images, is not clear before our work. To make the notation clear, we call this method “Proj-Rec-Error".
**$\beta$-VAE for better anomaly localization** As a variant of VAE, $\beta$-VAE [@higgins2017beta] is designed for unsupervised discovery of interpretable factorized representations from raw image data. An adjustable hyperparameter $\beta > 1$ is introduced to balance the extent of learning constraints (a limit on the capacity of the latent information and an emphasis on learning statistically independent latent factors) and reconstruction accuracy. Hoffman *et al*. [@hoffman2017beta] introduced a reformulation of $\beta$-VAE for $0 < \beta < 1$. They argued that, within this range, training $\beta$-VAE is equivalent to optimizing an approximate log-marginal likelihood bound of VAE under an implicit prior. All in all, different $\beta$ values should induce different balance between latent information (related to $\mathcal{L}_{KL}$) and reconstruction accuracy ($\mathcal{L}_r$), which then change the performance of “Rec-Error", “Rec-grad", “KL-grad" and their combinations.
Intuitively, a bigger $\beta$, putting less weight on the reconstruction accuracy, may cause insensitive reconstruction change with respect to the input change and then less accurate reconstruction, which is similar to *posterior collapse* [@lucas2019don]. The appearance is that a bigger $\beta$ may degenerate the performance of “Rec-Error". However, the aforementioned argument only makes sense for normal data. On the other side, a bigger $\beta$ encourages more disentangled representation in the latent space and then capture the normal data manifold better, and the corresponding $\beta$-VAE may have superior ability to “inpaint” the abnormal pixels with their corresponding normal pixels successfully, and finally improve the performance of “Rec-Error". Similar induction can be applied to KL related predictors. In this work, we will investigate the effects of $\beta$ experimentally.
**Predictors ensemble** We also investigate that whether combining different predictors can improve localization accuracy. Actually, one can think the “Combi" is one heuristic approach that ensembles the predictor “KL-grad" and “Rec-Error". However, it is non-trivial to do this systematically in the fully unsupervised setting. To leverage the full power of all predictors, we have to use a small portion of dataset, which includes both normal and abnormal data, to find the reasonable way to combine all predictors. We propose to utilize a logistic regression model, where the values of different predictors are treated as different features, to ensemble different predictors for possible performance improvement.
Experiments
===========
In this section, we evaluate the effectiveness of the iterative projection method on more challenging dataset, i.e. the brain MRI images. Later we will test the proposed $\beta$-VAE based anomaly localization method.
Dataset
-------
**Training dataset:** To learn the normal brain MRI image distribution, we trained the VAE and $\beta$-VAE on 3T T2 MRI images of Human Connectome Project (HCP) dataset [@van2012human], which are from 1113 healthy young adult (age 22-35) participants. Data augmentation includes random noise adding, random rotation, and color augmentation. **Test dataset:** We evaluate the anomaly localization method on the BraTS2018 dataset [@menze2014multimodal; @bakas2017advancing; @bakas2018identifying]. There are 285 cases in total, and only T2 image of each case was utilized for our experiment. The resolution is 1x1x1 mm isotropic and all image volumes have a size 240x240x155. We do not have access to the BraTS2017 dataset, as the resource link is out of date.
Pre-processing and Hyperparameters
----------------------------------
Both training and test dataset were normalized to have zero mean and unit variance, and slice-wise resampled to have a size of 64x64 pixels. For training, all models were trained for 500 epochs with an Adam optimizer having an initial learning rate of $10^{-4}$. During inference, for the “Proj-Rec-Error" method, an Adam optimizer with a learning rate $\alpha=0.03$ in Eqn. \[eqn:proj\] was utilized.
VAE and $\beta$-VAE architecture
--------------------------------
As VAE and $\beta$-VAE differ only on the loss function, for fair comparisons, we set them to have the same architecture as in [@zimmerer2019unsupervised], which consists of a 5 layer fully-convolutinal encoder and decoder with feature-map size of 16-32-64-256. We used strided convolutions (stride 2) as downsampling and transposed convolutions as upsampling operations, each followed by a LeakyReLU non-linearity.
Results
-------
In this section, we aim to answer the following questions: 1) Which predictors are *better*? 2) Is the “Proj-Rec-Error" effective in medical imaging? 3) Is a *big* $\beta$ good or bad for anomaly localization? 4) Are these predictors *complementary*? The metric we utilize is the pixle-wise area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), which is commonly used for unsupervised binary classification.
**Which predictors are better?**
![ Reconstruction of abnormal data. The first column is the input image and the ground truth tumor segmentation. The other columns are reconstructions and their respective reconstruction error images (a) with different latent space dimension sizes; (b) without or with iterative projection.[]{data-label="fig:vae_rec"}](vae_rec_proj.png){width="95.00000%"}
latent size $l$ Rec-Error ELBO-grad KL-grad Rec-grad Combi
----------------- ----------- ----------- --------- ---------- ------- --
32 0.860 0.900 0.853 0.901 0.831
64 0.856 0.900 0.809 0.900 0.800
256 0.838 0.871 0.853 0.871 0.803
: AUROC of different predictors using VAE.[]{data-label="tab:vae"}
As noticed in in [@zimmerer2019unsupervised], the localization performance is highly dependent on two settings of VAE: the image size and the latent space dimension. The good image size is a trade-off between the modeling difficulty of VAE and the localization accuracy of tumors caused by different resolutions. It is well known that VAEs will encounter difficulty for dataset with large image size. However, if the resolution is too low, the localization will be too coarse. It is non-trivial to select the latent space dimension size $l$, i.e. if it is too big, the learned latent space may not be well defined, e.g. VAE can reconstruct abnormal input successfully, which is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:vae\_rec\](a) denoted by $l=256$; if the size is too small, VAE can not keep all the variational generative factors and then cause over-smoothed reconstruction and hinders accurate abnormal localization, which is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:vae\_rec\](a) denoted by $l=32$.
The best settings claimed in [@zimmerer2019unsupervised] on the BraTS2017 are: the image size is 64x64; the latent space dimension size is 256. In our experiments on BraTS2018, the scenario of which is similar to that of BraTS2017, we settle down the image size to 64x64 and explore the effect of latent size on the localization performance. The results are listed in the Tab. \[tab:vae\]. As can be seen, in contradict to the observations in [@zimmerer2019unsupervised], instead of “KL-grad" and “Combi", our experiments support that “Rec-Error", “ELBO-grad" and “Rec-grad", are the best predictors, and also the latter two perform comparably for all three latent space dimension sizes.
**Effectiveness of “Proj-Rec-Error" in medical imaging** We applied the “Proj-Rec-Error", which is highly successful in simple natural images [@dehaene2020iterative], to more challenging brain tumor localization problem. The baseline is the VAE model with latent size 64. The AUROC of “Proj-Rec-Error" is 0.861, compared to 0.856 of “Rec-Error" and 0.900 of “Rec-grad". It can be seen that the projection can boost the performance of “Rec-error". However, it is still outperformed by the gradient based method “Rec-grad". But it seems we should blame more on the VAE model, which may not model the normal brain distribution good enough. This can be demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:vae\_rec\](b), where the iterative projection can correct only part of reconstruction on normal regions, which indicates that the corresponding normal image of the input is not modeled well by the VAE.
**Does $\beta$-VAE help?** Based on the indication from the previous part, we explored the modeling capacity of $\beta$-VAEs, which is kind of generalized VAE, and their performance on anomaly localization task. The results using different $\beta$ values are listed in Tab. \[tab:beta\_vae\]. As can be seen, $beta=10$ seems inducing the best performance for the first four predictors, and however interestingly, the performance of “Combi" degrades consistently as $\beta$ increases. Moreover, “Proj-Rec-Error" consistently outperforms “Rec-Error". The reconstruction behavior of $\beta$-VAE is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:beta\_vae\_rec\]. One can notice the reconstruction seems differing from the input as $\beta$ increases. In some sense, by $\beta$-VAE with bigger $\beta$ for training on normal data distribution, the reconstruction of abnormal data seems more biased to the learned normal data distribution, which is good for abnormal regions but bad for normal regions with respect to Eqn. \[eqn:ideal\].
![$\beta$-VAEs reconstruction of abnormal data.[]{data-label="fig:beta_vae_rec"}](beta_vae_rec.png){width="70.00000%"}
$\beta$ Rec-Error ELBO-grad KL-grad Rec-grad Combi Proj-Rec-Error
--------- ----------- ----------- --------- ---------- ------- ----------------
0.1 0.857 0.899 0.805 0.899 0.810 0.861
0.5 0.856 0.903 0.809 0.903 0.808 0.865
1.0 0.856 0.900 0.809 0.900 0.800 0.861
2.0 0.856 0.900 0.803 0.900 0.778 0.862
10.0 0.859 0.905 0.810 0.905 0.749 0.864
: AUROC of different predictors using $\beta$-VAE.[]{data-label="tab:beta_vae"}
**Complementariness of different predictors** To attempt for further boosting of the localization performance, 10% test data was utilized to train a logistic regression model using “Rec-Error", “KL-grad" and “Rec-grad" as independent features. We abandon the “ELBO-grad", since it is just the sum of “KL-grad" and “Rec-grad". We use the $\beta$-VAE ($\beta$=10) as the backbone. The resulting weight parameters of the three predictors are in the scale of $10^{-1}, 10^{-1}$ and $10^2$ and the AUROC is $0.903$, which is a little bit worse than that of “Rec-grad" ($0.905$). This basically indicates that the “Rec-grad" predictor may include almost all the information within other predictors and they are far from being complementary to each other.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we applied the energy-based projection in more challenging medical imaging scenario and found it is not as useful as on natural images. Moreover, we observe that the robustness of KL gradient predictor totally depends on the setting of the VAE. We also explored the effect of the weight of KL loss within beta-VAE in anomaly localization. Ensemble of different predictors were also investigated.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Background
: Much less is known about neutron structure than that of the proton due to the absence of free neutron targets. Neutron information is usually extracted from data on nuclear targets such as deuterium, requiring corrections for nuclear binding and nucleon off-shell effects. These corrections are model dependent and have significant uncertainties, especially for large values of the Bjorken scaling variable $x$. As a consequence, the same data can lead to different conclusions, for example, about the behavior of the $d$ quark distribution in the proton at large $x$.
Purpose
: The Barely Off-shell Nucleon Structure (BONuS) experiment at Jefferson Lab measured the inelastic electron–deuteron scattering cross section, tagging spectator protons in coincidence with the scattered electrons. This method reduces nuclear binding uncertainties significantly and has allowed for the first time a (nearly) model-independent extraction of the neutron structure function $F_2(x,Q^2)$ in the resonance and deep-inelastic regions.
Method
: A novel compact radial time projection chamber was built to detect protons with momentum between 70 and 150 MeV/$c$ and over a nearly $4\pi$ angular range. For the extraction of the free-neutron structure function $F_2^n$, spectator protons at backward angles ($>100^\circ$ relative to the momentum transfer) and with momenta below 100 MeV/$c$ were selected, ensuring that the scattering took place on a nearly free neutron. The scattered electrons were detected with Jefferson Lab’s CLAS spectrometer, with data taken at beam energies near 2, 4 and 5 GeV.
Results
: The extracted neutron structure function $F_2^n$ and its ratio to the inclusive deuteron structure function $F_2^d$ are presented in both the resonance and deep-inelastic regions for momentum transfer squared $Q^2$ between 0.7 and 5 GeV$^2/c^2$, invariant mass $W$ between 1 and 2.7 GeV/$c^2$, and Bjorken $x$ between 0.25 and 0.6 (in the DIS region). The dependence of the semi-inclusive cross section on the spectator proton momentum and angle is investigated, and tests of the spectator mechanism for different kinematics are performed.
Conclusions
: Our data set on the structure function ratio $F_2^n/F_2^d$ can be used to study neutron resonance excitations, test quark-hadron duality in the neutron, develop more precise parametrizations of structure functions, as well as investigate binding effects (including possible mechanisms for the nuclear EMC effect) and provide a first glimpse of the asymptotic behavior of $d/u$ at $x \to 1$.
author:
- 'S. Tkachenko'
- 'N. Baillie'
- 'S.E. Kuhn'
- 'J. Zhang'
- 'J. Arrington'
- 'P. Bosted'
- 'S. Bültmann'
- 'M.E. Christy'
- 'D. Dutta'
- 'R. Ent'
- 'H. Fenker'
- 'K.A. Griffioen'
- 'M. Ispiryan'
- 'N. Kalantarians'
- 'C.E. Keppel'
- 'W. Melnitchouk'
- 'V. Tvaskis'
- 'K.P. Adhikari'
- 'M. Aghasyan'
- 'M.J. Amaryan'
- 'S. Anefalos Pereira'
- 'H. Avakian'
- 'J. Ball'
- 'N.A. Baltzell'
- 'M. Battaglieri'
- 'I. Bedlinskiy'
- 'A.S. Biselli'
- 'W.J. Briscoe'
- 'W.K. Brooks'
- 'V.D. Burkert'
- 'D.S. Carman'
- 'A. Celentano'
- 'S. Chandavar'
- 'G. Charles'
- 'P.L. Cole'
- 'M. Contalbrigo'
- 'O. Cortes'
- 'V. Crede'
- 'A. D’Angelo'
- 'N. Dashyan'
- 'R. De Vita'
- 'E. De Sanctis'
- 'A. Deur'
- 'C. Djalali'
- 'G.E. Dodge'
- 'D. Doughty'
- 'R. Dupre'
- 'H. Egiyan'
- 'A. El Alaoui'
- 'L. El Fassi'
- 'L. Elouadrhiri'
- 'P. Eugenio'
- 'G. Fedotov'
- 'J.A. Fleming'
- 'B. Garillon'
- 'N. Gevorgyan'
- 'Y. Ghandilyan'
- 'G.P. Gilfoyle'
- 'K.L. Giovanetti'
- 'F.X. Girod'
- 'J.T. Goetz'
- 'E. Golovatch'
- 'R.W. Gothe'
- 'M. Guidal'
- 'L. Guo'
- 'K. Hafidi'
- 'H. Hakobyan'
- 'C. Hanretty'
- 'N. Harrison'
- 'M. Hattawy'
- 'K. Hicks'
- 'D. Ho'
- 'M. Holtrop'
- 'C.E. Hyde'
- 'Y. Ilieva'
- 'D.G. Ireland'
- 'B.S. Ishkhanov'
- 'H.S. Jo'
- 'D. Keller'
- 'M. Khandaker'
- 'A. Kim'
- 'W. Kim'
- 'P.M. King'
- 'A. Klein'
- 'F.J. Klein'
- 'S. Koirala'
- 'V. Kubarovsky'
- 'S.V. Kuleshov'
- 'P. Lenisa'
- 'S. Lewis'
- 'K. Livingston'
- 'H. Lu'
- 'M. MacCormick'
- 'I.J.D. MacGregor'
- 'N. Markov'
- 'M. Mayer'
- 'B. McKinnon'
- 'T. Mineeva'
- 'M. Mirazita'
- 'V. Mokeev'
- 'R.A. Montgomery'
- 'H. Moutarde'
- 'C. Munoz Camacho'
- 'P. Nadel-Turonski'
- 'S. Niccolai'
- 'G. Niculescu'
- 'I. Niculescu'
- 'M. Osipenko'
- 'L.L. Pappalardo'
- 'R. Paremuzyan'
- 'K. Park'
- 'E. Pasyuk'
- 'J.J. Phillips'
- 'S. Pisano'
- 'O. Pogorelko'
- 'S. Pozdniakov'
- 'J.W. Price'
- 'S. Procureur'
- 'D. Protopopescu'
- 'A.J.R. Puckett'
- 'D. Rimal'
- 'M. Ripani'
- 'A. Rizzo'
- 'G. Rosner'
- 'P. Rossi'
- 'P. Roy'
- 'F. Sabatié'
- 'D. Schott'
- 'R.A. Schumacher'
- 'E. Seder'
- 'I. Senderovich'
- 'Y.G. Sharabian'
- 'A. Simonyan'
- 'G.D. Smith'
- 'D.I. Sober'
- 'D. Sokhan'
- 'S. Stepanyan'
- 'S.S. Stepanyan'
- 'S. Strauch'
- 'W. Tang'
- 'M. Ungaro'
- 'A.V. Vlassov'
- 'H. Voskanyan'
- 'E. Voutier'
- 'N.K. Walford'
- 'D. Watts'
- 'X. Wei'
- 'L.B. Weinstein'
- 'M.H. Wood'
- 'L. Zana'
- 'I. Zonta'
title: 'Measurement of the structure function of the nearly free neutron using spectator tagging in inelastic $^2$H$(e,e'' p_s)X$ scattering with CLAS'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The advent of high-luminosity beams at modern accelerator facilities such as CEBAF (Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility) at Jefferson Lab has opened the way for dedicated programs of nucleon structure measurements with unprecedented precision. The data have allowed phenomena such as quark-hadron duality and the transition to scaling in transverse and longitudinal nucleon structure functions to be accurately verified, as well as precision studies to be conducted of the flavor and spin structure of the proton in kinematic regions previously inaccessible (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@Christy; @Chen:2011zzp; @Melnitchouk05] and references therein).
In particular, the region of large parton (quark) momentum fraction ($x \gtrsim 0.5$), which is experimentally challenging because of the small cross sections involved, has seen a resurgence of interest in recent years [@Holt10; @JMO13], especially at Jefferson Lab with its unique access to large $x$. Part of this interest has been the promise to resolve decades-long questions about parton distribution functions (PDFs) at large $x$, such as the behavior of the unpolarized $d/u$ or polarized $\Delta d/d$ ratios in the $x \to 1$ limit. At large four-momentum transfer squared, $Q^2 \gg 1$ GeV$^2/c^2$, these offer relatively clean probes of the strong interaction dynamics of valence quarks in the nucleon. To access information on $d$ quarks, and in particular these ratios, one needs electron scattering data from both proton and neutron targets. However, while experiments have been able to map out in great detail the characteristics of the proton at large $x$, determining the corresponding structure of the neutron has proved to be much more difficult.
At lower values of $Q^2$ (of order 1 GeV$^2/c^2$), the large-$x$ region is dominated by nucleon resonances, among which the $\Delta (1232)$ is the lowest-mass excitation. A fundamental question here is whether the ratio $\sigma_n/\sigma_p$ of neutron to proton inclusive electron scattering cross sections for the $N \to \Delta(1232)$ transition is unity, as would be expected for a pure isovector transition ($\Delta I = 1$). Existing deuteron electroproduction data [@Bleckwenn; @Kobberling; @Stuart] indicate that the isotensor ($\Delta I = 2$) contribution is small but non-negligible. Similarly, comparing inclusive cross sections on the neutron with those on the proton for the higher-lying (overlapping) resonance excitations can provide constraints on the isospin structure of the resonant and non-resonant contributions to the total cross section. Finally, neutron structure functions in the resonance region are needed to conclusively test Bloom-Gilman duality [@Bloom69] in the neutron.
The absence of free neutron targets has meant that in practice light nuclei such as the deuteron and $^3$He are routinely used as effective neutron targets. In regions of kinematics where most of the neutron’s momentum is carried by a single valence quark, or where the spectrum is dominated by resonances, different choices for models of nuclear corrections can lead to significant uncertainties in the neutron cross sections [@slacdata1; @Melnitchouk96; @Arrington09; @CJ_accardi; @Arrington:2011qt; @Owens:2012bv]. Consequently our ability to determine unambiguously the isospin structure of the nucleon PDFs, as well as the spectrum of the excited states of the nucleon, has been severely limited. For example, in the nucleon resonance region there are large uncertainties in the neutron to $N^*$ transition helicity amplitudes extracted from deuteron measurements, while in the deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) region the $d$-quark PDF is poorly determined beyond $x \sim 0.6$. Aside from the intrinsic value of such knowledge, a practical ramification is that the large-$x$ PDF uncertainties can in some cases propagate to influence production rates of particles, including those predicted beyond the Standard Model, at high-energy colliders such as the Large Hadron Collider [@Kuhlmann00; @Brady:2011hb].
To move beyond this impasse, it has been suggested [@frstr; @cda2_2; @mel_sarg_strik; @sargsian] that one can minimize the nuclear model uncertainties by selecting (or “tagging”) final states in the electron–deuteron scattering process in which the proton is produced with small momentum in the backward hemisphere relative to the momentum transfer. This minimizes the probability of rescattering of the “spectator” proton with the rest of the hadronic debris, thereby ensuring that the reaction took place on a neutron close to its mass shell [@cda4; @Cosyn11].
The first direct extraction of inclusive scattering data on a nearly free neutron using this spectator tagging technique was performed with the BONuS (Barely Off-shell Nucleon Structure) experiment at Jefferson Lab, which ran in 2005 in Hall B using CLAS and a novel Radial Time Projection Chamber (RTPC) capable of detecting protons with momenta down to 70 MeV/$c$. In a first report [@prl], a representative sample of the BONuS neutron spectra was presented, allowing a first glimpse into the inclusive neutron excited mass spectrum and the neutron $F_2^n$ structure function at large $x$, essentially free of nuclear correction uncertainties. In this paper we present the full BONuS data sample. These data cover a large kinematic range, from the quasielastic peak to the region of final-state hadron masses $W \approx 2.7$ GeV/$c^2$, and $Q^2$ from 0.7 to 5 GeV$^2$/$c^2$.
In Sec. \[sec\_physics\] we review the basic formulas for describing spectator proton tagging in semi-inclusive scattering from the deuteron within the impulse approximation (IA), and discuss various corrections to the IA due to final-state interactions, nucleon off-shellness and other effects. An overview of the experimental setup is presented in Sec. \[sec\_setup\], where we outline the novel features of the BONuS RTPC. Details of the data analysis are given in Sec. \[analres\], which describes the event selection and background subtraction, and two different methods of analysis. The results of the experiment are presented in Sec. \[results\]. We present results both for the “spectator limit” (slow, backward protons), which can be used to constrain models of neutron structure with minimal nuclear binding uncertainties, and for kinematics in which nuclear and final-state interaction effects are enhanced (forward and higher-momentum protons). Our analysis allows us to identify kinematic regions in which the spectator approximation can be used for extracting the free neutron structure function. Finally, in Sec. \[sec\_summary\] we summarize our findings and discuss future extensions of the spectator tagging technique planned at the energy-upgraded 12 GeV Jefferson Lab facility.
Physics overview {#sec_physics}
================
In this section we review the physics motivation for the BONuS experiment and the formalism employed to analyze semi-inclusive scattering from the deuteron with a tagged spectator proton. We discuss the accuracy of the nuclear impulse approximation used to extract the neutron structure function from the semi-inclusive cross section, and examine various corrections to the IA from final-state interactions and nucleon off-shell effects.
Motivation
----------
There are a number of reasons why knowledge of the free neutron structure functions is vital for our understanding of the quark structure of the nucleon, and nonperturbative QCD more generally. In the nucleon resonance region, an accurate determination of neutron structure functions is needed for the extraction of the full isospin dependence of the resonant and nonresonant contributions to the inclusive neutron cross section. Knowledge of the neutron resonance structure is also needed for the model-independent verification of Bloom-Gilman duality in the neutron [@Bloom69; @Niculescu:2000tk; @Arrington:2003nt; @Melnitchouk05], and for understanding the transition between the resonance and deep-inelastic regions. While existing model-dependent studies [@Malace1] suggest a common origin of duality for the neutron and proton, proof of this requires neutron resonance data that are free of nuclear model assumptions.
Unfortunately, the absence of high-density, free neutron targets has usually forced neutron structure to be extracted from inclusive scattering experiments on nuclear targets, such as the deuteron. Such extractions, however, necessarily involve model-dependent methods to account for nuclear effects in the deuteron [@Malace1]. The extraction of the neutron structure function in the resonance region from inclusive nuclear data is particularly challenging because of Fermi smearing, which acts to reduce the distinctiveness of the resonance peaks from the nonresonant background [@Kahn:2008nq].
Of course, definitive tests of quark-hadron duality must involve data from both the resonance and DIS regions. For the latter, the parton model allows the structure of the nucleon to be characterized in terms of the nucleon’s valence $u$- and $d$-quark momentum distributions. Following many years of DIS and other high-energy scattering experiments, a detailed picture has emerged of the structure of the nucleon at intermediate and small values of Bjorken $x$. The abundance of high-precision proton structure function ($F_2^p$) data has, due to the preferential coupling of the photon to $u$ quarks compared with $d$ quarks in the proton, allowed an accurate determination of the $u$-quark PDF at both small and large values of $x$.
![(Color online) Ratio of inclusive neutron to proton structure functions $F_2^n/F_2^p$ from the CJ global PDF analysis [@CJ_accardi]. The shaded bands illustrate the range of possible values for the ratio from nuclear corrections and experimental uncertainties. The vertical arrow indicates the edge of the region in $x$ where the ratio is constrained by data ($x \lesssim 0.8$).[]{data-label="fig_CJnp_ratio"}](Figure1.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The corresponding $d$-quark distribution could be similarly constrained by neutron structure function ($F_2^n$) data, and the $d/u$ ratio extracted, at leading order in the strong coupling constant and for $x \gtrsim 0.5$, via $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{u} \approx \frac{4F_2^n/F_2^p - 1}{4 - F_2^n/F_2^p},
\label{eq_doveru}\end{aligned}$$ where the approximation neglects strange and heavier quarks. At high values of $x$ (where large nucleon momenta contribute significantly in nuclei) the uncertainties associated with the nuclear corrections propagate to the extracted neutron structure functions, and hence to the $F_2^n/F_2^p$ ratio [@slacdata1; @Melnitchouk96; @Arrington09; @Arrington:2011qt; @CJ_accardi; @Owens:2012bv]. The results for $F_2^n/F_2^p$ from a recent global fit by the CTEQ-Jefferson Lab (CJ) Collaboration [@CJ_accardi] are illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_CJnp\_ratio\], showing both the uncertainties from nuclear corrections and experiment. Beyond $x \approx 0.5$ the current data not only prevent us from understanding the basic nonperturbative dynamics responsible for the behavior of $d/u$ in the $x \to 1$ limit, for which predictions range from 0 to $\approx 0.5$ [@Melnitchouk96; @Holt10], but can also impact our ability to reliably compute QCD cross sections in high-energy collider experiments which have sensitivity to the $d$-quark PDF [@Brady:2011hb].
Measurement of the free neutron structure function would also allow for a model-independent determination of the size of the nuclear correction in the deuteron through the construction of the $F_2^d/(F_2^p + F_2^n)$ ratio. This would provide data that could discriminate between various detailed models of nuclear effects in the deuteron [@frstr; @meln_schr_thom; @Kulagin06; @West:1972qj; @Frankfurt:1988nt; @Kaptar:1991hx], thereby solving the decades-long question about the magnitude of the nuclear EMC effect in the deuteron. Finally, reliable parametrizations for $F_2^n$ are needed to extract ratios of nuclear to nucleon structure functions from inclusive measurements on nuclear targets, and on spin structure functions from polarization asymmetries in inclusive scattering.
Spectator tagging
-----------------
Since the deuteron is a weakly bound system with binding energy $\epsilon_d = -2.2$ MeV (only about 0.1% of the deuteron mass), on average the deuteron structure function may be reasonably well approximated by a sum of free proton and neutron structure functions. At large values of $x$, however, the deuteron structure functions receive increasingly greater contributions from nucleons carrying a larger fraction of the deuteron’s momentum. These contributions are sensitive to the details of the high-momentum tails of the deuteron wave function, which are not as well constrained by nucleon–nucleon scattering data as the low-momentum components. Consequently, in the high-$x$ region there is a more significant dependence on the model for the smearing of the nucleon structure due to binding and Fermi motion effects, as well as to possible modifications of nucleon structure when the nucleon is off its mass shell.
The nuclear model uncertainties in the extraction of the neutron structure function from inclusive electron–deuteron scattering data can be significantly reduced by detecting low-momentum protons produced at backward kinematics, relative to the momentum transfer, in coincidence with the scattered electron, $$e + d \to e + p_s + X.
\label{eq_specreac}$$ The restriction to low momenta ensures that the scattering takes place on a nearly on-shell neutron [@mel_sarg_strik; @cda2_2; @sargsian], while tagging backward-moving spectator protons ($p_s$) minimizes final-state interaction effects [@cda4; @Cosyn11].
The cross section for the semi-inclusive electroproduction of a proton with four-momentum $p_s^\mu = (E_s, \bm{p}_s)$ can be written in the deuteron rest frame as [@sargsian; @Cosyn11] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{dx dQ^2 d^3\bm{p}_s / E_s}
&=& \frac{4\pi \alpha^2_{\rm em}}{xQ^4}
\left( 1-y-\frac{x^2 y^2 M^2}{Q^2} \right) \nonumber\\
& & \hspace*{-3cm}
\times
\left[
F_L^d\
+\ \left( \frac{Q^2}{2\bm{q}^2} + \tan^2\frac{\theta}{2} \right)
\frac{\nu}{M} F_T^d
\right. \nonumber\\
& & \hspace*{-2.5cm}
+\ \sqrt{ \frac{Q^2}{2\bm{q}^2} + \tan^2\frac{\theta}{2} }\,
\cos\phi\, F_{TL}^d\
+\ \cos2\phi\, F_{TT}^d
\Big],
\label{spec_crosssec}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{\rm em}$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant, and $E_s = \sqrt{M^2 + \bm{p}_s^2}$ and $M$ are the energy and mass, respectively, of the spectator proton produced at an azimuthal angle $\phi$ around the $z$ axis (defined along the $\bm{q}$ direction). The four-momentum transfer to the deuteron is given by $q^\mu = (\nu, \bm{q})$, with $Q^2 \equiv -q^2$ and $x = Q^2/2M\nu$ the usual Bjorken scaling variable evaluated in the target rest frame. The variable $y = \nu/E_e$ denotes the fractional loss of the electron energy $E_e$, and $\theta$ is the electron scattering angle.
The semi-inclusive deuteron structure functions $F^d_L$, $F^d_T$, $F^d_{TL}$ and $F^d_{TT}$ depend on the variables $x$, $Q^2$, the light-cone momentum fraction of the spectator proton $\alpha_s = (E_s - p_s^z)/M$, and the spectator proton transverse momentum $p_s^{\perp}$. In terms of the angle between the outgoing spectator proton and the direction of $\bm{q}$, the longitudinal and transverse spectator momenta are given by $p_s^z = |\bm{p}_s| \cos \theta_{pq}$ and $p_s^{\perp} = |\bm{p}_s| \sin \theta_{pq}$, respectively. Integrating over the azimuthal angle $\phi$, the terms proportional to $F^d_{TL}$ and $F^d_{TT}$ vanish, and the cross section of Eq. becomes proportional to the familiar combination of semi-inclusive (SI) structure functions $(2\nu/M) \tan^2(\theta/2)\, F_1^{d\, {\rm (SI)}}
+ F_2^{d\, {\rm (SI)}}$, where
$$\begin{aligned}
F_1^{d\, {\rm (SI)}}
&= {1\over 2} F_T^d, \\
F_2^{d\, {\rm (SI)}}
&= F_L^d + \frac{x}{\rho^2} F_T^d,\end{aligned}$$
\[eq\_sistrfun\]
with $\rho^2 = 1 + 4M^2x^2/Q^2$. The semi-inclusive structure functions $F_{1,2}^{d\, {\rm (SI)}}$ are then related to the inclusive deuteron structure functions $F_{1,2}^d$ simply by integrating over the spectator proton momentum $\bm{p}_s$.
![Semi-inclusive scattering from a deuteron with detection of a spectator proton, $p_s$, within the framework of (a) the nuclear impulse approximation, and (b) including the effects of final-state interactions.[]{data-label="fig_spec_ia_fsi"}](Figure2.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
In the nuclear impulse approximation, illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_spec\_ia\_fsi\](a), the virtual photon scatters incoherently from the bound neutron with four-momentum $p^\mu$, where $p^\mu + p_s^\mu = P_d^\mu = (M_d, \bm{0})$ in the deuteron rest frame, with $M_d$ the deuteron mass. In this case the semi-inclusive deuteron structure functions can be written as products of the structure functions of the bound neutron and the nuclear spectral function $S(\alpha_s,p_s^\perp)$ [@sargsian; @Cosyn11],
$$\begin{aligned}
F_1^{d\, {\rm (SI)}}(x,Q^2,\alpha_s,p_s^\perp)
&\approx& S(\alpha_s,p_s^\perp) \nonumber\\
& & \hspace*{-3.5cm}
\times
\left[
F_1^{n, \rm eff}(x^*,Q^2,\alpha,p^\perp)
+ \frac{p^{\perp 2}}{2p \cdot q}\,
F_2^{n, \rm eff}(x^*,Q^2,\alpha,p^\perp)
\right] \nonumber\\
& & \\
F_2^{d\, {\rm (SI)}}(x,Q^2,\alpha_s,p_{\perp s})
&\approx& S(\alpha_s,p_s^\perp)\, \frac{M\nu}{p\cdot q} \nonumber\\
& & \hspace*{-3.5cm}
\times
\left[ \Big( 1+\sqrt{1-\frac{Q^2}{2\bm{q}^2}} \Big)^2
\Big( \alpha + \frac{2 p \cdot q}{(\nu+|\bm{q}|) M_d} \Big)^2
+ \frac{Q^2}{2\bm{q}^2}\, \frac{p_s^{\perp 2}}{M^2}
\right] \nonumber\\
& & \hspace*{-3.5cm}
\times\ \, F_2^{n, \rm eff}(x^*,Q^2,\alpha,p^\perp),\end{aligned}$$
\[eq\_eff\_strfun\]
where $F_{1,2}^{n, \rm eff}$ are the bound or “effective” neutron structure functions. In the on-shell limit, the bound neutron structure functions reduce to the free neutron structure functions, $F_{1,2}^{n, \rm eff} \to F_{1,2}^n$, but in general are functions of the off-shell neutron’s invariant Bjorken variable $$x^* = {Q^2 \over 2 p \cdot q} \approx {x \over \alpha},$$ the struck neutron’s light-cone momentum fraction $\alpha = 2-\alpha_s$, and its transverse momentum $\bm{p}^\perp = -\bm{p}_s^\perp$. Alternatively, one can also express $F_{1,2}^{n, \rm eff}$ as a function of the final-state invariant mass squared $$W^{*2} = (p + q)^2 = p^2 + {Q^2 (1-x^*) \over x^*},$$ where $p^2 = (M_d-E_s)^2 - \bm{p}^2$ is the invariant mass squared of the off-shell nucleon. Note that in the on-shell limit, the struck nucleon’s Bjorken variable $x^* \to x$, while $W^{*2}$ reduces to the invariant mass squared $W^2 = M^2 + Q^2 (1-x)/x$ for a free nucleon at rest.
The nuclear spectral function $S$ describes the probability of finding an off-shell neutron in the deuteron with momentum $(\alpha, p^{\perp})$ and an on-shell proton with momentum $(\alpha_s, p_s^\perp)$. It is determined by the square of the deuteron wave function $|\psi_d(p)|^2$ and kinematic factors that depend on the framework used to compute the nuclear structure function. These factors coincide in the limit where both nucleons are on-shell, but differ in the off-shell behavior [@mel_sarg_strik; @sargsian]. The expressions in Eqs. for the semi-inclusive structure functions can be used to extract the free neutron $F_{1,2}^n$ structure functions in the limit $\alpha_s \to 1$ and $p_s^\perp \to 0$. Of course, the experimental data will only be available for some minimum value of $p_s^\perp$, which will introduce some uncertainty into the on-shell extrapolation, as discussed in the following sections.
While uncertainties in the nucleon–nucleon interaction at short distances lead to significant dependence of the inclusive deuteron structure function on the deuteron wave function for $x \gtrsim 0.6$ [@CJ_accardi], restricting the spectator proton momenta to $|\bm{p}_s| \lesssim 100$ MeV/$c$ renders these negligible. Furthermore, comparisons of spectral functions computed within the instant-form and light-front formulations suggest [@mel_sarg_strik] that at these momenta and $\alpha \lesssim 1.1$ the model dependence of the spectral function is at the few percent level.
Beyond the impulse approximation {#beyond}
--------------------------------
### Final state interactions
Although Eqs. describe semi-inclusive proton production in the nuclear impulse approximation, interactions between the recoil proton and the hadronic debris of the scattered neutron, illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_spec\_ia\_fsi\](b), can in principle distort the momentum distribution of the detected protons. Microscopic calculations of the final state interaction (FSI) effects within hadronization models and the distorted wave impulse approximation suggest strong suppression of FSIs at backward spectator proton angles $\theta_{pq}$ relative to the photon direction [@cda4; @Cosyn11; @Frankfurt94].
The main uncertainty in estimating the role of FSIs is the spectator proton–hadronic debris ($X$) scattering cross section $\sigma_{p X}$. Frankfurt [*et al.*]{} [@Frankfurt94] estimated this from the $^2$H$(e,e'p)n$ break-up reaction at high energies using data on soft neutron production in muon DIS from heavy nuclei [@Adams95]. At backward angles FSIs were found to contribute less than 5% to the cross section for $p_s^\perp < 100$ MeV/$c$ and $\alpha_s < 1.5$.
In the hadronization model of Ciofi degli Atti [*et al.*]{} [@cda4] the rescattering cross section $\sigma_{p X}$ was derived from a color flux tube picture, and found to grow logarithmically with time. Including the effects of color string breaking and gluon bremsstrahlung, the resulting FSI corrections were again small in the backward hemisphere, amounting to $\lesssim 5\%$ for spectator angles $\theta_{pq} > 120^\circ$ and $|\bm{p}_s| \lesssim 100$ MeV/$c$. For larger momenta, $|\bm{p}_s| \approx 200$ MeV/$c$, FSIs enhance the spectral function by $\approx 20\%$ at backward angles. FSI are most pronounced in perpendicular kinematics, $\theta_{pq} \sim 90^\circ$, where they can be used as a tool to study the process of hadronization in nuclei. Models such as that of Ciofi degli Atti [*et al.*]{} [@cda4] predict that in this angular region, FSI can lead to either a suppression (for $|\bm{p}_s| \le 200$ MeV/$c$) or a significant enhancement (for $|\bm{p}_s| \ge 400$ MeV/$c$) of the cross section. In all existing models, however, it is clear that FSIs can be minimized to $\lesssim 5\%$ by restricting proton momenta to $|\bm{p}_s| \lesssim 100$ MeV/$c$ and spectator angles to $\theta_{pq} \gtrsim 100^\circ$, which serves as a guide for the kinematic cuts utilized in the BONuS experiment.
### Target fragmentation
Backward kinematics also suppresses hadronization of low-momentum protons produced from the debris of the struck neutron [@cda2_1; @cda2_2; @Bosveld94]. Although a potentially important contribution in the forward hemisphere (current fragmentation region), direct fragmentation into protons was found by Simula [@cda2_2] to be negligible for $\theta_{pq} \gtrsim 90^\circ$ even for large momenta $p_s$.
### Nucleon off-shell effects
The dependence of the bound neutron structure functions on the neutron’s off-shell mass squared $p^2 \approx M^2 + 2M\epsilon_d - 2 \bm{p}_s^2$ can introduce additional deviations of the extracted structure functions in Eqs. from their on-shell values. On the other hand, the restriction to low-momentum protons guarantees that the neutron’s virtuality $M^2-p^2$ does not exceed $\approx 13$ MeV$^2/c^2$ for $p_s = 100$ MeV/$c$, and $\approx 7$ MeV$^2/c^2$ for $p_s = 70$ MeV/$c$, the lower acceptance limit of the BONuS detector.
Determining the effect of the nucleon’s virtuality on its structure from first principles is extremely challenging, and in fact cannot be rigorously defined independently of the nucleon’s environment. The off-shell effects have been estimated within several models of the nucleon, including dynamical quark–diquark models [@meln_schr_thom; @Kulagin06] and effective models in which the bound nucleon structure functions are evaluated at shifted kinematics [@Heller90; @gross_liuti1].
In the covariant quark–(spectator) diquark model of Melnitchouk [*et al.*]{} [@meln_schr_thom], scattering from a bound nucleon is described in terms of relativistic vertex functions that parametrize the nucleon–quark–(spectator) diquark interaction, with the vertex functions constrained by inclusive $F_2^p$ and $F_2^d$ data. The off-shell effects at low $p_s$ are small as expected, and increase at higher momenta. For $p_s < 100$ MeV/$c$, the correction is essentially zero at $x \approx 0.3$, and does not exceed $\approx 1\%$ at larger $x$.
A similar model introduced by Gross and Liuti [@gross_liuti1] describes scattering from an off-shell nucleon in terms of a relativistic quark spectral function, with the bound nucleon structure function evaluated at a shifted value of $x$ that depends on the mass of the diquark, the bound nucleon momentum, and the binding energy. The effects are again small at low spectator proton momenta, $\lesssim 2\%$ for $p_s < 100$ MeV/$c$, increasing to around 5% for $p_s = 200$ MeV/$c$.
Simply on the basis of kinematics, Heller and Thomas [@Heller90] also estimated the role of nucleon off-shellness within an instant form approach, in which the bound nucleon structure function was evaluated at a shifted energy transfer that is correlated with the degree to which the nucleon is off its energy shell. The off-shell modifications here were found to be $\lesssim 1\%$ for low spectator momenta $p_s \approx 100$ MeV/$c$.
In all cases considered, therefore, the effects of the neutron’s off-shellness play only a very minor role as long as spectator proton momenta are restricted to values $p_s < 100$ MeV/$c$. At larger $p_s$ the off-shell effects can be studied in conjunction with data from earlier experiments [@Klimenko06], which measured spectator proton spectra over the range $280 < p_s < 700$ MeV/$c$, as a means of probing the medium modifications of the nucleon’s quark structure.
Experimental setup {#sec_setup}
==================
The BONuS experiment was conducted in Hall B of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF or Jefferson Lab). Electrons from the CEBAF beam were scattered off a deuteron target and detected by CLAS. The spectator protons were detected with an RTPC designed specially for this experiment.
CEBAF is a superconducting radio frequency accelerator facility capable of delivering continuous polarized electron beams with energies up to 6 GeV. (It is presently being upgraded for up to 12 GeV beam energy.) During the BONuS experiment, beam energies of approximately 1.1, 2.14, 4.23, and 5.27 GeV with beam currents from 2 nA up to 55 nA were employed.
CLAS
----
The Hall B end station houses CLAS, the “CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer”. CLAS can detect particles for $\theta$ angles $8^\circ$ – $142^\circ$ and for approximately 80$\%$ of $2\pi$ in $\phi$. It employs a toroidal magnetic field of up to 2 T produced by 6 superconducting coils. CLAS consists of several layers of particle detectors, each separated into 6 azimuthal sectors by the torus magnet coils:
1. Drift chambers (DC), which determine charged particle trajectories. They are capable of a momentum resolution of $\delta p/p \leq 0.5\%$ and angular track resolution of $\delta \theta \leq 1$ mrad, $\delta \phi \leq 5$ mrad for 1 GeV/$c$ particles [@Mestayer:2000we].
2. Cherenkov counters (CC) for electron-pion separation (used in the trigger). CLAS Cherenkov counters are capable of distinguishing pions and electrons up to momenta of approximately 2.8 GeV/$c$ [@Adams:2001kk].
3. Scintillation counters (SC) for time-of-flight (TOF) measurements. The counters cover the $\theta$ range between $8^\circ$ and $142^\circ$ and the entire active range in $\phi$ (for a total area of 206 $\rm m^2$) [@essmith]. The time resolution of the system is between 70 ps (for the shortest counters) and 165 ps (for the longest counters).
4. Electromagnetic calorimeters (EC) to identify electrons and to detect neutral particles like photons and neutrons. The EC are used to trigger on electrons at energies above 0.5 GeV. The sampling fraction is approximately 0.3 for electrons of 3 GeV and greater, and for smaller energies, there is a monotonic decrease to about 0.25 for electrons of 0.5 GeV [@ec]. The average rms resolution is 2.3 cm for electron showers with more than 0.5 GeV of energy deposited in the scintillator. The timing resolution of the EC for electrons averages to 200 ps over the entire detector.
All detectors listed above are standard CLAS equipment and have been in Hall B for over a decade. CLAS is described in detail in Ref. [@mecking]. They were complemented by a dedicated RTPC utilizing Gas Electron Multipliers (GEMs) that was built specifically for this experiment (see below). It was designed to detect heavily ionizing, slow moving protons that can not travel far from the target.
Radial Time Projection Chamber
------------------------------
{width="80.00000%"}
To identify events in which a proton is a mere “spectator” to the electron-neutron collision, we needed to select events in which the detected proton is moving backwards with low momentum (around or below 0.1 GeV/$c$). To register such protons, we needed a detector that provides good coverage in the backward hemisphere (with respect to the direction of the electron beam), and is close enough to the target to be able to detect these heavily ionizing low energy protons before they get stopped. An RTPC [@bonusnim] utilizing GEMs was constructed for this experiment to fulfill these requirements (see Fig. \[rtpc\]). The RTPC was surrounded by a solenoid magnet, run at 3.5 T and 4.7 T, that served to analyze proton momenta and, in addition, to deflect Moeller electron trajectories, making them stay clear of all sensitive detector volumes.
The capability of time projection chambers (TPCs) to provide a complete 3D picture of particle trajectories in the detector volume, as well as particle identification through specific energy loss, $dE/dx$, combined with the low mass density of this kind of detector, made it a natural choice for our purposes. The BONuS RTPC utilizes gas for its sensitive volume to reduce the mass density the protons have to traverse. The more common axial TPC would not have been a good choice for the following reasons:
- The solenoid magnet length is less than its diameter, and so it does not have magnetic field lines parallel to each other over a reasonable length.
- Detecting forward moving high-momentum particles with CLAS requires minimizing the end cap density, the region where a lot of equipment is normally situated in axial TPCs.
- The RTPC configuration made it easier to stay clear of the Moeller electrons.
RTPCs, in which electrons drift radially outwards from the cylindrical central cathode to the anode located on a concentric cylinder, have been previously used, [*e.g.*]{}, by the STAR [@star] and CERES [@ceres] collaborations. In this configuration, the electric and magnetic fields are no longer parallel, which leads to complex electron drift trajectories. In addition, curved readout pad planes are required. For these reasons RTPCs have a more complex structure.
![(Color Online) BONuS data readout scheme.\[fig\_readout\]](Figure4.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Since the charge collected at the readout pads is proportional to the energy loss of the particle, the signal amplitude at the pads as a function of time provides information on the specific energy loss of the particle. A particle’s momentum and charge can be found from the curvature of its trajectory in the magnetic field, hence the particle can be identified. This requires a quasi-continuous readout of amplitude information from the pads, generating a potentially large data flow. We designed the BONuS RTPC around custom integrated circuits built for the large TPC used in the ALICE heavy-ion experiment at CERN [@ALTRO; @ALICE] (see Fig. \[fig\_readout\]).
Figure \[rtpc\] shows the BONuS RTPC with the integrated 7 atm deuterium gas target on its axis. The target has a fiducial length of 17 cm (visible by the RTPC) and inner diameter of 0.6 cm with 50-$\mu$m Kapton walls. The detector surrounds the target at close distance with the center of the RTPC moved 25 mm with respect to the target center for better coverage of the backwards hemisphere, where spectator protons are expected. Upon exiting the target and traversing a buffer volume filled with 1 atm helium gas (providing a low mass density region for Moeller electrons to escape in the forward direction), protons pass a ground plane located at a radius of 2 cm and then the cathode surface at a radius of 3 cm. Upon traversing the cathode, the protons enter the sensitive ionization volume (covering radial distances from 3 cm to 6 cm), filled with an approximately 80$\%$ He/20$\%$ dimethyl ether (DME) mixture. Helium as the main component of the mixture provides the necessary low density, which minimizes the energy loss of slow protons. When traversing the sensitive volume, the spectator ionizes the gas and the released electrons drift towards the amplification and readout stages (see below). The drift region voltage of the RTPC was kept at 1500 V for all runs. The resulting electric field produces a sufficiently short clearing time in the drift region without making the cathode voltage so high that a breakdown could occur.
The BONuS RTPC uses Gaseous Electron Multipliers (GEMs) [@gem_sauli] to amplify the signal from the drift electrons. GEM foils are mechanically flexible, robust, and relatively low cost structures, which can be used in a variety of gases and can be placed very close to readout pads, thus decreasing the effects of charge diffusion. An additional advantage is that they can be formed into non-planar shapes – the BONuS RTPC was the first detector to use cylindrically curved GEM foils. A total of 3 GEM layers yielded an overall amplification factor of over 1000 during the experimental run. The GEM gain was limited by the requirement that non-linearities (saturation) for slow spectator protons had to be avoided. This made the RTPC fairly insensitive to minimum ionizing particles (*i.e.* electrons). The first GEM layer is at 6 cm radius, followed by two more GEM layers at 6.3 and 6.6 cm radius and the readout pad board at 6.9 cm radius. The space outside the pad board, within the bore of the solenoidal magnet, was reserved for preamplifiers and cables. The front and rear caps of the drift region are made of printed-circuit boards patterned with metal traces forming the field cage necessary to make the drift field between the concentric cylinders as close as possible to that between two infinite concentric cylinders. The overall length of the active volume is about 20 cm.
![An RTPC event in several views (top row: 2-dimensional projections on end cap and center plane; bottom row: two different 3-dimensional views, the second rotated by $90^\circ$) . Black blobs indicate ionized charge traced back to the spot of the ionization, solid lines going through them indicate fitted tracks. An outline of the RTPC is overlaid.\[rtpc\_event\]](Figure5.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
The RTPC is segmented into two semi-circular halves, each covering an azimuthal angle of around 150$^{\circ}$. The readout pads have dimensions of 0.5 cm $\times$ 0.45 cm, thus covering approximately 3.5$^{\circ}$ in azimuthal angle and 0.45 cm along the axis of the cylinder each. Pad rows along the axis of the RTPC are shifted with respect to each other to minimize the probability of a whole track being contained in the same row of pads, thus improving the track resolution. The RTPC is capable of detecting spectator protons with momenta from 0.07 to 0.15 GeV/$c$. Below this range, protons are stopped too soon to leave a substantial track in the RTPC, and above that range, protons are too fast, so that the radius of curvature of their trajectories is too large to confidently reconstruct their momenta (often, they are seen as infinite momentum particles). Figure \[rtpc\_event\] shows a reconstructed RTPC event. A candidate track curved by the solenoid field is shown. The sizes of the symbols indicate the amount of charge collected on a pad. The signal was further amplified, processed by the ALICE readout system, sent to VME crates, and then to Readout Controllers within the standard CLAS data acquisition system. This system allowed us to read out approximately 1-kB events at a rate of about 500 Hz.
The BONuS event readout was initiated by the standard CLAS electron trigger system selecting interactions with a high probability of having an electron track in CLAS. The data recorded for each event is composed of the time slices (in 114 ns increments) and amplitudes (10 bits) of all RTPC pad signals above threshold for a time period extending from 1.7 $\rm \mu s$ before to 9.7 $\rm \mu s$ after a trigger. This interval is about 1.5 times the maximum drift time in the RTPC. See Ref. [@bonusnim] for a detailed discussion of the BONuS RTPC.
Analysis {#analres}
========
First pass analysis
-------------------
The analysis of the data proceeded in several steps. As a first step, all detector elements of CLAS and the RTPC were calibrated. After this, all raw digitizations written to tape were converted into reconstructed events with momentum four-vectors assigned to each identified particle. Finally, corrections to improve the tracking resolution, including effects like ionization energy loss of all charged particles, were applied. Most of these steps are part of a standard CLAS analysis (see, *e.g*., [@mythesis] for a more detailed description), with the exception of the work related to the RTPC, which was first used in this experiment.
### RTPC calibration
Two kinds of calibrations are needed for the RTPC:
- Drift velocity calibration – finding time-to-distance correspondence for drifting electrons.
- Pad gain calibration – finding the correspondence between registered charge and ionization energy loss.
For the drift velocity calibration, ionization electron paths were generated using the MAGBOLTZ program [@magboltz]. The result is a function converting any pad signal (given by the pad coordinates and the arrival time $T_{sig}$) to a spatial point [@bonusnim]: $$(x,y,z) = f_{xyz}(j,T_{sig};V_{cathode},V_{GEM},R_{gas}, B_{sol}),$$ where $j$ is the pad number and $T_{sig}$ is the time difference between the start time (given by the electron trigger) and the time when the signal was recorded at the pad. The function $f_{xyz}$ depends on the cathode voltage, $V_{cathode}$, the GEM voltage, $V_{GEM}$, the solenoidal magnetic field $B_{sol}$, and the fraction $R_{gas}$ of helium in the He/DME drift gas mixture.
\[ht\] ![(Color online) Comparison of electron scattering angles, as reported by the RTPC and CLAS, before (a) and after (b) calibration. The comparison is shown for the left half of the RTPC; the right half results are similar. Both experimental distributions (thin colored lines) and Gaussian fits to them (thick lines) are shown. \[fig\_dth\]](Figure6a.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![(Color online) Comparison of electron scattering angles, as reported by the RTPC and CLAS, before (a) and after (b) calibration. The comparison is shown for the left half of the RTPC; the right half results are similar. Both experimental distributions (thin colored lines) and Gaussian fits to them (thick lines) are shown. \[fig\_dth\]](Figure6b.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
To correct for our imperfect knowledge of the magnetic field and gas mixture as well as the start time offset, this function was fine-tuned using information from the CLAS detector. A special run with an increased RTPC voltage was conducted so that electrons registered in CLAS were also visible in the RTPC. Cross-checking information from the two detectors allowed us to find optimal parameters for the function $f_{xyz}$. Figure \[fig\_dth\] demonstrates this comparison of track scattering angles between the RTPC and CLAS and shows much better agreement of the angles after the final calibration of the RTPC (bottom). A similar improvement was seen in the reconstructed $z$ vertex agreement. Some minor discrepancies can still be seen in the CLAS – RTPC comparison. Those were taken care of by means of the RTPC and CLAS momentum corrections (see below).
By comparing average signal sizes from readout pads, we found that the effective detector gain varied considerably across the surface of the RTPC [@bonusnim], most likely due to non-uniformities in the GEM foils or their distance from each other. Therefore, we had to accurately determine the relative responses of all 3200 pads before useful $dE/dx$ information could be extracted from the data. After the drift velocity/trajectory calibration described above, each track momentum was determined. Using the momentum, the average $dE/dx$ expected for a proton was calculated for the track using the Bethe-Bloch formula (see, for example, [@leo]). Using the drift paths obtained in the drift velocity/trajectory calibration, the number of ionization electrons expected to drift to each pad $j$ was determined. Given the measured charge on that pad, we calibrated its gain $G(j)$ in an iterative procedure.
The obtained gain-normalization factors were used to scale the raw pulse heights. The same procedure was repeated excluding tracks whose measured $dE/dx$ after the first iteration was inconsistent with that of protons. The second pass gain-normalization factors were retained and used for the final analysis. Figure \[fig\_dedxafter\] shows the extracted ionization density distributions after gain calibration versus measured momentum, with the expected functional correlation (from the Bethe-Bloch formula for energy loss $dE/dx$ which should be proportional to ionization per unit length) overlaid. One can clearly distinguish several bands belonging to final state protons, deuterons and heavier nuclei (for these data, the target was temporarily filled with $^4$He gas).
![(Color online) The ionization density distribution of particles registered by the RTPC after the RTPC gain calibration. The solid curves are calculated based on the Bethe-Bloch formula for $dE/dx$ for various particles, in order from bottom to top: proton, deuteron, triton, helion ($^3$He), alpha ($^4$He). The target was filled with $^4$He gas and the electron energy was 2 GeV for this measurement. \[fig\_dedxafter\]](Figure7.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
### RTPC momentum corrections {#sec_rtpc_corr}
To determine spectator proton momenta at the vertex from the measured track curvature within the annulus of the sensitive drift region (ranging from 3 to 6 cm from the beam axis), two additional corrections were applied:
1. The track curvature itself was corrected for possible biases in fitting a helical track to the observed ionization pattern, as well as for finite position resolution, magnetic field inhomogeneities and possible deviation of the ideal (simulated) drift paths and drift velocities from the actual ones.
2. The corrected curvatures were then converted to momenta at the vertex, after accounting for energy loss in the target gas and the intervening material before reaching the sensitive drift volume.
The mapping between measured curvature and vertex momentum was based on a GEANT4 simulation [@geant4]. A large number of events was generated over the full range of target $z$ (coordinate along the beam axis) and spectator proton momenta and angles, $p_s,\theta, \phi$. They were subsequently run through a full simulation of the RTPC including signal conversion and track reconstruction. By comparing the results of the simulation (in terms of the reconstructed radius of curvature and angle $\theta$ of the tracks) with the thrown momenta, we extracted a one-to-one correspondence between the measured radius of curvature and the vertex spectator momentum, accounting for energy loss (see [@jzthesis] for more details).
To improve the accuracy of the momentum reconstruction, we used fully exclusive $^2$H$(e,e'p\pi^-p)$ events, where the first three particles were detected with CLAS and the last proton with the RTPC. We compared the missing momentum from the electron, pion and proton measured in CLAS with the reconstructed momentum of the proton detected in the RTPC. The average agreement of these two quantities was optimized by adjusting the six parameters of the following correction formulas:
$$\begin{aligned}
R_{new} &= R_{old}/(1 + p_1 \cdot R_{old} + p_2) \\
\theta_{new} &= (1 + p_3) \cdot \theta_{old} + p_4 \\
\phi_{new} &=(1 + p_5) \cdot \phi_{old} + p_6,
\end{aligned}$$
where $R_{new}$ and $R_{old}$ are the corrected and reconstructed radius of curvature, respectively, $\theta_{new}$ and $\theta_{old}$ are the corrected and reconstructed polar angle, respectively, and $\phi_{new}$ and $\phi_{old}$ are the corrected and reconstructed azimuthal angle, respectively. $p_1$ $\ldots$ $p_6$ are the fit parameters. All parameters turned out to be small, leading to corrections of order 2% on $R$ and less than 1 mrad on $ \theta$ and $\phi$.
The RTPC–measured momentum distribution of coincident protons after these two corrections was similar to the one expected from the pure spectator picture (given by the deuteron wave function in momentum space), although the measured spectrum falls off somewhat faster than predicted. This can be attributed to the RTPC reconstruction efficiency which falls off for higher spectator momenta (due to insufficient charge and track curvature for a reliable track reconstruction). We were able to partially correct this efficiency fall-off using the ratio of the number of fully exclusive $^2$H$(e,e'p\pi^-p)$ to $^2$H$(e,e'p\pi^-)X$ events, where the first three particles in either case were detected with CLAS and we looked for the inferred proton in the RTPC.
### CLAS momentum corrections
Momenta of particles reconstructed with CLAS were also corrected for minor imperfections (wire misalignments, torus and solenoid magnetic field deviations from the ideal field maps used in the reconstruction, beam offset from the ideal center line) and effects like multiple scattering and energy loss. These corrections have been applied and studied in previous experiments [@Klimenko06; @nguler]. We determined correction parameters using a fit to fully exclusive BONuS data ($ep \to ep$ and $ep \to ep\pi^+\pi^-$ reactions), following the method described in [@Klimenko06]. After applying all corrections, both the centroid and the widths of the proton missing-mass peaks were well within the established CLAS resolution and accuracy.
Event selection and background subtraction {#sec_cuts}
------------------------------------------
### Particle ID cuts
For the selection of semi-inclusive D$(e,e'p_s)X$ events, we developed criteria to identify scattered electrons, $e'$, detected by CLAS, and spectator protons, $p_s$, detected by the RTPC.
Trigger particles were identified as electrons if they passed the following selection cuts:
- Track curvature consistent with a negative charge.
- Cherenkov counter signal above the equivalent of 2 photo-electrons for momenta below 3.0 GeV/$c$. Above this limit, pions can emit Cherenkov radiation and the CC becomes inefficient for pion discrimination. (We still required a signal above the equivalent of 1 photo-electron in this case, to discriminate against heavier particles like kaons and protons). In addition, geometrical and temporal matching between the CC signal and the measured track was required to eliminate coincidences between CC noise and charged particle tracks, which can result in pions masquerading as electrons [@OsipenkoCut].
- Total energy deposited in the EC above a momentum-dependent threshold consistent with the EC shower sampling fraction of $\approx 0.25 - 0.3$.
- At least 0.06 GeV visible energy in the first (front) layers of the EC, which is significantly higher than that expected for minimum-ionizing particles like pions.
- Track within the fiducial volume (part of the detector with high detection efficiency and no physical obstructions).
In addition, the momentum of the trigger electron was required to be larger than 20$\%$ of the beam energy to avoid the kinematic region where radiative corrections and backgrounds become fairly large.
Spectator protons were defined by the following selection cuts
- Reliable fit of the track in the RTPC ($\chi^2/$d.o.f of the fit less than 4).
- Positively charged particle.
- More than 5 pads register above-threshold charge.
- Energy loss $dE/dx$ consistent with that expected for protons (see Fig. \[fig\_dedxafter\]; particles with energy loss more than 2 standard deviations above or less than 3 standard deviations below the measured proton $dE/dx$ distribution were rejected).
- Beginning and endpoint of the ionization trail reconstructed by the RTPC within 0.5 cm of the corresponding physical chamber boundary (this is basically a timing cut, since out-of-time tracks will be reconstructed at the wrong radial positions).
- $z$ coordinate of the vertex is inside the fiducial target region (between $-6$ cm and $+10$ cm of the RTPC center).
In addition, for good electron-proton coincidence events we required that the difference between the $z$ coordinate of the electron vertex, $z_e$, as reconstructed by CLAS, and the $z$ coordinate of the proton vertex, $z_p$, as reconstructed by the RTPC, be no larger than 1.5 cm (to exclude accidental coincidences, see below).
Coincident events that passed all cuts were registered in 4-dimensional bins in the kinematic variables $x^*$ or $W^*$, $Q^2$, $p_s$ and $\cos \theta_{pq}$. In addition, all electron events from inclusive D$(e,e')X$ that pass the electron cuts above were accumulated in bins of scattered-electron energy, $E'$, and angle, $\theta_e$.
### \[sec\_acc\_bg\]Accidental background subtraction
While the cut on the distance between electron and proton vertices (see above) removes most of the accidental coincidences, the remainder (when the trigger electron and an unrelated RTPC proton happen to originate within 1.5 cm from each other) must be quantified and subtracted.
![(Color online) Representative plot of the $\Delta z$ distribution for coincidences (solid histogram) between electrons (in CLAS) and spectator protons (in the RTPC) from the 5 GeV data set. Inner vertical lines indicate the region selected for data analysis ($-1.5 \ldots +1.5$ cm). The dashed line indicates the corresponding distribution for accidental coincidences obtained by matching tracks from different events (see text), cross-normalized to the data outside the outer vertical lines ($-2.0 \ldots +2.0$ cm). The good agreement in the “wings” outside those lines indicates that the shape of the background is well represented by this method. See text for more details. \[fig\_randz\]](Figure8.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Such random coincidences can be simulated by taking the trigger electron from one event (without requiring a matching proton) and the RTPC proton from another event. Since spectator protons are distributed rather uniformly in angle (see Section \[results\]), such pairs provide very good proxies for true random coincidences. Using kinematic information from the chosen electron-proton random pair, all quantities in which real data are binned, $Q^2$, $W^*$, $x^*$, $p_s$ and $\cos \theta_{pq}$, are calculated, and the coincidence assigned to the corresponding bin. If the distance between the vertices of the electron and the proton, $\Delta z = z_e - z_p$, is less than 1.5 cm, the event would emulate a random coincidence under the signal. If $\Delta z$ is larger than 2 cm, we consider it a “wing” event. Then, after going over all the events within a bin, we form a scaling ratio, $R_{acc}$, of the number of coincidences under the signal divided by the number of “wing” events, separately for each of our kinematic bins.
All same-event experimental coincidences between electrons and RTPC protons are separated into the same categories, “wing” events (those with $|\Delta z|>2$ cm) and “signal” (peak) events (those with $|\Delta z| < 1.5$ cm). Then, the number of observed “wing” events is scaled by the ratio $R_{acc}$ to yield the number of random coincidences under the peak. The resulting accidental background events are subtracted from the events within the peak for each kinematic bin.
A sample of the distribution of both same-event and scaled random coincidences is shown in Fig. \[fig\_randz\]; the solid histogram shows the distribution of coincident events from the same “beam bucket” while the dashed line shows the simulated random distribution, normalized to the wings (outside $\pm 2$ cm). One can clearly see that our method leads to an excellent approximation of the accidental background in the wings. After subtracting the accidental distribution from the data, the remaining distribution is well described by a Gaussian with a resolution of about 0.7 cm ($1 \sigma$).
### Pair symmetric and pion contamination {#bgnd}
Electron scattering experiments typically have to account for contamination of the electron sample by $e^+/e^-$ pair symmetric contributions as well as the possible contribution from negative pions misidentified as electrons.
Pair symmetric background comes from Dalitz decays ($\pi^0 \rightarrow \gamma e^+ e^-$) and photons converting to $e^+/e^-$ pairs inside the target enclosure. The decay electron can then be misinterpreted as a scattered beam electron. The rate of this background (at most a few percent of the electron rate) has been extensively studied in previous CLAS experiments [@nguler] for the case of inclusive electron scattering off isoscalar targets (like deuteron) and can be parametrized with a simple exponential in both electron and pion momentum and angle. This parametrization was applied as a correction to the inclusive D$(e,e')X$ data (between 0% and 3%, with an average of about 1%). For the tagged data, the correction should be even smaller since it is proportional to the rate of $\pi^0$ and photon production off the neutron in deuteron (all other channels are automatically subtracted in our treatment of accidental backgrounds). We therefore did not correct the tagged data and instead included an overall systematic uncertainty of 1% due to pair symmetric backgrounds.
Negative pions can be misidentified as electrons if they pass all cuts. The size of this contamination was studied in great detail for similar kinematics in an earlier experiment [@nguler], and it was found to be at most 1% – 2% for the same set of electron cuts we applied in this work. Since this correction is small compared to other possible systematic effects, it was not applied to the data but included in the total systematic uncertainty budget.
Monte-Carlo based analysis
--------------------------
To extract quantities of interest from the background-corrected yields, we used two different analysis methods. The first one uses a full Monte-Carlo simulation of the experiment to correct for acceptance effects (“Monte Carlo method”), while the second one is based on ratios of measured quantities only (“Ratio method”). The Ratio method was used for the extraction of the free neutron structure function $F_2^n$ reported by Baillie *et al.* [@prl] and in this paper; it is summarized in Section \[altanal\]. Some additional results reported below cover a larger range in spectator momenta and angles of the spectator proton relative to the momentum transfer vector ${\mathbf q}$ and were obtained using the Monte Carlo method, which is described in detail in the following. We show a comparison of the results obtained with both methods in Section \[compareNS\].
### Event generator
For the Monte-Carlo based analysis, we simulated both tagged D$(e,e' p_s)X$ events (where $p_s$ is the spectator proton) and fully inclusive D$(e,e')X$ events (to determine empirical detector inefficiencies not accounted for by our simulation). For both processes, we used the same event generator to (at least partially) cancel model dependencies. We included two basic processes in the generator:
1. Elastic scattering off deuteron, D$(e,e')$D. We used the well-known deuteron form factors [@HallCdFF] and the prescription by Mo and Tsai [@motsai] to estimate the radiative tail contribution from this process to D$(e,e')X$, which turned out to be a very small correction to the inclusive cross section in our region of interest. (Obviously, it does not contribute at all to the tagged cross section).
2. Quasi-free scattering off either a proton or a neutron inside deuteron, within a simple plane wave spectator approximation. This process was further subdivided into quasi-elastic scattering (where the struck nucleon stays intact) and inelastic scattering off one nucleon (with the other being a spectator). These two processes are described in more detail below. Our generator did not contain additional processes like coherent pion production, final-state interactions and other two-nucleon effects; therefore, the ratio of measured to simulated tagged data can be interpreted as a direct test of the spectator picture. On the other hand, these processes do not affect the overall strength of the inclusive cross section significantly except perhaps in the dip region between the quasi-elastic and the Delta resonance peak.
To simulate scattering off a bound nucleon inside deuteron, we used a simple spectator formalism where one nucleon is considered to be on-shell and does not participate in the reaction while the other one is off the mass shell. In this picture, the energy and momentum of the off-shell bound nucleon $p^\mu = (E, {\mathbf p})$ are related to the spectator nucleon momentum ${\mathbf p}_s$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
E &= M_d - \sqrt{M^2+p_s^2} \\
{\mathbf p} &= -{\mathbf p}_s
\end{aligned}$$
with $M_d$ the deuteron mass (see Sec. \[sec\_physics\]). The off-shell mass of the struck nucleon is $$M^* = \sqrt{E^2-p_s^2}.$$
The initial momentum of the struck nucleon is generated at random with weight $$P({\mathbf p}) = |\psi({\mathbf p})|^2,$$ where $\psi({\mathbf p})$ is the Paris deuteron wavefunction [@pariswf] rescaled using the light-cone formalism [@brodsky_lightcone] within the approach by Frankfurt and Strikman [@Frankfurt:1988nt].
The scattered electron kinematics are generated in the rest frame of the struck nucleon. The scattered electrons are distributed according to the radiated cross section on a nucleon at rest. The distributions are kinematically corrected for the nucleon off-shell mass. The (quasi)elastic scattering cross section is given by the Rosenbluth formula: $$\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} = \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{Point}\frac{1}{\epsilon} \left( \tau G_M^2(Q^2)
+ \epsilon G_E^2(Q^2) \right) \frac{1}{1+\tau},
\label{eq_rosen}$$ where $\epsilon = 1/[1+2(1+\tau)\tan^2(\theta_e/2)]$ is the linear polarization of the virtual photon, $G_E$ and $G_M$ are Sachs form factors, and $\tau = Q^2/(4M^2)$. We used the parametrization of the proton form factors by Arrington [@Arrington09] and the parametrization of Kubon [*et al.*]{} [@Kubon:2001rj] for $G_{Mn}$ and the Galster [@Galster:1971kv] parametrization for $G_{En}$. Higher order QED effects and the elastic radiative tail are calculated using the full prescription of Mo and Tsai [@motsai].
Inelastic events off protons and neutrons in deuteron are generated similarly to the quasi-elastic ones. The cross section is evaluated using $$\frac{d\sigma}{dE'\,d\Omega} = \left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)_{Point}
\frac{2MxF_2(x,Q^2)}{\epsilon Q^2} \frac{1+\epsilon R(x,Q^2)}{1+R(x,Q^2)},
\label{eq_dis_cs_gener}$$ where $$R=\frac{\sigma_L}{\sigma_T} = \frac{F_2}{2 x F_1} \left(1 +\frac{Q^2}{\nu^2} \right) -1,$$ $\sigma_L$ and $\sigma_T$ being the longitudinal and transverse virtual photo-absorption cross sections. The proton and neutron structure functions are taken from Bosted and Christy [@bosted_christy]. Radiative effects are simulated using the code “RCSLACPOL” [@rcllacpol] which is based on the prescription by Mo and Tsai. The event generator also simulates the (rather small) external radiative energy loss *before* scattering, due to exit and entrance windows and gas in the beam path, while external radiative and other energy losses after the scattering are included in the detector simulation (see below).
The fully inclusive sample is formed by generating quasi-elastic and inelastic events from both the neutron and the proton (integrated over all spectator momenta), plus the radiative elastic tail from $^2$H$(e,e')^2$H. The simulated tagged sample contains only quasi-elastic and inelastic scattering events off bound neutrons, with information on the generated spectator proton being kept in addition to that on the scattered electron.
### Detector simulation {#SimulRate}
The generated events are then run through a Monte-Carlo simulation of the experimental set up which includes external radiation and ionization losses after the scattering. The target and RTPC parts of the setup are simulated in detail using the same GEANT4-based simulation package that was used for the RTPC momentum corrections, described in Section \[sec\_rtpc\_corr\]. The standard CLAS part of the setup is simulated using the existing GEANT3-based [@geant3] package called GSIM. After particle paths through the RTPC are simulated in GEANT4, the output information at the boundary is written to files which serve as input for the GSIM package. To simulate inefficiencies of the CLAS detector, the GSIM Post Processing package (GPP) is run after GSIM. It makes the GSIM output look more like real data by accounting for dead scintillators and wires and adding some Gaussian smearing to the data to match the measured detector resolution.
After the generated events are tracked through the simulated detectors, one obtains files with simulated detector responses for the generated events. Finally, these files are processed by the usual data processing program (RECSIS), the same one used for processing experimental events. After applying the same fiducial and kinematic cuts as for the experimental data, we separately accumulate simulated data from quasi-elastic as well as inelastic scattering off a neutron inside deuteron. These data are binned in the same kinematic bins as the experimental tagged data.
Then all events from the elastic, quasi-elastic and inelastic simulations are combined, after passing inclusive electron cuts, to simulate the inclusive electron rate. Pair symmetric and pion contamination corrections (see Section \[bgnd\]) are applied to these simulated data. Since the inclusive D$(e,e')$ cross section is well known, the ratio of the inclusive data to the simulation can be used to extract remaining inefficiencies of the trigger and of detector elements like the CC and the EC that were not fully implemented in our simulation. For this purpose this ratio is calculated, for each beam energy, in bins of the final electron energy and scattering angle, $E'$ and $\theta_e$. The tabulated ratio is used as a weighting factor for each simulated tagged event, depending on its electron kinematics. This factor turned out to be around 0.85 on average, with a standard deviation of 0.072 around this mean. We used this standard deviation to estimate the point-to-point systematic uncertainty of this correction as 8.5%.
### Final data set {#dataextract}
The remaining steps of the Monte Carlo method require us to subtract the quasi-elastic radiative tail from the tagged neutron data, and to normalize our results to account for any remaining RTPC inefficiency not captured by the GEANT4 simulation. So, as the next step, we normalize the simulated quasi-elastic events (including radiative tail) on the bound neutron to the measured quasi-elastic strength, integrated over the region 0.88 GeV/$c^2$ $< W^* <$ 1 GeV/$c^2$, for each bin in $Q^2$ and spectator kinematics. Figure \[fig\_simW5gev\] shows the resulting simulated spectrum as function of $W^*$ for a specific bin in $Q^2$, spectator kinematics and beam energy, together with the data before and after subtracting experimental backgrounds. The shapes of the simulated and measured spectra agree well in the region $W^* < 1$ GeV/$c^2$, giving us confidence that the radiative tail is reasonably well represented by this procedure. We then subtract this normalized simulated spectrum from the measured one over the whole $W^*$ range to remove the (quasi-) elastic radiative tail from the measured spectrum.
![(Color online) $W^*$ distributions (for 1.10 GeV$^2/c^2 < Q^2 <$2.23 GeV$^2/c^2$) of measured counts for the 5.3 GeV beam energy with spectator protons detected at angles greater than about 100$^\circ$ and momenta between 70 and 85 MeV/$c$. The data are shown before (top, black squares) and after subtraction of accidental coincidences and other backgrounds (lower blue triangles). Also shown are the normalized simulated counts for elastic scattering off a neutron inside the deuteron, including the radiative tail (open red circles, bottom). Note the good agreement between this simulation and the data in the quasi-elastic region, $W^* < 1$ GeV. \[fig\_simW5gev\]](Figure9.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The remaining experimental spectrum is due only to inelastic $^2$H$(e,e'p_s)X$ events and can be compared to the simulated inelastic spectrum. However, the latter must still be normalized to account for the overall efficiency of the RTPC. In particular, we find that the simulation of the RTPC response did not fully capture the experimentally observed RTPC track reconstruction efficiency within cuts, and that this efficiency varies as a function of proton momentum (from about 0.6 at the lowest $p_s$ down to 0.23 at the upper limit of our $p_s$ range). For this reason, we derive a normalization factor $N(p_s, E_b)$ for each of our 4 bins in spectator momentum $p_s$. This factor is also allowed to vary between the different time spans corresponding to each of the beam energy settings used in our experiment (indicated by the dependence on the variable $E_b$). We determine this factor using events in the range $-1 < \cos\theta_{pq} < -0.2$ (backward kinematics). According to theoretical expectations and our own data (see next Section), the spectator picture works best in this kinematic region. We match the measured spectrum to the simulated one in a kinematic region where the ratio between the two is found to be flat: $W^*=$ 2.0 – 2.2 GeV/$c^2$ for both the 4 and 5 GeV data, within the lowest fully accepted $Q^2$ bin for each energy. The resulting agreement between data and simulation can be seen in Fig. \[fig\_q0cos0\_vsW\_5gev\] which shows the ratio between both. This ratio fluctuates around 1.0 by about $\pm 10\%$ in the chosen $W$ region, which is consistent with the uncertainty $\Delta N(p_s,E_b)$ we assign to the normalization factor, see next section. Note that this factor is the same for all bins in spectator angle and in ($W^*, Q^2$) for a given beam energy setting and $p_s$ bin, allowing us to study the dependence of the data on these variables without normalization bias. After applying the normalization $N(p_s,E_b)$ we form the ratio $R_{D/S}$ between the background and radiative tail-subtracted tagged data (integrated over a given kinematic bin) and the normalized simulation. This ratio can then be used to study the kinematic dependence of any deviations between our data and our cross section model, see Section \[secPWIAcomp\]. If our spectator cross section model is valid, $R_{D/S}$ can be interpreted as the ratio between the effective structure function $F_2^{n, \rm eff}(W^*,Q^2, p_s, \cos \theta_{pq})$ and the model input for $F_2^n(W^*, Q^2)$ for each bin: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MCratio}
R_{D/S} &=& \frac{N_{^2{\mathrm H}(e,e'p_s)X}^{\rm data,corr}(W^*,Q^2, p_s, \cos \theta_{pq}) }
{N(p_s,E_b) N_{^2{\mathrm H}(e,e'p_s)X}^{\rm simul}(W^*,Q^2, p_s, \cos \theta_{pq}) } \nonumber \\
&=& \left(1+
\frac{\Delta N(p_s,E_b)}{N(p_s,E_b)}\right) \frac{F_2^{n, \rm eff}(W^*,Q^2, p_s, \cos \theta_{pq})}{F_2^{n, \rm model}(W^*,Q^2)}\end{aligned}$$ where the first factor on the second line accounts for the possible normalization uncertainty.
As a further result, the value of the effective structure function $F_2^{n, \rm eff}$ for a given kinematic bin in $p_s, \cos{\theta_{qp_s}}, Q^2$ and $x^*$ or $W^*$ can be extracted from the data by multiplying the ratio $R_{D/S}$ with the model input for the free $F_2^n$ at the center of that bin (thus also taking bin centering into account). This method leads to an (approximate) cancellation of the model input for $F_2^n$ since the simulated data are (roughly) proportional to it, leading to largely unbiased results for $F_2^{n, \rm eff}$.
### Systematic uncertainties
The total systematic uncertainty on each data point consists of an overall scale uncertainty and point-to-point uncertainties due to the various inputs and assumptions for the analysis. The scale uncertainty, $\Delta N(p_s,E_b)$, is due to our RTPC normalization method (Section \[dataextract\]) which relies on the assumption that our model describes the data accurately for the kinematic bin chosen to normalize the simulated to the measured tagged inelastic data. We estimate this uncertainty by varying the $W^*$ range over which we compare data and simulation, which yields a scale uncertainty of $\Delta N(p_s,E_b) = \pm 0.1 N(p_s,E_b)$. This includes an uncertainty of $5\%$ for the model value for $F_2^n$ in the chosen kinematic range. This scale uncertainty is not shown on plots, since it affects all the bins in a given distribution uniformly. The remaining point-to-point systematic uncertainties are discussed below and summarized in Table \[t\_slava\_syserr\].
- **Accidental background subtraction.** Our background subtraction method (see Section \[sec\_acc\_bg\]) depends somewhat on the limits chosen for the “wings” in the $\Delta z$ distribution that are used to estimate the number of background events between the cut limits of $-1.5$ cm$ < \Delta z < 1.5$ cm. We vary the $\Delta z$ “wings” from the standard range (2 – 16 cm) to a smaller range of 2 – 9 cm, and estimate the systematic uncertainty as the resulting change in accidental counts subtracted. This leads to an average systematic uncertainty of the order of 1% relative to the corrected data, with most bins having uncertainty under 1%. Uncertainties on the subtraction of other backgrounds ($\pi^-$ and pair-symmetric contamination) are of the order of 1%, as well.
- **$\boldsymbol{E'}-\boldsymbol{\theta}$ dependent acceptance and efficiency uncertainty.** This is the uncertainty on the estimate of the detection efficiency of the CLAS trigger electrons, calculated using the ratio of measured and simulated inclusive D$(e,e')$ event rates (see Section \[SimulRate\]) as a function of $E'$ and $\theta_e$. The uncertainty on this efficiency stems mostly from bin-to-bin fluctuations of the counting statistics and the uncertainty in the model used for the simulation. It was estimated by using the standard deviation of these (nearly random) fluctuations. This yields a kinematics-dependent systematic uncertainty of 8.5$\%$ (see Section \[dataextract\]). (An overall scale uncertainty is already accounted for, as mentioned above).
- **$F_2^n$ model dependence.** An overall scale uncertainty in our model of $F_2^n$ of about $5\%$ is included in the scale factor (see above). Any remaining deviation of the model from the “true” neutron structure function is part of the information to be extracted from the ratio $R_{D/S}$ and cancels largely in the extracted values for $F_2^{n, \rm eff}(W^*,Q^2, p_s, \cos \theta_{pq}) = R_{D/S} F_2^{n, \rm model}$ since the denominator of $R_{D/S}$ is approximately proportional to $F_2^{n, \rm model}$. A small residual uncertainty stems from smearing and radiative effects (that depend weakly on $F_2^{n, \rm model}$) and the structure function $R$ used for the simulation. It is subsumed in the uncertainty due to the Monte Carlo simulation.
- **Monte Carlo simulations.** Besides determining the detection efficiency via inclusive count rates, the Monte Carlo simulation is used in two different steps during the data analysis:
1. to determine the quasi-elastic radiative tail that is subtracted from the data in the inelastic region, and
2. to calculate the ratio $R_{D/S}$ between experimental and simulated inelastic data.
Both steps entail uncertainties due to Monte Carlo statistics and possible deviations between the simulated detector response and the real performance of CLAS and the RTPC. (The separate uncertainty due to the simulation of inclusive D$(e,e')$ rates has been discussed above).
The statistical Monte Carlo errors are calculated using simple counting statistics (Poisson distribution) and straightforward error propagation. Systematic point-to-point uncertainties are due to possible inaccuracies in our GEANT detector model and residual dependencies on the structure function models and radiative corrections (see previous bullet). We kept the Monte Carlo statistical errors below the systematic uncertainties in all cases. To estimate the systematic uncertainty due to the subtraction of the radiative quasi-elastic tail, we compared the simulated spectra in the quasi-elastic region 0.9 GeV$/c^2 < W^* < $ 1 GeV/$c^2$ with the measured one (see, *e.g.*, Fig. \[fig\_simW5gev\]). We concluded that the normalization of the tail has an uncertainty of about 10%, due to the slightly different shapes of these two spectra.
The systematic uncertainties due to $E'-\theta$ efficiency, background subtraction, and Monte Carlo simulation (both parts) are added in quadrature yielding a total point-to-point uncertainty of the ratio $R_{D/S}$ of about 12.5%. To convert these values to systematic uncertainties of the $F_2^n$ structure function, they are multiplied by the value of the model $F_2^n$ in the corresponding bin. These systematic uncertainties are shown as shaded bands in all plots in Section \[results\] that are based on the Monte Carlo method. While they depend on kinematics, this dependence is seen to be a relatively smooth function of the kinematic variables across the various spectra shown in Section \[results\].
Ratio method of extracting free neutron results {#altanal}
-----------------------------------------------
### Overview of the Ratio Method
The analysis method described up to this point has the advantage of using the complete available information from all detector elements of CLAS and the RTPC to correct the raw data for acceptance, efficiency, radiative effects and backgrounds bin by bin over the full kinematic domain covered by our experiment. This is essential when studying the dependence of the extracted effective structure function $F_2^{n, \rm eff}$ on all relevant kinematic variables. In contrast, for the purpose of extracting the (nearly) free neutron structure function $F_2^n(x,Q^2)$ from our data in the “VIP” (Very Important Proton) region ($p_s < 100$ MeV/$c$, $\theta_{pq} > 100^\circ$) we used the alternative “ratio method” that is less dependent on accurate knowledge of detector efficiencies and acceptance. The first publication of BONuS results [@prl] is based on this approach. In this section, we give a somewhat expanded explanation of the ratio method (more details can be found in [@natethesis]). In Section \[compareNS\] we compare the results for $F_2^n(x,Q^2)$ from these two different analyses, which have partially independent systematic uncertainties. As can be seen from Fig. \[slavanate\], the overall agreement is good and increases our confidence that all systematic experimental uncertainties of our final result have been properly accounted for.
The ratio method relies on the fact that the acceptance of the RTPC, after integration over the VIP region, is nearly independent of $W^*$ and $Q^2$ (since it depends only on the proton kinematics which are weakly correlated with these variables). Furthermore, the acceptance of CLAS for electrons within a given bin of $W^*$ and $Q^2$ for tagged events is very close to that for inclusive electrons from D$(e,e')$X events in the equivalent $W, Q^2$ bin, where $W^2 = M_p^2 + 2 M_p \nu - Q^2$ is the usual electron missing-mass variable (uncorrected for initial nucleon kinematics). We can therefore form the ratio of tagged over inclusive events, $N_{d(e,e'p_s)}(W^*,Q^2) / N_{d(e,e')}(W,Q^2)$ for each bin in $W^*$ and $Q^2$ (and the same bin in $W$). This ratio can be related to the ratio of structure functions $F_2^n(W,Q^2)/F_2^d(W,Q^2)$ via $$\begin{aligned}
R_{exp} = \frac{N_{d(e,e'p_s)}(W^*,Q^2) }{N_{d(e,e')}(W,Q^2)} C(E_b,W^*,W, Q^2) = \nonumber \\
\frac{F_2^n(W^*,Q^2)}{F_2^d(W,Q^2)} \int_{VIP} d\alpha_sdp_s^{\perp}A_p(\alpha_s,p_s^{\perp})S(\alpha_s,p_s^{\perp}) .
\label{eq_ratio}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $C(E_b,W^*,W, Q^2)$ is a correction factor (close to 1) that accounts for the slightly different acceptance (due to slightly different ranges in $E', \theta_e$) for inclusive electrons belonging to the bin $(W, Q^2)$ and tagged events belonging to the bin $(W^*, Q^2)$, as well as different radiative corrections and background contributions (see below).
The integral in Eq. over the spectral function $S(\alpha_s,p_s^{\perp})$ times the acceptance-efficiency product $A_p(\alpha_s,p_s^{\perp})$ for the RTPC is largely independent of kinematics as stated before, and taken as a normalization constant for each data taking period (corresponding to one of the beam energy settings). It was determined by matching the extracted $F_2^n/F_2^d$ to a new fit to the world data on protons and deuterons [@ERIC], see Section \[f2ndata\] . This normalization leads to an overall scale uncertainty of 5-10% (mostly due to the uncertainty on the fit). $F_2^n$ can, in principle, be obtained from the ratio $F_2^n/F_2^d$ by multiplying it with the parametrization of $F_2^d$ from [@ERIC], while the ratio $F_2^n/F_2^p$ can be calculated by multiplying with $F_2^d/F_2^p$, again from that same parametrization.
### Analysis Details
Source Syst. uncertainty($\%$) Explanation
---------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSI 5.0 Effect of final state interactions [@cda4]
Target fragmentation 1.0 Effect of target fragmentation [@cda2_1]
Off-shellness 1.0 Effect of nucleon off-shellness [@meln_schr_thom]
$C_e^+$ 1.0 Effect of pair-symmetric contamination
$C_{\pi}$ 1.0 Effect of pion contamination
$r_{rc}$ 2.0 Each value of Born and radiated cross-sections has an uncertainty of 1$\%$,
leading to a 2$\%$ overall uncertainty
$Int$ 5.0 Possible deviation from the assumption that the integral in Eq. is constant.
$F_2^d/F_2^p$ 4.2 Fits to structure functions have point-to-point uncertainties of 3$\%$ [@bosted_christy; @Christy:2007ve],
leading to a 4.2$\%$ overall uncertainty (on extracted $F_2^n$ and $F_2^n/F_2^p$ values only)
Total 8.7 Added in quadrature
The ratio method used the same data set as described before, with the same corrections for RTPC and CLAS momenta, and the same kinematic cuts. The treatment of accidental background events was somewhat simplified by assuming a triangular shape for their distribution as a function of the proton-electron vertex difference $\Delta z$. This assumption is a natural consequence of the convolution of two flat distributions in $z$ and is born out by the observed shape of “truly” accidental coincidences, see Fig. \[fig\_randz\]. We then extrapolate this background from the “wings” (outside $\pm$ 2 cm) of the distribution in $\Delta z$ into the “signal” region, $|\Delta z| \le 1.5$ cm. This method gives essentially the same corrections for accidental backgrounds as the one described earlier.
The correction factor $C(E_b,W^*,W, Q^2)$ in Eq. is composed of several contributions, accounting for the (small) difference in electron acceptance for tagged and inclusive events ($R_{acc}$), pair symmetric ($C_e^+ $) and pion contamination ($C_{\pi}$) and differences in radiative corrections $ r_{rc}$ $$\label{rmcorr}
C(E_b,W^*,W, Q^2) = R_{acc} C_e^+ C_{\pi} r_{rc} .$$ The correction factor $R_{acc}$ is calculated by comparing the measured inclusive rate $N_{d(e,e')}$ to the rate predicted by the well-known cross section for inclusive scattering off deuteron, as a function of $(E', \theta_e)$, yielding an efficiency function $\epsilon(E',\theta_e)$. This function is integrated (weighted by the data) over the range of $(E',\theta_e)$ belonging to either the bin $(W^*,Q^2)$ for tagged events or the bin $(W,Q^2)$ for inclusive events, and the ratio yields $R_{acc}$. Note that the overall luminosity and average event reconstruction efficiency of CLAS drop out in this ratio.
Radiated and Born cross-section models, $\sigma_{r}$ and $\sigma_{Born}$, for both electron-neutron and electron-deuteron scattering were generated by the code of P. Bosted and E. Christy [@bosted_christy; @Christy:2007ve] in each $(W^*/W,Q^2)$ bin. Radiative effects were again treated following Mo and Tsai [@motsai]. In our final data sample, we avoided regions where the elastic tail contribution is larger than 10$\%$. The radiative correction is the “super-ratio” $$r_{rc} = \frac{\sigma_{Born}^n/\sigma_{r}^n}{\sigma_{Born}^d/\sigma_{r}^d},$$ where indices $n$ and $d$ denote the neutron and the deuteron respectively. Again, this factor is usually very close to 1.
Finally, the relative contaminations of tagged and inclusive events from pair-symmetric $e^+e^-$ decays and misidentified pions were estimated as described in Section \[bgnd\] and the ratios $C_e^+$ and $ C_{\pi}$ calculated, together with their systematic uncertainties.
All statistical errors were properly propagated from the tagged and inclusive number of counts in each bin. The systematic uncertainties of each correction factor in Eq. were estimated and are listed in Table \[t\_nate\_syserr\], together with systematic uncertainties due to other sources. Even after including theoretical uncertainties (first three lines in Table \[t\_nate\_syserr\]), the overall point-to-point systematic uncertainty of the extracted $F_2^n/F_2^d$ (about 7.5%) – as well as the derived value of $F_2^n$ (about 8.7%) – is smaller than the corresponding uncertainty of the Monte Carlo method. An overall scale uncertainty due to our cross normalization to existing fits amounts to at most 10% for each beam energy. This scale uncertainty is common to both methods (since they are both normalized to an existing parametrization of $F_{2}^{n}/F_{2}^{d}$) and is not included in the systematic uncertainty bands shown in the figures in the next section.
Results
=======
In the following, we present the results from our analysis of the BONuS data. We use the results derived from the Monte Carlo based analysis to study deviations from spectator model expectations, and the ratio method results for final values of the ratios $F_2^n/F_2^d$ and $F_2^n/F_2^p$ as well as the neutron structure function $F_2^n$ in the region where the spectator model is expected to work well.
{width="75.00000%"}
Comparison with spectator model predictions {#secPWIAcomp}
-------------------------------------------
The goal of this section is to assess in which kinematic region the proton spectator model describes the BONuS data, and to gain a quantitative understanding of the deviations from this spectator picture. To this end, we study the dependence of the ratio of data to simulation on the kinematics of the spectator proton for different regions in $W^*$ and $Q^2$. Any [*systematic*]{} dependence on spectator kinematic variables would indicate deviations from the spectator model, arising for instance from nuclear binding modifications of the effective structure function $F_2^{n, \rm eff}$, deviations from the input spectral function $S(\alpha_s, p_s^{\perp})$, and effects from FSIs. As outlined in the previous section, the Monte Carlo based analysis leads to extracted values for the ratio $R_{D/S}$ (Eq. ) and the effective neutron structure function $F_2^{n, \rm eff}(x^*,Q^2, p_s, \cos\theta_{pq})$ for a grid of values in $(x^*,Q^2)$ or $(W^*,Q^2)$ and averaged over bins in $(p_s, \cos\theta_{pq})$. We used 5 bins in $Q^2$ with central values 0.34, 0.61, 0.93, 1.66 and 3.38 GeV$^2/c^2$, and 4 bins in spectator momentum: 70 – 85, 85 – 100, 100 – 120, and 120 – 150 MeV/$c$. The dependence of $R_{D/S}$ on the angle between the spectator momentum and the direction of momentum transfer is averaged over 10 evenly spaced fine bins over the range $-1.0 \le \cos\theta_{pq} \le 1.0$ or, for studies of the $W^*$ or $x^*$ dependence, in 3 coarser bins: backward ($-1.0 \le \cos\theta_{pq} \le -0.2$), sideways ($-0.2 \le \cos\theta_{pq} \le 0.2$), and forward ($ 0.2 \le \cos\theta_{pq} \le -1.0$). Similarly, $W^*$ is either binned finely in 90 bins of 0.03-GeV/$c^2$ width or more coarsely in 6 broad regions covering the quasi-elastic peak (0.88 – 1.0 GeV/$c^2$), the $\Delta$ resonance region (1.0 – 1.35 GeV/$c^2$), the second resonance (1.35 – 1.6 GeV/$c^2$), and third resonance (1.6 – 1.85 GeV/$c^2$) regions, and two higher-$W$ regions (1.85 – 2.2 GeV/$c^2$ and 2.2 – 2.68 GeV/$c^2$).
### $\theta_{pq}$ dependence
The dependence of the data-to-simulation ratio on the cosine of the angle $\theta_{pq}$ gives us the most direct information on the validity of the spectator picture in different kinematic domains. In the spectator model this ratio is expected to be constant (equal to 1, modulo an overall normalization factor). Any overall trend, such as a monotonic increase or decrease with $\cos\theta_{pq}$, would indicate a shortcoming of the deuteron wave function model, while FSI effects are expected to give rise to more complicated structures in this ratio (see Section \[sec\_physics\]). Our data on the $\cos\theta_{pq}$ spectrum for 6 bins in $W^*$, 5 bins in $Q^2$, and 4 bins in $p_s$ are included in the supplemental material for this publication [@SupMat]. Here, we discuss a few representative plots (Figs. \[fig\_q0W1\_vscos\_5gev\] – \[fig\_q0W4\_vscos\_4gev\]) of this spectrum, for $Q^2$ between 1.10 and 2.23 GeV$^2/c^2$.
![The same ratio as in Fig. \[fig\_q0W1\_vscos\_5gev\], but for a higher bin in $W^*$ (from 1.85 to 2.20 GeV/$c^2$). \[fig\_q0W4\_vscos\_5gev\]](Figure11.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig\_q0W1\_vscos\_5gev\] shows the $\cos\theta_{pq}$ spectrum for a $W^*$ bin covering the second resonance region and four $p_s$ bins from the 5.25 GeV data set. One observes first that the data lie on average about 10% higher than unity, which could be attributed to either an overall normalization error or a greater strength of the neutron structure function in this resonance region than anticipated by our $F_2^n$ model. Beyond that, it is clear that the data for the lowest $p_s$ bin fluctuate very little around this average (most points are less than one standard deviation away), with the possible exception of a slight increase at very forward angles (where target remnants from the struck nucleon might conceivably contribute). The fact that the $\cos\theta_{pq}$ spectrum is flat at backward angles is a clear confirmation of the spectator picture for the “VIP region" selected to extract the free neutron structure function. A slightly more pronounced $\cos\theta_{pq}$ dependence is seen in the next $p_s$ bin, and this structure becomes even more prominent for the highest two $p_s$ bins. This indicates that the spectator mechanism may not be as “pure” at increasing spectator momentum, as is indeed expected from FSI models.
![The same ratio as in Fig. \[fig\_q0W4\_vscos\_5gev\] for a beam energy of 4.23 GeV. \[fig\_q0W4\_vscos\_4gev\]](Figure12.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
These features become even more evident for the higher $W^*$ bin (at the edge of the DIS region) shown in Fig. \[fig\_q0W4\_vscos\_5gev\]. Here, the overall normalization yields an average ratio close to 1, due to the fact that we used part of this kinematic region for our cross normalization. The structure that develops as $p_s$ increases shows a clear trend that is statistically significant, due to the much higher count rate in this bin. While the ratio is still mostly flat (at least within the systematic uncertainty) for backward angles and the lower two momentum bins, a significant depression at angles around $90^\circ$ develops at higher $p_s$. This is consistent with expectations from some FSI models [@cda4; @Cosyn11], in which strength in this region is shifted to even higher momenta through re-interaction between the struck nucleon and the spectator. Comparison with Fig. \[fig\_q0W4\_vscos\_4gev\] shows that the beam energy (4.23 GeV in this case) has only a minor impact on the observed pattern.
Overall we find that the $\cos\theta_{pq}$ dependence is very close to flat in the backward angle region for the two lowest $p_s$ bins (the region in which the spectator model should work well), for nearly all $Q^2 - W^*$ bins. (Some structure visible in the second lowest $p_s$ bin may in fact be “leakage” from higher spectator momenta, due to kinematic smearing.) This confirms that this kinematic region is described well by the spectator picture and therefore well-suited to extract (nearly) free neutron structure functions. On the other hand, significant deviations from this picture emerge at higher spectator momentum, consistent with contributions from FSI and perhaps target nucleon fragmentation. These data will enable tests and refinements of theoretical models that parametrize deviations from the spectator model [@cda4; @Cosyn11; @Frankfurt94], which in turn would allow us to correct our $F_2^n$ data for any residual effects of this kind.
{width="75.00000%"}
{width="75.00000%"}
### $W^*$ dependence
To explore the deviations of the data from our model as a function of the invariant final-state mass, we show in Fig. \[fig\_q0cos0\_vsW\_5gev\] the ratio $R_{S/D}(W^*)$ for the same bin in $Q^2$ as before and the highest beam energy, selecting only events in which the spectator proton moves backwards relative to the momentum transfer ($\cos\theta_{pq} \le -0.2$). The four panels again show our four $p_s$ bins.
We note first that there appears to be an excess of events in the region below and around $W^*=1.2$ GeV/$c^2$, above the model expectations. Some of this excess may be due to incomplete subtraction of the quasi-elastic radiative tail – our systematic uncertainty (shaded band) covers nearly half of the statistically significant difference. However, it is possible that our model (which is based on inclusive deuteron data) is indeed too low in this region, where $F_2^n$ varies rapidly and therefore Fermi smearing plays an important role. Similar, if somewhat smaller, enhancements are also visible in the second resonance region (around $W^* = 1.5$ and 1.6 GeV/$c^2$) and between $W^* = 1.8$ and 2.0 GeV/$c^2$. Since these features appear in most $p_s$ bins, it is unlikely that they are due to a breakdown of the spectator picture. A more recent fit to the world inclusive structure function data [@ERIC] shows better agreement with our data (see Section \[f2ndata\]).
At $W^* > 2$ GeV, the data (which have been normalized to the model in the region $2.0 \le W^* \le 2.2$ GeV) rarely differ more from our model than the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty, although one might discern a downward sloping trend with the higher $p_s$ bins. Looking at the same spectra for [*sideways*]{}–moving spectators (see Fig. \[fig\_q0cos1\_vsW\_5gev\]) we note a more pronounced depletion relative to the model at $W^* > 2$ GeV, especially for the higher $p_s$ bins. This could be an indication that strength in the region of higher $W^*$ is predominantly shifted to other kinematics ([*e.g.*]{}, higher proton recoil momenta), due to FSI between the hadronic debris from the primary reaction and the spectator proton. Again, this is consistent with some of the existing models for FSI [@cda4; @Cosyn11].
Overall, our results exhibit a generally good agreement of $F_2^{n, \rm eff}(W^*)$ with the model for all but the lowest $W^*$ within the “VIP” (spectator) region of low $p_s$ bin and backward $\theta_{pq}$. Any observed structures in this region are more likely compatible with deficiencies in our $F_2^n$ model and the Monte Carlo simulation of the experiment than with a breakdown of the spectator picture.
![Ratios of $F_2^{n, \rm eff}(x^*,Q^2,p_s)$ for backward spectator momenta in each of the three higher $p_s$ bins ((a) = 85 MeV/$c$ $-$ 100 MeV/$c$, (b) = 100 MeV/$c$ $-$ 120 MeV/$c$, (c) = 120 MeV/$c$ $-$ 150 MeV/$c$) to $F_2^{n, \rm eff}(x^*,Q^2,p_s )$ for the lowest $p_s$ bin. Data are for $Q^2= 1.1$ – 2.2 GeV$^2/c^2$, $\cos\theta_{pq}$ from $-$1.0 to $-$0.2, and 5.3 GeV beam energy. Error bars are statistical only. The arrows indicate the approximate location of the edge of the DIS region, $W^* = 2$ GeV. \[fig\_emcQ0cos0pass5\] ](Figure15.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Same as Fig. \[fig\_emcQ0cos0pass5\], but for a higher $Q^2$ bin, $2.2 - 4.5$ GeV$^2/c^2$. \[fig\_emcQ1cos0pass5\] ](Figure16.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
### Binding effects
We can sharpen the search for possible indications of binding and off-shell effects in our data by comparing the $x^*$ dependence of the effective neutron structure function for different spectator momenta. Several models of the EMC effect (see Sec. \[beyond\]) suggest that the effect can be (partially) explained by a reduction of $F_2^n$ if the struck nucleon is far from its on-shell energy $E=\sqrt{M^2 + {\bm p}^2}$, which is equivalent within the spectator picture to a high-momentum backward-moving spectator.
We therefore plot ratios of our extracted structure functions $F_2^{n, \rm eff}$ as a function of $x^*$ for different bins in $p_s$ and our usual range of backward spectator angles, see Figs. \[fig\_emcQ0cos0pass5\]–\[fig\_emcQ1cos0pass5\]. The first figure is for a lower $Q^2$ bin where the DIS region ends already around $x^* = 0.35$ (indicated by arrows). It is quite apparent that the ratios are rather flat, within the statistical uncertainties, even beyond the DIS region. Systematic uncertainties largely cancel in this ratio. In particular, there is no indication of a negative slope as seen in the ratio between nuclear and nucleon structure functions (as in the EMC effect). The same behavior repeats itself for a higher $Q^2$ bin (Fig. \[fig\_emcQ1cos0pass5\]) albeit with significantly larger statistical errors. (Here, the DIS region extends to about $x^* = 0.52$.) While our statistical precision is not sufficient to rule out a small $p_s$ dependence of the structure function ratio, it appears that binding effects are still rather small for spectator momenta up to about 150 MeV/$c$. The future BONuS measurement with 12 GeV beam [@bonus12] will check this conclusion with much improved precision.
{width="85.00000%"}
{width="85.00000%"}
The free neutron structure function {#f2ndata}
-----------------------------------
After establishing that the spectator picture is indeed a reasonably good approximation within our VIP region ($p_s \le 100$ MeV/$c$, $\theta_{pq} \ge 100^\circ$), we proceed to extract results for the (nearly) free neutron for all kinematic bins in $W^*$ and $Q^2$, within the VIP region, using our ratio method. Since this method determines the ratio of $F_2^n/F_2^d$, we show the results for this (nearly model-independent) quantity in Figs. \[fig\_q2\_F2nvsW\_24gev\]-\[fig\_q2\_F2nvsW\_25gev\], separately for our two highest beam energies. The error bars indicate statistical errors, while the point-to-point systematic uncertainties are indicated by the band at the bottom. As explained earlier, there is an overall normalization uncertainty which means that the data must be multiplied by a factor determined from other information. For this purpose, we used a recent update of the Bosted-Christy fit [@bosted_christy] of the world data on protons and deuterons [@ERIC]. This new fit uses a convolution model [@Kahn:2008nq] to combine parametrizations of proton and neutron structure functions to model the deuteron. From this fit (which does not yet include the BONuS data), the ratio $F_2^n/F_2^d$ can be extracted in a model-dependent way and we use the result to determine the overall normalization constants for both beam energies, by minimizing the $\chi^2$ of the normalized data versus the fit. The data shown in Figs. \[fig\_q2\_F2nvsW\_24gev\]-\[fig\_q2\_F2nvsW\_25gev\] are the main result of the BONuS experiment – they are available in tabular form in the supplemental material of this publication [@SupMat] and in the CLAS experimental database [@DataBase]. We estimate that the normalization uncertainty could be as large as 10%, by comparing our present result to earlier fits of $F_2^n/F_2^d$ [@bosted_christy].
{width="85.00000%"}
Within the assumptions of the new fit, we can also extract $F_2^n$ from the ratio by multiplying it with the fit result for $F_2^d$. Our corresponding results for $F_2^n$ as a function of $W^{*2}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig\_F2nvsW\_comp\] in six different slices of $Q^2$, with both beam energies combined. We point out that these results depend on the exact functional form used for $F_2^d$ and could change if other models are used. The underlying parametrization for $F_2^n$ from this new fit is also shown as a solid line. We note that the agreement between $F_2^n$ obtained from the two energies (after cross normalization) is quite good, increasing our confidence that smaller corrections, such as those due to radiative effects, detector acceptance and the contribution from $R = \sigma_L / \sigma_T$, are quite small and well under control. We also observe a generally good agreement between the data and the new fit, but with some indications for room to improve the latter. In particular, the ratio between the strength at the top of the three resonance “peaks” and the valleys in between appears larger in some of our data than in the fit. Such a deviation from the fit (which is based on inclusive deuteron world data) is understandable, keeping in mind that our experiment is the first one that does not have to rely on an unfolding prescription. The Fermi smearing for inclusive scattering off the deuteron tends to wash out strong resonance features. Ultimately, BONuS data will be incorporated into this new fit to further improve its precision in describing the neutron.
Results in the DIS region {#compareNS}
-------------------------
![(Color online) Results for the neutron structure function $F_2^n(x)$ (integrated over $Q^2 > 1$ GeV$^2/c^2$ while requiring $W^* > 1.8$ GeV/$c^2$) from the Monte Carlo method (labeled “Analysis 1”) and ratio method (labeled “Analysis 2”). The range of $F_2^n$ from the CJ fit [@CJ_accardi] is shown by the two solid lines. Systematic uncertainties for the Monte Carlo method are shown as the shaded band. The two analysis results are cross-normalized to the average of the CJ fit at $x = 0.32$.[]{data-label="slavanate"}](Figure20.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Our second main goal is to pin down the behavior of $F_2^n$ at large $x$ but in the DIS region (see Sec. \[sec\_physics\]). Unfortunately, the kinematic reach of the present BONuS experiment was restricted by the maximum available beam energy (5.25 GeV), which limits us to $x < 0.55$ if we require $W^* > 2$ GeV/$c^2$. Even pushing down to $W^* > 1.8$ GeV/$c^2$ does not extend the $x$ range much beyond $x = 0.6$, which is the region where presently the uncertainty on the down quark distribution function becomes large. Still, we can compare our results over the measured range ($0.2 < x < 0.65$) with existing NLO fits based on world data [@CJ_accardi]. In Fig. \[slavanate\], we show our results for $F_2^n$ using both analysis methods. For both analyses, we select events in the VIP region ($p_s \le 100$ MeV/$c$, and $\theta_{pq} \gtrsim 100^\circ$) from the highest beam energy. We require $W^*>1.8$ GeV/$c^2$ and integrate over all $Q^2>1$ GeV$^2/c^2$ within a given $x$ bin. We convert the values for $F_2^n/F_2^d$ from the ratio method once again using the new fit for $F_2^d$, and for the Monte Carlo Method we multiply the ratio $R_{S/D}$ with the model for $F_2^n$ used for the generated events in our simulation. Both results are normalized at $x = 0.32$ to the middle of the uncertainty band of the CJ fit [@CJ_accardi] (given by the two solid lines in Fig. \[slavanate\]). In spite of significant differences between the two approaches, the results of the Monte Carlo method (“Analysis 1”, inverted triangles) and the ratio method (“Analysis 2”, squares) agree very well within their systematic uncertainties (given for Analysis 1 by the shaded band). We reiterate that, apart from overall normalization factors ([*not*]{} included in the shaded band), the systematic uncertainties of the two methods are largely uncorrelated. Most of the data are within or close to the uncertainty range of the CJ fit, although some fluctuations (most likely due to remaining resonant contributions) are visible. (The CJ band does not extend below $x = 0.3$ since the fit is restricted to $Q^2 > 1.6$ GeV$^2$/$c^2$ and our data fall below that value for $x \le 0.3$.)
![(Color online) Results for the ratio of the neutron to proton structure functions $F_2^n/F_2^p(x)$ (integrated over $Q^2 > 1$ GeV$^2/c^2$ and three different minimum values for $W^*$) from the ratio method. The uncertainty range from the CJ fit [@CJ_accardi] is shown by the (yellow) shaded band. Systematic uncertainties are shown as the (red) shaded band at the bottom. Our data are cross-normalized to the average of the CJ fit at $x = 0.32$. The inset shows the average $Q^2$ for each data point, separately for the three lower $W^*$ limits. []{data-label="moneyplot"}](Figure21.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The ratio $F_2^n/F_2^p$, which is of high interest because of its relationship to the asymptotic $d/u$ ratio (see Section \[sec\_physics\]), can also be extracted from our data using a suitable model for $F_2^p$. We showed this quantity in our previous publication [@prl], using the ratio method. We reproduce this result here in Fig. \[moneyplot\], updated with the new fit for $F_2^d$ and $F_2^p$. The results are shown for three lower cuts on the range in $W^*$ over which we integrate our data. The red triangles are for $W^* > 1.8$ GeV, [*i.e.*]{}, showing the same data as in Fig. \[slavanate\]. They agree reasonably well with the prediction from the CJ fit, but do not extend much beyond $x=0.6$. The black squares ($W^* > 1.6$ GeV) and the blue circles ($W^* > 1.4$ GeV) push this limit to higher $x$, but some clear resonant structure can be observed at large $x$. Taken at face value, the difference between these integration regions can be interpreted as a first hint that local duality may not hold as well for the neutron as for the proton in our kinematic region. Ultimately, only by repeating this measurement with significantly higher beam energy can one cleanly extract the DIS limit for $F_2^n/F_2^p$ as $x \rightarrow 1$. A corresponding measurement is planned for the CLAS12 spectrometer at Jefferson Lab after the upgrade to 11 GeV beam energy is completed [@bonus12].
Summary {#sec_summary}
=======
We have presented the full analysis and final results from the BONuS experiment, which accessed for the first time structure functions of the neutron by tagging spectator protons in the reaction $^2$H$(e,e'p_s)$. Comparison of our data to a full Monte Carlo simulation based on the spectator model in the impulse approximation shows generally good agreement for the lowest spectator momenta ($p_s = 70 - 85$ MeV/$c$), especially in the backward $\theta_{pq}$ region. Deviations from the spectator picture could be identified, however, at higher momenta. The results for the dependence on the spectator proton angle tend to agree with expectations from target fragmentation models [@cda2_1; @cda2_2], with the data showing an enhancement in the region of forward $\theta_{pq}$, as well as with final-state interaction models [@cda4] which predict a dip in the vicinity of $\theta_{pq} = 90^{\circ}$.
Within the kinematic region of its applicability, the spectator model allows us to extract the ratio $F_2^n/F_2^d$ of the free neutron structure function to the deuteron one over a wide range in $x$ or $W$ and $Q^2$. Comparison to a new, preliminary fit for this ratio from inclusive deuteron data using Fermi-smearing models [@ERIC] shows overall good agreement, but with some room for improvement in the detailed description of the resonance structures present in the data. In the DIS region, our data agree well with existing PDF parametrizations [@CJ_accardi] out to $x \approx 0.65$, where uncertainties become large.
Structure functions extracted from the BONuS experiment using two different analysis methods are in agreement with each other, indicating that systematic uncertainties are under control. The complete data set for $F_2^n/F_2^d$ over all bins in ($W^*, Q^2$) is available from the CLAS database [@DataBase] and as supplemental information to this paper [@SupMat]. It will aid the improvement of existing models and parametrizations of neutron structure functions. These parametrizations in turn are crucial for other experimental goals, such as the extraction of neutron spin structure functions from polarization asymmetries, more precise studies of the nuclear EMC effect via comparisons of nuclear cross sections with the free proton and neutron cross sections, as well as reducing uncertainties in PDFs used for extracting information from collider measurements. Our data will also provide constraints on the isospin dependence of nucleon resonant excitations and the non-resonant background, as well as tests of quark-hadron duality.
A future experiment with the energy-upgraded accelerator at Jefferson Lab will allow us to improve both the statistical precision and to extend the range in $x$ [@bonus12]. This experiment will finally settle the question about the asymptotic behavior of the $d/u$ ratio in the limit $x \to 1$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the staff of the Jefferson Lab accelerator and Hall B for their support on this experiment. This work was supported in part by the Chilean Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT), the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the French Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA), the United Kingdom’s Science and Technology Facilities Council, and the National Research Foundation of Korea.
The Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-84ER40150.
[72]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1742-6596/299/1/012005) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0954-3899/40/9/093102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0370-2693(72)90395-4) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90504-5) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.032003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.25.1140) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.014008) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.252001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.094012) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1186) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.73.035205) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.035205) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.10.011) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0370-2693(71)90358-3) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0370-1573(88)90179-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0370-2693(91)90151-F) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01292764) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.5198) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.49.2379) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.41.2756) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0168-9002(00)00151-0) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0168-9002(00)01313-9) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/S0375-9474(99)85115-X) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} **, [Ph.D. thesis](http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/thesis/Tkachenko_thesis.pdf), (), @noop [****, ()]{}, @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} **, [Ph.D. thesis](http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/thesis/JixieZhang_thesis.pdf), (), **, [Ph.D. thesis](http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/thesis/Guler_thesis.pdf), (), [ ()](https://misportal.jlab.org/ul/Physics/Hall-B/clas/viewFile.cfm/2004-020.pdf?documentId=84), @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01386-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90068-X) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop (), **, [Ph.D. thesis](http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/thesis/Baillie_thesis.pdf), (), @noop [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.055213) @noop @noop [“,” ]{} (), @noop
[^1]: Corresponding author.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Large amounts of labeled data are typically required to train deep learning models. For many real-world problems, however, acquiring additional data can be expensive or even impossible. We present semi-supervised deep kernel learning (SSDKL), a semi-supervised regression model based on minimizing predictive variance in the posterior regularization framework. SSDKL combines the hierarchical representation learning of neural networks with the probabilistic modeling capabilities of Gaussian processes. By leveraging unlabeled data, we show improvements on a diverse set of real-world regression tasks over supervised deep kernel learning and semi-supervised methods such as VAT and mean teacher adapted for regression.'
author:
- |
Neal Jean[^1], Sang Michael Xie, Stefano Ermon\
Department of Computer Science\
Stanford University\
Stanford, CA 94305\
`{nealjean, xie, ermon}@cs.stanford.edu`\
bibliography:
- 'nips\_2018.bib'
title: |
Semi-supervised Deep Kernel Learning:\
Regression with Unlabeled Data by Minimizing Predictive Variance
---
Introduction
============
The prevailing trend in machine learning is to automatically discover good feature representations through end-to-end optimization of neural networks. However, most success stories have been enabled by vast quantities of labeled data [@krizhevsky2012imagenet]. This need for supervision poses a major challenge when we encounter critical scientific and societal problems where fine-grained labels are difficult to obtain. Accurately measuring the outcomes that we care about—e.g., childhood mortality, environmental damage, or extreme poverty—can be prohibitively expensive [@jean2016combining; @you2017deep; @barak2018infrastructure]. Although these problems have limited data, they often contain underlying structure that can be used for learning; for example, poverty and other socioeconomic outcomes are strongly correlated over both space and time.
Semi-supervised learning approaches offer promise when few labels are available by allowing models to supplement their training with unlabeled data [@zhu2009introduction]. Mostly focusing on classification tasks, these methods often rely on strong assumptions about the structure of the data (e.g., cluster assumptions, low data density at decision boundaries [@shu2018dirt]) that generally do not apply to regression [@grandvalet2004semi; @chapelle2005semi; @singh2009unlabeled; @kuleshov2017deep; @ren2018structured].
In this paper, we present semi-supervised deep kernel learning, which addresses the challenge of semi-supervised regression by building on previous work combining the feature learning capabilities of deep neural networks with the ability of Gaussian processes to capture uncertainty [@wilson2015dkl; @you2017deep; @eissman2018bayesian]. SSDKL incorporates unlabeled training data by minimizing predictive variance in the posterior regularization framework, a flexible way of encoding prior knowledge in Bayesian models [@ganchev2010posterior; @zhu2014bayesian; @shu2018amortized].
Our main contributions are the following:
- We introduce semi-supervised deep kernel learning (SSDKL) for the largely unexplored domain of deep semi-supervised regression. SSDKL is a regression model that combines the strengths of heavily parameterized deep neural networks and nonparametric Gaussian processes. While the deep Gaussian process kernel induces structure in an embedding space, the model also allows *a priori* knowledge of structure (i.e., spatial or temporal) in the input features to be naturally incorporated through kernel composition.
- By formalizing the semi-supervised variance minimization objective in the posterior regularization framework, we unify previous semi-supervised approaches such as minimum entropy and minimum variance regularization under a common framework. To our knowledge, this is the first paper connecting semi-supervised methods to posterior regularization.
- We demonstrate that SSDKL can use unlabeled data to learn more generalizable features and improve performance on a range of regression tasks, outperforming the supervised deep kernel learning method and semi-supervised methods such as virtual adversarial training (VAT) and mean teacher [@miyato2015distributional; @tarvainen2017mean]. In a challenging real-world task of predicting poverty from satellite images, SSDKL outperforms the state-of-the-art by $15.5\%$—by incorporating prior knowledge of spatial structure, the median improvement increases to $17.9\%$.
{width="0.85\linewidth"}
Preliminaries {#prelims}
=============
We assume a training set of $n$ labeled examples $\{({\mathbf{x}}_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ and $m$ unlabeled examples $\{{\mathbf{x}}_j\}_{j=n+1}^{n+m}$ with instances ${\mathbf{x}}\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and labels $y \in \mathbb{R}$. Let $X_L, {\mathbf{y}}_L, X_U$ refer to the aggregated features and targets, where $X_L \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$, ${\mathbf{y}}_L \in \mathbb{R}^n$, and $X_U \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$. At test time, we are given examples $X_T \in \mathbb{R}^{t \times d}$ that we would like to predict.
There are two major paradigms in semi-supervised learning, inductive and transductive. In *inductive* semi-supervised learning, the labeled data $(X_L, {\mathbf{y}}_L)$ and unlabeled data $X_U$ are used to learn a function $f: \mathcal{X} \mapsto \mathcal{Y}$ that generalizes well and is a good predictor on unseen test examples $X_T$ [@zhu2009introduction]. In *transductive* semi-supervised learning, the unlabeled examples are exactly the test data that we would like to predict, i.e., $X_T = X_U$ [@arnold2007transductive]. A transductive learning approach tries to find a function $f: \mathcal{X}^{n+m} \mapsto \mathcal{Y}^{n+m}$, with no requirement of generalizing to additional test examples. Although the theoretical development of SSDKL is general to both the inductive and transductive regimes, we only test SSDKL in the inductive setting in our experiments for direct comparison against supervised learning methods.
#### Gaussian processes
A Gaussian process (GP) is a collection of random variables, any finite number of which form a multivariate Gaussian distribution. Following the notation of [@wilson2016deep], a Gaussian process defines a distribution over functions $f:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ from inputs to target values. If $$f({\mathbf{x}}) \sim \mathcal{GP} \left( \mu({\mathbf{x}}), k_\phi({\mathbf{x}}_i, {\mathbf{x}}_j) \right)$$ with mean function $\mu({\mathbf{x}})$ and covariance kernel function $k_\phi({\mathbf{x}}_i, {\mathbf{x}}_j)$ parameterized by $\phi$, then any collection of function values is jointly Gaussian, $$f(X) = [f({\mathbf{x}}_1), \ldots, f({\mathbf{x}}_n)]^T \sim \mathcal{N} (\bm{\mu}, K_{X, X}),$$ with mean vector and covariance matrix defined by the GP, s.t. $\bm{\mu}_i = \mu({\mathbf{x}}_i)$ and $(K_{X, X})_{ij} = k_\phi({\mathbf{x}}_i, {\mathbf{x}}_j)$. In practice, we often assume that observations include i.i.d. Gaussian noise, i.e., $y({\mathbf{x}}) = f({\mathbf{x}}) + \epsilon({\mathbf{x}})$ where $\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N} (0, \phi_n^2)$, and the covariance function becomes $$\text{Cov} (y({\mathbf{x}}_i), y({\mathbf{x}}_j)) = k({\mathbf{x}}_i, {\mathbf{x}}_j) + \phi_n^2 \delta_{ij}$$ where $\delta_{ij} = \mathbb{I}[i=j]$. To make predictions at unlabeled points $X_U$, we can compute a Gaussian posterior distribution in closed form by conditioning on the observed data $(X_L, {\mathbf{y}}_L)$. For a more thorough introduction, we refer readers to [@rasmussen2006gaussian].
#### Deep kernel learning
Deep kernel learning (DKL) combines neural networks with GPs by using a neural network embedding as input to a deep kernel [@wilson2015dkl]. Given input data ${\mathbf{x}}\in \mathcal{X}$, a neural network parameterized by $w$ is used to extract features $h_w({\mathbf{x}}) \in \mathbb{R}^p$. The outputs are modeled as $$f({\mathbf{x}}) \sim \mathcal{GP}(\mu(h_w({\mathbf{x}})), k_\phi(h_w({\mathbf{x}}_i), h_w({\mathbf{x}}_j)))$$ for some mean function $\mu(\cdot)$ and base kernel function $k_\phi(\cdot,\cdot)$ with parameters $\phi$. Parameters $\theta = (w, \phi)$ of the deep kernel are learned jointly by minimizing the negative log likelihood of the labeled data [@wilson2016deep]: $$\label{eq:likelihood}
L_{likelihood} (\theta) = - \log p({\mathbf{y}}_L \mid X_L, \theta)$$ For Gaussian distributions, the marginal likelihood is a closed-form, differentiable expression, allowing DKL models to be trained via backpropagation.
#### Posterior regularization
In probabilistic models, domain knowledge is generally imposed through the specification of priors. These priors, along with the observed data, determine the posterior distribution through the application of Bayes’ rule. However, it can be difficult to encode our knowledge in a Bayesian prior. *Posterior regularization* offers a more direct and flexible mechanism for controlling the posterior distribution.
Let $\mathcal{D}=(X_L, {\mathbf{y}}_L)$ be a collection of observed data. [@zhu2014bayesian] present a regularized optimization formulation called *regularized Bayesian inference*, or RegBayes. In this framework, the regularized posterior is the solution of the following optimization problem: $$\label{eq:regbayes}
\textbf{RegBayes:} \inf_{q(M| \mathcal{D}) \in \mathcal{P}_{prob}} \mathcal{L}(q(M | \mathcal{D})) + \Omega (q(M | \mathcal{D}))$$ where $\mathcal{L}(q(M | \mathcal{D}))$ is defined as the KL-divergence between the desired post-data posterior $q(M | \mathcal{D})$ over models $M$ and the standard Bayesian posterior $p(M | \mathcal{D})$ and $\Omega (q(M | \mathcal{D}))$ is a posterior regularizer. The goal is to learn a posterior distribution that is not too far from the standard Bayesian posterior while also fulfilling some requirements imposed by the regularization.
Semi-supervised deep kernel learning {#semisup}
====================================
We introduce *semi-supervised deep kernel learning* (SSDKL) for problems where labeled data is limited but unlabeled data is plentiful. To learn from unlabeled data, we observe that a Bayesian approach provides us with a predictive posterior *distribution*—i.e., we are able to quantify predictive uncertainty. Thus, we regularize the posterior by adding an unsupervised loss term that minimizes the predictive variance at unlabeled data points: $$L_{semisup} (\theta) = \frac{1}{n} L_{likelihood} (\theta) + \frac{\alpha}{m} L_{variance} (\theta)$$ $$L_{variance} (\theta) = \sum_{x \in X_U} \text{Var}(f(x))$$ where $n$ and $m$ are the numbers of labeled and unlabeled training examples, $\alpha$ is a hyperparameter controlling the trade-off between supervised and unsupervised components, and $\theta$ represents the model parameters.
Variance minimization as posterior regularization
-------------------------------------------------
Optimizing $L_{semisup}$ is equivalent to computing a regularized posterior through solving a specific instance of the RegBayes optimization problem (\[eq:regbayes\]), where our choice of regularizer corresponds to variance minimization.
Let $X=(X_L, X_U)$ be the observed input data and $\mathcal{D} = (X, {\mathbf{y}}_L)$ be the input data with labels for the labeled part $X_L$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ denote a space of functions where for $f\in \mathcal{F}$, $f: \mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ maps from the inputs to the target values. Note that here, $M=(f,\theta)$ is the model in the RegBayes framework, where $\theta$ are the model parameters. We assume that the prior is $\pi(f, \theta)$ and a likelihood density $p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta)$ exists. Given observed data $\mathcal{D}$, the Bayesian posterior is $p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})$, while RegBayes computes a different, regularized posterior. Let $\bar{\theta}$ be a specific instance of the model parameters. Instead of maximizing the marginal likelihood of the labeled training data in a purely supervised approach, we train our model in a semi-supervised fashion by minimizing the compound objective $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:semisup}
L_{semisup} (\bar{\theta}) =
&- \frac{1}{n} \log p({\mathbf{y}}_L \vert X_L, \bar{\theta}) + \frac{\alpha}{m} \sum_{x \in X_U} \text{Var}_{f\sim p}(f(x))\end{aligned}$$ where the variance is with respect to $p(f \vert \bar{\theta}, \mathcal{D})$, the Bayesian posterior given $\bar{\theta}$ and $\mathcal{D}$.
\[thm:ssdkl\_as\_postreg\] Let observed data $\mathcal{D}$, a suitable space of functions $\mathcal{F}$, and a bounded parameter space $\Theta$ be given. As in [@zhu2014bayesian], we assume that $\mathcal{F}$ is a complete separable metric space and $\Pi$ is an absolutely continuous probability measure (with respect to background measure $\eta$) on $(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{F}))$, where $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{F})$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra, such that a density $\pi$ exists where $d\Pi=\pi d\eta$ and we have prior density $\pi(f, \theta)$ and likelihood density $p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta)$. Assume we choose the prior such that $\pi(\theta)$ is uniform on $\Theta$. Then the semi-supervised variance minimization problem (\[eq:semisup\]) $$\inf_{\bar{\theta}} L_{semisup}(\bar{\theta})$$ is equivalent to the RegBayes optimization problem (\[eq:regbayes\]) $$\inf_{q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D}) \in \mathcal{P}_{prob}} \mathcal{L}(q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})) + \Omega(q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D}))$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega(q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})) = \alpha' \sum_{i=1}^m \biggl(
&\int_{f,\theta} p(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})q(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})(f(X_U)_i - \mathbb{E}_{p}[f(X_U)_i])^2 d\eta(f, \theta)\biggr),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha'=\frac{\alpha n}{m}$, and $\mathcal{P}_{prob}=\{q: q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})=q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta \vert \mathcal{D}),\bar{\theta}\in \Theta\}$ is a variational family of distributions where $q(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})$ is restricted to be a Dirac delta centered on $\bar{\theta} \in \Theta$.
We include a formal derivation in Appendix A.1 and give a brief outline here. It can be shown that solving the variational optimization objective $$\begin{aligned}
\label{variationalform}
\inf_{q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})} D_{KL}(q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D}) \| \pi(f, \theta)) - \int_{f, \theta} q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})\log p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta) d\eta(f,\theta)
$$ is equivalent to minimizing the unconstrained form of the first term $\mathcal{L}(q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D}))$ of the RegBayes objective in Theorem \[thm:ssdkl\_as\_postreg\], and the minimizer is precisely the Bayesian posterior $p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})$. When we restrict the optimization to $q\in \mathcal{P}_{prob}$ the solution is of the form $q^*(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})=p(f \vert \theta , \mathcal{D}) \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})$ for some $\bar{\theta}$. This allows us to show that (\[variationalform\]) is also equivalent to minimizing the first term of $L_{semisup}(\bar{\theta})$. Finally, noting that the regularization function $\Omega$ only depends on $\bar{\theta}$ (through $q(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})=\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)$), the form of $q^*(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})$ is unchanged after adding $\Omega$. Therefore the choice of $\Omega$ reduces to minimizing the predictive variance with respect to $q^*(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D})=p(f \vert \bar{\theta}, \mathcal{D})$.
#### Intuition for variance minimization
By minimizing $L_{semisup}$, we trade off maximizing the likelihood of our observations with minimizing the posterior variance on unlabeled data that we wish to predict. The posterior variance acts as a proxy for distance with respect to the kernel function in the deep feature space, and the regularizer is an inductive bias on the structure of the feature space. Since the deep kernel parameters are jointly learned, the neural net is encouraged to learn a feature representation in which the unlabeled examples are closer to the labeled examples, thereby reducing the variance on our predictions. If we imagine the labeled data as “supports” for the surface representing the posterior mean, we are optimizing for embeddings where unlabeled data tend to cluster around these labeled supports. In contrast, the variance regularizer would not benefit conventional GP learning since fixed kernels would not allow for adapting the relative distances between data points.
Another interpretation is that the semi-supervised objective is a regularizer that reduces overfitting to labeled data. The model is discouraged from learning features from labeled data that are not also useful for making low-variance predictions at unlabeled data points. In settings where unlabeled data provide additional variation beyond labeled examples, this can improve model generalization.
#### Training and inference {#posterior_variance}
Semi-supervised deep kernel learning scales well with large amounts of unlabeled data since the unsupervised objective $L_{variance}$ naturally decomposes into a sum over conditionally independent terms. This allows for mini-batch training on *unlabeled* data with stochastic gradient descent. Since all of the labeled examples are interdependent, computing exact gradients for *labeled* examples requires full batch gradient descent on the labeled data. Therefore, assuming a constant batch size, each iteration of training requires $O(n^3)$ computations for a Cholesky decomposition, where $n$ is the number of labeled training examples. Performing the GP inference requires $O(n^3)$ one-time cost in the labeled points. However, existing approximation methods based on kernel interpolation and structured matrices used in DKL can be directly incorporated in SSDKL and would reduce the training complexity to close to linear in labeled dataset size and inference to constant time per test point [@wilson2015dkl; @WilsonN15]. While DKL is designed for the supervised setting where scaling to large labeled datasets is a very practical concern, our focus is on semi-supervised settings where labels are limited but unlabeled data is abundant.
Experiments and results {#experiments}
=======================
We apply SSDKL to a variety of real-world regression tasks in the inductive semi-supervised learning setting, beginning with eight datasets from the UCI repository [@lichman2013]. We also explore the challenging task of predicting local poverty measures from high-resolution satellite imagery [@xie2016transfer]. In our reported results, we use the squared exponential or radial basis function kernel. We also experimented with polynomial kernels, but saw generally worse performance. Our SSDKL model is implemented in TensorFlow [@abadi2016tensorflow]. Additional training details are provided in Appendix A.3, and code and data for reproducing experimental results can be found on GitHub.[^2]
Baselines
---------
We first compare SSDKL to the purely supervised DKL, showing the contribution of unlabeled data. In addition to the supervised DKL method, we compare against semi-supervised methods including co-training, consistency regularization, generative modeling, and label propagation. Many of these methods were originally developed for semi-supervised classification, so we adapt them here for regression. All models, including SSDKL, were trained from random initializations.
C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span>, or C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">o</span>-training R<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">eg</span>ressors, uses two $k$-nearest neighbor ($k$NN) regressors, each of which generates labels for the other during the learning process [@zhou2005semi]. Unlike traditional co-training, which requires splitting features into sufficient and redundant views, C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span> achieves regressor diversity by using different distance metrics for its two regressors [@blum1998combining].
Consistency regularization methods aim to make model outputs invariant to local input perturbations [@miyato2015distributional; @laine2017pi; @tarvainen2017mean]. For semi-supervised classification, [@goodfellow2018realistic] found that VAT and mean teacher were the best methods using fair evaluation guidelines. Virtual adversarial training (VAT) via local distributional smoothing (LDS) enforces consistency by training models to be robust to adversarial local input perturbations [@miyato2015distributional; @miyato2017virtual]. Unlike adversarial training [@goodfellow2014explaining], the *virtual* adversarial perturbation is found without labels, making semi-supervised learning possible. We adapt VAT for regression by choosing the output distribution $\mathcal{N}(h_\theta({\mathbf{x}}), \sigma^2)$ for input ${\mathbf{x}}$, where $h_\theta:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a parameterized mapping and $\sigma$ is fixed. Optimizing the likelihood term is then equivalent to minimizing squared error; the LDS term is the KL-divergence between the model distribution and a perturbed Gaussian (see Appendix A.2). Mean teacher enforces consistency by penalizing deviation from the outputs of a model with the exponential weighted average of the parameters over SGD iterations [@tarvainen2017mean].
Label propagation defines a graph structure over the data with edges that define the probability for a categorical label to propagate from one data point to another [@Zhu02learningfrom]. If we encode this graph in a transition matrix $T$ and let the current class probabilities be $y$, then the algorithm iteratively propagates $y\leftarrow Ty$, row-normalizes $y$, clamps the labeled data to their known values, and repeats until convergence. We make the extension to regression by letting $y$ be real-valued labels and normalizing $T$. As in [@Zhu02learningfrom], we use a fully-connected graph and the radial-basis kernel for edge weights. The kernel scale hyperparameter is chosen using a validation set.
Generative models such as the variational autoencoder (VAE) have shown promise in semi-supervised classification especially for visual and sequential tasks [@goodfellow2014generative; @kingma2013auto; @maaloe2016auxiliary; @rasmus2015semi]. We compare against a semi-supervised VAE by first learning an unsupervised embedding of the data and then using the embeddings as input to a supervised multilayer perceptron.
UCI regression experiments {#uci}
--------------------------
We evaluate SSDKL on eight regression datasets from the UCI repository. For each dataset, we train on $n = \{50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500\}$ labeled examples, retain $1000$ examples as the hold out test set, and treat the remaining data as unlabeled examples. Following [@goodfellow2018realistic], the labeled data is randomly split 90-10 into training and validation samples, giving a realistically small validation set. For example, for $n=100$ labeled examples, we use 90 random examples for training and the remaining 10 for validation in every random split. We report test RMSE averaged over 10 trials of random splits to combat the small data sizes. All kernel hyperparameters are optimized directly through $L_{semisup}$, and we use the validation set for early stopping to prevent overfitting and for selecting $\alpha \in \{0.1, 1, 10\}$. We did not use approximate GP procedures in our SSDKL or DKL experiments, so the only difference is the addition of the variance regularizer. For all combinations of input feature dimensions and labeled data sizes in the UCI experiments, each SSDKL trial (including all training and testing) ran on the order of minutes.
Following [@wilson2016deep], we choose a neural network with a similar \[$d$-100-50-50-2\] architecture and two-dimensional embedding. Following [@goodfellow2018realistic], we use this same base model for all deep models, including SSDKL, DKL, VAT, mean teacher, and the VAE encoder, in order to make results comparable across methods. Since label propagation creates a kernel matrix of all data points, we limit the number of unlabeled examples for label propagation to a maximum of 20000 due to memory constraints. We initialize labels in label propagation with a kNN regressor with $k=5$ to speed up convergence.
{width="\linewidth"}
Table \[table:uci\] displays the results for $n=100$ and $n=300$; full results are included in Appendix A.3. SSDKL gives a $4.20\%$ and $5.81\%$ median RMSE improvement over the supervised DKL in the $n=100, 300$ cases respectively, superior to other semi-supervised methods adapted for regression. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test versus DKL shows significance at the $p=0.05$ level for at least one labeled training set size for all 8 datasets.
The same learning rates and initializations are used across *all* UCI datasets for SSDKL. We use learning rates of and $0.1$ for the neural network and GP parameters respectively and initialize all GP parameters to $1$. In Fig. \[fig:combined\] (**right**), we study the effect of varying $\alpha$ to trade off between maximizing the likelihood of labeled data and minimizing the variance of unlabeled data. A large $\alpha$ emphasizes minimization of the predictive variance while a small $\alpha$ focuses on fitting labeled data. SSDKL improves on DKL for values of $\alpha$ between $0.1$ and $10.0$, indicating that performance is not overly reliant on the choice of this hyperparameter. Fig. \[fig:combined\] (**left**) compares SSDKL to purely supervised DKL, C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span>, and VAT as we vary the labeled training set size. For the Elevators dataset, DKL is able to close the gap on SSDKL as it gains access to more labeled data. Relative to the other methods, which require more data to fit neural network parameters, C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span> performs well in the low-data regime.
Surprisingly, C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span> outperformed SSDKL on the Blog, CTslice, and Buzz datasets. We found that these datasets happen to be better-suited for nearest neighbors-based methods such as C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span>. A kNN regressor using only the labeled data outperformed DKL on two of three datasets for $n=100$, beat SSDKL on all three for $n=100$, beat DKL on two of three for $n=300$, and beat SSDKL on one of three for $n=300$. Thus, the kNN regressor is often already outperforming SSDKL with only labeled data—it is unsurprising that SSDKL is unable to close the gap on a semi-supervised nearest neighbors method like C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span>.
{width="0.80\linewidth"}
#### Representation learning
To gain some intuition about how the unlabeled data helps in the learning process, we visualize the neural network embeddings learned by the DKL and SSDKL models on the Skillcraft dataset. In Fig. \[fig:embeddings\] (**left**), we first train DKL on $n=100$ labeled training examples and plot the two-dimensional neural network embedding that is learned. In Fig. \[fig:embeddings\] (**right**), we train SSDKL on $n=100$ labeled training examples along with $m=1000$ additional unlabeled data points and plot the resulting embedding. In the left panel, DKL learns a poor embedding—different colors representing different output magnitudes are intermingled. In the right panel, SSDKL is able to use the unlabeled data for regularization, and learns a better representation of the dataset.
Poverty prediction {#pov}
------------------
High-resolution satellite imagery offers the potential for cheap, scalable, and accurate tracking of changing socioeconomic indicators. In this task, we predict local poverty measures from satellite images using limited amounts of poverty labels. As described in [@jean2016combining], the dataset consists of $3,066$ villages across five Africa countries: Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, and Rwanda. These include some of the poorest countries in the world (Malawi and Rwanda) as well as some that are relatively better off (Nigeria), making for a challenging and realistically diverse problem.
In this experiment, we use $n=300$ labeled satellite images for training. With such a small dataset, we can not expect to train a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) from scratch. Instead we take a transfer learning approach as in [@xie2016transfer], extracting 4096-dimensional visual features and using these as input. More details are provided in Appendix A.5.
#### Incorporating spatial information {#location}
In order to highlight the usefulness of kernel composition, we explore extending SSDKL with a spatial kernel. Spatial SSDKL composes two kernels by summing an image feature kernel and a separate location kernel that operates on location coordinates (lat/lon). By treating them separately, it explicitly encodes the knowledge that location coordinates are spatially structured and distinct from image features. As shown in Table \[table:pov\], all models outperform the baseline state-of-the-art ridge regression model from [@jean2016combining]. Spatial SSDKL significantly outperforms the DKL and SSDKL models that use only image features. Spatial SSDKL outperforms the other models by directly modeling location coordinates as spatial features, showing that kernel composition can effectively incorporate prior knowledge of structure.
Related work {#related_work}
============
[@damianou2013deepgp] introduced deep Gaussian processes, which stack GPs in a hierarchy by modeling the outputs of one layer with a Gaussian process in the next layer. Despite the suggestive name, these models do not integrate deep neural networks and Gaussian processes.
[@wilson2015dkl] proposed deep kernel learning, combining neural networks with the non-parametric flexibility of GPs and training end-to-end in a fully supervised setting. Extensions have explored approximate inference, stochastic gradient training, and recurrent deep kernels for sequential data [@WilsonN15; @wilson2016stochastic; @al2016learning].
Our method draws inspiration from transductive experimental design, which chooses the most informative points (experiments) to measure by seeking data points that are both hard to predict and informative for the unexplored test data [@yu2006active]. Similar prediction uncertainty approaches have been explored in semi-supervised classification models, such as minimum entropy and minimum variance regularization, which can now also be understood in the posterior regularization framework [@grandvalet2004semi; @zhao2015minimum].
Recent work in generative adversarial networks (GANs) [@goodfellow2014generative], variational autoencoders (VAEs) [@kingma2013auto], and other generative models have achieved promising results on various semi-supervised classification tasks [@maaloe2016auxiliary; @rasmus2015semi]. However, we find that these models are not as well-suited for generic regression tasks such as in the UCI repository as for audio-visual tasks.
Consistency regularization posits that the model’s output should be invariant to reasonable perturbations of the input [@miyato2015distributional; @laine2017pi; @tarvainen2017mean]. Combining adversarial training [@goodfellow2014explaining] with consistency regularization, virtual adversarial training uses a label-free regularization term that allows for semi-supervised training [@miyato2015distributional]. Mean teacher adds a regularization term that penalizes deviation from a exponential weighted average of the parameters over SGD iterations [@tarvainen2017mean]. For semi-supervised classification, [@goodfellow2018realistic] found that VAT and mean teacher were the best methods across a series of fair evaluations.
Label propagation defines a graph structure over the data points and propagates labels from labeled data over the graph. The method must assume a graph structure and edge distances on the input feature space without the ability to adapt the space to the assumptions. Label propagation is also subject to memory constraints since it forms a kernel matrix over *all* data points, requiring quadratic space in general, although sparser graph structures can reduce this to a linear scaling.
Co-training regressors trains two kNN regressors with different distance metrics that label each others’ unlabeled data. This works when neighbors in the given input space have similar target distributions, but unlike kernel learning approaches, the features are fixed. Thus, C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span> cannot adapt the space to a misspecified distance measure. In addition, as a fully nonparametric method, inference requires retaining the full dataset.
Much of the previous work in semi-supervised learning is in classification and the assumptions do not generally translate to regression. Our experiments show that SSDKL outperforms other adapted semi-supervised methods in a battery of regression tasks.
Conclusions
===========
Many important problems are challenging because of the limited availability of training data, making the ability to learn from unlabeled data critical. In experiments with UCI datasets and a real-world poverty prediction task, we find that minimizing posterior variance can be an effective way to incorporate unlabeled data when labeled training data is scarce. SSDKL models are naturally suited for many real-world problems, as spatial and temporal structure can be explicitly modeled through the composition of kernel functions. While our focus is on regression problems, we believe the SSDKL framework is equally applicable to classification problems—we leave this to future work.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This research was supported by NSF (\#1651565, \#1522054, \#1733686), ONR, Sony, and FLI. NJ was supported by the Department of Defense (DoD) through the National Defense Science & Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG) Program. We are thankful to Volodymyr Kuleshov and Aditya Grover for helpful discussions.
Appendix
========
Posterior regularization {#postreg}
------------------------
Let $\mathcal{D}=(X_L, {\mathbf{y}}_L, X_U)$ be a collection of observed data. Let $X=(X_L, X_U)$ be the observed input data points. As in [@zhu2014bayesian], we assume that $\mathcal{F}$ is a complete separable metric space and $\Pi$ is an absolutely continuous probability measure (with respect to background measure $\eta$) on $(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{F}))$, where $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{F})$ is the the Borel $\sigma$-algebra, such that a density $\pi$ exists where $d\Pi=\pi d\eta$. Let $\Theta$ be a space of parameters to the model, where we treat $\theta \in \Theta$ as random variables. With regards to the notation in the RegBayes framework, the model is the pair $M=(f, \theta)$. We assume as in [@zhu2014bayesian] that the likelihood function $P(\cdot \vert M)$ is the likelihood distribution which is dominated by a $\sigma$-finite measure $\lambda$ for all $M$ with positive density, such that a density $p(\cdot \vert M)$ exists where $dP(\cdot \vert M)=p(\cdot \vert M)d\lambda$.
We would like to compute the posterior distribution $$p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D}) = \frac{p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta)\pi(f, \theta)}{\int_{f, \theta} p(f, \theta, \mathcal{D})d\eta(f, \theta)}$$ which involves an intractable integral.
We claim that the solution of the following optimization problem is precisely the Bayesian posterior $p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})$: $$\inf_{q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})} D_{KL}(q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D}) \| \pi(f, \theta)) - \int_{f, \theta} q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})\log p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta) d\eta(f,\theta).$$ By adding the constant $\log p(\mathcal{D})$ to the objective, $$\begin{aligned}
&\inf_{q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})} D_{KL}(q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D}) \| \pi(f, \theta)) - \int_{f, \theta} q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})\log p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta) d\eta(f,\theta) + \log p(\mathcal{D})\\
=&\inf_{q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})} \int_{f, \theta} q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})\log\frac{q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})}{p(f, \theta,\mathcal{D})}d\eta(f, \theta) + \log p(\mathcal{D})\\
=&\inf_{q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})} \int_{f, \theta} q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})\log\frac{q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})}{p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})}d\eta(f, \theta) \label{eq:prevform}\\
=&\inf_{q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})} D_{KL}(q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D}) \| p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D}))\\
=&\inf_{q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})} \mathcal{L}(q(f,\theta \vert \mathcal{D})),\end{aligned}$$ where by definition $p(f, \theta, \mathcal{D}) =p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta)\pi(f, \theta)$ and we see that the objective is minimized when $q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D}) = p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})$ as claimed. We note that the objective is equivalent to the first term of the RegBayes objective (Section 2.3).
We introduce a variational approximation $q\in \mathcal{P}_{prob}$ which approximates $p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})$, where $\mathcal{P}_{prob}= \{q: q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})=q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})\}$ is the family of approximating distributions such that $q(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})$ is restricted to be a Dirac delta centered on $\bar{\theta}$. When we restrict $q\in \mathcal{P}_{prob}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D})\in \mathcal{P}_{prob}} &D_{KL}(q(f, \theta\vert \mathcal{D}) \| \pi(f, \theta)) - \int_{f, \theta} q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})\log p(\mathcal{D} \vert f, \theta) d\eta(f,\theta) \\
=\inf_{q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D}), \bar{\theta}} &\int_{\theta}\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta) \int_{f} q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D}) \biggl(
\log \frac{q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)}{p(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})}\biggr)d\eta(f,\theta)+O(1) \label{eq:useprev}\\
=\inf_{q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D}), \bar{\theta}} &\int_{\theta} \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)\biggl(D_{KL}(q(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\|p(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D}))+\log \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta) -\log p(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})\biggr)d\eta(\theta)+O(1) \\
=\inf_{q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D}), \bar{\theta}} &\int_{\theta} \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)\biggl(D_{KL}(q(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\|p(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})) -\log p(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})\biggr)d\eta(\theta)+O(1) \label{eq:delta}
$$ where in equation (\[eq:useprev\]) we use the form from equation (\[eq:prevform\]), and in equation (\[eq:delta\]) we note that $\int_\theta \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)\log \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)$ does not vary with $\bar{\theta}$ or $q$, and can be removed from the optimization. For every $\bar{\theta}$, the optimizing distribution is $q^*(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})=p(f\vert \bar{\theta}, \mathcal{D})$, which is the Bayesian posterior given the model parameters. Substituting this optimal value into (\[eq:delta\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{q(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D}), \bar{\theta}} &\int_{\theta} \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)\biggl(D_{KL}(q^*(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\|p(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})) -\log p(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})\biggr)d\eta(\theta)+O(1)\\
=\inf_{\bar{\theta}} & -\int_{\theta}\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)\log p(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})d\eta(\theta)+O(1) \label{eq:kl0}\\
= \inf_{\bar{\theta}} & -\int_{\theta}\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)(\log p(\theta \vert X, {\mathbf{y}}_L) + \log p({\mathbf{y}}_L \vert X))d\eta(\theta)+O(1) \label{eq:constlikelihood} \\
= \inf_{\bar{\theta}} & -\int_{\theta}\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L, \theta \vert X)d\eta(\theta)+O(1)\\
=\inf_{\bar{\theta}} & -\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L\vert \bar{\theta}, X) -\log p(\bar{\theta}|X)+O(1)\\
=\inf_{\bar{\theta}} & -\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L\vert \bar{\theta}, X)+O(1)\end{aligned}$$ using that $D_{KL}(q^*(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D}) \| p(f \vert \theta, \mathcal{D}))=0$ in (\[eq:kl0\]) and $\int_{\theta}\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L\vert X)$ is a constant. We also treat $\log p(\bar{\theta}\vert X)$ as a constant since $\bar{\theta}$ is independent of $X$ without any observations $y_L$, and we choose a uniform prior over $\bar{\theta}$. The optimization problem over $\bar{\theta}$ reflects maximizing the likelihood of the data.
We defined the regularization function as $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega(q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})) = \alpha' \sum_{i=1}^m \biggl(
&\int_{f,\theta} p(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})q(\theta \vert \mathcal{D})(f(X_U)_i - \mathbb{E}_{p}[f(X_U)_i])^2 d\eta(f, \theta)\biggr).
$$ Note that the regularization function only depends on $\bar{\theta}$, through $q(\theta \mid \mathcal{D})=\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)$. Therefore the optimal post-data posterior $q$ in the regularized objective is still in the form $q^*(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})=p(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)$, and $q$ is modified by the regularization function only through $\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)$.
Thus, using the optimal post-data posterior $q^*(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})=p(f\vert \theta, \mathcal{D})\delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)$, the RegBayes problem is equivalent to the objective optimized by SSDKL: $$\begin{aligned}
&\inf_{q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})\in \mathcal{P}_{prob}} \mathcal{L}(q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D})) + \Omega(q(f, \theta \vert \mathcal{D}))\\
=&\inf_{\bar{\theta}} -\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L \vert \bar{\theta}, X) + \alpha' \sum_{i=1}^m \biggl(\int_f (f(X_U)_i - \mathbb{E}_{p}[f(X_U)_i])^2 \int_\theta \delta_{\bar{\theta}}(\theta)p(f\vert \theta,\mathcal{D})d\eta(f, \theta)\biggr)+O(1)\\
=&\inf_{\bar{\theta}} -\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L \vert \bar{\theta}, X)+ \alpha' \sum_{i=1}^m \int_f p(f \vert \bar{\theta}, \mathcal{D})(f(X_U)_i - \mathbb{E}_{p}[f(X_U)_i])^2 d\eta(f)+O(1)\\
=&\inf_{\bar{\theta}} -\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L \vert \bar{\theta}, X) + \alpha' \sum_{i=1}^m \text{Var}_{p}(f((X_U)_i))+O(1)\\
=&\inf_{\bar{\theta}} L_{semisup}(\bar{\theta})+O(1).\end{aligned}$$
Virtual Adversarial Training {#appendix:vat}
----------------------------
Virtual adversarial training (VAT) is a general training mechanism which enforces *local distributional smoothness* (LDS) by optimizing the model to be less sensitive to adversarial perturbations of the input [@miyato2015distributional]. The VAT objective is to augment the marginal likelihood with an LDS objective: $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n\log p({\mathbf{y}}_L \vert X_L, \bar{\theta}) + \frac{\lambda}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\text{LDS}(X_i, \bar{\theta})$$ where $$\text{LDS}(X_i, \bar{\theta})=-\Delta_{KL}(r_{\text{v-adv}(i)}, X_i, \bar{\theta})$$ $$\Delta_{KL}(r, X_i, \bar{\theta})=D_{KL}(p({\mathbf{y}}\vert X_i, \bar{\theta}) \| p({\mathbf{y}}\vert X_i + r, \bar{\theta}))$$ $$r_{\text{v-adv}(i)} = \arg \max_r\{\Delta_{KL}(r, X_i, \bar{\theta}); \|r\|_2\leq \epsilon \}$$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ is the output of the model given the input $X_i$ (or perturbed input $X_i+r$) and parameters $\bar{\theta}$. Note that the LDS objective does not require labels, so that unlabeled data can be incorporated. The experiments in the original paper are for classification, although VAT is general. We use VAT for regression by choosing $p({\mathbf{y}}\vert X_i, \bar{\theta})=\mathcal{N}(h_{\bar{\theta}}(X_i), \sigma^2)$ where $h_{\bar{\theta}}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^H$ is a parameterized mapping (a neural network), and $\sigma$ is fixed. Optimizing the likelihood term is then equivalent to minimizing the squared error and the LDS term is the KL-divergence between the model’s Gaussian distribution and a perturbed Gaussian distribution, which is also in the form of a squared difference. To calculate the adversarial perturbation $r_{\text{v-adv}(i)}$, first we take the second-order Taylor approximation at $r=0$ of $\Delta_{KL}(r, X_i, \bar{\theta})$, assuming that $p(y\vert X_i, \bar{\theta})$ is twice differentiable: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{KL}(p({\mathbf{y}}\vert X_i, \bar{\theta}) \| p({\mathbf{y}}\vert X_i + r, \bar{\theta}) \approx \frac{1}{2}r^TH_ir\end{aligned}$$ where $H_i=\nabla\nabla_r D_{KL}(p({\mathbf{y}}\vert X_i, \bar{\theta})|_{r=0}$. Note that the first derivative is zero since $D_{KL}(p({\mathbf{y}}\vert X_i, \bar{\theta})$ is minimized at $r=0$. Therefore $r_{\text{v-adv}(i)}$ can be approximated with the first dominant eigenvector of the $H_i$ scaled to norm $\epsilon$. The eigenvector calculation is done via a finite-difference approximation to the power iteration method. As in [@miyato2015distributional], one step of the finite-difference approximation was used in all of our experiments.
Training details
----------------
In our reported results, we use the standard squared exponential or radial basis function (RBF) kernel, $$k({\mathbf{x}}_i, {\mathbf{x}}_j) = \phi_f^2 \exp \left( - \frac{\|{\mathbf{x}}_i - {\mathbf{x}}_j\|_2^2}{2 \phi_l^2} \right),$$ where $\phi_f^2$ and $\phi_l^2$ represent the signal variance and characteristic length scale. We also experimented with polynomial kernels, $k({\mathbf{x}}_i, {\mathbf{x}}_j) = (\phi_f {\mathbf{x}}_i^T {\mathbf{x}}_j + \phi_l)^p$, $p \in \mathbb{Z}_+$, but found that performance generally decreased. To enforce positivity constraints on the kernel parameters and positive definiteness of the covariance, we train these parameters in the log-domain. Although the information capacity of a non-parametric model increases with the dataset size, the marginal likelihood automatically constrains model complexity without additional regularization [@rasmussen2006gaussian]. The parametric neural networks are regularized with L2 weight decay to reduce overfitting, and models are implemented and trained in TensorFlow using the ADAM optimizer [@abadi2016tensorflow; @kingma2015adam].
UCI results
-----------
In section 4.2 of the main text, we include results on the UCI datasets for $n=100$ and $n=300$. Here we include the rest of the experimental results, for $n \in \{50, 200, 400, 500\}$. For $n=50$, we note that both C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">oreg</span> and label propagation perform quite well — we expect that this is true because these methods do not require learning neural network parameters from data.
Poverty prediction {#poverty-prediction}
------------------
High-resolution satellite imagery offers the potential for cheap, scalable, and accurate tracking of changing socioeconomic indicators. The United Nations has set 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the year 2030—the first of these is the worldwide elimination of extreme poverty, but a lack of reliable data makes it difficult to distribute aid and target interventions effectively. Traditional data collection methods such as large-scale household surveys or censuses are slow and expensive, requiring years to complete and costing billions of dollars [@jerven2013poor]. Because data on the outputs that we care about are scarce, it is difficult to train models on satellite imagery using traditional supervised methods. In this task, we attempt to predict local poverty measures from satellite images using limited amounts of poverty labels. As described in [@jean2016combining], the dataset consists of $3,066$ villages across five Africa countries: Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, and Rwanda. These countries include some of the poorest in the world (Malawi, Rwanda) as well as regions of Africa that are relatively better off (Nigeria), making for a challenging and realistically diverse problem. The raw satellite inputs consist of $400 \times 400$ pixel RGB satellite images downloaded from Google Static Maps at zoom level 16, corresponding to $2.4$ m ground resolution. The target variable that we attempt to predict is a wealth index provided in the publicly available Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) [@dhs2015; @filmer2001estimating].
[^1]: denotes equal contribution
[^2]: https://github.com/ermongroup/ssdkl
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe a new technique to measure the EDM of $^{129}$Xe with $^3$He comagnetometry. Both species are polarized using spin-exchange optical pumping, transferred to a measurement cell, and transported into a magnetically shielded room, where SQUID magnetometers detect free precession in applied electric and magnetic fields. The result of a one week run combined with a detailed study of systematic effects is $d_A({\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}) = (0.26 \pm 2.33_\mathrm{stat} \pm 0.72_\mathrm{syst})\times10^{-27}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$. This corresponds to an upper limit of $|d_A({\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}})| < 4.81\times 10^{-27} ~e\,\mathrm{cm}~(95\%~\mathrm{CL})$, a factor of 1.4 more sensitive than the previous limit.'
author:
- 'N. Sachdeva'
- 'I. Fan'
- 'E. Babcock'
- 'M. Burghoff'
- 'T. E. Chupp'
- 'S. Degenkolb'
- 'P. Fierlinger'
- 'E. Kraegeloh'
- 'W. Kilian'
- 'S. Knappe-Gr[ü]{}neberg'
- 'F. Kuchler'
- 'T. Liu'
- 'M. Marino'
- 'J. Meinel'
- 'Z. Salhi'
- 'A. Schnabel'
- 'J. T. Singh'
- 'S. Stuiber'
- 'W. A. Terrano'
- 'L. Trahms'
- 'J. Voigt'
title: 'A new measurement of the permanent electric dipole moment of $^{129}$Xe using $^{3}$He comagnetometry and SQUID detection'
---
Searches for permanent electric dipole moments (EDMs) are a powerful way to investigate beyond-standard-model (BSM) physics. An EDM is a charge asymmetry along the total angular momentum axis of a particle or system and is odd under both parity reversal (P) and time reversal (T). Assuming CPT conservation (C is charge conjugation) an EDM is a direct signal of CP violation (CPV), a topic of current interest in part because it is a condition required to generate the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe [@Sakharov1967]. The Standard Model incorporates CPV through the phase in the CKM matrix and the QCD parameter $\bar{\theta}$. However, the Standard Model alone is insufficient to explain the size of the baryon asymmetry [@Dine2003], motivating the search for BSM CPV. BSM scenarios that generate the observed baryon asymmetry [@Morrissey2012] generally also provide for EDMs larger than the SM estimate $|d_A({\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}) ^\mathrm{SM}|\approx 5\times 10^{-35}~e\,$cm [@Chupp2017]. Additional motivation is provided by the consideration of ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ as a comagnetometer in neutron EDM experiments [@Degenkolb2012; @Masuda2012], which require $d_A(\mathrm{^{129}Xe})\lesssim 3\times 10^{-28} e\,\mathrm{cm}$ in order to measure the neutron EDM with sensitivity $1\times 10^{-27} e\,\mathrm{cm}$.
Beginning with the neutron [@Smith1957], EDMs measured in several systems have provided constraints on how BSM CPV can enter low-energy physics (see [@Chupp2017] for a review). EDMs of diamagnetic systems such as ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and $^{199}$Hg are particularly sensitive to CPV nucleon-nucleon interactions that induce a nuclear Schiff moment. Diamagnetic systems are also essential for constraining electron-spin independent low-energy CPV parameters [@Chupp2015]. While the most precise atomic EDM measurement is from $^{199}$Hg [@Graner2016], there are theoretical challenges to constraining hadronic CPV parameters from $^{199}$Hg alone, and improved sensitivity to the ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ EDM would tighten these constraints [@Chupp2015; @Yamanaka2017]. Recent work has shown that diamagnetic-atom EDM contributions from light-axion-induced CPV are significantly stronger for ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ than for $^{199}$Hg [@DzubaFlambaum2018].
The first ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ EDM measurement by Vold *et al.* monitored ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ Larmor precession frequency as a function of applied electric field [@Vold1984]. Rosenberry *et al.* [@Rosenberry2001] used a two-species maser with a ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$ comagnetometer providing the upper limit $|d_A({\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}})| \le 6.6 \times 10^{-27}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$ (95% CL), the most sensitive ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ measurement to date. A number of $^{129}$Xe EDM efforts to improve on this limit have followed, including an active maser technique [@Inoue2016], and an experiment with polarized liquid xenon [@Ledbetter2012]. An approach similar to ours using free precession and SQUID magnetometry is also being pursued [@Schmidt2013].
For a system with total angular momentum $\vec F$, EDM $d\vec F/F$, and magnetic moment $\mu\vec F/F$, the Hamiltonian is $H = -(\mu \vec F\cdot\vec B + d\vec F\cdot\vec E)/F$. This results in an energy splitting dependent on $\vec E\cdot \hat B$ and a corresponding frequency shift $\omega_d =\pm d\,|E|/(\hbar F)$ between states with $|\Delta m_F|=1$. Changes of $\vec B$ due to drifts and extraneous magnetic fields, for example from leakage currents, lead to frequency shifts that are mitigated by comagnetometry—simultaneous measurement with a colocated species. The $^{129}$Xe-$^3$He comagnetometer system is nearly ideal because both can be simultaneously polarized by spin-exchange optical pumping (SEOP) [@Chupp1988], have long spin relaxation times enabling precision frequency measurements, and ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$, with $27\times$ lower nuclear charge $Z$, is much less sensitive to CP violation [@FlambaumGinges].
The layout of the HeXeEDM experiment, previously described in [@Kuchler2016], is shown in Fig. \[apparatus\]. Free precession of the ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$ magnetization was measured with an array of six low-noise superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) in the magnetically shielded room BMSR-2 at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) Berlin. BMSR-2 provided a passive shielding factor of 75,000 for frequencies below 0.01 Hz and more than $10^8$ above 6 Hz [@Bork2002]. A 1.6 m diameter set of Helmholtz coils generated a static magnetic field of $2.6~\mathrm{\mu T}$ along the $y$-axis. In a separate setup similar to that described in Ref. [@Korchak2013], the gas mixture of 18% isotopically enriched xenon ($90\%$ ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$), $73\%~{\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$, and $9\%~\mathrm{N_2}$ was polarized by SEOP in a refillable optical pumping cell (OPC). Simultaneous polarization of ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$-${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$ mixtures compromise both polarizations because the optimum conditions are very different for the two species. Typically, we achieved 9–12% polarization for ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and 0.1–0.2% polarization for ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$ depending on the total pressure in the OPC. We used two valved EDM cells with 30 mm diameter, 2 mm thick, p-type (Boron) doped 1-10 $\Omega$cm silicon electrodes diffusion bonded to borosilicate glass cylinders [@PatrickPistelPC]. One cell (PP1) had a length of 18.5 mm and an inner diameter of 20.5 mm; the other cell (PP2) had a length of 21.8 mm and an inner diameter of 20.4 mm. Before each filling, the EDM cell was degaussed using a commercial bulk degausser [@degausser]. The polarized gas was expanded from the OPC into the evacuated EDM cell. Each time the OPC was refilled, the gas was used for two EDM cell fillings with different pressures and polarizations. The first had higher pressure ($\sim 1$ bar) and lower polarization, and the second had lower pressure ($\sim 0.5$ bar) and higher polarization. After the EDM cell was filled, it was transported to the magnetically-shielded room in a battery-powered $400~\mathrm{\mu T}$ shielded solenoid.
![\[apparatus\] (color online) Schematic of the HeXeEDM apparatus at PTB. The electric field $\vec E$ indicated corresponded to +HV and the magnetic field is shown along $+\hat y$. The inset shows a typical raw SQUID signal for 1/2 second of data; the frequencies are 30.8 Hz for ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and 84.8 Hz for ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$. Not to scale.](setup4 "fig:"){width="0.96\columnwidth"} -0.10 true in
-0.25 true in
After the cell was placed in the measurement position, the BMSR-2 door was closed, and the magnetic field was allowed to stabilize for about five minutes. A time-dependent magnetic field along the $x$-axis with resonant frequency components and amplitudes tuned to effect a $\pi/2$ pulse for both species initiated each spin-precession run. Data were acquired from the $Z_1$-SQUID, which was located $(51\pm 1)$ mm above the center of the EDM cell. A silicon wafer was placed between the cell and dewar as indicated in Fig. \[apparatus\] to protect the SQUIDs from potential high voltage discharges.
The data-acquisition sample rate of 915.5245 Hz was derived from the 10 MHz output of an external clock [@quartzclock]. The initial amplitudes of the precession signals were about 30 pT and 5 pT for $^{129}$Xe and $^3$He, respectively. The noise measured by the SQUID system in the BMSR-2 was $\sim 6~\mathrm{fT/\sqrt{Hz}}$ over the range spanning the ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$ frequencies. The free-precession decay time $T_2^*$ was in the range of 3700–8000 s for ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and 4000–8000 s for ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$. Each run lasted about 15,000 s.
As the ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$ precessed, $\pm 6~$kV high voltage (HV) was applied to one electrode with the other electrode at ground potential. The average electric fields were $3.2~$kV/cm and $2.7~$kV/cm across cells PP1 and PP2, respectively. The relative uncertainty of the electric field, determined from modeling the cell and electrode geometry, was estimated to be 10%. The voltage and field were chosen to be safely below the voltage observed to cause breakdown across the cells at the lowest gas pressure used for this experiment.
During each run, the HV polarity was positive ($+$), negative ($-$), or zero for equal intervals called segments, applied in a pattern that compensated drifts of comagnetometer frequency discussed below [^1]. For systematic studies, segments with zero HV were inserted at the beginning and end of each set of 16 segments within a run [@Sachdeva2019], and the rate of change of HV between segments (HV ramp) set to either 1 kV/s or 2 kV/s. Segments lengths of 400 or 800 seconds long were chosen based on the Allan deviation minimum from studies before taking EDM data and additional studies of frequency drifts during the experiment. The only data-analysis cuts were the shortening of eight out of a total of 539 segments due to HV or SQUID problems and five additional segments due to comagnetometer drift.
The raw time-domain SQUID data were processed as follows: the DC offset and slow baseline drift were removed with an equiripple linear-phase finite-impulse-response high-pass filter with a stopband-edge frequency of 0.5 Hz and a passband frequency of 5 Hz. Filtered data were divided into non-overlapping blocks of length $\tau = 20~$seconds, chosen to be short enough that amplitude decay and frequency drift were negligible. Data for each block were fit over the interval $-\tau/2 \le t\le \tau/2$, with six free parameters, to the function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fitmodel}
S(t) &= &a_{\mathrm{Xe}}\sin{\omega^\prime_{\mathrm{Xe}} t} + b_{\mathrm{Xe}}\cos{\omega^\prime_{\mathrm{Xe}} t} \nonumber \\
& + &a_{\mathrm{He}}\sin{\omega^\prime_{\mathrm{He}} t} + b_{\mathrm{He}}\cos{\omega^\prime_{\mathrm{He}} t}.\end{aligned}$$ The phase of each species at the middle of block $m$ was $\Phi^m_{\mathrm{Xe/He}}= \arctan{(b^m_{\mathrm{Xe/He}}/a^m_{\mathrm{Xe/He}})}$$+2\pi N_m$, where $N_m$ is the integer number of cycles accumulated prior to the block. The uncertainty of $\Phi^m_{\mathrm{Xe/He}}$ was estimated from the covariance matrix of the fit scaled by the mean-square-error of the residuals. An alternative approach, which did not use the high-pass filter but added an offset and linear drift term to the fit function, produced consistent results.
Magnetic field drifts were compensated by the comagnetometer corrected phases $\Phi^m_\mathrm{co} = \Phi^m_{\mathrm{Xe}} - R\Phi^m_{\mathrm{He}}$, where $R=1/2.7540816$ is the nominal ratio of the shielded gyromagnetic ratios of ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{^{3}\mathrm{He}}}$ [@Fan2016]. For each HV segment, the comagnetometer frequency $\omega_\mathrm{co}$ and uncertainty were determined from the slope of a linear least-squares fit to $\Phi^m_{\mathrm{co}}$ as a function of time. The frequency uncertainties in all cases were consistent with the minimum expected uncertainties for constant-amplitude signals based on the signals, noise, and segment duration [@Chupp1994; @Chibane1995; @Sachdeva2019]. Segment frequencies were blinded by adding or subtracting, depending on the sign of $\vec E\cdot\hat B$, an unknown frequency $\omega_\mathrm{blind}$ derived from a previously computer-generated pseudorandom number such that $|\omega_\mathrm{blind}|/(2\pi)\le$ 50 nHz. $\omega_\mathrm{blind}$ was saved separately from the data in a binary format. After all cuts and systematic corrections were determined, $\omega_\mathrm{blind}$ was set to zero to produce the set of HV segment frequencies for the final EDM analysis.
The EDM frequency was determined from an average of four consecutive segment frequencies with HV $(+--+)$ or $(-++-)$. This compensated for linear drifts of the comagnetometer frequencies, typically a few $\mu$Hz over the course of a run, which are predominantly due to effects of residual longitudinal magnetization that have been recently extensively studied [@Terrano2018; @Limes2018]. Higher order drifts produced a systematic error and were corrected as discussed below. Systematic effects include the uncertainties of experimental parameters as well as false-EDM signals that may arise from the nonideal response of the comagnetometer. The comagnetometer frequency $\omega_\mathrm{co}$ can be described by the following four dominant terms plus the EDM contribution $\omega_d\equiv\omega_{d_\mathrm{Xe}}-R\omega_{d_\mathrm{He}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comagmodel}
\omega_\mathrm{co}&\approx\ &\omega_{d}-\gamma^\prime_\mathrm{He}\Delta R B + \left (1-R \right)\vec\Omega\cdot\hat B \nonumber\\
&+& \gamma^\prime_\mathrm{Xe}\left (\Delta B^\mathrm{dif}_\mathrm{Xe}-\Delta B^\mathrm{dif}_\mathrm{He}\right )
+ \left (\omega^{sd}_\mathrm{Xe}-R\omega^{sd}_\mathrm{He} \right ).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\gamma^\prime_\mathrm{He/Xe}$ are the shielded gyromagnetic ratios; $\Delta R$ is a correction to $R$ that changes from run to run due mostly to pressure-dependence of the chemical shifts; $\vec B$ is the average magnetic field within the cell with contributions from the applied magnetic field $\vec B_0$, the ambient magnetic field of the room, and any nearby magnetized materials; $\vec\Omega$ is the angular frequency of the Earth’s rotation; and $\Delta B^\mathrm{dif}_\mathrm{Xe/He}$ represents the difference of the volume average of the magnetic field and the field averaged by the atoms of each species as they move throughout the cell with different diffusion constants. In the presence of second- and higher-order gradients, this average is different for the two species [@Sheng2014].
The $\nth{2}$ through $\nth{4}$ terms in Eq. \[comagmodel\] indicate the residual sensitivity of $\omega_\mathrm{co}$ to the magnitude, direction, and gradients of the magnetic field, and any correlation of these with the HV may cause a false-EDM signal. Such correlations are expected from possible leakage currents that flow across the cell, magnetization induced by charging currents that flow when the HV is changed, and motion of the measurement cell due to electrostatic forces that change with the HV. Our approach to estimating false-EDM signals is based on auxiliary measurements that measure the correlations with amplified leakage and charging currents, gradients, and cell motion, which are scaled to the HV correlations of these parameters monitored during the experiment. The last term in Eq. \[comagmodel\] reflects time-dependent, species-dependent shifts that dominate the comagnetometer drift [@Terrano2018; @Limes2018]. Eq. \[comagmodel\] does not include $\vec E \times \vec v$ effects, which are negligible.
**Source** **Sys. Error ($e\,\mathrm{cm}$)**
----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Leakage current $1.2 \times 10^{-28}$
Charging currents $1.7\times 10^{-29}$
$\vec E$-correlated cell motion (rotation) $4.2\times10^{-29}$
$\vec E$-correlated cell motion (translation) $2.6\times10^{-28}$
Comagnetometer drift $6.6\times10^{-28}$
$|\vec E|^2$ effects $1.2\times10^{-29}$
$|\vec E|$ uncertainty $2.6\times10^{-29}$
Geometric phase $\le 2\times10^{-31}$
Total $7.2\times10^{-28}$
: \[systematicstable\] Summary of false EDM and other systematic effects discussed in the text.
-0.1 truein
Systematic effects, including false EDM contributions and their uncertainties, are listed in Table \[systematicstable\]. The leakage current was measured along the return path from the EDM cell electrode to the HV power supply with a maximum observed current of 100 pA. The comagnetometer response to such a current, simulated by a single turn of wire wrapped around the cell, was $\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\partial \omega_\mathrm{co}}{\partial I_{leak}} =(1.32 \pm 0.93)~\mathrm{\mu Hz}/\mathrm{\mu A}$. Combining the two measurements, we determined a false EDM $(0.9\pm0.6)\times 10^{-28}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$ and, since the leakage current followed an unknown path that could increase or decrease $B$, we estimated the upper limit on the magnitude of a false EDM of $1.2\times 10^{-28}$ $e\,\mathrm{cm}$. During each HV ramp, the charging current might have induced magnetization of materials in or near the cell, correlated with the change of HV. The comagnetometer response to large charging currents was measured in studies with ramp currents of $\pm10~\mu$A and $\pm 20~\mu$A using the EDM-measurement HV pattern [@Note1]. The measured comagnetometer frequency shift of $(-0.3 \pm 1.2)~\mathrm{nHz}/\mathrm{\mu A}$ combined with the maximum charging current of 19 nA measured during EDM data runs resulted in the upper limit on a false EDM of $1.7\times10^{-29}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$.
The electric force between the cell electrodes and the grounded safety electrode might have caused the cell to move when the electric field was changed, affecting the magnetic fields and gradients across the cell. The effect of cell rotation on the comagnetometer frequency was measured by rotating the cell $\pm~5^\circ$ around the $z$-axis. HV-correlated cell rotation was investigated by measuring the motion of a laser beam spot reflected from the cell electrode with a lever arm of $1.5~$m and estimated to be less than 33 $\mu$rad. From these measurements, we determined the upper limit on the false EDM of $4.2\times10^{-29}~e\,$cm. HV-correlated translation of the cell in a non-uniform magnetic field might produce a false EDM because of the change of $B$ in the cell ($\nth{2}$ term in Eq. \[comagmodel\]) or through a change of the higher order gradients ($\nth{4}$ term in Eq. \[comagmodel\]). The $B$ dependence of $\omega_\mathrm{co}$ was estimated from the change in chemical shift for the different cell pressures. The HV-correlated amplitude of the spin-precession signals was used to estimate a limit of 30 $\mu$m on cell translation with respect to the SQUIDs. Combined with the linear magnetic field gradient based on $T_2^*$ for the two species [@McGregor1990], we determined the upper limit on the false EDM due to the translation in a linear gradient of $1.9\times 10^{-30}$ $e\,$cm. Another study combining an auxiliary measurement of the dependence of $\omega_\mathrm{co}$ on the current in a loop mounted on a cell electrode and the averaged field in the cell measured by the shift in the $^3$He frequency effectively isolated the $\nth{4}$ term in Eq. \[comagmodel\]. This provided an upper limit on any HV correlated effect, including cell motion, due to a source of magnetic field gradient outside the cell, provided the size of the source was smaller than its distance from the cell. The correlation $\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\partial \omega_\mathrm{co}}{\partial \omega_\mathrm{He}}=(-1.55\pm 0.28)\times 10^{-3}$ was then combined with the measured HV-correlated shift ${\delta\omega_\mathrm{He}}/{(2\pi)}=-(181.4\pm 124.4)$ nHz to set an upper limit of the false EDM due to cell translation of $2.6\times 10^{-28}$ $e\,$cm. Our future ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ EDM measurements will include a direct measurement of the dependence of $\omega_\mathrm{co}$ on cell translation and interferometric cell motion measurement.
Uncompensated drift of $\omega_\mathrm{co}$ would appear as a false EDM due to the frequency shift between segments with opposite $\vec E\cdot \hat B$. The comagnetometer frequency drifts for all runs were monotonic, and the time dependence could be accurately parametrized by polynomials of through order depending on the size of the drift and the signal-to-noise ratio, which varied from run to run. Offsets and linear drifts were compensated by the four-segment HV reversal pattern, while drifts characterized by and order time dependence were removed by the eight and 16-segment HV patterns, respectively. Because the linear time dependence is dominant, we have chosen to extract the EDM for four-segment measurements ($+--+$ or $-++-$) and to apply a correction for quadratic and higher order time dependence. The correction was calculated from the weighted polynomial coefficients of the fits to the comagnetometer frequency drift for each run. The polynomial order that accurately parametrized each run was determined by applying an $F$-test. We studied the dependence of the correction on the threshold $F_\mathrm{min}$ for $\int_{F_\mathrm{min}}^\infty P(F)dF$ and found corrections smaller than the uncertainty due to the fit parameters in all cases. For a threshold of 0.6, the correction was $(-0.08\pm 0.66)\times 10^{-27}$ $e\,\mathrm{cm}$, where the uncertainty is a statistical error based on the polynomial fits to the segment frequencies for each run, but is compiled as a systematic error in Table \[systematicstable\] to emphasize that it may give rise to a false EDM. As checks, the four-segment EDM result was compared to eight and 16-segment EDM measurements and found to be consistent. A detailed description of comagnetometer drift and correction is presented in [@Sachdeva2019; @HeXeSupplement].
$|\vec E|^2$ effects included any shift that depended on the magnitude of the applied electric field, for example, chemical shifts or HV-induced noise detected by the SQUID. Segments with $E=0$ and the different $E$ for the two cells enabled studies of the correlation of comagnetometer frequency with $\abs{E}$ and $|\vec E|^2$, providing an upper limit on the false EDM of $1.2\times10^{-29}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$. The modeling of the average electric field in the cell in the presence of the protection electrode contributed an uncertainty of $0.1d_A$. The combination of $\vec E\times \vec v$ effects coupled with magnetic field gradients could produce a false EDM, often referred to as a geometric phase. In gases at the densities used for these experiments, the time between collisions is small compared to the spin-precession period, which mitigates the coherent build up of a phase linear in the electric field. Using the formalism of Ref. [@Pignol2015], we found the false EDM due to geometric phase was $\leq 2\times 10^{-31}~e\,$cm.
![\[correlationsfig\] Comparison of EDM measurements grouped by cell, cell pressure, $\hat B_0$ direction, HV ramp rate, HV start polarity, HV segment length, and an EDM uncertainty cut for $\sigma_{d_i}<1.8\times 10^{-26}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$ (14 measurements) or $\sigma_{d_i}>1.8\times 10^{-26}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$ (106 measurements). The shaded area shows the result given in Eq. \[result\].](correlations_bw4 "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} -0.1 truein
-0.195 truein
A total of 120 EDM measurements were acquired in 16 separate runs under a variety of different conditions including measurement cell (PP1 or PP2), gas pressure, $\vec B_0$ direction, HV ramp rate, HV polarity at the start of the EDM measurement, HV segment length, and a cut on the EDM uncertainty $\sigma_{d_i}$. Fig. \[correlationsfig\] shows a comparison of sorting all EDM measurements into two groups based on these variables, and Fig. \[dataquality\] shows the EDM measurements combined into runs that had different cells, cell pressures, and orientations of $\vec B_0$. We also investigated correlations between the extracted EDM and other parameters including $T_2^*$ and an alternative combination of four segment frequencies weighted by $\pm(+1\, -3\, +3\, -1)$, which is even under reversal of HV and insensitive to linear and quadratic drifts. The absence of any correlations provided checks on additional effects that may have been related to differences of the HV ramp between the $\nth{1}$–$\nth{2}$ and the $\nth{3}$–$\nth{4}$ HV reversals. The consistency of EDM measurements over the variety of conditions and cuts illustrated in Fig. \[correlationsfig\] justified taking the weighted average of the EDM measurements, providing the comagnetometer-drift corrected result $$d_A({\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}) = (0.26 \pm 2.33\ (\mathrm{stat}))\times 10^{-27}~e\,\mathrm{cm}.
\label{result}$$ The statistical error is the square root of the inverse of the sum of the weights of the uncorrected measurements, and $\chi^2=106.1$ for 119 D.F. Combined with the systematic error from Table \[systematicstable\], we find $|d_A({\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}})| \le 4.81\times 10^{-27}~e\,\mathrm{cm}$ (95% CL). This is a factor of 1.4 improvement in sensitivity over the previous best result with one week of data compared to six months for the measurement of Ref. [@Rosenberry2001].
0.06 truein ![\[dataquality\] Weighted average of four-segment EDM measurements for each of the 16 runs indicating the cell used, cell pressure (high or low), and the magnetic field direction. For each run the uncorrected (left/gray) and drift-corrected (right/black) EDM are shown.](Allruns5 "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} -0.07 truein
Significant improvements to the polarization, SQUID dewar noise, measurement time, and increased electric field should improve the ${\ensuremath{^{129}\mathrm{Xe}}}$ EDM sensitivity by an order of magnitude or more. The largest systematic error, due to comagnetometer drift, can be reduced with more precise $\pi/2$ pulses and optimized EDM cell shape. Higher resolution leakage current measurement and improved cell motion measurements are also essential. While any further increase in sensitivity and upper limit will impact the global interpretation of EDM results [@Chupp2015], an order of magnitude improvement would represent a significant advancement in our sensitivity to BSM physics. This work also presents significant advances in comagnetometer analysis [@HeXeSupplement] and may have impact on other EDM and BSM searches including planned neutron EDM experiments with comagnetometers.
We wish to thank Patrick Pistel and Roy Wentz for excellence and innovation in glass blowing and cell construction. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-1506021, DOE grant DE-FG0204ER41331, Michigan State University, by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinshaft grants TR408/12 and FA1456/1-1 and The Cluster of Excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe.” WT acknowledges the support of a Humbolt Stiftung Fellowship.
[35]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015001) in @noop [**]{} () p. [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2012.02.056) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.108.120) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.035502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1140/epja/i2017-12237-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.035048) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.2229) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.22) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1140/epjd/e2016-70034-8) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.243001) in [**](\doibase
10.1142/9789814566438_0005) () pp. , [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.38.3998) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032113) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10751-016-1302-9) [ ()](\doibase doi) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s00723-012-0425-7) @noop () @noop @noop **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{}, () [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/723/i=1/a=012045) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.2363) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0957-0233/6/12/004) @noop [ ()]{}, @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.163002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.41.2631) @noop (), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.053407)
[^1]: The 16-segment pattern $(+--+\ \ -++-\ \ -++-\ \ +--+)$ and its inverse compensated drifts accurately parametrized by a polynomial of up to order for equal length segments.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'C. E. Ferreira Lopes'
- 'V. Neves'
- 'I. C. Leão'
- 'D. B. de Freitas'
- 'B. L. Canto Martins'
- 'A. D. da Costa'
- 'F. Paz-Chinch'' on'
- 'M. L. Das Chagas'
- 'A. Baglin'
- 'E. Janot-Pacheco'
- 'J. R. De Medeiros'
bibliography:
- 'mylib02.bib'
date: 'Received Month Day, Year; accepted Month Day, Year'
title: 'The variability behavior of CoRoT M-giant Stars [^1]'
---
[For 6 years the Convection, Rotation, and Planetary Transits (CoRoT) space mission has acquired photometric data from more than one hundred thousand point sources towards and directly opposite from the inner and outer regions of the Galaxy. The high temporal resolution of the CoRoT data combined with the wide timespan of the observations has enabled the study of short and long time variations in unprecedented detail.]{} [The aim of this work is the study of the variability and evolutionary behavior of M-giant stars using CoRot data.]{} [From the initial sample of 2534 stars classified as M-giants in the CoRoT databasis, we selected $1428$ targets that exhibit well defined variability, using visual inspection. Then, we defined three catalogs: C1 – stars with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 4200$ K and LCs displaying semi-sinusoidal signatures; C2 – rotating variable candidates with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 4200$ K; C3 – long period variable candidates (with LCs showing variability period up to the total time span of the observations). The variability period and amplitude of C1 stars were computed using Lomb-Scargle and harmonic fit methods. Finally, we used C1 and C3 stars to study the variability behavior of M-giant stars.]{} [The trends found in the $V-I$ vs $J-K$ color-color diagram are in agreement with standard empirical calibrations for M-giants. The sources located towards the inner regions of the Galaxy are distributed throughout the diagram while the majority of the stars towards the outer regions of the Galaxy are spread between the calibrations of M-giants and the predicted position for Carbon stars. The stars classified as supergiants follow a different sequence from the one found for giant stars. We also performed a KS test of the period and amplitude of stars towards the inner and outer regions of the Galaxy. We obtained a low probability that the two samples come from the same parent distribution. The observed behavior of the period-amplitude and period-effective temperature($T_{\mathrm{eff}}$) diagrams are, in general, in agreement with those found for *Kepler* sources and ground based photometry, with pulsation being the dominant cause responsible for the observed modulation. We also conclude that short-time variations on M-Giant stars do not exist or are very rare and the few cases we found are possibly related to biases or background stars.]{}
Introduction
============
The Convection, Rotation, and Planetary Transits [CoRoT; @Baglin-2007] and *Kepler* [@Borucki-2010] photometry space missions, have enabled us to improve our knowledge of a large variety of stellar phenomena, such as the rotational behavior of different families of stars [e.g., @Affer-2012; @De-Medeiros-2013; @Nielsen-2013; @McQuillan-2013; @De-Freitas-2013], detection and characterization of a wide variety of extrasolar planets [e.g., @Leger-2009; @Borucki-2012; @Batalha-2013] and their host stars [e.g., @Brown-2011; @Dressing-2013; @Morton-2014; @Huber-2014], the analysis of stellar interiors using asteroseismology [e.g., @Huber-2012; @Silva-Aguirre-2012; @Hekker-2013]; characterization of surface differential rotation [@Lanza-2014]; and the detection of eclipsing binary systems [e.g., @Maceroni-2009; @Slawson-2011; @Maciel-2011]. The aforementioned science cases are only a few major topics among the many aspects of time-domain, high-precision photometry. The data provided by the CoRoT and *Kepler* space missions represent the most complete dataset for the study of stellar variability available to date [e.g., @De-Medeiros-2013; @Walkowicz-2013]. In general the results from each mission agree with each other, but there is a lack of a comparative study regarding M-type stars.
One of the fundamental questions in debate in the literature is the evolution and nature of the pulsations in M giants. Our recent understanding of how M giants oscillate was obtained from ground-based surveys such as MACHO, OGLE, and EROS [e.g. @Wood-1996; @Alard-2001; @Lebzelter-2002; @Kiss-2003; @Soszynski-2007; @Riebel-2010; @Wisniewski-2011; @Soszynski-2013], as well as solar neighbourhood observations [@Tabur-2010].
Another important question concerns the evolution and nature of the pulsations in the GK-M type giant transition in the RGB. Whether the main physical mechanism of the pulsations of M giants is self-excited (Mira-type) pulsations or stochastic (Solar-type) oscillations is still not clear [e.g. @Dziembowski-2001; @Christensen-Dalsgaard-2001; @Bedding-2005].
In this context, @Tabur-2010 showed that, as we advance through the RGB, the observed low amplitude of stochastically excited solar-type oscillations, typical of the GK-type giants, progress to a mixture of Mira-like and solar-like variability, as found in SR variables, and ending with stable, mono-periodic, Mira-like pulsations. Afterwards, @Mosser-2013, studied global oscillation parameters of *Kepler* red giants, concluding that the main excitation mechanism in M Giant SR variables are solar-like oscillations, confirming the findings by @Dziembowski-2010, but could not disentangle RGB from AGB stars. @Banyai-2013 performed a detailed study of the variability of M-type giants using *Kepler* data as well. They affirm they could distinguish between solar-like oscillations and larger amplitude pulsations. They found a correlation of solar-like oscillations with period that closely follows the well-known $v_{max}$ amplitude scaling relations [e.g. @Mosser-2010; @Huber-2011; @Mosser-2013], but they found a sharp ending to this correlation at $\log P \sim 1$. This feature may be an indication that a different excitation mechanism dominates from this point forward. Does this point mark the transition between solar-like and Mira-type pulsations? In their diagram, the stars classified as having a few periodic components (Miras and SRs) then follow a trend with a steeper slope, for $\log P$ greater than 1. This trend is similar to the one found by @Tabur-2010 for bright M-giant stars, depicting overtone pulsators, with a few stars following the fundamental mode trend (typical of Mira-type stars) as well.
Another point of discussion concerns the observation of rapid variations of brightness on time-scales between 3 minutes to 30 days in long period variables (hereafter LPVs) [e.g., @Schaefer-1991; @Maffei-1995; @DeLaverny-1998]. However, these events were not confirmed in recent studies [e.g., @Mais-2004; @Wozniak-2004; @Lebzelter-2011; @Hartig-2014]. Indeed, @Lebzelter-2011 and @Hartig-2014, using data from CoRoT and *Kepler*, did not confirm such variations, despite photometric precisions of the order of a few mmag. Therefore, the observed short-time variations are very rare or not physical.
In this study we perform a comprehensive analysis of the variability of M-giants observed by CoRoT, and we compare our results with previous studies regarding the variability behavior of M-giant stars observed by others authors. The paper is structured as follows. In Sect. \[methods\], we describe our working sample and our catalog. In Sect. \[results\], we present our results and compare them with previous works from the literature. We also investigate the difference between CoRoT stars located towards the inner and outer regions of the Galaxy. Finally, in Sect. \[conclusions\], we present our conclusions and discuss future perspectives.
Working Sample {#methods}
==============
The CoRoT satellite was launched in 2006. It collected point-source photometric data towards inner (around RA = 18h50m, Dec = +00º) and outer (around RA = 06h50m, Dec = +00º) regions of the Galaxy over a period of 6 years. A total of $162\!,789$ sources were observed, with 5762 classified as M-type stars [@Deleuil-2009]. These stars constitute approximately $4\%$ of all stars observed by CoRoT and are divided in two main groups: giants (luminosity classes I, II, and III) and dwarfs (luminosity class V). giants comprise approximately $44\%$ of all M-type stars detected by CoRoT, whereas the percentage of M dwarfs is approximately $56\%$. A total of 973 M-type stars were observed at least twice, providing a unique sample for studying long-term photometric variations. Table \[alldata\] lists the number of M-type stars observed with CoRoT towards the inner (center) and outer (anticenter) regions of the Galaxy.
CoRoT Region I II III V
-------------- ----- ----- ------ ------
Center 136 189 1339 1807
Anticenter 48 31 791 1421
: CoRoT M-type stars taken from EXO-Dat [@Deleuil-2009] distributed by luminosity class.[]{data-label="alldata"}
The latest CoRoT data release N2[^2] provides light curves (LCs) that are corrected for instrumental noise cause by electronic, background and jitter sources. The effect of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) passage was also included, and hot pixels of the detector are now flagged [@Auvergne-2009]. At the time of the beginning of this work, the data were not yet completely corrected and some problems remained in the released data, requiring further treatment before the data was ready for analysis. In particular, the data contained long-term trends produced by CCD temperature variations, jumps (discontinuities) produced by hot pixels, and outliers [@Auvergne-2009]. The post-processing of the LCs performed in different works follows different methods, according to the objectives of the works [e.g., @Renner-2008; @Basri-2011; @Affer-2012; @De-Medeiros-2013], and thus far, there is no standard method to analysed the processed data. In the present work, we followed the general guidelines presented by @De-Medeiros-2013.
First, we selected all sources classified as M-type giant stars in the CoRoT database. This first pre-selection, which yielded $2534$ objects, provided us with a reasonable of actual giants, although the luminosity class specified in the CoRoT database is sometimes incorrect.
We also obtained the Harris $V$ and Sloan-Gunn $r'$ and $i'$ photometry from the Exo-Dat catalog [@Deleuil-2009] and $JHK_{s}$ photometry from the Two Micron All Sky Survey [*2MASS*- @Skrutskie-2006] catalog. The indexes $V$, $r'$, and $i'$ were transformed into Johnson $V$ and $I$-band photometry using the relations in @Deleuil-2009, with propagation of the respective errors.
Then, we derredened the photometry using the extinction coefficients $A_{V}$, $A_{I}$, $A_J$, and $A_{K}$ calculated with the relations from @Schlafly-2011 and $E(B-V)$ reddening maps taken from @Schlafly-2014. We took the uncertainties from the coefficients and reddening maps and propagated them to obtain the final uncertainty of the corrected photometry. The transformed Johnson photometry and the unreddened photometry are listed in Tables \[tab-cat01\] and \[tab-cat02\].
Cross-identification {#cross}
--------------------
We performed a systematic cross-check of the 2534 M-giants to identify previous studies in the literature. To this end, we used the SIMBAD database[^3], the General Catalog of Variable Stars (Samus et al. 2012), the AAVSO International Variable Star Index (VSX v1.1, now including 325,346 variable stars; @Watson-2014), the New Catalog of Suspected Variable Stars [@Kazarovets-1998], the Northern Sky Variability Survey catalog (NSVS; Hoffman et al. 2009), and a few catalogs of carbon stars [@MacConnell-1988; @Stephenson-1989; @Stephenson-1996; @Alksnis-2001; @Chen-2012; @Zacharias-2013]. We also cross-checked with previous studies using CoRoT data [@Lebzelter-2011; @Sebastian-2012; @Guenther-2012; @Sarro-2013; @De-Medeiros-2013]. Finally, we also searched in many other databases incorporated in the International Virtual Observatory Alliance[^4], using the Tool for OPerations on Catalogues And Tables (TOPCAT)[^5]. The search assumed a positional accuracy of 2” in the sky coordinates.
A total of 465 stars were in common with other studies. Among them there are 390 semi-sinusoidal variables, 45 LPVs, 14 Orion type variable stars, 8 Carbon stars, 6 Mira type stars, 4 binary systems, 2 pre-main sequence stars, 2 high proper-motion stars, 1 Delta Scuti star, and 1 Gamma-Doradus star. Some of these stars have more than one classification. For instance, 15 semi-sinusoidal variables are also classified as LPVs. At the same time, not every star has a known period. The Orion type, Gamma-Doradus, and pre main-sequence stars, as well as stars in binary systems were withdrawn from our sample. The remaining sources were used to compare our period measurements (see Sect. \[submeth\]). The stars in common with the literature depicting their variability types are presented in the column 2 of Tables \[tab-cat01\] and \[tab-cat02\]).
Effective temperature estimation {#physpar}
--------------------------------
The $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ values of the M**-**giants were calculated using the photometric–effective temperature relation of @van-Belle-1999,
$$\label{eq:teff}
T_{\mathrm{eff}} = 3030 + 4750\times 10^{-0.187(V-K)}~\textrm{K}.$$
Such a procedure was chosen to provide a homogeneous set of $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ estimations. This is a precise tool directly based on interferometric measurements. The effective temperature was calculated using the unreddened V- and K-band photometry. We transformed the $K_{S}$ magnitudes to $K_{CIT}$ photometry using the relation of @Carpenter-2001 and calculated the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ values. The $K_{CIT}$ photometry was used because it is the closest band to the one that was used to establish the original calibration (van Belle, private communication).
The uncertainties in the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ values were estimated by propagating the errors of the corrected magnitudes and the $K_{S}$ transformation uncertainty. Then, we added the photometric uncertainty in quadrature to the estimated errors from Table 8 of @van-Belle-1999, taking the maximum error of the two $V-K$ bins that were closest to each parameter value. The results are presented in Table \[tab-cat01\].
Variability analysis {#submeth}
--------------------
A Lomb-Scargle periodogram [@Lomb-1976; @Scargle-1982] was computed for each LC, except for the LPV candidates (C3 - see Sect. \[sec\_cat\]). We set the low-frequency limit ($f_0$) for each periodogram to be $f_0 = 1/T_{\rm tot}$, where $T_{\rm tot}$ is the total time spanned by the LC. The high-frequency limit was fixed to $f_{N} = 10$ d$^{-1}$, and the periodogram size was scaled to $10^{4}$ elements. The highest periodogram peak, which is referred to as frequency $f_1$ or period $P_1$, was refined following @De-Medeiros-2013, namely, by maximizing the ratio of the variability amplitude to the minimum dispersion given by @Dworetsky-1983. Next, the refined frequency $f_1$ was used to calculate a harmonic fit with two harmonics. This fit was used as a model to compute the mean variability amplitude (A) in units of magnitude (mag), and is defined as
$$y(t) = \sum_{j = 1}^{2}\left[ a_{j}\sin\left(2\pi f_{1} j t \right) + b_{j}\cos\left(2\pi f_{1} j t \right) \right] + b_0,
\label{eq_best_harm}$$
in the phase diagram of the main period, where $f_{1}$ is the frequency, $a_{j}$ and $b_{j}$ are the Fourier coefficients, $t$ is the time and $b_0$ is the background level.
For our M giants (typically stars with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 4200$ K - see Sect. \[sec\_cat\]), we defined the variability amplitude as the half of the difference between the maximum and minimum of Eq. \[eq\_best\_harm\] in the phase diagram of the main period, which is similar to the amplitude definitions used by @De-Medeiros-2013 and @Banyai-2013. This fit was then applied to the LC domain and was subtracted from the time series (prewhitening), thereby yielding a new Lomb-Scargle periodogram. The procedure was iterated $N$ times; in each iteration, the LCs were fitted with a harmonic fit using two harmonics. For each LC, we selected all the independent periods that exhibited a significance level greater than $99\%$, i.e., a false alarm probability (FAP) less than $0.01$. Therefore, a collective set of independent periods for each target was retained to perform an analysis that was similar to that of @Tabur-2010 and @Banyai-2013 (see results presented in Sect. \[results\]). The FAP was computed based on the @Eaton-1995 method, which consists of randomizing the temporal bins of the original LC and computing the resulting power spectra [see also @Affer-2012]. We produced 1000 modified LCs for each period by randomizing the positions of blocks of adjacent temporal bins, with a block length of $12$ hours, in accordance with @Affer-2012. Regarding our semi-sinusoidal sources with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 4200$ K (C2 - see Sect. \[sec\_cat\]), we performed the analysis once and keep only one period and amplitude (see Table \[tab-cat02\]). This process was iterated N times for C1 stars, considering the first three periods above the FAP, to study the multi-modes which are displayed in Table \[tab-cat01\], where we present the photometric information for the LPV candidates (see Table \[tab-cat03\]).
{width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"}
{width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"}
{width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"}
{width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"}
{width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"} {width="5.75cm" height="4.200cm"}
A total of 434 stars with previously determined periods [@Lebzelter-2011; @De-Medeiros-2013] were found. For approximately $96\%$ of the targets, the differences between our periods and the other authors are less than $10\%$. We attribute the differences to four main reasons: first, the pipeline improvements made by the CoRoT team now result in better data for analysis; second, the combination of all observations provides a wider time window and thus more precise periods; third, detrending of long-term variations may misshape a small portion of the LCs; and fourth, the first harmonic may be falsely identified as the main frequency when there are too few cycles, as explained in @De-Medeiros-2013. The precision of the analysis of the nature of the variability, period, and amplitude increases with the number of cycles (the ratio of total time span to the variability period), as discussed in @De-Medeiros-2013. According to those authors, for the CoRoT LCs, the variability periods with more than three cycles have a confidence level of greater than $80\%$. The photometric instrumental jumps in the CoRoT data also hinder the analysis of potential long-period variability.
The CoRoT M stars variable catalogue {#sec_cat}
------------------------------------
Our final sample is composed of all semi-sinusoidal variable stars and long period variables candidates in the CoRoT database that were classified as M-giants ($1428$ stars). This catalogue is composed of three main groups: A - $1173$ semi-sinusoidal variables with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \leq 4200$ K; B - $141$ semi-sinusoidal variables with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 4200$ K; C - 114 LPVs candidates (from which 105 have $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \leq 4200$ K, 4 have $T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 4200$ K, and 5 do not have either $V$ or $K$-band photometry). The cutoff of $T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 4200$ K was performed to exclude targets that could be misclassified as M-type.
Fig. \[lc\_c1\] presents LCs with typical C1 (rows 1-3), C2 (row 4), and C3 (last row) signatures. CoRoT-102760221 (right panel of the third row) shows a combination of CoRoT runs that provides a wider time window, used to search for longer-periods variations. Tables \[tab-cat01\], \[tab-cat02\], and \[tab-cat03\] present the properties of the C1, C2, and C3 sub-catalogs, respectively. Columns 1 to 10 depict the CoRoT ID, right ascension declination, time window of the CoRoT run, spectral type, luminosity class, B, V, J, H, and K$_s$ magnitudes. Columns 11 to 13 show the computed periods, variability amplitudes, and $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ values, for the stars contained in Tables \[tab-cat01\] and \[tab-cat02\]. The period distribution ranges from $\sim$2 to $\sim$150 day, with a maximum around $\sim 17$ day. The variability amplitudes range from $\sim 1$ to $\sim 900$ mmag, with a maximum of approximately $\sim 10$ mmag.
The C1 and C3 sources are used to describe the evolutionary and variability behavior of M-Giant type stars in forwards sections.
Results
=======
We report our results in the following subsections, using a final sample of $1314$ M-giants (C1 and C3 stars). First, we perform an analysis of the V-I versus J-K color diagram, and compare our results to the models of @Aringer-2009 and the empirical calibrations of @Worthey-2011, and to other works from the literature. Then we discuss and interpret our results using the period-amplitude and the period-$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ diagrams. Afterwards we compare the results of the measured period and amplitude from the stars located towards the inner and outer regions of the Galaxy. Finally, we discuss the lack of short-time variations in M giants, and make a brief mention on the Mira Variable stars and the Carbon stars we have in common with other works.
The evolutionary behavior along the color-color diagram {#sec_corcor}
-------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[corcor\] shows the color-color diagrams of our C1 (full circles) and C3 ($T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 4200$ K - 105 stars) (full triangles) sub-samples where the colors set the spectral type (upper panel) and luminosity class (lower panel). Here we only consider stars with V, I, J and K-band photometry. The error bars in the bottom right corner of the two diagrams represent the typical uncertainties for the colors ($\epsilon_{(V-I)} = 0.29$ dex and $\epsilon_{(J-K)} = 0.09$ dex). The red and blue circles around some targets represent stars belonging to the anticenter fields and the center field LRc03 respectively. The black squares depict previously identified carbon stars, taken from the literature. The photometric calibrations of @Worthey-2011 are depicted by three dashed-dotted black lines, corresponding to iso-gravity contours, from left to right, of $\log g$ = 3, 2 and 0 dex. The small black dots represent the hydrostatic models of carbon giants from @Aringer-2009. We note that the reddening may not only be caused by interstellar but also by circumstellar reddening [@Lebzelter-2011].
{width="8.0cm" height="7cm"} {width="8.0cm" height="7cm"} {width="8.0cm" height="7cm"} {width="8.0cm" height="7cm"}
The corrected colors show a reasonable agreement with the empirical calibrations of @Worthey-2011. However, there are two groups of stars that do not follow this trend. One group, with a lower average value of $V-I$ situated between the photometric calibrations and the synthetic photometry from hydrostatic models of C-rich giants from @Aringer-2009. Nevertheless, only an abundance analysis would allow us to determine if these targets are Carbon stars. Interestingly, almost all stars from this sub-group belong to the CoRoT anticenter fields. We do not know the reason of this behaviour, but we hypothesise that the samples towards the inner and outer regions of the Galaxy may belong to two different Galactic populations. In fact, an increasing trend of the C star/M star ratio with \[Fe/H\] in the Galaxy is reported in the literature [e.g @Frebel-2006] and in the Large Magellanic Cloud [@Blanco-1980; @Cioni-2003]. At the same time, a negative trend with \[Fe/H\] has been reported by different studies [e.g @Boeche-2013; @Bergemann-2014], at low values of Galactic vertical height ($|Z| < 300-400$ pc). Therefore, a possible explanation for the imbalance of C stars between the two fields may be related to the negative \[Fe/H\] trend as a function of the Galactic Radius. Our results are in close agreement with those presented in Fig. 2 of @Lebzelter-2011.
We also observe that most of the super-giant population (Type I) has a lower value of $V - I$ for the same $J - K$ color, when compared to the two groups of Giant stars, and are located below the predicted region for C-rich stars. For $J-K > 1.3$ the location of these stars coincide with the models, but theoretical traces from @Aringer-2009 do not cover spectral class I. The LPVs Candidates (C3 catalog) are distributed throughout the color-color diagram. This is expected since the time span of the LPVs range from $24$ to $145$ day, implying a greater variability period. Eight of twelve stars with $V - I > 3.8$ have a total time span greater than 100 day (and therefore a greater period). These aspects agree with the period versus Teff trend (Fig. \[peramp\] lower panels) since we expect long periods for stars with lower temperatures (and higher $V - I$ color). This result strongly suggests that long-term trends found for all LPVs candidates may be real.
The period variability and amplitude behavior {#ampsec}
---------------------------------------------
To investigate the nature of the stellar photometric variability identified in the present work, we studied the period variability as a function of amplitude and effective temperature for stars of the present sample that exhibit semi–sinusoidal behavior in their observed LCs. For such a purpose, we have used the periods and amplitudes for the sample of $1173$ stars described in Sect. \[sec\_cat\] (the C1 catalog). To study the multi-mode behavior we considered the first three independent frequencies on the period-amplitude diagrams of Fig. \[peramp\]. In the case of the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$-period diagrams, we only used the main period.
The distribution of the multi-modes as a function of the amplitude is displayed in Fig. \[peramp\] (upper panels). The circles represent the stronger mode, while the dots depict the other modes of oscillation. The red line between the two red crosses roughly depict the trend of the overtone (AB) pulsators taken from Fig. 15 of @Tabur-2010. The blue line between the two blue crosses represent the area defined by @Banyai-2013, selected from the top panel of Fig. 3 of @Huber-2011, where is expected to find solar-like oscillations. The two black lines describe the two distinct Amplitude-$\nu_{max}$ relations for solar-type oscillators found by @Mosser-2013 (their Equations 8 and 9).
The observed period-amplitude behavior clearly parallels the classical scenario for the pulsation period-amplitude relation which has been well established for M-giant stars with semi-sinusoidal variations using different stellar samples observed from the ground [e.g., @Alard-2001; @Wray-2004; @Tabur-2010].
The scenario presented in Fig. \[peramp\] (upper panels), for the stronger pulsation (open circles), follows closely the trend observed by @Tabur-2010 (red line in the Diagram), which corresponds to stars pulsating in overtones. The other modes of oscillation agree well with the Amplitude-$\nu_{max}$ relation of @Mosser-2013, for $\nu < 1 \mu$Hz, corresponding to $\log P > 1.06$ day. The two distinct relations suggest the presence of two different oscillation mechanisms: the stronger one, characteristic of self-excited Mira-like pulsations; the smaller amplitude ones, mimicking the behavior of solar-type oscillations.
Our finding also agrees with the results of @Banyai-2013, who, on the basis of *Kepler* observations of M-giant stars (their group 3), found a similar period-amplitude behavior. Group 3, as defined by those authors, contains stars with LCs that exhibit only a few periodic components (like Miras and SRs) that are in agreement with the signatures of semi-sinusoidal variables. @Banyai-2013 also reported a sharp break at $\log P$ $\sim$ 1 day (corresponding to 1.2 $\mu$Hz), marking the end of the clear correlation between their Group 2 and their adapted relation from Amplitude-$\nu_{max}$ relation of @Huber-2011. We do not observe a trend in our Fig. 3 (upper panels) in the same region of $\log P$. However, we must note we have very few periods with similar amplitudes in that Period region. Despite that, if we account only the stronger pulsation we observe, by eye, that there is a slight change of slope around $\log P \sim$ 1 day.
We also analyzed the relation period-$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Fig. \[peramp\] (lower panels) shows all $1141$ giant stars from our C1 sample with semi-sinusoidal variations, where only the primary computed pulsation period is considered. We observe a correlation of the period of the main oscillation with $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ similar to the trend found by @Huber-2011 for hotter giants from the *Kepler* sample, with the oscillation frequency $v_{max}$. A careful comparison of our Fig. \[peramp\] (bottom left panel) with Fig. 8 of @Huber-2011, points for an agreement between both trends. Indeed, the feature revealed from Fig. \[peramp\] (lower panels) seems to correspond to an extension of the upper part of the modified H–R diagram (Figure 8) of @Huber-2011.
![Cumulative distribution function of the period (left panel) and amplitude (right panel) for stars at the inner (solid line) and outer (dashed line) regions of the Galaxy.[]{data-label="kstest"}](KS_per.eps "fig:"){height="7cm"} ![Cumulative distribution function of the period (left panel) and amplitude (right panel) for stars at the inner (solid line) and outer (dashed line) regions of the Galaxy.[]{data-label="kstest"}](KS_amp.eps "fig:"){height="7cm"}
{width="8.0cm" height="6cm"} {width="8.0cm" height="6cm"}
{width="8.0cm" height="4cm"} {width="8.0cm" height="4cm"}
The inner and outer regions of the Galaxy {#kstest}
-----------------------------------------
To verify whether the behavior of the variability of sources from the inner and outer regions of the Galaxy are significantly different, we applied the Kuiper test (or invariant KS test - hereafter the KS test) [e.g. @Jetsu-1996; @Paltani-2004] to our C1 subgroup. The C1 is composed of $1124$ stars located toward inner and $91$ in outer regions of the Galaxy. According to the KS test, zero probability means that the distributions are dissimilar, whereas unit probability means they are drawn from the same parent distribution.
Figure \[kstest\] shows the cumulative distribution function of the amplitude and period of C1 stars. The solid black distribution depicts the stars located in the inner regions whereas the dashed grey distribution describes the outer region. The obtained p-values for the amplitude and period distributions are lower than $10^{-3}$. This result shows that there is a very low probability that the two samples belong to the same parent distribution. The difference between the two samples may also be observed in the color-color diagram (Fig. \[corcor\]) where most stars from the outer region sample are in the region commonly associated with Carbon stars, while the sample from the inner region of the Galaxy are mostly M giants. Also, the metallicity of our two samples should be different (see Sect. \[sec\_corcor\]) and this may play an important hole on M Giant evolution, since these distributions are dissimilar in terms of amplitude and period.
We tested the KS test by perturbing our two samples. First, we withdrew a random quantity of stars from our sample between $5\%$ to $10\%$ using an uniform Monte Carlo distribution and next we performed the KS test. The process was iterated for 1000 times. The higher $3\sigma$ value taken from the median of the amplitude and period distribution was $0.002$ and $0.05$ respectively. The indicative of dissimilarity is not robust enough for the period distribution.
Short-time vartiations of CoRoT M-giant stars {#shortvar}
---------------------------------------------
The CoRoT data have at least a 512 second sampling interval and a long coverage period that allow us to study the occurrence of rapid outbursts or very short time variations in LPVs on very short time scales (from hours to a few days). These variation changes of several tenths of magnitudes should occur once per star per year according to the literature [@Wozniak-2004]. A recent study using a sample of 52 CoRoT stars [@Lebzelter-2011] and 9 *Kepler* stars [@Hartig-2014] presented no detections of such rapid variations for amplitudes above 0.01 mag. However, only a small number of sources was analysed.
A detailed search by visual inspection on the LCs of all CoRoT M giant stars composing the present sample, did not yield any short term event. All outburst-like variation found may be related to hot pixel events or other instrumental artefacts (check, for instance, the LC panels of CoRoT 105731070, 105832319, and 105965810 of Fig. \[lc\_c1\]). This agrees with other recent studies showing that this phenomenon is rare or does not exist [e.g., @Wozniak-2004; @Lebzelter-2011; @Hartig-2014]. Taking into account all results from different instruments and small and large samples, we can conclude that the short-time outbursts (< 1 day) in long-period variables do not exist or at least are very rare events.
Another possible cause of a false outburst event may lie with a background star. In this case, the observed variation will be the superposition of the signal from both stars. Fig. \[figshort\] shows two CoRoT LPVs where the phase diagrams (lower panels) show a signature of a background binary (left panel) and a RR-Lyrae (right panel) star. To study the short time variation of the two LCs, a prewhitened curve was obtained by dividing each LC by a boxcar smoothing function of the curve itself. Then, the period was computed using a similar proceedure such as described in Sect. \[submeth\].
Long Period Variables {#ssmira}
---------------------
Three LPVs stars of our sample were previously analyzed by @Lebzelter-2011 using CoRoT data. Some of these stars are also common to the AAVSO International Variable Star Index [@Watson-2014] catalog. In the present LPVs sample (C3) we identify four Mira variable stars, CoRoT 104982243, 105580931, 632685506, and 653546843, with previously computed periods of 329, 205, 195, and 116 day respectively [@Watson-2014].
Carbon Type Stars {#sscarb}
-----------------
Eight carbon type stars, previously described in the literature [@MacConnell-1988; @Stephenson-1989; @Stephenson-1996; @Alksnis-2001; @Chen-2012; @Zacharias-2013; @Watson-2014], are identified in our sample. These stars are in the fields towards the outer regions of the Galaxy (LRa01, IRa01, and LRa02 CoRoT runs). The combination of different CoRoT Runs allow us to study the long periods of the Carbon stars with more accuracy. For instance, CoRoT-ID 102760221 (see Fig. \[lc\_c1\] last row, right panel) was analysed by Lebzelter (2011) using the CoRoT Runs IRa01 and LRa01. A period of 116 days is reported by @Lebzelter-2011 as the probable main period once its LC present a minimum and a maximum between 250 and 400 days. Because the referred star was re-observed during the LRa06 Run, we have combined all the observations (CoRoT Runs IRa01, LRa01 and LRa06) for a check of the period measurements, finding now a period of 349 days, which may be related with the fundamental pulsation mode.
On the other hand, in some cases, the total time span is not long enough to provide a reliable period (see Fig. \[figcarb\], upper panel) while in other cases we can observe more than one cycle (Fig. \[figcarb\], lower panel). For instance, the star CoRoT 110663214 displays a period of 68 day. However, the shape of its LC indicates the existence of a larger period. Using the methodology of @De-Medeiros-2013 we obtain a confidence level of about $70\%$ for this period.
![LCs of two previously identified carbon type stars: CoRoT 110838652 and 110663214.[]{data-label="figcarb"}](110838652.eps "fig:"){width="8.0cm" height="5cm"} ![LCs of two previously identified carbon type stars: CoRoT 110838652 and 110663214.[]{data-label="figcarb"}](110663214.eps "fig:"){width="8.0cm" height="5cm"}
Conclusions
===========
In this work we perform a study of the semi-sinusoidal variability behavior of CoRoT M-giant stars. This is the largest detailed study of M-giants observed by CoRoT, and it provides an opportunity for comparison with previous works based on space missions like CoRoT and *Kepler* [e.g. @Lebzelter-2011; @Banyai-2013; @Huber-2014; @Hartig-2014] and on ground-based observations [e.g., @Alard-2001; @Wray-2004; @Tabur-2010].
We also present a CoRoT variability list for M–giant stars. The C1 sample, which contains $1173$ objects, is composed of all stars classified as M-giants in the CoRoT database with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 4200$ K. They were identified via visual inspection as semi-sinusoidal variables. The effective temperature $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ was estimated from the calibration of @van-Belle-1999 using $V-K$ color indices. The main variability period spans from $\sim 2$ to $\sim 152$ day, with the amplitude ranging from $\sim 1$ to $\sim 900$ mmag. The C2 sample is comprised of $141$ stars that exhibit semi-sinusoidal variations (with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 4200$K), and the C3 sample contains $114$ LPV candidates. The two last sub-samples may be considered for follow-up observations to study their variability nature.
We performed a cross-check of our data with previously published catalogs and found 444 targets in common. The computed periods are similar (i.e., discrepancy less than $10\%$) for $96\%$ of these targets, which indicates a good agreement between our results and previous results from the literature. The cross-matched sources were used to withdraw misclassification and to identify comparison stars.
The location of the majority of the sample stars in the $V-I$ versus $J-K$ color-color diagram shows a good agreement with the empirical calibrations of @Worthey-2011. Two groups of stars present different trends. The first one, with a lower average value of $V-I$ for the same $J-K$ is mostly composed with stars from the outer region sample and is located between the Giant calibrations and the Carbon star models of @Aringer-2009. The second group, located in the lowest $V-I$ region of the diagram, appears to be mostly composed by a Type I supergiant population. The large majority of the stars from this group belong to the LRc03 field, towards the inner regions of the Galaxy.
We considered the first three periods with significance levels greater than $99\%$ to study their behavior in a period-amplitude diagram. The distribution exhibits a trend of increasing amplitude with increasing period, which is compatible with the expected behavior for stellar pulsation [e.g., @Alard-2001; @Wray-2004; @Tabur-2010]. We also observe that the main variability period follows closely the stars identified by @Tabur-2010 as overtone pulsators. The less powerful periods follow the trend formulated by @Mosser-2013 for solar-like oscillations. A similar analysis was performed using a period versus $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ diagram, which exhibits a trend of increasing period with decreasing temperature. This trend is compatible with a previous study based on *Kepler* observations for GK giants [@Huber-2011], and our new data confirms that the behavior of the period–effective temperature relation extends to the cooler M-giant stars.
Regarding the short-time variations on M-giant stars previously reported in the literature, we also concluded that they do not exist or are very rare. The few cases we found are related to biases or background stars.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Evelin Banyai for useful discussions. Research activities of the Observational Stellar Board of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte are supported by the continuous grants of the CNPq and FAPERN Brazilian agencies and by the INCT-INEspaço. C. E. F. L. acknowledges a post-doctoral fellowship from the CNPq. F. P. Ch. acknowledges a doctoral fellowship from the CNPq. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[^1]: The CoRoT space mission was developed and is operated by the French space agency CNES, with the participation of ESA’s RSSD and Science Programmes, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, and Spain.
[^2]: http://idoc-corot.ias.u-psud.fr/
[^3]: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/
[^4]: http://www.ivoa.net/
[^5]: http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/ mbt/topcat/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the Wigner-Lohe model for quantum synchronization which can be derived from the Schrödinger-Lohe model using the Wigner formalism. For identical one-body potentials, we provide a priori sufficient framework leading the complete synchronization, in which $L^2$-distances between all wave functions tend to zero asymptotically.'
address:
- 'Gran Sasso Science Institute, viale F. Crispi, 7, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy'
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences and Research Institute of Mathematics Seoul National University, Seoul 151-747, Korea (Republic of) Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Hoegiro 87, Seoul, 130-722, Korea (Republic of)'
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences Seoul National University, Seoul 151-747, Korea (Republic of)'
- 'Department of Information Engineering, Computer Science and Matheamtics, University of L’Aquila and Gran Sasso Science Institute, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy'
author:
- Paolo Antonelli
- 'Seung-Yeal Ha'
- Dohyun Kim
- Pierangelo Marcati
title: 'The Wigner-Lohe model for quantum synchronization and its emergent dynamics'
---
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
[^1]
Introduction
============
Synchronization represents a phenomenon in which rhythms of weakly coupled oscillators are adjusted to the common frequency due to their weak interactions. It is often observed in many complex systems, e.g., the flashing of fireflies, clapping of hands in a concert hall, and heartbeat regulation by pacemaker cells, etc., [@A-B; @B-S; @B-B; @Pe; @St]. However, rigorous mathematical treatment of such collective phenomena were begun only several decades ago by two scientists Winfree [@Wi2] and Kuramoto [@Ku1; @Ku2]. For the mathematical modeling of synchronization, they adopted a continuous dynamical system approach based on their heuristic and intuitive arguments. In this paper, we are mainly interested in quantum Lohe oscillators with all-to-all couplings under one-body potential. To fix the idea, consider a classical complete network consisting of $N$ nodes, where each pair of nodes is connected with an equal capacity which is assumed to be unity. We also assume that quantum Lohe oscillators with the same unit mass are positioned on the nodes of the underlying complete network. To avoid unnecessary physical complexity, we ignore entanglement and decoherence effects inherent to the quantum many-body systems. For a better physical modeling, such genuine quantum effects need to be taken into account.
Let $\psi_i = \psi_i(t, x)$ be the wave function of the $i$-th Lohe oscillator on the spatial domain ${\mathbb R}^d$. Then, the dynamics of Lohe oscillators with unit mass is governed by the Schrödinger-Lohe (S-L) model: for $(t, x)\in\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R^d$. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned} \label{S-L}
{\mathrm i} \partial_t \psi_i = -\frac{1}{2} \Delta \psi_i + V_i \psi_i + \frac{{\mathrm i} K}{2N} \sum_{k=1}^{N}
\Big( \frac{ \|\psi_i\| \psi_k}{\|\psi_k \|} - \frac{\langle \psi_k, \psi_i \rangle \psi_i }{\|\psi_i\| \|\psi_k\|} \Big), \quad 1 \leq i \leq N,
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $\| \cdot \| := \|\cdot\|_{L^2}$ and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ are the standard $L^2$ norm and an inner product on ${\mathbb R}^d$, and $V_i= V_{i}(x)$ and $K$ correspond to the one-body potential and nonnegative coupling strength, respectively. The S–L model was first introduced by Australian physicist Max Lohe [@Lo-1] several years ago as an infinite state generalization of the Lohe matrix model [@Lo]. As discussed in [@Lo-1; @Lo], quantum synchronization has received much attention from the quantum optics community because of its possible applications in quantum computing and quantum information [@D-W-K; @G-C; @G-G; @Ki; @M-K; @V-B; @Z-S1; @Z-S2]. The emergent dynamics of the S-L system has been partially treated in [@C-C-H; @C-H] for some restricted class of initial data and a large coupling strength. Recently, a new approach based on the finite-dimensional reduction has been proposed in [@AM; @H-H] which significantly improve the previous results [@C-C-H; @C-H] by the Lyapunov functional approach. However, a complete resolution of the synchronization problem for is still far from complete.
Our main purpose of this paper is to present a quantum kinetic analogue of the S-L model and study its emergent dynamics. The study on the quantum kinetic model for the Schrödinger equation dates back to Wigner’s paper [@Wig], in which Wigner considered the quantum mechanical motion of a large ensemble of electrons in a vacuum under the action of the Coulomb force generated by the charge of the electrons. For the modeling of large ensemble, he introduced a quasi one-particle distribution function, so called the Wigner function and showed that it satisfies the quantum Liouville equation [@B-I-Z; @B-M; @Il; @I-Z-L; @Mak; @Zw].
Before we briefly describe our main results, we first recall the Wigner transform of wave function on ${\mathbb R}^d.$ For more basic facts on Wigner transforms we refer the reader to [@GMMP; @GMP].
For any two wave functions $\psi, \phi\in L^2$, we define the Wigner transform $$w[\psi, \phi](x, p)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} e^{iy\cdot p}\bar\psi\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\phi\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\,dy.$$ If we choose $\psi=\phi$, then we write $w[\psi] :=w[\psi, \psi]$.
In order to shorten the formulas, we are going to introduce the following notation: if $\psi_j$, $j=1, \dotsc, N$ is the solution to the S-L system , then we write $$w_j:=w[\psi_j], \quad w_{jk}:=w[\psi_j, \psi_k], \quad w_{jk}^+:=\operatorname{Re}w_{jk} \quad \mbox{and} \quad w_{jk}^-:=\operatorname{Im}w_{jk}.$$
Our main results of this paper are as follows. First, we show that the Wigner transforms $w_i$ and $w_{ij}^{\pm}$ satisfies a coupled non-local system: $$\label{W-L-0}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \partial_t w_j+ p \cdot \nabla_x w_j +\Theta[V](w_j) = \frac{K}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \Big[ w^+_{jk} - \Big(\int w^+_{jk} dp dx \Big) w_j\Big], \quad x \in {\mathbb R}^d,~t > 0, \\
\displaystyle \partial_t w^+_{jk} + p \cdot \nabla_x w^+_{jk} +\Theta[V](w^+_{jk}) \\
\displaystyle \hspace{1cm} = \frac{K}{2N} \sum_{\ell=1}^N \Big[w^+_{j\ell}+w^+_{\ell k}- \Big(\int(w^+_{j\ell}+w^+_{\ell k}) dp dx \Big)w^+_{jk} +
\Big(\int(w^-_{j\ell}+w^-_{\ell k}) dp dx \Big) w^-_{jk} \Big], \\
\displaystyle \partial_t w^-_{jk} + p \cdot \nabla_x w^-_{jk} +\Theta[V](w^-_{jk}) \\
\displaystyle \hspace{1cm} = \frac{K}{2N} \sum_{\ell=1}^N \Big[w^-_{j\ell}+w^-_{\ell k}- \Big(\int(w^+_{j\ell}+w^+_{\ell k}) dp dx \Big) w^-_{jk} +
\Big(\int(w^-_{j\ell}+w^-_{\ell k}) dp dx \Big) w^+_{jk} \Big].
\end{cases}$$ Second, we derive a sufficient condition for the complete synchronization of the coupled system . Finally, we also investigate the hydrodynamic formulation for the Schrödinger-Lohe system and derive synchronization estimates in some special cases.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the Schrödinger-Lohe model for quantum synchronization and discuss previous works on the complete synchronization of the S-L model. In Section 3, we derive our augmented Wigner-Lohe model from the S-L model using the Wigner transform. In Section 4, we present a priori complete synchronization estimates for some restricted class of initial data. In Section 5, we also discuss a hydrodynamic model which can be obtained from the S-L model for two-oscillator case.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we briefly present the Schrödinger-Lohe (S-L) model for Lohe synchronization, and review earlier results on the synchronization problem for the S-L model.
The Schrödinger-Lohe model
--------------------------
As a phenomenological model for the quantum synchronization generalizing classical Kuramoto synchronization, Lohe proposed a coupled Schrödinger-type model in [@Lo-1]. For $(t, x) \in {\mathbb R}_+ \times {\mathbb R}^d$ and $1 \leq i \leq N,$ $$\label{B-1}
{\mathrm i} \partial_t \psi_i = -\frac{1}{2} \Delta \psi_i + V_i \psi_i + \frac{{\mathrm i} K}{2N} \sum_{k=1}^{N}
\Big( \frac{ \|\psi_i\| \psi_k}{\|\psi_k \|} - \frac{\langle \psi_k, \psi_i \rangle \psi_i }{\|\psi_i\| \|\psi_k\|} \Big),$$ where we normalized $\hbar = 1$ and $m = 1$.
\[L2.1\] *[@Lo-1]* Let $\Psi = (\psi_1, \cdots \psi_N)$ be a smooth solution to with initial data $\Psi_0 = (\psi^0_{1}, \cdots, \psi^0_{N})$. Then, the $L^2$ norm of $\psi_i$ is constant along the flow : $$\| \psi_i(t) \|= \| \psi^0_{i} \| ~~~\mbox{ for }~~~ t \geq 0,~ 1 \leq i \leq N.$$
In view of the previous lemma, from now on we will assume that $\|\psi^0_{i}\|=1$, $1\leq i\leq N$, so that system becomes $$\label{SL}
{\mathrm i} \d_t\psi_j=-\frac12\Delta\psi_j+V_j\psi_j+ \frac{{\mathrm i}K}{2N}\sum_{k=1}^N\left(\psi_k-\langle\psi_k, \psi_j\rangle\psi_j\right).$$ For the space-homogeneous case, we set the spatial domain to be a periodic domain ${\mathbb T}^d$ and choose a special choice of $V_i$: $$V_{i}(x) = \Omega_i: \mbox{constant}, \qquad \psi_i(t, x) = \psi_i(t), \quad (t, x) \in{\mathbb R}_+\times {\mathbb T}^d.$$ system can be reduced to the Kuramoto model which is a prototype model for classical synchronization. In this special setting, the S-L model becomes $$\label{S-L-h}
{\mathrm i} \frac{ d \psi_i} {d t} = \Omega_i \psi_i + \frac{{\mathrm i} K}{2N} \sum_{k=1}^{N}
\Big( \frac{ |\psi_i| \psi_k}{|\psi_k|} - \frac{\langle \psi_i, \psi_k \rangle \psi_i }{|\psi_i| |\psi_k|} \Big).$$ We next simply take the ansatz for $\psi_i$: $$\label{B-2}
\psi_i := e^{-{\mathrm i} \theta_{i}}, \quad 1 \leq i \leq N$$ and substitute this ansatz into to obtain $${\dot \theta}_i \psi_i = \Omega_i \psi_i + \frac{{\mathrm i} K}{2N} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \Big(\psi_k - e^{-{\mathrm i}(\theta_i - \theta_k)} \psi_i \Big).$$ Then, we take the inner product of the above relation with $\psi_i$ and compare the real part of the resulting relation to get the Kuramoto model for classical synchronization [@A-B; @B-S; @C-H-J-K; @H-K-R; @H-N-P1; @H-N-P2]: $$\label{B-3}
{\dot \theta}_i = \Omega_i + \frac{K}{N} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sin (\theta_k - \theta_i).$$ Thus, the S-L model can be viewed as a quantum generalization of the Kuramoto model.
Previous results
----------------
In this subsection, we briefly review the previous results [@C-C-H; @C-H; @H-H; @AM] on the complete synchronization of the S-L model. For this, we first recall the definition of the complete synchronization as follows.
\[D2.1\] Let $\Psi = (\psi_1, \cdots \psi_N)$ be a smooth solution to with initial data $\Psi^0 = (\psi_{1}^{0}, \cdots, \psi_{N}^{0})$. Then, the S-L model exhibits an asymptotic phase-locking if the following relations holds: $$\label{B-4}
\exists~~\lim_{t \to \infty} \langle \psi_i, \psi_j \rangle = \alpha_{ij} \in {\mathbb C}.$$
For the classical phase models such as , asymptotic phase-locking is defined as the following condition: $$\label{B-5}
\exists~~\lim_{t \to \infty} |\theta_i(t) - \theta_j(t)| = \theta_{ij}^{\infty}.$$ Via the relation , we can see that and are closely related. In fact, in [@C-H] for identical potentials $V_i = V_j$, the complete synchronization is defined as $$\label{B-6}
\lim_{t \to \infty} \|\psi_i(t) - \psi_j(t) \| = 0, \quad 1 \leq i, j \leq N.$$ Note that the condition and normalization condition $||\psi_i|| = 1$ yield $$\lim_{t \to \infty} \langle \psi_i(t), \psi_j(t) \rangle = 1.$$ Thus, the condition satisfies the condition . Recently, in [@AM; @H-H] the case with different one-body potentials was treated, at least for $N=2$. In this framework it is shown that, in some regimes, the limit in is not $1$ but depends on the difference between the potentials. Hence the limit in gives a non-zero constant. This is indeed the more general case, when the system exhibits complete frequency synchronization but not phase synchronization. For more details we address the reader to [@AM; @H-H].
As mentioned in the Introduction, the S-L model was first considered in Lohe’s work [@Lo-1] for the non-Abelian generalization of the Kuramoto model. However, the first rigorous mathematical studies of the S-L model were treated by the second author and his collaborators in [@C-H; @H-H] in two different methodologies. The first methodology is to use $L^2$-diameters for $\{ \psi_i \}$ as a Lyapunov functional and derive a Gronwall type differential inequality to conclude the complete synchronization with $\alpha_{ij} = 1$. More precisely, we set $$D(\Psi):= \max_{i,j} ||\psi_i - \psi_j||.$$ In [@C-H], authors derived a differential inequality for the diameter $D(\Psi)$: $$\frac{d}{dt} D(\Psi) \leq K (D(\Psi)) \Big(D(\Psi)-\frac{1}{2} \Big), \quad t > 0.$$ This leads to an exponential synchronization of the .
\[T2.1\] *[@C-H]* Suppose that the coupling strength and initial data satisfy $$K>0, \quad V_i = V, \quad \|\psi^0_{i}\|_{L^2} = 1, \quad 1 \leq i \leq N, \quad D(\Psi^0) <\frac{1}{2}.$$ Then, for any solution $\Psi= (\psi_1, \dots, \psi_N)$ to , the diameter $D(\Psi)$ satisfies $$D(\Psi(t)) \leq \frac{D(\Psi^0)}{D(\Psi^0) + (1-2 D(\Psi^0)) e^{K t}}, \quad t \geq 0.$$
For distinct one-body potentials, we do not have an asymptotic phase-locking estimate for the S-L model yet, however in [@C-C-H], for some restricted class of initial data and large coupling strength, a weaker concept of synchronization, namely practical synchronization estimates have been obtained: $$\lim_{K \to \infty} \limsup_{t \to \infty} \max_{i, j} || \psi_i - \psi_j || = 0.$$ On the other hand, at least in the two oscillator case, it is possible to improve considerably the practical synchronization result: indeed in [@AM; @H-H] a complete picture of different regimes is shown, where the system exhibits complete synchronization or dephasing, i.e. time periodic orbits for the correlation function.
Recently, an alternative approach to prove synchronization for the S-L model was proposed both in [@AM] and [@H-H], by using a finite dimensional reduction. More precisely, in both papers the authors consider the correlations between the wave functions, $$\label{eq:corr_f}
z_{jk}(t):=\langle\psi_j, \psi_k\rangle(t)=r_{jk}(t)+is_{jk}(t),$$ and they study their asymptotic behavior. Moreover, in [@AM] the introduction of the order parameter, defined in analogy with the classical Kuramoto model, allows to give a more general result.
[@AM] Let $(\psi_1, \dotsc, \psi_N)\in\mathcal C({\mathbb R}_+;L^2({\mathbb R}^d))^N$ be the solution to with initial data $(\psi_1(0), \dotsc, \psi_N(0))=(\psi^0_{1}, \dotsc, \psi^0_{N})\in L^2({\mathbb R}^d)^N$, and we assume that $$\label{New-1}
\sum_{k=1}^N\operatorname{Re}z_{jk}(0)>0,\quad\textrm{for any}\;j=1, \dotsc, N.$$ Then we have $$|1-z_{jk}(t)|\lesssim e^{-Kt}, \quad\textrm{as}\;t\to\infty.$$
As we will see in the next sections, the same approach used in [@AM; @H-H] will also be exploited to infer the synchronization results for the Wigner-Lohe model and the hydrodynamical system . More precisely, for the quantum hydrodynamic system we are going to need also some synchronization estimates proved at the $H^1$ regularity level. Such estimates are proved in [@AM].
From Schrödinger-Lohe to Wigner-Lohe
====================================
In this section we present a kinetic quantum analogue “[the Wigner-Lohe(W-L) model]{}" for the quantum synchronization, which can be derived from the Schrödinger-Lohe(S-L) model [@Lo-1; @Lo] via the Wigner transform. In this and following sections, we assume that all one-body potentials are identical $$V_j(x)=V(x),\quad1\leq j\leq N.$$ Recall that for a given a solution $\psi$ to the free Schrödinger equation: $$i\d_t\psi=-\frac12\Delta\psi+V\psi,$$ then its Wigner transform $w=w[\psi]$ satisfies $$\d_tw+p\cdot\nabla_xw+\Theta[V]w=0,$$ where the operator $\Theta[V]$ is defined by $$\Theta[V](w)(x, p) :=-\frac{i}{(2\pi)^d}\int e^{i(p-p')\cdot y}\left(V\left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)-V\left(x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\right)w(x, p')\,dp'dy.$$ Hence, to derive the Wigner-Lohe system we just need to see how the nonlocal coupling in translates at the Wigner level. More precisely, let $\psi_j$ be a solution to , then by defining $w_j=w[\psi_j]$, we see that it satisfies $$\d_tw_j+p\cdot\nabla w_j+\Theta[V]w_j=R_j,$$ where the remainder term $R_j$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
R_j=&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{K}{2N}\sum_{k=1}^N\int e^{ip\cdot y}\Big[ \bar\psi_k\left(t, x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\psi_j\left(t, x-\frac{y}{2}\right) \cr
&+\bar\psi_j\left(t, x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\psi_k\left(t, x-\frac{y}{2}\right)\Big]\,dy -\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{K}{2N}\sum_{k=1}^N2r_{jk}w_j\\
=&\frac{K}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N\left(w_{jk}^+-r_{jk}w_j\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{jk}(t) :=\operatorname{Re}\langle\psi_j, \psi_k\rangle(t)=\int w_{jk}^+(t, x, p)\,dxdp$. Let us recall that this last equality comes from one of the basic properties of Wigner transforms, namely $$\int w[f, g](x, p)\,dxdp=\langle f, g\rangle,$$ for any $f, g \in L^2$. Resuming, the equation for $w_j$ is given by $$\d_tw_j+p\cdot\nabla_xw_j+\Theta[V]w_j=\frac{K}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N\left(w_{jk}^+-r_{jk}w_j\right).$$ We now need to derive the equation for $w_{jk}=w[\psi_j, \psi_k]$. Since the linear part in the S-L model is common for every wave functions (remember we chose identical potentials, $V_j\equiv V$), then the linear part in the Wigner equation for $w_{jk}$ will be exactly the same as for $w_j$. Consequently we also have $$\d_tw_{jk}+p\cdot\nabla_xw_{jk}+\Theta[V]w_{jk}=R_{jk},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
R_{jk}=&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{K}{2N}\sum_{\ell=1}^N\int e^{iy\cdot p}\left(\bar\psi_\ell\left(t, x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\psi_k\left(t, x+\frac{y}{2}\right)+\bar\psi_j\left(t, x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\psi_\ell\left(t, x+\frac{y}{2}\right)\right)\,dy\\
&-\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\frac{K}{2N}\sum_{\ell=1}^N\left(z_{j\ell}w_{jk}+z_{\ell k}w_{jk}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Let us recall that $z_{jk}$ is defined in and we notice that $\overline{z_{jk}}=z_{kj}$. Hence we obtain $$R_{jk}=\frac{K}{2N}\sum_{\ell=1}^N\left(w_{j\ell}+w_{\ell k}-(z_{j\ell}+z_{\ell k})w_{jk}\right)$$ and the equation for $w_{jk}$ becomes $$\d_tw_{jk}+p\cdot\nabla w_{jk}+\Theta[V]w_{jk}=\frac{K}{2N}\sum_{\ell=1}^N\left(w_{j\ell}+w_{\ell k}-(z_{j\ell}+z_{\ell k})w_{jk}\right).$$ By using definitions for $w_{jk}^\pm$ and the linearity of operator $\Theta[V]$, we then obtain the Wigner-Lohe system $$\label{W-L}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \partial_t w_j+ p \cdot \nabla_x w_j \Theta[V]w_j = \frac{K}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \Big( w^+_{jk} - r_{jk}w_j\Big),\\
\displaystyle \partial_t w^+_{jk} + p \cdot \nabla_x w^+_{jk} \Theta[V](w^+_{jk}) \\
\displaystyle \hspace{3cm} = \frac{K}{2N} \sum_{\ell=1}^N \Big[w^+_{j\ell}+w^+_{\ell k}-(r_{j\ell}+r_{\ell k})w^+_{jk} -i(s_{j\ell}+s_{\ell k}) w^-_{jk} \Big], \\
\displaystyle \partial_t w^-_{jk} + p \cdot \nabla_x w^-_{jk} \Theta[V](w^-_{jk}) \\
\displaystyle \hspace{3cm} = \frac{K}{2N} \sum_{\ell=1}^N \Big[w^-_{j\ell}+w^-_{\ell k}-(r_{j\ell}+R_{\ell k})w^-_{jk} -i(s_{j\ell}+s_{\ell k}) w^+_{jk} \Big], \\
\end{cases}$$
Emergent dynamics of the W-L model for identical potentials
===========================================================
In this section, we focus on the Wigner-Lohe model with $N=2$. In this case, system becomes $$\label{2-WL}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\d_tw_1+p\cdot\nabla_xw_1+\Theta[V]w_1=\frac{K}{2}(w_{12}^+-r_{12}w_1), \\
&\d_tw_2+p\cdot\nabla_x w_2+\Theta[V]w_2=\frac{K}{2}(w_{12}^+-r_{12}w_2), \\
&\d_tw_{12}+p\cdot\nabla_xw_{12}+\Theta[V]w_{12}=\frac{K}{4}(w_1+w_2-2z_{12}w_{12}),
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where we have $$\label{eq:def}
w_{12}^+=\operatorname{Re}w_{12}, \quad z_{12}=z_{12}(t)=\int w_{12}\,dxdp, \quad r_{12}=\operatorname{Re}z_{12}.$$ Let us remark that the system , complemented with the definitions above, can be considered independently on the S-L system . For such a system we will prescribe initial data $w_1^0, w_2^0, w_{12}^0$ such that $w_1^0$ and $w_2^0$ are real valued, $\int w_1^0\,dxdp=\int w_2^0\,dxdp=1$, $w_{12}^0$ is complex valued, $|\int w_{12}^0\,dxdp|\leq1$. Let us also notice that the last equation is complex valued, so that we don’t split it into two coupled equations for $w_{12}^+$ and $w_{12}^-$ as in .
Let us now prove the synchronization for . First of all we remark that, by integrating the last equation over the whole phase space, we find the following ODE $$\label{eq:ODE}
\dot z_{12}=\frac{K}{2}(1-z_{12}^2),$$ for which it is straightforward to give its asymptotic behavior.
\[prop:L2sync\] Let $z_{12}(0)\in\mathbb C$ be such that $|z_{12}(0)|\leq1$ and $z_{12}(0)\neq-1$, then the solution $z_{12}(t)$ to satisfies $$|1-z_{12}(t)|\lesssim e^{-Kt}.$$
By integrating we obtain $$z_{12}(t)=\frac{(1+z_{12}(0))e^{Kt}-(1-z_{12}(0))}{(1+z_{12}(0))e^{Kt}+(1-z_{12}(0))}.$$
By using the Lemma above it is then possible to show the complete synchronization for the W-L model .
Let $(w_1, w_2, w_{12})$ be a solution to with initial data $(w_1(0), w_2(0), w_{12}(0))=(w_1^0, w_2^0, w_{12}^0)$ such that $$\int w_1^0(x, p)\,dxdp=\int w_2^0(x, p)\,dxdp=1,$$ and $$\Big|\int w_{12}^0(x, p)\,dxdp \Big|\leq1,\quad\int w_{12}^0(x, p)\,dxdp\neq-1.$$ Then we have $$\|w_1(t)-w_2(t)\|_{L^2}^2\leq e^{-Kt},\quad\textrm{as}\;t\to\infty.$$
It follows from that it is possible to write down the equation for the difference $w_1-w_2$, $$\d_t(w_1-w_2)+p\cdot\nabla_x(w_1-w_2)+\Theta[V](w_1-w_2)=-\frac{Kr_{12}}{2}(w_1-w_2).$$ By multiplying it by $2(w_1-w_2)$ and by integrating over the whole phase space we obtain $$\frac{d}{dt}\|w_1(t)-w_2(t)\|_{L^2}^2=-Kr_{12}(t)\|w_1(t)-w_2(t)\|_{L^2}^2.$$ By Lemma \[prop:L2sync\] we know that $|1-r_{12}(t)|\lesssim e^{-Kt}$, hence by Gronwall’s inequality we obtain the synchronization result.
Quantum Hydrodynamics
=====================
In this Section, we derive the hydrodynamic equations associated to the Schrödinger-Lohe model . Here we follow the approach developed in [@A-M1; @A-M2; @AMContMath] where a polar factorisation method is exploited in order to define the hydrodynamical quantities also in the vacuum region. In order to simplify the exposition we mainly focus on the case of two identical oscillators. In this case the Schrödinger-Lohe model reads $$\label{eq:SL2}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm i} \d_t\psi_1=&-\frac12\Delta\psi_1+V\psi_1+ \frac{{\mathrm i} K}{4}(\psi_2-\langle\psi_2, \psi_1\rangle\psi_1)\\
{\mathrm i} \d_t\psi_2=&-\frac12\Delta\psi_2+V\psi_2+ \frac{{\mathrm i}K}{4}(\psi_1-\langle\psi_1, \psi_2, \rangle\psi_2).
\end{aligned}\right.$$ The case with $N$ non-identical oscillators can be treated similarly with obvious modifications, but the study of this special case will simplify substantially the exposition.
In order to derive the hydrodynamics associated to system , we first need to ensure that it is globally well-posed in $H^1(\R^d)$. This is indeed a strightforward application of the standard for nonlinear Schrödinger equations [@Caz], see for example Proposition 2.1 in [@AM]. Furthermore, let us notice that by defining $z_{12}(t)=\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle(t)$, then this function satisfies the ODE . This is not surprising because the W-L model was indeed derived from and because of the property $\int w[\psi_1, \psi_2]\,dxdp=\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle$. This implies that, under the same assumptions of Lemma \[prop:L2sync\], in this case we also have $$|1-z_{12}(t)|\lesssim e^{-Kt}.$$ However, this synchronization result is too weak to be exploited for quantum hydrodynamic system derived from . Indeed, as we already remarked above, the natural space for the hydrodynamics is the finite energy space, namely $H^1$ for the wave functions. Hence we need to improve the result in the space of energy. Here we will make use of Theorem 4.5 in [@AM], where we address the reader for more general results in this direction.
Let us now consider the solution $(\psi_1, \psi_2)\in\mathcal C({\mathbb R}_+;H^1)$ to system , given by Proposition 2.1 in [@AM]. To derive the hydrodynamic system associated with , we first define the mass densities, namely $\rho_1=|\psi_1|^2$ and $\rho_2=|\psi_2|^2$. By differentiating those quantities with respect to time and by using the equations above, we obtain $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
\d_t\rho_1+\operatorname{div}J_1=&\frac{K}{2}(\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_1),\\
\d_t\rho_2+\operatorname{div}J_2=&\frac{K}{2}(\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_2),
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where the associated current densities are respectively given by $$J_1 :=\operatorname{Im}(\bar\psi_1\nabla\psi_1), \quad J_2 :=\operatorname{Im}(\bar\psi_2\nabla\psi_2).$$ Furthermore, in the equation for the mass density we also find the interaction term $\rho_{12}=\operatorname{Re}(\bar\psi_1\psi_2)$, so that $r_{12}=\operatorname{Re}\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle=\int\rho_{12}\,dx$.
Let us notice that $\rho_{12}$ is not a mass density, since in general it can also be negative. By using those definitions we can derive the evolution equations for the current densities $J_1$ and $J_2$. For instance, by differentiating $J_1$ with respect to time we find that $$\d_tJ_1+\operatorname{div}(\operatorname{Re}(\nabla\bar\psi_1\otimes\nabla\psi_1))+\rho_1\nabla V=\frac14\nabla\Delta\rho_1+\frac{K}{2}(J_{12}-r_{12}J_1),$$ where the new interaction term here is given by $$J_{12}=\frac12\operatorname{Im}(\bar\psi_1\nabla\psi_2+\bar\psi_2\nabla\psi_1).$$ Next, we use the polar factorisation Lemma in [@A-M1; @A-M2] to infer that, for $\psi_1\in H^1({\mathbb R}^d)$, we have $$\operatorname{Re}(\nabla\bar\psi_1\otimes\nabla\psi_1)=\nabla\sqrt{\rho_1}\otimes\nabla\sqrt{\rho_1}+\Lambda_1\otimes\Lambda_1,\qquad\textrm{a.e. in }{\mathbb R}^d,$$ where $\sqrt{\rho_1}=|\psi_1|, \Lambda_1=\operatorname{Im}(\bar\phi_1\nabla\psi_1)$, $\phi_1$ is the polar factor for the wave function $\psi_1$ and we have $\sqrt{\rho_1}\Lambda_1=J_1$, see [@A-M1; @A-M2; @AMContMath] for more details on the polar factorisation. In this way we can write down the following equation for the current density $J_1$: $$\d_tJ_1+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_1\otimes J_1}{\rho_1}\right)+\rho_1\nabla V=\frac12\rho_1\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_1}}{\sqrt{\rho_1}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}(J_{12}-r_{12}J_1).$$ By using the equation for $\psi_2$ we obtain an analogous equation for $J_2$: $$\d_tJ_2+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_2\otimes J_2}{\rho_2}\right)+\rho_2\nabla V=\frac12\rho_2\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_2}}{\sqrt{\rho_2}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}(J_{12}-r_{12}J_2).$$ Resuming, by defining the hydrodynamical quantities $\rho_1, J_1, \rho_2, J_2$ associated to $\psi_1, \psi_2$, respectively, we can derive the following system: $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\d_t\rho_1+\operatorname{div}J_1=\frac{K}{2}(\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_1),\\
&\d_t\rho_2+\operatorname{div}J_2=\frac{K}{2}(\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_2),\\
&\d_tJ_1+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_1\otimes J_1}{\rho_1}\right)+\rho_1\nabla V=\frac12\rho_1\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_1}}{\sqrt{\rho_1}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}(J_{12}-r_{12}J_1),\\
&\d_tJ_2+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_2\otimes J_2}{\rho_2}\right)+\rho_2\nabla V=\frac12\rho_2\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_2}}{\sqrt{\rho_2}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}(J_{12}-r_{12}J_2).
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Note that the above hydrodynamical system is not closed, as we need to derive also the evolution equations for the quantities $\rho_{12}, J_{12}$. However, it is quite troublesome to derive a hydrodynamical equation for the quantity $J_{12}$. For this reason we consider the following auxiliary variables $$\rho_d :=|\psi_1-\psi_2|^2,\quad J_d :=\operatorname{Im}((\overline{\psi_1-\psi_2})\nabla(\psi_1-\psi_2)).$$ By using those variables, it is straightforward to derive their dynamical equations,
$$\begin{aligned}
\d_t\rho_d=&2\operatorname{Re}\left\{(\overline{\psi_1-\psi_2})\left(\frac{i}{2}\Delta(\psi_1-\psi_2)-iV(\psi_1-\psi_2)+\frac{K}{4}(\psi_2-\psi_1-\langle\psi_2, \psi_1\rangle\psi_1+\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle\psi_2)\right)\right\}\\
=&-\operatorname{div}J_d+\frac{K}{2}\operatorname{Re}\left\{(\overline{\psi_1-\psi_2})\left((1+\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle)(\psi_2-\psi_1)+2i\operatorname{Im}\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle\psi_1\right)\right\}\\
=&-\operatorname{div}J_d-\frac{K}{2}(1+r_{12})\rho_d+Ks_{12}\sigma_{12},
\end{aligned}$$
where we denoted $\sigma_{12}=\operatorname{Im}(\bar\psi_1\psi_2)$, so that $$s_{12}=\operatorname{Im}\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle=\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \sigma_{12}\,dx.$$ Define $\psi_d :=\psi_1-\psi_2$, then by following some similar calculations as before we find out $$\begin{aligned}
\d_tJ_d=&-\frac12\operatorname{Re}(\Delta\bar\psi_d\nabla\psi_d-\bar\psi_d\nabla\Delta\psi_d)-\rho_d\nabla V\\
&+\frac{K}{4}\left[-2J_d+\operatorname{Im}\left(\langle\psi_2, \psi_1\rangle(-\bar\psi_1\nabla\psi_d+\bar\psi_d\nabla\psi_2)+\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle(\bar\psi_2\nabla\psi_d-\bar\psi_d\nabla\psi_1)\right)\right].
\end{aligned}$$ After some simple algebra, we obtain that $$\operatorname{Im}\left(\langle\psi_2, \psi_1\rangle(-\bar\psi_1\nabla\psi_d+\bar\psi_d\nabla\psi_2)+\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle(\bar\psi_2\nabla\psi_d-\bar\psi_d\nabla\psi_1)\right)
=-2r_{12}J_d-4s_{12}G_{12},$$ where $G_{12} :=\frac12\operatorname{Re}(\bar\psi_2\nabla\psi_1-\bar\psi_1\nabla\psi_2)$. Hence the equation for $J_d$ is given by $$\d_tJ_d+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_d\otimes J_d}{\rho_d}\right)+\rho_d\nabla V=\frac12\rho_d\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_d}}{\sqrt{\rho_d}}\right)-\frac{K}{2}\left((1+r_{12})J_d+2s_{12}G_{12}\right).$$ Once again, to close the hydrodynamic equations, we still need to determine the evolution for $\sigma_{12}, G_{12}$. As before, the equation derived for $G_{12}$ would be too involved, for this reason we alternatively define $\psi_a=\psi_1-{\mathrm i}\psi_2$ and its hydrodynamical quantities $\rho_a=\frac12|\psi_a|^2$, $J_a=\frac12\operatorname{Im}(\bar\psi_a\nabla\psi_a)$. If we write down the equation for $\psi_a$, $$i\d_t\psi_a=-\frac12\Delta\psi_a+V\psi_a+\frac{K}{4}\left(i\psi_2+\psi_1-i\langle\psi_2, \psi_1\rangle\psi_1-\langle\psi_1, \psi_2\rangle\psi_2\right),$$ we can then infer the equations for $\rho_a$ and $J_a$. By proceeding as before with some straightforward but long calculations, we find out $$\begin{aligned}
&\d_t\rho_a+\operatorname{div}J_a=\frac{K}{2}\left((1-s_{12})\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_a\right)\\
&\d_tJ_a+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_a\otimes J_a}{\rho_a}\right)+\rho_a\nabla V=\frac12\rho_a\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_a}}{\sqrt{\rho_a}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}\Big((1-s_{12})J_{12}-r_{12}J_a\Big).
\end{aligned}$$ We can now resume and write down the whole set of hydrodynamic equations associated to the Schrödinger-Lohe system : $$\label{eq:QHD_Lohe}\begin{aligned}
&\d_t\rho_1+\operatorname{div}J_1=\frac{K}{2}(\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_1)\\
&\d_t\rho_2+\operatorname{div}J_2=\frac{K}{2}(\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_2),\\
&\d_tJ_1+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_1\otimes J_1}{\rho_1}\right)+\rho_1\nabla V=\frac12\rho_1\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_1}}{\sqrt{\rho_1}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}(J_{12}-r_{12}J_1),\\
&\d_tJ_2+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_2\otimes J_2}{\rho_2}\right)+\rho_2\nabla V=\frac12\rho_2\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_2}}{\sqrt{\rho_2}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}(J_{12}-r_{12}J_2),\\
&\d_t\rho_d+\operatorname{div}J_d=-\frac{K}{2}(1+r_{12})\rho_d+Ks_{12}\sigma_{12},\\
&\d_tJ_d+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_d\otimes J_d}{\rho_d}\right)+\rho_d\nabla V=\frac12\rho_d\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_d}}{\sqrt{\rho_d}}\right)-\frac{K}{2}\left((1+r_{12})J_d+2s_{12}G_{12}\right),\\
&\d_t\rho_a+\operatorname{div}J_a=\frac{K}{2}\left((1-s_{12})\rho_{12}-r_{12}\rho_a\right)\\
&\d_tJ_a+\operatorname{div}\left(\frac{J_a\otimes J_a}{\rho_a}\right)+\rho_a\nabla V=\frac12\rho_a\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho_a}}{\sqrt{\rho_a}}\right)+\frac{K}{2}\left((1-s_{12})J_{12}-r_{12}J_a\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& \rho_{12} :=\frac12(\rho_1+\rho_2-\rho_d), \quad J_{12} :=\frac12(J_1+J_2-J_d), \cr
&& \sigma_{12} :=\rho_a -\frac{1}{2}(\rho_1+\rho_2), \quad G_{12} :=J_a-\frac{1}{2}(J_1+J_2). \end{aligned}$$ By considering the system above we can now prove the synchronization property. In view of the previosu synchronization results we expect that $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\left(\|\nabla\sqrt{\rho_1}-\nabla\sqrt{\rho_2}\|_{L^2}+\|\Lambda_1-\Lambda_2\|_{L^2}\right)=0$$ and furthermore $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\left(\|\nabla\sqrt{\rho_d}\|_{L^2}+\|\Lambda_d\|_{L^2}\right)=0.$$ To show the above properties we are going to use a synchronization result in $H^1$ for system given in [@AM], which will be stated in the following Theorem. The result below actually holds in a more general case, see [@AM] for more details, however here we will state the synchronization property we are going to use for our system .
[@AM] Let $(\psi^0_{1}, \psi^0_{2})\in H^1$ be such that $$\langle\psi^0_{1}, \psi^0_{2}\rangle\neq-1.$$ Then, for the solution $(\psi_1, \psi_2)\in\mathcal C({\mathbb R}_+;H^1)$ emanated from such initial data, we have $$\label{eq:H1sync}
\|\psi_1(t)-\psi_2(t)\|_{H^1}\lesssim e^{-Kt},\quad\textrm{as}\;t\to\infty.$$
We apply now this result for the synchronization of system , First of all, from we then infer that $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\|\psi_d(t)\|_{H^1}=0.$$ This and the polar factorisation Lemma 3 in [@A-M2] then readily implies that $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\left(\|\nabla\sqrt{\rho_d}(t)\|_{L^2}+\|\Lambda_d(t)\|_{L^2}\right)=0.$$ Furthermore, from the fact that $\psi_d\to0$ in $H^1$ as $t\to\infty$ and the polar factorisation Lemma, again, we can also show that $$\lim_{t\to\infty}\left(\|\nabla\sqrt{\rho_1}(t)-\nabla\sqrt{\rho_2}(t)\|_{L^2}+\|\Lambda_1(t)-\Lambda_2(t)\|_{L^2}\right)=0.$$
[10]{}
Acebron, J. A., Bonilla, L. L., Pérez Vicente, C. J. P., Ritort, F. and Spigler, R.: *The Kuramoto model: A simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena.* Rev. Mod. Phys. **77**, 137–185 (2005).
Antonelli, P. and Marcati, P.: *The quantum hydrodynamics system in two space dimensions.* Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. [**203**]{}, 499-527 (2012).
Antonelli, P. and Marcati, P.: *On the finite weak solutions to a system in quantum fluid dynamics.* Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Dynamics. [**67**]{}, 359–368 (2009).
Antonelli, P. and Marcati, P., *Some results on systems for quantum fluids*, in Recent Advances in Partial Differential Equations and Applications an International Conference (in honor of H.Beirão da Veiga’s 70th birthday), ed. by V.D. Radulescu, A. Sequeira, V.A. Solonnikov. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 666 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2016).
Antonelli, P. and Marcati, P., *A model of Synchronization over Quantum Networks*, submitted, archived as <https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00041>.
Balmforth, N. J. and Sassi, R.: *A shocking display of synchrony.* Physica D **143**, 21–55 (2000).
Buck, J. and Buck, E.: *Biology of synchronous flashing of fireflies.* Nature **211**, 562 (1966).
Bohun, C. S., Illner, R. and Zweifel, P. F.: *Some remarks on the Wigner transform and the Wigner-Poisson system.* Matematiche XLVI, 429-438 (1991).
Brezzi, F. and Markowich, P. A.: *The three-dimensional Wigner-Poisson problem: existence, uniqueness and appproximation.* Math. Methods Appl. Sci. [**14**]{}, 35-61 (1991).
Cazenave, T.:*Semilinear Schrödinger Equations*. Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics vol. 10, New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, AMS, 2003.
Choi, S.-H., Cho, J. and Ha, S.-Y.: *Practical quantum synchronization for the Schr�dinger-Lohe system.* J. Phys. A [**49**]{}, 205203 - 20220 (2016).
Choi, S.-H. and Ha, S.-Y.: *Quantum synchronization of the Schrödinger-Lohe model.* J. Phys. A [**47**]{}, 355104 (2014).
Choi, Y.-P., Ha, S.-Y., Jung, S. and Kim, Y.: *Asymptotic formation and orbital stability of phase-locked states for the Kuramoto model.* Physica D [**241**]{}, 735–754 (2012).
Duan, L.-M., Wang, B. and Kimble, H. J.: *Robust quantum gates on neutral atoms with cavity-assisted photon scattering.* Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 032333 (2005).
Ha, S.-Y. and Huh, H.: *Dynamical system approach to synchronization of the coupled Schrödinger–Lohe system.* To appear in Quarterly of Applied Mathematics.
Ha, S.-Y., Kim, H. and Ryoo, S.: *Emergence of phase-locked states for the Kuramoto model in a large coupling regime*. Commun. Math. Sci. [**14**]{}, 1073-1091 (2016).
Ha, S.-Y. Noh, S. and Park, J.: *Interplay of inertia and heterogeneous dynamics in an ensemble of Kuramoto oscillators*. To appear in Analysis and Applications.
Ha, S.-Y., Noh, S. and Park, J.: *Practical synchronization of generalized Kuramoto system with an intrinsic dynamics*. Netw. Heterog. Media [**10**]{}, 787–807 (2015).
Illner, R.: *Existence, uniqueness and asymptotic behavior of Wigner-Poisson and Vlasov-Poisson systems: A survey.* Transp. Theory Stat. Phys. [**26**]{}, 195-207 (1997).
Illner, R., Zweifel, P. F. and Lange, H.: *Global existence, uniqueness and asymptotic behavior of solutions of the Wigner-Poisson and Schrödinger-Poisson systems.* Math. Methods Appl. Sci. [**17**]{}, 349-376 (1994).
Gasser, I., Markowich, P. and Perthame, B.: *Dispersion and moment lemmas revisited*, J. Diff. Eq. [**156**]{}, no. 2 (1999), 254–281.
Gérard, P., Markowich, P., Mauser, N. and Poupaud, F.: *Homogenization limits and Wigner transforms*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**50**]{}, no. 4 (1997), 323–379.
Goychuk, I., Casado-Pascual, J., Morillo, M., Lehmann, J. and Hänggi, P.: *Quantum stochastic synchronization.* Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 210601 (2006).
Giorgi, G. L., Galve, F., Manzano, G., Colet, P. and Zambrini, R.: *Quantum correlations and mutual synchronization.* Phys. Rev. A [**85**]{}, 052101 (2012).
Kimble, H. J.: *The quantum internet.* Nature [**453**]{}, 1023–1030 (2008).
Kuramoto, Y.: *Chemical Oscillations, Waves and Turbulence.* Springer-Verlag. Berlin. 1984.
Kuramoto, Y.: *International Symposium on Mathematical Problems in Mathematical Physics.* Lecture Notes in Theoretical Physics. **30**, 420 (1975).
Lohe, M. A.: *Quantum synchronization over quantum networks.* J. Phys. A [**43**]{}, 465301 (2010).
Lohe, M. A.: *Non-Abelian Kuramoto model and synchronization.* J. Phys. A [**42**]{}, 395101–395126 (2009).
Machida, M., Kano, T., Yamada, S., Okumura, M., Imamura, T. and Koyama, T.: *Quantum synchronization effects in intrinsic Josephson junctions.* Physica C [**468**]{}, 689–694 (2008).
Madelung, E.: *Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer Form*, Z. Phys. [**40**]{}, 322–326 (1927).
Markowich, P. A.: *On the equivalence of the Schrödinger and the quantum Liouville equation*. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. [**11**]{}, 459-469 (1989).
Peskin, C. S.: *Mathematical Aspects of Heart Physiology.* Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York, 1975.
Steinrück, H.: *The one-dimensional Wigner-Poisson problem and a relation to the Schrödinger-Poisson problem.* SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**22**]{}, 957-972 (1991).
Strogatz, S. H.: *From Kuramoto to Crawford: Exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators.* Physica D **143**, 1–20 (2000).
Vinokur, V. M., Baturina, T. I., Fistul, M. V., Mironov, A. Y., Baklanov, M. R. and Strunk, C.: *Superinsulator and quantum synchronization.* Nature [**452**]{}, 613–616 (2008).
Winfree, A. T.: *Biological rhythms and the behavior of populations of coupled oscillators.* J. Theor. Biol. **16**, 15-42 (1967).
Wigner, E. P.: *On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium.* Phys. Rev. [**40**]{}, 749-759 (1932).
Zhirov, O. V. and Shepelyansky, D. L.: *Quantum synchronization and entanglement of two qubits coupled to a driven dissipative resonator.* Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 014519 (2009).
Zhirov, O. V. and Shepelyansky, D. L.: *Quantum synchronization.* Eur. Phys. J. D [**38**]{}, 375–379 (2006).
Zweifel, P. F.: *The Wigner transform and the Wigner-Poisson system*. Transp. Theory Stat. Phys. [**22**]{}, 459-484 (1993).
[^1]: **Acknowledgment.** The work of P. Antonelli and P. Marcati is partially supported by PRIN grant 2015YCJY3A\_003 and by G.N.A.M.P.A. (I.N.d.A.M.) , The work of S.-Y. Ha and D. Kim are partially supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF2014R1A2A205002096).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We extend a global uniqueness result for the Calderón problem with partial data, due to Kenig–Sjöstrand–Uhlmann [@KenSjUhl2007], to the case of less regular conductivities. Specifically, we show that in dimensions $n\ge 3$, the knowledge of the Diricihlet–to–Neumann map, measured on possibly very small subsets of the boundary, determines uniquely a conductivity having essentially $3/2$ derivatives in an $L^2$ sense.'
address:
- |
K. Krupchyk, Department of Mathematics\
University of California, Irvine\
CA 92697-3875, USA
- |
G. Uhlmann, Department of Mathematics\
University of Washington\
Seattle, WA 98195-4350\
USA\
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
University of Helsinki\
Finland\
and Institute for Advanced Study of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
author:
- Katya Krupchyk
- Gunther Uhlmann
title: 'The Calderón problem with partial data for conductivities with $3/2$ derivatives'
---
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary, and let $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ be a real-valued function such that $\gamma>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$, representing the conductivity of the domain $\Omega$. Given a voltage potential $f\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\p \Omega)$ on the boundary of $\Omega$, the conductivity equation for the electric potential $u\in H^{1}(\Omega)$ in $\Omega$, under the assumption of no sources or sinks of currents, is given by $$\label{eq_int_conductivity}
\begin{aligned}
L_\gamma u&=\hbox{div} (\gamma \nabla u)=0 \quad \text{in}\quad \Omega,\\
u|_{\partial \Omega}&=f.
\end{aligned}$$ Associated to the problem is the Dirichlet–to–Neumann map $$\Lambda_\gamma: H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\p \Omega)\to H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\p \Omega), \quad
\Lambda_\gamma (f)= \gamma {\partial_\nu u }|_{\partial\Omega},$$ where $\nu$ is the unit outer normal to the boundary of $\Omega$. The Dirichlet–to–Neumann map $\Lambda_\gamma$ encodes the voltage to current measurements performed along the boundary of $\Omega$.
The inverse conductivity problem, posed by Calderón in [@Calderon], studies the question whether the Dirichlet–to–Neumann map $\Lambda_\gamma$, given on the boundary of $\Omega$, determines the conductivity $\gamma$ inside of $\Omega$. This problem is of significance in geophysical prospection, and it has more recently been proposed as a possible diagnostic tool in medical imaging. We refer to [@Uhlmann_seeing] for a recent comprehensive survey of the work on this problem.
In dimensions $n\ge 3$, the first global uniqueness result for the inverse conductivity problem was established in [@Kohn_Vogelius_1984] for real-analytic conductivities. This was followed by [@Syl_Uhl_1987], proving that if the conductivities $0 <\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in C^2(\overline{\Omega})$ are such that $\Lambda_{\gamma_1}=\Lambda_{\gamma_2}$, then $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ in $\Omega$. Subsequently, the regularity of the conductivity was relaxed to $\frac{3}{2}+\delta$ derivatives, $\delta>0$, on the scale of Hölder spaces, in [@Brown_1996]. The global uniqueness was further obtained for $W^{\frac{3}{2},\infty}$ conductivities in [@PPU_2003] and for conductivities in $W^{\frac{3}{2},p}$, with $p>2n$, in [@Brown_Torres_2003]. The recent breakthrough paper [@Hab_Tataru] established the global uniqueness for $C^1$ conductivities and Lipschitz continuous conductivities close to the identity. The latter smallness condition was removed in [@Caro_Rogers], thereby proving a long standing conjecture in the field. The global uniqueness for bounded conductivities in $W^{1,n}$, with $n=3,4$ was obtained in [@Haberman].
Much less is known if the Dirichlet–to–Neumann map $\Lambda_\gamma$ is measured only on a portion of the boundary. The first result in this direction is due to [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002], proving that if we measure the Dirichlet–to–Neumann map restricted to, roughly speaking, slightly more than half of the boundary, then we can determine a $C^2(\overline{\Omega})$ conductivity in $\Omega$ uniquely. The main technical tool in [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002] is boundary Carleman estimates with linear weights. The result of [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002] has been improved significantly in [@KenSjUhl2007], still for $C^2(\overline{\Omega})$ conductivities, by showing that measuring the Dirichlet–to–Neumann map on a possibly very small open subset of the boundary, with the precise shape depending on the geometry of the domain, we can determine the conductivity uniquely. Here rather than working with linear weights, a broader class of limiting Carleman weights was introduced and employed.
Another approach to the partial data inverse problems is due to [@Isakov_2007], and it is based on reflection arguments. In this approach, the subset of the boundary, where the measurements are performed is such that the inaccessible part of the boundary is a subset of a hyperplane or a sphere. The article [@Kenig_Salo_2013] unifies and extends the approaches of [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002], [@KenSjUhl2007], and [@Isakov_2007]. The linearized Calderón problem with partial data is studied in [@DKSU_2009] and [@Sjostrand_Uhlmann_analytic]. We refer to [@Kenig_Salo_servey] for a survey on the Calderón problem with partial data.
Of great significance is the issue of reducing the regularity of the conductivity in the Calderón problem with partial data. In this direction, the result of [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002] was extended to conductivities of class $W^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta, 2n}(\Omega)$, $\delta>0$, in [@Knudsen_2006], and to conductivities of class $C^1(\overline{\Omega})\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$ in [@Zhang_Guo_2012]. The recent paper [@Rodriguez] extended the partial data result of [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002] to the more general geometric setting by considering the Calderón problem on an admissible Riemannian manifold, assuming that the conductivity is of class $W^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta, 2n}$, $\delta>0$, as in [@Knudsen_2006]. We refer to [@DKSaloU_2009] and [@Kenig_Salo_2013] for the study of the Calderón problem in this geometric setting.
Using a link between partial data results of type [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002] on an admissible Riemannian manifold and partial data results of type [@KenSjUhl2007] on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, the paper [@Rodriguez] relaxes the regularity of the conductivity in the partial data result of [@KenSjUhl2007] to $W^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta, 2n}(\Omega)$, $\delta>0$. Let us mention that the proof in [@Rodriguez] relies on boundary Carleman estimates with linear weights on admissible manifolds and the invertibility of the attenuated ray transform on simple manifolds.
In the present article, we shall further relax the regularity assumptions on the conductivity in the partial data result of [@KenSjUhl2007]. Specifically, we are able to treat conductivities of class $C^{1,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$ and conductivities in $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}(\Omega)$. Here $0<\delta<1/2$ is arbitrarily small but fixed. When doing so, unlike [@Rodriguez], we work with the conductivity equation directly in the Euclidean setting, and thus, following [@KenSjUhl2007], we consider general limiting Carleman weights and establish boundary Carleman estimates in this context.
Let us now proceed to describe the precise assumptions and results. First recall the definition of some standard function spaces needed in this paper. The Sobolev space $W^{s,p}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, with $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $1< p<\infty$, is defined as follows, $$W^{s,p}({\mathbb{R}}^n)=\{u\in\mathcal{S}'({\mathbb{R}}^n): \mathcal{F}^{-1}((1+|\xi|^2)^{s/2}\hat u)\in L^p({\mathbb{R}}^n)\},$$ where $\hat u$ is the Fourier transform of $u$, and $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ is the inverse Fourier transform. For $s\ge 0$, we define the space $W^{s,p}(\Omega)$ as the image of the space $W^{s,p}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ under the map $u\mapsto u|_{\Omega}$. When $p=2$, we shall write $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)=W^{s,2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $H^s(\Omega)=W^{s,2}(\Omega)$. Let $C^{0,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})$, $0<\delta\le 1$, be the space of Hölder continuous functions on $\overline{\Omega}$, and let $$C^{1,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})=\{u\in C^1(\overline{\Omega}): \nabla u\in C^{0,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})\}.$$ Finally, recall the space $$W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)=\{u\in L^\infty(\Omega): \nabla u\in L^\infty(\Omega)\},$$ which can be identified with the space $C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})$ of Lipschitz continuous functions on $\overline{\Omega}$.
Let $x_0\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\overline{\text{ch}(\Omega)}$, where $\text{ch}(\Omega)$ is the convex hull of $\Omega$. Following [@KenSjUhl2007], we define the front face of $\p \Omega$ with respect to $x_0$ by $$\label{eq_int_front}
F(x_0)=\{x\in \p \Omega: (x-x_0)\cdot \nu(x)\le 0\},$$ and let $\tilde F$ be an open neighborhood of $F(x_0)$ in $\p \Omega$.
The main result of this paper is as follows.
\[thm\_main\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary, and let $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ be such that either
- $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in C^{1,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$,
or
- $\gamma_1,\gamma_2 \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}(\Omega)$,
where $0<\delta<1/2$ is arbitrarily small but fixed.
Assume that $\gamma_1,\gamma_2>0$ in $\overline{\Omega}$, $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega\setminus \tilde F$, and that in the case *(i)* $\p_\nu\gamma_1=\p_\nu\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega\setminus \tilde F$, and in the case *(ii)* $\p_\nu\gamma_1=\p_\nu\gamma_2$ in $H^{\delta}(\p \Omega)$. Assume furthermore that $$\Lambda_{\gamma_1} f|_{\tilde F}=\Lambda_{\gamma_2} f_{\tilde F}\quad \text{for all}\quad f\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\p \Omega).$$ Then $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ in $\Omega$.
**Remark 1**. As observed in [@KenSjUhl2007], if $\Omega$ is strictly convex, then the set $F(x_0)$ can be made arbitrarily small, by choosing the point $x_0$ suitably.
**Remark 2**. Theorem \[thm\_main\] is applicable to conductivities in the Sobolev spaces $W^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta, 2n}(\Omega)$ and $W^{\frac{3}{2},2n+\delta}(\Omega)$, considered in partial data results of [@Knudsen_2006] and [@Rodriguez], and in the full data result of [@Brown_Torres_2003], respectively. Indeed, by Sobolev embedding, we have $$W^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta, 2n}(\Omega) \subset C^{1,\delta}(\overline{\Omega}), \quad W^{\frac{3}{2},2n+\delta}(\Omega)\subset C^{1,\frac{\delta}{4n+2\delta}}(\overline{\Omega}),$$ see [@Adams_book Theorem 7.63]. It is also easy to see that $$W^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta, 2n}(\Omega) \subset H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}(\Omega), \quad
W^{\frac{3}{2},2n+\delta}(\Omega)\subset H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega).$$
**Remark 3**. The existing proofs of the global uniqueness results in the Calderón problem for conductivities with fewer than $3/2$ derivatives, in the case of the full data, developed in [@Hab_Tataru], [@Haberman] and [@Caro_Rogers], rely crucially on the linear nature of the limiting Carleman weights involved and make use of some averaging techniques. On the other hand, a key point in the partial data result of [@KenSjUhl2007] is to use more general non-linear limiting Carleman weights. Therefore, to go below $3/2$ derivatives in the partial data result of [@KenSjUhl2007], it seems that a new approach would be needed.
Let us now describe the main ideas in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\]. A fundamental approach to the inverse conductivity problem, which we shall also follow in this work, is based on construction of the so called complex geometric optics solutions for the conductivity equation, see [@Syl_Uhl_1987], [@KenSjUhl2007]. To this end, using the identify, $$\gamma^{-1/2}\circ L_\gamma\circ \gamma^{-1/2}=\Delta-q, \quad
q=\frac{\Delta\gamma^{1/2}}{\gamma^{1/2}},$$ we may reduce the problem of construction of such solutions to the corresponding problem for the Schrödinger equation $(-\Delta+q)v=0$ in $\Omega$. Here the potential $q\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ provided that $\gamma\in C^2(\overline{\Omega})$, while if $\gamma$ is merely Lipschitz continuous, the corresponding potential $q$ becomes a distribution in $H^{-1}(\Omega)$. In Subsection \[sec\_CGO\_Lip\], using this reduction, we construct complex geometric optics solutions with limiting Carleman weights for the conductivity equation in the case of conductivities of class $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$. Unfortunately, it turns out that the remainder estimates for such solutions are not strong enough to solve the inverse problem in this case, even for the full data. In Subsection \[sec\_CGO\_H\_3\_2\] we therefore sharpen the remainder estimates for conductivities of class $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$. It turns out that these sharpened estimates do suffice to control the interior terms in some crucial integral identity, used to establish the equality of the conductivities, see Section \[sec\_integral identity\] and [@Brown_1996].
Another crucial ingredient needed to establish global uniqueness in the Calderón problem with partial data is a Carleman estimate with boundary terms, see [@Bukhgeim_Uhlmann_2002], [@KenSjUhl2007], and [@DKSU_2007]. Since our conductivities give rise to potentials which are singular, when deriving such estimates, it turns out to be more convenient to work directly with the conductivity equation, which we write in the form $$\label{eq_cont_rewritten}
-\Delta u - A\cdot\nabla u=0 \quad \text{in}\quad \Omega,$$ where $A=\nabla \log \gamma\in L^\infty$. Boundary Carleman estimates with limiting Carleman weights for first order perturbations of the Laplacian have been established in [@DKSU_2007]. However, it seems that their direct application does not allow one to get rid of some boundary terms, computed over the inaccessible portion of the boundary. Indeed, applying the boundary Carleman estimate of [@DKSU_2007] will produce a term of magnitude $\mathcal{O}(h^{-1/2})\|\nabla\log \gamma_1-\nabla \log\gamma_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$, $0 < h \ll 1$, which cannot be controlled as $h\to 0$.
To overcome this difficulty, we shall follow an idea of [@PPU_2003], [@Knudsen_2006], which consists of replacing the conductivity equation by its conjugated version which is of the form, $$\label{eq_cont_rewritten_2}
-\Delta u+(A_h- A) \cdot \nabla u+V_h u=0 \quad \text{in}\quad \Omega.$$ Here $A_h$ is a regularization of $A$ and $V_h$ is a suitable potential. An advantage of working with is that for $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{3/2}(\Omega)$, we have $\|A_h- A\|_{L^2}=o(h^{1/2})$, as $h\to 0$. The price that we have to pay to work with is that we need to extend the boundary Carleman estimate of [@DKSU_2007] to the case of functions which need not vanish along the boundary of $\Omega$. This extension is carried out in Section \[sec\_BCE\], and we hope that it might be of some independent interest.
Let us finally remark that to get rid of the boundary terms in the integral identity of Section \[sec\_integral identity\], we shall need a bit more regularity for the conductivities than $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{3/2}(\Omega)$, as stated in Theorem \[thm\_main\]. Another technical reason for this additional regularity is that in the course of the proof, we need to extend the conductivities $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ to all of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ so that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\overline{\Omega}$, and their regularity is preserved.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec\_CGO\] we construct complex geometric optics solutions to the conductivity equation. Boundary Carleman estimates are established in Section \[sec\_BCE\], and following [@Brown_1996], we recall a basic integral identity in Section \[sec\_integral identity\]. Section \[sec\_proof\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\]. In Appendix \[app\_estimates\] we collect some standard approximation estimates needed in the main text, for the convenience of the reader.
Complex geometric optics solutions with limiting Carleman weights for conductivity equation {#sec_CGO}
===========================================================================================
Lipschitz continuous conductivities {#sec_CGO_Lip}
-----------------------------------
Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary and let $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ and $\gamma>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$. We can extend $\gamma$ to a function on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ so that the extension, still denoted by $\gamma$, satisfies $0<\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $\gamma=1$ near infinity. Let $$q=\frac{\Delta\gamma^{1/2}}{\gamma^{1/2}}=- \nabla \gamma^{1/2} \cdot \nabla\gamma^{-1/2} +\frac{1}{2}\Delta\log \gamma\in (H^{-1}\cap \mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n).$$ Following [@Brown_1996], [@Hab_Tataru], we define the “multiplication by $q$” map $$m_q:H^1({\mathbb{R}}^n)\to H^{-1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$$ by $$\label{eq_def_m_q}
\langle m_q(u),v \rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}
=-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} (\nabla \gamma^{1/2} \cdot \nabla\gamma^{-1/2})uvdx- \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \nabla \log \gamma \cdot \nabla(uv)dx,$$ for $u,v\in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Here $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ is the distribution duality on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Whenever convenient we shall also view $m_q$ as a map $m_q: H^1(\Omega)\to H^{-1}(\Omega)$ given by $$\label{eq_def_m_q_omega}
\langle m_q(u),v \rangle_{\Omega}
=-\int_{\Omega} (\nabla \gamma^{1/2} \cdot \nabla\gamma^{-1/2})uvdx- \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega} \nabla \log \gamma \cdot \nabla(uv)dx,$$ for $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, $v\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$. Here $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\Omega}$ is the distribution duality on $\Omega$. Notice that when $u\in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap \mathcal{E}'(\overline{\Omega})$, the definitions and agree on $\Omega$.
Following [@DKSU_2007; @KenSjUhl2007], we shall use the method of Carleman estimates to construct complex geometric optics solutions in $H^1(\Omega)$ for the Schrödinger equation $$\label{eq_2_Schr_eq}
-\Delta u +m_q(u)=0\quad \text{in}\quad\Omega.$$ We then know that $\gamma^{-1/2}u\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfies the conductivity equation $$L_\gamma (\gamma^{-1/2}u)=0\quad \text{in}\quad \Omega.$$
As in our work [@Krupchyk_Uhlmann_magnetic], we shall rely on the Carleman estimate for the semiclassical Laplace operator $-h^2\Delta$ with a gain of two derivatives, established in [@Salo_Tzou_2009], see also [@KenSjUhl2007]. Here $h>0$ is a small semiclassical parameter. Let us proceed by recalling this estimate. Let $\tilde \Omega$ be an open set in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $ \Omega\subset\subset\tilde \Omega$ and let $\varphi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$. Consider the conjugated operator $$P_\varphi=e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}(-h^2\Delta) e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}},$$ with the semiclassical principal symbol $$\label{eq_2_sem_principal}
p_\varphi(x,\xi)=\xi^2+2i\nabla \varphi\cdot \xi-|\nabla \varphi|^2, \quad x\in \tilde {\Omega},\quad \xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^n.$$ We have for $(x,\xi)\in \overline{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $|\xi|\ge C\gg 1$, that $|p_\varphi(x,\xi)|\sim |\xi|^2$ so that $P_\varphi$ is elliptic at infinity, in the semiclassical sense. Following [@KenSjUhl2007], we say that $\varphi$ is a limiting Carleman weight for $-h^2\Delta$ in $\tilde \Omega$, if $\nabla \varphi\ne 0$ in $\tilde \Omega$ and the Poisson bracket of ${\hbox{Re}\,}p_\varphi$ and ${\hbox{Im}\,}p_\varphi$ satisfies, $$\{{\hbox{Re}\,}p_\varphi,{\hbox{Im}\,}p_\varphi\}(x,\xi)=0 \quad \textrm{when}\quad p_\varphi(x,\xi)=0, \quad (x,\xi)\in \tilde{\Omega}\times {\mathbb{R}}^n.$$ Examples of limiting Carleman weights are linear weights $\varphi(x)=\alpha\cdot x$, $\alpha\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $|\alpha|=1$, and logarithmic weights $\varphi(x)=\log|x-x_0|$, with $x_0\not\in \tilde \Omega$. In this paper we shall only use the logarithmic weights.
Our starting point is the following result due to [@Salo_Tzou_2009].
Let $\varphi$ be a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on $\tilde \Omega$, and let $\tilde \varphi=\varphi+\frac{h}{2\varepsilon}\varphi^2$. Then for $0<h\ll \varepsilon\ll 1$ and $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, we have $$\label{eq_Carleman_lap}
\frac{h}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\|u\|_{H^{s+2}_{\emph{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\le C\|e^{\tilde \varphi/h}(-h^2\Delta)e^{-\tilde \varphi/h}u\|_{H^s_{\emph{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)},
\quad C>0,$$ for all $u\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$.
Here $$\|u\|_{H^s_{\textrm{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=\|\langle hD \rangle^s u\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)},\quad \langle\xi \rangle=(1+|\xi|^2)^{1/2},$$ is the natural semiclassical norm in the Sobolev space $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
We have the following result.
Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(\tilde\Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ be a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on $\tilde \Omega$, and let $0<\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be such that $\gamma=1$ near infinity. Then for all $h>0$ sufficiently small, we have $$\label{eq_Carleman_schr}
h\|u\|_{H^{1}_{\emph{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\le C\|e^{\varphi/h}(-h^2\Delta +h^2m_q)e^{-\varphi/h}u\|_{H^{-1}_{\emph{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)},$$ for all $u\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$.
In order to prove the estimate it will be convenient to use the following characterization of the semiclassical norm in the Sobolev space $H^{-1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $$\label{eq_charac_H_-}
\|u\|_{H_{\textrm{scl}}^{-1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=\sup_{0\ne v\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\frac{|\langle u,v\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |}{\|v\|_{H_{\textrm{scl}}^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}}.$$
Let $\tilde \varphi=\varphi+\frac{h}{2\varepsilon}\varphi^2$ with $0<h\ll \varepsilon\ll 1$, and let $u \in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$. Then for all $0\ne v\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle e^{\tilde \varphi/h} h^2m_q(&e^{-\tilde \varphi/h}u),v \rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\\
&\le h^2 \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|(\nabla \gamma^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma^{-1/2})uv|dx+h^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\nabla \log\gamma\cdot \nabla(uv)|dx\\
&\le h^2\|\nabla \gamma^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma^{-1/2}\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|u\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|v\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\\
&+2h \|\nabla \log \gamma\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|u\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|v\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|u\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|v\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)},\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, uniformly in $\varepsilon$, $$\label{eq_2_3}
\|e^{\tilde \varphi/h} h^2m_q(e^{-\tilde \varphi/h}u) \|_{H^{-1}_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|u\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}.$$ Now choosing $\varepsilon >0$ sufficiently small but fixed, i.e. independent of $h$, we obtain from the estimate with $s=-1$ and the estimate that for all $h>0$ small enough, $$\|e^{\tilde \varphi/h}(-h^2\Delta+ h^2m_q)(e^{-\tilde \varphi/h}u) \|_{H^{-1}_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\ge \frac{h}{C}\|u\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}, \quad C>0.$$ This estimate together with the fact that $$e^{-\tilde \varphi/h}u=e^{-\varphi/h}e^{-\varphi^2/(2\varepsilon)}u,$$ implies . The proof is complete.
Now since the formal $L^2(\Omega)$ adjoint to the operator $e^{\varphi/h}(-h^2\Delta +h^2m_q)e^{-\varphi/h}$ is given by $e^{-\varphi/h}(-h^2\Delta +h^2m_q)e^{\varphi/h}$ and $-\varphi$ is also a limiting Carleman weight, by classical arguments involving the Hahn–Banach theorem, one converts the Carleman estimate for the adjoint into the following solvability result, see [@Krupchyk_Uhlmann_magnetic] for the proof.
\[prop\_solvability\] Let $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ be such that $\gamma>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$, and let $\varphi$ be a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on $\tilde \Omega$. If $h>0$ is small enough, then for any $v\in H^{-1}(\Omega)$, there is a solution $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ of the equation $$e^{\varphi/h}(-h^2\Delta +h^2m_q)e^{-\varphi/h}u=v\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega,$$ which satisfies $$\|u\|_{H^1_{\emph{scl}}(\Omega)}\le \frac{C}{h}\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\emph{scl}}(\Omega)}.$$
Here $$\begin{aligned}
&\|u\|_{H^1_{\textrm{scl}}(\Omega)}^2=\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\|hDu\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2,\\
&\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\textrm{scl}}(\Omega)}=\sup_{0\ne \psi\in C_0^\infty(\Omega)}\frac{|\langle v,\psi\rangle_{\Omega}|}{\|\psi\|_{H^1_{\textrm{scl}}(\Omega)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us construct complex geometric optics solution to the Schrödinger equation , i.e. solutions of the form, $$\label{eq_2_CGO_main}
u(x;h)=e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}(a(x)+r(x;h)).$$ Here $\varphi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on $\tilde \Omega$, $\psi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a solution to the eikonal equation $p_\varphi(x,\nabla \psi)=0$ in $\tilde \Omega$, where $p_\varphi$ is given by , i.e. $$\label{eq_2_eikonal}
|\nabla \psi|^2=|\nabla \varphi|^2,\quad \nabla \varphi\cdot \nabla\psi=0\quad \text{in}\quad \tilde\Omega,$$ $a\in C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$ is an amplitude, and $r$ is a correction term.
Following [@DKSU_2007; @KenSjUhl2007], we fix a point $x_0\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus{\overline{\textrm{ch}(\Omega)}}$ and let the limiting Carleman weight be $$\label{eq_varphi}
\varphi(x)=\frac{1}{2}\log|x-x_0|^2,$$ and $$\label{eq_psi}
\psi(x)=\frac{\pi}{2}-\arctan\frac{\omega\cdot (x-x_0)}{\sqrt{(x-x_0)^2-(\omega\cdot(x-x_0))^2}}=\textrm{dist}_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\bigg(\frac{x-x_0}{|x-x_0|},\omega\bigg),$$ where $\omega\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ is chosen so that $\psi$ is smooth near $\overline{\Omega}$. Thus, given $\varphi$, the function $\psi$ satisfies the eikonal equation near $\overline{\Omega}$.
Conjugating the operator $-h^2\Delta+h^2m_q$ by $e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}$ and using , we get $$\label{eq_2_10_1}
e^{-\frac{(\varphi+i\psi)}{h}}\circ(-h^2\Delta+h^2m_q)\circ e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}=-h^2\Delta -2(\nabla \varphi+i\nabla \psi)\cdot h\nabla -h(\Delta \varphi+i\Delta\psi)+h^2m_q.$$
Substituting into , and using , we obtain the following equation for $r$, $$\label{eq_2_10_2}
e^{-\frac{(\varphi+i\psi)}{h}}(-h^2\Delta+h^2m_q)(e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}r) =h^2\Delta a-h^2m_q(a),$$ provided that $a$ satisfies the first transport equation, $$\label{eq_2_10_3}
2(\nabla \varphi+i\nabla \psi)\cdot \nabla a +(\Delta \varphi+i\Delta\psi)a=0 \quad \text{in}\quad\Omega.$$ Thanks to the works [@DKSU_2007], [@KenSjUhl2007], we know that the transport equation is of a Cauchy–Riemann type and that it has a non-vanishing solution $a\in C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$.
Applying now the solvability result of Proposition \[prop\_solvability\], we conclude that for all $h>0$ small enough, there exists $r(x;h)\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfying such that $$\label{eq_2_10_4}
\|r\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}\le \mathcal{O}(h)+\mathcal{O}(h)\|m_q(a)\|_{H^{-1}_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}.$$
We shall next estimate $h\|m_q(a)\|_{H^{-1}_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}$. Letting $0\ne v\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$, we get $$\label{eq_2_10_5}
\begin{aligned}
|\langle h m_q(a),v\rangle_{\Omega}|&\le h \int_{\Omega} |(\nabla \gamma^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma^{-1/2}) a v|dx+h\bigg|\int_{\Omega} \nabla \log \gamma \cdot \nabla (av)dx\bigg|\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\mathcal{O}(h) I,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq_2_10_5_1}
I:=\bigg|\int_{\Omega} a \nabla \log \gamma \cdot \nabla vdx\bigg|.$$ Thus, we only need to estimate $hI$.
We have $A:=\nabla \log \gamma \in (L^\infty\cap \mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n)\subset L^p({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $1\le p\le \infty$. Let $$\label{eq_mollifier_def}
\Psi_\tau(x)=\tau^{-n}\Psi(x/\tau), \quad \tau>0,$$ be the usual mollifier with $\Psi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $0\le \Psi\le 1$, and $\int \Psi dx=1$. Then $A_\tau=A*\Psi_\tau\in C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $$\label{eq_flat_est}
\|A-A_\tau\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(1), \quad \tau\to 0.$$ An application of Young’s inequality shows that $$\label{eq_flat_est_2}
\|\p^\alpha A_\tau\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\le \|A\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|\p^\alpha \Psi_\tau\|_{L^1({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\le \mathcal{O}(\tau^{-|\alpha|}),\quad \tau\to 0, \quad |\alpha|\ge 0.$$ Using and , we get integrating by parts, $$\label{eq_2_10_6}
\begin{aligned}
hI &\le \mathcal{O}(h)\int_\Omega|(A-A_\tau)\cdot \nabla v|dx+h\bigg|\int_\Omega a A_\tau\cdot \nabla v\bigg|\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|A-A_\tau\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+h\| a\nabla A_\tau+A_\tau\cdot\nabla a \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le o_{\tau\to 0}(1)\|v\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}+h\mathcal{O}(\tau^{-1})\|v\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing now $\tau=h^\sigma$ with some $0<\sigma<1$, we obtain from , and that $\|r\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}=o(1)$ as $h\to 0$.
Summing up, we have the following result on the existence of complex geometric optics solutions for Lipschitz continuous conductivities.
\[prop\_CGO\_lipschitz\] Let $\Omega \subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary and let $\tilde \Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be an open set such that $\Omega\subset\subset \tilde \Omega$ . Let $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ be such that $\gamma>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$. Then for all $h>0$ small enough, there exists a solution $u(x;h)\in H^1(\Omega)$ to the conductivity equation $L_\gamma u=0$ in $\Omega$, of the form $$\label{eq_prop_CGO}
u(x;h)=\gamma^{-1/2}e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}(a(x)+r(x;h)),$$ where $\varphi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on $\tilde \Omega$, $\psi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a solution to the eikonal equation , $a\in C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$ is a solution of the first transport equation , and the remainder term $r$ is such that $\|r\|_{H^1_{\emph{\text{scl}}}(\Omega)}=o(1)$ as $h\to 0$.
Lipschitz continuous conductivities in $H^{3/2}$ {#sec_CGO_H_3_2}
------------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary, and let $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$ and $\gamma>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$. In this subsection we shall improve the result of Proposition \[prop\_CGO\_lipschitz\] by deriving sharpened estimates for the remainder $r$ in .
Let us first show that we can extend $\gamma$ to a function $0<\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that $\gamma=1$ near infinity and $\gamma-1\in H^{3/2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. To this end, using a partition of unity, we see that it suffices to work locally near a point at $\p \Omega$, and flattening out $\p \Omega$ by a $C^2$ diffeomorphism, we may consider the problem of extending $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)\cap\mathcal{E}'(\overline{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+})$ to all of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Following a standard argument, see [@Grubb_book Theorem 4.12], we introduce the following linear operator on $C^\infty_{(0)}(\overline{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+})=\{u\in C^\infty(\overline{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}):{\operatorname{supp}}(u) \text{ compact }\subset \overline{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} \}$, $$(E u)(x',x_n)=\begin{cases} u(x',x_n), & x_n>0,\\
\sum_{j=1}^3 \lambda_j u(x',-jx_n)& x_n<0,
\end{cases}$$ where $\lambda_j\in {\mathbb{R}}$ are determined by the system of equations, $$\sum_{j=1}^3 (-j)^k \lambda_j =1,\quad k=0, 1,2.$$ Then $E$ extends continuously to $E:L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)\to L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $E:H^2({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)\to H^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and hence, by interpolation, $$E:H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)\to H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n), \quad 0\le s\le 2.$$ One can easily check that $$\begin{aligned}
E: C^1(\overline{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+})\cap H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)&\to
C^1({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n), \quad 0\le s\le 2,\\
E: W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)\cap H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)&\to
W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n), \quad 0\le s\le 2,\\
E: C^{1,\delta}(\overline{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+})\cap H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+)&\to
C^{1,\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^n), \quad 0\le s\le 2.\end{aligned}$$
Coming back to $\Omega$, we obtain that the conductivity $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$ such that $\gamma>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$ has an extension $\tilde \gamma\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that $\tilde \gamma>0$ in a neighborhood $V$ of $\overline{\Omega}$. Letting $\varphi\in C^\infty_0(V)$ be such that $0\le \varphi\le 1$ and $\varphi=1$ near $\overline{\Omega}$, we see that $\gamma=\tilde \gamma\varphi +1-\varphi$ satisfies the required properties.
Set $A=\nabla \log\gamma\in (L^\infty\cap\mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and notice that $A\in H^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. To see the latter property, we write $A=\gamma^{-1}\nabla(\gamma-1)$. Here $\nabla(\gamma-1)\in H^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and this space is stable under multiplication by bounded Lipschitz continuous functions on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Under our improved regularity assumptions, we shall now get sharpened estimates for the remainder in . To this end, we only need to re-examine the estimate for $hI$, where $I$ is given in . Now using and , we have $$\label{eq_2_10_11}
\begin{aligned}
hI=\bigg|h\int_{\Omega} a A\cdot \nabla v dx\bigg|&\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|A-A_\tau\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+h\|a \nabla A_\tau+ A_\tau\cdot \nabla a\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le (o(\tau^{1/2})+ho(\tau^{-1/2})+ \mathcal{O}(h))\|v\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $\tau=h$, we obtain from , and that $\|r\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}=o(h^{1/2})$ as $h\to 0$.
Thus, we have the following result.
\[prop\_CGO\_solutions\] Let $\Omega \subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary and let $\tilde \Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be an open set such that $\Omega\subset\subset \tilde \Omega$. Let $\gamma\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$ and $\gamma>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$. Then for all $h>0$ small enough, there exists a solution $u(x;h)\in H^1(\Omega)$ to the conductivity equation $L_\gamma u=0$ in $\Omega$, of the form $$u(x;h)=\gamma^{-1/2}e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}(a(x)+r(x;h)),$$ where $\varphi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on $\tilde \Omega$, $\psi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a solution to the eikonal equation , $a\in C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$ is a solution of the first transport equation , and the remainder term $r$ is such that $\|r\|_{H^1_{\emph{\text{scl}}}(\Omega)}=o(h^{1/2})$ as $h\to 0$.
Boundary Carleman estimates {#sec_BCE}
===========================
Boundary Carleman estimates for the Laplacian {#sec_BCE_Laplace}
---------------------------------------------
The following result is an extension of [@DKSU_2007 Proposition 2.3] valid for functions which need not vanish along the boundary of $\Omega$.
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary. Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega)$, $\Omega\subset\subset\tilde \Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, be a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian, and set $\tilde \varphi=\varphi+\frac{h}{2\varepsilon}\varphi^2$, $\varepsilon>0$. Then for all $0<h\ll \varepsilon\ll 1$, we have $$\label{bc_-1}
\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{O}(h)\|v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p\Omega}|\p_\nu v||v|dS
+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p\Omega_+} (\p_\nu\tilde \varphi)|\p_\nu v|^2dS \\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\|\nabla_t v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p \Omega} |\nabla_t v||\p_\nu v|dS
\\
&+\mathcal{O}(1)\| e^{\frac{\tilde \varphi}{h}} (-h^2\Delta)(e^{-\frac{\tilde\varphi}{h}} v) \|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}
\ge \frac{h^2}{\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{H^1_{\emph{\text{scl}}}(\Omega)} -h^3\int_{\p\Omega_-} (\p_\nu\tilde \varphi)|\p_\nu v|^2dS,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $v\in H^2(\Omega)$. Here $\nu$ is the unit outer normal to $\p\Omega$, $\nabla_t$ is the tangential component of the gradient, and $$\p\Omega_\pm=\{x\in \p\Omega: \pm \p_\nu\varphi(x) \ge 0\}.$$
By density, it suffices to establish for $v\in C^\infty (\overline{\Omega})$.
We have $$e^{\frac{\tilde \varphi}{h}}\circ hD\circ e^{-\frac{\tilde\varphi}{h}}=hD+i\nabla \tilde \varphi,$$ and therefore, $$e^{\frac{\tilde \varphi}{h}}\circ (-h^2\Delta)\circ e^{-\frac{\tilde\varphi}{h}}=\tilde P+i\tilde Q,$$ where $\tilde P$ and $\tilde Q$ are the formally self-adjoint operators given by $$\label{bc_0}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde P&=-h^2\Delta -(\nabla \tilde \varphi)^2,\\
\tilde Q&=\frac{2h}{i}\nabla \tilde \varphi\cdot \nabla +\frac{h}{i}\Delta\tilde \varphi.
\end{aligned}$$
We write $$\label{bc_1}
\|(\tilde P+i\tilde Q)v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2=\|\tilde P v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|\tilde Q u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+i (\tilde Qv,\tilde P v)_{L^2(\Omega)}-i(\tilde P v,\tilde Qv)_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
Integrating by parts, we get $$\label{bc_2}
\begin{aligned}
(\tilde P v,\tilde Q v)_{L^2(\Omega)}&=\int_{\Omega} ih \tilde P v (2 \nabla \tilde \varphi \cdot \nabla \overline{v}+(\Delta \tilde \varphi) \overline{v} )dx\\
&=(\tilde Q\tilde P v,v)_{L^2(\Omega)}+2ih(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi \tilde Pv,v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{bc_3}
\begin{aligned}
(\tilde Q v,\tilde P v)_{L^2(\Omega)}&=\int_{\Omega} \tilde Q v(-h^2\Delta \overline{v}-(\nabla \tilde \varphi)^2\overline{v})dx\\
&=(\tilde P \tilde Q v,v )_{L^2(\Omega)}-h^2(\tilde Q v, \p_\nu v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+h^2(\p_\nu(\tilde Qv), v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$
Substituting and into , we obtain that $$\label{bc_4}
\|(\tilde P+i\tilde Q)v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}=\|\tilde Pv\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|\tilde Q u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+i([\tilde P,\tilde Q]v,v)_{L^2(\Omega)}+BT_1,$$ where $$\label{bc_4_1}
BT_1=ih^2(\p_\nu(\tilde Qv), v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}-i h^2(\tilde Q v, \p_\nu v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+2h(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi \tilde Pv,v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}.$$
Let us now understand the boundary terms $BT_1$ in . In doing so, we shall use the following expression for the Laplacian and the gradient on the boundary, see [@Choulli_book p. 16], [@Lee_Uhlmann], $$\label{bc_5}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta v&=\Delta_t v+H \p_\nu v+\p_\nu^2 v \quad \text{on}\quad \p \Omega,\\
\nabla v&=(\p_\nu v)\nu +\nabla_t v\quad \text{on}\quad \p \Omega,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_t$ and $\nabla_t$ are the tangential Laplacian and gradient on $\p \Omega$, and $H\in C(\p \Omega)$. First using and , we write $$\label{bc_6}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde P&=-h^2\Delta_t-h^2H\p_\nu-h^2\p_\nu^2-(\nabla \tilde \varphi)^2 \quad \text{on}\quad \p \Omega,\\
\tilde Q&=\frac{2h}{i}(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi)\p_\nu+\frac{2h}{i}A_t+\frac{h}{i}\Delta\tilde \varphi \quad \text{on}\quad \p \Omega,
\end{aligned}$$ where the vector field $$\label{bc_6_1}
A_t=\nabla_t\tilde \varphi \cdot \nabla_t$$ is real tangential. Thus, $$\label{bc_7}
\p_\nu(\tilde Qv)=\frac{2h}{i}(\p^2_\nu\tilde \varphi)\p_\nu v+\frac{2h}{i}(\p_\nu\tilde \varphi)\p^2_\nu v +\frac{2h}{i}\p_\nu(A_t v)+\frac{h}{i}\p_\nu( v \Delta\tilde \varphi).$$
Substituting and into , and using the fact that the terms containing $\p^2_\nu v$ cancel out, we get $$\label{bc_7_0_1}
\begin{aligned}
BT_1=&\big( [h^3 \p_\nu(\Delta \tilde\varphi) -2h(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi) (\nabla\tilde \varphi)^2] v ,v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&+h^3\big( [2\p_\nu ^2 \tilde \varphi +\Delta\tilde \varphi-2H \p_\nu \tilde \varphi]\p_\nu v,v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}- h^3\big( (\Delta\tilde \varphi) v,\p_\nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&-2h^3\big( (\p_\nu \tilde \varphi)\p_\nu v,\p_\nu v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
& +h^3 \big[ 2\big(\p_\nu(A_t v), v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)} -2\big(A_t v, \p_\nu v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)} +2\big(\nabla_t v, \nabla_t ((\p_\nu \tilde \varphi) v) \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)} \big].
\end{aligned}$$ Here in the last term we have performed an integration by parts using the tangential Laplacian.
In order not to have second derivatives of $v$ on the boundary $\p \Omega$, integrating by parts in the fifth term in and using , we obtain that $$\label{bc_7_0_2}
\begin{aligned}
\big(\p_\nu(A_t v), v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}&=\big(A_t \p_\nu v, v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\big(X v, v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&=-\big( \p_\nu v, A_t v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}-\big(\p_\nu v, ({\operatorname{div}}A_t) v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\big(X v, v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&=-\big( \p_\nu v, A_t v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}-\big(\p_\nu v, (\Delta_t\tilde \varphi) v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\big(X v, v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here the vector field $X$ is given by $$X=[\p_\nu,A_t].$$
Let us now consider the non-boundary terms in . To understand the term $i([\tilde P, \tilde Q]v,v)_{L^2(\Omega)}$, we recall from [@DKSU_2007 p. 473] that $$\label{bc_7_1}
\begin{aligned}
i[\tilde P, \tilde Q]=\frac{4h^2}{\varepsilon}\bigg(1+\frac{h}{\varepsilon}\varphi \bigg)^2(\nabla\varphi)^4+\frac{h}{2}(a\tilde P+\tilde P a)+\frac{h}{2}(b^w\tilde Q+\tilde Q b^w)+h^3c(x),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{bc_7_2}
a(x)=\frac{4h}{\varepsilon}(\nabla \tilde \varphi)^2-4\frac{\tilde \varphi''\nabla \tilde \varphi \cdot \nabla \tilde \varphi}{(\nabla\tilde \varphi)^2},$$ $$b(x,\xi)=\lambda(x)\cdot\xi,$$ with $\lambda$ being a real $C^\infty$ vector field, and $c\in C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$. Here also $$\label{bc_8}
b^w=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda(x)\circ hD_x+hD_x\circ\lambda(x))=\lambda(x)\cdot hD_x+\frac{h}{2i}{\operatorname{div}}\lambda,$$ is the semiclassical Weyl quantization of $b$.
Using the fact that $4 (1+\frac{h}{\varepsilon}\varphi )^2(\nabla\varphi)^4\ge 1/C$ on $\overline{\Omega}$, we obtain from that for $0<h\ll \varepsilon$ small enough, $$\label{bc_8_1}
\begin{aligned}
i([\tilde P,& \tilde Q]v,v)_{L^2(\Omega)} \ge \frac{h^2}{C\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \frac{h}{2}\big( (a\tilde P+\tilde P a)v, v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+ \frac{h}{2}\big( (b^w\tilde Q+\tilde Q b^w) v, v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)} +h^3(cv,v)_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\ge \frac{h^2}{C\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \frac{h}{2}\big( (a\tilde P+\tilde P a)v, v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \frac{h}{2}\big( (b^w\tilde Q+\tilde Q b^w) v, v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$
Integrating by parts, we get $$(\tilde P(av),v)_{L^2(\Omega)}=(v, a\tilde Pv)_{L^2(\Omega)}-h^2(\p_\nu (av),v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
+h^2(av,\p_\nu v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)},$$ and therefore, $$\label{bc_9}
\frac{h}{2}\big( (a\tilde P+\tilde P a)v, v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}=h{\hbox{Re}\,}(a\tilde Pv, v)_{L^2(\Omega)}+ BT_2,$$ where $$\label{bc_9_1}
BT_2=-\frac{h^3}{2}(\p_\nu (av),v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
+\frac{h^3}{2}(av,\p_\nu v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}.$$ Using , and integrating by parts, we obtain that $$\label{bc_10}
\begin{aligned}
(&b^w \tilde Qv, v)_{L^2(\Omega)}=(\tilde Q v, b^w v)_{L^2(\Omega)}+\frac{h}{i}\int_{\p\Omega}(\tilde Q v)\lambda\cdot \nu \overline{v}dS=(\tilde Q v, b^w v)_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&-2h^2\big( \p_\nu \tilde \varphi\p_\nu v, \lambda\cdot \nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}- 2h^2\big(A_t v, \lambda\cdot \nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
-h^2\big( (\Delta \tilde \varphi) v, \lambda\cdot \nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we have also used .
In view of , and another integration by parts, we get $$\label{bc_11}
\begin{aligned}
\big( \tilde Q(b^w v), &v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}= \big(b^w v, \tilde Q v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}
-2ih \int_{\p \Omega}(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi)(b^w v)\overline{v}dS\\
&=\big(b^w v, \tilde Q v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}
-h^2\big( (\p_\nu\tilde \varphi {\operatorname{div}}\lambda)v, v\big)_{L^2(\p\Omega)}
-2h^2\big( \p_\nu\tilde \varphi \lambda\cdot \nabla v, v\big)_{L^2(\p\Omega)}
\end{aligned}$$ Here we have also used .
It follows from and that $$\label{bc_12}
\frac{h}{2}\big( (b^w\tilde Q+\tilde Q b^w) v, v\big)_{L^2(\Omega)}=h{\hbox{Re}\,}(\tilde Q v, b^w v)_{L^2(\Omega)}+BT_3,$$ where $$\label{bc_12_1}
\begin{aligned}
&BT_3=-h^3\big( \p_\nu \tilde \varphi\p_\nu v, \lambda\cdot \nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}- h^3\big(A_t v, \lambda\cdot \nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&-\frac{h^3}{2}\big( (\Delta \tilde \varphi) v, \lambda\cdot \nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
-\frac{h^3}{2}\big( (\p_\nu\tilde \varphi {\operatorname{div}}\lambda)v, v\big)_{L^2(\p\Omega)}
-h^3\big( \p_\nu\tilde \varphi \lambda\cdot \nabla v, v\big)_{L^2(\p\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$
In view of , , and , we get $$\label{bc_13}
\begin{aligned}
\|(\tilde P+i\tilde Q)v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\ge \|\tilde Pv\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|\tilde Q v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \frac{h^2}{C\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
+h{\hbox{Re}\,}(a\tilde Pv, v)_{L^2(\Omega)} +h{\hbox{Re}\,}(\tilde Q v, b^w v)_{L^2(\Omega)}
+BT_4,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{bc_13_1}
BT_4=BT_1+BT_2+BT_3.$$
In view of , we see that $|a|=\mathcal{O}(1)$ uniformly in $0<h\ll\varepsilon\ll 1$. Using this and Peter–Paul’s inequality, we have $$\label{bc_14}
h| (a\tilde Pv, v)_{L^2(\Omega)}|\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|\tilde P v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \frac{1}{2}\|\tilde P v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\mathcal{O}(h^2)\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
Using the fact that $b^w: H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)\to L^2(\Omega)$ is bounded uniformly in $h$, cf. , we get for all $0<h\ll\varepsilon$ small enough, $$\label{bc_15}
\begin{aligned}
h| (\tilde Q v, b^w v)_{L^2(\Omega)}|\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|\tilde Q v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\big(\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|h\nabla v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\big)\\
\le \frac{1}{2}\|\tilde Q v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \mathcal{O}(h^2) \|h\nabla v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+\mathcal{O}(h^2)\|v\|_{L^2}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ In the last estimate we have used Peter–Paul’s inequality.
It follows from , and that for all $0<h\ll\varepsilon$ small enough, $$\label{bc_16}
\begin{aligned}
\|(\tilde P+i\tilde Q)v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\ge& \frac{1}{2}\|\tilde Pv\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+\frac{1}{2}\|\tilde Q v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+ \frac{h^2}{C\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}-\mathcal{O}(h^2) \|h\nabla v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ BT_4.
\end{aligned}$$
Using and integrating by parts, we have $$(\tilde P v, v)_{L^2(\Omega)}=\|h\nabla v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}-h^2\int_{\p \Omega}\p_\nu v\overline{v}dS- \|(\nabla \tilde \varphi)v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)},$$ and hence, $$\label{bc_17}
\|h\nabla v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\le C\big( \|\tilde Pv\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+h^2|(\p_\nu v,v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}|\big).$$
It follows from and that for all $0<h\ll\varepsilon$ small enough, $$\label{bc_18}
\begin{aligned}
\|(\tilde P+i\tilde Q)v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}&\ge \bigg(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{h^2}{2C\varepsilon}\bigg)\|\tilde Pv\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+
\frac{h^2}{2C\varepsilon}\bigg(\frac{1}{C}\|h\nabla v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)} - \|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}-h^2|(\p_\nu v,v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}|\bigg) \\
&+ \frac{h^2}{C\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}-\mathcal{O}(h^2) \|h\nabla v\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ BT_4\\
& \ge \frac{h^2}{C\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)} +BT_5,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{bc_19}
BT_5=BT_4-\mathcal{O}(h^3)|(\p_\nu v,v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}|.$$
Let us now understand the boundary terms $BT_4$. Using , , , , and , we get $$\label{bc_20}
\begin{aligned}
&BT_4=\bigg( \bigg[-2h(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi) (\nabla\tilde \varphi)^2 +h^3 \p_\nu(\Delta \tilde\varphi)\\
&-\frac{h^3}{2}\p_\nu a -\frac{h^3}{2}(\lambda\cdot\nu)(\Delta\tilde \varphi)-\frac{h^3}{2}(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi){\operatorname{div}}\lambda \bigg] v ,v\bigg)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&+h^3\big( [2\p_\nu ^2 \tilde \varphi +\Delta\tilde \varphi-2H \p_\nu \tilde \varphi-2(\Delta_t\tilde \varphi) +2X\cdot\nu -\frac{a}{2}-2(\p_\nu \tilde \varphi)(\lambda\cdot\nu) ]\p_\nu v,v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&+h^3\big( [-\Delta\tilde \varphi+\frac{a}{2}] v,\p_\nu v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&-2h^3\big( (\p_\nu \tilde \varphi)\p_\nu v,\p_\nu v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
& +h^3 \bigg[ -2\big( \p_\nu v, A_t v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+ 2 \big(X_t v,v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)} -2\big(A_t v, \p_\nu v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)} \\
&+2\big(\nabla_t v, (\p_\nu \tilde \varphi) \nabla_t v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)} +2\big(\nabla_t v, (\nabla_t \p_\nu \tilde \varphi) v \big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)} - \big((\lambda\cdot \nu)A_t v, v\big)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&-((\p_\nu\tilde \varphi)\lambda_t v,v)_{L^2(\p\Omega)} \bigg].
\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used that $X=X_t+X\cdot \nu\p_\nu$ and $\lambda\cdot\nabla=\lambda_t+\lambda\cdot\nu\p_\nu$, where $X_t$ and $\lambda_t$ are tangential vector fields.
Putting the boundary terms $BT_5$ to the left hand side of , and using that $$|(Y_t v,v)_{L^2(\p \Omega)}|\le C\|\nabla_t v\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\|v\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\le \frac{C}{2}(\|\nabla_t v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\|v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}),$$ where $Y_t$ is a tangential vector field, together with , and , we obtain . The proof is complete.
Boundary Carleman estimates for a first order perturbation of the Laplacian {#subsection_BCE}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we shall establish a boundary Carleman estimate for the operator $$-\Delta +A\cdot \nabla+V$$ where $A\in L^\infty(\Omega, {\mathbb{C}}^n)$, $V\in L^\infty(\Omega, {\mathbb{C}})$ are possibly $h$–dependent with $$\label{eq_estimates_A_V}
\|A\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}=\mathcal{O}(1), \quad \|V\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}=\mathcal{O}\bigg(\frac{1}{h}\bigg),$$ as $h\to 0$. This estimate will play a crucial role in getting rid of the boundary terms over the unaccessible part of the boundary in the next section.
\[prop\_boundary\_Carleman\] The following Carleman estimate $$\label{eq_2_11_7}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}(h)&\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\mathcal{O}(h^2)\int_{\p \Omega} e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu u||u|dS \\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p \Omega_{-}}(-\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu u|^2dS\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}\nabla_t u\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p \Omega} e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\nabla_t u||\p_\nu u|dS
\\
&+\mathcal{O}(1)\| e^{-\varphi/h} (-h^2\Delta + hA\cdot h\nabla +h^2V) u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\ge h^2( \|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}h\nabla u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}) + h^3\int_{\p \Omega_{+}}(\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu u|^2dS
\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $u\in H^2(\Omega)$ and all $h>0$ small enough.
We have $$\label{eq_2_11_9}
\begin{aligned}
e^{\frac{\tilde \varphi}{h}}\circ &(-h^2\Delta +hA\cdot h\nabla +h^2V)\circ e^{-\frac{ \tilde \varphi }{h}}\\
&=e^{\frac{\tilde \varphi}{h}}\circ(-h^2\Delta)\circ e^{-\frac{ \tilde \varphi}{h}}+
hA\cdot h\nabla -hA\cdot \nabla \tilde \varphi+h^2V.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $v\in H^2(\Omega)$. Using that $\|\nabla \tilde \varphi\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le \mathcal{O}(1)$, , we get $$\label{bcf_0}
\|hA\cdot h\nabla v -hA\cdot (\nabla \tilde \varphi) v+h^2Vv \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le \mathcal{O}(h)\|v\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}.$$ Using that $a^2\le 2((a+b)^2+b^2)$, $a,b>0$, and , we obtain from that for all $0<h\ll \varepsilon\ll 1$, $$\label{bcf_1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}(h)&\|v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p\Omega}|\p_\nu v||v|dS\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p\Omega_+} (\p_\nu\tilde \varphi)|\p_\nu v|^2dS+
\mathcal{O}(h^3)\|\nabla_t v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p \Omega} |\nabla_t v||\p_\nu v|dS
\\
&+\mathcal{O}(1)\| e^{\frac{\tilde \varphi}{h}}(-h^2\Delta +hA\cdot h\nabla +h^2V)(e^{-\frac{ \tilde \varphi }{h}}v) \|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
& \ge \frac{h^2}{\varepsilon}\|v\|^2_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}-h^3\int_{\p\Omega_-} (\p_\nu\tilde \varphi)|\p_\nu v|^2dS.
\end{aligned}$$
Let us now take $\varepsilon>0$ to be small but fixed and let $v=e^{\frac{\varphi^2}{2\varepsilon}}e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u$. Using that $$1\le e^{\frac{\varphi^2}{2\varepsilon}}\le C\quad \text{on}\quad \overline{\Omega},$$ and for all $h$ small enough, $$\frac{1}{2}\le \frac{\p_\nu\tilde\varphi}{\p_\nu \varphi}\le \frac{3}{2} \quad \text{on}\quad \overline{\Omega}$$ and $$|\nabla(e^{\frac{\varphi^2}{2\varepsilon}}e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}})|
=e^{\frac{\varphi^2}{2\varepsilon}}e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}\frac{1}{h}\bigg|\bigg(1+\frac{h}{\varepsilon}\varphi\bigg)\nabla\varphi\bigg|\le \mathcal{O}\bigg(\frac{1}{h}\bigg)e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}} \quad \text{on}\quad \overline{\Omega},$$ we obtain that $$\label{bcf_3}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}(h)&\|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\mathcal{O}(h^2)\int_{\p \Omega} e^{\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu u||u|dS +\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p \Omega_{+}}(\p_\nu \varphi)e^{\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu u|^2dS\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}\nabla_t u\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}
+\mathcal{O}(h^3)\int_{\p \Omega} e^{\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\nabla_t u||\p_\nu u|dS\\
&+\mathcal{O}(1)\| e^{\varphi/h} (-h^2\Delta + hA\cdot h\nabla +h^2V) u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\ge h^2( \|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}h\nabla u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}) + h^3\int_{\p \Omega_{-}}(-\p_\nu \varphi)e^{\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu u|^2dS.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we have also used that for $\tau>1$ sufficiently large but fixed, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|e^{\frac{\varphi^2}{2\varepsilon}}e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)}&\ge \|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+\frac{1}{\tau} \|h\nabla(e^{\frac{\varphi^2}{2\varepsilon}}e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}})u+ e^{\frac{\varphi^2}{2\varepsilon}}e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}h\nabla u \|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\ge \|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \frac{1}{2\tau}\|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}h\nabla u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}-\mathcal{O}\bigg(\frac{1}{\tau}\bigg) \|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\ge \frac{1}{C}(\|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \|e^{\frac{\varphi}{h}}h\nabla u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}).\end{aligned}$$
Replacing $\varphi$ by $-\varphi$ in , we get . The proof is complete.
Integral identity {#sec_integral identity}
=================
The following result is due to [@Brown_1996 Theorem 7]. Since we need the integral identity with boundary terms, we present the proof for convenience of the reader.
\[lem\_integral\_identity\] Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary, and let $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ be such that $\gamma_1,\gamma_2>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$, and $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega$. Let $u_j\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfy $L_{\gamma_j}u_j=0$ in $\Omega$, $j=1,2$, and let $\tilde u_1\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfy $L_{\gamma_1}\tilde u_1=0$ in $\Omega$ with $\tilde u_1=u_2$ on $\p \Omega$. Then $$\label{eq_integral_identity}
\int_{\Omega} \big[ -\nabla \gamma_1^{1/2} \cdot \nabla (\gamma_2^{1/2}u_1 u_2)+\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla(\gamma_1^{1/2}u_1u_2) \big]dx=\int_{\p \Omega} (\Lambda_{\gamma_1}\tilde u_1 -\Lambda_{\gamma_2}u_2)u_1dS,$$ where the integral over $\p\Omega$ is understood in the sense of the dual pairing between $H^{-1/2}(\p \Omega)$ and $H^{1/2}(\p \Omega)$.
Set $v_j=\gamma_j^{1/2}u_j$, $j=1,2$. We know that if $u_1\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfies $L_{\gamma_1}u_1=0$ in $\Omega$, then the trace $\gamma_1\p_\nu u_1\in H^{-1/2}(\p \Omega)$, and we have the following integration by parts formula, $$\begin{aligned}
0=\int_{\Omega} (\nabla \cdot (\gamma_1\nabla u_1))(\gamma_1^{-1/2}v_2)dx=&-\int_{\Omega} \gamma_1\nabla u_1\cdot \nabla (\gamma_1^{-1/2}v_2)dx\\
&+\int_{\p \Omega} (\Lambda_{\gamma_1}u_1)u_2dS.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the fact that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega$. Thus, using that $\nabla \gamma_1^{-1/2}=-\gamma_1^{-1}\nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}$, we get $$\label{eq_2_10_12}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\p \Omega} (\Lambda_{\gamma_1}u_1)u_2dS&=\int_{\Omega} \gamma_1\nabla (\gamma_1^{-1/2} v_1)\cdot \nabla (\gamma_1^{-1/2}v_2)dx\\
&=\int_{\Omega} [-\nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_1^{-1/2}v_1v_2)+\nabla v_1\cdot\nabla v_2]dx.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $$\label{eq_2_10_13}
\int_{\p \Omega} (\Lambda_{\gamma_2}u_2)u_1dS=\int_{\Omega} [-\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_2^{-1/2}v_1v_2)+\nabla v_1\cdot\nabla v_2]dx.$$ Subtracting from and using that $\tilde u_1=u_2$ on $\p \Omega$, and that $\Lambda_{\gamma_1}$ is symmetric, we obtain . The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\] {#sec_proof}
==============================
Let us observe, as our starting point, that the fact that $\Lambda_{\gamma_1} f|_{\tilde F}=\Lambda_{\gamma_2}f|_{\tilde F}$ for any $f\in H^{1/2}(\p \Omega)$ together with the boundary determination result of [@Alessandrini_1990], see also [@Kohn_Vogelius_1984], and the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_main\] implies that $$\label{eq_Cauchy_data_second_order}
\gamma_1=\gamma_2, \quad \p_\nu\gamma_1=\p_\nu\gamma_2, \quad \text{on}\quad \p \Omega.$$
Complex geometric optics solutions and interior estimates {#subsection_interior}
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 3$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary. Let $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ be such that either
- $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in C^{1,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$,
or
- $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}(\Omega)$,
where $0<\delta<1/2$ be arbitrarily small but fixed, and $\gamma_1,\gamma_2>0$ on $\overline{\Omega}$.
As we saw in Subsection \[sec\_CGO\_H\_3\_2\], we can extend $\gamma_j$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ so that either
- $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in C^{1,\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $\gamma_j-1\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$,
or
- $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $\gamma_j-1\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$,
$\gamma_j>0$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and $\gamma_j=1$ near infinity.
Using , we shall now modify $\gamma_2$ so that the extensions of $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ agree on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\Omega$, and their regularity is preserved. To that end, let $$v=(\gamma_1-\gamma_2) 1_{{\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus \overline{\Omega}}\in \mathcal{E}'({\mathbb{R}}^n),$$ where $1_{{\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\overline{ \Omega}}$ is the characteristic function of the set ${\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus \overline{\Omega}$. In case (ii), using and the fact that $\frac{3}{2}+\delta$ is not a half-integer, we conclude from [@Agranovich_book Theorem 5.1.14, Theorem 5.1.15] that $v\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. It is also clear that $v\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
In case (i), the Sobolev index of $\gamma_j -1$ is a half-integer and therefore, we shall have to be a little more careful. We claim that $v\in C^{1,\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and when verifying this fact, it suffices to work locally near a point at $\p \Omega$. Flattening out $\p \Omega$ by means of a $C^2$ diffeomorphism, we shall consider the regularity of $v=(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)1_{\overline{{\mathbb{R}}^n_-}}$, where $\gamma_1-\gamma_2\in C^{1,\delta}_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$, $\p_{x_n}\gamma_1=\p_{x_n}\gamma_2$ along $\{x_n=0\}$. It follows that $v\in C^{1,\delta}_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap H^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and it only remains to check that $\nabla v\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. To this end, we notice that by [@Agranovich_book formula (3.4.19)], this property is implied by the convergence of the integral, $$\label{eq_condition_Agranovich}
\int\!\!\!\int_{x_n<0} \frac{|\nabla(\gamma_1(x) - \gamma_2(x))|^2}{|x_n|}dx'dx_n<\infty.$$ This is clear however, since $\nabla(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)\in C^{0,\delta}_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $\nabla( \gamma_1-\gamma_2)=0$ along $x_n=0$.
To achieve that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\overline{\Omega}$ it now suffices to replace $\gamma_2$ by $\gamma_2+v$.
**Remark.** We would like to mention that we only need that $\nabla \gamma_j\in C^{0,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})$ in order to verify , when making the conductivities equal on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\overline{\Omega}$, and preserving their regularity. The rest of the argument in this work in case (i) requires only $\gamma_j\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})\cap H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Omega)$.
Let $\tilde \Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be an open set such that $\Omega \subset\subset \tilde \Omega$, and let $\varphi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ be a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on $\tilde \Omega$. Let $\hat \Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a bounded open set with $C^\infty$ boundary such that $\Omega\subset\subset \hat \Omega\subset\subset \tilde \Omega$. Thanks to Proposition \[prop\_CGO\_solutions\], we know that there exist solutions $u_j\in H^1(\hat \Omega)$ of the equations $L_{\gamma_j}u_j=0$ in $\hat \Omega$ that are of the form $$\label{eq_2_10_15}
\begin{aligned}
u_1(x;h)&=\gamma_1^{-1/2}e^{-\frac{(\varphi+i\psi)}{h}}(a_1(x)+r_1(x;h)),\\
u_2(x;h)&=\gamma_2^{-1/2}e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}(a_2(x)+r_2(x;h))
\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi\in C^\infty(\tilde \Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$ is a solution to the eikonal equation , $a_j\in C^\infty(\overline{\hat \Omega})$ is a solution of the first transport equation , and the remainder term $r_j$ is such that $$\label{eq_2_10_16}
\|r_j\|_{L^2(\hat \Omega)}=o(h^{1/2}), \quad \|\nabla r_j\|_{L^2(\hat \Omega)}=o(h^{-1/2}), \quad h\to 0.$$ Using the general estimate $$\| v|_{\p \Omega}\|_{H^{1/2}_{\text{scl}}(\p \Omega)}\le \mathcal{O}(h^{-1/2})\|v\|_{H^1_{\text{scl}}(\Omega)},\quad v\in H^1(\Omega),$$ see [@Sjostrand_2014], we get $$\label{b_terms_2_rem}
\|r_j\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}=o(1).$$
We shall substitute the solutions $u_1$ and $u_2$, given by , into the integral identity of Lemma \[lem\_integral\_identity\]. Let us first understand the interior integral.
\[lem\_full\_data\_lem\] Let $u_1$ and $u_2$ be given by and . Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h\to 0} \int_{\Omega} \big[ -\nabla \gamma_1^{1/2} &\cdot \nabla (\gamma_2^{1/2}u_1 u_2)+\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla(\gamma_1^{1/2}u_1u_2) \big]dx\\
&= \int_{\Omega}\big[- \nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_1^{-1/2} a_1a_2)+\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_2^{-1/2}a_1a_2) \big]dx.\end{aligned}$$
Using , we get $$\label{eq_2_10_17}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} &\big[ -\nabla \gamma_1^{1/2} \cdot \nabla (\gamma_2^{1/2}u_1 u_2)+\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla(\gamma_1^{1/2}u_1u_2) \big]dx\\
&=
\int_{\Omega}\big[- \nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_1^{-1/2} a_1a_2)+\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_2^{-1/2}a_1a_2) \big]dx+ J_1+J_2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_1&:=-\int_{\Omega}( \nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma_1^{-1/2} -\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma_2^{-1/2}) (a_1r_2+ a_2r_1+r_1r_2) dx,\\
J_2&:=-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}( \nabla \log \gamma_1 -\nabla \log \gamma_2) \cdot \nabla(a_1r_2+ a_2r_1+r_1r_2) dx.\end{aligned}$$
Let us show that $J_1, J_2\to 0$ as $h\to 0$. First using , we have $$\begin{aligned}
|J_1|&\le \|\nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma_1^{-1/2} -\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma_2^{-1/2}\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\\
&(\|a_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|a_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|r_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|r_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)})=o(h^{1/2}),\end{aligned}$$ as $ h\to 0$.
To see that $J_2\to 0$ as $h\to 0$, we let $S:= \nabla \log \gamma_1 -\nabla \log \gamma_2\in (L^\infty\cap H^{1/2}\cap\mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and $S_h=S*\Psi_h$, where $\Psi_h(x)=h^{-n}\Psi(x/h)$, $h>0$, is the usual mollifier with $\Psi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $0\le \Psi\le 1$, $\int \Psi dx=1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
|J_2|&\le \int_{\Omega} |S| |\nabla(r_1r_2)+r_2\nabla a_1 + r_1\nabla a_2|dx + \int_{ \Omega} |S-S_h| \cdot |a_1\nabla r_2+ a_2\nabla r_1| dx\\
&+\bigg| \int_{ \Omega} S_h \cdot (a_1\nabla r_2+ a_2\nabla r_1) dx \bigg|:=J_{2,1}+J_{2,2}+J_{2,3}.\end{aligned}$$
In view of , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{2,1}\le \|S\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}(&\| \nabla r_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|r_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\| \nabla r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+\|r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|\nabla a_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \|r_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|\nabla a_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)})=o(1), \quad h\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
J_{2,2}\le \|S-S_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)}(\|a_1\|_{L^\infty}\|\nabla r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \|a_2\|_{L^\infty}\|\nabla r_1\|_{L^2(\Omega)})=o(1), \quad h\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $J_{2,3}$, it suffices to consider the integral $$\int_{ \Omega} S_h\cdot a_1\nabla r_2dx= -\int_{\Omega} r_2 \nabla\cdot (a_1S_h)dx +
\int_{\p \Omega}a_1r_2 S_h\cdot \nu dS.$$ Using , and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg| \int_{ \Omega} S_h\cdot a_1\nabla r_2dx\bigg|&\le \|r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)} (\|a_1\|_{L^\infty} \|\nabla\cdot S_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} +\|\nabla a_1\|_{L^\infty}\|S_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)})\\
&+\|a_1\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)} \|S_h\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}=o(1), \quad h\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $J_1, J_2\to 0$ as $h\to 0$, and completes the proof.
To establish Lemma \[lem\_full\_data\_lem\] we only need that $\gamma_j\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap H^{3/2}(\Omega)$.
Boundary term
-------------
The purpose of this Subsection is to show that when substituting the complex geometric optics solutions $u_j\in H^1(\hat \Omega)$ of the equations $L_{\gamma_j}u_j=0$ in $\hat \Omega$, given by , into the integral identity of Lemma \[lem\_integral\_identity\], and letting $h\to 0$, the boundary integral goes to zero. To that end, notice that since $u_j\in H^1(\hat \Omega)$ solves the equation $$\label{eq_boundary_terms_eq}
-\Delta u_j-A_j\cdot \nabla u_j=0\quad \text{in}\quad \hat \Omega,$$ with $A_j=\nabla \log \gamma_j\in (L^\infty\cap H^{1/2}\cap\mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $j=1,2$, by interior elliptic regularity, $u_j\in H^{2}(\Omega)$.
\[lem\_boundary\_terms\_int\] We have $$\label{eq_2_11_2}
J_b:=\int_{\p \Omega\setminus\tilde F} (\Lambda_{\gamma_1}\tilde u_1 -\Lambda_{\gamma_2}u_2)u_1dS\to 0, \quad h\to 0,$$ where $u_1\in H^2(\Omega)$ and $u_2\in H^2(\Omega)$ are the complex geometric optics solutions, given by , to the equations $L_{\gamma_j}u_j=0$ in $\Omega$, $j=1,2$, respectively, and $\tilde u_1\in H^2(\Omega)$ is a solution to $L_{\gamma_1}\tilde u_1=0$ in $\Omega$ with $\tilde u_1=u_2$ on $\p \Omega$.
First since the traces $\p_\nu \tilde u_1|_{\p \Omega} \in H^{1/2}(\p \Omega)$ and $\p_\nu u_2|_{\p \Omega} \in H^{1/2}(\p \Omega)$ are well-defined and $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega$, we have $$J_b=\int_{\p \Omega\setminus\tilde F} \gamma_1\p_\nu (\tilde u_1 -u_2)u_1dS.$$
Rather than working with the equations , we shall consider their conjugated versions. To that end, let $$w_j=\log \gamma_j, \quad w_{j,h}=w_j*\Psi_h\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n), \quad A_{j,h}=\nabla w_{j,h}=A_j*\Psi_h\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n),$$ where $\Psi_h(x)$ is the mollifier given by with a radial function $\Psi$. Consider the conjugated operators $$e^{\frac{w_{j,h}}{2}}\circ (-\Delta -A_j\cdot \nabla) \circ e^{-\frac{w_{j,h}}{2}}=-\Delta + (A_{j,h}-A_j)\cdot \nabla +V_{j,h},$$ where $$V_{j,h}=\frac{\nabla \cdot A_{j,h}}{2}-\frac{(A_{j,h})^2}{4} +\frac{A_j\cdot A_{j,h}}{2}\in (L^\infty\cap H^{1/2}\cap\mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n).$$
We have $$\label{b_terms_0_eq_1}
(-\Delta + (A_{1,h}-A_1)\cdot \nabla +V_{1,h})(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1) =0 \quad \text{in}\quad \Omega,$$ and $$\label{b_terms_0_eq_2}
(-\Delta + (A_{2,h}-A_2)\cdot \nabla +V_{2,h})(e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}} u_2) =0 \quad \text{in}\quad \Omega.$$
As a consequence of Lemma \[lem\_Zhang\_est\], we see that $$\label{eq_est_W_2}
\|A_{j,h}- A_j\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(h^{1/2}),$$ $$\label{eq_est_W_infty}
\|A_{j,h}- A_j\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=\mathcal{O}(1),$$ $$\label{eq_est_V_2}
\|V_{j,h}\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(h^{-1/2}),$$ $$\label{eq_est_V_infty}
\|V_{j,h}\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}=\mathcal{O}(h^{-1}).$$
For future use, we remark that if $\gamma_j\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, then $w_j\in C^1_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and if $\gamma_j\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is such that $\gamma_j-1\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap\mathcal{E}'({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, then $w_j\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. To see the latter fact, we first observe that $w_j\in (W^{1,\infty}\cap \mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n)\subset L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. We also have $$\Delta w_j={\operatorname{div}}(\gamma_j^{-1}\nabla(\gamma_j-1))\in H^{-\frac{1}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n),$$ since $\gamma_j^{-1}\nabla(\gamma_j-1)\in H^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ as $\delta>0$ is small. Thus, $(1-\Delta) w_j\in H^{-\frac{1}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and by global elliptic regularity, we conclude that $w_j\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. We shall therefore be able to apply Lemma \[lem\_app\_delta\] to $w_j$.
Now since $\tilde u_1=u_2$ on $\p \Omega$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\p_\nu (\tilde u_1 &-u_2)=e^{-\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}(\tilde u_1-u_2))\\
&=e^{-\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}
\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)+ e^{-\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}
\p_\nu ((e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}})u_2)\quad \text{on}\quad \p \Omega. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, we get $$\label{b_terms_def_J_sum}
J_b=J_{b,1}+J_{b,2},$$ where $$\label{b_terms_def_J_b_1}
J_{b,1}=\int_{\p \Omega\setminus\tilde F} \gamma_1 e^{-\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}
\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2) u_1dS,$$ $$\label{b_terms_def_J_b_2}
J_{b,2}=\int_{\p \Omega\setminus\tilde F} \gamma_1 e^{-\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}
\p_\nu ((e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}})u_2) u_1dS.$$
Let us start by estimating $J_{b,1}$. In doing so we shall use the boundary Carleman estimates of Proposition \[prop\_boundary\_Carleman\] applied to the operator in . First notice that when $\varphi$ is given by , we have $\p_\nu\varphi(x)=\frac{(x-x_0)\cdot\nu(x)}{|x-x_0|^2}$, and therefore, $\p \Omega_-=F(x_0)$. By the definition of $F(x_0)$ and $\tilde F$, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$\label{eq_definition_esp}
\p \Omega_{-}=F(x_0)\subset F_{\varepsilon}:=\{x\in \p \Omega:\p_\nu \varphi(x)\le \varepsilon\}\subset \tilde F.$$
Substituting $u_1$ given by into $J_{b,1}$, using and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we get $$\label{b_terms_2}
\begin{aligned}
|J_{b,1}|\le \mathcal{O}(1) \bigg(\int_{\p \Omega\setminus F_{\varepsilon}} \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\varepsilon|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2) |^2 e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}dS\bigg)^{1/2}\|a_1+r_1\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$ It follows from and that $$\label{b_terms_3_1}
|J_{b,1}|\le \mathcal{O}(1)\bigg(\int_{\p \Omega_+} (\p_\nu\varphi) e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}} |\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2) |^2 dS\bigg)^{1/2}.$$
Using the boundary Carleman estimate for the operator $-h^2\Delta+ h(A_{1,h}-A_1)\cdot h\nabla +h^2V_{1,h}$, we get $$\label{b_terms_4}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\p \Omega_+} (\p_\nu\varphi) e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}} |\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2) |^2 dS\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h) \| e^{-\varphi/h} (-\Delta + (A_{1,h}-A_1)\cdot \nabla +V_{1,h}) (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{-2})\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{-1})\int_{\p \Omega} e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)||e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2|dS \\
&+\mathcal{O}(1)\int_{\p \Omega_{-}}(-\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)|^2dS\\
&+\mathcal{O}(1)\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}\nabla_t (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)} \\
&+\mathcal{O}(1)\int_{\p \Omega} e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\nabla_t (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)||\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2) |dS.
\end{aligned}$$
Let us proceed by estimating each term in the right hand side of . Using and , we obtain that $$\label{b_terms_5}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}(h) \| e^{-\varphi/h} (-\Delta + (A_{1,h}-A_1)\cdot \nabla +V_{1,h}) (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
\le
\mathcal{O}(h) \| e^{-\varphi/h} \big((A_{1,h}-A_1)-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\big)\cdot \nabla (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
+\mathcal{O}(h)\| e^{-\varphi/h} (V_{1,h}-V_{2,h}) (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$
Substituting $u_2$ given by , and using , , , and , we get $$\label{b_terms_6}
\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{O}(h^{1/2})\| e^{-\varphi/h} (V_{1,h}-V_{2,h}) (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le
\mathcal{O}(h^{1/2})(\|V_{1,h}-V_{2,h}\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|a_2\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+ \|V_{1,h}-V_{2,h}\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)})=o(1),
\end{aligned}$$ as $h\to 0$.
Using , , , , we obtain that $$\label{b_terms_7}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}(h^{1/2})& \| e^{-\varphi/h} \big((A_{1,h}-A_1)-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\big)\cdot \nabla (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}) u_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h^{1/2}) \|A_{1,h}-A_1-A_{2,h}+A_2 \|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)} \|\nabla (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\\
&\|\gamma_2^{-1/2}\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)} \|a_2+r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le \mathcal{O}(h^{1/2}),
\end{aligned}$$ as $h\to 0$.
Using , , , , , we get $$\label{b_terms_8}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}&(h^{1/2}) \| e^{-\varphi/h} \big((A_{1,h}-A_1)-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\big) e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}\cdot \nabla u_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h^{1/2}) \| \big((A_{1,h}-A_1)-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\big) e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}} \nabla(\gamma_2^{-1/2}) (a_2+r_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{1/2}) \| \big((A_{1,h}-A_1)-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\big) e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}} \gamma_2^{-1/2}\frac{\nabla \varphi+i\nabla \psi}{h} (a_2+r_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{1/2}) \| \big((A_{1,h}-A_1)-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\big) e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}} \gamma_2^{-1/2} (\nabla a_2+\nabla r_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h^{-1/2}) \| A_{1,h}-A_1-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)} \|a_2\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \\
&+ \mathcal{O}(h^{-1/2}) \| A_{1,h}-A_1-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)} \|r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{1/2}) \| A_{1,h}-A_1-(A_{2,h}-A_2)\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)} \|\nabla a_2 +\nabla r_2\|_{L^2(\Omega)}=o(1),
\end{aligned}$$ as $h\to 0$.
Combining , , , and , we conclude that $$\label{b_terms_9}
\mathcal{O}(h^{1/2}) \| e^{-\varphi/h} (-\Delta + (A_{1,h}-A_1)\cdot \nabla +V_{1,h}) (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}=o(1),$$ as $h\to 0$.
Let us now estimate the second term in the right hand side of . Using the equalities $\tilde u_1=u_2$ on $\p \Omega$, $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega$, , and the estimate $$\label{b_terms_10}
|e^z-e^w|\le |z-w|e^{\max\{\text{Re} z, \text{Re} w\}},\quad z,w\in{\mathbb{C}},$$ we get $$\label{b_terms_10_0}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}(h^{-2})&\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}=\mathcal{O}(h^{-2})\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})u_2\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h^{-2}) \int_{\p \Omega} |w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2(|a_2|^2 +|r_2|^2)dS\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h^{-2}) \|a_2\|^2_{L^\infty(\p\Omega)}\big(\| w_{1,h}-w_1\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2+ \| w_{2,h}-w_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2 \big)\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{-2}) (\| w_{1,h}-w_1\|^2_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)}+\| w_{2,h}-w_2\|^2_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)})\|r_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2=o(1),
\end{aligned}$$ as $h\to 0$. Here we have also used , , and .
Let us now estimate the fourth term in the right hand side of . When doing so, it is convenient to write $$\label{b_terms_10_1}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\p \Omega_{-}}(-\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}&|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)|^2dS\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(1) \int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)|^2dS
\end{aligned}$$ and to estimate the latter integral as we will need it later. Since $\tilde u_1=u_2$ on $\p \Omega$, and $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega$, we have $$\p_\nu \tilde u_1|_{F_\varepsilon}=\p_\nu u_2|_{F_\varepsilon},$$ and therefore, $$\label{b_terms_11}
\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)=u_2\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})+ (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\p_\nu u_2\quad \text{on}\quad F_\varepsilon.$$
Hence, using and , we get $$\label{b_terms_11_2}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)|^2dS\le
\mathcal{O}(1) \bigg( \int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})|^2|u_2|^2dS\\
+ \int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2|\p_\nu u_2|^2dS\bigg).
\end{aligned}$$
Let us now estimate the first term in the right hand side of . Using the fact that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$, and $\p_\nu\gamma_1=\p_\nu\gamma_2 $ on $\p \Omega$, we have on $\p \Omega$, $$\label{b_terms_11_3}
\begin{aligned}
|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})|\le e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}} |\p_\nu w_{1,h}-\p_\nu w_{2,h}|+\mathcal{O}(1)|w_{1,h}-w_{2,h}| |\p_\nu w_{2,h}|\\
\le \mathcal{O}(1) ( |\p_\nu w_{1,h}-\p_\nu w_1 | +|\p_\nu w_{2,h}-\p_\nu w_2| +|w_{1,h}-w_{1}| + |w_{2,h}-w_{2}| ).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by , and , we get from the second line in , $$\label{b_terms_12}
\|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}=o(1),$$ and from the first line in , $$\label{b_terms_13}
\|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}=O(1),$$ as $h\to 0$.
Hence, using , and , we obtain that $$\label{b_terms_13_1}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})|^2|u_2|^2dS \le 2 \int_{\p\Omega}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})|^2(|a_2|^2+|r_2|^2)dS\\
& \le 2 \|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2 \|a_2\|^2_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)} + 2 \|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}^2 \|r_2\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&=o(1), \quad h\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$
In order to estimate the second term in the right hand side of , we write $$\label{b_terms_13_1_1}
u_2=e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}v_2, \quad v_2=\gamma_2^{-1/2}(a_2+r_2)\in H^{2}(\Omega),$$ and since we do not have an estimate for $\p_\nu r_2|_{\p \Omega}$, we shall proceed as follows. First, $$\label{b_terms_13_2}
|\p_\nu u_2|^2= \bigg|e^{\frac{\varphi+i\psi}{h}}\bigg( \frac{\p_\nu \varphi+i\p_\nu \psi}{h} v_2 + \p_\nu v_2\bigg)\bigg|^2\le \mathcal{O}(1)e^{\frac{2\varphi}{h}}\bigg(\frac{1}{h^2}|v_2|^2+|\p_\nu v_2|^2\bigg)\ \text{on}\ \p \Omega.$$ Thus, $$\label{b_terms_14}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2|\p_\nu u_2|^2dS\le &\mathcal{O}(h^{-2}) \int_{\p \Omega}|w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2|v_2|^2dS\\
&+ \mathcal{O}(1)\int_{\p \Omega}|w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2|\p_\nu v_2|^2dS.
\end{aligned}$$
For the first term in the right hand side of , using that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on $\p \Omega$ and , and , we get $$\label{b_terms_15}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}(h^{-2}) &\int_{\p \Omega}|w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2|v_2|^2dS\\
&\le
\mathcal{O}(h^{-2}) \int_{\p \Omega}(|w_{1,h} -w_1|^2+|w_{2,h}-w_2|^2 ) (|a_2|^2+|r_2|^2)dS\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h^{-2})(\|w_{1,h} -w_1\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+\|w_{2,h}-w_2\|^2_{L^2(\p\Omega)})\|a_2\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}^2\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{-2})(\|w_{1,h} -w_1\|^2_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}+\|w_{2,h}-w_2\|^2_{L^\infty(\p\Omega)})\|r_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2=o(1),
\end{aligned}$$ as $h\to 0$.
In order to estimate the second term in the right hand side of , we shall use the following result of [@Zhang_Guo_2012 Lemma 2.2]: let $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, then $$\|u\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\le C(\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|\nabla u \|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|u\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}),$$ where the constant $C>0$ depends only on $\Omega$ and $n$. Using this estimate together with the interior elliptic regularity for the Laplacian, we get $$\label{b_terms_15_1}
\|\nabla v_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)} \le C (\|\nabla v_2\|_{L^2( \Omega)}\|\Delta v_2\|_{L^2(\hat \Omega)}+\|\nabla v_2\|_{L^2( \hat \Omega)}^2)^{1/2}.$$ It follows from that $$\label{b_terms_16}
\|\nabla v_2\|_{L^2(\hat \Omega)}=o(h^{-1/2}), \quad h\to 0.$$ Since $u_2$ solves the equation $-\Delta u_2-\nabla\log \gamma_2\cdot \nabla u_2=0$ in $\hat \Omega$, $v_2$ solves the equation $$\label{b_terms_17}
-\Delta v_2=\bigg(2\frac{\nabla \varphi+i\nabla\psi}{h}+\nabla\log\gamma_2\bigg)\cdot \nabla v_2+
\bigg(\frac{\Delta \varphi+i\Delta\varphi}{h}+\nabla \log \gamma_2 \cdot\frac{\nabla\varphi+i\nabla \varphi}{h}\bigg)v_2$$ in $\hat \Omega$, thanks to . Hence, using that $\|v_2\|_{L^2(\hat \Omega)}=\mathcal{O}(1)$, , and , we get $$\label{b_terms_18_old}
\|\Delta v_2\|_{L^2(\hat \Omega)}=o(h^{-3/2}), \quad h\to 0.$$
It follows from , and $$\label{b_terms_18}
\|\nabla v_2\|_{L^2(\p\Omega)}=o(h^{-1}), \quad h\to 0.$$
For the second term in the right hand side of , using and , we get $$\label{b_terms_19}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\p \Omega}|w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2|\p_\nu v_2|^2dS \le 2(\|w_{1,h}-w_1\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}^2 &+\|w_{2,h}-w_2\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}^2)\\
&\|\p_\nu v_2\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}=o(1),\quad h\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus, we conclude from , and that $$\label{b_terms_20}
\int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|w_{1,h}- w_{2,h}|^2|\p_\nu u_2|^2dS=o(1),\quad h\to 0.$$ It follows from , and that $$\label{b_terms_21}
\int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)|^2dS=o(1),\quad h\to 0,$$ and therefore, in view of $$\label{b_terms_22}
\int_{\p \Omega_{-}}(-\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)|^2dS=o(1),\quad h\to 0.$$
Let us now estimate the fifth term in the right hand side of . First as $\tilde u_1=u_2$ on $\p \Omega$, we have $$\label{b_terms_22_1}
\nabla_t (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)=u_2\nabla_t(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})+(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\nabla_t u_2.$$ Similarly to , and , we get $$\label{b_terms_23}
\|\nabla_t (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}=o(1),$$ $$\label{b_terms_24}
\|\nabla_t (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}=\mathcal{O}(1),$$ as $h\to 0$. Using together with , we get $$\label{b_terms_25}
\begin{aligned}
\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}\nabla_t &(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(1) \int_{\p \Omega} |\nabla_t(e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}})|^2(|a_2|^2+|r_2|^2)dS\\
&+\mathcal{O}(h^{-2})\int_{\p\Omega}|w_{1,h}-w_{2,h}|^2|v_2|^2dS+\mathcal{O}(1)\int_{\p \Omega}|w_{1,h}-w_{2,h}|^2|\nabla_t v_2|^2dS\\
&=o(1), \quad h\to 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where the latter estimate is established as in , , with the help of .
Let us now estimate the third term in the right hand side of . Letting $$v=e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2,$$ recalling the fixed positive number $\varepsilon$ defined in , and using the Cauchy–Schwarz and Peter–Paul inequalities, we get $$\label{b_terms_26}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}&(h^{-1})\int_{\p \Omega} e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)||e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2|dS\\
&\le \mathcal{O}(h^{-1})\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}\p_\nu v\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}} v\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&\le
\frac{\varepsilon}{4}\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}\p_\nu v\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2+\mathcal{O}( h^{-2})\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}} v\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2 \le \mathcal{O}(h^{-2})\|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}} v\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}^2\\
&+\frac{\varepsilon}{4}\int_{F_\varepsilon}e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu v|^2 dS +
\frac{1}{4}\int_{\p \Omega\setminus F_\varepsilon}(\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu v|^2 dS\\
&\le o(1)+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\p \Omega_{+}}(\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu v|^2 dS,
\end{aligned}$$ as $h\to 0$. Here we have also used and .
To estimate the final sixth term in the right hand side of , we proceed similarly to and obtain that $$\label{b_terms_27}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\p \Omega} e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\nabla_t (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1&- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2)||\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2) |dS\\
&\le
\frac{\varepsilon}{4} \|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}\p_\nu v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+
\mathcal{O}(1) \|e^{-\frac{\varphi}{h}}\nabla_t v\|^2_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&\le o(1)+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\p \Omega_{+}}(\p_\nu \varphi)e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}}|\p_\nu v|^2 dS,
\end{aligned}$$ as $h\to 0$. Here we have also used and .
Combining , , , , , , and , we get $$\int_{\p \Omega_+} (\p_\nu\varphi) e^{-\frac{2\varphi}{h}} |\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}\tilde u_1- e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}u_2) |^2 dS=o(1), \quad h\to 0.$$ Hence, in view of , $$\label{b_terms_28}
|J_{b,1}|=o(1), \quad h\to 0,$$ where $J_{b,1}$ is given by .
Let us finally show that $$\label{b_terms_28_1}
|J_{b,2}|=o(1), \quad h\to 0,$$ where $J_{b,2}$ is defined by . We have $$\label{b_terms_29}
|J_{b,2}|\le \mathcal{O}(1) \int_{\p \Omega} |\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}})| |u_2| |u_1|dS+ \mathcal{O}(1)
\int_{\p \Omega} |e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}| |\p_\nu u_2| |u_1|dS.$$
For the first term in the right hand side of , using , , and , we get $$\label{b_terms_30}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\p \Omega} |\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}-& e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}})| |u_2| |u_1|dS\le
\mathcal{O}(1)\|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}})\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\|a_1a_2\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}\\
&+ \mathcal{O}(1)\|\p_\nu (e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}})\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}\big(\|a_1\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&+ \|a_2\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}\|r_1\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}+ \|r_1\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\big)=o(1), \quad h\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$
To estimate the second term in the right hand side of , using , we see that $$\label{b_terms_31}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\p \Omega} |e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}| |\p_\nu u_2| |u_1|dS\le & \mathcal{O}(h^{-1})\int_{\p \Omega} |w_{2,h}-w_{1,h}| |v_2| |a_1+r_1|dS\\
&+\mathcal{O}(1) \int_{\p \Omega} |w_{2,h}-w_{1,h}| |\p_\nu v_2| |a_1+r_1|dS.
\end{aligned}$$ Using , and , we get $$\label{b_terms_32}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\p \Omega} |w_{2,h}-w_{1,h}| &|\p_\nu v_2| |a_1+r_1|dS\\
& \le \mathcal{O}(1)(\|w_{2,h}-w_{2}\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}+ \|w_{1,h}-w_{1}\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)} )\|\p_\nu v_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&(\|a_1\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}+\|r_1\|_{L^2(\p\Omega)})=o(1), \quad h\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Using , and , we obtain that $$\label{b_terms_33_old}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}&(h^{-1})\int_{\p \Omega} |w_{2,h}-w_{1,h}| |v_2| |a_1+r_1|dS\le \mathcal{O}(h^{-1}) \| w_{2,h}-w_{1,h}\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\|a_1a_2\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}\\
&+ \mathcal{O}(h^{-1}) \| w_{2,h}-w_{1,h}\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}( \|a_1\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)} + \|a_2\|_{L^\infty(\p \Omega)}\|r_1\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\\
&+ \|r_1\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\|r_2\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)} )=o(1), \quad h\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$
It follows from , and that $$\label{b_terms_33}
\int_{\p \Omega} |e^{\frac{w_{2,h}}{2}}- e^{\frac{w_{1,h}}{2}}| |\p_\nu u_2| |u_1|dS=o(1), \quad h\to 0.$$
We conclude from , and that holds. In view of and , we have therefore established . The proof is complete.
Recovery of conductivity
------------------------
We conclude from Lemma \[lem\_integral\_identity\], Lemma \[lem\_full\_data\_lem\], and Lemma \[lem\_boundary\_terms\_int\] that $$\label{eq_recovery_1}
\int_{\Omega}\big[- \nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_1^{-1/2} a_1a_2)+\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla (\gamma_2^{-1/2}a_1a_2) \big]dx=0,$$ for any $a_j\in C^\infty(\overline{\hat \Omega})$ such that $$\label{eq_recovery_2}
(\nabla \varphi+i\nabla \psi)\cdot \nabla a_j+\frac{1}{2}(\Delta \varphi+i\Delta \psi)a_j=0\quad \text{in}\quad \hat \Omega,$$ $j=1,2$. Recall that $$q_j=- \nabla \gamma_j^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma_j^{-1/2} +\frac{1}{2}\Delta \log\gamma_j\in H^{-1}({\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap \mathcal{E}'({\mathbb{R}}^n).$$ Letting $q=q_1-q_2$, and using the fact that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\overline{\Omega}$, we conclude that ${\operatorname{supp}}(q)\subset \overline{\Omega}$.
Let $\chi\in C_0^\infty(\hat \Omega)$ and $\chi=1$ near $\overline{\Omega}$. When $\phi\in C^\infty(\hat \Omega)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
q(\phi)=&q(\chi \phi)=\int_\Omega (-\nabla \gamma_1^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma_1^{-1/2}+\nabla \gamma_2^{1/2}\cdot \nabla \gamma_2^{-1/2})\phi dx\\
&-\frac{1}{2} \int_\Omega (\nabla \log \gamma_1-\nabla \log\gamma_2)\cdot \nabla \phi dx, \end{aligned}$$ and therefore, implies that $$\label{eq_recovery_3}
q(a_1a_2)=0.$$
Recall that the functions $\varphi$ and $\psi$ in are defined by and , respectively, using the fixed point $x_0\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus\overline{\text{ch}(\Omega)}$. We shall denote them by $\varphi=\varphi_{x_0}$ and $\psi=\psi_{x_0}$ to emphasize the dependence on $x_0$.
Now by the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_main\], $$\Lambda_{\gamma_1}f|_{\tilde F}=\Lambda_{\gamma_2}f|_{\tilde F}, \quad f\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\p \Omega),$$ where $\tilde F$ is an open neighborhood of the front face $F(x_0)$, defined in . Therefore, there exists a neighborhood of $x_0$, $\text{neigh}(x_0,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, such that for any $\tilde x_0\in \text{neigh}(x_0,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we have $F(\tilde x_0)\subset \tilde F$. Here $F(\tilde x_0)$ is the front face with respect to $\tilde x_0$.
Associated to $\tilde x_0$, we have the functions $\varphi_{\tilde x_0}$ and $\psi_{\tilde x_0}$, defined as in and , and we have $$\varphi_{\tilde x_0}(x)=\varphi_{x_0}(x-y), \quad \psi_{\tilde x_0}(x)=\psi_{x_0}(x-y),$$ where $y=\tilde x_0-x_0\in \text{neigh}(0,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Observe that $\varphi_{\tilde x_0},\psi_{\tilde x_0}\in C^\infty(\overline{\hat \Omega})$ for all $\tilde x_0\in \text{neigh}(x_0, {\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
The analog of with $\varphi_{x_0}$, $\psi_{x_0}$ replaced by $\varphi_{\tilde x_0}$, $\psi_{\tilde x_0}$ is solved by $a_j(\cdot-y)$, and thus, is valid for the translated distribution, $$\label{eq_recovery_4}
q(a_1(\cdot-y)a_2(\cdot-y))=0,$$ for all $y\in \text{neigh}(0, {\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
Now let $\Psi_\tau$ be the usual mollifier, defined by with a radial function $\Psi$. Then $q*\Psi_\tau\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, and for $\tau$ small, we have $${\operatorname{supp}}(q*\Psi_\tau)\subset \subset \{\chi=1\}^0\subset \subset \hat \Omega.$$ It follows from [@Hormander_book_1 Theorem 4.1.4] that for $\tau$ small, $$(q*\Psi_\tau)(a_1a_2)= (q*\Psi_\tau)(\chi a_1a_2)=q((\chi a_1a_2)* \Psi_\tau).$$
Using that $$(\chi a_1a_2)* \Psi_\tau=\lim_{\eta\to 0} \eta^n\sum_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n}(\chi a_1a_2)(x-k\eta) \Psi_\tau(k\eta),$$ where the convergence is uniform with all derivatives as $\eta\to 0$, see [@Hormander_book_1 Lemma 4.1.3], together with , we get $$q((\chi a_1a_2)* \Psi_\tau)=\lim_{\eta\to 0} \eta^n\sum_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n} q((\chi a_1a_2)(\cdot -k\eta)) \Psi_\tau(k\eta)=0.$$ Therefore, $$(q*\Psi_\tau)(a_1a_2)=0,$$ for all $\tau>0$ small. Here $q*\Psi_\tau$ is smooth, and thus, we can apply the analysis of [@DKSU_2007 Section 6] exactly as it stands, which allows us to conclude that $q*\Psi_\tau=0$. Letting $\tau\to 0$, we get $q=0$, since $q*\Psi_\tau\to q$ in $\mathcal{E}'({\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
Finally, by [@Hab_Tataru Lemma 5.2], we conclude that $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\] is complete.
Approximation estimates {#app_estimates}
=======================
The purpose of this appendix is to collect some approximation results which are used repeatedly in the main part of the paper. The estimates are well known and are given here for the convenience of the reader, see [@Zhang_Guo_2012].
In what follows, let $\Psi_\tau(x)=\tau^{-n}\Psi(x/\tau)$, $\tau>0$, be the usual mollifier with $\Psi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $0\le \Psi\le 1$, and $\int \Psi dx=1$.
\[lem\_Zhang\_est\] Let $b\in H^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Then $b_\tau=b*\Psi_\tau\in (C^\infty\cap H^{1/2})({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $$\label{eq_2_10_7}
\|b-b_\tau\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(\tau^{1/2}), \quad \tau\to 0,$$ and $$\label{eq_2_10_8}
\|b_\tau\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=\mathcal{O}(1), \quad \|\nabla b_\tau\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(\tau^{-1/2}), \quad \tau\to 0.$$
We have $$\label{eq_2_10_9}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} (1+|\xi|^2)^{1/2}|\hat b(\xi)|^2d\xi <\infty.$$ Using that $\hat \Psi_\tau(\xi)=\hat \Psi(\tau \xi)$, we get $\hat b_\tau(\xi)=\hat b(\xi)\hat \Psi(\tau\xi)$, and therefore, $$\label{eq_2_10_10}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau}\|b-b_\tau\|^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=\frac{(2\pi)^{-n}}{\tau}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|1-\hat \Psi(\tau\xi)|^2 |\hat b(\xi)|^2d\xi=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} g(\tau\xi) |\xi||\hat b(\xi)|^2d\xi,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$g(\eta):=(2\pi)^{-n}\frac{|1-\hat \Psi(\eta)|^2}{|\eta|}.$$ As $\hat \Psi(0)=1$, we have $g(0)=0$, and furthermore, since $\Psi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we conclude that $g$ is continuous and bounded. By Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, applied to , in view of , we get that $\frac{1}{\tau}\|b-b_\tau\|^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\to 0$ as $\tau\to 0$, proving .
The first part of is clear and to see the second part, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\tau \|\p_{x_j} b_\tau\|^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=(2\pi)^{-n}\tau \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\xi_j|^2|\hat \Psi(\tau\xi)|^2|\hat b(\xi)|^2dx\le \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \tilde g(\tau\xi)|\xi| |\hat b(\xi)|^2d\xi,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\tilde g(\eta):=(2\pi)^{-n}|\eta||\hat \Psi(\eta)|^2$$ is continuous and bounded and $\tilde g(0)=0$. By Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we conclude that $\tau \|\p_{x_j} b_\tau\|^2_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(1)$, as $\tau\to 0$. The proof is complete.
\[lem\_app\_delta\] Assume that $w\in C^1_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ or $w\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $\delta>0$ fixed. Let $w_h=w*\Psi_h$, where $\Psi_h$ is defined using a radial function $\Psi$. Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\ge 2$, be a bounded open set with $C^2$ boundary. Then $$\label{eq_cond_delta_1}
\|w_h-w\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}=o(h),$$ $$\label{eq_cond_delta_2}
\|\nabla w_h-\nabla w\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}=o(1),$$ as $h\to 0$.
Let first $w\in C^1_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. To prove in this case, we shall show that $$\label{app_-1}
\|w_h-w\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(h), \quad h\to 0.$$ By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we get $$\label{app_0}
\begin{aligned}
h^{-1}(w_h(x)-w(x))&=h^{-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} (w(x-hy)-w(x))\Psi(y)dy\\
&=h^{-1} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\bigg(\int_0^1\frac{d}{dt} w(x-thy)dt\bigg) \Psi(y)dy\\
&= h^{-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_0^1 \nabla w(x-thy) \cdot (-hy)\Psi(y)dtdy.
\end{aligned}$$ Using that $\Psi$ is even, we have $$\label{app_1}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} (X\cdot y)\Psi(y)dy=0, \quad X\in {\mathbb{R}}^n.$$ It follows from and that uniformly in $x$, $$h^{-1}(w_h(x)-w(x))=-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_0^1 (\nabla w(x-thy)-\nabla w(x)) \cdot ydt \Psi(y)dy=o(1),$$ as $h\to 0$, which shows . Here we have used that $\nabla w$ is uniformly continuous.
In the case of $w\in C^1_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, follows from the uniform continuity of $\nabla w$.
Let now $w\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $\delta>0$, and let us show . First by the trace theorem, we have $$\label{app_1_2}
\|w_h-w\|_{L^2(\p \Omega)}\le C\|w_h-w\|_{H^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}.$$ We write $$\label{app_2}
\begin{aligned}
h^{-2} \|w_h-w\|^2_{H^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}&=(2\pi)^{-n}h^{-2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} (1+|\xi|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta}|1-\hat\Psi(h\xi)|^2|\hat w(\xi)|^2d\xi\\
&\le \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}g(h\xi)(1+|\xi|^2)^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta} |\hat w(\xi)|^2d\xi,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$g(\eta)=(2\pi)^{-n}\frac{|1-\hat \Psi(\eta)|^2}{|\eta|^2}.$$ Since $\Psi$ is radial, have $\nabla \hat \Psi(0)=-i\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}x\Psi (x)dx=0$. Using this together with the fact that $\hat \Psi(0)=1$, and that $\hat \Psi\in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we conclude that $g$ is continuous and bounded with $g(0)=0$. Hence, Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, applied to , gives that $ \|w_h-w\|_{H^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}=o(h)$ as $h\to 0$, and therefore, in view of , we see .
Similarly, using that $w\in H^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we get $$\|\nabla w_h-\nabla w\|^2_{H^{\frac{1}{2}+\delta}({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\le (2\pi)^{-n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} (1+|\xi|^2)^{\frac{3}{2}+\delta}|1-\hat \Psi(h\xi)|^2 |\hat w(\xi)|^2d\xi=o(1),$$ as $h\to 0$. Hence, by the trace theorem, we get . The proof is complete.
We shall also need the following obvious estimates.
Let $w\in (W^{1,\infty}\mathcal \cap \mathcal{E}')({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Then $$\label{eq_cond_Lipschitz}
\sup_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} | w_h- w|\le \mathcal{O}(h),$$ $$\label{eq_cond_Lipschitz_nabla}
\sup_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}| w_h|\le \mathcal{O}(1),\quad \sup_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}| \nabla w_h|\le \mathcal{O}(1),$$ as $h\to 0$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
K.K is grateful to Russell Brown for some very helpful discussions. We would like to thank Mikko Salo for bringing the work [@Rodriguez] to our attention. The research of K.K. is partially supported by the National Science Foundation (DMS 1500703). The research of G.U. is partially supported by the National Science Foundation, Simons Fellowship, and the Academy of Finland.
[1]{}
Adams, R., *Sobolev spaces*, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 65., New York-London, 1975.
Agranovich, M., *Sobolev spaces, their generalizations and elliptic problems in smooth and Lipschitz domains*, Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2015.
Alessandrini, G., *Singular solutions of elliptic equations and the determination of conductivity by boundary measurements*, J. Differential Equations **84** (1990), no. 2, 252–272.
Brown, R., *Global uniqueness in the impedance-imaging problem for less regular conductivities*, SIAM J. Math. Anal. **27** (1996), no. 4, 1049–1056.
Brown, R., Torres, R., *Uniqueness in the inverse conductivity problem for conductivities with $3/2$ derivatives in $L^p$, $p>2n$*, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. **9** (2003), no. 6, 563–574.
Bukhgeim, A., Uhlmann, G., *Recovering a potential from partial Cauchy data*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 27 (2002), no. 3–4, 653–668.
Calderón, A., *On an inverse boundary value problem*, Seminar on Numerical Analysis and its Applications to Continuum Physics (Rio de Janeiro, 1980), 65–73, Soc. Brasil. Mat., Rio de Janeiro, 1980.
Caro, P., Rogers, K., *Global uniqueness for the Calderón problem with Lipschitz conductivities*, preprint 2014, .
Choulli, M., *Une introduction aux problèmes inverses elliptiques et paraboliques*, Mathematics and Applications, 65. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
Dos Santos Ferreira, D., Kenig, C., Salo, M., and Uhlmann, G., *Limiting Carleman weights and anisotropic inverse problems*, Invent. Math. **178** (2009), no. 1, 119–171.
Dos Santos Ferreira, D., Kenig, C., Sjöstrand, J., and Uhlmann, G., *Determining a magnetic Schrödinger operator from partial Cauchy data*, Comm. Math. Phys. **271** (2007), no. 2, 467–488.
Dos Santos Ferreira, D., Kenig, C., Sjöstrand, J., and Uhlmann, G., *On the linearized local Calderón problem*, Math. Res. Lett. **16** (2009), no. 6, 955–970.
Grubb, G., *Distributions and operators*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 252. Springer, New York, 2009.
Haberman, B., *Uniqueness in Calderón’s problem for conductivities with unbounded gradient*, Comm. Math. Phys., to appear.
Haberman, B., Tataru, D., *Uniqueness in Calderón’s problem with Lipschitz conductivities*, Duke Math. J. **162** (2013), no. 3, 497–516.
Hörmander, L., *The analysis of linear partial differential operators. I. Distribution theory and Fourier analysis*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
Isakov, V., *On uniqueness in the inverse conductivity problem with local data*, Inverse Probl. Imaging **1** (2007), no. 1, 95–105.
Kenig, C., Salo, M., *The Calderón problem with partial data on manifolds and applications*, Anal. PDE **6** (2013), no. 8, 2003–2048.
Kenig, C., Salo, M., *Recent progress in the Calderón problem with partial data*, Inverse problems and applications, 193–222, Contemp. Math., 615, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2014.
Kenig, C., Sjöstrand, J., and Uhlmann, G., *The Calderón problem with partial data*, Ann. of Math. (2) **165** (2007), no. 2, 567–591.
Knudsen, K., *The Calderón problem with partial data for less smooth conductivities*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations **31** (2006), no. 1-3, 57–71.
Kohn, R., Vogelius, M., *Determining conductivity by boundary measurements*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **37** (1984), no. 3, 289–298.
Krupchyk, K., Uhlmann, G., *Uniqueness in an inverse boundary problem for a magnetic Schrödinger operator with a bounded magnetic potential*, Comm. Math. Phys. **327** (2014), no. 3, 993–1009.
Lee, J., Uhlmann, G., *Determining anisotropic real-analytic conductivities by boundary measurements*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **42** (1989), no. 8, 1097–1112.
Päivärinta, L., Panchenko, A., and Uhlmann, G., *Complex geometrical optics solutions for Lipschitz conductivities*, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana **19** (2003), no. 1, 57–72.
Rodriguez, C., *A partial data result for less regular conductivities in admissible geometries*, Inverse Probl. Imaging, to appear.
Salo, M., Tzou, L., *Carleman estimates and inverse problems for Dirac operators*, Math. Ann. **344** (2009), no. 1, 161–184.
Sjöstrand, J., *Weyl law for semi-classical resonances with randomly perturbed potentials*, Mémoires de la SMF **136** (2014).
Sjöstrand, J., Uhlmann, G., *Local analytic regularity in the linearized Calderón problem*, preprint, .
Sylvester, J., Uhlmann, G., *A global uniqueness theorem for an inverse boundary value problem*, Ann. of Math. (2) **125** (1987), no. 1, 153–169.
Uhlmann, G., *Inverse problems: seeing the unseen*, Bull. Math. Sci. **4** (2014), no. 2, 209–279.
Zhang, G., *Uniqueness in the Calderón problem with partial data for less smooth conductivities*, Inverse Problems **28** (2012), no. 10, 105008, 18 pp.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Claude Duhr
- Falko Dulat
bibliography:
- 'polylogtools.bib'
title: 'PolyLogTools – Polylogs for the masses'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Installation of the package {#sec:installation}
===========================
Multiple polylogarithms in [[PolyLogTools]{}]{} {#sec:MPLs}
===============================================
The shuffle and stuffle algebras of MPLs {#sec:shuffle_stuffle}
========================================
Special values of MPLs {#sec:special_values}
======================
The Hopf algebra of MPLs {#sec:coproduct}
========================
Symbols of MPLs {#sec:symbols}
===============
Working with [[PolyLogTools]{}]{} {#sec:basic}
=================================
Single-valued MPLs {#sec:sv_mpls}
==================
Validation {#sec:validation}
==========
An example calculation {#sec:example}
======================
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Herbert Gangl and Steven Charlton for collaboration on some of the mathematical aspects implemented into the code and for correspondence on the cobracket on MPLs. We also thank Lorenzo Tancredi and Brenda Penante for a careful reading of the manuscript. We would like to thank Enrico Herrmann and Andrew McLeod for suggesting the title and Enrico Hermann for testing the release version of the package. This research was supported by the the ERC grant 637019 “MathAm”, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We extend the framework of combinatorial model categories, so that the category of small presheaves over large indexing categories and ind-categories would be embraced by the new machinery called class-combinatorial model categories.
The definition of the new class of model categories is based on the corresponding extension of the theory of locally presentable and accessible categories developed in the companion paper [@CR], where we introduced the concepts of locally class-presentable and class-accessible categories.
In this work we prove that the category of weak equivalences of a nice class-combinatorial model category is class-accessible. Our extension of J. Smith localization theorem depends on the verification of a cosolution-set condition. The deepest result is that the (left Bousfield) localization of a class-combinatorial model category with respect to a strongly class-accessible localization functor is class-combinatorial again.
address: 'B. ChornyDepartment of MathematicsUniversity of Haifa at OranimTivon, [email protected] J. RosickýDepartment of Mathematics and StatisticsMasaryk University, Faculty of SciencesBrno, Czech [email protected] '
author:
- 'B. Chorny and J. Rosický$^*$'
date: 'October 18, 2011'
title: 'Class-combinatorial model categories'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The theory of combinatorial model categories pioneered by J. Smith in the end of ’90-s has become a standard framework for abstract homotopy theory. The foundations of the subject may be found in [@B] and [@D-universal; @D]; a concise exposition has appeared in [@L A.2.6].
A model category ${\mathcal {M}}$ is combinatorial if it satisfies two conditions. The first condition requires that the underlying category ${\mathcal {M}}$ is locally presentable (see, e.g., [@AR] for the definition and an introduction to the subject). The second condition demands that the model structure will be cofibrantly generated (see, e.g., [@Ho] for the definition and discussion).
Several interesting examples of non-combinatorial model categories appeared over the past decade. For example the categories of pro-spaces and ind-spaces were applied in new contexts in homotopy theory [@CI; @I] resulting in non-cofibrantly generated model structures constructed on non-locally presentable categories. The maturation of the calculus of homotopy functors [@Goodwillie-CalculusIII] stimulated the development of the abstract homotopy theory of small functors over large categories [@CD] resulting in formulation of the basic ideas of Goodwillie calculus in the language of model categories [@BCR]. The model categories used for this purpose are also not cofibrantly generated and the underlying category of small functors from spaces to spaces (or spectra) is not a locally presentable category.
However, all the model categories from the examples above are *class-cofibrantly* generated (except for the pro-categories, which are *class-fibrantly* generated). This extension of the classical definition was introduced in [@Chorny-prospaces], which in turn developed the ideas by E. Dror Farjoun originated in the equivariant homotopy theory [@Farjoun].
The purpose of the current paper is to develop a framework extending J. Smith’s combinatorial model categories, so that the model categories of small presheaves over large categories, ind-categories of model categories (the opposite categories of pro-categories) would become the examples of the newly defined *class-combinatorial* model categories. The definition of the class-combinatorial model category consists, similarly to the combinatorial model category, of two conditions: the underlying category is required to be *locally class-presentable* and the model structure must be class-cofibrantly generated. As we mentioned above, the second condition was studied in the earlier work [@Chorny-prospaces], while the first condition relies on a concept of the locally class-presentable category, which was introduced and studied in the companion project [@CR], which is a prerequisite for reading this paper.
The main results of our paper are generalizing the corresponding results about the combinatorial model categories. In Theorem \[th2.10\] we prove that the levelwise weak equivalences in the category of small presheaves form a class-accessible category (see [@CR] for the definition). In Remark \[re2.12\] we formulate the mild conditions, which guarantee that the class-combinatorial model category has the class-accessible subcategory of weak equivalences. Such class-combinatorial model categories are called nice in this paper.
The central result of J. Smith’s theory is the localization theorem, stating the existence of the (left Bousfield) localization of any combinatorial model category with respect to any *set* of maps. After a brief discussion of construction of localization functors with respect to cone-coreflective *classes* of cofibrations with bounded presentability ranks of domains and codomains, we prove in Theorem \[th3.10\] a variant of a localization theorem for nice class-combinatorial model categories with respect to strongly class-accessible homotopy localization functors (i.e., localization functors preserving $\lambda$-filtered colimits and $\lambda$-presentable objects for some cardinal $\lambda$). Although an application of our localization theorem depends on the verification of a cosolution-set condition for the class of intended generating trivial cofibrations, we are able to check this condition in many interesting situations. In the last Theorem \[th3.14\] we prove that in the cases where the localization with respect to a strongly class-accessible functor exists, the localized model category is class-combinatorial again. We conclude the paper by several examples of localized model categories. Using Theorem \[th3.14\] we show that the $n$-polynomial model category constructed in [@BCR] is class-combinatorial (Example \[ex3.16\]). On the other hand, there is a model category constructed in [@C1] as a localization of a class-combinatorial model category with respect to an inaccessible localization functor that happens to be non-cofibrantly generated (Example \[ex3.17\]).
Class-combinatorial model categories
====================================
Recall that a weak factorization system $({\mathcal {L}},{\mathcal {R}})$ in a locally class-$\lambda$-presentable category ${\mathcal {K}}$ was called *cofibrantly class*-$\lambda$-*generated* in [@CR] 4.7 if ${\mathcal {L}}={\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {C}})$ for a cone-coreflective class ${\mathcal {C}}$ of morphisms such that
1. morphisms from ${\mathcal {C}}$ have $\lambda$-presentable domains and codomains and
2. any morphism between $\lambda$-presentable objects has a weak factorization with the middle object $\lambda$-presentable.
To be *cone-coreflective* means for each $f$ there is a subset ${\mathcal {C}}_f$ of ${\mathcal {C}}$ such that each morphism $g\to f$ in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ with $g\in{\mathcal {C}}$ factorizes as $$g\to h\to f$$ with $h\in{\mathcal {C}}_f$.
If the weak factorization is functorial, a cofibrantly class-$\lambda$-generated weak factorization system is cofibrantly class-$\mu$-generated for each regular cardinal $\mu\trianglerighteq \lambda$. Without functoriality, condition (2) does not need to go up to $\mu$ and thus we will make it a part of the following definition.
\[def2.1\]
*Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a class locally-$\lambda$-presentable model category. We say that ${\mathcal {K}}$ is *class*-$\lambda$-*combinatorial* if both (cofibrations, trivial fibrations) and (trivial cofibrations, fibrations) are cofibrantly class-$\mu$-generated weak factorization systems for every regular cardinal $\mu\trianglerighteq \lambda$.*
It is called *class-combinatorial* if it is class-$\lambda$-combinatorial for some regular cardinal $\lambda$.
Any combinatorial model category is class-combinatorial. The reason is that weak factorizations are functorial and, moreover, the resulting functors are accessible. Thus they are strongly accessible and this property goes up for $\lambda\triangleleft\mu$ (cf. [@R1]).
\[ex2.2\]
*Let ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ denote the category of simplicial sets. Given a simplicial category ${\mathcal {A}}$, by abuse of notation, ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ will denote the category of *small simplicial presheaves* on ${\mathcal {A}}$. The objects are functors ${\mathcal {A}}^{{\operatorname{op}}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ which are small weighted colimits of simplicial representable functors (see [@DL]). In [@CR], we used this notation for small presheaves on a category ${\mathcal {A}}$ but it will cause any misunderstanding. The simplicial category ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ is complete provided that ${\mathcal {A}}$ is complete (see [@DL]); completeness is meant in the enriched sense (see, e.g., [@Bor] or [@K1]).*
The category ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ is always class-finitely-accessible, because each small simplicial presheaf is a conical colimit of presheaves from ${\mathcal {G}}=\{\hom_{{\mathcal {A}}}(-,A)\otimes K \,|\, A\in{\mathcal {A}},\, K\in{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\}$. Therefore each small presheaf is a filtered colimit of finite colimits of elements of ${\mathcal {G}}$. The elements of ${\mathcal {G}}$ are, in turn, filtered colimits of the elements of ${\mathcal {G}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}=\{\hom(-,A)\otimes L \,|\, A\in{\mathcal {A}},\, L\in{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}})\}$ where ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}$ denotes the full subcategory of ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ consisting of finitely presentable simplicial sets. Therefore, every small presheaf is a filtered colimit of finite colimits of the elements of ${\mathcal {G}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}$.
We are going to show that, for a complete simplicial category ${\mathcal {A}}$, the category ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ equipped with the projective model structure is class-combinatorial. We will need the following result.
\[le2.3\] Let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a complete simplicial category and $\mu$ an uncountable regular cardinal. Then $\mu$-presentable objects in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ are closed under finite weighted limits.
A weight $W:{\mathcal {D}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ is finite if ${\mathcal {D}}$ has finitely many objects and all its hom-objects ${\mathcal {D}}(c,d)$ and all values $W(d)$ are finitely presentable simplicial sets (see [@K] 4.1.) Following [@K] 4.3, finite weighted limits can be constructed from finite conical limits and cotensors with finitely presentable simplicial sets. Thus we have to show that $\mu$-presentable objects in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ are closed under these limits. Following [@Bor] 6.6.13 and 6.6.16, finite conical limits in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ coincide with finite limits in the underlying category ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})_0$. This underlying category is a subcategory of the category ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}}_0)$ of small functors from [@CR] 2.2 (2) which is closed under limits and colimits. Thus $\mu$-presentable objects in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ are $\mu$-presentable in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}}_0)$. Since the latter objects are closed under finite limits (see [@KRV] 4.9), $\mu$-presentable objects in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ are closed under finite conical limits. It remains to show that they are closed under cotensors with finitely presentable simplicial sets. The later are finite conical colimits of cotensors with $\Delta_n$, $n=1,2,\dots$ (see the proof of [@DL], 5.2). Thus we have to show that $\mu$-presentable objects in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ are closed under cotensors with $\Delta_n$’s.
Let $H$ be $\mu$-presentable in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$. Since $H$ is a $\mu$-small colimit of tensors $H_i$ of finitely presentable simplicial sets with representables and both colimits and cotensors in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ are pointwise, we have $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\Delta_n}(A)&=({\mathop{\rm colim}\limits}H_i)^{\Delta_n}(A)=({\mathop{\rm colim}\limits}H_i(A))^{\Delta_n}\\
&=\hom(\Delta_n,{\mathop{\rm colim}\limits}H_i(A))\cong{\mathop{\rm colim}\limits}\hom(\Delta_n,H_i(A))\\
&={\mathop{\rm colim}\limits}H_i(A)^{\Delta_n}=({\mathop{\rm colim}\limits}H_i^{\Delta_n})(A)\end{aligned}$$ for each $A$ in ${\mathcal {A}}$. Hence $$H^{\Delta_n}\cong{\mathop{\rm colim}\limits}H_i^{\Delta_n}$$ and thus it suffices to show that each $H_i^{\Delta_n}$ is $\mu$-presentable. Since each $H_i$ is equal to $V\otimes\hom(-,B)$ for some finitely presentable simplical set $V$ and $B$ in ${\mathcal {A}}$, we get for the same reasons as above $$\begin{aligned}
& \hom(\Delta_n,V \otimes \hom(A,B)) =
\hom(\Delta_n, V \times \hom(A,B)) \cong\\
& \hom(\Delta_n,V) \times \hom(\Delta_n,\hom(A,B)) \cong
V^{\Delta_n} \times \hom(A,B^{\Delta_n}) =\\
& (V^{\Delta_n} \otimes \hom(-,B^{\Delta_n}))(A)\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$(V\otimes\hom(-,B))^{\Delta_n} \cong V^{\Delta_n} \otimes \hom(-,B^{\Delta_n}).$$ The latter objects are $\mu$-presentable.
\[prop2.4\] Let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a complete simplicial category. Then ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ is class-$\lambda$-combinatorial with respect to the projective model structure for each uncountable regular cardinal $\lambda$.
Following [@CD], ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ is a model category where the generating classes ${\mathcal {I}}$ and ${\mathcal {J}}$ of cofibrations and trivial cofibrations are cone-coreflective and satisfy condition [@CR] 4.7 (1) for any regular cardinal $\lambda$. In fact, ${\mathcal {I}}$ consists of morphisms $$\partial\Delta_n\otimes\hom(-,A)\to\Delta_n\otimes\hom(-,A)$$ and ${\mathcal {J}}$ of morphisms $$\Lambda^k_n\otimes\hom(-,A)\to\Delta_n\otimes\hom(-,A),$$ and all involved domains and codomains are finitely presentable. We have to show that they satisfy [@CR] 4.7 (2) as well, i.e., that they are bounded. Let $\lambda$ be uncountable and $f:G\to H$ be a morphism between $\lambda$-presentable objects and consider a morphism $g\to f$ where $g\in{\mathcal {I}}$. Following the proof of 3.7 in [@CD], this morphism corresponds to a morphism $\hom(-,A)\to P$ where $P$ is the pullback $$G^{\partial\Delta_n}\times_{H^{\partial\Delta_n}}H^{\Delta_n}.$$ Since $P$ is $\lambda$-presentable (see \[le2.3\]), there is a choice of a set ${\mathcal {T}}_f$ from [@CR] 4.8 (2) whose cardinality does not exceed $\lambda$. Since all morphisms from ${\mathcal {I}}$ have finitely presentable domains and codomains, the factorization of $f$ stops at $\omega$. Thus the cardinality of ${\mathcal {T}}_f^\ast$ is smaller than $\lambda$. Following [@CR] 4.8 (2), condition [@CR] 3.7 (2) is satisfied. The argument for ${\mathcal {J}}$ is the same.
\[re2.5\] [ *A very useful property of the combinatorial model categories is that the class of weak equivalences is an accessible and accessibly embedded subcategory of the category of morphisms ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ (see [@R2] 4.1 or [@L] A2.6.6). Together with Smith’s theorem [@B] it constitutes the localization theorem for combinatorial model categories with respect to sets of maps. It would be natural to expect that a similar property holds in the class-combinatorial situation. Unfortunately we were unable to prove it in this generality. But in many interesting situations we are able to prove that the class of weak equivalences is a class-accessible subcategory of the category of morphisms.* ]{}
\[le2.6\] Let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a complete simplicial category. Then ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ admits a strongly class-accessible fibrant replacement functor.
The functor ${\operatorname{Ex}}^\infty:{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ is the finitely accessible fibrant replacement simplicial functor (see [@GJ]). For a small simplicial functor $F:{\mathcal {A}}^{{\operatorname{op}}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$, let ${\operatorname{Fib}}(F)$ be the composition $${\mathcal {A}}^{{\operatorname{op}}} \xrightarrow{\quad F\quad} {\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\xrightarrow{\quad Ex^\infty\quad} {\operatorname{\bf SSet}}.$$ We will show that this composition is small.
The category of finitely accessible simplicial functors ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ is equivalent to the category of simplicial functors ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}^{{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}}$. This equivalence sends a finitely accessible functor ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ to its restriction on ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}$. Thus hom-functors $\hom(S,-):{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ with $S$ finitely presentable correspond to hom-functors $\hom(S,-):{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$. Since every simplical functor ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ is a weighted colimit of hom-functors, every finitely accessible simplicial functor ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ is a weighted colimit of hom-functors $\hom(S,-)$ with $S$ finitely presentable. Thus the composition ${\operatorname{Ex}}^\infty F$ is a weighted colimit of functors $\hom(S,-)F$ with $S$ finitely presentable. But the functor $\hom(S,-)F$ is small because it is isomorphic to the cotensor $F^S$. The reason is that natural transformations $${\mathcal {A}}(-,A)\to \hom(S,-)F=\hom(S,F-)$$ correspond to morphisms $S\to FA$, i.e., to morphisms $$S\to{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})({\mathcal {A}}(-,A),F)$$ which, by the definition of the cotensor, correspond to morphisms ${\mathcal {A}}(-,A)\to F^S$. Consequently, ${\operatorname{Ex}}^\infty F$ is small as a weighted colimit of small functors.
We have obtained the functor ${\operatorname{Fib}}:{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})\to{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ which clearly has fibrant values. Moreover, the pointwise trivial cofibration $${\operatorname{Id}}_{{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}}\to{\operatorname{Ex}}^\infty$$ yields a weak equivalence ${\operatorname{Id}}_{{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})}\to{\operatorname{Fib}}$. Thus ${\operatorname{Fib}}$ is a fibrant replacement functor on ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$. Since ${\operatorname{Ex}}^\infty$ is finitely accessible, so is ${\operatorname{Fib}}$. We know that ${\operatorname{Ex}}^\infty$ is a weighted colimit of hom-functors $\hom(S,-)$ with $S$ finitely presentable. The corresponding weight is $\lambda$-small for an uncountable regular cardinal $\lambda$. Let $F$ be $\lambda$-presentable in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$. Then ${\operatorname{Fib}}(F)$ is a $\lambda$-small weighted colimit of $\hom(S,-)F\cong F^S$ and the latter functors are $\lambda$-presentable following \[le2.3\]. Hence ${\operatorname{Fib}}(F)$ is $\lambda$-presentable (the argument is analogous to [@K], 4.14). Thus ${\operatorname{Fib}}$ is strongly class-$\lambda$-accessible.
\[def2.7\] [ *Let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a complete simplicial category and $f:A\to B$ be a morphism in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$. The *Serre construction* on $f$ is the object $S(f)$ of ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ defined as a pullback $$\xymatrix{
S(f) \ar [r]^{r} \ar [d]_{q}& B^{\Delta_1} \ar [d]^{B^j}\\
B\ar [r]_{f}& B
}$$ where $j:\Delta_0\to\Delta_1$ sends $0$ to $0$.* ]{}
\[re2.8\] [ *The Serre construction was used in the PhD thesis of J.P. Serre in order to replace an arbitrary map of topological spaces by a fibration. We are going to use it pretty much for the same purpose in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$. The advantage over the modern methods of factorization is the functoriality of $S(-)$.* ]{}
\[le2.9\] Let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a complete simplicial category and $f:A\to B$ a morphism of fibrant objects in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$. Then there exists a factorization $$A \xrightarrow{\quad i\quad} S(f)\xrightarrow{\quad p\quad} B$$ of $f$ where $i$ is a weak equivalence and $p$ is a fibration.
The pullback in \[def2.7\] may be split in two pulbacks $$\xymatrix@=3pc{
S(f) \ar[r]^{r} \ar[d]_{q_1} & B^{\Delta_1}\ar[d]^{B^u}\\
A\times B \ar[r]^{f\times{\operatorname{id}}_B} \ar[d]_{q_2} & B\times B
\ar[d]^{B^v}\\
A\ar[r]_{f} &B
}$$ where $$\Delta_0 \xrightarrow{\quad v\quad} \Delta_0 +\Delta_0 \xrightarrow{\quad u\quad} \Delta_1$$ is the factorization of $j$. Since both $u$ and $v$ are cofibrations and $B$ is fibrant, the vertical morphisms $B^u$ and $B^v$ are fibrations (see [@H] 9.3.9 (2a)). Moreover, since $j$ is a trivial cofibration, $B^j$ is a trivial fibration. Thus $q_1$ and $q_2$ are fibrations and $q=q_2g_1$ is a trivial fibration.
Let $t$ denote the unique morphism $\Delta_1\to\Delta_0$. Since, $$B^jf^{\Delta_1}A^t=fA^jA^t=f,$$ there is a unique morphism $i:A\to S(f)$ such that $qi={\operatorname{id}}_A$ and $ri=f^{\Delta_1}A^t$. Since $q$ is a trivial fibration, $i$ is a weak equivalence. Since $B^v:B\times B\to B$ is the first projection of the product, $q_2:A\times B\to A$ is the first projection as well. Let $p_2:A\times B\to B$, $\overline{p}_2:B\times B\to B$ be the second projections and $v':\Delta_0\to\Delta_0+\Delta_0$ be the second injection of the coproduct. Then $\overline{p}_2=B^{v'}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
p_2q_1i&=\overline{p}_2(f\times{\operatorname{id}}_B)q_1i=\overline{p}_2B^uri=\overline{p}_2B^uf^{\Delta_1}A^t=B^{v'}B^uf^{\Delta_1}A^t\\
&=B^{uv'}f^{\Delta_1}A^t=fA^{uv'}A^t=f.\end{aligned}$$ Since $B$ is fibrant, $p_2$ is a fibration and thus $p=p_2q_1$ is a fibration. We have $f=pi$.
\[th2.10\] Let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a complete simplicial category and denote by ${\mathcal {W}}$ the class of weak equivalences in the projective model structure on ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$. Then ${\mathcal {W}}$ is a class-accessible category strongly accessibly embedded in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^\to$.
Let ${\operatorname{Fib}}:{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})\to{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ be the strongly class-accessible fibrant replacement functor constructed in \[le2.6\]. Consider the functor $$R:{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^\to\to{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^\to$$ assigning to a morphism $f:A\to B$ the fibration $p:S({\operatorname{Fib}}(f))\to{\operatorname{Fib}}(B)$ from \[le2.9\]. Since the construction of $S(f)$ uses only finite limits, the functor $S(-):{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^\to\to{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ is strongly class-accessible by \[le2.3\]. Therefore the functor $R(-)$ is also strongly class-accessible. A morphism $\alpha:F\to G$ in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ is a weak equivalence if and only if ${\operatorname{Fib}}(f)$ is a weak equivalence, i.e., if and only if $R(f)$ is a trivial fibration.
Let ${\mathcal {F}}_0$ denote the full subcategory of ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^\to$ consisting of trivial fibrations. Following \[prop2.4\] and [@CR] 4.9, ${\mathcal {F}}_0$ is class-$\lambda$-accessible and strongly class-$\lambda$-accessibly embedded in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^\to$ for every uncountable regular cardinal $\lambda$. Since ${\mathcal {W}}$ is given by the pullback $$\xymatrix@=4pc{
{\mathcal {K}}^\to \ar[r]^{R} & {\mathcal {K}}^\to \\
{\mathcal {W}}\ar[u] \ar[r] &
{\mathcal {F}}_0 \ar[u]
}$$ whose vertical leg on the right is transportable, ${\mathcal {W}}$ is equivalent to the pseudopullback (see [@CR] 3.2). Thus [@CR] 3.1 implies that ${\mathcal {W}}$ is a class-accessible subcategory of ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^{\to}$.
\[def2.11\] [ *A class-combinatorial model category ${\mathcal {K}}$ is *nice* if the class of weak equivalences ${\mathcal {W}}$ is a class-accessible, strongly class-accessibly embedded subcategory of ${\mathcal {K}}^{\to}$.* ]{}
\[re2.12\] [ *We have just proved that ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ equipped with the projective model structure is a nice model category for any complete simplicial category ${\mathcal {A}}$. The same argument applies to every simplicial class-combinatorial model category which is equipped with a strongly class-accessible fibrant replacement functor and whose $\mu$-presentable objects are closed under finite weighted limits for each $\mu\geq\lambda$ (where $\lambda$ is a cardinal). We are not aware of any example of a class-combinatorial model category, which would fail to be nice.* ]{}
\[th2.13\] Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a locally class-$\lambda$-presentable category, ${\mathcal {I}}$ a $\lambda$-bounded class of morphisms and ${\mathcal {W}}$ a class of morphism of ${\mathcal {K}}$ such that
1. ${\mathcal {W}}$ is a class-$\lambda$-accessible and strongly class-$\lambda$-accessibly embedded subcategory of ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ with the 2-out-of-3 property,
2. ${\mathcal {I}}^\square\subseteq{\mathcal {W}}$, and
3. ${\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})\cap{\mathcal {W}}$ is closed under pushout and transfinite composition and cone-coreflective in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$.
Then, taking ${\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})$ for cofibrations and ${\mathcal {W}}$ for weak equivalences, we get a model category structure on ${\mathcal {K}}$.
Since ${\mathcal {I}}$ is $\lambda$-bounded, $({\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}}),{\mathcal {I}}^\square)$ is a cofibrantly class-$\lambda$-generated weak factorization system. For every $\lambda$-presentable $w\in{\mathcal {W}}$, we construct a factorization in ${\mathcal {K}}$ into a cofibration $j$ followed by a trivial fibration. By 2-out-of-3 property for ${\mathcal {W}}$ and (2), $j$ is in ${\mathcal {W}}$. Let ${\mathcal {J}}$ be the class of these morphisms $j$ for all $\lambda$-presentable $w\in{\mathcal {W}}$.
We will check now the conditions of Lemma [@B 1.8]. We have to show that for every morphism $i\to w$ in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ with $i\in {\mathcal {I}}$ and $w\in{\mathcal {W}}$ there exists $j\in {\mathcal {J}}$ that factors it $i\to j\to w$. First note that there exists a $\lambda$-presentable $w'\in{\mathcal {W}}$, which factors the original morphism, since every $w$ is a $\lambda$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-presentable objects ${\mathcal {W}}$ and every $i\in I$ is $\lambda$-presentable in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$; we used here that the inclusion of ${\mathcal {W}}$ to ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ preserves $\lambda$-presentable objects. Next, decompose that morphism $w'$ into a cofibration $j\in{\mathcal {J}}$ followed by a trivial fibration. The lifting axiom in ${\mathcal {K}}$ finishes this argument.
Lemma [@B 1.8] implies that ${\operatorname{cof}}{\mathcal {J}}= {\operatorname{cof}}{\mathcal {I}}\cap{\mathcal {W}}$. The requirement that ${\operatorname{cof}}{\mathcal {I}}\cap{\mathcal {W}}$ is cone-coreflective in ${\mathcal {K}}^{\to}$ ensures that ${\mathcal {J}}$ is cone-coreflective as well (by the same argument as above). By construction, the domains of all the elements in ${\mathcal {J}}$ are $\lambda$-presentable. Hence ${\mathcal {J}}$ satisfies the assumptions of [@CR] 4.3 and thus $({\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {J}}),{\mathcal {J}}^\square)$ is a weak factorization system. Since ${\mathcal {W}}$ is closed under retracts in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ (cf. [@AR] 2.4 and 2.5), we get a model category structure on ${\mathcal {K}}$.
\[re2.14\]
*Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a locally presentable category, ${\mathcal {I}}$ a set of morphisms and ${\mathcal {W}}$ a class of morphism of ${\mathcal {K}}$ such that*
1. ${\mathcal {W}}$ has the 2-out-of-3 property and is closed under retracts in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$,
2. ${\mathcal {I}}^\square\subseteq{\mathcal {W}}$, and
3. ${\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})\cap{\mathcal {W}}$ is closed under pushout and transfinite composition.
Then, taking ${\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})$ for cofibrations and ${\mathcal {W}}$ for weak equivalences, we get a combinatorial model category if and only if the inclusion of ${\mathcal {W}}$ in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ is accessible. This is the content of the Smith’s theorem (see [@B] for sufficiency and [@L] or [@R2] for necessity).
We do not know whether this can be generalized to class-accessible setting and \[th2.13\] is what we are able to do. The question is whether cone-coreflectivity of ${\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})\cap{\mathcal {W}}$ follows from the other assumptions. We also do not know whether the model category in \[th2.13\] is class-combinatorial. Indeed, we only know that the class ${\mathcal {J}}$ satisfies [@CR] 4.7 (1).
Homotopy equivalences can be defined in any category ${\mathcal {K}}$ with finite coproducts which is equipped with a weak factorization system $({\mathcal {L}},{\mathcal {R}})$ (see [@R2]). Recall that a *cylinder object* $C(K)$ of an object $K$ is given by an $({\mathcal {L}},{\mathcal {R}})$ factorization of the codiagonal $$\nabla : K+K \xrightarrow{\quad \gamma_K\quad} C(K)
\xrightarrow{\quad \sigma_K\quad} K$$ We denote by $$\gamma_{1K},\gamma_{2K}:K\to C(K)$$ the compositions of $\gamma_K$ with the coproduct injections.
Then, as usual, we say that morphisms $f,g:K\to L$ are *homotopic*, and write $f\sim g$, if there is a morphism $h:C(K)\to L$ such that the following diagram commutes $$\xymatrix@=3pc{
K+K \ar[rr]^{(f,g)}
\ar[dr]_{\gamma_K} && L\\
& C(K) \ar[ur]_h
}$$ Here, $(f,g)$ is induced by $f$ and $g$. The homotopy relation $\sim$ is clearly reflexive, symmetric, compatible with the composition and does not depend on the choice of a cylinder object. But, it is not transitive in general and we will denote its transitive hull by $\approx$. We get the quotient functor $$Q:{\mathcal {K}}\to{\mathcal {K}}/\approx.$$
A morphism $f:K\to L$ is called a *homotopy equivalence* if $Qf$ is the isomorphism, i.e., if there exists $g:L\to K$ such that both $fg\approx{\operatorname{id}}_L$ and $gf\approx{\operatorname{id}}_K$. The full subcategory of ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ consisting of homotopy equivalences w.r.t. a weak factorization system $({\mathcal {L}},{\mathcal {R}})$ will be denoted by ${\mathcal {H}}_{\mathcal {L}}$. The following result generalizes [@R2], 3.8.
\[prop2.15\] Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a locally class-presentable category and $({\mathcal {L}},{\mathcal {R}})$ be a weak factorization system with a strongly class-accessible cylinder functor. Then ${\mathcal {H}}_{\mathcal {L}}$ is a full image of a strongly class-accessible functor into ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$.
Given $n<\omega$, let ${\mathcal {M}}_n$ be the category whose objects are $(4n+2)$-tuples $$\tau =(f,g,a_1,\dots,a_n,b_1,\dots,b_n,h_1,\dots,h_n,k_1,\dots,k_n)$$ of morphisms $f:A\to B$, $g:B\to A$, $a_1,\dots,a_n:A\to A$, $b_1,\dots,b_n:B\to B$, $h_1,\dots,h_n:C(A)\to A$ and $k_1,\dots,k_n:C(B)\to B$. Morphisms are pairs $(u,v)$ of morphisms $u:A\to A'$ and $v:B\to B'$ such that $f'u=vf$, $g'v=ug$, $uh_i=h'_iC(u)$ and $vk_i=k'_iC(v)$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. This category is obtained by an inserter construction inserting our $n+2$ morphisms among ${\operatorname{Id}}$ and $C$. Since $C$ is strongly class-accessible, the procedure of the proof of [@CR] 3.9 yields that ${\mathcal {M}}_n$ is a class-accessible category.
Let $\overline{{\mathcal {M}}}_n$ be the full subcategory of ${\mathcal {M}}_n$ such that $h_1\gamma_A=(gf,a_1)$, $h_i\gamma_A=(a_i,a_{i+1})$, $h_n\gamma_n=(a_n,{\operatorname{id}}_A)$, $k_1\gamma_A=(fg,b_1)$, $k_i\gamma_A=(b_i,b_{i+1})$ and $k_n\gamma_n=(b_n,{\operatorname{id}}_B)$ where $1<i<n$. This category is obtained from ${\mathcal {M}}_n$ by an equifier construction and, by the same reason as above, the procedure of the proof of [@CR] 3.7 yields that $\overline{{\mathcal {M}}}_n$ is class-accessible. Moreover, its inclusion into ${\mathcal {M}}_n$ is strongly accessible.
We have full embeddings $$M_{m,n}:{\mathcal {M}}_m\to{\mathcal {M}}_n,$$ for $m<n$, which take the missing $a_i,b_i,h_i,k_i $ as the identities. The union ${\mathcal {M}}$ of all ${\mathcal {M}}_n$’s is a class-accessible category. Since all $\overline{{\mathcal {M}}}_n$’s are strongly accessibly embedded to ${\mathcal {M}}_n$, $\overline{{\mathcal {M}}}$ is strongly accessible embedded by to $\overline{{\mathcal {M}}}$. Let $$F:\overline{{\mathcal {M}}}\to{\mathcal {K}}^\to$$ sends each $(4n+2)$-tuple above to $f$. This is a strongly class-accessible functor whose image is ${\mathcal {H}}_{\mathcal {L}}$.
Left Bousfield localizations
============================
Recall that $\tilde h$ is a *cofibrant approximation* of $h$ if there is a commutative square $$\xymatrix@=4pc{
A \ar [r]^{v} \ar [d]_{h}& \tilde{A} \ar [d]^{\tilde{h}}\\
B\ar [r]_{w}& \tilde{B}
}$$ where $v$ and $w$ are weak equivalences.
\[def3.1\]
*Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a class-combinatorial simplicial model category and ${\mathcal}F$ a class of morphisms of ${\mathcal {K}}$. Assume that ${\mathcal}F$ contains only cofibrations between cofibrant objects. An object $K$ in ${\mathcal {K}}$ is called ${\mathcal}F$-*local* if it is fibrant and $$\hom(f,K)\colon\hom(B,K)\to\hom(A,K)$$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets for each $f\colon A\to B$ in ${\mathcal {F}}$.*
A morphism $h$ of ${\mathcal {K}}$ is called an ${\mathcal {F}}$-*local equivalence* if $\hom(\tilde h,K)$ is a weak equivalence for each ${\mathcal {F}}$-local object $K$; here, $\tilde h$ is a cofibrant approximation of $h$.
The full subcategory of ${\mathcal {K}}$ consisting of ${\mathcal {F}}$-local objects is denoted ${\operatorname{Loc}}({\mathcal {F}})$ and the full subcategory of ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ consisting of ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalences is denoted ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$.
We say that there exists a *left Bousfield localization* of ${\mathcal {F}}$ if cofibrations in ${\mathcal {K}}$ and ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalences form a model category structure on ${\mathcal {K}}$.
\[re3.2\]
*(1) It is easy to see that the definition of a local ${\mathcal {F}}$-equivalence does not depend on the choice of a cofibrant approximation.*
\(2) Following [@H], 9.3.3 (2), any weak equivalence in ${\mathcal {K}}$ is an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence. On the other hand, every ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence between ${\mathcal {F}}$-local objects is a weak equivalence in ${\mathcal {K}}$ (cf. [@GJ] X.2.1. 2)).
\(3) If ${\mathcal {K}}$ is left proper then the intersection of cofibrations and ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalences is closed under pushout and transfinite composition (see [@H], 13.3.10, 17.9.4 for a non-trivial part of the proof); the trivial part is that $\hom(-,K)$ sends colimits to limits and cofibrations to fibrations. It is also closed under retracts in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ of course.
Given a morphism $f$, $\{f\}$-local objects are called $f$-local and analogously for $f$-local equivalences. The corresponding categories are called ${\operatorname{Loc}}(f)$ and ${\operatorname{LEq}}(f)$.
\[prop3.3\] Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a class-combinatorial simplicial model category and ${\mathcal {F}}$ a set of cofibrations between cofibrant objects of ${\mathcal {K}}$. Then ${\operatorname{Loc}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is a class-accessible category strongly accessibly embedded in ${\mathcal {K}}$.
$$\xymatrix@=4pc{
{\mathcal {K}}\ar[r]^{\hom(f,-)} & {\operatorname{\bf SSet}}^\to \\
{\operatorname{Loc}}(f) \ar [u]^{} \ar [r]_{} &
{\mathcal {W}}\ar[u]_{}
}$$ is a pullback where ${\mathcal {W}}$ denotes weak equivalences in ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$. Since the vertical leg on the right is transportable, ${\operatorname{Loc}}(f)$ is a pseudopullback and thus it is a class-accessible and its inclusion to ${\mathcal {K}}$ is strongly class-accessible (see [@CR] 3.1, 3.2 and \[th2.10\]). Since $${\operatorname{Loc}}({\mathcal {F}})=\bigcap\limits_{f\in{\mathcal {F}}} {\operatorname{Loc}}(f),$$ the result follows from [@CR] 3.3.
\[def3.4\]
*Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a simplicial model category and $f:A\to B$ a cofibration of cofibrant objects. Consider a pushout $$\xymatrix@=4pc{
\partial\Delta_n\otimes A \ar [r]^{{\operatorname{id}}\otimes f} \ar [d]_{i_n\otimes{\operatorname{id}}}& \partial\Delta_n\otimes B \ar [d]^{p_{n1}}\\
\Delta_n\otimes A\ar [r]_{p_{n2}}& P_{f,n}
}$$ where $i_n:\partial\Delta_n\to\Delta_n$ is the inclusion of the boundary into a simplex. Let $h_{f,n}:P_{f,n}\to \Delta_n\otimes B$ be the canonical morphism, which is a cofibration since ${\mathcal {K}}$ is simplicial.*
Cofibrations $h_{f,n}$, $n=0,1,\dots$ are called $f$-*horns*. If ${\mathcal {F}}$ is a class of cofibrations, then we denote by $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ the collection of all $f$-horns, for all $f\in {\mathcal {F}}$.
\[re3.5\]
*Every $h_{f,n}\in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence because the morphism $$\hom(h_{f,n},K):\hom(\Delta_{n}\otimes B,K)\to \hom(P_{f,n},K)$$ is a weak equivalence for every ${\mathcal {F}}$-local object $K$. In fact, the morphism $$\hom({\operatorname{id}}\otimes f,K):\hom(\Delta_n\otimes B,K)\to\hom(\Delta_n\otimes A,K)$$ is a weak equivalence because $K$ is ${\mathcal {F}}$-local and $\hom(p_{n,2},K)$ is a trivial fibration as a pullback of the trivial fibration $$\hom({\operatorname{id}}\otimes f,K):\hom(\partial\Delta_n\otimes B,K)\to \hom(\partial\Delta_n\otimes A,K).$$ Thus it suffices to use the 2-out-of-3 property.*
We used the fact that $f$-horns are cofibrations between cofibrant objects and that the definition of an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence does not depend on the choice of a cofibrant approximation.
\[le3.6\] Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a class-combinatorial simplicial model category and ${\mathcal {F}}$ a class of cofibrations between cofibrant objects of ${\mathcal {K}}$. Then a fibrant object $K$ of ${\mathcal {K}}$ is ${\mathcal {F}}$-local if and only if it is injective to all $f$-horns for $f\in{\mathcal {F}}$.
Since each $f\in{\mathcal {F}}$ is a cofibrations, $\hom(f,K)$ is a fibration for each fibrant object $K$. Thus a fibrant object $K$ is ${\mathcal {F}}$-local if and only if $\hom(f,K)$ is a trivial fibration for each $f\in{\mathcal {F}}$. This is the same as having the right lifting property with respect to each inclusion $i_n:\partial\Delta_n\to\Delta_n$. The latter is clearly equivalent to being injective with respect to $f$-horns $h_{f,n}$ for all $f\in{\mathcal {F}}$.
\[le3.7\] Let ${\mathcal {F}}$ be a cone-coreflective class of cofibrations between $\lambda$-presentable cofibrant objects. Then $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is cone-coreflective class of morphisms between $\lambda$-presentable objects.
Since $\partial\Delta_n\otimes B$ and $P_{f,n}$ are $\lambda$-presentable provided that $A$ and $B$ are $\lambda$-presentable, we have to prove that $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is cone-coreflective. Let $f\colon A\to B$ be an element of ${\mathcal {F}}$. Given a commutative square $$\xymatrix@=4pc{
P_{f,n} \ar [r]^{} \ar [d]_{h_{f,n}}& X \ar [d]^{g}\\
\Delta_n\otimes B\ar [r]_{}& Y
}$$ with $h_{f,n}\in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ and $g$ arbitrary, we form, by adjunction, the following commutative square: $$\xymatrix@=4pc{
A \ar[d]_{f} \ar[r] & X^{\Delta^{n}} \ar[d]^{g'}\\
B \ar[r] & Q_{g,n}
}$$ where $Q_{g,n} = X^{\partial\Delta^n}\times_{Y^{\partial\Delta^n}} Y^{\Delta^{n}}$.
Since ${\mathcal {F}}$ is cone-coreflective, there exists a set of morphisms ${\mathcal {F}}_{g'}=\{f'\colon A'\to B'\}\subset {\mathcal {F}}$ such that any morphism $f\to g'$ in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ factors through some element $f'\in{\mathcal {F}}_{g'}$. Unrolling back the adjunction, we obtain the set of horns $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}}_{g'})=\{h_{f',n}: P_{f',n}\to\Delta^n\otimes B' \;|\, n\geq 0\}$ which depends entirely on $g$. Thus $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is cone-coreflective.
\[re3.8\]
*(1) Let ${\mathcal {F}}$ be a cone-coreflective class of cofibrations between $\lambda$-presentable cofibrant objects in a class $\lambda$-combinatorial simplicial model category ${\mathcal {K}}$. Then ${\operatorname{Loc}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is weakly reflective and closed under $\lambda$-filtered colimits in ${\mathcal {K}}$ (following \[le3.7\], \[le3.6\] and [@CR] 4.4). Recall that a weak reflection $r_K:K\to K^\ast$ is obtained as a factorization $$K \xrightarrow{\quad r_K\quad} K^\ast\xrightarrow{\quad \quad} 1.$$ in $({\operatorname{cof}}(\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})\cup{\mathcal {C}}),(\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})\cup{\mathcal {C}})^\square)$ where ${\mathcal {C}}$ is a bounded class such that ${\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {C}})$ are cofibrations in ${\mathcal {K}}$. Thus $r_K$ belongs to ${\operatorname{cof}}(\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})\cup{\mathcal {C}})$. If ${\mathcal {K}}$ is left proper then, following \[re3.2\] (3), ${\operatorname{cof}}(\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})\cup{\mathcal {C}})\subseteq{\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {C}})\cap{\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$. Hence $r_K$ is both a cofibration and an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence.*
But this does not mean that weak reflections are functorial, i.e., that there exists a functor $L:{\mathcal {K}}\to{\operatorname{Loc}}({\mathcal {F}})$ and a natural transformation $\eta:{\operatorname{Id}}\to L$ such that $\eta_K=r_K$ for each $K$ in ${\mathcal {K}}$. Such a functor $L$ is called an ${\mathcal {F}}$-*localization functor*.
\(2) Given a model category ${\mathcal {K}}$ and a functor $L:{\mathcal {K}}\to {\mathcal {K}}$, then ${\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$ will denote the class of morphisms sent by $L$ to weak equivalences. If both the left Bousfield localization and a localization functor $L$ exist for ${\mathcal {F}}$, then ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})={\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$.
In fact $h$ is an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence iff its cofibrant approximation $\tilde{h}$ is an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence. Since $\eta_K$ is an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence for each $K$, $\tilde{h}$ is an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence iff $L(\tilde{h})$ is an ${\mathcal {F}}$-local equivalence, i.e., a weak equivalence in ${\mathcal {K}}$ (see \[re3.2\] (2)).
\[prop3.9\] Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a nice class-combinatorial model category and $L:{\mathcal {K}}\to {\mathcal {K}}$ be a strongly class-accessible functor. Then ${\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$ is a class-accessible category strongly class-accessibly embedded in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$.
By assumption, the class ${\mathcal {W}}$ of weak equivalences is class-accessible and strongly class-accessibly embedded in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$. Since ${\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$ is given by the pullback $$\xymatrix@=4pc{
{\operatorname{LEq}}(L) \ar [r]^{} \ar [d]_{}& {\mathcal {W}}\ar [d]^{}\\
{\mathcal {K}}^\to\ar [r]_{L^\to}& {\mathcal {K}}^\to
}$$ having the vertical leg on the right transportable, ${\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$ is a pseudopullback and thus class-accessible and strongly class-accessibly embedded in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ (see [@CR] 3.1 and 3.2).
\[th3.10\] Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a nice, class-combinatorial, left proper, simplicial model category and let ${\mathcal {F}}$ be a class of morphisms in ${\mathcal {K}}$. Suppose there exists a strongly class-accessible ${\mathcal {F}}$-localization functor $L:{\mathcal {K}}\to{\mathcal {K}}$. Then the left Bousfield localization of ${\mathcal {K}}$ with respect to ${\mathcal {F}}$ exists if and only if the intersection of $LEq({\mathcal {F}})$ with the cofibrations of ${\mathcal {K}}$ is a cone-coreflective class of morphisms.
Necessity immediately follows from the existence of the (trivial cofibration, fibration) factorizations in the localized model category cf. [@CR] 4.2 (2)).
In order to establish sufficiency, we will verify the conditions of \[th2.13\]. By \[re3.8\] (2) and \[prop3.9\] the subcategory ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is class-accessible. There is a regular cardinal $\lambda$ such that ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is class-$\lambda$-accessible and ${\mathcal {K}}$ is class-$\lambda$-combinatorial. In fact, it ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is class-$\mu$-accessible and ${\mathcal {K}}$ is class-$\nu$-combinatorial, it suffices to take $\mu,\nu\vartriangleleft\lambda$. Let ${\mathcal {I}}$ be the generating class of cofibrations in ${\mathcal {K}}$. Then ${\mathcal {I}}^\square\subseteq{\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ because ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ contains all weak equivalences. Following \[re3.2\] (3), ${\operatorname{cof}}{\mathcal {I}}\cap {\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is closed under pushouts and transfinite compositions.
\[ex3.11\]
*Let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a complete simplicial category. Then ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ equipped with the projective model structure is a class-combinatorial model category (see \[prop2.4\]). Let $f:V\to W$ be a cofibration of simplicial sets. Then the class ${\mathcal {F}}= \{f\otimes\hom(-,A) \, | \, A\in {\mathcal {A}}\}$ is bounded. The argument is the same as in the proof of \[prop2.4\]. The localization of ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ with respect to ${\mathcal {F}}$ is equivalent to the levelwise localization with respect to $f$.*
Let $L_f:{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\to{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$ be the $f$-localization functor, i.e., a fibrant replacement functor in the $f$-localized model category structure on ${\operatorname{\bf SSet}}$. Then $L_f$ is finitely accessible provided that $V$ and $W$ are finitely presentable. Moreover, $L_f$ is always simplicial (see [@S], 24.2). Similarly to Lemma \[le2.6\], we get a strongly class-accessible simplicial functor $L:{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})\to{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ assigning to $F$ the composition $L_fF$. Since ${\operatorname{LEq}}(L)={\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$, ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is a class-accessible subcategory of ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})^{\to}$ by \[prop3.9\].
In a general case, $L_f$ is accessible and we would need an extension of \[le2.3\] to $\lambda$-small weighted limits. This is valid but we have not burdened our paper with a proof.
\[re3.12\] [ *Let ${\mathcal {F}}$ be a set of cofibrations between cofibrant objects in a nice class-combinatorial left proper model category ${\mathcal {K}}$ such that ${\mathcal {K}}$ admits a strongly class-accessible fibrant replacement functor and $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is bounded. Since $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is a set, there is a strongly class-accesible weak reflection on $\operatorname{\ensuremath{\textup{Hor}}}({\mathcal {F}})$-injective objects (see [@CR] 4.8 (1)). We can assume that the both functors are strongly class-$\lambda$-accessible (see [@CR] 2.8). Thus they are strongly class-$\lambda^+$-accessible ([@CR] 2.8 again) and, following [@CR] 4.8 (5), there is a strongly class-$\lambda^+$-accessible ${\mathcal {F}}$-localization functor $L$. Since ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})={\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$, ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is strongly class-accessible and strongly class-accessibly embedded in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$. Following \[th2.13\], the left Bousfield localization of ${\mathcal {F}}$ exists provided that the intersection of cofibration with ${\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is cone-coreflective.* ]{}
Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a model category. A functor $L:{\mathcal {K}}\to {\mathcal {K}}$ a equipped with natural transformation $\eta: {\operatorname{Id}}_{{\mathcal {K}}}\to L$ is called *homotopy idempotent* if $L\eta_K$ and $\eta_{LK}$ are weak equivalences for each $K$ in ${\mathcal {K}}$.
\[def3.13\] [ *Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ be a model category equipped with a homotopy idempotent functor $L:{\mathcal {K}}\to {\mathcal {K}}$ preserving weak equivalences. A left Bousfield localization of ${\mathcal {K}}$ with respect to $L$, or just $L$-*localization* of ${\mathcal {K}}$ is a new model structure on ${\mathcal {K}}$ such that the class of cofibrations coincides with the original class of cofibrations in ${\mathcal {K}}$ and the class of weak equivalences is ${\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$. New fibrations are called $L$-*fibrations*.* ]{}
\[th3.14\] Let ${\mathcal {K}}$ a nice, proper, simplicial class-combinatorial model category and $L:{\mathcal {K}}\to{\mathcal {K}}$ a strongly class-accessible homotopy idempotent functor preserving weak equivalences. Suppose additionally, that pullbacks of $L$-equivalences along $L$-fibrations are $L$-equivalences. Then the $L$-localization exists and is class-combinatorial.
It was shown in [@BF Appendix A], that the pair $$({\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})\cap{\operatorname{LEq}}(L),({\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})\cap{\operatorname{LEq}}(L))^\square)$$ is a weak factorization system. They argue as follows.
Take $i\in {\operatorname{cof}}({\mathcal {I}})\cap{\operatorname{LEq}}(L)$ and $f:X\to Y$. For any morphism $i\to f$ in ${\mathcal {K}}^\to$ we perform the following construction: $$\xymatrix{
A\ar[r] \ar@{^(->}[ddd]_i & X\ar[rrr] \ar[ddd]_{f} \ar@{^(->}[dr] & & & LX\ar@{^(->}[dd]^{\dir{~}}\\
& & Z \ar@{->>}[dr]^{\dir{~}}\\
& & &P\ar[r] \ar@{->>}[dll] & W \ar@{->>}[d]\\
B\ar[r] \ar@{-->}[uurr]& Y \ar[rrr]& & &L
Y.\\
}$$ After applying the functor $L$ on the morphism $f$ we factor $Lf$ as a trivial cofibration followed by a fibration in ${\mathcal {K}}$, obtaining the $L$-fibration $W\to LY$, since this is a fibration of $L$-local objects. Then constructing $P= W\times_{LY} Y$ we obtain an $L$-fibration $P\to Y$ as a pullback of an $L$-fibration and an $L$-equivalence $P\to W$ due to the additional assumption. The induced morphism $X\to P$ is an $L$-equivalence by the 2-out-of-3 property. Now we factor the morphism $X\to P$ into a cofibration followed by a trivial fibration in ${\mathcal {K}}$. As the composition of two $L$-fibrations, the morphism $Z\to Y$ is an $L$-fibration, hence there exists a lift $B\to Z$, showing that ${\operatorname{cof}}(I)\cap{\operatorname{LEq}}({\mathcal {F}})$ is cone-coreflective.
Like in the proof of \[th3.10\], there exists a regular cardinal $\lambda$ such that ${\mathcal {K}}$ is $\lambda$-combinatorial and $L$ strongly class-$\lambda$-accessible. Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are $\lambda$-presentable. Then $LX, LY$ and $W$ are $\lambda$-presentable. Since ${\mathcal {K}}$ is locally $\lambda$-presentable simplicial category, the functor $E:{\mathcal {K}}\to{\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ from the proof of [@CR] 2.6 takes values in simplicial presheaves and thus ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$ can be taken in the sense of \[ex2.2\]. The functor $E$ sends $\lambda$-presentable objects to finitely presentable ones and thus it is strongly class-$\lambda$-acccessible. Since $E$ preserves limits (see [@CR] 2.6), \[le2.3\] implies that $EP$ is $\lambda$-presentable. Since ${\mathcal {K}}$ is closed under $\lambda$-filtered colimits in ${\mathcal {P}}({\mathcal {A}})$, $P$ is $\lambda$-presentable. Thus $Z$ is $\lambda$-presentable. Consequently, the $L$-localized model category is class-$\lambda$-combinatorial.
\[ex3.15\] [ *Take $f:V\to 1$ in Example \[ex3.11\]. For such maps $f$-localization functor is called also $V$-nullification. Then the resulting class of $f$-equivalences satisfies the conditions of \[th3.14\], since the nullification of spaces (i.e., the localization with respect to $f$ for $f$ as above) is a right proper model category (see, e.g., [@Bo1]). Hence the model category resulting from the levelwise nullification of the projective model structure on the category of small functors is class-combinatorial again.* ]{}
\[ex3.16\] [*Consider the category ${\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}}^{{\operatorname{op}}})$ of small simplicial functors from simplicial sets to simplicial sets equipped with the projective model structure (see \[prop2.4\]). Consider the localization functor $L:{\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}}^{{\operatorname{op}}})\to{\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}}^{{\operatorname{op}}})$, $L=P_{n}\circ {\operatorname{Fib}}$ constructed in [@BCR], where $P_{n}$ is Goodwillie’s $n$-th polynomial approximation [@Goodwillie-CalculusIII] and ${\operatorname{Fib}}:{\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}}^{{\operatorname{op}}})\to{\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}}^{{\operatorname{op}}})$ is the strongly class-accessible fibrant replacement functor from \[le2.6\]. Since $P_{n}$ is a countable colimit of finite homotopy limits of cubical diagrams applied on homotopy pushouts (joins with finite sets used to construct $P_n$ in [@Goodwillie-CalculusIII] may be expresses as homotopy pushouts), it is strongly class-accessible. Thus $L$ is strongly class-accessible, hence the polynomial model structure constructed in [@BCR] is class-combinatorial.* ]{}
The condition on the localization functor to be strongly class-accessible may not be omitted in \[th3.14\] as the following example shows.
\[ex3.17\] [ *The following localization of the class-combinatorial model category ${\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}})$ was constructed in [@C1]. The localization functor $L:{\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}})\to{\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}})$ is the composition of the evaluation functor at the one point space ${\operatorname{ev}}_\ast(F)= F(1)$ with the fibrant replacement $\widehat{(-)}$ in simplicial sets and the Yoneda embedding $Y:{\operatorname{\bf SSet}}\to{\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}})$, i.e., $L(F) = \hom(-, \widehat{F(1)})$. This localization functor satisfies the conditions of $A6$ in [@BF] (pullback of an $L$-equivalence along an $L$-fibration is an $L$-equivalence again), and hence there exists the $L$-local model structure on ${\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}})$. The fibrant objects in the localized model category are the levelwise fibrant functors weakly equivalent to the representable functors, but they are not closed under filtered colimits, since filtered colimit of representable functors need not be representable, no matter how large the filtered colimit is. On the other hand, in a class-cofibrantly generated model category sufficiently large filtered colimits of fibrant objects are fibrant again. In other words, we obtained the a localization of ${\mathcal {P}}({\operatorname{\bf SSet}})$, which is not class-cofibrantly generated. The reason is that the localization functor $L$ is not class-accessible. See [@C1] for more details on this model structure.* ]{}
[AHRT]{}
J. Adámek and J. Rosický, [*Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories*]{}, Cambridge University Press 1994.
T. Beke, [*Sheafifiable homotopy model categories*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. 129 (2000), 447–475.
G. Biedermann, B. Chorny and O. R" ondigs, [*Calculus of functors and model categories*]{}, Advances in Mathematics 214 (2007), 92–115.
F. Borceux, [*Handbook of Categorical Algebra 2*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press 1994.
A. K. Bousfield, [*On the telescopic homotopy theory of spaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), 2391–2426.
A. K. Bousfield and E. M. Friedlander, [*Homotopy theory of $\Gamma$-spaces, spectra, and bisimplicial sets*]{}, In Geometric Applications of Homotopy Theory II, Lect. Notes in Math. 658, Springer-Verlag 1978.
B. Chorny, [*A generalization of Quillen’s small object argument*]{}, J. Pure Appl. Alg. 204, Issue 3 (2006), 568–583 .
B. Chorny, [*Brown representability for space-valued functors*]{}, Israel J. of Math., to appear.
B. Chorny and W. G. Dwyer, [*Homotopy theory of small diagrams over large categories*]{}, Forum Math. 21 (2009), 167–179.
B. Chorny and J. Rosick' y, [*Locally class-presentable and class-accessible categories*]{}, preprint 2011.
D. Christensen and D. Isaksen, *Duality and pro-spectra*, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 4 (2004), 781–812.
B. Day and S. Lack, [*Limits of small functors*]{}, J. Pure Appl. Alg. 210 (2007), 651–663.
D. Dugger, *Universal homotopy theories*, Adv. Math. 164 (2001), 144–176.
D. Dugger, [*Combinatorial model categories have presentations*]{}, Adv. Math. 164 (2001), 177–201.
E. Dror Farjoun, [*Homotopy theories for diagrams of spaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 101 (1987), 181–189.
T. G. Goodwillie, [*Calculus III: Taylor Series*]{}, Geometry & Topology, 7 (2003), 645–711.
P.G. Goerss and J. F. Jardine, [*Simplicial Homotopy theory*]{}, Birkh" auser 1999.
P. S. Hirschhorn, [*Model Categories and their Localizations*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. 2003.
M. Hovey, [*Model categories*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. 1999.
D. Isaksen, *A model structure on the category of pro-simplicial sets*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), 2805–2841.
P. Karazeris, J. Rosick' y and J. Velebil, [*Completeness of cocompletions*]{}, J. Pure Appl. Alg. 196 (2005), 229-250.
G M. Kelly, [*Basic concepts of enriched category theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press 1982.
G. M. Kelly, [*Structures defined by finite limits in the enriched context, I.*]{}, Cahiers Top. G' eom. Diff. XXIII (1982), 3-42.
J. Lurie, [*Higher Topos theory*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press 2009.
M. Makkai and R. Par' e, [*Accessible Categories: The Foundation of Categorical Model Theory*]{}, Cont. Math. 104, AMS 1989.
J. Rosick' y, [*Generalized Brown representability in homotopy categories*]{}, Th. Appl. Cat. 14 (2005), 451-479.
J. Rosick' y, [*On combinatorial model categories*]{}, Appl. Cat. Str. 17 (2009), 303-316.
M. Shulman. [*Homotopy limits and colimits and enriched homotopy theory*]{}, arXiv:math.AT/0610194.
[^1]: $^*$ Supported by MSM 0021622409 and GAČR 201/11/0528. The hospitality of the Australian National University is gratefully acknowledged.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note we give an example of a one-dimensional manifold with two connected components and a complete metric whose group of isometries has an orbit which is not closed. This answers a question of S. Gao and A. S. Kechris.'
address:
- 'Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany'
- 'Fakultät für Mathematik, SFB 701, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany'
author:
- 'H. Abels'
- 'A. Manoussos'
title: 'A group of isometries with non-closed orbits'
---
[^1]
Preliminaries and the construction of the example
=================================================
In [@kechris p. 35] S. Gao and A. S. Kechris asked the following question. Let $(X,d)$ be a locally compact complete metric space with finitely many pseudo-components or connected components. Does its group of isometries have closed orbits? This is the case if $X$ is connected since then the group of isometries acts properly by an old result of van Dantzig and van der Waerden [@d-w] and hence all of its orbits are closed. The above question arose in the following context. Suppose a locally compact group with a countable base acts on a locally compact space with a countable base. Then the action has locally closed orbits (i.e. orbits which are open in their closures) if and only if there exists a Borel section for the action (see [@glimm], [@effros1]) or, in other terminology, the corresponding orbit equivalence relation is smooth. For isometric actions it is easy to see that an orbit is locally closed if and only if it is closed. In this note we give a negative answer to the question of Gao and Kechris. Our space is a one-dimensional manifold with two connected components, one compact isometric to $S^1$, and one non-compact, the real line with a locally Euclidean metric. It has a complete metric whose group of isometries has non-closed dense orbits on the compact component. In the course of the construction we give an example of a 2-dimensional manifold with two connected components one compact and one non-compact and a complete metric whose group $G$ of isometries also has non-closed dense orbits on the compact component. The difference is that $G$ contains a subgroup of index 2 which is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$.
Let $(Y,d_1)$ be a metric space. Later on $Y$ will be a torus with a flat Riemannian metric. Let $Z=Y\cup (Y\times\mathbb{R})$. We fix two positive real numbers $R$ and $M$. We endow $Z$ with the following metric $d$ depending on $R$ and $M$. $$\begin{split}
&d(y_1,y_2) = d_1(y_1,y_2)\\
&d((y_1,t_1),(y_2,t_2))= d_1(y_1,y_2) + \min (|t_1-t_2|,M)\\
&d(y_1,(y_2,t_2)) = d((y_2,t_2),y_1) = d(y_1,y_2) +R,
\end{split}$$ for $y_1,y_2\in Y$ and $t_1,t_2\in\mathbb{R}$. It is easy to check that $d$ is a metric on $Z$ if $2R\geq M$. The metric space $Z$ has the following properties
a\) For a given point $(y,r)\in Y\times\mathbb{R}$ there is a unique point in $Y$ which is closest to $(y,r)$, namely $y$.
b\) Given a point $y\in Y$ the set of points in $Y\times\mathbb{R}$ which are closest to $y$ is the line $\{ y\}\times\mathbb{R}$.
c\) For every point $(y,r)\in Y\times\mathbb{R}$ and every $y'\in Y$ there is a unique point on the line $\{ y'\}\times\mathbb{R}$ which is closest to $(y,r)$, namely $(y',r)$.
d\) Let $g_Y$ be an isometry of $Y$ and let $g_{\mathbb{R}}$ be an isometry of the Euclidean line $\mathbb{R}$. Define a map $g=g(g_Y,g_{\mathbb{R}}): Z\to Z$ by $g|Y:=g_Y$ and $g(y,r)=(g_Y(y),g_{\mathbb{R}}(r))$ for $(y,r)\in Y\times\mathbb{R}$. Then $g$ is an isometry of $Z$.
e\) Every isometry of $Z$ is of the form given in d) if $Y$ is compact.
a\) through d) are easily checked. To prove e) let $g$ be an isometry of $Z$. Then $g(Y)=Y$ and $g(Y\times\mathbb{R})=Y\times\mathbb{R}$, since $Y$ is compact and $Y\times\mathbb{R}$ consists of non-compact components. Then $g_Y:=g|Y$ is an isometry of $Y$. The map $g(g_Y,\mathit{id})^{-1} \circ g$, where $\mathit{id}$ denotes the identity map, is an isometry of $Z$ which fixes $Y$, hence maps every line $\{ y\}\times\mathbb{R}$ to itself, by b). Let $h_y:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be defined by $g(y,t)=(y,h_y(t))$. Then $h_y$ is an isometry of the Euclidean line $\mathbb{R}$ for every $y\in Y$ and all the $h_y$’s are the same, by c), say $h_y=g_{\mathbb{R}}$. Thus $g=(g_Y,g_{\mathbb{R}})$.
Let now $Y$ be a 2-dimensional torus with a flat Riemannian metric. $Y$ is also an abelian Lie group whose composition we write as multiplication. Every translation $L_x$ of $Y$, $L_x(y)= x \cdot y$, is an isometry. Let $g(t)$, $t\in\mathbb{R}$, be a dense one parameter subgroup of $Y$. Let $H\subset Y\times\mathbb{R}$ be its graph, $H=\{ (g(t),t)\,;\,t\in\mathbb{R} \}$. Our example is $X=Y\cup H$ with the metric induced from $Z=Y\cup (Y\times\mathbb{R})$.
a\) If $g_{\mathbb{R}}$ is an isometry of the Euclidean line $\mathbb{R}$ then there is a unique isometry $g$ of $X$ such that $g(y,t)\in Y\times \{
g_{\mathbb{R}}(t)\}$. If $g_{\mathbb{R}}$ is the translation by $a$, so $g_{\mathbb{R}}=L_a$ with $L_a(t)=t+a$, then $g$ is the restriction of $g(L_{g(a)},L_a)$ to $X$. If $g_{\mathbb{R}}$ is the reflection at $O$, $g_{\mathbb{R}}=\mathbf{-1}$, then $g$ is the restriction of $g(\mathit{inv},\mathbf{-1})$ to $X$, where $\mathit{inv}:Y\to Y$, $\mathit{inv}(y)=y^{-1}$. The reflection in $a\in\mathbb{R}$ is the composition $L_{-2a}\circ (\mathbf{-1})=\mathbf{-1}\circ L_{2a}$.
b\) Every isometry of $X$ is of the form in a). It follows that the group of isometries of $X$ has dense non-closed orbits on $Y$ and the other component $H$ is one orbit.
c\) $H$ is locally isometric to the real line with the Euclidean metric, actually $d((g(t),t),(g(s),s))=(1+\| \overset\bullet{g} (0)\|)\, |t-s|$ for small $|t-s|$, where $\overset\bullet{g} (0)$ is the tangent of the one-parameter group $g(t)$, $t\in\mathbb{R}$, and $\| \cdot\|$ is the norm on the tangent space of $Y$ at the identity element derived from the Riemannian tensor.
c\) follows from the definition of the metric $d$ on $Y\times\mathbb{R}$. The maps given in a) are isometries of $Z$ and map $X$ to $X$, hence are isometries of $X$. To prove the uniqueness claim in a) it suffices to prove it for $g_{\mathbb{R}}=\mathit{id}$. But then $g$ is the identity on the image of the one-parameter group $g(t)$, $t\in\mathbb{R}$, by 1.1 a) and hence on all of $Y$. Hence $g$ has the form given by 1.1 d). To show b) it suffices to show that every isometry $h$ of $H$ is of the form given in a). This follows from c).
In our example the space has dimension 2 and the group of orientation preserving isometries is of index 2 in the group of all isometries and is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$. We can reduce the dimension of our space to 1 to obtain a group of isometries with closed orbits on the non-compact component, which is diffeomorphic and locally isometric to $\mathbb{R}$, and non-closed dense orbits on the compact component, which isometric to $S^1$. The example is as follows. Take a one-dimensional subtorus $Y_1$ of $Y$ containing the identity element of $Y$. Define $X_1=Y_1\cup H\subset Y\cup H$. Then the group of isometries of $Y_1$ consists of those maps $g_a=g(L_{g(a)},L_a)$ restricted to $Y_1$ with $g(a)\in Y_1$, and of the maps $g(\mathit{inv}\circ L_{g(2a)},\mathbf{-1}\circ L_{a})$ restricted to $Y_1$ with $g(2a)\in Y_1$. The proof follows from the proof of 1.3.
[99]{} D. van Dantzig and B. L. van der Waerden, *Über metrisch homogene Räume*, Abh. Math. Seminar Hamburg **6** (1928), 367-376.
E. G. Effros. *Transformation groups and $C\sp{\ast}$-algebras*, Ann. of Math. (2) **81** (1965), 38-55.
S. Gao and A. S. Kechris, *On the classification of Polish metric spaces up to isometry*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. **161** (2003), no. 766.
J. Glimm, *Locally compact transformation groups*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **101** (1961), 124-138.
[^1]: During this research the second author was fully supported by SFB 701 “Spektrale Strukturen und Topologische Methoden in der Mathematik" at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. He is grateful for its generosity and hospitality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Scarcity of labeled data is one of the most frequent problems faced in machine learning. This is particularly true in relation extraction in text mining, where large corpora of texts exists in many application domains, while labeling of text data requires an expert to invest much time to read the documents. Overall, state-of-the art models, like the convolutional neural network used in this paper, achieve great results when trained on large enough amounts of labeled data. However, from a practical point of view the question arises whether this is the most efficient approach when one takes the manual effort of the expert into account. In this paper, we report on an alternative approach where we first construct a relation extraction model using distant supervision, and only later make use of a domain expert to refine the results. Distant supervision provides a mean of labeling data given known relations in a knowledge base, but it suffers from noisy labeling. We introduce an active learning based extension, that allows our neural network to incorporate expert feedback and report on first results on a complex data set.
extraction, convolutional neural networks, distant supervision, multi instance learning, interpretability, expert feedback
author:
- Linara Adilova
- Sven Giesselbach
- Stefan Rüping
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: 'Making Efficient Use of a Domain Expert’s Time in Relation Extraction'
---
Introduction
============
Nowadays, huge collections of textual data exist that do not only include interesting documents for humans to read, but can also be mined for interesting knowledge, which can be further stored in structured form. Examples include extracting general world knowledge from Wikipedia [@vrandevcic2014wikidata], extracting knowledge about interactions of drugs, genes, and diseases from PubMed [@craven1999constructing; @herrero2013ddi], or definitions from arbitrary scientific publications [@augenstein2017semeval]. Currently, machine learning methods based on deep neural networks play an important role in the extraction of knowledge from texts, achieving top results on many benchmark data sets [@DBLP:journals/corr/SantosXZ15; @lee2017semeval]. However, experience shows that deep learning works best in a supervised setting with a massive amount of labeled data. In practical applications, the effort to manually curate a large enough labeled data set is often prohibitively high, in particular in more specialized domains where highly trained domain experts are required. Even in cases where one is willing to invest a high manual effort, it may make more sense to extract the required knowledge completely manually because of the unfavorable ratio between effort and precision/recall for a supervised machine learning approach. In this paper, we address the problem of extracting relations from a large collection of documents with only negligible manual effort on the side of a domain expert. We target situations where currently knowledge extraction cannot be applied economically with respect to the manual effort required. Our approach is based on the idea of integrating the expert into the knowledge extraction process not before a deep learning method (as a mere labeling device), but instead by enabling the experts understanding of the extracted model and enabling him give high-level feedback on the results, that will be used to optimize the model. A way of making use of knowledge - in the form of knowledge graphs - in relation extraction is distant supervision. In distant supervision knowledge that is stored in a knowledge graph is aligned with textual corpora. This yields a cheap way of automatically labeling new training data. This paper is organized as follows: in the next section, we discuss background and related work on text mining methods with a focus on deep learning. Section \[sec:model\] introduces our approach, both giving a detailed description of the interactive knowledge extraction process and the distantly supervised deep network that is applied in the intermediate steps. Section \[sec:experiments\] gives first empirical results on the proposed approach. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes and gives an outlook to future research.
Background and Related Work
===========================
In this section we shortly describe the theoretical background behind this paper and set it into the context of related work.
Relation Extraction {#subsec:re}
-------------------
The task of Relation Extraction is about getting semantic meaning out of the sentences and texts that contain two entities mentions. This semantic meaning is later aligned with one of the pre-defined relations (so-called “fixed schema”) or it can also be taken in its natural form as a new relation [@riedel2013relation]. Classical and the most used method for Relation Extraction is to get all possible linguistic characteristics of the raw textual data and then apply different kinds of classifiers on top of these constructed feature vectors [@zhang2006composite; @culotta2004dependency]. With the development of Deep Learning this approach was also applied to Relation Extraction [@zeng2014relation; @a27169dffe4642f78115676ce777c52c; @DBLP:journals/corr/SantosXZ15]. Also, the question of finding ways to perform Relation Extraction without costly construction of training datasets was always getting a lot of attention. For example, Open Information Extraction [@banko2007open] performs the extraction without any human input. Furthermore, Distant Supervision was introduced [@Mintz:2009:DSR:1690219.1690287] as a way of utilizing existing structured data for obtaining training dataset without manual labeling of the examples.
Ranking Convolutional Neural Networks for Relation Extraction {#subsec:rcnn}
-------------------------------------------------------------
In [@DBLP:journals/corr/SantosXZ15], a convolutional neural network for relation extraction is introduced. The model consists of multiple layers, which we will quickly describe in this subsection:
1. **Word embedding layer:** Transforming words of the input sentence to the embeddings. Every word $w_i$ of the sentence transformed to $r^{w_i}$ that is a row of an embedding matrix $W^{wrd}$ for some fixed-size vocabulary.
2. **Distance embedding layer:** Transforming distances between the words in the sentence and marked named entities to the embedding vectors $wp_1$ and $wp_2$. This approach was introduced by [@zeng2014relation].
3. **Embedding merge layer:** Concatenates the word embedding $r^w$ and corresponding distance embeddings (to the first and to the second named entity) $wp_1$ and $wp_2$ for every word $w$ in the input sentence into one vector.
4. **Convolutional layer:** Convolution is applied to windows of three embedding vectors with zero padding, so the size of the input is not changed after the layer application. The number of filters $d^c$ is 1000, where each value in one vector is a feature value for a specific triplet of words.
5. **Global maxpooling:** The maximal value is found for each filter.
6. **Scoring dense layer** In order to classify relations the closeness of a sentence representation to real valued vectors representing each of the relations that are learned during the training process is estimated. The scoring procedure is implemented as a dense layer without bias with weights matrix $W^{classes}$ consisting of the relations embeddings.
The objective function uses two of the resulting scores - one is the score, that was obtained for the correct relation according to the label of the example and the second score is one of the wrong relations scores. Thus, the objective function is calculated as follows:
- Get the score to the correct relation;
- Get the maximal score from the remaining wrong relations;
- Calculate the value of the loss according to the formula: $$L = log(1 + exp(\gamma(m^+ - s_{\theta}(x)_y^+))) + log(1 + exp(\gamma(m^- + s_{\theta}(x)_c^-)))$$ where $m^+$ ($m^-$) is a margin for the right (wrong) answer; $\gamma$ is a scaling factor; $s_{\theta}(x)_y^+$ is a score for the right class; $s_{\theta}(x)_c^-$ is a score for the wrong class.
Distant Supervision
-------------------
While deep learning architectures, such as the one discussed in the previous section, show excellent performance given enough labeled examples, in practice the problem arises that also abundant sentences can usually be found, labeling enough sentences is usually hard. Labeling is usually done either be crowd-sourcing [@angeli2014combining] by non-experts - which negatively influences the quality of the labels - or by experts, which in practice very much limits the amount of labeled examples one can generate.
In order to alleviate this problem, the approach of distant supervision [@Mintz:2009:DSR:1690219.1690287] has been proposed. In order to apply this concept, along with the text corpus a structured knowledge base that contains examples of the desired relation ht base will be used to automatically generate examples of the relation by aligning the entities from the knowledge base with the text cee string matching or more complex entity recognition solutions can be used. Hence, distant supervision relies on the following two assumptions:
1. For every triple $(e_1, e_2, r)$ in a knowledge base every sentence containing mentions for $e_1$ and $e_2$ expresses the relation $r$
2. Every triple that is not in the knowledge base is assumed to be a false example for a relation (even though the reason might be in the incompleteness of the knowledge base)
Evidently, the better the knowledge base and text corpus fulfill these assumptions, the better one can expect the approach of distant supervision to work. In practice, it must be assumed that in addition to correct example sentences for the relation, additional noise is introduced.
Multi-instance Learning {#subs:mil}
-----------------------
For coping with the noise introduced by distant supervision, we apply multi instance learning as described in [@zeng2015distant]. Multi-instance learning was first introduced for drug classification [@dietterich1997solving]. In application for relation extraction, multi-instance learning will mean that we assume existence of at least one sentence containing the description of the relation from the knowledge base. So the set of all sentences that mention the same entity pair is considered as one bag and it has a corresponding label of the relation from the knowledge base. In order to apply neural networks for this bag-based training the maximal score example is chosen from the bag every time to fit the model, while all bags are shuffled from epoch to epoch. This approach still looses a lot of possibly useful information obtained by distant supervision, but it serves as an initial step for possible improvement of the approach.
Interpretability of a Deep Neural Network
-----------------------------------------
The interpretability of machine learning models, and in particular of deep networks, is currently receiving much attention. Several different directions for making a deep neural network model understandable to a domain expert have been proposed in the literature
Rule extraction:
: Early approaches often focused on the extraction of rules or other understandable representations from neural networks, e.g. [@thrun1995extracting]. However, for complex data such as texts, and complex models, there is rarely a concise understandable model that summarizes the whole network, hence these approaches have fallen out of interest.
Relevance propagation and feature weights:
: for each individual prediction, it is possible to trace which part of the model in each layer was how relevant for taking the final decision [@bach2015pixel; @binder2016layer]. Taking the relevance propagation back to the level of the input features, this gives an importance for each input feature.
Local Approximations:
: each prediction of the classifier can be approximated locally by simpler model [@ribeiro2016should]. The understandability of the approximating model can be guaranteed by using a simple model class, e.g. a linear model.
Joint Models:
: in certain cases, it is also possible to construct models that both give a highly accurate prediction plus a reason for the prediction. E.g. in [@lei2016rationalizing], together with the model an explanatory phrase is extracted.
Instance-based models:
: these methods explain a classifier by means of representative instances, such as prototypes (typical well-classified instances), or critics (typical mis-classified instances) [@kim2016examples].
In general, generic method for classifier interpretation are hard to adapt to models working on text data, since it is a complex data type of low structure. In the case of the approach of [@DBLP:journals/corr/SantosXZ15], which is used in this paper, the authors suggest to extract representative trigrams from the text. The idea is based on relevance propagation, however make use of the property that in this model the convolutional layer is applied to three embeddings of consecutive words each. Therefore, for each trigram in the original sentence, its relevance for the predicted relation can easily be traced back. More precise, representative trigrams can be obtained from the sentences of the dataset by measuring the value that each of the trigrams in a sentence contribute to the correct class score. The value is simply a sum of all score positions that are traced back to that specific trigram. This method is very similar to the one mentioned in [@craven1999constructing] when the most valuable words were extracted in order to have an insight into the concept learned by the model.
Model Description {#sec:model}
=================
For our experiments we first implemented the ranking convolutional neural network as described in [@DBLP:journals/corr/SantosXZ15]. We added multi instance learning to cope with noise from distant supervision as well as a feedback loop for domain experts, that lets them improve the performance by evaluating the most representative trigrams for each relation type.
Expert Feedback for Training Data Curation
------------------------------------------
An obvious problem with data set creation via distant supervision is that it adds training sentences that do not represent the relation they were sampled for. Instead of letting experts review all of those samples we propose an approach in which the expert reviews not each sentences but rather the concepts that the neural network learned for reach relation.
The representative trigrams that our model learns for each relation class can be regarded as its concepts for each relation. If the concepts make sense, our model most likely has achieved a good understanding of the relation from the distant supervised data. If not, assuming that our model is appropriate, the training data is probably not representative for the relations.
We propose the following workflow for dataset creation and model improvement, displayed in Figure \[fig:act-learn-diagr\]:
1. Acquire/Construct a knowledge base with representative facts for relations of interest and text corpora that contain information about the entities and relations of interest.
2. Align the knowledge of the knowledge base with the text corpora and train a Ranking CNN with multi instance learning on it.
3. Extract representative trigrams for each relation class.
4. Show the representative trigrams to experts. Use the trigrams for performance evaluation of the model. Let the expert analyze what mistakes happened and let them filter out non-representative trigrams.
5. Filter out the training sentences for the relations which contain non-representative trigrams and start the process again with the redefined training set.
![Active learning approach diagram.[]{data-label="fig:act-learn-diagr"}](active-learning-schema.png){width="70.00000%"}
Our assumption here is that the sentences that contain non-representative trigrams are the ones that confuse the network the most. Removing them should at least lead to better precision of the models. The analysis of the trigrams that the network deems as most important can yield many insights on the causes of bad accuracies.
![Concept of knowledge about a specific relation contained in supervised and distantly supervised datasets.[]{data-label="fig:dist-superv-knowledge"}](dist-superv-knowledge.png){width="70.00000%"}
If we imagine the concept of a relation as a set of knowledge, than ideally a supervised datasets capture the whole knowledge. In practice this is hardly feasible. An expert would have to label as many relevant sentences as possible, to capture the variance of the whole knowledge about the relation. Real supervised datasets rather represent a subset of the knowledge about a relation and also some noise e.g. because of wrong labeling. If we add a distantly supervised dataset we will most likely capture 3 different subsets of the overall knowledge: (1) knowledge or noise that is already included in the supervised dataset, (2) new knowledge and (3) new noise. With our proposed workflow we hope to reduce the size of the third subset, namely the newly introduced noise. This idea is reflected in Figure \[fig:dist-superv-knowledge\].
It is important to note that knowledge that is not reflected in the supervised training set will most likely also not be reflected in the supervised testing set. This leads to the assumption that we will underestimate the performance of our distantly supervised models when evaluating on test sets of supervised data sets.
Evaluation {#sec:experiments}
==========
We now evaluate the model architecture. We compare supervised training against distantly supervised training and highlight benefits and downsides of both approaches. We investigate the influence of multi-instance-learning and joint supervised and distant supervised learning. Lastly we evaluate the effect of the expert feedback on the quality of the resulting model.
Data Sets
---------
### SemEval Task8
We first evaluate our dataset on the SemEval task8 dataset. This dataset was originally used by [@DBLP:journals/corr/SantosXZ15] and we use it for model validation and comparison. The dataset contains nine bidirectional relation types and the “Other” class, that includes different relations, not included in the main ones. Hence there are 19 different relation classes. The sample sentences were manually collected from the web and annotated in three rounds, ensuring that all annotators agree on the label given to the sentence.
### The KBP37 Dataset
The KBP37 dataset[^1], as it was called in the paper [@DBLP:journals/corr/ZhangW15a], is a revision of MIML-RE annotation dataset from [@angeli2014combining], that was build from a subset of Wikipedia articles by manual annotation. The benefit of KBP37 is that it is alignable with the Wikidata[^2] and KBP-slot-filling datasets[^3]. The following changes were made to the KBP37 datasets by the authors of [@DBLP:journals/corr/ZhangW15a] to adapt it to the description of the SemEval task8:
- Added direction to the relations, i.e. ’per:employee-of(e1,e2)’ and ’per:employee-of(e2,e1)’ instead of simply ’per:employee-of’. This is done for all the relations except for ’no-relation’
- Balance the dataset, to exclude the relations that have less than 100 examples for each of the directions. Also $80\%$ of ’no-relation’ examples are discarded
- After that examples are shuffled and split into three parts, $70\%$ for train, $10\%$ for development and the rest for testing.
After all modifications the dataset consists of 18 directional relations and one “no-relation” class, that will result in 37 classes for recognition. The dataset is more complex than the SemEval task8 dataset. It contains longer sentences (almost twice as long as the longest in SemEval) and it also has multi-relational pairs, making it closer to the real world problem of relation extraction but also more difficult to solve. Also it can be observed that the relations and entities in this dataset are more specific. Most of the entities in the dataset are either names of persons or companies. The relations are very specific, e.g. there are three different classes for placement of headquarters of a company. One for city, state and country.
One more important aspect of the dataset is that human labeling is error prone. Thus there are also very imprecise examples. Here are two examples for the alternate names class:\
\
*It was because of $<e1>$Abu Talib$</e1>$ ’s ( a.s. ) good fortune that apart from $<e2>$his$</e2>$ ancestral services and prestige he also inherited from sons of Ismail ( a.s. ) high status and courage. **per:alternate-names(e2,e1)***\
\
*The discography of $<e1>$ Billie Piper $</e1>$ ( as known as $<e2>$ Billie $</e2>$) an English pop music singer consists of two studio albums two compilation albums and nine singles. **per:alternate-names(e2,e1)***\
\
In the second sentence we have a well labeled example for the class. The first sentence though is hardly an alternate name. It is rather an example for an anaphora resolution task. Such ambiguous labeling will make the classification task even more difficult as it is not obvious even for human annotators why both examples should belong to the same class.
### Knowledge Bases for Distant Supervision
As knowledge bases for distant supervision we used both relational pairs from MIML-RE[^4], i.e. from TAC KBP, and Wikidata[^5]. Wikidata [@vrandevcic2014wikidata] is a crowd-sourced knowledge base. Its users collaborate on filling it with facts, but they also collaborate on validating the data and updating the scheme of the knowledge base. The TAC KBP data is from a knowledge base population task by the Text Analysis Conference, with the goal of discovering information about entities and incorporate it into a Knowledge Base. For relational facts alignment the knowledge base of the Stanford Natural Language Processing group was used[^6].
Knowledge base relations were aligned with the New York Times corpus[^7]. The amount of entity pairs for each of the relations varies a lot - from less than 1000 to more than 50000. In order to create an artificial “Other” class we chose the relations “per:religion”, “per:children” and “org:political/religious-affiliation”. When investigating the entity pairs from MIML-RE we found them to be not very accurate. An example being an entity of the type “person-name” that contains only a single letter. In order to minimize noise effect of these pairs, entity pairs from Wikidata were added to the knowledge base. Wikidata contains less matching data for the corresponding relations, but the relations are more precise. We additionally cleaned entity pairs by removing the ones containing one-letter entities or names consisting only of capital letters with dots.
To align the knowledge bases with our textual corpus, we simply matched the strings of the entity names with the texts. If a sentence includes both entities which are part of a relation, we used it as sample for the relation.
Supervised Training Evaluation
------------------------------
To validate the correctness of the implementation of the ranking convolutional neural network described in Section \[subsec:rcnn\], it was tested on the test set of SemEval2010 Task8 dataset and KBP37 test dataset. The scores we achieved is compared to other scores in Table \[tab:test-superv-general\]. We can conclude, that the model achieves comparable quality to the reference model and our implementation seems to be correct. We also notice, that the results achieved with our CNN are higher than with the Recurrent Neural Network from [@DBLP:journals/corr/ZhangW15a].
Classifier SemEval2010 KBP37
----------------------------------------- ------------- -----------
CR-CNN [@DBLP:journals/corr/SantosXZ15] 84.1 -
RNN [@DBLP:journals/corr/ZhangW15a] 79.6 58.8
Supervised Ranking CNN **84.39** **61.26**
: F1-scores for testing datasets.[]{data-label="tab:test-superv-general"}
Distant Supervision Evaluation
------------------------------
The results of training the network in various ways with distant supervision can be seen in Table \[tab:dist-gen-res\]. For comparison we also add the results of supervised training.
Experiment P R F1 Manual Effort
------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------
Supervised training **67.74** **57.88** **61.26** 17638
Distantly supervised training 50.71 45.24 43.81 **0**
Distantly supervised + MIL 51.82 46.61 45.40 **0**
: Precision, Recall, F1-scores and manual effort (number of sentences the expert has to label) for distantly supervised training evaluation.[]{data-label="tab:dist-gen-res"}
While distant supervision performs worse than supervised training - which was to be expected - the results are usable in practice. In particular, they are significantly higher results than random assignment (with 37 classes, the F1-score for random assignment would be around 0.2%). A publicly available knowledge base and appropriate text corpora can hence serve for the automatic creation of a training set for a neural network tackling the task of relation extraction.
Moreover, in the context of the task to continuously extract new knowledge from newly published texts under a constraint budget of manual intervention, this approach is more appealing than both manual extraction and supervised training. We can quantify the savings on the side of the expert by evaluating how many sentences an expert would have to read in each of the settings: for the KBP37 dataset, the number of sentences in the testing set is 3403 and in order to get relations from them the experts should fully comprehend all the information. Moreover, with the manual approach this should be done for all new texts again. The manually supervised approach would require full comprehension for creating the training dataset that is 17638 sentences and later the experts would check the obtained results (1969 sentences). For the distant supervision on the other hand, all that is required is a result check that is around 1586 sentences and it can be repeated continuously to get all the relations.
The second observation we can make is that multi-instance learning has a slight positive effect on the performance. Multi-instance learning improved the results in every experiment by almost 2%. Multi-instance learning did improve precision and recall simultaneously. It is also important to notice, that the supervised training and testing datasets are tightly coupled and they will have common context and common biases. Thus evaluating the distantly supervised model on the existing testing dataset might not be an objective choice. There exist other ways to evaluate the results of distant supervision, for example, as done in [@Mintz:2009:DSR:1690219.1690287], but they would not show a realistic comparison to the supervised results. Furthermore, we investigate the dependency between the performance of the approach and the complexity of the sentences. The dependency can be seen in the Figure \[fig:dist-depend\]. Spikes around the large values of length are not representative, as the number of the examples there much smaller (3-5 sentences). For all other values, with higher length the number of errors grows and the number of right answers drops. Any distantly supervised dataset will always be characterized by longer sentences on average, so this aspect should be taken into account when the dataset is constructed. For example, sentences longer than some limit can simply not be included in the final set of training examples.
![Correlation of amount of correct and wrong answers with sentence length. Number of correct answers (green) and wrong answers (red) is normalized by the overall amount of examples of specific length.[]{data-label="fig:dist-depend"}](length_errors.png){width=".80\textwidth"}
**org:founded-by** *founder of the; open society institute; fox broadcasting company; ethical treatment of*
----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**per:alternate-names** *known as dwight; known as dj; known as milli; known as matthew; real name is; real name was; , mimi smith; name was selena*
**org:members** *soccer league milwaukee; american league boston; national league colorado; football league saskatchewan; midwest league burlington; hockey league .; football league and; basketball league ,; football league ’s; soccer league ,*
**org:top-members/employees** *said gene russianoff; chief operating officer; , managing director; , chief executive; chief executive of; sony pictures entertainment; executive vice president; , vice president*
**per:countries-of-residence** *england .; france .; states .; australia .; united states ,; philharmonic .; ) italy :; the like ,*
**org:founded** *, 2000 .; the 1980 ’s; , 2001 ,; in 1997 ,; in 1996 ,; , 2001 ,; , 2000 ,; in 1997 ,; in 1999 ,; in 1998 ,*
**org:subsidiaries** *, a subsidiary; high school in; the walt disney; a division iii; the university of; high school ,; department stores company; general motors corporation*
**per:employee-of** *( columbia ); secretary of state; senator daniel inouye; senator sam brownback; ( columbia ); ( interscope ); ( atlantic ); blue note label*
**per:country-of-birth** *england .; states .; france .; africa .; united states ,; united states in; , england ,; united states attorney*
**per:cities-of-residence** *los angeles ,; los angeles band; revved-up vancouver outfit; in london ,; city .; paris .; los angeles ,; angeles .*
**org:alternate-names** *states department of; california , los; and municipal employees; the university of; known as dwight; known as dj; known as milli; known as matthew*
**org:country-of-headquarters** *the university of; states .; japan .; germany .; in london ,; york city ,; arbor , mich; cambridge , mass*
**org:stateorprovince-of-headquarters** *university school of; the university of; , ohio ,; university .; the university of; university in tokyo; life insurance company; institute of technology*
**per:spouse** *benazir bhutto ,; brad pitt and; david lynch ; starring david arquette; and her husband;by richard gere; director herbert ross; starring michael douglas*
**org:city-of-headquarters** *in london ,; york city ,; arbor , mich; cambridge , mass; the university of; hill , n; arlington , va; city .;*
**per:stateorprovinces-of-residence** *california .; york .; of california at; florida .; new york ,; new york city; in california ,; new york times*
**per:title** *) film review; director of; ) television review; the actor who; the director of, this film is; director of; prime minister ,; the director ,*
**per:origin** *of american art; the american artist; the american painter; 20th-century american art; american art ,; american art .; american academy of; american art at; french mathematician ,*
: Representative trigrams.[]{data-label="rep_trigrams_experts"}
To inspect the model in more detail, we extracted the representative trigrams for each class, see Table \[rep\_trigrams\_experts\]. A first immediate finding of looking at the trigrams was that many of them make sense but tend to include the names of entities and might hence even overfit to the names in the training set. For example, for the relation *org:founded*, it is obvious that the concrete years should be replaced by a placeholder.
Using Expert Feedback
---------------------
We have seen that we can construct a useful data set for relation extraction using distant supervision and multi instance learning. Now we want to evaluate whether feedback from experts about the concepts learned by our model can be used to improve the quality of our dataset and the model. For this experiment we used the model trained on the distantly supervised data set with the relations from KBP37 and sentences from the New York Times corpus.
To evaluate the approach of integrating expert feedback to improve the model, we conduct the following experiment: from the representative trigrams of Table \[rep\_trigrams\_experts\], we select nonsensical trigrams plus trigrams that are too specific, e.g. overfit on specific names. Sentences matching those trigrams are removed from the training set, as they are suspected to introduce too much noise, and the model is trained again on the filtered data set. Table \[tab:dist-gen-res\] shows the results, with classes where the F1-score changes by less than $1.00$ between the initial and filtered run are excluded because of space constraints.
----------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------- --------------
Class F1-score initial F1-score filtered New sensible
trigrams
org:founded-by [**19.30**]{} 13.33 2
org:members [**14.86**]{} 13.64 0
org:top-members/employees [**44.77**]{} 40.49 1
per:alternate-names 24.72 [**31.17**]{} 1
per:cities-of-residence 52.82 [**54.73**]{} 0
per:countries-of-residence 9.33 [**13.20**]{} 0
per:country-of-birth 25.83 [**26.86**]{} 0
per:employee-of [**43.39**]{} 39.91 3
per:spouse [**43.56**]{} 36.00 1
per:stateorprovinces-of-residence 43.95 [**45.49**]{} 1
per:title 87.45 [**87.55**]{} 2
----------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------- --------------
: Changes in F1-score after filtering examples with non representative trigrams in them. Training is performed without Multiple Instance Learning. Classes with difference in F1 smaller that $1.00$ excluded due to space constraints.[]{data-label="tab:initial-vs-filtered"}
In detail, the following effects can be seen in the trigrams:
“per:cities-of-residence”:
: all the trigrams contained names of the cities. Here, even after filtering all the new trigrams contain only city names.
“per:countries-of-residence”:
: a lot of non representative trigrams were filtered. As a result, network started to concentrate more on the persons names in the form of “johan anderson of”, “vanessa gusmeroli of”.
“org:founded-by”:
: most of the trigrams included companies names, so they were filtered out. This allowed to obtain other trigrams such as “clifford noble opened” or “dick clark productions” but it worsened the overall score as previously learned company names were not taken into account anymore.
“org:members”:
: the data to the information about sport leagues and the trigrams contained only leagues names both before and after filtering.
“per:stateorprovince-of-residence”:
: performance improved as it started to learn also constructions like “pete domenici of”.
“org:top-members/employees”:
: had a lot of persons names in its trigrams. So, filtering them out again affected overfitting of the network, but it allowed to get such trigrams as “editor of the” for example.
“per:alternate-names”:
: filtering out trigrams with names allowed to get “real name was” for example without loosing “real name is” and “known as dwight”. In this case the network started to see really good constructions.
“per:country-of-birth”:
: after filtering started learning persons names more, that helped it to give better results.
“per:employee-of”:
: overfits to companies names. Filtering trigrams allowed to get “of state” and “former defense secretary” but worsened the result because it does not make conclusion by the company name anymore.
“per:spouse”:
: the relation has a lot of training examples with celebrity names. All of such trigrams were filtered out. It allowed to learn at least “her husband,” leaving all the others names again.
At first glance, the results may look unconvincing: results improve for 5 relations, but get worse for 5 relations. However, looking at the trigrams before and after the filtering the following two observations can be made:
1. [**Performance is mostly influenced by overfitting on entities:**]{} it is clear from looking at the trigrams, that very often concrete names of cities, persons, or organizations are learned, which is not a desired behaviour. Because of the random training and test split, very often these entities occur in both training and test data, such that good results are obtained still. Removing these trigrams has a negative effect in most cases, as no more general relations can be learned. Interestingly, in some cases removing non-sensical trigrams allows the network to identify even more concrete entities which improves the results, e.g. in the case of “per:country-of-birth”.
2. [**More sensible trigrams improve the results:**]{} some examples, e.g. the relation “per:alternate-names” or “per:stateorprovince-of-residence” show improved results with more sensical trigrams.
In summary, it might be meaningful for the expert to make the decision on which trigrams to include based on a comparision of the trigrams both before and after the filtering: in the case where no more meaningful trigrams are found, it might make sense to conclude that no general model can be found and not filter the overfitted trigrams afterall.
Conclusion and Outlook {#sec:conclusion}
======================
Despite the many successes of deep learning in relation extraction, for many practical problems, the availability of labeled data is the main limiting factor. Due to the complexity of the knowledge that is to be extracted from the texts, supervised approaches need many more examples than what usually is available in practical applications. In this paper we explored possibilities to make use of a domain experts knowledge in a more efficient way than using him as a labeling device.
It has been shown that distant supervision, in combination with multi-instance learning, is a meaningful method for relation extraction and well surpasses both manual information extraction and state-of-the-art supervised approaches when performance in relation to manual effort is concerned. The necessary effort by the domain experts can in this case be constrained to the identification of a meaningful structured database for generating distantly supervised examples.
An analysis of distant supervision and multi-instance learning in the specific case of the KBP37 dataset showed that the quality of the attainable results can be limited effects of overfitting on specific entities. We have shown that in this case the domain expert can contribute by inspecting the predictions made by the deep model on the level of representative trigrams. With the insight gained, the expert can contribute to improve the quality of the model by removing examples that were wrongly labeled by distant supervision, or giving input on pre-processing steps that may help the generalization ability of the model.
Future work will aim at a more in-depth evaluation of the approach. Our hypothesis is that the presented approach will be more effective in the case of more specialized relations and in-depth knowledge, for example in the case of medical texts. Finally, obviously representative trigrams are only a very coarse tool for making the model more understandable.
#### Acknowledgements:
This work upon which this paper is based was supported by means of the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Förderkennzeichen 031L0025C).
[^1]: <https://github.com/zhangdongxu/kbp37>
[^2]: https://query.wikidata.org/
[^3]: <https://nlp.stanford.edu/software/mimlre.shtml>
[^4]: <https://nlp.stanford.edu/software/mimlre.shtml>
[^5]: https://query.wikidata.org/
[^6]: <https://nlp.stanford.edu/software/mimlre.shtml>
[^7]: <https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/ldc2008t19>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the first localization of diffuse, non-thermal, X-ray emission from a nearby galaxy cluster. Using [*Chandra*]{} data, we have isolated a diffuse non-thermal X-ray component with a photon index, $\Gamma_{X}$ = 2.21$^{+0.14}_{-0.15}$ and a flux of 9.5$^{+1.1}_{-2.5} \times 10^{-5}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ at 1 keV, that extends from $\sim$1$\arcmin$.5 to $\sim$2$\arcmin$.5 to the south of the X-ray flux peak. Comparison to simulations implies that the diffuse non-thermal emission is produced by primary electrons, accelerated at shocks to relativistic velocities. Using these results and the flux and hardness maps produced with data from the [*Chandra*]{} Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer, we conclude that a smaller subclump coming from the north merged with IC1262. The offset of the cD galaxy from the X-ray peak and large peculiar velocity indicate that the subclump’s impact parameter was to the west and on the near side of IC1262.'
author:
- 'Daniel S. Hudson'
- 'Mark J. Henriksen'
title: 'Diffuse Non-thermal X-ray Emission: Evidence for Cosmic-ray Acceleration at the Shock front in IC1262'
---
Introduction
============
Recent [*Chandra*]{} observations indicate that relativistic plasma injected into the intracluster medium (ICM) from radio sources eventually detaches from the radio source, forming bubbles of radio plasma in the ICM [@mcnamara; @heinz; @fabian]. In the model proposed by @ensslin, these radio ghosts survive in the ICM, and provide a seed population of Cosmic Rays(CRs). Diffuse non-thermal (NT) emission is produced when merger induced shocks re-accelerate, via the first order Fermi process, this seed CR population. Current evidence suggests that these radio ghosts contain a significant population of protons as well as electrons [@ensslin]. Since @Blasi demonstrated that diffuse NT X-ray emission could be produced by either primary electrons directly accelerated at shock fronts, or secondary electrons produced during proton-proton collisions, there are two possible sources for the observed diffuse NT emission. To determine the mechanism that produces diffuse NT emission requires accurate measurement of the spectrum and location of the NT emission.
Simulations by @miniati show that diffuse NT emission occurs in a broad mass range of clusters with a luminosity proportional to the X-ray temperature, making cool clusters and groups an important diagnostic for understanding which population of electrons produces diffuse NT emission. They find that spectral index of the diffuse NT emission is dependent on the electron population producing the emission, such that the spectral index of diffuse NT emission produced from primary electrons has a steep spectral index ($\alpha_{ic}>$1.1), while for secondary it is systematically flatter ($\alpha_{ic}<$1.1) .
@hudson reported detection of diffuse NT X-ray and radio emission from IC1262, a poor cluster of galaxies. The X-ray detection was made using the [*BeppoSAX*]{} Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (MECS) detector, and the radio using the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) and Westerbork Northern Sky Survey (WENSS). Although the MECS was able to constrain the region of the NT emission, it does not have the spatial resolution to identify the source of the NT emission. In this paper, we show that the [*Chandra*]{} Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) has the energy range and spatial capability to detect, localize, and characterize the spectrum of NT X-ray emission from low temperature clusters. These results are compared to simulations of cosmic-ray acceleration at shock fronts.
Throughout this letter, we assume a Hubble Constant of H$_{0}$ = 65 [*h$_{65}$*]{} km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and q$_{0}$ = $\case{1}{2}$. Quoted confidence intervals are at a 90% level, unless otherwise specified.
Observations and Methods
========================
The IC1262 galaxy cluster is a poor cluster of galaxies located at (J2000) 17$^{h}$ 33$^{m}$ 01.0$^{s}$, +43$^{\circ}$ 45$\arcmin$ 28$\arcsec$ [@ebeling] with a redshift of 0.0343 [@colles], so that 1$\arcmin$ = 46 h$_{65}^{-1}$ kpc. It was observed by the [*Chandra*]{} ACIS S3 chip on 23 August 2001 for $\sim$ 31 ksec. The total count rate of the uncleaned data is 10.2 $\pm$ 0.02 cts s$^{-1}$ with a peak of 37 $\pm$ 3 cts s$^{-1}$, which is well below the saturation limit of the ACIS chips operating in Faint Mode (170 cts s$^{-1}$). Figure-\[fig1\] is a color coded intensity map that shows the full 8$\arcmin.5 \times$ 8$\arcmin$.5 image in the 0.3-8.0 keV band. The image was obtained using processing routines outlined in the CIAO 2.3 Science Threads[^1]. The data was CTI corrected and cleaned for flares, point sources, and anomalous high background. Exposure maps were created for 17 different energy bands to ensure proper exposure correction. Background was taken from the CALDB 2.21 blank-sky datasets.
To construct the temperature map (see Figure-\[fig3\]) we divided the chip into quadrants, north, south, east, and west. Spectra were extracted from pie shaped regions with radii differences such that there were at least 20000 Counts in each region. In order to ensure proper background subtraction, we eliminated periods of high background, following the [*Filtering Lightcurves*]{} thread[^2]. In order to account for background variability, the background was normalized to the source in the 10-12 keV range [@markevitch]. The data were grouped so that there were at least 30 counts per channel. All models included either an [*acisabs*]{} component or had an [*acisabs*]{} corrected ancillary response file in order to account for the time dependent absorption (at low energies) of the ACIS window. Results are given in Table-\[tbl-1\].
[lcccccc]{}
N$_{1}$ & Apec & 1.27$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 0.14$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & & 173.0422/98\
N$_{1}$ & Apec+Apec & 1.88$^{+0.17}_{-0.15}$ & 0.44$^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$ & 0.83 $^{+0.16}_{-0.04}$ & 134.0729/96\
N$_{2}$ & Apec & 1.34$^{+0.12}_{-0.04}$ & 0.14$^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & & 119.7284/91\
N$_{3}$ & Apec & 1.57$^{+0.13}_{-0.16}$ & 0.12$^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ & & 57.09452/76\
N$_{4}$ & Apec & 1.88$^{+0.43}_{-0.37}$ & 0.13$^{+0.14}_{-0.08}$ & & 65.19046/59\
N$_{5}$ & Apec & 2.09$^{+0.95}_{-0.58}$ & 0.12$^{+0.34}_{-0.12}$ & & 55.56707/48\
\
W$_{1}$ & Apec & 1.80$^{+0.09}_{-0.12}$ & 0.25$^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & & 126.3223/108\
W$_{1}$ & Apec+Apec & 1.98$^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$ & 0.38$^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ & 0.61$^{+0.20}_{-0.24}$ & 113.5917/106\
W$_{2}$ & Apec & 2.09$^{+0.18}_{-0.12}$ & 0.33$^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & & 136.9889/101\
W$_{2}$ & Apec+Apec & 2.38$^{+0.22}_{-0.21}$ & 0.57$^{+0.25}_{-0.16}$ & 0.28$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & 123.7163/99\
W$_{3}$ & Apec & 1.93$^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$ & 0.18$^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & & 118.0369/107\
\
S$_{1}$ & Apec & 1.62$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & 0.27$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & & 203.8204/103\
S$_{1}$ & Apec+Apec & 2.54$^{+0.26}_{-0.22}$ & 0.63$^{+0.13}_{-0.22}$ & 1.05$^{+0.21}_{-0.07}$ & 147.7749/101\
S$_{2}$ & Apec & 1.60$^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & 0.17$^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & & 134.1819/97\
\
E$_{1}$ & Apec & 1.62$^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & 0.22$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & & 114.6884/101\
E$_{1}$ & Apec+Apec & 2.08$^{+0.32}_{-0.16}$ & 0.49$^{+0.28}_{-0.13}$ & 0.82$^{+0.21}_{-0.08}$ & 87.91611/99\
E$_{2}$ & Apec & 2.02$^{+0.21}_{-0.18}$ & 0.23$^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & & 90.03336/89\
E$_{2}$ & Apec+Apec & 2.30$^{+0.29}_{-0.36}$ & 0.40$^{+0.23}_{-0.20}$ & 0.23$^{+0.09 }_{0.21}$ & 83.43614/87\
E$_{3}$ & Apec & 2.37$^{+0.37}_{-0.37}$ & 0.39$^{+0.25}_{-0.17}$ & & 109.8093/99\
Results and Analysis
====================
From the flux and hardness map, Figure-\[fig1\] and Figure-\[fig2\] respectively, we chose four regions that have a strong gradient in flux and hardness. These regions are shown in Figure-\[fig1\]. We considered four models of background subtraction, to ensure any NT detection would not be the result of undersubtracted particle background. These four background subtraction techniques were: (1) standard blank-sky fields extracted from the same region on the S3 Chip as the source and normalizing in the 10-12 keV range as described in @markevitch, (2) extracting a region far to the north of the peak flux, modeling it and then using the model times a free constant in our source + background spectrum modeling, (3) freezing the background model described in (2) with a constant proportional to the difference in size of the source and background region, and (4) subtracting the size normalized background spectrum from the source spectrum. In all cases the source model parameters are consistent within 90% confidence, indicating that all four methods produce the same results.
We modeled our four “possible shock” regions with a single thermal component model, a double component thermal model, and a thermal model with powerlaw. The addition of the powerlaw component does not significantly improve the fit in the East and West Regions. In addition, Figure-\[fig4\] shows that a thermal model fits the entire spectrum in the East Region. In the case of the North Region, adding either a second thermal component, or a power-law component improves the fit. The single thermal model fit to the South Region has clear high end residuals (see Figure-\[fig4\]). Although the addition of a second second thermal component improves the fit ($\Delta \chi^{2} \sim$ 16 for a reduction of 2 degrees of freedom(DOF)), the addition of a powerlaw component provides the best fit ($\Delta \chi^{2} \sim$ 23 for a reduction of 2 DOF) and reduces the residuals (see Figure \[fig4\]). Although we cannot rule out a thermal interpretation of the second component, we argue a non-thermal interpretation is better statistically and physically. The addition of a powerlaw (37% probability of exceeding $\chi^{2}$ = 74 for 71 DOF) produces a better fit than adding a second thermal component (18% probability of exceeding $\chi^{2} = 81.8$ for the 71 DOF). The 90% lower confidence of $\sim$7 keV implies a shock with a Mach number of $\sim$3, which is higher than observed in clusters [@gabici and references therein].
In order to confirm that the nonthermal detection was not simply undersubtracted particle background, we repeated our four different techniques for handling the background that we had done for a single thermal model. As in the case with the single thermal model, the results are consistent within 90% for all the background techniques used (see Table-\[tbl-2\]). Also, we point out that the lack of a NT detection in the West and East Regions provides more evidence that the detection in the North and South Regions is not simply particle background, since that would be observed isotropically across the detector.
[lcccccc]{} North\
& blank-sky & 1.32$^{+0.15}_{-0.12}$ & $>1.00^{+>0.0}_{-0.79}$ & 2.36$^{+0.14}_{-0.12}$ & 0.79$^{+0.09}_{-0.34}$ & 52.93678/50\
& model-bkg & 1.29$^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ & $>1.00^{+>0.0}_{-0.73}$ & 2.30$^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$ & 0.78$^{+0.11}_{-0.35}$ & 54.05200/49\
& model-bkg(Frzn) & 1.31$^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$ & 0.39$^{+>0.61}_{-0.15}$ & 2.41$^{+0.24}_{-0.45}$ & 0.56$^{+0.22}_{-0.35}$ & 57.22508/50\
& -local region & 1.30$^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$ & 0.43$^{+>0.57}_{-0.29}$ & 2.40$^{+0.23}_{-0.42}$ & 0.58$^{+0.21}_{-0.36}$ & 54.61599/50\
\
South\
& blank-sky & 1.44$^{+0.18}_{-0.13}$ & $>1.00^{+>0.0}_{-0.62}$ & 2.21$^{+0.14}_{-0.15}$ & 0.95$^{+0.11}_{-0.25}$ & 74.33978/71\
& model-bkg & 1.40$^{+0.18}_{-0.14}$ & $>1.00^{+>0.0}_{-0.62}$ & 2.14$^{+0.16}_{-0.17}$ & 0.91$^{+0.13}_{-0.27}$ & 77.66279/70\
& model-bkg(Frzn) & 1.44$^{+0.20}_{-0.15}$ & 0.49$^{+>0.51}_{-0.32}$ & 2.33$^{+0.33}_{-0.51}$ & 0.59$^{+0.26}_{-0.42}$ & 90.72980/71\
& -local region & 1.43$^{+0.19}_{-0.14}$ & $>1.00^{+>0.0}_{-0.76}$ & 2.27$^{+0.18}_{-0.38}$ & 0.78$^{+0.11}_{-0.46}$ & 76.28895/71\
The radio halo detected by @hudson appears to extend to the south along the elongated X-ray isophotes and through the South region (see Figure-\[fig5\]). However the $\sim$1$\arcmin$.0 resolution of the NVSS and WENSS precludes the removal of radio point sources. We, therefore, consider two possibilities: (1) that the extended southern radio emission is dominated by radio point sources, and (2) that it is diffuse radio emission. In the case that the radio emission is dominated by radio point sources, we argue that this would have no affect on our X-ray results. Relativistic electrons diffusing from a point source at their Alfvén speed, would only reach $\sim 5$ h$_{65}^{-1}$ kpc ($\sim 6 \arcsec$ ) (assuming a 1 $\mu$G magnetic field) in their radiative lifetime ($\sim$10$^{8}$ years). Therefore any radio point source with detectable X-ray emission would appear point-like and would have been removed from the [*Chandra ACIS*]{} data. In the latter case, the diffuse radio emission is emitted by the same electrons producing the inverse compton emission (as in the inverse compton scattering-syntrotron model [@reph]). We also note in passing that there are several identified radio point sources (including the cD galaxy) in IC1262, which could provide the seed population of CRs necessary in the model proposed by @ensslin.
Discussion
==========
A comparison of Figure-\[fig1\] and Figure-\[fig2\] to flux and temperature maps created from simulations of cluster mergers done by @roe and @takizawa, indicates a recent ($\sim$0.25 - 1 Gyr ago) north-south merger of a smaller subclump (mass ratio $\sim$1:2 - 1:4) with IC1262. These simulations show the general characteristics of the temperature and morphological structure: elongation of the isophotes to the south, compression to the north, and the hottest gas south of the center. Since cD galaxies in relaxed systems will reside at the bottom of the potential well (e.g. @oegerle), the offset of cD galaxy from the X-ray peak and its high peculiar velocity ($\Delta$v = 453 km s$^{-1}$) provide additional evidence of a merger. The kick to initiate sloshing is parallel to the impact parameter [@tittley]. As the simulations indicate a recent collision, the subclump must have passed to the west, pulling the cD galaxy to the west.
The elongation of the X-ray isophotes toward the south that overlap the diffuse radio emission open up the possibility that the elongation is due to non-thermal emission rather than a merger. However, the evidence for a merger comes not only from the similarity of the southern X-ray isophotes to those seen in the simulations cited above, but also from the compressed northern X-ray isophotes and the very hot region that is south of center.
Comparing our results with the simulations done by @miniati, we argue that the localized diffuse NT emission is from a population of primary electrons. @miniati find that primary electron reacceleration follows the shock region closely. In the central region (r $<$ 0.3 Mpc), they find the greatest difference between the spectral index produced from primary electrons ($\alpha_{ic} \geq$1.1) and secondary electrons ($\alpha_{ic}<$1.1). Our 90% confidence photon index $\Gamma_{X}$ = 2.07 - 2.36 which corresponds to a spectral index $\alpha_{ic}$ = 1.07 - 1.36 is consistent with the spectral index that @miniati found for primary electrons. Using the best fit F$_{ic}$-T$_{x}$ of @miniati, we find a flux of (10 - 48) $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ over 0.13 to 100 keV for primary electrons in a 1.94 keV cluster (IC1262’s temperature as determined by @hudson). The range fluxes depends on the R$_{e/p}$, the ratio of electrons to protons at relativistic energies. Using the same energy range and cluster temperature we find that secondary electrons produce a flux of 1.9 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. For our best fit photon index $\Gamma_{X}$ = 2.21 and 90% confidence normalization range of 7.0-11.1 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ at 1 keV, we determine a flux of (6 - 10) $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for the 0.13 - 100 keV range. This result has a lower limit 3$\times$ greater than the results predicted for flux from secondary electrons. Although the 90% upper confidence limit is barely consistent with the primary electron model (suggesting R$_{e/p} \sim$ 0.01), we point out that the results of @miniati is for shocks over the entire cluster, and our detection is only for a fraction of the cluster. That is the total non-thermal emission from cluster is probably greater than our detection, further strengthening the argument that the flux is too high to come from secondary electrons.
Blasi, P., 2001 Astroparticle Physics, 15, 223
Colles, M., Saglia, R., Burstein, D., Davies, R., McMahan Jr., R., & Wegner, G. 2001, , 321, 277.
Ebeling, H, Edge, A.C., Böhringer, H., Allen, S.W., Crawford, C.S., Fabian, A.C., Voges, W., & Huchra, J.P. 1998, , 301, 881.
Enßlin, T. 1999, in Diffuse Thermal and Relativistic Plasma in Galaxy Clusters, ed. H. Böhringer, L. Feretti, & P. Schuecker (Garching:MPI), 249.
Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Allen, S. W., Crawford, C. S., Iwasawa, K., Johnstone, R. M., Schmidt, R. W., & Taylor, G. B. 2003, in press \[astro-ph/0306036\]
Fukazawa, Y., Nakazawa, K., Isobe, N., Makishima, K., Matsushita, K., Ohashi, T., & Kamae, T., 2001, , 546, 87.
Gabici, S. & Blasi, P. 2003, , 583, 695.
Heinz, S., Choi, Y.-Y., Reynolds, C. S., & Begelman, M. C. 2002, , 569, 79.
Hudson, D.S., Henriksen, M. J., & Colafrancesco, S. 2003, , 583, 706.
Markevitch et al. 2003 , 586, 19.
McKee, C.F. 1987, Astrophysical shocks in diffuse gas. In Spectroscopy of atrophysical plasmas, ed A Dalgarno & D. Layzer) (NY:Cambridge University Press), 226.
McNamara, B.R. et al. 2001, , 562 L149.
Miniati, F., Jones, T. W., Kang, H., & Ryu, D. 2001, , 562, 233.
Oegerle, W. & Hill, J. 2001, , 122, 2858.
Rephaeli, Y., 1979, , 227, 364.
Roettiger, K., Loken, C., & Burns, J. O. 1997, , 109, 307.
Takizawa, M. 2000, , 532, 183.
Tittley, E. R., & Henriksen, M. J. 2003, in preparation.
Tribble, P. C., 1993, , 263, 31.
[^1]: [http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/index.html]{}
[^2]: [http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/filter\_ltcrv/]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper focuses on the prominent sphericity test when the dimension $p$ is much lager than sample size $n$. The classical likelihood ratio test(LRT) is no longer applicable when $p\gg n$. Therefore a Quasi-LRT is proposed and its asymptotic distribution of the test statistic under both the null [[and the alternative hypothesis]{}]{} when $p/n\rightarrow\infty, n\rightarrow\infty$ is well established in this paper. We also re-examine the well-known John’s invariant test for sphericity in this ultra-dimensional setting. An amazing result from the paper states that John’s test statistic has exactly the same limiting distribution under the ultra-dimensional setting with under other high-dimensional settings known in the literature. Therefore, John’s test has been found to possess the powerful [*dimension-proof*]{} property, which keeps exactly the same limiting distribution under the null with any $(n,p)$-asymptotic, i.e. $p/n\rightarrow[0,\infty]$, $n\rightarrow\infty$. All asymptotic results are derived for general population with finite fourth order moment. Numerical experiments are implemented to illustrate the finite sample performance of the results.'
address: |
Zeng Li, Jianfeng Yao\
Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science\
The University of Hong Kong\
author:
-
-
title: Testing the sphericity of a covariance matrix when the dimension is much larger than the sample size
---
Introduction
============
High dimensional data with dimension $p$ of same scale with or even larger than the number of observations $n$ has applausive statistical applications in biology and finance recently. In particular, practical needs for testing gene-wise independence in genomic studies have inspired a wide range of discussions regarding test of structures of the covariance matrix.
In this paper, we consider the prominent sphericity test when the dimension $p$ is much larger than the sample size $n$. Let $X=(X_1,X_2,\cdots,X_n)$ be a $p\times n$ data matrix with $n$ independent and identically distributed $p-$dimensional random vectors $\{X_i\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ with covariance $\Sigma=Var(X_i)$. Our interest is to test $$\label{testeq}
H_0: \Sigma=\sigma^2 I_p~ \mbox{ vs. } ~H_1:\Sigma\neq \sigma^2 I_p,$$ where $\sigma^2$ is an unknown positive constant. Among traditional tests are the likelihood ratio test(LRT) and John’s invariant test.
Consider first the LRT with test statistic(@Anderson84) $$\label{LRTeq}
-2\log L_n=-2\log {\left(}\frac{(l_1\cdots l_p)^{1/p}}{\frac{1}{p}(l_1+\cdots+l_p)}{\right)}^{\frac{pn}{2}}=n\log{\left(}\frac{\overline{l}^p}{\prod_{i=1}^p l_i}{\right)},$$ where $\{l_i\}_{1\leq i\leq p}$ are the eigenvalues of $p-$dimensional sample covariance matrix $\frac1n\sum_{i=1}^n X_iX_i'=\frac1nXX'$, $X={\left(}X_1,\cdots, X_n{\right)}$. If we let $n\rightarrow \infty$ while keeping $p$ fixed, classics asymptotic theory indicates that under the null hypothesis and assuming the population is normal, $$-2\log L_n\xrightarrow{d} \chi^2_{\frac{1}{2}p(p+1)-1},$$ the chi-square distribution is further refined by the Box-Bartlett correction. However, this $\chi^2-$convergence becomes slow when the dimension $p$ increases so that the LRT (and its Box-Bartlett correction) is seriously biased when the dimension-to-sample size ratio $p/n$ is not small enough. @Wang13 [[made]{}]{} bias correction to the traditional LRT test under the regime where both $p,n\rightarrow\infty$, $p/n\rightarrow c\in(0,1)$. They derived that when $X=\{x_{ij}\}_{{1\leq i\leq p}\atop{1\leq j\leq n}}$ with i.i.d entries satisfying $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^2=1$, $\nu_4:=\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^4<\infty$, and under $H_0$, $$-\frac{2}{n}\log L_n+(p-n)\log (1-\frac{p}{n})-p\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}-\frac12 \log (1-c)+\frac{\nu_4-3}{2}c,-2\log(1-c)-2c{\right)}.$$ Notice that here the scale parameter $\sigma^2$ in $H_0$ has been taken to be $\sigma^2=1$ as the LRT statistic is invariant under scaling. Extensive simulation study in @Wang13 shows that this test is well adapted to high dimensions and has a very reasonable size and power for a wide range of dimension-sample size combinations $(p,n)$. The LRT however requires that $p\leq n$ because when $p>n$, $n-p$ of the sample eigenvalues $\{l_i\}$ are null so that the likelihood ratio $L_n$ is identically null. In this paper, we introduce a quasi-LRT statistic which can be seen as a natural extension of the LRT statistic to the situation where $p>n$. The quasi-LRT test statistic is defined as $$\label{quasiLRT}
\mathcal{L}_n=\frac{p}{n}\log\frac{{\left(}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{\lambda}_i{\right)}^n}{\prod_{i=1}^n\tilde{\lambda}_i},$$ where $\{\tilde{\lambda}_i\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ are eigenvalues of $n-$dimensional matrix $\frac{1}{p}X'X$. The main idea is that the companion matrix $X'X$ has exactly the same $n$ non-null eigenvalues with the sample covariance matrix $XX'$(up to some scaling). Therefore, the quasi-LRT test statistic removes all the null eigenvalues in the original LRT test statistic and we find that under the so-called ultra-dimensional asymptotic $p\gg n$, that is $p/n\rightarrow \infty$ and $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\mathcal{L}_n-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2} \xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,1{\right)}.$$ Based on this asymptotic result, a quasi-LRT test can be conducted to test sphericity to compensate for the inapplicability of the traditional LRT in the ultra-dimension setting.
Next we consider John’s invariant test for sphericity. @John71 [@John72] studied the problem for normal populations and proposed the testing statistic $$\label{John}
U=\cfrac{1}{p}tr\left[{\left(}\cfrac{\Sigma}{(1/p)tr(\Sigma)}-I_p{\right)}^2\right]=\frac{p^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^p(l_i-\overline{l})^2}{\overline{l}^2},$$ where $\overline{l}=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^p l_i$. It has been proved that, as $n\rightarrow \infty$ while $p$ remain fixed, the limiting distribution of $U$ under $H_0$ is $$nU-p\xrightarrow{d} \cfrac{2}{p} \chi^2_{p(p+1)/2-1}-p.$$ Contrary to the LRT, it has been noticed for a while that John’s test does not suffer from high dimensions and this $\chi^2$ limit is quite accurate even when the ratio $p/n$ is not small. @Ledoit02 studied the $(n,p)$-consistency of this test statistic under normality assumptions. They proved that, when $n,p\rightarrow\infty$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} p/n\rightarrow c\in(0,+\infty)$, $$nU-p\xrightarrow{d} N(1,4).$$ Meanwhile, when $p\rightarrow \infty$, $$\cfrac{2}{p} \chi^2_{p(p+1)/2-1}-p\xrightarrow{d} N(1,4).$$ In other words, @Ledoit02 extended the classical $n$-asymptotic theory (where $p$ is fixed) to the high-dimensional case where $p$ goes to infinity proportionally with $n$. Meanwhile, the robustness of John’s test is explained in this proportional high-dimensional scheme.
@Wang13 further relaxed the normality restriction and proved that, if $\{x_{ij}\}$ are i.i.d. with $\mathbb{E}x_{ij}=0$, $\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^2=1$, $\nu_4\triangleq \mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^4<\infty$, then when $n,p\rightarrow\infty$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} p/n\rightarrow c\in(0,+\infty)$, $$\label{EQ:John}
nU-p\xrightarrow{d} N(\nu_4-2,4).$$ Since $\nu_4=3$ for normal distribution, it shows that the existing results confirm with each other. In this paper, we extend the above result one step further, i.e. consider the asymptotic behavior of the John’s test statistic under the ultra-dimensional $p\gg n$ setting. We find that this test statistic possesses a remarkable [*dimension-proof*]{} property, which shows that under the $(n,p)$-asymptotic, the limit in still holds when $ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} p/n=\infty$. This [*dimension-proof*]{} property of John’s test makes it a very competitive candidate for sphericity testing regardless of $p,n$.
Related methods have also been proposed in the literature for the high dimensional sphericity test. Noteworthy work include @Schott05 where a test statistic based on the logarithm of the norm of sample correlation matrix under $(n,p)$-asymptotic has been well studied. Yet multivariate normality assumption has been assumed in this paper. Similarly in @Fisher11, a novel test statistic utilizing the ratio of the fourth and second arithmetic means of the sample covariance matrix is developed under the $p/n\rightarrow c$, $(n,p)$-asymptotic with normality restriction. @Srivastava05 considered the ratio of arithmetic means of the eigenvalues of sample covariance matrix in the normal case when $n=O(p^{\delta}), \delta>0$, $n,p\rightarrow\infty$ and @Srivastava11 further proved the robustness of this test statistic against non-normality assumption irrespective of either $n/p\rightarrow 0$ or $n/p\rightarrow\infty$. However, their results are only applicable under some specified factorized settings, which makes it less general than John’s test. @S.X.Chen10 developed a high-dimensional test based on the John’s test, however this test is very time-consuming (See Section \[simsec\]). @Zou13 considered the multivariate-sign-based covariance matrices to construct robust test for sphericity and significantly enhanced test performance when the non-normality is severe, particularly for heavy tailed distributions. In their paper the asymptotic distributions of the test statistic when $p=O(n^2)$ is derived. @Srivastava06 studied a quasi-likelihood ratio test under the $n=O(p^{\delta}), ~0<\delta<1$, $n,p\rightarrow\infty$ asymptotic in the normal case, while in this paper, the normality assumption is released and results are discussed under a wider range of $(n,p)$-asymptotic. These tests are compared in the simulation studies of the paper in Section \[simsec\].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[mainsec\] discusses the asymptotic behavior of the John’s test statistic and the quasi-LRT test statistic under the ultra-dimensional setting. Empirical sizes and powers of these two tests and other methods are compared under various scenarios. Section \[Powersec\] [[presented theoretical results for power of John’s test and quasi-LRT test and testified these results with simulations]{}]{}. Section \[empsec\] concludes. Some technique lemmas and related proofs are displayed in the Appendix \[lemsec\].
New tests and their asymptotic distributions {#mainsec}
============================================
Preliminary Knowledge
---------------------
For any $n\times n$ Hermitian matrix $M$ with real eigenvalues $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_n$, the empirical spectral distribution (ESD for short) of $M$ is defined by $F^M=n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n \delta_{\lambda_j}$, where $\delta_{a}$ denotes the Dirac mass at $a$. The Stieltjes transform of any distribution $G$ is defined as $$m_G(z)=\int \cfrac{1}{x-z}dG(x),~\mathfrak{I}(z)>0,$$ where $\mathfrak{I}(z)$ stands for the imaginary part of $z$.
Consider the re-normalized sample covariance matrix $A=\sqrt{\cfrac{p}{n}}{\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}X'X-I_n{\right)}$, where $X=(x_{ij})_{p\times n}$ and $x_{ij},i=1,\cdots,p,~j=1,\cdots,n$ are i.i.d. real random variables with mean zero and variance one, $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. It’s known that under the ultra-dimensional setting [@Bai88], with probability one, the ESD of matrix $A$, $F^A$ converges to the semicircle law $F$ with density $$F'(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^2},&~\mbox{if } |x|\leq 2,\\
0,&~\mbox{if } |x|>2.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We denote the Stieltjes transform of the semicircle law $F$ by $m(z)$. Let $\mathscr{S}$ denote any open region on the complex plane including $[-2,2]$, the support of $F$ and $\mathscr{M}$ be the set of functions which are analytic on $\mathscr{S}$. For any $f\in \mathscr{M}$, denote $$\label{MeanTerm}
G_n(f)\triangleq n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x) d {\left(}F^A(x)-F(x){\right)}-\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m,$$ where $$\chi_n(m)\triangleq \cfrac{-\mathcal{B}+\sqrt{\mathcal{B}^2-4\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}}}{2\mathcal{A}},~\mathcal{A}=m-\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}(1+m^2),$$ $$\mathcal{B}=m^2-1-\cfrac{n}{p}m(1+2m^2),~\mathcal{C}=\cfrac{m^3}{n}{\left(}\cfrac{m^2}{1-m^2}+\nu_4-2{\right)}-\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}m^4,$$ $\nu_4=\mathbb{E}X_{11}^4$ and $\sqrt{\mathcal{B}^2-4\mathcal{AC}}$ is a complex number whose imaginary part has same sign as that of $\mathcal{B}$. The integral’s contour is taken as $|m|=\rho$ with $\rho<1$. @ChenPan13 gives a calibration in advance for the mean correction term in , where only $\mathcal{C}$ is replaced with $$\mathcal{C}^{\rm{Calib}}=\cfrac{m^3}{n}\left[\nu_4-2+\cfrac{m^2}{1-m^2}-2(\nu_4-1)m\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}\right]-\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}m^4$$ while others remain the same.
The central limit theorem (CLT) of linear functions of eigenvalues of the re-normalized sample covariance matrix $A$ when the dimension $p$ is much larger than the sample size $n$ derived by @ChenPan13 is stated as follows.
\[CLT\] Suppose that
- ${\bf X}=(x_{ij})_{p\times n}$ where $\{x_{ij}:~i=1,\cdots,p;~j=1,\cdots,n\}$ are i.i.d. real random variables with $\mathbb{E}X_{11}=0$, $\mathbb{E}X_{11}^2=1$ and $\nu_4=\mathbb{E}X_{11}^4<\infty$.
- $n/p\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Then, for any $f_1,\cdots,f_k\in \mathscr{M}$, the finite dimensional random vector ${\left(}G_n(f_1),\cdots,G_n(f_k){\right)}$ converges weakly to a Gaussian vector ${\left(}Y(f_1),\cdots, Y(f_k){\right)}$ with mean function $\mathbb{E}Y(f)=0$ and covariance function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cov}
cov{\left(}Y(f_1), Y(f_2){\right)}&=(\nu_4-3)\Phi_1(f_1)\Phi_1(f_2)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_k(f_1)\Phi_k(f_2)\\ \nonumber
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{-2}^2\int_{-2}^2f_1'(x)f_2'(y)H(x,y)\operatorname{d}\! x {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{y}}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Phi_k(f)\triangleq\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(2\cos\theta)e^{ik\theta}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(2\cos\theta)\cos k\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}},$$ $$H(x,y)=(\nu_4-3)\sqrt{4-x^2}\sqrt{4-y^2}+2\log{\left(}\cfrac{4-xy+\sqrt{(4-x^2)(4-y^2)}}{4-xy-\sqrt{(4-x^2)(4-y^2)}}{\right)}.$$
The proofs of the main theorems in this paper are based on two lemmas derived from this CLT. Notice that the limiting covariance functions in has been first established in @BaiYao05 for Wigner matrices.
\[lemma\] Let $\{\lambda_i,~1\leq i\leq n\}$ be eigenvalues of the matrix $A=\sqrt{\cfrac{p}{n}}{\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}X'X-I_n{\right)}$, where $X$ satisfies the assumptions in Theorem \[MainThm\], then as $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2-n-(\nu_4-2)\\
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i
\end{array}
\right)\xrightarrow{d} N\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right),~
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
4 & 0 \\
0 & \nu_4-1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right).$$
\[LRTlem\] Let $\{\lambda_i,~1\leq i\leq n\}$ be eigenvalues of matrix $A=\sqrt{\cfrac{p}{n}}{\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}X'X-I_n{\right)}$, where $X$ satisfies the assumptions in Theorem \[MainThm2\], then as $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\\
\sqrt{\frac pn}\sum_{i=1}^n\log {\left(}1+\lambda_i\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}+\frac{n^2}{6p}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}+\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}\sqrt{\frac np}
\end{array}
\right)=\xi_n+o_p(1),$$ where $$\xi_n\sim N\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right),~
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\nu_4-1 & (\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}\\
(\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}& \nu_4-1+\frac np(2\nu_4-1) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right).$$
The proofs of these two lemma are postponed to Appendix \[lemsec\].
John’s Test
-----------
Consider John’s test statistic $U$ defined in based on eigenvalues of the $p-$dimensional sample covariance matrix $S=\frac{1}{n}XX'$. Here we assume that the $X_j's$ in $X$ have representation $X_j=\Sigma^{1/2}Z_j$, where $\{Z_1,\cdots,Z_n\}=\{z_{ij}\}_{1\leq i\leq p,1\leq j\leq n}$ is a $p\times n$ matrix with i.i.d. entries $z_{ij}$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}(z_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(z_{ij}^2)=1$. It can be seen that, under the null hypothesis $H_0$, the John’s test statistic is independent from the scale parameter $\sigma^2$. Therefore, we assume w.l.o.g. $\sigma^2=1$ when we derive the null distribution of the test statistic. In other words, under $H_0$, we assume in the rest of this paper that sample vectors $\{x_{ij}\}_{1\leq i\leq p, 1\leq j\leq n}$ satisfy $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij}^2)=1$, $\mathbb{E}(|x_{ij}|^4)=\nu_4<+\infty$. The first main result of this paper is the following.
\[MainThm\] Assume $X=\{x_{ij}\}_{p\times n}$ are i.i.d. satisfying $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij}^2)=1$, $\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^4=\nu_4<\infty$, then when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$nU-p \xrightarrow{d} N(\nu_4-2,4).$$
Similarly with this theorem, @Wang13 shows that if $\{x_{ij}\}$ are i.i.d. with $\mathbb{E}x_{ij}=0$, $\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^2=1$, $\nu_4\triangleq \mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^4<\infty$, then when $n,p\rightarrow\infty$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} p/n\rightarrow c\in(0,+\infty)$, $$nU-p\xrightarrow{d} N(\nu_4-2,4).$$ It indicates that as long as $X=\{x_{ij}\}_{p\times n}$ are i.i.d with zero mean, unit variance and finite fourth order moment, John’s test statistic $nU-p$ has a consistent limiting distribution $N(\nu_4-2,4)$, regardless of normality, under any $(n,p)$-asymptotic, $n/p\rightarrow[0,\infty)$. Therefore, the powerful [*dimension-proof*]{} property assigns John’s test top priority when little information about the data is known before implementing sphericity test.
The proof of Theorem \[MainThm\] is based on Lemma \[lemma\].
Denote the eigenvalues of $p\times p$ matrix $S_n=\frac{1}{n}XX'$ in descending order by $l_i(1\leq i\leq p)$, and the eigenvalues of $n\times n$ matrix $A=\sqrt{\cfrac{p}{n}}{\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}X'X-I_n{\right)}$ by $\lambda_i(1\leq i\leq n)$. Since $p>n$, $S_n$ has $p-n$ zero eigenvalues and the remaining $n$ non-zero eigenvalues $l_i(1\leq i\leq n)$ are related with $\lambda_i(1\leq i\leq n)$ eigenvalues of $A$ as $$\sqrt{\cfrac{p}{n}}\lambda_i+\cfrac{p}{n}=l_i,~~1\leq i\leq n.$$ We have, for John’s test statistic $$\begin{aligned}
U&=\left.{\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^n\cfrac{p^2}{n^2}{\left(}\sqrt{\cfrac{p}{n}}\lambda_i+1{\right)}^2{\right)}\middle/ {\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^n\cfrac{p}{n}{\left(}\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}\lambda_i+1{\right)}{\right)}^2\right.-1\\
&=\cfrac{\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2+2\sqrt{\cfrac{p}{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i+p}{{\left(}\sqrt{\cfrac{1}{p}}\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i+\sqrt{n}{\right)}^2}-1,
\end{aligned}$$ Define the function $G(u,v)=\cfrac{u+2v\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}+p}{(\sqrt{\frac{1}{p}}v+\sqrt{n})^2}-1$, then John’s test statistic can be written as $$U=G{\left(}u=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2,v=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i{\right)}.$$ According to Lemma \[lemma\], when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2-n-(\nu_4-2)\\
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i
\end{array}
\right)\xrightarrow{d} N\left(
{\left(}\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
{\right)},~{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}
4&0\\
0&\nu_4-1
\end{array}
{\right)}\right).$$ Then by the Delta Method, $$n{\left(}U-\left.G(u,v)\right\rvert_{u=n+\nu_4-2,v=0}{\right)}= \xi_n+o_p(1)$$ where $$\xi_n\sim N{\left(}0,~
n^2 \nabla G{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}
4&0\\
0&\nu_4-1
\end{array}
{\right)}\nabla G'
{\right)},$$ and $\nabla G=\left.{\left(}\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial u},\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial \nu}{\right)}\right\rvert_{u=n+\nu_4-2,v=0}$ is the corresponding gradient vector.
We have, for $(u,v)=(n+\nu_4-2,0)$, $$G=\cfrac{p}{n}+\cfrac{\nu_4-2}{n},$$ and $$\nabla G
{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}
4&0\\
0&\nu_4-1
\end{array}
{\right)}\nabla G'=\cfrac{4}{n^2}+\cfrac{4(\nu_4-1)}{np}{\left(}1+\cfrac{\nu_4-2}{n}{\right)}^2.$$ The conclusion thus follows.
Quasi-likelihood ratio test
---------------------------
Consider the Quasi-LRT statistic $\mathcal{L}_n$ in based on the eigenvalues of $n-$dimensional matrix $\frac{1}{p}X'X$, which are also proportional to the non-null eigenvalues of $p-$dimensional sample covariance matrix $\frac{1}{n}XX'$. Similarly with John’s test statistic, it can be seen that, under the null hypothesis $H_0$, the $\mathcal{L}_n$ statistic is independent of the scale parameter $\sigma^2$. Therefore, we again assume w.l.o.g. $\sigma^2=1$ when we derive the null distribution of the test statistic. The second main result of this paper is the following theorem.
\[MainThm2\] Assume $X=\{x_{ij}\}_{p\times n}$ are i.i.d. satisfying $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij}^2)=1$, $\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^4=\nu_4<\infty$, then when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\label{Maineq2}
\mathcal{L}_n-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2} \xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,1{\right)}.$$
Recall the classic LRT when $H_0$ holds and $p$ is fixed while $n\rightarrow \infty$, if the population is Gaussian, the test statistic $$-2\log L_n=n\log{\left(}\frac{\overline{l}^p}{\prod_{i=1}^p l_i}{\right)}\xrightarrow{d} \chi^2_{\frac{1}{2}p(p+1)-1},$$ where $\{l_i\}_{1\leq i\leq p}$ are the eigenvalues of $p-$dimensional sample covariance matrix $\frac1nXX'$. Here we notice that $n/p\rightarrow \infty$.
By interchanging the role of $n$ and $p$, which is feasible under $H_0$, it can be seen that when $n$ fixed and $p/n\rightarrow \infty$, the test statistic $$-2\log L_p=p\log{\left(}\frac{\overline{l}^n}{\prod_{i=1}^n l_i}{\right)}\xrightarrow{d} \chi^2_{\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)-1},$$ $\{l_i\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ are the eigenvalues of $n-$dimensional sample covariance matrix $\frac1pX'X$. Note that ${\left(}-2\log L_p{\right)}/n$ coincides with our Quasi-LRT statistic $\mathcal{L}_n$. Heuristically, if next we let $n\rightarrow\infty$, then $$\cfrac{\chi^2_{\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)-1}}{n}-\frac{n+1}{2}\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,1{\right)},$$ which is nothing but applied to the normal case $(\nu_4=3)$ with fixed $n$ and $p\rightarrow\infty$. Therefore, the classical LRT can be thought [[of]{}]{} as a particular “finite-dimensional" instance of the general limit of for the Quasi-LRT, that is, Theorem \[MainThm2\] covers a wide range of “large p, small n" situations.
The proof of Theorem \[MainThm2\] is based on lemma \[LRTlem\].
Denote the eigenvalues of $n\times n$ matrix $\frac{1}{p}X'X$ in descending order by $\tilde{l}_i(1\leq i\leq n)$, and eigenvalues of $n\times n$ matrix $A=\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}{\left(}\frac{1}{p}X'X-I_n{\right)}$ by $\lambda_i(1\leq i\leq n)$. These eigenvalues are related as $$\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\lambda_i+1=\tilde{l}_i,~~1\leq i\leq n.$$ We have, for the Quasi-LRT test statistic $$\begin{aligned}
~&~\mathcal{L}_n-\frac n2-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}\\
=&~\frac{p}{n}\log\left[\left.{\left(}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i{\right)}^n\middle/\prod_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i\right.\right]-\frac n2-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}\\ =&~p\log {\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}{\left(}\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i{\right)}{\right)}-\frac pn\sum_{i=1}^n\log{\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\lambda_i{\right)}-\frac n2-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}
\end{aligned}$$ Define the function $$G(u,v)=p\log {\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}{\left(}\frac 1n u{\right)}{\right)}-\sqrt{\frac pn}v,$$ then the Quasi-LRT test statistic can be written as $$\mathcal{L}_n-\frac n2-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}=G{\left(}u=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i,v=\sqrt{\frac pn}\sum_{i=1}^n\log {\left(}1+\lambda_i\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}+\frac{n^2}{6p}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}+\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}.$$ According to Lemma \[LRTlem\], when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\\
\sqrt{\frac pn}\sum_{i=1}^n\log {\left(}1+\lambda_i\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}+\frac{n^2}{6p}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}+\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}\sqrt{\frac np}
\end{array}
\right)=\xi_n+o_p(1),$$ where $$\xi_n\sim N\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right),~
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\nu_4-1 & (\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}\\
(\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}& \nu_4-1+\frac np(2\nu_4-1) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right).$$
Then by the Delta Method, $$\mathcal{L}_n-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}-\left.G(u,v)\right\rvert_{u=0,v=0}\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,~
\nabla G\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\nu_4-1 & (\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}\\
(\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}& \nu_4-1+\frac np(2\nu_4-1) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\nabla G'
{\right)},$$ where $\nabla G=\left.{\left(}\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial u},\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial \nu}{\right)}\right\rvert_{u=0,v=0}$ is the corresponding gradient vector.
We have, for $(u,v)=(0,0)$, $G=0$ and $$\nabla G\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\nu_4-1 & (\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}\\
(\nu_4-1){\left(}1+\frac np{\right)}& \nu_4-1+\frac np(2\nu_4-1) \\
\end{array}
\right)\nabla G'
=1.$$ Therefore, when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\mathcal{L}_n-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2} \xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,1{\right)}.$$
Simulation Studies {#simsec}
------------------
In order to further explore the finite sample behavior of John’s sphericity test when dimension $p$ is significantly larger than the sample size $n$, Monte Carlo simulations are implemented in this session to evaluate the size and power of John’s Sphericity Test. Test statistic proposed by @S.X.Chen10 is also considered for comparison.
In the simulation, without loss of generality, we conduct the sphericity test with $\sigma^2=1$. To find the empirical sizes of these two tests, we consider two different scenarios to generate sample data:
- $\{X_{j}\},~1\leq j\leq n$ i.i.d $p$-dimensional random vector generated from multivariate normal population $N(0,I_p)$, $\mathbb{E}x^4_{ij}=\nu_4=3$;
- $\{x_{ij},~1\leq i\leq p,~1\leq j\leq n\}$ i.i.d follow $Gamma(4,2)-2$ distribution, then $\mathbb{E}x_{ij}=0$, $\mathbb{E}x^2_{ij}=1$, $\mathbb{E}x^4_{ij}=\nu_4=4.5$.
We set sample size $n=64$, dimension $p=320,640,960,1280,1600,2400,3200$ in order to understand the effect of an increasing dimension. The nominal test level is $\alpha=0.05$. For each pair of $(p,n)$, 10000 replications are used to get the empirical size.
For John’s test, we reject $H_0$ if $nU-p$ exceeds the $5\%$ upper quantile of $N(\nu_4-2,4)$ distribution. For Quasi-LRT test, we reject $H_0$ if $\mathcal{L}_n-\frac n2-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}$ exceeds the $5\%$ upper quantile of $N(0,1)$ distribution.
As for the test in @S.X.Chen10, the test statistic is defined as follows: $$U_n=p{\left(}\cfrac{T_{2,n}}{T_{1,n}^2}{\right)}-1,$$ where $$T_{1,n}=\cfrac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^nX_i'X_i-\cfrac{1}{P^2_n}\sum_{i\neq j}X_i'X_j,$$ $$T_{2,n}=\cfrac{1}{P^2_n}\sum_{i\neq j}(X_i'X_j)^2-\cfrac{2}{P^3_n}\sum_{i,j,k}^*X_i'X_jX_j'X_k+\cfrac{1}{P^4_n}\sum_{i,j,k,l}^*X_i'X_jX_k'X_l,$$ where $P_n^r=n!/(n-r)!$, $\sum^*$ denotes summation over mutually different indices. Then we reject $H_0$ if $nU_n$ exceeds the $5\%$ upper quantile of $N(0,4)$ distribution.
For the test in @Srivastava11(Sri for short), the test statistic is defined as follows: $$W_n=\frac{n}{2}\cdot \left[\cfrac{c_n\cdot\frac 1p\left[tr S^2-\frac 1n(tr S)^2\right]}{{\left(}\frac 1p trS{\right)}^2}-1\right]$$ where $S=\frac 1nXX'$, $c_n=\frac{n^2}{(n-1)(n+2)}$. According to the limiting distribution of $W_n$, we reject $H_0$ if $W_n$ exceeds the $5\%$ upper quantile of $N(0,1)$ distribution. As for empirical powers, we generate sample data from two alternatives:
- [**Power 1:** ]{} $\Sigma$ is diagonal with half of its diagonal elements 0.5 and half 1. This power scenario is denoted by Power 1;
- [**Power 2:** ]{} $\Sigma$ is diagonal with $1/4$ of its diagonal elements 0.5 and $3/4$ equal to 1. This power scenario is denoted by Power 2.
Table 1 reports the empirical sizes and powers of two tests for Gaussian data. Table 2 is for Non-Gaussian data.
\[table1\]
------------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$\left(p,n\right)$ Sri Chen John QLRT Sri Chen John QLRT Sri Chen John QLRT
$\left(320,64\right)$ 0.048 0.0539 0.0492 0.0998 0.9571 0.9532 0.958 0.9777 0.6155 0.6117 0.6194 0.7352
$\left(640,64\right)$ 0.0504 0.0538 0.0515 0.0668 0.9595 0.9542 0.9602 0.9638 0.6089 0.6065 0.6128 0.6562
$\left(960,64\right)$ 0.0532 0.0581 0.0544 0.062 0.9598 0.9569 0.9604 0.9647 0.6201 0.6144 0.6231 0.6482
$\left(1280,64\right)$ 0.0519 0.0603 0.053 0.0568 0.9609 0.9569 0.9615 0.9656 0.6076 0.6043 0.6129 0.6256
$\left(1600,64\right)$ 0.0529 0.0571 0.0539 0.0593 0.9583 0.9539 0.9588 0.9627 0.6194 0.6146 0.6231 0.6378
$\left(2400,64\right)$ 0.0493 0.0536 0.0501 0.0506 0.9588 0.9542 0.9591 0.9615 0.6171 0.6099 0.621 0.6291
$\left(3200,64\right)$ 0.0472 0.0538 0.0481 0.0503 0.9617 0.9576 0.9624 0.9625 0.6212 0.619 0.6251 0.6301
------------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Scenario 1 for Gaussian Data
\[table2\]
------------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$\left(p,n\right)$ Sri Chen John QLRT Sri Chen John QLRT Sri Chen John QLRT
$\left(320,64\right)$ 0.1828 0.0584 0.0566 0.1084 0.9909 0.9476 0.9538 0.9701 0.8374 0.6044 0.6196 0.7299
$\left(640,64\right)$ 0.1875 0.0594 0.0598 0.0735 0.9927 0.9566 0.9603 0.9653 0.8379 0.6051 0.6201 0.6601
$\left(960,64\right)$ 0.1869 0.058 0.0551 0.0631 0.9923 0.9524 0.9589 0.9608 0.8394 0.6121 0.6298 0.6502
$\left(1280,64\right)$ 0.1856 0.057 0.0517 0.0605 0.9927 0.9529 0.9599 0.962 0.8483 0.6133 0.6206 0.6416
$\left(1600,64\right)$ 0.1811 0.0555 0.0536 0.058 0.9925 0.9557 0.9622 0.9642 0.8433 0.6143 0.633 0.6407
$\left(2400,64\right)$ 0.179 0.0581 0.0533 0.0564 0.991 0.9497 0.9567 0.9577 0.8425 0.611 0.6261 0.6304
$\left(3200,64\right)$ 0.1757 0.0518 0.0503 0.0522 0.9909 0.9529 0.961 0.9611 0.8413 0.6143 0.6266 0.6319
------------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Scenario 2 for Non-Gaussian Data
It can be seen from the above results that both John’s test and QLRT perform well with respect to sizes and powers. Empirical powers under Power 1 are in general higher than under Power 2 because of more significant difference between $H_0$ and $H_1$. John’s test performs slightly better than Chen’s method. In all tested scenarios, the QLRT dominates the other two tests in term of power even though the difference is quite marginal. Srivastava’s test performs slightly below John’s test in the Gaussian case and still suffers from non-normality with non-negligible bias. Furthermore, we have recorded the execution time of these two tests within different scenarios and we find that Chen’s method is more time-consuming due to more complicated computations.
Power of the tests {#Powersec}
==================
In this section we study the asymptotic power of the two tests. To begin with, some preliminary knowledge is introduced as follows.
Preliminary knowledge
---------------------
Consider the re-normalized sample covariance matrix $$\widetilde{A}=\sqrt{\cfrac{1}{n}}{\left(}\cfrac{1}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} Z'\Sigma_p Z-\cfrac{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} I_n{\right)},$$ where $Z=(z_{ij})_{p\times n}$ and $z_{ij},i=1,\cdots,p,~j=1,\cdots,n$ are i.i.d. real random variables with mean zero and variance one, $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$, $\Sigma_p$ is a sequence of $p\times p$ non-negative definite matrices with bounded spectral norm. Assume the following limit exist,
- $\gamma=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)$,
- $\theta=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)$,
- $\omega=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^p (\Sigma_{ii})^2$,
it has been proven that, under the ultra-dimensional setting [@Bai88], with probability one, the ESD of matrix $\widetilde{A}$, $F^{\widetilde{A}}$ converges to the semicircle law $F$ with density $$F'(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^2},&~\mbox{if } |x|\leq 2,\\
0,&~\mbox{if } |x|>2.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We denote the Stieltjes transform of the semicircle law $F$ by $m(z)$. Let $\mathscr{S}$ denote any open region on the complex plane including $[-2,2]$, the support of $F$ and $\mathscr{M}$ be the set of functions which are analytic on $\mathscr{S}$. For any $f\in \mathscr{M}$, denote $$G_n(f)\triangleq n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(x) d {\left(}F^{\widetilde{A}}(x)-F(x){\right)}-\sqrt{\cfrac{n^3}{p}}\Phi_3(f)$$ where, for any positive integer $k$, $$\Phi_k(f)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(2\cos(\theta))\cos(k\theta){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}.$$
Limiting theory of the test statistics under the alternative $H_1$ is based on a new CLT for linear statistics of $\widetilde{A}$, provided in @LiYao16, as follows.
\[PowerCLT\] Suppose that
- ${Z}=(z_{ij})_{p\times n}$ where $\{z_{ij}:~i=1,\cdots,p;~j=1,\cdots,n\}$ are i.i.d. real random variables with $\mathbb{E}z_{ij}=0$, $\mathbb{E}z_{ij}^2=1$ and $\nu_4=\mathbb{E}z_{ij}^4<\infty$;
- ${\left(}\Sigma_p{\right)}$ is a sequence of $p\times p$ non-negative definite matrices with bounded spectral norm and the following limit exist,
- $\gamma=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)$,
- $\theta=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)$,
- $\omega=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^p (\Sigma_{ii})^2$;
- $p/n\rightarrow \infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, $n^3/p=O(1)$.
Then, for any $f_1,\cdots,f_k\in \mathscr{M}$, the finite dimensional random vector ${\left(}G_n(f_1),\cdots,G_n(f_k){\right)}$ converges weakly to a Gaussian vector ${\left(}Y(f_1),\cdots, Y(f_k){\right)}$ with mean function $$\mathbb{E}Y(f)=\frac{1}{4}{\left(}f(2)+f(-2){\right)}-\frac{1}{2}\Phi_0(f)+\cfrac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)\Phi_2(f),$$ and covariance function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cov}
cov{\left(}Y(f_1), Y(f_2){\right)}&=\frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)\Phi_1(f_1)\Phi_1(f_2)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_k(f_1)\Phi_k(f_2)\\ \nonumber
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{-2}^2\int_{-2}^2f_1'(x)f_2'(y)H(x,y)\operatorname{d}\! x {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{y}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Phi_k(f)\triangleq\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(2\cos\theta)e^{ik\theta}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(2\cos\theta)\cos k\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}},$$ $$H(x,y)=\frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)\sqrt{4-x^2}\sqrt{4-y^2}+2\log{\left(}\cfrac{4-xy+\sqrt{(4-x^2)(4-y^2)}}{4-xy-\sqrt{(4-x^2)(4-y^2)}}{\right)}.$$
The proofs of Theorem \[PowerThm1\] and \[PowerThm2\] about the power of the two test statistics are based on two lemmas derived from this CLT.
\[Powerlem1\] Let $\{\widetilde{\lambda}_i,~1\leq i\leq n\}$ be eigenvalues of matrix $\widetilde{A}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}{\left(}\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} Z'\Sigma_p Z-\frac{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} I_n{\right)}$, where $Z$, $\Sigma_p$ satisfies the assumptions in Theorem \[PowerCLT\], then $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i^2-n-{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+1{\right)}\\
\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i
\end{array}
\right)\xrightarrow{d} N\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right),~
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
4 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)$$ as $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $n^3/p=O(1)$,
\[Powerlem2\] Let $\{\widetilde{\lambda}_i,~1\leq i\leq n\}$ be eigenvalues of matrix $\widetilde{A}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}{\left(}\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} Z'\Sigma_p Z-\frac{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} I_n{\right)}$, where $Z$, $\Sigma_p$ satisfies the assumptions in Theorem \[PowerCLT\], then $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i\\
\sqrt{\frac pn}\sum_{i=1}^n\log {\left(}\gamma+\widetilde{\lambda}_i\sqrt{\frac {n\theta}{p}}{\right)}-\sqrt{pn}\log(\gamma)+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}+{\left(}{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3){\right)}\sqrt{\frac np}
\end{array}
\right)$$$$=\xi_n+o_p(1),$$ where $$\xi_n\sim N\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right),~
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2 & {\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}{\left(}\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^3}\frac np{\right)}\\
{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}{\left(}\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^3}\frac np{\right)}& \frac{{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}\theta }{\gamma^2}+\frac{{\left(}\frac{2\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+5{\right)}\theta^2n}{\gamma^4p} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)$$ as $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $n^3/p=O(1)$.
The proofs of these two lemma are postponed to Appendix \[lemsec\].
John’s test
-----------
Suppose that an i.i.d. $p-$dimensional sample vectors $X_1,\cdots,X_n$ follow the multivariate distribution with covariance matrix $\Sigma_p$. To explore the power of John’s test under the alternative hypothesis $H_1: \Sigma_p\neq \sigma^2 I_p$, we assume that the $X_j's$ in $X$ have representation $X_j=\Sigma_p^{1/2}Z_j$, so as $S=\frac{1}{n}\Sigma_p^{1/2}ZZ'\Sigma_p^{1/2}$, where $Z=\{Z_1,\cdots,Z_n\}=\{z_{ij}\}_{1\leq i\leq p,1\leq j\leq n}$ is a $p\times n$ matrix with i.i.d. entries $z_{ij}$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}(z_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(z_{ij}^2)=1$ and $\mathbb{E}(|z_{ij}|^4)=\nu_4<+\infty$. Then John’s test statistic is $$U=\frac{p^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^p(l_i-\overline{l})^2}{\overline{l}^2},$$ where $\{l_i,~1\leq i\leq p\}$ are eigenvalues of the $p-$dimensional sample covariance matrix $S=\frac{1}{n}\Sigma_p^{1/2}ZZ'\Sigma_p^{1/2}$. The main result of the power of John’s test is as follows.
\[PowerThm1\] Assume $X_1,\cdots,X_n$ are i.i.d. $p-$dimensional sample vectors follow multivariate distribution with covariance matrix $\Sigma_p$, $X=\Sigma_p^{1/2}Z$ where $Z=\{z_{ij}\}$ is a $p\times n$ matrix with i.i.d. entries $z_{ij}$satisfying $\mathbb{E}(z_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(z_{ij}^2)=1$, $\mathbb{E}|z_{ij}|^4=\nu_4<\infty$, $\Sigma_p$ is a sequence of $p\times p$ non-negative definite matrices with bounded spectral norm and the following limit exist,
- $\gamma=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)$,
- $\theta=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)$,
- $\omega=\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^p (\Sigma_{ii})^2$,
then when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $n^3/p=O(1)$, $$nU-p-{\left(}\cfrac{\theta}{\gamma^2}-1{\right)}n \xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}\cfrac{\theta+\omega(\nu_4-3)}{\gamma^2},~\cfrac{4\theta^2}{\gamma^4}{\right)}.$$
Note that the theorem above reveals the limit distribution of John’s test statistic under alternative hypothesis $H_1$. Nevertheless, if let $\Sigma_p=\sigma^2I_p$, then $\gamma=\sigma^2$, $\theta=\omega=\sigma^4$, Theorem \[PowerThm1\] reduces to Theorem \[MainThm\], which states the null distribution of John’s test statistic under $H_0$. With the two limit distributions of John’s test statistic under $H_0$ and $H_1$, power of the test is derived as below.
\[Prop:PowerJohn\] With the same assumptions as in Theorem \[PowerThm1\], when $p/n\rightarrow\infty,~ n\rightarrow\infty,~n^3/p=O(1)$, the power of John’s test $$\beta_{\text{John}}(H_1)=1-\Phi{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2}{\theta}Z_{\alpha}+\frac{\gamma^2(\nu_4-2)-\theta-\omega(\nu_4-3)}{2\theta}+\frac{(\gamma^2-\theta)n}{2\theta}{\right)}\rightarrow 1,$$ where $\alpha$ is the nominal test level, $Z_\alpha$, $\Phi(\cdot)$ are the alpha upper quantile and cdf of standard normal distribution respectively.
For John’s test statistic $U$, under $H_0$, $$nU-p\xrightarrow{d}N(\nu_4-2,4),$$ under $H_1$, $$nU-p-{\left(}\frac{\theta}{\gamma^2}-1{\right)}n\xrightarrow{d}N{\left(}\frac{\theta+\omega(\nu_4-3)}{\gamma^2},\frac{4\theta^2}{\gamma^4}{\right)},$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\text{John}}(H_1)&=P{\left(}\left. \cfrac{nU-p-(\nu_4-2)}{2}>Z_\alpha\right| H_1 {\right)}\\
&=P{\left(}\cfrac{nU-p-n{\left(}\frac{\theta}{\gamma^2}-1{\right)}-\frac{\theta+\omega(\nu_4-3)}{\gamma^2}}{\frac{2\theta}{\gamma^2}}>\cfrac{2Z_\alpha+(\nu_4-2)-n{\left(}\frac{\theta}{\gamma^2}-1{\right)}-\frac{ \theta+\omega(\nu_4-3)}{\gamma^2}}{\frac{2\theta}{\gamma^2}} {\right)}\\
&=1-\Phi{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2}{\theta}Z_{\alpha}+\frac{\gamma^2(\nu_4-2)-\theta-\omega(\nu_4-3)}{2\theta}+\frac{(\gamma^2-\theta)n}{2\theta}{\right)},
\end{aligned}$$
According to Jensen’s inequality, $\gamma^2\leq \theta$ and equality holds only when $\Sigma_p=\sigma^2 I_p$, Proposition \[Prop:PowerJohn\] thus follows.
The proof of Theorem \[PowerThm1\] is based on Lemma \[Powerlem1\].
Denote the eigenvalues of $p\times p$ matrix $S_n=\frac{1}{n}XX'=\frac{1}{n}Z\Sigma_pZ'$ in descending order by $\{l_i, ~1\leq i\leq p\}$, and eigenvalues of $n\times n$ matrix $\widetilde{A}=\sqrt{\cfrac{1}{n}}{\left(}\cfrac{1}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} Z'\Sigma_p Z-\cfrac{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} I_n{\right)}$ by $\{\widetilde{\lambda}_i,~1\leq i\leq n\}$. Since $p>n$, $S_n$ has $p-n$ zero eigenvalues and the remaining $n$ non-zero eigenvalues $l_i$ are related with $\widetilde{\lambda}_i$ as $$\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}\widetilde{\lambda}_i+\frac{1}{n}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)=l_i,~~1\leq i\leq n.$$ We have, for John’s test statistic $$\begin{aligned}
U&=\left.{\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^n{\left(}\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}\widetilde{\lambda}_i+\frac{1}{n}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p){\right)}^2{\right)}\middle/ {\left(}\cfrac{1}{p}\sum_{i=1}^n{\left(}\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}\widetilde{\lambda}_i+\frac{1}{n}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p){\right)}{\right)}^2\right.-1\\
&=\cfrac{\theta\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i^2+2\gamma\sqrt{\frac{p\theta}{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i+p\gamma^2}{{\left(}\sqrt{\frac{\theta}{p}}\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i+\sqrt{n}\gamma{\right)}^2}-1.
\end{aligned}$$ Define function $G(u,v)=\cfrac{\theta u+2 \gamma \sqrt{\frac{p\theta}{n}}v+p\gamma^2}{(\sqrt{\frac{\theta}{p}}v+\sqrt{n}\gamma)^2}-1$, then John’s test statistic can be written as $$U=G{\left(}u=\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i^2,v=\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i{\right)}.$$ According to Lemma \[Powerlem1\], when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $n^3/p=O(1)$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i^2-n-{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+1{\right)}\\
\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i
\end{array}
\right)\xrightarrow{d} N\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right),~
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
4 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)$$ Then by the Delta Method, $$n{\left(}U-\left.G(u,v)\right\rvert_{u=n+ \frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+1,v=0}{\right)}\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,~
n^2\nabla G{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}
4 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+2 \\
\end{array}
{\right)}\nabla G'
{\right)},$$ where $\nabla G=\left.{\left(}\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial u},\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial \nu}{\right)}\right\rvert_{u=n+ \frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+1,v=0}$ is the corresponding gradient vector.
We have, for $(u,v)={\left(}n+ \frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+1,0{\right)}$, $$G=\cfrac{p}{n}+\cfrac{\theta}{\gamma^2}-1+\cfrac{{\left(}\omega(\nu_4-3)+\theta {\right)}}{n\gamma^2},$$ and $$\nabla G
{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}
4 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+2 \\
\end{array}
{\right)}\nabla G'=\cfrac{4\theta^2}{n^2\gamma^4}+{\left(}\cfrac{\omega}{\theta}(\nu_4-3)+2{\right)}{\left(}\cfrac{4\theta{\left(}\theta+\omega(\nu_4-3)+n\theta{\right)}^2}{\gamma^6n^3p}{\right)}.$$ The result thus follows.
Quasi-likelihood ratio test
---------------------------
Consider the Quasi-LRT statistic $\mathcal{L}_n$ in based on the eigenvalues of $n-$dimensional matrix $\frac{1}{p}X'X$. Similarly with John’s test statistic, it can be seen that, under the alternative hypothesis $H_1$, the $\mathcal{L}_n$ statistic can be represented as $$\mathcal{L}_n=\frac{p}{n}\log\frac{{\left(}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i{\right)}^n}{\prod_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i}$$ where $\{\tilde{l}_i,~1\leq i\leq n\}$ are eigenvalues of $\frac{1}{p}Z'\Sigma_pZ$. The main result of the power of the Quasi-LRT test is as follows.
\[PowerThm2\] With the same assumptions as in Theorem \[PowerThm1\], when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $n^3/p=O(1)$, $$\mathcal{L}_n-{\left(}\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2} n+{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p} {\right)}\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3) ,~\frac{\theta^2}{\gamma^4}{\right)}.$$
Note that the theorem above reveals the limit distribution of the Quasi-LRT statistic under alternative hypothesis $H_1$. Nevertheless, if let $\Sigma_p=\sigma^2I_p$, then $\gamma=\sigma^2$, $\theta=\omega=\sigma^4$, Theorem \[PowerThm2\] reduces to Theorem \[MainThm2\], which states the null distribution of the Quasi-LRT test statistic under $H_0$. Similarly, with the two limit distributions of QLRT statistic under $H_0$ and $H_1$, power of the test is derived as below.
\[Prop:PowerQLRT\] With the same assumptions as in Theorem \[PowerThm1\], when $p/n\rightarrow\infty,~ n\rightarrow\infty,~n^3/p=O(1)$, the power of QLRT $\beta_{\text{QLRT}}(H_1)$ is $$1-\Phi{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2}{\theta}Z_\alpha+{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2-\theta}{2\theta}{\right)}n+{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2}{6\theta}-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma} {\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2(\nu_4-2)-\theta-\omega(\nu_4-3)}{2\theta}{\right)}{\right)}\rightarrow 1,$$ where $\alpha$ is the nominal test level, $Z_\alpha$, $\Phi(\cdot)$ are the alpha upper quantile and cdf of standard normal distribution respectively.
For QLRT statistic $\mathcal{L}$, under $H_0$, $$\mathcal{L}_n-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n^2}{6p}\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}\frac{\nu_4-2}{2},1{\right)},$$ under $H_1$, $$\mathcal{L}_n- \frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2} n-{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p} \xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3) ,~\frac{\theta^2}{\gamma^4}{\right)}.$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\text{QLRT}}(H_1)&=P{\left(}\left. \mathcal{L}_n-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n^2}{6p}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}>Z_\alpha\right| H_1 {\right)}\\
&=P\left( \cfrac{\mathcal{L}_n- \frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2} n-{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}-{\left(}\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3) {\right)}}{\frac{\theta}{\gamma^2}} \right.\\
& >\left.\cfrac{Z_\alpha+ \frac{n}{2}+\frac{n^2}{6p}+\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}- \frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2} n-{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}-{\left(}\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3) {\right)}}{\frac{\theta}{\gamma^2}} \right)\\
&=1-\Phi{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2}{\theta}Z_\alpha+{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2-\theta}{2\theta}{\right)}n+{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2}{6\theta}-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma} {\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+{\left(}\frac{\gamma^2(\nu_4-2)-\theta-\omega(\nu_4-3)}{2\theta}{\right)}{\right)},
\end{aligned}$$
since $\gamma^2\leq \theta$, Proposition \[Prop:PowerQLRT\] follows.
The proof of Theorem \[PowerThm2\] is based on lemma \[Powerlem2\].
Denote the eigenvalues of $n\times n$ matrix $\frac{1}{p}X'X=\frac{1}{p}Z'\Sigma_pZ$ in descending order by $\widetilde{l}_i(1\leq i\leq n)$, and eigenvalues of $n\times n$ matrix $\widetilde{A}=\sqrt{\cfrac{1}{n}}{\left(}\cfrac{1}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} Z'\Sigma_p Z-\cfrac{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}} I_n{\right)}$ by $\widetilde{\lambda}_i(1\leq i\leq n)$. These eigenvalues are related as $$\sqrt{\frac{n{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p^2)}{p^2}}\widetilde{\lambda}_i+\frac{1}{p}{\mathop{tr}}(\Sigma_p)=\widetilde{l}_i,~~1\leq i\leq n.$$ We have, for the Quasi-LRT test statistic $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_n =&~\frac{p}{n}\log\left[\left.{\left(}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i{\right)}^n\middle/\prod_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i\right.\right]\\
=&~p\log{\left(}\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{\theta}{np}}\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i{\right)}-\frac{p}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\log{\left(}\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\widetilde{\lambda}_i{\right)},
\end{aligned}$$ Define the function $$G(u,v)=p\log {\left(}\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{\theta}{np}} u{\right)}-\sqrt{\frac pn}v,$$ then the Quasi-LRT test statistic can be written as $$\mathcal{L}_n=G{\left(}u=\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i,v=\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n\log{\left(}\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\widetilde{\lambda}_i{\right)}{\right)}.$$ According to Lemma \[Powerlem2\], when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $n^3/p=O(1)$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\widetilde{\lambda}_i\\
\sqrt{\frac pn}\sum_{i=1}^n\log {\left(}\gamma+\widetilde{\lambda}_i\sqrt{\frac {n\theta}{p}}{\right)}-\sqrt{pn}\log(\gamma)+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}+{\left(}{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3){\right)}\sqrt{\frac np}
\end{array}
\right)$$$$=\xi_n+o_p(1),$$ where $$\xi_n\sim N\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right),~
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2 & {\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}{\left(}\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^3}\frac np{\right)}\\
{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}{\left(}\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^3}\frac np{\right)}& \frac{{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}\theta }{\gamma^2}+\frac{{\left(}\frac{2\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+5{\right)}\theta^2n}{\gamma^4p} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)$$
By the Delta Method, $$\mathcal{L}_n-\left.G(u,v)\right\rvert_{u=0,v=\sqrt{pn}\log(\gamma)-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}-{\left(}{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3){\right)}\sqrt{\frac np}}
\xrightarrow{d}$$ $$N{\left(}0,~
\nabla G\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2 & {\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}{\left(}\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^3}\frac np{\right)}\\
{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}{\left(}\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^3}\frac np{\right)}& \frac{{\left(}\frac{\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+2{\right)}\theta }{\gamma^2}+\frac{{\left(}\frac{2\omega}{\theta}{\left(}\nu_4-3{\right)}+5{\right)}\theta^2n}{\gamma^4p} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\nabla G'
{\right)},$$ where $\nabla G=\left.{\left(}\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial u},\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial \nu}{\right)}\right\rvert_{u=0,v=\sqrt{pn}\log(\gamma)-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}-{\left(}{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3){\right)}\sqrt{\frac np}}
$ is the corresponding gradient vector.\
Then we have, for $(u,v)={\left(}0, \sqrt{pn}\log(\gamma)-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}\sqrt{\frac{n^3}{p}}-{\left(}{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3){\right)}\sqrt{\frac np} {\right)}$, $$G(u,v)=\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}n+{\left(}\frac{\theta^2}{2\gamma^4}-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^3}{\right)}\frac{n^2}{p}+\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^2}+\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^2}(\nu_4-3),$$ and $$\nabla G ~Cov{\left(}u,v{\right)}\nabla G'=~\frac{\theta^2}{\gamma^4}.$$ The result thus follows.
Simulation Experiments
----------------------
Empirical power of the two tests are shown in this section to testify the theoretical results presented in Proposition \[Prop:PowerJohn\] and \[Prop:PowerQLRT\]. Specifically, we consider two different scenarios to generate sample data:
- $\{Z_j,~1\leq j\leq n\}$ i.i.d $p-$dimensional random vector generated from multivariate normal population $N_p({\bf 0},I_p)$, ${\mathbb{E}}z_{ij}^4=\nu_4=3$, $X_j=\Sigma_p^{1/2}Z_j$, $1\leq j\leq n$;
- $\{z_{ij},~1\leq i\leq p,~1\leq j\leq n\}$ i.i.d follow $Gamma(4,2)-2$ distribution, then $\mathbb{E}z_{ij}=0$, $\mathbb{E}z^2_{ij}=1$, $\mathbb{E}z^4_{ij}=\nu_4=4.5$. $X_{p\times n}=\Sigma_p^{1/2}Z_{p\times n}$.
To cover multiple alternative hypothesis, $\Sigma_p$ is configured as a diagonal matrix with elements 0.5 and 1. The proportion of “1" is $\delta$. The nominal test level is set as $\alpha=0.05$. $(p,n)=(2400,64)$ and empirical power are generated from 5000 replications. Theoretical values are displayed for comparison.
[|c|cc|cc|cc|cc|]{} & & & & & & &**Empirical &**Theory &**Empirical &**Theory &**Empirical &**Theory &**Empirical & **Theory****************
**0 & 0.046 & 0.050 & 0.049 & 0.050 & 0.051 & 0.050 & 0.052 & 0.050**0.1 & 0.738 & 0.745 & 0.727 & 0.759 & 0.736 & 0.746 & 0.727 & 0.761**0.2 & 0.958 & 0.953 & 0.954 & 0.959 & 0.950 & 0.954 & 0.951 & 0.960**0.3 & 0.984 & 0.979 & 0.982 & 0.982 & 0.981 & 0.979 & 0.981 & 0.982**0.4 & 0.978 & 0.976 & 0.978 & 0.980 & 0.978 & 0.976 & 0.978 & 0.980**0.5 & 0.958 & 0.953 & 0.958 & 0.959 & 0.951 & 0.954 & 0.950 & 0.960************
It can be seen from Table \[Tab:EmPower\] that the empirical and theoretical power coincide with each other and both tests have very large power even when $\delta$ is small.
Discussions and Auxiliary Results {#empsec}
=================================
In summary, we found in the considered ultra-dimension ($p\gg n$) situations, QLRT is the most recommended procedure regarding its maximal power for sphericity test. However, from the application perspective where the dimension $p$ and $n$ are explicitly known, it becomes very difficult to decide which asymptotic scheme to use, namely, “ $p$ fixed, $n\rightarrow\infty$", “$p/n\rightarrow c\in(0,\infty), ~p,n\rightarrow\infty$", or “$p/n\rightarrow\infty, ~ p,n\rightarrow\infty$" etc. Combining our study with the existing literature, we would like to recommend a [*dimension-proof *]{} procedure like John’s test or Chen’s test, with a slight preference for John’s test as it has a slightly higher power and an easier implementation.
We conclude the paper by mentioning some surprising consequence of the main results of the paper as follows.
\[cor1\] Assume $X=\{x_{ij}\}_{p\times n}$ are i.i.d. satisfying $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij}^2)=1$, $\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^4=\nu_4<\infty$, then when $n/p\rightarrow\infty$, $n,p \rightarrow\infty$, $$-\frac 2p\log L_n-\frac{p}{2}-\frac{p^2}{6n}-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2} \xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,1{\right)}.$$ where $-\frac 2p\log L_n=\frac np\log{\left(}\frac{\overline{l}^p}{\prod_{i=1}^p l_i}{\right)}$, $\{l_i\}_{1\leq i\leq p}$ are the eigenvalues of $p-$dimensional sample covariance matrix $\frac1nXX'$.
Note that if we fix $p$ while let $n\rightarrow \infty$, under normality assumption, the Corollary \[cor1\] reduces to $$-\frac 2p\log L_n-\frac{p+1}{2}\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,1{\right)},$$ which is consistent with the classic LRT asymptotic, i.e. $ -2\log L_n \xrightarrow{d} \chi^2_{\frac{1}{2}p(p+1)-1}.$
\[cor2\] Assume $X=\{x_{ij}\}_{p\times n}$ are i.i.d. satisfying $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij})=0$, $\mathbb{E}(x_{ij}^2)=1$, $\mathbb{E}|x_{ij}|^4=\nu_4<\infty$, then when $n/p\rightarrow\infty$, $n,p \rightarrow\infty$, $$nU-p \xrightarrow{d} N(\nu_4-2,4).$$
Interchanging the role of $n$ and $p$ in Theorem \[MainThm\], keeping all other assumptions unchanged, it can be seen that, when $n/p\rightarrow\infty$, $n,p \rightarrow\infty$, $$p\widetilde{U}-n \xrightarrow{d} N(\nu_4-2,4),$$ where $$\widetilde{U}=\cfrac{n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i^2}{{\left(}\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i{\right)}^2}-1,$$ $\tilde{l}_i(1\leq i\leq n)$ are eigenvalues of $n\times n$ matrix $\frac{1}{p}X'X$, $l_i$ are eigenvalues of $\frac 1n XX'$, then $$\begin{aligned}
p\widetilde{U}-n & =\cfrac{\frac pn\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i^2}{{\left(}\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n\tilde{l}_i{\right)}^2}-p-n\\
&= \cfrac{\frac np\sum_{i=1}^p l_i^2}{\overline{l}^2}-n-p= nU-p.
\end{aligned}$$
Henceforth, the [*dimension-proof*]{} property of John’s test statistic, i.e. regardless of normality, under any $(n,p)$-asymptotic, $n/p\rightarrow[0,\infty]$, has been completely testified.
[99]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Anderson, T.W.</span>(1984). An introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis(2nd edition). Wiley, New York.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bai, Z. D., and Yao, J.</span> (2005). On the convergence of the spectral empirical process of Wigner matrices. [*Bernoulli*]{}. 11.6: 1059-1092.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bai, Z.D., and Yong Q. Yin.</span>(1988). Convergence to the semicircle law. [*The Annals of Probability*]{} , 1988: 863-875.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chen B B, Pan G M.</span>(2013). CLT for linear spectral statistics of normalized sample covariance matrices with the dimension much larger than the sample size. [*Bernoulli*]{} Accepted.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chen S X, Zhang L X, Zhong P S.</span>(2010). Tests for high-dimensional covariance matrices. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{}, 2010, 105(490).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fisher, Thomas J., Xiaoqian Sun, and Colin M. Gallagher.</span> (2010). A new test for sphericity of the covariance matrix for high dimensional data. [*Journal of Multivariate Analysis*]{}, 101.10: 2554-2570.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">John S.</span>(1971). Some optimal multivariate tests. [*Biometrika*]{}, 1971, 58(1): 123-127.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">John S.</span>(1972). The distribution of a statistic used for testing sphericity of normal distributions. [*Biometrika*]{}, 1972, 59(1): 169-173.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ledoit O, Wolf M.</span>(2002). Some hypothesis tests for the covariance matrix when the dimension is large compared to the sample size. [*Annals of Statistics*]{}: 1081-1102.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Li Z. and Yao J.</span>(2016). CLT for linear spectral statistics of general sample covariance matrices with dimension much larger than sample size. [*Preprint*]{}.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schott J R.</span>(2005). Testing for complete independence in high dimensions. [*Biometrika*]{}, 2005, 92(4): 951-956.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M.S. Srivastava</span>(2005). Some tests concerning the covariance matrix in high-dimensional data, [*J. Japan Statist. Soc.*]{}, 35,251–272.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M.S. Srivastava</span>(2006). Some tests criteria for the covariance matrix with fewer observations than the dimension, [*Acta Comment. Univ. Tartu. Math*]{}, 10,77–93
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M.S. Srivastava, Muni S., Tõnu Kollo, and Dietrich von Rosen.</span>(2011). Some tests for the covariance matrix with fewer observations than the dimension under non-normality. [*Journal of Multivariate Analysis*]{}, 102.6: 1090-1103.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wang Q and Yao J.</span>(2013) On the sphericity test with large-dimensional observations. [*Electronic Journal of Statistics*]{}, 2013, 7: 2164-2192.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yao J., Bai Z., and Zheng S.</span>(2015). Large Sample Covariance Matrices and High-dimensional Data Analysis. [*Cambridge University Press*]{}. Vol. 39.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Zou C, Peng L, Feng L, et al.</span>(2013) Multivariate sign-based high-dimensional tests for sphericity. [*Biometrika*]{}, 2013: ast040.
Technique Lemmas and additional proofs {#lemsec}
======================================
\[techlem\] In the central limit theorem of linear functions of eigenvalues of the re-normalized sample covariance matrix $A$ when the dimension $p$ is much larger than the sample size $n$ derived by @ChenPan13, Let $\mathscr{S}$ denote any open region on the complex plane including $[-2,2]$, the support of the semicircle law $F(x)$, we denote the Stieltjes transform of the semicircle law $F$ by $m(z)$. Let $\mathscr{M}$ be the set of functions which are analytic on $\mathscr{S}$, for any analytic function $f\in \mathcal{M}$, the mean correction term is defined as $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m.$$ Define functions $f_1(x)=x^2, ~f_2(x)=x, ~ f_3(x)=\frac{p}{n}\log(1+\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}x)$, then the mean correction term in equation for these functions are as follows: $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_1{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m=\nu_4-2,$$ $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_2{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m=0,$$ $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_3{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m=-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}+\frac{n^2}{3p}.$$
Since $$\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\triangleq \cfrac{-\mathcal{B}+\sqrt{\mathcal{B}^2-4\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}^{\rm{Calib}}}}{2\mathcal{A}},~\mathcal{A}=m-\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}(1+m^2),$$ $$\mathcal{B}=m^2-1-\cfrac{n}{p}m(1+2m^2),~\mathcal{C}^{\rm{Calib}}=\cfrac{m^3}{n}\left[\nu_4-2+\cfrac{m^2}{1-m^2}-2(\nu_4-1)m\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}\right]-\sqrt{\cfrac{n}{p}}m^4,$$ the integral’s contour is taken as $|m|=\rho$ with $\rho<1$.
For $f_1(x)=x^2$, choose $\rho< \sqrt{\frac np}<\sqrt{\frac pn}$, $$\begin{aligned}
~&\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_1{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m\\
=& ~\frac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\cfrac{(1-m^4)(1+m^2)}{m^4}\cdot\cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}} \operatorname{d}\!m\\
~&~{\left(}\mbox{denote } X:= \frac12{\left(}-\mathcal{B}+\sqrt{\mathcal{B}^2-4\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}^{\rm{Calib}}}{\right)}{\right)}\\
=&~\frac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho} \frac{1+m^2}{m^4}\cdot\cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}} \operatorname{d}\!m\\
~&~{\left(}\mbox{Cauchy's Residue Theorem}{\right)}\\
=&~\frac{1}{3!}\left.{\operatorname{d}}^{(3)}{\left(}\cfrac{n X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}}{\right)}\middle/ \operatorname{d} m^3\right|_{m=0}+\left. \operatorname{d} {\left(}\cfrac{n X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}}{\right)}\middle/ \operatorname{d}\!m\right|_{m=0}\\
=&~\nu_4-2.\end{aligned}$$
For $f_2(x)=x$, choose $\rho< \sqrt{\frac np}<\sqrt{\frac pn}$, $$\begin{aligned}
~&\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_2{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}}\\
=&~ \cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho} (-m-m^{-1})\cdot \cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}}\cdot\frac{1-m^2}{m^2}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}}\\
=&~ - \cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\frac{1}{m^3}\cdot\cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}}\\
=&~~-\frac{1}{2!}\left.{\operatorname{d}}^{(2)}{\left(}\cfrac{n X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}}{\right)}\middle/ \operatorname{d} m^2\right|_{m=0}=~0.\end{aligned}$$ For $f_3(x)=\frac{p}{n}\log(1+\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}x)$, choose $\rho< \sqrt{\frac np}<\sqrt{\frac pn}$, $$\begin{aligned}
~&\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_3{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}}\\
=&~\cfrac{p}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\log {\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}(m+m^{-1}){\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}}\\
=&~\cfrac{p}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\left[-\frac 1k {\left(}\sqrt{\frac np}(m+m^{-1}){\right)}^k\right]\cdot \cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}}\cdot\frac{1-m^2}{m^2}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}}\\
=&~-\cfrac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\left[\sqrt{np}\cdot\frac{1-m^4}{m^3}+\frac n2\cdot\frac{(1-m^4)(1+m^2)}{m^4}+\frac n3 \cdot \sqrt{\frac np}\cdot\frac{(1-m^4)(1+m^2)^2}{m^5}\right.\\
~&~~~\left.+\frac{n^2}{4p}\cdot\frac {(1-m^4)(1+m^2)^3}{m^6}\right]\cdot \cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}} + o{\left(}\frac{n^2}{p}{\right)}\\
=&~-\cfrac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\left[\sqrt{np}\cdot\frac{1}{m^3}+\frac n2\cdot\frac{1+m^2}{m^4}+\frac n3 \cdot \sqrt{\frac np}\cdot\frac{1+2m^2}{m^5}\right.\\
~&~~~\left.+\frac{n^2}{4p}\cdot\frac {1+3m^2+2m^4}{m^6}\right]\cdot \cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}} + o{\left(}\frac{n^2}{p}{\right)}\end{aligned}$$
According to Cauchy’s residue theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
~&~-\cfrac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\sqrt{np}\cdot\frac{1}{m^3}\cdot \cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}}\\
=&~-\frac{1}{2!}\left.{\operatorname{d}}^{(2)}{\left(}\cfrac{\sqrt{np} X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}}{\right)}\middle/ \operatorname{d} m^2\right|_{m=0}=~0,\end{aligned}$$ similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
~&-\cfrac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}\left[\sqrt{np}\cdot\frac{1}{m^3}+\frac n2\cdot\frac{1+m^2}{m^4}+\frac n3 \cdot \sqrt{\frac np}\cdot\frac{1+2m^2}{m^5}\right.\\
~&~~~\left.+\frac{n^2}{4p}\cdot\frac {1+3m^2+2m^4}{m^6}\right]\cdot \cfrac{X}{{\left(}1-\sqrt{\frac np}m{\right)}}\cdot\frac{1}{m-\sqrt{\frac np}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{m}}} + o{\left(}\frac{n^2}{p}{\right)}\\
=&~0-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}-0+\frac{p^2+\nu_4-2}{3n}-0-\frac{(2\nu_4-3)n}{p}-\frac{(\nu_4-2)n^2}{4p^2}-\frac{3(\nu_4-2)n}{4p}-0+ o{\left(}\frac{n^2}{p}{\right)}\\
=&~-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}+\frac{n^2}{3p}+ o{\left(}\frac{n^2}{p}{\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
**Proof of Lemma \[lemma\] :**
According to Theorem \[CLT\], define function $f_1(x)=x^2$, then $$\begin{aligned}
G_n(f_1)&=n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f_1(x)d{\left(}F^A(x)-F(x){\right)}\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2-n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x^2\cdot \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^2}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2-n,\end{aligned}$$ where $F^A$ is ESD of $A=\cfrac{1}{\sqrt{np}}{\left(}X'X-pI_n{\right)}$ and $F$ represents the semicircular law. The mean correction term for $f_1(x)=x^2$ is, according to Lemma \[techlem\], $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_1{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m=\nu_4-2,$$ As for the mean function and covariance function of the Gaussian limit $Y(f_1)$, since $$\Phi_1(f_1)=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}4\cos^3\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0,$$ $$\Phi_2(f_1)=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}4\cos^2\theta \cos 2\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}(\cos 4\theta+1+2\cos 2\theta){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=1,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_k(f_1)&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}4\cos^2\theta \cos k\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2(\cos 2\theta+1)\cos k\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}\\
&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}(\cos(k-2)\theta+\cos(k+2)\theta+2\cos k\theta){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0,~~ \mbox{ for }k\geq 3,\end{aligned}$$ therefore $Var(Y(f_1))=4$, in addition, $\mathbb{E}(Y(f_1))=0$, Conclusively, we have, when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2-n-(\nu_4-2)\xrightarrow{d} N(0,4).$$
Similarly, if we define function $f_2=x$, then $$\begin{aligned}
G_n(f_2)&=n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f_2(x) d {\left(}F^A(x)-F(x){\right)}\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i-n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x\cdot \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^2}dx=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i.\end{aligned}$$ The mean correction term for $f_2(x)=x$ is, according to Lemma \[techlem\], $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_2{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m=0,$$ As for the mean function and covariance function of the Gaussian limit $Y(f_2)$, since $$\Phi_0(f_2)=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0,$$ $$\Phi_1(f_2)=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos^2\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=1,$$ $$\Phi_2(f_2)=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos\theta \cos 2\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}(\cos 3\theta+\cos \theta){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_k(f_2)&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos\theta \cos k\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}\\
&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}(\cos(k+1)\theta+\cos(k-1)\theta){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0 \mbox{ for }k\geq 3,\end{aligned}$$ therefore $$\begin{aligned}
Var(G_n(f_2))&=(\nu_4-3)\Phi_1(f_2)\Phi_1(f_2)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_k(f_2)\Phi_k(f_2)\\
&=\nu_4-1,\end{aligned}$$ in addition, $\mathbb{E}(Y(f_2))=0$. In conclusion, we have, when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2-n-(\nu_4-2)\xrightarrow{d} N(0,4),$$ $$\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\xrightarrow{d} N(0,\nu_4-1).$$ Now consider the covariance between $G_n(f_1)$ and $G_n(f_2)$, then $$Cov(G_n(f_1),G_n(f_2))=(\nu_4-3)\Phi_1(f_1)\Phi_1(f_2)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_k(f_1)\Phi_k(f_2)=0.$$ Consequently, when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i^2-n-(\nu_4-2)\\
\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i
\end{array}
\right)\xrightarrow{d} N\left(
{\left(}\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
{\right)},~{\left(}\begin{array}{cc}
4&0\\
0&\nu_4-1
\end{array}
{\right)}\right),$$
**Proof of Lemma \[LRTlem\] :**
According to Theorem \[CLT\], define function $f_3(x)= \frac pn \log {\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}x{\right)}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
G_n(f_3)&=n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f_3(x)\operatorname{d}\! {\left(}F^A(x)-F(x){\right)}\\
&=\frac pn\sum_{i=1}^n\log {\left(}1+\lambda_i\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}-n\int_{-2}^{2} \frac pn \log {\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}x{\right)}\cdot F(x){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $F^A$ is ESD of $A=\cfrac{1}{\sqrt{np}}{\left(}X'X-pI_n{\right)}$ and $F$ represents the semicircular law. $$\begin{aligned}
n\int_{-2}^{2} \frac pn \log {\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}x{\right)}\cdot F(x){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}
=&~p\int_{-2}^{2} \log {\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}x{\right)}\cdot \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^2}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}\\
=&-\frac n2\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(2k+1)!!}{2^{k-1}(k+1)^2(k+2)}\cdot{\left(}\frac{4n}{p}{\right)}^k\\
=&~-\frac n2-\frac{n^2}{2p}+o{\left(}\frac{n^2}{2p}{\right)}\end{aligned}$$
The mean correction term for $f_3(x)=\frac pn \log {\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}x{\right)}$ is, according to Lemma \[techlem\], $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_3{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m=-\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}+\frac{n^2}{3p},$$ As for the mean function and covariance function of the Gaussian limit $Y(f_3)$, since $\log(1+x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\frac{x^n}{n},$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(f_3)&=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f_3(2\cos\theta)\cdot \cos\theta{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}\\
~&=~\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\sqrt{\frac pn}\cdot 2\cos \theta\cdot\cos \theta{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac 12\cdot (2\cos \theta)^2\cdot\cos \theta{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}\\
~&+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac13\sqrt{\frac np}\cdot(2\cos\theta)^3\cdot\cos\theta{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}+o{\left(}\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}\\
~&=\sqrt{\frac pn}+\sqrt{\frac np}+o{\left(}\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)},\end{aligned}$$ for $k\geq 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_k(f_3)&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f_3(2\cos \theta) \cos k\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}\\
~&=~\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\sqrt{\frac pn}\cdot 2\cos \theta\cdot\cos k\theta{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac 12\cdot (2\cos \theta)^2\cdot\cos k\theta{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}\\
~&+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac13\sqrt{\frac np}\cdot(2\cos\theta)^3\cdot\cos k\theta{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}+o{\left(}\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}\\
~&=o{\left(}\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}+\begin{cases}
-\frac{1}{2} & \text{$k=2$}\\
\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\frac np} &\text{$k=3$}\\
0 &\text{$k\geq 4$}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ therefore $$\begin{aligned}
Var(G_n(f_3))&=(\nu_4-3)\Phi_1(f_3)\Phi_1(f_3)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_k(f_3)\Phi_k(f_3)\\
&=(\nu_4-1){\left(}\sqrt{\frac pn}+\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}^2+ 2\cdot 2\cdot {\left(}-\frac12{\right)}^2+2\cdot3 \cdot\frac{1}{9}\cdot \frac{n}{p}\\
&=(\nu_4-1)\cdot\frac pn+2\nu_4-1+\frac np(\nu_4-\frac13),\end{aligned}$$ in addition, $\mathbb{E}(Y(f_3))=0$, Conclusively, we have, when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\frac pn\sum_{i=1}^n\log{\left(}1+\sqrt{\frac np}\lambda_i{\right)}+\frac n2+\frac{n^2}{6p}+\frac{\nu_4-2}{2}\xrightarrow{d} N{\left(}0,\frac pn(\nu_4-1)+2\nu_4-1+\frac np{\left(}\nu_4-\frac13{\right)}{\right)}.$$
If we define function $f_2=x$, it has been proved in Lemma \[lemma\] that, $$G_n(f_2)=n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f_2(x) d {\left(}F^A(x)-F(x){\right)}=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i.$$ The mean correction term for $f_2(x)=x$ is, according to Lemma \[techlem\], $$\cfrac{n}{2\pi i}\oint_{|m|=\rho}f_2{\left(}-m-m^{-1}{\right)}\chi_n^{\rm{Calib}}(m)\cfrac{1-m^2}{m^2} \operatorname{d}\!m=0,$$ As for the mean function and covariance function of the Gaussian limit $Y(f_2)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_0(f_2)&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0,\\
\Phi_1(f_2)&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos^2\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=1,\\
\Phi_2(f_2)&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos\theta \cos 2\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0,\\
\Phi_k(f_2)&=\cfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}2\cos\theta \cos k\theta {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0 \mbox{ for }k\geq 3,\end{aligned}$$
$$Var(G_n(f_2))=(\nu_4-3)\Phi_1(f_2)\Phi_1(f_2)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_k(f_2)\Phi_k(f_2)=\nu_4-1,$$ in addition, $\mathbb{E}(Y(f_2))=0$. In conclusion, we have, when $p/n\rightarrow\infty$, $n\rightarrow\infty$, $$\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i\xrightarrow{d} N(0,\nu_4-1).$$ Now consider the covariance between $G_n(f_3)$ and $G_n(f_2)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
Cov(G_n(f_3),G_n(f_2))&=(\nu_4-3)\Phi_1(f_3)\Phi_1(f_2)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_k(f_3)\Phi_k(f_2)=(\nu_4-1){\left(}\sqrt{\frac pn}+\sqrt{\frac np}{\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
Consequently result follows.
[**Proof of Lemma \[Powerlem1\]:**]{}
According to Theorem \[PowerCLT\], define function $f_{1}\left(x\right)=x^{2}$, then
$$\begin{aligned}
G_{n}\left(f_{1}\right) & = n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f_{1}\left(x\right) d\left(F^{\widetilde{A}}\left(x\right)-F\left(x\right)\right)-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{1}\right)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}^{2}-n\int_{-2}^{2}\frac{x^{2}}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{1}\right)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}^{2}-n-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{1}\right),\end{aligned}$$
where $F^{\widetilde{A}}$ is the ESD of $\widetilde{A}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}\left(\Sigma_{p}^{2}\right)}}Z'\Sigma_{p}Z-\frac{{\mathop{tr}}\left(\Sigma_{p}\right)}{\sqrt{{\mathop{tr}}\left(\Sigma_{p}^{2}\right)}}I_{n}\right)$ and $F$ represents the semicircular law.
As for the mean function and covariance function of the Gaussian limit $Y\left(f_{1}\right)$, since
$$\Phi_{0}\left(f_{1}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f_{1}\left(2\cos\left(\theta\right)\right){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=2,$$
$$\Phi_{k}\left(f_{1}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f_{1}\left(2\cos\left(\theta\right)\right)\cos\left(k\theta\right){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\begin{cases}
0, & k=1,\\
1, & k=2,\\
0, & k\geq3,\end{cases}$$
$
G_{n}\left(f_{1}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}^{2}-n,$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left(Y\left(f_{1}\right)\right) & = \frac{1}{4}\left(f_{1}\left(2\right)+f_{1}\left(-2\right)\right)-\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{0}\left(f_{1}\right)+\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{2}\left(f_{1}\right)\\
& = 2-1+\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)=\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+1,\end{aligned}$$
$$Var\left(Y\left(f_{1}\right)\right)=\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{1}^{2}\left(f_{1}\right)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_{k}^{2}\left(f_{1}\right)=4.$$
Similarly, if we define function $f_{2}\left(x\right)=x$, then $$\begin{aligned}
G_{n}\left(f_{2}\right) & = n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f_{2}\left(x\right)d\left(F^{\widetilde{A}}\left(x\right)-F\left(x\right)\right)-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{2}\right)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}-n\int_{-2}^{2}\frac{x}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{2}\right)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{2}\right),\end{aligned}$$
As for the mean function and covariance function of the Gaussian limit $Y\left(f_{2}\right)$, since
$$\Phi_{0}\left(f_{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f_{2}\left(2\cos\left(\theta\right)\right){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=0,$$
$$\Phi_{k}\left(f_{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f_{2}\left(2\cos\left(\theta\right)\right)\cos\left(k\theta\right){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\begin{cases}
1, & k=1,\\
0, & k\geq2,\end{cases}$$
$
G_{n}\left(f_{2}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i},$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left(Y\left(f_{2}\right)\right) & = \frac{1}{4}\left(f_{2}\left(2\right)+f_{2}\left(-2\right)\right)-\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{0}\left(f_{2}\right)+\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{2}\left(f_{2}\right)\\
& = -\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{0}\left(f_{2}\right)+\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{2}\left(f_{2}\right)=0,
\end{aligned}$$
$$Var\left(Y\left(f_{2}\right)\right)=\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+2,$$
$$Cov\left(Y\left(f_{1}\right),Y\left(f_{2}\right)\right)=\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{1}\left(f_{1}\right)\Phi_{1}\left(f_{2}\right)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_{k}\left(f_{1}\right)\Phi_{k}\left(f_{2}\right)=0,$$
therefore
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}^{2}-n-\left(\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+1\right)\\
\sum_{i=1}^{n}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}\end{array}\right)\xrightarrow{d}N_{2}\left(\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}
4 & 0\\
0 & \frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+2\end{array}\right)\right),$$
as $n\rightarrow\infty,\quad p\rightarrow\infty,\quad p/n^{3}=O\left(1\right)$.
[**Proof of Lemma \[Powerlem2\]:**]{}
According to Theorem \[PowerCLT\], define function $f_{3}\left(x\right)=\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}x\right)$, then
$$\begin{aligned}
G_{n}\left(f_{3}\right) & = n\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f_{3}\left(x\right)d\left(F^{\widetilde{A}}\left(x\right)-F\left(x\right)\right)-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{3}\right)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}\right)-n\int_{-2}^{2}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}x\right)\frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{3}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&~n\int_{-2}^{2}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}x\right)\frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}} \\
& = p\int_{-2}^{2}\left(\log\gamma+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(-1\right)^{k+1}\frac{\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}x\right)^{k}}{k}\right)\frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}\\
& = p\log\gamma-p\int_{-2}^{2}\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^{2}}\frac{n}{p}x^{2}\frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}-p\int_{-2}^{2}\frac{\theta^{2}}{4\gamma^{4}}\frac{n^{2}}{p^{2}}x^{4}\frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}+o\left(\frac{n^{2}}{p}\right)\\
& = p\log\gamma-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^{2}}n-\frac{\theta^{2}}{2\gamma^{4}}\frac{n^{2}}{p}+o\left(\frac{n^{2}}{p}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{0}\left(f_{3}\right) & = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+2\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\cos t\right){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& = \frac{p}{n}\log\gamma+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{2\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\cos t{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{2\theta}{\gamma^{2}}\left(\cos t\right)^{2}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& + \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{8\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^{3}}\left(\cos t\right)^{3}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}+o\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right)\\
& = \frac{p}{n}\log\gamma-\frac{\theta}{\gamma^{2}}+o\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{1}\left(f_{3}\right) & = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+2\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\cos t\right)\cos t{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{p}{n}\log\gamma\cos t{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(1+\frac{2\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\cos t\right)\cos t{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{2\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\left(\cos t\right)^{2}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{2\theta}{\gamma^{2}}\left(\cos t\right)^{3}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& + \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{8\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^{3}}\left(\cos t\right)^{4}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}+o\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right)\\
& = \frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}+o\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{k}\left(f_{3}\right) & = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+2\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\cos t\right)\cos kt{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{p}{n}\log\gamma\cos kt{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(1+\frac{2\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\cos t\right)\cos kt{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{2\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\cos t\cos kt{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{2\theta}{\gamma^{2}}\left(\cos t\right)^{2}\cos kt{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}\\
& + \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{8\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\left(\cos t\right)^{3}\cos kt{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{t}}}+o\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right)\\
& = \begin{cases}
-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^{2}}, & k=2,\\
\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}, & k=3,\\
0, & k\geq4,\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
thus,
$$\begin{aligned}
G_{n}\left(f_{3}\right) & = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}\right)-n\int_{-2}^{2}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}x\right)\frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^{2}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{x}}}-\sqrt{\frac{n^{3}}{p}}\Phi_{3}\left(f_{3}\right)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}\right)-\left(p\log\gamma-\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^{2}}n-\frac{\theta^{2}}{2\gamma^{4}}\frac{n^{2}}{p}\right)-\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{3\gamma^{3}}\frac{n^{2}}{p},
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left(Y\left(f_{3}\right)\right) & = \frac{1}{4}\left(f_{3}\left(2\right)+f_{3}\left(-2\right)\right)-\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{0}\left(f_{3}\right)+\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{2}\left(f_{3}\right)\\
& = \frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma+2\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\right)+\frac{p}{n}\log\left(\gamma-2\sqrt{\frac{n\theta}{p}}\right)\right)\\
& - \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{p}{n}\log\gamma-\frac{\theta}{\gamma^{2}}\right)-\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^{2}}\\
& = -\frac{\theta}{2\gamma^{2}}-\frac{\omega}{2\gamma^{2}}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right),
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
Var\left(Y\left(f_{3}\right)\right) & = \frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{1}^{2}\left(f_{3}\right)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_{k}^{2}\left(f_{3}\right)\\
& = \frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right)^{2}\\
& + 2\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right)^{2}+4\left(\frac{\theta^{2}}{4\gamma^{4}}\right)+6\frac{\theta^{3}}{9\gamma^{6}}\frac{n}{p}\\
& = \left(\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+2\right)\frac{\theta}{\gamma^{2}}\frac{p}{n}+\left(\frac{2\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+5\right)\frac{\theta^{2}}{\gamma^{4}}+\left(\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+\frac{8}{3}\right)\frac{\theta^{3}}{\gamma^{6}}\frac{n}{p}.
\end{aligned}$$
Consider function $f_{2}\left(x\right)=x$, from lemma \[Powerlem1\], we have
$$\Phi_{k}\left(f_{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f_{2}\left(2\cos\left(\theta\right)\right)\cos\left(k\theta\right){\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}\!{\theta}}}=\begin{cases}
0, & k=0\\
1, & k=1\\
0, & k\geq2\end{cases},$$
therefore the covariance between $Y\left(f_{2}\right)$ and $Y\left(f_{3}\right)$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
Cov\left(Y\left(f_{2}\right),Y\left(f_{3}\right)\right) & = \frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)\Phi_{1}\left(f_{2}\right)\Phi_{1}\left(f_{3}\right)+2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\Phi_{k}\left(f_{2}\right)\Phi_{k}\left(f_{3}\right)\\
& = \left(\frac{\omega}{\theta}\left(\nu_{4}-3\right)+2\right)\left(\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}+\frac{\theta\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{n}{p}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
consequently the result follows.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we prove a Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing theorem for smooth Fano threefolds, canonical del Pezzo surfaces and del Pezzo fibrations in positive characteristic.'
address: 'Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan'
author:
- Tatsuro Kawakami
title: 'On Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing for three dimensional Mori fiber spaces in positive characteristic'
---
= 9999
Introduction
============
The Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing theorem is one of the most important tools in birational geometry in characteristic zero. However, this vanishing theorem fails in positive characteristic and a lot of counterexamples have been constructed (see, for example, [@Ray78], [@Muk13],[@CT18], [@CT19],[@Tot19]). In this paper, we prove that a Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing theorem still holds on some Mori fiber spaces in positve characteristic.
First, we discuss a Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing theorem for a smooth Fano threefold. Indeed, we prove the following theorem.
\[KVVonfanointro\] Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold over an algbraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$ and $D$ be a Cartier divisor on $X$. If ${\mathcal{O}}_X(D)\subset\Omega_X$, then we have $\kappa(D)=-\infty$, where $\kappa(D)$ is the Iitaka dimension of the invertible sheaf ${\mathcal{O}}_X(D)$. Furthermore, if $D$ is nef and big, then we have $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$.
Theorem \[KVVonfanointro\] can be reduced to the case of the Picard rank $\rho(X)=1$ by choosing suitable extremal contractions. The assertion then follows from an application of a result of Shepherd–Barron ([@SB18 Theorem 2.1]). We remark that Theorem \[KVVonfanointro\] corrects [@SB97 Theorem 1.4] whose proof has a gap in the case of $p=2, 3$.
Next, we consider a Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing theorem for a del Pezzo surface. Cascini–Tanaka ([@CT19]) constructed a canonical del Pezzo surface violating the Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing theorem in characteristic two. Shortly afterward, inspired by their example, Bernasconi ([@Ber17]) constructed a klt del Pezzo surface violating the Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing theorem in characteristic three. Since his example is not canonical, the Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing theorem for canonical del Pezzo surfaces still has remained open when characteristic is bigger than or equal to three. In this paper, we give an affirmative answer to this open problem. More generally, we prove the following theorem.
Let $X$ be a normal projective surface with canonical singularities over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p\neq2$. Suppose that $\kappa(X):=\kappa(\tilde{X})=-\infty$, where $\tilde{X}\to X$ is a resolution. Then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$ for every nef and big ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor $D$ on $X$.
Finally, we focus on a Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing theorem for a del Pezzo fibration $f \colon Y \to Z$. Patakfalvi–Waldron ([@PW17 Theorem 1.10]) proved that $H^1(Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-A))=0$ for an ample Cartier divisor $A$ on $Y$ when $Y$ is smooth. We generalize their result to the case where $Y$ has only isolated singularities and $A$ is a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor. In [@PW17 Theorem 1.10], they also showed that $H^2(Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-A))$ is related with cohomologies of non-normal fibers of $f$. Making use of their result, we deduce the vanishing of $H^2(Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-A))$ from an analysis of non-normal fibers.
Let $f \colon Y \to Z$ be a Mori fiber space from a normal projective threefold with isolated singularities to a smooth curve over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$ and $A$ be an ample ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor on $Y$. Then $H^1(Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-A))=0$. Furthermore, if $p\geq11$ and $Y$ is smooth, then $H^2(Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y(-A))=0$.
The author wishes to express his gratitude to his supervisor Professor Shunsuke Takagi for his encouragement, valuable advice and suggestions. The author is also grateful to Professor Shepherd–Barron for kindly letting him include the proof of [@SB18] in an appendix. He would like to thank Professor Hiromichi Takagi, Professor Hiromu Tanaka, Takeru Fukuoka, Masaru Nagaoka, Kenta Sato and Shou Yoshikawa for helpful discussions and comments. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI 19J21085.
Throughout this paper, we work over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$. We say $X$ is a variety if $X$ is an integral separated scheme of finite type over $k$. A curve, surface and threefold mean a variety of dimension one, two and three, respectively. Given a variety $X$, the regular and singular loci of $X$ are denoted $X_{\reg}$ and $X_{\sg}$, respectively. Given a normal variety $X$, we denote $\Omega_X^{[1]}$ as $(\Omega_X)^{**}$, where $(-)^{**}$ is the reflexive hull. Given a normal (resp. Gorenstein) projective variety $X$, we use the notation $K_X$ as a corresponding Weil divisor (resp. Cartier divisor) to a dualizing sheaf $\omega_X$. Given a variety $X$, $\Pic(X)$ denotes the Picard group of $X$. Given a projective variety $X$, $\NS(X)$ (resp. $N^1(X)$) denotes a quotient group of $\Pic(X)$ by its subgroup consisting all isomorphism classes algebraically (resp. numerically) equivalent to zero. We refer to [@KM98 Section 2.3] for the definitions of singularities appearing in the minimal model program.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we summarize basic lemmas we need the rest of this paper.
Let $f \colon X \dasharrow Y$ be a birational map of normal varieties. $f$ is said to be a [*birational contraction*]{} if $f^{-1}$ does not contract any divisor.
\[push\] Let $f \colon X\dasharrow X'$ be a birational contraction of normal ${\mathbb{Q}}$-factorial projective varieties and $D$ be a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor on $X$. Let $D'$ be a pushforward of $D$ by $f$. Then $H^0(X, (\Omega^{[i]}_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))^{**})\subset H^0(X', (\Omega^{[i]}_{X'}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{X'}(-D'))^{**})$ for all $i\geq0$ and $\kappa(D)\leq \kappa(D')$, where $\kappa(D)$ denotes the Iitaka dimension of a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier divisor $D$.
\[BVtoKV\] Let $X$ be a normal projective variety of $\dim \, X\geq 2$ and $D$ be a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor on $X$. Suppose that one of the following conditions is satisfied.
1. [$D$ is ample.]{}
2. [$X$ is a klt surface and $D$ is nef and big.]{}
3. [$D$ is nef and big Cartier divisor.]{}
Then $H^0(X, (\Omega^{[1]}_X\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^eD))^{**})=0$ for all $e\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ implies $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$.
We have the exact sequence $$0 \to {\mathcal{O}}_U \to F_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_U \to F_{*}\Omega^1_U,$$ where $U$ denotes a regular locus of $X$. By tensoring ${\mathcal{O}}_U(-D)$ and taking the push-forward by the inclusion map $i \colon U\hookrightarrow X$, we get $$0 \to {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D) \to F_{*}({\mathcal{O}}_X(-pD)) \to F_{*}(\Omega^{[1]}_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-pD))^{**}.$$ Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote $\Coker({\mathcal{O}}_X(-D) \to F_{*}({\mathcal{O}}_X(-pD)))\subset F_{*}(\Omega^{[1]}_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-pD))^{**}$. By the assumption of the theorem, we have $H^0(X, \mathcal{C})\hookrightarrow H^0(X, (\Omega^{[1]}_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-pD))^{**})=0$. Therefore we get an injective map $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))\hookrightarrow H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-pD))$. By repeating this, we can see that it suffices to show $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^eD))=0$ for sufficiently large $e$. We prove the case $(1)$. We fix $m$, $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ such that $D':=p^m(p^n-1)D$ is Cartier. Then, for any $l \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$, we have $$\begin{array}{rl}
H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^{m+ln}D))=&H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^mD)\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^m(p^{ln}-1))D))\\
=&H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^mD)\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D'_l)),\\
\end{array}$$ where $D'_l$ denotes $(1+p^n+\cdots +p^{(l-1)n})D'$. Since ${\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^mD)$ satisfies $S_2$, the essentially same argument as [@Har77 Theorem 7.6(b)] gives $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^mD)\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D'_l))=0$ for sufficiently large $l$. For the case $(2), (3)$, we use [@Tan15 Theorem 2.11] and [@Lan09 Proposition 2.24 and Remark 2.26], respectively.
\[BVonSRC\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective separably rationally connected variety and $D$ be a Cartier divisor on $X$ with $\kappa(D)\geq 0$. Then $H^0(X, \Omega_X^i \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$ for all $i>0$.
Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing for smooth Fano threefolds.
===========================================================
In this section, we prove the cotangent bundle $\Omega_X$ of a smooth Fano threefolds $X$ does not contain a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ with the Iitaka dimension $\kappa(\mathcal{L})\geq0$. For this, we reduce to the case where the Picard rank is equal to one by choosing suitable extremal contractions. As a corollary, we obtain the vanishing of $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))$ for every nef and big Cartier divisor $D$ on $X$.
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold. $X$ is said be *primitive* if $X$ is not isomorphic to a blowing-up of a smooth Fano threefold along a smooth curve.
\[fanoMMP\] Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold. Then there is a sequence of birational maps of smooth Fano threefolds, $$X=:X_0 \overset{\varphi_0}{\rightarrow} X_1 \overset{\varphi_1}{\rightarrow} \cdots \overset{\varphi_{\ell-1}}{\rightarrow} X_{\ell} \overset{f}{\rightarrow} Y$$ such that the following properties hold.
1. For any $i \in \{0, \ldots, \ell\}$, $X_i$ is a smooth Fano threefold.
2. For any $i \in \{0, \ldots, \ell-1\}$, $\varphi_i:X_i \rightarrow X_{i+1}$ is a blowing up of a smooth curve.
3. $f$ is a Mori fiber space and $Y$ is a point or ${\mathbb{P}}_k^2$ or ${\mathbb{P}}^1_k\times {\mathbb{P}}^1_k$. A general fiber of $f$ is ${\mathbb{P}}_k^1$ when $Y$ is ${\mathbb{P}}_k^2$ or ${\mathbb{P}}^1_k\times {\mathbb{P}}^1_k$.
We may assume $X$ is primitive. Then, by [@MM83 section 8 (8.1),(8.2)], $\rho(X)=1$ or there exists an extremal ray contraction $f \colon X \to Y$, where $Y$ is a smooth projective surface. Let us note that an extremal contraction theorem on smooth projective threefolds is proved in all characteristics by [@Kol91], and thus the same argument as [@MM83 section 8 (8.1),(8.2)] works in positive characteristic. If a general fiber of $f$ is not smooth, then $X$ is isomorphic to the variety of [@MS03 Corollary 8(1)] and in this case, $X$ has another extremal contraction $f' \colon X \to Y'$ which gives ${\mathbb{P}}_k^1$-bundle structure by [@MS03 Remark 9]. By replacing $f$ with $f'$, we may assume a general fiber of $f$ is smooth. Note that $X$ can not be the variety of [@MS03 Corollary 8(2)] as this is not primitive by [@MS03 Remark 10]. Finally, we show that $Y\simeq{\mathbb{P}}_k^2$ or $ {\mathbb{P}}^1_k\times {\mathbb{P}}^1_k$ when $\dim \,Y=2$. Since $X$ is rationally chain connected, so is $Y$. We can also verify that $\kappa(Y)=-\infty$ by [@Sai03 Lemma 2.4], hence $X$ is a smooth rational surface. Then it is enough to show that there does not exist a curve whose self-intersection is negative, but this follows from [@MM83 Proposition 6.6] and the fact that $X$ is primitive. Let us remark that [@MM83 Proposition 4.5] which is used in the proof of [@MM83 Proposition 6.6] is also correct in positive characteristic as we can see in the proof of [@MM86 Proposition 2.3].
\[fano\] Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold of $\rho(X)=1$. Then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-A))=0$ for every ample Cartier divisor $A$ on $X$.
Theorem \[fano\] was originally claimed in [@SB97 Theorem 1.4], but the proof has a gap in the case where $p=2$ or $3$. Shepherd–Barron corrected his proof in [@SB18 Theorem 2.1], which is included as an appendix of this paper.
Here, let us recall the Cartier operators. Let $X$ be a smooth variety. The Frobenius push-forward of the logarithmic de Rham complex $$F_{*}\Omega^{\bullet}_X : F_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_X \overset{F_{*}d}{\to} F_{*}\Omega_X \overset{F_{*}d}{\to} \cdots$$ is a complex of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module homomorphisms. For all $i\geq0$, we define the coherent ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-modules as follows. $$\begin{array}{rl}
&B_X:=\Im(F_{*}d : F_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_X \to F_{*}\Omega^1_X),\\
&Z_X:=\Ker(F_{*}d : F_{*}\Omega_X \to F_{*}\Omega^{2}_X).\\
\end{array}$$
Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 \to {\mathcal{O}}_X \to F_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_X \overset{F_{*}d}{\to} B_X\to 0. \tag{3.1}\end{aligned}$$ Also, we have the exact sequence arising from the logarithmic Cartier isomorphism, $$\begin{aligned}
0 \to B_X \to Z_X \overset{C}{\to} \Omega_X \to 0. \tag{3.2}\end{aligned}$$
\[BVonfano\] Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold. Then $H^0(X, \Omega_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$ for every Cartier divisor $D$ with $\kappa(D)\geq 0.$
We consider the sequence of Theorem \[fanoMMP\] and use the same notation. By Lemma \[push\], we may assume $X$ is primitive. If $Y$ is not point, then $X$ is separably rationally connected by and the assertion follows from Lemma \[BVonSRC\]. Thus we may assume $\rho(X)=1$. By Theorem \[fano\] and by the same argument as [@SB97 Corollary 1.5], we get $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)=H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$ and $\Pic(X)={\mathbb{Z}}$. First, we consider the case of $\kappa(D)=0$. In this case, $D=0$ by $\Pic(X)\simeq {\mathbb{Z}}$ and it suffices to show $H^0(X, \Omega_X)=0$. By the exact sequence $(3.1)$ and $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)=H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$, we get $H^0(X, B_X)=H^1(X, B_X)=0$. Then, by the exact sequence $(3.2)$, we get $H^0(X, Z_X)\overset{C}{\simeq} H^0(X, \Omega_X)$ and also we can see that a canonical inclusion $H^0(X, Z_X)\hookrightarrow H^0(X, \Omega_X)$ is isomorphic. Here, an application of [@GK03 Proposition 4.3] gives $$H^0(X, \Omega_X)\simeq \Pic(X)[p]\otimes k,$$ where $\Pic(X)[p]$ denotes a subgroup of $\Pic(X)$ composed by $p$-torsion elements. Since $\Pic(X)$ is torsion-free, we get $H^0(X, \Omega_X)=0$. Next, we discuss the case of $\kappa(D)>0$. By the Riemann-Roch theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(D))&=\frac{1}{12}(D\cdot D-K_X\cdot 2D-K_X)+\frac{1}{12}(D \cdot c_2(X))+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)\tag{3.4},\\
\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)&=\frac{1}{24}(-K_X \cdot c_2(X)) \tag{3.5}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rho(X)=1$, $D\equiv a(-K_X)$ for some $a\in {\mathbb{Q}}_{>0}$ and thus $(D \cdot c_2(X))=a(-K_X \cdot c_2(X))=24a>0$ by $(3.5)$ and $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)=1$. Therefore, the right hand side of $(3.4)$ is bigger than $0$. By Theorem \[fano\], $H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(D))=H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-(-K_X+D))=0$ and we have $$h^0(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(D))\geq \mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(D))>0.$$ Thus $D$ is effective and we get $H^0(X, \Omega_X\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))\hookrightarrow H^0(X, \Omega_X)=0$.
By Lemma \[BVtoKV\] (3) and Theorem \[BVonfano\], we get the following corollary.
\[KVVonfano\] Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold. Then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$ for every nef and big Cartier divisor $D$ on $X$.
Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing on canonical Pezzo surfaces
===========================================================
In this section, we consider a Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing theorem on canonical del Pezzo surfaces.
\[GdelPezzo\] We say $X$ is a canonical del Pezzo surface if $X$ is a normal projective surface with canonical singularities such that $-K_X$ is ample.
If $p=2$, by taking $d=3, q_1=1, q_2=2$ in [@CT19 Theorem 4.2 (6)], we obtain a canonical del Pezzo surface $X$ violating the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem, that is, $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-A))\neq0$ for some ample ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Wei divisor $A$. In this section, we prove this pathological phenomenon can not happen unless $p=2$.
First, we gather the basic facts about canonical del Pezzo surfaces in the following lemma.
\[basic\] Let $X$ be a canonical del Pezzo surface with $d:=(K_X^2)$. Then the followings hold.
1. [$H^1(X, \omega_X^m)=0$ for all $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.]{}
2. [$\dim|-K_X|=d$.]{}
3. [$|-K_X|$ has no fixed part.]{}
4. [If $d\geq3$, then $\omega_X^{-1}$ is very ample.]{}
5. [If $d=2$, then $\omega_X^{-1}$ is globally generated and $\omega_X^{-2}$ is very ample.]{}
6. [If $d=1$, then $\omega_X^{-2}$ is globally generated and $\omega_X^{-3}$ is very ample.]{}
For $(1)$, by the Serre duality, it suffices to show $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(mK_X))=0$ for $m>0$. Let $\pi \colon Y\to X$ be the minimal resolution. Since $\omega_Y=\pi^{*}\omega_X$, by the Leray spectral sequence, we can reduce to the vanishing of $H^1(Y, \omega_{Y})^m$. This follows from Lemma \[BVtoKV\] and Lemma \[BVonSRC\] since $Y$ is a weak del Pezzo surface.\
Let us see $(2)$. Let $\pi \colon Y\to X$ be the minimal resolution. By $\pi^{*}\omega_X=\omega_Y$, we have $H^0(X, \omega_X^{-1})=H^0(Y, \omega_Y^{-1})=\frac{(-K_Y\cdot -2K_Y)}{2}+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_Y)
=(K_Y^2)+1=(K_X^2)+1$.\
$(3)$ follows from [@Dem80 Théorème 1]. Otherwise, by $(1)$ and $(2)$, we have $\Delta(X, \omega_X^{-1})=1$ and the assertion also follows from [@Fuj Corollary 2.12]. We refer [@Fuj] for the definition of the $\Delta$-genus $\Delta(X, \omega_X^{-1})$.\
The assertions for very ampleness of $(4),(5),(6)$ are proved by the same way as [@HW81 Corollary 4.5]. Let us remark that we can not assume a general member $C$ of $|-K_X|$ is smooth by Remark \[sing\], but the proof of [@HW81 Corollary 4.5] works even if $C$ is an l.c.i. curve since the structure of the section ring $R(C, \omega^{-1}|_C)$ does not change.\
Next, we show the assertions for globally generatedness of $(5),(6)$. We first consider the case of $d=1$. Since $H^0(X, \omega_X^{-2})\to H^0(C, \omega_X^{-2}|_C)$ is surjective, it suffices to show $\omega^{-2}_X|_C$ is globally generated. By $(-K_X^2)=1$, $\dim |-K_X|=1$ and the fact that $|-K_X|$ has no fixed part, we get $\Bs|-K_X|$ is one point $x$, every member is an l.c.i. curve with arithmetic genus one and every two members intersect transversely at $x$. In particular, we can take $D\in |-2K_X|_C|$ such that $\Supp(D)$ is contained in the smooth locus of $C$. By the Riemann–Roch theorem, $\dim_{k}\,H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D))-\dim_{k}\,H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D-q))=1$, where $q\in\Supp(D)$. Then ${\mathcal{O}}_C(D)$ is globally generated by [@Qin02 7, Lemma 4.2]. For the case of $d=2$, the assertion follows from [@Fuj Corollary 5.3(b)] since $\Delta(X, \omega_X^{-1})=1$.
\[sing\] [@HW81 Proposition 4.2 (ii)] claims that a general anti-canonical member of a canonical del Pezzo surface is smooth. However, their proof relies on [@Dem80 Théorème 1], which is valid only in characteristic zero because of the Bertini theorem (see a remark in the beginning of Chapter IV of [@Dem80]). Indeed, there exist canonical del Pezzo surfaces whose anti-canonical members are all singular when $p=2$ or $3$ as we see in Example \[counter\] and Example \[counter2\]. On the other hand, by the argument of [@HW81 Proposition 4.2 (ii)] and [@Dem80 Théorème 1], it is easy to check that a general anti-canonical member of a canonical del Pezzo surface is an l.c.i. curve in any characteristic. We will see in Proposition \[smooth\] that it is smooth unless $p=2$ or $3$.
\[counter\] Let $p=2$ or $3$ and $V$ be a pencil of cubic curves $X^3+Y^2Z$ and $Z^3$ on ${\mathbb{P}}_k^2=\Proj k[X,Y,Z]$. By taking a resolution of the pencil, we get a quasi-elliptic fibration by [@Bad01 Exercise 7.5 and Exercise 7.6]. In this resolution, we blow up $9$ times. Let $Y$ be a surface which we get $8$ times blow up. Then we can check that $Y$ is a weak del Pezzo surface with a general anti-canonical member is isomorphic to the fiber of the quasi-elliptic fibration, that is, a curve such that the arithmetic genus is one and has one cusp singularity. By contracting all $(-2)$-curves, we get a canonical del Pezzo surface with one $E_8$-singularity such that all anti-canonical members are singular.
\[counter2\] Let $p=2$ and $V$ be a linear system generated by cubic curves $X^2Y+Y^2X, Y^2Z+Z^2Y$ and $Z^2X+X^2Z$ on ${\mathbb{P}}_k^2=\Proj k[X,Y,Z]$. By blowing up at $[1:0:0], [0:1:0], [0:0:1], [1:1:0], [1:0:1], [0:1:1], [1:1:1]$, we get the resolution $\phi_{|-K_Y|}\colon Y \to {\mathbb{P}}_k^2$ of $\phi_{|V|}\colon {\mathbb{P}}_k^2 \dasharrow {\mathbb{P}}_k^2$. Then $Y$ is a weak del Pezzo surface whose general anti-cannonical member has one cusp singularity. By contracting all $(-2)$-curves, we get a canonical del Pezzo surface with seven $A_1$-singularities whose anti-canonical members are all singular.
These pathological phenomena are related to quasi-elliptic fibrations, which happen only in $p=2$ or $3$. In fact, we can show that a general member of $|-K_X|$ is smooth if $p\geq5$.
\[smooth\] Let X be a canonical del Pezzo surface. If $p\geq5$, then a general member of $|-K_X|$ is smooth.
Let us denote $d:=(K_X^2)$. If $d\geq3$, then $-K_X$ is very ample by Lemma \[basic\] and we get the assertion. Next, we assume $d=1$. Let us recall $\Bs|-K_X|$ is one point $x$, every member is an l.c.i. curve with arithmetic genus one and every two members intersect transversely at $x$ in this case. By blowing up at $x$, we get a resolution $f \colon Y \to {\mathbb{P}}_k^1$ of a pencil $\phi_{|-K_X|}\colon X \dasharrow {\mathbb{P}}^1_k$. For every $C\in |-K_X|$, $C$ is isomorphic to the strict transform since $x\in C$ is a smooth point. Let $\pi \colon \tilde{Y}\to Y$ be the resolution and $\tilde{f}:=\pi\circ f$. Since a general of $\tilde{f}$ is reduced and irreducible, we have $\tilde{f}_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}}\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^1_k}$. Then the general fiber is smooth if $p\geq5$ and so is the general member of $|-K_X|$. Finally, we assume $d=2$. Then $\phi_{|-K_X|}\colon X \to {\mathbb{P}}^2_k$ is generically étale as $p\neq2=\deg(\phi_{|-K_X|})$. Let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be pullbacks of two general elements of ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}_k^1}(1)$. Then $C_1$ and $C_2$ intersect transversely at two points $x$ and $y$. Let $V$ be a linear system generated by $C_1$ and $C_2$. Note that every two members of $V$ intersect transversely at $x$ and $y$. By blowing up at $y$, we can show that a general member of $V$ is smooth if $p\geq5$ by the argument of $d=1$. Therefore, the general member of $|-K_X|$ is smooth if $p\geq5$.
We can also see a general anti-canonical member of a smooth weak del Pezzo surface $Y$ is smooth if $p\geq5$ as follows. By considering the Stein factorialization of $\phi_{|-mK_Y|}$ for sufficiently large $m$, we obtain $\pi\colon Y \to X$, where $X$ is a canonical del Pezzo surface and $\pi$ is a contraction of $(-2)$-curves. Since a general anti-canonical member does not intersect with $(-2)$-curves, this is smooth by Proposition \[smooth\].
Now, we prove the main theorem of this section.
\[KVVonCS\] Let $X$ be a normal projective surface with canonical singularities such that $\kappa(X):=\kappa(\tilde{X})=-\infty$, where $\tilde{X}\to X$ is a resolution. If $p\neq2$, then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$ for every nef and big ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor $D$ on $X$.
By Lemma \[BVtoKV\], it suffices to show $H^0(X, (\Omega^{[1]}_X\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^mD))^{**})=0$ for all $m>0$. Since $X$ has only canonical singularities, $\kappa(X)=-\infty$ is equivalent to saying $K_X$ is not pseudo-effective. Then, by running a $K_X$-MMP, we obtain a Mori fiber space. By Lemma \[push\], we may assume $X$ is the Mori fiber space $f \colon X\to Y$. For the sake of contradiction, we assume that there exists an injective map $s \colon {\mathcal{O}}_X(p^mD) \hookrightarrow \Omega_X^{[1]}$ for some $m>0$. The case of $\dim\, Y=1$ will be proved in Theorem \[BVonMFS\] (1), and thus we assume $\dim Y=0$, that is, $X$ is a canonical del Pezzo surface with $\rho(X)=1$.
We consider the case of $d=1$. By Lemma \[basic\], a general element $C$ of $|-3K_X|$ is a smooth curve. By restricting $s$ on $C$, we have an injective map $s|_{C}\colon{\mathcal{O}}_{C}(p^mD|_C)\hookrightarrow \Omega^{[1]}_{X}|_{C}$. The injectivity of $s|_C$ follows from the generality of $C$. Since $C$ is contained in $X_{\reg}$, ${\mathcal{O}}_{C}(D|_C)$ is ample Cartier and $\Omega^{[1]}_{X}|_{C}=\Omega^{1}_{X}|_{C}$. Let $t \colon {\mathcal{O}}_C(p^{m}D|_C) \to \omega_C$ be a composition of $s|_F \colon {\mathcal{O}}_{C}(D|_C)\hookrightarrow \Omega^{1}_{X}|_{C}$ and a canonical map $\Omega^{1}_{X}|_{C}\to \omega_{C}$. Then we have the following commutative diagram. $$\xymatrix{ & & {\mathcal{O}}_C(p^{m}D|_C) \ar@{.>}[ld] \ar[d]^{s|_C} \ar[rd]^{t} &\\
0\ar[r] &{\mathcal{O}}_C(-C) \ar[r] & \Omega^1_X|_{C} \ar[r] & \omega_C \ar[r] & 0.}$$ We have $\deg_{C}(p^mD)=(C\cdot p^mD)=3p^m(-K_X\cdot D)\geq3p^m\geq9$. Here, the third inequality follows from the fact $-K_X$ is ample Cartier. On the other hand, we have $\deg_{C}\omega_C=(K_X+C\cdot C)=6(-K_X^2)=6$, and therefore $t$ is a zero map and an injective map ${\mathcal{O}}_C(p^mD|_C) \hookrightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_C(-C)$ is induced. However, this contradicts an anti-ampleness of ${\mathcal{O}}_C(-C)={\mathcal{O}}_C(3K_X)$. If $d=2$ (resp. $d\geq3$), by taking a general element of $|-2K_X|$ (resp. $|-K_X|$), we can drive a contradiction in a similar way.
As we can see in [@Ber17 Theorem 1.3], for a klt del Pezzo surface $X$ and a nef and big Cartier divisor $D$ on $X$, we have $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(D))=0$ if $p\geq5$. If we assume $X$ has only canonical singularities, we can prove the following assertion.
Let $X$ be a normal projective surface with canonical singularities. Assume $-K_{X}$ is nef and big. Then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(D)))=0$ for every nef and big ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor $D$ on $X$.
By the Serre duality and Lemma \[push\], it suffices to show $H^0(X, (\Omega_X^{[1]}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X(-(D-K_X)))^{**})=0$ and this follows from the same argument as Theorem \[KVVonCS\].
Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing for del Pezzo fibrations
========================================================
In this section, we discuss a Kawamata–Viehweg type vanishing theorem for del Pezzo fibrations and we generalize the result by Patakfalvi–Waldron ([@PW17 Theorem 1.10]).
\[MFS\] Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a projective surjective morphism between normal varieties with $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_X={\mathcal{O}}_Y$. $f$ is said to be a *Mori fiber space* if $-K_X$ is $f$-ample, $\dim \, X>\dim \, Y$ and the relative Picard rank $\rho(X/Y)=1$. $f$ is said to be a del Pezzo fibration if $f$ is a Mori fiber space with $\dim X=3$ and $\dim Y=1$.
First, we focus on the relative Iitaka dimension of a divisorial subsheaf of a reflexive cotangent bundle $\Omega_X^{[1]}$ of a Mori fiber space $f \colon X\to Y$.
\[BVonMFS\] Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a surjective projective morphism between normal varieties with $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_X={\mathcal{O}}_Y$ and $D$ be a Wei divisor on $X$. Let $d$ be the relative dimension of $f$. Suppose that one of the following conditions is satisfied.
1. [$-K_X$ is $f$-ample, $d=1$ and $Y$ is a smooth curve.]{}
2. [$-K_X$ is $f$-ample, $d=1$, $p\neq2$ and $\dim Y\geq 2$.]{}
3. [$f$ is a del Pezzo fibration and $X$ has only isolated singularities.]{}
4. [$-K_X$ is $f$-ample, $d=2$, $p\geq5$ and $\codim_X(X_{\sg})\geq3$.]{}
If ${\mathcal{O}}_X(D)\subset\Omega_X^{[1]}$, then $\kappa(F, D|_F)\leq0$, where $F$ is a general fiber of $f$. Furthermore, if $X$ is projective and $D$ is an ample ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor, then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$.
We consider the case of $(3)$ and $(4)$. Since $\codim_X(X_{\sg})\geq 3$, $F$ is contained in $X_{\reg}$ and thus $F$ is a normal l.c.i. del Pezzo surface. Here, the normality follows from [@FS18 Theorem 14.1] and [@PW17 Theorem 1.5] for $(3), (4)$, respectively. Arguing by contradiction, let us assume that there exists an injective map ${\mathcal{O}}_X(D) \hookrightarrow \Omega_X^{[1]}$ for some $D$ with $\kappa(D|_F)>0$. By the generality of $F$, the restriction $s_{i} \colon {\mathcal{O}}_F(D|_F)\hookrightarrow \Omega^{[1]}_X|_{F}=\Omega^{1}_X|_{F}$ is injective and $D|_F$ is a Cartier divisor. We consider the following diagram. $$\xymatrix{
& & {\mathcal{O}}_F(D|_F) \ar@{.>}[ld] \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^{s_{1}} \ar[rd]^{t_{1}} & & \\
& {\mathcal{O}}_F \oplus \cdots\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_F \ar[r] & \Omega_X^1|_F \ar[r] &\Omega_F^1 \ar[r] &0.\\
}$$ Since $F$ is normal and l.c.i., $\Omega_F$ is torsion-free by [@Ham06 Theorem 1.1] and thus a canonical map $u \colon \Omega_F \to \pi_{*}\Omega_{\tilde{F}}$ is injective. Since $u\circ t_{1} \in H^0(F, \pi_{*} \Omega_{\tilde{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_F(-D))=H^0(\tilde{F}, \Omega_{\tilde{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{F}}(-\pi^{*}D))=0$ by Proposition \[BVonSRC\], $t_{1}$ is a zero map. Then an injective map $s_{0}\colon {\mathcal{O}}_F(D|_F)\hookrightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_F$ is induced, but this contradicts $\kappa(F, D|_F)>0$. Also, the vanishing of $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))$ follows from Lemma \[BVtoKV\].
For $(1)$ and $(2)$, we can see that a general fiber is a smooth rational curve as follows, and the assertions follow from a similar argument to above. Since $-K_X$ is $f$-ample, a generic fiber of $f$ is a regular conic. Then a general fiber of $F$ is a smooth conic if $p\neq 2$. Also, if $\dim Y=1$, then the extension of function fields $K(X)/K(Y)$ is separable by [@Bad01 Lemma 7.2] and $F$ is reduced, that is, isomorphic to ${\mathbb{P}}^1_k$ even if $p=2$.
Let $X$ be a normal projective variety with terminal singularities. If $p\geq5$, we can take a small ${\mathbb{Q}}$-factorialization and run a $K_{X}$-MMP (see [@HX15],[@Bir16],[@BW17] and [@HW19]). Let us assume the output of the MMP is a Mori fiber space $f \colon X' \to Y$ with $\dim \, Y>0$. For example, this happens when $X$ is not rationally chain connected and $K_X$ is not pseudo-effective. Then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$ holds for every ample ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier Weil divisor $D$ on $X$ by Lemma \[push\], Lemma \[BVtoKV\] and Theorem \[BVonMFS\].
Next, we discuss the vanishing of $H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-A))$ for a del Pezzo fibration $f \colon X \to Y$ and an ample divisor $A$. As we saw in Theorem \[BVonMFS\], for the vanishing of $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-A))$, it was enough to see the general fiber of $f$, which is normal. However, as we can see in [@PW17 Theorem 1.10], for the vanishing of $H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-A))$, it seems that we need to consider all fibers of $f$, including non-normal fibers. Let us recall the tameness of a (non-normal) Gorenstein del Pezzo surface.
Let $X$ be a (possibly non-normal) projective Gorenstein surface. $X$ is said to be a Gorenstein del Pezzo surface if the dualizing sheaf $\omega_X$ is anti-ample. A Gorenstein del Pezzo surface $X$ is said to be tame if $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)=1$.
Let $X$ be a non-normal Gorenstein del Pezzo surface. Then the closed subscheme of $X$ defined by the conductor ideal of the normalization is a smooth rational curve if and only if $X$ is tame. This may be well-known for experts, but let us explain as we can not find references. Let $\nu\colon X' \to X$ be the normalization. We denote $C\subset X$ and $C'\subset X'$ as the closed subschemes defined by the conductor ideal of $\nu$. Since $X$ satisfies $S_2$, $C$ and $C'$ satisfy $S_1$ (see the proof of [@FS18 Proposition A.1.(i)]). By Reid’s classification of non-normal Gorenstein del Pezzo surfaces ([@Rei94 1.1 Theorem], see also [@FS18 Theorem 5.3])(1)), we can check that $(\nu^{*}(-K_{X})\cdot C')$=2. Also, by using the exact sequence $0\to {\mathcal{O}}_{X'}(-C')\to {\mathcal{O}}_{X'} \to {\mathcal{O}}_{C'}\to 0$ and $H^i(X',{\mathcal{O}}_X(-C))=H^{2-i}(X', {\mathcal{O}}_{X'}(K_{X'}+C'))=H^{2-i}(X', {\mathcal{O}}_{X'}(\nu^{*}K_X))=0$ for $i=1,2$, we have $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{C'})=1$. Let us note that Kodaira vanishing, the last equality, holds on all the surfaces of the table as Reid’s classification because they are smooth rational surfaces or toric surfaces. By the projection formula and [@FS18 Proposition A.2.], we have $(-K_X\cdot C)=\frac{1}{2}(\nu^{*}(-K_{X})\cdot C')=1$, in particular, $C$ is irreducible and regular in the generic point. Since $C$ satisfies $S_1$, $C$ is reduced. Here, we have the following exact sequences (see [@FS18 Appendix]). $$\begin{aligned}
0 \to {\mathcal{O}}_X \to \nu_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{X'}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_C \to \nu_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{C'}\to 0. \tag{5.1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
1 \to {\mathcal{O}}_X^{\times} \to \nu_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{X'}^{\times}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_C^{\times} \to \nu_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{C'}^{\times}\to 1. \tag{5.2}\end{aligned}$$ By the exact sequence $(5.1)$, we have $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)-\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_C)=\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{X'})-\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{C'})=0$. Therefore, $C$ is a smooth rational curve if and only if $X$ is tame.
By using the tameness of fibers of a smooth del Pezzo fibration, we can prove the following theorem.
\[KVonMFS2\] Let $f \colon X \to Y$ be a del Pezzo fibration. Suppose that $X$ is smooth projective and $p\geq11$. Then $H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-A))=0$ for every ample Cartier divisor $A$ on $X$.
First, we prove all fibers of $f$ is a tame Gorenstein del Pezzo surface. Let $F$ be a fiber of $f$. Then $F$ is irreducible by $\rho(X/Y)=1$. We denote $F=mG$ for some $m \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$, where $G:=F_{\mathrm{red}}$ is a Gorenstein del Pezzo surface. By the exact sequence $0 \to {\mathcal{O}}_G(-2G) \to {\mathcal{O}}_{2G} \to {\mathcal{O}}_{G}\to 0$, we get $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{G})=\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{G})+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{G}(-G))=2\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{G})$. By repeating this, we get $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_F)=m\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_G)$. Let $F_{\mathrm{gen}}$ be a general fiber of $f$. Then $F_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is normal by [@FS18 Theorem 14.1] and thus $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{F_{\mathrm{gen}}})=1$. Since $f$ is flat, we get $m\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_G)=\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_F)=\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{F_{\mathrm{gen}}})=1$. Therefore $m=1$ and $F$ is a tame Gorenstein del Pezzo surface. Now, we prove the vanishing of the cohomology of the assertion. Let $A$ be an ample Cartier divisor. By [@PW17 Theorem 1.10], it suffices to show $H^1(F, {\mathcal{O}}_F(-A|_F))=0$, where $F$ be a non-normal fiber of $f$. Since $\rho(X/Y)=1$ and $-K_X$ is $f$-ample, we can denote $A\equiv a(-K_X)+bF$ for some $a,b\in {\mathbb{Q}}$ and by restricting to $F$, we get $A|_F\equiv a(-K_F)$. Let $\nu \colon F' \to F$ be the normalization and $C\subset F$ and $C'\subset F'$ be subschemes defined by conductor ideals. Then $a=(-aK_F\cdot C)=(A|_{F}\cdot C)\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. By the exact sequence $(5.2)$, we have $\Pic(F)\hookrightarrow \Pic(F')\oplus\Pic(C)$. Since $F'$ and $C$ are normal rational surface and curve, both of $\Pic(F')$ and $\Pic(C)$ are torsion-free and so is $\Pic(F')$. Together with $H^1({\mathcal{O}}_F)=0$, we have $\Pic(F)\simeq N^1(F)$ and $A|_{F}$ is linearly equivalent to $-aK_{F}$. Then we get $H^1(F, -A|_{F})=H^1(F, aK_F)=0$ by [@Rei94 4.10 Corollary (1)].
**Appendix** {#Appendix .unnumbered}
============
For the convenience of the reader, we include the proof of Theorem \[fano\] as an appendix to this paper. We emphasize that all the results in this appendix are proved by Shepherd–Barron [@SB18], whom we thank very much.
[**Lemma A.1.**]{}([@SB18 Lemma 2.4]) [*Let $f \colon Y \to X$ be a finite dominant morphism of degree two from a normal irreducible scheme to a regular irreducible scheme. Then $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X$ is an invertible sheaf and $Y$ is locally complete intersection(l.c.i. for short).*]{}
First, we show that $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X$ is invertible. We may assume $X$ is a spectrum of a regular local ring $(X, x)$. We use the induction on $\dim X$. First, we assume $\dim X\leq2$. In this case, $Y$ is Cohen-Macaulay, and since $X$ is regular and $f$ is finite, $f$ is flat. Since ${\mathcal{O}}_X$ is a regular local ring, the map ${\mathcal{O}}_X \to f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y$ splits by [@Hoc73 Theorem 2]. Then $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X$ is a direct summand of the free module $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y$ and thus free of rank one. Next, we assume $\dim X\geq 3$. Let $U:=X-{x}$ and $i \colon U \hookrightarrow X$ be a canonical inclusion map. By considering the push-forward by $i$ of the following exact sequence $$0 \to {\mathcal{O}}_U \to (f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y)|_U \to (f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X)|_U \to 0,$$ we have $$0 \to {\mathcal{O}}_X \to f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y \to i_{*}((f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X)|_U) \to R^1i_*{\mathcal{O}}_U=\mathcal{H}^2_x({\mathcal{O}}_X)\underset{X: S_3}{=}0.$$ Since $(f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X)|_U=(f|_{f^{-1}(U)})_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{f^{-1}(U)}/{\mathcal{O}}_U$ is invertible by the induction hypothesis, $i_{*}(f_{*}({\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X)|_U)$ is reflexive of rank one and thus invertible. Now, let us see the latter assertion. By [@Hoc73 Theorem 2] again, we have $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y={\mathcal{O}}_X\oplus t{\mathcal{O}}_X$ for some $t\in f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y\cap (K(X)\setminus0)$. Then we get $f_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y\simeq {\mathcal{O}}_X[t]/(t^2+at+b)$ for some $a, b\in {\mathcal{O}}_X$ and thus $Y$ is l.c.i..
[**Theorem A.2.**]{}([@SB18 Theorem 2.1], cf. [@SB97 Theorem 1.4]) [*Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$ with $\rho(X)=1$ and $D$ be an ample divisor on $X$. Then $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))=0$.*]{}
\[fanorem\] Let $X$ be a smooth Fano threefold. Since every smooth Fano variety is rationally chain connected by [@Kol96 V, 2.13 Theorem], we have $\Pic^0(X)=0$ and thus $N^1(X)=\NS(X)$. However, it is not obvious that $\NS(X)=\Pic(X)$, because we need Theorem A.2. for the proof of the torsion-freeness of $\Pic(X)$ in general. Also, we have not known $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)=H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$, in particular, we have not known $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)=1$ yet. However, $\Pic^0(X)=0$ implies $\dim H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)\geq \dim H^2(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X)$ by [@FGI Remark 9.5.15, 9.5.25]. Therefore, we get $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)>0$.
Arguing by contradiction, we assume that there exists an ample divisor $D$ such that $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-D))\neq0$. By the Serre vanishing theorem, $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-p^eD))=0$ for sufficiently large $e$, and thus by replacing $D$ with its $p$-th power if necessary, we may assume $H^1(X, {\mathcal{O}}_X(-pD))=0$. Then by [@Mad Proposition 1.1.2], we have an l.c.i. projective variety $Y$ and a purely inseparable finite morphism $\rho \colon Y \to X$ of degree $p$ such that $-K_{Y}=\rho^*(-K_X+(p-1)D)$. Let $H\in \Pic(X)$ be an ample Cartier divisor whose canonical image in $N^1(X)\simeq {\mathbb{Z}}$ is a generator. We denote $-K_X\equiv mH$ and $D\equiv nH$ for $m,n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$. Then $-K_Y\equiv (m+(p-1)n)\rho^{*}H$. By [@Kol96 II 5.14 Theorem and 5.15 Remark], there exists a rational curve $C$ such that $(-K_{Y}\cdot C)=(m+(p-1)n)(\rho^{*}H \cdot C)\leq \dim Y+1=4$. Therefore, we get $p=2$ or $3$.
First, we discuss the case of $p=3$. In this case, $n=1$ and $-K_Y\equiv (m+2)\rho^{*}H$. We first assume $Y$ is normal. We have $$\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_Y)=\mathcal{X}(\rho_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y)=\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(D))+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(2D)).$$ Here, the second equality follows from the construction of $Y$ (see [@Mad Proposition 1.1.2]). Since $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)>0$ by Remark \[fanorem\] and $\rho(X)=1$, an application of the Riemann–Roch theorem gives $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(iD))>0$ for $i>0$. In particular, we get $\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_Y)>0$ and this implies $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_Y(K_Y))=h^2({\mathcal{O}}_Y)>0$. Then, by the Serre vanishing theorem, we can take $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq0}$ such that $H^1(Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y(p^rK_Y))\neq0$ and $H^1(Y, {\mathcal{O}}_Y(p^{r+1}K_Y))=0$. Since $Y$ is normal l.c.i., by [@Mad Proposition 1.1.2] again, we have a l.c.i. projective variety $Z$ and a purely inseparable finite morphism $\sigma \colon Z \to Y$ of degree $p$ such that $-K_{Z}=\rho^*(-K_Y+(p-1)(-p^rK_Y))\equiv ((2\cdot3^r+1)(m+2))\sigma^{*}\rho^{*}H$. Since $(2\cdot3^r+1)(m+2)>4$, this contradicts [@Kol96 II 5.14 Theorem and 5.15 Remark]. Therefore, we may assume $Y$ is non-normal. Let $\nu \colon \tilde{Y} \to Y$ be the normalization. We denote $K_{\tilde{Y}}=\nu^{*}K_{Y}-C$, where $C$ is the closed subscheme defined by the conductor of $\nu$. Since $\tilde{\rho}=\nu \circ \rho \colon \tilde{Y} \to X$ is a purely inseparable morphism of normal varieties of degree $p$, $\tilde{\rho}$ factors through the Frobenius morphisms of $X$ and $\tilde{Y}$. Therefore, $\tilde{\rho}$ is homeomorphic, $\rho(\tilde{Y})=1$ and $\tilde{Y}$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-factorial by [@Tan Lemma 2.5]. Then $C$ is a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier and written as $C\equiv \beta\tilde{\rho}^{*}H$ for some $\beta\in {\mathbb{Q}}_{>0}$. Note that $\beta\neq0$ since Y is non-normal.
$H$ is a prime divisor.
By the Riemann–Roch theorem, $$\begin{array}{rl}
\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(H))=&\frac{1}{12}(H\cdot H-K_X\cdot 2H-K_X)+\frac{1}{12}(H \cdot c_2(X))+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)\\
=&\frac{1}{12}(H\cdot H-K_X\cdot 2H-K_X)+(\frac{2}{m}+1)\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)\\
>&0.
\end{array}$$ We obtain $H^2({\mathcal{O}}_X(H))\simeq H^1({\mathcal{O}}_X(-(H-K_X)))=0$ by $H-K_X\equiv (m+1)H>nH=H$. Therefore we get $$h^0({\mathcal{O}}_X(H))\geq\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(H))>0$$ and $H$ is effective. Since $H\in N^1(X)$ is a generator, $H$ is a prime divisor.
Let $T:= (\tilde{\rho}^{*}H)_{\mathrm{red}}$. Since $\tilde{\rho}$ is homeomorphic, we can write as $\tilde{\rho}^{*}H=rT$ for some $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$. Then $$3H=\tilde{\rho}_{*}\tilde{\rho}^{*}H=r\tilde{\rho}_{*}T= rsH$$ for some $s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ and we get $r=3^a$, where $a=0, 1$. Let $ T' \to T$ be the normalization and $\pi \colon \tilde{T} \to T'$ be the minimal resolution. We have $$K_{T'}+\mathrm{Diff}(0)\equiv (K_{\tilde{Y}}+T)|_{T'}\equiv -(m+2+\beta-3^{-a})A$$ where $A$ denotes an ample Cartier divisor $\tilde{\rho}^{*}H|_{T'}$. By pulling back by $\pi$, we get $$K_{\tilde{T}}+\Delta_{\tilde{T}}\equiv \pi^{*}(K_{T'}+\mathrm{Diff}(0)) \equiv -(m+2+\beta-3^{-a})\pi^{*}A$$ for some effective ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor $\Delta_{\tilde{T}}$. Here, we use the minimality of $\pi$ and the fact that the Mumford pullback of an effective divisor is also effective. Since $m+2+\beta-3^{-a}>2$ and $\Delta_{\tilde{T}}$ is effective, $K_{\tilde{T}}$ is anti-big and in particular $\kappa(\tilde{T})=-\infty$. First, we assume $\tilde{T}$ is not isomorphic to ${\mathbb{P}}^2_k$. In this case, $\tilde{T}$ is a blowing up of a minimal ruled surface and has a fibration structure to a smooth curve. Let $l$ be a general fiber of the fibration. Then $l$ is nef divisor such that $(\pi^{*}A\cdot l)>0$ and $-2=(K_{\tilde{T}}\cdot l)$. Therefore we get $$-2=(K_{\tilde{T}}\cdot l)=-(m+2+\beta-3^{-a})(\pi^{*}A\cdot l)-(\Delta_{\tilde{T}} \cdot l)<-2$$ and this is a contradiction. Next, we discuss the case where $\tilde{T} \simeq {\mathbb{P}}^2_k$. In this case, $T'=\tilde{T}\simeq {\mathbb{P}}^2_k$ and there exists a curve $l$ such that $$-(m+2+\beta-3^{-a})(A\cdot l)=(K_{T'}+\mathrm{Diff}(0) \cdot l)\geq-3.$$ Therefore we have $m=1$ and $A={\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^2_k}(1)$, and thus $$\begin{array}{rl}
1=(A^2)=&(\tilde{\rho}^{*}H \cdot \tilde{\rho}^{*}H \cdot T)\\
=&3^{-a}(\tilde{\rho}^{*}H^3)\\
=&3^{1-a}(H^3)\\
\underset{m=1}{=}&3^{1-a}(-K_X^3).\\
\end{array}$$ On the other hand, by the Riemann-Roch theorem, we have $$\begin{array}{rl}
\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(-K_X))&=\frac{1}{12}(-K_X\cdot -2K_X\cdot -3K_X)+\frac{1}{12}(-K_X \cdot c_2(X))+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)\\
&=\frac{1}{2}(-K_X^3)+3\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X).\\
\end{array}$$ Therefore we get $(-K_X^3)\in 2{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ and this contradicts $(-K_X^3)=3^{a-1}$. Now, we consider the case of $p=2$. Let $\nu \colon \tilde{Y} \to Y$ be the normalization. We denote $K_{\tilde{Y}}=\nu^{*}K_{Y}-C$, where $C$ is closed subscheme defined by the conductor of $\nu$. $C$ is a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier and written as $C\equiv \beta\tilde{\rho}^{*}H$ for some $\beta\in {\mathbb{Q}}_{\geq0}$ by the same argument as the case of $p=3$. By Lemma A.1., we have the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal{O}}_X \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] & \rho_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y \ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \ar[d] & {\mathcal{O}}_X(D) \ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d]& 0\\
0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal{O}}_X \ar[r] & \tilde{\rho}_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}} \ar[r] &{\mathcal{O}}_X(E) \ar[r] &0\\
}$$ for some Cartier divisor $E$. Note that $\rho_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_Y/{\mathcal{O}}_X={\mathcal{O}}_X(D)$ by construction. Since $E\geq D>0$ and $\rho(X)=1$, $E$ is ample. We have $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}}(K_{\tilde{Y}}))=h^2({\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}})>0$ by $$\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}})=\mathcal{X}(\tilde{\rho}_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}})=\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X)+\mathcal{X}({\mathcal{O}}_X(E))>1.$$ Here, we can use the Serre duality on $\tilde{Y}$ as $\tilde{Y}$ is l.c.i. by Lemma A.1. By the Serre vanishing theorem, there exists $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq0}$ such that $H^1(\tilde{Y}, {\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}}(p^rK_{\tilde{Y}}))\neq0$ and $H^1(\tilde{Y}, {\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{Y}}(p^{r+1}K_{\tilde{Y}}))=0$ and by [@Mad Proposition 1.1.2], we have an l.c.i. projective variety $Z$ and a purely inseparable finite map $\sigma \colon Z \to {\tilde{Y}}$ of degree $p$ such that $-K_{Z}=\rho^*(-K_{\tilde{Y}}+(p-1)(-p^rK_{\tilde{Y}}))\equiv ((2^r+1)(m+n+\beta))\sigma^{*}\tilde{\rho}^{*}H$. Then by [@Kol96 II 5.14 Theorem and 5.15 Remark], we get $m=n=1$ and $r=\beta=0$. In particular, $Y$ is normal. Let $\nu' \colon \tilde{Z} \to Z$ be the normalization. We denote $\tilde{\tau} \colon \tilde{Z} \overset{\nu'}{\to} Z \overset{\sigma}{\to} Y \overset{\rho}{\to} X$ and $K_{\tilde{Z}}=\nu'^{*}K_Z-C'$, where $C'$ is the closed subscheme defined by the conductor of $\nu'$. $C'$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-Cartier and written as $C'\equiv \gamma \tilde{\tau}H$ for some $\gamma\in {\mathbb{Q}}_{\geq0}$, since $\tilde{Z}$ is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-factorial and $\rho(\tilde{Z})=1$.
$H$ is a prime divisor.
By the same argument as the case of $p=3$, it is enough to show $H^1({\mathcal{O}}_X(-(H-K_X)))=0$ and this follows from $H-K_X\equiv 2H>nH=H$.
Let $T:= (\tilde{\tau}^{*}H)_{\mathrm{red}}$. Since $\tilde{\tau}$ is homeomorphic, we can write as $\tilde{\tau}^{*}H=rT$ for some $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$. Then $$4H=\tilde{\tau}_{*}\tilde{\tau}^{*}H=r\tilde{\tau}_{*}T=rsH$$ for some $s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ and we get $r=2^a$, where $a=0, 1, 2$. Let $T' \to T$ be the normalization and $\pi \colon \tilde{T} \to T'$ be the minimal resolution. We have $$K_{\tilde{T}}+\Delta_{\tilde{T}}\equiv \pi^{*}(K_{T'}+\mathrm{Diff}(0)) \equiv -(4+\gamma-2^{-a})\pi^{*}A.$$ for some effective ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor $\Delta_{\tilde{T}}$, where $A$ denotes an ample Cartier divisor $\tilde{\tau}^{*}H|_{T'}$ and thus $\kappa(\tilde{T})=-\infty$. First, we assume $\tilde{T}$ is not isomorphic to ${\mathbb{P}}^2_k$. By the same argument the case of $p=3$, there exists a curve $l$ such that $$-2=-(4+\gamma-2^{-a})(\pi^{*}A\cdot l)-(\Delta_{\tilde{T}} \cdot l)<-2$$ and this is a contradiction. Next, we discuss the case where $\tilde{T} \simeq {\mathbb{P}}^2_k$. In this case, $T'=\tilde{T}\simeq {\mathbb{P}}^2_k$. There exists a curve $l$ such that $$-(4+\gamma-2^{-a})(A\cdot l)=(K_{T'}+\mathrm{Diff}(0) \cdot l)\geq-3,$$ and we have $a=\gamma=0$ and $A={\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}^2_k}(1)$. Then we get $$\begin{array}{rl}
1=(A^2)=&(\tilde{\tau}^{*}H \cdot \tilde{\tau}^{*}H \cdot T)\\
=&2^{-a}(\tilde{\tau}^{*}H^3)\\
=&2^{2-a}(H^3)\\
\geq&4
\end{array}$$ and this is a contradiction.
[LRPT]{}
L. Bǎdescu, *Algebraic surfaces,* Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.
F. Bernasconi, Kawamata–Vieweg vanishing fails for log del Pezzo surfaces in characteristic $3$, arXiv:170909238v2.
C. Birkar, Existence of flips and minimal models for 3-folds in char $p$, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4)**49** (2016), no. 1, 169–212.
C. Birkar and J. Waldron, Existence of Mori fibre spaces for 3-folds in char $p$, Adv. Math. **313** (2017), 62–101.
P. Cascini and H. Tanaka, smooth rational surface violating Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing. Eur. J. Math., **4**(1)(2018), 162–176.
P. Cascini and H. Tanaka, Purely log terminal threefolds with non-normal centers in characteristic two. Amer. J. Math., **141**(4)(2019), 941–979.
M. Demazure, Surfaces de del Pezzo III, *Séminaire sur les Singularitiés des Surfaces*(1980), 36–49.
B. Fontechi, L. Göttsche, L. Illusie, S. L. Kleiman, N. Nithure, A. Vistoli, Fundamental Algebraic Geometry: Grothendieck’s FGA Explained, Math. Surveys and Monographs, Vol.**123** (2005).
A. Fanelli, S. Schröer, Del Pezzo surfaces and Mori fiber spaces in positive characteristic, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **373** (2020), 1775–1843.
T. Fujita, On polaried varieties of small $\Delta$-genera, Tohoku Math. J.,**34** (1982), 319–341.
G. van der Geer and T. Katsura, On the height of Calabi–Yau varieties in positive characteristic, Doc. Math, **8**(1)(2003), 97–113.
Y. Gongyo, Z. Li, Z. Patakfalvi, K. Schwede, H. Tanaka, H.R. Zong, On rational connectedness of globally $F$-regular threefolds, Adv. Math. **280** (2015),47–78.
H. A. Hamm, Depth and Differential Forms, *Singularities and Computer Algebra.* 211–232, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 324, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006.
R. Hartshorne, *Algebraic Geometry*, Grad.Texts in Math.,no **52**, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977.
M. Hochster, Contracted ideals from integral extensions of regular rings, Nagoya. Math. J.,**51**,25–43(1973).
, F. Hidaka and K. Watanabe, Normal Gorenstein Surfaces with Ample Anti-canonical Divisor, Tokyo J. Math. **4** (1981), 319-330.
C. Hacon and J. Witaszek, The Minimal Model Program for threefolds in charactristic five, arXiv:1911.12895.
C. Hacon and C. Xu, On the three dimensional minimal model program in positive charactristic, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **28** (2015), no.3, 711–744.
T. Kawakami, Bogomolov–Sommese type vanishing for globally $F$-regular threefolds, preprint.
J. Kollár and S .Mori, *Birational Geometry of Algebraic Varieties*, Cambridge Tracts in Mathmatics, vol **134**, Cambridge University Press, 1998. J. Koll[á]{}r, Extremal rays on smooth threefolds, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. **24**, no.3 (1991), 339–361.
J. Kollár. *Rational curves on algebraic varieties*, 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, 1996.
A. Langer, Moduli spaces of sheaves and principal [$G$]{}-bundles, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. **80** (2009), 273–308.
Z. Maddock, Regular del Pezzo surfaces with irregularities, J. Algebraic. Geom, **25**(2016),401–429.
S. Mori and S. Mukai, On Fano 3-Folds with $B_2 \geq 2$. Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics **1**(1983)
S. Mori and S. Mukai, Classification of Fano 3-Folds with $B_2\geq2$, I. Algebraic and Topological Theories -to the memory of Dr. Takehiro MIYATA, 496–545(1985).
S. Mukai, Counterexamples to Kodaira’s vanishing and Yau’s inequality in positive characteristics, Kyoto J. Math. **53**(2), 515–532 (2013).
S. Mori and N. Saito, Fano threefolds with wild conic bundle structures, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci.**79**(2003),111-114.
Z. Patakfalvi and J. Waldron, Singularities of General Fibers and the LMMP, arXiv:1708.04268v2, to appear in Amer. J. Math. (2020).
L. Qing, *Algebraic Geometry and Arithmetic Curves*, Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics, **6**(2002).
M. Raynaud, Contre-exemple au “vanishing theorem” en caractèristique $p>0$, in C. P. Ramanujama tribute, volume **8** of Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Studies in Math., pages 273–278, Springer, Berlin-New York, 1978.
M. Reid, Nonnormal del Pezzo surfaces, Publ. Res. Inst, Math. Sci. **30**(1994), 695–727.
N. Saito, Fano threefolds with Picard number $2$ in positive characteristic, Kodai Math. J. **26**, no. 2 (2003),147–166.
N. I. Shepherd–Barron, Fano threefolds in positive characteristic, Compositio Math. **105**, no. 3 (1997), 237–265.
N. I. Shepherd–Barron, Fano 3-folds in char. $p$ : an addendum, preprint.
H. Tanaka, The X-method for klt surfaces in positive characteristic, J. Algebraic Geom. **24**, 605–628(2015).
H. Tanaka, Behavior of canonical divisors under purely inseparable base changes, J. Reine Angew. Math. **744** (2018), 237–264.
B. Totaro, The failure of Kodaira vanishing for Fano varieties, and terminal singularities which are not Cohen-Macaulay, J. Algebraic. Geom. **28**, 751–771(2019).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Irradiating intercalated nanorings by optical vortices ignites a charge flow that emits coherent trains of high harmonic bursts with frequencies and time structures that are controllable by the topological charge of the driving vortex beam. Similar to synchrotron radiation, the polarization of emitted harmonics is also selectable by tuning to the appropriate emission angle with respect to the ring plane. The nonequilibrium orbital magnetic moment triggered in a ring tunnels quantum mechanically to smaller and larger rings leading respectively to high and low-frequency harmonic generation. The frequencies of the emitted harmonics are tunable by simply changing the waist and/or the winding number of the optical vortex, without the need to increase the pulse intensity which can lead to material damage. These findings follow from full-fledged quantum dynamic simulations for realistic material and laser parameters. The proposed setup is non-destructive as only short vortex pulses of moderate intensities are needed, and it offers a versatile tool for nanoscale optical and spectroscopic applications such as local, single beam pump-probe experiments.'
author:
- 'J. Wätzel$^1$'
- 'J. Berakdar$^1$'
title: Tunable High Harmonic Pulses from Nanorings Swirled by Optical Vortices
---
Introduction
============
Radiation emission from accelerated charge in synchrotron ring facilities has played a key role in the advancement of modern science. Envisioning a “nano synchroton” with charge distribution looping around and radiating in nano rings offer a nanoscale optical source with wide ranging applications. Such rings can be deposited for instance on a scanning tip enabling so a local probing. Two aspects are important. To reduce losses, phase coherent rings are appropriate in which case the charge acceleration and emission should be considered quantum mechanically. To power the rings one may think of applying magnetic field pulses. Exceedingly larger magnetic fields are needed for smaller rings however, entailing high power consumption to produce these fields which couple only weakly to charge. We find, utilizing the electric field of an optical vortex, combined with a smart engineering for charge confinement in form of intercalated nanorings yield an elegant and efficient “nano synchroton”. As evidenced below (cf. Fig.\[fig:fig0\]), the emitted radiation due to the looping current is simply controllable by the winding number of the vortex (also called the topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$) at a fixed frequency and a moderate intensity of the vortex beam. As for the size of this nano-quantum-synchrotron source, the diffraction (Abbe) limit of the driving pulse sets a clear limitation; a ring with a size well smaller than the optical wavelength lies in the “dark zone” of the vortex and is only very weakly perturbed (cf. Fig.\[fig:fig0\]). This can be circumvented by letting the vortex-induced current tunnels to the smaller, appropriately engineered rings generating so higher harmonics, as demonstrated below. The Abbe diffraction limit poses no obstacle on the size of the rings and can thus be beaten by enclosing rings much smaller than the vortex waist. To increase the current and to tunnel to tinier rings emitting at higher frequencies, one should enhance the vortex winding number $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$, not the intensity, to avoid material damage and make the concept feasible for solid state realization. In contrast, our method is not appropriate for the gas phase, due to the vast mismatch between the electronic orbital size and vortex waist. An establlished method for gas-phase harmonic generation is based on bound electron tunneling, acceleration, and coherent re-scattering and/or recombination in spatially homogeneous laser fields with intensties several orders in magnetiude higher than the vortex beam intensities [@Note1] used here [@3stepmodel1; @3stepmodel2; @BrabecRMP].
![Schematics of the considered setup. A focused optical vortex beam transfers orbital angular momentum to a quantum ring with an amount related to the topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ of the vortex triggering so a charge current loop around the ring. The photoexcited current tunnels then successively to neighboring intercalated rings. The so generated non-equilibrium circulating charge distributions emit pulses of photons with specific frequencies and delayed by roughly the inter-ring tunneling and rise-up times. The pulses are circularly polarized in the direction vertical to the ring planes and their frequencies can be tuned by the topological charge of the optical vortex at a fixed laser frequency and intensity. Changing the waist of the vortex focuses the beam onto a ring with a desired radius and allows for up or down conversion of the laser frequency.[]{data-label="fig:fig0"}](fig0.pdf){width="12cm"}
As shown below the current triggered in the irradiated ring tunnels quantum mechanically to the inner and outer rings generating non-equilibrium orbital moments in the respective rings that emit at their individual characteristic frequencies. Interestingly, the tunneling times between the rings result in a natural time delay of the emitted harmonics from different rings (as schematically illustrated in Fig.\[fig:fig0\]). As these tunneling times can be controlled by the height and width of the barriers separating the rings (for example by an appropriate gate voltage), the time delay between the harmonics is also controllable. The proposed optical source is therefore useful for local pumping a sample, such as adsorbate or surface, by radiation from one ring and probing the excitation after a time delay by radiation from another ring, similarly as done in two-photon photoemission spectroscopy to access and trace the excited states dynamics [@2ppe1; @2ppe2; @2ppe3]. Notably, the concept presented here is non-invasive as only moderate intensity vortex pulses are needed with a duration of a few optical cycles.\
In principle, one may attempt utilizing conventional circular polarized Gaussian pulses, but optical vortices (also called beams carrying orbital angular momentum (OAM)) offer more flexibility due to their specific spatial structure and the fact that the amount $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ of the carried and transferable OAM can be increased, in principle without limit. As shown below the vortex OAM is intimately related to the strength of the generated charge current loop in the ring.\
Generally, the total angular momentum of electromagnetic waves has a spin angular momentum (SAM) and an orbital angular momentum (OAM) component, both were analyzed theoretically long ago [@rosenfeld1940on; @belinfante1940current; @tannoudji1989atoms; @soper2008classical]. Meanwhile, light modes carrying OAM are feasibel at a wide range of pulse parameters [@allen1992orbital; @beijersbergen1993astigmatic; @beijersbergen1994helical; @he1995direct; @simpson1997mechanical; @soskin1997topological; @allen2003optical] and have been used for applications ranging from optical tweezers for microscale objects to electronics and life sciences, quantum information or optical telecommunications [@molina2007twisted; @mair2001entanglement; @barreiro2008beating; @boyd2011quantum; @padgett2011tweezers; @furhapter2005spiral; @woerdemann2009self; @torres2011twisted; @andrews2011structured; @foo2005optical; @he1995optical; @wang2008creation; @hell2007far]. OAM pulses enabled also photomechanics for moving, trapping and rotating microscopic objects [@allen2002introduction; @barreiro2003generation; @friese1998optical], atoms, molecules [@romero2002quantum; @al2000atomic; @araoka2005interactions; @watzel2016optical], and Bose-Einstein condensates [@helmerson2011rotating] as well as a charge distribution [@watzel2016centrifugal].\
On the material side, advances in fabrication and patterning of micro and nano structures produced a fascinating variety of nanobjects [@bruchhaus2017comparison]. Here we focus on phase coherent quantum ring structures which are a prototypical example for studying non-equilibrium dynamics [@kravtsov1993direct; @chalaev2002aharonov; @matos2004field; @matos2004ultrafast; @pershin2005laser; @matos2005photoinduced; @moskalenko2006revivals; @moskalenko2008polarized; @hinsche2009high; @barth2006unidirectional; @barth2007electric]. Vortex beam may act with a torque on the charge carriers [@friese1998optical; @o2002intrinsic; @simpson1997mechanical; @gahagan1996optical; @babiker1994light; @andrews2012angular] leading for instance to photo-induced directed current amd photogalvanic effects with a strength controllable by $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ [@watzel2016centrifugal]. To be specific, results and numerics are presented for semiconductor-based quantum rings irradiated by an optical vortex beam. As made clear below, mathematically and by physical reasoning one concludes that the scheme is a general nature, and the phenomena should be observable at different frequencies, ring sizes and materials compositions. Our particular focus is to explore theoretically the feasibility of the setup in Fig.\[fig:fig0\] as a source for circular polarized trains of radiations adjustable by $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$. Such a source might be useful for instance for spatially resolved pump-probe experiments. To this end we perform full numerical simulations for the charge dynamics in the coupled quantum rings irradiated by the OAM beam and employ the theory of a time-dependent spectrum to retrieve the emitted radiation from the nonequilibrium population [@eberly1977time; @raymer1995ultrafast; @moskalenko2008polarized; @moskalenko2017charge]. The frequencies of the emission spectrum are controllable by $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ and can be up- and down-converted by simply changing the waist of the OAM beam. The time delay between different emitted bursts is tunable by tweaking the tunneling barrier between the rings.
Vortex-matter interaction
=========================
The ring structures depicted in Fig.\[fig:fig0\] have four relevant length scales (with distinctly separated typical energy scales of charge excitations), the atomic-sized lattice constant $a$, the $nm$ ring height $\Delta h$ confinement, the tens of $nm$ ring width $\Delta \rho_j$, and the radius $\rho_j$ of the ring $j$. Typically $\rho_j$ is in the range of 100 nm to microns. One $\rho_j$ is chosen to be comparable with the pulse waist whose extension is bound by the diffraction limits. Other rings are excited by tunneling currents and their sizes may be way smaller. Here the driving pulse frequency $\omega_x$ is tuned to be below the excitation frequency of the first quantum well state of the vertical confinement, meaning $\omega_x<3\pi^2\hbar/(2m^* \Delta h^2)$ and $m^*$ is the effective mass of the GaAs heterostructure. Under these conditions, only quantum states, labelled respectively $m_{_0},\ n_{_0}$ due to finite size of $\rho_j$ and $\Delta \rho_j$ are affected by the laser pulse (a typical result is in Fig.\[fig:fig1\]a). Interestingly, the OAM transferred by the vortex lifts the conventional optical selection rules increasing so the number of accessible final states that are within the spectral width of the pulse [@watzel2016centrifugal; @watzel2016optical]. The laser intensity is kept moderate to avoid complications related to multiphoton and other strongly nonlinear processes which may lead to coupling to higher energy modes and strong current relaxation heating the sample. Within this outlined setting we capture still all higher order effects in the charge-vortex interaction by propagating on a space-time grid the single particle states $\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(x,y,t)$ in the presence of the vortex field according to (the ring is in the $x-y$ plane) $$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar\partial_t\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(x,y,t) & = &\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^*}(\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2) + \frac{ie\hbar}{2m^*}
\left(2\pmb{A}(x,y,t)\cdot\pmb{\nabla}+\pmb{\nabla}\cdot\pmb{A}(x,y,t)\right)\right. \nonumber \\
& &\left.+\frac{e^2}{2m^*}\pmb{A}(x,y,t)^2\right]\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(x,y,t)
\label{eq:2D-TDSE}\end{aligned}$$ where the charged particle mass $m^*$ stems from the effective mass approximation which can be applied because the energy dispersion $E(\pmb{k})$ in case of GaAS is approximately parabolic and isotropic for the states with few meV of energy around the $\Gamma$-point. Since we consider only moderate intensities of the vortex pulses, this approximation holds also for the minimal coupling Hamiltonian where the momentum is shifted by the vector potential $\pmb{A}(x,y,t)$ of the electromagnetic perturbation which has a moderate intensity.\
In Eq. we use explicitly the single-particle picture which bases on neglecting Coulomb-interactions between the charge carriers. There are several reasons which legitimate this non-interacting particle picture: In the stationary case, i.e. $t\rightarrow-\infty$, it can be demonstrated that for a small number of electronic states the inclusion of correlation via Coulomb matrix elements in a quantum ring with no impurity simply shifts the non-interacting energy spectrum to higher energies [@pietilainen1995electron]. Therefore, we calculated numerical various Coulomb matrix elements $V_{abcd}=\langle\Psi_a\Psi_b|V(\pmb{r}-\pmb{r}')|\Psi_c\Psi_d\rangle$ where $V(\pmb{r}-\pmb{r}')=e^2/(4\pi\epsilon_0\epsilon_r|\pmb{r}-\pmb{r}'|)$ and can confirm that they are actually smaller than the kinetic Matrix elements. As a direct consequence on can deduce, that the correlation effects lead only to a small perturbation of the underlying electronic spectrum. But most importantly, the Coulomb matrix elements conserve the angular momentum, i.e. $m_a=m_c$ and $m_b=m_d$ [@zurita2002multipolar]. Since we consider optically induced transitions which change the internal angular momentum state, the Coulomb matrix elements between the states which are involved in the electric transition disappear. Consequently, correlation effects play a minor role for the qualitative description of the considered interband transitions. Thus, the parameters of the pulses are chosen so as to trigger intersubband excitations near the Fermi-level which alter the internal angular momentum state in which case the independent single-particle picture is viable [@tan1996electron; @imry2002introduction; @presilla1997nonlinear; @chakraborty1994electron; @matos2005photoinduced].\
The vortex vector potential satisfies the scalar Helmholtz equation in paraxial approximation [@allen1992orbital; @beijersbergen1993astigmatic; @beijersbergen1994helical; @he1995direct; @simpson1997mechanical; @soskin1997topological; @allen2003optical]. In the $x-y$ plane ($z=0$) in polar coordinates it reads $$\pmb{A}(\rho,\varphi,t)={\rm Re}\left\{\hat{\epsilon}A_0f_{m_{_{\rm OAM}}}^p(\rho)\Omega(t)e^{i(m_{_{\rm OAM}}\varphi-\omega_xt)}\right\},$$ where $\hat{\epsilon}$ is a polarization vector, $\varphi=\arctan[x,y], \rho=\sqrt{x^2+y^2},$ and $A_0$ is the field amplitude, and $\hbar\omega_x$ is the photon energy of the beam. The temporal envelope of the pulse is given by $\Omega(t)=\sin^2[\pi t/T_{\rm dur}]$ for $0<t<T_{\rm dur}$. In the case of charge carrier dynamics restricted to the $x-y$ plane, the radial distribution function is given by $$f_{m_{_{\rm OAM}}}^p(\rho)=C_{\left|m_{_{\rm OAM}}\right|}^p L^{\left|m_{_{\rm OAM}}\right|}_p\left(\frac{2\rho}{w_0}\right)^{\left|m_{_{\rm OAM}}\right|}e^{-\frac{\rho^2}{w_0^2}}.$$ Here, $C_{\left|m_{_{\rm OAM}}\right|}^p$ is the normalization constant, $L^{\left|m_{_{\rm OAM}}\right|}_p\left(x\right)$ are the associated Laguerre-Gaussian polynomials. $p$ is the radial node index and $w_0$ is the waist of the laser spot. For clarity we focus on $p=0$, meaning a donut shape radial intensity distribution.\
Technically, we assume the ring structure to be imprinted on a GaAs-AlGaAs-based two dimensional electron gas. The radial confinement potential of the quantum ring is given by $V(\rho)=a_1/\rho^2 + a_2\rho^2 - V_0$ [@tan1996electron] with $V_0=2\sqrt{a_1a_2}$. The average ring radius is $\rho_0=(a_1/a_2)^{1/4}$, while the average ring width for a given Fermi energy $E_F$ is $\Delta\rho\approx\sqrt{ 8E_F/m^*w_0^2}$. Here, the oscillator frequency is $\omega_0=\sqrt{8a_2/m^*}$. For a radius $\rho$ near the average radius $\rho_0$, the confinement potential is parabolic $V(\rho)\approx\frac{1}{2}m^*\omega_0^2( \rho-\rho_0)^2$. A quantum dot is achieved for $a_1=0$. The stationary states of this quantum ring are labeled as $$E_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}=\left(n_0+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{m_0^2+\frac{2m^*a_1}{\hbar^2}} \right)\hbar\omega_0 - \frac{m^*}{4}\omega_0^2\rho_0^2$$ $n_0$ and $m_0$ are radial and angular quantum numbers. The minima of all subbands are at $m_0=0$ and the subband energy spectra are symmetric with respect to $m_0=0$, and due to time-reversal symmetry they are degenerated with respect to the clock-wise and anti-clock-wise angular motion, i.e. $E_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}=E_{n_{_0},-m_{_0}}$ (currentless ground states).
Emission spectrum
=================
Having triggered a circulating non-equilibrium charge distribution in the ring we are interested in the emitted radiation in the far field, meaning at a point with a distance $r=|\pmb{r}|$ that is much larger than the diameter of the largest ring. The intensity per spherical solid angle $\Omega(\vartheta,\varphi)$ of the far-field radiation is given by $\frac{dI}{d\Omega}=\frac{8}{3}c\epsilon_0r^2\left|\langle \pmb{E}(\pmb{r},t)\rangle\right|^2$ [@jackson1999classical]. Here, $c$ is the speed of light, $\epsilon_0$ the vacuum dielectric constant, $\pmb{E}(\pmb{r},t)$ the electric field of the emitted radiation, and $\langle \cdot\cdot\cdot\rangle$ stands for the expectation value. The theory of the time-dependent spectrum yields the filtered radiant intensity $I(\omega,\Omega,t)$ in the direction $\pmb{n}\|\pmb{r}$ depending on the frequency $\omega$, and the detection time $t$ [@eberly1977time; @raymer1995ultrafast]. The positive-frequency part $\pmb{E}^{(+)}(t)$ and the negative-frequency part $\pmb{E}^{(-)}(t)$ of the electric field component $\pmb{E}(t)$ are defined by $$\pmb{E}^{(+)}(t)=\left(\pmb{E}^{(-)}(t)\right)^*=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int{\rm d}\omega\,\pmb{\widetilde{E}} (\omega)\Theta(\omega)e^{-i\omega t}$$ where $\Theta(\omega)$ is the unit step function and $\pmb{\widetilde{E}}(\omega) = \int{\rm d}t\,\exp(i\omega t)\pmb{E}(t)$. For an observer at a distance $r$ the detected physical radiant intensity spectrum of radiation in direction $\pmb{n}_\alpha$ is given by the truncated fourier transforms [@eberly1977time; @courtens1977time; @renaud1977nonstationary; @brenner1982time]: $$\begin{split}
\frac{d^2I_\alpha}{d\omega d\Omega}=&\frac{8}{3}c\epsilon_0r^2
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{\rm d}t'\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{\rm d}t''G(t-t')G(t-t'')
e^{i\omega(t''-t')} \left(\pmb{n}_\alpha\cdot\pmb{E}^{(+)}(t')\right)
\left(\pmb{n}^*_\alpha\cdot\pmb{E}^{(-)}(t'')\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:PowerSpectrumI}$$ Here, the detection window function is defined as $G(t)=\left(\frac{2} {\pi}\right)^{1/4} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta T}}e^{-t^2/\Delta T^2}$ where $\Delta T$ mimics the detection time interval. By introducing the positive- and negative-frequency part of the filtered (by the detector) electric field $$\pmb{\overline{E}}^{(+)}(\omega,t)=\left(\pmb{\overline{E}}^{(-)}(\omega,t)\right)^*=\int{\rm d}t'\,\pmb{E}^{(+)} (t')G(t-t')e^{-i\omega t'}
\label{eq:FilteredEfield}$$ the time-dependent physical spectrum of the radiation can be found as $$\begin{split}
\frac{d^2I_\alpha}{d\omega d\Omega}=&\frac{8}{3}c\epsilon_0r^2
\left(\pmb{n}_\alpha\cdot\pmb{\overline{E}}^{(+)}(\omega,t)\right)
\left(\pmb{n}^*_\alpha\cdot\pmb{\overline{E}}^{(-)}(\omega,t)\right)
\end{split}
\label{eq:PowerSpectrumII}$$ which is strictly positive for all frequencies $\omega$ and times $t$.\
The coherent electric field part of the emitted radiation of the driven ring is [@jackson1999classical; @landau2000classical] $$\pmb{E}(\pmb{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0c^2r}\left\{\pmb{n}\times\left[\pmb{n}\times\ddot{\pmb{\mu}}(t-t_d)\right] + \frac{1}{6c}\pmb{n}\times\dddot{\pmb{D}}(t-t_d) + \frac{1}{c}\pmb{n}\times\ddot{\pmb{m}}(t-t_d)\right\},
\label{eq:ElectricField}$$ where $\pmb{\mu}(t)$ is the dynamical electric dipole moment, $\pmb{m}(t)$ the dynamical magnetic dipole moment and $\pmb{D}(t)$ the quadrupole moment of the driven quantum ring. The delay time is determined by the distance between the ring and the observer and is given by $t_d=r/c$.\
In the following, the quantum ring structure is in the $x-y$ plane while we detect the emitted radiation in $z$-direction, i.e. $\pmb{n}=\hat{e}_z$. Since the magnetic moment $\pmb{m}(t)$ also points in this direction, only the electric part of the radiation contribute to the whole emission power. The vector of electric quadrupole moment is defined by the tensor product $\pmb{D}=\sum_{\beta}D_{\alpha\beta}n_{\beta}\pmb{n}$ which depends in both the magnitude and direction, on the direction to the point of observation $\pmb{r}$. The quadrupole tensor is given as $D_{\alpha\beta}=\int{\rm d}\pmb{r}\,\rho(\pmb{r})\cdot \left(3r_\alpha r_\beta - r^2\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)$ where $r_\alpha=x,y,z$. Consequently, the quadrupole vector $\pmb{D}=(D_{xz},D_{yz},D_{zz})^T$. Since the quantum ring is located in the $x-y$ plane we infer that $D_{xz}=D_{yz}=0$. Therefore, according to Eq. no quadrupole radiation signal is expected in the direction $\pmb{n}$ to the observer $\pmb{r}$ because also $D_{zz}$ time-averages to zero.\
The radiation polarization is classified by the Stokes parameter $S_0$, $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$ [@mcmaster1954polarization]. The parameter $S_0$ indicates the intensity while $S_1$ and $S_2$ quantify the linear polarization. $S_3$ signifies circularly polarized radiation. The degree of polarization is given by $p=\sqrt{S_1^2+S_2^2+S_3^2}/S_0$. In order to find the mathematical expressions for the Stokes parameter we use the following polarization vectors which are perpendicular to $\pmb{n}$: $e_x$ and $e_y$ in Cartesian basis, $e_{\pm45^\circ}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_x\pm e_y)$ in a Cartesian basis rotated by $45^\circ$, and $e_{\pm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_x\pm ie_y)$ which describes the circular basis.\
Considering Eq. the Stokes parameters read $$S_{1(2,3)}(\omega,t,\Omega)=\frac{d^2 I_{x(45^\circ,+)}}{d\omega d\Omega} - \frac{d^2 I_{y(-45^\circ,-)}}{d\omega d\Omega}$$ while the intensity is characterized explicitly by $$S_{0}(\omega,t,\Omega)=\frac{d^2 I_{x}}{d\omega d\Omega} + \frac{d^2 I_{y}}{d\omega d\Omega}.$$ At the observer $\pmb{r}$ the Stokes parameters describing the linear polarization can be computed according $$S^z_1(\omega,t)=\frac{1}{6\pi^2\epsilon_0 c^3}\left(\left|\ddot{\mu}_x^{(+)}(\omega,t)\right|^2 - \left|\ddot{\mu}_y^{(+)}(\omega,t)\right|^2\right)$$ and $$S^z_2(\omega,t)=\frac{1}{6\pi^2\epsilon_0 c^3}{\rm Re}\left\{\ddot{\mu}_x^{(-)}(\omega,t)\ddot{\mu}_y^{(+)}(\omega,t) + \ddot{\mu}_x^{(+)}(\omega,t)\ddot{\mu}_y^{(-)}(\omega,t)\right\}
\label{eq:Stoke12}$$ while the circularly polarization reads $$S^z_3(\omega,t)=\frac{1}{6\pi^2\epsilon_0 c^3}{\rm Im}\left\{\ddot{\mu}_x^{(-)}(\omega,t)\ddot{\mu}_y^{(+)}(\omega,t) - \ddot{\mu}_x^{(+)}(\omega,t)\ddot{\mu}_y^{(-)}(\omega,t)\right\}.
\label{eq:Stoke3}$$ The total emitted power follows as $$S^z_0(\omega,t)=\frac{1}{6\pi^2\epsilon_0 c^3}\left(\left|\ddot{\mu}_x^{(+)}(\omega,t)\right|^2 + \left|\ddot{\mu}_y^{(+)}(\omega,t)\right|^2\right).
\label{eq:Stoke0}$$ Fourier transforms are computed as in Eq..\
In a related approach the temporal evolution of the spectrum of the emitted dipolar radiation can be obtained through a wavelet transform [@chui2016introduction; @daubechies1992ten] of the acceleration as the second temporal derivative of the dipole moment $\pmb{\mu}(t)$. The time evolution of the spectrum can be found by a Gabor-type transformation $\mathcal{A}_w(t_0,\omega)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{\rm d}t\,w_{t_0,\omega}(t)A(t)$ where the kernel function $w_{t_0,\omega}(t)$ has a variable width in a way that the number of oscillations is constant. Consequently, the shape of the analysing wavelet is unchanged. The main difference to the conventional Gabor transformation $\mathcal{A}_g(t_0,\omega)$ as the most used windowed Fourier transform lies in the Gebor kernel function $g_{t_0,\omega}(t)$ which has a fixed width and therefore, it could only be used when the frequency of the signal is neither too low or to high. We checked the emitted power spectrum obtained from Eq. with the wavelet transform methods and obtained similar radiation characteristics by using a Morlet kernel function [@de1996wavelet].
Pushing up the emission frequency via orbital angular momentum transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig.\[fig:fig1\](a) shows the spectrum for a quantum ring with a radius $\rho_0=150$nm and an effective width of $\Delta\rho=40$nm. The ring is irradiated with a two-cycle long, linearly polarized (along $x$) OAM pulse with a photon energy $\hbar\omega_x=2.5$meV which is resonant with transitions from the first to the second radial subband. The Fermi level $E_F=3.3$meV (dashed horizontal line in Fig.\[fig:fig1\](a)) is set by the particle number which can be controlled for instance by an appropriate gating. The spectral width of the pulse is 3meV. The key advantage of vortex pulses is that the dynamics can be tuned by simply changing the vortex topological charge while keeping the intensity fixed (avoiding so multiphoton and other higher-order processes) and also the energy band width (and keeping so in resonance with the relevant states). The peak intensity is chosen as $10^{10}$W/cm$^2$. The laser spot is focused vertically on the rings (cf. Fig.\[fig:fig0\]).\
For what follows it is crucial to recall that we are dealing with appropriately doped systems such that the relevant dynamic takes place in the subbands of the conduction band (in contrast to valence band excitations which are not discussed nor relevant here). The kinetics of the photoexcited population $\tilde \rho(t)$ depends on the individual charge densities $\rho_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}$ corresponding to the wave functions $\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(x,y,t)$ as yielded by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation Eq. at the time $t$ for the states starting from the stationary states labeled $n_{_0},m_{_0}$ $$\tilde \rho(t)=\sum_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}f_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(t)\left|\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(x,y,t)\right|^2.$$ The weights $f_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(t)$ are the non-equilibrium distribution functions which can be evaluated by solving the Boltzmann equation within the relaxation time approximation [@ziman1972principles; @matos2005photoinduced]: $$\frac{\partial f_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}}{\partial t}=-\frac{f_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(t)-f^0_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(E_F)}{\tau_{\rm rel}}$$ where $f^0_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(E_F)=1/\left[1+\exp((E_{n_{_0},m_{_0}} - E_F)/k_BT)\right]$ is the Fermi-Dirac equilibrium distribution for a given temperature. This simple description of the kinetics is reasonable as the highest excited state is still around the Fermi level. Within this picture, relaxation processes such as electron-phonon scattering, electron-electron scattering, or simultaneous scattering by impurities and phonons are modelled by a single (average) quantity, the relaxation time $\tau_{\rm rel}$.\
To determine an appropriate value for $\tau_{\rm rel}$ we have to identify the relevant relaxation processes. First of all, we consider the multiple quantum ring system to be free from impurities. Second, Pauli blocking and the fundamental energy conservation limit effectively the redistribution of the charge carriers due to electron-electron collisions [@chakraborty1994electron]. Furthermore, in the case of GaAs the optical phonon energy is above 30meV [@grundmann1995inas] and much larger than the energy gap in the considered electronic structure \[cf. Fig.\[fig:fig2\](a)\]. We are considering optically induced transitions around the Fermi level $E_F$ and therefore, optical phonons will be not addressed. Rather, the relaxation process in our case and in the range of considered intensities are driven by scattering from incoherent phonons [@moskalenko2017charge]. Time resolved theoretical and experimental studies of the intersubband relaxation processes in GaAs-AlGaAs quantum wells below the optical phonon energy revealed relaxation time scales between $10\,ps$ and $200\,ps$ [@murdin1996time]. We assume here a relaxation time $\tau_{\rm rel}=25\,ps$.\
In Fig.\[fig:fig1\](b) the population $\tilde \rho(t=0)$ right before the electromagnetic perturbation is shown.
![(a) Energy spectrum of the quantum ring and transition scheme in dependence on the topological charge of the applied optical vortex beam. The fermi energy $E_F$ is marked by the dashed horizontal line. The red curve illustrates the spectral width of the employed two-cycle pulse. (b) The initial density of the occupied states $(t=0)$ corresponding to the ring structure. (c) snapshot of the excited population $\tilde \rho(t)$ during the interaction with an optical vortex pulse with a topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=2$.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="12cm"}
It reveals, as expected an angularly homogeneous radial density distribution which is symmetric with respect to $\rho_0$. In the following we consider the ring perturbed by the focussed vortex beam radiation causing dynamical changes in the density distribution. A typical example is shown in Fig.\[fig:fig1\](c) depicting the non-equilibrium population $\tilde \rho(t)$ of the quantum ring during the interaction with the laser beam with a topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=2$. We identify three nodal structures related to the winding number [@watzel2016centrifugal].\
The variation of the topological charge enables transitions to final states with different magnetic quantum numbers $m_0$. This is understandable by considering a perturbative picture [@watzel2016optical]: Crucial for obtaining the optical selection rules are the matrix elements $\langle\Psi_{n_{_0}',m_{_0}'}|H_{\rm int}(t)|\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}\rangle$ where $|\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}\rangle$ are the unperturbed ring eigenstates and $H_{\rm int}(t)=\frac{ie\hbar}{2m^*}
\left(2\pmb{A}(x,y,t)\cdot\pmb{\nabla}+\pmb{\nabla}\cdot\pmb{A}(x,y,t)\right)
+\frac{e^2}{2m^*}\pmb{A^2}(x,y,t)$ is the perturbation due to the optical vortex pulse. For low intensities $|\pmb{A}(x,y,t)|^2\approx0$ and the perturbative treatment for the linearly polarized vortex beam radiation leads to integrals in the form $$\int_0^{2\pi}{\rm d}\varphi e^{-im_0'\varphi}\cos\varphi e^{im_{_{\rm OAM}}\varphi}e^{im_{_0}\varphi},
\label{eq:selection}$$ from which we deduce the selection rules $m_0'=m_0+m_{_{\rm OAM}}\pm1$. For the special case $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=0$ resembling a linearly polarized Gaussian beam we infer $m_0'=\pm m_0$ and therefore, no ring current is photo-induced [@watzel2016optical]. The possible transitions from the first radial band into the second in dependence on the topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ are indicated in the transition scheme in Fig.\[fig:fig1\](a). From the matrix elements it can be deduced that the number of nodal structures in the density distribution of the ring \[cf.Fig.\[fig:fig1\](c)\] is given by $m_{_{\rm OAM}}+1$ [@watzel2016centrifugal].\
In Fig.\[fig:fig2\] the time-dependent emission spectra are shown evidencing the dependence of the emitted frequency on the vortex winding number. This behavior we relate to the different optically induced (non-vertical) transitions between the first and second radial band. Another interesting aspect is that we find only emission in case of a even topological charge which leads to an odd number of nodal structures \[cf.\[fig:fig1\](c)\] [@watzel2016centrifugal]. This can be explained by a static picture. In the case of an even number of nodal structures we find always the same amount of charge density in every quadrant in the coordinate system relative to the center of the ring. Therefore, the dipole moments in the $x$- and $y$-direction equal to zero. This argument applies to the dynamical case where the nodal structures rotate with a round-trip frequency depending on the parameter of the laser beam. The employed OAM laser pulse has a photon energy $\hbar\omega_x=2.5$meV which means the maximum of the spectral width is centered on the transition $n_0=1,m_0=0\rightarrow n_0=2,m_0=3$ \[cf.\[fig:fig1\](a)\]. Therefore, we find a maximal emission signal when using a topological charge with $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=2$. The duration of the two-cycle pulse amounts to $T_{\rm dur}=3.3$ps. The corresponding time-dependent spectrum $S_0^z(\omega,t)$ is shown in Fig.\[fig:fig2\](a). It exhibits repeated coherent radiation bursts centered around a frequency which corresponds to a photon energy of 2.47meV. The peaks decay in time due to relaxation processes (relaxation time $\tau_{\rm rel}=25$ps). The repeated bursts are a consequence of the revivals of the charge polarization dynamics [@moskalenko2006revivals].
![(a) Time dependent emission spectrum for a two cycle optical vortex beam with a photon energy $\hbar\omega_x=2.5$meV. The topological charge of the OAM laser pulse is $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=2$. (b) the same as in (a) for a topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=4$. (c) the same as in (a) for a topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=6$.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="12cm"}
Increasing the topological charge to $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=4$ and $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=6$ results in additional emission signals at higher frequencies which we also expect on the basis of the optical selection rules dependence on the topological charge. The intensity of the peaks reflects the spectral characteristics of the laser pulse. Therefore, in all cases the main maximum signal can be found around the central frequency $\omega_x$. In general, the number of peaks and the frequency of the emission spectrum depend strongly on the topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ as well as on the spectral width of the applied laser field. For a fixed frequency one has to consider the role the temporal pulse length $T_{\rm dur}$ which sets the spectral width **(see Appendix A)**.
Up-conversion of emission frequency and tunneling of orbital magnetic moments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering multiple rings with different radii $\rho_1$, $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$ coupled to each other we focus the OAM beam on only one of the rings, the “perfect” vortex method is used [@jabir2016generation]. This new class of optical vortex beams is characterized by radii independent on the topological charge. A simple technique to generate such a beam is the Fourier transformation of the Bessel-Gauss beam with Fourier lenses of different focal lengths. The vector potential corresponding to the “perfect” vortex beam in the $x-y$ plane is $$\pmb{A}(\rho,\varphi,t)={\rm Re}\left\{\hat{\epsilon}A_0e^{-\frac{(\rho-\rho_r)^2}{w_0^2}}
\Omega(t)e^{i(m_{_{\rm OAM}}\varphi-\omega_xt)}\right\}
\label{eq:perfectOAM}$$ where $\rho_r$ and $w_0$ are the radius and annular width of the laser spot. A schematics of the setup is shown in Fig.\[fig:fig0\]. We conduct calculations for three intercalated rings with the radii $\rho_1=150$nm, $\rho_2=100$nm and $\rho_3=50$nm. The effective widths are $\Delta \rho_1=\Delta \rho_2=\Delta \rho_3=40$nm, meaning that the width of the effective tunneling barriers between the rings is 10nm. Note, the largest quantum ring resembles the system and its characteristics used in Section A. The laser beam is focussed on the largest of the rings while the others remain practically unaffected. The pulse parameters are $\rho_r=150$nm and $w_0=10$nm with an intensity at $10^{10}$W/cm$^2$. Clearly, any charge carrier dynamics within the “dark” rings is due to tunneling effects. We define the individual dipole moments corresponding to the specific rings $i$ as $$\mu_x^i(t)=\sum_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}\int_{0}^{2\pi}{\rm d}\varphi\int_{\rho_i-\Delta \rho_i/2}^{\rho_i+\Delta \rho_i/2}{\rm d}\rho\,\rho^2\cos{\varphi}\left|\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(\rho,\varphi,t)\right|^2
\label{eq:dipx}$$ and ($\rho_i$ and $\Delta \rho_i$ are the radius and the effective width of the ring $i$ ) $$\mu_y^i(t)=\sum_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}\int_{0}^{2\pi}{\rm d}\varphi\int_{\rho_i-\Delta \rho_i/2}^{\rho_i+\Delta \rho_i/2}{\rm d}\rho\,\rho^2\sin{\varphi}\left|\Psi_{n_{_0},m_{_0}}(\rho,\varphi,t)\right|^2.
\label{eq:dipy}$$ The corresponding power spectra follows from Eq.. In Fig.\[fig:fig4\] the time-dependent emission spectra $S_0^{z,i}(\omega,t)$ corresponding to the individual rings $i$ as follows from the time-dependent dipole moments within the respective domains $[\rho_i-\Delta \rho_i/2,\rho_i+\Delta \rho_i/2]$. The topological charge of the employed laser field is $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=4$.
![Individual time-dependent emission spectra for the rings with (a) radius $\rho_1=150$nm, (b) $\rho_2=100$nm and (c) $\rho_3=65$nm. [The largest ring is irradiated by a focussed optical vortex beam with a topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=4$]{}. The spectra are normalized to the global maximal value. Therefore, the brightest color identifies the maximal intensity of the emission of the considered multiple ring-system. The total spectrum of the whole multiple-ring structure is shown in panel (d). [The spectrum in panel (e) shows the emission characteristics for a linearly polarized Gaussian beam with the number of photons as for the vortex beam.]{}[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fig4.pdf){width="12cm"}
The first emission spectrum Fig.\[fig:fig4\](a) reflects the behavior observed in Fig.\[fig:fig2\](b) very well. We find two different peaks around $\omega/2\pi=0.6$THz corresponding to the optically accessible main transitions. Furthermore, the depicted ring-resolved Stokes parameters $\overline{S^z_i}=S^z_i/S^z_0$ ($i=1,2,3$) reveal the polarization state of the emitted radiation. Here, the emission signal is largely dominated by circular polarization signifying the directed circular charge motion in the ring.\
Two additional peaks occur when studying the emission spectrum of the second quantum ring in Fig.\[fig:fig4\](b). They are the result of tunneling processes from the larger ring into the smaller. At the same time, the rotational dynamics of the charge carriers is translated into the smaller quantum structure under conversation of the angular momentum, which amounts to a tunneling of the magnetic orbital moment. A smaller ring radius implies a larger round-trip frequency of the looping charge carriers. However, the emission spectrum shows also signals at the same frequencies as in the spectrum corresponding to the largest ring \[cf. Fig.\[fig:fig4\](a)\]. The tunneling probability and the effective tunneling time are strongly dependent on the effective tunneling barrier which is also indicated by the emission spectrum in Fig.\[fig:fig4\](b). The intensities of the various peaks are weaker and they occur at later times. The displayed ring-resolved Stokes parameters correspond to the frequency $\omega/2\pi=1.1$THz and evidence the circular polarization of the emitted radiation, which in turn signifies the tunneling of the orbital magnetic moment.\
Considering the emission spectrum of the third smallest ring we observe same behavior, yet at higher frequencies (Fig.\[fig:fig4\](c)). Two additional signals occur at much higher frequencies with much weaker intensities. These structures can be traced back to a tunneling process between the second and the third quantum ring. Furthermore, it causes a more pronounced retardation of the signals in time in comparison to the spectra corresponding to the first and the second ring. The maximum intensity of the emission signal can be found in the emission spectrum of the first ring. The high harmonic signals are circular polarized, as evidenced by the displayed ring-resolved Stokes parameter $\overline{S^z_i}=S^z_i/S^z_0$.\
In the panel (d) in Fig.\[fig:fig4\] the emission spectrum of the whole multiple-ring spectrum is shown. It can be obtained by using the whole integration domain $[\rho_1-\Delta \rho_1/2,\rho_3+\Delta \rho_3/2]$ in Eq.\[eq:dipx\] and Eq.\[eq:dipy\]. It reveals the additional emerging signals at higher frequencies and later times, as already shown in the individual panels (a)-(c). Furthermore as already described above, these high harmonic signals have weaker intensities due to the tunneling processes from the large into the smaller rings. Clearly, attaching additional rings with smaller radii the frequency of the the emitted radiation can be increased further according to $\omega\sim\omega_0\rho_0/\rho$, albeit with deceasing intensities. This follows from the conservation of the angular momentum.\
For comparison, [panel (e) of Fig.\[fig:fig4\] shows the emission spectrum when applying a conventional linear polarized Gaussian beam focused on the center of the multiple-ring complex (meaning roughly the same waist as for the vortex beam). All rings are then simultaneously irradiated. For a credible comparison with the results for an optical vortex, the intensity is normalized such that both beams have the same number of photons. The photon energy of the two-cycle pulse is 2.5meV which is in the regime of the characteristic frequency of the largest ring with 150nm. Therefore, it is not surprising to see one strong signal at $\omega/2\pi=0.55$THz due to the transitions indicated in Fig.\[fig:fig1\](a) (the case for $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=0$). The smaller rings with radii of 100nm and 65nm are subject to higher intensities due to the Gaussian shaped profile. As a consequence, we find emission signals at higher frequencies despite that the photon energy of the laser pulse does not match the corresponding characteristic frequencies of the rings. This can be explained by multiphoton transitions which, in return, have generally a lower excitation probability [@watzel2017ultrafast]. They are not a consequence of tunneling effects because the time delays between the different harmonics is much smaller in comparison to the temporal characteristics shown in the panels (a)-(d) of Fig.\[fig:fig4\]. In contrast to the radiation following excitation by an optical vortex pulse, all emission signals show a pronounced linear polarization as inferred from the ring-resolved Stokes parameter $\overline{S^z_i}=S^z_i/S^z_0$ for $\omega/2\pi=0.55$THz.]{}
Low-frequency emission
----------------------
The driving frequency can also be down-converted by simply changing the waist of the vortex beam. In Fig.\[fig:fig5\](a) the total time-dependent emission spectrum of the ring-structure is depicted where, now, the smallest ring was irradiated. The intensity of the applied pulse is unaltered.
![(a) Total emission spectrum of the multiple-ring structure. The smallest ring is irradiated by the optical vortex pulse with $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=4$. (b) The emission signal at the converged frequency $\omega/2\pi=0.6$THz and a propagation time of 9ps in dependence on the intensity of the applied optical vortex pulse.[]{data-label="fig:fig5"}](fig5.pdf){width="12cm"}
The spectrum exhibits two intense main signals at $\omega/2\pi=1.8$THz and $\omega/2\pi=2.1$THz which are caused by resonant-transitions within the ring with the smallest radius $\rho_1=65$nm. Through subsequent tunneling processes into the attached rings with larger radii $\rho_2=100$nm and $\rho_3=150$nm, we find additional emerging signals at lower frequencies. Consequently, the round-trip frequencies are down-converted which is reflected in the characteristics of the emitted radiations. Inspecting the times when the additional signals occur and comparing with the up-conversion spectrum in Fig.\[fig:fig4\] it is obvious that the down-conversion mechanism is faster. Furthermore, the down-conversion process appears more effective as signified by the higher intensity of the additional signals in comparison with fig.\[fig:fig4\]. This effect stems from the enlarged effective centrifugal potential which leads to an imbalance and a pronounced drift of the charge density to outer ring radii [@watzel2016centrifugal].\
The centrifugal force experienced by the charge carriers is stronger for higher topological charges $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$, as demonstrated by Fig.\[fig:fig5\](b) where the down-converted signal at $\omega/2\pi=0.6$THz and a propagation time $t=8$ps is shown as function of the intensity of the applied laser pulse and the topological charge. A higher winding number leads to more intense emission signal after the down-conversion. Furthermore, we deduce a nearly linear dependence of the emission signal on the intensity of the applied vortex pulse, due to the enlarged population of the resonantly excited, current-carrying charge carrier above the Fermi energy that tunnel and trigger loop currents in neighboring rings.
Conclusions
===========
We demonstrated the dependence of the emission spectrum of an engineered quantum ring structure on the topological charge of a focused optical vortex driving pulse. In general, the frequency of the radiation can be enlarged for higher vortex winding number, as long as the spectral width of the pulse covers the relevant optical transitions whose selection rules depend strongly on the winding number $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$. For one quantum ring changing the radiation characteristics is limited. We worked out a possibility to enlarge noticeably the frequency of the emitted harmonics using engineered intercalated rings with exceedingly smaller radii. Tunneling orbital currents between rings allow for the emission of trains of high harmonics with tunable frequency and time structure. The conversion mechanism can be exploited down to nm size rings, albeit at the cost of strongly decreasing intensities of the higher harmonics. Low-frequency generation is also possible by simply changing the focusing of the vortex beam. To achieve yet higher harmonics one may use cut rings, as in [@hinsche2009high], or side decorated rings which would introduce even higher frequencies in the emission spectrum. In principle, one can also just increase the intensity of the vortex beam in which case the practically dark spot along the optical axis shrinks and the smaller rings are then excited. This goes however on the cost of having huge peak intensity at larger distances leading to material damage and higher order processes.
![(a) Characteristic electronic spectrum for the largest ring of the whole multiple-ring structure with $\rho_1=150\,$nm. The red curve illustrates the irradiating optical vortex beam with a duration of 1.5 optical cycles and a topological charge $m_{\rm OAM}=10$. (b) Specific time-dependent emission spectrum of the largest ring. (c) Specific time-dependent emission spectrum of the smallest ring with $\rho_1=50\,$nm.[]{data-label="fig:fig6"}](fig6.pdf){width="12cm"}
Appendix
========
Dependence on the pulse length
------------------------------
Let us consider the emission characteristics for a multiple-ring structure driven by a “perfect” optical vortex pulse with a pulse length corresponding to 1.5 optical cycles. Other pulse parameters remain unaltered, i.e. $\hbar\omega_x=2.5$eV while the peak intensity is $10^{10}$W/cm$^2$. The beam is focussed on the largest ring with $\rho_1=150$nm and a width $\Delta\rho_1=40$nm. The spatial parameters are $\rho_r=150$nm and $w_0=10$nm (cf. Eq.). A direct consequence of shortening the pulse length is a larger spectral width around the central frequency. In contrast to the situation depicted in Fig.\[fig:fig1\](a) such a pulse covers electronic states up to quantum numbers $m_0=\pm10$ while the Fourier coefficients of the photon absorption process $A^-=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\Omega(t)\exp\left[i((E_{n_{_0}',m_{_0}'}-E_{n_{_0},m_{_0}})/\hbar-\omega_x)t\right]$ are still much larger than the Fourier coefficients of the photon emission process $A^+=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\Omega(t)\exp\left[i((E_{n_{_0}',m_{_0}'}-E_{n_{_0},m_{_0}})/\hbar+\omega_x)t\right]$. A schematics is shown in Fig.\[fig:fig6\](a). In panel (b) of Fig.\[fig:fig6\] the time-dependent emission spectrum for the largest ring is depicted, meaning that the integration domain in Eq. and Eq. is restricted to $[\rho_1-\Delta\rho_1/2,\rho_1+\Delta\rho_1/2]$. The topological charge of the applied optical vortex pulse is $m_{_{\rm OAM}}=10$. In comparison to the results displayed in Fig.\[fig:fig2\](b) or Fig.\[fig:fig4\](a) we identify additional signals at higher frequencies due to optical selection rules and the large spectral width of the pulse. Several electronic states are excited and contribute to the radiation of the quantum ring. The values of the different harmonics follow from the energy differences between the charge carrier states in the characteristic electronic structure. Similarly. the frequencies of the radiation can be up-converted by tunneling processes as shown in panel (c) of Fig.\[fig:fig6\]. The signals appear time-delayed in the smaller rings. The results illustrate the strong dependence of the whole up-conversion process on the spectral width of the applied optical vortex pulse which, in turn, determines the maximal usable topological charge $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ and therefore the highest achievable value of the converted harmonics. The Stokes parameter (not depicted here) corresponding to the different harmonics indicate a pronounced circular polarization ($\overline{S^z_3}\approx1$).
[10]{}
There is no strict cut-off on the harmonic frequencies is our case: (a) $m_{_{\rm OAM}}$ is in principle unlimited ($m_{_{\rm OAM}}=300$ have been demonstrated); (b) smaller rings lead to higher frequencies. Decorating or structuring the rings, e.g. using split rings delivers yet higher order harmonic generations. It is also worth mentioning that our scheme can be driven by linear or circular polarized pulses. The emitted harmonics have a well defined helicity depending on the emission angle, as demonstrated explicitly by our numerical simulations.
P. B. Corkum, “Plasma perspective on strong field multiphoton ionization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 1994 (1993).
M. Lewenstein, P. Balcou, M. Y. Ivanov, A. L’huillier, and P. B. Corkum, “Theory of high-harmonic generation by low-frequency laser fields,” Phys. Rev. A **49**, 2117 (1994).
T. Brabec and F. Krausz, “Intense few-cycle laser fields: Frontiers of nonlinear optics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. **72**, 545 (2000).
H. Petek and S. Ogawa, “Femtosecond time-resolved two-photon photoemission studies of electron dynamics in metals,” Prog. Surf. Sci. **56**, 239–310 (1997).
M. Weinelt, “Time-resolved two-photon photoemission from metal surfaces,” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **14**, R1099 (2002).
P. Echenique, R. Berndt, E. Chulkov, T. Fauster, A. Goldmann, and U. H[ö]{}fer, “Decay of electronic excitations at metal surfaces,” Surf. Sci. Rep. **52**, 219–317 (2004).
L. Rosenfeld, “On the energy-momentum tensor,” Mém. Acad. Roy. Belg. **18**, 1–30 (1940).
F. Belinfante, “On the current and the density of the electric charge, the energy, the linear momentum and the angular momentum of arbitrary fields,” Physica **7**, 449–474 (1940).
C. C. Tannoudji, J. D. Roc, and G. Grynberg, *Atoms and Photons, Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics* (Wiley, New York, 1989).
D. E. Soper, *Classical field theory* (Dover, New York, 2008).
L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. Spreeuw, and J. Woerdman, “Orbital angular momentum of light and the transformation of laguerre-gaussian laser modes,” Phys. Rev. A **45**, 8185 (1992).
M. Beijersbergen, L. Allen, H. Van der Veen, and J. Woerdman, “Astigmatic laser mode converters and transfer of orbital angular momentum,” Opt. Comm. **96**, 123–132 (1993).
M. Beijersbergen, R. Coerwinkel, M. Kristensen, and J. Woerdman, “Helical-wavefront laser beams produced with a spiral phaseplate,” Opt. Comm. **112**, 321–327 (1994).
H. He, M. Friese, N. Heckenberg, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, “Direct observation of transfer of angular momentum to absorptive particles from a laser beam with a phase singularity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 826 (1995).
N. Simpson, K. Dholakia, L. Allen, and M. Padgett, “Mechanical equivalence of spin and orbital angular momentum of light: an optical spanner,” Opt. Lett. **22**, 52–54 (1997).
M. Soskin, V. Gorshkov, M. Vasnetsov, J. Malos, and N. Heckenberg, “Topological charge and angular momentum of light beams carrying optical vortices,” Phys. Rev. A **56**, 4064 (1997).
L. Allen, S. M. Barnett, and M. J. Padgett, *Optical angular momentum* (CRC Press, 2003).
G. Molina-Terriza, J. P. Torres, and L. Torner, “Twisted photons,” Nat. Phys. **3**, 305–310 (2007).
A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, “Entanglement of the orbital angular momentum states of photons,” Nature **412**, 313–316 (2001).
J. T. Barreiro, T.-C. Wei, and P. G. Kwiat, “Beating the channel capacity limit for linear photonic superdense coding,” Nat. Phys. **4**, 282–286 (2008).
R. W. Boyd, A. Jha, M. Malik, C. O’Sullivan, B. Rodenburg, and D. J. Gauthier, “Quantum key distribution in a high-dimensional state space: exploiting the transverse degree of freedom of the photon,” SPIE OPTO pp. 79480L–79480L (2011).
M. Padgett and R. Bowman, “Tweezers with a twist,” Nat. Phot. **5**, 343–348 (2011).
S. F[ü]{}rhapter, A. Jesacher, S. Bernet, and M. Ritsch-Marte, “Spiral interferometry,” Opt. Lett. **30**, 1953–1955 (2005).
M. Woerdemann, C. Alpmann, and C. Denz, “Self-pumped phase conjugation of light beams carrying orbital angular momentum,” Opt. Expr. **17**, 22791–22799 (2009).
J. P. Torres and L. Torner, *Twisted photons: applications of light with orbital angular momentum* (John Wiley & Sons, 2011).
D. L. Andrews, *Structured light and its applications: An introduction to phase-structured beams and nanoscale optical forces* (Academic Press, 2011).
G. Foo, D. M. Palacios, and G. A. Swartzlander, “Optical vortex coronagraph,” Opt. Lett. **30**, 3308–3310 (2005).
H. He, N. Heckenberg, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, “Optical particle trapping with higher-order doughnut beams produced using high efficiency computer generated holograms,” J. Mod. Opt. **42**, 217–223 (1995).
H. Wang, L. Shi, B. Lukyanchuk, C. Sheppard, and C. T. Chong, “Creation of a needle of longitudinally polarized light in vacuum using binary optics,” Nat. Phot. **2**, 501–505 (2008).
S. W. Hell, “Far-field optical nanoscopy,” Science **316**, 1153–1158 (2007).
L. Allen, “Introduction to the atoms and angular momentum of light special issue,” J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. **4**, S1 (2002).
S. Barreiro and J. Tabosa, “Generation of light carrying orbital angular momentum via induced coherence grating in cold atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 133001 (2003).
M. Friese, T. Nieminen, N. Heckenberg, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, “Optical alignment and spinning of laser-trapped microscopic particles,” Nature **394**, 348–350 (1998).
L. D. Romero, D. Andrews, and M. Babiker, “A quantum electrodynamics framework for the nonlinear optics of twisted beams,” J. Opt. B: Quantum and Semiclass. Opt. **4**, S66 (2002).
S. Al-Awfi and M. Babiker, “Atomic motion in hollow submicron circular cylinders,” Phys. Rev. A **61**, 033401 (2000).
F. Araoka, T. Verbiest, K. Clays, and A. Persoons, “Interactions of twisted light with chiral molecules: An experimental investigation,” Phys. Rev. A **71**, 055401 (2005).
J. W[ä]{}tzel, Y. Pavlyukh, A. Sch[ä]{}ffer, and J. Berakdar, “Optical vortex driven charge current loop and optomagnetism in fullerenes,” Carbon **99**, 439–443 (2016).
K. Helmerson and W. D. Phillips, “Rotating atoms with light,” Twisted Photons: Applications of Light with Orbital Angular Momentum, First Edition pp. 213–235 (2011).
J. Wätzel and J. Berakdar, “Centrifugal photovoltaic and photogalvanic effects driven by structured light,” Sci. Rep. **6**, 21475 (2016).
L. Bruchhaus, P. Mazarov, L. Bischoff, J. Gierak, A. Wieck, and H. H[ö]{}vel, “Comparison of technologies for nano device prototyping with a special focus on ion beams: A review,” Appl. Phys. Rev. **4**, 011302 (2017).
V. Kravtsov and V. Yudson, “Direct current in mesoscopic rings induced by high-frequency electromagnetic field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 210 (1993).
O. Chalaev and V. E. Kravtsov, “Aharonov-bohm magnetization of mesoscopic rings caused by inelastic relaxation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 176601 (2002).
A. Matos-Abiague and J. Berakdar, “Field-free charge polarization of mesoscopic rings,” Phys. Rev. B **70**, 195338 (2004).
A. Matos-Abiague and J. Berakdar, “Ultrafast build-up of polarization in mesoscopic rings,” EPL **69**, 277 (2004).
Y. V. Pershin and C. Piermarocchi, “Laser-controlled local magnetic field with semiconductor quantum rings,” Phys. Rev. B **72**, 245331 (2005).
A. Matos-Abiague and J. Berakdar, “Photoinduced charge currents in mesoscopic rings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 166801 (2005).
A. Moskalenko, A. Matos-Abiague, and J. Berakdar, “Revivals, collapses, and magnetic-pulse generation in quantum rings,” Phys. Rev. B **74**, 161303 (2006).
A. Moskalenko and J. Berakdar, “Polarized light bursts from kicked quantum rings,” Phys. Rev. A **78**, 051804 (2008).
N. Hinsche, A. Moskalenko, and J. Berakdar, “High-order harmonic generation by a driven mesoscopic ring with a localized impurity,” Phys. Rev. A **79**, 023822 (2009).
I. Barth, J. Manz, Y. Shigeta, and K. Yagi, “Unidirectional electronic ring current driven by a few cycle circularly polarized laser pulse: quantum model simulations for mg-porphyrin,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. **128**, 7043–7049 (2006).
I. Barth and J. Manz, “Electric ring currents in atomic orbitals and magnetic fields induced by short intense circularly polarized $\pi$ laser pulses,” Phys. Rev. A **75**, 012510 (2007).
A. O’neil, I. MacVicar, L. Allen, and M. Padgett, “Intrinsic and extrinsic nature of the orbital angular momentum of a light beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 053601 (2002).
K. Gahagan and G. Swartzlander, “Optical vortex trapping of particles,” Opt. Lett. **21**, 827–829 (1996).
M. Babiker, W. Power, and L. Allen, “Light-induced torque on moving atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **73**, 1239 (1994).
D. L. Andrews and M. Babiker, *The angular momentum of light* (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
J. Eberly and K. Wodkiewicz, “The time-dependent physical spectrum of light,” JOSA **67**, 1252–1261 (1977).
M. Raymer, J. Cooper, H. Carmichael, M. Beck, and D. Smithey, “Ultrafast measurement of optical-field statistics by dc-balanced homodyne detection,” JOSA B **12**, 1801–1812 (1995).
A. S. Moskalenko, Z.-G. Zhu, and J. Berakdar, “Charge and spin dynamics driven by ultrashort extreme broadband pulses: a theory perspective,” Phys. Rep. **672**, 1-82 (2017).
P. Pietil[ä]{}inen, V. Halonen, and T. Chakraborty, “Electron correlations in quantum ring and dot systems,” Physica B: Condens. Matter **212**, 256–260 (1995).
J. R. Zurita-S[á]{}nchez and L. Novotny, “Multipolar interband absorption in a semiconductor quantum dot. i. electric quadrupole enhancement,” JOSA B **19**, 1355–1362 (2002).
W. Tan and J. Inkson, “Electron states in a two-dimensional ring-an exactly soluble model,” Semicond. Sci. Technol. **11**, 1635 (1996).
Y. Imry, *Introduction to mesoscopic physics*, 2 (Oxford University Press on Demand, 2002).
C. Presilla and J. Sj[ö]{}strand, “Nonlinear resonant tunneling in systems coupled to quantum reservoirs,” Phys. Rev. B **55**, 9310 (1997).
T. Chakraborty and P. Pietil[ä]{}inen, “Electron-electron interaction and the persistent current in a quantum ring,” Phys. Rev. B **50**, 8460 (1994).
J. D. Jackson, *Classical electrodynamics* (Wiley, 1999).
E. Courtens and A. Sz[ö]{}ke, “Time and spectral resolution in resonance scattering and resonance fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. A **15**, 1588 (1977).
B. Renaud, R. Whitley, and C. Stroud Jr, “Nonstationary two-level resonance fluorescence,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. **10**, 19 (1977).
K.-H. Brenner and K. Wodkiewicz, “The time-dependent physical spectrum of light and the wigner distribution function,” Opt. Commun. **43**, 103–106 (1982).
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, “The classical theory of fields: Volume 2 (course of theoretical physics series),” (2000).
W. H. McMaster, “Polarization and the stokes parameters,” Am. J. Phys. **22**, 351–362 (1954).
C. K. Chui, *An introduction to wavelets* (Elsevier, 2016).
I. Daubechies, *Ten lectures on wavelets* (SIAM, 1992).
S. De Luca and E. Fiordilino, “Wavelet temporal profile of high-order harmonics emitted by a two-level atom in the presence of a laser pulse,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **29**, 3277 (1996).
J. M. Ziman, *Principles of the Theory of Solids* (Cambridge university press, 1972).
M. Grundmann, O. Stier, and D. Bimberg, “Inas/gaas pyramidal quantum dots: Strain distribution, optical phonons, and electronic structure,” Phys. Rev. B **52**, 11969 (1995).
B. Murdin, C. Langerak, M. Helm, P. Kruck, W. Heiss, V. Rosskopf, G. Strasser, E. Gornik, M. D[ü]{}r, S. Goodnick *et al.*, “Time resolved studies of intersubband relaxation in gaas/algaas quantum wells below the optical phonon energy using a free electron laser,” Superlattices Microstruct. **19**, 17–24 (1996).
M. Jabir, N. A. Chaitanya, A. Aadhi, and G. Samanta, “Generation of “perfect” vortex of variable size and its effect in angular spectrum of the down-converted photons,” Sci. Rep. **6**, 21877 (2016).
J. Wätzel, I. Barth, and J. Berakdar, “Ultrafast optically induced resonant and non-resonant current generation in atoms and nanostructures: role of the photons orbital angular momentum,” J. Mod. Opt. **64**, 10–11 (2017).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We determined the magnetic structure of CuCr$_2$O$_4$ using neutron diffraction and irreducible representation analysis. The measurements identified a new phase between 155 K and 125 K as nearly collinear magnetic ordering in the Cr pyrochlore lattice. Below 125 K, a Cu-Cr ferrimagnetic component develops the noncollinear order. Along with the simultaneously obtained O positions and the quantum effect of spin-orbit coupling, the magnetic structure is understood to involve spin-orbit ordering, accompanied by an appreciably deformed orbital of presumably spin-only Cu and Cr.'
author:
- 'K. Tomiyasu'
- 'S. Lee'
- 'H. Ishibashi'
- 'Y. Takahashi'
- 'T. Kawamata'
- 'Y. Koike'
- 'T. Nojima'
- 'S. Torii'
- 'T. Kamiyama'
bibliography:
- 'CuCr2O4\_3\_arXiv.bib'
title: 'Emergence of spin-orbit order in the spinel CuCr$_2$O$_4$'
---
The concept of frustration has provided fertile sources for various exotic ground states in matter since Pauling proposed water ice [@Pauling_1935]. In frustrated magnets, not all classical-spin pairs can be arranged antiferromagnetically on a triangular or tetrahedral lattice, which gives rise to an inherent macroscopic degeneracy [@Wannier_1950; @Anderson_1956; @Anderson_1987]. Therefore, novel orders often emerge via spin-orbital-lattice coupling, such as the underlying structures for multi-ferroics, orbital ordering, and spin-orbit molecule organization [@Kimura_2003; @Book_Ramesh_2012; @Lee_2010; @Senn_2012].
Spinels are typical spin-frustrated materials. For example, in $A$Cr$_2$O$_4$, the $A$ = Co and Mn systems exhibit both ferromagnetism and ferroelectrics on the basis of their conical spin structure [@Yamasaki_2006; @Menyuk_1964; @Hastings_1962; @Tomiyasu_2004]. The $A$ = Mg, Zn, Cd, Hg systems exhibit a magnetization plateau under ultrahigh magnetic field and molecular spin excitations, both of which are caused by spin-lattice coupling and are tightly related to topological physics [@Ueda_2005; @Miyata_2011a; @Miyata_2011b; @Tomiyasu_2008; @Tomiyasu_2013; @Watanabe_2012; @Shannon_2010; @Tchernyshyov_2002; @Conlon_2010; @Mizoguchi_2017; @Paddison_2015].
The $A$ = Cu system, CuCr$_2$O$_4$, also belongs to this series. The crystal structure is depicted in the inset of Fig. \[fig:intro\]. The magnetic Cr$^{3+}$ ($d^3$), which is octahedrally surrounded by O$^{2-}$, is described by an isotropic spin $S=3/2$ without an orbital degree of freedom, and constructs the pyrochlore sublattice as the source of strong frustration. The magnetic Cu$^{2+}$ ($d^9$) resides in a tetrahedral ligand field. Its Jahn-Teller activity results in a large tetragonal lattice contraction by $1-c/a \simeq 0.1$ below $T_{\rm JT} \simeq 850$ K [@Ye_1994], in which Cu$^{2+}$ forms $S=1/2$ without an orbital degree of freedom. As the temperature further decreases, CuCr$_2$O$_4$ undergoes simultaneous transitions of the ferrimagnetic order and slight tetragonal-to-orthorhombic lattice distortion of $1-a/b \simeq 5 \times 10^{-4}$ (space group $I4_{1}/amd$ to $Fddd$) at $T_{\rm C} \simeq 125$ K [@Suchomel_2012]. The neutron-diffraction research began in 1957 and proposed the so-called Yafet-Kittel triangular type of magnetic structure [@Prince_1957], which was refined by a modern neutron diffractometer and Rietveld analysis [@Reehuis_2015].
![\[fig:intro\] (Color online) Temperature dependence of (a) heat capacity $C_{p}$ and (b) magnetic susceptibility $\chi=M/H$. The upper inset illustrates the crystal structure. The lower inset magnifies the low magnetic susceptibility range at approximately 155 K.](fig1_intro){width="0.8\linewidth"}
However, a new anomaly was recently reported at approximately 155 K in addition to the ferrimagnetic transition at $T_{\rm C}$ in specific heat and magnetization measurements [@Suchomel_2012], although high-resolution synchrotron X-ray diffraction detects no disruption of the symmetry in the crystal structure near this temperature [@Suchomel_2012]. The use of neutron diffraction to investigate the magnetic structure in the temperature range between 155 K and $T_{\rm C}\simeq125$ K has not yet been reported. Thus, the origin of this range remains a mystery. Furthermore, the Yafet-Kittel magnetic structure at the lowest temperature is yet to be determined, as the extremely small orthorhombic $ab$ distortion has been unresolved and the orthorhombic magnetic symmetry has not been examined by neutron diffraction. This prompted us to determine the magnetic structures in the two phases by combining state-of-the-art high-resolution time-of-flight neutron diffractometry and irreducible representation analysis [@Book_Izyumov_1991; @Book_Kovalev_1993]. Further, by using information of the positions of the oxygen atoms, which were simultaneously obtained and at which neutron diffraction also excels, we clarify the origin of magnetic ordering. $Experiments.$– Neutron diffraction experiments were performed on the Super-High-Resolution Powder Diffractometer (SuperHRPD) at the MLF of the J-PARC spallation neutron source in Japan [@Torii_2011; @Torii_2014]. Data were recorded using the 90$^{\circ}$-middle and 172$^{\circ}$-backward banks of position-sensitive detectors, at resolutions of $\Delta Q/Q \sim 4\times10^{-3}$ and $4\times10^{-4}$, respectively. Approximately 3 g of the sample was sealed in a 6-mm-diameter thin V cylinder with He exchange gas, which was positioned under the cold head in a He closed-cycle refrigerator. The crystal and magnetic structures were analyzed using the FullProf and SARA$h$ software [@Rodriguez_Carvajal_1993; @Wills_2000]. A powder sample of CuCr$_2$O$_4$ was synthesized by a solid-state reaction method, in which a stoichiometric mixture of CuO and Cr$_2$O$_3$ was ground, followed by the calcination at 1000 $^{\circ}$C for 24 h and 1200 $^{\circ}$C for 24 h in an O$_2$-gas flow with intermediate grinding and pelletizing. The heat capacity was measured using the Physical Properties Measurement System (PPMS) at the Department of Applied Physics, Tohoku University, Japan. Direct-current magnetization was measured using superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometers at the Center for Low-Temperature Science at this university.
$Results.$– First, before starting with the neutron experiments, we measured the temperature dependence of the heat capacity. As shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\](a), two phase transitions at approximately 155 K and 125 K are clearly observed. As the temperature decreases, the magnetic susceptibility begins to rapidly increase below 155 K and shows a maximum slope at approximately 125 K, as shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\](b). This demonstrates that CuCr$_2$O$_4$ has two magnetic transitions, which are also confirmed by the magnetization curve measurements [@SM]. Hereinafter, we refer to the three temperature ranges as the Para, Mag-II, and Mag-I phases and the two phase-transition temperatures as $T_{\rm II}\simeq155$ K and $T_{\rm I}=T_{\rm C}\simeq125$ K.
![\[fig:neutron\] (Color online) (a) Powder neutron diffraction patterns measured in the middle bank in the three phases. The fitting curves were obtained for the crystal and magnetic structures described by the displayed symmetries. The reliability factor $R_{\rm wp}$ was 6.3, 4.1, and 6.7[%]{}, respectively. (b) Temperature dependence of the 111 and 002 integrated intensities normalized at 11 K. (c) Selected reflections recorded at 11 K in the high-resolution backward bank. The curves in the lower panel are the fitting results obtained in the $\Gamma_{3}$ magnetic structure (see the text). ](fig2_neutron){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Next, we performed the neutron diffraction experiments. The crystallographic $a$, $b$, and $c$ axes and Miller indices are represented in the pseudo-cubic/orthorhombic $F$-lattice notation in the entire paper, as shown in the upper inset of Fig. \[fig:intro\]. Figure \[fig:neutron\](a) shows the patterns recorded in the middle bank in these three phases. As the temperature decreases from the Para phase, the low-$Q$ 111 and 002 reflections intensify in the Mag-II and Mag-I phases. In contrast, their high-$Q$ equivalent 333 and 006 reflections are very weak even in the lowest-temperature Mag-I phase, indicating that the 111 and 002 reflections are magnetic in origin. These magnetic reflections are indexed with the propagation vector ${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}} = (0,0,0)$.
Figure \[fig:neutron\](b) shows the temperature dependence of the normalized integrated intensity, which represents an increase in the Mag-II phase in concurrence with the aforementioned heat capacity and magnetic susceptibility data.
Figure \[fig:neutron\](c) shows the typical reflections recorded in the high-resolution backward bank. As shown in the upper panel, the 040 and 400 reflections can be distinguished in comparison with the Para-phase profile, confirming that the resolution was sufficiently high to discuss the effects of the slight $ab$ orthorhombic distortion of $ca.$ $5 \times 10^{-4}$. Furthermore, the lower panel shows the 042 and 402 reflections, which are extinct under the nuclear/crystallographic reflection conditions and therefore are purely magnetic. The magnetic intensity of the 042 reflection is much weaker than that of 402.
$Analysis.$– Now we analyze the magnetic structure. In the Mag-II phase, the possible ${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}=(0,0,0)$ magnetic structures in the tetragonal $I4_{1}/amd$ space group are described by the irreducible representations, $\Gamma_{\rm Cu} = \Gamma_{3} + \Gamma_{6} + \Gamma_{9}^{2} + \Gamma_{10}^{2}$ at the Cu position and $\Gamma_{\rm Cr} = \Gamma_{1} + 2\Gamma_{3} + \Gamma_{5} + 2\Gamma_{7} + 3\Gamma_{9}^{2}$ at the Cr position, where the coefficients denote the number of basis vectors and the superscript 2 the two-dimensional set of basis vectors [@Wills_2000]. Among them, the $\Gamma_{3}$ and $\Gamma_{9}$ representations are common to both $\Gamma_{\rm Cu}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm Cr}$. Furthermore, $\Gamma_{3}$ is precluded as the 002 magnetic reflection is forbidden contrary to the experimental data. Hence, $\Gamma_{9}$ is the most probable.
The result of Rietveld fitting performed for the $\Gamma_{9}$ magnetic structure, which is shown in the middle panel in Fig. \[fig:neutron\](a), is satisfactorily consistent with the experimental data, and the obtained magnetic structure is shown in Fig. \[fig:magstr\](a). Although the Cu ordered moment is not perceptible ($ \lesssim 0.1 \mu_{\rm B}$), the Cr ordered moment is 1.56$\mu_{\rm B}$. The spatial correlation is antiferromagnetic along the $c$-axis and ferromagnetic in the $ab$ plane. The moment direction is collinear and lies in the $ab$ plane, where $a=b$.
However, the in-plane direction cannot be determined in powder diffraction and also cannot be symmetrically restricted owing to the two-dimensionality ($XY$ type) of $\Gamma_{9}$. Thus, in Fig. \[fig:magstr\](a), we select the $a=b$ axis as the easy axis so as to continuously connect to the following Mag-I magnetic structure \[Fig. \[fig:magstr\](b)\], as explained below.
![\[fig:magstr\] (Color online) Magnetic unit cells in the Mag-II (a) and Mag-I (b) phases. All the magnetic moments lie in the $ab$ plane. (c) CrO$_6$ and CuO$_4$ polyhedra and the expected orbital shapes of unquenched $L$ in Mag-I. The parameters of the in-plane and out-of-plane ratios are defined by $\Delta R_{\rm in}({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}) = 1 - d({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}_{a})/d({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}_{b})$, $\Delta R_{\rm out}({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}) = 1 - d({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}_{c}) / 0.5\{d({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}_{a}) + d({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}_{b}) \}$; $\Delta R_{\rm in}({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O^{\rm av}}) = 1 - d({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O}^{\rm av}_{a})/d({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O}^{\rm av}_{b})$, $\Delta R_{\rm out}({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O^{\rm av}}) = 1 - d({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O}^{\rm av}_{c}) / 0.5\{d({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O}^{\rm av}_{a}) + d({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O}^{\rm av}_{b}) \}$, where O$^{\rm av}$ denotes the virtual midpoint between two oxygen atoms in CuO$_4$, as shown by the red open circles. ](fig3_magstr){width="0.95\linewidth"}
The magnetic structure in the Mag-I phase was analyzed similarly. In the $Fddd$ space group, the Cu and Cr common irreducible representations are $\Gamma_{3}$, $\Gamma_{5}$, and $\Gamma_{7}$. Among them, $\Gamma_{7}$ is ruled out, as the 002 magnetic reflection is forbidden, contrary to our experimental data. Thus, either the $\Gamma_{3}$ or $\Gamma_{5}$ representation is expected to describe the overall magnetic structure of CuCr$_2$O$_4$.
The lower panel in Fig. \[fig:neutron\](a) shows the result of the Rietveld fitting performed for the $\Gamma_{3}$ magnetic structure, which corresponds to the experimental data. Figure \[fig:magstr\](b) shows the obtained $\Gamma_{3}$ magnetic structure. This noncollinear structure consists of the collinear ferrimagnetic (F) component of the anti-parallel Cu and Cr moments along the slightly shorter $a$-axis in addition to the Mag-II collinear antiferromagnetic (AF) component of Cr along the slightly longer $b$-axis. This is consistent with the rapid increase in the F-component and the slight $ab$ lattice distortion simultaneously occurring below $T_{\rm I}$ [@Suchomel_2012], suggesting that the ordering of the F-component needs to distinguish between $a$ and $b$ to select either of them as its easy axis. Furthermore, the AF-component belongs to the aforementioned $XY$ magnetic structure in the Mag-II phase, which enables us to make the natural connection between them.
However, the $\Gamma_{5}$ magnetic structure, in which the slightly inequivalent $a$- and $b$-axes are only switched, gives a virtually identical fitting curve for the middle-bank data. Thus, to distinguish between the $a$- and $b$-directions, we use the high-resolution bank data of the 042 and 402 magnetic reflections \[lower panel of Fig. \[fig:neutron\](c)\]. These reflections arise from only the AF-component, because the F-component is extinct as is the case with the crystallographic reflection conditions. Furthermore, the neutron magnetic reflection intensity is proportional to the factor of $\sin^{2}\alpha$, where $\alpha$ denotes the angle between the $hkl$ scattering vector and collinear AF magnetic moment. Hence, the intensity ratio of 042 and 402 is expected to be 1:5 and 5:1 for the $\Gamma_{3}$ and $\Gamma_{5}$ structures, respectively, and the acceptable fitting was obtained for the $\Gamma_{3}$ structure, as shown in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:neutron\](c). Thus, $\Gamma_{3}$ \[Fig. \[fig:magstr\](b)\] is selected as the final solution.
In this way, we determined the magnetic structures in the Mag-II and Mag-I phases. Further details of the analysis and refined structural parameters are summarized in the Supplementary Material [@SM], where further details of our study of the positions of the ligand oxygen atoms also appear. Figure \[fig:magstr\](c) shows the CrO$_6$ and CuO$_4$ polyhedra together with the characteristic lengths and ratios, obtained in the magnetic structure found at the lowest temperature of 11 K. Surprisingly, the shapes of the polyhedra are quite different from the unit cell in terms of their in-plane orthorhombicity and out-of-plane tetragonality; despite $\Delta R_{\rm in}({\rm cell}) = 5.4 \times 10^{-4} \ll \Delta R_{\rm out}({\rm cell}) = 1.3 \times 10^{-1}$ (Jahn-Teller), (1) $\Delta R_{\rm in}({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}) = 5.1 \times 10^{-3}$ is close to $\Delta R_{\rm out}({\rm Cr\mathchar`-O}) = 4.6 \times 10^{-3}$ and much larger than $\Delta R_{\rm in}({\rm cell})$, (2) $\Delta R_{\rm in}({\rm Cu\mathchar`-O^{\rm av}}) = -6.4 \times 10^{-3}$ is opposite in sign and fairly large compared to $\Delta R_{\rm in}({\rm cell})$, where all the $\Delta R$ and O$^{\rm av}$ are defined in Fig. \[fig:magstr\](c). These facts indicate that the orbital clouds of the presumably spin-only Cr and Cu are appreciably deformed and expanded along the in-plane $b$- and $a$-axes, respectively. Furthermore, these axes are identical to the moment directions of the Cr AF-component and Cu-Cr F-component, respectively. Thus, the magnetic structure of CuCr$_2$O$_4$ is understood to be spin-orbit-lattice mixed order.
$Discussion.$– The origin of the spin-orbit-lattice order is understood as follows. Shannon [*et al.*]{} calculated for a pyrochlore lattice that the antiferromagnetic first-neighbor interaction $J_1$ causes the total spin to be zero in a first-neighbor tetrahedron, the spin-lattice coupling $E_{\rm sl}$ generates the spin collinearity, and $J_1$ and $E_{\rm sl}$ induce the robust local unit of the collinear first-neighbor tetrahedron ($uudd$-type, where $u/d$ denotes up/down spin) [@Shannon_2010], which is the same as the Mag-II unit cell \[Fig. \[fig:magstr\](a)\]. In fact, substantial $J_{1}$ and $E_{\rm sl}$ were recognized in magnetization plateau studies under an ultrahigh magnetic field for isomorphic ZnCr$_{2}$O$_{4}$ [@Miyata_2011a; @Miyata_2011b]. In addition, CuCr$_2$O$_4$ exhibits a large tetragonal lattice contraction of 10[%]{}, which is absent in ZnCr$_{2}$O$_{4}$ and the theory, suggesting that $|J_{1c}| > |J_{1ab}|$. Therefore, the Cr spins are considered to prefer an antiferromagnetic arrangement along the contracted $c$-axis, which also coincides with the Mag-II structure. Below $T_{\rm I}$, the Neel interaction ($J_{\rm Cu-Cr}$) generates the canted Mag-I structure \[Fig. \[fig:magstr\](b)\]. The remaining issue is the orbital characteristics coupled to the spin anisotropy. As a mechanism for spin-only anisotropy, the quantum effect of second-order spin-orbit coupling (SOC) between $d\epsilon$ and $d\gamma$ was proposed for Fe$^{2+}$ in Fe$_{1-x}$Mn$_{x}$Cr$_2$O$_4$ and Fe$_{1+x}$Cr$_{2-x}$O$_4$ [@Ohtani_2010; @Ma_2014]. Here, extending this idea, we try to explain both the spin and orbital electronic states in CuCr$_2$O$_4$. Figure \[fig:discussion\](a) depicts the $d$-electron state of Cu$^{2+}$. The triply degenerate $d\epsilon$ orbital with a hole is known to recover the orbital angular momentum of $L=1$ by the first-order relativistic SOC, as in Co$^{2+}$ and Ir$^{4+}$ [@Kanamori_1957; @Kim_2008; @Kim_2009]. Although this is not the case with Cu$^{2+}$, the $d_{zx}$ or $d_{yz}$ electron can transit to an empty $d_{xy}$ orbital and return via second-order SOC. This perturbation process partially modulates the $|d_{zx}\rangle$ state to the linear combination $|d_{zx}\rangle + \mathrm{i} \delta |d_{xy}\rangle$ state, in which the spatial rotation of the two orbitals around the $x$-axis generates orbital angular momentum $L_x$. Thus, the Cu$^{2+}$ spin prefers the $x$-direction, along which CuO$_4$ is expanded in accordance with the shape of the $L_x$ orbital, which coincides with the experimental structures in the Mag-I phase \[Fig. \[fig:magstr\]\]. Figure \[fig:discussion\](b) depicts the state of Cr$^{3+}$. In this case, it seems to be purely spin-only without a hole in the $d\epsilon$ orbital. This would be true in the Para phase. Upon magnetic ordering, however, the AF direct $J_{1c}$ process leaves behind a slight hole in the $d_{yz}$ and $d_{zx}$ orbitals. Using this hole, Cr$^{3+}$ could activate the second-order SOC mechanism and attain $L_{x}$ and $L_{y}$ characteristics by quantum linear combination. Experimentally, too, the Cr moment lies in the $ab$-plane in both the Mag-II and Mag-I phases. By selecting $L_y$, both the AF moment and CrO$_6$ expansion along the $b$-axis, observed in the Mag-I phase, also arise \[Fig. \[fig:magstr\]\].
![\[fig:discussion\] (Color online) Schematic representation of spin-orbit states in Cu$^{2+}$ (a) and Cr$^{3+}$ (b). Only the $d\epsilon$ orbital is shown and the $d\gamma$ orbital is omitted; the proper orbital occupations are described by energetically low $(d\gamma)^{4}$ and high $(d\epsilon)^{5}$ for Cu$^{2+}$ and low $(d\epsilon)^{3}$ and high $(d\gamma)^{0}$ for Cr$^{3+}$. The tetragonal Jahn-Teller splitting energy $\Delta_{\rm JT}$ is much smaller than the crystal-field energy between $d\epsilon$ and $d\gamma$, which enhances the second-order SOC effect (blue vertical arrows) and generates the $L$ characteristics (orange circular arrows). ](fig4_discussion){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Thus, we arrive at the picture in which the spin-orbit-lattice order is underlain by the Cu ferro-orbital order of $L_x$, Cr ferro-orbital order of $L_y$, and the overall ferri-like-orbital order. Furthermore, we note that the second-order SOC effect occurs inside the energetically proximate $d\epsilon$ for Cu$^{2+}$ and Cr$^{3+}$. Therefore, the expressed orbital characteristics are expected to have been appreciably enhanced. $Summary.$— We determined the magnetic structures in the Mag-II and Mag-I phases in CuCr$_2$O$_4$ by using a combination of time-of-flight high-resolution neutron diffraction and irreducible representation analysis. In the context of the O positions and the quantum effect of SOC, these magnetic structures are understood to be of spin-orbit-lattice mixed ordering, which is expressed in presumably spin-only systems. Our results enable advanced spin-orbit-lattice physics to be expanded in new directions in future. We thank Mr. M. Shioya for assisting with the reduction of neutron data and Dr. K. Aoyama for the discussion about the theory. The neutron experiments were performed with the approval of J-PARC (2014B0261). This study was financially supported by MEXT and JSPS KAKENHI (JP17H06137, JP15H03692) and by the FRIS Creative Interdisciplinary Research Program at Tohoku University. K.T. and S.L. equally contributed to this work.
Supplementary Material
======================
I. Details of magnetic structure analysis
-----------------------------------------
Irreducible representation (IR) analysis can classify the possible magnetic structures of Cu and Cr sites and a magnetic structure is normally described by a single IR [@Book_Izyumov_1991; @Book_Kovalev_1993]. In the case of the tetragonal Mag-II phase, the space group $I4_{1}/amd$ and magnetic propagation vector ${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}=(0, 0, 0)$ give $\Gamma_{\rm Cu} = \Gamma_{3} + \Gamma_{6} + \Gamma_{9}^{2} + \Gamma_{10}^{2}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm Cr} = \Gamma_{1} + 2\Gamma_{3} + \Gamma_{5} + 2\Gamma_{7} + 3\Gamma_{9}^{2}$. Hence, it is sufficient to investigate only $\Gamma_{\rm Cu-Cr} = \Gamma_{\rm Cu} \cap \Gamma_{\rm Cr} = \{ \Gamma_{3}, \Gamma_{9} \}$. However, the Cu ordered moment is experimentally imperceptible, as reported in the main text. Thus, to be safe, we widely examined all the IRs included in $\Gamma_{\rm Cr}$. Table \[tab:BVs\_138K\] summarizes the basis vectors. Among the IRs, as shown in Fig. \[fig:SI\_neutron\_138K\], only the $\Gamma_{9}$ magnetic structure generates the 002 reflection and is in agreement with the experimental data, leading to the magnetic structure shown in the main text. On the other hand, in the orthorhombic Mag-I phase, both the Cu and Cr ordered moments have substantial magnitudes (almost full values of 1$\mu_{\rm B}$ and 3$\mu_{\rm B}$, respectively). This verified the need to focus on $\Gamma_{\rm Cu-Cr}$ and we finally selected the $\Gamma_{3}$ magnetic structure, as explained in the main text. Table \[tab:BVs\_011K\] summarizes the common basis vectors; the space group $Fddd$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}=(0, 0, 0)$ give $\Gamma_{\rm Cu} = \Gamma_{3} + \Gamma_{4} + \Gamma_{5} + \Gamma_{6} + \Gamma_{7} + \Gamma_{8}$, $\Gamma_{\rm Cr} = 3\Gamma_{1} + 3\Gamma_{3} + 3\Gamma_{5} + 3\Gamma_{7}$, and hence, $\Gamma_{\rm Cu-Cr} = \{ \Gamma_{3}, \Gamma_{5}, \Gamma_{7} \}$.
----------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
IR Cu1 Cu2 Cr1 Cr2 Cr3 Cr4
(0, 1/4, 3/8) (0, 3/4, 5/8) (0, 0, 0) (0, 1/2, 0) (1/4, 1/4, 3/4) (1/4, 3/4, 1/4)
$\Gamma_{1}$ $A_{1g}$ – – ($S_{B,x}$, 0, 0) (-$S_{B,x}$, 0, 0) (0, -$S_{B,x}$, 0) (0, $S_{B,x}$, 0)
$\Gamma_{3}$ $A_{2g}$ (0, 0, $S_{A,z}$) (0, 0, $S_{A,z}$) (0, $S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,z}$) (0, -$S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, 0, $S_{B,z}$) (-$S_{B,x}$, 0, $S_{B,z}$)
$\Gamma_{5}$ $B_{1g}$ – – ($S_{B,x}$, 0, 0) (-$S_{B,x}$, 0, 0) (0, $S_{B,x}$, 0) (0, -$S_{B,x}$, 0)
$\Gamma_{7}$ $B_{2g}$ – – (0, $S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,z}$) (0, -$S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,z}$) (-$S_{B,x}$, 0, -$S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, 0, -$S_{B,z}$)
$\Gamma_{9}$ $E_{g}$ ($S_{A,x}$, $S_{A,y}$, 0) ($S_{A,x}$, $S_{A,y}$, 0) ($S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, -$S_{B,z}$) (-$S^{\prime}_{B,x}$, -$S^{\prime}_{B,y}$, -$S^{\prime}_{B,z}$) (-$S^{\prime}_{B,x}$, -$S^{\prime}_{B,y}$, $S^{\prime}_{B,z}$)
----------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
IR Cu1 Cu2 Cr1 Cr2 Cr3 Cr4
(1/8, 1/8, 1/8) (7/8, 7/8, 7/8) (1/2, 1/2, 1/2) (1/2, 1/4, 1/4) (1/4, 1/2, 1/4) (1/4, 1/4, 1/2)
$\Gamma_{3}$ $B_{3g}$ ($S_{A,x}$, 0, 0) ($S_{A,x}$, 0, 0) ($S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, -$S_{B,y}$, -$S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, -$S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, -$S_{B,z}$)
$\Gamma_{5}$ $B_{2g}$ (0, $S_{A,y}$, 0) (0, $S_{A,y}$, 0) ($S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) (-$S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) (-$S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, -$S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, -$S_{B,z}$)
$\Gamma_{7}$ $B_{1g}$ (0, 0, $S_{A,z}$) (0, 0, $S_{A,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) (-$S_{B,x}$, $S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) ($S_{B,x}$, -$S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$) (-$S_{B,x}$, -$S_{B,y}$, $S_{B,z}$)
----------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
![\[fig:SI\_neutron\_138K\] Rietveld-fitting results of the $\Gamma_{\rm Cr}$ IR magnetic structures obtained for the 138-K neutron diffraction data. ](figS1_neutron_138K){width="0.4\linewidth"}
II. Details of structural parameters
------------------------------------
The structural parameters refined by Rietveld analysis are summarized in Table \[tab:rietveld\]. Here, by using these parameters, we discuss the effect of tetragonal Jahn-Teller deformation. First, the Cu-O distance in the CuO$_4$ tetrahedron, defined by $d$(Cu-O), is identical for the four Cu-O bonds. Thus, in order to discuss the CuO$_4$ deformation, we define the parameters of $d$(Cu-O$_{{\rm av},a}$), $d$(Cu-O$_{{\rm av},b}$), and $d$(Cu-O$_{{\rm av},c}$), where O$^{\rm av}_{a}$, O$^{\rm av}_{b}$, and O$^{\rm av}_{c}$ denote the midpoints between two oxygen atoms away from Cu along the $a$-, $b$-, and $c$-axes in CuO$_4$, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3(c) in the main text. The $d$(Cu-O$^{\rm av}_{c}$) is certainly much shorter than $d$(Cu-O$^{\rm av}_{a}$) and $d$(Cu-O$^{\rm av}_{b}$), as the source of Jahn-Teller lattice deformation. In addition, similarly, the out-of-plane first-neighbor Cr-Cr distances, defined by $d$(Cr-Cr)$_{bc}$ and $d$(Cr-Cr)$_{ca}$, are also much shorter than the in-plane distance, defined by $d$(Cr-Cr)$_{ab}$. This supports the notion of $|J_{1c}| > |J_{1ab}|$ as discussed in the main text.
By contrast, the Cr-O distances along the $a$-, $b$-, and $c$-axes in CrO$_6$, defined by $d$(Cr-O$_a$), $d$(Cr-O$_b$), and $d$(Cr-O$_c$), respectively, are less deformed, of which the change ratio is only $\Delta R_{\rm out}$(Cr-O) $\sim 10^{-3}$ in this order. This fact indicates that, interestingly, the tetragonal Jahn-Teller splitting energy inside the $d\epsilon$ orbital in Cr is much smaller than that in Cu: $\Delta_{\rm Cr,JT} \ll \Delta_{\rm Cu,JT}$. Therefore, a further enhancement of the second-order SOC mechanism is expected for Cr. On the other hand, unlike the Cu hole, the Cr hole is not explicit but is generated to a slight extent by the direct AF $J_{1c}$ exchange process, which suppresses the mechanism. Thus, we consider that, as a consequence of competition between these two factors, the moderate second-order SOC effects of unquenched $L$ and CrO$_6$ deformation would have been observed.
199 K ($I4_{1}/amd$) 138 K ($I4_{1}/amd$) 11 K ($Fddd$)
---------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------
$a$ / [Å]{} 6.03331(1)$^I$ 6.03630(2)$^I$ 8.53970(6)
$b$ / [Å]{} 6.03331(1)$^I$ 6.03630(2)$^I$ 8.54435(6)
$c$ / [Å]{} 7.75808(3)$^I$ 7.73557(4)$^I$ 7.71225(3)
$x$ (O) 0$^I$ 0$^I$ 0.26828(22)
$y$ (O) 0.53500(10)$^I$ 0.53532(12)$^I$ 0.26729(21)
$z$ (O) 0.25383(8)$^I$ 0.25457(10)$^I$ 0.24471(7)
$d$(Cu-O) / [Å]{} 1.9597(7) 1.9581(8) 1.9566(15)
$d$(Cu-O$^{\rm av}_{a}$) / [Å]{} 1.2159(3) 1.2173(3) 1.2237(11)
$d$(Cu-O$^{\rm av}_{b}$) / [Å]{} 1.2159(3) 1.2173(3) 1.2159(11)
$d$(Cu-O$^{\rm av}_{c}$) / [Å]{} 0.9400(5) 0.9316(6) 0.9232(4)
$d$(Cr-Cr)$_{ab}$ / [Å]{} 3.016657(7) 3.018151(9) 3.020062(15)
$d$(Cr-Cr)$_{bc}$ / [Å]{} 2.883028(6) 2.880028(7) 2.877550(12)
$d$(Cr-Cr)$_{ca}$ / [Å]{} 2.883028(6) 2.880028(7) 2.876687(12)
$d$(Cr-O$_a$) / [Å]{} 1.9896(4) 1.9894(5) 1.9846(17)
$d$(Cr-O$_b$) / [Å]{} 1.9896(4) 1.9894(5) 1.9948(17)
$d$(Cr-O$_c$) / [Å]{} 1.9805(7) 1.9808(9) 1.9806(6)
$M_a$ (Cu) / $\mu_{\rm B}$ - 0 -0.87(3)
$M_a$ (Cr) / $\mu_{\rm B}$ - 0 1.22(2)
$M_b$ (Cr) / $\mu_{\rm B}$ - 1.56(2) 2.68(1)
III. Transition temperature of tetragonal-to-orthorhombic lattice deformation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We complementarily verified this by neutron diffraction, which was reported as $T_{\rm I}$ rather than $T_{\rm II}$ by using synchrotron X-ray diffraction [@Suchomel_2012]. Figure \[fig:SI\_Tdep040\] shows the temperature evolution of the 040 and 400 reflections. The line profile is described by a single Lorentzian in the Para phase and by a double Lorentzian in the Mag-I phase. In the Mag-II phase, the single Lorentzian sufficiently fits the experimental data without requiring the double Lorentzian. Thus, neutron diffraction shows orthorhombic lattice deformation to occur at $T_{\rm I}$, in harmony with X-ray diffraction.
![\[fig:SI\_Tdep040\] Temperature evolution of the 040 and 400 reflections recorded in high-resolution backward bank. ](figS2_Q2p94_400_040){width="0.38\linewidth"}
IV. Magnetization curves
========================
Figure \[fig:SI\_MH\] shows the measured magnetization curves. Overall, spontaneous magnetization accompanied by hysteresis is observed in the low-temperature range, indicating growing ferrimagnetism, as shown in (a). As the temperature decreases from 200 K (Para phase), the remanent magnetization is virtually zero but becomes slightly finite below $T_{\rm II}\simeq155$ K, and rapidly increases below $T_{\rm I}\simeq125$ K. These behaviors are clearly seen in the magnifications in (b) and (c), respectively. Thus, the two magnetic transitions at $T_{\rm II}$ and $T_{\rm I}$ are also confirmed in the magnetization curves.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
We compare the magnetization data to the magnetic structures determined by neutron diffraction. First, for the Mag-II phase, we note that the 140-K spontaneous magnetization of approximately 0.02 $\mu_{\rm B}$/f.u. is too weak to detect by neutron diffraction, which is consistent with the basic AF magnetic structure in the Mag-II phase determined by the 138-K neutron diffraction data. Furthermore, the existence of spontaneous magnetization is symmetrically allowed, as listed in the $\Gamma_{9}$ array in Tab. \[tab:BVs\_138K\]. Second, for the Mag-I phase, by extrapolating the 5-K magnetization curve from 4 – 5 Tesla to zero field, the powder-averaged spontaneous magnetization is roughly estimated as 0.7 $\mu_{\rm B}$/f.u. On the other hand, neutron diffraction provides the values of $\{ 1\cdot M_{a}({\rm Cu}) + 2\cdot M_{a}({\rm Cr}) \} /2 = \{ 1\cdot(-0.87) + 2\cdot1.22 \} /2 = 0.8$ $\mu_{\rm B}$/f.u. at 11 K, where the division by 2 denotes a typical factor of powder averaging [@Book_Chikazumi_1997]. Thus, the results of magnetization and neutron diffraction are excellently consistent with each other within approximately 0.1 $\mu_{\rm B}$/f.u. deviation in both the Mag-II and Mag-I phases. However, the further precise modification of the magnetic structure by this very small component in the Mag-II phase is beyond the scope of this study and could be investigated in future, for example, by the complementary techniques of nuclear magnetic resonance and soft-X-ray scattering.
V. Thermal conductivity
=======================
The mean free path ($\lambda$) of phonons obtained from the thermal conductivity ($\kappa$) is useful to examine the existence of spin-lattice coupling in a system [@Zhou_2013]. The equation $\kappa=C_{p}v\lambda$ is used to estimate the information of $\lambda(T)$. Here, $v$ denotes the velocity of sound, which is normally independent from temperature, i.e., approximately 10[%]{} at most even in frustrated MgCr$_{2}$O$_{4}$ accompanied by strong spin-lattice coupling [@Watanabe_2012]. Hence, normalized $\lambda(T)/\lambda(T_{0}) = \{ \kappa(T)/\kappa(T_{0}) \} / \{ C_{p}(T)/C_{p}(T_{0}) \} $ is obtained from the measured $\kappa(T)$ and $C_{p}(T)$.
Thus, we measured the temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity using the Physical Properties Measurement System (PPMS) at the Department of Applied Physics, Tohoku University. Figure \[fig:SI\_thermalC\] shows the measured $\kappa(T)/\kappa(T_{0})$ and the resultant $\lambda(T)/\lambda(T_{0})$. The ratio $\lambda(T)/\lambda(T_{0})$ rapidly increases by about two orders with decreasing temperature from the Para and Mag-II phase to the Mag-I phase, which is consistent with the fact that the temperature dependence of $v$ is negligible.
![\[fig:SI\_thermalC\] Temperature dependence of thermal conductivity (left, green) and mean free path (right, orange). Both values are normalized to be 1 at 282 K. ](figS4_thermalC){width="0.4\linewidth"}
This significant change in $\lambda(T)/\lambda(T_{0})$ warrants discussion. In amorphous materials, disorder or short-range order causes thermal insulation [@Kittel_1949]. A similar effect is also observed in highly spin-frustrated MgCr$_{2}$O$_{4}$ and ZnCr$_{2}$O$_{4}$, in which the dynamical short-range order of molecular spin excitations hinders phonon travel through spin-lattice coupling [@Watanabe_2012; @Zhou_2013]. In analogy with these, the following understanding is suggested for CuCr$_2$O$_4$. In the Para and Mag-II phases, the substantial component of thermally fluctuating magnetic disorder and/or short-range order hinder the phonon travel, as the Cr ordered moment is 1.56$\mu_{\rm B}$, which is much less than the full value of 3$\mu_{\rm B}$. As the temperature decreases to the Mag-I phase, the amorphous-like component decreases, the static magnetic long-range order grows, and hence the thermal-insulation effect disappears. Thus, this thermal-conductivity result experimentally supports the existence of the spin-lattice coupling in CuCr$_2$O$_4$.
Notably, the Mag-II phase exhibits substantial spin-lattice fluctuation as the microscopic origin for the macroscopic physical property of thermal insulation. In accordance with the observed long-range order of the Cr collinear $uudd$ type, the fluctuation probably also forms the $uudd$ unit locally, which was theoretically predicted to compose the spin nematic state [@Shannon_2010]. We expect further studies of the Mag-II phase to be promising towards its realization.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using two novel methods, pair invariant mass ($m_{inv}$) and comparative measurements with respect to reaction plane ($\Psi_{\rm RP}$) and participant plane ($\Psi_{\rm PP}$), we isolate the possible chiral magnetic effect (CME) from backgrounds in 200 GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. The invariant mass method identifies the resonance background contributions, coupled with the elliptic flow ($v_{2}$), to the charge correlator CME observable ($\Delta\gamma$). At high mass ($m_{inv}>1.5$ GeV/$c^{2}$) where resonance contribution is small, we obtain the average $\Delta\gamma$ magnitude. In the low mass region ($m_{inv}<1.5$ GeV/$c^{2}$), resonance peaks are observed in $\Delta\gamma$($m_{inv}$). An event shape engineering (ESE) method is used to model the background shape in $m_{inv}$ to extract the potential CME signal at low $m_{inv}$. In the comparative method, the $\Psi_{\rm RP}$ is assessed by spectator neutrons measured by ZDC, and the $\Psi_{\rm PP}$ by the 2$^{nd}$-harmonic event plane measured by the TPC. The $v_{2}$ is stronger along $\Psi_{\rm PP}$ and weaker along $\Psi_{\rm RP}$; in contrast, the magnetic field, mainly from spectator protons, is weaker along $\Psi_{\rm PP}$ and stronger along $\Psi_{\rm RP}$. As a result, the $\Delta\gamma$ measured with respect to $\Psi_{\rm RP}$ and $\Psi_{\rm PP}$ contain different amounts of CME and background, and can thus determine these two contributions. It is found that the possible CME signals with background isolation by these two novel methods are small, on the order of a few percent of the inclusive $\Delta\gamma$ measurements.'
address: 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA'
author:
- 'Jie Zhao (for the STAR collaboration)'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Measurements of the chiral magnetic effect with background isolation in 200 GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR
---
QCD, heavy-ion collisions, chiral magnetic effect, invariant mass, reaction plane, participant plane
Introduction
============
Quark interactions with topological gluon fields can induce chirality imbalance and local parity violation in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) [@Kharzeev:1998kz]. In relativistic heavy-ion collisions, this can lead to observable electric charge separation along the strong magnetic field, ${\vec{B}}$, produced by spectator protons [@Fukushima:2008xe]. This is called the chiral magnetic effect (CME). The commonly used observable to search for the CME-induced charge separation is the three-point azimuthal correlator difference [@Voloshin:2004vk], ${\Delta\gamma}\equiv{\gamma_{\rm OS}}-{\gamma_{\rm SS}}$ ; $\gamma=\langle\cos(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2{\Psi_{\rm RP}})\rangle \approx \langle \cos(\phi_{\alpha} + \phi_{\beta} - 2\phi_{c})\rangle/v_{2}$, where $\phi_{\alpha}$ and $\phi_{\beta}$ are the azimuthal angles of two charged particles, of opposite electric charge sign (OS) or same sign (SS), and ${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$ is that of the reaction plane (span by the impact parameter direction and the beam) to which ${\vec{B}}$ is perpendicular on average. The latter is often surrogated by the azimuthal angle of a third particle, $\phi_c$, with a resolution correction factor given by the particle’s elliptic anisotropy ($v_{2}$). Significant ${\Delta\gamma}$ has indeed been observed in heavy-ion collisions [@Kharzeev:2015znc]. One of the difficulties in its CME interpretation is a major background contribution arising from the coupling of resonance decay correlations and the $v_{2}$ stemming from the participant geometry [@Wang:2009kd; @Bzdak:2009fc; @Schlichting:2010qia; @Adamczyk:2013kcb; @Wang:2016iov].
Invariant mass dependence of the ${\Delta\gamma}$ correlator
============================================================
The main backgrounds for the ${\Delta\gamma}$ are from the resonance decays coupled with $v_{2}$. A new analysis approach exploiting the particle pair invariant mass, $m_{inv}$, to identify the backgrounds and, hence, to extract the possible CME signal is proposed [@Zhao:2017nfq]. Figure \[CMEmassHigh\] (left panel) shows the $m_{inv}$ dependence of the relative excess of OS over SS charged $\pi$ pairs, $\rm r=(N_{OS}-N_{SS})/N_{OS}$, and (middle panel) shows the $m_{inv}$ dependence of the three-point correlator difference, ${\Delta\gamma}={\gamma_{\rm OS}}-{\gamma_{\rm SS}}$. A lower cut on $m_{inv}$ was used to suppress the resonance contributions. Figure \[CMEmassHigh\] (right panel) shows the inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ over all mass (black) and at $m_{inv} > 1.5$ [GeV/$c^2$ ]{}(red) as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. In 20-50$\%$ collisions centrality, combining results from Run-11 ($\sim$0.5 billion minimum-bias events, year 2011), Run-14 ($\sim$0.8 billion, year 2014) and Run-16 ($\sim$1.2 billion, year 2016), the ${\Delta\gamma}$ at $m_{inv} > 1.5$ [GeV/$c^2$ ]{}is $(5\pm2\pm4)\%$ of the inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$.
![ Pair invariant mass, $m_{inv}$, dependence of the relative excess of OS over SS pairs, $\rm r=(N_{OS}-N_{SS})/N_{OS}$ (left panel), three-point correlator difference, ${\Delta\gamma}={\gamma_{\rm OS}}-{\gamma_{\rm SS}}$ (middle panel). (Right panel) The inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ over all mass (black) and at $m_{inv} > 1.5$ [GeV/$c^2$ ]{}(red) as a function of centrality. The $\pi$ are identified by STAR TPC and TOF with $p_{T}$ from 0.2 to 1.8 [GeV/$c$ ]{}. []{data-label="CMEmassHigh"}](./sys_PID1_massSB.pdf "fig:"){width="4.8cm"} ![ Pair invariant mass, $m_{inv}$, dependence of the relative excess of OS over SS pairs, $\rm r=(N_{OS}-N_{SS})/N_{OS}$ (left panel), three-point correlator difference, ${\Delta\gamma}={\gamma_{\rm OS}}-{\gamma_{\rm SS}}$ (middle panel). (Right panel) The inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ over all mass (black) and at $m_{inv} > 1.5$ [GeV/$c^2$ ]{}(red) as a function of centrality. The $\pi$ are identified by STAR TPC and TOF with $p_{T}$ from 0.2 to 1.8 [GeV/$c$ ]{}. []{data-label="CMEmassHigh"}](./sys_dfCorrelator_mass.pdf "fig:"){width="4.8cm"} ![ Pair invariant mass, $m_{inv}$, dependence of the relative excess of OS over SS pairs, $\rm r=(N_{OS}-N_{SS})/N_{OS}$ (left panel), three-point correlator difference, ${\Delta\gamma}={\gamma_{\rm OS}}-{\gamma_{\rm SS}}$ (middle panel). (Right panel) The inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ over all mass (black) and at $m_{inv} > 1.5$ [GeV/$c^2$ ]{}(red) as a function of centrality. The $\pi$ are identified by STAR TPC and TOF with $p_{T}$ from 0.2 to 1.8 [GeV/$c$ ]{}. []{data-label="CMEmassHigh"}](./sys_dfCorrelator.pdf "fig:"){width="4.8cm"}
The CME is expected to be a low ${p_{T}}$ phenomenon [@Kharzeev:2007jp]; its contribution to high mass may be small. To extract CME at low mass, resonance contributions need to be subtracted. The inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ can be expressed as $\rm {\Delta\gamma}(\it m_{inv}) = r(\it m_{inv})\times \rm cos(\phi_{\alpha} + \phi_{\beta} -2\phi_{reso.})\times v_{2,reso.} + {\Delta\gamma}_{\rm CME}$ [@Zhao:2017nfq]. The event shape engineering (ESE) [@Schukraft:2012ah] method provides a tool to select events with different $v_{2}$ values by cutting on the $\rm q_{2}$ ($\vec{\rm q}_{2} \rm = 1/N \times \sum(cos(2\phi),sin(2\phi))$). The difference of the ${\Delta\gamma}(m_{inv})$ from different $\rm q_{2}$ classes can be regarded as the background ${\Delta\gamma}(m_{inv})$ shape [@Zhao:2018ixy], assuming the CME are the same for events from different $\rm q_{2}$ classes.
![ Pair invariant mass, $m_{inv}$, dependence of the $\rm r=(N_{OS}-N_{SS})/N_{OS}$ (left top). The ${\Delta\gamma}$($m_{inv}$) from ESE selected event sample A (large 50$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) and B (small 50$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) (left middle). The inclusive (0-100$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) ${\Delta\gamma}$ compared with the difference between ${\Delta\gamma}$ from event sample A and B ($\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{A} - {\Delta\gamma}_{B}$) (left bottom). (Right panel) $\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{A}$ vs. $\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{B}$ fitted by a linear function. The $\pi$ are identified by STAR TPC with $p_{T}$ from 0.2 to 0.8 [GeV/$c$ ]{}. []{data-label="CMEmassESE"}](./comMassSB_c2.pdf "fig:"){width="4.9cm"} ![ Pair invariant mass, $m_{inv}$, dependence of the $\rm r=(N_{OS}-N_{SS})/N_{OS}$ (left top). The ${\Delta\gamma}$($m_{inv}$) from ESE selected event sample A (large 50$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) and B (small 50$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) (left middle). The inclusive (0-100$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) ${\Delta\gamma}$ compared with the difference between ${\Delta\gamma}$ from event sample A and B ($\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{A} - {\Delta\gamma}_{B}$) (left bottom). (Right panel) $\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{A}$ vs. $\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{B}$ fitted by a linear function. The $\pi$ are identified by STAR TPC with $p_{T}$ from 0.2 to 0.8 [GeV/$c$ ]{}. []{data-label="CMEmassESE"}](./comFitAB.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"}
Figure \[CMEmassESE\] (left top) shows the $m_{inv}$ dependence of the $\rm r=(N_{OS}-N_{SS})/N_{OS}$, (left middle) shows the ${\Delta\gamma}$($m_{inv}$) from ESE selected event sample A (large 50$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) and B (small 50$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$). The correlators are calculated by $\rm \gamma = cos(\phi_{\alpha} + \phi_{\beta} - 2\phi_{c})/v_{2,c}$. The TPC full-event is divided into east and west sub-event, with $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\rm q_{2}$ from one sub-event and $c$ from other sub-event. Figure \[CMEmassESE\] (left bottom) shows the inclusive (0-100$\%$ $\rm q_{2}$) ${\Delta\gamma}$ compared with the ${\Delta\gamma}$ difference between event samples A and B. A linear function, $\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{A} = b \times {\Delta\gamma}_{B} + (1-b) \times {\Delta\gamma}_{\rm CME}$, is used to extract the CME. Figure \[CMEmassESE\] (right) shows the fit result. Combining Runs 11, 14 and 16, the fit parameter ${\Delta\gamma}_{\rm CME}$ is $(2\pm4\pm6)\%$ of inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ in 20-50$\%$ centrality Au+Au collisions.
${\Delta\gamma}$ with respect to $\Psi_{\rm RP}$ (ZDC) and $\Psi_{\rm PP}$ (TPC)
================================================================================
The CME-driven charge separation is along the magnetic field direction ($\Psi_{\rm B}$). The major background to the CME is related to the elliptic flow anisotropy ($v_{2}$), determined by the participant geometry. A novel idea of differential measurements with respect to the reaction plane (${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$) and participant plane (${\Psi_{\rm PP}}$) is proposed [@Xu:2017qfs; @Xu:2017zcn], where the ${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$ could be assessed by spectator neutrons measured by the zero-degree calorimeters (ZDC) [@Adler:2001fq]. The $v_{2}$ is stronger along ${\Psi_{\rm PP}}$ and weaker along ${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$; in contrast, the magnetic field, being from spectator protons, is weaker along ${\Psi_{\rm PP}}$ and stronger along ${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$. The ${\Delta\gamma}$ measured with respect to ${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$ and ${\Psi_{\rm PP}}$ contain different amounts of CME and background, and can thus determine these two contributions assuming the CME is proportional to the magnetic field squared and background is proportional to $v_{2}$ [@Xu:2017qfs]: $$\begin{split}
& \rm {\Delta\gamma}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\} = {\Delta\gamma}_{CME}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\} + {\Delta\gamma}_{Bkg}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\}, {\Delta\gamma}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\} = {\Delta\gamma}_{CME}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\} + {\Delta\gamma}_{Bkg}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\}, \\
& \rm {\Delta\gamma}_{CME}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\} = \it{a}*\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{CME}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\}, {\Delta\gamma}_{Bkg}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\}=\it{a}*\rm {\Delta\gamma}_{Bkg}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\}, \\
& \it a=\rm v_{2}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\}/v_{2}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\}, A={\Delta\gamma}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\}/{\Delta\gamma}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\}, \\
& \rm f^{EP}_{CME} = {\Delta\gamma}_{CME}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\}/{\Delta\gamma}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\} = \it (A/a-1)/(1/a^{2}-1).
\end{split}
\label{eqThreeCtor3}$$
![ The centrality dependences of the ratios of the $v_{2}$ (left panel) and ${\Delta\gamma}$ (middle panel) measured with respect to the ZDC event plane to those with respect to the TPC event plane. (Right panel) The extracted $\rm f^{EP}_{CME}$ as a function of collision centrality. []{data-label="CMEZDC"}](./sys_Rv2.pdf "fig:"){width="4.8cm"} ![ The centrality dependences of the ratios of the $v_{2}$ (left panel) and ${\Delta\gamma}$ (middle panel) measured with respect to the ZDC event plane to those with respect to the TPC event plane. (Right panel) The extracted $\rm f^{EP}_{CME}$ as a function of collision centrality. []{data-label="CMEZDC"}](./sys_RdfCorrelator.pdf "fig:"){width="4.8cm"} ![ The centrality dependences of the ratios of the $v_{2}$ (left panel) and ${\Delta\gamma}$ (middle panel) measured with respect to the ZDC event plane to those with respect to the TPC event plane. (Right panel) The extracted $\rm f^{EP}_{CME}$ as a function of collision centrality. []{data-label="CMEZDC"}](./sys2CMEfraction.pdf "fig:"){width="4.8cm"}
Figure \[CMEZDC\] shows the ratio of $v_{2}$ (left) measured with respect to the ZDC event plane and the $v_{2}$ with respect to the TPC event plane, $a=\rm v_{2}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\}/v_{2}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\}$ in Eq. \[eqThreeCtor3\], and that of ${\Delta\gamma}$ (middle panel), $A={\Delta\gamma}\{{\Psi_{\rm ZDC}}\}/{\Delta\gamma}\{{\Psi_{\rm TPC}}\}$ in Eq. \[eqThreeCtor3\], as functions of collisions centrality. To suppress the non-flow contributions in $v_{2}$ and ${\Delta\gamma}$ measurements, the TPC sub-event method is used, where each TPC event is divided into east and west sub-event, with event-plane from one sub-event and particles of interest from the other sub-event. Figure \[CMEZDC\] (right) show the extracted possible CME fraction ($\rm f^{EP}_{CME}$) [@Xu:2017qfs] as function of centrality. For comparison the results from TPC full-event method are also plotted. The extracted $\rm f^{EP}_{CME}$ (combined from Runs 11, 14 and 16) are $(9\pm4\pm7)\%$ and $(12\pm4\pm11)\%$ from the TPC sub-event and full-event methods in 20-50$\%$ centrality Au+Au collisions, respectively.
Summary
=======
Charge separation measurements by the three-point azimuthal correlator (${\Delta\gamma}$) are contaminated by major backgrounds arising from resonance decay correlations coupled with the elliptical anisotropy ($v_2$). To reduce/eliminate background contaminations, two novel methods are employed: the ${\Delta\gamma}$ correlator as a function of the particle pair invariant mass ($m_{inv}$) and the comparative ${\Delta\gamma}$ measurements with respect to $\Psi_{\rm RP}$ (estimated by ZDC) and $\Psi_{\rm PP}$ (estimated by TPC).
Resonance structures are observed in ${\Delta\gamma}$ as function of $\pi$-$\pi$ $m_{inv}$. A lower $m_{inv}$ cut ($m_{inv}>1.5$ [GeV/$c^2$ ]{}) yields a ${\Delta\gamma}$ fraction of $(5\pm2\pm4)\%$ of the inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ measurement. In the low mass region, event shape engineering is used to determine the background shape in $m_{inv}$, and a linear fit to ${\Delta\gamma}$($m_{inv}$) yields a possible CME signal of $(2\pm4\pm6)\%$ of the inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ measurement in 20-50$\%$ centrality Au+Au collisions.
The ${\Delta\gamma}$ measurements with respect to $\Psi_{\rm RP}$ and $\Psi_{\rm PP}$ contain different amounts of CME and background. The $v_{2}$ is stronger along ${\Psi_{\rm PP}}$ and weaker along ${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$; and the magnetic field is weaker along ${\Psi_{\rm PP}}$ and stronger along ${\Psi_{\rm RP}}$. By comparing the $v_{2}$ and ${\Delta\gamma}$ with respect to $\Psi_{\rm RP}$ and $\Psi_{\rm PP}$, the extracted possible CME fractions are $(9\pm4\pm7)\%$ and $(12\pm4\pm11)\%$ from the TPC sub-event and full-event methods in 20-50$\%$ centrality Au+Au collisions, respectively.
![ The possible CME ${\Delta\gamma}$ over the inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$ fraction from different analysis methods in middle central (20-50$\%$) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. []{data-label="CMEsummary"}](./QMfraction.pdf){width="7.3cm"}
The extracted potential CME signal fraction (CME ${\Delta\gamma}$ over the inclusive ${\Delta\gamma}$) in middle central (20-50$\%$) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV are summarized in Fig. \[CMEsummary\]. These data-driven estimates indicate that the possible CME signal is small, within 1-2 $\sigma$ from zero. Precision can be improved in the future with more Au+Au data and the new isobar data. Possible ZDC upgrades to achieve better ΨRP determination are being investigated.
$\bold{Acknowledgments}$ This work was partly supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (Grant No. de-sc0012910), and the NSFC of China under Grant No. 11505073.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gaussian linking of superconducting loops containing Josephson junctions with enclosed magnetic fields give rise to interference shifts in the phase that modulates the current carried through the loop, proportional to the magnitude of the enclosed flux. We generalize these results to higher order linking of a superconducting loop with several magnetic solenoids, and show there may be interference shifts proportional to the product of two or more fluxes.'
author:
- 'Roman V. Buniy'
- 'Thomas W. Kephart'
date: 'August 13, 2008'
title: Higher order Josephson effects
---
Introduction
============
Interference effects, both constructive and destructive, are mainstays for distinguishing between quantum and classical phenomena. Examples include interfering scattering amplitudes, both bosonic and fermionic, formation of condensates, entanglement, etc. The Aharonov-Bohm effect [@Aharonov:1959fk], describes the self-interference of a charged particle that can travel along two semiclassical paths whose combined path is gaussian linked with a magnetic solenoid carrying flux $\Phi$. The measurable phase shift is $\phi\propto\Phi$. We have argued in Ref. [@Buniy:2006tq] that there could exist generalizations to cases of higher order linkings. The simplest example is a Borromean ring arrangement where the semiclassical path corresponds to one ring, which has higher order linking with two flux tubes carrying fluxes $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$, which make up the other two rings. We found the phase shift in this system is $\phi \propto
\Phi_1 \Phi_2$. Higher order cases were explored in Ref. [@Buniy:2006tr; @Buniy:2006ts] and shown to be related to commutator algebras of homotopy generators of the configuration space ${\mathbb{R}}^3\backslash\{T_1\cup T_2\}$, where $T_1$ and $T_2$ are the tubes containing the fluxes. The same general logic can be applied to systems of superconductors, Josephson junctions, and magnetic fluxes where the Josephson effect can arise [@josephson]. Here we will study interference in a symmetric arrangement of two identical semicircular superconductors joined by two identical Josephson junctions and derive the response of such systems. We conclude with a discussion of possible applications.
In the case of gaussian linking of a loop of superconductor with a magnetic solenoid, the Mercereau effect [@Mercereau] is due to the phase change in the macroscopic wave function, which is in turn related to the currents in the superconducting components. The effect is due to the presence of a vector potential $\bm{A}$, which is the fundamental object responsible for the phase change. Exploration of higher order linking is again due to the presence of a vector potential but in these instances it requires careful choices of gauge.
The Josephson effect
====================
It will be sufficient for our purposes to consider a macroscopic model of superconductors. Following Feynman [@FeynmanLectures], we approximate the superconductors coupled via a Josephson junction as a two-level system. Let $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ be the states, $E_1$ and $E_2$ the energy levels of the superconductors. The Schrodinger equation for the coupled system of the two superconductors becomes $$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar(\partial\psi_1/\partial t)
&=E_1\psi_1+K\exp{(i\phi)}\psi_2,\\ i\hbar(\partial\psi_2/\partial
t) &=E_2\psi_2+K\exp{(-i\phi)}\psi_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the coupling energy and $\phi$ is a phase, which arises from the most general hermitian hamiltonian $2\times 2$ matrix. The dependence of $\phi$ on the vector potential $\bm{A}$ can be found from gauge invariance considerations. For a gauge transformation $\bm{A}\mapsto \bm{A}+\bm{\nabla} f$, $\psi_1\mapsto\psi_1\exp{(iqf/2\hbar c)}$, $\psi_2\mapsto\psi_2\exp{(-iqf/2\hbar c)}$ with an arbitrary function $f$ of space coordinates, we find $\phi\mapsto\phi+qf/\hbar c$, from which it follows that $\phi=(q/\hbar c)\int \bm{A}\cdot d\bm{x}$. Here $q=2e$ is the charge of an electron pair.
After the substitutions $\psi_1=\vert\psi_1\vert\exp{(i\theta_1)}$ and $\psi_2=\vert\psi_2\vert\exp{(i\theta_2)}$, the Schrodinger equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar(\partial\vert\psi_1\vert^2/\partial t)
&=2K\vert\psi_1\vert\vert\psi_2\vert\sin{\theta},\\
\hbar(\partial\vert\psi_2\vert^2/\partial t)
&=-2K\vert\psi_1\vert\vert\psi_2\vert\sin{\theta},\\
-\hbar\vert\psi_1\vert(\partial\theta_1/\partial t)
&=E_1\vert\psi_1\vert+K\vert\psi_2\vert\cos{\theta},\\
-\hbar\vert\psi_2\vert(\partial\theta_2/\partial t)
&=E_2\vert\psi_2\vert+K\vert\psi_1\vert\cos{\theta},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta=\phi+\theta_2-\theta_1$. The current from superconductor $1$ to superconductor $2$, which is equal to minus the current from superconductor $2$ to superconductor $1$, is thus $I=(2K/\hbar)\vert\psi_1\vert\vert\psi_2\vert\sin{\theta}$. (In a self-consistent computation, a current from a battery which connects the two superconductors is also included. The result for the superconducting current is precisely $I$; see, for example, Ref. [@Ohta].) The electron densities in the two superconductors are approximately equal and independent of time; let $\rho$ be this common constant. This gives $I=I_0\sin{\theta}$, where $I_0=2K\rho/\hbar$. Integrating the phase equations, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(t)=\phi+\theta(0)+\hbar^{-1}\int_0^t dt'\,(E_1(t')-E_2(t')).\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $(E_1(t)-E_2(t))/q$ represents an electric potential applied to the junction. The dc and ac Josephson effects [@josephson] arise for $\vert E_1(t)-E_2(t)\vert\ll K$ and $\vert E_1(t)-E_2(t)\vert\gg K$, respectively.
![\[figure-josephson-1\] A diagram of an experimental setup for the detection of the Josephson effect. $C'$ and $C''$ are paths from the point $P$ to the point $Q$ through the superconductors with the Josephson junctions $J'$ and $J''$ and the total current $I$ from $P$ to $Q$. $C_1$ is the magnetic solenoid carrying flux $\Phi_1$. The Josephson effect (for a review see Ref. [@RMP]) is due to the first order (gaussian) linking of the closed curves $C=C'C^{\prime\prime -1}$ and $C_1$.](josephson-1.eps){width="6cm"}
Our interest here is in the Josephson effect with zero potential across the junction, $E_1(t)-E_2(t)=0$, and nonzero magnetic field constrained to the opening of the superconducting ring with two Josephson junctions; see Fig. \[figure-josephson-1\]. Let $\theta'$ and $\theta''$ be the phase changes due to the vector potential $\bm{A}_1$ of the currents through the junctions $J'$ and $J''$. The phase changes from the point $P$ to the point $Q$ along the paths $C'$ and $C''$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\phi'&=\theta'+(q/\hbar c)\int_{C'} \bm{A}_1 \cdot d\bm{x},\\
\phi''&=\theta''+(q/\hbar c)\int_{C''} \bm{A}_1 \cdot d\bm{x}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the wave function is single valued, this requires $\phi'=\phi''$, and so we find $\theta''-\theta'=2\pi\Phi_1/\Phi_0$. Here $\Phi_1=\oint_C
\bm{A}_1\cdot d\bm{x}$ is the flux due to the solenoid along $C_1$ passing through a surface spanned by a closed curve $C=C'C^{\prime\prime -1}$ and $\Phi_0=2\pi\hbar c/q$ is the flux quantum. The total current from the point $P$ to the point $Q$ is $$\begin{aligned}
I=I_0\sin{(\tfrac{1}{2}(\theta'+\theta''))}\cos{(\pi\Phi_1/\Phi_0)}.\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed value of $\Phi_1$, the corresponding maximal total current is $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\textrm{max}}
=I_0\vert\cos{(\pi\Phi_1/\Phi_0)}\vert\label{Imax-order-1},\end{aligned}$$ which itself has maxima when $\Phi_1=n\Phi_0$, $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.
The flux is actually $\Phi_1=\Phi_{1,\textrm{ext}}+LI$ where $\Phi_{1,\textrm{ext}}$ is the external flux through the loop, $L$ is the self-inductance, but here and in what follows we assume $L$ is negligible. (We have made a number of simplifying assumptions, for example, that self-inductance of SQUID components are negligible, none of which, if relaxed, affect our basic conclusions.)
We will call the phenomena reviewed in this section first order Josephson effects to distinguish them from their generalizations which we now proceed to describe.
The second and higher order Josephson effects
=============================================
![\[figure-josephson-2\] A diagram of an experimental setup for the detection of the second order Josephson effect. $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the magnetic solenoids. $C'$ and $C''$ are paths from the point $P$ to the point $Q$ through the superconductors connected by Josephson junctions $J'$ and $J''$. The total current from $P$ to $Q$ is $I$. $C_1$ and $C_2$ are magnetic solenoids carrying fluxes $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$. The second order Josephson effect is due to the second order linking of the set of three closed curves $C=C'C^{\prime\prime -1}$, $C_1$ and $C_2$.](josephson-2.eps){width="7cm"}
Now consider the case where we have two solenoids carrying magnetic fluxes $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ and whose center lines run along $C_1$ and $C_2$, and a superconducting ring along the closed curve $C=C'C^{\prime\prime -1}$ with two Josephson junctions $J'$ and $J''$ in parallel as shown in Fig. \[figure-josephson-2\]. The two solenoids and the superconducting ring are in a Borromean rings [@Rolfson] configuration. Note that in this arrangement neither $C_1$ nor $C_2$ has gaussian linking with the superconducting ring $C$, nor do $C_1$ and $C_2$ link with each other. However, the set of three rings $C,C_1,C_2$ is indeed linked. This second order linking and its higher order generalizations is what will lead to our results. In other words, we will find that even though our system lacks first order (gaussian) linking, a phase difference can still exist upon traveling around the superconductor. To find this phase, we must choose a gauge that detects it. Such a gauge is [@Buniy:2006tq] $\bm{A}_{12}
=\tfrac{1}{2}k_2(\gamma_1\bm{A}_2-\gamma_2\bm{A}_1)$. Here $\bm{A}_1$ and $\bm{A}_2$ are the vector potentials due to the solenoids along $C_1$ and $C_2$, the quantities $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_j=\delta_j+(q/\hbar c)\int_\Gamma\bm{A}_j\cdot d\bm{x},\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are constants, and $\Gamma$ is a path that runs along $C$. The quantity $k_2$ is a normalization constant, the value of which we discuss below.
Using $\bm{A}_{12}$ in the phase integral and following computations in Ref. [@Buniy:2006tq], we find $\theta''-\theta'=4\pi^2
k_2\Phi_1\Phi_2/\Phi_0^2$. The total current from point $P$ to point $Q$ is $$\begin{aligned}
I =I_0\sin{(\tfrac{1}{2}(\theta'+\theta''))}\cos{(2\pi^2
k_2\Phi_1\Phi_2/\Phi_0^2)}.\end{aligned}$$For fixed values of $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$, the maximal total current flowing in the superconductor is $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\textrm{max}} =I_0\vert\cos{(2\pi^2
k_2\Phi_1\Phi_2/\Phi_0^2)}\vert. \label{Imax-order-2}\end{aligned}$$
The smallest value of the constant $k_2>0$ for which the fluxes $\Phi_1=m_1\Phi_0$, $\Phi_2=m_2\Phi_0$, where $m_1,m_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, lead to maxima of the quantity $I_\textrm{max}$ is $k_2=(2\pi)^{-1}$. This is precisely the value we obtained in Ref. [@Buniy:2006tq] by imposing an analog of the Dirac string condition on the second order phase for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Nevertheless, the value of $k_2$ must ultimately be determined by experiment.
Also, for the value $k_2=(2\pi)^{-1}$, if either $\Phi_1$ or $\Phi_2$ is equal to $\Phi_0$ or $-\Phi_0$, then in terms of the other flux, appropriately relabeled, the expression for the second order $I_{\textrm{max}}$ reduces to the expression for the first order $I_\textrm{max}$.
An essential feature of the above result is that the current $I$ is a periodic function of the quantity $\pi k_2\Phi_1\Phi_2/\Phi_0^2$ with period $1$. We can also derive this property by modifying the method used by Block [@Block] for the first order Josephson effect as follows.
The total gauge potential includes internal and external parts, $\bm{A}=\bm{A}_\textrm{in}+\bm{A}_\textrm{ext}$, the external magnetic field being due to the external sources. Assuming that the external field $\bm{\nabla}\times\bm{A}_\textrm{ext}$ vanishes inside the superconductors, we can write $\bm{A}_\textrm{ext}=\bm{\nabla}\gamma_\textrm{ext}$. As a result, $\bm{A}$ is a gauge transformation of $\bm{A}_\textrm{in}$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(\bm{A}_\textrm{in}+\bm{A}_\textrm{ext})
=\psi(\bm{A}_\textrm{in})\exp{(iq\gamma_\textrm{ext}/\hbar c)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\psi(\bm{A})$ is single valued, we find that $\psi(\bm{A}_\textrm{in})$ is multiplied by the factor $\exp{(-4i\pi^2
k_2\Phi_1\Phi_2/\Phi_0^2)}$ after the charge $q$ travels around a closed curve $C$. This factor is a periodic function of $\pi
k_2\Phi_1\Phi_2/\Phi_0^2$ with period $2$. This implies the same periodicity property for the wave function $\psi(\bm{A}_\textrm{in})$ and the energy $E$. Assuming time reversal symmetry as in Ref. [@Block], we find that the free energy and thus the current, which is given by minus the derivative of the free energy with respect to the external flux, are both periodic functions of $\pi
k_2\Phi_1\Phi_2/\Phi_0^2$ with period $1$, in agreement with the result proved earlier.
More generally, it is straightforward to arrange $n$ solenoids with the fluxes $\Phi_1,\ldots,\Phi_n$ and a superconducting ring in such a way that they are linked with nonzero $n{\textrm{th}}$ order linking [@Rolfson]. We similarly find the phase difference $$\begin{aligned}
\theta''-\theta'=(2\pi)^n k_n\Phi_1\cdots\Phi_n/\Phi_0^n,\end{aligned}$$ the current $$\begin{aligned}
I =I_0\sin{(\tfrac{1}{2}(\theta'+\theta''))}
\cos{(\tfrac{1}{2}(2\pi)^n k_n\Phi_1\cdots\Phi_n/\Phi_0^n)},\end{aligned}$$ and its maximal value for fixed values of $\Phi_1,\ldots,\Phi_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\textrm{max}} =I_0\vert\cos{(\tfrac{1}{2}(2\pi)^n
k_n\Phi_1\cdots\Phi_n/\Phi_0^n)}\vert
\label{Imax-order-n}.\end{aligned}$$ Other properties of these systems can be investigated.
The smallest value of the constant $k_n>0$ for which the fluxes $\Phi_j=m_j\Phi_0$, where $m_j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, lead to maxima of the quantity $I_\textrm{max}$ is $k_n=(2\pi)^{1-n}$. Again this is precisely the value we obtained in Refs. [@Buniy:2006tq; @Buniy:2006tr] by imposing an analog of the Dirac string condition on the phase for the $n{\textrm{th}}$ order Aharonov-Bohm effect. Nevertheless, as pointed out with the $k_2$ case above, the value of $k_n$ must ultimately be determined by experiment.
Also, for the value $k_n=(2\pi)^{1-n}$, if one of the fluxes is equal to $\Phi_0$ or $-\Phi_0$, then in terms of the remaining fluxes, appropriately relabeled, the expression for the $n{\textrm{th}}$ order $I_{\textrm{max}}$ reduces to the analogous expression for the $(n-1){\textrm{st}}$ order $I_\textrm{max}$.
Similar to the case $n=2$ above, we can modifying the method used by Block and prove that for any $n$ the current $I$ is a periodic function of the quantity $\tfrac{1}{2}(2\pi)^{n-1}
k_n\Phi_1\cdots\Phi_n/\Phi_0^n$ with period $1$.
Conclusion
==========
We generalize the Josephson effect to its higher order analogs in which a superconducting loop links with several magnetic solenoids and the resulting interference shifts are proportional to the product of two or more fluxes.
One can conceive of a number of applications for devices build to take advantage of higher order linking. Such a system could be less invasive than first order devices because it could keep the SQUID some distance from an experimental sample. Possible applications include both rf and dc SQUIDs that measure higher order linking of multiple fluxes. Under some circumstances such devices could be useful in measurements of complex biological systems, or any systems where direct gaussian linking of a magnetic flux with a SQUID is impractical, but where higher order linking is possible. For example, one could have a system of (i) a fixed but adjustable flux tube, i.e., a solenoid; (ii) an unknown flux to be measured, and (iii) a SQUID. If the three components can be arranged to have higher-order linking, then the unknown flux could be measured, even though it has no gaussian linking with the SQUID.
The work of RVB was supported by DOE grant number DE-FG02-91ER40661 and that of TWK by DOE grant number DE-FG05-85ER40226.
[100]{}
Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. [**115**]{}, 485 (1959). R. V. Buniy and T. W. Kephart, Phys. Lett. A [**372**]{}, 2583 (2008) \[arXiv:hep-th/0611334\]. R. V. Buniy and T. W. Kephart, Phys. Lett. A [**372**]{}, 4775 (2008) \[arXiv:hep-th/0611335\]. R. V. Buniy and T. W. Kephart, arXiv:hep-th/0611336. B. D. Josephson, Physics Letters, 1, 251 (1962).
R. C. Jaklevic, J. Lambe, A. H. Silver, and J. E. Mercereau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 159 (1964), Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 274 (1964).
R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands, *Feynman Lectures on Physics*, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965, volume III, chapter 21.
H. A. Ohta, IC-SQUID 76, 35 (1976).
A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 411 (2004)
D. Rolfson, *Knots and Links*, Publish or Perish, Wilmington, DE (1976).
F. Block, Phys. Rev. B, 2, 109 (1970).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss in depth the validity and limitations of a theoretical scheme to evaluate photo-electron spectra (PES) through collecting the phase oscillations at a given measuring point. Problems appear if the laser pulse is still active when the first bunches of outgoing flow reach the measuring point. This limits the simple scheme for evaluation of PES to low and moderate laser intensities. Using a model of free particle plus dipole field, we develop a generalized scheme which is shown to considerably improve the results for high intensities.'
author:
- 'P.M. Dinh$^{1,2}$, P. Romaniello$^{1,3}$, P.-G. Reinhard$^{4}$, and E. Suraud$^{1,2}$'
bibliography:
- 'cluster.bib'
- 'add.bib'
title: A critical analysis of the theoretical scheme to evaluate photoelectron spectra
---
Introduction
============
Photo-electron spectra (PES) constitute a longstanding basic tool for analyzing the electronic structure of atoms, molecules, or solids [@Tur62a; @Tur70aB; @Gos83aB]. In the one-photon regime, PES provide an image of the sequence of single-particle levels which are occupied in the ground state. This has been applied, e.g., already in the early days of cluster physics to the electronic structure of cluster anions to track the transition to bulk metal [@McH89]. While this could be done with photon frequencies in the range of visible light, the analysis of deeper levels requires higher frequencies, and hence one finds also UV [@Rab77aB] and X-ray PES [@Mou62aB]. Nowadays, we dispose of a great variety of coherent light sources in large ranges of frequency, intensity and pulse length, such as the very powerful and versatile free electron lasers [@Gel10a; @Bre10a] which now even allow for time-resolved studies of deep lying core states of atoms embedded in a material [@Pie08a]. With the great availability of good light sources, studies of PES are now found in all areas of molecular physics, from atoms over simple molecules [@Tje90a] to complex systems as clusters [@Hof01] and organic molecules [@Liu98a].\
There is hence a general need for a robust theoretical tool of analysis of PES in various dynamical regimes. Traditional approaches to compute PES rely on (multi-)photon perturbation theory [@Fai87]. A few years ago, we have developed a technique to evaluate the PES directly from numerical simulations of the electronic excitations on a spatial grid representation (and also for a plane-wave representation) [@Poh00; @Poh01] allowing exploration of a rather wide range of dynamical scenarios [@Poh00]. The basic idea of the procedure is to use absorbing boundary conditions and to assume free particle propagation near the boundaries. The technique has indeed been successfully applied to a variety of clusters [@Rei03a; @Fen08a], for which significant electron emission can be achieved with comparatively low laser intensities. Atoms and molecules with larger ionization potentials (IP), as e.g. carbon, require stronger fields instead and it was found in first tests that the application of the recipe from Ref. [@Poh00] can yield artefacts for the case of long pulses with high intensity. Therefore it is a timely task to re-inspect the method and to develop improvements where found necessary. Such a critical analysis of the evaluation of PES on a numerical grid is the aim of this paper.
We start in section \[sec:PES-raw\] with a brief review of the traditional recipe to evaluate PES. We show that, while this simple recipe works well for low laser intensities, it produces unphysical spectral features at high intensities, which call for a revision of the method. We continue with a quick reminder of the gauge freedom in describing the laser field. We discuss two choices of gauge and explain the gauge transformation that connects the two choices. The question which gauge is ideally to be used in the evaluation of PES will be answered in the course of the further sections. Afterwards, the presence of a strong laser field in coexistence with the emitted electrons is dealt with by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for free electrons plus a homogeneous laser field. This case still allows closed solutions which is then used as a basic ingredient to define a refined recipe to evaluate PES. In section \[sec:Illustration\], the refined recipe is then tested for the analytically solvable case of Gaussian wave packets first and then numerically for a few realistic test cases.
Theoretical evaluation of PES {#sec:PES-raw}
=============================
In this section, we first give a brief review of the scheme for the evaluation of PES introduced in [@Poh00; @Poh01]. After showing that it is not appropriate for high laser intensities, we propose a generalized scheme that solves the problem. All schemes discussed here and in the previous papers rely on a mean-field description where each electron is associated with a single-electron wave function $\psi_\alpha$. We will consider in the formal discussions one representative state and drop the index $\alpha$ to simplify notations.
PES scheme for free electron
----------------------------
The PES are calculated in a very efficient manner exploiting the features of the absorbing boundary conditions [@Poh00; @Poh01]. We give here a brief summary of the procedure and its motivation, first for the simple case of 1D and then in 3D. It is to be noted that these traditional recipes for evaluating the PES are deduced under the assumption of free particle propagation near the bounds of the numerical box.
### The 1D case
We choose a “measuring point” $z_\mathcal{M}$ far away from the center and one or two grid points before the absorbing boundaries. We record the wave function $\psi(z,t)$ at the measuring point $z_\mathcal{M}$ during the time evolution. This delivers the raw information from which we extract the PES. In order to develop an appropriate recipe, we now need a few formal considerations.
We assume that the mean-field is negligible at $z_\mathcal{M}$ such that we encounter there free particle dynamics which is governed by the one-particle time-dependent Schrödinger equation $\mathrm i\partial_t\psi(z,t)=-\frac{\nabla^2}{2}\psi(z,t)$. The solution is $$\psi(z,t)=\int \frac{\ \mathrm dk}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\, g(k)\, e^{\mathrm{i}(kz-\omega t)}
\label{Eqn:WF}$$ with the condition that $k$ and $\omega$ satisfy the dispersion relation $\omega=k^2/2$. Note that atomic units ($\hbar = m_e= e =4\pi\epsilon_0=
1$) are used here and throughout the paper. The measurement of PES is practically a momentum analysis of the outgoing wave packet at a remote side. In momentum space, the wave function (\[Eqn:WF\]) reads $$\widehat{\psi}(k,t)
=
\int\frac{dz}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\mathrm{i}kx}\psi(z,t)
=
\underbrace{\widehat{\psi}(k,0)}_{\propto g(k)}
e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega t}
\quad.$$ The probability to find an outgoing particle with momentum $k$ is thus given by $|\widehat{\psi}(k,t)|^2=|\widehat{\psi}(k,0)|^2$, from which the PES can be obtained as
$$\mathcal{Y}(E_\mathrm{kin})
\propto
\frac{1}{\sqrt{E_\mathrm{kin}}}\left|\widehat{\psi}(k,0)\right|^2
\quad,
\label{Eqn:Direct_yield}$$
where $E_\mathrm{kin}=k^2/2=\omega$ is the kinetic energy and we have taken into account the appropriate energy density $\propto E^{-1/2}_{kin}$. This is what we call in this work the exact definition of PES developed close to the experimental procedure.
However, it is numerically extremely expensive to evaluate the PES by Fourier transformation for a remote slot in coordinate space. To overcome this difficulty, we obtain the expansion coefficient $g(k)$ from the Fourier transform in time-frequency space of the wave function $\psi(z,t)$ collected at a measuring point $z_\mathcal{M}$ near the absorbing boundary. We denote the Fourier transformation in time by $\widetilde{\psi}$ to distinguish it from the spatial Fourier transform $\widehat{\psi}$. This then reads : $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\psi}(z_\mathcal{M},\omega') &=& \int \frac{\ \mathrm
dt}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, \psi(z_\mathcal{M},t) \, e^{\mathrm i\omega' t} \cr
&=&\int \frac{\ \mathrm dt}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int \frac{\ \mathrm
dk}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, g(k) \, e^{\mathrm i(kz_\mathcal{M}-\omega t)}
e^{i\omega' t}\cr
&=&\int \frac{\mathrm dk}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, g(k) \, e^{\mathrm ikz_\mathcal{M}}
\delta(\omega-\omega') \ .
\label{Eqn:coefficient_1}\end{aligned}$$ Since we collect $\psi(z_\mathcal{M},t)$ far away from the center and close to the absorbing boundary, we can assume that only outgoing waves will pass the measuring point $z_\mathcal{M}$. We will hence have only positive wave vectors $$\omega
=
\frac{k^2}{2}
\quad\longleftrightarrow\quad
k=+\sqrt{2\omega}
\quad,
\label{eq:define-k}$$ which allows us to approximate the last line in (\[Eqn:coefficient\_1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\psi}(z_\mathcal{M},\omega')
&\simeq&
\int_0^{\infty} \frac{\ \mathrm d\omega}{\sqrt{4\pi\omega}}
\, g(\omega) \,
e^{i\, z_\mathcal{M} \sqrt{2\omega}} \, \delta(\omega-\omega') \cr
&=&\frac{g(\omega')}{\sqrt{4\pi\omega'}}e^{i\,
z_\mathcal{M}\sqrt{2\omega'}}\ \theta(\omega')
\ .
\label{Eqn:coefficient_2}\end{aligned}$$ In the last line, $\theta$ stands for the Heaviside function. Using (\[Eqn:coefficient\_2\]) and (\[Eqn:coefficient\_1\]), we finally obtain $$g(\omega)\simeq \sqrt{4\pi\omega} \, e^{-\mathrm i\,
z_\mathcal{M}\sqrt{2\omega}} \ \widetilde{\psi}(z,\omega) \ ,
\label{Eqn:coefficient_3}$$ where from now on, we will always consider $\omega>0$ and thus omit the factor $\theta(\omega)$ in Eq. (\[Eqn:coefficient\_3\]). At measuring point $z_{\mathcal{M}}$, we can identify $\widetilde{\psi}(z_{\mathcal{M}},\omega)$ with $\widetilde{\psi}(z_{\mathcal{M}},E_{\rm kin})$ where $E_{\rm kin}$ is the kinetic energy of the electron. This defines the PES yield $\mathcal{Y}_{z_{\mathcal{M}}}(E_{\rm kin})$ as $$\label{eq:raw-recipe}
\mathcal{Y}_{z_{\mathcal{M}}}(E_{\rm kin})
\propto
\sqrt{E_{\rm kin}}
\left| \widetilde{\psi}(z_{\mathcal{M}},E_{\rm kin}) \right|^2 \ .$$ We have checked the method in extensive 1D wave packet calculations and compared it to a direct momentum decomposition of the outgoing wave as given in Eq. (\[Eqn:Direct\_yield\]). Both methods yield the same results, while the above sketched frequency analysis at a “measuring point” is orders of magnitude faster.
### The 3D case
As in 1D, we assume for the 3D case free propagation and purely outgoing waves at the measuring point $\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}$. The solution of the one-particle time-dependent Schrödinger equation in free space reads $$\psi(\mathbf{r},t)
=
\int \frac{\ \mathrm d^3\mathbf{k}}{\sqrt{(2\pi)^3}}
\, g(\mathbf{k}) \, e^{i(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}-\omega t)}
\quad.$$ Analogously as in Eq. (\[eq:define-k\]) for the 1D case, we calculate the coefficients $g(\mathbf{k})$ from the time Fourier transform of $\psi(\mathbf{r},t)$, assuming that only wave vectors $\mathbf{k}=k \,\mathbf e_\mathbf{r}$ with $k>0$ contribute, where $\mathbf e_\mathbf{r}$ is the direction of the outgoing radial wave. This yields $$g(\omega,\Omega_{\mathbf{r}})
\propto \,
\widetilde{\psi}(\mathbf{r},\omega) \ ,
\label{Eqn:coefficient_3D}$$ where $\Omega_{\mathbf{r}}$ is the solid angle related to the $\mathbf{r}$ direction. Considering $\mathbf{r}_{\mathcal{M}}$ as the measuring point, we compute the PES in direction $\Omega_{\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}}$ as $$\mathcal{Y}_{\Omega_{\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}}}(E_{\rm kin}) \, \propto \,
\left| \widetilde{\psi}(\mathbf{r}_{\mathcal{M}},E_{\rm kin})
\right|^2 \ .
\label{eq:raw3D}$$
The above analysis yields the fully energy- and angular-resolved PES. The angular averaged PES would then be attained by angular integration with proper solid angle weights. It has nevertheless to be emphasized that the resulting angular dependence in the laboratory frame depends on the orientation of the molecule (or cluster). Actual ensembles in the gas phase do not contain molecules in well defined orientation but represent rather an equi-distribution of all possible orientations. A typical example are the many recent measurements of angular-resolved PES in cluster physics see, e.g., [@Pin99; @Wil04; @Kos07a; @Bar09; @Kje10a]. An appropriate orientation averaging has to be performed before one can compare $\mathcal{Y}_{\Omega_{\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}}}(E_{\rm kin})$ with experimental data. The practical procedures for that are outlined in [@Wop10a; @Wop10b]. Orientation averaging, however, is beyond the scope of the present paper and will be ignored in the following.
### Example of application and problem
Although this simple scheme has been applied with success to a variety of clusters, our recent attempts to compute the PES of small covalent molecules have raised some questions concerning its general applicability. For high laser intensities, we find an unexpected shoulder in the PES at large kinetic energies. These pattern were then also found for the simple test case of Na$_n$ clusters with jellium background when going to sufficiently large laser field strengths. This excludes particularities of pseudo-potentials, local or non-local ones. The problem seems to reside in the scheme to evaluate PES.
Figure \[fig:Na9p-example\] demonstrates the problem for the case of Na$_9^+$. The spherical jellium model is used for the ionic background. Valence electrons are described by the time-dependent local-density approximation (TDLDA) using the energy functional of [@Per92] and an average-density self-interaction correction (ADSIC) [@Leg02].
Two cases are considered for comparison: one with still moderate laser intensity, and another one in the high intensity regime. In the latter regime, more than half of the cluster’s electrons are stripped off, as shown in the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:Na9p-example\]. The top panel shows the PES for both cases. For moderate intensity, we see the typical monotonous decrease. The case of high intensity differs : Up to $E_\mathrm{kin}\approx 1.5$ Ry, we see the typical pattern of a monotonous decrease of the envelope with some fluctuations. For $E_\mathrm{kin} >1.8$ Ry, however, we observe a new maximum, a broad shoulder of high energy electrons; this is totally unexpected and most probably unphysical. In the following, we clarify the origin of such a shoulder and we generalize the method to compute PES to a wider range of laser intensities.
Space gauge and velocity gauge {#sec:gauge}
------------------------------
Before proceeding with a cure for the PES scheme illustrated above, we review the choices of gauge for describing the laser field. The external laser field is described in the limit of long wave lengths and neglecting magnetic effects (electronic velocities are very small at any time). The electron-laser interaction can be described either by a time-dependent scalar potential $\Phi(\mathbf{r},t)$ or a time-dependent vector potential $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r},t)$ in the Hamiltonian, which in general reads $$H(\mathbf r,t) = \frac{1}{2} \left[\hat{\mathbf p} +
\frac{{\mathbf A}(\mathbf{r},t)}{c} \right]^2 -
\Phi(\mathbf{r},t) \ .$$ In the *space gauge* ($x$-gauge), the laser field is described, within the dipole approximation, by a scalar potential only:
\[eq:laser-x\] $${\mathbf A}^{(x)}(\mathbf{r},t) = \mathbf 0, \qquad
\Phi^{(x)}(\mathbf{r},t) = -E_0f(t) {z} \ ,
\label{Eqn:scalar}$$ where the laser polarization is chosen along the $z$ axis, and $E_0$ is the maximum electric field of the laser. $f(t)$ here denotes the temporal profile of the laser pulse, taken as: $$f(t)
=
\sin(\omega_\mathrm{las}^{\mbox{}}t)
\sin^2\!\left(\!\frac{\pi\, t}{T_\mathrm{pulse}}^{\mbox{}}\!\right)
\theta(t)\ \theta(T_\mathrm{pulse}^{\mbox{}}\!-\!t) \ ,
\label{eq:laserprof}$$
where $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ and $T_{\rm pulse}$ are respectively the frequency and the duration of the laser pulse. $\theta$ denotes the Heaviside function. We have chosen a smooth $\sin^2$ profile which combines high spectral selectivity and finite extension. The spectral selectivity is needed because the pulse profile carries through to the PES [@Poh01].
In the *velocity gauge* ($v$-gauge) instead, the laser field enters the Hamiltonian as a vector potential only:
\[eq:laser-v\] $$\label{Eqn:vector}
{\mathbf A}^{(v)}(\mathbf{r},t)=-cE_0 F(t)\, \mathbf{e}_z \ , \quad
\Phi^{(v)}(\mathbf{r},t) = 0 \ ,$$ with $$F(t)= \int^t_{-\infty} \mathrm dt'\,f(t').$$
Note that the vector potential in dipole approximation is spatially constant.
Both gauges are equivalent. They are connected by a gauge transformation which in general reads :
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi' &=& \Phi + \frac{\dot{\chi}}{c}
\quad,
\\
\mathbf{A}' &=& \mathbf{A} - \nabla{\chi}
\quad,
\\
\psi' &=& \psi \, \exp{\left(\frac{i\chi}{c}\right)}
\quad.\end{aligned}$$
Let us assume that we take the $v$-gauge as a starting point : the laser field is described by the vector potential $\mathbf{A}^{(v)}=-cE_0 F(t)\mathbf{e}_z$, whereas $\Phi^{(v)}=0$. If we want to gauge transform the vector potential into the scalar potential, then $\nabla\chi=\mathbf{A}^{(v)}$, from where $$\chi=-cE_0 F(t)z \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Phi^{(x)} =
\frac{\dot{\chi}}{c}=-E_0 f(t)z \ .$$ This finally gives $$\psi^{(x)} = \psi^{(v)} \exp{\left[-iE_0F(t)z\right]} \,
\label{eq:gaugepsi}$$ which relates the wave function $\psi^{(x)}$ as computed by time propagation under the action of the scalar potential (\[Eqn:scalar\]), and $\psi^{(v)}$ for the case with the vector potential (\[eq:laser-v\]). It is obvious that this phase factor is crucial in the present PES analysis, while it can easily be ignored for local observables as, e.g., dipole momentum or net ionization.
The phase transformation allows one to decouple the gauge used in the analysis from that used in the time evolution. Assume that we solve the Schrödinger equation using the potentials (\[eq:laser-v\]). This immediately yields the wave function $\psi^{(v)}$ in $v$-gauge. The same wave function could be obtained by using (\[eq:laser-x\]) and applying the reverse transformation (\[eq:gaugepsi\]) to recover $\psi^{(v)}$ from the $\psi^{(x)}$ as obtained by propagation. In fact, this is the most efficient way to evaluate $\psi^{(v)}$ as the operator (\[Eqn:scalar\]) is purely local. It is to be noted that the transformation (\[eq:gaugepsi\]) is relevant for the PES only if the outgoing wave reaches the measuring point $z_\mathcal{M}$ at a time where the signal $F(t)$ is still active. For very large boxes, the outgoing wave and the signal can avoid to coincide, in which case each gauge yields the same result. However, typical box sizes used in practice are not always that large.
The question is now which gauge is most suitable for evaluating PES. The basic papers [@Poh00; @Poh03a] state that the preferable choice is the $v$-gauge. The argument there was a better convergence with box size. We now speculate that this has to do with (non-)coincidence of outgoing wave packet and laser signal. In the next section, this will be scrutinized using a solvable model.
PES scheme for free particles plus laser field {#sec:freepluslaser}
----------------------------------------------
In section \[sec:PES-raw\], we have deduced the recipe for evaluating PES under the assumption that the potential is negligible at the measuring point. Although this may hold for the typical mean field of a system, we cannot easily exclude the presence of the laser field at this point because the laser field is of extremely long range (wave length much larger than system size in the dipole approximation that we use here). Thus we extend the considerations to the case of a free particle plus laser field in dipole approximation which is still analytically solvable. We confine the considerations to the 1D case. The extension to 3D is straightforward.
### Momentum-space wave function in $v$-gauge {#sec:solve-v-gauge}
We first consider the Schrödinger equation of a free particle with the external field (\[eq:laser-v\]) in $v$-gauge
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \big[ \hat{\mathbf p}-E_0F(t) \, \mathbf e_z \big]^2
\psi^{(v)}(z,t)
&=&
\mathrm i\, \partial_t\psi^{(v)}(z,t)
\quad,
\label{eq:Hwavep}
\\
\psi^{(v)}(z,0) &=& \psi^{(v)}_0(z)
\quad.
\label{eq:psi0}\end{aligned}$$
It is advantageous to expand the wave function at a given time in momentum space:
\[eq:FT-k\] $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{(v)}(k,t)
&=&
\int \frac{\ {\textrm d}z}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, e^{- \mathrm ikz} \,
\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(z,t) \ ,
\label{eq:transform-k} \\
\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,0) &=& \widehat{\psi}^{(v)}_0(k)\ .
\label{eq:FT-k0}\end{aligned}$$
This yields the Schrödinger equation in the form $$\frac{1}{2}\big[ k-E_0F(t) \big]^2\, \widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,t)
=
\mathrm i\, \partial_t\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,t) \ ,$$ which solution reads : $$\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,t)
=
\exp{\left(
-\frac{\mathrm i}{2}
\int_{0}^t \mathrm dt' \, \big[ k-E_0F(t') \big]^2
\right)}\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}_0(k) \ .
$$ We rewrite the latter expression as
\[eq:FT-psi-v\] $$\label{eq:solve-k}
\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,t)
=
\exp{\big(
-\mathrm i\omega t
+\mathrm ik\delta q
-\mathrm i\delta\Omega
\big)}\, \widehat{\psi}^{(v)}_0(k)$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\omega
&=&
\frac{k^2}{2}
\quad,
\label{eq:solve-k-w}
\\
\delta q(t)
&=&
E_0 \int_{0}^t\mathrm dt'\,F(t')
\quad,
\label{eq:delq}\\
\delta\Omega(t)
&=&
\frac{E_0^2}{2}\int_{0}^t\mathrm dt'\,F(t')^2
\quad.
\label{eq:delOmega}\end{aligned}$$
Eqs. (\[eq:FT-psi-v\]) constitute the solution when propagating the wave packet in $v$-gauge.
### Momentum-space wave function in $x$-gauge
The Schrödinger equation of the same situation in $x$-gauge reads
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqn:SE_x}
\left[\frac{\hat{\mathbf p}^2}{2} \, +\,
E_0zf(t) \right] \, \psi^{(x)}(z,t)
&=&
\mathrm i \, \partial_t\psi^{(x)}(z,t)
\quad,
\\
\psi^{(x)}(z,0) &=& \psi^{(x)}_0(z)
\quad,
\\
f
&=&
\partial_t F
\quad.\end{aligned}$$
Note that at $t=0$, the laser field is off and therefore, the wave function in $x$-gauge is the same as that in $v$-gauge. In the following, we hence indicate the wave function in $k$ space at $t=0$ indifferently as $\widehat{\psi_0}(k)$ since the upper script $(x)$ or $(v)$ is irrelevant. Thanks to the gauge transformation (\[eq:gaugepsi\]), the solution of (\[Eqn:SE\_x\]) can be easily obtained from the solution (\[eq:solve-k\]) in $v$-gauge, that is : $$\widehat{\psi}^{(x)}(k,t)
=
\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}\left(k+E_0F(t) , t\right)
\quad.
\label{eq:gaugepsi-k}$$ The wave function in $x$-gauge thus becomes
\[eq:FT-psi-x\] $$\label{eq:solve-x}
\widehat{\psi}^{(x)}(k,t)
=
\exp{\left(
-\mathrm i\omega t
+\mathrm i K\delta q
-\mathrm i\delta\Omega
\right)} \ \widehat{\psi}_0(k),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
K
&=&
k+E_0F(t)
\quad,
\label{eq:defK}
\\
\omega
&=&
\frac{K^2}{2}
\quad,\end{aligned}$$
where $\delta q$ and $\delta\Omega$ as given in Eqs. (\[eq:delq\]) and (\[eq:delOmega\]) respectively. This form is considerably more involved than the solution (\[eq:solve-k\]) in $v$-gauge, since $K$ explicitly depends on time $t$. We hence take this as a first formal indication that the preferred gauge to evaluate PES should be the $v$-gauge.
### Reconstruction of the PES {#sec:reconst}
The scheme to evaluate PES, as sketched in section \[sec:PES-raw\], collects a wave function at a certain coordinate-space point $z_\mathcal{M}$ and performs Fourier transformation in frequency. This yields, by virtue of $\omega=k^2/2$, the outgoing wave function in momentum space from which we then deduce the PES. In extension of the simple form (\[eq:raw-recipe\]), we now want to take care of the possible coincidence of the laser field at the measuring point with the by-passing outgoing wave. This setup has been solved in section \[sec:solve-v-gauge\]. We are now going to apply the PES analysis to the solution (\[eq:solve-k\]) and deduce how to modify the collected signal at $z_\mathcal{M}$ in order to properly describe the underlying unperturbed wave packet $\widehat{\psi}_0(k)$.
The relation between the wave function in frequency space and that in momentum space is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\psi}(z,\omega) &=&
\int\!\frac{{\textrm d}t}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{i\omega t}\psi(z,t) \cr
&=&
\int \frac{{\textrm d}k}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{ikz}
\int\!\frac{{\textrm d}t}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{i\omega t}\widehat{\psi}(k,t) \ .
\label{eq:z-w/k-t}\end{aligned}$$ In the case where the laser field at the measuring point is negligible, one can see from Eqs. (\[eq:solve-k\]) and (\[eq:solve-k-w\]) that the solution in $k$-space shrinks to a simple $\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,t)=\exp{\left(-i\omega' t\right)}\,
\widehat{\psi}_0(k)$ with $\omega'=\frac{k^2}{2}$. Then the integration over $t$ in (\[eq:z-w/k-t\]) immediately produces a $\delta(\omega-\omega')$, and that over $k$, using the fact that $k=\sqrt{2\omega'}$ close to the absorbing boundary, yields $\widetilde{\psi}^{(v)}(z,\omega) \propto
\widehat{\psi}_0(k)$. Therefore, the PES in Eq. (\[Eqn:Direct\_yield\]) can be directly evaluated from $\widetilde{\psi}(z,\omega)$ (see Eq. (\[eq:raw-recipe\])).
Now we proceed to the case with non-vanishing laser field at the measuring point, once again in $v$-gauge. Trying to apply the time-frequency transformation directly to the $k$-space solution (\[eq:solve-k\]) runs into trouble due to the non-trivial time dependences induced by the factors $\delta q(t)$ and $\delta\Omega(t)$. An obvious solution is simply to counter-weight the disturbing phase factors by a phase-correction factor $\exp{\left(-\mathrm ik\delta{q}+\mathrm{i}\delta\Omega\right)}$. This can be done even in coordinate space because these factors do not depend on the position. Therefore we calculate the PES from a phase-augmented Fourier transform $\widetilde{\psi}^\mathrm{(PA)}$, which is now proportional to
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PES-PC}
\widetilde{\psi}^\mathrm{(PA)}(z_\mathcal{M},\omega)
&\propto&
\int {\textrm d}t\,e^{ \mathrm i\omega t}
e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi}
\psi^{(v)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)
\quad,
\\
\varphi
&=&
-k\delta q + \delta\Omega
\quad.\end{aligned}$$
This modified Fourier transform is then used as in Eqs. (\[eq:raw-recipe\]) yielding the recipe for the 1D case $$\mathcal{Y}_{z_{\mathcal{M}}}(E_{\rm kin})
\propto
\sqrt{E_{\rm kin}}
\left| \widetilde{\psi}^{\mathrm{(PA)}}(z_{\mathcal{M}},E_{\rm kin})
\right|^2 \ .
\label{eq:PA-recipe}$$ The generalization for the 3D case proceeds analogously.
The new move in this generalized evaluation is to augment the original recipe by the phase-correction factor $e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi}$. This should allow the application of the recipe in a wider range of laser intensities and time profiles. The factor becomes negligible for weak laser field, or for fields which do not interfere in time with the emitted particle flow. We shall call in the following the former recipe (\[eq:raw-recipe\]) the “raw” recipe and the generalized form (\[eq:PA-recipe\]) the “phase-augmented” (PA) recipe. A word of caution is in order. The additional phase involves the mere momentum $k$. The recipe (\[eq:PES-PC\]) identifies that with the frequency $\omega$ according to Eq. (\[eq:define-k\]). This is just as valid as the Fourier transformation is selective in frequency. This may be at stake in cases of very violent dynamics.
We run into unsurmountable trouble if we try to develop a generalized scheme on the basis of the solution (\[eq:solve-x\]) in $x$-gauge because here even the instantaneous momentum $K$, as given in Eq. (\[eq:defK\]), depends on time. This is another strong indication that the $v$-gauge is the appropriate starting point for evaluating the PES (as was already argued in [@Poh00; @Poh03a]). We will confirm this suspicion in the next section with a practical example.
Illustration {#sec:Illustration}
============
In this section, we show how the generalized scheme (\[eq:PES-PC\]) performs. We first apply it to an exactly solvable model, and then to more realistic cases.
Analytical test case: Gaussian wave packets {#sec:wave packet}
-------------------------------------------
As a first test case, we consider a Gaussian wave packet whose propagation can be analytically described, even in the presence of a (homogeneous) laser field. The analytical solution, carried forth to far distance and beyond the lifetime of the laser field, allows a direct evaluation of the PES by filtering the momentum components by Fourier transformation from coordinate to momentum space. This “direct” analysis exactly corresponds to the experimental procedure, see Eq. (\[Eqn:Direct\_yield\]). Thus we can test the PES analysis in frequency space against these “exact” results.
### Gaussian wave packet in a laser field
We consider a one dimensional system with a Hamiltonian consisting of the free kinetic energy plus the external laser field, as it was discussed in section \[sec:freepluslaser\]. The wave function of the system at initial time is taken as the following Gaussian function: $$\psi(z,0) =
\frac{1}{(\pi\mu_0)^{1/4}}\;
\exp{\left(\mathrm ip_0z-\frac{(z-q_0)^2}{2\mu_0} - \mathrm i \Omega_0 \right)}
\ .
\label{Eqn:initial_GW}$$ The Fourier transform in $k$ space of (\[Eqn:initial\_GW\]) reads $$\widehat{\psi}_0(k)
=
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi} \right)^{1/4} \, e^{\mathrm i q_0(p_0-k) -
\mathrm i \Omega_0}
\
\exp{\left(-\frac{\mu_0}{2}(k-p_0)^2\right)}
\ .$$ The solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is detailed in Appendix \[app:model-x\], using the $x$-gauge. It reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{(x)}(z,t)
&=&
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi({\mu_0}^2 + t^2)} \right)^{1/4}
e^{\mathrm i\left( p_0 - E_0F(t) \right)z}
\cr
&&\exp{\left(-\frac{[z-q(t)]^2}{2 (\mu_0 + \mathrm it) }
- \mathrm i\Omega(t)\right)}
\ ,
\label{eq:psi-x-gauge}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
q(t)
&=&
q_0
+
p_0t
-
E_0\int_{0}^t {\textrm d}t' \, F(t') \ ,
\label{eq:solve-q}
\\
\Omega(t)
&=&
\Omega_0
+
\frac{p_0^2}{2}t
-
p_0E_0\int_{0}^t {\textrm d}t' \, F(t')
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad +
\frac{{E_0}^2}{2}\int_{0}^t {\textrm d}t'F^2(t')
+
\frac{1}{2} \mathrm{atan}\left(\frac{t}{\mu_0}\right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Using now the gauge transformation (\[eq:gaugepsi\]), the wave function in $v$-gauge becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{(v)}(z,t)
&=&
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi({\mu_0}^2 + t^2)} \right)^{1/4}
e^{\mathrm i p_0z}
\cr
&&\exp{\left(-\frac{[z-q(t)]^2}{2 (\mu_0 + \mathrm it) }
- \mathrm i\Omega(t)\right)}
\ .
\label{eq:psi-v-gauge}\end{aligned}$$
### Exact evaluation of PES by spatial Fourier analysis
An exact evaluation of the PES has to analyze the momentum content of a wave packet at a place where free propagation is reached. The momentum distribution computed from the wave packet $\psi^{(x)}$ by spatial Fourier transformation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\psi}^{(x)}(k,t)
&=&
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi}\right)^{1/4} e^{\mathrm i
\arg(\mu)/2} \
\exp{\big( -\frac{\mu}{2} [k-p(t)]^2 \big)}
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad
\exp{\big(\mathrm{i}[p(t)-k]q(t) - \mathrm{i}\Omega(t) \big)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\arg(\mu)$ denotes the argument of $\mu$. The momentum distribution and corresponding probability becomes in $v$-gauge $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,t)
&=&
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi}\right)^{1/4} e^{\mathrm i
\arg(\mu)/2} \
\exp{\left(-\frac{\mu}{2}[k-p_0]^2\right)}
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad
\exp{\big(\mathrm i[p_0-k]q(t) - \mathrm i\Omega(t) \big)}
\quad,
\nonumber
\\
\left|\widehat{\psi}^{(v)}(k,t) \right|^2
&=&
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi}\right)^{1/2}
\exp{\left(-{\mu_0}[k-p_0]^2\right)}
\quad.\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding kinetic energy distribution is obtained by the identification $k=+\sqrt{2E_\mathrm{kin}}$. One also has to account for the appropriate energy density $\propto E_\mathrm{kin}^{-1/2}$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal Y^{(v)}(E_\mathrm{kin})
&\propto&
\sqrt{\frac{1}{E_\mathrm{kin}}}
\left|\widehat{\psi}^{(x)}(\sqrt{2E_\mathrm{kin}})\right|^2
\nonumber\\
&=&
\sqrt{\frac{1}{E_\mathrm{kin}}}
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi}\right)^{1/2}
e^{-{\mu_0}(\sqrt{2E_\mathrm{kin}}-p_0)^2}
\label{eq:PES-xFFT}\end{aligned}$$ This is then the exact energy distribution evaluated from spatial Fourier transform.
### Evaluation with the phase-augmented PES scheme
The final PES analysis for the above model relies on the wave functions at the measuring point, i.e. $\psi^{(x)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)$ and $\psi^{(v)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)$ as given in Eqs. (\[eq:psi-v-gauge\]) and (\[eq:psi-x-gauge\]), respectively. We use the laser profile (\[eq:laserprof\]). As an actual example, we consider the following parameters: $p_0=1\,\mathrm{a}_0^{-1}$, $q_0=0$, $\Omega_0=0$, $\omega_\mathrm{las}=0.11\,\mathrm{Ry}=1.4\,\mathrm{eV}$, $T_\mathrm{pulse}=8000\,\mathrm{Ry}^{-1}=384\,\mathrm{fs}$, $\mu_0=100\,\mathrm{a}_0$ and various field strengths $E_0$. The measuring point was taken at $z_\mathcal{M}=1000\,\mathrm{a}_0$ or $2000\,\mathrm{a}_0$. The first choice yields an overlap between laser pulse and flow signal at $z_\mathcal{M}$ while the second choice decouples them. In the following discussion, we quantify the field strength in terms of the laser intensity. The correspondence is, e.g., $I=10^{14}$ W/cm$^2\leftrightarrow E_0=0.109$ Ry/a$_0$, $I=10^{12}$ W/cm$^2\leftrightarrow E_0=0.0109$ Ry/a$_0$, $I=10^{10}$ W/cm$^2\leftrightarrow E_0=0.00109$ Ry/a$_0$.
Figure \[fig:PES-wavepacket-gauge\] compares the evaluation of PES for $x$-gauge versus $v$-gauge for a case of weak laser field where the phase correction $\mathcal{\varphi}$ in Eq. (\[eq:PES-PC\]) is negligible such that we can effectively use the “raw recipe” (\[eq:raw-recipe\]).
Laser pulse length, wave packet, and measuring point have been chosen such that the wave packet runs through the measuring point at a time where the laser is still fully active. It becomes obvious that the result from the wave function in $x$-gauge is unphysical. The source of the problem lies in the contribution $\exp{\left(ip(t)z_\mathcal{M}\right)}$. As soon as the momentum $p=p(t)$ moves even slightly, the possibly large $z_\mathcal{M}$ can amplify such a small oscillation and induce dramatic phase oscillations which, in turn, produce a large contribution to the PES. This contribution, however, must be unphysical because it sensitively depends on the choice of the measuring point. Clearly, the $v$-gauge is the preferred choice for the evaluation of PES. This was already expected from the analytical considerations in section \[sec:reconst\]. We will henceforth exclusively use the $v$-gauge. Of course, a numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation in coordinate space is often much simpler in $x$-gauge. In such a case, one still can use the $x$-gauge for the solution and then use the gauge transformation (\[eq:gaugepsi\]) to bring this into $v$-gauge. This is the path actually followed in section \[sec:naclust\].
Results for higher intensities are collected in figure \[fig:PES-wavepacket\].
Here we use $v$-gauge throughout and compare the “raw” recipe (\[eq:raw-recipe\]) with the PA recipe (\[eq:PES-PC\]). The lowest panel shows the laser profile (\[eq:laserprof\]) together with the squared wave function $|\psi(z_\mathcal{M},t)|^2$ at the measuring point. This signals a critical situation where the laser is fully active while the wave packet is passing by the measuring point. The three upper panels show results for different intensities. The “raw” recipe still works acceptably well for the moderate intensity $I=10^{12}$ W/cm$^2$, but becomes grossly misleading for higher intensities. The generalized recipe (\[eq:PES-PC\]) visibly improves the performance. The results become reliable up to $I=10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$ and remain somehow qualitatively correct for the highest intensity. It is thus much preferably to use the phase augmented form (\[eq:PES-PC\]) for the evaluation of the PES.
Figure \[fig:PES-wavepacket-no\] shows results from a configuration where the measuring point has been moved farther away to $z_\mathcal{M}=2000$ which decouples the laser pulse from the wave packets signal.
The case of highest intensity $I=10^{14}$ W/cm$^2$ is shown. As expected, the “raw” recipe yields the same result as the PA one and both agree nicely with the exact result. Moreover, the $x$-gauge (not shown here) yields precisely the same result as the $v$-gauge. Thus all distinctions and considerations are unnecessary in the case that laser pulse and particle flow do not overlap.
Realistic test cases {#sec:naclust}
--------------------
As a first realistic test case, we come back to the introductory example of Figure \[fig:Na9p-example\], namely the cluster Na$_9^+$ modeled with spherical jellium background and treated by time-dependent density functional theory using the energy functional of [@Per92]. We take the laser with a typical infrared frequency and two rather large intensities. The axial symmetry of this and of the following example allows us to perform the calculations in cylindrical coordinates. Figure \[fig:Na9p-example2\] shows the results for the “raw” and the PA recipes.
The “raw” PES in the upper panel repeats the case of figure \[fig:Na9p-example2\] showing the obnoxious high energy shoulder. The PA PES makes a dramatic difference. It shows a reasonable, almost monotonous, decrease of the envelope. Only at about 2.5 Ry, the decrease turns into a rather weak slope which may be unrealistic as we come here into a region of very low yield where unwanted background may spoil the analysis. The next lower intensity (lower panel) already shows reasonable pattern with the “raw” recipe. The PA recipe brings some improvement as it removes the glimpse of a shoulder at about 1.1 Ry. As already observed in the analytic case of a Gaussian wave packet, lower intensities perform well already with the “raw” recipe and the difference brought in from the PA recipe is negligible.
Figure \[fig:C4-example\] shows a next test case results for the C$_4$ chain, treated with non-local pseudo-potentials of Goedecker type [@Goe96] and, again, the electronic energy-density functional of [@Per92].
The unphysical shoulders obtained with the “raw” recipe are even more developed than in case of Na$_9^+$ and their successful removal by the PA recipe is impressive. This is a clear demonstration of the gain achieved by the PA recipe (\[eq:PES-PC\]).
Conclusion
==========
We have investigated the evaluation of photo-electron spectra (PES) by sampling the time evolution of the wave function at a fixed measuring point. The schemes were first analyzed using solvable models. The traditional scheme was developed from the idea of a freely propagating outgoing wave. This requires negligible potentials at the measuring point which, in turn, sets a limit to an acceptable laser field strength. In order to extend the applicability of the scheme for evaluating PES to stronger fields, we have considered a model of a free particle plus an external laser field in dipole approximation. This model is still analytically solvable and the analytical solution allows us to deduce a more general scheme for the PES which consists in augmenting the collected wave function by an appropriate phase factor accounting for the time dependent laser field. We have also investigated the effect of gauge transformations on the results and pondered the question of the most appropriate choice of gauge. We have found that the appropriate gauge for evaluating PES is clearly the $v$-gauge (velocity gauge). Still, the most practical way to produce the wave functions in $v$-gauge is to compute them first in $x$-gauge (space gauge) and to apply then the appropriate gauge transformation.
The augmented scheme has been tested in an analytical model of Gaussian wave packets and in a few realistic examples. A major result is that the “raw” recipe for PES is valid for low and moderate laser fields (about $10^{12}$ W/cm$^2$ for the test case Na$_9^+$). It remains valid in case that the particle flow arrives at the measuring point after the laser pulse has died out (in this case for all intensities). The phase augmented evaluation of PES was shown to considerably extend the range of applicability. The gain was particularly dramatic for the example of the C$_4$ chain. With the augmented recipe for computing PES we have been able to check laser intensities up to $10^{14}$ W/cm$^2$ for our realistic test cases which all involved a low laser frequency of 0.1 Ry. Higher laser frequencies reduce the effective intensity (Keldysh criterion). Thus even higher intensities may be used for higher frequencies. After the successful tests shown here, the augmented recipe for evaluating PES is ready for use in more demanding situations as they are molecular systems with large ionization potentials for which experimental data already exist as, e.g., N$_2$, C$_{60}$ or typical organic molecules.
Solution of the Schrödinger equation for the wave packet model {#app:model-x}
==============================================================
We provide the analytical solution of the wave packet propagation in $x$-gauge. This is simpler and the $v$-gauge is regained easily by the phase transformation (\[eq:gaugepsi\]).
The starting point is the Schrödinger equation as given in Eq. (\[eq:Hwavep\]). The ansatz for the solution is given by $$\label{eq:solve-analytic}
\psi=
\left(\frac{\mu_0}{\pi\,\mu^*(t)\mu(t)}\right)^{1/4}\;
\exp{\!\left(ip(t)z\!-\!\frac{(z\!-\!q(t))^2}{2\mu(t)}
-i\Omega(t)\!\right)}$$ with $\mu(t)=\mu_0+i\xi t$. The other time-dependent parameters are determined substituting (\[eq:solve-analytic\]) in the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and comparing term by term. In order to achieve this we first build the necessary derivatives: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm i\partial_t\psi}{\psi}
&=&
-
\frac{\mathrm i}{2}\frac{\xi^2t}{{\mu_0}^2 + \xi^2t^2}
-
\dot{p}z
+
\frac{i\dot{q}}{\mu}(z-q)
\\
&& \qquad
-
\frac{\xi}{2}\frac{(z-q)^2}{\mu^2}
+
\dot{\Omega}
\\
\hat{p}\psi
&=&
\left(p+\frac{i}{\mu}(z-q)\right)\psi
\\
\frac{\hat{p}^2\psi}{2\psi}
&=&
\frac{p^2}{2}
+
\frac{i p}{\mu}(z-q)
+
\frac{\mu_0 - \mathrm i \xi t}{2({\mu_0}^2 + \xi^2 t^2)}
-
\frac{1}{2}\frac{(z-q)^2}{\mu^2}
\\
\frac{\Phi\psi}{\psi}
&=&
-E_0zf(t)\end{aligned}$$ Identifying term by term, we obtain the following equations for the parameters $$\begin{aligned}
(z-q)^2
&:&
\xi = 1
\\
(z-q)
&:&
\dot{q}
=
p
\\
z
&:&
\dot{p}
=
-E_0\, f(t)
\\
t
&:&
\xi^2 = \xi
\\
z^0
&:&
\dot{\Omega}
=
\frac{p^2}{2}
+
\frac{\mu_0 - \mathrm i \xi t}{2 ({\mu_0}^2 + \xi^2 t^2)} +
\frac{\mathrm i \xi^2t}{2({\mu_0}^2 +\xi^2t^2)}\end{aligned}$$ from which one gets :
\[eq:solve-analytic2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mu
&=&
\mu_0+it
\quad,
\label{eq:sigma}
\\
p
&=&
p_0 - E_0F(t)
\quad,\quad
F(t)=\int_{0}^t \mathrm dt' \, f(t')
\quad,
\label{eq:solve-p}
\\
q
&=&
q_0
+
p_0t
-
E_0\int_{0}^t \mathrm dt' \, F(t')
\quad,
\label{eq:solve-q2}
\\
\Omega
&=&
\Omega_0
+
\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^t \mathrm dt'
\left( p^2 + \frac{\mu_0}{{\mu_0}^2 + t^2 }
\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\Omega_0
+
\frac{{p_0}^2}{2}t
-
p_0E_0\int_{0}^t \mathrm dt' \, F(t')
\nonumber\\
&+&
\frac{{E_0}^2}{2}\int_{0}^t \mathrm dt' \, F^2(t')
+
\frac{1}{2} \mathrm{atan}\left( \frac{t}{\mu_0} \right) \quad.
\label{eq:solv-omega}\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss a solar dynamo model of Tayler-Spruit type whose $\Omega$-effect is conventionally produced by a solar-like differential rotation but whose $\alpha$-effect is assumed to be periodically modulated by planetary tidal forcing. This resonance-like effect has its rationale in the tendency of the current-driven Tayler instability to undergo intrinsic helicity oscillations which, in turn, can be synchronized by periodic tidal perturbations. Specifically, we focus on the 11.07 years alignment periodicity of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, whose persistent synchronization with the solar dynamo is briefly touched upon. The typically emerging dynamo modes are dipolar fields, oscillating with a 22.14 years period or pulsating with a 11.07 years period, but also quadrupolar fields with corresponding periodicities. In the absence of any constant part of $\alpha$, we prove the subcritical nature of this Tayler-Spruit type dynamo. The resulting amplitude of the $\alpha$ oscillation that is required for dynamo action turns out to lie in the order of 1 m/s, which seems not implausible for the sun. When starting with a more classical, non-periodic part of $\alpha$, even less of the oscillatory $\alpha$ part is needed to synchronize the entire dynamo. Typically, the dipole solutions show butterfly diagrams, although their shapes are not convincing yet. Phase coherent transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles, which are reminiscent of the observed behaviour during the Maunder minimum, can be easily triggered by long-term variations of dynamo parameters, but may also occur spontaneously even for fixed parameters. Further interesting features of the model are the typical second intensity peak and the intermittent appearance of reversed helicities in both hemispheres.'
address: 'Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf, Bautzner Landstr. 400, D-01328 Dresden, Germany'
author:
-
-
-
title: A model of a tidally synchronized solar dynamo
---
Introduction
============
Asking “Is there a chronometer hidden deep in the sun?”, [@Dicke1978] had analyzed the similarity of the solar cycle with either a random walk process or, alternatively, a clocked process being perturbed by random fluctuations. While his statistical results pointed in favour of a clocked process, with shorter cycles usually being followed by longer ones as if the Sun remembered the correct phase, his conclusion was later criticized by [@Gough1990] and [@Hoyng1996] as relying on a too short time series of just 25 cycles.
The closely related discussion, initiated by [@Wolf1859] and later entered by [@Bollinger1952; @Takahashi1968; @Wood1972; @Opik1972; @CondonSchmidt1975; @Grandpierre1996; @Palus2000; @Hung2007; @Wilson2013; @Okhlopkov2014; @Poluianov2014], of whether the Hale cycle of the Sun is synchronized with the 11.07 years alignment cycle of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter, was recently fueled by [@Okhlopkov2016] who demonstrated an amazing parallelism of both time series for the last 1000 years. In Figure \[Fig:vergleich\](a) we illustrate the sequence $t_n$ of the solar minima, as taken from [@Schove1955; @Schove1983] and [@Hathaway2010], together with the correspondent sequence of the maximum Venus-Earth-Jupiter alignments according to [@Okhlopkov2016], which we have re-calculated and confirmed for the last 1000 years. In Figure \[Fig:vergleich\](b) we show in detail the deviations (or residuals) $\delta_n=t_n-((n+67)\times 11.07+1000)$ of the three time series from a linear function of the cycle number $n$, with a presumed cycle duration of 11.07 years. Note the persistent closeness of the solar cycle to this linear curve, which does not even change during the Maunder [@Beer1998] and Spörer [@Miyahara2006] minima.
![(a) Time series of the minima of the solar cycle according to [@Schove1955; @Schove1983] and [@Hathaway2010], and of the maximum alignment of the Venus-Earth-Jupiter system. (b) Deviation of the time series from a linear function $f(n)=11.07 (n+67)+1000$ of the cycle number $n$. []{data-label="Fig:vergleich"}](./fig1.eps){width="120mm"}
If we take those data of Schove and Hathaway (with all due caveats regarding their reliableness and accuracy before the year 1600, say), we can recompute Dicke’s ratio $\sum_{i=n}^{24} \delta^2_i/\sum_{i=n}^{24} (\delta_i-\delta_{i-1})^2$ of the mean square of the residuals $\delta_i$ to the mean square of the differences $\delta_i-\delta_{i-1}$ between two subsequent residuals. As stated by Dicke, the dependence of this ratio on the number $N=24-n+1$ of cycles taken into account reads $(N+1)(N^2-1)/(3(5 N^2+6N-3))$ for a random walk process and $(N^2-1)/(2(N^2+2N+3))$ for a clocked process. Hence, for $N \rightarrow \infty$, the random walk ratio converges towards $N/15$, while the clocked process ratio converges to 0.5. Both curves are shown in Figure \[Fig:dicke\], together with Dicke’s ratio computed for the actual Schove/Hathaway data. While Dicke’s original database was restricted to 25 cycles starting approximately at 1705, which made it hard to draw a solid conclusion about the character of the process, the enlarged database of Schove indicates that the real process behaves (for large $N$) much more similar to a clocked process than to a random walk process. Down to the year 1400, a further convergence towards the ultimate value 0.5 could even be expected, and the slight increase prior to this year might be guessed to be caused by the deteriorating accuracy of a data. At any rate, it seems worthwhile (but goes far beyond the scope of this paper) to look for better quality data for those early years.
![Dicke’s ratio between the mean square of the residuals to the mean square of the differences of two subsequent residuals in dependence on the number $N$ of cycles taken into account, for a random walk process (green line, converging towards $N/15$), a clocked process (blue line, converging towards 0.5), and the real solar cycle minima data (violet dots) from Schove and Hathaway. Despite the deterioration of the data’s reliableness and accuracy for the time before 1600, a certain tendency towards a clocked process can still be observed. []{data-label="Fig:dicke"}](./fig2.eps){width="80mm"}
However impressive that coincidence of the solar cycle with a clocked process in general, and with the maximum Venus-Earth-Jupiter alignments in particular, may look like: the counter-arguments against any sort of external synchronization are serious as well. Indeed, the typical tidal acceleration of those planets (in the order of 10$^{-10}$m/s$^2$) is tiny compared to other acceleration terms in the sun [@CondonSchmidt1975; @DeJager2005; @Callebaut2012]. Even if the typical tidal height of $h_{\rm tidal} =
G m R^2_{\rm tacho}/(g_{\rm tacho} d^3) \approx 1$mm (exerted by a planet of mass $m$ at distance $d$ from the Sun) could be fully translated into a corresponding velocity of $v \sim (2 g_{\rm tacho} h_{\rm tidal})^{1/2} \approx 1$m/s (employing the huge gravity at the tachocline of $g_{\rm tacho} \approx 500$m/s$^2$ [@Wood2010]), a physically realistic synchronization mechanism based on these tides is still hardly conceivable.
Although the competing forces in the convection zone are prohibitively large for any planetary synchronization mechanism to get a chance to work there, things may be more subtle in the stably stratified tachocline region. A promising idea about a putative planetary influence, as first discussed by [@Abreu2012], relies on periodic tidal perturbations of the adiabaticity in the tachocline region, whose value is decisive for its storage capacity for magnetic flux tubes. While primarily discussed with view on long-term modulations of the solar dynamo, there is no apriori reason not to apply the same concept to the basic Hale cycle as well. In a recent paper [@Stefani2018] we made a first attempt to validate this idea in the framework of a simplified Babcock-Leighton type model, employing the time-delay concept of [@Wilmotsmith2006]. Specifically, the tidal perturbations were emulated as periodic changes of the critical magnetic field strength beyond which flux tubes would erupt to the solar surface. Although our results, obtained in a limited parameter region, were essentially negative, we still consider this synchronization mechanism as rather attractive, and would like to encourage further work in this direction.
Yet another promising synchronization mechanism was first delineated by [@Weber2015] and later corroborated in detail by [@Stefani2016; @Stefani2018]. It starts from the numerical observation that the current-driven, kink-type Tayler instability (TI) [@Tayler1973; @Pittstayler1985; @Gellert2011; @Seilmayer2012; @Ruediger2013; @Ruediger2015; @Stefani2015] has an intrinsic tendency for oscillations of the helicity and the $\alpha$-effect related to it.
At this point, a few general remarks on kink-type instabilities, and their applicability to stellar dynamo models, may be appropriate: the notion Tayler-Spruit dynamo referred originally to the idea of [@Spruit2002] who had proposed a non-linear, subcritical dynamo in which the poloidal-to-toroidal field transformation is conventionally accomplished by the $\Omega$-effect, while the toroidal-to-poloidal transformation starts only when the toroidal field acquires sufficient strength to become unstable to the non-axisymmetric, current-driven TI. A fundamental flaw of this dynamo concept was revealed by [@Zahn2007] who argued that any emerging non-axisymmetric ($m=1$) TI mode would be topologically unsuitable for regenerating the dominant axisymmetric ($m=0$) toroidal field. Fortunately, the same authors offered a possible remedy for the Tayler-Spruit dynamo concept provided that the $m=1$ TI would produce an $\alpha$-effect (comprising some $m=0$ component). In hindsight, it appears that this idea had been investigated more than a decade earlier by [@Ferrizmas1994]. Working in the flux-tube approximation, these authors had derived the $\alpha$-effect connected with the kink-instability and pointed out its crucial importance for closing the dynamo loop.
Beyond flux-tube approximation, the existence of any TI-related $\alpha$-effect is still a matter of debate. Various authors [@Chatterjee2011; @Gellert2011; @Bonanno2012; @Bonanno2017] had evidenced spontaneous symmetry breaking between left- and right-handed TI modes, leading indeed to a finite value of $\alpha$, but mainly for comparably large values of the magnetic Prandtl number \[$Pm$\], i.e., the ratio between viscosity and magnetic diffusivity. Things are different, though, for the case of low $Pm$, as it is typical for the solar tachocline region where $Pm$ is believed to lie in the range 10$^{-3}$...10$^{-2}$. In this limit of small $Pm$, we had numerically observed (although in the simplified geometry of a full cylinder) a tendency of the TI to undergo [*oscillations*]{} of the helicity and the $\alpha$-effect [@Weber2013; @Weber2015]. Remarkably, those oscillations between left- and right-handed $m=1$ TI modes do barely change the energy content of the instability, which makes them very susceptible to weak $m=2$ perturbations [@Stefani2016]. This fact may indeed be the key for the easy synchronizability of the $\alpha$-effect with the tiny tidal forces as exerted by planets.
This resonant reaction of $\alpha$ on tidal excitations was later incorporated into a very simple ordinary differential equation (ODE) model of an $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamo which turned out to produce oscillations with period doubling [@Stefani2016]. In this way it was argued that the 11.07 years tidal perturbations could lead to a resonant excitation of a 11.07 years oscillation of the TI-related $\alpha$-effect, and thereby to a 22.14 year Hale cycle of the entire dynamo.
In [@Stefani2018], it was specified that such field [*oscillations*]{} occur only in certain bands of the magnetic diffusion time $\tau$, while for intervening bands they were replaced by field [*pulsations*]{} with 11.07 years period. Noteworthy was the persistent phase coherence when passing from oscillations to pulsations, and back. What could not be resolved by this simple ODE system (despite some progress in [@Stefani2017]) was the spatio-temporal specifics of the transitions between oscillations and pulsations, for which higher dimensional modeling is definitely required.
As a sequel to [@Stefani2016; @Stefani2018], the present paper investigates this spatio-temporal behaviour of a tidally synchronized dynamo of the Tayler-Spruit type. For that purpose, we replace the ODE system by a partial differential equation (PDE) system with the co-latitude as the only spatial variable. Similar radially averaged, pseudo-Cartesian models (although without any synchronization aspect) have been studied by many authors [@Parker1955; @Schmalz1991; @Jennings1991; @Roald1997; @Kuzanyan1997], which will allow us, in Section 2 and the Appendix, to compare and validate our numerical method.
In Section 3, we will analyze in detail a synchronized, subcritical dynamo of Tayler-Spruit type in its purest form. For that purpose, we use a latitudinal dependence of the $\Omega$-effect as inferred from helioseismology [@Charbonneau1999], and restrict the $\alpha$-effect to its 11.07 years periodic part whose amplitude has the same resonance-like dependence on the toroidal field as originally proposed in [@Stefani2016]. Since, for weak fields, this resonance term is proportional to the square of the field, it cannot yield a linear instability. Instead, the dynamo needs some finite field amplitude to start off. Apart from a detailed discussion of the dependence of this sub-critical dynamo on the initial conditions, we will also argue that the typical resulting amplitudes of $\alpha$ are on the order of 1 m/s, which seems not unrealistic for the solar dynamo. Depending on some parameter choices, the arising fields are dipoles or quadrupoles, which can either oscillate with a 22.14 years period or pulsate with a 11.07 years period. We also observe intermediate states between oscillations and pulsations, which are reminiscent of the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule [@Gnevyshev], which states that the sunspot numbers over an odd cycle exceeds that of the preceding even cycle. During transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles, hemispherical dynamos are partly observed, too.
The oscillatory dipole solutions show, for high latitudes, poleward migration (“rush to the poles”), and for low latitudes a sort of butterfly diagram in the correct direction, although its form is not completely convincing yet. Further interesting features to be discussed here are a second intensity maximum, comparable to the double peak of the solar dynamo, and the intermediate appearance of reversed helicities in the two hemispheres. The latter fact, which is a direct consequence of the synchronized, oscillatory character of $\alpha$, might be related in the current-helicity observations of [@Zhang2010; @Pipin2013].
In section 4, we will soften the pure Tayler-Spruit principle by combining the periodic part of $\alpha$ with a more standard, non-periodic term that is asymmetric with respect to the equator and only quenched by the toroidal field in the conventional manner. In the limiting case of a conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamo we obtain dipoles or quadrupoles with typical periods between 20 and 40 years. When adding to this standard dynamo our resonant periodic $\alpha$ term, we can easily enslave the dynamo to the 22.14 years periodicity, partly with some intermediate 2:3 synchronization to a 33.21 years period. Remarkably, the amplitude of the oscillatory part of $\alpha$ that is required for this synchronization turns out to be significantly smaller (below 1 m/s) than the typical values needed for the purely non-linear dynamo as discussed above. By increasing the oscillatory part of $\alpha$ we obtain then a sequence of oscillatory quadrupoles, hemispherical dynamos, dipoles with a strong Gnevyshev-Ohl tendency, and regularly oscillating dipoles. When adding some noise to the non-periodic $\alpha$ term, the conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ model and the synchronized “hybrid” model exhibit typical features of a random walk process and a clocked process, respectively, as will be illustrated by Dicke’s ratio.
In section 5, we show how long-term changes of various dynamo parameters (e.g., the portion of the periodic $\alpha$ part or the term which governs field losses by magnetic buoyancy) are capable of producing transitions between dipole and quadrupole fields, a behaviour for which some observational evidence exists from the Maunder minimum [@Sokoloff1994; @Arlt2009; @Moss2017; @Weiss2016]. A robust feature of our synchronization model is the phase coherence which is maintained throughout such transitions.
The paper closes with a summary, a discussion of open questions, including the applicability of the general idea to other $m=1$ instabilities or flow structures, in particular the recently discussed magneto-Rossby waves of the tachocline [@McIntosh2017; @Dikpati2017; @Zaqarashvili2018], and a call for higher dimensional simulations of this type of tidally synchronized solar dynamo model.
The numerical model
===================
In this section we set-up the dynamo model and discuss its numerical implementation. We work with a system of partial differential equations, whose spatial variable is restricted to the solar co-latitude $\theta$. While similar models have been utilized by a number of authors [@Parker1955; @Schmalz1991; @Jennings1991; @Roald1997; @Kuzanyan1997], we use the specific formulation of [@Jennings1991].
We focus on the axisymmetric magnetic field which is split into a poloidal component ${\bf{B}}_P=\nabla \times (A {\bf{e}}_{\phi})$ and a toroidal component ${\bf{B}}_T=B {\bf{e}}_{\phi}$. Introducing the helical turbulence parameter $\alpha$ and the radial derivative $\omega=\sin(\theta) d (\Omega r)/dr$ of the azimuthal velocity, we arrive at the one-dimensional $\alpha - \Omega$ dynamo model $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\partial} B(\theta,t)}{{\partial} t} &=& \omega(\theta,t) \frac{\partial A(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta}
+ \frac{\partial^2 B(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta^2} -\kappa B^3(\theta,t) \\
\frac{{\partial} A(\theta,t) }{{\partial} t} &=& \alpha(\theta,t) B(\theta,t)
+ \frac{\partial^2 A(\theta,t)}{\partial \theta^2} ,
\label{system_tayler}
\end{aligned}$$ wherein $A(\theta,t)$ represents the vector potential of the poloidal field at co-latitude $\theta$ (running between 0 and $\pi$) and time $t$, and $B(\theta,t)$ the corresponding toroidal field. Here, $\alpha$ and $\omega$ denote the non-dimensionalized versions of the dimensional quantities $\alpha_{\rm dim}$ and $\omega_{\rm dim}$, according to $\alpha=\alpha_{\rm dim} R/\eta$ and $\omega=\omega_{\rm dim} R^2/\eta$, where $R$ is the radius of the considered dynamo region (we will later use here the radius of the tachocline) and $\eta$ is the magnetic diffusivity which is connected with the conductivity $\sigma$ via $\eta=1/(\mu_o \sigma)$. The time is non-dimensionalized by the diffusion time, i.e. $t=t_{\rm dim} \eta/R^2$.
The not so familiar term $\kappa B^3(\theta,t)$, as introduced by [@Jones1983; @Jennings1991], has been included to account for losses owing to magnetic buoyancy, on the assumption that the velocity escape is proportional to $B^2$. While this term is not essential for our synchronization model, it may provide a link to the idea of [@Abreu2012] that variations of the adiabaticity, and hence of the field storage capacity, in the tachocline could explain the effect of weak tidal forces on [*long-term*]{} variations of the solar dynamo.
The boundary conditions at the north and south pole are $A(0,t)=A(\pi,t)=B(0,t)=B(\pi,t)=0$.
This PDE system is solved by a finite-difference scheme using the Adams-Bashforth method. We have validated the numerical method by checking the convergence and comparing it with some result of [@Jennings1991] for the paradigmatic case with $\alpha(\theta)=\alpha_0 \cos(\theta)$ and $\omega(\theta)=\omega_0 \sin(\theta)$. Even with such a simple model one can obtain butterfly diagrams, although one has to be careful with their interpretation. Details can be found in the Appendix.
Throughout the rest of the paper, we employ a $\theta$-dependence of the $\omega$-effect in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(\theta)&=&\omega_0 (1-0.939-0.136 \cos^2(\theta)-0.1457 \cos^4(\theta) )\sin(\theta) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ as derived from helioseismological measurements [@Charbonneau1999; @Charbonneau2010]. Note that $\omega(\theta)$ is assumed to be constant in time. We use a plausible value of $\omega_0=10000$ which results from taking the measured 460 nHz frequency at the equator, an estimated tachocline thickness of 1/10 of its approximate radius $R=5 \times 10^8$ m, and an assumed value of $\eta=7.16 \times 10^7$ m$^2$/s. This somewhat peculiar value, which lies close to the upper margin of the commonly used values 10$^6$...10$^8$ m$^2$/s [@Charbonneau2010] corresponds to a diffusion time $\tau=R^2/\eta=110.7$ years, which is just a factor 10 times larger than the period of the tidal forcing.
Much less than for $\omega(\theta)$ is known for the corresponding distribution of the $\alpha$ effect which we, in general, suppose to comprise a non-periodic part $\alpha^c$ and a time-periodic part $\alpha^p$. Their specific forms will be discussed further below.
Synchronizing a pure Tayler-Spruit dynamo model
===============================================
In this section, we illustrate the variety of dynamo solutions that arise under the influence of an $\alpha$-effect that is supposed to oscillate with a 11.07 years period and to have a specific $B$-dependent amplitude which reflects the resonance condition of the periodic tidal trigger with the intrinsic oscillation of the TI-related $\alpha$ effect [@Weber2015; @Stefani2016]. By virtue of this $B$-dependence of $\alpha$, this model can only yield sub-critical dynamo action, a fact that will be proven in the following. The specific effects of combining the periodic $\alpha$-term with a more conventional, non-periodic $\alpha$-term will be assessed in the next section.
Specifying the $\alpha$-effect
------------------------------
The time-periodic part $\alpha^p$ is actually at the root of our synchronization model. A serious uncertainty applies to the $\theta$-dependence of this term in general, and its equatorial symmetry/asymmetry in particular. A closely related issue is its ”smoothing” character, i.e. whether and how $\alpha^p(\theta,t)$ depends also on $B$ at neighbouring latitudes and previous times.
As a first attempt, we will use an $\alpha^p$-dependence on $B$ that is instantaneous in $t$ and local in $\theta$, the latter assumption corresponding to a sort of flux-tube approximation. In reality, some averaging over time and space, realized by integral kernels, seems much more appropriate. Any concretization of this idea is, however, left for future work.
As for the latitudinal symmetry property of $\alpha^p$ we will start with the plausible assumption that it has the same north-south asymmetry as is usually assumed for the non-periodic part. This relies on the observation of [@Ruediger2013] that, under the additional influence of a poloidal field, the helicity of the TI-related $\alpha$-effect is governed by the pseudo-scalar ${\bf B} \cdot \nabla \times {\bf B}$ (rather than by the pseudo-scalar ${\bf g} \cdot \nabla \times {\bf \Omega}$, formed with the stratification vector ${\bf g}$ and the global rotation ${\bf \Omega}$). Although this argument applies, first of all, to the non-oscillatory part of $\alpha$ for which it predicts a positive value in the northern and a negative value in the southern hemisphere, we extend here this equatorial asymmetry also to the oscillatory part. That this is in no way self-evident, and should be scrutinized in future work, can be inferred from the work of [@Proctor2007] who obtains for his fluctuating $\alpha-\Omega$ model an averaged induction term that is [*symmetric*]{} about the equator.
In contrast to [@Ruediger2013], we further assume that $\alpha^p$ is restricted to the $\pm 35^{\circ}$ strip around the equator, since this is the region with positive radial shear where the TI may have time to develop, not being overrun by the faster magnetorotational instability (MRI) that might be dominant in the pole-near regions characterized by negative radial shear [@Kagan2014; @Jouve2015]. While this restriction to the $\pm 35^{\circ}$ strip sounds plausible also with view on the restriction of sunspots to this area, with regard to the key role of the $\pm 55^{\circ}$ latitude region for starting the dynamo cycle [@McIntosh2015], the entire argument might not be that convincing. We will come back to this point in the conclusions.
Thus motivated, we start with the following parametrization for $\alpha^p(\theta,t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^p(\theta,t)&=&\alpha^p_0 \sin(2 \pi t/11.07)
\frac{B^2(\theta,t)}{(1+q^p_{\alpha}
B^4(\theta,t))} S(\theta) \; \mbox{for $55^{\circ}<\theta<125^{\circ}$} \nonumber \\
&=&0 \; \mbox{elsewhere} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where the $B$-dependent term is supposed to have the typical resonance-type structure $\sim B^2/(1+q^p_{\alpha} B^4)$ as already used in the ODE system [@Stefani2016]. Note that the latitudinal dependence $$\begin{aligned}
S(\theta)&=&
{\rm{sgn}}(90^{\circ}-\theta) \nonumber \\
&\times& \left[ 1-\left( 1+\tanh\left( \frac{\theta/180^{\circ}-0.5}{0.2} \right) \right)
\left( 1-\tanh\left( \frac{\theta/180^{\circ}-0.5}{0.2} \right) \right) \right]\end{aligned}$$ comprises a smoothing term around the equator in order to avoid a numerically inconvenient steep jump of $\alpha$ here.
At any rate, $\alpha^p(\theta,t)$ is not pre-given but co-evolves with the solution of the PDE system. For its interpretation we recall the connection to the dimensional value, $\alpha=\alpha_{\dim} R/\eta$, which leads (with $R=5 \times 10^8$ m , $\eta=7.16 \times 10^7$ m$^2$/s) to $\alpha_{\rm dim}=\alpha/6.98 $ m/s. That is, all values shown in the following figures should be divided by a factor 7 to get the physical value $\alpha_{\rm dim}$ in m/s. Note that, since we have used a comparably high value of $\eta$, the resulting values of $\alpha_{\rm dim}$ should be considered an upper limit and might in reality be significantly smaller. The constant term $\alpha^c_0$ is set to a very small, but non-zero value of 0.001.
Since for the sub-critical dynamo type to be studied here the initial conditions play an essential role, we state them explicitly: $$\begin{aligned}
A(\theta,0)&=&s \sin(\theta) + u \sin(2 \theta)\\
B(\theta,0)&=&-s \sin(2 \theta) - u \sin(\theta) \; .\end{aligned}$$ Both pre-factors $s$ and $u$, which denote symmetric and asymmetric components for $A$, are usually set to some non-zero value, in order not to suppress artificially any relevant modes.
The case $\kappa=0$
-------------------
Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_tom\_dipol3\] shows the behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ for the specific parameter choice $\omega_0=10000$, $\kappa=0$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, and the initial conditions $s=3$ and $u=0.001$, when varying the strength of the the periodic $\alpha$ term, i.e $\alpha^p_0$ between 16.1 (a) and 150 (f). Evidently, the dynamo starts only for $\alpha^p_0=16.2$ (b), while it still dies out for the slightly smaller value $\alpha^p_0=16.1$ (a).
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ of the synchronized Tayler-Spruit dynamo with a nearly pure periodic $\alpha^p$ term. The fixed parameters are $\omega_0=10000$, $\kappa=0$, $\alpha^c_0=0.001$ $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, the initial conditions are $s=3$ and $u=0.001$, and the varying parameter is $\alpha^p_0=$ 16.1 (a), 16.2 (b), 16.3 (c), 30 (d), 70 (e), 150 (f). Note that, here and throughout the paper, the ordinate axis represents not the co-latitude $\theta$ but the the normal solar latitude $90^{\circ}-\theta$. []{data-label="Fig:zusa0_tom_dipol3"}](./fig3.eps){width="120mm"}
Also interesting is the distinction between a quadrupole, pulsating with 11.07 years period, that arises for $\alpha^p_0=16.2$ (b), and the pulsating dipole (also with 11.07 years period) into which the field evolves for $\alpha^p_0=16.3$ (c). This pulsating dipole persists then also for the three higher values $\alpha^p_0=$ 30 (d), 70 (e), 150 (f).
Some detailed features of this dynamo behaviour are illustrated in Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_faccsi10\_dipol3\_tom\] for another value $\alpha^p_0=100$ (which would lie between panels (e) and (f) of Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_tom\_dipol3\]). Complementary to $B$ (a), the poloidal field $A$ (b) shows clearly the pulsating dipolar field structure. While $\omega$ (c) is kept constant over time, the behaviour of $\alpha(\theta,t)$ (d) is more interesting: Restricted, by construction, to the $\pm 35^{\circ}$ strip around the equator (i.e. $55^{\circ}<\theta<125^{\circ}$), it exhibits typical sign changes in both hemispheres, a feature that could possibly be linked to the reversed current helicity as intermittently observed on the sun [@Zhang2010].
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ (a), $A(\theta,t)$ (b), $\omega(\theta,t)$ (c), and $\alpha(\theta,t)$ (d). Parameters as in Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_tom\_dipol3\], but with $\alpha^p_0=100$.[]{data-label="Fig:zusa0_faccsi10_dipol3_tom"}](./fig4.eps){width="120mm"}
The case $\kappa \ne 0$
-----------------------
Up to this point, the final state of the dynamo was, somewhat disappointing, either a pulsating quadrupole or a pulsating dipole. In the following we will also find oscillatory dipoles when going over to $\kappa \ne 0$, i.e. when allowing for some magnetic field loss due to rising flux tubes. The results are illustrated for the specific choice $\kappa=1$. With all remaining parameters unchanged (i.e. $\omega_0=10000$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $s=3$ and $u=0.001$), Figure \[Fig:zusa1\_tom\_dipol3\] shows the behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ when varying the amplitude of $\alpha^p_0$ now between 21.2 (a) and 150 (f). Evidently, since the additional field losses have to be compensated, the dynamo starts now only for $\alpha^p_0=21.5$ (b), while dying out for the slightly smaller value $\alpha^p_0=21.2$ (a).
Whereas for $\alpha^p_0=21.5$ (b) and $\alpha^p_0=23$ (c) the initially prescribed dipole finally gives way to a quadrupole oscillating with 22.14 years period, for $\alpha^p_0=50$ (d) it recovers after a short excursion (between 110...130 years) to a hemispherical and quadrupolar mode. While such spontaneous dipole-quadrupole transitions are found here only in certain parameter regions, we will later see that they can be easily triggered by changing such parameters as the amplitude of $\alpha^p$ or the loss parameter $\kappa$. For $\alpha^p_0=70$ (e) and $\alpha^p_0=150$ (f) we obtain very regular dipole oscillations, although in either case with a clear Gnevyshev-Ohl tendency.
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ of the synchronized Tayler-Spruit dynamo with a periodic $\alpha^p$ term. The fixed parameters are $\omega_0=10000$, $\kappa=1$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, the initial conditions are $s=3$ and $u=0.001$, and the varying parameter is $\alpha^p_0=$ 21.2 (a), 21.5 (b), 23 (c), 50 (d), 70 (e), 150 (f). []{data-label="Fig:zusa1_tom_dipol3"}](./fig5.eps){width="120mm"}
Again, we illustrate in Figure \[Fig:zusa1\_faccsi10\_dipol3\_tom\] the detailed behaviour for the particular value $\alpha^p_0=100$, which lies between panels (e) and (f) of Figure \[Fig:zusa1\_tom\_dipol3\]. Actually, the results exhibit some interesting features which are not untypical for the sun. First, (a) shows for high latitudes the typical “rush to the poles”, while for low latitudes we see a sort of butterfly slightly tending equator-ward. Admittedly, the shape of this butterfly is not convincing yet, and it remains to be seen whether this shape can be improved in higher-dimensional simulations, including also the meridional circulation.
Second, the Gnevyshev-Ohl tendency becomes clearly visible with the “blue field” in the northern hemisphere being stronger than the “red field” (and vice versa in the southern hemisphere). Closely related to that feature, the $\alpha$ values in (d) show also some symmetry breaking between positive and negative values.
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ (a), $A(\theta,t)$ (b), $\omega(\theta,t)$ (c), and $\alpha(\theta,t)$ (d). Parameters as in Figure \[Fig:zusa1\_tom\_dipol3\], but with $\alpha^p_0=100$. []{data-label="Fig:zusa1_faccsi10_dipol3_tom"}](./fig6.eps){width="120mm"}
The subcritical character of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo
-----------------------------------------------------
Now we address the subcritical nature of the dynamo which is, in terms of a high sensitivity on the initial conditions, illustrated in Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_faccsi10\_subcritical\]. We choose again $\omega_0=10000$, $\kappa=0$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $u=0.001$, but vary now the initial value of the dipole strength $s$ in a narrow interval between 0.707 and 0.73. The value of $\alpha^p_0=100$ is chosen to lie between 70 (Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_tom\_dipol3\](e)) and 150 (Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_tom\_dipol3\](f)). Remarkably, the dynamo starts only when $s \ge 0.708$ (b), while the slightly weaker initial perturbation $s=0.707$ (a) dies away at large times. Further to this, between $s=0.729$ (c) and $s=0.73$ (d) the dynamo field changes from a pulsating quadrupole to a pulsating dipole.
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ of the synchronized $\alpha-\Omega$ model with the fixed values $\Omega_0=10000$, $\alpha^p_0=100$, $\kappa=0$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $u=0.001$ and the variable initial conditions $s$ 0.707 (a), 0.708 (b), 0.729 (c) and 0.73 (d).[]{data-label="Fig:zusa0_faccsi10_subcritical"}](./fig7.eps){width="120mm"}
The subcritical behaviour is summarized in Figure \[Fig:grenze\_zusammen\] which shows the dynamo threshold in the $\alpha^p_0-s$ plane, for the three specific loss parameters $\kappa=0$, 0.5 and 1. Each of the points in this graphic has been determined by evaluating the dynamo/non-dynamo behaviour at a few points in its vicinity. For large values of $\alpha^p_0$ we obtain the typical subcritical $s \sim (\alpha^p_0)^{-0.5}$ behaviour, which means that the necessary initial condition can be lowered (with the square-root) when the dynamo strength is increased. Also typical for a subcritical bifurcation is the “rugged” left boundary, which is reminiscent of a similar fractal shape found for pipe flows [@Eckhardt2008]. We only mention here that a similar subcritical behaviour can also be obtained, with less numerical effort, for the ODE case.
![Stability boundaries in the $\alpha^p_0-s$ plane, for the three values $\kappa=0$, 0.5 and 1 and $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $u=0.001$. Note the left “rugged” boundary at low values of $\alpha^p_0$. For large values of $\alpha^p_0$, the boundary converges to $s \sim (\alpha^p_0)^{-0.5}$. []{data-label="Fig:grenze_zusammen"}](./fig8.eps){width="100mm"}
Synchronizing a hybrid dynamo
=============================
Having verified the subcritical nature of the pure Tayler-Spruit model, we will now reinstate the effect of the more traditional part of $\alpha$ which we parametrize, for the sake of convenience, as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^c(\theta,t)&=&\alpha^c_0(1+\xi(t)) \sin(2 \theta)
\frac{1}{(1+q^c_{\alpha} B^2(\theta,t))} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha^c_0$ is a constant and $\xi(t)$ denotes a noise term to be specified further below. The factor $\sin(2 \theta)$ ensures the typical north-south asymmetry as it is often assumed for conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamos. Interestingly, the same symmetry argument would also apply to a TI-related, non-oscillatory $\alpha$ term under the influence of an additional poloidal field [@Ruediger2013]. In a sense, any such contribution could be consistently absorbed into Equation (8).
Noise-free case
---------------
Let us start with the noise-free case, i.e. $\alpha^n_0=0$, for which we consider first a purely conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamo, by skipping the periodic part completely, i.e. by choosing $\alpha^p_0=0$. Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_facco\_facsi0\_tom\_dipol1\] shows the time evolution for increasing intensity of the constant part, i.e. $\alpha^c_0=$ 0.6 (a), 0.8 (b), 1 (c), 4 (d), 10 (e) and 40 (f). The other parameters are $\omega_0=10000$, $q^c_{\alpha}=0.8$, $\kappa=0.5$. While the field clearly dies out for $\alpha^c_0=0.6$ (a), for $\alpha^c_0=0.8$ it seems to recover very slowly, and for $\alpha^c_0=1$, we get a clear dynamo with an oscillatory quadrupole which also prevails for $\alpha^c_0=4$ (d) and $\alpha^c_0=10$ (e). At $\alpha^c_0=40$ (e), the dynamo field undergoes several changes and ends up in a dipole field pulsating with a period of approximately 27 years. Note that we have here extended the time period to 500 years in order to show all relevant transitions which are partly very slow.
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ of the traditional $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamo without periodic term, i.e. with $\alpha^p_0=0$. The fixed parameters are $\omega_0=10000$, $\kappa=0.5$, $q^c_{\alpha}=0.8$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, the initial conditions are $s=1$ and $u=0.001$, and the varying parameter is $\alpha^c_0=$ 0.6 (a), 0.8 (b), 1 (c), 4 (d), 10 (e), 40 (f). []{data-label="Fig:zusa0_facco_facsi0_tom_dipol1"}](./fig9.eps){width="120mm"}
What happens now if we complement this standard $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamo with the periodic $\alpha$ term? For the four specific choices $\alpha^c_0=$ 1, 4, 10, 40 (cp. Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_facco\_facsi0\_tom\_dipol1\] (c-f)), we show in Figure \[Fig:resonanz\_alle\] the resulting dynamo period when cranking up the value of $\alpha^p_0$. For each considered value of $\alpha^c_0$, we ultimately obtain a clear synchronization to 22.14 years when the value of $\alpha^p_0$ reaches a certain critical value. In cases that the original period is higher ($\alpha^c_0=$ 1 and 4), we also observe an intermediate 2:3 synchronization to a 33.21 years period. Remarkably, the value of $\alpha^p_0$, where the final synchronization to 22.14 years is accomplished, can be significantly smaller than the typical $\alpha^p_0$ needed for the pure Tayler-Spruit dynamo to start (cp. Figure \[Fig:grenze\_zusammen\]).
![Resonance with the external frequency when increasing $\alpha^p_0$, for 4 different values of $\alpha^c_0=$ 1, 4, 10, 40, whose $\alpha^p_0=0$ limit corresponds to panels (c), (d), (e) and (f) of Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_facco\_facsi0\_tom\_dipol1\], respectively. []{data-label="Fig:resonanz_alle"}](./fig10.eps){width="80mm"}
For the specific value $\alpha^c_0=4$ (cp. the green line in Figure \[Fig:resonanz\_alle\]), Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_facco04\_facsi\_tom\_dipol1\] illustrates the complexities of this synchronization. While for the low value $\alpha^p_0=$ 1 (a) we obtain the nearly unperturbed oscillatory quadrupole, $\alpha^p_0=$ 4 (b) yields now the intermediate 2:3 synchronization into a fluctuating quadrupole. Shortly after leaving this 2:3 synchronization regime, $\alpha^p_0=$ 6 (c) provides a sort of hemispherical field with 22.14 years period, whose dominating hemisphere is, however, changing with an approximately 200 years periodicity. Increasing $\alpha^p_0$ further to 10 (d), we observe a dipole oscillating with a strong Gnevyshev-Ohl tendency. $\alpha^p_0=50$ produces a wild transition between oscillatory dipoles and pulsating quadrupoles at later times. Very regular dipole oscillations appear then at $\alpha^p_0=150$. This way, we obtain a transition from the conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamo via a hybrid dynamo to a (nearly) pure Tayler-Spruit dynamo, and synchronization starts at a certain share of the oscillatory part of $\alpha$.
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ of the traditional $\alpha-\Omega$ combined with increasing $\alpha^p_0$. The fixed parameters are $\omega_0=10000$, $\kappa=0.5$, $q^c_{\alpha}=0.8$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $\alpha^c_0=4$, the initial conditions are $s=1$ and $u=0.001$, and the varying parameter is $\alpha^p_0=$ 1 (a), 4 (b), 6 (c), 10 (d), 50 (e), 150 (f). []{data-label="Fig:zusa0_facco04_facsi_tom_dipol1"}](./fig11.eps){width="120mm"}
More details of this hybrid dynamo behaviour can be seen in Figure \[Fig:zusa05\_facco04\_faccsi1k2\_dipol1\_tom\], documenting the special case $\alpha^c_0=4$ and $\alpha^p_0=12$ (similar to Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_facco04\_facsi\_tom\_dipol1\]d). Here the direction of the butterfly diagram for low latitudes is not very well expressed. Quite interesting is the $\alpha$ effect of panel (d) which shows now, not surprisingly due to the presence of $\alpha^c$, a preponderance of positive values in the northern, and negative values in the southern hemisphere. The remaining oscillatory part, which has a reasonable amplitude of approximately 0.5 m/s (recall the necessary division by 7 to get the physical values), is sufficient to synchronize the entire dynamo.
Another interesting aspect becomes visible in Figure \[Fig:zusa05\_facco04\_faccsi1k2\_dipol1\_tom\](a,b), and is quantified in detail in Figure \[Fig:b40a40\] which shows $B(\theta=72^{\circ},t)$ and $A(\theta=72^{\circ},t)$. It refers to the occurrence of a double peak of the field amplitude, which is even clearer expressed in the poloidal field $A$ than in the toroidal field $B$. This double peak is a quite typical feature of the solar dynamo and has been discussed, e.g., in [@Karak2018]. It might also be worthwhile to check the relation of this double peak to the so-called ”mid-term”periodicities (between 0.5 and 4 years) of the solar activity, as found and discussed by several authors [@Obridko2007; @Valdes2008; @McIntosh2015; @Bazilevskaya2016].
![Behaviour of $B(\theta,t)$ (a), $A(\theta,t)$ (b), $\omega(\theta,t)$ (c), and $\alpha(\theta,t)$ (d). Parameters as in Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_facco04\_facsi\_tom\_dipol1\], but with $\alpha^p_0=12$. []{data-label="Fig:zusa05_facco04_faccsi1k2_dipol1_tom"}](./fig12.eps){width="120mm"}
![Detail of Figure \[Fig:zusa05\_facco04\_faccsi1k2\_dipol1\_tom\] for $B(\theta=72^{\circ},t)$ (left) and $A(\theta=72^{\circ},t)$ (right) for various values of $\alpha^p_0$. []{data-label="Fig:b40a40"}](./fig13.eps){width="120mm"}
The role of noise
-----------------
Having seen that a conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ dynamo with an intrinsic frequency can be synchronized by adding a periodic $\alpha$ term, we ask now about the specific influence of noise on the behaviour of these two types of models. In either case, we augment the non-periodic part of $\alpha$ by a noise term $\xi(t)$ defined by the correlator $\langle \xi(t) \xi(t+t_1) \rangle = D^2 (1-|t_1|/t_{\rm corr})
\Theta(1-|t_1|/t_{\rm corr})$, which is numerically realized by random numbers with variance $D^2$ which are held constant over a correlation time $t_{\rm corr}$. In the following, we will choose, somewhat arbitrarily, $t_{\rm corr}=0.55$ years, which is at any rate significantly shorter than the solar cycle. We start with a pure $\alpha-\Omega$ model with $\alpha^p_0=0$, $\alpha^c_0=10$, $\omega_0=10000$, $q^c_{\alpha}=0.8$, $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $\kappa=0.5$, which corresponds to the leftmost point of the blue curve in Figure \[Fig:resonanz\_alle\]. For $D=0.3$, the rightmost curves (marked by circles) of Figure \[Fig:noise\](a) illustrate three specific noise realizations, which all exhibit long-term, large-amplitude excursions around their linear trends (note that we have used, for the sake of easy comparison, the same scales as in Figure \[Fig:vergleich\]). Dicke’s ratio for these three curves is shown then, using the same colours, in Figure \[Fig:noise\](b). Despite large deviations of the individual curves, we observe a clear resemblance to the $\sim N/15$ dependence as typical for a random walk process.
Things are different, though, for the hybrid dynamo. In addition to the parameters indicated above, we choose now $\alpha^p_0=5$, which lies well in the synchronized part of the blue curve of Figure \[Fig:resonanz\_alle\]. The resulting three leftmost time-series (marked by squares) in Figure \[Fig:noise\](a) now remain much closer to the linear trend, without undergoing long-term excursions. It is evident, however, that the noise alleviates any [*local*]{} clocking with the periodic forcing, while the [*global*]{} clocking is well maintained. Unsurprisingly, Dicke’s ratio for these time series in Figure \[Fig:noise\](b) is quite close to the ideal curve for a clocked process. This clear difference between a random walk process and a clocked process, as evidenced in our two numerical models, makes it indeed worthwhile to validate or improve Schove’s data on which the curves in Figures \[Fig:vergleich\] and \[Fig:dicke\] were based on.
![The role of noise for the conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ and the hybrid dynamo model. (a) Deviations of the time series from linear functions of the cycle number for three noise realizations in either case. For the conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ the three time series (with circles, on the right side) undergo long-term excursions, while the time-series for the hybrid dynamo (with squares, on the left side) remain much closer to the linear trend. (b) Dicke’s ratio in dependence on the number $N$ of cycles taken into account, for a random walk process (green line, converging towards $N/15$), a clocked process (blue line, converging towards 0.5), and the two triples of time series as shown in (a). []{data-label="Fig:noise"}](./fig14.eps){width="120mm"}
Modeling grand minima
=====================
In contrast to the idea of a [*hard synchronization*]{} of the basic Hale cycle with planetary tidal forces, as pursued in this paper, much more interest is commonly devoted to the possibility of a [*soft modulations*]{} of the solar activity, with particular focus on the Gleissberg, Suess-de Vries, Hallstadt, and Eddy cycles [@Jose1965; @Charvatova1997; @Abreu2012; @Wolf2010; @Scafetta2010; @Scafetta2014; @McCracken2014; @Cionco2015; @Scafetta2016]. While far from being settled (see, e.g., [@Cameron2013] for a critical assessment), any such planetary influence could have enormous consequences for the predictability not only of the solar dynamo but, possibly, of the terrestrial climate, too [@Hoyt1997; @Gray2010; @Solanki2013; @Scafetta2013; @Ruzmaikin2015; @Soon2014]. It is, therefore, worthwhile to figure out whether our model can explain modulations of the solar cycle, including extreme cases such as the Maunder and other grand minima.
We had already seen above (Figure \[Fig:zusa1\_tom\_dipol3\]d and Figure \[Fig:zusa0\_facco04\_facsi\_tom\_dipol1\]e) that for some parameter choices transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles can even occur spontaneously, which indicates a high sensitivity of the corresponding dynamo with respect to minor parameter variations. Based on this observation, we study here the transition between the two field topologies when allowing the ratio of $\alpha^p$ to $\alpha^c$ to vary with a long period, for which we take here 550 years just for the sake of concreteness (at a comparably 506 years period, [@Abreu2012] found a peak both in the solar modulation potential and the annually averaged planetary torque modulus).
Using the fixed parameters $\omega_0=10000$, $\alpha^c_0=1$, $\kappa=1$ $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $q^c_{\alpha}=0.8$. we consider now $\alpha^p_0$ in Equation (4) as time-dependent and vary its value between 27 and 90 according to $\alpha^p_0(t)=90(1-0.7 \sin^2(2 \pi t/1100))$. This function has maxima at $t=$ 0, 550 and 1100, and minima at $t=$ 225 and 775. Figure \[Fig:maunder1\] shows the results: at the first minimum of $\alpha^p_0$, around t=225, the dipolar field is just weakened and does not undergo a transition to a quadrupole, while exactly this happens at the second minimum, after t=775, where the dipole shortly vanishes and gives way to a quadrupole field before coming back again around $t=900$. This difference in behaviour at the first and second minimum of $\alpha^p_0$ again indicates a high sensitivity of these transitions. Note that in particular the transition between quadrupole and dipole looks similar to that after the Maunder minimum ([@Arlt2009; @Moss2017]).
Most important here is the phase memory during all these transitions. This feature brings us back to the amazing persistence of the solar cycle, even during the Maunder minimum, as it was demonstrated in Figure \[Fig:vergleich\].
![Transitions between dipole and quadrupole fields when varying $\alpha^p_0$ according to $\alpha^p_0(t)=90(1-0.7 \sin^2(2 \pi t/1100))$. The fixed parameters are $\Omega_0=10000$, $\alpha^c_0=1$, $\kappa=1$ $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $q^c_{\alpha}=0.8$.[]{data-label="Fig:maunder1"}](./fig15.eps){width="120mm"}
Figure \[Fig:maunder2\] shows a similar result which we obtain when varying the loss term $\kappa B^3$ in Equation (1). As noticed above, that term is supposed to account for the field losses due to magnetic buoyancy. Variations of this term might, therefore, be related to variations of the adiabaticity, and hence of the field storage capacity, in the tachocline, an effect that was proposed by [@Abreu2012] to explain the effect of weak tidal forces on (long-term) variations of the solar dynamo. Again we see that these variations can lead to transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles. This means that, while only a synchronization of $\alpha$ seems to be strong enough to accomplish the ”hard synchronization” of the basic Hale cycle, there is still a good chance that the long-term variations of the solar cycle may also result from tidal effects on the adiabaticity in the tachocline.
![Transitions between dipole and quadrupole fields when varying $\kappa$ according to $\kappa(t)=1 (1-0.6 \sin^2(2 \pi t/1100))$. The fixed parameters are $\Omega_0=10000$, $\alpha^c_0=4$, $\alpha^p_0(t)=100$ $q^p_{\alpha}=0.2$, $q^c_{\alpha}=0.8$.[]{data-label="Fig:maunder2"}](./fig16.eps){width="120mm"}
Discussion and outlook
======================
As a sequel to our previous studies [@Stefani2016; @Stefani2018], this paper was concerned with the spatio-temporal behaviour of a tidally synchronized dynamo of the Tayler-Spruit type, and its combination with a more conventional $\alpha-\Omega$-dynamo. Utilizing a solar-like latitudinal dependence of the $\Omega$-effect, and assuming a plausible latitudinal dependence of the TI-related, periodic $\alpha$-effect, we have regularly found dipole or quadrupole fields with 22.14 years periodic oscillations or 11.07 years periodic pulsations. Intermediate states between oscillations and pulsations, reminiscent of the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule, as well as hemispherical fields, were observed, too. Under the influence of noise, the synchronized model maintained its character as a (globally) clocked process, while a conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ model had much closer resemblance to a random walk process.
With appropriate changes of the relative weights of the periodic and the non-periodic $\alpha$-terms, or by varying the loss term accounting for magnetic buoyancy, it was easily possible to induce transitions between different field topologies, while maintaining phase coherence during all those transitions. The subcritical nature of the pure Tayler-Spruit type model was confirmed, too.
The considered “hybrid” version of our synchronized dynamo, which builds on the conventional $\alpha-\Omega$ concept and requires only weak periodic $\alpha$ forcing for synchronization, is quite attractive for the following reason: In the context of analyzing the two branches of main-sequence stars, separated by the Vaughan-Preston gap (around 2-3 Gyr, [@Vaughan1980]), the Sun appears as an ordinary, slowly rotating (older) star showing a typical activity period in the usual 10 years range, in contrast to faster rotating younger stars which show partly a shorter and strongly varying (7.6$\pm$4.9 years) periodicity, but in general a rather irregular temporal behavior [@Soon1993; @Olah2016]. A bold explanation for the relation between cycle period and rotation period, as observed for older stars, would have to assert that all of them were synchronized by a similar mechanism as discussed here. Since this scenario is rather unlikely (all those stars would need planetary systems with a dominant tidal periodicity in the same order of 10 years), we are in no way opposed to traditional dynamo concepts yielding typical activity periods in the order of 10 years. We suggest, however, that in particular cases such as our sun, those conventional dynamos could be synchronized by planetary tidal forcing. Our hybrid version thus remedies the general fitting of our Sun into the cycle period/rotation period relation of older stars with the specific synchronization of the Sun’s dynamo as suggested by the time series of Figure 1 and the remarkable behaviour of Dicke’s ratio shown in Figure 2. Unfortunately, similar statistical arguments as for the sun, which are based on tens or even hundreds of cycles, can not be inferred from the much shorter databases as available for other stars [@Soon1993; @Olah2016].
Two interesting features, which were already salient in the zero-dimensional model of [@Stefani2016], have been confirmed in the 1D model: these are the appearance of a double peak of the field (best seen in the poloidal field), and the intermediate emergence of reversed helicities in the two hemispheres. Both effects can indeed be related to corresponding observational facts.
Hence, our Tayler-Spruit type dynamo model, based on a tidally synchronized TI-related $\alpha$-effect, might have acquired greater plausibility by evincing a number of spatio-temporal features which are typical for the solar magnetic field. We hope that these results are promising enough to motivate more advanced 2D or 3D simulations. It remains to be seen whether the evident weaknesses of the model, in particular the unconvincing shape of butterfly diagram, can be mitigated by such advanced modelling. Just as more traditional concepts of the solar dynamo, our model might still require an enhancement by meridional circulation in order to show butterfly diagrams in their full beauty. It is here where also the specific role of the $\pm 55^{\circ}$ latitude region for starting the dynamo cycle [@McIntosh2015] might find an explanation, which could not be provided by our simple 1D model.
Finally, we would also point out that the main idea of our model, that the helicity of a $m=1$ instability might be synchronized even by a weak periodic $m=2$ tidal perturbation, with the energy content of the instability being essentially unchanged, is not necessarily restricted to the very Tayler instability but might well be applicable to other $m=1$ instabilities or flow features, too. A preliminary study has shown, for example, a comparable synchronization effect for the $m=1$ dominated Large Scale Circulation (LSC) in Rayleigh-Bénard convection [@Galindo]. Similar synchronization mechanisms have been discussed in connection with the $m=1$ eigenmode in the von-Kármán-sodium (VKS) dynamo experiment [@Giesecke2012; @Giesecke2017]. It seems also worthwhile to examine the same $\alpha$ synchronization concept to the recently discussed Rossby waves of the tachocline [@McIntosh2017; @Dikpati2017; @Zaqarashvili2018]. The strong dependence of these waves on the gravity parameter would bring back into play the concept of a tidal influence on the adiabaticity as proposed by [@Abreu2012].
Finally, we notice that a completely new perspective for synchronization may arise from the recent observation that positive shear flows, such as in the equator-near parts of the tachocline, are susceptible to a new kind of axisymmetric, double-diffusive MRI, as long as both azimuthal and axial fields are present [@Mama2018].
This work was supported in frame of the Helmholtz - RSF Joint Research Group ”Magnetohydrodynamic instabilities”, contract number HRSF-0044. We would like to thank Norbert Weber for his numerical work on the tidal synchronization of helicity oscillations. Inspiring discussions with Jürg Beer, Antonio Ferriz Mas, Peter Frick, Laurène Jouve, Günther Rüdiger, Dmitry Sokoloff and Teimuraz Zaqarashvili on various aspects of the solar dynamo are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Willie Soon for pointing out the importance of mid-term fluctuations, and for valuable comments on the sun-star connection problem. We highly appreciate the constructive criticism of the anonymous reviewer which prompted us to significantly revise the paper.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest {#disclosure-of-potential-conflicts-of-interest .unnumbered}
=============================================
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this appendix, we validate our numerical model by considering again the model of [@Jennings1991] which includes a (not very physical) quenching of the $\Omega$-effect by the back-reaction of the magnetic field in the specific form $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(\theta,t)&=&\omega_0 \sin(\theta)/(1+q_{\omega} B^2(\theta,t)) \; ,\end{aligned}$$ while leaving the $\alpha$-effect unaffected. Fixing $\alpha_0=-1$ and the quenching parameter $q_{\omega}=1$, Figure \[Fig:testrun\] shows the arising spatio-temporal dynamo behaviour for two different values $\omega_0=170$ (a,b,c) and $\omega_0=250$ (d,e,f). The first row (a,d) shows $B(\theta,t)$, the second row shows $A(\theta,t)$, and the third row shows $\omega(\theta,t)$ (we skip $\alpha(\theta)= \alpha_0 \cos(\theta)$ because it is time-independent). Interestingly, depending on the value of $\omega_0$, the system develops a butterfly diagram pointing either away from (a) or towards (d) the equator. In either case, the direction follows basically the isolines of $\omega$, see (c) and (f), according to a theorem by [@Yoshimura1975].
![Spatio-temporal behaviour of a simple $\alpha-\Omega$ model with pure $\Omega$-quenching, for two different intensities of the differential rotation, $\omega_0=170$ (a-c), and $\omega_0=250$ (d-f). The upper two panels (a,d) show $B(\theta,t)$, the central two panels (b,e) show $A(\theta,t)$, the lower two panels (c,f) show $\omega(\theta,t)$. Note the ”wrong” butterfly direction for $\omega_0=170$ (a), and the correct direction for $\omega_0=250$ (d). In either case, the toroidal flux (a,d) is mainly transported along the isolines of $\omega(\theta,t)$ (see c,f), according to Yoshimuras rule. []{data-label="Fig:testrun"}](./fig17.eps){width="120mm"}
[59]{} \#1[ISBN \#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[*\#1*]{}\#1[**\#1**]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1\#1\#2\#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[[](http://dx.doi.org/#1)]{} \#1[[](http://arxiv.org/abs/#1)]{} \#1[[](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/#1)]{}\#1\#1\#1\#1\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}\#1[\#1]{}
, , , , : , , .
: , . , .
, : , . , .
, , : , . , .
: , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, : , . , .
, , : , . , .
, : , [No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity]{}. *Astron. Astrophys.* , .
, , , , , , : [1999]{}, [Helioseismic constraints on the structure of the solar tachocline]{}. *Astrophys. J.* , .
: [2010]{}, [Dynamo models of the solar cycle]{}. *[Liv. Rev. Solar Phys.]{}* , .
: , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, : , . , .
, : , . , .
, : , , .
: , , .
, , , : , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, , : , . , .
: , .
, , : , . , .
, , : , . , .
, , : , . , .
, : , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , : , . , .
: , . ,
: , . ,
: , ,
, : , , , .
: , . , .
, : , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
, , : , . , .
, : , . , .
, , : , .
, : , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, , : , . , .
: , . , .
, , , : , . , .
: , . , .
, : , . , .
, : , . , .
, , , , , , : , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
, , , , : , , .
: , . , .
, , , , : , . , .
, : , . , .
, : , . , .
: , . , .
, : , . , .
, , : , , , .
, , , : , . , .
, : , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, : , . , .
: , . , .
: , , , .
, , , , , , : , . , .
, : , , .
, , : , . , .
, , : , . , .
, , , , , , , , , , : , . , .
: , . , .
, : , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, , , : , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
, , . , .
, , . , .
, , , , : , . , .
, , , : , . , .
, : , . , .
, , , : , . , .
: , . , .
: , . , .
, : , . , .
: , . (), .
: , , , .
: , . , .
, , : , . , .
: , . , .
, , , , , , : , . , .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a phenomenological model for the thermal leakage injection in the diffusive shock acceleration (DSA) process, in which suprathermal protons and electrons near the shock transition zone are assumed to have the so-called $\kappa$-distributions produced by interactions of background thermal particles with pre-existing and/or self-excited plasma/MHD waves or turbulence. The $\kappa$-distribution has a power-law tail, instead of an exponential cutoff, well above the thermal peak momentum. So there are a larger number of potential seed particles with momentum, above that required for participation in the DSA process. As a result, the injection fraction for the $\kappa$-distribution depends on the shock Mach number much less severely compared to that for the Maxwellian distribution. Thus, the existence of $\kappa$-like suprathermal tails at shocks would ease the problem of extremely low injection fractions, especially for electrons and especially at weak shocks such as those found in the intracluster medium. We suggest that the injection fraction for protons ranges $10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ for a $\kappa$-distribution with $10 \la \kappa_p \la 30$ at quasi-parallel shocks, while the injection fraction for electrons becomes $10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ for a $\kappa$-distribution with $\kappa_e \la 2$ at quasi-perpendicular shocks. For such $\kappa$ values the ratio of cosmic ray electrons to protons naturally becomes $K_{e/p}\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}$, which is required to explain the observed ratio for Galactic cosmic rays.'
author:
- 'Hyesung Kang$^1$, Vahé Petrosian$^2$, Dongsu Ryu$^3$ and T. W. Jones$^4$'
title: 'Injection of $\kappa$-like Suprathermal Particles into Diffusive Shock Acceleration'
---
Introduction
============
Acceleration of nonthermal particles is ubiquitous at astrophysical collisionless shocks, such as interplanetary shocks in the solar wind, supernova remnant (SNR) shocks in the interstellar medium (ISM) and structure formation shocks in the intracluster medium (ICM) [@blaeic87; @jones91; @ryuetal03]. Plasma physical processes operating at collisionless shocks, such as excitation of waves via plasma instabilities and ensuing wave-particle interactions, depend primarily on the shock magnetic field obliquity as well as on the sonic and Alfvénic Mach numbers, $M_s$ and $M_A$, respectively. Collisionless shocks can be classified into two categories by the obliquity angle, $\Theta_{BN}$, the angle between the upstream mean magnetic field and the shock normal: quasi-parallel ($\Theta_{BN} \la 45^{\circ}$) and quasi-perpendicular ($\Theta_{BN} \ga 45^{\circ}$). Diffusive shock acceleration (DSA) at strong SNR shocks with $M_s \sim M_A \sim
10-100$ is reasonably well understood, especially for the quasi-parallel regime, and it has been tested via radio-to-$\gamma$-ray observations of nonthermal emissions from accelerated cosmic ray (CR) protons and electrons [see @dru83; @blaeic87; @hill05; @reynolds12 for reviews]. On the contrary, DSA at weak shocks in the ICM ($M_s\sim 2-3$, $M_A\sim 10$) is rather poorly understood, although its signatures have apparently been observed in a number of radio relic shocks [e.g. @wrbh10; @feretti12; @krj12; @brunetti2014]. At the same time, [*in situ*]{} measurements of Earth’s bow shock, or traveling shocks in the interplanetary medium (IPM) with spacecrafts have provided crucial insights and tests for plasma physical processes related with DSA at shocks with moderate Mach numbers ($M_s\sim M_A \la 10$) [e.g. @shimada99; @oka06; @zank07; @masters13].
Table 1 compares characteristic parameters for plasmas in the IPM, ISM (warm phase), and ICM to highlight their similarities and differences. Here the plasma beta $\beta_p~(=P_g/P_B\propto n_H T/B_0^2$) is the ratio of the thermal to magnetic pressures, so the magnetic field pressure is dynamically more important in lower beta plasmas. The plasma alpha is defined as the ratio of the electron plasma frequency to cyclotron frequency: $$\alpha_p~= {\omega_{pe}\over \Omega_{ce}} = \frac{2\pi r_{ge}}{\lambda_{De}}
\approx {{\sqrt{m_e/m_p}\cdot c} \over v_A}
\propto {\sqrt{n_e}\over B_0},$$ where $r_{ge}$ is the electron gyroradius, and $\lambda_{De}$ is the electron Debye length, $v_A=B_0/\sqrt{4\pi \rho}$ is the Alfvén speed. Plasma wave-particle interactions and ensuing stochastic acceleration are more significant in lower alpha plasmas [e.g. @pryadko97]. Among the three kinds of plasmas in Table 1, the ICM with the highest $\beta_p$ has dynamically least significant magnetic fields, but, with the smallest $\alpha_p$, plasma interactions are expected to be most important there. The last three columns of Table 1 show typical shock speeds, sonic Mach numbers, and Alfvénic Mach numbers for interplanetary shocks near 1 AU, SNR shocks and ICM shocks.
This paper focuses on the injection of suprathermal particles into the DSA process at astrophysical shocks. Since the shock thickness is of the order of the gyroradius of postshock thermal protons, only suprathermal particles (both protons and electrons) with momentum $p\ga p_{\rm inj}\approx (3-4) p_{\rm th,p}$ can re-cross to the shock upstream and participate in the DSA process [e.g. @kjg02]. Here, $p_{\rm th,p}=\sqrt{2m_p k_B T_2}$ is the most probable momentum of thermal protons with postshock temperature $T_2$ and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. Hereafter, we use the subscripts ‘1’ and ‘2’ to denote the conditions upstream and downstream of shock, respectively. At quasi-parallel shocks, in the so-called [*thermal injection leakage*]{} model, protons leaking out of the [*postshock*]{} thermal pool are assumed to interact with magnetic field fluctuations and become the CR population [e.g. @maldru01; @kjg02]. In a somewhat different interpretation based on hybrid plasma simulations, protons reflected off the shock transition layer are thought to form a beam of streaming particles, which in turn excite resonant waves that scatter particles into the DSA process [e.g. @quest88; @guo13]. At quasi-perpendicular shocks, on the other hand, the self-excitation of waves is ineffective and the injection of suprathermal protons is suppressed significantly [@capri13], unless there exists pre-existing MHD turbulence in the background plasma [@giacalone05; @zank06].
Assuming that downstream electrons and protons have the same kinetic temperature ($T_e\approx T_p$), for a Maxwellian distribution there will be fewer electrons than protons that will have momenta above the required injection momentum. Thus electrons must be pre-accelerated from the thermal momentum ($p_{\rm
th,e}=(m_e/m_p)^{1/2} p_{\rm th,p}$) to the injection momentum ($p_{\rm inj}\approx (130-170) p_{\rm th,e}$) in order to take part in the DSA process. Contrary to the case of protons, which are effectively injected at quasi-parallel shocks, according to [*in situ*]{} observations made by spacecrafts, electrons are known to be accelerated at Earth’s bow shock and interplanetary shocks [*preferentially*]{} in the quasi-perpendicular configuration [e.g. @gosling89; @shimada99; @simnett05; @oka06]. However, in a recent observation of Saturn’s bow shock by the Cassini spacecraft, the electron injection/acceleration has been detected also in the quasi-parallel geometry at high-Mach, high-beta shocks ($M_A\sim 100$ and $\beta_p\sim 10$) [@masters13]. @riqu11 suggested that electrons can be injected and accelerated also at quasi-parallel portion of [*strong*]{} shocks such as SNR shocks, because the turbulent magnetic fields excited by the CR streaming instabilities upstream of the shock may have perpendicular components at the corrugated shock surface. So, locally transverse magnetic fields near the shock surface seem essential for the efficient electron injection regardless of the obliquity of the large-scale, mean field.
Non-Maxwellian tails of high energy particles have been widely observed in space and laboratory plasmas [e.g. @vasyliunas68; @hellberg00]. Such particle distributions can be described by the combination of a Maxwellian-like core and a suprathermal tail of power-law form, which is known as the $\kappa$-distribution. There exists an extensive literature that explains the $\kappa$-distribution from basic physical principles and processes relevant for collisionless, weakly coupled plasmas [e.g. @leubner04; @pierrard10]. The theoretical justification for the $\kappa$-distribution is beyond the scope of this paper, so readers are referred to those papers. Recently, the existence of $\kappa$-distribution of electrons has been conjectured and examined in order to explain the discrepancies in the measurements of electron temperatures and metallicities in H II regions and planetary nebulae [@nicholls12; @mendoza14].
The development of suprathermal tails of both proton and electron distributions are two outstanding problems in the theory of collisionless shocks, which involve complex wave-particle interactions such as the excitation of kinetic/MHD waves via plasma instabilities and the stochastic acceleration by plasma turbulence [see @petrosian12; @schure12 for recent reviews]. For example, stochastic acceleration of thermal electrons by electron-whistler interactions is known to be very efficient in low $\beta_p$ and low $\alpha_p$ plasmas such as solar flares [@hamilton92]. Recently, the pre-heating of electrons and the injection of protons at non-relativistic collisonless shocks have been studied using Particle-in-Cell (PIC) and hybrid plasma simulations for a wide range of parameters [e.g. @amano09; @guo10; @guo13; @riqu11; @garat12; @capri13]. In PIC simulations, the Maxwell’s equations for electric and magnetic fields are solved along with the equations of motion for ions and electrons, so full wave-particle interactions can be followed from first principles. In hybrid simulations, only ions are treated kinetically, while electrons are treated as a neutralizing, massless fluid.
Using two and three-dimensional PIC simulations, @riqu11 showed that for low Alfvénic Mach numbers ($M_A \la 20$), oblique whistler waves can be excited in the foot of quasi-perpendicular shocks (but not at perfectly perpendicular shocks with $\Theta_{Bn}=90^{\circ}$). Electrons are then accelerated via wave-particle interactions with those whistlers, resulting in a power-law suprathermal tail. They found that the suprathermal tail can be represented by the energy spectrum $n_e(E)\propto E^{-a}$ with the slope $a=3-4$, which is harder for smaller $M_A$ (i.e., larger $v_A$ or smaller $\alpha_p$). Nonrelativistic electrons streaming away from a shock can resonate only with high frequency whistler waves with right hand helicity, while protons and relativistic electrons (with Lorentz factor $\gamma>m_p/m_e$) resonate with MHD (Alfvén) waves. So the generation of oblique whistlers is thought to be one of the agents for pre-acceleration of electrons [@shimada99]. In fact, obliquely propagating whistler waves and high energy electrons are often observed together in the upstream region of quasi-perpendicular interplanetary shocks [e.g. @shimada99; @wilson09]. Recently, @wilson12 observed obliquely propagating whistler modes in the precursor of several quasi-perpendicular interplanetary shocks with low Mach numbers (fast mode Mach number $M_f\approx 2-5$), simultaneously with perpendicular ion heating and parallel electron acceleration. This observation implies that oblique whistlers could play an important role in the development of a suprathermal halo around the thermal core in the electron velocity distribution at quasi-perpendicular shocks with moderate $M_A$.
Using two-dimensional PIC simulations for perpendicular shocks with $M_A\sim 45$, @matsumoto13 found that several kinetic instabilities (e.g. Buneman, ion-acoustic, ion Weibel) are excited at the leading edge of the shock foot and that electrons can be energized to relativistic energies via the shock surfing mechanism. They suggested that the shock surfacing acceleration can provide the effective pre-heating of electrons at strong SNR shocks with high Alfvénic Mach numbers ($M_A\ga 100$).
Because non-relativistic electrons and protons interact with different types of plasma waves and instabilities, they can have suprathermal tails with different properties that depend on plasma and shock parameters, such as $\Theta_{Bn}$, $\alpha_p$, $\beta_p$, $M_s$, and $M_A$. So the power-law index of the $\kappa$-distributions for electrons and protons, $\kappa_e$ and $\kappa_p$, respectively, should depend on these parameters, and they could be significantly different from each other. For example, the electron distributions measured in the IPM can be fitted with the $\kappa$-distributions with $\kappa_e\sim 2-5$, while the proton distributions prefer a somewhat larger $\kappa_p$ [@pierrard10]. Using [*in situ*]{} spacecraft data, @parker12 suggested that the proton spectra observed downstream of [*quasi-parallel*]{} interplanetary shocks can be explained by the injection from the upstream (solar-wind) thermal Maxwellian or weak $\kappa$-distribution with $\kappa_p\ga10$. On the other hand, @parker14 showed that the upstream suprathermal tail of the $\kappa_p=4$ distribution is the best to fit the proton spectra observed downstream of [*quasi-perpendicular*]{} interplanetary shocks[^1]. They reasoned that the upstream proton distribution may form a relatively flat $\kappa$-like suprathermal tail due to the particles reflected at the magnetic foot of quasi-perpendicular shocks, while at quasi-parallel shocks the upstream proton distribution remains more-or-less Maxwellian.
In this paper, we consider a phenomenological model for the thermal leakage injection in the DSA process by taking the $\kappa$-distributions as empirical forms for the suprathermal tails of the electron and proton distributions at collisionless shocks. The $\kappa$-distribution is described in Section 2. The injection fraction is estimated in Section 3, followed by a brief summary in Section 4.
Basic Models
============
For the postshock nonrelativistic gas of kinetic temperature $T_2$ and particle density $n_2$, the Maxwellian momentum distribution is given as $$f_{\rm M}(p)= {n_2 \over \pi^{1.5}}~ p_{\rm th}^{-3} ~\exp\left[-\left({p\over
p_{\rm th}}
\right)^2\right],
\label{fmaxw}$$ where $p_{\rm th}= \sqrt{2 m k_B T_2}$ is the thermal peak momentum and the mass of the particle is $m=m_e$ for electrons and $m=m_p$ for protons. The distribution function is defined in general as $\int 4\pi p^2f(p) dp = n_2$. Here we assume that the electron and proton distributions have the same kinetic temperature, so that $p_{\rm th,e}= \sqrt{m_e/m_p} \cdot p_{\rm th,p}$.
The $\kappa$-distribution can be described as $$f_{\kappa}(p)= {n_2 \over \pi^{1.5}}~ p_{\rm th}^{-3} { {\Gamma(\kappa+1) }
\over {(\kappa-3/2)^{3/2}\Gamma(\kappa-1/2) } }
\left[1+{p^2\over {(\kappa-3/2)p_{\rm th}^2}}\right]^{-(\kappa+1)},
\label{fkappa}$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ is the Gamma function [e.g. @pierrard10]. The $\kappa$-distribution asymptotes to a power-law form, $f_{\kappa}(p)\propto
p^{-2(\kappa+1)}$ for $p\gg p_{\rm th}$, which translates into $N(E)\propto E^{-2\kappa}$ for relativistic energies, $E\ga mc^2$. For large $\kappa$, it asymptotes to the Maxwellian distribution. For a smaller value of $\kappa$, the $\kappa$-distribution has a flatter, suprathermal, power-law tail, which may result from larger wave-particle interaction rates. Note that for the $\kappa$-distribution in equation (\[fkappa\]), the mean energy per particle, $m \langle v^2 \rangle/2= (2\pi m/n_2) \int v^2 f_{\kappa}(p) p^2 dp$, becomes $(3/2)k_B T_2$ and the gas pressure becomes $P_2= n_2 k_B T_2$, providing that particle speeds are nonrelativisitic. The top panel of Figure 1 compares $f_{\rm M}$ and $f_{\kappa}$ for electrons and protons when $T_2 = 5\times 10^7$ K (corresponding to the shock speed of $u_s\approx 1.9\times10^3\kms$ in the large $M_s$ limit.) Here, the momentum is expressed in units of $m_e c$ for both electrons and protons, so the distribution function $f(p)$ is plotted in units of $n_2/(m_e c)^3$. Note that the plotted quantity is $p^3 f(p) d\ln p = p^2 f(p)dp \propto n(p)dp
$. For smaller values of $\kappa$, the low energy portion of $f_{\kappa}(p)$ also deviates more significantly from $f_{\rm M}(p)$.
For the $\kappa$-distribution, the [*most probable*]{} momentum (or the peak momentum) is related to the Maxwellian peak momentum as $p_{\rm mp}^2 = p_{\rm th}^2 \cdot (\kappa-3/2)/\kappa$. So for a smaller $\kappa$, the ratio of $p_{\rm mp}/p_{\rm th}$ becomes smaller. In other words, the peak of $f_{\kappa}(p)$ is shifted to a lower momentum for a smaller $\kappa$, as can be seen in the top panel of Figure 1. To account for this we will suppose a hypothetical case in which the postshock temperature is modified for a $\kappa$-distribution as follows: $$T_2^{\prime}(\kappa) = T_2 {\kappa \over {(\kappa-3/2)} }.
\label{Tprime}$$ Then the most probable momentum becomes the same for different $\kappa$’s. The bottom panel of Figure 1 compares the Maxwellian distribution for $T_2 =
5\times 10^7$ K and the $\kappa$-distributions with the corresponding $T_2^{\prime}(\kappa)$’s. For such $\kappa$-distributions, the distribution of low energy particles with $p\la p_{\rm th}$ remains very similar to the Maxwellian distribution. In that case, low energy particles follow more-or-less the Maxwellian distribution, while higher energy particles above the thermal peak momentum show a power-law tail. This might represent the case in which thermal particles with $p\ga p_{\rm th}$ gain energies via stochastic acceleration by pre-existing and/or self-excited waves in the shock transition layer, resulting in a $\kappa$-like tail and additional plasma heating. Such $\kappa$-distributions with plasma heating could be close to the real particle distributions behind collisionless shocks. So below we will consider two cases: the $T_2$ model in which the postshock temperature is same and the $T_2^{\prime}$ model in which the postshock temperature depends on $\kappa$ as in equation (\[Tprime\]).
Injection Fraction
==================
We assume that the distribution function of the particles accelerated by DSA, which we refer to as cosmic rays (CRs), at the position of the shock has the test-particle power-law spectrum for $p\ge p_{\rm inj} \equiv Q_{\rm inj} \cdot p_{\rm th,p}$, $$f_{\rm CR}(p)=f(p_{\rm inj})\cdot \left({p \over p_{\rm inj}}\right)^{-q},
\label{ftp}$$ where the power-law slope is given as $$q={{3(u_1-v_{A,1})}\over u_1-v_{A,1}-u_2}.
\label{qtp}$$ Here $u_1$ and $u_2$ are the upstream and downstream flow speeds, respectively, in the shock rest frame, and $v_{A,1}=B_1/\sqrt{4\pi\rho_1}$ is the upstream Alfvén speed. This expression takes account of the drift of the Alfvén waves excited by streaming instabilities in the shock precursor [e.g., @kang11; @kang12]. If $v_{A,1}=0$, the power-law slope becomes $q=4$ for $M_s\gg1$ and $q=4.5$ for $M_s=3$.
Note that in our phenomenological model, we assume the $\kappa$-distribution extends only to $p=p_{\rm inj}$, above which the DSA power-law in equation (\[ftp\]) sets in. In Figure 1 the vertical dotted lines show the range of $p_{\rm inj} = (3.5-4)\
p_{\rm th,p}$, above which the particles can participate the DSA process. With $\kappa_p=30$ for protons, $\kappa_e=2$ for electrons, and $p_{\rm inj}=4
p_{\rm th,p}$, for example, the ratio of $f_e(p_{\rm inj})/f_p(p_{\rm inj})\approx 10^{-2.6}$ for the $T_2$ model, while $f_e(p_{\rm inj})/f_p(p_{\rm inj})\approx 10^{-1.9}$ for the $T_2^{\prime}$ model.
The parameter $Q_{\rm inj}$ determines the CR injection fraction, $\xi \equiv {n_{CR} / n_2 }$ as follows. In the case of the Maxwellian distribution the fraction is $$\xi_{\rm M} = {4 \over \sqrt{\pi}}
{ {Q_{\rm inj}^3} \over {(q - 3)}}\cdot \exp(-Q_{\rm inj}^2) ,
\label{xiM}$$ while in the case of the $\kappa$-distribution it is $$\xi_{\kappa} = {4 \over \sqrt{\pi}}
{{Q_{\rm inj}^3} \over {(q - 3)}} \cdot
{ {\Gamma(\kappa+1) } \over {(\kappa-3/2)^{3/2}\Gamma(\kappa-1/2) } }
\left[1+{Q_{\rm inj}^2\over {(\kappa-3/2)}}\right]^{-(\kappa+1)}.
\label{xiK}$$ Note that both forms of the injection fraction are independent of the postshock temperature $T_2$, but dependent on $Q_{\rm inj}$ and the shock Mach number, through the slope $q(M_s)$.
For the Maxwellian distribution, $\xi_{\rm M}$ decreases exponentially with the parameter $Q_{\rm inj}$, which in general depends on the shock Mach number as well as on the obliquity. Since the injection process should depend on the level of pre-existing and self-excited plasma/MHD waves, $Q_{\rm inj}$ is expected to increase with $\Theta_{Bn}$. For example, in a model adopted for quasi-parallel shocks [e.g. @kr10], $$Q_{\rm inj}\approx \chi { {m_p u_2}\over {p_{\rm th,p}}}
= \chi \sqrt{{\gamma\over{2\mu}}}{u_2 \over c_{s,2}}= \chi
\sqrt{{\gamma\over{2\mu}}}
\left[{ { (\gamma-1)M_s^2+2} \over {2\gamma M_s^2-(\gamma-1)} }\right]^{1/2},
\label{Qinj}$$ where $\chi \approx 5.8-6.6$, $\gamma$ is the gas adiabatic index, and $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight for the postshock gas. For $\gamma=5/3$ and $\mu=0.6$, this parameter approaches to $Q_{\rm inj}\approx
3-4$ for large $M_s$, depending on the level of MHD turbulence, and it increases as $M_s$ decreases (see Figure 1 of @kr10). Using hybrid plasma simulations, @capri13 suggested $Q_{\rm inj}=3-4$ at quasi-parallel shocks with $M_s\approx M_A\approx 20$, leading to the injection fraction of $\xi_p\approx 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ for protons.
For highly oblique and perpendicular shocks, the situation is more complex and the modeling of $Q_{\rm inj}$ becomes difficult, partly because MHD waves are not self-excited effectively and partly because the perpendicular diffusion is not well understood [e.g. @parker14]. So the injection process at quasi-perpendicular shocks depends on the pre-existing MHD turbulence in the upstream medium as well as the angle $\Theta_{Bn}$. For example, @zank06 showed that in the case of interplanetary shocks in the solar wind located near 1AU from the sun, the injection energy is similar for $\Theta_{Bn}=0^{\circ}$ and $90^{\circ}$, but it peaks at highly oblique shocks with $\Theta_{Bn}\sim 60-80^{\circ}$. So $Q_{\rm inj}$ would increase with $\Theta_{Bn}$, but decrease as $\Theta_{Bn}\rightarrow 90^{\circ}$. The same kind of trend may apply for cluster shocks, but again the details will depend on the MHD turbulence in the ICM. Here we will consider a range of values, $3\le Q_{\rm inj} \le 5$. For the $\kappa$-distribution, $\xi_{\kappa}$ also decreases with $Q_{\rm inj}$ but more slowly than $\xi_M$ does. This means that the dependence of injection fraction on the shock sonic Mach number would be weaker in the case of the $\kappa$-distribution.
Figure 2 shows the energy spectrum of protons for the two (i.e., $T_2$ and $T_2^{\prime}$) models shown in Figure 1. Here the energy spectrum is calculated as $n_p(E)= 4\pi p^2 f(p) ({dp}/{dE})$, where the kinetic energy is $E=\sqrt{p^2c^2+m_p^2c^4} - m_p c^2$ and the distribution function $f(p)$ is given in equations (\[fmaxw\]) or (\[fkappa\]). The filled and open circles mark the spectrum at the energies corresponding to $3.5\ p_{\rm th,p}$ and $4\ p_{\rm th,p}$ for the Maxwellian distribution and the $\kappa$-distributions with $\kappa_p= 10$ and 30. This shows that the injection efficiency for CR protons would be enhanced in the $\kappa$-distributions, compared to the Maxwellian distribution, by a factor of $\xi_{\kappa_p=10}/\xi_{\rm M}\sim 100-300$ and $\xi_{\kappa_p=30}/\xi_{\rm M}\sim 10-20$.
There are reasons why the cases of $\kappa_p=10-30$ are shown here. It has been suggested that the upstream suprathermal populations can be represented by the $\kappa$-distribution with $\kappa_p\approx 4$ at quasi-perpendicular IPM shocks [@parker14] and $\kappa_p\ga 10$ at quasi-parallel IPM shocks [@parker12]. However, the proton injection at quasi-parallel shocks is much more efficient than that at quasi-perpendicular shocks, because the injection energy is much higher at highly oblique shocks [e.g. @zank06]. Moreover, @capri13 showed that the proton injection at quasi-parallel shocks can be modeled properly with the thermal leakage injection from the Maxwellian distribution at $p_{\rm inj}\approx (3-4)p_{\rm th,p}$. They also showed that a harder suprathermal population forms at larger $\Theta_{BN}$, which is consistent with the observations at IPM shocks. But the power-law CR spectrum does not develop at (almost) perpendicular shocks due to lack of self-excited waves in their hybrid simulations.
As shown in Figure 1 the electron distribution needs a substantially more enhanced suprathermal tail, for example, the one in the $\kappa$-distribution with $\kappa_e\sim 2$, in order to achieve the electron-to-proton ratio $K_{e/p}\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ with the thermal leakage injection model. Figure 3 shows the energy spectrum of electrons for the two models shown in Figure 1. Here the energy spectrum for electrons is calculated as $n_e(\Gamma_e -1 )= 4\pi p^2 f(p) ({dp}/{d\Gamma_e})$, where the Lorentz factor is $\Gamma_e=\sqrt{1+ (p/m_e c)^2}$. The filled and open circles mark the spectrum at the energies corresponding to $p_{\rm inj}= (3.5-4)\ p_{\rm th,p}$ for the $\kappa$-distributions with $\kappa_e= 1.6, 2.0$, and 2.5. Note that the $\kappa$-distribution is defined for $\kappa>3/2$. In the PIC simulations of quasi-perpendicular shocks by @riqu11, the power-law slope of $n_e(E)$ at $\Gamma_e\sim 10-100$ ranges $2.7<a<4$ for $
3.5\le M_A\le 14$, where $m_p/m_e=1600$ was adopted (see their Figure 12). This would translate roughly into $\kappa_e \la 2$, which is consistent with the observations at quasi-perpendicular IPM shocks [@pierrard10].
If the suprathermal tails of electrons and protons can be described by the $\kappa$-distributions with $\kappa_e$ and $\kappa_p$, respectively, for $p\le
p_{\rm inj}$, and if both CR electrons and protons have simple power-laws given in equation (\[ftp\]) for $p> p_{\rm inj}$, then the injection fractions, $\xi_p$ and $\xi_e$, for $\kappa$-distributions can be estimated by equation (\[xiK\]). Figure 4 compares the injection fractions, $\xi_p$ and $\xi_e $, for the two models shown in Figures 1-3. Note that the slope $q$ depends on $M_s$, so $\xi (q-3)$ is plotted instead of just $\xi$. Now the ratio of CR electron to proton numbers can be calculated as $$K_{e/p}(Q_{\rm inj},\kappa_e,\kappa_p )\equiv {{\xi_e(Q_{\rm inj},\kappa_e)}
\over
{\xi_p(Q_{\rm inj},\kappa_p)}}={{f_e(p_{\rm inj},\kappa_e)}\over {f_p(p_{\rm
inj},\kappa_p)}}.$$
In the $\kappa$-distribution of protons with $\kappa_p=30$ (dot-dashed line), for example, $\xi_p$ decrease from $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-4}$ when $Q_{\rm inj}$ increase from 3.5 to 4. We note that for $\kappa_p\la 10$ or for $Q_{\rm inj}\la 3.5$, the proton injection fraction would be too high (i.e., $\xi_p>10^{-3}$) to be consistent with commonly-accepted DSA modelings of observed shocks such as SNRs. The parameter $Q_{\rm inj}$ would in general increase for a smaller $M_s$ as illustrated in equation (\[Qinj\]). The dependence of the injection fraction on $M_s$ becomes weaker for the $\kappa$-distribution than for the Maxwellian distribution. As a result, the suppression of the CR injection fraction at weak shocks will be less severe if the $\kappa$-distribution is considered.
For electrons, the injection fraction would be too small if they were to be injected by way of thermal leakage from the Maxwellian distribution. So that case is not included in Figure 4. The expected electron injection would be $\xi_e\sim 10^{-6}-10^{-5}$, if one takes $K_{e/p}\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ and $\xi_p\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$. Then, the suprathermal tails of the $\kappa$-distributions with $\kappa_e\la 2$ would be necessary. For electron distributions with such flat suprathermal tails, the injection fraction would not be significantly suppressed even at weak shocks.
Turbulent waves excited in the shock precursor/foot should decay away from the shock (both upstream and downstream), as seen in the interplanetary shocks [@wilson12] and the PIC simulations [@riqu11]. Thus it is possible the $\kappa$-like suprathermal electron populations exist only in a narrow region around the shock, and in any case the differences from Maxwellian form that we discuss here are too limited to produce easily observable signatures such as clearly nonthermal hard X-ray bremsstrahlung.
During the very early stage of SNR expansion with $u_s > 10^4 \kms$, the postshock electrons should be described by the relativistic Maxwellian distribution with a relatively slow exponential cutoff of $\exp(-\Gamma_e m_e c^2/k_B T)$ instead of equation (\[fmaxw\]). However, injection from relativistic electron plasmas at collisionless shocks could involve much more complex plasma processes and lie beyond the scope of this study.
Summary
=======
In the so-called thermal leakage injection model for DSA, the injection fraction depends on the number of suprathermal particles near the injection momentum, $p_{\rm inj}=Q_{\rm inj} p_{\rm th,p}$, above which the particles can participate in the DSA process [e.g. @kjg02]. The parameter $Q_{\rm inj}$ should be larger for larger oblique angle, $\Theta_{Bn}$, and for smaller sonic Mach number, $M_s$, leading to a smaller injection fraction. Moreover, it should depend on the level of magnetic field turbulence, both pre-existing and self-excited, which in turn depends on the plasma parameters such as $\beta_p$ and $\alpha_p$ as well as the power-spectrum of MHD turbulence. Since the detailed plasma processes related with the injection process are not fully understood, here we consider a feasible range, $3\le Q_{\rm inj}\le 5$.
Assuming that suprathermal particles, both protons and electrons, follow the $\kappa$-distribution with a wide range of the power-law index, $\kappa_p$ and $\kappa_e$, we have calculated the injection fractions for protons and electrons. A $\kappa$-type distribution or distribution consisting of a quasi-thermal plus a nonthermal tail, with a short dynamic range as the one needed here, is expected in a variety of models for acceleration of nonrelativistic thermal particles (see e.g. @petrosian08 for acceleration in ICM or @petrosian04 for acceleration in Solar flares). The fact that efficient accelerations of electrons and protons require $\kappa$-type distributions with different values of $\kappa$ suggests that they are produced by interactions with different types of waves; e.g., Alfven waves for protons and whistler waves for electrons. We show that $\kappa_p\sim 10-30$ leads to the injection fraction of $\xi_p\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ for protons at quasi-parallel shocks, while $\kappa_e\la 2$ leads to the injection fraction of $\xi_e \sim 10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ for electrons at quasi-perpendicular shocks. The proton injection is much less efficient at quasi-perpendicular shocks, compared to quasi-parallel shocks, because MHD waves are not efficiently self-excited [@zank06; @capri13]. For electrons, a relatively flat $\kappa$-distribution may form due to obliquely propagating whistlers at quasi-perpendicular shocks with moderate Mach numbers ($M_A\la20$), and $\kappa_e$ is expected to decrease for a smaller $M_A$ (i.e. smaller $\alpha_p$ or stronger magnetization) [@riqu11]. We note that these $\kappa$-like suprathermal populations are expected to exist only in a narrow region around the shock, since they should be produced via plasma/MHD interactions with various waves, which could be excited in the shock precursor and then decay downstream.
In addition, we point out that acceleration (to high CR energies) is less sensitive to shock and plasma parameters for a $\kappa$-distribution than the Maxwellian distribution. So, the existence of $\kappa$-like suprathermal tails in the electron distribution would alleviate the problem of extremely low injection fractions for weak quasi-perpendicular shocks such as those widely thought to power radio relics found in the outskirts of galaxy clusters [@krj12; @pop13; @brunetti2014].
Finally, we mention that electrons are not likely to be accelerated at weak quasi-parallel shocks, according to [*in situ*]{} measurements of interplanetary shocks [e.g. @oka06] and PIC simulations [e.g. @riqu11]. At strong quasi-parallel shocks, on the other hand, @riqu11 suggested that electrons could be injected efficiently through locally perpendicular portions of the shock surface, since turbulent magnetic fields are excited and amplified by CR protons streaming ahead of the shock. Thus the magnetic field obliquity, both global and local to the shock surface, and magnetic field amplification via wave-particle interactions are among the key players that govern the CR injection at collisionless shocks and need to be further studied by plasma simulations.
HK thanks KIPAC for hospitality during the sabbatical leave at Stanford University, where a part of work was done. HK was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012-013-2012S1A2A1A01028560). VP was supported by NASA grants NNX10AC06G, NNX13AF79G and NNX12AO78G. DR was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea through grant 2007-0093860. TJ was supported by NSF grant AST1211595, NASA grant NNX09AH78G, and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute. The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable comments from an anonymous referee.
Amano, T., & Hoshino, M. 2009, , 690, 244 Bell, A. R. 1978, , 182, 147
Blandford, R. D., & Eichler, D. 1987, Phys. Rept., 154, 1 Brunetti, G., & Jones, T. W. 2014, Int. J. of Modern Physics D. 23, 000
Caprioli, D. & Spitkovsky, A. 2013, , 765, L20 Drury, L. O’C. 1983, Rept. Prog. Phys., 46, 973 Feretti, L., Giovannini, G., Govoni, F., & Murgia, M. 2012, A&A Rev, 20, 54
Gargaté L. & Spitkovsky, A. 2012, , 744, 67
Giacalone, J. 2005, , 628, L37 Gosling, J. T., Thomsen, M. F.,& Bame, S. J. 1989, , 94, 10011
Guo, F., & Giacalone, J. 2010, , 715, 406 Guo, F., & Giacalone, J. 2013, , 773, 158 Hamilton, R. J., & Petrosian, V. 1992, , 398, 350
Hellberg, M. A., Mace, R. L., Armstrong, R. J., & Karlstad, G. 2000, J. Plasma Phys. 64, 433
Hillas, A. M., 2005, Journal of Physics G, 31, R95 Jones, F.C., & Ellison, D.C. 1991,, 58, 259 Kang, H. 2011, J. Korean Astron. Soc., 44, 1
Kang, H. 2012, J. Korean Astron. Soc., 45, 127
Kang, H., Jones, T. W., & Gieseler, U.D.J. 2002, , 579, 337
Kang, H., & Ryu, D. 2010, , 721, 886
Kang, H., Ryu, D., & Jones, T. W. 2012, , 756, 97 Leubner, M.P. 2004, Physics of Plasmas, 11, 1308
Malkov, M. A., & Drury, L.O’C. 2001, Rep. Progr. Phys., 64, 429 Masters, A., Stawarz, L., Fujimoto, M., et al. 2013, Nat. Phys., 9, 164
Matsumoto, Y., Amano, T., & Hoshino, M. 2013, , 111, 215003 Mendoza, C. & Bautista, M. A. 2014, , 785, 91
Neergaard-Parker, L., & Zank, G.P. 2012, , 757, 97 Neergaard-Parker, L., Zank, G.P., & Hu, Q. 2014, , 782, 52 Nicholls, D.C., Dopita, M.A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2012, , 752, 148 Oka, M., Terasawa, T., Seki, Y., et al. 2006, , 33, L24104
Petrosian, V. 2012, , 173, 535
Petrosian, V., & East, W. E. 2008, , 682, 175
Petrosian, V., & Lui, S. 2004, , 610, 550
Pierrard, V., & Lazar, M. 2010, Sol. Phys., 265, 153 Pinzke, A., Oh, S. P., & Pfrommer, C. 2013 , 435, 1061
Pryadko, J. M., & Petrosian, V. 1997, , 482, 774 Quest, K.B. 1988, , 93, 9649
Reynolds, S. P., Gaensler, B. M., & Bocchino, F. 2012, , 166, 231
Riquelme, M. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, , 733, 63 Ryu, D., Kang, H., Hallman, E., & Jones, T. W. 2003, , 593, 599
Schure, K. M., Bell, A. R, Drury, L. O’C., &. Bykov, A. M. 2012, , 173, 491
Shimada, N., Terasawa, T., Hoshino, M., et al. 1999, Ap&SS, 264, 481
Simnett, G.M., Sakai, J.-I., & Forsyth, R.J. 2005, , 440, 759 Vasyliunas, V. M. 1968, , 73, 2839
van Weeren, R., Röttgering, H. J. A., Brüggen, M., & Hoeft, M. 2010, Science, 330, 347
Wilson, L. B., III, Cattell, C. A., Kellogg, P. J. et al. 2009, , 114, A10106
Wilson, L. B., III, Koval, A., Szabo, A. et al. 2012, , 39, L08109 Zank, G. P., Li, G., Florinski, V., et al. 2006, , 111, A06108
Zank, G.P, Li, G., & Verkhoglyadova, O. 2007, , 130, 255
[**Table 1.**]{} Characteristic Plasma Parameters$^{\rm a}$\
0.3cm
----- --------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------- ----------- -----------
$n_H$ $T$ [$B$]{} [$c_s$]{} [$v_A$]{} [ $\beta_p$]{} [$\alpha_p$]{} [$u_s$]{} [$M_s$]{} [$M_A$]{}
[$(\rm cm^{-3})$]{} [(K)]{} [($\mu$G)]{} [(${\rm km~s^{-1}}$)]{} [(${\rm [($P_g/P_B$)]{} ([$\omega_{pe}/\Omega_e$]{}) [(${\rm km~s^{-1}}$)]{}
km~s^{-1}}$)]{}
IPM 5 $10^5$ 50 50 40 1.6 140 $5\times 10^2$ 10 13
ISM 0.1 $10^4$ 5 15 30 0.3 200 $3\times 10^3$ 200 100
ICM $10^{-4}$ $5\times10^7$ 1 $10^3$ 180 40 30 $2\times 10^3$ 2 11
----- --------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------- ----------- -----------
$^{\rm a}$[IPM=interplanetary medium, ISM=interstellar medium, ICM=intracluster medium]{}\
![ Momentum distribution, $p^3f(p)$, of electrons and protons for kinetic temperature $T_2=5\times 10^7$ K (top) and $T_2^{\prime}$ given equation (\[Tprime\]) (bottom). The momentum is expressed in units of $m_ec$ for both electrons and protons, and the distribution function $f(p)$ is plotted in units of $n_2/(m_e c)^3$. The Maxwellian distributions are shown in (black) solid lines, while the $\kappa$-distributions are shown in (red) dotted, (blue) dashed, (green) long dashed, (magenta) dot-dashed, and (cyan) dot-long dashed lines for $\kappa=$ 2, 3, 5, 10, and 30, respectively. The vertical lines indicate the range of the injection momentum of $p_{\rm inj}=
(3.5-4)\ p_{\rm th,p}$, above which particles can be injected into the DSA process. ](f1)
![Kinetic energy spectrum for protons, $E\cdot n_p(E)$, for kinetic temperature $T_2=5\times 10^7$ K (top) and $T_2^{\prime}$ given equation (\[Tprime\]) (bottom). The kinetic energy, $E$, is expressed in units of $m_p^2c$ and the energy spectrum, $n_p(E)$, is plotted in units of $n_2/(m_p c^2)$. The Maxwellian distributions are shown in (black) solid lines, while the $\kappa$-distributions are shown in (red) dotted, (blue) dashed, (green) long dashed, (magenta) dot-dashed, and (cyan) dot-long dashed lines for $\kappa=$ 3, 4, 5, 10, and 30, respectively. Three filled and open circles indicate $3.5\ p_{\rm th,p}$ and $4\ p_{\rm
th,p}$, respectively. ](f2)
![ Energy spectrum for electrons, $(\Gamma_e-1)\cdot n_e(\Gamma_e)$, for kinetic temperature $T_2=5\times 10^7$ K (top) and $T_2^{\prime}$ given equation (\[Tprime\]) (bottom), where $\Gamma_e$ is the Lorentz factor. The Maxwellian distributions are shown in (black) solid lines, while the $\kappa$-distributions are shown in (red) dotted, (blue) dashed, (green) long dashed, (magenta) dot-dashed, and (cyan) dot-long dashed lines for $\kappa=$ 1.6, 2, 2.5, 3, and 5 respectively. Three filled and open circles indicate $3.5\ p_{\rm th,p}$ and $4\ p_{\rm
th,p}$, respectively. ](f3)
![ Fraction of injected CR protons, $\xi_p\cdot(q-3)$, and electrons, $\xi_e
\cdot(q-3)$, given in equations (\[xiM\]) $-$ (\[xiK\]) as a function $Q_{\rm inj}=p_{\rm inj}/p_{\rm th,p}$ for the $T_2$ (left panels) and $T_2^{\prime}$ (right panels) model. The CR spectrum is assumed to be a power-law given in equation (\[ftp\]) for $p\ge p_{\rm inj}$. For protons (top panels) the Maxwellian distributions are shown in (black) solid lines, while the $\kappa_p$-distributions are shown in (red) dotted, (blue) dashed, (green) long dashed, and (magenta) dot-dashed lines for $\kappa=$ 3, 5, 10, and 30, respectively. For electrons (bottom panels) only the $\kappa$-distributions are shown in (red) dotted, (blue) dashed, (green) long dashed, and (magenta) dot-dashed lines for $\kappa=$ 1.6, 2, 2.5, and 3, respectively. ](f4)
[^1]: Note that @parker12 and @parker14 model particles from the [*upstream*]{} suprathermal pool being injected into the DSA process, while here we assume that particles from the [*downstream*]{} suprathermal pool are injected.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Giant pulses are short, intense outbursts of radio emission with a power-law intensity distribution that have been observed from the Crab Pulsar and [PSRB1937$+$21]{}. We have undertaken a systematic study of giant pulses from [PSRB1937$+$21]{} using the Arecibo telescope at 430, 1420, and 2380 MHz. At 430 MHz, interstellar scattering broadens giant pulses to durations of $\sim50~\mu$secs, but at higher frequencies the pulses are very short, typically lasting only $\sim1$–$2~\mu$secs. At each frequency, giant pulses are emitted only in narrow (${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}10~\mu$s) windows of pulse phase located $\sim 55$–$70~\mu$sec after the main and interpulse peaks. Although some pulse-to-pulse jitter in arrival times is observed, the mean arrival phase appears stable; a timing analysis of the giant pulses yields precision competitive with the best average profile timing studies. We have measured the intensity distribution of the giant pulses, confirming a roughly power-law distribution with approximate index of $-1.8$, contributing ${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}0.1\%$ to the total flux at each frequency. We also find that the intensity of giant pulses falls off with a slightly steeper power of frequency than the ordinary radio emission.
author:
- 'A. Kinkhabwala'
- 'S. E. Thorsett'
title: Multifrequency Observations of Giant Radio Pulses from the Millisecond Pulsar B1937+21
---
\#1[to 0pt[\#1]{}]{}
epsf
Introduction
============
Despite their remarkable frequency stability, most radio pulsars exhibit considerable pulse-to-pulse intensity fluctuations. A histogram of the pulse intensity typically shows a roughly exponential or Lorentzian shape (e.g., [@mt77]), with a tail extending out to perhaps ten times the mean pulse strength.
The Crab pulsar (PSR B0531+21), by contrast, exhibits frequent, very strong radio pulses extending to hundreds of times the mean pulse intensity (e.g., [@lcu+95]). These so-called “giant pulses” exhibit a characteristic power-law intensity distribution—a phenomenon that for many years was observed in no other pulsar. Despite hints from early observations ([@wcs84]), it came as a surprise to find qualitatively similar behavior from [PSRB1937$+$21]{}, the first (and still fastest known) millisecond pulsar ([@sb95; @cstt96]).
The Crab pulsar and [PSRB1937$+$21]{} could hardly be less similar in their properties. The Crab pulsar, born in A.D. 1054, is the youngest known pulsar, and B1937+21 is one of the oldest, with a characteristic spin-down age of $\sim2\times10^8$ yrs. The inferred surface magnetic field strength of the Crab pulsar, $B=4\times10^{12}$ G, is about $10^4$ times as high as that of B1937+21. Although the Crab is the fastest of the high field pulsars, with a period of $P=33$ ms, it is twenty times slower than the 1.56 ms B1937+21. The pulsars’ only identified common feature is their similarly strong magnetic field strength at the velocity-of-light cylinder, $\sim10^6$ G, which is higher than that for any other known pulsar ([@cstt96]). Whether this is coincidence, or in some way responsible for the observed giant pulse behavior, is unknown.
All previous studies of giant pulses from B1937+21 have been at or near 430 MHz with the exception of some limited, inconclusive data at 1.4 GHz (Wolszczan [et al.]{} 1984). We present below the first multifrequency study of giant pulses in B1937+21. In §\[sec:obs\], we describe the observations and giant pulse search algorithms. A comparison of the arrival times of normal and giant pulse emission is discussed in §\[sec:arr\]. Following this, we discuss pulse morphology in §\[sec:mor\] and the limits of accurate timing in §\[sec:tim\]. Using the arrival data, we present intensity distributions of the giant pulses and the contaminant noise in §\[sec:int\]. In §\[sec:spec\], we discuss the approximate spectrum of the largest giant pulses. Finally, in §\[sec:dis\], we point to open questions and necessary future observations.
Observations and Signal Processing {#sec:obs}
==================================
All observations were made using the Princeton Mark IV instrument ([@sst+99]) at the 305 m Arecibo telescope, between 1998 February 21 and 1999 August 1. Observations were made at three frequencies, as part of an ongoing timing study of this pulsar. The pulsar signal strength varied because of interstellar scintillation; observations made during times of strong signal were retained for the giant pulse analysis. The data used for this work included 30 minutes ($\sim10^6$ pulses) at 430 MHz, 4 hours ($\sim10^7$ pulses) at 1420 MHz, and 26 minutes ($\sim10^6$ pulses) at 2380 MHz.
After completion of the observations, the data were coherently dedispersed in software by convolution with a complex chirp function ([@hr75]), to remove the progressive phase delays as a function of frequency caused by free electrons in the interstellar medium (ISM). The analysis pipeline has been described by [@sst+99]. At the dispersion measure of [PSRB1937$+$21]{}(71), with a 10 MHz bandwidth, the dispersive smearing at 430 MHz, 1420 MHz, and 2380 MHz totals 74.16 ms, 2.06 ms, and 0.44 ms, respectively, before coherent dedispersion. After dedispersion, the signals from the two orthogonal polarizations were squared and cross multiplied to produce the four Stokes parameters. Because we were analyzing data taken primarily for other purposes, in most cases insufficient calibration data were available for high precision polarization calibration. We therefore concentrate on analysis of the total intensity data.
After coherent dedispersion, the standard timing analysis pipeline was used to fold the data synchronously with the known topocentric period of [PSRB1937$+$21]{}, to produce average profiles. In a parallel analysis, the data were searched for strong individual pulses. Initial exploratory analysis confirmed that all strong pulses were confined to fairly narrow windows on the tails of the main pulse (MP) and interpulse (IP). At 430 MHz, giant pulses were therefore identified as in Cognard [et al.]{} (1996), by measuring the integrated flux density in 150$~\mu$sec windows located on the tails of the MP and IP. At higher frequencies, where the giant pulses were much narrower (many lasting only a few $0.1$–$0.2~\mu$sec bins) and appeared in a region of pulse phase that was significantly wider than the individual pulses, giant pulses were identified by searching for pairs of bins with combined energy greater than a threshold level. Because of the relative computational efficiency of this procedure, we did not limit our search to particular regions of pulse phase. But as at 430 MHz, giant pulses were only detected in the tails of the MP and IP. (Note that this appears to be in conflict with the results of Wolszczan [et al.]{} (1984).)
Interstellar scintillation strongly modulated the apparent intensity of the pulsar signal from day to day. Scintillation should affect the normal and giant pulse emission identically. Therefore, in order to compare giant pulse intensities observed on different dates, we accounted for these variations by calibrating the average normal emission flux density for each run to the power-law model given by Foster, Fairhead, and Backer (1991). They found that the flux density as a function of frequency could be expressed as $F$\[mJy\]$=(25.9\pm2.6)\,\nu^{-2.60\pm0.05}$, where $\nu$ is in GHz. We use units of \[Jy\] for flux density and \[Jy$\cdot\mu$sec\] for integrated flux density.
Giant pulse distribution in time and pulsar phase {#sec:arr}
=================================================
An important difference between giant pulses in the Crab pulsar and in [PSRB1937$+$21]{} appears in the distribution of the pulses with respect to the star’s rotational phase. Individual Crab giant pulses arrive at phases distributed throughout most of the emission envelope of the normal pulse profile. In contrast, the early observations of giant pulses from B1937+21 at 430 MHz found that they arrived only in narrow regions on the tails of the two normal pulse components ([@bac95; @cstt96]). With our greater sensitivity, we confirm this result at 430 MHz and find the same behavior at 1420 and 2380 MHz.
Figures \[fig:toothpick\]–\[fig:toothpickIP\] show the average flux due to all giant pulses as a function of pulse phase along with the average normal emission. For each run, giant pulses were selected using an intensity threshold chosen to minimize noise contamination. As is clear from these figures, the giant pulses occur well after the normal emission phase; in particular the giant pulses do not produce the “notch” emission on the trailing edge of the MP as had been speculated by Cognard [et al.]{} (1996).
To characterize the average properties of the giant pulse emission, we have fit the average giant pulse profile at each frequency with a Gaussian model at 2380 and 1420 MHz and, to account for interstellar scattering, with a model consisting of a Gaussian convolved with an exponential tail at 430 MHz. We find best-fitting Gaussian widths (FWHM) of 3$~\mu$s (4$~\mu$s) for the MP (IP) giant pulse profile at 2380 MHz and 4.3$~\mu$s (4.1$~\mu$s) for the MP (IP) giant pulse profile at 1420 MHz. At 430 MHz, we find that the MP and IP giant pulse profiles can be adequately described as Gaussians with widths 6.6$~\mu$s and 6.4$~\mu$s, respectively, convolved with an exponential scattering tail with $\tau=28~\mu$s. This scattering timescale $\tau$ is similar to that estimated from measurements of the normal profile, confirming that the structure observed in the low frequency average giant pulse profile is dominated by propagation effects. (Because our exponential scattering model is probably an oversimplification of the true effects of scattering on the signal (e.g., [@sbh+99]), our estimates of the intrinsic width of the mean giant pulse profile at 430 MHz should be considered an upper limit.)
At high frequency, the windows in which giant pulse emission occur are much narrower than the average pulse emission windows. Indeed, they are remarkably narrow both absolutely and as a fraction of the pulsar period, each corresponding to less than one degree of rotational phase. They are, we believe, the sharpest stable features ever detected in a pulsar profile. It is this property that makes the mean giant pulse emission from [PSRB1937$+$21]{} a potentially valuable fiducial point for high-precision timing observations, as discussed in §\[sec:tim\] below.
We have also investigated the distribution of giant pulses over time, finding consistency with Poisson statistics (so neighboring giant pulses appear uncorrelated). The distribution in time during one observation is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:arr\], which displays all pulses with integrated flux density $\geq30~$Jy$\cdot\mu$secs. Also shown are the brightest pulses, with integrated flux density $\geq80~$Jy$\cdot\mu$secs. The arrival time uncertainty for any given giant pulse is $\lesssim0.5~\mu$secs; this will be discussed further discussed in §\[sec:mor\]. We find no difference in the distributions of the more powerful and less powerful giant pulses, except for rate. The giant pulse distribution also appears very stable over this half-hour scan, with no apparent drifting or nulling periods, although the density drops off slightly at the end of the scan, especially in the IP, as interstellar scintillation reduces the mean pulsar flux relative to our threshold values.
Individual Pulse Morphology {#sec:mor}
===========================
The average giant pulse profiles constrain the properties of the giant pulse emission region. Also of interest are the properties of individual giant pulses, which constrain the giant pulse emission mechanism itself. To study individual giant pulses, which are narrower than the mean giant pulse envelope, we must account for scattering effects even at frequencies above 430 MHz. As discussed above, scattering by a thin turbulent screen degrades a signal by effectively convolving it with a one-sided exponential tail. (Although more sophisticated models of the ISM will have more complex effects on the observed signal, we find the simple thin-screen model adequately describes the vast majority of giant pulses we have observed.) We have fit all candidate giant pulses with a Gaussian, $A\,\mbox{exp}\{-(t-t_0)^2/(2\sigma^2)\}$, convolved with an exponential tail, $e^{-t/\tau}/\tau$, with four fit parameters, $A$, $t_0$, $\sigma$, and $\tau$. Shown in Fig. \[fig:BIG3\] are the strongest giant pulses found at each frequency along with their fitted convolved Gaussians.
After visually inspecting many giant pulses at all three frequencies, we see no evidence for intrinsic multiple-peaked emission, which contrasts with giant pulses observed from the Crab pulsar ([@sbh+99]). Although receiver noise dominates the profiles, most pulses show a fast rise followed by an exponential decay, consistent, on average, with scattering. We have more quantitatively verified our model for the pulse morphology by cross correlating all of the giant pulses with a standard giant pulse, shifting by the lag which maximizes the cross correlation (to correct for the observed pulse-to-pulse jitter), then folding. For any choice of the standard giant pulse, this has always produced a single-peaked, short-rise-time, exponential-decaying profile, which, itself, is well fit by our model. Gaussian widths (FWHM) of $6$, $0.2$, and $0.2~\mu$secs and scattering timescales of $\tau\simeq29$, $0.2$, and $0.2~\mu$secs were determined at 430, 1420, and 2380 MHz, respectively, for both the MP and IP shifted, folded giant pulse profiles. As previously mentioned in §\[sec:arr\], our exponential scattering model is probably an oversimplification of the true effects of scattering, implying that our estimates should be considered upper limits.
Table \[tab:cum\] lists the range of scattering timescales, $\tau$ \[$\mu$sec\], found at each frequency. Overall, we find the following ranges: $\tau\simeq13$–$40~\mu$s (430 MHz), $\tau{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}1.1~\mu$s (1420 MHz), and $\tau{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}0.4~\mu$s (2380 MHz). These timescales are consistent with turbulent scattering, which has a frequency dependence of $\nu^{-4\mathrm{\;to\;}-4.4}$ (e.g., [@mt77]). In addition, we have determined approximate upper limits to the fitted Gaussian widths (FWHM) at each frequency of $\lesssim7~\mu$s (430 MHz), $\lesssim0.5~\mu$s (1420 MHz), and $\lesssim0.3~\mu$s (2380 MHz), which have not, however, been included in Table \[tab:cum\].
Scattering also affects the normal emission, primarily observations at lower frequencies. The best-fitting scattering parameters were determined independently in the two pulse components. In the MP, our model finds $\tau\simeq30~\mu$sec, and in the IP, $\tau\simeq40~\mu$sec. Both are in good agreement with the scattering time estimated from the giant pulse emission. The IP is well fit by this model, but our fit to the MP underestimates the flux in the tail, probably implying the unresolved presence at this frequency of the “notch” feature that is resolved on the trailing edge of the MP at higher frequencies. (This is not unexpected, since the feature increases in strength relative to the MP peak with decreasing frequency.) Note that scattering not only broadens but also delays the peak of the low-frequency pulsar signal by an amount that depends on the pulse shape; variability of the scattering strength therefore introduces significant timing errors at low frequency. For the 1420 and 2380 MHz normal emission, scattering is much less severe; therefore, we expect no significant scattering delay to the apparent MP and IP peak arrival times.
Timing {#sec:tim}
======
High-precision timing measurements benefit from a sharp-edged timing signal. For this reason, the timing properties of the giant pulses are of considerable importance, especially since very high signal-to-noise ratios can be obtained for mean giant pulse profiles by using a signal thresholding technique to eliminate data when no giant pulse is present.
High-precision alignment of pulsar profiles at different frequencies is not straightforward when the pulse shape is variable, since the choice of fiducial reference phase for alignment is arbitrary. We have aligned the three profiles in Figs. \[fig:toothpick\]–\[fig:toothpickIP\] by the peaks of the normal emission profiles, in the case of 430 MHz after accounting for the delay introduced by scattering. As is evident, at each frequency the giant pulses occur at approximately the same phase relative to the normal emission peaks. The slight delay at 2380 MHz and possibly at 430 MHz with respect to the 1420 MHz giant pulse profile is most likely due to our somewhat *ad hoc* alignment procedure.
We present timing characteristics for each observation in Table \[tab:cum\]. Displayed for each scan are the separation in phase angle of the IP peak following the MP peak (Normal), the separation of the IP giant pulses from the MP giant pulses (Giant), and the delay (in \[$\mu$s\]) of the giant pulses with respect to the MP and IP emission peaks (with scattering taken into account for the 430 MHz observations, as will be discussed below). We now discuss each timing column in more detail.
The separation of $57$–$58~\mu$secs between MP peak and average giant pulse (though only a lower limit of $49~\mu$secs at 430 MHz), as well as that for the IP of $65$–$66~\mu$secs, is the same at all three frequencies. This yields tight constraints on the relative geometry of normal and giant pulse emission regions. The separation between the MP and IP giant pulses is $189.5^\circ$ at all frequencies, slightly larger than the $187.6^\circ$ separation the MP and IP normal emission peaks (though only a lower limit of $185.6^\circ$ can be quoted at 430 MHz). The individual pulse arrival phases are Gaussian distributed, with widths of $\sigma=1.5$–$2.0~\mu$s, in good agreement with the width found for the average giant pulse profile (displayed in Figs. \[fig:toothpickMP\] and \[fig:toothpickIP\]). This pulse-to-pulse jitter is evident in Fig. \[fig:arr\], where we have plotted the fractional giant pulse arrival bin versus pulse number for a 1420 MHz observation.
It is interesting to ask whether observations of the giant pulse emission from [PSRB1937$+$21]{} can be used to carry out higher precision timing studies of the pulsar than have been possible using the relatively broad normal emission profile (e.g., [@ktr94]). Using normal pulse timing techniques, absolute precisions as small as $0.12~\mu$s have been obtained for B1937+21 at 1420 MHz ([@sta98]). Just as typical long term timing studies depend on long-term stability of the normal emission profile, timing studies using the giant pulses will depend upon long-term stability of the giant pulse emission phase distribution. The consistency of our results with those of Cognard [et al.]{} are encouraging, but careful observations at high frequency over a period of years will be needed to test the ultimate power of giant pulse observations for high precision timing.
Nevertheless, we have done preliminary estimates of the obtainable timing precision using the current data set. As noted above, a single giant pulse at 1420 MHz can be used to estimate the pulsar phase to $\sim1.5~\mu$s. The key question for timing is whether this precision can be improved by averaging over multiple pulses. If the pulse-to-pulse phase variations are uncorrelated, we expect the timing precision to improve as $\sqrt{N_g}$, where $N_g$ is the number of consecutive points averaged. In Fig. \[fig:sigma\] , we show the r.m.s. scatter $\sigma$ within individual days as a function of $N_g$. We find that timing precision improves as expected to the limit of our data sets, $N_g=64$, corresponding to a level of 100–300 ns in a ten-minute observation. Also indicated in the figure is the best timing precision achieved using standard pulsar timing techniques, $\sim120$ ns. Stairs [et al.]{} (1999) suggest that the limiting factor in their timing analysis may be pulse shape variations caused by variable interstellar scattering. If this is correct, then giant pulse observations may ultimately improve on normal pulse observations, because the effects of scattering can be much more easily measured and removed from the data. Whether these high-precision timing results on short timescales will lead to better long term timing depends primarily on the long term stability of the giant pulse emission characteristics, which will be studied in future work.
Intensity Distribution {#sec:int}
======================
The primary distinguishing characteristic of the giant pulses observed from the Crab Pulsar and [PSRB1937$+$21]{} is, of course, their intensity, and particularly their extended power-law intensity distribution. In Figs. \[fig:cum430\]–\[fig:cum2380\], we plot the cumulative intensity distribution at each observing frequency. At low intensities, the distributions are dominated by the chi-square statistics of the noise and/or normal emission, but above a certain threshold the pulse strength distribution is roughly power-law distributed. Given our limited statistics for any given run, this simple model is adequate to describe the observed data.
In Fig. \[fig:cum430\], we plot the cumulative distribution of the integrated flux densities in $150~\mu$sec windows after the MP and IP during a single 15-minute observation at 430 MHz (MJD 51364). Also plotted is the $-1.8$ power-law slope, which Cognard [et al.]{} (1996) found for the cumulative giant pulse distribution at this same frequency. The mean signal-to-noise ratio for the [*normal*]{} emission peak in this observation was about $0.14$. Contamination from this emission causes a noticeable deviation at low flux levels from what would be seen with giant pulses and receiver noise alone, causing a steepening of the distribution towards low integrated flux densities. Although the distribution of normal pulse signal strengths is not known, we expect that removing normal pulses would produce better accord with a single power law distribution for the giant pulses. In Fig. \[fig:cum1420\], we have plotted the cumulative distribution of all giant pulses found at 1420 MHz for all $\sim4~$hours of data (using the threshold detection algorithm described above). Again, generally power-law behavior is observed, with a similar power-law exponent around $-1.8$. In Fig. \[fig:cum2380\], we plot the cumulative intensity distribution for a $\sim26$-minute 2380 MHz run (MJD 51391). Again we have plot a $-1.8$ slope for comparison, which appears to fit the MP giant pulses and the most energetic IP giant pulses well, though more data are needed to strengthen this result.
We have also calculated the fraction, $R$, of the total pulsar emission at each frequency that emerges in the form of giant pulses. We find the following ranges at each frequency for this fraction: $0.15\%\leq R\leq9\%$ (430 MHz), $0.13\%\leq R\leq4\%$ (1420 MHz), and $0.10\%\leq R\leq1\%$ (2380 MHz), where the lower limits were determined directly from Figs. \[fig:toothpick\]–\[fig:toothpickIP\] and the upper limits were determined from Figs. \[fig:cum430\]–\[fig:cum2380\] by assuming a cumulative distribution with power-law slope of $-1.8$ over all intensities for both the MP and IP giant pulses. From the folded normal emission alone, however, we can rule out large values for $R$ in these calculated ranges, implying that the single power-law model may not be valid at low intensities.
Also consistent with Cognard [et al.]{} (1996), we find significantly stronger giant pulses following the MP than the IP. At a given frequency (e.g., 1/minute), the ratio of the strongest giant pulse associated with the MP to the strongest associated with the IP is very roughly the same as the ratio of the peak flux density in the MP to that in the IP. Despite the fact that giant pulses are separated in pulse phase from the normal emission, this suggests a relatively close association between the emission processes.
Spectrum {#sec:spec}
========
The short timescale of the observed giant pulses imply that they are a relatively broadband phenomenon, with bandwidth greater than their inverse width. The limited bandpass available to the Mark IV instrument prevents stronger statements about the spectra of individual giant pulses. However, the similar arrival distributions and roughly similar arrival rates at each observational frequency point to a broadband phenomenon.
Nevertheless, our observations can be used to constrain the average spectral properties of the giant pulse emission. To avoid complications arising from the use of different effective thresholds at each frequency (because of different source strengths and different receiver noise properties), we estimate the giant pulse spectrum by using the most powerful individual pulses observed during a given time period at each frequency. We have, as usual, calibrated our observations to the spectrum for the average normal emission flux density at each frequency from Foster [et al.]{} (1991), as discussed in §\[sec:obs\].
Figure \[fig:spec\] shows the intensities in \[Jy$\cdot\mu$sec\] of the top eight MP and top eight IP giant pulses at each frequency over 15 minutes, corresponding to the entire MJD 51364 (430 MHz) run and to 15-minute chunks from runs on MJD 50893 (1420 MHz) and MJD 51391 (2380 MHz) We find a somewhat steeper slope of $-3.1$ for the giant pulse spectrum, compared to the $-2.6$ slope for the normal emission spectrum. Although the precise slope of the giant pulse emission spectrum depends on the assumed normal emission spectrum, the result that the giant pulse emission is steeper than the normal emission is robust. However, if the apparent narrowing of the giant pulse emission region at higher frequency reflects a narrowing of a sharp emission cone, the slightly steeper spectrum of the giant pulse emission might be understood as the geometric effect of the position of the line of sight through the outer part of the emission region
Assuming the giant pulses from the Crab pulsar are powered by curvature radiation, Sallmen [et al.]{} (1999) have calculated the necessary number and number density of radiating electrons. We perform the same calculation here for our observed giant pulses from [PSRB1937$+$21]{}. For coherent curvature radiation, the power emitted by $N$ electrons with relativistic factor $\gamma=(1-v^2/c^2)^{-1/2}$ travelling along magnetic field lines with radius of curvature $\rho_c$ is $$P_{curv}=N^2\bigg(\frac{2e^2\gamma^4c}{3\rho_c^2}\bigg).$$ From the peak of the largest 1420 MHz giant pulse in Fig. \[fig:BIG3\], we can calculate the maximum number of electrons needed in one bunch to produce the observed emission (at frequencies greater than 430 MHz). Assuming this pulse is broadband with spectral index, $-3.1$, [PSRB1937$+$21]{}is at a distance of 3.6 kpc, and giant pulse beaming is determined by the beam width $\theta\simeq\gamma^{-1}$, we find a total power at the peak of $\gamma^{-2}\times10^{34}~$erg$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. An upper limit on the giant pulse Gaussian FWHM of ${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}0.5~\mu$sec (at high frequencies), gives $\gamma{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}500$, which implies a substantially smaller power requirement than the total spin-down energy loss rate of $2\times10^{36}~$erg$\cdot$s$^{-1}$. Setting $P_{curv}$ equal to the observed power yields $$N = 10^{19}
\bigg(\frac{\gamma}{500}\bigg)^{-3}
\bigg(\frac{\rho_c}{10^6~\mathrm{cm}}\bigg).$$ In order to preserve coherence at the highest observational frequency, these electrons must fit within a cube with volume ${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}\lambda^3$, where $\lambda=12.6$ cm at 2380 MHz, implying an electon density of $n_e=5\times10^{15}(\frac{\gamma}{500})^{-3}(\frac{\rho_c}{10^6~
\mathrm{cm}})~$cm$^{-3}$, a value $50$ times greater than the Goldreich-Julian density ([@gj69]), $n_{{\mathrm{G-J}}}=\Omega B/2\pi e\,c=10^{14}\, (\frac{R}{R_{{\mathrm{NS}}}})^{-3}~$cm$^{-3}$, which is the electron number density required to power the normal emission via curvature radiation. Sallmen [et al.]{} (1999) similarly find a giant pulse electron density $100$ times greater (for $\rho_c=10^7$ cm) than the Goldreich-Julian value for the Crab pulsar.
Discussion {#sec:dis}
==========
The discovery of giant pulses from a millisecond pulsar was unexpected, and early hopes that identifying commonalities between [PSRB1937$+$21]{} and the Crab pulsar might lead to a better understanding of the giant pulse emission mechanism have so far not been realized. As our study has confirmed, the giant pulse emission from [PSRB1937$+$21]{} differs fundamentally from the Crab giant pulses, despite their common power-law behavior. The most intriguing characteristic of the high-frequency pulses form [PSRB1937$+$21]{} is their very narrow widths and the very limited regions of pulse phase in which they occur.
Despite the continued mystery about their origin, it appears likely that giant pulses from [PSRB1937$+$21]{} may prove a valuable tool. As we have discussed, their narrow intrinsic width and large flux make them attractive fiducial reference points for timing studies of a pulsar that is already among the most precisely timed (Kaspi [et al.]{} 1994). Another intriguing possibility is to use the giant pulses as bright flashbulbs to study scattering in the ISM. Because the intrinsic pulses are very narrow, the pulse shape as observed at the Earth traces out the time delays introduced by multipath scattering. The combination of this information with VLBI studies of the scattering disk is a potentially powerful tool for studying the three dimensional distribution of scattering material.
It is important, of course, to identify giant pulse emission from other pulsars. As we have noted, the integrated giant pulse emission from [PSRB1937$+$21]{}is too weak to make noticeable features in the average pulse profiles, so careful, single pulse studies are required. Very fine time resolution is needed to avoid substantially smearing the high-frequency pulses from B1937+21 and reducing their signal-to-noise ratio, and it is insufficient to study only the windows of pulse phase where normal emission is found, as has sometimes been the case in past studies with coherent dedispersion instruments. Instruments that use hardware dedispersion followed by sampling (like the Princeton Mark III, [@skn+92]) must also preserve sufficient dynamic range in the analog-to-digital conversion to detect and characterize pulses that are far stronger than the typical pulsar emission. Another subtlety concerning observation of giant pulses are possible projection effects. If the [PSRB1937$+$21]{} giant pulse emission region is roughly Gaussian, then as the pulsar rotates, the giant pulse emission traces out less than $1\%$ of the entire sky, though the likelihood of detecting giant pulses from a known radio pulsar might be substantially enhanced over this estimate by correlations between the angular patterns of the normal and giant emission. Although searches for giant pulse emission from slow pulsars have been unsuccessful, only a very small fraction of millisecond pulsars have been studied sufficiently to detect or rule out giant pulses.
Backer, D. C. 1995, J. Astrophys. Astr., 16, 165
Cognard, I., Shrauner, J. A., Taylor, J. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 1996, Astrophys. J., 457, L81
Foster, R. S., Fairhead, L., & Backer, D. C. 1991, Astrophys. J., 378, 687
Goldreich, P. & Julian, W. H. 1969, Astrophys. J., 157, 869
Hankins, T. H. & Rickett, B. J. 1975, Meth. Comp. Phys., 14, 55
Kaspi, V. M., Taylor, J. H., & Ryba, M. 1994, Astrophys. J., 428, 713
Lundgren, S. C., Cordes, J. M., Ulmer, M., Matz, S. M., Lomatch, S., Foster, R. S., & Hankins, T. 1995, Astrophys. J., 453, 433
Manchester, R. N. & Taylor, J. H. 1977, [ Pulsars]{}, (San Francisco: Freeman)
Sallmen, S. & Backer, D. C. 1995, in [ Millisecond Pulsars: A Decade of Surprise]{}, ed. A. S. Fruchter, M. Tavani, & D. C. Backer, Astron. Soc. Pac. Conf. Ser. Vol. 72, 340
Sallmen, S., Backer, D. C., Hankins, T. H., Moffett, D., & Lundgren, S. 1999, Astrophys. J., 517, 460
Stairs, I. H. 1998. PhD thesis, Princeton University
Stairs, I. H., Splaver, E. M., Thorsett, S. E., Nice, D. J., & Taylor, J. H. 1999, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. submitted.
Stinebring, D. R., Kaspi, V. M., Nice, D. J., Ryba, M. F., Taylor, J. H., Thorsett, S. E., & Hankins, T. H. 1992, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 63, 3551
Wolszczan, A., Cordes, J. M., & Stinebring, D. R. 1984, in [ Millisecond Pulsars]{}, ed. S. P. Reynolds & D. R. Stinebring, (Green Bank: NRAO), 63
[rrccccccc]{} 2380 & 25.8 & $187.9\pm0.3^\circ$ & $189.5\pm0.5^\circ$ & $58\pm1$ & $65\pm2$ & ${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}0.4$\
1420 & 242.6 & $187.58\pm0.01^\circ$ & $189.5\pm0.2^\circ$ & $57\pm1$ & $65\pm1$ & ${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}1.1$\
430 & 30.0 & ${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}185.6\pm0.5^\circ$ & $189.4\pm0.6^\circ$ & ${\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
\raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}49\pm2$ & $66\pm2$ & $13$–$43$\
\[tab:cum\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Quasi-Fuchsian Surfaces In Hyperbolic Link Complements**]{}
Joseph D. Masters and Xingru Zhang
[**Abstract.**]{} We show that every hyperbolic link complement contains closed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces. As a consequence, we obtain the result that on a hyperbolic link complement, if we remove from each cusp of the manifold a certain finite set of slopes, then all remaining Dehn fillings on the link complement yield manifolds with closed immersed incompressible surfaces.
Introduction
============
By a [*link complement*]{} we mean, in this paper, the complement of a link in a closed connected orientable $3$-manifold. A link complement is said to be hyperbolic if it admits a complete hyperbolic metric of finite volume. By a *surface* we mean, in this paper, the complement of a finite (possibly empty) set of points in the interior of a compact, orientable $2$-manifold (which may not be connected). By a *surface in a $3$-manifold* $W$, we mean a continuous, proper map $f:S \ra W$ from a surface $S$ into $W$. A surface $f:S\ra W$ in a 3-manifold $W$ is said to be *connected* if and only if $S$ is connected. A surface $f:S\ra W$ in a 3-manifold $W$ is said to be *incompressible* if each component $S_j$ of $S$ is not a $2$-sphere and the induced homomorphism $f^*: \pi_1(S_j, s)\ra \pi_1(W, f(s))$ is injective for any choice of base point $s$ in $S_j$. A surface $f:S\ra W$ in a 3-manifold $W$ is said to be [*essential*]{} if it is incompressible and for each component $S_j$ of $S$, the map $f: S_j\ra W$ cannot be properly homotoped into a boundary component or an end component of $W$.
Connected essential surfaces in hyperbolic link complements can be divided into three mutually exclusive geometric types: quasi-Fuchsian surfaces, geometrically infinite surfaces, and essential surfaces with accidental parabolics. Geometrically these three types of surfaces can be characterized by their limit sets as follows: a connected essential surface $f:S\ra M$ in a hyperbolic link complement $M$ is Quasi-Fuchsian if and only if the limit set of the subgroup $f^*(\pi_1(S))\subset \pi_1(M)$ is a Jordon circle in the boundary $2$-sphere of the hyperbolic $3$-space $\mathbb H^3$; is geometrically infinite if and only if the limit set of $f^*(\pi_1(S))$ is the whole $2$-sphere; and is having accidental parabolics otherwise. Topologically these three types of surfaces can be characterized as follows: a connected essential surface $f:S\ra M$ in a hyperbolic link complement $M$ is geometrically infinite if and only if it can be lifted (up to homotopy) to a fiber in some finite cover of $M$; is having accidental parabolics if and only $S$ contains a closed curve which cannot be freely homotoped in $S$ into a cusp of $S$ but can be freely homotoped in $M$ into a cusp of $M$, and is quasi-Fuchsian otherwise.
In [@MZ] it was shown that every hyperbolic knot complement contains closed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces. In this paper we extend this result to hyperbolic link complements.
\[main\] Every hyperbolic link complement contains closed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces.
This yields directly the following consequence.
\[cor\] For every given hyperbolic link complement $M$, if we remove certain finitely many slopes from each cusp of $M$, then all remaining Dehn fillings produce manifolds which contain closed incompressible surfaces.
We note that Corollary \[cor\] would also be a consequence of Khan and Markovic’s recent claim that every closed hyperbolic 3-manifold contains a surface subgroup.
This paper is an extension of [@MZ] where the existence of closed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces in any hyperbolic knot complement was proved. The proof of Theorem \[main\] follows essentially the approach given in [@MZ]. To avoid repetition, we shall assume the reader is familiar with the machinery laid out in [@MZ]. In particular we shall use most of the terms and properties about hyperbolic $3$-manifolds and about groups established in [@MZ], without recalling them in detail, and shall omit details of constructions and proof of assertions whenever they are natural generalization of counterparts of [@MZ].
To help the reader to get a general idea about which parts of our early arguments are needed to be adjusted nontrivially, we first very briefly recall how a closed quasi-Fuchsian surface was constructed in a hyperbolic knot complement. We started with a pair of connected bounded embedded quasi-Fuchsian surfaces in a given hyperbolic knot exterior $M^-$ (which is truncation of a hyperbolic knot complement $M$) with distinct boundary slopes in $\p M^-$. We then considered two hyperbolic convex $I$-bundles resulting from the two corresponding quasi-Fuchsian surface groups. By a careful “convex gluing” of two suitable finite covers of some truncated versions of the two $I$-bundles, and then “capping off convexly” by a solid cusp, we constructed a convex hyperbolic $3$-manifold $Y$ with a local isometry $f$ into the given hyperbolic knot complement $M$. The manifold $Y$ had non-empty boundary each component of which provided a closed quasi-Fuchsian surface in $M$ under the map $f$. To find the required finite covers of the truncated $I$-bundles and at the same time to lift certain immersions to embeddings, we needed a stronger version of subgroup separability property for surface groups with boundary, which was proved using Stallings’ folding graph techniques.
Now to extend the construction to work for hyperbolic link complements, we first need to prove, for any given hyperbolic link exterior $M^-$, the existence of two properly embedded bounded quasi-Fuchsian surfaces $S_i^-$, $i=1,2$, in $M^-$, each of which is not necessarily connected, with the crucial property that for each of $i=1,2$ and each component $T_j$ of $\p M^-$, $S_i^-\cap T_j$ is a non-empty set of simple closed essential curves, and furthermore the slope of the curves $S_1^-\cap T_j$ is different from that of $S_2^-\cap T_j$ for each $T_j$. The proof of this result, given in Section \[bs\], is based on work of Culler-Shalen [@CS] and Cooper-Long [@CL] and Thurston [@T], making use of the $SL_2(\c)$ character variety of the link exterior $M^-$ and some special properties of essential surfaces in hyperbolic $3$-manifolds with accidental parabolics. With the given two surfaces $S_i^-$, $i=1,2$, we may construct two corresponding convex $I$-bundles (in the current situation each $I$-bundle may not be connected). Following the approach in [@MZ] we still want to choose a suitable cover for each component of each of the truncated $I$-bundles, and “convexly glue” them all together in certain way and “convexly cap off” with $m$ (which is the number of components of $\p M^-$) solid cusps, to form a convex hyperbolic $3$-manifold $Y$, with a local isometry $f$ into $M$, such that the boundary of $Y$ is a non-empty set, each component of which is mapped by $f$ to a closed quasi-Fuchsian surface in $M$.
As before, we want to choose the cover so that the boundary components of $S_i^-$ unwrap as much as possible. And if the two surfaces $S_i^-$ are connected, our previous arguments go through with very little change. However, if the surfaces $S_i^-$ are disconnected, complications arise. In order to piece the different covers together, we need to know that they all have the same degree. And this turns out to require a non-trivial strengthening of our previous separability result; see Theorem \[each large n\]. The proof of this property uses a careful refinement of the folding graph arguments used in [@MZ].
Cusped qausi-Fuchsian surfaces in hyperbolic link complements {#bs}
=============================================================
From now on let $M$ be a given hyperbolic link complement of $m\geq 2$ cusps. For each of $i=1,...,m$, let $C_i$ be a fixed $i$-th cusp of $M$ which is geometric, embedded and small enough so that $C_1,...,C_m$ are mutually disjoint. The complement of the interior of $C_1\cup...\cup C_m$ in $M$, which we denote by $M^-$, is a compact, connected and orientable $3$-manifold whose boundary is a set of $m$ tori. We call $M^-$ a *truncation* of $M$. Let $T_k=\p C_k$, $k=1,...,m$. Then $\p
M^-=T_1\cup...\cup T_m$.
\[slopes\] There are two embedded essential quasi-Fuchsian surfaces $S_1$ and $S_2$ in $M$ (each $S_i$ may not be connected) such that for each of $i=1,2$ and each of $k=1,...,m$, $S_i\cap T_k$ is a nonempty set of parallel simple closed essential curves in $T_k$ of slope $\lambda_{i,k}$ and $\lambda_{1,k}\ne \lambda_{2,k}$.
It is equivalent to show that the truncation $M^-$ of $M$ contains two properly embedded bounded essential surfaces $S_1^-$ and $S_2^-$ such that: (i) For each of $i=1,2$, each component of $S_i^-$ is not a fiber or semi-fiber of $M^-$. (ii) For each of $i=1,2$, any closed curve in $S_i^-$ that can be freely homotoped in $M^-$ into $\p M^-$ can also be freely homotoped in $S_i^-$ into $\p S_i^-$. (iii) For each of $i=1,2$ and each of $k=1,...,m$, $S_i^-$ has non-empty boundary on $T_k$ of boundary slope $\lambda_{i,k}$ and $\lambda_{1,k}\ne \lambda_{2,k}$.
Let $\{\g_k\subset T_k; k=1,...,m\}$ be any given set of $n$ slopes. By [@CS Theorem 3], there is a properly embedded essential surface $S_1^-$ (maybe disconnected) in $M^-$ with the following properties (in fact the surface $S_1^-$ is obtained through a nontrivial group action on a simplicial tree associated to an ideal point of a curve in a component of the $SL(2,\c)$-character variety of $M^-$ which contains the character of a discrete faithful representation of $\pi_1(M^-)$):
\(1) No component of $S_1^-$ is a fiber or semi-fiber of $M^-$.
\(2) For each of $k=1,...,m$, $S_1^-$ has non-empty boundary on $T_k$ of boundary slope $\lambda_{1,k}$ which is different from $\g_k$.
\(3) If an element of $\pi_1(M^-)$ is freely homotopic to a curve in $M^-\setminus S_1^-$, then it is contained in a vertex stabilizer of the action on the tree.
\(4) If an element of $\pi_1(M^-)$ is freely homotopic to $\g_k$, then it is not contained in any vertex stabilizer of the action on the tree and thus must intersect $S_1^-$.
\(5) If an element of $\pi_1(M^-)$ is freely homotopic to a curve in $S_1^-$, then it is contained in an edge stabilizer of the tree. It follows that
\(6) If an element of $\pi_1(M^-)$ is freely homotopic to a simple closed essential curve in $T_k$ whose slope is different from $\lambda_{1,k}$, then it is not contained in any vertex stabilizer of the action on the tree.
Let $S^-_{1,j}$, $j=1,...,n_1$, be the components of $S^-_1$. If some $S^-_{1,j}$ has a closed curve which cannot be freely homotoped in $S_1^-$ into $\p S_1^-$ but can be freely homotoped in $M^-$ into $\p M$, then arguing as in [@CL Lemma 2.1], we see that there is an embedded annulus $A$ in $M^-\setminus S^-_{1,j}$ such that one boundary component, denoted $a_1$, of $A$ lies in $S_{1,j}^-$ and is not boundary parallel in $S^-_{1,j}$, and the other boundary component, denoted $a_2$, of $A$ is contained in some boundary component $T_k$ of $M^-$. By Properties (5) and (6) listed above, we have
\(7) $a_2\subset T_k$ must have the slope $\lambda_{1,k}$.
Now consider in $A$ the intersection set $A\cap (S^-_1-S^-_{1,j})$ of $A$ with other components of $S_1^-$. By Property (7), we may assume that $\p A\cap
(S^-_1-S^-_{1,j})=\emptyset$. Thus by proper isotopy of $(S_1^--S^-_{1,j}, \p
(S^-_1-S^-_{1,j}))\subset (M^-,\p M^-)$ and surgery (if necessary) we may assume that each component of $A\cap (S^-_1-S^-_{1,j})$ is a circle which is isotopic in $A$ to the center circle of $A$ and if the component is contained in $S^-_{1,j'}$, then it is not boundary parallel in $S^-_{1,j'}$. So the component of $A\cap (S^-_1-S^-_{1,j})$, denoted $a_1'$, which is closest to $a_2$ in $A$, cuts out from $A$ an sub-annulus $A'$ which is properly embedded in $M^-\setminus S^-_1$ such that $a_1'$ lies in $S^-_{1,j'}$, for some $j'$, and is not boundary parallel in $S^-_{1,j'}$. So we may perform the annulus compression on $S^-_{1,j'}$ along $A'$ to get an essential surface which still satisfies the properties (1)-(6) above (because the new resulting surface can be considered as a subsurface of the old surface $S_1^-$ and because of property (7)) but has larger Euler characteristic. Thus such annulus compression must terminate in a finite number of times. So eventually we end up with a surface, which we still denote by $S_1^-$, satisfying the condition
\(8) Any closed curve in $S_1^-$ that can be freely homotoped in $M^-$ into $\p M$ can be freely homotoped in $S_1^-$ into $\p S_1^-$.
Now letting $\g_k=\lambda_{1,k}, k=1,...,m$, and repeating the above arguments, we may get another properly embedded essential surface $S_2^-$ such that
(1’) Each component of $S_2^-$ is not a fiber or semi-fiber of $M^-$.
(2’) For each of $k=1,...,m$, $S_2^-$ has non-empty boundary on $T_k$ of boundary slope $\lambda_{2,k}$ which is different from $\lambda_{1,k}$.
(8’) Any closed curve in $S_2^-$ that can be freely homotoped in $M^-$ into $\p M$ can be freely homotoped in $S_2^-$ into $\p S_2^-$.
So $S_1^-$ and $S_2^-$ satisfy conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) listed above. The lemma is thus proved.
Let $S_i,i=1,2$ be the two surfaces provided by Lemma \[slopes\]. By taking disjoint parallel copies of some components of $S_i$ (if necessary), we may and shall assume
\[at least two\] [For each $i=1,2$ and $k=1,...,m$, $S_i\cap T_k$ has a positive, even number of components]{}.
\[dik\] [Let $S_{i,j}$, $j=1,...,n_i$, be components of $S_i$, $i=1,2$. Let $i_*$ be the number such that $\{i,i_*\}=\{1,2\}$ for $i=1,2$. Let $S_i^-=S_i\cap M^-$ and let $\p_k
S_{i,j}^-$ be the boundary components of $S^-_{i,j}$ on $T_k$ (which may be empty for some $j$’s) and let $\p_k S_i^-=\cup_j \p_k S_{i,j}^-$. Now for each $i=1,2, k=1,...,m$, let $d_{i,k}$ be the geometric intersection number in $T_k$ between a component of $\p_k S_i^-$ and the whole set $\p_k S_{i_*}$. Obviously $d_{i, k}$ is independent of the choice of the component of $\p_k S_i^-$. By Condition \[at least two\], $d_{i,k}\geq 2$ is even for each $i,k$. Now set $$d_i=lcm\{d_{i,k}; \;k=1,...,m\},$$ the (positive) least common multiple. Then $d_i\geq 2$ is even for each $i=1,2$.]{}
Let $\mathbb H^3$ be the hyperbolic $3$-space in the upper half space model, let $S_{\infty}^2$ be the $2$-sphere at $\infty$ of $\mathbb H^3$ and let $\overline{\mathbb H}^3 =\mathbb H^3\cup S_{\infty}^2$.
By Mostow-Prasad rigidity, the fundamental group of $M$ (for any fixed choice of base point) can be uniquely identified as a discrete torsion free subgroup $\G$ of $Isom^+(\mathbb H^3)$ up to conjugation in $Isom(\mathbb H^3)$ so that $M=\mathbb H^3/\G$. We shall fix one such identification. Let $p:\mathbb
H^3\ra M$ be the corresponding covering map.
For the given surface $S_{i,j}$ in $M$ (for each $i, j$), we identify its fundamental group with a quasi-Fuchsian subgroup $\G_{i,j}$ of $\G$ as follows. As $S_{i, j}$ is embedded in $M$ we may consider it as a submanifold of $M$. Fix a component $\tilde S_{i,j}$ of $p^{-1}(S_{i,j})$ (topologically $\tilde S_{i,j}$ is an open disk in $\mathbb H^3$), there is a subgroup $\G_{i,j}$ in the stabilizer of $\tilde S_{i,j}$ in $\G$ such that $S_{i,j}=\tilde S_{i,j}/\G_{i,j}$.
Note that the limit set $\L_{i,j}$ of $\G_{i,j}$ is a Jordan circle in the $2$-sphere $S^2_{\infty}$ at the $\infty$ of $\mathbb H^3$. Let $H_{i,j}$ be the convex hull of $\L_{i,j}$ in $\mathbb H^3$.
Let ${\cal B}_k=p^{-1}(C_k)$, $k=1,...,m$, and ${\cal B}=p^{-1}(C)$. Then by our assumption on $C$, ${\cal B}$ is a set of mutually disjoint horoballs in $\mathbb H^3$. Let $B$ be a component of ${\cal B}$ and let $\p B$ be the frontier of $B$ in $\mathbb H^3$. Then $\p B$ with the induced metric is isometric to a Euclidean plane. We shall simply call $\p B$ a Euclidean plane. A strip between two parallel Euclidean lines in $\p B$ will be called a Euclidean strip in $\p B$. Note that every Euclidean line in $\p B$ bounds a totally geodesic half plane in $B$ (which is perpendicular to $\p B$). By a [*$3$-dimensional strip region*]{} in $B$ we mean a region in $B$ between two totally geodesic half planes in $B$ bounded by two parallel disjoint Euclidean lines in $\p B$.
\[strip\] If the cusp set $C=C_1\cup ...\cup C_m$ of $M$ is small enough, then for each component $B$ of ${\cal B}$ whose point at $\infty$ is a parabolic fixed point of $\G_{i,j}$, $H_{i,j}\cap B$ is a $3$-dimensional strip region in $B$.
The proof is similar to that of [@MZ Lemma 5.2].
From now on we assume that $C$ has been chosen so that Lemma \[strip\] holds for all $i=1,2,
j=1,...,n_i$. For a fixed small $\e>0$, let $X_{i,j}$ be the $\e$-collared neighborhood of $H_{i,j}$ in $\mathbb H^3$. Then it follows from Lemma \[strip\] that for each component $B$ of ${\cal B}$ whose point at $\infty$ is a parabolic fixed point of $\G_{i,j}$,, $X_{i,j}\cap B$ is a $3$-dimensional strip region in $B$, for all $i=1,2, j=1,..., n_i$, by geometrically shrinking $C$ further if necessary.
Note that $X_{i,j}$ is a metrically complete and strictly convex hyperbolic $3$-submanifold of $\mathbb{H}^3$ with $C^1$ boundary, invariant under the action of $\G_{i,j}$. Let $${\cal
B}_{i,j}=\{X_{i,j}\cap B; \mbox{$B$ a component of $ {\cal B}$ based at a
parabolic fixed point of $\G_{i,j}$}\}.$$ We call ${\cal B}_{i,j}$ the *horoball region* of $X_{i,j}$. Let $X_{i,j}^-=X_{i,j}\setminus {\cal B}_{i,j}$, and call $X_{i,j}^-\cap \p {\cal B}_{i,j}$ the *parabolic boundary* of $X_{i,j}^-$, denoted by $\p_p X_{i,j}^-$. Note that $ X_{i,j}^-$ is locally convex everywhere except on its parabolic boundary.
Each of $X_{i,j}$, ${\cal B}_{i,j}$, $X_{i,j}^-$ and $\p_p X_{i,j}^-$ is invariant under the action of $\G_{i,j}$. Let $Y_{i,j}=X_{i,j}/\G_{i,j}$, which is a metrically complete and strictly convex hyperbolic $3$-manifold with boundary. Topologically $Y_{i,j}=S_{i,j}\times I$, where $I = [-1, 1]$. There is a local isometry $f_{i,j}$ of $Y_{i,j}$ into $M$, which is induced from the covering map $\mathbb H^3/\G_{i,j}\;\lra \;M$ by restriction on $Y_{i,j}$, since $Y_{i,j}=X_{i,j}/\G_{i,j}$ is a submanifold of $\mathbb H^3/\G_{i,j}$. Also $p|_{X_{i,j}}=f_{i,j}\circ p_{i,j}$, where $p_{i,j}$ is the universal covering map $X_{i,j}\ra Y_{i,j}=X_{i,j}/\G_{i,j}$. Let $Y_{i,j}^-=X_{i,j}^-/\G_{i,j}$, let ${\cal C}_{i,j}={\cal B}_{i,j}/\G_{i,j}$, and let $\p_p Y_{i,j}^-=\p_p X_{i,j}^-/\G_{i,j}$. We call ${\cal C}_{i,j}$ the cusp part of $Y_{i,j}$, and call $\p_pY_{i,j}^-$ the parabolic boundary of $Y_{i,j}^-$, which is the frontier of $Y_{i,j}^-$ in $Y_{i,j}$ and is also the frontier of ${\cal C}_{i,j}$ in $Y_{i,j}$. Each component of $\p_p Y_{i,j}^-$ is a Euclidean annulus. The manifold $Y_{i,j}^-$ is locally convex everywhere except on its parabolic boundary. Topologically $Y_{i,j}^-=S_{i,j}^-\times I$.
As in [@MZ Section 5], we fix a product $I$-bundle structure for $Y_{i,j}=S_{i,j}\times I$ such that each component of ${\cal C}_{i,j}$ has the induced $I$-bundle structure which is the product of a totally geodesic cusp annulus and the $I$-fiber (i.e. we assume that $(S_{i,j}\times \{0\})\cap {\cal C}_{i,j}$ is a set of totally geodesic cusp annuli). We let every free cover of $Y_{i,j}$ have the induced $I$-bundle structure. In particular $X_{i,j}$ has the induced $I$-bundle structure from that of $Y_{i,j}$, and this structure is preserved by the action of $\G_{i,j}$; i.e. every element of $\G_{i,j}$ sends an $I$-fiber of $X_{i,j}$ to an $I$-fiber of $X_{i,j}$. Similar to [@MZ Corollary 5.6], we have
\[length\] For each of $i=1,2, j=1,...,n_i$, there is an upper bound for the lengths of the $I$-fibers of $X_{i,j}$.
The restriction of the map $f_{i,j}$ on the center surface $S_{i,j}\times \{0\}$ of $Y_{i,j}=S_{i,j}\times I$ may not be an embedding in general but by Lemma \[strip\] we may and shall assume that the map is an embedding when restricted on $(S_{i,j}\times \{0\})\cap {\cal
C}_{i,j}$. We now replace our original embedded surface $S_{i,j}$ by the center surface $f_{i,j}:S_{i,j}\times\{0\}$ and we simply denote $S_{i,j}\times \{0\}$ by $S_{i,j}$.
The restriction map $f_{i,j}:(Y_{i,j}^-, \p_p Y_{i,j}^-)\ra (M^-,\p M^-)$ is a proper map of pairs and $f_{i,j}:
(S_{i,j}^-,\p S_{i,j}^-)\ra (M^-, \p M^-)$ is a proper map which is an embedding on $\p S_{i,j}^-$ (This property will remain valid if we shrink the cusp $C$ of $M$ geometrically). In fact $f_{i,j}(\p S_{i,j}^-)$ are embedded Euclidean circles in $\p M^-$. Hence boundary slopes of the new quasi-Fuchsian surfaces $f_{i,j}:
(S_{i,j}^-,\p S_{i,j}^-)\ra (M^-, \p M^-)$ are defined and are the same as those of the original embedded surfaces $S_{i,j}^-$.
\[still defined\] [As $f_{i, j}: \p S_{i, j}^-\ra \p M^-$ is an embedding, we sometimes simply consider $\p S_{i, j}^-$ as subset of $\p M^-$, for each $i=1,2,
j=1,..., n_i$. By choosing a slightly different center surface for $Y_{i, j}$ (if necessary), we may assume that the components of $\{\p S_{i, j}^-, j=1,..., n_i\}$ are mutually disjoint in $\p M^-$, for each fixed $i=1,2$. So the numbers $d_{i, k}$, $d_i$ defined in Notation \[dik\] remain well defined for the current surface $f_{i, j}:(S_{i, j}^-, \p S_{i, j}^-)\ra (M, \p M)$ and are the same numbers as given there, for all $i, j$. Also $\p_k S_{i, j}^-$ remain defined as before for all $i, j$. ]{}
Let $\tilde S_{i, j}$ and $\tilde S_{i,j}^-$ be the corresponding center surfaces of $X_{i,j}$ and $X_{i, j}^-$ respectively.
Note also that if a component of $\p S_{i,j}^-$ intersects a component of $\p S_{i_*,j'}^-$ in some component $T_k$ of $\p M^-$, then they intersect geometrically in $T_k$, and their intersection points in $T_k$ are one-to-one corresponding to the geodesic rays of $f_{i,j}(S_{i,j})\cap f_{i_*,j'}(S_{i_*,j'})\cap C_k$.
We fix an orientation for $S_{i,j}$, and let $S_{i,j}^-$ and $\p S_{i,j}^-$ have the induced orientation.
Construction of intersection pieces $K_{i,j}$
=============================================
Suppose that $\p S_{i,j}^-$ intersects $\p S_{i_*,j'}^-$ for some $j,j'$. We construct the “intersection pieces” $K_{i, j,j'}$ and $K_{i_*,j',j}$ between $Y_{i,j}$ and $Y_{i_*,j'}$ in a similar fashion as in [@MZ Section 6] such that (1) $K_{i, j,j'}$ and $K_{i_*,j',j}$ are isometric. (2) Each component of $K_{i, j,j'}$ or of $K_{i_*,j',j}$ is a metrically complete convex hyperbolic $3$-manifold. (3) There are local isometries $g_{i,j,j'}: K_{i,j,j'}\ra Y_{i,j}$ and $g_{i_*,j',j}:K_{i_*,j',j}\ra Y_{i_*,j'}$. (4) $K^-_{i,j,j'}$ and $K^-_{i_*,j',j}$ (which are the truncated versions of $K_{i, j,j'}$ and $K_{i_*,j',j}$ respectively) are compact. (5) Each component of the parabolic boundary $\p_p K_{i,j,j'}^-$ of $K_{i,j,j'}^-$ is a Euclidean parallelogram, the number of cusp ends of $K_{i,j,j'}$ is precisely the number of intersection points between $f_{i,j}(\p S_{i,j}^-)$ and $f_{i_*,j'}(\p S_{i_*,j'}^-)$. Similar properties hold for $K_{i_*,j',j}$. (6) The restriction of $g_{i,j,j'}$ to $K_{i,j,j'}\setminus K_{i,j,j'}^-$ is an embedding and so is the restriction of $g_{i_*,j',j}$ to $K_{i_*,j',j}\setminus K_{i_*,j',j}^-$. (7) $f_{i,j}(g_{i,j,j'}(K_{i,j,j'}\setminus K_{i,j,j'}^-))$ contains $f_{i,j}(S_{i,j})\cap f_{i_*,j'}(S_{i_*,j'})
\cap C$ (the latter is a set of geodesic rays) and so does $f_{i_*,j'}(g_{i_*,j',j}(K_{i_*,j',j}\setminus K_{i_*,j',j}^-))$.
Let $K_{i,j}$ be the disjoint union of these $K_{i,j,j'}$ over such $j'$. Then the number of components of $\p_p K_{i,j}^-$ is precisely the number of intersection points between $\p S_{i,j}^-$ and $\p
S_{i_*}^-$. In fact there is a canonical one-to-one correspondence between components of $\p_p K_{i,j}^-$ and the intersection points between $\p S_{i,j}^-$ and $\p S_{i_*}^-$.
Let $K_{i}$ be the disjoint union of these $K_{i,j}$. Then the number of cusp ends of $K_{i}$ is precisely the number of intersection points between $\p S_{i}^-$ and $\p S_{i_*}$ and there is an isometry between $K_1$ and $K_2$.
Construction of $J_{i,j}$, $J_{i,j}^-$ , $\hat J_{i,j}$ and $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$
============================================================================
As in [@MZ Section 6], we fix a number $R>0$ bigger than the number $R(\e)$ provided in [@MZ Proposition 4.5] and also bigger than the upper bound provided by Lemma \[length\] for the lengths of $I$-fibers of $X_{i,j}$ (for each of $i=1,2$, $j=1,...,n_i$). As in [@MZ Section 6], we define and construct the [*abstract $R$-collared neighborhood of $K_{i,j}$ with respect to $X_{i,j}$*]{} which is denoted by $AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j})$. Also define the truncated version $(AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j}))^-$, the parabolic boundary $\p_p (AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j}))^-$ and the cups region $AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j})\setminus(AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j}))^-$ accordingly.
Now as in [@MZ Section 7], we construct a connected metrically complete, convex, hyperbolic $3$-manifold $J_{i,j}$ with a local isometry $g_{i,j}:J_{i,j}\ra Y_{i,j}$ such that $J_{i,j}$ contains $AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j})$ as a hyperbolic submanifold, and $J_{i,j}\setminus AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j})$ is a compact $3$-manifold $W_{i,j}$ (which may not be connected). Also $W_{i,j}$ is disjoint from $AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j})\setminus
(AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j}))^-$, the parabolic boundary $\p_p J_{i,j}^-$ of $J_{i,j}^-$ is equal to the parabolic boundary of $(AN_{(R,X_{i,j})}(K_{i,j}))^-$, and $g_{i,j}|: (J_{i,j}^-, \p_p J_{i,j}^-)\ra
(Y_{i,j}^-, \p_pY_{i,j}^-)$ is a proper map of pairs.
Each component of $\p_p J_{i,j}^-$ is a Euclidean parallelogram and thus can be capped off by a convex $3$-ball. Let $\hat J_{i,j}$ be the resulting manifold after capping off all components of $\p_p J_{i,j}^-$. Then $\hat J_{i,j}$ is a connected, compact, convex $3$-manifold with a local isometry (which we still denote by $g_{i,j}$) into $Y_{i,j}$.
The number of components of $\p_p J_{i,j}^-$ is equal to the number of components of $\p_p K_{i,j}^-$, and the former is an abstract $R$-collared neighborhood of the latter with respect to $\p_p X_{i,j}^-$.
[The components of $\p_p J_{i,j}^-$ are canonically one-to-one correspond to the intersection points of $\p S_{i, j}^-$ with $\p S_{i_*}^-$.]{}
Now as in [@MZ Section 8], we construct, for each sufficiently large integer $n$, a connected, compact, convex, hyperbolic $3$-manifold $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ with a local isometry (still denoted as $g_{i,j}$) into $Y_{i,j}$ such that $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ contains $J_{i,j}^-$ as a hyperbolic submanifold. The manifold $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ is obtained by gluing together $J_{i,j}^-$ with $n_{i,j}$ “multi-$1$-handles” $H_{i,j,a}(n), a=1,...,n_{i,j}$, along the attaching region $\p_p J_{i,j}^-$, where $n_{i,j}$ is the number of components of $\p S_{i,j}^-$. But there is a subtle difference from the construction of [@MZ Section 8] in choosing “the wrapping numbers” of the handles $H_{i,j,a}(n)$.
\[diff lengths\] [If $\b$ is a component of $\p S_{i,j}^-$ which lies in the component $T_k$ of $\p M$, then the multi-$1$-handle associated to it, say the $a$-th one $H_{i,j,a}(n)$, will have “wrapping number” $\frac{n d_i}{d_{i,k}}$ (instead of $n$ given in [@MZ Section 8]), where $d_{i,k}$ and $d_i$ were defined in Notation \[dik\].]{}
Finding the right covers {#lifting}
========================
Recall the definitions of $n_i$ and $d_i$ given in Notation \[dik\]. The main task of this section is to prove the following
\[each large n\]Given $S_{i,j}^-$, there is a positive even integer $N_{i,j}$ such that for each even integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$, we have (1) $S_{i,j}^-$ has an $$m_i=N_* d_i+1$$ fold cover $\breve S_{i,j}^-$ with $|\p \breve S_{i,j}^-|=|\p S_{i,j}^-|$ (i.e. each component of $\p
\breve S_{i,j}^-$ is an $m_i$-fold cyclic cover of a component of $\p S_{i,j}^-$). So equivalently each $Y_{i,j}^-$ has an $$m_i=N_* d_i+1$$ fold cover $\breve Y_{i,j}^-$ with $|\p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^-|=|\p_p Y_{i,j}^-|$ (i.e. each component of $\p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^-$ is an $m_i$-fold cyclic cover of a component of $\p_p Y_{i,j}^-$). (2) The map $g_{i,j}:J_{i,j}^-\ra Y_{i,j}^-$ lifts to an embedding $\breve g_{i,j}:J_{i,j}^-\ra \breve
Y_{i,j}^-$ and if $\tilde A$ is a component of $\p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^- $, then components of $\breve
g_{i,j}(\p_p J_{i,j}^-)\cap \breve A$ are evenly spaced along $\breve A$. More precisely if $\breve
\b$ is the component of $\p \breve S_{i,j}^-$ corresponding to $\breve A$, covering a component $\b$ of $\p S_{i,j}^-$ in $T_k$, then the topological center points of $\tilde
g_{i,j}(\p_p J_{i,j}^-)\cap \breve A$ divide $\breve \b$ into arc components each with wrapping number $N_*\frac{d_i}{d_{i,k}}$.
Of course in Theorem \[each large n\], the cover $\tilde S_{i,j}^-$ and the number $m_i$ depend on $N_*$. For simplicity, we suppressed this dependence in notation for $\tilde S_{i,j}^-$ and $m_i$. Similar suppressed notations will occur also in other places later in the paper when there is no danger of causing confusion, and we shall not remark on this all the time.
For the definition of the wrapping number see Definition \[wrapping\].
\[indep of j\]There is a positive even integer $N_0$ such that for each even integer $N_*\geq N_0$ and for each $i=1,2, j=1,...,n_i$, we have (1) $S_{i,j}^-$ has an $$m_i=N_* d_i+1$$ fold cover $\breve S_{i,j}^-$ with $|\p \breve S_{i,j}^-|=|\p S_{i,j}^-|$. So equivalently each $Y_{i,j}^-$ has an $$m_i=N_* d_i+1$$ fold cover $\breve Y_{i,j}^-$ with $|\p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^-|=|\p_p Y_{i,j}^-|$. (2) The map $g_{i,j}:J_{i,j}^-\ra Y_{i,j}^-$ lifts to an embedding $\breve g_{i,j}:J_{i,j}^-\ra \breve
Y_{i,j}^-$ and if $\tilde A$ is a component of $\p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^- $, then components of $\breve
g_{i,j}(\p_p J_{i,j}^-)\cap \breve A$ are evenly spaced along $\breve A$. More precisely if $\breve
\b$ is the component of $\p \breve S_{i,j}^-$ corresponding to $\breve A$, covering a component $\b$ of $\p S_{i,j}^-$ in $T_k$, then the topological center points of $\tilde
g_{i,j}(\p_p J_{i,j}^-)\cap \breve A$ divide $\breve \b$ into arc components each with wrapping number $N_*\frac{d_i}{d_{i,k}}$.
Apply Theorem \[each large n\] and let $N_0=max\{N_{i,j}; i=1,2,j=1,...,n_i\}$.
Corollary \[indep of j\] is to say that the number $N_*$ and thus the number $m_i$ are independent of the second index $j$ in $S_{i,j}^-$.
For notational simplicity, we shall only consider the following two cases in proving Theorem \[each large n\]:
[**Case 1**]{}. A given surface $S_{i,j}^-$ has $b_1$ boundary components $\{\b_{1,p}, p=1,...,
b_1\}$ on $T_1$ and $b_2$ boundary components $\{\b_{2,p}, p=1,...,b_2\}$ on $T_2$, and is disjoint from $T_3,...,T_m$. So $n_{i,j}=b_1+b_2$ which is the number of components of $\p S_{i,j}^-$.
[**Case 2**]{}. A given surface $S_{i,j}^-$ has only one boundary component $\{\b\}$ on $T_1$ and is disjoint from $T_2,...,T_m$. So $n_{i,j}=1$, which is the number of components of $\p
S_{i,j}^-$.
The reader will see that the proof of Theorem \[each large n\] for a general surface $S_{i,j}^-$ will be very similar to either case 1 or 2, depending on whether $S_{i,j}^-$ has multiple boundary components, or just a single one.
[**Proof of Theorem \[each large n\] in Case 1**]{}.
Again to avoid too complicated notations on indices, in the following we shall suppress the indices $i,j$ for some items depending on them, when there is no danger of causing confusion.
Recall that $\p S_{i,j}^-$ have the induced orientation from the orientation of $S_{i,j}^-$. Let $\b_{k,p}, p=1,...,b_k$ be the oriented boundary components of $\p S_{i,j}$ in $T_k$ for each $k=1,2$. Recall the number $d_{i,k}$ given in Notation \[dik\]. We list the set of intersection points of $\p S_{i,j}^-$ with $\p S_{i_*}^-$ as $t_{k,p,q}$, $k=1,2$, $p=1,...,b_k$ and $q=1,...,d_{i,k}$, so that $t_{k,p,q}, q=1,...,d_{i,k}$, appear consecutively along $\b_{k,p}$ following its orientation. We choose $t_{1,1,1}$ as the base point for $\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-)=\pi_1(Y_{i,j}^-)=\pi_1(S_{i,j})=\pi_1(Y_{i,j})$.
\[n even\] [[**From now on in this paper we assume that $n$ is a positive even number**]{}]{}
Recall that there is a local isometry $g_{i,j}:C_n(J_{i,j}^-)\ra Y_{i,j}$ which is a one-to-one map when restricted to the set of center points of $\p_p J_{i,j}^-$. We list these center points as $b_{k,p,q}$ so that $t_{k,p,q}=g_{i,j}(b_{k,p,q})$ for all $k,p,q$. We choose $b_{1,1,1}$ as the base point for each of $J_{i,j}$, $J_{i,j}^-$, $\hat J_{i,j}$ and $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$.
Similar to the definition given in [@MZ p2144], we have
\[wrapping\][Suppose that $\breve p:\breve{\b}_{k,p}\ra
\b_{k,p}$ is a covering map, and let $\breve \b_{k,p}$ have the orientation induced from that of $\b_{k,p}$. Let $\a\subset \tilde \b_{k,p}$ be an embedded, connected, compact arc with the orientation induced from that of $\breve \b_{k,p}$, whose initial point is in $\breve p^{-1}(t_{k,p,q})$ and whose terminal point is in $\breve p^{-1}(t_{k,p,q+1})$ (here $q+1$ is defined mod $d_{i,k}$). We say that $\a$ has [*wrapping number*]{} $n$ if there are exactly $n$ distinct points of $\breve p_i^{-1}(t_{k,p,q})$ which are contained in the interior of $\a$.]{}
\[generators\] [Let $g$ be the genus of $S_{i,j}^-$. As in [@MZ Section 10], the group $\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$ has a set of generators $$L=\{a_1,b_1,a_2, b_2, ...,a_g,b_g,
x_{1},x_2, ...,x_{n_{i,j}-1}\}$$ such that the elements $$x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n_{i,j}-1},x_{n_{i,j}}=
[a_{1},b_{1}][a_{2},b_{2}]\cdots [a_{g},b_{g}]x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{n_{i,j}-1}$$ have representative loops, based at the point $t_{1,1,1}$, freely homotopic to the $n_{i,j}=b_1+b_2$ components $\b_{1,1},\b_{1,2},...,\b_{1,b_1},\b_{2,1},\b_{2,2},...,\b_{2,b_2}$ of $\p
S_{i,j}^-$ respectively. ]{}
As in [@MZ Section 10], we fix a generating set $$w_1,...,w_\ell$$ for $\pi_1(J_{i,j}^-,
b_{1,1,1})$ and choose a generating set $$w_1,...,w_\ell, z_{k,p,q}(n), \;k=1,2, p=1,..,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$$ for $\pi_1(C_n(J_{i,j}^-),b_{1,1,1})$ such that $$\pi_1(C_n(J_{i,j}^-),b_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(J_{i,j}^-, b_{1,1,1})*<z_{k,p,q}(n),
\;k=1,2, p=1,..,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1>$$ where $*$ denotes the free product, and $<z_{k,p,q}(n),
\;k=1,2, p=1,..,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1>$ is the free group freely generated by the $z_{k,p,q}(n)$’s.
Here are some necessary details of how $z_{k,p,q}(n)$ is defined, following [@MZ Section 10] but with different and simplified notations for indices. Let $\alpha_{k,p,q}\subset J_{i,j}^-$ be a fixed, oriented path from $b_{1,1,1}$ to $b_{k,p,q}$, for each of $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}$ ($\a_{1,1,1}$ is the constant path). Recall the construction of $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ and Adjustment \[diff lengths\]. For $k=1,2$, $p=1,...,b_k$, let $H_{k,p}(n)$ denote the multi-1-handle of $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ corresponding to the component $\b_{k,p}$ of $\p S_{i,j}^-$. For $k=1,2$, $p=1,..., b_k$, $1 \leq q \leq d_{i,k}-1$, let $\delta_{k,p,q}(n)$ be the oriented geodesic arc in the multi-one-handle $H_{k,p}(n)\subset C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ from the point $b_{k,p,q}$ to $b_{k,p,q+1}$. Then $$z_{k,p,q}(n)=
\alpha_{k,p,q}\cdot\delta_{k,p,q}(n)\cdot\overline{\alpha_{k,p,q+1}},$$ where the symbol “$\cdot$” denotes path concatenation (sometimes omitted), and $\overline{\alpha_{k,p,q+1}}$ denotes the reverse of $\alpha_{k,p,q+1}$. Also we always write path (in particular loop) concatenation from left to right.
As in [@MZ Section 10], if $\a$ is an oriented arc in $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$, we use $\a^*$ to denote the oriented arc $g_{i,j}\circ\a$ in $Y_{i,j}$, and if $\g$ is an element in $\pi_1(C_n(J_{i,j}^-,
b_{1,1,1})$, we use $\g^*$ to denote the element $g_{i,j}^*(\g)$ where $g_{i,j}^*$ is the induced homomorphism $g_{i,j}^*: \pi_1( C_N(J_{i,j}^-), b_{1,1,1})\ra \pi_1(Y_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1})$.
The oriented path $\alpha_{k,p,q}^*$ in $Y_{i,j}^-$ runs from $t_{1,1,1}$ to $t_{k,p,q}$. For $k=1,2$, $p=1,...,b_k$, $1 \leq q \leq d_{i,k}-1$, let $\eta_{k,p,q}$ be the oriented subarc in $\beta_{k,p}$ from $t_{k,p,q}$ to $t_{k,p,q+1}$ following the orientation of $\b_{k,p}$, and let $\s_{k,p,q}\subset Y_{i,j}^-$ be the loop $\alpha_{k,p,q}^*\cdot\eta_{k,p,q}\cdot\overline{\alpha_{k,p,q+1}}^*$. Let $\s_{k,p,0}$ be the constant path based at $t_{1,1,1}$. Let $x_{b}^{\prime}$ be the loop $\alpha_{1,b,1}^*\cdot\beta_{1,b}\cdot\overline{\alpha_{1,b,1}}^*$ if $b=1,...,b_1$ and be the loop $\alpha_{2,b-b_1,1}^*\cdot\beta_{2,b-b_1}\cdot\overline{\alpha_{2,b-b_1,1}}^*$ if $b=b_1+1,..., b_1+b_2=n_{i,j}$, where $\b_{k,p}$ is considered as an oriented loop starting and ending at the point $t_{k,p,1}$. Similar to [@MZ Lemma 10.1], we have
\[diff powers\] \[lk\] Considered as an element in $\pi_1(Y_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(S_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1})
=\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$, $$z_{k,p,q}(n)^* =
(\overline{\s_{k,p,q-1}}\cdots\overline{\s_{k,p,0}})
(x_{b_{k-1}+p}')^{n\frac{d_i}{d_{i,k}}}
(\s_{k,p,0}\cdots\s_{k,p,q}),$$ for each of $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$, where $b_0$ is defined to be $0$.
[The only real meaningful difference of this lemma from [@MZ Lemma 10.1] is that the power of $x_{b_{k-1}+p}'$ in the expression of $z_{k,p,q}(n)^*$ above depends on the indices $i$ and $k$ besides $n$, which is due to the Adjustment \[diff lengths\]. ]{}
Recall that $\hat J_{i,j}$ is a connected, compact, convex, hyperbolic 3-manifold obtained from $J_{i,j}^-$ by capping off each component of $\p_p
J_{i,j}^-$ with a compact, convex $3$-ball, and that $\pi_1(J_{i,j},
b_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(J_{i,j}^-,b_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(\hat J_{i,j},b_{1,1,1})$. Also, $\hat J_{i,j}$ is a submanifold of $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$, so by [@MZ Lemma 4.2], $\pi_1(\hat J_{i,j},b_{1,1,1})$ can be considered as a subgroup of $\pi_1(C_n(J_{i,j}^-),b_{1,1,1})$. As $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ is a connected, compact, convex, hyperbolic 3-manifold, the induced homomorphism $g_{i,j}^*:\pi_1(C_n(J_{i,j}^-), b_{1,1,1})\ra \pi_1(Y_{i,j},
t_{1,1,1})
=\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$ is injective by again [@MZ Lemma 4.2]. So $g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(C_n(J_{i,j}^-), b_{1,1,1}))= g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(J_{i,j}^-, b_{1,1,1}))
*<z_{k,p,q}(n),
\;k=1,2, p=1,..,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1>$ is a subgroup of $\pi_1(Y_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(S_{i,j},
t_{1,1,1}) =\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$.
By [@MZ Proposition 4.7] there is a set of elements $y_1,..., y_r$ in $$\pi_1(Y_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1}) -g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(\hat J_{i,j},b_{1,1,1}))$$ such that, if $G$ is a finite index subgroup of $\pi_1(Y_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1})$ which separates $g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(\hat J_{i,j},b_{1,1,1}))$ from $y_1,...,y_r$, then the local isometry $g_{i,j}:\hat J_{i,j}\ra Y_{i,j}$ lifts to an embedding $\breve g_{i,j}$ in the finite cover $\breve Y_{i,j}$ of $Y_{i,j}$ corresponding to $G$.
To prove Theorem \[each large n\] in Case 1, we just need to prove the following
\[large n\] There is a positive even integer $N_{i,j}$ such that for each even integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$, there is a finite index subgroup $G$ of $\pi_1(Y_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(S_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1}) =\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$ such that (i) $G$ has index $m_i=N_*d_i+1$; (ii) $G$ contains the elements $w_{1}^*,...,w_{l}^*$, and thus contains the subgroup $g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(\hat
J_{i,j},b_{1,1,1}))=g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(\hat J_{i,j}^-,b_{1,1,1}))$; (iii) $G$ contains the elements $z_{k,p,q}(N_*)^*$, $k=1,2$, $p=1,...,b_k$, $q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$; (iv) $G$ does not contain any of $x_b^d$, $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$, and $d=1,...,m_i-1$; (v) $G$ does not contain any of $y_1,...,y_r$.
Theorem \[each large n\] in Case 1 follows from Theorem \[large n\].
The proof is similar to that of [@MZ Proposition 11.1].
Let $\breve Y_{i,j}$ be the finite cover of $Y_{i,j}$ corresponding the subgroup $G$ provided by Theorem \[large n\], and let $\breve S_{i,j}$ be the corresponding center surface of $\breve Y_{i,j}$ covering $S_{i,j}$.
As noted earlier, Conditions (ii) and (v) of Theorem \[large n\] imply that the map $g_{i,j}:\hat J_{i,j}\ra Y_{i,j}$ lifts to an embedding $\breve g_{i,j}:\hat J_{i,j}\ra \breve Y_{i,j}$. Conditions (i) and (iv) of Theorem \[large n\] imply that $|\p \breve S_{i,j}^-|=|\p S_{i,j}|$. So part (1) of Theorem \[each large n\] holds in Case 1.
We may now let $\breve \b_{k,p}$ be the component of $\p \breve S_{i,j}^-$ covering $\b_{k,p}$ for each of $k=1,2, p=1,..., b_k$.
Conditions (ii) and (iii) of Theorem \[large n\] imply that the group $g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(C_{N^*}(J_{i,j}^-), b_{1,1,1}))$ is contained in $G$. Therefore the map $g_{i,j}:(C_{N_*}(J_{i,j}^-),b_{1,1,1})\ra (Y_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1})$ lifts to a map $$\breve g_{i,j}:(C_{N_*}(J_{i,j}^-), b_{1,1,1})\ra
(\breve Y_{i,j}, \breve g_{i,j}(b_{1,1,1})).$$ Recall the notations established earlier. Consider the multi-1-handle $H_{k,p}(N_*) \subset C_{N_*}(J_{i,j}^-)$ containing the points $b_{k,p,q}, q=1,...,d_{i,k}$, and the geodesic arcs $\d_{k,p, q}(N_*)\subset H_{k,p}(N_*)$, $q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$. By our construction the immersed arc $g_{i,j}:\d_{k,p,q}(N_*)\ra S_{i,j}$ is homotopic, with end points fixed, to the path in $\b_{k,p}$ which starts at the point $t_{k,p,q}$, wraps $N_*\frac{d_i}{d_{i,k}}$ times around $\b_{k,p}$ and then continues to the point $t_{k,p,q+1}$, following the orientation of $\b_{k,p}$. This latter (immersed) path lifts to an embedded arc in $\breve \b_{k,p}$ connecting $\breve g_{i, j}(b_{k,p,q})$ and $\breve g_{i, j}(b_{k,p,q+1})$, because $\breve \b_{k,p}$ is an $N_*d_i+1$-fold cyclic cover of $\b_{k,p}$. This shows that part (2) of Theorem \[each large n\] holds in Case 1.
Theorem \[large n\] is proved using the technique of folded graphs. We shall follow as closely as possible the approach used in [@MZ] and we assume the terminologies used there concerning $L$-directed graphs. Recall that $L$ is the generating set chosen in Notation \[generators\] for the free group $\pi_1(Y_{i,j},
t_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(S_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1}) =\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$. From now on any group element in $\pi_1(Y_{i,j},
t_{1,1,1})=\pi_1(S_{i,j}, t_{1,1,1}) =\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$ will be considered as a word in $L\cup L^{-1}$.
First we translate Theorem \[large n\] into the following theorem, in terms of folded graphs.
\[large\] There is a positive even integer $N_{i,j}$ such that for each even integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$ there is a finite, connected, $L$-labeled, directed graph ${\cal G}(N_*)$ (with a fixed base vertex $v_0$) with the following properties: (0) ${\cal G}(N_*)$ is $L$-regular;(1) The number of vertices of ${\cal G}(N_*)$ is $m_{i}=N_*d_i+1$; (2) Each of the words $w_1^*,..., w_\ell^*$ is representable by a loop, based at $v_0$, in ${\cal G}(N_*)$; (3) ${\cal G}(N_*)$ contains a closed loop, based at $v_0$, representing the word $z_{k,p,q}(N_*)^*$, for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$; (4) ${\cal G}(N_*)$ contains no loop representing the word $x_b^d$ for any $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$ and $d=1,...,m_{i}-1$; (5) each of the words $y_1,...,y_r$ is representable by a non-closed path, based at $v_0$, in ${\cal G}(N_*)$.
[The procedure for constructing the graphs described in Theorem \[large\] follows mostly that given in [@MZ Section 11]. In the current case we need to deal with two major complications. One is due to the fact that the number $d_{i, k}$ of intersection points in a boundary component $\b_{k,p}$ of $\p S_{i,j}^-$ depends on $k$; the other is due to the requirement of showing that such a graph ${\cal G}(N_*)$ exists for each even integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$. Actually our adjustment has begun as early as in Adjustment \[diff lengths\]. ]{}
[@MZ Remark 9.7] was one of the main group theoretical results obtained in [@MZ] and it will also play a fundamental role in our current case. We quote this result below as Theorem \[regular\] in the current notations.
\[regular\][([@MZ Remark 9.7])]{} If ${\cal G}_\#$ is a finite, connected, $L$-labeled, directed, folded graph with base vertex $v_0$, with corresponding subgroup $G_\# = L({\cal G}_\#,v_0) \subset \pi_1(S_{i,j}^-,t_{1,1,1})$, such that\
$\bullet\;$ ${\cal G}_\#$ does not contain any loop representing the word $x_b^d$ for any $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$, $d\in \z-\{0\}$, and\
$\bullet\;$ $y_1,...,y_r$ are some fixed, non-closed paths based at $v_0$ in ${\cal G}_\#$,\
then there is a finite, connected, $L$-regular graph ${\cal G}_*$ such that\
$\bullet\;$ ${\cal G}_*$ contains ${\cal G}_\#$ as an embedded subgraph, and thus in particular $y_1,...,y_r$ remain non-closed paths based at $v_0$ in ${\cal G}_*$, and\
$\bullet\;$ ${\cal G}_*$ contains no loops representing the word $x_b^d$, for each of $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$, $d=1,...,m_*-1$, where $m_*$ is the number of vertices of ${\cal G}_*$.
We now begin our constructional proof of Theorem \[large\]. Let ${\cal G}_{1}$ be the connected, finite, $L$-labeled, directed graph which results from taking a disjoint union of embedded loops– representing the reduced versions of the words $w_{1}^*, ..., w_{\ell}^*$ respectively– and non-closed embedded paths– representing the reduced versions of the words $y_{1}, ..., y_{r}$ respectively– and then identifying their base points to a common vertex $v_{0}$. Then $L({\cal G}_{1}, v_{0})$ represents the subgroup $g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1( J_{i,j}^-, b_{1,1,1}))$ of $\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$. Since the folding operation does not change the group that the graph represents, $L({\cal G}_{1}^f, v_{0})=g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(J_{i,j}^-,b_{1,1,1}))$ (where ${\cal G}_1^f$ denotes the folded graph of ${\cal G}_1$).
Recall from Lemma \[diff powers\] that $$z_{k,p,q}(n)^* =
(\overline{\s_{k,p,q-1}}\cdots\overline{\s_{k,p,0}})(x_{b_{k-1}+p}')^{n\frac{d_i}{d_{i,k}}}
(\s_{k,p,0}\cdots\s_{k,p,q}),$$ $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$. Note that $x_{b}'$ is conjugate to $x_b$ in $\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$, for $b=1,..., n_{i,j}$. Let $\t_{b}$ be an element of $\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$ such that $x_{b}^{\prime} = \t_{b} x_{b}\t_{b}^{-1}$, $b=1,..., n_{i,j}$. Let ${\cal G}_{2}$ be the connected graph which results from taking the disjoint union of ${\cal G}_{1}^f$ and non-closed embedded paths representing the reduced version of the words $\overline{\s_{k,p,q-1}}\cdots\overline{\s_{k,p,0}}\t_{b_{k-1}+p}$, $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$, respectively, and then identifying their base vertices into a single base vertex which we still denote by $v_{0}$. Then obviously we have $L({\cal G}_{2}^f, v_{0}) =
L({\cal G}_{2}, v_{0})
= L({\cal G}_{1}^f, v_{0})=g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(J_{i,j}^-,b_{1,1,1}))$.
Let $v_{k,p,q}$ be the terminal vertex of the path $\overline{\s_{k,p,q-1}}\cdots\overline{\s_{k,p,0}}\t_{b_{k-1}+p}$ in ${\cal G}_{2}^f$, for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}$. For each of $(1, p, q)$, $p=1,...,b_1, q=1,...,d_{i,1}$, and $(2, p,q)$, $p=1,..., b_2-1$, $q=1,...,d_{i,2}$, let $Q_{k,p,q}$ be the maximal $x_{b_{k-1}+p}$-path in $\widehat{{\cal G}_{2}^f}$ (a maximal $x_{b}$-path was defined in [@MZ Section 9]) which contains the vertex $v_{k,p,q}$. For each of $(2, b_2, q)$, $q=1,..., d_{i,2}$, let $Q_{2,b_2,q}$ be the maximal $x_{n_{i,j}}$-path in $\widehat{{\cal G}_{2}^f}$ determined by (1) if there is a directed edge of $\widehat{{\cal G}_{2}^f}$ with $v_{2,b_2,q}$ as its initial vertex and with the first letter of the word $x_{n_{i,j}}$ as its label, then $Q_{2, b_2,q}$ contains that edge; (2) if the edge described in (1) does not exists, then $v_{2,b_2,q}$ is the terminal vertex of $Q_{2,b_2,q}$ and the first letter of the word $x_{n_{i,j}}$ is the terminal missing label of $Q_{2,b_2,q}$. Note that each $Q_{k, p,q}$ is uniquely determined. Also no $Q_{k, p,q}$ can be an $x_{b}$-loop, since the group $L({\cal G}_{2}^f, v_{0})=g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(J_{i,j}^-,b_{1,1,1}))$ does not contain non-trivial peripheral elements of $\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-, t_{1,1,1})$ by [@MZ Lemma 4.2]. Let $v_{k,p,q}^-$ and $v_{k,p,q}^+$ be the initial and terminal vertices of $Q_{k,p,q}$ respectively. Note that if $p\ne b_2$ and $Q_{k,p,q}$ is not a constant path, then $v_{k,p,q}^-$ and $v_{k,p,q}^+$ must be distinct vertices; however $v_{2,b_2, q}^-$ and $v_{2,b_2,q}^+$ may possibly be the same vertex, even if $Q_{2, b_2, q}$ is a non-constant path.
Let $Q_{k,p,q}^-$ be the embedded subpath of $Q_{k,p,q}$ with $v_{k,p,q}^-$ as the initial vertex and with $v_{k,p,q}$ as the terminal vertex, and let $Q_{k,p,q}^+$ be the embedded subpath of $Q_{k,p,q}$ with $v_{k,p,q}$ as the initial vertex and with $v_{k,p,q}^+$ as the terminal vertex.
Note that the number $max\{Length(Q_{k,p,q}): k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}\}$ is independent of $n$, and thus is bounded. So we may assume that $$n>40|L|+2 max\{Length(Q_{k,p,q}): k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}\}.$$ We shall also assume that $n$ has been chosen large enough so that $C_n(J_{i,j}^-)$ is convex.
Now for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k$, $q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$, we make a new non-closed embedded path $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)$ representing the word $x_{b_{k-1}+p}^{n\frac{d_i}{d_{i,k}}}$, and we add it to the graph ${\cal
G}_{2}^f$, by identifying the initial vertex of $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)$ with $v_{k,p,q}$ and the terminal vertex with $v_{k,p,q+1}$.
[For each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k$, $q=d_{i,k}$, we make a new non-closed embedded path $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)$ representing the word $x_{b_{k-1}+p}^{n\frac{d_i}{d_{i,k}}}$, and we add it to the graph ${\cal G}_{2}^f$, by identifying the initial vertex of $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)$ with $v_{k,p,q}$. ]{}
\[total\][For each fixed $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k$, the paths $\{\Theta_{k,p,q}(n), q=1,...,d_{i,k}\}$, are connected together and form a connected path representing the word $x_{b_{k-1}+p}^{n d_i}$.]{}
In the resulting graph there are some obvious places one can perform the folding operation: for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$, the path $Q_{k,p,q}^+$ can be completely folded into the added new path $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)$, and likewise the path $Q_{k,p,q+1}^-$ can be completely folded into $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)$. Let ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ be the resulting graph after performing these specific folding operations for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}$.
From the explicit construction, it is clear that ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ has the following properties: (1) ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ is a connected, finite, $L$-labeled, directed graph; (2) ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ contains loops, based at $v_{0}$, representing the word $z_{k,p,q}(n)^*$ for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q =1,...,d_{i,k}-1$; (3) ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ contains ${\cal G}_{2}^f$ as an embedded subgraph.
It follows from Property (3) that the paths in ${\cal G}_{2}^f$ representing the words $y_{1}, ..., y_{r}$ remain each non-closed in ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$, and it follows from Properties (2) and (3) and the construction that $L({\cal G}_{3}(n),v_{0})
=g_{i,j}^*(\pi_1(C_n(J_{i,j}^-), b_{1,1,1}))$. So $\widehat{{\cal G}_{3}(n)}$ cannot have $x_{b}$-loops for any $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$ (again by [@MZ Lemma 4.2]).
Now we consider the remaining folding operations on ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ that need to be done, in order to get the folded graph ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$.
For each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$, let $$\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)' =\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)\setminus
(Q_{k,p,q}^+\cup Q_{k,p,q+1}^-),$$ and for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=d_{i,k}$, let $$\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)' =\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)\setminus Q_{k,p,q}^+.$$ Then by our construction each $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)'$ is an embedded $x_{b_{k-1}+p}$-path with $v_{k,p,q}^+$ as its initial vertex and with $v_{k,p,q+1}^-$ (when $q\ne
d_{i,k}$) as the terminal vertex. Also all these paths $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)'$,$k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k,
q=1,...,d_{i,k}$, are mutually disjoint in their interior, and their disjoint union is equal to ${\cal
G}_{3}(n)\setminus {\cal G}_{2}^f$. Since $\widehat{{\cal G}_{3}(n)}$ has no $x_{b}$-loops, we see immediately that when $(k,p)\ne (2, b_2)$, all the vertices $v_{k,p,q}^{\pm}$, $q=1,...,d_{i,k}$, are mutually distinct.
It follows that the only remaining folds are at the vertices $v_{2, b_2,q}^{\pm}$. At such a vertex there is at most one edge from $\Theta_{2,b_2,q}(n)'$ which may be folded with one $x_{b_{k-1}+p}$-edge of $\Theta_{k,p,q_*}(n)'$ at its initial or terminal vertex, for some $(k,p)\ne (2,
b_2)$ and some $1\leq q_*\leq d_{i,k}$. Thus ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$ is obtained from ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ by performing at most $2d_{i,2}$ folds (which occur at some of the vertices $v_{2, b_2,q}^{\pm}$, $q=1,...,d_{i,2}$), and every non-closed, reduced path in ${\cal G}_{3}(n)$ which is based at $v_{0}$ will remain non-closed in ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$. In particular, the paths representing the words $y_{1}, ... y_{r}$ are each non-closed in ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$.
Let $f_3:{\cal G}_{3}(n)\ra {\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$ be the natural map and we fix a number $$s>
2d_{i,2}+Diameter({\cal G}_{2}^f).$$ Then the map $f_3: {\cal G}_{3}(n) \ra {\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$ is an embedding on ${\cal G}_{3}(n) - N_{s}(v_{0})$, where $N_s(v_0)$ denotes the $s$-neighborhood of $v_0$ in ${\cal G}_3(n)$ considering a graph as a metric space, by making each edge isometric to the interval $[0,1]$. Obviously the number $s$ is independent of $n$.
\[large power\] [ We may assume further that $n$ is large enough so that the components of ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f\setminus f(N_{v_{0}}(s))$ can be denoted by $\Phi_{k,p,q}(n)$, $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}$, such that $\Phi_{k,p,q}(n)$ is an embedded subpath in $\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)'$ containing a power of $x_{b_{k-1}+p}$ which is larger than $\frac{n d_i }{d_{i,k}}-\frac{n}{4}$. This is clearly possible from the construction.]{}
The next step is to modify the graph ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$, by inserting copies of a certain graph $\Omega$, pictured in Figure \[fg1\], and then performing folding operations, to obtain a graph (the graph ${\cal
G}_{4}(n)$ given below) which contains loops, based at the base vertex $v_{0}$, representing the words $$w_{1}^*, ...,
w_{\ell}^*, z_{k,p,q}(n+1)^*, k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k,q=1,..., d_{i,k}-1,$$ respectively, and which contains non-closed paths, based at $v_{0}$, representing the words $$y_{1}, ..., y_{r}$$ respectively. In Figure \[fg1\], single edge loops at a vertex have label one each from $L^*=\{a_{1}, b_{1},..., a_{g}, b_{g}\}$. The edges in part (a) and (b) connecting two adjacent vertices are $x_{b}$-edges, $b=1,2,...,n_{i,j}-1$, (precisely $n_{i,j}-1$ edges). In part (a) of the figure, an $x_{b}$-edge points from the left vertex to the right vertex iff $b$ is odd, and in part (b) of the figure, an $x_{b}$-edge points from left to right iff $b$ is $1$ or an even number.
=4.5in
The method for constructing ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ breaks into two subcases, i.e. (a) when $n_{i,j}$ is even, (b) when $n_{i,j}$ is odd.
[**Subcase (a):**]{} $n_{i,j}$ is even.
Recall that for each $k=1,2$, $p=1,...,b_k$, $\cup_{q=1}^{d_{i,k}}\Theta_{k,p,q}(n)$ is a connected path in ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f$ representing the word $$x_{b_{k-1}+p}^{nd_i}$$ and thus we can divide the path equally into $d_i$ subpaths $$\Psi_{k,p,a}(n);\;\;\;a=1,...,d_i$$ each representing the word $$x_{b_{k-1}+p}^{n}.$$ Now we pick a vertex $u_{k,p,a}$ in $\Psi_{k,p,a}(n)$ for each $k=1,2, p=1,...., b_k, a=1,...,d_i$ as follows – if $(k,p)\ne (2, b_2)$, then $u_{k,p,a}$ is the middle vertex of $\Psi_{k,p,a}(n)$ (recall that $n$ is even); – if $(k,p)=(2,b_2)$, then $u_{2, b_2,a}$ is a vertex around the middle vertex of $\Psi_{k,p,a}(n)$ which is the initial vertex of a $x_1$-edge.
By Note \[large power\], for each $k=1,2$ and $p=1,...,b_k$, the set of $d_i$ points $$\{u_{k,p,a}; a=1,...,d_i\}$$ is contained in the set of $d_{i,k}$ paths $$\{\Phi_{k,p,q}(n); q=1,..., d_{i,k}\}.$$
Now we cut ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f$ at the vertices $u_{k,p,a}$, $k=1,2, p=1,..., b_k, a=1,..., d_i$, that is, we form a cut graph ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f_c={\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f
\setminus \{u_{k,p,a},
k=1,2, p=1,..., b_k, a=1,..., d_i\}$, whose vertex set is obtained from the vertex set of ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f$ by replacing each $u_{k,p,a}$ with a pair of vertices $u_{k,p,a}^{\pm}$ (where $u_{k,p,a}^{+}$ is the terminal vertex and $u_{k,p,a}^{-}$ is the initial vertex).
Now we take $d_i$ copies of the graph $\Omega$ shown in Figure \[fg1\] (a), which we denote by $\Omega_a$, $a=1,...,d_i$. For each fixed $a=1,...,d_i$, we identify the vertex set $$\{u_{k,p,a}^{\pm}, k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k\}$$ of ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f_c$ with the vertices of $\Omega_a$ as follows:\
– if $(k,p)\ne (2, b_2)$, identify $u_{k,p,a}^+$ with the left vertex of $\O_a$ if $b_{k-1}+p$ is odd and to the right vertex if $b_{k-1}+p$ is even, and identify $u_{k,p,a}^-$ with the right vertex of $\O_a$ if $b_{k-1}+p$ is odd and to the left vertex if $b_{k-1}+p$ is even,\
– identify $u_{2,b_2,a}^+$ with the left vertex of $\O_a$ and identify $u_{2,b_2,a}^-$ with the right vertex of $\O_a$.
=4.7in
The resulting graph is not folded, but becomes folded graph after the following obvious folding operation around each inserted $\O_a$:\
– fold the subpath $x_{n_{i,j}-1}a_{1}b_{1}a_{1}^{-1}b_{1}^{-1}\cdots a_{g}
b_{g}a_{g}^{-1}b_{g}^{-1}$ whose terminal vertex is the vertex $u_{2,b_2,a}^+$ with the loops of $\O_a$ at the left vertex of $\O_a$ and then with the $x_{n_{i,j}-1}$-edge of ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ whose terminal vertex is the left vertex of $\O_a$, and\
– fold the two $x_1$-edges whose initial vertices are the right vertex of $\O_a$.\
The resulting folded graph, denoted ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$, around the inserted $\O_a$ is shown in Figure \[fg2\]. By our construction we see that ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ is a folded, $L$-labeled, directed graph, with no $x_{b}$-loops, with each of the words $w_{1}^*,...,w_{\ell}^*$ still representable by a loop based at $v_{0}$, and with each of the words $y_{1},..., y_{r}$ still representable by a non-closed path based at $v_{0}$. Also we see that the graph ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ contains loops based $v_{0}$ representing the words $$z_{k,p,q}(n+1)^*, \;\;
k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1.$$
The graph ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ is not $L$-regular yet since it does not contain any $x_{b}$-loops. So it must contain a missing label. Let $x\in L$ be a missing label at a vertex $v$ of ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$. Let $\a$ be a finite directed graph consisting of a single path of edges all labeled with $x$, as shown in Figure \[fg3\]. We identify the left end vertex of $\a$ to the vertex $v$ of ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$. The resulting graph ${\cal G}_{5}(n)$ is obviously still folded, contains ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ as an embedded subgraph, and contains no $x_{b}$-loops for any $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$. By choosing a long enough path $\alpha$, we may assume that the number of vertices of ${\cal G}_{5}(n)$ is bigger than $(n+1) d_i+1$.
Now by Theorem \[regular\], we can obtain an $L$-regular graph ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$ such that (1) ${\cal G}_{5}(n)$ is an embedded subgraph of ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$; thus in particular in ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$ each of the words $w_{1}^*,...,w_{\ell}^*$, $z_{k.p.q}(n+1)^*$, $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k$, $q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$ is representable by a loop based at $v_{0}$, and each of the words $y_{1},..., y_{r}$ is representable by a non-closed path based at $v_{0}$; (2) ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$ contains no loops representing the word $x_{b}^d$ for any $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$, $d=1,...,m_*-1$, where $m_*$ is the number of vertices of ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$ (note that $m^*$ depends on $i$ and $j$).
Note that $m_*$ is some integer larger than $(n+1)d_i+1$. Let $N_{i,j}=m_*-(d_i-1)(n+1)-1$. Then $N_{i,j}>(n+1)$.
During the transformation from ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ to ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$, the subgraph of ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ consisting of the edges which intersect the subgraph $\Omega_a$ (for each fixed $a=1, ..., d_i$) remained unchanged since ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ was locally $L$-regular already at the two vertices of $\O_a$. Now we replace $\O_a$, for each of $$a=1, ..., d_i-1,$$ by a graph $\O_{a}(N_{i,j}-n+1)$ which is similar to $\Omega_a$ but with $N_{i,j}-n+1 \geq 3$ vertices (Figure \[fg4\] illustrates such a graph with four vertices). Then the resulting graph, which we denote by ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, has the following properties. (1) ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ is $L$-regular; (2) each of the words $y_{1},...,y_{r}$ is still representable by a non-closed path based at $v_{0}$ in ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, (3) each of the words $w_{1}^*,..., w_{\ell}^*$ is still representable by a loop based at $v_{0}$ in ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, (4) ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ contains no loops representing the word $x_{b}^d$ for each $b=1,...,n_{i,j}$ and each $d=1,...,m_\#-1$, where $m_\#$ is the number of vertices of ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, (5) ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ contains a closed loop based at $v_{0}$ representing the word $z_{k,p,q}(N_{i,j})^*$, for each $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_i-1$, and (6) $m_\#$, the number of vertices of ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, is equal to $ N_{i,j} d_i+1$. Properties (1)-(5) are obvious by the construction, while property (6) follows by a simple calculation. Indeed $$\begin{aligned}
m_\# &=& m_* + (N_{i,j}-n+1-2)(d_i-1)\\
&=&[N_{i,j} + (d_i-1)(n+1)+1] + (N_{i,j} -(n+1))(d_i-1)\\
&=& N_{i,j} d_i+1.\end{aligned}$$
Now for each integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$ we construct a finite, connected, $L$-labeled, directed graph ${\cal G}(N_*)$ (with a fixed base vertex $v_0$) with the properties (0)-(5) listed in Theorem \[large\]. In the graph ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ above, for each $a=1,...,d_i-1$, replace the subgraph $\O_a(N_{i,j}-n+1)$ by the graph $\O_a(N_*-n+1)$, and replace subgraph $\O_{d_i}$ by the graph $\O_{d_i}(N_*-N_{i,j}+2)$. The resulting graph is ${\cal G}(N_*)$.
[**Subcase (b)**]{} $n_{i,j}>1$ is odd.
We modify the graph ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$ as follows. Besides the vertices $u_{k,p,a}$ we have chosen before, we choose, for each $a=1,...,d_i$, a vertex $u_{2,b_2,a}^{\prime}$ in the directed subpath $\Psi_{2,b_2,a}$ such that\
– $u_{2,b_2,a}^{\prime}$ is the initial vertex of an edge with label $x_2$,\
– $u_{2,b_2,a}'$ appears after the vertex $u_{2,b_2,a}$ in the directed subpath $\Psi_{2,b_2,a}$,\
– there are precisely five edges with label $x_1$ between $u_{2,b_2,a}$ and $u_{2, b_2, a}^{\prime}$ in the directed subpath $\Psi_{2,b_2,a}$ (this is possible as $n$ is large).
Again as $n$ is large, the set of $d_i$ vertices $\{u_{2,b_2,a}'; a=1,...,d_i\}$ is contained in the set of $d_{i,k}$ paths $\{\Phi_{2,b_2,q}(n); q=1,..., d_{i,k}\}$ (cf. Note \[large power\]).
Now cut ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f$ at the vertices $\{u_{k,p,a}, k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, a=1,...,d_i\}$, and $\{u_{2,b_2,s}', a=1,...,d_i\}$, and for each $a=1,...,d_i$, insert the graph $\O_a$, which is a copy of the graph $\Omega$ shown in Figure \[fg1\] (b). That is, we\
(1) Form a cut graph ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f_c={\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f\setminus
\{u_{k,p,a},u_{2,b_2,a}', k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, a=1,...,d_i\}$, defined as in Subcase (a), with obvious modifications, i.e. we have similarly defined pairs of vertices $u_{k,p,a}^{\pm}$, $u_{2,b_2,a}^{'\pm}$ for ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f_c$ such that if each such $\pm$ pair of vertices are identified, then the resulting graph is the original ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f$.\
(2) For each fixed $a=1,...,d_i$, we identify the vertex set $\{u_{k,p,a}^{\pm}, u_{2,b_2,a}^{'\pm}, k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k\}$ of ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f_c$ with the left-most and right-most vertices of $\Omega_a$ as follows:\
– if $(k,p)\ne (2,b_2)$, and $(k, p)=(1,1)$ or $b_{k-1}+p$ is even, then identify $u_{k,p,a}^+$ with the left-most vertex of $\O_a$ and $u_{k,p,a}^-$ with the right-most vertex.\
– if $(k,p)\ne (2,b_2)$, $(k,p)\ne (1,1)$ and $b_{k-1}+p$ is odd, then identify $u_{k,p,a}^+$ with the right-most vertex of $\O_a$ and $u_{k,p,a}^-$ with the left-most vertex,\
– identify $u_{2,b_2, a}^+$ with the left-most vertex of $\O_a$ and identify $u_{2,b_2,a}^-$ with the right-most vertex of $\O_a$,\
– identify $u_{2,b_2, a}^{'+}$ with the left-most vertex of $\O_a$ and identify $u_{2,b_2,a}^{'-}$ with the right-most vertex of $\O_a$.
The resulting graph is not folded, but becomes folded graph after the following folding operations are performed around each inserted $\O_a$:\
– fold the path $x_{n_{i,j}-1}a_{1}b_{1}a_{1}^{-1}b_{1}^{-1}\cdots a_{g}
b_{g}a_{g}^{-1}b_{g}^{-1}$ whose terminal vertex is the vertex $u_{2,b_2,a}^+$ with the loops of $\O_a$ at the left-most vertex of $\O_a$ and then with the $x_{n_{i,j}-1}$-edge of ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ whose terminal vertex is the left-most vertex of $\O_a$,\
– fold the two $x_{1}$-edges whose initial vertices are the right-most vertex of $\O_a$,\
– fold the two $x_{1}$-edges whose terminal vertices are the left-most vertex of $\O_a$,\
– fold the two $x_{2}$-edges whose initial vertices are the right-most vertex of $\O_a$.\
The resulting folded graph ${\cal G}_{4}(n)^f$ around the inserted $\O_a$ is shown in Figure \[fg5\]. By our construction we see that ${\cal G}_{4}(n)^f$ is a folded, $L$-labeled, directed graph, with no $x_{b}$-loops, with each of the words $w_{1}^*,...,w_{\ell}^*$ still representable by a loop based at $v_{0}$, and with each of the words $y_{1},..., y_{r}$ still representable by a non-closed path based at $v_{0}$. Also we see that the graph ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ contains loops based $v_{0}$ representing the words $z_{k,p,q}(n+2)^*$, for all $k=1,2, p=1,...,b_k, q=1,...,d_{i,k}-1$.
=5.5in
We then define ${\cal G}_{5}(n)$ and ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$ in a similar manner as in Subcase (a); here we may assume that ${\cal G}_{5}(n)$ has at least $(d_i-1)(n+2)-1$ vertices. Let $m_*$ be the number of vertices of ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$, and let $N_{i,j}= m_*-(d_i-1)(n+2)-1$. To form ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, we replace each subgraph $\Omega_a$, $a=1,...,d_i-1$ in ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$ with a graph $\O_a(1+N_{i,j}- n)$ similar to Figure \[fg1\](b) but with $1+N_{i,j}- n$ vertices. In the current case, we need $1+N_{i,j}-n$ to be an odd integer in order for the construction to work. This is made possible by the following
$N_{i,j} - n$ is even, i.e. $N_{i,j}$ is even (since we have chosen $n$ to be even (see Note \[n even\])).
The proof of this lemma is similar to that of [@MZ Lemma 11.3], noticing in the current case the number $d_i$ is even for each $i=1,2$ by Notation \[dik\].
The rest of the argument proceeds by obvious analogy with the Subcase (a). That is, the graph ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ is a graph with the properties listed as (1)-(6) in Subcase (a). Indeed, Properties (1)-(5) are immediate. To verify Property (6), we let $m_\#$ be the number of vertices of ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, and then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
m_\#&=& m_*+ (1+N_{i,j}-n-3)(d_i-1)\\
&=& N_{i,j} + (d_i-1)(n+2) +1+ (N_{i,j}-n-2)(d_i-1)\\
&=& N_{i,j}d_i+1.\end{aligned}$$
Now for each even integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$, the graph ${\cal G}(N_*)$ required by Theorem \[large\] is obtained from the graph ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ by replacing each subgraph $\O_a(N_{i,j}-n+1)$, $a=1,...,d_i-1$, by the graph $\O_a(N_*-n+1)$, and replacing the subgraph $\O_{d_i}$ by the graph $\O_{d_i}(N_*-N_{i,j}+3)$.
[**Proof of Theorem \[each large n\] in Case 2**]{}.
The proof is similar to that of Case 1 and much simpler notationally, and we shall be very brief. In this case $n_{i,j}=1$, i.e. the surface $S_{i,j}$ has only one boundary component, which we denote by $\b$ and may assume lying in $T_1$. $\b$ has $d_{i,1}$ intersection points with $\p S_{i_*}$, which we denote by $t_q$, $q=1,...,d_{i,1}$. Similarly as in Case 1, we define the points $b_q, q=1,...,d_{i,1}$ in $\p_p J_{i,j}$. The group $\pi_1(S_{i,j}^-,t_1)$ has a set of generators $$L=\{a_1, b_1,...,a_g, b_g\}$$ ($g$ must be larger than $0$) such that $$x_1=a_1 b_1 a_1^{-1}b_1^{-1}\cdots a_g b_g a_g^{-1}b_g^{-1}$$ is an embedded loop which is homotopic to $\b$. As in Case 1, we similarly define the elements $w_1,...,w_{\ell}$, the element $y_1,...,y_r$, and the elements $z_q(n)$, $q=1,...,d_{i,1}-1$, and we reduce the proof of Theorem \[each large n\] in Case 2 to the proof of the following theorem which is an analogue of Theorem \[large\].
\[large2\] There is a positive even integer $N_{i,j}$ such that for each even integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$ there is a finite, connected, $L$-labeled, directed graph ${\cal
G}(N_*)$ (with a fixed base vertex $v_0$) with the following properties: (0) ${\cal G}(N_*)$ is $L$-regular;(1) The number of vertices of ${\cal G}(N_*)$ is $m_{i}=N_*d_i+1$; (2) Each of the words $w_1^*,..., w_\ell^*$ is representable by a loop, based at $v_0$, in ${\cal G}(N_*)$; (3) ${\cal G}(N_*)$ contains a closed loop, based at $v_0$, representing the word $z_{q}(N_*)^*$, for each $q=1,...,d_{i,1}-1$; (4) ${\cal G}(N_*)$ contains no loop representing the word $x_1^d$ for any $d=1,...,m_{i}-1$; (5) each of the words $y_1,...,y_r$ is representable by a non-closed path, based at $v_0$, in ${\cal G}(N_*)$.
To prove this theorem, we construct, similar as in Case 1, the analogue graph ${\cal G}_3(n)^f$ and its subgraphs $\Phi_q(n), q=1,...,d_{i,1}$, $\Psi_a(n), a=1,...,d_i$, with similar properties. We modify the graph ${\cal G}_{3}(n)^f$ as follows. For each of $a=1,...,d_i$, we pick a pair vertices $\{u_a,
u_{a}'\}$ in the path $\Psi_a(n)$ as follows:\
–$u_a$ is closed to the middle vertex of $\Psi_a(n)$;\
–$u_a$ is the terminal vertex of an edge with label $a_{1}$; and\
–$u_{a}^{\prime}$ is the terminal vertex of an edge with label $b_{1}$ which appears after the vertex $u_{a}$;\
–there are precisely five edges with label $b_{1}$ between $u_{a}$ and $u_{a}^{\prime}$ in the path $\Psi_{a}(n)$.
We may assume that the set $$\{u_a, u_a'; a=1,...,d_i\}$$ is contained in the set $$\{\Phi_q(n); q=1,...,d_{i,1}\}.$$
Now cut the graph ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f$ at all the pairs of vertices $\{u_{a}, u_{a}'\}$, $a=1,...,d_i$, and for each $a$, insert the graph $\O_a$– which is a copy of the graph $\Omega$ shown in Figure \[fg6\] – as follows. Form a cut graph ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f_c={\cal{G}}_{a}(n)^f\setminus
\{u_{a}, u_{a}'; a=1,...,d_i\}$, and let $u_{a}^{\pm}$, $u_{a}^{'\pm}$ be the corresponding vertices for ${\cal{G}}_{3}(n)^f_c$. For each fixed $a=1,...,d_i$, we identify the vertex $u_{a}^+$ with the left-most vertex of $\O_a$, identify $u_{a}^-$ with the right-most vertex of $\O_a$, identify $u_{a}^{'+}$ with the right-most vertex of $\O_a$ and identify $u_{a}^{'-}$ with the left-most vertex of $\O_a$.
The resulting graph is not folded, but becomes folded graph after a single folding operation around each inserted $\O_a$: fold the two $a_{1}$-edges whose terminal vertices are the right-most vertex of $\O_a$. The resulting folded graph ${\cal G}_{4}(n)^f$ around the inserted $\O_a$ is shown in Figure \[fg7\]. By our construction we see that ${\cal G}_{4}(n)^f$ is a folded $L$-labeled directed graph, with no $x_1$-loops, with each of the words $w_{1}^*,...,w_{\ell}^*$ still representable by a loop based at $v_{0}$, and with each of the words $y_{1},..., y_{r}$ still representable by a non-closed path based at $v_{0}$. Also we see that the graph ${\cal G}_{4}(n)$ contains loops based at $v_{0}$ representing the words $z_{q}(n+4)^*$, for all $q=1,...,d_{i,1}-1$.
=5.5in
As in Case 1, we get ${\cal G}_{5}(n)$ and ${\cal G}_{6}(n)$. In the current case, $N_{i,j}= m_*-
(d_i-1)(n+4)-1$, which is larger than $n+4$, where $m_*$ is the number of vertices of ${\cal G}_6(n)$. To form ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$, we replace the left half (with three vertices) of $\Omega_a$, for each $a=1,...,d_i-1$, with a graph $\O_a(N_{i,j}- n-1)$ which is similar to Figure \[fg6\] but with $N_{i,j}- n-1$ vertices. In the current case, we also need $N_{i,j}$ to be an even integer in order for the construction to work. This is true, and can be proved as in Subcase (b) of Case 1. It is easy to see that ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ has all the Properties (0)-(5) listed in Theorem \[large2\] (when $N_*=N_{i,j}$). For instance to check Property (1), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
m_i &=& m_*+(N_{i,j}-n-1-3)(d_i-1)\\
&=& N_{i,j}+(d_i-1)(n+4)+1+ (N_{i,j}-n-4)(d_i-1)\\
&=& N_{i,j}d_i+1\end{aligned}$$ To show that Theorem \[large2\] holds for any even integer $N_*\geq N_{i,j}$, we simply let ${\cal
G}(N_*)$ be the graph obtained from the graph ${\cal G}(N_{i,j})$ by replacing each subgraph $\O_a(N_{i,j}-n-1)$, $a=1,...,d_i-1$, by the graph $\O_a(N_*-n-1)$, and replacing the subgraph $\O_{d_i}$ by the graph $\O_{d_i}(N_*-N_{i,j}+5)$.
The final assembly {#hsmf}
==================
Fix an even integer $N_*$ satisfying Corollary \[indep of j\] (later on we may need $N_*$ to have been chosen large enough). Then as given in Corollary \[indep of j\], for each $i=1,2$ and $j=1,.., n_i$, the manifold $Y_{i,j}^-=S_{i,j}^-\times I$ has an $m_i=N_* d_i+1$ fold cover $\breve Y_{i,j}^-=\breve S_{i,j}^-\times I$ such that $|\p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^-|= |\p_p Y_{i,j}^-|$, i.e. each component of $\p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^-$ is an $m_i$ fold cyclic cover of a component of $\p_p Y_{i,j}^-$. Moreover the map $g_{i,j}: (J_{i,j}^-, \p_p J_{i,j}^-)
\ra (Y_{i,j}^-, \p_p Y_{i,j}^-)$ lifts to an embedding $\breve g_{i,j}: (J_{i,j}^-, \p_p J_{i,j}^-)
\ra (\breve Y_{i,j}^-, \p_p \breve Y_{i,j}^-)$ such that if $\breve A$ is a component of $\p_p\breve Y_{i,j}^-$ then the components of $\breve g_{i,j}(\p_p J_{i,j}^-)\cap \breve A$ are evenly distributed along $\breve A$. More precisely if $S_{i,j}^-$, for instance, is the surface given in the proof of Theorem \[each large n\] in Case 1, then with the notations given there, we may index the boundary components of $\breve S_{i,j}^-$ as $\breve\b_{k,p}$, $k=1,2,p=1,...,b_k$, so that each $\breve\b_{k,p}$ is an $m_i$ fold cyclic cover of $\b_{k,p}$ and the points $\{\breve g_{i,j}(b_{k,p,q}); q=1,...., d_{i,k}\}$ divide $\breve \b_{k,p}$ into $d_{i,k}$ segments each having wrapping number $N_* d_i/d_{i,k}$. Also note that the $d_{i,k}$ points $\{\breve g_{i,j}(b_{k,p,q}); q=1,...., d_{i,k}\}$ are mapped to the $d_{i,k}$ points $\{t_{k,p,q}; q=1,...., d_{i,k}\}$ respectively under the covering map $\breve\b_{k,p}\ra \b_{k,p}$. As $N_*$ can be assumed to be arbitrarily large, we may assume that the wrapping number $N_* d_i/d_{i,k}$ be as large as needed for each $i=1,2$ and $k=1,...,m$.
Also recall that $(K_{i,j}^-, \p_p K_{i,j}^-)$ is properly embedded in the pair $(J_{i,j}^-, \p_p J_{i,j}^-)$, with a relative $R$-collared neighborhood. It follows that the pair $(\breve g_{i,j}(K_{i,j}^-), \breve
g_{i,j}(\p_p K_{i,j}^-))$ has a relative $R$-collared neighborhood in $(\breve Y_{i,j}^-, \p_p\breve
Y_{i,j}^-)$. Also $K_1^-=\cup_{j=1}^{n_1} K_{1,j}$ and $K_2^-=\cup_{j=1}^{n_2} K_{2,j}$ are isometric under the isometry $h:K_1\ra K_2$. Now let $\breve Y^-$ be the union of $\breve Y_1^-=\cup_{j=1}^{n_1}
Y_{1,j}^-$ and $\breve Y_2^-=\cup_{j=1}^{n_2} Y_{2,j}^-$ with $\cup_{j=1}^{n_1} (\breve g_{1,j}(K_{1,j}^-), \breve
g_{1,j}(\p_p K_{1,j}^-))$ and $\cup_{j=1}^{n_2} (\breve g_{2,j}(K_{2,j}^-), \breve g_{2,j}(\p_p
K_{2,j}^-))$ identified by the corresponding isometry and let $(U^-, \p_p U^-)$ be the identification space of $\cup_{j=1}^{n_1} (\breve g_{1,j}(K_{1,j}^-), \breve g_{1,j}(\p_p K_{1,j}^-))$ and $\cup_{j=1}^{n_2} (\breve g_{2,j}(K_{2,j}^-), \breve g_{2,j}(\p_p K_{2,j}^-))$ in $\breve Y^-$. Then $\breve Y^-$ is a connected metric space, with a path metric induced from the metrics on $\breve Y_1^-$ and $\breve Y_2^-$. There is an induced local isometry $f:\breve{Y}^- \ra M$ which extends the local isometry $\breve{Y}_{i,j}^- \ra Y_{i,j}^-\ra M$ for each $i,j$.
Define the parabolic boundary, $\p_p\breve Y^-$, of $\breve
Y^-$ to be the union of $\p_p\breve Y_1^-$ and $\p_p\breve Y_2^-$, with $\cup_{j=1}^{n_1} \breve
g_{1,j}(\p_p K_{1,j}^-)$ and $\cup_{j=1}^{n_2}\breve g_{2,j}(\p_p K_{2,j}^-)$ identified by the isometry. Then $(U^-, \p_p U^-)$ has a relative $R$-collared neighborhood in $(\breve Y^-, \p_p\breve
Y^-)$.
Now for each $k=1,...,m$, let $\breve C_K$ be the cover of the $k$-th cusp $C_k$ of $M$ corresponding to the subgroup of $\pi_1(C_k)$ generated by the $m_1$-th power of a component of $\p_k S_1^-$ and the $m_2$-th power of a component of $\p_k S_2^-$. Then each oriented component, say $\b$, of $\p_k S_i^-$ has its inverse image in $\p\breve C_k$, denoted $\breve \b$, a connected oriented circle. So we may and shall identify $\breve\b$ with the oriented component of $\p \breve S_i^-$ which covers $\b$. This way we embed naturally all components of $\p\breve S_i^-$ into $\p \breve C=\cup _{k=1}^m \p \breve C_k$, for each $i=1,2$. We denote by $\p_k \breve S_i^-$ those components of $\p \breve S_i^-$ which are embedded in $\p \breve C_k$. Then we have $|\p_k \breve S_i^-|=|\p_k S_i|$, and the components of $\p_k
\breve S_i^-$ are far apart from each other in $\p \breve C_k$, for each $i=1,2$ and $k=1,...,m$. So we may and shall embed the corresponding components of $\p_p\breve Y_i^-$ into $\p \breve C$ along $\p
\breve S_i^-$, for each $i=1,2$. After such identification, we get a connected hyperbolic $3$-manifold $$\breve Y^-\cup(\cup_{k=1}^m \breve C_k)$$ with $m$ rank two cusps and with a local isometry into $M$.
As in [@MZ Section 13] we construct the thickening $\bar U^-$ of $U^-$ so that $\p_p \bar U$ is embedded in $\p \breve C$ (Note that each component of $\bar U^-$ is a handlebody, with a similar proof as that of [@MZ Lemma 13.2]) and let $$Y^-=\breve Y_1^-\cup \bar U^-\cup \breve Y_2^-.$$ Then $Y^-$ is a connected, compact, hyperbolic $3$-manifold, locally convex everywhere except on its parabolic boundary $\p_p Y^-=\p_p \breve Y_1^-\cup \p_p \bar U^-\cup \p_p\breve Y_2^-$. The complement of $\p_p(Y^-)$ in $\p \breve C$ is a set of “round-cornered parallelograms” with very long sides in $\p \breve
C$. As in [@MZ Section 13], we scoop out from $\breve C=\cup_{k=1}^m C_k$ the convex half balls based on these round-cornered Euclidean parallelograms and denote the resulting cusps by $\cup_{k=1}^m
\breve C_k^0$. Then $$Y=Y^-\cup (\cup_{k=1}^m\breve C_k^0)$$ is a connected, metrically complete, convex hyperbolic $3$-manifold, with a local isometry $f$ into $M$. Thus the local isometry $f$ induces an injection of $\pi_1(Y)$ into $\pi_1(M)$ by [@MZ Lemma 4.2].
Each boundary component of $Y$ provides a Quasi-Fuchsian surface in $M$. To prove this claim, it suffices to show, with a similar reason as that given in [@MZ Section 13], that every Dehn filling of $Y$ along its cusps gives a $3$-manifold with incompressible boundary.
Let $Y(\a_1,...,\a_m)$ be any Dehn filling of $Y$ with slopes $\a_1,...,\a_m$. Then $Y(\a_1,...,\a_m)$ is an $HS$-manifold (see [@MZ Section 12] for its definition). The handlebody part $H$ of $Y(\a_1,...,\a_m)$ is $\bar U^-\cup (\cup_{k=1}^m \breve
C_k^0(\a_k))$ (which may have several components in the current case but each has genus at least two) and the $S\times
I$ part of $Y(\a_1,...,\a_m)$ is $Y(\a_1,...,\a_m)\setminus H=Y^-\setminus \bar U^-$. This $HS$ decomposition of $Y(\a_1,...,\a_m)$ satisfies the conditions of [@MZ Lemma 12.1] and thus $Y(\a_1,...,\a_m)$ has incompressible boundary by that lemma. The proof of this last claim is similar to that of [@MZ Lemma 13.6], for which we only need to note the following: (1) With a similar proof as that of [@MZ Lemma 13.5] we have that each component of $Y^-\setminus \bar U^-$ is not simply connected. (2) $|\p_k \breve S^-_i|=|\p_k S_i^-|\geq 2$ for each $i=1,2, k=1,...,m$, by Condition \[at least two\].
The proof of Theorem \[main\] is now finished.
[2]{}
D. Cooper and D. D. Long, *Some surface subgroups survive surgery*, Geom. Topol. **5** (2001) 347–367 (electronic).
M. Culler and P. B. Shalen, *Bounded, separating, incompressible surfaces in knot manifolds*, Invent. Math. **75** (1984) 537–545.
J. Masters and X. zhang, Closed quasi-Fuchsian surfaces in hyperbolic knot complements, Geometry & Topology **12** (2008) 2095-2171
W. Thurston, *The Geometry and Topology of Three Manifolds*, lecture notes, Princeton, 1979.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '**D. Agboola[^1]**'
date: '*Department of Mathematics,College of Science and Technology,Covenant University, Ogun State, P.M.B.1023, Nigeria.*'
title: '**Dirac Equation with Spin Symmetry for the Modified Pöschl-Teller Potential in $D$-dimensions**'
---
[**Abstract**]{} We present solutions of the Dirac equation with spin symmetry for vector and scalar modified Pöschl-Teller potential within framework of an approximation of the centrifugal term. The relativistic energy spectrum is obtained using the Nikiforov-Uvarov method and the two-component spinor wavefunctions are obtain are in terms of the Jacobi polynomials. It is found that there exist only positive-energy states for bound states under spin symmetry, and the energy levels increase with the dimension and the potential range parameter $\alpha$.
[**PACS:**]{} 03.65.Ge; 03.65.Pm; 34.20.Cf
[**Keywords**]{} Dirac equation, Modified Pöschl-Teller potential, Spin symmetry and Nikiforov-Uvarov method.
Solutions to relativistic equations play a very important in many aspects of mordern physics. In particular, the Dirac equation which describe the motion of a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particle has been used in solving many problems of nuclear aand high-energy physics. The spin symmetry arises if the magnitude of the attractive Lorentz scalar potential $S(r)$ and the replusive vector potential $V(r)$ are nearly equal, i.e $S(r)\sim V(r)$, in the nuclei, while the pseudo-spin symmetry occur when $S(r)\sim -V(r)$ \[1-3\]. The case of the exact spin and pseudo-spin symmetries has been shown to correspond to the $SU(2)$ symmetries of the Dirac Hamiltonian \[3\]. The spin symmetry is relevant for mesons \[4\] and the pseudo-spin symmetry is used to explain deformed nuclei \[5\], super-deformation \[6\] and to establish an effective nuclear shell-model scheme \[7-9\]. Also, various potentials such as the Morse potential \[10-12\], Wood-saxon potential \[13\], Coulomb and Hartmann potentials \[14\], Eckart potential \[15, 16\], Pöschl-Teller potential \[17, 18\] and the harmonic potential \[19, 20\] have been studied within the frame work of the spin and pseudospin symmetries.
Moreover, with the interest in higher dimensional theory, the multi-dimensional quantum mechanical equations-relativistic and nonrelativistic- have been solved with various physical potentials. To mention a few, the $D$-dimensional Schrödinger has been studied with the Coulomb-like potential \[21\], pseudoharmonic potential \[22\], Hulth$\acute{e}$n potential \[23\] and Pöschl-Teller potential \[24\]. In addition, the $D$-dimensional relativistic Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations have been studied with many exactly solvable models \[25-30\]. However, some physical potentials can only be solve exactly for the $s$-states. Unfortunately, the modified Pöschl-Teller potential is one of these potentials. For instance, a recent work \[31\] has presented the $s$-wave solutions of the Dirac equation with the Pöschl-Teller potential under the conditions of the exact spin symmetry and pseudospin symmetry. However, in order to extend the solutions of the modified Pöschl-Teller potential to any $\ell\neq 0$ state, some recent studies \[17, 24\] have used a hyperbolic approximation for the centrifugal term to obtain the non-relativistic solutions of the modified Pöschl-Teller potential. In light of this, the present Letter intends to extend the discussions on the relativistic Pöschl-Teller potential to $D$-dimensions by presenting the bound-state solutions of the $D$-dimensions Dirac equation with spin symmetry for Lorentz vector and scalar modified Pöschl-Teller potential using the Nikiforov-Uvarov method \[32\].
The $D$-dimensional Dirac equation with a scalar potential $V_s(r)$ and a vector potential $V_v(r)$ and mass $\mu$ can be written in natural units $\hbar=c=1$ as \[27, 33, 34\] $$H\Psi{(r)}=E_{n_r\kappa}\Psi(r)\hspace{.2in}\mbox{where}\hspace{.1in}H=\sum_{j=1}^D\hat{\alpha}_jp_j+\hat{\beta}[\mu+V_s(r)]+V_v(r) \eqno{(1)}$$ where $E_{n_r\kappa}$ is the relativistic energy, $\{\hat{\alpha}_j\}$ and $\hat{\beta}$ are Dirac matrices, which satisfy anti-commutation relations $$\begin{array}{lrl}
\hat{\alpha}_j\hat{\alpha}_k+\hat{\alpha}_k\hat{\alpha}_j&=&2\delta_{jk}\bf{1}\\
\hat{\alpha}_j\hat{\beta}+\hat{\beta}\hat{\alpha}_j&=&0\\
{\hat{\alpha}_j}^2=\hat{\beta}^2&=&\bf{1}
\end{array} \eqno{(2)}$$ and $$p_j=-i\partial_j=-i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \hspace{.2in} 1\leqslant j\leqslant D. \eqno{(3)}$$ The orbital angular momentum operators $L_{jk}$, the spinor opertaors $S_{jk}$ and the total angular momentum operators $J_{jk}$ can be defined as follows: $$L_{jk}=-L_{jk}=ix_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}-ix_k\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j},\hspace{.2in} S_{jk}=-S_{kj}=i\hat{\alpha}_j\hat{\alpha}_k/2,\hspace{.2in} J_{jk}=L_{jk}+S_{jk}.$$ $$L^2=\sum_{j<k}^DL^2_{jk},\hspace{.2in}S^2=\sum_{j<k}^DS^2_{jk},\hspace{.2in}J^2=\sum_{j<k}^DJ^2_{jk}, \hspace{.2in} 1\leqslant j< k\leqslant D. \eqno{(4)}$$ For a spherically symmetric potential, total angular momentum operator $J_{jk}$ and the spin-orbit operator $\hat{K}=-\hat{\beta}(J^2-L^2-S^2+(D-1)/2)$ commutate with the Dirac Hamiltonian. For a given total angular momentum $j$, the eigenvalues of $\hat{K}$ are $\kappa=\pm(j+(D-2)/2)$; $\kappa=-(j+(D-2)/2)$ for aligned spin $j=\ell+\frac{1}{2}$ and $\kappa=(j+(D-2)/2)$ for unaligned spin $j=\ell-\frac{1}{2}$.
Thus, we can introduce the hyperspherical coordinates \[35\] $$\begin{array}{lrl}
x_1&=&r\cos\theta_1\\
x_\alpha&=&r\sin\theta_1\dots\sin\theta_{\alpha-1}\cos\phi,\hspace{.2in}2\leqslant \alpha\leqslant D-1\\
x_D&=&r\sin\theta_1\dots\sin\theta_{D-2}\sin\phi,\\
\end{array} \eqno{(5)}$$ where the volume element of the configuration space is given as $$\prod_{j=1}^Ddx_j=r^{D-1}drd\Omega \hspace{.2in} d\Omega=\prod_{j=1}^{D-1}(\sin\theta_j)^{j-1}d\theta_j \eqno{(6)}$$ with $0\leqslant r< \infty$, $0\leqslant\theta_k\leqslant\pi$, $k=1,2,\dots D-2$, $0\leqslant\phi\leqslant 2\pi$, such that the spinor wavefunctions can be classified according to the hyperradial quantum number $n_r$ and the spin-orbit quantum number $\kappa$ and can be written using the Pauli-Dirac representation $$\Psi_{n_r\kappa}(r,\Omega_D)=r^{-\frac{D-1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{lll}
F_{n_r\kappa}(r)Y_{jm}^\ell\left(\Omega_{D}\right)\\\\
iG_{n_r\kappa}(r)Y^{\tilde{\ell}}_{jm}\left(\Omega_{D}\right)
\end{array}\right) \eqno{(7)}$$ where $F_{n_r\kappa}(r)$ and $G_{n_r\kappa}(r)$ are the radial wave function of the upper- and the lower-spinor components respectively, $Y_{jm}^\ell\left(\Omega_{D}\right)$ and $Y^{\tilde{\ell}}_{jm}\left(\Omega_{D}\right)$ are the hyperspherical harmonic functions coupled with the total angular momentum $j$. The orbital and the pseudo-orbital angular momentum quantum numbers for spin symmetry $\ell$ and and pseudospin symmetry $\tilde{\ell}$ refer to the upper- and lower-component respectively.
Substituting Eq.(7) into Eq.(1), and seperating the variables we obtain the following coupled radial Dirac equation for the spinor components: $$\left(\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)F_{n_r\kappa}(r)=[\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-\Delta(r)]G_{n_r\kappa}(r)\eqno{(8)}$$ $$\left(\frac{d}{dr}-\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)G_{n_r\kappa}(r)=[\mu-E_{n_r\kappa}+\Sigma(r)]F_{n_r\kappa}(r)\eqno{(9)}$$ where $\Delta(r)=V_v(r)-V_s(r)$, $\Sigma(r)=V_v(r)+V_s(r)$ and $\kappa=\pm(2\ell+D-1)/2$. Further details of the derivation can be obtain from refs \[36-38\]. Using Eq.(8) as the upper component and substituting into Eq.(9), we obtain the follwoing second order differential equations $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{r^2}-[\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-\Delta(r)][\mu-E_{n_r\kappa}+\Sigma(r)]+\frac{\frac{d\Delta(r)}{dr}\left(\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)}{[\mu(r)+E_{n_r\kappa}-\Delta(r)]}\right]F_{n_r\kappa}(r)=0 \eqno{(10)}$$ $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\kappa(\kappa-1)}{r^2}-[\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-\Delta(r)][\mu-E_{n_r\kappa}+\Sigma(r)]-\frac{\frac{d\Sigma(r)}{dr}\left(\frac{d}{dr}-\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)}{[\mu(r)-E_{n_r\kappa}+\Sigma(r)]}\right]G_{n_r\kappa}(r)=0 \eqno{(11)}$$ We note that the energy eigenvalues in these equation depend on the angular momentum quantum number $\ell$ and dimension $D$. However, to solve these equations, we shall use an approximation for the centrifugal barrier and obtain the solutions using the Nikiforov-Uvarov method.
Next, we give a brief description of the conventional Nikiforov-Uvarov method. A more detailed description of the method can be obtained the following reference \[32\]. With an appropriate transformation $s=s(r)$,the one dimensional Schr$\ddot{o}$dinger equation can be reduced to a generalized equation of hypergeometric type which can be written as follows: $$\psi ''(s)+ \frac{\tilde{\tau}(s)}{\sigma(s)}\psi '(s)+ \frac{\tilde{\sigma}(s)}{\sigma^2(s)}\psi(s)=0 \eqno{(12)}$$ Where $\sigma(s)$ and $\tilde{\sigma}(s)$ are polynomials, at most second-degree, and $\tilde{\tau}(s)$is at most a first-order polynomial. To find particular solution of Eq.(12) by separation of variables, if one deals with $$\psi(s)=\phi(s)y_{n_r}(s), \eqno{(13)}$$ Eq.(12) becomes $$\sigma(s)y ''_{n_r}+\tau(s)y '_{n_r} +\lambda y_{n_r} =0 \eqno{(14)}$$ where $$\sigma(s)= \pi(s)\frac{\phi(s)}{\phi '(s)} \eqno{(15)}$$ $$\tau(s)=\tilde{\tau}(s)+2\pi(s) , \tau '(s)<0, \eqno{(16)}$$\
$$\pi(s)=\frac{\sigma^\prime-\tilde{\tau}}{2}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{\sigma '-\tilde{\tau}}{2}\right)^2-\tilde{\sigma}+t\sigma}, \eqno{(17)}$$ and $$\lambda=t+\pi '(s). \eqno{(18)}$$ The polynomial $\tau(s)$ with the parameter $s$ and prime factors show the differentials at first degree be negative. However, determination of parameter $t$ is the essential point in the calculation of $\pi(s)$. It is simply defined by setting the discriminate of the square root to zero \[32\]. Therefore, one gets a general quadratic equation for $t$. The values of $t$ can be used for calculation of energy eigenvalues using the following equation $$\lambda=t+\pi '(s)=-n_r\tau '(s)-\frac{n_r(n_r-1)}{2}\sigma ''(s). \eqno{(19)}$$ Furthermore, the other part $y_{n_r}(s)$ of the wave function in Eq. (12) is the hypergeometric-type function whose polynomial solutions are given by Rodrigues relation: $$y_{n_r}(s)=\frac{B_{n_r}}{\rho(s)}\frac{d^{n_r}}{ds^{n_r}}[\sigma^{n_r}(s)\rho(s)] \eqno{(20)}$$ where $B_{n_r}$ is a normalizing constant and the weight function $\rho(s)$ must satisfy the condition \[32\] $$(\sigma\rho) ' =\tau\rho. \eqno{(21)}$$
The Lorentz vector $V_v(r)$ and scalar $V_s(r)$ modified Pöschl-Teller potential can be defined as follows \[24, 39-41\] $$V_v(r)=-\frac{V_0}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)}\hspace{.2in} \mbox{and}\hspace{.2in} V_s(r)=-\frac{S_0}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)} \eqno{(22)}$$ where $\alpha$ is related to the range of the potential and $V_0$ and $S_0$ are the depths of the vector and scalar potentials respectively. Moreover, we can approximate the centrifugal terms as follows \[17, 24\] $$\frac{1}{r^2}\approx\frac{\alpha^2}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}.\eqno(23)$$ Substituting Eqs.(22) and (23) into Eqs.(10) and (11), we have $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\alpha^2\kappa(\kappa+1)}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}-[\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-\Delta(r)][\mu-E_{n_r\kappa}+\Sigma(r)]+\frac{\frac{d\Delta(r)}{dr}\left(\frac{d}{dr}+\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)}{[\mu(r)+E_{n_r\kappa}-\Delta(r)]}\right]F_{n_r\kappa}(r)=0 \eqno{(24)}$$ $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\alpha^2\kappa(\kappa-1)}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}-[\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-\Delta(r)][\mu-E_{n_r\kappa}+\Sigma(r)]-\frac{\frac{d\Sigma(r)}{dr}\left(\frac{d}{dr}-\frac{\kappa}{r}\right)}{[\mu(r)-E_{n_r\kappa}+\Sigma(r)]}\right]G_{n_r\kappa}(r)=0 \eqno{(25)}$$ where $$\Delta(r)=\frac{S_0-V_0}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)}\hspace{.2in} \mbox{and}\hspace{.2in} \Sigma(r)=\frac{-(V_0+S_0)}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)}. \eqno{(26)}$$ For the case of spin symmetry, $V_v(r)\sim V_s(r)$, i.e. $\Delta(r)=V_v(r)-V_s(r)=C_1$ (a constant), which implies that $\frac{d\Delta(r)}{dr}=0$. Thus, putting this into Eq.(24), we have $$\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{\alpha^2\kappa(\kappa+1)}{\sinh^2(\alpha r)}-(\mu-E_{n_r\kappa})(\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-C_1)+\frac{(V_0+S_0)(E_{n_r\kappa}+\mu-C_1)}{\cosh^2(\alpha r)}\right]F_{n_r\kappa}(r)=0. \eqno{(27)}$$ If we take the transformation $s=\tanh^2(\alpha r)$, Eq.(27) becomes $$F''_{n_r\kappa}(s)+\frac{1-3s}{2s(1-s)}F'_{n_r\kappa}(s)+\frac{1}{4s^2(1-s)^2}[-\delta s^2+(\delta+\gamma-\epsilon^2)s-\gamma]F_{n_r\kappa}=0 \eqno{(28)}$$ where $$\epsilon^2=\frac{(\mu-E_{n_r\kappa})(\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-C_1)}{\alpha^2},\hspace{.2in} \delta=\frac{(V_0+S_0)(E_{n_r\kappa}+\mu-C_1)}{\alpha^2}\hspace{.1in} \mbox{and}\hspace{.1in} \gamma=\kappa(\kappa+1). \eqno{(29)}$$ Comparing Eqs.(28) and (12) we can define the following $$\tilde{\tau}(s)=1-3s,\hspace{.1in}\sigma(s)=2s(1-s)\hspace{.1in} \mbox{and}\hspace{.1in}\tilde{\sigma}(s)=-\delta s^2+(\gamma+\delta-\epsilon^2)s-\gamma \eqno{(30)}$$ Inserting these into Eq.(17), we have the following function $$\pi(s)=\frac{1-s}{2}\pm\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(1+4\delta-8t)s^2+(8t-4(\gamma+\delta-\epsilon^2)-2)s+4\gamma+1} \eqno{(31)}$$ The constant parameter $t$ can be found by the condition that the discriminant of the expression under the square root has a double root, i.e., its discriminant is zero. Thus the possible value function for each value of $t$ is given as $$\pi(s)=\frac{1-s}{2}\pm \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\frac {1}{2}\left [\left(-2\epsilon +\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right)s-\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right] & \mbox{for} & t=-\frac{1}{2}(\gamma-\delta+\epsilon^2)+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\\\\
\frac {1}{2}\left[\left(2\epsilon +\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right)s-\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right] & \mbox{for} & t=-\frac{1}{2}(\gamma-\delta+\epsilon^2)-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\end{array}\right. \eqno{(32)}$$\
By Nikiforov-Uvarov method, we made an appropriate choice of the function $\pi(s)=\frac{1-s}{2}-\frac {1}{2}\left[\left(2\epsilon +\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right)s-\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right]$ such that by Eq.(19), we can obtain the eigenvalue equation to be $$-\frac{1}{2}(\gamma-\delta+\epsilon^2)-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\sqrt{1+4\gamma}-\frac{1}{2}(2\epsilon+\sqrt{1+4\gamma})-\frac{1}{2}=n_r[4+2\epsilon+\sqrt{1+4\gamma}]+2n_r(n_r-1) \eqno{(33)}$$ Eq.(33) can be written in the powers of $\epsilon$ as follows $$\epsilon^2+\epsilon\left[2(2n_r+1)+\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right]+(\gamma-\delta)+\left[(1+2n_r)+\sqrt{1+4\gamma}\right]=0, \eqno{(34)}$$ such that we can obtain $$-\epsilon^2=-\frac{1}{4}\left[-2(2n_r+1)-\sqrt{1+4\gamma}+\sqrt{1+4\delta}\right]^2, \eqno{(35)}$$ from which we can obtain a rather complicated transcendental energy equation: $$(\mu-E_{n_r\kappa})(\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-C_1)=\frac{\alpha^2}{4}\left[2(2n_r+1)+(2\kappa+1)-\frac{1}{\alpha}\sqrt{\alpha^2+4(V_0+S_0)(E_{n_r\kappa}+\mu-C_1)}\right]^2 \eqno{(36)}$$ If we define a principal quantum number $n=2n_r+\ell+1$ , Eq.(36) becomes $$(\mu-E_n)(\mu+E_n-C_1)=\frac{\alpha^2}{4}\left[2n+D-\frac{1}{\alpha}\sqrt{\alpha^2+4(V_0+S_0)(E_n+\mu-C_1)}\right]^2 \eqno{(37)}$$ where we have chosen $\kappa=(2\ell+D-1)/2$ and $n=1,2,3,\dots$ Some numerical values of the energy levels $E(\alpha,n,D)$ for some dimensions and exited states are given in Table 1.
We now obtain the spinor components of the wavefunction for the spin symmetry case using the Nikiforov-Uvarov method. By substituting $\pi(s)$ and $\sigma(s)$ into Eq.(15), and solving the first order differential equation to have $$\phi(s)=s^{(\kappa+1)/2}(1-s)^{\epsilon/2}. \eqno{(38)}$$ Also using Eq.(18), the weight function $\rho(s)$ can be obtained as $$\rho (s)=\frac{1}{2}s^{(2\kappa-1)/2}(1-s)^\epsilon \eqno{(39)}$$ Substituting Eq.(39) into the Rodrigues relation (20), we have $$y_{n_r}(s)=B_{n_r}s^{-(2\kappa-1)/2}(1-s)^{-\epsilon}\frac{d^{n_r}}{ds^{n_r}}\left[s^{n_r+(2\kappa-1)/2}(1-s)^{n_r+\epsilon}\right]. \eqno{(40)}$$ Therefore, we can write the upper component $F_{{n_r}\kappa}(s)$ as $$F_{{n_r}\kappa}(s)=C_{n_r}s^{(\kappa+1)/2}(1-s)^{\epsilon/2}P^{((2\kappa-1)/2,~\epsilon)}_{n_r}(1-2s) \eqno{(41)}$$ where $C_{n_r}$ is the normalization constant, and we have used the definition of the Jacobi polynomials \[42\], given as $$P^{(a,~b)}_n(s)=\frac{(-1)^n}{n!2^n(1-s)^a(1+s)^b}\frac{d^n}{ds^n}\left[(1-s)^{a+n}(1+s)^{b+n}\right]. \eqno{(42)}$$ The lower-component can be obtain as follows using Eq.(8) $$G_{n_r\kappa}(s)=A_1(s)P_{n_r}^{((2\kappa-1)/2,~\epsilon)}(1-2s)+ A_2(s)P_{n_r-1}^{(2\kappa+1)/2,~\epsilon/2+1)}(1-2s) \eqno{(43)}$$ where $$A_1(s)=\frac{C_{n_r}\alpha s^{\kappa/2}(1-s)^{\epsilon/2}\left[\left(\frac{\kappa+1}{2}\right)(1-s)-\frac{\epsilon}{2}s\right]+C_{n_r}\frac{\alpha\kappa}{\tanh^{-1}(\sqrt{s})}}{\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-C_1}$$ and $$\hspace{.1in} A_2(s)=\frac{D_{n_r}\alpha s^{(\kappa+2)/2}(1-s)^{(\epsilon+2)/2}}{\mu+E_{n_r\kappa}-C_1} \eqno{(44)}$$ with constant $D_{n_r}$ defined by $$D_{n_r}=\frac{2\epsilon+2n_r+2\kappa+1}{4}\times C_{n_r} \eqno{(45)}$$. Moreover, to compute the normalization constant $C_{n_r}$, it is easy to show that $$\int^\infty_0\left|r^{\frac{-(D-1)}{2}}F_{{n_r}\kappa}(r)\right|^2r^{D-1}dr=\int^\infty_0|F_{{n_r}\kappa}(r)|^2dr=\int^1_0|F_{{n_r}\kappa}(s)|^2\frac{ds}{2\alpha\sqrt{s}(1-s)}=1 \eqno{(46)}$$ where we have also used the substitution $s=\tanh^2(\alpha r)$. Putting Eq.(41) into Eq.(46) and using the following definition of the Jacobi polynomial \[42\] $$P^{(a,b)}_n(s)=\frac{\Gamma(n+a+1)}{n!\Gamma(1+a)} \ _2F_1\left(-n,a+b+n+1;1+a;\frac{1-s}{2}\right), \eqno{(47)}$$ we arrived at $$C_{n_r}^2 N_{n_r}\int_0^1s^{\kappa+\frac{1}{2}}(1-s)^{\epsilon-1}[\ _2F_1\left(-n_r,\kappa+\epsilon+n_r+1/2;~\kappa+1/2;~s\right)]^2ds=\alpha \eqno{(48)}$$ where $N_{n_r}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\Gamma(n_r+\kappa+1/2)}{n_r!\Gamma(\kappa+1/2)}\right]^2$ and $_2F_1$ is the hypergeometric function. Using the following series representation of the hypergeometric function $$_pF_q(a_1,...,a_p;c_1,...,c_q;s)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(a_1)_n...(a_p)_n}{(c_1)_n...(c_q)_n}\frac{s^n}{n!} \eqno{(49)}$$ we have $$C_{n_r}^2 N_{n_r}\sum^{n_r}_{i=0}\sum^{n_r}_{j=0}\frac{(-n_r)_i(\kappa+\epsilon+n_r+1/2)_i}{(\kappa+1/2)_i i!}\frac{(-n_r)_j(\kappa+\epsilon+n_r+1/2)_j}{(\kappa+1/2)_j j!}\int_0^1s^{\kappa+i+j+\frac{1}{2}}(1-s)^{\epsilon-1} ds=\alpha .\eqno{(50)}$$ Hence, by the definition of the Beta function, Eq.(43) becomes $$\small C_{n_r}^2 N_{n_r}\sum^{n_r}_{i=0}\sum^{n_r}_{j=0}\frac{(-n_r)_i(\kappa+\epsilon+n_r+1/2)_i}{\kappa+1/2)_i i!}\frac{(-n_r)_j(\kappa+\epsilon+n_r+1/2)_j}{(\kappa+1/2)_j j!} B\left(\kappa+i+j+\frac{3}{2},\epsilon\right)=\alpha. \eqno{(51)}$$ Using the relations $B(x,y)=\frac{\Gamma(x)\Gamma(y)}{\Gamma(x+y)}$ and the Pochhammer symbol $(a)_n=\frac{\Gamma(a+n)}{\Gamma(a)}$, Eq.(51) can be written as\
$$\small C_{n_r}^2 N_{n_r}\sum^{n_r}_{i=0}\frac{(-n_r)_k(\kappa+\epsilon+n_r+1/2)_i(\kappa+\frac{3}{2})_i}{(\epsilon+\kappa+\frac{3}{2})_k (\kappa+1/2)_i k!}\sum^{n_r}_{j=0}\frac{(-n_r)_j(\kappa+\epsilon+n_r+1/2)_j(\kappa+i+\frac{3}{2})_j}{(\epsilon+\kappa+i+\frac{3}{2})_j (\kappa+1/2)_j j!}=\frac{\alpha}{B(\kappa+\frac{3}{2},\epsilon)} \eqno{(52)}$$
Lastly, Eq.(52) can be used to compute the normalization constants for $n_r=0,1,2,...$ In particular for the ground state, i.e $n_r=0$, we have $$C_0=\sqrt{\frac{2\alpha}{B\left(\kappa+\frac{3}{2},\epsilon\right)}}. \eqno{(53)}$$
In conclusion, the solutions of the Dirac equation with spin symmetry for the modified Pöschl-Teller potential has been extended to a multi-dimensional case. The energy levels and the spinor-components of the wavefunction were obtained using the Nikiforov-Uvarov method. We also obtain the normalization constants in form of the hypergeometric series. Numerical results show that there are only positive-energy states for bound states with spin symmetry. Also, the energy levels increase with the dimension and the potential range parameter $\alpha$. Moreover, the existence of the degenerate states between $E(\alpha,n+1,D)$ and $E(\alpha,n,D+2)$ indicate that the energy levels can be completely determined using the ground state.
[999]{}
J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 034318.
J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 436
J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Rep. 414 (4-5) (2005) 165.
P. R. Page, T. Goldman, J. N. Ginocchio, Phys. Lett. 86 (2001) 204.
A. Bohr, I. Hamarnoto, B. R. Motelson, Phys. Scr. 26 (1982) 267.
J. Dudek, W. Nazarewicz, Z. Szymanski, G. A. Lender, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 1405.
A. Arima, M. Harvey, K. Shimizu Phys. Lett. B 30 (1969) 517.
K. T. Hecht, A. Adler, Nucl. Phys. A 137 (1969) 137.
D. Toltenier, C. Bahri, J. P. Draayer, Nucl. Phys. A 586 (1995) 53.
C. Berkdemir, Nucl. Phys. A, 770 (2006) 32.
W. C. Qiang , R. S. Zhou and Y. Gao , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 40 (2007) 1677.
O. Bayrak and I. Boztosun, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,40 (2007) 11119.
J. Y. Guo and Z. Q. Sheng , Phys. Lett. A, 338 (2005) 90.
A. D. Alhaidari, H. Bahlouli and A. Al-Hasan,Phys. Lett. A, 349 (2006) 87.
A. Soylu, O. Bayrak and I. Boztosun, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 41 (2008) 065308.
C. S. Jia, P. Guo and X. L. Peng , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 39 (2006) 7737.
G. F. Wei, S. H. Dong, EPL 87 (2009) 40004.
Y. Xu, H. Su and C. S. Jia , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 41 (2008) 255302.
R. Lisboa, M. Malheiro, A. S. De Castro, P. Alberto and M. Fiolhais , Phys. Rev. C, 69 (2004) 4319.
A. S. De Castro, P. Alberto, Lisboa, M. Malheiro, Phys. Rev. C, 73 (2006) 054309.
S. M. Al-jaber, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37 (1998) 1289.
K. J. Oyewumi, F. O. Akinpelu, A. D. Agboola, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 47 (2008) 1039.
D. Agboola, Phys. Scr. 80 (2009) 065304.
D. Agboola, Chin. Phys. Lett. 27 (2010) 040301.
D. Agboola, Phys. Scr. 81 (2010) 067001.
N. Saad, Phys. Scr. 76 (2007) 623.
S. H. Dong, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.,36 (2003) 4977.
C. G. Bollini, J. J. Giambiagi, Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985) 3316.
R. L. Hall and M. D. Aliyu, Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 052115
Z. Q. Ma, S. H. Dong, X. Y. Gu; J. Yu, M. Lozada-Cassou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. 13 (2004) 597.
C. S. Jia, P. Guo, Y. F. Diao, L. Z. Yi and X. J. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. A 34 (2007) 41.
A. F. Nikiforov and V. B. Uvarov, Special Functions of Mathematical Physics Birkhauser, Bassel, 1988.
R. L Hall, Phys. Rev. 81 (2010) 052101.
W. Greiner, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Spinger, Verlag, 1981.
A. Erdelyi, Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol. 1, McGraw-Hill, 1953.
X. Y. Gu, Z. Q Ma, S. H. Dong, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 11 (2002) 335.
J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
C. Fronsdal, Group Theory and Application to Particle Physics, Brandeis Summer Institute Vol. 1, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1962.
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (3ed), Pergamon, 1965.
J. Zuniga, M. Alacid, A. Requena and A. Bastida, Int J. Quantum Chem. 57 (1995) 43.
J. I. Diaz, J. Negro, M. L. Nieto and O. Rosas-Ortiz, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32 (1999) 8447.
M. Abramowitz, I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. Dover, New York, 1970.
[|l|l|c|c|c|c|]{}\
\
$D$&$n$&$\alpha=0.0001$&[$\alpha=0.001$]{}&$\alpha=0.005$&$\alpha=0.01$\
&1&4.0032$\times 10^{-8}$&4.0326$\times 10^{-6}$&1.0442$\times 10^{-4}$&4.4016$\times 10^{-4}$\
&2&9.0108$\times 10^{-8}$&9.1118$\times 10^{-6}$&2.4161$\times 10^{-4}$&1.1130$\times 10^{-3}$\
3&3&1.6026$\times 10^{-7}$&1.6271$\times 10^{-5}$&4.4842$\times 10^{-4}$&—\
&4&2.5050$\times 10^{-7}$&2.5544$\times 10^{-5}$&—&—\
&5&3.6087$\times 10^{-7}$&3.6973$\times 10^{-5}$&—&—\
&1&6.2562$\times 10^{-8}$&6.3142$\times 10^{-6}$&1.6530$\times 10^{-4}$&7.1490$\times 10^{-4}$\
&2&1.2267$\times 10^{-7}$&1.2429$\times 10^{-5}$&3.3488$\times 10^{-4}$&—\
4&3&2.0287$\times 10^{-7}$&2.0641$\times 10^{-5}$&6.0121$\times 10^{-4}$&—\
&4&3.0317$\times 10^{-7}$&3.0955$\times 10^{-5}$&—&—\
&5&4.2361$\times 10^{-7}$&4.3513$\times 10^{-5}$&—&—\
&1&9.0108$\times 10^{-8}$&9.1118$\times 10^{-6}$&2.4161$\times 10^{-4}$&1.1131$\times 10^{-3}$\
&2&1.6026$\times 10^{-7}$&1.6270$\times 10^{-5}$&4.4842$\times 10^{-4}$&—\
5&3&2.5050$\times 10^{-7}$&2.5541$\times 10^{-5}$&—&—\
&4&3.6087$\times 10^{-7}$&3.6973$\times 10^{-5}$&—&—\
&5&4.9139$\times 10^{-7}$&5.0616$\times 10^{-5}$&—&—\
\[tab:\]
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present sub-milliarcseond resolution imaging and modeling of two nearby rapid rotators $\alpha$ Cephei and $\alpha$ Ophiuchi, obtained with the CHARA array - the largest optical/IR interferometer in the world. Incorporating a gravity darkening model, we are able to determine the inclination, the polar and equatorial radius and temperature, as well as the fractional rotation speed of the two stars with unprecedented precision. The polar and equatorial regions of the two stars have $\sim$2000K temperature gradient, causing their apparent temperatures and luminosities to be dependent on their viewing angles. Our modeling allow us to determine the true effective temperatures and luminosities of $\alpha$ Cep and $\alpha$ Oph, permitting us to investigate their true locations on the H-R diagram. These properties in turn give us estimates of the masses and ages of the two stars within a few percent of error using stellar evolution models. Also, based on our gravity darkening modeling, we propose a new method to estimate the masses of single stars in a more direct way through V$\sin i$ measurements and precise geometrical constraint. Lastly, we investigate the degeneracy between the inclination and the gravity darkening coefficient, which especially affects the modeling of $\alpha$ Oph. Although incorporating V$\sin i$ has lifted the degeneracy to some extent, higher resolution observations are still needed to further constrain the parameters independently.'
author:
- 'M. Zhao, J. D. Monnier, E. Pedretti, N. Thureau, A. M[é]{}rand, T. ten Brummelaar, H. McAlister, S. T. Ridgway, N. Turner, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, P. J. Goldfinger, C. Farrington'
bibliography:
- 'alfoph\_v3.bib'
title: 'Imaging and Modeling Rapidly Rotating Stars: $\alpha$ Cephei and $\alpha$ Ophiuchi '
---
Introduction
============
In the past few years, optical interferometers have resolved the elongated photospheres of rapidly-rotating stars for the first time. The emergence of these high angular resolution observations of hot stars has shined a spotlight on critical areas of stellar evolution and basic astrophysics that demand our attention. For decades, stellar rotation was generally overlooked in stellar models and was regarded to have a trivial influence on stellar evolution because most stars are slow rotators, such as the Sun [@Maeder2000]. Although the effects of rotation on solar type stars are indeed relatively mild, they are more prominent on hot stars. Studies have shown that a large fraction of hot stars are rapid rotators with rotational velocities more than 120 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}[@Abt1995; @Abt2002]. Virtually all the emission-line B (Be) stars are rapid rotators with rotational velocities of $\sim90\%$ of breakup [@Fremat2005]. Stars that are rapidly rotating have many unique characteristics. The centrifugal force from rapid rotation distorts their photospheres and causes them to be oblate. This distortion causes their surface brightness and $T_{eff}
$ to vary with latitude, and their equatorial temperatures are predicted to be much cooler than their polar temperatures, a phenomenon known as “Gravity Darkening" [@vonZeipel1924; @vonZeipel1924b]. Recent stellar models that took rotation into account showed that rapid rotation also affects stars’ luminosity, abundance [@Pinsonneault1997], evolution, and increases their lifetime [@Kiziloglu1996; @Talon1997; @Meynet2000]. It is also linked to stellar wind, mass loss [e.g., @Maeder2007], and even Gamma-Ray bursts [@MacFadyen1999; @MacFadyen2001; @Burrows2007].
The development of long baseline optical interferometry in recent years has evoked observations on several nearby rapid rotators, for instance, Altair, Vega, Achernar, Alderamin ($\alpha$ Cephei) and Regulus [@vanBelle2001; @Aufdenberg2006; @Peterson2006b; @Domiciano-de-Souza2003; @vanBelle2006; @McAlister2005; @Kervella2006; @Monnier2007sci]. These studies confirmed the general picture of von Zeipel’s gravity darkening law, but also raised discrepancies between observations and the widely adopted standard von Zeipel model (i.e., $T_{eff}\propto g_{eff}^{\beta}$, where $\beta$ is the gravity darkening coefficient, and $\beta= 0.25$ for fully radiative envelopes). Particularly, the recent study of @Monnier2007sci on Altair showed that their model prefers a non-standard gravity darkening law. What is more interesting is that they reconstructed a model-independent image for Altair and found a darker-than-expected equator compared to the model. This suggests for the first time from observations that the standard gravity darkening law may work only at a basic level and other mechanisms need to be introduced to account for the extra darkening. To address this issue, we will need more detailed studies and model-independent images of rapid rotators.
In this paper, we present our study of the two nearby rapid rotator $\alpha$ Cephei and $\alpha$ Ophiuchi, observed with the CHARA long baseline optical/IR interferometer array and the MIRC beam combiner. The star $\alpha$ Cephei ([$\alpha$ Cep ]{}, Alderamin, HR 8162, $V$=2.46, $H$=2.13, d=14.96pc) is the eighth nearest A star in the sky. It was classified as an A7 IV-V star in early studies, but was recently classified as an A8V main sequence star by @Gray2003. It is one of the few A stars (including Altair) that are found to have chromosphere activities [@Walter1995; @Simon1997; @Simon2002]. The V$\sin i$ measurements of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}show large scatter, spanning from $\sim180 { km~s$^{-1}$}$ to $\sim245 { km~s$^{-1}$}$ [@Bernacca1970; @Uesugi1970; @ROYER2007; @Abt1995]. Recently, @vanBelle2006 studied [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}using the CHARA array and found it is rotating close to break-up, and its photosphere is elongated due to rapid rotation.
The star $\alpha$ Ophiuchi ([$\alpha$ Oph ]{}, Rasalhague, HR 6556, $V$ = 2.09, $H$=1.66, d=14.68pc) is a nearby subgiant binary system [@Wagman1946; @Lippincott1966], and is the seventh nearest A star in the sky. The primary is a A5IV sub-giant which was first identified as a class III star but was later corrected to class IV by @Augensen1992 and @Gray2001. Several groups have tried to study the orbit of the system [@McAlister1984; @Kamper1989; @Mason1999; @Augensen1992; @Gatewood2005 etc.], and it was lately determined to have a period of $\sim8.6$ yrs and a semi-major axis between 0.4” - 0.5”. The mass determination of the primary has large scatter, ranging from 2 to 4.9 [e.g, @Kamper1989; @Augensen1992; @Gatewood2005]. The companion, which is approximately a K2V star, is thought to have a mass of 0.5-1.2[@Kamper1989; @Augensen1992; @Gatewood2005], and is observed to be 3.5 mag fainter than the primary in the $K$ band [@Boccaletti2001]. The size of the primary was estimated to be $\sim1.6$ - $1.7$ [@Barnes1978; @blackwell1980]. Its rotational velocity V$\sin i$ ranges from 210[ km s$^{-1}$]{}to 240[ km s$^{-1}$]{}, implying [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is spinning at a significant fraction of its break-up speed of $\sim270 { km~s$^{-1}$}$.
This paper is organized as follows. We report our observations and data reduction schemes in §\[obs\]. We discuss our aperture synthesis imaging for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}in §\[imaging\] and present gravity darkening models for both of them in §\[model\]. In §\[Teff\], we present their temperatures, luminosities, and their locations on the H-R diagram. Based on our modeling, we propose a new method to estimate the mass of a star in §\[new\_method\]. Finally, we discuss our results in §\[discuss\] and present our conclusions in §\[conclusion\].
Observations and data reduction {#obs}
===============================
Our observations were conducted at the Georgia State University (GSU) Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) interferometer array along with the MIRC combiner. The CHARA array, located on Mt. Wilson and consisting of six 1-meter telescopes, is the longest optical/IR interferometer array in the world [@Brummelaar2005]. The array is arranged in a Y-shaped configuration and has 15 baselines ranging from 34m to 331m, providing resolutions up to $\sim$0.5 mas at the $H$ band and $\sim0.7$mas at the $K$ band.
The Michigan Infra-Red Combiner (MIRC) was used here to combine 4 CHARA telescopes together for true interferometric imaging in the $H$ band, providing 6 visibilities, 4 closure phases and 4 triple amplitudes simultaneously in 8 narrow spectral channels [see @Monnier2004; @Monnier2006 for details]. MIRC is designed for stable calibrations and precise closure phase measurements. It uses single mode fibers to spatially filter the light coming from the CHARA beams. The fibers are brought together by a V-groove array in a non-redundant pattern. The outgoing fiber beams are then collimated by a lenslet array and are focused by a spherical mirror to form an interference pattern, which consists of six overlapping fringes with non-redundant spatial frequencies. The fringes are focused again by a cylindrical lens into a “line" of fringes and are dispersed by low spectral resolution prisms with R $\sim50$. The dispersed fringes are finally detected by a PICNIC camera, where they fall onto 8 spectral channels spanning the $H$ band ($\lambda$=1.5 - 1.8 $\mu m$) [@Monnier2004; @Monnier2006]. A detailed description of the control system and software can be found in @Pedretti2009.
The system visibilities of MIRC are very stable due to our use of single mode fibers. However, the atmospheric turbulence changes faster than the 5.5ms readout speed of the camera, causing decoherence of the fringes that needs to be calibrated. We therefore observe several calibrators adjacent to our targets over each observing night. For the purpose of bias subtraction and flux calibration, each set of fringe data is bracketed with measurements of background (i.e., data taken with all beams closed), shutter sequences (i.e., data taken with only one beam open at a time to estimate the amount of light coming from each beam), and foreground (i.e., data taken with all beams open but without fringes) [@Pedretti2009]. Each object is observed for multiple sets. During the period of taking fringe data, a group-delay fringe tracker is used to track the fringes [@Thrueau2006]. In order to track the flux coupled into each beam in “real time" to improve the visibility measurements, we use spinning choppers to temporally modulate the light going into each fiber simultaneously with fringe measurements. The chopper speeds were set to 25Hz, 30Hz, 35Hz and 40Hz in 2006 and were increased to 55Hz, 65Hz, 75Hz and 85Hz in 2007 to avoid overlap of modulating frequencies caused by chopper drifts.
We observed [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}on 4 nights in 2006 and observed [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}on 8 nights in 2006 and 2007, using various array configurations optimized for equal Fourier coverage in all directions for good imaging. The detailed log of our observations is listed in Table \[obslog\]. Figure \[uv\] shows the overall baseline coverage of our observations of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph.
The data reduction process follows the pipeline outlined by @Monnier2007sci, which was validated using data on the binary $\iota$ Peg. In brief, after frame-coadding, background subtraction and Fourier transformation of the raw data, fringe amplitudes and phases are used to form squared-visibilities and triple products. Raw squared-visibilities are then estimated from the power spectrum after foreground bias subtraction. After the fiber coupling efficiencies are estimated using either the chopping signal or direct fit to the fiber profiles, we obtain uncalibrated squared-visibilities and complex triple amplitudes. Finally, calibrators with known sizes are used to calibrate the drifts in overall system response before we obtain the calibrated squared-visibilites, closure phases, and complex triple amplitudes. The adopted sizes of our calibrators are listed in Table \[cals\]. Corresponding errors of the data are estimated by combining both the scatter of the data and calibration errors.
Aperture Synthesis Imaging {#imaging}
==========================
We employed the publicly-available application “Markov-Chain Imager for Optical Interferometry (MACIM)" [@Ireland2006] to reconstruct images for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph. The application applies the Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) [@Narayan1986] widely used in radio synthesis imaging, and has been validated on other test data [@Lawson2006]. Since the photosphere of a star has a sharp emission cut-off at the edge, which is imprinted in the highest spatial frequencies that cannot be observed, we constrain the field of view of the images within an ellipse to avoid spreading-out of the flux by the MEM procedure at the edge of the star. This constraint is appropriate for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}due to their lack of any circumstellar emission outside of their photospheres. The details of this approach can be found in @Monnier2007sci. The ellipse prior is found by conducting MACIM imaging on a grid of $\sim400$ different ellipses with uniform surface brightness, spanning a range of possible sizes, axial ratios, and position angles. To ensure the smoothness of the image, we also de-weighted the high resolution data with a gaussian beam of 0.3 milliarcsec FHWM, an approach usually applied in radio synthesis imaging. The image with the global maximum entropy is then taken as the final result. We treated each wavelength channel as providing a distinct set of (u, v) plane coverage, ignoring any wavelength-dependence of the image itself. This assumption is well justified for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}since the brightness profiles of their photospheres are almost identical in all channels in the $H$ band.
Figure \[alfcep\_img\] shows the reconstructed image of $\alpha$ Cep (${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ = 1.10). Its photosphere is well resolved and appears elongated along the east-west direction. The bright region at the bottom with T$_{eff}$ above 7000K (left panel) is later identified close to the pole and the dark belt below 6500K is the equator - a direct confirmation of the gravity darkening effect. The image implies the pole of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}is medium inclined. The very top of the image becomes bright again since the photosphere is brighter toward the poles. The right panel of Fig.\[alfcep\_img\] shows the orientation of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}based on the model in §\[model\]. It shows that the bright spot in the image is in fact above the pole as the pole of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}is limb-darkened. The squared-visibilities, closure phases, and triple amplitudes derived from the image are compared with the data in Figure \[alfcep\_vis2\_img\], \[alfcep\_cp\_img\], and \[alfcep\_t3amp\_img\].
Although we have tried intensively to reconstruct an image for $\alpha$ Oph, we are unable to find a reliable solution for it. This is because the brightness distribution of a stellar surface is mainly imprinted in our closure phases. The closure phase is only sensitive to asymmetric structures of the object, while a symmetric object only gives either 0$^o$ or 180$^o$ closure phases. The squared-visibilities of our data are less constraining due to their relatively large errors. The near equator-on inclination of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}(see §\[sec-alfoph\]) makes its brightness distribution nearly symmetric, providing too few non-zero closure phase signatures to constrain the image. Therefore, we could not obtain a reliable solution for [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}in the image reconstruction. We have also pursued other imaging programs such as MIRA [@Thiebaut2008], and obtained similar results in our preliminary efforts (Thi[é]{}baut 2008, private communication). Thus we only present the model of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}in this paper. As we will see in §\[sec-alfoph\], the lack of non-zero closure phase signatures of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}also brings similar issues to our modeling, causing high degeneracy to the inclination and the gravity darkening coefficient.
Surface Brightness Modeling {#model}
===========================
In addition to synthesis imaging, we construct rapid rotator models to fit the data of both stars, following the prescription described in @Aufdenberg2006 and references therein. Specifically, we assume a Roche potential (point mass) and solid body rotation in our model, and use the von Zeipel gravity darkening law [@vonZeipel1924; @vonZeipel1924b] to characterize the latitudinal temperature profile. Six parameters are used to define the models, including the stellar radius and temperature at the pole, the angular rotation rate as a fraction of breakup ($\omega$), the gravity darkening coefficient ($\beta$), the inclination angle, and the position angle (east of north) of the star. To ensure accuracy of the models, we construct them at four different wavelength channels across the $H$ band. The intensity and limb darkening at each point of the stellar surface is interpolated using the stellar atmosphere models of Kurucz [@Kurucz1993] as a function of local temperature, gravity, viewing angle, and wavelength. The 3D surfaces of the models are generated using patches with uniform surface areas to avoid over-sampling at the poles or under-sampling at the equators, and also to speed up the computation. A direct Fourier transform is then used to convert the projected intensity model to squared-visibilities, closure phases and triple amplitudes [^1]. In addition, we also force our model to match the $V$ and $H$ band photometric fluxes obtained from the literature (see Tables \[alfcep\_tab\], \[alfoph\_tab\]) to constrain the temperature range.
[$\alpha$ Cep ]{} {#sec-alfcep}
-----------------
We first fit the data of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}with the standard von Zeipel gravity darkening model for fully radiative envelopes (i.e., $T_{eff}\propto g_{eff}^{\beta}$, where $\beta=0.25$; hereafter, the standard model). The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm is applied for the least-square minimization and the parameter spaces are extensively searched in the fit. We assume M = 2.0 [@vanBelle2006], distance = 14.96 pc [@Perryman1997], and metallicity $[Fe/H]=0.09$ [@Gray2003] in the model. The left panel of Figure \[alfcep\_model\] shows the best-fit standard model of $\alpha$ Cep, with an overall goodness of fit $\chi_{\nu}^2$ of 1.21. The model shows the photosphere of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}is elongated, with a bright polar region at the bottom and a dark equator above it - generally consistent with the synthesized image in Fig.\[alfcep\_img\]. Our standard model yields an inclination of $64\fdg9\pm4\fdg1$ and a position angle of $-178\fdg3\pm4\fdg1$, consistent with the ellipse fit of @vanBelle2006 [hereafter VB06], which gave a position angle of -177$^o$ (or 3$^o$ depending on the definition). However, both the inclination and the position angle of their gravity darkening model ($i=88\fdg2, P.A.=17^o ~or~ -163^o$) differ from our results, as we have better UV coverage and also closure phase information which is very sensitive to asymmetric structures. Our model indicates [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}is rotating very fast, at 92.6% of its break-up speed. The temperature at the poles is $\sim$2400K higher than at the equator, while its radius at the equator is 26% larger than at the poles. The best-fit parameters of the standard model are listed in the second column of Table \[alfcep\_tab\]. Since the calibration errors vary from night to night, we estimate the parameter errors by bootstrapping the data from different nights (i.e., treat each night of data as a whole and randomly sample all of the nights with replacement, so that the correlations of data within each night can be taken into account ) and fitting the parameters to the resampled data. We then iterated this procedure hundreds of times.
In addition to our data, we also combine the squared-visibilities from VB06 (here after “Classic data") into our fit. The combined fit gives a slightly higher inclination, but all parameters are still consistent with our original fit. The total ${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ of the combined fit is 1.25. However, the ${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ of the Classic data (${\chi_{\nu}}^2$=2.0) is very large although it is slightly better than the original result of VB06 (${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ =2.16), implying that either the Classic data have additional un-calibrated errors or the model needs more degrees of freedom. We first look into a free $\beta$ in the model. Indeed, the von Zeipel theory suggests that the standard gravity darkening coefficient ($\beta=0.25$) only applies to pure radiative envelopes. However, it is uncertain if [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}is pure radiative or not. The atmosphere models of @Kurucz1979 suggest that, for an atmosphere with T$_{eff}>7500K$ and $\log g \sim 4$, like the polar areas of $\alpha$ Cep, convection should have very little or no effect. But it starts to play a role when temperature and $\log g$ drop below those numbers. In addition, the evolution models of $\beta$ calculated by @Claret1998 [@Claret2000] also indicate that, for a 2-2.5 star, convection starts to take place once T$_{eff}$ is below $\sim$7900K. For the case of $\alpha$ Cep, although its T$_{eff}$s at the polar areas are higher than 8000K, they drop to only $\sim$6700K in the equator, implying that convection may have effects in the equatorial areas and $\beta$ may deviate from the standard value. Therefore as a preliminary effort, we extend the standard von Zeipel law to a free $\beta$. The new combined $\beta$-free fit gives a ${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ of 2.11 to the Classic data, similar to the original VB06’s result. But it prefers a $\beta$ of 0.22 rather than the 0.08 value of VB06. To address this issue, we tried to fit the combined data at a fixed $\beta$ of 0.08 instead, but only obtained a total ${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ of $\sim6.5$, much worse than the previous result. In addition, we also fit the Classic data only but found it is too hard to constrain the model due to the small amount of data and lack of phase information. Therefore, due to possible uncertainties of the Classic data, we applied the $\beta$-free model to the MIRC measurements only, and the results are shown in the third column of Table \[alfcep\_tab\]. The best-fit model is shown in the right panel of Figure \[alfcep\_model\]. The squared-visibilities, closure phases and triple amplitudes of the $\beta$-free model are compared with the data in Figures \[alfcep\_vis2\_img\], \[alfcep\_cp\_img\], and \[alfcep\_t3amp\_img\], respectively.
The right panel of Figure \[alfcep\_model\] shows that the $\beta$-free model is more consistent with the synthesized image in Fig.\[alfcep\_img\] than the standard model. The ${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ of closure phase is significantly improved in the new best-fit although the ${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ of the triple amplitude is slightly larger. Figure \[alpcep\_i\_b\] illustrates the $\chi_{\nu}^2$ space of inclination and $\beta$ for $\alpha$ Cep, showing the value of $\beta$ is well constrained in the new model and is slightly lower than the standard value of 0.25. We also test the corresponding V$sin$i of the models in Fig.\[alpcep\_i\_b\]. The peak of the $\chi_{\nu}^2$ space falls inside the green box, consistent with the observed range of V$sin$i. The new model prefers a lower inclination of $55\fdg70\pm6\fdg23$, a higher rotational speed of 94$\%$ of break-up, and a similar position angle. The new best-fit temperatures at the poles and the equator are both cooler than those of the previous standard model.
In addition to using an average $\beta$ throughout the stellar surface as applied above, we are also pursuing fitting $\beta$ as a function of latitude. This approach will be presented in a future work with higher resolution data.
[$\alpha$ Oph ]{} {#sec-alfoph}
-----------------
We also start with the standard gravity darkening model ($\beta$=0.25) for $\alpha$ Oph. We assume mass $= 2.10 {\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ (see §\[Teff\]) and distance = 14.68 pc [@Gatewood2005] in the model. The metallicity $[Fe/H]$ of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is -0.16 [@Erspamer2003], thus a Kurucz grid with metallicity of -0.2 is applied. Figure \[alfoph\_model\] shows the best-fit standard model of $\alpha$ Oph. The best-fit parameters are listed in Table \[alfoph\_tab\]. The associated errors of the parameters are also obtained using the bootstrap procedure described in §\[sec-alfcep\]. The squared-visibilities, closure phases and triple amplitudes of the model are compared with the data in Figures \[alfoph\_vis2\], \[alfoph\_cp\] and \[alfoph\_t3amp\], respectively. The model shows that the photosphere of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is also elongated and has two bright polar areas and a dark equator. Its radius at the equator is $\sim20\%$ larger than at the poles. It is seen nearly equator-on with an inclination of $87\fdg70\pm0\fdg43$. The model also shows that [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is rotating at 88.5% of its break-up speed and the poles are $\sim1840$K hotter than the equator.
In the standard model, the ${\chi_{\nu}}^2$ of the closure phase only reaches 1.33 (Table \[alfoph\_tab\]), suggesting that we may need extra degrees of freedom to improve the fit. Therefore, following our approach for $\alpha$ Cep, we extend the standard model of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}to a free $\beta$. However, although we have searched the parameter space extensively, we cannot find a unique $\beta$-free model for $\alpha$ Oph due to the same reason that we encountered in imaging. As we mentioned in §\[imaging\], this issue stems from the near equator-on and symmetric brightness distribution of $\alpha$ Oph, causing the closure phases to be mostly $0^o$ or $\pm180^o$ (as shown in Fig.\[alfoph\_cp\]) and hence lack of enough non-zero signatures to constrain the model when $\beta$ is free.
Figure \[alpoph\_ib\] shows the $\chi_{\nu}^2$ space of inclination and $\beta$ for $\alpha$ Oph. Unlike the single peak of $\alpha$ Cep, [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}has several peaks spreading over a large range of inclination and $\beta$, indicating the inclination and $\beta$ are highly degenerate and suggesting it is difficult to constrain a unique $\beta$-free model. Nevertheless, the corresponding $V$sin$i$ values around the largest peak at $\beta\sim0.08$ fall outside the observed range of 210 - 240 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}(enclosed by the green box in Figure \[alpoph\_ib\]), suggesting the peak is not real but only due to the degeneracy of $\beta$ and inclination. In addition, the peak around $\beta \sim 0.08$ corresponds to a fully convective star according to @Lucy1967. But it is unlikely for an A5 star to be fully convective, especially when its polar temperature is as high as 9300K. Therefore, we can rule out the largest peak around $\beta\sim0.08$. Furthermore, the gravity darkening evolution models of @Claret2000 show that the value of $\beta$ should be much larger than 0.15 for a $\sim 2{\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ star with average T$_{eff}$ higher than 7500K, like $\alpha$ Oph. The second peak around $\beta\sim0.15$ in Fig.\[alpoph\_ib\], however, is not consistent with the models of @Claret2000 although is inside the V$sin$i range. Thus, in this study we still prefer the other peak around the standard $\beta = 0.25$ model for $\alpha$ Oph. To break down the degeneracy and constrain the value of $\beta$ more accurately, we will need more observations with higher resolution, especially in the visible where limb-darkening and gravity darkening are more prominent.
Physical properties and comparison with stellar evolution tracks {#Teff}
================================================================
In addition to the model parameters, we also calculate the true and apparent effective temperatures and luminosities for the two stars in Table \[alfcep\_tab\] & \[alfoph\_tab\]. The true luminosity is estimated by integrating local $\sigma T_{eff} (\theta)^4$ (where $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltsman constant) over the stellar surface, and the true T$_{eff}$ is estimated from the total luminosity and the total surface area of the star. The apparent luminosity is obtained from $L=4\pi d^2 F_{bol}$, where the bolometric flux $F_{bol}$ is calculated by integrating the specific intensity over the whole spectrum and the projected angular area of the star. The apparent temperature is obtained from $ \sigma T_{eff}^4= \pi d^2 F_{bol} / A_{proj}$, where $A_{proj}$ is the projected area.
The true T$_{eff}$ and luminosity of $\alpha$ Cep are very close to its apparent values due to its medium inclination (see Table \[alfcep\_tab\]). Its true T$_{eff}$ from the $\beta$-free model is 7510 $\pm$ 160K, close to although slightly cooler than the $\sim$7700K estimate of VB06 and @Gray2003, as well as the 7740K estimate of @Malagnini1990. Its true luminosity is 18.1 $\pm$ 1.8 ${\hbox{\,L$_\odot$}}$, consistent with the 17 ${\hbox{\,L$_\odot$}}$ estimate from @Malagnini1990 and the 17.3 ${\hbox{\,L$_\odot$}}$ estimate of @Simon1997
The deviation of $\alpha$ Oph’s true T$_{eff}$ and luminosity from its apparent values is very significant because of its near equator-on inclination. Its true T$_{eff}$ from the standard model is estimated to be 8250$\pm$100K. Its apparent T$_{eff}$, on the other hand, is 7950K based on the model, consistent with the apparent value of 7883 $\pm$ 63 K calculated by @Blackwell1998 and the value of $8030 \pm 160$ K by @Malagnini1990. Its apparent luminosity is 24.3 ${\hbox{\,L$_\odot$}}$, in agreement with the 25.1 ${\hbox{\,L$_\odot$}}$ value of @Malagnini1990 but smaller than its true luminosity of 30.2 $\pm$ 1.3 ${\hbox{\,L$_\odot$}}$. Because rapid rotators are hotter at the poles and cooler at the equators, their apparent temperatures are therefore dependent on their inclinations, which can easily introduce large biases to the observed values. To investigate this effect, we plot in Figure \[i\_Teff\] the differences between the true and apparent values of T$_{eff}$s and luminosities as a function of inclination, scaled with their true values. The plots show that when a star is inclined by $\sim54^o$, its apparent T$_{eff}$ and luminosity seen by the observers will be equal to their true values, just as the case of $\alpha$ Cep and similar to the result of @Gillich2008. When the star is seen pole on, such as Vega [@Aufdenberg2006; @Peterson2006b], its apparent temperature can exceed the true value by $\sim5\%$, and the luminosity can exceed by $\sim40-50\%$ or even larger depending on the speed of the rotation, which explains the reason that Vega’s luminosity was largely overestimated for a long time until recent studies of @Aufdenberg2006 and @Peterson2006b. On the other hand, when a rapid rotator is equator-on, as the case of $\alpha$ Oph, its apparent temperature and luminosity can be underestimated by $\sim4\%$ and $\sim20\%$ respectively. The rotation speed of the star also affects the differences between its true and apparent values - the faster the star rotates, the larger the difference we see.
Our estimates of the true T$_{eff}$s and luminosities of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}also allow us to understand their current evolutionary status better. In Figure \[hr\] we plot the H-R diagram and the corresponding $Y^2$ stellar evolution tracks and isochrones [@Demarque2004] for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph. Their possible ranges of locations on the H-R diagram are also shown in the plots. The top panel shows that [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}appears to be an A9 type star on the H-R diagram based on its apparent temperature and luminosity (filled triangle). However, it is classified as an A8V star by @Gray2003, earlier than that inferred from the top panel. Similarly, in the bottom panel of Figure \[hr\], [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}appears roughly as an A6.5 type star. Its apparent spectral type from @Gray2001 is A5IV, also earlier than that inferred from the figure. We infer that this is because the spectra of the two stars are dominated by spectral lines from the hotter and brighter polar regions, causing their overall spectral classification to be biased toward the types of their poles which appear earlier than other regions of the stars. Therefore, for the case of an equator-on star, such as $\alpha$ Oph, although its apparent effective temperature is lower than its true temperature due to the inclination, its spectral type derived from spectroscopy can compensate this effect and make it look closer to its true spectral type. However, for a pole-on star such as Vega, this bias can not be compensated, and the spectral types derived from both spectroscopy and apparent temperature will appear earlier than its true type. This phenomenon indicates that the spectral types of rapid rotators are not only biased by their inclinations, but also by the spectral lines of their polar regions.
Using the $Y^2$ models, we estimate that [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}has a mass of $1.92\pm0.04 {\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$, slightly smaller than the estimate of VB06. Its age is estimated to be $0.99\pm0.07$ Gyrs. We also estimate that [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}has a mass of $2.10\pm 0.02{\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$, and an age of $0.77\pm0.03$ Gyrs. Its apparent position in the H-R diagram, however, indicates a lower mass of 1.99${\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$, which is again consistent with the 2.0${\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ estimate of @Malagnini1990 and @Augensen1992. However, this value is much lower than the 2.84${\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ value of @Gatewood2005 and the 4.9 of @Kamper1989. To address the differences, we derive the mass range of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}using our new method of estimating mass in the next section (§\[new\_method\]), and conclude the result of @Gatewood2005 and @Kamper1989 can be ruled out. The estimated masses and ages of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}are included in Tables \[alfcep\_tab\] and \[alfoph\_tab\] respectively.
We note that the $Y^2$ models are for non-rotating stars, whereas both [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}are rapid rotators. The fact that rotation may extend the main-sequence lifetime [@Kiziloglu1996; @Maeder2000] implies that our age estimates may not be accurate and needs further investigation. We also note that the masses of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}are both estimated based on non-$\alpha$-enhanced $Y^2$ models. Studies have shown that rapid rotation can change the abundance of a star [e.g., @Pinsonneault1997] and enhance the $\alpha$-rich elements [@Yoon2008], resulting in very different estimates of its mass and age. Hence to derive the masses of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}more accurately, detailed abundance studies are required to determine if they are $\alpha$-enhanced and what abundance to use for their evolutionary models.
A new method to estimate the mass of a star {#new_method}
===========================================
Mass is the most fundamental property of stars. The determination of stellar masses mostly relies on orbital measurements of binary systems [e.g., @Zhao2007], stellar evolution models together with measurements of other stellar properties [e.g., @vanBelle2006], and asteroseismology together with measurements of stellar radii [e.g., @Creevey2007]. Here we propose a new method to estimate the mass of a star based on our modeling of rapid rotators.
Since we can determine the inclination, equatorial radius and the fractional rotation speed of a rapid rotator from our model, we therefore can combine the model of a rapid rotator with its mass to estimate the equatorial velocity and the V$\sin i$ value. We can also reverse the process, taking a precise measurement of V$\sin i$ and a best-fit rotator model to determine the mass of a star. This approach is most suitable for radiative rapid rotators which can be interpreted by the standard gravity darkening model, and also non-fully-radiative rotators if a more sophisticated fluid model is constructed [e.g., @Jackson2004; @MacGregor2007; @Espinosa2007]. For stars with less accurate models, we can also use this method to roughly estimate their masses. The precision of V$\sin i$ is also crucial for a precise mass estimate. As a preliminary test, we first apply this method to [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph.
The $Vsin$i range of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}(180 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}- 245 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}) corresponds to a large mass range of 1.3${\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ to 2.4${\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ based on the $\beta$-free model in §\[sec-alfcep\]. The mass of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}determined from stellar models, on the other hand, is $1.92\pm0.04 {\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ (see §\[Teff\]), well within the mass range given by $Vsin$i. Similarly, the $Vsin$i range of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}(210 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}- 240 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}) gives a mass range of 1.7 to 2.2 when combined with the model in §\[sec-alfoph\]. Its mass determined from stellar models, $2.1\pm 0.02{\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$ (see §\[Teff\]), is also within the range. By contrast, the study of @Gatewood2005 and @Kamper1989 gave a mass of 2.84 and 4.9 to $\alpha$ Oph respectively, far outside the range given by $Vsin$i, and hence can be ruled out. Since [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is also a known astrometric binary, it is the ideal target to further test this new method by comparing its mass with that determined from the astrometric orbit. We are currently pursuing this study (Oppenheimer et al.2008, private communication) and will also present it in a future work.
Discussion {#discuss}
==========
Although the $\beta$-free model of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}is consistent with the synthesized image (Fig.\[alfcep\_img\]) in basic features such as the bright pole and the dark equator, we also notice that the equator of the image is darker and cooler than that of the model - a phenomenon seen in a previous study of Altair [@Monnier2007sci]. The existence of the darker-than-expected equator on both stars implies that the extra gravity darkening may be real. However, it can also be due to a systematic effect of the imaging program. To confirm this conclusion we will need further studies such as model-independent latitudinal temperature profiles.
Our models show that both [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}have polar temperatures well above 8000K and equatorial temperatures below 7500K, which means, according to the stellar atmospheric grid of @Kurucz1979, the polar areas of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}are radiative and their equators can have convections, especially for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}as its equatorial temperature is lower than that of $\alpha$ Oph. Since the existence of convection tends to lower the value of the average gravity darkening coefficient $\beta$ of the whole star [@Claret1998], it may be the cause of $\beta<0.25$ in the $\beta$-free model of $\alpha$ Cep. The unusually strong chromosphere activity of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}among A stars [@Walter1995; @Simon1997] also provides evidence to the convective layers since the chromosphere is directly linked to magneto-convection. Another A star with strong chromosphere activities, Altair, is also a rapid rotator spinning at 92% of its break-up speed and has an equatorial temperature of 6860K [@Monnier2007sci]. This suggests that although A stars are generally considered to have no chromospheres due to their very thin or lack of convective layers [@Simon2002], rapid rotators may have exceptions at their equators due to gravity darkening. This is also consistent with the conclusion from the hydrodynamic model of @Espinosa2007. This effect may also shed some light on the searches for the onset of chromosphere and the transition from radiative to convective envelopes among early type stars [e.g., @Simon2002]. Since convection also tends to smear out the temperature differences between the hot and cool regions of the stellar surface and make their intensity contrast lower, other mechanisms such as differential rotation [e.g., @Espinosa2007] may also exist in the equators of these stars in order to make the equator darker and cooler as in the image. For instance, a faster differentially spinning equator will have stronger gravity darkening, thus will appear darker than that of the standard model. However, the darker equator, if it is real, can also be caused by a very different form of gravity darkening law. To further address this issue, we will need detailed line profile studies and images at visible since gravity darkening is more prominent in the visible than in the $H$ band.
The $87\fdg70$ inclination of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}differs from its orbital inclination by about $27^o$ [$i\sim115^o$, @Kamper1989; @Augensen1992; @Gatewood2005], indicating the spin of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is not coplanar with its orbit. Even more interesting, the orbit of the binary is highly eccentric ($e\sim0.8$, Kamper et al. 1989 and Gatewood 2005; $e=0.57$, Augensen & Heintz 1992), implying the non-coplanarity and the high eccentricity of the system may be related to each other through interactions of the two stars with their disks in their early formation stages.
Conclusion
==========
We have modeled the surface brightness distributions of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}using the gravity darkening model. We have also reconstructed an aperture synthesis image for $\alpha$ Cep, but no reliable image for [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is available due to its lack of closure phase signatures caused by its nearly symmetric brightness distribution. The image of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}shows the star is oblate and its equator is darker than its poles, directly confirming the gravity-darkening phenomenon. The models show that both stars are rotating close to their break-up speed. They both appear oblate and have large latitudinal temperature gradient due to gravity darkening. A standard gravity darkening model of $\beta$=0.25 is adopted for $\alpha$ Oph, and its inclination is determined to be $87.70^o$. For $\alpha$ Cep, a $\beta=0.216$ model fits the data better and also agrees better with the image. It has a medium inclination angle of $55.70^o$.
Our models also allow us to calculate and compare the true T$_{eff}$s and luminosities of the two stars with their apparent values. We show that [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}has a true T$_{eff}$ of 8250K and luminosity of 30.2 ${\hbox{\,L$_\odot$}}$, significantly larger than its apparent values due to its equator-on inclination. The true T$_{eff}$ and luminosity of $\alpha$ Cep, on the other hand, appear very close to its apparent values because of its medium inclination. The spectral classification of the two stars from literatures, however, suggests earlier spectral types for both stars than that derived from their apparent T$_{eff}$s and luminosities. We infer that this is because the spectra of the two stars are dominated by lines from their hotter and brighter polar regions which appear much earlier in spectral type than the other regions of the stars, causing their overall spectral classification to be biased toward their polar areas.
The temperatures and luminosities in turn allow us to make rough estimates of the masses of the two stars through stellar evolution models. The mass of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}is estimated to be $1.92{\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$, and the mass of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}is $2.10{\hbox{\,M$_\odot$}}$. However, due to possible abundance anomaly caused by rapid rotation, the exact masses of the two stars still have to be scrutinized when a detailed abundance analysis is available.
Our gravity darkening models also allow us to propose a new method to estimate the masses of rapid rotators together with precise measurements of V$sin$i. We have tested this method on both stars and found our mass estimate from the stellar models are within the range. The star [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}will be a good target to further test this method as it is also an astrometric binary.
Our models show that the equatorial temperatures of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}and especially [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}are low enough to meet the onset conditions of convection, implying that convections in the equatorial region can be a reason of the unusually high chromosphere activities of $\alpha$ Cep. Although the [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}model agrees with its image in general, the image shows extra darkening at the equator which is not expected by our gravity darkening model but is consistent with the previous result of Altair. This effect, if is real, is most likely caused by differential rotation of the star. But to further confirm the conclusion, detailed high resolution line profile analysis and images at visible are needed.
We thank Michael Ireland for the MACIM package used in this work. We thank the valuable discussions with C. Cowley. We also thank the referee for valuable suggestions and comments. The CHARA Array is funded by the National Science Foundation through NSF grants AST-0307562 and AST-0606958 and by the Georgia State University. We thank the support for this work by the Michelson Graduate Fellowship (M. Z.), the NSF grants NSF-AST 0352723, NSF-AST 0707927, NASA NNG 04GI33G (J. D. M.), and EU grant MOIF-CT-2004-002990 (N. T.). E. P. was formally supported by the Michelson Postdoctoral Fellowship and is currently supported by a Scottish Universities Physics Association (SUPA) advanced fellowship. This work has made use of the PTI data archive maintained by the Michelson Science Center.
[ ![ Baseline coverages for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph. The longest baselines in the observations are 251m and 329m for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph, corresponding to resolutions of 0.68mas and 0.52mas respectively. The UV coverage can be obtained by dividing these two plots by corresponding wavelengths. \[uv\]](fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="3in"} ![ Baseline coverages for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph. The longest baselines in the observations are 251m and 329m for [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and $\alpha$ Oph, corresponding to resolutions of 0.68mas and 0.52mas respectively. The UV coverage can be obtained by dividing these two plots by corresponding wavelengths. \[uv\]](fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="3in"}]{}
[ ![ Reconstructed MACIM image of $\alpha$ Cep. The left panel shows the contours of local brightness temperature. To help visualize the geometry of $\alpha$ Cep, the right panel shows its latitude and longitude using the positions from the standard model discussed in §\[model\]. The white circle at the bottom-left corner of the left panel shows the size of the convolving beam that we use for the image reconstruction. The total $ \chi^2_{\nu} $ of the image is 1.10. The resolution of the image is 0.68 milliarcsec. \[alfcep\_img\]](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ Reconstructed MACIM image of $\alpha$ Cep. The left panel shows the contours of local brightness temperature. To help visualize the geometry of $\alpha$ Cep, the right panel shows its latitude and longitude using the positions from the standard model discussed in §\[model\]. The white circle at the bottom-left corner of the left panel shows the size of the convolving beam that we use for the image reconstruction. The total $ \chi^2_{\nu} $ of the image is 1.10. The resolution of the image is 0.68 milliarcsec. \[alfcep\_img\]](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"}]{}
[![ [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}squared-visibilities from the MACIM image (solid lines) and the gravity darkening model ($\beta=0.216$, dashed lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). All four nights (2006 Oct09, 11, 12, 16) are shown here. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s squared-visibilities is 0.87, while that of the model is 0.80. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfcep\_vis2\_img\]](fig3a.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}squared-visibilities from the MACIM image (solid lines) and the gravity darkening model ($\beta=0.216$, dashed lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). All four nights (2006 Oct09, 11, 12, 16) are shown here. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s squared-visibilities is 0.87, while that of the model is 0.80. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfcep\_vis2\_img\]](fig3b.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}squared-visibilities from the MACIM image (solid lines) and the gravity darkening model ($\beta=0.216$, dashed lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). All four nights (2006 Oct09, 11, 12, 16) are shown here. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s squared-visibilities is 0.87, while that of the model is 0.80. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfcep\_vis2\_img\]](fig3c.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}squared-visibilities from the MACIM image (solid lines) and the gravity darkening model ($\beta=0.216$, dashed lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). All four nights (2006 Oct09, 11, 12, 16) are shown here. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s squared-visibilities is 0.87, while that of the model is 0.80. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfcep\_vis2\_img\]](fig3d.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ]{}
[![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the closure phases for $\alpha$ Cep. The solid lines stand for the closure phases of the MACIM image, and the dashed lines stand for the model. Each row stands for a different telescope triangle. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s closure phases is 0.95, while that of the model is 1.27. \[alfcep\_cp\_img\]](fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the closure phases for $\alpha$ Cep. The solid lines stand for the closure phases of the MACIM image, and the dashed lines stand for the model. Each row stands for a different telescope triangle. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s closure phases is 0.95, while that of the model is 1.27. \[alfcep\_cp\_img\]](fig4b.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the closure phases for $\alpha$ Cep. The solid lines stand for the closure phases of the MACIM image, and the dashed lines stand for the model. Each row stands for a different telescope triangle. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s closure phases is 0.95, while that of the model is 1.27. \[alfcep\_cp\_img\]](fig4c.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the closure phases for $\alpha$ Cep. The solid lines stand for the closure phases of the MACIM image, and the dashed lines stand for the model. Each row stands for a different telescope triangle. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s closure phases is 0.95, while that of the model is 1.27. \[alfcep\_cp\_img\]](fig4d.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ]{}
[![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the triple amplitudes for $\alpha$ Cep. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s triple amplitude is 1.63, while that of the model is 1.76. \[alfcep\_t3amp\_img\]](fig5a.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the triple amplitudes for $\alpha$ Cep. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s triple amplitude is 1.63, while that of the model is 1.76. \[alfcep\_t3amp\_img\]](fig5b.ps "fig:"){width="3.3in"} ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the triple amplitudes for $\alpha$ Cep. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s triple amplitude is 1.63, while that of the model is 1.76. \[alfcep\_t3amp\_img\]](fig5c.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfcep\_vis2\_img\] but showing the triple amplitudes for $\alpha$ Cep. The $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ of the image’s triple amplitude is 1.63, while that of the model is 1.76. \[alfcep\_t3amp\_img\]](fig5d.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ]{}
[![ The gravity darkening models of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}. The contours indicate the local brightness temperatures on the surface of the star. The left panel shows the best-fit standard gravity darkening model ($\beta=0.25$) overplotted with the temperature contours from Figure \[alfcep\_img\]. The total $\chi_{\nu}^2$ of the standard model is 1.21. The right panel shows the best-fit $\beta$-free model, also overplotted with the temperature contours from Figure \[alfcep\_img\], and has a total $\chi_{\nu}^2$ of 1.18. The resolution of the data is 0.68 milliarcsec. \[alfcep\_model\]](fig6a.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ The gravity darkening models of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}. The contours indicate the local brightness temperatures on the surface of the star. The left panel shows the best-fit standard gravity darkening model ($\beta=0.25$) overplotted with the temperature contours from Figure \[alfcep\_img\]. The total $\chi_{\nu}^2$ of the standard model is 1.21. The right panel shows the best-fit $\beta$-free model, also overplotted with the temperature contours from Figure \[alfcep\_img\], and has a total $\chi_{\nu}^2$ of 1.18. The resolution of the data is 0.68 milliarcsec. \[alfcep\_model\]](fig6b.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"}]{}
[![ The $\chi_{\nu}^2$ surface of $\beta$ and inclination for $\alpha$ Cep. The corresponding probability peaks at $\beta\sim0.22$ and $i\sim56^o$. The black contours show the 1-$\sigma$, 2-$\sigma$, and 3-$\sigma$ levels of confidence interval, scaled to match the errors of $\beta$ and inclination estimated from bootstraping. The area inside the green box indicates the region where the corresponding V$sin$i values are within the observed range of 180 - 245 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}. \[alpcep\_i\_b\]](fig7.ps "fig:"){width="3.4in"} ]{}
[ ![ The best-fit standard gravity darkening model of $\alpha$ Oph. The contours in the left panel indicate the local brightness temperatures on the surface of the star. The right panel shows the latitude and longitude of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}to help visualize its geometry. The resolution of the data is 0.52 milliarcsec. The total $\chi_{\nu}^2$ of the model is 0.91. \[alfoph\_model\]](fig8a.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ The best-fit standard gravity darkening model of $\alpha$ Oph. The contours in the left panel indicate the local brightness temperatures on the surface of the star. The right panel shows the latitude and longitude of [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}to help visualize its geometry. The resolution of the data is 0.52 milliarcsec. The total $\chi_{\nu}^2$ of the model is 0.91. \[alfoph\_model\]](fig8b.ps "fig:"){width="3.2in"}]{}
[![ [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}squared-visibility model (standard $\beta=0.25$, solid lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). Four out of eight nights (2006Jun21, 2006Aug29, 31, and 2007May12) are shown here. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. The total $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ is 0.72 for the squared-visibility only. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfoph\_vis2\]](fig9a.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}squared-visibility model (standard $\beta=0.25$, solid lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). Four out of eight nights (2006Jun21, 2006Aug29, 31, and 2007May12) are shown here. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. The total $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ is 0.72 for the squared-visibility only. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfoph\_vis2\]](fig9b.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}squared-visibility model (standard $\beta=0.25$, solid lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). Four out of eight nights (2006Jun21, 2006Aug29, 31, and 2007May12) are shown here. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. The total $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ is 0.72 for the squared-visibility only. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfoph\_vis2\]](fig9c.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}squared-visibility model (standard $\beta=0.25$, solid lines) vs. data (filled points with error bars). Four out of eight nights (2006Jun21, 2006Aug29, 31, and 2007May12) are shown here. Each row stands for a different baseline, while the columns indicate different times of observation. The eight data points in each panel indicate the eight spectral channels of MIRC across the $H$ band. The total $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ is 0.72 for the squared-visibility only. (Please refer to the electronic edition if the type size is too small.) \[alfoph\_vis2\]](fig9d.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ]{}
[ ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfoph\_vis2\] but showing the closure phase for $\alpha$ Oph. Each row stands for a different telescope triangle. The total $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ for closure phase is 1.33. \[alfoph\_cp\]](fig10c.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in" height="3.8in"} ]{}
[ ![ Similar to Fig.\[alfoph\_vis2\] but showing the triple amplitudes for $\alpha$ Oph. The total $ \chi^2 _{\nu} $ for triple amplitude is 0.81. \[alfoph\_t3amp\]](fig11c.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in" height="3.8in"} ]{}
[![ The $\chi_{\nu}^2$ surface of $\beta$ and inclination for $\alpha$ Oph. The corresponding probability is high throughout a large range of inclination and $\beta$, suggesting high degeneracy between the two parameters. The map also indicates the inclination at $\beta =0.25$ (i.e., the standard model) is well constrained and is nearly equator-on. Since the probability is dominated by the degeneracy effects of $\beta$ and inclination, we overplot the $\chi_{\nu}^2$ contours on the map instead of confidence intervals. The region enclosed in the green box has V$sin$i values inside the observed range of 210-240 [ km s$^{-1}$]{}. The rest of the areas in the map fall outside the observed V$sin$i range and thus can be ruled out, even though they may fit the data better. \[alpoph\_ib\]](fig12.ps "fig:"){width="4in"} ]{}
[![ Deviation of the apparent T$_{eff}$ and luminosity from their true values at various inclinations. The solid line indicates the standard model ($\beta=0.25$) of $\alpha$ Oph. The dashed line indicates the $\beta=0.216$ model of $\alpha$ Cep. The apparent T$_{eff}$ and luminosity equal their true values at inclination of $\sim54^o$. [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}(filled square) is seen very close to this zero-difference value, but [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}(filled dot) is almost at the high end due to its large inclination. \[i\_Teff\]](fig13a.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"} ![ Deviation of the apparent T$_{eff}$ and luminosity from their true values at various inclinations. The solid line indicates the standard model ($\beta=0.25$) of $\alpha$ Oph. The dashed line indicates the $\beta=0.216$ model of $\alpha$ Cep. The apparent T$_{eff}$ and luminosity equal their true values at inclination of $\sim54^o$. [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}(filled square) is seen very close to this zero-difference value, but [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}(filled dot) is almost at the high end due to its large inclination. \[i\_Teff\]](fig13b.eps "fig:"){width="3.2in"}]{}
[![ Positions of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}on the HR diagram. The top panel shows [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and the $Y^{2}$ stellar models with Z$\sim0.02$. The bottom panel shows [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}and $Y^2$ stellar models with $Z\sim0.014$. The dashed red lines indicate the evolutionary tracks and the dotted blue lines indicate the isochrones. The filled dots with error bars indicate the true T$_{eff}$ and luminosity of the two stars, while the filled triangles indicate their apparent T$_{eff}$ and luminosity which are dependent on their inclinations. The solid lines that go through the points show the positions of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}on the H-R diagram as a function of inclination . These curves are more or less parallel to the Zero-Age Main Sequence indicated by the thick solid line at the bottom left of each plot, consistent with those of @Gillich2008. For a $90^o$ inclination, the positions of the stars will be at the lower end of the curve; and for a $0^o$ inclination, the stars will be at the higher end of the curves. These plots suggest the inclination of a star can significantly change its apparent location on the H-R diagram. \[hr\]](fig14a.eps "fig:"){width="4in"} ![ Positions of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}on the HR diagram. The top panel shows [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and the $Y^{2}$ stellar models with Z$\sim0.02$. The bottom panel shows [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}and $Y^2$ stellar models with $Z\sim0.014$. The dashed red lines indicate the evolutionary tracks and the dotted blue lines indicate the isochrones. The filled dots with error bars indicate the true T$_{eff}$ and luminosity of the two stars, while the filled triangles indicate their apparent T$_{eff}$ and luminosity which are dependent on their inclinations. The solid lines that go through the points show the positions of [$\alpha$ Cep ]{}and [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}on the H-R diagram as a function of inclination . These curves are more or less parallel to the Zero-Age Main Sequence indicated by the thick solid line at the bottom left of each plot, consistent with those of @Gillich2008. For a $90^o$ inclination, the positions of the stars will be at the lower end of the curve; and for a $0^o$ inclination, the stars will be at the higher end of the curves. These plots suggest the inclination of a star can significantly change its apparent location on the H-R diagram. \[hr\]](fig14b.eps "fig:"){width="4in"} ]{}
[llclc]{} [$\alpha$ Oph ]{}& UT 2006Jun20 & W1-W2-S1-S2 & $\alpha$ Sge & no\
& UT 2006Jun21 & W1-W2-S1-S2 & $\zeta$ Oph, $\gamma$ Ser & no\
& UT 2006Aug28 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & $\upsilon$ Peg & no\
& UT 2006Aug29 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & $\gamma$ Lyr, $\upsilon$ Peg & no\
& UT 2006Aug30 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & $\gamma$ Lyr &yes\
& UT 2006Aug31 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & $\gamma$ Lyr, $\upsilon$ Peg & yes\
& UT 2007May10 & S1-E1-W1-W2 & $\zeta$ Oph, $\tau$ Aql & yes\
& UT 2007May12 & S1-E1-W1-W2 & $\zeta$ Oph, $\tau$ Aql & yes\
\
[$\alpha$ Cep ]{}&UT 2006Oct09 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & 29 Peg, $\upsilon$ And, $\zeta$ Per & yes\
&UT 2006Oct11 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & $\upsilon$ And, $\zeta$ Per & yes\
&UT 2006Oct12 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & 29 Peg, $\zeta$ Per & yes\
&UT 2006Oct16 & S2-E2-W1-W2 & 29 Peg, $\upsilon$ And & yes\
\[obslog\]
[lcl]{} $\alpha$ Sge & 1.32 $\pm$0.02 & Uniform-disk fit to PTI archive data\
$\zeta$ Oph & 0.51 $\pm$ 0.05 & [@Hanbury1974]\
$\gamma$ Ser & 1.21$\pm$ 0.05& Uniform-disk fit to PTI archive data\
$\gamma$ Lyr & 0.74 $\pm$0.10& [@Leggett1986]\
$\upsilon$ Peg & 1.01 $\pm$ 0.04 & [@Blackwell1994]\
$\tau$ Aql & 1.10 $\pm$ 0.01& @Merand2005 [@Merand2006]\
29 Peg&1.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & MIRC measurement\
$\upsilon$ And & 1.17 $\pm$ 0.02 & Boden 2008\
$\zeta$ Per &0.67 $\pm$ 0.03 & getCal\
\[cals\]
[lcc]{} Inclination (degs) & 64.91 $\pm$ 4.11 & 55.70 $\pm$ 6.23\
Position Angle (degs) & -178.26$\pm$ 4.10 & -178.84 $\pm$ 4.28\
T$_{pol}$ (K) & 8863$\pm$ 260 & 8588 $\pm$ 300\
R$_{pol}$ (${\hbox{\,R$_\odot$}}$) & 2.199 $\pm$ 0.035 & 2.162 $\pm$ 0.036\
T$_{eq}$ (K) & 6707 $\pm$ 200 &6574 $\pm$ 200\
R$_{eq}$ (${\hbox{\,R$_\odot$}}$) & 2.739$\pm$ 0.040 & 2.740 $\pm$ 0.044\
$\omega$ & 0.926 $\pm$ 0.018 & 0.941 $\pm$0.020\
$\beta$ & 0.25 (fixed) & 0.216$\pm$ 0.021\
Model V Magnitude & 2.45 &2.45\
Model H Magnitude & 1.92 &1.91\
Model v $\sin i$ (km/s) & 237 & 225\
Total $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 1.21 &1.18\
Vis$^2$ $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 0.79 & 0.80\
CP $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 1.43 & 1.27\
T3amp $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 1.71 &1.76\
\
True T$_{eff} (K)$ & 7690 $\pm$ 150 & 7510 $\pm$ 160\
True Luminosity () & 20.1 $\pm$ 1.6 & 18.1 $\pm$ 1.8\
Apparent T$_{eff} (K)$ & - & 7510\
Apparent Luminosity () & - & 17.9\
Mass () & - & 1.92 $\pm$ 0.04\
Age (Gyrs) &- & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.07\
$[Fe/H]$ &\
Distance (pc) &\
\[alfcep\_tab\]
[lc]{} Inclination (degs) & 87.70 $\pm$ 0.43\
Position Angle (degs) & -53.88 $\pm$ 1.23\
T$_{pol}$ (K) & 9300 $\pm$ 150\
R$_{pol}$ (${\hbox{\,R$_\odot$}}$) & 2.390 $\pm$ 0.014\
T$_{eq}$ (K) & 7460 $\pm$ 100\
R$_{eq}$ (${\hbox{\,R$_\odot$}}$) & 2.871 $\pm$ 0.020\
$\omega$ & 0.885 $\pm$ 0.011\
$\beta$ & 0.25 (fixed)\
Model V Magnitude & 2.086\
Model H Magnitude & 1.66\
Model v $\sin i$ (km/s) & 237\
Total $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 0.91\
CP $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 1.33\
Vis$^2$ $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 0.72\
T3amp $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & 0.81\
\
True T$_{eff} (K)$ & 8250 $\pm$ 100\
True Luminosity () & 30.2 $\pm$ 1.3\
Apparent T$_{eff} (K)$ & 7950\
Apparent Luminosity () & 24.3\
Mass () & 2.10 $\pm$ 0.02\
Age (Gyrs) & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.03\
$[Fe/H]$ & -0.16\
Distance (pc) & 14.68\
\[alfoph\_tab\]
[^1]: We have validated our model by comparing with another independent model from Jason Aufdenberg (private communication) on the data of Vega from @Aufdenberg2006. We also compared the model using Kurucz limb darkening with one using PHOENIX limb darkening and found the difference is negligible. The data and models we used for the comparison are available at http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/$\sim$mingzhao/rapidrot.php
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This article presents a hub-based approach to community finding in complex networks. After identifying the network nodes with highest degree (the so-called hubs), the network is flooded with wavefronts of labels emanating from the hubs, accounting for the identification of the involved communities. The simplicity and potential of this method, which is presented for direct/undirected and weighted/unweighted networks, is illustrated with respect to the Zachary karate club data, image segmentation, and concept association. Attention is also given to the identification of the boundaries between communities.'
author:
- Luciano da Fontoura Costa
bibliography:
- 'hubcomm.bib'
date: 25th April 2004
title: 'Hub-Based Community Finding'
---
The problem of community finding in complex networks [@Albert_Barab:2002; @Newman:2003; @Dorog_Mendes:2002] represents one of the most challenging and promising perspectives from which to approach, characterize and understand those general structures. Related to established areas in graph theory (e.g. [@West:2001]) and pattern recognition (e.g. [@Duda_Hart:2001; @CostaCesar:2001]), the interest in community finding in complex networks was fostered by sociological studies (e.g. [@Scott:2000]) and further enhanced by the seminal articles by Wu and Huberman [@Wu_Huberman:2003] and Newman and Girvan [@Newman_Girvan:2004]. The latter defined the problem of community finding as ‘the division of network nodes into groups within which the network connections are dense, but between which are sparse’. That work also proposed a divisive methodology based on the concept of shortest path betweeness which has become the main reference for community finding investigations given its good performance, despite its relatively high computational demand. Other approaches include the method based on an analogy with electrical circuits [@Wu_Huberman:2003], consideration of triangular loops in the network [@Radicchi_etal:2004], application of super-paramagnetic clustering [@Reichardt_Bornholdt:2004], analysis of the spectral properties of the networks [@Capocci_Caldarelli:2004], and spectral properties of the Laplacian matrix combined with clustering techniques [@Donetti_Munoz:2004]. Despite the growing attention focused on this issue — see [@Newman_Girvan:2004; @Capocci_Caldarelli:2004; @Donetti_Munoz:2004; @Radicchi_etal:2004] for a good characterization of the problem and extensive related references — some important points remain not completely solved, including the definition of a community and the high computational demand implied by the most effective techniques.
The current work describes an alternative approach to community finding which is based on one of the most characteristic concepts underlying the new area of complex networks, namely that of a *hub*, i.e. a node in a network exhibiting high degree. As emphasized by the several investigations targeting complex networks, such nodes play determinant role in defining the connectivity patterns in several natural structures and systems [@Albert_Barab:2002]. Therefore, the consideration of hubs as starting points for network partition represents a particularly promising perspective from which to approach the community finding problem, a possibility which was preliminary considered in [@Costa_Image:2004]. The current article reports on a simple and powerful hub-based community finding methodology which involves the flooding of the network with labels emanating with constant speed from the respective hubs. Such a procedure, which is related to the concept of distance transform [@CostaCesar:2001; @Costa_Muti:2003] in graphs [@LucVincent:1990] and label propagation in orthogonal lattices [@Sethian:1999; @Costa_Muti:2003; @CostaCesar:2001], provides a simple and natural means for partitioning networks, especially those organized around hubs, into coherent communities. Such a methodology, as well as a post-processing step allowing integration of border elements, is presented and illustrated in the following with respect to three representative weighted/unweighted and directed/undirected networks, namely the well-known Zachary karate club, image segmentation, and concept associations.
The network under analysis is assumed to have $N$ nodes, labeled as $i=1, 2, \ldots, N$, and $n$ edges represented as $(i,j)$, which can have unit or general weight $w_{i,j}$ represented as $w(j,i)$ in the respective weight matrix. The *outdegree* $O_i$ of a specific node $i$ is herein defined as the sum of the weights of the emerging edges, i.e. $O_i = \sum_{k=1}^N w(i,k)$, while the *indegree* is defined as $I_i = \sum_{k=1}^N w(k,i)$. Observe that undirected networks are characterized by $O_i=I_i$ for any $i$. The hubs are henceforth understood as the set of $M$ nodes with the highest degrees. The $d-$ball with radius $d$ centered at node $i$ is defined as the subgraph containing all nodes which are connected to $i$ through shortest paths no longer than $d$. The label of a specific node $i$ can be propagated through the network by identifying the $d-$balls centered at $i$ with subsequent distance values $d$. If such wavefronts are started at each of the $M$ hubs, the respective labels are propagated as long as the nodes being reached by the wavefronts are empty, i.e. have not been visited by another front. In this work, such a label propagation is performed so that the labels emanating from the hubs with higher degree are propagated first, for the same value of $d$, than those with lower degree.
The result of such a flooding procedure is to partition the original network into $M$ communities, which can also be understood as the Voronoi tessellation of the original network [@CostaCesar:2001; @Costa_Muti:2003; @LucVincent:1990]. Observe that the above procedure implies that those nodes that are at the same distances from two hubs are dominated by the hub with the higher degree. Such a procedure implies that two (or more) hubs $a$ and $b$ with $O_a>O_b$, sharing most connections, as is the case with nodes 33 and 34 in the Zachary club network (see Figure \[fig:Zach\]), may produce different communities. In case it is desired to merge such hubs, which is an application-dependent decision, the following post-processing can be performed. For each node $i$, identify all its emanating direct connections, whose number is represented as $E_i$, and identify the moda (i.e. the most frequent value) $m$ among the labels of the nodes connected to $i$. In case the ratio $R_i$ given in Equation \[eq:R\] is larger than a pre-specified threshold value $T$, the node $i$ receives the label $m$. For weighted networks, it is also possible to consider the ratio between the sum of weights of the connected nodes with label equal to the moda value and the total sum of emerging edge weights (see Equation \[eq:Rw\]).
$$\begin{aligned}
R_i = M_i / E_i \label{eq:R} \\
R_w = \sum_{k \in moda} w(k,i) / \sum_{k=1}^{E_i} w(k,i) \label{eq:Rw} \\
Q = \sum_i (e_{ii} - a_i^2) \label{eq:Q}\end{aligned}$$
A particularly interesting, and somewhat overlooked, feature of a community partition of a complex network is the *boundaries* between the identified communities. The boundaries can be defined with respect to nodes or edges. In the former case, the boundary of community $i$ can be easily identified by looking for each node with label $i$ which is linked to at least another node with different label. Such a boundary, which is respective to community $i$, is henceforth called *node-boundary* of $i$. The *edge-boundary* between two communities $i$ and $j$ corresponds to those edges connecting nodes of $i$ to nodes of $j$ (the edge direction can be or not observed in the case of directed networks).
Although the above described hub-based methodology can be immediately applied to unweighted (i.e. weights are 0 or 1) or weighted networks, some remarks regarding computational implementation should be considered. For undirected networks, it is more effective to follow the subsequent connections defined by the label flooding by looking for non-zero entries along the columns of the weight matrix and using lists for book-keeping. It can be verified that such a processing can be performed in $O(N)$, as the nodes are checked only once during the labeling procedure. A possible means to processing weighted networks is to visit each node while identifying the shortest path [@Cormen_etal:2001] to each of the $M$ hubs, taking as result the label of the shortest hub. In case two (or more) hubs are found at the same shortest path distance, that with the highest node degree is selected. The computational cost of finding the shortest paths between each of the $N$ nodes and the $M$ hubs can be optimized by using algorithms such as Dijkstra’s, which implies $O(NlogN + n)$ [@Cormen_etal:2001]. Effective algorithms for distance transformation in graphs [@LucVincent:1990] can also considered for further enhancing the performance.
The potential of the above described hub-based community finding approach is illustrated in the following with respect to complex networks obtained for the Zachary karate club, image segmentation, and concept association. In order to rate the quality of the obtained communities, we consider the modularity index $Q$ [@Newman_Girvan:2004]. Let the number of nodes and edges completely contained inside community $i$ be denoted by $N_i$ and $n_i$, respectively, and the number of edges with at least one vertex connected to $i$ be represented as $A_i$. The modularity index $Q$ can now be defined by Equation \[eq:Q\], where $e_{ii}=n_i/n$ and $a_i=(2n_i+A_i)/(2n)$. Observe that $Q \leq 1$, reaching null value for a random partition of the network [@Newman_Girvan:2004].
We consider the Zachary karate club data first. The network obtained from this dataset is often considered as a benchmark for community finding methodologies [@Newman_Girvan:2004; @Donetti_Munoz:2004]. Observe that this network is unweighted (i.e. unit weights) and undirected. Figure \[fig:Zach\] shows the communities obtained by the hub-based algorithm (small and large nodes) considering $M=2$, followed by the above described node merging post-processing considering $T=0.4$. The edge-boundary between the two communities is identified by thicker edges. Actually, the only node misclassified by the methodology (node 3), lies at the boundary between the two communities and present the same number of links with both of them. The quality of such a partition, which is precisely the same as that obtained in [@Newman_Girvan:2004], is characterized by $Q=0.36$.
Now we draw attention to the simple image in Figure \[fig:img\](a), which contains a floppy-disk, a coin and a pencil. The objective here is to segment the image into reasonable regions of interest, namely the three objects [@CostaCesar:2001]. As in [@Costa_Image:2004], each image pixel is understood as a node, and the absolute difference between the gray-levels at any two pixels $i$ and $j$ is taken as the respective weight $w(i,j)$. Therefore, two pixels with similar gray-level are connected by an edge with small weight, which can be understood as the *similarity* between those pixels [@Falcao:2000]. Unlike in [@Costa_Image:2004], such a fully connected graph is *not* thresholded, therefore avoiding one adjustable parameter, and the identification of the hubs is *not* performed sequentially along the processing, but as its first step. As such, the obtained network is weighted and undirected (the difference between pixels is symmetric). It should be observed that the consideration of image segmentation as a community finding benchmark is particularly interesting, not only because of the easy visualization of the obtained results therefore afforded, but also for the possibility to immediately check the coherence and quality of the obtained communities, which should correspond to the main regions in the original image. In order to quantify the quality of the obtained partitions, the template image in Figure \[fig:img\] is considered as the reference for the correct classes. Such a template was obtained by a human operator by considering the original, higher resolution, image from which the image in (a) was derived by subsampling [@CostaCesar:2001]. The results obtained by the hub-based approach considering $M=2$, shown in Figure \[fig:img\](c), can be found to be in good agreement with the template in (b). It should be observed that, as several hubs are obtained for the same region as a consequence of the weight-assignment procedure (which produces a fully-connected graph as a result), the two hubs were sampled manually from each of the two regions. The obtained value of $Q$ for such partitioning was found to be equal to 0.007, which is so low because of the several original connections between the two classes implied by the procedure adopted in order to obtain the weight matrix, which is fully connected.
\
(a)\
\
(b)\
\
(c)\
Finally, we consider the concept association experiment reported in [@Costa_what:2003] (see also [@Capocci_Caldarelli:2004]), which involved word associations by a human subject. A weighted, directed network is obtained by considering each distinct word as a node, while the weight of the edge between node $i$ and a node $j$ corresponds to the number of times the word associated to $i$ was followed by that associated to $j$. The hub-based community finding algorithm was applied with $M=10$ and $T=0.4$. Table \[tab:comm\] shows five of the principal hub-words and some of the words falling on the respectively defined communities, which include directly (shown in italics) and indirectly associated words. The word ‘fast’, for instance, was included into the community dominated by the hub [**animal**]{} through the following stream of associations [**animal**]{} $\mapsto$ *butterfly* $\mapsto$ wing $\mapsto$ airplane $\mapsto$ fast. The values of $Q$ for $M=2$ to 50 with and without the node-merging scheme is shown in Figure \[fig:QM\]. It is clear from this curve that such post-processing is highly effective in increasing the quality of the network partitioning.
\
[**sun**]{} (18) [**drink**]{} (15) [**cold**]{} (15) [**way**]{} (15) [**animal**]{} (15)
------------------ -------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
*pyramid* *soft* *water* *easy* *cat*
*round* *eat* *sky* *rough* *horse*
*yellow* *well* *wool* *good* *brown*
*circle* much *air* *one* *butterfly*
*hot* few pullover *brief* wing
triangle sheep *fine* airplane
drawing thin *single* fast
: Five of the hubs with highest degree (indicated within parenthesis) and some of the related concepts included in the respective communities. Directly associated concetps are shown in italics. \[tab:comm\]
All in all, the prospects of using the network hubs as references for finding communities along the network, which can be obtained through label propagation, has been found to provide a natural and powerful means for partitioning complex networks, especially those organized around hubs (e.g. scale-free networks) into coherent subgraphs. The potential of the reported approach has been fully substantiated with respect to three case-examples of weighted/unweighted and directed/undirected networks. Given its low computational demand (order $N$), this methodology presents good potential for several applications in complex network research. Future works may target further validation of the methodology and the consideration of other propagating schemes, such as starting the label flooding from the nodes with the lowest degree (the end-vertices, with unit degree). It would be possible to assign communities to the groups of nodes furthest away from the end-vertices, and compare such communities with those induced by the hubs. In addition, other special nodes or subgraphs can be considered as starting points for the flooding, including specific paths and cycles. The latter possibility is particularly promising for analysing networks grown around basic cycles, such as the metabolic networks. A particularly interesting perspective is to explore the use of properties of the obtained node- and edge-boundaries, such as the number of edges/nodes respectively involved, in order to quantify the quality of the obtained results. For instance, a small border between two regions with similar number of nodes can be taken as an indication of high-quality community finding. Another issue to be pursued further is to identify which community finding algorithms are more suitable with respect to the several types of complex networks.
The author is grateful to FAPESP (process 99/12765-2), CNPq (308231/03-1) and the Human Frontier Science Program for financial support.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'picl.bib'
title: 'Complexity of regular abstractions of one-counter languages'
---
[Mohamed Faouzi Atig [^1]]{} [Uppsala University, Sweden]{} [mohamed\[email protected]]{}
[Dmitry Chistikov [^2]]{} [Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (MPI-SWS), Germany]{} [[email protected]]{}
[Piotr Hofman [^3]]{} [LSV, CNRS & ENS Cachan, Université Paris-Saclay, France]{} [[email protected]]{}
[K Narayan Kumar [^4]]{} [Chennai Mathematical Institute, India]{} [[email protected]]{}
[Prakash Saivasan [^5]]{} [Chennai Mathematical Institute, India]{} [[email protected]]{}
[Georg Zetzsche [^6]]{} [LSV, CNRS & ENS Cachan, Université Paris-Saclay, France]{} [[email protected]]{}
evenfoot [ ]{}oddfoot = evenfoot
[^1]: Supported by DST-VR Project P-02/2014, the Swedish Research Council (VR).
[^2]: Supported in part by the ERC Synergy award ImPACT.
[^3]: Supported by Labex Digicosme, Univ. Paris-Saclay, project VERICONISS and by Polish National Science Centre grant 2013/09/B/ST6/01575.
[^4]: Supported by the DST-VR Project P-02/2014, Infosys Foundation.
[^5]: Supported by the DST-VR Project P-02/2014, TCS Fellowship.
[^6]: Supported by a fellowship within the Postdoc-Program of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present a joint compression and classification approach of EEG and EMG signals using a deep learning approach. Specifically, we build our system based on the deep autoencoder architecture which is designed not only to extract discriminant features in the multimodal data representation but also to reconstruct the data from the latent representation using encoder-decoder layers. Since autoencoder can be seen as a compression approach, we extend it to handle multimodal data at the encoder layer, reconstructed and retrieved at the decoder layer. We show through experimental results, that exploiting both multimodal data intercorellation and intracorellation 1) Significantly reduces signal distortion particularly for high compression levels 2) Achieves better accuracy in classifying EEG and EMG signals recorded and labeled according to the sentiments of the volunteer.'
author:
-
-
-
title: 'Multimodal deep learning approach for joint EEG-EMG data compression and classification'
---
mHealth, deep learning, compression, classification
Introduction
============
Healthcare has always been considered as a strategic priority worldwide. The increasing number of elderly and chronic disease patients has made the physical contact between the caregiver and patients more and more difficult. Following the fast development of wireless technologies, the interoperability between healthcare entities and mobile has grown. The development of complex devices has stimulated the creation of many mobile health or ‘mHealth’ applications and wearable devices for fitness tracker, sleep monitoring [@app]…The mHealth industry is predicted to grow \$12 billions by 2018 [@study].Motivated by the myriad of biomedical sensors, mobile phones and applications, the scientific communities have standardized the system that focuses on the acquisition of vital signs such as electroencephalogram (EEG) and Electromyogram (EMG) by body area sensor networks (BASN) under IEEE 802.15.6 [@ieee]. Thus, a typical mHealth BASN system consists of sensors collecting the data, a Personal Data Aggregator (PDA) and remote server. However, due to network limitation, data delivery through the network can be hindered. Consequently, we need to optimize every bit of data being sent. One of the possible pre-processing stages is to encode the data in the PDA i.e. mapping $x_i$ to compressed data $z_i$. At the server level, the received data $z_i$ is decoded i.e. mapped to $\hat{x_i}$ which approximates the original data $x_i$. Many successful algorithms have been proposed for time series compression. Srinvasan et al. [@lossless] designed a 2-D lossless EEG compression where the signal is arranged in 2-D matrix as a preprocessing. Compression is achieved through a two-stage coder composed of Set Partitioning In Hierarchical Trees (SPIHT) [@spiht] layer and Arithmetic Coding (RC) layer. Hussein et al. [@ramy] proposed a scalable and energy efficient EEG compression scheme based on Discret Wavelet Transform (DWT) and Compressive Sensing (CS) in wireless sensors. Several parameters have been considered to control the total energy consumption of the encoder and transmitter. The optimal configuration of these parameters is chosen based on optimization scheme where the total power consumption should not exceed a certain threshold. In [@cs_shukla], authors applied CS technique for EEG signal compression. Since the multichannel EEG signals have common sparse support in the transform domain, they stack the sparse transform coefficients as columns of matrix. Thus, the recovery problem becomes row-sparse and solved through Bregman algorithm [@bregman]. Majumdar et al. [@low_rank] argued that CS is not efficient for EEG compression because there is no sparsifying basis that fulfills the requirements of incoherence and sparsity. Instead, authors formulated the problem as a rank deficiency problem solved by a Bregman-derived algorithm.Following the development of wireless BASN, vital signs data have become abundant. mHealth systems are now capable of collecting data from different modalities (EEG, EMG, etc). Although, they may seem totally different, these data can describe the same phenomena. For example, in case of schizophrenic person, when a stimulus is presented, a peak in the EEG registration is witnessed while the functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) data shows activations in the temporal lobe and the middle anterior cingulate region [@fmri_eeg]. Thus, both modalities are very likely to be correlated. Each modality has its advantages and limitations but analyzing multiple modalities offers better understanding of the investigated phenomena. The aforementioned methods, although exhibit good performance, do not exploit the correlation among multiple modalities. Deep learning approach has emerged as one of the possible techniques to exploit the correlation of the data from multiple modalities. Ngiam et al. [@ngiam] proposed a multimodal deep learning approach for cross modality feature learning from video and speech data. Srivastava et al. [@nitish_m_dbn] built a multimodal deep belief network [@dbn] to learn multimodal representation from image and text data for image annotation and retrieval tasks. In [@m_dbm], authors designed a deep Boltzmann machine [@dbm] based architecture to extract a meaningful representation from multimodal data for classification and information retrieval task. Liu et al. [@m_video] proposed a multimodal autoencoder [@science] approach for video classification based on audio, image and text data where the intra-modality semantic for each data is separately learning by a stacked autoencoder. Next, the learned features are concatenated and fed to another deep autoencoder with a softmax layer for classification.Few research attempts have addressed the possible application of autoencoder for biomedical and mHealth applications. In [@Ollivier2014], Yann Ollivier proved that there is a strong relationship between minimizing the code length of the data and minimizing reconstruction error that an autoencoder seeks. Tan et al. [@mammogram] used a stacked autoencoder for mammogram image compression. Training is conducted on image patches instead of the whole images. In [@ecg_ae], authors applied the autoencoder for Electrocardiogram (ECG) compression. Comparison results with various classic compression methods showed that this special type network is reliable for signal compression. However, the problem of multimodal data compression in context of mHealth is still not well-investigated. We propose in this paper a multimodal approach for data compression and feature learning. The encoding-decoding scheme can be achieved through a stack of autoencoders. Our approach exploits the intracorrelation as well as the intercorrelation among multiple modalities to achieve efficient compression and classification. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in section II, we present the autoencoder architecture. Section III is dedicated for presenting our multimodal approach for joint EEG and EMG data compression and classification. Experimental results are illustrated and discussed in section IV and we conclude in the last section.
Background
==========
Autoencoder
-----------
An autoencoder, illustrated in Fig. \[autoencoder\], is a special type of neural network consisting of three layers. The data are first fed into the input layer, propagated to a second layer called the hidden or bottleneck layer and then reconstructed at a third layer called the reconstruction layer. The encoder transforms the set of data vectors $x \in R^X$ into hidden representation $h \in R^H$ via an activation function $f$: $$h=f(Wx+b)$$ The decoder transforms back the hidden representation $h$ to reconstruction data $r \in R^X$ via an activation function $g$: $$r=g(W^{'}h+b^{'})$$ The Parameters $W \in R^{X \times H}$ and $W^{'} \in R^{H \times X }$ are called weight matrices. $b \in R^H$ and $b^{'} \in R^X$ are called the bias vectors. $f$ and $g$ are typically hyperbolic function $tanh(x)=\big(e^x-e^{-x}\big)/\big(e^x+e^{-x}\big)$ or sigmoid function $sigmoid(x)=1/\big( 1+e^{-x}\big)$. In practice, we use tight weight configuration i.e. $W^{'}=W^T$. Autoencoder seeks the optimal set of parameters $\Theta=\{W, b, b^{'}\}$ that minimizes the reconstruction error $J_{\Theta}(x,r)$. This error is generally the Squared Euclidean distance $ L(x,r)=|| x-r ||^2$ or cross-entropy loss $L(x,r)=-\sum^X_{i=1}x_i log(r_i)+(1-x_i)log(1-r_i)$. When using affine activation function and squared error loss, autoencoder essentially performs Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [^1]. Minimization is generally carried out via gradient descent algorithm. In other words, the purpose of this minimization is to obtain $r \approx x$ i.e. an approximation to the identity function. But, by constraining the system by limiting the number of hidden units at the hidden layer, we are forcing the system to learn a compressed version of the data. Furthermore, to prevent overfitting, i.e. just learning the identity function, another constraint is often added: a weight decay term that regularizes $J_{\Theta}(x,r)$. Then, we have: $$J_{\Theta}(x,r)=L(x,r)+ \lambda||W||^2_2$$ Where $\lambda$ is the decay parameter that controls the amount of regularization.
![Autoencoder: the encoder maps the data to hidden representation. The decoder maps the encoded features to reconstruct the data[]{data-label="autoencoder"}](autoencoder.jpg)
Stacked autoencoder
-------------------
Stacked autoencoder (SAE), illustrated in Fig \[sae\], is a neural network which consists of multiple layers of autoencoders. The output of each layer is fed to the next layer. SAE is trained via a greedy layer-wise training [@greedy]. Specifically, it is done one layer at a time. At each layer, we consider the autoencoder composed of the current layer and its previous one which is the output of the previous layer. Once $N-1$ layers are trained, we can compute the output of th $N^{th}$ layer wired to it. This unsupervised stage is followed by a supervised fine-tuning of the parameters where a softmax layer is added on top of the SAE.
![Stacked autoencoder: the output of each layer is the input of the next layer[]{data-label="sae"}](sae.jpg)
Multimodal autoencoder for EEG-EMG compression and classification
=================================================================
Fig. \[m\_sae\] exhibits the multimodal autoencoder architecture. It consists of two pathways for EEG and EMG. Each pathway represents a unimodal stacked autoencoder dedicated to learn the intra-modality correlation of the data while the joint layer merge the higher level features.
Unimodal data pre-training
--------------------------
SAE is applied separately for each modality, we use the sigmoid activation function and the Squared Euclidean distance as loss function regularized by a weight decay term. We apply also tied weight configuration. The output of the $i^{th}$ layer is obtained as follows: $$\begin{tabular}{c c}
\(z_1=sigmoid(W_1 x_1+b_1)\) & \(i=1\)\\
\(z_i=sigmoid(W_i x_i+b_i)\) & \(i=2..N\)
\end{tabular}$$ The SAE is trained using the greedy-layer wise training approach where we feed the latent representation of the autoencoder found below to the current layer. This deep architecture makes the system more scalable and efficient while progressively extracting higher level features from the high dimensional data.
Deep multimodal learning
------------------------
The single modal pre-training does not involve inter-modality correlation which can contribute in better representation of the higher level features. It especially allows encoding the multiple modalities in a single shared representation obtained by the joint layer. The output of this layer encompasses the contribution of each modality in the code which represents the compressed data. The joint representation is obtained as follows: $$z=\sum_{ i \in \{e,m\}}sigmoid\big(W_{N+1}^i z^i_{N+1}+b^i_{N+1}\big)$$ Where $e$ and $m$ refer to EEG and EMG respectively. Furthermore, we train the multimodal autoencoder with an augmented noisy data where additional examples are added leading to samples with only one single modality. In practice, we add zeros values examples for one modality while keeping the original values for the other modality and vice-versa. Thus, one third of the training data is EEG only, another one third is EMG only and the rest has both EEG and EMG data. This strategy, inspired from Nigiam et al [@ngiam], follows the denoising autoencoder paradigm [@dae] and is justified by twofold:
- Correlation among multiple modalities is very likely to be non-linear.
- This non-linearity often leads to hidden units being activated by one single modality.
Therefore, the original and corrupted inputs are propagated independently to the higher layers which are then trained progressively to reconstruct the clean presentation from both inputs.
Fine-tuning
-----------
The compressed data can be used for classification task, that is, to fine-tune the layers with respect to a supervised criterion by plugging the bottleneck layer to a softmax classifier [@autoencoder]: $$\hat{p}=\frac{exp(Wy+b)}{\sum_{l=1}^L exp(W^l y+b^l)}$$ Where $\hat{p}$ is the predicted object label, $y$ represents the compressed data and $L$ is the number of classification labels. Therefore, the overall objective function to minimize is: $$\Im(x,r,p,\hat{p})=J_{\Theta}(x,r)+ L(p,\hat{p})$$ Where $p$ is the true label and $L(p,\hat{p})$ can be an entropic loss function.
Experimental results
====================
mHealth systems acquire, process, store, secure and transport the medical data. Data delivery should be as efficient and optimized as possible in terms of energy consumption and bandwidth usage. A typical system consists of mHealth wearable device that senses vital signs. These data are collected by a PDA and should be transmitted to a remote server handled by a medical entity [@7552682]. At the server level, a multimodal autoencoder is already trained and the optimal configuration is already found. This configuration is also known by the PDA which should apply it on the collected data for compression. We present in this section several experimental results where we compare our compression scheme with some state of the art compression methods. Furthermore, we compare our multimodal strategy with the unimodal one to highlight the importance of exploiting the intermodality correlation.
Dataset
-------
We conduct our experiments on the DEAP dataset [@deap]. It consists of EEG, EMG and multiple physiological signals recorded from 32 participants during 63 seconds at 128 Hz. During experiments, volunteers watched 40 music videos and rate them on a scale from 1 to 9 with respect to four criteria: likeness (dislike, like), valence (ranges from unpleasant to pleasant), arousal (ranges from uninterested or bored to excited) and dominance (ranges from helpless and weak feelings to empowered feeling). Signals are segmented into 6 seconds segments, whitened and normalized between 0 and 1. For both EEG and EMG data, we have 23040 samples of 896 dimensionality. These data should then be divided into training and testing sets.
Compression tasks
-----------------
We compare our compression method with the Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) [@dwt], Compressed Sensing (CS) [@cs] and the 2D compression approach which is based on SPIHT and FastICA [@fastica]. For the latter algorithm, we use two configurations of 3 and 6 independent components denoted 2D-SPIHT-3-ICs and 2D-SPIHT-6-ICs. We evaluate performance using compression ratio (CR) and residual distortion (D). $$CR=\big(1-\frac{m}{n}\big)*100$$ $$D=\frac{||r-x||}{||x||}*100$$ Where $m$ and $n$ are the length of the compressed and original signals (number of samples). $D$ is the percentage root-mean-square difference between the compressed and original signals. For each data pathway, we use a two-layer SAE. Table \[config\] presents the numbers of hidden units for each layer of the multimodal autoencoder as well as the DWT thresholds and their corresponding CRs. We divide data to 50% training and testing. Fig. \[distortion\] and \[distortion\_emg\] exhibit distortion variation with respect to different CR values for EEG and EMG. The findings show that for higher compression ratios, the multimodal approach performs better than DWT and CS. For example, for CR=80%, our approach is able to reconstruct EEG and EMG with distortions of 12% and 13.85% respectively while CS distorts EEG by 22% and EMG by 17.21%. With 2D-SPIHT-3-ICs, EEG and EMG distortions are 33.7% and 35.7% respectively while with 2D-SPIHT-3-ICs, EEG and EMG are distorted by 33% and 33.5%. DWT exhibits low performance with 68% and 73.12% for EEG and EMG respectively. Although DWT, CS and the 2D approach perform better for low compression levels, the proposed method presents stable performance for different compression levels.
Multimodal autoencoder DWT threshold CR (%)
------------------------ ------------------------- --------
896-806 EEG: 0.025 ; EMG: 0.019 10
896-716 EEG: 0.05 ; EMG: 0.04 20
896-627 EEG: 0.085 ; EMG: 0.06 30
896-537 EEG: 0.13 ; EMG: 0.10 40
896-448 EEG: 0.29 ; EMG: 0.51 50
440-358 EEG: 0.66 ; EMG: 0.64 60
440-268 EEG: 0.75 ; EMG: 0.69 70
440-179 EEG: 0.83 ; EMG: 0.74 80
380-89 EEG: 0.92 ; EMG: 0.78 90
: Multimodal autoencoder and DWT configuration and the resulting compression ratio[]{data-label="config"}
![EEG Distortion (%) with respect to the Compression Ratio (%). []{data-label="distortion"}](distortion_eeg.png)
![EMG Distortion (%) with respect to the Compression Ratio (%). []{data-label="distortion_emg"}](distortion_emg.png)
This can be explained by the capacity of the underlying architecture to exploit the statistics of the data to achieve better compression. We further examine the effect of training/testing data partition on the compression results. Fig. \[eeg\_boxplot\] and Fig. \[emg\_boxplot\] illustrate the whisker diagrams for EEG and EMG signals respectively. We can clearly deduce that more training data result in less distortion. This confirms a known deep learning rule of thumb stating the more training data we have, the better the results are.
Classification task
-------------------
The objective of this experiment is to demonstrate the importance of the multimodal approach. We conduct binary classification of the EEG and EMG with respect to two of the four labeling possibilities: dominance and arousal. We follow the same approach as in [@deap]: video ratings are thresholded into two classes. On the scale of 1 to 9, we simply place the threshold in the middle. We compare our approach with two-layer SAE and Deep Boltzmann Machine (DBM) architectures [@dbm] with the softmax classifier on top of them. For SAE, we use the sigmoid activation function. We choose 75% training-testing partition. Figures \[accuracy\_dominance\] and \[accuracy\_arousal\] illustrate the classification results with respect to the dominance and arousal respectively. By exploiting the inter-modality correlation, the proposed approach achieves the best results with 78.1%. The single-modality approaches are less accurate. These findings confirm that, when available, multiple modalities can offer better understanding of the underlying phenomena even if the data exhibit different characteristics.
Discussion
----------
In a typical mHealth system, a client-server architecture is the common choice where the system relies on the available networks to deliver the data. In general, the healthcare giver generally relies on multiple vital signs for an accurate diagnosis. The proposed approach is flexible in the sense that, if an additional modality is collected by the PDA via a wearable device, can be easily incorporated in the architecture presented in Fig. \[m\_sae\], compressed and classified. The deep neural network can be trained offline. Once it achieves good performance, the optimal configuration (weights and biases) is applied at the client side for efficient data delivery. However, it is worth-noting that our approach it less efficient for low compression ratio.
![Whisker diagram of EEG data with various training/testing partitions[]{data-label="eeg_boxplot"}](boxplot1.png)
![Whisker diagram of EMG data with various training/testing partitions[]{data-label="emg_boxplot"}](boxplot2.png)
![Classification accuracy with respect to the dominance label: the multimodal approach (MM) achieves the best performance with 78.1%[]{data-label="accuracy_dominance"}](accuracy_dominance.jpg)
![Classification accuracy with respect to the arousal label: the multimodal approach (MM) achieves the best performance with 65.9%[]{data-label="accuracy_arousal"}](accuracy_arousal.jpg)
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a deep learning approach for multimodal data compression and classification. Our strategy focuses on exploiting the inter and intra correlation among multiple modalities to enhance the compression and classification of data in context of mHealth application. The core of the proposed method is based on the classic autoencoder which has been originally designed for encoding-decoding data. For each modality presented, we dedicate a stacked autoencoder to extract high level abstraction of the data by modeling the intra-correlation. A joint layer is added on top of each encoding part of the stacked autoencoders to model data intercorrelation.We have conducted compression and classification experiments. Comparison with DWT and CS have shown that our approach performs better with high compression ratio. We have also demonstrated the effectiveness of the multimodal approach for classification of EEG and EMG. Comparison with some unimodal algorithms e.g. Deep Botzmann Machines and stacked autoencoders shows that the multimodal autoencoder leads to better classification accuracy. In future work, we will investigate the possible application of Convolutional Neural Network. Furthermore, we intend to make the autoencoder-based compression scheme adaptive by including the network resource in the choice of the neural network architecture.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This publication was made possible by NPRP grant \#7-‐684-‐1‐-127 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.
[00]{} mhealth app market sizing 2015 - 2020 data report to size opportunities in the mhealth app market. \[Online\]. Available: <http://mhealthintelligence.com/news/the-history-of-mobile-health-from-cell-phones-to-wearables> Ieee 802.15 wpan task group 6 body area networks, 2012. \[Online\]. Available: <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.15.6-2012.html>
K. Srinivasan, J. Dauwels, and M. R. Reddy, “A two-dimensional approach for lossless eeg compression,” *Biomedical Signal Processing and Control*, 2011.
A. Said and W. A. Pearlman, “A new, fast, and efficient image codec based on set partitioning in hierarchical trees,” *IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology*, 1996.
R. Hussein, A. Mohamed, and M. Alghoniemy, “Scalable real-time energy-efficient eeg compression scheme for wireless body area sensor network,” *Biomedical Signal Processing and Control*, 2015.
A. Shukla and A. Majumdar, “Row-sparse blind compressed sensing for reconstructing multi-channel eeg signals,” *Biomedical Signal Processing and Control*, 2015.
W. Yin, S. Osher, D. Goldfarb, and J. Darbon, “Bregman iterative algorithms for [L]{}1-minimization with applications to compressed sensing,” *SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences*, 2008.
A. Majumdar, A. Gogna, and R. Ward, “A low-rank matrix recovery approach for energy efficient eeg acquisition for a wireless body area network,” *Sensors*, 2014.
N. Correa, Y.-O. Li, T. Adali, and V. D. Calhoun, “Examining associations between fmri and eeg data using correlation analysis,” in *In proceeding of 5th IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: From nano to macro,*, 2008.
J. Ngiam, A. Khosla, M. Kim, J. Nam, H. Lee, and A. Y. Ng, “Multimodal deep learning,” in *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning*, 2011.
N. Srivastava and R. Salakhutdinov, “Learning representations for multimodal data with deep belief nets,” in *Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning*, 2012.
G. E. Hinton. (2009) Deep belief networks. \[Online\]. Available: [www.scholarpedia.org/article/Deep\_belief\_networks](www.scholarpedia.org/article/Deep_belief_networks)
N. Srivastava and R. Salakhutdinov, “Multimodal learning with deep boltzmann machines,” in *Advances in neural information processing systems*, 2012.
R. Salakhutdinov and G. E. Hinton, “Deep boltzman machines,” in *In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics*, 2009.
Y. Liu, X. Feng, and Z. Zhou, “Multimodal video classification with stacked contractive autoencoders,” *Signal Processing*, 2016.
G. E. Hinton and R. Salakhutdinov, “Reducing the dimensionality ofdata with neural networks,” *Science*, 2006.
Y. Ollivier, “[Auto-encoders: reconstruction versus compression]{},” 2014, working paper or preprint. \[Online\]. Available: <https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01104268>
C. C. Tan and C. Eswaran, “Using autoencoders for mammogram compression,” *Journal of Medical Systems*, 2011.
D. D. Testa and M. Rossi, “Lightweight lossy compression of biometric patterns via denoising autoencoders,” *IEEE Signal Processing Letters*, vol. 22, pp. 2304–2308, 2015.
Y. Bengio, P. Lamblin, D. Popovici, and H. Larochelle, “Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks,” in *Inproceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 2006.
P. Vincent, H. Larochelle, Y. Bengio, and P.-A. Manzagol, “Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders,” in *International Conference on Machine Learning*, 2008.
Y. Bengio, “Learning deep architectures for [AI]{},” *Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning*, vol. 2, pp. 1–127, 2009.
A. Awad, A. Mohamed, and C.-F. Chiasserini, “User-centric network selection in multi-rat systems,” in *2016 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW)*, April 2016, pp. 97–102.
S. Koelstra, C. Muhl, M. Soleymani, J.-S. Lee, A. Yazdani, T. Ebrahimi, , T. Pun, A. Nijholt, and I. Patras, “Deap: A database for emotion analysis ;using physiological signals,” *IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing*, vol. 3, pp. 18–31, 2012.
S. Mallat, *A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, Third Edition*, A. Press, Ed., 2008.
D. L. Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289–1306, 2006.
A. Hyvarinen and E. Oja, “Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications,” *Neural Networks*, vol. 13, no. 4–5, pp. 411–430, 2000.
[^1]: It will find the same subspace as PCA but the projection direction does not essentially correspond to the principal components directions
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the index bundle of the Dirac-Ramond operator associated with a family $\pi: Z \to X$ of compact spin manifolds. We view this operator as the formal twisted Dirac operator ${\slashed {\partial}}\otimes \bigotimes_{n=1}^{\infty}S_{q^n}TM_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ so that its index bundle is an element of $K(X)[[q]]$. When $p_1 (Z) = 0$, we derive some explicit formulas for the Chern character of this index bundle using its modular properties. We also use the modularity to identify our index bundle with an $L(E_8)$ bundle in a special case.'
author:
- 'Chris Harris[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'myrefs.bib'
title: 'The Index Bundle for a Family of Dirac-Ramond Operators'
---
Introduction
============
In the 1980’s several genera valued in the ring of modular forms were introduced. The elliptic genera originated in work of Ochanine [@Och] and Landweber and Stong [@LandStong], and were soon after given an interpretation through physics. By extending the path integral proof of the Atiyah-Singer index theorem to a certain supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model, it was shown by Alvarez, Killingback, Mangano, and Windey in [@Alvarez89] and [@Alvarez87] that the elliptic genera could be viewed as the equivariant index of a certain twisted Dirac like operator on the free loop space. They also showed that the index of the untwisted version of this operator, known as the Dirac-Ramond operator, could be computed; this produced another genus called the string genus. The string genus is also known as the Witten genus because independently around the same time Witten greatly further elucidated the relationships between quantum field theory, genera, and index theory in [@Witten87] and [@Witten88]. More recently, Alvarez and Windey have shown that their earlier work can be extended to the case of families of Dirac-Ramond operators. The index theorem proved in [@Alvarez2010] for the Dirac-Ramond operator is the elliptic analogue of the original cohomological version of the Atiyah-Singer index theorem for a family of Dirac operators [@ASIV].
No one has given a general mathematical construction for the Dirac-Ramond operator on the full loop space, though there are some partial results (see e.g. [@Spera] for the case when the manifold is flat). Each manifold can be embedded in its loop space via constant maps, and the Dirac-Ramond operator can be defined rigorously on the normal bundle given by this embedding as in [@Segal] or [@Taubes]. It is well known (see [@HBJ], for instance) that the index of this operator is given by a certain formal sum of twisted $\widehat A$-genera. From this perspective, the index of the Dirac-Ramond operator can also be obtained by considering the operator as a formal sum of twisted Dirac operators, or equivalently as the usual Dirac operator twisted by a formal sum of bundles. This is the viewpoint we will take below in the family case, defining the index bundle of the Dirac-Ramond operator to be the formal sum of index bundles from the appropriate twisted Dirac operators. Note that such an object has been considered by Liu and Ma in [@LiuMa] and subsequent work where they achieved considerable rigidity results.
The outline of this paper is as follows. We start in Section $2$ by describing the setup and making precise the Dirac-Ramond operator as a formal sum of operators. We will then show that the cohomological family index theorem from our formal sum agrees with that of the index theorem shown by Alvarez and Windey. In Section $3$, we will further investigate the family index. In the case of certain families of string manifolds, we then use a method, different from that used in [@Alvarez2010], to see that the Chern character of the family index is given by cohomology classes with coefficients in the ring of (quasi)modular forms. We will show by way of an example how one can use modularity to generate relations between various index bundles associated to the various operators used in defining the Dirac-Ramond operator. These sorts of relations are similar to the “anomaly cancellation formulas" which arise in physics. Some results of this same type, but on the level of differential forms, were derived using elliptic genera in [@hanliu]. We also make use of the theory of Jacobi-like forms in order to derive an explicit formula describing the Chern character of the index bundle for the Dirac-Ramond operator in terms of the components of the Chern character for some twisted Dirac operators and Eisenstein series. In Section $4$, we will apply the above formalism in the case where the manifold has dimension $8$ and the parameterizing space has dimension less than $16$. We can then use the formulas from Section $3$ to show that under certain conditions the index of the family of Dirac-Ramond operators is equivalent in $(K(X)\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}) [[q]]$ to a vector bundle associated with the basic representation of the loop group for $E_8$.
The Index Theorem
=================
General Setup
-------------
In the following, by manifold we will always mean a smooth connected manifold without boundary. Let $M$ be a compact spin manifold of even dimension $d$. For any vector bundle $W\rightarrow M$ we have a sequence of vector bundles $\{ W_n\}$ defined by the generating series $$\label{genseries}
\bigotimes_{j=1}^{\infty}S_{q^j}W_{{\mathbb{C}}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^nW_n.$$ Here $W_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ denotes the complexification of $W$ and $S_t(W_{{\mathbb{C}}})={\mathbb{C}}+ tW_{{\mathbb{C}}}+t^2S^2(W_{{\mathbb{C}}})+...$ is a formal power series with vector bundle coefficients. One has, for instance, $$\begin{aligned}
W_0&={\mathbb{C}}\\
W_1&=W_{{\mathbb{C}}} \\
W_2&=S^2W_{{\mathbb{C}}}\oplus W_{{\mathbb{C}}} \\
W_3&=S^3W_{{\mathbb{C}}}\oplus (W_{{\mathbb{C}}}\otimes W_{{\mathbb{C}}})\oplus W_{{\mathbb{C}}}\\
&\vdots\end{aligned}$$
We can use these bundles as coefficients for the usual chiral Dirac operator ${\slashed {\partial}}$ on $M$ to obtain twisted Dirac operators ${\slashed {\partial}}^{W_n} : C^{\infty} (S^+\otimes W_n)\rightarrow C^{\infty} (S^-\otimes W_n)$ where $S^+$ and $S^-$ are the spinor bundles of positive and negative chirality, respectively. It is a classical result that an elliptic operator $P$ on a compact manifold is Fredholm. The index of $P$ is defined as $$\label{indexdef}
\operatorname{Ind}P := \dim \ker P - \dim \operatorname{coker}P.$$ The twisted Dirac operators ${\slashed {\partial}}^{W_n}$ are known to be elliptic. The Atiyah-Singer index theorem [@AS] provides the formula for the index of these operators as $$\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{W_n}=\int_M \widehat A (TM) \operatorname{ch}(W_n).$$ Let $x_1,...,x_{d/2}$ denote the roots for the tangent bundle $TM$. The $x_i$’s are defined so that the total Pontryagin class $p(TM)=1+p_1(TM)+p_2(TM)+...$ satisfies $$p(TM)=\prod_{i=1}^{d/2}(1+x_i^2).$$ Then $\widehat A(p_1,p_2,...)\in H^*(M,{\mathbb{Q}})$ is determined by the expression
$\prod_{i=1}^{d/2}$
$\frac{x_i/2}{\sinh (x_i/2)}$
.
Now we define the Dirac-Ramond operator on $M$ as the formal series of operators $${\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n{\slashed {\partial}}^{TM_n}.$$ Equivalently, if we allow for “$q$-vector bundles," that is, formal power series in $q$ whose coefficients are vector bundles, then we can view it as the the twisted Dirac operator, $${\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}: C^{\infty} (S^+\otimes \bigotimes_{n=1}^{\infty}S_{q^n}TM_{{\mathbb{C}}})\rightarrow C^{\infty} (S^-\otimes \bigotimes_{n=1}^{\infty}S_{q^n}TM_{{\mathbb{C}}}).$$ Extending the definition of index to each coefficient of the formal operator ${\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}$ as $$\label{inddr}
\operatorname{Ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{TM_n}$$ the calculation of this index is a well known calculation using formulas involving characteristic classes and elliptic functions. We will essentially do it below when we prove the family index theorem. The result can be written in any of the following ways: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inddr2}
\operatorname{Ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}&= \frac{q^{d/24}}{\eta (q)^d}\int_M \prod_{i=1}^{d/2} x_i\frac{\theta '(0,q)}{\theta (x_i,q)} \\
&= \frac{q^{d/24}}{\eta (q)^d}\int_M \prod_{i=1}^{d/2} \frac{x_i}{\sigma (x_i,q)}e^{G_2(q)p_1(M)}\notag\\
&=\frac{q^{d/24}}{\eta (q)^d}\int_M \prod_{i=1}^{d/2}\exp\left(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{2}{2n!}G_{2n}(q)x_i^{2n}\right )\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta(x,q)$ is the Jacobi theta function, $\sigma (x,q)$ is the Weierstrass sigma function, and $G_{2n}(q)$ is the Eisenstein series of weight $2n$. The definitions of all of these functions and some of the relations between them can be found in the appendix. With the assumption that $M$ is spin the equation (\[inddr\]) implies that (\[inddr2\]) is an element of ${\mathbb{Z}}[[q]]$. The expression on the RHS of (\[inddr2\]) makes sense for any compact oriented manifold and more generally lies in ${\mathbb{Q}}[[q]]$. The factor of $$\label{afactor}
\frac{q^{d/24}}{\eta (q)^d}=\prod_{j=1}^{\infty}(1-q^j)^{-d}$$ is not very interesting. We will often choose to omit it, defining $$\operatorname{ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}:= \frac{\eta(q)^d}{q^{d/24}} \operatorname{Ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}.$$ With this normalization, $\operatorname{ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}$ is the $q$ expansion of a modular form of weight $d/2$ when $p_1(M)=0$ and a quasimodular form of the same weight otherwise. The second line of (\[inddr2\]) indicates that $\operatorname{ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}$ is an elliptic analogue of the index of the usual Dirac operator: $\sinh (x/2)$ is a periodic function on $i{\mathbb{R}}$ with simple zeros at every point in the lattice $2\pi i {\mathbb{Z}}$, while the Weierstrass sigma function $\sigma (x,\tau)$ is a (quasiperiodic) extension of this to the complex plane and the two dimensional lattice $2\pi i ({\mathbb{Z}}\oplus \tau {\mathbb{Z}})$. Here we have used the change of variables $q=e^{2\pi i \tau}$, common in the study of modular forms, where $\tau$ is an element of the upper half complex plane. Based on this similarity we will define the following for a rank $r$ real vector bundle $W$ over $M$ with roots $w_1,...,w_{r/2}$ $$\widehat a (W, q)=\prod_{i=1}^{r/2}\frac{w_i}{\sigma (w_i,q)}\in H^*(M,{\mathbb{Q}}[[q]])=H^*(M,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]].$$ In the case when $M$ is a string manifold (that is, $M$ is a manifold with $p_1(M)=0$)[^2], then we can write $$\operatorname{ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}= \int_M \widehat a (TM,q).$$
Family Index
------------
The index of a single Fredholm operator is an integer. The index of a family $P$ of elliptic operators $P_x:C^{\infty} (E_x)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(F_x)$ parameterized by a compact space $X$ is an element of $K(X)$ defined as follows. For each $x\in X$, one has the finite dimensional subspaces $\ker P_x$ and $\operatorname{coker}P_x$ of $C^{\infty}(E_x)$ and $C^{\infty} (F_x)$, respectively. If as $x$ varies these vector spaces gave rise to the vector bundles $\ker P$ and $\operatorname{coker}P$ over $X$, the desired generalization of (\[indexdef\]) would be $$\label{indexdeffam}
\operatorname{Ind}P := \ker P - \operatorname{coker}P \in K(X).$$ This need not be the case, however, as there is the possibility that, as $x$ varies, the dimensions of $\ker P_x$ and $\operatorname{coker}P_x$ may jump. It is only the difference in their dimensions that is fixed by invariance of the index under continuous perturbations. Thus $\ker P$ and $\operatorname{coker}P$ need not be vector bundles. Regardless, there is a way to define the index in the case of a family (see section 2 of [@ASIV]) which reduces to (\[indexdeffam\]) in the case when $\ker P_x$ and $\operatorname{coker}P_x$ are of constant dimension.
By a family of compact spin manifolds we will mean a triple $\mathbf{\mathcal F} =(\pi, Z, X)$ such that $\pi : Z \rightarrow X$ is a fiber bundle whose fibers $Y_x:=\pi ^{-1}(x)$ are compact spin manifolds all diffeomorphic, and with spin structure isomorphic, to some compact spin manifold $Y$. We will assume that $X$ is a compact spin [^3] manifold, so that $Z$ is compact and spin as well. We will always assume all manifolds are even dimensional and denote the dimension of $Y$ by $m$. We will also denote the vertical tangent bundle (the bundle which is tangent to the fibers, i.e. $\text{ker }\pi_*$) by $V\rightarrow Z$. Applying the generating sequence (\[genseries\]) to $V$ we get a sequence of vector bundles $V_n$ over $Z$.
Given a family of compact spin manifolds, a family of Dirac operators can be constructed by taking the ordinary Dirac operator on each fiber $Y_x$. Moreover, the vector bundles $V_n$ over $Z$ restrict to the fiber $Y_x$ and give rise to families of twisted Dirac operators ${\slashed {\partial}}_x ^{V_n} : \Gamma (S_x^+\otimes V_n|_{Y_x})\rightarrow \Gamma (S_x^-\otimes V_n|_{Y_x})$. The index of the family ${\slashed {\partial}}_x^{V_n}$ is denoted $\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n}$ and is an element of $K(X)$. The original formula for the Chern character of the index bundle for a general family of elliptic operators is given in [@ASIV Theorem 5.1]. For the case of a family of twisted Dirac operators the formula is (see [@B Theorem 4.17] or [@LM Corollary 15.5]) $$\label{ordfamthm}
\operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})=\int_Y \widehat A
(V) \operatorname{ch}(V_n) \in H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})$$ where $\int_Y : H^*(Z,{\mathbb{Q}})\rightarrow H^{*-m}(X,{\mathbb{Q}})$ is the integration over the fibers map.
Given a family of compact spin manifolds, we will define a family of Dirac-Ramond operators to be the $q$-series with the coefficient of $q^n$ being the family of Dirac operators twisted by $V_n$ $${\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}:=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n}.$$ We are thus led to our main object of study
Let $\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}=(\pi,Z, X)$ be a family of compact spin manifold. Let $V_n$ be the sequence of vector bundles obtained as above. The index of the family of Dirac-Ramond operators is defined to be $$\label{indxdefn}
\operatorname{Ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}:= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n \operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n} \in K(X)[[q]].$$
The Chern character $\operatorname{ch}: K(X)\rightarrow H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})$ extends naturally to a map $K(X)[[q]] \rightarrow H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]$. In particular, $$\operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n \operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})\in H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]].$$ We can calculate this Chern character easily by applying the usual Atiyah-Singer index theorem for families (\[ordfamthm\]) coefficient by coefficient.
Let $\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}=(\pi,Z, X)$ be a family of compact spin manifold whose fibers $Y_x:=\pi^{-1}(x)$ are of even dimension $m$. Let $V\rightarrow Z$ denote the vertical bundle.Then $$\label{DRindthm}
\operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}) = \frac{q^{m/24}}{\eta(q)^m}\int_Y \hat a (V,q)e^{G_2(q)p_1(V)}.$$
The equation (\[DRindthm\]) is an equation in $H^*(X, {\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]$. We establish (\[DRindthm\]) by showing equality for each coefficient of $q^n$. On the LHS, we get the coefficient of $q^n$ by applying the Chern character to $\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n}$ which is
$\int_Y$
$ \widehat A (V) \operatorname{ch}(V_n)$, see (\[ordfamthm\]). Let $y_1,...,y_{m/2}$ be the formal Chern variables for the vertical bundle $V$. Making use of the formulas from the appendix we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{q^{m/24}}{\eta(q)^m}\hat{a} (V,q)e^{G_2(q)p_1(V)} &=\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\frac{q^{1/12}}{\eta(q)^2}\frac{y_i}{\sigma (y_i,q)}e^{G_2(q)y_i^2}=\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\frac{q^{1/12}}{\eta(q)^2}y_i\frac{\theta ' (0,q)}{\theta (y_i,q)}\\
&=\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\frac{y_i/2}{\sinh (y_i/2)}\prod_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(1-q^je^{y_i})(1-q^je^{-y_i})} \\
&=\hat A (V) \operatorname{ch}\left(\bigotimes_{j=1}^{\infty}S_{q^j}(V_{{\mathbb{C}}})\right).\end{aligned}$$ After integrating over the fibers we can identify the coefficient of $q^n$ as
$\int_Y$
$ \widehat A (V) \operatorname{ch}(V_n)$ and the result follows.
We are interested in the formal definition (\[indxdefn\]) because our formula (\[DRindthm\]) matches that of [@Alvarez2010]. In the spirit of that paper, from now on, given a family of Dirac-Ramond operators we will denote the Chern character of the index bundle by $$\label{schdefine}
\operatorname{Sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q):=\operatorname{ch}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n \operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n \operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n}) \in H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]],$$ using the letter “S" because this Chern character is of a “stringy" version of the usual index bundle. By the proposition we have $$\operatorname{Sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q) = \frac{q^{m/24}}{\eta(q)^m}\int_Y \hat a (V,q)e^{G_2(q)p_1(V)}.$$ At times we will prefer to use instead $$\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q) := \frac{\eta(q)^m}{q^{m/24}}\operatorname{Sch}(q)=\int_Y \hat a (V,q)e^{G_2(q)p_1(V)}.$$
Modular Properties
==================
From now on we will restrict ourselves to so called string families of compact spin manifolds $\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}=(\pi, Z, X)$, that is, families of compact spin manifolds with $p_1(Z)=0$. We will denote by ${\mathcal{M}}^k$ (respectively ${\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^k$) the vector space of weight $k$, level $1$ modular (respectively quasimodular) forms having rational $q$ coefficients and by ${\mathcal{M}}=\oplus_{k=1}^{\infty}{\mathcal{M}}^k$ (respectively ${\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}=\oplus_{k=1}^{\infty}{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^k$) the full ring of modular (respectively quasimodular) forms. It is well known that ${\mathcal{M}}\simeq {\mathbb{Q}}[E_4, E_6]$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}\simeq {\mathcal{M}}[E_2]$, where $E_n$ is the normalized Eisenstein series of weight $n$.
Viewing ${\mathcal{M}}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}$ as ${\mathbb{Q}}$-vector spaces we have $H^*(X,{\mathcal{M}})\simeq H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})\otimes {\mathcal{M}}$ and similarly $H^*(X,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}})\simeq H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})\otimes {\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}$. Both $H^*(X,{\mathcal{M}})$ and $H^*(X,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}})$ are naturally identified with subrings of $H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}}[[q]])\simeq H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]$. The integration over the fibers map above was extended to $H^*(Z,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]\rightarrow H^{*-m}(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]$ coefficient by coefficient. It is not hard to see that this restricts to the map $$\begin{aligned}
\int_Y: H^*(Z,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^*)&\rightarrow H^{*-m}(X,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^*)\\
\omega \otimes f(q)&\mapsto\left(\int_Y\omega\right)\otimes f(q).\end{aligned}$$ Using this, we will first show in this section that the image of $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ actually lies in the subring $H^*(X,{\mathcal{M}})$, whenever $X$ is a string manifold, meaning $p_1(X)=0$. If $X$ is not string then the image will be in $H^*(X,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}})$. As a consequence of this we will be able to derive many relationships between the homogeneous components of $\operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})$ for various $n$. Finally, we will obtain a formula for the case when $X$ is not string which expresses $\operatorname{Sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ entirely in terms of modular forms, the components of $\operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})$ for various $n$, and $p_1(X)$.
The Case When The Parameterizing Space is String {#hasdetinit}
------------------------------------------------
Given a string family of manifolds $\pi:Z \rightarrow X$, it follows that each of the manifolds $Y_x=\pi ^{-1}(x)$ is a string manifold. To see this, let $i:Y_x\hookrightarrow Z$ be the inclusion map. Then the restriction $i^*TZ$ splits as $TY_x\oplus N_x$, where $N_x\rightarrow Y$ is the normal bundle to $Y_x$ in $TZ$. Since $\pi:Z \rightarrow X$ is locally trivial, $N_x$ is trivial. Therefore, $p_1(N_x)=0$ and hence $$p_1(Y_x)=i^*p_1(TZ)=0.$$ One can always split the tangent bundle to $Z$, though non-canonically, as $TZ=V\oplus\pi ^*(TX)$. Consequently, $p_1(V)=-\pi^*p_1(X)$ and thus $$\label{p1n}
\int_Y p_1(V)^n=(-1)^n\int_Y \pi^*p_1(X)^n=(-1)^np_1(X)^n\int_Y 1 = 0 \quad \text{for all }n\in \mathbb N.$$ In [@Alvarez2010], the assumption $p_1(X)=0$ was present throughout and the following theorem and its corollary were already noticed, though the modularity of the graded components was shown by other means.
\[thm31\] Let $\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}=(\pi, Z, X)$ be a string family of compact spin manifolds with fibers $Y_x=\pi ^{-1}(x)$ of dimension $m$. If we expand $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ into its homogeneous components as an element of $H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}}[[q]])$, $$\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)=\operatorname{sch}_0(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)+\operatorname{sch}_1(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)+...$$ then $\operatorname{sch}_j(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)\in H^{2j}(X,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j})$, and if $p_1(X)=0$ then $\operatorname{sch}_j(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)\in H^{2j}(X,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j})$. Moreover, $$\operatorname{sch}_0(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\operatorname{ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}_Y,$$ i.e. $\operatorname{sch}_0(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)$ is the string, or Witten, genus of $Y$.
Since $p_1(Z)=0$ $$\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)=e^{-G_2(q)p_1(X)}\int_Y\hat a (V,q).$$ Recall the change of variable $q=e^{2\pi i \tau}$ noted above. We will write functions, such as the Weierstrass sigma function $\sigma$, interchangeably as $\sigma(z,q)$ or $\sigma(z, \tau)$, thinking of them as a formal power series in the former case and a function on the upper half plane in the latter. The function $\widehat a (z,\tau) =\frac{z}{\sigma (z,\tau)}=\exp$
$ \left(\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{2}{2n!}G_{2n}(\tau)z^{2n}\right)$
is even, has $\widehat a(0,\tau)=1$, and is homolomorphic at $z=0$. Thus it has a Taylor series expansion $$\label{littlet}
\widehat a (z,\tau)=1+f_2(\tau)z^2+f_4(\tau)z^4+...$$ We have $$\widehat a \left(\frac{z}{c\tau + d},\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right)=\exp \left(\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{2}{2n!}G_{2n}\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right)\left(\frac{z}{c\tau +d}\right)^{2n}\right)=\widehat a (z,\tau).$$ Thus $$\widehat a \left(\frac{z}{c\tau + d},\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right)=1+f_2\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right)\left(\frac{z}{c\tau + d}\right)^2+f_4\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right)\left(\frac{z}{c\tau + d}\right)^4+...$$ is equal to (\[littlet\]). Equating coefficients of $z^{2n}$ it follows that $f_{2n}\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right)=(c\tau +d)^{2n}f_{2n}(\tau)$. Hence (\[littlet\]) can be considered as a formal power series with coefficients in ${\mathcal{M}}^*$ and moreover the coefficient of $z^{2n}$ lies in ${\mathcal{M}}^{2n}$. Letting $y_1,...,y_{m/2}$ denote the roots for the vertical bundle $V$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{n=1}^{m/2}\widehat a (y_n,\tau)&=\prod_{n=1}^{m/2}(1+f_2(\tau)y_n^2+f_4(\tau)y_n^4+...)\\
&=1+f_2(\tau)p_1(V)+f_4(\tau)p_1(V)^2+(f_2(\tau)^2-2f_4(\tau))p_2(V)+...\end{aligned}$$ That is, if we let $\prod_{n=1}^{m/2}\widehat a (y_n,\tau)=1+a_2(\tau)+a_4(\tau)+...$ be the decomposition into homogeneous components in cohomology, then $a_{2n}(\tau)\in H^{4n}(Z,{\mathcal{M}}^{2n})$. Now, $$\operatorname{sch}_j(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};\tau)=\int_Y a_{\frac{m}{2}+j}(\tau)$$ and integration over the fibers defines a map $H^{m+2j}(Z,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j})\rightarrow H^{2j}(X,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j})$. Thus the $p_1(X)=0$ part of the theorem follows. If $p_1(X)\neq 0$ then the factor $e^{-G_2(q)p_1(X)}$ will produce cohomology classes with coefficients that are polynomials in $G_2(q)$ with coefficients in ${\mathcal{M}}$, which is precisely $\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}$. Note that since $G_2(q)$ has modular weight $2$ and $p_1(X)$ has cohomological degree $4$, a homogeneous cohomology class of degree $2j$ in $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ will still have quasimodular weight $m/2+j$. The last part follows by evaluating on a point in $X$.
The (quasi)modularity forces many relations between the characteristic classes of the index bundles at each level. When the dimension $m$ of the manifold $Y$ and the degree in cohomology are small we have the following result.
\[coronmod\] Assume the setup of the previous theorem with $p_1(X)=0$. Let $j$ be such that $\frac{m}{2}+j\leq 14$ and $\frac{m}{2}+j\neq 12$. Then, for each $n$ there is $c(j,n)\in {\mathbb{Q}}$ such that $$\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})=c(j,n)\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) \quad \in H^{2j}(X,{\mathbb{Q}}).$$
From the previous theorem we know that the degree $2j$ component $\operatorname{sch}_j(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)$ of $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ is an element of $H^{2j}(X, {\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j})=H^{2j}(X,{\mathbb{Q}})\otimes{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j}$. For $m/2+j=4,6,8,10,14$, have ${\mathcal{M}}^{m/2+j}={\mathbb{Q}}E_{\frac{m}{2}+j}(q)$. Thus $$\label{2kcoh}
\operatorname{sch}_{j}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\omega E_{\frac{m}{2}+j}(q), \ \ \text{for some } \omega \in H^{2j}(X,{\mathbb{Q}}).$$ Now also, $$\label{2kcoh2}
\operatorname{sch}_{j}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q) = \frac{\eta (q)^m}{q^{m/24}} \operatorname{Sch}_{j}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q) = \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n)^m \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})q^i$$ Comparing the $q^0$ term in (\[2kcoh\]) and (\[2kcoh2\]) we see $\omega =\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{schexpand}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})q^i&=\operatorname{Sch}_{j}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q) \\
&=\frac{q^{m/24}}{\eta (q)^m}\operatorname{sch}_{j}(q)= \operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) q^{m/24}\frac{E_{\frac{m}{2}+j}(q)}{\eta (q)^m}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ The proportionality factor $c(j,n)$ are then extracted from $E_{\frac{m}{2}+j}(q)$
$\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}$
$(1-q^n)^{-m}$ by taking the coefficient of $q^n$. Since ${\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j}=\{0\}$ for all other values of $m/2+j$ up to $14$ except $12$, the result follows (trivially) for these values.
The above does not apply in the case of $m/2+j=12$ since ${\mathcal{M}}^{12}$ is $2$ dimensional. However, the methods of the proof above can be extended. Essentially, one sees that if the dimension of ${\mathcal{M}}^{m/2+j}$ is $s > 1$, then for all $n\geq s$, $\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})$ will be a linear combination of $\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_0})$,...,$\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{s-1}})$.
We will illustrate all of this very explicitly when dim $Y=8$ for low degrees in cohomology. Assume also that $p_1(X)=0$ and that dim $X$ is divisible by $4$. In this situation every time a cohomology class of degree $2k$ appears, it will be multiplied by a modular form of weight $4 +k$. From Corollary \[coronmod\] we know $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expn111}
\operatorname{sch}_{\leq 6}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\operatorname{ch}_0(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) E_4(q)&+\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) E_6(q)+\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) E_8(q)\\
&+\operatorname{ch}_{6}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) E_{10}(q).\notag\end{aligned}$$ The degree $0$ component of the Chern character is just the (virtual) rank of the index bundle. Set $\nu_i:=\operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i}$. In particular $\nu_0$ is the virtual rank of the index bundle of the untwisted Dirac operator, i.e. the index of the usual Dirac operator on $Y$. Using (\[schexpand\]) for $k=0$ one obtains $$\nu_0q^{1/3}\frac{E_4(q)}{\eta (q)^8}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\nu_iq^i.$$ We can use $$\label{deg0ind}
\nu_0\frac{E_4(q)}{\eta (q)^8}=\nu_0 j(q)^{1/3}=\nu_0q^{-1/3}(1 + 248q + 4124q^2+...).$$ Then comparing the right hand sides of the previous two equations we get relations like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ch0s}
\operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}}&= 248 \operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}\\
\operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{S^2V_{{\mathbb{C}}}\oplus V_{{\mathbb{C}}}}&= 4124 \operatorname{rk}\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}\notag\\
&\vdots\notag\end{aligned}$$ Putting $k=2$ in (\[schexpand\]) gives $$\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})q^{1/3}\frac{E_6(q)}{\eta (q)^8}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})q^i.$$ Noting also that $q^{1/3}\frac{E_6(q)}{\eta (q)^8}=(1-496q-20620q^2+...)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ch4s}
\operatorname{ch}_2( \operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})&= -496 \operatorname{ch}_2( \operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) \\
\operatorname{ch}_2( \operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{S^2V_{{\mathbb{C}}}\oplus V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})&= -20620\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})\notag\\
&\vdots\notag\end{aligned}$$ There are similar relations between the cohomology classes in degree $8$ and $12$ that one could write out. The degree $16$ cohomology classes, however, are not all proportional. This is because they have coefficients in ${\mathcal{M}}^{12}$, which is now $2$ dimensional. We use the basis $\{E_4(q)^3-728\Delta (q),\Delta (q)\}$ of ${\mathcal{M}}^{12}$. We have $$\operatorname{Sch}_{8}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\alpha q^{1/3}\frac{E_4(q)^3-728\Delta (q)}{\eta(q)^8} + \beta q^{1/3}\frac{\Delta(q)}{\eta(q)^8}=\alpha (1 + 196732q^2+...) + \beta (q-16q^2+...).$$ which is to be compared with $$\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\operatorname{ch}_{8} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})q^i=\operatorname{ch}_{8} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_0})+\operatorname{ch}_{8} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_1})q+...$$ and the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are easily read off so that (\[expn111\]) can be extended by including $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{sch}_{8}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)&=\operatorname{ch}_{8}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) (E_4(q)^3-728\Delta (q))+\operatorname{ch}_{8}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})\Delta (q).\end{aligned}$$ We could expand this in powers of $q$. Rather than the cohomology classes $\operatorname{ch}_8(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})$ being proportional for all $n\in \mathbb N$, as before, we would see that $\operatorname{ch}_8(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})$ for $n\geq 2$ is a linear combinations of $\operatorname{ch}_8(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})$ and $\operatorname{ch}_8(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_1})$.
Moving to degree $20$ in cohomology will give weight $14$ modular forms. Here again the Corollary \[coronmod\] can be applied and the next term is simply in $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ is $$\operatorname{sch}_{10}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\operatorname{ch}_{10}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) E_{14}(q).$$
The method for all higher degrees is a straightforward generalization of the degree $16$ case. Let $r$ denote the dimension of $\mathcal M ^k$, then there is a basis $\{ f_0(q), f_1(q)\Delta(q), ...,f_{r-1}(q)\Delta(q)^{r-1}\} $ for $\mathcal M ^k$ with $f_i(0)=1$ and, of course, $\Delta(q)^i=q^i+...$. Simple linear algebra can be used to find in $\mathcal M ^k$ a basis $\{ \phi_0(q),...,\phi_{r-1}(q)\}$ instead which satisfies $q^{1/3}\frac{\phi_i(q)}{\eta(q)^8}=q^i+\mathcal O (q^{r})$. Working in this basis it is easy to see $$\operatorname{Sch}_{k-4}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\frac{q^{1/3}}{\eta(q)^8}\left(\operatorname{ch}_{k-4} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_0})\phi_0(q)+...+\operatorname{ch}_{k-4} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{r-1}})\phi_{r-1}(q)\right).$$
We restate the last part of the example in more general terms.
\[genprop\] Let $Z \rightarrow X$ be a string family of compact spin manifolds where each $Y_x=\pi^{-1}(X)$ has even dimension $m$ and $p_1(X)=0$. Let $s_j=\dim \mathcal M ^{\frac{m}{2}+j}$, and $\{ \phi_0(q),...,\phi_{s_j-1}(q)\}$ be the basis for ${\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j}$ which satisfies $q^{m/24}\frac{\phi_i(q)}{\eta(q)^m}=q^i+\mathcal O (q^{s_j})$. Then $$\operatorname{Sch}_{j}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\frac{q^{m/24}}{\eta(q)^m}\left(\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_0})\phi_0(q)+...+\operatorname{ch}_{j} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{s_j-1}})\phi_{s_j-1}(q)\right).$$
Before moving on we wish to point out some connection with the preceding and anomaly cancellation. Thinking of the index bundle for the Dirac operator as the formal difference $\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}=\ker {\slashed {\partial}}- \text{coker} {\slashed {\partial}}$ in $K(X)$, one can define the determinant line bundle $$\det {\slashed {\partial}}= \det (\ker {\slashed {\partial}})\otimes \det (\operatorname{coker}{\slashed {\partial}})^* \in K(X).$$ As in defining the index bundle, this is not strictly true as the dimension of each space $\ker {\slashed {\partial}}$ and $\text{coker } {\slashed {\partial}}$ may individually jump. However the determinant line bundle $\det {\slashed {\partial}}\rightarrow X$ can still be defined (see [@FreedDet]) and one has $$c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}})=c_1(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})=\operatorname{ch}_1(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})\in H^2(X,{\mathbb{Q}}).$$ In physics, this characteristic class is referred to as an anomaly. The Proposition \[genprop\] produces many “anomaly cancellation formulas." Examples of these formulas are $$\label{anom}
c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n})=\alpha (n)c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}}), \ \text{ for some } \alpha(n)\in {\mathbb{Q}}.$$ which follow directly from Corollary \[coronmod\] whenever $\dim Y \leq 24$, except when $\dim Y=20$. The equation (\[anom\]) holds nontrivially when $\dim Y=6,10,14,18,$ or $22$. The operator ${\slashed {\partial}}^{V_1}={\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}}:C^{\infty}(S^+\otimes V_{{\mathbb{C}}})\rightarrow C^{\infty}(S^-\otimes V_{{\mathbb{C}}})$ is almost what is known as the Rarita-Schwinger operator. If $\dim Y=6$ and $p_1(Z)=p_1(X)=0$ [^4] the following formula holds. $$c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})=246c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}})$$ If $\dim Y=20$ or $\dim Y >24$ one needs to appeal more directly to Proposition \[genprop\]. For instance, in the case that $\dim Y=20$ the proposition gives $$\operatorname{Sch}_1(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\frac{q^{5/6}}{\eta (q)^{20}}\left(\operatorname{ch}_1(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})(E_4(q)^3-740\Delta (q))+\operatorname{ch}_1(\operatorname{Ind}^{V_1})\Delta(q)\right)$$ from which it follows that $$c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}}^{S^2V_{{\mathbb{C}}}\oplus V_{{\mathbb{C}}}} )=196870 c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}}) - 4 c_1(\det {\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}} ).$$
Some Computational Motivation {#compmotiv}
-----------------------------
Now we will drop the assumption that $p_1(X)= 0$ (but maintain $p_1(Z)=0$). The results will now be quasimodular rather than modular. The dimensions of the space of quasimodular forms grow much quicker as one goes to higher weights. Because of this one might expect much less rigidity in the structure of the index bundle for a family of Dirac-Ramond operators. However, we will see that this is not the case. In the next section we will state and prove a theorem which generalizes ($\ref{genprop}$) in the case $p_1(X) \neq 0 $. The formula within the theorem is very complicated and in this section we will demonstrate the formula in some special cases. In the case where the fiber $Y$ has dimension $8$ some direct computation (see the appendix) shows the following
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{start}
& \operatorname{sch}_{\leq 6}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\notag \\
& \nu_0\left(E_4(q)+\frac{1}{(4)_1}E_4'(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2! (4)_2}E_4''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{3! (4)_3}E_4'''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^3\right)\notag\\
+&\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) \left(E_6(q)+\frac{1}{(6)_1}E_6'(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2! (6)_2}E_6''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^2\right)\\
+&\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) \left(E_8(q)+\frac{1}{(8)_1}E_8'(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)\right)\notag\\
+&\operatorname{ch}_{6}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) E_{10}(q)\notag\end{aligned}$$
where $(k)_n=k(k+1)...(k+n-1)$ is the Pochhammer symbol and $f'(q)= q$
$\frac{d}{dq}$
$f(q)$. Note that all of the terms with a derivative are of order $q$, so when $q\rightarrow 0$ one obtains $\operatorname{Sch}_{\leq 6}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};0)=\nu_0+\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})+\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})+\operatorname{ch}_6(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})$, as expected from ($\ref{schdefine}$). Of course, the $p_1(X)\rightarrow 0$ limit reduces to the previous case ($\ref{expn111}$).
Using (\[start\]), $\operatorname{Sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)=\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$
$\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}$
$(1-q^n)^{-8}$, and the $q$ expansion of the Eisenstein series the following relations are obtained $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p1not0}
\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})&=-496\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})+30\nu_0p_1(X) \notag\\
\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{S^2V_{{\mathbb{C}}}\oplus V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})&=-20620\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})+780\nu_0p_1(X)\\
\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})&=488\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}_z)-42p_1(X)\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})+\frac{3}{2}\nu_0p_1(X)^2\notag\\
\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{S^2V_{{\mathbb{C}}}\oplus V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})&=65804\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})-3108p_1(X)\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})+66\nu_0p_1(X)^2.\notag\end{aligned}$$
The next relevant degree is $16$, where the modular forms become weight $12$ and now have an extra dimension; we expect something interesting to happen. The result can be written
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sch8deg16}
\operatorname{sch}_{8}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q) &=\operatorname{ch}_{8}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) (E_{4}(q)^3-728\Delta (q) )+\operatorname{ch}_{8}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}}) \Delta(q) \notag \\
&+\frac{\nu _0}{4!\cdot (4)_4}\left(E_4^{(4)}(q)-240\Delta (q)\right)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^4 \\
&+\frac{\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) }{3!\cdot (6)_3}\left(E_6^{(3)}(q)+504\Delta (q)\right)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^3 \notag \\
&+\frac{\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) }{2!\cdot (8)_2 }\left(E_8^{(2)}(q)-480\Delta (q)\right)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^2+\frac{\operatorname{ch}_{6}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) }{(10)_1}\left(E_{10}'(q)+264\Delta (q)\right)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right).\notag\end{aligned}$$
What we see is that the pattern of coefficients in (\[start\]) continues, but there are extra terms. Notice that each of the terms $E_4^{(4)}(q)-240\Delta (q)$,...,$E_{10}'(q)+264\Delta (q)$ are all order $q^2$. This makes sense since after multiplying by
$\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}$
$(1-q^n)^{-8}$ the second term will give $\operatorname{ch}_{8}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}}) q$ and this is entirely what the coefficient of $q$ in $\operatorname{Sch}_{8}(q)$ should be.
When $\dim Y=6$, one obtains similar results. The same calculations as above show that in this case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dim6fiber}
&\operatorname{sch}_{\leq 7}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\notag \\
& \operatorname{ch}_1(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})\left(E_4(q)+\frac{1}{(4)_1}E_4'(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2! (4)_2}E_4''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{3! (4)_3}E_4'''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^3\right)\notag\\
+&\operatorname{ch}_3(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) \left(E_6(q)+\frac{1}{(6)_1}E_6'(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2! (6)_2}E_6''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^2\right)\\
+&\operatorname{ch}_5(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) \left(E_8(q)+\frac{1}{(8)_1}E_8'(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)\right)\notag\\
+&\operatorname{ch}_{7}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) E_{10}(q)\notag\end{aligned}$$
A General Formula {#pfsect}
-----------------
Let $\mathfrak h$ denote the complex upper half plane and $Hol(\mathfrak h)$ denote the space of holomorphic functions on $\mathfrak h$. We will make extensive use of the following
A Jacobi-like form of weight $k$ and index $\lambda$ is an element of $F(z,\tau)\in Hol (\mathfrak h)[[z]]$ such that $$\label{jaclike}
F\left (\frac{z}{c\tau + d}, \frac{a\tau + b}{c\tau + d}\right)= (c\tau +d)^k \exp\left(\frac{c\lambda}{c\tau +d}\frac{z^2}{2\pi i}\right)F(z,\tau)$$ for all $\left( \begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
c & d \end{array} \right) \in SL(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$. We will denote the collection of Jacobi-like forms of weight $k$ and index $\lambda$ by $\mathcal J _{k,\lambda}$.
Jacobi-like forms satisfy one of the two transformations properties which essentially characterize Jacobi forms. The foundations for Jacobi forms were laid out in [@EZ] and the generalization of Jacobi forms to Jacobi-like forms was introduced in [@CMZ] and [@Zagier94].
\[jfexample\] Given a modular form $f\in {\mathcal{M}}^k$ one can verify $F(z,\tau)=z^{n}f(\tau)e^{-G_2(\tau)\lambda z^2}$ is a Jacobi-like form of weight $k-n$ and index $\lambda/2$.
As with modular forms, Jacobi-like forms can be defined on subgroups of the modular group, as well, but that will not be necessary for us here. Since Jacobi-like forms are invariant under the transformation $\tau \mapsto \tau +1$ they have a Fourier expansion in terms of $e^{2\pi i \tau}$. Setting $q=e^{2\pi i \tau}$ we will sometimes write a Jacobi-like form $F(z,\tau)$ instead as $F(z,q)$. Given a Jacobi-like form $F(z,\tau)=$
$\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}$
$\chi_{j}(\tau)z^{j}\in {\mathcal{J}}_{k,\lambda}$ we show in the appendix that $\chi_{j}$ is a modular form of weight $k+j$ if the index is zero and a quasimodular form of the same weight otherwise. To deal with the slight technicality that our definition of ${\mathcal{M}}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}$ are only for modular forms with rational $q$ expansion, we will denote by ${\mathcal{J}}_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda}$ the elements of ${\mathcal{J}}_{k,\lambda}$ with $\chi_{j}\in {\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^{k+j}$. Since ${\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^{k+j}$ is trivial when $k+j$ is odd, the $\chi_j(\tau)$ are necessarily zero for half of the $j$’s. Thus ${\mathcal{J}}_{k,\lambda}$ is the direct sum of the two subspaces $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{J}}^+_{k,\lambda}:=\{F(z,\tau)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{k,\lambda}|F(z,\tau)&=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\chi_{2j}(\tau)z^{2j}\}\\
{\mathcal{J}}^-_{k,\lambda}:=\{F(z,\tau)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{k,\lambda}|F(z,\tau)&=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\chi_{2j+1}(\tau)z^{2j+1}\}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to verify that the following map is an isomorphism. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{plusminusisom}
{\mathcal{J}}^+_{k,\lambda}&\rightarrow {\mathcal{J}}^-_{k-1,\lambda}\\
F(z,\tau)&\mapsto zF(z,\tau).\notag\end{aligned}$$ Given an $F(z,\tau)\in \mathcal J _{k,\lambda}$, evaluating (\[jaclike\]) at $z=0$ shows that $F(0,\tau)$ is a modular form of weight $k$. Thus there is a map ${\mathcal{J}}^+ _{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda} \rightarrow {\mathcal{M}}^k$.
\[CKlift\] Given $f\in \mathcal{M} ^k$ the Cohen-Kuznetsov series (or lift) of $f$ with index $\lambda$ is given by $$\widetilde{f}(z, \tau) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\lambda^nf^{(n)}(\tau)}{n!(k)_n}z^{2n}\in Hol(\mathfrak h)[[z]]$$ where $(k)_n=(k+n-1)!/(k-1)!=k(k+1)...(k+n-1)$ is the Pochhammer symbol and $f^{(n)}(\tau):=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{d\tau}\right)^nf(\tau)$. If no mention is made of the index, it will be assumed that $\lambda=1$.
The derivation $D:=$
$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{d\tau}$
corresponds under the change of variables $q=e^{2\pi i \tau}$ to the operator
$q\frac{d}{dq}$
, which was used in (\[start\]). The ring ${\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}$ has the nice property of being closed under differentiation. In fact, $D: {\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^*\rightarrow {\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^{*+2}$. We illustrate a bit with the following
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{E4CK}
&\widetilde E_4(z,q)=E_4(q)+\frac{1}{4}E_4'(q)z^2+\frac{1}{2!\cdot 4 \cdot 5}E_4''(q)z^4+\frac{1}{3!\cdot 4 \cdot 5\cdot 6}E_4'''(q)z^6+...\\
&=E_4(q)+\frac{1}{12}\left(E_4(q)E_2(q)-E_6(q)\right)z^2+\frac{1}{288}\left(E_4(q)^2-2E_6(q)E_2(q)+E_4(q)E_2(q)^2\right)z^4+...\notag\end{aligned}$$
It is shown in Section 3 of [@EZ] that if $f\in {\mathcal{M}}^k$ and $\widetilde f (z,\tau)$ is its Cohen-Kuznetsov lift with index $\lambda$, then $\widetilde f (z,\tau)$ satisfies (\[jaclike\]) and so $\widetilde f (z,\tau)\in {\mathcal{J}}^+ _{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda}$. This justifies the term *lift*, as the map $f \mapsto \widetilde f $ provides a section for the map ${\mathcal{J}}^+ _{{\mathbb{Q}},k,m}\rightarrow {\mathcal{M}}^k$. In fact, all elements of ${\mathcal{J}}_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda}$ can be constructed from Cohen-Kuznetsov lifts via the following.
\[jlfseqs\] Given a Jacobi-like form $F(z,\tau)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda}$ there is a corresponding sequence of modular forms $\xi_0,\xi_1,\xi_2,...$ such that $\xi_{n}\in {\mathcal{M}}^{k+n}$ and $$\label{jlfck}
F(z,\tau)=\widetilde{\xi_0}(z, \tau)+z\widetilde{\xi_1}(z, \tau)+z^2\widetilde{\xi_2}(z, \tau)+...=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^{n}\widetilde{\xi_{n}}(z, \tau)$$ and $\widetilde{\xi_{n}}(z, \tau)$ is, as above, the Cohen-Kuznetsov lift of $\xi_{n}$ with index $\lambda$. Conversely, for any sequence of modular forms $\xi_0,\xi_1,\xi_2,...$ satisfying $\xi_{n}\in {\mathcal{M}}^{k+n}$, the equation (\[jlfck\]) defines an $F(z,\tau)\in{\mathcal{J}}_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda}$.
\[rmk\] Again, since ${\mathcal{M}}^{k+j}=\{0\}$ whenever $k+j$ is odd, half of the $\xi_j$’s necessarily vanish. Note that in terms of the usual expansion
$\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}$
$\chi_{j}(q)z^{j}$ of an $F(z,\tau)\in {\mathcal{J}}_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda}$, the sequence of modular forms are given by $$\label{f2ns}
\xi_{n}(\tau)=\sum_{0\leq j \leq n/2}\frac{(-\lambda)^j(k+n-j-2)!}{j!(k+n-2)!}\chi^{(j)}_{n-2j}(\tau).
$$ See Section 3 of [@EZ] for the proof.
Noticing the similarity of the coefficients in (\[start\]) and (\[E4CK\]) we are led to formulate a general theorem which puts $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ as something akin to a “Jacobi-like form in
$\frac{p_1(X)}{2}$
". To make this more precise we first define a map $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J^+_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda} &\rightarrow H^*(X,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}})\\
F(z,q)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\chi_{2j}(q)z^{2j}&\mapsto \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\chi_{2j}(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{j}\end{aligned}$$ The map is well defined since $X$ is finite dimensional. To maybe abuse notation, we will denote the image of an element $F(z,q)$ under this map by $F\left ( \frac{1}{2}p_1(X), q\right)$ and call it a cohomological Jacobi-like form, or CJLF for short. Using this, we see that (\[start\]) can be restated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{startb}
\operatorname{sch}_{\leq 6}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q) = & \nu_0\widetilde {E_4} \left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)_{\leq 12} +\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})\widetilde {E_6} \left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)_{\leq 8}\\
&+\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}) \widetilde {E_8} \left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)_{\leq 4} +\operatorname{ch}_{6}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})\widetilde{E_{10}}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)_{\leq 0}\notag\end{aligned}$$ where for any CJLF $\textstyle F\left ( \frac{1}{2}p_1(X), q\right)$ we denote its projection onto degree at most $n$ in cohomology by $\textstyle F\left ( \frac{1}{2}p_1(X), q\right)_{\leq n}$. Compare (\[startb\]) to (\[expn111\]). The general formula for $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ given in the theorem below can be better understood by reexamining what we have so far and what we get by moving to the next (nonzero) degree in cohomology. The terms that one gets from proposition \[genprop\] in the $p_1(X)=0$ case, i.e. those in (\[expn111\]), have modular form coefficients. Taking the Cohen-Kuznetsov lift of these modular forms and promoting them to CJLF’s gives (\[startb\]). Moving to degree $16$ in cohomology we see from (\[sch8deg16\]) that we get two more modular terms guaranteed by Proposition \[genprop\] and four other terms having modular (cusp) form coefficients which cancel the coefficient of $q$ in all terms containing $p_1(X)$ in (\[startb\]) (making them order $q^2$). The pattern then repeats each time you move to the next relevant degree in cohomology, there will be some new terms which arise from Proposition \[genprop\], say $s$ of them, and another term which cancels the first $s$ coefficient of all other terms containing a $p_1(X)$.
To put things more formally we first need the following.
\[sharp\] Let $\phi\in {\mathcal{M}}^k$ and put $s_{2j}=\dim {\mathcal{M}}^{k+2j}$. Then there is a unique element $$\phi^{\natural}(z,q)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\chi_{2j}(q)z^{2j}\in {\mathcal{J}}^+_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,1}$$ such that $\chi_0(q)=\phi(q)$ and for $j>0$ $$\chi_{2j}(q) \in q^{s_{2j}}{\mathbb{Q}}[[q]]\cap{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^{k+2j}.$$
As in Theorem \[jlfseqs\], a sequence of modular forms $\{f_{2\ell}\}_{\ell\geq 0}$ such that $f_{2\ell}\in {\mathcal{M}}^{k+2\ell}$ uniquely defines an element $\phi^{\natural}(z,q)\in {\mathcal{J}}^+_{{\mathbb{Q}},k,\lambda}$ via $$\phi^{\natural}(z,q)=\widetilde{f_0}(z, q)+z^2\widetilde{f_2}(z, q)+z^4\widetilde{f_4}(z, q)+...$$ We set $f_0(q)=\phi(q)$ and define $f_{2\ell}(q)$ for $\ell>0$ recursively by requiring that $$f_{2\ell}(q)+\sum_{n=0}^{j-1}\frac{f_{2n}^{(\ell -n)}(q)}{(\ell-n)!(k+2n)_{\ell -n}}\in q^{s_{2\ell}}{\mathbb{Q}}[[q]].$$ This recursive equation has a unique solution for each $j$ since the equation puts $s_{2\ell}$ independent conditions on the $f_{2\ell}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}^{k+2\ell}$ is $s_{2\ell}$ dimensional.
One can see that $0^{\natural}(z,q)=0$; a less trivial example follows.
$$E_4^{\natural}(z,q)=\widetilde {E_4}(z,q)-z^8\frac{240}{4! (4)_4}\widetilde {\Delta} (z,q)-z^{12}\left(\frac{240}{6!(4)_6} -\frac{240}{4! (4)_4}\frac{1}{2!(12)_2}\right)\widetilde{\Delta E_4}(z,q)+...$$
Comparing the example with (\[startb\]) and (\[sch8deg16\]) we see that, up to degree $16$, the coefficient of $\nu_0$ in $\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)$ is the CJLF $\textstyle E_4^{\natural}\left ( \frac{1}{2}p_1(X), q\right)$. The following theorem asserts that this extends to all degrees in cohomology and that all the other components of the Chern characters of the index bundles of the various twisted Dirac operators that show up in $\operatorname{sch}(q)$ also have coefficients that are a CJLF $\textstyle f^{\natural}\left ( \frac{1}{2}p_1(X), q\right)$ for some modular form $f$.
\[bigthm\] Let $\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}=(\pi, Z, X)$ be a string family of compact spin manifolds where each $Y_x=\pi^{-1}(x)$ has even dimension $m$. Let $s_j=\dim {\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j}$. Then $$\label{maineqn}
\operatorname{Sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)=\frac{q^{m/24}}{\eta(q)^m}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_0})\phi^{\natural}_{j,0}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)+...+\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{s_j-1}})\phi^{\natural}_{j,s_j-1}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)$$ where for each $j$ the collection $\phi_{j,0}(q),...,\phi_{j,s_j-1}(q)$ is given by Proposition \[genprop\].
Consider the polynomial rings $S={\mathbb{Q}}[p_1,...,p_{m/2}]$ in the indeterminates $p_i$ of weight $4i$. We regard $S$ as a subspace of the polynomial ring ${\mathbb{Q}}[y_1,...,y_{m/2}]$, with indeterminates $y_i$ of weight $2i$, via the degree preserving injection $p_i\mapsto \sigma_i(y_1^2,...,y_{m/2}^2)$, where $\sigma_i$ is the $i$th elementary symmetric function. Using the series expansion of the exponential function one obtains $$\psi(z,q)=\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\frac{zy_i}{\sigma(zy_i,q)}=\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\exp\left(\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{2}{2n!}G_{2n}(q)(zy_i)^{2n}\right )$$ as an element of $({\mathbb{Q}}[[q]]\otimes S)[[z]]$. From the proof of Theorem \[thm31\], we see that $\psi(z,q)$ actually lies in a smaller space. Namely, let $S=S^0\oplus S^4\oplus...$ be the decomposition into homogeneous subspaces and set $\textstyle \mathcal R=\bigoplus_{j=0}^{\infty}{\mathcal{M}}^{2j}\otimes S^{4j}$; then $\psi(z,q)\in \mathcal R[[z]]$ and the coefficient of $z^n$ is in ${\mathcal{M}}^{2n}\otimes S^{4n}$.
Let $r\in\{0,2\}$ be the reduction of $m$ modulo $4$. Expanding $$\psi(z,q)=1+z^2a_2(q;p_1)+z^4a_4(q;p_1,p_2)+...$$ we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psijl}
\Psi (z,q)&=\frac{1}{z^{m/2}}\left[\psi (z,q)-\left(1+z^2a_2(q;p_1)+...+z^{(m+r)/2-2}a_{(m+r)/2-2}(q;p_1,...)\right)\right]e^{G_2(q)p_1z^2}\notag\\
&=e^{G_2(q)p_1z^2}\sum_{j=(m+r)/4}^{\infty}a_{2j}(q;p_1,...)z^{2j-m/2}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the coefficient of $z^n$ in $\textstyle \sum_{j=(m+r)/4}^{\infty}a_{2j}(q;p_1,...)z^{2j-m/2}$ is an element of ${\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+n}\otimes S^{m+2n}$. Set $\textstyle \widetilde{\mathcal R}=\bigoplus_{j=0}^{\infty}{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^{2j}\otimes S^{4j}$; then we have $\Psi(z,q)\in \widetilde{\mathcal R}[[z]]$ and if $$\Psi (z,q)=\chi _0(q;p_1,...)+\chi_1(q;p_1,...)z+\chi_2(q;p_1,...)z^2+...$$ then $\chi_{n}(q;p_1,...)\in {\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^{\frac{m}{2}+n}\otimes S^{m+2n}$.
Using Example \[jfexample\], we see from (\[psijl\]) that for any $(y_1,...,y_{m/2})\in C^{m/2}$ it follows that $\Psi$ is in either ${\mathcal{J}}^+_{m/2, -\frac{p_1}{2}}$ or ${\mathcal{J}}^-_{m/2,-\frac{p_1}{2}}$ depending on whether $r=0$ or $r=2$, respectively. We can then form the modular combinations as in (\[f2ns\]) $$\xi_{n}(q;p_1,...)=\sum_{0\leq j \leq n/2}\frac{(\frac{p_1}{2})^j(\frac{m}{2}+n-j-2)!}{j!(\frac{m}{2}+n-2)!}\chi^{(j)}_{n-2j}(q;p_1,...)\in{\mathcal{M}}^{m/2+n}\otimes S^{m+2n}
$$ and, as above, $\chi ^{(j)}=\left(q\frac{d}{dq}\right)^j\chi$. Then as in (\[jlfck\]) we have $$\Psi(z,q)=\widetilde {\xi_0}(z,q)+z\widetilde {\xi}_1(z,q)+z^2\widetilde {\xi}_2(z,q)+...$$ where $$\widetilde {\xi}_n(z,q)=\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-\frac{p_1}{2})^{\nu}\xi_{n}^{(\nu)}(q;p_1,...)}{\nu!(m/2+n)_{\nu}}z^{2n}\in \widetilde{\mathcal R}[[z]]$$ is the Cohen-Kuznetsov lift of $\widetilde {\xi}_n$ with index
$-\frac{p_1}{2}$
. From this we obtain the important formula $$\label{imptform}
\Psi(z,q)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^{n}\widetilde \xi_{n}(z,q)=\sum_{\mu=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\nu=0}^{\mu}\frac{\xi^{(\mu-\nu)}_{\nu}(q;p_1,...)}{(\mu-\nu)!(m/2+\nu)_{\mu-\nu}}\left(-\frac{p_1}{2}\right)^{\mu-\nu}z^{2\nu-\mu}$$ Now we take $z=1$ and use the identity in (\[imptform\]) with the $p_i$’s replaced by Pontryagin classes for the vertical bundle $V\rightarrow Z$. The assumption $p_1(Z)=0$ gives $p_1(V)=-\pi^*p_1(X)$ and since each $a_{2j}(q;p_1,...)$ is degree $4j$ in cohomology we have $$\int_Y a_{2j}(q;p_1,...)e^{G_2(q)p_1(V)}=e^{-G_2(q)p_1(X)}\int_Y a_{2j}(q;p_1,...)=0$$ for $2j \leq (m+r)/2 -2 $. Therefore, $$\int_Y\psi(1,q)e^{G_2(q)p_1(V)}=\int_Y\Psi(1,q)$$ We have thus obtained $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xis}
\operatorname{sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)&=\int_Y \prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\frac{y_i}{\sigma(y_i,q)}e^{G_2(q)y_i^2}=\int_Y\Psi(1,q)\notag\\
&=\int_Y\widetilde {\xi_0}(1,q)+\widetilde {\xi_1}(1,q)+\widetilde {\xi_2}(1,q)+...\in H^*(X,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^*)\end{aligned}$$ Note that
$\int_Y$
$\xi_{j}(q;p_1,...)\in H^{2j}(X,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j})$. Now, we will proceed by induction to show that for each $j_0$ $$\label{induct}
\int_Y \xi_{j_0}(q;p_1,...)=\sum_{j=0}^{j_0}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor}f^{j_0-j}_{j,i}(q)$$ where for each $j\leq j_0$ the collection of $\phi_{j,i}(q):=f_{j,i}^{0}(q)\in{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j}$, for $i=1,...,s_j-1$, are given by Proposition \[genprop\] and $f^{j_0-j}_{j,i}(q)\in{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j_0}$ are defined so that when $j_0-j=2\ell$ they satisfy $$f^{2\ell}_{j,i}(q)+\sum_{n=0}^{\ell-1}\frac{D^{\ell -n}f^{2n}_{j,i}(q)}{(\ell-n)!(m/2+j+2n)_{\ell -n}}\in q^{s_{j_0}}{\mathbb{Q}}[[q]].$$ When $j_0-j$ is odd the $f^{j_0-j}_{j,i}$’s might as well be taken to be zero. The reason for this is that $\operatorname{sch}_j(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}},q)$, $\operatorname{ch}_j(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})$, and the $\xi_j$ all vanish for all odd $j$ or all even $j$ depending on whether $r=0$ or $r=2$, respectively. It is for this reason that the appearance of the floor function in (\[induct\]) and the following is not all that significant. To see why (\[induct\]) will imply the theorem, we combine it with (\[imptform\]) and (\[xis\]) to see $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{sch}_{\leq j_0}(q)&=\left(\int_Y\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\widetilde \xi_{j}(1,q)\right)_{\leq 2j_0}=\sum_{\mu=0}^{j_0}\sum_{\nu=0}^{\mu}\frac{1}{(\mu-\nu)!(m/2+\nu)_{\mu-\nu}}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\mu-\nu}\int_Y\xi^{(\mu-\nu)}_{\nu}(q,p_1,...)\\
&=\sum_{\mu=0}^{ j_0}\sum_{\nu=0}^{\mu}\sum_{j=0}^{\nu}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\mu-\nu+\lfloor(\nu-j)/2\rfloor}\frac{D^{\mu-\nu}f_{j,i}^{\nu-j}(q)}{(\mu-\nu)!(m/2+\nu)_{\mu-\nu}}\end{aligned}$$ After setting $2\ell=\nu-j$ and $\beta = \mu-\nu$ this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j=0}^{j_0}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\sum_{\ell=0}^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\ell}\sum_{\beta=0}^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor-\ell}\frac{D^{\beta}f_{j,i}^{2\ell}(q)}{\beta!(m/2+j+2\ell)_{\beta}}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\beta}\\
&=\sum_{j=0}^{j_0}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\sum_{\ell=0}^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor}\left(\widetilde f_{j,i}^{\ell}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)\right)_{\leq 2(j_0-j-2\ell)}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\ell}\\
&=\sum_{j=0}^{j_0}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_0})\phi^{\natural}_{j,0}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)_{\leq 2(j_0-j)}+...+\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{s_j-1}})\phi^{\natural}_{j,s_j-1}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2},q\right)_{\leq 2(j_0-j)}\end{aligned}$$
For $j=0$, (\[induct\]) is an equation in $H^0(X,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}})$. As in Proposition \[genprop\], one can solve $\textstyle \operatorname{sch}_0(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\int_Y \xi_{0}(q;p_1,...)=\sum_{i=0}^{s_{0}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{0}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\phi_{0,i}(q)$. This is just the computation of the index of the Dirac-Ramond operator on $Y$ in terms of the index of the Dirac operator and the indices of the first $s_0-1$ twisted Dirac operators. Now suppose that the formula (\[induct\]) holds for $\nu < j_0$. From (\[imptform\]) and (\[xis\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{indstep}
\operatorname{sch}_{j_0}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}, q)&=\int_Y\sum_{\nu=0}^{j_0}\frac{\xi_{j}^{(j_0-\nu)}(q;p_1,...)}{(j_0-\nu)!(m/2+\nu)_{j_0-\nu}}\left(-\frac{p_1}{2}\right)^{j_0-\nu}\\
&=\sum_{\nu=0}^{j_0}\frac{1}{(j_0-\nu)!(m/2+\nu)_{j_0-\nu}}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{j_0-\nu}\int_Y\xi^{(j_0-\nu)}_{\nu}(q;p_1,...).\notag\end{aligned}$$ Applying the induction hypothesis (\[induct\]) to the terms with $\nu< j_0$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gettingsomewhere}
\Upsilon:&=\operatorname{sch}_{j_0}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)-\int_Y\xi_{j_0}(q;p_1,...) \notag \\
&=\sum_{\nu=0}^{j_0-1}\frac{1}{(j_0-\nu)!(m/2+\nu)_{j_0-\nu}}\sum_{j=0}^{\nu}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})D^{j_0-\nu}f_{j,i}^{\nu-j}(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor}\notag\\
&=\sum_{j=0}^{j_0-1}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\sum_{\ell=0}^{\lfloor(j_0-1-j)/2\rfloor}\frac{D^{j_0-j-2\ell}f_{j,i}^{2\ell}(q)}{(j_0-j-2\ell)!(m/2+j+2\ell)_{j_0-j-2\ell}}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor}\notag\end{aligned}$$ where in the third line we set $2\ell = \nu-j$.
From the definition we have $$\operatorname{Sch}_{j_0}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}};q)=\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty}q^{\nu}\operatorname{ch}_{j_0}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_\nu}).$$ Multiplying this equation by $\frac{\eta (q)^m}{q^{m/24}}$ and combining it with (\[gettingsomewhere\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int_Y \xi_{j_0}(q;p_1,...)=\frac{\eta (q)^m}{q^{m/24}}\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty}q^{\nu}\operatorname{ch}_{j_0}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{\nu}})-\Upsilon\in H^{2j_0}(X,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j_0}).
$$ We proceed as in Proposition \[genprop\] and find a basis for ${\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j_0}$ of the form $\{ \phi_{j_0,0}(q),..., \phi_{j_0,s_{j_0}-1}(q)\}$ which satisfies $q^{m/24}\frac{\phi_{j_0,i}(q)}{\eta(q)^m}=q^i+\mathcal O (q^{s_{j_0}})$. Then $$\frac{\eta (q)^m}{q^{m/24}}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}q^{i}\operatorname{ch}_{j_0}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})=\operatorname{ch}_{j_0} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_0})\phi_{j_0,0}(q)+...+\operatorname{ch}_{j_0} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{s_{j_0}-1}})\phi_{j_0,s_{j_0}-1}(q)\ \ (\bmod \ q^{s_{j_0}}).$$ Let $\Omega \in H^{2j_0}(X,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j_0})$ denote the RHS of the previous equation. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\eta (q)^m}{q^{m/24}}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}q^{i}\operatorname{ch}_{j_0}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})-\Omega\right)-\Upsilon$$ is equal to $-\Upsilon$ up to order $q^{s_{j_0}-1}$ as an element of $H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]$. For each $(j,i)$ we can find an $f^{j_0-j}_{j,i}(q)\in{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j_0}$ such that $$f^{j_0-j}_{j,i}(q)=-\sum_{\ell=0}^{\lfloor (j_0-1-j)/2\rfloor}\frac{D^{j_0-j-2\ell}f_{j,i}^{2\ell}(q)}{(j_0-j-2\ell)!(m/2+j+2\ell)_{j_0-j-2\ell}} (\bmod \ q^{s_{j_0}})$$ which is uniquely defined since ${\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j_0}$ is $s_{j_0}$ dimensional. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda &:=\sum_{j=0}^{j_0-1}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{j_0-j}f^{j_0-j}_{j,i}(q)\\
&=-\sum_{j=0}^{j_0-1}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\sum_{\ell=0}^{\lfloor(j_0-1-j)/2\rfloor}\frac{D^{j_0-j-2\ell}f_{j,i}^{2\ell}(q)}{(j_0-j-2\ell)!(m/2+j+2\ell)_{j_0-j-2\ell}}\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor} (\bmod \ q^{s_{j_0}})\end{aligned}$$ Now, since $\int_Y \xi_{j_0} = \Omega - \Lambda \ (\bmod \ q^{s_{j_0}})$ and each quantity is in $H^{2j_0}(X,{\mathcal{M}}^{\frac{m}{2}+j_0})$ we have equality for all orders of $q$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_Y \xi _{j_0} (q,p_1,...)=\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j_0}}\operatorname{ch}_{j_0} (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\phi_{j_0,i}(q)+\sum_{j=0}^{j_0-1}\sum_{i=0}^{s_{j}-1}\operatorname{ch}_{j}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_i})\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^{\lfloor(j_0-j)/2\rfloor}f^{j_0-j}_{j,i}(q)\end{aligned}$$ and this is the induction step we wanted to show in (\[induct\]).
The $E_8$ Bundle
================
Our formal version of the Dirac-Ramond operator should arise as the restriction of an actual operator on loop space. And it is believed (see [@Brylinski], for instance) that the actual operator on loop space should fit into the framework of a $\operatorname{Diff}(S^1)$ equivariant $K$-theory of loop space. It is desirable then for the index bundle $\textstyle \operatorname{Ind}{\mathcal{\slashed{D}}}:= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}q^n \operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_n}$ to be the restriction of a “Virasoro equivariant" vector bundle on loop space. A nice class of algebras whose representations also furnish representations for the Virasoro algebra are affine Lie algebras. Below we will show that under some stringent conditions we can identify the index bundle with a bundle associated to a representation of affine $E_8$.
Principal $E_8$ Bundles {#e8bdlsect}
-----------------------
The homotopy groups for $E_8$ are known to satisfy $\pi_i(E_8)= 0$ for $1 \leq i \leq 14$ except for $\pi_3 (E_8)\simeq {\mathbb{Z}}$. So for $i\leq 15$ the only nonzero homotopy group of $BE_8$ is $\pi_4(BE_8)\simeq {\mathbb{Z}}$. This makes $BE_8$ an “approximate" $K({\mathbb{Z}}, 4)$. That is, for manifolds $X$ of dimension at most $14$ the cellular approximation theorem gives an isomorphism
$$\label{corr}
[X,BE_8]\simeq [X,K({\mathbb{Z}},4)]\simeq H^4(X,{\mathbb{Z}}).$$
This has the effect that, in low dimensions, principal $E_8$ bundles over $X$ are in bijective correspondence with the elements of its fourth cohomology. Let $P\rightarrow X$ be a principal $E_8$ bundle over $X$. If $EE_8\rightarrow BE_8$ denotes the universal principal $E_8$ bundle over the classifying space $BE_8$, then $P=\gamma^*EE_8$ for some $\gamma :X\rightarrow BE_8$. The bijective correspondence in (\[corr\]) associates the principal bundle $P$ to the cohomology class $\omega_{\gamma} = \gamma^*(u)$ where $u$ is the generator of $H^4(BE_8,{\mathbb{Z}})$.
The adjoint representation of $E_8$ is a $248$ dimensional unitary representation. Let $\rho : E_8 \rightarrow U(248)$ denote this representation. In fact, if we compose $\rho$ with the determinant map then we get a map from $E_8$ into $U(1)$. Since $E_8$ is simple, the kernel of this map must be all of $E_8$. Thus we actually have image$(\rho)\subset SU(248)$ and we see that $P$ is also a principal $SU(248)$ bundle. The goal is now to compute the Chern classes of this bundle.
To obtain the Chern classes we need a map $X\rightarrow BSU(248)$. The representation $\rho$ induces a map $B\rho : BE_8 \rightarrow BSU(248)$. The map we need then is given by the composition $B\rho \circ \gamma : X \rightarrow BE_8 \rightarrow BSU(248)$. Since $H^2(BSU(248),{\mathbb{Z}})=0$ we trivially have $c_1(P)=0$. Now, $$c_2(P)= (B\rho \circ \gamma)^*(c_2)=\gamma^*B\rho^*c_2.$$ Since $H^4(BSU(248),{\mathbb{Z}})$ and $H^4(BE_8,{\mathbb{Z}})$ are both canonically isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}$, any homomorphism between them is determined by a single integer. The integer induced by the adjoint representation is known as the Dynkin index of $E_8$ and has been computed to be $60$ (see [@Totaro] and references therein). We restate all this in the following proposition.
Let $\rho:E_8 \rightarrow SU(248)$ be the adjoint representation and $c_2$ and $u$ be the generators of $H^4(BSU(248),{\mathbb{Z}})$ and $H^4(BE_8,{\mathbb{Z}})$, respectively. Then $$\begin{aligned}
B\rho^*:H^4(BSU(248),{\mathbb{Z}}) &\rightarrow H^4(BE_8,{\mathbb{Z}})\notag \\
c_2 &\mapsto 60u\end{aligned}$$
We now see that $$c_2(P)= 60\omega^*(u).$$ It is well known that when $X$ is spin, $p_1(X)$ is even. Since we then have
$\frac{p_1(X)}{2}$
$\in H^4(X,{\mathbb{Z}})$, we can choose $\omega_{\gamma} = -$
$\frac{p_1(X)}{2}$
and therefore $c_2(P)=-30p_1(X)$. Let $W=P\times_{\rho}{\mathbb{C}}^{248}$ be the complex vector bundle over $X$ associated to the representation $\rho$. The Chern character of $W$ is the same as the Chern character for $P$, since $W$ can also be viewed as being associated to $P$ as a $SU(248)$ bundle using the standard representation. Working with formal Chern variables $x_1,...,x_{248}$ we see $$x_1^2+...+x_{248}^2=(x_1+...+x_{248})^2-2\sum_{i<j}x_ix_j=c_1(W)^2-2c_2(W)=-2c_2(W)$$ and thus $$\operatorname{ch}_2(W)=\frac{1}{2}(x_1^2+...+x_{248}^2)=-c_2(W)=30p_1(X).$$
It is a result of Atiyah-Hirzebruch [@ATHIRZ] that for any compact simple group $G$, the (completed) representation ring $R(G)$ is isomorphic to $K(BG)$. Invoking the Chern character gives the isomorphism $R(E_8)\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}\simeq H^*(BE_8,{\mathbb{Q}})$. Under this identification a representation $\Lambda$ is identified with $\operatorname{ch}(EE_8\times _{\Lambda}{\mathbb{C}}^r)$ where $r$ is the dimension of the representation $\Lambda$. From some character calculations in [@Totaro] we can see then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e8chars}
\operatorname{ch}(EE_8\times_{\rho}{\mathbb{C}}^{248})&=248+60u+6u^2+...\end{aligned}$$ Using $\gamma$ to pull back to $X$ we obtain, $$\label{e8w8}
\operatorname{ch}(W) = 248 +30p_1(X)+\frac{3}{2}p_1(X)^2+...$$
The Basic Representation of Affine $E_8$
----------------------------------------
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a complex finite-dimensional simple Lie algebra and $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ be the Killing form on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. We will also take ${\mathfrak{g}}$ to be simply laced, i.e. of type $A_n$,$D_n$, or $E_n$. The affine Lie algebra $\widehat{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ corresponding to ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is $$\widehat{{\mathfrak{g}}}={\mathbb{C}}[t,t^{-1}]\otimes {\mathfrak{g}}\oplus {\mathbb{C}}K \oplus {\mathbb{C}}d$$ where $d=t\frac{d}{dt}$ and the bracket is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&[f(t)\otimes X+\alpha K + \mu d,g(t)\otimes Y+\beta K + \nu d]\\
=&f(t)g(t)\otimes [X,Y]+\langle X,Y\rangle \text{Res }_{t=0}\left(\frac{df}{dt}(t)g(t)\right)K + \mu (dg)(t)\otimes Y - \nu (df)(t)\otimes X.\end{aligned}$$ Via the identification $t=e^{i\theta}$ the first summand appearing in $\widehat{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ can be thought of as loops on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ with finite Fourier expansion. Writing $G$ for the compact simply connected Lie group corresponding to ${\mathfrak{g}}$, these loops exponentiate to polynomial loops on $G$. The second summand provides a central extension of this algebra. In terms of $\theta$, the operator $d$ is $-i$
$\frac{d}{d\theta}$
. This operator exponentiates to rigid rotations on the circle and so the third summand provides a semidirect product with the infinitesimal generator of such transformations. Of course, ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is a subalgebra via the identification of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ with $1\otimes {\mathfrak{g}}$.
Of all the irreducible representations of $\widehat{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ there is a nontrivial one which is simplest in some ways. This representation $V(\Lambda_0)$ is known as the basic representation and contains a highest weight vector $v_0$ satisfying $$Kv_0=v_0 \text { and } \left({\mathbb{C}}[t]\otimes {\mathfrak{g}}\oplus {\mathbb{C}}d\right)v_0=0.$$ Let $W_{n}=\{v\in V(\Lambda_0) | dv = -nv\}$. Since $[{\mathfrak{g}}, d]=0$ each $W_n$ is a representation for ${\mathfrak{g}}$. The character of the basic representation $V(\Lambda_0)$ is given by (see for instance [@KacBook], or more in the case at hand [@Kac equation (2)]) $$\label{charbas}
\text{char } (V(\Lambda_0))(q,z_1,...,z_r)=q^{r/24}\frac{\Theta_{\mathfrak g}(q,z_1,...,z_r)}{\eta(q)^r}$$ where $r$ is the rank of $\mathfrak g$, $(z_1,...,z_r)$ represents a point (after choosing a basis) in the Cartan subalgebra, and the theta function is defined on the root lattice $Q$ by
$$\Theta_{\mathfrak g}(q,z_1,...,z_r)=\sum_{\gamma \in Q}e^{2\pi i \langle \gamma, \vec{z}\rangle}q^{||\gamma ||^2/2}.$$ We now specify all of this to the case where $\mathfrak g = E_8$. The representation $V(\Lambda_0)$ breaks up in terms of the $W_n$’s as a sequence of finite dimensional representations for $E_8$ (the algebra or the group) as $$\label{lvl1}
V(\Lambda_0)=1+W_1 q + W_2 q^2+...$$ where $1$ denotes the trivial one-dimensional representation. It is a fact that $W_1$ is the adjoint representation $\rho$ for $E_8$. Recall from the previous section there is an $E_8$ bundle $P$ over $X$ corresponding to the cohomology class $-$
$\frac{p_1(X)}{2}$
. For each $n>0$ define the associated vector bundles $\underline{W}_n=P\times_{\rho_n}W_n$ over $X$ and put $$\label{Vdefn}
\mathcal{V}=1_{{\mathbb{C}}}+\underline{W}_1 q + \underline{W}_2 q^2+...\in K(X)[[q]]$$ where $1_{{\mathbb{C}}}\rightarrow X$ is the trivial one-dimensional complex vector bundle.
Using (\[e8w8\]) we see that $$\label{e8w82}
\operatorname{ch}(\mathcal V)=1+(248 +30p_1(X))q+...$$ and the rest of the terms are at least degree $8$ in cohomology or at least degree $2$ in $q$.
In [@Gannon] it is shown that there is a basis for the $E_8$ root lattice such that $$\Theta_{E_8}(q,z_1,...,z_8)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_2(2\pi iz_i,q)+\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_3(2\pi iz_i,q)+\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_4(2\pi iz_i,q)+\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta(2\pi i z_i,q)\right)$$ where $\theta_2(z,q),\theta_3(z,q),\theta_4(z,q)$ are the other three classical (even) Jacobi theta functions whose definitions are given in the appendix. Now, let $$H(\tau,z_1,...,z_8)=\frac{1}{2}e^{G_2(\tau)(z_1^2+...+z_8^2)}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_2(z_i,\tau)+\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_3(z_i,\tau)+\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_4(z_i,\tau)\right).$$ Notice that since $\theta(0,\tau)=0$, it follows that $\theta(z,\tau) = \mathcal O (z)$ and hence $$\Theta_{E_8}(\tau,z_1,...,z_8)=e^{-G_2(\tau)((2\pi i z_1)^2+...+(2\pi i z_8)^2)}H(\tau, 2\pi i z_1,...,2\pi i z_8) + \mathcal O (z^8).$$ Using the classical transformation formulas for the Jacobi theta functions and for $G_2$ one sees that $$\label{thetatrans}
H\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d},\frac{z_1}{c\tau+d},...,\frac{z_8}{c\tau+d}\right)=(c\tau+d)^4H(\tau,z_1,...,z_8).$$ Let $e_i$ be the $i$th elementary symmetric polynomial in $z_1^2,...,z_8^2$. Since each theta function in $H(\tau,z_1,...,z_8)$ is even, it can be expanded in terms of the elementary symmetric functions $e_i$’s $$H(\tau,z_1,...,z_8)=a_0(\tau)+a_{1,1}(\tau)e_1+a_{2,1}(\tau)e_1^2+a_{2,2}(\tau)e_2+...$$ It follows from (\[thetatrans\]) that each $a_{i,j}$ is a modular form of weight $4+2i$. For $i<4$, the space of modular forms of weight $4+2i$ is one dimensional. So to determine $a_{i,j}$ one need only calculate its constant term. This can be done very easily using Mathematica. One finds $$H(\tau,z_1,...,z_8)=E_4(\tau)-\frac{1}{12}E_6(\tau)\frac{1}{2}e_1+\frac{1}{2!\cdot12^2}E_8(\tau)(\frac{1}{2}e_1)^2-\frac{1}{3!\cdot12^3}E_{10}(\tau)(\frac{1}{2}e_1)^3+\mathcal O (z^8).$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thetachars}
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_2(z_i,\tau)+\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_3(z_i,\tau)+\prod_{i=1}^{8}\theta_4(z_i,\tau)\right) \notag\\
&=e^{-G_2(\tau)e_1}\left(E_4(\tau)-\frac{1}{12}E_6(\tau)\frac{1}{2}e_1+\frac{1}{2!\cdot12^2}E_8(\tau)(\frac{1}{2}e_1)^2-\frac{1}{3!\cdot12^3}E_{10}(\tau)(\frac{1}{2}e_1)^3\right)+\mathcal O (z^8)\notag\\
&=E_4(\tau)+\frac{1}{4}E_4'(\tau)\left(\frac{e_1}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2!\cdot 4\cdot 5}E_4''(\tau)\left(\frac{e_1}{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{3!\cdot 4\cdot 5\cdot 6}E_4'''(\tau)\left(\frac{e_1}{2}\right)^3+\mathcal O (z^8)\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[charbas\]) together with (\[thetachars\]) we get $$\label{b4pullback}
\operatorname{ch}(V(\Lambda_0)) = \frac{q^{1/3}}{\eta(q)^8}\left(E_4(\tau)+\frac{1}{4}E_4'(\tau)\left(\frac{e_1}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2!\cdot 4\cdot 5}E_4''(\tau)\left(\frac{e_1}{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{3!\cdot 4\cdot 5\cdot 6}E_4'''(\tau)\left(\frac{e_1}{2}\right)^3\right)+\mathcal O (z^8)$$ With the identification $R(E_8)\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}\simeq H^*(BE_8,{\mathbb{Q}})$, $\operatorname{ch}(V(\Lambda_0))$ is an element of $H^*(BE_8,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]$. Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[thm31\] one could see further that
$\frac{\eta(q)^8}{q^{1/3}}$
$\operatorname{ch}(V(\Lambda_0))\in H^*(BE_8,{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}}^*)$. Now we use the map $\gamma :X\rightarrow BE_8$ corresponding to $-$
$\frac{p_1(X)}{2}$
(see Section \[e8bdlsect\]) to pull back (\[b4pullback\]) to $H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]$ and compare the degree $4$ element of cohomology appearing as the coefficient of $q$ with that in (\[e8w8\]). We see that $\gamma^*e_1=p_1(X)$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{charRHS}
\operatorname{ch}(\mathcal{V})=\frac{q^{1/3}}{\eta(q)^8} \{&E_4(q)+\frac{1}{4}E_4'(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)\\
&+\frac{1}{2!\cdot 4\cdot 5}E_4''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{3!\cdot 4\cdot 5\cdot 6}E_4'''(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)^3+...\in H^*(X,{\mathbb{Q}})[[q]]\notag\end{aligned}$$ An application of Theorem \[bigthm\], or more directly (\[start\]), now gives the following result.
Let $\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}=(\pi, Z, X)$ be a string family of compact spin manifolds having fibers $Y_x=\pi^{-1}(x)$ of dimension $8$. Suppose also that $X$ is a compact spin manifold of dimension less than $16$. If $\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})=\operatorname{ch}_4(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})=\operatorname{ch}_{6}(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})=0$ then the Chern character of the index bundle for the family of Dirac-Ramond operators satisfies $$\operatorname{Sch}(\operatorname{\mathbf{\mathcal F}}; q)=\operatorname{ch}({\mathbb{C}}^{\nu_0}\otimes \mathcal{V})$$ where $\nu_0$ is the index of the Dirac operator on $Y$ and $\mathcal{V}\in K(X)[[q]]$ is constructed as above.
Modular Forms and some Related Functions
========================================
In this appendix, we point out some of our conventions and recall some standard facts. Most all our definitions of functions are consistent with [@HBJ]. As always, $q=e^{2\pi i \tau}$.
The (normalized) Eisenstein series of weight $2k$ is given by $$E_{2k}(q)=1-\frac{4k}{B_{2k}}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(\sum_{d|n} d^{2k-1})q^n$$ where $B_{2k}$ is the $2k$th Bernoulli number. For instance, $$\begin{aligned}
E_2(q)&=1-24q-72q^2-96q^3-...\\
E_4(q)&=1+240q+2160q^2+6720q^3+...\\
E_6(q)&=1-504q-16632q^2-122976q^3-...\end{aligned}$$ There is also the notable weight $12$ modular form $$\Delta (q) =\frac{E_4(q)^3-E_6(q)^2}{1728}=q-24q^2+252q^3+...$$ The differential operator $D=q\frac{d}{dq}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{d\tau}$ maps (quasi)modular forms of weight $k$ to quasimodular forms of weight $k+2$. The following formulas are useful $$\begin{aligned}
DE_2(q)&=\frac{E_2(q)^2-E_4(q)}{12}\\
DE_4(q)&=\frac{E_2(q)E_4(q)-E_6(q)}{3}\\
DE_6(q)&=\frac{E_2(q)E_6(q)-E_4(q)^2}{2}\\
D\Delta (q)&=\Delta(q) E_2(q).\end{aligned}$$ The Dedekind eta function is defined by $$\eta(q)=q^{1/24}\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}(1-q^n).$$ and satisfies the identity $$\eta(q)^3=\theta ' (0,q)$$ where $\theta (z,q)$ is the Jacobi theta function $$\theta (z,q)=2q^{1/8}\sinh (z/2) \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^ne^z)(1-q^ne^{-z})(1-q^n).$$ The other three Jacobi theta functions are $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_2 (z,q)&=2q^{1/8}\cosh (z/2) \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1+q^ne^z)(1+q^ne^{-z})(1-q^n)\\
\theta_3 (z,q)&=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1+q^{n-\frac{1}{2}}e^z)(1+q^{n-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-z})(1-q^n)\\
\theta_4 (z,q)&=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{n-\frac{1}{2}}e^z)(1-q^{n-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-z})(1-q^n).\end{aligned}$$ Another important elliptic function is the Weierstrass sigma function, which is typically defined by $$\sigma (z,\tau)=\prod_{0\neq\gamma \in 2\pi i ({\mathbb{Z}}+ \tau {\mathbb{Z}})}\left(1-\frac{x}{\gamma}\right)e^{\frac{x}{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{x}{\gamma})^2}.$$ For our purposes, this is not a useful expression. We make more use of it in the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigma}
\sigma(z,\tau)&=\frac{\theta(z,\tau)}{\theta ' (0,\tau)}e^{G_2(\tau)z^2}\notag\\
&=z\exp\left(-\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{2}{2n!}G_{2n}(\tau)z^{2n}\right )\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{2n}(\tau)$ is the (unnormalized) Eisenstein series $$G_{2k}(\tau)=-\frac{B_{2k}}{4k}E_{2k}(\tau).$$ For instance,$G_2(\tau)=-\frac{1}{24}E_2(\tau)$, $G_4(\tau)=\frac{1}{240}E_4(\tau)$, and $G_6(\tau)=-\frac{1}{504}E_6(\tau)$. The Eisenstein series $E_2$ is not a modular form. It is quasimodular satisfying $$\label{E2trans}
E_2\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau + d}\right)=(c\tau + d)^2E_2(\tau)+\frac{12c}{2\pi i}(c \tau + d)$$ and so $$\label{G2trans}
G_2\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau + d}\right)=(c\tau + d)^2G_2(\tau)-\frac{c}{4\pi i}(c \tau + d).$$ The definition of a Jacobi-like form was given in Section \[pfsect\]. We want to point out why the coefficients of a Jacobi-like form are modular when the index $\lambda$ is equal to $0$ and quasimodular when $\lambda \neq 0$. Let $F(z,\tau)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\chi_{2n}(\tau)z^{2n} \in \mathcal J^+_{k,\lambda}$. Set $H(z,\tau)=e^{2G_2(\tau)\lambda z^2}F(z,\tau)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
H\left(\frac{z}{c\tau + d},\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau + d}\right)&=\exp\left(\left((c\tau + d)^2G_2(\tau)-\frac{c}{4\pi i}(c \tau + d)\right)2\lambda(\frac{z}{c\tau + d})^2\right)(c\tau +d)^k \exp\left(\frac{c\lambda}{c\tau +d}\frac{z^2}{2\pi i}\right)F(z,\tau)\\
&=(c\tau +d)^k H(z,\tau).\end{aligned}$$ Now expand $H(z,\tau)$ as a power series $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \widetilde \chi_{2n} (\tau) z^{2n}$. The previous equation becomes $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \widetilde \chi_{2n} \left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau + d}\right) \left(\frac{z}{c\tau + d}\right)^{2n}=(c\tau +d)^k\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \widetilde \chi_{2n} (\tau) z^{2n}$$ so that each $\widetilde {\chi}_{2n}$ is a modular form of weight $k+2n$. Then $F(z,\tau)=e^{-2G_2(\tau)\lambda z^2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \widetilde \chi_{2n} (\tau) z^{2n}$, and it follows from this that each $\chi_{2n}$ is a quasimodular form of weight $k+2n$.
Given $F(z,\tau)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\chi_{2n}(\tau)z^{2n}\in \mathcal J_{0,\lambda}^+$ then $\chi_0(\tau)$ is a modular form of weight $0$ and hence constant. Assume $\chi_0(\tau)=1$. Then $\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}F(y_i,\tau)$ is expressible in terms of the elementary symmetric functions $p_1,...,p_{m/2}$ in the variables $y_1^2,...,y_{m/2}^2$. It follows then that if we write $$\label{expand}
\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}F(y_i,\tau)=1+a_{1,1}(\tau)p_1+a_{2,1}(\tau)p_1^2+a_{2,2}(\tau)p_2+...$$ then each $a_{i,j}(\tau)$ is a modular form of weight $2i$ if $\lambda=0$ and a quasimodular form of the same weight otherwise.
The Computation
===============
In this section we show how the computations in section \[compmotiv\] were done and hope to elucidate the proof in section \[pfsect\]. We assume the setup from the previous sections. Namely, we have a string family $Z\rightarrow X$ parameterizing the compact spin manifolds $Y_x=\pi^{-1}(x)$ and $V\rightarrow Z$ is the vertical bundle. The string condition on $Z$ allows us to make much use of (\[p1n\]). For simplicity, we will restrict to when the dimension of $Y$ is $8$. All, computations below were done with the help of Mathmematica.
We recall the formula for the $\widehat A$-class. For a vector bundle $V$ with Pontryagin classes $p_1(V),...,p_{m/2}(V)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ahat}
\hat A (V)&=1-\frac{1}{24}p_1(V)+\frac{7p_1(V)^2-4p_2(V)}{5760}+\frac{-31p_1(V)^3+44p_1(V)p_2(V)-16p_3(V)}{967680}\\
&+\frac{381p_1(V)^4-904p_1(V)^2p_2(V)+208p_2(V)^2+512p_1(V)p_3(V)-192p_4(V)}{464486400}+... \notag\end{aligned}$$ We will start with the case when dim $Y=8$. Then by the usual Atiyah-Singer index theorem for families of Dirac operators we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{classes}
\operatorname{ch}_0 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})&=\int_Y -\frac{4p_2(V)}{5760}\\
\operatorname{ch}_2 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})&=\int_Y \frac{44p_1(V)p_2(V)-16p_3(V)}{967680}\notag\\
&\vdots \notag\end{aligned}$$ Recall that in the notation above we have $V_1=V_{{\mathbb{C}}}$. Some manipulations with formal Chern variables show $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{ch}(V_{{\mathbb{C}}})&=8+p_1(V)+\frac{p_1(V)^2-2p_2(V)}{12}+\frac{p_1(V)^3-3p_1(V)p_2(V)+3p_3(V)}{360}\\
&+\frac{p_1(V)^4-4p_1(V)^2p_2(V)+2p_2(V)^2+4p_1(V)p_3(V)-4p_4(V)}{20160}+...\notag\end{aligned}$$ After multiplying this by (\[ahat\]), the index theorem (\[ordfamthm\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{ch}_0(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_1})&=\int_Y -\frac{31p_2(V)}{180}\\
\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_1})&=\int_Y \frac{-13 p_1(V)p_2(V) + 62 p_3(V)}{7560}\\
&\vdots\end{aligned}$$ Notice that if $p_1(X)=0$ then $p_1(V)=-\pi^*p_1(X)=0$ and then $\operatorname{ch}_0(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_1})=248 \operatorname{ch}_0 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})$ and $\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_1})=-496 \operatorname{ch}_2 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})$ agreeing with (\[ch0s\]) and (\[ch4s\]), respectively. However, when $p_1(V)=-\pi^*p_1(X)\neq 0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{ch}_2(\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}}^{V_{{\mathbb{C}}}})&=\int_Y-496\frac{44p_1(V)p_2(V)-16p_3(V)}{967680} +30\frac{-4p_2(V)}{5760}(-p_1(V)) \\
&=-496\int_Y\frac{44p_1(V)p_2(V)-16p_3(V)}{967680}+30p_1(X)\int_Y-\frac{4p_2(V)}{5760}\\
&=-496\operatorname{ch}_2 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})+30\operatorname{ch}_0 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})p_1(X)\end{aligned}$$ agreeing with (\[p1not0\]).
The equation (\[start\]) follows from Theorem \[bigthm\]. Here we will also show how it follows from direct computation. First, recall $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat a(V,\tau)e^{G_2(\tau)p_1(V)}&=\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\frac{y_i}{\sigma(y_i,\tau)}e^{G_2(\tau)y_i^2}\\
&=\prod_{i=1}^{m/2}\exp(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{2}{2n!}G_{2n}(\tau)y_i^{2n})=\exp\left(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{2}{2n!}G_{2n}(\tau)(y_1^{2n}+...+y_{m/2}^{2n})\right)\end{aligned}$$ and after making use of the Newton identities which express the power sums in the basis of elementary symmetric polynomials this can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat a (V,\tau)&e^{G_2(\tau)p_1(V)}\\
&=\exp\left(-\frac{E_2(q)}{24}p_1(V)+\frac{E_4(q)}{2880}(p_1(V)^2-2p_2(V))+\frac{E_6(q)}{181440}(p_1(V)^3-3p_1(V)p_2(V)+3p_3(V))+...\right)\notag\end{aligned}$$ We will write $p_i$ for $p_i(V)$ in the following. Expanding this out we get something of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat a (V,\tau)&e^{G_2(\tau)p_1(V)}=F(p_1,q)-\frac{E_4(q)p_2}{1440}+\frac{84E_2(q)E_4(q)p_1p_2+48E_6(q)p_1p_2-48E_6(q)p_3}{2903040}+...\end{aligned}$$ where $F(p_1,q)$ is some expression only depending on powers of $p_1$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{sch}_{\leq 4} (q)&=\int_Y \widehat a (V,\tau)e^{G_2(\tau)p_1(V)}=\int_Y -\frac{E_4(q)p_2}{1440}+\frac{84E_2(q)E_4(q)p_1p_2+48E_6(q)p_1p_2-48E_6(q)p_3}{2903040}\\
&=\int_Y-\frac{p_2}{1440}\left(E_4(q)+\frac{1}{4}\frac{E_2(q)E_4(q)-E_6(q)}{3}(-\frac{p_1}{2})\right)+\frac{44p_1(V)p_2(V)-16p_3(V)}{967680}E_6(q)\\
&=\operatorname{ch}_0 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})\left(E_4(q)+\frac{1}{4}DE_4(q)\left(\frac{p_1(X)}{2}\right)\right)+\operatorname{ch}_2 (\operatorname{Ind}{\slashed {\partial}})E_6(q).\end{aligned}$$ Continuing this to higher degrees in cohomology gives (\[start\]).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I am thankful to my PhD advisor Orlando Alvarez for suggesting this problem and for all of his guidance along the way. I am also thankful to Nikolai Saveliev for many helpful discussions and corrections to earlier versions of this paper. Many thanks also go to Anatoly Libgober for also going through the earlier versions and for many valuable comments.
[^1]: `[email protected]`
[^2]: Since we are working only with rational cohomology, we ignore the subtler condition that $p_1(M)/2$ should equal $0$ in integral cohomology.
[^3]: The spin condition on $X$ is really only necessary in the last section.
[^4]: It is sufficient to require just that $p_1(V)=0$ instead.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'E. Koulouridis'
- 'L. Faccioli'
- 'A. M. C. Le Brun'
- 'M. Plionis'
- 'I. G. McCarthy'
- 'M. Pierre'
- 'A. Akylas'
- 'I. Georgantopoulos'
- 'S. Paltani'
- 'C. Lidman'
- 'S. Fotopoulou'
- 'C. Vignali'
- 'F. Pacaud'
- 'P. Ranalli'
bibliography:
- 'mylib.bib'
date: 'Received/Accepted'
subtitle: |
XIX. A realistic population of simulated X-ray AGN:\
Comparison of models with observations
title: 'The XXL Survey[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The cosmological evolution of supermassive black holes (SMBH) is a vibrant topic in modern astrophysics. Its importance has been recognized ever since the discovery that virtually all massive galaxies in the local Universe host a central SMBH with a mass proportional to that of the galaxy spheroid [e.g. @Kormendy95; @Magorrian98; @Ferrarese00; @Gebhardt00; @Tremaine02; @Marconi03; @Gultekin09; @Kormendy09; @Zubovas12]. This tight relation indicates that SMBHs and their host galaxies co-evolve, but the physical processes that lead to this relation are still debated.
SMBHs grow primarily by accreting surrounding mass that leads to emission through various physical processes and to the appearance of an active galactic nuclei (AGN). An accurate census of the AGN is essential in understanding the cosmic history of accretion onto SMBHs and its relation to the host galaxy. Theoretical models proposed an AGN-driven feedback which can successfully expel gas from the galaxies in order to explain this interactive co-evolution [e.g. @Granato04; @Monaco05; @Springel05; @Croton06; @Hopkins06; @Schawinski06; @Cen11]. In addition, over the past decade or so both semi-analytical models of galaxy formation and full cosmological hydrodynamical simulations faced the problem of an excessively large number of bright galaxies formed in massive haloes [cooling crisis, e.g. @Balogh01]. These results pointed towards the necessary inclusion of AGN feedback in order to suppress the star formation and produce the observed luminosity functions.
AGN demographics can provide an assessment of the cosmic SMBH growth history. The AGN luminosity function (LF) is an especially powerful tool when studied over a wide range of redshift and wavelength [e.g. @Maccacaro83; @Maccacaro84; @Maccacaro91; @Boyle93; @Boyle94; @Boyle00; @Page96; @Ueda03; @Ueda14; @Wolf03; @Barger05; @Hasinger05; @LaFranca05; @Richards06; @Bongiorno07; @Silverman08; @Croom09; @Aird10; @Aird15; @Buchner15; @Assef11; @Fiore12; @Ranalli16; @Fotopoulou16]. Arguably, the most effective way to detect active galaxies is through X-ray observations [e.g. @Brandt15]. The majority of the detected extragalactic X-ray sources are AGN, while their unresolved integrated contribution essentially builds up the X-ray cosmic background [@Setti89; @Comastri95]. Although several methods and models have been explored over the years, there are still uncertainties in the evolution of the LF at high redshift and the amount of nuclear obscuration. Further progress in such studies will require larger AGN samples and knowledge of the joint ($N_{\rm H},z$) distribution [@Ueda14].
Producing a realistic simulated X-ray AGN population that originates directly from the SMBH population can provide an invaluable tool in the study of structure and SMBH evolution. Used in conjunction with the underlying large-scale structure, it could hint to the physical mechanisms that lead to the observed properties of AGN populations, for example the correlation function of AGN, the halo occupation distribution (HOD), the environmental differences of obscured and unobscured AGN. It is also of great importance for X-ray cluster surveys, especially of the high-$z$ universe ($z>$1) where the level of contamination of the X-ray cluster emission by a powerful AGN is largely unknown. Therefore, such a catalog can be of unprecedented value in the era of precision cosmology.
However, difficulties arise from the many uncertainties regarding the observed X-ray properties of AGN. Firstly, there is no established consensus on the ratio of X-ray to bolometric luminosity. Although several X-ray samples have been used over the years [e.g. @Marconi04; @Hopkins07; @Vasudevan10; @Lusso12; @Shankar13] to produce a reliable bolometric correction function, the results remain discrepant. Secondly, the column density distribution of the AGN torus is a highly disputed topic. All X-ray background and unabsorbed X-ray luminosity function (XLF) studies [e.g. @Ueda14; @Buchner15; @Ranalli16; @Fotopoulou16] had to address the issue but the adopted approaches differ from study to study. Most of the results do indicate, however, a strong luminosity dependence [e.g. @Ueda03; @Ueda14; @Simpson05] and an evolution of the column density [e.g. @LaFranca05; @Hasinger05; @Ueda14].
In the current paper, we have used the output AGN catalogs from the cosmo-OWLS suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations [@Lebrun14] to produce a simulated population of X-ray AGN up to redshift 3, and we have compared with observations. As shown by @Lebrun14, models which include AGN feedback perform significantly better than those that do not with regards to reproducing the observed properties of local galaxy groups and clusters. Assessing the realism of the predicted AGN population in the simulations is therefore a powerful independent test of the simulations that invoke AGN feedback. In Sect. 2 we present the simulations and the SMBH modeling. We also present the XXL survey, which we used to compare the projected correlation function of the simulated AGN with observations, and within the framework of which the X-ray AGN modeling was undertaken. In Sect. 3 we describe the applied methodology and in Sect. 4 we present the results and compare the properties of the simulated AGN catalog with observations. Finally, in Sect. 5 we summarize our results and discuss the possible future applications of the catalog.
We call (a.) the X-ray AGN catalog after applying the bolometric corrections “the unabsorbed X-ray AGN catalog", (b.) the one derived after applying obscuration ”the absorbed X-ray AGN catalog“, and (c.) the one after applying the simulated [*XMM-Newton*]{} observational features and the detection pipeline “the detected X-ray AGN catalog". An outline of the procedure and of the products is presented in Table 1. When referring to the soft and the hard band we always mean the 0.5-2 keV and the 2-10 keV bands, respectively.
Data description
================
The cosmological hydrodynamical simulations
-------------------------------------------
The cosmo-OWLS simulations were carried out with a version of the Lagrangian TreePM-SPH code GADGET3 [last described in @Springel05], which has been modified to include additional sub-grid physics. The volume was defined by a 400 $h^{-1}$ (comoving) Mpc on a side periodic box. The initial conditions were based either on the maximum-likelihood cosmological parameters derived from the 7-year WMAP [@Komatsu11] or the Planck data [@PlanckXVI]. The number of particles was 2$\times1024^3$, yielding dark matter and (initial) baryon particle masses of $\sim 3.75\times10^9 h^{-1} M_{\sun}$ and $\sim 7.54\times10^8 h^{-1} M_{\sun}$ for the WMAP7 cosmology. In the current work, we have used the WMAP7 runs by default, since the WMAP-predicted cluster density is consistent with the observed number count in the XXL survey, in contrast to the Planck cosmology predictions [@Pacaud16]. Nevertheless, the Planck runs were also tested and a comparison is presented. Further details about the way radiative cooling rates, reionization, star formation, stellar evolution and SN feedback were implemented in the cosmo-OWLS can be found in @Schaye10 and references therein.
For each simulation, ten different light cones were produced, each of 25 deg$^2$, thus matching the area of one XXL survey field (see Sect. 2.3). The interested reader can refer to @McCarthy14 for further details of the light-cone making method. X-ray maps for the hot diffuse gas were produced for each light cone by summing the X-ray emission of each gas particle along the line of sight in pixels of $2.5''$, matching the real XXL pixel scale. A description of how the X-ray emission of gas particles was computed can be found in @Lebrun14. X-ray AGN were then added to the maps, using the actual locations of accreting SMBHs in the simulations (i.e. we create light cones for the SMBHs as well) and their predicted X-ray emission, which is described below.
SMBH modeling in the cosmo-OWLS
-------------------------------
Three of the cosmo-OWLS runs included AGN feedback as the result of accretion onto SMBHs. This was incorporated using the sub-grid prescription of @Booth09, where the interested reader can find all the details of the modeling. However, we summarize the essential ingredients for the present study.
During each simulation, an on-the-fly friends-of-friends (FoF) algorithm is applied on the dark matter particles. All haloes with more than 100 particles (a corresponding mass of log$_{10}[M_{FoF} (M_{\sun}h^{-1})]\approx11.6)$ are seeded with SMBH sink particles. The initial SMBH mass is 0.001 times the (initial) gas particle mass ($\sim10^5 M_{\sun}h^{-1})$.
The simulated SMBHs grow via Eddington-limited, modified Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion [@Bondi44; @Hoyle39] and by merging with other SMBHs. The accretion rate is given by:
$$\dot m_{acc}=\alpha\frac{4\pi G^2M^2_{\rm SMBH}\rho}{(c^2_s+u^2)^{3/2}},$$
where $M_{\rm SMBH}$ is the mass of the black hole, $\rho$ and $c_s$ are the gas density and the sound speed of the local medium, and $u$ is the relative velocity of the black hole to the ambient medium. The relation is modified with respect to the standard Bondi accretion rate through the inclusion of the multiplicative $\alpha$, that was originally introduced by @Springel05b to correct for the limitations of the simulations. Specifically, in typical cosmological hydro simulations, the numerical resolution is too low to resolve the Bondi radius, and therefore the estimated accretion rate will be an underestimate of the true rate. Furthermore, and more importantly, many cosmological hydro simulations (such as OWLS, Illustris, EAGLE, etc.) do not include an explicit modeling of the cold interstellar medium (ISM), but instead invoke an equation of state for dense gas, in order to avoid numerical fragmentation. The use of an equation of state, which adds pressure to the gas (to mimic turbulence in the ISM), can also lead to a significant underestimate of the gas density near the SMBH, and therefore an underestimate of the accretion rate onto the SMBH.
In order to overcome these problems, @Springel05b, and most subsequent studies that used this model, adopted a constant $\alpha$=100. OWLS and cosmo-OWLS adopted a somewhat different strategy, following @Booth09. In particular, in @Booth09, $\alpha$ depends on the local gas density, as $\alpha \propto \rho^2$. However, at low densities, which can be resolved by the simulations, the accretion rate reverts back to the standard Bondi rate (i.e. with $\alpha=1$).
The black hole mass grows following the relation: $$\dot M_{\rm SMBH}=m_{acc}(1-\epsilon_r),$$ where $\epsilon_r$ is the radiative efficiency of the black hole, fixed at 10% here. In addition, 15% of the radiated energy is coupled to the surrounding medium (i.e. feedback), while the remaining 85% is allowed to escape.
The accretion rate is always limited by the Eddington rate: $$\dot m_{\rm Edd}=\frac{4\pi G^2M_{\rm SMBH}m_p}{\epsilon_r\sigma_{T} c},$$ where $m_p$ is the proton mass, $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson cross-section and c the speed of light.
The Eddington ratio $\lambda$ is defined as $$\lambda=L_{bol}/L_{Edd},$$ where $L_{Edd}=(M_{\rm SMBH}/M_{\sun})\times1.3\times10^{38}$erg sec$^{-1}$.
Finally, SMBH-SMBH mergers takes place when two black holes were within a distance $h_{BH}$ and their relative velocity $\upsilon$ was less than the circular velocity ($\upsilon<\sqrt{Gm_{BH}/h_{BH}}$, where $h_{BH}$ is the smoothing length and $m_{BH}$ is the mass of the most massive SMBH). When these conditions are met, the merger takes place instantaneously.
### AGN feedback
As discussed earlier, AGN feedback is an important ingredient of the simulations which is necessary to suppress star formation and avoid the excessive formation of very massive galaxies. @Lebrun14 showed that the inclusion of AGN feedback leads to good agreement between the stellar masses of real and simulated brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs). The feedback also regulates the accretion onto the black holes themselves. Therefore, we anticipate that different feedback models will directly affect the predicted AGN demographics (e.g. the XLF). We note that SN feedback is also modeled in the simulations. In this section we summarize briefly the AGN feedback modeling.
cosmo-OWLS transforms a fraction of the rest-mass energy of the accreted gas into heating of the neighbouring gas particles, by increasing their temperature. An advantage of the @Booth09 model is that it overcomes the problem of numerical overcooling (i.e. the problem that feedback energy can be rapidly radiated away due purely to low mass resolution). This is accomplished by raising the temperature of only a small number $n$ of surrounding gas particles by a predefined amount of $\Delta T$. To this end, a fraction $\epsilon$ of the accreted energy is stored in the SMBH until it reaches the predefined value. $\Delta T$ and $n$ are chosen such as to produce a sufficiently long cooling time and the time needed for a feedback event to be shorter than the Salpeter time for Eddington-limited accretion. It is shown that $\Delta T = 10^8$K and $n=1$ satisfy the two constraints (AGN 8.0 model). However, in @Lebrun14 two more values of $\Delta T$ were tested, that is $3\times10^8$K (model 8.5) and $5\times10^8$K (model 8.7). The AGN 8.0 model proved more suitable for the purposes of that paper with Planck cosmology, while with WMAP7 the observational data tends to be bracketed by the AGN 8.0 and AGN 8.5 models. In the current work we have tested both models.
Note than when $\Delta T$ is set to a higher value, more time is needed to accumulate the energy to heat the gas particle and we actually simulate more energetic bursts. As already noted, the net efficiency $\epsilon$ is set to 0.015, which results in a good match to the normalization of the $z=0$ relations between SMBH mass and stellar mass and velocity dispersion, as well as to the observed cosmic SMBH density, as demonstrated by @Booth09 and @Lebrun14.
Finally, the cosmo-OWLS output SMBH catalog, which is the input SMBH catalog in the current study, provides the position, the redshift, the mass and the bolometric luminosity $L_{bol}$ for all SMBHs for the 25 deg$^2$ light cones up to redshift $z=$3.
The XXL survey
--------------
The XXL Survey is the largest [*XMM-Newton*]{} project approved to date ($>$6 Msec), surveying two $\sim$ 25 deg$^2$ fields with a median exposure of 10.4 ks and at a depth of $\sim5\times10^{-15}$ erg sec$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the \[0.5-2\] keV soft X-ray band (completeness limit for the point-like sources). The two fields have extensive multi-wavelength coverage from X-ray to radio. A general description of the survey and its goals was published by @Pierre16. To date some 450 new galaxy clusters have been detected out to redshift $z\sim2$, as well as more than 20000 AGN out to $z\sim4$. The main goal of the project is to constrain the dark energy equation of state parameter, $w$, using clusters of galaxies. This survey will also have lasting legacy value for cluster scaling laws and studies of galaxy clusters, AGN, and X-ray background. The XXL-S (Southern) field, which we use in the current study, is one of two XXL fields, centered at RA=23$^{h}$30 and DEC=-55$^{d}$00.
Methodology
===========
In the following sections we describe the procedure used to convert the output black hole catalog of the simulations to the final X-ray AGN catalog.
We preselected our sample so that only active black holes were included. To this end, we set an absolute accretion rate threshold of $10^{-6} M_\odot/$year [@Ho08], which corresponds to a bolometric luminosity cut of $\sim 5\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$. This cut eliminated almost one-third of the SMBH sample, but we note that SMBHs with luminosities below this threshold would not be detected with current surveys. Therefore, our cut was a conservative one. We further assumed that all AGN with luminosities exceeding this threshold were X-ray emitters and therefore potentially detectable in X-ray surveys. This was a reasonable assumption because almost all identified AGN by optical, infrared, and radio techniques show X-ray AGN signatures [see review on AGN demographics by @Brandt15 and references within]. Therefore, X-ray emission seems to be almost universal, at least for the luminous AGN. Nevertheless, it appears that a small number of intrinsically X-ray weak but luminous AGN does exist [e.g. @Wu11; @Luo14]. However, current studies indicate that they are so rare that their impact on demographic studies should be substantially small [e.g. @Gibson08; @Wu11; @Luo14].
An alternative strategy, which has been adopted in some previous theoretical studies [e.g. @Rosas16], would be to select which AGN will be X-ray emitters based on the predicted Eddington ratio. The motivation for this comes from the fact that there is a known empirical correlation between the Eddington ratio and the predominant emission wavelength [e.g. @Dai04; @Saez08]. Without an Eddington ratio cut, there is the potential that we will include low-Eddington rate sources (e.g. radio AGN) in our sample. However, as we will show, recent observations suggest that X-ray AGN actually span a relatively wide range of Eddington ratios (which we will compare to; see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6), which means that there would be a strong possibility to exclude genuine X-ray emitters by adopting a fixed Eddington threshold (e.g. 0.01, as adopted in some previous studies). This argues against adopting a fixed Eddington rate threshold. Furthermore, we will show that, with our adopted luminosity cut, only a negligibly small fraction of our selected simulated AGN have very low Eddington accretion rates of $\lambda < 10^{-4}$, which are typical of radio AGN.
Below we describe the (inverse) bolometric corrections (i.e. to convert the simulated bolometric luminosity into an observable X-ray luminosity) and the application of AGN obscuration to produce our final X-ray AGN sample.
3 pt
---------------------- -------------- -----------
Tool or methodology output results
[*(1)*]{} [*(2)*]{} [*(3)*]{}
cosmo-OWLS (Sect. 2) SMBH catalog
---------------------- -------------- -----------
: Methodology outline
Bolometric correction
---------------------
Despite a concerted effort to combine various X-ray and optical surveys (e.g. XMM-COSMOS, CDF-N, CDF-S, ROSAT, SDSS, 2dF) while exploiting the area of shallow surveys and the depth of pencil-beam surveys, there is still no general consensus between different studies on the fraction of the total bolometric luminosity ${\rm L_{bol}}$ that is emitted at X-ray wavelengths [for a comparison between different studies see @Lusso12 L12 hereafter]. Nevertheless, most studies do agree that the correction depends on the luminosity itself, in the sense that the correction becomes increasingly large with increasing bolometric luminosity. However, the scatter in published relations is relatively large. In addition, a number of studies [e.g. @Vasudevan07; @Vasudevan09b; @Vasudevan10] presented evidence that the bolometric corrections depend primarily on the Eddington ratio and not the luminosity of their low-$z$ AGN samples. @Shankar13 studied thoroughly this relation using semi-empirical models of AGN, but they concluded that their modeling, although it becomes very elaborate, cannot reproduce well the observational constraints. We note, however, that L12 reported a clear correlation of increasing Eddington ratio with increasing luminosity up to redshift 2.3, which implies that probably both are correlated with the bolometric corrections in a similar way.
In the current study we have implemented the simple approach of adopting luminosity-dependent bolometric corrections only, of which we tried several. As we will show, for recently-determined bolometric corrections from either L12 or @Marconi04 [M04 hereafter], the simulations predict a hard XLF that is consistent with observations; @Ranalli16, @Aird15, @Miyaji15 and @Buchner15 (see Sect. 4.1).
It is worth noting that we also explored using the bolometric corrections proposed by @Hopkins07, but found significantly worse agreement with the observed XLF. To estimate the bolometric corrections, @Hopkins07 combined a large number of optical, soft and hard X-ray, and mid-IR catalogs. They provide the bolometric corrections for a wide range of bolometric luminosities. However, we found that the level of the proposed corrections is very high, producing an under-luminous simulated X-ray AGN population that fails to reproduce the hard band unabsorbed XLF. This may be attributed to the inclusion of reprocessed emission in their calculations (although we cannot rule out that the discrepancy could also be due in part to inadequacies in the underlying predicted bolometric LF). M04, by contrast, constructed a template spectrum to study the local black hole properties of optical QSOs and they explicitly removed the IR bump in order to estimate the bolometric corrections without the reprocessed radiation. However, they assumed that the template spectrum, and thus the derived bolometric corrections, is redshift independent. On the other hand, L12 derived empirical bolometric corrections using [*XMM-COSMOS*]{} hard X-ray selected AGN. Their corrections are generally smaller than those proposed by M04, but consistent within the scatter. The sample used in L12 spans the full redshift range up to $z=3$ but, as expected, the AGN population at low redshifts is undersampled. Therefore, it is possible that there is a mild evolution of the bolometric corrections which can reconcile the differences in the corrections proposed by L12 and M04. In any case, we explore using both corrections in Sect. 4.1, showing that adopting either leads to reasonable agreement with the observed XLF. In both cases the functions are approximated by third degree polynomials: $$y=\alpha_1x+\alpha_2x^2+\alpha_3x^3+\beta,$$ where $y={\rm log_{10}}[L_{bol}/L_{band}]$, and $x={\rm log_{10}}[L_{bol}/L_{\sun}]-12$. The set of parameters ($\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \beta $) are given by (L12: 0.217, 0.009, -0.010, 1.399) and (M04: 0.22, 0.012, -0.0015, 1.65) for $L_{band}=L_{[0.5-2 keV]}$, and by (L12: 0.230, 0.050, 0.001, 1.256) and (M04: 0.24, 0.012, -0.0015, 1.54) for $L_{band}=L_{[2-10 keV]}$.
Obscuration
-----------
Obscuration was implemented for our X-ray catalog following the absorption function $f(L_X,z;N_{\rm H})$ introduced by @Ueda14. To derive this function they used a highly-complete sample compiled from several surveys using [*Swift/BAT, MAXI, ASCA, XMM-Newton, Chandra*]{}, and [*ROSAT*]{}. The function takes also Compton-thick AGN (log $N_{\rm H}>24$) into account. The level of absorption is strongly luminosity-dependent and it evolves with redshift. In particular, the frequency of absorbed AGN (log$N_{\rm H}>22$) rises steeply with decreasing AGN luminosity, rising from $\sim$20% for high-luminosity AGN ($L_X>10^{45}$ erg sec$^{-1}$) to more than 80% for the low-luminosity sources. Also, the function includes a positive evolution of the absorbed fraction with redshift, as reported by several studies [e.g. @LaFranca05; @Ballantyne06; @Treister06; @Hasinger08]. We note that there are large uncertainties involved in these calculations, as clearly stated in @Ueda14, especially for the faint AGN.
We did not implement any further criteria that may play a role in the obscuration of black holes; for example interactions and merging of the host galaxies. This could in principle have an impact on the correlation function of obscured AGN compared to the unabsorbed population. However, studies using X-ray selected samples [e.g. @Coil09; @Ebrero09; @Mountrichas12] did not find significant differences, although @Elyiv12 reported different clustering for hard and soft X-ray sources.
Obscured fluxes in the soft and the hard X-ray bands were calculated with NASA’s HEASARC tool PIMMS[^2] (Portable, Interactive Multi-Mission Simulator), where the k-correction was applied assuming a power law spectra with photon index $\Gamma=1.9$ [e.g. @Nandra94].
Simulated [*XMM-Newton*]{} images and source detection
------------------------------------------------------
Synthetic X-ray images were created from the perfect-sky X-ray photon-maps and the input X-ray AGN catalog. We also added a realistic background, which included X-ray photons (vignetted), solar soft protons (vignetted), and particles (not vignetted). We modeled the photon background, following @Snowden08, as the sum of a Galactic and an extragalactic contribution. The Galactic contribution was computed by the superposition of two absorbed MEKAL components [@Mewe85] at $0.1$ keV and $0.25$ keV from the galactic halo and another, unabsorbed, MEKAL component at $0.1$ keV from the Local Hot Bubble; the extragalactic contribution (from unresolved AGN) was modeled as a power law with index 1.46. The solar soft proton background was modeled after @Snowden08, as a power law with index 0.9; particle background was computed from 200ks [*XMM-Newton*]{} exposures with closed filter wheel and we chose not to include flares.
Finally, an ideal event list was created by merging the above contributing photons. It was then blurred to simulate the [*XMM-Newton*]{} instrumental effects: PSF blurring (assuming a King profile PSF), energy blurring, vignetting; particle background was also added. In all cases we assumed a 10 ks exposure time, as in the XXL survey. Photons were reshuffled in position and energy, or were discarded according to the simulated local effective area, exposure time, vignetting factor, detector (MOS1, MOS2, PN) or filter (THIN). Therefore, we obtained three event lists (one for each EPIC detector) that included instrumental effects and which were converted to images in the 0.5-2 keV and 2-10 keV bands at $2.5''$ per pixel. We also produced the corresponding exposure maps.
Source extraction was performed on these images for the soft and the hard band separately, in the same way as for the XXL survey images, via the XAmin pipeline [@Pacaud06]. In more detail, first a preliminary list of source candidates was selected by running SEXtractor [@Bertin96] on a wavelet smoothed combined (MOS1, MOS2, PN) X-ray image. Then, on each candidate source, a series of fits was performed on the three raw X-ray images: a point source model (assuming a position-dependent [*XMM-Newton*]{} PSF), an extended source model (assuming a $\beta=2/3$ profile), a double point source model (two [*XMM-Newton*]{} PSFs close on the image), and an extended$+$point source model ($\beta=2/3$ profile with central [*XMM-Newton*]{} PSF). In @Pacaud06 the threshold level for a significant detection has been chosen in order that any detection compatible with a non-extended source would have a $\sim$99% probability of being a real source and not background fluctuation.
An example of the resulting images and pipeline detections of the above procedure is presented in Fig. 1. The detected AGN have usually more than 10 counts, while the remaining input sources are either detected at low significance or not detected at all.
Results
=======
In the following sections we present the comparison of the synthetic AGN catalogs with observational results. Obtaining a good agreement is essential for any further application of the simulated catalogs.
Unabsorbed hard X-ray luminosity function
-----------------------------------------
After implementing the bolometric corrections described in Sect. 3.1, we produced catalogs of X-ray AGN and their respective intrinsic X-ray luminosity (before obscuration). To assess how closely these catalogs relate to the observed X-ray AGN population, we compare our results to the unabsorbed (de-obscured) hard band XLF of @Ranalli16, @Aird15, @Miyaji15 and @Buchner15. The differential luminosity function $\Phi$ is defined as the number of objects $N$ per comoving volume $V$ and per unabsorbed luminosity $L$ as follows: $$\label{eq:lf}
\Phi(L,z)=\frac{d^2N(L,z)}{dVdz}.$$ The comparison within ten redshift bins up to $z=3$ is illustrated in Fig. 2. For clarity we mainly plot data points from @Aird15, except in the $z=2.5-3$ range where @Miyaji15 data are more pertinent. We also plot the 90% confidence interval of the non-parametric fit by @Buchner15. This is an important addition since their analysis, which takes all uncertainties and the contribution of Compton-thick AGN into account, does not predict the sharp flattening of the XLF towards low-luminosity high-redshift bins, a common behaviour of previous parametric fits.
Using the empirical bolometric corrections of L12, the simulations reproduce the observed XLF in all redshift bins, although there is possibly a slight overestimate for the local population at $z<0.5$ (Fig.2, top panels), according to the XLF by @Aird15. However, the results are more consistent with @Buchner15. Using the template spectra corrections of M04, the simulations reproduce the XLF up to roughly $z\sim0.5$, but somewhat underestimate it at higher redshifts. Recall that the M04 corrections are probably more accurate for the low redshift population, since they were computed from a template spectra at $z$=0, while the L12 corrections are based on X-ray observations that cover the full redshift range but undersample the local population. Therefore, assuming a mild evolution of the bolometric corrections, one can use the M04 functions for the low redshift sources ($z<0.5$) and L12 for high-$z$ sources. Alternatively, L12 can be used exclusively, bearing in mind the probable overestimation of bright low-$z$ sources, although all points are consistent within 2-$\sigma$. We note that, applying a mild evolution on the M04 relation in order to reach the L12 level gradually by $z\sim0.5$ does not alter the results considerably. We will therefore use the results based exclusively on the L12 estimations for the rest of the paper, although we thoroughly tested all alternatives. No qualitative differences were found.
In general, it is apparent that simulations are in good agreement with observations within all redshift and luminosity bins. Nevertheless, above redshift 1.5 the simulated points in low-luminosity bins start to deviate, showing a tendency to overestimate the number of faint AGN. This discrepancy, which evolves with redshift, could be due to the limitations of the simulations, or the applied bolometric corrections, or the completeness of the observational surveys. However, we note that the simulations are fully consistent with the non-parametric results of @Buchner15, which do not support the sharp flattening of the XLF. For relatively shallow surveys like the XXL (10 ks average exposure time), this area of the XLF is mostly unprobed, since such faint sources at such high redshifts would not be detected. However, it becomes more relevant for deeper surveys. At the bright end, our results agree very well with the XLF by @Aird15, but they are located at the lower limit of the fit by @Buchner15. The plotted points of the XLF by @Ranalli16, where they also use the 11 deg$^2$ of the XMM-LSS field, shows that we may indeed underestimate the bright population at high redshifts, but not greatly.
Finally, in Fig.3, we present the X-ray luminosity functions that we obtain using a different cosmology (Planck, as opposed to WMAP7) and the AGN8.5 feedback model from cosmo-OWLS (as opposed to our default choice, the AGN8.0 model). We use L12 bolometric corrections. It is apparent that changing the cosmology does not affect the results, since they are extremely similar to what we obtain with WMAP7 (Fig.2). On the other hand, as expected, the AGN feedback plays an important role. The relatively low level of the XLF for the AGN8.5 model, compared to the AGN8.0 model, shows that adopting a more powerful feedback results in a less effective accretion and therefore, in a less luminous AGN population.
We also compare our results with those of other recent simulations, including the EAGLE [@Rosas16] and the Magneticum Pathfinder simulations [@Hirschmann14] in Fig. 3. In terms of the comparison to EAGLE, the predicted XLFs agree relatively well at the faint end of the XLF, while they tend to underpredict the bright end. This difference may be due to the limited volume of the EAGLE simulations, the use of the M04 bolometric corrections, the exclusion of low-$\lambda$ sources (they omit log$_{10}\lambda<-2$ sources), and/or differences in the modeling of SMBH accretion rates. By contrast, the Magneticum Pathfinder simulations, which also use the M04 corrections, tend to overpredict the XLF at most luminosities and the discrepancy tends to grow with redshift. The steep drop of the predicted XLF at high redshifts and low luminosities may be due to the adoption of an inefficient mode of accretion for all log$_{10}\lambda<-1$ sources.
Eddington ratio and SMBH mass distribution
------------------------------------------
In this section, we study the differential Eddington ratio distribution function ($\Phi_\lambda$) and the differential SMBH mass function ($\Phi_\bullet$) of the synthetic X-ray population. The two functions follow the formalism of eq. (\[eq:lf\]) replacing $L$ with $\lambda$ and $M_{\rm SMBH}$, respectively.
The Eddington ratio, being the ratio of the bolometric luminosity to the Eddington luminosity, is a clear indication of activity, although there is no explicit threshold which characterizes a turning point. Also, it is apparently redshift dependent. In the local Universe, the majority of AGN have $\lambda$ between $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-3}$ [see review by @Alexander12 and references therein]. In the same review, they also argue that optically-detected AGN have an Eddington ratio distribution that peaks at $10^{-2}$. On the other hand, X-ray AGN from z=0.3 to 2.5 have a typical Eddington ratio between $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-1}$ [e.g. @Babic07; @Hickox09; @Raimundo10; @Lusso12]. However, at higher redshift the uncertainties are very large.
Firstly, we compare the intrinsic unobscured AGN population (type 1, $N_{\rm H}<10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$), between redshift 1 and 2, to the results of relevant studies: X-ray selected sources ($z$=1.18-1.68) from the [*SUBARU XMM-NEWTON Deep Field*]{} [SXDS, @Ueda08] described in @Nobuta12, and optically selected sources from the VVDS [@LeFevre13] and zCOSMOS [@Lilly07] surveys ($z$=1.0-1.9 and $z$=1.1-2.1, respectively) described in @Schulze15. To determine the unobscured simulated sample we apply the torus obscuration as described in Sect. 3.2. Comparing the unobscured population is the optimal choice, since obscuration corrections are minimal, especially in the hard X-ray band. In addition, a significant part of the accretion growth probably takes place within this redshift range. In Fig. 4, we plot the Eddington ratio distribution function (ERDF) and the black hole mass function (BHMF) of the above observational data and of our results (limited to $L_{bol}>10^{44}$ erg sec$^{-1}$). Observational data are corrected for incompleteness with the 1/$V_{max}$ method. We find a good agreement between simulations and observations in both cases. However, the shape of the VVDS ERDF is discrepant. We also plot the distribution of our data in the low-$z$ ($z<1$) and the high-$z$ ($z>2$) range. There is a clear evolution of the two functions, namely a significant increase of low-$\lambda$ and high-mass sources toward lower redshifts. Owing to the luminosity limit, the number of sources down to approximately $\lambda$=-2 increases only in the low-$z$ range and then rapidly decreases. However, if we relax the imposed luminosity limit, the number of sources increases continuously towards low $\lambda$ and low $M_{\rm SMBH}$, in agreement with the modeling of @Schulze15 which takes the low-flux sources below the limit of the surveys into account.
Secondly, to reproduce the observational results presented in L12, we divide our sample in two redshift bins, $z<1.2$ and $1.2<z<2.3$, and in unobscured (type-1, $N_{\rm H}<10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) and obscured (type-2, $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}>N_{\rm H}>10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) sources. X-ray luminosity lower-limits were also imposed for the same reason. In Fig.5 we plot Eddington ratio vs. bolometric luminosity (left panels), and black hole mass (right panels). There is an excellent agreement between simulations and observations within 1-$\sigma$. AGN8.5 results are more discrepant, especially in the high-$z$ range. We note that the axes are not independent and the trends need to be carefully explained. As expected, obscured and unobscured sources with the same intrinsic luminosities have the same Eddington ratio distributions (the same lines represent both samples in the left panels). The differences between the two types in the low-$z$ range, reported in L12, are not observed. Nevertheless, we find a clear evolution toward higher Eddington ratios at higher redshifts. On the other hand, when $\lambda$ is plotted versus mass the two AGN types differ. We argue that the difference is a result of the shift of the type-2 sample toward lower luminosities, meaning that if we select subsamples of the same luminosity distribution then the differences disappear. Nevertheless, the evolution is again apparent. Finally, if we relax the luminosity lower-limits, the simulated SMBH distributions flatten significantly, as expected by the shape of the BHMF in Fig. 4.
In Fig. 6, we plot the Eddington ratio distribution of the simulated X-ray AGN catalog divided in three redshift bins. There is a clear increase of the of high-$\lambda$ fraction with increasing redshift, both before (left panels) and after (right panels) introducing the observational and instrumental effects described in Sect. 3.3 (10 ksec exposures). The low-$z$ AGN sample exhibits the lowest Eddington ratio values that peak roughly at $10^{-3}$ in both cases, while the majority of sources above $z$=2 have $\lambda$ values above 10$^{-2}$. Evidently, the steep evolution found for the detected sources is partly due to selection effects, since deeper surveys probe more low-$\lambda$ AGN at higher redshifts than shallow ones. This is demonstrated by overplotting data from the [*Chandra*]{} deep fields [@Raimundo10; @Babic07] and from the Galaxy Evolution Survey (AGES) [@Hickox09]; the deep surveys trace the perfect-sky distribution, while the shallow match with our 10 ks exposures. This is in agreement with the strong positive correlation of $\lambda$ with luminosity, found in previous studies and presented in Fig.5.
Considering the above results, we conclude that our final AGN catalog follows the observed trends rather well.
Projected correlation function and comparison with observations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final assessment of the simulated X-ray AGN catalog is the comparison of the predicted large-scale spatial distribution, as quantified by the projected two-point correlation function, with that of the real XXL data. This is of great importance since large-scale structure is a powerful diagnostic for tracing the cosmic evolution of the AGN (and galaxy) populations. We note that X-ray, IR and radio-selected AGN display different clustering properties, a fact which implies that specific modes of SMBH accretion may be related to the host dark matter halo [e.g. @Hickox09; @Melnyk13], although selection effects cannot be ruled out.
The soft band projected correlation function of the southern XXL sample of spectroscopically confirmed point-like sources and its possible systematics will be presented in detail in a forthcoming paper. The southern field has been chosen for this study due to the homogeneity of its spectroscopic follow-up data, which is based uniquely on the multifiber AAOmega facility on AAT, as compared to the northern field which is based on a compilation of different surveys with different instruments, limiting magnitudes, selection biases and solid angles. The XXL-S spectroscopic sample contains roughly $\sim 3740$ out of the $\sim4100$ total X-ray point sources (a ${\raise
-2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise5.truept\hbox{$>$}\ }}$90% completion) with $r$-band magnitude $\lesssim 21.8$ (the instrument detection limit), obtained during two AAT observing runs. The fraction of sources being stars is $\sim$10%, and our final AGN spectroscopic sample therefore consists of 3355 unique sources, out of which 3106 are detected in the soft X-ray band sources and 1893 in the hard.
To compare the simulation with the XXL-S AGN projected correlation function, which is based only on confirmed sources, we need to avoid the spurious simulation detections of the pipeline. To this end, we correlated the resulting catalog of significant pipeline detections with the true simulated X-ray AGN input catalog (before the creation of the XMM images). This resulted in $\sim7000$ soft band X-ray sources, a number consistent with that of the real XXL data but a factor of $\sim$2 larger than that of the XXL-S sources with spectroscopy, an unavoidable fact due to the limiting magnitude of the AAOmega spectroscopic facility.
To avoid the so-called redshift space distortion effects we used the projected correlation function, $w_p(r_p)$ [@Davis83], which is based on deconvolving the redshift-based comoving distance, $s$, in a component parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight, $\pi$ and $r_p$, respectively, as $s^2=r_p^2+\pi^2$. Then the so-called projected correlation function can be found by integrating $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ along the $\pi$ direction: $$\label{eq:wp}
w_p(r_p)=2\int_{0}^{\infty}\xi(r_p,\pi) \mathrm{d}\pi \;.$$ The real space correlation function can be recovered according to Davis & Peebles (1983): $$\label{eq:wp}
w_p(r_p)=2\int_{0}^{\pi_{\rm max}}\xi\left(\sqrt{r_p^2+\pi^2}\right)
{\rm d}\pi =2\int_{r_p}^{\infty}
\frac{x \xi(x)\mathrm{d}x}{\sqrt{x^2-r_p^2}}\;.$$ Modelling $\xi(x)$ as a power law one obtains: $$\label{eq:wp_model}
w_p(r_p)=A(\gamma) r_p \left(\frac{x_{0}}{r_p}\right)^{\gamma},$$ with $x_{0}$ the projected comoving clustering length at the effective redshift of the sample, and $$A(\gamma)=\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\frac{\gamma-1}{2}\right)/\Gamma\left(\frac{\gamma}{2}\right),$$ with $\Gamma$ the usual gamma function.
We note that eq. (\[eq:wp\]) holds strictly for $\pi_{\rm max}=\infty$, while in order to avoid redshift-space distortions the integral is performed up to a finite value of $\pi_{\rm max}$, which in turn produces an underestimation of the underlying projected correlation function. However, for the aim of comparing the clustering of the real XXL-S sources to that of the simulated AGN we do not recover the true projected comoving correlation length, $x_0$, but we just compare directly the $w_p(r_p)$ representation of the correlation function for the same value of $\pi_{\rm max}$.
In Fig. 7, we present the projected correlation function of the ten realizations of the simulated XXL point-sources together with that of the XXL-S spectroscopic sample. In both cases we have limited the sources to those with $L_X>10^{41}$ erg sec$^{-1}$. It is evident that there is a quite good consistency between data and simulations for $r_p\gtrsim 3$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc, although at small separations there is a deficiency of the XXL-S correlation function with respect to that of the simulations (a fact which could possibly be attributed to the spectroscopic targeting strategy which will be discussed in a forthcoming paper).
Summary and discussion
======================
We presented the methodology used to produce a simulated population of X-ray AGN from the SMBH population of the cosmo-OWLS hydrodynamical simulations. The resulting AGN catalogs were compared with observations to assess if they follow the observed trends. We used ten light-cones of 25 deg$^2$ each, up to redshift 3.
Black holes in cosmo-OWLS grow through accretion of surrounding gas and merging with other black holes. Stellar disruption is neglected. Some previous studies argue, however, that it may play an important role for AGN demographics [e.g. @Milosavljevic06], i.e. that many low-luminosity AGN may be due to the accretion of disrupted stellar mass. The rates of these events, as reported from X-ray surveys, are rather low ($10^{-4}-10^{-5}$/yr/galaxy) and agree well with theory and simulations [see @Komossa12]. Simulations however, showed that these rates are independent of the SMBH mass and thus only the growth of the intermediate or least massive SMBHs may be dominated by stellar disruptions [e.g. @Brockamp11], while white dwarfs (extremely common) can only be observed in X-rays when they are disrupted by intermediate-mass black holes, $M_{\rm SMBH}<10^5 M_{\sun}$ [e.g. @Luminet89; @Rosswog09]. In addition, observations show that the X-ray LF for moderate-luminosity active galactic nuclei is not due to tidal disruptions [@Luo08]. We note that there are many uncertainties affecting these results and other effects which might reduce the fraction of stellar matter that is finally accreted by the black hole.
In the present study we have used the bolometric corrections calculated in L12 from X-ray AGN in the XMM-COSMOS survey. M04 bolometric corrections, derived from template spectra, can also be used at the low-$z$ range. We argue that the two approaches are complementary (see Sect. 3.1). Probably the most interesting result is how well the simulated catalog reproduces the intrinsic luminosity function [@Aird15; @Miyaji15] in almost all redshift bins and luminosities. A small discrepancy only appears at low-luminosities above redshift 1.5, which increases with redshift. This discrepancy is also present in other hydrodynamical simulations like the EAGLE [@Rosas16] and the Magneticum Pathfinder simulations [@Hirschmann14]. However, we note that our results are in good agreement with the non-parametric XLF of @Buchner15.
To produce obsured and unobscured AGN catalogs, we applied obscuration to all our sources following the obscuration function by @Ueda14. Following the observational trends, the function is luminosity-dependent and it evolves with redshift. Additional induced obscuration during galaxy merging was not considered. However, it is possible that a correlation of AGN obscuration with merging exists, meaning that galaxy interactions and merging may lead to the triggering of SMBH activity [e.g. @Hopkins08; @Koulouridis06b; @Koulouridis06; @Koulouridis13; @Villarroel14], and to an enhancement of obscuration during the initial stage of AGN evolution [e.g. @Koulouridis14; @Villarroel17].
We compared our AGN catalog properties with observational results (Eddington ratio distribution, black hole mass function) and we concluded that the simulated AGN population comprises sources that reproduce well the observed tendencies and the evolution of the Eddington ratio, meaning that at higher redshift AGN accrete more efficiently. Selection effects were also discussed.
We also compared the projected two-point correlation function of the simulated AGN catalog with the corresponding one from the $\sim$25 deg$^2$ southern XXL field. The relatively good reproduction of the X-ray AGN large-scale structure, both in observations and the simulation, has important consequences for cosmology as it is related to the initial fluctuation spectrum and its evolution. It further implies that the dark matter haloes, hosting X-ray selected AGN, correspond directly to the simulated ones, and thus the simulation provides a test-bed for understanding the physical processes shaping the triggering and evolution of the SMBHs in the Universe. We caution that the selection of the sources is not exactly the same, with the XXL-S data sources being a magnitude limited sample defined by the AAOmega limit of $r\simeq 21.8$. Nevertheless, another interesting part of the general agreement is the fact that an optical host-galaxy magnitude limited AGN sample agrees quite well with the underline X-ray AGN sample, represented by the simulation data. In a forthcoming paper (Plionis et al. in prep.), which studies the AGN clustering in much greater detail, we perform a thorough and consistent comparison of the simulations and the XXL point-source redshift data.
On the X-ray cluster side, this sample can give valuable insight for the high redshift ($z>1$) X-ray cluster population. X-ray clusters are indeed detected in the redshift range between $z$=1 and 2, but the level of AGN contamination and their selection function are completely unknown. Very little is also known for the AGN which reside in clusters (not the BCG) at these redshifts. There are indications of a turn-over point at $z=1$ where not only AGN [e.g. @Martini13] but also star forming galaxies behave differently regarding their preference on dense environments. Our catalogs are well suited to explore this kind of questions in a statistical sense.
On the other hand, a successful synthetic AGN population should reproduce not only the observed AGN demographics, but also the detailed scaling relations of SMBHs, including their slope, amplitude, intrinsic scatter, and evolution. Recent studies demonstrated the essential role of the velocity dispersion in the relation between SMBHs and their host galaxies [e.g. @Bluck16; @Shankar16]. In addition, there is evidence of significant bias in the Maggorian relation [e.g. @Lasker16; @Reines16; @Shankar16], which introduces further complications for a realistic AGN modeling. Unfortunately, the relatively low resolution of the current simulations (a spatial resolution of 4 kpc/h, which owes to the fact that we are simulating huge volumes of the universe in order to model the galaxy cluster population) prevents us from being able to make meaningful comparisons of this sort at present. Measurements of the line-of-sight velocity dispersions at small scales would therefore be unreliable. Furthermore, we note that these simulations, like most cosmological simulations, do not reproduce in detail the observed galaxy stellar mass function, therefore we do not expect some of the scaling relations to be realistic.
In the present study, we have focused on the quasar demographics first, as this is crucial to our modeling and interpretation of the XXL survey. Going forward, however, the models must continue to be improved and challenged.
Given the limitations of the simulations and the uncertainties of the models used in the current work, we were able to produce synthetic X-ray AGN catalogs which perform well when compared with observations. The advantage of these catalogs is that the properties of the X-ray sources are directly linked to that of their host dark matter haloes and thus they can be used in conjunction with the underlying large scale structure distribution provided by the simulations.
In brief, to produce a realistic synthetic AGN population:
- we used the SMBH list of the cosmo-OWLS simulations [@Lebrun14 AGN8.0 feedback model, WMAP7 cosmology],
- we used the empirical assessment of the bolometric corrections by @Lusso12 to convert the simulated AGN bolometric luminosities to X-ray emission,
- we applied the obscuration function by @Ueda14 to compute the column density of the AGN torus and the observed X-ray flux,
- we modeled the X-ray background by adding (a) the X-ray photon and solar proton contribution following Snowden et al. (2008), and (b) the particle background from 200 ks closed filter wheel [*XMM-Newton*]{} exposures, and
- we simulated all instrumental and survey-dependent signatures.
We argue that the described methodology can be applied on the output of next generation hydrodynamical simulations [e.g. BAHAMAS: @Mccarthy17], while, by adjusting the instrumental and the survey-dependent parameters, the produced synthetic AGN catalogs can provide predictions for future X-ray missions.
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for constructive comments that have helped us to improve the quality of this paper. We would like to thank James Aird, Johannes Buchner and Yetli Rosas-Guevara for providing their data and Joop Schaye for helpful discussions. XXL is an international project based around an [*XMM-Newton*]{} Very Large Programme surveying two 25 $deg^2$ extragalactic fields at a depth of $5\times10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in \[0.5-2\] keV at the 90% completeness level (see XXL paper I). The XXL website is http://irfu.cea.fr/xxl. Multiband information and spectroscopic follow-up of the X-ray sources are obtained through a number of survey programmes, summarized at http://xxlmultiwave.pbworks.com/. EK acknowledges the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and CNRS for support of post-doctoral research. FP acknowledges support by the German Aerospace Agency (DLR) with funds from the Ministry of Economy and Technology (BMWi) through grant 50 OR 1514 and grant 50 OR 1608.
[^1]: Based on observations obtained with [*XMM-Newton*]{}, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA.
[^2]: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/tools/pimms.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Long-lasting emission of short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is crucial to reveal the physical origin of the central engine as well as to detect electromagnetic (EM) counterparts to gravitational waves (GWs) from neutron star binary mergers. We investigate 65 X-ray light curves of short GRBs, which is six times more than previous studies, by combining both [*Swift*]{}/BAT and XRT data. The light curves are found to consist of two distinct components at $>5\sigma$ with bimodal distributions of luminosity and duration, i.e., extended (with timescale $\lesssim10^3$ s) and plateau emission (with timescale $\gtrsim10^3$ s), which are likely the central engine activities but not afterglows. The extended emission has an isotropic energy comparable to the prompt emission, while the plateau emission has $\sim0.01-1$ times of that energy. A half (50%) of our sample has both components, while the other half is consistent with having both components. This leads us to [*conjecture*]{} that almost all short GRBs have both the extended and plateau emission. The long-lasting emission can be explained by the jets from black holes with fallback ejecta, and could power macronovae (or kilonovae) like GRB 130603B and GRB 160821B. Based on the observed properties, we quantify the detectability of EM counterparts to GWs, including the plateau emission scattered to the off-axis angle, with [*CALET*]{}/HXM, [*INTEGRAL*]{}/SPI-ACS, [*Fermi*]{}/GBM, [*MAXI*]{}/GSC, [*Swift*]{}/BAT, XRT, future [*ISS-Lobster*]{}/WFI, [*Einstein Probe*]{}/WXT, and [*eROSITA*]{}.'
author:
- Shota Kisaka
- Kunihito Ioka
- Takanori Sakamoto
title: 'Bimodal Long-Lasting Components in Short Gamma-Ray Bursts: Promising Electromagnetic Counterparts to Neutron Star Binary Mergers'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:introduction}
============
The physical origin of short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) remains unknown despite intensive studies [e.g., @N07; @LR07]. The leading model for a progenitor of short GRBs is neutron star (NS) binary mergers including NS-NS and black hole (BH)-NS binaries [e.g., @NPP92], as inferred from the short emission timescale, the energetics, and the wide variety of their host galaxy type [@B14]. However, there is no smoking-gun evidence for the merger hypothesis yet.
The best way to verify the merger hypothesis is to detect coincident gravitational waves (GWs). Recently, the GW astronomy has begun since the direct detections of GWs from BH-BH binaries, GW 150914, LVT 151012, GW 151226, and GW 170104 by Advanced LIGO [@Abbott+16a; @Abbott+16b; @Abbott+16c; @Abbott+17]. An NS binary merger is also associated with the GW emission that is detectable by the current GW detectors [@Abbott+16d]. Simultaneous detection of GW and electromagnetic (EM) emission, particularly the association to short GRBs, will provide valuable information for understanding the progenitor of short GRBs [e.g., @MB12; @FMH17].
Activities of the central engine of short GRBs continue much longer timescale ($\gg1$ s) than the duration of the prompt emission ($\lesssim 1$ s) [e.g., @Barthelmy+05; @IKZ05; @NB06]. [*Swift*]{}/BAT has detected more than 100 short GRBs, and $\sim70\%$ of them have been also detected by [*Swift*]{}/XRT [^1]. Some [*Swift*]{}/XRT light curves show a long duration with rapid flux decline, which is only produced by activities of the central engine [e.g., @IKZ05]. By investigating the properties of the long-lasting components, we can obtain a clue to the central engine of short GRBs, and improve the strategies for the simultaneous detection with GW emission.
One of the long-lasting activities in short GRBs is the extended emission with timescale $\sim100$ s, which is much longer than typical accretion timescale [e.g., @Barthelmy+05; @NB06]. In some bursts, the fluence of the extended emission is comparable to or even higher than that of the initial pulse [e.g., @Per+09]. The fraction of bursts with the extended emission in the $\gamma$-ray band ($>15$ keV) is $\sim$2-25% [e.g., @NGS10; @Sakamoto+11; @BKG13; @KBGL15; @Lien+16]. However, as shown later, a larger number of the extended emission component may be missed in the [*Swift*]{}/BAT band (15-150 keV), because some bursts show extended emission only in the [*Swift*]{}/XRT band [0.3-10 keV; @Row+13; @Kag+15; @Lu+15; @Lu+17].
In addition, short GRBs with extended emission in the $\gamma$-ray band also have plateau emission with timescale $\sim10^3-10^4$ s in the [*Swift*]{}/XRT band [@GOWR13; @GOW14]. Some theoretical models for the plateau emission suggest an activity of the central engine such as a relativistic jet from a BH with a typical NS magnetic field $\sim10^{12}$ G [@KI15] or a pulsar wind from a highly magnetized ($\sim10^{15}-10^{16}$ G) and rapidly rotating ($\sim1$ ms) NS [e.g., @GOW14; @GWGO17]. Note that some of bursts without extended emission in the $\gamma$-ray band also show the plateau-like emission component [@Row+13; @Lu+15; @Lu+17].
In order to increase the detectability of EM counterparts to GWs from NS binary mergers, it is important to understand the properties of the long-lasting components. For example, their luminosity function is necessary to estimate the integration time of the follow-up observations. Comparing the duration distribution with the required integration time will determine the maximum number of pointing observations. Therefore, it is important to investigate the statistical properties of the long-lasting components from the current observational data in order to improve the observational strategies for the EM counterparts.
The properties of the long-lasting components are also important to characterize the interaction between the jets and the merger ejecta surrounding the central engine [e.g., @MQT08; @BMTQ12]. In particular, nearly isotropic emission is anticipated through the interaction [e.g., @MP14; @Nakamura+14; @KIT15; @KIN15; @HP15; @SZG16; @LDMW16; @GNP17]. Although the plateau emission may arise from a collimated relativistic jet, a significant fraction of the emission could be scattered to wider solid angle by the merger ejecta during the plateau emission activity [@KIN15]. Then, the properties of plateau emission are necessary to estimate those of the scattered component. In addition, the extended and plateau emission activities could heat the merger ejecta, which is observed as a macronova [^2] (or kilonova) in the optical and infrared bands [@K05; @YZG13; @KIT15; @KIN15]. The emission could be brighter than the macronova heated by the decay of the heavy elements [e.g., @LP98; @K05], in particular $r$-process elements [e.g., @Metzger+10; @KBB13; @TH13], which is widely discussed. The luminosity of the engine-powered macronova is determined by the properties of the long-lasting components [@KIT15; @KIN15].
Currently, the number of short GRBs with both the extended and plateau emission is only $\sim10$, whose extended emission was detected in the [*Swift*]{}/BAT band [@GOW14; @KI15]. The number is too small to statistically characterize the properties of the extended and plateau emission. On the other hand, some bursts without the BAT-detected extended emission actually show the features of the extended and plateau emission, that are flat flux evolution and rapid decline in the [*Swift*]{}/XRT band instead [@Row+13; @Lu+15; @Lu+17]. In fact, the fraction of the bursts with extended emission tends to be higher for softer threshold energy [@NGS10; @BKG13]. Hence, both the [*Swift*]{}/BAT and XRT bands should be used to identify the extended and plateau emission components [@Kag+15]. Then, the sample size of the extended and plateau emission components becomes large. With a large sample, we can investigate whether the extended and plateau emission is two distinct components or not, and whether all short GRBs have both components following the prompt emission or not.
In this paper, we investigate the light curves of 65 short GRBs with the sufficient [*Swift*]{}/XRT data to characterize the statistical properties of both extended and plateau emission. Using a phenomenological model, we extract the long-lasting components, the extended and plateau emission, from the observed light curves. In Section 2, we describe our sample and the light curve model. In Section 3, we provide the results of the obtained luminosity and duration of the extended and plateau emission, and show that the distributions are bimodal. In Section 4, we discuss the detectability of the long-lasting components as an EM counterpart to GW from NS binary mergers. In Section 5, we discuss implications for theoretical models based on the obtained properties of the long-lasting emission components. Conclusions and discussion are provided in Section 6.
SAMPLE AND MODEL {#sec:sample}
================
[lclcc]{}\
Name & Redshift & Reference & Extended emission & Plateau emission\
050509B & 0.2249 & @Prochaska+05 & &\
050724$^\ast$ & 0.257 & @Berger+05 & &\
051210 & (0.72) & &&\
051221A & 0.5464 & @Soderberg+06 & &\
051227$^\ast$ & 0.8 & @D'Avanzo+09 & &\
060313 & (0.72) & &&\
060614$^\ast$ & 0.1254 & @DellaValle+06 & &\
060801 & 1.1304 & @Berger+07 & &\
061006$^\ast$ & 0.4377 & @Berger+07 & &\
061201 & 0.111 & @B06 & &\
061210$^\ast$ & 0.4095 & @Berger+07 &&\
070714A & 1.58 & $^{\rm a}$ & &\
070714B$^\ast$ & 0.9224 & @Cenko+08 & &\
070724A & 0.4571 & @B09 & &\
070809 & 0.2187 & @Perley+08 & &\
071227$^\ast$ & 0.381 & @D'Avanzo+09 & &\
080123$^\ast$ & 0.495 & @LB10 & &\
080426 & (0.72) & & &\
080503$^\ast$ & (0.72) & & &\
080702A & (0.72) & & &\
080905A & 0.1218 & @Rowlinson+10 & &\
080919 & (0.72) & & &\
081024A & (0.72) & & &\
081226A & (0.72) & & &\
090426 & 2.609 & @Levesque+10 & &\
090510 & 0.903 & @McBreen+10 & &\
090515 & (0.72) & & &\
090621B & (0.72) & & &\
091109B & (0.72) & & &\
100117A & 0.915 & @Fong+11 & &\
100625A & 0.452 & @Fong+13 & &\
100702A & (0.72) & & &\
100724A & 1.288 & @Thoene+10 & &\
101219A & 0.718 & @Fong+13 & &\
110112A & (0.72) & & &\
111020A & (0.72) & & &\
111117A & 1.31 & @Sakamoto+13 & &\
111121A$^\ast$ & (0.72) & & &\
120305A & (0.72) & & &\
120521A & (0.72) & & &\
120804A & 1.3 & @Berger+13 & &\
121226A & (0.72) & & &\
130603B & 0.3564 & @deUgartePostigo+14 & &\
130912A & (0.72) & & &\
131004A & 0.717 & @CLB13 & &\
140129B & (0.72) & & &\
140516A & (0.72) & & &\
140903A & 0.351 & @Troja+16 & &\
140930B & (0.72) & & &\
150120A & 0.460 & @CF15 & &\
150301A & (0.72) & & &\
150423A & 1.394 & @Malesani+15 &\
150424A$^\ast$ & 0.30 & @Castro-Tirado+15 & &\
150831A & (0.72) & & &\
151127A & (0.72) & & &\
151229A & (0.72) & & &\
160408A & (0.72) & & &\
160411A & (0.72) & & &\
160525B & (0.72) & & &\
160601A & (0.72) & & &\
160624A & 0.483 & @CL16 & &\
160821B & 0.16 & @Levan+16 & &\
160927A & (0.72) & & &\
161004A & (0.72) & & &\
170127B & (0.72) & & &\
\[tab:parameter\]
In this paper, we refer to bursts as short GRBs if $T_{90}\le2$ s [@Kou+93], where $T_{90}$ corresponds to the duration that contains 90% of the burst fluence measured by the [*Swift*]{}/BAT instrument (15-150 keV). The short GRB data sample was taken from UK [*Swift*]{} Science Data Center [^3] [@Eva+07; @Eva+09]. We use the data observed by [*Swift*]{}/BAT [^4] and XRT [^5] to fit the light curve. Our sample consists of short GRBs with at least three detection points by [*Swift*]{}/XRT. We also include several bursts with $T_{90}>2$ s in our sample, which are considered as short GRBs with extended emission detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT [@GOWR13; @Lien+16]. Table 1 lists the sample of 65 short GRBs between January 2005 and June 2017, which corresponds to about a half of the entire short GRBs detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT. Our sample overlaps with that in the previous studies of [*Swift*]{}/XRT-detected short GRBs, which were discussed in the context of the NS engine model [@Row+13; @GOWR13; @GOW14; @Lu+15]. For the bursts without known redshift, we use the averaged value of the measured-redshifts in our sample $z=$0.72, which is in agreement with the values reported in other works [$<z>\sim0.5-0.8$; @Row+13; @D'Avanzo+14; @B14; @Lu+15].
We show that after the prompt emission, the light curve consists of two components: the extended and plateau emission. In order to identify the extended and plateau emission components, we adopt a phenomenological formula with two functions of a constant and subsequent power-law decay, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lightcurve}
L_{\rm iso}(t)&=&L_{\rm iso, EX}\left(1+\frac{t}{T_{\rm EX}}\right)^{-\alpha} \nonumber \\
& &+L_{\rm iso, PL}\left(1+\frac{t}{T_{\rm PL}}\right)^{-\alpha}, \end{aligned}$$ where $L_{\rm iso, EX}$, $L_{\rm iso, PL}$, $T_{\rm EX}$, and $T_{\rm PL}$ are the isotropic luminosities and durations of the extended and plateau emission, respectively [see also @Willingale+07]. In Equation (\[lightcurve\]), the time after the [*Swift*]{}/BAT detection in the rest-frame is $t$, and the temporal index is $\alpha$. As a fiducial value, we use $\alpha=40/9$ implied by the BH engine model [see Section \[sec:BHmodel\] for details; @KI15], where the exact value does not alter our conclusions unless much small value $\alpha\lesssim2$ is assumed (see Section \[sec:discussion\] for details). We define the extended emission as the emission with timescale $\lesssim10^3$ s, some of which are not detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT. For a longer timescale component ($\gtrsim10^3$ s), we define it as the plateau emission. We compare the phenomenological formula with the observations and obtain the model parameters $L_{\rm iso, EX}, L_{\rm iso, PL}, T_{\rm EX}$ and $T_{\rm PL}$ for each burst. We assume that the extended emission has to satisfy the condition $L_{\rm iso, EX}/L_{\rm iso, PL}\gtrsim10$, because a weak emission component is difficult to distinguish it from an X-ray flare. For the plateau emission, we require that there is at least one detection point whose luminosity is $>10$ times larger than that of the extended emission tail, $L_{\rm iso, EX}(t/T_{\rm EX})^{-\alpha}$ at $t>T_{\rm EX}$. Note that the identification of the extended and plateau emission is purely phenomenological.
RESULTS {#sec:results}
=======
[c]{}
{width="110mm"}
\
\
{width="110mm"}
[c]{}
{width="110mm"}
\
\
{width="110mm"}
[c]{}
{width="110mm"}
\
\
{width="110mm"}
[c]{}
{width="110mm"}
\
\
{width="36.7mm"}
Figure \[fig:lightcurve\] shows the observational data points of all bursts in our sample. The phenomenological light curves in Equation (\[lightcurve\]) with $\alpha=40/9$ are also shown as solid curves. The gray dot-dashed curves in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\] denote the possible components that were missed in the observations. We fit the phenomenological light curve to the observational data by eye inspection, because the light curves often have some additional complex structures such as X-ray flares. As shown in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\], the two-component light curves in Equation (\[lightcurve\]) is consistent with [*all*]{} the observations. In some bursts, the decay of the extended emission is too sharp to fit the phenomenological model [e.g., GRB 050724; @Barthelmy+05]. We discuss this possible issue in Section \[sec:BHmodel\].
In Table 1, we list two components, the extended and plateau emission, seen in the observed light curves for each burst. The fraction of short GRBs with the extended emission in our sample detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT and XRT is $49/65\sim0.75$. This is almost the same value, $26/32\sim0.81$, also for the redshift-measured bursts. The number of short GRBs with the extended emission is about a half of the total [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected short GRBs ($\sim100$ events). These indicate that the [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected short GRBs accompanying the extended emission is fairly common. The number of bursts with the plateau emission is 49 for all sample and 26 for redshift-known sample, which are (accidentally) the same values as the extended emission. The number of short GRBs with both the extended and plateau emission is 33, which is a half of our sample. Therefore, the association of both components is also common for short GRBs.
{width="160mm"}
Figure \[fig:histgram\] shows the luminosity (left panels) and duration distributions (right panels) for the [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected (light-blue) and BAT-non-detected extended emission (blue), and plateau emission (red). The histograms show a hint of a bimodal distribution. To quantify the bimodality in the histograms, we perform the Hartigan’s Dip Test [@H85] using ‘diptest’ CRAN package of the R software. The null hypothesis of this test is that a distribution is a unimodal distribution. The null probabilities of the dip test of the luminosity distributions (Figure \[fig:histgram\] (A), (C), (E) and (G)) are 0.404, 0.874, 0.341 and 0.539 for the samples of all GRBs, redshift-known GRBs, GRBs with both the extended and plateau components and GRBs with the single component, respectively. No statistically significant bimodality is evident in the luminosity distributions. However, in the duration distributions (Figure \[fig:histgram\] (B), (D), (F) and (H)), the null probabilities are $3.67 \times 10^{-3}$, $3.91 \times 10^{-3}$, $4.10 \times 10^{-3}$ and $1.73 \times 10^{-2}$ for the samples of all GRBs, redshift-known GRBs, GRBs with both the extended and plateau components and GRBs with the single component, respectively. Therefore, the duration distributions reject a unimodality, and prefer a bimodal distribution. Based on this Dip Test, the extended and plateau emission are very likely distinct populations. Namely, there are two distinct long-lasting components following the prompt emission in short GRBs. This is the first indication that two distinct long-lasting components are ubiquitous in short GRB light curves as far as we know (see the cluster analysis in Figure \[fig:L-T\] for stronger evidence). A normal afterglow cannot explain the plateau-like temporal evolution in the light curve [e.g., @SPN98]. The presence of the long-lasting components means that there are at least two activity phases related to the central engine in addition to the prompt emission. Our findings would not only serve as a key to the final understanding of the short GRBs, but also provide appropriate strategies to detect short GRBs as an EM counterpart to a GW source (Section \[sec:detectability\]).
Figures \[fig:histgram\] (A) and (B) show the distributions for all bursts in our sample. From Figure \[fig:histgram\] (A), the luminosity range of the extended emission is $10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}\lesssim L_{\rm iso, EX} \lesssim10^{50}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which is somewhat broader than that of the extended emission detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT [$10^{48}$ erg s$^{-1}\lesssim L_{\rm iso, EX}\lesssim10^{50}$ erg s$^{-1}$; e.g., @GOWR13; @GOW14]. The duration distribution of the extended emission is concentrated in $T_{\rm EX}\sim200$ s (Figure \[fig:histgram\] B). This narrowness of the $T_{\rm EX}$ distribution might be the intrinsic properties, or the observational bias that we are missing the extended emission with shorter duration due to time lag between the BAT triggering time and the observational starting time of [*Swift*]{}/XRT, $\sim60-100$ s. The luminosity and duration of the [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected and non-detected extended emission are continuously distributed, so that both populations would be the same component. The luminosity range of the plateau emission is $10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}\lesssim L_{\rm iso, PL}\lesssim10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The duration of the plateau emission is $T_{\rm PL}\sim10^4-10^5$ s. For comparison, Figures \[fig:histgram\] (C) and (D) show only the distributions for redshift-known bursts. There is no clear difference between the distributions for all and redshift-known bursts.
In Figures \[fig:histgram\] (E-H), we show the luminosity and duration distributions to compare between bursts with both components (panels E and F) and with single component (panels G and H). For the plateau emission, there seems to be some differences that the luminosity and duration of the bursts without the detectable extended emission are respectively high and short on average. A possible bias is that the exposure time of [*Swift*]{}/XRT is set to be too short to detect the low-luminosity and long-duration plateau emission for bursts without detectable extended emission.
{width="80mm"}
Figure \[fig:L-L\_T-T\] shows the luminosity-luminosity (A) and duration-duration plots (B) for the extended and plateau emission obtained from the fitting of the observed light curves. Plotted data are only short GRBs with both the extended and plateau emission. Because of our criterion for the extended emission ($L_{\rm iso, EX}/L_{\rm iso, PL}>10$), there is no event at the upper left region from the dashed line, $L_{\rm iso, PL}=0.1L_{\rm iso, EX}$, in Figure \[fig:L-L\_T-T\] (A). Although a weak positive trend may be seen in Figure \[fig:L-L\_T-T\] (A), there is a significant scatter in the distribution. For the durations, no significant correlation is seen in Figure \[fig:L-L\_T-T\] (B). Therefore, it is difficult to predict the luminosity and duration of the plateau emission with an accuracy of a factor of a few from those of the extended emission.
{width="100mm"}
Figure \[fig:L-T\] shows the luminosity - duration plot of the extended and plateau emission for all bursts of our sample. A notable feature is that two parameter regions of the extended and plateau emission in Figure \[fig:L-T\] are clearly separated. To quantify this finding, we apply model-based cluster analysis to the data using ‘mclust’ CRAN package [@FR02] of the R software. The luminosity - duration data can best be classified into two groups, which correspond to the clusters of the extended emission (blue of Figure \[fig:L-T\]) and the plateau emission (red of Figure \[fig:L-T\]). The significance of this bimodality is evaluated by the bootstrap approach using ‘mclustBootstrapLRT’ program which is a part of the ‘mclust’ package. Based on this analysis, the null hypothesis that the data are represented by a unimodal distribution is rejected at $>$5.2$\sigma$. Therefore, our result strongly supports that the extended and plateau emission are distinct components from each other. There is a general trend that the plateau emission with lower luminosity has longer duration (Figure \[fig:L-T\]), although there is a large scatter. From the light curve formula in Equation (\[lightcurve\]), the isotropic energy for each component $i(=$EX or PL) in 0.3-10 keV is $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm iso, i}=\frac{L_{\rm iso, i}T_{\rm i}}{\alpha-1}~~~(\alpha>1).\end{aligned}$$ Using the value $\alpha=40/9$, the isotropic energy is $E_{\rm iso, i}=(9/31)L_{\rm iso, i}T_{\rm i}$. From Figure \[fig:L-T\], the ranges of the isotropic energies of the extended and plateau emission are $10^{48}~{\rm erg}\lesssim E_{\rm iso, EX}\lesssim 10^{51}~{\rm erg}$ and $10^{47}~{\rm erg}\lesssim E_{\rm iso, PL}\lesssim 10^{51}~{\rm erg}$, respectively.
{width="100mm"}
Figure \[fig:EE-PL\] (A) plots the energies $E_{\rm iso, EX}$ and $E_{\rm iso, PL}$ for short GRBs with both components. The ratio of the energy is $E_{\rm iso, EX}/E_{\rm iso, PL}\sim1-100$. Figure \[fig:EE-PL\] (A) indicates that there is a possible positive trend between two energies $E_{\rm iso, EX}$ and $E_{\rm iso, PL}$ for all and redshift-measured bursts (filled circles).
Figures \[fig:EE-PL\] (B) and (C) show the isotropic energy plots of $E_{\rm iso, EX}$ and $E_{\rm iso, PL}$ relative to that of the prompt emission, $E_{\rm iso, PR}$. We use the [*Swift*]{}/BAT fluence (15-150 keV) taken from the [*Swift*]{} GRB Table [^6] to calculate $E_{\rm iso, PR}$. For the bursts with the [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected extended emission, we use the fluence of only a short pulse in the BAT energy band for $E_{\rm iso, PR}$ [Data are provided by A. Lien for GRBs listed in Table 3 of @Lien+16]. For GRB 060614, we use the fluence of the short pulse from @Gehrels+06. For GRB 080123, since the extended emission in the [*Swift*]{}/BAT band was weak [@Lien+16], we use the total fluence from the [*Swift*]{} GRB Table as the fluence of the prompt emission. Note that the observed peak energy of the prompt emission of short GRBs $E_{\rm peak}^{\rm obs}$ could be higher than 150 keV, and the photon index $\alpha_{\rm p}$ is typically $\sim-1$ [e.g., @Lien+16]. In the case of $E_{\rm peak}^{\rm obs}>150$ keV, the bolometric isotropic energy could be $\sim(E_{\rm peak}^{\rm obs}/150~{\rm keV})^{2+\alpha_{\rm p}}$ times higher than that in 15-150 keV band.
Figure \[fig:EE-PL\] (B) shows that the energies of the prompt and extended emission are almost comparable, $E_{\rm iso, PR}\sim E_{\rm iso, EX}$. The short GRBs with the [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected extended emission have a similar trend [e.g., @Per+09]. This also supports that both the extended emission detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT and XRT are the same component. For the plateau emission, although the isotropic energy is on average $E_{\rm iso,PL}\sim0.1E_{\rm iso, PR}$, a significant fraction of bursts has $E_{\rm iso, PL}$ comparable to $E_{\rm iso, PR}$ as shown in Figure \[fig:EE-PL\] (C). This would suggest that the plateau emission is also produced by the central engine activities. The energy $E_{\rm iso, PL}$ also seems to have a positive trend with $E_{\rm iso, PR}$.
Detectability as Electromagnetic Counterparts to Gravitational Wave Sources {#sec:detectability}
===========================================================================
{width="160mm"}
The leading model of short GRBs is an NS binary merger [e.g., @NPP92]. The NS binary merger is accompanied with strong GW emission, which can be detected by current GW detectors. A simultaneous detection of GW and EM emission would maximize the available information from this spectacular event [e.g., @MB12].
Current $\gamma$-ray detectors such as [*Swift*]{}/BAT can detect the prompt emission if the short GRB occurs within the GW detection horizon ($\sim100$ Mpc) and the GRB jet points to us. Since the duration of the prompt emission is $\lesssim1$ s, the detection probability is mainly determined by the field-of-view of the detectors.
The long-lasting components, the extended and plateau emission, are also bright enough for detections if a short GRB occurs within the GW detection horizon. By virtue of the long duration, the follow-up observations are possible after receiving the GW detection alert [within $\lesssim10^2$ s; @Singer+14; @CH15; @SP16]. Especially, since the duration of the plateau emission is longer than the orbital period of all-sky survey detectors, the detection probability is much higher than that determined by the ratio of the field-of-view to the all-sky.
Nearly isotropic emission is also expected. A significant fraction of the plateau emission could be scattered to a wide solid angle by the merger ejecta [@KIN15]. During the plateau activity timescale ($\sim10^4$ s), the radius of the plateau emission region is smaller than that of the expanding merger ejecta. The optical depth for the Thomson cross section is typically larger than unity during the plateau phase. Since the Lorentz factor is low ($\Gamma\sim10$) inside the jet due to the cocoon confinement [@BNPS11; @Nagakura+14], the relativistic beaming angle is larger than the jet opening angle $\theta_{\rm j}$. Then, the emitted photons with angle $\gtrsim\theta_{\rm j}$ relative to the jet axis are scattered to a large angle by the surrounding non-relativistic ejecta [@KIN15]. Since the collimated emission is scattered to an isotropic distribution, the luminosity of the scattered component is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scatter}
L_{\rm scatter}\sim10^{-3}(\theta_{\rm j}^2/10^{-3})L_{\rm iso, PL}. \end{aligned}$$
Here, we investigate the detectability of on-axis extended and plateau emission taking into account their luminosity and duration distributions. We also consider the detectability of the scattered plateau emission. Figure \[fig:detectability\] shows the energy flux and duration of the extended and plateau emission if the short GRBs in our sample occur at 100 Mpc, which is approximately the detection horizon of a binary NS merger for the current GW detectors [@Abbott+16d]. We use Equation (\[scatter\]) to estimate the flux of the scattered plateau emission [@KIN15]. In Figure \[fig:detectability\], we also plot the flux sensitivities of the current and planned X-ray detectors. Since the typical photon index of the extended emission is $\sim-2$ [@Lien+16] and a similar value within the uncertainty for the plateau emission (according to [*Swift*]{}/XRT GRB light curve repository [^7]), we neglect the difference of the energy bands for each detector to consider the energy flux.
From Figure \[fig:detectability\], the energy flux distributions of the extended and plateau emission are $\sim10^{-7}-10^{-4}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and $\sim10^{-11}-10^{-7}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, respectively. The monitoring observations by [*CALET*]{}/HXM, [*Fermi*]{}/GBM, [*INTEGRAL*]{}/SPI-ACS, and [*Swift*]{}/BAT can detect most of the extended emission population if the line of sight is within the jet opening angle. [*Swift*]{}/BAT and [*MAXI*]{}/GSC can detect some bright plateau emission. Note that [*MAXI*]{} scans the entire sky every 92-minute orbital period, which is comparable to or shorter than the duration of the plateau emission. Although [*eROSITA*]{} can detect most of the scattered plateau emission, its small field-of-view (0.833 deg$^2$) makes it difficult to detect the X-ray signals with GW simultaneously.
In the follow-up observations of the GW sources, [*Swift*]{}/XRT with 100 s integration time [@Kanner+12], future [*ISS-Lobster*]{}/WFI with 450 s integration time [@Camp+13], and future [*Einstein Probe*]{}/WXT with 1000 s integration time [@Yuan+15] can detect the plateau emission. These detectors can also detect the scattered plateau emission in the bright population including GRB 130603B (Figure \[fig:detectability\]).
The long-lasting activities of the central engine could significantly contribute to the heating of the merger ejecta [engine-powered macronova; @K05; @YZG13; @MP14; @KIT15; @KIN15]. The emission from the heated ejecta is observed as a macronova and has been discussed as a promising EM counterpart to the NS binary merger [e.g., @LP98; @K05; @Metzger+10; @KIT15; @KIN15; @KIN16]. The observed peak luminosity depends on the internal energy in the ejecta at the time when the diffusion timescale of photons in the ejecta becomes comparable to the dynamical timescale. If the energy injection timescale is earlier than the peak phase of the macronova, the internal energy in the ejecta decreases due to the adiabatic cooling. Then, the plateau emission is more effective for heating than the extended emission [@KIN15]. The internal energy in the heated ejecta after the energy injection ($t>T_{\rm PL}$) is $\sim E_{\rm int}(t/T_{\rm PL})^{-1}\propto L_{\rm iso, PL}T_{\rm PL}^2$, where the total injected energy is determined by the radiative efficiency $\eta$, the jet opening angle $\theta_{\rm j}$, the observed isotropic luminosity $L_{\rm iso, PL}$, and the duration $T_{\rm PL}$, as $E_{\rm int}=[(\theta_{\rm j}^2/2)/\eta]L_{\rm iso, PL}T_{\rm PL}$. Note that the value of $L_{\rm iso, PL}T_{\rm PL}^2$ for GRB 130603B ($L_{\rm iso, PL}\sim4\times10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $T_{\rm PL}\sim10^4$ s), which was first reported as a macronova event [@Tanvir+13; @BFC13], lies in the median of the distribution of $L_{\rm iso, PL}T_{\rm PL}^2$ (gray dot-dashed line in Figure \[fig:L-T\]). Thus the peak luminosity of the macronova associated with GRB 130603B is a typical value of the engine-powered macronova, implying that the dominant energy source could be the central engine not the radioactivity of $r$-process elements.
Implications for BH Engine Models {#sec:BHmodel}
=================================
{width="120mm"}
In Section 3, we show that the light curve of most short GRBs consists of bimodal long-lasting components following the prompt emission. The plateau-like evolution ($L\propto t^0$) is difficult to explain by the normal afterglow model [e.g., @SPN98]. For a single plateau model such as the spin-down of highly magnetized NSs [e.g., @U92; @ZM01; @GF06; @MQT08; @BMTQ12; @L13] and BHs [e.g., @BP11; @Nakamura+14], additional mechanisms to produce another component are required [@GOW14; @GWGO17].
The phenomenological light curve in Equation (\[lightcurve\]) is motivated by the BH engine model [@KI15]. An NS-NS or BH-NS merger leaves a BH with a surrounding disk and merger ejecta [e.g., @Hot+13; @Kyu+15]. In this model, a relativistic jet is launched via Blandford-Znajek (BZ) process [@BZ77] from the BH. For the BH with a mass $M_{\rm BH}$, a spin parameter $a=Jc/GM_{\rm BH}$, an angular frequency $\Omega_{\rm H}=ac/(2M_{\rm BH}r_{\rm H})$, and a magnetic flux $\Psi_{\rm BH}\sim\pi r_{\rm H}^2B_{\rm H}$, the total power of the BZ jet is [e.g., @BZ77; @TNM11] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L_BZ}
L_{\rm BZ}&\sim&\frac{\kappa}{4\pi c}\Omega_{\rm H}^2\Psi_{\rm BH}^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa\approx0.05$, $J$ is the angular momentum of the BH, $B_{\rm H}$ is the strength of the magnetic field at the BH, $r_{\rm H}$ is the radius of the BH horizon, $c$ is the light speed, and $G$ is the gravitational constant, We use $a/M_{\rm BH}\sim0.7$ as a fiducial value [@ST06]. Taking into account the beaming correction [$\theta_{\rm j}^2\sim10^{-3}$; @Fong+14; @Fong+15] and the radiative efficiency [$\eta\sim0.1$; @Zha+07], the observed isotropic luminosity is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L_iso}
L_{\rm iso}\sim\eta(2/\theta_{\rm j}^2)L_{\rm BZ}\sim10^2L_{\rm BZ}.\end{aligned}$$ As long as the pressure of fallback matter supports the magnetic flux on the BH, the BZ power remains flat, $L_{\rm iso}\propto t^0$ [see also @TG15].
The timescale of each component $T_{\rm i}$ is determined by the pressure balance between the fallback matter and magnetic field. Such a disk state is the so-called magnetically arrested disk [e.g., @NIA03]. If the matter pressure cannot support the magnetic flux on BH, the BZ power reduces. The temporal evolution of the mass accretion rate is [e.g., @R07; @Kyu+15], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dotM}
\dot{M}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{M_{\rm f}}{0.1~{\rm s}} \left(\frac{t}{0.1{\rm s}}\right)^{-5/3},~~~(t>0.1~{\rm s}),\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{\rm f}\equiv\int_{0.1~{\rm s}}^{\infty}\dot{M}dt$ is the total fallback mass after the reference time $t>0.1$ s. From the force balance between the matter and magnetic field pressures, the characteristic timescale of the BZ jet is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sec3:T}
T&\sim&1\times10^4~\left(\frac{M_{\rm f}}{10^{-3}M_{\odot}}\right)^{3/5}\left(\frac{B_{\rm H}}{10^{12}{\rm G}}\right)^{-6/5}~{\rm s}, \end{aligned}$$ where we use the BH mass $M_{\rm BH}=3M_{\odot}$, and the radial velocity $v_{\rm R}\sim10^{-2}\sqrt{GM_{\rm BH}/R_{\rm H}}$ [e.g., @TNM11; @ZCST14].
We discuss the implications for the BH engine model [@KI15] from the results in Section 3. Since the light curve implied by the BH engine model is consistent with the observations, the results in @KI15 are also applicable to our sample. Using the obtained parameters $L_{\rm iso, EX}$, $L_{\rm iso, PL}$, $T_{\rm EX}$, and $T_{\rm PL}$, we can estimate the magnetic field $B_{\rm H}$ and the total fallback mass $M_{\rm f}$ as follows. The strength of the magnetic field $B_{\rm H}$ is determined by the observed luminosity $L_{\rm iso}$ from Equation (\[L\_iso\]), as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B_H}
B_{\rm H}&\sim&3\times10^{12}~\left(\frac{\eta/\theta_{\rm j}^2}{10^2}\right)^{-1/2}
\left(\frac{L_{\rm iso}}{10^{47}{\rm erg~s}^{-1}}\right)^{1/2}{\rm G}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the total fallback mass $M_{\rm f}$ is derived from Equations (\[sec3:T\]) and (\[B\_H\]), as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M_f}
M_{\rm f}&\sim&1\times10^{-2}\left(\frac{\eta/\theta_{\rm j}^2}{10^2}\right)^{-1} \nonumber \\
& &\times\left(\frac{L_{\rm iso}}{10^{47}{\rm erg~s}^{-1}}\right)\left(\frac{T}{10^4{\rm s}}\right)^{5/3}M_{\odot}.\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[BHmodel\] shows the distributions of $B_{\rm H}$ and $M_{\rm f}$ from the observations. The ranges of the magnetic field strength are $B_{\rm H}\sim10^{12}-10^{14}$ G for the extended emission, and $B_{\rm H}\sim10^{11}-10^{13}$ G for the plateau emission. The range of the magnetic field for the plateau emission is consistent with that of typical NSs and PSR J0737-3039B in the double pulsar system [@Lyne+04]. The range of the fallback mass $M_{\rm f}\sim10^{-5}-10^{-1}M_{\odot}$ is consistent with the numerical relativity simulations [e.g., @Hot+13; @Kyu+15; @Kaw+15; @Foucart+15; @Foucart+17]. There is significant dispersion in the distribution of the derived fallback mass. For BH-NS mergers, the total mass and mass ratio of the binaries before the merger should have some dispersions, which may explain the dispersion of the fallback mass $M_{\rm f}$. On the other hand, for the NS-NS mergers, the dispersions of the total mass and the mass ratio are relatively narrow. Then, the large dispersion could stem from the varieties of the radiation efficiency $\eta$ and the jet opening angle $\theta_{\rm j}$.
Note that the populations of the extended and plateau emission do not overlap in $M_{\rm f}-B_{\rm H}$ plot (Figure \[BHmodel\]). This is because the distributions of two durations $T_{\rm EX}$ and $T_{\rm PL}$ are completely separated (Figure \[fig:L-T\]). In fact, two populations are split by the line $M_{\rm f}\propto B_{\rm H}^2$ derived from Equation (\[sec3:T\]) with $T=$ const. From Equation (\[sec3:T\]), the timescale does not depend on the radiation efficiency $\eta$ and the jet opening angle $\theta_{\rm j}$. Then, the populations of the extended and plateau emission do not overlap in Figure \[BHmodel\] irrespective of $\eta$ and $\theta_{\rm j}$.
In some bursts, the fallback mass calculated from the extended emission is rather different from that from the plateau emission (Figure \[BHmodel\]). The duration of extended emission $T_{\rm EX}$ could become short because of the decrease of the magnetic flux $\Psi_{\rm BH}$ via the magnetic reconnection [phase VI in Figure 2 of @KI15]. Then, the fallback mass $M_{\rm f}$ from Equation (\[M\_f\]) is underestimated. On the other hand, at the plateau emission phase, the initial magnetic flux of an NS before the merger would give the lower bound on $\Psi_{\rm BH}$ [phase VII in Figure 2 of @KI15]. Then, the fallback mass estimated from Equation (\[M\_f\]) tends to be larger than that for the extended emission. Therefore, it is reasonable that the fallback mass derived from the extended emission tends to be smaller than that from the plateau emission.
In a few bursts, the temporal flux decay at the end of the extended emission seems much steeper than the BH engine model [e.g., @Barthelmy+05]. Such steep decays are produced only by the activity of the central engine [@IKZ05]. The light curve model described in Equation (\[lightcurve\]) and shown in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\] is a simple toy model. Detailed processes such as the magnetic flux decay due to the magnetic reconnection near the BH horizon are not included in our model, and can produce the short-timescale seen at the end of the extended emission phase. In fact, the magnetic reconnection and the resultant decline of the magnetic flux occurs near the BH horizon, so that the minimum decay timescale of the extended emission is the light crossing time of the BH horizon ($\ll 1$ s).
For the light curve, we assume the temporal decaying index $\alpha=40/9$ in Equation (\[lightcurve\]). This value is calculated from the temporal evolution of the mass accretion rate, $\dot{M}\propto t^{-5/3}$ [e.g., @R07; @Kyu+15]. The mass accretion rate from the remnant disk of NS-NS and BH-NS mergers at late phase ($t>1$ s) has been studied [e.g., @MPQ08; @MAQM10; @FM13; @MF14; @Fer+15; @Fer+16]. If the effect of the disk outflow is negligible as in the low viscosity case, the mass accretion rate of the advection-dominated disk scales with $\dot{M}\propto t^{-4/3}$ [@MPQ08]. Then, the total fallback mass $M_{\rm f}$ required for the duration of the plateau emission is about an order of magnitude smaller than the results in Figure \[BHmodel\]. On the other hand, the disk winds are powerful and make the time dependence of the accretion rate steepen, $\dot{M}\propto t^{-2.2}$ after $t\gtrsim1$ s in some simulation results [@Fer+15; @Fer+16]. Then, the required mass $M_{\rm f}$ becomes large, an order of solar mass $\sim M_{\odot}$ in some fraction of the bursts. In addition, the heating by the decay of $r$-process elements could also affect the accretion rate [@MAQM10]. Since the current numerical simulations only follow up to $\lesssim 10$ s after the merger [@Fer+15; @Fer+16] and do not include some important effects such as the magnetic field [e.g., @Kiuchi+15; @SM17], further studies at late phase ($t\gg 10$ s) are required.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION {#sec:discussion}
==========================
We obtain the statistical properties of the extended and plateau emission components by comparing the phenomenological light curves with the observational data of 65 short GRBs detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT and XRT. The phenomenological light curve in Equation (\[lightcurve\]) is found to be consistent with [*all*]{} the observations in our sample. The number of bursts with both the extended and plateau emission components in our sample is 33, which is more than three times larger than that in previous works [@GOW14; @KI15]. Furthermore, the remaining bursts in our sample (32 bursts) may also have both emission components, which are consistent with the observations (gray dot-dashed curves in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]). This is the first statistical indication that the extended and plateau emission components are ubiquitous in short GRB light curves.
The extended and plateau emission are clearly distinct populations as shown in Figure \[fig:L-T\]. The ranges of the luminosity and duration for the extended emission are $L_{\rm iso, EX}\sim10^{47}-10^{50}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $T_{\rm EX}\sim10^2-10^3$ s, respectively. The ranges extend to the lower and longer values than those of the extended emission detected in the [*Swift*]{}/BAT band (Figure \[fig:histgram\]). The ranges of the luminosity and duration for the plateau emission, $L_{\rm iso, PL}\sim10^{43}-10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $T_{\rm PL}\sim10^4-10^5$ s, respectively, also extend to the lower and longer values than those in the previous works with a small number of sample [$\sim10$; @Row+13; @GOW14; @KI15]. The isotropic energy of the extended emission $E_{\rm iso, EX}$ is comparable to that of the prompt emission $E_{\rm iso, PR}$. The ratio $E_{\rm iso, EX}/E_{\rm iso, PR}\sim0.1-10$ is the same as the short GRBs with the extended emission detected in the [*Swift*]{}/BAT band [e.g., @Per+09]. On the other hand, the isotropic energy of the plateau emission, $E_{\rm iso, PL}\sim10^{47}-10^{51}$ erg, is $\sim1-100$ times lower than that of the prompt and the extended emission, $E_{\rm iso, PR}$ and $E_{\rm iso, EX}$.
We consider that the extended emission detected by [*Swift*]{}/BAT [e.g., @NGS11] is the same component detected by [*Swift*]{}/XRT with duration $\sim10^2$ s. Actually, the luminosity and duration are continuously distributed (Figure \[fig:histgram\]). The fraction of short GRBs with the extended emission in our sample is $\sim$75%, which is much higher than the previous values, $\sim2-25$% in the [*Swift*]{}/BAT data [@NGS10; @Sakamoto+11; @KBGL15; @Lien+16], 37.5% in bright short GRBs detected by both [*Swift*]{}/BAT and XRT [@Kag+15], $\sim5$% in the [*Fermi*]{}/GBM data [@KBGL15], and $\sim$7% in the BATSE data [@BKG13], although these statistical values should not be directly compared because selection criteria are different. The energy spectrum of the extended emission is soft compared with that of the prompt emission [e.g., @Kag+15; @Lien+16]. In addition, at early phase of the light curve $\sim10^2$ s, most of our samples are detected by [*Swift*]{}/XRT whose flux sensitivity is much higher than that of [*Swift*]{}/BAT. In fact, the [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected extended emission has the higher luminosity and shorter duration in the entire extended emission population as shown in Figure \[fig:histgram\]. These effects would increase the fraction of the XRT-detected bursts with the extended emission. On the other hand, the starting time of the observation by [*Swift*]{}/XRT is usually $60-100$ s after the prompt emission, which is comparable to the duration of the extended emission. Then, [*Swift*]{}/XRT would miss some of the extended emission with short duration, and the actual fraction of the short GRBs with the extended emission could be higher than $\sim75$%.
The fraction of the short GRBs with plateau emission in our samples is also $\sim$75%. Since the plateau emission is generally $\sim10^{-3}-10^{-4}$ times dimmer than the extended emission (Figure \[fig:L-L\_T-T\] A), the flux of the plateau emission in some bursts would be below the detection limit. Actually, the upper limit on the luminosity of the plateau emission in our sample is typically $\sim10^{44}-10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (gray dot-dashed curves in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]), higher than the lower end of the luminosity distribution of plateau emission (Figure \[fig:histgram\]) at the time $\sim10^5$ s. Therefore, the actual fraction would be higher than $\sim75$%, and it is consistent with that almost all short GRBs have the plateau emission component.
There is a possible indication for the short- and long-lived populations of the light curves at the plateau phase, $t>10^4$ s [@SG09]. From Figure \[fig:histgram\](B), the distribution may be composed by two distinct populations, $T_{\rm PL}\sim10^4$ s and $T_{\rm PL}\sim10^5$ s, although it is not so obvious in our sample.
The X-ray excess component with timescale $\sim10^6$ s, longer than the plateau emission, has also detected by [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} in some bursts [e.g., @Fong+14; @Fong+16]. For the excess component, the activity near the central engine such as an accretion disk is considered [e.g., @R07; @RB09; @Kyu+15; @KIN16]. For the excess component detected by [*XMM-Newton*]{} in GRB 130603B, the fallback mass $\sim0.02M_{\odot}$ are required to produce the observed luminosity $\sim10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at $\sim7$ day in the rest-frame if the radiation efficiency of the accretion disk is $\sim0.1$ and the mass accretion rate follows $\dot{M}\propto t^{-5/3}$ at $t>0.1$ s [@KIN16]. This is consistent with the mass $M_{\rm f}$ from the observed plateau emission parameters if the radiation efficiency of the jet $\eta\sim2.5\times10^{-2}$ at the plateau emission phase is assumed. From Figure \[BHmodel\], a fraction $\sim17\%$ of bursts with the plateau emission requires the fallback mass $M_{\rm f}\gtrsim0.02M_{\odot}$, so that these bursts could have the X-ray excess with $L\gtrsim10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at $\sim7$ day in the rest-frame. The excess component could also contribute to the energy source of the observed macronovae [@KIN16; @Jin+16].
We use the light curve data from UK [*Swift*]{} Science Data Center [@Eva+07; @Eva+09]. In some data, the exposure time is much shorter than the error duration. We show the data points with the low fractional exposure ($<0.1$) as gray points in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]. Even if we do not use such data, the results do not significantly change as shown in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]. For the last data point in some GRBs, even if the fractional exposure is close to unity, the arrival time of almost all the photons in the bin is clustering in the first short time range compared with the error duration. Then, we may overestimate the duration in the light curve fitting. A example is the last data point in GRB 090515, which is divided by the detection point with duration $<10^2$ s and the upper limit with $\sim10^3$ s in the analysis by @Rowlinson+10a. Note that for GRB 090515, the last data point corresponds to the decay phase of the extended emission (Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]), which could decay more rapidly than the model light curve. We consider that such data points do not significantly change our results.
The emission solid angles of the extended and plateau emission are unknown. If the emission is isotropic, the extended and plateau emission could be easily detectable as EM counterparts to the NS binary mergers. For the [*Swift*]{}/BAT-detected extended emission, @Nakamura+14 estimated the emission solid angle, $\sim10^{-3}$ steradian, by comparing the detection rate by [*Swift*]{}/BAT with the estimated merger rate $\sim10^3$ Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$.
From our results, the extended emission is mainly detected in the [*Swift*]{}/XRT band, and the luminosity range is $10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ $\lesssim L_{\rm iso, EE}\lesssim 10^{50}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The all-sky survey in soft X-ray band is planned by [*eROSITA*]{}. Let us consider the detection rate of the extended emission by [*eROSITA*]{} as a function of the emission solid angle, $\Delta\Omega_{\rm EX}$. The flux sensitivity limit of the [*eROSITA*]{} single survey pass is $\sim10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ [@Mer+12], which corresponds to the detection horizon $\sim100$ Gpc in the luminosity distance and the comoving volume $4\times10^3$ Gpc$^3$ for the luminosity $\sim10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Then, the event rate in the volume is $\sim0.1$ s$^{-1}$ for the NS binary merger rate $R_{\rm merger}\sim10^3$ Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$. Using the typical duration $\sim100$ s, there are always $\sim10$ events in the all-sky. Since a field-of-view of [*eROSITA*]{} is $0.833$ deg$^2$ and the scanning speed is one full circle per four hours [@Mer+12], the detection rate is relatively high $\sim0.5(\Delta\Omega_{\rm EX}/4\pi)(R_{\rm merger}/10^3~{\rm Gpc}^{-3}~{\rm yr}^{-1})$ day$^{-1}$. The events will be detected only in one scanning, in contrast to stationary sources. Therefore, [*eROSITA*]{} could significantly constrain the emission solid angle of the extended emission.
If the extended emission is isotropic, off-axis events should appear as short GRB-less X-ray flashes or long GRBs with relatively simple shaped light curves and unusual host galaxy properties compared to normal long GRBs. XRF GRB060428b, which had a light curve similar to an observed X-ray flash and which was localized to a potential host elliptical galaxy [@Perley+07], was suggested as a possible off-axis extended emission of short GRB [@MQT08]. We will investigate long GRB afterglows with similar light curves to short GRBs in future work.
In the light curves of long GRBs, the existence of a single long-lasting component, so-called the plateau emission in addition to the prompt emission and X-ray flares, has been established [e.g., @OBrien+06; @Willingale+07; @GNGC09; @Y09; @Grupe+13; @Rowlinson+14; @Dainotti+15; @Wang+15]. The duration distributions of the extended and plateau emission in short GRBs (Figure \[fig:L-L\_T-T\] B) are similar to those of the prompt and plateau emission in long GRBs, respectively [e.g., @Willingale+07]. In addition, the distribution of the fluence ratio between the extended and plateau emission in short GRBs (Figure \[fig:EE-PL\] A) is also similar to that of the ratio between the prompt and plateau emission in long GRBs [e.g., @Willingale+07]. These similarities may suggest that the physical conditions of the model of @KI15 are realized in both short and long GRBs. In fact, the central engine activities, mass ejection, and fallback accompanied by supernova explosion are also expected in long GRBs.
There are some caveats to be addressed in the future work. First, we fit the phenomenological light curve with the observations by eye inspection, because the light curves often have additional complex structures of X-ray flares [e.g., @Margutti+11]. The observed data of most bursts would be insufficient to separate such complex structures. In order to separate the additional structures from the flat component, a sample with more sufficient X-ray data is required.
Second, we also neglect the contribution of the normal afterglow in the X-ray light curve observed by [*Swift*]{}. Although the normal afterglow may contribute to some bursts whose light curves are consistent with a single power-law form [e.g., @Lu+15], these light curves are also able to fit with the extended and plateau emissions as demonstrated in this paper. The isotropic energies of the extended and plateau emission components are almost comparable to that of the prompt emission, $E_{\rm iso, EX}/E_{\rm iso, PR}\sim0.1-10$ and $E_{\rm iso, PL}/E_{\rm iso, PR}\sim0.01-1$, as shown in Figure \[fig:EE-PL\], which would also suggest the continuous energy injection from the central engine. Note that most of the [*Swift*]{}/XRT data are within $\lesssim10^5$ s after the prompt emission, so that the normal afterglow would significantly contribute to the X-ray light curve at later time ($\gtrsim10^5$ s), at which the jet break is seen [e.g., @Fong+15].
Third, we use the specific value $\alpha=40/9$ for the phenomenological light curve. Although the parameters $L_{\rm iso, EX}, L_{\rm iso, PL}, T_{\rm EX}$, and $T_{\rm PL}$ do not significantly depend on $\alpha$ (see the dotted lines ($\alpha=5/3$) in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]), the light curve with small $\alpha$ could explain the observed data using a single emission component in a few bursts. Then, the fraction of bursts with the plateau emission would slightly decrease. On the other hand, the light curve model with small $\alpha$ is not consistent with some bursts with the rapidly decaying plateau emission. In the theoretical point of view, the parameter $\alpha$ depends on the accretion model as discussed in Section \[sec:BHmodel\]. A sample with sufficient X-ray data will provide the fitted value of $\alpha$ to characterize the light curve and a clue to the fallback to the central engine.
Recently, a new X-ray transient detected by [*Chandra*]{} has been reported [@Bauer+17]. Using the measured redshift $z\sim2.2$ [@Bauer+17], the luminosity $\sim10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and duration $\sim10^2$ s could be consistent with the extended emission properties. The decaying light curve of the X-ray transient seems to become gradually shallow (in their Figure 4), so that the plateau emission may also contribute to the observed light curves. For the prompt emission properties, the interplanetary network [IPN; @Atteia+87] gives the limits on the fluence and peak photon flux [$<10^{-6}$ erg cm$^{-1}$ and $<1$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, respectively, in the 25-150 keV range ; @Bauer+17]. A fraction of the prompt emission of short GRBs is fainter than the limits [@Lien+16]. Within the 2$\sigma$ range of the measured photometric redshift, the host galaxy could locate at $z\sim0.39$ [@Bauer+17]. If we use this value, the luminosity $\sim10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and duration $\sim10^{3}$ s are consistent with those of the scattered plateau emission. In addition, the event rate of the transient is $\sim10^2-10^3$ yr$^{-1}$ Gpc$^{-3}$ in the low $z(\lesssim1)$ case, which is also consistent with the rate of the orphan short GRBs [@B14; @Bauer+17].
Possible macronova emission was reported in short GRB 160821B [@Tanvir+17; @Troja+16b; @Kasliwal+17], which occurred at $z\sim0.16$ [@Levan+16], closer than GRB 130603B. The peak luminosity is comparable to that of GRB 130603B while the peak time is earlier, $t\sim3$ day. The observed luminosity is consistent with the expected bolometric luminosity, $\sim10^{41}(t/3~{\rm day})^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$, in the case of ejecta heated by the plateau activity [@KIN15], where we use $\eta=0.1$, $\theta_{\rm j}=0.1$, and the observed value $L_{\rm iso, PL}T_{\rm PL}^2$ in GRB 160821B, which is $\sim30$ times smaller than that of GRB 130603B. Note that the possible X-ray excess component ($\lesssim10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at $10^6$ s by [*Swift*]{}/XRT, see Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]) could also contribute to heating the ejecta [@KIN16]. Therefore, the engine-powered macronova scenario is consistent with the observations so far.
We are grateful to the anonymous referee for constructive comments. We would like to thank Amy Lien for kindly providing the data of the short pulse fluence of short GRBs with extended emission, and Yutaka Ohira, Masaomi Tanaka, and Ryo Yamazaki for fruitful discussions. This work is supported by KAKENHI 16J06773 (S.K.), 24103006, 26247042, 26287051, 17H01126, 17H06131, 17H06357 (K.I.), and 17H06362 (K.I., T.S.).
[99]{}
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016a, PhRvL, 116, 061102 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016b, PhRvL, 116, 241103 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016c, PhRvX, 6, 041015 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016d, ApJL, 832, L21 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 118, 221101 Adriani, O., Akaike, Y., Asano, K., et al. 2016, ApJL, 829, L20 Atteia, J.-L., Barat, C., Hurley, K., et al. 1987, ApJS, 64, 305
Barkov, M. V., & Pozanenko, A. S. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2161 Barthelmy, S. D., Cannizzo, J. K., Gehrels, N., et al. 2005, ApJL, 635, L133 Bauer, F. E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4841 Berger, E. 2006, GCN, 5952, 1
Berger, E. 2009, ApJ, 690, 231 Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43 Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013a, ApJL, 774, L23 Berger, E., Fox, D. B., Price, P. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1000 Berger, E., Price, P. A., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2005, Natur, 438, 988 Berger, E., Zauderer, B. A., Levan, A., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 765, 121 Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433 Bostanci, Z. F., Kaneko, Y., & Göğüş, E. 2013, MNARS, 428, 1623 Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 100 Bucciantini, N., Metzger, B. D., Thompson, T. A., & Quataert, E. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1537 Camp, J., Barthelmy, S. D., Blackburn, L., et al. 2013, ExA, 36, 505 Castro-Tirado, A. J., Sanchez-Ramirez, R., Lombardi, G., et al. 2015, GCN, 17758, 1
Cenko, S. B., Berger, E., Nakar, E., et al. 2008, arXiv:0802.0874 Chen, H.-Y., & Holz, D. E. 2015, arXiv:1509.00055 Chornock, R., & Fong, W. 2015, GCN, 17358, 1
Chornock, R., Lunnan, R., & Berger, E. 2013, GCN, 15307, 1
Cucchiara, A., & Levan, A. J. 2016, GCN, 19565, 1
D’Avanzo, P., Malesani, D., Covino, S., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 711 D’Avanzo, P., Salvaterra, R., Bernardini, M. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2342 Dainotti, M., Petrosian, V., Willngale, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3898 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Thöne, C. C., Rowlinson, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A62 Della Valle, M., Chincarini, G., Panagia, N., et al. 2006, Natur, 444, 1050 Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379 Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177 Fan, X., Messenger, C., & Heng, I. S. 2017, arXiv:1706.05639 Fernández, R., & Metzger, B. D. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 502 Fernández, R., Quataert, E., Schwab, J., Kasen, D., & Rosswog, S. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 390 Fernández, R., Foucart, F., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, CQG, 34, 154001 Fong, W., Berger, E., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 56 Fong, W., Berger, E., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 26 Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102 Fong, W., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 118 Fong, W., Margutti, R., Chornock, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 151 Foucart, F., Desai, D., Brege, W., et al. 2017, CQG, 34, 044002 Foucart, F., O’Connor, E., Roberts, L., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 124021 Fraley, C., & Raftery, A. E. 2002, JASA, 97, 611
Gao, W.-H., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2006, ChJAA, 6, 513 Gehrels, N., Norris, J. P., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006, Natur, 444, 1044 Ghisellini, G., Nardini, M., Ghirlanda, G., & Celotti, A. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 253 Gibson, S. L., Wynn, G. A., Gompertz, B. P., & O’Brien, P. T. 2017, arXiv:1706.04802 Gompertz, B. P., O’Brien, P. T., & Wynn, G. A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 240 Gompertz, B. P., O’Brien, P. T., Wynn, G. A., & Rowlinson, A. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1745 Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2017, arXiv:1705.10797 Grupe, D., Nousek, J. A., Veres, P., Zhang, B.-B., & Gehrels, N. 2013, ApJS, 209, 20 Hartigan, P. M., 1985, Appl. Stat., 34, 320
Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 024001 Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1430 Ioka, K., Kobayashi, S., & Zhang, B. 2005, ApJ, 631, 429 Jin, Z.-P., Hotokezaka, K., Li, X., et al. 2016, NatCo, 7, 12898 Kagawa, Y., Yonetoku, D., Sawano, T., Toyanago, A., Nakamura, T., Takahashi, K., Kashiyama, K., & Ioka, K. 2015, ApJ, 811, 4 Kaneko, Y., Bostanci, Z. F., Göğüş, E., & Lin, L. 2015, MNARS, 452, 824 Kanner, J., Camp, J., Racusin, J., Gehrels, N., & White, D. 2012, ApJ, 759, 22 Kasen, D., Badnell, N. R., & Barnes, J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 25 Kasliwal, M. M., Korobkin, O., Lau, R. M., Wollaeger, R., & Fryer, C. L. 2017, ApJL, 843, L34 Kawaguchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Nakano, H., Okawa, H., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 024014 Kisaka, S., & Ioka, K. 2015, ApJL, 804, L16 Kisaka, S., Ioka, K., & Nakamura, T. 2015b, ApJL, 809, L8 Kisaka, S., Ioka, K., & Nakar, E. 2016, ApJ, 818, 104 Kisaka, S., Ioka, K., & Takami, H. 2015a, ApJ, 802, 119 Kiuchi, K., Sekiguchi, Y., Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., Taniguchi, K., & Wada, T. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 064034 Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101 Krimm, H. A., Holland, S. T., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 14 Kulkarni, S. R. 2005, astro-ph/0510256 Kyutoku, K., Ioka, K., Okawa, H., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 044028 Lazzati, D., Deich, A., Morsony, B. J., & Workman, J. C. 2016, arXiv:1610.01157 Lee, W. H., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2007, NJPh, 9, 17 Leibler, C. N., & Berger, E. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1202 Levan, A. J., Wiersema, K., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2016, GCN, 19846, 1
Levesque, E. M., Bloom, J. S., Butler, N. R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 963 Li, L.-X., & Paczyńsky, B. 1998, ApJL, 507, L59 Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 7 Lü, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., Li, Y., & Lasky, P. D. 2015, ApJ, 805, 89 Lü, H.-J., Zhang, H.-M., Zhong, S.-Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 181 Lyne, A. G., Burgay, M., Kramer, M., et al. 2004, Sci, 303, 1153 Lyutikov, M. 2013, ApJ, 768, 63 Malesani, D., Kruehler, T., Xu, D., et al. 2015, GCN, 17755, 1
Margutti, R., Chincarini, G., Granot, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2144 McBreen, S., Krühler, T., Rau, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A71 Merloni, A., Predehl, P., Becker, W., et al. 2012, arXiv:1209.3114 Metzger, B. D., Arcones, A., Quataert, E., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2010a, MNRAS, 402, 2771 Metzger, B. D., & Berger, E. 2012, ApJ, 746, 48 Metzger, B. D., & Fernández, R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3444 Metzger, B. D., Martínez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., Quataert, E., Arcones, A., Kasen, D., Thomas, R., Nugent, P., Panov, I. V., & Zinner, N. T. 2010b, MNRAS, 406, 2650 Metzger, B. D. & Piro, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3916 Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2008a, MNRAS, 390, 781 Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2008b, MNRAS, 385, 1455 Nagakura, H., Hotokezaka, K., Sekiguchi, Y., Shibata, M., & Ioka, K. 2014, ApJL, 784, L28 Nakamura, T., Kashiyama, K., Nakauchi, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 13 Nakar, E. 2007, PhR, 442, 166 Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69 Narayan, R., Paczyńsky, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 395, L83 Narayana Bhat, P., Meegan, C. A., von Kienlin, A., et al. 2016, ApJS, 223, 28 Norris, J. P., & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266 Norris, J. P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J. D. 2011, ApJ, 735, 23 Norris, J. P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J. D. 2010, ApJ, 717, 411 O’Brien, P. T., Willingale, R., Osborne, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1213 Perley, D. A., Bloom, J. S., Butler, N. R., Li, W., & Chen, H.-W. 2007, in AIP Conf. Proc. 937, Supernova 1987A: 20 Years After: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. S. Immler, K. Weiler, & R. McCray, 526 Perley, D. A., Bloom, J. S., Modjaz, M., et al. 2008, GCN, 7889, 1
Perley, D. A., Metzger, B. D., Granot, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1871 Prochaska, J. X., Bloom, J. S., Chen, H.-W., et al. 2005, GCN, 3399, 1
Rossi, E. M., & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1451 Rosswog, S. 2007, MNRAS, 376, L48 Rowlinson, A., Gompertz, B. P., Dainotti, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1779 Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1061 Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2010a, MNRAS, 409, 531 Rowlinson, A., Wiersema, K., Levan, A. J., et al. 2010b, MNRAS, 408, 383 Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 27 Sakamoto, T., & Gehrels, N. 2009, in AIP Conf. Proc. 1133, Gamma-Ray Bursts, 6th Huntsville Symposium, ed. C. Meegan, N. Gehrels, & C. Kouveliotou (Melville, NY: AIP), 112 Sakamoto, T., Troja, E., Aoki, K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 41 Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17 Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Mereghetti, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L36 Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2006, PhRvD, 73, 064027 Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, arXiv:1705.05473 Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 024013 Singer, L. P., Price, L. R., Farr, B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 105 Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Kasliwal, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 261 Sugizaki, M., Mihara, T., Serino, M., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 635 Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Gao, H. 2017, ApJ, 835, 7 Tanaka, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2013, ApJ, 775, 113 Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, The Physics of Extreme-Gravity Stars, Stockholm, Sweden
Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Natur, 500, 547 Tchekhovskoy, A., & Giannios, D. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 327 Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79 Thoene, C. C., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Vreeswijk, P. 2010, GCN, 10971, 1
Troja, E., Sakamoto, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 827, 102 Troja, E., Tanvir, N., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2016b, GCN, 20222, 1
Usov, V. V. 1992, Natur, 357, 472 Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 9 Willingale, R., O’Brien, P. T., Osborne, J. P., 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093 Yamazaki, R. 2009, ApJL, 690, L118 Yu, Y.-W., Zhang, B., & Gao, H. 2013, ApJL, 776, L40 Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Feng, H., et al. 2015, arXiv:1506.07735 Zamaninasab, M., Clausen-Brown, E., Savolainen, T., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, Natur, 510, 126 Zhang, B., Liang, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 989 Zhang, B., & Mészáros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35
[^1]: https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/grb\_table/
[^2]: We use the term “macronova” as a thermal radiation from the merger ejecta of NS binaries, whatever the energy source is, like a supernova.
[^3]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/index.php
[^4]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/burst\_analyser/
[^5]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves/
[^6]: https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/grb\_table/
[^7]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an experimental and theoretical study of atom-molecule collisions in a mixture of cold, trapped atomic nitrogen and NH molecules at a temperature of $\sim 600$ mK. We measure a small N+NH trap loss rate coefficient of $k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss} = 8(4) \times 10^{-13}$ cm$^{3}$s$^{-1}$. Accurate quantum scattering calculations based on [*ab initio*]{} interaction potentials are in agreement with experiment and indicate the magnetic dipole interaction to be the dominant loss mechanism. Our theory further indicates the ratio of N+NH elastic to inelastic collisions remains large ($>100$) into the mK regime.'
author:
- 'Matthew T. Hummon'
- 'Timur V. Tscherbul'
- 'Jacek K[ł]{}os'
- 'Hsin-I Lu'
- Edem Tsikata
- 'Wesley C. Campbell'
- Alexander Dalgarno
- 'John M. Doyle'
title: Cold N+NH Collisions in a Magnetic Trap
---
The study of low temperature molecular collisions and interactions is a rapidly expanding area of research at the interface of chemistry and physics [@Carr:2009oz; @Krems:2008pccp]. Experimental and theoretical techniques have been developed for studying a wide variety of phenomena, ranging from quantum threshold scattering [@Gilijamse_OH_Xe; @Sawyer:2008qq], inelastic atom - molecule collisions [@campbell2009mechanism; @Zahzam:2006la; @Staanum:2006it], external field control of dipolar interactions in cold and ultracold molecules [@Sawyer:2010mb; @Ni:2010xy], to chemistry at cold [@PhysRevLett.100.043203; @Cresu:06ag; @PhysRevLett.105.033001] and ultracold temperatures [@Krems:2008pccp; @Ospelkaus:2010sci]. The immense diversity of molecular structure and interactions is the cornerstone of many applications of cold molecules in quantum information science [@DeMille:2002xr], condensed-matter physics [@barnett:190401], precision measurement [@Hudson:02ed; @Vutha:10jp], cold controlled chemistry [@Softley:09mp], and astrophysics [@Akyilmaz_NO_depletion]. Achievement of these applications relies on improved methods for cooling and further understanding of low temperature molecular collisions.
Recently, several experimental techniques were developed to study molecular collisions at cold and ultracold temperatures, beyond the reach of traditional molecular beam experiments [@Scoles]. Ultracold ground state molecules with temperatures below 1 $\mu$K can be created via coherent state transfer from magneto-asssociated ultracold atomic gases, producing KRb [@Ni:2008eq] and Cs$_2$ [@Danzl:2010cs]. Alternatively, direct cooling techniques such as buffer-gas cooling [@Hummon:2008rm] and Stark deceleration [@Gilijamse_OH_Xe] provide more general methods for cooling a larger class of molecules, enabling the production of cold molecules starting from room-temperature sources as an input, such as supersonic beams [@Gilijamse_OH_Xe; @Krems:2008pccp; @Carr:2009oz]. Since the maximum molecular trap densities for these direct cooling techniques are, so far, $10^8-10^9$ cm$^{-3}$, the collision experiments with these molecular samples typically use a dense rare gas collision partner [@campbell2009mechanism; @Gilijamse_OH_Xe] or perform collisions at energies $> 10$ cm$^{-1}$ [@Gilijamse_OH_Xe; @Sawyer:2008qq; @Cresu:06ag]. Further cooling and compression of molecular samples produced via direct cooling techniques is key to study cold molecule-molecule interactions and their applications. One possible approach is to sympathetically cool a molecule via collisions with an atom [@Carr:2009oz; @Lara_Rb_OH; @zuchowski:022701; @Tacconi_NH_Rb; @Wallis:2009ul; @Barker:09nj]. Thus, studies of cold atom-molecule collisions not only uncover the underlying collision physics, but also may lead to important new methods for the production of a variety of ultracold molecules.
A number of theoretical studies have focused on the optimal selection of atomic collision partners for sympathetic cooling of molecules [@Lara_Rb_OH; @zuchowski:022701; @Tacconi_NH_Rb; @Wallis:2009ul; @Barker:09nj]. Almost all of these studies focused on the alkali-metal atoms, which can be easily prepared at milli-Kelvin temperatures via laser cooling. However, accurate quantum scattering calculations have shown that collision-induced inelastic relaxation of molecules such as OH [@Lara_Rb_OH], ND$_3$ [@zuchowski:022701] and NH [@Tacconi_NH_Rb] with the alkali-metal atoms occurs rapidly, causing molecular trap loss and severely limiting the efficiency of sympathetic cooling. A recent theoretical study suggested that sympathetic cooling of NH molecules by collisions with laser-cooled alkaline earth atoms such as Mg might be possible at low magnetic field strengths [@Wallis:2009ul]. A related study indicated the possibility of sympathetic cooling of large molecules by collisions with rare-gas atoms in an optical dipole trap [@Barker:09nj]. We have recently suggested that cold atomic nitrogen (N) can be used for sympathetic cooling of open-shell molecules, and demonstrated co-trapping of N atoms with NH molecules [@Hummon:2008rm], but the presence of $^3$He buffer gas at 0.5 K precluded measurement of N+NH collisions in that experiment.
In this Letter, we report the observation of cold (570 mK) collisions between magnetically trapped, ground state open-shell atoms and ground-state polar molecules, N and NH, both species spin polarized. We measure a small N+NH trap loss rate coefficient of $k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss} = 8(4) \times 10^{-13}$ cm$^{3}$s$^{-1}$. To interpret experimental observations, we carry out accurate [*ab initio*]{} and quantum scattering calculations of N+NH collisions in a magnetic field. Our theoretical results agree with the observations and predict high elastic-to-inelastic ratios ($\gamma$) over a wide range of temperatures (from 1K down to about 1 mK), suggesting the feasibility of sympathetic cooling of NH molecules by collisions with N atoms in a magnetic trap. Recent unpublished theory work by another group has made similar theoretical claims [@Zuchowski:2010bh].
The apparatus used to co-trap atomic nitrogen and NH is similar to that described in our previous work [@Hummon:2008rm; @tsikata:10nh]. A pair of super-conducting solenoids produce a 4 T deep spherical quadrupole magnetic trap. In the bore of the solenoids resides a cryogenic buffer gas cell held at 500 mK. N and NH are produced in a molecular beam using a DC glow discharge and enter the trapping region through a 1 cm diameter aperture in the buffer gas cell. N and NH thermalize with $^3$He buffer gas to 500 mK and fall into the trap. The initial buffer gas density at time of loading of $10^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$ is produced using a cryogenic reservoir with fast actuating valve [@tsikata:10nh] to inject buffer gas through a 3.8 cm diameter aperture in the cell. After trap loading, the valve is closed, and the buffer gas exits primarily back out through the larger aperture, yielding background helium densities of $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$, corresponding to NH trap lifetimes of several seconds.
Detection of trapped N is performed using two-photon absorption laser induced fluorescence (TALIF) from the ground $(2p^3)^4$S$_{3/2}$ state to the excited $(3p)^4$S$_{3/2}$ state at 96750 cm$^{-1}$. NH is detected via laser induced fluorescence, as described in [@Hummon:2008rm]. We initially load NH with densities on the order of $10^8$ . Accurate knowledge of the absolute NH density is unnecessary as the NH density is much smaller than the N density in all our measurements. To determine the N density, the TALIF signal is calibrated using N+N collisional loss measurements [@Tscherbul:2010nn]. We load $5\times10^{11}$ N atoms into the trap with peak densities of $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$.
Figure \[fig:nh\_decay\] shows a typical NH trapping decay. At time $t=0$ s, N atoms and NH molecules are co-loaded into the magnetic trap. For the first 2 s the NH trap loss is rapid due to the collisions with background helium gas during the pump out of buffer gas from the cell. By $t=5$ s the NH trap loss reaches a steady rate, with typical $1/e$ lifetimes of about 3 s. Since the excitation laser for the atomic N TALIF detection causes additional loss of the trapped NH, we measure the trapped atomic N density at $t=15$ s.
To measure N+NH collisions, we observe the NH trap loss over a range of co-trapped N densities. The NH trap loss is fit between $t=5$ and 10 s to an exponential decay to extract the total NH trap loss rate, $\Gamma_\mathrm{NH}$. The cotrapped N density is varied by changing the ratio of molecular beam process gases N$_2$ and H$_2$ between (90%, 10%) to (3%, 97%). Figure \[fig:NHvsN\] shows the total NH loss rate, $\Gamma_\mathrm{NH}$, versus cotrapped nitrogen density. The solid line in Fig. \[fig:NHvsN\] is a fit to the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_\mathrm{NH} = \frac{k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss}}{14} n_\mathrm{N} + \Gamma_\mathrm{He}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_\mathrm{N}$ is the peak nitrogen density, $\Gamma_\mathrm{He}$ is the NH loss rate attributable to collisions with background helium gas, and $ k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss}$ is the N+NH loss rate coefficient. The factor of 14 arises from averaging the N and NH densities over the volume of the magnetic trap. We find from this fit that $k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss} = 8(4) \times 10^{-13}$ cm$^{3}$s$^{-1}$. The uncertainty in $k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss}$ is dominated by the uncertainty in our nitrogen density calibrations [@Tscherbul:2010nn]. The N+NH loss rate coefficient has contributions from both elastic (evaporative) and inelastic N+NH collisions [@Tscherbul:2010nn], but their individual contributions cannot be determined by a single measurement. Therefore, our measurement of $ k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss}$ is an upper limit on the inelastic N+NH rate coefficient and could be lower by up to a factor of 50%.
To interpret the experimental observations and explore the possibility of sympathetic cooling of NH molecules by collisions with co-trapped N atoms, we performed rigorous quantum scattering calculations of inelastic relaxation in N+NH collisions in an external magnetic field. The Hamiltonian of the atom-molecule collision complex may be written ($\hbar=1$) $$\begin{gathered}
\label{H}
\hat{H} = -\frac{1}{2\mu R}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial R^2}R + \sum_{S=1/2}^{5/2}V_S(R,r,\theta) |SM_S\rangle \langle SM_S| \\ + \frac{\hat{\ell}^2}{2\mu R^2} - \sqrt{\frac{24\pi}{5}} \frac{\alpha^2}{R^3} \sum_{q}Y^\star_{2q}(\hat{R})[\hat{S}_\text{NH}\otimes\hat{S}_\text{N}]^{(2)}_q + \hat{H}_\text{NH} + \hat{H}_\text{N},\end{gathered}$$ where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the complex, $R=|\bm{R}|$ is the N+NH separation vector, $r$ is the internuclear distance in NH, $\theta$ is the angle between the vectors $\bm{R}$ and $\bm{r}$, $V_S(R,r,\theta)$ is the interaction potential of the N+NH collision complex, $\hat{S}$ is the total spin of the complex, and $M_S$ is its projection on the magnetic field axis. The last two terms in Eq. (\[H\]) describe non-interacting collision partners in the presence of an external magnetic field of strength $B$ [@Krems:2004jcp]. The term proportional to $R^{-3}$ represents the magnetic dipole interaction [@Tscherbul:2010nn; @Krems:2004jcp].
The interaction of NH($^3\Sigma$) molecules with N($^4S_{3/2}$) atoms gives rise to three adiabatic potential energy surfaces (PESs) with $S=1/2$, 3/2, and 5/2. Since in our experiments both atoms and molecules are confined in a permanent magnetic trap, the incident collision channel is the maximally spin-stretched Zeeman state $|M_{S_\text{NH}}=1\rangle\otimes|M_{S_\text{N}}=3/2\rangle$ with $S=5/2$. We neglect the weak couplings between the electronic states of different $S$ arising from the fine-structure terms in $\hat{H}_\text{NH}$ and off-diagonal matrix elements of the magnetic dipole interaction [@Tscherbul:2010nn; @Krems:2004jcp].
To evaluate the PES for the $S=5/2$ electronic state of N-NH, we use the state-of-the-art partially spin restricted coupled cluster method with single, double, and non-iterative triple excitations \[RCCSD(T)\] [@MOLPRO] using quadruple-zeta basis set (aug-cc-pvqz) of Dunning [*et al.*]{} [@Dunning89; @Dunning92; @Peterson94] augmented with $3s3p2d2f1g$ bond functions placed in the middle of the intermolecular distance. A contour plot of the calculated PES in shown in Fig. 3. The PES has a global minimum 87.83 cm$^{-1}$ deep in the linear N–HN configuration ($R=7.02a_0,\, \theta = 0$) and a secondary minimum of 77.52 cm$^{-1}$ in the HN–N configuration ($R=6.61a_0,\, \theta=180^\text{o}$) separated by a barrier 39.6 cm$^{-1}$ high located at $\theta=92^\circ$. Compared to the PES for the He-NH interaction [@Cybulski2005jcp], our calculated N+NH PES is both deeper and more anisotropic.
To solve the scattering problem, we expand the wave function of the collision complex in a direct-product basis set $|NM_{N}\rangle |S_\text{NH}M_{S_\text{NH}}\rangle |S_\text{N}M_{S_\text{N}}\rangle |\ell m_\ell\rangle$, where $N$ is the rotational angular momentum of NH, and $M_N$, $M_{S_\text{NH}}$, $M_{S_\text{N}}$, and $m_\ell$ are the projections of $\hat{N}$, $\hat{S}_\text{NH}$, $\hat{S}_\text{N}$, and $\hat{\ell}$ on the magnetic field axis. This expansion results in a system of close-coupled (CC) equations parametrized by the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian (\[H\]), which can be readily evaluated analytically given the direct-product structure of the basis [@Krems:2004jcp]. We solve the CC equations numerically for each value of the total angular momentum projection $M=M_N+M_{S_\text{NH}} + M_{S_\text{N}} + m_\ell$ for collision energies between $10^{-4}$ and 1 cm$^{-1}$ and extract the $S$-matrix elements and scattering cross sections. Large basis sets with $N=0-5$ and $\ell=0-8$ are used to ensure that the results are converged to $<5\%$, resulting in 2906 CC equations for $M=0$.
Figure 4(a) shows the cross sections for elastic energy transfer and inelastic relaxation in N+NH collisions. The cross sections increase with decreasing collision energy before reaching a maximum at $E_C\sim 2$ mK, which we identify as a shape resonance supported by the centrifugal barrier with $\ell=1$ in the incident collision channel. At $E_C< 0.1$ mK the inelastic cross sections assume the characteristic $1/E_C$ dependence on collision energy, and the elastic cross sections become constant, according to the Wigner threshold law for $s$-wave scattering. By thermally averaging the cross sections in Fig. 4(a), we obtain elastic and inelastic rate constants at the experimental temperature of 570 mK of $k_\mathrm{el} = 2.2\times10^{-10}$ cm$^3$s$^{-1}$, $k_\mathrm{in} = 4.1\times10^{-13}$ cm$^3$s$^{-1}$. The fraction of elastic N-NH collisions that lead to trap loss is on the order of $3\times 10^{-3}$, leading to a total trap loss rate coefficient $k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss-theory} = 11\times10^{-13}$ cm$^3$s$^{-1}$, in good agreement with the experimental value of $k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss-experiment} = (8\pm4)\times10^{-13}$ cm$^3$s$^{-1}$. The ratio $\gamma = k_\mathrm{el}/k_\mathrm{in}$ is shown in Fig. 4(b) as a function of temperature. The ratio remains large ($\gamma>100$) over the temperature range $\sim$10 mK - 1 K, which indicates that NH molecules can be sympathetically cooled by elastic collisions with spin-polarized N atoms down to the milli-Kelvin regime. As shown in Fig. 4(b), an increasing magnetic field suppresses inelastic relaxation, so that $\gamma$ remains high ($\sim$50) even at $T= 1$ mK. This observation indicates that applying a strong uniform magnetic field of order $1$ T may be used to stabilize spin-polarized atom-molecule mixtures against collisional losses, thereby enhancing the efficiency of sympathetic cooling.
Inelastic collisions of $^3\Sigma$ molecules with open-shell atoms like N can occur due to (i) indirect couplings induced by the anisotropy of the atom-molecule interaction potential and the spin-spin interaction between the $N = 0$ and $N = 2$ rotational states [@Krems:2004jcp; @campbell2009mechanism], and (ii) direct couplings between atomic and molecular Zeeman levels induced by the long-range magnetic dipole interaction \[H\]). The magnetic dipole interaction couples the Zeeman levels directly [@Tscherbul:2010nn], and can thus be more efficient in inducing inelastic relaxation than the indirect couplings. Figure 4(a) shows that omitting the magnetic dipole interaction from scattering calculations reduces the inelastic cross sections by a factor of $\sim$10, confirming that Zeeman transitions in N+NH collisions are indeed driven by the magnetic dipole interaction. In our experiments, both N and NH collision partners are fully spin-polarized, so the chemical reaction N + NH $\to$ N$_2$ + H is spin-forbidden and can only proceed via non-adiabatic transitions between different electronic states of the N-NH complex in the entrance reaction channel mediated by the fine-structure and magnetic dipole couplings (see Eq. 2). Our observed value for $k^\text{(N+NH)}_\text{loss-experiment}$ is much smaller than the calculated reaction rate for spin-unpolarized reactants ($k_\text{reaction} \sim 3\times 10^{-11}$ cm$^3$/s at $T=1$ K) [@Frankcombe_N_NH]. Since our measurements are consistent with theoretical predictions which do not account for the reaction channel, we conclude that chemical exchange processes in spin-polarized N+NH mixtures occur at a slow rate, and do not contribute to the observed trap loss dynamics. This important finding shows that inelastic relaxation in N+NH collisions occurs via the same mechanism as dipolar relaxation in spin-polarized atomic gases [@Tscherbul:2010nn].
In conclusion, we have measured a small N+NH trap loss rate coefficient of $k^{(\mathrm{N+NH})}_\mathrm{loss} = 8(4) \times 10^{-13}$ cm$^{3}$s$^{-1}$ at a temperature of $~\sim 600$ mK. To interpret experimental observations, we have carried out accurate [*ab initio*]{} quantum scattering calculations of Zeeman relaxation in N+NH collisions in a magnetic field and find theory and experiment to agree. Our calculations show that the ratio of N+NH elastic to inelastic collisions remains large ($>100$) over the temperature range $\sim$10 mK - 1 K, which indicates that it may be possible to sympathetically cool NH molecules down to the milli-Kelvin regime via elastic collisions with spin-polarized N atoms. It remains to be seen whether this conclusion holds for other paramagnetic molecules of interest such as the highly polar CaH or SrF in their electronic ground states of $^2\Sigma$ symmetry. If it does, it may be possible to create large samples of these molecules via collisional cooling with N atoms in a magnetic trap.
This work was supported by the Department of Energy, under Grant No. DE-FG02-02ER15316 and by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, under Grant No. FA9550-07-1-0492.
[38]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
(), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ed., ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
(), .
, ****, ().
(), .
, ****, ().
, **, .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Bosonic cascades formed by lattices of equidistant energy levels sustaining radiative transitions between nearest layers are promising for the generation of coherent terahertz radiation. We show how, also for the light emitted by the condensates in the visible range, they introduce new regimes of emission. Namely, the quantum statistics of bosonic cascades exhibit super-bunching plateaus. This demonstrates further potentialities of bosonic cascade lasers for the engineering of quantum properties of light useful for imaging applications.'
author:
- 'T. C. H. Liew'
- 'Y. G. Rubo'
- 'A. S. Sheremet'
- 'S. De Liberato'
- 'I. A. Shelykh'
- 'F. P. Laussy'
- 'A. V. Kavokin'
title: Quantum Statistics of Bosonic Cascades
---
*Introduction.—*Terahertz frequency radiation is a valuable resource for a number of imaging applications in medicine, security screening, and different scientific disciplines [@tonouchi07a]. For this reason a number of solid-state systems have been considered as terahertz sources, where one typically aims to convert an optical frequency photon into a terahertz photon. Even if materials with appropriate transitions can be found, such a procedure is inherently inefficient as the majority of the energy of each optical frequency photon is given up in favour of generating a low-energy terahertz photon. Quantum cascade lasers circumvent this problem, where an optical quantum of energy can be used to generate multiple terahertz photons [@Kohler2002; @Liu2013]. While fermionic (electronic) cascades have been realised over 20 years ago [@Faist1994], bosonic cascades were only recently designed theoretically based on excitonic transitions in parabolic quantum wells, possibly being placed inside semiconductor microcavities [@Liew2013]. When using also a THz cavity, bosonic cascades offer the prospects of double stimulation of the emission: by the final exciton state population [@VCSEL; @Simone] and by the terahertz cavity mode population [@kaliteevski14a; @pervishko].
Stimulated transitions among macroscopically occupied bosonic quantum states are in the heart of bosonic cascade lasers (BCLs), which also act as polariton lasers spontaneously emitting coherent light in the optical frequency range [@BosonicLasers]. Polariton lasers bring the advantage of ultra-low threshold power [@Christopoulos; @Hoefling; @Bhattachariya] and as versatile all-optical platforms [@sanvitto11a] they are expected to constitute building blocks of future optical integrated circuits [@Circuits], logic elements [@bistability] or polarisation switches [@switches]. The quantum optical properties of polariton lasers have been studied theoretically [@laussy04a] and experimentally [@richard]. The quantum theory of polariton based terahertz sources has been addressed recently [@delValle2011]. The quantum physics of bosonic cascades is yet to be explored.
In this work, we open a new dimension for BCLs by showing that their emission produces a marked superbunching, thanks to their specificity of making coexist multiple macroscopic coherent states. This makes for a difficult problem to describe quantum mechanically, that we can tackle here with stochastic quantum Langevin equations. This theory of bosonic cascades to describe their statistical properties not only confirms their departures from other mechanisms of lasing [@paschotta_book08a], it also suggests that they could power imaging applications with resolutions much higher than ever conceived before [@Gong2015], thanks to combinations of several assets to go beyond the diffraction limit [@Hong2012; @Grujic2013].
![Illustration of a bosonic cascade. a) Structure schematic: a parabolic quantum well is excited with an optical pulse and emits light at a range of frequencies. b) Energy level diagram: the parabolic trapping potential engineers equidistant energy levels and transitions occur between neighbouring levels with transition element $V$. Bosons in each level can decay radiatively, with characteristic decay time $\protect\tau$.[]{data-label="fig:Scheme"}](F1v4){width=".9\linewidth"}
*Theory.—*We consider a bosonic cascade with $N$ energy levels labelled from $\lambda =1$ to $N$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Scheme\]. The parabolic quantum well makes the levels equidistant in energy [@Faist]. We account for the dominating transitions which are between neighbouring excitonic levels $\lambda +1$ and $\lambda $ and assume for simplicity that all levels decay radiatively with the same rate, $\tau ^{-1}$. We assume that the occupation of the terahertz mode fed by the interlevel transitions in the cascade is zero, i.e., there is no terahertz cavity in our model structure. This corresponds to the original version of BCL[@Liew2013], where the stimulation of terahertz radiation is achieved due to the macroscopic exciton populations in the bosonic cascade. This simpler configuration already manifests the non-trivial quantum effects of bosonic cascades. The system is thus described by the density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ subject to a quantum Liouville equation: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{d\hat{\rho}}{dt}=\frac{1}{2\tau }\sum_{\lambda =1}^{N}\left( \big[\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}},\hat{\rho}\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\big]+\big[\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\hat{\rho},\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\big]\right) \\
+\frac{V}{2}\sum_{\lambda =1}^{N-1}\left( \big[\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda +1}^{\vphantom{\dagger}},\hat{\rho}\hat{a}_{\lambda
+1}^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\big]+\big[\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda +1}^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\hat{\rho},\hat{a}_{\lambda +1}^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\big]\right) \,, \label{eq:master}\end{gathered}$$ where $\hat{a}_{\lambda }$ annihilates a boson from level $\lambda $ and $V$ is the scattering rate [@Vindependenceonlambda]. Dotting this equation with Fock states and neglecting correlations between levels in the Born-Markov approximation leads to the Boltzmann equations, which describe well the average populations of each state and thereby provide the mean-field theory of bosonic cascades [@Liew2013]. To go beyond this semi-classical description, and in particular to compute the photon statistics, correlations between states must be retained. A brute-force approach, however, is restricted to few levels and each with a modest occupancy. To access the most general cases of bosonic cascades, with macroscopic occupation of the states, we therefore expand the density matrix on the natural basis for this problem, that of coherent states [Drummond1980]{}: $$\hat{\rho}=\int \mathcal{P}(\alpha _{1},\beta _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N},\beta
_{N})\hat{\Lambda}(\alpha _{1},\beta _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N},\beta
_{N})d\mu \,, \label{eq:PositiveP}$$where: $$\hat{\Lambda}(\alpha _{1},\beta _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N},\beta _{N})=\frac{|\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N}\rangle \langle \beta _{1}^{\ast },\ldots
,\beta _{N}^{\ast }|}{\langle \beta _{1}^{\ast },\ldots ,\beta _{N}^{\ast
}|\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N}\rangle }\,,$$with $\mathcal{P}$ the positive-P distribution, which differs from the Glauber-Sudarshan distribution in allowing for non-diagonal coherent state projectors. The complex numbers $\alpha _{\lambda }$ and $\beta _{\lambda }$ are independent variables covering the whole complex plane. The integration measure is $d\mu =d^{2}\alpha _{1}d^{2}\beta _{1}\ldots d^{2}\alpha
_{N}d^{2}\beta _{N}$ and for ease of notation we write $\vec{\alpha}=(\alpha
_{1},\beta _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N},\beta _{N})$. $\vec{\alpha}_{n}$ will be used to refer to an element of this vector (of length $2N$), while the notations $\alpha _{\lambda }$ and $\beta _{\lambda }$ will still be used where $\lambda $ is the level index. Writing the density matrix in terms of the positive-P distribution (Eq. \[eq:PositiveP\]) transforms the master equation Eq. (\[eq:master\]) into a Fokker-Planck equation: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2\tau }\sum_{\lambda =1}^{N}\left( \frac{\partial \left( \alpha _{\lambda }\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \alpha _{\lambda }}+\frac{\partial \left(
\beta _{\lambda }\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \beta _{\lambda
}}\right) \\
+\frac{V}{2}\sum_{\lambda =1}^{N-1}\left\{ -\alpha _{\lambda +1}\beta
_{\lambda +1}\left( \frac{\partial \left( \alpha _{\lambda }\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \alpha _{\lambda }}+\frac{\partial \left( \beta
_{\lambda }\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \beta _{\lambda }}\right) \right. \\
+(\alpha _{\lambda }\beta _{\lambda }+1)\left( \frac{\partial \left( \alpha
_{\lambda +1}\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \alpha _{\lambda +1}}+\frac{\partial \left( \beta _{\lambda +1}\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right)
}{\partial \beta _{\lambda +1}}\right) \\
+2\alpha _{\lambda +1}\beta _{\lambda +1}\frac{\partial ^{2}\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})}{\partial \alpha _{\lambda }\partial \beta _{\lambda }} \\
\left. -\frac{\partial ^{2}\left( \alpha _{\lambda +1}\alpha _{\lambda }\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \alpha _{\lambda +1}\partial
\alpha _{\lambda }}-\frac{\partial ^{2}\left( \beta _{\lambda +1}\beta
_{\lambda }\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \beta _{\lambda
+1}\partial \beta _{\lambda }}\right\} \,. \label{eq:FP}\end{gathered}$$According to the Ito calculus, a Fokker-Planck equation of the form $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})}{\partial t}=-\sum_{n}\frac{\partial \left( f_{n}(\vec{\alpha})\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \vec{\alpha}_{n}}+\sum_{nm}\frac{\partial ^{2}\left( M_{nm}(\vec{\alpha})\mathcal{P}(\vec{\alpha})\right) }{\partial \vec{\alpha}_{n}\partial
\vec{\alpha}_{m}} \label{eq:FPmatrix}$$with the symmetric matrix $\mathbf{M}(\vec{\alpha})=\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}(\vec{\alpha})\mathbf{B}(\vec{\alpha})^{\mathrm{T}}$ is equivalent to the set of Langevin equations [@Drummond1980] $$\frac{\partial \vec{\alpha}_{n}}{\partial t}=f_{n}(\vec{\alpha})+B(\vec{\alpha})_{nm}\eta _{m}$$where $\eta _{m}$ are independent stochastic Gaussian noise terms, defined by $\langle \eta _{m}(t)\eta _{n}(t^{\prime })\rangle =\delta _{mn}\delta
(t-t^{\prime })$. Observable quantities are obtained from averaging the Langevin equation over a stochastically generated ensemble. In particular, the average occupations $\langle \hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\rangle =\langle n_{\lambda }\rangle $ and second order correlations $\langle \hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\rangle $ are given by:
\[eq:correlators\] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\rangle & =\langle \beta _{\lambda }\alpha _{\lambda }\rangle \,, \\
\langle \hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\rangle & =\langle \beta _{\lambda }\beta _{\lambda }\alpha _{\lambda
}\alpha _{\lambda }\rangle \,.\end{aligned}$$The normalized second order correlation function is then defined as $g_{2,\lambda \lambda }=\langle \hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda
}^{\dagger }\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\hat{a}_{\lambda }^{\vphantom{\dagger}}\rangle /\langle n_{\lambda }\rangle ^{2}$. By solving Eq. (\[eq:FP\]) numerically, we are able to study the quantum statistical properties of bosonic cascades under conditions of macroscopic occupations, with several millions of particles.
*Two-Level Case.—* Considering the simplest case of two levels, we obtain the time dependence of the average populations and second order correlation functions shown in Figs. \[fig:2Levels\]a and b, respectively, for the case where the upper state is initially a coherent state populated with $\langle n_2 \rangle=5\times10^7$ particles and the ground state is in the vacuum.
![Evolution of two bosonic levels following a coherent pulsed excitation. a) Average level occupations, $\langle
n_\protect\lambda (t)\rangle$. The dashed curve shows the exponential decay of the total population. b) Second-order correlation function, $g_{2,\protect\lambda}(t)$ . The dashed curve shows the cross-correlation function $\langle\hat{a} ^\dagger_1\hat{a}^\dagger_2\hat{a}_1\hat{a}_2\rangle/(\langle n_1
\rangle\langle n_2 \rangle)$. A coherent state of $\langle n_2
\rangle=5\times10^7$ particles is assumed in the highest level and we set $V \protect\tau=8.3\times10^{-7}$ [@Liew2013].[]{data-label="fig:2Levels"}](F2){width="\linewidth"}
The dynamics of relaxation can be well understood: the population from the upper level decreases in time due to radiative emission and transfers to the lower level. At early times, the upper state populates the ground state in a thermal (or chaotic) quantum state, since it merely provides an incoherent input that increases the average population without developing any other independent observable [@delValle2011]. Consequently, the particle statistics of the lower level is initially $g_{2,\lambda=1}(t)=2$ which is the well known second-order correlation for an incoherent gas of bosons, due to their indistinguishability. Then, as population increases, stimulated emission sets in and the upper state now empties much faster and predominantly into the ground state. This results in the rapid growth of the ground state population until the upper state is so much depleted that it cannot compensate for the ground state’s radiative losses, at which stage the ground state starts to decay through its own radiative channel. In this buildup phase of the ground state, coherence also grows, as seen in the transition from $g_{2,\lambda=1}(t)=2$ to $g_{2,\lambda=1}(t)=1$. Note that the state remains coherent from there on as radiative decay alone does not dephase the condensate. More striking is the statistics of the upper state. While its second-order correlation function was initially unity, as befits a coherent state, and remained essentially unaffected in the first phase of radiative decay and spontaneous emission into the ground state, there is a pronounced super-bunching $g_{2,\lambda=2}(t)\gg2$ that forms when the state is rapidly emptied. Admirably, just as the statistics of the ground state remains equal to one until complete evaporation, the upper state’s statistics also remains pinned at the value it reached when it completed its transfer. This well defined and high value of $g_2$ for a state asymptotically approaching the vacuum is due to the mathematical limit of the two vanishing quantities in Eqs. (\[eq:correlators\]) that exists even for arbitrarily small probabilities of occupation. In practice, numerical simulations are less stable in this region and experimental measurements would also be increasingly difficult. Nevertheless, the most interesting phenomenology is the superbunching that develops in the phase where the upper state quickly empties into the ground state. In this process, where one condensate is sucked by another one, the photons emitted radiatively by the upper state will indeed exhibit a physically observable super-bunched statistics.
The reason for this peculiar behaviour is to be found in the mechanism of coherence buildup. Equation (\[eq:master\]) is equivalent to a quantum Boltzmann master equation [@gardiner97a; @laussy04a], in which formalism coherence—as measured by Glauber’s correlation functions—builds up thanks to population correlations developed by the dynamics, even in the absence of interactions or external potentials. In the conventional case of Bose condensation, the Poisson fluctuations of a single condensed state (usually the ground state), which leads to $g_{n}=1$ for all $n$, are due to this single state adquiring the fluctuations of a macroscopic system [laussy12a]{}. Since the central limit theorem states that the distribution of a large number of random variables (the excited states) is a Poisson distribution, so does also fluctuate the condensate in one single state (the ground state). Each excited state taken in isolation contributes very little to the condensate in a macroscopic system and its statistical properties are not significantly altered. In bosonic cascades, however, the asymmetry between ground and excited states is lost since there can be a few macroscopically occupied excited states. This is a peculiar configuration where coherence is adquired from another single coherent state, rather than from a macroscopic ensemble of weakly occupied thermal states (the statistical properties of which do not matter, still following the central limit theorem, as long as they obey generic conditions of independence and normalization). This peculiarity is the reason why the excited state develops such a pronounced superbunching when acting as a reservoir for another condensate to grow in another single state. The fast loss of coherence from a single state to provide for the coherence of another single state, results in the superbunching, or extreme chaos, for the provider that substitutes a macroscopic environment.
Further consequences of this mechanism are that the superbunching should become stronger for bigger initial populations and weaker for more states in the cascade. This is expected from the greater dissimilitude of the bosonic cascade from a single condensate and a macroscopic reservoir: the more levels there are and/or the less they are occupied, the more the system resembles the usual scenario. Indeed, numerical simulations show that this is the case. The dependence of the second order correlation functions, together with the occupation numbers, on the initial occupation number is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:2LevelsPowerDependence\] and confirms the expected behaviour of $g_{2,22}$ with higher populations.
![Power dependence of the two-level cascade. a) Average occupation of the lowest level. b) Average occupation of the highest level. c) $g_{2,11}$ of the lowest level. d) $g_{2,22}$ of the highest level. Contours correspond to the values shown in the colour bars. The horizontal dotted line corresponds to the initial occupation considered in Fig. [fig:2Levels]{}. In (d) the value of $g_{2,22}$ is not defined when $\langle
n_2\rangle$ is small.[]{data-label="fig:2LevelsPowerDependence"}](F3){width="\linewidth"}
The lowest mode maintains the behaviour of being initially thermal, but then becomes a coherent state upon being highly populated, as the upper state makes the transition from coherent to super-bunched light. The greater and sooner the super-bunching, the higher the initial population. The effect of adding more levels in the cascades also results in weaker super-bunching, as expected, but as it also comes with notable features of its own, we will discuss it separately.
*Multi-Level Case.—* We now consider a larger cascade composed of five levels, still with a macroscopic occupation of the highest excited state ($\langle n_{5}(t=0)\rangle =10^{8}$) and all others empty. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:5Levels\].
![Evolution of five bosonic levels following a coherent pulsed excitation. a) Average level occupations, $\langle n_{\protect\lambda }(t)\rangle $. The dashed curve shows the exponential decay of the total population. b) Second-order correlation function, $g_{2,\protect\lambda }(t)$.[]{data-label="fig:5Levels"}](F4){width="\linewidth"}
Looking first at the populations (Fig. \[fig:5Levels\]a), we see that there is a staggered oscillation in the successive levels, corresponding to the transfers of particles down through each level of the cascade. The beginning of the relaxation, between the two-highest excited states, is similar to the case already studied, but since the recipient for the highest excited state is also the source for another state below, the dynamics is echoed down the ladder until it reaches the final ground state. In the process, the dynamics slows down and is tamed in intensity, as particles are constantly lost to the environment. The second order correlation functions also exhibit a staggering effect, which can be understood as a generalization of the behaviour observed in Fig. \[fig:2Levels\] for the two-level case, but with a richer phenomenology. The super-bunching is still observed when the feeding condensate is sucked into the growing one but this process gets disturbed when the latter condensate becomes in its turn the feeding singly-occupied macroscopic state that trades its coherence to the state below it. This releases the drain on the former condensate, which therefore relaxes the super-bunching of what is left of the particles there. In the phase of condensation, the state that grows its coherence does so not only at the expense of its exciting state, but also of the state below. This results in a smaller plateau of super-bunching for the latter state that sandwiches the condensate together with the plateau of large super-bunching from the exciting state. As a result, the particle statistics for each state is an intricate sequence of several plateaus joined by abrupt jumps as the condensate starts to form or starts to empty. For a generic state—that is, one that is not too close from the most excited state or from the ground state—the statistical relief has five plateaus: i) a thermal state starting with, and growing from, the vacuum before the cascade is started; ii) a plateau of small super-bunchingas it provides coherence from below to its exciting state; iii) a coherent plateau as the state is building its own coherence from the excited state now in its process of avalanche; iv) a plateau of big superbunching as the state feeds the state below, becoming super-chaotic in the transfer of coherence; finally, v) a thermal state as the process got transported to states below, with the next state now in its phase of big superbunchingand that two states below in that of building its coherence. The most relevant plateau is that of stage iv), as it is present for all the excited states and has the stronger signal. All the excited states except that immediately above the ground state ultimately revert to a thermal state, once the peculiar dynamics of bosonic cascade is long gone. The complex concordance of these several stages in statistics with the corresponding ones in populations can be observed in Fig. \[fig:5Levels\]b, showing the beautiful and peculiar dynamics of quantum statistics in bosonic cascades.
*Conclusion.—* By solving the Fokker-Planck equation for the positive-P representation of a ladder of bosonic states coupled as nearest-neighbors, we could compute the quantum statistics of a bosonic cascade with several levels and for macroscopic occupations. We have shown how the peculiar nature of this system, where coherence is exchanged between single states, results in a super-bunching in the phase where one condensate empties suddenly into the state below. The observation of this strong and striking quantum optical effect could be made in wide parabolic quantum wells where excitons are confined as whole particles. It will not only illustrate fundamental features of coherence buildup in non-interacting bosonic gases, but also provide new venues for imaging applications, in addition to the prospects of implementations in the terahertz bandwidth already offered by these systems.
AK thanks the EPSRC established career fellowship for support. IAS thanks ITN NOTEDEV for support. ASS acknowledges RFBR project 15-02-01060 and FPL the project POLAFLOW. SDL is a Royal Society Research fellow.
[99]{} M. Tonouchi. Nat. Photon., **1**, 97 (2007).
R. Kohler, A. Tredicucci, F. Beltram, H. E. Beere, E. H. Linfield, A. Giles Davies, D. A. Ritchie, R. C. Lotti, & F. Rossi, Nature, **417**, 156 (2002).
J. Liu, J. Chen, T. Wang, Y. Li, F. Liu, L. Li, L. Wang, & Z. Wang, Solid State Comm., **81**, 68 (2013).
J. Faist, F. Capasso, D. L. Sivco, C. Sirtori, A. L. Hutchinson, & A. Y. Cho, Science, **264**, 553 (1994).
T. C. H. Liew, M. M. Glazov, K. V. Kavokin, I. A. Shelykh, M. A. Kaliteevski, & A. V. Kavokin, Phys. Rev. Lett., **110**, 047402 (2013).
A. V. Kavokin, I. A. Shelykh, T. Taylor, & M. M. Glazov, Phys. Rev. Lett., **108**, 197401 (2012).
S. De Liberato, C. Ciuti, & C. C. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 241304 (2013).
M. A. Kaliteevski, K. A. Ivanov, G. Pozina, & A.J. Gallant. Scientific Report, **4**, 5444 (2014).
A. A. Pervishko, T. C. H. Liew, A. V. Kavokin, & I. A. Shelykh, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, **26**, 085303 (2014).
A. V. Kavokin, Nature Photon. **7**, 591 (2013).
S. Christopoulos, G. Baldassarri Höger von Högersthal, A. J. D. Grundy, P. G. Lagoudakis, A. V. Kavokin, J. J. Baumberg, G. Christmann, R. Butté, E. Feltin, J.-F. Carlin, & N. Grandjean, Phys. Rev. Lett., **98**, 126405 (2007).
C. Schneider, A. Rahimi-Iman, N. Y. Kim, J. Fischer, I. G. Savenko, M. Amthor, M. Lermer, A. Wolf, L. Worschech, V. D. Kulakovskii, I. A. Shelykh, M. Kamp, S. Reitzenstein, A. Forchel, Y. Yamamoto, & S. Höfling, Nature, **497**, 348 (2013).
P. Bhattacharya, T. Frost, S. Deshpande, M.Z. Baten, A. Hazari, & A. Das, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 236802 (2014).
D. Sanvitto, S. Pigeon, A. Amo, D. Ballarini, M. De Giorgi, I. Carusotto, R. Hivet, F. Pisanello, V. G. Sala, P. S. S. Guimaraes, R. Houdré, E. Giacobino, C. Ciuti, A. Bramati, & G. Gigli, Nat. Photon. **5**, 610 (2011).
T. C. H. Liew, A. V. Kavokin, T. Ostatnicky, M. A. Kaliteevski, I. A. Shelykh, & R. A. Abram, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 033302 (2010).
M. Amthor, T. C. H. Liew, C. Metzger, S. Brodbeck, L. Worschech, M. Kamp, I. A. Shelykh, A. V. Kavokin, C. Schneider, & S. Höfling, Phys. Rev. B **91**, 081404(R) (2015).
A. Amo, T. C. H. Liew, C. Adrados, R. Houdré, E. Giacobino, A. V. Kavokin & A. Bramati, Nature Photon., **4**, 361 (2010).
F. P. Laussy, G. Malpuech, A. Kavokin, & P. Bigenwald, Phys. Rev. Lett., **93**, 016402 (2004).
J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, A. Baas, B. Deveaud, R. André, J.-Ph. Poizat, & Le Si Dang, Phys. Rev. Lett., **100**, 067402 (2008).
E. del Valle & A.V. Kavokin, Phys. Rev. B, **83**, 193303 (2011).
R. Paschotta, *Encyclopedia of Laser Physics and Technology*, Wiley-VCH (2008).
W. Gong & S. Han, Sci. Rep., **5**, 9280 (2015).
P. Hong, J. Liu, & G. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A, **86**, 013807 (2012).
T. Grujic, S. R. Clark, D. Jaksch, & D G Angelakis, Phys. Rev. A, **87**, 053846 (2013).
A similar structure has been studied experimentally by M. Geiser et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., **108**, 106402 (2012), while in our case there is no need of *n-*doping: we are interested in transitions between excitonic states confined by the parabolic potential, where excitons are injected by optical pumping.
Dependencies of $V$ on $\lambda$ may appear depending on the exact geometry considered [@Liew2013], but are not expected to affect the results qualitatively.
P. D. Drummond & C. W. Gardiner, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., **13**, 2353–2368 (1980).
C. W. Gardiner & P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A, **55**, 2902 (1997).
F. P. Laussy in “Exciton-polaritons in microcavities”, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, “*Quantum Dynamics of Polariton Condensates*”, **172**, 1 (2012).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the notion of $\Gamma$-convergence, we discuss the limiting behavior of the 3d nonlinear elastic energy for thin elliptic shells, as their thickness $h$ converges to zero, under the assumption that the elastic energy of deformations scales like $h^\beta$ with $2<\beta<4$. We establish that, for the given scaling regime, the limiting theory reduces to the linear pure bending. Two major ingredients of the proofs are: the density of smooth infinitesimal isometries in the space of $W^{2,2}$ first order infinitesimal isometries, and a result on matching smooth infinitesimal isometries with exact isometric immersions on smooth elliptic surfaces.'
address:
- 'Marta Lewicka, University of Minnesota, Department of Mathematics, 206 Church St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455'
- 'Maria Giovanna Mora, Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, via Beirut 2-4, 34014 Trieste, Italy'
- 'Mohammad Reza Pakzad, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Mathematics, 139 University Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15260'
author:
- 'Marta Lewicka, Maria Giovanna Mora and Mohammad Reza Pakzad'
title: |
The matching property of infinitesimal isometries\
on elliptic surfaces\
and elasticity of thin shells
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we continue the rigorous derivation of shell theories by three-dimensional nonlinear elasticity. We follow our earlier work [@lemopa1] in which we derived the generalization of the von Kármán theory (introduced in the setting of plates and justified in [@FJMhier] through $\Gamma$-convergence) to shells with mid-surfaces of arbitrary geometry, and [@lemopa2] where we treated shells with variable thickness. From the mathematical elasticity point of view, the present paper generalizes the limiting theory which in [@FJMhier] corresponds to the linearized Kirchhoff model for plates. See also [@FJMgeo; @FJMM_cr; @LR1; @LeD-Rao; @CM05] for rigorous derivations of other theories from the same point of view. We refer to [@ciarbookvol3] for a classical discussion of such theories, using the asymptotic expansion, although we point out that none of the scaling regimes in [@lemopa1] or in this paper have been discussed in the general context of shells before.
Consider a $2$-dimensional surface $S$ embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$, which is compact, connected, oriented, of class $\mathcal{C}^{1,1}$, and with boundary $\partial S$ being the union of finitely many (possibly none) Lipschitz curves. A family $\{S^h\}_{h>0}$ of shells of small thickness $h$ around $S$ is given through: $$S^h = \{z=x + t\vec n(x); ~ x\in S, ~ -h/2< t < h/2\},\qquad 0<h<h_0.$$ By $\vec n(x)$ we denote the unit normal to $S$, by $T_x S$ the tangent space, and $\Pi(x) = \nabla \vec n(x)$ is the shape operator on $S$ (or equivalently: its negative second fundamental form). The projection onto $S$ along $\vec n$ will be denoted by $\pi$. We will assume that $h<h_0$, with $h_0$ sufficiently small to have $\pi$ well defined on each $S^h$.
To a deformation $u\in W^{1,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ we associate its elastic energy (scaled per unit thickness): $$\label{elastic-En}
E^h(u) = \frac{1}{h}\int_{S^h} W(\nabla u).$$ Here, the stored energy density $W:\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}\longrightarrow [0,\infty]$ is assumed to be $\mathcal{C}^2$ in a neighborhood of $SO(3)$, and to satisfy the following normalization, frame indifference and nondegeneracy conditions: $$\label{assump-intro}
\begin{split}
\forall F\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}\quad \forall R\in SO(3)\qquad
& W(R) = 0, \quad W(RF) = W(F), \\
& W(F)\geq C \mathrm{dist}^2(F, SO(3))
\end{split}$$ (with a uniform constant $C>0$). In the study of the elastic properties of thin shells $S^h$, a crucial step is to describe the limiting behavior, as $h\to 0$, of minimizers $u^h$ to the total energy functional: $$\label{total-intro}
J^h(u) = E^h(u) - \frac{1}{h}\int_{S^h} f^hu,$$ subject to applied forces $f^h$. It can be shown that if the forces $f^h$ scale like $h^\alpha$, then $E^h(u^h)\sim h^\beta$ where $\beta= \alpha$ if $0 \le \alpha \le 2$ and $\beta
= 2\alpha -2$ if $\alpha > 2$. The main part of the analysis consists therefore of characterizing the limiting behavior of the scaled energy functionals $1/h^\beta E^h$, or more generally, that of $1/e^h E^h$, where $e^h$ is a given sequence of positive numbers obeying a prescribed scaling law. Throughout this paper we shall assume that: $$\label{scaling-intro}
0<\lim_{h\to 0} e^h/h^\beta < +\infty, \qquad \mbox{ for some }~~ 2<\beta<4.$$
The first result in this framework is due to LeDret and Raoult [@LeD-Rao], who studied the scaling $\beta=0$. It leads to a membrane shell model, with energy depending only on stretching and shearing of the mid-surface. The case $\beta=2$ has been analyzed in [@FJMM_cr] and it corresponds to the geometrically nonlinear bending theory, where the only admissible deformations are the isometries of the mid-surface, while the energy expresses the total change of curvature produced by the deformation.
In the recent paper [@lemopa1] the limiting model has been identified for the range of scalings $\beta\geq 4$. In these cases, the admissible deformations $u$ are only those which are close to a rigid motion $R$ and whose first order term in the expansion of $u-R$ with respect to $h$ is given by $RV$, where $V$ is an element of the class $\mathcal V$ of [*infinitesimal isometries*]{} on $S$ [@Spivak]. More precisely, $\mathcal{V}$ consists of vector fields $V\in W^{2,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ for whom there exists a matrix field $A\in W^{1,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3})$ so that: $$\label{Adef-intro}
\partial_\tau V(x) = A(x)\tau \quad \mbox{and} \quad A(x)^T= -A(x) \qquad
\forall {\rm{a.e.}} \,\, x\in S \quad \forall \tau\in T_x S.$$ The class $\mathcal V$ naturally plays crucial role in the analysis of shells, and its members are identified by the following geometric property: $V$ is a (first order) infinitesimal isometry if the change of metric induced by the deformation $\mbox{id} + {\varepsilon}V$ is at most of order ${\varepsilon}^2$.
For $\beta>4$ the limiting energy is given only by a bending term, that is the first order change in the second fundamental form of $S$, produced by $V$: $$\label{I-intro}
I(V)= \frac{1}{24} \int_S
\mathcal{Q}_2\left(x,(\nabla(A\vec{n}) - A\Pi)_{tan}\right)~\mbox{d}x,
\qquad \forall V\in\mathcal{V},$$ and corresponds to the linear pure bending theory derived in [@ciarbookvol3] from linearized elasticity.
In (\[I-intro\]), the quadratic forms $\mathcal{Q}_2(x,\cdot)$ are defined as follows: $$\mathcal{Q}_2(x, F_{tan}) = \min\{\mathcal{Q}_3(\tilde F); ~~ (\tilde F - F)_{tan} = 0\},
\qquad \mathcal{Q}_3(F) = D^2 W(\mbox{Id})(F,F).$$ The form $\mathcal{Q}_3$ is defined for all $F\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$, while $\mathcal{Q}_2(x,\cdot)$, for a given $x\in S$ is defined on tangential minors $F_{tan}$ of such matrices. Recall that the tangent space to $SO(3)$ at $\mbox{Id}$ is $so(3)$. As a consequence, both forms depend only on the symmetric parts of their arguments and are positive definite on the space of symmetric matrices [@FJMgeo].
For $\beta=4$ the $\Gamma$-limit which turns out to be the generalization of the von Kármán functional [@FJMhier] to shells, contains also a stretching term, measuring the second order change in the metric of $S$: $$\label{vonKarman}
\tilde I(V,B_{tan})= \frac{1}{2}
\int_S \mathcal{Q}_2\left(x,B_{tan} - \frac{1}{2} (A^2)_{tan}\right)
+ \frac{1}{24} \int_S \mathcal{Q}_2\left(x,(\nabla(A\vec n) - A\Pi)_{tan}\right).$$ It involves a symmetric matrix field $B_{tan}$ belonging to the [*finite strain space*]{}: $$\mathcal{B} = \Big\{L^2 - \lim_{h\to 0}\mathrm{sym }\nabla w^h;
~~ w^h\in W^{1,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)\Big\}.$$ The space $\mathcal{B}$ emerges as well in the context of linear elasticity and ill-inhibited surfaces [@sanchez; @GSP].
It was further shown in [@lemopa1] that for a certain class of surfaces, referred to as [*approximately robust surfaces*]{}, the limiting theory for $\beta=4$ reduces to the purely linear bending functional (\[I-intro\]). Strictly elliptic (or convex) $\mathcal{C}^{2,1}$ surfaces happen to belong to this class [@lemopa1].
Here we focus on the range of scalings $2<\beta<4$. Roughly speaking, we look for an intermediate theory between the limit theories corresponding to $\beta=2$ and $\beta\ge 4$. On one hand, modulo a rigid motion, the deformation of the mid-surface must look like $\mbox{id} + {\varepsilon}V$ up to its first order of expansion. On the other hand, the closer $\beta$ is to $2$, the closer the mid-surface deformation must be to an exact isometry of $S$. To overcome this apparent disparity between first order infinitesimal isometries and exact isometries in this context, one must study the conditions under which, given $V \in {\mathcal V}$, one can construct an exact isometry of the form $\mbox{id} + {\varepsilon}V + {\varepsilon}^2 w_{\varepsilon}$, with equibounded $w_{\varepsilon}$. This is what we refer to as the [*matching property*]{} of an infinitesimal isometry. A key question is hence whether the infinitesimal isometry $V$ obtained as above from the limit deformation $u$ enjoys the matching property for the energy scaling range $2<\beta<4$.
If $S\subset \mathbb R^2$ represents a plate, the above questions have been answered in [@FJMhier]. In this case:
- The limit displacement $V$ must necessarily belong to the space of second order infinitesimal isometries: $$\mathcal V_2:= \{ V\in {\mathcal V};~~ (A^2)_{tan} \in {\mathcal B} \},$$ where the matrix field $A$ is as in (\[Adef-intro\]).
- Any Lipschitz second order isometry $V\in\mathcal{V}_2$ satisfies the matching property.
Combining these two facts with the density of Lipschitz second order infinitesimal isometries in ${\mathcal V_2}$ for a plate [@MuPa2], one concludes through careful $\Gamma$-convergence arguments that the limiting plate theory is given by the functional (\[I-intro\]) over the nonlinear space ${\mathcal V_2}$. Note that, for a plate, $V\in {\mathcal V_2}$ means that there exists an in-plane displacement $w\in W^{1,2} (S, \mathbb R^2)$ such that the change of metric due to $\mbox{id} + {\varepsilon}V + {\varepsilon}^2 w$ is of order ${\varepsilon}^3$. Also, in this case, an equivalent analytic characterization for $V=(V^1, V^2, V^3) \in {\mathcal V_2}$ is given by $(V^1, V^2) = (-\omega y, \omega x) + (b_1, b_2)$ and $\det \nabla^2 V^3 =0$.
Towards analyzing more general surfaces $S$, we first derive the matching property and the corresponding density of isometries, for elliptic surfaces. We say that $S$ is elliptic if its shape operator $\Pi$ is strictly positive (or strictly negative) definite up to the boundary. Hence, without loss of generality we have: $$\label{elliptic-intro}
\forall x\in \bar S \quad \forall \tau\in T_xS \qquad
\frac{1}{C}|\tau|^2 \leq \Big(\Pi(x)\tau\Big)\cdot\tau \leq C|\tau|^2.$$ The main result of this paper states that for elliptic surfaces of sufficient regularity, the $\Gamma$-limit of the nonlinear elastic energy (\[elastic-En\]) for the scaling regime $2<\beta<4$ is still given by the energy functional (\[I-intro\]) over the linear space ${\mathcal V}$. The main reason is the fact that for an elliptic surface, all sufficiently smooth infinitesimal isometries satisfy the matching property. This implies a qualitatively different theory from the nonlinear theory obtained for plates in this regime. Our main theorem about the matching property of infinitesimal isometries is the following:
\[th\_exact-intro\] Let $S$ be elliptic (that is condition is satisfied). Moreover assume that $S$ is homeomorphic to a disk and that for some $\alpha
>0$, $S$ and $\partial S$ are of class $\mathcal{C}^{3,\alpha}$. Given $V\in\mathcal{V}\cap\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)$, there exists a sequence $w_h:\bar S\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$, equibounded in $\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)$, and such that for all small $h>0$ the map $u_h = \mathrm{id} +hV + h^2w_h$ is an (exact) isometry.
We apply this result in section \[sec\_recovery\], to construct the recovery sequence necessary for establishing the upper bound in the context of the $\Gamma$-convergence (see Theorem \[thlimsup-intro\]). Clearly, Theorem \[th\_exact-intro\] is not sufficient for this purpose as the elements of $\mathcal V$ are only $W^{2,2}$ regular. Indeed, in most $\Gamma$-convergence results, a key step is to prove density of suitable more regular mappings in the space of admissible mappings for the limit problem. Results in this direction, for Sobolev spaces of isometries and infinitesimal isometries of flat regions, have already been proved and applied in the context of derivation of plate theories. The interested reader can refer to [@Pak; @MuPa2; @Ho1; @Ho2] for statements of these density theorems and their applications in [@FJMhier; @CD].
In general, even though $\mathcal{V}$ is a linear space, and assuming $S$ to be $\mathcal{C}^\infty$, the usual mollification techniques do not guarantee that elements of $\mathcal{V}$ can be approximated by smooth infinitesimal isometries. An interesting example, discovered by Cohn-Vossen [@Spivak], is a closed smooth surface of non-negative curvature for which $\mathcal{C}^\infty \cap \mathcal{V}$ consists only of trivial fields $V: S\longrightarrow {\mathbb R}^3$ with constant gradient, whereas $\mathcal{C}^2 \cap \mathcal{V}$ contains non-trivial infinitesimal isometries. Therefore $\mathcal{C}^\infty \cap \mathcal{V}$ is not dense in $\mathcal{V}$ for this surface. We however have:
\[th\_density-intro\] Assume that $S$ is elliptic, homeomorphic to a disk, of class $\mathcal{C}^{m+2,\alpha}$ up to the boundary and that $\partial S$ is $\mathcal{C}^{m+1,\alpha}$, for some $\alpha\in (0,1)$ and an integer $m>0$. Then, for every $V\in\mathcal{V}$ there exists a sequence $V_n\in\mathcal{V}\cap\mathcal{C}^{m,\alpha}(\bar S,\mathbb{R}^3) $ such that: $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \|V_n - V\|_{W^{2,2}(S)} = 0.$$
Recall that the $\Gamma$-convergence result is a combination of two statements. The first one concerns compactness and lower bound for any equi-bounded sequence of $3$d deformations $u^h: S^h \longrightarrow{\mathbb R^3}$ in terms of the limit energy. The second one states an upper bound on a recovery sequence given an admissible mapping for the limit problem [@dalmaso]. In view of future applications, we prove the lower bound result for an arbitrary surface.
\[thliminf-intro\] Let $S$ be a $2$-dimensional surface embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$, which is compact, connected, oriented, of class $\mathcal{C}^{1,1}$, and whose boundary $\partial S$ is the union of finitely many (possibly none) Lipschitz curves. Assume (\[scaling-intro\]) and let $u^h\in W^{1,2}(S^h,\mathbb{R}^3)$ be a sequence of deformations whose scaled energies $E^h(u^h)/e^h$ are uniformly bounded. Then there exist a sequence $Q^h\in SO(3)$ and $c^h\in\mathbb{R}^3$ such that for the normalized rescaled deformations: $$y^h(x+t\vec{n}) = Q^h u^h(x+h/h_0 t\vec{n}) - c^h$$ defined on the common domain $S^{h_0}$, the following holds.
1. $y^h$ converge in $W^{1,2}(S^{h_0})$ to $\pi$.
2. The scaled average displacements: $$\label{Vh-intro}
V^h(x) = \frac{h}{\sqrt{e^h}} \fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}
y^h(x+t\vec{n}) - x ~\mathrm{d}t$$ converge (up to a subsequence) in $W^{1,2}(S)$ to some $V\in \mathcal{V}$.
3. ${h}/{\sqrt{e^h}} ~\mathrm{sym }~\nabla V^h$ converge (up to a subsequence) in $L^{2}(S)$ to ${1}/{2}(A^2)_{tan}$, where $A$ is related to $V$ by (\[Adef-intro\]). Equivalently, we have: $(A^2)_{tan}\in\mathcal{B}$.
4. $\liminf_{h\to 0} {1}/{e^h} E^h(u^h) \geq I(V).$
The novelty with respect to the equivalent result for $\beta =4$ [@lemopa1] is the constraint $(A^2)_{tan}\in\mathcal{B}$ or equivalently: $V\in {\mathcal V_2}$. If $S$ is an elliptic surface as in (\[elliptic-intro\]), and of sufficient regularity, one can prove that the set $\mathcal B$ coincides with the whole space $L^2_{sym}(S, {\mathbb R}^{2\times2})$ [@lemopa1], hence the constraint is automatically satisfied for all $V\in {\mathcal V}$. In the general case where $S$ is an arbitrary surface, a characterization of this constraint and the exact form of $\mathcal B$ may be difficult.
We conjecture that other constraints, similar to the inclusion $V\in {\mathcal V_2}$ obtained above, should be present for values of $\beta$ closer to $2$ (not derived here). One then expects such conditions to be necessary and sufficient for constructing the recovery sequence on shells which are not convex. Heuristically, the closer $\beta$ is to $2$, we expect $V$ to be an infinitesimal isometry of higher order.
We now state the upper bound in the $\Gamma$-convergence result, for elliptic surfaces:
\[thlimsup-intro\] Under the assumptions on $S$ in Theorem \[thliminf-intro\] and that of $S$ being elliptic, homeomorphic to a disk, of class $\mathcal{C}^{4,\alpha}$ up to its boundary and with $\partial S$ of class $\mathcal{C}^{3,\alpha}$, the following holds. Assume . Then for every $V\in\mathcal{V}$ there exists a sequence of deformations $u^h\in W^{1,2}(S^h,{\mathbb R}^3)$ (satisfying $E^h(u^h)\leq C e^h$) such that:
- the rescaled deformations $y^h(x+t\vec n)=u^h(x+th/h_0 \vec n)$ converge in $W^{1,2}(S^{h_0})$ to $\pi$.
- the scaled average displacements $V^h$ given in (\[Vh-intro\]) converge in $W^{1,2}(S)$ to $V$.
- $\lim_{h\to 0} {1}/{e^h} E^h(u^h) = I(V)$.
As an application of Theorem \[thliminf-intro\] and Theorem \[thlimsup-intro\], we will further discuss in section \[sec\_deadloads\] the behavior of the minimizers of the total energy functional (\[total-intro\]). According to the static elasticity theory, they correspond to the equilibrium configurations of the thin shell subject to a body force $f^h$. We identify the scaling regimes for $f^h$ under which the scaling assumption (\[scaling-intro\]) is satisfied for the minimizers of $J^h$ and prove the appropriate convergence result in Theorem \[thmaincinque\].
The problem of the limiting theory in the scaling range $2<\beta<4$ is still open for general shells. Applying methods of our present paper to surfaces changing type leads to working with mixed-type PDEs. In a next step, we plan to extend our study to other classes of surfaces, eg hyperbolic, surfaces of revolution and developable surfaces. This program will hopefully pave the way for a better understanding of the most general cases.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} M.L. was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-0707275. and by the Center for Nonlinear Analysis (CNA) under the NSF grants 0405343 and 0635983. M.G.M. was partially supported by MiUR through the project “Variational problems with multiple scales” 2006 and by GNAMPA through the project “Problemi di riduzione di dimensione per strutture elastiche sottili” 2008. M.R.P. was partially supported by the University of Pittsburgh grant CRDF-9003034.
A lower bound for general surfaces: a proof of Theorem \[thliminf-intro\]
=========================================================================
The claims (i), (ii) and (iv) in Theorem \[thliminf-intro\] were proved in [@lemopa1 Theorem 2.1], under a less restrictive condition $\beta>2$. It remains to now deduce (iii), relying on the assumption that $\lim_{h\to 0} h^2/\sqrt{e^h}=0$, which follows from (\[scaling-intro\]). Define: $$\label{gradh}
\nabla_h y^h(x+t\vec n) = Q^h \nabla u^h(x+h/h_0 t\vec n).$$ A crucial observation made in [@lemopa1] is that, for some sequence of matrix fields $R^h\in W^{1,2}(S, \mathbb{R}^{3\times 3})$ with values in $SO(3)$, the sequence $1/\sqrt{e^h} (\nabla_h y^h - Q^h R^h)$ is uniformly bounded in $L^2(S^{h_0})$ (see [@lemopa1 Proposition 3.4 (i)]). Hence there follows the uniform bound on $1/\sqrt{e^h} \fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}\nabla_h y^h - Q^h R^h~\mbox{d}t $ in $L^2(S)$. After multiplying by $h^2/\sqrt{e^h}$, we obtain: $$\label{uno}
\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{h^2}{e^h}\fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}\mbox{sym } (\nabla_h y^h -
\mbox{Id})~\mbox{d}t = - \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{h^2}{e^h}\mbox{sym }(\mbox{Id} -
Q^h R^h) = \frac{1}{2} A^2 \qquad \mbox{in } L^2(S),$$ where the last equality follows from [@lemopa1 Lemma 3.2 (iii)].
On the other hand, by [@lemopa1 Proposition 3.4 (ii)], (a subsequence of) $h/\sqrt{e^h}(\nabla_h y^h -\mbox{Id})$ converges in $L^2(S^{h_0})$ (to $A\pi$), and therefore $h/\sqrt{e^h}\fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}|\nabla_h y^h -
\mbox{Id}|~\mbox{d}t$ is bounded in $L^2(S)$. Consider the matrix fields: $$\nabla V^h(x) = \frac{h}{\sqrt{e^h}} \fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2} (\nabla_h y^h(x
+ t\vec n) -\mbox{Id}) (\mbox{Id} + h/h_0t \Pi)~\mbox{d}t$$ and notice that by the previous observation the right hand side in: $$\frac{h}{\sqrt{e^h}}\left|\mbox{sym }\nabla V^h -
\frac{h}{\sqrt{e^h}}\mbox{sym}_{tan}\fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}\nabla_h
y^h-\mbox{Id}~\mbox{d}t \right|
\leq \frac{h^2}{\sqrt{e^h}}\frac{h}{\sqrt{e^h}}
\fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}|\nabla_h y^h - \mbox{Id}|~\mbox{d}t$$ converges to $0$ in $L^2(S)$, again using (\[scaling-intro\]). Recalling (\[uno\]) we arrive at: $$\label{tre}
(A^2)_{tan} = 2\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{h}{\sqrt{e^h}} \mbox{ sym }\nabla V^h
\qquad \mbox{in } L^2(S),$$ which ends the proof of (iii) and also establishes Theorem \[thliminf-intro\].
\[remi1\] Condition (\[tre\]) may seem more restrictive than that of $(A^2)_{tan}\in\mathcal{B}$, since: $$\label{R1}
A_{tan} = \lim_{h\to 0} \nabla V^h\quad \mbox{ in } L^2(S).$$ This is however not the case, because of the following observation. Let $A$ be any skew-symmetric matrix field on $S$, such that $A_{tan} = \nabla V$ for some $V\in W^{1,2}(S)$ and that $(A^2)_{tan}\in\mathcal{B}$. Then there must exist a sequence $V^h\in W^{1,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ such that (\[R1\]) and (\[tre\]) hold. Indeed, by “slowing down” the sequence $\tilde V^h$ in: $(A^2)_{tan} = 2 \lim_{h\to 0}\mbox{ sym }\nabla \tilde V^h$ if necessary, we may without loss of generality assume that $\|\tilde V^h\|_{W^{1,2}(S)}^2\leq h/\sqrt{e^h}$. Define $V^h= \sqrt{e^h}/h \tilde V^h + V$. Then $h/\sqrt{e^h}\mbox{ sym }\nabla V^h = \mbox{ sym }\nabla \tilde V^h$ converges to $1/2 (A^2)_{tan}$ and $\nabla V^h = \sqrt{e^h}/h \nabla \tilde V^h
+ A_{tan}$ converges to $A_{tan}$, as the norm of the first term, bounded by $(\sqrt{e^h}/h)^{1/2}$ goes to $0$ in $L^2(S)$.
\[remi2\] If $S$ is a plate, then the component $V^3=V\vec n$ of $V\in\mathcal{V}$ and the vector field $w$ such that $1/2(A^2)_{tan}=\mbox{sym }\nabla w$ are, respectively, the out-of-plane and the in-plane displacements (modulo a possible in-plane infinitesimal rigid motion). Also, the constraint in (iii) becomes: $\mbox{det}\nabla^2 V^3 = 0$.
The linear problem $\mbox{sym}\nabla w = B$ on elliptic surfaces {#sec_linear}
================================================================
Assume that $S$ is a simply connected, compact surface of class $\mathcal{C}^{2,1}$ with non-empty $\mathcal{C}^2$ boundary, and that its shape operator $\Pi$ satisfies (\[elliptic-intro\]). Given a vector field $w:S\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$, we will consider its decomposition into the tangential and normal parts: $w=w_{tan} + (w\cdot\vec n)\vec n$. Notice that: $$\mbox{sym}\nabla w = \mbox{sym}\nabla w_{tan} + (w\cdot\vec n)\Pi.$$ The purpose of this section is to prove the following result:
\[thmain\_linear\] There exists a linear operator: $$\mathcal{T}:L^2_{sym}(S,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})\longrightarrow
\big\{w\in L^2(S,\mathbb{R}^3);~ w_{tan}\in W^{1,2}(S)\big\}$$ such that $\mathrm{sym}\nabla (\mathcal{T}B) = B$, for every $B\in L^2_{sym}(S,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$ and that: $$\label{main_lin_est}
\|(\mathcal{T}B)_{tan}\|_{W^{1,2}(S)} + \|(\mathcal{T}B)\cdot\vec n\|_{L^2(S)}
\leq C \|B\|_{L^2(S)}.$$
We first notice that, by a density argument, it is clearly enough to define the linear operator $\mathcal{T}$ on $W^{2,2}\cap
L^2_{sym}(S,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$ and prove there the uniform bound (\[main\_lin\_est\]).
We will use the notation and calculations in [@Ni] or [@HH Section 9.2]. Since $S$ is homeomorphic to a disk, it can be parameterized by a single chart $r\in \mathcal{C}^{2,1} (\bar\Omega, \mathbb{R}^3)$, defined on an open, bounded, simply connected domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ with $\mathcal{C}^2$ boundary ($r$ can even be a conformal parameterization by [@Jost-book Theorem 3.1], but we do not require it). The positive definite matrix field $[g_{ij}]\in\mathcal{C}^{1,1}(\bar\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$ with $g_{ij} = \partial_i r \cdot \partial_j r$ is the pull-back metric on $\Omega$, and $\sqrt{|g|}= \sqrt {\det[g_{ij}]}\in \mathcal{C}^{1,1}(\bar\Omega)$ is the associated volume form. The shape operator $\Pi$ expressed in the flat coordinates is given by $[h_{ij}]\in\mathcal{C}^{0,1}(\bar\Omega, \mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$, where $h_{ij} = \partial_i (\vec n\circ r)\cdot\partial_j r.$ We denote $[h^{ij}]=[h_{ij}]^{-1}=\Pi^{-1}$ and $[g^{ij}]=[g_{ij}]^{-1}$. The mean curvature of $S$ is given by $H = \frac{1}{2}\mbox{tr}([g^{ij}]\Pi) \in \mathcal{C}^{0,1}(\bar\Omega)$.
With this notation, the problem $\mbox{sym}\nabla w = B$ for a given $B\in W^{2,2}\cap L^2_{sym}(S,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$, is equivalent to the following system of PDEs in $\Omega$: $$\label{r-equation}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\partial_1 r \cdot \partial_1 w = B_{11} \\
\partial_1 r \cdot \partial_2 w + \partial_2 r \cdot \partial_1 w = 2 B_{12}\\
\partial_2 r \cdot \partial_2 w = B_{22},
\end{array} \right.$$ where we set: $$\label{B}
[B_{ij}]= [\partial_i r \cdot B \partial_j r].$$ The first step consists of studying the scalar field: $$\label{curl}
\omega = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\mbox{curl } w = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}
\left(\partial_1 w \cdot\partial_2 r
- \partial_2 w\cdot\partial_1 r\right).$$ Notice that $\mbox{curl }w = \mbox{curl }w_{tan}$, as the matrix field $\Pi$ is symmetric. Now (\[r-equation\]) formally yields: $$\label{curl_eq}
\mathcal{L}\omega := -\sum_{i,j=1}^2 \partial_i(\sqrt{|g|} h^{ij}\partial_j \omega)
- 2\sqrt{|g|} H\omega = \mathcal{D}([B_{ij}]).$$ Recall that the coefficients of the operator $\mathcal{L}$ have the following regularity: $h^{ij}, H\in \mathcal{C}^{0,1}(\bar\Omega)$, $\sqrt{|g|}\in\mathcal{C}^{1,1}(\bar\Omega)$. The matrix field $[h^{ij}]$ is uniformly strictly positive definite and both $\sqrt{|g|}$ and $H$ are strictly positive in $\bar\Omega$. The linear operator $\mathcal{D}:W^{2,2}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})
\longrightarrow L^2(\Omega)$ given explicitely in [@HH], has the form: $\mathcal{D}([B_{ij}]) = \sum \partial_k(a_{klij}\partial_l B_{ij})
+ \sum \partial_k(b_{kij}B_{ij}) + \sum c_{ij}B_{ij}$ with coefficients $a,b,c\in \mathcal{C}^{0,1}(\bar\Omega)$.
\[basic\_bound\] There exists a linear operator $\mathcal{S}:
W^{2,2}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}) \longrightarrow
W^{2,2}(\Omega,\mathbb{R})$ such that: $$\label{ineq}
\|\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq C\|[B_{ij}]\|_{L^2(\Omega)},$$ and that $\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])$ is a solution to (\[curl\_eq\]), for each $[B_{ij}]\in W^{2,2}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$.
[**1.**]{} Fix a small $\epsilon>0$ and extend the coefficients $[h^{ij}]$, $H$, $\sqrt{|g|}$ on the domain $\Omega_\epsilon=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^2; ~\mbox{dist}(x,\Omega)<\epsilon\}$, preserving their regularity and sign and increasing their indicated norms at most by a uniform factor $C$. Also, let $W^{2,2}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^2)\ni [B_{ij}]\mapsto[\tilde
B_{ij}]\in W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon,\mathbb{R}^2)$ be a linear extension operator, such that: $$\label{ext}
\mbox{supp} [\tilde B_{ij}]\subset \bar\Omega_{\epsilon/2},
\,\,\, \|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}
\leq C \|[B_{ij}]\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \quad \mbox{and}\quad
\|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}
\leq C \|[B_{ij}]\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}.$$ For $\lambda= 2\max_{\Omega_\epsilon}(\sqrt{|g|}H)$ consider the following bilinear, symmetric, continuous and coercitive form $a_\lambda$ on $W^{1,2}_0(\Omega_\epsilon)$: $$\label{form}
a_\lambda (\omega, v) = \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \sum_{i,j=1}^2 \sqrt{|g|}
h^{ij}\partial_j \omega\partial_i v + \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} (\lambda - 2
\sqrt{|g|}H)\omega v.$$ By the Lax-Milgram and Rellich-Kondrachov theorems there exists the compact linear solution operator $T:L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)\longrightarrow
L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)$ with $Range(T)\subset W^{1,2}_0(\Omega_\epsilon)$, defined by: $$\forall f\in L^2(\Omega_\epsilon) \quad \forall v\in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega_\epsilon)
\qquad a_\lambda(Tf, v) = \int_{\Omega_\epsilon}fv.$$ Further, the space $Ker(\lambda T - \mbox{Id})$ has finite dimension $d$. Since the operator $\lambda T-\mbox{Id}$ is self-adjoint on $L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)$, by Fredholm’s alternative the closed spaces $Ker(\lambda T - \mbox{Id})$ and $E= Range(\lambda T - \mbox{Id})$ are orthogonally complementary in $L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)$. Consequently, there exists a continuous linear bijection $S:E\longrightarrow E$ which is the right inverse of $\lambda T-\mbox{Id}$, that is: $(\lambda T-\mbox{Id})\circ S = \mbox{Id}_{E}$.
Given $f\in E$, consider $\omega=\frac{1}{\lambda} (-S-\mbox{Id})f$. Clearly: $$\label{first_bd}
\|\omega\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)} \leq C \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}.$$ Also, we have: $(\lambda T-\mbox{Id})\omega = -Tf$ which is equivalent to $T(\lambda\omega + f) = \omega$. Therefore $\omega\in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega_\epsilon)$ and in view of (\[form\]): $a_\lambda(\omega, v) = \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} (\lambda\omega + f)v$ for every $v\in W^{1,2}_0(\Omega_\epsilon)$. In other words, $\omega$ is a weak, traceless solution to the second order elliptic PDE $\mathcal{L}\omega
= f$ in $\Omega_\epsilon$, and as such must be its classical solution (see [@GT Theorem 8.12]) $\omega\in W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)$. Moreover: $$\label{scnd_bd}
\|\omega\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)} \leq C
(\|\omega\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)} + \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}) \leq
C \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)},$$ where we have used (\[first\_bd\]) to obtain the second inequality.
[**2.**]{} Let $Ker(\lambda T - \mbox{Id}) =
span_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}\{\xi_1\ldots \xi_d\}$. Consider the operator $L:\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\Omega_\epsilon \setminus
\bar\Omega_{\epsilon/2})\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ given by: $$L(f_0) = \left\{\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}f_0 \xi_k\right\}_{k=1}^d.$$ We now prove that $L$ is surjective. For otherwise, there would be: $\int_{\Omega_\epsilon} f_0 (\sum_{k=1}^d\alpha_k\xi_k) = 0$, for some vector $(\alpha_1\ldots \alpha_d)\in\mathbb{R}^d\setminus \{0\}$ and all $f_0\in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\Omega_\epsilon \setminus
\bar\Omega_{\epsilon/2})$. This implies that $\xi= \sum_{k=1}^d\alpha_k\xi_k=0$ in $\Omega_\epsilon \setminus\bar\Omega_{\epsilon/2}$. Moreover, as $\xi\in Ker
(\lambda T - \mbox{Id})$, one obtains that $T(\lambda\xi) = \xi$ and hence $\mathcal{L}\xi = 0$ in $\Omega_\epsilon$. Using Hörmander’s continuation principle we deduce that the compactly supported $\xi$ must actually vanish on the entire $\Omega_\epsilon$, contradicting thus the linear independence of $\{\xi_1\ldots \xi_d\}$.
In view of the above, $L$ has a right inverse $L_1:\mathbb{R}^d\longrightarrow
\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \bar\Omega_{\epsilon/2})$, such that: $L\circ L_1 = \mbox{Id}_{\mathbb{R}^d}$.
[**3.**]{} We now set: $$\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}]) := -\frac{1}{\lambda} (S+\mbox{Id})\Bigg\{
\mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}]) - L_1\left(
\left\{\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}]) \xi_k\right\}_{k=1}^d
\right)\Bigg\}$$ (or, more precisely, the restriction of the above function to $\Omega$). By the definition of $L_1$, the quantity $f= \mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}]) - L_1\left(\left\{\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}
\mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}]) \xi_k\right\}_{k=1}^d\right)$ is orthogonal to each $\xi_i$ and so $f\in E$. Hence $\mathcal{S}$ is well defined, and clearly it is also linear.
Call $\omega = \mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])$. By step 1, $\omega\in
W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)$ and the equation $\mathcal{L}\omega = f$ holds in $\Omega_\epsilon$. Recalling that $Range (L_1)\subset \mathcal{C}_c^\infty
(\Omega_\epsilon \setminus \bar\Omega_{\epsilon/2})$ we deduce that the restriction $\omega_{|\Omega}$ solves (\[curl\_eq\]) in $\Omega$. It now remains to prove the bound (\[ineq\]).
Since $\omega\in E$, we may define $\omega_1 = -\frac{1}{\lambda}(S+\mbox{Id})\omega$ which is a strong traceless solution to $\mathcal{L}\omega_1 = \omega$, and by (\[scnd\_bd\]) it satisfies: $$\label{thrd_bd}
\|\omega_1\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)} \leq C \|\omega\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}.$$ Now integrate the equation $\mathcal{L}\omega = f$ against $\omega_1$ on $\Omega_\epsilon$. Integration by parts (or, in other words, the selfadjointness of the operator $T$) yields: $$\label{bd_final}
\|\omega\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)} = \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} \omega
\mathcal{L}\omega_1 = \int_{\Omega_\epsilon} f \omega_1 \leq
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}]) \omega_1
+ C \|f_0\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)} \|\omega_1\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)},$$ where we denoted $f_0 = L_1\left(\left\{\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\mathcal{D}
([\tilde B_{ij}]) \xi_k\right\}_{k=1}^d \right)$. We treat separately the two terms in the right hand side of (\[bd\_final\]). For the first one, recall that the matrix field $[\tilde B_{ij}]$ is compactly supported in $\Omega_\epsilon$. Hence, integrating by parts twice, we may put both derivatives of the operator $\mathcal{D}$ on $\omega_1$ and using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality obtain: $$\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}]) \omega_1\leq
C \|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)} \|\omega_1\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}.$$ For the second term in (\[bd\_final\]), notice that: $$\label{ine}
\begin{split}
\|f_0\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}&\leq \|L_1\| \left\{\sum_{k=1}^d \left(
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}])
\xi_k\right)^2\right\}^{1/2}
\leq C \left\{\sum_{k=1}^d
\|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}\|\xi_k\|^2_{W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}
\right\}^{1/2} \\ &\leq C \|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)},
\end{split}$$ where we again used integration by parts. Hence, (\[bd\_final\]) becomes: $$\label{ine2}
\|\omega\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}\leq C \|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}
\|\omega_1\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)} \leq C \|[B_{ij}]\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\|\omega\|_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)},$$ by (\[thrd\_bd\]). This clearly implies (\[ineq\]) and ends the proof of Theorem \[basic\_bound\].
\[cor3.3\] The operator $\mathcal{S}$ defined in Theorem \[basic\_bound\] satisfies the following uniform bound: $$\|\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}\leq C\|[B_{ij}]\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}.$$
Recalling the construction and notation in the proof of Theorem \[basic\_bound\], we have: $\omega = \mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])\in W^{2,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)
\cap W_0^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)$ and $\mathcal{L}\omega = \mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}]) - f_0$, where $f_0$ satisfies (\[ine\]). Integrating by parts once and using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we obtain: $$\label{wz7}
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\omega\mathcal{L}\omega =
\int_{\Omega_\epsilon}\mathcal{D}([\tilde B_{ij}])\omega - \int_{\Omega_\epsilon}f_0\omega
\leq C \|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}\|\omega\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}.$$ On the other hand, the strict ellipticity of the leading order term in (\[curl\_eq\]) implies that $\int\omega\mathcal{L}\omega
\geq C\int|\nabla\omega|^2 - {1}/{C}\int|\omega|^2$. But by (\[ine2\]) $\|\omega\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_\epsilon)}\leq C\|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}
\|\omega\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}$. Hence, (\[wz7\]) and the Poincaré inequality yield: $$\|\omega\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}^2 \leq C \|\nabla\omega\|_{L^{2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}^2
\leq C \|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}
\|\omega\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}.$$ Consequently: $ \|\omega\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}\leq C
\|[\tilde B_{ij}]\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega_\epsilon)}$, which achieves the claim in view of (\[ext\]).
Towards the proof of the main result in Theorem \[thmain\_linear\], we will use the following generalized version of Korn’s second inequality in $2$d. The classical Korn’s inequality [@KO] on surfaces [@Jost; @LewMul] states that for every tangent $W^{1,2}$ vector field $v$ on $S$ one has: $$\label{korn_clas}
\|v\|_{W^{1,2}(S)}\leq C(\|v\|_{L^2(S)} + \|\mbox{sym}\nabla v\|_{L^2(S)})$$ Notice that (\[korn\_clas\]) may be obtained from the result below by taking $ A\equiv \frac{\sqrt 2}{2} J$, where the matrix field $J$ is defined through $J\tau_1 = \tau_2$ and $J\tau_2 = -\tau_1$ for any fixed smooth orthonormal basis $(\tau_1, \tau_2)$ of the tangent space $T_xS$.
\[lemma\_korn\] Let $A\in \mathcal{C}^{0,1}(\bar S, \mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$ be a tensor field on $S$, with $\det A\neq 0$ in $\bar S$. Then there holds: $$\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(S)} \leq C \left(\|v\|_{L^2(S)}
+ \|(\nabla v)_{tan} - ((\nabla v)_{tan}: A) A\|_{L^2(S)}\right)$$ for every tangent vector field $v\in W^{1,2}(S, \mathbb{R}^3)$.
Take $J\in \mathcal{C}^{0,1}(\bar S, \mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$ to be any skew-symmetric $2$-tensor field on $\bar S$, with nonvanishing determinant. Define $\tilde v=JA^{-1}v$ and observe that: $$\label{gradi}
\nabla v = AJ^{-1}(\nabla\tilde v)_{tan} + \nabla(AJ^{-1})JA^{-1}v.$$ To estimate $\nabla\tilde v$, we use (\[korn\_clas\]): $$\label{ktilde}
\|\nabla\tilde v\|_{L^{2}(S)}
\leq C(\|v\|_{L^2(S)} + \|\mbox{sym}\nabla \tilde v\|_{L^2(S)}).$$ Further, $\mbox{sym}\nabla \tilde v=\mbox{sym}\left((\nabla \tilde v)_{tan}
- ((\nabla v)_{tan}: A)J\right)$ because $J$ is skew-symmetric. Therefore: $$\begin{split}
\|\mbox{sym}\nabla\tilde v\|_{L^{2}(S)}
&\leq \|(\nabla \tilde v)_{tan} - ((\nabla v)_{tan}: A)J\|_{L^2(S)} \leq
\|AJ^{-1}(\nabla \tilde v)_{tan} - ((\nabla v)_{tan}: A)A\|_{L^2(S)}\\
&\leq \|(\nabla v)_{tan} - ((\nabla v)_{tan}: A) A\|_{L^2(S)} + C\|v\|_{L^2(S)},
\end{split}$$ in view of (\[gradi\]). Combining (\[gradi\]), (\[ktilde\]) and the above estimate proves the lemma.
Let $P$ denote now the orthogonal projection of the space of $2$-tensors on $T_xS$ (this tangent space is identified with $\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}$), onto $[span_{\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}}\{\Pi(x)\}]^\perp$. Consider the following space of tangent vector fields: $$\mathcal{Z} = \left\{v\in W^{1,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3); ~ v\cdot \vec n=0
\mbox{ and } P((\nabla v)_{tan})=0\right\}.$$ Notice that for every $v\in\mathcal{Z}$ there exists a scalar field $\alpha\in
L^2(S)$ such that $(\nabla v)_{tan} = \alpha\Pi$.
\[first\_korn\] We have the following:
- For every tangent vector field $v\in W^{1,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ there holds: $$\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(S)} \leq C \left(\|v\|_{L^2(S)}
+ \|P((\nabla v)_{tan})\|_{L^2(S)}\right).$$
- The space $\mathcal{Z}$ is finite dimensional.
- Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the orthogonal projection of the space of tangent $W^{1,2}$ vector fields, onto $\mathcal{Z}$. Then: $$\|v - \mathcal{P} v\|_{W^{1,2}(S)} \leq C \|P((\nabla v)_{tan})\|_{L^2(S)},$$ for every tangent vector field $v\in W^{1,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$.
The estimate in (i) follows from Lemma \[lemma\_korn\] by taking $A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Pi:\Pi}}\Pi$.
In particular, for every $v\in \mathcal{Z}$ there holds $\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(S)} \leq C\|v\|_{L^2(S)} $. It follows that in $\mathcal{Z}$ the $L^2$ and the $W^{1,2}$ norms are equivalent, and by a standard argument we obtain (ii). For otherwise the space $(\mathcal{Z}, \|\cdot\|_{W^{1,2}(S)})$ would have a countable Hilbertian (orthonormal) base $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ and thus necessarily the sequence $\{e_i\}$ would converge to $0$, weakly in $W^{1,2}(S)$. But this implies that $\lim_{h\to 0}\|e_i\|_{L^2(S)} = 0$, which by the norms equivalence gives the same convergence in $W^{1,2}(S)$, and a contradiction.
To deduce (iii), it is enough to prove it for $v\in \mathcal{Z}^\perp$, as the left hand side of the desired inequality vanishes for all $v\in\mathcal{Z}$. We now argue by contradiction. Suppose that for a sequence of tangent vector fields $v_n\in \mathcal{Z}^\perp$ one has: $$\label{assu}
\|v_n\|_{W^{1,2}(S)} = 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\|P((\nabla v_n)_{tan})\|_{L^2(S)}\to 0.$$ Then, up to a subsequence, $v_n$ converges weakly (in $W^{1,2}(S)$) to some $v\in \mathcal{Z}^\perp$. On the other hand, by the convergence in (\[assu\]) there must be: $P((\nabla v)_{tan})=0$, and so $v\in \mathcal{Z}$. Consequently $v=0$, which in turn implies that $\|v_n\|_{L^2(S)}$ converges to $0$. Using (i) we now deduce that $\nabla v_n$ converges to $0$ strongly in $L^2(S)$. Therefore, $v_n$ converges to $0$ strongly in $W^{1,2}(S)$, which contradicts the first assumption in (\[assu\]) and ends the proof.
[**End of proof of Theorem \[thmain\_linear\].**]{}\
[**1.**]{} From calculations in [@HH Section 9.2], it follows that given $B\in W^{2,2}\cap L^2_{sym}(S,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$, there exists a solution $w\in W^{2,2}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^3)$ to (\[r-equation\]), whose gradient is given by the following explicit formula: $$\label{grad_solution}
\begin{split}
\partial_1 w &= \sum_{i,j=1}^2 g^{ij}B_{1j}\partial_i r +\frac{1}{2}
\sqrt{|g|} \mathcal{S}([B_{ij}]) \sum_{i=1}^2 g^{2i}\partial_i r + u_1 \vec n,\\
\partial_2 w &= \sum_{i,j=1}^2 g^{ij}B_{2j}\partial_i r -\frac{1}{2}
\sqrt{|g|} \mathcal{S}([B_{ij}]) \sum_{i=1}^2 g^{1i}\partial_i r + u_2 \vec n,
\end{split}$$ where: $$\label{us}
u_1 = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{|g|} \sum_{i=1}^2 h^{2i}
\left(\partial_i\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}]) - c_i\right),
\quad u_2 = -\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{|g|} \sum_{i=1}^2 h^{1j}
\left(\partial_i\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}]) - c_i\right),$$ and the scalar fields $c_i$, $i=1,2$ are given by: $$\label{formci}
c_i = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\left(\partial_1 B_{2i} - \partial_2 B_{1i}
+ \sum_{k=1}^2 (\Gamma_{2i}^k B_{1k} - \Gamma_{1i}^k B_{2k})\right).$$ The coefficients $\Gamma_{ij}^k$ are the Christoffel symbols, that may be calculated from: $$\partial_{ij}r = \sum_{k=1}^2 \Gamma_{ij}^k\partial_k r + h_{ij} \vec n,
\qquad i,j=1..2.$$
Define the operator $\mathcal{T}_1: W^{2,2}\cap L^2_{sym}(S,
\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}) \longrightarrow W^{2,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ so that $w=\mathcal{T}_1 B$ satisfies (\[grad\_solution\]) in $\Omega$ (with a slight abuse of notation, we do not distinguish between $w$ as the vector field on $S$ and $w\circ r$ which is the vector field on $\Omega$), with $[B_{ij}]$ given in (\[B\]), and $\int_\Omega w =0$. Clearly $\mathcal{T}_1$ is well defined, linear and it solves: $$\label{cosi1}
B = \mbox{sym} \nabla(\mathcal{T}_1B) = \mbox{sym}\nabla w_{tan} +
(w\cdot\vec n)\Pi.$$
[**2.**]{} We will now modify $\mathcal{T}_1$ to obtain the uniform bound (\[main\_lin\_est\]). Namely, let: $$\mathcal{T}B = w - \mathcal{P}(w_{tan}) - \alpha\vec n,
\qquad w=\mathcal{T}_1 B,$$ where in view of $Range(\mathcal{P}) \subset \mathcal{Z}$ we set: $$\label{cosi}
\mbox{sym}\nabla(\mathcal{P}(w_{tan})) + \alpha\Pi =0.$$ Consequently, $\mathcal{T}$ is linear and by (\[cosi\]): $\mbox{sym} \nabla(\mathcal{P}(w_{tan}) + \alpha\vec n)=0$, so $\mbox{sym}\nabla (\mathcal{T}B) = \mbox{sym}\nabla w = B$.
Write $(\nabla w_{tan})_{tan} =\mbox{sym}\nabla w_{tan}
+ \mbox{skew}(\nabla w_{tan})_{tan}$. By (\[cosi1\]) we have: $$\|P(\mbox{sym}\nabla w_{tan})\|_{L^2(S)}
= \|P B\|_{L^2(S)}\leq \|B\|_{L^2(S)}.$$ On the other hand, recalling that $\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}]) = \mbox{curl } w =
\mbox{curl} (w_{tan})$ given by formula (\[curl\]), we obtain: $$\|\mbox{skew}(\nabla w_{tan})_{tan}\|_{L^2(S)}\leq
C \|\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])\|_{L^2(S)} \leq C\|B\|_{L^2(S)},$$ where we used the estimate (\[ineq\]) of Theorem \[basic\_bound\]. By Lemma \[first\_korn\] (iii) and the two estimates above we now deduce: $$\|(\mathcal{T}B)_{tan}\|_{W^{1,2}(S)}
= \|w_{tan} - \mathcal{P}(w_{tan})\|_{W^{1,2}(S)}
\leq C \|P(\nabla w_{tan})_{tan}\|_{L^2(S)}\leq C\|B\|_{L^2(S)}.$$ Consequently, we also have: $$\|(\mathcal{T}B)\cdot\vec n\|_{L^2(S)}= \|B - \mbox{sym}\nabla
(\mathcal{T}B)_{tan}\|_{L^2(S)} \leq C\|B\|_{L^2(S)},$$ which concludes the proof of (\[main\_lin\_est\]).
\[corolp\] For any $1<p<\infty$, there exists $C_p>0$ such that the following holds for the operator $\mathcal{T}$ of Theorem \[thmain\_linear\]: $$\|(\mathcal{T}B)_{tan} \|_{W^{2,p}(S)} + \|(\mathcal{T}B) \cdot
\vec n)\|_{W^{1,p}(S)} \leq C_p \|B\|_{W^{1,p}(S)}.$$
First we extend the whole domain and coefficients of all the equations to the domain $\Omega_\varepsilon$ as in the proof of Theorem \[basic\_bound\], and construct the linear solution operator $\mathcal{T}$ associated with the larger domain, satisfying the bound (\[ineq\]) there. We now notice that the system of first order PDEs: $\mbox{sym}\nabla v +
\alpha\Pi = B$ for the unknowns $v,\alpha$, is elliptic in the sense of Agmon, Douglis and Nirenberg [@ADN], as shown in [@GSP]. Hence, applying the local estimate of [@ADN] we conclude the result.
A density result on elliptic surfaces: a proof of Theorem \[th\_density-intro\] {#sec_density}
===============================================================================
In this section we prove the density result regarding the space $\mathcal{V}$ of infinitesimal isometries on an elliptic surface $S$. This result is a necessary step in our analysis and will be used in section \[sec\_recovery\]. Here, in addition to assumptions made on $S$ in section \[sec\_linear\], we shall require that $S$ is of class $\mathcal{C}^{4,\alpha}$ up to the boundary and that $\partial S$ is $\mathcal{C}^{3,\alpha}$, for some $\alpha\in (0,1)$. As throughout this paper, we focus on the case when $S$ is homeomorphic to a disk, but the result seems to hold true for all elliptic surfaces modulo some technical modifications in case of surfaces with non-trivial topology.
We shall prove Theorem \[th\_density-intro\] only for $m=2$ ($\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}$ regular infinitesimal isometries are dense in $\mathcal{V}$), but the same reasoning applies to higher regularities as well.
[**Proof of Theorem \[th\_density-intro\].**]{}
[**1.**]{} From the regularity of $S$ ($\mathcal{C}^{3,1}$ is enough for this purpose), it follows that: $$\mbox{sym }\nabla V_{tan} = -(V\vec n)\Pi\in W^{2,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}).$$ Writing $V^i = (V\tau_i)\circ r\in W^{2,2}(\Omega,\mathbb{R})$ (where $\tau_i = \partial_i r$ for $i=1,2$) we notice that the components of the matrix field $\mbox{sym }\nabla(V^1, V^2)$ are of the form: $\partial_{\tau_i}(V\tau_j) + \partial_{\tau_j}(V\tau_i)=
V (\partial_{\tau_i}\tau_j + \partial_{\tau_j}\tau_i)$ and hence they belong to $W^{2,2}(\Omega)$. Recall now that second derivatives of any vector field $w:\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow
\mathbb{R}^n$ are linear combinations of derivatives of its symmetric gradient: $[\nabla^2 w^k]_{ij} = \partial_i [\mbox{sym }\nabla w)]_{kj} +
\partial_j [\mbox{sym }\nabla w]_{ki} - \partial_k [\mbox{sym }\nabla w]_{ij}$. Therefore $V^1, V^2\in W^{3,2}(\Omega)$, and so $V_{tan}\in W^{3,2}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$.
Following calculations in section \[sec\_linear\], we will consider the scalar field as in (\[curl\]): $$\label{wz2}
\omega=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\mbox{curl }V = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\mbox{curl }V_{tan}
\in W^{2,2}(S,\mathbb{R}),$$ satisfying $\mathcal{L}\omega=0$. The operator $\mathcal{L}$ is defined in (\[curl\_eq\]) and its coefficients have regularity: $h^{ij}, H\in \mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$, $\sqrt{|g|}\in\mathcal{C}^{3,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$. Our first goal is to approximate $\omega$ in $W^{2,2}(\Omega)$ by a sequence $\omega_n\in\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$ such that $\mathcal{L}\omega_n = 0$.
[**2.**]{} Consider the space: $$F=\left\{v\in W^{2,2}(\Omega); ~ \mathcal{L}v = 0 \mbox{ in } \Omega,
~ v=0 \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega \right\}.$$ By [@GT Theorem 9.19], the assumed regularity of $S$ and $\partial S$ guarantee that $F\subset \mathcal{C}^{3,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$.
Also, $F$ has finite dimension. One easy way of seeing it is by integrating the equation $\mathcal{L}v=0$ against $v$ on $\Omega$. In view of the ellipticity of $[h^{ij}]$ we obtain: $\|\nabla v\|_{L^2}\leq C \|v\|_{L^2}$, for every $v\in F$. Therefore in $F$ the $L^2$ and the $W^{1,2}$ norms are equivalent, proving the claim.
Define now the finite dimensional space of traces: $$F_{tr} = \left\{\left(\sum_{i,j=1}^2\sqrt{|g|}h^{ij}n^i\partial_j v
\right)_{\mid\partial\Omega}; ~ v\in F \right\}\subset L^2(\partial\Omega),$$ where by $n=(n^1, n^2)$ we denote the outer unit normal to $\partial\Omega$. As a consequence of the regularity of vector fields in $F$ and the regularity of $S$, there holds $F_{tr}\subset \mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$.
The significance of the space $F_{tr}$ is the following. Given $w\in W^{2,2}(\Omega)$, the problem: $$\mathcal{L}u = \mathcal{L}w \mbox{ in }\Omega, \qquad u=0 \mbox{ on }\partial\Omega$$ has a solution if and only if $w_{\mid\partial\Omega}\in F_{tr}^\perp$. Indeed, by Fredholm’s alternative there must be $\mathcal{L}w\in F^\perp$ (where the orthogonal complement is taken in $L^2(\Omega)$), that is: $$\label{ms}
\forall v\in F \qquad \int_\Omega \mathcal{L}w\cdot v = 0.$$ Integrating by parts we obtain: $$\int_\Omega \mathcal{L}w\cdot v = \int_\Omega w\cdot \mathcal{L}w
+ \int_{\partial\Omega} \left(\sum_{i,j=1}^2\sqrt{|g|}h^{ij}n^j\partial_i v\right) w
= \int_{\partial\Omega} \left(\sum_{i,j=1}^2\sqrt{|g|}h^{ij}n^i\partial_j v\right) w,$$ and thus (\[ms\]) is equivalent to: $w_{\mid\partial\Omega}\in F_{tr}^\perp$.
[**3.**]{} Recall that $\omega\in W^{2,2}(\Omega)$, given in (\[wz2\]), satisfies $\mathcal{L}\omega = 0$. Hence the continuous function $\phi=\omega_{\mid\partial\Omega}$ belongs to $F_{tr}^\perp$. Towards approximating $\omega$ by $\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$ functions, we first approximate its trace $\phi$. Namely, we claim that there exists a sequence $\phi_n \in F_{tr}^\perp\cap \mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$ such that: $$\label{wz2.5}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \,\inf\left\{\|\Phi\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega)}; ~ \Phi\in W^{2,2}(\Omega),
~ \Phi_{\mid\partial\Omega}=\phi_n-\phi\right\}=0,$$ (it is clear that “$\inf$” above may be replaced by “$\min$”). Let $\tilde\phi_n=\tilde\omega_{n}{}_{\mid\partial\Omega}$, so that $\tilde\omega_n\in\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$ and: $$\label{wz3}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \|\tilde\omega_n - \omega\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega)} = 0.$$ Define $\phi_n = (\mbox{Id} - P_{tr})(\tilde\phi_n)$ where $P_{tr}:L^2(\partial\Omega)\longrightarrow F_{tr}$ is the orthogonal projection onto $F_{tr}$. Since $\lim_{n\to\infty}\tilde\phi_n = \phi$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, then $\tilde\phi_n - \phi_n = P_{tr}(\tilde\phi_n)$ converges in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$ to $P_{tr}(\phi)=0$.
In a finitely dimensional space $F_{tr}$ all norms are equivalent, hence in particular: $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \,\inf\left\{\|\Phi\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega)}; ~ \Phi\in W^{2,2}(\Omega),
~ \Phi_{\mid\partial\Omega}=\tilde\phi_n-\phi_n\right\}=0.$$ Together with (\[wz3\]) the above implies (\[wz2.5\]) and proves the claim.
[**4.**]{} Consider now the sequence of harmonic functions $\Phi_n\in W^{2,2}(\Omega)$ such that $\Delta\Phi_n=0$ in $\Omega$, $\Phi_n = \phi_n-\phi$ on $\partial\Omega$. By (\[wz2.5\]) and usual elliptic estimates it follows that: $$\label{wz4}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \|\Phi_n\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega)} = 0.$$ Since $\phi_n-\phi\in F_{tr}^\perp$, the problem: $\mathcal{L}u_n = -\mathcal{L}\Phi_n$ in $\Omega$, $u_n=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, has a solution whose regularity, in view of [@GT Theorem 8.12] must be $u_n\in W^{2,2}(\Omega)$. Moreover, using (\[wz4\]): $$\label{wz5}
\|u_n\|_{W^{2,2}} \leq C\|\mathcal{L}\Phi_n\|_{L^2}
\leq C\|\Phi_n\|_{W^{2,2}}\to 0 \quad \mbox{ as } n\to \infty.$$ Set $\omega_n = u_n + \omega +\Phi_n$. By (\[wz4\]) and (\[wz5\]): $$\label{wz6}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\omega_n-\omega\|_{W^{2,2}(\Omega)} =0.$$ On the other hand $\mathcal{L}\omega_n=\mathcal{L}\omega = 0$ and ${\omega_n}_{\mid\partial\Omega} = \phi_n \in\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$ so by [@GT Theorem 9.19] there must be $\omega_n\in\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$.
[**5.**]{} Based on the approximation $\{\omega_n\}$ accomplished in the previous step, we now construct the desired approximation $V_n\in\mathcal{V}\cap \mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\Omega)$ of $V$. According to formulas (\[grad\_solution\]) and (\[us\]) (see formulas (9.2.17) and (9.2.12) in [@HH]), where we put $[B_{ij}]=0$ to have $\mbox{sym }\nabla V_n=0$, and $\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])=\omega_n$ in view of $\mathcal{L}\omega_n=0$, the gradients $\nabla V_n$ are given by: $$\partial_1 V_n = \frac{1}{2}\omega_n\sqrt{|g|} \sum_{i=1}^2 g^{2i}\partial_i r
+ u_1\vec n,\qquad
\partial_2 V_n = -\frac{1}{2}\omega_n\sqrt{|g|} \sum_{i=1}^2 g^{1i}\partial_i r
+ u_2\vec n,$$ with: $$u_1= \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{|g|} \sum_{i=1}^2 h^{2i}\partial_i \omega_n, \qquad
u_2= -\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{|g|} \sum_{i=1}^2 h^{1i}\partial_i \omega_n.$$ We see that $\nabla V_n\in\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\nabla V_n - \nabla V\|_{W^{1,2}} = 0$ by (\[wz6\]). Normalizing $V_n$ so that $\int_{\Omega} V_n = \int_{\Omega} V$, the theorem follows in view of Poincaré’s inequality.
\[remi3\] We also expect that the assumption on the required $\mathcal{C}^{4,\alpha}$ regularity of $S$ could be relaxed. A less regular approximating sequence could be perhaps used in carrying out the analysis in sections \[sec\_exact\] and \[sec\_recovery\].
Matching infinitesimal to exact isometries: a proof of Theorem \[th\_exact-intro\] {#sec_exact}
==================================================================================
The applicability of Theorem \[th\_exact-intro\] in our analysis can be understood by considering the limit theory of nonlinear elasticity for thin shells, and the scaling factor $\beta=2$. As shown in [@FJMM_cr]. one obtains then the pure bending theory of Kirchhoff, postulating that the set of admissible deformations is that of isometric immersions of $S$. Heuristically, the closer $\beta$ is to $2$, the closer a recovery sequence for the proposed theory should be to an exact isometry of $S$. An evident strategy is hence to construct an exact isometry from the data of the limiting problem, for the whole range of $2<\beta<4$. Indeed, for elliptic shells, such construction reduces the derived theory to the linear one, as explained in our paper. On the other hand, the plate theory for the same scaling regime [@FJMhier], postulates that (only) the second order infinitesimal isometries of a flat domain can be modified (up to a second order change) into an exact isometry. This implies a qualitatively different, nonlinear response of plates in this regime.
The proof of Theorem \[th\_exact-intro\] is based on a fixed point argument and is inspired by the proof of openness of the set of positive curvature metrics $g$ on the topological sphere $\Sigma$ which are pull-backs of the Euclidean metric by immersions of $\Sigma$ in ${\mathbb R}^3$ [@Ni]. To draw a parallel here, given an immersion $r$ of the topological disk with pull-back metric $g$, we seek a new immersion with the same pull-back metric whose first order difference from $r$ is a given infinitesimal isometry.
First, we prove a Hölder estimate for the operator $\mathcal{T}$ defined in section \[sec\_linear\].
\[Thold\] One has the following uniform estimate: $$\label{Tproduct}
\forall \phi,\psi\in\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S,\mathbb{R}^3)
\qquad \left\|\mathcal{T}\big(\mathrm{sym}~((\nabla\phi)^T\nabla\psi)\big)
\right\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)} \leq C \|\phi\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)}
\|\psi\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)}.$$
[**1.**]{} Call $w= \mathcal{T}(B)$ and $\omega=\mathcal{S}([B_{ij}])$, where $[B_{ij}]$ is given as in (\[B\]) for $B=\mathrm{sym}~((\nabla\phi)^T\nabla\psi)$. Similarly as in Corollary \[corolp\], by the interior estimates in [@ADN] we obtain: $$\label{wz8}
\|w\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar S)} \leq
C\left(\|B\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar S)} + \|w\|_{L^\infty(S)}\right) \leq
C \|B\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar S)},$$ where we used Corollary \[corolp\] for deducing: $\|w\|_{L^\infty}\leq \|w\|_{W^{1,p}}\leq C \|B\|_{W^{1,p}} \leq
\|B\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}}$, with $p>2$. In the same manner, the Schauder estimates for elliptic systems in divergence form [@GT] Theorem 8.32 and Corollary \[cor3.3\] also yield: $$\label{wz9}
\begin{split}
\|\omega\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)} \leq C\left(
\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)}
+ \|\omega\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\right)
\leq
C \|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar\Omega)}.
\end{split}$$ Hence, by (\[grad\_solution\]) and (\[wz8\]): $$\label{wz10}
\|w\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)} \leq
C\left(\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)} +
\|u_1\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)} +
\|u_2\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\right).$$ Clearly, $\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\leq
C\|B\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar S)}$ is bounded by the right hand side of (\[Tproduct\]). It remains therefore to derive suitable bounds on the correction coefficients $u_1$ and $u_2$.
[**2.**]{} Directly from (\[us\]) and (\[formci\]), in view of (\[wz9\]) we get: $$\label{wz11}
\|(u_1,u_2)\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)} \leq
C\left(\|\omega\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)} +
\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\right)
\leq C\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}.$$ Also, one can check that $u_1$ and $u_2$ solve the following first order elliptic system (see calculations in [@HH] leading to (9.2.18) and (9.2.28)): $$\begin{split}
& \partial_1 u_2 - \partial_2 u_1 = \sqrt{|g|} H \omega +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^2
g^{ij}(h_{j2}B_{1i} - h_{j1}B_{2i})\\
&\sum_{i,j=1}^2 \partial_i\left(\frac{\mbox{det }\Pi}{\sqrt{|g|}}h^{ij}u_j\right)
= \frac{1}{2}(\partial_2 c_1 - \partial_1 c_2).
\end{split}$$ As in the proof of Corollary \[corolp\], the interior estimates in [@ADN] yield: $$\label{wz12}
\begin{split}
\|(u_1, u_2)\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}&\leq
C\left(\|(u_1,u_2)\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} +
\|\omega\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)} +
\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}
+ \|\partial_2 c_1 - \partial_1 c_2\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\right)\\
&\leq C\left(\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}
+ \|\partial_2 c_1 - \partial_1 c_2\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\right),
\end{split}$$ the last bound being a consequence of (\[wz9\]) and (\[wz11\]).
By a direct calculation from (\[formci\]) we obtain: $$\label{wz13}
\|\partial_2 c_1 - \partial_1 c_2\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)} \leq
C\left(\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}
+ \|\partial_{11} B_{22}+\partial_{22} B_{11}
- 2\partial_{12}B_{22}\|_{\mathcal{C}^{0,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\right).$$ Recall that: $B_{ij} =\partial_i r\cdot B\partial_j r = \frac{1}{2} (\partial_i r
\cdot (\nabla\phi)^T \nabla\psi\partial_j r +\partial_i r
\cdot (\nabla\psi)^T \nabla\phi\partial_j r)
= \frac{1}{2} (\partial_i\phi\cdot\partial_j\psi + \partial_j\phi\cdot\partial_i\psi)$, where, with a slight abuse of notation, we identify $\phi$ and $\psi$ with vector fields $\phi\circ r$ and $\phi\circ r$ defined on $\bar \Omega$. The quantity in the last term in (\[wz13\]) equals to: $$\begin{split}
\partial_{11} B_{22}+\partial_{22} B_{11} - 2\partial_{12}B_{22}
& = \partial_{11} (\partial_2\phi\cdot\partial_2\psi) +
\partial_{22} (\partial_1\phi\cdot\partial_1\psi)
- \partial_{12} (\partial_1\phi\cdot\partial_2\psi
+ \partial_2\phi\cdot\partial_1\psi)\\
&= - (\partial_{11}\phi\cdot\partial_{22}\psi + \partial_{22}\phi\cdot\partial_{11}\psi
- 2 \partial_{12}\phi\cdot\partial_{12}\psi).
\end{split}$$ Thus, by (\[wz13\]) and (\[wz12\]) it follows that: $$\|(u_1, u_2)\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\leq
C\left(\|[B_{ij}]\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}
+ \|\phi\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)} \|\psi\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\bar \Omega)}\right)
\leq C \|\phi\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)} \|\psi\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)},$$ which completes the proof in view of(\[wz10\]).
[**Proof of Theorem \[th\_exact-intro\].**]{}\
For vector field $u_h = \mbox{id} + hV + h^2 w_h\in\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}
(\bar{S},\mathbb{R}^3)$ to be an isometry, the following condition must be satisfied: $|\partial_\tau u_h|^2 = 1$ for every $\tau\in T_x S$. Since: $$|\partial_\tau u_h|^2 - 1 =
|\tau + h\partial_\tau V + h^2\partial_\tau w_h|^2 - 1 = h^2|\partial_\tau V|^2
+ 2h^3 \partial_\tau V\cdot \partial_\tau w_h + h^4 |\partial_\tau w_h|^2
+ 2h^2 \tau\cdot \partial_\tau w_h,$$ $u_h$ is therefore an exact isometry if and only if: $$\label{m1}
\mbox{sym }\nabla w_h = -\frac{1}{2} \left(\nabla V + h \nabla w_h\right)^T
\left(\nabla V + h \nabla w_h\right).$$ Consider the mapping $\mathcal{G}_h:\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S,\mathbb{R}^3)
\longrightarrow \mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ defined by: $$\mathcal{G}_h(w) = -\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{T}\big(
\left(\nabla V + h \nabla w\right)^T
\left(\nabla V + h \nabla w\right)\big).$$ By Lemma \[Thold\] one has: $\|\mathcal{G}_h(w)\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}}
\leq C\|V + hw\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}}^2$. Hence, putting $R=\|V\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}}^2 +1$, and denoting $\bar B_R$ the closed ball of radius $R$ in $\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)$, it follows that, for all $h$ small enough, $\mathcal{G}_h(\bar B_R) \subset \bar B_R$. We will show that $\mathcal{G}_h$ is a contraction on $\bar B_R$. By the linearity of $\mathcal{T}$ there must be: $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{G}_h(w) - \mathcal{G}_h(v) & = -\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{T}\big(
\left(\nabla V + h\nabla w\right)^T\left(\nabla V + h\nabla w\right)
- \left(\nabla V + h\nabla v\right)^T\left(\nabla V + h\nabla v\right)\big)\\
& = -\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{T}\big( 2h \mbox{sym } (\nabla V)^T(\nabla w - \nabla v)
+ h^2 (\nabla w)^T (\nabla w - \nabla v)
+ h^2 (\nabla w - \nabla v)^T \nabla v \big).
\end{split}$$ The matrix field in the argument of $\mathcal{T}$ above is clearly symmetric and it has the form allowing for use of Lemma \[Thold\]. Thus, for every $w,v\in\bar B_R$ there holds: $$\begin{split}
\|\mathcal{G}_h(w) - \mathcal{G}_h(v)\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)} &\leq
C\Big(h\|V\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}} + h^2 \|w\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}}
+ h^2 \|v\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}}\Big)
\|w - v\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)}\\
&\leq Ch\big(\|V\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}} + 2hR\big)
\|w - v\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)}.
\end{split}$$ By the Banach fixed point theorem we now conclude that for all small $h$ the problem (\[m1\]) has a solution $w_h$, such that $\|w_h\|_{\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)}
\leq R$.
Construction of the recovery sequence: a proof of Theorem \[thlimsup-intro\] {#sec_recovery}
============================================================================
Here, we establish the limsup part of our $\Gamma$-convergence result, through constructing a recovery sequence for elliptic surfaces, based on Theorem \[th\_density-intro\] and Theorem \[th\_exact-intro\].
[**Proof of Theorem \[thlimsup-intro\]**]{}
By the density result proved in Theorem \[th\_density-intro\] and the continuity of the functional $I$ with respect to the strong topology of $W^{2,2}(S)$, we can assume $V\in {\mathcal V}\cap{\mathcal C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S, {\mathbb R}^3)$. In the general case the result will then follow from a diagonal argument.
In the sequel, by the Landau symbols $\mathcal{O}(s)$ and $o(s)$ we shall denote, respectively, any quantity whose quotient with $s$ is uniformly bounded or converges to $0$, as $s\to 0$.
[**1.**]{} Let ${\varepsilon}=\sqrt{e^h}/h$. We recall that ${\varepsilon}\to0$ as $h\to0$, by assumption . Therefore, by Theorem \[th\_exact-intro\] there exists a sequence $w_{\varepsilon}:\bar S\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$, equibounded in $\mathcal{C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S)$, such that for all small $h>0$ the map: $$\label{ex-iso}
u_{\varepsilon}= \mathrm{id} +{\varepsilon}V + {\varepsilon}^2w_{\varepsilon}$$ is an exact isometry.
For every $x\in S$, let $\vec n_{\varepsilon}(x)$ denote the unit normal vector to $u_{\varepsilon}(S)$ at the point $u_{\varepsilon}(x)$. By the regularity of $u_{\varepsilon}$ we have that $\vec n_{\varepsilon}\in {\mathcal C}^{1,\alpha}(\bar S,{\mathbb R}^3)$, while by we obtain the expansion: $$\label{ne-exp}
\vec n_{\varepsilon}= \vec n +{\varepsilon}A\vec n + \mathcal{O}({\varepsilon}^2).$$ Indeed, one can take $\vec n_{\varepsilon}= \partial_{\tau_1}u_{\varepsilon}\times \partial_{\tau_2}u_{\varepsilon}$, where $\tau_1,\tau_2\in T_xS$ are such that $\vec n=\tau_1\times\tau_2$. Using now the Jacobi identity for vector product and the fact that $A\in so(3)$, we arrive at (\[ne-exp\]).
Here we introduce the recovery sequence $u^h$ as required by the statement of the theorem. Note that the following suggestion for $u^h$ is in accordance with the one used in [@FJMM_cr] in the framework of the purely nonlinear bending theory for shells, corresponding to the scaling regime $\beta=2$. Consider the sequence of deformations $u^h\in W^{1,2}(S^h,{\mathbb R}^3)$ defined by: $$\label{rec_seq}
u^h(x+t\vec n) = u_\varepsilon(x) + t\vec n_\varepsilon(x)
+ \frac{t^2}{2}\varepsilon d^h(x).$$ The vector field $d^h\in W^{1,\infty}(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ is defined so that: $$\label{nd01h}
\lim_{h\to 0} h^{1/2} \|d^h\|_{W^{1,\infty}(S)} = 0,$$ and: $$\label{warp}
\lim_{h\to 0} d^h = 2c\left(x,{\rm sym}(\nabla(A\vec n) - A\Pi)_{tan}\right) \quad
\mbox{ in } L^\infty(S),$$ where $c(x,F_{tan})$ denotes the unique vector satisfying ${\mathcal Q}_2(x, F_{tan})={\mathcal Q}_3(F_{tan} +c\otimes \vec n(x)+\vec
n(x)\otimes c)$ (see [@lemopa1 Section 6]). We observe that, as $V\in{\mathcal C}^{2,\alpha}(\bar S, {\mathbb R}^3)$ and $c$ depends linearly on its second argument, the vector field: $$\label{def-zeta}
\zeta(x)=c(x, {\rm sym}(\nabla(A\vec n) - A\Pi)_{tan})$$ belongs to $L^\infty(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$.
Properties (i) and (ii) now easily follow from the uniform bound on $w_{\varepsilon}$ and the normalization .
[**2.**]{} To prove (iii) it is convenient to perform a change of variables in the energy $E^h(u^h)$, so to express it in terms of the scaled deformation $y^h$. By a straightforward calculation, we obtain: $$\label{int-nv}
\frac{1}{e^h} E^h(u^h) = \frac{1}{e^h}\int_S \fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}
W(\nabla_h y^h(x+t\vec n))\det[\mbox{Id}+th/h_0\Pi(x)]~\mbox{d}t\mbox{d}x,$$ where $\nabla_h y^h(x+t\vec n)=\nabla u^h(x+th/h_0\vec n)$, as in (\[gradh\]). We also have: $$\label{form2}
\begin{split}
\nabla_h y^h(x + t\vec n) \vec n(x) & = \frac{h_0}{h} \partial_{\vec n}y^h(x+t\vec n)
= \vec n_{\varepsilon}(x) + th/h_0{\varepsilon}d^h(x),\\
\nabla_h y^h(x + t\vec n)\tau & = \nabla y^h(x+t\vec n)\cdot (\mbox{Id} +
t\Pi(x)) (\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi(x))^{-1}\tau \\
& = \Big(\nabla u_{\varepsilon}(x) +th/h_0\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon}(x) + \frac{t^2}{2h_0^2}h^2{\varepsilon}\nabla d^h(x)\Big)(\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi(x))^{-1}\tau,
\end{split}$$ for all $x\in S$ and $\tau\in T_xS$.
From , and it follows that $\|\nabla_h y^h-\mbox{Id}\|_{L^\infty(S^{h_0})}$ converges to $0$ as $h\to 0$. It now follows by polar decomposition theorem (for $h$ sufficiently small) that $\nabla_h y^h$ is a product of a proper rotation and the well defined square root of $(\nabla_h y^h)^T\nabla_h y^h$. By frame indifference of $W$ we deduce that: $$W(\nabla_h y^h) = W\left(\sqrt{(\nabla_h y^h)^T\nabla_h y^h}\right)
= W\left(\mbox{Id} + \frac{1}{2} K^h + \mathcal{O}(|K^h|^2)\right),$$ where the last equality follows by Taylor expansion, with $K^h$ given by $$K^h = (\nabla_h y^h)^T\nabla_h y^h - \mbox{Id}.$$ As $\|K^h\|_{L^\infty(S^{h_0})}$ is infinitesimal as $h\to 0$, we can expand $W$ around $\mbox{Id}$ and obtain: $$\label{Wdopp}
\frac{1}{e^h} W(\nabla_h y^h) = \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{Q}_3\left(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{e^h}} K^h +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{e^h}}\mathcal{O}(|K^h|^2)\right) +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{e^h}}\mathcal{O}(|K^h|^2).$$ Using we now calculate $K^h$. We first consider the tangential minor of $K^h$: $$\begin{split}
K^h_{tan}(x + t\vec n) & = (\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1}\Big[\mbox{Id}
+2 th/h_0\, {\rm sym}((\nabla u_{\varepsilon})^T\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon})\\
& \qquad + t^2 h^2/h_0^2(\nabla \vec n_{\varepsilon})^T\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon}+ o(\sqrt{e^h})\Big](\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1} - \mbox{Id}\\
& = (\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1}\Big[
2 th/h_0\, {\rm sym}((\nabla u_{\varepsilon})^T\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon}) -2 th/h_0\Pi\\
& \qquad + t^2 h^2/h_0^2(\nabla \vec n_{\varepsilon})^T\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon}- t^2 h^2/h_0^2\Pi^2
\Big](\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1} + o(\sqrt{e^h}),
\end{split}$$ where we have used the fact that $u_{\varepsilon}$ is an isometry to see that $(\nabla u_{\varepsilon})^T\nabla u_{\varepsilon}= \mbox{Id}$, and the identity: $$F_1^{-1}FF_1^{-1}-\mbox{Id} = F_1^{-1}(F-F_1^2)F_1^{-1}.$$ By and we also deduce: $$\begin{split}
{\rm sym} ((\nabla u_{\varepsilon})^T\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon}) &
= \Pi +{\varepsilon}\, {\rm sym}(\nabla(A\vec n)-A\Pi) +{\mathcal O}({\varepsilon}^2), \\
(\nabla \vec n_{\varepsilon})^T\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon}& = \Pi^2+{\mathcal O}({\varepsilon}).
\end{split}$$ Combining these two identities with the expression of $K^h_{tan}$ found above, we conclude that: $$K^h_{tan}(x + t\vec n) = \sqrt{e^h}(\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1}\Big[
2 t/h_0\, {\rm sym}(\nabla(A\vec n)-A\Pi)\Big](\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1} + o(\sqrt{e^h}).$$ Now, as $|\vec n_{\varepsilon}|=1$, the normal minor of $K^h$ is calculated by means of (\[form2\]) as: $$\vec n^T K^h(x+t\vec n)\vec n = |(\nabla_h y^h)\vec n|^2 - 1 =
2th/h_0{\varepsilon}d^h \cdot \vec n_{\varepsilon}+ o(\sqrt{e^h})
= 2t/h_0 \sqrt{e^h} d^h \cdot \vec n + o(\sqrt{e^h}).$$ The remaining coefficients of the symmetric matrix $K^h(x+ t\vec n)$ are, for $\tau\in T_x S$: $$\begin{split}
\tau^T K^h(x+t\vec n)\vec n & = (\vec n_{\varepsilon}+th/h_0{\varepsilon}d^h)^T
\Big(\nabla u_{\varepsilon}+th/h_0\nabla \vec n_{\varepsilon}+
\frac{t^2}{2h_0^2}h^2{\varepsilon}\nabla d^h\Big)(\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1}\tau\\
& = t/h_0\sqrt{e^h}(d^h)^T\nabla u_{\varepsilon}(\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)^{-1}\tau + o(\sqrt{e^h}),
\end{split}$$ where we have used that $\vec n_{\varepsilon}^T\nabla\vec n_{\varepsilon}=0$.
[**3.**]{} From the previous computations we finally deduce that: $$\label{Kconv}
\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{1}{2\sqrt{e^h}} K^h = \frac{t}{h_0}K(x)_{tan}
+ \frac{t}{h_0}(\zeta\otimes \vec n + \vec n\otimes \zeta)
\quad \mbox{ in } L^\infty(S^{h_0}),$$ where the vector field $\zeta$ is defined in and the symmetric matrix field $K_{tan}\in L^\infty(S, \mathbb{R}^{2\times 2})$ is given by: $$\label{Kdef}
K(x)_{tan} = {\rm sym} (\nabla(A\vec n) - A\Pi)_{tan}.$$ Using , , and the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain: $$\begin{split}
\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{1}{e^h} E^h(u^h) & =
\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{1}{e^h} \int_S \fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2} W(\nabla_h y^h)
\det (\mbox{Id} + th/h_0\Pi)~\mbox{d}t\mbox{d}x\\
& = \frac{1}{2} \int_S \fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2} \mathcal{Q}_3 \Big(\frac{t}{h_0}K(x)_{tan}
+ \frac{t}{h_0}(\zeta\otimes \vec n + \vec n\otimes \zeta)\Big)~\mbox{d}t\mbox{d}x \\
& = \frac{1}{2}\int_S \fint_{-h_0/2}^{h_0/2}\frac{t^2}{h_0^2}\mathcal{Q}_2
\big(x,{\rm sym} (\nabla(A\vec n) - A\Pi)_{tan}\big)~\mbox{d}t\mbox{d}x,
\end{split}$$ where the last equality is a consequence of and . Property (iii) now follows, upon integration with respect to $t$ in the last integral above.
Note that the recovery sequence formula (\[rec\_seq\]) follows the Cosserat ansatz, which assumes that the fibers orthogonal to the mid-surface deform linearly, only up to the term of order 1. Naturally, the inhomogeneous stretch and twist (or warping) of these fibers is of order ${\varepsilon}$ and is due to the first order change in the second fundamental form of the surface, as follows from the formula (\[warp\]) for the limit value of $d^h$.
Convergence of minimizers in presence of body forces {#sec_deadloads}
====================================================
We recall that the major application of a $\Gamma$-convergence result, under suitable compactness conditions, is that the minimizers of a given sequence of functionals converge to the minimizers of their $\Gamma$-limit. In view of Theorem \[thliminf-intro\] and Theorem \[thlimsup-intro\], we have established the $\Gamma$-convergence of the rescaled elastic energy $1/e^h E^h$ to the functional (\[I-intro\]). In this section we shall see that under certain scaling regimes of forces, the scaled energies $1/e^h E^h$ of minimizers of the total energies $J^h$ in (\[total-intro\]) are bounded, allowing then for an application of the compactness results in Theorem \[thliminf-intro\].
Let $f^h\in L^2(S^h,\mathbb{R}^3)$ be a sequence of forces acting on $S^h$, of the form $$f^h(x+t\vec n(x)) = h\sqrt{e^h}\det\left(\mbox{Id} + t\Pi(x)\right)^{-1} f^h(x),$$ where $f^h\in L^2(S,\mathbb{R}^3)$ have the properties: $$\label{fhass}
\int_S f^h = 0 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \lim_{h\to 0}f^h = f \mbox{ weakly in } L^2(S).$$ Let $m^h$ be the maximized action of force $f^h$ over all rotations of $S$: $$m^h = \max_{Q\in SO(3)} \int_S f^h(x)\cdot Qx~\mbox{d}x,$$ and define: $$\mathcal{M}=\{\bar Q\in SO(3); ~ r(\bar Q)<+\infty\},$$ to be the effective domain of the following relaxation functional $r:SO(3)\longrightarrow [0,+\infty]$: $$\label{rfunct}
r(Q) = \inf\left\{\liminf \frac{1}{e^h}\left(m^h - \int_S f^h(x)\cdot Q^h
x\right);~~ Q^h\in SO(3), ~ Q^h\to Q\right\}.$$ In the particular case when $f^h=f$, one has $\mathcal{M} = \{\bar Q\in SO(3);
~ \int_S f\cdot \bar Q x= \max_{Q\in SO(3)}\int_S f\cdot Qx\}$. As we shall see below, the set $\mathcal{M}$ identifies the candidates for large rotations that the body chooses to perform in response to a force, rather undergoing a further compression.
The total energy functional on $S^h$ is given through: $$J^h(u^h) = E^h(u^h) - \frac{1}{h}\int_{S^h} f^h u^h + h\sqrt{e^h} m^h.$$ We then have the following result:
\[thmaincinque\] Assume (\[scaling-intro\]) and (\[fhass\]). Let $S$ satisfy the ellipticity and regularity requirements stated in Theorem \[thlimsup-intro\]. Then:
- For every small $h>0$ one has: $$0\geq \inf\left\{\frac{1}{e^h} J^h(u^h); ~~ u^h\in W^{1,2}(S^h, \mathbb{R}^3)
\right\}\geq -C.$$
- If $u^h\in W^{1,2}(S, \mathbb{R}^3)$ is a minimizing sequence of $\frac{1}{e^h} J^h$, that is: $$\lim_{h\to 0} \left(\frac{1}{e^h}J^h(u^h) - \inf\frac{1}{e^h}J^h
\right)=0,$$ then the conclusions of Theorem \[thliminf-intro\] hold, and moreover any accumulation point of $\{Q^h\}$ belongs to $\mathcal{M}$. Further, any limit $(V, \bar Q)$ minimizes the functional: $$J(V,\bar Q) = I(V) - \int_S f\cdot \bar{Q} V + r(\bar Q),$$ over all $V\in \mathcal{V}$ and all $\bar Q\in \mathcal{M}$.
The proof follows exactly as in [@lemopa1; @lemopa2], hence we omit it. Notice that when $f^h=f$, then the term $r(\bar Q)$ in the definition of the functional $J$ may be dropped, as $r=0$ on $\mathcal{M}$. In the general case, both $r$ and $\mathcal{M}$ depend on the asymptotic behavior of the minimizers of the linear functions $SO(3)\ni Q\mapsto \int_S f^h(x)\cdot Qx~\mbox{d}x.$
For a further related discussion we refer to [@lemopa1].
[9999]{}
S. Agmon, A. Douglis and L. Nirenberg, *Estimates near the boundary for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations satisfying general boundary conditions. II*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**17**]{} (1964), 35–92.
W. Chen and J. Jost, *A Riemannian version of Korn’s inequality*, Calc. Var. [**14**]{} (2002), 517–530.
P.G. Ciarlet, *Mathematical Elasticity, Vol 3: Theory of Shells*, North-Holland, Amsterdam (2000).
S. Conti and G. Dolzmann, *$\Gamma$-convergence for incompressible elastic plates*, to appear in Calc.Var. PDE, (2008).
S. Conti and F. Maggi, *Confining thin sheets and folding paper*, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 187 (2008), no. 1, 1–48.
G. Dal Maso, *An introduction to $\Gamma$-convergence*, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, [**8**]{}, Birkhäuser, MA, (1993).
G. Friesecke, R. James, M.G. Mora and S. Müller, *Derivation of nonlinear bending theory for shells from three-dimensional nonlinear elasticity by Gamma-convergence*, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, [**336**]{} (2003), no. 8, 697–702.
G. Friesecke, R. James and S. Müller, *A theorem on geometric rigidity and the derivation of nonlinear plate theory from three dimensional elasticity*, Comm. Pure. Appl. Math., [**55**]{} (2002), 1461–1506.
G. Friesecke, R. James and S. Müller, *A hierarchy of plate models derived from nonlinear elasticity by gamma-convergence*, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., [**180**]{} (2006), no. 2, 183–236.
G. Geymonat and [É]{}. Sanchez-Palencia, *On the rigidity of certain surfaces with folds and applications to shell theory*, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., [**129**]{} (1995), no. 1, 11–45.
D. Gilbarg and N.S. Trudinger, *Elliptic partial differential equations of second order*, Classics in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (2001).
Q. Han and J.-X. Hong, *Isometric embedding of Riemannian manifolds in Euclidean spaces*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, [**130**]{} American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2006).
P. Hornung, *Approximating $W^{2,2}$ isometric immersions*, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, [**346**]{}, no. 3-4, 189–192 (2008).
P. Hornung, *A density result for $W^{2,2}$ isometric immersions*, preprint (2007).
J. Jost, *Harmonic maps between surfaces. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1062*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1984).
T. von Kármán, *Festigkeitsprobleme im Maschinenbau*, in Encyclopädie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften. Vol. IV/4, pp. 311-385, Leipzig, 1910.
V. Kondratiev and O. Oleinik, *On Korn’s inequalities*, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, [**308**]{} Serie I (1989), 483–487.
H. LeDret and A. Raoult, The nonlinear membrane model as a variational limit of nonlinear three-dimensional elasticity. *J. Math. Pures Appl.* **73** (1995), 549–578.
H. Le Dret and A. Raoult, *The membrane shell model in nonlinear elasticity: a variational asymptotic derivation*, J. Nonlinear Sci., [**6**]{} (1996), 59–84.
M. Lewicka, M.G. Mora and M.R. Pakzad, *Shell theories arising as low energy $\Gamma$-limit of 3d nonlinear elasticity*, submitted, <http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0358>.
M. Lewicka, M.G. Mora and M.R. Pakzad, *A nonlinear theory for shells with slowly varying thickness*, submitted, <http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2641>.
M. Lewicka and S. Müller, *The uniform Korn-Poincaré inequality in thin domains*, submitted, <http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0355>.
A.E.H. Love, *A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity*, 4th ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1927).
S. Müller and M. R. Pakzad, *Regularity properties of isometric immersions*, Math. Z. [**251**]{}, no. 2, 313–331 (2005).
S. Müller and M. R. Pakzad, *Convergence of equilibria of thin elastic plates – the von Kármán case*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations [**33**]{}, no. 4-6, 1018–1032, (2008).
L. Nirenberg, *The Weyl and Minkowski problems in differential geometry in the large*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**6**]{} (1953), 337–394.
M. R. Pakzad, *On the Sobolev space of isometric immersions*, J. Differential Geom. [**66**]{}, no. 1, 47–69 (2004).
. Sanchez-Palencia, *Statique et dynamique des coques minces. II. Cas de flexion pure inhibeé. Approximation membranaire.* C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 309 (1989), no. 7, 531–537.
M. Spivak, *A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry, Vol V*, 2nd edition, Publish or Perish Inc. (1979).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Any Bell test consists of a sequence of measurements on a quantum state in space-like separated regions. Thus, a state is better than others for a Bell test when, for the optimal measurements and the same number of trials, the probability of existence of a local model for the observed outcomes is smaller. The maximization over states and measurements defines the optimal nonlocality proof. Numerical results show that the required optimal state does not have to be maximally entangled.'
author:
- 'Antonio Acín$^{1}$, Richard Gill$^2$ and Nicolas Gisin$^3$'
title: Optimal Bell tests do not require maximally entangled states
---
As first shown by Bell [@Bell] in 1964, the correlations among the measurement outcomes of space-like separated parties on some quantum states cannot be reproduced by a local theory. This fact is often referred to as quantum nonlocality and has been recognized as the most intriguing quantum feature. The fundamental importance of the work by Bell was that it provided conditions for experimentally testing Quantum Mechanics (QM) versus the whole set of local models, the so-called Bell inequalities. The experimental demonstration [@exp], up to some loopholes, of a Bell inequality violation definitely closed the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen program [@EPR] for the existence of a local theory alternative to QM.
The interest on quantum correlations, or entanglement, has dramatically increased during the last two decades due to the emerging field of Quantum Information Science (QIS) [@book]. It has been realized that quantum states provide new ways of information processing and communication without analog in Classical Information. The essential resource for most of these applications are entangled states. This has motivated a strong effort devoted to the characterization and quantification of the entanglement of quantum states. Although many questions remain unanswered, the problem is completely solved for the case of pure states in bipartite systems. For a state $\ket{\Psi}\in\H_A\otimes\H_B$, its amount of entanglement is specified by the so-called entropy of entanglement [@BBPS], $E(\Psi)=S(\rho_A)$, where $S$ is the usual von Neumann entropy and $\rho_A=\tr_B(\proj{\Psi})$. In particular, this means that the maximally entangled state in a bipartite system of dimension $d\times d$, reads $$\label{maxent}
\ket{\Phi_d}=\frac{1}{\sqrt d}\sum_{i=1}^d\ket{ii} ,$$ where $\{i\}$ define orthonormal bases in $\H_A$ and $\H_B$.
Apart from their importance for quantum information applications, entangled states provide the only known way of establishing nonlocal correlations among space-like separated parties. It is meant here by nonlocal those correlations that (i) cannot be explained by a local model but (ii) do not allow any faster-than-light communication, that is, they are consistent with the no-signaling condition. Indeed, it is a well-established result that a quantum pure state violates a Bell inequality if and only if it is entangled [@Gisin]. However, it is also well known that there exist nonlocal correlations that are not achievable by measuring quantum states [@PR]. In a similar line of thought, it has very often been assumed that $\ket{\Phi_d}$ represents the most nonlocal quantum state too. However, no precise demonstration of this fact has ever been given and, indeed, it is one of the scopes of this work to raise some doubts about this statement.
In what follows, entangled states constitute a resource for constructing nonlocality proofs. The strength of a Bell experiment has to be computed by means of statistical tools: a Bell test is better than another when, for the same number of trials, the probability that a local model explains the observed outcomes is smaller. Recall that statistical fluctuations on finite samples allow a local theory to predict the possibility of data violating a Bell inequality. The goal is then to identify those states needed in the construction of optimal Bell tests. The importance of constructing optimal nonlocality proofs is two-fold. First, from an experimental point of view, they allow improving present Bell experiments, especially in terms of the needed resources. Second, Bell tests also represent an important tool for QIS [@useful]. In particular, they are useful for testing the quantumness of devices. This is a hardly explored problem in QIS that, for instance, can be especially relevant in cryptographic applications [@MY]: given some observed correlations among several parties, how can its quantum origin be certified? Could these correlations have alternatively been established by classical means, i.e. shared randomness? Bell inequalities provide an answer to the previous questions.
[*The scenario:*]{} We consider the standard scenario for any Bell test. Two space-like separated parties, called Alice and Bob, share copies of a pure quantum state $\ket{\Psi}\in
\H_A\otimes\H_B$, of dimension $d\times d$. They can choose among $m$ possible measurements, each of $n$ outcomes, this being denoted by $m\times n$. $A_j^i$ denotes the positive operator corresponding to the outcome $j$ of the measurement $i$ for Alice, so $\sum_j A_j^i=\one$. Similarly, Bob’s measurement operators are denoted by $B_j^i$. The probability that Alice and Bob obtain the outcomes $j_A$ and $j_B$ after applying the measurement $i_A$ and $i_B$, where $j_A,j_B=1,\ldots,n$ and $i_A,i_B=1,\ldots,m$, on $\ket{\Psi}$ is $$\label{prob}
p_Q(j_A,j_B|i_A,i_B)=\tr\left(A_{j_A}^{i_A}\otimes
B_{j_B}^{i_B}\proj{\Psi}\right) .$$ In a Bell experiment, a quantum state is prepared and sent to the parties who measure it. After $N$ repetitions of the experiment, the frequencies of the results define a $(m^2n^2)$-dimensional vector whose components tend to $p_Q(j_A,j_B|i_A,i_B)$ when $N\rightarrow\infty$. A vector of probabilities is achievable using QM when there exist a state $\ket{\Psi}$ and measurements $A_{j_A}^{i_A}$ and $B_{j_B}^{i_B}$ satisfying (\[prob\]).
On the other hand, in a local model any observed correlation between measurement results in space-like separated regions should come from initially shared random data, denoted by $\lambda$. QM is nonlocal because some of the vectors (\[prob\]) do not allow a local description, i.e. they cannot be written as $$\label{prloc}
p_L(j_A,j_B|i_A,i_B)=\sum_{\lambda}p\,(\lambda)
p\,(j_A|i_A,\lambda)p\,(j_B|i_B,\lambda) .$$ Therefore, shared quantum states can be used to establish nonlocal correlations.
The goal of any Bell experiment is to test the hypothesis $\Q$, “the observed outcomes are governed by a quantum probability distribution (\[prob\])", against the composite hypothesis $\L$, “there exists a local model (\[prloc\]) reproducing the data" [@vDGG]. The statistical tool that quantifies the [*average amount of support in favor of $\Q$ against $\L$ per trial when the data are generated by $\Q$*]{} is the so-called relative entropy or Kullback-Leibler (KL) Divergence [@CT], $D$. For two probability distributions, $\vec p_1$ and $\vec p_2$ associated to the event $\{z\}$, it reads $$\label{relent}
D(\vec p_1||\vec p_2)=\sum_z
p_1(z)\log(p_1(z)/p_2(z)) .$$ We denote by $\vec q=(q(1,1,1,1),\ldots,q(m,m,n,n))$ the quantum probabilities for the measurement settings $i_A$ and $i_B$, and outcomes $j_A$ and $j_B$. Using (\[prob\]), one has $$\label{qprob}
q(i_A,i_B,j_A,j_B)=\tr\left(A_{j_A}^{i_A}\otimes
B_{j_B}^{i_B}\proj{\Psi}\right)p_M(i_A,i_B) ,$$ where $p_M(i_A,i_B)$ characterizes the choice of measurements by Alice and Bob. Now, the support in favor of $\Q$ against $\L$ provided by these quantum data is [@vDGG] $$\label{KLent}
D(\Q||\L)=\min_{\vec p\in\L}D(\vec q\,||\vec p) ,$$ where the minimization runs over all alternative local models, $\vec p$. The vector $\vec p$ is defined analogously to (\[qprob\]), replacing the quantum term $p_Q$ (\[prob\]) by a local model $p_L$ (\[prloc\]). This quantity gives the statistical figure of merit to be maximized in any nonlocality test [@vDGG]. It is worth mentioning here that the KL Divergence (i) is an asymptotic measure and (ii) appears as the measure of statistical support for the two most commonly used methods for hypothesis testing, frequentist and Bayesian (see [@vDGG] for more details). Moreover, and despite not being symmetric, it can be seen as a measure of statistical distance between probability distributions.
It is often convenient to interpret a Bell test as a game between a quantum and a local player [@vDGG; @Peres]. The quantum player has to design an experimental situation for which the local player is unable to provide a model. Thus, the quantum player looks for the experiment that gives him the victory with the minimal number of repetitions, i.e. his task consists of designing the Bell test maximizing (\[KLent\]). In order to do that, he can choose the state to be prepared, the measurements, and the probability governing the choice of measurements, $p_M(i_A,i_B)$. Notice that we do not impose $p_M(i_A,i_B)$ to be product. Indeed, one could think of a configuration where an external referee is sending the choice of measurements to the parties. On the other hand, the local player only assumes the existence of a local model. In particular, he is allowed to change his description according to the observed data.
[*Results:*]{} In what follows, the optimality of Bell tests is analyzed according to the KL Divergence. The optimization of (\[KLent\]) in full generality is a very hard problem. Here, we mainly consider the standard situation where Alice and Bob apply two projective measurements, i.e. $m=2$, $n=d$ and $A_i^j$ and $B_i^j$ are mutually orthogonal one-dimensional projectors. For a fixed number of measurements, it is possible to search numerically the state and measurements defining the optimal Bell test. In the qubit case, $d=2$, the best nonlocality proof is given by the maximally entangled state $\ket{\Phi_2}$ (\[maxent\]) and the measurements maximizing the violation of the CHSH inequality [@CHSH], as expected. The KL Divergence turns out to be equal to 0.046 bits [@vDGG] and the optimal choice of settings is completely random, $p_M(i_A,i_B)=1/4$. Actually, the optimal choice of settings turns out to be random for all the situations considered in this work.
Moving to higher dimension, the optimal measurements for the maximally entangled state of two three-dimensional systems are the ones maximizing its violation of the CGLMP inequality [@CGLMP]. The statistical strength is of 0.058 bits, reflecting the fact that quantum nonlocality increases with the dimension [@KGZMZ]. However, it is known that the largest violation of the CGLMP inequality is given by a nonmaximally entangled state [@ADGL] $$\label{mvstate}
\ket{\Psi^{mv}_3}=
\gamma(\ket{00}+\ket{11})+\sqrt{1-2\gamma^2}\ket{22} ,$$ where $\gamma\approx 0.617$. The measurements maximizing its statistical strength are again those maximizing its Bell violation (which are the same as for $\ket{\Phi_3}$) and give 0.072 bits, larger than the value obtained for the maximally entangled state. The maximization now over the space of measurements, choices of settings and states gives the same measurements as above but for a different state, $$\label{nlstate}
\ket{\Psi_3}\approx
\delta(\ket{00}+\ket{11})+\sqrt{1-2\delta^2}\ket{22} ,$$ where $\delta\approx 0.642$. Therefore, the $3\times 3$ state producing the optimal nonlocality test with two projective measurements per site does not have maximal entanglement. Actually, this state has even less entanglement than $\ket{\Psi^{mv}_3}$. All these results are summarized in Table I. It is worth mentioning here that the optimal measurements are the same for all three states. Similar results are obtained for $d=4$: (i) the optimal measurements are those maximizing the Bell violation for $\ket{\Phi_4}$ [@CGLMP; @ADGL] but (ii) the optimal state, $\ket{\Psi_4}$, is not maximally entangled. The corresponding KL Divergence is of 0.098 bits. The problem in full generality becomes intractable for larger $d$, so the following simplifications are considered.
\[qutrsumm\]
State KL Divergence (bits) Entanglement (bits)
--------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------
$\ket{\Phi_3}$ 0.058 1.585
$\ket{\Psi^{mv}_3}$ 0.072 1.554
$\ket{\Psi_3}$ 0.077 1.495
: Nonlocal content and entanglement for the maximally entangled state, $\ket{\Phi_3}$, the state maximally violating the CGLMP inequality, $\ket{\Psi^{mv}_3}$, and the optimal state $\ket{\Psi_3}$.
First, the $2\times d$ measurements are taken equal to those maximizing the Bell violation for $\ket{\Phi_d}$: the parties apply a unitary operation with only nonzero terms in the diagonal, $e^{i\phi_a(j)}$ for Alice and $e^{i\varphi_b(j)}$ for Bob, with $j=0,\ldots,d-1$ and $a,b=1,2$. These phases read [@CGLMP] $$\label{phase} \phi_1(j)=0 \quad\phi_2(j)=\frac{\pi}{d}j \quad
\varphi_1(j)=\frac{\pi}{2d}j \quad \varphi_2(j)=-\frac{\pi}{2d}j .$$ Then, Alice carries out a discrete Fourier transform, $U_{FT}$, and Bob applies $U_{FT}^*$, and they measure in the computational basis. Thus, it is assumed in what follows that these measurements define the optimal $2\times d$ Bell test. This is known to be the case for qubits, and our numerical results indicate that this also happens for $d=3,4$.
Once the settings are fixed, the problem is cast in a formulation very similar to a standard Bell inequality. The goal is now to obtain the $d\times d$ state maximizing (\[KLent\]) for the given settings. Let $\vec q\,^s$ and $\vec p\,^s$ denote a pair forming a solution to this problem, i.e. $$\label{klsol}
\max_{\vec q}\,\min_{\vec p}D(\vec q\,||\vec p)=D(\vec q\,^s\,||
\vec p\,^s)=D^s .$$ For small deviations from this solution one has $D(\vec
q\,^s+\delta\vec q\,||\vec p\,^s)\leq D^s$ and $D(\vec
q\,^s\,||\vec p\,^s+\delta\vec p)\geq D^s$. Therefore, all vectors of quantum and local probabilities close to the previous solution satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bellop}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\sum_i \log\left(\frac{q^s_i}{p^s_i}\right) q_i &\leq& D^s \\
\label{bellin}
\sum_i \frac{q^s_i}{p^s_i} p_i &\leq& 1 .\end{aligned}$$ The values $D^s$ and 1 are found by substituting $q_i=q^s_i$ and $p_i=p^s_i$, respectively. Actually this has to be true for all $\vec q$ and $\vec p$. If this was not the case, using convexity arguments one could construct a point arbitrarily close to $\vec
p\,^s$ or $\vec q\,^s$ violating these conditions. Indeed, assume there exists a vector of quantum probabilities $\vec q'$ violating (\[bellop\]). Then, $(1-\epsilon)\vec q^s+\epsilon\,\vec q'$ would also violate the same condition for arbitrarily small $\epsilon$. Note that the quantity on the left hand side of (\[bellop\]) can be seen as the mean value of a Bell operator, while (\[bellin\]) defines a Bell inequality. Then, $\vec q\,^s$ maximizes (\[bellop\]) over all $\vec q$, while $\vec p\,^s$ does it for (\[bellin\]).
After inspection, one can see that the Bell inequality (\[bellin\]) corresponding to the optimal solution for $d=2,3,4$ is of the CGLMP form, up to taking a linear combination with the normalization condition $\sum_i p_i=1$. Actually, Eq. (\[bellin\]) can be rewritten in these three cases as $$\label{gillin}
\langle[A_1-B_1]+[B_1-A_2]+[A_2-B_2]+[B_2-A_1-1]\rangle\geq d-1 ,$$ where $[X]$ stands for $X$ modulo $d$ and $\langle
X\rangle=p\,(X=1)+ 2p\,(X=2)+\ldots+(d-1)p\,(X=d-1)$. This inequality easily follows from the identity $$[A_1-B_1 + B_1-A_2 + A_2-B_2 + B_2-A_1-1] = d-1 ,$$ and the fact that $[X]+[Y]\geq[X+Y]$. One can see that Eq. (\[gillin\]) represents an extremely compact way of writing all CGLMP inequalities for arbitrary dimension. Then, it is assumed that the inequality (\[bellin\]), derived from Eq. (\[klsol\]), has the CGLMP form (\[gillin\]), up to linear combination with $\sum_i p_i=1$, also for $d>4$. Thus the $q_i^s/p_i^s$ terms in (\[bellop\]) and (\[bellin\]) are known functions of one parameter.
The problem has now been hugely simplified. Under the mentioned assumptions, the state for an optimal $2\times d$ Bell test is given by the eigenvector of largest eigenvalue of the Bell operator (\[bellop\]), where the measurements are fixed as before, and where the coefficients of the Bell operator are determined (up to one unknown parameter, over which we also optimize) by the CGLMP inequality. The associated eigenvalue gives the optimal KL Divergence. This computation can be done up to very large dimension, the results can be found in Fig. \[optst\].
![KL Divergence for Bell tests using two projective measurements under the mentioned assumptions. In the inset, it is shown the amount of entanglement, in terms of Entropy of Entanglement, for the optimal state, $\ket{\Psi_d}$.[]{data-label="optst"}](optst2.eps "fig:"){width="8"}\
[*Discussion:*]{} Figure \[optst\] shows several interesting features. First of all, one can see that for an optimal $2\times
d$ Bell test, there is no need for systems of very large dimension. Actually, the simplest CHSH scenario for the singlet state already constitutes a reasonably good test for ruling out local models. However, beyond this simple case, none of the optimal Bell tests requires a maximally entangled state. In all the studied situations, the Schmidt basis for the optimal state was the computational one. Assuming this is always the case, we can compute the conjectured optimal state for large $d$, say $d=1000$, finding that $E(\Psi_d)\rightarrow\ln d\approx 0.69\log
d$ bits. It also follows from Fig. 1 that two measurements per site may not be optimal for large $d$. For instance, when $d=16$ the conjectured optimal $2\times 16$ test is worse than the $4\times
16$ test consisting of two independent realizations of the optimal $2\times 4$ Bell test for two copies of $\ket{\Psi_4}$. Indeed, it is always possible to interpret two independent realizations of this Bell test as a “new" $2^2\times 4^2$ Bell test for $\ket{\Psi}^{\otimes 2}$. Using that (i) the KL Divergence is additive, $D(\vec q\,^2||\vec p\,^2)=2D(\vec q\,||\vec p)$, and (ii) the closest local model to two independent realizations of the same Bell test corresponds to two independent realizations of the best local model for the single-copy case, the KL Divergence for this test is twice the initial one.
A priori, one would have expected the maximally entangled state to be the optimal state for any Bell test. A thorough numerical search of Bell tests for the maximally entangled state $\ket{\Phi_3}$ using more settings per site and general measurements has been performed. No improvement over the optimal $2\times 3$ case was obtained. Actually, it is remarkable that Bell tests with two projective measurements per site are so good for low dimensional systems. Therefore, all the previous numerical results show that beyond qubits and for the same amount of resources (system dimension and number and type of settings) the optimal state for a Bell test is not maximally entangled.
[*Conclusions:*]{} Non-local correlations constitute an information theoretic resource [*per se*]{} [@BLMPPR], that can be distributed by means of quantum states. It is known that there are nonlocal correlations that cannot be established by measuring quantum states [@PR]. Moreover, the nonlocal correlations obtained from the maximally entangled state $\ket{\Phi_3}$ seem to be less robust against noise than those from $\ket{\Psi^{mv}_3}$ [@ADGL]. Actually, the communication cost of simulating the nonlocal correlations for $\ket{\Psi^{mv}_3}$ seems to be higher than for $\ket{\Phi_3}$ [@Pironio]. More recently, it has been shown that the so-called nonlocal machine [@PR; @BLMPPR] is sufficient for the simulation of the correlations in a singlet state [@CGMP], but it fails for some nonmaximally entangled states of two qubits [@BGS]. All these result suggest that, despite the fact that all pure entangled states contain nonlocal correlations [@Gisin], the relation between entanglement and nonlocality is subtler than firstly expected, since they may represent different information resources.
In this work, entangled states are analyzed as a tool for the construction of Bell tests. For all the studied scenarios and beyond the qubit case, the states needed for an optimal Bell test are not maximally entangled.
This work is supported by the ESF, an MCYT “Ramón y Cajal" grant, the Generalitat de Catalunya, the Swiss NCCR “Quantum Photonics" and OFES within the EU project RESQ (IST-2001-37559).
J. S. Bell, Physics [**1**]{}, 195 (1964).
A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 460 (1981); W. Tittel [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid*]{} [**81**]{}, 3563 (1998); G. Weihs [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid*]{} [**81**]{}, 5039 (1998); M. Rowe [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**409**]{}, 791 (2001).
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. [**47**]{}, 777 (1935).
See for instance M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2000).
C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A [**53**]{}, 2046 (1996).
N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A [**154**]{}, 201 (1991).
S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, Found. Phys. [**24**]{}, 379 (1994).
A. Acín, N. Gisin, L. Masanes and V. Scarani, Int. J. Quant. Inf. [**2**]{}, 23 (2004).
D. Mayers and A. Yao, Quant. Inf. Comp. [**4**]{}, 273 (2004).
W. van Dam, R. Gill and P. Grünwald, quant-ph/0307125; to appear in IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.
T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, [*Elements of Information Theory*]{}, Wiley Interscience, New York (2000).
A. Peres, Fortsch. Phys. [**48**]{}, 531 (2000).
J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**23**]{}, 880 (1969).
D. Collins [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 040404 (2002).
D. Kaszlikowski [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4418 (2000).
A. Acín, T. Durt, N. Gisin and J. I. Latorre, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 052325 (2002).
J. Barrett [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 022101 (2005).
S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 062102 (2003).
N. J. Cerf, N. Gisin, S. Massar and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 220403 (2005).
N. Brunner, N. Gisin and V. Scarani, New J. Phys. [**7**]{}, 88 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop topological methods for analyzing difference topology experiments involving 3-string tangles. Difference topology is a novel technique used to unveil the structure of stable protein-DNA complexes involving two or more DNA segments. We analyze such experiments for the Mu protein-DNA complex. We characterize the solutions to the corresponding tangle equations by certain knotted graphs. By investigating planarity conditions on these graphs we show that there is a unique biologically relevant solution. That is, we show there is a unique rational tangle solution, which is also the unique solution with small crossing number.'
author:
- 'Isabel K. Darcy, John Luecke, and Mariel Vazquez'
title: ' Tangle analysis of difference topology experiments: applications to a Mu protein-DNA complex '
---
section0.tex section1.tex section2.tex section3.tex section4.tex section5.tex
[MMM]{}
T Baker, K. Mizuuchi, [*DNA-promoted assembly of the active tetramer of the Mu transposase*]{}, Genes Dev. [**6(11)**]{} (1992) 2221–32.
J. Bath, D.J. Sherratt and S.D. Colloms, [*Topology of Xer recombination on catenanes produced by lamda integrase*]{}, J. Mol. Biol. [**289(4)**]{} (1999), 873–883.
S. Bleiler and R. A. Litherland, [*Lens spaces and Dehn surgery*]{}, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society [**107(4)**]{} (1989), 1127-1131.
D. [Buck]{}, C. [Verjovsky Marcotte]{}, [*Tangle solutions for a family of DNA-rearranging proteins*]{}, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. [**139(1)**]{} (2005), 59–80.
H. [Cabrera-Ibarra]{}, [*On the classification of rational 3-tangles*]{}, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications [**12**]{} (2003), 921–946.
H. [Cabrera-Ibarra]{}, [*Results on the classification of rational 3-tangles*]{}, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications [**13**]{} (2004), 175–192.
A. J. Casson, C. McA. Gordon [*Reducing Heegaard splittings.*]{} Topology Appl. [**27**]{} (1987), no. 3, 275–283.
G. Chaconas and R. M. Harshey, [*Transposition of phage Mu DNA*]{}. In Mobile DNA II. N. L. Craig, R. Craigie, M. Gellert, and A. M. Lambowitz (ed), (2002) pp 384–402, American Society for Microbiology.
G. Chaconas, B.D. Lavoie, and M.A. Watson, [*DNA transposition: jumping gene machine, some assembly required*]{}, Curr. Biol. [**6**]{} (1996), 817–820.
S.D. Colloms, J. Bath and D.J. Sherratt, [*Topological selectivity in Xer site-specific recombination*]{}, Cell [**88**]{} (1997), 855–864.
M. Culler, C. Gordon, J. Luecke, P.B. Shalen [*Dehn surgery on knots.*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) [**13**]{} (1985), no. 1, 43–45.
I. [Darcy]{}, [*Biological distances on DNA knots and links: Applications to Xer recombination*]{}, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications [**10**]{} (2001), 269–294.
I. K. Darcy, A. Bhutra, J. Chang, N. Druivenga, C. McKinney, R. K. Medikonduri, S. Mills, J. Navarra Madsen, A. Ponnusamy, J. Sweet, T. Thompson, [*Coloring the Mu Transpososome*]{}, [BMC Bioinformatics]{}, [**7**]{}, (2006), [[Art. No. 435]{}]{}.
P. L. Deininger, J. V. Moran, M. A. Batzer, H. H. Kazazian Jr., [*Mobile elements and mammalian genome evolution*]{}, Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2003 [**13(6)**]{} (2003), 651–8.
J. [Emert]{}, C. [Ernst]{}, [*$N$-string tangles*]{}, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications [**9**]{} (2000), 987–1004.
C. [Ernst]{}, D. W. [Sumners]{}, [*A calculus for rational tangles: applications to DNA recombination*]{}, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. [**108**]{} (1990), 489–515.
C. [Ernst]{}, D. W. [Sumners]{}, [*Solving tangles equations arising in a DNA recombination model*]{}, Math. Proc. Camb.Phil. Soc. [**126**]{} (1999), 23-36.
I. Goldhaber-Gordon, M.H. Early, and T.A. Baker, [*MuA transposase separates DNA sequence recognition from catalysis*]{}, Biochemistry [**42**]{} (2003), 14633-14642.
C. Gordon [*On the primitive sets of loops in the boundary of a handlebody*]{}, Topology and Appl. [**27**]{} (1987), 285–299.
I. Grange, D. Buck, and M. Jayaram, [*Geometry of site alignment during int family recombination: antiparallel synapsis by the $FLp$ recombinase*]{}, J. Mol. Biol. [**298**]{} (2000), 749–764.
F. Guo, D.N. Gopaul, and G.D. van Duyne, [*Structure of Cre recombinase complexed with DNA in a site-specific recombination synapse*]{}, Nature [**389**]{} (1997), 40–46.
R. Harshey and M. Jayaram, [*The mu transpososome through a topological lens*]{}, Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. [**41(6)**]{} (2006), 387–405.
M. Hirasawa and K. Shimakawa, [*Dehn surgeries on strongly invertible knots which yield lens spaces*]{}, PAMS [**128**]{} (2000), no. 11, 3445–3451.
W. Jaco, [*Adding a 2-handle to 3-manifolds: an application to Property $R$*]{}, PAMS [**92**]{} (1984), 288–292.
E. Kilbride, M.R. Boocock, and W.M. Stark, [*Topological selectivity of a hybrid site-specific recombination system with elements from Tn3 res/resolvase and bacteriophase PL lox $P$/Cre*]{}, J. Mol. Biol. [**289**]{} (1999), 1219–1230.
P. Kronheimer, T. Mrowka, P. Ozsvath, Z. Szabo [*Monopoles and lens space surgeries*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**165(2)**]{} (2007), 457–546.
W. B. R. Lickorish, [*Prime knots and tangles*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**267(1)**]{} (1981), 321–332.
M. Mizuuchi, T. A. Baker, K. Mizuuchi, [*Assembly of the active form of the transposase-Mu DNA complex: a critical control point in Mu transposition*]{}, Cell [**70(2)**]{} (1992) 303–11.
S. Pathania, M. Jayaram, and R. Harshey, [*Path of DNA within the Mu Transpososome: Transposase interaction bridging two Mu ends and the enhancer trap five DNA supercoils*]{}, Cell [**109**]{} (2002), 425–436.
S. Pathania, M. Jayaram, and R. Harshey, [*A unique right end-enhancer complex precedes synapsis of Mu ends: the enhancer is sequestered within the transpososome throughout transposition*]{}, EMBO J. [**22(14)**]{} (2003), 3725–36.
D. Sankoff, [*Rearrangements and chromosomal evolution*]{}, Curr Opin Genet Dev. [**13(6)**]{} (2003) 583–7.
M. Scharlemann, [*Outermost forks and a theorem of Jaco*]{} Proc. Rochester Conf., AMS Contemporary Math. Series [**44**]{} (1985), 189–193.
M. Scharlemann and A. Thompson, [*Detecting unknotted graphs in $S^3$*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**34**]{} (1991) 539–560.
D. W. [Sumners]{}, C. [Ernst]{}, N.R. [Cozzarelli]{}, S.J. [Spengler]{} [*Mathematical analysis of the mechanisms of DNA recombination using tangles*]{}, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics [**28**]{} (1995).
A. Thompson, [*A polynomial invariant of graphs in 3-manifolds*]{}, Topology [**31**]{} (1992) 657–665.
M. [Vazquez]{}, S.D. [Colloms]{}, D.W. Sumners, [*Tangle analysis of Xer recombination reveals only three solutions, all consistent with a single three-dimensional topological pathway*]{}, J. Mol. Biol. [**346**]{} (2005), 493–504.
M. [Vazquez]{}, D. W. [Sumners]{}, [*Tangle analysis of Gin site-specific recombination*]{}, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. [**136**]{} (2004), 565–582.
A.A. Vetcher, A. Y. Lushnikov, J. Navarra-Madsen, R. G. Scharein, Y. L. Lyubchenko, I. K. Darcy, S. D. Levene, [*DNA topology and geometry in Flp and Cre recombination*]{}, J Mol Biol. [**357(4)**]{} (2006), 1089–104.
Y. Q. Wu, [*A generalization of the handle addition theorem*]{}, PAMS [**114**]{} (1992), 237–242.
Y. Q. Wu, [*On planarity of graphs in 3-manifolds*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**67**]{} (1992) 635–64.
Y. Q. Wu, [*The classification of nonsimple algebraic tangles*]{}, Math. Ann. [**304(3)**]{} (1996), 457–480.
Z. Yin, M. Jayaram, S. Pathania, and R. Harshey, [*The Mu transposase interwraps distant DNA sites within a functional transpososome in the absence of DNA supercoiling*]{}, J Biol Chem. [**280(7)**]{} (2005), 6149–56.
Z. Yin, A. Suzuki, Z. Lou, M. Jayaram, and R. Harshey, [*Interactions of phage Mu enhancer and termini that specify the assembly of a topologically unique interwrapped transpososome*]{}, J Mol Biol. [**372(2)**]{} (2007), 382–96.
Isabel K. Darcy, Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.uiowa.edu/$\sim$idarcy
John Luecke, Department of Mathematics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.ma.utexas.edu/$\sim$luecke/
Mariel Vazquez, San Francisco State University Department of Mathematics, 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA 94132 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://math.sfsu.edu/vazquez/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the lepton number violating decays $B \to \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ and $B \to D^{(*)} \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ which may be detected at LHCb and Belle-II experiments; and $B \to \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} e^{\mp} \nu$ and $B \to D^{(*)} \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} e^{\mp} \nu$ decays which may be detected at Belle-II experiment. The projected total number of produced $B$ mesons is $4.8 \times 10^{12}$ at LHCb upgrade and $5 \times 10^{10}$ at Belle-II. For the case that the above decays are not detected, we deduce the new upper bounds (sensitivity limits) for the mixing parameter $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ of heavy sterile neutrino with sub-eV light neutrino, as a function of the sterile neutrino mass in the interval $1.75 \ {\rm GeV} < M_N < 5.0 \ {\rm GeV}$. We take into account the probability of decay of the sterile neutrino $N$ within the detector, taking as the effective detector length $L=2.3 \ m$ at LCHb upgrade and $L=1 \ m$ at Belle-II. In the interval $1.75 \ {\rm GeV} < M_N < 3 \ {\rm GeV}$, the most stringent bounds can be obtained with the decays $B \to \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ at LHCb upgrade. The sensitivity limits are expected to be in general more stringent at LHCb upgrade than at Belle-II, principally because the number of produced $B$ mesons in LHCb upgrade is expected to be by about two orders of magnitude larger than at Belle-II. We conclude that the LHCb upgrade and Belle-II experiments have the potential to either find a new heavy Majorana neutrino $N$, or to improve significantly the sensitivity limits (upper bounds) on the heavy-light mixing parameter $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, particularly in the mass range $1.75 \ {\rm GeV} < M_N < 3 \ {\rm GeV}$. This work is a continuation and refinement of our previous work [@BdecBII] on the subject.'
author:
- Gorazd Cvetič$^1$
- 'C. S. Kim$^2$'
title: |
Sensitivity limits on heavy-light mixing $|U_{\mu N}|^2$\
from lepton number violating $B$ meson decays
---
Introduction {#intr}
============
The existence of sterile neutrinos has not been proven yet. However, their existence is suggested by various scenarios which can explain the detected differences of masses of the three known light neutrinos. Furthermore, most of such scenarios suggest that the neutrinos are Majorana fermions. Since Majorana fermions, unlike the Dirac fermions, are their own antiparticles, they can participate not just in the lepton number conserving (LNC) processes, but also in the lepton number violating (LNV) processes. LNV processes are appreciable if the Majorana neutrinos are sufficiently massive. Various scenarios suggest that mixing of sterile neutrinos with the known Standard Model (SM) flavor neutrinos leads to neutrinos which are significantly heavier than the known light neutrinos. The main questions facing the neutrino physics beyond the SM are: (1) Are the neutrinos Majorana or Dirac? (2) How heavy are the new mass eigenstates $N$? (3) What are the values of the heavy-light mixing parameters $U_{\ell N}$, i.e., the mixing parameters of a massive $N$ neutrino with the SM flavor neutrinos $\nu_{\ell}$ ($\ell=e, \mu, \tau$)?
Whether the neutrinos are Majorana particles can be determined in neutrino experiments with various LNV processes. Among the most known such experiments are those with the neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$) [@0NBB], rare LNV decays of mesons [@RMDs; @HKS; @Atre; @CDKK; @CDK; @CKZ; @symm; @Quint; @Mand] and of $\tau$ lepton [@GKS; @tau], and specific scattering processes [@scatt1; @scatt2; @scatt3; @KimLHC].
Observation of neutrino oscillations [@Pontecorvo] can determine (small) mass differences between neutrinos, and thus prove that the neutrinos have mass. The neutrino oscillations of the SM flavor neutrinos have been observed [@oscatm; @oscsol; @oscnuc]. If sterile neutrinos exist and if their mixing with the SM flavor neutrinos leads to almost degenerate heavy neutrinos, also such neutrinos can oscillate among themselves [@Boya; @CKZosc].
The neutrino sector can also have CP violation [@oscCP], which plays an important role in the leptogenesis [@Lepto]. Resonant CP violation of neutrinos appears when we have two heavy almost degenerate neutrinos. It can appear in scattering processes [@Pilaftsis], in semileptonic rare meson decays [@CKZ2; @DCK; @symm], and in purely leptonic rare meson decays [@CKZ; @symm]. Among the models with almost degenerate heavy neutrinos are the neutrino minimal standard model ($\nu$MSM) [@nuMSM; @Shapo] and low-scale seesaw models [@lsseesaw].
As mentioned, extended sectors of Majorana neutrinos appear in models which explain the very small masses of the three light neutrinos. Such models are the original seesaw models [@seesaw] (the heavy neutrinos there have masses $M_N \gg 1$ TeV), and seesaw models with heavy neutrinos with lower masses $M_N \sim 1$ TeV [@WWMMD], and $M_N \sim 1$ GeV [@scatt2; @nuMSM; @HeAAS; @KS; @AMP; @NSZ]. In such models, the heavy-light mixing parameters are in general less suppressed than in the original seesaw models.
In this work, we will work in a generic framework where we have one massive neutrino $N$ which mixes with the SM flavor neutrinos $\nu_{\ell}$ ($\ell=e, \mu, \tau$). We will evaluate the rates of some rare decays of $B$ mesons at the future Belle-II experiments, namely, the LNV decays with one on-shell Majorana massive neutrino $N$: $B \to (D^{(*)}) \mu^{\pm} N \to (D^{(*)}) \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$, where $X^{\mp}$ is either a pion $\pi^{\mp}$, or a lepton-neutrino pair $\ell \nu_{\ell}$ This work is based on our previous work [@BdecBII], but now the obtained results are more specific and directly applicable to the calculation of the sensitivity limits on the $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ mixing parameter, as a function of mass $M_N$, achievable where the projected total number of produced $B$ mesons is Unlike in Ref. [@BdecBII], here we do not make any assumptions on the size of the probability $P_N$ of the produced neutrino $N$ to decay within the detector (in [@BdecBII] we assumed that either $P_N \approx 1$ or $P_N \ll 1$). Detailed explanation on this issue is given in Sec. \[sec:PN\] and in Appendix \[appENpp\].
In Sec. \[sec:decw\] we summarize the framework in which we work, and the decay widths which are relevant for the decay rates that we want to obtain. The summarized formulas for these decay widths are presented in subsections of Sec. II and Appendix \[appNall\]. In Sec. \[sec:PN\] we present the probability $P_N$ of the produced on-shell neutrino $N$ to decay within the detector, and the integration formulas which account for the effect of this probability on the effective rate for the mentioned LNV decays. In Appendix \[appENpp\] we present detailed formulas for the Lorentz factors and the probabilities $P_N$ for the various considered decays. In Sec. \[sec:num\] we present the results of the numerical evaluations, in the form of the obtained sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, as a function of $M_N$, that can be achieved by Belle-II experiments. In Sec. \[sec:concl\] we discuss the obtained results and make conclusions.
Decay widths for $B \to (D^{(*)}) \ell_1 N \to (D^{(*)}) \ell_1 \ell_2 X$ {#sec:decw}
==========================================================================
Here we briefly summarize the results of Ref. [@BdecBII] for the decay widths of the rare decays of $B$ mesons via on-shell sterile neutrino $N$. The on-shellness of $N$ implies the factorization ( B (D\^[(\*)]{}) \_1 N (D\^[(\*)]{}) \_1 \_2 X ) = ( B (D\^[(\*)]{}) \_1 N ) . \[fact\] Here, $\ell_j$ ($j=1,2$) are generical names for charged leptons; later we will use $\ell_1 = \ell_2 = \mu^{\pm}$. The second factor on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[fact\]) represents the effect of the subsequent decay of the produced heavy on-shell neutrino $N$ into $\ell_2 + X$, where $X$ will be either a charged pion $\pi$, or a leptonic pair $\ell_3 \nu_3$.
The first factor in Eq. (\[fact\]), $\Gamma \left( B \to (D^{(*)}) \ell_1 N \right)$, is well known when no $D^{(*)}$ meson is produced; when $D^{(*)}$ is produced, this factor was obtained and evaluated in Ref. [@BdecBII]. The formulas for this factor are summarized in subsections A-C, as well as some (here relevant) differential decay widths for these decays $B \to (D^{(*)}) \ell_1 N$. The second factor in Eq. (\[fact\]) includes the exclusive decay width $\Gamma(N \to \ell_2 X)$ which is well known, either for $X=\pi$ or $X=\ell_3 \nu_3$. For both cases, the expressions for these decay widths are summarized in subsections D-E. The denominator of the second factor in Eq. (\[fact\]), namely the total decay width $\Gamma_N$ of neutrino $N$, was evaluated numerically in [@CKZ2] for the case of Majorana $N$ (cf. also [@symm] for the case of $N$ Majorana or Dirac); the expression for $\Gamma_N$ and its evaluation is presented in Appendix \[appNall\].
All the mentioned decay widths involve the (suppressed) heavy-light mixing parameters $U_{\ell N}$ ($\ell=e, \mu, \tau$) appearing in the coupling of the heavy $N$ neutrino with the $W$ boson and $\ell$ lepton. These parameters are part of the (extended) Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix, i.e., the light flavor neutrino states $\nu_{\ell}$ (with flavor $\ell = e, \mu, \tau$) are the following combination of the three light mass eigenstates $\nu_k$ and of the heavy mass eigenstate $N$: \_ = \_[k=1]{}\^3 U\_[\_k]{} \_k + U\_[N]{} N . \[mixN\]
Decay width $\Gamma(B \to \ell_1 N)$ {#subs:GBellN}
------------------------------------
The decay width for the process $B \to \ell_1 N$, where $\ell_1$ is a charged lepton ($\ell_1=e, \mu, \tau$) and $N$ is a (massive) neutrino, is (B\^ \_1\^ N) = |U\_[\_1 N]{}|\^2 (B\^ \_1\^ N) , \[GBlN\] where the canonical decay width ${{\overline{\Gamma}}}$, i.e., the part without the heavy-light mixing factor, is (B\^ \_1\^ N) = |V\_[u b]{}|\^2 M\_[B]{}\^3 \^[1/2]{}(1,y\_N,y\_1) . \[bGBlN\] Here, $G_F$ is the Fermi coupling constant ($G_F = 1.1664 \times 10^{-5} \ {\rm GeV}^{-2}$), $f_{B}$ is the decay constant of the $B$-meson, $V_{u b}$ its CKM matrix element, and in the mass dependent parts the following notations are used: \[notylam\] y\_N &=& , y\_1 = , \[yNyell\]\
\^[1/2]{}(x,y,z) &=& \^[1/2]{}. \[lam\] We denote the mass of $\ell_1$ as $M_1$ throughout this paper. We use the values $|V_{ub}|=0.00409$ and $f_B=0.1871$ GeV [@PDG2016] (cf. also [@Kangetal]).
Decay width $\Gamma(B \to D \ell_1 N)$ {#subs:GBDellN}
--------------------------------------
We now consider the decay $B \to D \ell_1 N$, cf. Fig. \[FigBDW\].
![Schematical representation of the decay $B^- \to D^0 \ell_1^- {\bar N}$.[]{data-label="FigBDW"}](FigBDW.pdf){width="90mm"}
For the general case of a massive neutrino $N$ (and a massive charged lepton $\ell_1$), the general expression for the decay width of the process $B \to D \ell_1 N$ was obtained in Ref. [@BdecBII]. There, the differential decay width $d \Gamma(B^- \to D^0 \ell_1^- {\bar N})/d q^2$ was presented.
Here we present the “more differential” cross section $d \Gamma(B^- \to D^0 \ell_1^- {\bar N})/(d q^2 d \Omega_{{\hat q}'} d \Omega_{{\hat p}_1})$, which is needed for calculation of the effective (true) branching ratio $ {\rm Br}_{\rm eff}(B \to D \ell_1 N \to D \ell_1 \ell_2 X)$ of Eq. (\[Breff\]). The differential of the decay width is d (B\^- D\^0 \^-\_1 N) = d\_3 |[T]{}|\^2 , \[BDNl\] where $d_3$ is the differential for the three-particle final phase space d\_3 & = & \^[(4)]{} ( p\_B - p\_D - p\_1 - p\_N )\
& = & d\_2 ( B\^- D\^0(p\_D) W\^\*(q) ) d q\^2 d\_2 ( W\^\*(q) \_1(p\_1) [N]{}(p\_N) ) , \[d3\] and the two-particle final phase space differentials are \[d2\] d\_2(B\^- D\^0(p\_D) W\^\*(q)) & = & \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ) d \_[[q]{}’]{}, \[d2BDW\]\
d\_2(W\^\*(q) \^-\_1(p\_1) [N]{}(p\_N)) & = & \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ) d \_[[p]{}\_1]{}. \[d2WellN\] The decay amplitude ${\cal T}$ appearing in Eq. (\[BDNl\]) is = U\_[\_1 N]{} V\_[c b]{} { F\_1(q\^2) + q\^ F\_0(q\^2) }, \[TBDNl\] where $F_1(q^2)$ and $F_0(q^2)$ are the form factors of the $B$-$D$ transition, and we consider them to be real.
In terms of the reduced canonical decay amplitude ${\widetilde {\cal T}}$ defined via the relation | [T]{} |\^2 = |U\_[\_1 N]{}|\^2 |V\_[c b]{}|\^2 G\_F\^2 ||\^2, \[tildeT\] we can then express the differential decay width (\[BDNl\]) in a somewhat more explicit form & = & ||\^2 \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ) \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ), \[dGBDlN\] where ${\hat p}_1$ is the direction of $\ell^-_1$ in the $W^*$-rest frame ($\Sigma$), and ${\hat q}'$ is the direction of $W^{*-}$ ($\ell^-_1 N$ pair) in the $B$-rest frame ($\Sigma'$). We use the expression (\[TBDNl\]) for the decay amplitude, and calculate the square of its absolute magnitude, $|{\cal T}|^2$, summing over the helicities of the final particles. We then obtain for the square of the reduced canonical amplitude, $|{\widetilde {\cal T}}|^2$, introduced via Eq. (\[tildeT\]), the following expression: ||\^2 &=& F\_1(q\^2) (F\_0(q\^2)-F\_1(q\^2)) (M\_B\^2-M\_D\^2)\
&& - F\_1(q\^2)\^2\
&& + (F\_0(q\^2)-F\_1(q\^2))\^2 (M\_B\^2-M\_D\^2)\^2 . \[tildeTexp\] Here, we denoted as $p_1$ the 4-momentum of $\ell_1$ (in $W^{*}$-rest frame $\Sigma$), and $\theta_1$ is the angle between ${\vec p}_1$ and ${\hat z} = {\hat q}'$. We also used in Eq. (\[tildeTexp\]) the following quantities: \[vecpo0\] |[p]{}\_N| = |[p]{}\_1| & = & \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ), \[vecpN\]\
|[p]{}\_D| & = & \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ) = , \[vecpD\]\
p\_1\^0 & = & (q\^2 - M\_N\^2 + M\_1\^2), \[p10\]\
p\_D\^0 & = & (M\_B\^2 - M\_D\^2 - q\^2). \[pD0\] They are all in the $W^*$-rest frame ($\Sigma$). We can see from these expressions that the absolute square of the reduced canonical amplitude, $|{\widetilde {\cal T}}|^2$, and thus the differential decay width (\[dGBDlN\]), depend only on the variables $q^2$ (square of the invariant mass of $W^{*}$) and on $\cos \theta_1$ \[note: $d \Omega_{{\hat p}_1} = d \phi_1 d (\cos \theta_1$)\]. They are thus independent of the direction ${\hat q}'$, i.e., of the direction of $W^*$ in the $B$-rest frame.
The expressions (\[tildeTexp\]) and (\[dGBDlN\]) contain two form factors, $F_1$ and $F_0$. The form factor $F_1(q^2)$ is well known [@CLN] and can be expressed in terms of a variable $w(q^2)$ \[wz\] w & = & , \[w\]\
z(w) & = & . \[z\] According to Ref. [@CLN], $F_1(q^2)$ has the following power expansion in $z(w(q^2))$: F\_1(q\^2) = F\_1(w=1) ( 1 - 8 \^2 z(w) + (51 \^2 - 10) z(w)\^2 - (252 \^2 - 84) z(w)\^3 ) . \[CLNF1\] The free parameters $\rho^2$ and $F_1(w=1)$ in this expansion have been determined by the Belle Collaboration, Ref. [@Belle1] \[rho2F1max\] \^2 &= & 1.09 0.05 , \[rho2\]\
|V\_[cb]{}| F\_1(w=1) &=& (48.14 1.56) 10\^[-3]{} . \[F1max\] In our numerical evaluations we use the above central values, and $|V_{cb}|=40.12 \times 10^{-3}$ [@Belle1].
The form factor $F_0(q^2)$ is not well known at present, principally because it contributes only when the masses of $N$ and $\ell_1$ are not very small as can be deduced from Eq. (\[tildeTexp\]).[^1] In our case $F_0(q^2)$ is important, and it was presented in Ref. [@BdecBII] by using the truncated expansion for $F_0$ in powers of $w(q^2) - 1$ of Ref. [@CaNeu] \[F0\] F\_0(q\^2) & = & f\_0(w(q\^2)) , \[F0a\]\
f\_0(w) & & f\_0(w=1) . \[F0b\] Here, we use the value $f_0(w=1) \approx 1.02$ [@NeuPRps; @CaNeu] which is obtained from the heavy quark limit. The other free parameter $\rho_0$ in Eq. (\[F0b\]) is then fixed by requiring the absence of spurious poles at $q^2=0$: $F_0(0)=F_1(0)$ ($\approx 0.690$). This yields the value $\rho_0^2 \approx 1.102$ and $(0.72 \rho_0^2 - 0.09) \approx 0.704$.
For the curves of these form factors $F_1(q^2)$ and $F_0(Q^2)$, as a function of positive $q^2$, we refer to Ref. [@BdecBII] (Fig. 2 there).
Decay width $\Gamma(B \to D^{*} \ell_1 N)$ {#subs:GBDstellN}
------------------------------------------
We now consider the decay $B \to D^{*} \ell_1 N$, i.e., the same type of decay as in the previous Sec. \[subs:GBDellN\], but now instead of the (pseudoscalar) $D$ meson we have vector meson $D^{*}$. The expressions for the (differential) decay widths are now more complicated, because $D^{*}$ is a vector particle. For the case of massive neutrino $N$ (and massive lepton $\ell_1$), these expressions were obtained in Ref. [@BdecBII], using the approach of Ref. [@GiSi]. The needed differential decay width, after summation over helicities and over the three polarizations of $D^{*}$, turns out to be [@BdecBII] & = & \^[1/2]{} 2 || q\^2 [{]{} ( ([|H\_[+1]{}]{})\^2 + ([|H\_[-1]{}]{})\^2 )\
&& - 2 \^[1/2]{} \_1 ( ([|H\_[+1]{}]{})\^2 - ([|H\_[-1]{}]{})\^2 ) + 2 ([|H\^3]{})\^2\
&& + 4 ( ) \^[1/2]{} \_1 [|H\^0]{}[|H\^3]{} + 2 ([|H\^0]{})\^2 [}]{} . \[dGdq2domdom2\] Here, the factor $\eta=\pm 1$ appears at one term proportional to $\cos \theta_1$; $\eta=+1$ if $\ell^-_1$ is produced, and $\eta=-1$ if $\ell^+_1$ is produced.[^2] Further, the following notations are used: \[notBDstellN\] || &=& M\_B \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ), \[magq\]\
&& ( 1, , ) , \[blam\] and ${\bar H}_{\pm 1}$, ${\bar H^0}$ and ${\bar H^3}$ are expressions containing the form factors $V$ and $A_j$ ($j=0,1,2,3$) appearing in the $B$-$D^{*}$ matrix elements \[bHs\] &=& (M\_B+M\_[[D\^\*]{}]{}) A\_1(q\^2) V(q\^2) , \[bHpm\]\
[|H\^3]{} & = & , \[bH3\]\
[|H\^0]{} & = & . \[bH0\] $A_3$ form factor is not independent, it is a linear combination of $A_1$ and $A_2$ A\_3(q\^2) = A\_1(q\^2) - A\_2(q\^2) . \[A3\] Among the other four form factors, three ($V$, $A_1$ and $A_2$) are well known, they were recently determined to a high precision [@Belle2] in terms of the parametrization of Ref. [@CLN] \[A1VA2\] A\_1(q\^2) & = & R\_\* (w+1) F\_\*(1) , \[A1\]\
V(q\^2) & = & A\_1(q\^2) , \[V\]\
A\_2(q\^2) & = & A\_1(q\^2) . \[A2\] The notation $R_* = 2 \sqrt{ M_B M_{{D^*}}}/(M_B+M_{{D^*}})$ is used here, and $w=w(q^2)$ and $z=z(w(q^2))$ are given in Eqs. (\[wz\]) (with $M_D \mapsto M_{D^{*}}$). The values of the three parameters in Eqs. (\[A1VA2\]) were determined in Ref. [@Belle2] \[paramsDst\] \_\*\^2 & = & 1.214(0.035) , 10\^3 F\_\*(1) |V\_[cb]{}| = 34.6(1.0) , \[rhostFst\]\
R\_1(1) & = &1.401(0.038) , R\_2(1) = 0.864(0.025) . \[R1R2\] We use the central values in the present work.
The form factor $A_0$, on the other hand, is not well known. It is relevant only if the masses of $N$ or $\ell_1$ are nonnegligible, which is the case here. Employing the heavy quark limit relations between $A_1$ and $A_2$, the relation (\[A3\]) gives a relation between $A_2$ and $A_3$. Using this relation in the heavy quark limit relation $A_0 \approx A_2$, we then obtain the following approximation for the form factor $A_0$ in terms of $A_3$: A\_0(q\^2) A\_3(q\^2)/= ( 1 - ) A\_1(q\^2) , \[A0appr\] This relation satisfies the relation $A_0(0)=A_3(0)$ which is obligatory since it reflects the absence of the pole at $q^2=0$ in the $B$-$D^{*}$ matrix elements. We refer for any further details on these points to Ref. [@BdecBII].
Decay width for $N \to \ell^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ {#subs:Nellpi}
--------------------------------------------
The decay width $\Gamma(N \to \ell^{\pm} \pi^{\mp})$ is proportional to the heavy-light mixing factor $|U_{\ell N}|^2$ (N \^ \^) = |U\_[N]{}|\^2 (N \^ \^) . \[GNlPi\] Here, the canonical decay width ${{\overline{\Gamma}}}$ is (e.g., cf. Refs. [@CDKK; @CKZ2; @symm; @CKZosc]) (N \^ \^) = |V\_[u d]{}|\^2 G\_F\^2 f\_\^2 M\_N\^3 \^[1/2]{}(1, x\_, x\_) , \[bGNlPi\] where $f_{\pi}$ ($\approx 0.1304$ GeV) is the decay constant of pion, and we use the notations x\_ = , x\_= . \[xPixell\]
Decay width for $N \to \ell_2 \ell_3 \nu$ {#subs:Nellellnu}
-----------------------------------------
If the heavy neutrino $N$ is produced by the decay $B \to (D^{(*)}) \ell_1^{\pm} N$, the neutrino can decay into various leptonic channels $\ell_2 \ell_3 \nu$. We can have the leptonic decays of $N$ of the lepton number conserving (LNC) type $N \to \ell_2^{\mp} \ell_3^{\pm} \nu_{\ell_3}$, and of the lepton number violating (LNV) type $N \to \ell_3^{\pm} \ell_2^{\mp} \nu_{\ell_2}$ \[GNllnu\] \^[(LNC)]{}(N \_2\^ \_3\^ \_[\_3]{}) & = & |U\_[\_2 N]{}|\^2 (N \_2 \_3 ) , \[GNllnu.LC\]\
\^[(LNV)]{}(N \_3\^ \_2\^ \_[\_2]{}) & = & |U\_[\_3 N]{}|\^2 (N \_2 \_3 ) . \[GNllnu.LV\] Here, the charged leptons can be $\mu, e$ or $\tau$. The canonical decay widths ${{\overline{\Gamma}}}(N \to \ell_2 \ell_3 \nu)$ have in the general case (with masses of leptons) the following form [@CDKK; @CKZ; @symm]: (N \_2 \_3 ) = (x\_2,x\_3) , \[bGNllnu\] where we denoted $x_j = M_j^2/M_N^2$ ($M_j$ is the mass of $\ell_j$), and the function ${\cal F}$ is [@CKZ]\
&& - 7 x\_3\^2 (1 + x\_2) + x\_3\^3 [\]]{} - 24 (1 - x\_3\^2) x\_2\^2 2\
&& + 12 [}]{} . \[calF\] The function ${\cal F}$ is symmetric under the exchange of the two arguments. When one lepton is massless (or almost massless, i.e., lepton $e$), this expression reduces to the well-known result (x,0) = [F]{}(0,x)= f(x) = 1 - 8 x + 8 x\^3 - x\^4 - 12 x\^2 x . \[fx\]
Decay probability of heavy neutrino in the detector; effective branching ratio {#sec:PN}
==============================================================================
If all the neutrinos $N$ decay within the detector with probability one, then the decay width Eq. (\[fact\]) is also the effective (true) decay width, and the effective branching ratio is obtained by dividing it by the decay width of the $B$ meson $\Gamma_B$. However, since the neutrino $N$ is weakly coupled to SM particles, it often does not decay within the detector and, consequently, the mentioned decays $B \to (D^{(*)}) \ell_1 \ell_2 X$ are not observed although $N$ may be produced in the $B$-decays. The effect of the decay of $N$ can be accounted for by multiplying the above decay width Eq. (\[fact\]) by the decay (nonsurvival) probability $P_N$ of $N$ within the detector P\_N = 1 - = 1 - \[PN\] where $L$ is the maximum possible flight length of $N$ within the detector, $\beta_N$ is the velocity of $N$ in the lab frame, $\tau_N = 1/\Gamma_N$ is the lifetime of $N$ in its rest frame, and $\gamma_N =(1 - \beta_N^2)^{-1/2}$ is the Lorentz time dilation factor [@CDK; @CKZ; @CKZ2; @symm; @scatt3; @CERN-SPS; @commKim; @Gronau].
For Belle-II, the $B$ meson pairs will be produced in SuperKEKB in central collisions of $e^-(p_1)$ and $e^+(p_2)$, which will produce a moving $\Upsilon(4S)$, the latter decaying into a $B$ meson pair (either $B^+ B^-$ or $B^0 {\bar B}^0$). In the lab frame, the $e^{\pm}$ have the momenta p\_j = ( E\_j,0,0,(-1)\^[j+1]{} E\_j ) (j=1,2), \[E1E2\] with the values $E_1=7.007$ GeV and $E_2 = 3.993$ GeV. This then produces the invariant mass $(p_1+p_2)^2 = M^2_{\Upsilon(4 S)}$, where $M_{\Upsilon(4 S)}=10.579$ GeV [@PDG2016]. The kinetic energy of the produced $\Upsilon(4 S)$ is $K_{\Upsilon}=E_1 + E_2 -M_{\Upsilon(4 S)} = 0.421$ GeV, which is semirelativistic, leading to the Lorentz factor in the lab frame \_ = = 1.0398 \_ = (1 - 1/\_\^2)\^[1/2]{} = 0.274 . \[gammabetaU\] When $\Upsilon(4 S)$ produces $B$ meson pair, the kinetic energy of the produced $B$ mesons is about $0.010$ GeV in the $\Upsilon(4 S)$-rest frame, which is negligible. Therefore, we consider the velocity of the produced $B$ mesons in the lab frame to be the same as the velocity of $\Upsilon(4 S)$ \_B = \_ = 0.274, \_B = \_ = 1.0398, (p\_B)\_[lab]{}=M\_B \_B \_B = 1.504 [GeV]{}. \[gammabetaB\] In the decays $B \to D^{(*)} \ell_1 N$, we will denote the rest frame of the off-shell $W^*$ (i.e., of $\ell_1 N$ pair) as $\Sigma$; the $B$-rest frame as $\Sigma'$; the laboratory frame as $\Sigma''$. With these notations, the effective (true) branching ratio is calculated \_[eff]{}(B D\^[(\*)]{} \_1 N D\^[(\*)]{} \_1 \_2 X) & = & d q\^2 d \_[[q]{}’]{} d \_[[p]{}\_1]{}\
&& { 1 - }, \[Breff\] where in the denominator inside the exponent we have the Lorentz factor \_N\^[”]{} \_N\^[”]{} = , \[bNgNpp\] in the laboratory frame, which is a function of $W^*$ ($=\ell_1 N$) momentum $q'$ (in the $B$-rest frame)[^3] and of the direction ${\hat p}_{1}$ of the momentum $p_{1}$ of the produced charged lepton $\ell_1$ (in the $W^*$-rest frame). The expression (\[bNgNpp\]) as an explicit function of $q^2$, ${\hat q}^{'}$ and ${\hat p}_1$ is derived in Appendix \[appENpp\]. It depends on the angle $\theta_q$ between the direction of ${\hat \beta}_B$ (in the lab frame $\Sigma''$) and ${\hat q}'$ of $W^*$ (in the $B$-rest frame $\Sigma'$), as well as on the spherical angles $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$ of the vector ${\vec p}_1$ of $\ell_1$ in the $W^*$-rest ($\Sigma$) frame, in a specific 3-dimensional system of coordinates in the frame $\Sigma$ (cf. Fig. \[Figthqth1\] in Appendix \[appENpp\]). On the other hand, the differential decay width $d \Gamma(B \to D^{(*)} \ell_1 N)/( d q^2 d \Omega_{{\hat q}'} d \Omega_{{\hat p}_1})$ depends only on $q^2$ and $\theta_1$, as shown in subsections \[subs:GBDellN\]-\[subs:GBDstellN\]. Due to the mentioned dependence in the decay (nonsurvival) factor $P_N$, integration over these momenta is needed, as indicated in Eq. (\[Breff\]). The differential decay widths $d \Gamma(B \to D^{(*)} \ell_1 N)/(d q^2 d \Omega_{{\hat q}'} d \Omega_{{\hat p}_1})$ are given in subsections \[subs:GBDellN\]-\[subs:GBDstellN\]. All this implies that the integration Eq. (\[Breff\]) has the following form: \_[(M\_N+M\_1)\^2]{}\^[(M\_B - M\_[D\^[(\*)]{}]{})\^2]{} d q\^2 2 \_[-1]{}\^[+1]{} d (\_q) \_[-1]{}\^[+1]{} d (\_1) \_0\^[2 ]{} d \_1 f(q\^2, \_q, \_1, \_1) . \[integrbounds\]
If no mesons $D^{(*)}$ are produced in the decays, then the differential decay width is even simpler, as it depends only on the direction ${\hat {p}}'_N$ of the on-shell $N$ in the $B$-rest frame, and the expression (\[Breff\]) simplifies \_[eff]{}(B \_1 N \_1 \_2 X) & = & d \_[[p]{}’\_N]{}\
&&{ 1 - }. \[BreffnoD\] The differential decay width is $d \Gamma(B \to \ell_1 N)/d \Omega_{{\hat p}'_N} = \Gamma(B \to \ell_1 N)/(4 \pi)$ since $B$ is a pseudoscalar, and the expression of $\Gamma(B \to \ell_1 N)$ is given in subsection II A. The nonsurvival probability $P_N$ is in the case of Eq. (\[BreffnoD\]) also simpler, because it (and the energy of $N$ in the lab frame, $E''_N$) depends only on the direction ${\hat p}'_N$ of $N$ in the $B$-rest frame. The expression $E''_N({\hat p}'_N)$ is given in Appendix \[appENpp\].
Numerical results for sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ at LHCb upgrade and Belle-II {#sec:num}
========================================================================================
We assume that in the considered decays, the produced on-shell neutrino $N$ has the available length of $L=1 \ m$ for flight within the detector, [^4] We consider that at Belle-II, We assume that there are no background events for the considered lepton number violating (LNV) decays In these events, we have no QED background because no $\mu^+ \mu^-$ pairs appear in the final states. The effective branching ratios of the mentioned decay modes depend crucially on the heavy-light mixing parameter $|U_{\mu N}|^2$. The sensitivity limit on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ at 95 % confidence limit is obtained for $N_{\rm events}=3.09$ [@FC]. Therefore, the sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ are obtained by requiring
We assume in our formulas that only the mixings $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ are nonzero; if other mixings ($|U_{e N}|^2$, $|U_{\tau N}|^2$) are nonzero, the obtained upper bounds for $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ are in general less restrictive (higher).[^5]
![[]{data-label="figUmuN2LHCb"}](figUmuN2BDstmumuXLHCb1to10AVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
![[]{data-label="figUmuN2LHCb"}](figUmuN2BDmumuXLHCb1to10AVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
![[]{data-label="figUmuN2LHCb"}](figUmuN2BmumuXLHCb1to10AVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
![[]{data-label="figUmuN2LHCb"}](figUmuN2BallmumuXthLHCb1to10AVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
![(a) The future Belle-II sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, as solid lines, from LNV decays $B \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} N \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$ at Belle-II, where $X^{\mp}=\pi^{\mp}$ or $X^{\mp}=e^{\mp} \nu_e$; included are also the present bounds from various experiments, resulting in the grey region of exclusion. (b) The same, but for the decays $B^ \to D \mu^{\pm} N \to D \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (c) The same, but for the decays $B^{\pm} \to \mu^{\pm} N \to \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (d) Comparison of the prospective Belle-II sensitivity limits for the three mentioned pairs of decays. The effective detector length is taken $L=1 \ m$, and the expected total number of produced $B$ meson pairs $N=5 \times 10^{10}$.[]{data-label="figUmuN2"}](figUmuN2BDstmumuXBelleIIAVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
![(a) The future Belle-II sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, as solid lines, from LNV decays $B \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} N \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$ at Belle-II, where $X^{\mp}=\pi^{\mp}$ or $X^{\mp}=e^{\mp} \nu_e$; included are also the present bounds from various experiments, resulting in the grey region of exclusion. (b) The same, but for the decays $B^ \to D \mu^{\pm} N \to D \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (c) The same, but for the decays $B^{\pm} \to \mu^{\pm} N \to \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (d) Comparison of the prospective Belle-II sensitivity limits for the three mentioned pairs of decays. The effective detector length is taken $L=1 \ m$, and the expected total number of produced $B$ meson pairs $N=5 \times 10^{10}$.[]{data-label="figUmuN2"}](figUmuN2BDmumuXBelleIIAVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
![(a) The future Belle-II sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, as solid lines, from LNV decays $B \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} N \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$ at Belle-II, where $X^{\mp}=\pi^{\mp}$ or $X^{\mp}=e^{\mp} \nu_e$; included are also the present bounds from various experiments, resulting in the grey region of exclusion. (b) The same, but for the decays $B^ \to D \mu^{\pm} N \to D \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (c) The same, but for the decays $B^{\pm} \to \mu^{\pm} N \to \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (d) Comparison of the prospective Belle-II sensitivity limits for the three mentioned pairs of decays. The effective detector length is taken $L=1 \ m$, and the expected total number of produced $B$ meson pairs $N=5 \times 10^{10}$.[]{data-label="figUmuN2"}](figUmuN2BmumuXBelleIIAVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
![(a) The future Belle-II sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, as solid lines, from LNV decays $B \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} N \to D^{*} \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$ at Belle-II, where $X^{\mp}=\pi^{\mp}$ or $X^{\mp}=e^{\mp} \nu_e$; included are also the present bounds from various experiments, resulting in the grey region of exclusion. (b) The same, but for the decays $B^ \to D \mu^{\pm} N \to D \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (c) The same, but for the decays $B^{\pm} \to \mu^{\pm} N \to \mu^{\pm} \mu^{\pm} X^{\mp}$. (d) Comparison of the prospective Belle-II sensitivity limits for the three mentioned pairs of decays. The effective detector length is taken $L=1 \ m$, and the expected total number of produced $B$ meson pairs $N=5 \times 10^{10}$.[]{data-label="figUmuN2"}](figUmuN2BallmumuXthBelleIIAVext.pdf){width="85mm"}
The results for the considered decays , are given in Figs. \[figUmuN2\](a)-(d). In Figs. \[figUmuN2\](a)-(c), the present experimental bounds are included for comparison. In Fig. \[figUmuN2\](d), the prospective Belle-II sensitivity limits for all the six considered decays are presented, for mutual comparisons.
Discussions and conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========================
From Figures \[figUmuN2LHCb\] and \[figUmuN2\], we can see that the decays where $D^{*}$ and $D$ are produced give quite strong new sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ in the mass interval $1.75 \ {\rm GeV} < M_N < 3 \ {\rm GeV}$. This is a reflection of the fact that the presence of $D^{(*)}$ mesons leads to a significantly weaker CKM suppression in the decay rates, because $|V_{cb}|^2 \approx 10^2 |V_{ub}|^2$. However, when $M_N > 3 \ {\rm GeV}$, such decays are kinematically suppressed, and then only the (CKM-suppressed) decays $B \to \mu \mu X$ give useful sensitivity limits, as seen in Figs. \[figUmuN2LHCb\](c), (d) and Figs. \[figUmuN2\](c), (d). Further, we see in Figs. \[figUmuN2LHCb\] that in general the sensitivity limits are more restrictive (lower) when $X=e \nu$ than when $X=\pi$.
In Ref. [@AsIsh], a similar analysis was made for the decay $B^+ \to \mu^+ N \to \mu^+ \mu^- \pi^-$ at Belle-II, where the same total number of $B$ meson pairs was assumed as here, $5 \times 10^{10}$. They obtained lower, i.e., more restrictive sensitivity limits on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ than we do for this decay for Belle-II. The reason for the difference cannot be the fact that they did not take into account the movement of $B$-mesons in the lab frame (this effect changes the sensitivity limits only weakly). The reason for the difference lies possibly in the evaluated values of the total decay width $\Gamma_N$ as a function of $M_N$. We evaluated this decay width according to the formulas and Figures in Appendix \[appNall\], based on Refs. [@Atre; @HKS], and we applied those evaluations in Refs. [@CKZ2; @symm].
The experimental bounds on $|U_{\mu N}|^2$ presented in Figs. \[figUmuN2LHCb\](a)-(c) and Figs. \[figUmuN2\](a)-(c) are from various experiments: DELPHI [@DELPHI], BEBC [@BEBC], NuTeV [@NuTeV], NA3 [@NA3], CHARM II [@CHARMII], and Belle [@BelleUB].
On the basis of the obtained results, Figs. \[figUmuN2LHCb\] and \[figUmuN2\], we conclude that the LHCb upgrade and Belle-II experiments have the potential to either find a new heavy Majorana neutrino $N$, or to improve significantly the sensitivity limits (upper bounds) on the heavy-light mixing parameter $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, particularly in the mass range $1.75 \ {\rm GeV} < M_N < 3 \ {\rm GeV}$ where the LNV decays of $B$ mesons involving $D$ or $D^{*}$ mesons and an on-shell neutrino $N$ are possible.
If $N$ is not Majorana but Dirac particle, then clear sensitivity limits cannot be obtained for $|U_{\mu N}|^2$, but rather for the product $|U_{e N} U_{\mu N}|$; this is a less attractive possibility, principally because the present upper bounds for $|U_{e N}|^2$ in the mentioned mass range, coming from the neutrinoless double beta decay experimental data [@Kova], are more restrictive (lower) than those for $|U_{\mu N}|^2$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work of C.S.K. was supported by the NRF grant funded by the Korean government of the MEST (No. 2016R1D1A1A02936965).
Total decay width of neutrino $N$ {#appNall}
=================================
We summarize here the formulas needed for evaluation of the total decay width of a massive sterile neutrino $N$, $\Gamma(N \to {\rm all})$.
The formulas for the widths for leptonic decays and semileptonic decay are given in Ref. [@Atre] (Appendix C there), for $M_N \lesssim 1$ GeV. For higher masses $M_N$, the calculation of the semileptonic decay widths cannot be performed in this way because not all the resonances are known. For such higher masses, the decay widths for semileptonic decays were calculated in Refs. [@HKS; @GKS] by the inclusive approach based on duality. In this approach, the various (pseudoscalar and vector) meson channels were calculated by quark-antiquark channels. This was applied for $M_N \geq M_{\eta^{'}} \approx 0.958$ GeV. Below we write the expressions given in Ref. [@HKS] for the decay width channels. In some of these formulas, twice the decay width appears \[$2 \Gamma(N \to \ldots)$\], where the factor two is applied if $N$ is a Majorana neutrino, and factor one if it is Dirac neutrino. This is so because when Majorana neutrino decays to charged particles, the decay in charge conjugate channel is equally possible; this is not possible if $N$ is Dirac particle.
The leptonic decays are \[GNlept\] 2 (N \^- \^[’+]{} \_[\^[’]{}]{}) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^5 I\_1(y\_,0, y\_[\^[’]{}]{}) (1 - \_[\^[’]{}]{} ) , \[GNlepta\]\
(N \_ \^[’-]{} \^[’+]{}) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^5 \[GNleptb\]\
\_[\_]{} \_[\^[’]{}]{} (N \_ \^[’]{} [|]{}\^[’]{}) & = & \_ |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^5 \[GNleptc\] The factor $2$ is included in Eq. (\[GNlepta\]) when $N$ is Majorana, because in such a case both decays, $N \to \ell^- \ell^{'+} \nu_{\ell^{'}}$ and $N \to \ell^+ \ell^{'-} \nu_{\ell^{'}}$ are contributing ($\ell \not= \ell^{'}$).
Further, the following semileptonic decays contribute when $M_N < M_{\eta^{'}} \approx 0.968$ GeV, involving pseudoscalar ($P$) and vector ($V$) mesons: \[GNmes\] 2 (N \^- P\^+) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^3 f\_P\^2 |V\_P|\^2 F\_P(y\_, y\_P) \[GNMesPch\]\
(N \_ P\^0) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^3 f\_P\^2 (1 - y\_P\^2)\^2 \[GNMesP0\]\
2 (N \^- V\^+) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^3 f\_V\^2 |V\_V|\^2 F\_V(y\_, y\_V) \[GNMesVch\]\
(N \_ V\^0) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^3 f\_V\^2 \_V\^2 (1 - y\_V\^2)\^2 (1 + 2 y\_V\^2) . \[GNMesV0\] Again, the factor $2$ appears in the charged meson channels if $N$ is Majorana. The factors $V_P$ and $V_V$ appearing in the above expressions stand for the CKM matrix elements of the valence quarks of the mesons. Ths constants $f_P$ and $f_V$ are the corresponding decay constants of these mesons. Their values are given in Table 1 of Ref. [@HKS].
The contributing pseudoscalar mesons here are: $P^{\pm} = \pi^{\pm}, K^{\pm}$; $P^0 = \pi^0, K^0, {\bar K}^0, \eta$. The contributing vector mesons here are: $V^{\pm} = \rho^{\pm}, K^{* \pm}$; $V^0= \rho^0, \omega, K^{*0}, {\bar K}^{*0}$.
On the other hand, for higher mass $M_N \geq M_{\eta^{'}}$ ($=$0.9578 GeV), the quark-hadron duality is used and the sum of the widths of the semileptonic decay modes are represented by the following widths into quark-antiquark decay modes [@HKS]: [\[GNquark\] 2 (N \^- U [|D]{}) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^5 |V\_[UD]{}|\^2 I\_1(y\_,y\_U,y\_D) \[GNquarka\]\
(N \_ q [|q]{}) & = & |U\_[N]{}|\^2 M\_N\^5 \[GNquarkb\] ]{}
In all the formulas (\[GNlept\])–(\[GNquark\]), the notations y\_[Y]{} M\_Y/M\_N (Y = , \_, P, V, q) \[GNnot\] are used. We denoted in Eq. (\[GNquark\]): $U=u,c$; $D=d,s,b$; $q=u,d,c,s,b$. The used values of the quark masses in our evaluations are: $M_u=M_d = 3.5$ MeV; $M_s=105$ MeV; $M_c=1.27$ GeV; $M_b=4.2$ GeV.
As mentioned earlier, in the evaluation of the total decay width $\Gamma_N$, if $N$ is Majorana we add the expressions (\[GNquarka\]) and (\[GNquarkb\]); if $N$ is Dirac, the expressions should be added, but with the expressions (\[GNquarka\]) multiplied by $1/2$. The same is valid in the case when we sum the expressions (\[GNlept\]) and (\[GNmes\]).
In Eqs. (\[GNleptb\]) and (\[GNquarkb\]), the following SM neutral current couplings appear: \[NCc\] g\_L\^[(lept)]{} &=& - + \^2 \_W , g\_R\^[(lept)]{} =\^2 \_W \[NCcl\]\
g\_L\^[(U)]{} & = & - \^2 \_W , g\_R\^[(U)]{} = - \^2 \_W \[NCcU\]\
g\_L\^[(D)]{} & = & - + \^2 \_W , g\_R\^[(U)]{} = \^2 \_W \[NCcD\]
In Eq. (\[GNMesV0\]), the neutral current couplings $\kappa_V$ (for the neutral vector mesons) are \[kV\] \_V & = & \^2 \_W (V=\^0, ) \[kVa\]\
\_V & = & - + \^2 \_W (V=K\^[\*0]{}, [|K]{}\^[\*0]{}) \[kVb\]
Further, in the above expressions, the following expressions $I_1$, $I_2$, $F_P$ and $F_V$ were used: \[kinex\] I\_1(x,y,z) & = & 12 \_[(x+y)\^2]{}\^[(1-z)\^2]{} (s - x\^2 - y\^2) (1 + z\^2 -s) \^[1/2]{}(s,x\^2,y\^2) \^[1/2]{}(1,s,z\^2) \[I1\]\
I\_2(x,y,z) & = & 24 y z \_[(y+z)\^2]{}\^[(1-x)\^2]{} (1 + x\^2 - s) \^[1/2]{}(s,y\^2,z\^2) \^[1/2]{}(1,s,x\^2) \[I2\]\
F\_P(x,y) & = & \^[1/2]{}(1,x\^2,y\^2) \[FP\]\
F\_V(x,y) & = & \^[1/2]{}(1,x\^2,y\^2) . \[FV\] Here, the $\lambda^{1/2}$ function is given in Eq. (\[lam\]).
![The coefficients ${\cal N}_{\ell N}(M_N)$ ($\ell = e, \mu, \tau$) appearing in Eqs. (\[GNwidth\])-(\[calK\]), as a function of the mass of the heavy sterile neutrino $N$. When $N$ is Dirac, the left-hand figure applies; when it is Majorana, the right-hand figure applies.[]{data-label="FigcNellN"}](NlN_Dir_2.pdf){width="85mm"}
![The coefficients ${\cal N}_{\ell N}(M_N)$ ($\ell = e, \mu, \tau$) appearing in Eqs. (\[GNwidth\])-(\[calK\]), as a function of the mass of the heavy sterile neutrino $N$. When $N$ is Dirac, the left-hand figure applies; when it is Majorana, the right-hand figure applies.[]{data-label="FigcNellN"}](NlN_Maj_2.pdf){width="85mm"}
All these formulas then give the total decay width $\Gamma(N \to {\rm all})$ as a function of $M_N$. This total decay width can be written in the following form: $$\Gamma_{N} = {{\widetilde {\cal K}}}\; {\overline \Gamma}_N(M_{N}) \ .
\label{GNwidth}$$ The corresponding canonical (i.e., without the heavy-light mixing factors) decay width expression is $${\overline \Gamma}_N(M_{N}) \equiv \frac{G_F^2 M_{N}^5}{96 \pi^3} \ .
\label{barGN}$$ The factor ${{\widetilde {\cal K}}}$ in Eq. ([GNwidth]{}) contains the dependence on the heavy-light mixing factors, and it has the form $${{\widetilde {\cal K}}}(M_{N}) \equiv {{\widetilde {\cal K}}}= {\cal N}_{e N} \; |U_{e N}|^2 + {\cal N}_{\mu N} \; |U_{\mu N}|^2 + {\cal N}_{\tau N} \; |U_{\tau N}|^2 \
\label{calK}$$ The dimensionless coefficients ${\cal N}_{\ell N}(M_N)$ here are numbers $\sim 1$-$10$ which are functions of the mass $M_N$, and they are determined by the above formulas given in this Appendix. We present in Figs. \[FigcNellN\] the resulting coefficients ${\cal N}_{\ell N}(M_N)$ as a function of neutrino mass $M_N$, for the case of Dirac and Majorana neutrino $N$. The figures are from Ref. [@CKZ2] for Majorana $N$, and [@symm] for Dirac $N$.
It is interesting to notice a small kink in the curves of Figs. \[FigcNellN\] at $M_N=M_{\eta^{'}}$ ($=$0.9578 GeV). The kink is there because at $M_N \geq M_{\eta^{'}}$ the use of quark-hadron duality is made, i.e., we replace the semileptonic decay channel contributions by those of the quark-antiquark channel. As a consequence, we can conclude that the quark-hadron duality works well at $M_N \geq M_{\eta^{'}}$. A partial exception is the case $\ell = \tau$ because $\tau$ lepton has a large mass.
Lorentz factors of on-shell $N$ in laboratory frame {#appENpp}
===================================================
In this Appendix we calculate the energy $E''_N$ of the produced heavy neutrino $N$ in the laboratory frame $\Sigma''$ \[the rest frame of $\Upsilon(4S)$\] in the reaction $B \to D^{(*)} \ell_1 N$, cf. Sec. \[sec:PN\]. We recall that our notations are: $\Sigma$ is the rest frame of the virtual $W^{*}$ (i.e., of the $\ell_1$-$N$ pair); $\Sigma'$ is the rest frame of the $B$ meson; and $\Sigma''$ is the laboratory frame.
As explained in Sec. \[sec:PN\], the velocity of the produced mesons $B$ in the laboratory ($\Sigma''$) frame, ${\vec \beta}_B$, is (practically) the same as the velocity of $\Upsilon(4S)$ there, Eqs. (\[gammabetaU\])-(\[gammabetaB\]). The momentum $p_N$ transforms between the $\Sigma''$ (lab) frame and the $\Sigma'$ (B-rest) frame in the following way: \[SppSp\] E”\_N & = & \_B ( E’\_N + \_B ( \_B) ), \[SppSpa\]\
( \_B) & = & \_B ( ( \_B) + \_B E’\_N ), \[SppSpb\]\
( )\_ &=& ( )\_, \[SppSpc\] where in the last line $(\ldots)_{\perp}$ denotes the component of the vector perpendicular to ${\hat \beta_B} \equiv {\hat z}^{''}$, i.e., perpendicular to the direction of movement of $B$ \[$\leftrightarrow$ of $\Upsilon(4S)$\] in the lab frame $\Sigma''$.[^6]
The momentum $p_N$ transforms between the $B$ rest frame $\Sigma'$ and the $W^{*}$ rest frame $\Sigma$ in the following way: \[SpS\] E’\_N & = & \_W(q\^2) ( E\_N(q\^2) - \_W(q\^2) |[p]{}\_N(q\^2)| \_1 ), \[SpSa\]\
( ’) & = & \_W(q\^2) ( - |[p]{}\_N(q\^2)| \_1 + \_W(q\^2) E\_N(q\^2) ). \[SpSb\] Here, $\theta_1$ is the angle bewteen ${\hat q}' \equiv {\hat z}$ and ${\vec p}_1$ of $\ell_1$ in the $\Sigma$ frame of $\ell_1$-$N$. The corresponding quantities in the $\Sigma$ frame, as a function of the squared invariant mass of $W^{*}$, $Q^2$, are \[ENpNq\] E\_N & = & (q\^2 + M\_N\^2 - M\_1\^2), \[EN\]\
|[p]{}\_N| = |[p]{}\_1| &=& \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ), \[vecpNp1\] the Lorentz factors for the transition between $\Sigma'$ and $\Sigma$ are \_W(q\^2) = ( 1 + )\^[1/2]{}, \_W(q\^2) = ( + 1 )\^[-1/2]{}, \[gWbW\] where the magnitude $|{\vec {q'}}|$ of the $3$-momentum of $W^{*}$ in $\Sigma'$ ($B$-rest frame) is || = M\_B \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ). \[vecq\] In order to combine all these relations Eqs. (\[SppSp\])-(\[vecq\]) to obtain $E''_N$ as a function of $q^2$, ${\hat q}'$ and ${\hat p}_1$, we must express the $B$-meson velocity direction ${\hat \beta}_B$ in a 3-dimensional coordinate system in $\Sigma$. We introduce such a system in the following way: ${\hat z}$ is defined as ${\hat z}={\hat {z'}} = {\hat q}'$, i.e., the direction of $W^*$ in the $B$-rest frame ($\Sigma'$). Then the vectors ${\hat q}'$ and ${\hat \beta}_B$ define a plane, the angle between ${\hat q}'$($={\hat z}$) and ${\hat \beta}_B$ is $\theta_q$ ($0 \leq \theta_q \leq \pi$), and the axis ${\hat x}$ in this plane is such that $({\hat \beta}_B)_x = \sin \theta_q$ ($>0$). We recall that ${\hat {\beta}_B}$ is the direction vector of $B$ in $\Sigma''$ (lab) frame. The axis ${\hat y}$ is then obtained in the usual way, ${\hat y} = {\hat z} \times {\hat x}$, cf. Fig. \[Figthqth1\].
![The 3-dimensional coordinate system in the $\Sigma$ frame (the rest frame of $W^*$=$\ell_1$-$N$). The spherical coordinates of vector ${\hat \beta}_B$ in this system are: ${\hat \beta}_B=(\sin \theta_q,0, \cos \theta_q)$; and of ${\vec p}_1$ are: ${\vec p}_1 = |{\vec p}_1| (\sin \theta_1 \cos \phi_1, \sin \theta_1 \sin \phi_1 , \cos \theta_1)$; ${\hat q}'$ is the direction of the 3-momentum of $W^*$ in the frame $\Sigma'$ ($B$-rest frame); ${\hat \beta}_B$ is the direction of the 3-momentum of $B$ meson in the frame $\Sigma''$ (lab frame).[]{data-label="Figthqth1"}](Figthqth1.pdf){width="60mm"}
As a result, we have \[thqth1\] \_B & = & \_q [x]{} + \_q [q]{}’ \[betBthq\]\
( \_B) & = & ( ’ ) \_q + ( ) \_q . \[ppNbetB\] We can now take into account that ${\vec {p'_N}} \cdot {\hat x} = {\vec {p_N}} \cdot {\hat x}$, because these are components perpendicular to the boost direction ${\hat q}'={\hat z}$ between $\Sigma'$ and $\Sigma$. Since in $\Sigma$ we have ${\vec p}_1 = - {\vec p_N}$, we thus have = = - [p\_1]{} = - |[p\_1]{}| \_1 \_1 = - |[p\_N]{}| \_1 \_1, \[ppNx\] where $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$ are the spherical coordinates of ${\vec p}_1$ in $\Sigma$ ($0 \leq \theta_1 \leq \pi$; $0 \leq \phi_1 < 2 \pi$), cf. Fig. \[Figthqth1\]. Substitution of Eq. (\[ppNx\]) into Eq. (\[ppNbetB\]), and taking into account the relation (\[SpSb\]) then gives ( \_B) = . \[ppNbetBfin\] Using this expression, and the expression for $E'_N$ of Eq. (\[SpSa\]), in the Lorentz transformation (\[SppSpa\]), we finally obtain the energy $E''_N$ of the $N$ neutrino in the lab frame in terms of $q^2$, ${\hat q}'$ (i.e., $\theta_q$) and ${\hat p}_1$ (i.e., $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$) E”\_N(q\^2; \_q; \_1, \_1) &=& \_B [{]{} \_W(q\^2) ( E\_N(q\^2) - \_W(q\^2) |[p]{}\_N(q\^2)| \_1 )\
&& + \_B . \[ENppfin\] Here, the expressions $\gamma_W(q^2)$ and $\beta_W(q^2)$ are given in Eq. (\[gWbW\]), and the expressions for $E_N(q^2)$, $|{\vec p}_N(q^2)|$ and $|{\vec {q'}}|$ are given in Eqs. (\[ENpNq\]) and (\[vecq\]).
For the decay $B \to D \ell N$ the same expressions apply, with the only difference that instead of $M_{D^*}$ we have $M_D$.
However, when the decay is without $D^{(*)}$, namely $B \to \ell_1 N$, the expression for $E''_N$ gets simplified significantly, and has only dependence on the direction ${\hat {p'}}_N$ of the $N$ neutrino in the B-rest frame ($\Sigma'$) \[EppnoD\] E”\_N = \_B ( E’\_N + \_N \_B || ), where $\theta_N$ is the angle between ${\hat \beta}_B$ and ${\vec {p'_N}}$ in the $B$-rest frame ($\Sigma'$), and we have \[Np\] E’\_N &=& , \[ENp\]\
|| & = & M\_B \^[1/2]{} ( 1, , ). \[pNb\] From Eqs. (\[EppnoD\]) and (\[Np\]) we see that in this case $E''_N$ depends only on $\theta_N$, the angle between ${\hat \beta}_B$ and ${\vec {p'_N}}$. The integration differential in Eq. (\[BreffnoD\]) thus reduces simply to $d \Omega_{{\hat {p'}}_N} \mapsto 2 \pi d (\cos \theta_N)$.
[99]{}
G. Cvetič and C. S. Kim, “Rare decays of B mesons via on-shell sterile neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 5, 053001 (2016) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 3, 039901 (2017)\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.039901, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.053001 \[arXiv:1606.04140 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Racah, “On the symmetry of particle and antiparticle,” Nuovo Cimento [**14**]{}, 322 (1937) doi:10.1007/BF02961321; W. H. Furry, “On transition probabilities in double beta-disintegration,” Phys. Rev. [**56**]{}, 1184 (1939) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.56.1184; H. Primakoff and S. P. Rosen, “Double beta decay,” Rep. Prog. Phys. [**22**]{}, 121 (1959); “Nuclear double-beta decay and a new limit on lepton nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. [**184**]{}, 1925 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.184.1925; “Baryon number and lepton number conservation laws,” Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**31**]{}, 145 (1981) doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.31.120181.001045; J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrinoless double beta decay in $SU(2) x U(1)$ theories,” Phys. Rev. D [**25**]{}, 2951 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.2951; M. Doi, T. Kotani and E. Takasugi, “Double beta decay and Majorana neutrino,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**83**]{}, 1 (1985) doi:10.1143/PTPS.83.1; S. R. Elliott and J. Engel, “Double beta decay,” J. Phys. G [**30**]{}, R183 (2004) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/30/9/R01 \[hep-ph/0405078\]. V. A. Rodin, A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic and P. Vogel, “Assessment of uncertainties in QRPA $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay nuclear matrix elements,” Nucl. Phys. A [**766**]{}, 107 (2006) Erratum: \[Nucl. Phys. A [**793**]{}, 213 (2007)\] doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.12.004 \[arXiv:0706.4304 \[nucl-th\]\].
L. S. Littenberg and R. E. Shrock, “Upper bounds on lepton number violating meson decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 443 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.443; “Implications of improved upper bounds on $|\Delta L| = 2$ processes,” Phys. Lett. B [**491**]{}, 285 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01041-8 \[hep-ph/0005285\]; C. Dib, V. Gribanov, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, “K meson neutrinoless double muon decay as a probe of neutrino masses and mixings,” Phys. Lett. B [**493**]{}, 82 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01134-5 \[hep-ph/0006277\]; A. Ali, A. V. Borisov and N. B. Zamorin, “Majorana neutrinos and same sign dilepton production at LHC and in rare meson decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**21**]{}, 123 (2001) doi:10.1007/s100520100702 \[hep-ph/0104123\]; M. A. Ivanov and S. G. Kovalenko, “Hadronic structure aspects of $K^{+} \to \pi^- + l^+_1 + l^+_2$ decays,” Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 053004 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.053004 \[hep-ph/0412198\]; A. de Gouvea and J. Jenkins, “Survey of lepton number violation via effective operators,” Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 013008 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.013008 \[arXiv:0708.1344 \[hep-ph\]\]; N. Quintero, G. López Castro and D. Delepine, “Lepton number violation in top quark and neutral B meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 096011 (2011) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 079905 (2012)\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.079905, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.096011 \[arXiv:1108.6009 \[hep-ph\]\]; G. L. Castro and N. Quintero, “Bounding resonant Majorana neutrinos from four-body B and D decays,” Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 077901 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.077901 \[arXiv:1302.1504 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Abada, A. M. Teixeira, A. Vicente and C. Weiland, “Sterile neutrinos in leptonic and semileptonic decays,” JHEP [**1402**]{}, 091 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)091 \[arXiv:1311.2830 \[hep-ph\]\]; Y. Wang, S. S. Bao, Z. H. Li, N. Zhu and Z. G. Si, “Study Majorana neutrino contribution to B-meson semi-leptonic rare decays,” Phys. Lett. B [**736**]{}, 428 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.08.006 \[arXiv:1407.2468 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. C. Helo, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, “Sterile neutrinos in lepton number and lepton flavor violating decays,” Nucl. Phys. B [**853**]{}, 80 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.07.020 \[arXiv:1005.1607 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli and B. Zhang, “The search for heavy Majorana neutrinos,” JHEP [**0905**]{}, 030 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/030 \[arXiv:0901.3589 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Cvetič, C. Dib, S. K. Kang and C. S. Kim, “Probing Majorana neutrinos in rare $K$ and $D, ~D_s, B, B_c$ meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 053010 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.053010 \[arXiv:1005.4282 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Cvetič, C. Dib and C. S. Kim, “Probing Majorana neutrinos in rare $\pi^+ \to e^+ e^+ \mu^- \nu$ decays,” JHEP [**1206**]{}, 149 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.0573 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Cvetič, C. S. Kim and J. Zamora-Saá, “CP violations in $\pi^{\pm}$ meson decay,” J. Phys. G [**41**]{}, 075004 (2014) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/41/7/075004 \[arXiv:1311.7554 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Cvetič, C. Dib, C. S. Kim and J. Zamora-Saá, “Probing the Majorana neutrinos and their CP violation in decays of charged scalar mesons $\pi, K, D, D_s, B, B_c$,” Symmetry [**7**]{}, 726 (2015) doi:10.3390/sym7020726 \[arXiv:1503.01358 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Milanes, N. Quintero and C. E. Vera, “Sensitivity to Majorana neutrinos in $\Delta L=2$ decays of $B_c$ meson at LHCb,” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 9, 094026 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.094026 \[arXiv:1604.03177 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Mandal and N. Sinha, “Favoured $B_c$ decay modes to search for a Majorana neutrino,” arXiv:1602.09112 \[hep-ph\].
V. Gribanov, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, “Sterile neutrinos in tau lepton decays,” Nucl. Phys. B [**607**]{}, 355 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00169-9 \[hep-ph/0102155\]. G. Cvetič, C. Dib, C. S. Kim and J. D. Kim, “On lepton flavor violation in tau decays,” Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 034008 (2002) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 059901 (2003)\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.034008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.059901 \[hep-ph/0202212\]; J. C. Helo, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, “On sterile neutrino mixing with $\nu_{\tau}$,” Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 053008 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.053008 \[arXiv:1105.3019 \[hep-ph\]\]; J. Zamora-Saá, “Resonant $CP$ violation in rare $\tau^{\pm}$ decays,” JHEP [**1705**]{}, 110 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)110 \[arXiv:1612.07656 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Shimizu \[Belle Collaboration\], “New Physics search in rare $\tau$ decays at Belle and prospects at Belle II,” PoS FPCP [**2016**]{}, 022 (2017).
W. -Y. Keung and G. Senjanović, “Majorana neutrinos and the production of the right-handed charged gauge boson,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1427 (1983) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1427; V. Tello, M. Nemevšek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanović and F. Vissani, “Left-right symmetry: from LHC to Neutrinoless double beta decay,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 151801 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.151801 \[arXiv:1011.3522 \[hep-ph\]\]; M. Nemevšek, F. Nesti, G. Senjanović and V. Tello, “Neutrinoless double beta decay: low left-right symmetry scale?,” arXiv:1112.3061 \[hep-ph\]; S. Kovalenko, Z. Lu and I. Schmidt, “Lepton number violating processes mediated by Majorana neutrinos at hadron colliders,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 073014 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.073014 \[arXiv:0907.2533 \[hep-ph\]\]; G. Senjanović, “Neutrino mass: From LHC to grand unification,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. [**34**]{}, 1 (2011) doi:10.1393/ncr/i2011-10061-8; C. Y. Chen and P. S. Bhupal Dev, “Multi-lepton collider signatures of heavy Dirac and Majorana neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 093018 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.093018 \[arXiv:1112.6419 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. Y. Chen, P. S. Bhupal Dev and R. N. Mohapatra, “Probing Heavy-Light Neutrino Mixing in Left-Right Seesaw Models at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 033014 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.033014 \[arXiv:1306.2342 \[hep-ph\]\]; P. S. Bhupal Dev, A. Pilaftsis and U. k. Yang, “New Production Mechanism for Heavy Neutrinos at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 081801 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.081801 \[arXiv:1308.2209 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Das and N. Okada, “Inverse seesaw neutrino signatures at the LHC and ILC,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 113001 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.113001 \[arXiv:1207.3734 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Das, P. S. Bhupal Dev and N. Okada, “Direct bounds on electroweak scale pseudo-Dirac neutrinos from $\sqrt s=8$ TeV LHC data,” Phys. Lett. B [**735**]{}, 364 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.058 \[arXiv:1405.0177 \[hep-ph\]\]; D. Alva, T. Han and R. Ruiz, “Heavy Majorana neutrinos from $W\gamma$ fusion at hadron colliders,” JHEP [**1502**]{}, 072 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)072 \[arXiv:1411.7305 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Das and N. Okada, “Improved bounds on the heavy neutrino productions at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 3, 033003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.033003 \[arXiv:1510.04790 \[hep-ph\]\]; “Bounds on heavy Majorana neutrinos in type-I seesaw and implications for collider searches,” arXiv:1702.04668 \[hep-ph\]; C. Degrande, O. Mattelaer, R. Ruiz and J. Turner, “Fully-automated precision predictions for heavy neutrino production mechanisms at hadron colliders,” Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 5, 053002 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.053002 \[arXiv:1602.06957 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Das, P. Konar and S. Majhi, “Production of Heavy neutrino in next-to-leading order QCD at the LHC and beyond,” JHEP [**1606**]{}, 019 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)019 \[arXiv:1604.00608 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Das, “Pair production of heavy neutrinos in next-to-leading order QCD at the hadron colliders in the inverse seesaw framework,” arXiv:1701.04946 \[hep-ph\].
W. Buchmüller and C. Greub, “Heavy Majorana neutrinos in electron - positron and electron - proton collisions,” Nucl. Phys. B [**363**]{}, 345 (1991) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)80024-G; M. Kohda, H. Sugiyama and K. Tsumura, “Lepton number violation at the LHC with leptoquark and diquark,” Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{}, 1436 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.12.048 \[arXiv:1210.5622 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch and S. Kovalenko, “Heavy neutrino searches at the LHC with displaced vertices,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 073005 (2014) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 9, 099902 (2016)\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.073005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.099902 \[arXiv:1312.2900 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. O. Dib and C. S. Kim, “Discovering sterile neutrinos ligther than $M_W$ at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 9, 093009 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.093009 \[arXiv:1509.05981 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. O. Dib, C. S. Kim, K. Wang and J. Zhang, “Distinguishing Dirac/Majorana Sterile Neutrinos at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 1, 013005 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.013005 \[arXiv:1605.01123 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. O. Dib, C. S. Kim and K. Wang, “Search for Dirac and Majorana sterile neutrinos in trilepton events at the LHC,” arXiv:1703.01934 \[hep-ph\]; C. O. Dib, C. S. Kim and K. Wang, “Search for heavy Sterile neutrinos in trileptons at the LHC,” arXiv:1703.01936 \[hep-ph\]; A. Das, P. S. B. Dev and C. S. Kim, “Constraining sterile neutrinos from precision Higgs data,” arXiv:1704.00880 \[hep-ph\]; A. Das, Y. Gao and T. Kamon, “Heavy Neutrino Search via the Higgs boson at the LHC,” arXiv:1704.00881 \[hep-ph\].
B. Pontecorvo, “Inverse beta processes and nonconservation of lepton charge,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**34**]{}, 247 (1957) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**7**]{}, 172 (1958)\]; “Neutrino experiments and the problem of conservation of leptonic charge,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**53**]{}, 1717 (1967) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**26**]{}, 984 (1968)\]. Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], “Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1562 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562 \[hep-ex/9807003\]. Q. R. Ahmad [*et al.*]{} \[SNO Collaboration\], “Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 011301 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301 \[nucl-ex/0204008\]; P. Lipari, “CP violation effects and high-energy neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 033002 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.033002 \[hep-ph/0102046\]; Z. Rahman, A. Dasgupta and R. Adhikari, “Discovery reach of CP violation in neutrino oscillation experiments with standard and non-standard interactions,” arXiv:1210.2603 \[hep-ph\]. “Which baseline for neutrino factory could be better for discovering CP violation in neutrino oscillation for standard and non-standard interactions?,” arXiv:1210.4801 \[hep-ph\]. K. Eguchi [*et al.*]{} \[KamLAND Collaboration\], “First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 021802 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.021802 \[hep-ex/0212021\]. D. Boyanovsky, “Nearly degenerate heavy sterile neutrinos in cascade decay: mixing and oscillations,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 105024 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.105024 \[arXiv:1409.4265 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Cvetič, C. S. Kim, R. Kögerler and J. Zamora-Saá, “Oscillation of heavy sterile neutrino in decay of $B \to \mu e \pi$,” Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 013015 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.013015 \[arXiv:1505.04749 \[hep-ph\]\].
N. Cabibbo, “Time reversal violation in neutrino oscillation,” Phys. Lett. B [**72**]{}, 333 (1978). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90132-6 M. A. Luty, “Baryogenesis via leptogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 455 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.455; L. Covi, E. Roulet and F. Vissani, “CP violating decays in leptogenesis scenarios,” Phys. Lett. B [**384**]{}, 169 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00817-9 \[hep-ph/9605319\].
A. Pilaftsis, “CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 5431 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.5431 \[hep-ph/9707235\]; S. Bray, J. S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, “Resonant CP violation due to heavy neutrinos at the LHC,” Nucl. Phys. B [**786**]{}, 95 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.07.002 \[hep-ph/0702294 \[HEP-PH\]\].
G. Cvetič, C. S. Kim and J. Zamora-Saá, “CP violation in lepton number violating semihadronic decays of $K,D,D_s,B,B_c$,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 093012 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.093012 \[arXiv:1403.2555 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. O. Dib, M. Campos and C. S. Kim, “CP violation with Majorana neutrinos in $K$ meson decays,” JHEP [**1502**]{}, 108 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)108 \[arXiv:1403.8009 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Asaka, S. Blanchet and M. Shaposhnikov, “The $\nu$MSM, dark matter and neutrino masses,” Phys. Lett. B [**631**]{}, 151 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.070 \[hep-ph/0503065\]; T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, “The $\nu$MSM, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the universe,” Phys. Lett. B [**620**]{}, 17 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06.020 \[hep-ph/0505013\].
D. Gorbunov and M. Shaposhnikov, “How to find neutral leptons of the $\nu$MSM?,” JHEP [**0710**]{}, 015 (2007) Erratum: \[JHEP [**1311**]{}, 101 (2013)\] doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)101, 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/015 \[arXiv:0705.1729 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy and M. Shaposhnikov, “The role of sterile neutrinos in cosmology and astrophysics,” Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**59**]{}, 191 (2009) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.010909.083654 \[arXiv:0901.0011 \[hep-ph\]\]; L. Canetti, M. Drewes and M. Shaposhnikov, “Sterile neutrinos as the origin of dark and baryonic matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 061801 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.061801 \[arXiv:1204.3902 \[hep-ph\]\]; L. Canetti, M. Drewes, T. Frossard and M. Shaposhnikov, “Dark matter, baryogenesis and neutrino oscillations from right handed neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 093006 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.093006 \[arXiv:1208.4607 \[hep-ph\]\].
L. Canetti, M. Drewes and B. Garbrecht, “Probing leptogenesis with GeV-scale sterile neutrinos at LHCb and Belle II,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 125005 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.125005 \[arXiv:1404.7114 \[hep-ph\]\]; M. Drewes and B. Garbrecht, “Experimental and cosmological constraints on heavy neutrinos,” arXiv:1502.00477 \[hep-ph\]; G. Moreno and J. Zamora-Saá, “Rare meson decays with three pairs of quasi-degenerate heavy neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 9, 093005 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.093005 \[arXiv:1606.08820 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Minkowski, “$\mu \to e \gamma$ at a rate of one out of $10^9$ muon decays?,” Phys. Lett. B [**67**]{}, 421 (1977) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X; M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Sanibel Conference, “The family group in Grand Unified Theories,” Febr. 1979, Report No. CALT-68-709, reprinted in hep-ph/9809459; “Complex spinors and unified theories,” Print 80-0576, published in: D. Freedman et al. (Eds.), [*Supergravity*]{}, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979; T. Yanagida, “Horizontal symmetry and masses of neutrinos,” Conf. Proc. C [**7902131**]{}, 95 (1979); S. L. Glashow, in: M. Levy et al. (Eds.), [*Quarks and Leptons*]{}, Cargese, Plenum, New York, 1980, p. 707; R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanović, “Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 912 (1980). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912 D. Wyler and L. Wolfenstein, “Massless neutrinos in left-right symmetric models,” Nucl. Phys. B [**218**]{}, 205 (1983) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90482-0; E. Witten, “Symmetry breaking patterns in superstring models,” Nucl. Phys. B [**258**]{}, 75 (1985) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90603-0; R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino mass and baryon number nonconservation in superstring models,” Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 1642 (1986) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1642; M. Malinsky, J. C. Romao and J. W. F. Valle, “Novel supersymmetric $SO(10)$ seesaw mechanism,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 161801 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.161801 \[hep-ph/0506296\]; P. S. Bhupal Dev and R. N. Mohapatra, “TeV scale inverse seesaw in $SO(10)$ and leptonic non-unitarity effects,” Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 013001 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.013001 \[arXiv:0910.3924 \[hep-ph\]\]; P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, “Minimal radiative neutrino mass mechanism for inverse seesaw models,” Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 113001 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.113001 \[arXiv:1209.4051 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. H. Lee, P. S. Bhupal Dev and R. N. Mohapatra, “Natural TeV-scale left-right seesaw mechanism for neutrinos and experimental tests,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 093010 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.093010 \[arXiv:1309.0774 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. de Blas and M. Zralek, “Looking for signals beyond the neutrino Standard Model,” Acta Phys. Polon. B [**38**]{}, 3339 (2007) \[arXiv:0710.2923 \[hep-ph\]\]; X. G. He, S. Oh, J. Tandean and C. C. Wen, “Large mixing of light and heavy neutrinos in seesaw models and the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 073012 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.073012 \[arXiv:0907.1607 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Kersten and A. Y. Smirnov, “Right-handed neutrinos at CERN LHC and the mechanism of neutrino mass generation,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 073005 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.073005 \[arXiv:0705.3221 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov, “TeV scale see-saw mechanisms of neutrino mass generation, the Majorana nature of the heavy singlet neutrinos and $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay,” JHEP [**1009**]{}, 108 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)108 \[arXiv:1007.2378 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Nemevšek, G. Senjanović and Y. Zhang, “Warm dark matter in low scale left-right theory,” JCAP [**1207**]{}, 006 (2012) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/006 \[arXiv:1205.0844 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Aushev [*et al.*]{}, “Physics at Super B Factory,” arXiv:1002.5012 \[hep-ex\]; T. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[Belle-II Collaboration\], “Belle II technical design report,” arXiv:1011.0352 \[physics.ins-det\]. Sheldon L. Stone, private communication.
D. Liventsev [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], “Search for heavy neutrinos at Belle,” Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, no. 7, 071102 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.071102 \[arXiv:1301.1105 \[hep-ex\], v3 with Erratum (2017)\]. R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], “Searches for Majorana neutrinos in $B^-$ decays,” Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 112004 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.112004 \[arXiv:1201.5600 \[hep-ex\]\]; “Search for Majorana neutrinos in $B^- \to \pi^+\mu^-\mu^-$ decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, no. 13, 131802 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.131802 \[arXiv:1401.5361 \[hep-ex\]\]. B. Shuve and M. E. Peskin, “Revision of the LHCb limit on Majorana neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 11, 113007 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.113007 \[arXiv:1607.04258 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Patrignani [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], “Review of particle physics,” Chin. Phys. C [**40**]{}, no. 10, 100001 (2016). doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001
X. W. Kang, B. Kubis, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meißner, “$B_{l4}$ decays and the extraction of $|V_{ub}|$,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 053015 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.053015 \[arXiv:1312.1193 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. Caprini, L. Lellouch and M. Neubert, “Dispersive bounds on the shape of ${\overline B} \to D^{(*)} \ell {\overline \nu}$ form factors,” Nucl. Phys. B [**530**]{}, 153 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00350-2 \[hep-ph/9712417\]. R. Glattauer [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], “Measurement of the decay $B\to D\ell\nu_\ell$ in fully reconstructed events and determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{cb}|$,” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 3, 032006 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.032006 \[arXiv:1510.03657 \[hep-ex\]\]. I. Caprini and M. Neubert, “Improved bounds for the slope and curvature of ${\bar B} \to D^{(*)} \ell {\overline \nu}$ form-factors,” Phys. Lett. B [**380**]{}, 376 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00509-6 \[hep-ph/9603414\]. M. Neubert, “Heavy quark symmetry,” Phys. Rept. [**245**]{}, 259 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)90091-4 \[hep-ph/9306320\]. F. J. Gilman and R. L. Singleton, “Analysis of semileptonic decays of mesons containing heavy quarks,” Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 142 (1990). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.142 W. Dungel [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], “Measurement of the form factors of the decay $B^0 \to D^{*-} \ell^{+} \nu$ and determination of the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$,” Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 112007 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.112007 \[arXiv:1010.5620 \[hep-ex\]\]. W. Bonivento [*et al.*]{}, “Proposal to search for heavy neutral leptons at the SPS,” arXiv:1310.1762 \[hep-ex\].
C. Dib and C. S. Kim, “Remarks on the lifetime of sterile neutrinos and the effect on detection of rare meson decays $M^+ \to M^{\prime}-\ell^+\ell^+$,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 7, 077301 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.077301 \[arXiv:1403.1985 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Gronau, C. N. Leung and J. L. Rosner, “Extending limits on neutral heavy leptons,” Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{}, 2539 (1984). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.29.2539 R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], “LHCb : Technical Proposal,” CERN-LHCC-98-004, 3 March 1998, https://cds.cern.ch/record/622031?ln=en and http://lhcb-tp.web.cern.ch/lhcb-tp/html/lhccframes.htm, Sec. 3.1 there (Overview of the experiment, Particle identification). R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], “LHCb detector performance,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**30**]{}, no. 07, 1530022 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0217751X15300227 \[arXiv:1412.6352 \[hep-ex\]\]; “LHCb VELO Upgrade Technical Design Report,” CERN-LHCC-2013-021, 29 Nov. 2013, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1624070, cf. Fig. 4 there. R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], “LHCb PID Upgrade Technical Design Report,” CERN-LHCC-2013-022, 28 Nov. 2013, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1624074?ln=en, cf. Fig. 2,20 there. G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, “A unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals,” Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 3873 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.3873 \[physics/9711021 \[physics.data-an\]\]. T. Asaka and H. Ishida, “Lepton number violation by heavy Majorana neutrino in $B$ decays,” Phys. Lett. B [**763**]{}, 393 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.070 \[arXiv:1609.06113 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Abreu [*et al.*]{} \[DELPHI Collaboration\], “Search for neutral heavy leptons produced in Z decays,” Z. Phys. C [**74**]{}, 57 (1997) Erratum: \[Z. Phys. C [**75**]{}, 580 (1997)\]. doi:10.1007/s002880050370 A. M. Cooper-Sarkar [*et al.*]{} \[WA66 Collaboration\], “Search for heavy neutrino decays in the BEBC beam dump experiment,” Phys. Lett. [**160B**]{}, 207 (1985). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91493-5 . Vaitaitis [*et al.*]{} \[NuTeV and E815 Collaborations\], “Search for neutral heavy leptons in a high-energy neutrino beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4943 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4943 \[hep-ex/9908011\]. J. Badier [*et al.*]{} \[NA3 Collaboration\], “Mass and lifetime limits on new longlived particles in 300 GeV $\pi^-$ interactions,” Z. Phys. C [**31**]{}, 21 (1986). doi:10.1007/BF01559588 P. Vilain [*et al.*]{} \[CHARM II Collaboration\], “Search for heavy isosinglet neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B [**343**]{}, 453-458 (1995) \[Phys. Lett. B [**351**]{}, 387 (1995)\]. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)00440-I, 10.1016/0370-2693(94)01422-9
P. Beneš, A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic and S. Kovalenko, “Sterile neutrinos in neutrinoless double beta decay,” Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 077901 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.077901 \[hep-ph/0501295\]. A. Faessler, M. González, S. Kovalenko and F. Šimkovic, “Arbitrary mass Majorana neutrinos in neutrinoless double beta decay,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 9, 096010 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.096010 \[arXiv:1408.6077 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: It can be checked that the difference $[ |{\widetilde {\cal T}}|^2 - |{\widetilde {\cal T}}|^2(F_0 \mapsto 0)]$ is zero when $M_1=M_N=0$.
[^2]: The quantity (\[dGdq2domdom2\]) is written in Ref. [@BdecBII] in Eq. (C19) for the case $\eta=-1$; the quantity $d \Gamma/d q^2$ used there is independent of $\eta$.
[^3]: Note that ${q'}^2=q^2$ is frame independent.
[^4]: This length $L$ is considered here to be independent of the position of the vertex where $N$ is produced and independent of the direction in which the produced $N$ travels. It can be called here the effective detector length for the neutrino $N$.
[^5]: If ${\bar N}$ (and $N$) were Dirac, it would produce, e.g., a pair $\mu^+ \mu^-$ or a pair $e^+ e^-$, which have a strong QED background, and would thus not be useful. Or it could produce a pair $\mu^{\pm} e^{\mp}$; this could give important contribution, but only in the scenario where both $U_{\mu N}$ and $U_{e N}$ are nonnegligible, i.e., the scenario not considered here.
[^6]: Strictly speaking, we should use the notation ${\vec {\beta''_B}}$ for the velocity of $B$ meson in the lab, but we prefer the simplified notation ${\vec \beta}_B$ for this vector.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a novel, model-based compressive antenna design method for high sensing capacity imaging applications. Given a set of design constraints, the method maximizes the sensing capacity of the compressive antenna by varying the constitutive properties of scatterers distributed along the antenna. Preliminary 2D design results demonstrate the new method’s ability to produce antenna configurations with enhanced imaging capabilities.'
author:
- '\'
bibliography:
- 'SICA-TA.bib'
title: 'Model-based Optimization of Compressive Antennas for High-Sensing-Capacity Applications'
---
compressive sensing, antenna design, coded apertures
Introduction
============
Sensing systems attempt to extract as much information as possible about an object or region of interest by recording a set of independent measurements. The number of measurements, and the degree of their independence, determine how much information a sensing system can extract. Recent papers [@Martinez2015a; @Heredia2015] have introduced the concept of a compressive reflector antenna for use in millimeter wave imaging applications. The compressive reflector antenna operates in a manner similar to that of the coded apertures utilized in optical imaging applications [@busboom1997coded; @de2009sub; @marcia2008compressive]: by introducing scatterers to the surface of a traditional reflector antenna, the compressive antenna encodes a pseudo-random phase front on the scattered electric field. By modifying the encoded wavefront from measurement to measurement, for example by rotating the reflector or by electrically changing the constitutive properties of the scatterers, compressive sensing techniques [@Candes2006; @Donoho2006; @massa2015] can be employed with improved performance over the traditional reflector antenna. This paper describes a numerical method for optimizing the constitutive parameters of the scattering elements in order to design compressive reflector antennas with high sensing capacity. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:motivation\] shows why the sensing, or channel capacity is a reasonable metric to use when assessing the sensing capabilities of an antenna. Section \[sec:design\] describes a general compressive reflector antenna design approach, which optimizes the constitutive parameters of the scattering elements under realistic constraints in order to maximize the sensing capacity. Section \[sec:simple\] describes a simplified design approach, which optimizes over the constitutive parameters of the reflector elements under box constraints. Section \[sec:results\] presents preliminary 2D antenna design results, which demonstrate the new method’s ability to increase the channel capacity. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Motivation {#sec:motivation}
==========
One of the key features of next generation sensing and imaging systems will be the ability to maximize the sensing capacity [@Martinez2015a] that is, the information transfer efficiency between the pixels in the imaging region and the data measured by the system. This can occur when the mutual information of successive measurements is as low as possible. One way to achieve this goal is to dynamically control the “wavefield information” that is encoded in several dimensions (i.e. time, space, frequency, phase, polarization and novel angular momentum) in any given sensing experiment $-$ a methodology known as multi-dimensional codification.
The sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}$ of a compressive antenna working in a monostatic configuration is fully characterized by its radiation pattern. This radiation pattern can be derived from the dyadic Green’s functions $\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r}',\omega)$ of the compressive antenna, which can be expressed as the solution to the vector wave equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\times \frac{1}{\mu(\mathbf{r},\omega)}\nabla \times \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}',\omega) &- \omega^2\epsilon(\mathbf{r},\omega)\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r}', \omega) \nonumber \\
&= \mathbf{\tilde{I}} \delta\left(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'\right) \label{eq:green_prob}\end{aligned}$$ Using this definition for $\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r}',\omega)$, the electric field radiated by a compressive antenna is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r}, \omega) &= \jmath\omega \int \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r}', \omega) \cdot \mathbf{I}(\mathbf{r}', \omega) d\mathbf{r}' \label{eq:green_sol}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{I}(\mathbf{r}', \omega)$ describe the sources used to excite the reflector. Eq. \[eq:green\_sol\] can be discretized into a linear system of equations, $\mathbf{E}_\omega = \mathbf{G}_\omega\mathbf{S}_\omega$, where the constants have been absorbed into the source term $\mathbf{S}_\omega$. Due to the reciprocity theorem, this relationship can also be used to described the electric fields scattered from an object of interest. In this case, the source distribution $\mathbf{S}_\omega$ can be interpreted as the set of “contrast sources” located within the imaging region [@VanDenBerg2001], and the field vector $\mathbf{E}_\omega$ are the scattered electric fields measured by the receivers. The sensing capabilities of the compressive antenna can thus be obtained by analyzing the Green’s function matrix through its singular value decomposition, $\mathbf{G}_\omega = \mathbf{U}\mathbf{\Sigma}\mathbf{V}^H$, where $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ are orthonormal matrices and $\mathbf{\Sigma}$ is a rectangular diagonal matrix with diagonal elements $\sigma_i \ge 0$; the $\sigma_i$ are known as the singular values. When a “contrast source” distribution $\mathbf{v}_i$ excites the system, an electric field $\sigma_i\mathbf{u}_i$ is generated at the receivers. If the singular values are poorly conditioned, i.e. $\sigma_{\text{max}}/\sigma_{\text{min}} \gg 1$, then it becomes difficult to distinguish different source distributions from each other using only the measured fields. The sensing, or channel capacity of the Green’s function matrix can be used to compactly assess the imaging capabilities of the compressive antenna. For high Signal to Noise Ratios (SNR), the sensing capacity can be expressed as [@Proakis2008]: $$\begin{aligned}
C & \approx T\log_2\left(\sum_{t=1}^T \frac{P_t}{N_0}\right) + \sum_{t=1}^T \log_2\left(\frac{\sigma_t^2}{T}\right) \label{eq:capacity}\end{aligned}$$ The proposed antenna design method seeks to maximize the sensing capacity of the Green’s function matrix by optimizing the constitutive parameters $\mu(\mathbf{r},\omega)$ and $\epsilon(\mathbf{r},\omega)$ of the scattering elements placed upon the reflector. Since the channel capacity penalizes over the logarithm of the singular values, this approach favors systems with small condition numbers $\sigma_{\text{max}}/\sigma_{\text{min}}$.
A General Design Approach {#sec:design}
=========================
In the optimization problem, the transmitting antenna system is described by a set of current sources located at $T$ locations. Each transmitting antenna excites the $M$ positions in the imaging region with stepped-frequency waveforms at $K$ frequencies. The design procedure optimizes the constitutive properties $\epsilon(\mathbf{r},\omega)$ and $\mu(\mathbf{r},\omega)$ of scattering elements located at $N$ positions along the reflector. In order to allow the scattering elements to be dispersive, the permittivity and permeability of the scatterers at the $k-$th frequency will be jointly represented by the variable $\mathbf{x}_k$. With this convention, the matrix $\mathbf{G}_{k}\left(\mathbf{x}_k\right) \in \mathbb{C}^{3 M \times 3 T}$ can be defined as the Green’s function matrix for sources radiating at frequency $\omega_k$, located at the $T$ transmitter positions, and evaluated at the $M$ positions in the imaging region. This matrix is a nonlinear function of the design variables $\mathbf{x}_k$. By concatenating the Green’s function matrices for multiple frequencies, the multi-frequency Green’s function matrix $\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x}) \in \mathbb{C}^{3 M \times 3 K T}$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x}) &= \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_K) \nonumber \\
&= \big[\mathbf{G}_{1}\left(\mathbf{x}_1\right), \mathbf{G}_{2}\left(\mathbf{x}_2\right), \ldots, \mathbf{G}_{K}\left(\mathbf{x}_K\right)\big] \label{eq:bigG}\end{aligned}$$ where the vector $\mathbf{x}$ is the vector of concatenated design variables for each frequency. Assuming that $M > KT$, the channel capacity maximization problem can be expressed as a non-convex “max-det” problem: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{maximize} ~~\log\det\left(\mathbf{G}^H(\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x})\right) \label{eq:maxdet} \\
&\text{subject to} ~~h_q(\mathbf{x}) \le 0, ~~~~ q = 1, \cdots, Q \nonumber \nonumber \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c_p(\mathbf{x}) = 0, ~~~~ p = 1, \cdots, P \nonumber
$$ It is easy to show that maximizing the log-determinant of the Grammian matrix is equivalent to maximizing the channel capacity. Since $\mathbf{G}^H(\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{V}(\mathbf{x})\mathbf{\Sigma}^2(\mathbf{x})\mathbf{V}^H(\mathbf{x})$, $\log\det\left(\mathbf{G}^H(\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x})\right) = \sum_{t=1}^T \log\left(\sigma_t^2\right)$, which differs from the channel capacity defined in Eq. \[eq:capacity\] only by constants. The constraint functions $h_q(\mathbf{x})$ and $c_p(\mathbf{x})$ can be non-convex and depend upon the specific design constraints placed on the dielectric scatterers. For example, if the scatterers are restricted to non-dispersive materials, then the equality constraint functions force the design variables $\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_K$ to produce the same permittivity and conductivity. As another example, if metamaterial scattering elements are disallowed, then the inequality constraint functions force the design variables to produce dielectric constants $\ge 1$.
A Simplified Design Approach {#sec:simple}
============================
This section describes how to solve a simplified version of Eq. \[eq:maxdet\]. In this approach, both the scatterers and the background medium at the scatterer locations are assumed to be non-dispersive and non-conductive, so that the design variables $\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_K$ are equal and are real-valued. Moreover, the constraints simply restrict the electric permittivities and magnetic permeabilities of the scatterers to lie within specified ranges, $[\epsilon_L, \epsilon_R]$ and $[\mu_L, \mu_R]$. The simplified optimization problem can therefore be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{maximize} ~~\log\det\left(\mathbf{G}^H(\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x})\right) \label{eq:maxdet2} \\
&\text{subject to} ~~\mathbf{x}_L \le \mathbf{x} \le \mathbf{x}_R \nonumber
$$ Eq. \[eq:maxdet2\] can be solved efficiently using the nonlinear conjugate gradient method [@nocedal2006numerical]. This method requires expressions for the gradient of the cost function $\log\det\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x}) = \log\det\left(\mathbf{G}^H(\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x})\right)$. Assuming that $\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x})$ that is invertible, the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_l}\log\det\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x})$ and $\frac{\partial \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x}) }{\partial x_l}$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_l} \log \det \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x}) &= \operatorname{tr}\left(\mathbf{F}^{-1}(\mathbf{x})\frac{\partial \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l} \right) \\
\frac{\partial \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x}) }{\partial x_l} &= \left(\frac{\partial \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l}\right)^H\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x}) + \mathbf{G}^H(\mathbf{x})\frac{\partial \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l}\end{aligned}$$ A close examination of Eq. \[eq:bigG\] reveals hat the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l}$ consist of the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial\mathbf{G}_k(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l}$. By defining $\mathbf{H}_k(\mathbf{x})$ as the discretized version of the Helmholtz operator for frequency $k$, the Green’s function matrix $\mathbf{G}_k(\mathbf{x})$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{G}_k(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{H}_k^{-1}(\mathbf{x}) \mathbf{\Psi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{\Phi} \in \mathbb{C}^{3 M \times 3 L}$, $\mathbf{H}_k(\mathbf{x}) \in \mathbb{C}^{3 L \times 3 L}$, and $\mathbf{\Psi} \in \mathbb{C}^{3 L \times 3 T}$. The matrices $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are subsampling matrices corresponding to the imaging and transmitter positions respectively. From this relationship, the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial\mathbf{G}_k(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l}$ take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{G}_k(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l} = -\mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{H}_k^{-1}(\mathbf{x})\frac{\partial \mathbf{H}_k(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l} \mathbf{H}_k^{-1}(\mathbf{x})\mathbf{\Psi} \label{eq:partialGreen}\end{aligned}$$ The elements of the partial derivative matrix $\frac{\partial \mathbf{H}_k(\mathbf{x})}{\partial x_l}$ differ depending upon whether $x_l$ is permittivity or permeability. If $x_l$ is the permittivity $\epsilon_j$ at position $j$, then the partial derivative matrix takes the form: $$\frac{\partial \mathbf{H}_k(\mathbf{x})}{\partial \epsilon_j} = \omega_k^2 \operatorname{diag}(\mathbf{1}_3 \otimes \boldsymbol{\delta}_{ij})$$ where $\otimes$ is the Kronecker product and $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{ij} \in \mathbb{C}^{L}$ is the Kronecker delta function expressed as a vector, i.e. the $j-th$ element of $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{ij}$ equals one and all others equal zero. If $x_l$ is the permeability $\mu_j$ at position $j$, then the partial derivative matrix takes the form: $$\frac{\partial \mathbf{H}_k(\mathbf{x})}{\partial \mu_j}= -\frac{1}{\mu_j^2}\mathbf{L}_c \operatorname{diag}(\mathbf{1}_3 \otimes \boldsymbol{\delta}_{ij})\mathbf{L}_c$$ where $\mathbf{L}_c$ is the discretized curl operator. Computation of these derivatives requires $K(N+T)$ calls to a forward model solver at each iteration in order to compute the necessary Green’s functions.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
This sections presents preliminary antenna design results, which were generated using the simplified algorithm and a 2D forward model solver based on finite differences in the frequency domain (FDFD) [@Rappaport2001]. The design method was executed for two different antenna configurations, where the antenna operated in reflection mode and transmission mode. In reflection mode, dielectric scatterers are added to the surface of a Perfect Electric Conductor (PEC) reflector in order to further perturb the fields scattered by the reflector. In transmission mode, dielectric scatterers are placed in between the transmitting antennas and the imaging region in order to perturb the fields that otherwise radiate in the homogeneous background medium.
Figures \[fig:rx\_config\] and \[fig:tx\_config\] display the design configurations for the reflection and transmission mode problems respectively. In both modes, three line source antennas, represented by the white circles, were used to excite the free-space imaging region, colored in orange. The green pixels represent the locations of the scatterers to be optimized, and the red pixels in the reflection mode configuration represent the PEC. The antennas were constrained to transmit at five frequencies linearly spaced between $3.1$GHz and $3.5$GHz, and the dielectric constant of the scatterers was constrained to the range $[1,10]$; the magnetic permeability was restricted to $\mu = \mu_0$.
[1]{} {width="5.5cm"}
[1]{} {width="5.5cm"}
Figure \[fig:rx\_permittivity\] displays the optimized permittivity distribution for the reflection mode problem. It is important to note that the design problem of Eq. \[eq:maxdet2\] is non-convex, and so it is probable that the solution displayed in Figure \[fig:rx\_permittivity\] is only a locally optimal solution. In practice, the optimization problem can be solved several times using different starting points until an antenna design with suitable sensing capacity is found. Figure \[fig:rx\_log2\] displays the $\log_2$ of the singular values of the Green’s function matrices for the original and optimized antennas. In this configuration, the optimized design increases the channel capacity by $29$ bits per pixel and decreases the condition number by a factor of $22$, from approximately $1510$ to $69$. Figures \[fig:rx\_green\_orig\] and \[fig:rx\_green\_opt\] display the Green’s function of the middle antenna radiating at $3.5$GHz for the original and optimized antennas respectively. While the phase front of the original antenna is fairly uniform as a function of distance from the transmitter, the phase front of the optimized antenna is noticeably perturbed.
[1]{} {width="5.9cm"}
[1]{} {width="5.9cm"}
Figure \[fig:tx\_permittivity\] displays the optimized permittivity distribution for the transmission mode problem, and Figure \[fig:tx\_log2\] displays the $\log_2$ of the singular values of the Green’s function matrices for the original and optimized antennas. In this configuration, the optimized design increases the channel capacity by $40$ bits per pixel and decreases the condition number by a factor of $60$, from approximately $1400$ to $23$. Figures \[fig:tx\_green\_orig\] and \[fig:tx\_green\_opt\] display the Green’s function of the middle antenna radiating at $3.5$GHz for the original and optimized antennas respectively. Without the PEC reflector or any scattering dielectrics, the transmitting antenna radiates isotropically, and so the phase-front is constant as a function of distance from the antenna. In comparison, the phase-front of the optimized design exhibits a pseudo-random pattern, which conveys an increased amount of information compared to the isotropic phase front.
{width="5.9cm"}
{width="5.9cm"}
[1]{} {width="5.9cm"}
[1]{} {width="5.9cm"}
{width="5.9cm"}
{width="5.9cm"}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
This paper describes a novel, model-based antenna design method for high-sensing-capacity imaging applications. By optimizing the channel capacity of the dyadic Green’s function matrix, the new approach generates antenna configurations with improved sensing and imaging capabilities. Preliminary design results using a 2D FDFD forward model for two antenna configurations, operating in transmission mode and reflection mode, demonstrate how the novel approach generates antenna configurations with improved channel capacity. Although this paper focused on the simplified design approach, the theory of the general design approach allows it to be applied to realistic scenarios.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The recombination rate for three identical bosons has been calculated to test the limits of its universal behavior. It has been obtained for several different collision energies and scattering lengths $a$ up to $10^5$ a.u., giving rates that vary over 15 orders of magnitude. We find that universal behavior is limited to the threshold region characterized by $E \lesssim \hbar^2/2\mu_{12}a^2$, where $E$ is the total energy and $\mu_{12}$ is the two-body reduced mass. The analytically predicted infinite series of resonance peaks and interference minima is truncated to no more than three of each for typical experimental parameters.'
author:
- 'J. P. D’Incao, H. Suno, and B. D. Esry'
title: 'Limits on Universality in Ultracold Three-Boson Recombination'
---
The development of Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) with tunable properties makes possible condensates with a wide range of interaction strengths. Several experiments [@Inouye; @Courteille; @Roberts; @Weber; @Kevrekidis] have investigated these properties by changing the atomic interactions with an external magnetic field near a diatomic Feshbach resonance. As is well-known, these interactions are characterized at low temperatures by the two-body scattering length $a$, which covers the full continuum of positive and negative values near the Feshbach resonance. In fact, all of the essential properties of BECs are determined by the scattering length.
Because the two-body scattering length is the only relevant parameter, the precise shape of the two-body potential does not matter for the many-body physics. One of the remarkable results to emerge from recent work on ultracold collisions is that this property holds even for the low temperature [ *three*]{}-body physics. This shape independence has allowed theorists to choose any convenient two-body potential that reproduces the desired scattering length. We will again exploit this freedom in the present work to study three-body recombination. Three-body recombination is the process by which three free atoms collide to form a diatomic molecule and an unbound atom, setting free enough kinetic energy to make both atom and molecule escape from typical traps.
The universal behavior of the three-body recombination rate makes it possible to derive analytical expressions for $a>0$ [@Nielsen; @Esry02; @Braaten01] and for $a<0$ [@Braaten02]. In the former case, theory predicts an infinite number of minima in the rate as the scattering length goes to positive infinity; and in the latter case, an infinite number of maxima as the scattering length goes to negative infinity. The physics behind both features is closely related to the Efimov effect [@Efimov]. In fact, it has been suggested that measuring the recombination rate while tuning through a Feshbach resonance might make possible some of the first direct experimental evidence of this intriguing effect.
Tuning through such Feshbach resonances can dramatically limit the density and lifetime of BECs, however, since the three-body recombination rate was predicted [@Esry01; @Nielsen; @Esry02; @Braaten01; @Braaten02] — and recently verified experimentally [@Weber] — to increase with the scattering length as $a^4$. More recently, three-body recombination has been used to create composite bosons by pairing fermions in ultracold gases [@Cubizolles; @Jochim]. The ultimate goal of this endeavor has recently been achieved with the observation of Bose-condensed pairs of fermion atoms [@Jin]. Despite its importance and recent advances, much work remains for the theory of three-body recombination. In particular, the universal behavior of the recombination rate has not yet been tested by accurate calculations.
In this Letter, we show that the recombination rate for identical bosons is universal only for collision energies in the threshold regime. Generically, the threshold regime is characterized by $k|a|\lesssim 1$, or equivalently, when the collision energy is the smallest energy in the system. For positive scattering lengths, the energy scale is set by the two-body binding energy; for negative scattering lengths, by the height of a potential barrier or, in some cases, by a two-body shape resonance. Therefore, for a fixed total three-body energy $E$, the relation $E\lesssim E_{12}$ indicates when the system is in the threshold regime where universal behavior is expected. In this expression, $E_{12}=\hbar^2/2\mu_{12} a^2$ is the two-body binding energy and $\mu_{12}$ is the two-body reduced mass.
The experimental consequences of restricting the range of universal behavior are striking. At any nonzero temperature, rather than observing an [*infinite*]{} series of resonances or minima, only a finite number of either will be observable as the scattering length is scanned from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$ — and even those will be washed out. For instance, at 1 nK, only three resonances and three minima can be hoped to be seen.
We will further show that the analytical formulas derived in Refs. [@Nielsen; @Esry02; @Braaten01; @Braaten02] hold only at zero energy. At finite energies, when the scattering length is tuned out of the threshold regime ($E>E_{12}$), the analytical formulas break down because they do not take proper account of three important finite energy effects: unitarity, thermal averaging, and higher partial waves. Unitarity limits the rate to finite values at finite temperatures for large scattering lengths, and leads to a saturation effect [@Weber; @Chris]. Thermal averaging takes account of the fact that experiments are performed at fixed temperature rather than fixed collision energy, and higher partial waves must always be included, in principle. A generalized Wigner threshold law [@Esry04] guarantees that the $J^\pi=0^+$ contribution dominates at threshold, where $J$ is the total orbital angular momentum and $\pi$ is the overall parity. The next leading contribution, $2^+$, grows with energy as $E^2$ and with scattering length as $a^8$, and can quickly become comparable to the $0^+$ rate.
We obtain the recombination rates by solving the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation numerically using the adiabatic hyperspherical representation (see Refs. [@Esry02; @Suno; @Esry03; @Esry04] for details of our implementation). The key to this approach is that the dynamics of the three-body system are reduced to the motion on a set of coupled effective potentials that depend only on the hyperradius $R$. The hyperradius is a collective coordinate that represents, in some sense, the overall size of the system. The effective potentials are determined by solving the adiabatic equation $$H_{\rm ad} \Phi_\nu(R;\Omega) = U_\nu(R) \Phi_\nu(R;\Omega)$$ where $\Omega$ denotes the five hyperangles representing all degrees of freedom besides $R$. The adiabatic Hamiltonian $H_{\rm ad}$ includes the kinetic energy for these hyperangles as well as all interactions. The effective potentials $U_\nu(R)$ are then used in the radial equations (atomic units will be used unless otherwise noted), $$\left(-\frac{1}{2\mu}\frac{d^2}{dR^2}+U_{\nu}\right)F_{\nu}
-\frac{1}{2\mu}\sum_{\nu'} W_{\nu\nu'} F_{\nu'}=E F_\nu,
\label{radeq}$$ where $F_{\nu}$ is the hyperradial wave function, $E$ is the total energy, and the three-body reduced mass $\mu$ is related to the atomic mass $m$ by $\mu=m/\sqrt{3}$. The nonadiabatic coupling $W_{\nu\nu'}$ is responsible for inelastic transitions such as three-body recombination. The effective potentials give a very intuitive picture for these complicated systems. Moreover, the calculations can be made as accurate as desired by including more channels in the equation above (all rates quoted here are accurate to at least three digits and were obtained with seven channels). The radial equations (\[radeq\]) are solved using the variational $R$-matrix method [@Aymar] in order to extract the $S$-matrix.
The three-body recombination rate $K_{3}$ is defined in terms of the $S$-matrix as [@Esry02; @Suno; @Esry03; @Esry04] $$K_{3}=\sum_{J,\pi}\sum_{i,f}\frac{192 (2J+1)\pi^{2}}{\mu
k^4}|S^{J\pi}_{f\leftarrow i}|^{2},
\label{K3Def}$$ where $k=\sqrt{2\mu E}$ is the hyperradial wave number, and $i$ and $f$ label the initial and final channels, repectively. The present results were obtained using the mass of helium atoms and the model dimer potential $v(r)=D\mbox{sech}^2(r/r_0)$ with $D$ and $r_0$ adjusted to give a single two-body $s$-wave bound state.
In the adiabatic hyperspherical representation, recombination for $a>0$ is driven primarily by the broadly peaked nonadiabatic coupling between the lowest three-body entrance channel and the highest molecular channel [@Esry02]. In this picture, there are two indistinguishable pathways for recombination, leading to the so-called “Stückelberg oscillations”. This interference phenomena modifies the $a^4$ dependence of the rate, suppressing it for certain values of $a$. At zero energy, the analytic results predict these minima to be equally spaced on a logarithmic scale and separated by a factor of approximately $e^{\pi/\alpha}\approx 22.7$, where ${\alpha}=1.0064$.
For $a<0$, the recombination rate is enhanced for particular values of $a$ and, with the help of the adiabatic hyperspherical representation, can be interpreted as three-body tunneling through a potential barrier in the entrance channel [@Esry02]. The nonadiabatic coupling is localized at small $R$ behind this barrier so that recombination is suppressed for energies below the barrier maximum. That is, unless the collision energy matches the energy of a three-body resonance trapped behind this barrier. Under these conditions, transmission through the barrier jumps and strong enhacement of the recombination rate can be observed. As with the interference minima, these resonances can be associated with Efimov physics [@Efimov], and are also predict to be equally spaced on a logarithmic scale (separated by a factor of about 22.7).
{width="2.25in"} {width="2.25in"}
Figure \[recrateposneg\] shows the $J^{\pi}=0^{+}$ recombination rates calculated at energies in the range 0.1 nK to 1 mK. Figure \[recrateposneg\](a) shows the first three resonance peaks for $a<0$, and Fig. \[recrateposneg\](b) shows the first three interference minima for $a>0$. For small values of the scattering length, the rates for all energies lie along a common, [*universal*]{} curve. For any given energy, the rates depart from this universal curve at some value of the scattering length, with the highest energies departing soonest.
In the adiabatic hyperspherical representation, the analytic recombination expression is derived under the assumption that the collision energy is in the threshold regime. It is natural, then, to conclude that the analytic expression — and thus the universal behavior — is only valid in the threshold regime. The collision energy is in the threshold regime when it is smaller than other characteristic energies of the system. One obvious energy scale is the two-body binding energy $E_{12}$.
In Fig. \[recrateposneg\], the vertical dashed lines mark the scattering lengths determined from the relation $E\lesssim
E_{12}$ for each energy. It is clear that the two-body binding energy provides a reasonable estimate for the domain of universal behavior, i.e., for each energy, the rate curve for $a$ less than this limit follows the common curve. For $a<0$, a better, more restrictive limit can be determined from the adiabatic potential since the threshold regime in this case requires energies less than the potential barrier maximum, $U_{\rm max}=0.079/\mu a^{2}$ [@Esry01], which reduces the limiting $a$ by about a factor of three. For example, in a $^{23}$Na condensate at a temperature of 100 nK, the recombination rate is expected to be universal only for –3200 a.u.$<a<8650$ a.u.; for $^{87}$Rb, for –1650 a.u.$<a<4450$ a.u. All of these values are well within the range that are already experimentally accessed near Feshbach resonances.
We also show in Fig. \[recrateposneg\] the analytical results [@Nielsen; @Esry02; @Braaten01; @Braaten02]: $$K_3 = \begin{cases}
\frac{4590\:(a^4/m) \sinh(2\eta_*)}{\sin^2[\alpha \ln(3|a|/2r_{0})+\Phi+1.63]+\sinh^2\eta_*} & a<0, \\
{\scriptstyle 360\:(a^4/m) \sin^{2}\left[\alpha\ln({3a}/{2r_{0}})+\Phi\right]} & a>0
\end{cases}
\label{K3Eqn}$$ where $\Phi$ and $\eta_*$ are unknown parameters. $\Phi$ represents an unknown small-$R$ phase [@Nielsen; @Esry02] (related to $\Lambda_*$ in Refs. [@Braaten01; @Braaten02]) and is chosen to give the best fit to the third interference minimum at 0.1 nK. The additional 1.63 rad of $a<0$ phase is predicted in [@Braaten02]. The value $\eta_{*}$=0.1 was found to give the best fit for $a<0$. There is generally very good agreement with the numerical results for large, positive $a/r_0$, and Eq. (\[K3Eqn\]) appears to be essentially exact for zero energy recombination. It relies on the effective range expansion, however, and gets increasingly worse as $|a|$ decreases due to order $r_{0}/a$ errors (here, $r_0$=15 a.u.). The agreement is more qualitative for $a<0$ due to the small shift of the resonance peak positions. We found, though, that a 15% change in the extra $a<0$ phase gives good agreement with the 0.1 nK curve.
One factor left out of Eq. (\[K3Eqn\]) is unitarity (although a “unitarized” version has been proposed [@Chris] to help explain the experimental results in Ref. [@Weber]). As the collision energy grows large compared to $E_{12}$ for a fixed scattering length, the probability of recombination approaches unity for the $0^+$ partial wave. More relevant for experiments, unit recombination probability is also reached as the scattering length is increased at fixed collision energy $E$. The horizontal dashed lines in Fig. \[recrateposneg\] denote the unitarity limit — $u_{N}=192\pi^2/\mu k_{N}^{4}$, obtained from Eq. (\[K3Def\]) by setting $|S|^2$=1 — for each energy shown. From the figure, it is clear that the recombination rate reaches the unitarity limit for positive $a$ outside the threshold regime. For negative $a$, however, while the rate does saturate, it does so at a value about a factor of ten below unitarity. The main effect of unitarity is to restrict the number of resonances or minima observable at a given energy.
A second factor neglected in Eq. (\[K3Eqn\]) is the thermal average. Experiments are performed at fixed temperatures rather than fixed energies, so the thermal average becomes crucial for proper comparison with experiment. In the threshold regime, the recombination rate is constant as a function of energy, so the thermal average has no effect. Since we consider exactly the situation when the system is no longer in the threshold regime, thermal averaging can have significant effects. The thermally averaged recombination rate is $$\langle K_{3} \rangle(T)=\frac{1}{2(k_{B}T)^{3}}\int K_{3}(E)E^{2}
e^{-E/k_{B}T}dE,
\label{thermalavg}$$ where $k_{B}$ is Boltzmann’s constant. Figure \[thermalavgfig\] illustrates the effects of thermal averaging at 0.1 ${\mu}$K and 1 ${\mu}$K near the second resonance peak and second interference minima. For energies solidly within the threshold regime, thermal averaging has little effect. For energies on the border of the threshold regime, however, averaging reduces the intensity of both the peaks and minima, making their observation much more difficult.
![ Thermally averaged recombination rate (a) near the second resonance peak and (b) near the second interference minimum. Circles and diamonds represent $K_3$ and $\langle
K_3\rangle$, respectively, at 0.1 $\mu$K (open symbols) and $1
{\mu}$K (filled symbols).[]{data-label="thermalavgfig"}](Fig2a.ps "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="1.6in"} ![ Thermally averaged recombination rate (a) near the second resonance peak and (b) near the second interference minimum. Circles and diamonds represent $K_3$ and $\langle
K_3\rangle$, respectively, at 0.1 $\mu$K (open symbols) and $1
{\mu}$K (filled symbols).[]{data-label="thermalavgfig"}](Fig2b.ps "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="1.6in"}
A third factor not included in Eq. (\[K3Eqn\]) is the contribution from higher partial waves. The $J^{\pi}=2^{+}$ rate was calculated for –3000 a.u.$<a<$8000 a.u. and energies from 0.1 nK up to 1 mK. The 2$^+$ threshold law is $K_3\propto E^2
a^8$ [@Esry04], so for a finite energy, there will be a scattering length for which the 2$^+$ contribution is comparable to $0^+$. Figure \[ratej0j2\] shows the thermally averaged $2^{+}$ rate at 10 nK and 1 $\mu$K along with $0^{+}$ for $a>0$. (For $a<0$, the $2^{+}$ recombination rate is many orders of magnitude smaller than for $0^+$, making it completely negligible for the present range of scattering lengths and energies.) It is clear from the figure that the $2^{+}$ rate dominates $0^+$ at the second interference minimum for 1 $\mu$K so that the total rate will show just one minimum. At 10 nK, the 2$^+$ rate is merely comparable to $0^+$ at the second minimum, cutting its depth in the total rate. For energies below 10 nK, the $2^{+}$ recombination rate is negligible in this range of scattering length; for larger scattering lengths, however, the $2^{+}$ recombination rate can contribute substantially.
![Comparison of the $0^{+}$ and $2^{+}$ recombination rate for $a>0$ and temperatures of (a) 10 nK and (b) 1 $\mu$K.[]{data-label="ratej0j2"}](Fig3a.ps "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="1.6in"} ![Comparison of the $0^{+}$ and $2^{+}$ recombination rate for $a>0$ and temperatures of (a) 10 nK and (b) 1 $\mu$K.[]{data-label="ratej0j2"}](Fig3b.ps "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="1.6in"}
Taken together, the unitarity limit, thermal averaging, and higher partial waves restrict the analytic results for ultracold three-body recombination to the threshold regime, i. e., when $E\lesssim E_{12}$.
Experimentally, the consequences are rather dramatic. If we imagine tuning the scattering length using a Feshbach resonance, then $a$ will, for instance, change from its background value to $+\infty$, then to $-\infty$, then again to its background value — all while the system is at essentially the same temperature. The analytic expressions predict that the three-body recombination rate grows like $a^4$ as the resonance is approached, goes through an infinite number of minima as $a\rightarrow+\infty$, then has an infinite number of resonances as $a$ returns from $-\infty$. Each series of features reflects Efimov physics, so measuring them might reveal evidence for this effect. The present calculations show, however, that the infinite series are truncated to a small number ($\approx \alpha/\pi \ln(3a_{c}/2r_0)$, where $a_c=\hbar/\sqrt{2\mu_{12}E_{12}}$) for typical experimental parameters and that the contrast of the surviving features may be considerably reduced. The recombination rate is thus not a good candidate for observing physics related to the Efimov effect except at extremely low temperatures.
Even though we have shown that the universal behavior described by existing analytic expressions is limited to the threshold regime, scattering lengths up to a few thousand atomic units are included. Moreover, a new sort of universal behavior dictated by the unitarity limit may take over and modifications to the analytic expressions along these lines have already been proposed [@Chris]. Since we have used only one model potential, we are not in a position to discuss any universal behavior outside of the threshold regime. We expect, however, that recombination for $a>0$ will be much as we have shown in Fig. \[recrateposneg\] since it takes place at large distances where differences in the two-body potential will have little effect. For $a<0$, the situation is just the opposite since recombination is a small distance process. The resonance positions as well as the $a\rightarrow -\infty$ limiting rate will likely then depend on the two-body potential.
[99]{}
S. Inouye [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**392**]{}, 151 (1998).
Ph. Courteille [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 69 (1998).
J. L. Roberts [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5109 (1998).
T. Weber [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 123201 (2003).
P. G. Kevrekidis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 230401 (2003)
E. Nielsen and J. H. Macek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1566 (1999).
B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene and J. P. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1751 (1999).
P. F. Bedaque, E. Braaten, and H. -W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 908 (2000).
E. Braaten and H. -W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 160407 (2001); cond-mat0303249.
V. Efimov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**12**]{}, 589 (1971); [**29**]{}, 546 (1979).
B. D. Esry [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**29**]{}, L51 (1996).
J. Cubizolles [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 240401 (2003).
S. Jochim [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 240402 (2003).
C.A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D.S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 040403 (2004).
C.H. Greene, B.D. Esry and H. Suno, Proceedings of the 17th International IUPAP Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics (to appear in Nucl. Phys. A).
B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene, and H. Suno, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 010705(R) (2001).
H. Suno, B. D. Esry, and C. H. Greene, New J. Phys. [**5**]{}, 53 (2003).
H. Suno, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 042725 (2002).
M. Aymar [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 1015 (1996).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss, in the context of M(atrix) theory, the creation of a membrane suspendend between two longitudinal five-branes when they cross each other. It is shown that the membrane creation is closely related to the degrees of freedom in the off-diagonal blocks which are related via dualities to the chiral fermionic zero mode on a 0-8 string. In the dual system of a D0-brane and a D8-brane in type theory the half-integral charges associated with the “half”-strings are found to be connected to the well-known fermion-number fractionalization in the presence of a fermionic zero mode. At sufficiently short distances, the effective potential between the two five-branes is dominated by the zero mode contribution to the vacuum energy.'
---
[H]{}
ø Ø
UU-HEP/97-03\
.5in
[**Brane Creation in M(atrix) Theory**]{}
.5in Pei-Ming Ho[^1] and Yong-Shi Wu[^2]\
.3in [*Department of Physics, University of Utah\
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, U.S.A.*]{}
.5in
Introduction {#intro}
============
It was first suggested by Hanany and Witten [@HW] that when two branes (in appropriate configuration) cross each other, a third brane stretching between them is created or annihilated. They observed the creation in type B string theory of a D3-brane when an NS5-brane crosses a D5-brane. It is related to creation of branes of other dimensions by sequences of dualities [@HW; @BDG; @DFK; @BGL; @dAl]. In particular it is dual to the creation of a fundamental string when a D0-brane crosses a D8-brane in type A theory, as well as the creation of a membrane in M theory when two five-branes sharing one common dimension cross each other. In [@BDG] it was argued from the anomaly equation that when the two branes in question cross each other an energy level crosses zero, and thus a single particle or hole is created. The creation of a particle is understood as the creation of an open string or brane. In [@DFK] it was also shown that the induced charge on the D8-brane world-volume indicate the creation of a string when the D0-brane crosses the D8-brane.
In this paper we try to understand the phenomenon of brane creation in the context of M(atrix) theory [@BFSS]. It is most convenient to consider the creation of a longitudinal membrane when crossing two longitudinal five-branes. The classical background of the longitudinal five-branes are described by topologically nontrivial gauge field configurations residing in diagonal blocks [@BSS]. We will show that the membrane creation is closely related to the degrees of freedom in the off-diagonal blocks. In accordance with T-duality, the equations of motion for the off-diagonal blocks in the background of two longitudinal five-branes are formally the same as the case of the 0-8 string. In a previous paper [@HLW], the existence of the chiral fermionic zero mode on the 0-8 string has been derived, using the index theorem, from the classical equations of motion in M(atrix) theory for the off-diagonal blocks in the background of diagonal ones. It is this chiral fermionic zero mode in the off-diagonal blocks that gives rise to the energy level, which crosses zero, proposed in [@BDG] (Sec.\[zero\]). The energy of this fermionic mode is linear in the distance between the five-branes and the proportional factor equals the membrane tension so that upon quantization it can be associated with the production of membrane (Sec.\[SQ\]). The fact that the induced charge on the D8-brane world-volume is $\pm 1/2$, as a result of proper operator ordering, is closely related to the well-known fractionalization of fermion number [@JR] due to the existence of a fermionic zero mode or mid-gap mode (Sec.\[FermNum\]). We will also argue that when the five-branes are sufficiently close to each other, the effective potential between them is dominated by the contribution from the off-diagonal degrees of freedom associated with this zero mode (Sec.\[potential\]). Our results agree with string theory calculations [@Lifs; @BGL] for the effective potential between a D0-brane and a D8-brane in type theory. Our study indicates that in the M(atrix) model the description of creating an open membrane stretching between two five-branes necessarily involves second quantization of degrees of freedom residing in off-diagonal blocks.
Fermionic Zero Mode in Off-Diagonal Blocks {#zero}
==========================================
The M(atrix) theory is defined by the action [@BFSS] S=dt Tr(\_i\^2 +(2T\_2\^M)\^2\[X\_i,X\_j\]\^2 +\^ +(2T\_2\^M)\^i\[X\_i,\]), where $i,j=1,2,\cdots,9$, $R$ is the radius of the eleventh dimension and $T_2^M$ is the membrane tension.
Consider in M theory two five-branes lying in directions (1,2,3,4,11) and directions (5,6,7,8,11), respectively. In M(atrix) theory, the $11$-th direction is the longitudinal direction for an infinite momentum frame, and the above configuration is described by matrices in the block form: X\_=(
[cc]{} Z\_ & y\_\
\_ & W\_
), =(
[cc]{} &\
\^ &
). The five-branes are residing in the diagonal blocks and treated as background: We take $Z_a=0$ for $a=5,\cdots,8$, $W_i=0$ for $i=1,\cdots,4$, $Z_9=0$ and $W_9=x_9\one$, while $Z_i$ and $W_a$ are realized as covariant derivatives with topologically nontrivial gauge field configurations on two four-tori $T^4$’s [@BSS]. (We will use $i,j,k,\cdots$ for the values $1,2,3,4$; $a,b,c,\cdots$ for $5,6,7,8$ and $\m,\n,\k$ for $0,1,\cdots,9$.) Superpartners of $Z_{\m}$ and $W_{\m}$ ($\Th$ and $\psi$) are set to be zeros. The coordinate $x_9$ gives the transverse distance between five-branes. The variables $y_{\m}$ and $\th$ in the off-diagonal blocks, dependent on the coordinates of the torus $T^8=T^4\times T^4$, represent the matrix model degrees of freedom which are analogues of open strings between D-branes in string theory. We will treat them quantum mechanically, and their fluctuations will give rise to the interactions between the BPS branes.
By compactifying dimensions $(1,2,3,4,11)$, one can use dualities to relate the creation of a membrane by crossing two five-branes in M theory to the creation of a string by crossing a D0-brane with a D8-brane in theory. Thus we can compare our results about the former with string theory calculations for the latter.
The M(atrix) theory action induces an action for $y$ and its superpartner $\th$ in the background of $Z_i$ and $W_a$. It is easy to see that in accordance with T-duality, this action for $y$ and $\th$ is formally the same as that for a 0-8 string (in the strongly coupled type theory) which we derived previously in [@HLW], with the $U(K)$ covariant derivatives [^3] $D_i=i Z_i$, $D_a=-i W_a$ defined on a dual eight-torus $T^8$, except that now the distance between the D0-brane and D8-brane is $x_9$ instead of zero. The action for $\th$ is L\_F=\^(i -2R T\_2\^M(i\_[=1]{}\^[8]{}\^[0]{} D\_+\^[09]{}x\_9)), which is integrated over the dual $T^8$.
An example for the five-brane configuration is given by $[D_{2n-1},D_{2n}]=-if$ with a constant $f=2\pi R_{2n-1}R_{2n}/K$ for $n=1,2,3,4$ [@BSS; @HLW]. When $x_9=0$, it was shown for this example [@HLW] that there is only one chiral fermionic zero mode for $\th$ and no zero mode (nonvanishing classical solution) for the bosonic partner $y$. The zero mode solution for $\th$ and the spectrum of $y$ for $x_9=0$ are explicitly given in [@HLW]. This configuration contains not only the two longitudinal five-branes but also stacks of membranes inside the five-branes. Our arguments will only rely on the existence of a chiral fermionic zero mode, so our conclusions do not depend on the details of the five-brane configurations. Since the five-brane charges for both five-branes are unity, the Chern character $\frac{1}{4!(2\pi)^4}
\int Tr(F^4)$ is one. [^4] Hence by the index theorem [@AS], the difference in the number of fermionic zero modes in the two chiralities is one. In fact as there is only one zero mode on a 0-8 string [@Pol], so by duality it must be the case that there is a single chiral fermionic zero mode for the two five-branes.
For a generic configuration of five-branes, the Hamiltonian and thus the spectrum of $y$ depend only on $x_9^2$ and not on $x_9$. But the spectrum of $\th$ is a little bit more complicated. The Hamiltonian for $\th$ is \[H\] H\_F=2R T\_2\^M\^, where $\H=(iD+\G^{09} x_9)$ with $D=\sum_{\m=1}^8\G^{0\m}D_{\m}$. The spectrum of $\H^2$ is $\{s^2+x_9^2\; |\; s\in\mbox{Spec}(iD)\}$. This would imply that the spectrum of $\H$ depends only on $x_9^2$ if all $s\neq 0$. However, if zero is an eigenvalue of $iD$, then the corresponding eigenvalue(s) of $\H$ can be $\{x_9\}$, $\{-x_9\}$ or $\{x_9, -x_9\}$. It was known [@HLW] that when $x_9=0$ there is only one zero mode for $iD$, so the last possibility is ruled out. Using the chirality of the zero mode on $T^8$: $\G^1\G^2\cdots\G^8\th=\th$ and its total chirality: $\G^0\G^1\cdots\G^9\th=\th$, we find that $\G^{09}\th=\th$. Thus the correct choice is $\{x_9\}$. This is the only part of the spectrum that depends on the sign of $x_9$. This property makes the fermionic zero mode behave differently from all other states in an essential way. A schematic diagram of the spectrum of $\th$ is in Fig.\[spec\].
(140,150)(40,40) (40,100)[(1,0)[120]{}]{} (100,40)[(0,1)[120]{}]{} (100,165)[(0,0)\[b\][$E$]{}]{} (165,100)[(0,0)\[l\][$x_9$]{}]{} (40,80)[(3,1)[120]{}]{} (40,140)(1,-0.333)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (60,133.33)(1,-0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (76,129.33)(1,-0.167)[8]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (84,128)(1,-0.125)[12]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (96,126.5)[(1,0)[8]{}]{} (104,126.5)(1,0.125)[12]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (116,128)(1,0.167)[8]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (124,129.33)(1,0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (140,133.33)(1,0.333)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (40,60)(1,0.333)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (60,66.67)(1,0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (76,70.67)(1,0.167)[8]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (84,72)(1,0.125)[12]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (96,73.5)[(1,0)[8]{}]{} (104,73.5)(1,-0.125)[12]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (116,72)(1,-0.167)[8]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (124,70.67)(1,-0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (140,66.67)(1,-0.333)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (40,160)(1,-0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (56,156)(1,-0.167)[6]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (62,155)(1,-0.125)[18]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (80,152.75)(1,-0.0625)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (100,151.5)(1,0.0625)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (120,152.75)(1,0.125)[18]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (138,155)(1,0.167)[6]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (144,156)(1,0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (40,40)(1,0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (56,44)(1,0.167)[6]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (62,45)(1,0.125)[18]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (80,47.25)(1,0.0625)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (100,48.5)(1,-0.0625)[20]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (120,47.25)(1,-0.125)[18]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (138,45)(1,-0.167)[6]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (144,44)(1,-0.25)[16]{}[(1,0)[1]{}]{}
When the two five-branes cross each other, the value of $x_9$ changes its sign. While all other states are invariant under the reflection $x_9\rightarrow -x_9$, the zero mode is not. This means that the two five-branes select a prefered direction in the transverse direction $x_9$. (By duality, this implies for the D0-D8 case that the D8-brane is oriented.) Although one can interchange the positions of the two diagonal blocks by a gauge transformation: X\_UX\_U\^, UU\^, with \[U\] U=(
[cc]{} 0 &\
& 0
), $\th$ is interchanged with $\thd$ at the same time. When $\th$ vanishes, the exchange symmetry of the two five-branes is preserved. But when the zero mode is present, exchanging only the five-branes results in a change in the state of the system. Also, for the parity transformation $x_9\rightarrow -x_9$ to be a symmetry, it has to be accompanied by the change $\G^9\rightarrow -\G^9$.
The fermionic zero mode, according to eq.(\[H\]), has the energy E=2R T\^M\_2 x\_9. \[E\] If we compactify the ninth direction to a circle of radius $R_9$, $x_9$ will be promoted to $x_9+2\pi n R_9$, where $n$ is the winding number. Then the energy of the zero mode is E\_n=2R T\^M\_2 (x\_9+2R\_9 n). \[nrg2\] This is equivalent to eq.(3) given in ref.[@BDG], where it was intepreted in the string theory context as the (fermionic) ground state energy for an open string stretching between the two branes. Here in M(atrix) theory we identify it as the zero mode of fermionic off-diagonal blocks.
Second Quantization and Membrane Creation {#SQ}
=========================================
The absolute value of the energy (\[E\]) is the same as that for a membrane stretching between two five-branes. It is therefore tempting to relate this energy to the energy for a created longitudinal membrane. For this identification to make sense it is important to notice that in M(atrix) theory we are working in an infinite momentum frame, in which the energy of a longitudinal degree of freedom do not have the prefactor of $R/N$ like the transverse degrees of freedom [@BSS]. Due to translational invariance, its longitudinal momentum vanishes, so that $E=M$.
It turns out that quantization is the key to understand the membrane creation, as well as the half-charges associated with half-strings in the D0-D8 brane crossing (see Sec.\[FermNum\]). To quantize the fermionic field $\th$, as a rule we should first fill all negative-energy states, and define this (many-body) state as the vacuum of the fermion system. As for the fermionic zero mode, it can be either empty or filled. Let us denote by $|e\ra$ (or $|f\ra$) the state of the fermion system with all modes below the zero mode filled (all having negative energies), and with the zero mode empty (or filled). Which of them is the vacuum state depends on the sign of $x_9$ since the zero mode energy is proportional to $x_9$. When $x_9<0$, the state $|f\ra$ is the vacuum and $|e\ra$ is a hole; when $x_9>0$, the state $|e\ra$ is the vacuum and $|f\ra$ is a particle. The energy of the states measured relative to the vacuum is given in Fig.\[EE\](a) and \[EE\](b), respectively for $|e\ra$ and $|f\ra$.
(320,120)(20,40) (40,100)[(1,0)[120]{}]{} (100,60)[(0,1)[80]{}]{} (100,145)[(0,0)\[b\][$E$]{}]{} (165,100)[(0,0)\[l\][$x_9$]{}]{} (40,120)[(3,-1)[60]{}]{} (100,100)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (100,40)[(0,0)\[b\][(a)]{}]{} (200,100)[(1,0)[120]{}]{} (260,60)[(0,1)[80]{}]{} (260,145)[(0,0)\[b\][$E$]{}]{} (325,100)[(0,0)\[l\][$x_9$]{}]{} (260,100)[(3,1)[60]{}]{} (200,100)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (260,40)[(0,0)\[b\][(b)]{}]{}
Let us denote the amplitude of the zero mode by $\chi$, so that $\th=\chi\th^0$ where $\th^0$ is the zero mode solution as a function defined on $T^8$ [@HLW]. The canonical quantization of $\chi$ is realized on the Hilbert space spanned by the two states $|e\ra$ and $|f\ra$. Up to constant factors, $\chi$ and $\chid$ act on the Hilbert space as annihilation and creation operators, respectively: $\chi|e\ra=0$, $\chi|f\ra=|e\ra$, $\chid|e\ra=|f\ra$ and $\chid|f\ra=0$.
Whether $\chi$ is the annihilation operator for a particle or the creation operator for a hole depends on the sign of $x_9$. The energies in Fig.\[EE\] are obtained by using the usual normal ordering (i.e. putting annihilation operators to the right of creation operators) for the Hamiltonian for $x_9<0$ and $x_9>0$ separately. Energies obtained by normal ordering are those measured relative to the ground state and thus are always non-negative.
Let us denote the vacuum as $|0\ra$ and the single-particle excited state as $|1\ra$ for all $x_9$. Hence $|0\ra$ is equal to $|e\ra$ for $x_9>0$ but is $|f\ra$ for $x_9<0$. Similarly, $|1\ra$ is $|f\ra$ for $x_9>0$ and is $|e\ra$ for $x_9<0$, corresponding to either a particle or a hole. The difference between the energies of the states $|0\ra$ and $|1\ra$ is the same as the energy of a longitudinal membrane of length $| x_9 |$. This suggests that the states $|0\ra$ and $|1\ra$ represent the situations with zero and one open membrane stretching between the five-branes, respectively.
Now we come to the crucial point: When $x_9$ changes adiabatically, the zero mode remains either empty or filled according to quantum adiabatic theorem. Thus, as $x_9$ crosses zero from the positive to the negative side, from Fig.\[EE\](a) we see a spontaneous creation of a hole from the vacuum due to the spectral flow of the zero mode, while in Fig.\[EE\](b) a spontaneous annihilation of a particle into the vacuum. Everytime the energy of the fermionic zero mode crosses zero a particle or a hole is created or annihilated. The underlying physics is simply spectral flow plus filling of the Dirac sea.
Following a similar suggestion [@BDG] in string theory, we interpret what is created or annihilated, in association with the above particle (hole) creation or annihilation, as a longitudinal membrane in the present M(atrix) theory context. From Fig.\[EE\](a) and \[EE\](b) one can see that for the two five-branes in question, assuming $x_9$ is non-compact, initially there are two possibilities in the second quantized theory, either there is none or there is one longitudinal membrane stretching between them. In the first (or the second) case, the crossing of the two five-branes will lead to creation (or annihilation) of such a membrane. The necessity of having both possibilities was argued in ref.[@HW] (Fig.9).
Half Fermion Number and Operator Ordering {#FermNum}
=========================================
In this section, we pay attention to the problem of the so-called half-strings in the D0-D8 case [@DFK; @BGL]. We will see that this problem is related to the well-known fermion number fractionalization in the presence of a fermionic zero mode (or in general mid-gap state) [@JR].
Classically, the conserved fermion number for the zero mode is $\chid\chi$. In quantum mechanics, the operators have to be properly ordered so that it transforms correctly under the fermion-number conjugation [@JR]. For an ordinary fermionic field the number operator is (\_b\_\^b\_-\_d\_\^d\_), where the $b_\a$’s and $d_\a$’s are the annihilation operators for particles and holes, respectively. Since the creation of a hole is the same as the annihilation of a particle in the Dirac sea, the roles of the $b_{\a}$’s and $d_\a$’s are symmetric up to a flip of sign in the fermion number. At $x_9=0$, the two states $|e\ra$ and $|f\ra$ are degenerate. To preserve the symmetric roles of $|e\ra$ and $|f\ra$, [^5] the fermion numbers for these states should be $\pm 1/2$ [@JR]. It is thus fixed up to a sign to be \[fermion\] N\_F=(-). This operator only takes values of $\pm 1/2$ (Fig.\[NF\]). It is $-1/2$ for $|e\ra$ and $1/2$ for $|f\ra$. The value of $N_F$ for the vacuum changes by one when $x_9$ crosses zero, showing the need for the creation of a membrane in order to maintain charge conservation.
(180,100)(20,40) (40,80)[(1,0)[120]{}]{} (100,40)[(0,1)[80]{}]{} (100,125)[(0,0)\[b\][$N_F$]{}]{} (165,80)[(0,0)\[l\][$x_9$]{}]{} (100,100)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (105,105)[(0,0)\[lb\][$1/2$]{}]{} (165,100)[(0,0)\[l\][$|1\ra$]{}]{} (40,60)[(1,0)[60]{}]{} (35,60)[(0,0)\[r\][$|1\ra$]{}]{} (105,55)[(0,0)\[lt\][$-1/2$]{}]{} (40,100)(5,0)[12]{}[(1,0)[3]{}]{} (35,100)[(0,0)\[r\][$|0\ra$]{}]{} (100,60)(5,0)[12]{}[(1,0)[3]{}]{} (165,60)[(0,0)\[l\][$|0\ra$]{}]{}
Comparing with the dual system of NS5-brane and D5-brane [@HW], the charge (\[fermion\]) is the total magnetic charge. The charge of the vacuum $|0\ra$ corresponds to the induced charge due to one of the five-branes on the other five-brane. Due to the jump of the induced charge, conservation of the total magnetic charge requires the creation of a membrane.
In [@DFK] it was shown that in theory the induced charge on a D8-brane by a D0-brane is one half and it jumps to minus one half when the branes cross. (See [@HW] for the analogue.) The charge one half was associated with half a string [@DFK]. By duality we see that this peculiar appearance of half a string is simply originated from the ordering of operators in quantum mechanics. To use the term half a string is in a sense just like saying that the ground state energy for a simple harmonic oscillator is due to half a quantum.
As mentioned in Sec.\[zero\], interchanging the two five-branes is accompanied by interchanging $\th$ and $\thd$, which implies that $N_F\rightarrow -N_F$. Thus if we say that $N_F$ is the induced charge on the first five-brane, the induced charge on the second five-brane would be $-N_F$.
In fact, the fermion number for $|0\ra$ jumps by one when $x_9$ crosses zero for an arbitrary ordering of operators. When the 9-th direction is compactified, $x_9$ becomes a $U(1)$ gauge field in a 1+1 dimensional theory, and $\chi$ becomes a fermionic field charged with respect to this gauge field. The jump in the fermion number causes a change in the number of charged fields and thus affects the $U(1)$ anomaly for the 1+1 dimensional field theory [@BDG]. In an adiabatic process where $x_9$ passes zero, a membrane is created so that the total charge is conserved. The orientation of the membrane is determined by the charge conservation.
Energy of Zero Mode and Effective Potential {#potential}
===========================================
Knowing the spectrum of the zero mode (Fig.\[spec\]), we can derive the effective potential in the Hamiltonian approach without much effort. The calculation for the effective potential is analogous to that for the Casimir effect. For effective potential between two branes, we are concerned about the change in the vacuum energy as $x_9$ varies. For sufficiently small $x_9$, the dominating contribution to the force between the two branes comes from the zero mode, which is constant with respect to $x_9$. The reason is that except for the zero mode, the spectra of other modes of $y$ and $\th$ depend only on $x_9^2$, which always give a force proportional to $x_9$. The effective potential between the five-branes is therefore approximately the energy of the zero mode.
After one integrates over $T^8$ the Hamiltonian operator (\[H\]) becomes \[HF\] H\_F=2R T\_2\^M x\_9 . It follows that the effective potential between the two five-branes when there is no membrane stretching between them (corresponding to the state $|0\ra$) is given by Fig.\[V\]. Since the state $|0\ra$ is the ground state for all $x_9$, it should be the state corresponding to the string theory calculations in [@Lifs; @BGL].
(140,100)(20,60) (40,100)[(1,0)[120]{}]{} (100,60)[(0,1)[80]{}]{} (100,145)[(0,0)\[b\][$V$]{}]{} (165,100)[(0,0)\[l\][$x_9$]{}]{} (40,80)[(3,1)[60]{}]{} (100,100)[(1,0)[60]{}]{}
The operator ordering in (\[HF\]) agrees with the normal ordering when $x_9>0$ but is different from the normal ordering for $x_9<0$. Normal ordering is used to calculate the excitation energy relative to the vacuum, but here we are interested in the variation in the vacuum energy itself. One may wonder if one can choose another operator ordering, for instance, to use $\frac{1}{2}(\chid\chi-\chi\chid)$ instead of $\chid\chi$ in (\[HF\]). This ambiguity of operator ordering is fixed by requiring the exchange symmetry mentioned in Sec.\[zero\]. When the zero mode is absent, exchanging the five-branes ($Z\leftrightarrow W$) together with a translation in $x_9$ results in the transformation $x_9\rightarrow -x_9$. As a symmetry this should leave the energy invariant, so we should have $H_F=0$ for the state $|e\ra$. Note that the ordering should be independent of $x_9$ in order to exhibit the $x_9$-dependence of the vacuum energy.
Consider the vacuum state $|0\ra$. When $x_9<0$, the zero mode is filled and the variation of its energy with respect to $x_9$ gives a repulsive force between the five-branes. For $x_9>0$, the zero mode is empty and the force vanishes. Comparing the energy for $|0\ra$ and the effective potential between D0 and D8-branes by duality, we find that indeed $|0\ra$ is the state corresponding to the string calculations in [@Lifs; @BGL]. Note that, contrary to what is suggested in some of the literature, we believe that the change in force for the state $|0\ra$ when $x_9$ changes sign is not a signal of membrane creation, rather it is only a result of closed string R-R exchange. Indeed, the membrane creation is associated with the jump from $|0\ra$ to $|1\ra$.
Combining Fig.\[EE\](a) and Fig.\[V\], one easily sees that with the created brane included, the net potential (and force) between the two five-branes remains zero when $x_9$ changes from negative to positive, if initially there is no membrane suspended between them.
String theory calculations [@Lifs; @BGL] show that the effective potential between a D0-brane and a D8-brane is \[pot\] V=-T\_s(11)|x\_9|, in agreement with our results. The first term above comes from the traces over the NS and R sectors and the second term from the R$(-1)^F$ sector of open strings. The sign depends on whether the D0-brane is on the left or right of the D8-brane. Thus the sign flips when the branes cross. This is identical to what we see in the M(atrix) theory. When $x_9$ crosses zero for the state $|0\ra$, only the zero mode will change its fermion number by one (see Fig.\[NF\]) and cause a change in sign of the R$(-1)^F$ sector. The string theory calculation also shows that one has to attribute part of the effective potential to gravitons and dilatons so that the rest is due to the contribution of half a string. In M(atrix) thoery we no longer distinguish contributions from the NS, R or R$(-1)^F$ sectors, [^6] but we can understand interactions solely in terms of off-diagonal blocks. While half a string can hardly be physical in string theory, we now have a better understanding of the total effect of interactions in M(atrix) theory.
The low energy effective potential between the five-branes can also be calculated by integrating out $y$ and $\th$. Since the action for $y$ and $\th$ is the same as the one for 0-8 strings (in the strong coupling limit), we can apply the results of [@Pier]. Though it was claimed in [@Pier] that the M(atrix) theory result does not agree with the string theory calculation [@Pier; @Lifs], we note that this discrepancy is due to an assumption that the potential is independent of the sign of $x_9$. Without this assumption the calculation in [@Pier] would have given a result consistent with our calculation of the vacuum energy.
Remarks {#remark}
=======
We conclude this paper by a few remarks.
1. We find it much easier to calculate the effective potential and to understand the creation of an open membrane in M(atrix) theory than in string theory. What is essential to our arguments in the M(atrix) theory is the generic feature of the spectrum (Fig.\[spec\]) for the off-diagonal blocks. The quantization of the fermionic zero mode associates the creation of the open membrane in its ground state with the creation and annihilation operators $\chid, \chi$. The notion of “half a membrane” or “half a string” is understood as a result of operator ordering appropriate in the presence of the fermionic zero mode.
2. We used the zero mode in the off-diagonal blocks to describe the creation of an open membrane, while the five-branes are given by the diagonal blocks. This is to be contrasted with other descriptions of open membranes by using $SO(N)$ matrices [@SO] or by modifying the closed membrane configuration [@Li].
3. The intriguing behavior of the zero mode is due to the fact that the zero mode is chiral in the transverse direction. One may apply similar arguments to the generic case of a D$p$-brane and a D$p'$-brane. But except those dual to the five-branes discussed above, there is no similar phenomenon because the fermionic zero modes of both chiralities in the transverse direction are paired.
4. Applying our discussions to the case of one D0-brane in the presence of two D8-branes considered in [@BGL], we find for the ground state that the forces in the three regions divided by the two D8-branes are from left to right $-2T_s$, $-T_s$ and $0$, respectively. It is simply the superposition of the forces on the D0-brane due to the two D8-branes. However in [@BGL] it was argued that the forces from left to right should be $-2T_s$, $0$ and $0$, respectively. In their arguments they used the cancellation between two half-strings associated with the two D8-branes as the total induced charge vanishes when the D0-brane lies between the two D8-branes. However in M(atrix) theory the five-branes are naturally associated with Chan-Paton factors, thus the two half-strings with different Chan-Paton factors can not cancel.
Acknowledgment
==============
We thank Igor Klebanov for helpful comments. Y.S.W. thanks Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences for an Invitational Fellowship and Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo for warm hospitality, where part of work was done. This work is supported in part by U.S. NSF grant PHY-9601277.
.8cm
[10]{}
A. Hanany, E. Witten: “Type-Superstrings, BPS Monopoles and Three-Dimensional Gauge Dynamics”, hep-th/9611230.
C. P. Bachas, M. R. Douglas, M. B. Green: “Anomalous Creation of Branes”, hep-th/9705074.
U. Danielsson, G. Ferretti, I. R. Klebanov: “Creation of Fundamental Strings by Crossing D-Branes”, hep-th/9705084.
O. Bergman, M. R. Gaberdiel, G. Lifschytz: “Branes, Orientifolds and the Creation of Elementary Strings”, hep-th/9705130.
S. P. de Alwis: “A note on brane creation”, hep-th/9706142.
T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker, L. Susskind: “M Theory as a Matrix Model: A Conjecture”, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 5112-5128 (1997); hep-th/9610043.
T. Banks, N. Seiberg, S. Shenker: “Branes from Matrices”, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B490**]{}, 91-106 (1997); hep-th/9612157.
P.-M. Ho, M. Li, Y.-S. Wu: “$p$-$p'$ Strings in M(atrix) Theory”, hep-th/9706073.
R. Jackiw, C. Rebbi: “Solitons with Fermion Number $1/2$”, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D13**]{} (1976) 3398-3409.
G. Lifschytz: “Comparing D-Branes to Black Branes”, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B388**]{} (1996) 720-726; hep-th/9604156.
T. Banks, N. Seiberg: “Strings from Matrices”, hep-th/9702187.
R. Dijkgraaf, E. Verlinde, H. Verlinde: “Matrix String Theory”, hep-th/9703030.
M. F. Atiyah, I. M. Singer: [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**87**]{}, 485 (1968); [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**87**]{}, 546 (1968); M. F. Atiyah, G. B. Segal: [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**87**]{}, 531 (1968).\
See, for example, M. Nakahara: [*Geometry, Topology and Physics*]{}, Institute of Physics Publishing (1990) for an introduction.
J. Polchinski: “TASI Lectures on D-branes”, hep-th/9611050.
J. M. Pierre: “Interactions of Eight-Branes in String Theory and M(atrix) Theory”, hep-th/9705110.
D. B. Fairlie, P. Fletcher, C. K. Zachos: “Trigonometric Structure Constants For New Infinite-Dimensional Algebras”, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**218B**]{} (1989) 203-206;\
C. N. Pope, L. J. Romans: “Local Area-Preserving Algebras For 2-Dimensional Surfaces”, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**7**]{} (1990) 97-109;\
N. Kim, S.-J. Rey: “M(atrix) Theory on an Orbifold and Twisted Membrane”, hep-th/9701139.
M. Li: “Open Membranes in Matrix Theory”, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B397**]{} (1997) 37-41; hep-th/9612144.
[^1]: Address after September 1, 1997: Department of Physics, Jadwin Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, U.S.A.
[^2]: Address after September 1, 1997: School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Olden Lane, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, U.S.A.
[^3]: The integer $K$ is proportional to the longitudinal momentum of the five-branes [@HLW], analogous to the length of the conjugacy class for a long string in the matrix string theory [@BS; @DVV].
[^4]: By duality this Chern character for the case of a D0-brane crossing a D8-brane is just the 8-brane charge.
[^5]: Note that it is a matter of convention to say which state is empty or filled, as well as which operator is the creation or annihilation operator.
[^6]: However, it appears that the two terms in (\[pot\]) correspond to the decomposition of $\chid\chi$ in (\[HF\]) as $\frac{1}{2}(\chid\chi+\chi\chid)+\frac{1}{2}(\chid\chi-\chi\chid)$ for the state $|0\ra$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We generalise a technical tool, originally developed by Pervova for the study of maximal subgroups in Grigorchuk and GGS groups, to all weakly branch groups satisfying a natural condition, and in particular to all branch groups. We then use this tool to prove that every maximal subgroup of infinite index of a branch group is also a branch group. As a further application of this result, we show that every maximal subgroup of the Basilica group is of finite index.'
author:
- Dominik Francoeur
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: On maximal subgroups of infinite index in branch and weakly branch groups
---
Introduction
============
The study of maximal subgroups in branch groups dates back to the work of Pervova in 2000 [@Pervova00] and 2005 [@Pervova05], where she showed that all the maximal subgroups of the periodic Grigorchuk and GGS groups are of finite index. Her original motivation was to shed some light on a conjecture of Kaplansky regarding the groups for which the Jacobson radical of a group algebra over a field of prime characteristic is equal to the augmentation ideal. However, her results also had other interesting implications for the groups she studied. For example, using the fact that every maximal subgroup of the Grigorchuk group is of finite index, Grigorchuk and Wilson showed in [@GrigorchukWilson03] that the Grigorchuk group is subgroup separable (also known as locally extended residually finite, or LERF), and that its finitely generated subgroups are either finite or abstractly commensurable with the entire group.
Pervova’s results opened up a new line of enquiries in the field of branch groups. In [@BartholdiGrigorchukSunic03], Bartholdi, Grigorchuk and Šunik asked if it was true that a maximal subgroup of a branch group must always be of finite index. This was answered negatively by Bondarenko in 2010 in [@Bondarenko10], where he constructed an example of a branch group with maximal subgroups of infinite index. It was later shown by the author and Garrido in [@FrancoeurGarrido18] that even some Grigorchuk groups of intermediate growth admit maximal subgroups of infinite index (although they must necessarily contain elements of infinite order, by Pervova’s result). In a different direction, Pervova’s methods were extended to larger and larger classes of branch groups to prove that they admit no maximal subgroups of infinite index, notably by Alexoudas, Klopsch and Thillaisundaram [@AlexoudasKlopschThillaisundaram16], and Klopsch and Thillaisundaram [@KlopschThillaisundaram18].
At the heart of many of these results lies a technical lemma stating that for certain branch groups, the projections of vertex stabilisers of proper dense subgroups in the profinite topology are also proper and dense. This was proved by Pervova for the periodic Grigorchuk and GGS groups in her original paper, and was generalised by the author and Garrido in [@FrancoeurGarrido18] to self-replicating just-infinite branch groups with a regular and primitive action on the first level of a regular rooted tree. In this article, we prove that this result holds in fact for all weakly branch groups satisfying a natural condition, and in particular is true for all branch groups (Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\]). This gives us a very general tool to study maximal subgroups in branch and weakly branch groups. As an application, we use this result to show the following structural result about maximal subgroups of infinite index of branch groups.
Every maximal subgroup of infinite index of a branch group is also a branch group.
As a further illustration of the usefulness of this tool, we then proceed to study the maximal subgroups of a weakly branch group known as the Basilica group. This group, which was introduced by Grigorchuk and Żuk in [@GrigorchukZuk02; @GrigorchukZuk02b], was the first example of an amenable but not subexponentially amenable group, as was shown by Bartholdi and Virág [@BartholdiVirag05]. We prove the following:
Every maximal subgroup of the Basilica group is of finite index.
To the best of our knowledge, it is the first example of a group with this property among weakly branch but not branch groups.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section \[section:Preliminaries\], we recall a few definitions and key results regarding branch and weakly branch groups. In Section \[section:MaxSubgroups\], we prove our main result, Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\], which states that projections of maximal subgroups of infinite index of branch groups are also maximal subgroups of infinite index. We then obtain Theorem \[thm:MaxSubgroupsOfBranchAreBranch\] as a consequence. Finally, in Section \[section:Basilica\], we apply the results of Section \[section:MaxSubgroups\] to the Basilica group to prove Theorem \[thm:BasilicaIsInMF\].
We would like to mention that a preliminary version of some of the results in Section \[section:MaxSubgroups\], and most of Section \[section:Basilica\], were contained in the author’s PhD thesis [@FrancoeurThesis19].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author would like to thank Tatiana Nagnibeda, Anitha Thillaisundaram and Rostislav Grigorchuk for useful discussions and comments regarding this work.
Preliminaries {#section:Preliminaries}
=============
In this section, we define the basic notions and set the notation that will be used throughout the paper.
Rooted trees
------------
Recall that a rooted tree is a tree (i.e. a simple graph without cycles) equipped with a distinguished vertex called the root. Throughout this entire text, unless otherwise specified, we will always assume that our rooted trees are infinite and locally finite.
Let $T$ be a rooted tree. By a slight abuse of notation, if $v$ is a vertex of $T$, we will write $v\in T$.
Since $T$ is a tree, for any pair of vertices $v,w\in T$, there exists a unique simple path between $v$ and $w$. The *combinatorial distance* between $v$ and $w$, which we will denote by $d(v,w)$, is then the number of edges in this unique simple path.
Let $T$ be a rooted tree, let $v_0\in T$ be the root of $T$ and let $v\in T$ be an arbitrary vertex. The *length* of $v$, denoted $|v|$, is defined as $$|v|=d(v_0,v).$$ For $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the set $$L_n=\{v\in T \mid |v|=n\}$$ is called the *n^th^ level* of $T$.
The combinatorial distance also allows us to define a partial order on the vertices of $T$.
Let $T$ be a rooted tree of root $v_0\in T$. We define a partial order on the vertices of $T$ by saying that for $v,w\in T$, $v\leq w$ if and only if $$d(v_0,v)+d(v,w)=d(v_0,w).$$ In other words, $v\leq w$ if and only if $v$ lies on the unique simple path connecting $w$ to the root.
Using this partial order, we can define the notion of a subtree rooted at a specific vertex of a rooted tree.
Let $T$ be a rooted tree and $v\in T$ be an arbitrary vertex. We denote by $T_v$ the subtree of $T$ whose vertex set is the set of all vertices $w\in T$ such that $v\leq w$. By setting $v$ as the root, $T_v$ becomes a rooted tree that we call the *subtree of $T$ rooted at $v$*.
Spherically homogeneous rooted trees
------------------------------------
In what follows, we will be interested in rooted trees which are as symmetric as possible. More precisely, we will concern ourselves with *spherically homogeneous* trees.
Let $T$ be a rooted tree. Then, $T$ is said to be *spherically homogeneous* if for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and for all $v,w\in L_n$, we have $\text{deg}(v)=\text{deg}(w)$.
To each spherically homogeneous rooted tree $T$, one can associate a sequence of integers $(m_i)_{i\in {\mathbb{N}}}$, where $m_0$ is the degree of the root of $T$, and for $i>0$, $m_i+1$ is the degree of vertices on level $i$.
Conversely, given a sequence of integers $(m_i)_{i\in {\mathbb{N}}}$, one can construct a spherically homogeneous rooted tree $T$ in the following way. For each $i\in {\mathbb{N}}^*$, let $A_i$ be a set of cardinality $m_{i-1}$. Let $(A_i)^*$ be the set of all finite sequences of the form $a_1a_2\dots a_n$, where $a_i\in A_i$ for all $1\leq i \leq n$, including the empty sequence. We will call *words in $(A_i)$* the elements of $(A_i)^*$. The *length* of a word will simply be the number of elements in the sequence composing the word. We define a rooted graph $T$ by declaring its set of vertices to be $(A_i)^*$ and its root to be the empty word. Two words in $(A_i)$ are connected by an edge in $T$ if and only if one is a prefix of the other and their length differ by exactly $1$.
It is easy to check that the graph thus described is a spherically homogeneous rooted tree and that any other such tree with the same sequence of degrees must be isomorphic to it. Therefore, in what follows, when dealing with spherically homogeneous rooted trees, we will often implicitly assume that their vertex set is of the form $(A_i)^*$ for a given collection of finite sets $(A_i)$. Furthermore, by a slight abuse of notation, we will often simply write $T=(A_i)^*$ to mean the rooted tree whose vertex set is $(A_i)^*$.
In the special case where $(m_i)_{i\in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is a constant sequence, the rooted tree $T$ is called a *regular rooted tree*. In this case, we can choose a constant sequence for the sets $A_i$. We will thus write the vertex set of $T$ simply as $A^*$ for some finite set $A$ of cardinality $m_i$.
The advantage of representing vertices of a spherically homogeneous rooted tree as words in a sequence of finite sets is that it then gives us a canonical isomorphism between subtrees rooted at the same level. Indeed, let $T=(A_i)^*$ be a spherically homogeneous rooted tree and let $v\in (A_i)^*$ be a word of length $n$ for some $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then, it is clear from the definitions that the subtree $T_v$ is simply the subtree whose vertex sets is all the words in $(A_i)^*$ beginning with $v$. One can then define a bijection between the vertices of $T_v$ and the spherically homogeneous rooted tree $(A_{i+n})^*$ simply by deleting the prefix $v$. It is clear that this bijection is an isomorphism of rooted trees between $T_v$ and $(A_{i+n})^*$. In what follows, we will often implicitly identify these two rooted trees through this isomorphism. Since, for every $v\in L_n$, we have a canonical isomorphism between $T_v$ and the rooted tree $(A_{i+n})^*$, which does not depend on $v$, we also get a canonical isomorphism between $T_v$ and $T_w$ for all $v,w\in L_n$.
Automorphisms of rooted trees
-----------------------------
Let $T$ be a rooted tree. We will denote by $\operatorname{Aut}(T)$ the group of all automorphisms of $T$. Since such an automorphism must preserve the root, it obviously cannot act transitively on the vertices of $T$. However, in the case of spherically homogeneous rooted trees, it acts *spherically transitively*.
Let $T$ be a rooted tree and let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ be a group of automorphisms of $T$. We say that the action of $G$ on $T$ is *spherically transitive* if $G$ acts transitively on the set $L_n$ for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
Let $T=(A_i)^*$ be a spherically homogeneous rooted tree and let $v=a_1a_2\dots a_n\in (A_i)^*$, $w=a_1a_2\dots a_n a_{n+1}\dots a_{n+k}\in (A_i)^*$ be two vertices of $T$, with $v\leq w$. As any automorphism of $T$ must preserve the partial order on its vertices, for any $g\in \operatorname{Aut}(T)$, we have $g\cdot v\leq g\cdot w$. In particular, this implies that there must exist a unique automorphism $g_{v} \in \operatorname{Aut}(T_{v})$ such that $$g\cdot (va_{n+1}\dots a_{n+k}) = (g\cdot v)(g_v\cdot (a_{n+1}\dots a_{n+k})).$$
Let $T$ be a spherically homogeneous rooted tree. We will denote by $\varphi_v\colon \operatorname{Aut}(T) \rightarrow \operatorname{Aut}(T_v)$ the map that sends $g\in \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ to $g_v\in \operatorname{Aut}(T_v)$, and we will call this map the *projection at $v$*.
Note that the map $\varphi_v$ is not a homomorphism (unless $v$ is the root). However, it becomes one if we restrict it to $\operatorname{St}(v)$. Therefore, we will frequently want to restrict this projection map to elements that stabilise $v$. For convenience, let us introduce a notation for the image of a stabiliser under this map.
\[notation:Projections\] Let $T$ be a spherically homogeneous rooted tree and let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ be a group of automorphisms of $T$. We will denote by $G_v=\varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_G(v))$ the image of the stabiliser of $v$ in $G$ under the projection at $v$.
Note that $G_v\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T_v)$. In the case where $T_v$ is naturally isomorphic to $T$, it could happen that $G_v$ is a subgroup of $G$. The groups for which this happens are called *self-similar*.
\[defn:SelfSimilarGroup\] Let $T$ be a regular rooted tree and let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ be a group of automorphisms of $T$. Then, $G$ is said to be *self-similar* if $G_v\leq G$ for all $v\in T$, and *self-replicating* if $G_v=G$ for all $v\in T$.
Let $T=(A_i)^*$ be a spherically homogeneous rooted tree, and let $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. We will denote by $(A_i)_{i=1}^{n}$ the set of all words of length $n$ in $(A_i)^*$. Let $\pi_n\colon \operatorname{Aut}(T) \rightarrow \operatorname{Sym}((A_i)_{i=1}^n)$ be the natural map given by the action of $\operatorname{Aut}(T)$ on $(A_i)_{i=1}^n$, and let $\operatorname{Aut}((A_i)_{i=1}^n)$ be the image of $\operatorname{Aut}(T)$ under this map. It is clear that any automorphism $g\in \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ is uniquely determined by the collection $\{\pi_n(g), (g_v)_{v\in L_n}\}$. We thus have the following fact.
\[prop:Psin\] Using the notation above, the map $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_n\colon \operatorname{Aut}(T) &\rightarrow \operatorname{Aut}((A_i)_{i=1}^{n}) \ltimes \operatorname{Aut}((A_{i+n})^*)^{L_n}\\
g &\mapsto (\pi_n(g), (v\mapsto g_v))\end{aligned}$$ is an isomorphism, where $\operatorname{Aut}((A_{i+n})^*)^{L_n}$ denotes the set of maps from $L_n$ to $\operatorname{Aut}((A_{i+n})^*)$.
In what follows, when considering a spherically homogeneous rooted tree $(A_i)^*$, we will often assume that we have an alphabetical order on each of the sets $A_i$, which then allows us to order the vertices of the $n$^th^ level of the tree by lexicographical order. Using this order, we can represent elements of $\operatorname{Aut}((A_{i+n})^*)^{L_n}$ simply as an $|L_n|$-tuple of elements of $\operatorname{Aut}((A_{i+n})^*)$. Thus, for $g\in \operatorname{Aut}(T)$, we will write $$\psi_n(g) = \sigma (g_1, \dots, g_{|L_n|})$$ with $\sigma\in \operatorname{Aut}((A_i)_{i=1}^{n})$ and $g_j\in \operatorname{Aut}((A_{i+n})^*)$ for all $1\leq j \leq |L_n|$.
The boundary of a rooted tree
-----------------------------
Let $T$ be a rooted tree, and let $\partial T$ be the set of all infinite simple path in $T$ starting at the root. Given a path $\xi \in \partial T$ and a vertex $v\in T$, we will write $v\leq \xi$ if the path $\xi$ passes through $v$. Note that this relation is compatible with the partial order on the vertices of $T$, in the sense that if $u\leq v$ and $v\leq \xi$, then $u\leq \xi$, where $u,v\in T$ and $\xi\in \partial T$.
Given $v\in T$, the *cylinder set at $v$* is the set $$C_v=\{\xi \in \partial T \mid v\leq \xi\}.$$ One can show that the set of all cylinder sets forms a base for a topology on $\partial T$. The set $\partial T$ equipped with the topology defined by this base is called the *boundary* of $T$. If no cylinder set contains only a single point (which is always the case, for instance, in a spherically homogeneous rooted tree $(A_i)^*$ with $|A_i|>1$), then the boundary $\partial T$ is homeomorphic to the Cantor set.
Any automorphism of a rooted tree $T$ can be naturally extended to a homeomorphism of the boundary $\partial T$. Furthermore, the support of such a homeomorphism must always be an open set, as the next lemma shows.
\[lemma:SupportIsOpen\] Let $g\in \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ be an automorphism of the rooted tree $T$, and let $$\text{Supp}(g)=\left\{\xi\in \partial T \mid g\xi\ne \xi\right\}$$ be the complement of the set of fixed points of the action of $G$ on the boundary of the tree $\partial T$ (we will call this set the support of $G$, even though we would need to take the closure of this set in order to obtain the classical notion of support). Then, $\text{Supp}(g)$ is an open set of $\partial T$.
Since $g$ is a homeomorphism of a first-countable Hausdorff space, its set of fixed points is closed, so $\text{Supp}(g)$ is open.
Stabilisers and rigid stabilisers
---------------------------------
Let $T$ be a rooted tree. Given a group $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ of automorphisms of $T$, the action of $G$ on $T$ gives rise to many different subgroups. Notably, for $v\in T$, we have the *vertex stabiliser* $\operatorname{St}_G(v)$, and for $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have the *level stabiliser* $$\operatorname{St}_G(n)=\bigcap_{v\in L_n}\operatorname{St}_G(v).$$ In addition to these stabilisers, we also have what is known as *rigid stabilisers*.
Let $T$ be a rooted tree, let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ be a group of automorphisms of $T$, and let $U\subseteq T$ be a subset of vertices of $T$. The *rigid stabiliser* $\operatorname{Rist}_G(U)$ of $U$ is the subgroup of $G$ of all the elements that act trivially outside of the subtrees rooted at elements of $U$: $$\operatorname{Rist}_G(U)=\left\{g\in G \mid gv=v, \quad \forall v\notin \bigcup_{u\in U}T_u \right\}.$$ In the special case where $U=\{v\}$, we will simply write $\operatorname{Rist}_G(v)$.
In other words, the rigid stabiliser of a set $U$ is the subgroup of all elements of $G$ whose support is contained in $\bigcup_{u\in U}C_u\subseteq \partial T$.
Given an integer $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we can also define the *rigid stabiliser of the $n$^th^ level*.
Let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ be a group of automorphism of a rooted tree $T$, and let $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ be an integer. The *rigid stabiliser of the $n$^th^ level*, $\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$, is the subgroup $$\operatorname{Rist}_G(n) = \left\langle \bigcup_{v\in L_n}\operatorname{Rist}_G(v) \right\rangle$$ generated by the rigid stabilisers of each vertex in $L_n$.
Given two vertices $u,v\in L_n$ on level $n$, elements in $\operatorname{Rist}_G(u)$ and elements in $\operatorname{Rist}_G(v)$ have support $C_u$ and $C_v$, respectively. Since those two sets are disjoint, we have $$\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cong \prod_{v\in L_n}\operatorname{Rist}_G(v).$$
Branch and weakly branch groups
-------------------------------
We are now ready to give the definition of a (weakly) branch group.
Let $T$ be a spherically homogeneous rooted tree, and let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(T)$ be a group of automorphism of $T$. If
1. $G$ acts spherically transitively,
2. $\operatorname{Rist}_G(v) \ne \{1\}$ for every $v\in T$,
then $G$ is called a *weakly branch group*. If, furthermore,
1. $\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$ is of finite index in $G$ for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$,
then $G$ is said to be a *branch group*.
For self-similar groups (see Definition \[defn:SelfSimilarGroup\]), we can also ask that the rigid stabilisers also satisfy some form of self-similarity, which gives rise to the notion of regular branch and weakly branch groups.
\[defn:RegularBranch\] Let $X$ be a finite alphabet and let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(X^*)$ be a self-similar weakly branch group of automorphisms of the rooted tree $X^*$. If there exists a non-trivial subgroup $K\leq G$ such that $K\leq \varphi_v(\operatorname{Rist}_K(v))$ for all $v\in X$, the group $G$ is said to be *regular weakly branch over $K$*. If, furthermore, $K$ is of finite index in $G$, we say that $G$ is *regular branch over $K$*.
The most direct example of a branch group is the group of automorphisms $\operatorname{Aut}(T)$ of a spherically homogeneous rooted tree $T$. Indeed, in that case, the action is spherically transitive and the rigid stabiliser is equal to the level stabiliser, and thus of finite index. Other important examples of branch groups include the Grigorchuk group [@Grigorchuk80; @Grigorchuk83], the Gupta-Sidki group [@GuptaSidki83] and their various generalisations (see for instance [@BartholdiGrigorchukSunic03]).
The following lemma gives us some information about the structure of normal and subnormal subgroups of branch and weakly branch groups. In this context, a version of it was first given by Grigorchuk in [@Grigorchuk00], but it also appeared in various other contexts. Indeed, although we formulate it here in terms of weakly branch groups for simplicity, note that this result is true more generally for groups with micro-supported actions by homeomorphisms on topological spaces (see for instance [@Nekrashevych13], Lemma 4.1). We include a proof here for completeness.
\[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\] Let $T$ be a spherically homogeneous rooted tree, let $G$ be a weakly branch group, and let $H\leq G$ be a $k$-subnormal subgroup of $G$ for some $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$. If $v\in T$ is a vertex that is not stabilised by $H$, then $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)\leq H$, where $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)$ is the $k$^th^ derived subgroup of $\operatorname{Rist}_G(v)$.
We proceed by induction on $k$. For $k=0$, we have $H=G$, so there is nothing to prove. Let us now assume that the result is true for some $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and let us show it for $k+1$.
Let $v$ be a vertex not stabilised by $H$. Let $K\leq G$ be a $k$-subnormal subgroup of $G$ such that $H\trianglelefteq K$. Then, $v$ is not stabilised by $K$, so by our hypothesis, $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)\leq K$.
Let $h\in H$ be such that $hv\ne v$. For any $r_1, r_2\in \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)$, we have $[h^{-1},r_1]\in H$ and $[[h^{-1},r_1],r_2]\in H$, since $H$ is normal in $K$ and $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}\leq K$. On the other hand, we have $[h^{-1},r_1] = hr_1^{-1}h^{-1}r_1$, with $hr_1^{-1}h^{-1}\in \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(hv)$. Since $hv\ne v$, this means that $hr_1^{-1}h^{-1}$ commutes with $r_1$ and $r_2$. Therefore, $$[[h^{-1},r_1],r_2] = [r_1,r_2]$$ and so $[r_1,r_2]\in H$. This implies that $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k+1)}(v)\leq H$ and thus concludes the proof.
Of course, the previous lemma is only interesting if we know that $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)$ is not trivial, which we show in the following lemma. Once again, we include a proof for completeness.
\[lemma:RistNotSolvable\] Let $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on a spherically homogeneous rooted tree $T$. Then, for any vertex $v\in T$ and for any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the subgroup $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)$ is non-trivial. In other words, $\operatorname{Rist}_G(v)$ is not solvable.
We proceed by induction on $k$. The case $k=0$ follows directly from the definition of a weakly branch group.
Let us assume that there exists $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)$ is non-trivial for all $v\in T$. Then, for a given $v\in T$, there exist $g\in \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)$ and $w\in T_v$ such that $gw\ne w$. By assumption, $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(w)$ is also non-trivial, and since $w\in T_v$, we have $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(w)\leq \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)$. Let $r\in \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(w)$ be a non-trivial element. We have $$[g^{-1},r]= gr^{-1}g^{-1}r\in \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v).$$ We have $r\in \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(w)$ and $gr^{-1}g^{-1}\in \operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(gw)$, and since $gw\ne w$, these two subgroups commute, which implies that $[g^{-1},r]\ne 1$. This concludes the proof.
A consequence of the previous two lemmas is that commuting subnormal subgroups of weakly branch groups have disjoint support.
\[prop:CommutingSubgroupsDisjointSupport\] Let $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on a spherically homogeneous rooted tree $T$, and let $H_1, H_2\leq G$ be two subnormal subgroups of $G$. If $[H_1, H_2]=1$, then $\text{Supp}(H_1)\cap \text{Supp}(H_2)=\emptyset$, where $$\text{Supp}(H_i) = \{\xi\in \partial T \mid h\xi \ne \xi \text{ for some } h\in H_i\}.$$
Suppose on the contrary that $\text{Supp}(H_1)\cap \text{Supp}(H_2) \ne \emptyset$. This means that there exist $\xi \in \partial T$, $h_1\in H_1$ and $h_2\in H_2$ such that $h_i\xi \ne \xi$ for $i=1,2$. It follows that there exists $v\in T$ such that $h_i v\ne v$ for $i=1,2$. By Lemma \[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\], there exists $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k)}(v)\leq H_i$ for $i=1,2$. This means that $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(k+1)}(v)\leq [H_1,H_2]$, which contradicts Lemma \[lemma:RistNotSolvable\].
As a corollary, we get the following, which will be useful later on.
\[cor:CommutingSubnormalHaveVertexTrivialAction\] Let $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on a spherically homogeneous rooted tree $T$, and let $H_1, H_2\leq G$ be two subnormal subgroups of $G$ such that $[H_1, H_2]=1$. If $H_2$ is non-trivial, then there exists $v\in T$ such that $H_1\leq \operatorname{St}_G(v)$ and $\varphi_v(H_1)=1$.
By Proposition \[prop:CommutingSubgroupsDisjointSupport\], $H_1$ and $H_2$ have disjoint support. Since $H_2$ is non-trivial, its support is non-empty. As it is open by Lemma \[lemma:SupportIsOpen\], there is a vertex $v\in T$ such that $C_v\subseteq \text{Supp}(H_2)$. This implies that $C_v\cap \text{Supp}(H_1)=\emptyset$, which means that $H_1$ acts trivially on $C_v$. Consequently, we must have $H_1v=v$ and $\varphi_v(H_1)=1$.
Maximal subgroups and prodense subgroups
----------------------------------------
In what follows, we will be interested in the index of maximal subgroups. Let us fix some notation.
We will denote by ${\mathcal{MF}}$ the class of groups whose maximal subgroups are all of finite index.
The existence of maximal subgroups of infinite index is closely related to the existence of proper prodense subgroups. Let us first recall the definition.
Let $G$ be a group. A subgroup $H\leq G$ is called *prodense* if $HN=G$ for all non-trivial normal subgroup $N\trianglelefteq G$.
Under a natural assumption, the existence of a maximal subgroup of infinite index is equivalent to the existence of a proper prodense subgroup.
\[prop:InfiniteIndexIffProdense\] Let $G$ be a finitely generated infinite group such that every proper quotient of $G$ belongs to the class ${\mathcal{MF}}$. Then, $G$ admits a proper prodense subgroup if and only if $G$ admits a maximal subgroup of infinite index.
$(\Rightarrow)$ Let $H<G$ be a proper prodense subgroup of $G$. Since $G$ is finitely generated, $H$ is contained in a maximal subgroup $M<G$, which must also be prodense. In particular, $M$ cannot contain a non-trivial normal subgroup of $G$. This implies that $M$ must be of infinite index in $G$. Indeed, were it of finite index, it would contain a normal subgroup $N\trianglelefteq G$ of finite index, which would necessarily be non-trivial, since $G$ is infinite.
$(\Leftarrow)$ Let $M<G$ be a maximal subgroup of infinite index, and let $N\trianglelefteq G$ be a non-trivial normal subgroup. If $MN\ne G$, then $N\leq M$ by the maximality of $M$. Therefore, by the correspondence theorem, $M/N$ is a maximal subgroup of infinite index of $G/N$, which is absurd, since $G/N$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$. We conclude that $MN=G$ for all non-trivial normal subgroups of $G$, and so $M$ is a proper prodense subgroup of $G$.
Note that if we are interested in determining whether a given finitely generated group $G$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$ or not, then the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:InfiniteIndexIffProdense\] are fairly natural. Indeed, if the group is finite, then it is obviously in ${\mathcal{MF}}$, and if it admits a quotient which is not in ${\mathcal{MF}}$, then it cannot be in ${\mathcal{MF}}$ by the correspondence theorem. Therefore, the only unknown case is when $G$ is infinite and all its proper quotients are in ${\mathcal{MF}}$. As the next proposition shows, these two assumptions are always satisfied by branch groups.
\[prop:QuotientsOfBranchGroupsAreinMF\] Let $G$ be a finitely generated branch group. Then, $G$ is infinite and every proper quotient of $G$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$. In particular, $G$ admits a maximal subgroup of infinite index if and only if it admits a proper prodense subgroup.
It is clear from the definition that branch groups are infinite. By Lemma \[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\], if $N\trianglelefteq G$ is a non-trivial normal subgroup of $G$, there exists $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(1)}(n)\leq N$. Since being in ${\mathcal{MF}}$ clearly passes to quotients, it suffices to show that $G/\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(1)}(n)$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$ for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Since $G$ is a branch group, $\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$ is of finite index in $G$, which implies that $G/\operatorname{Rist}_G^{(1)}(n)$ is a finitely generated virtually abelian group. Such groups are known to be in ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
For weakly branch groups, however, we do not know whether all quotients must be in ${\mathcal{MF}}$ or not.
Maximal subgroups of infinite index in branch groups {#section:MaxSubgroups}
====================================================
In this section, we prove that the projections of proper prodense subgroups of branch and weakly branch groups are again proper prodense subgroups (Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOfProperDenseAreProper\]). We then use this result to prove that maximal subgroups of infinite index of branch or weakly branch groups are also branch or weakly branch groups, respectively (Theorems \[thm:MaxSubgroupsOfBranchAreBranch\] and \[thm:MaxSubgroupsOfWeaklyBranchAreWeaklyBranch\]).
We begin with a lemma concerning the projections of prodense subgroups.
\[lemma:ProjectionsOfDenseAreDense\] Let $T$ be a rooted tree, $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on $T$, $H\leq G$ be a prodense subgroup of $G$ and $u\in T$ be any vertex of the tree. Then, $H_u$ is a prodense subgroup of $G_u$.
It suffices to show that $H_u\operatorname{Rist}_{G_u}^{(1)}(n) = G_u$ for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Indeed, since $G_u$ is weakly branch, for every non-trivial normal subgroup $N\trianglelefteq G_u$, there exists $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_{G_u}(n) \leq N$ by Lemma \[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\]. Furthermore, by Lemma \[lemma:RistNotSolvable\], $\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_{G_u}(n)$ is non-trivial for every $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
Let us suppose that $u$ is on level $m$, and let $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ be any natural number. Clearly, $\operatorname{Rist}_G(m+n) \leq \operatorname{St}_G(m)\leq \operatorname{St}_G(u)$, and $$\varphi_u(\operatorname{Rist}_G(n+m)) \leq \operatorname{Rist}_{G_u}(n).$$ Therefore, $\varphi_u(\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(n+m)) \leq \operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_{G_u}(n)$.
As $\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(n+m)$ is a non-trivial normal subgroup of $G$, we have by hypothesis $$H\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(n+m) = G.$$ By definition, for every $g\in G_u$, there exists $\tilde{g} \in \operatorname{St}_G(u)$ such that $\varphi_u(\tilde{g}) = g$. Since $H\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(n+m)=G$, there exist $h\in H$ and $r\in \operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(n+m)$ such that $hr = \tilde{g}$. Since $\tilde{g}, r\in \operatorname{St}_G(u)$, we must have $h\in \operatorname{St}_G(u)$. Therefore, we get $$\varphi_u(h)\varphi_u(r) = g,$$ with $\varphi_u(h)\in H_u$ and $\varphi_u(r) \in \operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_{G_u}(n)$. This shows that $H_u\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_{G_u}(n) = G_u$.
As we have seen above, for weakly branch groups, the projection of any prodense subgroup to a vertex is still a prodense subgroup. However, to determine whether a group belongs to ${\mathcal{MF}}$ or not, we need to study *proper* prodense subgroups. The next theorem tells us that the projections of proper prodense subgroups stay proper.
\[thm:ProjectionsOfProperDenseAreProper\] Let $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on a rooted tree $T$, $H\leq G$ be a prodense subgroup and $u\in T$ be any vertex. Then, $H$ is a proper subgroup of $G$ if and only if $H_u$ is a proper subgroup of $G_u$.
If $H_u\ne G_u$, then clearly $H\ne G$. Let us now assume that $H\ne G$ and let us show that $H_u \ne G_u$. It suffices to prove this fact for $u\in L_1$, where $L_1$ is the first level of the rooted tree $T$. Indeed, if this property holds on the first level of the rooted tree, we can then use induction to prove it for $u$ on any level thanks to Lemma \[lemma:ProjectionsOfDenseAreDense\].
Therefore, let $u\in L_1$ be a vertex on the first level of the tree and let us assume for the sake of contradiction that $H\ne G$ but $H_u=G_u$.
The rigid stabiliser of the vertex $u$ in $H$, $\operatorname{Rist}_H(u) = \operatorname{Rist}_G(u) \cap H$, is a normal subgroup of $\operatorname{St}_H(u)$. Since $H_u=G_u$, it is also a normal subgroup of $\operatorname{St}_G(u)$. Indeed, for any $g\in \operatorname{St}_G(u)$, there exists $h\in \operatorname{St}_H(u)$ such that $\varphi_u(g) = \varphi_u(h)$. Hence, since any $r\in \operatorname{Rist}_H(u)$ acts trivially outside of $T_u$, the subtree rooted at $u$, we have $$grg^{-1} = hrh^{-1} \in \operatorname{Rist}_H(u).$$ Since $\operatorname{St}_G(1) \leq \operatorname{St}_G(u)$, we have that $\operatorname{Rist}_H(u) \trianglelefteq \operatorname{St}_G(1)$.
Now, since $G$ acts transitively on $L_1$ and since $H\operatorname{St}_G(1) = G$, we conclude that $H$ must also act transitively on $L_1$. Therefore, for any $v\in L_1$, there exists $h\in H$ such that $\operatorname{St}_H(v) = h\operatorname{St}_H(u)h^{-1}$. Hence, $$H_v = \varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_H(v)) = h_u G_u h_u^{-1} = G_v$$ for all $v\in L_1$. It follows that $\operatorname{Rist}_H(v) \trianglelefteq \operatorname{St}_G(1)$ for all $v\in X$. Therefore, $$\operatorname{Rist}_H(1) = \prod_{v\in X}\operatorname{Rist}_H(v) \trianglelefteq \operatorname{St}_G(1).$$ Since $\operatorname{Rist}_H(1) \trianglelefteq H$ and $H\operatorname{St}_G(1) = G$, we conclude that $$\operatorname{Rist}_H(1) \trianglelefteq G.$$ This implies that $\operatorname{Rist}_H(1) = \{1\}$. Indeed, otherwise, by hypothesis, we would have $H\operatorname{Rist}_H(1) = G$, which is absurd since $H\operatorname{Rist}_H(1) = H$ and $H\ne G$.
Let $U\subset L_1$ be a subset of vertices of the first level such that $\operatorname{Rist}_H(U)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1) \ne \{1\}$ and whose cardinality is minimal for this property. Note that such a set must exist, since $\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1) = \operatorname{St}_H(1)$, which is clearly non-trivial. By transitivity, we can assume that $u\in U$. As we have seen above, $\operatorname{Rist}_H(u)=\{1\}$, which implies that $2\leq |U| \leq |L_1|$.
We are going to show that there must exist a surjective homomorphism $$\alpha\colon \varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|)) \rightarrow \varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))$$ for some $v\in T \setminus T_u$.
Let us consider the (possibly trivial) subgroup $\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)$ of elements of $\operatorname{St}_H(1)$ that are sent to the identity by $\varphi_u$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1), \operatorname{Rist}_H(U)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)\right]&\leq \operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\} \cap U) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1) \\
&=\operatorname{Rist}_H(U\setminus \{u\})\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1) \\
&=1,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is due to the minimality of $U$. We conclude that $\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)$ and $\operatorname{Rist}_H(U)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)$ commute.
Now, let us fix some $w\in U\setminus \{u\}$. Notice that such a $w$ exists, since $|U|\geq 2$. Since $\varphi_w|_{\operatorname{St}_H(w)}$ is a homomorphism, we must have that $\varphi_w\left(\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)\right)$ and $\varphi_w\left(\operatorname{Rist}_H(U)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)\right)$ commute. Notice that both of these subgroups are normal in $\varphi_w(\operatorname{St}_H(1))$, since $\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)$ and $\operatorname{Rist}_H(U)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)$ are normal subgroups of $\operatorname{St}_H(1)$. Now, since $\operatorname{St}_H(1)$ is normal in $\operatorname{St}_H(w)$, and since $\varphi_w(\operatorname{St}_H(w)) = G_w$, we get that $\varphi_w(\operatorname{St}_H(1))$ is a normal subgroup of $G_w$. Thus, $\varphi_w\left(\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)\right)$ and $\varphi_w\left(\operatorname{Rist}_H(U)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)\right)$ are both $2$-subnormal subgroups of $G_w$.
By the minimality of the size of $U$, we know that $\varphi_w\left(\operatorname{Rist}_H(U)\cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)\right)$ is non-trivial. Therefore, it follows from Corollary \[cor:CommutingSubnormalHaveVertexTrivialAction\] that there exists some $v\in T_w$ (possibly equal to $w$) such that $\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1) \leq \operatorname{St}_H(v)$ and $$\varphi_v\left(\operatorname{Rist}_H(L_1\setminus \{u\}) \cap \operatorname{St}_H(1)\right)=1.$$ This implies that the kernel of the map $$\varphi_u|_{\operatorname{St}_H(|v|)} \colon \operatorname{St}_H(|v|) \rightarrow \varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))$$ is contained in the kernel of the map $$\varphi_v|_{\operatorname{St}_H(|v|)} \colon \operatorname{St}_H(|v|) \rightarrow \varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|)).$$ Therefore, we have a well-defined homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha \colon \varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))&\rightarrow \varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))\\
g &\mapsto \varphi_v(\tilde{g})\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{g}\in \operatorname{St}_H(|v|)$ is any element such that $\varphi_u(\tilde{g}) = g$. Since, for any $\tilde{g}\in \operatorname{St}_H(|v|)$, we have $\alpha(\varphi_u(\tilde{g}))=\varphi_v(\tilde{g})$, we see that this homomorphism is surjective.
We will now derive a contradiction from the existence of this homomorphism and the fact that $H$ is prodense in $G$.
Let $r\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(v)$ be any non-trivial element of the rigid stabiliser of $v$. Such an element exists since $G$ is a weakly branch group. Notice that since we have shown that $\operatorname{Rist}_H(w)=1$ for all $w\in L_1$, we must have that $r\notin H$.
Let us consider $\varphi_v(r)\in \varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_G(|v|))$. Since $r$ is non-trivial and in the rigid stabiliser of $v$, we have that $\varphi_v(r)$ is non-trivial. Therefore, there must exist $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\varphi_v(r)\notin \operatorname{St}_{G_v}(n)$. Let us write $$K=\alpha^{-1}(\operatorname{St}_{\varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))}(n)) \leq \varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|)).$$ As $\operatorname{St}_{\varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))}(n)$ is a normal subgroup of finite index of $\varphi_v(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))$, we have that $K$ is a normal subgroup of finite index of $\varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))$. Now, we know that $\operatorname{St}_H(|v|)$ is a normal subgroup of finite index in $\operatorname{St}_H(u)$. Therefore, we have that $\varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(|v|))$ is a normal subgroup of finite index of $\varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(u)) = G_u$. This means that $K$ is a subgroup of finite index of $G_u$. Let $L$ be the normal core of $K$ in $G_u$. Then, $L$ is a normal subgroup of $G_u$ of finite index. It follows from Lemma \[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\] and the fact that $G_u$ is a weakly branch group that there exists some $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_{G_u}(k) \leq L$. Let us define $m$ as the maximum between $k$ and $|v|+n-1$.
Let us consider $\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(m+1)$. We know that this is a normal subgroup of $G$. Thus, since $H$ is prodense, we have that $H\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(m+1)=G$. In particular, this means there exist $h\in H$ and $g\in \operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(m+1)$ such that $hg=r$, where $r$ was defined above. Since $r\in \operatorname{St}_G(|v|)$ and since $\operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(m+1) \leq \operatorname{St}_G(m+1) \leq \operatorname{St}_G(|v|)$, we must have $h\in \operatorname{St}_G(|v|)$, and so $h\in \operatorname{St}_H(|v|)$.
Furthermore, since $\varphi_u(r)=1$, we find that $\varphi_u(h)=\varphi_u(g)^{-1}$. As $g\in \operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_G(m+1)$, we must have $\varphi_u(g)\in \operatorname{Rist}^{(1)}_{G_u}(m) \leq L$. Therefore, $\varphi_u(h)\in L$.
Let us now consider $\varphi_v(r) = \varphi_v(h)\varphi_v(g)$. Since $h\in \operatorname{St}_H(|v|)$, we must have $$\varphi_v(h) = \alpha(\varphi_u(h)) \in \alpha(L) \leq \alpha(K) \leq \operatorname{St}_{G_v}(n).$$ Since $g\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(m+1)\leq \operatorname{St}_G(m+1) \leq \operatorname{St}_G(|v|+n)$, we must have $\varphi_v(g)\leq \operatorname{St}_{G_v}(n)$. Therefore, we get $\varphi_v(r)\in \operatorname{St}_{G_v}(n)$, which contradicts our choice of $r$ and $n$.
Since assuming that $H_u=G_u$ led us to a contradiction, we must conclude that $H_u\ne G_u$.
We have just shown that the projections of proper prodense subgroups are proper prodense subgroups. We will now see that if we have a maximal subgroup of infinite index of a weakly branch group, then its projections are also maximal subgroups of infinite index.
Recall from Proposition \[prop:QuotientsOfBranchGroupsAreinMF\] that for branch groups, every proper quotient is always in ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
\[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\] Let $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on a rooted tree $T$, and suppose that every proper quotient of $G$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$. If $M<G$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$ of infinite index, then $M_v$ is a maximal subgroup of infinite index of $G_v$ for every $v\in T$.
Since $M$ is a maximal subgroup of infinite index and since every proper quotient of $G$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$, we have that $M$ is a proper prodense subgroup of $G$. Then, by Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOfProperDenseAreProper\], we know that $M_v$ is a proper prodense subgroup of $G_v$. It thus only remains to show that it is maximal.
For the sake of contradiction, let us assume that $M_v$ is not maximal in $G_v$. Then, there exists $g\in G_v$ such that $$M_v \lneq \langle M_v, g \rangle \lneq G_v.$$ By the definition of $G_v$, there exists $\tilde{g}\in \operatorname{St}_G(v)$ such that $\varphi_v(\tilde{g})=g$. Since $M$ is prodense in $G$, we have that $M\operatorname{St}_G(|v|)=G$. Therefore, there exists $\tilde{m}\in M$ and $\tilde{s}\in \operatorname{St}_G(|v|)$ such that $\tilde{g}=\tilde{m}\tilde{s}$. Since both $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{s}$ belong to $\operatorname{St}_G(v)$, we must have that $\tilde{m}\in \operatorname{St}_G(v)$. Therefore, we have $$\varphi_v(\tilde{s}) = \varphi_v(\tilde{m}^{-1}\tilde{g}) = \varphi_v(\tilde{m}^{-1})g.$$ Since $\tilde{m}\in M$, we have $\varphi_v(\tilde{m}^{-1})\in M_v$. We conclude that $\langle M_v, g \rangle = \langle M_v,\varphi_v(\tilde{m}^{-1})g \rangle $. Thus, replacing $g$ by $\varphi_v(\tilde{m}^{-1})g$ and $\tilde{g}$ by $\tilde{s}$ if necessary, we can assume that $\tilde{g}\in \operatorname{St}_G(|v|)$.
Now, let $w\in L_{|v|}$ be any vertex of level $|v|$ different from $v$. Since $\operatorname{Rist}_G(w)$ is a normal subgroup of $\operatorname{St}_G(w)$, we have that $\varphi_w(\operatorname{Rist}_G(w))$ is a normal subgroup of $G_w$. By Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOfProperDenseAreProper\], we know that $M_w$ is a proper prodense subgroup of $G_w$. Therefore, we have that $M_w\varphi_w(\operatorname{Rist}_G(w)) = G_w$. Consequently, there exist $m_w \in M_w$ and $r_w\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(w)$ such that $m_w\varphi_w(r_w) = \varphi_w(\tilde{g})$.
Let $$\hat{g} = \tilde{g}\prod_{w\in L_{|v|}\setminus \{v\}}r_w^{-1} \in \operatorname{St}_G(|v|).$$ Then, for every $w\in L_{|v|}\setminus \{v\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_w(\hat{g}) &= \varphi_w(\tilde{g})\prod_{w'\in X\setminus \{v\}}\varphi_{w'}(r_{w'})^{-1} \\
&= \varphi_w(\tilde{g})\varphi_w(r_w)^{-1} \\
&= m_w \in M_w\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality comes from the fact that $r_{w'}\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(w')$, so $\varphi_w(r_{w'})=1$ if $w\ne w'$. Furthermore, by a similar computation, we have that $\varphi_v(\hat{g}) = g$.
Since $g\notin M_v$ by construction, we must have that $\hat{g}\notin M$. Let us write $H=\langle M, \hat{g} \rangle$. By the maximality of $M$, we must have that $H = G$. However, we will now prove that $$H_v = \langle M_v, g \rangle \lneq G_v,$$ which will contradict the fact that $H = G$.
Let $h\in \operatorname{St}_H(v)$ be an arbitrary element of $H$ stabilising $v$. Since $h\in H = \langle M, \hat{g} \rangle$, there exist $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $i_1,\dots, i_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\mu_1, \dots, \mu_{n+1} \in M$ such that $$h = \mu_1 \hat{g}^{i_1} \mu_1^{-1} \mu_2 \hat{g}^{i_2}\mu_2^{-1} \dots \mu_n \hat{g}^{i_n} \mu_{n}^{-1} \mu_{n+1}.$$ Notice that since $\hat{g}\in \operatorname{St}_G(|v|)$, we must have that $\mu_{j}g^{i_j}\mu_{j}^{-1} \in \operatorname{St}_G(|v|)$ for all $1\leq j \leq n$, and since $h\in \operatorname{St}_G(v)$, this implies that $\mu_{n+1}\in \operatorname{St}_M(v)$.
We will now see that for all $1\leq j \leq n$, we must have $$\varphi_v(\mu_j\hat{g}^{i_j} \mu_j^{-1}) \in \langle M_v, g \rangle.$$ Indeed, if $\mu_j\in \operatorname{St}_G(v)$, then we have $$\varphi_v(\mu_j\hat{g}^{i_j} \mu_j^{-1}) = \varphi_v(\mu_j)g^{i_j}\varphi_v(\mu_j)^{-1} \in \langle M_v, g \rangle.$$ If $\mu_j\notin \operatorname{St}_G(v)$, then we have $\mu_j^{-1}\cdot v \ne v$. Let us set $w=\mu_j^{-1}\cdot v$. We have that $$\varphi_v(\mu_j\hat{g}^{i_j} \mu_j^{-1}) = \varphi_{w}(\mu_j)m_w^{i_j}\varphi_w(\mu_j)^{-1}.$$ Now, since $m_w^{i_j}\in M_w$, there exists some $\nu \in \operatorname{St}_M(w)$ such that $\varphi_w(\nu) = m_w^{i_j}$. It follows that $$\varphi_v(\mu_j\hat{g}^{i_j} \mu_j^{-1}) =\varphi_v(\mu_j\nu \mu_j^{-1}).$$ Since $\nu\in \operatorname{St}_M(w)$ and since $\mu_j\in M$, we have that $\mu_j\nu \mu_j^{-1} \in \operatorname{St}_M(\mu_j\cdot w) = \operatorname{St}_M(v)$. Therefore, we conclude that $\varphi_v(\mu_j\hat{g}^{i_j} \mu_j^{-1})\in M_v$.
Finally, since $\mu_{n+1}\in \operatorname{St}_M(v)$, we have that $\varphi_v(\mu_{n+1})\in M_v$. Thus, we see that $\varphi_v(h) \in \langle M_v, g \rangle$. This concludes the proof.
Using the above results, we can show that every maximal subgroup of infinite index of a branch group is again a branch group. For this, we first need a lemma.
\[lemma:RistMax\] Let $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on a rooted tree $T$ such that every proper quotient of $G$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$, and let $M<G$ be a maximal subgroup of infinite index of $G$. Then, for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have $\operatorname{Rist}_M(n)=\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M$.
It is clear that $\operatorname{Rist}_M(n)\leq \operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M$. Thus, we only need to show the other inclusion. Let $g\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M$ be any element. Then, by the definition of $\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$, there exists for all $v\in L_n$ an element $g_v\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(v)$ such that $$g=\prod_{v\in L_n}g_v.$$ Since $g\in M$, we have $\varphi_v(g)\in M_v$ for all $v\in L_n$. Notice that we have $\varphi_v(g)=\varphi_v(g_v)$, since $\varphi_v(g_w)=1$ for all $w\ne v$.
Let us fix some $v\in L_n$, and let us define $H=\langle M, g_v \rangle$. Since $\varphi_v(g_v)\in M_v$ and $\varphi_w(g_v)=1$, it is easy to see that we have $H_v=M_v$. As $M_v$ is a proper subgroup of $G_v$ by Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOfProperDenseAreProper\], we conclude that $H\ne G$. Therefore, by the maximality of $M$, we have $H=M$, which implies that $g_v\in \operatorname{Rist}_M(v)$. As this is true for all $v\in L_n$, we get that $g\in \operatorname{Rist}_M(n)$.
\[thm:MaxSubgroupsOfBranchAreBranch\] Let $G$ be a branch group acting on a rooted tree $T$, and let $M<G$ be a maximal subgroup of infinite index of $G$. Then, $M$ is a branch group for its action on $T$.
By Lemma \[lemma:RistMax\], for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we have $\operatorname{Rist}_M(n)=\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M$. Therefore, $$[M:\operatorname{Rist}_M(n)] = [M:\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M] \leq [G:\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)]<\infty,$$ so $M$ is a branch group.
We also have a corresponding result in the case where $G$ is a weakly branch group.
\[thm:MaxSubgroupsOfWeaklyBranchAreWeaklyBranch\] Let $G$ be a weakly branch group acting on a rooted tree $T$, and suppose that every proper quotient of $G$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$. Let $M<G$ be a maximal subgroup of infinite index of $G$. Then, $M$ is a weakly branch group for its action on $T$.
By Lemma \[lemma:RistMax\], we know that $\operatorname{Rist}_M(n)=\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M$ for all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. We thus need to show that $\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M$ is non-trivial for every $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
Let us fix some $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and let $r_1\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$ be a non-trivial element of $\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$. If $r_1\in M$, then $\operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M\ne 1$. If not,by the non-triviality of $r_1$, there must exist $m>n$ such that $r_1\notin \operatorname{St}_G(m)$. In particular, $r_1\notin \operatorname{Rist}_G(m)$. Using the fact that $M$ is prodense, there must exist $h\in M$ and $r_2\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(m)$ such that $hr_2=r_1$. Therefore, we have $h=r_1r_2^{-1}$. Since $r_1\notin \operatorname{Rist}_G(m)$, we know that $r_1r_2^{-1}\ne 1$, and since $m>n$, we have $\operatorname{Rist}_G(m)\leq \operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$, and thus $r_1r_2^{-1}\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$. We conclude that $r_1r_2^{-1}\in \operatorname{Rist}_G(n)\cap M$, and thus this subgroup is non-trivial. This concludes the proof.
Maximal subgroup of the Basilica group {#section:Basilica}
======================================
In this section, as an application of Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\], we prove that every maximal subgroup of the Basilica group is of finite index. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of a weakly branch but not branch group belonging to the class ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
The Basilica group
------------------
Before we study its maximal subgroups, let us first give a definition of the Basilica group and list some of its properties that will be relevant to our investigation. We refer the interested reader to [@GrigorchukZuk02] for more information about this group.
Let $X=\{\boldsymbol{0}, \boldsymbol{1}\}$ be an alphabet of two letters, let $\sigma\in \operatorname{Sym}(X)$ be the non-trivial permutation on $X$, and let $a,b\in \operatorname{Aut}(X^*)$ be the automorphisms of the rooted tree $X^*$ defined by the recursive formulas $$\psi_1(a) = (1,b) \qquad \psi_1(b)=\sigma(a,1).$$ The *Basilica group* ${\mathcal{B}}=\langle a, b \rangle \leq \operatorname{Aut}(X^*)$ is the group of automorphisms of the rooted tree $X^*$ generated by $a$ and $b$.
In [@GrigorchukZuk02], Grigorchuk and Żuk defined the Basilica group by a right-action on the rooted tree $X^*$, but it is easy to check that the corresponding left-action, defined by $g\cdot x = x\cdot g^{-1}$, gives rise to the recursion formulas given above.
The following theorem collects a few properties of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ that were proved by Grigorchuk and Żuk in [@GrigorchukZuk02]. We refer the reader to that text for the proofs.
\[thm:FactsAboutBasilica\] Let ${\mathcal{B}}=\langle a,b \rangle$ be the Basilica group. Then,
1. ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a self-replicating, regular weakly branch group over its derived subgroup ${\mathcal{B}}'$ (see Definitions \[defn:SelfSimilarGroup\] and \[defn:RegularBranch\]),
2. ${\mathcal{B}}$ is torsion-free,
3. the semigroup generated by $a$ and $b$ is free (so in particular, ${\mathcal{B}}$ is of exponential growth),
4. ${\mathcal{B}}/{\mathcal{B}}' \cong \langle a \rangle \times \langle b \rangle \cong {\mathbb{Z}}^2$.
In the same article, Grigorchuk and Żuk also obtained a presentation for ${\mathcal{B}}$, which will be useful later on.
\[thm:PresentationOfBasilica\] The Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ has the presentation $${\mathcal{B}}= \langle a,b \mid \lambda^{k}(\tau_m), m=2l+1, k\in {\mathbb{N}}, l\in {\mathbb{N}}\rangle$$ where $$\tau_m = [b^{-m}ab^{m}, a]$$ and $$\lambda \colon \begin{cases}
a\mapsto b^2\\
b\mapsto a.
\end{cases}$$
The derived subgroup of B
-------------------------
According to Theorem \[thm:FactsAboutBasilica\], the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a regular weakly branch group over its derived subgroup ${\mathcal{B}}'$. For this reason, having a good description of ${\mathcal{B}}'$ will be very useful later on in the study of subgroups and quotients of ${\mathcal{B}}$. In this subsection, we prove that ${\mathcal{B}}'$ is a finitely generated group and give a minimal set of generators. We believe that these results could also be of independent interest to anyone studying the Basilica group.
We begin by introducing some notation which will hopefully help to make the computations that follow more readable.
\[notation:CommutatorsBasilica\] Let ${\mathcal{B}}=\langle a, b \rangle$ be the Basilica group, with $a$ and $b$ as above. For all $s,t\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we will write $$\alpha_{s,t} = [a^s, b^t],$$ where $[a^s,b^t] = a^{-s}b^{-t}a^sb^t$.
The following proposition establishes some relations between these commutators.
\[prop:CommutatorIdentities\] For all $s,t\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we have the following relations in ${\mathcal{B}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{s,2t+1} &= \left(\alpha_{1,1}(\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}\alpha_{1,1})^{t}\right)^{s} \\
\alpha_{s,2t} &= \alpha_{1,1}^{s-1}\left(\alpha_{1,2}^{t}\alpha_{1,1}^{-1}\right)^{s-1}\alpha_{1,2}^t\end{aligned}$$
The proof is a direct computation, using the injectivity of the map $\psi_1$ defined in Proposition \[prop:Psin\]. We will make frequent use of the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1(\alpha_{1,1}) &= (a^{-1}ba, b^{-1})\\
\psi_1(\alpha_{1,-1}) &= (b, b^{-1}) \\
\psi_1(\alpha_{1,2}) &= (1, b^{-1}a^{-1}ba) = (1, \alpha_{1,1}^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$
By direct computation, we find $$\psi_1(\alpha_{s,2t+1}) = (a^{-t-1}b^sa^{t+1}, b^{-s}).$$ Therefore, it follows from the injectivity of $\psi_1$ that we have $$\alpha_{s,2t+1} = \alpha_{1,2t+1}^s.$$ Using this fact, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1((\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}\alpha_{1,1})^t) &= (b^{-1}a^{-1}ba, 1)^t \\
&=(\alpha_{1,1}^{-1},1)^t \\
&=(\alpha_{t,1}^{-1}, 1).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1\left(\left(\alpha_{1,1}(\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}\alpha_{1,1})^{t}\right)^{s}\right) &= (a^{-1}ba \alpha_{t,1}^{-1}, b^{-1})^s \\
&=(a^{-1}bab^{-1}a^{-t}ba^t, b^{-1})^s \\
&=(\alpha_{1,-1}a^{-t}ba^{t}, b^{-1})^s\\
&=(\alpha_{1,-1}a^{-t}\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}a^{-1}ba^{t+1}, b^{-1})^s\\
&=((\alpha_{1,-1}a^{-t}\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}a^t)(a^{-t-1}ba^{t+1}), b^{-1})^{s}\\
&=([\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}, a^{t}](a^{-t-1}ba^{t+1}), b^{-1})^s.\end{aligned}$$ Now, using the fact that $\psi_1(\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}) = (b^{-1}, b)$ and $\psi_1(a^{t}) = (1, b^{t})$, we see that $\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}$ and $a^{t}$ commute. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1\left(\left(\alpha_{1,1}(\alpha_{1,-1}^{-1}\alpha_{1,1})^{t}\right)^{s}\right) &=((a^{-t-1}ba^{t+1})^s, b^{-s}) \\
&=\psi_1(\alpha_{s,2t+1}).\end{aligned}$$ The first relation then immediately follows from the injectivity of $\psi_1$.
To prove the second relation, let us notice that from direct computations, we immediately get $$\psi_1(\alpha_{s,2t}) = (1, \alpha_{t,s}^{-1}).$$ Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1((\alpha_{1,2}^t\alpha_{1,1}^{-1})^{s-1}) &= (a^{-1}b^{-1}a, \alpha_{1,1}^{-t}b)^{s-1}\\
&= (a^{-1}b^{1-s}a, (\alpha_{t,1}^{-1}b)^{s-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1(\alpha_{1,1}^{s-1}\left(\alpha_{1,2}^{t}\alpha_{1,1}^{-1}\right)^{s-1}\alpha_{1,2}^t) &= (1, b^{1-s}(\alpha_{t,1}^{-1}b)^{s-1}\alpha_{t,1}^{-1}) \\
&=(1, b^{-s+1}(\alpha_{t,1}^{-1}b)^sb^{-1})\\
&=(1, b^{-s+1}([b,a^t]b)^sb^{-1}) \\
&=(1, b^{-s+1}(b^{-1}a^{-t}ba^{t}b)^sb^{-1})\\
&=(1, b^{-s}a^{-t}b^sa^t) \\
&=\psi_1(\alpha_{s,2t}).\end{aligned}$$ This proves the second relation.
The previous proposition implies that the derived subgroup of the Basilica group is generated by only three elements.
\[prop:GeneratorsOfCommutatorSubgroup\] The derived subgroup ${\mathcal{B}}'$ of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ is generated by $\alpha_{1,1}=[a,b]$, $\alpha_{1,-1}=[a,b^{-1}]$ and $\alpha_{1,2}=[a,b^2]$.
Since the Basilica group is generated by two elements, $a$ and $b$, its commutator subgroup ${\mathcal{B}}'$ is generated by the set $$\{\alpha_{s,t}=[a^s,b^t] | s,t\in \mathbb{Z} \}.$$ It then follows from Proposition \[prop:CommutatorIdentities\] that ${\mathcal{B}}'$ is generated by $\alpha_{1,1}$, $\alpha_{1,-1}$ and $\alpha_{1,2}$.
It turns out that this generating set is minimal. However, to prove this, we will need a better understanding of the quotients of ${\mathcal{B}}$, so we postpone the proof of this fact to the next subsection (Proposition \[prop:AbelianizationOfB’IsZ3\]).
Quotients of B
--------------
To use Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\] to study maximal subgroups of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$, we first need to show that every proper quotient of ${\mathcal{B}}$ belongs to the class ${\mathcal{MF}}$. Let us first notice that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is not a branch group, so we cannot simply use Proposition \[prop:QuotientsOfBranchGroupsAreinMF\]. To show this, we first observe that the discrete Heisenberg group $H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ is a quotient of ${\mathcal{B}}$.
\[prop:HeisenbergIsQuotientOfBasilica\] Let $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})=[{\mathcal{B}}',{\mathcal{B}}]$ be the third term in the lower central series of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$, and let $H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ be the discrete Heisenberg group. Then, ${\mathcal{B}}/\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}) \cong H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$.
By Theorem \[thm:PresentationOfBasilica\] and the fact that $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$ is normally generated by $[[a,b],a]$ and $[[a,b],b]$, we have $${\mathcal{B}}/\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}) = \langle a,b \mid [[a,b],a], [[a,b],b], \lambda^k(\tau_m), m\in 2{\mathbb{N}}+1, k\in {\mathbb{N}}\rangle$$ with $$\tau_m = [b^{-m}ab^{m}, a]$$ and $$\lambda \colon \begin{cases}
a\mapsto b^2\\
b\mapsto a.
\end{cases}$$ Let $F(a,b)$ be the free group on $a$ and $b$. Then, for all $m,n\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and for $x,y\in \{a,b\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[x^{-m}y^{n}x^{m}, y^{n}] &= y^{-n}y^{n}x^{-m}y^{-n}x^{m}y^{-n}x^{-m}y^{n}x^{m}y^{-n}y^{n}y^{n} \\
&=y^{-n}[y^{-n},x^{m}]y^{-n}[x^{m},y^{-n}]y^{n}y^n \\
&=y^{-n}[[x^m,y^{-n}], y^n]y^n\\
&\in \gamma_3(F(a,b)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_3(F(a,b))$ is the third term in the lower central series of $F(a,b)$.
Since $\gamma_3(F(a,b))$ is normally generated by $[[a,b],a]$ and $[[a,b],b]$, we conclude by the above that $\lambda^k(\tau_m)$ is a consequence of these two relations for all $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $m\in 2{\mathbb{N}}+1$. Therefore, we have $${\mathcal{B}}/\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}) = \langle a,b \mid [[a,b],a], [[a,b],b] \rangle$$ which is the presentation of the discrete Heisenberg group $H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$.
As a direct consequence, we get that the Basilica group is not a branch group.
\[cor:BasilicaIsNotBranch\] The Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ is not a branch group.
It follows from Lemma \[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\] that every proper quotient of a branch group is virtually abelian. However, by Proposition \[prop:HeisenbergIsQuotientOfBasilica\], ${\mathcal{B}}$ admits the discrete Heisenberg group $H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ as a quotient, and this quotient must be proper by Lemma \[lemma:RistNotSolvable\]. As $H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ is not virtually abelian, we conclude that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is not a branch group.
Therefore, before we can use Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\], we first need to prove that every proper quotient of ${\mathcal{B}}$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$. In fact, we will prove something stronger, namely that every proper quotient of ${\mathcal{B}}$ is virtually nilpotent. This is indeed stronger, since every finitely generated virtually nilpotent group is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
To prove that every proper quotient is virtually nilpotent, since ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a weakly regular branch group over ${\mathcal{B}}'$, it is sufficient to prove that ${\mathcal{B}}/{\mathcal{B}}''$ is virtually nilpotent, as the next theorem shows.
\[thm:QuotientsOfWeaklyBranchGroups\] Let $X$ be a finite alphabet of size $d$, let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(X^*)$ be a regular weakly branch group over a normal subgroup $K$, and let $\mathcal{P}$ be a property of groups that is preserved under taking finite direct products, quotients and subgroups. Then, every proper quotient of $G$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$ (i.e. contains a subgroup of finite index with property $\mathcal{P}$) if and only if $G/K'$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$.
As $K$ cannot be abelian by Lemmas \[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\] and \[lemma:RistNotSolvable\], $G/K'$ is a proper quotient, so the necessity is obvious. Let us show that if $G/K'$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$, then so is every proper quotient of $G$.
Let $N\trianglelefteq G$ be a non-trivial normal subgroup of $G$. According to Lemma \[lemma:SubnormalContainsDerivedRist\], there exists $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\operatorname{Rist}'_G(n) \leq N$. Now, by definition of a regular weakly branch group over $K$, we have that there exists a subgroup $K_n\leq K$ such that $K^{d^n} = \psi_n(K_n)$. In particular, we see that $K_n \leq \operatorname{Rist}_G(n)$. Consequently, we have that $K_n' \leq \operatorname{Rist}'_G(n) \leq N$.
As $K$ is normal in $G$ and as $G$ is self-similar, it follows from its definition that $K_n$ must also be a normal subgroup of $G$. Consequently, as $K'_n$ is a characteristic subgroup of $K_n$, we have that $K'_n$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. Hence, we can take the quotient $G/K'_n$.
If we can prove that $G/K'_n$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$, then this will imply that $G/N$ is also virtually $\mathcal{P}$. Indeed, as $K'_n \leq N \leq G$, we have that $$G/N \cong \left(G/K'_n\right) \bigg/ \left(N/K'_n\right).$$ If $G/K'_n$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$, then by the correspondence theorem, there exists $H\leq G$ of finite index such that $K'_n\leq H$ and such that $H/K'_n$ has $\mathcal{P}$. Since $\mathcal{P}$ is preserved by taking quotients, we have that $$HN/N \cong (H/K'_n)\bigg/(N/K'_n)\cap(H/K'_n)$$ has $\mathcal{P}$. It is also of finite index in $G/N$, since $H$ is of finite index in $G$.
Thus, it suffices to prove that $G/K'_n$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$. In fact, since $K'_n \leq \operatorname{St}_G(n)$ and since $\operatorname{St}_G(n)$ is of finite index in $G$, it suffices to prove that $\operatorname{St}_G(n)/K'_n$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$.
Now, since $G$ is self-similar, we have $\psi_n(\operatorname{St}_G(n)) \leq \left(G\right)^{d^n}$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_n(\operatorname{St}_G(n))/\psi_n(K'_n) &\leq \left(G\right)^{d^n} / (K')^{d^n} \\
&= \left(G/K'\right)^{d^n}. \end{aligned}$$
As $G/K'$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$, there exists a finite index subgroup $H\leq G$ containing $K'$ such that $H/K'$ has property $\mathcal{P}$. Since property $\mathcal{P}$ is preserved by finite direct products, $\left(H/K'\right)^{d^n}$ is a finite index subgroup of $\left(G/K'\right)^{d^n}$ with property $\mathcal{P}$. Let us set $L=\psi_n^{-1}(H^{d^n}\cap \psi_n(\operatorname{St}_G(n)))$. As $K'\leq H$, we clearly have that $K'_n \leq L$. We claim that $L$ is a finite index subgroup of $\operatorname{St}_G(n)$ such that $L/K'_n$ has $\mathcal{P}$.
To see that $L$ is of finite index in $\operatorname{St}_G(n)$, it suffices to notice that since $H^{d^n}$ is of finite index in $G^{d^n}$, we have that $H^{d^n}\cap \psi_n(\operatorname{St}_G(n))$ is of finite index in $\psi_n(\operatorname{St}_G(n))$. Since $\psi_n$ restricted to $\operatorname{St}_G(n)$ is an isomorphism onto its image, we conclude that $L$ is of finite index in $\operatorname{St}_G(n)$. To see that $L/K'_n$ has $\mathcal{P}$, it suffices to notice that $\psi_n$ gives us an isomorphism between $L/K'_n$ and $$(H^{d^n}\cap \psi_n(\operatorname{St}_G(n)))/(K')^{d^n} \leq (H/K')^{d^n}.$$ Since $(H/K')^{d^n}$ has $\mathcal{P}$ and since $\mathcal{P}$ is inherited by subgroups, we conclude that $L/K'_n$ has $\mathcal{P}$. This proves that $G/K'_n$ is virtually $\mathcal{P}$ and thus concludes the proof.
We thus only need to show that ${\mathcal{B}}/{\mathcal{B}}''$ is virtually nilpotent. For this, we will require the following lemma, which is Lemma 9 in [@GrigorchukZuk02]. However, since the proof in [@GrigorchukZuk02] relies on Lemma 8 of [@GrigorchukZuk02], whose proof contains a mistake, we give here a different proof.
\[lemma:B”IsGamma3TimesGamma3\] Let $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})=[{\mathcal{B}}',{\mathcal{B}}]$ be the third term in the lower central series of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ and let ${\mathcal{B}}''$ be its second derived subgroup. Then, we have $$\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'') = \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}).$$
Let us first show that $\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'')\leq \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$. It follows from Proposition \[prop:GeneratorsOfCommutatorSubgroup\] that ${\mathcal{B}}''$ is generated by the conjugates in ${\mathcal{B}}'$ of $[\alpha_{1,1},\alpha_{1,-1}]$, $[\alpha_{1,1},\alpha_{1,2}]$ and $[\alpha_{1,-1},\alpha_{1,2}]$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1([\alpha_{1,1},\alpha_{1,-1}])&=[(a^{-1}ba,b^{-1}), (b,b^{-1})]\\
&=(a^{-1}b^{-1}ab^{-1}a^{-1}bab,1)\\
&=([[b,a],b],1) \in \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1([\alpha_{1,1},\alpha_{1,2}]) &=[(a^{-1}ba,b^{-1}), (1,[b,a])]\\
&=(1,[b^{-1},[b,a]])\\
&=(1,[[b,a],b^{-1}]^{-1})\in \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1([\alpha_{1,-1},\alpha_{1,2}])&=[(b,b^{-1}), (1,[b,a])]\\
&=(1,[b^{-1},[b,a]])\\
&=(1,[[b,a],b^{-1}]^{-1})\in \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$ is a normal subgroup of ${\mathcal{B}}$, any conjugate of these elements will also belong to $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$. Therefore, ${\mathcal{B}}''\leq \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$.
Now, let us show that $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}) \leq \psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'')$. Since ${\mathcal{B}}$ is generated by $a$ and $b$, we have that $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$ is normally generated in ${\mathcal{B}}$ by $[[b,a],a]$ and $[[b,a],b]$. Since $$[[b,a],a] = [(a^{-1}b^{-1}a,b), (1,b)] = 1,$$ we conclude that $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$ is normally generated by $[[b,a],b]$. We have computed above that $$\psi_1([\alpha_{1,1},\alpha_{1,-1}])=([[b,a],b],1) \in \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times 1.$$ Since ${\mathcal{B}}''$ is normal in ${\mathcal{B}}$ and since ${\mathcal{B}}$ is self-replicating, we conclude that $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times 1 \leq \psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'')$. Conjugating by $b$, we then get that $1 \times \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}) \leq \psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'')$, from which we conclude that $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}}) \leq \psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'')$.
Using this lemma, we can show that ${\mathcal{B}}/{\mathcal{B}}''$ is virtually nilpotent.
\[lemma:BOverB”VirtuallyNilpotent\] The group ${\mathcal{B}}/{\mathcal{B}}''$ is virtually nilpotent.
Thanks to Lemma \[lemma:B”IsGamma3TimesGamma3\], we have $$\psi_1(\operatorname{St}_{{\mathcal{B}}}(1))/\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'') \leq \left({\mathcal{B}}/\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\right)\times \left({\mathcal{B}}/\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\right).$$ As the group $\left({\mathcal{B}}/\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\right)\times \left({\mathcal{B}}/\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\right)$ is nilpotent, $\psi_1(\operatorname{St}_{{\mathcal{B}}}(1))/\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'')$ is nilpotent. Since $\psi_1$ is injective, we have $$\psi_1(\operatorname{St}_{{\mathcal{B}}}(1))/\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'')\cong \operatorname{St}_{{\mathcal{B}}}(1)/{\mathcal{B}}''.$$ As $\operatorname{St}_{{\mathcal{B}}}(1)$ is of finite index in ${\mathcal{B}}$, $\operatorname{St}_{{\mathcal{B}}}(1)/{\mathcal{B}}''$ is of finite index in ${\mathcal{B}}/{\mathcal{B}}''$. Hence, we found a nilpotent subgroup of finite index in ${\mathcal{B}}/{\mathcal{B}}''$.
We can now finally conclude that every proper quotient of the Basilica group is virtually nilpotent, and thus in ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
\[prop:BasilicaIsJustNonVirtuallyNilpotent\] Every proper quotient of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ is virtually nilpotent. In particular, every proper quotient of ${\mathcal{B}}$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
The fact that every proper quotient of Basilica is virtually nilpotent follows directly from Theorem \[thm:QuotientsOfWeaklyBranchGroups\], Lemma \[lemma:BOverB”VirtuallyNilpotent\] and the fact that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a regular weakly branch group over ${\mathcal{B}}'$. Since every finitely generated virtually nilpotent group is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$, we conclude that every proper quotient of ${\mathcal{B}}$ is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
We can thus use Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\] to study maximal subgroups of the Basilica group, which we will do in the next section. Before we go on, however, let us quickly remark that by combining Lemma \[lemma:B”IsGamma3TimesGamma3\] and Proposition \[prop:HeisenbergIsQuotientOfBasilica\], we can show that the set of generators of ${\mathcal{B}}'$ obtained in Proposition \[prop:GeneratorsOfCommutatorSubgroup\] is minimal.
\[prop:AbelianizationOfB’IsZ3\] Let ${\mathcal{B}}$ be the Basilica group, ${\mathcal{B}}'$ be its derived subgroup and ${\mathcal{B}}''$ be its second derived subgroup. The map ${\mathbb{Z}}^3 \rightarrow {\mathcal{B}}'/{\mathcal{B}}''$ defined by sending the canonical generators of ${\mathbb{Z}}^3$ to $\alpha_{1,1},\alpha_{1,-1}$ and $\alpha_{1,2}$ is an isomorphism (where $\alpha_{1,1},\alpha_{1,-1}$ and $\alpha_{1,2}$ are defined in Notation \[notation:CommutatorsBasilica\]). In particular, $\alpha_{1,1}$, $\alpha_{1,-1}$ and $\alpha_{1,2}$ form a minimal set of generators for ${\mathcal{B}}'$.
Since $\psi_1$ is an injective map, we have $${\mathcal{B}}'/{\mathcal{B}}'' \cong \psi_1({\mathcal{B}}')/\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'').$$ Now, by Lemma \[lemma:B”IsGamma3TimesGamma3\], we have $\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'') = \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})\times \gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})$, where $\gamma_3({\mathcal{B}})=[{\mathcal{B}}',{\mathcal{B}}]$. It thus follows from Proposition \[prop:HeisenbergIsQuotientOfBasilica\] that $\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}')/\psi_1({\mathcal{B}}'') \leq H_3({\mathbb{Z}}) \times H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$, where $H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ is the discrete Heisenberg group.
Let $f\colon {\mathbb{Z}}^3 \rightarrow {\mathcal{B}}'/{\mathcal{B}}''$ be the homomorphism sending $(1,0,0)$ to $\alpha_{1,1}$, $(0,1,0)$ to $\alpha_{1,-1}$ and $(0,0,1)$ to $\alpha_{1,2}$, and let $g\colon {\mathcal{B}}'/{\mathcal{B}}'' \rightarrow H_3({\mathbb{Z}}) \times H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ be the injective homomorphism implied above. To prove the result, it suffices to show that the kernel of $g\circ f$ is trivial.
By direct computation, we see that $$g(\alpha_{1,1}) = (bc^{-1}, b^{-1}), \quad g(\alpha_{1,-1}) = (b,b^{-1}), \quad g(\alpha_{1,2})=(1, c^{-1})$$ where $H_3({\mathbb{Z}}) = \langle a,b \mid [[a,b],a], [[a,b],b] \rangle$ and $c=[a,b]$. Now, let $(l,m,n)\in \ker(g\circ f)$ be an arbitrary element of the kernel of $g\circ f$. It follows from the above computations that $$g\circ f (l,m,n) = (b^{l+m}c^{-l}, b^{-l-m}c^{-n})$$ and we quickly see that this is trivial if and only if $l=m=n=0$. Thus, $g\circ f$ is injective, which implies that $f$ is injective. By Proposition \[prop:GeneratorsOfCommutatorSubgroup\], it is also surjective and is thus an isomorphism.
Maximal subgroups of the Basilica group
---------------------------------------
In this subsection, we use Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\] to prove that every maximal subgroup of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ is of finite index. Although the details are very different, the general strategy of the proof is roughly the same as the one used by Pervova in [@Pervova05] to prove that the Grigorchuk group is in ${\mathcal{MF}}$. Namely, assuming that there exists a maximal subgroup of infinite index $M<{\mathcal{B}}$, we will show, using arguments of length reduction, that there must exist some vertex $v\in X^*$ such that $M_v=G$, thus contradicting Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\].
To achieve this, we will require several intermediate steps. Before we begin, however, let us first fix some notation that will be useful throughout this section.
We will denote by $|\cdot|\colon {\mathcal{B}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ the *word norm* with respect to the generating set $S=\{a,a^{-1},b,b^{-1}\}$. In other words, for $g\in {\mathcal{B}}$, we denote by $|g|$ the smallest word in the alphabet $S$ representing $g$. In what follows, we will generally make no distinction in the notation between a word in the generating set $S$ and the element it represents in the group ${\mathcal{B}}$ and rely on the context to distinguish between the two cases. In particular, if $w\in S^*$ is a word in the alphabet $S$, we will denote by $|w|$ the length of the corresponding element in ${\mathcal{B}}$, which may be smaller that the number of letters in $w$. A word $w=s_1\dots s_n\in S^*$ will be called a *word of minimal length* or a *geodesic word* if $|s_1\dots s_n| = n$.
The map $|\cdot|\colon {\mathcal{B}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ is subadditive: for $g_1,g_2\in {\mathcal{B}}$, we have $|g_1g_2|\leq |g_1|+|g_2|$. In particular, if $w=s_1\dots s_is_{i+1}\dots s_n$ is a geodesic word, this implies that $|w|=|s_1\dots s_i|+|s_{i+1}\dots s_n|$ for all $1\leq i \leq n$. This means that subwords of geodesic words are always geodesic.
Let $g,g_1,g_2\in {\mathcal{B}}$ and $\epsilon \in \{0,1\}$ be such that $\psi_1(g)=\sigma^{\epsilon}(g_1,g_2)$. From now on, we will frequently suppress the $\psi_1$ from the notation and simply write $g=\sigma^\epsilon (g_1,g_2)$.
We begin our investigation with a series of lemmas establishing various bounds between the length of elements in ${\mathcal{B}}$ and the length of their projections.
\[lemma:BasilicaNonEll1Expanding\] Let $g\in {\mathcal{B}}$ be an arbitrary element of the Basilica group, and let $g_1,g_2\in {\mathcal{B}}$, $\epsilon \in \{0,1\}$ be such that $g=\sigma^{\epsilon}(g_1,g_2)$. Then, $|g_1| + |g_2| \leq |g|$.
As $a=(1,b)$, $b=\sigma(a,1)$, $a^{-1} = (1,b^{-1})$ and $b^{-1} = \sigma(1,a^{-1})$, we see that the given inequality is true for the generating set $S=\{a,b,a^{-1},b^{-1}\}$. Therefore, by induction, it must be true for any element of ${\mathcal{B}}$.
\[lemma:LengthOfChildrenOfSquare\] Let $g=\sigma(g_1, g_2) \notin \operatorname{St}_{\mathcal{B}}(1)$ be an element of ${\mathcal{B}}$ that does not belong to the stabiliser of the first level, and let $\alpha, \beta\in {\mathcal{B}}$ be such that $g^2 = (\alpha, \beta)$. Then, $|\alpha|, |\beta| \leq |g|$.
We have $g^2 = \sigma(g_1,g_2)\sigma(g_1,g_2) = (g_2g_1, g_1g_2)$. Hence, thanks to Lemma \[lemma:BasilicaNonEll1Expanding\], we have $|\alpha| \leq |g_2| + |g_1| \leq |g|$, and likewise, $|\beta|\leq |g|$.
\[lemma:ForbiddenSubwordBBinverse\] Let $g=\sigma^{\epsilon}(g_1,g_2) \in {\mathcal{B}}$ be an arbitrary element of the Basilica group, where $\epsilon\in \{0,1\}$, and let $x_1x_2\dots x_n \in S^*$ be a word of minimal length representing $g$, where $S=\{a,b,a^{-1},b^{-1}\}$. If there exist $1\leq i<j\leq n$ such that $x_i=b$, $x_j=b^{-1}$, then $|g_1| + |g_2| < |g|=n$.
As the word $x_1x_2\dots x_n$ is reduced (otherwise, it would not be of minimal length), it follows from the hypothesis that it must contain a subword of the form $ba^kb^{-1}$ for some $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}^*$. Seen as an element of ${\mathcal{B}}$, we have $$ba^{k}b^{-1} = \sigma(a,1)(1,b^{k})(a^{-1},1)\sigma = (b^k,1).$$ Since $ba^kb^{-1}$ is a subword of a geodesic word, we must have $|ba^kb^{-1}| = |k|+2$. Indeed, otherwise, we could replace it by a shorter word representing the same element. On the other hand, $|b^k| \leq |k|$. Thus, there is a difference of at least $2$ between the length of $ba^{k}b^{-1}$ and the sum of the length of its children. By using subadditivity, Lemma \[lemma:BasilicaNonEll1Expanding\], and the fact that every subword of a geodesic word must again be a geodesic, we can conclude that $|g_1|+|g_2| \leq |g|-2 < |g|$.
\[lemma:ForbiddenWordBsquared\] Let $g=\sigma^{\epsilon}(g_1,g_2) \in {\mathcal{B}}$ be an arbitrary element of the Basilica group, where $\epsilon\in \{0,1\}$, and let $x_1x_2\dots x_n\in S^*$ be a word in the alphabet $S=\{a,b,a^{-1},b^{-1}\}$ of minimal length representing $g$. If $x_1x_2\dots x_n$ contains a subword of the form $b^{-2}a^{k}b^2$, then $|g_1| + |g_2| < |g| = n$.
In ${\mathcal{B}}$, we have $$b^{-2}a^kb^2 = (a^{-1},a^{-1})(1,b^{k})(a,a) = (1,a^{-1}b^{k}a).$$ As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:ForbiddenSubwordBBinverse\], we observe that $|b^{-2}a^{k}b^{2}| = |k|+4$ and $|1|+|a^{-1}b^ka|\leq k+2$ and thus conclude that $|g_1| + |g_2| \leq n-2 < n=|g|$.
In addition to these facts regarding length contraction of elements of ${\mathcal{B}}$, we will also need to know the equivalence classes of the projections of some elements modulo the commutator subgroup ${\mathcal{B}}'$, which we study in the following lemma.
Let $g_1,g_2\in {\mathcal{B}}$ be two arbitrary elements. We will write $g_1\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} g_2$ if $g_1{\mathcal{B}}' = g_2{\mathcal{B}}'$.
\[lemma:CongruenceOfProjections\] Let $g\notin \operatorname{St}_{\mathcal{B}}(1)$ and $g^2=(g_1,g_2)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab &\Rightarrow g_1\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} g_2 \equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab\\
g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab^{-1} &\Rightarrow g_1\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} g_2 \equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} a^{-1}b \\
g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} a^{-1}b &\Rightarrow g_1\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} g_2 \equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
If $g=abz$ for some $z\in {\mathcal{B}}'$ with $z=(z_1,z_2)$, then $$g^2 = (1,b)\sigma(a,1)(z_1,z_2)(1,b)\sigma(a,1)(z_1,z_2) = (z_2baz_1,baz_1z_2).$$ According to Lemma 5 of [@GrigorchukZuk02], we have $z_1 \equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} z_2^{-1}$, so the result follows. Similarly, if $g=ab^{-1}z$, we have $$g^2 = (1,b)(a^{-1},1)\sigma(z_1,z_2)(1,b)(a^{-1},1)\sigma(z_1,z_2) = (a^{-1}z_2bz_1, bz_1a^{-1}z_2),$$ and if $g=a^{-1}bz$, we have $$g^2=(1,b^{-1})\sigma(a,1)(z_1,z_2)(1,b^{-1})\sigma(a,1)(z_1,z_2) = (z_2b^{-1}az_1, b^{-1}az_1z_2).$$
We are now almost in position to prove that any subgroup of ${\mathcal{B}}$ that is prodense must project to ${\mathcal{B}}$ on some vertex. The next few lemmas form the crucial part of the proof.
\[lemma:CanFindAB\] Let $g\in {\mathcal{B}}$ be such that $g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab $. Then, there exist a vertex $u\in X^*$ in the rooted tree $X^*$ and an element $g' \in \operatorname{St}_{\mathcal{B}}(u) \cap \langle g \rangle$ such that $\varphi_u(g') = ab$.
Let us proceed by induction on the length of $g$.
By definition, the elements of length $1$ of ${\mathcal{B}}$ are $a,b,a^{-1},b^{-1}$, none of which are congruent to $ab$ modulo ${\mathcal{B}}'$ by Theorem \[thm:FactsAboutBasilica\], so the case $|g|=1$ is impossible. For $|g|=2$, by the same theorem, the only possibilities are $g=ab$ or $g=ba$. The case $g=ab$ is trivial. If $g=ba$, we have $g^2 = baba = (ba,ab)$, and so $\varphi_{{\mathbf{1}}}(g^2)=ab$.
Now, let us assume that the result is true for any $h\in {\mathcal{B}}$ such that $h\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab$ and $|h|<n$ for some $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, and let $g\in {\mathcal{B}}$ be such that $g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab$ and $|g|=n$.
Since $g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab$, we must have $g\notin \operatorname{St}_{\mathcal{B}}(1)$, so $g=\sigma(g_1,g_2)$. Therefore, we have $g^2 = (g_2g_1, g_1g_2)$. By Lemma \[lemma:CongruenceOfProjections\], $g_2g_1\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} g_1g_2 \equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab$, and by Lemma \[lemma:LengthOfChildrenOfSquare\], $|g_2g_1|, |g_1g_2| \leq |g|=n$. If $|g_2g_1|<n$ or $|g_1g_2|<n$, we can then conclude by induction. Otherwise, we must have $|g_2g_1|=|g_1g_2|=n$. Therefore, the words representing $g_1$ and $g_2$ obtained from a geodesic of $g$ by the substitution $a\mapsto (1,b)$ and $b\mapsto \sigma(a,1)$ must be geodesics, and so must their concatenations $g_2g_1$ and $g_1g_2$ (since the sum of the length of the words for $g_1$ and $g_2$, before any reduction, is exactly $n$).
Let us write $g_1g_2 = \sigma(\alpha,\beta)$. If the geodesic word for $g_1$ discussed above contains $b$ and the one for $g_2$ contains $b^{-1}$, then by Lemma \[lemma:ForbiddenSubwordBBinverse\], $|\alpha| + |\beta|<n$. Therefore, $(g_1g_2)^2 = (\beta\alpha,\alpha\beta)$ with $|\alpha\beta|<n$, $\alpha\beta \equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab$. Hence, we can conclude by induction. Likewise, if $g_2$ contains $b$ and $g_1$ contains $b^{-1}$, we can conclude by induction by using the projections of $(g_2g_1)^2$.
Since it follows from Theorem \[thm:FactsAboutBasilica\] that the sum of the exponents of $a$ in any word representing $g$ is $1$, the exponents of $b$ in $g_1$ and $g_2$ must sum up to $1$. Hence, if $g_1$ and $g_2$ both contain some $b$, one of them must also contain $b^{-1}$. Likewise, if both contain some $b^{-1}$, then one of them must contain $b$. Hence, the only remaining case is if $g_1=a^k$ or $g_2=a^k$ for some $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, with $|g_1g_2|=|g_2g_1|=|g|$. We will show that this can only occur if $g=ab$ or $g=ba$.
Let us notice that $a^{k_1}b^{2l+1}a^{k_2} = \sigma(b^{k_1}a^{l+1}, a^lb^{k_2})$. Hence, if $g$ contains a subword of the form $a^{k_1}b^{2l+1}a^{k_2}$ with $k_1,k_2\in {\mathbb{Z}}^*$ and $l\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, then both $g_1$ and $g_2$ contain some non-trivial power of $b$. Hence, if $g_1=a^{k}$ or $g_2=a^{k}$, then we must have $$g=b^{2l_1+1}a^{k_1}b^{2l_2}a^{k_2} \dots b^{2l_i}a^{k_i}$$ or $$g=a^{k_1}b^{2l_1}a^{k_2}b^{2l_2} \dots a^{k_i}b^{2l_i+1}$$ with $\sum_{j=1}^{i} l_j = 0$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{i}k_j = 1$. Indeed, we just saw that in a geodesic word representing $g$, odd powers of $b$ cannot be sandwiched between non-zero powers of $a$. This means that odd powers of $b$ must be either at the very beginning or at the very end of the word. Hence, there are only two possible positions, which implies that there are at most two odd powers of $b$. As the sum of the powers of $b$ must be $1$, we conclude that the word for $g$ must contain exactly one $b$ with an odd power, either at the beginning or at the end, thus obtaining the two possibilities above.
If $g=b^{2l_1+1}a^{k_1}b^{2l_2}a^{k_2} \dots b^{l_i}a^{k_i}$, it follows from Lemmas \[lemma:ForbiddenSubwordBBinverse\] and \[lemma:ForbiddenWordBsquared\] that $g=ba$ or $g=b^{-1}a^{k_1}b^2a^{k_2}$ with $k_1+k_2=1$. Indeed, otherwise, $g$ would contain a subword of the form $ba^{k}b^{-1}$ or $b^{-2}a^{k}b^2$, which contradicts the hypothesis that $|g_1g_2| = |g_2g_1| = n$. If $g=b^{-1}a^{k_1}b^2a^{k_2}$, we have $g^2 = (a^{-1}b^{k_1}ab^{k_2}a, b^{k_1}ab^{k_2})$, and $|b^{k_1}ab^{k_2}| \leq |k_1|+|k_2| + 1 < |k_1|+|k_2|+3 = |g|$, a contradiction. Hence, the only possible case is $g=ba$.
Similarly, if $g=a^{k_1}b^{l_1}a^{k_2}b^{l_2} \dots a^{k_i}b^{2l_i+1}$, then unless $g=ab$, $g$ must contain a subword of the form $ba^kb^{-1}$ or $b^{-2}a^{k}b^2$, which is impossible according to Lemmas \[lemma:ForbiddenSubwordBBinverse\] and \[lemma:ForbiddenWordBsquared\].
This concludes the proof.
\[lemma:CanFindBInverseA\] Let $g\in {\mathcal{B}}$ be such that $g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab^{-1}$. Then, there exist a vertex $u\in X^*$ and an element $g' \in \operatorname{St}_{\mathcal{B}}(u) \cap \langle g \rangle$ such that $\varphi_u(g') = b^{-1}a$.
We again proceed by induction on $|g|$.
The case $|g|=1$ is impossible. If $|g|=2$, we have $g=b^{-1}a$ or $g=ab^{-1}$. Since $(ab^{-1})^{-2} = \sigma(a,1)(1,b^{-1})\sigma(a,1)\sigma(1,b^{-1}) = (b^{-1}a,ab^{-1})$, the result is true in those cases.
Let us now assume that the result is true for elements of length smaller than $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and let $g\in {\mathcal{B}}$ be such that $g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab^{-1}$ and $|g|=n$. Writing $g=\sigma(g_1,g_2)$, $g_1g_2=(\alpha,\beta)$ and $g_2g_1 = (\alpha',\beta')$, if $|\alpha|, |\beta|, |\alpha'|$ or $|\beta'|$ is smaller than $n$, we find that the result is true by induction thanks to Lemma \[lemma:CongruenceOfProjections\] and Lemma \[lemma:LengthOfChildrenOfSquare\].
Notice that once again, unless $g_1=a^k$ or $g_2=a^k$ for some $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, then one of $|\alpha|, |\beta|, |\alpha'|$ or $|\beta'|$ must be smaller than $n$, thanks to Lemma \[lemma:ForbiddenSubwordBBinverse\] and the fact that the exponents of $b$ in $g_1$ and $g_2$ must sum to $1$.
As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:CanFindAB\], this means that $g$ cannot contain a subword of the form $a^{k_1}b^{2l+1}a^{k_2}$ with $k_1,k_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}^*$ and $l\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Therefore, we must have $$g=b^{2l_1-1}a^{k_1}b^{2l_2}a^{k_2} \dots b^{2l_i}a^{k_i}$$ or $$g=a^{k_1}b^{2l_1}a^{k_2}b^{l_2} \dots a^{k_i}b^{2l_i-1}$$ with $\sum_{j=1}^{i} l_j = 0$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{i}k_j = 1$.
If $g=b^{2l_1-1}a^{k_1}b^{2l_2}a^{k_2} \dots b^{2l_i}a^{k_i}$, then unless $g=b^{-1}a$, $g$ must contain a subword of the form $ba^{k}b^{-1}$ or $b^{-2}a^kb^2$, which is impossible according to Lemmas \[lemma:ForbiddenSubwordBBinverse\] and \[lemma:ForbiddenWordBsquared\].
If $g=a^{k_1}b^{2l_1}a^{k_2}b^{2l_2} \dots a^{k_i}b^{2l_i-1}$, then for the same reasons, we must have $g=ab^{-1}$ or $g=a^{k_1}b^{-2}a^{k_2}b$ with $k_1+k_2=1$. However, $(a^{k_1}b^{-2}a^{k_2}b)^2 = (a^{-1}b^{k_1}a^{-1}b^{k_2}a,b^{k_1}a^{-1}b^{k_2})$, and $|b^{k_1}a^{-1}b^{k_2}|\leq |k_1|+|k_2| + 1 < |g|$.
Hence, unless $g=ab^{-1}$ or $g=b^{-1}a$, we always have that one of $\alpha, \beta, \alpha', \beta'$ is of length smaller than $|g|$. We can therefore conclude by induction thanks to Lemma \[lemma:CongruenceOfProjections\].
\[lemma:ABPersists\] Let $u$ be a vertex of the rooted tree $X^*$. Then, there exists $g\in \langle ab \rangle \cap \operatorname{St}_{\mathcal{B}}(u)$ such that $\varphi_u(g) = ab$ or $\varphi_u(g) = ba$.
We have $(ab)^2 = (ba,ba)$ and $(ba)^2 = (ba,ab)$. The result follows by induction.
We can now finally piece all of these lemmas together to show that prodense subgroups of the Basilica group must project to ${\mathcal{B}}$ on some vertex.
\[prop:ProjectionsOfDenseAreNotProperForBasilica\] Let $H\leq {\mathcal{B}}$ be a subgroup such that $HN={\mathcal{B}}$ for all non-trivial normal subgroups $N\trianglelefteq {\mathcal{B}}$ (in other words, $H$ is prodense). Then, there exists a vertex $u\in X^*$ such that $H_u = {\mathcal{B}}$, where, as in Notation \[notation:Projections\], $H_u=\varphi_u(\operatorname{St}_H(u))$.
Since $H{\mathcal{B}}'={\mathcal{B}}$, there exists $g\in H$ such that $g\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab$. Hence, it follows from Lemma \[lemma:CanFindAB\] that there exists $v\in X^*$ such that $ab\in H_v$. Now, by Lemma \[lemma:ProjectionsOfDenseAreDense\], $H_v$ is prodense in ${\mathcal{B}}$, so we have $H_v{\mathcal{B}}'={\mathcal{B}}$. Hence, there exists $h\in H_v$ such that $h\equiv_{{\mathcal{B}}'} ab^{-1}$. Therefore, according to Lemma \[lemma:CanFindBInverseA\], there exists $v'$ such that $b^{-1}a\in (H_v)_{v'} = H_{vv'}$. From Lemma \[lemma:ABPersists\], we also have that either $ab\in H_{vv'}$ or $ba\in H_{vv'}$.
If $ab, b^{-1}a \in H_{vv'}$, then $a^2 \in H_{vv'}$. Since $a^2=(1,b^2)$ and $b^2 = (a,a)$, if we set $u=vv'{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}}\in X^*$, we have that $a$ and either $ab$ or $ba$ are in $H_u$. Since ${\mathcal{B}}$ is generated by $a$ and $b$, we get $H_u={\mathcal{B}}$.
Likewise, if $ba,b^{-1}a \in H_{vv'}$, then $b^2\in H_{vv'}$, and since $b^2=(a,a)$, by setting $u=vv'{\mathbf{1}}\in X^*$, we get that $a,b \in H_u$, so $H_u={\mathcal{B}}$.
We are now finally ready to prove the announced theorem.
\[thm:BasilicaIsInMF\] Every maximal subgroup of the Basilica group ${\mathcal{B}}$ is of finite index.
Suppose that there exists a maximal subgroup $M<{\mathcal{B}}$ of infinite index. By Proposition \[prop:BasilicaIsJustNonVirtuallyNilpotent\], every proper quotient of ${\mathcal{B}}$ is in $\mathcal{MF}$. Therefore, $M$ cannot contain any non-trivial normal subgroup of ${\mathcal{B}}$, so we must have $MN={\mathcal{B}}$ for every non-trivial normal subgroup $N\trianglelefteq {\mathcal{B}}$. This implies, thanks to Proposition \[prop:ProjectionsOfDenseAreNotProperForBasilica\], that there exists $u\in X^*$ such that $M_u={\mathcal{B}}$. However, by Theorem \[thm:ProjectionsOFMaximalAreMaximal\], $M_u$ must be a maximal subgroup of infinite index of ${\mathcal{B}}$, which is a contradiction. Hence, ${\mathcal{B}}$ admits no maximal subgroup of infinite index.
As was mentioned above, in addition to being one of the rare non-linear examples of a group belonging to the class ${\mathcal{MF}}$, the Basilica group is, to the best of our knowledge, the first example of a weakly branch but not branch group in this class. It is also different in many other aspects from the groups studied by Pervova [@Pervova05] and their generalisations [@AlexoudasKlopschThillaisundaram16; @KlopschThillaisundaram18], such as the Grigorchuk group and the GGS groups. To name but a few, it is torsion-free, it is not just-infinite and it admits non-nilpotent quotients. This example thus serves to illustrate the wide range of algebraic properties that can be enjoyed by weakly branch groups in ${\mathcal{MF}}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove an Alexander-type duality for valuations for certain subcomplexes in the boundary of polyhedra. These strengthen and simplify results of Stanley (1974) and Miller-Reiner (2005). We give a generalization of Brion’s theorem for this relative situation and we discuss the topology of the possible subcomplexes for which the duality relation holds.'
address: 'Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany'
author:
- Karim Adiprasito
- Raman Sanyal
bibliography:
- 'AlexanderDualValuations.bib'
title: 'An Alexander-type duality for valuations'
---
Introduction
============
Let $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a convex polytope with vertices in ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and let $q
\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$. Viewing $q$ as a light source, let $B \subseteq \partial P$ be the collection of points in the boundary of $P$ visible from $q$ – the *bright side* of $P$. That is, $B$ is the set of points $p \in \partial P$ for which the open segment $(q,p)$ does not meet the relative interior of $P$. Sticking to these figurative terms, let $D$ be the closure of the set of *dark points* $\partial P {\setminus}
B$. Stanley [@stanley74] showed that for integral $n \ge 1$ the function $$E_{P,B}(n) \ := \ | n \cdot (P {\setminus} B) \cap {\mathbb{Z}}^d |$$ is the restriction of a univariate polynomial (and, by abuse of notation, identified with that polynomial), and that $$\label{eqn:rd}
(-1)^{\dim P} E_{P,B}(-n) \ = \ | n \cdot (P {\setminus} D) \cap {\mathbb{Z}}^d|
\quad\text{for all } n \ge 1.$$ By choosing $q \in \operatorname*{relint}P$, we have that $(B,D) = ({\varnothing},\partial P)$ and reduces to the well-known Ehrhart-Macdonald reciprocity [@macdonald]; see [@BR07] for details. The set $B
\subseteq \partial P$ is a particular case of what Ehrhart [@ehr1; @ehr2] calls a [*reciprocal domain*]{}, that is, a domain for which holds.
For a subset $S \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1}$, the [*lattice point enumerator*]{} of $S$ is the multivariate Laurent series $${\mathrm{F}}_S({\mathbf{x}}) \ := \ \sum_{a \in S \cap {\mathbb{Z}}^{d+1}} {\mathbf{x}}^a$$ where ${\mathbf{x}}^a = x_1^{a_1} x_2^{a_2} \cdots x_{d+1}^{a_{d+1}}$. If we associate to $P$ the pointed cone $C(P) := \operatorname*{cone}( P \times \{1\})$ $\subset
{\mathbb{R}}^{d+1}$, then ${\mathrm{F}}_{C(P)}({\mathbf{x}})$ records the individual lattice points $(a,n) \in
{\mathbb{Z}}^{d+1}$ for which $a \in n P$. Stanley [@stanley74 Prop. 8.3] actually proved the stronger result that $$\label{eqn:F_rd}
(-1)^{\dim P} {\mathrm{F}}_{C(P{\setminus} B)}\left(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}\right) \ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_{C(P
{\setminus} D)}({\mathbf{x}}).$$ where $\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}} = (\tfrac{1}{x_1}, \tfrac{1}{x_1}, \dots, \tfrac{1}{x_{d+1}})$.
The relation holds for general rational pointed polyhedral cones $C$ but not for arbitrary subsets in the boundary of $C$. To see this, we can choose $B$ as two non-adjacent triangles in the boundary of a $3$-dimensional pyramid; one can check that $B$ is not a reciprocal domain. The question which subsets in the boundary of $C$ are reciprocal domains was investigated by Miller and Reiner [@MR06]. They showed that the conditions giving rise to reciprocal domains are topological rather than geometric in nature. Let $C \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1}$ be a rational, pointed polyhedral cone and let $\Delta$ be a full-dimensional subcomplex of the boundary of $C$, i.e.$\Delta$ is a polyhedral complex induced by a collection of facets of $C$. Let $\Delta^\prime$ be the subcomplex generated by the facets $F \not\in \Delta$. Their result is
\[thm:MR1\] If $\Delta$ is a Cohen-Macaulay complex, then $$\label{eqn:MR1}
(-1)^{d+1} {\mathrm{F}}_{C {\setminus} |\Delta|}\left(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}\right) \ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_{C
{\setminus} |\Delta^\prime|}({\mathbf{x}}).$$
The proof of Theorem \[thm:MR1\] in [@MR06] is given in terms of combinatorial commutative algebra and relies on a connection between lattice point enumerators and Hilbert series of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$-graded modules.
In this paper we give a simple proof of and that generalizes to a broader class of geometric objects and to valuations other than counting lattice points (see Theorem \[thm:atdvc\]). Our proof relies on basic facts from topological combinatorics and, as a byproduct, gives a slightly more general class of complexes for which holds. Like Theorem \[thm:MR1\], our results are reminiscent of Alexander duality and we will emphasize this relation throughout.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:basics\], we recall the notions of $\Lambda$-polytopes and valuations as well as (weakly) Cohen-Macaulay complexes. In Section \[sec:main\] we state and prove an Alexander-duality type relation which contains Thm. \[thm:MR1\] as a special case. In Section \[sec:rel\_brion\], we give a relative version of Brion’s theorem which is interesting in its own right and highlights the role played by weakly Cohen-Macaulay complexes. In Section \[sec:top\] we focus on the topology of full-dimensional (weakly) Cohen-Macaulay complexes in the boundary of spheres. The bright side $B$ of $P$ is homeomorphic to a ball of dimension $\dim P - 1$ and thus Cohen-Macaulay. A natural question, which was answered affirmatively in [@MR06], is if there exist full-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay complexes in the boundary of polytopes that are not balls. We will extend this result and we discuss possibly counterintuitive instances for which and apply.
$\Lambda$-polytopes, valuations, and weakly Cohen-Macaulay complexes {#sec:basics}
====================================================================
We start by setting the stage for the use of more general geometric objects and valuations, following McMullen [@mcmullen]. Throughout, let $\Lambda
\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a fixed, full-dimensional discrete lattice or a vector space over some subfield of ${\mathbb{R}}$. We denote by ${\mathcal{P}}= {\mathcal{P}}(\Lambda)$ the collection of polytopes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with vertices in $\Lambda$. A [*$\Lambda$-valuation*]{} is a map ${\varphi}$ from ${\mathcal{P}}$ into some abelian group such that $${\varphi}(P \cup Q) \ = \ {\varphi}(P) + {\varphi}(Q) - {\varphi}(P \cap Q)$$ whenever $P \cup Q \in {\mathcal{P}}$ (and hence $P \cap Q \in {\mathcal{P}}$) and such that ${\varphi}(t
+ P) = {\varphi}(P)$ for all $t \in \Lambda$. We can extend ${\varphi}$ to *half-open* polytopes as follows. If $B \subset \partial P$ is a the union of facets $F_1,F_2,\dots,F_m$ of $P$, then $${\varphi}(P {\setminus} B) \ := \ \sum_{J \subseteq [k]} (-1)^{|J|}\,{\varphi}(F_J)$$ where $F_J := \bigcap\{ F_j : j \in J\}$. In particular, if $B = \partial P$, we get $$\label{eqn:relint}
{\varphi}(\operatorname*{relint}P) \ = \ \sum_{F \subseteq P} (-1)^{\dim P - \dim F}{\varphi}(F)$$ where the sum is over all non-empty faces $F$ of $P$. The following is the basis for our considerations.
\[thm:rec\] If ${\varphi}$ is a $\Lambda$-valuation, then for all $n \in {{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}}$ $${\varphi}_P(n) \ := \ {\varphi}(nP)$$ agrees with a univariate polynomial of degree $\le \dim P$ and $$(-1)^{\dim P} {\varphi}_P(-1) \ = \ {\varphi}( \operatorname*{relint}(-P) ).$$
A [*$\Lambda$-complex*]{} is a polyhedral complex ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ such that every face is a $\Lambda$-polytope. The complex is [*pure*]{} if all inclusion-maximal faces have the same dimension. For example, the collection of proper faces of a $\Lambda$-polytope $P$ is a pure $\Lambda$-complex, called the [*boundary complex*]{} ${\mathcal{B}}(P)$. The underlying set of ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ is denoted by $|{{\mathcal{K}}}|$ and, since this is the disjoint union of relatively open polytopes, we can extend ${\varphi}$ to $\Lambda$-complexes by setting $${\varphi}(|{{\mathcal{K}}}|) \ := \ \sum_{F \in {{\mathcal{K}}}} {\varphi}(\operatorname*{relint}F)$$
For a given face $F$ in a polyhedral complex $K$, the [*link*]{} of $F$ in $K$ is the polyhedral subcomplex $$\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(F) \ = \ \{ G \in {{\mathcal{K}}}: G \cap F = {\varnothing}, G \cup F \subseteq H \in
{{\mathcal{K}}}\}.$$ For a subcomplex $\Delta \subset {{\mathcal{K}}}$, a face $F \in \Delta$ is an [*interior face*]{} of $\Delta$ if $\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(F) \subset \Delta$ and a [*boundary face*]{} otherwise. The boundary of $\Delta$ is the subcomplex $\partial\Delta$ of all boundary faces. Note that for $F \not\in \Delta$, we have $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F) = {\varnothing}\not= \{{\varnothing}\}$ with reduced Euler characteristic ${\widetilde\chi}({\varnothing}) = 0$.
A pure complex ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ is [*weakly Cohen-Macaulay*]{} if $${\widetilde{H}}_i(\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(F)) \ = \ 0 \qquad \text{for all } 0 \le i < \dim
\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(F).$$ for all non-empty faces $F \in K$. Thus ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ is Cohen-Macaulay if additionally ${\widetilde{H}}_i({{\mathcal{K}}}) = 0$ for all $0 \le i < \dim {{\mathcal{K}}}$. This is a stronger condition as, for instance, weakly Cohen-Macaulay complexes are not necessarily connected. Since $G \subseteq F$ implies $\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(F) \subseteq \operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(G)$, we get that $K$ is weakly Cohen-Macaulay if and only if every vertex link of $K$ is Cohen-Macaulay. Munkres [@munkres] proved that Cohen-Macaulayness of a complex $K$ is a topological property of the underlying pointset $|K|$ and hence $K$ is weakly Cohen-Macaualy if ${\widetilde{H}}_i(|K|,|K| {\setminus} p)$ vanishes for $i < \dim K$. Note that what we define is the notion of (weakly) ${\mathbb{Z}}$-CM complexes as our ring of coefficients is ${\mathbb{Z}}$ throughout (cf. [@bjorner Sect. 11]); however, most of our results hold for general rings of coefficients.
Finally, a pure $\Lambda$-complex ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ of dimension $d$ is a [*homology manifold*]{}, if for every face $F$ of ${{\mathcal{K}}}$, the reduced homology of $\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(F)$ is identically zero or if $${\widetilde{H}}_\ast(\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(F)) \ \cong \ {\widetilde{H}}_\ast(S^{d-\dim F + 1}).$$ In particular, if $|{{\mathcal{K}}}|$ is a manifold, then ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ is a homology manifold, and every homology manifold is weakly CM.
An Alexander-type duality {#sec:main}
=========================
In this section we prove Alexander-type duality relations for $\Lambda$-valuations that relates complementary complexes $\Delta$ and $\Delta^\prime$ inside $\Lambda$-complexes.
\[thm:atdvc\] Let ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ be a $d$-dimensional $\Lambda$-complex such that ${{\mathcal{K}}}$ is a homology manifold with boundary and let $B \subset \partial {{\mathcal{K}}}$ be a full-dimensional, weakly Cohen-Macaualay subcomplex. Let $D$ be the closure of $\partial P {\setminus} B$. If ${\varphi}$ is a $\Lambda$-valuation, then for all $n \ge 1$ $$(-1)^d {\varphi}_{|{{\mathcal{K}}}| {\setminus} |B|}(-n) \ = \ {\varphi}_{-(|{{\mathcal{K}}}| {\setminus} |D|)}(n)$$ and $$(-1)^d {\varphi}_{|{{\mathcal{K}}}| {\setminus} |B|}(0) \ = \
{\varphi}(\{0\}) \bigl({\widetilde\chi}({{\mathcal{K}}}) - {\widetilde\chi}(B))\bigr) \ = \
{\varphi}_{-(|{{\mathcal{K}}}| {\setminus} |D|)}(0).$$
For the proof of the theorem we need to relate the combinatorics of inclusion-exclusion for the valuation ${\varphi}$ to the topology of $\Delta$. The main observation, captured in the following lemma, is that weakly Cohen-Macaulay $(d-1)$-complexes which are embedded into the boundary of a $d$-dimensional homology manifold are rather restricted.
\[lem:wCM\_Eulerian\] Let ${{\mathcal{R}}}$ be a $(d-1)$-dimensional homology manifold without boundary and let $\Delta \subseteq {{\mathcal{R}}}$ be a pure, weakly Cohen-Macaulay subcomplex of full dimension $d-1$. Then for every ${\varnothing}\neq F \in \Delta$ $${\widetilde{H}}_k(\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)) \ = \
\begin{cases}
{\mathbb{Z}},& \text{ if $F$ is an interior face of dimension $d-k-2$, and}\\
0,& \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
In other words, a full-dimensional, weakly Cohen-Macaulay subcomplex of a homology manifold is again a homology manifold.
The link $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)$ is a subcomplex of $ L = \operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{R}}}(F)$, which has the homology of a $k$-sphere. Thus, if $F$ is an interior face of $\Delta$, then $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F) = L$ and ${\widetilde{H}}_*(\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)) =
{\widetilde{H}}_\ast(S^k)$.
If $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F) \subsetneq L$ is a proper subcomplex, it is sufficient to show that ${\widetilde{H}}_k(\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)) = 0$ for $k = \dim
\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)$, as $\Delta$ is weakly Cohen-Macaulay. For this observe that $|L|{\setminus} |\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)|$ is non-empty. By Alexander duality for homology spheres [@munkres_elements § 72], we get that $$0 \ = \ {\widetilde{H}}_{-1}(|L|{\setminus} |\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)|) \ = \
{\widetilde{H}}_{k}(\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)).$$ Alternatively, it is sufficient to show that $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)$ is homotopic to a subcomplex of dimension $k-1$. To see this, note that $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)$ is a full-dimensional subcomplex of the $k$-dimensional homology manifold $L$. Thus, $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)$ has a *free face* and, using Whitehead’s language of cellular collapses [@Whitehead], $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)$ collapses to a subcomplex of its $(k-1)$-skeleton. Since a collapse in particular provides a certificate for deformation retraction, this finishes the proof.
As a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, $|{{\mathcal{K}}}|$ is partitioned by the relative interiors of faces $G \in {{\mathcal{K}}}$ and thus $${\varphi}_{|{{\mathcal{K}}}|{\setminus} |B|}(n) \ = \ \sum_{G \in {{\mathcal{K}}}{\setminus} B}
{\varphi}_{\operatorname*{relint}G}(n),$$ For the case $n\neq 0$: as ${\varphi}_{|{{\mathcal{K}}}|}(n) \ = \ {\varphi}_{n|{{\mathcal{K}}}|}(1)$, is it is sufficient to prove the claim for $n = -1$. From Theorem \[thm:rec\] and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^d {\varphi}_{|K|{\setminus}|B|}(-1)
&\ = \ \sum_{G \in {{\mathcal{K}}}{\setminus} B} (-1)^{d - \dim G} {\varphi}(-G) \\
&\ = \ \sum_{G \in {{\mathcal{K}}}{\setminus} B} (-1)^{d - \dim G} \sum_{\sigma
\subseteq G \text{ face}} {\varphi}(\operatorname*{relint}(-\sigma)) \\
&\ = \ \;\; \sum_{\sigma \in {{\mathcal{K}}}} W_\sigma\,{\varphi}(\operatorname*{relint}(-\sigma))
\end{aligned}$$ where for a face $\sigma \in {{\mathcal{K}}}$ $$W_\sigma \ := \ (-1)^d\sum_{\sigma \subseteq G \in {{\mathcal{K}}}{\setminus} B} (-1)^{\dim G}
\ = \ (-1)^{d - \dim G}\bigl({\widetilde\chi}(\operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{K}}}(\sigma)) -
{\widetilde\chi}(\operatorname{lk}_B(\sigma)) \bigr)$$ It follows from Lemma \[lem:wCM\_Eulerian\], that $W_\sigma = 1$ if $\sigma
\in {{\mathcal{K}}}{\setminus} D$ which proves the claim. The proof of the case $n=0$ is analogous.
Since the boundary of every $\Lambda$-polytope is a sphere, we can extend the validity of to general $\Lambda$-valuations.
Let $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a $\Lambda$-polytope. Let $B$ be the underlying space of a full-dimensional, weakly CM subcomplex and let $D$ be the closure of $\partial P {\setminus} B$. If ${\varphi}$ is a $\Lambda$-valuation, then $$(-1)^{\dim P}{\varphi}_{P {\setminus} B}(-n) \ = \ {\varphi}_{-(P {\setminus} D)}(n)
\ \ \text{for all}\ \ n\neq 0.$$
This is indeed a generalization of , as ${\varphi}(S) = |S \cap
{\mathbb{Z}}^d|$ is invariant under automorphisms of the lattice $\Lambda = {\mathbb{Z}}^d$. We give an example for a self-reciprocal domain, that is, $D = \mathrm{T}(B)
\subset \partial P$, where $\mathrm{T}$ is an automorphism of $\Lambda$ with $T(P) = P$.
Let $P = [0,1]^4 = P_1 \times P_2$ be the $4$-cube presented as the product of two squares $P_1 = P_2 = [0,1]^2$. The boundary of the $4$-cube contains a $2$-dimensional torus $T = \partial P_1 \times \partial P_2$, which decomposes $\partial P$ into two solid tori $S_1 = P_1 \times
\partial P_2$ and $S_2 = \partial P_1 \times P_2$. As these are $3$-manifolds with boundary, both $S_1$ and $S_2$ are pure $3$-dimensional weakly Cohen-Macaulay subcomplexes. The Ehrhart function for a $k$-cube is $E_{[0,1]^k}(n) = (n+1)^k$. Thus the relative Ehrhart function is $$E_{P,S_1}(n) \ = \ (n+1)^4 - 4 (n+1)^3 + 4(n+1)^2 \ = \ n^4 - 2n^2 +
1$$ and $(-1)^4E_{P,S_1}(-n) = E_{P,S_2}(n) =
E_{P,S_1}(n)$.$\diamond$
Towards a proof for Theorem \[thm:MR1\], let us record the following general lemma. For a polyhedral cone $C$ and a point $a \in C$, let $\sigma_a \subset C$ be the unique face with $a \in \operatorname*{relint}\sigma_a$.
\[lem:genF\] Let $C \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1}$ be a rational $(d+1)$-dimensional cone and $\Delta
\subset {\mathcal{B}}(C)$ an arbitrary subcomplex. Then $$(-1)^{d+1} {\mathrm{F}}_{C {\setminus} |\Delta|}\left(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}\right)
\ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_{\operatorname*{relint}C}({\mathbf{x}}) \ + \
\sum_{a \in |\Delta| \cap {\mathbb{Z}}^{d+1}} (-1)^{d - \dim \sigma_a }\,
{\widetilde\chi}(\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(\sigma_a)){\mathbf{x}}^a.$$
Notice that $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(\sigma) \subseteq \operatorname{lk}_{{\mathcal{B}}(C)}(\sigma) \cong S^{d
- \dim \sigma}$. Thus, the coefficient of ${\mathbf{x}}^a$ in the equation above is the Euler characteristic of the *Alexander dual* of $|\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(\sigma_a)| \subset S^{d - \dim \sigma_a}$.
From Ehrhart theory (cf. [@stanley74 Prop. 7.1]), we have for a rational cone $G$ $$(-1)^{\dim G} {\mathrm{F}}_G\left(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}\right) \ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_{\operatorname*{relint}G}({\mathbf{x}}).$$ Thus, from $${\mathrm{F}}_{C{\setminus}|\Delta|}({\mathbf{x}}) \ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_C({\mathbf{x}}) \ - \
\sum_{G \in \Delta} {\mathrm{F}}_{\operatorname*{relint}G}({\mathbf{x}})$$ we obtain $$(-1)^{d+1} {\mathrm{F}}_{C {\setminus} |\Delta|}\left(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}\right)
\ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_{\operatorname*{relint}C}({\mathbf{x}}) \ + \
\sum_{G \in \Delta} (-1)^{d - \dim G} {\mathrm{F}}_G({\mathbf{x}})$$ which shows that the right-hand side is supported on $\operatorname*{relint}(C) \cup
|\Delta|$. Now for $a \in |\Delta| \cap {\mathbb{Z}}^{d+1}$, the coefficient of ${\mathbf{x}}^a$ on the right-hand side is $$(-1)^{d+1}
\sum_{\sigma_a \subseteq G \in \Delta} (-1)^{\dim G} \ = \
(-1)^{d-\dim \sigma_a }
\sum_{\overline{G} \in \operatorname{lk}_\Delta(\sigma_a)} (-1)^{\dim \overline{G}}
\ = \ (-1)^{d-\dim \sigma_a }{\widetilde\chi}(\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(\sigma_a)),$$ which proves the claim.
If $\Delta$ is Cohen-Macaulay, then for every face $F \in \Delta$, the link $\operatorname{lk}_\Delta(F)$ has the reduced Euler characteristic of a $(d-1-\dim
F)$-sphere if $F$ is interior and the reduced Euler characteristic of a point otherwise. Together with Lemma \[lem:genF\] this gives us $$(-1)^{d+1}{\mathrm{F}}_{C {\setminus} |\Delta|}\left(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}\right) \ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_{\operatorname*{relint}C}({\mathbf{x}}) \ + \ \sum_{a \in (|\Delta|{\setminus} |\Delta^\prime|)\cap {\mathbb{Z}}^{d+1}}
{\mathbf{x}}^a \qedhere$$
A relative Brion theorem {#sec:rel_brion}
========================
In this section we give a version of Brion’s theorem [@brion] (see also [@bhs]) suitable in the presence of a *forbidden* subcomplex. To make our results more transparent, let us start with the classical Brion-Gram relation for polytopes and an interesting complementary version. For a subset $S \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^d$, let us denote by $[S] : {\mathbb{R}}^d \rightarrow \{0,1\}$ the indicator function. Note, that $[S\cap T] = [S] \cdot [T]$.
Let $C = \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1} : \langle a_i, x\rangle \le 0 \text{ for } i =
1,2,\dots, m \}$ be a polyhedral cone. For a non-empty face $F \subseteq C$ let $I(F) = \{ i \in [m] : \langle a_i, x \rangle = 0 \text{ for all } x \in
F\}$ and define the [*tangent cone*]{} of $C$ at $F$ as $$T_C(F) \ := \ \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^d : \langle a_i, x \rangle \le 0 \text{ for }
i \in I(F) \}$$
\[lem:coneBG\] Let $C \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1}$ be a full-dimensional polyhedral cone. Then $$\sum_{{\varnothing}\neq F \subseteq C} (-1)^{\dim F} [T_C(F)] \ = \
(-1)^{d+1} [\operatorname*{int}(-C)]$$
If $p \in \operatorname*{int}(-C)$, then $p \in T_C(F)$ if and only if $F = C$. For $p \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1} {\setminus} \operatorname*{int}(-C)$, let $J = \{ i \in [m] :
\langle a_i, p \rangle \le 0 \}$. Then $$C_J \ := \ \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1} : \langle a_i, x \rangle \le 0 \text{ for
} i \in J \}$$ is the product of a linear space and a pointed polyhedral cone and thus has Euler characteristic $\chi(C_J) = 0$. Moreover, by sending the point $p \in C_J$ to infinity, the faces of $C_J$ are exactly those faces $F
\subseteq C$ for which $p \in T_C(F)$ and the left-hand side of the stated equation computes the Euler characteristic of $C_J$.
From that, we can deduce the usual Brianchon-Gram relation. If $P \subset
{\mathbb{R}}^d$ is polytope and $F$ a face, then the tangent cone of $P$ at $F$ is defined analogously as above and, equivalently, $T_P(F) \ = \ q_F + \operatorname*{cone}(P
- q_F) $, where $q_F \in \operatorname*{relint}F$. In particular, we have $T_P(P) = {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $T_P({\varnothing}) = P$.
\[cor:BG\] If $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ is a polytope, then $$[P] \ = \ \sum_{{\varnothing}\neq F \subseteq P} (-1)^{\dim F} [T_P(F)].$$
Let $C = C(P) \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d+1}$ be cone associated to $P$. Let $H = {\mathbb{R}}^d
\times \{1\}$. Then the $(k+1)$-faces $\hat F$ of $C$ bijectively correspond to $k$-faces under $F = \hat F \cap H$. With the appropriate identifications, $[P] = [C]\cdot [H]$ and, in particular, $[T_P(F)] = [T_C(\hat F)]\cdot [H]$. Since $H \cap \operatorname*{int}(-C) = {\varnothing}$, we get from Lemma \[lem:coneBG\] $$[P] \ = \ [H] \cdot [T_C(0)] \ = \ [H]
\sum_{\{0\} \subsetneq \hat F \subseteq C} (-1)^{\dim \hat F-1}
[T_C(\hat F)]
\ = \ \sum_{{\varnothing}\neq F \subseteq P} (-1)^{\dim F} [T_P(F)],$$ which proves the claim.
We also get an interesting complementary version as follows. For every face $F \subseteq P$, the tangent cone is of the form $T_P(F) = \operatorname*{aff}(F) + C_P(F)$ where $C_P(F)$ is the unique cone contained in $\operatorname*{aff}(F)^\perp$. Let us define the [*inverted tangent cone*]{} as $T^{-1}_P(F) = \operatorname*{aff}(F) - C_P(F)$.
\[cor:invBG\] Let $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a full-dimensional polytope. Then $$(-1)^d [\operatorname*{relint}(P)] \ = \ \
\sum_{{\varnothing}\neq F \subseteq P} (-1)^{\dim F} [T^{-1}_P(F)].$$
Let $P = \{ x : \langle a_i, x\rangle \le b_i \text{ for } i \in [m]\}$. For a non-empty face $F \subseteq P$, the inverted tangent cone is given by $$T^{-1}_P(F) \ = \ \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^d : \langle a_i, x \rangle -b_i \ge 0 \text{
for } i \in I(F)\}.$$ Now consider $C = C(-P) = \{ (x,t) : t \ge 0, \langle -a_i,x\rangle - b_i t \le 0,
i \in [m] \}$ and $H = {\mathbb{R}}^d \times \{-1\}$. Then, with appropriate identifications, $\operatorname*{relint}(-C) \cap H = \operatorname*{relint}(P)$ and $T_C(\hat F) \cap H
= T^{-1}_P(F)$. Lemma \[lem:coneBG\] now yields the result.
For dealing with forbidden subcomplexes, we will also need the following relative versions of the two Brianchon-Gram relations. If $\Delta \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(P)$ is a full-dimensional subcomplex of the boundary, then this induces a subcomplex $\Delta_F \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(T_P(F))$ in the tangent cone of every face $F \subsetneq P$. This subcomplex is pure of dimension $d-1$ or empty. We write $T_{P,\Delta}(F) = T_P(F) {\setminus} |\Delta_F|$ for the tangent cone minus the faces induced by $\Delta$, and $T^{-1}_{P,\Delta}(F)$ for the analogously defined relative inverted tangent cone.
\[lem:rel\_BG\] Let $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a $d$-polytope and $\Delta \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(P)$ a full-dimensional subcomplex. Let $\Delta^\prime \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(P)$ be the subcomplex spanned by the facets not contained in $\Delta$. Then $$[P {\setminus} |\Delta|] \ = \ \sum_{F} (-1)^{\dim F}
[T_{P,\Delta}(F)]$$ and $$(-1)^{\dim P} [P {\setminus} |\Delta^\prime|] \ = \ \sum_{F} (-1)^{\dim F}
[T^{-1}_{P,\Delta}(F)]$$ where the sums are over all non-empty faces $F \subseteq P$.
We prove only the first statement as the proof of the second relation is analogous. Let $p \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be an arbitrary point. If $p$ is not contained in the affine span of any face of $\Delta$, then $[{T_{P,\Delta}(F)}](p) =
[T_P(F)](p)$ for all non-empty faces $F \subseteq P$ and the identity is Corollary \[cor:BG\]. Thus, suppose that $p$ is contained in some hyperplane spanned by a facet in $\Delta$.
If $p \in P$, then the unique face $F \subseteq P$ containing $p$ in the relative interior is a face of $\Delta$. In this case $p \in T_{P,\Delta}(G)$ if and only if $G$ and $F$ are contained in a common face of $\Delta$. That is, if $D$ is contained in the *closed star* $
\operatorname{st}_\Delta(F) \ := \ \{ G \in \Delta: F \cup G \subseteq K \in \Delta
\}
$ of $F$ in $\Delta$. The right-hand side of the stated equation evaluated at $p$ can be written as $$\sum_{F \in {\mathcal{B}}(P){\setminus}\{{\varnothing}\}} (-1)^{\dim F} \ - \ \sum_{D
\in \operatorname{st}_\Delta(F){\setminus} \{{\varnothing}\}} (-1)^{\dim D}.$$ This is the difference of the unreduced Euler characteristics of two contractible complexes and therefore $0 = 1-1$.
If $p \in {\mathbb{R}}^d {\setminus} P$, let $F_1,\dots, F_k \subseteq P$ be the $(d-1)$-dimensional faces of $\Delta$ for which $p$ is contained in the affine hyperplane $H_i := \operatorname*{aff}(F_i)$ spanned by $F_i$. We have to show that $$\label{eqn:rel_BG}
\sum\{(-1)^{\dim G} : p \in T_P(G) \text{ and } G \subseteq F_i \text{
for some } i =1,\dots, k \} \ = \ 0,$$ as this is the collection of terms missing from the usual Brianchon-Gram. For $I \subseteq [k]$, let $F_I = \cap_{i \in I} F_i$ and define $$s_I \ := \ \sum\{(-1)^{\dim G} : p \in T_P(G) \text{ and } G \subseteq
F_I \}.$$ We can rewrite the left-hand side of as $$\sum_{{\varnothing}\neq I \subseteq [k]} (-1)^{|I|-1} s_I.$$ But for a fixed $I$, we have that $s_I$ is equal to the left-hand side of the Brianchon-Gram relation applied to $F_I$ and a point $p \not\in F_I$ inside $\operatorname*{aff}(F_I)$. Thus $s_I = 0$.
We can now state our generalization of Brion’s theorem.
Let $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a full-dimensional polytope with vertices $v_1,
v_2, \dots, v_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$. Let $\Delta \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(P)$ a pure and $d$-dimensional weakly Cohen-Macaulay subcomplex and let $\Delta^\prime \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(P)$ be the subcomplex generated by the facets of $P$ not contained in $\Delta$. Then $${\mathrm{F}}_{P {\setminus} |\Delta|}({\mathbf{x}}) \ = \
{\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(v_1)}({\mathbf{x}}) \ + \
{\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(v_2)}({\mathbf{x}}) \ + \
\cdots \ + \
{\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(v_n)}({\mathbf{x}})$$ and $$(-1)^d{\mathrm{F}}_{P {\setminus} |\Delta|}(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}) \ = \ {\mathrm{F}}_{-(P
{\setminus} |\Delta^\prime|)}({\mathbf{x}}).$$
The first statement follows from the same consideration as in [@bhs]: Observe that for $S \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$, we have ${\mathrm{F}}_S(x) = \sum_{a \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d} [S](a) {\mathbf{x}}^a$ and from Lemma \[lem:rel\_BG\] we get $${\mathrm{F}}_{P{\setminus}|\Delta|}({\mathbf{x}}) \ = \ \sum_{F}
(-1)^{\dim F}{\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(F)}({\mathbf{x}})$$ where the sum is over all non-empty faces $F \subseteq P$. Now if $F$ is not a vertex, the relative tangent cone $T_{P,\Delta}(F)$ is not pointed, that is, $t + T_{P,\Delta}(F) = T_{P,\Delta}(F)$ for some $t \neq 0$. On the level of lattice point enumerators, this means ${\mathbf{x}}^t{\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(F)}({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(F)}({\mathbf{x}})$ and thus ${\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(F)}({\mathbf{x}}) = 0$. This proves the first statement.
By the same token, we get from Lemma \[lem:rel\_BG\] $$(-1)^d {\mathrm{F}}_{P{\setminus}|\Delta^\prime|}({\mathbf{x}}) \ = \ \sum_{F} (-1)^{\dim
F}{\mathrm{F}}_{T^{-1}_{P,\Delta}(F)}({\mathbf{x}})$$ and thus $$(-1)^d {\mathrm{F}}_{P{\setminus}|\Delta^\prime|}({\mathbf{x}}) \ = \ \sum_{i=1}^n
{\mathrm{F}}_{T^{-1}_{P,\Delta}(v_i)}({\mathbf{x}})$$ Let us write $T_{P,\Delta}(v_i) = v_i + C_i {\setminus} |\Delta_{v_i}|$ where $C_i$ is a rational polyhedral cone and $\Delta_i = \Delta_{v_i}$ is the subcomplex induced by $\Delta$. In particular, ${\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(v_i)}({\mathbf{x}}) =
{\mathbf{x}}^{v_i}{\mathrm{F}}_{C_i {\setminus} |\Delta_i|}({\mathbf{x}})$. Since $\Delta$ is weakly Cohen-Macaulay, we have that $\Delta_i$ is Cohen-Macaulay and by Theorem \[thm:MR1\] $$(-1)^d {\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(v_i)}(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}) \ = \
{\mathbf{x}}^{-v_i}{\mathrm{F}}_{C_i {\setminus} |\Delta^\prime_i|}({\mathbf{x}}) \ = \
{\mathrm{F}}_{T^{-1}_{-P,-\Delta^\prime}(-v_i)}({\mathbf{x}})$$ For the finishing touch, we calculate $${\mathrm{F}}_{P {\setminus} |\Delta|}(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}}) \ = \
\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathrm{F}}_{T_{P,\Delta}(v_i)}(\tfrac{1}{{\mathbf{x}}})
\ = \
\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^d
{\mathrm{F}}_{T^{-1}_{-P,-\Delta^\prime}(-v_i)}({\mathbf{x}})
\ = \
(-1)^d {\mathrm{F}}_{-P({\setminus}|\Delta^\prime|)}({\mathbf{x}}) \qedhere$$
Topology of reciprocal domains {#sec:top}
==============================
Theorem \[thm:MR1\] and Theorem \[thm:atdvc\] apply to full-dimensional (weakly) Cohen-Macaulay complexes in the boundaries of polytopes. In this section we discuss what forms these complexes can take. In [@MR06], Miller and Reiner gave an example of a full-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay subcomplex in the boundary of a polytope that is not contractible and hence not a ball; they argued that, for instance, the Mazur manifold can occur. The purpose of this section is to generalize this remark. We refer to [@RourkeSanders] for the basic notions of PL topology.
\[thm:CMP\] Let $B$ be any PL manifold of dimension $d \ge 5$ such that
The natural inclusion $\pi_1(\partial B)\hookrightarrow
\pi_1(B)$ is surjective, and
$B$ is homologically trivial, i.e., ${\widetilde{H}}_*(B) = {\widetilde{H}}_*(B_d)$.
Then there exists a $(d+1)$-polytope $P$ and a subcomplex $\widetilde{B}
\subseteq {\mathcal{B}}(P)$ such that $\widetilde{B}$ is PL-homeomorphic to $B$. In particular, $\widetilde{B}$ is a full-dimensional weakly Cohen-Macaulay subcomplex of $\partial P$.
Any homology manifold $B$ satisfying assumptions (a) and (b) is a [*homology ball*]{}.
By [@Kervaire Thm. 3], there is a contractible PL manifold $M$ for which $\partial M$ is PL homeomorphic to $\partial B$. Then the gluing of $M$ and $B$ along their boundaries is a PL-sphere $S$, since it is PL (because $B$ and $M$ are PL), simply connected (by property (a) of $B$ and the fact that $M$ is contractible) and has the homology of a sphere (since both $M$ and $B$ have the homology of a sphere); consequently, it is a PL sphere by the generalized Poincaré conjecture [@ZeemanP]. In particular, we have that there exists a subdivision $S'$ of $S$ that is combinatorially equivalent to the boundary complex $S''$ of a $(d+1)$-polytope $P$. The subcomplex of $S''$ corresponding to $B$ is the desired complex $\widetilde{B}$.
Every contractible PL $d$-manifold $B$, $d\geq 5$ can be realized, up to PL homeomorphism, as a full-dimensional weakly Cohen-Macaulay subcomplex in the boundary of a $(d+1)$-polytope.
This suggests that every PL manifold satisfying (a) and (b) of Theorem \[thm:CMP\] is contractible. This is not the case:
Let $S$ denote a PL homology sphere that is not $S^d$, such as Poincaré’s homology sphere, and let $\Delta$ denote any facet of $S$. Then $B:=(S-\Delta)\times [0,1]$ is a homology ball, but homotopy equivalent to $S-\Delta$, which has $\pi_1(S)=\pi_1(S-\Delta)\neq 0$ and is consequently not contractible.
Theorem \[thm:atdvc\] applies more generally to subcomplexes in the boundary of homology manifolds; in this case, we are surprisingly flexible:
\[thm:CMH\] Let $M$ denote any homology manifold with vanishing reduced homology. Then there exists a homology ball that contains $M$ as a full-dimensional subcomplex of its boundary.
Let $D(M,\partial M)$ denote the double of $M$ (that is, the result of gluing two manifolds PL homeomorphic to $M$ along their isomorphic boundaries). By excision, the complex $D(M,\partial M)$ is a homology manifold without boundary which is homologically equivalent to a sphere. Thus, the cone over $D(M,\partial M)$ is a homology ball, as desired.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The need for tree structure modelling on top of sequence modelling is an open issue in neural dependency parsing. We investigate the impact of adding a tree layer on top of a sequential model by recursively composing subtree representations (composition) in a transition-based parser that uses features extracted by a . Composition seems superfluous with such a model, suggesting that capture information about subtrees. We perform model ablations to tease out the conditions under which composition helps. When ablating the backward LSTM, performance drops and composition does not recover much of the gap. When ablating the forward LSTM, performance drops less dramatically and composition recovers a substantial part of the gap, indicating that a forward LSTM and composition capture similar information. We take the backward LSTM to be related to lookahead features and the forward LSTM to the rich history-based features both crucial for transition-based parsers. To capture history-based information, composition is better than a forward LSTM on its own, but it is even better to have a forward LSTM as part of a . We correlate results with language properties, showing that the improved lookahead of a backward LSTM is especially important for head-final languages.'
author:
- |
Miryam de Lhoneux$^{\spadesuit}$ Miguel Ballesteros$^{\diamondsuit}$ Joakim Nivre$^{\spadesuit}$\
$^{\spadesuit}$ Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University\
$^{\diamondsuit}$ IBM Research AI, Yorktown Heights, NY\
[{miryam.de\_lhoneux,joakim.nivre}@lingfil.uu.se]{}\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'expanded.bib'
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Recursive Subtree Composition in LSTM-Based Dependency Parsing'
---
Conclusion
==========
We investigated the impact of composing the representation of subtrees in a transition-based parser. We observed that composition does not reliably help a parser that uses a for feature extraction, indicating that vectors obtained from the might capture subtree information, which is consistent with the results of @linzen16assessing. However, we observe that, when ablating the backward LSTM, performance drops and recursive composition does not help to recover much of this gap. We hypothesise that this is because the backward LSTM primarily improves the lookahead for the greedy parser. When ablating the forward LSTM, performance drops to a smaller extent and recursive composition recovers a substantial part of the gap. This indicates that a forward LSTM and a recursive composition function capture similar information, which we take to be related to the rich history-based features crucial for a transition-based parser. To capture this information, a recursive composition function is better than a forward LSTM on its own, but it is even better to have a forward LSTM as part of a . We further find that recursive composition helps more when POS tags are ablated from the model, indicating that POS tags and a recursive composition function are partly redundant ways of constructing contextual information. Finally, we correlate results with language properties, showing that the improved lookahead of a backward LSTM is especially important for head-final languages.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge the computational resources provided by CSC in Helsinki and Sigma2 in Oslo through NeIC-NLPL (www.nlpl.eu). We thank Sara Stymne and Aaron Smith for many discussions about this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We find that a sunspot with positive polarity had an obvious counter-clockwise rotation and resulted in the formation and eruption of an inverse S-shaped filament in NOAA active region (AR) 08858 from 2000 February 9 to 10. The sunspot had two umbrae which rotated around each other by 195 degrees within about twenty-four hours. The average rotation rate was nearly 8 degrees per hour. The fastest rotation in the photosphere took place during 14:00UT to 22:01UT on February 9, with the rotation rate of nearly 16 degrees per hour. The fastest rotation in the chromosphere and the corona took place during 15:28UT to 19:00UT on February 9, with the rotation rate of nearly 20 degrees per hour. Interestingly, the rapid increase of the positive magnetic flux just occurred during the fastest rotation of the rotating sunspot, the bright loop-shaped structure and the filament. During the sunspot rotation, the inverse S-shaped filament gradually formed in the EUV filament channel. The filament experienced two eruptions. In the first eruption, the filament rose quickly and then the filament loops carrying the cool and the hot material were seen to spiral into the sunspot counterclockwise. About ten minutes later, the filament became active and finally erupted. The filament eruption was accompanied with a C-class flare and a halo coronal mass ejection (CME). These results provide evidence that sunspot rotation plays an important role in the formation and eruption of the sigmoidal active-region filament.'
author:
- 'X. L. Yan, Z. Q. Qu, D. F. Kong, C.L. Xu'
title: 'Sunspot rotation, sigmoidal filament, flare, and coronal mass ejection: The event on 2000 February 10'
---
Introduction
============
Sunspot rotational motions have been observed by many authors for many decades (Evershed, 1910; Maltby, 1964; Gopasyuk, 1965). Stenflo (1969) and Barnes & Sturrock (1972) suggested that the rotational motion of a sunspot may be involved with energy build-up and the build-up energy is released by a flare later.
With the high spatial and temporal resolution of recent satellite-borne telescopes, the observations of rotating sunspots are easily obtained (Nightingale et al. 2002). Using white-light images from TRACE, Brown et al. (2003) analyzed the rotation speed of the umbrae and penumbrae of several rotating sunspots. They found that the average rotation speed of the penumbrae of the rotating sunspots was larger than that of the umbra of the rotating sunspots. Through the method of time-distance helioseismology, Zhao & Kosovichev (2003) found the evidence of structural twist beneath the visible surface of a rotating sunspot. The rotating sunspots related to other magnetic structures were also identified by many authors. R$\acute{e}$gnier & Canfield (2006) found that the slow rotation of the sunspot in NOAA AR 8210 enabled the storage of magnetic energy and allowed for the release of magnetic energy as C-class flares. Tian & Alexander (2006) found that the sunspot and the sunspot group exhibited a counterclockwise rotation. The twist of the active-region magnetic fields was dominantly left handed. The vertical current and the current helicity were predominantly negative. Later, Yan & Qu (2007) presented that sunspot rotation resulted in the appearance of the $\Omega$ magnetic loop in the corona and finally the $\Omega$ magnetic loop erupted as a M-class flare. Zhang, Li & Song (2007) reported that a flare was caused by the interaction between a fast rotating sunspot and ephemeral regions. In addition, Schrijver et al. (2008) used non-linear force-free modelling to show the evolution of the coronal field associated with a rotating sunspot, and suggested that the flare energy comes from an emerging twisted flux rope. The detailed information about the polarities, rotation directions and helicities of rotating sunspots in cycle 23 was presented by Yan, Qu & Xu (2008). The active regions with rotating sunspots were classified into six types by Yan, Qu & Kong (2008). They also found that several types have higher flare productivity. Using multi-wavelength observations of Hinode, Yan et al. (2009) and Min & Chae (2009) studied the rapid rotation of a sunspot in NOAA active region 10930 in detail. They found extraordinary counterclockwise rotation of the sunspot with positive polarity before an X3.4 flare. Moreover, the sheared loops and an inverse S-shaped magnetic loop in the corona formed gradually after the sunspot rotation. From a series of vector magnetograms, Yan et al. (2009) found that magnetic force lines are highly sheared along the neutral line accompanying the sunspot rotation. Through analyzing the buildup of the energy and the helicity associated with the eruptive flare on 2005 May 13, Kazachenko et al. (2009) found that sunspot rotation alone can store sufficient energy to power a very large flare. Sunspot rotation may be the primary driver of helicity production and injection into the corona (Zhang, Flyer, & Low 2006; Zhang, Liu, & Zhang 2008; Kumar, Manoharan, & Uddin 2010; Park et al. 2010; Ravindra, Yoshimura, & Dasso 2011).
The sigmoid structure wes often observed to be precursors to CMEs (Sterling & Hudson 1997; Sterling et al. 2000; Pevtsov 2002; Liu et al. 2007; Jiang et al. 2007; Green & kliem 2009; Bi et al. 2011) and statistically more likely to erupt (Hudson et al. 1998; Canfield, Hudson & McKenzie 1999; Canfield et al. 2007). The eruptions of the sigmoid structures or filaments are usually involved with flares and CMEs (Jing et al. 2004; Wang et al. 2007; Yan, Qu & Kong 2011). Amari et al. (2000) presented that the shearing motion resulted in the formation of an S-shaped flux rope by MHD simulation. The emergence of the flux tube can also exhibit a sigmoid structure (Magara & Longcope 2001; Fan 2001; Gibson et al. 2004). A double-J loop pattern can be merged into full S-shaped loops by a slip-running tether-cutting reconnection in the coronal hyperbolic flux tube (Moore et al. 2001; Aulanier et al. 2010). Tripathi et al. (2009) found the coexistence of a pair of J-shaped hot arcs at temperature T $>$ 2 MK with an S-shaped structure at somewhat lower temperature (T $\approx$ 1-1.3 MK). Some observational findings provide strong evidence to support the bald-patch separatrix surface model (Titov & D$\acute{e}$moulin 1999) for the sigmoid (McKenzie & Canfield 2008). Other observations and simulations supposed that the X-ray sigmoid appears at the quasi-separatrix layer between the flux rope and external fields (Gibson et al. 2002; Low & Berger 2003, Kliem, Titov, & T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k 2004; Savcheva & van Ballegooijen 2009). Liu et al. (2002) reported that the sigmoid structure was formed by the reconnection of the emerging flux and the pre-existing field. Green, Kliem, & Wallace (2011) exhibited that the flux cancellation at the internal polarity inversion line resulted in the formation of a soft X-ray sigmoid along the inversion line and a coronal mass ejection. By using reconstructed 3D coronal magnetic field, R$\acute{e}$gnier & Amari (2004) found that the sigmoid was higher than the filament in the corona, while the filament and the sigmoid had the same orientation. Consequently, the formation of the sigmoid structure remains an interesting open question.
In this paper, we present a clear case of the S-shaped active-region filament formation and eruption caused by the sunspot rotation in NOAA active region 08858 on Febuary 10, 2000.
Observations
============
The NOAA AR 08858 was observed by several spacecrafts from 2000 February 9 to 10. The active region was located at N28E01 with $\beta$ field configuration of the sunspot group on February 9, 2000. This active region was a very productive active region. It produced 13 C-class, 3 M-class and 1 X-class flares during its journey over the whole solar disk.
The observation of Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) covered the whole process of this event from white-light to EUV wavelength. The data of TRACE white-light, 1600 Å and Fe IX/X 171 Å images have a cadence of about 30 seconds - 1 minute and a pixel size of 0.$^\prime$$^\prime$5 (Handy et al. 1999). Full-disk line-of-sight magnetograms are used to show the magnetic fields in the photosphere. The magnetograms were taken by the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) on board the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) (Scherrer et al. 1995) with a 96-min cadence and a spatial resolution of 2$^\prime$$^\prime$ per pixel. In addition, we also use the data of soft X-ray flux observed by Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) to identify flare occurrence. The data from Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO; Brueckner et al. 1995) C2 on board SOHO (Domingo et al. 1995) are used to identify the coronal mass ejection (CME).
Sunspot rotation and the magnetic field evolution
=================================================
Sunspot rotation
----------------
Figure 1 shows the whole NOAA AR 08858 observed by TRACE white-light (left panel) and SOHO/MDI magnetogram (right panel). The rotating sunspot is marked by the red box and the black arrows in Fig. 1. The area of the red box and the yellow box is used to calculate the positive and the negative magnetic flux. The rotating sunspot with positive polarity had two umbrae signed by umbra 1 and umbra 2. This active region contains twelve sunspots. The rotating sunspot was the largest one and located in the southeast of the active region.
Figure 2 shows the evolution of the rotating sunspot acquired at white-light, 1600 Å and 171 Å by TRACE. The left column of Fig. 2 shows the white-light images observed by TRACE. We mark the two umbrae as “U1" and “U2". From 00:00:22UT to 02:40:36UT on February 9, the rotating sunspot was almost quiet. Later, the two umbrae began to rotate counterclockwise. The detailed motion in the photosphere can be seen from the change of the positions of “U1" and “U2". Following the sunspot rotation, the loop-shaped structure first appeared in the chromosphere and then formed an arch-shaped structure. In the corona, the filament was gradually formed in the filament channel. The filament connecting the rotating sunspot was also found to rotate around the center of rotating sunspot counterclockwise.
Figure 3 shows the three images acquired at white light, 1600Å, 171Å on February 9. The circles in the images contain two umbrae of the rotating sunspot and are used to calculate the rotational angle. The white brackets denote the rotational angles. The arrows denote the features which are used to calculate the rotational angle. We calculated the rotational angle of umbra “U2" around the center of circle. The front of umbra “U2" (see the arrow in the left panel of Fig. 3) that moved along the circle is used to evaluate the rotational angle (see the left panel of Fig. 3). From a series of the TRACE images, we can get the coordinates of the center of the circle and the points. We adopt the average values of three repeated measurements of the angles. The measurement uncertainty is about one degree. Moreover, the rotational angles of both the bright loop-shaped structure marked by the arrows in TRACE 1600 Å images and the filament marked by the arrows in TRACE 171 Å images were also calculated. The emitting structure is identified as filament whereas the absorptive dark structure is identified as filament channel in the right panel of Fig. 2. We use the part of the bright loop-shaped structure (see the arrow in the middle panel of Fig. 3) and the filament that connected the umbrae of the rotating sunspot (see the arrow in the right panel of Fig. 3) to calculate the rotational angle. We trace the evolution of the features from a series of TRACE 1600 Å and 171 Å images to determine the positions of the features. Note that the angle is defined as the angle between the line connecting the point where the bright loop-shaped structure is situated on the circle with the center of the circle and the radius of the circle at 0 degree. Because the bright features have a certain width, we adopt the center point of the bright features to do the measurement, which is located on the circle. The radius of the circle is 5 arcseconds. The coordinates can be seen from Fig. 3. It is worth pointing out that the bright loop-shaped structure in the chromosphere and the filament are 3-dimensional and the projection effect has to be taken into account when measuring apparent motion of a feature in general. It is hard to reconstruct the real shape of the loops by the single spacecraft observations. Our observations are based on the evolution of the magnetic loop topology from two-dimensional data.
Figure 4 shows the rotational angle of umbra “U2" (red line), the bright loop-shaped structure in TRACE 1600 Å (blue line), the filament in 171 Å images (green line) and the evolution of the magnetic flux (negative: dashed line; positive: dotted line). The umbra “U2“ rotated by 195 degrees. The average rotation rate was about 8 degrees per hour for 24 hours. The fastest rotation in the photosphere took place during 14:00UT to 22:01UT on February 9, with a rotation rate of nearly 16 degrees per hour. The bright loop-shaped structure in the chromosphere and the filament in the corona rotated by 142 degrees and 116 degrees. From 15:28UT to 19:00UT, the bright loop-shaped structure in the chromosphere and the filament in the corona rotated by 65 degrees and 85 degrees, with a rotation rate of nearly 19 degrees and 24 degrees per hour. Diamond (green line), Asterisk (blue line) and Plus (red line) respectively denote the rotational angles of the filament in the corona, the bright loop-shaped structure in the chromosphere, and umbra ”U2” in the photosphere. The rotational angle decreased from the photosphere to the corona. It is evidenced that the sunspot rotation transfers the magnetic twist from the sub-surface to the corona.
The magnetic field evolution
----------------------------
The dashed line and the dotted line in Fig. 4 show the evolution of magnetic flux (right axis) calculated from the region marked by the yellow (negative magnetic flux) box and the red (positive magnetic flux) box. From the evolution of the magnetic flux, there was a slow decrease of negative magnetic flux from 11:15UT to 20:47UT on February 9 and then the negative magnetic flux increased a little. For the positive magnetic flux, there was a slow increase from 23:59UT on February 8 to 14:27UT on February 9 and then the positive magnetic flux increased rapidly from 16:03UT to 19:11UT on February 9. Interestingly, the rapid increase of the positive magnetic flux just occurred during the fastest rotation of the rotating sunspot, the bright loop-shaped structure and the filament. At the beginning of the sunspot rotation, the magnetic flux was very stable. In addition, there was no eruption within about five hours from GOES observation before the sunspot rotation. The disturbance from the eruptions in this active region can also be excluded.
The formation and eruption process of the filament
==================================================
The formation process of the filament
-------------------------------------
From 02:49:36UT on Feb. 9 to 02:49:45UT on Feb. 10, 2000, the two umbrae rotated counterclockwise by 195 degrees. The middle column of Fig. 2 shows the 1600 Å images observed by TRACE. There was a small bright loop-shaped structure marked by the white arrows at 02:40:32UT in TRACE 1600 Å images. The loop-shaped structure was followed by the sunspot rotation and rotated counterclockwise around the center of the rotating sunspot. From 16:19:54UT to 20:35:48UT on Feb. 9, the loop-shaped structure formed an arch shape. Finally, it disappeared after the flare. The right column of Fig. 2 shows the 171 Å images observed by TRACE. The dotted lines in the first two images of the right column denote the EUV filament channel. The red dotted lines indicate the filament. Until 12:17:46UT on Feb. 9, a curve loop-shaped filament marked by the white arrows and outlined by the red dotted line appeared. The filament also rotated counterclockwise around the center of the sunspot. The filament was formed as a dark structure initially, and then part of it was brightened. This brightened part connecting the rotating sunspot was identified and measured. The change of the filament can be seen from the positions marked by the white arrows in the right column. Following the sunspot rotation, the part of the filament that connected the umbra of the rotating sunspot met the left part of the filament channel (see the position marked by the black arrow in the right panel of Fig. 2), then the rotational motion stopped and the filament finally erupted. The field of view of the left and the middle column images is 50$^\prime$$^\prime$ $\times$ 50$^\prime$$^\prime$. In order to show the formation process of the active-region filament, the field of view of the right column images is adjusted to 150$^\prime$$^\prime$ $\times$ 150$^\prime$$^\prime$. The detailed formation process of the filament can be seen from the movie (filamentformation.mpg) linked to Fig. 2.
The first failed eruption of the filament
-----------------------------------------
Figure 5 shows a sequence of 171 Å images during the first failed filament eruption on February 10, 2000. The dashed line in Fig. 5a indicates the filament channel and the white line in Fig. 5a denotes the position of the time slice of Fig. 6. From a sequence of TRACE 171Å images, one can see that the filament gradually rose from the EUV filament channel after the sunspot underwent tens of hours of rotation motion. The filament was marked by the dotted lines in Figs. 5b and 5c. Moreover, the filament exhibited a swirling shape. The white arrows in Fig. 5b and 5c point to the hot material of the filament. Before the filament eruption, the filament loops carrying the hot material can be seen to be moving counterclockwise. After about ninety seconds, the hot plasma moved to the position signed by the white arrow in Fig. 5c. At 01:14:38UT, the filament rose rapidly and formed a fan-shaped structure. The two dotted lines outline the outer and the inner boundary of the filament in Fig. 5d. Note that the filament is composed by many bright loops. The white arrow and the black arrow in Figs. 5d and 5e denote the lower and the upper part of the filament. During the rise of the filament, we observe apparent counterclockwise motion of hot and cool materials along the filament loops. The black arrows in Figs. 5f-5i denote the change of the position of the cool material. The white arrows denote the hot material which gradually fell into the umbrae of the sunspot. It is worth pointing out that the movement of the cool and the hot material is not the true movement of the material. In fact, the movement of the filament loops carried the cool and the hot material. At 01:26:48UT on February 10, 2000, the loops of the whole filament were contracted and later were seen to spiral into the sunspot umbrae. The dotted lines in Figs. 5e-5l outline the outer boundary of the filament. From 01:14:38UT to 01:26:48UT on February 10, the filament loops gradually contracted (see the dotted lines in Fig. 5). The detailed process of the first filament eruption can be seen from the movie (firsteruption.mpg) linked to Fig. 5.
Figure 6 shows the time slice at the position marked by the white line in Fig. 5a. The bright structure shows the trajectory of the filament. The two dotted lines denote the lower and the upper boundary of the filament. From the evolution of the filament intensity, one can see the filament first expanded outward and then fell down.
The second successful eruption of the filament
----------------------------------------------
After the first failed eruption, the filament gradually became active. At 01:36:16UT on February 10, a small part of the filament began to erupt. From the observation of TRACE 1600 Å (see Fig. 9), the two flare ribbons began to form at 01:40UT as signature of magnetic reconnection upon the filament eruption. Figure 7 shows a sequence of 171 Å images from 01:38:24UT to 02:39:05UT on February 10, 2000. At 01:38:24UT on February 10, the right part of the filament became active again. The white arrow points to the same loop of the filament in Figs. 7a-7c. At 01:39:59UT, another bright loop marked by the black arrow in Fig. 7b appeared. Subsequently, the bright loop marked by the black arrow first disappeared and then the other bright loop marked by the white arrow vanished. The disappearance of the features may be temperature effect. After the eruption of the two bright loops, the bright material of the filament was found to flow from right to left. The white arrows in Figs. 7d-7g indicate the positions of the hot plasma from 01:43:39UT to 01:48:23UT on February 10. The filament loops carrying the hot plasma gradually moved along the loop from west to east. At 01:48:56UT, another part of the filament enclosing the rotating sunspot also erupted. Next, the filament exhibited clearly an inverse S-shaped structure marked by the dotted lines in Figs. 7i and 7j. There was a data gap from 02:08:05UT to 02:35:22UT on February 10. However, comparing the change of the magnetic structure, it is easy to find that the inverse S-shaped filament disappeared. The post-flare loops marked by the white arrows in Figs. 7k and 7l can be seen clearly. The detailed process of the second filament eruption can be seen from the movie (seconderuption.mpg) linked to Fig. 7.
The associated flare and CME
----------------------------
Figure 8 shows the evolution of GOES soft X-ray emission for the C7.3 flare on February 10, 2000. The C7.3 flare started at 01:40UT, peaked at 02:08UT, and ended at 02:39UT. Figure 9 shows the evolution of the flare ribbons from 01:41:39UT to 02:35:28UT on February 10. The two white arrows in Fig. 9a and 9b indicate the two flare ribbons. The two flare ribbons gradually became brightening. The left flare ribbon along the dotted lines in Figs. 9c-9g expanded toward the southwest of the following sunspot. The flare ribbons swept across the umbra of the following sunspot while this did not happen to the leading rotating sunspot. Finally, the flare ribbon swept completely the following sunspot. Li & Zhang (2009) suggested that the emergence, the rotation, and the shear motion of the following sunspot and leading sunspot caused flare ribbons to sweep across sunspots completely. In this event, the flare ribbon did not sweep the rotating sunspot unlike those examples that Li & Zhang (2009) investigated. After the inverse S-shaped filament erupted, the SOHO/LASCO observed a halo CME.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
We investigate the relationship between the sunspot rotation and the formation and eruption of an active-region filament associated with a C7.3 flare and a halo CME in NOAA AR 08858 on Feb 10, 2000 using the GOES12 soft X-ray flux, TRACE WL, 1600 Åand 171 Å images, SOHO/MDI 96-min magnetograms, and SOHO/LASCO C2 images. We find that the formation of the active-region filament in EUV filament channel was followed by sunspot rotation. The sunspot rotated counter-clockwise and the active-region filament exhibited an inverse S-shaped structure. The filament experienced two eruptions. In the first eruption, a part of the filament rose and much of the material warmed up (becoming bright). The filament loops carrying the material were seen to spiral into the sunspot counterclockwise in the middle as it fell back towards the solar surface. In the second eruption, the inverse S-shaped filament fully erupted and produced a C-class flare and a halo CME. Before the second eruption, the filament loops carrying the hot material moved clockwise along the magnetic loop.
This event is a clear case of the formation of the sigmoidal active-region filament caused by sunspot rotation. According to the sunspot rotational direction (counterclockwise) and the shape of the filament (the inverse S-shaped filament), we can determine that the sunspot had negative helicity. The inverse S-shaped filament followed the hemisphere helicity rule. From the topology evolution of the magnetic loops in the corona, one can see that the sunspot rotation resulted in the upper magnetic field rotation and made the magnetic fields trend to non-potential field. It is evidenced that sunspot rotation is a means of magnetic energy storage. The energy was released via flares and CME later.
During the observation, no obvious magnetic flux emergence was found before the sunspot rotation. But there was a slow increase of the positive magnetic flux from 23:59UT on February 8 to 14:27UT on February 9 and then the positive magnetic flux increased rapidly from 16:03UT to 19:11UT on February 9. It is interesting that the rapid increase of the positive magnetic flux just occurred during the fastest rotation of the rotating sunspot, the bright loop-shaped structure and the filament. The observation provides evidence that the sunspot rotation could be regarded as a result of the transfer of additional magnetic twist from the sub-surface to the corona. The investigation of Zhao & Kosovichev (2003) also evidenced that there was a strong subsurface vortical flow below a rotating sunspot. Magara & Longcope (2001) and Fan (2009) presented a simulation on the emergence of a twisted flux tube into the solar atmosphere. During the emergence, the opposite polarity regions separated and rotated toward a more axial orientation. Fan (2009) concluded that the rotation in the two polarities is a result of propagation of nonlinear torsional Alfven waves along the flux tube, which transports significant twist from the tube’s interior portion to its expanded coronal portion. In some events, the sunspot rotation was obviously accompanied with the emergence flux and polarity separation (Zhang, Li & Song 2007; Jiang et al. 2011). However, in this event, no these characteristics were found. We assume that the sunspot rotation can originate in two ways. It needs more observations to confirm these results.
When the total twist of the field exceeds a little over one turn, or 2.5$\pi$ (Hood 1991; $Vr\check{s}nak$, $Ru\check{z}djak$ & Rompolt 1991; Rust et al. 1994; T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k, & Kliem 2003), the flux rope becomes unstable. Leamon et al. (2003) measured the total twist of 191 X-ray sigmoids and found that most of the sigmoids have a total twist less than one turn. In this event, the sunspot rotated by 195 degrees and the twist was less than the critical value obtained by former authors. However, the filament also erupted finally. We assume that the eruption of the flux rope is relative to not only the twist caused by sunspot rotation but also self-twist before sunspot rotation.
The authors thank the referee for very constructive comments and suggestions. The authors thank the TRACE, SOHO, and GOES consortia for their data. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. This work is sponsored by National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the grant numbers 10903027, 11078005, 10943002, Yunnan Science Foundation of China under number 2009CD120, China’s 973 project under the grant number G2011CB811400.
Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Mikic, Z., Linker, J. 2000, , 529, 49
Aulanier, G., T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k, T., D$\acute{e}$moulin, P., DeLuca, E. E. 2010, , 708, 314
Barnes, C. W., Sturrock, P. A. 1972, , 174, 659
Brown D. S., Nightingale R. W., Alexander D., Schrijver C. J., Metcalf T. R., Shine R. A., Title A. M., Wolfson C. J. 2003, , 216, 79
Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., Korendyke, C. M., Michels, D. J., Moses, J. D. et al. 1995, , 162, 357
Bi, Y., Jiang, Y. C., Yang, L. H., Zheng, R. S. 2011, , 16, 276
Canfield R. C., Hudson H. S., McKenzie D. E., 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 627
Canfield, Richard C., Kazachenko, M. D., Acton, L. W., Mackay, D. H., Son, J., Freeman, T. L., 2007, , 671, L81
Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, , 162, 1
Evershed, J., 1910, , 70, 217
Fan, Y. 2001, , 554, L111
Fan, Y. 2009, , 697, 1529
Gopasyuk, S. I., 1965, Izv. Krym. Astrofiz. Obs., 33, 100
Gibson, S. E., Fletcher, L., Del Zanna, G., Pike, C. D., Mason, H. E., Mandrini, C. H., D$\acute{e}$moulin, P., Gilbert, H., Burkepile, J., Holzer, T., et al. 2002, , 574, 1021
Gibson, S. E., Fan, Y., Mandrini, C., Fisher, G., Demoulin, P. 2004, , 617, 600
Green, L. M., Kliem, B. 2009, , 700, L83
Green, L. M., Kliem, B., Wallace, A. J. 2011, , 526, 2
Hood, A. W. 1991, Solar System Magnetohydrodynamics, ed. E. R. Priest & A. W. Hood (London: Cambridge Univ. Press), 307
Hudson, H. S., Lemen, J. R., St. Cyr, O. C., Sterling, A. C., Webb, D. F. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2481
Handy, B.N., Acton, L.W., Kankelborg, C.C.,Wolfson, C.J.,Akin, D.J., Bruner, M.E.,Caravalho, R., Catura, R.C., et al. 1999, , 187, 229
Jiang, Y.C., Chen, H.D., Shen, Y.D., Yang, L.H., Li, K.J. 2007, , 240, 77
Jiang, Y.C., Zheng, R.S., Yang, J.Y., Hong, J.C., Yi, B., Yang, D. 2012, , 744, 50
Jing, J., Yurchyshyn, V. B., Yang, G., Xu, Y., Wang, H. 2004, , 614, 1054
Kliem, B., Titov, V. S., T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k, T. 2004, , 413, L23
Kazachenko, M. D., Canfield, R. C., Longcope, D. W., Qiu, J., Des Jardins, A., Nightingale, R. W. 2009, , 704, 1146
Kumar, P., Manoharan, P. K., & Uddin, W. 2010, , 710, 1195
Liu, Y., Zhao, X.P., Hoeksema, J.T., Scherrer, P.H., Wang, J., Yan, Y. 2002, , 206, 333
Low, B.C. & Berger, M.A. 2003, , 589, 644
Leamon, R.J., Canfield, R.C., Blehm, Z., Pevtsov, A.A. 2003, , 596, L255
Liu, C., Lee, J., Yurchyshyn, V., Deng, N., Cho, K. 2007, , 669, 1372
Li, L.P., & Zhang, J. 2009, , 706, L17
Maltby, P., 1964, Astrophys. Nor., 8, 205
Magara, T. & Longcope, D. W. 2001, , 559, 55
Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., Lemen, J. R. 2001, , 552, 833
McKenzie, D. E., & Canfield, R. C. 2008, , 481, L65
Min, S. & Chae, J. 2009, , 258, 203
Nightingale, R. W., Brown, D. S., Metcalf, T. R., et al. 2002, in Yohkoh 10th Anniv. Meeting, Muti-wavelength Observattions of Coronal Structure and Dynamics, ed. P. C. H. Martens, & D. Cauffman, 149
Pevtsov, A. A. 2002, , 207, 111
Park, S.H., Chae, J., Jing, J., Tan, C. Wang, H. 2010, , 720, 1102
Rust, D.M., Sakurai, T., Gaizauskas, V., Hofmann, A., Martin, S.M., Priest, E.R., Wang, J., 1994, , 153, 1
R$\acute{e}$gnier, S., Canfield R. C., 2006, , 451, 319
R$\acute{e}$gnier, S., Amari T., 2004, , 425, 345
Ravindra, B., Yoshimura, K., Dasso, S. 2011, , 743, 33
Stenflo, J. O. 1969, , 8, 115
Scherrer, P. H., Bogart, R.S., Bush, R.I., Hoeksema, J.T., Kosovichev, A.G., Schou, J., Rosenberg, W., Springer, L., et al. 1995, , 162, 169
Sterling, A. C., & Hudson, H. S. 1997, , 491, L55
Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., Thompson, B. J., Zarro, D. M. 2000, , 532, 628
Schrijver, C. J., Elmore, C., Kliem, B., T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k, T., Title, A. M. 2008, , 674, 586
Savcheva, A., & van Ballegooijen, A. 2009, , 703, 1766
Titov, V.S., & D$\acute{e}$moulin, P. 1999, , 351, 707
T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k, T., Kliem, B. 2003, , 406, 1043
Tian, L., Alexander, D., 2006, , 233, 29
Tripathi, D., Kliem, B., Mason, H. E., Young, P.r R., Green, L. M. 2009, , 698, L27
$Vr\check{s}nak$, $Ru\check{z}djak$, & Rompolt, B. 1991, , 136, 151
Wang, H., Liu, C., Jing, J., Yurchyshyn, V. 2007, , 671, 973
Yan X. L., Qu Z. Q., 2007, , 468, 1083
Yan X. L., Qu Z. Q., Xu C. L., 2008, , 682, L65
Yan, X.L., Qu, Z.Q., Kong, D.F. 2008, , 391, 1887
Yan, X.L., Qu, Z.Q., Xu, C.L., Xue, Z.K., Kong, D.F. 2009, RAA, 9, 596
Yan, X.L., Qu, Z.Q., Kong, D.F. 2011, , 414, 2803
Zhao, J. W., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2003, , 591, 446
Zhang, M., Flyer, N., & Low, B. C. 2006, , 644, 575
Zhang J., Li L. P., Song Q., 2007, , 662, L35
Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, H. 2008, , 247, 39
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}\
{width="6cm"}
{width="5cm"} {width="5cm"} {width="5cm"}\
{width="10cm"}
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
{width="8cm"}
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
{width="12cm"}
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Patricia Bouyer and Vincent Jugé\
LSV, CNRS & ENS Cachan, Univ. Paris-Saclay, France\
[This work is supported by EU under ERC EQualIS (FP7-308087).]{}
title: Dynamic Complexity of the Dyck Reachability
---
Introduction
============
Definitions
===========
One-letter (undirected) Dyck reachability problems
==================================================
Two-letter Dyck reachability problem
====================================
Two-letter undirected Dyck reachability problem
===============================================
[**— Appendix: Proving Proposition \[pro:dyck-to-undirected-dyck\] —**]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Steve Kettell\
*Brookhaven National Laboratory\
*Upton, NY 11973**
title: ' Rare Kaon Decay Experiments [^1] '
---
-60pt -20pt
Introduction
============
The study of rare kaon decays has played a key role in the development of the standard model (SM), and the field continues to have significant impact. Several recent reviews of the field are or will be soon available [@review2000]. The two areas of greatest import are the determination of fundamental standard-model parameters, such as CKM [@kobayashi] mixing and [*CP*]{} violation, and the search for physics beyond the standard model (BSM) through the search for lepton flavor violating (LFV) decays.
Lepton Flavor Violating Decays
==============================
There is solid experimental evidence for the exact conservation of an additive quantum number for each family of charged leptons. While there is no SM mechanism for LFV (non-zero m$_{\nu}$ induces LFV in the charged lepton sector at a level that is too small to observe), there is no underlying gauge symmetry preserving lepton flavor; and many extensions to the SM predict LFV. Observation of LFV would be unambiguous evidence for physics beyond the SM.
Due to the relatively long kaon lifetime, copious production at fixed target proton accelerators, and very sophisticated experimental techniques, the mass scale probed by rare kaon decay experiments is quite high. This can be seen by comparing the decay, through a hypothetical LFV vector boson with coupling $g_X$ and mass $M_X$ to the conventional $K_{\mu2}$ decay ($g$ and $M_W$): $M_X > 200 \;{\rm
TeV/c^2} \times g_X/g \times \left[ 10^{-12}/ \rm
B({\mbox{$K^\circ_L \! \rightarrow \! \mu e$ }})\right]^{1/4}.$ For current experimental sensitivities at the level of $10^{-12}$, mass scales in excess of 100 TeV are explored (for the usual electroweak coupling).
The E871 experiment at BNL, a search for , has been completed, with two long runs during 1995–96. The E871 analysis of the data set used a ‘blind analysis’ technique, in which selection criteria were devised and backgrounds measured on the data outside of an exclusion region. These selection criteria were then applied to the remaining data and background measurements were compared to the actual number of events. No events were seen in the signal region (see Fig. \[fig:e871\]), with an expected background of 0.1 events
and the 90% CL limit on this decay is B() $<
4.7\times10^{-12}$ [@e871_me]. There are no plans to pursue this decay further.
The E865 experiment at BNL, designed to search for the decay , an analog to which is sensitive to LFV interactions with different quantum numbers, collected data during 1995, 1996 and 1998. The 90% CL limits on this mode from the 1995 and 1996 runs are B() $< 2.1\times10^{-10}$ and $< 3.9\times10^{-11}$ respectively. Combining these results with that of the predecessor experiment E777, the 90% CL limit is B() $< 2.8\times10^{-11}$ [@e865_pme]. The final sensitivity, including 1998 data, is expected to be $\sim$3 times better. There are no plans to continue this search.
The current 90% CL limit for is from E799-I [@e799_pme] at FNAL, with B() $< 3.1\times10^{-9}$. This measurement has very little background, so E799-II (KTeV) will be able to substantially improve upon this limit, reaching sensitivities close to E865.
CKM Matrix
==========
The modes: and , are the ‘golden modes’ for determining CKM matrix parameters. Both of these modes can be very precisely calculated from fundamental SM parameters. The mode is sensitive to the magnitude of the poorly known $\lambda_t\equiv
V_{ts}^*V_{td}$ and is purely direct-[*CP*]{}-violating and sensitive to $Im(\lambda_t)$.
Two other modes for which it may be possible to extract fundamental CKM parameters are and . However, in both cases, large long-distance contributions limit the usefulness of these modes. Additional measurements of some radiative kaon decays, as well as chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) work, are needed to extract the short distance physics [@dambrosio; @dumm; @valencia; @derafael; @donoghue]. In the case of and , there are also significant backgrounds.
and
----
The mode , whose small rate has played such an important role in the development of the SM (e.g. the GIM mechanism and the prediction of the charm quark [@glashow]), has now been measured (relative to ) to the unprecedented precision of 1.5%, with 6200 events observed by E871 [@e871_mm].
The decay is dominated by with the two real photons converting to a $\mu^+$$\mu^-$ pair. This contribution is precisely calculated using QED from a measurement of the branching ratio. There is also a long distance dispersive contribution through off-shell photons, which has been calculated [@dambrosio; @dumm] although there is some dispute as to the reliability of these calculations [@valencia; @derafael]. Most interesting is the short distance contribution, through internal quark loops, dominated by the top quark. A measurement of this short distance contribution is sensitive to the real part of the $\lambda_t$ or, equivalently, the Wolfenstein [@wolfenstein] parameter $\rho$ [@buras2]: $$B_{SD}({\mbox{$K^\circ_L \! \rightarrow \! \mu^+ \mu^-$ }}) = 6.0 \times 10^{-3} [Re(\lambda_t)-6.7\times10^{-5}]^2 \sim 9\times10^{-10}$$ The current measurement of the branching ratio B() $= (7.18 \pm 0.17) \times 10^{-9}$ by the E871 collaboration [@e871_mm] represents a factor of three improvement. This value is only slightly above the unitarity bound from the on-shell two photon contribution of B$_{abs}$() = $(7.07\pm0.18) \times 10^{-9}$ and leaves very little room for a short distance contribution. Using estimates of the long distance dispersive contribution [@dambrosio], a 90% CL limit of $\rho >-0.33$ is obtained [@e871_mm].
The decay is predominantly through two off-shell photons, making this decay less interesting for extracting SM parameters. However, the recent observation of four events by E871 [@e871_ee], with B() $= (8.7^{+5.7}_{-4.1})
\times 10^{-12}$ is consistent with ChPT predictions [@dumm; @valencia] and is the smallest branching ratio ever measured for any elementary particle decay.
The modes can proceed via the direct-[*CP*]{}-violating processes. This short-distance contribution is given by [@buras2] $$B_{SD}({\mbox{$K^\circ_L \! \rightarrow \! \pi^\circ e^+ e^-$ }}) = 2.5 \times 10^{-4} [Im(\lambda_t)]^2 \sim 5\times 10^{-12}.$$ The muon mode, , is expected to be five times smaller. Unfortunately, the decay can occur in two other ways: an indirect-[*CP*]{}-violating contribution (which can be determined from measurement of ) and a [*CP*]{}-conserving contribution (which may be calculated from the rate at low invariant $\gamma\gamma$ mass). These contributions may be comparable to or larger than the direct-[*CP*]{}-violating contribution. Even more formidable is the background from , as pointed out by Greenlee [@greenlee]. The KTeV experiment at FNAL, analyzing data from 1997, has significantly improved the limit on . Two events, consistent with the expected background of 1.1 events, were found in the signal region [@e799_pee], giving a 90% CL limit of B() $ <
5.6\times10^{-10}$. A similar analysis of the related muon mode resulted in two events, consistent with the expected background of $0.9\pm0.2$ events, in the signal region [@e799_pmm], and a slightly smaller upper limit, $B({\mbox{$K^\circ_L \! \rightarrow \! \pi^\circ \mu^+ \mu^-$ }}) < 3.4\times 10^{-10} \; \; (90\%\,{\rm
CL}) $. Improvement in limits on both of these modes will be slow due to the presence of background.
There is a wealth of other new measurements in the kaon system reported recently from BNL, FNAL and CERN [@review2000; @daphne]. Many of these are useful for understanding long-distance effects in or and for determining the background to . These measurements are substantially improved over previous values and even larger improvements will be obtained when the complete data sets are analyzed.
Golden Modes
------------
The and decays are the ‘golden modes’ for measuring CKM parameters; and, along with the other golden mode and perhaps the ratio of the mixing frequencies of $B_s$ and $B_d$ mesons, provide the best opportunity to over-constrain the unitary triangle and to search for new physics. The most powerful tests of our understanding of CP-violation and quark mixing will come from comparison of the results from B meson and kaon decays with little theoretical ambiguity. The two premier tests are expected to be:
- Comparison of the angle $\beta$ from the ratio B()/B() and the CP asymmetry in the decay [@sinb; @grossman].
- Comparison of the magnitude $|{\mbox{$V_{td}$}}|$ from and the ratio of the mixing frequencies of $B_s$ to $B_d$ mesons [@bb3].
The unitarity of the CKM matrix can be expressed as $$V^*_{us}V_{ud} + V^*_{cs}V_{cd} + V^*_{ts}V_{td} =
\lambda_u + \lambda_c + \lambda_t = 0$$ with the three vectors $\lambda_i\equiv V^*_{is}V_{id}$ converging to form a very elongated triangle in the complex plane. The first vector $\lambda_u=V^*_{us}V_{ud}$ is well determined from the decay ($K_{e3}$). The height can be measured by and the third side $\lambda_t=V^*_{ts}V_{td}$ will be measured by . The decay offers the best opportunity for measuring the Jarlskog invariant $J_{CP}$ [@jarlskog]. The decays are sensitive to the magnitude and imaginary part of $\lambda_t$. Measurements of these two modes, along with $K_{e3}$, will then completely determine the unitarity triangle.
The theoretical uncertainty in ($\sim$7%) is small and even smaller in ($\sim$2%); in both cases the hadronic matrix element is extracted from B($K_{e3}$). The branching ratios have been calculated to next-to-leading-log approximation [@bb1], complete with isospin violation corrections [@marciano] and two-loop-electroweak effects [@bb2]. Based on current understandings of SM parameters, the branching ratios can be expressed as [@bb3]: $$\begin{aligned}
B({\mbox{$K^+ \! \rightarrow \! \pi^+ \nu \overline{\nu}$ }}) & = &\frac{\kappa_+ \alpha^2 B(K_{e3})}
{2 \pi^2 \sin^4 \theta_W |V_{us}|^2}
\sum_l |X_t\lambda_t + X_c^l\lambda_c|^2\\ \nonumber
& = & 3.6\times10^{-4}([Re(\lambda_t)-1.4\times10^{-4}]^2 +
[Im(\lambda_t)]^2) \\ \nonumber
& = & (0.82\pm0.32)\times10^{-10} \\
B({\mbox{$K^\circ_L \! \rightarrow \! \pi^\circ \nu \overline{\nu}$ }}) & = & \frac{\tau_{K_L}}{\tau_{K^+}}
\frac{\kappa_L\alpha^2 B(K_{e3})}{2\pi^2sin^4\theta_W |V_{us}|^2}
\sum_{l} |Im(\lambda_t)X_t|^2 \\ \nonumber
& = & 1.6\times10^{-3}[Im(\lambda_t)]^2 = (3.1\pm1.3)\times10^{-11}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa$ are the isospin corrections and the Inami-Lim functions [@buras], $X_q$, are functions of $x_q \equiv$ $M_q^2$/$M_W^2$ where $M_q$ is the mass of the quark $q;$ these contain QCD corrections. In addition, it is possible to place a theoretically unambiguous upper limit on from the current limit on mixing, B() $< 1.67\times10^{-10}$ [@bb3].
###
The E787 experiment at BNL has recently published an analysis of the 1995–97 data sample [@e787_pnn]: one clean event lies in the signal box (see Fig. \[fig:e787\]),
with a measured background of $0.08\pm0.02$ events. Based on this one event the branching ratio is B() = $1.5^{+3.4}_{-1.2} \times
10^{-10}$. From this measurement, a limit of $0.002 < |{\mbox{$V_{td}$}}| < 0.04$ is determined; in addition, the following limits on $\lambda_t \equiv
V^*_{ts}{\mbox{$V_{td}$}}$ can be set: $| Im(\lambda_t) | < 1.22\times10^{-3}$, $-1.10\times10^{-3} < Re(\lambda_t) < 1.39\times10^{-3}$, and $1.07\times10^{-4} < | \lambda_t | < 1.39\times10^{-3}$. The final sensitivity of the E787 experiment, based on data from 1995–98, should reach a factor of two further, to the SM expectation for .
A new experiment, E949, is under construction and will run in 2001–03. Taking advantage of the very large AGS proton flux and the experience gained with the E787 detector, E949 with modest upgrades should observe $\cal O$(10) SM events in a two year run. The background is well-understood and is $\sim$10% of the SM signal.
A proposal for a further factor of 10 improvement has been initiated at FNAL. The CKM experiment (E905) plans to collect 100 SM events, with $\sim$10 background events, in a two year run starting after 2005. This experiment will use a new technique, with K$^+$ decay-in-flight and momentum/velocity spectrometers.
###
The current best direct limit [@e799_pnn] on comes from the KTeV run in 1997: B() $< 5.9\times10^{-7}$ (90% CL).
An even more stringent limit can be derived in a model independent way [@grossman] from the E787 measurement of : $$\begin{aligned}
B({\mbox{$K^\circ_L \! \rightarrow \! \pi^\circ \nu \overline{\nu}$ }}) & < & 4.4 \times B({\mbox{$K^+ \! \rightarrow \! \pi^+ \nu \overline{\nu}$ }}) \\ \nonumber
& < & 2.6\times10^{-9} \; \; (90\%\,{\rm CL})
\label{eq:pnn}\end{aligned}$$
The next generation of experiments will start with E391a at KEK, which hopes to achieve a sensitivity of $\sim10^{-10}$. Although the reach of E391a is not sufficient to observe a signal at the standard model level, the experiment will be able to rule out large BSM enhancements and learn more about how to do this difficult experiment. This experiment would eventually move to the JHF and aim for a sensitivity of ${\cal O} (10^{-14})$.
Two other experiments propose to reach sensitivities of ${\cal O}
(10^{-13})$: E926 (KOPIO/RSVP) at BNL and E804 (KAMI) at FNAL. KAMI plans to reuse the excellent CsI calorimeter from KTeV and to operate at high kaon momentum to achieve good photon energy resolution and efficiency. It will take advantage of the large flux available from the Main Injector. KOPIO follows a different strategy; the kaon center of mass will be reconstructed using a bunched proton beam and a very low momentum K$_L$ beam. This gives two independent criteria to identify background: photon veto and kinematics — allowing background levels to be directly measured from the data — and gives further confidence in any observed signal. The necessary flux will by obtained from the very high AGS proton current. The low energy beam also substantially reduces backgrounds from neutrons and hyperons. After three years of running, 65 SM events are expected with a S/B $\ge$ 2:1.
Conclusions and Future Prospects
================================
The unprecedented sensitivities of rare kaon decay experiments in setting limits on LFV have constrained many extensions of the SM. The discovery of has opened the doors to measurements of the unitarity triangle completely within the kaon system. Significant progress in the determination of the fundamental CKM parameters will come from the generation of experiments that is now starting. Comparison with the B-system will then over-constrain the triangle and test the SM explanation of [*CP*]{} violation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank members of several experiments for access to data and for useful discussions, in particular, I would like to thank Bill Molzon, Bob Tschirhart, Tony Barker and Hong Ma. This work was supported under U.S. Department of Energy contract \#DE-AC02-98CH10886.
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{}[**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
[99]{} A.R. Barker and S.H. Kettell, ; L. Littenberg, [*Proc. Rencontres de Moriond, Les Arcs, France, March, 2000*]{}; S. Kettell, [*Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. B Phys. and CP Violation, Taipei, Taiwan, Dec. 1999*]{}, also hep-ex/0002011; W. Molzon, [*Proc. XIX Int. Symp. Lepton and Photon Interact., Stanford, August 1999.*]{}, also hep-ex/0001024; [*Proc. Chicago Conf. Kaon Phys., June 1999*]{}, also http://hep.uchicago.edu/kaon99/. N. Cabibbo, ; M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa . D. Ambrose, [*et al.*]{}, . R. Appel, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} In press; also hep-ex/0005016 (2000). K. Arisaka, [*et al.*]{}, . G. D’Ambrosio, [*et al.*]{}, . D.G. Dumm and A. Pich, . G. Valencia, . M. Knecht, [*et al.*]{}, . J.F. Donoghue, F. Gabbiani, . S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, L. Maiani, ; M.K. Gaillard, B.W. Lee . D. Ambrose, [*et al.*]{}, . L. Wolfenstein, . A. Buras, [*et al.*]{}, . D. Ambrose, [*et al.*]{}, . H.B. Greenlee, . T. Yamanaka, [*Proc. Rencontres de Moriond, Les Arcs, France, March 1999*]{}. A. Alavi-Harati, [*et al.*]{}, . S. Kettell, [*Proc. 3rd DA$\Phi$NE Work. Phys. and Det., Frascati, Italy, Nov. 1999*]{}, also hep-ex/0002009. G. Bucahalla and A. Buras, ; G. Bucahalla and A. Buras, ; Y. Nir and M.P. Worah, ; S. Bergmann and G. Perez, hep-ph/0007170. Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, . G. Bucahalla and A. Buras, .\[ref:bb3\] C. Jarlskog, . G. Buchalla and A. Buras, . W.J. Marciano and Z. Parsa, . G. Bucahalla and A. Buras, . A. Buras, hep-ph/9806471; T. Inami and C.S. Lim, . S. Adler, [*et al.*]{}, ; . A. Alavi-Harati, [*et al.*]{}, .
[^1]: To be published in the [*Proceedings of the Workshop on Strange Quarks in Hadrons, Nuclei, and Nuclear Matter; Athens, Ohio, May 12-13, 2000*]{}; Ed. K. Hicks
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Agreement of theoretical calculations with the observed production rate of bottom quarks at hadron colliders is improved by the introduction of a contribution from pair-production of light gluinos, of mass 12 to 16 GeV, having two-body decays into bottom quarks and light bottom squarks with mass $\simeq 2$ to 5.5 GeV. Predictions are made for hadronic and radiative decays of the Upsilon states. In the limit of large $\tan\beta$, the dominant decay mode of the light scalar Higgs boson is into a pair of light bottom squarks that materialize as jets of hadrons.'
title: Light Bottom Squark Phenomenology
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The cross section for bottom-quark $b$ production at hadron collider energies exceeds the central value of predictions of next-to-leading order (NLO) perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) by about a factor of two or three [@expxsec]. The NLO contributions are large, and a combination of further higher-order effects in production and/or fragmentation may eventually reduce the discrepancy [@frag]. In Ref. [@Berger:2000mp], my collaborators and I propose a contribution from physics beyond the standard model (SM). In this paper, I summarize the proposal in Ref. [@Berger:2000mp] of light gluinos $\tilde{g}$ and light bottom squarks $\tilde{b}$, as well as subsequent work [@Berger:2001jb; @Berger:2002kc; @Berger:2002gu; @Berger:higgs; @Berger:raddecay]. In this scenario the $\tilde b$ is the lightest supersymmetric (SUSY) particle, and the masses of all other SUSY particles are arbitrarily heavy, i.e., of order the electroweak scale or greater. The lifetime of the $\tilde{b}$ is assumed to be less than the cosmological time scale so that these squarks make no contribution to the dark matter density. References to an extensive body of other recent theoretical papers can be found in [@Berger:higgs]. Various experimental constraints and phenomenological implications are examined in Ref. [@Berger:2002kc].
There are important restrictions on couplings of the $\tilde{b}$ from precise measurements of $Z^0$ decays. A light $\tilde b$ would be ruled out unless its coupling to the $Z^0$ is very small. The squark couplings to the $Z^0$ depend on the mixing angle $\theta_b$. The lowest-order (tree-level) coupling to the $Z^0$ can be arranged to be small [@light-sb] if $\sin^2 \theta_b \sim 1/6$. The couplings of the heavier bottom squark ${\widetilde{b}_2}$ survive. A careful phenomenological analysis is needed of expected $\widetilde{b}_2$ decay signatures, along with an understanding of detection efficiencies and expected event rates, before one knows the admissible range of its masses consistent with LEP data. In the first paper of Ref. [@Cao:2001rz] it is argued that one-loop contributions may render the light $\tilde{g}$ and light $\tilde{b}$ scenario inconsistent with data, unless the mass of the ${\widetilde{b}}_2$ is less than about 125 GeV. The possibility that ${\widetilde{b}}_2$ lies in this mass range is not excluded. In the second paper, the mass bound is relaxed to about 180 GeV, and in the third, the constraint is further relaxed if $CP$-violating phases are present.
HADRON COLLIDERS
================
The light gluinos are produced in pairs via standard QCD subprocesses, dominantly $g + g \rightarrow \tilde g + \tilde g$ at Tevatron and Large Hadron Collider (LHC) energies. The $\tilde g$ has a strong color coupling to $b$’s and $\tilde b$’s and, as long as its mass satisfies $m_{\tilde g} > m_b + m_{\tilde b}$, the $\tilde g$ decays promptly to $b + \tilde b$. The magnitude of the $b$ cross section, the shape of the $b$’s transverse momentum $p_{Tb}$ distribution, and the CDF measurement [@cdfmix] of $B^0 - \bar B^0$ mixing are three features of the data that help to establish the preferred masses of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde b$. Values of $m_{\tilde g} \simeq$ 12 to 16 GeV are chosen because the resulting $\tilde g$ decays produce $p_{Tb}$ spectra that are enhanced primarily in the neighborhood of $p_{Tb}^{\rm min} \simeq m_{\tilde g}$ where the data show the most prominent enhancement above the QCD expectation. Larger values of $m_{\tilde g}$ yield too little cross section to be of interest, and smaller values produce more cross section than seems tolerated by the ratio of like-sign to opposite-sign leptons from $b$ decay.
After the contributions of the NLO QCD and SUSY components are added, the magnitude of the bottom-quark cross section and the shape of the integrated $p^{\rm min}_{Tb}$ distribution are described well. The SUSY process produces $b$’s in a four-body final state. Nevertheless, the angular correlations between $b$’s in the SUSY case are nearly indistinguishable from those of QCD once experimental cuts are applied. The energy dependence of the $b$ cross section is a potentially important constraint on models in which new physics is invoked. Since the assumed $\tilde{g}$ mass is larger than the mass of the $b$, the $\tilde{g}$ pair process will turn on more slowly with energy than pure QCD production of $b \bar{b}$ pairs. The new physics contribution will depress the ratio of cross sections at 630 GeV and 1.8 TeV from the pure QCD expectation. An explicit calculation with CTEQ4M parton densities and the $b$ rapidity selection $|y| < 1$, yields a pure NLO QCD prediction for the ratio of 0.17 +/- 0.02 for $p_{Tb}^{\rm min} =$ 10.5 GeV, and 0.16 +/- 0.02 after inclusion of the $\tilde{g}$ pair contribution. Either of these numbers is consistent with data [@Acosta:2002qk].
Like/Unlike-sign B’s and Leptons
--------------------------------
If, as in many scenarios, the $\tilde g$ is a Majorana particle, its decay yields both quarks and antiquarks. Pair production of Majorana gluinos and subsequent decay to $b$’s will generate $b b$ and $\bar b \bar b$ pairs, as well as the $b \bar b$ final states that appear in QCD production. Therefore, a “gold-plated” prediction is production of $B^+ B^+$ and $B^-B^-$ pairs. For the cuts chosen in current hadron collider experiments, an equal number of like-sign and opposite-sign $b$’s is expected from the SUSY mechanism, leading to an increase of like-sign leptons in the final state after semi-leptonic decays of the $b$ and $\bar b$ quarks. This increase could be confused with an enhanced rate of $B^0-\bar B^0$ mixing.
Time-integrated mixing analyses of lepton pairs observed at hadron colliders are interpreted in terms of the quantity $\bar{\chi}$. The CDF measurement [@cdfmix] of $\bar{\chi}_{\rm {eff}} = 0.131 \pm 0.02 \pm 0.016$ is marginally larger than the world average value $\bar{\chi} =
0.118 \pm 0.005$ [@pdg], assumed to be the contribution from the pure QCD component only. After the contribution from new physics is included, the predictions are $\bar{\chi}_{\rm {eff}} = 0.17 \pm 0.02 $ for $m_{\tilde g} =$ 14 GeV, and $\bar{\chi}_{\rm {eff}} = 0.16 \pm 0.02 $ with $m_{\tilde g} =$ 16 GeV. The calculated $\bar{\chi}_{\rm {eff}}$ is consistent with the data within uncertainties if $m_{\tilde g} > 12$ GeV. The published result is based on an analysis of only 20% of the run-I sample and only the $\mu \mu$ final state. It would be valuable to extend the analysis to the full sample in both the $e \mu$ and $\mu \mu$ modes.
With $\sigma_{\tilde{g}\tilde{g}} / \sigma_{\rm{qcd}} \sim 1/3$, the mixing data and the magnitude and $p_T$ dependence of the $b$ production cross section can be satisfied.
$\Upsilon$ DECAY
================
If $m_{\tilde{b}}$ is less than half the mass of one of the Upsilon states, then $\Upsilon$ decay to a pair of bottom squarks might proceed with sufficient rate for observation or exclusion of a light $\tilde{b}$. The rate for $\Upsilon(nS) \rightarrow \tilde b {\tilde b}^*$ is computed in Ref. [@Berger:2001jb] as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{b}$ and the $\tilde{g}$, and $\chi_{bJ}$ decays are treated in Ref. [@Berger:2002gu]. The data sample is largest at the $\Upsilon(4S)$. For a fixed $\tilde{g}$ mass of 14 GeV, the branching fraction into a pair of $\tilde{b}$’s is about $10^{-4}$ for $m_{\tilde b} =$ 4.85 GeV. A large sample may be available from the CLEO, BaBar, and BELLE experiments. Direct observation of $\Upsilon(nS)$ or $\chi_b$ decay into $\tilde{b}$’s requires an understanding of the ways that $\tilde{b}$’s may manifest themselves, discussed in Refs. [@Berger:2001jb; @Berger:2002kc; @Berger:2002gu]. Possible baryon-number-violating R-parity-violating decays of the $\tilde{b}$ lead to $u+s$; $c+d$; and $c+s$ final states.
It is possible that the $\tilde{b}$ is relatively stable and, hence, bound states of a bottom squark and bottom antisquark (sbottomonium) could exist. These bound states could be produced in radiative decays of bottomonium states, such as $\Upsilon \rightarrow \tilde{S} \gamma$, where $\tilde{S}$ is the $S$-wave bound state of a $\tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*$ pair. In Ref. [@Berger:raddecay], a calculation is presented of the radiative decay of the $\Upsilon(nS)$ states into a bound state of $\tilde{b}$’s. Predictions are provided of the branching fraction as a function of the masses $m_{\tilde{b}}$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}$. Branching fractions as large as several times $10^{-4}$ are obtained for SUSY particle masses in the range suggested by the analysis of the $b$ cross section. Provided that a bound state can be formed, the resonance search by the CUSB Collaboration [@CUSB-gamma] raises the allowed lower bounds on $m_{\tilde{b}}$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}$. Discovery of the $\tilde{S}$ bound states may be possible with the high-statistics 2002 CLEO-c data set, or a larger range of $\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{g}$ masses may be disfavored [@Berger:raddecay].
HIGGS BOSON DECAY
=================
Current strategies for discovery and measurement of the properties the neutral scalar Higgs particle $h$ with $m_h < 135$ GeV rely heavily on the presumption that the principal branching fractions are close to those predicted in the SM or in the usual minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). For masses in this range, the decay width of the SM Higgs boson is dominated by its decay into bottom quarks, $b \overline{b}$. In Ref. [@Berger:higgs], my collaborators and I show explicitly that these assumptions are not warranted if there are non-standard light particles such as $\tilde{b}$’s in the spectrum. We analyze the possibility that the $h$ decays into new particles that manifest themselves as hadronic jets without necessarily significant bottom or charm flavor content. As an example of this possibility, we present the case of a light $\tilde{b}$, with mass smaller than about 10 GeV.
We work in the decoupling limit in which the mass of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson ($m_A$) is large compared to $m_Z$, and we assume that the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values $\tan \beta$ is large. No assumption is made about the gluino mass; a light $\tilde{g}$ is not required. Under these conditions, the dominant decay of $h$ is into a pair of light $\tilde{b}$’s. The total decay width of the $h$ becomes several orders of magnitude larger than the width for decay into $b$’s. Branching fractions into SM decay channels are reduced from their SM values by a factor proportional to $\tan^{-2} \beta$. For values of the branching ratio $BR(h \to \tilde{b} \tilde{b}^*)$ larger than two to five times that into bottom quarks, the large QCD jet backgrounds will make observation of the $h$ very difficult in Tevatron and LHC experiments. Because they rely principally on the production process $e^+ e^- \rightarrow
h Z^0$, experiments at proposed $e^+ e^-$ linear colliders remain fully viable for direct observation of the $h$ and measurement of its mass and some of its branching fractions [@Berger:higgs].
[9]{} CDF Collaboration, F. Abe [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 500 (1993); [*ibid*]{} [**79**]{}, 572 (1997); [*ibid*]{} [**79**]{}, 572 (1997); [*ibid*]{} [**75**]{}, 1451 (1995); D. Acosta [*et al.*]{}, Phys.Rev. D65, 052005 (2002); D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**487**]{}, 264 (2000) and [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 5068 (2000).
M. Cacciari and P. Nason, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 122003 (2002).
E. L. Berger, B. W. Harris, D. E. Kaplan, Z. Sullivan, T. M. Tait, and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4231 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0012001\]. E. L. Berger and L. Clavelli, Phys. Lett. B [**512**]{}, 115 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0105147\]. E. L. Berger, arXiv:hep-ph/0201229, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A (in press). E. L. Berger and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 114003 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0203092\]. E. L. Berger, C. W. Chiang, J. Jiang, T. M. Tait, and C. E. M. Wagner, arXiv:hep-ph/0205342, Phys. Rev. D (in press). E. L. Berger, G. T. Bodwin, and J. Lee, arXiv:hep-ph/0206115. M. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, C. E. M. Wagner, and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 4463 (2001). J. Cao, Z. Xiong, and J. M. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 111802 (2002); G. C. Cho, arXiv:hep-ph/0204348; S. W. Baek, Phys. Lett. B [**541**]{}, 161 (2002). CDF Collaboration, F. Abe [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**55**]{}, 2546 (1997).
CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 032002 (2002). Particle Data Group, [*Eur. Phys. J. C*]{} [**15**]{} 1, (2000).
P. Franzini *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D **35**, 2883 (1987).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Arka Banerjee,'
- 'Bhuvnesh Jain,'
- 'Neal Dalal,'
- and Jessie Shelton
bibliography:
- 'neutrino.bib'
title: Tests of Neutrino and Dark Radiation Models from Galaxy and CMB surveys
---
Introduction
============
Over the last few decades, flavor oscillation experiments e.g. [@SuperK98; @SNO2001; @K2K2003] have established that neutrinos in the Standard Model are massive, and have three mass eigenstates. These experiments have accurately measured two of the mass splittings as well as the mixing angle between the various eigenstates. However, these experiments do not directly measure the absolute masses of the neutrinos, or the mass hierarchy of the three species.
The presence of massive neutrinos has non-trivial consequences for cosmology. The fraction of the total energy density of the universe that is contributed by neutrinos is proportional to the sum of the masses of the three neutrino species [@Dodelson2003book]. For most realistic neutrino masses, all three mass eigenstates were relativistic prior to last scattering of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), but at least two mass eigenstates are non-relativistic today. These neutrinos contribute to the overall matter density at late times, but with little clustering below their free streaming scale. For light neutrinos, the free streaming scale can be comparable to the Hubble radius. This is unlike the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) component which clusters strongly on all scales at low redshifts to form halos and filaments. The clustering of neutrinos has the effect of damping the growth of the matter power spectrum on small scales when compared to a CDM-only case [@Eisenstein1997].
Since the damping of the power spectrum depends on the neutrino energy density, and therefore on the sum of the neutrino masses, an accurate measurement of the matter power spectrum can provide a strong constraint on the sum of the neutrino masses. Combined with the two mass splittings that have been measured from terrestrial experiments, this would allow for an accurate determination of the masses of individual eigenstates and the hierarchy.
Apart from neutrinos in the Standard Model, many theories of physics beyond the Standard Model include light, weakly interacting degrees of freedom in their particle content. While the details of these particles’ interactions may be very different, as long as the interaction rates are small on cosmological time scales, the effect of these light particles on the observable matter power spectrum will be similar to that of the Standard Model neutrinos. These extra light species will damp the power spectrum on scales below their free streaming scale by an amount proportional to the energy density in that species.
Recently many models of dark sectors with varied particle content and interactions have been proposed, [@Spergel1999; @CyrRacine2012; @Fan2013; @Ackerman:mha; @Feng:2009mn; @Tulin:2013teo; @Carlson:1992fn; @Hochberg:2014dra; @Kopp:2016yji; @Dror:2016rxc; @Forestell:2016qhc; @Pappadopulo:2016pkp; @Kuflik:2015isi; @Agashe:2014yua; @Loeb:2010gj; @Chacko:2015noa] for example. Many of these models predict the existence of some form of thermal dark radiation, both bosonic and fermionic. Pseudo-Goldstone bosons are the most common example of the former, and are realized in many extensions of the Standard Model. Among fermionic dark radiation candidates, sterile neutrinos are perhaps the best-motivated and extensively studied. In all these cases, the presence of extra dark radiation in the universe would lead to a non-zero $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ in measurements of the CMB, i.e. a change to the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom at CMB last scattering. However, since these particles are expected to be relativistic at the epoch of CMB, a measurement of $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ alone does not measure the masses of these particles. As long as the masses of these particles are light enough that they are fully non-relativistic today, the damping of the matter power spectrum is directly proportional to the mass of the dark radiation particle, and measurements of this damping on small scales can potentially constrain the mass, both for fermions and for bosons [@Hannestad:2005].
One specific example of such a model with extra light particles is the “NNaturalness” mechanism [@Arkani-Hamed2016] proposed to solve the hierarchy problem. This model introduces $N$ non-interacting copies of the Standard Model field content, with the Standard Model being identified as the copy with the lowest non-zero Higgs vacuum expectation value. One of the predictions of this model is that massive neutrinos from sectors close to our Standard Model could have energy densities not too much smaller than the energy density of the Standard Model neutrinos. Apart from a signature on $N_{\rm eff}$ at CMB, there will also be extra damping of the low redshift matter power spectrum compared to the Standard Model, which is potentially observable.
Accurate measurement of the late time matter power spectrum, therefore, will be extremely important for constraining the neutrino mass in the Standard Model, as well as for constraining light degrees of freedom from more exotic models. One probe of late-time clustering of mass is lensing of the CMB by intervening matter. The [*Planck*]{} experiment along with ground based experiments such as SPT [@SPT] and ACT [@ACT], have already produced lensing maps of the CMB, and future planned experiments such as the Simons Observatory and CMB Stage 4 will be able to this more accurately and down to smaller scales [@S4ScienceBook; @SIMONS].
Another powerful method for determining the late time matter power spectrum is weak lensing measurements in large galaxy photometric surveys, like the ongoing Dark Energy Survey [@DES2005], Subaru HSC survey [@HSC] and KiDS [@KIDS], and the upcoming surveys by the LSST [@LSST], Euclid [@EUCLID] and WFIRST [@WFIRST] missions.. While measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing and galaxy autocorrelations from these surveys do not individually measure matter auto-correlations, due to degeneracy with the unknown galaxy bias, the combination of the two on linear scales (where the bias is expected to be deterministic) eliminates the bias uncertainty [@Baldauf2016]. Inclusion of cosmic shear measurements from these surveys further enhances the ability to pin down the underlying matter power spectrum. Using weak lensing from current and upcoming CMB and photometric galaxy surveys, as well as information about low redshifts from ongoing and future spectroscopic surveys, numerous authors have investigated the bounds placed by these measurements on the neutrino mass e.g. [@Hu1997; @Abazajian2002; @Lesgourgues2005; @Kaplinghat2003; @Hannestad2006; @Kitching2008; @Allison2015; @Takada2008; @Takada2009; @Takada2011; @Abazajian2016; @Dunkley2016; @Verde2009; @Carbone2011; @Verde2015; @Verde2010; @Hamann2012; @DESI; @S4ScienceBook; @Wu2014; @Abazajian2013; @Zhao2013; @Carbone2012; @Gratton2007; @Wang2005; @Takeuchi2013; @Font-Ribera2013; @Archidiacono2016; @Hall2012; @dePutter2014; @dePutter2009; @Lahav2010; @Mueller2014]. With the inclusion of smaller scales in successive generations of cosmological experiments, as well as lower experimental noise, these bounds have gotten progressively tighter, to the point that current data from the [*Planck*]{} experiment offers stronger bounds on the sum of neutrino masses than any terrestrial experiment, albeit with assumptions about the background cosmology.
In this paper, we present a Fisher forecast analysis of the ability of a survey like LSST to constrain the sum of the neutrino masses, as well as its ability to constrain other beyond Standard Model light degrees of freedom using weak lensing measurements. In §\[method\], we present our method for calculating constraints on cosmological parameters, as well for differentiating between different models producing changes in the angular power spectrum $C_l$. In §\[systematics\], we overview the survey parameters for LSST and CMB Stage 4 lensing experiment, as well as parameterize the systematic uncertainties in these surveys. In §\[constraints\], we present the constraints on the sum of neutrino masses from LSST and compare it to those that will be obtained from CMB Stage 4 lensing. We also present constraints from the joint analysis of the two. In §\[darkrad\], we discuss how observables at LSST can provide constraints on dark radiation. In §\[NNat\], we discuss the prospects of detecting models of NNaturalness using galaxy clustering and lensing at LSST. Finally, in §\[summary\], we summarize our findings, and discuss future avenues of study.
Method
======
Weak lensing in galaxy surveys {#method_lensing}
------------------------------
Galaxy surveys like LSST provide maps of galaxy distributions and shear on the sky, which can be used to construct the different 2-point correlation functions that will be used in our analysis: the galaxy-galaxy autocorrelation function $C_l^{gg}$, the galaxy-convergence cross spectrum $C_l^{g\kappa}$ and the convergence autospectrum $C_l^{\kappa\kappa}$. Here we make use of the simple relation between shear spectra and convergence spectra. Using the Limber approximation these spectra are constructed from the underlying 3-dimensional power spectra [@Hu2004]: $$C_l^{x_ix_j} = \int dz \frac{H}{D_A^2}W_i(z)W_j(z)P^{s_is_j}(k = l/D_A;z) \, ,$$ where $x_i$ stand for $g$ or $\kappa$, while $s_i$ stand for the underlying 3 dimensional source fields. $D_A$ is the angular diameter distance, and $W_i$ are the weighting functions in redshift space. For the galaxy number fluctuations, the three dimensional source field is the fluctuations in the 3-dimensional number density: $$s (\mathbf r; z) = \frac{\delta n_V}{\bar n_V} \, .$$ The weighting function for galaxy fluctuations is given by $$W_g(z) = \frac{D_A^2}{H} \frac{\bar n _V}{\bar n_A} \, ,$$ where the normalization factor $\bar n_A$ is chosen so that $\int W_g(z) dz = 1$. For the shear field the 3-dimensional source field is the fluctuation of the matter density: $$s(\mathbf r;z) = \frac{\delta \rho_m}{\rho_m} \, ,$$ and the weighting function is $$W_\kappa (z) = \frac 3 2 \Omega_m \frac {H_0} H \frac{H_0 D_{OL}} a \int_z ^\infty dz'\frac{D_{LS}}{D_{OS}}W_g(z') \, ,$$ where $D_{OL}$ stands for the angular diameter distance to the lens, $D_{OS}$ is the angular diameter distance to the source, and $D_{LS}$ is the distance between the lens and the source. We use the publicly available CAMB code [@CAMB] to generate the various power spectra that go into our analysis.
To construct the covariance matrix for the $C_l$, we assume that the different $l$ are uncorrelated and so the covariance matrix is diagonal in $l$. We also assume that up to $l_{\rm max}$, we are roughly in the linear regime, where Gaussian statistics are valid, and all $n$-point functions can be broken down into products of various two point functions given by the $C_l$. To take into account the shape noise in the shear spectra and the shot noise in the galaxy spectra we define $$\tilde C_l^{x_ix_j} = C_l^{x_ix_j} + N_l^{x_ix_j} \, ,$$ where $x$ stands for $g$ or $\kappa$ and $i$ is used to label different redshift bins. The noise terms are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label {shotnoise} N_l^{g_ig_j} &=& \frac{\delta_{ij}}{\bar n_i}\, , \\
N_l^{\kappa_i\kappa_j} &=& \frac{\delta_{ij} \gamma_{\rm rms}^2}{\bar n_i} \, ,\\
N_l^{g_i\kappa_j} &=& 0 \, .
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bar n_i$ represent the number counts of lens and source galaxies in each redshift bin in units of $sr^{-1}$. For the shape noise contribution, we use a value of $\sqrt{\gamma_{\rm rms}^2} = 0.22$.
In the linear regime all covariances of the power spectra can be written as products of the power spectra themselves. Therefore the different elements of the covariance matrix $\mathcal {C}_l$ can be written as: $$\left[\mathcal{C}_l\right]^{ij,kl} \equiv \tilde C_l^{x_ix_k} \tilde C_l^{x_jx_l}
+ \tilde C_l^{x_ix_l}\tilde C_l^{x_jx_k} \, .$$ Using this covariance matrix, we construct different components of the LSST Fisher matrix $$F^{\rm LSST}_{\alpha\beta} = f_{\rm sky}\sum_l (2l+1) \sum_{ijkl}\frac{\partial C_l^{x_ix_j}}
{\partial p_\alpha} \left[\mathcal{C}_l\right]^{-1}_{ij,kl}
\frac{\partial C_l^{x_kx_l}} {\partial p_\beta} \, ,$$ where $p_\alpha$ represent the model parameters, and $f_{\rm sky}$ is the fraction of the sky covered in the survey, which we take to be 0.5 for LSST.
To use information on the parameters from [*Planck*]{}, we use the covariance matrices available in the [*Planck*]{} Legacy Archive for the baseline model. We ensure that we do not include [*Planck*]{} constraints coming from CMB lensing within the [*Planck*]{} experiment. The total Fisher matrix is obtained by adding together the resultant [*Planck*]{} Fisher matrix to the Fisher matrix we derive for the LSST experiment $$F = F^{\rm LSST} + F^{Planck} \, .$$
The constraint on parameter $\alpha$ is then given by $$\sigma (p_\alpha) = \sqrt{(F^{-1})_{\alpha\alpha}} \, .$$
CMB lensing {#method_cmb}
-----------
For the CMB lensing analysis, we consider the lensing power spectrum $C_l^{dd}$ where $\mathbf d $, the deflection field, is the gradient of the lensing potential $\mathbf d = \nabla \phi$. The noise level $N_l^{dd}$ for a given set of experimental sensitivities can be estimated following [@Hu2002], and was calculated using QUICKLENS [@quicklens]. The covariance matrix for the CMB lensing power spectrum is then $$\mathcal C_l = 2 \left(C_l^{dd} + N_l^{dd}\right)^2 \,,$$ and the elements of the Fisher matrix are given by $$F^{\rm CMB}_{\alpha\beta} = f_{\rm sky} \sum (2l+1) \frac{\partial C_l^{dd}}{\partial p_\alpha} \mathcal C_l^{-1} \frac{\partial C_l^{dd}}{\partial p_\beta} \,.$$ Once again, we use [*Planck*]{} priors, where lensing information from [*Planck*]{} is not used. This is done by adding together the two Fisher matrices, as in §\[method\_lensing\].
Model differentiation {#modeldiff}
---------------------
To calculate the statistical significance of distinguishing between two models which are not connected by a parameter which can be varied smoothly, we use the following procedure [@Hezaveh2013]. Let the difference in the various predicted power spectra from the two models be denoted by $\delta C_l^{x_ix_j}$. The $\chi^2$ difference between the two models is then given by $$\chi^2 = f_{\rm sky} \sum_l (2l+1) \delta C_l^{x_ix_j}\left[\mathcal C\right]^{-1}_{ij,kl}\delta C_l^{x_kx_l} \,.$$ A part of this $\chi^2$ difference can be taken into account by varying the continuous parameters in the fiducial model. The change of the observable power spectra given a change in the parameters of the fiducial model is $\delta C_l^{x_ix_j} = \left(\partial C_l^{x_ix_j}/\partial p_\alpha\right)\delta p_\beta$. Taking this variation into account, the new $\chi^2$ is given by $$\label{chi2_min}
\chi^2 = f_{\rm sky} \sum_l (2l+1)\left[\delta C_l^{x_ix_j} + \delta p_\alpha \frac{\partial C_l^{x_ix_j}}{\partial p_\alpha}\right]\left[\mathcal C\right]^{-1}_{ij,kl}\left[\delta C_l^{x_kx_l} + \delta p_\beta \frac{\partial C_l^{x_kx_l}}{\partial p_\beta}\right] \, .$$ By setting $\partial \chi^2/\partial p_\alpha = 0$ in the above equation, we calculate the $\delta p_\alpha$ which needs to made about the fiducial set of parameters $p_\alpha$ to obtain the minimum $\chi^2$: $$\delta p_\alpha = - \left(F\right)^{-1}_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial C_l^{x_ix_j}}{\partial p_\beta}\left[\mathcal C\right]^{-1}_{ij,kl}\delta C_l^{x_kx_l} \,,$$ where $F$ is the Fisher matrix of the fiducial model. The final $\chi^2$ is then calculated using .
Survey parameters and systematics {#systematics}
=================================
LSST
----
To get the number counts of sources in an LSST like survey, we use a redshift distribution of source galaxies given by the following form: $$\frac{dn}{dz} \propto z^{1.2} \exp \left(- \frac{z}{0.5}\right) \,,$$ with a total number density $n_{\rm source} = 30\,$arcmin$^{-2}$. For lens galaxies, we will use redMaGiC type of galaxies [@Rozo2016] which have a redshift distribution $dn/dz \propto \chi(z)^2/H(z)$, and total number density of lenses $n_{\rm lens} = 0.25\,$arcmin$^{-2}$.
In our calculations, we consider different redshift binnings - we start from 1 lens redshift bin and 1 source redshift bin, and go up to 6 lens redshift bins and 6 source redshift bins. We show the bin centers and widths for this last case in Fig. \[redshift\_distribution\]. For each lens redshift bin center, we calculate $k_{\rm max}$ such that $\frac{k^3P(k)}{2\pi^2}\big |_{k_{\rm max}}
\approx 0.2$. Using this, we obtain the highest multipole $l_{\rm max} = k_{\rm max} \chi$, which we use in our analysis. This is done to ensure that that even for the highest multiploles in each bin, we are in the regime where perturbations can still be treated as being roughly linear, and assumptions of the independence of different $l$ modes and linear biasing are valid. As expected, $l_{\rm max}$ increases with redshift, so we can go out to smaller scales at higher redshifts. This allows for tighter constraints on the different cosmological parameters, which affect the shape of the power spectrum, along with the overall amplitude. We tabulate the $l_{\rm max}$ for each of our bins in Table \[lmax\_table\].
$z_{\rm center}$ $l_{\rm max}$
-- ------------------ ---------------
0.40 210
0.55 240
0.70 330
0.85 440
1.00 570
1.15 720
: List of redshift bin centers and $l_{\rm max}$ used for each redshift bin for the LSST survey.[]{data-label="lmax_table"}
$z_{\rm center}$ $l_{\rm max}$
-- ------------------ ---------------
0.85 200
1.00 220
1.15 250
1.30 280
1.45 320
1.60 370
: List of redshift bin centers and $l_{\rm max}$ used for each redshift bin for the LSST survey.[]{data-label="lmax_table"}
We also note that we use the linear matter power spectrum for all our calculations. Since we restrict ourselves to the scales for which $\frac{k^3P(k)}{2\pi^2}\big |_{k_{\rm max}}
= 0.2$, using the linear power spectrum, as opposed to the full nonlinear power spectrum is a valid choice, except for some scales near $k_{\rm max}$ and consequently $l_{\rm max}$. The differences are expected to be small, and using the linear power spectrum will always yield a conservative estimate on the constraints.
In Fig. \[surveynoise\], we plot the power spectra and the associated noise levels for the assumed number counts of lenses and sources in some of the redshift bins that we use in our calculations. In the left panel of Fig. \[surveynoise\], we plot the galaxy-galaxy autospectra $C_l^{gg}$ for four of the lens redshift bins, with the solid lines. We represent the shot noise level in each bin using the dashed lines of the same color. Similarly, in the right panel, we plot the shear autospectra $C_l^{\kappa\kappa}$ for four of the source redshift using solid lines. We also indicate the shape noise for these bins using dashed lines of the same color.
As mentioned, the lens galaxy counts we use throughout our analysis are chosen to approximate the distribution of redMaGiC galaxies [@Rozo2016]. The galaxy-galaxy autorcorrelations for the lens bins are also calculated using the same subsample of galaxies. Since these galaxies form only a fraction of all the galaxies in those redshift bins, the level of shot noise in our measurements, as expressed in Eq. \[shotnoise\], will be higher than the case where all galaxies are used. However, as Fig. \[surveynoise\] shows, shot noise is sub-dominant compared to the signal covariance over the range of scales we consider, meaning that the increased shot noise from the redMaGiC subset should not degrade the errors significantly. The advantage of using this subset is that the redshifts of redMaGiC galaxies may be determined to a very high level of accuracy using photometry alone, allowing us to effectively ignore lens redshift errors as a source of systematics. For the lens redshift bins, therefore, we only consider the galaxy bias of each bin $b_i$ as sources of systematics, and include these as nuisance parameters in our Fisher matrix analysis.
For the source galaxies, however, we use the entire galaxy population from those redshift bins. While using these high number densities helps reduce the shape noise, we need to consider multiple sources of systematics [@Kwan2016]. Amongst these, the most significant systematic that we need to account for is the photometric redshift uncertainties of the source galaxies, as these are not as well measured as those in the redMaGiC sample. Another important systematic that we need to consider is the shear calibration. Here we allow for a multiplicative error arising from calibration errors in the shear and photo-z. We do not attempt to model additive, scale dependent uncertainties in the shear or clustering as a reasonable analytical model or even level of uncertainty is not available. To account for these sources of systematic errors, we introduce the nuisance parameters, $m_i$, one for each source bin. We assume that these effects can be parameterized by allowing for an overall rescaling of the shear measurements: $\kappa_i \rightarrow \kappa_i(1+m_i)$. We will consider this parameterization for the source uncertainties throughout the paper. Note that the relation between our $m_i$ and photo-z bias is not linear, and is redshift dependent. But it is a reasonably good approximation to capture both shear and photo-z bias into a multiplicative parameter for our forecasting purposes.
Since we are using a single nuisance parameter $m_i$, per bin, to account for both shear calibration and redshift uncertainties, as the calibration of the shear in LSST gets better, the $m_i$ will mostly encode our uncertainty on the photometric redshifts of the source galaxies.
We note that our analysis assumes that other sources of systematic errors are subdominant to statistical errors and the systematic uncertainty due to calibration errors that we have modeled. These include intrinsic alignments of galaxies [@Hirata2004; @Troxel2014], and additive errors in the shear measurements due to residuals from the Point Spread Function (PSF) correction [@Chang2013]. For intrinsic alignments (in particular the GI alignments), a recent study [@Schaan2016] has shown that the systematic uncertainty is well below statistical errors for an analysis similar to ours (see also [@Krause2015; @Joachimi2010; @Troxel2014; @Hall2014]). Additive errors in the shear are not generally modeled in forecast studies as they are exceedingly difficult to anticipate and various mitigation strategies are employed to deal with them in the measurement and analysis.
CMB lensing {#cmb-lensing}
-----------
A number of specifications have been proposed for the survey parameters of CMB Stage 4 experiments, in this paper, we will use the following specifications. We consider fractional sky coverages $f_{\rm sky} = 0.75$, $f_{\rm sky}=0.5$ and $f_{\rm sky} = 0.25$. The beam size is assumed to be $1'$ in all cases and we assume an overall experimental sensitivity of $0.58$ $\mu$K-arcmin. In Fig. \[cmbnoise\], we plot the deflection power spectrum $C_l^{dd}$, and the noise level $N_l^{dd}$ on this observable for the survey parameters that we assume.
For CMB lensing we include information from multipoles up to $l_{\rm max} = 3000$, while using a lower cutoff $l_{\rm min} = 30$. Since the lensing kernel for CMB peaks at around $z=2$, it is justified for us to go up to this high $l_{\rm max}$ while still using assumptions of linearity for the power spectra and their covariances.
Neutrino mass constraints {#constraints}
=========================
We assume a fiducial model with $\left(\tau,n_s,\ln[10^{10}A_s],\sum m_\nu,N_{\rm eff},\Omega_m,\Omega_b,\Omega_\Lambda,h,w,b_i,m_i\right)
= $ $(0.066,0.967,3.15,0.06,3.046,0.3,0.05,0.7,0.7,-1,1.5,0)$ where $b_i$ stands for the bias in different redshift bins - with one bias parameter per redshift bin. While there may be additional signatures in the galaxy bias [@Loverde2014; @Loverde2016], we do not attempt to model them or use the additional information they may provide - our forecasts are therefore conservative. The bias parameters will be marginalized over when deriving constraints on various cosmological parameters like the sum of the neutrino masses $\sum m_\nu$ and the dark energy equation of state $w$. In our analysis, we do not assume any priors on the bias parameters - the constraints on these parameters come from data only. Apart from the bias parameters, we also marginalize over the shear uncertainties $m_i$ defined in § \[systematics\], and whose fiducial value we assume to be $0$. Our fiducial constraints on $\sum m_\nu$ and $w$ are derived without assuming priors on the nuisance parameters $m_i$. We discuss the effect of placing priors on these parameters later in this section. We note that in all our calculations, we have assumed $\Omega_k = 0$, that is, curvature is neglected. Further, we have assumed that the equation of state of dark energy $w$ is time invariant.
LSST constraints on neutrino mass
---------------------------------
We use the formalism described in § \[method\_lensing\] to obtain constraints on cosmological parameters for different number of lens and source bins at LSST. We find that for bins of fixed width, increasing the number of bins improves the constraints on the neutrino mass. This happens for two reasons - by increasing the number of bins, we increase the redshift coverage of the sources and lenses. Secondly, using more bins allows for the measurement of higher number of cross-correlations. This improvement in the constraints is summarized in Table \[masstable\], and is illustrated in Fig. \[1dprob\], where we plot the marginalized probability distributions for $\sum m_\nu$ and $w$ for different number of bins used in the analysis. In Fig \[2dprob\] we plot the 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ confidence intervals for pair of the parameters $\left(\sum m_\nu,w\right)$ for two choices of source and lens bin numbers - $4$ and $6$. While the gain in going from one source and one lens bin to 4 of each gives a large improvement in the constraints, the constraints start to saturate as we add more bins. This is because the finer binning leads to smaller galaxy counts in each bin, raising the shot noise level. Using 6 lens and 6 source bins yields a constraint on the sum of the neutrino masses $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 0.041\,$eV. From the same analysis, we obtain a constraint of $0.020$ on the dark energy equation of state $w$.
$\sigma\left(\sum m_\nu\right)$ (eV) $\sigma (w)$
----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------
$N_S=1$, $N_L = 1$ 0.093 0.069
$N_S=4$, $N_L = 4$ 0.052 0.028
$N_S=6$, $N_L = 6$ 0.041 0.020
$N_S=6$, $N_L = 6$ (+ DESI[@DESI]) 0.032 0.017
$N_S=6$, $N_L = 6$ (+ DESI[@DESI] + $N_{\rm eff}$ prior)) 0.028 0.016
: Forecasts of 1-$\sigma$ constraints on the neutrino mass, and the dark energy equation of state $w$ at LSST for different number of lens and source bins, and different priors. The $N_{\rm eff}$ prior used was $0.03$, following [@S4ScienceBook]. []{data-label="masstable"}
\
Since we do not assume any priors on the biases of the lens galaxies, we check how well the biases are constrained by data. We find that the bias parameters in each lens redshift bin is constrained at about $2\%$, with the bias parameters for the low redshift lens bins being slightly better constrained than the bias parameters for the higher redshift bins. This happens because of two opposing effects. The lower redshift bins have a higher signal to noise ratios in their galaxy clustering power spectra. On the other hand, we go out to a higher $l_{\rm max}$ for the higher redshift, increasing the sensitivity of those redshift bins to the bias parameters. These two effects roughly cancel each other out to provide similar constraints on the bias parameters for all redshift bins we consider.
\
Apart from LSST, other future cosmological surveys will also be sensitive to the effects of neutrino mass on galaxy clustering and weak lensing observables. It is, therefore, useful to check how the constraints on the cosmological parameters depend on survey specifications, such as the sky coverage, redshift depth, and number densities of galaxies. Apart from the LSST survey specifications, we consider two other surveys - one with specifications similar to EUCLID [@EUCLID], and the other with survey parameters similar to the WFIRST survey [@WFIRST]. For the EUCLID-like survey we assume $f_{\rm sky} = 0.375$, an average source redshift $z=0.7$, and number density $n_{\rm source} =20\,\rm{arcmin}^{-2}$. The 1-$\sigma$ constraint on $\sum m_\nu$ for this survey is $0.060\,$eV. For the WFIRST-like mission, we assume $f_{\rm sky} = 0.0675$, an average source redshift $z = 1.4$, and number density $n_{\rm source} =40\,\rm{arcmin}^{-2}$, and we find a 1-$\sigma$ constraint of $0.067\,$eV on $\sum m_\nu$. Note that the constraints for WFIRST are not very different from the other surveys even though it has small $f_{\rm sky}$ due to the greater survey depth. Therefore, if WFIRST continues beyond its nominal three year mission, the sky coverage $f_{\rm sky}$ could become larger, and the constraints will improve accordingly. We find that our constraint forecasts are weaker compared to a similar forecast for the EUCLID mission in [@Hamann2012] in the case where the authors assume that the linear galaxy bias is known exactly for the lens galaxies. When this assumption is relaxed, the authors find a similar constraint on the neutrino mass as the ones presented in this paper. For the gain by combining all three surveys, see also [@Jain2015].
To account for systematic errors in our constraint forecasts at LSST coming from the shear bias of the source redshift bins, along with the photometric redshift uncertainties, we introduce the nuisance parameters $m_i$ for each source redshift bin, as mentioned in § \[systematics\]. As with the bias parameters, these are marginalized over to yield constraints on the cosmological parameters of interest. Note that photometric redshift uncertainty leads to biased estimates of the distances to galaxies, which are not exactly degenerate with shear calibration. But it is sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this paper to fold the two biases into a single bias parameter per redshift bin.
Unlike with the galaxy bias parameters, which must be measured from the same dataset used for cosmology, we test the effect of priors on these shear bias parameters as they can be estimated with image simulations or high resolution imaging. We then study how the constraints on the sum of neutrino masses and the equation of state for dark energy vary with the imposed prior. We find that when flat priors are imposed on the $m_i$, as is the case for our fiducial results, the constraint on the neutrino mass from LSST weak lensing obtained above degrades by $\sim 17\%$, whereas the constraint on $w$ degrades by only $\sim 5\%$, compared to the case where these parameters are completely ignored.
We illustrate how the constraints on the cosmological parameters change as we impose stronger priors in Fig. \[error\_degradation\]. For an imposed prior of $0.02$, which may be achievable in LSST, we find that the neutrino mass constraint degraded by only about $3\%$ compared to the case where the effect of these parameters is ignored. The degradation on the constraint on $w$ is once again, even smaller - roughly $1\%$. Obtaining percent-level priors on shear bias would require extensive and realistic image simulations, as planned by LSST, and/or deep, high resolution imaging of a large enough subset of the source galaxies – e.g. with space based imaging by WFIRST. An alternative is to actually use CMB lensing to calibrate the shear – this approach was investigated by [@Das2009] and more recently in some detail for a joint analysis of LSST and CMB Stage 4 lensing by [@Schaan2016]. They find a calibration of shear bias in LSST at the percent level is indeed feasible. Note however that this still leaves redshift bias as a systematic, so for our fiducial results we use flat priors on the $m_i$ parameters.
The behavior of the constraints as seen in Fig. \[error\_degradation\] suggests that significant self-calibration is possible even with no external priors. This is due to several factors: the combination of auto- and cross-spectra across redshift bins gives $N(N+1)/2$ shear spectra for $N$ redshift bins, while there are only $N$ shear bias parameters. Additional self-calibration comes from galaxy-shear cross-spectra which have a different scaling with redshift, and some information from galaxy-galaxy autospectra alone, which are not affected by the shear bias and photometric redshift errors of the source redshift bins. Even though the galaxy-galaxy autospectra depend on the *a priori* unknown galaxy bias of the lenses, the comparatively small error bars that will be achievable in LSST, coming mainly from the large sky coverage $f_{\rm sky}$, means that these autospectra are also sensitive to parameters which modify the shape of the various $C_l$. Massive neutrinos change both the amplitude and the shape of the 3 dimensional matter power spectrum, along with the different $C_l$. Changes in the dark energy equation of state changes the cosmological growth factor, thereby changing the amplitude of the various $C_l^{gg}$. In addition, the dark energy equation of state also affects the distance-redshift relation, which in turn, affects the positions of the BAO peaks in $C_l^{gg}$. Since this second effect is not degenerate with a change in the different bias parameters, the shapes of $C_l^{gg}$ from different redshift bins provides strong constraints on $w$.
Comparison to CMB Stage 4 lensing
---------------------------------
Next, we compare the constraints on the parameters obtained from weak lensing in galaxy surveys to the constraints derived from CMB Stage 4 lensing, with the inclusion of [*Planck*]{} priors. This comparison is illustrated in Fig. \[1dprob\_cmb\]. The black solid line represents the results from LSST, while the red lines represent the results from CMB Stage 4 experiments, for different sky coverages. We find that the constraints on the sum of neutrino masses from the two experiments are very similar, when we consider the most optimistic scenario for CMB Stage 4 lensing ($f_{\rm sky} = 0.75$), where the latter gives a constraint of $\sigma \big(\sum m_\nu\big)=0.046\,$eV.
It is interesting to compare the sensitivity of a CMB lensing survey and a weak lensing photometric to the sum of neutrino masses under the assumption that they cover the same fraction of the sky, and that they are sample variance dominated out to a similar range in multipole $l$. As can be seen from Fig. \[surveynoise\] and Fig. \[cmbnoise\], CMB lensing is sample variance dominated out to $l\sim 1000$, whereas with the number densities of lenses and sources assumed for LSST, the signal is sample variance dominated out to $l\sim 400$. For this comparison, therefore, we tune the number densities of lenses and sources in LSST to 4 times their fiducial value, and then compare the constraints on $\sum m_\nu$ from the photometric galaxy survey and CMB lensing using $l_{\rm max} = 1000$ and $f_{\rm sky} = 0.5$ in both cases. Under these assumptions, we find $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 0.018\,$eV for the photometric survey and $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 0.055\,$eV for CMB lensing. This shows that the tomographic information in a photometric survey allows us to sample more modes, and therefore have a higher Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) compared to a CMB lensing survey where the source redshift and the lensing kernel is fixed by the CMB last scattering surface. Quantitative comparisons of the SNR for a photometric survey like LSST and CMB lensing has been performed in [@Schaan2016].
For CMB Stage 4 lensing, we find that our constraint on $\sum m_\nu$ is weaker by about a factor of 2 compared to those in [@S4ScienceBook]. There are two main reasons behind this difference. First, [@S4ScienceBook] assumes priors on other cosmological parameters coming from DESI BAO measurements, which will be much tighter than the [*Planck*]{} priors that we use in this work. Secondly, $N_{\rm eff}$, which has large degeneracies with the neutrino mass is included in our analysis, while the constraints quoted in [@S4ScienceBook] assume that extremely accurate measurements of the CMB primaries from the Stage 4 experiments will constrain $N_{\rm eff}$ independently. Refs. [@Wu2014; @Allison2015; @Abazajian2013] also find very similar constraints on the neutrino mass when using DESI BAO priors in addition to CMB S4 lensing.
To check how our estimates improve with the inclusion of low redshift information coming from DESI, we use the parameter forecasts provided in [@DESI] in our analysis. This extra information is especially helpful in tightening the constraint on the parameters $\Omega_m$ and $w$, coming from precise measurements of the BAO feature at low redshifts. We find that the 1-$\sigma$ constraint on the sum the of the neutrino masses from LSST clustering and lensing is $0.032\,$eV when information from DESI is included, compared to our fiducial result of $0.041\,$eV. For CMB Stage 4 lensing, the improvement is even more marked. With the extra constraints from DESI, Stage 4 CMB lensing can constrain the sum of neutrino masses to $0.029\,$eV at the 1-$\sigma$ level. The larger improvement in the CMB S4 bound is understandable since the CMB lensing kernel is peaked near $z\sim 2$, and therefore the information from low redshift provided by DESI is mostly complementary to the information contained in CMB lensing. On the other hand, for LSST, some of the information about low redshifts is already included as the lens bins in our analysis extend down to $z=0.4$. So adding in the DESI priors to LSST analysis do not improve the existing bounds on the neutrino mass by a lot.
Next, we add additional priors on the parameter $N_{\rm eff}$ based on the forecasts for CMB Stage 4 experiments. We assume that $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ will be measured using the CMB primaries at a 1-$\sigma$ error level of $0.03$. When this prior is included in our calculation for the LSST clustering and lensing, the 1-$\sigma$ constraint on the sum of neutrino masses tightens further to $0.028\,$eV. Similarly, when this prior on $N_{\rm eff}$ is included in the CMB Stage 4 lensing estimates, the constraint on the neutrino mass becomes $0.023\,$eV. These numbers are then comparable to the constraints on the neutrino mass forecast in Ref. [@S4ScienceBook].
When compared to the current constraints on the neutrino mass coming from CMB lensing in the [*Planck*]{} experiment [@Planck2015], we find that both LSST weak lensing and CMB Stage 4 lensing will improve the bounds on the neutrino mass by almost an order of magnitude. This is especially true once low redshift information from a DESI-like experiment is included for the CMB lensing analysis. For the [*Planck*]{} value, we have used the constraint obtained from the CMB lensing from [*Planck*]{} itself combined with [*Planck*]{} primaries only, with no additional external datasets. The 1-$\sigma$ constraint on the neutrino mass from this dataset only is $\sim 0.29\,$eV.
Since LSST weak lensing and CMB Stage 4 lensing are sensitive to very different systematics, the fact that they are expected to provide very similar constraints on the sum of neutrino masses is an important result. Since the errors from the two experiments do not correlate, the statistical significance of a detection from one of experiments will be greatly enhanced when combined with the data from the other.
While LSST weak lensing and CMB stage 4 lensing provide similar constraints on the sum of the neutrino mass, the constraint on $w$ from LSST is much stronger than the constraint from CMB Stage 4, even when we consider the most optimistic case for the latter. The CMB lensing kernel peaks at around $z\sim 2$, when dark energy forms a negligible fraction of the energy budget. On the other hand, LSST weak lensing is sensitive to much lower redshifts when dark energy starts to dominate. Further, the equation of state for dark energy affects the growth rate of the power spectrum. Since we use spectra from multiple redshift bins in LSST, the growth rate, and in turn, $w$, are better constrained than in CMB lensing.
\
Combination of LSST and CMB S4
------------------------------
It is also possible to combine measurements from LSST and CMB Stage 4 lensing assuming that the survey windows of the two overlap each other. We use data from these overlapping surveys to measure the cross-spectra $C_l^{g\kappa_{\rm CMB}}$, along with the galaxy autospcetra $C_l^{gg}$ from LSST and the shear-shear autospectrum $C_l^{\kappa_{\rm CMB}\kappa_{\rm CMB}}$ from CMB lensing. Using CMB lensing $\kappa_{\rm CMB}$ measurements reduces some of the systematic uncertainties, since the multiplicative shear bias and source redshifts uncertainties present in the LSST lensing measurements no longer affect the results.
For this analysis, we use the same lens redshift bins for LSST, as well as the same experimental sensitivity for as mentioned in §\[systematics\]. We assume $f_{\rm sky} = 0.5$ for both experiments with complete overlap of survey windows. We find that this combination provides 1-$\sigma$ constraints of $\sigma\big(\sum m_\nu\big) = 0.031\,$eV and $\sigma(w) = 0.016$. Both these constraints are slightly stronger than the ones obtained from LSST only and the most optimistic case for CMB Stage 4 lensing, as shown in Fig. \[1dprob\_kappacmb\].
One can also check how this joint constraint on the neutrino mass coming from LSST and CMB lensing improves when priors from the DESI experiment is included. Once again, we account for the extra information from DESI by adding stronger priors, especially on $\Omega_m$ and $w$, whose values are given in [@DESI]. We find that including these stronger priors improves the 1-$\sigma$ constraint on the sum of neutrino masses to $0.020\,$eV. This bound is competitive with the bounds presented in [@S4ScienceBook], even though in our analysis, we marginalize over one extra cosmological parameter in $N_{\rm eff}$. On the other hand, this estimate may be a little optimistic given that we have assumed complete overlap of the survey volume between the LSST and CMB Stage 4 experiment.
While the constraints on the cosmological parameters do improve when shear measurements from CMB stage 4 are used, the improvement in the constraints is not dramatic unless extra information from a survey like DESI is included. On the other hand, adding CMB lensing to LSST helps with systematics of the LSST lensing measurements, especially in terms of constraining the multiplicative shear biases $m_i$ of the different redshift bins. This has been studied in detail in Ref. [@Schaan2016]. Therefore, even for cases where the overlap of survey volumes of the experiments is not perfect, useful information can be obtained by looking at the cross-correlations of observables from the two.
\
Dark radiation {#darkrad}
==============
Thermal dark radiation is a natural and generic prediction of many theories beyond the standard model. For instance, pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons (pNGBs) are naturally light and are realized in many extensions of the SM, arising from the spontaneous breaking of a Peccei-Quinn symmetry (axions) [@Weinberg:1977ma; @Wilczek:1977pj], lepton number symmetry (majorons) [@Chikashige:1980ui; @Gelmini:1980re], family symmetry (familons) [@Wilczek:1982rv], or dark number symmetry [@Weinberg:2013kea]. Given suitably large reheating temperatures and low symmetry breaking scales, these pGNBs can be thermally populated in the early universe. Beyond these minimal models, string compactifications often yield a proliferation of axion-like particles with a much expanded range of masses and interaction strengths, making pNGBs a natural and generic source of thermal bosonic dark radiation [@Svrcek:2006yi; @Arvanitaki:2009fg; @Jaeckel:2010ni]. Such stringy constructions can also yield dark $U(1)$ gauge bosons [@Goodsell:2009xc; @Cicoli:2011yh] with sub-eV masses, and possibly also fermionic dark radiation in the form of photini [@Arvanitaki:2009hb].
Perhaps the leading candidate for thermal fermionic dark radiation is a sterile neutrino. One way to thermalize sterile neutrinos is to add new interactions in the neutrino sector that are motivated by unification and by measurements of neutrino mixing [@Engelhardt:2010dx; @Anchordoqui:2011nh; @Dasgupta:2013zpn; @Ko:2014bka]. Similar to NNaturalness, thermal relic populations of both sterile neutrinos and dark photons can also arise in [*mirror sectors*]{}, where the matter content of the SM is replicated, wholly or in part, in a hidden sector. This long-standing idea, reviewed in [@Foot:2014mia], has been motivated by parity restoration as well as asymmetric dark matter and solutions to the hierarchy problem [@Arkani-Hamed2016; @Chacko:2005]. More generally, hidden sectors constitute a generic possibility for physics beyond the standard model. Cosmologically, thermal dark sectors are very well motivated as a source of DM. Such hidden sector models may be thermal, e.g. [@Pospelov:2007mp; @ArkaniHamed:2008qn], or nonthermal, e.g. [@Zurek:2013wia]. In either case, the entropy of the hidden sector must generically be either deposited into the SM thermal plasma or carried by dark radiation. Dark radiation is thus a generic component of dark sector model-building. The ratio of the dark radiation temperature to the temperature of the SM will generally depend on the physics of reheating [@Adshead:2016xxj] as well as on the degrees of freedom in both sectors and the strength of the leading coupling(s) between them, and for our purposes can be treated as a free parameter. Models where a dark radiation species is directly involved in the freezeout of DM are frequently motivated by structure formation, and in such models the radiation does not always free-stream. However, in the general case, the lightest stable state(s) in the dark sector may be well-described by a thermal free-streaming state, as in the SM; e.g. [@Feng:2011ik].
An extra light degree of freedom should in principle show up in measurements of $N_{\rm eff}$ from the primary CMB, and the size of the signal is proportional to $T_{\rm DR,CMB}^4$, where $T_{\rm DR,CMB}$ is the temperature of the dark radiation species at the epoch of CMB last scattering. [*Planck*]{} has already constrained $\Delta N_{\rm eff} < 0.33$, and future CMB Stage 4 experiments should be able to improve the constraints to $\Delta N_{\rm eff} \lesssim 0.03$ [@S4ScienceBook]. However, it should also be noted that if the particles are relativistic at CMB last scattering, $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ is insensitive to the mass of the dark radiation particle. Apart from a signature on $N_{\rm eff}$, these light degrees of freedom can also damp the matter power spectrum at late times. The amount of damping is proportional to the energy density of the species today, $\Omega_{\rm DR}$. Assuming that these particles are non-relativistic at late times, the energy density is proportional to the mass of these dark radiation particles $m_{\rm DR}$, and to the late time number density $n_{\rm DR}$, i.e $\Omega_{\rm DR} \propto m_{\rm DR} n_{\rm DR}$.
Since the damping of the matter power spectrum on small scales depends on $\Omega_{\rm DR}$, surveys like LSST will be sensitive to this parameter. We illustrate this with the following example, in which we suppose that $\Delta N_{\rm eff} = 0.15$ is observed in future CMB experiments. We then repeat our Fisher matrix analysis, adding the mass of the dark radiation particle as an extra free parameter. The relevant power spectra and transfer functions were produced using the publicly available Boltzmann code CLASS [@CLASS1; @CLASS2], which allows for easy implementation of bosons as an extra light species. We find that for fermionic dark radiation, the constraint forecast is $\sigma(m_{\rm DR}) = 0.162\,$eV, and for bosonic dark radiation, $\sigma(m_{\rm DR}) = 0.137\,$eV. Note that the mass bound is somewhat different for fermions than for bosons, simply due to the difference in density arising from Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics [@Hannestad:2005]. We further note that these results have been obtained after marginalizing over all other cosmological parameters including the neutrino mass. This means that LSST is potentially sensitive to multiple light species with different temperatures and masses, as the damping signatures will have different amplitudes and shapes, as illustrated in Fig. \[fermioncomp\]. The uncertainty on the inferred mass scales inversely with the magnitude of $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ observed in the CMB.
NNaturalness {#NNat}
============
NNaturalness [@Arkani-Hamed2016] is a new approach to solving the Higgs hierarchy problem. NNaturalness posits that there are $N$ copies of the Standard Model with differing Higgs masses. The Higgs mass squared parameters are distributed between $-\Lambda^2$ and $\Lambda^2$, where $\Lambda$ is the scale which cuts off quadratic divergences. If $N$ is large enough, one of the copies will naturally have a Higgs mass parametrically smaller than the cutoff. The sector with the smallest negative Higgs mass squared is identified with the Standard Model.
Given current constraints on $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$, the question of why the Higgs mass is small has been transformed into the question of why the sector with the lightest Higgs dominates the energy density of the universe. Crucially the lightest sector need to be dominantly reheated without making it otherwise special in any way. Not abiding by this rule would reintroduce the hierarchy problem.
To solve the problem, a new scalar field, the reheaton, was introduced. If the reheaton couples with equal strength to the various copies of the Standard Model through the interaction $\phi H^\dagger_i H_i$ and is light (with a mass comparable to the lightest Higgs), then it predominantly reheats the sector with the lightest negative Higgs mass. A light reheaton can only decay through off-shell Higgs bosons, which favors the lighter Higgs masses. The cosmological signals of this scenario come from the fact that the reheaton inevitably populates some of the other copies of the Standard Model. Since the sector with a light Higgs boson can not be singled out in any way, the new sectors are very similar to us. For the sake of calculability we assume that they are identical copies, except for slightly heavier Higgs bosons (with and without a vev). Relaxing this assumption does not appreciably change the phenomenology. The new copies are reheated to temperatures slightly smaller than our own and like our sector have many light particles (including neutrinos) and a massless photon. The presence of these new light particles, with slightly lower temperatures than our own, makes this model an ideal candidate to be constrained and/or discovered by the techniques described before.
The cosmology of this realization of the NNaturalness paradigm is determined by two variables. The first is the mass of the reheaton, $m_\phi$, and the second is the distribution of Higgs masses. The coupling of the reheaton to the Higgs cancels out once the temperature of our sector has been fixed. In principle, the differing Higgs masses can be drawn from any distribution. However any feature in the distribution would imply some assumptions on the dynamics related to the hierarchy problem at the scale $\Lambda$. So we take a uniform distribution with Higgs masses varying as $$\left(m_H^2\right)_i = -\frac{\Lambda_H^2}{N} ( 2 i+ r ), \quad\quad - \frac{N}{2} \leq i \leq \frac{N}{2}.$$ $r$ is a real and positive parameter that accounts for the possible probabilistic nature of the Higgs mass distribution or alternatively can be seen as a proxy for fine-tuning. If $r = 1$ the Higgs masses are equally spaced around zero. For $r<1$ the lightest sector is closer to $m_h=0$. Thus the cosmology of this simple model of NNaturalness is determined by $m_\phi$ and $r$.
In order to test the visibility of this model, we consider a set of different reheaton masses. For each reheaton mass, we take the largest value of $r$ such that $\Delta N_\text{eff}$ is small enough to satisfy current constraints. This leads to different combinations of masses and temperatures for the extra neutrino species. We implement these extra neutrinos using the CLASS code [@CLASS1; @CLASS2]. The CLASS code allows for extra non-CDM species with different masses, temperatures and number densities, and therefore it is straightforward to check the ratio of the 3-dimensional linear matter power spectrum for different extra neutrino masses and temperatures. The results are plotted in Fig. \[NNatural\_figure\]. The fiducial cosmology was taken to be $\Lambda$CDM plus one massive neutrino species with $m_\nu = 0.06\,$eV. For each reheaton mass, we see the generic feature of extra damping on small scales, where the amplitude of the damping is proportional to the energy density in the extra copies of the neutrinos. The scale at which these damping effects start showing up is given by the free streaming scale of the extra neutrinos. Since the extra copies have a higher mass and a lower temperature than the Standard Model neutrino, in each case we find that the free streaming scale of the extra neutrinos is smaller than that of the Standard Model neutrino.
We then proceed to use the formalism from § \[modeldiff\] to check the statistical significance of the detection for these cosmologies with different reheaton masses. For the reheaton mass which produces the largest damping in the matter power spectrum, the calculated $\Delta \chi^2$ difference with the fiducial cosmology is $0.151$.
This small $\Delta \chi^2$ suggests that these models will be hard to detect at LSST using information from linear scales only, along with the priors from [*Planck*]{}. To obtain more optimistic estimates, we modify some of our assumptions and survey parameters. First we set $l_{\rm max}$ for our various lens and source bins to $1000$. This obviously violates our assumptions of linear theory, but if nonlinear scales can be modeled correctly, information from these small scales could, in principle, enhance the detectability of the NNaturalness models. We clarify that in this analysis, we continue to use linear power spectra. This is likely a somewhat conservative estimate of the signal at small scales since nonlinear terms raise the amplitude of the power spectrum on these scales. It is worth noting that pushing to $l_{\rm max}\sim 1000$ at low redshifts also means that baryonic physics needs to be taken into account, which we can safely neglect at larger scales. This introduces a new systematic, and needs to be modeled accurately, either through simulations, or semi-analytics models to extract information about cosmological parameters from small scales, e.g. [@Eifler2014; @Zentner2013]. The next assumption we make is to double the source and lens galaxy counts in the different bins. For the lens bins, the redMaGiC galaxies are only a fraction of all galaxies in the survey at that redshift, therefore doubling the number of galaxies for which the redshifts are known accurately seems an achievable target. Trying to double the number of sources seems a more optimistic assumption. Finally, we also add tighter priors on $\Omega_m$ and $w$ from BAO measurements in DESI. We repeat our analysis to calculate $\Delta \chi^2$ for the NNaturalness models with respect to the fiducial cosmology, and we find that even under these assumptions, the largest $\Delta \chi^2$ for the NNaturalness realizations considered here is $0.53$.
Since the combinations of $m_\phi$ and $r$ that were considered here produced the highest $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ consistent with current bounds, measurements of $N_{\rm eff}$ from Stage 4 CMB experiments will easily detect the contribution from such models. But the detection will not be able to distinguish them from other scenarios e.g. [@Dasgupta:2013zpn; @Weinberg:2013kea]. We have explored the detection of its signature in in large-scale structure. We find that even the lensing surveys of the next decade will be hard pressed to make a detection. The signal is below a percent-level suppression of the power spectrum, which is challenging to achieve statistically and, even if we pushed survey parameter to achieve that, it would be daunting to control systematics at the desired level. One might hope that a completely different observable that goes to smaller scales or otherwise samples many more modes – like the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest or 21cm probes of structure - while achieving sub-percent control of systematics, will be sensitive to these cosmologies.
Summary and Discussion {#summary}
======================
We have obtained forecasts for the constraints on the neutrino mass from measurements of galaxy clustering and weak lensing in the LSST experiment, using information from only linear scales. The constraints on cosmological parameters, including the sum of the neutrino mass, improve with the number of redshift bins used in the analysis. We find that using 6 lens redshift bins and 6 source redshift bins, the sum of neutrino masses can be constrained to $\sigma\big(\sum m_\nu\big) = 0.041\,$eV and the dark energy equation of state can be constrained to $\sigma(w)=0.020$. While the constraint on the neutrino mass is very similar to that coming from Stage 4 CMB lensing experiments, LSST provides much stronger constraints on $w$ than CMB lensing. These constraints were obtained by including priors on cosmological parameters coming from the [*Planck*]{} experiment. Further, the number of relativistic degrees of freedom $N_{\rm eff}$ was included as a parameter in our analysis. In principle, $N_{\rm eff}$ could be constrained independently from measurements of the CMB primaries in the CMB Stage 4 experiments. However, to provide a conservative estimate of the constraints, we initially include it as a parameter that is to marginalized over when obtaining constraints on other cosmological parameters of interest. Our constraints are in agreement with similar forecasts in literature e.g. [@Hannestad2006; @Kitching2008].
When we include the expected tighter priors on other cosmological parameters from the upcoming survey DESI, the forecasted 1-$\sigma$ constraint on the sum of neutrino masses from LSST goes down to $0.032\,$eV. A similar analysis for CMB Stage 4 lensing yields a constraint of $0.029\,$eV. These improvements come mainly from the tighter constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $w$, arising from accurate BAO measurements at low redshifts.
When we further included strong priors on $N_{\rm eff}$, assuming that it will be measured independently in upcoming surveys, the forecasted constraint on the sum of neutrino masses at LSST tightens to $0.028\,$eV. For CMB Stage 4 lensing, this additional prior on $N_{\rm eff}$ yields a constraint of $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 0.023\,$eV. These constraints on the sum of neutrino masses from CMB lensing are consistent to those presented in [@Allison2015] when marginalizing over the same set of cosmological parameters.
We have also obtained constraints on $\sum m_\nu$ and $w$ using a combination of galaxy clustering measurements from LSST and CMB stage 4 lensing. Once again, if low redshift information from DESI is included in the analysis, the constraints on the sum of neutrino masses becomes tighter. In fact, this combination can constrain $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 0.020\,$eV, which is comparable to the bounds obtained from CMB lensing only in [@S4ScienceBook; @Allison2015; @Wu2014; @Abazajian2013], even though we marginalize over an extra parameter in $N_{\rm eff}$ for this comparison. Note that this combination of LSST, CMB Stage 4 lensing and DESI would be able to detect the minimal mass normal hierarchy of neutrinos at $\sim 3\sigma$. However, this is an relatively optimistic estimate. Firstly, this estimate assumed perfect overlap between the survey volumes of LSST and CMB Stage 4 experiment, and that the cross-correlations of data from the two surveys does not throw up unforeseen issues. This also assumes that all the major sources of systematics have been accounted for and behave as expected, and that all the surveys are able meet their target statistical error levels. On the other hand, it might be possible to extract even stronger constraints using this technique if smaller scales at LSST can be modeled more accurately.
One of the main sources of systematics in the LSST measurements will be shear bias and uncertainties in the photometric redshift of the source galaxies. We use redMaGiC galaxies, for which the photometric redshifts are measured to a very high accuracy, for lens galaxies, and therefore neglect lens redshift errors as a source of systematic errors. However, we account for redshift uncertainties of source galaxies and uncertainties in the shear bias using the parameterization in § \[systematics\]. Our constraints were obtained without placing any priors on the nuisance parameters $m_i$. We have also investigated how the constraints improve when priors are placed on these parameters. The improvement is quite weak in $\sum m_\nu$, and even weaker for $w$. Placing a realistic prior of $0.02$ on each of the $m_i$ produces an improvement of $\sim 15\%$ on the neutrino mass constraint, and $\sim 5\%$ improvement on the error on $w$.
We note that we have made some simplifying assumptions in this study. We have assumed a flat cosmology in our analysis, and so $\Omega_k$ is fixed to $0$ for all our calculations. We have also assumed that the equation of state for dark energy is time invariant, setting $w_a=0$. The effect of marginalizing over $\Omega_k$ and $w_a$ as extra parameters on the neutrino mass constraint has been studied in e.g. [@Allison2015] for Stage 4 CMB lensing. It should also be pointed out we do not consider the effects of extended theories of gravity on the power spectrum, which can be degenerate with the effect of massive neutrinos [@Bellomo2016]. In this analysis, we have obtained the constraints on the sum of neutrino masses with the minimal mass normal hierarchy as the fiducial model. Various authors have looked into distinguishing the normal hierarchy of neutrino masses from the inverted hierarchy using cosmological observables, [@Hamann2012; @Verde2015; @Giusarma2016; @Zablocki2016; @PDelabrouille2014] for example. Moving on to systematics, we have neglected the effect of intrinsic alignments of galaxies and other effects which as discussed above are expected to be subdominant to the uncertainties considered in our analysis.
Beyond Standard Model neutrinos, thermal dark radiation can also lead to observable signatures on both $N_{\rm eff}$ at CMB, as well as on the late time matter power spectrum. Dark radiation candidates which were relativistic at CMB, but non-relativistic today damp the power spectrum on scales below their free streaming scale with an amplitude that is proportional to the mass of the particle. In this paper, we have studied the bounds that can be placed on the mass of dark radiation particles if they produce a detection of $\Delta N_{\rm eff} = 0.15$ in the CMB primaries. The constraint on the mass depends on whether this new thermal species follows a Bose-Einstein distribution or a Fermi-Dirac distribution. For the former, we find a constraint on the mass $\sigma(m_{\rm DR}) = 0.137\,$eV at a 1-$\sigma$ level. For the latter, the mass constraint is $\sigma(m_{\rm DR}) = 0.162\,$eV at the 1-$\sigma$ level. We find that the mass constraints scale inversely as $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$. Since the neutrino mass was one of the parameters that was marginalized over to obtain this estimate, it suggests that LSST will be potentially sensitive to multiple light species with different temperatures and masses.
A specific model that posits the presence of extra light degrees of freedom is the NNaturalness model outlined in [@Arkani-Hamed2016]. This model predicts the presence of multiple copies of neutrinos with different temperatures and number densities, all of which can contribute to $N_{\rm eff}$. We have analyzed how effective LSST will be at detecting these extra neutrino species. We find that even when the $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ produced by these extra neutrinos is near the current bounds, LSST measurements will only be able to detect the effects of these at a statistical significance of $0.151\,\sigma$. Even a more optimistic estimate yields a maximum $\Delta \chi^2 = 0.53$ between the fiducial cosmology and a cosmology including extra neutrinos from the NNaturalness models. Since CMB Stage 4 will improve current constraints on $N_{\rm eff}$ by almost an order of magnitude, the contribution to $N_{\rm eff}$ from the NNaturalness model will be detectable. However, even for an unambiguous detection of $N_{\rm eff}$ from measurements of the CMB primaries, it will be difficult to distinguish NNaturalness from other exotic models which also predict extra light degrees of freedom during the CMB epoch e.g. [@Dasgupta:2013zpn; @Weinberg:2013kea].
Through most of our analysis, we have only used modes for which linear perturbation theory is still valid. This allowed us to use a linear matter power spectrum instead of the full nonlinear matter power spectrum, as well to use the simplifying assumption that the covariance of various $l$ modes are independent of each other. Moreover, at these linear scales, we could make the added simplifying assumption that galaxy bias is scale-independent. However, smaller scales which are mildly nonlinear, potentially have a lot of useful information due to the fact that there are many such independent patches on the sky. Extracting this information could lead to stronger constraints on the neutrino mass, and statistically significant detection of extra light degrees of freedom. To do this, we first need to accurately model the matter power spectrum in the presence of massive neutrinos and other light degrees of freedom. Secondly, we need to take into account off-diagonal covariances between different $l$ modes in the nonlinear regime. And finally, to use the galaxy-galaxy autocorrelation and the galaxy-galaxy lensing spectra on small scales, we need an accurate model of galaxy bias on these scales, where it can be strongly scale dependent. Using this extra information will allow for even stronger constraints on the neutrino mass, as well a more statistically significant detections of other light degrees of freedom in the future.
Our study of dark radiation models makes clear that surveys planned for the next decade have interesting new discovery space. Indeed, for models such as NNaturalness, even more ambitious surveys will be required. One possibility is 3-dimensional surveys that can access more modes of mass fluctuations than any of the surveys discussed in this paper. Surveys discussed in the Cosmic Visions whitepaper [@Dodelson2016], typically for the 2030’s, would achieve fractional errors on the power spectrum of well below a percent. Such surveys would enable high significance detections of standard model neutrino properties and also test a variety of models for new particle species.
We thank Anson Hook, Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo and Nima Arkani-Hamed for helpful discussions of NNaturalness. We are very grateful to Vinicius Miranda and Masahiro Takada for numerous suggestions and related collaborative work. We thank Mathew Madhavacheril and Emmanuel Schaan for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. BJ is grateful to Juliana Kwan, Marilena LoVerde, Niall MacCrann, Blake Sherwin and the neutrino study group at Penn’s Center for Particle Cosmology for helpful discussions. We also thank the developers of the CAMB and CLASS codes, which have been used extensively in this work. BJ is partially supported by the US Department of Energy grant DE- SC0007901. This work benefitted from discussions at the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1066293.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A single atom in free space can have a strong influence on a light beam and a single photon can have a strong effect on a single atom in free space. Regarding this interaction, two conceptually different questions can be asked: can a single atom fully absorb a single photon and can a single atom fully reflect a light beam. The conditions for achieving the full effect in either case are different. Here we discuss related questions in the context of an optical resonator. When shaping a laser pulse properly it will be fully absorbed by an optical resonator, i.e., no light will be reflected and all the pulse energy will accumulate inside the resonator before it starts leaking out. We show in detail that in this case the temporal pulse shape has to match the time-reversed pulse obtained by the cavity’s free decay. On the other hand a resonator, made of highly reflecting mirrors which normally reflect a large portion of any incident light, may fully transmit the light, as long as the light is narrow band and resonant with the cavity. The analogy is the single atom - normally letting most of the light pass - which under special conditions may fully reflect the incident light beam. Using this analogy we are able to study the effects of practical experimental limitations in the atom-photon coupling, such as finite pulses, bandwidths, and solid angle coverage, and to use the optical resonator as a test bed for the implementation of the quantum experiment.'
author:
- 'S. Heugel$^1$'
- 'A. S. Villar$^1$'
- 'M. Sondermann$^{1,2}$'
- 'U. Peschel$^{1,2}$'
- 'G. Leuchs$^{1,2}$'
title: On the analogy between a single atom and an optical resonator
---
Introduction
============
The strong interaction in free space between a single quantum of light and an individual two-level quantum system is a fundamental physical process. The first observation of the partial extinction of a light beam by a single ion dates back to 1987 [@wineland1987]. Nevertheless, the topic is of broad ongoing interest and there is a wealth of recent papers related to it, covering experiments [@vamivakas2007; @wrigge2008; @tey2008-np] as well as theoretical and conceptual works [@vanenk2001; @vanenk2004; @sondermann2007; @pinotsi2008; @tey2008-a; @zumofen2008p; @stobinska2009].
The terms *extinction* applies to two qualitatively different situations: A strongly focused, coherent, low intensity continuous wave (cw) light beam on resonance with the two-level quantum system – which we exemplarily assume to be an atom here – can be scattered by the atom. The probability to find it in the excited state remains small during the whole interaction procedure. This case is treated in Refs. [@vamivakas2007; @wrigge2008; @tey2008-np; @tey2008-a; @zumofen2008p]. Carrying this scenario to extremes, it is predicted that a cw beam focused from half the solid angle onto the atom is completely reflected back into the half space from where it originated [@zumofen2008p]. In other words, the cw beam is completely extincted. On the contrary, the field incident onto the atom may constitute of a light pulse containing only a single photon. Now, the extreme case is that there is a distinct moment in time where the probability to find the atom in the excited state is unity and the incident photon is fully absorbed (and re-emitted after wards). This approach is followed in Refs. [@sondermann2007; @pinotsi2008; @stobinska2009].
It is common to both approaches that the spatial properties (angular intensity dependence, state of polarization) of the focused light must match the atomic dipole transition in order to achieve the desired maximum effect [@quabis2000; @vanenk2001; @vanenk2004; @lindlein2007; @pinotsi2008; @zumofen2008p]. However, this is not enough for the aim of unit absorption probability. Here, the incident photon must possess the time reversed properties of a photon spontaneously emitted by the atom [@quabis2000; @lindlein2007; @stobinska2009]. This requirement naturally includes the conditions for the spatial profile of the photon mentioned above but also sets restrictions on the temporal and spectral properties: Since the spontaneous decay is exponential [@weisskopf1930], the temporal envelope of the incident photon has to be an increasing exponential (cf. Ref. [@stobinska2009]) up to a point in time where it drops off rapidly. Furthermore, since the decay occurs into the full solid angle the atom must be illuminated from all directions.
The differences and similarities between these two situations can be better envisaged by tracing an analogy to a well-known classical system, a light beam resonant to an optical cavity. The excitation probability of the atom is then associated to the energy present in the light field internal to the optical resonator, and the conditions for the complete absorption, reflection, or transmission of the incident classical field in this situation can be used to better understand the absorption or reflection of photons by a two-level quantum system. The analogy is of course only approximate because contrary to the atom the quantization of the field plays no role in the treatment of the classical resonator.
The atom–cavity analogy will be established as follows: We will assume that the light incident onto the resonator is perfectly mode matched to it. This means that we consider all requirements on the spatial intensity distribution and polarization pattern to be fulfilled. Then, the discussion can be focused onto spectral and temporal issues and the amount of the solid angle covered by the incident light. With these settings the pulsed excitation from full solid angle is compared to a resonator that is irradiated through all its mirrors. For the sake of simplicity, we will assume a linear resonator comprising only of two mirrors, one perfectly and one partially reflecting. The effect of half solid angle illumination of an atom finds its counterpart in a resonator consisting of two partially reflecting mirrors with equal reflectivity illuminated only from one side. Following the reasoning of Ref. [@zumofen2008p] one can then introduce two half–spaces: One where the light directly reflected by the cavity front mirror interferes with the light leaking out of the resonator backwards through the front mirror and one which contains only light leaking out of the resonator, i.e., the light transmitted by the resonator. When introducing the similarity between the resonator and the atom the only subtlety is the need to associate reflection by the resonator with transmission by the atom.
In this manner, we are able to study the response of a two-level quantum system upon single photon excitation, i.e., its excitation and the temporal properties of the scattered radiation, by analyzing the analogous response of a simple classical system. We show that the only way to completely store all the incident pulse energy inside the resonator is to shape its temporal profile as the phase-conjugate of the wave emitted by the freely decaying system. We also show that for the symmetric resonator excited through only one of the two input mirrors the maximum energy storage is 50% of the energy of the incident time-inverted pulse. This allows us to conjecture that the two-level atom irradiated from half of the total solid angle will likewise reach an excitation of at most 50%. In the continuous-wave case and limiting the effective field excitation to a single photon the totally reflecting atom is indeed equivalent to an optical resonator with equal mirrors for which all resonant light is transmitted.
Comparison of the experimental schemes
======================================
![Scheme of a simplified Fabry-Pérot resonator made of two parallel semi-transparent mirrors. In the calculations, only mirror $M_1$ is illuminated.[]{data-label="fig:Resonator"}](LasPhys_Heugel_Fig1){width="8cm"}
The analogy between atoms and optical resonators can be found in the limit of high finesse for the latter. The optical resonator is designed as a Fabry-Pérot cavity, created from two plane parallel mirrors of infinite size. The normal mode of such a simplified resonator are plane waves, such that spatial and time domain parts of these normal modes separate according to $\vec E(\vec r,t)=U(t)\vec E_0(\vec r)$. The resonator dynamics are fully described by the time domain part $U(t)$ while only one polarization component is considered here. This time domain part is chosen such, that the intensity is given by $I(t)=\left|U(t)\right|^2$.
The setup of such a cavity is shown in Fig. \[fig:Resonator\]. The phase reference for all the light beams is taken at the position of mirror $M_1$. The phase-shifts regarding reflection at the mirror surfaces are set in such a way, that the reflection of light at the outside border of each mirror gives rise to a phase shift of $\pi$.
The light beam being incident onto the cavity is $U_I$. The cavity is only irradiated from one side. The light being reflected by the cavity is described by the component $U_R$ and the transmitted component is $U_T$. Inside the cavity the two components $U_C$ and $U_{CC}$ circulate. The resonator has a fixed length $L$ so that the photon round trip time is defined as $\tau=2L/c$. The resonator’s resonances are given by $\omega_n=n\nu_{fsr}$ with $n\in\mathbb N$ and the free spectral range $\nu_{fsr}=1/\tau$.
The dynamics of the cavity being excited by incident light beams is best described in the frequency domain [@cesini1977]. For constant mirror positions and due to it’s linear response, the cavity acts as a linear filter on the spectrum of the incident light pulse. The incident pulse is defined as $U_I(t)=p(t)e^{i\omega_0t}$, the spectrum of which reads as $$\label{eq:IncidentFieldSpectrum}
U_I(\omega)=p(\omega-\omega_0).$$ The reflected and transmitted fields are obtained from the product of this incident spectrum with the corresponding filter functions, given for an arbitrary optical resonator by $$\label{eq:CavityReflection}
C_R(\omega)= \frac{-r_1+r_2e^{-i\omega/\nu_{fsr}}}{1-r_1r_2e^{-i\omega/\nu_{fsr}}}$$ for the reflection and by $$\label{eq:CavityTransmission}
C_T(\omega)=
\frac{t_1t_2e^{-i\omega/(2\nu_{fsr})}}{1-r_1r_2e^{-i\omega/\nu_{fsr}}}$$ for the transmission. The internal field decay rate is $$\label{eq:DecayRate}
\Gamma=-\nu_{fsr}\ln(r_1r_2).$$
The energy stored in the cavity is finally obtained by the expression $$\mathcal E(t)=\mathcal A
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{t}\!\left[\left|U_I(t')\right|^2-
\left|U_R(t')\right|^2-\left|U_T(t')\right|^2\right]\mathrm{d}t'$$ with the cavity area $\mathcal A$. By normalizing this quantity to the total energy of the incident field $\mathcal{E_P}=\mathcal A\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left|U_I(t')\right|^2\mathrm{d}t'$, the fraction of energy $\epsilon(t)$ being stored in the cavity at time $t$ can be simply calculated as $\epsilon(t)=\mathcal{E}(t)/\mathcal{E_P}$. It is useful to define the energy absorption efficiency $\epsilon_{max}=\max_{t\in\mathbb R} \epsilon(t)$.
In those cases where the quantities $U_T,U_R$ have been computed, these were obtained by taking the product of the filter functions with the incident light pulse $U_I$ in discrete Fourier space [@cesini1977; @shakir1983; @christodoulides1986; @yu2001]. The free spectral range was set to $\nu_{fsr}=10$ GHz and the reflectivity of the coupling mirror $M_1$ to $r_1=0.9999$. We used the discrete Fourier transform to numerically compute the frequency domain components, where the sampling frequency was set to $5~\nu_{fsr}$ and the duration of the time window to more than $500~\Gamma^{-1}$.
Perfect absorption of a matching light pulse
--------------------------------------------
The case of perfect absorption of light by an atom in free space corresponds in our picture to the compression of a light pulse into a single-ended resonator ($r_2=1$). The total absorption of the matching light pulse into the resonator can be understood as a suppression of reflection from the resonator during the time the pulse is irradiated onto mirror $M_1$. The same picture applies to an atom which is irradiated from the full solid angle with a focused spatial pattern which matches that of the internal transition which is driven (e.g. a dipolar pattern). There the light which is emitted from the partially excited atom destructively interferes with the light which has passed the atoms position.
![Comparison of the interferences of light beams in the case of complete illumination of the systems.[]{data-label="fig:FullSolidAngleComparison"}](LasPhys_Heugel_Fig2)
First, the equation governing the resonator response onto arbitrary pulse shapes are rewritten to accommodate the special symmetry of such a single-ended resonator. From the fact that there is no transmission, it can be seen that such a resonator acts as a dispersive mirror [@christodoulides1986]. Only frequency dependent phase shifts are imposed on the spectrum of the incident light pulse. We note that this property can be used for instance to passively convert phase-squeezed light into amplitude-squeezed light, and vice-versa [@Galatola199195; @villar07].
The reflection filter function in Eq. \[eq:CavityReflection\] can therefore be described fully by its argument $\phi(\omega)\nolinebreak=\nolinebreak\arg \left\lbrace \widetilde{C_R}(\omega) \right\rbrace$. Due to the high finesse of the cavity, $\frac{\omega-\omega_0}{\nu_{fsr}}\ll1$ holds for all relevant frequencies being involved in here. So $\phi(\omega)$ can be approximated as $$\phi(\omega)\approx\arctan \left[ - \frac{2(1-r_1)\frac{\omega-\omega_0}{\nu_{fsr}}}{(1-r_1)^2-\left(\frac{\omega-\omega_0}{\nu_{fsr}}\right)^2} \right]+\pi.$$ This reduces the complete cavity filter function to the form of $$\widetilde{C_R}(\omega)=\frac{\Gamma - i(\omega-\omega_0)}{\Gamma + i(\omega-\omega_0)}.$$
At this point, the application of time reversal regarding the optimal pulse becomes obvious. Consider a pulse which grows exponentially with the rate $\Gamma$ until it suddenly stops at $t=0$. Such a pulse $$\label{eq:ExponentialGrowingPulseTimeDomain}
p(t)=p_0e^{\Gamma t}H(-t)$$ with the Heaviside step function $H(t)$ and an amplitude $p_0$ has a spectrum $$\label{eq:ExponentialGrowingPulseFreqDomain}
\widetilde{p}(\omega-\omega_0)=\frac{p_0}{\Gamma-i(\omega-\omega_0)}.$$ So the spectrum of the reflected light beam is $$\label{eq:ExponentialGrowingReflectionSpectrum}
\widetilde{U_R}(\omega)=\frac{p_0}{\Gamma+i(\omega-\omega_0)}.$$ This reflected light beam is the time inverse of the incident light beam due to $\widetilde{U_R}(\omega)=\widetilde{U_I}(\omega)^*$.
Going back to the time domain picture, the total concentration of the incident light pulse into the cavity becomes immediately obvious. The reflected component reads $$\label{eq:ReflectedComponentTimeDomain}
U_R(t)=p_0e^{(i\omega_0-\Gamma) t}H(t)$$ so until $t=0$ no light is leaving the cavity. This is due to a destructive interference between the light which leaves the cavity during that time, and the light which is directly reflected at mirror $M_1$ (Fig. \[fig:FullSolidAngleComparison\]). As $U_R(t)$ vanishes during the time the pulse is incident onto the cavity, all its energy flows into the cavity region and is confined there until $t=0$, hence perfect absorption of the pulse energy by the cavity is accomplished at $t=0$.
It has to be emphasized here that the symmetry of the source–free Maxwell equations under the time reversal transformation $t\mapsto -t$ is the basic reason for this remarkable total absorption of light energy into a generally lossy system. By irradiating the resonator with the time reversal of that pulse which it would emit while decaying freely, this system is driven to behave in a time-reversed way.
Perfect reflection (resp. transmission) of a narrow band faint light beam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparison of the interference effects which lead to full transmission (resonator) or full reflection (atom) in the case of resonant excitation with faint light beams.[]{data-label="fig:HalfSolidAngleComparison"}](LasPhys_Heugel_Fig3)
The action of a symmetric double-ended cavity ($r_1=r_2$) such as in Fig. \[fig:Resonator\] on narrow band resonant light is well known from text-books. It can also be seen from Eq. \[eq:CavityReflection\] that in resonance $C_R(n\nu_{fsr})=0$ for $n\in\mathbb N$. Therefore all light is transmitted in this special case, independent of the finesse.
This remarkable effect is due to the interference of the light which is partially reflected off mirror $M_1$ and the light which leaks out through this cavity mirror from inside the resonator $\sqrt{1-r_1^2}U_{CC}$. This interference determines the total reflected light $U_R$. In the case of resonance, these two components are balanced with opposite signs. Therefore, all the light energy is transmitted through the resonator.
A direct analog of this perfect transmission of resonant narrow band light through a symmetric resonator is the total reflection of a narrow band faint light beam from a single quantum emitters. The same picture of partial destructive interference of beams can be drawn, if the atom is irradiated from one half of the full solid angle with a focused spatial pattern which matches that of the internal transition which is driven (e.g. a dipolar pattern). The portion of incident light which passes the position of the atom interferes with the light emitted by the atom. If this interference is fully destructive, as is the case for resonant light beams, all the incident light is reflected back from the atom.
The reason for the interchange of transmission and reflection in both cases can be seen from direction in which interference occurs. This is visualized in Fig. \[fig:HalfSolidAngleComparison\] where schemes of both experimental situations are shown.
Comparison of other experimental schemes regarding the absorption efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Absorption of a narrow band faint light beam into a single-ended resonator
In our simulations we approximate narrow-band light beams by pulses of rectangular shape with a sufficient duration, i.e., the spectral width of these pulses is much smaller than the width of the cavity resonance. In order to investigate the transition from short pulses to narrow band light beams, we computed the absorption efficiency dependence on the pulse length utilizing the above introduced technique. The results in Fig. \[fig:RectangularLaserPulse\] indicate that only for short pulse durations a considerable fraction of energy can be stored inside the resonator. This is due to the effect that in the beginning transient signals impose the build up of energy storage inside the resonator. Once the steady state is reached, no more energy will be stored inside the resonator. If the duration of the rectangular pulse is longer than this initial build-up process takes, the fraction of energy being stored inside the resonator decreases with increasing pulse durations. For the atomic experiments with illumination from half the solid angle this means, that although perfect reflection occurs for a narrow band faint light beam, no significant excitation of the atom will be observed.
### Partial absorption of a matching light pulse into a symmetric double-ended resonator
The best strategy for finding the optimum pulse shape seems to be to match the decay constant $\Gamma$ of the particular resonator. While the resonator is irradiated, the reflection of light is canceled. Therefore the only loss regarding energy storage is due to light-leakage through mirror $M_2$. The results in Fig. \[fig:AbsorptionSymmResonator\] show that for symmetric resonators where $t_2^2/(t_1^2+t_2^2)=0.5$, the maximum of fractional energy storage in the resonator amounts to $\epsilon_{max}=0.5$. According to the analogy between both systems, this limitation to $\epsilon_{max}=0.5$ also applies to all experiments where atoms are illuminated from only half of the full solid angle.
Effect of imperfections on the total absorption of light energy by optical resonators
=====================================================================================
Deviations from the matching pulse shape
----------------------------------------
We now consider how realistic pulses would modify the ideal dynamics discussed in the previous section. The influence of various deviations from the optimal pulse shape on the achievable absorption efficiency is investigated numerically. The reflectivity of mirror $M_2$ has thereby been set to $r_2=1$.
Realistic pulses will be restricted to a finite length $T$, being written as $$\label{eq:FinitLengthPulse}
p(t)=p_0e^{\Gamma t}H(-t)H(t+T),$$ where $H(t)$ is the Heaviside step function. Fig. \[fig:FinitePulses\] depicts the influence of finite pulse durations on the amount of energy stored in the cavity. It becomes clear that relatively short pulses of duration $T=4\Gamma^{-1}$ are already absorbed with an efficiency as high as $\epsilon_\mathrm{max}=0.9997$. The reason why finite $T$ implies $\epsilon_\mathrm{max}<1$ can be explained by the partial reflection of the very initial pulse tail, which will always be reflected without interfering destructively with the internal field, since this yet has to be built up. But due to the exponentially growing shape of the incident pulses, this effect is negligible if the initial step is small enough.
Realistic pulses will also suffer from a second problem, the mismatch between its time constant decay $\tau_p$ and the cavity lifetime $\Gamma$, breaking once more the ideal symmetry required. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig:ExpRate\], where $\epsilon_\mathrm{max}$ is plotted as a function of the incident pulse exponential time constant. The flat maximum seen at $\tau_p=\Gamma^{-1}$ clearly shows that small deviations of $\tau_p$ do not lead to a sharp drop in excitation efficiency, showing that the generation of the incident pulse is robust also against this kind of error.
Resonator losses through $r_2<1$
--------------------------------
The simplification $r_2=1$ that has been applied so far can hardly be fulfilled in any experiment. Therefore, the case of $r_2<1$ is investigated next. The results in Fig. \[fig:ScanReflectivity\] show how strong the absorption efficiency depends on the prevention of loss through mirror $M_2$. There is a non-linear drop off in absorption efficiency if $r_2<1$. This can be explained as follows: While the light pulse is incident onto the cavity, the intracavity field builds up and circulates inside the cavity. Due to the high finesse, it passes mirror $M_2$ many times. Even small transmissions, compared to those through mirror $M_1$, accumulate and have a considerable effect.
Conclusions
===========
We are pointing at a remarkable similarity between the interaction of light with an atom and with an optical resonator. As discussed the similarity holds in several respects. This may seem surprising because it links the dynamics of the linear optical resonator at any incident light power level with the dynamics of an atom interacting with up to one photon. However, if the atom is exposed to higher photon fluxes, the similarity breaks down. The reasons are that the atomic energy spectrum is not harmonic and that nonlinear effects become important. Because of this similarity one has a useful test bed at hand for investigating experimental strategies for the preparation of the pulses to be employed in the atom experiment and to estimate deficiencies resulting from imperfect light fields. We concentrated on two cases, one where the linear resonator is excited through both open ports, and the other where it is excited only through one of the two open ports. For the atom this corresponds to the cases where the incident focused light field matches a dipole wave in the full solid angle and one where it matches the dipole wave in a limited solid angle cone $<4\pi$. For modelling the situation with the resonator one just has to choose the corresponding reflectivities $r_1$ and $r_2$. The interaction of the atom with $n\leq1$ photons can thus be quantitatively simulated using the resonator model. However, this similarity does not at all cover the efficient coupling of the atom in free space at higher photon numbers where novel possibilities for non linear optics at the few photon level may become feasible [@Nemoto2004; @stobinska2009; @turchette1995].
The authors gratefully acknowledge fruitful discussions with Magdalena Stobińska.
[22]{} 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"
} |
\[authorStart\]
[*A. V. Nefediev*]{}\
Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia[^1]\
**Abstract**
The nature of the light scalar mesons is one of the most intriguing open challenges in hadronic spectroscopy. It is argued that radiative decays involving these scalars can serve as an important decisive tool in establishing their nature. In particular, special emphasis is made on the radiative decays of the scalars themselves (in addition to the radiative decays of the $\phi$-meson with the scalars appearing in the final state), including their two-photon decays. All the above mentioned processes are considered in detail in the (point-like) kaon molecule model of the scalars and explicit predictions for the decay widths are made. In addition, finite-range corrections to the point-like results are investigated, with a special attention payed to gauge invariance of the decay amplitude. Finally, the conclusion is made that experimental data on the radiative decays with the light scalar mesons involved strongly support the molecule assignment for the latter.
Introduction
============
Understanding the properties of light scalar mesons is one of the most challenging problems of the hadrons spectroscopy. In particular, investigations of the nature of the $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ mesons attract considerable theoretical and experimental efforts. This interest should not come as a surprise since the given states reside at the very kaon–antikaon threshold and thus the admixture of the kaon molecular component in the wave function is expected to be large. Indeed, experimental data [@SND; @CMD; @KLOE] unambiguously show a prominent $K
\bar K$ contribution. Other assignments for these mesons are also suggested and studied in the literature, such as the genuine $q\bar{q}$ assignment [@qq], or the compact four–quark assignment [@Jaffe; @4q]. Many experimental tests have been suggested so far in order to distinguish between these assignments and thus to disclose the nature of the scalars $a_0/f_0(980)$. For example, the importance of measurements of the radiative decays of the $\phi (1020)$ to scalar mesons was argued in [@AI]. In the meantime, another class of radiative decays — the radiative decays of the scalars themselves — can be studied as well and provide new important data. As compared to the radiative decays $\phi\to\gamma S$ ($S=a_0/f_0$), the decays $S\to\gamma
V$ ($V=\rho,\omega,\gamma$) possess a number of advantages, such as a considerable phasespace in the final state and a possibility to probe the nonstrange component of the scalars w.f. These radiative decays can serve therefore as a complementary source of information and to deliver decisive information on the structure of these long–debated objects [@HKKN].
Both types of radiative decays can be described with the single vertex function $VS\gamma$. Gauge invariance imposes quite restrictive constrains on the structure of the transition matrix element: $iW^{\mu\nu}=M(m_V^2,m_S^2)[P_V^\mu
P_\gamma^\nu-g^{\mu\nu}(P_VP_\gamma)]$, where $P_V$ and $P_\gamma$ are the vector and the photon four-momenta.
Evaluation of the decay widths in various assignments for the scalars
=====================================================================
In the quark–antiquark assignment, the $a_0/f_0(980)$ mesons are treated as the genuine quark–antiquark ${}^3P_0$ states. Their radiative decays can be studied in the framework of nonrelativistic quark models [@KR; @qgamgam] yielding the width of 125 keV, for the decays $a_0\to\gamma\omega$ and $f_0\to\gamma\rho$, 14 keV, for the decays $a_0\to\gamma\rho$ and $f_0\to\gamma\omega$, and 4.5 keV, for the decays $a_0/f_0\to\gamma\gamma$. The radiative decays widths of the genuine quark–antiquark mesons $f_1(1285)$ ($\Gamma(f_1(1285)) \to \gamma
\rho)=1320 \pm 312 {\rm keV}$) and $f_2(1270)$ ($\Gamma(f_2(1270) \to
\gamma \gamma)=2.61 \pm 0.30~{\rm keV}$) were used here in order to fix the radial w.f. matrix element [@HKKN].
In the molecule assignment for the scalars, the radiative decays proceed via a kaon loop, and the scales involved into the problem possess the hierarchy $\varepsilon\ll m\lesssim\beta$, where $\beta$ is the intrinsic scale of the binding force, $m$ is the kaon mass, and $\varepsilon=2m-m_S$ is the binding energy. It was argued in [@2gam] that, for the realistic values of the parameters ($\beta\approx m_\rho\approx 800$ MeV, $m=495$ MeV, and $\varepsilon=10$ MeV), this hierarchy can be achieved starting prom the point-like limit of $\beta\to\infty$ and taking into account finite-range corrections in the inverse power of $\beta$. The point-like $SK\bar{K}$ coupling constant, $g_S^2/(4\pi)=32m\sqrt{m\varepsilon}\approx 1.12\;{\rm GeV}^2$ was obtained in [@mol0]. The two remaining couplings can be obtained from the $\rho\pi\pi$ constant ($g_V=g_\rho=g_\omega=\frac{1}{2}g_{\rho \pi
\pi}\approx 2.13$) and from the total width of the $\phi$ ($g_\phi^2/(4\pi)\approx 1.77$). Then the point-like predictions for the widths are $\Gamma(\phi\to\gamma S)=0.6$ keV, $\Gamma(S\to\gamma V)=3.4$ keV, and $\Gamma(S\to\gamma\gamma)=0.22$ keV. It can be demonstrated explicitly that no large corrections to these results, of order ${\cal
O}(m^2/\beta^2)$, appear [@mol0; @Markushin; @2gam]. Thus one concludes that inclusion of the finite–range corrections does not change these prediction appreciably, giving only moderate (of order $10\div 20\%$ in the amplitude) corrections, provided they are included in a self-consistent and gauge-invariant way [@Markushin; @mol0; @2gam].
Conclusions
===========
In Table 1 we give the widths for the radiative decays involving scalars. Comparing the predictions made in the quark–antiquark and molecule assignment with the experimental data we conclude that the molecule picture is strongly supported by the data (Belle reports the new result $\Gamma(f_0\to\gamma\gamma)=0.205_{-0.83-0.117}^{+95+0.147}$ keV [@belle07] which is in even better agreement with the molecule prediction). An important property revealed by the radiative decays of the scalars is that the theoretical predictions for these decays differ drastically depending on the assignment made for the nature of the scalars. This makes such radiative decays an important tool in establishing the structure of the $a_0/f_0(980)$ mesons. We conclude that experimental data on the radiative decays $a_0/f_0\to\gamma\rho/\omega$ are strongly needed, as an important, and possibly decisive, source of information about the scalar mesons.
Quark–antiquark Molecule Data (PDG)
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------- ------------------------
$\phi\to\gamma a_0$ $0.37\sin^2\theta$ 0.6 $0.32\pm0.02$
$\phi\to\gamma f_0(\bar{n}n)/f_0(\bar{s}s)$ $0.04\sin^2\theta/0.18$ 0.6 $0.47\pm0.03$
$a_0\to\gamma\gamma$ $2\div 5$ 0.22 $0.30\pm 0.10$
$f_0\to\gamma\gamma$ $2\div 5$ 0.22 $0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$
$a_0\gamma\omega/\rho$ 125/14 3.4
$f_0(\bar{n}n)\gamma\rho/\omega$ 125/14 3.4 pending
$f_0(\bar{s}s)\gamma\rho/\omega$ $0/31\sin^2\theta$ 3.4
: The widths (in keV) of the radiative decays involving scalars; $\theta$ is the (small) $\phi-\omega$ mixing angle.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Federal Agency for Atomic Energy of Russian Federation and by grants NSh-843.2006.2, DFG-436 RUS 113/820/0-1(R), RFFI-05-02-04012-NNIOa, and PTDC/FIS/70843/2006-Fisica.
[00]{} M. N. Achasov [*et al.*]{}, [ *Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B440**]{}, 442 (1998); M. N. Achasov [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B485**]{}, 349 (2000). R. R. Akhmetshin [*et al.*]{} \[CMD-2 Collab.\], [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B462**]{}, 380 (1999). A. Aloisio [*et al.*]{} \[KLOE Collab.\], [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B536**]{}, 209 (2002); A. Aloisio [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B537**]{}, 21 (2002). S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D32**]{}, 189 (1985); M. Kroll, R. Ricken, D. Merten, B. Metsch, and H. Petry, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**A9**]{}, 73 (2000); A. M. Badalyan and B. L. G. Bakker, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D66**]{}, 034025 (2002); A.M. Badalian, [*Phys. Atom. Nucl.*]{} [**66**]{}, 1342 (2003). R. L. Jaffe, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D15**]{}, 267, 281 (1977). N. N. Achasov, S. A. Devyanin, and G. N. Shestakov, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B96**]{}, 168 (1980); D. Black, A. H. Fariborz, F. Sannino, and J. Schechter, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D59**]{}, 074026 (1999); M. Alford and R. L. Jaffe, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B578**]{}, 367 (2000); L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{}, 212002 (2004). N. N. Achasov and V. N. Ivanchenko, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B315**]{}, 465 (1989). J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Yu. S. Kalashnikova, A. E. Kudryavtsev, and A. V. Nefediev, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**C73**]{}, 045203 (2006). W. Kwong and J. L. Rosner, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D38**]{}, 279 (1988). R. Barbieri, R. Gatto, and R. Kogerler, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B60**]{}, 183 (1976). C. Hanhart, Yu. S. Kalashnikova, A. E. Kudryavtsev, and A. V. Nefediev, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D75**]{}, 074015 (2007). J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Yu. S. Kalashnikova, A. E. Kudryavtsev, and A. V. Nefediev, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**A24**]{}, 437 (2005). V.E. Markushin, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**A8**]{}, 389 (2000). T. Mori [*et. al*]{} \[Belle Collab.\], [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D75**]{}, 051101 (2007).
[^1]: Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 117218, B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow, Russia.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\
[*by* Gunther Cornelissen (Utrecht)]{}\
[*at the* Arbeitstagung 2011 ]{}
To Don Zagier, on his 60th birthday\
**Counting points.** Let $X$ denote a smooth projective curve over a finite field $k={\mathbf{F}}_q$. Is $X$ determined (up to isomorphism) from counting its points over finite extensions of $k$, i.e., by the numbers $N_n:= |X({\mathbf{F}}_{q^n})|, $ i.e., by knowing its *zeta function* $$\zeta_X(s):= \exp \left( \sum_{n \geq 1} N_n \frac{q^{-sn}}{n} \right) \mbox{ ?}$$ The answer is **no** in general. Tate (1966) and Turner (1978) proved that for two curves $X, Y$ over $k$, the equality $\zeta_X=\zeta_Y$ is equivalent to their respective Jacobians $\mathrm{Jac}(X) \sim \mathrm{Jac}(Y)$ being $k$-isogenous. The following example of E. Howe from 1996 illustrates this phenomenon: let $ X_{\pm} \colon y^2 = x^5\pm x^3+x^2-x-1$ over ${\mathbf{F}}_3$. Then $$\zeta_{X_{\pm}} = \frac{1-T+T^2-3T^3+9T^4}{(1-T)(1-3T)} \mbox{ with } T=q^{-s},$$ and here are the first few point counts (for this occasion done independently in Sage):
$n$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 …
------- --- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- --------
$N_n$ 3 11 21 107 288 719 2271 …
Can we remedy this?
**Number fields.** Now consider the same problem for a number field $K$, with its Dedekind zeta function $$\zeta_K(s) := \sum_{0 \neq \mathfrak{a}} \frac{1}{N(\mathfrak{a})^s},$$ where the sum runs over all non-zero ideals $\mathfrak{a}$ of the ring of integers of $K$. Knowing $\zeta_K$ is the same as knowing $f(\mathfrak{p}|p)$ for all prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}$. A Theorem of Mihály Bauer (1903) says that [if $K,L$ are two number fields]{} *that are Galois over ${\mathbf{Q}}$*, [then $K \cong L$ is equivalent to $\zeta_K = \zeta_L$]{}. However, a result of Ga[ß]{}mann from 1926 says that in general, there do exist non-isomorphic number fields $K,L$ with $\zeta_K=\zeta_L$. Actually, he proves that $\zeta_K=\zeta_L$ is equivalent to the following statement: fix a common extension $N$ of $K$ and $L$ that is Galois over ${\mathbf{Q}}$ with Galois group $G$, and let $H_K$ and $H_L$ denote the Galois groups of $N/K$ and $N/L$, respectively. Then $\zeta_K=\zeta_L$ if and only if each $G$-conjugacy class intersects $H_K$ and $H_L$ in the same number of elements. A result from Perlis from 1977 says that the first example with $\zeta_K=\zeta_L$ but $K \not \cong L$ occurs in degree $7$ over ${\mathbf{Q}}$, and an example is given by $K={\mathbf{Q}}(\alpha), L={\mathbf{Q}}(\beta)$ with $$\alpha^7-7\alpha+3=0 \mbox{ and } \beta^7+14 \beta^4 - 42 \beta^2 - 21 \beta + 9 = 0.$$ Can we remedy this?
**Historical aside: internal/external = failure/success.** Here are some further attempts at finding objects that determine isomorphism of number fields $K$ and $L$: an *isomorphism of adele rings* $ \mathbf{A}_K \cong \mathbf{A}_L $ is stronger than equality of zeta functions (strictly stronger for number fields, equivalent for function fields), but still does not imply field isomorphism (Komatsu, 1976); an example is $K={\mathbf{Q}}(\sqrt[8]{18}) $and $L={\mathbf{Q}}(\sqrt[8]{288})$. An isomorphism of abelian Galois groups $G_K^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}} \cong G_L^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}$ is not enough, either: Kubota determined the isomorphism type of $G_K^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}$ (its *Ulm invariants*) in terms of $K$, and Onabe (1976) gave explicit examples, such as $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}(\sqrt{-2})}^{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}\cong G_{{\mathbf{Q}}(\sqrt{-3})}^{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}$. At the other side of the spectrum, an isomorphism of absolute Galois groups $G_K \cong G_L$ does imply that $K \cong L$! This is due to Neukirch (1969) when $K,L$ are Galois over ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and Uchida (1976) in general. This last theorem is the first manifestation of what Grothendieck called **an**abelian theorems. We conclude that the objects listed above, that are *internal* to a number field $K$ (i.e., can be described in terms of ideals of $K$), such as $\zeta_K, \mathbf{A}_K$ or $G_K^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}$ (which is internal by class field theory), lead to *failure*, whereas a mysterious object $G_K$, that is *external* to $K$ (described in terms of extensions of $K$, or via the Langlands program in terms of automorphic forms), leads to *success* …Can we do better, and have internal success?
**Method: class field theory as (noncommutative) dynamical system.** Let $J_K$ denote the group of fractional ideals of $K$, $J_K^+$ the semigroup of integral ideals of $K$, $\vartheta_K \colon \mathbf{A}_K^* \rightarrow G_K^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}$ the Artin reciprocity map and $\hat {\mathcal{O}}_K$ the integral finite adeles of $K$. Choose a section $s$ of the natural map $\mathbf{A}_{K,f}^*\rightarrow J_{K} \colon (x_{{\mathfrak{p}}})_{{\mathfrak{p}}} \mapsto \displaystyle\prod {\mathfrak{p}}^{v_{{\mathfrak{p}}}(x_{{\mathfrak{p}}})}.$
These objects were used by Ha and Paugam in 2005 to construct a dynamical system associated to $K$ (for $K={\mathbf{Q}}$, this is the famous Bost-Connes system), as follows: we make a *topological space* $$X_K = G_K^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}} \times_{\hat{\mathcal{O}}_K^*} \hat {\mathcal{O}}_K,$$ consisting of classes $[(\gamma,\rho)]$ for $\gamma \in G_{K}^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\rho \in \hat{\mathcal{O}}_{K}$, defined by the equivalence $$(\gamma,\rho) \sim (\vartheta_{K}({u}^{-1}) \cdot \gamma, u \rho) \mbox{ for all } u \in \hat{\mathcal{O}}_{K}^*.$$ Then we consider the *action* of $\mathfrak{n} \in J_K^+$ on $X_K$ given by $$\mathfrak{n} \ast [(\gamma,\rho)] := [(\vartheta_{K}(s(\mathfrak{n}))^{-1} \gamma, s(\mathfrak{n}) \rho)].$$ In this way, we get a dynamical system $(X_K, J_K^+)$.
**Main Theorem.** (C-Matilde Marcolli, arxiv:1009.0736) *For two number fields $K$ and $L$, an isomorphism $K \cong L$ is equivalent to a norm-preserving isomorphism of dynamical systems $(X_K,J_K^+) \cong (X_L,J_L^+).$*
By *isomorphism of dynamical systems*, we mean a homeomorphism $\Phi \colon X_K {\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}X_L$ and a group homomorphism $\varphi \colon J_K^+ {\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_L^+$ such that $\Phi(\mathfrak{n} \ast x ) = \varphi(\mathfrak{n}) \ast \Phi(x)$ for all $x \in X_K$ and $\mathfrak{n} \in J_K^+$; and *norm-preserving* means that $N_L(\varphi(\mathfrak{n}))=N_K(\mathfrak{n})$ for all $\mathfrak{n} \in J_K^+$.
In a sense, this theorem shows that a *suitable combination of failure* ($\zeta_K$, which will be the partition function of the system, $G_K^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\mathbf{A}_K$, which occur in the system) *may lead to success.* It gives an “internal” description of the isomorphism type of a number field. It also holds in a function field, with a slightly different, easier proof.
The proof is really to “hit the dynamical system with a hammer until enough isomorphic objects jump out”.
**Reformulation using Quantum Statistical Mechanics.** There is a way to reformulate the main theorem by encoding the dynamics in Banach algebra language. We set $A_K:= C(X_K) \rtimes J_K^+$ to be the semigroup crossed product $C^*$-algebra corresponding to the dynamical system. Physically, it corresponds to the *algebra of observables*. If we let $\mu_{\mathfrak{n}}$ and $\mu^*_{\mathfrak{n}}$ denote the partial isometries of the algebra corresponding to $\mathfrak{n} \in J_K^+$, then we also need the non-involutive subalgebra $A_K^{\dagger}$ of $A_K$ generated by $C(X)$ and $\langle \mu_{\mathfrak{n}} \rangle_{\mathfrak{n} \in J_K^+}$ (but not the $\mu_{\mathfrak{n}}^*$). We also consider a one-parameter subgroup of automorphisms of $A_K$, denoted $\sigma_K \colon \mathbf{R} \hookrightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(A_K)$, defined by $\sigma_K(t)(f)=f$ and $\sigma_K(t)(\mu_{\mathfrak{n}}) = N_K(\mathfrak{n})^{it} \mu_{\mathfrak{n}}$. The algebra with this so-called *time evolution* is an abstract *quantum statistical mechanical system.* A slightly stronger statement than the main theorem is the following: $K \cong L$ is equivalent to an isomorphism of $(A_K,\sigma_K) {\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(A_L,\sigma_L)$ that maps $A_K^{\dagger}$ to $A_L^{\dagger}$.
From the main theorem, we can deduce our answer to the problems outlined before:
**Theorem.** *If $K$ and $L$ are global fields (number fields, or function fields of curves over finite fields), then $K \cong L$ (which, in the case of function fields of curves is equivalent to isomorphism of the curves) is equivalent to the existence of an isomorphism* $ \psi \colon G_{K}^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}} {\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{L}^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}, $ *such that **all** abelian $L$-series match:* $ L_K(\chi) = L_L((\psi^{-1})^*\chi) \mbox{\ \ \emph{for all} \ } \chi \in \mathrm{Hom}(G_{K}^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}},S^1). $
We discovered this theorem because $L$-series occur as evaluations of low temperature equilibrium states of the system at particular test functions related to the character. Our proof of this theorem is to deduce from $L$-series equality an isomorphism of dynamical systems, which basically boils down to a bit of character theory, and then using the main theorem. In the meanwhile, Bart de Smit has discovered a purely number theoretical proof of the theorem for $L$-series for number fields, and has actually proven something much stronger: for every number field $K$, there is a character of order $3$, such that $L_K(\chi) \neq L_{K'}(\chi')$ for *every* number field $K' \not \cong K$ and character for $G_{K'}^{{{\footnotesize \mathrm{ab}}}}$. This proof does not seem to transfer readily to function fields.
Final remark: the theorem is not really an analytic statement. It suffices to have equality of $L$-series at sufficiently large integers. Hence the theorem also holds with $p$-adic $L$-functions. One may read it as an equivalence of rank-one motives over $K$ and $L$.
**An analog in Riemannian geometry.** The isospectrality problem has a long history, that can be traced back at least to the Wolfskehl lecture of the dutch physicist Lorentz in Göttingen in 1910, where he asked whether the spectrum of the Laplacian on a domain (with suitable boundary conditions) determines the volume. He refers to the Leiden PhD thesis of Johanna Reudler, that very cleverly computes several convincing examples (published in 1912). Hermann Weyl proved the general case in 1911, and much later Mark Kac popularized the question whether the entire shape of the region (so up to euclidean transformations) is determined by the spectrum, as “Can you hear the shape of a drum?”(this formulation is due to Bers, the problem was originally posed by Bochner). The first counterexample was the construction of two non-isometric Riemannian manifolds with the same spectrum by Milnor, based on Witt’s theory of quadratic forms. Then even came non-homeomorphic isospectral manifolds in the work of Ikeda (lens spaces) and Vignéras (3-manifolds).
Let $(X,g)$ denote a closed Riemannian manifold with Laplace operator $\Delta_X$. The question whether or not the spectrum (with multiplicities) determines the isometry type of $X$ is the same as that whether or not the *spectral zeta function* $$\zeta_X(s)=\sum_{\lambda \neq 0} \frac{1}{\lambda^s} = {\mathrm{tr}}(\Delta_X^{-s})$$ (sum over the non-zero eigenvalues of the Laplace operator, with multiplicities) does so. Can we do better? This time, our “remedy” is the following: for $a \in C(X)$, set $\zeta_{X,a}(s) = {\mathrm{tr}}(a\Delta_X^{-s})$, and for $a \in W(X)$ (Lipschitz functions) set $\tilde\zeta_{X,a}={\mathrm{tr}}(a[\Delta_X,a]\Delta_X^{-s})$. Then:
**Theorem.** (C-Jan Willem de Jong; arXiv:1007.0907)
The proof is a rather formal computation with residues. Various analytically more challenging amplifications are possible, for example, condition (a) alone suffices when the spectrum is simple (which is the generic case by a result of Uhlenbeck). In the above theorem, one can also restrict to a countable dense subset of functions, and to sufficiently large integral values of the zeta functions, so the characterisation is really by countably many values.
**Lengths of maps.** One may now define the *length of a map* $\varphi \colon X \rightarrow Y$ as the “distance between the (meromorphic) zeta functions that occur in the theorem”. The usual distance of meromorphic functions doesn’t quite work, but the following does: The length $\ell(\varphi)$ of $\varphi$ of Riemannian manifolds of dimension $n$ is $$\ell(\varphi):= \mathop{\sup_{a_0 \in C(Y,\mathbf{R}_{\geq 0})-\{0\}}}_{a_1\in W^1(Y)-\mathbf{R}}\ \sup_{n \leq s \leq n+1} \! \! \! \max \, \{ | \log \left| \frac{\zeta_{X,a^*_0}(s)}{\zeta_{Y,a_0}(s)} \right| |, | \log \left| \frac{\tilde\zeta_{X,a^*_1}(s)}{\tilde\zeta_{Y,a_1}(s)} \right| | \}.$$ This then satisfies $\ell(\varphi)=0$ if and only if $\varphi$ is an isometry, and $\ell(\psi \circ \varphi) \leq \ell(\psi) + \ell(\varphi).$ One can also show that $$d(X,Y):=\max \{ \inf_{C^1(X \stackrel{\varphi}{\rightarrow} Y)} \ell(\varphi),+\infty\}$$ defines an extended metric between isometry classes of Riemannian manifolds.
As an example especially for Don Zagier, we bound the distance $d$ between two tori, corresponding to $i$ and $\rho = (1+\sqrt{-3})/2$ in the upper half plane. This will satisfy $$e^d \leq \frac{E(i,2)}{E(\rho,2)} = \frac{\zeta_{m^2+n^2}(2)}{\zeta_{m^2-mn+n^2}(2)} = \frac{3 \sqrt{3}}{4} \cdot \frac{D(i)}{D(\rho)} = 1.17235730884473\dots,$$ where $E$ is an Eisenstein series, $\zeta_Q$ (with $Q$ a binary quadratic form) is the Epstein zeta function, and $D$ is the Bloch-Wigner dilogarithm function.
**Pluralizing zeta.** ZETA counts things (points, ideals, geodesics, spectra, …) — it is beautiful, but sometimes lonely, it can fail as an *individual.* But it will be happy and succeed as *part of a family* of ZETAS.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we consider hyperbolic rational maps restricted on thier Julia sets and study about the recurrence rate of typical orbits in arbitrarily small neighbourhoods around them and their relationship to the Hausdorff dimension of such small neighbourhoods.'
author:
- |
Shrihari Sridharan\
Chennai Mathematical Institute (CMI), India.\
[[email protected]]{}
date: 'October 17, 2013'
title: |
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">The Recurrence Rate and Hausdorff Dimension\
of a Neighbourhood of some Typical Point\
in the Julia Set of a Rational Map</span>
---
--------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
**Keywords** Complex dynamics of rational maps,
Recurrence rates, Hausdorff dimension.
**AMS Subject Classifications** 37F10, 37F15, 37F35.
--------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Introduction
============
Let $T : X \longrightarrow X$ be a transformation that preserves an ergodic probability measure $\mu$. Any neighborhood, say of radius $r > 0$, however small, around a generic point $x \in X$ in $X$, denoted by $N_{r} (x)$ must return to itself infinitely often, according to the Poincaré recurrence theorem. In this paper, we study the relationship between the Poincaré recurrence rate of typical points $y \in N_{r} (x) \subset X$ and the Hausdorff dimension of $N_{r} (x)$. We shall also focus on the case when $r \searrow 0$. In recent papers, Boshernitzan studied the relationship between recurrence rates and $\sigma$-finite outer measures for measure preserving dynamical systems focussing on billiards flows, symbolic systems and interval maps, [@mb:93], Barreira and Saussol studied the quantitative behaviour of the recurrence rates by imposing a condition on the measure, [@bs:01] and Saussol studied the recurrence rates in rapidly mixing dynamical systems, [@bs:06]. In yet another recent paper, the author studied the relationship between incidence rate at which the forward orbit of a generic point $y \notin N_{r} (x)$ would reach $N_{r} (x)$ and the Hausdorff dimension of $N_{r} (x)$, [@ss:12]. This paper complements the study in [@ss:12].
In this paper, we prove analogous results in the setting of complex dynamics; hyperbolic rational maps restricted on their Julia sets and a non-atomic probability measure preserved by the rational map; for example, the Sinai - Ruelle - Bowen (SRB) measure.
In sections 2 and 3, we write the fundamental and involved definitions that constitute the skeleton on which this paper rests its studies on. We shall also encounter some simple properties, as much necessary of the terms defined therein. In section 4, we state the main results. In further sections, we prove the theorems stated in section 4.
Fundamental Definitions
=======================
Let $\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ denote the *Riemann sphere* and let $T$ be a *rational map* defined on the Riemann sphere. By *degree* of the rational map, we mean the number of inverse images for a typical point $z \in \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ counted with multiplicity. In other words, the maximum among the degrees of the two relatively prime polynomials whose quotient yields the rational map is defined to be its degree denoted by $d$. For our purpose of study in this paper, we shall only consider those rational maps whose degree is at least $2$. One of the several possible definitions of the *Julia set* $\mathcal{J} \subset \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ of $T$ states that it is the closure of the set of all repelling periodic points, i.e., $$\mathcal{J}\ :=\ \overline{\left\{ z \in \overline{\mathbb{C}}\ :\ T^{p} z = z\ \ \text{for some}\ \ p \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}\ \ \text{and}\ \ |(T^{p})' (z)| > 1 \right\}}.$$
Elementary observations reveal that the rational map remains completely invariant on its Julia set, i.e., $T^{-1} (\mathcal{J}) = \mathcal{J}$. For example, consider the polynomial map $T(z) := z^{d}$ defined on $\overline{\mathbb{C}}$. The Julia set of this polynomial map is the unit circle in the complex plane; $$\mathcal{J}\ \ =\ \ \mathbb{S}^{1}\ \ :=\ \ \left\{ z \in \mathbb{C}\ :\ |z| = 1 \right\}.$$ For more properties of Julia sets of rational maps, please refer [@ml:86]. We focus on *hyperbolic rational maps* restricted on their Julia sets in this paper, i.e., there exists $C > 0$ and $\lambda > 1$ such that for all $z \in \mathcal{J}$ and $n \ge 1$, we have $|(T^{n})' (z)| \ge C \lambda^{n}$. Since the Julia set is compact and the transformation $T$ is continuous, the set of non-atomic $T$-invariant Borel probability measures defined on $\mathcal{J}$, denoted by $\mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$ is non-empty. The Lyubich’s measure that equidistributes the pre-images of a typical point in $\mathcal{J}$ and the periodic points of $T$ in $\mathcal{J}$ is one such example. Observe that the Lyubich’s measure reduces to the Haar measure on $\mathbb{S}^{1}$.
We now define the *pressure of a real-valued continuous function* in accordance with thermodynamic formalism. Consider a continuous function, $f : \mathcal{J} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Its pressure is defined by $$\textrm{Pr} (f)\ \ :=\ \ \sup \left\{ h_{\mu} (T) + \int f d \mu\ \ :\ \ \mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J}) \right\}.$$ Here, $h_{\mu} (T)$ denotes the *entropy* of the transformation with respect to the measure $\mu$, see [@pw:82] for more details. If $f$ is a real-valued, Hölder continuous function defined on the Julia set $\mathcal{J}$ of some hyperbolic rational map $T$, then, by a result due to Denker and Urbanski in [@du:91], there exists a unique equilibrium measure, called the *Sinai - Ruelle - Bowen measure* (the Gibbs’ state) denoted by $\mu_{f} \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$ realising the supremum in the definition of pressure. We further remark that by adding a coboundary to the Hölder continuous function $f$, one can normalise pressure, as done by Haydn in [@nh:99] so that $\textrm{Pr} (f) = 0$.
It is merely an observation that such systems $T : \mathcal{J} \longrightarrow \mathcal{J}$ alongwith $\mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$ are ergodic. One of the several possible definitions of *ergodicity* states, given any real-valued function $f \in L^{1} (\mu)$, $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j = 0}^{n - 1} f \circ T^{j} (z)\ \ -\ \ \int f d \mu\ \ \ =\ \ \ 0,\ \ \ \ \mu \text{-a.e.}$$ Now let $f , g \in L^{2} (\mu)$. Consider the quantity called *covariance* defined by $$Cov_{T} (f, g)\ \ :=\ \ \lim_{n \to \infty} \int f \circ T^{n} g d \mu\ \ -\ \ \int f d \mu \int g d \mu.$$ $T$ is said to be *mixing* if $Cov_{T} (f, g) = 0$ for every $f, g \in L^{2} (\mu)$.
In general, $Cov_{T} (f, g)$ vanishes at an arbitrarily slow pace as $n \to \infty$. It requires a little more structure on the underlying space for us to say anything tangible about the vanishing rate of $Cov_{T} (f, g)$. Fortunately, we are only dealing with Julia sets of rational maps in this paper and they have the requisite structure being compact metric spaces. An upper bound for $Cov_{T} (f, g)$ is then provided by $\| f \| \| g \| \theta_{n}$, where $$\| f \|\ \ :=\ \ \sup_{z_{1}, z_{2} \in \mathcal{J}}\ \frac{| f (z_{1} - f (z_{2}) |}{| z_{1} - z_{2} |},$$ and $\theta_{n} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$.
Dependent on the rate at which $\theta_{n}$ vanishes as $n \to \infty$, we shall call $Cov_{T} (f, g)$ to vanish as $n \to \infty$. For example, if $(\theta_{n})$ is a sequence of real numbers such that $n^{-p} \theta_{n} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ for some fixed $p > 0$, we shall say that $Cov_{T} (f, g)$ has a *polynomial decay*. In this paper we shall focus on systems whose covariance have *super-polynomial decay*, i.e., $n^{-p} \theta_{n} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ for every $p > 0$.
Suppose we partition $\mathcal{J}$ finitely into $\{ N_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{M}$ such that $\bigcup \overline{N_{i}} = \mathcal{J}$ and $\mu ( N_{i} \cap N_{j} ) = 0$ whenever $i \ne j$. We call the decay as a *local decay* (say on $N_{i}$) if $Cov_{T} (f, g) \le \| f \| \| g \| \theta_{i, n}$ where $supp (f) \subset N_{i},\ supp (g) \subset N_{i}$ and $\theta_{i, n}$ decays at some rate. Observe that if the covariance has a super-polynomial rate of decay, then the system has a super-polynomial rate of local decay in every component $N_{i}$ of the partition of $\mathcal{J}$.
Recurrence Rate and Hausdorff Dimension
=======================================
Fix $z \in \mathcal{J}$ and for any $r > 0$, consider the neighbourhood $N_{r} (z)$ in $\mathcal{J}$ centered at $z$ of radius $r$. Owing to the non-atomicity of the measure $\mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$, it is clear that $\mu (N_{r} (z)) > 0$ whenever $r > 0$. By the Poincaré recurrence theorem, we then have that the orbit of $\mu$-a.e. $w \in N_{r} (z)$ returns to $N_{r} (z)$ infinitely often. We define the Poincaré recurrence time of the centre $z \in N_{r} (z)$ as follows. $$\tau_{r} (z)\ \ :=\ \ \inf \left\{n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}\ :\ T^{n} (z) \in N_{r} (z) \right\}.$$ More generally, allowing a slight abuse of notation, the Poincaré recurrence time of any typical point $w \in N_{r} (z)$ in $N_{r} (z)$ is denoted and defined by $$\tau_{r} (w, z)\ \ :=\ \ \inf \left\{n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}\ :\ T^{n} (w) \in N_{r} (z) \right\}.$$ Thus, $\tau_{r} (z) \equiv \tau_{r} (z, z)$. In fact, this definition is valid even for $w \notin N_{r} (z)$. Hence, for any point $w \in \mathcal{J}$, one can define the incidence time of $w$ in $N_{r} (z)$ as $$\tau_{r} (w, z)\ \ :=\ \ \inf \left\{n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}\ :\ T^{n} (w) \in N_{r} (z) \right\}.$$ There is a possibility that $T^{n} (w) \notin N_{r} (z),\ \forall n$. For example, consider a periodic point $w \in \mathcal{J}$ whose cycle remains away from $N_{r} (z)$. In such situations, we define $$\tau_{r} (w, z)\ \ :=\ \ \infty.$$ Observe that in all these definitions, $\tau$ and $r$ are inversely proportional to each other. In particular, $$\tau_{kr} (z)\ \ \le\ \ \tau_{r} (z)\ \ \ \ \forall k \ge 1.$$ Similarly, $$\tau_{kr} (w, z)\ \ \le\ \ \tau_{r} (w, z)\ \ \ \ \forall w \in \mathcal{J}\ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \forall k \ge 1.$$ Further, for any $w \in N_{r} (z)$, we have $$\tau_{kr} (z)\ \ \le\ \ \tau_{r} (w, z)\ \ \le\ \ \tau_{\frac{1}{k}r} (z)\ \ \ \ \forall k \ge 1.$$
In this paper, we shall use the above definitions of the recurrence times to understand the concept of recurrence rate of typical orbits as $r \searrow 0$. We first define the *recurrence rate of the centre* $z \in N_{r} (z)$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{R} (z) & := & - \liminf_{r \to 0} \frac{\log \tau_{r} (z)}{\log r} ; \\
\overline{R} (z) & := & - \limsup_{r \to 0} \frac{\log \tau_{r} (z)}{\log r}. \end{aligned}$$ If $\underline{R} (z) = \overline{R} (z)$, then the *recurrence rate* is denoted and defined by, $$R (z)\ \ :=\ \ - \lim_{r \to 0} \frac{\log \tau_{r} (z)}{\log r}.$$
Now consider $\mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$. We now define a local version of the *fractal dimension* of $N_{r} (z)$ with respect to this chosen measure $\mu$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{d}_{\mu} (z) & := & \liminf_{r \to 0} \frac{\log \left( \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right) \right)}{\log r} ; \\
\overline{d}_{\mu} (z) & := & \limsup_{r \to 0} \frac{\log \left( \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right) \right)}{\log r}. \end{aligned}$$
Now consider the real-valued Hölder continuous function $f$ defined on $\mathcal{J}$, given by $f = - s \log |T'|$. Then we know that $f$ could be suitably normalised in order that $\textrm{Pr} (- s \log |T'|) = 0$. In other words, there exists a unique $s \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\textrm{Pr} (- s \log |T'|) = 0$. This unique value of $s$ is called the *Hausdorff dimension* of the Julia set, $\mathcal{J}$. Furthermore, observe that the essential supremum of $\underline{d}_{\mu}$ is nothing but the Hausdorff dimension of $\mathcal{J}$, given by $s$.
Main Results
============
We state the main results of this paper in this section. The proofs of the results are given in the following sections.
\[nt1\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic rational map restricted on its Julia set, $\mathcal{J}$. Let $N_{r} (z)$ be a neighbourhood of radius $r > 0$ about the point $z$ in $\mathcal{J}$ and let $\mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$. Then for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathcal{J}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
1. & & \underline{R} (z)\ \ \le\ \ \underline{d}_{\mu} (z) ; \\
2. & & \overline{R} (z)\ \ \le\ \ \overline{d}_{\mu} (z).\end{aligned}$$
\[nt2\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic rational map restricted on its Julia set, $\mathcal{J}$. Let $Cov_{T} (f, g)$ decay at a super-polynomial rate $(f, g \in L^{2} (\mu))$. Let $N_{r} (z)$ be a neighbourhood of radius $r > 0$ about the point $z$ in $\mathcal{J}$ and let $\mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$. Then for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathcal{J}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
1. & & \underline{R} (z)\ \ \ge\ \ \underline{d}_{\mu} (z) ; \\
2. & & \overline{R} (z)\ \ \ge\ \ \overline{d}_{\mu} (z).\end{aligned}$$
The following is an immediate corollary that follows from the statements of theorems \[nt1\] and \[nt2\].
\[nc1\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic rational map restricted on its Julia set, $\mathcal{J}$. Let $Cov_{T} (f, g)$ decay at a super-polynomial rate $(f, g \in L^{2} (\mu))$. Let $N_{r} (z)$ be a neighbourhood of radius $r > 0$ about the point $z$ in $\mathcal{J}$ and let $\mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$. Then for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathcal{J}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
1. & & \underline{R} (z)\ \ =\ \ \underline{d}_{\mu} (z) ; \\
2. & & \overline{R} (z)\ \ =\ \ \overline{d}_{\mu} (z).\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[nt1\]
========================
We begin this section with two definitions; diametrically regular measures and weakly diametrically regular measures, as can be found in Federer, [@hf:69].
A measure $\mu$ is called *diametrically regular* if there exists $k > 1$ and $c > 0$ such that $$\mu \left( N_{kr} (z) \right)\ \ \le\ \ c \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right),\ \ \ \ \forall z \in \mathcal{J},\ \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \forall r > 0.$$
A measure $\mu$ is called *weakly diametrically regular* on a set $B \subset \mathcal{J}$ if there exists $k > 1$ such that for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in B$ and $\alpha > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ that satisfies, $$\mu \left( N_{kr} (z) \right)\ \ \le\ \ \frac{1}{r^{\alpha}} \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right)\ \ \ \text{whenever}\ \ \ r < \delta.$$
Though the next lemma is obvious by the nomenclatures of the above defined two terms, it is imperative that we specify the constants that relate them.
\[nl1\] Diametrically regular measures are weakly diametrically regular on $\mathcal{J}$.
A $T$-invariant probability measure $\mu$ supported on $\mathcal{J}$ is weakly diametrically regular if for every fixed constant $k > 1$, there exists a $\delta \equiv \delta(z, \alpha) > 0$ so that for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in B \subset \mathcal{J}$ and every $\alpha > 0$, we have $$\mu \left( N_{kr} (z) \right)\ \ \le\ \ \frac{1}{r^{\alpha}} \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right)\ \ \ \text{whenever}\ \ \ r < \delta.$$
\[nl2\] Any Borel probability measure on $\mathbb{C}$ is weakly diametrically regular on its support.
In order to prove the statement in lemma \[nl2\], we should show: For $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathbb{C}$, $$\mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n}}} (z) \right)\ \ \le\ \ n^{2} \mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n + 1}}} (z) \right),$$ for sufficiently large $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$.
For $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ and $\delta > 0$, define $$K_{n} (\delta)\ \ :=\ \ \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n + 1}}} (z) \right) < \delta \mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n}}} (z) \right) \right\}.$$ Let $E \subset K_{n} (\delta)$ be a maximal $\frac{1}{2^{n + 2}}$-separated set. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left(K_{n} (\delta)\right) & \le & \sum_{z \in E} \mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n + 1}}} (z) \right) \\
& \le & \sum_{z \in E} \delta \mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n}}} (z) \right). \end{aligned}$$ Observe that $E$ can be written as a finite union of $\frac{1}{2^{n}}$-separated sets, i.e., $E = \cup_{i = 1}^{M} E_{i}$ such that each $E_{i}$ is $\frac{1}{2^{n}}$-separated. Here, $M$ depends on $n$. Thus the sets, $\left\{ N_{\frac{1}{2^{n}}} (z_{i}) \right\}_{z_{i} \in E_{i}}$ are pairwise disjoint. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left(K_{n} (\delta)\right) & \le & \sum_{z \in E} \delta \mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n}}} (z) \right) \\
& \le & M \delta. \end{aligned}$$ Put $\delta = \frac{1}{n^{2}}$. Then we have obtained, $$\mu \left(K_{n} \left(\frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)\right)\ \ \le\ \ \frac{M}{n^{2}}\ \ \ \ \forall n.$$ Thus, $$\sum_{n \ge 1} \mu \left(K_{n} \left(\frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)\right)\ \ \le\ \ M \sum_{n \ge 1} \frac{1}{n^{2}}\ \ < \infty.$$
For a sequence $\{B_{n}\}$ in the $\sigma$-algebra of $(X, \mathcal{B}, \mu)$ that satisfies $\sum_{n \ge 1} \mu (B_{n}) < \infty$, we have $\mu \left( \limsup_{n \to \infty} B_{n} \right) = 0$.
An application of Borel - Cantelli lemma then says, $$\mu \left( \limsup_{n \to \infty} K_{n} \left( \frac{1}{n^{2}} \right) \right)\ \ =\ \ 0.$$ In other words, the set of all points that satisfy $$\mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n + 1}}} (z) \right)\ \ <\ \ \frac{1}{n^{2}} \mu \left( N_{\frac{1}{2^{n}}} (z) \right)$$ is of measure zero, for sufficiently large $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$, whence our claim.
(of Theorem \[nt1\]) Consider the function $\delta (z, \cdot)$ in the definition of a weakly diametrically regular measure. Observe that for every fixed $z \in B \subset \mathcal{J},\ \delta (z, \cdot)$ is a measurable function. Fix $\alpha > 0$ and choose $\rho > 0$ such that $$\mu (B) - \mu (G)\ \ \le\ \ \epsilon,$$ where $G = \left\{ z \in B \subset \mathcal{J} : \delta (z, \alpha) > \rho \right\}$.
For any $r > 0,\ \lambda > 0$ and $z \in \mathcal{J}$, consider the set $$A_{4r} (z)\ \ :=\ \ \left\{ w \in N_{4r} (z) : \tau_{4r} (w, z) \ge \frac{1}{\lambda} \frac{1}{\mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right)} \right\}.$$
The following is the well-known Chebyschev’s inequality.
Let $(X, \mathcal{B}, \mu)$ be a probability measure space. Let $f$ be a real-valued measurable function defined on $X$. Then for any $t > 0$, we have $$\mu \left( \left\{ x \in X : f(x) \ge t \right\} \right)\ \ \le\ \ \frac{1}{t} \int_{X} f d \mu.$$
Using Chebyschev’s inequality on the set $A_{4r} (z)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left( A_{4r} (z) \right) & \le & \lambda \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right) \int_{N_{4r} (z)} \tau_{4r} (w, z) d \mu (w) \\
& = & \lambda \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right) \mu \left( \left\{ w \in \mathcal{J} : \tau_{4r} (w, z) < \infty \right\} \right) \\
& \le & \lambda \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right). \end{aligned}$$ Since $N_{2r} (z) \subset N_{4r} (z)$, we have $$\mu \left( A_{2r} (z) := \left\{ w \in N_{2r} (z) : \tau_{4r} (w, z) \ge \frac{1}{\lambda} \frac{1}{\mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right)} \right\} \right)\ \ \le\ \ \lambda \mu \left(N_{4r} (z) \right).$$
Moreover, for $w \in N_{2r} (z)$, we have $$\tau_{8r} (w) \mu \left( N_{2r} (w) \right)\ \ \le\ \ \tau_{4r} (w, z) \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right).$$ Hence, $$\mu \left( \left\{ w \in N_{2r} (z) : \tau_{8r} (w) \mu \left( N_{2r} (w) \right) \ge \frac{1}{\lambda} \right\} \right)\ \ \le\ \ \lambda \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right).$$
Now we state a lemma that is useful to complete the proof of theorem \[nt1\]. The proof of the lemma will be taken up after we complete the proof of the theorem.
\[nl3\] Let $\mu \in \mathcal{M}_{T} (\mathcal{J})$. Let $E \subset \mathcal{J}$ be a measurable set. Given $r > 0$, there exists a countable set $K \subset E$ such that
1. $N_{r} (z) \cap N_{r} (w) = \varphi$, for any two distinct points $z, w \in K$.
2. $\mu \left( E \backslash \cup_{z \in K} N_{2r} (z) \right) = 0$.
Define a quantity $D_{\alpha} (r)$ as, $$D_{\alpha} (r)\ \ :=\ \ \mu \left( \left\{ w \in E : \tau_{8r} (w) \mu \left( N_{2r} (w) \right) \ge \left( \frac{1}{r} \right)^{2 \alpha} \right\} \right).$$ Then observe that one can obtain an upper bound for $D_{\alpha} (r)$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ne1}
D_{\alpha} (r) & = & \mu \left( \left\{ w \in E : \tau_{8r} (w) \mu \left( N_{2r} (w) \right) \ge \left( \frac{1}{r} \right)^{2 \alpha} \right\} \right) \nonumber \\
& \le & \sum_{z \in K} \mu \left( \left\{ w \in N_{2r} (z) : \tau_{8r} (w) \mu \left( N_{2r} (w) \right) \ge \left( \frac{1}{r} \right)^{2 \alpha} \right\} \right) \nonumber \\
& \le & r^{2 \alpha} \sum_{z \in K} \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right) \nonumber \\
& \le & \frac{r^{2 \alpha}}{r^{\alpha}} \sum_{z \in K} \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right) \nonumber \\
& \le & r^{\alpha}. \end{aligned}$$
If we choose $r$ to vanish at an exponential rate, i.e., $r = e^{-n}$, then by the inequality in (\[ne1\]), we have $$D_{\alpha} \left( \frac{1}{e^{n}} \right)\ \ \le\ \ \frac{1}{e^{n \alpha}}.$$ Further, $$\sum_{n} D_{\alpha} \left( \frac{1}{e^{n}} \right)\ \ \le\ \ \sum_{n} \frac{1}{e^{n \alpha}}\ \ <\ \ \infty,$$ as $n$ grows larger.
We complete the proof of theorem \[nt1\] by invoking the Borel - Cantelli lemma again that asserts $$\mu \left( \limsup_{n \to \infty} D_{\alpha} \left( \frac{1}{e^{n}} \right) \right)\ \ =\ \ 0.$$ In other words, for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in E$, we must have for sufficiently large $n$, $$\tau_{8r} (z) \mu \left( N_{2r} (z) \right)\ \ \le\ \ \left( \frac{1}{r} \right)^{2 \alpha},\ \ \ \text{where}\ \ \ r = \frac{1}{e^{n}}.$$ Taking logarithms, we have for sufficiently large $n$, $$\log \tau_{\frac{8}{e^{n}}} (z) + \log \mu \left( N_{\frac{2}{e^{n}}} (z) \right)\ \ \le\ \ 2 n \alpha.$$ Thus, we have $$\frac{1}{n} \log \tau_{\frac{8}{e^{n}}} (z)\ \ \le\ \ 2 \alpha - \frac{1}{n} \log \mu \left( N_{\frac{2}{e^{n}}} (z) \right),$$ for sufficiently large $n$.
We now complete this section by writing the proof of lemma \[nl3\]. This is only an elementary exercise in basic set theory.
(of Lemma \[nl3\]) Fix $z \in E$ and consider the family of subsets of $E$ around $z$, ordered by inclusion; $$\mathcal{F}_{z}\ \ :=\ \ \left\{ N_{r} (z) \subset E\ \ \text{for various values of}\ \ r \right\}.$$ Observe that $\mathcal{F}_{z}$ is a totally ordered set with a maximal element in $\mathcal{F}_{z}$. However, $E$ is only a partially ordered set; i.e., given $r > 0$, we can find a $w \in E$ such that $N_{r} (z) \cap N_{r} (w) = \phi$. Put all such $z$ and $w$ in $K$. Then by construction, $K$ is countable. We must still verify the second property that the lemma asserts.
Consider the totally ordered family $\mathcal{F}_{z}$ of subsets of $E$ for every $z \in K$. By Zorn’s lemma, there exists a maximal element for every totally ordered chain in $E$. Observe that with this maximal element, the second property is satisfied.
Proof of Theorem \[nt2\]
========================
We begin this section with the statement of a proposition. The motivation behind the proposition, given after its statement, clinches the proof of theorem \[nt2\].
\[nl4\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic rational map restricted on its Julia set, $\mathcal{J}$. Let $Cov_{T} (f, g)\ (f, g \in L^{2} (\mu))$ decay at a super-polynomial rate. For $a > 0$, consider the set $\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{d}_{\mu} (z) \ge a \}$. Given $\delta,\ \epsilon > 0$, there exists $\rho > 0$ (depending on $z$) such that $$T^{n} (z)\ \ \notin\ \ N_{r} (z)\ \ \ \text{for any}\ \ r \in (0, \rho)\ \ \ \text{and}\ \ n\ \in\ \mathbb{Z}_{+} \cap \left[ \frac{1}{r^{\delta}}, \frac{1}{(\mu (N_{r} (z)))^{1 - \epsilon}} \right].$$
We shall now briefly look at the motivation behind this proposition. A rigorous proof of the same is written in subsection 6.1. The definition of mixing implies $\mu (N \cap T^{-n} N) \to (\mu (N))^{2}$ as $n \to \infty$. Therefore, for large $n$, we have $\mu (N \cap T^{-n} N) \le 2 (\mu (N))^{2}$. Extending this line of argument, one may observe that $$\mu \left( N \cap T^{-n} N \cap T^{-n - 1} N \cap \cdots T^{-n - l} N \right)\ \ \le\ \ 2 l (\mu (N))^{2}.$$ Now suppose $l \le (\mu (N))^{\epsilon - 1}$, then $$\label{ne2}
\mu \left( N \cap T^{-n} N \cap T^{-n - 1} N \cap \cdots T^{-n - l} N \right)\ \ \le\ \ 2 (\mu (N))^{\epsilon}.$$ Making use of the fact that the covariance decays at a super-polynomial rate, one can then estimate the size of the connected neighbourhood $N \subset \mathcal{J}$. One may then use the Borel - Cantelli lemma to show that typical points exhibit this property. An appropriate condition on $\underline{R}$ should then help in completing the proof of the theorem.
\[nl4.1\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic rational map restricted on its Julia set, $\mathcal{J}$. Let $Cov_{T} (f, g)$ decay at a super-polynomial rate locally $(f, g \in L^{2} (\mu))$ . Then $$\begin{aligned}
1. & & \underline{R} (z)\ \ \ge\ \ \underline{d}_{\mu} (z) ; \\
2. & & \overline{R} (z)\ \ \ge\ \ \overline{d}_{\mu} (z),\end{aligned}$$ for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{R} (z) > 0 \}$.
Fix $a > 0$ and consider the set $\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{R} (z) > a \}$. Then, by theorem \[nt1\], we have that $$\left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{R} (z) > a \right\}\ \ \subset\ \ \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{d}_{\mu} (z) > a \right\}.$$ By the definition of $\underline{R}$, we know that $r^{a} \tau_{r} (z) \ge 1$ for sufficiently small $r$ where $z \in \{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{R} (z) > a \}$.
Put $\delta = a$ in proposition \[nl4\]. Then given $\epsilon > 0$, we have for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{R} (z) > a \}$, $$\tau_{r} (z)\ \ \ge\ \ \frac{1}{\left( \mu( N_{r} (z)) \right)^{1 - \epsilon}},\ \ \ \text{provided}\ r\ \text{is sufficiently small.}$$ Thus, $$\underline{R} (z)\ \ \ge\ \ (1 - \epsilon) \underline{d}_{\mu} (z).$$ The arbitrariness of $\epsilon$ completes the proof. The other inequality can be obtained in a similar fashion.
We now explore the validity of the set $\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{R} (z) > a \}$, i.e., does there exist a subset of $\mathcal{J}$ whose elements have a strictly positive recurrence rate. A definition and a lemma that is useful for this purpose has been studied by Ornstein and Weiss [@ow:93].
Let $\mathfrak{P}$ be a partition of $\mathcal{J}$ that has finitely many subsets $\{ N_{i} \}_{i = 1}^{M}$ such that $$\bigcup_{i = 1}^{M} \overline{N_{i}}\ \ =\ \ \mathcal{J}\ ;\ \ \ \ \mu \left( N_{i} \cap N_{j} \right)\ \ =\ \ 0\ \ \ \text{whenever}\ \ i \ne j.$$ By $\mathfrak{P} (z)$, we denote that element $N_{i}$ in the partition $\mathfrak{P}$ that contains $z$. Further, a dynamically refined partition is defined as, $$\mathfrak{P}^{n}\ \ :=\ \ \mathfrak{P}\ \vee\ T^{-1} \mathfrak{P}\ \vee\ \cdots\ \vee\ T^{- (n - 1)} \mathfrak{P}.$$
Suppose for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathcal{J}$, there exists a positive real number $\lambda$ (dependent on $z$) such that $N_{\frac{1}{e^{n \lambda}}} (z) \subset \mathfrak{P}^{n} (z)$ for all $n$ sufficiently large, then we say that the partition $\mathfrak{P}$ has a large interior.
[@ow:93] \[owt\] Let $\mathfrak{P}$ be a partition with large interior. Then $\underline{R} (z) > 0$ for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathcal{J}$.
Thus, by theorem \[owt\] due to Ornstein and Weiss, the existence of the set $\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{R} (z) > 0 \}$ depends on the existence of a partition $\mathfrak{P}$ of $\mathcal{J}$ with a large interior. The next proposition sheds light on the existence of such partitions.
\[np5\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic rational map restricted on its Julia set, $\mathcal{J}$. If for $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathcal{J}$ there exists positive constants $\alpha,\ \beta$ such that $T^{n}$ behaves like a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz constant $e^{n \alpha}$ on $N_{\frac{1}{n \beta}} (z)$ for all $n$ sufficiently large, then there exists a partition $\mathfrak{P}$ of $\mathcal{J}$ that has a large interior.
We now make use of proposition \[np5\] to prove theorem \[nt2\]. The proof of this proposition shall be given in subsection 6.2. We first prove that hyperbolic rational maps restricted on their Julia sets satisfy the hypothesis of proposition \[np5\] and will then complete the proof of theorem \[nt2\].
(of Theorem \[nt2\]) As earlier, let $\mathfrak{P}$ be a partition of $\mathcal{J}$ into finitely many subsets $\{ N_{i} \}$ such that $$\bigcup_{i = 1}^{M} \overline{N_{i}}\ \ =\ \ \mathcal{J}\ ;\ \ \ \ \mu \left( N_{i} \cap N_{j} \right)\ \ =\ \ 0\ \ \ \text{whenever}\ \ i \ne j.$$ Observe that there exists a positive constant $\kappa (N_{i})$ such that $$\left| T z_{1} - T z_{2} \right|\ \ \le\ \ \kappa (N_{i}) \left| z_{1} - z_{2} \right|\ \ \ \forall z_{1}, z_{2} \in N_{i}.$$ Define $$\log K\ \ :=\ \ \int \log^{+} \kappa \left( \mathfrak{P} (z) \right) d \mu (z)\ \ =\ \ \sum_{N_{i} \in \mathfrak{P}} \log^{+} \kappa (N_{i}) \mu (N_{i}).$$ Now choose $\alpha > \log K$. Observe that by the definition of ergodicity, as stated in section 2 the following statement is true. For $\mu$-a.e. $z \in \mathcal{J}$, there exists a $m \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ (dependent on $z$) that satisfies $$\label{ne3}
\kappa \left( \mathfrak{P} (z) \right) \times \kappa \left( \mathfrak{P} (Tz) \right) \times \cdots \times \kappa \left( \mathfrak{P} (T^{n - 1}z) \right)\ \ \le\ \ e^{n \alpha}\ \ \ \forall n \ge m.$$ Replace the upper bound in inequality \[ne3\] by $c(z) e^{n \alpha}$ for some constant $0 \le c(z) \le 1$ in order that the above inequality is valid for every positive integer $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$.
Now choose $\beta > 0$ such that $$N_{\frac{1}{c(z) e^{\beta}}} (Tz)\ \ \subset\ \ \mathfrak{P} (Tz).$$ It is then a simple exercise to prove (by induction on $n$) that $$N_{\frac{1}{c(z) e^{n \beta}}} (T^{n} z)\ \ \subset\ \ \mathfrak{P} (T^{n} z).$$
Thus, we can apply proposition \[np5\] to say that there exists a partition $\mathfrak{P}$ of $\mathcal{J}$ that has a large interior. A result due to Ornstein and Weiss as stated in theorem \[owt\] and lemma \[nl4.1\] then completes the proof of theorem \[nt2\].
Proof of Proposition \[nl4\]
----------------------------
Consider the real-valued Hölder continuous function $f = - s \log |T'|$ defined on $\mathcal{J}$. Then we know that there exists a unique value of $s \in \mathbb{R}$ called the Hausdorff dimension of $\mathcal{J}$ so that $\textrm{Pr} (-s \log |T'|) = 0$. Let $a > 0$ be as given in the statement of proposition \[nl4\]. Fix $b > 0$ and let $c = \frac{a}{3} \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon > 0$. Denote by $\mathcal{J}_{a}$ the set, $$\mathcal{J}_{a}\ \ :=\ \ \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \underline{d}_{\mu} (z) \ge a \right\}.$$ For some $\rho > 0$, consider the following sets. $$\begin{aligned}
G_{1} & := & \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J}_{a} : \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right) \le r^{a}\ \ \forall r \le \rho \right\} \\
G_{2} & := & \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \mu \left( N_{r} (z) \right) \ge r^{b + s}\ \ \forall r \le \rho \right\} \\
G_{3} & := & \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \mu \left( N_{\frac{r}{2}} (z) \right) \ge r^{c} \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right)\ \ \forall r \le \rho \right\} \end{aligned}$$ Observe that by the definition of lower point wise dimension, we have that $\mu (G_{1}) \to \mu (\mathcal{J}_{a})$ as $\rho \to 0$. Further, $\mu (G_{i}) \to 1$ as $\rho \to 0$ for $i = 2, 3$, the former since $\overline{d}_{\mu} (z) \le s$ a.e. while the latter because the measure $\mu$ is diametrically regular. Thus, defining $G := G_{1} \cap G_{2} \cap G_{3}$, we claim $\mu (G) \to \mu (\mathcal{J}_{a})$.
For $r \le \rho$, define $$B_{\epsilon} (r)\ \ :=\ \ \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \exists n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+} \cap \left[ \frac{1}{r^{\delta}}, \frac{1}{(\mu(N_{3r} (z)))^{1 - \epsilon}} \right]\ \ \text{satisfying}\ \ n \ge \tau_{r} (z) \right\}$$ For $z \in \mathcal{J}$, observe $$\begin{aligned}
N_{r} (z) \cap B_{\epsilon} (r) & \subset & \left\{ w \in N_{r} (z) : \exists n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+} \cap \left[ \frac{1}{r^{\delta}}, \frac{1}{(\mu(N_{2r} (z)))^{1 - \epsilon}} \right]\ \ \ \text{satisfying}\ \ n \ge \tau_{2r} (w, z) \right\} \\
\vspace{+10pt}
& \subset & \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+} \cap \left[ \frac{1}{r^{\delta}}, \frac{1}{(\mu(N_{2r} (z)))^{1 - \epsilon}} \right]} N_{r} (z) \cap T^{-n} N_{2r} (z). \end{aligned}$$ Let $\varphi_{r} : [0, \infty) \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz constant $r^{-1}$ such that it is sandwiched between the characteristic functions of the intervals $[0, r]$ and $[0, 2r]$. Fix $z \in \mathcal{J}$ and define $\psi_{z, r} : \mathcal{J} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by $\psi_{z, r} (w) := \varphi_{r} ( |z - w| )$. It is a simple observation that $\psi_{z, r}$ is a Lipschitz function with the same Lipschitz constant as $\varphi_{r}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left( N_{r} (z) \cap T^{-n} N_{2r} (z) \right) & \le & \int \psi_{z, 2r} \psi_{z, 2r} \circ T^{n} d \mu \\
& \le & \| \psi_{z, 2r} \|^{2} \theta_{n}\ +\ \left( \int \psi_{z, 2r} d \mu \right)^{2} \\
& \le & \frac{\theta_{n}}{r^{2}}\ +\ \left( \mu \left( N_{4r} (z) \right) \right)^{2}. \end{aligned}$$ Here, to obtain the second inequality, we have used the hypothesis of lemma \[nl4\] that the covariance decays at a super-polynomial rate and to obtain the third inequality, we have used the fact that $\psi_{z, r}$ is a Lipschitz function.
Choose $p > 1$ sufficiently large such that $\delta (p - 1) \ge s + 2b + 2$. Further, choose $\rho > 0$ so small in order that $$\frac{1}{\rho^{\delta}}\ \ \le\ \ n\ \ \ \ \Longrightarrow\ \ \ \ \theta_{n}\ \ \le\ \ \frac{p - 1}{n^{p}}.$$ Since $$\sum_{n \ge q} \frac{1}{n^{p}}\ \ \le\ \ \frac{1}{p - 1} \frac{1}{q^{p - 1}},$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left( N_{r} (z) \cap B_{\epsilon} (r) \right) & \le & r^{\delta (p - 1) - 2} + \frac{(\mu(N_{4r} (z)))^{2}}{(\mu(N_{2r} (z)))^{1 - \epsilon}} \nonumber \\
& \le & \mu(N_{\frac{r}{2}} (z)) \left(r^{b} + r^{a \epsilon - 2c}\right). \end{aligned}$$
Let $B \subset G$ be a maximal $r$-separated set, i.e., $N_{r} (\zeta) \cap B = \{ \zeta \}$ for every $\zeta \in B$ and for every $\omega \in G \setminus B$ there exists a $\zeta \in B$ such that $\zeta \in N_{r} (\omega)$. In other words, the family of neighbourhoods $\{ N_{r} (\zeta) \}_{\zeta \in B}$ is an open cover for $G$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left( G \cap B_{\epsilon} (r) \right) & \le & \sum_{\zeta \in B} \mu \left( N_{r} (\zeta) \cap B_{\epsilon} (r) \right) \nonumber \\
& \le & \sum_{\zeta \in B} \mu(N_{\frac{r}{2}} (\zeta)) \left(r^{b} + r^{a \epsilon - 2c}\right) \nonumber \\
& \le & r^{b} + r^{a \epsilon - 2c}.\end{aligned}$$
Choosing $r$ to vanish at an exponential rate, i.e., $r = e^{-n}$, we obtain $$\sum_{n \ge 0} \mu \left( B_{\epsilon} \left( \frac{1}{e^{n}} \right) \right)\ \ <\ \ \infty.$$
Applying the Borel-Cantelli lemma, we then obtain that for $\mu$-a.e. $w \in G$ there exists a $m(w) \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ such that for every $m > m(w)$ there does not exist any $$n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+} \cap \left[ \frac{1}{e^{m \delta}}, \frac{1}{\left(\mu (N_{\frac{3}{e^{m}}} (w))\right)^{1 - \epsilon}} \right]\ \ \ \text{such that}\ \ \ T^{n} w \in N_{\frac{1}{e^{m}}} (w).$$
The weak diametric regularity of $\mu$ then completes the proof of proposition \[nl4\].
Proof of Proposition \[np5\]
----------------------------
Before we embark on proving proposition \[np5\], we state and prove the following lemma.
\[nl6\] For every $z \in \mathcal{J}$, and for any $r > 0$, there exists a $\rho \in (r, 2r)$ such that $$\mu \left( \left\{ w \in \mathcal{J} : \rho - \frac{r}{4^{n + 1}} < | z - w | < \rho + \frac{r}{4^{n + 1}} \right\} \right)\ \ \le\ \ \frac{1}{2^{n}} \mu \left( N_{2r} (z) \right).$$
Define a measure $m$ on the interval $(0, 2)$ by $m( [0, t) ) := \mu( N_{rt} (z) )$. Let $I_{0} = (1, 2)$. Divide $I_{0}$ into four pieces of equal length and define $I_{1}$ to be that interval which satisfies, $m(I_{1}) \le m(I_{0})/2$. Proceeding on, define $I_{n + 1}$ to that interval which satisfies, $m(I_{n + 1}) \le m(I_{n})/2$. Thus, we have constructed a decreasing sequence of nested intervals $\{I_{n}\}_{n \ge 0}$, in whose intersection must lie a single point, say $R$. Thus, $$m \left( \left( R - \frac{1}{4^{n + 1}}, R+ \frac{1}{4^{n + 1}} \right) \right)\ \ \le\ \ m\left(I_{n}\right)\ \ \le\ \ \frac{1}{2^{n}} m\left(I_{0}\right).$$
We now complete the proof of proposition \[np5\] and thus the proof of theorem \[nt2\].
(of proposition \[np5\]) Fix $r > 0$. Let $\mathfrak{P} = \{ N_{r} (z) \}$ be some partition of $\mathcal{J}$. Choose a maximal $r$-separated set $E \in \mathfrak{P}$. For any $z \in E$, take $\rho_{z} \in (r, 2r)$ such that lemma \[nl6\] holds. Let $E = \{z_{1}, z_{2}, \cdots \}$ be an enumeration of the (at most) countable set $E$. Write $N_{i} = N_{\rho_{z_{i}}} (z_{i})$ and define $$Q_{i}\ \ :=\ \ N_{i} \setminus \left( Q_{1} \cup Q_{2} \cup \cdots \cup Q_{i - 1} \right)\ \ \ \ \text{starting with}\ \ \ \ Q_{1}\ \ =\ \ N_{1}.$$
Observe that by the maximality of the collection of sets, $\mathfrak{Q} := \{ Q_{i} \}_{i \ge 1}$ is a partition of $\mathcal{J}$. Further, $\partial \mathfrak{Q} \subset \bigcup_{i} \partial N_{i}$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left( \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : d(z, \partial \mathfrak{Q}) < \frac{r}{4^{n + 1}} \right\} \right) & \le & \mu \left( \bigcup_{i} \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : \rho_{z_{i}} - \frac{1}{4^{n + 1}} < |z - z_{i}| < \rho_{z_{i}} + \frac{1}{4^{n + 1}} \right\} \right) \nonumber \\
& \le & \frac{1}{2^{n}} \sum_{i} \mu \left( N_{2r} (z_{i}) \right). \end{aligned}$$
Recall that $z_{i}$ were so chosen that they were $r$-separated. Hence, there exists at most $c = c (\dim (\mathcal{J}) = s)$ balls of radius $2r$ that can intersect $\mathcal{J}$. Thus for some constants $a,\ c > 0$ and for all $\epsilon > 0$, we have $$\mu \left( \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : d(z, \partial \mathfrak{Q}) < \epsilon \right\} \right)\ \ <\ \ c \epsilon^{a}.$$
Thus for any $b > 0$ we have by the invariance of $\mu$, $$\sum_{n} \mu \left( \left\{ z \in \mathcal{J} : d ( T^{n} z, \mathfrak{Q}) < \frac{1}{e^{bn}} \right\} \right)\ \ \le\ \ \sum_{n} \frac{c}{e^{abn}}\ \ <\ \ \infty.$$
Hence, by the Borel - Cantelli Lemma $$\exists n(z) < \infty\ \ \ \ \text{such that}\ \ \ \ d(T^{n} z, \partial \mathfrak{Q}) \ge \frac{1}{e^{bn}},\ \ \ \ \text{for}\ \ \ \ \mu \text{-a.e.}\ z \in \mathcal{J}.$$ This implies, $N_{\frac{1}{e^{bn}}} (T^{n} z) \subset \mathfrak{Q} (T^{n} z)$, for any $n \ge n(z)$. We can always choose $c(z) \in (0, 1)$ sufficiently small in order that $$N_{\frac{c(z)}{e^{bn}}} (T^{n} z)\ \ \subset\ \ \mathfrak{Q} (T^{n} z)\ \ \ \ \forall n \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}.$$
Choose $z \in \mathcal{J}$ such that the hypothesis in proposition \[np5\] holds, i.e., let $z \in \mathcal{J}$ be a point that assures the existence of positive constants $\alpha,\ \beta$ such that $T^{n}$ behaves like a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz constant $e^{n \alpha}$ on $N_{\frac{1}{n \beta}} (z)$ for $n$ sufficiently large. Observe that without of generality, we can change $c(z)$ into a smaller constant (if necessary) so that $T^{n}$ remains $e^{n \alpha}$-Lipschitz on $N_{\frac{c(z)}{e^{n \beta}}} (z)$ for all integers $n$ and that $\alpha > b + \beta$.
The proof is then complete if we prove $$N_{\frac{c(z)}{e^{n \alpha}}} (z)\ \ \subset\ \ \mathfrak{Q}^{k} (z)\ \ \ \ \text{for any}\ \ \ \ k \le n.$$ We prove this by induction. Observe that the statement is trivially true for $k = 1$. Assuming the statement to be true for $k \le n - 1$, observe that $$T^{k} \left( N_{\frac{c(z)^{2}}{e^{n \beta}}} (z) \right)\ \ \subset\ \ N_{\frac{c(z) e^{(k} \alpha}{n \beta}} (T^{k} z)\ \ \subset\ \ N_{\frac{1}{e^{b n}}} (T^{k} z)\ \ \subset \mathfrak{Q} (T^{k} z).$$ Thus, $N_{\frac{c(z)^{2}}{e^{n \beta}}} (z) \subset \mathfrak{Q}^{k + 1} (z)$.
[88]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Barreira, L.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Saussol, B.</span>, “Hausdorff dimension of measures via Poincaré recurrence”, *Communications in Mathematical Physics*, [**219**]{}, (2001) pp 443 - 463.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Boshernitzan, M. D.</span>, “Quantitative recurrence results”, *Inventiones Mathematicae*, [**113**]{}, (1993) pp 617 - 631.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Denker, M.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Urbanski, M.</span>, “Ergodic theory of equilibrium states for rational maps”, *Nonlinearity*, [**4**]{}, (1991), pp 103 - 134.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Federer, H.</span>, “Geometric measure theory”, BerlinÐHeidelbergÐNew York, Springer, 1969.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Haydn, N.</span>, “Convergence of the transfer operator for rational maps”, *Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems*, [**19**]{}, (1999), pp 657 - 669.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lyubich, M. Yu.</span>, “The dynamics of rational transforms: the topological picture”, *Russian Math. Surveys*, (1986), pp 43 - 117.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ornstein, D. S.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Weiss, B.</span>, “Entropy and data compression schemes”, *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, [**39**]{}, (1993), pp 78 - 83.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Saussol, B.</span>, “Recurrence rates in rapidly mixing dynamical systems”, *Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.*, [**15**]{}, (2006), pp 259 - 267.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sridharan, S.</span>, “Sinai - Ruelle - Bowen measure leaks”, *Communications in Mathematical Analysis*, [**13**]{}, (2012) pp 1 - 22.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Walters, P.</span>, “An introduction to ergodic theory”, *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 79, (1982).
**Shrihari Sridharan**\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chennai Mathematical Institute (CMI)</span>,\
Plot \# H1, SIPCOT IT Park, Kelambakkam, Siruseri, Chennai, India. PIN 603 103.\
email: `[email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the possibility of coexistence of spin density wave (antiferromagnetism) and triplet superconductivity as a particular example of a broad class of systems where the interplay of magnetism and superconductivity is important. We focus on the case of quasi-one-dimensional metals, where it is known experimentally that antiferromagnetism is in close proximity to triplet superconductivity in the temperature versus pressure phase diagram. Over a narrow range of pressures, we propose an intermediate non-uniform phase consisting of alternating antiferromagnetic and triplet superconducting stripes. Within the non-uniform phase there are also changes between two and three dimensional behavior.'
author:
- Wei Zhang
- 'C. A. R. Sá de Melo'
title: Coexistence of Spin Density Wave and Triplet Superconductivity
---
The competition or coexistence of magnetic order and superconductivity is a very important problem in condensed matter physics. There is a broad class of systems that present magnetic order and superconductivity in close vicinity. One of the most important systems are the Copper Oxides, where singlet superconductivity is found next to antiferromagnetism [@dagotto-94]. In addition, striped phases, where coexistence of antiferromagnetic order and singlet d-wave superconductivity, were observed in Copper Oxides [@tranquada-96]. Another system where magnetism and superconductivity are intertwined is Strontium Ruthenate, where the proximity to ferromagnetism has been argued as being important to the existence of triplet superconductivity in these materials [@maeno-94]. Furthermore the newly discovered ferromagnetic superconductors $ZrZn_2$ and $UGe_2$ have stimulated a debate on the coexistence of ferromagnetism and triplet or singlet superconductivity [@lonzarich-01; @saxena-00]. However, unlike any of these previous examples, we will discuss in this manuscript a system which may exhibit coexistence of antiferromagnetism (AF) and triplet superconductivity (TS).
New experiments on quasi-one-dimensional superconductors in high magnetic fields have shown that TS is strongly affected by the proximity to an AF phase characterized by insulating spin density wave (SDW) order [@lee-02a]. From now on we will use interchangeably SDW and AF. Motivated by these experiments and the known phase diagram of quasi-one-dimensional ${\rm (TMTSF)_2 PF_6}$ under pressure we propose a new phase for quasi-one-dimensional systems where AF (SDW) and TS coexist. The coexistence of these phases implies that the new state is non-uniform, with alternating stripes of SDW and TS, due to the appearance of a negative interface energy between SDW and TS regions. As indicated in the schematic phase diagram (Fig.1), the inhomogeneous intermediate phase is expected to exist over a narrow range of pressures $\Delta P = P_2 (T) - P_1 (T)$ around $P_c$, where $\Delta P \ll P_c$. [*Effective Free Energy:*]{} The possibility of coexistence of SDW and TS in quasi-one-dimensional conductors transcends microscopic descriptions based on standard g-ology, where SDW and TS phase boundaries neighbor each other but do not coexist [@solyom-79]. Inspired by experiments [@mortensen-82; @lee-02b], we model ${\rm (TMTSF)_2 PF_6}$ as a highly anisotropic orthorombic crystal, and we take the primary directions of the SDW vector order parameter to be the b-axis (y-direction), and the primary direction of the TS vector order parameter to be the c-axis (z-direction). Furthermore, we consider the spatial variation of the SDW or TS order parameter to be along the a-axis (x-direction), as a reflection of the quasi-one-dimensionality of the system. This simplifies the choice of the order parameters to be ${\bf S} ({\bf r}) \to S_b (x)$, and ${\bf D} ({\bf r}) \to D_c (x)$, and reduces the associated effective field theory to one spatial dimension.
![ a) Phase diagram of ${\rm (TMTSF)_2PF_6}$ in a log-linear scale (from [@jerome-82]), showing schematically the proposed SDW-TS coexistence region (inset). b) Schematic drawing of the proposed stripe pattern for the SDW-TS coexistence region.[]{data-label="fig:phase-diagram"}](fig1.eps "fig:"){width="6.4cm"} ![ a) Phase diagram of ${\rm (TMTSF)_2PF_6}$ in a log-linear scale (from [@jerome-82]), showing schematically the proposed SDW-TS coexistence region (inset). b) Schematic drawing of the proposed stripe pattern for the SDW-TS coexistence region.[]{data-label="fig:phase-diagram"}](fig2.eps "fig:"){width="6.4cm"}
Thus, the generalized Ginzburg-Landau Free energy in real space can be written as $$\label{eqn:f-tot}
\mathcal{F}_{tot} =
\mathcal{F}_{AF} +
\mathcal{F}_{TS} +
\mathcal{F}_{C},$$ where $\mathcal{F}_{AF}$, $\mathcal{F}_{TS}$, and $\mathcal{F}_{C}$ are the AF, TS and coupling contributions discussed below. The AF contribution is $$\label{eqn:AF-FreeEnergy}
\mathcal{F}_{AF} =
\int_{L_{AF}}dx
\left[
U_{AF} (x) + V_{AF} (x)
\right],$$ where $
U_{AF}(x) = {\alpha_{AF}}{\lvert S_b(x)\rvert}^2 +
{\beta_{AF}}{ \lvert \partial_x S_b(x) \rvert }^2 +
{\gamma_{AF}}{\lvert\ S_b(x)\rvert}^4
$ represents a typical GL Free energy density, and $
V_{AF} =
{\delta_{AF}}{\lvert \partial_x S_b(x) \rvert}^4 +
{\theta_{AF}}{\lvert S_b(x) \rvert}^2 {\lvert \partial_x S_b(x) \rvert}^2
$ represents the extra terms in the expansion, which are relevant close to $P_1 (T)$ (Fig. 1). The TS contribution is $$\label{eqn:TS-FreeEnergy}
\mathcal{F}_{TS} =
\int_{L_{TS}}dx
\left[
U_{TS} (x) + V_{TS} (x)
\right],$$ where $
U_{TS}(x) = {\alpha_{TS}}{\lvert D_c(x)\rvert}^2 +
{\beta_{TS}}{ \lvert \partial_x D_c(x) \rvert }^2 +
{\gamma_{TS}}{\lvert\ D_c(x)\rvert}^4
$ represents a typical GL Free energy density, and $
V_{TS} =
{\delta_{TS}}{\lvert \partial_x D_c(x)\rvert}^4 +
{\theta_{TS}}{\lvert D_c(x) \rvert}^2 {\lvert \partial_x D_c(x) \rvert}^2
$ represents the extra terms in the expansion, which are relevant close to $P_2 (T)$ (Fig. 1). To describe the coexistence region the two order parameters must couple. To conform with independent Parity invariance, $$\label{eqn:Free-Energy-Coupling}
\mathcal{F}_{C} =
\sum_{inter}
\int_{\ell_p} dx \lambda_{bc}'
\lvert S_{b} (x) \rvert^2
\lvert D_{c} (x) \rvert^2,$$ where the sum is over all interfaces between AF and TS, the coupling constant $\lambda_{bc}'$ is pressure and temperature dependent, and $\ell_p$ is the proximity length over which AF and TS order parameters coexist locally. This length can be written as $\ell_p = \ell_{p,AF} + \ell_{p,TS}$, where $\ell_{p,AF}$ is the AF proximity length into the TS region, and $\ell_{p,TS}$ is the TS proximity length into the AF region (See Fig. 2). If $\lambda_{bc}' > 0$ it is more favorable for the AF and TS phases to phase-separate, however if $\lambda_{bc}' < 0$ an inhomogeneous phase with a large number of interfaces is favored, and the coexistence of AF and TS is possible.
In non-triplet systems local AF order and local singlet superconductivity (SS) can in principle coexist since AF order favors singlet correlations, and the proximity lengths on SS/AF systems can be small or large depending on the SS and AF materials [@bozovic-03; @bell-03]. However, we are interested in TS and [**not**]{} in SS. In this case, it is well known that AF order is pair breaking to triplet electron pairs [@nakajima-73], and it is expected that $\ell_{p, AF}$ and $\ell_{p, TS}$ are small in comparison to the lengths of $\ell_{TS}$ and $\ell_{AF}$ of the TS and AF stripes, respectively. Only when the pressure $P$ is close to the phase boundaries $P_1$ or $P_2$ (shown in Fig. 1) where $\ell_{TS}$ and $\ell_{AF}$ approach zero respectively, the proximity lengths $\ell_{p,TS}$ and $\ell_{p,AF}$ can be comparable to $\ell_{AF}$ and $\ell_{TS}$. Using WKB [@bozovic-03] and the deGennes [@deGennes-66] extrapolation methods the upper bound for $\ell_p$ is $\ell_p (P) \le 0.1 [\ell_{AF} (P) + \ell_{TS} (P)]$, and $\ell_{p,AF} (P) \le 0.1 \ell_{TS} (P_2)$ and $\ell_{p,TS} (P) \le 0.1 \ell_{AF} (P_1)$. Thus, extrapolating AF and TS order parameters in the proximity region by linear functions [*a la*]{} deGennes [@deGennes-66] leads to $$\label{eqn:Free-Energy-Coupling-2}
\mathcal{F}_C =
\sum_{inter} \lambda_{bc} \vert \partial_x S_b(x) \vert^2
\vert \partial_x D_c(x) \vert^2,$$ where $\lambda_{bc} = \lambda_{bc}' \int_0^{\ell_p} dx x^2 (\ell_p - x)^2$ is the new coupling constant. This coupling describes well the inhomogeneous phase where proximity effects between AF and TS stripes are weak, i.e., [**away**]{} but not too far from phase boundaries $P_1$ and $P_2$.
Proximity effects will be important close to either phase boundary $(P_1, P_2)$ as they may lead to further coupling between like-stripes. The inter-TS-stripe coupling (Josephson-type) $$\label{eqn:Free-Energy-TS}
\mathcal{F}_{I,TS} = \sum_{n}
\int_{overlap} dx \eta_{TS}
\vert D_{c, n+1}(x) - D_{c, n}(x) \vert^2$$ is significant for $P \approx P_2$, where the system changes from 2D to 3D TS. The inter-AF-stripe coupling $$\label{eqn:Free-Energy-AF}
\mathcal{F}_{I,AF} = \sum_{n}
\int_{overlap} dx \eta_{AF}
\vert S_{b,n+1}(x) - S_{b,n}(x) \vert^2$$ is significant for $P \approx P_1$, where the system changes from 3D to 2D AF. The domain of integration for both cases above is the overlap region between two consecutive AF or TS stripes respectively.
[*Saddle Point Equations:*]{} To obtain the saddle point equations, we consider $\mathcal{F}_{C}$, $\mathcal{F}_{I,AF}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{I,TS}$ perturbatively and minimize $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ with respect to $S_b (x)$ and $D_c^* (x)$. Variations of $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ with respect to $S_b (x)$ lead to the differential equation $$[
2\alpha_{AF}
+
4 \gamma_{AF} S_b^2(x)
-
\beta_{AF} \partial^2_x
] S_b(x)
+
{\hat M}_{AF} S_b(x)
= 0,$$ with $
{\hat M}_{AF} S_b(x) =
-
\delta_{AF} \partial_x \left[(\partial_x S_b(x)\right]^3
+
2 \theta_{AF} S_b(x) \lvert \partial_x S_b(x) \rvert^2.
$ Variations of $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ with respect to $D_c^* (x)$ lead to a similar equation. In the case where $\lambda_{bc}' (P,T)< 0$, the formation of an inhomogeneous phase of alternating AF and TS stripes is preferred, and two additional transition lines ($P_1$, $P_2$) emanate from $(P_c, T_c)$. The presence of the inter-TS and inter-AF stripe Free energies indicates that $D_{n+1}(x) = D_n (x + x_0)$, and $S_{n+1}(x) = S_n (x + x_0)$ (in phase solutions), since $\eta_{AF}$ and $\eta_{TS}$ are both positive. For such inhomogeneous phase, the boundary conditions in the presence of AF-TS interfaces can be chosen as in deGennes method [@deGennes-66] by requiring that $S_b (x)\vert_{inter^+} = 0$ and $D_c (x)\vert_{inter^-} = 0$, where $inter^+$ and $inter^-$ denote the two boundaries limiting the region of locally coexisting $S_b(x)$ (AF) and $D_c(x)$ (TS) (See Fig. 2).
![Alternating AF and TS stripes with local coexistence region $\ell_p$, which is defined by the region between [*interface*]{} $^+$ and [*interface*]{} $^-$ where AF and TS order parameters vanish. The length $\ell_p=\ell_{p,AF} + \ell_{p,TS}$, where $\ell_{p,AF}$ and $\ell_{p,TS}$ are AF and TS proximity lengths.](fig3.eps){width="7.5cm"}
[*Variational Free Energy:*]{} We analyse $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ variationally. We consider first the AF case and search for periodic solutions with period $\ell_{AF}$, with $S_b (x)\vert_{inter^+} = 0$ at the AF-TS interfaces. For a given volume of the AF region, controlled by $L_{AF}$, the Free energy associated with the AF phase becomes the sum of $N_{AF}$ identical terms, where $N_{AF} = L_{AF}/\ell_{AF}$ gives the number of AF stripes. Generally, each term in $\mathcal{F}_{AF}$ corresponds to an insulating AF stripe characterized by the order parameter $S_b (x) = \sum_n A_n \sin (Q_n x)$, where $Q_n = 2\pi n/\ell_{AF}$. But here we take for simplicity the variational class where $S_b (x) = A_1 \sin (Q_1 x)$. To simplify notation, we will just use $A_1 \to A$ and $Q_1 \to Q$. In this case $$\label{eqn:free-af-variational}
\mathcal{F}_{AF}
=
{L_{AF}} \Big[
C_2(Q) A^2 + C_4(Q) A^4
\Big],$$ where $
C_2 (Q) =
(\alpha_{AF} + \beta_{AF}Q^2)/2
$ and $
C_4(Q) =
( 3 \gamma_{AF} + \theta_{AF} Q^2 + 3 \delta_{AF} Q^4 )/8.
$ The same type of analysis applies to $\mathcal{F}_{TS}$. In the absence of magnetic field, we assume periodic solutions of the form $D_c (x) = \sum_n B_n \sin (K_n x)$. As in the AF case we confine ourselves to a single component variational form $D_c (x) = B_1 \sin (K_1 x)$, and use the simplifying notation $B_1 \to B$ and $K_1 \to K$. Here $B$ can be complex, but independent of position $x$. All the analysis discussed for the AF (SDW) case applies with the following change of notations: $L_{AF} \to L_{TS}$, $A \to B$, $Q \to K$, $\alpha_{AF} \to \alpha_{TS}$, $\beta_{AF} \to \beta_{TS}$, etc. Which in the TS case leads to: $$\label{eqn:free-energy-TS-variational}
\mathcal{F}_{TS}
=
{L_{TS}} \Big[
D_2(K) |B|^2 + D_4(K) |B|^4
\Big],$$ where $
D_2 (K) =
(\alpha_{TS} + \beta_{TS}K^2)/2
$ and $
D_4(K) =
( 3 \gamma_{TS} + \theta_{TS} K^2 + 3 \delta_{TS} K^4 )/8.
$ And the coupling Free energy is $$\label{eqn:free-energy-coupling-variational}
\mathcal{F}_{C} = N_{int} \Lambda (Q,K,\ell_p) A^2 |B|^2,$$ where $N_{int} = 2N$ is the total number of interfaces, $f_{int} = \Lambda (Q,K,\ell_p) A^2 |B|^2$ is the Free energy of one interface with $\Lambda (Q,K,\ell_p) = \lambda_{bc}'
\int_{\ell_p} dx \vert \sin(Qx) \sin[K(x_0+x)] \vert^2$, where $x_0=\ell_{TS}-\ell_{p}$.
[*Variational Solution:*]{} Variations of $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ with respect to $\phi_{AF} = A$, $\phi_{TS} = |B|$, and $q_{AF} = Q$ or $q_{TS} = K$ lead to the non-trivial solutions $$\label{eqn:phi-i}
\phi_i^2 =
\frac
{ 4 \beta_i \theta_i - 24 \alpha_i \delta_i }
{ 36 \gamma_i \delta_i - \theta_i^2 },\\$$ $\vspace{-7mm}$ $$\label{eqn:q-i}
q_i^2 =
\frac
{ \alpha_i \theta_i - 6 \beta_i \gamma_i }
{ \beta_i \theta_i - 6 \alpha_i \delta_i }.$$ The width of each stripe then is given by $$\label{eqn:l-i}
\ell_{i} = 2 \pi
\sqrt{
\frac {\beta_i \theta_i - 6 \alpha_i \delta_i}
{ {\alpha_i} \theta_{i} - 6 \beta_{i} \gamma_{i} }
},$$ where $i = AF, TS$. In the case of $\lambda_{bc}' < 0$, the transition line $P_1 (T)$ corresponds to the disappearance of the pure AF (SDW) phase, and the transition line $P_2 (T)$ corresponds to the appearance of the pure TS phase. This implies that at $P_1 (T)$ the TS stripe width is $\ell_{TS} = 0$, while at $P_2 (T)$ the AF stripe width is $\ell_{AF} = 0$. Furthermore, for $P_1 (T) < P < P_2 (T)$, $\ell_{TS}$ ($\ell_{AF}$) increases (decreases) with increasing pressure. In order to meet these and the saddle point requirements, the parameters appearing in $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ must behave as follows. We define the reduced pressure changes $\Delta P_m = [P - P_m (T)]/P_c$, where $m =1,2$ and the density of states $N(E_{F})$ at the Fermi energy $E_F$ to analyse the AF and TS parameters. For $P < P_2 (T)$, the AF parameters have the form $\gamma_{AF} = \gamma_1 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 > 0$; $\delta_{AF} = \delta_1 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 > 0$; $\eta_{AF}=\eta_1 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 > 0$; $\alpha_{AF} = \alpha_1 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2
\vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}}}$, with $\alpha_1 < 0$; $\beta_{AF} = \beta_1 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 \vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}}}$, with $\beta_1 < 0$; $\theta_{AF} = \theta_1 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2
\vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{\varepsilon_{\theta_{AF}}}$, with $\theta_1 < 0$; and $36\gamma_{AF} \delta_{AF} - \theta_{AF}^2 > 0$. For $P > P_1 (T)$, the TS parameters have the form $\gamma_{TS} = \gamma_2 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 > 0$; $\delta_{TS} = \delta_2 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 > 0$; $\eta_{TS}=\eta_2 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 > 0$; $\alpha_{TS} = \alpha_2 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 \vert \Delta P_1\vert^{\varepsilon_{\alpha_{TS}}}$, with $\alpha_2 < 0$; $\beta_{TS} = \beta_2 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2 \vert \Delta P_1 \vert^{\varepsilon_{\beta_{TS}}}$, with $\beta_2 < 0$; $\theta_{TS} = \theta_2 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2
\vert \Delta P_1 \vert^{\varepsilon_{\theta_{TS}}}$, with $\theta_2 < 0$; and $36\gamma_{TS} \delta_{TS} - \theta_{TS}^2 > 0$. Consider now, the interface terms in the region $P_1 (T) < P < P_2 (T)$, which has the form $\lambda_{bc}' = \lambda_0 N(\epsilon_F)T_c^2
{\rm sgn} [(P - P_1) (P - P_2)]
\vert \Delta P_1 \vert^{\varepsilon_{\lambda_{AF}}}
\vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{\varepsilon_{\lambda_{TS}}},
$ with $\lambda_0 > 0$. This form is required to make the interface energy negative between $P_1 (T)$ and $P_2 (T)$.
![ a) Normalized amplitudes of the order parameters ($\tilde A = A/ \vert A(P_1) \vert$, $\tilde B = B / \vert B(P_2) \vert$) and stripe lengths $\ell_{AF}$ and $\ell_{TS}$ normalized by $\ell_{AF}(P_1)$ and $\ell_{TS}(P_2)$, for exponents $\varepsilon_{\alpha_i} = 5.0$, $\varepsilon_{\beta_i} = 1.0$, $\varepsilon_{\theta_i} = 5.0$, where $i = {AF,~TS}$ and dimensionless parameters: $\tilde\alpha_1 = \tilde\beta_1 = 1.0$, $\tilde\gamma_1 = 0.07$, $\tilde\delta_1 = 0.007$, $\tilde\theta_1 = -0.003$; and $\tilde\alpha_2 = \tilde\beta_2 = 1.0$, $\tilde\gamma_2 = 0.06$, $\tilde\delta_2 = 0.007$, $\tilde\theta_2 = -0.002$. b) Free energies for the coexistence and the pure AF and TS phases for the same parameters of a) and $\ell_p=0.05(\ell_{AF}+\ell_{TS})$, $\varepsilon_{\lambda_i} = 1.0$, $\tilde\lambda_0 = -0.003$, and $\tilde\eta_1=\tilde\eta_2= 2.9\times 10^{-6}$. Solid dots $\to$ $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$; stars $\to$ $L f_{TS}$; triangles $\to$ $L f_{AF}$; squares $\to$ $\mathcal{F}_{C}$. $P_1'$ indicates change from 3D to 2D AF, and $P_2'$ denotes change from 2D to 3D TS. []{data-label="fig:length-order-parameter"}](fig4.eps){width="7.5cm"}
![ a) Normalized amplitudes of the order parameters ($\tilde A = A/ \vert A(P_1) \vert$, $\tilde B = B / \vert B(P_2) \vert$) and stripe lengths $\ell_{AF}$ and $\ell_{TS}$ normalized by $\ell_{AF}(P_1)$ and $\ell_{TS}(P_2)$, for exponents $\varepsilon_{\alpha_i} = 5.0$, $\varepsilon_{\beta_i} = 1.0$, $\varepsilon_{\theta_i} = 5.0$, where $i = {AF,~TS}$ and dimensionless parameters: $\tilde\alpha_1 = \tilde\beta_1 = 1.0$, $\tilde\gamma_1 = 0.07$, $\tilde\delta_1 = 0.007$, $\tilde\theta_1 = -0.003$; and $\tilde\alpha_2 = \tilde\beta_2 = 1.0$, $\tilde\gamma_2 = 0.06$, $\tilde\delta_2 = 0.007$, $\tilde\theta_2 = -0.002$. b) Free energies for the coexistence and the pure AF and TS phases for the same parameters of a) and $\ell_p=0.05(\ell_{AF}+\ell_{TS})$, $\varepsilon_{\lambda_i} = 1.0$, $\tilde\lambda_0 = -0.003$, and $\tilde\eta_1=\tilde\eta_2= 2.9\times 10^{-6}$. Solid dots $\to$ $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$; stars $\to$ $L f_{TS}$; triangles $\to$ $L f_{AF}$; squares $\to$ $\mathcal{F}_{C}$. $P_1'$ indicates change from 3D to 2D AF, and $P_2'$ denotes change from 2D to 3D TS. []{data-label="fig:length-order-parameter"}](fig5.eps){width="6.4cm"}
[*Phase Boundaries:*]{} Next, we focus only on the analysis of $\ell_{AF}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ in the vicinity of $P_2(T)$. We note in passing that the analysis of $\ell_{TS}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ in the vicinity of $P_1(T)$ is entirely analogous. Under these considerations, as $P \to P_2 (T)$ the size of the AF stripes is given by $
\ell_{AF} \approx W_1
\vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{(\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}}
-
\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}} )/2},
$ where $W_1 = 2\pi (\alpha_1 \delta_1 / \beta_1 \gamma_1)^{1/2}$, when $\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}} + \varepsilon_{\theta_{AF}}
> \varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}}$, and $\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}} + \varepsilon_{\theta_{AF}}
> \varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}}$. The requirement that $\ell_{AF} \to 0$ as $P \to P_2 (T)$ forces $\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}} > \varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}}$. Since the number of AF and TS stripes are the same $N_{AF} = N_{TS} = N$, where $N = L /(\ell_{AF}(P)+ \ell_{TS}(P)-\ell_p(P))$, the number of interfaces is $N_{int} = 2N$. Therefore, the four contributions to $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ in the coexistence region are $\mathcal{F}_{AF} = L_{AF}f_{AF}$, $\mathcal{F}_{TS} = L_{TS} f_{TS}$, $\mathcal{F}_{C} = 2 N f_{int}$, $\mathcal{F}_{I,TS}= 2 N f_{I,TS}$ with $L_{AF}(p)= N \ell_{AF}(P)$, $L_{TS}= N \ell_{TS}(P)$. As $P \to P_2$, the AF stripe length $\ell_{AF}(P) \to 0$, while the TS stripe length $\ell_{TS}(P) \to \ell_{TS}(P_2 (T))$. Let us analyse the behavior of $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ near $P_2 (T)$ term by term. The AF part $\mathcal{F}_{AF}$ is the product of $L_{AF}(P) \approx L \ell_{AF}(P)/\ell_{TS}(P_2)$, where $\ell_{AF}(P) = Const. \vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{(\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}}
-\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}})/2}$, and $f_{AF} = - Const. \vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{2\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}}}$, which leads to $\mathcal{F}_{AF} =
- Const. \vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{(\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}}
+ 3\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}})/2}$. The TS part $\mathcal{F}_{TS}$ is the product of $L_{TS}(P) \approx L [1-\ell_{AF}(P)/\ell_{TS}(P_2)]$ and $f_{TS}(P) \approx f_{TS}(P_2) < 0$, thus $\mathcal{F}_{TS} \approx \mathcal{F}_{TS} (P_2)
+ L Const.\vert \Delta P_2 \vert^{(\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}}
-\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}})/2}$, where $\mathcal{F}_{TS} (P_2) = L f_{TS} (P_2)$ is the Free energy of the pure triplet phase. Thus, for $P < P_2$, $\mathcal{F}_{TS}$ is increased with respect to the pure phase $\mathcal{F}_{TS} (P_2)$. Furthermore, $\mathcal{F}_{C} = - Const. \vert P_2 - P \vert^{ \varepsilon_{\lambda_{AF}}
+ \varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}} }$ is negative, and $\mathcal{F}_{I,TS}$ is positive but proportional to a higher power of $\Delta P_2$. $\mathcal{F}_{AF}$ can be neglected in the vicinity of $P_2$ because it depends on a higher power of $\vert \Delta P_2 \vert$ than that of $\mathcal{F}_{TS}$ or $\mathcal{F}_{C}$, when $\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}} > \varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}}$. For $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ to be lower than that of the pure TS phase $\mathcal{F}_{TS} (P)$ it is necessary that the negative interface Free energy $\mathcal{F}_{C}$ dominates. This imposes the following requirement $\varepsilon_{\alpha_{AF}} \ge 3\varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}}
+ 2\varepsilon_{\lambda_{AF}}$. If $\varepsilon_{\lambda_{AF}} + \varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}} > 1$ the phase transition at $P_2$ is continuous. If $\varepsilon_{\lambda_{AF}} + \varepsilon_{\beta_{AF}} \le 1$ the phase transition at $P_2$ is discontinuous. Similar analysis close to $P_1$ leads to a continuous transition when $\varepsilon_{\lambda_{TS}} + \varepsilon_{\beta_{TS}} > 1$ and to a discontinuous transition when $\varepsilon_{\lambda_{TS}} + \varepsilon_{\beta_{TS}} \le 1$. Thus, the point $(P_c, T_c)$ can be bicritical, tricritical or tetracritical. In Fig. 3, we show the behavior of the various contributions to $\mathcal{F}_{tot}$ for the case where the transitions are continuous at $P_1$ and $P_2$, and $(P_c, T_c)$ is tetracritical. Dimensionless “volume” parameters are defined as $\tilde\alpha_i = \tilde\beta_i = \rho_i^{1/2}$, $\tilde\gamma_i = \gamma_i \sigma_i^{-1/2}$, $\tilde\delta_i = \delta_i \sigma_i^{3/2}$, $\tilde\theta_i = \theta_i \sigma_i^{1/2}$, “surface” ones are defined as $\tilde\lambda_0 = \lambda_0 \sigma_1^{-1/4} \sigma_2^{-1/4}(\ell_p(P_1) \sigma_1^{1/2})^5$, $\tilde\eta_i = \eta_i \sigma_i^{-1/2}(\ell_p(P_1) \sigma_1^{1/2})^3$, where $\rho_i = \alpha_i \beta_i $, $\sigma_i = \alpha_i/\beta_i$, and $i = 1, 2$.
[*Final Comments:*]{} A more realistic description of the system should include variations of SDW and TS order parameters along the y and z (transverse) directions, and be highly anisotropic but truly three dimensional. This is important for a renormalization group (RG) analysis and the determination of critical exponents in the case of continuous transitions.
[*Summary:*]{} We have proposed the possibility of coexistence of antiferromagnetism and triplet superconductivity in the phase diagram of ${\rm (TMTSF)_2 PF_6}$. This intermediate phase is proposed to be inhomogeneous and to consist of alternating insulating AF and TS stripes [@demler-04] Two additional transition lines appear in a narrow range of pressures around $P_c$ separating the coexistence region from the pure AF and pure TS phases. We estimate the maximum pressure range to be $\Delta P/P_c \approx 10\% $ at $T = 0$.
[*Acknowledgements:*]{} We thank NSF for support (DMR-0304380), and Ivan Bozovic for discussions.
E. Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 763-840 (1994)
J. M. Tranquada, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 7489 (1996)
Y. Maeno, [*et. al.*]{}, Nature [**372**]{}, 532 (1994).
C. Pfleiderer, [*et al*]{}., Nature [**412**]{}, 58 (2001).
S. S. Saxena, [*et al*]{}., Nature [**406**]{}, 587 (2000).
I. J. Lee, P. M. Chaikin, and M. J. Naughton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 207002 (2002).
D. Jérome, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. [**79**]{} 155 (1982).
J. Solyom, Adv. Phys. [**28**]{}, 201 (1979).
I. J. Lee, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 017004 (2002)
K. Mortensen, Y. Tomkiewicz, and K. Bechgaard, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 3319 (1982).
I. Bozovic, [*et. al.*]{}, Nature [**422**]{}, 873 (2003).
C. Bell, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 144517 (2003)
S. Nakajima, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**50**]{}, 1101 (1973).
P. G. de Gennes, [*Superonductivity of metals and alloys*]{}, W. A. Benjamin, INC., New York (1966).
After we submitted this manuscript to Physical Review Letters on July 2$^{nd}$ 2004, a SO(4) theory suggesting coexistence of AF and TS in Bechgaard salts appeared. \[Daniel Podolsky, [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 246402 (2004).\] However, the coexisting phase pattern was not predicted within the framwork of the SO(4) theory.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present updated calculations for observables in the processes [$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{}, [$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{}, and [$^4$He($\vec{e},e^\prime \vec{p}\,$)$^3$H]{}. This update entails the implementation of improved nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) amplitudes to describe final state interactions (FSI) within a Glauber approximation and includes full spin-isospin dependence in the profile operator. In addition, an optical potential, which has also been updated since previous work, is utilized to treat FSI for the [$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{} and [$^4$He($\vec{e},e^\prime \vec{p}\,$)$^3$H]{} reactions. The calculations are compared with experimental data and show good agreement between theory and experiment. Comparisons are made between the various approximations in the Glauber treatment, including model dependence due to the $NN$ scattering amplitudes, rescattering contributions, and spin dependence. We also analyze the validity of the Glauber approximation at the kinematics the data is available, by comparing to the results obtained with the optical potential.'
author:
- 'W.P. Ford$^{\rm a}$'
- 'R. Schiavilla$^{\rm b,c}$'
- 'J.W. Van Orden$^{\rm b,c}$'
bibliography:
- 'heedp.bib'
title: 'The $^3$He$(e,e^\prime p)^2$H and $^4$He$(e,e^\prime p)^3$H reactions at high momentum transfer'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Recent experiments at Jefferson Lab (JLab) have measured cross sections and polarization observables for the $^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H, $^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H, and $^4$He($\vec{e},e^\prime \vec{p}\,$)$^3$H reactions at intermediate and large momentum transfers [@Rvachev05; @Reitz04; @Strauch03; @Paolone10; @Malace:2011] . These data have generated considerable interest in the nuclear few-body community, as attested by the series of papers dealing with the description of the proton-knockout mechanism and the treatment of final state interactions (FSI) at GeV energies, which have appeared in the literature in last few years [@ciofihiko_2; @ciofihiko_3; @ciofihiko_4; @Ciofi2010; @Laget2005; @Laget200549; @Sargsian2005; @Sargsian2005_2].
In the present work, we report on a calculation of the two-body electrodisintegration cross sections of $^3$He and $^4$He in the wide range of momentum transfers covered by the JLab experiments. This study updates, improves, and extends that of Refs. [@Schiavilla05a; @Schiavilla05b]. As in the earlier work, the nuclear bound states are represented by non-relativistic wave functions, obtained from realistic two- and three-nucleon potentials (the Argonne $v_{18}$ two-nucleon [@Wiringa95] and Urbana IX three-nucleon [@Pudliner95] potentials—the AV18/UIX Hamiltonian) and FSI between the outgoing proton and recoiling bound cluster are treated either in the Glauber approximation for the $A$=3 and 4 reactions—with inclusion in the associated profile operator of the full spin-isospin dependence of the nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) elastic scattering amplitude—or, in the case of the $A$=4 reactions, with an optical potential. Important differences between the present work and that of Refs. [@Schiavilla05a; @Schiavilla05b] are that: i) the $NN$ amplitudes are obtained from the Scattering Analysis Interactive Dial-in (SAID) analysis [@Arndt00; @Arndt07; @SAIDdata] of $pn$ ($pp$) scattering data at lab kinetic energies ranging from 0.05 (0.05) GeV to 1.3 (3.0) GeV rather than from a parametrization of these amplitudes valid at forward scattering (at small momentum transfers) [@Wallace81], and ii) the parameters in the optical potential have been adjusted to reproduce, in addition to $^3$H($p,p$)$^3$H elastic and $^3$H($p,n$)$^3$He charge-exchange cross section data, also the induced polarization data recently measured for the $^4$He($\vec{e},e^\prime \vec{p}\,$)$^3$H reaction at JLab [@Malace:2011].
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:fsi\], we briefly discuss our treatment of FSI both in the Glauber and optical-model approximations, relegating details on the construction of the Glauber profile operator from the $NN$ SAID amplitudes to Appendices \[app:NNSAIDtoWallace\] and \[app:flab\]. In Sec. \[sec:calc\] we review the bound-state wave functions, the model for the electromagnetic current operator, and the Monte Carlo methods used in the numerical evaluation of the relevant matrix elements—these methods have already been described in considerable detail in Ref. [@Schiavilla05a]. In Sec \[sec:observables\] we list explicit expressions for the observables of interest to this work. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:res\] we present a detailed discussion of the results, including a comparison between the Glauber and optical-model treatment of FSI in kinematical regimes where both approaches are expected to be valid, and in Sec. \[sec:concl\] we summarize our conclusions.
Final state interactions {#sec:fsi}
========================
Two different approximations are adopted in the present work to describe FSI in the two-body electrodisintegrations of $^3$He and $^4$He: one is based on the Glauber approach [@Glauber59], while the other, whose application is limited only to processes involving $^4$He, relies on an optical potential. Both approximations have been discussed in considerable detail in Refs. [@Schiavilla05a] and [@Schiavilla05b]: each has limitations as to the energy range where it is expected to be reliable. For completeness, in this section we briefly review them, emphasizing those aspects of the approach which have been improved since the study of Refs. [@Schiavilla05a; @Schiavilla05b].
Glauber approach {#sec:glb}
----------------
In this approach the wave function of the final $p$+($A-1$) system is written as $$\psi(p+^{(A-1)}\!f;{\rm GLB})=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}} \sum_{\cal P} \epsilon_{\cal P}\, G(A;1 \dots A-1)\,
{\rm e}^{{\rm i} {\bf p} \cdot {\bf r}_A} \chi_\sigma(A;p)\,
{\rm e}^{{\rm i} {\bf p}_f \cdot {\bf R}_{1\dots A-1}}
\phi_{\sigma_f}(1\dots A-1;f) \ ,
\label{eq:glb}$$ where $\chi_\sigma(p)$ represents a proton in spin state $\sigma$, $\phi_{\sigma_f}(f)$ denotes the wave function of the ($A-1$)-system with spin projection $\sigma_f$, and ${\bf R}_{1 \dots A-1}$ is the center-of-mass position vector of the $A-1$ nucleons in this cluster. The sum over permutations $\cal P$ of parity $\epsilon_{\cal P}$ ensures the overall antisymmetry of $\psi(p+^{(A-1)}\!f;{\rm GLB})$.
The operator $G(A;1 \dots A-1)$ inducing FSI can be derived from an analysis of the multiple scattering series by requiring that the struck (fast) nucleon (nucleon $A$) is undeflected by rescattering processes, and that the nucleons in the residual system (nucleons $1, \dots, A-1$) act as fixed scattering centers [@Wallace81]. It is expanded as $$G=1 + \sum_{n=1}^{A-1} (-)^n G^{(n)} \ ,$$ where $G^{(n)}$ represents the $n^{\rm th}$ rescattering term, and therefore for an $A$-body system up to $A-1$ rescattering terms are generally present. The leading single-rescattering term reads $$G^{(1)}(A;1\dots A-1)=\sum_{i=1}^{A-1} \theta(z_{iA})
\, \Gamma_{iA}({\bf b}_{iA};s_{iA}) \ ,
\label{eq:glb1}$$ where $z_{iA}$ and ${\bf b}_{iA}$ denote the longitudinal and transverse components of ${\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_A$ relative to $\hat {\bf p}$, the direction of the nucleon momentum, $$z_{iA} \equiv {\hat{\bf p}}\cdot ({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_A) \ , \qquad
{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_A \equiv {\bf b}_{iA} + z_{iA} \,{\hat{\bf p}} \ ,$$ and the step-function $\theta(x)$, $\theta(x)=1$ if $x > 0$ and $\theta(x)=0$ if $x < 0$, prevents the occurrence of backward scattering for the struck nucleon. The profile operator$\ \Gamma_{iA}$, derived from the $N$$N$ elastic scattering amplitude at the invariant energy $\sqrt{s_{iA}}$, is discussed below. The double- and triple-rescattering terms, relevant for the present study of the $^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$d$ and $^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$t$ reactions, are given by $$G^{(2)}(A;1\dots A-1)=\sum_{i\ne j=1}^{A-1}
\theta(z_{ij})\, \theta(z_{jA}) \,
\Gamma_{iA}({\bf b}_{iA};s_{iA})\,
\Gamma_{jA}({\bf b}_{jA};s_{jA}) \ ,$$ $$G^{(3)}(A;1\dots A-1)=\sum_{i\ne j\ne k=1}^{A-1}
\theta(z_{ij})\,\theta(z_{jk})\, \theta(z_{kA}) \,
\Gamma_{iA}({\bf b}_{iA};s_{iA})\,
\Gamma_{jA}({\bf b}_{jA};s_{jA})\,
\Gamma_{kA}({\bf b}_{kA};s_{kA}) \ ,$$ where the product of $\theta$-functions ensures the correct sequence of rescattering processes in the forward hemisphere.
The profile operator $\Gamma_{ij}$ is related to the $N$$N$ scattering amplitude, denoted as $F_{ij}({\bf k};s)$, via the Fourier transform
$$\Gamma_{ij}({\bf b};s) = \frac{1}{ 2 \pi {\rm i}\, p }
\int {\rm d}^2{\bf k}\, {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} {\bf k}\cdot {\bf b}}
F_{ij}({\bf k};s) \ ,
\label{eq:prof}$$
where, in the eikonal limit, the momentum transfer ${\bf k}$ is perpendicular to ${\bf p}$. The isospin symmetry of the strong interactions allows one to express $F_{ij}$ as
$$F_{ij}=F_{ij, +}+F_{ij,-} {\bm \tau}_i \cdot {\bm \tau}_j \ ,$$
where the $F_{ij,\pm}$ are related to the physical amplitudes for $p$$p$ and $p$$n$ scattering (see below). The invariant energy $\sqrt{s_{iA}}$ is determined as follows [@Schiavilla05a]. Nucleon $A$ denotes the knocked-out nucleon with momentum ${\bf p}_A$=${\bf p}$ and energy $E_A$=$E$ (${\bf p}$ and $E$ are the momentum and energy of the outgoing proton in the lab frame), while nucleons $1, \dots, A-1$, making up the bound cluster ($d$ or $t$), have momenta ${\bf p}_1, \dots,
{\bf p}_{A-1}$, with ${\bf p}_1+\dots+{\bf p}_{A-1}$=${\bf p}_f$ (${\bf p}_f$ is the momentum of the recoiling cluster in the lab frame). The invariant energy $\sqrt{s_{iA}}$, $i$=$1,\dots, A-1$, is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
s_{iA} &=& (E_i + E_A)^2-({\bf p}_i +{\bf p}_A)^2 \nonumber \\
&\simeq & 2\, m^2+2\, E \, \sqrt{ {\bf p}_f^2/(A-1)^2+ m^2 }-
2\, {\bf p} \cdot {\bf p}_f/(A-1) \ ,
\label{eq:kin}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line the nucleons $1,\dots, A-1$ in the recoiling cluster are assumed to share its momentum equally, ${\bf p}_i \simeq {\bf p}_f/(A-1)$. The momenta of nucleon $A$ and nucleon $i$, $i$=$1, \dots, A-1$, after rescattering are ${\bf p}-{\bf k}$ and ${\bf p}_f/(A-1)+{\bf k}$. The $A-2$ spectator nucleons ($j \ne i$) have each momentum ${\bf p}_f/(A-1)$. The pair $iA$ rescattering framewe refer to in the following is defined as that in which nucleon $A$ and nucleon $i$ have initial momenta ${\bf p}$ and ${\bf p}_f/(A-1)$ and final momenta ${\bf p}-{\bf k}$ and ${\bf p}_f/(A-1)+{\bf k}$, respectively.
We adopt the notation of Ref. [@Schiavilla05a] and parameterize the $N$$N$ scattering amplitude in the c.m. frame as $$(2 {\rm i}\, \overline{p})^{-1}\,
\overline{F}^{\, NN}_{ij}(\,\overline{{\bf k}},s)
=\sum_{m=1}^5 \overline{F}^{\, NN}_m(\overline{{\bf k}}^{\, 2}\!,s)
\overline{O}^{\, m}_{ij} \ ,
\label{eq:fnn}$$ where $\overline{\bf p}$ and $\overline{\bf p}^{\, \prime}$ denote the initial and final nucleon momenta, respectively, the $\overline{F}^{\, NN}_m$’s are functions of the invariant energy $\sqrt{s}$ and momentum transfer $\overline{\bf k}^{\, 2}$ (with $\overline{\bf k}=\overline{\bf p}-\overline{\bf p}^{\, \prime}$), and the five operators $\overline{O}^{\, m}_{ij}$, including central, single and double spin-flip terms, are those listed in Eq. (3.11) of Ref. [@Schiavilla05a]. The overline is to indicate that the quantities above are in the c.m. frame.
In Ref. [@Schiavilla05a] we used for the functions $\overline{F}^{\, NN}_m$ the Gaussian parameterizations obtained by Wallace in 1981 [@Wallace81]. In the present work, instead, we derive them from the SAID analysis [@Arndt00; @Arndt07; @SAIDdata] of $N$$N$ elastic scattering data from threshold up to lab kinetic energies of 3 GeV ($pp$) and 1.3 GeV ($pn$). In Appendix \[app:NNSAIDtoWallace\] we discuss how the Wallace form of the amplitudes is obtained from the SAID helicity amplitudes.
Once the amplitude in Eq. (\[eq:fnn\]) has been determined in the c.m. frame, it is necessary to boost it to the rescattering frame. This is carried out with the procedure described in Refs. [@Schiavilla05a; @McNeil83], which consists of two steps. First, we introduce an invariant representation of the amplitude, $${\cal F}^{NN}_{ij}=\sum_{m=1}^5 {\cal F}_m^{NN}(s,t) \Lambda_{ij}^m \ , \label{eq:fermi_invariants}$$ where the five operators $\Lambda_{ij}^{m=1,\dots,5}$ are $1\, ,
\, \gamma_i^\mu \, \gamma_{j,\mu} \, ,
\, \sigma_i^{\mu\nu}\, \sigma_{j,\mu\nu} \, ,
\, \gamma_i^5 \, \gamma_j^5 \, ,
\, \gamma^5_i\, \gamma_i^\mu\, \gamma^5_j\, \gamma_{j,\mu} \ ,$ and determine the invariant functions ${\cal F}_m^{NN}(s,t)$ from the $\overline{F}^{\, NN}_m$’s in the c.m. frame as in Ref. [@Schiavilla05a]—however, the momentum transfer dependence of the matrix $\overline{M}_{mn}(\overline{p},
\overline{\bf k}^{\, 2})$ in Eq. (3.16) of Ref. [@Schiavilla05a], which was neglected in that work, is now fully retained.
Next, the scattering amplitude in the rescattering frame is obtained from $$\chi_{\sigma_i^\prime}^\dagger \chi_{\sigma_j^\prime}^\dagger
\left[ (2 {\rm i}\, p)^{-1}\, F^{NN}_{ij}({\bf k},s)\right]
\chi_{\sigma_i} \chi_{\sigma_j}=
\overline{u}_{\sigma_i^\prime}({\bf p}-{\bf k})
\overline{u}_{\sigma_j^\prime}({\bf p}_f/(A-1)+{\bf k}) {\cal F}^{NN}_{ij}
u_{\sigma_i}({\bf p}) u_{\sigma_j}({\bf p}_f/(A-1)) \ ,
\label{eq:fres}$$ where the $u_\sigma$ are (positive-energy) Dirac spinors with $\overline{u}_\sigma \equiv u_\sigma^\dagger \gamma^0$, and $\chi_\sigma$ are two-component Pauli spinors. In practice, the dependence upon ${\bf p}_f/(A-1)$ in the spinors of particle $j$ is neglected (in this limit, the rescattering and lab frames for the interacting $N$$N$ pair coincide). This is justified as long as $p_f/(A-1)$ is not too large relative to $p$, the momentum of the fast ejected proton, a condition satisfied at low missing momenta $p_f$ in the experiments of Refs. [@Rvachev05; @Reitz04; @Strauch03]. The resulting $F^{NN}_{ij}({\bf k},s)$ has central, single and double spin-flip terms, and is given explicitly in Appendix \[app:flab\].
Finally, carrying out the (two-dimensional) Fourier transform in Eq. (\[eq:prof\]) leads to the profile operator $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{ij}({\bf b};s)&=&\Gamma^{(1)}_{ij}(b;s)
+\Gamma^{(2)}_{ij}(b;s)\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot {\bm \sigma}_j
+\left[ \Gamma^{(3)}_{ij}(b;s)\,{\bm \sigma}_i
+\Gamma^{(4)}_{ij}(b;s)\,{\bm \sigma}_j \right]
\cdot {\bf b}\times \hat{\bf p} \nonumber \\
&+& \Gamma^{(5)}_{ij}(b;s)\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot {\bf b} \,\,
{\bm \sigma}_j \cdot {\bf b}
+ \Gamma^{(6)}_{ij}(b;s)\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot \hat{\bf p} \,\,
{\bm \sigma}_j \cdot \hat{\bf p}
+ \Gamma^{(7)}_{ij}(b;s)\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot {\bf b} \,\,
{\bm \sigma}_j \cdot \hat{\bf p} \nonumber \\
&+& \Gamma^{(8)}_{ij}(b;s)\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot \hat{\bf p} \,\,
{\bm \sigma}_j \cdot {\bf b} \ ,
\label{eq:gop}\end{aligned}$$ where the isospin-dependent operators $\Gamma^{(m)}_{ij}$, $m=1,\dots,8$, are given by $$\Gamma^{(m)}_{ij}(b;s)=\Gamma^{(m)}_+(b;s)
+\Gamma^{(m)}_-(b;s)\, {\bm \tau}_i \cdot {\bm \tau}_j \ .$$ The profile functions $\Gamma^{(m)}_{\pm}$ are related to those corresponding to $p$$p$ and $p$$n$ elastic scattering, obtained in Appendix \[app:flab\], via $$\Gamma^{(m)}_{\pm}=\left( \Gamma^{(m)}_{pp}\pm \Gamma^{(m)}_{pn} \right)\!/2\ .$$
Optical potential {#sec:opt}
-----------------
To describe FSI effects in the $^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H and $^4$He($\vec{e},e^\prime \vec{p}\,$)$^3$H reactions, we also use an optical potential [@Schiavilla05b; @vanOers82; @Schiavilla90]. In this case, the $p\, ^3$H wave function reads $$\psi^{(-)}_{{\bf k}\sigma;\sigma_3}(p+^3\!{\rm H};{\rm OPT})=
\frac{ {\rm e}^{ {\rm i}({\bf p}+{\bf p}_3)\cdot {\bf R}_{1\dots4}}}
{\sqrt{4}} \sum_{\cal P} \epsilon_{\cal P}
\Big[ \eta_{{\bf k}\sigma}^{(-)}(i;p) \phi_{\sigma_3}(jkl;^3\!{\rm H})
+\eta_{{\bf k}\sigma}^{(-)}(i;n) \phi_{\sigma_3}(jkl;^3\!{\rm He}) \Big] \ ,$$ where $\sigma$ and $\sigma_3$ are the spectator nucleon and bound cluster spin projections, ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf p}+{\bf p}_3$ are their relative and total momenta, respectively.
The spectator wave functions $\eta(i;p/n)$ are obtained from the linear combinations $[\eta(i;T=1)$$+/-$$\eta(i;T=0) ]/2$, where $T$=0,1 denotes the total isospin of the 1+3 clusters. The latter are taken to be the scattering solutions of a Schrödinger equation containing a complex, energy-dependent optical potential of the form $$v^{\rm opt}_T(T_{\rm rel})= [ v^c(r;T_{\rm rel})+(4T-3)v^{c\tau}(r;T_{\rm rel})]
+[ v^b(r;T_{\rm rel})+(4T-3)v^{b\tau}(r;T_{\rm rel})]\,
{\bf l}\cdot {\bf s} \ ,$$ where $T_{\rm rel}$ is the relative energy between clusters $i$ and $j$$k$$l$, and ${\bf l}$ and ${\bf s}$ are the orbital and spin angular momenta of nucleon $i$, respectively. The imaginary part of $v^{\rm opt}_T$ accounts for the loss of flux in the $p\, ^3$H and $n\, ^3$He states due to their coupling to the $dd$, three- and four-body breakup channels of $^4$He. Note that the $n$+$^3$He component in the scattering wave function $\psi^{(-)}(p+^3\!{\rm H})$ vanishes unless the isospin-dependent (charge-exchange) terms in $v^{\rm opt}$ are included. In the results presented in Sec. \[sec:res\], all partial waves are retained in the expansion of $\eta(i;T)$, with full account of interaction effects in those with relative orbital angular momentum $l \leq 17$. It has been explicitly verified that the numerical importance of FSI in higher partial waves is negligible.
The central $v^c$ and $v^{c\tau}$, and spin-orbit $v^b$ and $v^{b\tau}$ terms have standard Woods-Saxon and Thomas functional forms. The parameters of $v^c$ and $v^b$ were determined by fitting $p+^3{\rm H}$ elastic cross section data in the lab energy range $T_{\rm lab}$=(160–600) MeV, see Ref. [@vanOers82] for a listing of their values. The parameters of the $v^{c\tau}$ and $v^{b\tau}$ terms have been constrained by fitting $p+^3{\rm H} \rightarrow n+^3{\rm He}$ charge-exchange cross section data at $T_{\rm lab}$=57 MeV and 156 MeV [@Schiavilla90] and the induced polarization $P_y$ measured in the $^4$He($e,e^\prime\vec{p}\, )^3$H reaction [@Malace:2011]. The charge-exchange central term has a real part given by $[7.60-0.033\, T_{\rm lab}({\rm MeV})]$ MeV with radius and diffuseness of 1.2 fm and 0.15 fm and an imaginary part given by $[0.893-0.0025\, T_{\rm lab}({\rm MeV})]$ MeV with radius and diffuseness of 1.8 fm and 0.2 fm, while the charge-exchange spin-orbit term is taken to be purely real, with a depth parameter depending logarithmically on $T_{\rm lab}$, $[-15.0+1.5\, {\rm log}\, T_{\rm lab}({\rm MeV})]$ in MeV, and with radius and diffuseness having the values 1.2 fm and 0.15 fm, respectively (note that in Ref. [@Schiavilla05b] the sign of the depth parameter of this term had been reported erroneously with the opposite sign).
Calculation {#sec:calc}
===========
In this section we give, for completeness, a brief summary of those aspects of the calculations, relating to the bound cluster wave functions, nuclear electromagnetic current, and Monte Carlo methods used in evaluating the matrix elements, which have already been reviewed in considerable detail in Refs. [@Schiavilla05a; @Schiavilla05b] and references therein.
The bound states of the three- and four-nucleon systems are represented by variational wave functions, obtained with the hyperspherical-harmonics (HH) technique [@Viviani05a] from a realistic Hamiltonian consisting of the Argonne $v_{18}$ [@Wiringa95] and Urbana-IX [@Pudliner95] (AV18/UIX) potentials. These potentials and the resulting wave functions have been shown to account successfully at a quantitative level for a wide variety of three- and four-nucleon properties, such as binding energies and charge radii [@Viviani05a].
The nuclear electromagnetic current includes one- and two-body components. The one-body operators, listed in Ref. [@Schiavilla05a], are derived from an expansion of the covariant single-nucleon current [@Jeschonnek98]. The two-body operators used in the present work are discussed in the review paper [@Carlson98] (and references therein). The leading terms are derived from the static part of the AV18 potential, which is assumed to be due to exchanges of effective pseudo-scalar ($\pi$-like) and vector ($\rho$-like) mesons. The corresponding charge and current operators are constructed from non-relativistic reductions of Feynman amplitudes with the $\pi$-like and $\rho$-like effective propagators projected out of the central, spin-spin and tensor components of the AV18. Additional (short-range) currents result from minimal substitution in its momentum-dependent components. These charge and current operators contain no free parameters, and their short-range behavior is consistent with that of the AV18. The (purely transverse) two-body currents associated with $M1$-excitation of $\Delta$ resonances in the intermediate state, and from $\rho\pi\gamma$ and $\omega\pi\gamma$ transition mechanisms are also included. As documented in Refs. [@Carlson98; @Carlson02; @Marcucci05], these charge and current operators reproduce quite well a variety of few-nucleon electromagnetic observables, ranging from elastic form factors to low-energy radiative capture cross sections to the quasi-elastic response in inclusive $(e, e^\prime)$ scattering at intermediate energies.
The Höhler parameterization [@Hohler76] is used for the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon. In the analysis of the $^4$He($\vec{e},e^\prime \vec{p}\, $)$^3$H experiment, however, at the highest $Q^2$ values of 1.6 (GeV/c)$^2$ and 2.6 (GeV/c)$^2$ the proton electric and magnetic form factors are taken from the parameterization obtained in Ref. [@Brash02] by fitting $G_{Mp}$ data and the ratio $G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}$ recently measured at JLab [@Jones00].
Finally, the numerical evaluation of the relevant matrix elements is carried out by a combination of Monte Carlo methods and standard quadrature techniques, described for the case of $A$=3 in Ref. [@Schiavilla05a]. This hybrid approach is easily generalized to the $A$=4 case: indeed, it was already used in the calculations reported in Ref. [@Schiavilla05b]. The resulting predictions are numerically exact, apart from small statistical errors due to the Monte Carlo integration, and therefore suffer from no further approximations beyond those inherent to the treatment of FSI and nuclear electromagnetic currents.
Observables {#sec:observables}
===========
For clarity we briefly recap the observables of interest for this calculation. More details can be found in Refs. [@Schiavilla05a; @Schiavilla05b] for observables relevant to the [$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{} and [$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{} reactions, respectively.
The five-fold differential cross section for the $^Ai(e,e'p)^{(A-1)}f$ process is given as $$\label{eq:DSG_He3}
\frac{d^5\sigma}{dE_{e}^\prime d\Omega_{e}^\prime d\Omega} = p\, E\, \sigma_{\rm Mott}\,
f_{\rm rec}\frac{m}{E}\frac{m_f}{E_f}
\left[ v_{L}R_L + v_{T} R_{T} + v_{LT}\, R_{LT}\cos(\phi) + v_{TT}R_{TT}\cos(2\phi) \right],$$ where $E_{e}^\prime$ is the energy of the final electron, $\Omega_{e}^\prime$ and $\Omega$ are, respectively, the solid angles of the final electron and ejected proton, $m_f$ is the rest mass of the ($A$–1)-cluster, ${\bf p}$ and $E$ (${\bf p}_f$ and $E_f$) are the momentum and energy of the proton (($A$–1)-cluster), $\phi$ is the angle between the electron scattering plane and the plane defined by ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf p}$, and the recoil factor is defined by its inverse $$f_{\rm rec}^{-1} = \left| 1 - \frac{p_f\, E}{p\, E_f} {\hat{\bf p}} \cdot {\hat{\bf p}}_f \right|.$$ For a derivation of Eq. (\[eq:DSG\_He3\]), the definition of $\sigma_{\rm Mott}$ and of the (standard) electron kinematic factors, $v_{\alpha}$, where $\alpha = L, T, LT, TT$, see Ref. [@Raskin89]. The nuclear response functions are given in Ref. [@Schiavilla05a].
The longitudinal-transverse asymmetry $A_{LT}$ is obtained from the differential cross sections $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:A_LT}
A_{LT} &= \frac{\sigma(\phi = 0^{\circ}) - \sigma(\phi = 180^{\circ})}
{\sigma(\phi = 0^{\circ}) + \sigma(\phi = 180^{\circ})} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{v_{LT}R_{LT}}{v_{L}R_{L} + v_{T}R_{T} + v_{TT}R_{TT}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma(\phi)$ represents the differential cross section in Eq. (\[eq:DSG\_He3\]).
In parallel kinematics, where the electron three-momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ and the missing momentum ${\bf p}_m$ (defined as ${\bf p}_m=-{\bf p}_f={\bf p}-{\bf q}$) are parallel, the polarization transfers $P_x^\prime$ and $P_z^\prime$ are given by $$P_x^\prime= \frac{v_{LT^\prime}R^t_{LT^\prime}}{v_{L}R_{L} + v_{T}R_{T}} \ , \qquad
P_z^\prime=\frac{v_{TT^\prime}R^l_{TT^\prime}}{v_{L}R_{L} + v_{T}R_{T}} \ ,$$ where the response functions $R^t_{LT^\prime}$ and $R^l_{TT^\prime}$ and electron kinematical factors $v_{LT^\prime}$ and $v_{TT^\prime}$ read [@Picklesimer89] $$\begin{aligned}
R^t_{LT^\prime}&=&2\,\sqrt{2}\sum_{m_3} {\rm Im} \Big[
\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf x},m_3\!\mid \rho (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle\,
\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf x},m_3\!\mid j_y (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle^* \Big] \ , \\
R^l_{TT^\prime}&=&2 \sum_{m_3} {\rm Im} \Big[
\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf z},m_3 \!\mid j_x (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle\,
\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf z},m_3\!\mid j_y (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle^* \Big] \ ,\\
&&v_{LT^\prime}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, \frac{Q^2}{q^2} {\rm tan}( \theta_e/2)
\ ,\qquad v_{TT^\prime}= {\rm tan}( \theta_e/2) \sqrt{ \frac{Q^2}{q^2}+{\rm tan}^2( \theta_e/2)} \ .\end{aligned}$$ and $\theta_e$ and $Q^2=q^2-\omega^2$ are, respectively, the electron scattering angle and four-momentum transfer. In the above equations, represents the $^4$He ground state, while and represent the $p+^3\!{\rm H}$ final scattering states with the proton spin projection along either the $\hat{\bf x}$ or the $\hat{\bf z}$ directions, respectively, and with the $^3$H in spin projection $m_3$. The momentum transfer ${\bf q}$ has been taken along the $\hat{\bf z}$ direction, which also defines the quantization axis of the proton and $^3$H spins. Then, the $\mid\!\! p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf x},m_3 \rangle$ state, having the proton polarized in the $\hat{\bf x}$ direction, is written as $$\mid\!\! p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf x},m_3 \rangle =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mid\!\! p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf z},m_3 \rangle
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mid\!\! p+^3\!{\rm H}; -\hat{\bf z},m_3 \rangle \ ,$$ and the amplitudes $\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; \pm\, \hat{\bf z},m_3\!\mid O (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle$ are calculated for all possible combinations of proton and $^3$H spin projections and of transition operators $O(q\hat{\bf z})$ with the methods discussed in the previous section.
Lastly, the induced polarization $P_y$ is defined as $$P_y=\frac{v_{LT}\, \Delta R_{LT}}{v_{L}R_{L} + v_{T}R_{T}}$$ where the $\Delta R_{LT}$ response function is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta R_{LT}&=&2\,\sqrt{2}\sum_{m_3} {\rm Re} \Big[
\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf y},m_3\!\mid \rho (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle\,
\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; +\hat{\bf y},m_3\!\mid j_x (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle^* \nonumber\\
&&-\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; -\hat{\bf y},m_3\!\mid \rho (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle\,
\langle p+^3\!{\rm H}; -\hat{\bf y},m_3\!\mid j_x (q\hat{\bf z}) \mid ^4\!{\rm He}\rangle^* \Big] \ ,\end{aligned}$$ and in the states the proton polarization is along the $\pm \, \hat{\bf y}$ direction (note that in parallel kinematics, the proton and electron scattering planes concide, and are taken here as the $xz$-plane).
Results {#sec:res}
=======
In this section we compare the results of our calculations to experimental data. In addition we compare various model-dependent effects, and discuss how these affect the results.
[$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{} {#subsec:3he}
-------------------------------
As in Ref. [@Schiavilla05a] the predicted cross section and asymmetry are compared with experimental data taken at JLab (E89-044) [@Rvachev05]. For the [$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{} reaction all observables are plotted as function of the missing momentum $p_m$. The calculated cross sections are compared to experimental data for $\phi$=180$^\circ$ in Fig. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin1\] and for $\phi$=0$^\circ$ in Fig. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin2\]. The longitudinal-transverse asymmetry is obtained from these cross sections via Eq. (\[eq:A\_LT\]), and its comparison to experiment is shown in Fig. \[fig:avg\_ASY\].
![(Color online) Differential cross sections for the [$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{} reaction at $\phi$=180$^{\circ}$. The experimental data are compared with the plane-wave-impule-approximation (PWIA), and with the full single and double rescattering Glauber approximation with MEC (GLB(1+2) With MEC) and without MEC (GLB(1+2) No MEC). The profile operator in the Glauber approximation is derived from $NN$ scattering amplitudes (including central, single-spin flip and double-spin flip terms), boosted from the c.m. frame to the rescattering (lab) frame. Statistical Monte Carlo errors are smaller than the symbols, and lines drawn to guide the eye.[]{data-label="fig:avg_DSG_kin1"}](DSGk1){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Same as Fig. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin1\], but at $\phi$=0$^{\circ}$.[]{data-label="fig:avg_DSG_kin2"}](DSGk2){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Same as Fig. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin1\], but for the longitudinal-transverse asymmetry.[]{data-label="fig:avg_ASY"}](ALTfull){width="16cm"}
In Figs. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin1\]–\[fig:avg\_ASY\], the curves labeled PWIA represent the results obtained in the plane-wave impulse-approximation disregarding all FSI. The PWIA overpredicts the data at low $p_m$ and underpredicts them at high $p_m$. The curves labeled “GLB(1+2) No MEC” represent the results obtained in the Glauber approximation with single and double rescattering, but neglecting contributions from meson exchange currents (MEC). By accounting for FSI, we note a significant improvement in describing the experimental cross-section values. Inclusion of MEC contributions, curves labeled as “GLB(1+2) With MEC”, further improves the comparison with the data. While in Figs. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin1\] and \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin2\] the MEC effects appear small in comparison to the FSI, it is clear that they improve the predictions, especially at intermediate values of missing momentum. In Fig. \[fig:avg\_ASY\], where the asymmetry is shown, the effects are even more pronounced. We note again the inability of the PWIA to successfully account for the experimental features, except for very low values of missing momentum. The structure of the data is clearly dominated by FSI as the missing momentum is increased, and the importance of the MEC is again notable. Indeed at intermediate values of $p_m$ the MEC contribution is of comparable strength as the FSI. When calculating $A_{LT}$, we are taking a difference between the cross sections shown in Fig. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin1\] and Fig. \[fig:avg\_DSG\_kin2\], where in the former the MEC suppress the results, and in the latter the MEC enhance them. So even though this is a small effect in the individual cross sections, it becomes quite large when taking their difference.
We next want to investigate model-dependent effects due to the $NN$ scattering amplitudes. In order to compare the various effects, calculations were performed for a variety of cases, and comparisons are presented in Figs. \[fig:comp\_DSG\_kin1\]–\[fig:comp\_ASY\].
![(Color online) Differential cross sections for the [$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{} reaction at $\phi$=180$^{\circ}$ obtained in various approximation schemes, see text for descriptions of the approximations. Lines are drawn to guide the eye.[]{data-label="fig:comp_DSG_kin1"}](kin1){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Same as Fig. \[fig:comp\_DSG\_kin1\], but at $\phi$=0$^{\circ}$.[]{data-label="fig:comp_DSG_kin2"}](kin2){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Ratios of differential cross sections as shown in Fig. \[fig:comp\_DSG\_kin1\].[]{data-label="fig:comp_DSGratio_kin1"}](ratiok1){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Ratios of differential cross sections as shown in Fig. \[fig:comp\_DSG\_kin2\].[]{data-label="fig:comp_DSGratio_kin2"}](ratiok2){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Same as Fig. \[fig:comp\_DSG\_kin1\], but for the longitudinal-transverse asymmetry.[]{data-label="fig:comp_ASY"}](ALT_comp){width="16cm"}
Specifically, we are interested in quantifying the role of spin dependence in the FSI, which this work facilitates well, since all spin dependence is retained in the Glauber profile operator. These cases were all calculated for the same random walk in the Monte Carlo integration, and are not compared to experimental data. Since we have already investigated MEC contributions and noted their importance in the discussion above, all results below include them. The cases we investigate are:
1. Curves labeled “GLB(1+2) Full F” correspond to the Glauber approximation with single and double rescattering and include the full spin dependence in the $NN$ scattering amplitudes.
2. Curves labeled “GLB(1)” include only single scattering in the Glauber approximation, but still incorporate the full spin dependence in the $NN$ scattering amplitudes.
3. Curves labeled “GLB(1+2) Central F” correspond to Glauber single and double rescattering, but with all spin dependent terms turned off in the $NN$ scattering amplitudes, that is, in Eq. (\[eq:fnn\]) we set $\overline{F}^{\, NN}_m(\overline{{\bf k}}^{\, 2}\!,s)=0$ for $m$=2–5, so that only the central term $\overline{F}^{\, NN}_1(\overline{{\bf k}}^{\, 2}\!,s)$ contributes.
4. Curves labeled “GLB(1+2) Ciofi F” correspond to using a common $NN$ parametrization given in Eq. (\[eq:cioffiAmp\]), which includes no explicit spin dependence. The parameterization is described in Appendix \[app:NNSAIDtoWallace\]. It should be noted, however, that when fitting a spin independent amplitude to experimental data, spin dependence can implicitly enter the parameterization, which causes some ambiguity when trying to determine its role in FSI.
In Figs. \[fig:comp\_DSG\_kin1\] and \[fig:comp\_DSG\_kin2\] we show the differential cross sections calculated at $\phi$= 180$^\circ$ and $\phi$=0$^{\circ}$, respectively. Since these are semilog plots, we also plot ratios of the various cases to the full double rescattering, fully spin dependent calculation, case 1. These are shown in Figs. \[fig:comp\_DSGratio\_kin1\] and \[fig:comp\_DSGratio\_kin2\], again for $\phi$=180$^\circ$ and $\phi$=0$^{\circ}$, respectively. In Fig. \[fig:comp\_ASY\] we plot the longitudinal-transverse asymmetry for comparison of the four cases. In these figures we first note the necessity of including the double rescattering in the Glauber approximation, case 2. At all but the lowest missing momentum, where FSI are negligible, we see that the single scattering approximation leads to a significant deviation for $p_m> 200 ~\rm{MeV/c}$. Next we observe the effect of “turning off” the spin dependent contributions the $NN$ amplitudes, case 3. Here again we note significant deviations from the full result. Finally, we turn to case 4 and note similar deviations as in case 3 for $p_m \lesssim 400$ MeV/c. However, at larger $p_m$ where FSI effects become quite important, predictions for cases 3 and 4 differ significantly from each other—see Figs. \[fig:comp\_DSGratio\_kin1\]–\[fig:comp\_DSGratio\_kin2\]—which can be traced back to differences between the central amplitudes of cases 3 and 4 (see discussion in Appendix \[app:NNSAIDtoWallace\]).
It is interesting to point out that for the asymmetry, shown in Fig. \[fig:comp\_ASY\], the effects are similar for each of the four cases, however, we note that there is no significant deviation for the single and double rescattering up to $p_m \approx 600~\rm{MeV/c}$. This implies that the effects of double rescattering, so pronounced in the differential cross section for $p_m> 200 ~\rm{MeV/c}$, cancel when calculating the asymmetry. This is similar to the above discussion regarding MEC, and again is due to taking differences of cross sections, except here the double scattering contribution increases the cross sections for both kinematics so when taking the difference this increase is canceled out.
[$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{} {#subsec:4he}
-------------------------------
We now turn our attention to the observables calculated for the [$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{} reaction. In this case we utilize both the Glauber description of FSI as well as an optical potential. We begin by discussing JLab experiment E97-111, for which preliminary data have been published in Ref. [@Reitz04]—these preliminary data, which only include statistical errors, are shown in the figures below. The experiment measured cross sections for the electrodisintegration of $^4$He into $^3$H and $p$ clusters in three different kinematic setups. The first setup labeled CQ2, in which the electron momentum and energy transfers were kept fixed at $q \simeq1.43$ GeV and $\omega \simeq 0.52$ GeV, was in quasi-perpendicular kinematics (with the missing momentum ${\bf p}_m$ close to being perpendicular to ${\bf q}$), while the remaining two setups labeled PY1 and PY2 were both in quasi-parallel kinematics (with ${\bf p}_m$ close to being parallel to ${\bf q}$) and both covered the same range $ 0\lesssim p_m \lesssim 500$ MeV/c, but the electron beam energy and scattering angle were, respectively, about 2.4 GeV and 16.9$^\circ$ in PY1 and about 3.2 GeV and 18.9$^\circ$ in PY2.
In Figs. \[fig:red\_cq2\]–\[fig:red\_py2\] we show for both experiment and theory the reduced cross section, defined as $$\sigma^{\rm red}=\frac{1}{p\, E\, f_{\rm rec}\, \sigma_{ep}^{\rm CC1}}\,
\frac{d^5\sigma}{dE_{e}^\prime d\Omega_{e}^\prime d\Omega} \ ,$$ where $\sigma_{ep}^{\rm CC1}$ denotes the CC1 off-shell parameterization of the electron-proton cross section due to deForest [@deForest83]. The various curves are labeled as follows: “PWIA” represents the plane wave impulse approximation, “GLB with (no) MEC” treats FSI in the Glauber approximation with (without) MEC, “OPT with (no) MEC” uses the optical potential to account for FSI with (without) MEC, and finally the experimental data are labeled by the experiment number “E97-111”. We note that the calculations in the Glauber approximation include single, double and triple rescattering (see Sec. \[sec:glb\]).
![(Color online) Reduced differential cross section of [$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{} compared to experimental data and various calculation schemes. “CQ2” refers to the experimental kinematics. See text for descriptions of the curves. Lines are drawn to guide the eye.[]{data-label="fig:red_cq2"}](CQ2){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Same as Fig. \[fig:red\_cq2\] except for “PY1” kinematics.[]{data-label="fig:red_py1"}](PY1){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Same as Fig. \[fig:red\_cq2\] except for “PY2” kinematics.[]{data-label="fig:red_py2"}](PY2){width="16cm"}
The three kinematic setups all cover the region of missing momentum close to 450 MeV/c, where the PWIA results are orders of magnitude smaller than the data. In PWIA the cross section is proportional to the $p$-$^3$H cluster momentum distribution, which exhibits a node for $p_m$ close to 450 MeV/c [@Schiavilla86; @*Wiringa:2013ala]. This node is filled in by FSI contributions, which shift PWIA strength from the low $p_m$ region to the high $p_m$ one, see Figs. \[fig:red\_py1\]–\[fig:red\_py2\]. The contributions from MEC are significant, particularly for kinematics CQ2, and increase the cross section over the whole $p_m$ range of interest. The full calculations, including FSI either in the Glauber approximation or via the optical potential and MEC contributions, are in reasonable agreement with data for kinematics PY1 and PY2, although they both tend to overpredict the measured cross sections at low $p_m$ (but not as severely as the PWIA calculation). For kinematics CQ2, the “OPT with MEC” calculation provides a satisfactory description of data, while the “GLB with MEC” calculation leads to cross sections which are significantly larger than the measured values. We note that for kinematics CQ2 the relative kinetic energy between the proton and triton clusters is about 0.31 GeV, so well within the range of applicability of the optical potential, which was fitted to $p$-$^3$H scattering data up to relative kinetic energy of 0.45 GeV (Sec. \[sec:opt\]). In contrast, the proton lab kinetic energies for this same kinematic setup are of the order of 0.46 GeV, arguably too low for the validity of the Glauber approximation. For the quasi-parallel kinematics PY1 (PY2) the $p$-$^3$H relative kinetic energies and proton lab kinetic energies are, respectively, in the ranges 0.22–1.05 (0.44–1.55) GeV and 0.34–0.98 (0.51–1.42) GeV, as the missing momentum increases from $\simeq 0.06$ GeV/c to $\simeq 0.5$ GeV/c, and therefore one would expect the treatment of FSI via the optical potential to be valid on the low side of $p_m$ and that based on the Glauber approximation to be appropriate for the high side of $p_m$. In fact, the actual calculations shown in Figs. \[fig:red\_py1\]–\[fig:red\_py2\] indicate that the optical potential and Glauber approximation differ significantly only beyond $p_m \gtrsim 400$ MeV/c, with the “OPT with MEC” and “GLB with MEC” results, respectively, underestimating and overestimating the data.
We now turn our attention to the polarization observables in the $^4$He$(\vec{e},e^\prime\vec{p}\,)^3$H reaction. We present the induced polarization $P_{y}$ in Fig. \[fig:py\], and the super-ratio $(P^\prime_x/P^\prime_z)/(P^\prime_x/P^\prime_z)_{\rm PWIA}$ in Fig. \[fig:ratio\].
![(Color online) Induced polarization for $^4$He compared to experimental data. The optical potential is tuned to reproduce the data. See text for descriptions of the curves. Lines are drawn to guide the eye.[]{data-label="fig:py"}](py){width="16cm"}
![(Color online) Polarization transfer for $^4$He compared to experimental data. See text for descriptions of the curves. Lines are drawn to guide the eye.[]{data-label="fig:ratio"}](ratio){width="16cm"}
These are both plotted versus the four momentum transfer of the virtual photon, $Q^2$. These observables are compared with data labeled according to the experiment. In Fig. \[fig:py\] the data labeled “E03-104” are from Ref. [@Malace:2011], and “E93-049” are from Ref. [@Strauch03]. In Fig. \[fig:ratio\] the data labeled “E03-104” are from Ref. [@Paolone10], “E93-049” are from Ref. [@Strauch03], and “MAMI” are from Ref. [@Dieterich01]. When comparing to the JLab experimental data we should be mindful that these are averaged over the acceptance of the spectrometers. The super-ratio is only mildly affected by this [@Strauch13PC], however the induced polarization can vary substantially. According to Ref. [@Malace:2011] the correction is $\lesssim 20\%$, and additional details of how the correction is made can be found in that work. In the figures, the curves labeled “OPT( no CH-EX)” and “OPT” both use one-body electromagnetic currents, the only difference being that in the “OPT( no CH-EX)” calculation the charge-exchange terms in the optical potential are ignored. The curves labeled “OPT+MEC” include the full optical potential as well as the MEC contributions, while the curves labeled “GLB” correspond to results obtained in the Glauber approximation with one-body currents. The statistical errors associated with the Monte Carlo integrations are only shown for the “OPT+MEC” calculation, they are similar in the other cases. Note that these errors are smaller than those reported in Ref. [@Schiavilla05b] because of the larger number of configurations in the present random walk.
The present calculation differs from that reported in Ref. [@Schiavilla05b] in two respects: i) the spin-orbit term in the optical potential, which is poorly determined [@Schiavilla05b], has been constrained here by fitting the precise induced polarization data obtained in Ref. [@Malace:2011], and ii) calculations of the super-ratio and induced polarization have also been carried out in the Glauber approximation (including up to triple rescattering). In reference to the calculations based on the optical potential the discussion and ensuing conclusions are similar to those presented in the older study [@Schiavilla05b]: i) charge-exchange FSI effects are important, ii) the predicted quenching of the super-ratio relative to one comes about because of these effects and because of MEC contributions, and iii) this quenching is in reasonable agreement with that observed in the older [@Strauch03] as well as in the more recent and accurate [@Paolone10] data.
The “GLB” calculation is at variance with data, particularly at lower $Q^2$. While it reproduces the magnitudes of the observables, it has the wrong sign for $P_y$ and increases the super-ratio relative to one. However, we note that for the data in the low $Q^2$ region the proton lab kinetic energies may be too small for the viability of the Glauber treatment of FSI, for example at $Q^2=1$ (GeV/c)$^2$ this energy is $\simeq 0.55$ GeV.
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
In this study we have expanded and built upon the work of Refs. [@Schiavilla05a; @Schiavilla05b], and have calculated observables for the processes [$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{} and [$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{}. We have updated the $NN$ amplitudes, which describe FSI within a Glauber approximation, to include more realistic parameterizations available from SAID, valid over the entire angular region. In addition to the SAID parameterizations we also implemented a minimal $NN$ amplitude, which includes no spin dependence and is only valid in the forward direction, allowing for a valuable analysis of the $NN$ model dependence entering the calculation. Comparisons were made to available experimental data, and the theoretical results are in good agreement with them.
In the case of the [$^3$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^2$H]{} reaction we have compared several model-dependent effects which can affect the results significantly. Among these effects, FSI are of utmost importance. Contributions from MEC, while small in some cases, can play a large role in other observables or kinematical regimes. We also investigated the importance of including both the full spin dependence in the profile operator and double rescattering in the Glauber approximation. Neglecting either of these effects will have a detrimental impact on the calculation.
For the [$^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H]{} reaction we found that the results obtained with either the optical potential or Glauber approximation provide a good description of the data obtained in quasi-parallel kinematics (PY1 and PY2). In contrast, the Glauber results overestimate the data in quasi-perpendicular kinematics (CQ2). In reference to the polarization observables measured in the $^4$He$(\vec{e},e^\prime\vec{p}\,)^3$H reaction, the Glauber results appear to be severely at variance with data on the induced polarization $P_y$ and super-ratio $(P^\prime_x/P^\prime_z)/(P^\prime_x/P^\prime_z)_{\rm PWIA}$, particularly at low $Q^2$. In contrast, these data are reproduced reasonably well in the calculation based on the optical potential, provided the latter accounts for charge-exchange FSI effects, i.e., the coupling between the $p$-$^3$H and $n$-$^3$He channels.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank R.A. Arndt and R.L. Workman for correspondence in regard to the use of the SAID interactive program, C. Ciofi degli Atti and H. Morita for the correspondence regarding their $NN$ parameterization, and D. Higinbotham and B. Reitz, and M. Paolone, S. Malace and S. Strauch, for providing us with tables of the experimental data for the $^4$He($e,e^\prime p$)$^3$H and $^4$He($\vec{e},e^\prime \vec{p}\,$)$^3$H reactions, respectively. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contract DE-AC05-06OR23177. The calculations were made possible by grants of computing time from the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.
$NN$ scattering amplitudes {#app:NNSAIDtoWallace}
==========================
This work requires the $NN$ scattering amplitudes as input to describe the FSI. Here we use the $NN$ amplitudes $\overline{F}^{NN}_{m}(s,t)$ from Eq. (\[eq:fnn\]), which are in the Wallace representation [@Wallace81; @Wallace83], to produce the profile functions given by Eq. (\[eq:gop\]). We use a complete set of amplitudes obtained from the SAID analysis and a central (no spin dependence) amplitude from Ciofi and Morita [@ciofihiko_1; @ciofihiko_2; @ciofihiko_3; @ciofihiko_4; @ciofihiko_5; @ciofihiko_6; @ciofihiko_7; @ciofihiko_8; @ciofihiko_9; @ciofihiko_10]. Some comments are necessary for each of these choices to clarify their usage in the present work.
It is possible to obtain $NN$ scattering amplitudes in two-dimensional spinor space directly from SAID in the form of the Saclay amplitudes which can be easily related to the Wallace form. The problem with this is that for lab kinetic energies below 350 MeV these are not in agreement with those obtained from the Nijmegen analysis (http://nn-online.org/). However, helicity amplitudes can also be obtained directly from SAID and these can then be converted to Saclay amplitudes, which are in agreement with the Nijmegen analysis. As a result, we start from the SAID helicity amplitudes. These are then converted to the Fermi invariant amplitudes of Eq. (\[eq:fermi\_invariants\]) as described in Ref. [@JVO_2008_newcalc]. The coefficients of the Fermi invariant amplitudes are saved as tables of the five invariant amplitudes and as a function of c.m. angle for laboratory kinetic energies $T_{lab}$ from 0.05 GeV to 1.3 GeV for $pn$ scattering and 0.05 GeV to 3.0 GeV for $pp$ scattering. These tables are interpolated using bicubic splines to obtain scattering amplitudes at any energy and angle within the tabulated energy range. These invariant amplitudes have been used successfully to calculate a number of deuteron electrodisintegration observables [@JVO_2008_newcalc; @JVO_2009_ejec_pol; @JVO_2009_tar_pol]. For the current work the Fermi invariants are converted to Wallace amplitudes by multiplication by an appropriate matrix. Some care has to be used in implementing this approach due to a problem with the production of the helicity amplitudes by SAID. In extracting the amplitudes we have specified that at each energy these are given from $\theta_{c.m.}=0^\circ$ to $180^\circ$ in steps of $5^\circ$. The resulting amplitudes show a very strong variation at angles near both endpoints resulting in differential cross sections that have large spikes near $0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$ that are inconsistent with the scattering data. To eliminate this problem, amplitudes at $5^\circ$ and $10^\circ$ are replaced by values obtained from a cubic polynomial fixed by data at $0^\circ$, $15^\circ$, $20^\circ$ and $25^\circ$. This produces differential cross sections that are in agreement with data.
Ciofi and Morita use only a single spin-independent amplitude of the form $$\overline{F}^{NN}_1(s,\bar{\bm{k}}^2)=-i\,\sigma_{tot}(s)\left[1-i\alpha(s)\right] {\rm e}^{-\beta\,\bar{\bm{k}}^2}\label{eq:cioffiAmp}$$ where $\sigma_{tot}$ is the total $NN$ cross section, $\alpha$ is a ratio of the real to imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude (often referred to as $\rho$) and $\beta$ is determined by calculating the total elastic cross section from Eq. (\[eq:cioffiAmp\]) giving $$\beta=\frac{\sigma_{tot}^2(s)}{32\pi\, \sigma_{el}^2(s)}\left[ 1+\alpha^2(s)\right]\,.\label{eq:beta}$$ The quantities $\sigma_{tot}$, $\alpha=\rho$ and $\sigma_{el}$ can be obtained from either the PDG or from SAID. Differential cross sections using the SAID and Ciofi amplitudes are shown for $pn$ scattering in Fig. \[fig:dsig\_dt\](a) and for $pp$ scattering in Fig. \[fig:dsig\_dt\](b) for the full kinematically allowed range in $t=-\bar{\bm{k}}^2$.
![(color online) Differential cross sections obtained from the SAID (solid line), Ciofi (dashed line) and the central contribution from SAID (short dashed line) amplitudes for (a) $pn$ scattering and (b) $pp$ scattering for $T_{lab}=0.8\ {\rm GeV}$ ($s=5.03\ {\rm GeV^2}$). []{data-label="fig:dsig_dt"}](dsig_dt){width="16cm"}
Note that while the SAID and Ciofi results are similar in the forward direction for $pp$ scattering, this is not the case for $pn$ scattering. The problem here is in determining $\beta$. The total elastic cross section for $pp$ scattering is completely described by integrating from $0^\circ$ to $90^\circ$ since for indistinguishable protons each scattering in the c.m. frame will result in one proton in the forward direction and one in the backward direction. This is not the case for $pn$ scattering since a forward scattering proton will be associated with a backward scattering neutron and a backward scattering proton will be associated with a forward scattering neutron. The total elastic $pn$ cross section requires integration from $0^\circ$ to $180^\circ$. In the case of Fig. \[fig:dsig\_dt\](b) the total $pp$ elastic cross section corresponds to integrating the differential cross section over half of the range in $t$, while for Fig. \[fig:dsig\_dt\](a) the total $pn$ elastic cross section corresponds to integrating the differential cross section over the complete range in $t$. By including the contributions from backward scattering protons, the total $pn$ elastic cross section is larger than would be required to fit the data in the forward direction resulting in a smaller value of $\beta$ as given by Eq. (\[eq:beta\]). Note also that the values of the cross section calculated from the Ciofi amplitudes are smaller than those obtained from the SAID amplitudes at $t=0$ due to the contributions from spin-dependent amplitudes at this point.
The third calculation shown in Figs. \[fig:dsig\_dt\](a) and \[fig:dsig\_dt\](b) shows the contribution of only the central part of the SAID amplitudes to the differential cross section. This clearly shows that the spin-dependent amplitudes provide a significant part of the cross section and that the method used by Ciofi transfers part of this strength into the central amplitude.
Fortran90 modules are available from Ford and Van Orden (FVO) which calculate the invariant functions, ${\cal F}_m^{NN}(s,t)$, given in Eq. (\[eq:fermi\_invariants\]). The subroutines can provide the amplitudes for a variety of models depending on the energies desired as well as the complexity of the model. At a basic level there is a parametrization available from Ciofi and Morita [@ciofihiko_1; @ciofihiko_2; @ciofihiko_3; @ciofihiko_4; @ciofihiko_5; @ciofihiko_6; @ciofihiko_7; @ciofihiko_8; @ciofihiko_9; @ciofihiko_10] describing the $NN$ system with a single amplitude with no spin dependence. Using this amplitude provides a useful comparison for studying how the FSI model dependence, specifically spin dependence, contributes to a calculation. Next one can choose the Wallace parametrization [@Wallace81], which incorporates spin dependence, but is only valid at small angles. This model was utilized in an earlier work [@Schiavilla05a] but, due to the limitation above, is not used in this work. There are two parametrizations available which include all spin dependence and are valid over the entire angular region. These are the SAID model [@Arndt00; @Arndt07; @SAIDdata] valid for $s<5.4$ (GeV$^2$), and a Regge model [@FVO_Reggemodel] valid for $s>5.4$ (GeV$^2$). In this work we consider all spin dependence of the FSI, and the energies of interest are those of the SAID approach. For all models the amplitudes are converted first into Fermi invariant functions with a consistent normalization. The Fermi invariants from any model can be used directly or converted to helicity amplitudes, Saclay amplitudes or Wallace amplitudes.
As discussed above, for the SAID analysis the five independent helicity amplitudes can be obtained on a tabulated grid for the c.m. energy ($ \overline{E}$) and angle ($\overline{\theta}$). For convenience we work with the Mandelstam variables which are related to the $NN$ c.m. energy and angle by $$\begin{aligned}
s &= 4\overline{E}^2 \\
t &= -\overline{{\bf k}}^2 = -\frac{s-4\,m^2}{2}[1-\cos(\overline{\theta})].\end{aligned}$$ If the amplitudes are extracted in units of fm there is a normalization relation between the SAID and FVO conventions, $$T^{FVO}_{\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2;\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(s,t) = -\frac{4\pi\sqrt{s}}{\hbar c \, m^2}
T^{SAID}_{\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2;\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(s,t)$$ The invariants can then be obtained using, $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{S}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{V}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{T}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{P}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{A}(s,t)
\end{array} \right) = \frac{1}{s-4\, m^2} {M^{HtoI}}
\left( \begin{array}{l}
T_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}(s,t) \\
T_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}}(s,t) \\
T_{\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}}(s,t) \\
T_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};-\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}}(s,t) \\
T_{\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2};-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}(s,t)
\end{array} \right) ,$$ where the matrix $M^{HtoI}$ and additional details of this discussion can be found in the Appendix of Ref. [@JVO_2008_newcalc].
Once the invariant functions are obtained we need to represent the amplitudes in the Wallace form so that the Glauber profile operator can be calculated. Normalization between the FVO convention and the convention used in this work is given as, $$T_{\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2;\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(s,t) = \frac{i\hbar c\, m^2}{2 \pi \sqrt{s(s-4\,m^2)}}
T^{FVO}_{\lambda'_1,\lambda'_2;\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(s,t)$$ It is straightforward to transform from the invariant functions to the Wallace form via another matrix multiplication, $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
\overline{F}^{NN}_{1}(s,t) \\
\overline{F}^{NN}_{2}(s,t) \\
\overline{F}^{NN}_{3}(s,t) \\
\overline{F}^{NN}_{4}(s,t) \\
\overline{F}^{NN}_{5}(s,t)
\end{array} \right) = \frac{i\hbar c \, m^2}{2 \pi \sqrt{s(s-4\, m^2)}} M^{ItoW}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{S}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{V}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{T}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{P}(s,t) \\
{ \cal F}^{NN}_{A}(s,t)
\end{array} \right) ,$$ where the matrix $M^{ItoW}$ is given below and was obtained from [@Wallace83]. In Appendix \[app:flab\] we show how these amplitudes can be boosted to the rescattering frame (which is in practice taken as the lab frame, see discussion in Sec. \[sec:glb\]), and the profile operator can then be calculated from the boosted amplitudes. The matrix elements are: $$\begin{aligned}
M^{ItoW}_{11} &= \frac{(-4m^2 - 2m\sqrt{s} + t)^2}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{12} &= \frac{(-16m^4 - 16m^3\sqrt{s} + 2s^2 + 3st + t^2 + 4m^2(s + t) + 8m\sqrt{s}(s + t))}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{13} &= \frac{t(4m\sqrt{s} + 2s + t)}{2m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{14} &= 0 \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{15} &= \frac{(4m^2 - s - t)t}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{21} &= \frac{t(-4m^2 + s + t)}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{22} &= \frac{t(4m\sqrt{s} + 2s + t)}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{23} &= \frac{-16m^4 - 16m^3\sqrt{s} + 2s^2 + 3st + t^2 + 4m^2(s + t)
+ 8m\sqrt{s}(s + t)}{2m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{24} &= 0 \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{25} &= -\frac{(-4m^2 - 2m\sqrt{s} + t)^2}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{31} &= \frac{(4m^2 + 2m\sqrt{s} - t)\sqrt{-4m^2 + s + t}}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{32} &= -\frac{(4m^2 + 6m\sqrt{s} + 2s + t)\sqrt{-4m^2 + s + t}}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{33} &= - \frac{(4m^2 + 6m\sqrt{s} + 2s +t)\sqrt{-4m^2 + s + t}}{2m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{34} &= 0 \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{35} &= \frac{(-4m^2 - 2m\sqrt{s} + t)\sqrt{-4m^2 + s + t}}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{41} &= \frac{-4m^2 + s + t}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{42} &= \frac{4m\sqrt{s} + 2s + t}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{43} &= \frac{4m\sqrt{s} + 2s + t}{2m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{44} &= - \frac{1}{4m^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{45} &= \frac{8m^2 + 4m\sqrt{s} - t}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{51} &= \frac{(4m^2 - s - t)t}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{52} &= \frac{(4m^2 - s - t)t}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{53} &= -\frac{-32m^4 - 32m^3\sqrt{s} + 2s^2 + 4m^2t + 3st + t^2 + 8m\sqrt{s}(s + t)}{2m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{54} &= 0 \nonumber \\
M^{ItoW}_{55} &= \frac{32m^4 + 32m^3\sqrt{s} - 2s^2 - 12m^2t - st + t^2 - 8m\sqrt{s}(s + t)}{4m^2(2m + \sqrt{s})^2} \ .\end{aligned}$$
From the c.m. to the lab frame {#app:flab}
==============================
The elastic scattering amplitude in the lab frame is written as $$(2 {\rm i}\, p)^{-1}\, F^{NN}_{ij}({\bf k},s)
=\sum_{m=1}^8 F^{NN}_m(s,{\bf k}^{\, 2}) O^m_{ij} \ ,
\label{eq:flab}$$ where the eight operators $O^m_{ij}$ are taken as $$O^{\,m=1,\dots,8}_{ij}=1\, ,\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot {\bm \sigma}_j\, ,\,
{\rm i}\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot {\bf k} \times \hat {\bf p}\, ,\,
{\rm i}\, {\bm \sigma}_j \cdot {\bf k} \times \hat {\bf p}\, ,\,
{\bm \sigma}_i \cdot {\bf k} \, {\bm \sigma}_j \cdot {\bf k}\, ,\,
{\bm \sigma}_i \cdot \hat{\bf p} \, {\bm \sigma}_j \cdot \hat{\bf p} \, , \,
i\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot {\bf k} \, {\bm \sigma}_j \cdot \hat{\bf p} \, , \,
i\, {\bm \sigma}_i \cdot \hat{\bf p} \, {\bm \sigma}_j \cdot {\bf k} \ .
\label{eq:oplab}$$ Here ${\bf p}$ is the momentum of the initial fast nucleon and in the eikonal limit the momentum transfer ${\bf k}$ is perpendicular to ${\bf p}$. The functions $F^{NN}_{m=1,\dots, 8}$ are then obtained as linear combinations of the invariant functions ${\cal F}_{m=1,\dots, 5}^{NN}$, $$F^{NN}_m=\sum_{n=1}^5 L_{mn}\, {\cal F}^{NN}_n \ ,$$ where the 8$\times$5 matrix $L$ is given by 0.7cm
$
L= \left[ \begin{array}{ccccc}
1-\frac{p^2}{w_p w_{p-k}} & 1+\frac{p^2}{w_p w_{p-k}}+\frac{k^2}{w_{p-k} w_k}&
-\frac{2 k^2}{w_{p-k} w_k} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{k^2}{w_{p-k} w_k} & 2\left(1+\frac{p^2}{w_p w_{p-k}}+
\frac{k^2}{w_{p-k} w_k}\right)& 0 & -1+\frac{p^2}{w_p w_{p-k}} \\
\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}} & -\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}}\left(1+\frac{w_-}{w_k}\right) &
-\frac{2p}{w_p w_{p-k}} \frac{w_+}{w_k} & 0 & 0 \\
0 &-\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}} \frac{w_+}{w_k} &
-\frac{2p}{w_p w_{p-k}}\left(1+\frac{w_-}{w_k}\right) & 0 &
-\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}} \\
0 & \frac{1}{w_{p-k} w_k} & -\frac{2}{w_{p-k} w_k} & -\frac{1}{w_{p-k} w_k} &
-\frac{1}{w_{p-k} w_k} \\
0 & 0 & -\frac{4p^2}{w_p w_{p-k}} & 0 & -\frac{2p^2}{w_p w_{p-k}} \\
0 & -i\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}}\frac{w_-}{w_k} &
-i\frac{2p}{w_p w_{p-k}}\left( 1+\frac{w_+}{w_k}\right) & 0 &
-i\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}} \\
0 & 0 & -i\frac{2p}{w_p w_{p-k}} & -i\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}}\frac{w_-}{w_k} &
-i\frac{p}{w_p w_{p-k}}\left( 1+\frac{w_+}{w_k}\right)
\end{array} \right] \ ,
$
0.7cm and the factors $E_q$ and $w_q$ are defined as $E_q\equiv \sqrt{{\bf q}^2+m^2}$ and $w_q\equiv E_q+m$, with ${\bf q}={\bf p}$, ${\bf k}$, ${\bf p}-{\bf k}$, and $w_{\pm}\equiv w_{p-k}\pm w_p$,
The $N$$N$ profile operator $\Gamma^{NN}_{ij}$ is obtained from Eq. (\[eq:gop\]) by replacing $\Gamma^{(m)}_{ij}$ with $\Gamma^{(m)}_{NN}$ for $m=1,\dots, 8$. The functions $\Gamma^{(m)}_{NN}$ are in turn derived from Bessel transforms of the $F^{NN}_{m}$ amplitudes. We find: $$\Gamma^{(m)}_{NN}(b;s)=2\, p^2\int_{-1}^1 {\rm d}x\, J_0(kb)\,
F^{NN}_{m}(k^2;s)$$ for $m=1,6$; $$\Gamma^{(m)}_{NN}(b;s)=\frac{ 2\, p^2}{b}
\int_{-1}^1 {\rm d}x\, k\, J_1(kb)\, F^{NN}_{m}(k^2;s)$$ for $m=3,4,7,8$; and lastly $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{(2)}_{NN}(b;s)&=&2\, p^2\int_{-1}^1 {\rm d}x\,
J_0(kb)\, F^{NN}_{2}(k^2;s)
+\frac{ 2\, p^2}{b} \int_{-1}^1 {\rm d}x\, k\,
J_1(kb)\, F^{NN}_{5}(k^2;s) \ , \\
\Gamma^{(5)}_{NN}(b;s)&=&\frac{ 2\, p^2}{b^2}
\int_{-1}^1 {\rm d}x\, k^2\, \left[ J_0(kb)-
\frac{2}{k\, b}J_1(kb)\right] \, F^{NN}_{5}(k^2;s) \ .\end{aligned}$$ In obtaining the integrals above, we made the variable change $k \rightarrow 2\,p\, {\rm sin}(\theta/2)=
2\, p\, \sqrt{(1-x)/2}$ with $x={\rm cos}\,\theta$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove a Noether–Lefschetz-type result for certain linear systems on a projective threefold with isolated singularities.'
address: 'Institut für Mathematik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany'
author:
- Remke Kloosterman
bibliography:
- 'remke2.bib'
title: 'Noether–Lefschetz theorem for hypersurface sections of singular threefolds'
---
Introduction
============
Let $X\subset {\mathbf{P}}^N$ be a smooth threefold and fix a degree $d\geq 1$. Let $H$ be a very general hypersurface of degree $d$ and let $X_H$ be the intersection $X\cap H$. The Noether–Lefschetz theorem now states that either the Picard numbers or $X$ and $X_H$ coincide or the geometric genus of $X_H$ vanishes.
The aim of this paper is to extend this to the case where $X$ has isolated singularities. However, if $X$ is not ${\mathbf{Q}}$-factorial then the Picard numbers of $X$ and $X_H$ differ. To exclude such examples we will require $h^4(X)=1$. We will make a further assumption in order to simplify our proof, namely we assume that $X$ admits a small resolution. However, we believe that with much more work one can avoid posing this condition. Our main result is
Let $X\subset {\mathbf{P}}^N$ be a threefold with isolated singularities, such that $h^4(X)=1$ holds. Suppose that $X$ admits a (non-projective) small resolution. Then for a very general hypersurface $H$ of degree $d\geq 1$ we have that either $\rho(X_H)=1$ or $p_g(X_H)=0$ holds.
The strategy of the proof is similar to the classical proof of the Noether–Lefschetz theorem as one can find for example in [@Voi2]: Let $Y=X_H$. Then we can consider $Y$ as a hypersurface in $X$ as well as a hypersurface in a small resolution $X'$ of $X$. On $X'$ we can construct Lefschetz pencils to produce vanishing cycles. We show that the monodromy acts transitively on the set of vanishing cycles. We also show that the subspace $H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}$ generated by the vanishing cycles and $j^*H^2(X')$ generate $H^2(Y)$. From the properties of small resolution it follows easily that $h^2(X')=1$. Since the monodromy acts irreducibly on $H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}$, it follows that the $H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}$ cannot contain a non-trivial Hodge substructure. Therefore $H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}$ is either of pure of type $(1,1)$ (and $p_g(Y)=0$) or does not contain a sub-Hodge structure of pure type $(1,1)$ and, in particular, the rank of $H^2(Y,{\mathbf{Z}})\cap H^{1,1}(X,{\mathbf{C}})$ is at most $h^2(X')$, which turns out to be one.
The main difficulty in extending the proof for Noether–Lefschetz theorem to our situation is to prove the existence of the decomposition $H^2(Y)=H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}\oplus j^*H^2(X')$. The proof in [@Voi2] uses the hard Lefschetz theorem to obtain this decomposition. The hard Lefschetz theorem requires $X'$ to be Kähler. However, if $X$ is singular and $X$ admits a small resolution, which is Kähler, then $h^4(X)>1$ holds. Hence we cannot apply the hard Lefschetz theorem on $X'$. To avoid this problem we could pass to the big resolution $\tilde{X}$ of $X$. However on $Y$ is not ample on $X$ and therefore we cannot apply the hard Lefschetz theorem on $\tilde{X}$. Instead we give an ad hoc argument that the cup-product with the fundamental class of $Y$ defines an isomorphism $H^2(X')\to H^4(X')$ and that is where we use the assumption $h^4(X)=1$.
Our main motivation for this result lies in an application. In [@KloNod] we prove that a nodal compete intersection threefold with defect and without induced defect has at least $\sum_{i\leq j} (d_i-1)(d_j-1)$ nodes. In the proof we work with a nodal threefold satisfying $h^4(X)=1$ and we apply several times the main result of this paper.
The proof
=========
We try to follow the proof from [@Voi2] as much as possible. We start by giving a preliminary result on small resolutions.
\[lembe\] Let $X$ be a projective threefold with isolated singularities admitting a small resolution $X'$. Then $$h^2(X')=h^4(X')=h^4(X).$$
Consider the Mayer–Vietoris sequence of the square, i.e. the triangle $H^\bullet(X)\to H^{\bullet}(X')\oplus H^{\bullet}(\Delta) \to H^{\bullet}(E)$, where $E$ is the exceptional locus and $\Delta$ the singular locus of $X$ [@PSbook ?]. Since $E$ is one-dimensional we obtain $h^3(E)=h^4(E)=0$ and therefore that $H^4(X)\to H^4(X')$ is an isomorphism. Using Poincaré duality we get $h^2(X')=h^4(X')$.
If $X\subset {\mathbf{P}}^N$ is smooth then the discriminant of $X$ (which is also the dual variety of $X$) is an irreducible variety. The corresponding result for the case of singular threefolds is as follows:
\[lemDis\] Let $X\subset {\mathbf{P}}^N$ be a projective threefold with isolated singularities. Then the discriminant $\Delta$ of $X$ in $({\mathbf{P}}^N)^*$ is the union of $\#X_{\operatorname{sing}}$ hyperplanes together with one irreducible component $\Delta^0$.
Let $p$ be a singular point of $X$. Then each hyperplane through $p$ is contained in the discriminant. Since these hyperplanes form a hyperplane in $({\mathbf{P}}^N)^*$ they form an irreducible component $\Delta_p$ of $\Delta$.
Consider next the set $$Z:=\{(x,H)\mid x\in X\setminus X_{\operatorname{sing}} \mbox{ and } x\in (X_H)_{\operatorname{sing}}\}$$ Then the projection $Z\to X$ is a ${\mathbf{P}}^{N-4}$-bundle. In particular, $Z$ is irreducible. The projection of $Z$ to the second factor is $\Delta\setminus \cup_{p\in X_{\operatorname{sing}}} \Delta_p$. Hence there is precisely one irreducible component of $\Delta$ which is not contained in $\cup_{p\in X_{\operatorname{sing}}} \Delta_p$.
We will use this result to construct a Lefschetz pencil on $X'$:
Fix now a line $\ell \in ({\mathbf{P}}^N)^*$ such that $\ell$ intersects $\Delta$ transversally in its smooth locus. Moreover, if $\dim \Delta^0<N-1$ then $\ell$ does not intersect $\Delta^0$. In particular, $\ell$ avoids any intersection point of two irreducible components of $\Delta$. Now $\ell$ defines a one-parameter family of hyperplane sections $X_t$ of $X$. Consider now the pull-back $X'_t$ of $X_t$ to $X'$.
We have that $X'_t$ is smooth if and only if $t\not \in \Delta^0\cap \ell$.
Suppose $t$ is such that $X_t$ is contained in the smooth locus of $X$ then $X_t\cong X'_t$ and the statement is trivial
Suppose now that $t$ is such that $X_t$ contains at least one of the singular points of $X$. Then $t\in\Delta_p$ for some $p\in X_{\operatorname{sing}}$ and $p$ is a singular point of $X_t$. Since $\ell$ intersects $\Delta$ in its smooth locus we have that $t\not \in \Delta_q$, for $q\neq p$ and that $t\not \in \Delta^0$. Hence $X_t$ is smooth away from $p$. The map $X'_t\to X_t$ is the blow-up of $p$ in $X_t$ and therefore $X'_t$ is smooth.
The pencil $X'_t$ is a Lefschetz pencil.
If $X'_t$ is singular then $t$ is smooth point of $\Delta^0$. This implies that $\ell$ intersects $\Delta^0$ and since $X_t$ is a Lefschetz pencil we obtain that $\dim \Delta^0=N-1$. Then the same reasoning as in [@Voi2 Lemma 2.7, Corollary 2.8] yields that $X'_t$ has one singular point and that this point is a node. Therefore $X'_t$ is a Lefschetz pencil.
Let $\tilde{X}$ be a resolution of the map $X'\dashrightarrow {\mathbf{P}}^1$ induced by this pencil, i.e., the blow-up of the base locus of the pencil on $X'$. Let $U\subset {\mathbf{P}}^1$ be the locus of points with smooth fibers in $\tilde{X}$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $0,\infty\in U$ and that $X_0\cong X_0'$ and $X_{\infty}\cong X'_{\infty}$.
\[vangen\] Let $i_0:X_0\to \tilde{X}\setminus X_{\infty}$ be the inclusion. Then $$i_{0*}:H_k(X_0,{\mathbf{Z}})\to H_k(\tilde{X}\setminus X_{\infty},{\mathbf{Z}})$$ is an isomorphism for $k\leq 1$. The map $i_{0*}$ is surjective for $k=2$ with kernel generated by the vanishing cycles.
If $X=X'$ (i.e., $X$ is smooth) then this follows from [@Voi2 Corollary 2.20]. If $X$ is singular then $X'$ is not Kähler, and therefore we cannot directly apply [@Voi2 Corollary 2.20]. However, the proof can be extended to the non-Kähler case. Voisin shows first that $\tilde{X}\setminus X_{\infty}$ has the homotopy type of the union of $X_0$ with 3-dimensional balls glued along 2-dimensional balls. The proof of this uses several times Ehresmann’s theorem and Morse theory and carries over to our case. Then the claim follows from excision and the local version of this claim [@Voi2 Corollary 2.17].
Let $j:X_0\to X'$ be the inclusion. The kernel of $j_*:H^2(X_0,{\mathbf{Q}})\to H^4(X',{\mathbf{Q}})$ is generated by the vanishing cycles.
Let $B$ be the base locus of the Lefschetz pencil $X'_t$. Then $H^4(\tilde{X})=H^4(X')\oplus H^2(B)$ and therefore $H_2(\tilde{X})=H_2(X')\oplus H_0(B)$.
Note that the morphism $j_*:H^2(X_0)\to H^4(X')$ is the Poincaré dual of $j_*:H_2(X_0)\to H_2(X')$. We can obtain this map by compsing $H_2(X_0)\to H_2(\tilde{X}\setminus X_{\infty})$ with the map $H_2(\tilde{X}\setminus X_{\infty}) \to H_2(\tilde{X})=H_2(X')\oplus H_0(B)$ and then projecting to the first factor.
The kernel of the first map is generated by the vanishing cycles by Lemma \[vangen\]. The second map is injective by the same argument as in [@Voi2 Corollary 2.23] and the map $H_2(X')\oplus H_0(B)\to H_2(X')$ is injective when restricted to the image of $H_2(X_0)$.
All vanishing cycles are conjugated under the monodromy action.
The proof of [@Voi2 Proposition 3.23] extends to our case: The only non-trivial thing to check is the irreducibility of the locus of hyperplanes $H$ such that the pull-back of $X\cap H$ to $X'$ is singular. But this locus is precisely the irreducible component $\Delta^0$ (Lemma \[lemDis\]).
Let $X\subset {\mathbf{P}}^n$ be threefold with isolated singularities and $H$ a hypersurface. Let $Y=X\cap Y$ and $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ be the inclusion. Denote with $H^k(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}$ the kernel of $i_*:H^k(Y)\to H^{k+2}(X)$.
If $h^4(X)=1$ holds then $$H^2(Y) = H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}\oplus j^* H^2(X').$$
Note that we have $h^4(X')=h^2(X')=1$ by Lemma \[lembe\] and hence that $h^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}+h^2(X')=h^2(Y)$. Hence it suffices to prove $H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}\cap j^* H^2(X')=0$. So let $\beta\in H^2(X')$ be such that $j^*\beta\in H^2(Y)_{\operatorname{van}}$. In other words $j_*j^*\beta=0$. We claim now that $j_*j^*:H^2(X',{\mathbf{Q}})\to H^4(X',{\mathbf{Q}})$ is an isomorphism. Since both the domain and the target space are one-dimensional, it suffices to show that this map is non-zero. The map $j_*j^*$ is the cup product with $[Y]$. Since $[Y]^3$ is non-zero we have that $[Y]^2$ is also non-zero and therefore $j_*j^*([H])\neq 0$. Hence $j_*j^*$ is non-zero and therefore $\beta=0$.
In [@Voi2] the assumption $h^4(X)=1$ is not necessary. Voisin shows that $h^2(X')\to H^4(X')$ is an isomorphism by applying Hard Lefschetz. Since $X'$ is not Kähler we cannot apply this result directly.
Let $X\subset {\mathbf{P}}^N$ be a threefold with isolated singularities, such that $h^4(X)=1$. Suppose that $X$ admits a (non-projective) small resolution. Then for a very general hypersurface $H$ of fixed degree $d\geq 1$ we have that either $\rho(X_H)=1$ holds or $X_H$ is a surface with $p_g=0$.
Since $H^2(X_H)_{\operatorname{van}}$ is generated by the vanishing cycles and the vanishing cycles are conjugated under the monodromy we have that the monodromy representation on $H^2(X_H)_{\operatorname{van}}$ is irreducible (cf. the proof of [@Voi2 Theorem 3.27]). This implies that for a very general $X_H$ the Hodge structure of $H^2(X_H)_{\operatorname{van}}$ is irreducible (cf. [@Voi2 Corollary 3.28]). Hence if for a very general $X_H$ we have $H^2(X_H)_{\operatorname{van}}\cap H^{1,1}\neq 0$ then $H^2(Y)$ is of pure $(1,1)$-type and therefore $X_H$ satisfies $p_g=0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Galaxy interactions expel a significant amount of stars and gas into the surrounding environment. I review the formation and evolution of the tidal debris spawned during these collisions, and describe how this evolution depends on the large scale environment in which the galaxies live. In addition to acting as a long-lived tracer of the interaction history of galaxies, the evolution of this material – on both large scales and small – has important ramifications for galactic recycling processes, the feeding of the intracluster light and intracluster medium within galaxy clusters, and the delayed formation of galactic disks and dwarf galaxies.'
author:
- 'J. Christopher Mihos'
title: The Evolution of Tidal Debris
---
epsf
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{}
=
\#1[ ]{} 1.25in .125in .25in
The Physics of Tidal Tails
==========================
The large-scale dynamical evolution of tidal debris is governed largely by simple gravitational physics. As first elegantly shown in simulations by Toomre & Toomre (1972) and Wright (1972), the tidal forces acting on spiral galaxies during a close encounter, coupled with the galaxies’ rotational motion, draw out long slender “tidal tails” of gas and stars. An example of this process is shown in Figure 1. As the galaxies pass by each other on the first passage, tidal forces give disk material sufficient energy to escape the inner potential well. The symmetric nature of tidal forces means that streams are torn off both the near side and far side (with respect to pericenter) of the disks; the near side material forms a tidal “bridge” between the disks (which typically does not physically connect, depending on orbital geometry) while the far side material forms the tidal tails. The formation of tidal tails is a strong function of the orbital geometry – tidal tails are strongest in prograde encounters where the spin and orbital angular momentum vectors are (even moderately) aligned, while retrograde encounters yield weak tails at best. The length of the tidal tails is further pronounced due to the orbital decay of the merging pair (Barnes 1988), which causes the galaxies to “fall away” from their tails as they merge together.
Once launched, tidal tails are not in simple expansion. Figure 2 shows the kinematic structure of the tidal tails shown in Figure 1, observed 1/2 Gyr after the merger is complete. Most of the material remains bound to the remnant on loosely bound elliptical orbits, with only the relatively small fraction at the tip of the tails being unbound. The radial velocity curve shows this orbital structure well: the loosely bound outer portion of the tails are still expanding, while material at the base of the tails has already reach apocenter and has started falling back in towards the merger remnant. This velocity structure results in a continual stretching of the tidal tails – they are long-lived and do not simply expand away, although their surface brightness drops rapidly due to this dynamical evolution (Mihos 1995). One important caveat to this description is the depth of the galaxies’ potential well: a deep potential well provided by extended dark matter halos will result in less unbound material and a more rapid fall-back of the tidal debris to the parent galaxy (Dubinski 1996, 1999; Springel & White 1999).
The material forming the tidal tails comes from a wide range of initial radii in the progenitor disks. During close passages, tidal forces are effective at dredging up material from the inner disk and expelling it into the tidal debris. In the simulation shown in Figure 1, scaled to Milky Way sized progenitors, the extended tidal tails are formed from material originally outside the solar circle, while the loops and shells which fall back in the first Gyr after the merger include a significant amount of material from the solar circle and inwards. This “tidal dredge-up” means that tidal debris will be moderately metal rich, since it is not simply the outer parts of the disks involved. To demonstrate this effect, we imprint a metallicity distribution on the stellar disk model of d\[Fe/H\]/dR = $-0.05$ kpc$^{-1}
$, normalized to solar metallicity at the solar circle. Observed 1/2 Gyr after the merger is complete, we see that a significant amount of the debris in the outer (stellar) tidal tails has metallicities above 1/3 solar. A similar exercise for the gas skews the results towards lower metallicities, for a number of reasons. Gas disks are typically more extended than stellar disks; for a similar radial gradient there will be more low metallicity material in the gas than the stars. Additionally, the gas from the inner regions, which would have provided higher metallicity gas in the tails, does not survive the tidal expulsion process; instead shocks and gravitational torques drive the gas inwards to the center of the remnant where it fuels the merger-induced starburst instead (Mihos & Hernquist 1996; Barnes & Hernquist 1996).
Galactic Recycling
==================
While on large scales the evolution of tidal debris is largely a gravitational phenomenon, on smaller scales a variety of mechanisms can drive structure formation within the tidal tails. Overdensities can form in the tidal tails either through gravitational collapse of small scale instabilities in the progenitor disks (Barnes & Hernquist 1992) or by cooling and fragmentation of structure in the tidal expelled gas (Elmegreen 1993). This has led to the suggestion that dwarf galaxies may form within the tidal debris of merging galaxies. Observations have detected a number of discrete, often star-forming, sources in the tidal debris of interacting galaxies (Duc, these proceedings); whether or not these are truly bound objects destined to become dwarf galaxies remains to be seen.
We can use simulations of interacting galaxies to make predictions for the properties of any tidally spawned dwarfs. Coming from material stripped from their progenitor disks, they should have moderate metallicities and travel on loosely bound, highly eccentric orbits (Hibbard & Mihos 1995). They are unlikely to have significant amounts of dark matter, since the kinematically hot dark matter will not collapse into the shallow potential wells (Barnes & Hernquist 1992) formed from small-scale instabilities in the tails. Finally, these tidal dwarfs may well show different generations of stellar populations, as they arise in a mixed medium of old stellar disk material and young stars formed from the gaseous tidal debris.
The dynamical stretching of the tidal debris means that it should be hard for these condensations to grow continuously. On small scales, bound structures can form, but continual accretion onto these structures will be limited by shear in the surrounding material. In this context, it is important to make a cautionary note about claims that large, tidally spawned HI complexes are often found preferentially at the end of optical tidal tails. Dynamically it is unclear why this would be – HI tails often extend much further out than the optical tails do, and there is not clear reason why the “end of the optical tails" should be a dynamically important spot. It is more likely that many of these objects are the result of projection effects. Tidal tails are curved, and a sightline which passes along the tangent point to a curving tail will not only give the appearance of marking the end of the tail, but also will project along a large column of HI, artificially giving the impression that a massive HI complex lives at the end of a tidal tails (see Hibbard, these proceedings, but also Bournaud 2003 for an alternative view).
The other context in which tidal debris is important in galactic recycling is the return of gas from the infalling tidal debris. As shown in §1, material in the tidal tails remains bound, and will continue to fall back to the remnant over many Gyr. The return is ordered (Hibbard & Mihos 1995); the first material to return is the most bound, lowest angular momentum material, which will fall back to small radius. As the remnant evolves, high angular momentum, loosely bound material will fall back to increasingly larger radius.
This long-lived “rain” of tidal debris on the merger remnant manifests itself in a number of ways. Diffuse loops and shells form as the stars fall back through and wrap around the remnant, while the infalling gas can dissipate energy and settle into a warped, rotating disk (Mihos & Hernquist 1996; Naab & Burkert 2001; Barnes 2002), such as those found in the nearby elliptical galaxies NGC 4753 (Steiman-Cameron 1992) and Centaurus A (Nicholson 1992). The most loosely bound tidal material forms less-well organized structures outside of a few effective radii as it falls back, and may be the source of the extended HI gas found in shells and broken rings around many elliptical galaxies (Schminovich & van Gorkom 1997). More speculatively, if the returning gas can efficiently form stars, this process provides a mechanism for rebuilding stellar disks. For example, the gaseous disk inside the merger remnant NGC 7252 is rapidly forming stars (Hibbard 1994), and may ultimately result in a kiloparsec-scale stellar disk embedded in the $r^{1\over 4}$ spheroid formed in the merger. If significant amount of tidal material exists to reform a stellar disk, it may even be possible for the remnant to eventually evolve towards a bulge-dominated S0 or Sa galaxy (Schweizer 1998).
Tidal Debris in Clusters
========================
Many dynamical avenues are available to drive tidal evolution in cluster galaxies. The most obvious is the cluster potential itself, particularly for galaxies whose orbit takes them close to the cluster center (Henriksen & Byrd 1996). More recently, the importance of repeated, fast collisions in stripping cluster galaxies has been emphasized by Moore (1996, 1998). However, because of the large velocity dispersion within galaxy clusters, conventional wisdom held that strong interactions and mergers between cluster galaxies were rare (Ostriker 1980).
More recently, a greater understanding of the nature of hierarchical clustering is changing this view. While slow encounters are rare for an individual galaxy falling into a well-established environment (Ghigna 1998), many galaxies are accreted onto clusters from within the small group environment. Clusters show ample evidence for substructure in X-rays, galaxy populations, and velocity structure (see, reviews by Buote 2002; Girardi & Biviano 2002). Interactions within infalling groups can be strong – witness, for example, the classic interacting pair “the Mice” (NGC 4676), found in the outskirts of the Coma cluster. Clearly strong interactions can and do occur during the evolution of clusters, either early as the cluster forms, or late as groups are accreted from the field.
The effects of the cluster potential on the evolution of tidal debris during a slow encounter can be dramatic. To illustrate this, Fig 3 shows the evolution of the same merger shown in Fig 1, except this time occurring in a Coma-like cluster potential. The orbit of the galaxy pair in the cluster carries it within 0.5 Mpc of the cluster core, with an orbital period of $\sim$ 3.5 Gyr. As the galaxies merge, the very loosely bound material forming the tidal tails is now subjected to the large scale tidal field of the cluster, and is very efficiently stripped out of the galactic potential altogether.
An extremely important facet of this kind of encounter is the enhanced efficiency of the tidal stripping. This is shown in Figure 4, which shows the fraction of material stripped to large radius ($r>35$ kpc, or approximately 5 $R_e$ in the simulation) in the field and cluster versions of the simulations, as well as in a single disk galaxy on the same cluster orbit. The combination of the local and cluster tides causes significant stripping – encounters of galaxies in small infalling groups effectively “prime the pump" for the cluster tides to do their work. Indeed, the [*individual*]{} disk galaxy is hardly tidally stripped at all, suggesting that estimates of tidal stripping based on the tidal radius of individual galaxies falling into a cluster potential may significantly underestimate the effect.
The combined effects of galactic and cluster tides not only raise the efficiency of tidal stripping, they also result in particularly [*deep*]{} stripping. That is, the stronger galactic tides can strip material out from deep in the galaxies’ potential well, which is then vulnerable to the gentler but long-lived cluster tides that liberate it entirely. As a result, the stripped material will be relatively high in metallicity, coming from the inner parts of the disk, and has a mean metallicity of \[Fe/H\]=$-0.25$, with a significant spread. This has important consequences for studies of the intracluster light (ICL), particularly in terms of searches for individual intracluster stars which are sensitive to the metallicity of the population (Durrell etal 2002).
In terms of galactic recycling, the cluster has the effect of essentially shutting down various recycling paths. The ability for tidal tails to grow large tidal dwarfs may be extremely limited, as the cluster tides rapidly disperse the tidal material. The hot intracluster medium may also act to heat the tidal gas, making it difficult to form stars. If any dwarfs or, on smaller scales, star clusters do form in the tidal debris, they will be rapidly stripped from their hosts, perhaps contributing to the populations of cluster dwarfs or intracluster globular clusters.
The cluster will also shut down reaccretion from the tidal tails spawned during a merger. The combination of cluster tides and ram pressure stripping from a hot intracluster medium will “sweep clean" the tidal debris and any low density gas that might remain in the remnants. For example, the diffuse HI disk in the merger remnant Centaurus A (Nicholson 1992) is unlikely to survive any passage through the hot ICM of a dense cluster. Models for forming S0 galaxies from mergers of galaxies followed by reformation or survival of a gaseous disk (Bekki 1998, or see the discussion in Schweizer 1998) seem difficult to envision in the dense cluster environment. However, the S0 classification is a very diverse one, and the mechanism which gives rise to disky cluster S0’s may well be quite different than the merger mechanisms hypothesized to give rise to bulge-dominated S0’s in the field environment.
The Formation of Intracluster Light
===================================
As galaxies orbit in the cluster environment, they are subject to tidal stripping from a variety of sources – interactions with individual galaxies, with groups of galaxies, or with the global cluster potential itself (see, the discussion in Gnedin 2003). Over time, this stripped starlight builds up the diffuse intracluster light found in clusters of galaxies. The properties of this ICL – its luminosity, morphological structure, metallicity, and kinematics – and their correlation with cluster properties can help unravel the dynamical history of cluster collapse, accretion, and evolution. To date, theoretical work has largely focused on tidal stripping from individual galaxies orbiting in an evolved cluster potential (Merritt 1983; Richstone & Malamuth 1983; Moore 1996; Calcáneo-Roldán 2000) and ignored two important effects: preprocessing in groups, and heating by substructure (Gnedin 2003). Full cosmologically-motivated simulations are needed to study the phenomenon in detail (Dubinski 2001; Napolitano 2003; Mihos 2004).
An example of these models is shown in Figure 5 (from Mihos 2004). In this simulation, we have excised a cluster from a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological simulation and traced it back to $z=2$. At that point we identify dark matter halos more massive than $10^{11}$ M$_{\solar}$ which destined to end up in the $z=0$ cluster and replace them with composite (collisionless) disk/halo galaxy models. The simulation is then run forward to the present day to examine the formation of tidal debris and the ICL. In essence, this simulation follows the contribution to the ICL from luminous galaxies, rather than from the stripping of low mass dwarfs. In this simulation, we see significant kinematic and spatial substructure at early times; at late times much of this substructure has been well mixed into a diffuse intracluster light. However, at low surface brightnesses, significant substructure remains even at $z=0$.
Detecting this ICL has proved difficult, as at its [*brightest*]{}, the ICL is only $\sim$1% of the brightness of the night sky. Efforts to detect this ICL include deep surface photometry to look for the diffuse ICL (Uson 1991; Bernstein 1995; Gonzalez 2000; Feldmeier 2002), as well as imaging of individual stars and planetary nebulae in nearby clusters (Ferguson 1998; Feldmeier 1998; Arnaboldi 2002). Recently, these surveys have begun to reveal interesting substructure in the ICL, often in the form of diffuse arcs or streaks of material from tidally stripped galaxies (Trentham & Mobasher 1998; Gregg & West 1998; Calcáneo-Roldán 2000).
To quantify the prevalence and properties of ICL as a function of cluster properties, we have begun a deep imaging survey of clusters using the KPNO 2m (Feldmeier 2002, 2004). We target a variety of clusters, from cD-dominated Bautz-Morgan Type I clusters to Type III clusters which are typified by a more irregular distribution of galaxies. Examples from this survey are shown in Figure X. The massive cD cluster Abell 1413 is marked by regular distribution of diffuse light, well-fit by a $r^{1\over 4}$ distribution over a large range of radius, with only a moderate excess at large radius and little substructure. In contrast, Abell 1914 shows a variety of features: a fan-like plume projecting from the eastern clump of galaxies, another diffuse plume extending from the galaxy group to the north of the cluster, and a narrow stream extending to the northwest from the cluster center. We see similar behavior in other Abell clusters we have surveyed.
Although the sample size is small, these results are consistent with the expectations that substructure in the ICL is correlated with the dynamical state of the cluster as a whole. As clusters are assembled, the ICL is built up though the significant tidal stripping that occurs during interactions within the accreting groups, and between galaxies and substructure within the cluster. Does the total amount of ICL also correlate with Bautz-Morgan cluster type? Examining ICL measurements from a variety of sources, Ciardullo (this conference) find only a weak dependence – the ICL fraction rises as expected from Type III to Type II clusters, but Type I (cD-dominated) clusters show fractionally less ICL than do the Type II’s. However, the drop in the Type I’s is likely due to the difficulty in distinguishing the ICL from the diffuse envelope of the cD galaxy itself; indeed, such distinction may not even be well motivated, since the cD envelope itself likely is formed from tidally stripped material. Including the luminosity of the cD envelope in the ICL budget would raise the fractional amount of ICL in Type I clusters and bring the trend in line with expectations from the dynamical models for generating ICL in clusters.
Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2002, , 123, 760 Barnes, J. E. 1988, , 331, 699 Barnes, J. E. 2002, , 333, 481 Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1992, Nature, 360, 715 Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1996, , 471, 115 Bekki, K. 1998, , 502, L133 Bernstein, G. M., Nichol, R. C., Tyson, J. A., Ulmer, M. P., & Wittman, D. 1995, , 110, 1507 Bournaud, F., Duc, P.-A., & Masset, F. 2003, astro-ph/0309812 Buote, D. A. 2002, in Merging Processes in Galaxy Clusters, ed. L. Feretti, I. M. Gioia, & G. Giovannini (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 79 Calcáneo-Roldán, C. , Moore, B. , Bland-Hawthorn, J., Malin, D., & Sadler, E. M. 2000, , 314, 324 Dubinski, J. 1998, , 502, 141 Dubinski, J., Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L 1996, , 462, 576 Dubinski, J., Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L 1999, , 526, 607 Dubinski, J., Murali, C., & Ouyed, R. 2001, unpublished preprint Durrell, P. R., Ciardullo, R., Feldmeier, J., Jacoby, G. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2002, , 570, 119 Elmegreen, B. G., Kaufman, M., & Thomasson, M. 1993, , 412, 90 Feldmeier, J. J., Ciardullo, R., & Jacoby, G. H. 1998, , 503, 109 Feldmeier, J. J., Mihos, J. C., Morrison, H. L., Harding, P., & Kaib, N. 2004, in preparation Feldmeier, J. J., Mihos, J. C., Morrison, H. L., Rodney, S. A., & Harding, P. 2002, , 575, 779 Ferguson, H. C., Tanvir, N. R., & von Hippel, T. 1998, Nature, 391, 461 Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., & Stadel, J. 1998, , 300, 146 Girardi, M., & Biviano, A. 2002, in Merging Processes in Galaxy Clusters, ed. L. Feretti, I. M. Gioia, & G. Giovannini (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 39 Gnedin, O. Y. 2003, , 582, 141 Gonzalez, A. H., Zabludoff, A. I., Zaritsky, D., & Dalcanton, J. J. 2000, , 536, 561 Gregg, M. D., & West, M. J. 1998, Nature, 396, 549 Henriksen, M., & Byrd, G. 1996, , 459, 82 Hibbard, J. E., Guhathakurta, P., van Gorkom, J. H., & Schweizer, F. 1994, , 107, 67 Hibbard, J. E., & Mihos, J. C. 1995, , 110, 140 Malumuth, E. M., & Richstone, D. O. 1984, , 276, 413 Merritt, D. 1983, , 264, 24 Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, , 464, 641 Mihos, J. C. 1995, , 438, L75 Mihos, J. C., McBride, C. K., Kaib, N., Feldmeier, J., Morrison, H., Harding, P. 2004, in prep. Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613 Moore, B., Lake, G., & Katz, N. 1998, , 495, 139 Naab, T., & Burkert, A. 2001, in The Central Kpc of Starbursts and AGN: The La Palma Connection, ed. J. H. Knapen et al. (San Francisco: ASP), 735 Napolitano, N. R. 2003, , 594, 172 Nicholson, R. A., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Taylor, K. 1992, , 387, 503 Ostriker, J. P. 1980, Comments on Astrophysics, 8, 177 Richstone, D. O., & Malumuth, E. M. 1983, , 268, 30 Schiminovich, D., van Gorkom, J. H., van der Hulst, J. M., & Kasow, S. 1994, , 423, L101 Schweizer, F. 1998, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course 26, Galaxies: Interactions and Induced Star Formation, ed. R. C. Kennicutt, Jr., et al. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 105 Springel, V., & White, S. D. M. 1999, , 307, 162 Steiman-Cameron, T. Y., Kormendy, J., & Durisen, R. H. 1992, , 104, 1339 Toomre, A., & Toomre, J. 1972, , 178, 623 Trentham, N., & Mobasher, B. 1998, , 293, 53 Uson, J. M., Boughn, S. P., & Kuhn, J. R. 1991, , 369, 46 van Gorkom, J., & Schiminovich, D. 1997, in The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies, 2nd Stromlo Symposium, ed. M. Arnaboldi, G. S. Da Costa, & P. Saha (San Francisco: ASP), 310 Wright, A. E. 1972, , 157, 309
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\mbox{Tianzheng Wang} & \mbox{Ryan Johnson} & \mbox{Alan Fekete} & \mbox{Ippokratis Pandis}\\
\mbox{\affaddr{University of Toronto}} &
\mbox{\affaddr{LogicBlox}} &
\mbox{\affaddr{University of Sydney}} &
\mbox{\affaddr{Amazon Web Services}}\\
\mbox{\sf [email protected]} &
\mbox{\sf [email protected]} &
\mbox{\sf [email protected]} &
\mbox{\small\sf [email protected]}
\end{array}
$
bibliography:
- 'citations.bib'
title: |
Efficiently making (almost) any\
concurrency control mechanism serializable
---
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors gratefully acknowledge Goetz Graefe and Harumi Kuno for their invaluable suggestions and input they provided during the development of SSN, as well as Kangnyeon Kim for his help building the prototype. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that greatly improved this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
\
Department of Phyiscs & Astronomy and Cyclotron Institute, Texas A[&]{}M University, College Station, TX 77843\
E-mail:
title: 'Dilepton Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions'
---
Introduction
============
Electromagnetic (EM) radiation off the expanding medium created in energetic collision of heavy nuclei may provide a pristine glimpse at the hot QCD matter formed in these reactions. However, the measured spectra constitute, radiation yields integrated over the entire lifetime of the fireball. To effectively discriminate the different components in the spectra (e.g., primordial production, early QGP radiation, hot/dense matter around $T_c$ and late hadronic emission), the full richness of this observable needs to be exploited. In this regard, and advantageous feature of the local thermal emission rate, $$\frac{dN_{ll}}{d^4xd^4q} = \frac{\alpha_{\rm EM}^2 L(M)}{6\pi^3 M^2} \
f^B(q_0;T) \ \rho_{\rm EM}(M,q;\mu_B,T) \ ,
\label{rate}$$ is its separate dependence on the invariant mass ($M$) and 3-momentum ($q$) through the vector spectral function, $\rho_{\rm EM}$, of the medium. On the one hand, the $M$-dependence encodes the dynamical effects of the microscopic interactions governing its shape (e.g., information on the degrees of freedom or chiral symmetry restoration). On the other hand, the momentum dependence mostly probes the kinematics of the medium, i.e., the interplay of decreasing temperature and increasing blue shift in the fireball expansion, well-known from hadron spectra at thermal freeze-out. For EM radiation, this interplay is encoded in a superposition of all phases of the fireball, and thus requires further disentangling. The main lever arm here is the competition between the Bose factor, $f^B$, favoring early phases, and the emitting 3-volume, $V_{\rm FB}$, favoring late phases. Since the temperature sensitivity of the Bose factor increases exponentially at large energies (i.e., large mass, large 3-momentum, or both), the latter prevail at high temperatures, while the weaker sensitivity at small $q_0$ shifts the main emission to smaller temperatures where the radiating volume grows with an inverse power in $T$. At a quantitative level, the temperature/density dependence of the spectral function also figures into these considerations, especially in the low-mass regime (LMR, $M\le 1$GeV). Another valuable diagnostic tool that has recently become available in the EM sector is the elliptic flow. Since for EM spectra the $v_2$ is a weighted sum over all phases, its magnitude, relative to the final-state hadrons, can serve as another indicator of the emission time; in typical hydrodynamic evolutions at RHIC, the bulk elliptic flow takes about 5fm/$c$ to develop most of its strength. Clearly, robust interpretations of the spectral shape of the emitted radiation need to be in concert with a good control over the emission temperatures.
In the following, we will first give an update on implications of hadronic medium effects in the vector spectral function for chiral restoration and introduce Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) emission rates motivated by thermal lattice-QCD (lQCD) computations (Sec. \[sec\_rates\]). This also raises the issue of consistency of microscopic emission rates and the equation of state (EoS) governing the bulk evolution, in particular the local temperature. We will then turn to a discussion of low-mass dilepton spectra from SPS to top RHIC energy, and address recent measurements of spectra and elliptic flow of direct photons at RHIC and LHC (Sec. \[sec\_spectra\]). A brief conclusion is given in Sec. \[sec\_concl\].
Thermal EM Emission Rates and Chiral Symmetry Restoration {#sec_rates}
=========================================================
Effective hadronic Lagrangians, combining chiral pion interactions with resonance excitations, implemented into finite-temperature field theory, have been widely applied to evaluate vector-meson spectral functions in hot and/or dense hadronic matter, see, e.g., Ref. [@Rapp:2009yu; @Leupold:2009kz] for recent reviews. The generic outcome of these calculations is an appreciable broadening of the spectral peaks with little, if any, mass shift, provided that the parameters of the vacuum Lagrangian (coupling constants and bare masses) are not subject to in-medium changes. For the $\rho$ meson, the broadening amounts to a few hundred MeV at hadronic densities of $\varrho_h$=0.2fm$^{-3}$, leading to its melting when extrapolated into the regime of the expected QCD phase boundary ($T_{\rm pc}$$\simeq$170MeV), cf. the black lines in Fig. \[fig\_VAspec\]. The dissolution of the hadronic resonance structure suggests a change of the relevant degrees of freedom in the system, and thus may be interpreted as an indicator of deconfinement [@Dominguez:1989bz]. Another issue is if and how these medium effects signal the restoration of the spontaneously broken chiral symmetry. This is quantified by Weinberg sum rules (WSRs) [@Weinberg:1967; @Das:1967ek], $$f_n = - \int\limits_0^\infty ds \ s^n \
\left[\rho_V(s) - \rho_A(s) \right] \ ,
\label{wsr}$$ which relate moments of the difference between the isovector-vector and -axialvector spectral function to order parameters of chiral breaking, $f_{-2} = f_\pi^2 \langle r_\pi^2\rangle/3 - F_A$, $f_{-1} = f_\pi^2$, $f_0 = f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2$, $f_1 = -2\pi \alpha_s \langle {\cal O}_4^\chi \rangle$ ($r_\pi$: pion charge radius, $F_A$: coupling constant for the radiative pion decay, $\langle {\cal O}_4^\chi \rangle$: chirally breaking 4-quark condensate). These sum rules remain valid at finite temperature [@Kapusta:1993hq], independently at each 3-momentum for longitudinal and transverse components. Ideally, one would compute both in-medium spectral function in a chiral approach, evaluate the integrals and test for agreement with the order parameters, as given, e.g., by thermal lQCD. However, realistic calculations of the in-medium axialvector spectral function are not yet available. In Ref. [@Hohler:2012fj], a more modest question has been addressed, namely whether solutions to Weinberg and QCD sum rules, with order parameters from lQCD as available, can be found using existing in-medium calculations of the $\rho$ spectral function [@Hohler:2012xd]. Toward this end, a quantitative fit to the axial-/vector $\tau$ data was employed which accurately satisfies the sum rules in vacuum. In this fit, Breit-Wigner ansätze for the $a_1$ and excited resonances ($\rho'$ and $a_1'$) have been used, and their masses and widths were required to change monotonically with temperature.
![Isovector-vector and -axialvector spectral functions in vacuum (left panel) and at finite temperature (middle panel: $T$=140MeV, right panel: $T$=170MeV) [@Hohler:2012fj].[]{data-label="fig_VAspec"}](VAspecVac.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![Isovector-vector and -axialvector spectral functions in vacuum (left panel) and at finite temperature (middle panel: $T$=140MeV, right panel: $T$=170MeV) [@Hohler:2012fj].[]{data-label="fig_VAspec"}](VAspec140.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![Isovector-vector and -axialvector spectral functions in vacuum (left panel) and at finite temperature (middle panel: $T$=140MeV, right panel: $T$=170MeV) [@Hohler:2012fj].[]{data-label="fig_VAspec"}](VAspec170.eps){width="100.00000%"}
A viable solution was indeed found, with the resulting spectral functions clearly exhibiting their mutual approach toward degeneracy, see Fig. \[fig\_VAspec\]. While this is not a proof of chiral restoration, it nevertheless shows that a strongly broadened $\rho$ spectral function, as will be used in applications to dilepton data below, is [*compatible*]{} with it. Another indication for this compatibility arises from the realization that the processes generating the $\rho$ broadening (resonances and pion cloud modifications) find their counterparts in reducing the chiral condensate. In dilute matter, the latter decreases according to [@Gerber:1988tt] $$\frac{\langle\bar qq\rangle (T,\mu_B)}{\langle \bar qq\rangle_0} \ = \
1-\sum\limits_h \frac{\varrho_h^s \Sigma_h}{m_\pi^2 f_\pi^2}
\label{qqbar-med}$$ ($\varrho_h^s$: scalar density), where $\Sigma_h = m_q \langle h|\bar qq|h\rangle$ is characterized by the scalar quark number inside hadron $h$; it can be decomposed into contributions from its quark core and pion cloud [@Jameson:1992; @Birse:1992], $\Sigma_h = \Sigma_h^{\rm core} + \Sigma_h^{\pi}$, which are roughly equal in magnitude (in analogy to the medium effects in the dilepton rate, see left panel of Fig. \[fig\_rates\]). The resulting suppression of the quark condensate from a (non-interacting) hadron resonance gas reproduces lQCD calculations rather well [@Borsanyi:2010bp].
![Thermal dilepton rates (integrated over 3-momentum) in hot/dense matter characteristic for top SPS energy (left panel) and top RHIC energy (right panel). The former shows the total hadronic rate and its decomposition into pion-cloud and resonance channels while the latter compares the total vacuum and in-medium hadronic rates to QGP emission within the hard-thermal-loop approach [@Braaten:1990wp] and lQCD [@Ding:2010ga].[]{data-label="fig_rates"}](drdm2-Inx160.eps){width="92.00000%"}
Progress has been made in extracting the QGP emission rate from lQCD at zero pair momentum, $q$=0 [@Ding:2010ga; @Brandt:2012jc]. Applications to experiment require the extension to finite $q$; in Ref. [@Rapp:2013nxa] this has been constructed by implementing the $q$=$q_0$ dependence of the perturbative photon rate and matching it to the conductivity in lQCD. The $q$-integrated rates are similar in shape to the hard-thermal-loop results, albeit quantitatively somewhat smaller in the LMR. One reason for this could be the smaller number of degrees of freedom that characterize the (nonperturbative) QGP in lQCD relative to the perturbative system underlying the HTL rates. It is thus important to maintain consistency between emission rates and EoS in applications to heavy-ion collisions (as will be done below). One also sees from the right panel of Fig. \[fig\_rates\] that, for temperatures around $T$=170MeV, the bottom-up extrapolated in-medium hadronic rates approximately coincide with the top-down extrapolated QGP rates.
Microscopic calculations of in-medium dilepton rates can be straightforwardly carried to the photon point, i.e., $M$=0 and $q_0$=$q$. For hadronic rates this has been done in Ref. [@Turbide:2003si], where, in addition, $\omega$ $t$-channel exchange in $\pi\rho\to\pi\gamma$ has been identified as an important photon source at $q_t{\raisebox{-4pt}{$\,\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}\,$}}1.5$GeV. It turns out that the hadronic emission rate is quite comparable to the complete leading-order QGP rate [@Arnold:2001ms] in the vicinity of $T_{\rm pc}$.
EM Spectra in Heavy-Ion Collisions {#sec_spectra}
==================================
In the following we confront the models of in-medium hadronic and QGP rates (as discussed above), after folding over thermal fireballs constrained by hadron data (yields, spectra and $v_2$), to dilepton (Sec. \[sec\_dilep\]) and photon data (Sec. \[sec\_phot\]) at SPS, RHIC and LHC.
Low-Mass Dileptons {#sec_dilep}
------------------
![Dimuon excess spectra in In-In($\sqrt{s}$=17.3GeV) collisions at SPS as measured by NA60 (acceptance corrected) [@Arnaldi:2006jq], compared to theoretical calculations with in-medium vector spectral functions (left panel) [@Rapp:2009yu], and illustrating their sensitivity to the QGP EoS (right panel).[]{data-label="fig_na60"}](dndm-na60.eps){width="98.00000%"}
In the NA60 dimuon excess spectra [@Arnaldi:2006jq] the contributions from final-state hadron decays could be subtracted thanks to excellent statistics and mass resolution. In the LMR, the predictions of a melting $\rho$ resonance agree well with the data, while continuum radiation from multi-hadron annihilation and the QGP figures for $M$>1GeV (Fig. \[fig\_na60\] left). The relative contributions and spectral shape (as given by the in-medium spectral function and overall Bose factor) in the [*invariant*]{}-mass spectra are determined by the temperature profile of the fireball, cooling from $T_i$$\simeq$200MeV to $T_{\rm fo}$$\simeq$120MeV, with little sensitivity to the expansion dynamics. The overall yield could not be accurately predicted, but rather allows to extract the (average) fireball lifetime as $\tau_{\rm FB}$=6.5$\pm$1fm/$c$. The impact of replacing a first-order by a lQCD EoS is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_na60\] right. In the LMR, the QGP yield increases at the expense of the hadronic one, resulting in a very similar total. However, at intermediate mass, larger QGP temperatures resulting from the nonperturbative reduction of the lattice EoS increase the total yield significantly, which is favored by the data.
![Excitation function of dielectron spectra from CERES/NA45 [@Agakichiev:2005ai] at $\sqrt{s}$=8.8GeV (upper left) and 17.3GeV (upper right) and from STAR at $\sqrt{s}$=19.6, 62.4 and 200GeV (lower panels) [@Geurts:2012rv].[]{data-label="fig_excit"}](dndm-ceres40.eps){width="95.00000%"}
![Excitation function of dielectron spectra from CERES/NA45 [@Agakichiev:2005ai] at $\sqrt{s}$=8.8GeV (upper left) and 17.3GeV (upper right) and from STAR at $\sqrt{s}$=19.6, 62.4 and 200GeV (lower panels) [@Geurts:2012rv].[]{data-label="fig_excit"}](dndm-ceres.eps){width="95.00000%"}
![Excitation function of dielectron spectra from CERES/NA45 [@Agakichiev:2005ai] at $\sqrt{s}$=8.8GeV (upper left) and 17.3GeV (upper right) and from STAR at $\sqrt{s}$=19.6, 62.4 and 200GeV (lower panels) [@Geurts:2012rv].[]{data-label="fig_excit"}](dNdM-star-excit.ps){width="98.00000%"}
Dielectron measurements from the SPS and RHIC are summarized in Fig. \[fig\_excit\]. The recent STAR data from the RHIC beam-energy scan [@Geurts:2012rv] constitute a first systematic excitation function, establishing consistency with previous SPS results [@Agakichiev:2005ai]. The strongly broadened $\rho$ spectral function plus a moderate QGP contribution, as found at the SPS, describe the data up to top RHIC energy. This indicates a universal emission source, with large contributions from around $T_{\rm pc}$ and hadronic medium effects driven by baryons and antibaryons. We recall, however, that these calculations cannot explain the large low-mass, low-momentum enhancement observed by PHENIX in central Au-Au, while the central STAR data tend to be slightly overestimated around $M$$\simeq$0.2GeV.
Direct Photons {#sec_phot}
--------------
Direct photon radiation has been measured at RHIC and LHC and also shows a substantial excess over primordial and final-state hadron decay sources. The excess spectra carry inverse slopes of $T_{\rm eff}=221\pm27$MeV (RHIC) [@Adare:2008ab] and $301\pm51$MeV (LHC) [@Wilde:2012wc], and an appreciable $v_2$. The latter is difficult to explain by early QGP radiation, but the inverse slopes actually point at “later" emission as well. Using the blue-shift expression, $T_{\rm eff}\simeq T \sqrt{(1+\beta)/(1-\beta)}$, with an average radial flow velocity of $\beta$=0.3-0.4, leads to emission temperatures of $T$$\simeq$160-200MeV and renders a large $v_2$ plausible. Nevertheless, it is not easily reproduced in realistic calculations.
![Direct photon spectra (left panels) and elliptic flow (right panels) in 0-20% Au-Au($\sqrt{s}$=200GeV) at RHIC (upper panels) and 0-40% PbPb($\sqrt{s}$=2.76TeV) at LHC (lower panels).[]{data-label="fig_gam"}](dndqt-gam-0-20-rhic.eps){width="98.00000%"}
![Direct photon spectra (left panels) and elliptic flow (right panels) in 0-20% Au-Au($\sqrt{s}$=200GeV) at RHIC (upper panels) and 0-40% PbPb($\sqrt{s}$=2.76TeV) at LHC (lower panels).[]{data-label="fig_gam"}](v2-gam-0-20-rhic.eps){width="98.00000%"}
![Direct photon spectra (left panels) and elliptic flow (right panels) in 0-20% Au-Au($\sqrt{s}$=200GeV) at RHIC (upper panels) and 0-40% PbPb($\sqrt{s}$=2.76TeV) at LHC (lower panels).[]{data-label="fig_gam"}](v2-gam-0-40-lhc.eps){width="98.00000%"}
In Ref. [@vanHees:2011vb], LO QGP and in-medium hadronic rates have been evolved over a thermal fireball model. The latter has been constrained by measured hadron spectra and $v_2$, with a key feature of the bulk-$v_2$ leveling off around $T_{\rm pc}$, i.e., after ca. 5-6 fm/$c$ into the evolution of Au-Au at RHIC. This is not necessarily the case in hydrodynamic simulations [@Chatterjee:2009ys; @Dion:2011pp], but can be realized when utilizing a non-zero initial flow together with a rather compact initial energy density profile [@He:2011zx]. This, in particular, leads to the realization of “sequential freezeout", i.e., the kinetic decoupling of multi-strange hadrons ($\phi$, $\Xi$, $\Omega^-$) at chemical freezeout, $T_{\rm ch} \simeq T_{\rm pc}$. The resulting thermal photon spectra lead to approximate agreement with the PHENIX data, while the $v_2$ is at the lower end of the experimental uncertainty. At the LHC, the agreement with preliminary data in 0-40% Pb-Pb(2.76ATeV) is fair. The $q_t$ spectra illustrate a significant reshuffling of QGP and hadronic contributions when switching from first-order to lQCD EoS, reiterating the large contributions from around $T_{\rm pc}$.
Conclusions {#sec_concl}
===========
Electromagnetic radiation in heavy-ion collisions continues to illuminate the properties of the formed medium. Low-mass dilepton spectra and their interpretation are developing into a rather consistent picture, where the melting of the $\rho$ meson established at SPS seems to prevail also at RHIC. We have argued that this melting is theoretically compatible with chiral symmetry restoration and suggestive for a gradual change in the effective degrees of freedom in the system. Taken together with the temperature slopes extracted from the invariant-mass spectra, we may well have evidence for the long-sought for radiation from the QCD transition region. The inverse slopes and remarkable $v_2$ in the direct photons support this interpretation, even though a full theoretical understanding has not yet been achieved (possibly calling for additionally enhanced photon rates around $T_{\rm pc}$, and/or initial-state effects [@Bzdak:2012fr]). Clearly, a dilepton $v_2$ measurement, as well as precision mass spectra at collider energies, are needed to further test and deepen our understanding.
[**Acknowledgment**]{}\
This work has been supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grants no. PHY-0969394 and PHY-1306359, and by the A.-v.-Humboldt Foundation.
[99]{} R. Rapp, J. Wambach and H. van Hees, in [*Relativistic Heavy-Ion Physics*]{}, edited by R. Stock and Landolt Börnstein (Springer), New Series [**I/23A**]{} (2010) 4-1 \[arXiv:0901.3289\[hep-ph\]\].
S. Leupold, V. Metag and U. Mosel, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**19**]{}, 147 (2010). P.M. Hohler and R. Rapp, EPJ Web Conf. [**36**]{}, 00012 (2012); in preparation (2013). C.A. Dominguez and M. Loewe, Phys. Lett. B [**233**]{}, 201 (1989). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **18**, 507 (1967).
T. Das, V.S. Mathur, and S. Okubo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **19**, 859 (1967).
J.I. Kapusta and E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 4694 (1994).
P.M. Hohler and R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A [**892**]{}, 58 (2012). P. Gerber and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B [**321**]{}, 387 (1989). I. Jameson, A.W. Thomas and G. Chanfray, J. Phys. G [**18**]{}, L159 (1992).
M.C. Birse and J.A. McGovern, Phys. Lett. [**B292**]{}, 242 (1992).
E. Braaten, R.D. Pisarski, and T.-C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **64**, 2242 (1990).
H.T. Ding [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 034504 (2011). S. Borsanyi [*et al.*]{} \[Wuppertal-Budapest Coll.\], JHEP [**1009**]{}, 073 (2010). B.B. Brandt, A. Francis, H.B. Meyer and H. Wittig, JHEP [**1303**]{}, 100 (2013).
R. Rapp, arXiv:1304.2309 \[hep-ph\].
S. Turbide, R. Rapp and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 014903 (2004). P.B. Arnold, G.D. Moore and L.G. Yaffe, JHEP [**0112**]{}, 009 (2001). R. Arnaldi et al. \[NA60 Coll.\], Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 162302 (2006); [*Eur. Phys. J. C*]{} [**61**]{}, 711 (2009).
G. Agakichiev [*et al.*]{} \[NA45 Coll.\], Eur. Phys. J. [**C41**]{}, 475 (2005); Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 042301 (2003). F. Geurts [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Coll.\], Nucl. Phys. A904-905 [**2013**]{}, 217c (2013). A. Adare [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Coll.\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 132301 (2010); [*ibid.*]{} [**109**]{}, 122302 (2012).
M. Wilde [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Coll.\], Nucl. Phys. [**A904-905**]{}, 573c (2013); arXiv:1212.3995 \[hep-ex\]. H. van Hees, C. Gale and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C [**84**]{} (2011) 054906. M. He, R.J. Fries and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 044911 (2012). R. Chatterjee, D.K. Srivastava and U. Heinz, arXiv:0901.3270 \[nucl-th\]. M. Dion [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**84**]{}, 064901 (2011). H. van Hees [*et al.*]{}, in preparation (2013).
A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 192301 (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study self-propelled particles with velocity reversal interacting by uniaxial (nematic) alignment within a coarse-grained hydrodynamic theory. Combining analytical and numerical continuation techniques, we show that the physics of this active system is essentially controlled by the reversal frequency. In particular, we find that elongated, high-density, ordered patterns, called bands, emerge via subcritical bifurcations from spatially homogeneous states. Our analysis reveals further that the interaction of bands is weakly attractive and, consequently, bands fuse upon collision in analogy with nonequilibrium nucleation processes. Moreover, we demonstrate that a renormalized positive line tension can be assigned to stable bands below a critical reversal rate, beyond which they are transversally unstable. In addition, we discuss the kinetic roughening of bands as well as their nonlinear dynamics close to the threshold of transversal instability. Altogether, the reduction of the multi-particle system onto the dynamics of bands provides a framework to understand the impact of the reversal frequency on the emerging nonequilibrium patterns in self-propelled particle systems. In this regard, our results constitute a proof-of-principle in favor of the hypothesis in microbiology that reversal of gliding rod-shaped bacteria regulates the occurrence of various self-organized pattens observed during life-cycle phases.'
author:
- 'Robert Gro[ß]{}mann'
- Fernando Peruani
- 'Markus B[ä]{}r'
title: 'Mesoscale pattern formation of self-propelled rods with velocity reversal'
---
Introduction
============
Revealing the physical laws underlying nonequilibrium pattern formation processes in active matter systems, characterized by the permanent conversion of energy into directed motion at the microscale, is central to modern statistical mechanics [@ramaswamy_mechanics_2010; @vicsek_collective_2012; @romanczuk_active_2012; @marchetti_hydrodynamics_2013; @menzel_tuned_2015]. Dry active matter, composed of self-propelled particles interacting via a velocity alignment mechanism, was classified so far into three potentially different *universality classes* [@ramaswamy_mechanics_2010; @marchetti_hydrodynamics_2013]: polar fluids, self-propelled rods (SPR) and active nematics (AN). Polar fluids, which have been extensively studied in the context of flocking [@couzin_collective_2002; @schaller_polar_2010; @deseigne_collective_2010; @vicsek_collective_2012; @ginelli_intermittent_2015], are identified by a ferromagnetic alignment symmetry [@vicsek_novel_1995; @toner_long_1995; @toner_flocks_1998; @chate_collective_2008; @toner_reanalysis_2012]. Systems with nematic (uniaxial) alignment, namely AN [@ramaswamy_active_2003; @chate_simple_2006; @ngo_large_2014] and SPR [@peruani_noneq_2006; @peruani_mean_2008; @baskaran_enhanced_2008; @baskaran_hydrodynamics_2008; @ginelli_large_2010; @peshkov_nonlinear_2012; @abkenar_collective_2013; @weitz_selfpropelled_2015; @nishiguchi_long_2016], are distinguished by transport properties: while particles exhibit diffusive back and forth motion at all time-scales in AN, SPR display persistent motion and their instantaneous particle velocity is well-defined. We point out that self-propelled particles with nematic velocity alignment that have the ability to reverse their velocity at a finite frequency represent a model system allowing to interpolate between SPR and AN which are contained as limiting cases of low and high reversal frequency, respectively. Notably, there are also microbiological systems exhibiting nematic alignment and velocity reversal, e.g. the bacterial species *Myxococcus xanthus* [@shimkets_induction_1982; @starrus_pattern_2012] or *Paenibacillus dendritiformis* [@beer_periodic_2013]. In particular, the patterns observed during the lifecycle of myxobacteria depend on the adaption of the reversal rate of individual bacteria [@jelsbak_pattern_2002; @igoshin_biochemical_2004; @zhang_quantifying_2011]. In experiments, non-reversing mutants form large clusters [@peruani_collective_2012], whereas these large-scale structures break up into a network-like dynamic mesh of one-dimensional nematic streams for the reversing wild-type [@starruss_pattern_2012; @thutupalli_directional_2015].
![Nematic order parameter [@chaikin_principles_2000] and corresponding snapshots for simulations of SPR, described by Eq. , for increasing reversal frequency $\lambda$. The crucial dependence of the degree of orientational order and stability of band structures on reversal is evident. Within high density bands, particles are nematically aligned. Parameters: $L_{x,y} \!=\! 400$, $\rho_0 \!=\! 0.4$, $N \!=\! 64 \, 000$, $D_{\varphi} \!=\! 0.07$, $\mu \!=\! \pi$, $v_0 \!=\! 1$, $\beta \! \left( {\mathbf{ r }} \right) \!=\! \Theta \! \left( 1 - {\left | {\mathbf{ r }} \right |} \right)\!/\pi$, $\Delta t \!=\! 0.01$. []{data-label="fig:snapshots"}](./snapshots){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Since numerical simulations of dry active matter systems revealed the intrinsic link of the emergence of order and formation of large-scale band structures [@chate_collective_2008; @ginelli_large_2010; @ngo_large_2014; @putzig_phase_2014], we investigate here the mechanisms leading to collective patterns in ensembles of self-propelled particles with nematic alignment and velocity reversal. Our focus is in particular on the influence of reversal frequency on the nematic ordering and bands as depicted in Fig. \[fig:snapshots\]. A novel analytical expression for periodic band structures is derived and the bifurcation analysis is performed by numerical continuation [@allgower_introduction_2003]. Furthermore, it is shown that bands, which do only exist above a critical system size, are rendered transversally unstable for high reversal rates. Moreover, we argue that band formation can be understood as a nonequilibrium nucleation process implying attractive band interactions. Finally, we discuss the nonlinear stochastic dynamics of bands thereby providing a complete description of the nonequilibrium pattern formation.
Model
=====
We model $N$ self-propelled particles with nematic alignment in two dimensions by the Langevin equations
\[eqn:model\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{{\mathbf{ r }}}_j &= {\mathbf{ v }}[\varphi_j] , \label{eqn:model:a} \\
\dot{\varphi}_j &=\! \mbox{$\sum_{k=1}^N$} \, \mu \beta \! \left ( {\mathbf{ r }}_{kj} \right) \sin \! \left [2 (\varphi_k - \varphi_j) \right] +\! \sqrt{2D_\varphi}\, \eta_j(t) \label{eqn:model:b}. \!\!
\end{aligned}$$
The velocity of each particle, moving at constant speed $v_0$, is determined by its direction of motion $\varphi$ via ${\mathbf{ v }}[\varphi]\! =\! v_0 \! \left ( \cos \varphi, \sin \varphi \right )$. Its position is denoted by ${\mathbf{ r }}_j$. The interaction may generally depend on the inter-particle distance ${\mathbf{ r }}_{kj} \!=\! {\mathbf{ r }}_k - {\mathbf{ r }}_j$ reflected by the kernel $\beta\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }}_{kj} \right)$. We consider short-ranged interactions only: $\beta \!\left( {\mathbf{ r }}_{kj} \right)$ vanishes for distances larger than a characteristic length which is rescaled to one without loss of generality. Stochastic reorientations of particles, due to spatial heterogeneities for instance [@peruani_self_2007; @romanczuk_brownian_2011], are accounted for by Gaussian fluctuations $\eta_j\!\left( t \right)$ with zero mean, ${\left < \eta_j\!\left (t \right ) \right >} \!=\! 0$, and $\delta$-correlations: ${\left < \eta_j\!\left (t \right ) \! \eta_k\!\left (t' \right ) \right >} \!=\! \delta_{jk} \delta \! \left (t-t' \right )$. This model is a continuum time version of the Vicsek model with nematic interactions [@ginelli_large_2010], proposed in [@peruani_mean_2008] as a point-particle model for collective motion of hard SPR [@peruani_noneq_2006].
As a central element, we additionally include velocity reversals [@igoshin_pattern_2001; @boerner_rippling_2002; @igoshin_waves_2004; @zhang_mechanistic_2012; @shi_topological_2013; @shi_instabilities_2014; @balagam_mechanism_2015; @grossmann_diffusion_2016] via $\varphi_j \xrightarrow[]{\; \lambda\;} \varphi_j + \pi$, where $\lambda$ denotes the reversal frequency. We assume a Poissonian reversal process for simplicity, i.e. stochastic waiting times between two subsequent reversals follow the exponential distribution $\psi(t)\!=\! \lambda e^{-\lambda t}$.
Hydrodynamic limit
==================
The large-scale dynamics of self-propelled rods with reversal is addressed within a hydrodynamic theory, which is derived from the Langevin dynamics via the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation [@peruani_mean_2008; @farrell_pattern_2012; @grossmann_active_2012; @*grossmann_vortex_2014]. First, we define the coarse-grained one-particle density $p({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t) \! = \! {\left < \sum_{j} \beta \! \left ( {\mathbf{ r }} - {\mathbf{ r }}_j(t) \right ) \! \delta \! \left ( \varphi - \varphi_j(t) \right ) \! \right >}$, where the kernel $\beta\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }} \right)$ is used for the spatial coarse-graining. Accordingly, $p\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t \right)$ is slowly varying on scales comparable to the interaction range. The Fokker-Planck equation contains two parts, $$\label{eqn:FP_structure}
\partial_t p({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t) = \lambda \! \left [ \textcolor{white}{\frac{a}{b}} \!\!\!\! p \! \left ({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi-\pi,t \right ) - p \! \left ({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t \right ) \right] + \mathcal{L}[p] ,$$ where the first one accounts for reversals and $\mathcal{L}[p]$ is the Fokker-Planck operator for SPR: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:FP_rods}
\mathcal{L}[p] \approx & - \! \mu\, \partial_{\varphi} \! \left [ \int_0^{2\pi} \!\! d\varphi' \sin \! \left [2 \! \left (\varphi' - \varphi \right ) \right ] p \! \left ({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t \right ) p \! \left ({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi'\!,t \right ) \right ] \nonumber \\
& - {\mathbf{ v }}[\varphi] \! \cdot \! \nabla p({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t) + D_\varphi \partial^2_{\varphi} p({\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t) .\end{aligned}$$ The derivation of Eq. relies on the assumptions that $p\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t \right)$ varies slowly in space – valid by construction – and that the probability to find two particles at position ${\mathbf{ r }}$ with orientations $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$ factorizes into the product of one-particle densities in the interaction integral. This constitutes a mean-field approximation [@dean_langevin_1996; @grossmann_superdiffusion_2016]: we focus on the deterministic part of an actual stochastic field theory (saddle point approximation [@zinn_quantum_2002]) for the microscopic density $\tilde{p}=\sum_{j=1}^N \beta \! \left( {\mathbf{ r }} - {\mathbf{ r }}_j(t) \right) \delta \! \left( \varphi - \varphi_j(t) \right)$. The theory can be improved by incorporating noise terms to explain fluctuation-induced shifts of transition points [@solon_revisiting_2013; @grossmann_superdiffusion_2016] or the stability of homogeneous, ordered phases in the thermodynamic limit [@kardar_statistical_2007; @toner_flocks_1998; @toner_reanalysis_2012; @ramaswamy_active_2003; @chen_critical_2014].
Hydrodynamic equations are obtained from the Fokker-Planck equation via a Fourier mode decomposition with respect to the angular variable $\varphi$. The Fourier coefficients $f_n\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)\!=\!\int_0^{2\pi}d\varphi \, p\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},\varphi,t \right) \! e^{i n \varphi}$ are directly related to local order parameters: $f_0\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)$ determines the density, $f_1\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)$ corresponds to the polar order parameter and $f_2\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)$ determines the degree of nematic order, accordingly. Their dynamics is cross-coupled to other modes. We reduce this infinite hierarchy to the slow dynamics of the most relevant fields by an appropriate closure relation that allows to express irrelevant fields by the slow variables. A closure relation basically entails an assumption about the local properties of a given state – it encodes a characteristic lengthscale or, in other words, the closure depends on the smallest lengthscales that a hydrodynamic theory can resolve. Since the nematic alignment interaction in Eq. implies that nematic order is predominant on mesoscopic scales and polar clusters are only found on small scales, we identify the particle density $f_0\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)$ and the nematic order parameter $f_2\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)$ as relevant fields and eliminate other modes (${\left | n \right |}\!\neq0,2$) via $\partial_t f_n\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)= 0$ keeping the leading order terms.
It is convenient to work with natural length- and timescales henceforth by rescaling time, length and amplitudes of the fields by $l \! = \! v_0/\!\sqrt{32 D_\varphi\!\left( 2\lambda + 9 D_\varphi \right)}$, $\tau \! = \! 1/(8D_\varphi)$ and $\mathcal{A} \!=\! 8D_\varphi/\mu$, respectively, via $f_0\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)\!=\!\mathcal{A} \rho\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }}/l,t/\tau \right)$ and $f_2\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)\!=\!\mathcal{A} Q\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }}/l,t/\tau \right)$. We eventually obtain the hydrodynamic limit of the microscopic model
\[eqn:AN\_resc\] $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \rho &\!=\! \mathcal{D} \! \left[ \Delta \rho + \Re \! \left( {\underset{\sim}{\nabla}}^2 Q^* \right) \right] \label{eqn:AN_rescA}\!, \\
\partial_t Q &\!=\! \frac{\mathcal{D}}{2} {\underset{\sim}{\nabla}}^2 \!\rho +\! \left( \hspace{-0.006\columnwidth} 1 \!+\! \frac{\mathcal{D}}{2} \right)\!\Delta Q \! + \! \left[ \hspace{-0.000\columnwidth}\left( \hspace{-0.006\columnwidth}\rho - \frac{1}{2} \right) \! - {\left | Q \right |}^2 \right] \! Q , \label{eqn:AN_rescB}
\end{aligned}$$
where ${\underset{\sim}{\nabla}}\! = \! \partial_x + i \partial_y$ denotes the Wirtinger derivative [@wirtinger_formalen_1927]. The control parameters are the effective density $\bar{\rho}_0 \!=\! \mu \rho_0/\!\left( 8 D_\varphi \right)$, the rescaled system size $\bar{L}_{x,y} \!=\! L_{x,y} \sqrt{32 D_\varphi\!\left( 2\lambda \!+\! 9 D_\varphi \right)} /v_0$ and the coupling coefficient $\mathcal{D} \!=\! \left( 4 \lambda \!+\! 18 D_\varphi \right) \!/\! \left( 2\lambda \!+\! D_\varphi \right)$. Accordingly, transport properties are crucially affected by reversal, speed and rotational noise as reflected by $\bar{L}_{x,y}$: small $\lambda$ and high $v_0$ render the actual system size small.
The closure approximation has another important consequence: Eq. has the form of a reaction-diffusion system [@cross_pattern_1993], in fact it reduces to the field equations for active nematics [@mishra_dynamics_2009] – derived previously from the Vicsek model for active nematics [@chate_simple_2006] via the Boltzmann-Ginzburg-Landau approach [@bertin_mesoscopic_2013; @ngo_large_2014; @peshkov_boltzmann_2014] – even though the small scale transport of individual particles is convective \[cf. Eqs. ,\]. This paradox is resolved by noting that particles flip their velocity – driven by rotational noise or reversals – in a nematic state without affecting the local dynamics which is therefore independent of $\lambda$. Due to velocity reversal, macroscopic transport is diffusive – the derived hydrodynamic equations are valid provided that the distance travelled by a particle in between reversals $v_0/\lambda$ remains considerably smaller than the system size.
Spatially homogeneous solutions {#sec:hom_stab_band}
===============================
As particle-based simulations suggest, cf. Fig. \[fig:snapshots\], the collective dynamics is determined by the emergence of large-scale density instabilities. Spatially homogeneous states ($\rho\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right)\!=\!\bar{\rho}_0$) both, disordered $Q\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right) \!=\! 0$ and ordered ${\left | Q\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right) \right |}\!=\!\sqrt{\bar{\rho}_0 - 1/2}$ do not contribute to the understanding of the observed pattern formation phenomena. This is a feature shared by several active systems [@boltzmann_bertin_2006; @bertin_hydrodynamic_2009; @peshkov_nonlinear_2012; @grossmann_self-propelled_2013; @ngo_large_2014; @caussin_emergent_2014; @putzig_phase_2014; @solon_pattern_2015; @ihle_kinetic_2011; @ihle_large_2015; @ihle_chapman_2016; @mishra_dynamics_2009; @bertin_mesoscopic_2013]. Homogeneously ordered solutions have only been reported for parameter values far away from the order-disorder transition [@toner_long_1995; @toner_flocks_1998; @boltzmann_bertin_2006; @bertin_hydrodynamic_2009; @ginelli_large_2010]. For the system analyzed here, the disordered homogeneous solution gets destabilized at $\bar{\rho}_0 = 1/2$. In the vicinity of this point, the homogeneously ordered state is also unstable [@mishra_dynamics_2009; @bertin_mesoscopic_2013; @putzig_phase_2014] with respect to perturbations that are orthogonal to the orientation of the nematic director (assumed to be parallel to the $y$-axis without loss of generality) for $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho}_0 \! \in \! \left[ \frac{5}{8} \! - \! \frac{2 \pi^2}{\bar{L}_x^2} \! - \! \frac{\sqrt{\bar{L}_x^2 - 32 \pi^2}}{8\bar{L}_x},\frac{5}{8} \! - \! \frac{2 \pi^2}{\bar{L}_x^2} \! + \! \frac{\sqrt{\bar{L}_x^2 - 32 \pi^2}}{8\bar{L}_x} \, \right] \end{aligned}$$ as shown by a blue line in the phase diagram (Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\]).
Emergence of bands
==================
We analyze now the hydrodynamic theory in one dimension with regard to straight band solutions. The coordinate system is oriented such that bands are parallel to the $y$ axis (cf. Fig. \[fig:snapshots\]) and, consequently, $\rho\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right) \!=\! \rho(x,t)$ and $Q\!\left( {\mathbf{ r }},t \right) \!=\! Q(x,t)$. Since particle-based simulations show that high density and nematic order are intrinsically linked, it is insightful to reduce Eqs. to the dynamics of the band profile $B(x,t) \!=\! -Q(x,t)$. The minus sign is introduced for convenience such that $B \!\ge\! 0$. We seek to express the particle density inside a band, denoted by $\rho \!=\! \rho_B$, by the profile $B$. From Eq. , $\rho_B$ is obtained by setting $\partial_t \rho_B \!=\! 0$, whose solution yields $\rho_B \! = \! \bar{\rho}_0 \! + \! B \! - \! M[B]$. The band mass $M[B] \!=\! \bar{L}_x^{-1} \!\int_{-\bar{L}_x/2}^{+\bar{L}_x/2} dx' \, B(x'\!,t)$ ensures the global particle number conservation. Inserting this ansatz into Eq. , the dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Schloegl}
\partial_t B = \partial_{x}^2 B + \left( - \gamma[B] + B - B^2 \right ) \! B \end{aligned}$$ for the band profile is obtained, where $\gamma[B] \! = \! 1/2 \! - \! \bar{\rho}_0 \! + \! M[B]$, notably independent of $\mathcal{D}$. Eq. is a variant of the Schlögl model, a reaction-diffusion equation with bistable local dynamics. It contains an additional global feedback [@schloegl_chemical_1972; @malchow_noise_1985; @schimansky_domain_1991; @schimansky_analysis_1995] via $\gamma[B]$ ensuring particle number conservation. Thus, the hydrodynamic theory in one dimension and the Schlögl model possess the same stationary solutions as well as similar bifurcations points. Notably, the dynamics cannot be understood in terms of a free energy minimization thereby underlining the nonequilibrium nature of the temporal dynamics.
![(a) Illustration of the potential $\mathcal{U}(B)$ for several values of $\gamma$, which determines stationary band solutions. (b) Band profiles $B(x)$ of periodicity $l_B\!=\!33$ (red solid line), $l_B\!=\!50$ (green dashed line) and $l_B\!=\!100$ (blue dotted line) that coexist at the density $\bar{\rho}_0=11/18$, cf. Eq. . []{data-label="fig:bif_1d_a"}](./ana_band_v2ab){width="\columnwidth"}
Setting $\partial_t B = 0$, the problem of finding stationary band solutions is mapped to the motion of a particle in a potential $\mathcal{U}(B) \!=\! - \gamma B^2\!/2 + B^3\!/3 - B^4\!/4$, where $B$ plays the role of position and $x$ is time: $B''(x) \!=\! -d\,\mathcal{U}(B)/dB$. This potential is represented in Fig. \[fig:bif\_1d\_a\] for several values of $\gamma$. Band solutions are found in analogy to closed orbits in classical mechanics [@goldstein_classical_2002]. The family of periodic solutions $$\label{eqn:exact_band11_18}
B(x;m) = \frac{1}{3} \left[ 1 + \sqrt{\frac{2m}{m+1}} \,\mbox{cd} \! \left( \frac{x}{3\sqrt{m+1}},m \right) \right] \! ,$$ parametrized by $m \! \in \! (0,1)$, is found analytically for $\gamma \! = \! 2/9$, corresponding to the global density $\bar{\rho}_0 \!=\! 11/18$. The periodicity of these bands (Fig. \[fig:bif\_1d\_a\]) is determined by $l_B(m)\!=\!12 \sqrt{m+1}\!\cdot\!F\!\left(\pi/2,m\right)$, where $F(x,m)$ denotes the elliptic integral of the first kind and $\mbox{cd}\!\left(x,m\right)$ is a Jacobi elliptic function [@NoteFoot1]. Besides this one-parametric family of periodic solutions, a homoclinic solutions exists ($l_B\!\rightarrow\!\infty$) – relevant in the thermodynamic limit – which was studied in [@bertin_mesoscopic_2013]. A band with periodicity $l_B$ can exist in a system size of length $\bar{L}_x$ if the latter is an integer multiple of $l_B$. We note that bands, represented by oscillations around the minimum of $\mathcal{U}(B)$, emerge above a critical system size only since the minimal period of oscillations – corresponding to $l_B$ – is nonzero for harmonic oscillations.
The numerical continuation [@allgower_introduction_2003] of the analytical solutions reveals that bands emerge via two subcritical bifurcations (Fig. \[fig:bif\_1d\_b\]). Increasing $\bar{\rho}_0$, we observe a (i) linearly stable disordered state, (ii) disordered state coexisting with band solutions, (iii) family of band solutions, (iv) bands coexisting with the ordered state and (v) a linearly stable ordered state. This is also summarized in the phase diagram, see Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\], in accordance with direct simulations of the hydrodynamic equations in [@putzig_phase_2014].
![Bifurcations of band solutions: stable solutions are shown by solid lines, linearly unstable solutions by dashed lines. Black lines represent the bifurcations of spatially homogeneous states. The mass of stable bands $M\!=\!\bar{\rho}_0-5/18$ as predicted by the Schlögl model is indicated by a grey dotted line. []{data-label="fig:bif_1d_b"}](./ana_band_v2c){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
So for parameters for which bands of different period coexist on the deterministic level, the question arises which of these states is most likely observed in a particle-based Langevin simulations including noise. Since the hydrodynamic theory can be mapped to the Schlögl model \[Eq. \], which is a generic model for Ostwald ripening [@schimansky_domain_1991], we expect bands to merge when they come close to each other. Hence, band interaction is attractive. Indeed, the situation shown in Fig. \[fig:snapshots\] is common, i.e. one band develops in the course of time [@ginelli_large_2010] for intermediate system sizes. However, wide bands possess exponential tails such that the interaction of well separated bands is weak. The creation and fusion of bands is driven by noise in this regime.
Transversal band dynamics
=========================
How does a band dynamically evolve given that an initially straight band is weakly modulated transversally? Several responses are conceivable: a restoring force restabilizes the straight band or fluctuations increase in time. We study the transversal band dynamics in terms of the filament $\zeta(y,t)$ determining the center of the band in every cross section parallel to the $x$-axis (Fig. \[fig:band\_2d\]). Using the band profile solutions, we formulate the following ansatz which is based on the fact that the filament dynamics is slow compared to amplitude fluctuations of the band (cf. transversal instabilities of reaction-diffusion fronts [@kuramoto_chemical_2012; @Malevanets_biscale_1995]):
\[eqn:2d:ansatz\] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho({\mathbf{ r }},t) &\simeq \rho_B\! \left (x - \zeta(y,t) \right ) + \delta \rho({\mathbf{ r }},t), \\
Q({\mathbf{ r }},t) &\simeq -B\! \left (x - \zeta(y,t) \right ) + \delta Q({\mathbf{ r }},t) .
\end{aligned}$$
The correction terms $\delta \rho$ and $\delta Q$ account for deformations of band profiles which appear once the band is curved. Hence, these corrections must equal zero for straight bands ($\zeta \! = \! \mbox{const.}$). Accordingly, we expand the perturbations in small gradients of $\zeta$ as
\[eqn:2d:expansion\] $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \rho({\mathbf{ r }},t) &\simeq \mbox{$\sum_{k=1}^\infty$} \delta \rho_k(x) \partial^k_y \zeta(y,t), \\
\delta Q({\mathbf{ r }},t) &\simeq \mbox{$\sum_{k=1}^\infty$} \delta Q_k(x) \partial^k_y \zeta(y,t).
\end{aligned}$$
Along similar lines, the linear filament dynamics is written: $$\label{eqn:fil_lin}
\partial_t \zeta\!\left( y,t \right) \simeq - \mbox{$\sum_{k=1}^\infty$} K_{2k} \partial^{2k}_y \zeta(y,t) .$$ By inserting Eqs. - in the hydrodynamic theory \[Eq. \] and collecting terms of similar order in $\partial_y^k \zeta$, the functions $\delta \rho_k$, $\delta Q_k$ as well as the coefficients $K_{k}$ are perturbatively accessible enabling the construction of the two-dimensional band solution.
![Illustration of a transversally modulated band. The dashed line indicates the filament $\zeta\!\left( y,t \right)$. []{data-label="fig:band_2d"}](./BandCurvedb){width="\columnwidth"}
Now, we restrict the analysis to the second linear order. The linear stability of a straight band $\zeta \! = \! \zeta_0$ is determined by the dispersion relation $\sigma(q_n) \!\simeq \! K_2 q_n^2 - K_4 q_n^4$, constituting the exponential growth rate of a mode corresponding to the wavenumber $q_n \!=\! 2\pi n/\bar{L}_y$ with $n \!\in\! \mathds{Z}$. Due to the translational symmetry, the $q_0$-mode – corresponding to translational shifts – is neutral meaning $\sigma\!\left( q_0 \right) \!=\! 0$ implying that $\zeta(y,t)$ is a slow variable. Our analysis reveals that both, $K_2$ and $K_4$, are positive, thus suggesting that modes in the range $q_n^2 \!\in\! ( 0, K_2/K_4 )$ are unstable. Accordingly, an instability occurs for $\bar{L}_y\! >\! 2 \pi \sqrt{K_4/K_2}$. This includes the transversal instability in the thermodynamic limit as suggested in [@ngo_large_2014]. The estimate for $\bar{L}_y$ allows us to complete the phase diagram by indicating the region of transversally unstable bands (grey-shaded region in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\]). Notice that bands are stable in a wide range of parameter space thus explaining why stable bands are found in particle-based simulations.
Finally, we comment on the stochastic, nonlinear dynamics of bands. The lowest order nonlinearity which is compatible with all symmetries reads $\partial_y (\partial_y \zeta)^3$. Note that the KPZ-like nonlinearity $\left( \partial_y \zeta \right)^2$ is ruled out here by the mirror symmetry $\zeta\to-\zeta$ [@kardar_dynamic_1986; @barabasi_fractal_1995]. Below the transversal instability, all modes $q_n$ are larger than $q_c \! = \! \sqrt{K_2/K_4}$, enabling the approximation $\sigma(q_n) \! \approx \! - K_4 q_n^4$. Hence, the stochastic nonlinear band dynamics below the transversal instability reads $$\partial_t \zeta \simeq - K_4 \partial_y^4 \zeta + \chi \partial_y \!\left ( \partial_y \zeta \right )^3 + \sqrt{2D} \, \xi(y,t) ,$$ where $\chi$ is a phenomenological parameter. In the context of surface growth and molecular beam epitaxy [@sarma_solid_1992; @*Csarma_solid_1992; @*Rsarma_solid_1992; @krug_origins_1997], it has been argued [@lai_kinetic_1991; @sarma_dynamical_1994; @kshirsagar_nonlinearities_1996; @kim_dynamical_1995] that this equation describes roughening according to the Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) class [@edwards_surface_1982]. Thus, stable bands exhibit an effective positive line tension $\tilde{\nu}$ facilitating to recast the filament dynamics in the form $\partial_t \zeta \simeq \tilde{\nu} \partial_y^2 \zeta \!+\! \sqrt{2\epsilon} \, \xi$.
![Phase diagram as a function of $\bar{\rho}_0\!\propto\!\rho_0\mu/D_\varphi$ and the effective system size $\bar{L}_{x,y}\!=\!L_{x,y}\sqrt{32D_\varphi\!\left(2\lambda\!+\!9 D_\varphi\right)}/v_0$ for $\mathcal{D} \!=\! 10$. Thick lines correspond to bifurcation points: the mean-field order-disorder transition for $\bar{\rho}_0 \!=\! 1/2$ is shown in green (dotted); the blue line (solid) indicates the transversal instability of the homogeneously ordered state (derivation not shown, cf. [@mishra_dynamics_2009; @bertin_mesoscopic_2013; @putzig_phase_2014]) and section \[sec:hom\_stab\_band\]; the red (dashed) line shows the saddle-node bifurcation of bands as shown in Fig. \[fig:bif\_1d\_b\] obtained by numerical continuation of the analytical band solution \[Eq. \]. The parameter region corresponding to transversally unstable bands is shown in grey (TI) as predicted from the linearized filament dynamics \[Eq. \]. Since bands are always transversally unstable for $\bar{L}_{x,y} \! \rightarrow \infty$ [@ngo_large_2014], the black solid line will span over the whole range of band existence (within the red, dashed lines). []{data-label="fig:phase_diag"}](./phaseDiagram){width="\columnwidth"}
In order to address the dynamics close to the threshold of transversal instability, it is insightful to introduce the field $\Lambda(y,t) = \partial_y \zeta(y,t)$ obeying $$\label{eqn:modB}
\partial_t \Lambda(y,t) \simeq \partial^2_{y} \! \left[ \chi \Lambda^3 - K_2 \Lambda - K_4 \partial^2_y \Lambda \right]\! + \eta_c(y,t),$$ where $\eta_c(y,t)$ denotes a conserved white Gaussian noise [@tauber_critical_2014]. Accordingly, the dynamics of $\Lambda(y,t)$ is determined by the stochastic *model* $B$ [@hohenberg_theory_1977], also known as *Cahn-Hilliard* equation [@cahn_free_1958]. Thus, the derivative of $\zeta$ is determined locally by $\Lambda \!=\! \pm \sqrt{K_2/\chi}$ for positive $\chi$. The dynamics described by Eq. implies the attraction of points with similar signs of $\Lambda$ leading to a piece-wise constant derivative and, hence, a zig-zag shaped band with at least two turning points (cf. Fig. \[fig:snapshots\]). Eventually, bands are most likely to break apart at these turning points, where the curvature is maximal. Transversally unstable bands may restabilize in rectangular domains along the shortest dimension of the system.
Discussion & outlook
====================
We studied self-propelled rods with velocity reversal, whereby we focused in particular on the emergence and dynamics of nematic band structures. A central step of the analysis was the reduction of the corresponding hydrodynamic field equations to a modified Schlögl model with global feedback. We note that, overall, the phase separation process with the associated symmetry breaking are generic nonequilibrium phenomena without analogues in equilibrium statistical mechanics.
The pattern formation approach adopted in this study is suitable to address emergence and stability of structures in active systems of finite size. It is important to stress that the analysis of the existence of homogeneous ordered phases in the thermodynamic limit requires a field theoretic analysis including fluctuations, enabling to understand how information travels in the system [@toner_long_1995; @toner_flocks_1998; @toner_reanalysis_2012; @ramaswamy_active_2003; @grossmann_superdiffusion_2016]. Whereas the large-scale transport is, for finite reversal rates and $v_0/\lambda\ll L$, arguably diffusive, implying quasi long-range order [@ramaswamy_active_2003], transport properties in the thermodynamic limit for vanishing reversal and the related uniqueness of the SPR universality class remain open theoretical challenges, as recent experiments suggest the emergence of long-range order [@nishiguchi_long_2016].
Concerning experiments, the finding that reversing self-propelled rods self-segregate into elongated nematic streams suggests a potential mechanism for pattern formation in microbiological systems such as myxobacteria: since unstable bands may be rendered stable for low reversal frequencies (see Fig. \[fig:snapshots\]), the initial stage of aggregation could be triggered at the individual level by downregulating the reversal frequency, in line with experimental studies [@jelsbak_pattern_2002] and corresponding simulations [@ginelli_large_2010; @balagam_mechanism_2015]. Experiments further revealed an increasing mean particle speed during the aggregation [@jelsbak_pattern_2002], in turn restabilizing large-scale structures according to our theory. Therefore, the present study suggests that the regulation of velocity reversal is a key element to understand aggregation of several microbiological species. The detailed modeling of these systems may require more realistic models, in particular the consideration of hydrodynamic interactions, the exchange of chemical signals, heterogeneous environments or boundary effects, thereby offering a plethora of potential extensions of the present study.
We thank Lutz Schimansky-Geier, Harald Engel and Igor Sokolov for valuable discussions and critical remarks. R.G. and M.B. acknowledge the support by the German Research Foundation via Grant No. GRK 1558. F.P. acknowledges support from Agence Nationale de la Recherche via Grant ANR-15-CE30-0002-01.
[92]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-070909-104101) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1140/epjst/e2012-01529-y) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1143) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2014.10.001) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2002.3065) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature09312) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.098001) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1073/pnas.1503749112) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1226) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4326) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4828) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.77.046113) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.031918) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0295-5075/62/i=2/a=196) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.180602) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.038302) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.030904) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1140/epjst/e2008-00634-x) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.268101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.77.011920) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.184502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.268701) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevE.88.062314) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.012322) [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.04247) [****, ()](http://jb.asm.org/content/152/1/451.abstract) [ (), 10.1098/rsfs.2012.0034](\doibase 10.1098/rsfs.2012.0034) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1073/pnas.042535699) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1073/pnas.0407111101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1128/JB.05188-11) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.098102) [****, ()](http://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/09/26/rsfs.2012.0034) [**** ()](http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/109/20150049) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.90.042304) [**](\doibase 10.1137/1.9780898719154), Vol. (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.010602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.230601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1073/pnas.221579598) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.078101) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1073/pnas.0400704101) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002715) @noop [**** ()]{} [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/16/i=3/a=035003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004474) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/18/i=4/a=043009) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.248101) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/14/i=7/a=073033) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.258104) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4470/29/i=24/a=001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.040102) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.078101) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/17/i=4/a=042002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01447872) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.65.851) **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{}, () [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/15/i=8/a=085032) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1140/epjst/e2014-02193-y) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.022101) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1751-8121/42/i=44/a=445001) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/15/8/085014) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.148102) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevE.92.062111) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.83.030901) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01379769) @noop [**]{}, Teubner-Texte zur Physik (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01314019) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01313065) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop @noop [**]{}, , Vol. (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.52.4724) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.889) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.3762) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.2509) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.2510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00018739700101498) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2348) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.50.R4275) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.53.R1325) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.51.1889) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rspa.1982.0056) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.49.435) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1744102)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, several hybrid approaches to quantum information emerged which utilize both continuous- and discrete-variable methods and resources at the same time. In this work, we investigate the bipartite hybrid entanglement between a finite-dimensional, discrete-variable quantum system and an infinite-dimensional, continuous-variable quantum system. A classification scheme is presented leading to a distinction between pure hybrid entangled states, mixed hybrid entangled states (those effectively supported by an overall finite-dimensional Hilbert space), and so-called truly hybrid entangled states (those which cannot be described in an overall finite-dimensional Hilbert space). Examples for states of each regime are given and entanglement witnessing as well as quantification are discussed. In particular, using the channel map of a thermal photon noise channel, we find that true hybrid entanglement naturally occurs in physically important settings. Finally, extensions from bipartite to multipartite hybrid entanglement are considered.'
author:
- Karsten Kreis
- Peter van Loock
title: 'Classifying, quantifying, and witnessing qudit-qumode hybrid entanglement'
---
Introduction
============
In quantum-information science, the highly intriguing and nonclassical phenomenon of entanglement is at the heart of virtually all applications [@4Horodeckis]. Being first considered by Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen, presenting the so-called EPR-paradox [@EPR], entanglement has been in the focus of much research, especially in the recent past. However, there are still a lot of open questions remaining. When dealing with entanglement, one normally deals either with purely discrete-variable (DV) quantum states which live in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, or with fully continuous-variable (CV), infinite-dimensional quantum systems. The toolbox for analysis is quite different for the two settings. While in the DV case, density matrices provide a complete and convenient representation, the investigation of CV states, due to their infinite dimensionality, is more subtle. However, at least in the Gaussian case, finitely many first and second moments are sufficient for a compact and complete representation [@Plenio; @Eisert; @Adesso; @Paris; @Braunstein].
Recently, so-called *hybrid* protocols have emerged which utilize both CV and DV resources at once [@PvLx; @Furu; @Spagnolo; @XWang; @SLloyd]. These resources may include CV and DV states as well as CV and DV quantum operations and measurement techniques. It is worth noting that the term *hybrid*, which seems to be quite in vogue at the moment, is used in different contexts in quantum information. For example, there are proposals considering *hybrid* quantum devices which combine elements from atomic and molecular physics as well as from quantum optics and also solid-state physics [@Wallquist]. Furthermore, there is the notion of *hybrid* entanglement, referring to entanglement between different degrees of freedom, for example, the entanglement between spatial and polarization modes [@Neves; @Gabriel]. However, in the present work, we use *hybrid* in the above first-mentioned sense and define *hybrid entanglement* as the entanglement between a finite-dimensional, DV quantum system and an infinite-dimensional, CV quantum system. The prime example is an entangled state between an atomic spin and an electromagnetic mode. As already pointed out, the description of CV and DV states would typically differ. Hence, combining CV and DV quantum systems has its own characterizing and challenging subtleties. So, why would it be useful to consider such hybrid approaches?
In CV quantum computation, Gaussian states as well as Gaussian transformations, such as beam splitting and squeezing, are used. However, to reach computational universality just linear Gaussian elements are not sufficient [@SLloyd2]. At least one non-Gaussian component is necessary. Actually, any quantum computer utilizing only linear elements could be efficiently simulated by a classical computer [@Bartlett]. This single non-Gaussian element is the main challenge in CV quantum computation, as it is very difficult to efficiently realize such non-Gaussian transformations. In DV quantum computation with photons, the encoding of information takes place in a finite-dimensional subspace of the infinite-dimensional Fock space. Just as in the CV case, for deterministic processing, a nonlinear interaction is required to realize DV universality [@Lutkenhaus]. But when truncating the Fock space, only single or few-photon states are left. The drawback of optical DV quantum computation then is that nonlinear interactions on the few-photon level are hard to achieve. Note that a well-known efficient protocol for universal DV computation with only linear optics is still probabilistic (or near-deterministic at the expense of complicated states entangled between sufficiently many photons) [@KLM].
A way out of the problems of CV and DV quantum computation may be provided by those hybrid approaches. The scheme by Gottesman, Kitaev, and Preskill, which makes use of CV Gaussian states and transformations in combination with DV photon number measurements, can be considered one of the first hybrid protocols for quantum computation [@GKP]. So-called non-Gaussian phase states are created from Gaussian two-mode squeezed states with the aid of photon counting measurements. Additionally, the protocol can be considered as hybrid, as it employs the concept of encoding logical DV qubits into CV harmonic oscillator modes (qumodes).
However, there are other situations in which one may benefit from combining CV and DV techniques. For example, hybrid entangled states can be exploited for the generation of coherent-state superpositions within the framework of cavity QED [@Savage]. Furthermore, there are quantum key distribution schemes which make use of hybrid entanglement [@Lorenz; @Rigas; @Wittmann]. Finally, so-called qubus, i.e., quantum-bus-based, schemes have been developed for establishing entanglement between distant qubits. These also involve hybrid entanglement [@qubus1; @qubus2; @qubus3].
We can conclude that hybrid entanglement is a key ingredient of various recent quantum-information protocols. In this paper, we perform a thorough classification of hybrid entangled states with the focus on bipartite hybrid entanglement. Nevertheless, also multipartite hybrid entangled states shall be briefly discussed at the end of the paper. In addition to the derivation of a complete classification scheme, which distinguishes between DV-like hybrid entanglement and true hybrid entanglement, also entanglement witnessing and quantification of hybrid entanglement will be discussed.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:2\], we derive the classification scheme for bipartite hybrid entangled states. First, the non-Gaussianity of hybrid entanglement is proved. Then we introduce an inverse Gram-Schmidt process, which is used for the derivation of the classification scheme. In Sec. \[sec:3\], examples for each class of hybrid entangled states are presented. Section \[sec:4\] briefly discusses multipartite hybrid entanglement, before we give a conclusion in Sec. \[sec:5\]. Appendices \[Apx:PrfLemma\] and \[Apx:AuxCal\] present auxiliary calculations.
Classifying bipartite hybrid entanglement {#sec:2}
=========================================
Let us start with a rigorous definition of bipartite hybrid entanglement.
Any entangled bipartite state of the form $$\label{eq:HEdef}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}^{AB} &=\sum_{n=1}^N p_n\,\ket{\psi_n}_{AB}\bra{\psi_n}\,,\quad p_n>0\;\forall \;n\,;\;\sum_{n=1}^N \;p_n=1, \\
\ket{\psi_n} &=\sum_{m=0}^{d-1} c_{nm}\ket{m}^A\ket{\psi_{nm}}^B\,,\\
c_{nm}&\in\mathbb C\;\forall \;n,m\,;\;\sum_{m=0}^{d-1} \;|c_{nm}|^2=1,
\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq N\leq\infty$ with generally nonorthogonal qumode state vectors $\ket{\psi_{nm}}^B$, defined in the total Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}^{AB}={\mathcal H}_{d}^A\otimes{\mathcal H}_{\infty}^B$ with finite $d\geq2$, is called .
Since every bipartite hybrid entangled state can be written in such a pure-state decomposition, this definition is complete. Note that later, in Sec. \[subsec:2.c\], the rank parameter $N$ will determine one of three possible classes of hybrid entangled states.
Non-Gaussianity {#subsec:2.a}
---------------
How can hybrid entangled states actually be described in a convenient way? Can their entanglement be quantified? For an overall infinite-dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}_{d}^A\otimes{\mathcal H}_{\infty}^B$, using the standard finite-dimensional techniques, density matrices can no longer be employed. So, the use of CV methods can be attempted. However, in CV entanglement theory, the only conveniently representable states are the Gaussian ones. In the non-Gaussian CV regime, for instance, exact entanglement quantification is, in general, hard to achieve. It is therefore useful to ask whether hybrid entangled Gaussian states exist.
\[lem:DVnonG\] Any single-partite $d$-dimensional quantum state with finite $d$ and $d\geq2$ is non-Gaussian.
For the proof of Lemma \[lem:DVnonG\], see Appendix \[Apx:PrfLemma\].
\[thm:hybridnonG\] Any bipartite hybrid entangled or classically correlated state is non-Gaussian .
If a multipartite quantum state is Gaussian, all its subsystems will be Gaussian. So, we consider a state of the form and trace out the CV subsystem. What is left is a $d$-dimensional single-partite system with finite $d$, which can be described in its Fock basis. It is denoted by $\hat{\rho}$. Due to Lemma \[lem:DVnonG\], $\hat{\rho}$ is Gaussian if and only if $\hat{\rho}=\ket{0}\bra{0}$, which is a pure state. However, for any entangled or even classically correlated state, the reduced state cannot be pure [@Audretsch]. Hence, for Gaussian $\hat{\rho}$, the overall system cannot be entangled or classically correlated. Therefore, every bipartite hybrid entangled or classically correlated state is non-Gaussian.
We have found that there are no hybrid entangled Gaussian states. Hence, CV Gaussian tools are inappropriate for the description of hybrid entangled states.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:hybridnonG\] basically relies on Lemma \[lem:DVnonG\], which states that any finite-dimensional DV state with dimension $\geq2$ is non-Gaussian. It is straightforwardly generalized to multipartite systems. Arguing that for Gaussianity *all* subsystems have to be Gaussian, it is sufficient for the non-Gaussianity of any multipartite system which also possesses DV constituent(s) that at least one DV subsystem is of dimension $\geq2$. However, if there shall be entanglement between the DV subsystem and the rest, the state will necessarily be non-Gaussian, since for entanglement dimension, $\geq2$ is required. So, any multipartite quantum state which involves entangled DV subsystems is non-Gaussian. Even more generally, only 1- or infinite-dimensional systems can be Gaussian. This is, of course, not surprising; however, it is worth pointing out that Theorem \[thm:hybridnonG\] is not trivial. Since the *overall* Hilbert space of hybrid entangled systems is indeed infinite-dimensional, it is not *a priori* clear that Gaussian hybrid entangled states do not exist.
We have shown that hybrid entangled states belong to the non-Gaussian, infinite-dimensional Hilbert-space regime, which is not easy to deal with, as we already know from conventional CV entanglement theory. The states can be neither described by proper density matrices nor by covariance matrices. Phase-space representations are also not so convenient, since one of the subsystems is DV. The only known quasi-probability-distribution which may in some cases make direct statements about the separability properties of the state is the Glauber-Sudarshan *P* representation [@WangX; @Duan]. However, it can be easily shown that this function is totally irregular for these highly nonclassical hybrid entangled states. It may still be possible to construct entanglement witnesses, but entanglement quantification appears, in general, hard. Actually, there is a way out of this dilemma: For some hybrid entangled states, the unique Hilbert-space structure can be exploited in such a way that the states can nevertheless be described by density matrices. These states are effectively finite-dimensional and are therefore called DV-like hybrid entangled. This gives rise to a classification scheme of hybrid entangled states. However, for a rigorous analysis we first need to introduce a slightly modified version of the so-called Gram-Schmidt process.
Inverse Gram-Schmidt process {#subsec:2.b}
----------------------------
Consider again a general hybrid entangled state of the form . Depending on the number of mix terms $N$ and the dimension of the DV subsystem $d$, there can be maximally $N\times d$ linearly independent CV qumode states $\ket{\psi_{nm}}^B$ in $\hat{\rho}^{AB}$. The dimension $d$ is always finite due to the definition of hybrid entanglement. However, $N$ may be either finite or infinite and, hence, the number of linearly independent qumode states is either finite or infinite. Furthermore, if $N=1$, the state is pure.
If the number $N\times d$ of linearly independent CV qumode states is finite, they only span an $(N\times d)$-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal H}_{N\times d}$ of the initially infinite-dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}_\infty$. Then, the *Gram-Schmidt process* can be employed to express the qumode states in an orthonormal basis of this finite-dimensional subspace. In this case, the state becomes effectively DV and all the methods from DV entanglement theory can be applied.
The Gram-Schmidt procedure is a method for orthonormalizing a finite, linearly independent set of vectors in an inner product space [@Nielsen]. For a linearly independent set of vectors $\{\ket{\psi_i}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$ (since the process is to be exploited in the framework of Hilbert spaces, the inner product space is *a priori* assumed to be a Hilbert space), a set of pairwise orthonormal vectors $\{\ket{e_i}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$ spanning the same subspace as $\{\ket{\psi_i}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$ is given by $$\label{GSprocess}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{e_1'} &= \ket{\psi_1}\,, & \ket{e_1} &= \frac{\ket{e_1'}}{\sqrt{\braket{e_1'|e_1'}}}\,, \\
\ket{e_2'} &= \ket{\psi_2}-\braket{e_1|\psi_2}\ket{e_1}\,, & \ket{e_2} &= \frac{\ket{e_2'}}{\sqrt{\braket{e_2'|e_2'}}}\,, \\
& \vdots & & \vdots \\
\ket{e_n'} &=\ket{\psi_n}-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\braket{e_i|\psi_n}\ket{e_i}\,,\qquad & \ket{e_n} &=\frac{\ket{e_n'}}{\sqrt{\braket{e_n'|e_n'}}}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Making use of this, any finite set of linearly independent qumode states can be expressed in an orthonormal basis $\{\ket{e_i}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$. However, more specifically, Eqs. only determine how to express the new orthonormal basis in terms of the old nonorthonormal one. What is actually required is the inverse expression. To express the qumode states in terms of $\{\ket{e_i}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$ we try the following approach, which can be considered an *inverse Gram-Schmidt process*, i.e., a modified version of the original Gram-Schmidt process.
\[thm:GSI\] $n$ normalized, generally nonorthogonal, linearly independent states $\{\ket{\psi_i}:i=1,\ldots,n \,;\,0\leq|\braket{\psi_i|\psi_j}|\leq1\,\forall\,i,j\}$ can always be expressed as $\ket{\psi_i}=\sum_{j=1}^ia_{ij}\ket{e_j}$, where $\{\ket{e_i}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$ forms an orthonormal basis of the space spanned by $\{\ket{\psi_i}\}$, and $a_{ij}\in\mathbb C$.
Writing out $\ket{\psi_i}=\sum_{j=1}^ia_{ij}\ket{e_j}$, Theorem \[thm:GSI\] states that the $\{\ket{\psi_i}\}$ can be always written as $$\label{GSprocessInverse}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{\psi_1} &= a_{11}\ket{e_1}\,, \\
\ket{\psi_2} &= a_{21}\ket{e_1}+a_{22}\ket{e_2}\,, \\
\ket{\psi_3} &= a_{31}\ket{e_1}+a_{32}\ket{e_2}+a_{33}\ket{e_3}\,, \\
& \vdots \\
\ket{\psi_n} &= a_{n1}\ket{e_1}+\ldots+a_{nn}\ket{e_n}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{ni}\ket{e_i}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ For the proof, it has to be shown that (1) $\ket{\psi_i}=\sum_{j=1}^ia_{ij}\ket{e_j}$ corresponds to a valid basis transformation and (2) it actually performs the right mapping.
\(1) Write the transformation as $$\ket{\psi_i}=\sum_j T_{ij}\ket{e_j},$$ with the transformation matrix $$T=\begin{pmatrix} a_{11} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
a_{21} & a_{22} & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{n1} & a_{n2} & \cdots & a_{nn}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Due to the normalization of the initial and the new vectors $\sum_{j=1}^i |a_{ij}|^2=1$ is known, and due to the linear independence of the $\{\ket{\psi_i}\}$ also $a_{ii}\neq0\,\forall\,i$ is necessary.
- $\det[T] =\prod_{i=1}^n a_{ii}\neq0$.
- $T$ is invertible.
- $T$ is a valid basis transformation.
\(2) To show that the lower triangular structure of the basis transformation $T$ in combination with the orthonormal basis $\{\ket{e_i}\}$ is sufficient to actually express the $\{\ket{\psi_i}\}$ accurately in terms of $\{\ket{e_i}\}$, it is demonstrated that the $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ parameters $a_{ij}$ can be chosen such that all overlaps $\braket{\psi_i|\psi_j}$ are preserved when the transformation is applied.
On the one hand, there are $n^2$ such overlaps in total and $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ ones with potentially differing absolute values. On the other hand, there are $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ complex parameters $a_{ij}$. From the structure of the basis transformation and the fact that $a_{ij}$ are complex, it is clear that if $a_{ij}$ can be chosen such that the $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$-element set of $\{\braket{\psi_i|\psi_j}:i\leq j\}$ can be preserved, also the rest of the overlaps are preserved, since they are only complex conjugates of the former. Hence, it already becomes reasonable that the $a_{ij}$ can be chosen appropriately.
However, a proper proof is performed by induction in $n$:
*Inductive Basis*: $n=1$. There is only one overlap to be preserved: $$\braket{\psi_1|\psi_1}=1\stackrel{!}{=}\braket{e_1|a_{11}^\ast a_{11}|e_1}=|a_{11}|^2.$$ Hence, choose $a_{11}=1$, which preserves the overlap $\braket{\psi_1|\psi_1}$.
*Inductive Step*: Assume $a_{ij}$ have been calculated for $i\leq n-1$ such that all overlaps $\{\braket{\psi_i|\psi_j}:i,j\leq n-1\}$ are preserved. We show that then also all $a_{nj}$ can be chosen such that the overlaps $\{\braket{\psi_i|\psi_n}:i=1,\ldots,n\}$ are preserved. The complex conjugated overlaps follow automatically as argued before.
Applying the basis transformation, the overlaps $\{\braket{\psi_i|\psi_n}:i=1,\ldots,n-1\}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{\psi_1|\psi_n} &= a_{11}^\ast a_{n1}\,, \\
\braket{\psi_2|\psi_n} &= a_{21}^\ast a_{n1}+a_{22}^\ast a_{n2}\,, \\
& \vdots \\
\braket{\psi_{n-1}|\psi_n} &= a_{n-1,1}^\ast a_{n1} + \ldots + a_{n-1,n-1}^\ast a_{n,n-1} \,.
\end{aligned}$$ As $a_{ij}$ have been calculated for $i\leq n-1$ due to the inductive hypothesis, this is just a system of linear equations, which can be written as an augmented matrix (using $a_{11}^\ast=1$): $$\label{GSIaug}
\begin{pmatrix}[c|cccc]
\braket{\psi_1|\psi_n} & 1 & 0 & \hdots & 0 \\
\braket{\psi_2|\psi_n} & a_{21}^\ast & a_{22}^\ast & & \vdots \\
& \vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
\braket{\psi_{n-1}|\psi_n} & a_{n-1,1}^\ast & a_{n-1,2}^\ast & \hdots & a_{n-1,n-1}^\ast \end{pmatrix}.$$ Since $a_{ii}\neq0\,\forall\,i$, this system of equations is exactly solvable. Hence, $\{a_{nj}:j=1,\ldots,n-1\}$ can be chosen such that $\{\braket{\psi_i|\psi_n}:i=1,\ldots,n-1\}$ are preserved. Therefore, there are only one free parameter $a_{nn}$ and one overlap $\braket{\psi_n|\psi_n}$ to be preserved left: $$\braket{\psi_n|\psi_n}=1\stackrel{!}{=}\sum_{j=1}^n |a_{nj}|^2=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} |a_{nj}|^2 + |a_{nn}|^2.$$ From $\sum_{j=1}^n |a_{nj}|^2=1$ and $a_{nn}\neq 0$, which is already known, $\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} |a_{nj}|^2<1$ follows, and hence $a_{nn}$ can be chosen as $$a_{nn}=\sqrt{1-\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} |a_{nj}|^2}.$$ In the end, also $\braket{\psi_n|\psi_n}$ can be preserved. Therefore, the theorem is valid for $n$ under the assumption of validity for $n-1$. As a conclusion, with the inductive basis it is valid for all $n$.
The proof has been presented in such a great detail, because it is constructive and hence also sets out how to actually compute $\{a_{ij}\}$ for a given set of qumode states. Recalling Eqs. and , $a_{ij}$ can be calculated successively one after another by considering successive overlaps. A parameter $a_{i1}$ is directly obtained from the overlap $\braket{\psi_1|\psi_i}$. Then, $a_{i2}$ follows from $\braket{\psi_2|\psi_i}$ together with the known $a_{i1}$. Likewise, $a_{i3}$ is calculated from $\braket{\psi_3|\psi_i}$, $a_{i1}$ and $a_{i2}$. For the other parameters just go on like this. Hence, the inverse Gram-Schmidt process can be efficiently implemented and computed.
As an example consider the normalized qumode states $\{\ket{\psi_i}:i=1,2,3\}$ with overlaps $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{\psi_1|\psi_2} &= c_1, \\
\braket{\psi_1|\psi_3} &= c_2, \\
\braket{\psi_2|\psi_3} &= c_3.
\end{aligned}$$ They can be expressed in an orthonormal basis $\{\ket{e_i}:i=1,2,3\,,\,\braket{e_i|e_j}=\delta_{ij}\}$ as $$\label{eqGSIinv}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{\psi_1} =& \ket{e_1}, \\
\ket{\psi_2} =& c_1\ket{e_1}+\sqrt{1-|c_1|^2}\ket{e_2}, \\
\ket{\psi_3} =& c_2\ket{e_1}+\frac{c_3-c_1^\ast c_2}{\sqrt{1-|c_1|^2}}\ket{e_2} \\
&+\sqrt{1-|c_2|^2-\frac{|c_3-c_1^\ast c_2|^2}{1-|c_1|^2}}\ket{e_3}.
\end{aligned}$$
Classification scheme {#subsec:2.c}
---------------------
So, once again, consider a state of the form . For $N=1$ the state is pure. Then it contains only $d$ linearly independent qumode states, which span a $d$-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal H}_d^B$. Therefore, with aid of the inverse Gram-Schmidt process these qumode states can be expressed in an orthonormal basis. Then, density matrices can be employed for the description of the overall state, and also a Schmidt decomposition can be performed or pure-state measures such as the entropy of entanglement can be calculated [@Audretsch; @Bennett]. The state is then effectively DV. For $1<N<\infty$, the state is mixed. Nevertheless, it possesses a finite number of $N\times d$ qumode states, which can be again cast in an orthonormal basis. Therefore, also states of this kind are effectively DV and the density matrix formalism can be exploited. However, such states are no longer pure and neither pure-state measures nor a Schmidt decomposition can be applied. Finally, there is the case $N=\infty$. Here, $N=\infty$ refers to those states which can be expressed with infinite $N$ only. These states hold an infinite number of qumode states, which has the effect that the Gram-Schmidt process cannot be applied anymore. Hence, they are not describable by density matrices and therefore no longer effectively DV. Nevertheless, one subsystem does remain DV. These are the states which we call *truly hybrid entangled*.
Summing up, for bipartite hybrid entangled states in a pure-state decomposition with $N$ denoting the number of mix terms in the convex combination of pure-state projectors, there is the following classification scheme:
- $\boldsymbol{N=1:}$ Pure hybrid entangled states.
- Supported by a finite-dimensional subspace.
- $\,\Rightarrow\,$ **DV-like entanglement**.
- Schmidt decomposition applicable.
- DV pure-state measures applicable.
- $\boldsymbol{1<N<\infty:}$ Mixed hybrid entangled states.
- Supported by a finite-dimensional subspace.
- $\,\Rightarrow\,$ **DV-like entanglement**.
- DV mixed-state measures applicable.
- $\boldsymbol{N=\infty:}$ Mixed hybrid entangled states.
- No support by a finite-dimensional subspace.
- $\,\Rightarrow\,$ **True hybrid entanglement**.
- In general no exact measures directly applicable.
- CV entanglement witnesses adaptable.
It should be pointed out that the possibility of applying DV methods on such a wide class of hybrid entangled states is quite remarkable. An initially non-Gaussian infinite-dimensional quantum state, which seems rather awkward at first sight, can finally be conveniently described in terms of density matrices, and in the pure-state case even a Schmidt decomposition can be performed. Nevertheless, there is also the class of states which stay *truly hybrid entangled* and cannot be transformed using the Gram-Schmidt process. As mentioned earlier, in this infinite-dimensional, non-Gaussian regime exact entanglement quantification appears to be hard. However, entanglement witnesses for detecting true hybrid entanglement can be adapted from CV entanglement theory.
Examples and Applications {#sec:3}
=========================
Now, we shall present an example for each class of hybrid entanglement. We shall also point out when these examples correspond to manifestations of entangled states encountered in quantum-information protocols and applications.
Pure qutrit-qumode entanglement {#subsec:3a}
-------------------------------
As an example of pure bipartite hybrid entanglement an entangled state of a qutrit and a qumode system is considered: $$\label{eq:pQtQmS}
\ket{\psi}^{AB} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\Bigl(\ket{e_0}^A\ket{vac}^B+\ket{e_1}^A\ket{\alpha}^B+\ket{e_2}^A\ket{-\alpha}^B\Bigr).$$
\(1) An inverse Gram-Schmidt process with respect to subsystem B yields $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{vac}^B =& \;\;\,\ket{e_0}^B, \\
\ket{\alpha}^B =& x\ket{e_0}^B + \quad\sqrt{1-x^2}\ket{e_1}^B, \\
\ket{-\alpha}^B =& x\ket{e_0}^B - x^2\sqrt{1-x^2}\ket{e_1}^B \notag \\
&+ \sqrt{1-x^2-x^4+x^6}\ket{e_2}^B,\end{aligned}$$ with $x=e^{-\frac{1}{2}|\alpha|^2}$. This corresponds to Eq. . Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\psi}^{AB} =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\Bigl(\ket{e_0}^A\ket{e_0}^B+x\ket{e_1}^A\ket{e_0}^B+\sqrt{1-x^2}\ket{e_1}^A\ket{e_1}^B \\
&+x\ket{e_2}^A\ket{e_0}^B-x^2\sqrt{1-x^2}\ket{e_2}^A\ket{e_1}^B \\
&+\sqrt{1-x^2-x^4+x^6}\ket{e_2}^A\ket{e_2}^B\Bigr),
\end{aligned}$$ which is the effective DV form of the state.
\(2) The pure-state entropy of entanglement of the state can be calculated, which is shown in Fig. \[fig:pQtQmS\]. For $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$ the state becomes maximally entangled ($\alpha$ real).
![(Color online) Entropy of entanglement of the state $\ket{\psi}^{AB}$ of Eq. . For $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$ the state becomes maximally entangled. Note that the entropy of entanglement has been calculated here in qubit entanglement units (ebits: $log\equiv log_2$).[]{data-label="fig:pQtQmS"}](EntropyPQtQm2.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
\(3) Finally, set $x=\frac{1}{2}$, which corresponds to $\alpha=\sqrt{2\ln2}\approx1.18$, and calculate the Schmidt decomposition: $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\psi}^{AB}= &0.76\ket{e_0'}^A\ket{e_0'}^B+0.56\ket{e_1'}^A\ket{e_1'}^B \\
& +0.33\ket{e_2'}^A\ket{e_2'}^B.
\end{aligned}$$ We can also think of other examples for pure bipartite hybrid entangled states. States of the form $$\ket{\psi}^{AB} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{e_0}^A\ket{\psi_0}^B+\ket{e_1}^A\ket{\psi_1}^B\Bigr)$$ are pure bipartite hybrid entangled and relevant for cat-state engineering [@Savage; @PvLx], hybrid quantum communication via qubus approaches [@qubus1; @qubus3], and some quantum key distribution schemes [@Lorenz; @Rigas] \[later, in Sec. \[subsec:3c\], we obtain such a state in Eq. as a special case of Eq. with $\braket{n_{th}}=0$ and $\eta=1$\].
Mixed qubit-qumode entanglement {#subsec:3b}
-------------------------------
Now, we present an example for the class of mixed, but effectively DV hybrid entangled states. Consider the state $$\label{eq:2x3Mstate1}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}^{AB} &= p\,\ket{\phi_+}^{AB}\bra{\phi_+}+(1-p)\,\ket{\phi_-}^{AB}\bra{\phi_-}, \\
\ket{\phi_\pm}^{AB} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{e_0}^A\ket{vac}^B+\ket{e_1}^A\ket{\pm\alpha}^B\Bigr),
\end{aligned}$$ which contains three qumode states $\ket{vac}^B$ and $\ket{\pm\alpha}^B$ with $\alpha\in{\mathbb R}$ (see Fig. \[fig:3x2state\] for a visualization).
![(Color online) Visualization of the hybrid entangled state $\hat{\rho}^{AB}$ of Eq. in phase space. The blue (right) region corresponds to the first pure state in the convex combination with probability $p$, while the green (left) region represents the pure state obtained with probability $1-p$. The additional $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ vectors denote the qubit states associated with the qumode states $\ket{vac}$ and $\ket{\pm\alpha}$.[]{data-label="fig:3x2state"}](QubitQutrit.png){width="8.5cm"}
We perform a Gram-Schmidt process and obtain a qubit-qutrit entangled state in ${\mathcal H}_2^A\otimes{\mathcal H}_3^B$. The pure states in the convex combination of , after the inverse Gram-Schmidt process in an orthonormal basis, look like $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\phi_+}^{AB} =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{e_0}^A\ket{e_0}^B+x\ket{e_1}^A\ket{e_0}^B+\sqrt{1-x^2}\ket{e_1}^A\ket{e_1}^B\Bigr),\\
\ket{\phi_-}^{AB} =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{e_0}^A\ket{e_0}^B+x\ket{e_1}^A\ket{e_0}^B-x^2\sqrt{1-x^2}\ket{e_1}^A\ket{e_1}^B \notag \\
&+\sqrt{1-x^2-x^4+x^6}\ket{e_1}^A\ket{e_2}^B\Bigr),\end{aligned}$$ with $x=\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{1}{2}|\alpha|^2}$. Entanglement quantification can be performed with the logarithmic negativity $E_N$ (see Fig. \[fig:3x2LogNeg\]) [@Vidal; @Eisert2]. For general bipartite mixed states with higher dimension than $2\times 2$, it is basically the only known calculable entanglement monotone, and it is also the most important one for general mixed, effectively DV hybrid entangled states.
![(Color online) Logarithmic negativity of the effective qubit-qutrit hybrid entangled state $\hat{\rho}^{AB}$, Eq. , as a function of probability $p$ and amplitude $\alpha$. For any given $\alpha$ maximal mixing $p=\frac{1}{2}$ yields the smallest entanglement. Furthermore, higher $\alpha$ also results in greater entanglement. For $p=0\lor1$ and $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$ the state becomes maximally entangled ($\alpha \in \mathbb R$).[]{data-label="fig:3x2LogNeg"}](3x2LogNeg.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
It can be seen that for any given $\alpha$ the smallest entanglement is obtained for maximal mixing $p=\frac{1}{2}$. Furthermore, the higher $\alpha$, the more entangled the state is. Finally, for $p=0\lor1$ and $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$ the state approaches maximal entanglement.
We may also consider other mixed bipartite hybrid entangled states which are even effectively DV-like qubit-qubit entangled. Then the concurrence [@Wootters] is a better choice for entanglement quantification. In Sec. \[subsec:3c\], such a state is given in Eq. as a special case of Eq. for $\braket{n_{th}}=0$. Its concurrence is plotted in Fig. \[fig:CADampCh\].
True hybrid entanglement {#subsec:3c}
------------------------
Finally, the third class of bipartite hybrid entangled states is considered, the *truly hybrid entangled* states. Recall their definition corresponding to Eq. with $N=\infty$: $$\label{eq:THEdef}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}^{AB} &=\sum_{n=1}^\infty p_n\,\ket{\psi_n}_{AB}\bra{\psi_n}\,,\qquad p_n>0\;\forall \;n\,,\;\;\;\sum_{n=1}^\infty \;p_n=1, \\
\ket{\psi_n} &=\sum_{m=0}^{d-1} c_{nm}\ket{m}^A\ket{\psi_{nm}}^B\,,\qquad c_{nm}\in\mathbb C\,,\;\;\;\sum_{m=0}^{d-1} \;|c_{nm}|^2=1.
\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen from these equations, truly hybrid entangled states possess an infinite number of qumode states $\ket{\psi_{nm}}^B$. Therefore, the Gram-Schmidt process ceases to work and the states stay in a Hilbert space of the form ${\mathcal H}^A_d\otimes{\mathcal H}^B_\infty$. Hence, they are not effectively DV, but instead really combined $\text{DV}\otimes\text{CV}$ states and therefore *truly* hybrid. Unfortunately, this true “hybridness” has the effect that the states live in an overall infinite-dimensional Hilbert space in the non-Gaussian regime. This makes exact entanglement quantification difficult. Now, we present an example which is relevant for some quantum information protocols.
Consider the state $$\label{eq:noisyQbQm1}
\ket{\psi}^{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{0}^A\ket{\alpha}^B+\ket{1}^A\ket{-\alpha}^B\Bigr),$$ which plays a crucial role in cat-state engineering [@Savage], hybrid quantum communication via qubus approaches [@qubus1; @qubus3], and some quantum key distribution schemes [@Lorenz; @Rigas]. It is transmitted through a one-sided thermal photon noise channel, where the noise only affects subsystem B. Writing this out, $$\label{eq:noisyQbQm2}
\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}=({\mathbb 1}^A\otimes\$_{thermal}^B)\ket{\psi}^{AB}\bra{\psi}$$ is the state to be investigated. The channel is modeled by a beam splitter coupling subsystem B to the environment, which is in a thermal state. Afterward the environment is traced out (see Fig. \[fig:NoiseCh\]).
![(Color online) Modeling of the photon noise channel. The environment mode is in a thermal state and coupled via a beam splitter to the input state to be transmitted. Subsequently the environment mode is traced out and the decohered output state is obtained.[]{data-label="fig:NoiseCh"}](photonnoise.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
For the output, $$\label{eq:noisyQbQm3}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB} &=({\mathbb 1}^A\otimes\$_{thermal}^B)\ket{\psi}^{AB}\bra{\psi} \\
&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \rho_n^{th} \sum_{k,l=0}^n f_{nk}(\eta)f_{nl}(\eta) \\
&\times\biggl(A_{nkl}^{\alpha\alpha}(\eta)\;\ket{0}^A\bra{0}\,\otimes\,\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}\ket{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}\hat{a}^l \\
&+ A_{nkl}^{-\alpha-\alpha}(\eta)\;\ket{1}^A\bra{1}\,\otimes\,\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}\ket{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}\hat{a}^l \\
&+ A_{nkl}^{\alpha-\alpha}(\eta)\;\ket{0}^A\bra{1}\,\otimes\,\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}\ket{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}\hat{a}^l \\
&+ A_{nkl}^{-\alpha\alpha}(\eta)\;\ket{1}^A\bra{0}\,\otimes\,\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}\ket{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}\hat{a}^l\biggr)
\end{aligned}$$ is obtained, where $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^\dagger$ are the mode operators of subsystem B; $\rho_n^{th}$ denotes the thermal photon distribution $\frac{\braket{n_{th}}^n}{(1+\braket{n_{th}})^{n+1}}$ of the environmental thermal state with mean thermal photon number $\braket{n_{th}}$, and $f_{nk}(\eta)$ and $A_{nkl}^{\alpha\beta}(\eta)$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
f_{nk}(\eta)&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}{\binom n k}\sqrt{\eta}^{n-k}(-\sqrt{1-\eta})^k, \\
A_{nkl}^{\alpha\beta}(\eta)&:=\braket{\sqrt{1-\eta}\beta|\hat{a}^{{}^{n-k}}\hat{a}^{\dagger^{n-l}}|\sqrt{1-\eta}\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ with the beam splitter transmissivity $\eta$ (for a detailed calculation of this result, see Appendix \[Apx:AuxCal\]). It can be inferred from Eq. that the state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}$ clearly is truly hybrid entangled, as it contains an infinite number of qumode states $\{\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}\ket{\pm\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}_B:k=0,1,\ldots,\infty\}$. Hence, *true hybrid qubit-qumode entanglement* is obtained. Furthermore, the form of the output state illustrates the effect of the thermal photon noise channel in a concrete way: On the one hand, the damping effect due to the beam splitter is clearly visible in terms of $\sqrt{\eta}$ in the states $\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}\ket{\pm\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}$. On the other hand, there is not only damping, but also thermal photon noise, which becomes manifest in the creation operators $\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}$ in the states $\hat{a}^{\dagger^k}\ket{\pm\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}$. Thermal photons “leak into the system” and are “created” in the damped coherent states. Finally, it is clearly visible how each term of $\hat{\rho}^E_{thermal}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \rho_n^{th}\,\ket{n}^{E}\bra{n}$ results in the creation of at most $n$ noise photons in the coherent states. However, as descriptive as Eq. is, it is inapplicable for further calculations. For example, for entanglement witnessing, moments may have to be computed [@SV1; @SV2]. Unfortunately, in this case, making use of the state as written in Eq. , intractable infinite sums are obtained whose convergence behavior is impossible to be worked out exactly. Of course, truncation at some value $n$ could be performed, which would certainly result in very accurate outcomes provided that value is large enough [@Killoran]. However, such a procedure is opposed to the actual intention of analyzing true hybrid entanglement, since a truncated state is not truly hybrid entangled anymore. This is a point which makes the investigation of true hybrid entanglement particularly challenging. Infinite sums or integrals emerge, which have to be calculated *exactly*.
However, the transmitted state can be also written as
$$\label{eq:noisyQbQm4}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB} & =({\mathbb 1}^A\otimes\$_{thermal}^B)\ket{\psi}^{AB}\bra{\psi} = \frac{1}{2\pi\braket{n_{th}}}\int_{\mathbb C} d^2\gamma\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{|\gamma|^2}{\braket{n_{th}}}}\biggl(\ket{0}^A\bra{0}\otimes\ket{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma}^B\bra{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma} \\
&+\qquad\qquad\ket{1}^A\bra{1}\otimes\ket{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma}^B\bra{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma} \\
&+\tilde{A}^{\alpha-\alpha\gamma}(\eta)\ket{0}^A\bra{1}\otimes\ket{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma}^B\bra{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma} \\
&+\tilde{A}^{-\alpha\alpha\gamma}(\eta)\ket{1}^A\bra{0}\otimes\ket{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma}^B\bra{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma} \biggr),
\end{aligned}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A}^{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\eta):&=\braket{\sqrt{1-\eta}\beta +\sqrt{\eta}\gamma|\sqrt{1-\eta}\alpha+\sqrt{\eta}\gamma} \\
&=\mathrm{exp}\Bigl[-\frac{1}{2}|\sqrt{1-\eta}\beta +\sqrt{\eta}\gamma|^2 \\
&\;\,-\frac{1}{2}|\sqrt{1-\eta}\alpha+\sqrt{\eta}\gamma|^2 \\
&\;\,+(\sqrt{1-\eta}\beta^{\ast} +\sqrt{\eta}\gamma^{\ast})(\sqrt{1-\eta}\alpha+\sqrt{\eta}\gamma)\Bigr],
\end{aligned}$$ (see Appendix \[Apx:AuxCal\] for the calculation). This form of the state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}$ is not as insightful as that of Eq. . However, it is mathematically much more convenient. Instead of infinite sums, in this form integrals occur which make the calculation of moments straightforward.
Now we want to derive entanglement witnesses for true hybrid entanglement. For this purpose, we exploit the determinant (now $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^\dagger$ are the mode operators corresponding to system A and $\hat{b}$ and $\hat{b}^\dagger$ those of system B) $$\label{eqSdet}
s:=\begin{vmatrix}
1 & \braket{\hat{a}^\dagger} & \braket{\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{b}} \\
\braket{\hat{a}} & \braket{\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}} & \braket{\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\hat{b}} \\
\braket{\hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger} & \braket{\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger} & \braket{\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a}\hat{b}^\dagger\hat{b}}
\end{vmatrix},$$ which Shchukin and Vogel (SV) proposed and utilized in their work [@SV1; @SV2]. However, we have to slightly adapt the SV approach to our case, since, instead of a fully CV system, we deal with a hybrid quantum system of a DV and a CV subsystem. There are two ways for this adaption.
The first way is to simply interpret the DV subsystem as living in a subspace of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. The DV qudit is interpreted as a CV system supported by ${\mathcal H}_\infty$ and being encoded in a Fock basis. However, it only makes use of a finite number of the basis vectors. Then the SV criteria can be applied just as usual.
The second approach is not to adapt the state, but to adapt the criteria. Assume the system to which the operators $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^\dagger$ belong is $d$-dimensional. Then the orthonormal Hilbert-space basis vectors $\ket{m}$ can be written as column vectors with a “$1$” in row $m$ with $m=0,\ldots,d-1$: $$\ket{m}_d=(0_{\,0}, \ldots , 0_{m-1} ,1_m ,0_{m+1},\ldots ,0_{d-1})^T.$$ With this notation the new qudit mode operators $\hat{a}_d$ and $\hat{a}_d^\dagger$ can be defined as proper $d\times d$ matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_d &= \begin{pmatrix}
0 & \sqrt{1} & \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & 0 & \sqrt{2} & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & 0 & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & & & \ddots & \sqrt{d-1} \\
0 & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & 0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\hat{a}_d^\dagger &= \begin{pmatrix}
0 & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\
\sqrt{1} & 0 & & & \vdots \\
\vdots & \sqrt{2} & 0 & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & \cdots & \cdots & \sqrt{d-1} & 0
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ They have the properties $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_d\ket{n} & = \sqrt{n}\ket{n-1}, \\
\hat{a}_d^\dagger\ket{n} & = (1-\delta_{n,d-1})\sqrt{n+1}\ket{n+1}, \\ \label{eq:AdMod1}
(\hat{a}_d)^d & =0, \\ \label{eq:AdMod2}
(\hat{a}_d^\dagger)^d & =0.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the commutator becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\lbrack\hat{a}_d,\hat{a}_d^\dagger\rbrack&=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & & \\
& \ddots & & \\
& & 1 & \\
& & & -(d-1)
\end{pmatrix}_{d\times d} \\
&=\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathbb 1}_{d-1} & \\
& -(d-1)
\end{pmatrix}_{d\times d}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since any $d$-dimensional qudit $\ket{\psi}_d$ can be written as $\ket{\psi}_d=g^\dagger(\hat{a}_d)\ket{0}_d$ for an appropriate operator function $\hat{g}=g(\hat{a}_d)$ and also the projection operator on $\ket{0}_d\bra{0}$ can still be expressed as $:e^{-\hat{a}_d^\dagger\hat{a}_d}:$, where $:\cdots:$ denotes normal ordering [@SV1], the SV criteria can be also derived for hybrid systems with aid of these new operators. Structurally the same criteria are obtained, except that for certain $i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2$ the moments $M_{ij}(\hat{\rho})=\braket{\hat{a}_d^{\dagger^{i_2}}\hat{a}_d^{^{i_1}}\hat{a}_d^{\dagger^{j_1}}\hat{a}_d^{^{j_2}}\hat{b}^{\dagger^{j_4}}\hat{b}^{^{j_3}}\hat{b}^{\dagger^{i_3}}\hat{b}^{^{i_4}}}_{\hat{\rho}}$ are zero. Due to the properties and any combination of $i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2$ such that $(\hat{a}_d)^k$ or $(\hat{a}_d^\dagger)^k$ with $k\geq d$ occurs in the moments, nullifies them. In the end, in the matrix of moments the rows and columns corresponding to these combinations of $i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2$ are simply missing.
When applying the SV criteria it hardly makes a difference whether the first or the second approach to the adaption of the criteria is chosen. Only for moments involving terms like $(\hat{a}_d)^k(\hat{a}_d^\dagger)^l$ with $k,l\in\mathbb N$ the two approaches may yield different results. However, for the determinants used in this paper, both lead to the same result.
For the calculation of the SV determinant $s$ in Eq. for the state in Eq. , $$s_{\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}}(\alpha,\eta,\braket{n_{th}})=\frac{1-\eta}{4}\braket{n_{th}}\biggl(1-\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-4|\alpha|^2}}{2}\biggr)-\frac{\eta |\alpha|^2}{2}\mathrm{e}^{-4|\alpha|^2}$$ is obtained. A graphical illustration for $\eta=\frac{2}{3}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:ThQbQm1\].
![(Color online) The upper graph displays the SV determinant $s_{\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}}(\alpha,\eta=\frac{2}{3},{\braket{n_{th}}})$ for the state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}$ with $\eta=\frac{2}{3}$. Without loss of generality $\alpha\in\mathbb R$ has been assumed. On the lower diagram the two regimes are plotted. There can be clearly identified a region, where the determinant is below zero. Hence, true hybrid entanglement can be witnessed. Furthermore, there is a trade-off behavior which results in the existence of an optimal $\alpha^{opt}$. This $\alpha^{opt}$ corresponds to the most robust state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}_{\alpha^{opt}}$ regarding entanglement witnessing for fixed $\eta=\frac{2}{3}$ and varying mean thermal photon number $\braket{n_{th}}$.[]{data-label="fig:ThQbQm1"}](ThQbQmS2.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"} ![(Color online) The upper graph displays the SV determinant $s_{\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}}(\alpha,\eta=\frac{2}{3},{\braket{n_{th}}})$ for the state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}$ with $\eta=\frac{2}{3}$. Without loss of generality $\alpha\in\mathbb R$ has been assumed. On the lower diagram the two regimes are plotted. There can be clearly identified a region, where the determinant is below zero. Hence, true hybrid entanglement can be witnessed. Furthermore, there is a trade-off behavior which results in the existence of an optimal $\alpha^{opt}$. This $\alpha^{opt}$ corresponds to the most robust state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}_{\alpha^{opt}}$ regarding entanglement witnessing for fixed $\eta=\frac{2}{3}$ and varying mean thermal photon number $\braket{n_{th}}$.[]{data-label="fig:ThQbQm1"}](ThQbQmCut.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
It can be observed that there clearly is a parameter region in which entanglement can be detected. Also note the trade-off behavior and the optimal $\alpha^{opt}$ which corresponds to the most robust state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}_{\alpha^{opt}}$ regarding entanglement witnessing for fixed $\eta=\frac{2}{3}$ and varying mean thermal photon number $\braket{n_{th}}$. The origin of this trade-off is based on the trade-off between too little initial entanglement before the channel for low $\alpha$ and very fragile entanglement for too high $\alpha$ ($\alpha \in \mathbb R$).
Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the witnessed entanglement in this case is actually true hybrid entanglement. It can be concluded that the SV determinants provide a suitable tool for the detection of true hybrid entanglement. Note that we exploited determinants involving moments of $4^{th}$ order. There are also other approaches for witnessing entanglement in similar states, which involve lower-order moments [@Rigas; @Haseler]. However, often it is necessary to consider moments of higher order to detect entanglement. For example, the detection of entanglement in the pure state ${\mathcal N}(\alpha)(\ket{\alpha,\alpha}-\ket{-\alpha,-\alpha})$ requires moments of $4^{th}$ order [@SV1].
When setting $s_{\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}}(\alpha,\eta,\braket{n_{th}})<0$ and solving this inequality for $\braket{n_{th}}$, $$\label{eq:ThQbQmCut}
\braket{n_{th}}<\frac{4\eta|\alpha|^2}{(1-\eta)(2\mathrm{e}^{4|\alpha|^2}-1)}$$ is obtained . For parameters $(\alpha,\eta,\braket{n_{th}})$ satisfying this inequality, entanglement is detected. Furthermore, the inequality can be used to define a surface. The parameters $(\alpha,\eta,\braket{n_{th}})_{ent}$ for which entanglement is verified lie below this surface (see Fig. \[fig:ThQbQm2\]).
![(Color online) Surface defined by Eq. ($\alpha\in\mathbb R$). For parameter triples $(\alpha,\eta,\braket{n_{th}})$ lying below it, entanglement is witnessed. Once again, the trade-off behavior can be recognized and an optimal $\alpha^{opt}$ for which entanglement can be detected in the presence of the strongest possible noise.[]{data-label="fig:ThQbQm2"}](ThQbQmSurf1.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
However, it is rather cumbersome to read off exact parameters in such a 3D plot. Hence, regions of successful entanglement detection are plotted in Fig. \[fig:ThQbQm3\] for different values of $\eta$.
![(Color online) Regions of entanglement detection for different values of transmissivity $\eta$. Note that the optimal $\alpha^{opt}$ has a fixed value ($\alpha\in\mathbb R$).[]{data-label="fig:ThQbQm3"}](ThQbQmCutAll.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
As expected, the higher the transmissivity $\eta$ the greater the parameter regions of entanglement detection. Furthermore, we can infer from Eq. that the optimal $\alpha^{opt}$ does not depend on $\eta$. This is also recognizable in Fig. \[fig:ThQbQm3\]. We find $\alpha^{opt}\approx 0.44$. It is actually quite remarkable that the optimal amplitude $\alpha^{opt}$ regarding entanglement witnessing with the SV determinant $s$ does not depend on the channel parameters at all; $\alpha^{opt}$ is determined solely by the choice of the SV determinant.
![(Color online) Concurrence of the state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}$ for $\braket{n_{th}}=0$, as a function of transmissivity $\eta$ and amplitude $\alpha$. On the one hand, the higher $\alpha$ the greater the initial entanglement, but also the more sensitive the state is to photon loss. On the other hand, for low $\alpha$ there is only little initial entanglement. However, the state is more robust against losses. Hence, there is a trade-off behavior, and an optimal $\alpha^{opt}_\eta$ depending on $\eta$ exists for which the output entanglement is maximal.[]{data-label="fig:CADampCh"}](Clossyhybrid1.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Compare this to Fig. \[fig:CADampCh\], which shows the concurrence [@Wootters] of the state when setting $\braket{n_{th}}=0$, which is given by $$\label{BlaCon}
\begin{aligned}
C(\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB})=&\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\mathrm{e}^{-4\eta|\alpha|^2}}\Bigl(\sqrt{1+3\mathrm{e}^{-4(1-\eta)|\alpha|^2}} \\
&-\sqrt{1-\mathrm{e}^{-4(1-\eta)|\alpha|^2}}\Bigr).
\end{aligned}$$ There, the optimal $\tilde{\alpha}^{opt}(\eta)$ does depend on the transmissivity $\eta$: The greater the transmissivity, the higher $\tilde{\alpha}^{opt}(\eta)$. This is quite remarkable. It can be inferred that the ability to detect entanglement in $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}$, depending only on the choice of the SV determinant, does not behave in the same way as the entanglement of $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}$ itself, which of course depends on the thermal channel’s parameters $\eta$ and $\braket{n_{th}}$.
Note that in this case, the state of Eqs. and actually becomes an effectively DV hybrid entangled state, when setting the mean thermal photon number of the channel to zero. The state is then subject only to amplitude damping, resulting in $$\label{Eq0thermCase}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}_{\braket{n_{th}}=0} &=\frac{1}{2}\Bigl(\ket{0}^A\bra{0}\otimes\ket{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha} \\
&+ \ket{1}^A\bra{1}\otimes\ket{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha} \\
&+\mathrm{e}^{-2(1-\eta)|\alpha|^2}\, \ket{0}^A\bra{1}\otimes\ket{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha} \\
&+\mathrm{e}^{-2(1-\eta)|\alpha|^2}\, \ket{1}^A\bra{0}\otimes\ket{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B\bra{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}\Bigr),
\end{aligned}$$ which is mixed but contains only two qumode states $\ket{\pm\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}^B$. Hence, we can perform an inverse Gram-Schmidt process and describe the state by a proper effective qubit-qubit density matrix: $$\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}_{\braket{n_{th}}=0} = \frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & \lambda\kappa & \kappa\sqrt{1-\lambda^2} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda\kappa & 0 & \lambda^2 & \lambda\sqrt{1-\lambda^2} \\
\kappa\sqrt{1-\lambda^2} & 0 & \lambda\sqrt{1-\lambda^2} & 1-\lambda^2
\end{pmatrix},$$ with $\kappa:=\mathrm{e}^{-2(1-\eta)|\alpha|^2}$ and $\lambda:=\braket{-\sqrt{\eta}\alpha|\sqrt{\eta}\alpha}=\mathrm{e}^{-2\eta|\alpha|^2}$. The concurrence of this state is given in Eq. and plotted in Fig. \[fig:CADampCh\] for $\alpha \in \mathbb R$.
If, besides setting $\braket{n_{th}}=0$, we also set the transmissivity of the channel to one, the channel is completely canceled and we obtain a pure bipartite hybrid entangled state: $$\label{eq:noisyQbQm1norm}
\ket{\psi}^{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{0}^A\ket{\alpha}^B+\ket{1}^A\ket{-\alpha}^B\Bigr).$$ Hence, in this physical example, we can access all three classes of bipartite hybrid entanglement and even switch between them using the transmissivity $\eta$ and the mean thermal photon number $\braket{n_{th}}$.
Yet another truly hybrid entangled state {#subsec:OtherTrueHE}
----------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate that we can easily construct other quantum states featuring true hybrid entanglement, we shall present another truly hybrid entangled state and its entanglement detection: $$\label{eq:trueHE2}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho}^{AB}&=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}p_n\ket{\psi_n}^{AB}\bra{\psi_n}, \\
\ket{\psi_n}^{AB}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{0}^A\ket{\sqrt{n}\alpha}^B+\ket{1}^A\ket{-\sqrt{n}\alpha}^B\Bigr), \\
p_n&=\frac{1-x}{x}x^n\,,\qquad 0<x<1\,,\qquad \alpha\in\mathbb R.
\end{aligned}$$ As this state contains an infinite set of qumode states $\{\ket{\pm\sqrt{n}\alpha}^B:n=1,2,\ldots,\infty\}$, it is clearly truly hybrid entangled, exhibiting (true) hybrid entanglement between a qumode and a qubit.
Now, we shall witness entanglement in this state with aid of the SV determinant $s$ of Eq. . For the calculation of the moments, the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty x^n &= \frac{x}{1-x}, \\
\sum_{n=1}^\infty n\,x^n &= \frac{x}{(1-x)^2},\end{aligned}$$ are exploited, and we obtain $$\label{eq:ArtiS}
\begin{aligned}
s(x,\alpha)&=\frac{1}{8}\biggl[\frac{2\alpha^2}{1-x}-\Bigl(\frac{\alpha(1-x)}{x}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\sqrt{n}(x\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2})^n\Bigr)^2 \\
&-2\Bigl(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}(1-x)}{1-x\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}}\Bigr)\Bigl(\frac{\alpha(1-x)}{x}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\sqrt{n}(x\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2})^n\Bigr) \\
&\times\Bigl(\frac{\alpha(1-x)}{x}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\sqrt{n}x^n\Bigr)-2\Bigl(\frac{\alpha(1-x)}{x}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\sqrt{n}x^n\Bigr)^2 \\
&-\frac{\alpha^2}{1-x}\Bigl(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}(1-x)}{1-x\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}}\Bigr)^2\biggr].
\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty x^n<\sum_{n=1}^\infty \sqrt{n}\,x^n<\sum_{n=1}^\infty n\,x^n,$$ for $0<x<1$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{x}{1-x}< & \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sqrt{n}\,x^n<\frac{x}{(1-x)^2}, \\
\frac{x\,\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}}{1-x\,\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}}< & \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sqrt{n}\,(x\,\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2})^n < \frac{x\,\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}}{(1-x\,\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2})^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the lower bounds into the sums of Eq. yields $$s'(x,\alpha)=\frac{\alpha^2}{8}\Bigl[\frac{2x}{1-x}-\Bigl(\frac{1-x}{1-x\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha^2}}\Bigr)^2\mathrm{e}^{-4\alpha^2}\Bigl(3+\frac{1}{1-x}\Bigr)\Bigr].$$ Since $s'(x,\alpha)>s(x,\alpha)\,\forall\,\alpha\in{\mathbb R},\,x\in]0,1[$, from $s'(x,\alpha)<0$ follows $s(x,\alpha)<0$. Therefore, $s'(x,\alpha)<0$ is a sufficient criterion for entanglement detection. It is plotted in Fig. \[fig:artiS\].
![(Color online) The upper graph shows $s'(x,\alpha)$ which is derived from the original SV determinant $s(x,\alpha)$. The yellow plane denotes zero. The lower diagram presents the cutting line between $s'(x,\alpha)$ and the zero plane. It displays the witnessing region. We also want to point out that for $\alpha=0$ the state is of course not entangled and $s'(x,\alpha=0)$ becomes zero.[]{data-label="fig:artiS"}](artistateS21.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"} ![(Color online) The upper graph shows $s'(x,\alpha)$ which is derived from the original SV determinant $s(x,\alpha)$. The yellow plane denotes zero. The lower diagram presents the cutting line between $s'(x,\alpha)$ and the zero plane. It displays the witnessing region. We also want to point out that for $\alpha=0$ the state is of course not entangled and $s'(x,\alpha=0)$ becomes zero.[]{data-label="fig:artiS"}](artistateEnt1.pdf "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
The graphics show that entanglement can be verified for sufficiently small $x$ and $\alpha$. This can be understood in the following way. On the one hand, small $x$ corresponds to little mixing between the pure states $\ket{\psi_n}^{AB}$, which themselves are highly entangled, depending on the amplitude $\sqrt{n}\alpha$. For pure states of the form $\ket{\psi_n}^{AB}$, entanglement witnessing can be performed perfectly with the SV determinant $s$. On the other hand, we have already seen in previous calculations (see Figs. \[fig:ThQbQm1\] and \[fig:ThQbQm3\]) that entanglement detection via $s$ fails for large $\alpha$.
To conclude, a second example for a truly hybrid entangled state has been presented whose entanglement can again be verified with aid of the SV criteria.
Multipartite hybrid entanglement {#sec:4}
================================
In this section, investigations regarding multipartite hybrid entanglement are presented. In general, $N$-partite hybrid entangled quantum systems live in Hilbert spaces of the form ${\mathcal H}_{d_1}\otimes\ldots\otimes{\mathcal H}_{d_N}$, where some $d_i$ are finite and some infinite. Considering tripartite hybrid entanglement there are two cases: Either the Hilbert space looks like ${\mathcal H}_{d_1}\otimes{\mathcal H}_{d_2}\otimes{\mathcal H}_\infty$ or ${\mathcal H}_{d_1}\otimes{\mathcal H}_\infty\otimes{\mathcal H}_\infty$, with finite $d_1,d_2$.
Consider the first case, where only one subsystem is CV. A general hybrid entangled pure state in ${\mathcal H}_{d_1}^A\otimes{\mathcal H}_{d_2}^B\otimes{\mathcal H}^C_\infty$ may be defined as $$\ket{\psi}^{ABC}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{d_1,d_2}c_{ij}\ket{e_i}^A\ket{e_j}^B\ket{\psi_{ij}}^C\,,\qquad\sum_{i,j}^{d_1,d_2}|c_{ij}|^2=1,$$ where $\ket{\psi_{ij}}^C$ represent some qumode states. As there are at most $d_1\times d_2$ such qumode states, a Gram-Schmidt process can be executed to write the state as a multipartite, effectively DV hybrid entangled state. Therefore, if all $\ket{\psi_{ij}}^C$ are linearly independent the state effectively lives in a Hilbert space of the form ${\mathcal H}_{d_1}^A\otimes{\mathcal H}_{d_2}^B\otimes{\mathcal H}^C_{d_1\times d_2}$.
In the second case, where the initial Hilbert space looks like ${\mathcal H}_{d}^A\otimes{\mathcal H}_\infty^B\otimes{\mathcal H}_\infty^C$, a general hybrid entangled pure state is $$\label{MultiHy2}
\ket{\psi}^{ABC}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{d,\infty}c_{ij}\ket{e_i}^A\ket{\phi_{ij}}^B\ket{\psi_{ij}}^C,$$ where both $\ket{\phi_{ij}}^B$ and $\ket{\psi_{ij}}^C$ represent qumode states, and the $c_{ij}$ are chosen such that $\braket{\psi|\psi}=1$. Obviously, in this case an infinite number of qumode states is present for an infinite number of $c_{ij}\neq0$. No Gram-Schmidt process can be performed. Hence, these states show *multipartite true hybrid entanglement*.
To conclude, in the multipartite regime, already for pure states there are characteristic differences between the different possible configurations. Furthermore, in contrast to the bipartite setting, there is also *pure* true hybrid entanglement. When dealing with two parties, true hybrid entanglement only occurs for specific types of mixed states, as described in the previous sections. This can now be generalized. True hybrid entanglement can be obtained in two ways: Either the system is mixed with an infinite number of mix terms; then it is sufficient that only one subsystem is CV. Or two or more subsystems are CV; then the state is not even required to be mixed. However, every hybrid entangled mixed state with a finite number of mix terms, which contains only one CV subsystem is effectively DV. An $N$-partite mixed state of this type in ${\mathcal H}_{d_1}\otimes\ldots\otimes{\mathcal H}_{d_{N-1}}\otimes{\mathcal H}_{\infty}$ can be always described in a Hilbert space of the form ${\mathcal H}_{d_1}\otimes\ldots\otimes{\mathcal H}_{d_{N-1}}\otimes{\mathcal H}_{\Xi}$, where $$\Xi=M\prod_{i=1}^{N-1} d_i,$$ and $M$ is the number of mix terms.
As an example, we want to discuss an explicit tripartite hybrid entangled state, supported by a Hilbert space of the form ${\mathcal H}_{d}\otimes{\mathcal H}_\infty\otimes{\mathcal H}_\infty$, with finite $d=2$: $$\label{MultiHyExamp}
\ket{\tilde{\psi}}^{ABC}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\biggl(\ket{e_0}^{A}\ket{\phi_0}^{B}\ket{\psi_0}^{C}+\ket{e_1}^{A}\ket{\phi_1}^{B}\ket{\psi_1}^{C}\biggr).$$ In this example, the special case occurs that there does not exist an infinite number of $c_{ij}\neq0$. In terms of Eq. , $c_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ for $i=1,2$ and $j=1$, and $c_{ij}=0\;\forall \;j>1$. Hence, there is no true hybrid entanglement and the state can be described by DV methods.
Defining ${\mathcal Q}_{\phi}:=\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}$ and ${\mathcal Q}_{\psi}:=\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}$, an inverse Gram-Schmidt process yields $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\phi_0}^{B}&=\ket{e_0}^{B}, \\
\ket{\phi_1}^{B}&={\mathcal Q}_{\phi}\ket{e_0}^{B} + \sqrt{1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}|^2}\ket{e_1}^{B}, \\
\ket{\psi_0}^{C}&=\ket{e_0}^{C}, \\
\ket{\psi_1}^{C}&={\mathcal Q}_{\psi}\ket{e_0}^{C} + \sqrt{1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}|^2}\ket{e_1}^{C},\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\tilde{\psi}}^{ABC}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\biggl(\ket{e_0}^{A}\ket{e_0}^{B}\ket{e_0}^{C}+{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}\ket{e_1}^{A}\ket{e_0}^{B}\ket{e_0}^{C} \\
& +\sqrt{(1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}|^2)(1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}|^2)}\ket{e_1}^{A}\ket{e_1}^{B}\ket{e_1}^{C} \\
& +{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}\sqrt{1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}|^2}\ket{e_1}^{A}\ket{e_1}^{B}\ket{e_0}^{C} \\
& +{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}\sqrt{1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}|^2}\ket{e_1}^{A}\ket{e_0}^{B}\ket{e_1}^{C}\biggr).
\end{aligned}$$ The state is effectively a three-qubit state in ${\mathcal H}_{2}^A\otimes{\mathcal H}_{2}^B\otimes{\mathcal H}^C_2$. So, we can analyze the state with regard to its bipartite entanglement and its residual, GHZ-like, genuine tripartite entanglement $\tau_{res}$ [@CKW]. The relevant squared concurrences are $$\begin{aligned}
C^2(A|B)&=|{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}|^2(1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}|^2) \notag \\
& =|\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}|^2(1-|\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}|^2) \\
C^2(A|C)&=|{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}|^2(1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}|^2) \notag \\
& =|\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}|^2(1-|\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}|^2), \\
C^2(B|C)&=0, \\
C^2(A|BC)&=1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}|^2|{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}|^2 \notag \\
& =1-|\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}|^2|\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{res}&=(1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\phi}|^2)(1-|{\mathcal Q}_{\psi}|^2) \\
&=(1-|\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}|^2)(1-|\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}|^2),
\end{aligned}$$ which is plotted in Fig. \[fig:resEnt\].
![(Color online) The residual entanglement of the state $\ket{\tilde{\psi}}^{ABC}$ as a function of the overlaps $\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}$ and $\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}$, which are assumed to be real without loss of generality. In the upper corner, for $\tau_{res}=1$, the state is maximally GHZ-like entangled. It shows no bipartite entanglement. In the left and the right corners, the residual entanglement is zero. Nevertheless, the state is maximally entangled, but just bipartite entangled. Finally, in the lower corner, the state is fully separable. For either $\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}$=0 or $\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}$=0, the state is always 1-ebit entangled, while for both $\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}\neq0$ and $\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}\neq0$ the state has less than 1-ebit entanglement.[]{data-label="fig:resEnt"}](multihybrid2.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Furthermore, the total entanglement $C^2_{total}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C^2_{total}&=C^2(A|B)+C^2(A|C)+C^2(B|C)+\tau_{res} \\
&=1-|\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}|^2|\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ These results provide a basis for an interesting discussion. Figure \[fig:resEnt\] looks quite unspectacular. However, it contains very useful information in combination with the other results. First, it can be seen that for both overlaps $\braket{\phi_0|\phi_1}$ and $\braket{\psi_0|\psi_1}$ being zero, the state is exactly the GHZ state, which shows only GHZ-like tripartite entanglement but no bipartite entanglement. In the case that only one of the overlaps is zero, the state is always 1-ebit entangled, while it can be tuned between GHZ-like entanglement and common bipartite entanglement. If the overlap which is not zero becomes one, maximal Bell-state-like entanglement occurs. Finally, if none of the overlaps is zero the state is not 1-ebit entangled anymore and it corresponds to a mixture of bipartite entanglement and GHZ-like tripartite entanglement. If both overlaps are one, the state becomes simply fully separable, showing no entanglement at all. All this is basically illustrated in Fig. \[fig:resEnt\]. The upper corner of the graph corresponds to a GHZ state, while the left and the right corners represent states which are maximally bipartite entangled. Every point in the graph which is not at the upper left or upper right edge corresponds to a less than 1-ebit entangled state, while states lying on these edges are 1-ebit entangled. States on the lower edges of the graph are only bipartite entangled, while all other states show also GHZ-like tripartite entanglement. Finally, the lower corner corresponds to a fully separable state.
As a result, just by tuning simple overlaps between the involved qumode states, it is possible to gradually switch between these different entanglement scenarios. Such tuning of overlaps is a relatively easy task when the qumode states are simply realized by ordinary coherent states. Then only the amplitudes have to be adjusted. However, the experimental preparation of the overall entangled tripartite state $\ket{\tilde{\psi}}^{ABC}$ may cause difficulties. Nevertheless, this idea of tuning between various entanglement configurations by modification of the overlaps of the participating qumode states may be a scheme which could possibly be experimentally realized in the future.
Summary and Conclusion {#sec:5}
======================
In this paper, first, we proved that hybrid entanglement is necessarily non-Gaussian. Then, utilizing an inverse Gram-Schmidt process, we presented a classification scheme regarding hybrid entanglement which distinguishes between effective DV hybrid entanglement and true hybrid entanglement. With aid of this characterization one can always find out whether a given hybrid entangled state can be analyzed by means of DV methods or not. To illustrate this framework, a few exemplary states have been discussed, and witnessing of true hybrid entanglement has been demonstrated exploiting the well-known SV inseparability criteria. Finally, we examined multipartite hybrid entanglement, especially the tripartite case, and briefly outlined some differences compared to the bipartite regime. As an example, a typical tripartite hybrid entangled state was investigated.
To conclude, we want to point out that, although many ideas for hybrid protocols and schemes have appeared recently, no thorough classification of hybrid entanglement from a more formal point of view has been proposed so far. The present work is supposed to fill this gap. Nevertheless, there are many open questions: For example, entanglement quantification of true hybrid entanglement remains an unsolved problem in general. Especially in the multipartite case, various questions remain. For example, what can happen when we consider more parties than just two or three?
ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
Support from the Emmy Noether Program of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged. In addition, we thank the BMBF in Germany for support through the QuOReP program.
PROOF OF LEMMA \[lem:DVnonG\] {#Apx:PrfLemma}
=============================
Lemma \[lem:DVnonG\] states that any single-partite $d$-dimensional quantum state with finite $d$ and $d\geq2$ is non-Gaussian.
Consider such a general $d$-dimensional state in a pure-state decomposition and make use of the Fock basis of a $d$-dimensional subspace of the Fock space: $$\label{eq:Lemmaqudit}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\rho} &=\sum_{n=1}^N p_n\ket{\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n}\,,\quad p_n>0\;\forall \;n\,;\;\sum_n^N \;p_n=1, \\
\ket{\psi_n} &=\sum_{m=0}^{d-1} c_{nm}\ket{m}\,,\qquad\; c_{nm}\in\mathbb C\;\forall \;n,m\,;\;\sum_m^{d-1} \;|c_{nm}|^2=1.
\end{aligned}$$ Non-Gaussianity of the state corresponds to non-Gaussianity of the characteristic function. This is equivalent to non-Gaussianity of the Wigner function, as (non-)Gaussian functions stay (non-)Gaussian under Fourier transformation [@Bronstein]. Hence, consider the Wigner function of $\hat{\rho}$, $$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & :=\frac{1}{\pi}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty dy\,\mathrm{e}^{2ipy}\braket{x-y|\hat{\rho}|x+y} \\
& =\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{p_n}{\pi}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty dy\,\mathrm{e}^{2ipy} \sum_{k,l=0}^{d-1}c_{nl}c_{nk}^\ast\,\psi_l(x-y)\psi_k^\ast(x+y).
\end{aligned}$$ The position wavefunction of a Fock state $\ket{n}$ is given by $$\psi_n(x)=\braket{x|n}=\frac{H_n(x)}{\sqrt{2^nn!\sqrt{\pi}}}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{x^2}{2}},$$ where $H_n(x)$ are the *Hermite polynomials* [@Leon; @Bronstein]. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
W(x,p) & =\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{p_n}{\pi}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty dy\,\mathrm{e}^{2ipy}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{(x-y)^2}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{(x+y)^2}{2}} \\
& \times\sum_{k,l=0}^{d-1}c_{nl}c_{nk}^\ast\frac{H_k(x+y)H_l(x-y)}{\sqrt{2^{k+l}k!l!\pi}} \\
& =\frac{1}{\pi}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty dy\,\mathrm{e}^{2ipy}\;\mathrm{e}^{-x^2-y^2}\, \sum_{n=1}^N\,p_n \\
& \times\sum_{k,l=0}^{d-1}c_{nl}c_{nk}^\ast \frac{H_k(x+y)H_l(x-y)}{\sqrt{2^{k+l}k!l!\pi}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now $\frac{1}{\pi}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty dy\,\mathrm{e}^{2ipy}$ is just a Fourier transform operator with respect to $y$, and $\mathrm{e}^{-x^2-y^2}$ is a Gaussian function. Hence, for $W(x,p)$ being Gaussian, the sum $P:=\sum_{n=1}^N\,p_n \sum_{k,l=0}^{d-1}c_{nl}c_{nk}^\ast \frac{H_k(x+y)H_l(x-y)}{\sqrt{2^{k+l}k!l!\pi}}$ also has to be Gaussian in both $x$ and $y$. However, $P$ is just a polynomial. Strictly speaking, it is a polynomial of *finite* order. Hence, $P$ can never be an exponential function and therefore also not become Gaussian. There is one exception though. $P$ may be a polynomial of order zero, i.e., a constant.
So, we can assume that $\hat{\rho}$ is Gaussian and show that this is the case if and only if $c_{nl}=0\;\forall\;l\geq1$. “$\Leftarrow$” is trivial, since for $c_{nl}=0\;\forall\;n\,,\;\forall\;l\geq1$, $\hat{\rho}=\ket{0}\bra{0}$, which is obviously Gaussian. For “$\Rightarrow$” we perform an induction with respect to the dimension $d$:
*Inductive Basis*. For $d=2$ there is only one term $x^{2(d-1)}=x^{2}$ in the sum $P$, which comes from $H_{d-1}(x+y)H_{d-1}(x-y)=H_{1}(x+y)H_{1}(x-y)$. Its coefficient is $\tilde{c}_{1}\sum_{n=1}^N p_n|c_{n,1}|^2$, where $\tilde{c}_{1}\neq0$ is a real constant due to the Hermite polynomials. If the state is Gaussian, $\sum_{n=1}^N p_n|c_{n,1}|^2=0$. Since $p_n>0\;\forall\;n$ and $|c_{n,1}|\geq0\;\forall\;n$, from $\sum_{n=1}^N p_n|c_{n,1}|^2=0$ follows $c_{n,1}=0\;\forall\;n$. Hence, $c_{nl}=0\;\forall\;l\geq1$ ($l$ can be only $0$ or $1$ for $d=2$) is proved as a necessary condition for Gaussianity for $d=2$.
*Inductive Step*. Assume validity of the statement for $d=m$ and consider $d=m+1$. Then, there is only one term $x^{2((m+1)-1)}=x^{2m}$ in the sum $P$, which comes from $H_{(m+1)-1}(x+y)H_{(m+1)-1}(x-y)=H_{m}(x+y)H_{m}(x-y)$. Again with $\tilde{c}_{m}\neq0$ being a real constant the coefficient is $\tilde{c}_{m}\sum_{n=1}^N p_n|c_{n,m}|^2$. If the state is Gaussian, $\sum_{n=1}^N p_n|c_{n,m}|^2=0$. Since $p_n>0\;\forall\;n$ and $|c_{n,m}|\geq0\;\forall\;n$, from $\sum_{n=1}^N p_n|c_{n,m}|^2=0$ follows $c_{n,m}=0\;\forall\;n$. Then, from the inductive hypothesis it is known that $c_{nl}=0\;\forall\;1\leq l\leq d-2=m-1$. Hence, $c_{nl}=0\;\forall\;1\leq l\leq d-1=m$, which proves the validity of the statement for $d=m+1$ and hence for all finite $m$.
Concluding, a $d$-dimensional quantum state with finite $d$ and $d\geq2$, written in the form , is Gaussian if and only if $c_{nl}=0\;\forall\;l\geq1$, which corresponds to $\hat{\rho}=\ket{0}\bra{0}$. Therefore, $\hat{\rho}$ is Gaussian if and only if $\hat{\rho}=\ket{0}\bra{0}$, which is only one-dimensional. Hence, any $d$-dimensional quantum state with finite $d$ and $d\geq2$ is non-Gaussian.
AUXILIARY CALCULATIONS {#Apx:AuxCal}
======================
The derivation of Eq. becomes clear, when writing the thermal photon noise channel with aid of an ancilla Hilbert space (the environment E), and joint unitary evolution on the overall Hilbert space. Finally, a trace operation over the ancilla Hilbert space has to be performed: $$\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}=\mathrm{tr}_E[\hat{U}^{BE}\;\bigl( \ket{\phi}^{AB}\bra{\phi}\otimes\hat{\rho}^E_{thermal}\bigr) \;\hat{U}^{{BE}^\dagger}],$$ with
\(1) beam splitter unitary $\hat{U}^{BE}=e^{\theta(\hat{a}_E^\dagger \hat{a}_B-\hat{a}_B^\dagger \hat{a}_E)}$,
\(2) environmental thermal state\
$\hat{\rho}^E_{thermal}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{\braket{n_{th}}^n}{(1+\braket{n_{th}})^{n+1}}\,\ket{n}_{E}\bra{n}$ [@Scully],
\(3) mean thermal photon number $\braket{n_{th}}$,
\(4) and beam splitter transmissivity $\eta=\cos^2\theta$. Note that for $\braket{n_{th}}=0$, the photon loss channel is obtained, which is therefore just a limiting case of this channel. For the calculation, the following relations have been exploited: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equse1}
\hat{U}^{{BE}^\dagger}\hat{U}^{BE} & =\mathbb{1}, \\ \label{equse2}
\hat{U}^{BE}(\hat{a}^{E^\dagger})^n\hat{U}^{{BE}^\dagger} & =(\sqrt{\eta}\hat{a}^{E^\dagger}-\sqrt{1-\eta}\hat{a}^{B^\dagger})^n, \\ \label{equse3} \hat{U}^{BE}\hat{D}^B(\alpha)\hat{U}^{{BE}^\dagger} & =\hat{D}^B(\sqrt{\eta}\alpha)\hat{D}^E(\sqrt{1-\eta}\alpha), \\ \label{equse4}
\hat{U}^{BE}\ket{0}^B\ket{0}^E & =\ket{0}^B\ket{0}^E, \\
\ket{\alpha}^B &=\hat{D}^B(\alpha)\ket{0}^B, \\
\ket{n}^E &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(\hat{a}^{E^\dagger})^n\ket{0}^E, \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the binomial identity has been utilized.
The calculation of Eq. proceeds similarly. However, instead of exploiting $\hat{\rho}^E_{thermal}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \rho_n^{th}\,\ket{n}_{E}\bra{n}$ in the Fock basis, we made use of the coherent state basis. The Glauber-Sudarshan $P$ representation of the thermal environment is given by [@Scully] $$P_{\hat{\rho}_{thermal}}(\alpha,\alpha^\ast)=\frac{1}{\pi\braket{n_{th}}}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{\braket{n_{th}}}}.$$ Therefore, $$\hat{\rho}_{thermal}=\frac{1}{\pi\braket{n_{th}}}\int_{\mathbb C} d^2\alpha\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{\braket{n_{th}}}}\ket{\alpha}\bra{\alpha}.$$ Expressing the thermal state in this form, the action of the thermal channel on an element $\ket{\alpha}\bra{\beta}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\$_{thermal}(\ket{\alpha}^B\bra{\beta}) &=\frac{1}{\pi\braket{n_{th}}}\int_{\mathbb C} d^2\gamma\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{|\gamma|^2}{\braket{n_{th}}}}\mathrm{tr}_E[\hat{U}^{BE}\;\bigl( \ket{\alpha}^B\bra{\beta} \\ &\otimes\ket{\gamma}^E\bra{\gamma}\bigr) \;\hat{U}^{{BE}^\dagger}].
\end{aligned}$$ With the relations , , and $\hat{U}^{BE}\hat{D}^E(\gamma)\hat{U}^{{BE}^\dagger} =\hat{D}^E(\sqrt{\eta}\gamma)\hat{D}^B(-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma)$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\$_{thermal}(\ket{\alpha}^B\bra{\beta}) & = \frac{1}{\pi\braket{n_{th}}}\int_{\mathbb C} d^2\gamma\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{|\gamma|^2}{\braket{n_{th}}}} \\
&\times \braket{\sqrt{1-\eta}\beta +\sqrt{\eta}\gamma|\sqrt{1-\eta}\alpha+\sqrt{\eta}\gamma} \\
&\times \ket{\sqrt{\eta}\alpha-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma}^B\bra{\sqrt{\eta}\beta-\sqrt{1-\eta}\gamma}.
\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this expression in the overall state $\hat{\rho}'{}^{AB}=({\mathbb 1}^A\otimes\$_{thermal}^B)\ket{\psi}^{AB}\bra{\psi}$ with $\ket{\psi}^{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl(\ket{0}^A\ket{\alpha}^B+\ket{1}^A\ket{-\alpha}^B\Bigr)$ yields Eq. .
[99]{}
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 865 (2009). A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. **47**, 777 (1935). M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, Quant. Inf. Comput. **7**, 1. (2007). J. Eisert and M. B. Plenio, Int. J. Quantum Inf. **1**, 479 (2003). G. Adesso and F. Illuminati, J. Phys. A **40**, 7821 (2007). A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M.G.A. Paris, eprint arXiv:quant-ph/0503237. S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys. **77**, 513 (2005). P. van Loock, Laser & Photon. Rev. **5**, 167 (2011). P. van Loock and A. Furusawa, *Quantum Teleportation and Entanglement: A Hybrid Approach to Optical Quantum Information Processing* (Wiley-VCH, 2011). N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, M. Paternostro, F. De Martini, and F. Sciarrino, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 032102 (2011). X. Wang, J. Phys. A **34**, 9577 (2001). S. Lloyd, in *Quantum Information with Continuous Variables*, edited by S. L. Braunstein and A. K. Pati (Kluwer, 2003), Part I, Chap. 5. M. Wallquist, K. Hammerer, P. Rabl, M. Lukin, and P. Zoller, Phys. Scr. T **137**, 014001 (2009). L. Neves, G. Lima, A. Delgado, and C. Saavedra, Phys. Rev. A **80**, 042322 (2009). C. Gabriel, A. Aiello, W. Zhong, T. G. Euser, N. Y. Joly, P. Banzer, M. Förtsch, D. Elser, U. L. Andersen, Ch. Marquardt, P. St. J. Russell, and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 060502 (2011). S. Lloyd and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 1784 (1999). S .D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 097904 (2002). N. Lütkenhaus, J. Calsamiglia, and K.A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. A **59**, 3295 (1999). E. Knill, R. Laflamme and G. J. Milburn, Nature (London) **409**, 46 (2001). D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A **64**, 012310 (2001). C. M. Savage, S. L. Braunstein, and D. F. Walls, Opt. Lett. **15**, 628 (1990). S. Lorenz, N. Korolkova, and G. Leuchs, Appl. Phys. B **79**, 273 (2004). J. Rigas, O. Gühne, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 012341 (2006). C. Wittmann, J. Fürst, C. Wiechers, D. Elser, H. Häseler, N. Lütkenhaus, and G. Leuchs, Opt. Express **18**, 4499 (2010). T. P. Spiller, K. Nemoto, S. L. Braunstein, W. J. Munro, P. van Loock, and G. J. Milburn, New J. Phys. **8**, 30 (2006). P. van Loock, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. P. Spiller, T. D. Ladd, S. L. Braunstein, and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A **78**, 022303 (2008). P. van Loock, T. D. Ladd, K. Sanaka, F. Yamaguchi, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 240501 (2006). J. Audretsch, *Entangled Systems* (Wiley-VCH, 2007). X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A **66**, 024303 (2002). L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 2722 (2000). M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, *Quantum Computation and Quantum Information* (Cambridge University Press, 2000). C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. A **53**, 2046 (1996). G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A **65**, 032314 (2002). J. Eisert, Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam, 2001. W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 2245 (1998). N. Killoran and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A **83**, 052320 (2011). E. Shchukin and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 230502 (2005). A. Miranowicz and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 058901 (2006). H. Häseler, T. Moroder, and N. Lütkenhaus, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 032303 (2008). V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 052306 (2000). I. N. Bronstein, K. A. Semendjajew, G. Musiol, and H. Mühlig, *Taschenbuch der Mathematik* (Harri Deutsch Verlag, 2005). U. Leonhardt, *Measuring the Quantum State of Light* (Cambridge University Press, 1997). M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, *Quantum Optics* (Cambridge University Press, 1997). H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 017901 (2001). A.S. Holevo, Problems of Information Transmission **44**, 171 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This research resolves a long-standing problem on the electromagnetic response of self-complementary metallic screens with checkerboardlike geometry. Although Babinet’s principle implies that they show a frequency-independent response, this unusual characteristic has not been observed yet due to the singularities of the metallic point contacts in the checkerboard geometry. We overcome this difficulty by replacing the point contacts with resistive sheets. The proposed structure is prepared and characterized by terahertz time-domain spectroscopy. It is experimentally confirmed that the resistive checkerboard structures exhibit a flat transmission spectrum over 0.1–1.1 THz. It is also demonstrated that self-complementarity can eliminate even the frequency-dependent transmission characteristics of resonant metamaterials.'
author:
- Yoshiro Urade
- Yosuke Nakata
- Toshihiro Nakanishi
- Masao Kitano
nocite: '[@Crooker2002]'
title: 'Frequency-Independent Response of Self-Complementary Checkerboard Screens'
---
=1
Duality is one of the key concepts in physics and engineering, as exemplified by electromagnetic duality [@Bliokh2013], $T$ duality in string theory [@Alvarez1995], and the duality of electrical circuits [@Desoer1969basic]. It relates two seemingly different systems or quantities, and sometimes helps us to indirectly gain physical insight into intractable problems. A system is said to be self-dual if it coincides with its own dual. Self-duality is symmetry with respect to duality transformations. Problems with self-duality often have simple analytical solutions due to the constraints imposed by their symmetry. These results are universal and do not depend on the details of the problems. For example, self-dual symmetry has been utilized to determine critical temperatures of two-dimensional Ising models (Kramers-Wannier duality) [@Kramers1941]. Moreover, there are examples in electromagnetic systems ranging from dc to radio frequency: evaluating the effective conductivity of two-phase composite media (Keller-Dykhne duality) [@Keller1964; @*Dykhne1970], obtaining constant-resistance electrical circuits [@LinSelfDual], and making broadband antennas [@Mushiakebook]. Recently, self-dual symmetry has been applied to the design of metamaterials with zero backscattering [@Lindell2009].
. (a) Examples of planar patterns with self-complementarity. (b) The ideal metallic checkerboard structure with self-complementarity, and (c) the resistive checkerboard structure.](./res_check.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
Let us now focus our attention on the duality and self-duality of planar structures composed of two elements, which can be represented by two-tone patterns. Interchange of these two colors is considered to be a duality transformation. If patterns are invariant under the interchange of colors, as shown in Fig. \[fig:res\_check\](a), they are self-dual. This type of symmetry is referred to as color symmetry [@Senechal1988] or self-complementarity, and it is often found in designs of traditional garments and in the impressive works of the graphic artist M.C. Escher.
In optics, there is a well-known duality relationship called Babinet’s principle [@JacksonBook], which relates the fields scattered by a metallic screen with those scattered by its complementary screen, which is obtained by interchanging the areas of metal and the holes. With Babinet’s principle, it has been shown theoretically and experimentally that an antenna with a self-complementary shape exhibits a frequency-independent input impedance [@Mushiakebook; @BalanisAntenna]. Similarly, it also predicts that self-complementary metallic screens exhibit frequency-independent responses as described below. Here, we will consider the scattering problems of self-complementary metallic screens such as the “ideal” checkerboard geometry shown in Fig. \[fig:res\_check\](a). Babinet’s principle ensures that the power reflectance $R$ of the original problem is equal to the power transmittance $T\sub{c}$ of the dual problem ($T\sub{c}=R$). On the other hand, the power transmittance $T$ of the original problem must be equal to $T\sub{c}$, due to the self-duality ($T=T\sub{c}$). Then, the energy conservation law ($T+R=T+T\sub{c}=1$) gives the result that the power transmittance of electromagnetic waves through the checkerboard screen is equal to $1/2$ and is independent of the frequency of the incident waves [@Kempa2006]. However, this result seems strange for the following reasons: (i) the ideal checkerboard structure shows a frequency-independent response in spite of the fact that its geometry has periodicity or a characteristic length; (ii) the frequency-independent spectrum violates Foster’s reactance theorem in the long-wavelength limit, which states that the reactance of passive and lossless systems must strictly increase with frequency [@Chen2013].
During the past few decades, several experimental and numerical attempts have been made to observe the unusual frequency-independent transmission spectrum of the ideal checkerboard structures [@compton1984babinet; @Singh:09; @Takano2014], but none of them has succeeded in observing the flat spectrum predicted by this theory. This inconsistency is attributed to the point contacts at the corners of the metal patches in the ideal checkerboard geometry illustrated in Fig. \[fig:res\_check\](b). In principle, it is impossible to realize such ideal point contacts. Thus, the corners of actual structures have to be either connected or disconnected. It is known that such metallic objects that are nearly touching exhibit singular electromagnetic responses [@Pendry2013]. In addition, as is the case of the dc electrical conduction of the system [@Sheng1982], the connectivity of the metal corners has a significant influence over the scattering characteristics at higher frequencies [@Takano2014; @Edmunds2010; @Ramakrishna2011]. This critical behavior has been explained by percolation theory with the identification of the ideal checkerboard as the structure representing the percolation threshold between connected structures and disconnected ones [@Kempa2006]. In the case of self-complementary antennas, the connectivity of the metal is not considered as a critical problem, because the point contacts work as feed points to connect external circuits. Therefore, the existence of a flat transmission spectrum in metallic checkerboard screens is still controversial and worth pursuing.
In this Letter, to resolve the long-standing problem concerning self-complementarity, we propose using yet another intermediate state between connection and disconnection instead of the singular point contacts. To be more specific, we will replace the corners of the metallic checkerboard structure with resistive sheets, as shown in Fig. \[fig:res\_check\](c). By controlling the resistance of the sheets, we can realize the intermediates between the connected states and the disconnected ones [^1]. We then introduce an extension of Babinet’s principle to deal with the resistive elements and show a self-dual condition on the resistance. Finally, we experimentally demonstrate in the terahertz regime that the checkerboard structure loaded with resistive elements exhibits the predicted frequency-independent response under this specific condition on the resistance.
. Two problems of plane-wave scattering related through Babinet’s principle extended to finite sheet impedance. (a) The original problem. (b) The dual problem with the complementary sheet-impedance distribution and the incident polarization orthogonal to the original one. The symbols $\vct{E}$, $\vct{H}$, and $\vct{k}$ represent the electric field, the magnetic field, and the wave vector, respectively.](./check_mod.pdf){width="7.8cm"}
The familiar form of Babinet’s principle relates the scattering due to a thin metallic structure to that due to its complement [@JacksonBook]. Note that the structures are assumed to be perfect electric conductors. To discuss the effect of the resistive elements in the resistive checkerboard structure, we need to extend Babinet’s principle to finite sheet impedance. Let us consider the problem of plane-wave scattering by a structure placed in a vacuum for which the spatial distribution of the sheet impedance $Z(x,y)$ is as shown in Fig. \[fig:babinet\](a), where $(x,y)$ gives the coordinates on the structure. Next, we construct the dual problem, shown in Fig. \[fig:babinet\](b), where the complementary sheet-impedance distribution $Z\sub{c}(x,y)$ is defined as $$Z\sub{c}(x,y) = \frac{(Z_0/2)^2}{Z(x,y)}.\label{eq:inversion}$$ Here, $Z_0\sim 377\,\U{O}$ is the impedance of a vacuum. In simple terms, the sheet impedance is inverted at each point on the structure. We note that the polarizations of the incident waves of the two problems differ by 90 deg. Babinet’s principle for finite sheet impedance relates the transmittance of these two situations [@BaumNote1974; @Nakata2013]: $$\tilde{t}(\omega) + \tilde{t}\sub{c}(\omega)=1,\label{eq:Babinet}$$ where $\tilde{t}(\omega)$ and $\tilde{t}\sub{c}(\omega)$ are the complex amplitude transmittance of the zeroth-order diffraction mode in the original problem and its dual, respectively, and $\omega$ is the angular frequency of the incident wave. Here, the zeroth-order diffraction mode refers to the mode that has the same wave vector and polarization as the incident one. It is easy to confirm that the extended version of Babinet’s principle includes the conventional one by recalling that $Z=0$ and $Z=\infty$ correspond to perfect electric conductors and holes, respectively. We emphasize that Babinet’s principle relates the amplitude coefficients, not the power transmittance. In cases with neither polarization conversion nor diffraction, the power transmittance is related ($T+T\sub{c}=1$) by a combination of Babinet’s principle ($T\sub{c}=R$) and energy conservation ($T+R=1$).
We apply this principle to the resistive checkerboard structure. If the sheet impedance of the resistive sheet is equal to $Z_0/2$, the structure is self-complementary, because resistive sheets are invariant under the transformation in Eq. (\[eq:inversion\]) and the complementary structure can overlap the original one. Hence, we see that the dual problem of the resistive checkerboard structure is identical to the original one when linearly polarized plane waves are normally incident. Consequently, we obtain $\tilde{t}(\omega)=\tilde{t}\sub{c}(\omega)$, and combining this with Eq. (\[eq:Babinet\]) leads to $$\label{eq:half}
\tilde{t}(\omega)=\tilde{t}\sub{c}(\omega)=\frac{1}{2}.$$ This indicates that the resistive checkerboard structure shows a frequency-independent transmission spectrum if the sheet impedance of the resistive sheets is equal to $Z_0/2$. The same applies to the reflection spectrum, and we obtain an amplitude reflectance $\tilde{r}(\omega)=-1/2$. Therefore, half the incident power must be diffracted or absorbed. In particular, in the long-wavelength limit where there is no diffraction, half the power is absorbed by the resistive sheets. The theoretical general sufficient conditions for the frequency-independent response have been presented in our previous paper (see Ref. [@Nakata2013]). It should be noted that $Z_0/2$ is replaced with $Z_0/(2n)$ when the structure is surrounded by an isotropic dielectric medium with refractive index $n$.
. (a) The unit cell of the resistive checkerboard structure. The dimensions are as follows: $a=150\,\U{um}$, $d=50\,\U{um}$, $w=30\,\U{um}$, and $l=30\,\U{um}$. The gray dotted lines indicate the area of overlap of the two layers. (b)–(d) Photomicrographs of the fabricated checkerboard structures.](./samples.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
{width="15cm"}
We will now explain our experimental demonstration of the above situation. The resistive checkerboard structure was fabricated on a $c$-cut sapphire substrate ($20\,\U{mm}\times 20\,\U{mm} \times 900\,\U{um}$, Kyocera) by using the standard photolithography and lift-off technique. For the case of normal incidence, the refractive index of the $c$-cut sapphire plate is that for ordinary waves, i.e., $n\sub{Sa}\sim 3.1$ in the terahertz regime [@Grischkowsky1990]. The unit cell of the fabricated resistive checkerboard structure is shown in Fig. \[fig:samples\](a), and its photomicrograph is shown in Fig. \[fig:samples\](b). The structure consists of two layers. A resistive titanium (Ti) layer 19 $\U{nm}$ thick and a conductive aluminum (Al) layer 400 $\U{nm}$ thick were deposited by electron-beam evaporation at room temperature. The Ti rectangles have a margin of $d-l=20\,\U{um}$ that overlaps with the Al patches to assure electrical contact. With the terahertz time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS) technique (see the Supplemental Material for the experimental details [^2]) and Tinkham’s equation [@Walther2007], the sheet impedance of the 19-$\U{nm}$-thick Ti film was estimated to be $0.98\times Z_0/(2n\sub{Sa})$. The thickness of the Al layer was determined by taking into account the skin depth of terahertz radiation in Al, $\sim$$100\,\U{nm}$ at $1\,\U{THz}$ [@Azad2005]. For comparison, the connected and disconnected checkerboard structures were also fabricated as shown in Figs. \[fig:samples\](c) and \[fig:samples\](d). Their dimensions are the same as the resistive one, although they comprise only an Al layer and do not have self-complementarity.
To investigate their transmission properties, the fabricated structures were also characterized with THz-TDS [@Note2]. The probe terahertz beam was linearly polarized in the $y$ direction and focused on the samples under normal incidence with respect to the sample plane. In order to apply Babinet’s principle, it is necessary to satisfy the mirror-symmetry condition with respect to the sample plane. During the measurements, the surfaces of the checkerboard structures were covered with another plain sapphire plate so that the structures were symmetrically sandwiched between sapphire plates. We used a pair of plain sapphire plates as a reference. The amplitude transmission coefficients $\tilde{t}(\omega)$ of the samples were calculated by $\tilde{t}(\omega)=\tilde{E}\sub{sample}(\omega)/\tilde{E}\sub{sapphire}(\omega)$, where $\tilde{E}\sub{sample\,(sapphire)}$ represents the Fourier transform of a recorded electric field of a terahertz pulse transmitted through a sample (sapphire). In the calculation, the echo pulses caused by reflections at the boundaries of the substrate were removed from the temporal waveforms by multiplying by a time window. We note that the effect of the diffracted waves is negligible if the detector is sufficiently distant from the samples, and the terahertz beam can be approximated by a plane wave in the neighborhood of the focal point. Therefore, we can regard the experimental results as the theoretical transmission coefficients of the zeroth-order diffraction mode.
The measured amplitude transmission spectra of the checkerboard structures are shown in Fig. \[fig:results\](a) (see Fig. S2 in the Supplemental Material for comparison with numerical simulations [@Note2]). It is clearly confirmed from the result that the resistive case shows a nearly frequency-independent spectrum in both the real and imaginary parts. Note that the flatness continues beyond the diffraction frequency ($0.64\,\U{THz}$) or the homogenization limit. On the other hand, the spectra of the connected and disconnected checkerboard structures highly depend on the frequencies of the incident waves. Figure \[fig:results\](b) shows the loci of the amplitude transmission coefficients in the frequency range of $0.1$–$0.55\,\U{THz}$, where diffraction is negligible. We can easily confirm that the locus of the resistive case stays in close proximity to $(\Re \tilde{t},\Im \tilde{t})=(0.5,0)$. On the other hand, as the frequency increases, the loci of the connected and disconnected cases move in a clockwise direction along a circle centered at $(0.5,0)$ with radius $0.5$. The constraint of the motion to the path defined by this circle is due to energy conservation in the nondiffraction regime [@Ulrich1967].
. (a) The dimensions of the ELC resonators and the complementary ones, which are built in resistive checkerboard structures: $p=65\,\U{um}$, $s=8\,\U{um}$, and $g=8\,\U{um}$. (b) A photomicrograph of the resistive self-complementary metamaterial. (c) Photomicrographs of the connected and disconnected checkerboard metamaterials. (d) The recorded temporal waveforms of the terahertz electric fields that were transmitted through a sapphire reference and the disconnected, connected, and resistive metamaterials. The curves are vertically offset by 2 units for the sake of clarity.](./ELC.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
Equation (\[eq:half\]) holds for any self-complementarity structures with $n$-fold rotational symmetry ($n\geq 3$) [@Nakata2013]. The consequent frequency-independent response is counterintuitive, especially when these are resonant structures, which are often building blocks of metamaterials. Here, we consider resistive self-complementary structures loaded with electric-inductive-capacitive (ELC) resonators [@2006ApPhL..88d1109S], and their complementary structures [@Chen:07]. Their shape and dimensions are shown in Fig. \[fig:ELC\_trans\](a). They are designed to exhibit an inductive-capacitive resonance at $0.41\,\U{THz}$ when surrounded by sapphire. A photomicrograph of the fabricated planar metamaterial is shown in Fig. \[fig:ELC\_trans\](b). The details of the fabrication are the same as above. The ELC resonators and their complements are placed at the centers of the metallic patches or holes in the resistive checkerboard structure to maintain self-complementarity. The connected and disconnected structures were also prepared for comparison, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ELC\_trans\](c). We measured the electric fields transmitted through the samples by THz-TDS. Figure \[fig:ELC\_trans\](d) shows the measured waveforms of the electric fields after passing through the reference sapphire plates and the metamaterials (see Fig. S7 in the Supplemental Material for their transmission spectra [@Note2]). In both the connected and the disconnected cases, the waveforms are highly distorted as compared to those of the reference; this is due to the frequency-dependent transmission characteristics of the metamaterials. In addition, we can see persistent oscillations after the main pulse, and these are the evidence that the incident energy is temporarily stored in the resonant structures and then released afterward. On the other hand, the distortion in the resistive case is obviously small, and persistent oscillations are not observed. This clearly indicates that self-complementarity suppresses the frequency dependence of the transmission induced by the resonant structures. We note that resistive loading without self-complementarity does not cause the frequency independence (see Fig. S5 in the Supplemental Material [@Note2]).
In conclusion, we performed an experiment that demonstrated the controversial frequency-independent transmission spectra of self-complementary screens by replacing singular point contacts with resistive sheets. Consequently, this work revealed that the controversy arose from an implicit assumption about the power transmittance, $T+T\sub{c}=1$, which does not hold in self-dual cases. We also showed that self-dual symmetry can suppress even the strongly frequency-dependent response of the resonant structure. The phenomenon reported here is universal, because it is based on the self-duality of the system. Thus, it is expected to play an important role in a broad range of the electromagnetic spectrum and to be helpful for practical applications such as designing broadband metamaterials. In addition, the flat transmission and reflection characteristics of the self-complementary screens are applicable to broadband coherent perfect absorption in artificial structures [@Nakata2013; @Pu2012]. We note that there is no theoretical limitation on the size of the resistive sheets and that the energy of the incoming radiation can be concentrated on highly subwavelength regions; thus this has the potential to enhance nonlinear phenomena and light-harvesting applications. Finally, we point out that similar nearly flat transmission spectra in finite frequency ranges have been observed in thin metal films close to the metal-insulator transition, where metal islands are randomly connected by lossy narrow necks [@Yagil1987; @Davis1991]. Although these involve imperfections such as randomness, broken mirror symmetry, and material dispersion, they can be regarded as statistically and approximately self-dual screens. Thus, the perspective of this Letter provides another physical insight into their behavior, beyond the conventional view from effective medium theory [@Sarychev1995].
This study was deeply inspired by ideas of M. Hangyo of Osaka University, who passed away recently. The authors gratefully acknowledge fruitful discussions with K. Takano and Y. Tanaka and their experimental support. We thank F. Miyamaru for his technical advice in the THz-TDS experiments. We are also grateful to R.C. McPhedran for a useful comment at a conference held in Bordeaux and to H.Nakano for giving us information on a research report. This work was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grants No. 22109004, No. 25790065, and No. 25287101. The samples were prepared with the help of Kyoto University Nano Technology Hub in the “Nanotechnology Platform Project” sponsored by MEXT of Japan. Y.U. and Y.N. were supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.
[36]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/15/3/033026) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092056329500429D) @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1704146) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/TAP.2009.2027180) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0898-1221(88)90244-1) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) in @noop [**]{}, (, , ), Chap. , pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/pssr.201004266) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.233001) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.17.009971) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.22.024787) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys2667) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.26.1331) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/063007) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.245424) @noop [, ]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.205138) [****, ()](http://utol.okstate.edu/papers/paper20.pdf) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1498904) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.76.125408) [****, ()](http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?&id=85965) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020089167900280) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2166681) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1364/OE.15.001084) [****, ()](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22330464) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0040-6090(87)90262-8) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003040189190054H) [****, ()](http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v51/i8/p5366_1)
[^1]: Note that in circuit theory an infinite resistance corresponds to an open circuit, and zero resistance corresponds to a short circuit [@Desoer1969basic].
[^2]: See Supplemental Material at \[URL\], which includes Ref. [@Crooker2002], for the experimental details and additional numerical simulations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study one-dimensional topological superconductivity in the presence of time-reversal symmetry. This phase is characterized by having a bulk gap, while supporting a Kramers’ pair of zero-energy Majorana bound states at each of its ends. We present a general simple model which is driven into this topological phase in the presence of repulsive electron-electron interactions. We further propose two experimental setups and show that they realize this model at low energies. The first setup is a narrow two-dimensional topological insulator partially covered by a conventional $s$-wave superconductor, and the second is a semiconductor wire in proximity to an $s$-wave superconductor. These systems can therefore be used to realize and probe the time-reversal invariant topological superconducting phase. The effect of interactions is studied using both a mean-field approach and a renormalization group analysis.'
author:
- 'Arbel Haim$^1$, Konrad Wölms$^2$, Erez Berg$^1$, Yuval Oreg$^1$, and Karsten Flensberg$^2$'
bibliography:
- 'Refs\_TRITOPS\_RG.bib'
title: 'Interaction-driven topological superconductivity in one dimension'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The pursuit of realizing topological phases in condensed matter systems continues. These phases are generally characterized by having unique surface properties which are dictated by the topological properties of the bulk. The first and most famous example is the quantum Hall effect (QHE) [@Klitzing1980new; @Laughlin1981quantized; @Thouless1982quantized], in which gapless chiral edge modes, protected only by topology, reside on the edges of a two-dimensional system and give rise to a quantized Hall conductivity.
Since then it has been realized that upon invoking symmetries, a rich variety of topological phases can emerge [@schnyder2008classification; @kitaev2009periodic; @Qi2011topological]. These phases as well contain gapless boundary modes which are related to the topological nature of the bulk. However, they are only protected in the presence of some imposed symmetries, and could otherwise become gapped. Here, the paradigmatic example is the topological insulator (TI) [@Kane2005quantum; @Bernevig2006quantum; @konig2007quantum] which in two dimensions can be thought of as two copies of the QHE, related by time-reversal transformation. The edge of the system now host gapless *helical* modes which are protected by the presence of time-reversal symmetry (TRS).
The various topological phases are classified according to the possible symmetries present in a given system [@schnyder2008classification; @kitaev2009periodic]. These are TRS, particle-hole symmetry (PHS) and chiral symmetry [@Altland1997]. Of particular interest is the so-called class-D topological superconductor (TSC) [@Alicea2012; @Beenakker2013] which is protected solely by PHS. This symmetry is special since it exists in all superconducting systems, and in fact cannot truly be broken. This makes its edge states, the Majorana modes, extremely robust. In that sense, the TSC can be viewed as the superconducting analog of the QHE.
One is then prompted to ask: what is the superconducting analog of the topological insulator? This would be the time-reversal invariant topological superconductor (TRITOPS) which belongs to class DIII [@Qi2009time; @Qi2010topological]. In one or two dimensions, it can be described as two copies of a class D TSC, related by time-reversal transformation. Each edge (or end) of this phase hosts a Kramers’ pair of time-reversal related Majorana modes, analogous to the pair of helical edge modes of the two-dimensional (2d) TI. Unlike single Majorana zero modes, Majorana Kramers pairs do not have a well defined braiding statistics [@Wolms2014local; @Wolms2016Braiding]; however, they have non-trivial spin structure [@Keselman2013inducing; @Keselman2015gapless].
Class-D TSC is currently a subject of intense study, following the prediction that this phase can be engineered by combining well-understood building blocks such as conventional $s$-wave superconductors and spin orbit-coupled material [@fu2008superconducting; @fu2009josephson; @Lutchyn2010majorana; @Oreg2010helical]. Recently a number of experimental studies have shown evidence consistent with the existence of zero-energy Majorana bound state (MBS) in such one-dimensional (1d) systems [@mourik2012signatures; @deng2012anomalous; @Das2012zero; @churchill2013superconductor; @Finck2013anomalous; @Nadj-Perge2014observation; @Pawlak2015probing; @Ruby2015end].
In contrast, to the best of our knowledge, no attempts have been made on experimentally realizing the TRITOPS phase in low-dimensional systems. Some theoretical works have proposed using unconventional superconductivity in order to realize this phase [@Wong2012majorana; @Zhang2013time; @Nakosai2013majorana]. Other proposals include $\pi$ junctions [@Dahlhaus2010Random; @Keselman2013inducing; @Schrade2015proximity], organic SCs [@Dumitrescu2013topological], and intrinsic superconductors in two and three dimensions [@Fu2010; @Nakosai2012topological; @Deng2012majorana; @Wang2014two]. In particular, it has been shown [@Zhang2013time; @Gaidamauskas2014majorana; @Haim2016WithComment] that, unlike class-D TSC, the TRITOPS phase cannot be engineered by proximity coupling a conventional $s$-wave superconductor (SC) to a system of noninteracting electrons.
It was suggested [@Gaidamauskas2014majorana; @Haim2014time; @Klinovaja2014time; @Klinovaja2014Kramers] that repulsive interactions in a 1d system proximity-coupled to a convention $s$-wave SC can stabilize the TRITOPS phase. This mechanism was demonstrated explicitly in a proximity coupled semiconductor nanowire using a mean-field approximation [@Haim2014time; @Danon2015interaction] and using the density matrix renormalization group [@Haim2014time]. It has also been suggested that interactions can induce (gapless) topological phases supporting Majorana zero-modes in 1d, with [@Cho2014topological; @Keselman2015gapless; @Kainaris2015Emergent] and without [@Sau2011Number; @Fidkowski2011Majorana; @Ruhman2015Topological] time-reversal symmetry, even in the absence of proximity to a bulk SC.
In this paper we adopt a more general perspective of interaction-driven TRITOPS. We consider a general “minimal” model (see Fig. \[fig:H\_0\_spectrum\]) which can arise as a low-energy theory of various spin-orbit coupled 1d systems in proximity to an $s$-wave SC. The model has four Fermi points with two right moving modes and two left-moving modes. Due to spin-orbit coupling, proximity-induced superconductivity results in both a singlet and a triplet pairing potential, $\Delta_\tx{s}$ and $\Delta_\tx{t}$, respectively [@Gorkov2001WithComment]. As we show, short-range repulsive interactions suppress $\Delta_\tx{s}$ compared to $\Delta_\tx{t}$ [@Sun2014tuningWithComment], thereby driving the system into the topological phase. We map the phase diagram of this minimal model using both a mean-field approximation and an analytically controlled renormalization group (RG) analysis. We further propose two microscopic systems which can be realized in currently-available experimental setups, and which are described at low energies by the minimal model. These are (i) a narrow 2d TI partially covered by an $s$-wave SC \[see Fig. \], and (ii) a quasi 1d semiconductor nanowire proximitized by an $s$-wave SC \[see Fig. \].
While we consider clean systems in this work, we expect our results to hold also for systems with weak disorder. Namely, we expect the topological phase to survive as long as the mean free time associated with disorder is large compared to the inverse energy gap, similar to the case of the class D topological SC [@Motrunich2001Griffiths; @Brouwer2011Probability].
Several studies have examined the effect of repulsive interactions on topological superconductors with *broken* time-reversal symmetry [@Gangadharaiah2011Majorana; @Stoudenmire2011Interaction; @Manolescu2014Coulomb]. It was found that the topological phase is stable against moderate interactions which do not close the bulk energy gap. In this paper, on the other hand, we are interested in the time-reversal symmetric phase. Importantly, while in the above studies the topological phase exists even in the absence of interactions, here the role of repulsive interactions is a crucial one; they are responsible for driving the system into the topological phase.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:The\_model\] we introduce the low-energy minimal model and the conditions for it to be in its non-trivial phase. In Sec. \[sec:Realizations\] we examine the two microscopic models mentioned above and show that they are described at low energies by the minimal model. We then study the effect of repulsive interactions in Sec. \[sec:interactions\], showing that it drives the low-energy model into the topological phase. This is done first on a mean-field level in Sec. \[sec:MF\], and then using a perturbative RG analysis in Sec. \[sec:RG\]. We conclude and discuss our results in Sec. \[sec:discussion\].
Main Theme {#sec:The_model}
==========
Our minimal model is described in the absence of interactions by the following Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:minimal_H}
\begin{split}
&H = H_0+H_\Delta,\\
&H_0 = -i\int \tx{d}x
\left\{ v_+ \left[R^\dag_\ua(x)\partial_x R_\ua(x) -L^\dag_\da(x)\partial_x L_\da(x)\right]\right.\\
& \hskip 20mm
+ v_- \left. \left[R^\dag_\da(x)\partial_x R_\da(x) -L^\dag_\ua(x)\partial_x L_\ua(x)\right]\right\},\\
&H_\Delta = \int \tx{d}x \left[\Delta_+ R^\dag_\ua(x)L^\dag_\da(x) + \Delta_- L^\dag_\ua(x)R^\dag_\da(x) + \tx{h.c.} \right],
\end{split}$$ where $R_s$ ($L_s$) is an annihilation operator of a right (left) moving fermionic mode of spin $s$. Here, $\Delta_+$ and $\Delta_-$ are two induced pairing potentials. $\Delta_+$ describes pairing between the modes of positive helicity, $R_\uparrow$ and $L_\downarrow$, while $\Delta_-$ describes pairing between the modes of negative helicity, $L_\uparrow$ and $R_\downarrow$ [@PseudoSpinIndex]. Similarly, $v_\pm$ are the velocities of the modes with positive and negative helicity, respectively. The dispersion of $H_0$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:H\_0\_spectrum\].
The time-reversal operation is defined by $$\label{eq:TR_operation}
\begin{split}
&\mathbb{T}R_s(x)\mathbb{T}^{-1} = i\sigma^y_{ss'} L_{s'}(x)\\
&\mathbb{T}L_s(x)\mathbb{T}^{-1} = i\sigma^y_{ss'} R_{s'}(x)\\
&\mathbb{T}i\mathbb{T}^{-1}= -i,
\end{split}$$ where $\{\sigma^i\}_{i=x,y,z}$ is the set of Pauli matrices operating in spin space. Requiring that $H$ obeys time-reversal symmetry, $\mathbb{T}H\mathbb{T}^{-1}=H$, imposes the constraints that both $\Delta_+$ and $\Delta_-$ are real. In the absence of inversion symmetry, the Fermi momenta $k_\tx{F}^+$ and $k_\tx{F}^-$ generally differ from one another (see Fig. \[fig:H\_0\_spectrum\]). In this case, $H$ is the most general low-energy quadratic Hamiltonian which describes a single-channel 1d system with TRS [@MomentumMismachTerm].
The time-reversal operation in Eq. squares to $-1$, placing this system in class DIII of the Altland-Zirnbauer classification [@Altland1997], with a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological invariant [@schnyder2008classification; @kitaev2009periodic]. It has been shown by Qi *et al.* [@Qi2010topological] that the topological invariant of this class in 1d is determined by the product of the signs of the pairing potentials at the Fermi points [@TopInvWeaPairing]. Applying their result to our case reads $$\label{eq:top_inv}
\mathcal{Q}=\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_+)\cdot\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_-),$$ where $Q=-1$ corresponds to the topologically non-trivial phase, having a Kramers’ pair of Majorana bound states at each end of the system. For completeness we derive this result in Appendix \[sec:top\_criter\] using a scattering-matrix approach.
It is instructive to write the superconducting part of the Hamiltonian in the following form $$\label{eq:H_delta_2}
\begin{split}
H_\Delta =& \int \tx{d}x \left\{\Delta_\tx{s}\left[R^\dag_\ua(x)L^\dag_\da(x) - R^\dag_\da(x)L^\dag_\ua(x)\right]\right.\\
+&\left.\Delta_\tx{t}\left[R^\dag_\ua(x)L^\dag_\da(x) + R^\dag_\da(x)L^\dag_\ua(x)\right] +\tx{h.c.} \right\},
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta_\tx{s,t}=(\Delta_+ \pm \Delta_-)/2$ are the singlet and triplet pairing potentials respectively. Inserting this in Eq. results in $$\label{eq:top_inv_2}
\mathcal{Q}=\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_\tx{s}^2-\Delta_\tx{t}^2).$$ Namely, the topological phase ($\mathcal{Q}=-1$) is obtained when the triplet pairing term exceeds in magnitude the singlet pairing term.
For a noninteracting system in proximity to a conventional $s$-wave SC the system will always be in the topologically trivial phase [@Zhang2013time; @Gaidamauskas2014majorana; @Haim2016WithComment], namely $|\Delta_\tx{s}|\ge |\Delta_\tx{t}|$. In Secs. \[sec:MF\] and \[sec:RG\] we will show that repulsive short-range interactions effectively suppress the singlet pairing term $\Delta_\tx{s}$ in comparison with the triplet term $\Delta_\tx{t}$. Depending on the bare ratio $|\Delta_\tx{t}|/|\Delta_\tx{s}|$, strong enough interactions can therefore drive the system to the topological phase [@IntSysTopInvComment]. A system in which initially $|\Delta_\tx{t}|$ is of the order of (but less than) $|\Delta_\tx{s}|$, is therefore more susceptible to become topological by the presence of repulsive interactions.
Before studying in detail the effect of repulsive interactions in the proximitized system, we first present two examples of microscopic models for systems which are described at low energies by the Hamiltonian of Eq. . Importantly, we show that the low-energy Hamiltonian for these systems contains a bare nonvanishing induced triplet term which is generally of the order of (but smaller than) the singlet term.
Realizations {#sec:Realizations}
============
In this section we concentrate on two specific examples of proximity-coupled systems where both a singlet and a triplet pairing terms are induced. We then move on to show in Sec. \[sec:interactions\] that repulsive electron-electron interactions suppress the singlet pairing compared to the triplet pairing, thereby driving the systems to the TRITOPS phase.
Narrow Quantum Spin-Hall Insulator {#sec:Narrow_QSHI}
----------------------------------
We consider a narrow two-dimensional quantum spin Hall insulator (QSHI) in proximity to an $s$-wave SC [@Hart2014Induced]. A QSHI [@Kane2005quantum; @Bernevig2006quantum; @konig2007quantum] is a phase characterized by a pair of counter-propagating helical modes on each edge of the system as depicted in Fig. . We define the correlation length $\xi_\tx{QSHI}$ as the characteristic length with which the helical edge modes decay into the bulk. If the width of the bar $d$ is of the order of $\xi_\tx{QSHI}$ or less, then gapless modes of opposite edges are coupled and an energy gap is opened \[cf. Figs. and \]. When the chemical potential lies above or below the gap, the low-energy sector of the system is described by a one-dimensional model having four Fermi points, similar to the Hamiltonian $H_0$ of Eq. . We now show that coupling one of the edges to a conventional $s$-wave SC results in a nonvanishing triplet pairing component.
------ -- --------
-2mm -4.2mm
------ -- --------
In the absence of interactions, the two coupled edges are described by the following Hamiltonian $$\begin{split}
&H_\tx{QSHI}=\sum_k \Psi_k^\dag\mathcal{H}(k)\Psi_k^{\phantom{\dag}}\hskip 2mm ;\hskip 2mm
\Psi^\dag_k=(a^\dag_{k\uparrow},b^\dag_{k\uparrow},a^{\phantom{\dag}}_{-k\downarrow},b^{\phantom{\dag}}_{-k\downarrow}) \\
&\mathcal{H}(k)=[-\mu+(\delta\mu +vk)\lambda^z+t\lambda^x]\tau^z+\frac{\Delta_{\rm ind}}{2}(1+\lambda^z)\tau^x,
\end{split}$$ where $a^\dag_{ks}$ ($b^\dag_{ks}$) creates an electron with momentum $k$ and spin $s=\uparrow,\downarrow$ on the lower (upper) edge of the sample. $\{\tau^i\}_{i=x,y,z}$ and $\{\lambda^i\}_{i=x,y,z}$ are sets of Pauli matrices in the particle-hole space and the lower edge-upper edge space, respectively. Here, $v$ is the propagation velocity of the edge modes, $t$ is the coupling constant between the lower and upper edge modes (which results from the finite width of the sample), $\mu\pm\delta\mu$ are the chemical potentials at the upper and lower edge, respectively, and $\Delta_{\rm ind}$ is the pairing potential induced by the SC on the lower edge of the sample \[cf. Fig.\].
We consider the case where, in the absence of proximity, the chemical potential lies inside the upper band \[see Fig. \] [@UpperVsLowerBand], and where the induced pairing, $\Delta_\tx{ind}$, is small in comparison with the distance to the lower band, $\mu+|t|$. We can therefore project out the lower band, arriving at the following effective Hamiltonian for the upper band $$\begin{split}
&H_{\rm eff}=\sum_k\left\{
\sum_{s=\ua,\da}\left(\sqrt{t^2+(\delta\mu+ svk)^2}-\mu\right)c^\dag_{ks}c^{\phantom{\dag}}_{ks}\right. \\
&\left.\phantom{\sum_{s=\ua,\da}}\hskip 10mm+\Delta(k)\left(c^\dag_{k\uparrow}c^\dag_{-k\downarrow}+{\rm h.c.}\right)\right\},
\end{split}\label{eq:H_eff_QSHI}$$ with the effective pairing potential $$\Delta(k)=\frac{\Delta_\tx{ind}}{2}\left[1+(\delta\mu+vk)/\sqrt{t^2+(\delta\mu+vk)^2}\right].$$ Here, $c^\dag_{ks}$ describes electronic modes in the upper band with momentum $k$ and spin $s$. It is related to the left and right edge modes through $$\label{eq:qshi_modes}
\begin{split}
&c^\dag_{ks}=\cos(\phi_{ks}) a^\dag_{ks} + \sin(\phi_{ks})b^\dag_{ks},\\
&\cos(2\phi_{ks})=(\delta\mu+vks)/\sqrt{t^2+(\delta\mu+vks)^2},\\
&\sin(2\phi_{ks})=t/\sqrt{t^2+(\delta\mu+vks)^2},
\end{split}$$ where we have used a convention in which $s=1$ corresponds to spin $\uparrow$, and $s=-1$ corresponds to spin $\downarrow$.
Assuming weak pairing [@WeakPairing], we can linearize the spectrum near the Fermi energy and impose a momentum cutoff $\Lambda$, resulting in the following Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:H_lin}
\begin{split}
H^\tx{lin} = \sum_{|k|<\Lambda} &\Big\{ \bar{v}k\sum_{s=\ua,\da} (R^\dag_{ks}R^{\phantom{\dag}}_{ks}-L^\dag_{ks}L^{\phantom{\dag}}_{ks}) \\
+& ( \Delta_+ R^\dag_{k\uparrow}L^\dag_{-k\downarrow}
+\Delta_-L^\dag_{k\uparrow}R^\dag_{-k\downarrow}+{\rm h.c.} ) \Big\}
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:def_chirl_fields_qshi}
\begin{split}
R_{k\uparrow} &= c_{k^{+}_{\rm F}+k,\uparrow} \hskip 5mm ; \hskip 5mm
L_{k\downarrow} = c_{-k^{+}_{\rm F}+k,\downarrow},\\
R_{k\downarrow} &= c_{k^{-}_{\rm F}+k,\downarrow} \hskip 5mm ; \hskip 5mm
L_{k\uparrow} = c_{-k^{-}_{\rm F}+k,\uparrow},
\end{split}$$ and $$\Delta_+=\Delta(k_{\rm F}^{+}) \hskip 3mm , \hskip 3mm \Delta_-=\Delta(-k_{\rm F}^{-}).$$ The velocity of the modes at the Fermi points is given by $$\label{eq:velocity_qshi}
\bar{v}=v\sqrt{1-(t/\mu)^2},$$ and the Fermi momenta are given by $k^{\pm}_\tx{F}=(\mu \bar{v}/v \mp \delta\mu)/v$ (Notice that since the chemical potential is assumed to lie inside the upper band one has $\mu>|t|$). The Hamiltonian of Eq. is exactly the minimal model Hamiltonian of Eq. , written in momentum space, with $v_+=v_-=\bar{v}$.
As discussed in Sec. \[sec:The\_model\], the system is in its topological phase when $\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_+)\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_-)=-1$. Alternatively stated, this occurs when $|\Delta_{\rm t}|>|\Delta_{\rm s}|$ \[see Eq. \]. For the model at hand one has $$\label{eq:t_vs_s_QSHI}
\Delta_\tx{s}=\Delta_\tx{ind}/2 \hskip 3mm ; \hskip 3mm \Delta_\tx{t}= \frac{\bar{v}}{v} \Delta_\tx{ind}/2.$$ As expected, in the absence of interactions $|\Delta_\tx{t}|\le|\Delta_\tx{s}|$. Importantly, however, $\Delta_\tx{t}$ is nonzero, and can generally be of similar magnitude to $\Delta_\tx{s}$, making the system susceptible to being driven into the TRITOPS phase by short-range repulsive interactions.
The existence of a nonvanishing triplet pairing term can also be understood from a simple qualitative argument. The lower and upper edges of the QSHI host modes of positive and negative helicity, respectively. Since the SC is coupled to the *lower* edge, the pairing of the positive-helicity modes, $\Delta_+$, is larger in magnitude than that of the negative-helicity modes, $\Delta_-$, and consequently $\Delta_\tx{t}\neq 0$. This agrees with Eqs. and which suggest that $|\Delta_\tx{t}|$ is maximal when the edges are maximally separated (namely when $t=0$). We note, however, that some overlap between the edge modes is necessary in order to eventually achieve the TRITOPS phase. This is because in the absence of such overlap, the backscattering interaction vanishes. As will be shown in Sec. \[sec:interactions\], this interaction terms is crucial for the system to be driven into the topological phase.
Proximity-Coupled Semiconductor Wire {#sec:Rashba_wire}
------------------------------------
Next we concentrate on another system which can be driven into the TRITOPS phase by repulsive interactions, a spin-orbit coupled semiconductor nanowire. We now show that this system is described at low-energies by the Hamiltonian of Eq. with a nonvanishing triplet pairing term.
Consider a semiconductor spin-orbit coupled nanowire in proximity to a bulk three-dimensional $s$-wave SC as depicted in Fig.. The wire is infinite in the $x$ direction, while its lateral dimensions are $w_y\times w_z$. We wish to write the Hamiltonian for the lowest transverse mode of the wire. If the width of the wire is small compared to the spin-orbit coupling length, then the $z$ component of the electron’s spin is approximately conserved [@appendixRef]. Under this assumption, and in the absence of electron-electron interactions, the effective Hamiltonian for the lowest band is given by $$\begin{split}
H_\tx{eff}=&\sum_k\left\{\sum_{ss'}\left[\left(\frac{k^2}{2m^\ast}-\mu\right)\delta_{ss'}+\alpha k\sigma^z_{ss'}\right]c^\dag_{ks}c^{\phantom{\dag}}_{ks'}\right. \\
&\hskip 3mm \left.\phantom{\sum_{ss'}}+\Delta(k)(c^\dag_{k\uparrow}c^\dag_{-k\downarrow}+{\rm h.c.})\right\},
\end{split}\label{eq:H_eff_wire}$$ where $c^\dag_{ks}$ creates an electron in the lowest transverse mode of the wire with spin $s$ and momentum $k$ along the $x$ direction. Here $m^\ast$ is the effective mass of electrons in the wire, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, and $\alpha$ is the spin-orbit coupling strength. The induced pairing potential in the lowest transverse band is approximately given by $$\label{eq:Delta_k_wire}
\Delta(k) = \Delta_\tx{ind}(1+\beta k),$$ where $\beta$ is a constant which arises due to spin-orbit interaction. Equation is derived in appendix \[sec:low\_E\_derive\] by perturbatively considering a general spin-orbit coupling term in the wire, and integrating out the superconductor’s degrees of freedom \[see Eq. \]. Physically, Eq. implies that modes with different helicity have a different induced pairing potential \[see Fig. \]; we will elaborate on the mechanism behind this effect below.
------ ------
-2mm -1mm
-1mm
------ ------
If the chemical potential lies inside the band, then there are two pairs of Fermi points $\pm k^{+}_{\rm F}$ and $\pm k^{-}_{\rm F}$ as depicted in Fig.. Assuming that the induced pairing potential is much smaller than distance to the bottom of the band, we linearize the spectrum near the Fermi points as in Sec \[sec:Narrow\_QSHI\]. This results in exactly the same Hamiltonian of Eqs. and , where as before we define $R_{k\ua,\da} = c_{k^{\pm}_{\rm F}+k,\ua,\da}$, $L_{k\ua,\da} = c_{-k^{\mp}_{\rm F}+k,\ua,\da}$, and $\Delta_\pm = \Delta(\pm k_\tx{F}^\pm)$. The velocities of the modes at the Fermi points are given by $v_+=v_-=\sqrt{2\mu/m^\ast+\alpha^2}\equiv\bar{v}$, and the Fermi momenta are given by $k^{\pm}_\tx{F}=m^\ast(\bar{v}\mp\alpha)$. The momentum dependence of $\Delta(k)$ results in the following singlet and triplet pairing terms $$\label{eq:Delta_pm_wire}
\Delta_+=\Delta_\tx{ind}(1+\beta k_\tx{F}^+) \hskip 3mm ; \hskip 3mm
\Delta_-=\Delta_\tx{ind}(1-\beta k_\tx{F}^-),$$ which translate into $$\label{eq:t_vs_s_wire}
\Delta_\tx{s}=(1-\beta\alpha m^\ast)\Delta_\tx{ind} \hskip 3mm ; \hskip 3mm \Delta_\tx{t}= \beta m^\ast\bar{v}\Delta_\tx{ind}.$$ Equation was derived in a perturbative treatment, and therefore it is valid only for sufficiently small $\beta$, for which $\Delta_\tx{s}$ exceeds $\Delta_\tx{t}$. This holds more generally, as the bare induced triplet pairing potential has to be smaller than the singlet term in the absence of interactions [@Gaidamauskas2014majorana; @Haim2016WithComment].
The form of $\Delta(k)$ is derived in Appendix \[sec:low\_E\_derive\] in detail, however the essence of that derivation can be captured in the following simplified model. Let us consider the electrons in the wire to be confined in the $y$ direction by a harmonic potential $V_\tx{c}(y)=m^\ast\omega_\tx{c}^2y^2/2$, where $y=0$ is at the center of the wire. The spin-orbit coupling in the wire contributes a term of the form $\mc{H}_\tx{so}=u\partial_y V_\tx{c}(y) \hat{p}_x\sigma^z$. Ignoring the $z$ direction for the moment (justified when $w_z\ll w_y$), the electrons in the wire are governed by the first-quantized Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:H_wire_simplified}
\mc{H}_\tx{wire}=\frac{\hat{p}_x^2+\hat{p}_y^2}{2m^\ast} + \frac{1}{2}m^\ast\omega_c^2(y+u\hat{p}_x\sigma^z)^2.$$ The eigenfunctions of $\mc{H}_\tx{wire}$ are $\exp(ikx)\eta_n(y+uks)$, where $s$ is the spin, and $\eta_n(y)$ are the eigenfunctions of an harmonic oscillator of mass $m^\ast$ and frequency $\omega_c$. It is now apparent that states with $ks>0$ are shifted towards the SC ($y<0$), while states with negative $ks<0$ are shifted away from the SC ($y>0$) [@Moroz1999Effect]. This is illustrated in Fig. Upon coupling the SC to the wire, modes with $ks>0$ will therefore experience an induced pairing potential which is bigger than that of modes with $ks<0$, in accordance with Eq. .
Effect of repulsive interactions {#sec:interactions}
================================
After showing how the low-energy Hamiltonian of Eq. with nonvanishing triplet pairing potential is obtained from two different microscopic models, we now study the effect of repulsive interactions. We will show, using both a mean-field analysis and weak-coupling RG, that short-range repulsive interactions effectively suppress the singlet term while strengthening the triplet term, thereby driving the system to the topological phase \[cf. Eq. \].
The full Hamiltonian is given by $H_0+H_\Delta+H_\tx{int}$, with $H_0$ and $H_\Delta$ given in Eq. , and with $$\label{eq:H_int}
\begin{split}
H_\tx{int} = \int\tx{d}x &\left\{ g_1^\perp \left[ R^\dag_\ua(x)L^\dag_\da(x)R_\da(x)L_\ua(x) + \tx{h.c.}\right]\right.\\
&\hskip -1.5mm + g_2^+\rho_{\tx{R}\ua}(x)\rho_{\tx{L}\da}(x)+ g_2^-\rho_{\tx{R}\da}(x)\rho_{\tx{L}\ua}(x) \\
&\hskip -2mm + \left. g_2^\parallel\left[\rho_{\tx{R}\ua}(x)\rho_{\tx{L}\ua}(x) + \rho_{\tx{L}\da}(x)\rho_{\tx{R}\da}(x)\right] \right\},
\end{split}$$ where $\rho_{\tx{R}s}(x)=R^\dag_s(x)R_s(x)$ and $\rho_{\tx{L}s}(x)=L^\dag_s(x)L_s(x)$. Here, $g_1^\perp$ is a backscattering interaction term, while $g_2^+$, $g_2^-$, and $g_2^\parallel$ are forward scattering interaction terms. In the absence of symmetry under inversion ($x\to-x$), the Fermi momenta are generally different, $k_\tx{F}^+\neq k_\tx{F}^-$ (see Fig. \[fig:H\_0\_spectrum\]). In this case $H_\tx{int}$ is the most general low-energy time-reversal symmetric Hamiltonian describing interaction between modes of opposite chirality. Interaction terms between modes of the same chirality can exist, however, they would not affect the RG flow (see Appendix \[sec:RG\_eqs\_deriv\]), nor would they contribute to our mean-field solution, and therefore we do not include them here.
Mean-Field Analysis {#sec:MF}
-------------------
Before analyzing the effect of interactions using the renormalization group, it is instructive to study the mean-field solution. In this analysis we replace the low-energy interacting Hamiltonian by a quadratic Hamiltonian of the form of Eq. with *effective* pairing potentials $\bar\Delta_+$ and $\bar\Delta_-$. Upon determining $\bar\Delta_\pm$ by solving self-consistent equations \[see Eq. \], one can easily extract the topological invariant from this mean-field Hamiltonian.
The $g_2^\parallel$ term in Eq. involves interaction between electrons of the same spin species. It will therefore not affect the pairing potentials $\Delta_\pm$, and its sole effect would be to change the effective chemical potential. Hence, we shall ignore it in the present mean-field treatment.
We begin by writing $$\label{eq:pair_term_resolved}
\begin{split}
&L_\da(x)R_\ua(x) \equiv \langle L_\da(x) R_\ua(x) \rangle + \delta_+(x), \\
&R_\da(x)L_\ua(x) \equiv \langle R_\da(x) L_\ua(x) \rangle + \delta_-(x).
\end{split}$$ In the mean-field approximation we assume that the system has a superconducting order, and accordingly the averages of the pairing terms, $\langle L_\da(x) R_\ua(x) \rangle$ and $\langle R_\da(x) L_\ua(x) \rangle$, are large compared to their respective fluctuations, $\delta_+$ and $\delta_-$. We therefore substitute Eq. into Eq. and retain terms only to first order in $\delta_\pm$. This results (up to a constant) in a mean-field Hamiltonian $H^\tx{MF}=H_0+H_\Delta^\tx{MF}$, with $H_0$ given in Eq. , and with $$\label{eq:H_MF}
H^\tx{MF}_\Delta = \int \tx{d}x \left[\bar\Delta_+ R^\dag_\ua(x)L^\dag_\da(x) + \bar\Delta_- L^\dag_\ua(x)R^\dag_\da(x) + \tx{h.c.} \right],$$ where $$\label{eq:Deltas_bar}
\begin{split}
&\bar\Delta_+=\Delta_+ + g_1^\perp\langle R_\da(x) L_\ua(x) \rangle + g_2^+\langle L_\da(x) R_\ua(x) \rangle\\
&\bar\Delta_-=\Delta_- + g_1^\perp\langle L_\da(x) R_\ua(x) \rangle + g_2^-\langle R_\da(x) L_\ua(x) \rangle.
\end{split}$$
Since $H^\tx{MF}$ is a quadratic Hamiltonian, one can easily calculate the above pair correlation functions and arrive at self-consistent equations for $\bar\Delta_+$ and $\bar\Delta_-$. One then obtains (see Appendix \[sec:self\_consist\])
\[eq:self\_consist\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:self_consist_a}
\begin{split}
\bar{\Delta}_+ = \Delta_+
- &\frac{g_1^\perp}{2\pi v_-} \bar{\Delta}_- \sinh^{-1}\left(v_-\Lambda/|\bar{\Delta}_-|\right)\\
- &\frac{g_2^+}{2\pi v_+} \bar{\Delta}_+ \sinh^{-1}\left(v_+\Lambda/|\bar{\Delta}_+|\right),
\end{split}\\
\label{eq:self_consist_b}
\begin{split}
\bar{\Delta}_- = \Delta_-
- &\frac{g_1^\perp}{2\pi v_+} \bar{\Delta}_+ \sinh^{-1}\left(v_+\Lambda/|\bar{\Delta}_+|\right)\\
- &\frac{g_2^-}{2\pi v_-} \bar{\Delta}_- \sinh^{-1}\left(v_-\Lambda/|\bar{\Delta}_-|\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
These coupled equations can be solved numerically for $\bar \Delta_\pm$, after which the topological invariant of $H^\tx{MF}$ is obtained by $\mathcal{Q}=\operatorname{sgn}(\bar{\Delta}_+)\operatorname{sgn}(\bar{\Delta}_-)$. One can, however, make further analytical progress by searching for the phase boundary between $\mathcal{Q}=1$ and $\mathcal{Q}=-1$. This occurs when either $\bar{\Delta}_-=0$, or $\bar{\Delta}_+=0$. By Plugging $\bar\Delta_\pm=0$ in Eq. , one obtains the conditions on the parameters of the original Hamiltonian, Eqs. and , to be on the phase boundary. If the phase boundary occurs at $\bar\Delta_+=0$, then it is described by $$\label{eq:phase_bound}
\frac{v_-\Lambda g_1^\perp}{|g_1^\perp \Delta_- - g_2^- \Delta_+ |} =
\sinh\left( \frac{2\pi v_-\Delta_+}{g_1^\perp \Delta_- - g_2^- \Delta_+} \right),$$ while if it occurs at $\bar\Delta_-=0$, $$\label{eq:phase_bound_2}
\frac{v_+\Lambda g_1^\perp}{|g_1^\perp \Delta_+ - g_2^+ \Delta_- |} =
\sinh\left( \frac{2\pi v_+\Delta_-}{g_1^\perp \Delta_+ - g_2^+ \Delta_-} \right).$$
As a relevant example we can consider a Hubbard-type interaction, $g_1=g_2^+=g_2^-=U$, and furthermore $v_+=v_-=\bar{v}$. Let us assume without loss of generality that $|\Delta_+|>|\Delta_-|$. This means that the phase boundary will occur when $\bar{\Delta}_-=0$, namely when $$\label{eq:MF_ph_bound_U}
\frac{U}{\pi \bar{v}} = \frac{\Delta_\tx{s}/\Delta_\tx{t} - 1}{\sinh^{-1}\left( \bar{v}\Lambda/2|\Delta_\tx{t}| \right)}.$$ Figure \[fig:phase\_diagram\_U\] presents the topological phase diagram, obtained using Eq. (see dashed line), as a function of $U$ and the ratio $\Delta_\tx{t}/\Delta_\tx{s}$, for different values of $\Delta_s$. As expected, for $\Delta_\tx{t}/\Delta_\tx{s}\to0$ no finite amount of interactions can bring the system to the topological phase. In contrast, when $\Delta_\tx{t}=\Delta_\tx{s}$, the system is already at a phase transition, and any nonzero $U$ suffices to drive the system to the topological phase. In the intermediate regime, the system will become topological for some finite interaction strength which increases with $\Delta_\tx{s}$.
Weak-Coupling RG {#sec:RG}
----------------
In this section we study the full interacting Hamiltonian $H_0 + H_\Delta + H_\tx{int}$, given in Eqs. and , using the renormalization group (RG). We are interested in the RG flow close to the noninteracting fixed point of free electrons, described by $H_0$. Both the singlet and triplet induced pairing potentials are relevant perturbations to $H_0$, namely this is an unstable fixed point. Below we show that the introduction of $H_\tx{int}$ causes the instability to be more towards triplet pairing compared to singlet pairing.
To derive the flow equations of the various terms in $H_\Delta$ and $H_\tx{int}$ we use perturbative momentum shell Wilsonian RG for Fermions [@Shankar1994Renormalization]. This procedure, whose details are given in Appendix \[sec:RG\_eqs\_deriv\], results in
\[eq:flow\_eqs\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{y}_1^\perp = -y_2 y_1^\perp ,\label{eq:KT_1}
\\
&\dot{y}_2 = -\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\bar{v}^2}{v_+v_-}+1\right) {y_1^\perp}^2 ,\label{eq:KT_2}
\\
&\dot{y}_2^+ = -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\bar{v}^2}{v_+v_-} {y_1^\perp}^2 ,\label{eq:y2_p_flow}
\\
&\dot{y}_2^- = -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\bar{v}^2}{v_+v_-} {y_1^\perp}^2 ,\label{eq:y2_pp_flow}
\\
&\dot{\Delta}_+ = \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} y_2^+ \right)\Delta_+ - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\bar{v}}{v_-} y_1^\perp \Delta_- ,
\label{eq:Delta_p_flow}\\
&\dot{\Delta}_- = \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} y_2^- \right)\Delta_- - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\bar{v}}{v_+} y_1^\perp \Delta_+ ,\label{eq:Delta_m_flow}\end{aligned}$$
where we have defined $\bar{v}=(v_++v_-)/2$, and the dimensionless couplings $y_1^\perp=g_1^\perp/\pi\bar{v}$, $y_2^+=g_2^+/\pi v_+$, $y_2^-=g_2^-/\pi v_-$, and $y_2=g_2^+/2\pi v_+ + g_2^-/2\pi v_- - g_2^\parallel/\pi\bar{v}$. The above equations have been derived using a perturbative treatment and they are valid when $y_1$, $y_2^\parallel$, $y_2^\pm$ and $\Delta_\pm/v_\pm\Lambda$ are all smaller than 1.
Equations (\[eq:KT\_1\],\[eq:KT\_2\]) give rise to a Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) type of flow for $y_1^\perp$ and $y_2$. It is described by the constant of motion $A^2=y_2^2 - y_1^2$, where $y_1\equiv y_1^\perp\sqrt{(\bar{v}^2/v_+v_- + 1)/2}$. Of greatest interest for us is the region $y_2 > y_1\ge0$, this corresponds to an interaction which is repulsive on all length scales. In this case, the flow of $y_1$ and $y_2$ is given by
\[eq:KT\_flow\] $$\begin{aligned}
y_1(\ell) &= A \operatorname{csch} \left[ A
\ell + \operatorname{arcoth} \frac {y_2(0)} {A}
\right], \label{eq:y_1_of_ell}
\\
y_2(\ell) &= A \coth \left[ A
\ell + \operatorname{arcoth} \frac {y_2(0)} {A}
\right]. \label{eq:y_2_of_ell}\end{aligned}$$
Both $y_1$ and $y_2$ flow down, saturating after an RG time $\ell_\tx{sat}\sim A^{-1}$, at $0$ and $A$, respectively. One can insert these solutions into Eqs. and , and integrate to obtain $y_2^+$ and $y_2^-$, respectively. The interaction couplings $y_1^\perp$, $y_2^+$, and $y_2^-$ can then be inserted into Eqs. (\[eq:Delta\_m\_flow\],\[eq:Delta\_p\_flow\]) which generally require a numerical solution for $\Delta_\pm$.
We wish to determine the topological phase diagram of the system as a function of its initial couplings. We solve the above flow equations up to an RG time $\ell^\ast$, at which one of the pairing potential flows to strong coupling, namely $|\Delta_\pm(\ell^\ast)|/v_\pm\Lambda=1$. Beyond this point the perturbative RG treatment is not valid anymore. Let us assume, without loss of generality, that $\Delta_+$ flows to strong coupling first. This in particular means that the interaction couplings (which have flown down) are small in comparison to it, namely $y_1^\perp, y_2^\parallel,y_2^\pm \ll |\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)|/v_+\Lambda=1$. If at this point $\Delta_-(\ell^\ast)/v_-\Lambda$ happens also to be large in comparison to $y_1^\perp, y_2^\parallel,y_2^\pm$, then we can neglect the interaction couplings. One can then use the topological invariant of a noninteracting system \[see Eq. \], $\mc{Q} = \operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)]\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_-(\ell^\ast)]$. Generally, however, $\Delta_-(\ell^\ast)$ can be small, and one has to modify the expression for $\mc{Q}$ to account for the non-negligible interaction terms.
To this end we note that since $\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)$ is large, the positive-helicity degrees of freedom \[$R_\ua(x)$ and $L_\da(x)$\] are gapped, and we can safely integrate them out. Upon doing that, one is left with an action containing only the negative-helicity fields \[$R_\da(x)$ and $L_\ua(x)$\], with a pairing potential $\Delta'_-=\Delta_-(\ell^\ast)+\delta\Delta_-$. To leading order in the interaction couplings, the correction is given by (see appendix \[sec:RG\_eqs\_deriv\]) $$\label{eq:correc_to_Delta_minus}
\begin{split}
\delta\Delta_- &= -\frac{\bar{v}}{2v_+}y_1^\perp(\ell^\ast)\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)\sinh^{-1}\left[\frac{v_+\Lambda}{|\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)|}\right]=\\
&= -\frac{1}{2}y_1^\perp(\ell^\ast)\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)]\sinh^{-1}(1)\bar{v}\Lambda.
\end{split}$$ At this point we can continue the RG procedure, applied only to the negative-helicity degrees of freedom,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flow_eqs_ssecnd_stp}
\dot{y}_2^- &= 0,\\
\dot\Delta'_- &= \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} y_2^- \right)\Delta'_-,\end{aligned}$$
namely $\Delta'_-$ flows to strong coupling (without changing sign), while $y_2^-$ remains perturbative. We can therefore use the topological invariant of noninteracting systems, only with $\Delta_-(\ell^\ast)$ substituted by $\Delta'_-$, $\mc{Q}=\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)]\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta'_-]$. Finally, accounting also for the possibility that $\Delta_-$ flows to strong coupling before $\Delta_+$, we can write $$\label{eq:top_inv_RG}
\begin{split}
\mc{Q} = &\operatorname{sgn}\left\{\frac{\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)}{\bar{v}\Lambda} - \frac{\sinh^{-1}(1)}{2}y_1^\perp(\ell^\ast)\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_-(\ell^\ast)]\right\}\times \\
&\operatorname{sgn}\left\{\frac{\Delta_-(\ell^\ast)}{\bar{v}\Lambda} - \frac{\sinh^{-1}(1)}{2}y_1^\perp(\ell^\ast)\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)]\right\},
\end{split}$$ where $\ell^\ast$ is the RG time when the first of $\Delta_+$ and $\Delta_-$ reaches strong coupling.
To understand how repulsive interactions drive the system into the TRITOPS phase, let us concentrate on the special case, $v_+=v_-$, $y_2^-=y_2^+$, for which Eqs. (\[eq:Delta\_m\_flow\],\[eq:Delta\_p\_flow\]) reduce to
\[eq:Delta\_s\_t\_flow\_eqs\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{\Delta}_\tx{s} = \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} y_2^+ - \frac{1}{2} y_1 \right)\Delta_\tx{s},
\label{eq:Delta_s_flow}\\
&\dot{\Delta}_\tx{t} = \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} y_2^+ + \frac{1}{2} y_1 \right)\Delta_\tx{t}.
\label{eq:Delta_t_flow}\end{aligned}$$
The effect of forward scattering and of backscattering on the pairing potentials is now apparent. The forward scattering term $y_2^+$ equally suppresses the singlet and triplet pairing terms. The backscattering term $y_1$, on the other hand, suppresses $\Delta_\tx{s}$, while strengthening $\Delta_\tx{t}$, causing the latter to flow faster to strong coupling. From Eq. one can extract the ratio between the triplet and singlet pairing terms as a function of RG time, $$\label{eq:r_t_s_ell}
\frac {\Delta_{\mathrm{t}}(\ell)} {\Delta_{\mathrm{s}}(\ell)} = \frac{\Delta_{\mathrm{t}}^0} {\Delta_{\mathrm{s}}^0}
\exp\left[\int_{0}^{\ell}\!\mathrm{d}\ell'y_1(\ell')\right].$$
If the time it takes $y_1$ to flow to zero, $\ell_\tx{sat}$, is much shorter than $\ell^\ast$, we can approximate the ratio $\Delta_\tx{t}(\ell^\ast)/\Delta_\tx{s}(\ell^\ast)$ by taking the upper limit of the above integral to infinity. Using Eq. , one obtains in this case $$\label{eq:Long_RG_time_approx}
\frac {\Delta_\mathrm{t}(\ell^\ast)} {\Delta_{\mathrm{s}}(\ell^\ast)} \simeq\frac
{\Delta_{\mathrm{t}}^0} {\Delta_{\mathrm{s}}^0}\sqrt{\frac {y_2^0+y_1^0}{y_2^0-y_1^0} }.$$ Furthermore, since by our assumption $y_1(\ell^\ast)\simeq 0$ (follows from $\ell_\tx{sat}\ll\ell^\ast$), Eq. tells us that the condition for the system to be topological is simply $|\Delta_\tx{t}(\ell^\ast)|>|\Delta_\tx{s}(\ell^\ast)|$. We wish to understand when this approximation is valid. To this end, we can estimate the time it would take for one of the pairing potentials to reach strong coupling, $\ell^\ast\sim \ln(v_\pm\Lambda/\Delta_\pm^0)$ [@EstimateEllStar]. Namely, the above long RG-time approximation will be valid if the initial pairing potentials are small enough such that $\Delta_\pm^0 \ll v_\pm\Lambda \exp(-1/A)$. Note that the above approximation will necessarily be violated close to the separatrix of the KT flow, since there $A\to 0$.
We can now use the result, Eq. to construct the phase diagram of the system as a function of the initial values of $y_2$ and $y_1$, given fixed initial conditions for $\Delta_{\mathrm{s}}$ and $\Delta_\mathrm{t}$. Assuming that we can take the long RG-time limit, we can find an equation for the phase boundary in the $y_2y_1-$plane, by setting equation to $1$ and solving for $y_1$. One then immediately finds that the phase boundary obeys the equation $$\label{eq:phaseBoundaryEquation}
y_1^0 = \frac {1 - (\Delta^0_\tx{t}/\Delta^0_\tx{s})^2}{1 + (\Delta^0_\tx{t}/\Delta^0_\tx{s})^2}\cdot y_2^0,$$ namely, the system is in the topological phase above this line in the $y_1y_2-$plane. The topological region becomes bigger as the ratio $\Delta_\tx{t}^0/\Delta_\tx{s}^0$ increases. In Fig. \[fig:phasediagram\] we present the topological phase diagram in the $y_2y_1$-plane for fixed initial values $\Delta_\tx{s}$ and $\Delta_\tx{t}$. The phase boundary is obtained by numerically solving Eq. up to a time $\ell^\ast$, and then invoking Eq. , with $\ell^\ast$ being the RG time when the first coupling becomes 1. The dashed red line shows the long-RG time approximation of the phase boundary, Eq. . As anticipated, it becomes more accurate as $A$ increases. We note that above the separatrix of the KT flow, $y_1$ and $y_2$ flow to strong coupling and the system is driven into an intrinsically topological phase [@Keselman2015gapless; @kainaris2016interaction], irrespective of the initial induced potentials $\Delta_\pm$. Some nonvanishing induced pairing is however necessary to keep the system fully gapped.
-5mm
Let us now reconsider the case of a Hubbard-type interaction, $g_1^\perp=g_2^+=g_2^-=U$, and $g_2^\parallel=0$. Note that for $v_+=v_-$ this mean $y_2=y_1$, while for $v_+\neq v_-$, this means $y_2\ge y_1$ \[see the definitions below Eq. \]. Importantly, in both cases the KT flow equations dictates that the interaction couplings flow down. Figure \[fig:phase\_diagram\_U\] shows the phase diagram for this Hubbard-type interaction, for $v_+=v_-$. The critical interaction strength $U$ which defines the phase boundary is numerically calculated as a function of the initial ratio $\Delta^0_\tx{t}/\Delta^0_\tx{s}$, for different fixed values of $\Delta^0_\tx{s}$. We note that this phase boundary (solid lines) agrees well with that obtained from the mean field analysis (dashed lines), given in Eq. .
The results presented in Figs. \[fig:phase\_diagram\_U\] and \[fig:phasediagram\] are both for the case of $g_2^+=g_2^-$, $v_+=v_-$. Under these conditions, if the initial triplet term is zero, it will remain zero for all RG times, as can be seen from Eq. . This is no longer the case upon relaxing one of these conditions, since the flow equations generally couple $\Delta_\tx{t}$ to $\Delta_\tx{s}$ \[see Eq. \]. Consequently, a phase transition into the topological phase can occur at a finite interaction strength, even for vanishingly small initial $\Delta_\tx{t}^0$. Nevertheless, systems in which the initial triplet term can be of the order of the singlet term, such as those presented in Sec. \[sec:Realizations\], are more susceptible to being driven into the topological phase by the effect of repulsive interactions.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have presented and studied a general low-energy model for a one-dimensional system where the interplay between externally-induced superconductivity and repulsive Coulomb interactions stabilizes a time-reversal invariant topological superconducting phase. This phase is characterized by a Kramers’ pair of zero-energy Majorana bound state at each end of the system.
We have suggested two experimentally-accessible setups of proximity-coupled systems which realize this low-energy model, and which can therefore serve as a platforms for realizing time-reversal invariant topological superconductivity. These are (i) a narrow strip of a 2d topological insulator, partially covered by an $s$-wave superconductor, and (ii) a quasi 1d semiconductor nanowire in proximity to an $s$-wave superconductor.
We expect the excitation gap of the system to protect the topological phase against a moderate amount of disorder, namely disorder with associated mean free time which is large in comparison with the inverse energy gap. This is the case for the class-D TSC [@Motrunich2001Griffiths; @Brouwer2011Probability], which can be thought of as “half” of a class-DIII TSC (or TRITOPS).
An experimental signature of this phase can be obtained by probing the Kramers’ pair of Majorana bound states which reside at each end of the system. By coupling the end of the system to a normal-metal lead, the differential conductance can be measured. At zero temperature this should yield a zero-bias peak which is quantized to $4e^2/h$ [@Wong2012majorana; @Haim2014time; @Dumitrescu2014magnetic]. The behavior of this conductance peak upon breaking time-reversal symmetry by a Zeeman field has features which are distinctive of a Majorana Kramers’ pair [@Keselman2013inducing; @Haim2014time; @Dumitrescu2014magnetic]. Alternatively, current correlations in a two-lead setup can be used to detect signatures which are unique to Majorana bound states [@Haim2015signatures; @Haim2015current; @li2015detection]. Coulomb-blockade spectroscopy, recently applied to TSC with broken TRS, can be used to probe also the TRITOPS phase, where the topological transition is expected to be manifested in the disappearance of the even-odd effect. Experimental signatures have also been suggested to exist in the anomalous behavior of Josephson junctions involving TRITOPS [@chung2013time; @Zhang2014anomalous; @Kane2015the].
It is interesting to examine the strength of electron-electron interactions in the suggested experimental setups of Sec. \[sec:Realizations\]. Given an estimate for the induced pairing potentials, $\Delta_\tx{s}$ and $\Delta_\tx{t}$, one can then try and place a given system on the phase diagram of Fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\_U\] to predict whether it is in the topological or trivial phase.
First we note that the Coulomb interaction between the electrons is screened by the presence of the SC. This sets a finite range for the interaction, given roughly by the lateral distance between the SC and the electrons in the system. This can be estimated as the width $d$ of the QSHI strip (or of the wire in the case of the setup in Sec. \[sec:Rashba\_wire\]). At short electron-electron distances ($|x-x'|\ll d$) the divergence of the Coulomb interaction is regularized by the finite width of the system, $V(x-x')\sim e^2/4\pi\eps d$, where $\eps$ is the permittivity. If the Fermi wavelength is sufficiently larger than the interaction range $d$, then the forward and backward scattering interactions are of the same order, $$\label{eq:int_strength}
g_1^\perp,g_2^+,g_2^- \sim d\cdot \frac{e^2}{4\pi\eps d}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi\eps},$$ and accordingly the dimensionless interaction strength is $U/\pi\hbar\bar{v}\sim e^2/4\pi^2\hbar \bar{v}\eps$. The velocity $\bar{v}$ depends on details such as the chemical potential. However, a reasonable estimate is $\bar{v}\sim 10^5\tx{m}/\tx{s}$. Takeing $\eps\sim10\eps_0$ results in $U/\pi\hbar\bar{v}\sim 0.7$.
Based on recent experiments [@mourik2012signatures; @Das2012zero] one can estimate for the induced pairing potential, $\Delta_{s}\sim 0.1\tx{meV}$. The energy cutoff for the low-energy theory should be roughly given by the distance to the bottom of the band \[see Figs. and \] which again depends on the chemical potential. Looking at the phase diagram of Fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\_U\], and assuming $\Delta_\tx{s}/\hbar \bar{v}\Lambda \sim 0.1$, we see that the system is expected to be in the topological phase for initial ratios $|\Delta_\tx{t}|/|\Delta_\tx{s}|$ greater than about 0.3.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We have benefited from discussions with Y. Baum, A. Keselman, K. Michaeli, M.-T. Rieder, and Y. Schattner. E. B. was supported by the Minerva foundation, by a Marie Curie Career Integration Grant (CIG), and by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 639172). Y. O. was supported by the Israeli Science Foundation (ISF), by the Minerva foundation, by the Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and by the ERC, grant No. 340210 (FP7/2007-2013). K. F. was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation and by the Danish Council for Independent Research $|$ Natural Sciences.
Topological criterion {#sec:top_criter}
=====================
Formulas for the topological invariant of 1d Hamiltonians in class DIII were derived in several previous studies [@Qi2010topological; @Fulga2011scattering; @budich2013topological; @Gaidamauskas2014majorana; @Haim2014time; @Mandal2015counting; @Haim2016WithComment]. We shall focus here on the low-energy model described by the Hamiltonian of Eq. . Namely, we are interested in the condition on the parameters of Eq. for which the system is in the TRITOPS phase with a Kramers pair of Majorana bound states at each end of the system. We shall use a scattering-matrix formalism to obtain a condition for the existence of a zero energy bound state [@Fulga2011scattering; @Rieder2013Reentrant].
Let our system, which is described by $H=H_0+H_\Delta$, extend from $x=0$ to $x\to \infty$. We attach on the left a normal-metal stub, extending from $x=-d_N$ to $x=0$, and described by $H_0$. This is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Top\_Crit\]. In the absence of a barrier at $x=0$, a spin-$\ua$ ($\da$) electron incident from the left at subgap energies is Andreev reflected as a hole with spin $\da$ ($\ua$), with an amplitude $a_+$ ($a_-$), where [@andreev1966electron; @Beenakker1991universal] $$a_\pm(E) = \frac{E-i\sqrt{\Delta_\pm^2-E^2}}{\pm\Delta_\pm},$$ for $E\le\Delta_\pm$, as can be checked by matching the wave functions at $x=0$. The reflection matrix at the $x=0$ interface is then given by $$\label{eq:r_NS}
r_\tx{NS} = \begin{pmatrix}0&A^\ast(-E)\\A(E)&0\end{pmatrix} \hskip 1mm ; \hskip 1mm
A= \begin{pmatrix}0&a_-(E)\\a_+(E)&0\end{pmatrix}.$$ At the end of the stub, $x=-d_N$, electrons and holes experience total normal reflection. The reflection matrix can therefore be written most generally as $$r_\tx{N} = \begin{pmatrix}R(E)&0\\0&R^\ast(-E)\end{pmatrix} \hskip 1mm ; \hskip 1mm
R= \begin{pmatrix}e^{i\alpha(E)}&0\\0&e^{i\alpha(E)}\end{pmatrix},$$ where $\alpha(E)$ is a phase which includes also the phase acquired during the propagation in the metallic region. The form of $r_N$ is dictated by particle-hole symmetry, while the form of $R(E)$ is dictated by time-reversal symmetry, $R(E)=\sigma^yR^\tx{T}(E)\sigma^y$, and by its unitarity.
Upon being reflected, once at $x=0$ and once at $x=-d_\tx{N}$, the wave function must comeback to itself. This implies a condition for the existence of a bound state $$\det(1-r_\tx{N} r_\tx{NS})=0.$$ At zero energy this reduces to $$\label{eq:det_cond}
|1-a^\ast_+a_-|^2=0,$$ and finally, since at zero energy $a_\pm(0)=-i\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_\pm)$, the condition for having a zero-energy bound state is $$\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_+)\operatorname{sgn}(\Delta_-)=-1.$$ Notice that the power of $2$ in Eq. signifies that there are indeed *two* zero-energy solutions, these are the Kramers’ pair of Majorana bound states.
Self-consistent equations {#sec:self_consist}
=========================
We derive here the self-consistent mean-field equations and , by calculating the correlation functions in Eq. . To this end we write the mean-field Hamiltonian, defined above Eq. , in momentum space $$\label{H_MF_k}
\begin{split}
H^\tx{MF} = \sum_{|k|<\Lambda}&\left\{(R_{k\ua}^\dag ,L_{-k\da})\begin{pmatrix}v_+k&\bar\Delta_+\\ \bar\Delta_+&-v_+k\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}R_{k\ua}\\L_{-k\da}^\dag\end{pmatrix}\right.+\\
&\left.+(L_{-k\ua}^\dag ,R_{k\da})\begin{pmatrix}v_-k&\bar\Delta_-\\ \bar\Delta_-&-v_-k\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} L_{-k\ua} \\ R_{k\da}^\dag \end{pmatrix}\right\},
\end{split}$$ where $R_s(x) = (1/\sqrt{l})\sum_{|k|<\Lambda}R_{ks}\exp(-ikx)$ and $L_s(x) = (1/\sqrt{l})\sum_{|k|<\Lambda}L_{ks}\exp(-ikx)$, $l$ being the length of the system, and $\Lambda$ being the high momentum cutoff of the theory. $H^\tx{MF}$ can be readily diagonalized, yielding $$H^\tx{MF}=E_\tx{G} + \sum_{|k|<\Lambda}\sum_{\tau=\pm} E_{k\tau}(\alpha^\dag_{k\tau}\alpha_{k\tau}+ \beta^\dag_{k\tau}\beta_{k\tau}),$$ with $E_{k\pm}=\sqrt{\bar\Delta_\pm^2 + (v_\pm k)^2}$, and with $\alpha_{k\pm}$ and $\beta_{k\pm}$ given by
\[eq:Ferm\_trans\] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha_{k+}\\ \beta^\dag_{k+}\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix} \cos\theta_{k+} & \sin\theta_{k+} \\ \sin\theta_{k+} & -\cos\theta_{k+} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}R_{k\ua} \\ L^\dag_{-k\da} \end{pmatrix}, \\
\begin{pmatrix}\alpha_{k-}\\ \beta^\dag_{k-}\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix} \cos\theta_{k-} & \sin\theta_{k-} \\ \sin\theta_{k-} & -\cos\theta_{k-} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}L_{-k\ua} \\ R^\dag_{k\da} \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$
where $\cos(2\theta_{k\pm})=v_\pm k/\sqrt{\bar\Delta_\pm^2+(v_\pm k)^2}$ and $\sin(2\theta_{k\pm})=\bar\Delta_\pm/\sqrt{\bar\Delta_\pm^2+(v_\pm k)^2}$.
By inverting Eq. , and using the fact that $\alpha_{k\pm}$ and $\beta_{k\pm}$ annihilate the ground state of $H^\tx{MF}$, one obtains (at zero temperature) $$\label{eq:pairing_corr_plus}
\begin{split}
&\langle L_\da(x) R_\ua(x) \rangle = \frac{1}{l}\sum_{|k|<\Lambda} \langle L_{-k\da} R_{k\ua} \rangle = \\
&= -\frac{1}{2l}\sum_{|k|<\Lambda} \sin(2\theta_{k+}) = - \frac{\bar\Delta_+}{4\pi}\int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda \frac{\tx{d}k}{\sqrt{\bar\Delta_+^2+(v_+ k)^2}}= \\
&= -\frac{\bar\Delta_+}{2\pi v_+}\sinh^{-1}\left({v_+\Lambda/|\bar\Delta_+|}\right),
\end{split}$$ and similarly $$\label{eq:pairing_corr_minus}
\langle R_\da(x) L_\ua(x) \rangle = -\frac{\bar\Delta_-}{2\pi v_-}\sinh^{-1}\left({v_-\Lambda/|\bar\Delta_-|}\right).$$ Inserting Eqs. and in Eq. results in the self-consistent equations for $\bar\Delta_\pm$, Eqs. and .
Derivation of the low-energy wire Hamiltonian {#sec:low_E_derive}
=============================================
In this appendix we derive the low-energy Hamiltonian for a Rashba spin-orbit coupled wire in proximity to a three-dimensional $s$-wave SC. We show that it has the form of Eq. with a momentum-dependent pairing potential $\Delta(k)$. This results in a nonvanishing triplet pairing term which, as explained in the main text, makes the system susceptible to being driven into a topological phase in the presence of strong enough repulsive interactions.
We consider an infinite quasi one-dimensional wire with lateral dimensions $w_y\gg w_z$. As depicted in Fig. , the wire is placed on the surface of a conventional $s$-wave SC along the $x$ axis in the plane defined by $y=-w_y/2$. The Hamiltonian for the wire in first quantization is given by $$\mathcal{H}_{\rm sm} = -\frac{\hat{\nabla}^2}{2m_{\rm sm}}-i\boldsymbol\lambda(y,z)\cdot(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\times\nabla)+V_{\rm c}(y,z)
\label{eq:H_sm}$$ where $m_{\rm sm}$ is the effective mass of electrons in the semiconductor wire, $V_{\rm c}(y,z)$ is the confining potential to be described below, and $\boldsymbol\lambda(y,z)$ is a spin-orbit coupling field which stems from the internal effective electric field felt by the conduction electrons in the wire. Here, $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ is a vector of Pauli matrices in spin space. The SC is described by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{split}
H_{\rm sc}&=H_{\rm N}+H_{\Delta},\\
H_{\rm N}&=\sum_{s=\uparrow,\downarrow}\int {\rm d}^3\boldsymbol{r}\,\psi_s^\dag(\boldsymbol{r})\left[\frac{-\nabla^2}{2m_\tx{sc}}-\mu_\tx{sc}\right]\psi_s(\boldsymbol{r}),\\
H_\Delta&=\int {\rm d}^3\boldsymbol{r}\,\Delta_{\rm sc}\psi_{\uparrow}^\dag(\boldsymbol{r})\psi_{\downarrow}^\dag(\boldsymbol{r})+{\rm h.c.},
\end{split}\label{eq:SC_Hamiltonian}$$ where $\mu_{\rm sc}$ is the chemical potential, $m_{\rm sc}$ is the effective mass of electrons in the normal state of the SC, $\Delta_{\rm sc}$ is the superconducting gap, and $\psi_s^\dag$ is a creation operator of electrons with spin $s=\uparrow,\downarrow$ in the SC.
Our goal is to derive an effective low-energy Hamiltonian for the semiconductor nanowire. To this end we first construct a tunneling Hamiltonian by following Bardeen’s transfer Hamiltonian approach [@Bardeen1961tunneling], and then integrate out the superconductor’s degrees of freedom. As we show below, the spin-orbit coupling term in Eq. modifies the form of the induced pair potential in the wire. Specifically, it is responsible for the emergence of a triplet pairing term in addition to the usual induced singlet pairing term. As a result, the system indeed complies with the requirements of Sec. \[sec:RG\], namely it would be driven by repulsive interactions to the TRITOPS phase.
In principle, to quantitatively account for the effect of the spin-orbit coupling term, one needs to have knowledge of the functional form of $\bs\lambda(y,z)$. Deriving $\bs\lambda(y,z)$ from a microscopic theory, however, is a formidable task which we do not attempt here. Instead we shall rely on symmetry considerations, while treating $\bs\lambda(y,z)$ perturbatively, in order to infer its main effect on the low-energy theory.
To construct a tunneling Hamiltonian we introduce an insulating layer between the SC and the nanowire. The width of the layer is $w_b$ and the hight of the potential barrier is $V_b$. The nanowire occupies the space defined by $y\in[-w_y/2,w_y/2]$, $z\in[-w_z/2,w_z/2]$, and is infinite along the $x$ direction. The SC occupies the half space defined by $y<-(w_\tx{b}+w_y/2)$ as depicted in Fig. \[fig:NW\_and\_conf\_pot\].
Following Bardeen [@Bardeen1961tunneling], we solve for the eigenfunctions in the nanowire $\phi_{k_x}(\boldsymbol{r})$ of the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\rm sm}$ but with the potential barrier extended to $y\to-\infty$, and for the eigenfunctions in the normal state of the SC $\chi_{\bf k}(\boldsymbol{r})$ with the potential barrier extended to $y\to\infty$. The tunneling matrix elements are then given by $$T_{\boldsymbol{k},k_x'}=\int \tx{d}^3\boldsymbol{r}\,\chi^\ast_{\boldsymbol{k}}\left[\mathcal{H}-E_{k_x'}\right]\phi_{k_x'},
\label{eq:Bardeen_mat_elem}$$ where $E_{k_x'}$ is the corresponding eigenenergy of $\phi_{k_x'}$, and $\mathcal{H}$ is the Hamiltonian with the true confining potential as depicted in Fig. \[fig:NW\_and\_conf\_pot\].
We solve $\mathcal{H}_{\rm sm}$ in the limit of a high barrier, $\eta_\tx{b}\equiv1/\sqrt{2m_{\rm sm}V_\tx{b}}w_y\ll1$, and we concentrate on energies much smaller than $V_\tx{b}$. To first order in $\eta_\tx{b}$, and to zeroth order in $\bs\lambda(y,z)$ one has $$\begin{split}
&\phi^{(0)}_{m,n,k_x}(\boldsymbol{r})=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi w_yw_z}}e^{ik_xx}\sin[\frac{\pi m}{w_z}(z+\frac{w_z}{2})]\\
&\times \left\{\begin{matrix}\sin[\frac{\pi(1-\eta_\tx{b}) n}{w_y}(y+\frac{w_y}{2})],&-\frac{w_y}{2}< y\le\frac{w_y}{2}\\(-1)^n\pi n\eta_\tx{b} e^{\gamma_\tx{b}(y+w_y/2)},&y\le-\frac{w_y}{2}\end{matrix}\right.,
\end{split}$$ with $\gamma_\tx{b}\equiv\sqrt{2m_{\rm sm}V_\tx{b}}$, and where $m,n\in\mathbb{N}$. The eigenenergies are $$E^{(0)}_{m,n,k_x} = \frac{k_x^2}{2m_{\rm sm}}+\frac{(\pi m)^2}{2m_{\rm sm}w_z^2}+\frac{(\pi n)^2}{2m_{\rm sm}w_y^2}(1-\eta_\tx{b}).$$ The eigenfunctions of the SC in the normal state are $$\begin{split}
&\chi_{\bf k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi^3}}e^{i(k_xx+k_zz)}\times\\
&\left\{\begin{matrix} e^{ik_y(y+\frac{w_y}{2}+w_\tx{b})}+\frac{ik_y+\gamma_\tx{b}}{ik_y-\gamma_\tx{b}}e^{-ik_y(y+\frac{w_y}{2}+w_\tx{b})} ,&y<-\frac{w_y}{2}\\ \frac{2ik_y}{ik_y-\gamma_\tx{b}}e^{-\gamma_\tx{b}(y+\frac{w_y}{2}+w_\tx{b})} ,&y\ge-\frac{w_y}{2}\end{matrix}\right..
\end{split}$$
We now turn to the first-order corrections of both the energies and the wave functions in the nanowire due to spin-orbit coupling. From symmetry considerations we can infer that $\lambda_x=0$. To see this we first note that the vector field $\bs\lambda$ stems from the electric field in the wire. Since the system is translationally invariant and symmetric under mirror reflection $x\to-x$, the field component $\lambda_x$ must be zero. Moreover, since the system is symmetric under $z\to-z$, we must have $\lambda_z(y,-z)=-\lambda_z(y,z)$. Taking into account the fact that the wave functions $\phi^{(0)}_{m,n,k_x}$ have a definite parity under $z\to-z$, the first-order correction to the energies is given by $$\begin{split}
E^{(1)}_{m,n,k_x,s} =& \langle\phi^{(0)}_{m,n,k_x}|-i\bs\lambda\cdot(\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{ss}\times\nabla)|\phi^{(0)}_{m,n,k_x}\rangle\\
=&\langle\phi^{(0)}_{m,n,k_x}|\lambda_y|\phi^{(0)}_{m,n,k_x}\rangle k_xs\equiv\alpha k_xs.
\end{split}
\label{eq:Energ_1st_correc}$$ where $s=1$ for spin $\uparrow$, and $s=-1$ for spin $\downarrow$. We note that this term vanishes for a system with a symmetry $y\to-y$. It is the breaking of this symmetry by the SC which allows for a nonzero $\alpha$. This is the usual term considered in one-dimensional Rashba systems [@Oreg2010helical; @Lutchyn2010majorana].
We now wish to obtain a correction to the wave functions. We concentrate on the lowest transverse band, namely $m,n=1$, which is justified for a thin wire. We make use of the limit $w_z\ll w_y$, and accordingly consider only the correction due to the second lowest transverse band $|\phi_{1,2,k_x}\rangle$, $$|\phi^{(1)}_{1,1,k_x}\rangle=\frac{\langle\phi^{(0)}_{1,2,k_x}|-i\bs\lambda\cdot(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\times\nabla)|\phi^{(0)}_{1,1,k_x}\rangle}{E^{(0)}_{1,1,k_x}-E^{(0)}_{1,2,k_x}}|\phi^{(0)}_{1,2,k_x}\rangle.$$ Invoking once more the symmetry $\lambda_z(y,-z)=-\lambda_z(y,z)$, one obtains to first order $$|\phi_{1,1,k_x}\rangle = |\phi^{(0)}_{1,1,k_x}\rangle + \frac{1}{2}\beta k_x\sigma^z|\phi^{(0)}_{1,2,k_x}\rangle,
\label{eq:WF_1st_correc}$$ where for the sake of brevity we have defined $$\beta=\frac{8m_{\rm sm}w_y^2\langle\phi^{(0)}_{1,1,k_x}|\lambda_y|\phi^{(0)}_{1,2,k_x}\rangle}{3\pi^2} .$$ This term survives even if the system is symmetric under $y\to-y$, i.e. its existence does not rely on a substrate which breaks inversion symmetry. Its main effect is to push the wave functions either towards or away from the SC, depending on the sign of $k_x\sigma^z$ [@Moroz1999Effect].
We now plug Eq. and Eq. into Eq. to obtain the matrix elements between modes in the SC and modes in the nanowire. We invoke the limit of a high barrier in which the energies of all the modes are smaller than $V_\tx{b}$, and further assume $k_zw_z\ll1$. This yields $$\begin{split}
&T_{\boldsymbol{k},k_x'}=t_{\boldsymbol{k}}\delta(k_x-k_x'),\\
&t_{\boldsymbol{k}}=t_0\cos\Theta_{\boldsymbol{k}}(1+\frac{1}{2}\beta k_x'\sigma^z),
\end{split}$$ with $$t_0=\frac{4i|k|}{m_{\rm sm}^2w_yV_\tx{b}}\sqrt{\frac{w_z}{w_y}}e^{-\gamma_\tx{b}w_b},$$ and with $\cos\Theta_{\boldsymbol{k}}\equiv k_y/|k|$. Apparently the effect of the inversion-symmetric part of $\lambda_y$ (which is the source of $\beta$) is to introduce a term $k_x\sigma^z$ in the coupling between the wire and the SC. The presence of the factor $\cos\Theta_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ stems simply from the fact that modes which approach the surface of the SC at small angles have a higher probability to tunnel into the wire.
We can now write the full tunneling Hamiltonian of the system as $$\begin{split}
&H = H_{\rm sm}+H_{\rm sc}+H_{\rm T},\\
&H_{\rm sm} = \frac{1}{2}\int \tx{d}k_x\Phi^\dag_{k_x}\mathcal{H}^{\mathsmaller{\rm BdG}}_{\rm sm}(k_x)\Phi^{\phantom{\dag}}_{k_x},\\
&H_{\rm sc} = \frac{1}{2}\int \tx{d}^3\boldsymbol{k}\Psi^\dag_{\boldsymbol{k}}\mathcal{H}^{\mathsmaller{\rm BdG}}_{\rm sc}(\boldsymbol{k})\Psi^{\phantom{\dag}}_{\boldsymbol{k}},\\
&H_{\rm T} = \frac{1}{2}\int \tx{d}^3{\boldsymbol{k}}\,t_{\boldsymbol{k}}\Psi^\dag_{\boldsymbol{k},s}\Phi^{\phantom{\dag}}_{k_x},\\
&\mathcal{H}^{\mathsmaller{\rm BdG}}_{\rm sm}(k_x)= (\eps_{k_x}-\mu_{\rm sm}+\alpha k_x\sigma^z)\tau^z ,\\
&\mathcal{H}^{\mathsmaller{\rm BdG}}_{\rm sc}(\boldsymbol{k})= \xi_{\boldsymbol{k}}\tau^z+\Delta_{\rm sc}\tau^x ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:full_H_BdG}$$ where $\xi_{\boldsymbol{k}}=\boldsymbol{k}^2/2m_{\rm sc}-\mu_{\rm sc}$, $\eps_{k_x}=k_x^2/2m_{\rm sm}-\mu_{\rm sm}$, and with $\Phi_{k_x'}=(c^\dag_{k_x\uparrow},c^\dag_{k_x\downarrow},c^{\phantom\dag}_{-k_x\downarrow},-c^{\phantom\dag}_{-k_x\uparrow})$, $\Psi_{\boldsymbol{k}}=(f^\dag_{\boldsymbol{k}\uparrow},f^\dag_{\boldsymbol{k}\downarrow},f^{\phantom\dag}_{-\boldsymbol{k}\downarrow},-f^{\phantom\dag}_{-\boldsymbol{k}\uparrow})$. Here, $c^\dag_{k_xs}$ create a spin-$s$ electron in the state $\phi_{1,1,k_x}$ of the wire, and $f^\dag_{\boldsymbol{k}s}$ creates a spin-$s$ electron in the state $\chi_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ of the SC. $\{\tau^i\}_{i=x,y,z}$ is a set of Pauli matrices in particle-hole space.
To obtain an effective Hamiltonian for the wire we integrate out the supeconductor’s degrees of freedom. [@Sau2010robustness; @Stanescu2011majorana; @Alicea2012; @Danon2015interaction]. The self-energy term which adds to $\mathcal{H}^{\mathsmaller{\rm BdG}}_{\rm sm}(k_x)$ is given by $$\Sigma(\omega,k_x)=\int \tx{d}k_y\tx{d}k_z \,t_{\boldsymbol{k}}G_{\rm sc}(\omega,\boldsymbol{k})t^\ast_{\boldsymbol{k}},\\
\label{eq:integ_out}$$ where $G_{\rm sc}(\omega,\boldsymbol{k})$ is the Green function of the bare SC, given by $$G_{\rm sc}(\omega,\boldsymbol{k}) = \frac{\omega+\xi_{\boldsymbol{k}}\tau^z-\Delta_{\rm sc}\tau^x}{\omega^2-\xi^2_{\boldsymbol{k}}-\Delta_{\rm sc}^2}.$$ To perform the integral in we use the fact that $\mu_{\rm sc}$ is typically much bigger than the relevant energy scale in the semiconductor wire, so we can neglect $k_x^2/2m_{\rm sc}$ compared to $\mu_{\rm sc}$. For the same reason we also have $\mu_{\rm sc}\gg \omega$ which means that the main contribution to the integral comes from momenta satisfying $(k_y^2+k_z^2)/2m_{\rm sc}\simeq\mu_{\rm sc}$. With the help of these simplifications one obtains to first order in $\beta$ $$\Sigma(\omega,k_x)=\frac{\nu_{2d}|t_0|^2(-\omega+\Delta_{\rm sc}\tau^x)}{\sqrt{\Delta_{\rm sc}^2-\omega^2}}(1+\beta k_x\sigma^z),$$ where $\nu_{2d}$ is the density of states of a two-dimensional system with an effective mass $m_{\rm sc}$ at a chemical potential $\mu_{\rm sc}$.
Finally, in case one concentrates on energies much smaller than the bare superconducting gap (namely $\omega\ll\Delta_{\rm sc}$), the self-energy becomes independent of $\omega$ and the effective low-energy Hamiltonian is given by $$\label{eq:H_sm_eff_BDG}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm sm}^{\rm eff}=(\eps_{k_x}+\alpha k_x\sigma^z)\tau^z+\Delta_{\rm ind}(1+\beta k_x\sigma^z)\tau^x,$$ with $\Delta_{\rm ind}=\nu_{2d}|t_0|^2$.
Derivation of RG flow equations {#sec:RG_eqs_deriv}
===============================
In this section we derive the flow equations of Eq. using a perturbative RG procedure. The action corresponding to the full Hamiltonian $H_0+H_\Delta+H_\tx{int}$, specified in Eqs. and , is given by $S=S_0 + S_\Delta + S_\tx{int}$, with $$\begin{split}
&S_0 = -\sum_s\int_{k,\om}\hskip -3mm \left[ (G^\tx{R}_{k\om s})^{-1} \bar{R}_{k\om s} R_{k\om s} +
(G^\tx{L}_{k \om s})^{-1} \bar{L}_{k\om s} L_{k\om s}\right],\\
&S_\Delta = \sum_{s_1s_2} \Delta_{s_1s_2} \int_{k,\om} \hskip -3mm \left( \bar{R}_{k\om s_1}\bar{L}_{-k-\om s_2} +
L_{-k-\om s_2}R_{k\om s_1}\right),
\\
&S_\tx{int}= \int_{1234}u^{s_1s_2}_{s_3s_4}\bar{R}_{k_1\om_1s_1}\bar{L}_{k_2\om_2s_2}L_{k_3\om_3s_3}R_{k_4\om_4s_4},\\
\end{split}$$ where $R_{k\om s}$, $\bar{R}_{k\om s}$, $L_{k\om s}$, and $\bar{L}_{k\om s}$ are Grassman fields, and where we have used the abbreviations $$\int_{k,\om} \equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\tx{d}\om}{2\pi}\int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda \frac{\tx{d}k}{2\pi},$$ and $$\label{eq:int1234}
\begin{split}
\int_{1234} \equiv & (2\pi)^2 \prod_{i=1}^4 \sum_{s_i}
\int_{-\Lambda}^\Lambda\frac{\tx{d}k_i}{2\pi}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{\tx{d}\om_i}{2\pi}\times\\
&\delta(k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4) \delta(\om_1+\om_2-\om_3-\om_4).
\end{split}$$ Above we have used a compact notation for the action $S$, by using the Green functions $G^\tx{R,L}_{k\om s}$ and the couplings $\Delta_{s_1s_2}$ and $u^{s_1s_2}_{s_3s_4}$, which are defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Green_funcs}
G^\eta_{k\om s} =& \left(i\om-\eta \cdot v_{\eta\cdot s}k \right)^{-1},
\\
\label{eq:Delta12}
\Delta_{s_1s_2} = & \Delta_\tx{s} i \sigma^y_{s_1s_2} + \Delta_\tx{t} \sigma^x_{s_1s_2},
\\
\label{eq:u1234}
\begin{split}
u^{s_1s_2}_{s_3s_4}=
&-g_1^\perp\sigma^x_{s_1s_2}\sigma^x_{s_2s_3}\sigma^x_{s_3s_4}
+g_2^\parallel\delta_{s_1s_2}\delta_{s_2s_3}\delta_{s_3s_4}\\
&+(g_2^+\delta_{s_1\ua}+g_2^-\delta_{s_1\da})\sigma^x_{s_1s_2}\delta_{s_2s_3}\sigma^x_{s_3s_4}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
On the right-hand side of Eq. we have used a convention where $\eta=\tx{R}(\tx{L})$ corresponds to $\eta=1(-1)$, and $s=\ua(\da)$ corresponds to $s=1(-1)$.
To study the low-energy physics of the system, we iteratively integrate out the high-momentum modes within a small momentum shell, thereby obtaining an action with an effectively-decreasing cutoff, $\Lambda\exp(-\ell)$, where $\ell$ is the so-called RG time [@Shankar1994Renormalization]. We are interested in the flow of the couplings $\Delta_+$, $\Delta_+$, $g_1^\perp$, $g_2^\parallel$, $g_2^+$, and $g_2^-$ as a function of $\ell$.
At tree level, all the interaction couplings $g_1^\perp$, $g_2^\parallel$, $g_2^+$, and $g_2^-$ are marginal with respect to the fixed point action $S_0$. The induced pairing potentials $\Delta_\tx{s,t}$ (or equivalently $\Delta_\pm$) are relevant, on the other hand, with a scaling dimension of $1$. Importantly, the one-loop corrections will cause a difference in the flow of $\Delta_\tx{s}$ and $\Delta_\tx{t}$.
To obtain the one-loop corrections to the flow, we treat $S'=S_\Delta + S_\tx{int}$ as a perturbation to $S_0$ and apply the cumulant expansion. Integrating over the fast modes, one has $$\delta S=\frac{1}{2}\left(\langle S'\rangle_{0,>}^2-\langle S'^2\rangle_{0,>}\right),$$ where $\langle\hskip 2mm\rangle_{0,>}$ stands for averaging over the fast modes with respect to the unperturbed action $S_0$. This results in the following corrections
\[eq:one\_loop\_correc\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:d_u_BCS}
(&\delta u^\tx{BSC})^{s_1s_2}_{s_3s_4} = -
\sum_{s_5s_6}u^{s_1s_2}_{s_6s_5}u^{s_5s_6}_{s_3s_4}\int_{k^>,\om} G^\tx{R}_{k,\om,s_5}G^\tx{L}_{-k,-\om,s_6},\\
\label{eq:d_u_ZS}
(&\delta u^\tx{ZS})^{s_1s_2}_{s_3s_4} = -
\sum_{s_5s_6}u^{s_1s_6}_{s_3s_5}u^{s_5s_2}_{s_6s_4}\int_{k^>,\om} G^\tx{R}_{k,\om,s_5}G^\tx{L}_{k,\om,s_6},\\
\label{eq:d_Delta}
&\delta \Delta_{s_1s_2} =
-\sum_{s_3s_4}u^{s_1s_2}_{s_4s_3}\Delta_{s_3s_4}\int_{k^>,\om}G^\tx{R}_{k,\om,s_3}G^\tx{L}_{-k,-\om,s_4},\end{aligned}$$
which are described diagrammatically in Fig. \[fig:Diagrams\]. In obtaining Eqs. (\[eq:d\_u\_BCS\],\[eq:d\_u\_ZS\]) we have set the momenta and frequencies of the outer (slow) legs \[see Fig. \] to zero [@Shankar1994Renormalization].
[lr]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, one can perform the frequency and momentum integration in Eq. and arrive at
\[eq:flow\_eqs\_raw\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{g}_1^\perp = \frac{1}{\pi}\left( \frac{2}{v_++v_-}g_2^\parallel - \frac{1}{2v_+}g_2^+ - \frac{1}{2v_-}g_2^- \right)g_1^\perp ,
\\
&\dot{g}_2^\parallel = \frac{1}{\pi(v_++v_-)} {g_1^\perp}^2 ,
\\
&\dot{g}_2^+ = -\frac{1}{2\pi v_-} {g_1^\perp}^2 ,
\\
&\dot{g}_2^- = -\frac{1}{2\pi v_+} {g_1^\perp}^2 ,
\\
&\dot{\Delta}_+ = \Delta_+ - \frac{1}{2\pi v_+} g_2^+\Delta_+ - \frac{1}{2\pi v_-} g_1^\perp \Delta_- ,
\\
&\dot{\Delta}_- = \Delta_- - \frac{1}{2\pi v_-} g_2^-\Delta_- - \frac{1}{2\pi v_+} g_1^\perp \Delta_+ .\end{aligned}$$
Defining the average velocity, $\bar{v}=(v_++v_-)/2$, and the dimensionless couplings, $y_1^\perp=g_1^\perp/\pi\bar{v}$, $y_2^+=g_2^+/\pi v_+$, $y_2^-=g_2^-/\pi v_-$, and $y_2=g_2^+/2\pi v_+ + g_2^-/2\pi v_- - g_2^\parallel/\pi\bar{v}$, one immediately arrives at Eq. .
As noted in the Sec. \[sec:RG\], we solve the flow equations up to an RG time $\ell^\ast$, defined as the time at which one of the pairing potentials flows to strong coupling (meaning it becomes of the order of the energy cutoff). Let us assume, for example, that $\Delta_+$ flows to strong coupling first, namely that $|\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)|=v_+\Lambda$. The positive-helicity degrees of freedom, $R_{k\om\ua}$ and $L_{k\om\da}$ are therefore gapped and we can integrate them out. We are then left with an action containing only the negative-helicity fields $R_{k\om\da}$ and $L_{k\om\ua}$, $$\label{eq:S_minus}
\begin{split}
S_- =& \int_{k,\om}\hskip -3mm\left\{ -\left[ (G^\tx{R}_{k\om \da})^{-1} \bar{R}_{k\om \da} R_{k\om \da} +
(G^\tx{L}_{k \om \ua})^{-1} \bar{L}_{k\om \ua} L_{k\om \ua}\right]\right.\\
&\left.+\Delta_-'(\ell^\ast) \left( \bar{L}_{k\om \ua}\bar{R}_{-k-\om \da} +
R_{-k-\om \da}L_{k\om \ua}\right)\right\}\\
+&g_2^-(\ell^\ast)\int_{1234} \bar{R}_{k_1\om_1\da} \bar{L}_{k_2\om_2\ua} \bar{L}_{k_3\om_3\ua} R_{k_4\om_4\da},
\end{split}$$ where to leading order in the interaction couplings $$\label{Delta_minus_prime}
\begin{split}
\Delta_-'(\ell^\ast) &= \Delta_-(\ell^\ast) + g_1^\perp(\ell^\ast) \int_{k\om}\int_{k',\om'}\langle L_{k\om\da} R_{k'\om'\ua} \rangle_+ = \\
&= \Delta_-(\ell^\ast) - \frac{g_1^\perp(\ell^\ast)}{2\pi v_+}\Delta_+(\ell^\ast) \sinh\left[\frac{v_+\Lambda}{|\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)|}\right],
\end{split}$$ and where $\avg{\hskip 1mm}_+$ stands for averaging with respect to the action containing only the positive-helicity fields. We can now continue with the RG procedure, applied to $S_-$, which results in the following flow equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flow_eqs_scd_step_appn}
\dot{g}_2^- &= 0,\\
\dot{\Delta}'_- &= \left(1 - \frac{g_2^-}{2\pi v_-}\right)\Delta'_-.\end{aligned}$$
The flow is again stopped when $\Delta'_-$ reaches strong coupling. Importantly, the sign of the gap is determined by the sign of $\Delta_-'(\ell^\ast)$. The topological invariant is then given by $\mc{Q}=\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_+(\ell^\ast)]\operatorname{sgn}[\Delta_-'(\ell^\ast)]$.
Finally, let us consider the possible interaction terms which were not included in Eq. . To this end, we first turn back attention to Eq. . We note that since the frequency integrals of Eq. contain one right-moving green-function and one left-moving Green function, there exists poles in both the lower and upper halves of the complex frequency plane. Had the two Green functions been of the same chirality, the two poles would have been in the same half plane, resulting in a vanishing integral. We can now easily consider additional interaction terms which are also allowed by time-reversal symmetry, $$\label{eq:S_int_p}
\begin{split}
H_\tx{int}' = \int\tx{d}x & \left\{g_4^\perp \left[\rho_{\tx{R}\ua}(x)\rho_{\tx{R}\da}(x) + \rho_{\tx{L}\da}(x)\rho_{\tx{L}\ua}(x)\right] \right. \\
& \hskip -2.3mm + \left. g_4^+ \left[\rho_{\tx{R}\ua}(x)\rho_{\tx{R}\ua}(x) + \rho_{\tx{L}\da}(x)\rho_{\tx{L}\da}(x)\right]\right.\\
& \hskip -2.3mm + \left.g_4^- \left[\rho_{\tx{R}\da}(x)\rho_{\tx{R}\da}(x) + \rho_{\tx{L}\ua}(x)\rho_{\tx{L}\ua}(x)\right]\right\} .
\end{split}$$ The couplings $g_4^\perp$, $g_4^+$, and $g_4^-$ are marginal at tree level. Considering the above argument, any one-loop correction involving these couplings will necessarily contain a loop with two Green functions of the same chirality, and would therefore vanish. As a result, these couplings do not affect the flow of $\Delta_\pm$, $g_1^\perp$, $g_2^\pm$, and $g_2^\parallel$, nor do they flow by themselves. This is the reason for not considering $H_\tx{int}'$ to begin with.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[We show that supernova neutrinos can be studied by observing their charged-current interactions with $^{100}$Mo, which has strong spin-isospin giant resonances. Information about both the effective temperature of the electron-neutrino sphere and the oscillation into electron neutrinos of other flavors can be extracted from the electron (inverse $\beta$) spectrum. We use measured hadronic charge-exchange spectra and the Quasiparticle Random Phase Approximation to calculate the charged-current response of $^{100}$Mo to electron neutrinos from supernovae, with and without the assumption of oscillations. A scaled up version of the MOON detector for $\beta
\beta$ and solar-neutrino studies could potentially be useful for spectroscopic studies of supernova neutrinos as well.]{}\
PACS : 23.40-s,14.60.Pq, 26.65.+t, 95.55.Vj
author:
- |
\
H. Ejiri$^1$, J. Engel$^2$, and N. Kudomi$^3$\
[$^1$IIAS, Kizu-cho, Kyoto, 619-0225; JASRI-Spring8, Mikazuki-cho, Hyogo, 679-5198]{}\
[$^2$Department of Physics and Astronomy, CB3255, University of North Carolina,]{}\
[Chapel Hill NC 27599]{}\
[$^3$RCNP, Osaka-University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047]{}
title: '**Supernova-Neutrino Studies with $^{100}$Mo**'
---
Neutrinos carry away most of the energy from core-collapse supernovae. Supernova neutrinos (SN-$\nu$’s) can be observed on the earth, and their spectrum contains information about conditions inside the supernova as well as their own properties. Here we aim to show that $^{100}$Mo, which responds strongly to spin-isospin probes, is useful for studying supernova weak processes and SN-$\nu$ oscillations, and that a good SN-$\nu$ detector can be realized by scaling up the proposed $\beta\beta$ and solar-neutrino detector MOON.
Though there is much we don’t know about supernovae, the consensus of modelers is that SN-$\nu$’s are released roughly thermally from the supernova remnant after diffusing to the surface of last scattering, called the “neutrino sphere". They therefore escape with an energy corresponding approximately to the thermal energy spectrum at the sphere [@bet90; @woo94; @mil93]. In this picture there are really three neutrino spheres, one for electron neutrinos ($\nu_e$’s), one for electron antineutrinos ($\bar{\nu}_e$’s), and one for the other flavors ($\nu_x$’s and $\bar{\nu}_x$’s). The $\nu_e$ sphere has the largest radius of these because $\nu_e$’s interact with matter via both charged- and neutral-current reactions. So do $\bar{\nu}_e$’s, but the excess of neutrons over protons in the supernova remnant means that they scatter less frequently through charged-current interactions, so that the radius of their neutrino sphere is smaller. The other neutrinos ($\nu _x$, $\bar {\nu }_x$ ), with only the neutral-current interactions, decouple deeper within the star. Since the temperature in the supernova core increases as the radius gets smaller, these last neutrinos will have the highest energy, and the $\nu _e$’s the lowest energy.
The SN-$\nu$ spectrum for a given neutrino species is thought to be roughly [@woo94] [@mil93] $$S(E_{\nu}) =
cT^{-1}_{\nu}\frac{(E_{\nu}/T_{\nu})^2}{{\rm exp}(E_{\nu}/T_{\nu}-a) +
1}$$ where $T_{\nu}$ is the temperature at the neutrino sphere, $a$ is the degeneracy parameter, and $c$ is a normalization constant. Numerical simulations can be approximately reproduced with temperatures $T_{\nu}$ of about 3.5 MeV for $\nu_e$’s, 5 MeV for $\bar{\nu}_e$’s, and 8 MeV for $\nu _x$’s and $\bar{\nu} _x$’s, with the degeneracy parameter $a$ taken to vanish. Accordingly, the average $\nu$ energies are $<E(\nu _e)>
\sim$11 MeV, $<E(\bar{\nu} _e)> \sim$16 MeV, $<E(\nu _x)> \sim$25 MeV, and the spread of SN-$\nu$ energies covers the wide region of $E \sim$ 5-70 MeV.
Measuring the $\nu_e$ spectra would provide us information on the electron neutrino sphere, and thus tell us if our supernova models are on the right track. It could also tell us about neutrino oscillations; if our ideas about where the neutrinos leave the supernova are correct, $\nu_e$’s with energies above 30 MeV or so are rarely emitted directly from the supernova. An excess of high-energy $\nu_e$’s reaching the earth would be strong evidence for oscillations from $\nu_x$ to $\nu_e$.
A number of detectors can study neutrinos in the event of a nearby supernova. They have the ability to detect either the charged-current $\nu_e$ ($\bar{\nu}_e$) interaction, which produces electrons (positrons), or the neutral current interaction (for all flavors), which usually results in the production of neutrons and photons, or both. Antineutrinos from SN1987A were observed by the Kamiokande [@hir87] and IMB [@bio87] groups in water Cerenkov detectors via the reaction $p+ \bar{\nu}_e
\rightarrow n + e^+$. SuperKamkiokande, with multi tons of water, and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), with kilotons of heavy water, are powerful detectors for SN-$\nu$’s (see ref. [@bea98]). SuperKamiokande, however, has a high threshold ($Q \sim 15$ MeV) for the charged-current interaction of $\nu_e$’s with $^{16}$O. The effective threshold energy, including a 5-MeV threshold for detecting an electron produced by the charged-current interaction, is therefore about 20 MeV, well above the average energy of neutrinos emitted from the $\nu_e$ sphere. As a result, while the detector is good for charged-current $\bar{\nu}_e$ interactions, it will have a hard time saying anything about the flux or energy distribution of thermally emitted $\nu_e$’s. Detectors based on liquid scintillator, such as KamLAND [@kam], also have a high threshold for $\nu_e$ charged current interactions with $^{12}$C — about 17 MeV, with an effective threshold energy of around 20 MeV. They will not be able to study neutrinos from the $\nu_e$ sphere either. SNO, on the other hand has a low threshold, plus the eventual ability to separately measure charged and neutral current interactions.
Ref. [@ful99] shows that information on SN-$\nu$ energies and oscillations can be obtained by measuring the number of neutrons produced by neutrino scattering from heavy nuclei. The method is very good for getting gross features of the SN-$\nu$ spectra and possible oscillations, and the proposed facilities OMNIS [@cli97], SBNO [@smi97], and LAND [@har96] are based largely on the detection of neutrons. These detectors cannot easily measure the spectra of charged-current events, however. In addition, the $\nu_e$ cross section on lead is small at low energies because of the extreme concentration of Gamow-Teller(GT) strength in a single resonance at high excitation, so that information about low-energy neutrinos will be hard to obtain.
A low-threshold charged-current detector would therefore add to our ability to study neutrinos from the $\nu_e$ sphere, particularly if the detector could measure the spectrum of electrons from the neutrino interactions and if it were made of a material with a large SN-$\nu$ cross section. If our ideas about the $\nu_e$ sphere are grossly wrong, such a detector would also tell us that. By looking for high-energy $\nu_e$’s, the detector could also complement existing and planned facilities in studying SN-$\nu$ oscillations.
A recent paper [@eji00] argues that MOON (Mo Observatory Of Neutrinos), containing a few tons of $^{100}$Mo, would be useful for studies of both $\beta\beta$ decay (having the ability to detect a neutrino mass as low as $<m_{\nu }>\sim $0.03 eV) and real time studies of low energy solar-$\nu$ spectra. In what follows we discuss how $^{100}$Mo and a scaled-up MOON would be useful for studying SN-$\nu $’s as well as low energy solar-$\nu
$’s.
The isotope $^{100}$Mo has a threshold ($Q$ value) for the charge-exchange process $$\label{eq:Mo}
\nu_e + ^{100}{\rm Mo} \longrightarrow e^- + ^{100}{\rm Tc}$$ of only $Q$=0.17 MeV, much less than other detectors with light nuclei such as $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O. In addition, one expects $^{100}$Mo to exhibit a large response to charged-current interaction of SN-$\nu$’s because of the large neutron excess (isospin $T_z \equiv (N-Z)/2 = 8$), which enhances the strengths of spin-isospin giant resonances.
Recent measurements of $^{100}$Mo($^3$He,t)$^{100}$Tc cross sections [@aki97] confirm this expectation. They show that at energies below 50 MeV this reaction (changing neutrons to protons) primarily excites four isospin giant resonances [@eji00a]: the isobaric analog resonance (IAR) with $J^{\pi}=0^+$, the Gamow-Teller giant resonance (GTR) with $J^{\pi}=1^+$, the isovector dipole resonance (IDR) with $J^{\pi}=1^-$, and the isovector spin-dipole resonance (ISDR) with $J^{\pi}=0^-, 1^-, 2^-$. The GTR is accompanied by a low-energy shoulder (GTR’) below the main peak. The IAR and IDR are excited by operators in coordinate space (times the isospin-raising operator $\tau _+$) while the GTR and ISDR involve the spin operator $\vec{\sigma}$ as well.
The strength in these resonances are spread over the excitation energy region 5-35 MeV, with the centroid of IAR at 11.6 MeV, the GTR and GTR’ centroids at 13.4 MeV and 8 MeV, and the centroid of the combined dipole resonances, which cannot be separated by the experiment, at 21 MeV [@aki97]. This energy range corresponds nicely with that of SN-$\nu$’s, which will therefore also proceed primarily through the resonances, particularly the GTR. The spread of the GT strength down to below 5 MeV together with the low $Q$ value of the charge-exchange process in eq.(\[eq:Mo\]) make the effective threshold as low as a few MeV, well below the average SN-$\nu_e$ energy. As we discuss next, we can actually use the measured charge-exchange response to calibrate a calculation of SN-$\nu$ cross sections.
Precise expressions for the matrix elements that govern these cross sections are given in Ref. [@neu]. We use the charge-changing quasiparticle random phase approximation (QRPA) to calculate most of these matrix elements. Our approach is similar to that of ref. [@eng] with improvements such as a larger model space (about 20 single-particle levels around the Fermi surface for both protons and neutrons), and a better treatment of the Coulomb interaction of the outgoing electron [@engcou] The interaction we use has the same $\delta$-function form, with parameters adjusted to fit the observed GTR energy and the low-lying spectrum in $^{100}$Mo. For neutrinos of the energies we consider here, it is sufficient to include multipoles up to $J=4$.
In the important $1^+$ channel, we replace the QRPA calculation with the measured GT strength. Because the neutrino cross section in this channel is determined mainly by the operator $j_0(qr) \vec{\sigma} \tau_+$, rather than the GT operator $\vec{\sigma} \tau_+$, we must supplement the measured GT strength with a q-dependent form factor. We obtain the form factor from the Helm model [@helm] , which takes the strength to be peaked at the nuclear surface. We cannot repeat this procedure for higher multipoles because they are not separated in the measured spin-isospin dipole strength distributions (and the overall normalization is not known). Our theoretical strength distributions, however, reproduce the measured ones quite well, up to the unknown normalization constant. We choose not to artificially quench the strength of the dipole transitions because no clear evidence supports such quenching; muon capture, in fact, argues against it [@mucap]. The use experimental data to calibrate these calculation should make them accurate to within a factor of two at worst[^1].
Fig. 1 shows the calculated cross section for $\nu_e$ scattering on $^{100}$Mo as a function of neutrino energy. The charge-changing flux-averaged SN-$\nu$ cross sections, broken down by multipole, appear in Table 1. We consider two cases, non-oscillating SN-$\nu_e$’s, and SN-$\nu_{x}$’s (either $\nu_{\mu}$’s or $\nu_{\tau}$’s, but not both) that oscillate completely into $\nu_e$’s. We label these two cases by $\nu_e$ and $\nu_{ex}$. GT-like transitions, the major part of the $1^+$ contribution, dominate the cross section, particularly for the non-oscillating $\nu_e$’s, which have lower energy on average. The cross section for $\nu_{ex}$’s is more than an order of magnitude larger than that for non-oscillating $\nu_e$’s. Since $\nu_x$’s have energies well above the GT and dipole giant resonances, the phase space for $\nu_{ex}$ scattering is quite large.
Fig. 2 shows the calculated spectra (or counts per MeV ton of $^{100}$Mo) of electrons produced by the charged-current interactions of both $\nu_e$ and $\nu _{ex}$ from a typical supernova 10 kpc away, emitting $3 \times 10^{53}$ ergs. We assume that the SN energy is partitioned equally among all neutrino flavors. The average electron energy of 25 MeV for $\nu _{ex}$ is about 2.5 times larger than the average energy of 11 MeV for $\nu_e$, reflecting the ratio of temperatures at the two neutrino spheres. This means that the flux of $\nu_e$’s is higher by the same factor, a fact reflected in the count rates.
The large electron energy for $\nu _{ex}$, together with the large cross section, make a $\nu _{ex}$ component clearly visible; the observation of a large fraction of the events at relatively high electron energies would be a clear signal of oscillations. But the figure also tells us about the importance of a low threshold. In a large enough detector, the neutrinos from the $\nu_e$ sphere will clearly be observable if there are no oscillations. If there is a resonant effect that converts all $\nu_e$’s into $\nu_x$’s then, of course, no detector will tell us anything about the $\nu_e$ sphere. But if — as in the solution to the solar and atmospheric neutrino problems with large $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{13}=0$ — half of the emitted $\nu_e$’s oscillate into $\nu_x$’s, the number of events from $\nu_e$ relative to that from $\nu_{ex}$ will be the same as shown in the figure. At energies below 10 or 15 MeV, a significant fraction of the events would come therefore from the $\nu_e$ sphere, and one could learn something about the spectrum of emitted $\nu_e$’s even in the presence of oscillations.
How large a detector would we need? Our calculations imply that with a supernova 10 kpc away emitting $3 \times 10^{53}$ ergs, one would detect about 2 $\nu_e$’s and about 13 $\nu _{ex}$’s (under the no-oscillation and maximum-oscillation scenarios discussed above) in a detector with 30 tons of $^{100}$Mo. Such a detector is roughly equivalent to the MOON detector discussed in ref. [@eji00], which contains 3.3 tons of $^{100}$Mo, corresponding to 34 tons of natural molybdenum; we argue below that the cross sections on other molybdenum isotopes will be of the same order as in $^{100}$Mo. Thus, even as proposed MOON could conclusively answer the question of whether there are oscillations from $\nu_x$ to $\nu _e$. One would need a detector at least an order of magnitude larger, however, to look closely at the spectrum of non-oscillating $\nu_e$’s, and thus the characteristics of the electron neutrino sphere.
The proposed MOON detector could be realized either as a supermodule of plastic scintillators with thin natural or enriched molybdenum layers or a liquid scintillator doped with natural or enriched molybdenum. The former design can be scaled up to a kiloton of natural molybdenum by increasing the Mo thickness of the modules from of 0.03 g/cm$^2$ to 2 g/cm$^2$ ($\sim$1mm). The average energy loss in the foil is only 1.7 MeV for the electron from ($\nu_e,e$). Thus the effective threshold energy ($Q$ value + detector threshold energy) could still as low as 2 MeV, far below the average energy of the $\nu_e$’s.
The cross-section of SN-$\nu_e$’s per unit weight for $^{100}$Mo is about as large as that for $^{208}$Pb because of the large neutron excess $(N-Z)/A$ = 0.16 and the small thereshold energy. What are the effects of using natural molybdenum rather than $^{100}$Mo? As Table 1 suggests, the non-oscillating $\nu_e$’s mainly excite the GT resonance, so that their cross sections are very roughly given by the product of the GT strength $B(GT)$ and a phase space factor $G$. The GT strength is roughly proportional to $T_z$ and $G$ is proportional to $(E_{\nu}-Q_{G})^2$, where $E_{\nu}$ is the effective neutrino energy and $Q_{G}$ the $Q$ value for exciting the GT resonance. $Q_G$ has a slight linear dependence on $T_z$ [@eji00a] [@hor81]. These facts imply that the use of natural Mo with the $T_z \sim $6 (on average) will reduce the $\nu_e$ count rate by something on the order of 35$\%$ from the rate in $^{100}$Mo, which has $T_z=8$. The $\nu_{ex}$’s excite all the resonances discussed above, but the strength associated with those also depends linearly on $T_z$. If we assume that the energies of those resonances scale the same way as that of the GT resonance, we find that the count rates in natural molybdenum for the high-enegy neutrinos are perhaps 30$\%$ smaller than in $^{100}$Mo. The $Q$ values for the ground state transitions are just a few MeV higher for other Mo isotopes than for $^{100}$Mo. Thus a detector with natural Mo can still have a low effective threshold, and efficiencies of the same order as those with $^{100}$Mo. Such a detector could therefore serve our purpose: providing useful information about the spectrum at the electron-neutrino sphere, as well as observing oscillations and measuring the effective temperature at the $\nu_x$ sphere. And if our ideas about the emission of neutrinos by supenovae are wrong, the detector would be sensitive enough to tell us so.
Mo, which has a large neutron excess, is not so sensitive to antineutrinos because most of the GT transitions are Pauli blocked. Neutral-current interactions of SN-$\nu$’s would excite the Mo isotopes, which decay mostly by emitting neutrons and successive $\gamma$ rays. These particles deposit energy in a large volume of scintillator, and so could be separated from charged-current events, which have a single electron signal accompanied by several neutron and $\gamma $ signals. But other detectors, such as SK and SNO, would see more neutral current events (and many more antineutrino-charged-current events) than this one would [@bea98; @lan96]. A Mo detector, with its sensitivity to $\nu_e$’s, would therefore not obviate other detectors, but would complement them nicely. Information on the antineutrino spectrum, for example, could strengthen evidence for oscillations that might be observed in the neutrino spectrum.
In summary, $^{100}$Mo and other Mo isotopes have large cross sections for SN-$\nu_e$ and SN-$\nu_{ex}$. A scaled up version of MOON, which could measure electron energy spectra down to $\sim 2$ MeV, would be useful both for studying neutrino oscillations and for learning about conditions at the electron-neutrino sphere. With the exception of SNO, which has an effective threshold of few MeV, no other detector could do the latter as well. Other heavy nuclei with large $N - Z$ could conceivably be used in place of molybdenum in the liquid-scintillator version of the detector.\
We thank Professors R.G.H. Robertson and P. Vogel for valuable discussions. We were supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE–FG02–97ER41019.
[99]{}
H.A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**62**]{} (1990) 801. S.E. Woosley et al., Astrophysics J. [**433**]{} (1994) 229. D.S. Miller, J.R. Wilson, and R.W. Mayle, Astrophysics J. [ **415**]{} (1993) 278. K.S. Hirata, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{} (1987) 1490. R.M. Bionta, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.[**58**]{} (1987) 1494. J.F. Beacom and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} (1998) 053010, 093012. J. Busenitz et al., “Proposal for US Participation in KamLAND,” 1999 (unpublished). May be downloaded from http://bfk0.lbl.gov/kamland/ G.M. Fuller, W. Haxton, and G. McLauglin, Phys. Rev. D [ **59**]{} (1999) 085005. D.B. Cline, G.M. Fuller, W.M. Hong, B. Meyer, and J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. [**D 50**]{} (1994) 720. P.F. Smith, Astroparticle Phys. [**8**]{}(1997)27. C.K. Hargrove et al., Astroparticle Phys. [**5**]{} (1996) 183. H. Ejiri, J. Engel, R. Hazama, P. Krastev, N. Kudomi, and R.G.H. Robertson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 2917. H. Akimune et al., Phys. Lett. B [**394**]{} (1997) 23. H. Ejiri, Phys. Rep. [**338**]{} (2000) 265. J.D. Walecka, in: Muon Physics, Vol. 2, eds. V.W. Hughes and C.S. Wu (Academic, New York, 1975), p. 113. J. Engel, P. Vogel, and M.R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. C [ **37**]{} (1988) 731. Jonathan Engel, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{} (1998) 2004. R.H. Helm, Phys. Rev. [**104**]{} (1956) 1466. E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{} (2000) 055502. D.J. Horen et al., Physics Letters [**99B**]{} (1981) 383 K. Langanke, P. Vogel, and E. Kolbe, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 2629.
$\nu_e$ $\nu_{ex} $
------- --------- -------------
$0^+$ 0.65 8.94
$0^-$ 0.02 0.59
$1^+$ 4.62 32.34
$1^-$ 0.14 11.86
$2^+$ 0.04 4.62
$2^-$ 0.34 14.00
$3^+$ 0.03 3.78
$3^-$ — 1.00
$4^+$ — 0.23
$4^-$ — 0.79
total 5.84 78.16
: Calculated flux-averaged neutrino cross sections in units of $10^{-41}$ cm$^2$, with contributions from each multipole given separately[]{data-label="t:1"}
![The calculated cross section for $\nu_e$ charged-current scattering on $^{100}$Mo, as a function of neutrino energy.[]{data-label="f:1"}](esec.eps){width="10cm"}
![The calculated energy spectra of electrons produced by charged-current interactions of both $\nu_e$ (dashed line) and $\nu_{ex}$ (solid line), assuming equipartition of SN energy among all flavors. The vertical axis is the number of electrons per MeV per ton of $^{100}$Mo.[]{data-label="f:2"}](countston.eps){width="10cm"}
[^1]: Our cross sections for the highest-energy neutrinos may be slightly too small because of the restrctions on our single-particle space.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It has been generally accepted that unfilled skutterudites process high lattice thermal conductivity ($\kappa_{l}$) that can be efficiently reduced upon filling. Here by using first principles Boltzmann-Peierls transport calculations, we find pure skutterudite of FeSb$_3$ with no filler in fact has an intrinsic ultralow $\kappa_{l}$ smaller than that of CoSb$_3$ by one order of magnitude. The value is even smaller than those of most of the fully filled skutterudites. This finding means that with FeSb$_3$ as a reference, filling does not necessarily lower $\kappa_{l}$. The ultralow $\kappa_{l}$ of FeSb$_3$ is a consequence of much softened optical phonon branches associated with the weakly bonded Sb$_4$ rings. They overlap more with heat-carrying acoustic phonons and significantly increase the phase space for three-phonon anharmonic scattering processes. This provides an alternative non-filling related mechanism for lowering the $\kappa_{l}$ of skutterudites.'
author:
- Yuhao Fu
- 'David J. Singh'
- Wu Li
- Lijun Zhang
bibliography:
- 'ref\_skutterudites.bib'
title: 'Intrinsic ultralow lattice thermal conductivity of the unfilled skutterudite FeSb$_3$'
---
Skutterudites are an important class of high performance thermoelectrics [@morelli1995; @sales1996; @nolas1999; @shi2011; @PhysRevB.56.R1650; @zhang2006; @PhysRevB.56.7376; @Rogl2010; @PhysRevB.77.094421; @han2009; @dyck2002; @caillat1996; @yang2006; @PhysRevB.84.235205; @nolas2000; @chen2001; @lamberton2002; @zhang2009; @rogl2014; @yang_tuning_2016] as the embodiment of the Slack’s “electron-crystal phonon-glass” idea [@slack1995]. The existence of two isosahedron voids in their crystal structures allows for filling in a variety of cations (*e.g.,* rare earth, alkali earth or alkali metals). This offers dual advantages for good thermoelectrics: first, according to the Zintl concept the additional electrons transferred from the electropositive fillers to the CoSb$_3$ framework make possible flexible control of $n$-type doping [@shi2011; @PhysRevB.56.7376; @Rogl2010; @han2009; @dyck2002; @nolas2000; @chen2001; @lamberton2002; @zhao2006; @pei2006], and provides compensating change to the $p$-type doping with Co replaced by electron deficient Fe [@morelli1995; @sales1996; @PhysRevB.56.R1650; @Rogl2010; @PhysRevB.84.235205; @qiu2011]. Second, and more importantly, filling strongly lowers lattice thermal conductivity ($\kappa_{l}$) [@morelli1995; @sales1996; @nolas1999; @shi2011; @PhysRevB.56.7376; @Rogl2010; @han2009; @dyck2002; @lamberton2002; @zhao2006; @nolas2000; @zhang2009; @rogl2014] and optimizing the filling to lower $\kappa_{l}$ both in terms of filling fraction and by using suitable mixtures of filled cations plays a central role in the optimization of high performance skutterudite thermoelectrics [@shi2011].
The physical mechanism responsible for the reduction of $\kappa_{l}$ in filled skutterudites remains elusive after two decades of intensive research. There are several debated aspects about the nature and role of the vibrations associated with the filled “rattling” atoms: (i) whether the motion of the rattling atoms is incoherent and non-correlated [@slack1994; @slack1995; @Keppens1998; @PhysRevLett.90.135505] or coherently couples with the host framework [@PhysRevB.76.140301; @koza2008]; (ii) whether there exists anharmonic interaction between the localized rattling modes and the propagating phonons of the host framework [@PhysRevB.61.R9209; @yamakage2009; @PhysRevB.81.134301; @PhysRevB.89.184304; @PhysRevB.91.144304]; (iii) whether the reduction of $\kappa_{l}$ originates from the energy dissipation caused by the resonant scattering of the rattling atoms [@slack1994; @slack1995; @sales1996; @PhysRevB.56.15081] or the enhanced conventional anharmonic (Umklapp) scattering processes [@koza2008; @lee2006; @PhysRevB.89.184304; @PhysRevB.91.144304].
Despite controversy over the mechanism, there is consensus that the filling should reduce the $\kappa_{l}$ of skutterudites. In this Letter we report the finding via first principles transport calculations that the recently reported skutterudite FeSb$_3$ [@PhysRevB.91.085410; @xing2015; @marc1997; @PhysRevB.84.064302; @PhysRevB.91.014303; @PhysRevB.92.205204] often presumed to be closely related to CoSb$_3$ in fact has an very low $\kappa_{l}$ without filling, even lower than those of most of the fully filled skutterudites ($e.g.,$ with Ba, La and Ce). This ultralow $\kappa_{l}$ in an unfilled skutterudite is a consequence of the much softened optical phonon branches that take the role of the rattling modes in the filled skutterudites. The emerged low-lying optical phonons overlap more with the heat-carrying acoustic phonons and increase three-phonon anharmonic scattering channels, thus significantly reducing phonon lifetimes and $\kappa_{l}$. This finding demonstrates an unexpected mechanism for the reduction of $\kappa_{l}$ in skutterudites.
We perform first principles calculations of $\kappa_{l}$ for FeSb$_3$ and fully filled skutterudites of La/CeFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ by iteratively solving the linearized Boltzmann-Peierls transport equation of phonons with the SHENGBTE package [@li2014] (see Supplementary methods for more details). The equilibrium crystal structures and interatomic force constants (IFCs) are obtained from DFT calculations with the plane-wave projector-augmented-wave method [@PhysRevB.50.17953], as implemented in the VASP code [@PhysRevB.54.11169]. We employ the local density approximation (LDA) as exchange-correlation functional. A ferromagnetic configuration for FeSb$_3$ is used, which is the lowest-energy magnetic configuration at the LDA level. Structural optimization is done with the kinetic energy cutoffs of 350 eV or more and the 8$\times$8$\times$8 $k$-point mesh, which ensures the residual forces smaller than 1x10$^{-4}$ eV/Å. The resulted equilibrium lattice constants are slightly smaller than the experimental data (by 2.03%, 1.78%, and 2.00% for FeSb$_3$, LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ and CeFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$, respectively) as in Supplementary Table S1. The agreements are reasonably good by consideration of the usual underestimation of lattice constants in the DFT-LDA calculations. The harmonic and third-order anharmonic IFCs are calculated by using the real-space supercell approach [@phonopy; @li2014], in a 3$\times$3$\times$3 supercell with a 2$\times$2$\times$2 $k$-point mesh and a 2$\times$2$\times$2 supercell with a 3$\times$3$\times$3 $k$-point mesh, respectively. The phonon momenta $q$-mesh of 15$\times$15$\times$15 is used in solving the transport equation to ensure $\kappa_{l}$ converged at the 1$\times$10$^{-6}$ W/mK level.
Fig. \[thermalConductivity\] shows calculated $\kappa_{l}$ as the function of temperature for unfilled FeSb$_{3}$ and CoSb$_{3}$ [@PhysRevB.90.094302], as well as fully filled skutterudites of LaFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$, CeFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$, YbFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ [@PhysRevB.91.144304], BaFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ [@PhysRevB.91.144304] and BaCo$_{3}$Sb$_{12}$ [@PhysRevB.89.184304]. The excellent agreement between theoretical results of CoSb$_{3}$ and available experimental data [@PhysRevB.51.9622; @caillat1996] strongly indicate the validity of our calculations. Surprisingly, we find that FeSb$_{3}$ exhibits a quite low $\kappa_{l}$ of 1.14 W/mK at 300 K, about one order of magnitude lower than 11.6 W/mK of CoSb$_{3}$. In the whole temperature range the $\kappa_{l}$ of FeSb$_{3}$ is apparently much lower than the values of the most filled skutterudites (by more than two-third). The only exception is YbFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ that owes the lowest theoretical $\kappa_{l}$ among reported filled skutterudites [@PhysRevB.91.144304].
![(color online) Calculated temperature dependence of $\kappa_{l}$ (in W/mK) of unfilled skutterudites (FeSb$_{3}$, CoSb$_{3}$ [@PhysRevB.90.094302]) and several fully filled skutterudites (LaFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$, CeFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$, YbFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ [@PhysRevB.91.144304], BaFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ [@PhysRevB.91.144304] and BaCo$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ [@PhysRevB.89.184304]). The experimental $\kappa_{l}$ for CoSb$_{3}$ (open symbols) are taken from Morelli *et al.* (stars) [@PhysRevB.51.9622] and Caillat *et al.* (squares) [@caillat1996]. The inset shows crystal structures of unfilled and fully filled skutterudites.[]{data-label="thermalConductivity"}](thermalConductivity.eps){width="3.5in"}
We next elucidate the reason why FeSb$_{3}$ has such an ultralow $\kappa_{l}$. The physical factors that may affect $\kappa_{l}$ (see Supplementary Eq. S1) include heat capacity $C_\lambda$, phonon velocity $\upsilon_{\lambda}$ and phonon lifetime $\tau_{\lambda}$ of each phonon mode $\lambda$. Figs. \[analysis\]a and \[analysis\]b show the calculated room-temperature heat capacity and the averaged group velocity over the long-wavelength acoustic phonons contributing predominately to heat-carrying, respectively. The difference in the heat capacities of FeSb$_3$ and CoSb$_3$ is negligibly small (less than 0.7%) and their values are $\sim$7% lower than those of La/YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$. This is almost exactly as expected from the Dulong-Petit law, in accord with experiments (see Supplementary Fig. S1). The square of averaged phonon velocity for FeSb$_3$ is about 17% and 10% lower than that of CoSb$_3$ and LaFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$, respectively. This originates from the substantially reduced frequencies and velocities of the acoustic phonons in FeSb$_3$ (see below). However, the influences of these two factors are far from enough to explain the above large discrepancies in $\kappa_{l}$. Therefore it must be the phonon lifetime that plays a central role in reducing $\kappa_{l}$ of FeSb$_{3}$.
![(color online) Analysis of key factors that may affect $\kappa_{l}$ for FeSb$_{3}$, CoSb$_{3}$ and the filled skutterudites of La/YbFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$: (a) heat capacity, (b) phonon velocity, (c) interatomic force constant and (d) scattering phase space. In (b) the phonon velocity is calculated by averaging the group velocities of the long-wavelength (both transverse and longitudinal) acoustic phonons along different phonon momentum directions. In (c) the notation of $M^{nth}$ represents that the $nth$-order IFCs of the compound M is used to replace the original IFCs when calculating the room-temperature $\kappa_{l}$.[]{data-label="analysis"}](analysis.eps){width="3.5in"}
The intrinsic phonon lifetimes of crystalline materials are primarily dominated by the three-phonon anharmonic scattering processes. Fig. \[anharmonicSRs\] shows the calculated anharmonic scattering rates at 300 K. As seen, the scattering rates of FeSb$_{3}$ are nearly one order of magnitude larger than those of CoSb$_{3}$ in the low and intermediate frequency ($\omega$) regions (below 5 THz). Clearly at most of $\omega$ the rates of FeSb$_{3}$ are much higher than those of LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$, though lower than those of YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$. Therefore the observed differences in the anharmonic scattering processes that limit phonon lifetimes indeed account for the discrepancies in $\kappa_{l}$. Note that the anharmonic scattering rates of FeSb$_{3}$ are remarkably enhanced in a wide intermediate frequency range between $\sim$1 and 5 THz. The behavior is similar to those in La/YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ and other filled skutterudites [@PhysRevB.91.144304; @PhysRevB.91.144304; @PhysRevB.89.184304]. This affects contributions of phonon modes to $\kappa_{l}$, as indicated by the cumulative plot of $\kappa_{l}$ ($\kappa^c_{l}$) that represents the fraction of heat carried by the phonons with less frequencies than $\omega$ (inset of Fig. \[anharmonicSRs\]). The higher anharmonic scattering rates correspond to the smaller lifetimes, and thus the less contributions of the phonons to $\kappa_{l}$. While for CoSb$_{3}$ $\kappa^c_{l}$ increase rapidly with $\omega$ and the phonons below 2 THz have already contributed to $\sim$80% of $\kappa_{l}$, $\kappa^c_{l}$ of FeSb$_{3}$ show a much slower increase and the phonons below 2 THz only contribute to $\sim$50% of $\kappa_{l}$. The behavior of $\kappa^c_{l}$ of FeSb$_{3}$ resembles those of filled skutterudites, especially YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$.
![(color online) Calculated anharmonic scattering rates of FeSb$_{3}$ (red circles), CoSb$_{3}$ (green squares), LaFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ (blue triangles) and YbFe$_{4}$Sb$_{12}$ (cyan diamonds) at 300 K. The normalized cumulative $\kappa_{l}$ as the function of $\omega$ is shown in the inset.[]{data-label="anharmonicSRs"}](anharmonicSRs.eps){width="3.5in"}
We further investigate the roles of harmonic and third-order anharmonic IFCs in enhancing three-phonon anharmonic scattering processes and reducing $\kappa_{l}$ in FeSb$_{3}$. In particular we perform calculations of $\kappa_{l}$ by deliberately interchanging the harmonic/anharmonic IFCs between two different compounds, as shown in Fig. \[analysis\]c. For FeSb$_{3}$, when replacing the anharmonic IFCs by the ones from CoSb$_{3}$ and remaining the other quantities unchanged, we find that $\kappa_{l}$ increases by $\sim$30%, whereas $\kappa_{l}$ of CoSb$_{3}$ decreases by $\sim$30% when using the anharmonic IFCs from FeSb$_{3}$. The anharmonic scattering rates are generally proportional to the square of the anharmonic IFCs (Eq. S3 and S4). The result means the anharmonic IFCs of FeSb$_{3}$ are larger than those of CoSb$_{3}$, corresponding to the higher scattering rates in FeSb$_{3}$, but far from enough to account for its one-order lower $\kappa_{l}$. For the filled skutterudites of LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ and YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$, when using the anharmonic IFCs from FeSb$_{3}$, the resulted $\kappa_{l}$ show $\sim$50% and $\sim$130% increases, respectively. This indicates the anharmonic IFCs of FeSb$_{3}$ are smaller, corresponding to the lower scattering rates, which conflicts with the smaller $\kappa_{l}$ of FeSb$_{3}$ than that of LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$. When we interchange the harmonic IFCs between FeSb$_3$ and CoSb$_3$, we find $\kappa_{l}$ of FeSb$_{3}$ increases by about 8 times, and $\kappa_{l}$ of CoSb$_{3}$ decreases by almost the same amount. The changes accord well with the discrepancy of $\kappa_{l}$ between FeSb$_3$ and CoSb$_3$. From these results, we can conclude that the main factor responsible for the enhanced anharmonic scattering in FeSb$_{3}$ is the harmonic IFCs, rather than the third-order anharmonic IFCs.
![(color online) (a,b,c) Calculated phonon dispersion curves of FeSb$_{3}$, CoSb$_{3}$ and LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$. The size of circle represents the magnitude of Gr$\ddot u$neisen parameter ($\gamma$) for each mode, and the positive $\gamma$ is shown in blue, negative in red. In (b) and (c) some phonon branches taken from FeSb$_3$ (in orange) and YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ (in cyan) are shown for comparison. (d) Eigenvector of the lowest optical mode at the $\Gamma$ point for FeSb$_3$. The Sb$_4$ ring is indicated with red dash lines. (e) shows the (projected) phonon density of states (PHDOS).[]{data-label="phononDispersion"}](phononDispersion.eps){width="3.5in"}
The specific way of the harmonic IFCs affecting the anharmonic scattering processes is through phonon frequencies and eigenvectors (Eq. S3 and S4). The phonon eigenvectors contribute to the three-phonon scattering matrix elements. Usually for the same class of materials, the changes of eigenvectors with the varied harmonic IFCs are not as large as the changes of frequencies. It is thus reasonably to assume the scattering matrix elements do not change substantially here. The action of phonon frequencies on the anharmonic scattering is embodied by the three-phonon scattering phase space W$^{\pm}$ (see Eq. S5), which depicts available three-phonon scattering channels among all modes. It consists of two components corresponding to absorption (W$^{+}$, two phonons merging into one) and emission (W$^{-}$, one splitting into two) processes, respectively. As show in Fig. \[analysis\]d, the W$^{+}$ of FeSb$_3$ are distinctly larger than those of CoSb$_3$ by several times in the low frequency ($<$ 3.5 THz) region, and the W$^{-}$ of FeSb$_3$ show much larger values in the wide frequency region below 5 THz as well. The origin of the significantly enhanced W$^{\pm}$ of FeSb$_3$ lies in its distinct phonon spectrum. Comparing with that of CoSb$_3$ (Fig. \[phononDispersion\]b), the phonon spectrum of FeSb$_3$ (Fig. \[phononDispersion\]a) shows a clear softening for the lowest optical branch (down to below 2 THz). This optical branch is even lower in frequency than the La-derived rattling mode in LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ (Fig. \[phononDispersion\]c), and is not far away from the extremely low frequency Yb-derived mode in YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ (cyan curve in Fig. \[phononDispersion\]c). Actually it is not only the lowest optical branch, but several adjacent upper optical branches that become softened in FeSb$_3$. This is unambiguously reflected by a sharp PHDOS peak appearing around 2 THz (Fig. \[phononDispersion\]e). It is located in the region similar to that of the La-derived rattling modes in LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ (blue dash line in Fig. \[phononDispersion\]e). The low-lying optical phonons overlaps more with the acoustic branches, appreciably increases the phase space W$^{\pm}$ for three-phonon scattering processes (Fig. \[analysis\]d). This reduces significantly phonon lifetimes, which is the main root cause for the ultralow $\kappa_{l}$ of FeSb$_3$.
Fig. \[phononDispersion\]d shows the vibration pattern of the lowest optical phonon mode of FeSb$_3$. It involves torsion of the Sb$_4$ ring, a typical quasi-molecular motif in skutterudites. The softening of this optical mode in FeSb$_3$ originates from the weaker Sb-Sb bonds of the Sb$_4$ ring, as demonstrated by the electron localization function contour plot in Fig. \[elf\]. Clearly the electrons in the Sb$_4$ ring of FeSb$_3$ are much less localized than the case of CoSb$_3$. This indicates the rather weaker Sb-Sb bonds in FeSb$_3$, as expected from its electron deficient nature. This is consistent with the fact that the Young modulus of FeSb$_{3}$ is smaller than that of CoSb$_{3}$ [@PhysRevB.91.014303; @PhysRevB.84.064302]. As the result, the phonon modes that are mainly dominated by Sb atoms (below 6 THz) show general softening in FeSb$_{3}$ (Fig. \[phononDispersion\]e). The softening also occurs to the acoustic phonons, especially the transverse modes (Fig. \[phononDispersion\]b), which leads to the moderately reduced averaged phonon velocity of FeSb$_{3}$ in Fig. \[analysis\]b. In addition to the phonon softening, the weaker Sb-Sb bonds in FeSb$_3$ results in abnormal Gr$\ddot u$neisen parameters ($\gamma$) of phonons (Fig. \[phononDispersion\]a). For the low-lying optical branches and the transverse acoustic phonons, the values of $\gamma$ are negative (in red) and quite large in magnitude. Such phonon modes with the large magnitude $\gamma$ in principle facilitate high lattice anharmonicity [@PhysRev.98.1751] and thus low $\kappa_{l}$. The negative sign of $\gamma$ for the low-lying optical branches implies that they will be further softened under contraction. This is expected to cause the more overlapping with acoustic phonons, more enhanced W$^{\pm}$ and thus even lower $\kappa_{l}$ at high pressures.
For the filled skutterudites, the electrons of filler transfer to the host framework following the Zintl behavior. These electrons primarily distribute on the Sb$_4$ ring, which considerably strengthens the Sb-Sb covalent bonds, as indicated in Fig. \[elf\]c for the LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ case. This is consistent with the band structure of skutterudites, which shows a light Sb derived band at the top of the valence bands [@PhysRevB.50.11235]. This may also explain why filled Fe-based skutterudites are easier to form than FeSb$_3$ usually stabilized in films [@marc1997; @PhysRevB.84.064302; @PhysRevB.91.085410]. If one considers only the fact that the strengthened Sb-Sb bonds after La filling lift the Sb-derived optical branches in LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$, an increase of $\kappa_{l}$ is expected. In fact, the La filler derived rattling modes take the role to remarkably enhance W$^{\pm}$. As the result $\kappa_{l}$ of LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ is still much lower than that of CoSb$_3$, and only about three times larger than that of FeSb$_3$. For the case of YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$, the Yb derived even lower frequency and rather flat optical phonon branches increase W$^{\pm}$ more significantly, resulting in the more reduced $\kappa_{l}$ [@PhysRevB.91.144304].
![(color online) Contour plot of electron localization function within the (100) plane of (a) FeSb$_{3}$, (b) CoSb$_{3}$ and (c) LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$.[]{data-label="elf"}](elf.eps){width="3.5in"}
To summarize, we report a discovery of ultralow lattice thermal conductivity ($\kappa_{l}$) of pure skutterudite FeSb$_3$ with no filler by using first principles Boltzmann-Peierls transport simulations. The calculated $\kappa_{l}$ is only 1.14 W/mK at room temperature, one order of magnitude lower than that of CoSb$_3$. It is even lower than the values of the most fully filled skutterudites. This is in contrast to the generally accepted approach where filling is used for reduction of $\kappa_{l}$ in skutterudites. The origin of the ultralow $\kappa_{l}$ is attributed to the remarkably softened optical phonon branches associated with the weaker Sb-Sb bonds in FeSb$_3$ owing to its electron deficient nature. These low frequency optical phonons, having similar frequencies to those of the rattling modes in filled skutterudites, take the role of the rattling modes. They overlap more with the heat-carrying acoustic phonons and increase significantly the phase space of three-phonon anharmonic scattering processes. This leads to much reduced phonon lifetimes, and thus very low intrinsic $\kappa_{l}$. By finding the intrinsic ultralow $\kappa_{l}$ of an unfilled skutterudite, our results offer new insight into the still debated mechanism responsible for the reduction of $\kappa_{l}$ upon filling in skutterudites. Finally we evaluate the maximum mean free path of phonons for bulk FeSb$_3$ and find the value smaller than 600 nm (Supplementary Fig. S3), suggesting that the experimentally synthesized FeSb$_3$ films [@PhysRevB.84.064302] can be directly applied to verify our theoretical prediction.
The authors acknowledge funding support from the Recruitment Program of Global Youth Experts in China and special funds for talent development in Jilin Province. Part of calculations was performed in the high performance computing center of Jilin University. Work of D.J.S. is supported by S3TEC an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences under award \#DE-SC0001299 / DE-FG02-09ER46577.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a quantum small-world network with disorder and show that the system exhibits a delocalization transition. A quantum algorithm is built up which simulates the evolution operator of the model in a polynomial number of gates for exponential number of vertices in the network. The total computational gain is shown to depend on the parameters of the network and a larger than quadratic speed-up can be reached. We also investigate the robustness of the algorithm in presence of imperfections.'
author:
- 'O. Giraud, B. Georgeot and D.L. Shepelyansky'
date: 'March 23, 2005'
title: 'Quantum computing of delocalization in small-world networks'
---
Recently, much attention has been attracted to the study of small-world networks [@smallworld]. They have been shown to describe social and biological networks, Internet connections, airline flights and other complex networks. In such systems, it is possible to go from a given point to any other through only a small number of links. Well-established classical models have been proposed and analyzed by statistical methods. The study of quantum networks with the same property has started only recently, showing that these systems present interesting features related to quantum transport, delocalization [@chinois; @como2001] and fast diffusion [@diffusion].
In parallel, the development of quantum information and computation has become more and more important [@Nielsen]. In particular, the study of quantum computers has shown that they can solve certain problems much more efficiently than any classical device. Celebrated quantum algorithms have been built for the factorization of large numbers with exponential efficiency [@shor], and for search in an unstructured database with a quadratic speed-up [@grover]. As first envisioned by Feynman in the 1980’s, the simulation of complex quantum systems has also been shown to be more efficient on a quantum computer [@Nielsen].
Here we study a quantum small-world network with disorder. We demonstrate the existence of a delocalization transition and investigate its dependence on disorder strength, number of links and system size. We then build a quantum algorithm to simulate such a network on a quantum computer, and show that its efficiency significantly overcomes classical computations. The algorithm is robust with respect to errors.
We consider a circular graph with $N=2^{n_r}$ vertices. Each vertex is linked with its two nearest-neighbors. To this graph, $pN$ shortcut links (connecting $2pN$ vertices) are added between random pairs of vertices (see an example in the inset of Fig.1) [@footnote]. A quantized version of this system with on-site disorder can be described by the $N \times N$ Hamiltonian matrix $H=H_0+H_1+H_2$. The first two terms give a one-dimensional tight-binding Anderson model well-known in solid state physics [@mirlin]. The diagonal matrix with entries $(H_0)_{ij}=\epsilon_i \delta_{i,j}$ describes on-site disorder; $\delta_{i,j}$ denote Kronecker symbols, and $\epsilon_i$ are independent random numbers whose distribution is a Gaussian with zero mean and width $W$ (the Gaussian is truncated at large values). The matrix $(H_1)_{ij}=V (\delta_{i, j+1}+\delta_{i+1, j})$ describes the links between nearest-neighbors, and $(H_2)_{ij}=\sum_{k=1}^{M}V (\delta_{i,i_k}\delta_{j, j_k}+
\delta_{i,j_k}\delta_{j, i_k})$ the shortcuts which make the graph of small-world type, where $\{i_k,j_k\}$ are the pairs of vertices connected by random links, and $V=1$ is the hopping matrix element.
![Level spacing statistics for $H$ at $n_r=14$, $p=1/32$, for three values of the disorder: $W=0.5$ (triangles), $1.3$ (empty squares) and $3$ (full squares). The solid curves correspond to the Poisson distribution $P(s)=e^{-s}$ and to the Wigner-Dyson distribution $P(s)=(\pi s/2)e^{-\pi s^2/4}$. Number of disorder realizations (position of shortcut links and on-site disorder) is $N_D=10$. Only the central half of the eigenvalues is taken into account. Inset: a realization of small-world network with $N=32$ and $p=1/8$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width=".85\linewidth"}
When $p=0$, the system reduces to the one-dimensional Anderson model, for which all states are known to be localized. For small disorder, the localization length $l$ varies as $l \propto 1/W^2$ [@mirlin]. The additional presence of shortcut links may induce delocalization. This can be checked through spectral statistics. Indeed, for localized systems, the eigenvalues are distributed according to the Poisson distribution, provided the localization length is smaller than the system size. On the contrary, in the delocalized phase the eigenvalues follow the Wigner-Dyson distribution corresponding to Random Matrix Theory, which generally characterizes quantum chaotic systems and ergodic wavefunctions [@mirlin]. Our numerical diagonalization of $H$ at fixed $p$ shows a transition from Poisson to Wigner distribution as $W$ decreases. A typical example is shown in Fig.1 at $p=1/32$ and $W= 3$ (localized phase), $W= 1.3$ (intermediate statistics), $W=0.5$ (delocalized phase). This indicates that a delocalization transition takes place in this system.
The localization properties of this quantum system can be analyzed more precisely through the Inverse Participation Ratio (IPR), defined by $\xi = \sum_i|\Psi_i|^2/\sum_i|\Psi_i|^4$ for a wavefunction $|\Psi \rangle=\sum_i\Psi_i |i\rangle $. It gives the number of vertices supporting the wavefunction ($\xi=1$ for a state localized on a single vertex, and $\xi=N$ for a state uniformly spread over $N$ vertices). In Fig.\[IPR05\] and Fig.\[IPR3\], we display the time evolution of the IPR for a wave packet initially localized on one vertex. For $W=0.5$, the saturation value grows with $N$ in the presence of shortcut links, indicating that the wavefunction is no longer localized. On the contrary, for $W=3$, the saturation value remains close to its value in the absence of links and does not change significantly with $N$, implying that the system is still localized. In a more quantitative way, Fig.\[logs\] presents the saturation value of the IPR as a function of $n_r$ for different values of $p$. The data confirm that at $W=3$ the system remains localized. On the contrary, a clear delocalization is visible in the presence of shortcut links for $W=0.5$. The data are in good agreement with the law $\xi \propto N^{\alpha}$, with $\alpha \approx 0.58$ for $p=1/32$ and $\alpha \approx 0.84$ for $p=1/16$ (the maximal value $\alpha=1$ is obtained at $p=1/2$, data not shown). This shows that the delocalization transition for $p=1/16$ and $p=1/32$ takes place approximately at $W \approx 1$. In the limit of weak disorder $W \ll 1$, the transition is expected to take place at smaller values of $p \propto W^2$ [@como2001].
This system can be simulated on a quantum computer, using $O((\log N)^2)$ quantum gates for a network of $N=2^{n_r}$ vertices, and $n_q=3n_r+3$ qubits. We start from an initial wave packet encoded on the quantum registers. For example, the initial one-vertex states used in Figs.\[IPR05\]-\[logs\] can be constructed efficiently from a state localized in the ground state of the quantum computer by at most $n_r$ single-qubit flips. Our quantum algorithm performs the evolution of the wave packet by slicing the propagator $\exp(i H t)$, using the relation $e^{i(H_0+H_1+H_2)\Delta t}=
e^{i H_0 \frac{\Delta t}{2}}
e^{i H_1 \frac{\Delta t}{2}} e^{i H_2\Delta t}e^{i H_1 \frac{\Delta t}{2}}
e^{i H_0 \frac{\Delta t}{2}}+O(\Delta t^3)$ for a short period of time $\Delta t$ (see e.g. [@Nielsen; @pomerans]). Each unitary operator is then simulated by quantum gates. We use in particular rotations on the $j$-th qubit by an angle $\phi/2$: $R_j(\phi)=\exp(i\phi\sigma_j^{z}/2)$ ($\sigma^z$ being a Pauli matrix); controlled-not operations $\cnot_{i,j}$, that is bit-flip on the $j$-th qubit conditioned by the $i$-th qubit; multi-controlled rotations $C_{i_1, ..., i_{\mu},\eta_{1}, ...,\eta_{\mu}, j}(\theta)$, that is rotations by an angle $\theta$ on the $j$-th qubit if and only if the qubits $i_k$ takes the value $\eta_k\in\{0,1\}$ for $1\leq k \leq \mu$.
$\bullet$ The transformation $|i\rangle\rightarrow e^{i H_0 \Delta t} |i\rangle$ consists in multiplying each basis state $|i\rangle$ by a Gaussian random phase $\exp(i \epsilon_i \Delta t)$. For some integer $n_s$, and $\sigma=W\Delta t \sqrt{\frac{3}{n_r+n_s}}$, let us choose randomly $n_r+n_s$ angles $\phi_k$, $1\leq k\leq n_r$, and $\phi'_k$, $1\leq k\leq n_s$, independent and uniformly distributed in $[-\sigma/2, \sigma/2]$. Each $\epsilon_i \Delta t$ is replaced by a random variable $\pm \phi_1\pm\phi_2\pm\cdots\pm\phi'_{s-1}\pm\phi'_{s}$, which for large $n_s$ tends to a Gaussian random variable of width $W\Delta t$. This can be simulated by applying the operator $\prod_{k=n_s}^{1} \cnot_{i_{k}, j_{k}}
\prod_{k=1}^{n_s}\left(R_{j_k}(\phi'_k) \cnot_{i_k, j_k}\right)
\prod_{k=1}^{n_r}R_k(\phi_k)$ for some value of $n_s$. The $i_k$ and $j_k$ are chosen randomly between $0$ and $n_r-1$. This step requires $(3n_s+n_r)$ gates.
$\bullet$ To perform the transformation $|i\rangle\rightarrow e^{i H_1 \Delta t} |i\rangle$, we first apply a quantum Fourier transform (QFT) to turn it into the diagonal transformation $|k\rangle\rightarrow\exp\left(2i\Delta t\cos\frac{2\pi k}{N}\right)
|k\rangle$. Following [@pomerans], we introduce the operator $R_{\gamma}(\bar{\theta})=H S^1 H e^{-i\frac{\gamma}{2}\sigma_1^z}
H S^{-2} H e^{-i\frac{\gamma}{2}\sigma_1^z}H S^1$ with $S^m=\prod_{j=2}^{n_r}C_{1,j}(\pi m/ 2^{j-1})$. It can be shown that $e^{-i\gamma\cos\theta}=R_{\gamma/2}(\bar{\theta})R_{\gamma/2}(-\bar{\theta})
+O(\gamma^3)$ for small $\gamma$, with $\bar{\theta}=\theta-\pi a_1$ if $\theta/2\pi=0.a_1 a_2\ldots a_n$. The diagonal operator can thus be approximated by $\exp\left(2i\Delta t\cos\frac{2\pi k}{N}\right)=
\left(R_{\gamma/2}(\bar{\theta})R_{\gamma/2}(-\bar{\theta})\right)^L
+O(L\gamma^3)$, with $L$ an integer and $\gamma$ a small parameter chosen such that $L\gamma=-2i\Delta t$. We then perform an inverse QFT. The two QFT require $n_r(n_r +1)$ gates, and the simulation of the diagonal term requires $2L(5+3n_r)$ gates.
$\bullet$ The transformation $|i\rangle\rightarrow e^{i H_2 \Delta t} |i\rangle$ acts on the subspace spanned by $|i_k\rangle$ and $|j_k\rangle$, where $i_k$ and $j_k$ are linked by a shortcut link, through the $2\times 2$ submatrix $e^{i\Delta t\sigma^x}$. Let us first assume that $p$ is of the form $p=1/2^{\rho}$. For $\mu=\rho-1$, the operator $C_{i_1, ..., i_{\mu},\eta_{1}, ...,\eta_{\mu},j}(\theta)$ acts on the $2^{n_r-\mu}$ basis vectors whose qubits $i_k$, $1\leq k \leq\mu$, are respectively equal to $\eta_k$: it corresponds to the creation of $2^{n_r-\mu-1}=2^{n_r-\rho}=pN$ links. In order to have less regular shortcut links, we first perform a permutation on the vertices. To do this, we randomly choose $n_p$ integers $a_k$ and $b_k$, for some integer $n_p$. It is better to take the $a_k$ in $[0.2 N , 0.8 N]$ and odd. Then we define the operators $U_k|i\rangle=|(a_k i+b_k) \mod N\rangle$ and the inverse operators $V_k|i\rangle=|a_k^{-1} (i-b_k) \mod N\rangle$. A permutation can be simulated by the sequence of gates $P=\prod_{k=1}^{n_p}U_k\ \cnot_{i_k, j_k}$ where the $i_k$ and $j_k$ are chosen randomly. Application of the permutation $P$, followed by a multi-controlled rotation $C_{i_1, ..., i_{\mu}, \eta_{1}, ...,\eta_{\mu},j}(\Delta t)$ and $P^{-1}$, gives $e^{iH_2 \Delta t}$. The $i_k$ and $\eta_k$ in the controlled rotation are also chosen randomly. In the general case, where $p\neq 1/2^{\rho}$, we expand $pN$ in base 2, such that $pN=\sum 2^{p_k}$. Then we replace the multi-controlled gate in the above description by a multi-controlled gate for each $p_k$ appearing in the decomposition of $pN$. This gives a sequence of gates $C_{i^{(k)}_1, ..., i^{(k)}_{\mu_k}, \eta^{(k)}_{1}, ...,\eta^{(k)}_{\mu_k}, j^{(k)}}(\Delta t)$, where $\mu_k=n_r-p_k-1$, and the $i^{(k)}_{k'}$, $j^{(k)}$ and $\eta^{(k)}_{k'}$ are chosen randomly. Each operator $U_k$ consists of a multiplication and an addition modulo $N$, which can be performed using $(2n_r+3)$ ancilla qubits and $O(n_r^2)$ quantum gates [@arithm1]. Each multi-controlled gate can be performed by $O(n_r^2)$ Toffoli, $\cnot$ and single qubit gates [@arithm2].
In total, the simulation of a network of $N=2^{n_r}$ vertices for one unit of time with fixed parameters $\Delta t$, $n_s$, $L$ and $n_p$ can be done by this method with $O(n_r^2)$ quantum operations and $3n_r+3$ qubits. Classically, a similar method can only be implemented in $O(N)$ operations at best. The quantum simulation is therefore exponentially faster. This remains the case even if the parameters $n_s$ and $n_p$ are allowed to grow linearly with $n_r$ to improve accuracy (the cost becomes $O(n_r^3)$ quantum gates).
The algorithm simulates the small-world network efficiently but at the cost of several approximations. In order to check its convergence and accuracy, we implemented it on a (classical) computer. In Figs.\[IPR05\],\[IPR3\], we display the result of this computation for the parameters $\Delta t =0.03$, $n_s = 30 n_r$, $L=10$, and $n_p =3 n_r$ alongside the exact evolution, showing that the algorithm is quite accurate for these values, and enables to monitor precisely the delocalization transition with good accuracy. The computation accuracy is not very sensitive to fixed values of $L$ and $\Delta t$: the total size $N$ can be changed by orders of magnitude (factor of $64$ in our case) without modification of these parameters.
To estimate the total complexity of the algorithm, we should take into account the number of quantum measurements and the number of iterations of the map. In order to see the delocalization transition, it is sufficient to estimate the spreading of the wavefunction, which can be done by a constant number of quantum measurements [@loclength]. Still, the initial wave packet should have enough time to spread in order for the localization length to be estimated. For the parameters of Fig.\[IPR05\], we determined the time $\tau$ needed for the IPR to reach half of its maximal value. In the delocalized phase for $p < 1/2$, our numerical results give the scaling $\tau \propto N^\beta$ with $\beta \approx 0.83$ ($p=1/16$) and $\beta \approx 0.69$ ($p=1/32$) (data not shown). This means that the total cost of the quantum algorithm will scale as $O(N^\beta)$, compared to $O(N^{\beta +1})$ for the classical one (dropping logarithmic factors). This implies a better than quadratic gain for the quantum computation, but no exponential gain. In contrast, for $1/2 < p \leq 2$ we find that $\tau \approx \log N$ (data not shown) [@footnote2]. In this case, the algorithm may reach exponential efficiency and enable to perform precise studies of this percolation-like transition for very large values of $N$. The exact algorithm complexity depends on the properties of the phase transition near critical $W$ value.
These results show that a perfect quantum computer gives a significant gain in the simulation of quantum small-world networks. However, realistic quantum computers are prone to errors and imperfections. It is therefore important to test the resilience of the algorithm to such effects. In Fig.\[errors\] we show the result of numerical simulations of the algorithm in presence of errors. The error model chosen corresponds to static imperfections. These errors can exist independently of the coupling with the external world, and have parametrically larger effects than random noise in the gates [@qchaos]. Between each gate the system evolves through the additional Hamiltonian $H_E = \sum_{i} \delta_i \sigma_{i}^z + \sum_{i} J_{i}
\sigma_{i}^x \sigma_{i+1}^x$, where the second sum runs over nearest-neighbor qubit pairs on a circular chain. The $\delta_i$ are randomly and uniformly distributed in the interval $[-\delta /2, \delta/2 ]$. The couplings $J_{i}$ represent the residual static interaction between qubits and are chosen randomly and uniformly in the interval $[-J,J]$. We suppose that each gate in the quantum algorithm is instantaneous and separated by a time $\tau_g$ during which $H_E$ acts. We take one single rescaled parameter $\varepsilon$ which describes the amplitude of these static errors, with $\varepsilon=\delta\tau_g=J\tau_g$. In the numerical simulations, to save computational time we took the part of the algorithm which generates the random shortcut links as exact, all other parts being performed with errors. The results displayed in Fig.\[errors\] show that with moderate levels of imperfections ($\varepsilon \approx 10^{-7}$) the simulation of the small-world network is very close to the exact computation, in absence of any quantum error correction.
In conclusion, we have shown that quantum disordered small-world networks, which display a delocalization transition, can be simulated more efficiently on quantum computers than on classical ones. The algorithm can be performed accurately on realistic few-qubit quantum computers in presence of moderate error strength.
We thank A. Pomeransky and O. Zhirov for helpful discussions. We thank the IDRIS in Orsay and CalMiP in Toulouse for access to their supercomputers. This work was supported in part by the project EDIQIP of the IST-FET program of the EC.
[99]{}
S. Milgram, Psychol. Today [**2**]{}, 60 (1967); D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature [**393**]{}, 440 (1998); M. E. J. Newman, C. Moore and D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3201 (2000).
C. P. Zhu and S.-J. Xiong, Phys. Rev. [**B 62**]{}, 14780 (2000).
A. D. Chepelianskii and D. L. Shepelyansky (2001),\
www.quantware.ups-tlse.fr/talks-posters/chepelian-\
skii2001.pdf
B. J. Kim, H. Hong and M. Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. [**B 68**]{}, 014304 (2003).
M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum computation and quantum information*]{}, (Cambridge university press, Cambridge, England, 2000).
P. W. Shor, in [*Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, edited by S. Goldwasser (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994), p. 124.
L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 325 (1997).
Shortcuts do not connect nearest-neighbors.
A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rep. [**326**]{}, 259 (2000).
A. A. Pomeransky and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. [**A 69**]{}, 014302 (2004).
V. Vedral, A. Barenco and A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 147 (1996).
A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, 3457 (1995).
G. Benenti, G. Casati, S. Montangero and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. [**A 67**]{}, 052312 (2003).
We note that in [@diffusion] a logarithmic law for $\tau$ was also found in another type of quantum small-world network without on-site disorder.
B. Georgeot and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. E [**62**]{}, 3504 (2000); [*ibid.*]{} [**62**]{}, 6366 (2000); K. M. Frahm, R. Fleckinger and D. L. Shepelyansky, Eur. Phys. J. D [**29**]{}, 139 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Parinya Chalermsook
- Mayank Goswami
- László Kozma
- Kurt Mehlhorn
- 'Thatchaphol Saranurak[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Pattern-avoiding access in binary search trees'
---
Discussion and open questions {#sec:conclusions}
=============================
Besides the long-standing open question of resolving dynamic optimality, our work raises several new ones in the context of pattern avoidance. We list some that are most interesting to us.
Can the bound of Theorem \[thm:pattern-avoidance\] be improved? While our input-revealing techniques are unlikely to yield a linear bound (Appendix \[sec:bad-example2\]), a slight improvement could come from strengthening Lemma \[lem:forbidden\](ii) for the special kind of light matrices that arise in our proof.
An intriguing question is whether there is a natural characterization of all sequences with linear optimum. How big is the overlap between “easy inputs” and inputs with pattern avoidance properties? We have shown that avoidance of a small pattern makes sequences easy. The converse does not hold: There is a permutation $X \in S_n$ with $k(X) = \sqrt{n}$ but for which $\textsc{Greedy}(X) = O(n)$; see Appendix \[sec:comparisons\]. Note that our pattern-avoiding properties are incomparable with the earlier parametrizations (e.g. dynamic finger); see Appendix \[sec:comparisons\]. Is there a parameter that subsumes both pattern-avoidance and dynamic finger?
A question directly related to our work is to close the gap between ${\mbox{\sf OPT}}= O(n \log k)$ and $n 2^{O(k^2)}$ by [[Greedy]{}]{}on $k$-decomposable sequences (when $k = \omega(1)$). Matching the optimum (if at all possible) likely requires novel techniques: splay is not even known to be linear on preorder sequences with preprocessing, and with forbidden-submatrix-arguments it seems impossible to obtain bounds beyond[^2] $O(n k)$.
We proved that if [Greedy]{} is optimal on simple permutations, then [RGreedy]{} is optimal on all access sequences. Can some property of simple permutations[^3] be algorithmically exploited? Can [RGreedy]{} be made online? Can our application for Cole’s showcase sequence be extended in order to prove the dynamic finger property for [Greedy]{}?
Finally, making further progress on the traversal conjecture will likely require novel ideas. We propose a simpler question that captures the barrier for three famous conjectures: [*traversal*]{}, [*deque*]{}, and [*split*]{} (Appendix \[sec:path-all\]). Given any initial tree $T$, access a preorder sequence defined by a path $P$ (a BST where each non-leaf node has a single child). Prove a linear bound for your favorite online BST!
[^1]: Work partly done while at Saarland University.
[^2]: An $n$-by-$n$ matrix avoiding *all* permutations of size at least $k$ can contain $\Omega(nk)$ ones.
[^3]: Note that simple permutations can have linear cost. In Appendix \[sec:comparisons\] we show such an example.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove the results announced in \[KSV\] modulo one general fact on Voevodsky motives that does not exist in the published literature. Namely, we assume that the functor of motivic vanishing cycles commutes with the Hodge and l-adic realizations.'
author:
- Vadim Vologodsky
title: 'On the N-integrality of instanton numbers'
---
This paper is a result of a joint work with Maxim Kontsevich and Albert Schwarz. However, they decided not to sign it in the capacity of authors.
Let $\pi: X \to C$ be a family of Calabi-Yau n-folds over a smooth curve and let $a\in \overline C - C$ be a maximal degeneracy point of $\pi$. We assume that the pair $( \pi: X \to C,
a)$ is defined over $\mathbb{Z}$. It is predicted that the power series expansion for the canonical coordinate on $C$ at the point $a$ has integral coefficients (\[M\]). This is a higher-dimensional generalization of the classical fact that the Fourier coefficients of the j-invariant are integers. This conjecture was checked in a number of cases in \[LY\]. Another related conjecture says the instanton numbers $n_d$, defined from the Picard-Fuchs equation, are integers (see [*loc. cit.*]{}). We do not know how to prove these conjectures. However, in the present paper we indicate a proof of a weaker statement, namely, that these numbers belong to the subring $\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]\subset \mathbb{Q}$ [^1], where $N$ is an explicitly defined integer. [^2] There are two main ingredients in our proof. The first one is [*the Frobenius action*]{} on the p-adic de Rham cohomology. It easy to see, that under our assumptions, both the coefficients of power series expansion for the canonical coordinates and the instanton numbers are rational. Thus, to prove the integrality statement, it will suffice to show that for almost every prime $p$ they are p-adic integers. To do this we look at the relative de Rham cohomology of our family over p-adic numbers. Then the Frobenius symmetry or, more precisely, the existence of the Fontaine-Laffaille structure on the cohomology bundle imply certain strong integrality properties of the parallel sections (i.e. solutions to the Picard-Fuchs equation ). [^3]
The second ingredient is the motivic vanishing cycles. Assume, for the purpose of Introduction, that $dim H^n(X/C)=n+1$. Then the limit Hodge structure of the variation $H^n(X/C)$ is a mixed Hodge-Tate structure. Consider the corresponding [*period matrix*]{} $(a_{ij})$. This is a matrix with highly transcendental complex coefficients. On the other hand, we consider the limit Fontaine-Laffaille module and look at the corresponding [*Frobenius action*]{} $(b_{ij})$. This is a matrix with p-adic coefficients. To complete the proof of the integrality statement we need to establish a certain relation between the superdiagonal entries of the two matrices. Namely, we have to show, that $$\label{cperiod}
a_{m\,m+1}= (2\pi i)^{m-1} log\, c$$ $$b_{m\,m+1}= \pm p^{m-1}
log\, c^{1-p}$$ for some [*rational*]{} number $c$. [^4] Standard conjectures on motives imply the existence of a mixed Artin-Tate motive $T$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ whose Hodge and p-adic realizations are the limit Hodge and Fontaine-Laffaille structure correspondingly. This yields a certain explicit relation between [*all*]{} the coefficients of matrices $(a_{ij})$ and $(b_{ij})$ and, in particular, formula (\[cperiod\]). Unfortunately, the motivic conjectures needed to justify this argument are very far from being proved. However, we construct in Section 4 a 1-motive $M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}})$ that should be thought of as the maximal 1-motive quotient of $T^*$ and then use it to prove (\[cperiod\]).
Still, at one point we have to rely on a general fact that has not yet appeared in the published literature. Namely, we have to assume the compatibility of Ayoub’s motivic vanishing cycles functor with the Hodge and l-adic realization functors. Although not published the required compatibility is known to experts \[A2\], \[BOV\] and hopefully this piece of a general theory will be written in a matter of time.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 contains statements of the results. In Section 2 we recall some well known facts on vector bundles with logarithmic connection, variations of Hodge structure, and give an interpretation of the canonical coordinate as an extension class of certain variations of Hodge structure. In Section 3 we define, using p-adic Hodge Theory, a p-adic analog of the canonical coordinate and Yukawa coupling (for 1-parameter families of Calabi-Yau varieties over $\mathbb{Z}_p$) and prove, using Dwork’s Lemma, the (p-adic) integrality statements for these objects. Finally, in the last section (the most technical one) we show for families over $\mathbb{Z}$ that the two constructions (complex and p-adic) give the same functions. [^5] To do this we give a third geometric definition (i.e. which makes sense over any ground field) of the canonical coordinate. The construction is based on the notion of motivic nearby cycles (due to Ayoub \[A1\]) and uses the language of Voevodsky motives.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} Besides Maxim Kontsevich and Albert Schwarz whom many ideas in the present paper are due to, I wish to express my gratitude to Joseph Ayoub, who drew my attention to the paper \[BK\]. Special thanks go to the referee for his generous help in turning a raw draft into a paper. In particular, the referee pointed out that the compatibility of the motivic Albanese functor with the Hodge realization, that plays an important role in our argument, is not proved in the published literature. At the end the author wrote a separate paper (\[Vol\]) with a proof of the required compatibility.\
I acknowledge the stimulating atmosphere of IHES and MPIM in Bonn where parts of this work were done.\
This research was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0401164.
Terminology and statements of the results
=========================================
[**1.1. Definition of the canonical coordinate.** ]{} The following construction is due to Morrison \[M\]. Let $\pi: X \to C$ be a family of Calabi-Yau varieties of dimension $n$ over a smooth curve over $\mathbb{C}$. This means that locally on $C$ the relative canonical bundle $\Omega^n_{X/C}$ is trivial. Assume that $C$ is embedded into a larger smooth curve $\overline C
\supset C $ and $a \in \overline C - C$ is a boundary point. The point $a$ is called a maximal degeneracy point if the monodromy operator $M: H_n(X_{a'}, \mathbb{Q}) \to H_n(X_{a'}, \mathbb{Q})$, corresponding to a small loop around $a$ is unipotent and $(M -
Id)^n \ne 0$.
[**Remark.**]{} It is known that for any smooth proper family $\pi: X \to C$ with a unipotent monodromy, $(M - Id)^{n+1} = 0$.
From now on we will assume that $a$ is a maximal degeneracy point. Set $N_B= log\, M$. The following remarkable result was derived by Morrison from the very basic properties of the limit Hodge structure [^6].
(\[M\], Lemma 1.) \[M\] $dim_{\mathbb{Q}} Im\, N_B^n =1$ and $dim_{\mathbb{Q}} Im\, N_B^{n-1} =2$.
Denote by $ {\cal T}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ the local system over a punctured neighborhood $D^*$ of $a$, whose fiber over a point $a'\in C$ is $Im( H_n(X_{a'}, \mathbb{Z}) \to H_n(X_{a'}, \mathbb{Q})) $. Let $\delta_1, \delta_2$ be a basis for $Im\, N_B^{n-1} \cap ({\cal
T}_{\mathbb{Z}})_{a'} $ such that $\delta_1 $ generates $Im\, N_B^{n} \cap ({\cal T}_{\mathbb{Z}})_{a'} $ and such that $N_B(\delta_2)$ is a positive multiple of $\delta_1$. We may view $\delta_1$ as a section of ${\cal
T}_{\mathbb{Z}} $ over $D^*$ and $\delta_2$ as a section of the quotient ${\cal T}_{\mathbb{Z}}/\mathbb{Z}\delta _1 $. Choose a non-vanishing section $\omega $ of $\pi_*\Omega^n_{X/C}$ over $D^*$. We then see that $$\label{cc}
q= exp(2\pi i \frac{\int _{\delta _2} \omega}{ \int _{\delta _1} \omega})$$ is a well defined function on a punctured neighborhood $ D^*$ and that $q$ does not depend on the choice of $\delta_i$ and $\omega$ we made. Moreover, the function $q$ extends to $a$ and $ord_a q = k$, where $k$ is defined from the equation $N_B(\delta_2)= k \delta
_1$. [^7] We shall say the Betti monodromy of the family $X\to C$ is small if $k=1$. In this case, the function $q$ is called the canonical (local) coordinate on $\overline C$.
[**1.2. Yukawa function.**]{} Denote by $${\cal H}= ({\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}= Im( R^n \pi_* \mathbb{Z} \to R^n \pi_* \mathbb{Q}),\, {\cal F}^{n} \subset {\cal F}^{n-1}
\subset \cdots \subset {\cal F}^0 = {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}} \otimes
{\cal O}_{D^*})$$ the variation of Hodge structure associated to $\pi: X\to C$. The Kodaira-Spencer operator $$\overline \nabla: {\cal F}^p/{\cal F}^{p+1} \to {\cal F}^{p-1}/{\cal F}^p \otimes \Omega^1_{D^*}$$ extends to a homomorphism of graded algebras $$S^{\cdot}T_{D^*} \to End_{{\cal O}_{D^*}}(\bigoplus_ p {\cal F}^p/{\cal F}^{p+1}).$$ Specializing, we get a morphism $$\label{ks}
\kappa : S^{n}T_{D^*} \to Hom _{{\cal O}_{D^*}} ({\cal F}^n, {\cal
F}^0/{\cal F}^1)\simeq ({\cal F}^n \otimes {\cal F}^n)^*.$$ The line bundle ${\cal F}^n \otimes {\cal F}^n$ is naturally trivialized over $D^*$. To see this, denote by $\omega \in {\cal F}^n$ the differential form such that $$\int _{\delta _1} \omega = (2\pi i)^n.$$ The section $\omega \otimes \omega \in {\cal F}^n \otimes {\cal
F}^n$ defines the desired trivialization. [^8] Define the Yukawa function on $D^*$ to be $$Y = \kappa((q\frac{d}{dq})^n)\cdot (\omega \otimes \omega).$$ One can check that $Y$ extends to $D$.[^9]
[**1.3. Statement of main results.**]{} Let $S= spec \,
\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]$ be an open subscheme of $spec \, \mathbb{Z}, \;
$ $\overline C_S$ a smooth curve over $S$, and let $a: S
\hookrightarrow \overline C_S$ be a section. Denote by $t$ a local coordinate on a open neighborhood of $a$ such that $t(a)=0$. Let $\pi: X_S \to C_S = \overline C_S- a$ be a smooth proper family of Calabi-Yau schemes. We will make the following assumptions:\
i) $a_{\mathbb{C}} $ is the maximal degeneracy point of the complex family $X_{\mathbb{C}}\to C_{\mathbb{C}}$\
ii) $\pi: X_S \to C_S $ extends to a semi-stable morphism $\overline{\pi}: \overline X_S \to \overline C_S$ [^10]\
iii) All primes $p\leq dim \, X_{\mathbb{C}}$ are invertible on $\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]$\
iv) The Betti monodromy of the family $X_{\mathbb{C}}\to
C_{\mathbb{C}}$ is small ( see 1.1 ).
\[th1\] Assume that $q'(0)$ is a rational number . Then $$q(t)\in (\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]((t)))^* .$$
We shall see in Section [**4.5**]{} that, for any family $X_{\mathbb{Q}} \to C_{\mathbb{Q}} $ over $\mathbb{Q}$ with a maximal degeneracy point at $a\in \overline
C_{\mathbb{Q}}(\mathbb{Q})$, $q'(t)^r\in \mathbb{Q}((t))$, for some integer $r$.
For the next result we assume that $dim \, X_{\mathbb{C}} = 4$ (i.e. $X_{\mathbb{C}}\to C_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a family of threefolds) and [^11] $$\label{one}
rk \, H^3_{DR}(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}}) = 4.$$ We also assume that $q'(0)$ is a rational number.
\[th2\] One has $$\label{instanton}
Y(q)= n_0+ \sum^{\infty}_{d=1}n_d d^3 \frac{q^d}{1-q^d},$$ where $n_i \in \mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]$. [^12]
Hodge Theory
============
[**2.1. Logarithmic De Rham cohomology.**]{} We will need the following construction from \[Ste\]. Let $\overline{\pi}: \overline
X_S \to \overline C_S$ be a semi-stable morphism.
$$\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt
\lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt}
\def\mapright#1{\smash{
\mathop{\to}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow\rlap
{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}}
\begin{matrix}
Y_S= \overline X_S \times _{\overline C_S} S & \stackrel{}{\hookrightarrow}
& \overline X_S & \hookleftarrow & X_S \cr
\mapdown{} & &\mapdown{\overline{\pi}} & & \mapdown{\pi} \cr
S & \stackrel{a}{\hookrightarrow}
& \overline C_S & \hookleftarrow & C_S
\end{matrix}$$ We then consider the relative logarithmic De Rham complex $(\Omega^*_{\overline X_S/\overline C_S}(log \,Y_S), d)$ on $\overline X_S$ defined as follows. Let $\Omega^i_{\overline
X_S}(log \,Y_S)$ be the sheaf of differential forms with logarithmic singularities along $Y_S$, and let $\Omega^*_{\overline
X_S/\overline C_S}(log \,Y_S)$ be the quotient of the sheaf of algebras $\Omega^*_{\overline X_S}(log \,Y_S)$ by the ideal generated by $\overline {\pi}^* \eta, \, \, \eta \in
\Omega^1_{\overline C_S}(log \, S)$. One immediately sees that $\Omega^*_{\overline X_S/\overline C_S}(log \,Y_S)$ is a locally free sheaf of ${\cal O}_{\overline X_S}$-modules and that the exterior differential $d: \Omega^i_{\overline X_S}(log \,Y_S)\to
\Omega^{i+1}_{\overline X_S}(log \,Y_S)$ descends to $\Omega^*_{\overline X_S/\overline C_S}(log \,Y_S)$ . We then define the logarithmic De Rham cohomology by $$H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)= R^i\overline{\pi}_*(\Omega^*_{\overline X_S/\overline C_S}(log \,Y_S), d).$$ $H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)$ is a coherent sheaf on $\overline C_S$ equipped with a logarithmic connection: $$\nabla: H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)\to H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S) \otimes \Omega^1_{\overline C_S}(log \, S).$$ Assume that all primes $p\leq n= dim \, _{C_S} X_S$ are invertible in $\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]$. Then\
i) the coherent sheaf $H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)$ is locally isomorphic to a direct sum of the sheaves ${\cal
O}_{\overline C_S}$, ${\cal O}_{\overline C_S}/p^e$. In particular, the quotient of $H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)$ modulo torsion is locally free.\
ii) the Hodge spectral sequence (i.e. the spectral sequence associated to the stupid filtration on $(\Omega^*_{\overline
X_S/\overline C_S}(log \,Y_S), d)$) degenerates in the first term. Moreover the induced filtration $\overline{{\cal F}}^{\cdot}\subset
H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)$ splits (in the category of ${\cal O}_{\overline C_S}$-modules) locally on $\overline C_S$. In particular, $R^0\overline{\pi}_*(\Omega^i_{\overline X_S/\overline
C_S}(log \,Y_S))$ is a locally free ${\cal O}_{ \overline C_S}$-module.\
iii) the residue of the connection $$N_{DR}= Res \, \nabla: a^* H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S) \to a^* H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)$$ is nilpotent. In particular, $H^i_{log}(\overline
X_{\mathbb{Q}}/\overline C_{\mathbb{Q}})$ is the Deligne canonical extension of the vector bundle $ H^i_{DR}(X_{\mathbb{Q}}/ C_{\mathbb{Q}})$ equipped with the Gauss-Manin connection.\
iv) there is a canonical pairing $$\label{derhampairing}
<\cdot ,\cdot >_{DR}: H^i_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)\otimes
H^{2n -i}_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S) \to
H^{2n}_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)\simeq {\cal O}_{\overline C_S}$$ The induced pairing on the quotient of $H^*_{log}(\overline X_S/\overline C_S)$ modulo torsion is perfect.\
Over $\mathbb{C}$ these facts are proven in \[Ste\]; the integral version is contained in \[Fa\] (Theorems 2.1 and 6.2).
The De Rham isomorphism $$H^i_{DR}(X_{\mathbb{C}}/ C_{\mathbb{C}}) \simeq
R^i \pi^{an}_{\mathbb{C}*} \mathbb{Z} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} {\cal
O}_{C_{\mathbb{C}}}$$ and a choice of a local coordinate $t$ on $\overline C_{\mathbb{C}}$ yield an integral structure (of a topological nature) on the vector space $a_{\mathbb{C}}^*
H^i_{log}(\overline X_{\mathbb{C}}/\overline C_{\mathbb{C}})$: $$\label{derhamv}
a_{\mathbb{C}}^* H^i_{log}(\overline X_{\mathbb{C}}/\overline
C_{\mathbb{C}})\simeq \Psi_t^{an, un}(R^i \pi^{an}_{\mathbb{C}*}
\mathbb{Z}) \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C}$$ To see this, let $Log^{\infty}= {\cal O}_{\mathbb{C}^*}[log\, t]$ be the universal unipotent local system on $\mathbb{C}^*$ and let $\overline{Log}^{\infty}={\cal O}_{\mathbb{C}}[log\, t] $ be the Deligne extension of $Log^{\infty}$ to $\mathbb{C}$. Let us view $Log^{\infty}$ as a subsheaf of the direct image $(exp)_* {\cal
O_{\mathbb{C}}}$ of the structure sheaf on the universal cover $exp:
\mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}^*$. Define a $\mathbb{Z}$-lattice $Log^{\infty}_{\mathbb{Z}} \subset Log^{\infty}$ to be $(exp)_*
\mathbb{Z} \cap Log^{\infty}$. We have then $$Log^{\infty}_{\mathbb{Z}}\otimes {\cal O}_{\mathbb{C}^*} \simeq Log^{\infty}.$$ Let $a_{\mathbb{C}} \in D \subset \overline C_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathbb{C})$ be a disk such that the map $t: D \hookrightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined by the coordinate is an embedding. Given a $\mathbb{Z}$-local system ${\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ over $D^*$ we define the space of unipotent vanishing cycles by $$\Psi_t^{an, un}({\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}):= H^0(D^*, {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}\otimes
(t|_{D^*})^* Log^{\infty}_{\mathbb{Z}} ).
\footnote{This definition is borrowed from [B].}$$ Assume that ${\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ is unipotent and denote by $\overline {\cal
H}$ the Deligne extension of ${\cal H}={\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}\otimes
{\cal O}_{D^*}$ to $D$. We shall define a canonical isomorphism: $$\label{BS}
a_{\mathbb{C}}^* \overline {\cal H} \simeq \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal
H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C}.$$ This will induce (\[derhamv\]). To construct (\[BS\]) observe that for any vector bundle $E$ over $D$ with a logarithmic nilpotent connection (i.e. a logarithmic connection such that $N_{DR}$ is nilpotent) we have $$\label{ncon}
(E|_{D^*})^{\nabla}\stackrel{\simeq}{\longleftarrow}
E^{\nabla}\stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
(a_{\mathbb{C}}^* E)^{N_{DR}=0}.$$ We apply (\[ncon\]) to the ind-object $\overline {\cal H} \otimes
t^* (\overline{Log}^{\infty})$ and use a canonical isomorphism $$(a_{\mathbb{C}}^* \overline {\cal H} \otimes a_{\mathbb{C}}^* t^* (\overline{Log}^{\infty}))^{N_{DR}=0}
\simeq a_{\mathbb{C}}^* \overline {\cal H} ,$$ which takes an element $ v\otimes log^k t \in (a_{\mathbb{C}}^* \overline {\cal H}
\otimes a_{\mathbb{C}}^* t^* (\overline{Log}^{\infty}))^{N_{DR}=0}
$ to $v$ if $k=0$ and to $0$ otherwise.
Denote by $$N_B:
\Psi_t^{an, un}(R^i \pi^{an}_{\mathbb{C}*} \mathbb{Z}) \otimes
_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Q} \to \Psi_t^{an, un}(R^i
\pi^{an}_{\mathbb{C}*} \mathbb{Z}) \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Q}$$ the logarithm of the monodromy operator and by $$< \cdot, \cdot>_B: \Psi_t^{an, un}(R^i \pi^{an}_{\mathbb{C}*} \mathbb{Z})\otimes
\Psi_t^{an, un}(R^{2n-i} \pi^{an}_{\mathbb{C}*} \mathbb{Z}) \to
\mathbb{Z}$$ the pairing induced by the Poincare duality. We then have $$N_B= -2\pi i N_{DR} \, , \, \, < \cdot, \cdot>_B= (2\pi i)^n < \cdot, \cdot>_{DR}.$$
[**2.2. A variation of mixed Hodge structure.**]{} Let $\pi_{\mathbb{C}}: X_{\mathbb{C}} \to C_{\mathbb{C}}$ be a smooth family of Calabi-Yau schemes with a maximal degeneracy point at $a_{\mathbb{C}}\in \overline C_{\mathbb{C}}$ and let $\overline \pi_{\mathbb{C}}: \overline X_{\mathbb{C}} \to \overline C_{\mathbb{C}}$ be a semi-stable morphism which extends $\pi_{\mathbb{C}}$. Set $$\overline {\cal H}= H^n_{log}(\overline X_{\mathbb{C}}/\overline C_{\mathbb{C}})\, , \,
{\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}= Im( R^n \pi_{\mathbb{C} *} \mathbb{Z} \to R^n
\pi_{\mathbb{C} *} \mathbb{Q}).$$ Denote by $W_{\cdot}\Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})\subset \Psi_t^{an,
un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) $ the monodromy filtration. [^13] We then consider the limit Hodge structure $$\Psi_t^{Hodge , un}( {\cal H})= (W_{\cdot}\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})\subset
\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})\, ,\,
a_{\mathbb{C}}^*\overline{{\cal F}}^{\cdot}\subset a_{\mathbb{C}}^*
\overline {\cal H} ).$$ Since $\overline{{\cal F}}^{n+1}= 0$, we have $$W_{-1}\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) =0 \, , \, W_{2n} \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal
H}_{\mathbb{Z}})= \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})$$ $$Im
\, N^n_B = W_{0}\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})\otimes
\mathbb{Q}.$$ Furthermore, since $ rk\, \overline{{\cal F}}^n =rk \,
\overline{{\cal F}}^0/\overline{{\cal F}}^1 = 1$ and $Im\, N_B^n\ne
0$ we must have $$rk \, W_0 \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) = rk \, W_1 \Psi_t^{an, un}(
{\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})=1.$$ It follows that the map $$N_B^{n-1}:
\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) \to Im \, N^{n-1}_B/ Im \,
N^n_B$$ factors through the quotient $\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal
H}_{\mathbb{Z}})/ W_{2n-1} \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})$ of rank 1. In particular, $dim \, Im \, N^{n-1}_B = 2$.
Note that for any monodromy invariant lattice $P_{\mathbb{Z}}
\subset \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})$ there is a unique local system ${\cal P}_{\mathbb{Z}}\subset {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ over a punctured disk $D^*\subset C_{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\Psi_t^{an, un}({\cal P}_{\mathbb{Z}})=P_{\mathbb{Z}}$. We apply this remark to $L_{\mathbb{Z}}= Im \, N^{n-1}_B \cap \Psi_t^{an,
un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})$ and to $W_{\cdot} \Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal
H}_{\mathbb{Z}})$. Call the corresponding local systems by ${\cal
L}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\cal W}_{\cdot} {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}$. We claim that $${\cal L}^{Hodge}= ( {\cal W}_{\cdot} {\cal L}_{\mathbb{Z}} \, , \, {\cal F}^{\cdot}{\cal L}),$$ where ${\cal W}_{-1} {\cal L}_{\mathbb{Z}}=0$, ${\cal W}_0 {\cal
L}_{\mathbb{Z}}
= {\cal W}_1 {\cal L}_{\mathbb{Z}}=
{\cal W}_{0} {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}} $, ${\cal W}_2 {\cal
L}_{\mathbb{Z}} = {\cal L}_{ \mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\cal F}^{2}{\cal
L}=0$, ${\cal F}^{1}{\cal L} =
{\cal F}^{1}\cap {\cal L}$, ${\cal F}^{0}{\cal L} = {\cal
L}= {\cal L}_{ \mathbb{Z}} \otimes {\cal O}_{D^*}$, is an admissible variation of mixed Hodge structure over a sufficiently small punctured disk $D^*$.[^14] Indeed, over a small disk we have ${\cal W}_{0} \overline {\cal H} \oplus \overline{\cal F}^1 =
\overline {\cal H} $. The claim follows.
Thus we get a class $$[{\cal L}^{Hodge}]\in Ext^1_{VMHS}({\cal L}^{Hodge}/{\cal W}_{0}{\cal
L}^{Hodge}, {\cal W}_{0}{\cal L}^{Hodge} )$$ $$\simeq Ext^1_{VMHS}(
\mathbb{Z}(-1), \mathbb{Z}(0)) \otimes Hom_{\mathbb{Z}} ( L_{\mathbb
{Z}}/ W_{0} \Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}), W_{0}
\Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})).$$ Define $$\label{ccc}
q_{\mathbb C} \in Ext^1_{VMHS}( \mathbb{Z}(-1), \mathbb{Z}(0))
\otimes \mathbb{Q}$$ to be the composition of $[{\cal L}^{Hodge}]$ with $$N_B^{-1}:W_{0}
\Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \to
L_{\mathbb{Z}}/ W_{0} \Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes \mathbb{Q}.$$ If the monodromy is small i.e. that the map $N_B: L_{\mathbb{Z}}/ W_{0} \Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})
\to W_{0} \Psi_t^{an,un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) $ is an isomorphism, the class $q_{\mathbb C}$ lifts canonically to $$\tilde q_{\mathbb C}\in Ext^1_{VMHS}( \mathbb{Z}(-1),
\mathbb{Z}(0)).$$ Recall that the group $Ext^1_{VMHS}(
\mathbb{Z}(-1), \mathbb{Z}(0))$ of admissible extensions is canonically identified with the group of invertible functions on $D^*$ with a regular singularity at the origin. The following lemma immediately follows from the construction.
The class $\tilde q_{\mathbb{C}}$ is equal to the canonical coordinate $q$.
We shall compute the logarithmic derivative $$q_{\mathbb{C}}\in (\mathbb{C}((t)))^* \otimes \mathbb{Q}
\stackrel{d\, log}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{C}[[t]] \frac {dt}{t}.$$ Let $e^0$ be a nonzero parallel section of ${\cal W}_0\overline
{\cal L}$. Then there exists a unique section $e^1$ of $
{\cal F}^{1}\overline{\cal L}$ such that the projection of $e^1$ to $\overline{\cal L}/{\cal W}_0 \overline{\cal L}$ is parallel and $$- \frac{1}{2\pi i} N_B(e^1( a_{\mathbb{C}}))= N_{DR}(e^1(
a_{\mathbb{C}}))= e^0( a_{\mathbb{C}}).$$ We have then $$\label{deq}
\nabla e^1 = e^0 \otimes d\, log q_{\mathbb{C}} .$$ Assume that we are in the situation of 1.3. It follows then that $$log q_{\mathbb{C}}\in (1+ t \mathbb{Q}[[t]] ) \frac{dt}{t}.$$ Indeed, we can normalize $e^0$ such that $e^0( a_{\mathbb{Q}})\in
a_{\mathbb{Q}}^*H^n_{log}(\overline X_{\mathbb{Q}}/\overline
C_{\mathbb{Q}})$. Then $e^0 , e^1 \in H^n_{log}(\overline
X_{\mathbb{Q}}/\overline C_{\mathbb{Q}})$, and we are done by (\[deq\]).
p-adic Hodge Theory
===================
[**3.1. Fontaine-Laffaille modules.**]{} Fontaine-Laffaile modules over a scheme is a p-adic analog of variations of Hodge structure. Below we recall this notion in the special case of torsion free modules over a punctured disk. This is sufficient for our applications. [^15] The general definition can be found in \[Fa\].
Let $(D, a)$ be a formal disk over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ with a point $a: spec\,
\mathbb{Z}_p \hookrightarrow D$. We view $(D, a)$ as a logarithmic scheme (see \[Il\]). A logarithmic morphism $G: (D,a) \to (D', a')$ is morphism such that the scheme theoretical preimage of the section $a'$ is supported on $a$ i.e. $G^*(t)= t^{\prime n} f(t')$, where $t$ and $t'$ are coordinates on $D$ and $D'$ respectively, such that $t(a)= t'(a')=0$, and $f$ is an invertible function on $D'$. Denote by $\Omega ^1 (log)$ the space of 1-forms on $D$ with logarithmic singularities at $a$.
Let $\overline{\cal E}$ be a vector bundle over $D$ with a logarithmic connection $\nabla : \overline{\cal E} \to
\overline{\cal E} \otimes \Omega ^1 (log)$. For any logarithmic morphism $G: (D', a') \to (D, a)$, $G^*\overline{\cal E}$ is endowed with the induced logarithmic connection. Moreover, if two logarithmic morphisms $G$ and $G'$ are equal modulo $p$ we have a canonical parallel isomorphism $$\label{crystal}
\theta: G^*\overline{\cal E} \simeq G^{\prime *}\overline{\cal E}.$$ In coordinates $\theta: \overline{\cal E}\otimes _G \mathbb{Z}_p[[t']] \to \overline{\cal E}\otimes _{G'} \mathbb{Z}_p[[t']] $ is given by Taylor’s formula $$\theta (e\otimes 1) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} (\nabla_{\delta})^i e
\otimes \frac{(log(G^*(t)/G^{\prime *}(t)))^i}{i!},$$ where $\delta
= td/dt$ is the vector field. One readily checks that $\frac{(log(G^*(t)/G^{\prime *}(t)))^i}{i!} \in \mathbb{Z}_p[[t]] $ and that the series converges.
Let $\tilde F: (D, a)\to (D, a)$ be a logarithmic lifting of the Frobenius morphism (i.e. $\tilde F^*(t)= t^p (1 +p h(t) )$, where $h(t) \in \mathbb{Z}_p[[t]]$ ). A (torsion free) Fontaine-Laffaille module over the logarithmic disk $(D, a)$ amounts to the following data:\
i) a vector bundle $\overline{\cal E}$ over $D$ with a filtration by sub-bundles $$0= \overline{\cal F}^{p-1}\subset \overline {\cal F}^{p-2} \subset \cdots \subset \overline {\cal F}^0 = \overline{\cal E},$$ ii) a logarithmic connection $\nabla : \overline{\cal E} \to
\overline{\cal E} \otimes \Omega ^1 (log)$ satisfying the Griffiths transversality condition: $\nabla(\overline {\cal F}^i)\subset \overline {\cal F}^{i-1} \otimes \Omega ^1 (log)$,\
iii) a parallel morphism (“Frobenius”) $$\phi: \tilde F^*\overline{\cal E} \to \overline{\cal E}$$ with the following properties $$\phi(\tilde F^* \overline {\cal
F}^i)\subset p^i \overline{\cal E}$$ and $$\sum _i p^{-i}\phi (\tilde F^*\overline {\cal F}^i)= \overline{\cal E}.$$
[**Remark.**]{} The definition we gave above depends on the choice of a lifting $\tilde F$. Still, the categories corresponding to different liftings are canonically equivalent. To see this let $\tilde F'$ be another logarithmic lifting. By (\[crystal\]) there is a canonical parallel isomorphism $$\theta: \tilde F^*
\overline{\cal E} \simeq \tilde F^{\prime *}\overline{\cal E}.$$ The functor, that provides the equivalence, takes $(\overline{\cal E}, \overline {\cal F}^i , \nabla) $ to the same objects and sends $\phi$ to $\phi \theta ^{-1}$. The Griffiths transversality condition implies that $$\theta ^{-1} \tilde F^{\prime *} \overline {\cal F}^k
\subset \sum_{i\geq 0} \frac{p^i}{i!} \tilde F^* \overline {\cal
F}^{k-i} \subset \tilde F^* \overline{\cal E}.$$ Thus, thanks to the assumption on the range of the Hodge filtration ( $\overline
{\cal F}^{p-1}=0$ and $\overline {\cal F}^0=\overline{\cal E}$), $(\overline{\cal E}, \overline {\cal F}^i , \nabla, \phi \theta ^{-1}) $ satisfies the requirements in iii). Denote the category of Fontaine-Laffaille modules over $(D, a)$ by $MF_{[0,p-2]}(D^*)$. A similar construction is used to define the pullback functor $$\label{pullback}
G^*:MF_{[0,p-2]}(D^*)\to MF_{[0,p-2]}(D^{'*}),$$ for a logarithmic morphism $G: (D', a') \to (D, a)$.
[**3.2. Dwork’s Lemma.**]{} Denote by $\mathbb{Z}_p(-k)$, ($k\geq 0$), the constant variation: $\overline{\cal E}= {\cal O}$, $\overline{\cal F}^k=\overline{\cal E}$, $\overline{\cal
F}^{k+1}=0$, $\phi = p^k Id$. Let $ {\cal O}(D^*)$ be the space of functions on the punctured disk (i.e. $ {\cal O}(D^*)=
\mathbb{Z}_p((t))$).
The group $Ext^1_{MF_{[0,p-2]}(D^*)}( \mathbb{Z}_p(-1),
\mathbb{Z}_p(0))$ is canonically isomorphic (i.e. the isomorphism does not depend on the lifting $\tilde F$) to p-adic completion of the group $ {\cal O}^*(D^*)$: $$\label{ext}
\hat {\cal O}^*(D^*):=\underset \longleftarrow \lim {\cal
O}^*(D^*)/({\cal O}^*(D^*)) ^{p^i} \stackrel{\sim}{\to} Ext^1(
\mathbb{Z}_p(-1), \mathbb{Z}_p(0)).$$
Let $t$ be a coordinate on $D$, and let $\tilde F:D\to D $ send $t$ to $t^p$. Consider an extension $(\overline{\cal E}, \overline {\cal F}^i, \phi)$: $$0\to \mathbb{Z}_p(0) \to \overline{\cal E} \to \mathbb{Z}_p(-1) \to 0$$ Note that $\overline {\cal F}^0=\overline{\cal E}, \overline {\cal
F}^2=0$, and that last map in the exact sequence defines an isomorphism $\overline {\cal F}^1\simeq {\cal O}_{D}$. Let $e_1 \in
\overline {\cal F}^1$ be the preimage of $1$ under the above isomorphism, and let $e_0\in \overline{\cal E}$ be the image of $1$ under the first map in the exact sequence. Then $e_0, e_1$ form a basis for $\overline{\cal E}$. We have: $$\nabla e_0=0, \nabla e_1 = e_0 \otimes \omega$$ $$\phi (\tilde F^* (e_0)) = e_0, \phi( \tilde F^*( e_1))= p e_1 + p h e_0 ,$$ for some $\omega \in \Omega ^1 (log )$ and $h\in {\cal O}(D)$. Since $\phi$ is parallel, $\phi \nabla = \nabla \phi$. This amounts to the following equation $$1/p\tilde F^*\omega - \omega = dh .$$ Thus the set of extensions is in a bijection with the set of pairs $(\omega, h)$ satisfying the above equation. One can easily see that the above bijection is compatible with the group structure [^16] Define a homomorphism $$\label{reg}
{\cal O}^*(D^*) \to Ext^1_{MF_{[0,p-2]}(D^*)}( \mathbb{Z}_p(-1), \mathbb{Z}_p(0)).$$ sending an invertible function $q$ to the pair $( d\,log q,
\frac{1}{p} log \frac{\tilde F^*q}{q^p})$. One readily sees that (\[reg\]) extends to the p-adic completion of ${\cal O}^*(D^*)$. This is the map in (\[ext\]). The injectivity of (\[ext\]) is clear from the definition and the surjectivity is the content of the Dwork’s lemma [^17]. Let us check that (\[ext\]) is independent of the choice of the coordinate. Indeed, let $t'$ be another coordinate and let $\tilde
F'$ be the corresponding lifting of the Frobenius. The isomorphism (\[crystal\]): $$\theta: \tilde F ^*\overline{\cal E} \simeq \tilde F ^{\prime *}\overline{\cal E}$$ takes $\tilde F^*( e_0)$ to $\tilde F^{\prime *}( e_0)$ and $\tilde
F^* (e_1)$ to $$\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{(log(\tilde F^*(t)/\tilde F^{\prime
*}(t)))^i}{i!}\,
\tilde F^{\prime *}((\nabla_{\delta})^i e_1)
=\tilde F^{\prime *} e_1 + log \frac{\tilde F^* (q)}{\tilde F^{\prime
*}(q)}\, e_0 . \footnote{The last equality follows from the multiplicative version of Taylor's formula
$f(e^b a) = (exp(b \delta )(f))(a)= f(a)+ \delta f (a) b + \frac{\delta ^2 f(a)}{2!} b^2 +\cdots
$.}$$ The claim follows.
[**3.3. Limit Fontaine-Laffaille module.**]{} Let $t$ be a coordinate, $\tilde F$ the corresponding lifting of the Frobenius, and let $(\overline{\cal E}, \overline{\cal F}^{\cdot}, \nabla , \phi) \in
MF_{[0, p-2]}(D^*)$ be a Fontaine-Laffaille module. We define $$\Psi^{FL}_t((\overline{\cal E}, \overline{\cal F}^{\cdot}, \nabla , \phi))=
(E= a^*\overline{\cal E}, F^{\cdot}= a^*\overline{\cal F}^{\cdot},
\phi_a).$$ $\Psi^{FL}_t((\overline{\cal E}, \overline{\cal
F}^{\cdot}, \nabla , \phi))$ is a Fontaine-Laffaille module over the point. The residue of $\nabla$ is a morphism of Fontaine-Laffaille modules: $$N_{DR}= Res \, \nabla : \Psi^{FL}_t((\overline{\cal E}, \overline{\cal F}^{\cdot}, \nabla ,
\phi))\to \Psi^{FL}_t((\overline{\cal E}, \overline{\cal F}^{\cdot},
\nabla , \phi))(-1).$$ In particular, $$\label{rel}
N_{DR} \phi_a =p \phi_a N_{DR}.$$
[**Remark.**]{} The functor $
\Psi^{FL}_t$ depends on the choice of a coordinate $t$. If $t'= bt +\cdots$ , $b\in \mathbb{Z}_p^*$ is another coordinate we have $$\Psi^{FL}_{t'}((\overline{\cal E}, \overline{\cal F}^{\cdot}, \nabla ,
\phi \theta^{-1}))\simeq (E, F^{\cdot}, \phi_a exp(N_{DR} log\,
b^{p-1} )).$$ In particular, $ \Psi^{FL}_t$ does not get changed if we replace $t$ by $t'$ with the same derivative.
[**3.4. p-adic canonical coordinate.**]{} Let $\overline{\pi}:
\overline X\to D$ be a proper semi-stable morphism. For any $k<p-1$, Faltings constructed in \[Fa\] a Fontaine-Laffaille structure on the logarithmic De Rham cohomology $H_{log}^k(\overline X/D)$. In the rest of this section we assume that $n:= dim_ D \overline X <p-1 $, and let $\overline{\cal E}: = H_{log}^{n} (\overline X/D)/
\textstyle{p-torsion} \in MF_{[0, p-2]}(D^*)$. The cup product $H_{log}^{n}(\overline X/D) \otimes H_{log}^{n}(\overline X/D) \to H_{log}^{2 n}(\overline X/D)
\simeq \mathbb{Z}_p(-n) $ induces a perfect paring $$\label{paring}
<\cdot, \cdot>_{DR}: \overline{\cal E}\otimes \overline{\cal E} \to
\mathbb{Z}_p(-n).$$ In particular, $$\label{reltwo}
<\phi(\tilde F^* v) , \phi (\tilde F^*u)>_{DR}= p^n< v , u>_{DR}.$$ Assume that $X$ is a Calabi-Yau scheme over $D^*$ and that $a$ is the maximal degeneracy point. That means, by definition, that $dim \, F^n \otimes \mathbb{Q} =1$ and the operator $N_{DR}^n: E\to
E$ is not equal to $0$. Assume, in addition, that $\overline{\pi}:
\overline X \to D$ extends to a semi-stable scheme over a curve. We have then $$\label{pmor}
rk\, Im\, N_{DR}^n =1 \, , \, rk \, Im \, N_{DR}^{n-1} =2.$$ This follows from Lemma \[M\] and “the Lefschetz principle”.
\[Fr\] The Frobenius operator $\phi_a$ restricted to $Im\, N_{DR}^n$ is equal to $\pm Id$.
The lemma follows immediately from (\[rel\]) and (\[reltwo\]).
The above lemma implies the existence of a parallel section of $\overline{\cal E}$. Namely we have the following result.
\[fs\] Let $\overline{\cal E}$ be a vector bundle over $D$ with a logarithmic connection and $\phi: \tilde F ^* \overline{\cal E} \to \overline{\cal E}$ be a parallel morphism. For any element $w\in E$ such that $\phi_a (w)=\pm w$ there exists a unique parallel section $s $ of $\overline{\cal E}$ with $s(a)=w$. The section $s$ satisfies the property $\phi(\tilde F^* s) =\pm s$.
The uniqueness part is clear. To prove the existence we start with any section $s'$ of $\overline{\cal E}$ with $s'(a)=w$ and consider the sections $s'_k= (\phi \tilde F^*)^{2k}(s')$. It is easy to see that $\nabla s'_k \in p^{2k} \overline{\cal E} \otimes \Omega ^1
(log)$ and that $s'_{k}(a)= w$. This implies that the limit $$s= \underset \longrightarrow \lim s'_{k}$$ exists and satisfies all the required properties.
The nilpotent operator $N_{DR}: E\to E $ gives rise to a canonical filtration $W_0= W_1 \subset W_2 \subset \cdots \subset W_{2n}=E$ by Fontaine-Laffaille submodules. It is a unique filtration with torsion free quotients $W_{i+1}/W_i$ such that $W_{\cdot}\otimes
\mathbb{Q}_p$ is the monodromy filtration on $E\otimes
\mathbb{Q}_p$. The Frobenius $\phi$ preserves the filtration $W_{\cdot}$ and $N_{DR}(W_i)\subset W_{i-2}$. Let $L^{FL}: = Im\,
N_{DR}^{n-1} \otimes \mathbb{Q}_p\cap E$. This is a Fontaine-Laffaille submodule of $E$. It follows from (\[Fr\]) that the eigenvalue of $\phi$ on $W_0$ (resp. $L^{FL}/W_0$ ) is equal to $\pm 1$ (resp. $\pm p$). Lemma (\[fs\]) implies that the inclusion $W_0\hookrightarrow E$ extends uniquely to a parallel morphism ${\cal W}_0:= W_0 \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}_p} {\cal O}_D \hookrightarrow
\overline{\cal E}$. Note that the projection ${\cal W}_0
\hookrightarrow \overline{\cal E} \to \overline{\cal
F}^0/\overline{\cal F}^1$ is an isomorphism. Thus the Frobenius $\phi :\tilde F^* (\overline{\cal E}/{\cal W}_0) \to \overline{\cal
E}/{\cal W}_0 $ is divisible by $p$. Applying (\[fs\]) again to $\frac{\phi}{p}: \tilde F^*(\overline{\cal E}/{\cal W}_0) \to
\overline{\cal E}/{\cal W}_0$ we conclude that the inclusion $L^{FL}/ W_0\hookrightarrow E/W_0$ extends uniquely to a parallel morphism $L^{FL} / W_0 \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}_p }{\cal O}_D
\hookrightarrow \overline{\cal E}/ {\cal W}_0$. Finally, let ${\cal
L}^{FL}\subset \overline{\cal E}$ be the preimage of $L^{FL}/ W_0
\otimes _{\mathbb{Z}_p} {\cal O}_D$ in $\overline{\cal E}$. By construction, ${\cal L}^{FL}$ is a unique Fontaine-Laffaille submodule of $\overline{\cal E}$ with $\Psi^{FL}_t({\cal L}^{FL})=
L^{FL}$. Thus we get a canonical class $$[{\cal L}^{FL}]\in
Ext^1_{MF_{[0, p-2]}(D^*)}( {\cal L}^{FL}/{\cal W}_0 , {\cal
W}_0)\simeq$$ $$Ext^1_{MF_{[0, p-2]}(D^*)}( \mathbb{Z}_p(-1) ,
\mathbb{Z}_p(0))\otimes Hom_{\mathbb{Z}_p}(L^{FL}/W_0, W_0).$$ Composing this with $N_{DR}^{-1}\in Hom( W_0 \otimes \mathbb{Q}_p,
L^{FL}/ W_0 \otimes \mathbb{Q}_p )$ we get the “p-adic canonical coordinate”: $$\label{pcc}
q_{\mathbb{Z}_p}\in Ext^1_{MF_{[0, p-2]}(D^*)}( \mathbb{Z}_p(-1) ,
\mathbb{Z}_p(0)) \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}_p} {\mathbb{Q}_p}\simeq \hat
{\cal O}^*(D^*) \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}_p} {\mathbb{Q}_p}.$$ Observe that the order $$ord:\, \hat {\cal O}^*(D^*) \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}_p} {\mathbb{Q}_p} \to \mathbb{Q}_p$$ of $q_{\mathbb{Z}_p}$ is equal to $1$. In particular, $q_{\mathbb{Z}_p}\in {\cal O}^*(D) \otimes _{\mathbb{Z}}
{\mathbb{Q}}$.
Let $e^0$ be a nonzero parallel section of ${\cal W}_0\otimes
\mathbb{Q}_p$ and let $e^1$ be a section of $(\overline{\cal F}^1
\cap {\cal L}^{FL})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p $ whose projection to $({\cal L}^{FL}/{\cal W}_0)\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p$ is parallel and such that $N_{DR}(e^1(a))= e^0(a)$. We then have $$\label{pdeq}
\nabla e^1 = e^0 \otimes d\, log q_{\mathbb{Z}_p} .$$
We shall [*the p-adic monodromy is small*]{}, if the operator $N_{DR}: L^{FL}/W_0 \to W_0 $ is an isomorphism. If this is the case, one has $$\label{pint}
q_{\mathbb{Z}_p}\in {\cal O}^*(D^*)/\mu_{p-1} \subset \hat {\cal
O}^*(D^*) \otimes \mathbb{Q}_p .$$
[**3.5. p-adic Yukawa map.**]{} In this subsection we assume that the p-adic monodromy is small. Denote by $q\in {\cal O}_{D}$ the p-adic canonical coordinate (defined up to a (p-1)th root of unity). Let $$\label{ks}
S^{n}T_{D, log} \to Hom _{{\cal O}_D} (\overline{\cal F}^n,
\overline{\cal F}^0/\overline{\cal F}^1)\simeq (\overline{\cal F}^n
\otimes \overline{\cal F}^n)^*$$ be the Kodaira-Spenser morphism. Here $T_{D, log}$ denotes the sheaf dual to $\Omega^1(log)$ i.e. the sheaf of vector fields on $D$ vanishing at $a$. Choose a generator $e^0 $ of ${\cal W}_0^{\nabla}$ and let $e_0\in \overline{\cal F}^n$ be a section with $(e^0, e_0)=
1$ [^18]. Applying (\[ks\]) to $(q \frac{d}{dq})^{\otimes ^n} $ and pairing the result with $e_0\otimes e_0 $ we obtain the p-adic Yukawa function $Y \in {\cal
O}_D$. Observe that $Y(q)$ is well defined up to multiplication by a constant in $\mathbb{Z}_p^*$.
\[kont\] Assume that $n=3$ and that $rk\, E = 4$. Then $$Y(q)= n_0 + \sum^{\infty}_{d=1}n_d d^3 \frac{q^d}{1-q^d},$$ where $n_d \in \mathbb{Z}_p$.
We shall use the following elementary result:
\[KSV\] (\[KSV\]. Lemma 2.) Assume that a formal power series $Y(q)\in \mathbb{Z}_p[[q]]$ is written in the form $$Y(q)= \sum^{\infty}_{d=1}n_d d^3 \frac{q^d}{1-q^d}.$$ Then $n_d \in \mathbb{Z}_p$ if and only if $Y(q)- Y(q^p)=
\delta^3(\psi(q))$, for some $\psi(q)\in \mathbb{Z}_p[[q]]$. Here $\delta= q\frac{d}{dq}$.
\[ht\] The monodromy filtration $W_0= W_1 \subset W_2= W_3 \subset W_4=W_5 \subset W_6= E$, extends to a filtration ${\cal W}_i \subset \overline{\cal E} $ by Fontaine-Laffaille submodules such that either ${\cal W}_{2i}/{\cal
W}_{2i-2} \simeq \mathbb{Z}_p(-i)$, for all $0\leq i \leq 3$, or ${\cal W}_{2i}/{\cal W}_{2i-2} \simeq \epsilon \mathbb{Z}_p(-i)$. Here $\epsilon \mathbb{Z}_p(-i)$ denotes the constant Fontaine-Laffaille module with $\overline{\cal F}^i={\cal O}_D$, $\overline{\cal F}^{i+1}=0$, $\phi = -p^i Id$.
Our assumptions imply that $rk\, W_{2i}/W_{2i-2}= 1$, for $0\leq i
\leq 3$. Thus, by Lemma \[Fr\] and (\[rel\]), the operator $\phi$ acts on $W_{2i}/W_{2i-2}$ as $\pm p^i Id$.
We prove by induction on $i$ that $W_{2i}\subset E$ extends to a subbundle ${\cal W}_{2i}$ of $\overline{\cal E}$ preserved by the connection and that $\overline{\cal F}^{i+1}\oplus {\cal W}_{2i}=
\overline{\cal E}$. Indeed, for $i=-1$, there is nothing to prove. Assume that we know the result for $i=k$. Then $(\overline{\cal
E}/{\cal W}_{2k}=(\overline{\cal F}^{k+1}+{\cal W}_{2k})/ {\cal
W}_{2k}\supset \cdots \supset (\overline{\cal F}^{3}+{\cal W}_{2k})/
{\cal W}_{2k}, \phi, \nabla) $ is a Fontaine-Laffaille module. Applying Lemma \[fs\] to $\overline{\cal E}/{\cal W}_{2k} \otimes
\mathbb{Z}_p(k+1)$ we see that $W_{2k+2}/W_{2k}\subset E/W_{2k}$ extends to a subbundle of ${\cal W}_{2k+2}/{\cal W}_{2k}\subset
\overline{\cal E}/{\cal W}_{2k}$. It remains to show that ${\cal
W}_{2k+2}/{\cal W}_{2k}\oplus (\overline{\cal F}^{k+2}+{\cal
W}_{2k})/ {\cal W}_{2k}= \overline{\cal E}/{\cal W}_{2k}$. We will be done if we prove that this is true over the closed point of $D$ i.e. $(W_{2k+2}/{W}_{2k}\oplus (F^{k+2}+ W_{2k})/ {W}_{2k})\otimes
\mathbb{F}_p = (E/W_{2k})\otimes \mathbb{F}_p$. Indeed, the operator $p^{-k-1} \phi$ induces an action on $ (E/W_{2k})\otimes
\mathbb{F}_p$ which is $0$ on $ ((F^{k+2}+ W_{2k})/ {W}_{2k})\otimes \mathbb{F}_p$ and invertible on $(W_{2k+2}/{W}_{2k})\otimes \mathbb{F}_p$. The claim follows.
For the rest of the proof we assume that $\phi$ acts on $W_0$ as $+Id$. The other alternative is considered in a similar way.
By the definition of the canonical coordinate $q$ we can find sections $e^0\in {\cal W}_0$, $e^1\in \overline{\cal F}^1\cap {\cal
W}_2$ such that $$\nabla_\delta e^0 = 0, \, \phi e^0= e^0, \, \nabla_\delta e^1 =
e^0, \, \phi e^1 = p e^1,$$ and such that $e^0, e^1$ generate ${\cal W}_2$. Next, it follows from Lemma \[ht\] that there exist unique $e_1 \in \overline{\cal
F}^2\cap {\cal W}_4$, $e_0 \in \overline{\cal F}^3 $ such that $$(e^0, e_0)= 1, \, (e^1, e_1)= -1$$ Observe that $e^i, e_i$ generate $\overline{\cal E}$. Thanks to the self-duality condition (\[paring\]) we have $$\nabla_{\delta} e_1 = Y(q)e^1 , \, \nabla_{\delta} e_0= e_1$$ $$\phi e_1 = p^2(e_1 + m_{23}(q) e^1 + m_{13}(q) e^0), \, \phi e_0=
p^3(e_0 - m_{13}(q) e^1 + m_{14}(q) e^0),$$ where $Y(q)$ is the Yukawa function. Finally, the relation $\nabla_{\delta} \phi = p \phi \nabla_\delta $ amounts to $$Y(q)- Y(q^p)= \delta (m_{23}), \, m_{23}= -\delta(m_{13}), \, \delta (m_{14})= 2 m_{13}.$$ Thus $$Y(q^p) - Y(q) = \frac{1}{2} \delta ^3 m_{14},$$ and we are done by Lemma \[KSV\].
Comparison
==========
[**4.1. Plan of the proofs of Theorems \[th1\] and \[th2\].**]{}
Let $\overline \pi: \overline X_S \to \overline C_S$ be a semi-stable morphism satisfying the conditions i) - iii) from Section 1.3. Denote by $q_{\mathbb{C}}\in (\mathbb{C}((t)))^*
\otimes _{\mathbb{Z}} {\mathbb{Q}}$ the complex canonical coordinate (\[ccc\]) and by $q_{\mathbb{Z}_p} \in (\mathbb{Z}_p((t)))^*
\otimes _{\mathbb{Z}} {\mathbb{Q}}$ the p-adic one (\[pcc\]).
\[dif\] a) For every prime prime $p$ such that $(p,N)=1$, we have $$q_{\mathbb{C} }= q_{\mathbb{Z}_p} \in ({\mathbb{Q}}((t)))^* \otimes \mathbb{Q}.$$ b) Assume that the Betti monodromy of the family $\overline X_S \to
\overline C_S$ is small (see 1.1 ). Then, for every prime $p$ with $(p,N)=1$, the p-adic monodromy is also small (see 3.4 ).\
c) Let $\omega $ be a nonvanishing section of the line bundle $\overline {\cal F}^n= \overline \pi_* \Omega_{\overline
X_S/\overline C_S}^n(log \, Y_S)$ over an open neighborhood of the subscheme $a: S \hookrightarrow \overline C_S $. Then $$(\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n} \int
_{\delta _1} \omega)^2 \in (\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}][[t]])^*.$$
In the remaining part of this section we complete the proofs of Theorems \[th1\] and \[th2\] assuming Proposition \[dif\]. A proof of the proposition (which is the hardest technical part of the argument) is given in Sections 4.2-4.5.
[**Proof of Theorem \[th1\].**]{} Since $q'(0)\in \mathbb{Q}^*$ and $ d\, log \, q (t) \in \mathbb{Q}[[t]] \frac{dt}{t}$ the coefficients of $q(t)$ are rational numbers. On the other hand, parts a) and b) of Proposition \[dif\] together with formula (\[pint\]) show that, for every prime $p$ such that $(p,N)=1$, $$q(t)\in (\mathbb{Z}_p((t)))^* \cap (\mathbb{Q}((t)))^* \subset
(\mathbb{Q}_p((t)))^*.$$ This completes the proof.
[**Proof of Theorem \[th2\].**]{} Let $\omega \times \omega$ be a local section of $\overline \pi_* \Omega_{\overline
X_{\mathbb{C}}/\overline C_{\mathbb{C}}}^n(log \, Y_{\mathbb{C}})
\otimes \overline \pi_* \Omega_{\overline X_{\mathbb{C}}/\overline
C_{\mathbb{C}}}^n(log \, Y_{\mathbb{C}})$ defined by the equation $$\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n} \int
_{\delta _1} \omega =1.$$ Part c) of Proposition \[dif\] shows that $\omega \times \omega$ yields a nonvanishing section of $
\overline \pi_* \Omega_{\overline X_S/\overline C_S}^n(log \,
Y_S)\otimes \overline \pi_* \Omega_{\overline X_S/\overline
C_S}^n(log \, Y_S)$ over the formal neighborhood $D_S$. This together with Theorem \[th1\] imply that the coefficients of the Yukawa function $Y(q)$ are rational numbers and so are the instanton numbers $n_d$. It also follows that $Y(q)$ coincides (up to a constant factor in $\mathbb{Z}_p^*$) with the p-adic Yukawa function from [**3.5**]{}. Thus by Proposition \[kont\] the numbers $n_d$ are p-adic integers. This completes the proof.
[**4.2. Recollections on p-adic Comparison Theorem.**]{} Recall from \[FL\] that there is an exact tensor fully faithful functor $$U: MF_{[0,p-2]} \to Rep(\Gamma)$$ from the category $MF_{[0,p-2]}$ of Fontaine-Laffaille modules over $spec \, \mathbb{Z}_p$ to the category $Rep(\Gamma)$ of finitely generated $\mathbb{Z}_p$-modules equipped with an action of the Galois group $\Gamma =Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p / \mathbb{Q}_p)$. We will use the following properties of $U$:
1\) $U$ takes a finite (as a plain abelian group) Fontaine-Laffaille module to a $\Gamma $-module of the same finite order.
2\) $U(\mathbb{Z}_p(i))= \mathbb{Z}_p(i)$ and the induced morphism $$\underset \longleftarrow \lim \mathbb{Z}_p ^* /( \mathbb{Z}_p ^* ) ^{p^i} \simeq
Ext^1_{MF_{[0,p-2]}}(\mathbb{Z}_p(-1), \mathbb{Z}_p(0)) \stackrel{U}{\hookrightarrow}
Ext^1_{Rep(\Gamma)}(\mathbb{Z}_p(-1), \mathbb{Z}_p(0))$$ $$\stackrel{Kummer}{\simeq}
\underset \longleftarrow \lim \mathbb{Q}_p ^* /( \mathbb{Q}_p ^* ) ^{p^i}$$ is identity.
3)Let $\overline {\pi}: \overline X_{\mathbb{Z}_p} \to \overline
C_{\mathbb{Z}_p} $ be a proper semi-stable (relative to $\mathbb{Z}_p$ ) scheme. Assume that $dim _{ \overline C_{\mathbb{Z}_p}} \overline X_{\mathbb{Z}_p}
\leq p-2$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism: $$U(\Psi^{FL}_t(H^k_{log}( \overline X_{\mathbb{Z}_p}/\overline C_{\mathbb{Z}_p})) ) \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
\Psi_{t}^{et} (R^k \pi_{\mathbb{Q}_p *}^{et} \mathbb{Z}_p)$$ Here $\pi_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$ denotes the projection $X_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \to C_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$ and $\Psi^{et}_{t}: Sh^{et}(C_{\mathbb{Q}_p}) \to
Sh^{et}(a_{\mathbb{Q}_p})= Rep(\Gamma) $ is the etale vanishing cycles functor. Moreover, we have the following commutative diagram
$$\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt
\lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt}
\def\mapright#1{\smash{
\mathop{\to}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow\rlap
{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}}
\begin{matrix}
U(\Psi^{FL}_t(H^k_{log}( \overline X_{\mathbb{Z}_p}/\overline C_{\mathbb{Z}_p})) ) & \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
& \Psi_{t}^{et} (R^k \pi_{\mathbb{Q}_p *}^{et} \mathbb{Z}_p) \cr
\mapdown{N_{DR}} & &\mapdown{N_{et}} \cr
U(\Psi^{FL}_{t}(H^k_{log}( \overline X_{\mathbb{Z}_p}/\overline C_{\mathbb{Z}_p}))_a )\otimes \mathbb{Z}_p(-1) & \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
& \Psi_{t}^{et} (R^k \pi_{\mathbb{Q}_p *}^{et} \mathbb{Z}_p) \otimes \mathbb{Z}_p(-1)
\end{matrix}$$ This follows from the main Comparison Theorem in \[Fa\].
[**4.3. 1-motives, the motivic Albanese functor $LAlb$.**]{} The main references here are \[D3\] and \[BK\]. Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $0$. Fix an algebraic closure $\overline k \supset
k$. A 1-motive over $k$ is a triple $$M = (\Lambda, G, \Lambda \stackrel{u}{\longrightarrow} G(\overline{k})),$$ where $\Lambda$ is a free abelian group of finite rank equipped with an action of the Galois group $Gal(\overline k/k)$ that factors through a finite quotient, $G$ is an semi-abelian variety over $k$ i.e. an extension $$0\to T \to G \to A\to 0$$ of an abelian variety by a torus, and $u$ is a homomorphism of the Galois modules. We shall denote by ${\cal M}_1(k)$ the additive category of 1-motives [^19].
Every 1-motive is equipped with a canonical (weight) filtration: $$W_{-2}M = (0, T) \subset W_{-1}M = (0, G) \subset W_0 M= M.$$ Thus $W_0 M/W_{-1} M = (\Lambda, 0)$ and $W_{-1} M/W_{-2} M = (0,
A)$. The category ${\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q}):= {\cal M}_1(k) \otimes
\mathbb{Q} $ is abelian (\[BK\], Proposition 1.1.5) and any morphism in ${\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})$ is strictly compatible with the weight filtration.
Set $\mathbb{Z}(0) = (\mathbb{Z}, 0)$ and $\mathbb{Z}(1) = (0,
\mathbb{G}_m)$. The same 1-motives $\mathbb{Z}(i)$ ($i=0,1$) but viewed as objects of ${\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})$ are denoted by $\mathbb{Q}(i)$. We have $$\label{tateext}
Ext^1_{{\cal M}_1(k)}(\mathbb{Z}(0), \mathbb{Z}(1)) \simeq k^*, \,
Ext^1_{{\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})}(\mathbb{Q}(0), \mathbb{Q}(1)) \simeq k^* \otimes \mathbb{Q}.$$ For any prime $p$, we have the etale realizations functors (\[D3\], 10.1.5): $$T_{\mathbb{Z}_p}^{et}: {\cal M}_1(k) \to Rep_{\mathbb{Z}_p}(Gal(\overline k/k)),$$ $$T_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{et}: {\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q}) \to
Rep_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(Gal(\overline k/k)).$$ We also set $$T_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{*et}(M)= Hom_{\mathbb{Q}_p}( T_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^{et}(M), \mathbb{Q}_p)\in
Rep_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(Gal(\overline k/k)).$$
If $k=\mathbb{C}$ the category ${\cal M}_1(\mathbb{C})$ is equivalent to the category of torsion free polarizable mixed Hodge structures of type $\{(0,0),(0,-1),(-1, 0),(-1,-1)\}$ (\[D3\], 10.1.3): $$\label{DeRham}
T^{Hodge}: {\cal M}_1(\mathbb{C})
\stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} MHS_1$$ For $k\subset \mathbb{C}$, $M\in {\cal M}_1(k)$, $T^{Hodge}(M\times _k spec \, \mathbb{C})= (W_{\cdot}\subset
V_{\mathbb{Z}}, F^{\cdot}\subset V_{\mathbb{C}})$ there is a functorial isomorphism of $\mathbb{Z}_p$-modules $$\label{be}
V_{\mathbb{Z}}\otimes \mathbb{Z}_p \simeq T_{\mathbb{Z}_p}^{et}(M).$$ Abusing notation, we shall also denote by $T^{Hodge}$ the equivalence $${\cal M}_1(\mathbb{C};
\mathbb{Q})\stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} MHS_1^{\mathbb Q}=
MHS_1\otimes \mathbb{Q}$$ induced by (\[DeRham\]) and the corresponding equivalence of the derived categories $$D^b({\cal M}_1(\mathbb{C};
\mathbb{Q}))\stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} D^b(MHS_1^{\mathbb
Q}).$$ Let $$D^b({\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})) \stackrel{{\cal S}}{\hookrightarrow} DM^{eff}_{gm}(k; \mathbb{Q})$$ be embedding of the bounded derived category of 1-motives into the triangulated category of Voevodsky motives (\[O\]). By \[BK\] ${\cal S}$ has a left adjoint functor: $$LAlb: DM^{eff}_{gm}(k; \mathbb{Q}) \to D^b({\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})).$$ Denote by $MHS^{ \mathbb{Q}}$ the category of mixed polarizable Hodge structures over ${\mathbb Q}$ and by $MHS_{eff}^{\mathbb{Q}}$ the full subcategory of $MHS^{ \mathbb{Q}}$, whose objects are mixed Hodge structures $(W_{\cdot}\subset V_{\mathbb{Q}}, F^{\cdot}\subset
V_{\mathbb{C}})$ with $ F^1=0$. It is proven in \[Vol\] that embedding of the derived categories $$\overline {\cal S}: D^b(MHS_1^{\mathbb Q}) \to D^b(MHS_{eff}^{ \mathbb{Q}})$$ admits a $t$-exact left adjoint functor [^20] $$\overline {LAlb}: D^b(MHS_{eff}^{\mathbb{Q}}) \to D^b(MHS_1^{\mathbb Q})$$ and that $$T^{Hodge}\circ LAlb \simeq \overline{LAlb} \circ R^{Hodge}:
DM^{eff}_{gm}(\mathbb{C}; \mathbb{Q}) \to D^b(MHS_1^{\mathbb Q}).$$ Here $$R^{Hodge}: DM^{eff}_{gm}(\mathbb{C} ; \mathbb{Q}) \to D^b(MHS^{\mathbb
Q}_{eff})$$ is the homological Hodge realization functor (i.e. $R^{Hodge}(M)= R_{Hodge}(M)^*$, where $R_{Hodge}$ is Huber’s cohomological realization (\[Hu1\], \[Hu2\]).)
[**4.4. Motivic vanishing cycles.**]{} Let $X_k
\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} C_k $ be a smooth proper scheme over a punctured curve $ C_k \hookrightarrow \overline C_k
\stackrel{a}{\hookleftarrow} spec \, k$ over a field $k\subset
\mathbb{C}$. Fix a local coordinate $t$ at $a$ and an integer $m\geq 0$. Denote by $$H^m(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}})= ( R^m\pi_*
\mathbb{Q},F^{\cdot}\subset
H^m_{DR}(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}}))$$ the variation of Hodge structure associated to the family $X_{\mathbb{C}}
\stackrel{\pi_{\mathbb{C}}}{\longrightarrow} C_{\mathbb{C}} $ and by $ H_m(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}})$ the dual variation. Let $\Psi_t^{Hodge, un}( H_m(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}}))$ be the unipotent limiting mixed Hodge structure. The Hodge structure $$\overline {LAlb} (\Psi_t^{Hodge, un}(
H_m(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}})))$$ can be viewed as a 1-motive over $\mathbb{C}$. In this subsection we explain how this 1-motive canonically descends to a 1-motive $$M_{t,m}(X_k)= (\Lambda, G,
\Lambda \stackrel{u}{\longrightarrow} G(\overline{k}))\in {\cal
M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})$$ over $k$. In addition, $M_{t,m}(X_k)$ comes equipped with a “monodromy" homomorphism $N: \Lambda \otimes
\mathbb{Q} \to T_* \otimes \mathbb{Q} $ of $Gal(\overline
k/k)$-modules. Here $T_*$ denotes the group of cocharacters of the torus $T$: $T_*= \underline {Hom}(\mathbb{G}_m, T)(\overline k)$. Equivalently, $N$ can be viewed as a morphism of 1-motives: $$N: (W_0 M_{t,m}(X_k) /W_{-1} M_{t,m}(X_k))(1) \to W_{-2} M_{t,m}(X_k).$$ The main properties of $M_{t,m}(X_k)$ are the following.
1\) There is a natural isomorphism: $$\label{c1}
\overline {LAlb} (\Psi_t ^{Hodge, un}(
H_m(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}})))\simeq T^{Hodge}(
M_{t,m}(X_k))\footnote{Abusing notation, we denote by $T^{Hodge}$
the composition of functors ${\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})\to {\cal
M}_1(\mathbb{C}; \mathbb{Q})
\stackrel{T^{Hodge}}{\longrightarrow}MHS_1^{\mathbb Q}$.}$$ compatible with the monodromy action.
2\) There is a natural morphism $Gal(\overline k/k)$-modules $$\label{c2}
\alpha: T^{*et}_{ \mathbb{Q}_p}(M_{t,m}(X_k)) \to \Psi_t^{et,
un}(R^m \pi_*^{et}\mathbb{Q}_p)$$ where $$\Psi_t^{et, un}: Sh^{et}(C_k) \to Sh^{et}(spec\, k)\to Rep_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(Gal(\overline k/k))$$ denotes the functor of unipotent vanishing cycles (see \[B\]). The morphism $\alpha $ commutes with the monodromy action. 3) If $k'\supset k$ is any field extension, there is a natural isomorphism $$\label{c3}
M_{t,m}(X_k \times _k spec\, k')\simeq M_{t,m}(X_k)\times _k spec\,
k'$$ compatible in the obvious way with (\[c2\]).
4\) Assume that $k\subset \mathbb{C}$. Set $$T^{Hodge}( M_{t,m}(X_k))= (W_{\cdot}\subset V_{\mathbb{Q}}, F^{\cdot}\subset V_{\mathbb{C}}).$$ The following diagram is commutative.
$$\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt
\lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt}
\def\mapright#1{\smash{
\mathop{\to}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow\rlap
{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}}
\begin{matrix}
V^*_{\mathbb{Q}}\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p & \stackrel{(\ref{c1})}{\longrightarrow}
& \Psi_t^{an, un}(R^m \pi_*^{an}\mathbb{Q})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p \cr
\mapdown{(\ref{be})} & &\mapdown{} \cr
T^{*et}_{ \mathbb{Q}_p}(M_{t,m}(X_k)) & \stackrel{\alpha}{\longrightarrow}
& \Psi_t^{et, un}(R^m \pi_*^{et}\mathbb{Q}_p)
\end{matrix}$$
The above properties of $M_{t,m}(X_k)$ are sufficient for our applications. We shall indicate a conceptual construction of $M_{t,m}(X_k)$ based on the theory of Voevodsky’s motives. Unfortunately, the construction relies on the following general fact that is not explained in the published literature.
Let $$\Psi^{mot, un}_t: DM^{eff}_{gm}(\eta; \mathbb{Q}) \to DM^{eff}_{gm}(k; \mathbb{Q})$$ the functor of (unipotent) motivic vanishing cycles from the triangulated category of motives over the generic point $\eta \in C_{k}$ to the category of motives over $a$, and let $$N: \Psi^{mot, un}_t (1) \to \Psi^{mot, un}_t$$ be the monodromy operator (see \[A1\]). The fact, we will need, is that the formation $(\Psi^{mot, un}_t, N)$ commutes with the etale and Hodge realizations \[Hu1\], \[Hu2\]:
$$\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt
\lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt}
\def\mapright#1{\smash{
\mathop{\to}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow\rlap
{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}}
\begin{matrix}
DM^{eff}_{gm}(\eta; \mathbb{Q}) & \stackrel{\Psi^{mot, un}_t }{\longrightarrow}
& DM^{eff}_{gm}(k; \mathbb{Q}) \cr
\mapdown{ } & &\mapdown{} \cr
D^b( Rep_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(Gal(\overline {k(\eta)}/k)) ) & \stackrel{ \Psi^{et, un}_t }{\longrightarrow}
& D^b( Rep_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(Gal(\overline {k}/k)) )
\end{matrix}$$ $$\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt
\lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt}
\def\mapright#1{\smash{
\mathop{\to}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow\rlap
{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}}
\begin{matrix}
DM^{eff}_{gm}(\eta ; \mathbb{Q}) & \stackrel{\Psi^{mot, un}_t }{\longrightarrow}
& DM^{eff}_{gm}(\mathbb{C}; \mathbb{Q}) \cr
\mapdown{R^{Hodge} } & &\mapdown{R^{Hodge}} \cr
D^b(VMHS_{eff}^{\mathbb{Q}}(\eta)) & \stackrel{ \Psi^{Hodge, un}_t }{\longrightarrow}
& D^b(MHS^{\mathbb Q}_{eff}).
\end{matrix}$$
Assuming this fact we construct $M_{t,m}(X_k)$ as follows. It is proven in \[BK\] the fully faithful functor $D^b({\cal M}_1(k;
\mathbb{Q})) \to DM^{eff}_{gm}(k; \mathbb{Q})$ has a left adjoint: $$LAlb: DM^{eff}_{gm}(k; \mathbb{Q}) \to D^b({\cal M}_1(k; \mathbb{Q})).$$ Set $$M_{t,m}(X_k):= H_m(LAlb \, \Psi_t^{mot, un}(
\mathbb{Q}_{tr}[X_{\eta}])).$$ Let us just explain that $M_{t,m}(X_k)$ has the key property 1. Indeed, by Theorem 2 from \[Vol\] the Albanese functor commutes with the Hodge realization. Thus, we have $$T^{Hodge}(M_{t,m}(X_{\mathbb C}))\simeq H_m(\overline{LAlb} \, R^{Hodge} \Psi_t^{mot, un}(
\mathbb{Q}_{tr}[X_{\eta}]))$$ $$\simeq \overline {LAlb}\,
\Psi_t ^{Hodge, un} H_m(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}}).$$
[**Example.**]{} [^21] Here we explain an elementary construction of the motive $M_{t,1}(X_k)$ for a family $\pi: X_k \to
C_k$ of curves with a semi-stable reduction. Choose a semi-stable model $\overline \pi: \overline X_k \to \overline C_k$, such that all the irreducible components $Y_{\overline k, \gamma }$ of the special fiber $Y_{\overline k}:= \overline X_k \times _{\overline
C_k} \overline k $ are smooth. Let $\Gamma$ be the free abelian group whose generators $[\gamma]$ correspond to irreducible components of $Y_{\overline k}$. For each singular point $y_{\mu}$ of $Y_{\overline k}$ we denote by $R_{\mu}$ the subgroup of $\wedge
^2 \Gamma$ generated by $[\gamma _1] \wedge [\gamma_2]$, where $Y_{\overline k, \gamma_1 }$ and $Y_{\overline k, \gamma_2 }$ are the two components meeting at $y_{\mu}$ (i.e. $R_{\mu}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ but the isomorphism depends on the ordering of the components meeting at $y_{\mu}$). Define a homomorphism $$u: R_{\mu} \to Pic(Y_{\overline k})$$ as follows. Consider the invertible sheaf ${\cal O}(y_{\mu,
\gamma_1} - y_{\mu, \gamma_2})$ on the normalization $\tilde
Y_{\overline k} \to Y_{\overline k}$, where $y_{\mu, \gamma_1}$, $y_{\mu, \gamma_2}$ are the preimages of $y_{\mu}$ in $\tilde
Y_{\overline k}$. We claim that ${\cal O}(y_{\mu, \gamma_1} -
y_{\mu, \gamma_2})$ canonically descends to a line bundle $u([\gamma _1] \wedge [\gamma_2])$ over $Y_{\overline k}$: the descend data are trivial outside of points $y_{\mu, \gamma_1}$, $y_{\mu, \gamma_2}$, and the identification $${\cal O}(y_{\mu, \gamma_1} -
y_{\mu, \gamma_2})_{y_{\mu, \gamma_1}} \simeq {\cal O}(y_{\mu,
\gamma_1} - y_{\mu, \gamma_2})_{y_{\mu, \gamma_2}}$$ is given by a canonical isomorphism $$T_{Y_{\overline k, \gamma_1 }, y_{\mu, \gamma_1}} \otimes T_{Y_{\overline k, \gamma_2 }, y_{\mu,
\gamma_2}} \simeq T_{\overline C_{\overline k}, a} \simeq \overline
k. \footnote{The ismorphism $T_{\overline C_{\overline k}, a} \simeq
\overline k$ is determined by the coordinate $t$.}$$ Finally, let $\Lambda \subset \bigoplus _\mu R_\mu $ be the kernel of the degree map: $$\bigoplus _\mu R_\mu \stackrel{u}{\longrightarrow} Pic(Y_{\overline
k}) \stackrel{deg}{\longrightarrow} \bigoplus _\gamma \mathbb{Z}.$$ Then $M_{t,m}(X_k)=(\Lambda, {\bf Pic}^0(Y_{\overline
k}), \Lambda \stackrel{u}{\to} {\bf Pic}^0(Y_{k})(\overline k)).$
[**4.5. Proof of Proposition \[dif\].**]{} a) By (\[deq\]) and (\[pdeq\]) we have $$\label{eqcor}
d\, log \, q_{\mathbb{C}}(t) = d\, log \, q_{\mathbb{Z}_p}(t)\in
(1+ t \mathbb{Q}[[t]] ) \frac{dt}{t} .$$ Thus, it suffices to prove that $$q'_{\mathbb{C} }(0)= q'_{\mathbb{Z}_p}(0) \in \mathbb{Q}^* \otimes \mathbb{Q} .$$
Consider the 1-motive $M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}})= (\Lambda, G, \Lambda
\stackrel{u}{\longrightarrow} G(\overline{k})) $. By (\[c1\]) we have $$L^{Hodge}\subset T_{Hodge}^*(M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}}))=: (W_{\cdot}\subset V_{\mathbb{Q}}, F^{\cdot}\subset V_{\mathbb{C}})
\subset \Psi_t ^{Hodge}( H^n(X_{\mathbb{C}}/C_{\mathbb{C}}))\footnote{Here
$T_{Hodge}^*(M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}}))$ denotes the Hodge structure dual to
$T^{Hodge}(M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}}))$.} .$$ Hence, $W_0 L^{Hodge} \otimes \mathbb{Q} \simeq \Lambda ^* \otimes
\mathbb{Q}$ and $W_{-1}M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}}) =
W_{-2}M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}})$. We claim that the image of the embedding $W_2 L^{Hodge}/W_0 L^{Hodge} \otimes
\mathbb{Q}\hookrightarrow (T_* \otimes \mathbb{Q})^*$ is $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$-invariant. Indeed, this is clear from the commutative diagram
$$\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt
\lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt}
\def\mapright#1{\smash{
\mathop{\to}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow\rlap
{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}}
\begin{matrix}
L^{Hodge}_{\mathbb{Q}} \otimes \mathbb{Q}_p & \stackrel{ }{\longrightarrow} & V_{\mathbb{Q}}\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p \cr
\mapdown{\simeq } & &\mapdown{\simeq} \cr
L^{et}\otimes _{\mathbb{Z}_p} \mathbb{Q}_p:= Im \, N^{n-1}_{et} & \stackrel{ }{\longrightarrow} &
T^{*et}_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}}))
\end{matrix}$$ since all the arrows in the bottom row are morphisms of $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$-modules. It follows that there exists a unique quotient $L^{mot} \in {\cal M}_1(\mathbb{Q};
\mathbb{Q})$, $\gamma: M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}})\twoheadrightarrow
L^{mot} $ which fits into the following diagram $$\def\normalbaselines{\baselineskip20pt
\lineskip3pt \lineskiplimit3pt}
\def\mapright#1{\smash{
\mathop{\to}\limits^{#1}}}
\def\mapdown#1{\Big\downarrow\rlap
{$\vcenter{\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}$}}
\begin{matrix}
T_{Hodge}^*(L^{mot})& \stackrel{ }{\longrightarrow} &
T_{Hodge}^*(M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}})) \cr
\mapdown{\simeq } & &\mapdown{Id} \cr
L^{Hodge} & \stackrel{ }{\longrightarrow} &
T_{Hodge}^*(M_{t,n}(X_{\mathbb{Q}} ))
\end{matrix}$$ Observe that the operator $N$ descends to $L^{mot}$ and $$\label{mon}
N: (W_0 L^{mot} /W_{-2} L^{mot})\otimes \mathbb{Q}(1)\stackrel{\simeq }{\longrightarrow} W_{-2} L^{mot}\otimes \mathbb{Q} .$$ Finally, we have from (\[c2\]) a canonical isomorphism $T^{*et}_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(L^{mot}) \simeq L^{et}\otimes
_{\mathbb{Z}_p} \mathbb{Q}_p$ of $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$-modules.
Let $[L^{mot}, N^{-1}]\in Ext^1_{{\cal M}_1(\mathbb{Q};
\mathbb{Q})}(\mathbb{Q}(0), \mathbb{Q}(1))$ be the class of the extension $$\label{motext}
0 \to W_{-2} L^{mot} \to L^{mot} \to W_0 L^{mot} /W_{-2} L^{mot} \to 0$$ composed with $N^{-1}$ from (\[mon\]) and let $\kappa$ be the corresponding (by (\[tateext\])) element in $\mathbb{Q}^* \otimes \mathbb{Q}$. The functor $T_{Hodge}^*$ takes this extension to the class $[L^{Hodge}, N^{-1}_B] \in Ext^1_{MHS}(\mathbb{Q}(0),
\mathbb{Q}(1)) \simeq \mathbb{C}^* \otimes \mathbb{Q}$. The latter class is equal to $q'_{\mathbb{C}}(0)$. It follows that $
q'_{\mathbb{C}}(0)= \kappa ^{-1} $.
If we pull back the extension (\[motext\]) on $spec \,
\mathbb{Q}_p$ and then apply the etale realization functor $T_{\mathbb{Q}_p}^*: {\cal M}_1(\mathbb{Q}_p; \mathbb{Q}) \to Rep_{\mathbb{Q}_p}(\Gamma)$ we get the extension $[L^{et}\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p , N^{-1}_{et}]$ equivalent (by [**4.2**]{} , 3)) to the one obtained from $[L^{FL}\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p,
N^{-1}_{DR}]$ by applying the Fontaine-Laffaille functor $U$. Hence $ q'_{\mathbb{Z}_p}(0)= \kappa ^{-1} $, and we are done.
The above argument shows that for any family $X_{\mathbb{Q}} \to C_{\mathbb{Q}} $ over $\mathbb{Q}$ with a maximal degeneracy point at $a\in \overline
C_{\mathbb{Q}}(\mathbb{Q})$ $$q_{\mathbb{C}}\in (\mathbb{Q}((t)))^*\otimes \mathbb{Q}.$$
b\) Assume that the Betti monodromy is small i.e. $$\label{monbetti}
N_B: W_2 L^{Hodge}_{\mathbb{Z}}/ W_0 L^{Hodge}_{\mathbb{Z}} \simeq
W_0 L^{Hodge}_{\mathbb{Z}}(-1)$$ We have to show that, for any prime $p$ in $S$, $$\label{monrham}
N_{DR}: W_2 L^{FL}/ W_0 L^{FL} \to W_0 L^{FL}(-1)$$ is an isomorphism as well. Indeed, by (by [**4.2**]{} , 3)) the functor $U$ takes the morphism (\[monrham\]) to $$N_B\otimes Id:
(W_2 L^{Hodge}_{\mathbb{Z}}/ W_0 L^{Hodge}_{\mathbb{Z}})\otimes
\mathbb{Z}_p \simeq W_0 L^{Hodge}_{\mathbb{Z}} \otimes
\mathbb{Z}_p(-1) .$$ The claim follows.
c\) Let ${\cal E}$ be the quotient of $H^n_{log}(\overline
X_S/\overline C_S)$ modulo torsion, and let $\overline{\cal F}^n
\subset {\cal E}$, $ {\cal W}_0 \subset {\cal E}$ be the Hodge and monodromy filtrations ([**3.3**]{}). As we explained in [*loc. cit.*]{} the Poincare duality identifies the line bundle $\overline{\cal F}^n$ with the dual to $ {\cal W}_0$. It is also shown there that $ {\cal W}_0$ is generated by a parallel section $e^0 \in {\cal W}_0^{\nabla}$. It suffices to prove the claim for a single nonvanishing section $\omega \in \overline {\cal F}^n$. Let us choose $\omega$ such that $(e^0, \omega)=0$. Then the integral $$\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n} \int
_{\delta _1} \omega$$ is a constant function on $D_{\mathbb{C}}$. We have to show that the square of this constant is in $\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]^*$. The following lemma does the job.
Let $E$ (resp. $H$ ) be the torsion free part of $a^*(H^n_{log}(\overline X_S/ \overline C_S))$ (resp. $\Psi_t^{an}(R^n\pi_{\mathbb{C} *}^{an}\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}])$ ) , and let $$E \hookrightarrow E\otimes \mathbb{C}\simeq H \otimes \mathbb{C} \hookleftarrow H$$ be the isomorphism from (\[derhamv\]). Then the two $\mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]$-lattices $$(W_{0} E)^{\otimes ^2} \hookrightarrow (W_{0} E)^{\otimes ^2} \otimes \mathbb{C} \simeq (W_{0} H)^{\otimes ^2}
\otimes \mathbb{C}\hookleftarrow (W_{0} H)^{\otimes ^2}$$ coincide.
Indeed, consider the monodromy paring $$\Xi: <\cdot, \cdot >_{mon}: (W_{0} E)^{\otimes ^2} \otimes \mathbb{C}\to \mathbb{C},$$ $$<x,y>_{mon}= <x, N^{-n}_{DR} y>_{DR} =\pm <x, N^{-n}_{B}y >_B,$$ where $N^{-n}_B= (-2\pi i)^{-n}N^{-n}_{DR}: W_{0} E \otimes
\mathbb{C} \to W_{2n} E \otimes \mathbb{C} $. The monodromy paring takes $(W_{0} E)^{\otimes ^2} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ and $ (W_{0}
H)^{\otimes ^2} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ into $\mathbb{Q}\subset
\mathbb{C}$. Therefore, since $rk \, W_0 E =1$, $(W_{0}
E)^{\otimes ^2} \otimes \mathbb{Q} = (W_{0} H)^{\otimes ^2} \otimes
\mathbb{Q}$. Moreover, to prove that $(W_{0} E )^{\otimes ^2}=(W_{0}
H )^{\otimes ^2}$, it is enough to show that $\Xi((W_{0} E
)^{\otimes ^2})=\Xi((W_{0} H )^{\otimes ^2})$. Since the pairings $$<\cdot, \cdot>_{DR} : W_{0} E \otimes W_{2n} E \to \mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}], \, <\cdot, \cdot>_B : W_{0} H \otimes
W_{2n} H \to \mathbb{Z}[N^{-1}]$$ are perfect, the claim would follow if we prove that, for any prime $p$ in $S$, the cokernels of the maps $N_{DR}^{n}: W_{0}E \otimes \mathbb{Z}_p \to W_{2n} E
\otimes \mathbb{Z}_p, \, N_{et}^{n}: W_{0}H \otimes \mathbb{Z}_p \to
W_{2n} H \otimes \mathbb{Z}_p$ have the same order. This follows from parts 1) and 3) in [**4.2**]{}.
[**REFERENCES**]{}
\[A1\] J. Ayoub, [*Les six opérations de Grothendieck et le formalisme des cycles évanescents dans le monde motivique*]{}, 2006. Available electronically at http://www.institut.math.jussieu.fr/ ayoub/These/THESE.pdf
\[A2\] J. Ayoub, [*Private communications.*]{}
\[BK\] L. Barbieri-Viale, B. Kahn, [*On the derived category of 1-motives, I*]{}, arXiv:0706.1498v1 \[math.AG\].
\[BK2\] L. Barbieri-Viale, B. Kahn, [*On the derived category of 1-motives, II*]{}. In preparation.
\[B\] A. Beilinson, [*How to glue perverse sheaves*]{}, K-theory, Arithmetic and Geometry, LNM 1289.
\[BOV\] A. Beilinson, A. Otwinowska, V. Vologodsky, [ *Motivic sheaves over a curve*]{}, work in progress.
\[COGP\] P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, P. Green, L. Parkes, [*A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal field theory*]{}, Nuclear Physics, B359(1991) 21
\[D1\] P.Deligne, [*Local behavior of Hodge structures at infinity*]{}, AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Volume 1, 1997.
\[D2\] P.Deligne, [*Théorie de Hodge 2*]{}, Publ. Math. IHES 40 (1971).
\[D3\] P.Deligne, [*Théorie de Hodge 3*]{}, Publ. Math. IHES 44 (1974).
\[Fa\] G. Faltings, [*Crystalline cohomology and p-adic Galois representations*]{}, Algebraic Analysis, Geometry and Number Theory (J.Igusa, ed.) (1989).
\[Hu1\] A. Huber, [*Realization of Voevodsky’s motives*]{}, J. Algebraic Geom. 9 (2000), no. 4.
\[Hu2\] A. Huber, [*Corrigendum to: “Realization of Voevodsky’s motives”* ]{} J. Algebraic Geom. 13 (2004), no. 1.
\[Il\] L.Illusie, [*Logarithmic spaces (according to K.Kato)*]{}, Perspect. Math., 15.
\[KSV\] M. Kontsevich, A. Schwarz, V. Vologodsky, [*Integrality of the instanton numbers and p-adic B-model*]{}, Physics Letters B 637 (2006).
\[LY\] B.Lian, S.T.-Yau, [*Mirror Maps, Modular Relations and Hypergeometric Series,1*]{}, arXiv:hep-th/9507151 v1 27 July 1995.
\[M\] D.Morrison, [*Mirror Symmetry and Rational Curves on Quintic Threefolds: A Guide for Mathematicians*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1993), no. 1.
\[O\] F. Orgogozo, [*Isomotifs de dimension inférieure ou égale à un*]{}, Manuscripta Math. 115 (2004), no. 3.
\[Ste\] J. Steenbrink, [*Limits of Hodge structures*]{}, Inv. Math. 31 (1976).
\[Sti\] J. Stienstra, [*Ordinary Calabi-Yau-3 Crystals*]{}, Calabi-Yau varieties and mirror symmetry (Toronto, ON, 2001), Fields Inst. Commun., 38, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (2003).
\[V\] V. Voevodsky, [*Triangulated category of motives over a field*]{}, in “Cycles, Transfers, and Motivic Homology Theories”, Annals of Mathematics Studies 143 (2000).
\[Vol\] V. Vologodsky, [*The Albanese functor commutes with the Hodge realization.*]{}
[^1]: i.e. $n_d =
\frac{m}{N^k}$, where $m$ and $k$ are integers.
[^2]: For example, for the quintic family \[COGP\], we can take $N=2\times 3\times 5$.
[^3]: The idea to use the Frobenius action is due, in a slightly different setting, to Jan Stienstra \[Sti\].
[^4]: Logarithmic functions in these formulas have different meanings: in the first formula $log$ is the the usual complex-valued function while in the second formula $log$ takes p-adic values.
[^5]: This amounts to proving relation (\[cperiod\]).
[^6]: The proof is reproduced in 2.2.
[^7]: The nontrivial part is to show that ${ \int _{\delta
_1} \omega}$ does not vanish on a sufficiently small $D^*$ and that that $q$ has regular singularity at $a$. This is another corollary of the existence of the limit Hodge structure. See 2.2.
[^8]: The cycle $\delta_1$ is defined up to sign. But the trivialization of ${\cal
F}^n\otimes {\cal F}^n$ is independent of this choice.
[^9]: This is a corollary of a result of Schmid, which says that the Hodge filtration extends to Deligne’s canonical extension of the underlying vector bundle. (See also 2.1).
[^10]: i.e. locally for the etale topology $\overline{\pi}: \overline X_S \to \overline C_S$ is isomorphic to $spec\, \mathbb{Z}[t, x_1, \cdots x_n]/(x_1\cdots x_r - t) \to
spec \, \mathbb{Z}[t]$, where $r\leq n $ .
[^11]: Observe that dimension of the space of first order deformations of a Calabi-Yau n-fold Y is equal to $dim \, H^1(Y,
T_Y)= dim \, H^{n-1}(Y, \Omega ^1)$. Thus the condition (\[one\]) implies that $\pi: X_{\mathbb{C}}\to C_{\mathbb{C}}$ induces a dominant map from $C_{\mathbb{C}}$ to an irreducible component of the moduli space of Calabi-Yau threefolds. The case of a higher dimensional component in the moduli space of Calabi-Yau threefolds will be considered elsewhere (also see \[KSV\], Section 3).
[^12]: One readily sees that any power series $Y(q)\in \mathbb{C}[[q]]$ can be written in the form (\[instanton\]), with $n_d\in \mathbb{C}$. Thus the content of the theorem is the integrality property of the numbers. These are the instanton numbers the title of our paper refers to.
[^13]: By definition, this is a unique filtration such that the quotients $\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})/ W_{\cdot}\Psi_t^{an, un}(
{\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}})$ are torsion free, $N_B(W_i\Psi_t^{an, un}(
{\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}))\subset W_{i-2}\Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal
H}_{\mathbb{Z}})\otimes \mathbb{Q}$ and $N_B^i: Gr^{n+i}_W \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes \mathbb{Q}\simeq Gr^{n-i}_W \Psi_t^{an, un}( {\cal H}_{\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes \mathbb{Q} $.
[^14]: Recall that a variation of mixed Hodge structure $( {\cal W}_{\cdot} {\cal L}_{\mathbb{Z}} \subset {\cal L}_{ \mathbb{Z}}\, , \,
{\cal F}^{\cdot}{\cal L} \subset {\cal L})$ over $D^*$ is called admissible if the Hodge filtration ${\cal
F}^{\cdot}$ extends to the Deligne extension $\overline{\cal L}$ of ${\cal L}$.
[^15]: Except for the last section where we need the category of all Fontaine-Laffaille modules over a point.
[^16]: The group structure on the set of pairs $(\omega, h)$ is defined by the formula $(\omega, h)+ (\omega ', h') = (\omega +
\omega ', h+ h') $.
[^17]: The Dwork’s lemma is the following statement:
Let $\omega \in \Omega ^1 _{log }= \mathbb{Z}_p[[t]] \frac{dt}{t}$ with $Res_{0} \omega \in \mathbb{Z}$. The following two conditions are equivalent:
i)$1/p\tilde F^*\omega - \omega = dh $, for some $h\in
\mathbb{Z}_p[[t]]$
ii\) $\omega = d\,log q$, for some $q\in {\cal O}^*(D^*) $ .
[^18]: The paring ${\cal W}_0\otimes \overline{\cal F}^n \to
{\cal O}_D$ is perfect. For the projection ${\cal W}_0
\hookrightarrow \overline{\cal E} \to \overline{\cal
F}^0/\overline{\cal F}^1$ is an isomorphism.
[^19]: The Galois module $ \Lambda $ can be viewed as a discrete group scheme over $spec \, k$. Giving a homomorphism $\Lambda \longrightarrow G(\overline{k})$ of Galois modules is equivalent to giving a morphism $ \underline \Lambda
\longrightarrow \underline G$ of the étale sheaves represented by $\Lambda$ and $G$. This remark provides a construction of the category ${\cal M}_1(k)$ that is independent of the choice of an algebraic closure $\overline k$ (\[BK\]).
[^20]: We say that a triangulated functor $T: D({\cal A})\to D({\cal B})$ is t-exact if $T({\cal A})$ belongs to the essential image of ${\cal B}$ in $D({\cal B})$.
[^21]: The reader can skip this example: it will not be used in the main text below.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An accurate modeling of a Josephson junction that is embedded in an arbitrary environment is of crucial importance for qubit design. We present a formalism to obtain a Lindblad master equation that describes the evolution of the system. As the qubit degrees of freedom oscillate with a well-defined frequency $\omega_q$, the environment only has to be modeled close to this frequency. Different from alternative approaches, we show that this goal can be achieved by modeling the environment with only few degrees of freedom. We treat the example of a transmon qubit coupled to a stripline resonator. We derive the parameters of a dissipative single-mode Jaynes-Cummings model starting from first principles. We show that the leading contribution of the off-resonant modes is a correlated decay process involving both the qubit and the resonator mode. In particular, our results show that the effect of the off-resonant modes in the multi-mode Jaynes-Cummings model is perturbative in $1/\omega_q$.'
author:
- Fabian Hassler
- Jakob Stubenrauch
- Alessandro Ciani
date: January 2019
title: 'Equation of motion approach to black-box quantization: taming the multi-mode Jaynes-Cummings model'
---
Introduction
============
The theory of open quantum systems is needed to describe measurements or dissipation of a small quantum system such as a qubit. The most common approach is to use a Lindblad master equation.[@nielsen] This equation is local in time due to the fact that the density of states of the environment is considered to be featureless and the coupling weak.[@breuer] The main advantage of the Lindblad equation compared to more general approaches[@leggett:87] is that it directly describes the evolution of the reduced density matrix of the system without the need to solve for the environmental degrees of freedom. The study of systems that are coupled to more realistic (linear) environments is of immediate relevance for a better understanding of quantum systems. In this case, the dynamics of the environment is important and has to be treated appropriately.
For superconducting qubits, there has been recently a lot of interest in investigating and understanding quite general environments. If the environment is purely reactive, an equivalent circuit consists only of inductances and capacitances and can be quantized explicitly via one of the standard methods. [@devoret:96; @burkard:04; @ulrich:16; @ansari:18] More importantly, a rather general approach called *black-box quantization* has been put forward recently for circuits with weak dissipation.[@nigg:12] A related method that works for arbitrary strong dissipation that relies on results in impedance synthesis has been proposed in Refs. . Based on this method it was also shown in Ref. that, considering the multi-port setting, the parameters in the Hamiltonian can be fundamentally related to the elements of the impedance matrix. All these methods have in common that a proper quantum description of the environment involves many degrees of freedom.
These results do not follow the physical expectation that for a good qubit at most a few degrees of freedom of the environment will be relevant. The physical intuition is even in contrast to recent findings that the multi-mode Jaynes-Cummings model differs considerably from its single-mode approximation.[@malekakhlagh:16; @malekakhlagh:17; @gely:17; @parra:18] There is thus a clear need for a *general formalism* that allows to extract a few relevant degrees of freedom of the environment and treats the rest in an effective Lindbladian way.
![ ($a$) Setup of a qubit (consisting of a capacitance $C$ and a Josephson junction with critical current $I_c$) coupled to an arbitrary environment described by the admittance $Y_\omega$. In particular, we are interested in cases where the admittance is small and is almost constant close to the frequency $\omega_q$ of the qubit. ($b$) If the latter condition is not fulfilled, we go over to an equivalent description of the system where the single admittance is replaced by two admittances $\tilde Y_\omega$ and $Y_{r,\omega}$ in series, such that $Y^{-1} = \tilde Y^{-1} +Y_r^{-1}$. The idea is that $Y_r$ is the admittance of a single bosonic mode and captures the frequency dependence whereas the (remaining) admittance $\tilde Y$ has a weaker frequency dependence. []{data-label="fig:setup"}](setup){width="\linewidth"}
Here, we address this question: we present results for a superconducting qubit that is embedded in a low admittance environment. We describe a self-consistent procedure that decides if and how many modes have to be extracted from the environment in order to obtain a good approximation of the dynamics of the system. We show that due to the fact that in a qubit both the voltage and the current fluctuate with the qubit frequency, the dynamics of the environment only has to be accurately modeled close to this frequency. In particular, we discuss the case of a featureless environment and the case where there is a single relevant degree of freedom. We obtain explicit expressions of the resulting Lindblad equation as a function of the admittance of the environment. As an example, we treat a transmon qubit that is capacitively coupled to a stripline resonator. We derive the effective parameters of a dissipative Jaynes-Cummings model involving the qubit and a single resonant mode of the cavity. We show that all the off-resonant modes can be treated perturbatively. In particular, we find that the main effect of the off-resonant modes is a correlated noise involving both the resonator and the cavity.[^1] Moreover, we show that our formalism is capable of analytically describing the asymmetric line-shape of the qubit decay rate that has been found in Ref. .
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec::system\] we introduce the setup of a Josephson junction in parallel with an arbitrary admittance. Considering the problem in the Heisenberg picture, we obtain the equation of motion for the system operators. After projecting the equation of motion onto the relevant qubit subspace and within the assumption that the environment only weakly perturbs the qubit, we derive our central result, the approximate equation of motion, Eq. , satisfied by the qubit. In Sec. \[sec::adm\], we introduce the admittance of a lossy stripline resonator that serves as a concrete application for our general formalism throughout the paper. The case in which the qubit is off-resonant with all the modes of the environment (dispersive regime) is treated in Sec. \[sec:disp\]. In this case, the effect of the modes is just to cause a shift of the qubit frequency as well as a decay which are connected to the imaginary and real part of the admittance, respectively. In Sec. \[sec::resReg\], we consider the case in which the qubit is close to a resonance of one of the environmental modes. We explicitly show how the resonant mode can be split off from the environment while still taking the effect of the off-resonant modes into account. In particular, we obtain an effective Jaynes-Cummings model where all the parameters are expressed in terms of the admittance of the general environment. We confirm our results providing a comparison with numerical calculations in Sec. \[sec::numerics\]. The conclusions are finally drawn in Sec. \[sec::conclusions\].
System {#sec::system}
======
We are interested in modeling a Josephson junction coupled to an arbitrary environment. We denote the phase difference across the junction by $\varphi(t)$ which is related to the voltage by the Josephson relation $V(t) =
(\hbar/2e) \dot \varphi(t)$ with $\hbar$ the reduced Planck’s constant and $e>0$ the elementary charge. We describe the influence of the linear environment by an admittance $Y(t)$ that relates the voltage $V(t)$ to the current $I_e(t)$ through the environment via $$\label{eq:admit}
I_e(t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty Y(t-t') V(t') \,dt' = (Y \star V)(t).$$ Due to causality, its Fourier transform, given by $Y_\omega = \int e^{i\omega
t} Y(t) dt$, is analytic with no poles or zeros in the upper half plane.[@triverio:07] The real (imaginary) part of $Y_\omega$ describes the dissipation (reactance). [^2] As the environment is assumed to be linear the equation is also the correct relation between the current operator $\hat I_e$ and the voltage operator $\hat V$ in the Heisenberg picture.
Kirchhoff’s current law at the node $J$ in Fig. \[fig:setup\] demands that $$\label{eq:ccl}
\frac{\hbar C}{2 e}
\ddot {\hat\varphi}(t) + I_c \sin\hat{\varphi}(t) + \frac{\hbar}{2e} (Y \star
\dot{\hat\varphi})(t) = \hat\imath(t)$$ with $C$ ($I_c$) the capacitance (critical current) of the Josephson junction and $\hat \imath$ the noise due to the dissipative part of $Y$. Equation is Heisenberg’s equation of motion for the phase variable $\hat\varphi(t)$. The noise is characterized by the commutation relation[@zoller] $$\label{eq:comm}
[\hat\imath(t), \hat\imath(t')] = i\hbar \frac{d}{dt}
[Y(t-t')+Y(t'-t) ].$$ Assuming that the dissipative elements of the environment (E) are well-thermalized at a temperature $T$, the fluctuations are Gaussian random variables with zero mean and a variance $$\label{eq:noise}
\tfrac12
\langle \{\hat\imath^\dag_\omega, \hat\imath_{\omega'} \} \rangle_\text{E}
=
2 \pi \hbar \omega
\operatorname{Re} (Y_\omega) (2 \bar n_\omega + 1)
\delta(\omega -
\omega')
,$$ where $\{\hat A,\hat B\} = \hat A\hat B + \hat B \hat A$ denotes the anticommutator and $\bar n_\omega = (e^{\hbar \omega/k_B T} -1)^{-1}$ is the mean photon number.
Equation is valid for a Josephson junction coupled to an arbitrary linear environment. It is a true black-box equation, as the environment only enters via its admittance and the associated noise term. However, the equation is a non-linear stochastic operator equation for which there are no clear solution strategies. In the following, we will make a set of controlled assumptions in which we extract a few relevant degrees of freedom that evolve according to a Lindblad master equation. In particular, we are interested in the situation where Eq. describes the dynamics of a qubit that is weakly perturbed by the environment which is achieved in the small admittance setting. The specific requirements is given in Eq. and will be discussed below.
We first treat the environment as an open circuit ($Y=0$) and solve the equation $$\label{eq:qubit_eom}
\frac{\hbar C}{2 e}
\ddot {\hat\varphi}(t) + I_c \sin\hat{\varphi}(t) = 0;$$ note that this is the Heisenberg equation associated with the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:hq}
\hat H_q = - \frac{2 e^2}{C} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \varphi^2} -
\frac{\hbar I_c}{2e}
\cos(\varphi).$$ We assume that the dynamics only involves the two lowest eigenstates $|g,e\rangle$ at frequencies $\omega_{g,e}$.[^3] For the Hamiltonian $\hat H_q$ the two lowest eigenstates have opposite parity with respect to $\hat\varphi \mapsto -\hat\varphi$ such that the phase operator is off-diagonal in the eigenbasis. As a result, at $Y=0$, Eq. is solved by $$\label{eq:rw_ansatz}
\hat \varphi(t) =
\varphi_0
\Bigl[ e^{-i\omega_q t} \hat\sigma^-(t)
+ e^{i\omega_q t} \hat \sigma^+(t) \Bigr] .$$ for constant $\hat \sigma^\pm(t) \equiv \hat\sigma^\pm$ with $\varphi_0 =
\langle e | \hat \varphi | g\rangle$ and $\omega_q = \omega_e - \omega_g$; here and below, it will be convenient to parameterize the amplitude $\varphi_0$ of the phase fluctuation defining the characteristic impedance of the qubit $Z_q = \hbar \varphi_0^2/2 e^2$ and introduce the effective qubit capacitance $C_q = (\omega_q Z_q)^{-1}$.[^4]
At weak dissipation, we can thus employ a variant of the rotating wave approximation (RWA) in which we assume that $\hat\sigma^\pm_\eta$ contains only frequency components with $|\eta| \ll \omega_q$. For concreteness, we denote with $\bar\eta$ the typical frequency above which $\hat\sigma^\pm_\eta$ vanishes. In Appendix \[app:deri\], we show that with the ansatz the projection of onto the relevant qubit degrees of freedom leads to the equation of motion (valid for $\bar\eta \ll
\omega_q$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:imp}
-2 (\hat \sigma^z \partial_t \hat \sigma^-)_\eta
+ \omega Z_q Y_{\omega} \hat\sigma^-_\eta
&= i \sqrt{\frac{2 Z_q}\hbar } \hat \imath_\omega\end{aligned}$$ in frequency space; here, $\eta = \omega- \omega_q$ is the frequency measured with respect to the qubit frequency. In the following, we will show how Eq. can be used to analyze the influence of the environment on the qubit in a few cases. In particular, the goal is to render Eq. into an equation that is local in time and thus can be related to a Lindblad master equation.
In order that the approach taken above is valid, a few assumptions have to be made about the environment. At first, we need that $\mathop{\rm Im} Y_\omega
\to 0$ for $\omega\to 0$. This excludes the case of a shunting inductance (as in the fluxonium qubit) investigated in Ref. . Moreover, as we will see below, we need that $|Y_{\omega_q}| Z_q \ll 1$. In particular, this can be violated if there is an additional capacitance in the environment. In fact if $Z_q\mathop{\rm Im} Y_{\omega_q} \simeq 1$, we should extract a capacitance from the environment and add it to $C$ before continuing with the approach, see also below.
Single- and multi-mode approximation of a stripline resonator {#sec::adm}
=============================================================
In the previous section, we have obtained our central result Eq. , which, under RWA, is valid for a general admittance. In order to fix ideas, we connect our general formalism to a concrete physical setup of a transmon qubit that is capacitively coupled to a stripline resonator whose admittance is introduced in this section. We will find a more and more refined effective Liouvillian description in the reminder of the paper. In particular, we want to show how all the modes of the stripline resonator (forming the environment) can be naturally incorporated and that there is a perturbative procedure to go beyond the single-mode approximation. For low dissipation, the admittance of the resonator is approximately given by $$\label{eq:mm} Y_\text{mm} = -\frac{ 2i C_r \omega_0}{\pi}
\tan\left[\frac{\pi (\omega +
\tfrac{i}2 \kappa)}{\omega_0} \right]$$ with $\omega_0$ the fundamental frequency of the resonator, $\kappa$ the damping rate, and $C_r$ the characteristic capacitance of the resonator; see App. \[app:admit\]. The modes of the resonator are at $\omega_n = n
\omega_0$ with $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Including the coupling capacitance, the total impedance of the environment is given by $Y^{-1} = Y^{-1}_{c} +
Y^{-1}_\text{mm}$ with $Y_c = - i\omega C_c$. As we will see in the following, the coupling capacitance $C_c$ (assumed to be small) is proportional to the coupling rate $g$ of the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian.
If we assume that the qubit frequency is close to the frequency of mode $n_0$, i.e., $|\Delta| < \omega_0$ with the detuning $\Delta = \omega_q -
\omega_{n_0}$, we can approximate the admittance by a single mode ($\omega>0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Yr}
Y_r %&=
%i C_r\frac{\omega_r^2 -\omega^2 -i \kappa \omega } {\omega} \nonumber \\
&= - 2i C_r (\omega -\omega_r +\tfrac12 i \kappa)\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega_r = \omega_{n_0}$. This corresponds to the positive frequency response of an RLC circuit with a capacitance $C_r$, a resistance $R_r = (C_r
\kappa)^{-1}$, and an inductance $L_r = (C_r \omega_r^2)^{-1}$ in parallel. Note that close to the resonance with $\kappa , |\omega -\omega_r| \ll
\omega_0$, the single-mode approximation is a very good approximation to the total admittance. In particular, one can model the stripline as the single mode $Y_r$ in series with another admittance of value $ \tilde Y = (Y^{-1} -
Y^{-1}_r)^{-1}$. For small coupling ($C_c \ll C_r$), we find the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deviation}
\tilde Y = (Y^{-1} - Y^{-1}_r)^{-1}
&\approx Y_c + Y_c^2 (Y_r^{-1} - Y_\text{mm}^{-1}) \nonumber\\
&\approx
-i\omega C_c + \frac{ \pi^2 \omega^2 C_c^2 \kappa}{12 \omega_0^2 C_r}\end{aligned}$$ valid close to the resonance frequency; the first term describes the influence of the coupling capacitance whereas the second term captures the leading contribution of the influence of *all* the modes that are off-resonant. Its effect is dissipative and will lead to the decay constant $\gamma$ in the Jaynes-Cummings model.
Dispersive regime {#sec:disp}
=================
Having set the stage by presenting the central result as well as our concrete physical application, we will show how to derive a Lindblad master equation for the case when the qubit is detuned from all the resonances of the environment, i.e., we treat the case of a general though off-resonant environment. In this case, we can assume that the admittance is constant over the relevant frequency range $[\omega_q -\bar\eta, \omega_q + \bar\eta ]$. As a result (provided that $\bar\eta \ll \omega_q$), Eq. becomes local in time and assumes the simple form $$\label{eq:disp}
\partial_t \hat \sigma^-(t)
+ \tfrac12 \omega_q Z_q Y_{\omega_q} \hat\sigma^-(t)
= \sqrt{\omega_q Z_q
\operatorname{Re}(Y_{\omega_q}) } \, \hat \sigma^z(t)\hat b(t)$$ of a quantum Stratonovich stochastic differential equation;[^5] here, we have introduced a new operator $\hat b(t)$ via $$\hat \imath(t) = i \sqrt{2\hbar \omega_q
\operatorname{Re}(Y_{\omega_q}) } e^{-i \omega_q t}
\hat b(t)$$ The operator $\hat b(t)$ is a quantum white noise with $[\hat b(t), \hat b^\dag(t')] =\delta(t-t')$, $[\hat b(t), \hat
b(t')] =0$, $$\langle \{\hat b(t), \hat b^\dag(t')\} \rangle_\text{E} = (2 \bar
n + 1)
\delta(t-t') ,$$ and $\langle \{\hat b(t), \hat b(t')\} \rangle_\text{E} = 0$ with $\bar n = \bar
n_{\omega_q}$.
By inspecting the left hand side of Eq. , we immediately observe that the environment leads to a frequency shift (also called Lamb-shift) $$\delta \omega_q = \tfrac12 \omega_q Z_q \operatorname{Im}(Y_{\omega_q})$$ and a decay rate (also called Purcell rate) $$\gamma = \omega_q Z_q \operatorname{Re}(Y_{\omega_q});$$ see also Ref. . As the equation of motion (including the noise) is local in time, it is equivalent to the Lindblad equation[^6] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:linblad_disp}
\dot \rho = - \frac{i}{2} \delta\omega_q [\hat \sigma_z, \rho] +
\gamma (\bar n + 1)
\mathcal{D}[\hat \sigma^-](\rho) \\
+ \gamma \bar n
\mathcal{D}[\hat \sigma^+](\rho) \end{gathered}$$ for the density matrix of the qubit; here, we have introduced the superoperator $\mathcal{D}[\hat J](\rho) = \hat J \rho \hat J^\dag - \tfrac12
\{\hat J^\dag \hat J, \rho\}$ corresponding to the jump operator $\hat J$. Now, we can formulate (self-consistently) when the dispersive approximation is applicable. Indeed, we have that $\bar \eta \approx \max\{ |\delta \omega_q|
,\gamma\}$. As a result, the approach is valid as long as the admittance does not change appreciably on the scale $\bar \eta$; i.e., Eq. is valid as long as the self-consistency equation $$\label{eq:cond_disp}
\frac{d Y_{\omega_q}}{d \omega } \, \max\{ |\delta \omega_q|
,\gamma\} \ll Y_{\omega_q}$$ is fulfilled.
For the concrete example of stripline resonator, introduced in Sec. \[sec::adm\], we can use the expansion $$\label{eq:disp_imp}
Y = Y_{c} - \frac{Y_c^2}{Y_\text{mm}}$$ valid for weak coupling with $|Y_c/Y_\text{mm} | \approx C_c/C_r \ll 1$. The first term in corresponds to a capacitance in *parallel* to the junction capacitance. Its effect can be taken (exactly) into account by replacing $C_q \mapsto C_q + C_c$.[^7] The nontrivial effects of the environment solely arise from the second term. The admittance changes on the scale $\Delta$ such that for self-consistency, we have to require that $ |\delta \omega_q| ,\gamma \ll
|\Delta|$. For the stripline resonator, we obtain the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:disp_res}
\delta \omega_q = \frac{\pi g^2 \sin(2\pi \Delta/\omega_0)}{\omega_0
[\cosh(\pi \kappa/\omega_0)-
\cos(2\pi \Delta/\omega_0)] } ,\\\label{eq:disp_res_g}
\gamma = \frac{2 \pi g^2 \sinh(\pi \kappa/\omega_0)}{\omega_0
[\cosh(\pi \kappa/\omega_0)-
\cos(2\pi \Delta/\omega_0)] }; \end{aligned}$$ here, we have introduced the coupling rate $$\label{eq:g}
g = \frac{C_c}{2\sqrt{C_q C_r}} \omega_q$$ which will later be shown to be the coupling constant of the Jaynes-Cummings model. Note that we have consciously defined the coupling rate different from the more common choice, with $\omega_q$ replaced by the symmetric expression $\sqrt{\omega_r \omega_q}$. The reason is twofold. First, we consider an initial situation where the qubit is excited while the resonator is still in its equilibrium state. Due to this, it is more natural to evaluate the environment at the qubit frequency. Second, due to this definition, the simple expressions in and are valid all the way up to order $(\Delta,\kappa)^4/\omega_0^4$ which is not true for the alternative definition.
In the expressions and still all the modes of the stripline resonator have been included. The only assumptions so far are weak coupling ($C_c \ll C_r$), small shifts ($ |\delta \omega_q|,
\gamma \ll |\Delta|$), and weak damping ($\kappa \ll \omega_0$). For the case of small detuning ($\Delta \ll \omega_0$), the expressions and can be further simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:disp_res_appr}
\delta \omega_q &= \frac{g^2 \Delta}{\Delta^2 + (\kappa/2)^2} - \frac{\pi^2
g^2 \Delta}{3 \omega_0^2} ,
\\\label{eq:purcell}
\gamma &= \frac{g^2 \kappa}{\Delta^2 + (\kappa/2)^2} + \frac{\pi^2 g^2 \kappa}{3 \omega_0^2} \end{aligned}$$ with a correction term only appearing in order $1/\omega_0^4$. Note that the single-mode approximation corresponds to the first terms and the effect of all the other modes is captured perturbatively by the second term. The present approach gives a perturbative expansion in the small parameters and avoids the rediagonalization of the complete system as in Ref. . In this expansion, the conventional single-mode approximation corresponds to the first term,[@blais:04] with all the remaining modes contributing to a small correction of order $\omega_0^{-2}$.
Resonant regime {#sec::resReg}
===============
In the previous section, we have treated the simplest case of a dispersive qubit-environment coupling. In this case, the admittance does not vary too much close to the qubit frequency and we can simply replace it by a constant. A more elaborate analysis is necessary in the case where the shift is so large that the admittance cannot be assumed to be constant and Eq. is violated. In particular, in the case of a small admittance, this can only happen when there is a root of the admittance (in the complex plane at $\omega_*$) close to the frequency of the qubit. Let us parameterize the root in question by $\omega_*= \omega_r - i \kappa/2$ and introduce the characteristic capacitance $C_r= \frac{i}2
(dY/d\omega)_{\omega=\omega_*}$.[^8] The admittance close to the qubit frequency is then well approximated by a single mode $Y_r$. We assume that the remaining admittance $\tilde Y = (Y^{-1} -Y^{-1}_r)^{-1}$ does not change appreciably over the range $\bar \eta$, i.e., that is satisfied for $\tilde Y$ (even though it does not hold for $Y$ itself). Otherwise, the process of extracting a mode can be repeated until this assumption is fulfilled.
The resonant mode corresponds to an RLC circuit. We associate with this circuit a bosonic mode $\hat a$. Moreover, we extend the equation of motion to incorporate this mode. In particular, we have the equations of motion (for the nodes $J$ and $R$ in Fig. \[fig:setup\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:imp_r}
&- 2 (\hat
\sigma^z \partial_t \hat \sigma^-)_\eta + \omega Z_q \tilde Y_\omega \biggl(\hat
\sigma^-_\eta - \sqrt{\frac{C_q}{C_r}}\,
\hat a_\eta\biggr) = i \sqrt{\frac{2 Z_q}{\hbar}}\,
\hat{\tilde \imath}_\omega\;, \\
&-2i C_r (\eta+\Delta+\tfrac{i}2 \kappa) \hat a_\eta + \tilde Y_\omega
\biggl(\hat a_\eta - \sqrt{\frac{C_r}{C_q}} \,\hat
\sigma^-_\eta\biggr)\nonumber\\\label{eq:imp_r2}
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
= i \sqrt{\frac{2 C_r}{\hbar \omega_q}} ( \hat{
\imath}_{r,\omega} - \hat{\tilde
\imath}_\omega )\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\tilde\imath}$ ($\hat{\imath}_r$) corresponds to the noise due to $\operatorname{Re}\tilde Y$ ($\operatorname{Re} Y_r$). It can be checked by a straightforward calculation that solving for $\hat a_\eta$ and inserting the resulting expression into that is recovered, see App. \[app:int\_out\]. The advantage of the new representation is that the frequency dependence of $\tilde Y$ around the qubit frequency is milder than the one of $Y$. In particular, provided that $\tilde Y$ does not change appreciably on the scale $\bar\eta$, we can replace $\omega$ by $\omega_q$ and arrive at the system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sys_eq_loc}
\partial_t \hat \sigma^- (t) + \frac{\tilde Y_{\omega_q}}{2 C_q}
&\biggl[\hat
\sigma^-(t) + \sqrt{\frac{C_q}{C_r}} \hat \sigma^z(t) \hat a(t)\biggl] \nonumber\\
&= \sqrt{C_q^{-1} \operatorname{Re} \tilde
Y_{\omega_q}} \,
\hat\sigma^z(t) \hat{\tilde b}(t) ,
\\\label{eq:sys_eq_loc2}
(\partial_t- i \Delta + \tfrac{1}2 \kappa) \hat a(t) &+\frac{ \tilde
Y_{\omega_q}}{2 C_r}
\biggl[\hat a(t) - \sqrt{\frac{C_r}{C}} \hat \sigma^-(t)\biggr]\nonumber\\
& =
\sqrt{C_r^{-1} \operatorname{Re} \tilde
Y_{\omega_q}} \,
\hat{\tilde b}(t) - \sqrt{\kappa} \,\hat
b_r(t) \end{aligned}$$ that are local in time.
The coherent evolution is generated by the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian $$\hat H_\text{JC} = \tfrac12 \delta \omega_q \hat \sigma_z +
(\delta \omega_r- \Delta) \hat a^\dag \hat a + g (\hat\sigma^+ \hat a + \hat a^\dag
\hat \sigma^-),$$ with the parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \omega_q = \frac{\operatorname{Im}(\tilde Y_{\omega_q})}{2 C_q}, \;
\delta \omega_r = \frac{\operatorname{Im}(\tilde Y_{\omega_q})}{2 C_r}, \;
g = -\frac{\operatorname{Im}(\tilde Y_{\omega_q})}{2 \sqrt{C_q C_r}},\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to the frequency shift of the qubit, the frequency shift of the resonator, and the coherent coupling rate. Transforming the quantum Stratonovich stochastic differential equations and to an equivalent Lindblad equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lind_jc}
\dot \rho = - i [\hat H_\text{JC}, \rho] &+ \kappa (\bar n + 1)
\mathcal{D}[\hat a](\rho) + \kappa \bar n
\mathcal{D}[\hat a^\dag ](\rho) \nonumber\\& + \gamma (\bar n + 1)
\mathcal{D}\Bigl[\hat \sigma^- - \sqrt{\frac{C_q}{C_r}}\hat a\Bigr](\rho)
\nonumber\\
&+ \gamma \bar n
\mathcal{D}\Bigl[\hat \sigma^+ - \sqrt{\frac{C_q}{C_r}}\hat a^\dag\Bigr](\rho) \end{aligned}$$ with the decay rate $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma&= \frac{\operatorname{Re}(\tilde Y_{\omega_q})}{C_q}. \end{aligned}$$ This rate corresponds to a correlated decay process involving both the qubit as well as the oscillator. The master equation is valid as long as the self-consistency equation is fulfilled where $Y$ is replaced by $\tilde Y$.
The Eq. is the master equation of a Josephson junction coupled to a general environment. For the concrete example of a stripline resonator, we can use the expression when the qubit is brought close to the $n_0$-th resonance of the resonator at the frequency $\omega_r$. In this case, the parameters of the Jaynes-Cummings model assume the form $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \omega_q &= - \frac{C_c \omega_q}{2 C_q}, & \delta \omega_r&= -
\frac{C_c \omega_q}{2 C_r}, & g&=
\frac{C_c \omega_q}{2 \sqrt{C_q C_r}}.\end{aligned}$$ The qubit frequency shift and the coherent coupling corresponds to the first term expansion in $C_c$ of the results presented in Sec. \[sec:disp\]. The leading contribution of the off-resonant modes is given by the correlated decay with a rate $$\gamma = \frac{\pi^2 g^2 \kappa}{3\omega_0^2};$$ this is the leading effect of the off-resonant modes in the multi-mode resonator cf. Eq. ; to the best of our knowledge, the correlated decay has never been discussed before in the literature.
Comparison to numerics {#sec::numerics}
======================
In this section, we would like to compare the results of Sec. \[sec:disp\] to the numerical approaches of Refs. . The numerical approaches are designed to work in the transmon regime with $I_c
\gg e^3/\hbar C$. In this regime, the Josephson junction acts as an inductance $L_J = 2e/\hbar I_c$ as we can use the approximate equality $I_c \sin \phi
\approx I_c \phi$ in Eq. . With this, the total system becomes linear and thus several solution strategies are available.
The *admittance approach* of Ref. , directly solves for the eigenmodes of the complete system by seeking the roots of the total admittance $$Y_C + Y_J + Y = 0$$ as a function of $\omega$; here, $Y_C = -i \omega C$ and $Y_L =(-i \omega
L_J)^{-1}$ are the admittances of the capacitance and the linearized Josephson junction respectively. The approach works for reactive as well as for dissipative environments. For each solution $\omega_*$, the real part denotes the frequency and the imaginary part the decay rate. As long as the admittance of the environment is small, there is a solution close to the bare qubit frequency which is plotted in Fig. \[fig:purcell\]. This approach is in principle very close to our presentation in Sec. \[sec:disp\]. However, crucially our approach works also outside the transmon regime where the total system is not approximately harmonic. In Fig. \[fig:purcell\], it can be seen that the analytical results Eqs. and describe the behavior rather well. In particular, the simple expression captures the asymmetry of the decay rate due to the higher modes that has been observed in Ref. .
![ Dimensionless relaxation time $\omega_0/\gamma^{-1}$ of a qubit due to the multi-mode environment with $C_c/C_r=0.02$, $C_c/C=0.02$, and $\kappa/\omega_0=0.2$ as a function of the qubit frequency $\omega_q$. The solid line is the numerics given by the *admittance approach* of Ref. . The plot shows $\gamma=
-2\operatorname{Im}(\omega_*)$. The dashed line is the result of Eq. . The dash-dotted line is the approximate expression with $\omega_r = 2 \omega_0$. The dotted line is the single-mode approximation (first term of ). It can be seen that the analytical formulas describe the decay rate rather well. In particular reproduces the asymmetry in the decay rate that has been observed in Ref. . []{data-label="fig:purcell"}](decay_roots)
The *rediagonalization approach* of Ref. on the other hand, concentrates on reactive environments. It proceeds by finding new eigenmodes of the stripline resonator (=environment) once they are coupled to the qubit. For completeness, we show the procedure in App. \[app:rediag\]. The result are a set of frequencies $\nu_n$ and coupling constants $g_n$ which allow for treating the system as a multi-mode Jaynes-Cummings model. Note that we do not have $\nu_n = n\omega_0$ anymore. The Lamb shift then gets a contribution of all the eigenmodes which act independently. In particular, we find $$\label{eq:all_modes}
\delta \omega_q = \sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{g_n^2}{\Delta_n(1-\Delta_n/2\omega_q)}$$ with $\Delta_n = \omega_q - \nu_n$. In Fig. \[fig:lamb\_shift\], we show that there is an (approximate) sum rule associated with the new eigenmodes. In particular, the contribution of all the modes (Eq. ) approximately gives the result $g^2/\Delta$ of the bare single mode Jaynes-Cummings model. Moreover, we find that the contribution of the remaining modes is well captured by the second term in Eq. .
![ Lamb shift: The parameters are chosen as in Fig. \[fig:purcell\] with $\kappa =0$. The solid line shows the numerical result of the *rediagonlization approach* of Ref. , i.e., Eq. . Note that our analytical results, Eq. (dashed line) and Eq. (dash-dotted line), reproduce the numerical results rather well. Even the single-mode approximation, first term (dotted line), is valid close to the resonance which indicates that Eq. is approximately given by the naïve result $g^2/\Delta$. []{data-label="fig:lamb_shift"}](shift_jc)
Conclusion {#sec::conclusions}
==========
In conclusion, we have presented a general approach to derive an effective Lindblad equation for a superconducting qubit embedded in an arbitrary linear environment with a small admittance. The approach yields an effective model where the qubit is coupled to a few harmonic degrees of freedom of the environment. For the case of a single relevant environmental mode, we have given explicit expressions of the model parameters (coupling constant, decay rates, jump operators) as a function of the admittance. In particular, we have found that the single-mode Jaynes-Cummings model is the leading term in the description of a superconducting qubit that is coupled to a multi-mode resonator. The main effect of the off-resonant modes is a novel, correlated decay that involves both the resonator and the qubit degrees of freedom. In particular, our results show that the multi-mode Jaynes-Cummings model does not only have a cutoff free description but that the correction of the off-resonant modes can be obtained analytically in a perturbative expansion in $1/\omega_0 \simeq 1/\omega_q$. It is an interesting idea for further studies to extend our results to the case of a fluxonium qubit. In this case, the environment has a large admittance with $Z_q |Y_\omega| \gg 1$ such that an perturbative approach using the impedance $Z_\omega=1/Y_\omega$ instead of the admittance seems to be the appropriate as a starting point.
FH and AC acknowledge financial support from the Excellence Initiative of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Derivation of Eq. {#app:deri}
==================
In this Appendix, we give a more rigorous derivation of Eq. using the formalism developed in Chap. 3 of Ref. . We start by considering the Hamiltonian of a transmon coupled linearly to a linear environment that without loss of generality can be assumed to be a collection of harmonic oscillators. The Hamiltonian of the total system can be taken as $$\label{eq:HGZ}
\hat H= \hat H_{q}(\hat Q, \hat \Phi)+ \tfrac{1}{2} \sum_n \Bigl[(\hat
p_n-\kappa_n \hat \Phi)^2 +\omega_n^2 \hat q_n^2 \Bigr],$$ with the system (qubit) Hamiltonian $$\hat H_{q}= \frac{\hat Q^2}{2 C} -E_J \cos \biggl(\frac{2
\pi}{\Phi_0} \hat \Phi \biggr);$$ note that this definition is equivalent to Eq. with $\hat
\varphi=2 \pi \hat \Phi/\Phi_0$, $\Phi_0=h/2e$, and $I_c= 2\pi E_J/\Phi_0$. We further impose the following commutation relations for the bath
$$[\hat p_n, \hat p_m]=[\hat q_n, \hat q_m]=0,$$
$$[\hat q_n, \hat p_m]= i \hbar \delta_{nm},$$
and for the system $$[\hat \Phi, \hat Q]=i \hbar,$$ while any system operators commutes with any bath operator. These commutation relations will hold true between operators in the Heisenberg picture at the same time. Following Ref. , we can show that from the Hamiltonian Eq. , our Eq. follows, with the admittance in the time domain identified as $$Y(t)= \begin{cases}
0, \quad t<0, \\
\sum_n \kappa_n^2 \cos(\omega_n t), \quad t \ge 0,
\end{cases}$$ which is manifestly causal, and the noise current term $$\hat \imath(t)= i \sum_n \kappa_n \sqrt{\frac{\hbar \omega_n}{2}}
\hat a_n^{\dagger}(t_0)+\text{H.c.}$$ with the annihilation operator of the $n$-th harmonic oscillator $\hat a_n=(\omega_n \hat q_n+i \hat p_n)/\sqrt{2 \hbar \omega_n}$ and $\hat a_n^{\dagger}$ its Hermitian conjugate.
After these identifications we perform the two level approximation by projecting the system Hamiltonian and the operator $\Phi$ onto the first two levels. This leads to the following substitutions $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H_{q}(\hat \Phi, \hat Q) &\mapsto \tfrac12 \hbar \omega_q
\hat \sigma^z,&
\hat \Phi &\mapsto \sqrt{\tfrac12 \hbar Z_q} \;\hat \sigma^x.\end{aligned}$$ in the Hamiltonian Eq. . We then obtain the spin-boson Hamiltonian[@leppakangas:18] $$\label{eq:HGZQ}
\hat H= \tfrac12 \hbar \omega_q \hat \sigma^z + \tfrac{1}{2} \sum_n (
\hat p_n^2+\omega_n^2 \hat q_n^2 )-\sqrt{\frac{\hbar Z_q}{2} } \hat \sigma^x
\sum_{n}\kappa_n \hat p_n,$$ where we have neglected constant terms. The Heisenberg equation of motion for a generic qubit operator $\hat A_q$ under the Hamiltonian Eq. reads $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:sysOpEOM}
\frac{d \hat A_q(t)}{dt}=\tfrac{i}2 \omega_q [\hat \sigma^z(t), \hat A_q (t)]\\
-i\sqrt{\frac{ Z_q}{2 \hbar}}[\hat \sigma^x(t),
\hat A_q (t)]\sum_n \kappa_n \hat p_n(t),\end{gathered}$$ where we have used the fact that the operator $\sum_n \kappa_n \hat p_n(t)$ commutes with any system operator at the same time. Following Ref. , we also obtain $$\sum_n \kappa_n \hat p_n(t)= \hat \imath (t)
-\sqrt{\frac{\hbar Z_q}{2}} \int_{t_0}^t \!\!dt'\frac{d Y(t-t')}{d t'}
\hat \sigma^x(t');$$ in what follows, we will neglect the transient behavior and let $t_0 \to
-\infty$. We want to obtain the Heisenberg equation of motion for the operator $\hat \sigma^-(t)$. From Eq. , we readily obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_t \hat\sigma^-(t) +i \omega_q \hat \sigma^-(t)-\tfrac{i}2 Z_q
\sigma^z(t)\int \!dt' \frac{d Y(t-t')}{d t'} \hat \sigma^x(t')\\
=
-i \sqrt{\frac{Z_q}{2 \hbar}} \hat \sigma^z(t) \hat \imath(t).\end{gathered}$$ Going over to a rotating frame with $\hat \sigma^- \mapsto \hat \sigma^- e^{-i
\omega_q t}$, like in Eq. , yields $$\begin{gathered}
e^{-i \omega_q t}\hat \sigma^z (t)\partial_t \hat\sigma^-(t) - \tfrac{i}2
Z_q\int \! dt' \frac{d Y(t-t')}{d t'}\\
\times[e^{-i \omega_q t'}
\hat \sigma^-(t')
+\text{H.c.}] = -i \sqrt{\frac{Z_q}{2 \hbar}} \hat
\imath(t).\end{gathered}$$ Taking the Fourier transform, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
-(\hat \sigma^z \partial_t \hat\sigma^-)_{\eta}\!+\!\tfrac12 \omega Z_q
Y_{\omega}\bigl(\hat \sigma_\eta^- + \hat\sigma_{\omega+\omega_q}^+ \bigr)\!=\!i
\sqrt{\frac{Z_q}{2 \hbar}} \hat \imath_{\omega},\end{gathered}$$ Now neglecting the term proportional to $\hat\sigma_{\omega+\omega_q}^+ $ consistently with the approximation described in the text we finally obtain Eq. .
The result of the Appendix can be summarized as follows: in the two-level approximation, the current $\hat I_q =\hbar C \ddot{\hat \varphi}/2e + I_c
\sin\hat\varphi$ that is flowing through the qubit assumes the form $$\hat I_q(t) = i \sqrt{\frac{2 \hbar}{Z_q}} \;\hat \sigma^z(t) \partial_t \hat
\sigma^-(t) + \text{H.c.}$$ with $\sigma^-$ in the rotating frame. This result can be used in the equation of motion to project it onto the qubit subspace.
Admittance of a multi-mode stripline resonator {#app:admit}
==============================================
The admittance of a transmission line or stripline which is shunted by a load with admittance $Y_L$ is given by[@pozar] $$\label{eq:full_admittance}
Y_\text{tl}=Z_0^{-1} \frac{Z_0 Y_L-i \tan(\pi
\omega/\omega_0)}{1-i Z_0 Y_L \tan(\pi \omega/\omega_0)}$$ with $Z_0$ the characteristic impedance of the transmission line and $\omega_0$ the fundamental frequency. We are interested in the situation where the transmission line forms a good (multi-mode) resonator. In this case, we have that $|Y_L| Z_0 \ll 1$ and we can use the expansion $$\label{eq:full_admittance2}
Y_\text{tl}=-i Z_0^{-1} \tan(\pi
\omega/\omega_0) + Y_L$$ where we have made use of the fact that the second term is only relevant when $\tan(\pi \omega/\omega_0) \ll 1$. We also can use the alternative expression $Y_\text{tl}=-i Z_0^{-1} \tan[\pi
( \omega + i \kappa_\omega/2)/\omega_0]$ with $$\label{eq:kappao}
\kappa_\omega = \frac{2 \omega_0 Z_0
Y_L}{\pi}$$ valid to the same order. Here, we have made explicit that in principle $\kappa_\omega$ depends on frequency via $Y_L$. However, as it is only important to accurately describe the admittance close to qubit frequency, we can approximately set $\omega = \omega_q$ in Eq. . For concreteness, we require $C_L \omega_q R \gg 1$ in order to obtain Eq. with $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa = \frac{2 \omega_0 Z_0}{\pi R} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
C_r = \frac{\pi}{2 \omega_0 Z_0}.\end{aligned}$$ For typical experiments, this regime is not obtained. As a result the decay rate of the modes depends on the modenumber [@houck:08]. Our approach also works in this regime, however the results are not so nice as the admittance is not given by but rather $\kappa$ becomes frequency dependent.
Integrating out the resonator {#app:int_out}
=============================
In this appendix, we would like to show that the equations and are equivalent to after the resonator mode $\hat a_\eta$ has been integrated out and thus the node $R$ eliminated. Solving for $\hat a_\eta$ yields $$\hat a_\eta = \frac{\tilde Y_\omega \sqrt{\frac{C_r}{C}}\, \hat \sigma^-_\eta +i \sqrt{\frac{2
C_r}{\hbar \omega_q}}( \hat{
\imath}_{r,\omega} - \hat{\tilde
\imath}_\omega ) }{Y_{r,\omega} + \tilde Y_{\omega}} .$$ Plugging this expression into , we obtain with $Y^{-1} = Y_{r}^{-1} + \tilde Y^{-1}$ and $$\hat{\imath}_\omega = \frac{\tilde Y_\omega \hat
\imath_{r,\omega} + Y_{r,\omega}
\hat{\tilde \imath}}{Y_{r,\omega} + \tilde Y_{\omega}}.$$ Due to the relation $$\operatorname{Re}(Y_\omega) = \frac{|\tilde Y_\omega|^2
\operatorname{Re}(Y_{r,\omega} ) + |\tilde Y_{r,\omega}|^2
\operatorname{Re}(\tilde Y_{\omega} ) }{|Y_{r,\omega} + \tilde Y_{\omega}|^2}.$$ and the fact that $ \hat \imath_{r,\omega}$ and $\hat{\tilde \imath}$ are distributed according to Eqs. and with $Y$ replaced by $Y_r$ and $\tilde Y_{\omega}$, it can be shown that $\hat\imath$ has the correct commutation relation and expectation value.
Rediagonalization approach {#app:rediag}
==========================
In this section, we present the rediagonalization approach of Ref. for the stripline resonator. However, for convenience, we diagonalize the system already on the Lagrangian level and not on the Hamiltonian as in Ref. .
The Lagrangian of the qubit coupled to a stripline resonator (with $\kappa=0$) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:jc-lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}&=\frac{C+C_c}{2} \dot{\varphi}^2+ \frac{\hbar I_c}{2e}
\cos(\varphi)-C_c\dot{\varphi}\sum_{\mu=0}^\infty
\dot{\phi}_\mu + \mathcal{L}_r, \\
\mathcal{L}_r&= C_r \dot \phi_0^2+\sum_{\mu=1}^\infty
\left( \frac{C_r \dot{\phi}_\mu^2}{2} -\frac{\phi_\mu^2}{2
L_\mu}\right)+\frac{C_c}{2}\left(\sum_{\mu=0}^\infty\dot{\phi}_\mu\right)^2\,,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $L_\mu =(\mu^2 C_r \omega_0^2)^{-1}$ for $\mu\in\mathbb{N}$. That this is the correct description of the environment, can be seen by the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{-1}_\text{mm} &=
\frac{\pi i}{2 C_r \omega_0} \cot(\pi\omega/\omega_0) \nonumber\\
&= (- i C_r \omega)^{-1} \left[\frac12 + \sum_{\mu=1}^\infty \left(1-
\frac{\mu^2 \omega_0^2}{\omega^2}\right)^{-1} \right]\end{aligned}$$ which in circuit terms corresponds to a capacitance in series with an infinite ladder of LC-resonators.
The method proceeds by finding the eigenmodes of the resonator Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_r$ including the coupling capacitance $C_c$. In particular, we would like to find eigensolutions to the Euler-Langrange equations $$\begin{aligned}
(C_r + C_c) \ddot\phi_\mu + L_\mu^{-1} \phi_\mu + C_c \sum_{\lambda\neq
\mu} \ddot \phi_\lambda =0\end{aligned}$$ with $\phi_\mu(t) = e^{-i \nu t} v_\mu$. This corresponds to the generalized eigenvalues problem $ A\bm v = \nu^2 B \bm v$ where $A$ is diagonal with $A_{\mu\lambda} = L_\mu^{-1} \delta_{\mu\lambda}$ and $B_{\mu\lambda} = C_r
\delta_{\mu\lambda} + C_c + C_r \delta_{\mu0}\delta_{\lambda0}$.
From the general theory of symmetric generalized eigenvalue problems with positive definite matrices, it is known that the eigenvalues $\nu_n^2$ are positive (thus we can choose $\nu_n\geq 0$) and that the eigenvectors can be normalized such that $${\bm v}_n \cdot B {\bm v}_m = C_r \delta_{nm}$$ Thus, introducing the new modes $\psi_n(t)$ with $$\bm \phi(t) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \psi_n(t) \bm v_n$$ the Lagrangian assumes the diagonal form $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{C+ C_c}2 \dot \varphi^2 + \frac{\hbar I_c}{2e}
\cos(\varphi) - \dot \varphi \sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n \dot\psi_n \\
+ \frac{C_r}2 \sum_{n=0}^\infty (\dot \psi_n^2 - \nu_n^2 \psi_n^2)\end{gathered}$$ with the coupling capacitance $$C_n = C_c \sum_{\mu=0}^\infty (\bm v_n)_\mu$$ to the $n$-eigenmode.
In order to define coupling strength $g_n$, the authors of Ref. propose to treat the case of a qubit in the transmon regime. In this case, the Josephson junction effectively acts as an inductance. The coupling strength to the $n$-th mode can be identified with $$g_n = \frac{ C_n \omega_q }{2\sqrt{(C+C_c) C_r}} ,$$ see Eq. . Note that crucially, the strength now depends on $n$ as $C_n$ is not simply $C_c$. The equations of motion are given by $$\begin{aligned}
(C+C_c) (\ddot \varphi + \omega_q^2 \varphi) &= \sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n
\ddot\psi_n, \label{eq:qu_eq}\\
C_r ( \ddot \psi_n + \nu_n^2 \psi_n) &= C_n\ddot \varphi.\end{aligned}$$ Going over to frequency space and solving for the mode $\psi_{n}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi_sol}
\psi_{n,\omega} = \frac{C_n \omega^2 \varphi_\omega}{C_r(\omega^2-\nu_n^2
)}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ The qubit equation Eq. involves only frequencies close to the qubit frequency. Assuming that all the frequencies $\nu_n$ are sufficiently detuned from the qubit frequency $\omega_q$, we can replace $\omega\mapsto
\omega_q$ in Eq. . Plugging this into the Eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \ddot \varphi +\omega_q^2 \left(1 + \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{4
g^2_n}{\omega_q^2-\nu_n^2}
\right)
\varphi \nonumber\\
&\approx \ddot \varphi + \left(\omega_q + \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{2
\omega_q g^2_n}{\omega_q^2-\nu_n^2}
\right)^2
\varphi ,\end{aligned}$$ i.e, the shift due to the different modes is independent as announced by Ref. .
Numerically, the procedure is as follows. The number of modes in Eq. is made finite with $\mu \leq N$. Then the generalized eigenvalue problem is solved on a computer. The eigenenergies $\nu_n$ as well as the coupling constants $g_n$ are calculated. As the different eigenmodes act independently, the Lamb shift is approximately given by the sum of the Lamb shifts of the individual modes, i.e., $$\delta \omega_q = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{2 \omega_q g_n^2 }{\omega_q^2 -
\nu_n^2} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{g_n^2}{\Delta_n(1-\Delta_n/2\omega_q)}$$ with $\Delta_n = \omega_q -\nu_n$. Note that due to the fact that some of the modes are highly detuned, we could not use the approximation $$\frac{2 \omega_q} {\omega_q^2 - \nu_n^2} = \frac{1}{\Delta_n}$$ that is commonly used in the dispersive regime with $\Delta_n \ll \omega_q$.
[10]{}
M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, [*The Theory of Open Quantum Systems*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007).
A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Dynamics of the dissipative two-states system, [ Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, 1 (1987)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.59.1).
M. H. Devoret, Quantum fluctuations in electrical circuits, in [*Les Houches Session LXIII*]{}, edited by S. Reynaud, E. Giacobino, and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996).
G. Burkard, R. H. Koch, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Multi-level quantum description of decoherence in superconducting qubits, [ Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 064503 (2004)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.064503).
J. Ulrich and F. Hassler, Dual approach to circuit quantization using loop charges, [ Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 094505 (2016)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.094505).
M. H. [Ansari]{}, [Exact quantization of superconducting circuits]{}, arxiv:1807.00792 (2018).
S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, M. Devoret, R. Schoelkopf, and S. Girvin, Black-box superconducting circuit quantization, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 240502 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240502).
F. Solgun, D. W. Abraham, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Blackbox quantization of superconducting circuits using exact impedance synthesis, [ Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 134504 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.134504).
F. Solgun and D. P. DiVincenzo, Multiport impedance quantization, [ Ann. Phys. (NY) [**361**]{}, 605 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2015.07.005).
F. Solgun, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. M. Gambetta, Simple impedance response formulas for the dispersive interaction rates in the effective hamiltonians of low anharmonicity superconducting qubits, arXiv:1712.08154 (2017).
M. Malekakhlagh and H. E. T[ü]{}reci, Origin and implications of an ${A}^{2}$-like contribution in the quantization of circuit-[QED]{} systems, [ Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 012120 (2016)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012120).
M. Malekakhlagh, A. Petrescu, and H. E. T[ü]{}reci, Cutoff-free circuit quantum electrodynamics, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{}, 073601 (2017)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.073601).
M. F. Gely, A. Parra-Rodriguez, D. Bothner, Y. M. Blanter, S. J. Bosman, E. Solano, and G. A. Steele, Convergence of the multimode quantum Rabi model of circuit quantum electrodynamics, [ Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 245115 (2017)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.245115).
A. Parra-Rodriguez, E. Rico, E. Solano, and I. Egusquiza, Quantum networks in divergence-free circuit [QED]{}, [ Quantum Sci. Technol. [**3**]{}, 024012 (2018)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/aab1ba).
We refer to the term proportional to $\gamma $ in Eq. . It is interesting that the leading effect of the off-resonant modes is dissipative, see Eq. .
A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Controlling the spontaneous emission of a superconducting transmon qubit, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 080502 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.080502).
P. Triverio, S. Grivet-Talocia, M. S. Nakhla, F. G. Canavero, and R. Achar, Stability, causality, and passivity in electrical interconnect models, [ IEEE Trans. Adv. Packag. [**30**]{}, 795 (2007)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TADVP.2007.901567).
Note the different convention with respect to the electrical engineering literature. In particular, the admittance of a capacitance is given by $Y_\omega = -i \omega C$.
C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, [*Quantum Noise*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000).
Of course, we have that $\hat H_q |g,e \rangle = \hbar \omega _{g,e}
|g,e \rangle $.
Note that in the transmon limit the qubit capacitance $C_q$ coincides with the geometric capacitance $C$.
J. Koch, V. Manucharyan, M. H. Devoret, and L. I. Glazman, Charging effects in the inductively shunted josephson junction, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 217004 (2009)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.217004).
W. C. Smith, A. Kou, U. Vool, I. M. Pop, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Quantization of inductively shunted superconducting circuits, [ Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 144507 (2016)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.144507).
See Sec. 3.4.5 of Ref. .
D. Esteve, M. H. Devoret, and J. M. Martinis, Effect of an arbitrary dissipative circuit on the quantum energy levels and tunneling of a Josephson junction, [ Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 158 (1986)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.34.158).
N. T. Bronn, E. Magesan, N. A. Masluk, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, and M. Steffen, Reducing spontaneous emission in circuit quantum electrodynamics by a combined read- out/filter technique, [ IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. [**25**]{}, 1700410 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2015.2456109).
M. G. Scheer and M. B. Block, Computational modeling of decay and hybridization in superconducting circuits, arXiv:1810.11510 (2018).
Our derivation of the Lindblad equation does not include the ac-Stark shift which is typically unimportant. A more refined calculation leads to with $(2\bar n +1)$ as the prefactor of the first term proportional to $\delta \omega _q$.[@carmichael1]
In general, one can always include the effect of a capacitance of value $ i (d
Y/d\omega )(\omega =0)$ exactly and only treat the remaining admittance as the environment.
A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: an architecture for quantum computation, [ Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 062320 (2004)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.69.062320).
Note that for weak dissipation the capacitance is always real.
J. Lepp[ä]{}kangas, J. Braum[ü]{}ller, M. Hauck, J.-M. Reiner, I. Schwenk, S. Zanker, L. Fritz, A. V. Ustinov, M. Weides, and M. Marthaler, Quantum simulation of the spin-boson model with a microwave circuit, [ Phys. Rev. A [**97**]{}, 052321 (2018)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052321).
D. M. Pozar, [*Microwave Engineering*]{} (Wiley, New York, 2011).
H. Carmichael, [*Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1: Master Equations and Fokker-Planck Equations*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1999).
[^1]: We refer to the term proportional to $\gamma$ in Eq. . It is interesting that the leading effect of the off-resonant modes is dissipative, see Eq. .
[^2]: Note the different convention with respect to the electrical engineering literature. In particular, the admittance of a capacitance is given by $Y_\omega = -i \omega C$.
[^3]: Of course, we have that $\hat H_q |g,e \protect\rangle = \hbar \omega_{g,e} |g,e \protect\rangle $.
[^4]: Note that in the transmon limit the qubit capacitance $C_q$ coincides with the geometric capacitance $C$.
[^5]: See Sec. 3.4.5 of Ref. .
[^6]: Our derivation of the Lindblad equation does not include the ac-Stark shift which is typically unimportant. A more refined calculation leads to with $(2\bar n +1)$ as the prefactor of the first term proportional to $\delta\omega_q$.[@carmichael1].
[^7]: In general, one can always include the effect of a capacitance of value $ i (d
Y/d\omega)(\omega=0)$ exactly and only treat the remaining admittance as the environment.
[^8]: Note that for weak dissipation the capacitance is always real.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[We probe the flow of two dimensional foams, consisting of a monolayer of bubbles sandwiched between a liquid bath and glass plate, as a function of driving rate, packing fraction and degree of disorder. First, we find that bidisperse, disordered foams exhibit strongly rate dependent and inhomogeneous (shear banded) velocity profiles, while monodisperse, ordered foams are also shear banded, but essentially rate independent. Second, we introduce a simple model based on balancing the averaged drag forces between the bubbles and the top plate, $\bar{F}_{bw}$ and the averaged bubble-bubble drag forces $\bar{F}_{bb}$, and assume that $\bar{F}_{bw} \sim v^{2/3}$ and $\bar{F}_{bb} \sim (\partial_y
v)^{\beta}$, where $v$ and $(\partial_y v)$ denote average bubble velocities and gradients. This model captures the observed rate dependent flows for $\beta \approx 0.36$, and the rate independent flows for $\beta \approx 0.67$. Third, we perform independent rheological measurements of $\bar{F}_{bw}$ and $\bar{F}_{bb}$, both for ordered and disordered systems, and find these to be fully consistent with the forms assumed in the simple model. Disorder thus modifies the exponent $\beta$. Fourth, we vary the packing fraction $\phi$ of the foam over a substantial range, and find that the flow profiles become increasingly shear banded when the foam is made wetter. Surprisingly, our model describes flow profiles and rate dependence over the whole range of packing fractions with the same power law exponents — only a dimensionless number $k$ which measures the ratio of the pre-factors of the viscous drag laws is seen to vary with packing fraction. We find that $k \sim (\phi-\phi_c)^{-1}$, where $\phi_c
\approx 0.84$, corresponding to the 2d jamming density, and suggest that this scaling follows from the geometry of the deformed facets between bubbles in contact. Overall, our work shows that the presence of disorder qualitatively changes the effective bubble-bubble drag forces, and suggests a route to rationalize aspects of the ubiquitous Herschel-Bulkley (power law) rheology observed in a wide range of disordered materials.]{}
author:
- Gijs Katgert
- Andrzej Latka
- 'Matthias E. Möbius'
- Martin van Hecke
title: 'Flow in linearly sheared two dimensional foams: from bubble to bulk scale'
---
Introduction
============
Foams, which are dispersions of densely packed gas bubbles in a liquid, exhibit an intricate mix of elastic, plastic and viscous behavior reminiscent of the mechanics of other disordered materials such as colloidal suspensions, granular media and emulsions [@cohen-addad; @coussot; @becu; @kraynikannu; @durian; @denninpre74]. When left unperturbed, foams jam into a meta-stable state where surface tension provides the restoring force underlying their elastic response for small strains [@cohen-addad; @kraynikannu; @weaire]. Under continuous driving the foam starts to flow, and the viscous dissipation that arises in the thin fluid films that surround the gas bubbles becomes important. Macroscopically, the steady state rheology of foams exhibits shear thinning, and the stress $\tau$ as function of strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ is generally non-linear, often taking a Herschel-Bulkley form: $\tau=\tau_Y+c_1\dot{\gamma}^\beta$, where $\tau_Y$ denotes the yield stress, and where the viscous stress $\tau_V\equiv \tau-\tau_Y$ scales nontrivially with the strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ [@cohen-addad; @becu; @larson; @khan88; @princen89; @gopal; @denninprl89; @denkov1; @katgert]. In addition, in many situations, the flow is inhomogeneous and localizes in a shear band [@cohen-addad; @denninprl89; @katgert; @debregeasprl87; @denninprl93].
In an earlier Letter [@katgert] we experimentally probed the flow of disordered, bidisperse 2d foams which are trapped between the fluid phase and a top-plate. The 2d nature allows for direct imaging of the bubble dynamics and of the shear banded flow profiles in this system. Combining measurements of the flow profiles with rheological measurements, we established that viscous interactions between neighboring bubbles scale differently with velocity gradients than the effective viscous interactions at the global scale. We captured the rate-dependent shear banding exhibited by our system in a nonlinear drag force balance model. Here we expand on these findings, discuss new results for the effect of varying the wetness of the foam, and provide extensive additional evidence to support our main conclusions.
To understand the rheology and shear band formation in our system, three ingredients need to be described and combined appropriately: [*[(i)]{}*]{} Interactions with the top plate. [*[(ii)]{}*]{} Local bubble interactions. [*[(iii)]{}*]{} Disorder.
[*Top plate —*]{} In recent years, a variety of studies have addressed the formation of shear bands in (quasi) two-dimensional foams, consisting of a single layer of macroscopic bubbles. Such single layers can be made by freely floating the bubbles on the surface of a surfactant solution (”bubble raft”) [@denninprl89; @bragg; @denninpre73], by trapping them between a top glass plate and the surfactant solution (”liquid-glass”) [@katgert; @denninpre73; @stanley; @vaz; @dolletpre], or by trapping them between two parallel glass plates (Hele-Shaw cell) [@debregeasprl87].
In a seminal paper by Debrégeas et al. [@debregeasprl87], a bidisperse foam in Hele-Shaw Couette cell was sheared and narrow shear banded flow profiles where obtained [@debregeasprl87]. While initially it was believed that for slow flows, the effect of the viscous drag forces exerted by the confining glass plates would be negligible [@cohen-addad; @debregeasjfm], these drag forces have turned out to be crucial. First, Couette experiments in bubble rafts found completely smooth flow behavior [@denninprl89]. Second, in experiments where a monodisperse foam was linearly sheared with and without confining glass plate on top [@denninpre73], one observes smooth velocity profiles for the bubble raft but highly shear banded flows for the liquid-glass geometry. The precise connection between the drag forces due to the confining plates and the occurrence of shear banding in confined foams is still a subject of debate [@debregeasjfm; @cheddadi].
A simple continuum model that balances the top plate drags and the inter-bubble drags (modeled with a Bingham constitutive relation) captures both the rate independence and exponentially localized shear bands seen in the linear liquid-glass cell [@katgert; @janiaud] — here we will build on and extend this model to capture the experimentally observed nonlinear, rate dependent rheology of disordered foams.
[*Local interactions —*]{} At the microscopic level, bubble interactions are a combination of elastic repulsion, typically harmonic for small deformations [@weitz; @lacasse; @brujic; @dinsmore], and nonlinear viscous drag forces [@katgert; @denkov1; @denkov2; @cantat; @drenckhan; @terriac; @denkov3]. Such drag forces arise when two bubbles slide past each other or when a bubble slides past a solid boundary. The viscous drag forces originate in the thin films that surround foam bubbles, and have recently received renewed attention [@denkov1; @denkov2; @cantat; @drenckhan; @terriac; @denkov3]. Already for a single bubble sliding past a solid wall, Bretherton showed that the drag force scales nonlinearly with the bubble velocity [@denkov1; @terriac; @bretherton], and by analogy one would expect the drag forces arising between sliding bubbles to be nonlinear also — indeed Denkov et al. recently suggested that a similar scaling applies to the viscous drag force between bubbles [@denkov3].
Here we measure these drag forces directly by rheological experiments where two rows of ordered bubbles are sheared past each other.
[*Disorder —*]{} Foam flows are disordered and intermittent at the multi-bubble scale [@durian; @weaire; @denkov1; @katgert; @janiaud; @liuletter; @mobius]. For such disordered systems, the affine approach, where one simply scales up local elastic or viscous interactions, often fails to describe the macroscopic behavior — this is by now well established for shear deformations in granular and foam-like systems [@makseprl1999; @ohern; @wouterEPL], and a similar picture is emerging from simulations of the flow of viscous particles [@liuletter; @olsson; @hatano; @langlois; @remmers]. In the present work we present strong experimental evidence for the failure of the affine approach to describe drag forces in flowing systems.
### Outline {#outline .unnumbered}
In this paper, we describe an experiment in which we have linearly sheared a 2d foam and we disentangle the roles of the top plate, the local bubble interactions and the disorder, as well as the role of the wetness of the foam.
In section \[sec:exp\] we describe our experimental setup. In section \[sec:lin\] we present experimental results for flow profiles for a range of strain rates and span-wise widths of our system. We find that the flow depends crucially on the applied strain rate $\dot{\gamma}_a$: disordered, bidisperse foams exhibit rate dependent flow profiles, which become increasingly shear-banded for large $\dot{\gamma}_a$. We capture our findings in a model in which the time-averaged drag forces between bubble and top plate, $\overline{F}_{bw}$, and between neighboring bubbles, $\overline{F}_{bb}$ are balanced. While the continuum limit of our model is similar in spirit to [@janiaud], the crucial new ingredient is nonlinear scaling laws for the wall drag and the bulk stress — these nonlinear scalings are essential for capturing the observed rate dependence.
In section \[sec:rhe\], we probe the scaling of the drag forces by independent rheological measurements, allowing us to directly probe the role of disorder by comparing the rheology of small ordered and larger disordered bubble rafts. We find the averaged drag forces in the disordered foam to scale [*differently*]{} from the local drag forces between individual bubbles, which we have measured at high resolution and analyze in a novel way.
In contrast, for monodisperse, ordered foams the local, averaged and top-plate drag forces all scale similarly, causing rate-independent flows similar to those seen by Wang et al. [@denninpre73], and we discuss these in section \[sec:ord\].
In section \[sec:pac\] we further probe the connection between the viscous drag forces at the bubble scale and the bulk viscous forces by performing additional linear shear experiments over a range of packing (air) fractions $\phi$. We find that the contribution of averaged bubble-bubble drag forces vanishes algebraically as $\phi-\phi_c$, when the packing fraction is decreased towards a critical value $\phi_c$, which we identify with the (un)jamming density — $\phi_c \approx 0.84$. We relate the vanishing of the averaged bubble-bubble drag forces at $\phi_c$ to the vanishing overlap between bubbles at unjamming.
The simple elastic interaction (typically harmonic for small deformations [@weitz; @lacasse; @brujic; @dinsmore]) and the absence of solid friction make static packings of foam bubbles eminently suited to compare to simulations of the popular soft frictionless sphere model [@ohern; @ellenbroek; @makseprl2000]. Our work illustrates the great potential of foams to elucidate the [*flow*]{} behavior of simple systems near jamming [@olsson; @hatano; @langlois; @remmers].
Experimental details {#sec:exp}
====================
In this section we describe in detail a novel experimental setup to induce linear shear flow in two-dimensional foams. We also detail the analysis techniques used to extract velocity profiles, and discuss measurements which show that coarsening and fluid drag can be neglected.
Setup
-----
We create foam bubbles on the surface of a reservoir of soapy solution (of depth 3.5 cm), consisting of 80% by volume demineralized water, 15% glycerol and 5% Blue Dawn dishwashing agent (Proctor & Gamble), by bubbling nitrogen through the solution via syringe needles of variable aperture. We measure the bath surface tension $\sigma$ with the pendant drop method [@hauser] and find $\sigma$ = 28 $\pm$ 1 mN/m. We measure the dynamic viscosity $\eta$ with a Cannon Ubbelohde viscometer and find $\eta$ = 1.8$\pm$ 0.1 mPa.s.
Fig. 1 shows our experimental setup: the bubbles are contained inside an aluminum frame (400x230 mm) which is leveled with the liquid surface and which supports glass top plates to which the bubbles bridge once they are in place. The top plates consist of three adjacent glass plates with slits to accommodate two PMMA wheels of radius 195 mm and thickness 9.5 mm which drive the flow. The vertical gap between the liquid surface and the glass plates can be varied to control the packing fraction of bubbles $\phi$.
The wheels, which are grooved to provide a no-slip boundary for the bubbles, can be lowered into and raised out of the bath through the slits. The wheels are connected to two Lin Engineering stepper motors, each driven by micro-stepping driver, and are rotated in opposite directions. At any point along the line where the wheels contact the foam bubbles the horizontal component of the driving velocity is a constant (see Fig. 1b).
We obtain our data from the central 60 mm of the shearing region — marked by the horizontal lines in Fig. \[setup\](a)— to avoid effects caused by the recirculation of the foam at the edges of the wheels. In this central part no motion is observed due to the vertical component of the radial velocity. At the edges of the slits, bubbles do leave the system, while being pinned to the wheels. This does not result in holes in the foam layer, either because at high driving velocities the bubbles reenter the system before rupturing while traveling on the wheel, or because at low velocities bubbles from outside the shearing region are pushed inwards due to the bubble surplus at the edges. The resulting driving velocity gives rise to a global strain rate $\dot{\gamma}
=2v_0/W$, where $W$ denotes the gap between the wheels, which we vary between 5 and 10 cm.
![(Color online) (a) Schematic topview of the experimental setup. $W$ represents the gap width and the two horizontal lines indicate the edge of the region over which the velocity profiles are calculated. The red curve depicts one such profile. (b) Sideview of the shearing wheels. The slits in the glass plate are drawn for clarity. That the in-plane component of the motion of the boundary is constant can be seen as follows: by trivial geometry, we obtain that $v_0 \!=\!\omega r_1 \cos \phi$, but since $r_1 =\frac{r_0}{\cos\phi}$, at any point along the along the contact line of 230 mm, the layer of bubbles is sheared with a driving velocity $v_0 =\omega \frac{r_0}{\cos\phi} \cos \phi
=\omega r_0$. (c) Experimental image of part of the foam, the scalebar represents 5 mm.[]{data-label="setup"}](setup.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
Imaging and Analysis
--------------------
We wish to characterize the average flow in the $x$-direction as a function of the span-wise coordinate $y$. The average velocity profiles are obtained from a series of images which we record with an 8 bit Foculus BW 432 CCD camera (1280x1024 pixels) equipped with a Tamron 28-300 telezoom objective. In the images, 1 pixel corresponds to approximately 0.1 mm. To optimize the brightness and obtain images in which the bubbles appear as circles, the foam is lit laterally by two fluorescent tubes, each driven by high frequency ballasts to prevent flickering in the images. The bottom of the reservoir is covered with a black plate to improve contrast. Typical images are shown in Fig. \[image\].
The frame rate is fixed such that the displacement at the wheels is fixed at 0.15 mm between frames. Since the flow is strongly intermittent, with large fluctuations in the bubble displacements, we take 1000 frames per run, corresponding to a strain of 4 for a 5 cm gap, as we are interested in averaged velocity profiles. We pre-shear the system before taking data, so that a steady state is reached.
![(Color online) Images of sheared regions for both (a) monodisperse and (b) bidisperse foams. Shear is indicated by the arrows. The highlighted area is where data analysis is performed on. []{data-label="image"}](bubbles.jpg){width="80mm"}
We obtain the velocity profiles both through particle tracking and a Particle Image Velocimetry-like technique, where for each $y$-value, we calculate the cross-correlation $(C_n)^2$ between the corresponding image line in the $P_n(x)$ of length $m$ and the same image line $P_{n+1}(x)$ in the next frame shifted by an amount $\tau$: $$(C_n(\tau))^2 = \sum_{i=0}^{m-\tau} P_n(i)P_{n+1}(i+\tau).$$
We can then proceed in two ways. The first method is to add up all cross-correlations from all frames for each $y$-value, and calculate the average displacement $\Delta x$ per frame by fitting a parabola $p_n(\tau)$ to the resulting sum of cross-correlations and taking the peak value of that parabola: $$\Delta x(y) = {\bf \rm max}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{999} p_n(\tau) \right).$$ In the second method we fit a parabola to each cross-correlation separately and obtain the average displacement by averaging the maxima of all individual parabolas: $$\Delta x(y) =\langle{\bf \rm max}\left(p_n(\tau)\right)\rangle .$$
By comparing to average velocity profiles obtained by particle tracking [@mobius], we find that the latter procedure gives the closest match to the tracking velocity profiles, and we have employed this procedure throughout. We thus obtain both spatially (in the $x$-direction) and temporally averaged velocity profiles. Despite the intermittent character of the flow, we obtain smooth reproducible velocity profiles.
Coarsening and fluid drag
-------------------------
To characterize the amount of coarsening we measure the bubble size distribution by measuring the surface area of the bubbles in the images. We obtain well defined size distributions which show little coarsening over the duration of the runs, which corresponds to about 2 hours (Fig. 3a).
![(a) Size distribution and coarsening over the duration of an experimental run for bidisperse foams. (b) Flow at the liquid surface in the absence of bubbles, as imaged by depositing silver powder. Inset: same profile on lin-log scale, showing exponential decay away from the boundaries.[]{data-label="bulkflow"}](bulkflow.png){width="80mm"}
We have checked that the drag on the foam bubbles due to flow of the bulk liquid underneath is negligible by measuring the velocity profile of bubbles floating on a very shallow layer of bulk fluid. In this case the fluid surface velocity is decreased due to the no-slip boundary condition at the reservoirs’ bottom. We do not, within experimental uncertainty, observe a change in the experimental velocity profiles in this geometry.
We furthermore measure the velocity profile of the liquid surface itself at the same fluid level as in the foam experiments by imaging the flow of silver particles that were sprinkled on the liquid surface, see Fig. \[bulkflow\]b. We observe a steeply decreasing velocity profile at the fluid surface, which implies that even if the fluid drag were of the order of the other drags acting on the bubbles, it would not significantly alter the flow profiles except near the wheels.
We thus conclude that the bubble size distribution is essentially constant during an experimental time frame, and that the dominant drag forces are those between bubbles and top plate, and those between contacting bubbles.
Linear shear of two dimensional foams {#sec:lin}
=====================================
{width="17cm"}
In this section we explore the rate dependent shear flows in our system experimentally. By fitting our experimental data to a nonlinear drag force balance model, we deduce the dependence of the averaged bubble-bubble and bubble-wall drag forces as function of the local strain rate and velocity.
Flow of disordered foams
------------------------
We measure averaged velocity profiles in disordered twodimensional foams. These foams are produced by bubbling a fixed flow rate of nitrogen through syringe needles of 2 different inner diameters, such that bubbles of 1.8 $\pm 0.1$ and 2.7 $\pm 0.2$ mm result (at 59-41 number ratio). The bubbles are gently mixed with a spoon until a disordered monolayer results. For gap widths of 5, 7 and 9 cm, we drive the foam at 6 different velocities, spanning 2.5 decades: $v_0 =$ 0.026, 0.083, 0.26, 0.83, 2.6 and 8.3 mm/s.
Note that we perform the sweep in driving velocities from fast to slow and that we pre-shear the system for one full wheel rotation, to start with bubbles covering the wheel [@foot1] and ensure that we have reached a steady state. To fix the packing fraction, we fix the gap between glass plate and liquid surface at 2.25 $\pm$ 0.01 mm. We have measured (see section VI) that for this gap the packing fraction is $\phi =0.965 \pm 0.005$.
Results are plotted in Fig. \[ratedep\](a-c): the profiles exhibit shear banding, and for all gap widths the profiles become increasingly shear banded at increasing driving velocities. The slowest runs at $W$ = 5 cm yield essentially linear velocity profiles. We suggest that these shapes are due to the small gap width, which results in overlapping shear banded profiles resembling a linear profile, and in what follows, we will present a model that supports this conclusion.
In Fig. \[ratedep\](d) we plot velocity profiles for a driving velocity of 0.26 mm/s for all three gap widths together, which clearly show that for all widths, the velocity profiles decay similarly. Fig. \[ratedep\](d) thus suggests that in this experiment the driving velocity at the edges, instead of the overall shear, sets the velocity profiles, and that the local response to forcing will provide the key towards understanding the shape of these profiles. Note finally that the profiles do not exhibit significant slip with respect to shearing wheels, except for the fastest runs, where the slip is less than 20 %.
Model
-----
We now propose a model to account for the shear banding behavior discussed above, by considering the balance of the averaged viscous drag forces.
### Drag forces on individual bubbles
The drag force on a single bubble that slides past a solid wall was first investigated by Bretherton [@bretherton] and has recently received renewed attention [@denkov1; @denkov2; @cantat; @drenckhan; @terriac; @quere]. The crucial finding is that $F_{bw}$, the drag force per bubble sliding past a solid wall, scales as $$F_{bw} = f_{bw}(Ca)^{2/3} = f_{bw}\left(\eta v/\sigma \right)^{2/3},
\label{fbb}$$ with $\eta$ the bulk viscosity, $\sigma$ the surface tension, $f_{bw}$ a constant with dimensions of force and $Ca$ the capillary number. Typically $f_{bw} \propto \sigma r_c$, with $r_c$ the radius of the deformed contact between bubble and wall [@quere]. For bubbles in a soapy solution, the 2/3 scaling with $Ca$ only holds for surfactants that are mobile [@denkov1]. Results from [@Koehler] strongly indicate that this is indeed the case for our surfactant Dawn, as we will confirm below.
The drag force between 2 bubbles sliding past each other, $F_{bb}$, has not received much attention up to now, although [@kraynik] provides indirect evidence that it scales like $F_{bb} \propto \left(\eta \Delta Ca \right)^{\zeta}$, with $
\Delta Ca \equiv \eta \Delta v/\sigma $. In a very recent Letter it is explicitly shown that, for ordered bubble motion $F_{bb}$ scales indeed as $(\Delta Ca)^{\zeta}$ [@denkov3]. The authors find $\zeta =0.5$, although various physico-chemical peculiarities, as well as the range of $Ca$ one measures in, can alter this exponent.
Taking all of this into consideration, it seems reasonable to assume that: $$F_{bb}= f_{bb}\left(\eta \Delta v/\sigma \right)^{\zeta}.
\label{fbw}$$ While the dissipation leading to $F_{bw}$ occurs at the perimeter of the flattened facet [@denkov1] — hence the prefactor $f_{bw} \propto \sigma r_c$ — $f_{bb}$ scales $ \propto \sigma
\kappa_c^2$, with $\kappa_c$ the radius of the deformed contact between bubbles, thus reflecting the different physical mechanism behind this scaling [@denkov3].
![(Color online) Illustration of drag balance model. The shear region is divided in lanes labeled $i$ which all experience drag forces due to the top plate and due to both neighboring lanes. (b-c) Illustration of the films around which the viscous drag forces act.[]{data-label="model"}](modelnew.png){width="80mm"}
### Stress balance
We divide our shearing region in lanes labeled $i$ and assume that on every lane the *time-averaged* top plate drag per bubble $\overline{F}_{bw}^i$ balances with the time-averaged viscous drag per bubble due to the lane to the left ($\overline{F}_{bb}^{i}$) and right ($\overline{F}_{bb}^{i+1}$), see Fig. \[model\]: $$\overline{F} \vspace{0.1 cm}_{bb}^{i+1} - \overline{F} \vspace{0.1 cm}_{bw}^i -\overline{F} \vspace{0.1 cm}_{bb}^{i}=0.
\label{forcebal}$$ We assume that the averaged drag forces scale similarly to the local drag forces. For the averaged bubble-wall forces we assume: $$\overline{F}\vspace{0.1 cm}_{bw}^i = f_{bw}(\eta v^i /\sigma)^{2/3}, \label{HBI}$$ while for the averaged bubble-bubble drag forces we assume: $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{F}\vspace{0.1 cm}_{bb}^i &=& f_Y+f_{bb}\left[(\eta/\sigma)(v^i-v^{i-1})\right]^{\beta}~,\label{HBII}\\
\overline{F}\vspace{0.1 cm}_{bb}^{i+1} &=& f_Y+f_{bb}\left[(\eta/\sigma)(v^{i+1}-v^{i})\right]^{\beta}
~.\label{HBIII}\end{aligned}$$ Here $f_{bw}$ and $f_{bb}$ are material parameters with dimension of force, which will be measured by rheometry in section IV below. Finally, $f_Y$ represents a yield force in the inter-bubble drag, to remain consistent with rheometrical data presented later on and to reflect the elastic barrier bubbles have to overcome before they slide past each other. Note that the velocities $v^i$ denote the *averaged* velocities in the $x$-direction — the crucial assumption is that the relation between the averaged drag forces and the averaged velocities is simple and can be expressed by a single power law.
We do not know if and how the conjectured forms for the averaged forces can be derived from the non-averaged forces Eqs. (\[fbb\]) and (\[fbw\]) since due to the intermittent and disordered bubble motion, the instantaneous bubble velocities are fluctuating and not necessarily pointing in the $x$-direction. For example, there is no a priori reason for the exponents $\zeta$ and $\beta$ to be equal and in fact our data strongly indicate that they are not. The best justification for Eqs. (\[HBI\]-\[HBIII\]) is a posteriori — the resulting model describes the data well. Note that the bars in Eqs. (\[HBI\]-\[HBIII\]) express an average over disorder, in the sense that these quantities are measured in highly disordered, intermittent flows.
Inserting the expressions from Eqs. (\[HBI\]-\[HBIII\]) into Eq. (\[forcebal\]) and defining $k=f_{bw}/f_{bb}$ we arrive at: $$k \left( \frac{\eta v^{i}}{\sigma}\right)^{2/3} =
\left(\frac{\eta}{\sigma}\right)^{\beta}
\left[(v^{i+1}-v^{i})^{\beta} - (v^i-v^{i-1})^{\beta}\right]~.
\label{modeleq}$$ Note that the yield drag contributions $f_Y$ cancel, which is a particular advantage of the linear geometry we work in. The model predicts flow profiles for arbitrary width and driving rate, once the parameters $\beta$ and $k$ are fixed.
Fits
----
### Procedure
We compare all 18 runs to solutions of the model. We focus on the central part of the data where $|v|<3/4v_0$ to avoid the edge effects near the shearing wheels (for instance the bumps in the low-velocity profiles in Fig. \[ratedep\](a) and the slip with respect to the wheel in the fast runs). We numerically integrate Eq. (\[modeleq\]) from $y=0$, where $v=0$, to the $y$ value for which $v=3/4 \cdot v_0$, while keeping $\beta$ and $k$ fixed. The drag force balance should govern the shape of the velocity profiles for all driving rates and gap widths. Therefore we determine for fixed $\beta$ the $k$ values that fit the flow profiles best. The $k$ values exhibit a systematic variation that depends on the value of $\beta$. We quantify this variation by computing the relative variance $\sqrt{\langle \delta k^2 \rangle/
k^2}$ and by repeating the procedure for a range of $\beta$, we obtain a plot of the variance as a function of $\beta$, see Fig. \[ratedep\](f). From this graph, we determine the value for which the variance is minimized as $\beta=0.36 \pm 0.05$.
### Results
Fixing now $k=3.75$ and $\beta=0.36$, we capture the shape of all data sets with high accuracy . The resulting model profiles are plotted in Fig. \[ratedep\](a-c), and we see that for these values all velocity profiles are adequately fitted except for the slowest runs at $W=5$ cm. We attribute these deviations for small $W$ to the observation that edge effects extend further into the shearing region for small gaps.
Note that the model profiles exhibit linear tails, see Fig. \[ratedep\](e), and that the experimental velocity profiles exhibit approximately the same behavior. We conclude that both the experimental and model profiles do not decay exponentially, in contrast with results found in previous studies [@debregeasprl87; @denninpre73].
{width="18cm"}
Continuum Limit
---------------
The continuum limit of Eq. (\[modeleq\]) can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{bw}\left( \frac{\eta v}{\sigma} \right)^{2/3} \langle d \rangle ^{-1} &=& \frac{\partial \tau}{\partial y}~, \\
\tau = \tau_Y + f_{bb} \left( \frac{\eta \left<d\right>\dot{\gamma}}{\sigma}\right)^{\beta},&~&~~~ \beta=0.36~. \label{herschey}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the top plate drag can be considered as a body force and the inter-bubble drag force as the divergence of a shear stress $\tau$, where $\tau_Y$ is an undetermined yield stress. Eq. \[herschey\] is the constitutive equation for a Herschel-Bulkley fluid [@hb], and we can now associate the averaged bubble drag force scaling at the local level with the power law scaling of the viscous stress in the Herschel-Bulkley model.
Note that $\beta = 0.36$ is similar to the power law index $n=0.40$ found for the bulk rheology of three-dimensional mobile foams [@becu; @denkov1] and to the values $n=0.33$ and $n=0.45$ found for two dimensional bubble rafts in a Taylor-Couette geometry in [@denninprl93].
The fact that the yield stress does not play a role for our velocity profiles can now be understood in two ways: at the continuum level, since it is a constant it vanishes after taking the divergence of the shear stress, at the bubble level, even though we include a yield force in Eqs. (\[HBI\])-\[HBII\]), the contributions from both neighboring lanes cancel in Eq. (\[modeleq\]). Finally, notice that the continuum equations can easily be solved in terms of hypergeometric functions [@btighe].
Rheometrical determination of viscous forces in two-dimensional foams {#sec:rhe}
=====================================================================
In this section we will investigate the viscous forces that act at the bubble scale by rheometry, to test and validate the assumptions for the scaling of the bubble-wall drag and the viscous friction inside the foam expressed in Eqs. (\[fbb\]-\[fbw\]). We use an Anton Paar DSR 301 stress controlled rheometer, which can also operate in strain controlled mode. We use the rheometer in strain controlled mode to investigate $F \vspace{0.1cm} _{bw}$. Moreover, we compare measurements, which reflect the actual drag force at the single bubble level ($F\vspace{0.1cm} _{bb}$), with measurements of the averaged viscous drag force on a bubble in a disordered flow of foam ($\overline{F}\vspace{0.1cm} _{bb}$).
Bubble-wall drag
----------------
We directly measure the bubble-wall friction for foam bubbles produced from the soap solution presented above, with a method that was introduced in [@denkov1]. We load a monolayer of bubbles between two PMMA plates of radius $R_P$ = 2 cm. The bubbles are pinned to the lower plate by means of a hexagonal pattern of indentations of size ${\mathcal O} (d)$, and can slip with respect to the smooth upper plate which is connected to the rheometer head, see lower inset of Fig. \[andydragforces\](a). We measure the torque $T$ exerted by the bubbles as a function of the angular velocity $\omega$ of the smooth plate.
We convert $T(\omega)$ to $F \vspace{0.1cm}_{bw}(Ca)$ in the following way: each bubble exerts a wall stress $\tau_{w} =F \vspace{0.1cm} _{bw}/ \pi R_0^2$ on the smooth plate. We integrate the contribution to the torque of this wall stress over the plate: $$T = \int^{R_P}_0 \tau_{w} r 2 \pi r dr = \int^{R_P}_0 \frac{F \vspace{0.1cm} _{bw}}{R^2_0} 2 r^2 dr. \label{integ}$$ If we now assume that $F \vspace{0.1cm} _{bw} \propto \left[ Ca \right]^{\alpha} = \left [ \frac{\eta \omega r}{\sigma} \right ]^{\alpha}$, we can immediately read of from the data that $\alpha = 0.67$, see Fig. \[andydragforces\](a), so inserting this expression in the integral Eq. (\[integ\]) yields: $$T= \frac{2 F \vspace{0.1cm} _{bw} R_p^{3.67}}{3.67 R_0^2}.$$ Since the bubbles are flattened during the measurement, we can only measure $R_0$ through the flattened facet $r_c$ by looking at the reflection of the deformed facet, see the upper inset of Fig. \[andydragforces\](a). We find $r_c = 1.59 \pm 0.05$ mm. As the bubble radius is smaller than $\kappa^{-1}$ we can express $R_0$ in terms of $r_c$ through $R_0^2 = \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} r_c \kappa^{-1}$ [@quere]. Note that this derivation of $r_c$ in terms of $R_0$ hinges on the assumption that the bubbles are not too deformed, which is not obvious in the rheometrical geometry, but for lack of a more precise relation we use it. We finally rescale the horizontal axis by multiplying $\omega$ with $\eta R_p /\sigma$. The resulting curve is plotted in Fig. \[andydragforces\](a): over our measurement range (more than three decades) $F_{bw} \propto
[Ca]^{2/3}$.
Bubble-bubble drag
------------------
### Drag at the bubble scale
To measure the power law scaling of the inter-bubble drag we measure the torque exerted by a foam driven at a strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ in a cylindrical Couette geometry, which consists of an inner driving wheel, connected to the rheometer head, rotating inside an outer ring. The rheometrical experiments are performed with bubble rafts, i.e. foams that are not confined by a top plate, as the additional stresses due to the wall would disturb a clean rheological measurement.
{width="18cm"}
Both boundaries are grooved to ensure a no slip boundary for the bubbles, of which a monolayer floats in the shearing region. We start with measuring $\overline{F} \vspace{0.1 cm} _{bb}$ for the ordered case by keeping the gap between the cylinders such that exactly two layers of bubbles fit in, see the upper inset of Fig. \[andydragforces\](c). The inner radius ($r_i$) is 2.5 cm and the outer radius ($r_o$) is 3.0 cm. We deposit bubbles of 2.2 mm diameter in the grooves, make sure that all bubbles are strictly pinned and remain in their groove, and vary the rotation rate $\omega$ of the inner cylinder over 3 decades while measuring the torque averaged over an integer number of rearrangement events, see Fig. \[andydragforces\](c).
We multiply $\omega$ by $\eta r_{i}/\sigma$ to rescale the dimensionless velocity difference and we divide the torque by $r_{i}$ and the number of bubbles pinned at the inner wheel (e.g. 40) to obtain the averaged bubble-bubble drag force per bubble in the ordered case.
We use three different inner wheels: one with 40 grooves, a second with 41 grooves and a third with 44 grooves. Since the number of grooves in the outer ring is fixed at 40, this allows us to investigate the differences between commensurate and incommensurate numbers of bubbles in the grooves.
For the commensurate case, the result is plotted in Fig. \[andydragforces\](b): All bubbles rearrange simultaneously and thus the signal reflects the torque exerted on a single bubble, amplified by a factor of 40. The elastic barrier that bubbles have to cross before rearranging is clearly visible in the signal. As a result, the torque oscillates tremendously. Nevertheless, the force per bubble averaged over many such events scales with the dimensionless velocity difference as a power law with index 0.7, see Fig. \[andydragforces\] (c). This value is remarkably close to the exponent found for the bubble-wall drag. For these ordered lanes, no signs of a yield plateau are observed in the time averaged signal, and we believe this is due to the fact that all elastic energy that is stored in the bubble deformation is released after yielding, so that one measures purely the viscous drag.
For the incommensurate runs, the raw signal looks more complex, as rearrangements do not occur simultaneously for all 41 or 44 bubbles. The resulting power-law exponents for the averaged drag forces are, however, close to the one observed for the commensurate case. In fact, if we repeat the measurements for both commensurate and incommensurate bubble numbers a multitude of times and fit $Ca^{\zeta}$ to the averaged $F_{bb}$, we find a distribution of $\zeta$-values around $\zeta =0.73$, see lower inset of Fig. \[andydragforces\](c). The binsize is similar to the errorbar on each individual measurement.
### From local to bulk viscous drag
We observe that the scaling exponent for the viscous drag at the bubble scale, $\zeta$, differs markedly from the scaling exponent $\beta$ of the drag forces inside the bulk foam as extracted from the velocity profiles, e.g., $\zeta \approx 0.70$ vs. $\beta=0.36$. We hypothesize this is due to the disordered flow in the foam and will provide rheological evidence in what follows.
To perform rheological measurements of the drag forces, we employ a Couette cell which has an outer ring of radius $r_0 =7$ cm, such that more layers of bubbles can fit inside the cell. We first will perform measurements on disordered packings of monodisperse bubbles of three different sizes (1, 3 or 5 mm). We observe that the foam deviates substantially from hexagonal packing during flow because the inner radius $r_i=2.5$ cm is small, and the curvature is large. We thus induce disorder through geometry.
The resulting measurements show clear yield stress behavior and can be excellently fit by the Herschel-Bulkley model, yielding for all bubble sizes $\beta \approx 0.4$, which is markedly lower than the 0.70 found for the drag force in ordered lanes above, and close to the 0.36 extracted from the velocity profiles (see Fig. \[slip\]a-b). The observed stress plateau at low strain rates increases with increasing bubble radius, contrary to the intuition that the yield stress is set by the Laplace pressure and should hence scale inversely to the bubble radius. We tentatively attribute this to the deformation of the bubbles through capillary effects, which are larger for larger bubbles and hence lead to a relatively larger contact size between the bubbles.
In order to further establish a connection between the rheometrical data and the model, we now turn to a geometry with a large inner wheel to increase the measured signal ($r_i =5$ cm and $r_o = 7$ cm), and measure the torque exerted on the inner wheel by a *bidisperse* foam with the same bubble sizes as in the linear shear experiment. We obtain a clear confirmation that indeed the disorder changes the power law scaling of $\overline{F}
\vspace{0.1cm} _{bb}$: we again reproducibly measure Herschel-Bulkley behavior with power law index $\beta \approx
0.40$, as can be seen in Figs. \[slip\](c).
To convert torques to $\overline{F} \vspace{0.1cm} ^{bb}$, we divide the torque by the number of bubbles and $r_i$. Since our outer rough boundary forces the bubble velocity to zero, we can rescale the angular frequency to the dimensionless velocity difference $\eta \Delta v/ \sigma$ by assuming a linear velocity profile across the gap, decaying from $\omega r_i$ to 0. The gap width is approximately $9\langle d \rangle$ and hence we can estimate $\Delta v$. We extract from the rheological measurements an estimate for the ratio $k= f_{bw}/f_{bb} \approx 5.5 \pm 0.5$. This is remarkably close to the value $k=3.75 \pm 0.5$ extracted from the velocity profiles, given the crude estimates used in converting torques to bubble-bubble drag forces in the rheometrical data — we have oversimplified the shape of the velocity profile in the disordered Couette rheometry, which is neither linear, nor rate independent.
Interpretation
--------------
The drag forces exerted on the bubbles by the top plate, which at first sight might be seen as obscuring the bulk rheology of the foam, enable us to back out the effective inter-bubble drag forces and constitutive relation of foams from the average velocity profiles. To further appreciate this fact, note that our model yields linear velocity profiles regardless of the exponent $\beta$ if the body force due to the wall drag is zero. This is consistent with earlier measurements by Wang et al. [@denninpre73], where essentially linear flow profiles were found for bubble rafts, i.e., in absence of a top plate.
By comparing the results obtained from the velocity profiles with the rheometrical measurements, we note a remarkable difference between the scaling of the bubble-bubble drag forces at the bubble level, which we have mimicked by strictly ordered bubble rheology, and the scaling of the averaged forces at the bulk level, which we have extracted from the velocity profiles and confirmed by rheometry: we find $F_{bb} \sim (\Delta v)^{0.70}$ at the bubble level and $\overline{F}_{bb} \sim (\Delta v)^{0.36}$ at the bulk level.
We speculate that this is closely connected to the non-affine behavior of the bubbles [@durian; @liuletter; @ellenbroek]: close to the jamming transition, the effective viscosity of the foam becomes anomalously large due to the fact that bubble motion is much more complicated than if the bubble motion would have been affine, i.e., where the bubbles follow the imposed shear [@liuletter]. This picture is corroborated by recent simulations on the bubble model [@durian], where one recovers this “renormalization” of the drag force exponent [@olsson; @langlois; @remmers]. The precise microscopic mechanism, though, is far from understood.
![(Color online) Dimensionless velocity distributions measured for $W=7$ cm, $v_0=0.25$ mm/s, and for a $y$-position 19 mm away from the center of the gap. Here the averaged velocity equals $3.1\times 10^{-2}$ mm/s and the local strain rate equals $5.6\times 10^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$. (a) Distribution of $v_x/v_0$ for a short time interval ($\Delta t =0.46$ s, black squares) and longer time interval ($\Delta t =23.15$ s, red circles). For the averages of the dimensionless velocity distributions we find $\langle
v_x/v_0 \rangle \approx 0.125$, independent of the time averaging interval. (b) Distribution of $(v_x/v_0)^{2/3}$ for a short time interval ($\Delta t = 0.46$ s, black) and longer time interval ($\Delta t = 23.15$ s, red). The averages of the scaled dimensionless velocity distributions equal $\langle
(v_x/v_0)^{2/3} \rangle_{0.46 s} \approx 0.205$ and $\langle
(v_x/v_0)^{2/3} \rangle_{23.15 s} = 0.245$. The significance of this is that $\langle v_x/v_0 \rangle^{2/3} \approx 0.248$, which is significantly better approximated by the longer time average. (c) Comparison of $\langle v_x/v_0 \rangle ^{\xi}$ and $\langle
v_x/v_0 \rangle^{2/3}$ along the flow profile for $\Delta t =
0.46$ s, and for four values of $\xi$ as indicated. The best linear relation is obtained for $\xi \approx 0.80$. Dotted vertical line indicates the averages shown in panel (b). (d) Same as (c), now for $\Delta t = 23.15$ s. The best linear relation is obtained for $\xi \approx 0.72$. []{data-label="fluct"}](fluct.png){width="\columnwidth"}
One may wonder why the modification of the exponent of the drag force law is strong for the inter-bubble forces but weak or essentially absent for the bubble wall drag forces. We have no definite answer, although we are fairly confident that the bubble-wall drag forces indeed are not modified. We base this assertion on explorations of the bubble trajectories, described below.
If we assume the Bretherton expression, Eq. (\[fbb\]), to be the correct expression that gives the instantaneous bubble-wall drag force as a function of the instantaneous bubble velocity, our claim is that the averaged bubble-wall drag forces scale similar to the individual bubble-wall drag force: $$\label{order_av}
\langle(\vec{v}/|v|)_x |v|^{2/3}\rangle \approx \langle v_x \rangle^{2/3}~.$$ Hence we claim that the time averaged bubble wall drag force is proportional to $\langle v_x \rangle^{2/3}$, which is the expression we employ in our model to estimate $\overline{F}_{bw}$. In other words, we can interchange the order of taking time averages and “raising to the power 2/3".
To check this, we have performed accurate bubble tracking and calculated and compared *$\langle
F_{bx}\rangle \equiv \langle(\vec{v}/|v|)_x |v|^{2/3}\rangle$* and $\langle v_x \rangle^{2/3}$ [@mobius; @notetrex]. In Fig. \[fluct\]a-b we show examples of distributions of both $\langle F_{bx}\rangle$ and $\langle v_x \rangle^{2/3}$, based on short and long time velocity estimates at a fixed position in the cell. For long times these distributions are narrower and have less weight around zero. For the examples shown in Fig. \[fluct\]a-b, the averages of the dimensionless velocity distributions equal $\langle v_x/v_0 \rangle \approx 0.125$, independent of the time averaging interval. Hence, $\langle
v_x/v_0 \rangle^{2/3} \approx 0.248$. The averages of the distributions of $(v_x/v_0)^{2/3}$, taken over different time intervals, depend now on this time interval and approximate $\langle v_x/v_0 \rangle^{2/3} \approx 0.248$ better the longer the time interval is: we find $\langle (v_x/v_0)^{2/3}
\rangle_{0.46 s} \approx 0.205$ while $\langle (v_x/v_0)^{2/3}
\rangle_{23.15 s} = 0.245$. Since the drag force model deals with (long) time averages, the improvement of the agreement with time is encouraging.
The connection between $\langle F_{bx}\rangle$ and $\langle v_x
\rangle^{2/3}$ can be probed in more detail by plotting $\langle
F_{bx}\rangle$ as function $\langle v_x \rangle^{\xi}$ for a range of strain rates, and estimating for which value of $\xi$ these two quantities are proportional. The data in Fig. \[fluct\]c shows that for short times, a value of $\xi \approx 0.80$, significantly different from 2/3, leads to the best correlation, while for longer times — \[fluct\](d) —, the best value is $\xi \approx
0.72$. Therefore, the longer the time interval, the closer $\xi$ approaches 2/3. The underlying reason is that for increasing time intervals, the distribution of $v_x/v_0$ becomes narrower and narrower and peaked away from zero, and thus we indeed can interchange the order of taking time averages and “raising to the power 2/3".
The bubble-bubble drag forces, on the other hand, involve velocity [*differences*]{}, and even at long times we expect their probability distribution to have significant weight around $\Delta
v =0$. The situation is then qualitatively similar to that shown in Fig. \[fluct\] for short times, and a change from local to global exponent appears reasonable. Unfortunately, testing this explicitly in our data for the bubble trajectories has proven to be prohibitively difficult, not only because velocity differences are smaller and more noisy than velocities, but also since bubble contacts are very hard to establish unambiguously. The precise mechanism responsible for the “renormalization” that leads to the exponent $\beta \approx 0.4$ remains therefore open.
Finally, the origin of the edge effects that prevent us from fitting our full experimental curves with the model profiles, might be due to the fluid drag near the wheels that was discussed in section II C. Alternatively the origin might lie in the absence of a local flow rule near the driving wheels as reported in [@collin]. One way to resolve this is accommodating non-local behavior in our model, for instance by incorporating drag terms due to next nearest lanes, similar to the cooperativity length introduced in [@collin]. We have not pursued this avenue.
Ordered foams {#sec:ord}
=============
We have postulated that the disordered bubble motion underlies the anomalous relation between the local bubble-bubble drag forces and the global viscous stresses. To corroborate this conjecture, we shear ordered, monodisperse foams in the linear geometry, similar to what was done in [@denninpre73]. In this case the bubbles are expected to move affinely with the global shear, in which case one would expect the global viscous drag forces to scale the same as the local ones.
![(Color online) (a) Velocity profiles for a monodisperse, ordered foam with the crystal axis aligned with the wheels. Gap $W$ = 7 cm and $v_0= 0.083$ (black), 0.26 (dark grey) and 0.83 (light grey) mm/s. Solid curves indicate fits to the model Eq. (\[modeleq\]) with $k =0.3$, $ \beta =2/3$. (a-b) Velocity profiles for an ordered foam consisting of 2.7 mm bubbles for same drving velocities as main panel, to which defects are added in the form of an increasing area fraction of 1.8 mm bubbles as indicated.[]{data-label="rateinddep"}](rateindep3.png){width="8cm"}
We shear a monodisperse, ordered foam with bubbles of size 2.7 mm, produced by blowing nitrogen through one syringe needle at fixed flow rate, at a gap $W$ of 7 cm at $v_0= 0.083, 0.26$ and $0.83$ mm/s. We recover the rate independent and strongly shear banded velocity profiles reported in [@denninpre73] (see Fig. \[rateinddep\]). As in the case of the bidisperse foams, we fit model profiles to our experimental data. For our model to yield rate independent velocity profiles, the drag forces need to balance in the same ratio for all driving velocities. This can only be achieved if $\beta=2/3$ since we have already confirmed with rheometry that the exponent governing bubble-wall drag is $2/3$. Indeed we find that the experimental profiles are best fit by model profiles if one fixes $k=0.3$ and $\beta=0.67\pm 0.05$ [@footnote2], see Fig. \[rateinddep\].
Disorder
--------
In our experiment, the complex bubble motion is closely connected to the anomalous scaling of the bubble-bubble drag force, which in turn is reflected in the observed rate dependence of the velocity profiles. We can thus investigate for which levels of disorder the rate dependence of the velocity profiles occurs by gradually increasing the disorder, starting from a monodisperse foam.
To this end we record velocity profiles in a monodisperse foam made of 2.7 mm size bubbles in which we gradually increase the area fraction of smaller (1.8 mm) bubbles. After mixing the two species we measure velocity profiles at $v_0 = 0.083, 0.26$ and $0.83$ mm/s. We already observe the occurrence of rate dependent velocity profiles for small quantities of defects, see inset (a) and (b) of Fig. \[rateinddep\], and by visual inspection, we already see the swirling patterns, typical of our 41/59 bidisperse foam, occurring at 2 % disorder. These findings indicate that rate independent flows are in fact limited to a narrow region close to the almost singular case of completely ordered foams.
Role of the packing fraction {#sec:pac}
============================
In this section we will discuss linear shear experiments where we will vary both the packing fraction (or *wetness*) of our foam $\phi$ as well as the applied strain rate, to investigate the flow behavior of these foams as a function of density. In particular, we will closely approach the jamming transition, located at $\phi_c \approx 0.84$. This allows us to test our drag force balance model over a wide range of experimental situations. Our main findings are that, first, the scaling exponent $\beta$ appears to be independent of $\phi$, and second, that the pre-factor $k$ is our model (Eq. \[modeleq\]) varies as $1/(\phi-\phi_c)$ where $\phi_c \approx 0.84$.
Varying and measuring $\phi$
----------------------------
In order to vary $\phi$, we vary the vertical gap between the glass plates and the bulk solution between 3 and 0.2 mm. We do this by adding or retracting fluid from the reservoir. For large gaps the bubbles get stretched in the vertical direction, and share large deformed facets — the foam effectively becomes dry. For small gaps the bubbles acquire a pancake-like shape, close to purely disc like in the horizontal plane, with only small facets between neighboring bubbles — the foam effectively becomes wet.
![Image manipulations leading to a definition of $\phi$. Left: Raw image. Center: Raw image with reconstructed bubble areas superposed. Note the good agreement. Right: Final binarized image from which packing fraction is deduced.[]{data-label="wetness"}](liquidfr.jpg){width="80mm"}
To create a homogeneous gap between the liquid surface and the glass plate, we place additional supports under the glass plate to prevent sagging of the top plate during the runs. We monitor the gap width with a Mitutoyo digital depth gauge. If the gap becomes smaller than 0.2 mm the bubbles unjam [@coxpm2008; @footnote3].
We find that in the linear shear cell the accessible range in $\phi$ is $0.86 \lesssim \phi \lesssim 0.97$. If we stay between these limits the system we study is jammed and quasi two-dimensional. It should be noted that for the runs performed at fixed wetness, discussed in the previous sections, we find $\phi = 0.965 \pm 0.005$, in reasonable agreement with previous reports on the maximum $\phi$ that can be obtained in our type of setup [@raufaste].
Determining the liquid fraction is not trivial, since various horizontal cuts through the bubble layer will yield different values [@wetnote]. We choose our lighting of the bubbles such that the contacts between adjacent bubbles are optimally resolved. We then extract $\phi$ through image analysis, as illustrated in Fig. \[wetness\]. We first binarize the images, after which both the bubble centers and the interstices appear bright. We remove the interstices by morphological operations. We then invert the binarized image and fill up the remaining bubble contours. We have checked that the resulting bright disc optimally matches the original bubble contour, see Fig. \[wetness\]. We then calculate the ratio of white pixels over the total number of pixels and hence obtain a reasonable estimate of $\phi$.
Now that we have obtained good estimates of the packing fraction $\phi$, we can probe the role of the wetness in setting the flow. We first, in section \[secalpha\], briefly discuss a local probe of the non-affine motion, which shows that the bubble motion becomes increasingly non-affine when the wetness is increased. We then investigate the variation of the flow behavior with $\phi$, using our model Eq. (\[modeleq\]). We first establish, in section \[secsubbeta\], that the exponent $\beta$ does not vary with $\phi$ — surprising, give the varying degree of non-affinity. We then find, in section \[secsubk\], that the force pre-factor $k$ varies strongly with $\phi$ and vanishes at $\phi_c \approx 0.84$ as $1/(\phi-\phi_c)$.
![(Color online) Displacement angle distributions $P(\alpha)$ for runs for which $v_0=0.26$ mm/s, $W=5$ cm and $\Delta t=0.46$ s averaged over the shear banded region ( $0<y< W/3$ and $2W/3<y<W$) for the range of packing fractions as indicated. []{data-label="figalpha"}](palphapaper.png){width="7cm"}
A local measure of the non-affine bubble motion: $P(\alpha)$ {#secalpha}
------------------------------------------------------------
A crucial feature of deformations found in simulations of packings of frictionless discs near jamming is the strongly non-affine nature of the particle (bubble) motion [@durian; @liuletter; @makseprl1999; @ellenbroek]. Recently, a simple local probe of this affinity was introduced by Ellenbroek [*et al.*]{} who performed simulations of soft frictionless discs [@ellenbroek]. Defining the displacements of contacting particles $i$ and $j$ as $\vec{u}_i$ and $\vec{u}_j$, and the vector that connects the centers of particles $i$ and $j$ as $\vec{r}_{ij}$, the relative displacement angle $\alpha$ was defined as the angle between $\vec{r}_{ij}$ and $\vec{u}_i -
\vec{u}_j$. In other words, $\alpha =0^{\circ}$ corresponds to particles moving away from each other, $\alpha =180^{\circ}$ corresponds to particles moving closer, and $\alpha =90^{\circ}$ corresponds to particles sliding past one another.
The probability distribution $P(\alpha)$ was found, for shear deformations in particular, to be well fitted by a (periodically extended) Lorentzian peaked around $90^{\circ}$ [@ellenbroek; @wouterlongpreinpreparation]. The width of the peak scales with distance to jamming — at jamming, $P(\alpha)$ approaches a delta function peaked at $\alpha=90^{\circ}$.
Of course, in our experiment we have flow, and we cannot determine deformations in linear response. Moreover, our system is not homogeneous. Nevertheless, as a coarse measure of the degree of non-affine bubble motion, which we claim underlies the anomalous scaling exponent $\beta$ in disordered systems, we have calculated $P(\alpha)$ focussing on finite time displacement fields ($v_0=0.216$ mm/s, $W=5$ cm, $\Delta t=0.46$ s).
In Fig. \[figalpha\] we show $P(\alpha)$ averaged over the regions $0<y<W/3$ and $2W/3<y<W$ where most of the flow takes place, and averaged in the $x$-direction over 50 mm in the center of the cell. We limit ourselves to this region, because, in particular for the wet runs, there is hardly any flow in the center region of the cell and the peaks in $P(\alpha)$ are less pronounced in this region. We find that, analogous to what is found in simulations [@ellenbroek], the distributions become increasingly peaked around $\alpha=90^{\circ}$ for increasing wetness. Moreover, the distributions are well fit by the same Lorentzian fit that also captures the numerical displacement fields well [@wouterlongpreinpreparation].
Hence, this simple measure of non-affine motion strongly indicates that the degree of non-affinity increases for wetter foams. We believe that this is the first experimental measurement of this distribution that shows the proximity of the jamming transition. Detailed studies of the role of the local strain rate or the time interval over which displacements are measured are deferred to later work.
Variation of the exponent $\beta$ with $\phi$ {#secsubbeta}
---------------------------------------------
We now investigate the validity of applying the drag force balance model with a fixed $\beta=0.36$ for varying $\phi$. The microscopic exponent 2/3 which governs the flow of a bubble past a wall appears to be independent of the particularities of the foam flow [@cantat; @raufastephd]. On the other hand, it is not at all obvious that $\beta$, which governs the averaged bubble-bubble drag forces, does not depend on $\phi$. As we have seen, $\beta$ is set by the disorder in the system and the non-affine bubble motion that occurs in conjunction with that, and as we have shown in the previous section, the degree of non-affinity varies substantially with $\phi$.
To see if $\beta$ indeed depends on the foam density we perform two additional scans over the same six shear rates as employed in section III for a bidisperse foam at a gap width $W=7$ cm, while first fixing $\phi =0.905 \pm 0.005$ and then $\phi =0.925 \pm
0.005$. We look for a minimum of the variance in $k$ over the six velocity profiles as a function of $\beta$ (see grey and light grey squares in Fig. \[dkvsphitot\]). We observe that the model fits best to all six runs performed at $\phi =0.905$ for $\alpha =
2/3, \beta = 0.38 \pm 0.05$ (see Fig. \[dkvsphitot\]) and $k
=7.5$, whereas the model best matches the runs performed at $\phi
=0.925$ for $\alpha = 2/3, \beta = 0.39 \pm 0.05$ (see Fig. \[dkvsphitot\]) and $k =5.8$, thus strongly indicating that within our range of accessible liquid fractions $\beta$ seems to be constant. For comparison, we include the variance for the runs described in section III B that was plotted in Fig. \[ratedep\](f). Remarkably, $\beta$ remains a constant with varying $\phi$ while the degree of non-affinity varies. While we do not pretend to understand this, we do remark that $\beta$ and $P(\alpha)$ essentially encode different routes towards jamming and thus towards increasing non-affinity: $\beta$ is renormalized by the increasing non-affinity as one lowers the strain rate $\dot{\gamma}$ towards jamming, while $P(\alpha)$ monitors non-affinity as a function of density.
Scaling of the force pre- factor $k$ with $\phi$ {#secsubk}
------------------------------------------------
Now that we have established that $\beta$ is independent of $\phi$, we will probe the variation of $k$ with $\phi$. We measure averaged velocity profiles at gap widths $W = 5$ cm and $W = 7$ cm and fixed $v_0 = 0.26$ mm/s (the third slowest driving velocity), for packing fractions varying between $\phi=0.855$ and $\phi=0.975$. The velocity profiles for $W=5$ cm are plotted in Fig. \[phirun\], and are seen to become increasingly shear banded as we approach $\phi_c$ [@foot2]. This trend is reflected in the increase of $k$ as we approach $\phi_c$. We obtain $k$ by fitting solutions of our drag force balance model with $\alpha=0.67$ and $\beta = 0.36$ to these profiles. The resulting fits are shown as red lines in Fig. \[phirun\], and fit the data well.
In Fig. \[dkvsphitotII\] we plot $k$ as a function of $\phi-\phi_c$, with $\phi_c$ the theoretically predicted and experimentally measured value of the unjamming packing fraction: $\phi_c = 0.842$ [@olsson; @bolton; @lechenault]. In good approximation we obtain that $$k \propto 1/(\phi-\phi_c)$$
We can tentatively explain the observed scaling of $k$ with a simple argument based on the sizes of the facets in the foam. At fixed $\phi$, our drag force balance model yields a value of $k$ that sets the relative influence of the bubble-wall drag with respect to the bubble-bubble drag and which we have conjectured to be given by $k \propto f_{bw}/f_{bb}$. As we have already discussed, $f_{bw} \propto \sigma r_c$ with $r_c$ the radius of the flattened contact between the bubble and the wall and $f_{bb}
\propto \sigma \kappa^2_c$, with $\kappa_c$ the radius of the flattened contact between neighboring bubbles. Thus we expect: $$k \propto r_c/\kappa_c^2. \label{kscaling}$$ While $r_c$ is set by the buoyancy and hence does not vary strongly with the gap distance between glass plate and liquid surface — only becoming slightly smaller as the bubbles get stretched at large gaps — $\kappa_c$ is strongly dependent on the gap size and hence on the packing fraction of the foam.
The size of $\kappa_c$ should depend on the deformation (also called the overlap) $\delta\xi$ as [@lacasse]: $$\kappa_c \propto (\delta\xi)^{1/2}.$$ Similar to simulations of two-dimensional frictionless discs [@ohern; @ellenbroek] we can relate the overlap $\delta
\xi$ to the packing fraction $\phi$: $$\delta\xi \propto \Delta \phi.$$
Simple substitution of this result into Eq. (\[kscaling\]) yields $$k \propto r_c/\kappa_c^2 \propto 1/\delta\xi = 1/(\Delta \phi),$$ which is fully consistent with our experimental results, see the solid line in Fig. \[dkvsphitot\]
Note that in the above we have only focussed on the radius of the deformed facets. A proper analysis would include the size of the Plateau border around the contact, which is where the dissipation also occurs [@denkov2; @terriac]. For instance, in [@raufastephd] the bubble-wall drag force scales as $F^{bw}
\propto Ca^{0.64}\phi_l^{-0.26}$ and a proper treatment would entail such analysis, even though the functional dependence on the Plateau border size is always weak. Moreover, in all of these works, the functional dependence of the drag force with $\phi$ is smooth around $\phi_c$ and hence will not influence the observed scaling around that point.
Discussion and conclusion {#sec:con}
=========================
We have measured velocity profiles in linearly sheared quasi-two-dimensional foams in the liquid-glass configuration. We find that bidisperse, disordered foams exhibit strongly rate dependent and inhomogeneous (shear banded) velocity profiles, while monodisperse, ordered foams are also shear banded, but essentially rate independent. We capture these findings in a simple model that balances the drag forces in our system. The scaling forms for these drag forces are verified by independent rheological measurements. Finally, we apply our model to velocity profiles obtained for foams at varying packing fraction, and measure and describe the scaling of the inverse foam consistency with packing fraction.
This work raises several questions. First, can the difference between the local bubble-bubble drag force scaling and the global (averaged) bubble-bubble drag force scaling be understood theoretically? This difference in scaling exponents appears similar to the change from local drag forces to global rheological laws, observed in simulations of (variants) of the bubble model [@durian; @olsson; @hatano; @remmers; @coreyPRE], but a precise connection is lacking at present. Closely connected, is our scenario an example of a general route by which aspects of the ubiquitous Herschel-Bulkley (power law) rheology observed for a wide range of disordered materials can be rationalized?
Second, how robust are our experimental results? For example, would similar flows in Hele-Shaw cells behave differently, as suggested by the results of Debrégeas [@debregeasprl87]? We also wonder if our model is able to capture shear banded flows in Couette geometries, where the curvature plays an important role, in particular since the foam has a finite flow threshold [@denninreview]. Third, can similar phenomena and models as described here be extended to three dimensional flows of foams and emulsions — where flows in the latter can be captured by confocal imaging and MRI [@brujic; @collin; @ovarlez; @rodts]? Fourth, how should our local models be compared to the non-local effects recently discussed for emulsion flows [@collin; @ovarlez]?
The authors wish to thank Jeroen Mesman for technical assistance. GK kindly acknowledges Nikolai Denkov for illuminating discussions. GK and MM acknowledge support from physics foundation FOM, and MvH acknowledges support from NWO/VIDI.
[99]{} R. Höhler and S. Cohen-Addad, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. **17**, R1041 (2005). T.G. Mason, J. Bibette and D. A.Weitz, J. Coll. Interf. Sci. [**179**]{}, 439 (1996); W. Losert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1428, (2000); P. Coussot [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 218301, (2002); R. Besseling [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**99**]{}, 028301, (2007). L. Bécu, S. Manneville and A. Collin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 108203, (2006). A.M. Kraynik, Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech [**20**]{}, 325 (1988). D.J. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4780 (1995). C. Gilbreth, S. Sullivan and M. Dennin, Phys. Rev. E **74**, 051406 (2006). D. Weaire and S. Hutzler, [*The Physics of Foams*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999) R.G. Larson, [*Structure and Rheology of complex fluids*]{} (Oxford University Press,1998) S.A. Khan, C.A. Schnepper and R.C. Armstrong, J. Rheology [**32**]{} 69 (1988). H.M. Princen and A.D. Kiss, J. Colloid Interface Sci. **128**, 176 (1989). A.D. Gopal and D.J. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 188303 (2003). J. Lauridsen, M. Twardos, and M. Dennin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 098303 (2002). N.D. Denkov, V. Subraminian, D. Gurovich and A. Lips, Coll. Surf. A [**263**]{}, 129 (2005). G. Katgert, M.E. Möbius and M. van Hecke, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 058301 (2008). G. Debrégeas, H. Tabuteau and J.-M. di Meglio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 178305 (2001). J.Lauridsen, G.Chanan and M. Dennin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 018303 (2004). L. Bragg and J.F. Nye, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**190**]{}, 474 (1947). Y. Wang, K. Krishan and M. Dennin, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{} 031401 (2006). C.S. Smith, *Metal Interfaces* American Society for Metals, Cleveland, OH (1952). M.F. Vaz and M.A. Fortes, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. **9**, 8921 (1997). B. Dollet, F. Elias, C. Quilliet, C. Raufaste, M. Aubouy and F. Graner, Phys. Rev. E. **71**, 031403 (2005). A. Kabla, J. Scheibert and G. Debregeas, J. Fluid Mech. **587**, 45 (2007). I. Cheddadi, P. Saramito, C. Raufaste, P. Marmottant and F. Graner, Eur. Phys J. E **27**, 123 (2008). E. Janiaud, D. Weaire and S. Hutzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 038302 (2006). T.G. Mason, J. Bibette and D.A. Weitz, J. Coll. Interf. Sci. [**179**]{}, 439 (1996). M.-D. Lacasse, G.S. Grest, D. Levine, T.G. Mason and D.A. Weitz Phys. Rev. Lett., [**76**]{}, 3448 (1996). J. Brujić, S. F. Edwards, I. Hopkinson, and H. A. Makse, Physica A. **327**, 201 (2003). S. Zhou, Q. Long, D. Wang and A.D. Dinsmore, Science [312]{}, 1631 (2006). N.D. Denkov, S. Tcholakova, K. Golemanov, V. Subramanian and A. Lips, Coll. Surf. A [**282**]{}, 329 (2006). I. Cantat, N. Kern and R. Delannay, Europhys. Lett. **65**, 726 (2004). A. Saugey, W. Drenckhan and D. Weaire, Phys. Fluids **18**, 053101 (2006). E. Terriac, J. Etrillard and I. Cantat, Europhys. Lett. [**74**]{}, 909 (2006). N.D. Denkov, S. Tcholakova, K. Golemanov, K.P. Ananthapadmanabhan, and A. Lips, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 138301 (2008). F.P. Bretherton, J. Fluid Mech. ovich and A. Lips, Coll. Surf. A [**263**]{}, 129 (2005). A.J. Liu, S. Ramaswamy, T.G. Mason, H. Gang and D.A. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} 3017, (1996). M.E. Mobius, G. Katgert and M. van Hecke, arXiv/cond-mat.soft:0811.0534. H. A. Makse, N. Gland, D. L. Johnson and L. M. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 5070 (1999). C.S. O‘Hern, L.E. Silbert, A.J. Liu and S.R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. E 68, 011306 (2003). W.G. Ellenbroek, Z. Zeravcic, W. van Saarloos and M. van Hecke, [*in preparation*]{}. P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 178001 (2007). T. Hatano, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. [**77**]{}, 123002 (2008). V.J. Langlois, S.Hutzler and D. Weaire, Phys. Rev. E **78**, 021401 (2008). J. Remmers, E. Woldhuis, B.P. Tighe, M. van Hecke and W. van Saarloos, *in preparation* W.G. Ellenbroek, E. Somfai, M. van Hecke and W. van Saarloos, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 258001 (2006). H. A. Makse, D. L. Johnson and L. M. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 4160 (2000). J.M. Andreas, E.A. Hauser and W.R. Tucker, J. Phys. Chem. [**42**]{}, 1001 (1938). This is done to ensure the packing fraction remains constant during the strain rate sweep; when the entire circumference of the wheel is covered with bubbles a balance results between bubbles dragged out of the system and injected back in. If we would sweep from slow to fast driving rates, this balance is not achieved, resulting in a packing fraction that decreases during the experiment. P. Aussillous and D. Quéré, Europhys. Lett. [**59**]{}, 370 (2002). S.A. Koehler, S. Hilgenfeldt and H.A. Stone, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4232 (1999). D.A. Reinelt and A.M. Kraynik, J. Coll. Interf. Sci. [**132**]{}, 491, (1989). W.H. Herschel and R. Bulkley, Koll. Zeitschrift [**39**]{}, 291 (1926). B.P. Tighe, private communications, D. Weaire, S. Hutzler, V.J. Langlois and R.J. Clancy, Phil. Mag. Lett. **88**, 387 (2008). One subtlety one encounters is that from the tracking we can only estimate the velocity from ratios of displacements and time intervals, and for the experimentally accessible timescales, the statistics of the velocities thus obtained have been found to depend on the time interval — see [@mobius]. J. Goyon, A. Colin, G. Ovarlez, A. Ajdari and L. Bocquet, Nature **454**, 84 (2008). The value of $k$ is remarkably small. If we assume that prefactor $f_{bw}$ for the bubble wall drag remains unchanged for the ordered foam, this means that the bubble-bubble drag prefactor $f_{bb}$ is much larger compared to its value for a disordered foam. Note however, that the power law exponent $\beta$ greatly influences the value of the drag force: for instance, if $\Delta v =0.001$ m/s, then $(\eta v/\sigma)^{2/3} = 1.6 \times 10^{-3}$, whereas $(\eta v/\sigma)^{0.36} = 3.1 \times 10^{-2}$, which is more than an order of magnitude larger. S.J. Cox and E. Janiaud, Phil. Mag. Lett. **88**, 693 (2008). This might be due to the fact that the gap is then of the size of the Plateau borders that connect the flat film between the bubble and the glass plate and the flat film between neighboring bubbles, and hence the latter vanishes. If the gap becomes larger than 3 mm the foam buckles and develops a three dimensional structure. C. Raufaste, B. Dollet, S. Cox, Y. Jiang and F. Graner, Eur. Phys. J. E [**23**]{}, 217 (2007). One could try to relate the liquid fraction to the gap between the liquid surface and the glass plate. This distance, however, does not unambiguously set $\phi$ in our experiment: we observe a large hysteresis effect, i.e., increasing or decreasing the gap to a certain value does not yield the same packing fraction $\phi$. This probably due to the open boundary conditions in the horizontal plane. Another measure that has been derived in [@raufaste] relates the measured length of the deformed facets of the bubbles just before a T1 event to $\phi$. In our experiments, though, it is not clear how the occurrence of T1-events can precisely be defined, since there is no obvious separation of the deformation scales during and outside of a T1-event. W.G. Ellenbroek, M. van Hecke and W. van Saarloos, *in preparation*. C. Raufaste, *PhD-thesis*, `http://tel.archives-ouver- tes.fr/docs/00/19/32/48/PDF/TheseRaufaste.pdf` (2007). F. Bolton and D. Weaire, Phys. Rev. Lett [**65**]{}, 3449 (1990). F. Lechenault, O. Dauchot, G.Biroli and J.-P. Bouchaud, Europhys. Lett. **83**, 46003 (2008). Note that this trend is opposite to what was observed by Debrégeas et al. in [@debregeasprl87]: there the authors find that the velocity profiles become less shearbanded with increasing liquid fraction. We cannot explain this result and conclude it to be one of the many open questions surrounding that work. N.Xu and C.S. O’Hern, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 061303 (2006). M. Dennin, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. [**20**]{}, 283103 (2008). G. Ovarlez, S. Rodts, A. Ragouilliaux, P. Coussot, J. Goyon and A. Colin, Phys. Rev. E **78**, 036307 (2008). S. Rodts, J. C. Baudez and P. Coussot, Europhys. Lett. **69**, 636 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'H. Jakob, R. Simon, C. Kramer, B. Mookerjea, N. Schneider, S. Bontemps'
- 'J. Stutzki'
title: 'The Carbon content in the Galactic CygnusX/DR21 star forming region'
---
Introduction
============
Observations of Carbon bearing species are among the most important diagnostic probes of ongoing star formation. CO is a surrogate for H$_2$ and is found in the vicinity of star formation sites. There, \[CI\] emission is thought to outline the dense molecular cores and extend into the lower density regions, where the impinging interstellar UV radiation field plays a critical role for the dissociation and ionization processes. Emission of ionized carbon (\[CII\]) is found to be even more extended than \[CI\] and is linking up with the ionized medium. These different tracers emphasize the importance of multi-wavelength studies to draw a coherent picture of the processes driving and driven by high mass star formation. Until now, large scale surveys were only done with low resolution, such as the COBE full sky survey, or were biased to a few selected bright sources (e.g. Yamamoto et al. 2001, Schneider et al. 2003). A broader basis of unbiased, high-resolution observations of \[CI\], CO, and \[CII\] may play a key role to probe the material processed by UV radiation.
We here present a 2 deg$^2$ large-scale map of $^{13}$CO 2-1 (see Figure 1) in the Cygnus X region and follow-up ($12'\times14'$) maps of the DR21 region in the two \[CI\] fine structure lines and the $^{12}$CO 7-6 rotational transition. Additional KOSMA observations of $^{12}$CO 6-5, $^{13}$CO 6-5, and $^{12}$CO 3-2 are included for comparison. We compare parts of the KOSMA data with a \[CII\] map taken with KAO in 1994, $^{12}$CO 9-8, and $^{13}$CO 9-8 observations (Boreiko & Betz 1991, also KAO) and with publicly available ISO-LWS spectra at 7 distinct positions in the vicinity of DR21.
The Observations: CI vs. CO
===========================
The DR21 HII region/molecular cloud core has long been subject of detailed studies, which have led to a comprehensive view of the region. Measuring several parsecs in diameter at a distance of $1.5$ kpc (Bontemps et al., in prep.), it harbors probably one of the most extended bipolar outflow in the Galaxy. The region contains a compact HII region at the center and two extended lobes of shocked H$_2$ emission running along an axis from NE to SW. The molecular material found in the lobes was presumably ripped off a dense molecular ridge that is aligned N-S, and the wind originating from DR21 is about to break through the cavity (Lane et al. 1990).
[**Figure1:**]{} KOSMA $^{13}$CO 2-1 velocity integrated intensity between $-6$ and 1 kms$^{-1}$ (contours) on top of an 8 $\mu$m MSX image. The DR21 region mapped in both CI lines and CO 7-6 is marked by a box (cf. Figure 2).
Besides $^{13}$CO 2-1 (Figure 1), we have gathered observational data of both \[CI\] lines that are assumed to be optically thin. We find, that the ratio of the integrated intensity is almost constant at about 0.9 in the mapped region (compare with Figure 2). This indicates that the \[CI\] lines have their origin in a warm environment. The emission roughly follows the shape of the low-J $^{13}$CO maps. This clearly is in contrast to the CO 7-6 map, which shows strong emission toward the DR21 core and the outflow lobes, but not along the ridge in the vicinity of DR21(OH) and FIR1 (cf. Figure 3).
[**Figure2:**]{} KOSMA observations of \[CI\] $^3$P$_1-^3$P$_0$ (left, in contours), \[CI\] $^3$P$_1-^3$P$_0$ (greyscale) and CO 7-6 (right) of the DR21/DR21(OH) region.
The ISO LWS sample
==================
Seven ISO-LWS positions (see Figure 3) cover the core (\#2), the east and west lobe of the DR21 outflow (\#1 and \#3) and two positions in between (DR21 East and West). The two nearby sources DR21(OH) and DR21 FIR1 lie inside the dust lane to the north.
[**Figure3:**]{} Overlay of KOSMA $^{13}$CO 3-2 (gray) and KAO \[CII\] data (in contours). The boxes show the ISO/LWS-FIR continuum and lines (e.g. high-J CO, \[CII\], \[OI\] and \[OIII\]) with a closeup view on the (unresolved) \[CII\] line at 158$\mu$m on the right. Circles indicate the KOSMA and ISO beamwidths.
At position \#2, the continuum peak corresponds to L$_{44-197\mathrm{\mu m}}=4\times10^4$ L$_\odot$. This result is consistent with earlier results (Harvey et al. 1977), when using the old distance estimate of 3 kpc instead of 1.5 kpc. All major cooling lines are most pronounced, but the line cooling efficiency (L$_\mathrm{Lines}$/L$_\mathrm{Cont}$) is much lower than towards the eastern and western lobes (up to 1% at position \#1). Especially to the east, the 63$\mu$m \[OI\] line intensity shows a strong east-west asymmetry and extends beyond the continuum source.
Molecular Gas: Physical Conditions
==================================
We compare the observed $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO line intensities for position \#2 with a set of escape probability models at different CO column and H$_2$ volume densities, as well as kinetic temperatures. Two models are found to match the KOSMA and ISO line intensities (see Figure 4). However, n(H$_2$) varies by a factor of 10 between the two solutions, whereas N(CO) and T$_\mathrm{kin}$ are better constrained. We therefore included a $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO 9-8 observation of comparable beam width (Boreiko & Betz 1991). It is compatible with the $10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ model, but since $^{12}$CO 9-8 is not fitting at all, we presume a calibration error for both lines. More valuable $^{13}$CO observations with high-J are planed with KOSMA.
[**Figure4:**]{} Observed CO line intensities (at position \#2) as a function of J$_\mathrm{upper}$. The two lines represent best-fitting escape probability models assuming a $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO abundance of 33. The strong self absorption dip seen in the low-J and mid-J CO lines has not been accounted for.
Perspectives
============
With this study, we aim at extending our observations of the emission due to the major coolants of PDRs in Galactic star forming regions (e.g. S106 Schneider et al. 2003; W3 Kramer et al., in prep.). These data constitute the basis for the application of radiative transfer and chemical PDR models in order to 1. constrain the physical conditions in regions of high mass star formation and 2. show whether all important physical processes are taken into account in the current models to reproduce the observed line intensities and ratios. Also, it allows to derive a consistent picture of the photon dominated regions in the vicinity of massive star formation. This serves as a preparatory work for future missions like SOFIA and Herschel, which will provide a wealth of new information including velocity resolved \[CII\] data.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The gravitational radiation-reaction force acting on perfect fluids at $3.5$ post-Newtonian order is cast into a form which is directly applicable to numerical simulations. Extensive use is made of metric-coefficient changes induced by functional coordinate transformations, of the continuity equation, as well as of the equations of motion. We also present an expression appropriate for numerical simulations of the radiation field causing the worked out reaction force.'
author:
- Guillaume Faye
- Gerhard Schäfer
title: 'Optimizing the third-and-a-half post-Newtonian gravitational radiation-reaction force for numerical simulations'
---
Introduction
============
The reaction force acting on isolated perfect fluids due to gravitational radiation emission has been expressed by means of Burke-Thorne-like potentials up to the $7/2$ post-Newtonian ($3.5$ PN) order, which corresponds to the seventh order in power of the inverse of the speed of light $c$ [@B97]. However, this particular form is apparently not convenient for computational purposes as it involves up to the seventh time derivative of multipole moments. A similar problem happens with the 1 PN radiation field which causes the $3.5$ PN reaction force, since up to four time derivatives do apply therein.
It is well known, e.g. see [@S83], that the order of time derivatives in the $2.5$ PN reaction force crucially depends on the chosen coordinate system. The influence of general changes of coordinates onto the metric coefficients of a many particle system has been worked out in e.g., [@DS85], to the 2 PN order. In generalizing this result to perfect fluids, combining it with the choice of a suitable set of variables, we shall be able to reduce the $3.5$ PN reaction force to a fifth time derivative object. Furthermore, applying the continuity equation and the equations of motion will result in expressions where only one time derivative remains left, which poses no problems for a numerical implementation. In this way we generalize a previous work by Rezzolla *et al.* [@RSABS99] to the case of nonzero mass-multipole moments. We are then able to give the complete set of equations describing the fluid evolution up to $1$ PN $+~3.5$ PN order in a similar form as in a former paper by Blanchet, Damour and Schäfer [@BDS90]. In addition, we present the full explicit expression for the 1 PN radiation field, adapted to numerical simulations.
Though the formalism we propose limits to the case of adiabatic fluids, it may still be used in a large range of astrophysical applications. Particularly it provides a natural way to generalize the simulations of Oohara and Nakamura on the coalescence of binary neutron stars [@ON97] achieved at the $1$ PN conservative and $2.5$ PN dissipative levels, by adding the $3.5$ PN contributions to the gravitational reaction force. Our equations are also appropriate to study the effect of the gravitational damping, including the mass quadrupole [@JAG03], the mass octupole, as well as the current quadrupole (treated separately in paper [@RSABS99]), on the evolution of fluid modes in rotating compact stars [@S98] in the case where the fluid viscosity is neglected. The role played by the bulk viscosity in reducing the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz instability [@C70; @FS78] may actually be significant, but it can be temporarily ignored, regarding the complexity of the problem. Our model of matter will eventually be improved in future works. Let us point out finally that the adiabaticity condition only means the entropy conservation of fluid particles along their trajectories, and does not impose any specific relation between energy, entropy and pressure. The equation of state linking these three variables can thus be freely chosen. Suitable choices [@DFM02a; @S02] permit to model for instance rather realistic stellar collapse processes within the present formalism.
Effect of a gauge transformation on a metric {#sec:transformation}
============================================
In order to determine the coordinate system that minimizes the order of time derivatives appearing in the reaction force, we need to know the specific effect of a general change of coordinates on the functional form of the metric. More precisely, we must extend the “contact transformation” investigated in paper [@DS85] for systems of point-like particles to the case where the gravitational field is generated by a continuous distribution of matter. To determine the order at which we need to operate, we notice that the parts of the metric we are interested in contribute to the $1$ PN acceleration, as well as to the $2.5$ and $3.5$ PN dissipative dynamics. Products of terms corresponding to the $1$ PN and $2.5$ PN level in the equations of motion cannot be neglected since they affect the $3.5$ PN evolution. Therefore, the gauge transformation must be *a priori* investigated up to the quadratic order. However, we shall see that the linear approximation is sufficient provided the difference between the old and new coordinates is given in terms of the new variables. Still, some formulas, like formula which shows how two successive gauge transformations of order $1$ PN and $2.5$ $+~3.5$ differs from the transformation induced by the sum of the associated change of coordinates, can only be obtained within the quadratic approximation. Now, rather than limiting ourselves to the quadratic level, we shall give for completeness most of the relations presented in this section to arbitrary high orders. The resulting expressions will be longer, but more general and not fundamentally more complicated. They may be useful for future works, although not strictly required in the present paper. The reader solely interested in the application to the actual problem of eliminating time derivatives from the $3.5$ PN reaction force may skip this section. The reader exclusively interested in the final result may go directly to the end of section \[sec:reaction\] (equations ).
In a given coordinate grid, the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ (Greek indices run from 0 to 3, and Latin indices from 1 to 3) is a function of the coordinate $x^\alpha
= (c t =x^0 , \mathbf{x} = x^i)$ and depends functionally on certain matter fields $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_k, \ldots$ In the case of barotropic fluids, for instance, they can be the mass density $\rho$ and the 4-velocity field $u^\mu$ normalized to unity ($u^\mu u_\mu = -1$), or the baryonic mass density $\rho_*$ and the linear 3-momentum density $M_i$, or other sets of relevant variables. We have: $$g_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha,X_1(y^\alpha), X_2(y^\alpha), \ldots,
X_k(y^\alpha)) \, ;$$ in short form, $g_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))$. In our notation, the variables $x^\alpha$ contain the entire dependence on the coordinates, whereas $y^\alpha$ are seen as mere “dummy” quantities. The fields $X_A(y^\alpha)$ are in fact themselves functionals of the components of the stress energy-tensor and of the metric, $X_A(y^\alpha) = F_A (y^\alpha, T^{\alpha\beta}, g_{\alpha\beta})$, even if it is not indicated explicitly for simplicity. The important point is that a coordinate transformation, which is passive by essence, affects the function $X_A=X_A(y^\alpha)$.
Let us consider now the (exact) change of coordinates $$x^\alpha = x'^\alpha + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha
(x'^\beta,X'_A(y^\beta)) \, ,$$ where ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha$ is a function of $x'^\beta$ and a functional of the fields $X'_A(y^\beta)$. Such a transformation acts simultaneously on the coordinates, on the metric and on the fields $X_A(y^\alpha)$. As a consequence, the new components of $g'_{\mu\nu}$ are related to the old ones by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:transformation_g}
g'_{\mu\nu}(x'^\alpha, X'_A (y^\alpha &)) = g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))
\nonumber \\
& +2 g_{\lambda(\mu} (x^{\underline{\alpha}},
X_A(y^{\underline{\alpha}}))\partial'_{\nu)}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda(x'^\beta, X'_A(y^\beta)) \nonumber \\ +&~
g_{\lambda\rho}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))
\partial'_\mu {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda (x'^\beta,
X'_A(y^\beta)) \nonumber \\ & \times \partial'_\nu {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\rho (x'^\gamma,
X'_A(y^\gamma)) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial'_\lambda$ represents the partial derivative with respect to $x'^\lambda$, while the brackets around non-underlined indices mean their symmetrization. The fields $X'_A(y^\alpha)$ entering the argument of $g'_{\mu\nu}$ read $X'_A(y^\alpha) = F_A(y^\alpha,T'^{\alpha\beta},g'_{\alpha\beta})$. Since the dependence on $T'^{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma)$ and $g'_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma)$ is purely functional, the position variables $z^\gamma$ appearing there must be regarded as dummy, but their other arguments are combinations of tensor components referring to the current coordinate system: $T'^{\alpha\beta} = T'^{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,g'_{\gamma\delta},\ldots)$ and $g'_{\alpha\beta} = g'_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,X'_B)$. In the post-Newtonian framework, the computation of $g'_{\mu\nu}$ is actually restricted to a finite order in powers of ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha$ if we assume that the latter quantity is of order of the inverse of the speed of light $c$ or higher, namely ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha ={{\cal O}}(1/c)$. Therefore, when the function $g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))$ is known, the dependence of $g'_{\mu\nu}$ on $x'^\alpha$ can be obtained explicitly by expanding the right-hand side of equation in powers of ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha = x^\alpha - x'^\alpha$ within the required precision. Since the order of expansion can be arbitrarily high, we may symbolically write
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dvpt_epsilon}
g'_{\mu\nu}(x'^\alpha, X'_A(y^\alpha)) =&~
g_{\mu\nu}(x'^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha)) + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda(x'^\alpha,
X'_A(y^\alpha)) \partial'_\lambda
g_{\mu\nu}(x'^\beta, X_A(y^\beta)) + 2 g_{\lambda (\mu}
(x'^{\underline{\alpha}}, X_A(y^{\underline{\alpha}})) \partial'_{\nu)}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda(x'^\beta, X'_A(y^\beta)) \nonumber \\ &+
\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{k!} \bigg(
\frac{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k \lambda \rho}}{(k+1)(k+2)} (x'^\alpha,
X'_A(y^\alpha)) \partial'_{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k \lambda \rho}
g_{\mu\nu}(x'^\beta, X_A(y^\beta)) \nonumber \\& + \frac{2}{k+1}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k \rho}(x'^\alpha, X'_A(y^\alpha))
\partial'_{\lambda_1 \ldots
\lambda_k \rho} g_{\lambda (\mu} (x'^{\underline{\beta}},
X_A(y^{\underline{\beta}})) \partial'_{\nu)}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda(x'^\gamma, X'_A(y^\gamma)) \nonumber \\& +
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k} (x'^\alpha, X'_A(y^\alpha))
\partial_{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k} g_{\lambda \rho}(x'^\beta,
X_A(y^\beta)) \partial'_\mu
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda
\partial'_\nu {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\rho(x'^\gamma, X'_A(y^\gamma)) \bigg) \,.\end{aligned}$$
Note that according to the Einstein summation convention, repeated indices are summed over all their possible values; ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1
\ldots \lambda_k}$ is a short form for the product ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1} \ldots {\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_k}$, and $\partial'_{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k}$ stands for $\partial'_{\lambda_1} \ldots \partial'_{\lambda_k}$. Again, the infinite sum must be regarded as a formal series and does not need to converge. It has to be truncated at a given order consistently with the general approximation scheme. There only remains, at this stage, to express the metric components appearing in the second member of equation with the help of the new fields $X'_A(y^\alpha)$ rather than the old $X_A(y^\alpha)$. It can be most easily performed by using the concept of Fréchet derivative. Let us consider that $g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha,X_A(y^\alpha))$ is a function of the field variable $X_1$, on the affine space $\mathbb{R}$, having its domain on an affine space ${\cal
E}_1$ (for instance, the space of smooth bounded real function operating on $\mathbb{R}^4$, embedded with a norm, say $|~|_{\infty}$). By definition, the Fréchet derivative of $g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))$ with respect to $X_1$ is, when it exists, the continuous linear form, on the vector space associated to ${\cal E}_1$, that satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\mbox{} \! \! \! \! \! g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X'_1(y^\alpha), X_{A >
1}(y^\alpha)) - g_{\mu\nu}
(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha)) \\ = D_{X_1} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))]
\cdot \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_1(y^\beta) +
o(|\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_1(y^\beta)|^2_{\infty})\end{gathered}$$ for any infinitesimal variation $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_1(y^\beta)
\equiv X'_1(y^\beta)-X_1(y^\beta) \in {\cal E}_1$. Following usual notations, we have inserted a dot immediately before the variation $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_1(y^\beta)$ to indicate the action of the form resulting from the derivation. Denoting by ${\cal L}({\cal E}_1)$ the vector space of the continuous linear form on ${\cal E}_1$, we have $D_{X_1} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))] \in {\cal L}({\cal E}_1)$. Now, ${\cal L}({\cal E}_1)$ can be itself embedded with a structure of affine space as the real number set $\mathbb{R}$, so that we can define the Fréchet derivative of functions $f:{\cal E}_1 \rightarrow {\cal
L}({\cal E}_1)$ in a similar way as before. The bilinear form $D_{X_B}[D_{X_1} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))]]$ is said to be the second Fréchet derivative of $g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))$ with respect to $X_B$ and $X_1$, and similarly for higher orders. As the derivative of the difference $g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X'_1(y^\alpha), X_{A > 1}(y^\alpha)) - g_{\mu\nu}
(x^\alpha, X_A(y^\alpha))$ with respect to $x^\beta$ or $X_B(y^\beta)$ is equal to the difference of the derivatives, the operator $D_{X_1 \ldots X_{A_k}}$ ($k \in \mathbb{N}$) is evidently symmetric and commutes with the space-time derivatives $\partial_{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k}$. We are then in order to achieve our goal of removing the dependence of the metric on $X_A(y^\beta)$ by expanding $g'_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X'_A(y^\alpha)-\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_A(y^\alpha))$ around the fields $X'_A(y^\alpha)$ after a generalized Taylor theorem [@inSchwartz92]. This yields the fundamental relation:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:delta_g_NL}
&\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{\mu\nu} \equiv g'_{\mu\nu} - g_{\mu\nu}
= \sum_{l=1}^{+\infty} \frac{(-1)^l}{l!}D_{X_{B_1} \ldots
X_{B_l}}[g_{\mu\nu}] . (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_1},
\ldots, \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_l}) \nonumber
\\ &+ \sum_{l=0}^{+\infty} \frac{(-1)^l}{l!} \bigg({\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda
\partial_\lambda D_{X_{B_1} \ldots X_{B_l}}[g_{\mu\nu}] \cdot
(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_1}, \ldots, \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_{B_l}) \nonumber
+ 2 D_{X_{B_1} \ldots X_{B_l}}[g_{\lambda
(\mu}] \cdot (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_1}, \ldots,
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_l})
\partial_{\nu)} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda \bigg)\nonumber \\ &+
\sum_{k,l\ge 0} \! \frac{(-1)^{l}}{k!l!} \bigg(
\frac{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k \lambda \rho}}{(k+1)(k+2)}
\partial_{\lambda_1
\ldots \lambda_k \lambda \rho} D_{X_{B_1} \ldots X_{B_l}}[g_{\mu\nu}] \cdot
(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_1}, \ldots, \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_{B_l}) \nonumber
\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad + \frac{2}{k+1} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1 \ldots
\lambda_k \rho} \partial_{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k \rho}
D_{X_{B_1} \ldots X_{B_l}}[g_{\lambda (\mu}] \cdot (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_{B_1}, \ldots, \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_l}) \partial_{\nu)}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda \nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1 \ldots
\lambda_k} \partial_{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k} D_{X_{B_1} \ldots
X_{B_l}}[g_{\lambda \rho}] \cdot (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_1}, \ldots,
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_l}) \partial_\mu {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda
\partial_\nu {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\rho \bigg) \,, \end{aligned}$$
where $(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_1}, \ldots, \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_{B_l})$ denotes the vector to which the $l$-form $D_{X_{B_1} \ldots X_{B_l}} [g_{\mu\nu}]$ applies. It tends toward zero as $c$ goes to infinity since $X'_B$ and $X_B$ coincide when ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha=0$. As initially required, all quantities entering the above expression depend implicitly on the same variables, say $x^\alpha$ and $X_A$. In the grid $x'^\alpha =
x^\alpha - {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha(x'^\beta, X'_B) $, the new components of the metric are given, at last, by the function $g'_{\mu\nu}(x'^\alpha, X'_A) =
g_{\mu\nu}(x'^\alpha, X'_A) +\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{\mu\nu}(x'^\alpha, X'_A)$. In the same way, after a further transformation $x'^\alpha = x''^\alpha + \varepsilon'^\alpha_{x''}(x''^\beta, X''_B)$, the metric components become $g''_{\mu\nu}(x''^\alpha, X''_A) = g'_{\mu\nu}
(x''^\alpha, X''_A) +\delta^*_{\varepsilon'_{x''}} g'_{\mu\nu}(x''^\alpha,
X''_A)$. This proves the interesting relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:x_xpp}
x^\mu &= x''^\mu + {\varepsilon'}_{x''}^\mu(x''^\alpha,X''_A) \nonumber \\ +&~
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu(x''^\alpha+{\varepsilon'^\alpha}_{x''}(x''^\beta,X''_B),
X''_A-\delta^*_{\varepsilon'_{x''}} X'_A) \nonumber \\
&= x''^\mu + {\varepsilon'}_{x''}^\mu(x''^\alpha,X''_A) +
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu(x''^\alpha, X''_A) \nonumber \\ +&
\sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l,k \ge 0}{l+k\ge 1}} \frac{(-1)^l}{k!l!}
{\varepsilon'}_{x''}^{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k}
\partial''_{\lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_k} D_{X''_{B_1} \ldots
X''_{B_{l}}} [{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu(x''^\alpha,X''_A)] \nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad
\qquad \qquad \quad \cdot(\delta^*_{\varepsilon'_{x''}}
X'_{B_1}, \ldots, \delta^*_{\varepsilon'_{x''}} X'_{B_l}) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The preceding transformation between the initial and final coordinates defines a function $\varepsilon^\mu_{x''}$ by $x^\mu = x''^\mu + \varepsilon^\mu_{x''}$. Equation shows that this function is not the mere superposition of ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu$ and $\varepsilon'^\mu_{x''}$ but also involves non-linear contributions. We already know that the metric components $g'_{\mu\nu}$ obtained after the first coordinate change are given by $g'_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} + \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{\mu\nu}$. The ten functions $g''_{\mu\nu}$ can be similarly deduced from $g'_{\mu\nu}$: $g''_{\mu\nu} = g'_{\mu\nu} + \delta^*_{\varepsilon'_{x''}} g'_{\mu\nu}$. On the other hand, as the grid $\{x''^\mu\}$ is related to the old coordinate system $\{x^\mu\}$ by $x^\alpha = x''^\alpha + \varepsilon_{x''}^\alpha$, we have $g''_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} + \delta^*_{\varepsilon_{x''}} g_{\mu\nu}$ (which can be checked explicitly). Finally, the quantities $g'''_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} + \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu + \varepsilon'^\mu_{x''}}
g_{\mu\nu}$ represent the components of the metric in the coordinates system $\{x{'''}^\alpha\}$ such that $x^\alpha = x{'''}^\alpha +{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha(x{'''}^\beta, X{'''}_{\! \! \! \! \! \!
A \,}(y^\beta)) +
\varepsilon'^\alpha_{x''}(x{'''}^\beta, X{'''}_{\! \! \! \! \! \! A
\,}(y^\beta))$. They refer to the same gravitational field as $g'_{\mu\nu}$, or $g''_{\mu\nu}$. In all what precedes, the new coordinates are defined by implicit equations for given ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha$ and $\varepsilon'^\alpha_{x''}$, e.g. $x'^\alpha = x^\alpha - {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\alpha (x'^\beta,X'_A(y^\beta))$. However, they can be formally inverted by applying recursively the Taylor formula and rearranging the summation,
$$\begin{gathered}
x'^\alpha = x^\alpha - \sum_{n,m \ge 0}^{+\infty}
\frac{(-1)^n}{m!} \sum_{s=1}^{+\infty} \sum_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_1 +
\ldots + k_s = n}{k_i \ge 1}} \frac{1}{k_1 ! \ldots k_s !}
D[\varepsilon^{\lambda_1^{(n)}
\ldots \lambda_{k_n}^{(n)}} \partial_{\lambda_1^{(n)} \ldots
\lambda_{k_n}^{(n)}} \times\\ \times \varepsilon^{\lambda_1^{(n-1)}
\ldots \lambda_{k_{n-1}}^{(n-1)}}
\ldots \partial_{\lambda_1^{(2)} \ldots \lambda_{k_2}^{(2)}}
\varepsilon^{\lambda_1^{(1)} \ldots \lambda_{k_1}^{(1)}}
\partial_{\lambda_1^{(1)} \ldots \lambda_{k_1}^{(1)}} \varepsilon^\alpha]\cdot
(\delta^* X_{B_1}, \ldots, \delta^* X_{B_m}) \, .\end{gathered}$$
In most of applications, the post-Newtonian metric components show the structure of a sum of products of elementary factors, each of them being itself a $n$-tuple spatial integral of a given function $f(\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{z}_1,
\ldots, \mathbf{z}_{n-1}, t, X_A(\mathbf{y},c t))$ of the coordinates and the fields. With the help of the Leibniz rule, the Fréchet derivative $D_{X_A} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_B(y^\alpha))]$ can be written as a sum of terms matching the pattern: $$F(x^\alpha, X_C(y^\alpha)) D_{X_A}\bigg[ {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}_1 \ldots
d^3{\bf y}_n~ f({\bf y_1}, {\bf y_2}, \ldots, {\bf y_n}, t,X_D({\bf y_1},c
t))\bigg]\cdot \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_B \, ,$$ where $F(x^\alpha, X_C(y^\alpha))$ is a function of $x^\alpha$ and a functional of $X_C(y^\alpha))$. After the definition of $D_{X_A}$, the latter expression also reads: $${{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}_1~\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_A {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}_2 \ldots
d^3\mathbf{y}_n~ F(x^\alpha, X_C(y^\alpha)) \partial_{X_A}f({\bf y_1}, {\bf
y_2}, \ldots, {\bf y_n}, t,X_D({\bf
y_1},c t))\, .$$ From what we conclude that $D_{X_A} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_B(y^\alpha))].
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_A$ admits an integral representation of the type ${{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y} ~\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_A (\delta g_{\mu\nu}/\delta
X_A)$. The so-defined quantity $\delta g_{\mu\nu}/\delta X_A$ is known as the first functional derivative of $g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, X_B(y^\alpha))$ with respect to $X_A$. It is also possible to introduce the second functional derivative $\delta^2 g_{\mu\nu}/$ $\delta X_A \delta X_B$. By definition, $${{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}_1 d^3\mathbf{y}_2~ \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_B(\mathbf{y}_1,ct)
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_C(\mathbf{y}_2,ct) \frac{\delta^2
g_{\mu\nu}}{\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_B \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_C}
\equiv D_{X_B X_C} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha,
X_A(y^\alpha))] \cdot (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_B(y^\beta), \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_C(y^\gamma)) \, .$$
The case where the non-linear terms occurring in do not contribute to $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{\mu\nu}$ (or at least to the order of $g_{\mu\nu}$ we are interested in) is of particular importance. This happens when all products involving two factors equal to $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_B$ or ${\varepsilon_{x'}}$ as well as a space or time derivative of the metric $\partial g$ can be neglected. Hence, the $n$ PN transformation law is linear whenever ${{\cal O}}(1/c^{n+1}) ={{\cal O}}({\varepsilon_{x'}}^2 \partial g) +
{{\cal O}}({\varepsilon_{x'}}\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X \partial g) + {{\cal O}}(( \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X)^2\partial
g)$, and equation reduces then to: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:delta_g_L}
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{\mu\nu} = -
D_{X_B}[g_{\mu\nu}] \cdot \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_B \\ + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda
\partial_\lambda g_{\mu\nu} + 2 g_{\lambda (\mu} \partial_{\nu)}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda \, .\end{gathered}$$
As a check, let us specify relation to the important case where the matter variables are (*i*) the baryonic density of the fluid ${{\rho_*}}= \sqrt{-g} \rho u^0$ (with $g = \det g_{\mu\nu}$), (*ii*) the fluid coordinate 3-velocity field $v^i = c u^i/u^0$, and (*iii*) the entropy per unit mass $s$, i.e. $g_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha,{{\rho_*}},v^p,s)$.
By using the transformation properties of $\rho$ (scalar), $u^\mu$ (vector) and $\sqrt{-g}$ (density), we find at the linear order after a straightforward calculation: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^* {{\rho_*}}=&~ \partial_i ({{\rho_*}}{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i) - \frac{v^i}{c} \partial_i
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 {{\rho_*}}+ \frac{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}{c} \partial_t {{\rho_*}}\\ =&~ \partial_i ({{\rho_*}}{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i - {{\rho_*}}\frac{v^i}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0)\, ,
\\
\delta^* v^i =&~ \frac{1}{c} \partial_t ({\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 v^i) + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^j
\partial_j v^i - v^j \partial_j {\varepsilon_{x'}}^i \\ &
-\partial_t {\varepsilon_{x'}}^i + \frac{v^i v^j}{c} \partial_j {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 \\ =&~
\frac{d}{dt} (-{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i + \frac{v^i}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0) - (- {\varepsilon_{x'}}^j +
\frac{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}{c} v^j) \partial_j v^i\, , \\
\delta^* s =&~ \frac{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}{c} \partial_t s + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^i \partial_i s\, , \end{aligned}$$ having made use of the continuity equation to obtain the second expression of $\delta^* {{\rho_*}}$ (see section \[sec:reaction\]). The variation $\delta^* v^i$ is put into a rather compact form by resorting to the total derivative $d/dt = \partial_t + v^i
\partial_i$. By virtue of equation , the new components of the metric read $$\begin{gathered}
g'_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu}-D_{{{\rho_*}}}[g_{\mu\nu}]\cdot \delta^* {{\rho_*}}-
D_{v^q}[g_{\mu\nu}].\delta^* v^q - D_{s}[g_{\mu\nu}]\cdot \delta^* s
\\ + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda \partial_\lambda
g_{\mu\nu} + 2 g_{\lambda(\mu} \partial_{\nu)} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\lambda\, .\end{gathered}$$ If the source is made of one point particle of mass $m$, then ${{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{y}, t) = m \delta(\mathbf{y} - \mathbf{z}(t))$, and the metric can be viewed as a functional of $\mathbf{z}$ and $\mathbf{v}$, $$g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, \mathbf{z}(t), \mathbf{v}(t)) = \frac{1}{m} {{\int \!}}d^3
\mathbf{y}~ g_{\mu\nu} (x^\alpha, \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y},t))~
{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{y},t) \, .$$ The contribution of the functional derivatives is $$\begin{aligned}
&- m (D_{{{\rho_*}}}[g_{\mu\nu}]\cdot
\delta^* {{\rho_*}}+ D_{v^q}[g_{\mu\nu}]\cdot \delta^* v^q)
\\ & = - {{\int \!}}d^3 \mathbf{y}~\{g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, \mathbf{y},
\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y},t))
\delta^* {{\rho_*}}\\ & \qquad + D_{v_q} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, {\bf
y}, \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y},t))] \cdot \delta^* v^q {{\rho_*}}\} \\ &=
{{\int \!}}d^3 \mathbf{y}~\{ (D_{y^i}[g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, \mathbf{y},
\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y},t))] \\ & \qquad + \partial_i v^j D_{v^j}
[g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y},t))] )\} \cdot
\Big({{\rho_*}}{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i - {{\rho_*}}\frac{v^i}{c}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0\Big) \\ & \qquad - {{\rho_*}}D_{v_i} [g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, {\bf
y}, \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y},t))]\} \cdot \bigg(\frac{d}{dt} \Big(-{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i +
\frac{v^i}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0\Big) \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\qquad - \Big( - {\varepsilon_{x'}}^j + \frac{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}{c} v^j\Big) \partial_j v^i\bigg)\\
& = - m {{\int \!}}d^3 \mathbf{y} ~\{
(-{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i + \frac{v^i}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0) D_{y^i}[g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha,
\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y},t))] \\ & \qquad + \frac{d}{dt}
(-{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i + \frac{v^i}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0) \\ & \qquad \quad \times
D_{v^i}[g_{\mu\nu}(x^\alpha, \mathbf{y}, {\bf
v}(\mathbf{y},t))] \} \delta(\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{z}(t))\, , \end{aligned}$$ which shows that $$\begin{gathered}
D_{{{\rho_*}}}[g_{\mu\nu}] \cdot
\delta^* {{\rho_*}}+ D_{v^q}[g_{\mu\nu}]\cdot \delta^* v^q \\ =
D_{z^i}[g_{\mu\nu}] \cdot \delta^* z^i +D_{v^i}[g_{\mu\nu}] \cdot
\frac{d}{dt}\delta^* z^i \, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $\delta^* z^i = -{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i(\mathbf{z}(t),t) + v^i(t)
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0(\mathbf{z}(t),t)/c$. This is in perfect agreement with the linearized boost transformation formulas [@DS85]: $c t' = c t - {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0(\mathbf{z}(t),t)$; $z'^i(t') = z^i(t) -{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i(\mathbf{z}(t),t)$.
Elimination of highest time derivatives in the metric of a general perfect fluid {#sec:gauge}
================================================================================
An analytic expression for that part of the metric that contributes to the $3.5$ PN reaction force arising in an isolated system due to gravitational wave emission is available in a Burke-Thorne-like gauge which also fulfills the harmonicity conditions at 1 PN order [@B97], for general smooth, spatially compact distributions of matter. However, it is not suited for numerical calculations for it depends on seventh order time derivatives of certain multipole moments. A possible cure consists in performing a change of coordinates such that terms of $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{\mu\nu}$ cancel the highest time derivatives in the relevant part of $g_{\mu\nu}$ (the functional dependence will not be specified anymore henceforth). In order to be able to apply the formula , we first have to make choice of the fields $X_A$. It is convenient to take the mass density $\sigma = (T^{00}+T^{ii})/c^2$, the current density $\sigma_i = T^{0i}/c$, and the stress $\sigma_{ij}= T^{ij}$, following paper [@B97]. All three quantities have compact spatial support and are Newtonian at the leading order for weakly stressed systems. Moreover, they lead to a simple expression for the metric, based on a parametrization by means of certain potentials of which they are the sources. At the 1 PN order, these are the Poisson integrals: $$\begin{aligned}
U({\mathbf{x},t}) &= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|}~\sigma({{\bf y},t}) \,
,\nonumber \\ U_i({\mathbf{x},t}) &= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|}~ \sigma_i({\mathbf{y},t}) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ as well as the super potential $\chi({\mathbf{x},t}) = G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y} ~|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|
\sigma({\bf y},t)$. They represent the Poisson solutions of the equations $\Delta U \equiv \partial_i \partial_i U = -4\pi G
\sigma$, $\Delta U_i = -4\pi G \sigma_i$, $\Delta \chi = 2 U$ respectively. We shall write $U = \Delta^{-1} (-4\pi G \sigma)$ or $\chi = \Delta^{-2} (-8\pi G \sigma)$. It is worth noticing that $U$ reduces to the Newtonian potential when $c$ goes to infinity. The terms of the metric that contribute to the $1/c^5$ and $1/c^7$ part of the equations of motion take also a particularly simple form. They indeed depend on only two “reaction” potentials $U^{\rm reac}$ and $U_i^{\rm reac}$ involving the mass quadrupole $I_{ij}(t)$, the mass octupole $I_{ijk}(t)$, and the current quadrupole $J_{ij}(t)$ as defined in the Blanchet-Damour formalism (see [@BH97] and references therein):
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ureac}
U^{\rm reac}(\mathbf{x},t) =& - \frac{G}{5c^5} x^{ij} I^{(5)}_{ij}(t) +
\frac{G}{c^7} \bigg[ \frac{1}{189} x^{ijk} I^{(7)}_{ijk}(t) \nonumber
\\ & - \frac{1}{70} x^{kk} x^{ij} I^{(7)}_{ij}(t) \bigg] + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8}\right) \, ,\\
U^{\rm reac}_i(\mathbf{x},t) =&~ \frac{G}{c^5} \bigg[\frac{1}{21} \hat{x}^{ijk}
I^{(6)}_{jk}(t) \nonumber \\ & - \frac{4}{45} \epsilon_{ijk} x^{jm}
J^{(5)}_{km}(t) \bigg]+ {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^6} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
the symbol $\hat{x}^{ijk\ldots}$, or equivalently $x^{<ijk\ldots>}$, being a short form for the symmetric trace-free (STF) part of $x^{ijk\ldots} \equiv x^i x^j x^k \ldots $, and $I^{(n)}_{ij}(t)$, an alternative notation for the $n$th time derivative $d^n I_{ij}(t)/dt^n$. These potentials differ from $V^{\rm reac}$ and $V_i^{\rm reac}$ used in [@BH97] respectively by terms of order $1/c^8$ and $1/c^6$ which do not play any role at our level [@B97]. We give for completeness the multipole moments entering $U^{\rm reac}$ and $U_i^{\rm reac}$ as functionals of $\sigma$ and $\sigma_i$:
\[eq:moments\] $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ij} &= {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y} \left(\hat{y}^{ij} \sigma+ \frac{1}{14c^2}
y^{kk} \hat{y}^{ij} \partial_t^2 \sigma - \frac{20}{21c^2} \hat{y}^{ijk}
\partial_t \sigma_k \right) \, , \\
I_{ijk} &= {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\hat{y}^{ijk} \sigma + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^2}
\right) \, , \\
J_{ij} &= {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~ \epsilon_{km<i} \hat{y}^{j>k} \sigma_m \, ,\end{aligned}$$
with $\epsilon_{kmi}$ holding for the Euclidean Levi-Civita tensor (in three dimensions). Having the potentials $U$, $U_i$, $\chi$, $U^{\rm reac}$, and $U_i^{\rm reac}$ to our disposal, we can write the metric components as
\[eq:metric\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{} \! \! \! g_{00} =& -1 + \frac{2}{c^2} (U+U^{\rm reac})
+\frac{1}{c^4} \left[\partial_t^2 \chi -2 U^2 - 4 U U^{\rm reac}
\right] \nonumber \\ & + (g_{00})_{(6+8)} + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^{10}} \right) \, , \\
\mbox{} \! \! \! g_{0i} =& -\frac{4}{c^3} (U_i+U_i^{\rm reac}) +
(g_{0i})_{(5+7)}+ {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^9}
\right) \, , \\
\mbox{} \! \! \! g_{ij} =&~ \delta_{ij} \left[1+ \frac{2}{c^2} (U+U^{\rm
reac})\right] +
(g_{ij})_{(4+6)} +
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
where the indices between brackets indicate the order of the term they refer to, so that ${g_{00}}_{(6+8)}$ denotes the full set of $1/c^6$ and $1/c^8$ terms entering $g_{00}$.
It should be stressed that the $1/c^2$ order in the corrections to the flat metric entering the right-hand side of equation is *not* the post-Newtonian order, the latter being rather defined as the level of contributions *to the equations of motion*. Since $(g_{00})_{(2)}$ is responsible for the Newtonian force, the terms $(g_{00})_{(4)}$, $(g_{0i})_{(3)}$, and $(g_{ij})_{(2)}$ that come just after in the power expansion are evidently post-Newtonian. When the matter variables $X_A$ are chosen in a way they have a non-zero Newtonian limit $X_{A(0)} = X_A + {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$ and derive from the trajectory of the fluid in the configuration space independently from the metric, the $1/c^5$ and $1/c^7$ terms of the equations of motion identify with the reaction force in the post-Newtonian scheme. Other set of variables of the type $X_A = X_{A(0)} + {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$ with $X_{A(0)} \neq 0$ may be equivalently used provided all expansions are performed consistently including the Newtonian, 1 PN, 2.5 PN, and 3.5 PN terms. The coupling between space-time curvature and radiation being a 4 PN effect, the even orders are purely conservative. It is thus convenient to split $g_{\mu\nu}$ into an odd $(g_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd}$ and an even part $(g_{\mu\nu})_{\rm even}$, named after the parity of the terms they generate in the equations of motion expressed with the help of the variables that have been adopted. As an example, $(g_{00})_{(7)}$, $(g_{0i})_{(6)}$ or $(g_{ij})_{(5)}$ will belong to the odd part, while $(g_{00})_{(2)}$, $(g_{0i})_{(3)}$ or $(g_{ij})_{(2)}$ will enter the even one. In our problem, the odd (resp. even) part includes the $2.5$ and $3.5$ PN (resp. Newtonian and post-Newtonian) corrections. The even part corrections that are beyond the 1 PN approximation do not play any role and can be let unspecified.
We propose now to conduct a coordinate transformation intended to reduce, as far as possible, the order of time derivatives appearing in the original metric components. This can be achieved by eliminating the potentials $U^{\rm reac}_{(7)}$ and $U^{\rm reac}_{i(5)}$ containing the highest orders of derivation. In addition, we require that the new gauge identifies with the standard post-Newtonian one, $\partial_i g'_{0i} -\frac{1}{2} \partial_0 g'_{ii} = {{\cal O}}(1/c^5)$, $\partial_j g'_{ij} - \frac{1}{2} \partial_i (g'_{jj} - g'_{00}) = {{\cal O}}(1/c^4)$, which is itself equivalent to the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) gauge [@ADM62] up to the 1 PN order. As the original 1 PN gravitational field satisfies the harmonicity conditions in the near zone (i.e. the region of space including the system in which the post-Newtonian approximation is valid) modulo 1.5 PN corrections, the functions ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu$ corresponds *at the leading order* to the difference between harmonic and ADM coordinates. After paper [@DS85], we have ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 = {{\cal O}}(1/c^3)$ and ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^i={{\cal O}}(1/c^4)$, which shows that non-linear terms of the kind ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^{\lambda_1\lambda_2\ldots} \partial_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2\ldots}
D_{\ldots}[g_{\mu\nu}]\ldots = {{\cal O}}(1/c^{10})$ drop out in equation . The only non-linearities that may remain are those generated by the functional variations $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma$, $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma_i$, and $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma_{ij}$. To know whether they can be neglected or not, we have to determine the post-Newtonian order of the three latter quantities. The linear approximation is certainly sufficient for this purpose. We compute $\sigma(y'^\alpha,g'_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,X'_B))$, $\sigma_i(y'^\alpha,g'_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,X'_B))$, and $\sigma_{ij}(y'^\alpha,g'_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,X'_B))$, using the gauge transformation law $ T^{\mu\nu}(y'^\alpha,g'_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,X'_B)) =
T^{\mu\nu}(y^\alpha,g_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,X_B)) - 2 \partial_\lambda
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{(\mu} T^{\nu)\lambda}(y^\alpha,g_{\alpha\beta}(z^\gamma,X_B)) +
{{\cal O}}(\varepsilon^2)$ for the stress-energy tensor. After straightforward calculations, we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma =&~ {\varepsilon_{x'}}^k \partial_k \sigma -
\frac{2}{c} \sigma \partial_t {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 + \frac{1}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 \partial_t
\sigma - \frac{2}{c} \sigma_i \partial_i {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 \nonumber \\ & -
\frac{2}{c^2} \sigma_i
\partial_t {\varepsilon_{x'}}^i - \frac{2}{c^2} \sigma_{ik} \partial_k {\varepsilon_{x'}}^i
\nonumber \\ & + \frac{2}{c^3} \sigma_{kk} \partial_t {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0
+{{\cal O}}(\varepsilon^2) + {{\cal O}}((\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
g)^2) \, , \\ \delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma_i =&~ -\sigma \partial_t
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i - \sigma_j \partial_j {\varepsilon_{x'}}^i + {\varepsilon_{x'}}^j \partial_j \sigma_i -
\frac{1}{c} \sigma_i \partial_t {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0
\partial_t \sigma_i - \frac{1}{c} \sigma_{ij} \partial_j {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 \nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{c^2} \sigma_{jj} \partial_t {\varepsilon_{x'}}^i +
{{\cal O}}(\varepsilon^2) + {{\cal O}}((\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g)^2) \, , \\
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma_{ij} =&~ - 2 \sigma_{(i} \partial_t
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)} - 2 \partial_k {\varepsilon_{x'}}^{(i} \sigma_{j)k}+ {\varepsilon_{x'}}^k
\partial_k \sigma_{ij} \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c} {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0 \partial_t
\sigma_{ij} + {{\cal O}}(\varepsilon^2) + {{\cal O}}((\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
g)^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
which means notably that $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} {X_A} = {{\cal O}}(1/c^4) = {{\cal O}}({\varepsilon_{x'}}^i, {\varepsilon_{x'}}^0/c )$. Consequently, there cannot be nonlinear contributions in $\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{\mu\nu}$, and equation yields
\[eq:deltag\] $$\begin{aligned}
(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{00})_{\rm odd} =&~ - \frac{2}{c} \partial_t
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6+8)} + \frac{4}{c^3} U \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} \nonumber \\ &
+ \frac{2}{c}
(g_{0i})_{(3)} \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} + \frac{2}{c^3} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}
\partial_t U \nonumber \\ & + {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \partial_i (g_{00})_{(4)} +
\frac{2}{c^2} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)} \partial_i U \nonumber \\ & - \frac{2}{c^2}
{{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta U}{\delta X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_A)_{(5+7)} \nonumber \\ & - {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta
(g_{00})_{(4)}}{\delta X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_A)_{(5)} \, ,
\label{eq:deltag00}
\\ (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{0i})_{\rm odd}
=&~ - \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6+8)} + \frac{1}{c} \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)}
\nonumber \\ & + \frac{2}{c^2} U \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} + \frac{2}{c^3} U
\partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \nonumber \\ & + (g_{0j})_{(3)} \partial_i
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^j}_{(5)} + {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^j}_{(5)} \partial_j (g_{(0i)})_{(3)}
\nonumber \\ & - {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta (g_{0i})_{(3)}}{\delta X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_A)_{(5)}
\, , \label{eq:deltag0i}
\\ (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} g_{ij})_{\rm odd} =&~ 2
\partial_{(i} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(5+7)} + \frac{4}{c^2} U \partial_{(i}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(5)} \nonumber \\ & + \frac{2}{c^2} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}_{(5)} \partial_k
U \delta^{ij} \nonumber \\ & - \frac{2}{c^2} \delta^{ij} {{\int \!}}d^3{\bf
y}~\frac{\delta U}{\delta
X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_A)_{(5)} \, . \label{eq:deltagij}\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, relations and tell us that the time derivatives of highest order in $g'_{\mu\nu}$, namely $\partial_t^6$ and $\partial_t^7$, come (*i*) from the first correction $U^{\rm reac}_{(7)}$ of the reaction potential $U^{\rm reac}$ that parametrizes the $3.5$ PN part of $g'_{00}$, and (*ii*) from the leading approximation of the reaction potential that contributes to the $3.5$ PN part of $g'_{0i}$, $U_i^{\rm reac} = U_{i(5)}^{\rm reac}$. We shall restrict ourselves to the case where the new metric can be identified with a function of certain elementary potentials $P_1, P_2, \ldots$ These potentials are supposed to be spatial integrals whose sources are *a priori* products of (*i*) densities such as $\sigma$, $\sigma_i$, $\sigma_{ij}$, or their derivatives evaluated at the location of the integration variable $\mathbf{y}$ at time $t$, (*ii*) some factors depending on the field point $\mathbf{x}$, and possibly (*iii*) instantaneous potentials of the same kind. Typical examples are $U$, $U_i$, or $U^{\rm reac}_{(5)}$. That the latter quantity is indeed of the required type, this can be seen by letting the factor $x^{ij}$ and the time derivatives go under the integration symbol in the first term of relation . Following this hypothesis, we shall search for ${\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu$ as a function of $U$, $U_i$, or some other potentials $P_1, P_2 \ldots$ Moreover, our choice must be such that at least $U_{(7)}^{\rm reac}$ simplifies with terms coming from the gauge transformation .
To be more explicit, we come back to equations . Together with equations , they imply
\[eq:gnew\] $$\begin{aligned}
(g'_{00})_{(7+9)} =&~ (h_{00})_{(9)} - \frac{2}{c} \partial_t
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6+8)} +
\frac{2}{c^2} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)} \partial_i U \nonumber \\
& - \frac{2}{c^2} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta U}{\delta \sigma} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
\sigma)_{(5+7)} + \frac{2}{c^2} U^{\rm reac}_{(5+7)} \, , \label{eq:g00new}
\\ (g'_{0i})_{(6+8)} =&~ (h_{0i})_{(8)} - \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6+8)}
\nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c} \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)} - \frac{4}{c^3}
U_{i(5)}^{\rm reac}
\, , \label{eq:g0inew} \\
(g'_{ij})_{(5+7)} =&~ (h_{ij})_{(7)} + 2 \partial_{(i} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(5+7)}
+ \frac{2}{c^2} \delta^{ij} U^{\rm reac}_{(5)} \, . \label{eq:gijnew}\end{aligned}$$
For simplicity, the $3.5$ PN terms that are functionals of ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}(P_1,P_2,\ldots)$ or ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}(P_1,$ $P_2,\ldots)$ and functions of potentials involving second order time derivatives, at most, were gathered in the matrix $h_{\mu\nu}$. At the leading order, equation reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
(g'_{00})_{(7)} = - \frac{2}{c} \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} + \frac{2}{c^2}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \partial_i U \\ - \frac{2}{c^2} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta U}{\delta \sigma} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
\sigma)_{(5)} + \frac{2}{c^2} U^{\rm reac}_{(5)} \, .\end{gathered}$$ As long as $U^{\rm reac}_{(5)}$ appears explicitly in the gravitational field, we shall have to evaluate the fifth order time derivative $I_{ij}^{(5)}(t)$ in numerical simulations. We can avoid this by imposing that the reaction potential $U^{\rm reac}_{(5)}$ cancels the contribution to $(g'_{00})_{(7)}$ that is linear in ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}$ or ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}$, which amounts to demanding that ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{0}}_{(6)}$ (resp. ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}$) decomposes into terms containing time derivatives of fourth order at most, plus terms ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}^{\rm (part)}_{(6)}$ (resp. ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}^{\rm (part~I)}_{(5)}$ or ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}^{\rm (part~II)}_{(5)}$) satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
- \frac{2}{c} \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}^{\rm (part)}_{(6)} + \frac{2}{c^2}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}^{\rm (part~I)}_{(5)} \partial_i U \\ - \frac{2}{c^2} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta U}{\delta \sigma} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}^{\rm (part~II)}_{(5)}
\partial_k \sigma + \frac{2}{c^2} U^{\rm reac}_{(5)} = 0 \, .\end{gathered}$$ While either $2 {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}^{\rm (part~I)}_{(5)} \partial_i U/c^2$ or $- 2 {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~(\delta U/\delta \sigma)$ ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}^{\rm (part~II)}_{(5)} \partial_k \sigma/c^2$ contribute to the cancellation of $2 U^{\rm reac}_{5}/c^2$, the quantities ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm part (I)}$ or ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm part (II)}$ are, by contrast, explicit functions of $U^{\rm reac}_{(5)}$. If ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm
part (I)} \neq 0$ or ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm part (II)} \neq 0$, the fifth derivative $I_{ij}^{(5)}(t)$ still occurs in the metric by virtue of the relation $g'_{ij} = 2 \partial_{(i} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(5)} + {{\cal O}}(1/c^7)$. This eventuality being rejected, $2 U^{\rm reac}_{(5)}/c^2$ must simplify with $- 2\partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{0}}_{(6)}^{\rm (part)}/c$ exclusively, i.e. $$- \frac{2}{c} \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}^{\rm (part)}_{(6)} +
\frac{2}{c^2} U^{\rm reac}_{(5)} = 0 \, .$$ Therefore, we may construct ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}$ as the sum of $U^{{\rm
reac}(-1)}_{(5)}/c = - G x^{ij} I^{(4)}_{ij}(t)/(5 c^6)$ (antiderivative of $U^{\rm reac}_{(5)}/c$ that vanishes when $I_{ij}(t)=0$), plus some arbitrary function ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm (arb)}$ that does not involve derivatives of order higher than four: $$\label{eq:eps06_part_arb}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} = \frac{1}{c} U^{{\rm reac}(-1)}_{(5)} +
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm (arb)} \, .$$ As a matter of fact, the choice of ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm (arb)}$ together with that of ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}$ entirely determines the maximal order $n_d( (g'_{00})_{(7)} )$ of time derivations in $(g'_{00})_{(7)}$. Next, the expression for the odd $0i$ components of the new metric at order $2.5$ PN, $$(g'_{0i})_{(6)} = - \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} +
\frac{1}{c} \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \, ,$$ shows that $n_d ( (g'_{0i})_{(6)} ) = n_d ( \partial_i
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} ) = 4$, *unless* $-\partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm
(part)}$ cancels one of the terms entering $\partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}/c$. In the latter case, $(g'_{0i})_{(6)}$ reduces to $-\partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm (arb)} + \partial_t
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (arb)}/c$, where ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (arb)}$ is an arbitrary function of elementary potentials. We have then $$n_d((g'_{0i})_{(6)}) = \max[n_d({{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm
(arb)}), 1 + n_d({{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (arb)})] \, .$$ Since $n_d((g'_{0i})_{(6)})$ as well as $n_d((g'_{00})_{(7)})$ are adjustable, we shall succeed in further lowering the order of temporal derivatives if $n_d((g'_{ij})_{(5)}) \le 3$. To know whether this inequality is fulfilled, we solve the equation $- \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm (part)} + \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm
(part)}/c=0 $ for ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (part)} \equiv {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} -
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (arb)}$. The solution that vanishes when $I_{ij}(t)=0$ reads $$\label{eq:epsi5_part}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (part)} = c \, \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{0}}_{(6)}^{{\rm
(part)}(-1)} = \partial_i U_{(5)}^{{\rm reac}(-2)} \, ,$$ which leads to odd metric space components of the form $(g'_{ij})_{(5)}
=\partial_{(i} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(5)}^{\rm (arb)} - 2 G I^{(3)}_{ij}(t)$ $/ (5c^5)$, with $n_d((g'_{ij})_{(5)}) = 3$. No function of ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm (arb)}$ or ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (arb)}$ having a maximal time derivative order smaller than $3$ are capable to rule out the second term, so that we may take ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}^{\rm (arb)} =
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)}^{\rm (arb)} = 0$.
Having specified the gauge vector at the $2.5$ PN order, we can proceed to the next approximation, and determine both ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{0}}_{(8)}$ and ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}$ by using the same method as employed above. The matrix $h_{\mu\nu}$, depending on none of the unknown functions, is entirely fixed at this stage. The highest order temporal derivations again arise in the reaction potential. At this level, we have $n_d((g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd}) = n_d(U^{\rm reac}_{(7)}) =
7$. As before, we intend to make this number decrease by discarding the term $U^{\rm reac}_{(7)}$ from the metric . Its complete or partial absorption into ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}$ would result in a explicit dependence: ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}={{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}(U^{\rm reac}_{(7)})$, which would entail the appearance of time derivatives of seventh order in the spatial part of $g'_{\mu\nu}$. Considering that $(g'_{ij})_{(7)}-2 \partial_{(i} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(7)}$ contains fifth order derivatives at most, these high order time derivatives could not be erased by means of other contributions. We would end up to the same value of $n_d((g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd})$ as before: $n_d((g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd}) = n_d((g'_{ij})_{(7)}) =
7$. Because it is not acceptable, we must rather incorporate $U^{\rm reac}_{(7)}$ into ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}$, and set $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:eps08_part_arb}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)} = \frac{1}{c} U^{{\rm reac}(-1)}_{(7)} +
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}^{\rm (arb)} \, ,\\
n_d({{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}^{\rm (arb)}) \le 6 \, ,\end{gathered}$$ $n_d((g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd})$ going automatically down to $6$. The highest order time derivatives actually come from the terms $-\partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}$ and $-4 U_{i(5)}^{\rm
reac}/c^3$ in $(g'_{0i})_{(8)}$, but they can be eliminated if a part of $-\partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}^{\rm (arb)} + \partial_t
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}$ exactly cancel them. This happens for $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:epsi7_part_arb}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)} = \partial_i U_{(7)}^{{\rm reac}(-2)} + \frac{4}{c^2}
U_{i(5)}^{{\rm reac}(-1)} + {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}^{\rm (arb)} \, , \\
n_d({{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}^{\rm (arb)}) \le 5 \, .\end{gathered}$$ The space components of the new $3.5$ PN metric are obtained by inserting the expression above into the right-hand side of equation . This yields a maximal order of temporal derivations equal to $n_d({{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}) =5$, whatever functions ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}^{\rm (arb)}$ and ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}^{\rm (arb)}$ we have used. We have still the freedom to specify the “arbitrary” part of ${\varepsilon_{x'}}$ as most convenient for us.
In summary, it is possible to reduce the number $n_d(g'_{\mu\nu})$ from $7$ to $5$ by performing a suitable (linear) gauge transformation. Equations , , , and provide a possible choice for the gauge vector:
\[eq:eps\] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6+8)} =&~ \frac{1}{c} \partial_t U^{{\rm reac}(-2)}_{(5+7)} \, ,
\nonumber \\ {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)} =&~ \partial_i U^{{\rm reac}(-2)}_{(5+7)}
+ \frac{4}{c^2} U^{{\rm reac}(-1)}_{i(5)} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
U^{{\rm reac}(-2)} &= - \frac{G}{5c^5} x^{ij} I^{(3)}_{ij}(t)
+ \frac{G}{c^7} \bigg[ \frac{1}{189} x^{ijk} I^{(5)}_{ijk}(t)
\nonumber \\ & -
\frac{1}{70} x^{kk} x^{ij} I^{(5)}_{ij}(t) \bigg] + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
U^{{\rm reac}(-1)}_i =&~ \frac{G}{c^5} \bigg[\frac{1}{21}
\hat{x}^{ijk} I^{(5)}_{jk}(t) \nonumber \\ & - \frac{4}{45} \epsilon_{ijk}
x^{jm} J^{(4)}_{km}(t) \bigg] + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^6} \right)\end{aligned}$$
modulo the “arbitrary” part. There exist other interesting alternatives. For instance, we could let the original metric unchanged at the $2.5$ PN level while keeping the requirement $n_d((g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd}) \le 5$ since neither $(g_{00})_{(7)}$, $(g_{0i})_{(6)}$, or $(g_{ij})_{(5)}$ involve time derivatives of higher order. The coordinate system defined by means of formulas present the advantage to coincide with the ADM one up to the $2.5$ PN approximation, as we shall see in the next section.
Expression of the odd metric at the $\mathbf{3.5}$ PN order
===========================================================
For computing the reaction force, we must now finalize the form of the gravitational field by fixing the two arbitrary functions ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}^{\rm (arb)}$ and ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}^{\rm (arb)}$. On one hand, the gauge $x'^{\mu} = x^{\mu} - {\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu$ is constructed in such a way that $g'_{\mu\nu}$ is precisely the ADM metric $(g_{\mu\nu})_{\rm ADM}$ at the 1 PN order: $g'_{\mu\nu} = (g_{\mu\nu})_{\rm ADM}$, plus a 2 PN deviation. On the other hand, $(g'_{00})_{(9)}$ depends on the 1 PN components of the metric in the Burke-Thorne-like gauge introduced in paper [@B97]. Now, the non-spatial terms of $(g_{\mu\nu})_{\rm ADM}$ differ from those of $g_{\mu\nu}$ at this order. We have: $$\begin{aligned}
(g_{00})_{{\rm ADM}\, (4)} =& - \frac{2}{c^4} U^2 \, , \nonumber \\
(g_{0i})_{{\rm ADM}\, (3)} =& -\frac{1}{c^3} A_i \equiv -\frac{1}{c^3} \left(4
U_i + \frac{1}{2} \partial_i \partial_t \chi \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ In order to homogenize the expression of the $3.5$ PN metric, we shall choose the “arbitrary” part of ${\varepsilon_{x'}}$ so as to discard the contribution of $(g_{00})_{(4)}$ (resp. $(g_{0i})_{(3)}$) and replace it by that of $(g_{00})_{{\rm ADM}\, (4)}$ (resp. $(g_{0i})_{{\rm ADM} \, (3)})$ in $(\delta^* g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd}$. This is achieved by taking $$\begin{aligned}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(8)}^{\rm (arb)} =&~ {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(3)}
- D_{X_B}[{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(3)}] \cdot \left(\delta^*_{\varepsilon^\beta_{\rm
odd}} \! \! \! \! X_B \right)_{(5)} \\ =&~
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} \partial_0 {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(3)} + {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \partial_i
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(3)} \\ & - D_{X_B}[{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(3)}] \cdot
\delta^*_{\varepsilon^\beta_{\rm odd}} \! \! \! \! X_B + {{\cal O}}\left(
\frac{1}{c^{10}} \right) \, , \\
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(7)}^{\rm (arb)} =&\; 0 = {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} \partial_0
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(4)} + {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^j}_{(5)} \partial_j {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(4)} \nonumber \\
&\quad - D_{X_B}[{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(4)}] \cdot \delta^*_{\varepsilon^\beta_{\rm odd}}
\! \! \! \! X_B + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^9} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\epsilon^\mu_{\rm odd} \equiv ({{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6+8)},{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)})$. This statement can be checked either directly or by use of formula of section \[sec:transformation\]. noticing that the final value of ${\varepsilon_{x'}}$, which reads $$\label{eq:epsilon_square}
{\varepsilon_{x'}}^\mu = \varepsilon^\mu_{\rm even} + \varepsilon^\mu_{\rm odd} +
\varepsilon^\lambda_{\rm odd} \partial_\lambda \varepsilon^\mu_{\rm even}-
D_{X_B}[\varepsilon^\mu_{\rm even}] \cdot \delta^*_{\varepsilon^\beta_{\rm
odd}}\! \! X_B$$ if we pose $\varepsilon^\mu_{\rm even} = ({{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(3)}, {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(4)})$, is exactly the one we would get by applying successively the two coordinate transformations $x''^\mu = x^\mu - \varepsilon^\mu_{\rm even}(x''^\alpha,
X''_A)$ and $x'^\mu = x''^\mu - \varepsilon^\mu_{\rm odd} (x'^\alpha,X'_A)$.
The resulting metric $g'_{\mu\nu}$ is
\[eq:gmn\] $$\begin{aligned}
g'_{00} =& -1 + \frac{2}{c^2} U - \frac{2}{c^4} U^2 - \frac{4}{c^4} U U^{\rm
reac} + \frac{4}{c^3} U
\partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} \nonumber \\ & - \frac{2}{c^4}
A_i \partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} + \frac{2}{c^3} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)}
\partial_t U + \frac{1}{c^4} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \partial_i (-2
U^2) \nonumber \\ & + \frac{2}{c^2} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)} \partial_i U -
\frac{2}{c^2} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta U}{\delta X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_A)_{(5+7)} \nonumber \\ & - \frac{1}{c^4} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta
(-2 U^2)}{\delta X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_A)_{(5)} +
\frac{1}{c^6} (\ldots) \nonumber \\ & +
\frac{1}{c^8} (\ldots) + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^{10}} \right)\, , \\
g'_{0i} =& -\frac{1}{c^3} A_i
+ \frac{2}{c^2} U \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} + \frac{2}{c^3} U \partial_t
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \nonumber \\ & - \frac{1}{c^3} A_j \partial_i
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^j}_{(5)} - \frac{1}{c^3} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^j}_{(5)} \partial_j A_i
\nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^3} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta A_i}{\delta X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
X_A)_{(5)} + \frac{1}{c^5} (\ldots) \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^7} (\ldots)
+ {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^9} \right)\, , \\
g'_{ij} =&~ \delta^{ij} \left[1 + \frac{2}{c^2} U + \frac{2}{c^2} U^{\rm
reac}_{(5)} \right] + 2 \partial_{(i} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(5+7)} \nonumber \\ & +
\frac{4}{c^2} U \partial_{(i}
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^{j)}}_{(5)} + \frac{2}{c^2} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}_{(5)} \partial_k U \delta^{ij}
\nonumber \\ & - \frac{2}{c^2} \delta^{ij} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~\frac{\delta
U}{\delta X_A} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} X_A)_{(5)} + \frac{1}{c^4} (\ldots)
\nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^6} (\ldots) + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^8} \right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$
where ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6+8)}$ and ${{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5+7)}$ are defined in equations . We remind that $(g'_{0i})_{(6)}=0$ by construction. We may now calculate the functional derivatives explicitly. Considering for example the potential $U$, its source contains none of the densities $\sigma_i$ or $\sigma_{ij}$, and thus, ${{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}\,
(\delta U/\delta \sigma_i)\,\delta^* \sigma_i = {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y} \,
(\delta U/\delta \sigma_{ij})\, \delta^* \sigma_{ij} = 0$. The term ${{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y} \, (\delta U/\delta \sigma) \, \delta^* \sigma$ is deduced from the evaluation of the difference $U'-U$: $$\begin{aligned}
U'- U &= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~
\sigma'(\mathbf{y}, t) - G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} -
\mathbf{y}|}~ \sigma(\mathbf{y}, t) \\ &= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~ \delta^* \sigma(\mathbf{y},
t) + {{\cal O}}([\delta^* \sigma]^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ hence
\[eq:frechetP\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:frechetU_sigma}
{{\int \!}}&d^3\mathbf{y}~ \frac{\delta U}{\delta \sigma} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}
\sigma)_{(5+7)} \\ &
= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~
(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma)_{(5+7)} \nonumber \\
&= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~ \bigg[
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}_{(5+7)} \partial_k \sigma - \frac{2}{c} \sigma \partial_t
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} + \frac{1}{c} {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} \partial_t \sigma \nonumber \\ &
- \frac{2}{c} \sigma_i \partial_i {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^0}_{(6)} - \frac{2}{c^2} \sigma_i
\partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} - \frac{2}{c^2} \sigma_{ik} \partial_k
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \bigg](\mathbf{y}, t) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The other non-zero functional derivatives present in the metric variation are computed following the same procedure. $$\begin{aligned}
{{\int \!}}&d^3\mathbf{y}~ \frac{\delta A_i}{\delta \sigma}
(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}\sigma)_{(5)} \nonumber \\ &= 4 {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~
\frac{\delta U_i}{\delta
\sigma} (\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}\sigma)_{(5)} + \frac{1}{2} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~
\frac{\delta (\partial_t \partial_i \chi)}{\delta \sigma}
(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}\sigma)_{(5)} \nonumber \\ &=
\frac{G}{2} \partial_t \partial_i {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~ |\mathbf{x} -
\mathbf{y}| ~[{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}_{(5)} \partial_k \sigma](\mathbf{y}, t)\, ,
\label{eq:frechetAi_sigma} \\
{{\int \!}}&d^3\mathbf{y}~ \frac{\delta A_i}{\delta \sigma_j}
(\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}}\sigma_j)_{(5)} \nonumber \\ & = 4 G
{{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~ \bigg[- \sigma
\partial_t {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} - \sigma_j \partial_j {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^i}_{(5)} \nonumber \\
& \quad \qquad \qquad \qquad \; \; + {{\varepsilon_{x'}}^j}_{(5)} \partial_j \sigma_i
\bigg](\mathbf{y}, t) \, . \label{eq:frechetAi_sigmaj}\end{aligned}$$
By inserting formulas into equation , we get an expression for the metric already well adapted to our purpose. Notably, all potentials elementary potentials but $\chi$ and $G
{{\int \!}}d^3 \mathbf{y}~|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}| (\delta \chi/\delta \sigma)
\delta^*_{{\varepsilon_{x'}}} \sigma$ satisfy Poisson-type equations. Nonetheless, in order to make easier the comparison with paper [@RSABS99], we shall present an alternative form where the functional derivatives are re-written as combinations of Poisson-type integrals on the sources $X_1=\sigma$ and $X_2=\sigma_i$ exclusively. It can be obtained from an appropriate handling of the integrands in the potentials . Originally, they are indeed made of sums of elementary pieces of the kind $$\begin{gathered}
|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2p-1} \partial X_A(\mathbf{y},t) \partial
\varepsilon_{\rm odd}\\
\propto |\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2p-1} y^{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_l} \partial
X_A({\bf y},t) \times \textrm{function of time},\end{gathered}$$ for $A=1,2$ and $p$, $l \in \mathbb{N}$. Now, it is straightforward to show by recurrence that $$\begin{aligned}
&y^{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_l} = x^{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_l} - [x^{i_1 i_2 \ldots
i_{l-1}} (x^{i_l}-y^{i_l}) + \textrm{permutations}]\\ & \quad +
[x^{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_{l-2}} (x^{i_{l-1}}-y^{i_{l-1}}) (x^{i_l}-y^{i_l}) +
\textrm{permutations}] \\ & \quad + \ldots
+ (-1)^l (x^{i_1}-y^{i_1}) (x^{i_2}-y^{i_2}) \ldots (x^{i_l}-y^{i_l}) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ so that every piece decomposes into a sum of terms such as $x^{j_1 j_2 \ldots j_k} (x^{i_1} - y^{i_1}) (x^{i_2} - y^{i_2}) \ldots
(x^{i_l} - y^{i_l})|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2p-1}$. Each of them are next transformed by means of the identity
$$(x^{i_1} - y^{i_1}) \ldots
(x^{i_l} - y^{i_l})|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^a =
\sum^{[l/2]}_{m=0} \left[ \frac{(-1)^m \delta^{i_1 i_2} \ldots
\delta^{i_{2m-1} i_{2m}}}{(a+2l-2m) \ldots (a+2)}
\partial_{i_{2m+1}
\ldots i_l} |\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{a+2l-2m}+ \textrm{permutations}
\right]\, ,$$ valid for $a > -2$, where the latter relation results from the formula $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_l} |\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^a = \sum_{m=0}^{[l/2]}
a (a-2) \ldots (a-2l+2m+2) |\mathbf{x} -\mathbf{y}|^{a-2l+2m}
[\delta^{i_1 i_2} \ldots \delta^{i_{2m-1} i_{2m}} \\ \times (x^{i_{2m+1}} -
y^{i_{2m+1}}) \ldots (x^{i_l} - y^{i_l}) + \textrm{permutations}] \, ,\end{gathered}$$
proved by simple recurrence. The square bracket $[l/2]$ denotes here the integer part of $l/2$. We thus see that the initial potentials can be split into a sum of terms matching the pattern: $$\begin{gathered}
{{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~ x^{j_1 j_2 \ldots j_k} \partial_{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_l}
|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2p-1} \partial X_A(\mathbf{y},t) \\= x^{j_1 j_2
\ldots j_k} \partial \partial_{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_l} {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~
|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2p-1} X_A(\mathbf{y},t) \, .\end{gathered}$$ Under this form, they only depend on the Poisson-like integrals $P_{q} =
G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2q-1} \sigma(\mathbf{y},
t)$, $P_{iq} = G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2q-1}
\sigma_i(\mathbf{y}, t)$ as well as $P_{ijq} = G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^{2q-1}
\sigma_{ij}(\mathbf{y}, t)$. We shall need in particular $P_{0} = U$, $P_{1}=\chi$, $P_{i0}=U_i$ as before, but also $\chi_i = P_{i1}$ and $U_{ij} =
P_{ij0}$. As an example, let us apply the latter treatment to the simplest functional derivative $G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}/|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|~
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}_{(5)} \partial_k \sigma$. We have: $$\begin{aligned}
G {{\int \!}}& \frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}_{(5)} \partial_k \sigma \\ & =
G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|} \left(-\frac{2G}{5
c^5} y^{i} I^{(3)}_{ij}(t)\right) \partial_j \sigma \\ &=
- \frac{2 G^2}{5 c^5} I^{(3)}_{ij}(t) {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}
\left[-\frac{(x^i - y^i)}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|} + \frac{x^i}{|\mathbf{x}
- {\bf y}|} \right] \partial_j \sigma \\
& =- \frac{2 G^2}{5c^5} I^{(3)}_{ij}(t)\bigg[- {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i} |\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j} \sigma \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad + x^i
{{\int \!}}\frac{d^3{\bf y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|} \frac{\partial
\sigma}{\partial y_j}\bigg] \, . \end{aligned}$$ After integrating by part and observing that $\partial |\mathbf{x} - {\bf
y}|^a/\partial y^i =-\partial |\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|^a/\partial x^i$ for any real number $a$, we arrive at the equality: $G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~
{{\varepsilon_{x'}}^k}_{(5)} \partial_k \sigma/|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}| =-
2G I^{(3)}_{ij}(t) [-\partial_{ij} \chi$ $ + x^i \partial_j U ]/(5c^5)$. Processing all the elementary potentials in a similar way leads to the important result $$\begin{aligned}
(&g'_{00})_{\rm odd} = -
\frac{4 G}{5 c^7} I_{kl}^{(3)} \partial_{kl} \chi\\ & + \frac{2G}{c^9}
\bigg(
\frac{4}{5} I_{kl}^{(3)} (U \partial_{kl} \chi - U_{kl}) \\ & \qquad +
\frac{1}{5} I_{kl}^{(4)} (8 \partial_k \chi_l +
\frac{1}{3} \partial_{kl} \partial_t P_2 -
x^k \partial_l \partial_t \chi)\\ & \qquad +
\frac{1}{7} I_{kl}^{(5)} ( -
\frac{8}{15} x^k x^l U -
\frac{11}{15} r^2 \partial_{kl} \chi -
\frac{29}{15} x^k \partial_l \chi \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad \! +
\frac{4}{5} x^k x^m \partial_{ml} \chi +
\frac{1}{3} \partial_{kl} P_2 +
\frac{1}{9} x^m \partial_{klm} P_2 )\\ & \qquad +
\frac{1}{63} I_{klm}^{(5)} (-\frac{1}{3} \partial_{klm} P_2 +
2 x^k \partial_{lm} \chi) \\ & \qquad -
\frac{16}{45} x^k \epsilon_{klm} J_{ln}^{(4)} \partial_{mn} \chi \bigg)
\, ,\\
(&g'_{0i})_{\rm odd} = \frac{G}{5c^8} \bigg(
16 I_{ik}^{(3)} U_k + I_{kl}^{(3)} (
8 \partial_{kl} \chi_i +
\frac{1}{3} \partial_{ikl} \partial_t P_2) \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad -
9 I_{ik}^{(4)} \partial_k \chi + I_{kl}^{(4)} ( -
x^k \partial_{il} \chi +
\frac{1}{3} \partial_{ikl} P_2 ) \bigg) \, ,\\
(&g'_{ij})_{\rm odd} = -\frac{4 G}{5 c^5} I_{ij}^{(3)} \\ & +
\frac{2G}{c^7} \bigg(-
\frac{4}{5} I_{ij}^{(3)} U -
\frac{2}{5} \delta^{ij} I_{kl}^{(3)} \partial_{kl} \chi -
\frac{11}{105} r^2 I_{ij}^{(5)} \\ & \qquad \qquad +
\frac{2}{63} x^k I_{ijk}^{(5)} +
\frac{4}{35} x^k x^{(i} I_{j)k}^{(5)} \\ & \qquad \qquad -
\frac{4}{105} \delta^{ij} x^k x^l I_{kl}^{(5)} -
\frac{16}{45} x^k \epsilon_{kl(i} J_{j)l}^{(4)} \bigg) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $r^2 = x^m x^m$. The leading components of $(g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd}$ are identical to those of the $2.5$ PN metric in ADM coordinates. With the help of these formulas, we recover the expression proposed by Rezzolla *et al.* in paper [@RSABS99] in absence of mass multipole moments, i.e. when $I_{i_1
i_2 \ldots i_l}=0$. We conclude that our gauge coincides with the ADM one up to the $2.5$ PN order, and generalizes that of Rezzolla and collaborators at the next level.
Once the gravitational field has been evaluated in the new coordinate system, we may take advantage of the freedom in the choice of the matter variables. Variables defined by means of the fluid trajectory in the configuration space without any reference to the metric are particularly appropriate to post-Newtonian calculations, since their Poisson brackets are identical to those of Newtonian theory [@H85]. We first take the baryonic density ${{\rho_*}}$ representing the number of baryon weighed by their individual mass per *coordinate* volume $d^3{\bf
x}$. It reduces to the scalar density $\rho$ at the Newtonian order: ${{\rho_*}}=
\sqrt{-g'} \rho u^0 = \rho + {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$. The second variable we shall use for describing the fluid is the coordinate velocity $v^i$. It does not depend on the metric as being the Eulerian quantity associated to the Lagrangian velocity $dx^\mu(x^\alpha_0,t)/dt$ of the particle $x^\mu(x^\alpha_0,t)$ located at point $x^i_0$ at time $x^0_0/c$. We have $v^i/c = u^i/u^0$, and therefore, $v^i/c = u^i + {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$. We shall introduce a zeroth component $v^0 = c$ when necessary, so that we can write $v^\mu/c = u^\mu/u^0$. For macroscopic systems, the set of variables $\{{{\rho_*}}, v^i\}$ is completed by the entropy $s$.
The relation between $\sigma$ and $\sigma_i$ on one hand, ${{\rho_*}}$, $v^i$, and $s$ on the other hand, is determined by the form of the stress-energy tensor. We shall focus henceforth on *adiabatic fluid* systems, for which $$\label{eq:Tmn}
T^{\mu\nu} = \rho (c^2 + h) u^{\mu\nu} + p g'^{\mu\nu} \, ,$$ where $h$ and $p$ stand for the enthalpy per unit mass and for the pressure respectively. The stress-energy tensor has to be supplemented by the equation of state of the fluid; it is typically provided by the energy $e$ per unit mass[^1] as a function of the scalar density and of the entropy, $e = e(\rho,s)$, from what we can infer the pressure $p(\rho,s)=\rho^2 \partial e(\rho,s)/\partial
\rho$ or the enthalpy $h(\rho,s) = e(\rho,s) + p(\rho,s)/\rho$. It is now possible to relate the densities $\sigma$ to ${{\rho_*}}$, $v^i$, and $s$. At the Newtonian approximation, we have $\sigma =
(T^{00}+T^{ii})/c^2 = [\rho c^2 {u^0}^2 + {{\cal O}}(1/c^0)]/c^2 = {{\rho_*}}+
{{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$, and $\sigma_i= T^{0i}/c = [\rho c^2 u^i u^0 + {{\cal O}}(1/c)]/c = {{\rho_*}}v^i + {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$. It is thus useful to pose:
$$\begin{aligned}
{{U_*}}&= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~ {{\rho_*}}\, , \\
{{U_*}}_i &= G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~ {{\rho_*}}v^i ,
\\ \chi_* &= G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y} |\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}| ~ {{\rho_*}}\, .\end{aligned}$$
At the order 1 PN and beyond we proceed in several steps, for the computations are longer. We first expand $\sqrt{-g'}$ in power of $1/c$ in order to evaluate $\rho({{\rho_*}},v^p,s)={{\rho_*}}/(u^0\sqrt{-g'})$. From the expression of the determinant of a perturbed Minkowski metric $g'_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \delta g'_{\mu\nu}$ at linear order, $g'=-1+
\delta g' + {{\cal O}}((\delta g')^2)$ with $\delta g' = \det(\eta_{\alpha \beta})
\eta^{\rho\sigma} \delta g'_{\rho \sigma} = -\eta^{\alpha \beta} \delta
g'_{\alpha \beta}$, we get immediately $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{-g'} =&~ (1 + \eta^{\alpha\beta} \delta g'_{\alpha\beta})^{1/2} +
{{\cal O}}((\delta g')^2)\\
=&~ 1 - \frac{1}{2} (g'_{00})_{(\le 7)} + \frac{1}{2}
(g'_{ii})_{(\le 7)} + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^2}\right)
{{\cal O}}\left( g'_{\rm odd}\right) \\& + \frac{1}{c^4} (\ldots) + \frac{1}{c^6}
(\dots)+ {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8}\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ The lowest contribution to ${{\cal O}}(1/c^2) {{\cal O}}(g'_{\rm odd})$ is a Lorentz scalar proportional to $(g'_{00})_{(2)}$ or $(g'_{ij})_{(2)}$, and $(g'_{ij})_{(5)}$. Now, the only allowed combinations are $(g'^{\alpha \beta})_{(2)} \times (g'_{\alpha\beta})_{(5)} \propto \delta^{ij}
{g'_{ij}}_{(5)}$, and $\eta^{\alpha\beta} (g'_{\alpha\beta})_{(2)} \eta^{\rho
\sigma} (g'_{\rho\sigma})_{(5)}$, which are both zero due to the trace-free property of $(g'_{ij})_{(5)} = -4 G I^{(3)}_{ij}/(5c^5)$. As a consequence, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:volume}
\sqrt{-g'} = 1 +
\frac{2}{c^2} U - \frac{1}{2} (g'_{00})_{(7)} + \frac{1}{2} (g'_{ii})_{(7)} +
\frac{1}{c^4}( \ldots ) \\ + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8}
\right) \, .\end{gathered}$$ We next calculate the Lorentz factor $u^0 = dt/d\tau$ appearing in $\rho$ and $v^i$, from the definition of the proper time $c d\tau =
(-g'_{\alpha \beta} dx^\alpha dx^\beta)^{1/2}$. We find: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:u0_intermediate}
u^0 =&~ \left[- g'_{00} - 2 g'_{0i} \frac{v^i}{c} -
g'_{ij} \frac{v^i v^j}{c^2} \right]^{-1/2} \nonumber \\
=&~ \left[1 - \frac{2}{c^2} U -
(g'_{00})_{(7)} - 2 (g'_{0i})_{(6)} \frac{v^i}{c} - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right.
\nonumber \\ & \left. \, - (g'_{ij})_{(5)} \frac{v^i v^j}{c^2}+
\frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right)\right]^{-1/2} \nonumber \\
=&~ 1 + \frac{U}{c^2} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2} +
\frac{1}{2} (g'_{00})_{(7)} + \frac{1}{2}
(g'_{ij})_{(5)} \frac{v^i v^j}{c^2} \nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) +
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ denotes the Euclidean norm of $v^i$, i.e. $v^2 = v^i v^i$. Regarding the fact that the lowest odd order part of the matter or thermodynamical quantities involved in the stress-energy tensor is necessarily larger than five, equations and show that the first odd terms in power of $1/c$ entering the $1/c$ expansion of $u^0= u^0({{\rho_*}}, v^p, s)$ and $\rho=\rho({{\rho_*}}, v^p, s)$ arise exactly at order seven, which implies that the $1/c^5$ parts of the scalar density and the Lorentz factor are both zero. Referring to these two parts as $u^0_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}$ and $\rho_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}$ respectively, so as to distinguish them from the fifth order of $\rho$ and $u^i$ considered as functions of $\sigma$, $\sigma_i$, and $\sigma_{ij}$, we can write in short: $u^0_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} = \rho_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} =0$. Therefore, the densities $\sigma = \rho (u^0)^2+ {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$ and $\sigma_i = \rho (u^0)^2
v^i+ {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$ have no contribution of order $1/c^5$, i.e. $\sigma_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}=0$ and $\sigma_{i(5) \, {\rm reac}}=0$ (with the same notation as before). Let us mention that the stress density $\sigma_{ij} = \rho (u^0)^2 v^i v^j + p g'^{ij}
+ {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$ does contribute at this level: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigmaijreac}
\sigma_{(5)ij \, {\rm reac}} &= p({{\rho_*}}, s) (g'^{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}
\nonumber \\ &= - p({{\rho_*}},s) (g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \neq 0 \, .\end{aligned}$$ The fact that we have $U_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} = \chi_{(5) \, {\rm
reac}} = 0$ and $U_{i(5) \, {\rm reac}} = 0$ for the potentials leads us to conclude that the reaction part of the gravitational field is simply
\[eq:gmn2.5PN\] $$\begin{aligned}
(g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} &= \bigg[-1 + \frac{2}{c^2} U +
\frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) \nonumber \\ & \qquad + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots )+
(g'_{00})_{(7)} \bigg]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} =
[(g'_{00})_{(7)}]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} \nonumber \\ & =
\frac{4 G}{5c^7} \bigg(- Q_{kl}^{(3)} x^k \partial_l {{U_*}}\nonumber \\ &
\qquad \qquad +
G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~Q_{kl}^{(3)} x^k
\partial_l {{\rho_*}}\bigg) \, ,\\
(g'_{0i})_{(6) \, {\rm reac}} & = \bigg[-\frac{1}{c^3} \left(4 U_i +
\frac{1}{2} \partial_i \partial_t \chi \right) \nonumber \\ & \qquad +
\frac{1}{c^5} ( \ldots ) + (g'_{0i})_{(6)} \bigg]_{(6) \, {\rm reac}}
= 0 \, ,\\
(g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} &= \left[ \delta^{ij} \left(1 + \frac{2}{c^2} U
\right) + \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) + (g'_{ij})_{(5)}
\right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm reac}} \nonumber \\ & =
[(g'_{ij})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} = - \frac{4 G}{5c^5} Q_{ij}^{(3)}\end{aligned}$$
at the leading approximation. The functions $[(g'_{00})_{(7)}]_{(7) \, {\rm
reac}}$ and $[(g'_{ij})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}$, are obtained by replacing consistently the Newtonian-like potentials $U$, $U_i$, $\chi$, and the mass quadrupole moment $I_{ij}$, by ${{U_*}}$, ${{U_*}}_i$, $\chi_*$, and $Q_{ij} = {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~ \hat{y}^{ij} {{\rho_*}}$ respectively in the corresponding odd metric components. From equations , , and , we deduce $u^0$ and $\rho$ expressed within our set of variables: $$\begin{aligned}
u^0 &= 1 + \frac{{{U_*}}}{c^2} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2} +
\frac{1}{2} [(g'_{00})_{(7)}]_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}
\nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{2} [(g'_{ij})_{(5)}]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm reac}}
\frac{v^i v^j}{c^2} +
\frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) +
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, , \label{eq:u0} \\
\rho &= {{\rho_*}}\left( 1 - \frac{3}{c^2} {{U_*}}-
\frac{1}{2} \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) \nonumber \\ & - \frac{{{\rho_*}}}{2} \left(
[(g'_{ii})_{(7)}]_{(7) {\rm reac}} +
[(g'_{ij})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \frac{v^i v^j}{c^2} \right) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, . \label{eq:rho}\end{aligned}$$ At last, we compute the pressure $p$ as a function of ${{\rho_*}}$, $v^i$, and $s$, by expanding $p({{\rho_*}}+ \delta \rho, s) = ({{\rho_*}}+ \delta \rho)^2 \partial
e({{\rho_*}}+\delta \rho, s)/\partial \rho$ around $\rho = {{\rho_*}}$. According to relation , the difference $\delta \rho \equiv \rho - {{\rho_*}}$ splits into *(i)* a “conservative” term of order $1/c^2$, which we shall note $\rho_{(2)\, {\rm cons}}$ henceforth, *(ii)* a “reaction” term of order $1/c^7$, plus *(iii)* contributions of order $1/c^4$, $1/c^6$, and ${{\cal O}}(1/c^8)$ that are irrelevant in our calculation. Thus, ${{\cal O}}([\delta \rho]^2) = 1/c^4 (\ldots) + 1/c^6 (\ldots) + {{\cal O}}(1/c^8)$, and the quadratic term of the Taylor series can be omitted. $$\begin{aligned}
p({{\rho_*}}+ \delta \rho,s) =&~
p({{\rho_*}}, s) + \delta \rho \frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}({{\rho_*}}, s) +
{{\cal O}}\left([\delta \rho]^2 \right) \nonumber \\
=&~ p({{\rho_*}}, s) + \left(\rho_{(2)} + \rho_{(7)} \right) \frac{\partial
p}{\partial \rho}({{\rho_*}}, s) \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) +
\frac{1}{c^6} (
\ldots ) + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, . \label{eq:p_intermediate}\end{aligned}$$ We define the coordinate pressure ${{p_*}}$ to be the pressure of a fictitious fluid of scalar density ${{\rho_*}}$ and of entropy $s$ in our coordinate grid: ${{p_*}}\equiv p({{\rho_*}}, s)$. Its numerical value *a priori* differs from that of the actual pressure $p \equiv p(\rho({{\rho_*}}, v^p, s) ,s)$. We introduce in the same way a coordinate enthalpy ${{h_*}}$ as well as a coordinate adiabatic index ${{\gamma_*}}= \partial \ln {{p_*}}/\partial \ln {{\rho_*}}$, etc. Whereas $h \neq
{{h_*}}$ and $\gamma \neq {{\gamma_*}}$ in general, ${{\gamma_*}}$ identifies with the usual adiabatic index $\gamma = \partial \ln p/\partial \ln \rho$ when the equation of state is assumed to be polytropic. Though ${{\gamma_*}}$ happens to be constant in the latter case, it usually depends on time and on the field point: ${{\gamma_*}}= {{\gamma_*}}(\mathbf{x}, t)$. Within the preceding notation, equation becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p}
p =& {{p_*}}\left[1 - \frac{{{\gamma_*}}}{c^2} \left( 3 {{U_*}}+ \frac{1}{2} v^2 \right)
\right] \nonumber \\ & - \frac{{{p_*}}{{\gamma_*}}}{2} \left( [(g'_{ii})_{(7)}]_{(7)
\, {\rm reac}} +
[(g'_{ij})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \frac{v^i v^j}{c^2} \right) \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) +
\frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ This entails notably that $h = {{h_*}}+ ( \ldots )/c^2 + (\ldots )/c^4
+ {{\cal O}}(1/c^6)$. Finally, the $1$ PN $+~3.5$ PN mass density $\sigma = (T^{00} + T^{ii})/c^2$ is derived by inserting expressions , , , and into the stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu\nu} =
{{\rho_*}}u^0 (1 + h/c^2 ) v^\mu v^\nu/\sqrt{-g'} + p g'^{\mu\nu}$. We arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma}
\sigma &= {{\rho_*}}+ \frac{1}{c^2} \left[{{\rho_*}}c^2 \left(1 + u^0_{(2) \, {\rm
cons}} +
u^0_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} \right) \right. \nonumber \\ & \qquad \; \left.
\times \left(1 - (\sqrt{-g'})_{(2) \, {\rm cons}} - (\sqrt{-g'})_{(7) \, {\rm
reac}} \right) - {{p_*}}\right]
\nonumber \\ &+ \frac{1}{c^2} \left[{{\rho_*}}v^2 + {{p_*}}\left(\delta^{ii} -
[(g'^{ii})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}\right) \right] \nonumber \\
=&~ {{\rho_*}}+ \frac{{{\rho_*}}}{c^2} \left(\frac{3}{2} v^2 - {{U_*}}+ {{h_*}}+ 2
\frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \right) + {{\rho_*}}\bigg([(g'_{00})_{(7)}]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} \nonumber \\ &
\quad\; - \frac{1}{2} [(g'_{ii})_{(7)}]_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}
+ \frac{1}{2} [(g'_{ij})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \frac{v^i v^j}{c^2}
\bigg) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ noticing that $[(g'^{ii})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm
reac}} = - [(g'_{ii})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} + {{\cal O}}(1/c^7) = {{\cal O}}(1/c^7)$. The Poisson integral of the above expansion gives the potential $U$ in the $\{{{\rho_*}}, v^i, s\}$ representation, modulo an unimportant prefactor $G$. $$\begin{aligned}
U =&~ {{U_*}}+ \frac{G}{c^2} {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} -
\mathbf{y}|}~{{\rho_*}}\left(\frac{3}{2} v^2 - {{U_*}}+ {{h_*}}+ 2
\frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \right) \nonumber\\ &
+ G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|} ~
{{\rho_*}}\bigg([(g'_{00})_{(7)}]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} -
\frac{1}{2} [(g'_{ii})_{(7)}]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} \nonumber\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad +
\frac{1}{2} [(g'_{ij})_{(5)}]_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \frac{v^i v^j}{c^2}
\bigg) \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) +
{{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, . \label{eq:U}\end{aligned}$$ All other potentials can be cast into a similar form. The leading orders of the conservative and reaction part are determined by that of $\sigma$ and $\sigma_i$. As the fifth order corrections of both mass and current density vanish, we have $\chi = \chi_* + \chi_{(2) \, {\rm cons}} + \chi_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}$ and $U_i = {{U_*}}_i + U_{i(2) \, {\rm cons}} + U_{i(7) \, {\rm reac}}$, modulo irrelevant terms.
We are now in measure to isolate the “reaction” field $(g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm reac}$. It essentially consists of the odd metric to which add the reaction terms generated by the post-Newtonian part of $(g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm even} = g'_{\mu\nu} -
(g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm odd}$ regarded as a function of the matter variables $\sigma$ and $\sigma_i$. The latter terms do not contribute to $(g'_{0i})_{\rm reac}$ or $(g'_{ij})_{\rm reac}$ at the $3.5$ PN order, but enter the $00$ component of $(g'_{\mu\nu})_{\rm reac}$,
\[eq:gmnreac\] $$\begin{aligned}
(g'_{00})_{\rm reac} &= (g'_{00})_{\rm odd} + \frac{2}{c^2} U_{(7) \, {\rm
reac}} + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^{10}} \right) \, , \\
(g'_{0i})_{\rm reac} &= (g'_{0i})_{\rm odd} - \frac{1}{c^3} A_{i(7) \, {\rm
reac}} + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^9} \right) \nonumber \\ & = (g'_{0i})_{\rm odd}
+ {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^9} \right) \, , \\
(g'_{ij})_{\rm reac} &= (g'_{ij})_{\rm odd} + \delta^{ij}
\frac{2}{c^2} U_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right)
\nonumber \\ & =
(g'_{ij})_{\rm odd} + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
By virtue of equations , , , and , we finally obtain the $2.5$ and $3.5$ PN components of the metric as
\[eq:gmn\_explicit\] $$\begin{aligned}
(g'_{00})_{(9) \, {\rm reac}} =& \frac{4 G}{5c^9} \bigg( - {I_2}_{kl}^{(3)}
x^k \partial_l
{{U_*}}+ Q_{kl}^{(3)} x^k \left(- \partial_l U_2 + 2 {{U_*}}\partial_l {{U_*}}\right)
+ Q_{kl}^{(4)} x^k \left(- \frac{1}{2} x^l \partial_t {{U_*}}+ {{A_*}}_l \right) + \frac{5}{126} Q_{klm}^{(5)} x^k x^l
\partial_m {{U_*}}\nonumber
\\ & + Q_{kl}^{(5)} x^k \left( \frac{17}{42} x^l x^m \partial_m {{U_*}}-
\frac{11}{42} r^2 \partial_l {{U_*}}\right) - \frac{8}{9} \epsilon_{klm}
S_{mn}^{(4)} x^l x^n \partial_k {{U_*}}- 2 U G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~ Q_{kl}^{(3)}
y^k \partial_l {{\rho_*}}\nonumber \\ & + G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|} \left[ {I_2}_{kl}^{(3)}
y^k \partial_l {{\rho_*}}+ Q_{kl}^{(3)} y^k \left({{\rho_*}}\partial_l {{U_*}}+\partial_l
({{\rho_*}}\delta) \right) - 3 {{\rho_*}}v^k v^l
Q_{kl}^{(3)} - \frac{5}{126} Q_{klm}^{(5)} y^k y^l \partial_m {{\rho_*}}\right.
\nonumber \\ & +
Q_{kl}^{(4)} y^k \left(\frac{1}{2} y^l \partial_t {{\rho_*}}-
4 {{\rho_*}}v^l \right) + Q_{kl}^{(5)} y^k \left(-
\frac{17}{42} y^l y^m \partial_m {{\rho_*}}+ \frac{11}{42} |\mathbf{y}|^2
\partial_l {{\rho_*}}- {{\rho_*}}y^l \right) - \frac{8}{9} \epsilon_{klm} S_{mn}^{(4)}
y^l y^n \partial_k {{\rho_*}}\nonumber \\ & \left. - G {{\rho_*}}{{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}'}{|\mathbf{y} - \mathbf{y}'|} \left(Q_{kl}^{(3)}
y^k \partial_l {{\rho_*}}\right)[\mathbf{y}'] \right] \bigg) \, , \\
(g'_{0i})_{(8) \, {\rm reac}} =& - \frac{8 G}{5c^8} \bigg( -
\frac{1}{4} Q_{kl}^{(3)} x^k \partial_l {{A_*}}_i - \frac{1}{4} Q_{ik}^{(3)}
{{A_*}}_k
+ Q_{ik}^{(4)} x^k {{U_*}}+ \frac{G}{8} \partial_i
\partial_t {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}| \left[
Q_{kl}^{(3)} y^k \partial_l {{\rho_*}}\right] \nonumber \\ & +
G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|} \left[
Q_{kl}^{(3)} y^k \partial_l ({{\rho_*}}v^i) -
{{\rho_*}}v^k Q_{ik}^{(3)} - {{\rho_*}}y^k Q_{ik}^{(4)} \right]
\bigg) \, , \label{eq:g00_explicit} \\
(g'_{ij})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} =& \frac{4 G}{5c^7} \bigg( -
{I_2}^{(3)}_{ij} - 2 Q_{ij}^{(3)} {{U_*}}+
\frac{5}{63} Q_{ijk}^{(5)} x^k + \frac{2}{7} x^k x^{(i} Q_{j)k}^{(5)} -
\frac{11}{42} Q_{ij}^{(5)} r^2 -
\frac{8}{9} \epsilon_{kl(i} S_{j)l}^{(4)} x^k \bigg) \nonumber \\ &
+ \frac{4 G}{5}\delta^{ij} \bigg(- \frac{2}{21} x^k x^l Q_{kl}^{(5)} -
Q^{(3)}_{kl} x^k \partial_l {{U_*}}+
G {{\int \!}}\frac{d^3\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}|}~Q^{(3)}_{kl} y^k
\partial_l {{\rho_*}}\bigg) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
with ${{A_*}}_i \equiv 4 {{U_*}}_i + \partial_i \partial_t \chi_*/2$, $U_2 \equiv
c^2 U_{(2) \, {\rm cons}}$, ${I_2}_{ij} \equiv c^2 (I_{ij})_{(2)
\, {\rm cons}}$, and $S_{ij} \equiv J_{ij(0) \, {\rm cons}} = {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~ \epsilon_{km<i} \hat{y}^{j>k} {{\rho_*}}v^m$.
$\mathbf{3.5}$ PN reaction force {#sec:reaction .unnumbered}
================================
The evolution equations including the $3.5$ PN gravitational damping are deduced from the conservation of the stress-energy tensor $$\label{eq:conservation_Tmn}
\partial_\alpha \left(\sqrt{-g'} T^\alpha_{\, \mu} \right) =
\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g'} T^{\alpha\beta} \partial_\mu g'_{\alpha\beta}\, ,$$ and from that of the entropy $$\label{eq:conservation_s}
\partial_t s + v^i \partial_i s =0 \, .$$ The projection of formula on $u^\mu$, together with formula , leads to the continuity equation $$\label{eq:conservation_rhoc}
\partial_t {{\rho_*}}+ \partial_i ({{\rho_*}}v^i) = 0 \, ,$$ whereas its space part is equivalent to the Euler equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:euler}
\partial_j \left[{{\rho_*}}\left(1 + \frac{h}{c^2} \right) u_i v^j c\right] +
\partial_t \left[{{\rho_*}}\left(1 + \frac{h}{c^2}\right) u_i c\right] \\ +
\partial_i (\sqrt{-g'} p)
= \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g'} T^{\alpha\beta} \partial_i g'_{\alpha\beta} \, .\end{gathered}$$ In the absence of coupling between radiative and non-radiative effects, the $1$ PN + $3.5$ PN dynamics of the adiabatic fluid subjected to gravitational damping is described by the post-Newtonian expansion of equalities , , , including the Newtonian, 1 PN, $2.5$ PN, as well as the $3.5$ PN order for fixed ${{\rho_*}}$, $v^i$, and $s$.
We first identify the momentum density of the fluid[^2] $M_i \equiv {{\rho_*}}(1 + h/c^2) u_i c = \sqrt{-g'}
T^0_{\, i}/c$ on the left-hand side of . The space part $u_i$ of the covariant velocity is related to the variables ${{\rho_*}}$, $v^i$, and $s$ through the equality $u_i = v^i/c + [u_0 (g'_{i0} +
g'_{ij} v^j/c)]_{(3+6+8)} + ( \ldots )/c^5 + ( \ldots )/c^7 + {{\cal O}}(1/c^9)$. After replacing $u^0$ by its value in the definition of $M_i$ and expanding up to the $1$ PN + $3.5$ PN order with the help of equations , we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Mi}
M_i =& {{\rho_*}}v^i + \frac{{{\rho_*}}}{c^2} \left({{h_*}}v^i + 3 {{U_*}}v^i - {{A_*}}_i +
\frac{1}{2} v^2 v^i \right) \nonumber \\ & + {{\rho_*}}v^j (g'_{ij})_{(5+7) \,
{\rm reac}} \nonumber \\ &+ \frac{1}{c^2} {{\rho_*}}\left({{h_*}}+ \frac{1}{2} v^2 + {{U_*}}\right) v^j (g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}
\nonumber \\ & + {{\rho_*}}c (g'_{0i})_{(8) \, {\rm reac}} \nonumber \\ & +
\frac{1}{2} {{\rho_*}}v^i \left((g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} + (g'_{kl})_{(5) \,
{\rm reac}} \frac{v^k v^l}{c^2} \right) \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^4} (
\ldots ) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ This expression contains the term ${{\rho_*}}(g'_{ij})_{(5+7)} v^j$ involving in particular the third order time derivative of the 1 PN quadrupole $I_{ij}$ and the fifth time derivative of the Newtonian mass multipole moments $Q_{ij}$ and $Q_{ijk}$. Therefore, the extra time derivation appearing on the left-hand side of the Euler equation induces terms in $I_{ij
(2) \, {\rm cons}}^{(4)}$, $Q_{ij}^{(6)}$, and $Q_{ijk}^{(6)}$, which make us lose all benefit from the gauge transformation. In order to cure that, we modify our system of variables according to paper [@BDS90]. We keep the baryonic density as well as the entropy, but substitute to the coordinate velocity $v^i$ the more appropriate “momentum velocity” $w_i
\equiv M_i/{{\rho_*}}$. The relation between $w_i$ and $v^i$ is found by inverting equation iteratively. At the leading order, we have $M_i = {{\rho_*}}v^i + {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$, hence $w_i = v^i + {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$. This result is used to compute the 1 PN correction of $v^i$ as a function of $w_i$: $M_i = {{\rho_*}}v^i - {{\rho_*}}(- {{h_*}}w_i - 3 {{U_*}}w_i + {{A_*}}_i - w^2
w_i/2)/c^2 + {{\cal O}}(1/c^4)$, hence $v^i$, which is in its turn inserted into equation truncated at the next approximation, etc. We get in the end: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vi}
v^i &= w_i + \frac{1}{c^2} \left(- {{h_*}}w_i - 3 {{U_*}}w_i + {{A_*}}_i -
\frac{1}{2} w^2 w_i \right) \nonumber \\ & - w_j (g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm
reac}} - w_j (g'_{ij})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^2}
\left(5 {{U_*}}+ \frac{1}{2}
w^2 + {{h_*}}\right) w_j (g'_{ij})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm cons}} -
\frac{{{A_*}}_j}{c^2}
(g'_{ij})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm reac}} \nonumber \\
& - c (g'_{0i})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(8)}{\rm reac}} + \frac{w_i}{2} \left(-
(g'_{00})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} +
(g'_{kl})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm reac}} \frac{w_k
w_l}{c^2} \right) \nonumber
\\ & + \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots ) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Up to now, we have reduced the kinetic part of the Euler equation to $\partial_j ({{\rho_*}}w_i v^j) + \partial_t ({{\rho_*}}w_i)$, or equivalently ${{\rho_*}}(v^j \partial_j w_i + \partial_t w_i)$, after the continuity equation. The pressure force $F_i^{\rm
press}\equiv -\partial_i (\sqrt{-g'} p)/{{\rho_*}}$, as for it, is derived from the post-Newtonian expansion and of $p$ and $\sqrt{-g'}$ respectively, supplemented by the two approximate equalities $U = {{U_*}}+ (\ldots)/c^2 + (\ldots)/c^4 + {{\cal O}}(1/c^6)$, $(g'_{ii})_{(7)} = (g'_{ii})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}$, and $v^i = w_i - w_j
(g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} +$ irrelevant terms.
$$\begin{aligned}
F_i^{\rm press} =& - \frac{1}{{{\rho_*}}} \partial_i \bigg\{{{p_*}}+
\frac{1}{c^2} \left[2 {{U_*}}- {{\gamma_*}}\left(3 {{U_*}}+ \frac{1}{2} v^2 \right)
\right] {{p_*}}\nonumber \\ & \qquad \quad \; + \frac{{{p_*}}}{2}
\bigg[(g'_{jj})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} - (g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm
reac}} - {{\gamma_*}}\left((g'_{jj})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} +
(g'_{jk})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm reac}} \frac{v^j
v^k}{c^2} \right) \bigg] \bigg\} + \frac{1}{c^4} (\ldots) +
\frac{1}{c^6} (\ldots) + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right) \nonumber \\ =& -
\bigg[1 + \frac{1}{c^2} \left(2 {{U_*}}- {{\gamma_*}}\left(3
{{U_*}}+ \frac{1}{2} w^2\right) \right) +
\frac{1}{2} \left( (g'_{jj})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} -
(g'_{00})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} \right)
- \frac{{{\gamma_*}}}{2} \left((g'_{jj})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7)}{\rm reac}} -
(g'_{jk})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm reac}}
\frac{w_j w_k}{c^2} \right)\bigg] \frac{\partial_i
{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \nonumber \\ & \qquad \; - \frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \partial_i
\bigg[\frac{1}{c^2} \left(2 {{U_*}}- {{\gamma_*}}\left(3
{{U_*}}+ \frac{1}{2} w^2\right) \right) + \frac{1}{2}
\left( (g'_{jj})_{(7) \,
{\rm reac}} - (g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} \right) \nonumber \\ & \qquad \;
- \frac{{{\gamma_*}}}{2} \left((g'_{jj})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} - (g'_{jk})_{(5) \,
{\rm reac}}
\frac{w_j w_k}{c^2} \right) \bigg] + \frac{1}{c^4} (\ldots
) + \frac{1}{c^6} (\ldots) + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^8} \right)\, .\end{aligned}$$
While both pressure and density tend toward zero in the region of space-time extending outside the system, the ratio $\partial_i {{p_*}}/{{\rho_*}}$ remains finite by virtue of the thermodynamical relation $\partial_i {{p_*}}/{{\rho_*}}= \partial_i {{h_*}}- T_*
\partial_i s$, with $T_* = \partial e({{\rho_*}}, s)/\partial s$ representing the coordinate temperature. The last term of the Euler equation still to be evaluated is the gravitational force $F_i^{\rm grav} \equiv \partial_i
g'_{\alpha \beta} \sqrt{-g'} T^{\alpha \beta}/(2{{\rho_*}})$. The components $g'_{\mu\nu}$ of the metric in the new gauge and the square root of minus the corresponding determinant are given by equations and respectively. The stress-energy tensor is obtained from the mass density , the current density $\sigma_i = {{\rho_*}}v^i +
{{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$, as well as the stress density , by inverting the identities $\sigma = (T^{00} + T^{ii})/c^2$, $\sigma_i =
T^{0i}/c$, and $\sigma_{ij} = T^{ij}$. All contributions of order $1/c^4$, $1/c^6$, and ${{\cal O}}(1/c^8)$ are neglected as usual. We find: $$\begin{aligned}
F_i^{\rm grav} &= \frac{1}{{{\rho_*}}} \bigg\{
\frac{1}{2} \partial_i \left[-1 + \frac{2}{c^2} {{U_*}}- \frac{2}{c^4} {{U_*}}^{\! \!
2} \right] \left[\sqrt{-g'} (c^2 \sigma -
\sigma_{jj})\right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(-2+0)}{\rm cons}}
+ \partial_i \left[-\frac{{{A_*}}_j}{c^3} \right] \left[\sqrt{-g'} c
\sigma_j \right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(0)}{\rm cons}} \nonumber \\ & \qquad
\; + \frac{1}{2} \partial_i
\left[\delta^{jk} \left(1 + \frac{2}{c^2} {{U_*}}\right) \right] \left[\sqrt{-g'}
\sigma_{jk}\right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(0)}{\rm cons}}
+ \frac{1}{2} \partial_i \left[-1 + \frac{2}{c^2} {{U_*}}\right] \left[\sqrt{-g'} (c^2 \sigma -
\sigma_{jj})\right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{{\rm reac}}} \nonumber \\ &
\qquad + \partial_i \left[-\frac{{{A_*}}_j}{c^3} \right] \left[\sqrt{-g'} c
\sigma_j \right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(4)}{\rm reac}} + \frac{1}{2}
\partial_i \left[\delta^{jk} \left(1 + \frac{2}{c^2} {{U_*}}\right) \right]
\left[\sqrt{-g'} \sigma_{jk}\right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5)}{\rm reac}}
\nonumber \\ & \qquad +
\frac{1}{2} \partial_i (g'_{00})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(7+9)}{\rm reac}} \!
\left[\sqrt{-g'} (c^2 \sigma -
\sigma_{jj})\right]_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(-2+0)}{\rm cons}}
+ \partial_i (g'_{0j})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(6+8)}{\rm reac}} \!
\left[\sqrt{-g'} c \sigma_{j}\right]_{(-1) \, {\rm cons}} \nonumber \\ &
\qquad + \frac{1}{2} \partial_i (g'_{jk})_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{(5+7)}{\rm
reac}} \left[\sqrt{-g'} \sigma_{jk} \right]_{(0+2) \, {\rm cons}}
+ \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots) + \frac{1}{c^6} ( \ldots ) +
{{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^8} \right) \bigg\} \nonumber \\
& = \partial_i {{U_*}}\left[1 + \frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{3}{2} v^2 - {{U_*}}+ {{h_*}}+ 2
\frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \right) \right] + \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_i U_2 -
\frac{1}{c^2} v^j \partial_i {{A_*}}_j \nonumber \\ & \qquad + \frac{1}{2} c^2
\partial_i (g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} +
\frac{1}{2} \partial_i {{U_*}}\left((g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} +
(g'_{jk})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \frac{v^j v^k}{c^2} \right) \nonumber \\ &
\qquad + \frac{1}{2} \partial_i (g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} \left({{h_*}}+ {{U_*}}+ \frac{1}{2} v^2 - \frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \right) +
\frac{c^2}{2} \partial_i (g'_{00})_{(9) \, {\rm reac}} + c v^j\partial_i
(g'_{0j})_{(8) \, {\rm reac}} \nonumber \\ & \qquad + \frac{1}{2} \left(v^j
v^k \partial_i (g'_{jk})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} + \frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \partial_i
(g'_{jj})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}} \right) + \frac{1}{c^4} ( \ldots) + \frac{1}{c^6}
( \ldots) + {{\cal O}}\left( \frac{1}{c^8} \right) \, . \label{eq:Figrav}\end{aligned}$$
The indetermination of the ratio ${{p_*}}/{{\rho_*}}$ for ${{p_*}}$ and ${{\rho_*}}$ both going to zero is raised by use of the relation ${{p_*}}/{{\rho_*}}= {{\rho_*}}\partial e({{\rho_*}},
s)/\partial {{\rho_*}}$. The replacement of $v^i$ in $F^{\rm grav}_i$ according to equation amounts to *(i)* changing $v^i$ into $w_i$ at each of its occurrences, and *(ii)* adding the $3.5$ PN term: $\delta F_i^{\rm grav} = -3 \partial_i {{U_*}}w_j w_k (g'_{jk})_{(5) \,
{\rm reac}}/c^2 + \partial_i {{A_*}}_j w_k (g'_{jk})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}/c^2$ to the resulting expression. Knowing $v^i$, $F^{\rm grav}_i$, and $F^{\rm press}_i$, we write the Euler equation as: $$\label{eq:euler_explicit}
\partial_t w_i + v^j \partial_j w_i = F^{\rm grav}_i + F^{\rm press}_i \, .$$
The evolution equations for the fluid are now established. They are parametrized by the Newtonian potential ${{U_*}}$, the post-Newtonian potential ${{A_*}}_i = 4 {{U_*}}_i + \partial_i \partial_t \chi_*/2$, as well as the $2.5$ and $3.5$ PN reaction metric components $(g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}$, $(g'_{00})_{(9) \, {\rm reac}}$, $(g'_{0i})_{(8) \, {\rm reac}}$, $(g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}$, and $(g'_{ij})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}$. Formulas and show that these components depend themselves on ${{U_*}}$, ${{A_*}}_i$, and on the Poisson integrals coming from the functional derivation. Among these various quantities, the only super potential, $\chi_*$, appears exclusively through its gradient, $\partial_i
\chi_* = G {{\int \!}}d^3\mathbf{y}~{{\rho_*}}(x^i - y^i)/|\mathbf{x}- \mathbf{y}|$, which can be put under the form $\partial_i \chi_* = x^i \Delta^{-1} (-4 \pi G
{{\rho_*}}) -\Delta^{-1} (-4 \pi G x^i {{\rho_*}})$. Consequently, all the elementary field quantities employed in the present formulation are solutions of decoupled Poisson equations with compact support sources. This simple elliptic structure fits particularly well to numerical computations. The only complication, apart from that due to the mere length of the expressions, comes from the double integration arising in $(g'_{00})_{(9) \, {\rm reac}}$. Indeed, the source terms ${{\rho_*}}Q_{kl}^{(3)} y^k \partial_l {{U_*}}$ and ${{\rho_*}}\Delta^{-1} \left(-4 \pi G Q_{kl}^{(3)} y^k \partial_l {{\rho_*}}\right)$ present in the second member of equation are basically themselves Poisson potentials. This nonlinear effect originates in the fact that the integrand of $U_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}$ involves certain pieces of the $2.5$ and $3.5$ PN gravitational field, namely $(g'_{00})_{(7) \, {\rm
reac}}$, $(g'_{ii})_{(7) \, {\rm reac}}$, and $(g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm
reac}}$. It occurs either in the original Burke-Thorne-like grid or in the coordinate system defined in section \[sec:gauge\], as long as we confine ourselves to the $\{{{\rho_*}},w_i,s\}$ representation, but can be cured by redefining the density variable as $\tilde{\rho} = {{\rho_*}}+ \sigma_{(7)}$. This results in a slight modification of the present formalism. The corresponding set of equations is presented in Appendix \[sec:appA\].
Our last task in the achievement of our initial goal will consist in reducing the number of temporal derivatives remaining in the metric to one. This will be done by eliminating $\partial_t {{\rho_*}}$, $\partial_t w_i$, and $\partial_t s$ with the help of the entropy conservation, of the continuity equation, and of the Euler equation at the Newtonian or post-Newtonian order. The multiple time derivatives we shall have to deal with apply on the multipole moments. They are of the type $(d/dt)^n {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x}, t) f(\mathbf{x},t)$, with $n \in \{2,3, \ldots\}$. The function $f$ depends on time through the evolution variables ${{\rho_*}}$, $w_i$, and $s$: $f(\mathbf{x},t) = f(\mathbf{x},{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{y},t),
w_p(\mathbf{y},t), s(\mathbf{y},t))$. Each differentiation is performed by means of the formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chandra}
&\frac{d}{dt} {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x},t) f(\mathbf{x},t) =
{{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~\partial_t \left[{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x},t) f(\mathbf{x},t)\right]
\nonumber \\
&= {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~\left[- f(\mathbf{x},t) \partial_i ({{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x},t)
v^i({\bf x},t)) + {{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x},t) \partial_t f(\mathbf{x},t)\right]
\nonumber \\ & = {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x},t) \frac{df}{dt}(\mathbf{x},t)
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is obtained by integration by part. We recall that the total derivative $df/dt = \partial_t f+ v^i \partial_i f$ represents the temporal variation of the field $f$ for a fixed particle of fluid. It satisfies the chain rule $df/dt =(d{{\rho_*}}/dt) \partial f/\partial
{{\rho_*}}+ (dw_i/dt) \partial f/\partial w_i + (ds/dt) \partial f/\partial s$ for any $f=f({{\rho_*}},w_i,s)$. Taking advantage of the Euler equation , $dw_i/dt = F_i^{\rm grav} + F_i^{\rm press}$, as well as the local conservation of mass , $d{{\rho_*}}/dt = - \partial_i
({{\rho_*}}v^i) + v^i \partial_i {{\rho_*}}= -{{\rho_*}}\partial_i v^i$, and entropy , $ds/dt = 0$, we get: $$\label{eq:fdot}
\frac{df}{dt} = - \frac{\partial f}{\partial {{\rho_*}}} {{\rho_*}}\partial_i v^i +
\frac{\partial f}{\partial w_i} (F^{\rm grav}_i + F^{\rm press}_i) \, .$$ This shows that the time derivative of a term ${{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x},t)
f(\mathbf{x},t)$ is itself of the type ${{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{x},t)
g(\mathbf{x},t)$ with $g=g(\mathbf{x},{{\rho_*}}(\mathbf{y},t), w_p(\mathbf{y},t),
s(\mathbf{y},t))$. In this way, the number of time derivatives acting on the initial integral can be brought down to $n-1$, $n-2$, etc. After $n-1$ iteration, we are left with a unique time derivative as required. The price to pay is an increase of the expression lengths. The evaluation of $I_{ij}^{(3)}$ is particularly tedious since the mass quadrupole $I_{ij}$ is needed at the order $1/c^2$. After specializing the definition of $I_{ij}$ to the desired level of approximation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ij} =& {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~\hat{x}^{ij} {{\rho_*}}\left[1 + \frac{1}{c^2}
\left(\frac{3}{2} w^2 - {{U_*}}+ {{h_*}}+ 2 \frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \right) \right]
\\ &~ + \frac{1}{14c^2} \frac{d^2}{dt^2} {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~ r^2 \hat{x}^{ij} {{\rho_*}}- \frac{20}{21c^2} \frac{d}{dt} {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~ \hat{x}^{ijk} {{\rho_*}}w_k \\ &~ +
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^3} \right) \, . \end{aligned}$$ We then perform the time derivation along the procedure explained above. The force per mass unit $F^{\rm grav}_i + F^{\rm press}_i$ is limited to the Newtonian order: $dw_i/dt = \partial_i {{U_*}}- \partial_i {{p_*}}/{{\rho_*}}$. We are led to [@BDS90]
$$\label{eq:Iij}
I_{ij} = E_{ij} + F_{ij} + G_{ij} + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^3} \right) \, ,$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
E_{ij} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~ {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j \bigg[1
+\frac{1}{c^2} \bigg(\frac{1}{2}
w^2 - {{U_*}}\nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \; + {{h_*}}- \frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \bigg) \bigg] \, , \\
F_{ij} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~ \frac{{{\rho_*}}}{c^2} \bigg[\frac{11}{21} r^2
w_i w_j - \frac{4}{7} x^i x^k w_k w_j \nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad
\qquad \qquad \qquad \; + \frac{4}{21} x^i x^j w^2 \bigg]\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$G_{ij} = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~\frac{{{\rho_*}}}{c^2} \left[
\frac{11}{21} r^2 x^i \partial_j {{U_*}}- \frac{17}{21} x^i x^j x^k \partial_k
{{U_*}}\right] \, .$$
The computation of $I_{ij}^{(2)}$ from equation is long, but straightforward. We make systematical use of formulas and . The quantities $v^i$ and $F^{\rm grav}_i + F^{\rm press}_i$ are truncated at the 1 PN order in the first source term of $E_{ij}$, at the Newtonian order in the rest. $$\begin{aligned}
v^i =& w_i \left[1 - \frac{1}{c^2} \left(
\frac{1}{2} w^2 + {{h_*}}+ 3 {{U_*}}\right) \right] + \frac{1}{c^2} {{A_*}}_i \, ,\\
\frac{dw_i}{dt} =& \partial_i {{U_*}}- \frac{\partial_i
{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} + \frac{1}{c^2} \left(\frac{3}{2} w^2 + {{h_*}}+ 2
\frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} - {{U_*}}\right) \partial_i {{U_*}}\nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^2}
\partial_i U_2 - \frac{1}{c^2} w_j \partial_i {{A_*}}_j \\ &
- \frac{1}{c^2}\partial_i \left[ \left(2 {{U_*}}-
{{\gamma_*}}\left( \frac{1}{2} w^2 + 3 {{U_*}}\right) \right)
\frac{{{p_*}}}{{{\rho_*}}} \right] \, . \end{aligned}$$ The total time derivative of the enthalpy ${{h_*}}$ is deduced from relation : $d{{h_*}}/dt = (d{{\rho_*}}/dt) (\partial {{h_*}}/\partial {{p_*}}) (\partial
{{p_*}}/\partial {{\rho_*}}) = - {{\gamma_*}}{{p_*}}\partial_i w_i/{{\rho_*}}+ {{\cal O}}(1/c^2)$. For treating the potentials ${{U_*}}$, ${{A_*}}_i$, etc., the operator $d/dt$ is first put under its explicit form, $d/dt= \partial_t + v^i \partial_i$, and the partial derivative $\partial_t$ is next applied on the source $S$ through the integral symbol. The source variation $\partial_t S$ is transformed by means of the evolution equations at the Newtonian order. For convenience, we may redefine ${{U_*}}_i$ as $\Delta^{-1} (-4\pi G {{\rho_*}}w_i)$. This yields for instance $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} {{U_*}}=&~
\Delta^{-1} \partial_t (-4 \pi G {{\rho_*}}) + v^i \partial_i {{U_*}}\\ =&
- \Delta^{-1} [-4 \pi G \partial_i ({{\rho_*}}w_i)] + w_i \partial_i {{U_*}}+
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^2} \right) \\
=& - \partial_i {{U_*}}_i + w_i \partial_i {{U_*}}+
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^2} \right) \, , \\
\frac{d}{dt} {{U_*}}_i =&~ \Delta^{-1} \partial_t (-4 \pi G {{\rho_*}}w_i) + v^j
\partial_j {{U_*}}_i \\ =& \Delta^{-1} [-4\pi G (-\partial_{j} ({{\rho_*}}w_i w_j) +
{{\rho_*}}\partial_i {{U_*}}- \partial_i {{p_*}})] \\ & \nonumber + w_j
\partial_j {{U_*}}_i + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^2} \right) \, . \end{aligned}$$ As the potential $\partial_t (\partial_i \chi_*)$ occurs in $I_{ij}^{(2)}$, its time derivative must be eliminated as well. In order not to increase the number of Poisson equations, we systematically replace its old expression by the new one. It must be determined at the $2.5$ PN order, since ${{A_*}}_i$ appears in the 1 PN part of the gravitational force . $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \partial_i \chi_* =&~
\partial_t \left[x^i \Delta^{-1} (-4 \pi G {{\rho_*}}) - \Delta^{-1} (-4 \pi G
x^i {{\rho_*}}) \right] \\
=& - x^i \partial_j \Delta^{-1} (-4 \pi G {{\rho_*}}v^j) \\ & + \Delta^{-1} [-4
\pi G x^i \partial_j ({{\rho_*}}v^j)]\\
=& - x^i \left(\delta^{jk} - (g'_{jk})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \right) \partial_j
{{U_*}}_k \\ & + \Delta^{-1} \left[-4 \pi G \left(\delta^{jk} -
(g'_{jk})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}} \right) x^i \partial_j ({{\rho_*}}w_k)\right] \\ &+
\frac{1}{c^2} (\ldots) + \frac{1}{c^4} (\ldots) + {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^6}\right) \end{aligned}$$ (the last form is obtained by using the Newtonian plus $2.5$ PN approximation for the coordinate velocity : $v^i = w_i - w_j (g'_{ij})_{(5) \, {\rm reac}}$). It is sufficient to determine the total time derivative of $\partial_t
\partial_i \chi_*$ contributing to $I_{ij}^{(2)}$ at the Newtonian order. It reads $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t (\partial_t & \partial_i \chi_* ) \\ =
&\partial_t \left[-x^i \partial_j {{U_*}}_j + \Delta^{-1} (-4\pi G x^i \partial_j
({{\rho_*}}w_j) ) \right] \\ =&
-x^i \partial_j \Delta^{-1} [-4\pi G (- \partial_k ({{\rho_*}}w_j w_k) \\ &
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad +
{{\rho_*}}\partial_j {{U_*}}- \partial_j {{p_*}}) ] \\ &+ \Delta^{-1} [-4\pi G x^i
(-\partial_{jk} ({{\rho_*}}w_j w_k) \\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \, +
\partial_j ({{\rho_*}}\partial_j {{U_*}}) - \Delta {{p_*}}) ] \, . \end{aligned}$$ After ruling out all temporal differentiation from $I_{ij}^{(2)}$, our result is finalized by removing, whenever possible, the space derivatives of the baryonic density ${{\rho_*}}$ and the pressure ${{p_*}}$ by integration by part. Remark that the space and time derivatives of ${{\gamma_*}}$ exactly cancel. All quantities $S_{ij}^{(n)}$ and $Q_{ijk}^{(n)} = (d/dt)^n {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~\hat{x}^{ijk} {{\rho_*}}$ for $n \le 4$ are rewritten at Newtonian level following the preceding method.
Now, $S_{ij}$ and $Q_{ijk}$, as well as the hexadecapole $Q_{ijkl} = {{\int \!}}{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}~\hat{x}^{ijkl} {{\rho_*}}$, can be formally assimilated to the multipoles that parametrize the wave form $h_{ij}^{\rm rad}$ in some “radiative coordinate” grid $X^\mu=(T,\mathbf{X})$ up to the $3.5$ order, as explained in paper [@BDS90]. After actually achieving the substitution into the wave form, the new expression for $h_{ij}^{\rm rad}(\mathbf{X},T)$ involves one time derivation only, and is thus suitable for numerical computations. In conclusion, the present formalism allows one to build an accurate $1$ PN + $3.5$ PN code (*i*) that models the fluid dynamics including the $3.5$ PN damping effect, and (*ii*) that permits gravitational wave extraction. All the field equations are of Poisson type, and have compact support sources. The number of time derivatives is never higher than one.
Let us list in the end the quantities to be computed and the equations to be solved for modeling the evolution of an adiabatic fluid at the $1$ PN + $3.5$ PN approximation. For reader’s convenience, we follow the presentation of Blanchet-Damour-Schäfer [@BDS90]. The notations are as close to theirs as possible, though not identical.[^3] It is useful to pose:
\[eq:FS\_equations\]
&U\_5 = (g’\_[00]{})\_[(7) [reac]{}]{} , &\
&U\_7 = (g’\_[00]{})\_[(9) [reac]{}]{} + 3 c\^5 \^[-1]{} (-4 G [[\_\*]{}]{}v\^i\_[(5) [reac]{}]{} w\_i ) , &\
&[U\_5]{}\_i = - (g’\_[0i]{})\_[(8) [reac]{}]{} , &\
&[h\_5]{}\_[ij]{} = (g’\_[ij]{})\_[(5) [reac]{}]{} , &\
&[h\_7]{}\_[ij]{} = (g’\_[ij]{})\_[(7) [reac]{}]{} - \^[ij]{} U\_5 .
The resulting set of formulas is given below.\
Thermodynamical quantities:
&T\_\* = , &\
&\_\* = [[\_\*]{}]{} , &\
& [[\_\*]{}]{} , &\
&[[h\_\*]{}]{}= e([[\_\*]{}]{},s) + \_\* .
Primary Poisson equations:
&[[U\_\*]{}]{}= - 4 G [[\_\*]{}]{} , &\
&[[U\_\*]{}]{}\_i = - 4 G [[\_\*]{}]{}w\_i . &
$2.5$ PN quantities:\
$Q_{ij}^{[2]}$, see Appendix \[sec:appB\];
&\_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} = &\
&[h\_5]{}\_[ij]{} = - \_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} , &\
&R = -4 G \_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} x\^i \_j [[\_\*]{}]{} , &\
&U\_5 = (- \_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} x\^i \_j [[U\_\*]{}]{}+ R ) . &
1 PN quantities with radiative corrections included:
&= 2 [[U\_\*]{}]{}- [[\_\*]{}]{}( w\^2 + 3 [[U\_\*]{}]{}) &\
& + , &\
&= w\^2 + [[h\_\*]{}]{}+ 3 [[U\_\*]{}]{} , &\
& = w\^2 + [[h\_\*]{}]{}+ 2 \_\* - [[U\_\*]{}]{} , &\
& \_i = - \_j ([[\_\*]{}]{}w\_i w\_j) + [[\_\*]{}]{}\_i [[U\_\*]{}]{}- \_i [[p\_\*]{}]{} , &\
& U\_2 = -4 G [[\_\*]{}]{} , &\
&D\_i = -4 G \_i , &\
& E\_i = -4 G x\^i \_j \_j , &\
& C\_i = - 4 G (\^[jk]{} - \_[jk]{}) x\^i \_j ([[\_\*]{}]{}w\_k) , &\
&[[A\_\*]{}]{}\_i = 4 (\^[ik]{} - \_[ik]{}) [[U\_\*]{}]{}\_k + C\_i &\
& - x\^i (\^[jk]{} - \_[jk]{}) \_j [[U\_\*]{}]{}\_k . &
$3.5$ PN quantities:\
${I_2}_{ij}^{[2]}$, $Q_{ij}^{[3]}$, $Q_{ij}^{[4]}$, $Q_{ijk}^{[4]}$, $S_{ij}^{[3]}$, see Appendix \[sec:appB\];
&[\_2]{}\^[\[2\]]{}\_[ij]{} = , &\
& \_[ij]{}\^[\[4\]]{} = , &\
& \_[ijk]{}\^[\[4\]]{} = , &\
& \_[ij]{}\^[\[4\]]{} = , &\
& R\_2 = - 4 G , &\
&R\_i = - 4 G , &\
&U\_7 = , &\
& [U\_[5]{}]{}\_i = , &\
& [h\_7]{}\_[ij]{} = .
Velocity and forces:
&v\^i = [[w]{}]{}\_i + (- [[w]{}]{}\_i + [[A\_\*]{}]{}\_i ) - [[w]{}]{}\_k [h\_5]{}\_[ik]{} &\
& - (- 4 [U\_5]{}\_i + 2 [[w]{}]{}\_k [h\_7]{}\_[ik]{} + [[w]{}]{}\_i (3 U\_5 - [[w]{}]{}\_k [[w]{}]{}\_l [h\_5]{}\_[kl]{} ) &\
& - 2 (+ 2 [[U\_\*]{}]{}) [[w]{}]{}\_k [h\_5]{}\_[ik]{} + 2 [[A\_\*]{}]{}\_k [h\_5]{}\_[ik]{} ) , &\
&F\^[press]{}\_i = - (1 + ) (\_i [[h\_\*]{}]{}- T\_\* \_i s ) - \_\* \_i , &\
&F\^[grav]{}\_i = (1 + ) \_i [[U\_\*]{}]{}+ \_i U\_2 - w\^j \_i [[A\_\*]{}]{}\_j + \_i U\_5 &\
& + ( \_i U\_7 - 4 [[w]{}]{}\_k \_i [U\_5]{}\_k + [[w]{}]{}\_k [[w]{}]{}\_l \_i [h\_7]{}\_[kl]{} &\
& + (U\_5 - 5 [[w]{}]{}\_k [[w]{}]{}\_l [h\_5]{}\_[kl]{} ) \_i [[U\_\*]{}]{}+ (+ 2 [[U\_\*]{}]{}) \_i U\_5 &\
& + 2 [h\_5]{}\_[kl]{} [[w]{}]{}\_k \_i [[A\_\*]{}]{}\_l ) . &
Evolution system:
&\_t [[\_\*]{}]{}= - \_i ([[\_\*]{}]{}v\^i) , &\
&\_t s = - v\^i \_i s , &\
&\_t w\_i = - v\^j \_j w\_i + F\^[grav]{}\_i + F\^[press]{}\_i . &
Gravitational wave form $(R= \sqrt{X^i X^i}, \mathbf{N}=\mathbf{X}/R)$:
&h\_[ij]{}\^[rad]{} (,T) = P\_[ijkl]{}() { I\_[kl]{}\^[(2)]{} + N\_a Q\_[akl]{}\^[\[3\]]{} . &\
& . + \_[ab(k]{} S\^[\[2\]]{}\_[l)a]{} N\_b + N\_a N\_b \_[abkl]{}\^[\[3\]]{} . &\
& . + \_[ab(k]{} \^[\[2\]]{}\_[l)ac]{} N\_b N\_c } . &
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by the EU Program “Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base” (Research Training Network Contract HPRN-CT-2000-00137). We thank M. Brügmann for checks of several formulas.
Set of formulas in the $\mathbf{\{}\boldsymbol{\tilde{\rho}}\mathbf{,w_i,s\}}$ representation {#sec:appA}
=============================================================================================
We give here the set of equations describing the $1$ + $3.5$ PN dynamics by means of the matter variables $\tilde{\rho}= {{\rho_*}}+ \sigma_{(7)}$, $w_i$, and $s$ (see section \[sec:reaction\]).\
Thermodynamical quantities:
& = ,\
& = , &\
& , &\
& = e(,s) + .
Primary Poisson equations:
& = - 4 G , &\
&\_i = - 4 G w\_i . &
$2.5$ PN quantities:\
$Q_{ij}^{[2]}$, see Appendix \[sec:appB\], with the substitutions ${{\rho_*}}\rightarrow \tilde{\rho}$, ${{U_*}}\rightarrow \tilde{U}$, etc...;
&\_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} = &\
&[h\_5]{}\_[ij]{} = - \_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} ,\
&R = -4 G \_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} x\^i \_j , &\
&U\_5 = (- \_[ij]{}\^[\[2\]]{} x\^i \_j + R ) .
1 PN quantities with radiative corrections included:
&= 2 - ( w\^2 + 3 ) + U\_5 (1 - ) , &\
&= w\^2 + + 3 , &\
&= w\^2 + + 2 - , &\
& \_i = - \_j ( w\_i w\_j) + \_i - \_i ,\
& U\_2 = -4 G , &\
&D\_i = -4 G \_i , &\
&E\_i = -4 G x\^i \_j \_j ,\
& C\_i = - 4 G (\^[jk]{} - \_[jk]{}) x\^i \_j ( w\_k) , &\
&\_i = 4 (\^[ik]{} - \_[ik]{}) \_k + C\_i &\
& - x\^i (\^[jk]{} - \_[jk]{}) \_j \_k . &
$3.5$ PN quantities:\
${I_2}_{ij}^{[2]}$, $Q_{ij}^{[3]}$, $Q_{ij}^{[4]}$, $Q_{ijk}^{[4]}$, $S_{ij}^{[3]}$, see Appendix \[sec:appB\], with the substitutions ${{\rho_*}}\rightarrow \tilde{\rho}$, ${{U_*}}\rightarrow \tilde{U}$, etc...;
&[\_2]{}\^[\[2\]]{}\_[ij]{} = &\
&\_[ij]{}\^[\[4\]]{} = , &\
&\_[ijk]{}\^[\[4\]]{} = , &\
&\_[ij]{}\^[\[4\]]{} = , &\
& = , &\
&R\_2 = - 4 G , &\
&R\_i = - 4 G , &\
&U\_7 = , &\
& [U\_[5]{}]{}\_i = , &\
& [h\_7]{}\_[ij]{} = .
Baryonic density, velocity and forces:
&[[\_\*]{}]{}= (1 - ) , &\
&v\^i = [[w]{}]{}\_i + (- [[w]{}]{}\_i + \_i ) - [[w]{}]{}\_k [h\_5]{}\_[ik]{} &\
& - (- 4 [U\_5]{}\_i + 2 [[w]{}]{}\_k [h\_7]{}\_[ik]{} + [[w]{}]{}\_i (3 U\_5 - [[w]{}]{}\_k [[w]{}]{}\_l [h\_5]{}\_[kl]{} ) &\
& - 2 (+ 2 ) [[w]{}]{}\_k [h\_5]{}\_[ik]{} + 2 \_k [h\_5]{}\_[ik]{} ) , &\
&F\^[press]{}\_i = - (\_i - \_i s ) - \_i , &\
&F\^[grav]{}\_i = (1 + ) \_i + \_i U\_2 - w\^j \_i \_j + \_i U\_5 &\
& + ( \_i U\_7 - 4 [[w]{}]{}\_k \_i [U\_5]{}\_k + [[w]{}]{}\_k [[w]{}]{}\_l \_i [h\_7]{}\_[kl]{} &\
& + (U\_5 - 5 [[w]{}]{}\_k [[w]{}]{}\_l [h\_5]{}\_[kl]{} ) \_i + (+ 2 ) \_i U\_5 &\
& + 2 [h\_5]{}\_[kl]{} [[w]{}]{}\_k \_i \_l ) . &
Evolution system:
& \_t [[\_\*]{}]{}= - \_i ([[\_\*]{}]{}v\^i) , &\
& \_t s = - v\^i \_i s , &\
& \_t w\_i = - v\^j \_j w\_i + F\^[grav]{}\_i + F\^[press]{}\_i . &
Time derivatives of relevant multipole moments {#sec:appB}
==============================================
This Appendix presents the full explicit expressions for the time derivatives of the multipole moments used in the present formalism.
$$\begin{aligned}
I^{(1)}_{ij} =& Q_{ij}^{[1]} + \frac{1}{c^2} {I_2}^{[1]}_{ij} +
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^4} \right) \\
=& \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\bigg \{2 {{\rho_*}}x^i {{w}}_j +
\frac{1}{c^2} \bigg[ {{\rho_*}}\big(2 {{A_*}}_i x^j + \frac{11}{7} r^2 {{w}}_j \partial_i {{U_*}}+ \frac{10}{21} x^p {{w}}_i {{w}}_j {{w}}_p \big)
+ \frac{22}{21} {{p_*}}r^2 \partial_i {{w}}_j \nonumber \\ & \quad
+ {{\rho_*}}x^i \big[\frac{11}{21} r^2 {{w}}_p \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}- \frac{11}{21} r^2 \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}_p -8 {{U_*}}{{w}}_j -\frac{4}{21} {{w}}_j
{{w}}^2 \big] \nonumber \\
& \quad + x^i x^p \big[{{\rho_*}}(- \frac{46}{21} {{w}}_j \partial_p {{U_*}}+ \frac{10}{21}
{{w}}_p \partial_j {{U_*}}\big) -\frac{4}{7} {{p_*}}\big(\partial_p {{w}}_j
+ \partial_j {{w}}_p \big) \big] + x^i x^j \big[{{\rho_*}}\big(\partial_p {{U_*}}_p
-\frac{3}{7} {{w}}_p \partial_p{{U_*}}\big) + \frac{8}{21} {{p_*}}\partial_p {{w}}_p \big] \nonumber \\
& \quad +\frac{17}{21} {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j x^p \big[\partial_{pq} {{U_*}}_q
- {{w}}_q \partial_{pq} {{U_*}}\big] \bigg] \bigg\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}+ {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^4}
\right)\, , \\
I_{ij}^{(2)} &= Q_{ij}^{[2]} + \frac{1}{c^2} {I_2}_{ij}^{[2]} +
{{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^4} \right) = \textrm{STF}
{{\int \!}}\bigg\{ 2 {{\rho_*}}x^i \partial_j {{U_*}}+ 2
{{\rho_*}}{{w}}_i {{w}}_j \nonumber \\ & + \frac{1}{c^2} \bigg[{{\rho_*}}\big( 8 D_i
x^j + E_i x^j + \frac{11}{7} r^2 \partial_i {{U_*}}\partial_j {{U_*}}+ 4 {{A_*}}_i
{{w}}_j - \frac{44}{21} r^2 {{w}}_j \partial_{ip} {{U_*}}_p - 14
{{U_*}}{{w}}_i {{w}}_j \nonumber \\ & \qquad + \frac{44}{21} r^2 {{w}}_j
{{w}}_p\partial_{ip} {{U_*}}- \frac{5}{7}
{{w}}_i {{w}}_j {{w}}^2 \big) + {{p_*}}\big(- \frac{22}{21} r^2
\partial_i {{w}}_p \partial_p {{w}}_j + \frac{22}{21} (1-{{\gamma_*}}) r^2
\partial_i {{w}}_j \partial_p {{w}}_p + \frac{22}{7} r^2 \partial_{ij} {{U_*}}\big) \nonumber \\
& \qquad - 2 {{h_*}}{{\rho_*}}{{w}}_i {{w}}_j + 2 {{p_*}}{{w}}_i {{w}}_j + \frac{22}{21} r^2
\partial_i {{h_*}}\partial_j {{p_*}}- \frac{22}{21} r^2 T_* \partial_i s \partial_j
{{p_*}}\nonumber \\ & \qquad + x^p
\big[{{\rho_*}}\big(- \frac{12}{7} {{w}}_i {{w}}_j \partial_p {{U_*}}+ \frac{32}{7}
{{w}}_j {{w}}_p \partial_i {{U_*}}\big) +
{{p_*}}\big( \frac{8}{21} {{w}}_i \partial_p {{w}}_j
+ \frac{8}{21} {{w}}_j \partial_i {{w}}_p +
\frac{64}{21} {{w}}_p \partial_i {{w}}_j \big) \big]
\nonumber \\ & \qquad +
x^i \big[ {{\rho_*}}\big(2 \partial_j U_2 -
10 {{U_*}}\partial_j {{U_*}}+ 10 {{w}}_j \partial_p {{U_*}}_p -
2 {{w}}_p \partial_j {{A_*}}_p + 2 {{w}}_p \partial_p {{A_*}}_j + \frac{23}{7}
{{w}}^2 \partial_j {{U_*}}-
\frac{80}{7} {{w}}_j {{w}}_p \partial_p {{U_*}}\big) \nonumber \\ & \qquad \quad \;
\, + {{p_*}}\big( - 2 \partial_j {{U_*}}+
\frac{8}{21} {{w}}_j \partial_p {{w}}_p -
\frac{20}{21} {{w}}_p \partial_j {{w}}_p -
\frac{20}{21} {{w}}_p \partial_p {{w}}_j \big) +
2 {{h_*}}{{\rho_*}}\partial_j {{U_*}}\big] \nonumber \\ &
\qquad + x^i x^p \big[{{\rho_*}}\big(- \frac{12}{7} \partial_j {{U_*}}\partial_p {{U_*}}+ \frac{80}{21} {{w}}_j \partial_{pq} {{U_*}}_q -
\frac{32}{21} {{w}}_p \partial_{jq} {{U_*}}_q -
\frac{80}{21} {{w}}_j {{w}}_q \partial_{pq} {{U_*}}+
\frac{32}{21} {{w}}_p {{w}}_q \partial_{jq} {{U_*}}\big)
\nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad \; + {{p_*}}\big(
\frac{4}{7} \partial_p {{w}}_q \partial_q {{w}}_j +
\frac{4}{7} \partial_j {{w}}_q \partial_q {{w}}_p -
\frac{4}{7} (1-{{\gamma_*}}) \partial_p {{w}}_j \partial_q {{w}}_q -
\frac{4}{7} (1-{{\gamma_*}}) \partial_j {{w}}_p \partial_q {{w}}_q -
\frac{24}{7} \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}\big) \nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad \quad -
\frac{8}{7} \partial_j {{p_*}}\partial_p {{h_*}}+
\frac{8}{7} T_* \partial_j {{p_*}}\partial_p s \big] \nonumber \\ &
\qquad + x^i x^j \big[ {{\rho_*}}\big(-\frac{3}{7} \partial_p {{U_*}}\partial_p {{U_*}}+
\frac{47}{21} {{w}}_q \partial_{pq} {{U_*}}_p -
\frac{26}{21} {{w}}_p {{w}}_q \partial_{pq} {{U_*}}\big) \nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad
\; + {{p_*}}\big(
\frac{8}{21} (1-{{\gamma_*}}) (\partial_p {{w}}_p)^2 -
\frac{8}{21} \partial_q {{w}}_p \partial_p {{w}}_q -
\frac{6}{7} (-4 \pi G {{\rho_*}}) + \frac{8}{21} \partial_p {{h_*}}\partial_p {{p_*}}-
\frac{8}{21} T_* \partial_p s \partial_p {{p_*}}\big] \nonumber \\ &
\qquad + r^2 x^i \big[ {{\rho_*}}\big(
\frac{11}{21} \partial_p {{U_*}}\partial_{jp} {{U_*}}-
\frac{11}{21} \partial_{jp} D_p -
\frac{22}{21} {{w}}_q \partial_{jpq} {{U_*}}_p +
\frac{11}{21} {{w}}_p {{w}}_q \partial_{jpq} {{U_*}}\big) +
\frac{11}{21} {{p_*}}\partial_j (- 4 \pi G {{\rho_*}}) \big] \nonumber \\ & \qquad +
x^i x^j x^p \big[{{\rho_*}}\big(-
\frac{17}{21} \partial_q {{U_*}}\partial_{pq} {{U_*}}+
\frac{17}{21} \partial_{pq} D_q +
\frac{34}{21} {{w}}_r \partial_{pqr} {{U_*}}_q \nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad -
\frac{17}{21} {{w}}_q {{w}}_r \partial_{pqr} {{U_*}}\big) -
\frac{17}{21} {{p_*}}\partial_{p} (- 4 \pi G {{\rho_*}})\big]\bigg]
\bigg\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}+ {{\cal O}}\left(\frac{1}{c^4} \right)\, , \\
Q^{[3]}_{ij} &= \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{4 {{p_*}}\partial_i {{w}}_j + 6 {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_j \partial_i {{U_*}}+ 2 {{\rho_*}}x^i \big[{{w}}_p \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}- \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}_p \big] \Big
\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
Q^{[4]}_{ij} &= \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{ 4 {{\rho_*}}(\partial_i {{h_*}}- T_*
\partial_i s) (\partial_j {{h_*}}- T_* \partial_j s) + 2 {{\rho_*}}\big(3 \partial_i
{{U_*}}\partial_j {{U_*}}- 4 {{w}}_j \partial_{ip} {{U_*}}_p + 4 {{w}}_j {{w}}_p \partial_{ip} {{U_*}}\big)
\nonumber \\
& \quad + 4 {{p_*}}\big(- \partial_i {{w}}_p \partial_p {{w}}_j
+ \partial_i {{w}}_j \partial_p {{w}}_p
- {{\gamma_*}}\partial_i {{w}}_j \partial_p {{w}}_p + 3\partial_{ij} {{U_*}}\nonumber
\\ & \quad + x^i \big[2 {{\rho_*}}\big( \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}\partial_p {{U_*}}- \partial_{jp} {{D}}_p - 2 {{w}}_q \partial_{jpq} {{U_*}}_p
+ {{w}}_p {{w}}_q \partial_{jpq} {{U_*}}\big)
+2 {{p_*}}\partial_{j} (-4\pi G {{\rho_*}}) \big] \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
Q^{[1]}_{ijk} &= \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{ 3 {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j {{w}}_k \Big\}
\,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
Q^{[2]}_{ijk} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{
3 {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j \partial_k {{U_*}}+
6 {{\rho_*}}x^i {{w}}_j {{w}}_k \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, ,\\
Q^{[3]}_{ijk} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{ 6 {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_i {{w}}_j {{w}}_k +
x^i \big[18 {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_k \partial_j {{U_*}}+12 {{p_*}}\partial_j {{w}}_k \big]
+ 3 {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j \big[-\partial_{kp} {{U_*}}_p
+ {{w}}_p \partial_{kp} {{U_*}}\big] \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, ,\\
Q^{[4]}_{ijk} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{36 {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_j {{w}}_k \partial_i
{{U_*}}+ 48 {{p_*}}{{w}}_j \partial_i {{w}}_k + x^i \big[12 {{\rho_*}}(\partial_j {{h_*}}- T_*
\partial_j s) (\partial_k {{h_*}}- T_* \partial_k s)
\nonumber \\ & \qquad + {{\rho_*}}\big(18 \partial_j {{U_*}}\partial_k {{U_*}}- 24{{w}}_k \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}_p + 24 {{w}}_k {{w}}_p \partial_{jp} {{U_*}}\big)\nonumber \\
& \qquad +{{p_*}}\big(-12 \partial_j {{w}}_p \partial_p {{w}}_k
+12\partial_j {{w}}_k \partial_p {{w}}_p
- 12 {{\gamma_*}}\partial_j {{w}}_k \partial_p {{w}}_p
+ 36 \partial_{jk} {{U_*}}\big) \big]\nonumber \\
& + x^i x^j \big[{{\rho_*}}\big(3 \partial_p {{U_*}}\partial_{kp} {{U_*}}-3
\partial_{kp} {{D}}_p - 6 {{w}}_q \partial_{kpq}
{{U_*}}_p
+ 3 {{w}}_p {{w}}_q \partial _{kpq} {{U_*}}\big) \big]+ 3 {{p_*}}\partial_{k} (-4\pi G
{{\rho_*}}) \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, ,\\
Q^{[1]}_{ijkl} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{ 4 {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j x^k {{w}}_l
\Big\} {{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
Q^{[2]}_{ijkl} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{ 4 {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j x^k \partial_l
{{U_*}}+ 12 {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j {{w}}_k {{w}}_l \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
Q^{[3]}_{ijkl} &= \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}\Big\{ 24 {{\rho_*}}x^i {{w}}_j {{w}}_k {{w}}_{l}
+ x^i x^j \big(36 {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_l \partial_k {{U_*}}+ 24 {{p_*}}\partial_k {{w}}_l \big)
+ 4 {{\rho_*}}x^i x^j x^k \big(- \partial_{lp} {{U_*}}_p+
{{w}}_p \partial_{lp} {{U_*}}\big) \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, ,\\
S^{[1]}_{ij} & = \textrm{STF}{{\int \!}}{{\epsilon}}_{pqi} \Big\{ {{\rho_*}}x^j x^p
\partial_q {{U_*}}+ {{\rho_*}}x^p {{w}}_j {{w}}_q \bigg \} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
S^{[2]}_{ij} & =\textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}{{\epsilon}}_{pqi} \Big\{ x^p
\big[{{\rho_*}}{{w}}_q \partial_j {{U_*}}+ {{p_*}}\partial_j {{w}}_q \big] \nonumber \\
& \quad + \Big[ x^p (2 {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_j \partial_q {{U_*}}+{{p_*}}\partial_q {{w}}_j) + x^j {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_p \partial_q {{U_*}}+ {{\rho_*}}x^j x^p ({{w}}_r \partial_{qr} {{U_*}}- \partial_{qr} {{U_*}}_r
) \Big] \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
S^{[3]}_{ij} &= \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}{{\epsilon}}_{pqi}\Big\{ \big[-{{p_*}}{{w}}_q
\partial_j {{w}}_p
+ {{\rho_*}}x^p \big[- {{w}}_q \partial_{jr} {{U_*}}_r
+ {{w}}_q {{w}}_r \partial_{jr} {{U_*}}\big]\nonumber \\
& \qquad +{{p_*}}x^p \big[- \partial_j {{w}}_r \partial_r {{w}}_q
+\partial_j {{w}}_q \partial_r {{w}}_r
- {{\gamma_*}}\partial_j {{w}}_q \partial_r {{w}}_r \big] \big]\nonumber \\
& \qquad + \big[ 2 {{\rho_*}}x^p (\partial_j {{h_*}}-
T_* \partial_j s) (\partial_q {{h_*}}- T_* \partial_q s) + {{p_*}}{{w}}_p \partial_q
{{w}}_j + 3 {{\rho_*}}{{w}}_j {{w}}_p \partial_q {{U_*}}\nonumber \\ & \qquad
+ 3 {{\rho_*}}x^p \big[\partial_j {{U_*}}\partial_q {{U_*}}-{{w}}_j \partial_{qr} {{U_*}}_r + {{w}}_j {{w}}_r \partial_{qr} {{U_*}}\big]
+ {{p_*}}x^p \big[\partial_q {{w}}_j \partial_r {{w}}_r
-\partial_r {{w}}_j \partial_q {{w}}_r
- {{\gamma_*}}\partial_q {{w}}_j \partial_r {{w}}_r + 6 \partial_{jq} {{U_*}}\big]
\nonumber \\
& \qquad + 2 {{\rho_*}}x^j \big[{{w}}_p {{w}}_r
\partial_{qr} {{U_*}}- {{w}}_p \partial_{qr} {{U_*}}_r \big] \nonumber \\
& \qquad + x^j x^p \big[{{\rho_*}}\big(\partial_{qr} {{U_*}}\partial_r {{U_*}}- \partial_{qr} {{D}}_r
- 2{{w}}_s \partial_{qrs} {{U_*}}_r
+{{w}}_r {{w}}_s \partial_{qrs} {{U_*}}\big)+{{p_*}}\partial_{q} (-4\pi G {{\rho_*}})
\big] \big] \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
S^{[1]}_{ijk} & = \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}{{\epsilon}}_{pqi}\Big\{ {{\rho_*}}x^j x^k x^p
\partial_q {{U_*}}+ 2 {{\rho_*}}x^j x^p {{w}}_k {{w}}_q \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, , \\
S^{[2]}_{ijk} &= \textrm{STF} {{\int \!}}{{\epsilon}}_{pqi} \Big\{ 2 {{\rho_*}}x^p {{w}}_j
{{w}}_k {{w}}_q
+ {{\rho_*}}x^j x^k {{w}}_p \partial_q{{U_*}}+ x^j x^p \big[2 {{\rho_*}}\big(2 {{w}}_k \partial_q {{U_*}}+ {{w}}_q \partial_k {{U_*}}\big) + 2 {{p_*}}\big(
\partial_q {{w}}_k +\partial_k {{w}}_q \big) \big]\nonumber \\[-0.1cm]
& \quad - {{\rho_*}}x^j x^k x^p \big[\partial_{qr}
{{U_*}}_r - {{w}}_r \partial_{qr} {{U_*}}\big] \Big\} \,{{d^3\mathbf{x}}}\, . \\\end{aligned}$$
[16]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, in **, edited by , (, ).
, , , .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ), vol. , p. .
, in **, edited by , (, , ), p. .
, , , in **, edited by (, , ), chap. .
, ****, ().
[^1]: Let us point out that the symbol $e$ denotes the energy per volume unit in paper [@BDS90]
[^2]: Note that the momentum density $M_i$ is referred to as $\pi_i$ in paper [@BDS90]
[^3]: We have the following correspondences:\
our notation ${{\rho_*}}$ $e$ ${{U_*}}_i$ ${{A_*}}_i$
---------------------------- -------------- --------- ------------- -------------
notation of paper [@BDS90] $r_*$ $e/r_*$ $U_i$ $A_i$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
[^1]\
Author affiliation\
E-mail:
title: Contribution title
---
...
===
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This conference has been organized with the support of the Department of Physics and Astronomy “Galileo Galilei”, the University of Padova, the National Institute of Astrophysics INAF, the Padova Planetarium, and the RadioNet consortium. RadioNet has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 730562.
[99]{} ....
[^1]: A footnote may follow.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We establish a character formula for indecomposable tilting modules for connected reductive groups in characteristic $\ell$ in terms of $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials, for $\ell > h$ the Coxeter number. Using results of Andersen, one may deduce a character formula for simple modules if $\ell \ge 2h-2$. Our results are a consequence of an extension to modular coefficients of a monoidal Koszul duality equivalence established by Bezrukavnikov and Yun.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Louisiana State University\
Baton Rouge, LA 70803\
U.S.A.
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Stanford University\
Stanford, CA\
U.S.A.
- 'Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LMBP, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France. '
- 'School of Mathematics and Statistics F07, University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia. '
author:
- 'Pramod N. Achar'
- Shotaro Makisumi
- Simon Riche
- Geordie Williamson
title: 'Koszul duality for Kac–Moody groups and characters of tilting modules'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Overview
--------
Let $\mathbf{G}$ denote a connected reductive group defined over an algebraically closed field ${\Bbbk}$ of positive characteristic $\ell$ bigger than the Coxeter number $h$ of $\mathbf{G}$, and let $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbf{G})$ denote its category of algebraic representations. In this paper we establish a character formula for the indecomposable tilting modules in the principal block $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$ of $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbf{G})$ (which, by classical work, implies in theory a character formula for any tilting module in $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbf{G})$). The answer is given in terms of the $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials of the affine Hecke algebra of the dual root system, and confirms a conjecture of the last two authors [@rw]. Thanks to an observation of Andersen, our results also imply a formula for the characters of the simple modules of $\mathbf{G}$ if $\ell \geq 2h-2$.
The problem of determining the simple characters of $\mathbf{G}$ has a rich history. Following important early calculations of Jantzen in ranks${}\le 3$, Lusztig proposed a conjecture under the assumption that $\ell$ is larger than the Coxeter number [@lusztig-conjecture]. Lusztig’s conjecture was established for sufficiently large $\ell$ [@AJS; @kl-quantum; @LUSMon; @kt] and subsequently for $\ell$ larger than an explicit enormous bound [@F]. On the other hand, ideas of Soergel, Elias, He, and the fourth author led to a uniform construction of many counterexamples [@soergel-poschar; @ew; @HeW; @williamson-explosion]. These counterexamples involve primes $\ell$ which grow exponentially in the Coxeter number.
The question of tilting characters is even more mysterious. Despite the central importance of tilting modules in the modular representation theory of $\mathbf{G}$ and related groups (e.g. symmetric groups), their characters appear extremely difficult to determine: at present there is a complete understanding only for tori (where the problem is trivial) and $\mathbf{G} = \mathrm{SL}_2$. The case of a quantum group at a root of unity was settled in work of Soergel [@soergel-char-for; @soergel-char-tilt], and a conjecture of Andersen would imply that these characters determine the modular tilting characters for weights in the lowest $\ell^2$-alcove. However, for tilting modules (in contrast to simple modules), there is no finite set of weights which determines the answer in general.
Until the present series of works, all known or conjectured character formulas for algebraic groups or quantum groups involved some sort of Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials. These polynomials admit a combinatorial definition (involving only the affine Weyl group, viewed as a Coxeter group), but also have a geometric meaning as the graded dimensions of the stalks of intersection cohomology complexes. The character formula proved in the current work instead involves $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials. These polynomials may be computed algorithmically via diagrammatic algebra, and also have a geometric meaning as the graded dimensions of the stalks of the $\ell$-parity sheaves. It is important to note, however, that the algorithm to calculate the $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials is much more involved than the original Kazhdan–Lusztig algorithm. On the other hand, the formulas involving $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials hold as soon as $\ell$ is larger than the Coxeter number.[^1] Thus “independence of $\ell$” and the Lusztig conjecture hold as soon as one has agreement between $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials and their classical counterparts. (When this agreement occurs remains, however, an important open question.)
The proof of our main result relies on a body of recent work [@prinblock; @arider; @mr:etsps; @rw] establishing links between representations of reductive groups and the geometry of affine flag varieties. This earlier work, summarized in Figure \[fig:modular-new\] and discussed in §\[ss:intro-application-RT\] below, had suggested that the character formula for tilting modules would follow from a suitable kind of “monoidal modular Koszul duality” for Hecke categories of parity sheaves associated to affine flag varieties. (An important antecedent for these ideas is work of Bezrukavnikov–Yun [@by], which establishes such an equivalence with coefficients of characteristic $0$.) The authors’ previous paper [@amrw] made it possible to formulate the monoidal Koszul duality conjecture precisely. In the present paper, we prove the monoidal Koszul duality theorem, and we deduce our tilting character formula as a consequence.
A striking aspect of monoidal Koszul duality is that the Hecke category attached to a Kac–Moody group and to its Langlands dual are (in a sense made precise by Theorem \[thm:monoidal-intro\] below) formal consequences of one another. In other words, the Hecke category already “knows” the Hecke category of its Langlands dual group. One can view this result as analogous to the geometric Satake equivalence: any complex reductive group already “knows” the category of representations of its dual group. We expect this Langlands duality for Hecke categories to have other applications in modular representation theory.
In the remainder of the introduction, we review what Koszul duality means for flag varieties, and what role it has played in representation theory. We will give a precise statement of monoidal Koszul duality, and we will discuss characteristic-$0$ antecedents to our results.
$$\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=large, column sep=small]
&&& {D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}, {\Bbbk})
\ar[dlll, rightarrow, bend right=20, "\substack{\text{graded Finkelberg--}\\ \text{Mirkovi\'c conjecture~\cite{prinblock}}}" description]
\ar[dd, leftrightarrow, bend left=20, dashed, "\substack{\text{parabolic--}\\ \text{Whittaker}\\ \text{duality}}"{name=P, description}]
& {\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})
\ar[dd, leftrightarrow, bend left=20, dashed, "\substack{\text{monoidal}\\ \text{Koszul}\\ \text{duality}}"{name=M, description}]
\ar[l] \\
{D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})
\ar[rr, leftarrow, "\text{\cite{prinblock}}" description] & \hspace{2em} &
{D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Coh}\rlap{$^{G \times \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}(\widetilde{\mathcal{N}})$}
\ar[ur, leftrightarrow, "\text{\cite{arider,mr:etsps}}" description] \\
&&& {D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{\mathcal{IW}}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})
\ar[ulll, rightarrow, dashed, bend left=20, "\substack{\text{tilting character formula}\\ \text{(conjectured in~\cite{rw})}}" description]
& {\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})
\ar[l]
\ar[Rightarrow, from=M, to=P]
\end{tikzcd}$$
Koszul duality for flag varieties of reductive groups {#ss:bgs-duality-new}
-----------------------------------------------------
Let $G$ be a complex semisimple algebraic group, let $B \subset G$ be a Borel subgroup, and let $T \subset B$ be a maximal torus. Let ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}_{(B)}(G/B, {\mathbb{C}})$ be the derived category of complexes of ${\mathbb{C}}$-sheaves on $G/B$ which are constructible with respect to the stratification by $B$-orbits (called the *Bruhat stratification*), and let ${\mathrm{Perv}}_{(B)}(G/B, {\mathbb{C}})$ be the heart of the perverse t-structure on this category. Let $G^\vee$ be the Langlands dual group. In general, we use a superscript “$^\vee$” to indicate objects attached to $G^\vee$: for example, $T^\vee$, ${\mathrm{Perv}}_{(B^\vee)}(G^\vee/B^\vee,{\mathbb{C}})$, etc.
Koszul duality for $G/B$ was first introduced by Be[ĭ]{}linson–Ginzburg–Soergel in [@bgs], motivated by two related ideas:
1. the desire to explain the Kazhdan–Lusztig inversion formula for Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials in categorical terms;
2. the desire to relate two different geometric approaches to the study of the category $\mathcal{O}$ of the Lie algebra of $G$: one which originates in the Be[ĭ]{}linson–Bernstein localization theory [@beilinson-bernstein] and leads to an equivalence of categories between a regular block of $\mathcal{O}$ and ${\mathrm{Perv}}_{(B)}(G/B, {\mathbb{C}})$, as in [@bgs Proposition 3.5.2]; and one due to Soergel which relates projective objects in a regular block of $\mathcal{O}$ with semisimple complexes (i.e. direct sums of shifted simple perverse sheaves) in ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}_{(B^\vee)}(G^\vee/B^\vee,{\mathbb{C}})$, as in [@soergel-kat].
The statement of Koszul duality in [@bgs] involves a new category, denoted by ${\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{(B)}(G/B, {\mathbb{C}})$, that serves as a “graded version” of ${\mathrm{Perv}}_{(B)}(G/B, {\mathbb{C}})$. (It is defined in terms of Deligne’s mixed sheaves on an ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-version of the flag variety; see [@amrw §1.2] for a more precise discussion.) For each $w \in W$, there are four notable objects supported on the closure of $BwB/B$: denote by $${\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w, \qquad
\Delta^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w, \qquad
\nabla^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w, \qquad
\mathrm{T}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w$$ the simple, standard, costandard, and indecomposable tilting objects, respectively, normalized so that their restrictions to $BwB/B$ have weight $0$.
Let us set ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{(B)}(G/B,{\mathbb{C}}) := {D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{(B)}(G/B, {\mathbb{C}})$. The construction of [@bgs] provides an equivalence of categories[^2] $$\label{eqn:bgs-duality-intro}
\varkappa : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{(B)}(G/B, {\mathbb{C}}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{(B^\vee)}(G^\vee/B^\vee, {\mathbb{C}})$$ that satisfies $\varkappa \circ \langle 1 \rangle \cong [1] \langle -1 \rangle \circ \varkappa$, where $\langle 1 \rangle$ is the inverse of a square root of the Tate twist. It also satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\varkappa({\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w) &\cong \mathrm{T}^{\vee, {{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{w^{-1}}, & \varkappa(\Delta^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w) &\cong \Delta^{\vee,{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{w^{-1}} \\
\varkappa(\mathrm{T}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w) &\cong {\mathrm{IC}}^{\vee, {{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{w^{-1}}, & \varkappa(\nabla^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w) &\cong \nabla^{\vee,{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{w^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ The Kazhdan–Lusztig inversion formula can be understood as a “combinatorial shadow” of this equivalence.
The Kac–Moody case and quantum groups {#ss:kac-moody-intro}
-------------------------------------
These ideas were later generalized by Bezrukavnikov–Yun [@by] to the case where $G$ is replaced by a general Kac–Moody group ${\mathscr{G}}$. Let ${\mathscr{B}}\subset {\mathscr{G}}$ be a Borel subgroup, and let ${\mathscr{U}}\subset {\mathscr{B}}$ be its unipotent radical. An important new idea in [@by] (also suggested in [@bg]) is that a richer version of Koszul duality can be obtained if one “deforms” the categories of semisimple complexes on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ and tilting perverse sheaves on ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee$ along a polynomial ring. The ${\mathscr{B}}$-constructible semisimple complexes are thus replaced by the *${\mathscr{B}}$-equivariant* semisimple complexes, and the tilting perverse sheaves are replaced by the so-called “free-monodromic” objects constructed (via a very technical procedure) by Yun using certain pro-objects in the derived category of ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee$, see [@by Appendix A]. These deformed categories each have a monoidal structure, given by an appropriate kind of convolution product. The main result of [@by] is an equivalence of monoidal categories $$\label{eqn:by-duality-intro}
{\widetilde}\varkappa: \mathrm{Semis}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\mathbb{C}}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}^\vee {\!\rotatebox[origin=c]{-45}{$\dabar@\dabar@\dabar@$}\!}{\mathscr{G}}^\vee{\!\rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{$\dabar@\dabar@\dabar@$}\!}{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\mathbb{C}})$$ relating ${\mathscr{B}}$-equivariant semisimple complexes on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ and free-monodromic tilting perverse sheaves attached to ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$. From this, Bezrukavnikov–Yun then deduce a Kac–Moody analogue of .
As in §\[ss:bgs-duality-new\], this result has a combinatorial motivation in terms of Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials [@yun], and a representation-theoretic motivation in terms of analogues of the category $\mathcal{O}$ for Kac–Moody Lie algebras.
But a third motivation for the work in [@by], specifically in the case of *affine* Kac–Moody groups, came from the hope of uniting two geometric approaches to the study of representations of Lusztig’s quantum groups at a root of unity (see e.g. [@bez:ctm §1.2]), which we review below. Let $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathsf{U}_\zeta)$ denote the principal block of the category of finite-dimensional representations of Lusztig’s quantum group $\mathsf{U}_\zeta$ associated with an adjoint semisimple complex algebraic group $G$, specialized at a root of unity $\zeta$.
The first approach comes from [@abg]. The main result of [@abg Part I] relates[^3] $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathsf{U}_\zeta)$ to the derived category of equivariant coherent sheaves on the Springer resolution $\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}$ of $G$, denoted by ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Coh}^{G \times \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}(\widetilde{\mathcal{N}})$. Then the main result of [@abg Part II] states that ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Coh}^{G \times \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}(\widetilde{\mathcal{N}})$ is equivalent to the derived category of Iwahori-constructible perverse sheaves on the affine Grassmannian ${\mathrm{Gr}}$ of the Langlands dual semisimple group $G^\vee$. Together, these results give a new proof of Lusztig’s character formula for simple modules in $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathsf{U}_\zeta)$. (This character formula was already known when [@abg] appeared, by combining work of Kazhdan–Lusztig [@kl-quantum], Lusztig [@LUSMon] and Kashiwara–Tanisaki [@kt].)
The second approach comes from [@ab], whose main result gives an equivalence between ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Coh}^{G \times \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}(\widetilde{\mathcal{N}})$ and a certain category of Iwahori–Whittaker[^4] sheaves on the affine flag variety ${\mathrm{Fl}}$ of $G^\vee$. The composition of this equivalence with [@abg Part I] matches simple Iwahori–Whittaker perverse sheaves on ${\mathrm{Fl}}$ with *tilting* (rather than simple) modules in $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathsf{U}_\zeta)$. This leads to a new proof of a character formula for tilting modules, previously obtained by Soergel [@soergel-char-tilt; @soergel-char-for]. (See [@jantzen] for more details on these questions.)
The two approaches to $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathsf{U}_\zeta)$ described above are summarized in (the left half of) Figure \[fig:quantum-new\]. From this diagram, one might speculate that there is an equivalence relating ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}, {\mathbb{C}})$ to ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{\mathcal{IW}}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\mathbb{C}})$ that sends tilting perverse sheaves to simple ones, and vice versa. This is achieved in [@by], where the desired equivalence, a form of “parabolic Koszul duality,” is deduced from in the case where ${\mathscr{G}}$ is the affine Kac–Moody group associated to $G^\vee$. (In this case, one can use the same group ${\mathscr{G}}$ on both sides of because of symmetrizability.)
$$\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=large, column sep=0.675em]
&&& {D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}, {\mathbb{C}})
\ar[dlll, rightarrow, bend right=20, "\substack{\text{Lusztig character}\\ \text{formula~\cite{kl-quantum,LUSMon,kt}}}" description]
\ar[dd, leftrightarrow, dashed, bend left=20, "\substack{\text{parabolic--}\\ \text{Whittaker}\\ \text{duality}\\ \text{\cite{by}}}"{name=P, description}]
& {\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\!\rotatebox[origin=c]{-45}{$\dabar@\dabar@\dabar@$}\!}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{$\dabar@\dabar@\dabar@$}\!}{\mathscr{U}}},{\mathbb{C}})
\ar[dd, leftrightarrow, dashed, bend left=20, "\substack{\text{monoidal}\\ \text{Koszul}\\ \text{duality}\\ \text{\cite{by}}}"{name=M, description}]
\ar[l] \\
{D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathsf{U}_\zeta)
\ar[rr, leftarrow, "\substack{\text{[ABG,}\\ \text{Part I]}}" description] & \hspace{2.5em} &
{D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Coh}\rlap{$^{G \times \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}(\widetilde{\mathcal{N}})$}
\ar[ur, leftrightarrow, "\text{\cite[Part II]{abg}}" description]
\ar[dr, leftrightarrow, "\text{\cite{ab}}" description] \\
&&& {D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{\mathcal{IW}}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\mathbb{C}})
\ar[ulll, rightarrow, bend left=20, "\substack{\text{Soergel character}\\ \text{formula~\cite{soergel-char-tilt,soergel-char-for}}}" description]
& \mathrm{Semis}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\mathbb{C}})
\ar[l]
\ar[Rightarrow, from=M, to=P]
\end{tikzcd}$$
The modular case
----------------
The main geometric result of the present paper is an analogue of in the case when the sheaves under consideration have coefficients in a field of arbitrary characteristic. We return to the setting where ${\mathscr{G}}$ is an arbitrary complex Kac–Moody group, and ${\mathscr{B}}\subset {\mathscr{G}}$ is a Borel subgroup. Let ${\Bbbk}$ be a field. The first difficulty when trying to generalize the constructions of §§\[ss:bgs-duality-new\]–\[ss:kac-moody-intro\] to the setting of Bruhat-constructible ${\Bbbk}$-sheaves on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ is to understand the appropriate definition of the category ${\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{({\mathscr{B}})}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$ of “mixed” perverse sheaves, as Deligne’s notion of mixed perverse sheaves has no obvious analogue in this setting. This difficulty was overcome in [@modrap2], where this category was defined in terms of chain complexes over the additive category ${\mathrm{Parity}}_{({\mathscr{B}})}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}},{\Bbbk})$ of Bruhat-constructible parity complexes on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ (in the sense of Juteau–Mautner–Williamson [@jmw]).
As explained in §\[ss:kac-moody-intro\], the starting point of the Bezrukavnikov–Yun approach is the consideration of two “deformations” of the category of Bruhat-constructible sheaves along a polynomial ring. The replacement of constructible sheaves by equivariant sheaves has a straightforward analogue in our setting, and leads to the monoidal category $({\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}), \star)$ of ${\mathscr{B}}$-equivariant parity complexes on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$. The second deformation uses “free-monodromic” sheaves; the adaptation of this construction to our setting is much more difficult. A major hurdle is that the “log of monodromy” construction (central to [@by]) is problematic in characteristic $p$ because of denominators. This problem was circumvented in [@amrw], where we constructed the monoidal category $({\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk}), {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}})$ of free-monodromic mixed tilting perverse sheaves on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$. With this notation introduced, we can state our main geometric results.
\[thm:monoidal-intro\] There is an equivalence of monoidal categories $${\widetilde}\varkappa: {\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}^\vee {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}^\vee{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}).$$
By “killing” the deformations and passing to bounded homotopy categories, we obtain the following consequence (where we denote by $\Delta_w$, $\nabla_w$, ${\mathcal{E}}_w$, ${\mathcal{T}}_w$ the standard object, costandard object, indecomposable parity complex and indecomposable tilting perverse sheaves attached to $w$ respectively).
\[thm:intro-main-new\] There is an equivalence of triangulated categories $$\kappa : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathscr{B}})}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathscr{B}}^\vee)}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})$$ which satisfies $\kappa \circ \langle -1 \rangle[1] \cong {\langle}1 {\rangle}\circ \kappa$ and $$\kappa(\Delta_w) \cong \Delta^\vee_w, \quad \kappa(\nabla_w) \cong \nabla^\vee_w, \quad \kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w) \cong {\mathcal{T}}^\vee_w, \quad \kappa({\mathcal{T}}_w) \cong {\mathcal{E}}^\vee_w.$$
The proofs of Theorems \[thm:monoidal-intro\] and \[thm:intro-main-new\] make use of the Elias–Williamson diagrammatic category [@ew] as an intermediary between the two sides. In [@by], this intermediary role was instead played by Soergel bimodules, and the proof involved the study of two functors called $\mathbb{H}$ and $\mathbb{V}$, as in the following diagram: $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{equivariant parity} \\
\text{complexes on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$}
\end{array}
\right\} \ar[r, dashed, "\mathbb{H}"]
&
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{Soergel} \\
\text{bimodules}
\end{array}
\right\}
&
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{free-monodromic tilting} \\
\text{sheaves on ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee$}
\end{array}
\right\}.
\ar[l, dashed, "\mathbb{V}" swap]
\end{tikzcd}$$ In our setting, since the Elias–Williamson category is defined by generators and relations, we rather reverse these arrows and consider the diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{equivariant parity} \\
\text{complexes on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$}
\end{array}
\right\}
&
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{E.--W.} \\
\text{category}
\end{array}
\right\}
\ar[r, dashed]
\ar[l, dashed]
&
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{free-monodromic tilting} \\
\text{sheaves on ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee$}
\end{array}
\right\}.
\end{tikzcd}$$ The left arrow has already been constructed by the last two authors in [@rw]; what we do here is to construct the right arrow. As in [@rw], to do this, one must say where to send generating objects and morphisms, and then one must check relations. It is straightforward to deal with the generators. To check relations, we reduce the question to the case where ${\mathscr{G}}$ is a (finite-dimensional) reductive group and ${\Bbbk}$ has characteristic $0$. This case can be studied using known properties of Soergel bimodules, along with an analogue of the functor $\mathbb{V}$.
As in [@by], there is a further generalization of Theorem \[thm:intro-main-new\] to the setting where on the left-hand side the flag variety ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ is replaced by ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{P}}$ for ${\mathscr{P}}$ a parabolic subgroup of finite type. The right-hand side must then be replaced by an appropriate category of Whittaker-type sheaves on ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee$; see Section \[sec:parabolic-whittaker\] for details.
Application to representation theory {#ss:intro-application-RT}
------------------------------------
The main motivation for us to construct the modular Koszul duality equivalence in the Kac–Moody setting rather than only for reductive groups (as already obtained by the first and third authors in [@modrap2]) comes from the hope of completing Figure \[fig:modular-new\], with inspiration from Figure \[fig:quantum-new\].
Let $\mathbf{G}$ be an adjoint semisimple group over an algebraically closed field ${\Bbbk}$ of characteristic $\ell$ bigger than the Coxeter number $h$ of $\mathbf{G}$, and let $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$ be the principal block of the category of finite-dimensional algebraic representations of $\mathbf{G}$. As in §\[ss:kac-moody-intro\], there should be two geometric approaches to $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$.
The first approach was developed in [@arider; @mr:etsps; @prinblock]. In [@prinblock], the first and third authors constructed a functor relating $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$ to ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}\mathrm{Coh}^{G \times \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}(\widetilde{\mathcal{N}})$, analogous to that in [@abg Part I]. When combined with earlier work with Rider [@arider] and with Mautner [@mr:etsps], this leads to a functor $${\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}, {\Bbbk}) \to
\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G}),$$ which realizes ${\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}, {\Bbbk})$ as a “graded version” of $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$. In particular, this result reduces the problem of computing the characters of indecomposable tilting modules in $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$ to that of describing the indecomposable tilting perverse sheaves in ${\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}, {\Bbbk})$—but it does *not* solve the problem, since no description of the latter was known at the time. (The approach developed in [@yun] does not apply in the modular setting, since Yun’s crucial “condition (W)” does not hold in this case.)
The second approach conjecturally aims to relate $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$ to Iwahori–Whittaker sheaves on ${\mathrm{Fl}}$, which provide a categorification of the *antispherical module* of the affine Hecke algebra. In [@rw], the third and fourth authors, inspired by [@ab], conjectured that characters of tilting modules in $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathbf{G})$ can be expressed in terms of the $\ell$-canonical basis of the antispherical module. This conjecture was proved in [@rw] in the case $\mathbf{G}=\mathrm{GL}_n({\Bbbk})$, but by methods specific to the type-$\mathbf{A}$ situation. The conjecture would hold in general if a modular analogue of [@ab] were known, but this was not available when [@rw] was written.
Recall that in Figure \[fig:quantum-new\], Koszul duality provided a link between two known geometric approaches to $\mathrm{Rep}_0(\mathsf{U}_\zeta)$. In Figure \[fig:modular-new\], we turn this idea around: by combining the results of [@arider; @mr:etsps; @prinblock] with the special case of Theorem \[thm:intro-main-new\] where ${\mathscr{G}}$ is an affine Kac–Moody group, we prove the conjecture of [@rw] in general. The precise statement appears in Theorem \[thm:char-formula-tiltings\].
Some perspectives
-----------------
The tilting character formula that we have obtained is an important result in itself, but we also believe it will lead to a better understanding of the category $\mathrm{Rep}(\mathbf{G})$, as illustrated by the following further results.
The fourth author has obtained and implemented an algorithm for explicit computations with the character formula from Theorem \[thm:char-formula-tiltings\]; see [@jw]. This algorithm has made it possible to compute tilting characters far beyond what was previously known. It seems likely that this formula can be made more explicit, at least in certain cases; see [@lw] for first results and conjectures in this direction.
In a different direction, this formula allows one to generalize Ostrik’s description of tensor ideals in categories of representations of quantum groups at a root of unity [@ostrik] to the setting of modular representations of reductive groups; here the proof is essentially identical, replacing the Kazhdan–Lusztig combinatorics by the $p$-Kazhdan–Lusztig combinatorics. This result provides a new tool to attack the Humphreys conjecture on support varieties of tilting $\mathbf{G}$-modules [@humphreys]; see [@ahr] for some progress in this direction.
Contents
--------
We begin in §\[sec:prelim\] with background related to the Elias–Williamson diagrammatic category, mixed perverse sheaves, and results from [@amrw]. In §\[sec:functor-V\], we define and study the functor ${\mathbb{V}}$ in the finite type case. Next, §\[sec:Diag-Tilt\] contains the construction of the functor from the Elias–Williamson category to free-monodromic tilting sheaves. In §\[sec:Koszul-duality\], we further study this functor, and we prove Theorems \[thm:monoidal-intro\] and \[thm:intro-main-new\]. The parabolic–Whittaker variant of Koszul duality is deduced in §\[sec:parabolic-whittaker\]. Lastly, in §\[sec:application\], we complete the program described in §\[ss:intro-application-RT\] to determine the tilting character formula.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
In this section we review the main constructions of [@amrw], and quote the results we will need in the subsequent sections.
The Elias–Williamson diagrammatic category
------------------------------------------
Let $(W,S)$ be a Coxeter system with $S$ finite, and let ${\Bbbk}$ be an integral domain. A finite sequence of elements of $S$ will be called an *expression*. A *realization* of $(W,S)$ over ${\Bbbk}$ is a triple ${\mathfrak{h}}= (V, \{\alpha_s^\vee\}_{s \in S}, \{\alpha_s\}_{s \in
S})$ where $V$ is a finitely generated free ${\Bbbk}$-module, and the subsets $\{\alpha_s^\vee\}_{s \in S} \subset V$, $\{\alpha_s\}_{s
\in S} \subset V^* := \operatorname{Hom}_{\Bbbk}(V,{\Bbbk})$ of “simple coroots” and “simple roots” satisfy certain conditions recalled in [@amrw §2.1]. If the realization ${\mathfrak{h}}$ satisfies further technical conditions (it is *balanced* and satisfies *Demazure surjectivity*), then, following Elias–Williamson [@ew], one can associate to $(W,S)$ and ${\mathfrak{h}}$ a ${\Bbbk}$-linear strict monoidal category ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$ defined by generators and relations; see [@amrw §2.2–2.3]. This category carries a “shift-of-grading” autoequivalence, denoted by $(1)$. For any expression ${{\underline{w}}}$, there is a corresponding object $B_{{\underline{w}}}$, and every object of ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$ is of the form $B_{{\underline{w}}}(n)$ for some expression ${{\underline{w}}}$ and some integer $n$. For any $X,Y$ in ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$, the graded ${\Bbbk}$-module $\bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}},W)}(X,Y(n))$ admits a natural structure of graded bimodule over the ring $R := \operatorname{Sym}(V^*)$, where $V^*$ is in degree $2$. (This structure is obtained by adding “polynomial boxes” to the left or to the right of a given diagram.)
The category ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$ is not additive, and it is sometimes convenient to take its additive envelope (i.e., to formally adjoin direct sums). The resulting category is denoted by ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$. If ${\Bbbk}$ is a field or a complete local ring, we may also work with the Karoubian envelope of ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$, denoted simply by ${\mathscr{D}}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$. Up to shift, the isomorphism classes of indecomposable objects in ${\mathscr{D}}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$ are in bijection with $W$ [@ew]. In particular, for each $w \in W$, there is a corresponding indecomposable object denoted by $B_w$.
In this paper we will only consider a certain family of Coxeter groups and realizations that we call *Cartan realizations of crystallographic Coxeter groups*, and which arise in the following way. Let $A$ be a generalized Cartan matrix with rows and columns parametrized by a finite set $I$, and let $(I,{\mathbf{X}}, \{\alpha_i\}_{i \in
I}, \{\alpha_i^\vee \}_{i \in I})$ be an associated Kac–Moody root datum in the sense of [@tits §1.2]; in other words ${\mathbf{X}}$ is a finitely generated free abelian group, $\{\alpha_i \}_{i \in I}
\subset {\mathbf{X}}$, $\{\alpha_i^\vee \}_{i \in I} \subset \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbb{Z}})$ are subsets, and $\alpha_i^\vee(\alpha_j) = a_{ij}$ for any $i,j \in I$. To $A$ one associates in a standard way a (crystallographic) Coxeter system $(W,S)$ with $S$ in bijection with $I$; see [@amrw §10.1]. Then for any integral domain ${\Bbbk}$ one can define a realization ${\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}=
(V, \{\alpha_s^\vee\}_{s \in S}, \{\alpha_s\}_{s \in S})$ of $(W,S)$ over ${\Bbbk}$ as follows. We set $V = {\Bbbk}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbb{Z}})$. Then for $s \in S$ we let $\alpha_s$, resp. $\alpha_s^\vee$, denote the image of the corresponding simple root, resp. coroot, in $V^*$, resp. $V$. The realizations obtained in this way are always balanced, but they might not satisfy Demazure surjectivity. We remedy this in the following way. If all the maps $\alpha_s : \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbb{Z}}) \to {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\alpha_s^\vee : {\mathbf{X}}\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ are surjective we set ${\mathbb{Z}}'={\mathbb{Z}}$, and otherwise we set ${\mathbb{Z}}'={\mathbb{Z}}[\frac{1}{2}]$. Then ${\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}$ satisfies Demazure surjectivity provided there exists a ring morphism ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\Bbbk}$.
Kac–Moody groups and their flag varieties {#ss:KM-groups}
-----------------------------------------
From now on we assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a Noetherian integral domain of finite global dimension, and that there exists a ring morphism ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\Bbbk}$.
The Cartan realizations of crystallographic Coxeter groups are related to geometry in the following way. Following [@mathieu; @mathieu-KM], one can associate to $A$ and the root datum an integral Kac–Moody group ${\mathscr{G}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ (a group ind-scheme over ${\mathbb{Z}}$), together with a Borel subgroup ${\mathscr{B}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ (see [@amrw §10.2] for further remarks, and [@rw §9.1] for an overview of the construction). Let ${\mathscr{U}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the pro-unipotent radical of ${\mathscr{B}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$. Denote by ${\mathscr{G}}$, ${\mathscr{B}}$, and ${\mathscr{U}}$ the base change to ${\mathbb{C}}$ of ${\mathscr{G}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$, ${\mathscr{B}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$, and ${\mathscr{U}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$, respectively. Let ${\mathscr{X}}:= {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ be the flag variety, and recall that we have a Bruhat decomposition $${\mathscr{X}}= \bigsqcup_{w \in W} {\mathscr{X}}_w,$$ where each ${\mathscr{X}}_w$ is a ${\mathscr{B}}$-orbit isomorphic to an affine space of dimension $\ell(w)$. As in [@amrw], we denote the ${\mathscr{B}}$-equivariant derived category of ${\Bbbk}$-sheaves on ${\mathscr{X}}$ by ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$. (By definition, the objects in this category are supported on a *finite* union of ${\mathscr{B}}$-orbits.) As in [@modrap2; @amrw], the shift functor on this category will be denoted by $\{1\}$.
To each expression ${{\underline{w}}}$, one can associate an object ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\underline{w}}}}$ of ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, called the *Bott–Samelson parity complex* associated to ${{\underline{w}}}$ . The strictly full subcategory of ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ consisting of objects that are isomorphic to shifts of Bott–Samelson parity complexes is denoted by ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, and its additive envelope is denoted by ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$. These are monoidal categories with respect to the convolution product $\star$.
If ${\Bbbk}$ is a field or a complete local ring, we may also work with the Karoubian envelope of ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, denoted by ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$. Up to shift, the isomorphism classes of indecomposable objects in ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ are in bijection with $W$ [@jmw]. In particular, for each $w \in W$, there is a corresponding indecomposable object denoted by ${\mathcal{E}}_w$.
By [@rw Theorem 10.6], there exists a canonical equivalence of monoidal categories $$\label{eqn:equivalence-rw}
\Psi: {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk},W) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$$ that intertwines $(1)$ with $\{1\}$ and sends $B_{{\underline{w}}}$ to ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\underline{w}}}}$. This equivalence induces an equivalence $${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk},W) \cong {\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$$ and, if ${\Bbbk}$ is a field or a complete local ring, an equivalence $${\mathscr{D}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk},W) \cong {\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}).$$
Free-monodromic tilting sheaves {#ss:fm-tilting-sheaves}
-------------------------------
In [@amrw Chap. 10], we have defined the category of *Bott–Samelson free-monodromic tilting sheaves* on ${\mathscr{X}}$, denoted by ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$. This category is equipped with an autoequivalence ${\langle}1{\rangle}$, called the *Tate twist*. For every expression ${{\underline{w}}}$, there is a corresponding object ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}^{\Bbbk}$, and every object is isomorphic to ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}}{\langle}n{\rangle}$ for some expression ${{\underline{w}}}$ and some integer $n$. (Below, the superscript “${\Bbbk}$” will be omitted when no confusion is likely.) The explicit construction of this category (and of the convolution bifunctor considered below) is long and quite technical, but its details will not be needed in the present paper.
By construction, the category ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ is a full subcategory in a category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, whose objects are pairs consisting of a sequence of objects of ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ and a certain “differential.” If ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}$ are objects of ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, then $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$ is the degree-$(0,0)$ cohomology of a complex of graded ${\Bbbk}$-modules denoted by $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$, whose total cohomology (a ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$-graded ${\Bbbk}$-module) is denoted by $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$. The Tate twist autoequivalence $\langle 1 \rangle$ extends to ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, and for any $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}\langle j \rangle) = \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})^0_{-j}$.
Again by construction, for ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, the ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$-graded ${\Bbbk}$-module $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$ admits a natural right action of $R^\vee=\operatorname{Sym}(V)$, where $V$ is in bidegree $(0,-2)$. This action, called the *right monodromy action*, is compatible with composition: for any $f \in \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$, $g \in \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{H}})$, and $x \in R^\vee$, we have $$\label{eqn:rightmon-morph}
(g \circ f) \cdot x = (g \cdot x) \circ f = g \circ (f \cdot x).$$ On the other hand, by [@amrw Theorem 5.2.2], we also have a ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$-graded algebra morphism $$\mu_{\mathcal{F}}: R^\vee \to \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}),$$ called the *left monodromy map*. It has the property that for any $f \in \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$ and any $x \in R^\vee$, we have $$\label{eqn:mu-morph}
\mu_{\mathcal{G}}(x) \circ f = f \circ \mu_{\mathcal{F}}(x).$$
For any Noetherian integral domain ${\Bbbk}'$ of finite global dimension and any ring morphism ${\Bbbk}\to {\Bbbk}'$, there exists a natural functor $${\Bbbk}' : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk}')$$ that commutes with Tate twists and sends ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}}$ to ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{{\Bbbk}'}_{{\underline{w}}}$ for any expression ${{\underline{w}}}$.
The additive envelope of ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ is denoted by ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$. If ${\Bbbk}$ is a field,[^5] we may also work with the Karoubian envelope of the category ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, denoted by ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$. This category is Krull–Schmidt, and its indecomposable objects were classified in [@amrw Theorem 10.7.1]: up to Tate twist, they are in bijection with $W$. In particular, for each $w \in W$, there is a corresponding indecomposable object, denoted by ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_w^{\Bbbk}$.
The main result of [@amrw] asserts that ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ is a monoidal category with respect to *monodromic convolution*, denoted by ${\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}$. Of course, the category ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ (and, when appropriate, the category ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$) inherit a monoidal structure as well. In fact, for ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}',{\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{G}}'$ in ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, the action of ${\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}$ on morphisms is induced by a morphism of complexes $$\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}) \otimes \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}}',{\mathcal{G}}') \to \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{F}}', {\mathcal{G}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{G}}');$$ see [@amrw §6.2]. It therefore induces a morphism $$\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}) \otimes \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}}',{\mathcal{G}}') \to \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{F}}', {\mathcal{G}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{G}}').$$ By construction, for $f \in \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$, $g \in \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}}',{\mathcal{G}}')$, and $x \in R^\vee$, we have $$\label{eqn:morph-Rvee-left-right}
(f\cdot x) {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}g = f {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}(\mu_{{\mathcal{G}}'}(x) \circ g).$$ Finally, by construction again, for any expressions ${{\underline{v}}}, {{\underline{w}}}$ we have $$\label{eqn:Tmon-conv}
{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\underline{v}}}} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}\cong {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\underline{v}}}{{\underline{w}}}},$$ where ${{\underline{v}}}{{\underline{w}}}$ means the concatenation of ${{\underline{v}}}$ and ${{\underline{w}}}$.
The constructible derived category {#ss:constructible-Dmix}
----------------------------------
In [@amrw], in addition to the categories defined above, we considered two other categories of sheaves on ${\mathscr{X}}$: the *left-monodromic category*, denoted by ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, and the *right-equivariant category*, denoted by ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$. These categories are related by various functors as shown below: $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=0pt]
\hspace{-2em} {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk}), {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\hspace{-2em}\ar[dr, "{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}" description] &&&&
\hspace{-2em}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}), \star \hspace{-2em}\ar[dl, "{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{BE}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}" description] \\
& \hspace{-2em}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \ar[rr, "\sim", "{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}"'] & \hspace{1em} &
{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})\hspace{-2em}
\end{tikzcd}$$ Here ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ and ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ admit natural structures of triangulated categories, and the functor ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories by [@amrw Theorem 4.6.2]. By construction, the category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ is canonically equivalent (as a triangulated category) to ${K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, where ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ is defined as for ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, but using the ${\mathscr{U}}$-equivariant derived category of ${\mathscr{X}}$ instead of its ${\mathscr{B}}$-equivariant derived category. Therefore, if ${\Bbbk}$ is a field or a complete local ring, this category is equivalent to ${K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, i.e. to the category denoted ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathscr{B}})}({\mathscr{X}}, {\Bbbk})$ in [@modrap2] (see [@amrw §4.9 and §10.4]); in particular any object of ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ can be naturally considered as an object of ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$.
As in the category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, for ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, the ${\Bbbk}$-module $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$ is defined as the degree-$(0,0)$ cohomology of a complex of graded ${\Bbbk}$-modules denoted $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$. The total cohomology of this complex is denoted $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$; then for $i,j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have $$\label{eqn:gHom-Hom-LM}
\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})^i_j \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}[i] \langle -j \rangle),$$ see [@amrw Remark 4.5.2]. For ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})$, the action of the functor ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}$ is induced by a morphism of complexes $$\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}) \to \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\mathcal{F}}), {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\mathcal{G}})),$$ see [@amrw §5.1].
The Tate twist and extension-of-scalars functors are also defined for the categories ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ and ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, and commute with the forgetful functors. For any expression ${{\underline{w}}}$ we set $${\mathcal{T}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}}:= {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}}).$$ (In this setting also, the superscript “${\Bbbk}$” will be omitted when no confusion is likely.)
For the following result, see [@amrw Corollary 10.6.2].
\[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] For any expressions ${{\underline{v}}},{{\underline{w}}}$ and any $i,j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we have $$\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}})^i_j = 0 \quad \text{unless $i=0$.}$$ Moreover, $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}})^0_\bullet$ is graded free as a right $R^\vee$-module, and the morphism $$\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}})^0_\bullet \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}\to \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{T}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{T}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}})^0_\bullet$$ induced by the functor ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}$ is an isomorphism. Finally, for any Noetherian integral domain ${\Bbbk}'$ of finite global dimension and any ring morphism ${\Bbbk}\to {\Bbbk}'$, the functor ${\Bbbk}'$ induces an isomorphism $${\Bbbk}' \otimes_{\Bbbk}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}}\langle j \rangle) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{{\Bbbk}'}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{{\Bbbk}'}_{{\underline{w}}}\langle j \rangle)$$ for any $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
In the case when ${\Bbbk}$ is a field, we have also defined a subcategory $${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \subset {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$$ in [@amrw §10.5]. By [@amrw Theorem 11.4.2], this category admits a natural action of the monoidal category ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$; the corresponding bifunctor will also be denoted ${\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}$. By [@amrw (6.18)], for ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}$ in ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$, we have $$\label{eqn:For-hatstar}
{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\mathcal{F}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{G}}) \cong {\mathcal{F}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\mathcal{G}}).$$ The indecomposable objects in this category were classified in [@amrw Corollary 10.5.5]: up to Tate twist, they are in bijection with $W$. In particular, for each $w \in W$, there is a corresponding indecomposable object, denoted by ${\mathcal{T}}^{\Bbbk}_w$. Moreover we have ${\mathcal{T}}^{\Bbbk}_w \cong {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}^{\Bbbk}_w)$.
Realization functors {#ss:realization}
--------------------
In this subsection, we review a (variant of a) construction due to Be[ĭ]{}linson [@beilinson Appendix]. A triangulated category ${\mathscr{T}}$ is said to *admit a filtered version* if there exists a filtered triangulated category ${\widetilde}{\mathscr{T}}$ over ${\mathscr{T}}$, in the sense of [@beilinson Definition A.1]. An additive subcategory ${\mathscr{A}}\subset {\mathscr{T}}$ is said to *have no negative self-Exts* if $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathscr{T}}(M,N[n]) = 0$ for all $M, N \in {\mathscr{A}}$ and all $n < 0$.
The following is a variant of the main result of [@beilinson Appendix].
\[prop:realization\] Let ${\mathscr{T}}$ be a triangulated category that admits a filtered version, and let ${\mathscr{A}}\subset {\mathscr{T}}$ be a full additive category with no negative self-Exts. There is a functor of triangulated categories $${\mathrm{real}}: {K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}\to {\mathscr{T}}$$ whose restriction to ${\mathscr{A}}$ is the inclusion functor. In addition, if ${\mathscr{A}}$ is the heart of a t-structure (and hence an abelian category), this functor factors through a functor $${\mathrm{real}}: {D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}\to {\mathscr{T}}.$$
In [@beilinson], this result is only stated in the case where ${\mathscr{A}}$ is the heart of a t-structure. For details in a more general setting, see [@rider §3].
The filtered category ${\widetilde}{\mathscr{T}}$ comes with functors $\operatorname{gr}_i: {\widetilde}{\mathscr{T}}\to {\mathscr{T}}$ for each $i$. Let ${\widetilde}{\mathscr{A}}\subset {\widetilde}{\mathscr{T}}$ be the full subcategory consisting of objects $M$ such that $\operatorname{gr}_i M = 0$ for all but finitely many $i$, and such that $\operatorname{gr}_i M \in {\mathscr{A}}[-i]$ for all $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. An argument similar to [@beilinson Proposition A.5] shows that ${\widetilde}{\mathscr{A}}\cong {C^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}$. The forgetful functor ${\widetilde}{\mathscr{T}}\to {\mathscr{T}}$ induces an additive functor ${C^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}\to {\mathscr{T}}$, which then factors through ${K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}$ or, if ${\mathscr{A}}$ is the heart of a t-structure, through ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}$.
The following statement is a variant of [@beilinson Lemma A.7.1]. We omit its proof.
\[prop:realization-functor\] Let ${\mathscr{T}}_1$ and ${\mathscr{T}}_2$ be two triangulated categories admitting a filtered version, and let ${\mathscr{A}}_1 \subset {\mathscr{T}}_1$, ${\mathscr{A}}_2 \subset {\mathscr{T}}_2$ be two additive categories with no negative self-Exts. Let $F: {\mathscr{T}}_1 \to {\mathscr{T}}_2$ be a triangulated functor that restricts to an additive functor $F_0: {\mathscr{A}}_1 \to {\mathscr{A}}_2$. If $F$ lifts to a functor of filtered triangulated categories ${\widetilde}F: {\widetilde}{\mathscr{T}}_1 \to {\widetilde}{\mathscr{T}}_2$, then the following diagram commutes up to natural isomorphism: $$\begin{tikzcd}
{K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}_1 \ar[r, "{\mathrm{real}}"] \ar[d, "{K^{\mathrm{b}}}(F_0)"'] & {\mathscr{T}}_1 \ar[d, "F"] \\
{K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathscr{A}}_2 \ar[r, "{\mathrm{real}}"] & {\mathscr{T}}_2.
\end{tikzcd}$$
In this paper, we will mainly use these constructions in the case where ${\mathscr{T}}= {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ or ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$. These two are equivalent (via ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}$), and the latter, as the homotopy category of an additive category, admits a filtered version by the construction of [@ar:kdsf §2.5]. Here is an application of this theory.
\[lem:tilt-realization\] There is an equivalence of triangulated categories $${\mathrm{real}}: {K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}).$$
By [@amrw Proposition 10.6.1], for all ${\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}\in {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, we have $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}[n]) = 0$ for all $n \ne 0$. It follows from this that the realization functor exists and is fully faithful. A routine support argument shows that the image of this functor generates ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, so it is essentially surjective as well.
The perverse t-structure {#ss:perv}
------------------------
In this subsection we assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a field.
As recalled in [@amrw §10.5], the category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ admits a natural “perverse” t-structure, constructed in [@modrap2]. We will denote by $${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \subset {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$$ the inverse image under the equivalence ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}$ of the heart of this t-structure. This category is stable under the Tate twist, and has a natural structure of graded highest weight category with weight poset $W$ (for the Bruhat order). We will denote by ${\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w$ and ${\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_w$ the corresponding standard and costandard objects. By [@amrw Proposition 10.5.1], the category of tilting objects in ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ identifies with the subcategory ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ considered above. From this it follows that the natural functors $$\label{eqn:realization-Dmix}
{K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to {D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$$ are equivalences of triangulated categories, using, say, [@modrap2 Lemma A.5].
As a special case of [@amrw Proposition 7.6.3], for any $s \in S$ there exists a triangulated functor $$C_s : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$$ whose restriction to ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ is isomorphic to the functor ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}(-)$.
\[lem:Cs-exact\] The functor $C_s$ is exact for the perverse t-structure.
By [@modrap2 Proposition 3.4] the nonnegative part, resp. the nonpositive part, of the perverse t-structure is generated under extensions by the objects of the form ${\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_w \langle n \rangle [m]$ with $w \in W$, $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}$, resp. by the objects of the form ${\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w \langle n \rangle [m]$ with $w \in W$, $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$. With this in mind, the claim follows from [@amrw Lemma 10.5.3].
Following [@modrap2 §3.1], we denote by ${\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w$ the image of the natural map ${\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w \to {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_w$. Every simple object in ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ is isomorphic to ${\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w{\langle}n{\rangle}$ for some $w \in W$ and some $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. In the special case $w=1$, we have ${\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_1={\mathcal{T}}_1={\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_1={\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_1$.
\[lem:Cs-simple\] If $w \ne 1$, then $[ C_s({\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w) : {\mathcal{T}}_1{\langle}n{\rangle}] = 0$ for all $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
For ${\mathcal{F}}\in {\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, let $q({\mathcal{F}}) := \sum_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} [{\mathcal{F}}: {\mathcal{T}}_1{\langle}n{\rangle}]$. The lemma amounts to saying that $q(C_s({\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w)) = 0$ if $w \ne 1$. By [@modrap2 Lemma 4.9], there is a short exact sequence $$\label{eqn:delta-socle}
0 \to {\mathcal{T}}_1{\langle}-\ell(w){\rangle}\to {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w \to {\mathcal{G}}\to 0$$ where $q({\mathcal{G}}) = 0$. We deduce that $q({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w) = 1$. Then, using [@amrw Proposition 10.5.3], we find that $q(C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w)) = 2$ for all $w \in W$. (This holds even if $w =
1$.) Now apply $C_s$ to to obtain $$0 \to C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_1{\langle}-\ell(w){\rangle}) \to C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w) \to C_s({\mathcal{G}}) \to 0.$$ Since $q(C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_1{\langle}-\ell(w){\rangle})) = q(C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w)) = 2$, and since $q$ is additive on short exact sequences, we find that $q(C_s({\mathcal{G}})) = 0$. If $w \ne 1$, then ${\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w$ is a quotient of ${\mathcal{G}}$, so $C_s({\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w)$ is a quotient of $C_s({\mathcal{G}})$. It follows that $q(C_s({\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w)) = 0$, as desired.
Tilting Hom formula
-------------------
The Hecke algebra ${\mathcal{H}}_W$ is the algebra with free ${\mathbb{Z}}[v, v^{-1}]$-basis $\{ H_w \mid w \in W\}$, with multiplicative unit $H_1$, and multiplication determined by the rule $$H_wH_s = \begin{cases}
H_{ws} &\text{if $ws > w$;} \\
(v^{-1} - v)H_w + H_{ws} &\text{if $ws < w$.}
\end{cases}$$ Similar formulas describe $H_sH_w$ depending on whether $sw < w$ or $sw > w$. Next, for any expression ${{\underline{w}}}= (s_1, \ldots, s_k)$, set $${\underline{H}}_{{\underline{w}}}:= (H_{s_1} + v) \cdots (H_{s_k} + v) \in {\mathcal{H}}_W.$$ Observe that $$\label{eqn:hecke-us-w}
{\underline{H}}_s H_w = (H_s + v)H_w =
\begin{cases}
H_{sw} + v H_w & \text{if $sw > w$;} \\
H_{sw} + v^{-1}H_w & \text{if $sw < w$.}
\end{cases}$$ Define a symmetric ${\mathbb{Z}}[v, v^{-1}]$-bilinear pairing $${\langle}-, - {\rangle}: {\mathcal{H}}_W \times {\mathcal{H}}_W \to {\mathbb{Z}}[v, v^{-1}]$$ by ${\langle}H_x, H_y {\rangle}= \delta_{xy}$ for $x,y \in W$.
\[lem:tilting-hom-formula-pre\] Assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a field, and let ${{\underline{w}}}$ be an expression. We have $${\underline{H}}_{{\underline{w}}}= \sum_{\substack{y \in W \\ n \in {\mathbb{Z}}}} ({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}: {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_y{\langle}n{\rangle}) v^n H_y
= \sum_{\substack{y \in W \\ n \in {\mathbb{Z}}}} ({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}: {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_y{\langle}-n{\rangle}) v^n H_y.$$
According to [@amrw Lemma 10.5.3], for any $w \in W$, the perverse sheaf $C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w)$ has a filtration by standard objects, and the multiplicities are given by $(C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w) : {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw}) = 1$, $$(C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w) : {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w{\langle}n{\rangle}) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $n = 1$ and $sw > w$, or if $n = -1$ and $sw < w$,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ and $(C_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w) : {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_y{\langle}n{\rangle}) = 0$ in all other cases. Comparing this with , one can show by induction on the length of ${{\underline{w}}}$ that $({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}: {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_y{\langle}n{\rangle})$ is equal to the coefficient of $v^n H_y$ in ${\underline{H}}_{{\underline{w}}}$. Similar reasoning shows that this same integer is also equal to $({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}: {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_y{\langle}-n{\rangle})$.
\[lem:tilting-hom-formula\] For any expressions ${{\underline{v}}}, {{\underline{w}}}$, we have $$\sum_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \left( \mathrm{rk}_{\Bbbk}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}{\langle}n {\rangle}) \right) v^n = {\langle}{\underline{H}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\underline{H}}_{{\underline{w}}}{\rangle}.$$
By the last statement of Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], we may check this after extension of scalars to any field. Over a field, we have $$\sum_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \left( \dim \operatorname{Hom}({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}{\langle}n {\rangle}) \right) v^n \\
= \sum_{\substack{y \in W\\ n,m \in {\mathbb{Z}}}}
({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}: {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_y{\langle}m{\rangle})({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}{\langle}n{\rangle}: {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_y{\langle}m{\rangle}) v^n.$$ On the other hand, using Lemma \[lem:tilting-hom-formula-pre\], we have $${\langle}{\underline{H}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\underline{H}}_{{\underline{w}}}{\rangle}= \sum_{\substack{y \in W\\ m, k \in {\mathbb{Z}}}} ({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}: {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_y{\langle}m{\rangle})({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}: {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_y{\langle}-k{\rangle})v^{m+k}.$$ The result follows by setting $k = n-m$.
Constructing a functor V {#sec:functor-V}
========================
In this section we assume that $A$ is of finite type, i.e. that ${\mathscr{G}}$ is a connected complex reductive group. We also assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a field of characteristic $0$.[^6]
The big tilting perverse sheaf
------------------------------
Let $w_0$ be the longest element in $W$, and consider the indecomposable object ${\mathcal{T}}_{w_0}$ in ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$. We set $${\mathcal{P}}:= {\mathcal{T}}_{w_0} \langle - \ell(w_0) \rangle.$$ The same arguments as in [@modrap1 §5.11], using the results of [@modrap2 §4.4], show that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is the projective cover of the simple object ${\mathcal{T}}_1$ in the abelian category ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$. In particular, using and we deduce that we have $$\label{eqn:gHom-Tw0-T1}
\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_1)^n_m = \begin{cases}
{\Bbbk}& \text{if $n=m=0$;} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Using [@modrap2 Lemma 4.9] we also deduce that for $w \in W$ and $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have $$\label{eqn:Hom-P-costandard}
\dim \bigl( \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}, {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_w \langle m \rangle) \bigr) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $m=-\ell(w)$;} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
\[lem:multiplicities-P\] In the abelian category ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ we have $$[{\mathcal{P}}: {\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle m \rangle] = 0 \quad \text{unless $m \leq 0$,}$$ and moreover $[{\mathcal{P}}: {\mathcal{T}}_1]=1$. In particular, we have $$\operatorname{End}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}) = {\Bbbk}\cdot {\mathrm{id}}.$$
Since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a projective object in ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, it admits a filtration by standard objects. Moreover, shows that the subquotients in such a filtration are the objects ${\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w \langle -\ell(w) \rangle$ for $w \in W$, each appearing once. Combining this with [@modrap2 Lemma 4.9] we deduce that $$[{\mathcal{P}}: {\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle m \rangle] = \# \{w \in W \mid m=-2\ell(w)\},$$ which implies the desired statement.
\[lem:Cs-P\] For any $s \in S$ we have ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}\cong {\mathcal{P}}\langle -1 \rangle \oplus {\mathcal{P}}\langle 1 \rangle$.
The object ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ belongs to ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$. Since such an object is uniquely characterized by the multiplicities of standard objects in a standard filtration, to conclude it suffices to prove that for any $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $w \in W$ we have $$({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}: {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w \langle i \rangle) = ({\mathcal{P}}\langle -1 \rangle \oplus {\mathcal{P}}\langle 1 \rangle : {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w \langle i \rangle),$$ i.e. that $$({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}: {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w \langle i \rangle) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $i=-\ell(w) \pm 1$;}\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ This easily follows from [@amrw Lemma 10.5.3] (see also [@amrw Proof of Lemma 10.5.4]).
A free-monodromic analogue of P {#ss:Pmon}
-------------------------------
From now on we fix (once and for all) an object ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{w_0}$ as in §\[ss:fm-tilting-sheaves\]; then ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{w_0}$ belongs to ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ and satisfies ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{w_0}) \cong {\mathcal{T}}_{w_0}$. We set $${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}:= {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{w_0} \langle -\ell(w_0) \rangle,$$ so that ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}) \cong {\mathcal{P}}$.
Using Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] and we see that there exists an isomorphism of bigraded vector spaces $$\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}},{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1) \cong R^\vee.$$ In particular, we deduce that $$\dim_{\Bbbk}\bigl( \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1) \bigr) = 1.$$ We also fix a nonzero morphism $\xi : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1$ (which is unique up to nonzero scalar), and set $\xi' := {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}(\xi)$, a generator of $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_1)$.
\[lem:conv-P\] The objects ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ are direct sums of copies of ${\mathcal{P}}\langle i \rangle$ with $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}$, with ${\mathcal{P}}$ appearing once.
It is enough to prove the claim for ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$; the case of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ follows.
Let ${{\underline{w}}}$ be a reduced expression for $w_0$. Then, by [@amrw Theorem 10.7.1], ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$ is a direct summand in ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\underline{w}}}} \langle - \ell(w_0) \rangle$, so ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ is a direct summand in $({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\underline{w}}}} \langle - \ell(w_0) \rangle) {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$. The first claim is then a direct consequence of Lemma \[lem:Cs-P\]. We also deduce that the multiplicity of ${\mathcal{P}}$ in ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ is at most $1$.
To prove the claim about the multiplicity of ${\mathcal{P}}$, we observe that the morphism ${\mathrm{id}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi' : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{T}}_1 \cong {\mathcal{P}}$ is surjective. (Since ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$ is a direct summand in ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\underline{w}}}} \langle - \ell(w_0) \rangle$, this follows from Lemma \[lem:Cs-exact\].) Since the image of any morphism ${\mathcal{P}}\langle i \rangle \to {\mathcal{P}}$ with $i<0$ is contained in the radical of ${\mathcal{P}}$, we deduce that ${\mathcal{P}}$ does indeed occur as a direct summand of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$.
\[cor:Hom-P-conv\] We have $$\dim_{\Bbbk}\bigl( \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}\langle i \rangle) \bigr) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $i=0$;} \\
0 & \text{if $i<0$.}
\end{cases}$$ We also have $$\dim_{\Bbbk}\bigl( \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}\langle i \rangle) \bigr) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $i=0$;} \\
0 & \text{if $i<0$.}
\end{cases}$$
The claims follow from Lemma \[lem:multiplicities-P\] and Lemma \[lem:conv-P\].
Morphisms from P to Ts {#ss:Hom-P-Ts}
----------------------
Let us fix $s \in S$. Consider the morphism $${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) \langle -1 \rangle : {\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle \to {\mathcal{T}}_1,$$ where ${\widehat}{\epsilon}_s$ is defined in [@amrw §5.3.4]. Since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is projective, and since $[{\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle : {\mathcal{T}}_1]=1$ (see [@amrw Example 4.6.4]), there exists a unique morphism $\zeta_s' : {\mathcal{P}}\to {\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle$ such that $({\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) \langle -1 \rangle) \circ \zeta_s' = \xi'$.
\[lem:V-Ts\] There exists a unique morphism $$\zeta_s : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \langle - 1 \rangle$$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})$ such that ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}(\zeta_s)=\zeta_s'$. Moreover we have $({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s \langle -1 \rangle) \circ \zeta_s = \xi$, and there exists a unique ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$-graded $R^\vee$-bimodule isomorphism $$R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^s} R^\vee {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{FM}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \langle -1 \rangle)$$ sending $1 \otimes 1$ to $\zeta_s$.
Since $[{\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle : {\mathcal{T}}_1] = [{\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle : {\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle -2 \rangle]=1$ and $[{\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle : {\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle m \rangle]=0$ if $m \notin \{0, -2\}$, the ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$-graded ${\Bbbk}$-vector space $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle)$ has dimension $2$, and is nonzero in degrees $0$ and $-2$. By Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] this implies that the graded (right) $R^\vee$-module $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{FM}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \langle -1 \rangle)$ is free of rank $2$, and generated in degrees $0$ and $-2$, and that the functor ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \langle -1 \rangle) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle).$$ This proves the existence and uniqueness of $\zeta_s$. The fact that $({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s \langle -1 \rangle) \circ \zeta_s = \xi$ follows from similar arguments.
Now, we consider the morphism $$R^\vee \otimes_{\Bbbk}R^\vee \to \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{FM}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \langle -1 \rangle)$$ defined by $x \otimes y \mapsto (\mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s}(x) \circ \zeta_s) \cdot y$. By , for $x,y \in R^\vee$, we have $$(\mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s}(x) \circ \zeta_s) \cdot y = (\mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s}(x) \cdot y) \circ \zeta_s.$$ In view of [@amrw Proposition 5.3.1 and its proof], this implies that our morphism factors through a (${\mathbb{Z}}^2$-graded) bimodule morphism $$R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^s} R^\vee \to \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \langle -1 \rangle).$$ The right $R^\vee$-modules under consideration are both free of rank $2$, and generated in degrees $0$ and $-2$ (see again [@amrw Proposition 5.3.1 and its proof] for the left-hand side). Hence to prove that our morphism is an isomorphism, it suffices to show that the induced morphism $$R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^s} {\Bbbk}\to \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{FM}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \langle -1 \rangle) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}\cong \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{T}}_s \langle -1 \rangle)$$ is an isomorphism. The latter fact is clear from the discussion in [@amrw Example 4.7.4].
Coalgebra structure
-------------------
\[prop:Pmon-coalgebra\] The object ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$ admits a canonical coalgebra structure in the monoidal category ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ with counit $\xi$.
Our proof is very close to that in [@by Proposition 4.6.4]. We need to define a counit morphism ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1$ (which should be $\xi$) and a comultiplication morphism $\delta : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$, and check that these data satisfy the counit and coassociativity axioms.
To define the comultiplication, we first observe that there exists a unique morphism $\delta' : {\mathcal{P}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ such that $(\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi') \circ \delta' = \xi'$. In fact, the morphism $\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi' = (\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal{T}}_1}) \circ ({\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi')$ is surjective by the proof of Lemma \[lem:conv-P\]. Since its restriction to any summand of the form ${\mathcal{P}}\langle i \rangle$ with $i<0$ must vanish, this proves the existence of $\delta'$ in view of Lemma \[lem:conv-P\] and . Uniqueness is also clear from this lemma since $\operatorname{End}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}) = {\Bbbk}\cdot {\mathrm{id}}$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{P}}\langle i \rangle)=0$ if $i<0$.
Now, combining Corollary \[cor:Hom-P-conv\] and Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] (see also ) we see that $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}})$ is a direct sum of copies of $R^\vee{\langle}i{\rangle}$ with $i \le 0$, in which $R^\vee$ itself occurs with multiplicity $1$. Moreover, the functor ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{P}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}).$$ From the previous paragraph we then deduce that there exists a unique morphism $\delta : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$ such that $(\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi) \circ \delta = \xi$. This defines our comultiplication.
It remains to show that $\xi$ and $\delta$ satisfy the required axioms. We observe that as above the vector space $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}})$ is $1$-dimensional. Hence $(\delta {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathrm{id}}) \circ \delta$ and $({\mathrm{id}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\delta) \circ \delta$ are proportional. Moreover, we have $$(\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi) \circ ((\delta {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathrm{id}}) \circ \delta) = (\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi) \circ (({\mathrm{id}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\delta) \circ \delta) = \xi.$$ Hence $(\delta {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathrm{id}}) \circ \delta = ({\mathrm{id}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\delta) \circ \delta$, proving coassociativity. The counit axiom can be checked similarly, and the proof is complete.
The functor V
-------------
The ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$-graded algebra $R^\vee$ is concentrated in degrees in $\{0\} \times {\mathbb{Z}}$, so it makes sense to regard it as just a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-graded algebra. Similarly, if ${\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}$ belong to ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})$, then by Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], $\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})$ can (and will) be regarded as a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-graded ${\Bbbk}$-module.
Consider the ${\mathbb{Z}}$-graded algebra morphism $$R^\vee \otimes R^\vee \to \operatorname{\mathbb{E}\mathsf{nd}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}})$$ sending $x \otimes y$ to $\mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}}(x) \cdot y$. This morphism allows us to define a functor $${\mathbb{V}}:= \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{FM}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}, -) : {\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee,$$ where $R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee$ is the category of graded $R^\vee$-bimodules. This functor intertwines Tate twist with the shift-of-grading functor $\langle 1 \rangle$ on $R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee$, where the latter is normalized as in [@amrw §3.1].
The arguments below will sometimes make use of the functor $${\mathbb{V}}' := \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{P}}, -) : {\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}},$$ where $R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is the category of graded left $R^\vee$-modules, and the morphism $R^\vee \to \operatorname{\mathbb{E}\mathsf{nd}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{P}})$ is $\mu_{{\mathcal{P}}}$. Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] implies that the following diagram commutes up to natural isomorphism: $$\label{eqn:VVprime-commute}
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk}) \ar[r, "{\mathbb{V}}"] \ar[d, "{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}"'] & R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee \ar[d, "({-}) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}"] \\
{\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \ar[r, "{\mathbb{V}}'"] & R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}.
\end{tikzcd}$$
\[prop:V-monoidal\] The functor ${\mathbb{V}}$ admits a canonical monoidal structure which intertwines the convolution ${\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}$ on ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ and the natural tensor product of graded $R^\vee$-bimodules.
Let $\gamma : R^\vee {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1)$ be the isomorphism determined by $\gamma(1) = \xi$, where $\xi : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1$ is the morphism fixed in §\[ss:Pmon\]. We need to define a natural isomorphism of bifunctors $$\beta : {\mathbb{V}}(-) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}(-) \to {\mathbb{V}}(- {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-)$$ so that the data $({\mathbb{V}}, \beta, \gamma)$ satisfies the associativity and unitality axioms of a monoidal functor.
We begin by defining a morphism of bifunctors $${\mathbb{V}}(-) \otimes_{\Bbbk}{\mathbb{V}}(-) \to {\mathbb{V}}(- {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-)$$ as follows. If ${\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}$ belong to ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ and $f \in {\mathbb{V}}({\mathcal{F}})_m$, $g \in {\mathbb{V}}({\mathcal{G}})_{m'}$, then we can consider $$f {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}g : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\mathcal{F}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{G}}\langle -m-m' \rangle.$$ Composing this morphism with the comultiplication from Proposition \[prop:Pmon-coalgebra\], we obtain an element of ${\mathbb{V}}({\mathcal{F}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{G}})_{m+m'}$. This defines the desired morphism, and by this morphism factors through a morphism $$\beta : {\mathbb{V}}(-) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}(-) \to {\mathbb{V}}(- {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-).$$ For later use, note that a very similar construction, using the map $\delta': {\mathcal{P}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{P}}$ from the proof of Proposition \[prop:Pmon-coalgebra\] in place of the comultiplication, yields a natural transformation $$\beta' : {\mathbb{V}}(-) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}'(-) \to {\mathbb{V}}'(- {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-).$$
The associativity axiom for $({\mathbb{V}}, \beta, \gamma)$ follows from the bifunctoriality of ${\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}$, the compatibility of the associator isomorphism in ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ with morphisms (see [@amrw Proposition 7.2.2]), and the coassociativity axiom for the coalgebra structure of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$ (see Proposition \[prop:Pmon-coalgebra\]). The unitality axioms for $({\mathbb{V}}, \beta, \gamma)$ follow from the naturality of the unitor isomorphisms in ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$ (see [@amrw Lemma 7.1.1]) and the counit axioms for the coalgebra structure of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$ (see Proposition \[prop:Pmon-coalgebra\]).
To conclude, it remains only to prove that $\beta$ is an isomorphism. By Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], ${\mathbb{V}}$ takes values in the subcategory consisting of bimodules which are free as graded right $R^\vee$-modules. It is therefore enough to prove that $\beta$ remains an isomorphism after applying $({-}) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}: R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}$. In other words, it is enough to prove that $\beta'$ is an isomorphism. Using , we can further reduce the problem to showing that for any $s \in S$, the morphism of functors $$\beta'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s, -) : {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}'(-) \to {\mathbb{V}}'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-)$$ is an isomorphism.
For this we will “extend” the functors ${\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}'(-)$ and ${\mathbb{V}}'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-)$ to exact functors ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}$ as follows. First, as explained at the beginning of the section, the category ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ identifies naturally with an additive subcategory of ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$. We can extend ${\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}'(-)$ to a functor $${\mathbb{W}}_1^s : {\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}$$ by setting ${\mathbb{W}}_1^s({\mathcal{F}}) := {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) \otimes_{R^\vee} \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}({\mathcal{P}}, {\mathcal{F}})$. Since ${\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s)$ is free as a right $R^\vee$-module and since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a projective object in ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, this functor is exact. For the functor ${\mathbb{V}}'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-)$, we define an exact functor $${\mathbb{W}}_2^s : {\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}$$ by setting ${\mathbb{W}}_2^s({\mathcal{F}}) := \operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{P}}, C_s({\mathcal{F}}))$. In this case, exactness follows from Lemma \[lem:Cs-exact\].
We claim that the morphism $\beta'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s, -)$ is induced by a morphism of functors $\gamma^s : {\mathbb{W}}^s_1 \to {\mathbb{W}}^s_2$. To see this we need a different construction of the functor ${\mathbb{W}}_2^s$. Consider the functor $${K^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb{V}}'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-)) : {K^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})) \to {K^{\mathrm{b}}}(R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}).$$ As seen in §\[ss:perv\], the natural functor $${K^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})) \to {D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}))$$ is an equivalence. Moreover, it is clear by construction that the following diagram commutes: $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large]
{K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[d, "\wr" swap] \ar[rr, "{K^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb{V}}'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}-))"] && {K^{\mathrm{b}}}(R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}) \ar[d] \\
{D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[rr, "{D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb{W}}_2^s)"] && {D^{\mathrm{b}}}(R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}).
\end{tikzcd}$$ Similarly we have a commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=huge]
{K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[d, "\wr" swap] \ar[rr, "{K^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}'(-))"] && {K^{\mathrm{b}}}(R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}) \ar[d] \\
{D^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[rr, "{D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb{W}}_1^s)"] && {D^{\mathrm{b}}}(R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}).
\end{tikzcd}$$ Hence the morphism of functors $\beta'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s, -)$ induces a morphism ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb{W}}_1^s) \to {D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb{W}}_2^s)$, which restricts to the desired morphism $\gamma^s$.
We will now prove that $\gamma^s$ is an isomorphism, thereby finishing the proof. By the 5-lemma, it is enough to prove that $\gamma^s({\mathcal{F}})$ is an isomorphism for any simple object ${\mathcal{F}}$ in ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$. After a Tate twist, we may assume that ${\mathcal{F}}= {\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w$ for some $w \in W$. If $w \ne 1$, then it is clear that ${\mathbb{W}}_1^s({\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w) = 0$, and it follows from Lemma \[lem:Cs-simple\] that ${\mathbb{W}}_2^s({\mathrm{IC}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}_w) = 0$, so there is nothing to prove in this case. It remains to consider the case $w = 1$. In other words, we must prove that the morphism $$\gamma^s({\mathcal{T}}_1) : {\mathbb{W}}_1^s({\mathcal{T}}_1) \to {\mathbb{W}}_2^s({\mathcal{T}}_1)$$ is an isomorphism. By construction this morphism identifies with $\beta'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s, {\mathcal{T}}_1)$. Recall now that $${\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) \cong R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^s} R^\vee \langle 1 \rangle, \quad {\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_1) \cong {\Bbbk}, \quad {\mathbb{V}}'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{T}}_1) \cong {\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_s) \cong R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)_+^s} {\Bbbk}\langle 1 \rangle.$$ In particular, both ${\mathbb{W}}_1^s({\mathcal{T}}_1)$ and ${\mathbb{W}}_2^s({\mathcal{T}}_1)$ are cyclic as left $R^\vee$-modules, and generated in degree $1$. Hence to conclude, it remains only to prove that $$\beta'({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s, {\mathcal{T}}_1)(\zeta_s \otimes \xi') = \zeta_s',$$ i.e. that $$\label{eqn:V-monoidal-last}
(\zeta_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi') \circ \delta' = \zeta'_s.$$ (Here we identify ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{T}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{T}}_s$ in the canonical way; see .) However we have $$\begin{gathered}
({\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) \langle -1 \rangle) \circ (\zeta_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi') \circ \delta' = (({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s \langle -1 \rangle) {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal{T}}_1}) \circ (\zeta_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi') \circ \delta' \\
= (({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s \langle -1 \rangle \circ \zeta_s) {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi') \circ \delta' = (\xi {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\xi') \circ \delta' = \xi'.\end{gathered}$$ By construction of $\zeta_s'$ (see §\[ss:Hom-P-Ts\]), this proves , as desired.
Full faithfulness {#ss:V-ff}
-----------------
The goal of this subsection is to prove the following claim.
\[thm:V-fully-faithful\] The functor $${\mathbb{V}}: {\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee$$ is fully faithful.
Before proving this result we need some preliminary lemmas.
\[lem:V’-faithful\] The functor $${\mathbb{V}}' : {\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}$$ introduced in the proof of Proposition [\[prop:V-monoidal\]]{} is faithful.
The argument for this proof is taken from [@bbm]. By construction of the functor ${\mathbb{V}}'$, to prove the lemma it suffices to prove that the image of any nonzero morphism between objects of ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ admits a Tate twist of ${\mathcal{T}}_1$ as a composition factor. In fact this follows from the observation that the only possible simple quotients of objects of ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ are Tate twists of ${\mathcal{T}}_1$, since such objects admit costandard filtrations, and since the head of any costandard object in ${\mathrm{Perv}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ is a Tate twist of ${\mathcal{T}}_1$, by [@modrap2 Lemma 4.9].
\[lem:dim-Hom-V’\] For any ${\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}$ in ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, the ${\Bbbk}$-vector spaces $$\bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}\langle m \rangle) \quad \text{and} \quad \operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee}({\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{F}}), {\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{G}}))$$ have the same dimension.
By construction of the category ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, we can assume that ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}= {\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}$ for some expressions ${{\underline{v}}}, {{\underline{w}}}$. In this case, the dimension of $\bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{T}}_{{{\underline{v}}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_{{{\underline{w}}}} \langle n \rangle)$ is determined in Lemma \[lem:tilting-hom-formula\].
On the other hand, let ${\mathscr{T}}^\vee$ be the torus which is Langlands dual to ${\mathscr{T}}$, and let ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$ be a complex connected reductive group containing ${\mathscr{T}}^\vee$ as a maximal torus and whose root system (with respect to ${\mathscr{T}}^\vee$) is dual to that of $({\mathscr{G}},{\mathscr{T}})$. Let also ${\mathscr{B}}^\vee$ be the Borel subgroup of ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$ containing ${\mathscr{T}}^\vee$ whose roots are the coroots of ${\mathscr{B}}$. Then the Borel construction shows that there exists a natural surjective algebra morphism $R^\vee \to {\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee; {\Bbbk})$. For any $s \in S$ we let ${\mathscr{P}}_s^\vee$ be the minimal parabolic subgroup of ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$ containing ${\mathscr{B}}^\vee$, and set ${\mathcal{E}}_s^\vee := {\underline{{\Bbbk}}}_{{\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{P}}_s^\vee} \{1\} \in {D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})$. Then for any expression ${\underline{u}}=(s_1, \ldots, s_r)$, we set $${\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{u}}}^\vee := {\mathcal{E}}_{s_1}^\vee \star^{{\mathscr{B}}^\vee} \cdots \star^{{\mathscr{B}}^\vee} {\mathcal{E}}_{s_r}^\vee,$$ where $\star^{{\mathscr{B}}^\vee}$ is the natural convolution product on ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})$. (In the present proof these objects will be considered as objects in the ordinary derived category ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})$.)
If ${{\underline{v}}}=(s_1, \ldots, s_i)$ and ${{\underline{w}}}= (t_1, \ldots, t_j)$, then it is well known from the theory of Soergel bimodules that we have canonical isomorphisms of $R^\vee$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}^\vee) &\cong R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^{s_1}} \cdots \otimes_{(R^\vee)^{s_{i-1}}} R^\vee\otimes_{(R^\vee)^{s_{i}}} {\Bbbk}\langle i \rangle, \\
{\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}^\vee) &\cong R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^{t_1}} \cdots \otimes_{(R^\vee)^{t_{j-1}}} R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^{t_{j}}} {\Bbbk}\langle j \rangle;\end{aligned}$$ see e.g. [@soergel-kat Korollar 2]. Comparing with Lemma \[lem:V-Ts\] and using Proposition \[prop:V-monoidal\] and its proof, we deduce isomorphisms of $R^\vee$-modules $${\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}^\vee) \cong {\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}), \quad {\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}^\vee) \cong {\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}).$$
It is also well known that the functor ${\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee,-)$ induces an isomorphism $$\begin{gathered}
\bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}\{m\}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\\
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee; {\Bbbk})} \bigl({\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}^\vee), {\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}^\vee) \bigr),\end{gathered}$$ by [@soergel-kat Erweiterungssatz 17]. (See also [@ginzburg] and [@arider1 Theorem 4.1] for alternative proofs, in more general contexts.) Using [@jmw Proposition 2.6] to compute the dimension of the left-hand side, we finally obtain a formula for the dimension of $\operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee}({\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_{{{\underline{v}}}}), {\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_{{{\underline{w}}}}))$ which coincides with the one for the vector space $\bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{T}}_{{{\underline{v}}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_{{{\underline{w}}}} \langle n \rangle)$ considered above.
We have to prove that for any expressions ${{\underline{v}}}, {{\underline{w}}}$ and any $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, the functor ${\mathbb{V}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}\langle m \rangle) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee}({\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{v}}}), {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}) \langle m \rangle).$$ In fact we will prove that this functor induces an isomorphism $$\label{eqn:V-ff}
\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{FM}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}\text{-}}R^\vee}({\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{v}}}), {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}})),$$ where the right-hand side means morphisms of (ungraded) bimodules.
For this we note that by Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] the left-hand side is graded free as a right $R^\vee$-module, of finite rank, and that there exists a canonical isomorphism $$\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{{\mathsf{FM}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{\mathbb{H}\mathsf{om}}_{\mathsf{LM}}({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}).$$ Now, recall the notation introduced in the proof of Lemma \[lem:dim-Hom-V’\]. Then we have a natural surjective algebra morphism $R^\vee \otimes_{\Bbbk}R^\vee \to {\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee ; {\Bbbk})$, canonical isomorphisms $${\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}^\vee) \cong {\mathbb{V}}({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}), \quad {\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}^\vee) \cong {\mathbb{V}}({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}),$$ and the functor ${\mathsf{H}}^\bullet({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, -)$ induces an isomorphism $$\begin{gathered}
\bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}[m]) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\\
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee ; {\Bbbk})} \bigl({\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}^\vee), {\mathsf{H}}^{-\bullet}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}^\vee) \bigr),\end{gathered}$$ by [@soergel-Langlands Proposition 2]. (See also [@by Proposition 3.1.5] and [@mr:etsps Remark 3.19] for alternative proofs, in more general contexts.) It is well known that the left-hand side is graded free as a right $R^\vee$-module, of finite rank, and that the natural morphism $$\left( \bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee / {\mathscr{B}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}[m]) \right) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}\to \bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee, {\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}[m])$$ is an isomorphism: see e.g. [@mr:etsps Lemma 2.2]. Combining this with the results used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:dim-Hom-V’\], we deduce that $\operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}\text{-}}R^\vee}({\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{v}}}), {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}))$ is free over $R^\vee$, of finite rank, and that the natural morphism $$\left( \operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}\text{-}}R^\vee}({\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{v}}}), {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}})) \right) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}\to \operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}}}({\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}), {\mathbb{V}}'({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}))$$ is an isomorphism.
Finally, the isomorphism follows from the fact that ${\mathbb{V}}'$ is fully faithful, as follows from Lemma \[lem:V’-faithful\] and Lemma \[lem:dim-Hom-V’\].
From diagrams to tilting perverse sheaves {#sec:Diag-Tilt}
=========================================
In this section we come back to the general assumption that ${\Bbbk}$ is a Noetherian integral domain of finite global dimension such that there exists a ring morphism ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\Bbbk}$.
Statement
---------
We now consider the realization ${\mathfrak{h}}^*_{\Bbbk}$ of $W$ over ${\Bbbk}$ which is dual to ${\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}$, i.e. given by the triple $(V^*, \{\alpha_s\}_{s \in S}, \{\alpha_s^\vee \}_{s \in S})$ where $V^* := \operatorname{Hom}_{\Bbbk}(V,{\Bbbk}) = {\Bbbk}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}{\mathbf{X}}$. This realization satisfies Demazure surjectivity, so that we can consider the corresponding Elias–Williamson diagrammatic category ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)$.
The goal of this section is to prove the following result.
\[thm:Diag-Tilt\] There exists a canonical ${\Bbbk}$-linear monoidal functor $$\Phi : {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W) \to {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})$$ sending $B_s$ to ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s$, and such that $\Phi \circ (1) = \langle 1 \rangle \circ \Phi$.
The construction of $\Phi$ is similar to the construction of the functor $\Psi$ appearing in (see [@rw §10.4–10.5]). Namely, we define $\Phi$ on objects by $\Phi(B_{{\underline{w}}}) = {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}$. To define $\Phi$ on morphisms, we need to specify the images of the generating morphisms, and check that these images satisfy the appropriate relations. These images will be described in a rather explicit way; then to check the relations we will reduce to the case ${\Bbbk}$ is a field of characteristic $0$ and $A$ is of finite type, in which case we can use the functor ${\mathbb{V}}$ of Section \[sec:functor-V\] to deduce this claim from the corresponding (known) fact for Soergel bimodules.
We need only consider the case when ${\Bbbk}= {\mathbb{Z}}'$: by the last statement of Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], we deduce from this case the definition of $\Phi$ for any ${\Bbbk}$, and the fact that the relations hold over ${\mathbb{Z}}'$ implies that they also hold over ${\Bbbk}$.
Construction of the functor Phi {#ss:rels-defn}
-------------------------------
In this subsection, we define the image of $\Phi$ on each generating morphism.
### Polynomials
Consider the morphism $B_\varnothing \to B_\varnothing(2m)$ given by a region labelled by $x \in (R^\vee)^0_{-2m}$. We define $$\Phi\left(
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.07,baseline=-2pt]
\node at (0,0) {$x$};
\draw[dotted] (-5,-5) rectangle (5,5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\right)
:= \mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing}(x) : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing \to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing{\langle}2m{\rangle}.$$
### Dot morphisms
Fix a simple reflection $s \in S$. We define $$\Phi\left(
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.07,baseline]
\draw (0,5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0,6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\right) := {\widehat}\eta_s: {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing{\langle}-1{\rangle}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s
\quad \text{and} \quad
\Phi\left(
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.07,baseline=-5pt]
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\right) := {\widehat}\epsilon_s: {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing{\langle}1{\rangle},$$ where ${\widehat}\eta_s$ and ${\widehat}\epsilon_s$ are the morphisms defined in [@amrw §5.3.4].
### Trivalent vertices
Fix a simple reflection $s \in S$. The definition of the image of the trivalent vertices will rely on the following lemma.
\[lem:ss-comp\] The following maps are isomorphisms: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\langle}1{\rangle}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) &{\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\langle}1{\rangle}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\langle}1{\rangle}) \\
f &\mapsto ( {\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) \circ f, \\
\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\langle}-1{\rangle}) &{\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\langle}-1{\rangle}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\langle}-1{\rangle}) \\
f &\mapsto f \circ ( {\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\eta}_s).
\end{aligned}$$
Before proving this lemma, we require some preparatory work in the right equivariant category $${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) = {K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ For simplicity, write ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}= {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}\circ {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}$, and set $${\mathcal{F}}_s := {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s).$$ Recall the right equivariant complex ${\mathcal{T}}'_s = {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\mathcal{T}}_s)$ from [@amrw Example 4.3.4]. We define morphisms $$\phi_s : {\mathcal{F}}_s \to {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\quad \text{and} \quad
\psi_s : {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\to {\mathcal{F}}_s$$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ as follows. From the definitions we see that ${\mathcal{F}}_s$ is given by the following complex in degrees $-2$ to $2$, where we omit direct sum signs, and we silently pass through the equivalence : $$\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=1.6cm]
\begin{smallmatrix} {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \end{smallmatrix}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\supperdot \\ \usebox\supperdot \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\}\end{smallmatrix}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\slowerdot & 0 \\ - \hspace{-1pt}\usebox\slineupperdot & \usebox\supperdotline \\ 0 & \usebox\slowerdot \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_{ss} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\supperdot & \usebox\slowerdotline & 0 \\ -2\hspace{-3pt}\usebox\supperdot & -\hspace{-1pt}\usebox\slinelowerdot & \usebox\supperdot \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\}\end{smallmatrix}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\slowerdot & \usebox\slowerdot \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix} {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\}. \end{smallmatrix}
\end{tikzcd}$$ We also depict ${\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}$ as the following complex in degrees $-2$ to $2$: $$\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=1.5cm]
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\supperdot \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ \usebox\slowerdot \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\supperdot & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\}
\ar[r, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\slowerdot \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\}.
\end{tikzcd}$$ Now, let $\phi_s$ and $\psi_s$ be the morphisms represented by the following chain maps: $$\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=1.5cm]
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\slinemor & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_{ss} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} -1 & -\usebox\scapmor & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\slinemor & \usebox\slinemor \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\}
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"] \\
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \ar[r]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\},
\end{tikzcd}$$ $$\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=1.5cm]
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \ar[r]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_{ss} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\} \\
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \ar[r]
\ar[u, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \ar[r]
\ar[u, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\slinemor \\ \usebox\slinemor \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\ar[u, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & -\usebox\scupmor \\ 1 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \ar[r]
\ar[u, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ \usebox\slinemor \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\}.
\ar[u, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\end{tikzcd}$$ Of course, one needs to check that these are indeed chain maps. In this calculation, for the component ${\mathcal{E}}_{ss} \leadsto {\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\}$, resp. ${\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \leadsto {\mathcal{E}}_{ss}$, one uses the equality $$-\usebox\capupperdot - \usebox\lowerdotline + \usebox\linelowerdot = 0, \quad \text{resp.~} -\usebox\lineupperdot + \usebox\upperdotline + \usebox\lowerdotcup = 0,$$ in ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')$.
Then we choose some lifts $${\widehat}{\phi}_s : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\quad \text{and} \quad
{\widehat}{\psi}_s : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s$$ of $\phi_s$ and $\psi_s$ to ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk})$. (The existence of such lifts is guaranteed by Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\]. One can check that $\phi_s$ and $\psi_s$ are mutually inverse isomorphisms, and deduce that ${\widehat}{\phi}_s$ and ${\widehat}{\psi}_s$ can be chosen to be mutually inverse isomorphisms; but we will not need these facts.)
We are now ready to prove Lemma \[lem:ss-comp\].
It follows from Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], Lemma \[lem:tilting-hom-formula\], and an easy Hecke algebra calculation that all four ${\mathbb{Z}}'$-modules in the statement of the lemma are free of rank 1. Hence to prove that our maps are isomorphisms it suffices to prove that they are surjective, and for this it suffices to prove that the compositions $$\begin{gathered}
{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\xrightarrow{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\eta}_s} {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \xrightarrow{{\widehat}{\phi}_s} {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\xrightarrow{{\widehat}{p}} {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}, \\
{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\xrightarrow{{\widehat}{\imath}} {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\xrightarrow{{\widehat}{\psi}_s} {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \xrightarrow{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\epsilon}_s} {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle},\end{gathered}$$ where ${\widehat}{\imath}$ (resp. ${\widehat}{p}$) is the inclusion (resp. projection), are the identity maps.
For this, note that by Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] and Lemma \[lem:tilting-hom-formula\], ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\operatorname{End}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{End}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\mathcal{T}}_s).$$ Hence one may check the claim after applying ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}$, i.e. show that the compositions $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\xrightarrow{{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\eta}_s)} {\mathcal{F}}_s \xrightarrow[\sim]{\phi_s} {\mathcal{T}}'_s {\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\mathcal{T}}'_s {\langle}-1{\rangle}\xrightarrow{p} {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}, \\
{\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\xrightarrow{i} {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\xrightarrow[\sim]{\psi_s} {\mathcal{F}}_s \xrightarrow{{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\epsilon}_s)} {\mathcal{T}}'_s {\langle}1{\rangle},\end{gathered}$$ where $i$ (resp. $p$) is the inclusion (resp. projection), are the identity maps. Depicting ${\mathcal{F}}_s$ and ${\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\oplus {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}$ as for the definition of $\phi_s$ and $\psi_s$, the morphisms $${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\eta}_s) : {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\to {\mathcal{F}}_s \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) : {\mathcal{F}}_s \to {\mathcal{T}}'_s{\langle}1{\rangle}$$ are represented by the following chain maps: $$\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=1.5cm]
\& \&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ \usebox\slinemor \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\}
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"] \\
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \ar[r]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_{ss} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\},
\end{tikzcd}$$ $$\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=1.5cm]
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} \usebox\slinemor & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing \\ {\mathcal{E}}_{ss} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\ar[d, "{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]}"]
\&
\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\} \\ {\mathcal{E}}_s\{1\}\end{smallmatrix} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{2\} \\
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-2\} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_s\{-1\} \ar[r]
\&
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing.
\&
\&
\end{tikzcd}$$ Then the desired claim follows from the explicit description of the chain maps representing $\phi_s$ and $\psi_s$.
By Lemma \[lem:ss-comp\], we may define $$\begin{gathered}
{\widehat}{b}_1 : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\quad \text{and} \quad
{\widehat}{b}_2 : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s \to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\end{gathered}$$ to be the unique morphisms satisfying $$\label{eqn:trivalent-defn}
({\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) \circ {\widehat}{b}_1 = {\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s}
\quad \text{and} \quad
{\widehat}{b}_2 \circ ( {\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widehat}{\eta}_s) = {\mathrm{id}}_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s}.$$ We now define $$\Phi\left(
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline=-2pt,scale=0.07]
\draw (-4,5) to (0,0) to (4,5);
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (-4,6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (4,6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\right) := {\widehat}{b}_1
\quad \text{and} \quad
\Phi\left(
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline=-2pt,scale=-0.07]
\draw (-4,5) to (0,0) to (4,5);
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (-4,6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (4,6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\right) := {\widehat}{b}_2.$$
### $2m_{st}$-valent vertices
Fix $s, t \in S$ such that $st \in W$ has finite order. Let $m_{st}$ be this order, and let ${{{\widehat}{s}}}= (s,t, \ldots)$ and ${{{\widehat}{t}}}= (t, s, \ldots)$, where both sequences have $m_{st}$ elements. Finally, let $w:=st \ldots = ts \ldots$ (with $m_{st}$ elements in both products).
Instead of using as a starting point the category ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')$, one can consider the same categories as those constructed in [@amrw] but starting with the ${\mathscr{B}}$-equivariant derived category of ${\mathbb{Z}}'$-sheaves on ${\mathscr{X}}\smallsetminus \partial {\mathscr{X}}_w$, where $\partial {\mathscr{X}}_w := \overline{{\mathscr{X}}_w} \smallsetminus {\mathscr{X}}_w$. In this way one obtains a “free-monodromic” category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_w({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')$ and a functor $$q^w : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}') \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_w({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')$$ induced by pullback along the open embedding ${\mathscr{X}}\smallsetminus \partial {\mathscr{X}}_w \hookrightarrow {\mathscr{X}}$. Note that every term except ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$) in the underlying sequence of parity complexes of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$ (resp. ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$) restricts to $0$ on ${\mathscr{X}}\smallsetminus \partial {\mathscr{X}}_w$, and that the differential of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$ (resp. ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$) has component ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\leadsto {\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$, resp. ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\leadsto {\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$, given by $\sum w(e_i) \otimes {\mathrm{id}}\otimes \check e_i$ in the notation of [@amrw]. (Here, $(e_1, \ldots, e_r)$ is a basis of $V^*$, and $(\check e_1, \ldots, \check e_r)$ is the dual basis of $V$.) Since the restrictions of both ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$ to ${\mathscr{X}}_w$ are canonically isomorphic to the constant sheaf, we deduce that the functor $q^w$ sends ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$ and ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$ to canonically isomorphic objects.
\[lem:2mst-isom-mod-lower-terms\] The functor $q^w$ induces isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}) &{\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_w({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}(q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}), q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}})), \\
\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}) &{\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_w({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}(q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}), q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}})).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, all of these spaces are free ${\mathbb{Z}}'$-modules of rank $1$.
By symmetry, we only need to consider the first map. Let us first show that both sides are free ${\mathbb{Z}}'$-modules of rank 1. For the left-hand side, this follows from Lemma \[lem:tilting-hom-formula\] and a standard computation in the Hecke algebra. For the right-hand side, this follows from the description of $q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}) \cong q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}})$ above and the definition of morphisms in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_w({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')$ (see [@amrw §5.3.1] for a similar computation). To show that the first map is an isomorphism, it therefore suffices to show that it is nonzero after extension of scalars from ${\mathbb{Z}}'$ to any field ${\Bbbk}$. The map so obtained may be identified with the map $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_w({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})}(q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}), q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}))$$ defined in the same way, using coefficients ${\Bbbk}$ instead of ${\mathbb{Z}}'$.
For field coefficients, by [@amrw Theorem 10.7.1] there are direct sum decompositions $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\cong {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_w \oplus \text{(lower terms)} \quad \text{and} \quad {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\cong {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_w \oplus \text{(lower terms)},
\end{aligned}$$ where the lower terms restrict to $0$ on ${\mathscr{X}}\smallsetminus \partial {\mathscr{X}}_w$. Fixing these decompositions, the composition ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\twoheadrightarrow {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_w \hookrightarrow {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$ (projection to ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_w$ followed by inclusion) defines a morphism ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$ that remains nonzero (in fact, an isomorphism) on ${\mathscr{X}}\smallsetminus \partial {\mathscr{X}}_w$.
We now define $${\widehat}{g}_{s,t} : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\quad \text{and} \quad
{\widehat}{g}_{t,s} : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$$ to be the unique morphisms that are sent to the canonical isomorphism $q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}) \cong q^w({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}})$ considered above under the isomorphisms of Lemma \[lem:2mst-isom-mod-lower-terms\].
To define the morphisms ${\widehat}{f}_{s,t}$, ${\widehat}{f}_{t,s}$ that will be the image of the $2m_{st}$-valent vertices, we need another lemma. For any expression ${{\underline{w}}}= (s_1, \ldots, s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})})$, define $${\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{\underline{w}}}:= {\widehat}{\epsilon}_{s_1} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\cdots {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{}{\widehat}{\epsilon}_{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}} : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing{\langle}\ell({{\underline{w}}}) {\rangle},$$ where the maps ${\widehat}{\epsilon}_{s_i}$ are defined in [@amrw §5.3.4].
\[lem:epsilon-gen\] For $u \in \{s, t\}$, we have $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\mathbb{Z}}')}({\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widehat}{u}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_\varnothing{\langle}m_{st}{\rangle}) = {\mathbb{Z}}' \cdot {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{u}}}).$$
The space in question is free of rank 1 over ${\mathbb{Z}}'$ by Lemma \[lem:tilting-hom-formula\] and a straightforward calculation in the Hecke algebra, so it is enough to show that ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{u}}})$ remains nonzero after extension of scalars to any field. This may be checked after applying ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}$, i.e. in the right equivariant category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$. We see from the definitions that the morphism ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{u}}})$ may be represented by the following chain map, where $v$ is the simple reflection different from $u$: $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=huge]
\vdots & \\
{\mathcal{E}}_u\{1 - m_{st}\} \oplus {\mathcal{E}}_v\{1 - m_{st}\} \oplus \cdots \ar[u] \ar[rd, dashed] \\
{\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-m_{st}\} \ar[u] \ar[r, "(-1)^{m_{st}} \cdot{\mathrm{id}}"] & {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-m_{st}\}
\end{tikzcd}$$ Here, the left-hand column depicts the complex ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{u}}})$ in chain degrees $-m_{st}, 1-m_{st}, \ldots$ (the lowest chain degrees where it is nonzero); the right-hand column depicts ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing{\langle}m_{st}{\rangle})$, which is ${\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-m_{st}\}$ concentrated in chain degree $-m_{st}$; and the chain map has a single nonzero component $$({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{u}}})^{-m_{st}} = {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-m_{st}\} \xrightarrow{(-1)^{m_{st}} \cdot{\mathrm{id}}} {\mathcal{E}}_\varnothing\{-m_{st}\} = ({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing{\langle}m_{st}{\rangle})^{-m_{st}}.$$ There is no nonzero homotopy (dashed arrow) for degree reasons, so ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{u}}})$ is nonzero.
By Lemma \[lem:epsilon-gen\], we have $$\label{eqn:epsilon-g-const}
{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\circ {\widehat}{g}_{s,t}) = c_{s,t}{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{s}}})
\quad \text{and} \quad
{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\circ {\widehat}{g}_{t,s}) = c_{t,s}{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{t}}})$$ for some $c_{s,t}, c_{t,s} \in {\mathbb{Z}}'$. We now set $$\label{eqn:2mst-defn}
\begin{gathered}
{\widehat}{f}_{s,t} := c_{t,s}{\widehat}{g}_{s,t} : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\quad \text{and} \quad
{\widehat}{f}_{t,s} := c_{s,t}{\widehat}{g}_{t,s} : {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}},
\end{gathered}$$ and define these to be the image of the $2m_{st}$-valent vertices under $\Phi$: $$\Phi\left(
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=0.5,xscale=0.3,baseline,thick]
\draw (-2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-1.5,1);
\draw (-0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (0.5,1);
\draw (1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (2.5,1);
\draw[red] (-1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-2.5,1);
\draw[red] (0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-0.5,1);
\draw[red] (2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (1.5,1);
\node at (-2.5,-1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-1.5,1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-0.5,-1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$};
\node at (-1.5,-1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-2.5,1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-0.5,1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$\vphantom{$t$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\right) := {\widehat}{f}_{s,t}
\quad \text{and} \quad
\Phi\left(
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=0.5,xscale=0.3,baseline,thick]
\draw[red] (-2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-1.5,1);
\draw[red] (-0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (0.5,1);
\draw[red] (1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (2.5,1);
\draw (-1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-2.5,1);
\draw (0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-0.5,1);
\draw (2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (1.5,1);
\node at (-2.5,-1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-1.5,1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-0.5,-1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-1.5,-1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-2.5,1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-0.5,1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$\vphantom{$t$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\right) := {\widehat}{f}_{t,s}.$$
Verification of the relations {#ss:rels-verif}
-----------------------------
In this subsection, we verify that the morphisms defined in §\[ss:rels-defn\] satisfy the relations from [@ew §§1.4.1–1.4.3].
Each relation only involves a subset $S'$ of $S$ (of cardinality at most 3) that generates a finite subgroup $W'$ of $W$. Fix a relation and the corresponding subset $S'$. Consider the realization $${\mathfrak{h}}^*_{S', {\mathbb{Z}}'} = (V^*, \{ \alpha_s \}_{s \in S'}, \{ \alpha_s^\vee \}_{s \in S'})$$ of $(W', S')$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}'$, and let ${\mathscr{L}}_{S'}$ be the Levi subgroup of ${\mathscr{G}}$ associated with $S'$ (a connected reductive group with Weyl group $W'$). Set also ${\mathscr{U}}_{S'}:={\mathscr{U}}\cap {\mathscr{L}}_{S'}$; then we can consider the category ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathscr{U}}_{S'} {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{L}}_{S'} {\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}_{S'},{\mathbb{Z}}')$. There are obvious fully faithful monoidal functors $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}^*_{S', {\mathbb{Z}}'}, W') \to {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}^*_{{\mathbb{Z}}'}, W) \quad \text{and} \\
{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathscr{U}}_{S'} {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{L}}_{S'} {\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}_{S'},{\mathbb{Z}}') \to {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}'),\end{gathered}$$ and the definitions of all our morphisms are identical whether considered in the category $ {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathscr{U}}_{S'} {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{L}}_{S'} {\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}_{S'},{\mathbb{Z}}')$ or ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')$ (in particular, the constants $c_{s,t}$ are unchanged by this replacement), so that it suffices to verify the relation for the group ${\mathscr{L}}_{S'}$. We may therefore assume from the start that $A$ is a finite type Cartan matrix. Moreover, by the last statement of Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], we may check the relation after extension of scalars along the map ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\mathbb{Q}}$.
As a further reduction, we may check the relation after passing to the Karoubian envelope of the additive closure. From now on, we work in ${\mathrm{Tilt}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Q}})$, where the results of §\[ss:Pmon\] are available: fix an object ${\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}$ and a nonzero morphism $\xi : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1$, and use these to define a functor ${\mathbb{V}}$ and the various other structures from Section \[sec:functor-V\]. We may then check the relation in the category of graded $R^\vee$-bimodules, after applying the fully faithful functor ${\mathbb{V}}$.
To do this, we compute the image of the generating morphisms under ${\mathbb{V}}$. For $s \in S$, define $B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s := R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^s} R^\vee {\langle}1{\rangle}$. For any expression ${{\underline{w}}}= (s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})})$ in $S$, define $$B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{\underline{w}}}:= B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{s_1} \otimes_{R^\vee} \cdots \otimes_{R^\vee} B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}} = R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^{s_1}} \cdots \otimes_{(R^\vee)^{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}}} R^\vee {\langle}\ell({{\underline{w}}}){\rangle}.$$ We identify $B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{\underline{w}}}$ with ${\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}})$ via an isomorphism $$\gamma_{{\underline{w}}}: B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{\underline{w}}}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}})$$ defined as follows. For ${{\underline{w}}}= \varnothing$, we set $\gamma_\varnothing = \gamma$, the isomorphism from the proof of Proposition \[prop:V-monoidal\]. Otherwise, define $\gamma_{{\underline{w}}}$ to be the composition $$\begin{gathered}
B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{s_1} \otimes_{R^\vee} \cdots \otimes_{R^\vee} B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}}
\xrightarrow[\sim]{\gamma_{s_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \gamma_{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}}}
{\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{s_1}) \otimes_{R^\vee} \cdots \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}}) \\
\xrightarrow[\sim]{\beta} {\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{s_1} {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}\cdots {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}}),\end{gathered}$$ where for $s \in S$, $\gamma_s$ is the isomorphism of Lemma \[lem:V-Ts\], and $\beta$ is defined as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:V-monoidal\]. Let $$\zeta_{{\underline{w}}}= \gamma_{{\underline{w}}}(1 \otimes \cdots \otimes 1) : {\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}\to {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}{\langle}\ell({{\underline{w}}}) {\rangle}.$$ Note that $\zeta_\varnothing = \xi$ and $\zeta_{(s)} = \zeta_s$ (with the notation of Lemma \[lem:V-Ts\]). It also follows from Lemma \[lem:V-Ts\] and the coalgebra axioms (see Proposition \[prop:Pmon-coalgebra\]) that $$\label{eqn:epsilon-zeta-xi}
{\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{\underline{w}}}{\langle}-{\ell({{\underline{w}}})} {\rangle}\circ \zeta_{{\underline{w}}}= \xi.$$
Note that the grading on our bimodules is opposite to the “traditional” one from [@soergel-bim]; for instance, our $B_s^{{\mathrm{bim}}}$ is concentrated in degrees in $1 + {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}$.
We now compute the image of our morphisms under ${\mathbb{V}}$, under the identifications $\gamma_{{\underline{w}}}$.
1. *Polynomials:* For $x \in R^\vee$, we have $${\mathbb{V}}(\mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing}(x)) = \mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing}(x) \circ ({-}) \overset{\eqref{eqn:mu-morph}}{=} ({-}) \circ \mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}}}(x).$$ This by definition is the left action of $x$ on ${\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing)$. Under the identification $\gamma : R^\vee {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathbb{V}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing)$, this becomes multiplication by $x$ on $R^\vee$.
2. *The upper dot:* The space of graded $R^\vee$-bimodule homomorphisms $B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s \to R^\vee{\langle}1{\rangle}$ is of dimension 1, with generator $${{\mathsf{m}}}_s: B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s \to R^\vee{\langle}1{\rangle}\qquad\text{given by}\qquad
{{\mathsf{m}}}_s(f \otimes g) = fg.$$ Under the identifications above, the equation $({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s \langle -1 \rangle) \circ \zeta_s = \xi$ becomes ${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s)(1 \otimes 1) = 1$. Hence ${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) = {{\mathsf{m}}}_s$.
3. *The lower dot:* The space of graded $R^\vee$-bimodule homomorphisms $R^\vee \to B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle}$ is of dimension 1, with generator $$\delta_s: R^\vee \to B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s{\langle}1{\rangle}\qquad\text{given by}\qquad
\delta_s(1) = \textstyle\frac12(\alpha_s^\vee \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes \alpha_s^\vee).$$ The map $\delta_s$ is characterized uniquely by the fact that ${{\mathsf{m}}}_s \circ \delta_s = \alpha_s^\vee \cdot {\mathrm{id}}_{R^\vee}$. We computed in [@amrw Proposition 5.3.2(1)] that ${\widehat}{\epsilon}_s \circ {\widehat}{\eta}_s = \mu_{{\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_\varnothing}(\alpha_s^\vee)$. Applying ${\mathbb{V}}$ and using the computations above, we get ${{\mathsf{m}}}_s \circ {\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\eta}_s) = \alpha_s^\vee \cdot {\mathrm{id}}_{R^\vee}$. Hence ${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\eta}_s) = \delta_s$.
4. *The trivalent vertices:* The space of graded $R^\vee$-bimodule homomorphisms $$B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s \to B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s \otimes_{R^\vee} B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}, \quad \text{resp.}\quad B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s \otimes B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s \to B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle},$$ is of dimension 1, with generator $$t_1 : f \otimes g \mapsto f \otimes 1 \otimes g, \quad \text{resp.} \quad t_2 : f \otimes g \otimes h \mapsto f(\partial_s g) \otimes h,$$ where we have identified $B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s \otimes_{R^\vee} B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s = R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^s} R^\vee \otimes_{(R^\vee)^s} R^\vee{\langle}2{\rangle}$. This generator is characterized uniquely by the identity $$({{\mathsf{m}}}_s{\langle}-1{\rangle}\otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathrm{id}}_{B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s}) \circ t_1 = {\mathrm{id}}_{B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s} \quad \text{resp.}\quad t_2{\langle}1{\rangle}\circ (\delta_s \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathrm{id}}_{B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s}) = {\mathrm{id}}_{B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_s}.$$ Hence $${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{b}_1) = t_1 \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{b}_2) = t_2,$$ as follows by applying ${\mathbb{V}}$ to the defining identities of ${\widehat}{b}_1, {\widehat}{b}_2$ and using the fact that ${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_s) = {{\mathsf{m}}}_s$, ${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\eta}_s) = \delta_s$.
Before computing the image of the $2m_{st}$-valent vertices, some preparatory work is required. For any expression ${{\underline{w}}}= (s_1, \ldots, s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})})$, define $${{\mathsf{m}}}_{{\underline{w}}}:= {{\mathsf{m}}}_{s_1} \otimes_{R^\vee} \cdots \otimes_{R^\vee} {}{{\mathsf{m}}}_{s_{\ell({{\underline{w}}})}} : B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{\underline{w}}}\to R^\vee{\langle}\ell({{\underline{w}}}) {\rangle}.$$ Next, recall from [@libedinsky Proposition 4.3] that $\operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee}(B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}, B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}})$ has dimension $1$. An analogue of [@libedinsky Lemma 4.7] shows that there is a unique morphism $$\label{eqn:bimod-lib}
j_{s,t}: B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\to B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$$ that acts as the identity map in degree $m_{st}$. Since $m_{st}$ is the largest degree in which the bimodules $B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}$ and $B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}$ have nonzero components, this condition can be rephrased as follows: $j_{s,t}$ is the unique morphism such that there is an equality of maps $$\label{eqn:bimod-lib-cond}
({{\mathsf{m}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\circ j_{s,t}) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathrm{id}}_{\Bbbk}= {{\mathsf{m}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathrm{id}}_{\Bbbk}:
B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}\to R^\vee{\langle}m_{st}{\rangle}\otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}= {\Bbbk}{\langle}m_{st}{\rangle}.$$
\[lem:cst-cts\] The constants $c_{s,t}$, $c_{t,s} \in {\mathbb{Z}}'$ defined by satisfy $$\label{eqn:cst-cts}
c_{s,t}c_{t,s} = 1.$$
It follows from the definition of ${\widehat}{g}_{s,t}$, ${\widehat}{g}_{t,s}$ that $${\widehat}{g}_{s,t} \circ {\widehat}{g}_{t,s} \circ {\widehat}{g}_{s,t} = {\widehat}{g}_{s,t}.$$ Applying ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\circ -)$ to both sides and using repeatedly, we deduce that $c_{s,t} c_{t,s} c_{s,t} = c_{s,t}$, or in other words that $c_{s,t}(c_{t,s}c_{s,t} - 1) = 0$.
To conclude, it is therefore enough to show that $c_{s,t} \neq 0$. Since ${\widehat}{g}_{s,t}$ is a generator for the space $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}})$, this would follow if the map $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}, {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}) &\to \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_\varnothing{\langle}m_{st}{\rangle}) \\
f &\mapsto {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\circ f)
\end{aligned}$$ were known to be nonzero.
For this, we use the functors ${\mathbb{V}}, {\mathbb{V}}'$ constructed in Section \[sec:functor-V\]. Under these identifications, our map becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{-}}R^\vee}(B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}, B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}) &\to \operatorname{Hom}_{R^\vee {\text{-}{\mathrm{Mod}}^{\mathbb{Z}}}}(B^{{\mathrm{bim}}}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}\otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}, (R^\vee{\langle}m_{st}{\rangle}) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}) \\
f &\mapsto ({{\mathsf{m}}}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\circ f) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\mathrm{id}}_{\Bbbk},
\end{aligned}$$ This map is clearly nonzero, since it sends $j_{s,t}$ (from ) to a nonzero element.
Now we compute the image of the $2m_{st}$-valent vertices.
5. *$2m_{st}$-valent vertices:* By , , and Lemma \[lem:cst-cts\], we have ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}\circ {\widehat}{f}_{s,t}) = {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widehat}{\epsilon_{{{\widehat}{s}}}})$. Now apply the functor ${\mathbb{V}}'$, and use the commutative square to deduce that $$({\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{t}}}) \circ {\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{f}_{s,t})) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}=
{\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{{\widehat}{s}}}) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}.$$ Since ${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{\epsilon}_{{\underline{w}}}) = {{\mathsf{m}}}_{{\underline{w}}}$, we conclude from that ${\mathbb{V}}({\widehat}{f}_{s,t}) = j_{s,t}$.
We have thus reduced the verification of the (fixed) relation to the same verification for the appropriate morphisms of graded $R^\vee$-bimodules found above. The argument in the final paragraph of [@rw §10.5] reduces this to the same verification for a standard Cartan realization of $(W', S')$. In this case, all the relations are known to hold, as explained in [@ew Claim 5.14]. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:Diag-Tilt\].
Koszul duality {#sec:Koszul-duality}
==============
As in Section \[sec:Diag-Tilt\] we assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a Noetherian integral domain of finite global dimension such that there exists a ring morphism ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\Bbbk}$.
Statement and construction of the functors {#ss:Phi-equiv}
------------------------------------------
We begin by fixing notation related to the Langlands dual Kac–Moody group to ${\mathscr{G}}$. Namely, consider the generalized Cartan matrix ${}^t \!A$, and let ${\mathbf{X}}^* = \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}({\mathbf{X}},{\mathbb{Z}})$. The Kac–Moody root datum $(I, {\mathbf{X}}^*, \{\alpha_i^\vee : i \in I\}, \{\alpha_i : i \in I\})$ determines a Kac–Moody group ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$ as in §\[ss:KM-groups\], with maximal torus ${\mathscr{T}}^\vee$, Borel subgroup ${\mathscr{B}}^\vee$ and pro-unipotent radical ${\mathscr{U}}^\vee$.
Compared to the set-up of §§\[ss:KM-groups\]–\[ss:constructible-Dmix\], it will be convenient for us to swap the roles of constructions on the left and right when working with ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$. For instance, we define its flag variety by ${\mathscr{X}}^\vee := {\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash{\mathscr{G}}^\vee$. We will work with the monoidal category ${\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ of equivariant Bott–Samelson parity complexes on ${\mathscr{X}}^\vee$ (and its variants). But we also work with the *left-equivariant derived category*, denoted by ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk})$. To emphasize the parallel with §\[ss:constructible-Dmix\], we denote the forgetful functor by $${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{{\mathsf{RE}^\vee}}}}:= {\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk})$$ rather than by $\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{BE}}}_{\mathsf{LE}}$. This functor is compatible with the monoidal action of the former on the latter: $${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{{\mathsf{RE}^\vee}}}}({\mathcal{F}}\star {\mathcal{G}}) \cong {\mathcal{F}}\star {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{{\mathsf{RE}^\vee}}}}({\mathcal{G}}).$$ Objects in these categories will typically be denoted with a superscript “$^\vee$”: for instance, ${\mathcal{E}}^\vee_{{\underline{w}}}$ or $\Delta^\vee_w$.
Our goal in this section is to prove the following theorem.
\[thm:monoidal-Koszul\] There is an equivalence of monoidal categories $${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}: ({\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}), \star) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}({\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk}), {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}})$$ satisfying ${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}\circ \{1\} \cong {\langle}1{\rangle}\circ {{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}$, and such that ${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}({\mathcal{E}}^\vee_{{\underline{w}}}) \cong {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_{{\underline{w}}}$.
In the course of the proof, we will simultaneously establish the following result.
\[thm:self-Koszul\] There is an equivalence of triangulated categories $${\varkappa}: {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$$ satisfying ${\varkappa}\circ \{1\} \cong {\langle}1 {\rangle}\circ {\varkappa}$, and such that ${\varkappa}({\mathcal{E}}^\vee_{{\underline{w}}}) \cong {\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}$. This functor is monoidal, in the sense that for ${\mathcal{F}}\in {\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee},{\Bbbk})$ and ${\mathcal{G}}\in {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk})$, there is a natural isomorphism ${\varkappa}({\mathcal{F}}\star {\mathcal{G}}) \cong {{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}({\mathcal{F}}) {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\varkappa}({\mathcal{G}})$.
Note that when ${\mathcal{G}}$ is the skyscraper sheaf ${\mathcal{E}}^\vee_1$, the monoidal property of ${\varkappa}$ implies that ${\varkappa}({\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{{\mathsf{RE}^\vee}}}}({\mathcal{F}})) \cong {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{{\mathsf{RE}^\vee}}}}({{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}({\mathcal{F}}))$.
The proofs of Theorems \[thm:monoidal-Koszul\] and \[thm:self-Koszul\] will be completed in §\[ss:proof-Phi-equiv\]. For now, let us explain how to define the functors ${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}$ and ${\varkappa}$. As in , by [@rw Theorem 10.6], there exists a natural equivalence of monoidal categories $$\label{eqn:equiv-Diag-Parity}
\Psi^\vee: {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ intertwining the shifts $(1)$ and $\{1\}$, and sending $B^\vee_{{\underline{w}}}$ to ${\mathcal{E}}^\vee_{{\underline{w}}}$. We define $${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}:= \Phi \circ (\Psi^\vee)^{-1}: {\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}},{\Bbbk}).$$
Next, let ${\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)$ be the additive category with shift $(1)$ whose objects are the same as those of ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)$, and whose morphism spaces are defined by $$\bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)}(M,N(n)) := \left( \bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)}(M,N(n)) \right) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}.$$ (This notation should not be confused with the notation ${\overline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}$ used in [@amrw], where the *left* action of polynomials is killed.) Then induces an equivalence of additive categories $$\label{eqn:equiv-Diag-Parity-const}
\underline{\Psi}^\vee: {\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}),$$
Similarly, by Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\] the composition ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}\circ \Phi$ factors through a functor $$\underline{\Phi} : {\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W) \to {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}),$$ so that we can consider the functor $${{{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}'}:= \underline{\Phi} \circ (\underline{\Psi}^\vee)^{-1}: {\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ Finally, we define ${\varkappa}$ to be the composition $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:def-uPsi}
{\varkappa}: {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) = {K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \\
\xrightarrow{{K^{\mathrm{b}}}({{{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}'})} {K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \xrightarrow[\sim]{\text{Lemma~\ref{lem:tilt-realization}}} {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}).\end{gathered}$$
Images of standard and costandard objects {#ss:Psi-Delta-nabla}
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection we assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a field. Let $s \in S$, and consider the functor $${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}(-) : {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ Conjugating the functor ${K^{\mathrm{b}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}(-))$ by the equivalence of Lemma \[lem:tilt-realization\] we obtain a triangulated functor $$C'_s : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ Of course the same construction can be done for the functor ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1 {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}(-)$ (which is isomorphic to the identity functor). These constructions are functorial in the sense that any morphism from ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s$ to any shift of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_1$ induces a morphism of functor from $C'_s$ to the corresponding shift of the identity functor. In particular, using the morphism ${\widehat}{\epsilon}_s$ defined in [@amrw §5.3.4] we obtain a morphism of functors ${\widetilde}{\epsilon}_s : C_s' \to {\mathrm{id}}\langle 1 \rangle$.
As in Section \[sec:functor-V\], for $v \in W$ we denote by ${\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v \in {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$, resp. ${\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_v \in {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ the standard, resp. costandard, perverse sheaf associated to $v$.
\[lem:epsilon-delta\] For any $v \in W$, the morphism ${\widetilde}{\epsilon}_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v) : C_s'({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v) \to {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v \langle 1 \rangle$ is nonzero.
By [@modrap2 Lemma 4.9], there exists an embedding $f_v : {\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle -\ell(v) \rangle \hookrightarrow {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v$. We deduce a commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large]
C_s'({\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle -\ell(v) \rangle) \ar[d, "C'_s(f_v)" swap] \ar[rr, "{\widetilde}{\epsilon}_s({\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle -\ell(v) \rangle)"] && {\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle -\ell(v) +1 \rangle \ar[d, "f_v"] \\
C_s'({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v) \ar[rr] && {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v \langle 1 \rangle,
\end{tikzcd}$$ where the lower arrow is ${\widetilde}{\epsilon}_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v)$. By construction we have $C_s'({\mathcal{T}}_1) = {\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s {\mathbin{\widehat{\star}}}{\mathcal{T}}_1 \cong {\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{FM}}}_{{\mathsf{LM}}}}({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}}_s) = {\mathcal{T}}_s$, and it is easy to see that ${\widetilde}{\epsilon}_s({\mathcal{T}}_1)$ identifies with the surjective morphism ${\mathcal{T}}_s \to {\mathcal{T}}_1 \langle 1 \rangle$. From this we deduce that the composition of the upper horizontal arrow with the right vertical arrow is nonzero, proving that ${\widetilde}{\epsilon}_s({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_v)$ is also nonzero.
Now, recall the functor $C_s$ of §\[ss:perv\].
\[lem:Cs’\] There exists an isomorphism of functors $C_s {\overset{\sim}{\to}}C_s'$.
Since $C_s$ and $C_s'$ have isomorphic restrictions to ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, this follows from Proposition \[prop:realization-functor\].
For any $w \in W$ we can consider the standard and costandard (mixed) perverse sheaves $\Delta_w^\vee$, $\nabla_w^\vee$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ (constructed in [@modrap2]), and also the objects ${\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w$, ${\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_w$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ considered above.
\[prop:Psi-standards\] For any $w \in W$ we have $${\varkappa}(\Delta_w^\vee) \cong {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w, \quad {\varkappa}( \nabla_w^\vee) \cong {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_w.$$
We only prove the first isomorphism; the proof of the second one is similar. We proceed by induction on $w$, the case $w=1$ being clear by construction.
Let $w \in W$, and choose $s \in S$ such that $sw < w$. By the explicit description of $\Delta^\vee_s$ (see in particular [@amrw §10.4]), there exists a distinguished triangle $$\Delta^\vee_s \to {\mathcal{E}}^\vee_s \to \Delta^\vee_1 \{1\} \xrightarrow{[1]},$$ where the second morphism is the image of the “upper dot” morphism under . Convolving with $\Delta^\vee_{sw}$ on the right and using [@modrap2 Proposition 4.4] we deduce a distinguished triangle $$\label{eqn:triangle-delta-E}
\Delta_w^\vee \to {\mathcal{E}}^\vee_s {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}\Delta^\vee_{sw} \to \Delta^\vee_{sw} \{1\} \xrightarrow{[1]},$$ where the second morphism is the convolution of ${\mathrm{id}}_{\Delta_{sw}^\vee}$ with the image of the upper dot morphism. Since ${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}$ is a monoidal functor, and by construction of the functor ${\mathcal{E}}_s^\vee {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}(-) : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$, there exists a canonical isomorphism $${\varkappa}\circ ({\mathcal{E}}_s^\vee {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}(-)) \cong C_s' \circ {\varkappa}.$$ Using Lemma \[lem:Cs’\], taking the image of we obtain a distinguished triangle $${\varkappa}(\Delta_w^\vee) \to C_s \circ {\varkappa}(\Delta_{sw}^\vee) \to {\varkappa}(\Delta_{sw}^\vee) \langle 1 \rangle \xrightarrow{[1]},$$ where the second morphism is induced by the composition $C_s {\overset{\sim}{\to}}C_s' \xrightarrow{{\widetilde}{\epsilon}_s} {\mathrm{id}}\langle 1 \rangle$. Using induction, we can rewrite this triangle in the following form: $$\label{eqn:triangle-Cs-delta-proof}
{\varkappa}(\Delta_w^\vee) \to C_s ({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw}) \to {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw} \langle 1 \rangle \xrightarrow{[1]}.$$
It follows from Lemma \[lem:epsilon-delta\] that the morphism $C_s ({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw}) \to {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw} \langle 1 \rangle$ appearing in is nonzero. Since by adjunction we have $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w, {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw} \langle 1 \rangle) = \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w [1], {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw} \langle 1 \rangle) = 0,$$ the first distinguished triangle in [@amrw Lemma 10.5.3(1)] shows that the ${\Bbbk}$-vector space $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}})}(C_s ({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw}), {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_{sw} \langle 1 \rangle)$ is $1$-dimensional. Hence the second morphism in coincides (up to scalar) with the similar morphism in the first distinguished triangle in [@amrw Lemma 10.5.3(1)]. Comparing these triangles we deduce an isomorphism ${\varkappa}(\Delta_w^\vee) \cong {\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w$, as desired.
Proof of Theorems \[thm:monoidal-Koszul\] and \[thm:self-Koszul\] {#ss:proof-Phi-equiv}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We need only show that ${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}$ and ${\varkappa}$ are equivalences of categories, as all the other assertions in these theorems are immediate from the definitions of these functors.
It is enough to show that ${\varkappa}$ is fully faithful, as it is easy to see that full faithfulness implies that it is also essentially surjective.
Let us first treat the case where ${\Bbbk}$ is a field. Observe that $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^\vee_w, \nabla_v^\vee \langle m \rangle [n]) \cong \begin{cases}
{\Bbbk}& \text{if $v=w$ and $n=m=0$} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ and $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}({\Delta\llap{$\scriptstyle\Delta$}}_w, {\raisebox{2pt}{\rlap{$\scriptstyle\nabla$}}\nabla}_v \langle m \rangle [n]) \cong \begin{cases}
{\Bbbk}& \text{if $v=w$ and $n=m=0$} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ In view of this, combining Proposition \[prop:Psi-standards\] with a classical result sometimes called “Be[ĭ]{}linson’s lemma” (see e.g. [@abg Lemma 3.9.3]), to conclude it suffices to prove that the image under ${\varkappa}$ of any nonzero morphism $f : \Delta^\vee_w \to \nabla_w^\vee$ is nonzero. However the cone of $f$ is supported on $\overline{{\mathscr{X}}^\vee_w} \smallsetminus {\mathscr{X}}^\vee_w$, and then Proposition \[prop:Psi-standards\] implies that the cone of ${\varkappa}(f)$ is supported on $\overline{{\mathscr{X}}_w} \smallsetminus {\mathscr{X}}_w$. Therefore, ${\varkappa}(f) \neq 0$.
We next consider the case ${\Bbbk}={\mathbb{Z}}'$. Let ${{\underline{v}}}$ and ${{\underline{w}}}$ be expressions, let $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, and consider the morphism $$\label{eqn:phi-ff-check3}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\mathbb{Z}}')}({\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{E}}_{{\underline{w}}}\{m\}) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\mathbb{Z}}')}({\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{T}}_{{\underline{w}}}\langle m \rangle)$$ induced by ${\varkappa}$. Both sides are free ${\mathbb{Z}}'$-modules of finite rank, by [@mr:etsps Lemma 2.2] and Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], respectively. To prove that is an isomorphism, it is enough to show that it becomes an isomorphism after extension of scalars to any field ${\Bbbk}$ admitting a ring homomorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\Bbbk}$. That is, we must show that the left-hand vertical map in the commutative diagram below is an isomorphism. $$\label{eqn:phi-ff-diag}
\begin{tikzcd}
{\Bbbk}\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}'} \operatorname{Hom}({\mathcal{E}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}'}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{E}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}'}_{{\underline{w}}}(m))
\ar[r] \ar[d, "{\Bbbk}\otimes {\varkappa}^{{\mathbb{Z}}'}"'] &
\operatorname{Hom}({\mathcal{E}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{E}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}}(m))
\ar[d, "{\varkappa}^{\Bbbk}"] \\
{\Bbbk}\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}'} \operatorname{Hom}({\mathcal{T}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}'}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{T}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}'}_{{\underline{w}}}\langle m \rangle)
\ar[r] &
\operatorname{Hom}({\mathcal{T}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{v}}}, {\mathcal{T}}^{\Bbbk}_{{\underline{w}}}\langle m \rangle)
\end{tikzcd}$$ Here, the horizontal maps are isomorphisms, by [@mr:etsps Lemma 2.2] and by Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], respectively. The right-hand vertical map is an isomorphism by the case of field coefficients considered above. This completes the proof for ${\mathbb{Z}}'$.
Finally, the case of general ${\Bbbk}$ can be deduced from the case of ${\mathbb{Z}}'$ using another diagram like .
From the definition of ${{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}$, we see that to show that it is an equivalence, we must show that $\Phi$ is an equivalence. This latter functor is essentially surjective by construction, so it remains to show that it is fully faithful.
Let $M,N \in {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)$, and consider the map $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:phi-ff-check}
\bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)}(M,N(m)) \\ \to \bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}}, {\Bbbk})}(\Phi(M), \Phi(N) \langle m \rangle).\end{gathered}$$ As right $R^\vee$-modules, both sides are free of finite rank, by [@ew Corollary 6.13] and Proposition \[prop:morph-Tilt-UGU\], respectively. By the graded Nakayama lemma, to prove that is an isomorphism, it is enough show that the induced map $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:phi-ff-check2}
\left( \bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)}(M,N(m)) \right) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}\\
\to \left( \bigoplus_{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}{\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathscr{U}}})}(\Phi(M), \Phi(N) \langle m \rangle) \right) \otimes_{R^\vee} {\Bbbk}\end{gathered}$$ is an isomorphism. This new map is the one that arises when we apply $\underline{\Phi}$ to $M$ and $N$, regarded as objects of ${\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}({\mathfrak{h}}_{\Bbbk}^*,W)$. Now, Theorem \[thm:self-Koszul\] tells us that ${\varkappa}$ is an equivalence. It follows that ${{{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}'}$ is also an equivalence, as is $\underline{\Phi} \cong {{{\widetilde}{\varkappa}}'}\circ \underline{\Psi}^\vee$. We conclude that and are isomorphisms.
Another formulation of Koszul duality {#ss:Koszul-duality}
-------------------------------------
In this subsection we assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a field or a complete local ring. We will study a variant of Theorem \[thm:self-Koszul\] involving ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$ and ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk})$. Both of these categories admit perverse t-structures as in [@modrap2]. As usual, we denote the standard and costandard objects by $\Delta_w$, $\nabla_w$, $\Delta_w^\vee$, $\nabla_w^\vee$, and the indecomposable parity complexes by ${\mathcal{E}}_w$, ${\mathcal{E}}^\vee_w$. To distinguish the indecomposable tilting perverse sheaves from the corresponding objects in ${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})$, we denote them instead by the new symbols $\mathcal{S}_w$ and $\mathcal{S}_w^\vee$.
The following theorem generalizes [@modrap2 Theorem 5.4] to the Kac–Moody case.
\[thm:Koszul-duality-objects\] Assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a field or a complete local ring. There is an equivalence of triangulated categories $$\kappa : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ satisfying $\kappa \circ \langle 1 \rangle \cong \langle -1 \rangle [1] \circ \kappa$, and such that $$\kappa(\Delta_w) \cong \Delta^\vee_w, \quad \kappa(\nabla_w) \cong \nabla^\vee_w, \quad \kappa(\mathcal{S}_w) \cong {\mathcal{E}}^\vee_w, \quad \kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w) \cong \mathcal{S}^\vee_w$$ for any $w \in W$.
We define $\kappa$ to be the inverse of the composition of equivalences $${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}) \xrightarrow[\sim]{{\varkappa}} {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}{\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}) \xrightarrow[\sim]{{\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}} {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk}).$$ It is immediate from the definition and Theorem \[thm:self-Koszul\] that $\kappa \circ \langle 1 \rangle \cong \langle -1 \rangle [1] \circ \kappa$, and that $\kappa(\mathcal{S}_w) \cong {\mathcal{E}}^\vee_w$. The calculation of $\kappa(\Delta_w)$ and $\kappa(\nabla_w)$ is identical to that in [@modrap2 Lemma 5.2]. (In the case of fields, this also follows directly from Proposition \[prop:Psi-standards\].)
It remains to show that $\kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w) \cong \mathcal{S}^\vee_w$. For $m,n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $y,w \in W$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^\vee_y, \kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w) \langle n \rangle [m]) \\
\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})}(\kappa(\Delta_y), \kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w) \langle n \rangle [m]) \\
\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta_y, {\mathcal{E}}_w \{n\}[m]),\end{gathered}$$ so this space vanishes unless $m=0$ (by adjunction and [@modrap2 Remark 2.7]). Similar arguments show that $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})}(\kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w), \nabla^\vee_y \langle n \rangle [m])=0$$ unless $m=0$. Together, these results imply that $\kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w)$ belongs to the heart of the perverse t-structure on ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$, and is a tilting object therein. Since $\kappa$ is an equivalence, this object is indecomposable, and then it is easy to see that it is isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}^\vee_w$.
Using Theorem \[thm:Koszul-duality-objects\] and the results of [@rw Part III], one can express the ranks of the free ${\Bbbk}$-modules $\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta_y, \mathcal{S}_w \langle n \rangle)$ in terms of the $\ell$-canonical basis of a certain Hecke algebra in the sense of [@jw]. (See Corollary \[cor:characters-tilting-Gr\] below for a more precise formulation of this property in a particular case.) This can be considered as a “modular analogue” of the results of [@yun].
Parabolic–Whittaker Koszul duality {#sec:parabolic-whittaker}
==================================
In this section we fix a subset $J \subset S$ of finite type. We denote by $W_J$ the subgroup of $W$ generated by $J$ (which is finite by assumption), by $w_0^J$ the longest element in $W_J$, and by ${{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\subset W$ the subset consisting of elements $w$ which are minimal in $W_J \cdot w$. Our goal is to prove a “parabolic–Whittaker” version of the equivalence of §\[ss:Koszul-duality\] in the sense considered in [@by], with respect to the parabolic subgroups associated with $J$.
Whittaker-type derived category {#ss:Whit-derived-cat}
-------------------------------
In this section we change our setting slightly, and consider the “étale context” of [@rw §9.3], as opposed to the “classical context” considered until now (and in [@amrw]).
More precisely, we let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p>0$. We redefine ${\mathscr{G}}$ to be the base change to ${\mathbb{F}}$ of the ind-group scheme ${\mathscr{G}}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ associated with our Kac–Moody root datum $(I, {\mathbf{X}}, \{\alpha_i\}_{i \in I}, \{\alpha_i^\vee\}_{i \in I})$. We similarly now assume that ${\mathscr{B}}$ and ${\mathscr{T}}$ are defined over ${\mathbb{F}}$. We denote by ${\mathscr{U}}$ the pro-unipotent radical of ${\mathscr{B}}$, so that ${\mathscr{B}}= {\mathscr{T}}\ltimes {\mathscr{U}}$. Then ${\mathscr{G}}$ is an ind-group scheme over ${\mathbb{F}}$, and ${\mathscr{U}}$ and ${\mathscr{B}}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}$-group schemes (of infinite type).
We fix a prime number $\ell \neq p$, and assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is either an algebraic closure of ${\mathbb{Q}_\ell}$, or a finite extension of ${\mathbb{Q}_\ell}$, or the ring of integers of such an extension, or a finite field of characteristic $\ell$. We also assume that there exists a ring morphism ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\Bbbk}$. Then we can consider the étale ${\mathscr{B}}$-equivariant derived category ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$. (For a detailed treatment of the Bernstein–Lunts construction in the étale setting, see [@weidner].) All the categories constructed out of this in [@amrw] make sense in this new setting, and for simplicity we will use the same notation.
To $J$ we can associate a subgroup scheme ${\mathscr{P}}_J$ of ${\mathscr{G}}$, as in [@rw §9.1]. Following [@rw §11.1] we denote by ${\mathscr{U}}^J$ the pro-unipotent radical of ${\mathscr{P}}_J$, and by ${\mathscr{L}}_J$ its Levi factor, which is a connected reductive ${\mathbb{F}}$-group. Finally, let ${\mathscr{U}}_J^-$ be the unipotent radical of the Borel subgroup of ${\mathscr{L}}_J$ which is opposite to ${\mathscr{B}}\cap {\mathscr{L}}_J$ (with respect to ${\mathscr{T}}$). Then the ${\mathscr{U}}^J {\mathscr{U}}_J^-$-orbits on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ are parametrized by $W$ (in the obvious way). We will denote the orbit parametrized by $w$ by ${\mathscr{X}}_{w}^{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}$, and its dimension by $d_w^J$.
For any $s \in J$ we have a root subgroup ${\mathscr{U}}_s^- \subset {\mathscr{U}}_J^-$. Moreover, the natural embedding induces an isomorphism of algebraic groups $$\prod_{s \in J} {\mathscr{U}}_s^- {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr{U}}_J^- / [{\mathscr{U}}_J^-, {\mathscr{U}}_J^-].$$ For each $s \in J$, choose, once and for all, an isomorphism ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathscr{U}}_s^-$. We then obtain a morphism of algebraic groups $${\mathscr{U}}^J {\mathscr{U}}_J^- \to {\mathscr{U}}_J^- \to {\mathscr{U}}_J^- / [{\mathscr{U}}_J^-, {\mathscr{U}}_J^-] {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\prod_{s \in J} {\mathscr{U}}_s^- {\overset{\sim}{\to}}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}})^J \xrightarrow{+} {\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}},$$ which we will denote $\chi_J$.
Let us also fix a nontrivial additive character $\psi : {\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}\to {\Bbbk}^\times$. (We assume that such a character exists.) This determines a rank-one local system ${\mathcal{L}}_\psi$ on ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}}$, defined as the $\psi$-isotypic component in the direct image of the constant sheaf under the Artin–Schreier map ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}}\to {\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}}$ defined by $x \mapsto x^p-x$. Then ${\mathcal{L}}_\psi$ is a multiplicative local system in the sense of [@modrap1 Appendix A], and hence so is $(\chi_J)^* {\mathcal{L}}_\psi$. We will denote by $${D^{\mathrm{b}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$$ the triangulated category of $({\mathscr{U}}^J {\mathscr{U}}_J^-, \chi_J^* {\mathcal{L}}_\psi)$-equivariant complexes on the ind-variety ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ (see [@modrap1 Definition A.1]). Note that if $w \in W$, then ${\mathscr{X}}_w^{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}$ supports a $({\mathscr{U}}^J {\mathscr{U}}_J^-, \chi_J^* {\mathcal{L}}_\psi)$-equivariant local system if and only if $w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$. In this case there exists a unique such local system of rank one (up to isomorphism), which we will denote by ${\mathcal{L}}_w^J$. We also have $d_w^J=\ell(w) + \ell(w_0^J)$.
Whittaker-type parity complexes and mixed derived categories
------------------------------------------------------------
As observed in particular in [@rw §11.1], the notion of parity complexes from [@jmw] makes sense in ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$; we will denote by ${\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$ the corresponding full subcategory of ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$. The indecomposable objects in this category are parametrized by ${{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$ in the standard way (see [@rw Remark 11.6]); the object corresponding to $(w,0)$ will be denoted ${\mathcal{E}}_w^J$.
Since we have the category ${\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$, we can define the mixed derived category $${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}) := {K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ The recollement formalism developed in [@modrap2 §2.4] also works in this setting (for the closed subvarieties consisting of a union of a finite number of ${\mathscr{U}}^J {\mathscr{U}}_J^-$-orbits and their open complements). Hence, for $w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$, if we denote by $i_w^J$ the embedding of the ${\mathscr{U}}^J {\mathscr{U}}_J^-$-orbit parametrized by $w$ in ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$, we can define the standard and costandard objects $$\Delta_{w,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} := (i_w^J)_! {\mathcal{L}}_w^J \{d_w^J\}, \qquad \nabla_{w,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} := (i_w^J)_* {\mathcal{L}}_w^J \{d_w^J\},$$ as in [@modrap2 §2.5]. By [@modrap2 Lemma 3.2], these objects satisfy $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})} \bigl( \Delta_{v,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}, \nabla_{w,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} \langle m \rangle [n] \bigr) \cong
\begin{cases}
{\Bbbk}& \text{if $v=w$ and $n=m=0$;} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
There exists a natural “averaging” triangulated functor from ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ to ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$, defined as convolution on the left with the object $\Delta_{1,J}^{\mathrm{Wh}}$. By [@rw Corollary 11.5], this functor sends parity complexes to parity complexes, and hence defines a functor $${\mathsf{Av}}^{\mathrm{eq}}_J : {\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ It is not difficult to check that for any $f \in \mathsf{H}^i_{{\mathscr{B}}}({\mathrm{pt}}, {\Bbbk}) = \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}},{\Bbbk})}({\mathcal{E}}_1, {\mathcal{E}}_1\{i\})$, if $i>0$ we have ${\mathsf{Av}}_J^{\mathrm{eq}}(f)=0$. From this it follows that ${\mathsf{Av}}^{\mathrm{eq}}_J$ factors through a functor $${\mathsf{Av}}_J : {\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}),$$ where ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ is the category of ${\mathscr{U}}$-equivariant parity complexes on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$.
\[lem:Av-Delta-nabla\] For any $w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$, we have $${\mathsf{Av}}_J(\Delta_w) \cong \Delta_{w,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}, \qquad {\mathsf{Av}}_J(\nabla_w) \cong \nabla_{w,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}.$$
We only prove the first isomorphism; the proof of the second one is similar.
The category ${\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$ admits a natural convolution action on the right by ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ (see in particular [@rw Lemma 11.4]). We deduce an action of ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ on ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}})$, which will be denoted ${\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}$. By construction, the functor ${\mathsf{Av}}_J$ commutes with convolution on the right (see e.g. [@rw (11.1)]); therefore we have $${\mathsf{Av}}_J(\Delta_w) \cong {\mathsf{Av}}_J(\Delta_1 {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}\Delta_w) \cong {\mathsf{Av}}_J(\Delta_1) {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}\Delta_w.$$ Now, by definition, we have ${\mathsf{Av}}_J(\Delta_1) \cong \Delta_{1,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}$. Hence to conclude it suffices to prove that if $v \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ and $s \in S$ are such that $vs \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ and $\ell(vs) = \ell(v)+1$, we have $$\Delta_{v,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}\Delta_s \cong \Delta_{vs,J}^{\mathrm{Wh}}.$$
As in the proof of Proposition \[prop:Psi-standards\] there exists a distinguished triangle $$\Delta_s \to {\mathcal{E}}_s \to {\mathcal{E}}_1\{1\} \xrightarrow{[1]},$$ where the second map is induced by restriction along the closed embedding ${\mathscr{B}}/{\mathscr{B}}\hookrightarrow {\mathscr{P}}_s/{\mathscr{B}}$, where ${\mathscr{P}}_s$ is the minimal standard parabolic subgroup of ${\mathscr{G}}$ associated with $s$. Convolving on the left with $\Delta_{v,J}^{\mathrm{Wh}}$ we obtain a distinguished triangle $$\label{eqn:triangle-Delta-Whit}
\Delta_{v,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}\Delta_s \to \Delta_{v,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}{\mathcal{E}}_s
\to \Delta_{v,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} \{1\} \xrightarrow{[1]}.$$ Now it is not difficult to check that $\Delta_{v,J}^{{\mathrm{Wh}}} {\mathbin{\underline{\star}}}{\mathcal{E}}_s$ is isomorphic to the $!$-pushforward of the shift by $\ell(v)+1$ of the unique rank-$1$ $({\mathscr{U}}^J {\mathscr{U}}_J^-, \chi_J^* {\mathcal{L}}_\psi)$-equivariant local system on ${\mathscr{X}}_v^{{\mathrm{Wh}},J} \sqcup {\mathscr{X}}_{vs}^{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}$, in such a way that the second map in is induced by the $*$-adjunction morphism associated with the closed embedding ${\mathscr{X}}_v^{{\mathrm{Wh}},J} \hookrightarrow {\mathscr{X}}_v^{{\mathrm{Wh}},J} \sqcup {\mathscr{X}}_{vs}^{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}$. The recollement formalism implies that the cocone of this morphism is $\Delta_{vs,J}^{\mathrm{Wh}}$, and the desired isomorphism follows.
Let now $\langle {\mathcal{E}}_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus,\{1\}}$ be the full additive subcategory of the category ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ whose objects are the direct sums of objects of the form ${\mathcal{E}}_w \{n\}$ with $w \in W \smallsetminus {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ and $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. By [@rw Lemma 11.7], the functor ${\mathsf{Av}}_J$ vanishes on $\langle {\mathcal{E}}_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus,\{1\}}$, so it induces a functor $${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) / \langle {\mathcal{E}}_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus,\{1\}} \to {\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ (Here the quotient we consider is the “naive” quotient of additive categories, i.e. the category whose $\operatorname{Hom}$-groups are the quotients of those in ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk})$ by the subgroup of morphisms which factor through an object of $\langle {\mathcal{E}}_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus,\{1\}}$.)
The following is a restatement of [@rw Theorem 11.11].
\[prop:Av-Parity\] The functor $${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) / \langle {\mathcal{E}}_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus,\{1\}} \to {\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$$ induced by ${\mathsf{Av}}_J$ is an equivalence of categories.
Mixed tilting perverse sheaves on parabolic flag varieties
----------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, ${\Bbbk}$ is an arbitrary complete local ring. We consider the Langlands dual Kac–Moody group ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$ (still defined over $\mathbb{C}$), and its subgroups ${\mathscr{T}}^\vee$, ${\mathscr{B}}^\vee$ and ${\mathscr{U}}^\vee$ as in §\[ss:Phi-equiv\]. The choice of $J$ determines a parabolic subgroup ${\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee$ in ${\mathscr{G}}^\vee$, so that we can consider the ${\mathscr{B}}^\vee$-equivariant derived category of sheaves on the parabolic flag variety ${\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee$, which we will denote ${D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{B}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$, and then the mixed derived category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ constructed as the bounded homotopy category of the category of parity complexes. In this category we have standard and costandard objects parametrized by ${{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ (see [@modrap2]), which will be denoted by $\Delta_{w,J}^{\vee}$ and $\nabla_{w,J}^\vee$ respectively.
We denote by $$\pi_J : {\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee \to {\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee$$ the quotient map. The functor $$(\pi_J)_* : {D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \to {D^{\mathrm{b}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ sends parity complexes to parity complexes (see [@rw §9.4]), so it induces a triangulated functor from ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ to ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$, which will also be denoted $(\pi_J)_*$. If $w \in W$ and if $v$ is the minimal element in $W_J \cdot w$, then by [@modrap2 Lemma 3.8] we have $$\label{eqn:piJ-Delta-nabla}
(\pi_J)_* \Delta_w^\vee \cong \Delta_{v,J}^\vee \{\ell(v)-\ell(w)\}, \qquad (\pi_J)_* \nabla_w^\vee \cong \nabla_{v,J}^\vee \{-\ell(v)+\ell(w)\}.$$
Recall from §\[ss:Koszul-duality\] that we have the subcategory $${\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \subset {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ of tilting objects in the heart of the perverse t-structure, whose indecomposable objects are parametrized by $W \times {\mathbb{Z}}$, and that we denote by $\mathcal{S}^\vee_w$ the object corresponding to $(w,0)$. Similarly we have the category ${\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ of tilting objects in the heart of the perverse t-structure on ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$, whose indecomposable objects are parametrized by ${{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$; we will denote by $\mathcal{S}^\vee_{w,J}$ the object corresponding to $(w,0)$.
\[lem:piJ-tilting\]
1. \[it:piJ-tilting-1\] The functor $(\pi_J)_*$ restricts to a functor $${\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}).$$
2. \[it:piJ-tilting-2\] If $w \in W \smallsetminus {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$, we have $(\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}^\vee_w = 0$.
The proof is copied from [@yun]. For any $v \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$, we denote by $i_{v,J}^\vee$ the embedding of the ${\mathscr{B}}^\vee$-orbit on ${\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee$ parametrized by $v$.
Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be in ${\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$. Then ${\mathcal{F}}$ belongs to the subcategory of ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ generated under extensions by objects of the form $\Delta_w^\vee \langle n \rangle$ with $w \in W$ and $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. In view of , we deduce that $(\pi_J)_* {\mathcal{F}}$ belongs to the subcategory of ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ generated under extensions by objects of the form $\Delta_{v,J}^\vee \langle n \rangle [m]$ with $v \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$, $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}$. This implies that $(i_{v,J}^\vee)^* (\pi_J)_* {\mathcal{F}}$ belongs to the subcategory generated under extensions by objects of the form $\bigl( \underline{{\Bbbk}}\{\ell(v)\} \bigr) \langle n \rangle [m]$ with $m \leq 0$.
On the other hand, ${\mathcal{F}}$ belongs to the subcategory of ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ generated under extensions by objects of the form $\nabla_w^\vee \langle n \rangle$ with $w \in W$ and $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Using and the fact that the objects $\nabla^\vee_{v,J}$ are perverse (see [@modrap2 Theorem 4.7]), this implies that $(\pi_J)_* {\mathcal{F}}$ lives in nonpositive perverse degrees, i.e. that $(i_{v,J}^\vee)^* (\pi_J)_* {\mathcal{F}}$ is in nonpositive perverse degrees for any $v$.
Combining these two properties, we obtain that for any $v \in W$ the object $(i_{v,J}^\vee)^* (\pi_J)_* {\mathcal{F}}$ is a direct sum of objects of the form $\bigl( \underline{{\Bbbk}}\{\ell(v)\} \bigr)\langle n \rangle$. Using Verdier duality we obtain the same property for $(i_{v,J}^\vee)^! (\pi_J)_* {\mathcal{F}}$, which finally implies that $(\pi_J)_* {\mathcal{F}}$ is a tilting perverse sheaf.
First we assume that ${\Bbbk}={\mathbb{Q}}$. In this setting the indecomposable parity complex ${\mathcal{E}}_w$ on ${\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}$ coincides with the intersection cohomology complex ${\mathrm{IC}}_w$ (see [@kl; @springer]). Using Theorem \[thm:Koszul-duality-objects\] and [@modrap2 Remark 2.7], we deduce that if $u,v \in W$ and $v<u$ we have $$(\mathcal{S}_u^\vee : \Delta_v^\vee \langle n \rangle) = 0 \quad \text{unless $n>0$.}$$ Then using we obtain that if $w \in W \smallsetminus {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ then $$\bigl( (\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_w^\vee : \Delta_{v,J}^\vee \langle n \rangle \bigr) = 0 \quad \text{unless $n>0$.}$$ If $(\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_w^\vee \neq 0$ and $v$ is maximal such that this multiplicity is nonzero, then this property contradicts the Verdier self-duality of $(\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_w^\vee$.
Now, for any expression ${{\underline{w}}}$, and for any choice of coefficients ${\Bbbk}'$, we denote by $\mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee,{\Bbbk}'}$ the image of the Bott–Samelson type tilting mixed perverse sheaf on ${\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee$ (constructed as in §\[ss:constructible-Dmix\], but for the Langlands dual group, and with the roles of left and right multiplication swapped) under the forgetful functor ${\mathsf{For}^{{\mathsf{LM}}}_{{\mathsf{RE}}}}$. We claim that if ${{\underline{w}}}$ starts with a simple reflection in $J$, we have $(\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Z}}'}=0$. In fact we have $${\mathbb{Q}}\bigl( (\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Z}}'} \bigr) \cong (\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Q}}},$$ where ${\mathbb{Q}}$ is the natural extension-of-scalars functor. Now it is not difficult to see that $\mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Q}}}$ is a direct sum of objects of the form $\mathcal{S}_v^{\vee, {\mathbb{Q}}} \langle m \rangle$ with $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $v \in W \smallsetminus {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$. (One can e.g. use Koszul duality to translate the question to the setting of parity complexes, where it follows from equivariance considerations.) Hence, by the case of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ treated above, we have ${\mathbb{Q}}\bigl( (\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Z}}'} \bigr)=0$. On the other hand it is not difficult to see that $(\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Z}}'}$ has stalks that are free over ${\mathbb{Z}}'$. Hence these stalks are $0$, which implies that $(\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Z}}'} =0$.
Finally we prove the claim in general. For this we choose a reduced expression ${{\underline{w}}}$ for $w$ starting with a simple reflection in $J$. Then $\mathcal{S}_w^{\vee, {\Bbbk}}$ is a direct summand of $\mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\Bbbk}}$. But $$(\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\Bbbk}} \cong {\Bbbk}\bigl( (\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}_{{{\underline{w}}}}^{\vee, {\mathbb{Z}}'} \bigr) = 0,$$ which proves the desired vanishing.
Now let $\langle \mathcal{S}^\vee_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus, \langle 1 \rangle}$ be the full additive subcategory of the category ${\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ consisting of direct sums of objects of the form $\mathcal{S}^\vee_w \langle m \rangle$ with $w \in W \smallsetminus {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Lemma \[lem:piJ-tilting\] tells us that the functor $(\pi_J)_*$ restricts to a functor $$(\pi_J)_*^{\mathrm{Tilt}}: {\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \to {\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ that then factors through a functor $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:def-PiJ}
\Pi_J : {\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) / \langle \mathcal{S}^\vee_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus,\langle 1 \rangle} \to \\
{\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}).\end{gathered}$$
We denote by ${\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk})$ and ${\mathrm{Perv}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ the hearts of the perverse t-structures on ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ and ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ respectively. The following statement uses the theory of realization functors from §\[ss:realization\].
The following diagram commutes up to isomorphism: $$\begin{tikzcd}
{K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}) \ar[d, "{K^{\mathrm{b}}}((\pi_J)_*^{{\mathrm{Tilt}}})" swap] \ar[rr, "{\mathrm{real}}"] && {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[d, "(\pi_J)_*"] \\
{K^{\mathrm{b}}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk}) \ar[rr, "{\mathrm{real}}"] && {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}).
\end{tikzcd}$$
Since the functor $(\pi_J)_*$ is induced by a functor from ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$ to ${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee},{\Bbbk})$, it lifts to a functor between the filtered versions of the categories on the right-hand side. The lemma then follows from Proposition \[prop:realization-functor\].
Parabolic–Whittaker Koszul duality {#ss:parabolic-Whittaker}
----------------------------------
We come back to the assumptions of §\[ss:Whit-derived-cat\]. Recall the equivalence of categories $\kappa$ constructed in §\[ss:Koszul-duality\].
\[thm:duality-par-Whit\] There exists an equivalence of triangulated categories $\kappa_J$ which fits into the following commutative diagram: $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large]
{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[d, "{\mathsf{Av}}_J" swap] \ar[rr, "\kappa"] && {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[d, "(\pi_J)_*"] \\
{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}) \ar[rr, "\kappa_J"] && {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}).
\end{tikzcd}$$ Moreover, $\kappa_J$ satisfies $$\label{eqn:kappaJ-objects}
\kappa_J(\Delta_{w,J}^{\mathrm{Wh}}) \cong \Delta^\vee_{w,J}, \quad \kappa_J(\Delta_{w,J}^{\mathrm{Wh}}) \cong \Delta^\vee_{w,J}, \quad \kappa_J({\mathcal{E}}_w^J) \cong \mathcal{S}^\vee_{w,J}$$ for any $w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$.
The equivalence of categories $${\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ obtained by restricting $\kappa$ induces an equivalence of categories $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathrm{Parity}}({{\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}}, {\Bbbk}) / \langle {\mathcal{E}}_w : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus, \{1\}} \\
{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) / \langle \mathcal{S}_w^\vee : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus, \langle 1 \rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ Using Proposition \[prop:Av-Parity\] we deduce an equivalence of categories $${\mathrm{Parity}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk}) / \langle \mathcal{S}_w^\vee : w \notin {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\rangle_{\oplus, \langle 1 \rangle}.$$ We denote by $$\kappa_J : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}(G/B, {\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ the functor obtained by composing this equivalence with the functor $\Pi_J$ from , and then passing to bounded homotopy categories. With this definition the diagram of the statement clearly commutes.
Now we prove that $\kappa_J$ is an equivalence of categories. Using the commutativity of our diagram and comparing Lemma \[lem:Av-Delta-nabla\] and we see that for any $w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ we have $$\kappa_J(\Delta^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}_{w,J}) \cong \Delta^\vee_{w,J}, \quad \kappa_J(\nabla^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}_{w,J}) \cong \nabla^\vee_{w,J}.$$ Moreover, since the functor $(\pi_J)_*$ induces an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{B}}^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^\vee_{w}, \nabla^\vee_{w}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^\vee_{w,J}, \nabla^\vee_{w,J}),$$ we see that $\kappa_J$ induces an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}}, J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}_{w,J}, \nabla^{{\mathrm{Wh}}}_{w,J}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^\vee_{w,J}, \nabla^\vee_{w,J}).$$ Then standard arguments (see e.g. the proof of Theorem \[thm:self-Koszul\]) imply that $\kappa_J$ is an equivalence of categories.
Finally we prove the isomorphisms . The first two isomorphisms have already been observed above. For the third isomorphism, recall that ${\mathcal{E}}_w^J \cong {\mathsf{Av}}_J({\mathcal{E}}_w)$, see [@rw Corollary 11.10]. It follows that $\kappa_J({\mathcal{E}}_w^J) \cong (\pi_J)_* \kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w) \cong (\pi_J)_* \mathcal{S}^\vee_w$, hence that this object is a tilting perverse sheaf by Lemma \[lem:piJ-tilting\]. Since $\kappa_J$ is an equivalence this object is indecomposable, and then it is easy to see that it is isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}_{w,J}^\vee$.
1. The proof of Theorem \[thm:duality-par-Whit\] shows that the equivalence $\Phi$ induces an equivalence $${\mathscr{D}}^{\mathrm{asph}, {\Bbbk}}_J({\mathscr{G}}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Tilt}}^{{\mathrm{mix}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$$ (where the left-hand side is defined in [@rw §11.5]), and that for any $w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}$ we have $(\pi_J)_*(\mathcal{S}^\vee_w) \cong \mathcal{S}^\vee_{w,J}$. (In the case of characteristic-$0$ coefficients, such an isomorphism follows from [@yun Proposition 3.4.1].)
2. Using the same constructions as in [@modrap2] one can endow the category ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{{\mathrm{Wh}},J}({\mathscr{G}}/{\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$ with a perverse t-structure, whose heart is a graded highest weight category with standard, resp. costandard, objects $\{\Delta^{\mathrm{Wh}}_{w,J} : w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\}$, resp. $\{\nabla^{\mathrm{Wh}}_{w,J} : w \in {{}^J \hspace{-1pt} W}\}$. Then one can easily check that the images under $\kappa_J$ of the indecomposable tilting objects in this heart are the indecomposable parity complexes on ${\mathscr{P}}^\vee_J \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee$, seen as objects in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({{\mathscr{P}}_J^\vee\backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee/{\mathscr{U}}^\vee}, {\Bbbk})$.
Application to the tilting character formula {#sec:application}
============================================
In this section we apply our preceding results together with those of [@prinblock] to prove the character formula for tilting representations of reductive algebraic groups over fields of positive characteristic conjectured in [@rw].
Koszul duality for affine flag varieties {#ss:duality-affine}
----------------------------------------
Let ${G}$ be a semisimple, simply connected complex algebraic group, let ${B}$ be a Borel subgroup, and let ${T}\subset {B}$ be a maximal torus. We denote by ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}$ the Weyl group of $({G}, {T})$, and by $\mathfrak{R}$ its root system. Let also $\mathfrak{R}^+ \subset \mathfrak{R}$ be the system of positive roots consisting of the ${T}$-weights in $\mathrm{Lie}({G})/\mathrm{Lie}({B})$, and let ${S_{\mathrm{f}}}\subset {W_{\mathrm{f}}}$ be the corresponding subset of simple reflections.
We set $\mathscr{K}:=\mathbb{C} ( \hspace{-1pt} ( z ) \hspace{-1pt} )$, $\mathscr{O}:=\mathbb{C} [ \hspace{-1pt} [ z ] \hspace{-1pt} ]$, and consider the group ind-scheme ${G}(\mathscr{K})$. We denote by ${\mathrm{Iw}}$ the Iwahori subgroup of ${G}(\mathscr{K})$ determined by ${B}$, i.e. the inverse image of ${B}$ under the morphism ${G}(\mathscr{O}) \to {G}$ induced by the ring map $\mathscr{O} \to \mathbb{C}$ sending $z$ to $0$. Let also ${\mathrm{Iw}}^u$ be the pro-unipotent radical of ${\mathrm{Iw}}$, i.e. the inverse image of the unipotent radical of ${B}$ under the map ${G}(\mathscr{O}) \to {G}$ considered above. We define the affine flag variety ${\mathrm{Fl}}$ and its “left variant” ${\mathrm{Fl}}'$ as the quotients $${\mathrm{Fl}}:= {G}(\mathscr{K}) / {\mathrm{Iw}}, \quad {\mathrm{Fl}}' := {\mathrm{Iw}}\backslash {G}(\mathscr{K}).$$
The ind-varieties ${\mathrm{Fl}}$ and ${\mathrm{Fl}}'$ have Bruhat decompositions (with respect to the natural action of ${\mathrm{Iw}}$) parametrized by the affine Weyl group $$W:={W_{\mathrm{f}}}\ltimes X_*({T}),$$ and for any integral complete local ring ${\Bbbk}$, we can consider the Bruhat-constructible (or equivalently ${\mathrm{Iw}}^u$-equivariant) mixed derived categories ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})$ and ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}', {\Bbbk})$, cf. [@rw §10.7].
For $w \in W$, we have standard objects $\Delta_w$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})$ and $\Delta'_w$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}', {\Bbbk})$, costandard objects $\nabla_w$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})$ and $\nabla'_w$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}', {\Bbbk})$, indecomposable parity complexes ${\mathcal{E}}_w$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_w'$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}', {\Bbbk})$, and indecomposable mixed tilting perverse sheaves $\mathcal{S}_w$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})$ and $\mathcal{S}_w'$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}', {\Bbbk})$.
Let $S \subset W$ be the set of simple reflections (chosen as the reflections along the walls of the fundamental alcove $\{\lambda \in \mathbb{R} \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} X_*({T}) \mid \forall \alpha \in \mathfrak{R}, \, 0 \leq \langle \lambda, \alpha \rangle \leq 1 \}$). We consider the realization ${\mathfrak{h}}= (V, \{\alpha_s^\vee\}, \{\alpha_s\})$ of $(W,S)$ over ${\Bbbk}$ defined as follows:
1. the underlying free ${\Bbbk}$-module is $V = {\Bbbk}\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} X_*({T})$;
2. if $s \in {S_{\mathrm{f}}}$, $\alpha_s$ is the image in $V^* \cong {\Bbbk}\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} X^*({T})$ of the simple root associated with $s$, and $\alpha_s^\vee$ is the image in $V$ of the simple coroot associated with $s$;
3. if $s \in S \smallsetminus {S_{\mathrm{f}}}$, let $\gamma$ be the unique positive root such that the image of $s$ in ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}\cong W / X_*({T})$ is $s_\gamma$; then $\alpha_s$ is the image of $-\gamma$ in $V^*$ and $\alpha_s^\vee$ is the image of $-\gamma^\vee$ in $V$.
\[lem:cartan-dual\] Assume that $2$ and all the prime numbers which are not very good for ${G}$ are invertible in ${\Bbbk}$. Then there is a ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}$-equivariant isomorphism $\varphi: V \to V^*$ such that for each $s \in S$, there is a scalar $b_s \in {\Bbbk}^\times$ such that $\varphi(\alpha_s^\vee) = b_s \alpha_s$.
Write $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_r$ for the simple roots of ${G}$, and $\alpha_1^\vee, \ldots, \alpha_r^\vee$ for its simple coroots. Let $A_{\mathrm{f}}=( \alpha_j(\alpha_i^\vee) \rangle)_{i,j=1, \ldots, r}$ be the Cartan matrix for ${G}$. Our assumptions imply that $A_{\mathrm{f}}$ is invertible over ${\Bbbk}$. Let $D=\mathrm{diag}(\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_r)$ be the minimal matrix such that $D^{-1} A$ is symmetric, in the sense of [@kumar Definition 1.5.1]. Then $\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_r$ are invertible in ${\Bbbk}$. The images of the simple coroots span $V$, so that we can define a symmetric perfect pairing on $V$ by setting $$\langle 1 \otimes \alpha_i^\vee, 1 \otimes \alpha_j^\vee \rangle = \alpha_i(\alpha_j^\vee) \epsilon_i = \alpha_j(\alpha_i^\vee) \epsilon_j.$$ The proof of [@kumar Proposition 1.5.2] shows that this pairing is ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}$-equivariant, so that the induced isomorphism $V {\overset{\sim}{\to}}V^*$ is ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}$-equivariant as well. The fact that $\varphi(\alpha_s^\vee) \in {\Bbbk}^\times \cdot \alpha_s$ follows from the ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}$-equivariance.
\[thm:duality-affine\] Assume that $2$ and all the prime numbers which are not very good for ${G}$ are invertible in ${\Bbbk}$. Then there exists an equivalence of triangulated categories $$\kappa : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Fl}}', {\Bbbk})$$ which satisfies $\kappa \circ \langle 1 \rangle \cong \langle -1 \rangle [1]$ and, for any $w \in W$, $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa(\Delta_w) \cong \Delta'_w, \quad & \quad \kappa(\nabla_w) \cong \nabla'_w, \\
\kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w) \cong \mathcal{S}'_w, \quad & \quad \kappa(\mathcal{S}_w) \cong {\mathcal{E}}'_w.\end{aligned}$$
For brevity, we write ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}$ instead of ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathfrak{h}},W)$ for the additive envelope of the Elias–Williamson diagrammatic category associated to the realization ${\mathfrak{h}}$ of $W$. By [@rw Theorem 10.16], there exists a canonical equivalence of additive monoidal categories $$\label{eqn:equiv-Diag-Par-aff}
{\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathrm{Iw}}\backslash {G}(\mathscr{K}) / {\mathrm{Iw}}, {\Bbbk}),$$ where the right-hand side denotes the category of direct sums of Bott–Samelson type ${\mathrm{Iw}}$-equivariant parity complexes on ${\mathrm{Fl}}$. Using this as a starting point, one can run the same constructions as in [@amrw] to construct a category $${\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathrm{Iw}}^u {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{G}(\mathscr{K}) {\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathrm{Iw}}^u, {\Bbbk})$$ of Bott–Samelson type free-monodromic tilting perverse sheaves, and then the same constructions as in Section \[sec:Koszul-duality\] provide an equivalence of categories $$\label{eqn:equiv-D-Tilt-aff}
{}' \hspace{-1pt} {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathrm{Iw}}^u {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{G}(\mathscr{K}) {\!\mathord{\mathchar"2728}\;}{\mathrm{Iw}}^u, {\Bbbk}),$$ where ${}' \hspace{-1pt} {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}$ is the additive envelope of the Elias–Williamson diagrammatic category associated to the realization of $(W,S)$ with underlying free ${\Bbbk}$-module $V^*$, roots $\{\alpha_s^\vee : s \in S\}$ and coroots $\{\alpha_s^\vee : s \in S\}$.
Let ${\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}$, resp. ${}' \hspace{-1pt} {\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}$, denote the category obtained from ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}$, resp. ${}' \hspace{-1pt} {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}$, by taking quotients of morphism spaces by the morphisms of the form $f \cdot \lambda$ for $\lambda \in V^*$, resp. of the form $f \cdot h$ for $h \in V$. Then the equivalence induces an equivalence of categories $$\label{eqn:equiv-Diag-Par-aff-2}
{\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{Parity}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathrm{Iw}}\backslash {G}(\mathscr{K}) / {\mathrm{Iw}}^u, {\Bbbk}),$$ and the equivalence induces an equivalence $$\label{eqn:equiv-D-Tilt-aff-2}
{}' \hspace{-1pt} {\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathrm{Iw}}^u {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{G}(\mathscr{K}) / {\mathrm{Iw}}, {\Bbbk}).$$
As usual, let $R = \operatorname{Sym}(V^*)$ and $R^\vee = \operatorname{Sym}(V)$, and then let $\imath : R {\overset{\sim}{\to}}R^\vee$ be the isomorphism induced by the isomorphism $\varphi$ of Lemma \[lem:cartan-dual\]. We can define an equivalence of categories ${\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{}' \hspace{-1pt} {\mathscr{D}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}$ which is the identity on objects, and which is induced on morphisms by the assignment $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.07,baseline]
\node at (0,0) {$f$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} &\mapsto \begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.07,baseline]
\node at (0,0) {$\imath(f)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.07,baseline]
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} &\mapsto
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=0.07,baseline]
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline,xscale=0.07,yscale=-0.07]
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} &\mapsto
\frac{1}{b_s} \cdot \begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline,xscale=0.07,yscale=-0.07]
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline,scale=0.07]
\draw (-4,5) to (0,0) to (4,5);
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (-4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} &\mapsto
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline,scale=0.07]
\draw (-4,5) to (0,0) to (4,5);
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (-4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline,scale=-0.07]
\draw (-4,5) to (0,0) to (4,5);
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (-4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} &\mapsto
b_s \cdot \begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,baseline,scale=-0.07]
\draw (-4,5) to (0,0) to (4,5);
\draw (0,-5) to (0,0);
\node at (0,-6.7) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (-4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\node at (4,6.4) {\tiny $s$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} \\
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=0.5,xscale=0.3,baseline,thick]
\draw (-2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-1.5,1);
\draw (-0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (0.5,1);
\draw (1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (2.5,1);
\draw[red] (-1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-2.5,1);
\draw[red] (0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-0.5,1);
\draw[red] (2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (1.5,1);
\node at (-2.5,-1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-1.5,1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-0.5,-1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-1.5,-1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-2.5,1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-0.5,1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$\vphantom{$t$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array} &\mapsto
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=0.5,xscale=0.3,baseline,thick]
\draw (-2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-1.5,1);
\draw (-0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (0.5,1);
\draw (1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (2.5,1);
\draw[red] (-1.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-2.5,1);
\draw[red] (0.5,-1) to (0,0) to (-0.5,1);
\draw[red] (2.5,-1) to (0,0) to (1.5,1);
\node at (-2.5,-1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-1.5,1.3) {\tiny $s$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-0.5,-1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$\vphantom{$t$}};
\node at (-1.5,-1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-2.5,1.3) {\tiny $t$};
\node at (-0.5,1.3) {\tiny $\cdots$\vphantom{$t$}};
\end{tikzpicture} .
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ (In fact, the only thing one has to check is that this assignment defines a functor, which can be checked by hand using the defining relations.)
Composing the induced equivalence ${\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{}' \hspace{-1pt} {\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}$ with we obtain an equivalence of categories $${\underline{\mathscr{D}}{}^\oplus_{\mathrm{BS}}}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathrm{{\mathrm{Tilt}}}_{\mathrm{BS}}^\oplus}({\mathrm{Iw}}^u {\mathord{\mathchar"2729}}{G}(\mathscr{K}) / {\mathrm{Iw}}, {\Bbbk}).$$ Comparing with , passing to bounded homotopy categories to then composing with the appropriate forgetful functor we deduce the desired equivalence $\kappa$. The fact that $\kappa$ has the stated properties follows from the same arguments as for Theorem \[thm:Koszul-duality-objects\].
1. It should be clear from the proof of Theorem \[thm:duality-affine\] that a similar claim holds in the equivariant/free-monodromic setting. We leave this variant to the reader.
2. The same arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:duality-affine\] show that, in the setting of Section \[sec:Koszul-duality\], if ${\mathscr{G}}$ is symmetrizable then the equivalence of Theorem \[thm:Koszul-duality-objects\] can be seen as an equivalence $${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({\mathscr{B}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{U}}, {\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}({\mathscr{U}}\backslash {\mathscr{G}}/ {\mathscr{B}}, {\Bbbk})$$ provided a certain finite set of prime numbers depending on ${\mathscr{G}}$ is invertible in ${\Bbbk}$. (We leave it to the interested reader to make this statement precise.)
Koszul duality for affine Grassmannians {#ss:duality-Gr}
---------------------------------------
The parabolic–Whittaker duality of §\[ss:parabolic-Whittaker\] can also be stated in the present “affine” setting. For simplicity we restrict to the case of the (left variant of the) affine Grassmannian $${\mathrm{Gr}}' := {G}(\mathscr{O}) \backslash {G}(\mathscr{K}).$$ The ${\mathrm{Iw}}$-orbits on this ind-variety are parametrized in a natural way by the subset ${{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}\subset W$ consisting of elements $w$ which are minimal in ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}\cdot w$. If ${\Bbbk}$ is an integral complete local ring, we denote by ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}', {\Bbbk})$ the corresponding mixed derived category. For $w \in {{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}$, we have a corresponding standard object $\Delta_w^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}$, costandard object $\nabla_w^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}$, indecomposable parity complex ${\mathcal{E}}_w^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}$, and indecomposable tilting perverse sheaf $\mathcal{S}_w^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}', {\Bbbk})$.
Now we assume that ${\mathbb{F}}$ and ${\Bbbk}$ are as in §\[ss:Whit-derived-cat\]. We denote by ${T}_{\mathbb{F}}$ the ${\mathbb{F}}$-torus whose lattice of characters is $X^*({T})$, and let ${G}_{\mathbb{F}}$ be the semisimple, simply-connected algebraic ${\mathbb{F}}$-group with maximal torus ${T}_{\mathbb{F}}$ and root system $\mathfrak{R}$. Then we can define the Iwahori subgroups ${\mathrm{Iw}}_{\mathbb{F}}$ and ${\mathrm{Iw}}_{\mathbb{F}}^\circ$ of ${G}_{\mathbb{F}}({\mathbb{F}}( \hspace{-1pt} ( z ) \hspace{-1pt} ))$ associated with the Borel subgroups of ${G}_{\mathbb{F}}$ containing ${T}_{\mathbb{F}}$ with roots $-\mathfrak{R}^+$ and $\mathfrak{R}^+$ respectively.
We redefine the affine flag variety ${\mathrm{Fl}}$ as the quotient ${G}_{\mathbb{F}}({\mathbb{F}}( \hspace{-1pt} ( z ) \hspace{-1pt} )) / {\mathrm{Iw}}_{\mathbb{F}}$, an ind-variety over ${\mathbb{F}}$. Choosing identifications between ${\mathbb{F}}$ and each root subgroup of $G_{\mathbb{F}}$ associated with a simple root, as in §\[ss:Whit-derived-cat\] we obtain an algebraic group morphism $$\chi : {\mathrm{Iw}}_{\mathbb{F}}^\circ \to {\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{a}}}.$$ Choosing also a nontrivial additive character $\psi : {\mathbb{Z}}/p {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\Bbbk}^\times$ (assumed to exist), with corresponding Artin–Schreier local system ${\mathcal{L}}_\psi$, we can consider the category $${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{\mathcal{IW}}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})$$ of $({\mathrm{Iw}}_{\mathbb{F}}^\circ, \chi^*({\mathcal{L}}_\psi))$-equivariant mixed complexes. (Here “$\mathcal{IW}$” stands for “Iwahori–Whittaker”; this terminology is taken from [@ab].) The ${\mathrm{Iw}}_{\mathbb{F}}^\circ$-orbits supporting an equivariant local system are labelled in a natural way by ${{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}$. For $w \in {{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}$, we have a corresponding standard object $\Delta_w^{\mathcal{IW}}$, costandard object $\nabla_w^{\mathcal{IW}}$, and indecomposable parity complex ${\mathcal{E}}_w^{\mathcal{IW}}$ in ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{\mathcal{IW}}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})$.
The proof of the following theorem is identical to that of Theorem \[thm:duality-par-Whit\].
Assume that $2$ and the prime numbers which are not very good for ${G}$ are invertible in ${\Bbbk}$. Then there exists an equivalence of triangulated categories $$\kappa_{{\mathrm{Gr}}'} : {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{\mathcal{IW}}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}', {\Bbbk})$$ which satisfies $\kappa \circ \langle 1 \rangle \cong \langle -1 \rangle [1]$ and, for any $w \in {{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}$, $$\kappa(\Delta_w^{\mathcal{IW}}) \cong \Delta^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_w, \qquad \kappa(\nabla_w^{\mathcal{IW}}) \cong \nabla^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_w, \qquad
\kappa({\mathcal{E}}_w^{\mathcal{IW}}) \cong \mathcal{S}^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_w.$$
Character formula for tilting mixed perverse sheaves on Gr’
-----------------------------------------------------------
We now assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is a field (which does not necessarily satisfy the conditions of §\[ss:Whit-derived-cat\]). We denote its characteristic by $\ell$, and assume that $\ell$ is odd and very good for $G$. We let $$\{ {{}^\ell \hspace{-1pt} n}_{y,w} : y,w \in {{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}\}$$ be the antispherical $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials as considered in [@rw §1.4]. The following corollary was our main motivation to develop the “parabolic–Whittaker” formalism of Section \[sec:parabolic-whittaker\].
\[cor:characters-tilting-Gr\] For any $w,y \in {{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}$ we have $${{}^\ell \hspace{-1pt} n}_{y,w}(v) = \sum_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \bigl( \mathcal{S}^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_w : \nabla^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_y \langle -i \rangle \bigr) \cdot v^i.$$
The same arguments as in [@williamson Lemma 3.8] show that if ${\Bbbk}\to {\Bbbk}'$ is a field extension, then the extension-of-scalars functor ${D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}', {\Bbbk}) \to {D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}', {\Bbbk}')$ sends the indecomposable tilting perverse sheaf labelled by $w$ with coefficients ${\Bbbk}$ to its counterpart for coefficients ${\Bbbk}'$. Therefore, we can assume that ${\Bbbk}$ satisfies the conditions of §\[ss:Whit-derived-cat\]. Then by definition and [@rw Theorem 11.11], if ${\mathbb{F}}$ is as above, we have $${{}^\ell \hspace{-1pt} n}_{y,w}(v) = \sum_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \dim \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{\mathcal{IW}}({\mathrm{Fl}}, {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^{\mathcal{IW}}_y, {\mathcal{E}}^{\mathcal{IW}}_w \{i\}) \cdot v^i.$$ Using the equivalence $\kappa_{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}$ we deduce that $${{}^\ell \hspace{-1pt} n}_{y,w}(v) = \sum_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \dim \operatorname{Hom}_{{D^{{\mathrm{mix}}}}_{({\mathrm{Iw}})}({\mathrm{Gr}}', {\Bbbk})}(\Delta^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_y, \mathcal{S}^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_w \langle i\rangle) \cdot v^i.$$ The claim follows.
Tilting character formula
-------------------------
From now on we assume that ${\Bbbk}$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\ell>0$, and let ${\mathbf{G}}$ be a connected reductive group over ${\Bbbk}$ with simply-connected derived subgroup. We let $h$ be the Coxeter number of ${\mathbf{G}}$, and assume that $\ell>h$.
We choose a Borel subgroup ${\mathbf{B}}\subset {\mathbf{G}}$ and a maximal torus ${\mathbf{T}}\subset {\mathbf{B}}$. We let $\mathfrak{S}$ be the root system of $({\mathbf{G}}, {\mathbf{T}})$, and $\mathfrak{S}^+ \subset \mathfrak{S}$ be the system of positive roots consisting of the ${\mathbf{T}}$-weights in $\mathrm{Lie}({\mathbf{G}}) / \mathrm{Lie}({\mathbf{B}})$. We also set ${\mathbb{X}}:= X^*({\mathbf{T}})$, and denote by ${\mathbb{X}}^+ \subset {\mathbb{X}}$ the subset of dominant weights.
For any $\lambda \in {\mathbb{X}}^+$, we denote by $\nabla(\lambda)$, resp. $\Delta(\lambda)$, resp. $\mathsf{T}(\lambda)$, the induced, resp. Weyl, resp. indecomposable tilting, ${\mathbf{G}}$-module of highest weight $\lambda$.
We also denote by ${T}$ the complex torus with weights $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}({\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{S}, {\mathbb{Z}})$, and let ${G}$ be the semisimple, simply-connected complex algebraic group with maximal torus ${T}$ and coroot system $\mathfrak{S}$. We have an associated affine Weyl group $W$ as in §\[ss:duality-affine\] (which identifies with the semi-direct product ${W_{\mathrm{f}}}\ltimes {\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{S}$), and antispherical $\ell$-Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials ${{}^\ell \hspace{-1pt} n}_{y,w}$ as in §\[ss:duality-Gr\].
Let $\rho=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \in \mathfrak{S}^+} \alpha$; then we can consider the “dot-action” of $W$ on ${\mathbb{X}}$ defined by $$(w t_\lambda) \cdot_p \mu = w(\mu + p\lambda + \rho)-\rho$$ for $w \in {W_{\mathrm{f}}}$ and $\lambda \in {\mathbb{Z}}\mathfrak{S}$. The following result proves the “combinatorial” part of the main conjecture from [@rw].
\[thm:char-formula-tiltings\] For any $w,y \in {{}^{\mathrm{f}} W}$ we have $$\bigl( \mathsf{T}(w \cdot_p 0) : \nabla(y \cdot_p 0) \bigr) = {{}^\ell \hspace{-1pt} n}_{y,w}(1).$$
It follows from [@prinblock Theorem 11.7] that we have $$\bigl( \mathsf{T}(w \cdot_p 0) : \nabla(y \cdot_p 0) \bigr) = \sum_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \bigl( \mathcal{S}^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_w : \nabla^{{\mathrm{Gr}}'}_y \langle i \rangle \bigr).$$ (See [@prinblock Remark 11.3(2)] for the comparison between our present conventions and those of [@prinblock].) Then the desired formula follows from Corollary \[cor:characters-tilting-Gr\].
[AMRW]{}
P. Achar, W. Hardesty, and S. Riche, *On the Humphreys conjecture on support varieties of tilting modules*, in preparation.
P. Achar, S. Makisumi, S. Riche, and G. Williamson, *Free-monodromic mixed tilting sheaves on flag varieties*, preprint arXiv:1703.05843.
P. Achar and S. Riche, [*Koszul duality and semisimplicity of Frobenius*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier [**63**]{} (2013), 1511–1612.
P. Achar and S. Riche, [*Modular perverse sheaves on flag varieties I: tilting and parity sheaves*]{}, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. **49** (2016), 325–370. With an appendix joint with G. Williamson.
P. Achar and S. Riche, [*Modular perverse sheaves on flag varieties II: Koszul duality and formality*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**165**]{} (2016), 161–215.
P. Achar and S. Riche, [*Reductive groups, the loop Grassmannian, and the Springer resolution*]{}, preprint arXiv:1602.04412.
P. Achar and L. Rider, *Parity sheaves on the affine Grassmannian and the Mirković–Vilonen conjecture*, Acta Math. **215** (2015), 183–216.
P. Achar and L. Rider, [*The affine Grassmannian and the Springer resolution in positive characteristic*]{}, Compos. Math. **152** (2016), 2627–2677. With an appendix joint with S. Riche.
H. H. Andersen, J. C. Jantzen, and W. Soergel, *Representations of quantum groups at a [$p$]{}th root of unity and of semisimple groups in characteristic [$p$]{}: independence of [$p$]{}*, Astérisque **220** (1994), 1–321.
S. Arkhipov and R. Bezrukavnikov, *Perverse sheaves on affine flags and Langlands dual group*, Israel J. Math. **170** (2009), 135–183. With an appendix by R. Bezrukavnikov and I. Mirkovi[ć]{}.
S. Arkhipov, R. Bezrukavnikov, and V. Ginzburg, [*Quantum groups, the loop Grassmannian, and the Springer resolution*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**17**]{} (2004), 595–678.
A. Be[ĭ]{}linson, [*On the derived category of perverse sheaves*]{}, in *[$K$]{}-theory, arithmetic and geometry ([M]{}oscow, 1984–1986)*, 27–41, Lecture Notes in Math. 1289, Springer-Verlag, 1987.
A. Be[ĭ]{}linson and J. Bernstein, *Localisation de $\mathfrak{g}$-modules*, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. **292** (1981), 15–18.
A. Be[ĭ]{}linson, R. Bezrukavnikov, and I. Mirkovi[ć]{}, *Tilting exercises*, Mosc. Math. J. **4** (2004), 547–557, 782.
A. Be[ĭ]{}linson and V. Ginzburg, *Wall-crossing functors and $\mathcal{D}$-modules*, Represent. Theory **3** (1999), 1–31.
A. Be[ĭ]{}linson, V. Ginzburg, and W. Soergel, [*Koszul duality patterns in representation theory*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**9**]{} (1996), 473–527.
R. Bezrukavnikov, [*Cohomology of tilting modules over quantum groups and [$t$]{}-structures on derived categories of coherent sheaves*]{}, Invent. Math. [**166**]{} (2006), 327–357.
R. Bezrukavnikov and Z. Yun, *On Koszul duality for Kac–Moody groups*, Represent. Theory **17** (2013), 1–98.
B. Elias, I. Losev, *Modular representation theory in type A via Soergel bimodules*, preprint arXiv:1701.00560.
B. Elias and G. Williamson, [*Soergel calculus*]{}, Represent. Theory **20** (2016), 295–374.
P. Fiebig, *An upper bound on the exceptional characteristics for [L]{}usztig’s character formula*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **673** (2012), 1–31.
M. Finkelberg and I. Mirković, [*Semi-infinite flags I. Case of global curve $\mathbb{P}^1$*]{}, in *Differential topology, infinite-dimensional [L]{}ie algebras, and applications*, 81–112, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, vol. 194, Amer. Math. Soc., 1999.
V. Ginsburg, *Perverse sheaves and $\mathbb{C}^*$-actions*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **4** (1991), 483–490.
X. He and G. Williamson, *Soergel calculus and Schubert calculus*, Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sin. (N.S.), to appear.
J. E. Humphreys, *Comparing modular representations of semisimple groups and their Lie algebras*, in *Modular interfaces (Riverside, CA, 1995)*, 69–80, AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., 4, Amer. Math. Soc., 1997.
J. C. Jantzen, *Character formulae from Hermann Weyl to the present*, in *Groups and analysis*, 232–270, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 354, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.
L. T. Jensen and G. Williamson, *The $p$-canonical basis for Hecke algebras*, in *Categorification in Geometry, Topology and Physics*, 333–361, Contemp. Math. 583 (2017). D. Juteau, C. Mautner, and G. Williamson, [*Parity sheaves*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**27**]{} (2014), 1169–1212.
M. Kashiwara and T. Tanisaki, *Kazhdan–Lusztig conjecture for affine Lie algebras with negative level I*, Duke Math. J. **77** (1995), 21–62; *II, non-integral case*, Duke Math. J. **84** (1996), 771–813.
D. Kazhdan and G. Lusztig, [*Schubert varieties and [P]{}oincaré duality*]{}, in *Geometry of the [L]{}aplace operator ([P]{}roc. [S]{}ympos. [P]{}ure [M]{}ath., [U]{}niv. [H]{}awaii, [H]{}onolulu, [H]{}awaii, 1979)*, 185–203, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. XXXVI, Amer. Math. Soc., 1980.
D. Kazhdan and G. Lusztig, *Tensor structures arising from affine Lie algebras I*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **6** (1993), 905–947; *II*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **6** (1993), 949–1011; *III*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **7** (1994), 335–381; *IV*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **7** (1994), 383–453.
S. Kumar, [*Kac–Moody groups, their flag varieties and representation theory*]{}, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 204, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., 2002.
N. Libedinsky, [*Sur la catégorie des bimodules de Soergel*]{}, J. Algebra [**320**]{} (2008), 2675–2694.
G. Lusztig. Some problems in the representation theory of finite [C]{}hevalley groups. In [*The [S]{}anta [C]{}ruz [C]{}onference on [F]{}inite [G]{}roups ([U]{}niv. [C]{}alifornia, [S]{}anta [C]{}ruz, [C]{}alif., 1979)*]{}, volume 37 of [*Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.*]{}, pages 313–317. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1980.
G. Lusztig, *Monodromic systems on affine flag manifolds*, Proc. Roy. Soc. London **445** (1994), 231–246. Errata in **450** (1995), 731–732.
G. Lusztig and G. Williamson, *Billiards and tilting characters for $SL_3$*, preprint arXiv:1703.05898.
O. Mathieu, *Formules de caractères pour les algèbres de Kac–Moody générales*, Astérisque, vol. 159–160, 1988, 267 pp.
O. Mathieu, *Construction d’un groupe de Kac–Moody et applications*, Compositio Math. **69** (1989), 37–60.
V. Ostrik, *Tensor ideals in the category of tilting modules*, Transform. Groups **2** (1997), 279–287.
C. Mautner and S. Riche, [*Exotic tilting sheaves, parity sheaves on affine Grassmannians, and the Mirkovi[ć]{}–Vilonen conjecture*]{}, preprint arXiv:1501.07369, to appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc.
S. Riche and G. Williamson, [*Tilting modules and the $p$-canonical basis*]{}, preprint arXiv:1512.08296, to appear in Astérisque.
L. Rider, *Formality for the nilpotent cone and a derived Springer correspondence*, Adv. Math. **235** (2013), 208–236.
W. Soergel, *Kategorie $\mathcal{O}$, perverse Garben und Moduln über den Koinvarianten zur Weylgruppe*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **3** (1990), 421–445.
W. Soergel, *Character formulas for tilting modules over quantum groups at roots of one*, in *Current developments in mathematics, 1997 (Cambridge, MA)*, 161–172, Int. Press, 1999.
W. Soergel, *Character formulas for tilting modules over Kac–Moody algebras*, Represent. Theory **2** (1998), 432–448.
W. Soergel, *Langlands’ philosophy and Koszul duality*, in *Algebra—representation theory (Constanta, 2000)*, 379–414, NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem., 28, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2001.
W. Soergel, *On the relation between intersection cohomology and representation theory in positive characteristic*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **152** (2000), 311–335.
W. Soergel, *Kazhdan–Lusztig-Polynome und unzerlegbare Bimoduln [ü]{}ber Polynomringen*, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu **6** (2007), 501–525.
T. A. Springer, [*Quelques applications de la cohomologie d’intersection*]{}, Séminaire Bourbaki, [V]{}ol. 1981/1982, Astérisque **92**–**93** (1982), 249–273.
J. Tits, [*Groupes associés aux algèbres de Kac–Moody*]{}, Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 1988/89, Astérisque **177**–**178** (1989), 7–31.
J. Weidner, *Modular equivariant formality*, preprint arXiv:1312.4776.
G. Williamson, *Modular intersection cohomology complexes on flag varieties*, with an appendix by T. Braden, Math. Z. **272** (2012), 697–727.
G. Williamson, *Algebraic representations and constructible sheaves*, preprint arXiv:1610.06261.
G. Williamson, [*Schubert Calculus and Torsion Explosion*]{}, preprint arXiv:1309.5055, to appear in J. Amer. Math. Soc. With an appendix by A. Kontorovich, P. McNamara and G. Williamson.
Z. Yun, [*Weights of mixed tilting sheaves and geometric Ringel duality*]{}, Sel. Math., New. ser. [**14**]{} (2009), 299–320.
[^1]: In fact, we expect a form of these formulas to hold for all $\ell$. See [@rw Conjecture 1.7] and [@el] where this conjecture is proved for the general linear group.
[^2]: To be precise, the functor we call $\varkappa$ is actually the composition of the functor constructed in [@bgs] with the Radon transform of [@bbm; @yun] (see also [@bg]). For a discussion of various versions of Koszul duality, see [@amrw Chapter 1].
[^3]: We will not try to make the meaning of “relates” precise; this involves technical difficulties which are irrelevant for our present purposes.
[^4]: See [@ab] or §\[ss:duality-Gr\] below for the meaning of this term.
[^5]: The same results hold if ${\Bbbk}$ is a complete local ring, but this case was not treated explicitly in [@amrw].
[^6]: We restrict to characteristic $0$ since this is the setting we will need. But more generally the results of this section hold if there exists a ring morphism ${\mathbb{Z}}' \to {\Bbbk}$ and if the natural morphism $R^\vee \to {\mathsf{H}}^\bullet({\mathscr{B}}^\vee \backslash {\mathscr{G}}^\vee; {\Bbbk})$ introduced in the proof of Lemma \[lem:dim-Hom-V’\] is surjective. This is satisfied e.g. if ${\mathscr{G}}$ is isomorphic to a product of groups $\mathrm{GL}_n({\Bbbk})$ and of quasi-simple groups not of type $\mathbf{A}$, and if $\mathrm{char}({\Bbbk})$ is good for $G$; see [@modrap1 Proposition 4.1].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '*Factorization Machines* (FMs) are a supervised learning approach that enhances the linear regression model by incorporating the second-order feature interactions. Despite effectiveness, FM can be hindered by its modelling of all feature interactions with the same weight, as not all feature interactions are equally useful and predictive. For example, the interactions with useless features may even introduce noises and adversely degrade the performance. In this work, we improve FM by discriminating the importance of different feature interactions. We propose a novel model named *Attentional Factorization Machine* (AFM), which learns the importance of each feature interaction from data via a neural attention network. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of AFM. Empirically, it is shown on regression task AFM betters FM with a $8.6\%$ relative improvement, and consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art deep learning methods Wide&Deep [@cheng2016wide] and DeepCross [@shan2016deep] with a much simpler structure and fewer model parameters. Our implementation of AFM is publicly available at: <https://github.com/hexiangnan/attentional_factorization_machine>'
author:
- |
Jun Xiao$^{1}$ Hao Ye$^{1}$ Xiangnan He$^{2}$ Hanwang Zhang$^{2}$ Fei Wu$^{1}$ Tat-Seng Chua$^{2}$\
$^{1}$College of Computer Science, Zhejiang University\
$^{2}$School of Computing, National University of Singapore\
[{junx, wufei}@cs.zju.edu.cn {xiangnanhe, haoyev, hanwangzhang}@gmail.com [email protected]]{}
title: |
Attentional Factorization Machines:\
Learning the Weight of Feature Interactions via Attention Networks[^1]
---
[^1]: The corresponding author is Xiangnan He.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the evolution of a single unbounded interface between ordered phases in two-dimensional Ising ferromagnets that are endowed with single-spin-flip zero-temperature Glauber dynamics. We examine specifically the cases where the interface initially has either one or two corners. In both examples, the interface evolves to a limiting self-similar form. We apply the continuum time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation and a microscopic approach to calculate the interface shape. For the single corner system, we also discuss a correspondence between the interface and the Young diagram that represents the partition of the integers.'
author:
- 'P. L. Krapivsky'
- 'S. Redner'
- 'J. Tailleur'
title: Dynamics of an Unbounded Interface Between Ordered Phases
---
introduction
============
At low temperatures, interfaces between two broken-symmetry ordered phases typically shrink and eventually disappear [@rev]. The dynamics is usually driven by forces that reduce the interface and leads to surprisingly complicated coarsening processes — even the evolution of an isolated simply-connected domain of minority phase in a sea of the majority phase is in general insoluble. However, every finite domain of linear size $R$ disappears in a finite time that scales as $R^2$ [@lif] for dynamics that does not conserve the order parameter [@glauber]. In this sense, we understand the shrinking of a single domain, or equivalently, the evolution of a single bounded interface [@note].
The goal of this work is to understand the evolution of a single [ *unbounded*]{} two-dimensional interface in simple geometric configurations. The most elementary such example is an infinite straight interface. For this geometry, any spin flip event increases the length of the interface and raises the energy. Thus a straight interface does not evolve — to have any evolution at zero temperature, the interface must have curvature. The simplest realization of a curvature in a lattice system is an infinite interface with a single corner (Fig. \[def\]). While not a direct analog of the theoretical models we consider in this paper, a physical realization of such a geometry is the spreading of a fluid in a V-shaped groove [@W].
![A single corner interface (left) in the initial state and some time later (right). Grey denotes spin down (extending to $\infty$ in the $+x$ and $+y$ directions), and white denotes spin up. The evolving interface encloses an area $S_t$ at time $t$. \[def\]](def-new.eps){width="48.00000%"}
According to zero-temperature single-spin-flip Glauber dynamics [@glauber], the corner spin $\sigma_{0,0}$ can flip. After it flips, the neighbors $\sigma_{0,1}$ and $\sigma_{1,0}$ can flip, or $\sigma_{0,0}$ can flip back, [*etc*]{}. The interface thus evolves stochastically and can, in principle, return to its original configuration as time increases [@convex]. This is, however, exceedingly improbable and generically the interface recedes diffusively (since the dynamics does not conserve the order parameter), [*i.e.*]{}, $x\propto \sqrt{t}$ and $y\propto \sqrt{t}$. Furthermore, although the interface at a fixed time fluctuates from realization to realization, it becomes progressively less random as time increases. More precisely, after the contraction $(x,y)\to
(x/\sqrt{t},y/\sqrt{t})$ the interface approaches a deterministic limiting shape. In the following two sections, we will study the time evolution of the interface and determine its shape within a continuum (Sec. II) and a microscopic approach (Sec. III). In addition to the wedge geometry, we will study, in Sec. IV, interface evolution in systems that initially contain two corners — the macroscopic step and the semi-infinite finger geometries. Finally, in Sec. V, we study the time dependence of fluctuations in the interface shape.
Coarse-Grained Description {#landau}
==========================
A natural way to study interface evolution is through the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation [@rev]. It is generally believed that the long-time behavior predicted by the continuum TDGL equation should be the same as that for the microscopic Ising-Glauber model. In the case of the single interface, we find, surprisingly, that the predictions of the TDGL description qualitatively disagree with simulations of the Ising interface that evolves by zero-temperature Glauber kinetics.
Since we are primarily interested in interfacial behavior, we will not write the TDGL equation but instead will merely utilize a reduction directly to the interface dynamics. As found by Allen and Cahn [@AC], the normal velocity of the interface is proportional to the local curvature, that is, $$\label{cahn}
v_n=-D\nabla\cdot {\bf n},$$ where $D$ is the diffusion constant and [**n**]{} is the local normal to the interface [@det]. This interface dynamics in the TDGL equation is a specific example of curvature-driven flow [@Mu; @H84; @GH86; @G87; @CS], where one is concerned with the evolution of general shapes in arbitrary dimension due to a local velocity that is proportional to the local curvature.
For the case of interest to us, namely, a one-dimensional interface whose locus is $y(x,t)$, the curvature is $$\label{curv}
\nabla\cdot {\bf n}=-\frac{y_{xx}}{\left[1+y_x^2\right]^{3/2}}\,,$$ where the subscripts denote partial differentiation. Using the kinematic condition $v_n \sqrt{1+y_x^2}=y_t$ we find that the interface $y(x,t)$ obeys the diffusion-like equation $$\label{y}
y_t=D\,\frac{y_{xx}}{1+y_x^2}\,.$$ Because of the absence of any constant with dimension of length in this equation, the corresponding solution admits the self-similar form $$\label{sim}
y(x,t)=\sqrt{Dt}\,\,Y(X), \quad X=x/\sqrt{Dt}.$$ Note that the increase of the magnetization is equal to twice the area under the curve $y(x,t)$. From ansatz (\[sim\]), the growth of the area is proportional to $t$, so that the magnetization also grows linearly with time.
To solve the equation of motion (\[y\]), we substitute into this equation the ansatz of Eq. (\[sim\]) and find that the scaling function $Y(X)$ obeys $$\label{Y}
\frac{Y-X Y'}{2}=\frac{Y''}{1+(Y')^2},$$ where prime indicates differentiation with respect to $X$. Equation (\[Y\]) should be solved subject to the constraints $$\label{bound}
\lim_{X\to\infty} Y(X)=0,\qquad
\lim_{X\to +0} Y(X)=\infty.$$ Thus we recast the original problem in Eq. (\[y\]) into an ordinary differential equation subject to the above boundary conditions. Within the TDGL equation framework we note that one can also study the evolution of a wedge with an arbitrary opening angle. For example, if the wedge initially occupies the region $y>|x|\tan\theta$ we should solve Eq. (\[Y\]) subject to the boundary condition $Y\to \pm X \tan\theta$ as $X\to\pm\infty$.
To solve Eq. (\[Y\]), we first introduce the polar coordinates $(X,Y)=(r\cos \theta, r\sin \theta)$ and after straightforward variable transformations we recast Eq. (\[Y\]) into the following equation for $r=r(\theta)$: $$\label{r}
2r\,\frac{d^2 r}{d\theta^2}
-\left(4+r^2\right)\left(\frac{d r}{d\theta}\right)^2=r^2\left(2+r^2\right).$$ Writing $\frac{d r}{d\theta}=R(r)$, further reduces Eq. (\[r\]) to the first-order equation $$\label{R}
\left(r\,\frac{d}{d r}-r^2-4\right)R^2=r^2\left(2+r^2\right),$$ whose solution is $$\label{Rsol}
R^2=r^4\,e^{r^2/2}\,F(r,r_*),$$ with $$\label{F}
F(r,r_*)=\int_{r_*}^r d\rho\,\left(
\frac{2}{\rho^3}+\frac{1}{\rho}\right)\,e^{-\rho^2/2}\,.$$ The interface is now determined from $$\label{rtheta}
\frac{d r}{d\theta}=-r^2\,e^{r^2/4}\sqrt{F(r,r_*)}$$ for $\theta\leq \pi/4$. For $\theta\geq \pi/4$, there should be a plus sign on the right-hand side. Integrating Eq. (\[rtheta\]) we arrive at the explicit equation for $\theta=\theta(r)$ $$\label{rsol}
\theta=\int_{r}^\infty {d\rho}\,\rho^{-2}\,e^{-\rho^2/4}\,[F(\rho,r_*)]^{-1/2}$$ for $\theta\leq \pi/4$. For $\pi/4<\theta<\pi/2$, the interface is symmetric with respect to the diagonal, that is, $r(\theta)=r(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta)$. The solution in Eq. (\[rsol\]) contains the unknown $r_*$, which is the scaled distance from the origin to the closest point on the interface. Its value is obtained by ensuring that $\theta=\pi/4$ when $r=r_*$. This gives the criterion $$\label{r*}
\int_{r_*}^\infty {dr}\,r^{-2}\,e^{-r^2/4}
[F(r,r_*)]^{-1/2}=\frac{\pi}{4}\,,$$ whose numerical solution is $r_*\approx 1.0445$. Equation (\[rsol\]), with $F$ given by (\[F\]), provides an explicit representation of $\theta(r)$ on the interface in terms of the (scaled) distance $r\in[r_*,\infty)$ from the origin.
In the asymptotic regime $r\to\infty$, the form of the interface becomes much simpler. From Eqs. (\[F\]) and (\[rsol\]) we find $$\label{rasymp}
\theta\to A\,r^{-3}\,e^{-r^2/4}$$ with $A=2\,[F(\infty,r_*)]^{-1/2}\approx 2.74404$. Equivalently, $$\label{Yasymp}
Y\to A\,X^{-2}\,\exp\left[-\frac{X^2}{4}\right]\,.$$ Apart from the numerical factor $A$, this behavior can be established directly from Eq. (\[Y\]) after dropping the subdominant terms in the asymptotic limit.
While the spatial extent of the continuum interface, defined as the region with non-zero curvature, is strictly infinite, the presence of a lattice cutoff implies that the interface will have a finite extent. The finiteness of the interface may be quantified by the distance of its leading edge, $x_{\rm max}$ (or $y_{\rm max})$, from the origin (see Fig. \[def\]). We may estimate this distance as the value of $x$ for which the TDGL description first gives $y(x)<a$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing. Substituting the criterion $y=a$ into Eq. (\[Yasymp\]) we thereby obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a}{\sqrt{Dt}}=\frac{A\, Dt}{x_{\rm max}^2}\,\,e^{-x_{\rm max}^2/4Dt}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which leads to the asymptotic behavior $$\label{xmax}
x_{\rm max}\approx \sqrt{2Dt\,\ln(Dt/a^2)}.$$ Notice that the value of the lattice spacing is immaterial for the asymptotic behavior and we therefore set $a=1$ henceforth.
Microscopic Description {#ising}
=======================
Basic Characteristics and Generalizations
-----------------------------------------
At the microscopic level, the interface has a staircase shape (Fig. \[def\]). Zero-temperature Glauber spin-flip dynamics [@glauber] forbids energy raising flips, so that only spins in the corners on the interface can evolve. While both energy decreasing and energy conserving flips are generically allowed, only energy conserving spin flips can occur in the wedge geometry. We define the rate for these events to be one without loss of generality. The construction of the system ensures that the total number of possible flips of minority spins always exceeds the total number of possible flips of majority spins by one (see Fig. \[process\]). Hence the total number $S_t$ of spins in the first quadrant that join the majority phase is a random variable that undergoes a random walk on the half-lattice $S_t\in {\bf Z}_+$, with a constant positive bias that equals one. Thus the expected number of spins that have flipped at time $t$ is $\langle
S_t\rangle=t$.
![The elementary steps of deposition and evaporation that drive the evolution of a staircase. In this example, deposition (equivalent to the spin flip event $-\to +$) can occur at 4 sites while evaporation can occur at 3 sites. \[process\]](process.eps){width="18.00000%"}
Algorithmically, Glauber kinetics involves randomly picking a spin on the corners of the staircase and allowing this spin to flip freely. Equivalently, we can view the staircase evolution as a deposition/evaporation process in which deposition can occur at sites $x$ where $y(x)<y(x-1)$ (with $y(-1)$ defined to be infinite), while evaporation can occur at sites where $y(x)>y(x+1)$ (Fig. \[process\]). Here deposition is equivalent to the spin flip process $-\to +$ and [*vice versa*]{} for evaporation.
According to zero-temperature Glauber kinetics, deposition and evaporation events must occur at the same rate for all eligible sites. Owing to the above-mentioned fact that there is always exactly one more site available for deposition than for evaporation, this “unbiased” evolution rule leads to a steadily growing interface in which the average number of particles in the deposit grows as $t$. This particulate description for the interface naturally suggests the generalization to different deposition and evaporation rates. For reasons that will soon become evident, we consider the following three rules:
- Equal deposition and evaporation rates. This is just evolution of the interface by Glauber kinetics at zero temperature and zero magnetic field.
- Evaporation rate greater than deposition rate. With this rate bias, the interface reaches an equilibrium state.
- Irreversible deposition with no evaporation events.
Physically, rule (iii) is equivalent to interface evolution by zero-temperature Glauber kinetics in the presence of a magnetic field that favors the majority spin; the magnitude of the field is irrelevant (at zero temperature) as long as it is smaller than a threshold value to ensure the stability of flat interfaces.
Relation to Partitions
----------------------
The staircase can also be viewed as a geometric representation of the partition of the integer number $S_t$. This partition is simply the set of $S_t$ boxes in the first quadrant that are arranged in non-increasing order. Such an object is also called a Young diagram [@Fulton]. For example, the interface of Fig. \[young\] corresponds to the partitioning of the integer 22 into the set $\{7,6,4,2,1,1,1\}$.
![The Young diagram that is based on the interface profile of Fig. \[def\]. This diagram corresponds to a partition of the integer 22 into the set $\{7,6,4,2,1,1,1\}$. \[young\]](young.eps){width="18.00000%"}
Much is known about partitions [@Andrews]; for example, the number of partitions $p(N)$ of the integer $N$ has the asymptotic behavior $p(N)\sim
N^{-1}\,\exp(2\pi\sqrt{N/6})$. The asymptotic behavior of Young diagrams is also qualitatively simple: After a suitable rescaling, a typical Young diagram converges to a [*limiting shape*]{} (see [@Ver] for precise statements and earlier references). To compute this shape one must know the weights of all possible partitions. For the case where each partition occurs with equal weight $1/p(N)$ (the uniform measure), the corresponding limiting shape is known [@Ver], and will be quoted in the next subsection.
For the Ising interface (rule (i) in the above list), we do not know the weights of each interface configuration [@fluct]. We will see that the shape of the Ising interface is slightly different from that of Young diagrams, implying that the weights are not uniform. On the other hand, if the spin flip event $+\to -$ is favored over $-\to +$ (rule (ii)), then the interface approaches an equilibrium state. Because the state space is sampled more extensively in the equilibrium system, this suggests that the weights for each interface configuration should be more uniform than in the case of rule (i), as borne out in our simulation results below.
Limiting Shape
--------------
We now present a heuristic derivation for the limiting shape that corresponds to the uniform measure. We follow an argument by Shlosman [@shl]; see also [@rd] for a similar approach. The assumption that the measure is uniform implies that we can disregard the underlying dynamics and simply count the number of possible staircases. (A similar calculation for the triangular lattice is presented in the Appendix.)
On the square lattice, the interface is a staircase in ${\bf Z}^2$ with each step going either to the right or downward (Fig. \[def\]). Let ${\bf
1}=(x_1,y_1)$ and ${\bf 2}=(x_2,y_2)$ be two points in ${\bf Z}^2$ that can be connected by a staircase; that is, $0\leq x_1\leq x_2$ and $y_1\geq
y_2\geq 0$. The number of staircases from ${\bf 1}$ to ${\bf 2}$ is $$\label{N12-def}
N({\bf 1},{\bf 2})={x_2-x_1+y_1-y_2\choose x_2-x_1}\,.$$ For compactness, we set $a=x_2-x_1$ and $b=y_1-y_2$. If the points ${\bf 1}$ and ${\bf 2}$ are distant, [*i.e.*]{}, $a\gg 1$ and $b\gg 1$, the Stirling formula gives $$\begin{aligned}
\ln {a+b\choose a}\longrightarrow -a\ln\frac{a}{a+b}-b\ln\frac{b}{a+b}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\label{ab}
\ln N({\bf 1},{\bf 2})=\ln {a+b\choose a}
\longrightarrow \sqrt{a^2+b^2}\,\,\Phi({\bf n})\,,$$ where ${\bf n}=(n_1,n_2)=(b,a)/\sqrt{a^2+b^2}$ is the unit vector orthogonal to ${\bf 1}-{\bf 2}$ and $$\label{fn12}
\Phi({\bf n})=-n_1\,\ln\frac{n_1}{n_1+n_2}-n_2\,\ln\frac{n_2}{n_1+n_2}\,.$$
Suppose now that points ${\bf 1}$ and ${\bf 2}$ are far enough apart to ensure the applicability of Eq. (\[ab\]) yet close enough to guarantee that the interface is locally almost flat. Under these conditions, we have $$\label{n12}
(n_1,n_2)=\left(-\frac{y_x}{\sqrt{1+y_x^2}}\,,\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+y_x^2}}\right).$$
Generally, consider an interface that goes through the points ${\bf
1},\ldots, {\bf k}$, with adjacent points satisfying the above requirements. The total number of these staircases is then the product of the factors $N({\bf j},{\bf j+1})$. The logarithm of the number of staircases is therefore the sum of these factors (asymptotically an integral). Using Eqs. (\[ab\]) and (\[n12\]) we thereby find that the logarithm of the total number of staircases approaches to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N}
G[y]&=&\int_0^\infty dx\,\sqrt{1+y_x^2}\,\,\,
\Phi\left(-\frac{y_x}{\sqrt{1+y_x^2}}\,,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+y_x^2}}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\int_0^\infty dx\,
\left[y_x\,\ln\frac{-y_x}{1-y_x}-\ln\frac{1}{1-y_x}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Since $x, y\propto\sqrt{t}$ on the interface, the number of staircases near the typical interface scales as $e^{\sqrt{t}\,G[Y]}$. Because $G[Y]$ is of the order of one, the number of staircases rapidly grows with $t$ and the dominant contribution arises from the staircases close to the curve $y=y(x,t)$ that maximizes the functional of Eq. (\[N\]). Thus we need to determine only the optimal curve to find the asymptotic interface shape.
![Comparison of the interfaces from the TDGL equation (Eq. (\[rsol\])) (dashed) and that from Eq. (\[main\]) (solid). Both curves are normalized to unit enclosed area. \[cont-vs-disc\]](cont-vs-disc.eps){width="38.00000%"}
In maximizing (\[N\]) we must only use curves that bound an area equal to $t$, [*i.e.*]{}, $\int_0^\infty dx\,y(x,t)=t$. With this isoperimetric constraint, the proper functional to maximize is $G_\lambda[y] \equiv
G[y]-\lambda\int_0^\infty dx\,y$, where $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier. Re-writing $G_\lambda[y]= \int_0^\infty dx\,L(y,y_x)$, with the Lagrangian $$\label{lagrange}
L(y,y_x)=y_x\,\ln\frac{-y_x}{1-y_x}-\ln\frac{1}{1-y_x}
-\lambda y,$$ and applying the Euler-Lagrange formalism, gives the extremum condition $\frac{d}{dx}\,\ln\frac{-y_x}{1-y_x}=-\lambda$. Integrating this equation subject to $y_x(0)=-\infty$ yields $$\label{Yx}
\frac{-y_x}{1-y_x}=e^{-\lambda x}\,.$$ Integrating (\[Yx\]) subject to $y(\infty)=0$ gives the remarkably simple form [@shl] for the shape of the optimal staircase (fig. \[cont-vs-disc\]) $$\label{main}
e^{-\lambda x}+e^{-\lambda y}=1, \quad {\rm with}\qquad \lambda=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{6t}}\,,$$ where $\lambda$ is determined from the area constraint.
This limiting shape is quantitatively close to that obtained from the coarse-grained TDGL approach, except near the tail region, where the TDGL equation predicts a Gaussian tail (\[Yasymp\]) while (\[main\]) gives an exponential tail $$\label{Yasympexact}
Y\to \frac{\sqrt{6}}{\pi}\,\exp\left[-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{6}}\,X\right],$$ as $X\to\infty$, where $X=x/\sqrt{t}$ and $Y=y/\sqrt{t}$ are the scaled coordinates. Correspondingly, the location of the leading edge is $$\label{xmaxexact}
x_{\rm max}\to C\sqrt{t}\,\,\ln t$$ with $C=\sqrt{6}/2\pi=0.3898\ldots$. Notice that the leading edge moves slightly faster than the $\sqrt{t\,\ln t}$ law predicted by the TDGL approach.
Simulation Results
------------------
We simulated Ising interfaces that are grown by the three different rules defined in Sec. III.A. By rescaling each of these interfaces to have unit area, our numerical results exhibit data collapse after a short-time transient, with each rule giving a slightly different, although quantitatively similar, universal curve. Interestingly, only in the evaporation-dominated case (rule (ii)), does the interface shape coincide with Eq. (\[main\]).
![The interface in the wedge geometry for: (i) equal deposition and evaporation rates — equivalently, the Ising-Glauber interface (based on 100 realizations of $434033 1\approx 1.5^{32}$ particles), (ii) evaporation rate exceeding the deposition rate (based on $500$ realizations and the ratio of evaporation to deposition rate equal to $0.51/0.49\approx
1.041$, corresponding to an average deposit of 1012 particles), and (iii) irreversible deposition (based on $10^4$ realizations of $287627=1.5^{31}$ particles). The two plots show the interface on a linear (top) and an exponential scale (bottom). The straight line behavior in the latter corresponds to Eq. (\[main\]). \[compare\]](compare-linear.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"} ![The interface in the wedge geometry for: (i) equal deposition and evaporation rates — equivalently, the Ising-Glauber interface (based on 100 realizations of $434033 1\approx 1.5^{32}$ particles), (ii) evaporation rate exceeding the deposition rate (based on $500$ realizations and the ratio of evaporation to deposition rate equal to $0.51/0.49\approx
1.041$, corresponding to an average deposit of 1012 particles), and (iii) irreversible deposition (based on $10^4$ realizations of $287627=1.5^{31}$ particles). The two plots show the interface on a linear (top) and an exponential scale (bottom). The straight line behavior in the latter corresponds to Eq. (\[main\]). \[compare\]](compare.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%"}
It is also worth noting the following subtlety in our measurements of interfaces. In each realization, we record the height $y(x)$ at each value of $x$, and then we average over many realizations to obtain the average interface $\{\langle y(x)\rangle\}$. This procedure is manifestly not symmetrical about the $45^\circ$ diagonal. For example, in our definition of the average profile there is necessarily a non-zero contribution at $x_{\rm
max}$, so that the average profile in the $x$-direction extends to $x_{\rm
max}$. On the other hand, the average profile in the $y$-direction extends only to the smaller value $\langle y(x=1)\rangle$. The asymmetry caused by this averaging is small, except near the extremes of the interface (if one looks closely at Fig. \[compare\]).
Related Geometries
==================
The next level of complexity is to consider an initial interface with two corners. We specifically study two cases: (a) a single large step that smooths out to an error function profile, and (b) a semi-infinite rectangular “finger” that evolves to a constantly receding steady shape.
Single step
-----------
We form a single step interface by two horizontal half-lines, $x\leq 0, y=2h$ and $x\geq 0, y=0$, and the vertical interval $x=0, 0\leq y\leq 2h$ (Fig. \[one-step\]). If the height $2h$ of the step is small, the problem is best analyzed by random walk techniques. For example, when $2h=2$, the kink in the interface is equivalent to a single particle that undergoes a discrete one-dimensional random walk. Similarly when $2h=4$ the system consists of two random walks, located say at $x_L$ and $x_R$, but subject to the constraint that the two particles cannot interchanges their positions.
![Schematic evolution of a single step according to Ising-Glauber dynamics. \[one-step\]](one-step.eps){width="32.00000%"}
More interesting behaviors occur for $h\gg 1$, where three regimes arise. When $1\ll t\ll h^2$, the two corners do not ‘feel’ each other and the problem reduces to that of two non-interacting quadrants. We may obtain a better upper bound for this non-interacting regime by using the growth law for the position of the leading edge (Eq. (\[xmax\])). Since the unperturbed initial vertical interval starts at $y\approx C\sqrt{t}\,\ln t$ and ends at $y\approx 2h-C\sqrt{t}\,\ln t$, the two corners remain independent as long as $\sqrt{t}\,\ln t\ll h$, or $t\ll h^2/\ln h$.
When $h\sim \sqrt{t}$, the corners interact. In this second regime, we can still determine the interface shape by employing the maximization procedure of section \[ising\]. To find $y=y(x,t)$ for $x>0$, we should maximize the functional $G_\lambda[y]=\int_0^\infty dx\,L(y,y_x)$, with the Lagrangian given by (\[lagrange\]), but now with the boundary conditions $y(0)=h$ (by symmetry) and $y(\infty)=0$. We find $$\label{step}
\left(1-e^{-\lambda h}\right)e^{-\lambda x}+e^{-\lambda y}=1.$$ The area bounded by this curve is $$\label{steparea}
\int_0^\infty dx\,y=\lambda^{-2}\,{\rm Li}_2\left(1-e^{-\lambda h}\right),$$ where ${\rm Li}_2(z)=\sum_{n\geq 1} z^n/n^2$ is the dilogarithm function. Equating the area to $t$ we obtain $$\label{relation}
\Lambda^{-2}\,{\rm Li}_2\left(1-e^{-\Lambda H}\right)=1,$$ where $\lambda=\Lambda/\sqrt{t}$ and $H=h/\sqrt{t}$. In the limit $H\to
\infty$, we must recover the non-interacting regime; indeed, the limiting shape (\[step\]) reduces to (\[main\]).
In the third regime $h\ll\sqrt{t}$, the most appropriate description of the interface is in terms of $2h$ random walkers. Adjacent walkers are separated by a large distance of the order of $\sqrt{t}/h$ and therefore are effectively non-interacting. We may compute the density of random walkers by solving the diffusion equation and the resulting limiting shape is given by the error function. This same prediction follows from the TDGL approach, as the factor $y_x^2$ can be neglected in the long-time limit (see Eq. (\[y\])). Notice, however, that it is not possible to recover this limiting shape by taking the $H\to 0$ limit in Eq. (\[step\]). The reason for this non-analyticity is the large discrepancy between the horizontal and vertical scales when $\sqrt{t}\gg h$.
Rectangular finger
------------------
For the finger geometry, the minority phase initially occupies the semi-infinite region $y>0$ and $|x|<L$. The interesting regime is again $t\gg L^2$, where the two corners of the initial finger interact and the finger relaxes to a limiting shape that eventually recedes at constant velocity. In a reference frame moving with the finger, the interface $y(x)$ is thus stationary.
A new feature of the semi-infinite finger compared to the wedge geometry is the possibility for energy-lowering spin-flip events to occur. For example, if the tip of the finger contains a single spin, then when this spin flips, the fingertip irreversibly advances by one unit. Another new feature is that the finger can shed disconnected pieces whenever the tip of the finger has a width equal to one and length greater than two. Finally, the possibility of energy-lowering moves also means that the evolution of a finger is irreversible; there is no possibility of the system returning to its initial state once an energy-lowering move has occurred (Fig. \[finger-pic\]).
![Schematic evolution of a rectangular finger according to Ising-Glauber dynamics. On the right-hand side, the flip of the lowest minority spin is an irreversible process that causes the minimum height of the finger to advance by one. \[finger-pic\]](finger.eps){width="32.00000%"}
Within the TDGL approach, $y(x)$ now satisfies the equation $Dy_{xx}=v(1+y_x^2)$ [@Mu; @PMVC]. Integrating, and imposing the boundary condition $y\to\infty$ when $|x|\to L$, we obtain, for the finger shape $$\label{finger}
y=-\frac{2L}{\pi}\,\ln\left[\cos\left(\frac{\pi x}{2L}\right)\right],$$ a result that was first apparently obtained by Mullins [@Mu]. In this steady state, the finger recedes at a constant velocity that is given by $v=Dy''(0)=\pi D/2L$.
Again, we test the applicability of the TDGL approach by comparing with numerical simulations. In our simulations of the finger, both energy conserving and energy lowering moves can occur, with rates 1 and 2, respectively. The rate at which the finger recedes is controlled by the fact that there is almost always an excess of two sites where the spin flip event $-\to +$ can occur (recession step) compared to $+\to -$. The only exception is the case where the fingertip width equals one; here the excess of potential recession steps over advancement steps also equals one. As a result of this nearly constant bias, the finger recedes at a constant rate with steady-state velocity equal to $1/L$, up to exponentially small corrections.
![Comparison of the finger shape predicted by the TDGL approach given in Eq. \[finger\] (dashed line) with simulation results for 100 realizations of width $2L=400$ at times $t=2\times 10^5$, $6\times 10^5$, and $10^6$ steps (solid lines). The data for these three times essentially coincide. \[finger-compare\]](finger-compare.eps){width="42.00000%"}
While the shape of the finger is quantitatively close to the TDGL prediction, the discrepancy between the continuum theory and the simulations persists even as $L\to\infty$. This dichotomy is parallel to that observed in the wedge geometry.
We have not investigated the evolution of the interface subject to rules (ii) and (iii) in detail, so we just mention qualitative results. In both cases, the finger recedes at a constant velocity. For the system in a magnetic field (rule (iii)), $v(L)$ is a decreasing function of $L$ that saturates to a non-zero limit $v_\infty=\lim_{L\to\infty}v(L)>0$, in contrast to the case finger evolution in zero magnetic field. In the evaporation-dominated case, we estimate the velocity as the probability for the finger to reach the state where the fingertip has a width equal to one. In this case, an irreversible energy-lowering move can occur, so that the finger recedes by one step. If $1+\epsilon$ is the ratio of the evaporation to deposition rate, then $v(L)\sim e^{-\epsilon L}$.
Fluctuations
============
In addition to the mean interface shape, we also study fluctuations of the interface. Perhaps the simplest such quantity is the fluctuation in the area $S_t$ bounded by the interface at time $t$. We estimate the probability distribution of the area by the following simple argument. In the long-time limit, there are $N_+\sim t^{1/2}$ spins along the interface that can flip and join the majority phase and $N_-=N_+-1$ interface spins that can flip and join the minority. Thus the evolution of $S_t$ is driven by a deterministic contribution of rate one and a random contribution whose rate is of the order of $t^{1/4}$. This suggests that the evolution of $S_t$ is governed by the Langevin equation: $$\label{Langevin}
\frac{dS_t}{dt}=1+t^{1/4}\,\xi(t),$$ with $\xi(t)$ a random noise term that satisfies $\langle \xi(t)\rangle=0$ and $\langle \xi(t)\,\xi(t')\rangle=\delta(t-t')$. From this equation we immediately find that $\langle S_t\rangle=t$, while the fluctuation in $S_t$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (S_t-t)^2\rangle
&=&\int_0^t dt_1\int_0^t dt_2\, (t_1t_2)^{1/4}
\langle \xi(t_1)\,\xi(t_2)\rangle\\
&=&\int_0^t dt_1\,\,t_1^{1/2}\propto t^{3/2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $S_t-t$ is a Gaussian random variable, and the probability distribution of the area $P_n(t)\equiv {\rm Prob}[S_t=n]$ is $$\label{Pnt}
P_n(t)\propto \exp\left[-\frac{(n-t)^2}{t^{3/2}}\right]\,.$$ The variance is proportional to $t^{3/4}$, in excellent agreement with our simulation results (Fig. \[time-dep\]). As a corollary to this latter result, the probability $P_0(t)$ for the interface to return to its original state decays as $P_0(t)\propto e^{-\sqrt{t}}$. Because $\int P_0(t')\, dt'$ is finite, this means that the probability for the interface to eventually return to its original state is less than one [@fpp].
![Time-dependent properties of the Ising interface with Glauber kinetics for the wedge initial condition based on 100 realizations. Shown are: the average interface area ($\circ$), the variance in this area ($\square$), the mean value of the closest distance from the origin to the interface ($\Delta$), and the variance in this distance ($\nabla$). The thin solid lines are the best fits to the data at long time and have respective slopes 0.997, 0.737, 0.490, and 0.248. \[time-dep\]](time-dep.eps){width="38.00000%"}
We next consider fluctuations in the position of the interface by studying the location of the intersection of the interface with the diagonal $x=y$. The intersection between the diagonal and the (deterministic) limiting shape is $x=y=C_1\sqrt{t}$ with $C_1=(\sqrt{6}\,\ln 2)/\pi$. In each realization, however, $x$ is a random variable. Following the same argument as that applied for the total interface area, we anticipate that the variance in the position of the intersection point exhibits Gaussian fluctuations. This gives $$\label{x-fluct}
\left|x-C_1\sqrt{t}\right|\propto t^{1/4}\,,$$ again in excellent agreement with simulations (Fig. \[time-dep\]).
Discussion
==========
The dynamics of a single unbounded interface between ordered phases in the two-dimensional zero-temperature Ising-Glauber model has surprisingly rich properties and exciting connections with diverse topics in mathematics and physics. We discussed the correspondence to the limiting shapes of partitions [@Ver; @O]; two other connections are to exclusion processes [@excl], and potentially to random matrices [@mehta]. In particular, we presented evidence that in the case where the interface achieves an equilibrium state, the resulting interface coincides with the limiting shape in the partitioning problem.
The connection between the interface in the wedge geometry and exclusion processes arises from a simple construction in which one associates a particle with each vertical portion of the interface and a hole with each horizontal portion (Fig. \[csp\]). Thus the wedge geometry corresponds to an initial state in the particle system that consists of a semi-infinite line of particles in the region $(-\infty,0)$ and empty space for $(0,\infty)$. Basic features of the interface shape can therefore be translated to corresponding properties of the particle density profile.
![The interface configuration of Fig. \[young\] rotated by $45^\circ$ and the corresponding particle configuration. \[csp\]](csp.eps){width="32.00000%"}
A possible connection to random matrices is best appreciated for the situation where the Ising interface grows irreversibly (our rule (i)). In this case, the weight of any interface configuration is the number of ways to grow the final state from the empty diagram $\emptyset$ by adding squares one at a time, such that a partition is maintained at each step. For each partition $\pi=(y_0\geq y_1\geq \ldots\geq 0)$ of size $|\pi|=\sum y_j=N$, the number of distinct growth histories is usually denoted $\dim \pi$ [@dim] and irreversible interface growth corresponds to finding the limiting shape with the probability measure $$\label{measure}
{\rm Prob}(\pi)=\frac{\dim \pi}{Z_N}\,,$$ where $Z_N=\sum_{|\mu|=N} \dim \mu$ [@ZN]. For the closely related Plancherel measure, ${\rm Prob}(\pi)\propto (\dim \pi)^2$, the limiting shape is also known [@VK; @LS]. As explained in Ref. [@O], the simplicity of the Plancherel measure stems from a hidden connection to unitary Gaussian random matrices; similarly, the measure (\[measure\]) appears to be related to orthogonal Gaussian random matrices.
Another open question is the limiting shape of an initially large rectangle of down spins in an infinite sea of up spins. As mentioned in the introduction, although the time scale for this object to disappear is known [@lif], the [*shape*]{} of this object is not. One might expect that an initial square would evolve to a circular shape. It has indeed been proved that for curvature-driven growth every smooth closed curve in the plane asymptotically approaches a (shrinking) circular shape [@GH86; @G87]. The situation in three dimensions is much richer because a surface with both concave and convex portions can undergo fission by curvature-driven growth. The analogous result to Grayson’s theorem is that any convex domain will ultimately approach a shrinking sphere [@H84]. On the other hand, for the Ising-Glauber model, nothing has been established rigorously. Our analytic and numerical results showed that lattice anisotropy effects persist in the interface dynamics. Thus we expect that a shrinking cluster in the long-time limit will not be isotropic.
Moving to three dimensions, it should be worthwhile to investigate the shape of the zero-temperature Ising-Glauber interface on the cubic lattice when the spins in the positive octant $x\geq 0, y\geq 0, z\geq 0$ have a different sign than all other spins. We anticipate that the results will be similar to the limiting shape of the so-called plane partitions. In this latter problem, analytical results recently obtained in Refs. [@CK; @OR] correspond to the case of the uniform measure. It would be interesting to study the possible correspondence between these plane partitions and the Ising interface.
Finally, we cannot resist mentioning that the finger shape (\[finger\]) is mathematically identical to the Saffman-Taylor finger in the Hele-Shaw cell [@ST].
We are grateful to K. Kornev and R. Rajesh for helpful remarks and especially to B. Meerson for helpful comments on the manuscript and for bringing Ref. [@Mu] to our attention. PLK and SR thank NSF grant DMR0227670 for financial support of this research. The research of JT was supported by a travel grant from ENS de Cachan.
Triangular lattice
==================
We study the triangular lattice [@hex] because, in contrast to the square lattice, it is macroscopically isotropic, and hence one might anticipate that interface dynamics should be described by the intrinsically isotropic TDGL equation. We will see, however, that this is [*not*]{} the case.
![The interface for the triangular lattice predicted by Eq. (\[main3\]) for the $2\pi/3$ wedge (dashed line). \[triangular\]](triangular.eps){width="34.00000%"}
There are two natural possibilities for a wedge geometry on the triangular lattice: opening angle (a) $\pi/3$ and (b) $2\pi/3$. The latter case is more amenable to analysis, since energy decreasing spin flips can never occur and the system has the same reversibility as the $\pi/2$ wedge on the square lattice.
Our derivation of the interface shape follows the steps given for the $\pi/2$ wedge on the square lattice. The only new feature is that $a=(x_2-x_1)-(y_1-y_2)/\sqrt{3}$ and $b=2(y_1-y_2)/\sqrt{3}$ should be employed in Eq. (\[ab\]). The variational problem on the triangular lattice involves maximizing the functional $G_\lambda[y]=\int_0^\infty
dx\,L(y,y_x)$ with the associated Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L(y,y_x)&=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\,y_x\,\ln\frac{-2y_x}{\sqrt{3}-y_x}\\
&-&\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,y_x\right)\ln\frac{\sqrt{3}+y_x}{\sqrt{3}-y_x}
-\lambda y.\end{aligned}$$
The Euler-Lagrange equation reduces to $$\label{Lagr}
\frac{d}{dx}\,\left[\ln\frac{y_x^2}{3-y_x^2}\right]=-\sqrt{3}\,\lambda.$$ Integrating twice (subject to the boundary conditions $y\to 0$ for $x\to\infty$ and $y\to -\sqrt{3}\,x$ for $x\to -\infty$) yields $$\label{main3}
x=-\frac{y}{\sqrt{3}}-\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}\,\lambda}\,
\ln\left[1-e^{-\lambda y}\right],
\quad \lambda=\frac{\pi}{3^{3/4}\sqrt{t}}\,,$$ where $\lambda$ is again determined from the constraint that the area between the limiting shape and the initial wedge equals $t$. To simplify this computation, it is useful to write the area in the form $\int_0^\infty
dy\,(x+3^{-1/2}y)=t$.
The limiting shape of the interface is shown in Fig. \[triangular\]. The asymptotic tails of the interface are again exponentially small. This agrees with simulations and contradicts to the Gaussian tails predicted by the TDGL approach.
[99]{}
For reviews, see, [*e.g.*]{}, J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel, and P. S. Sahni in: [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*]{}, Vol. 8, eds. C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic, NY 1983); A. J. Bray, Adv. Phys. [**43**]{}, 357 (1994).
I. M. Lifshitz, Sov. Phys. JETP [**15**]{}, 939 (1962); L. Chayes, R. H. Schonmann, and G. Swindle, J. Stat. Phys. [**79**]{}, 821 (1995).
R. J. Glauber, J. Math. Phys. [**4**]{}, 294 (1963).
During the evolution, small bubbles can branch off the the domain, so strictly speaking there may be more than one interface.
A very recent account of this and related fluid spreading problems appears in P. B. Warren, [*cond-mat/0311216*]{}.
According to zero-temperature Glauber dynamics, a patch of minority phase that occupies a domain ${\cal D}$ can grow up to the rectangular envelope of ${\cal D}$ ([*i.e.*]{}, the smallest rectangle that contains ${\cal D}$). In the present case the rectangular envelope is always the original quadrant.
S. M. Allen and J. W. Cahn, Acta Metall. [**27**]{}, 1085 (1979).
Note that the Allen-Cahn equation (\[cahn\]) is [ *deterministic*]{}; generally, the TDGL equation is stochastic at positive temperature but becomes deterministic at zero temperature. Glauber dynamics remains stochastic even at $T=0$.
W. W. Mullins, J. Appl. Phys. [**27**]{}, 900 (1956).
G. Huisken, J. Differential Geom. [**20**]{}, 237 (1984).
M. E. Gage and R. S. Hamilton, J. Differential Geom. [**23**]{}, 69 (1986).
M. A. Grayson, J. Differential Geom. [**26**]{}, 285 (1987).
D. L. Chopp and J. A. Sethian, Exper. Math. [**2**]{}, 235 (1993); D. L. Chopp, Exper. Math. [**3**]{}, 1 (1994).
W. Fulton, [*Young Tableaux: With Applications to Representation Theory and Geometry*]{} (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997).
G. E. Andrews, [*The Theory of Partitions*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1976).
A. Vershik, Func. Anal. Appl. [**30**]{}, no. 2, 90 (1996).
Furthermore, $S_t$ is not a fixed number but a random variable that fluctuates from realization to realization; this apparently has an asymptotically negligible effect as the relative fluctuations in $S_t$ decay to zero (see Sect. V).
S. Shlosman, J. Math. Phys. [**41**]{}, 1364 (2000).
R. Rajesh and D. Dhar, [*cond-mat/0303577*]{}.
A. Peleg, B. Meerson, A. Vilenkin, and M. Conti, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 066101 (2001).
S. Redner, [*A Guide to First-Passage Processes*]{} (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001).
A. Okounkov, [*math-ph/0309015*]{}.
See [*e.g.,*]{} M. Praehofer and H. Spohn in “In and Out of Equilibrium”, ed. V. Sidoravicius, Progress in Probability, [**51**]{}, 185-204, (Birkhauser, Boston, 2002).
M. L. Mehta, [*Random Matrices*]{} (Academic Press, Boston, 1991).
The irreducible representations of the symmetric group $S_N$ are indexed by partitions $\pi$ of size $N$, and $\dim \pi$ is the dimension of the corresponding representation [@Fulton].
The normalization factor can be found from the generating function $\sum_{N\geq 0}\frac{Z_N}{N!}\,t^N=\exp(t+\frac{t^2}{2})$.
A. Vershik and S. Kerov, Sov. Math. Dokl. [**18**]{}, 527 (1977).
B. F. Logan and L. A. Shepp, Adv. Math. [**26**]{}, 206 (1977).
R. Cerf and R. Kenyon, Commun. Math. Phys. [**222**]{}, 147 (2001).
A. Okounkov and N. Reshetikhin, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**16**]{}, 581 (2003).
P. G. Saffman and G. I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A [**245**]{}, 312 (1958).
The third possible two-dimensional lattice, the hexagonal, has uninteresting zero-temperature dynamics because the coordination number is odd. Thus any patch containing a hexagon never disappears.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We have undertaken toward 30 Mira or semi-regular variables and one OH/IR object highly sensitive observations of the $v=1, J=2
\rightarrow 1$ and $3 \rightarrow 2$ transitions of SiO simultaneously with observations of the $J = 1 \rightarrow 0$ transition of CO during three observing sessions in the period 1995 to 1996. As in our previous observations of 1994, we observe that for several stars the SiO profiles exhibit unusually broad wings which sometimes exceed the terminal velocity of the expanding circumstellar envelope traced by the thermal CO emission. We have discovered a clear dependence of the SiO wing emission on the optical phase. These wings are probably due to peculiar gas motions and varying physical conditions in relation with the stellar pulsation. However, we cannot exclude other mechanisms contributing to the observed wings. In particular, SiO turbulent motions for the semi-regular variables or the asymmetric mass loss mechanism may play a role. We conclude that the SiO wing emission is due to masing processes and that this emission very likely arises from the inner part of the circumstellar envelope.
author:
- 'F. Herpin, A. Baudry, J. Alcolea, J. Cernicharo'
date: 'Received 28 October 1997; accepted 3 March 1998'
title: 'On the origin of the high velocity SiO maser emission from late-type stars'
---
\[psfig,epsf\] [l-aa]{} =-5mm =-25mm
=cmr10
\#1[$^#1$He]{} 2CO[$^{12}$CO]{} \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2 \#1\#2
Introduction
============
The SiO molecule exhibits widespread maser emission from O-rich circumstellar envelopes (CEs) around Long Period Variables (LPVs). The variety of rotational transitions emitted from several vibrational levels and the strength of the emission make these lines very useful for a study of the innermost layers of CEs. Recently, during sensitive SiO observations of several O-rich late-type stars, we discovered unexpectedly broad wing SiO emission (Cernicharo et al. 1997, hereafter referred as CABG). We found that the $v=1, J=2 \rightarrow 1$ SiO emission reaches and sometimes exceeds the maximum velocity traced by the quasi-thermal emission of the CO molecule. Several mechanisms may be invoked to explain such wings: turbulent motions, rotation of dense SiO clumps, high velocity shocks produced during the pulsation of the star, or high velocity bipolar ejection of gas from the star. These mechanisms were discussed by CABG, but no firm conclusions were reached, although it was recognized that the pulsation of the star and asymmetric mass loss could play an important role. Obviously interferometric observations and a monitoring of the SiO wing emission are needed to shed light on the location and the physical origin of the high velocity SiO emission.
The main purpose of this paper is to present and analyze new data gathered at different epochs on the SiO velocity wings in order to study the physical mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon, and, at the same time, to obtain deeper insight into the complex kinematics of the circumstellar shells around late-type stars. The latter question is clearly important since it is related to other crucial problems such as the expansion of the CE and the mass loss
\[ht\]
=15.cm
phenomenon, or the processes leading to the formation of dust. We have considered a rather small but homogeneous sample of stars as it includes Miras and a few semi-regulars for which all stellar characteristics (mass loss, temperature, spatial distribution …) are uniformly represented. We have monitored the SiO maser line profiles in order to investigate the relation of broad (weak) emission in wings with the stellar light phase. In particular, we wish to test whether the shocks driven by the stellar pulsation could play a dominant role in the occurrence of SiO high velocity features. In Sects. 2 and 3 we give details of our observations and present our main results. In Sect. 4 we discuss the different hypotheses which could explain the SiO line wings and their location.
Observations
============
\[t\]
Our observations were carried out with the IRAM 30-m telescope in June 1995 and in April and October 1996. They were combined with our earlier observations of January 1994 first presented by CABG. The sample of selected Mira and semi-regular variable stars was identical for all epochs, apart from a few exceptions. The supergiant VY CMa was not observed in 1995 and 1996. In June 1995 and later, we added the Mira variable $\chi$ Cyg to our sample. In this work, we have observed just one OH/IR object, OH$127.8-0.0$, at one epoch only, June 1995. The sample of sources discussed here is listed in the first column of Table 1. Two SIS receivers were used simultaneously at 86.243 and 230.538 GHz to observe the SiO $v=1, J=2
\rightarrow 1$ and the CO $J=2 \rightarrow 1$ lines. In 1995 and 1996 we added a third receiver to observe the SiO $ v=1, J=3 \rightarrow 2$ line at 129.363 GHz. To properly detect and analyze weak SiO line wing signals we adjusted the side-band noise level of the receiver phase-lock loops below $-$35 dB. The 3, 2 and 1 mm receivers were SSB tuned and the attenuations of the image band were of order 35 and 7 dB for the 3 and 2 mm SiO lines, and 30 dB for the CO line. The best observing period was that of January 1994 (CABG) with low ambient temperature (nearly $-10^\circ$ C) and almost no humidity. For the three other epochs the observations were made with clear sky but with relative humidity in the range $30-70\%$. Depending on the source elevation and on the epoch, the SSB system temperatures were in the range $140-400$, $270-600$ and $180-1000$ K for the 3, 2 and 1 mm receivers, respectively. Line calibration was deduced from regular observations of a hot and cold load and from measurements of the sky emissivity. In this work the line intensities are calibrated in terms of the main beam brightness temperature. For the observations of 1995 and 1996 we adopted 0.75 and 0.58 for the telescope main beam efficiencies at the frequencies of the SiO $v=1, J=2
\rightarrow 1$ and $J=3 \rightarrow 2$ lines, respectively. In 1994 we used 0.60 for the 3 mm observations (CABG). These intensities (in K) can be transformed into flux densities (in Jy) by multiplying by 4.4 at 3 and 2 mm. In general, the pointing corrections were determined by cross scanning the 3 mm maser line itself, using several filter channels as a continuum detector. The absolute pointing of the 3 mm receiver and the alignment between all receivers lay in the range $2-4"$. The focus adjustment was regularly monitored.
\[t\] \[table95\]
For spectral analysis we used analog filters with both low (1 MHz) and high (100 kHz) resolution and the 2048-channel autocorrelator. The resolution thus achieved was 3.5, 0.35, 0.136 and 0.07 in SiO ($J=2-1$), 0.18 and 2.3 in SiO ($J=3-2$) and 1.3, 0.4, 0.1 and 0.05 in CO($J=2-1$). We checked that by smoothing the autocorrelator channels to a resolution similar to that given by the filterbank channels the linewidths were identical. Because we searched for line wing emissions as weak as a few tens of mK flat spectral baselines are essential. All observations were thus made with the wobbling secondary mirror system. Figures \[asio\_spectra\] and \[bsio\_spectra\] shows examples of SiO $v=1, J=2 \rightarrow 1$ spectra obtained in 1995 and 1996. Note that the quality of the spectral baselines facilitates the comparison of the CO and SiO line wings.
Results
=======
SiO $v=1, J=2 \rightarrow 1$ emission
-------------------------------------
In Table 1 we present the SiO $v=1, J=2 \rightarrow 1$ line parameters of sources observed in June 1995 (including OH$127.8-0.0$ at the bottom of Table 1). The line parameters for April and October 1996 are given in Herpin (Ph.D. Thesis 1998). The SiO and CO line parameters of 1994 are given in Table 1 of CABG. In column 2 of Table 2 of the present work we also list the line width above the $2\sigma$ noise level of the CO observations made in 1994 because they are used as our CO reference data. Although the atmosphere was less transparent at the CO($2-1$) line in 1995 and 1996 than in 1994 we verified that the CO central velocity and linewidth remained constant with the epoch of the observations within a few $\%$. The SiO main beam brightness temperature $T_{\rm MB}$ and velocity $V_{\rm
LSR}$ given in Table 1 correspond to the strongest emission feature in the spectra. The SiO full linewidth above the $2\sigma$ spectral noise level $\Delta V$ is also given in Table 1 for June 1995. As in CABG, our new observations show that several stars exhibit pronounced blue or red wings. This is a firm result because it is confirmed by the different backends and spectral resolutions available on the 30-m. These high velocity wings (e.g. Figs. \[asio\_spectra\] and \[bsio\_spectra\]) are weak compared to the bulk of the SiO $v=1, J=2 \rightarrow 1$ emission whose central velocity is close to the CO central velocity; the latter gives the systemic velocity of the underlying star. We have no direct proof at the moment that the SiO line wing emission is masing as are the main velocity features. We note that $v=1$ thermal lines would be very difficult to detect at these high velocities where no thermal SiO emission is observed in the ground vibrational state (Cernicharo 1994, Bujarrabal 1989). Furthermore, in the case of R Leo (CABG) and some other stars, the linewings are polarized. This indicates maser amplification, a fact strengthened by the line variability of the line wing emission discussed in Sect. \[discussion\].
\[t\]
To compare the velocity extent of the $v=1, J=2 \rightarrow 1$ emission of SiO with the CO($2-1$) total velocity extent we define the ratio $R_{\rm 21} = \Delta V(SiO(2-1)) / \Delta V(CO(2-1))$ where $\Delta V$ is the full width of the emission above the $2\sigma$ noise level at the epoch of the observations; $\Delta V(CO(2-1))$ always refers to our 1994 observations. The values of $R$ are given with additional comments in Table 2 for the 1994, 1995 and 1996 results. Because the CO profile delineates regions of the circumstellar envelope where the gas reaches its maximum velocity whereas the SiO velocities trace layers close to the photosphere, the ratio $R_{21}$ gives direct information on the kinematics of the inner circumstellar layers. As indicated earlier, for a given star and at each epoch, the quantity $\Delta V(CO(2-1))$ does not vary with time in contrast with $\Delta V(SiO)$. $\Delta V(CO(2-1))$ is unambiguously determined although in a few cases there may be contamination by interstellar CO (see CABG for discussion); these cases are marked with an asterisk in Table 2. Several stars have high $R_{21}$ values and some of them exhibit prominent red or blue SiO wings, i.e. the SiO velocity exceeds the thermal CO velocity on the red or blue spectral end; these cases are noted R or B in Table 2. More than one half of our sample shows a B or R SiO wing. The presence of red wings in the SiO spectra indicates that there is gas emission at high velocities not observed in the thermal CO gas. Interpretation of the SiO blue wings is less straightforward because of possible self-absorption in the blue wing of the CO line profile (Huggins & Healy 1986). Therefore, the detection of SiO blue wings may not necessarily mean that the CE terminal velocity is exceeded. If we restrict our sample of stars to Miras only, the average value of $R_{21}$ is $\overline{R}_{21}$ = 0.70, 0.75, 0.85 and 0.86 for the epochs 1994, 1995 and April and October 1996. The same quantities are systematically higher for the semi-regular variables: $\overline{R}_{21}$ = 1.04, 0.85, 1.04 and 0.94. Nearly half of the observed stars have $R_{21} \geq
\overline{R}_{21}$ and 15 to 30 % have $R_{21} \geq 1$. On the other hand, several stars, IRC$+10011$, NML Tau, TX Cam, V Cam, GX Mon, $\chi$ Cyg and R Cas have small $R_{21}$ values. This is perhaps due to observations made roughly at the same stellar phase for NML Tau, TX Cam, V Cam and GX Mon. However, some stars have low or moderate and nearly constant $R_{21}$ values at all phases ($\chi$ Cyg, R Cas and IRC$+10011$). We note that $\chi$ Cyg is an S-star and therefore presents many peculiarities in the pumping of its masers (see Bujarrabal 1996). Some others have quite high $R_{21}$ values (e.g. T Cep and RU Her with $R_{21}=2.21$ and $2.24$ in April and October 1996, respectively).
\[t\] \[tablephaseR\]
SiO $v=1, J=3 \rightarrow 2$ emission
-------------------------------------
The central velocity of the $v=1, J=3 \rightarrow 2$ emission is often quite different from that of the $J=2 \rightarrow 1$ emission as one would expect in gas layers with different excitation conditions. With a few exceptions, the line intensities and full linewidths above the $2\sigma$ noise level for the $J=3\rightarrow
2$ line are systematically smaller than for the $J=2 \rightarrow 1$ line. As an example, in June 1995 we have obtained for the Miras R Leo and U Her, $T_{\rm MB}$ = 19.4 and 8.1 K, $\Delta V$ = 13.7 and 14.3 in the $J=3 \rightarrow 2$ line while we have measured $T_{\rm MB}$ = 50.2 and 61.3 K, $\Delta V$ = 15.8 and 16.4 in the $J=2 \rightarrow
1$ line. Examples of spectra are given in Fig. \[sio32\]. As for the $J=2 \rightarrow 1$ line we define the ratio $R_{\rm 32} = \Delta V(SiO(3-2)) / \Delta V(CO(2-1))$, and we give the individual values of this ratio in the last three columns of Table 3. If we restrict our sample of stars to Miras only, the average value of $R_{32}$ is $\overline{R}_{32}$ = 0.57, 0.41 and 0.61 for the epochs 1995, and April and October 1996. In contrast with $\overline{R}_{21}$, the values of $\overline{R}_{32}$ are not systematically higher for the semi-regular variables: $\overline{R}_{32}$ = 0.55, 0.68 and 0.52 for the epochs 1995, and April and October 1996. All values of $R_{32}$ and $\overline{R}_{32}$ are lower than the corresponding values derived for the $J=2
\rightarrow 1$ line; this reflects the fact that $\Delta V(SiO(3-2)) <
\Delta V(SiO(2-1))$. Nevertheless, in June 1995 and October 1996 where 20 to 30 stars where observed at 2 mm, few of them have a value of $R_{32}$ larger than, or of order 1. The case of T Cep is interesting as the large $R_{21}$ value observed at 3 mm is also observed at 2 mm (Fig. \[sio32\] and Table 2). About 20% of the observed stars show a blue or red SiO wing with a majority of stars exhibiting a red wing (Table 2).
Variability of the ratio $R=\Delta v(SiO) / \Delta v(CO)$ {#variability}
---------------------------------------------------------
In Table 2 we compare the values of $R_{\rm 21}$ derived for $\Delta V(SiO(2-1))$ at the four epochs of the observations and we derive the associated stellar phase from the most recent stellar light parameters given by the AFOEV[^1]. The stellar period was rather well sampled in general although additional observations would be deserved. Our data show that there is a dependence of $R_{21}$ with the optical phase for each star. This dependence is clearly not similar for all stars in our sample. Despite the fact that we only have 3 or 4 distinct epochs and that the stellar periods are unequally sampled we have searched for periodicity in our data by fitting cubic spline functions. We show six examples in Fig. \[R\_phase\].
\[t\]
\[t\]
In several cases $R_{\rm 21}$ reaches a maximum and a minimum around the optical phases $0.1-0.3$ and $0.6-0.8$, respectively. This maximum activity seems to occur with the same phase lag as that observed for the bulk of the SiO emission ($0.2-0.3$ in general). The general trend above is not always observed. In R Cas or $\chi$ Cyg for example, $R_{21}$ tends to be maximum around 0.0, and in the case of W Hya (SRa) $R_{\rm 21}$ tends to remain roughly constant with time. As the amplitudes of the variations of $R_{21}$ are obviously different from one star to the other, and because our sample of stars is rather homogeneous, we have normalized these values by forcing the maximum and minimum $R_{21}$ values for each star to 1.0 and 0.0, respectively; these normalized values, ${R_{21}}^{n}$, are plotted versus the optical phase in Fig.\[rcorrphase\]. A global trend is obvious with a slight maximum and minimum of ${R_{21}}^{n}$ between optical phases 0.1-0.3 and 0.6-0.8, respectively, as for the individual plots.
\[ht\]
In some stars, R And, TX Cam, R Leo, RU Her and R Aql, we have observed a rapid variation in the amplitude of $R_{\rm 21}$. These variations occur nearly at the same stellar phase but correspond to observations made in 1994, 1995 and 1996, and thus correspond to different stellar pulsation cycles. This suggests that besides the smooth variation of $R_{21}$ with the stellar pulsation observed in several stars, the SiO wing emission may differ from one optical cycle to the other. We may thus have the combined effect of a smooth stellar pulsation with another mechanism (of a different time order). This remark also applies to R Leo (Fig. \[rleo\]) for which several epochs are available although on average $R_{21}$ tends to be maximum and minimum around optical phases $0.2$ and $0.5$, repectively. Comparing the behaviours of $R_{21}$ and of the stellar visual magnitude $m_{v}$ with time, we note that the sudden amplitude variations of $R_{21}$ at a given optical phase (as observed for example in R Aql and R Leo near optical phases 0.0 and 0.7 respectively), occur simultaneously with strong amplitude variations of $m_{v}$ from one stellar cycle to the other. In all cases, the sudden increase in $R_{21}$ corresponds to a luminosity increase which one may relate to IR pumping of these masers.
In Table 2 we also give the ratio $R_{\rm 32}$ and the optical phase at the four epochs of our observations. The general trends observed for $R_{\rm 21}$ are also present in $R_{\rm 32}$. However, the SiO line wing intensities and extents are smaller in the $J=3 \rightarrow 2$ line than in the $J=2 \rightarrow 1$ line. RU Her is an extreme case where the conspicuous red wing detected in October 1996 at 3 mm is not present in the 2 mm spectrum.
\[ht\]
It is interesting to compare the time variation of the ratio $R_{21}$ with that of the SiO peak intensity which is associated with the bulk of the emission (characterized by $T_{MB}$ and the associated central velocity). The SiO main emission is known to vary from one stellar cycle to the other and to reach a maximum somewhat after the optical maximum (e.g. Alcolea 1993, and Martinez et al. 1988). As previously observed by other authors, we also find that $T_{\rm MB}(SiO(2-1))$ varies with the optical phase. However, because the stellar cycle is not densely enough sampled it is impossible to conclude that $R_{21}$ and $T_{MB}$ vary in phase or not, even if $R_{21}$ seems to present a maximum and minimum at the same phases as usually observed for the intensity.
Discussion
==========
In this section we first discuss some of the mechanisms at the origin of the high velocity SiO emission and whether these are consistent with the observed behaviour of the ratio $R$ with the light cycle. Secondly, we will discuss whether our data bring some evidence or not on the question of the co-location of the SiO wing emission and of the bulk of the SiO emission, and on the influence of the stellar mass loss rate.
Formation of SiO high velocity wings
------------------------------------
Various mechanisms, or a combination of these mechanisms, may be invoked to explain the high velocities observed in our SiO spectra: turbulent motions, stellar pulsation, rotation or asymmetric mass loss. These mechanisms were discussed earlier by CABG, mainly they demonstrated the importance of the asymmetric mass loss while the impact of rotation was shown to be minor. In addition, the characteristic profile predicted by rotation (e.g. two- or three-horn profile) is not observed in our SiO spectra. Our new data bring information on the two first mechanisms, namely turbulent motions and stellar pulsation.
### Turbulent motions
With the non-local radiative transfer code described by González-Alfonso & Cernicharo (1997), CABG modeled the SiO emission in an expanding envelope with low terminal velocity, high mass loss rate and strong turbulent motions. CABG succeeded in predicting blue wings and weak red wings because of shadowing and amplification of stellar emission. Several stars observed in this work show indeed blue wings without a red counterpart at a given optical phase. This is observed for 7 of the 8 semi-regulars in our sample and for 4 Miras. In the 4 semi-regulars S Per (SRc), R Crt (SRb), RT Vir (SRb) and SW Vir (SRb) we have not detected any red wing at any epoch. Turbulence could thus play a role in the formation of blue wings in semi-regular variables and rarely in Miras. However, we did not observe that all semi-regulars and Miras showed blue wing emission without red counterpart whichever optical phase we observed. This tends to prove that turbulence does not dominate, but may nevertheless contribute to the formation of the line wings.
### Stellar Pulsation
The fact that our data show for most stars in our sample a rather regular pattern for the variations of $R_{21}$ with the optical phase demonstrates that some connection exists between the stellar pulsation and the occurence of SiO linewings. Therefore, the stellar pulsation induces variations of the ratio $R_{21}$ with a maximum activity consistent with the 0.1-0.3 phase lag observed in the bulk of the SiO emission with respect to the stellar flux. (In fact, the SiO maser main intensity follows the IR luminosity with optical phase lags $0.1-0.3$ and $0.6-0.8$ for maxima and minima, respectively.) Several observations in R Leo confirm this result. But the stellar pulsation can induce variations in the line wing emission in two different ways: directly by shocks, or indirectly by luminosity variations. Concerning the shocks, several models have attempted to predict the behaviour of the outer atmospheric gas layers in pulsating late-type variables (e.g. Bowen 1988, Wood 1989). The non-linear pulsation model of Wood (1989) successfully explains the velocity changes observed for the hydrogen lines in Miras. The shock wave generated at each pulsation cycle is responsible for the velocity discontinuity. This is also in agreement with the IR line observations of Hinkle (1984) showing both photospheric material and outwardly moving gas (post-shock material), and with the results of Boboltz (1997) who observed SiO masers undergoing infall in R Aqr. In these conditions the radial velocities may exceed the terminal velocity of the associated circumstellar envelope as this is the case for our SiO observations. Similar predictions are made by Bowen’s (1988) model where the stellar pulsation generates outflowing and infalling gas layers which could be responsible for our blue and red SiO wings. Velocities larger than the terminal velocity are also predicted in the innermost layers of the envelope. In fact, the outflowing gas layer running into the infalling gas creates a shock wave which locally modifies the physical conditions, and in particular increases the local density of hydrogen, making maser emission more favourable at these higher velocities. (Note that this does not necessarily imply that collisions are dominant although the results of Miyoshi (1994) suggest that collisional pumping plays a role for the bulk of the SiO emission.) On the other hand, if radiative pumping dominates, the observed variations of the line wing emission should correspond to maximum pumping efficiency around the optical phase 0.2 and minimum efficiency around phase 0.6. A change by a small factor in the fully saturated peak emission may imply an enormous factor for the unsaturated wings. In conclusion stellar flux variations and shock waves are important to explain our observations and maser emission, even if it is not easy to trace shocks by studying the SiO maser. Shocks may explain that there is SiO emission at high velocities, and radiative pumping may explain the variations of $R_{21}$.
The strong variations at a given phase from one cycle to another of $R_{21}$, of the main emission temperature $T_{MB}$ and of the velocity observed in R And, TX Cam, RU Her and R Aql, as well as the changes in the SiO linewing emission observed in R Leo for different stellar cycles suggest that variations of the stellar physical conditions imply sudden changes in the SiO wing and main line emissions. These variations cannot be ascribed to changes in $\Delta V(CO)$ which was found to remain constant at all epochs. Sudden changes are perhaps related to non-periodical stellar structure changes implying changes in the SiO masing conditions. On the other hand, we cannot exclude the hypothesis of an overtone stellar pulsation mode which could induce short-time variations of the physical parameters, and thus of the SiO emission. Rapid changes of the main and wing line emissions could also be explained by sound waves which induce local variations in the density and relative velocity just above the stellar photosphere. We thus expect SiO line variations within short time scales. Pijpers (1994) observed indeed in R Leo and R Cas variations of the intensity and velocity of the $v=1, J=1\rightarrow 0$ line over short periods of order 10-20 days. These sound waves could modify the SiO main and wing line emissions if both emissions were co-located.
Location of the SiO line wings
------------------------------
Interferometric observations of the SiO line wings would of course be indispensable to accurately locate the red and blue line wing emissions within the circumstellar envelope. There is at least one known case, that of R Leo, for which blue and red SiO wings are not coexistent. This was demonstrated by the lunar occultations made by Cernicharo (1994) and by the relative position measurements made with the IRAM interferometer (Baudry 1995). We note that, in the absence of interferometric data, the observation of phase lags between the SiO wing and bulk emissions could in principle indicate different spatial locations. However, in the case of variations in the radiative pumping resulting from stellar flux variations one would expect very small and thus not observable phase lags, whereas in the case of dominant shock fronts the propagation is slower, and may induce only very long-term phase lags. On the other hand, and despite our lack of more densely sampled observations, our study of the ratio $R_{21}$ with the stellar light cycle gives indirect evidence for similar conditions of excitation for the SiO wings and the bulk of the SiO emission. We have found that the maximum value of the ratio $R_{21}$, namely the maximum activity in the line wings, tends to occur when the maximum activity also occurs in the bulk of the SiO emission. This seems to be the general trend for most stars in our sample (see Sect. \[variability\]). In addition, for those stars in which we have observed sudden variations of the amplitude of $R_{21}$ we have observed simultaneous variations of $T_{MB}$ and velocity. This suggests again that the main SiO line emission and the SiO line wings require similar pumping mechanisms, although they might not be excited in the same gas layers with similar physical conditions (e.g. different SiO column densities).
In order to deepen the physical meaning of the ratio $R$, we have plotted the values of $R$ obtained at the four epochs of our observations versus the stellar mass loss rate $dM/dt$ taken from Loup et al. (1993). For both $R_{\rm 21}$ and $R_{\rm 32}$, $R$ decreases with increasing mass loss rate, with two notable features for $R_{21}$ (Fig. \[pertetotal\]): a sudden increase for mass loss rates around $5-9~10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$/yr, and a broad plateau where $R_{21}$ stays low and roughly constant for $dM/dt$ between $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$/yr. We note, however, that the main features in Fig. \[pertetotal\] would deserve confirmation with additional data, and that the scatter present in the plot $R_{21}=f(dM/dt)$ may also be due to uncertainties in the mass loss rates. In fact, our sample is biased because of a dependence of $dM/dt$ on the distance in the range 100 pc to 400 pc (sensitivity limitation). Nevertheless, even for the most distant stars, the detection rate of line wing emission is comparable to that for the closest stars. Because $\Delta V(CO)$ is a good indicator of the expansion of the envelope while $\Delta V(SiO)$ is closely related to both the excitation and the kinematics of SiO we have plotted separately $\Delta V(CO)$ and $\Delta V(SiO)$ versus $dM/dt$ for our sample stars. As expected for a species excited far in the envelope, $\Delta V(CO)$ increases with $dM/dt$; we also observe a flattening for the highest mass loss rates. On the other hand, $\Delta V(SiO)$ does not clearly exhibit the general decrease observed in the plot $R_{21}=f(dM/dt)$. Therefore, this decrease as well as the flattening observed for $R_{21}$ seem to be readily explained by the general behaviour of $\Delta V(CO)$ in our sample. These plots demonstrate that the regions of SiO wing emission and CO expansion are not directly related and strongly support the idea that the SiO wing emission arises from the innermost circumstellar layers (although we cannot say it coexists entirely with the bulk of the SiO emission). The apparent peak of SiO wing emission observed in Fig. \[pertetotal\] suggests that, to excite this emission, more favourable pumping conditions (e.g. adequate densities) may exist around $5-9~10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$/yr. However, we are unable at the moment to specify error bars on the mass-loss rates, and therefore the reality of the peak for the ratio $R_{21}$ must be confirmed by newer observations obtained for a larger sample of stars.
Conclusions
===========
We have observed a rather large sample of late-type stars including Miras and semi-regulars with the IRAM 30-m radiotelescope at four epochs covering the period 1994 to 1996 in order to investigate the correlation between the SiO linewing activity and the stellar light phase. The SiO $v=1, J=2 \rightarrow 1$ and $J=3
\rightarrow 2$ lines were observed simultaneously with the CO $J=2 \rightarrow 1$ quasi-thermal emission line. Several high velocity wings have been detected in the red and blue edges of the SiO profile.
The SiO wing emission could result from complex mechanisms combining stellar pulsation of the fundamental mode, and perhaps of other modes, with asymmetric mass loss (as for R Leo) and structure changes. We deduce from our observations that the time evolution of the SiO line wings is related to the stellar pulsation. However, it is difficult to specify how the pulsation induces local physical variations responsible for variations of the SiO wing emission. Pulsation, through shocks, may produce high velocity emissions which then vary according to the optical phase. For the semi-regular variables there is some indication on the importance of turbulent motions in the formation of the high velocity emission as well.
Finally, we have shown that the SiO wing emission results from masing processes and that this emission very likely arises from the innermost gas layers of the circumstellar envelope.
Alcolea J. 1993, Ph.D. Thesis, Madrid Baudry A., Lucas R., Guilloteau S. 1995, A&A 293, 594 Boboltz D.A., Diamond P.J., Kemball A.J. 1997, ApJ 487, L147 Bowen G.H. 1988, ApJ 329, 299 Bujarrabal V., Gomez-Gonzalez J., Planesas P. 1989, A&A 219, 256 Bujarrabal V., Alcolea J., Sanchez-Contreras C., Colomer F. 1996, A&A 314, 883 Cernicharo J., Brunswig W., Paubert G., Liechti S. 1994, ApJ 423, L143 Cernicharo J., Alcolea J., Baudry A., González-Alfonso E. 1997, A&A 319, 607 (CABG) González-Alfonso E. & Cernicharo J. 1997, A&A 322, 938 Herpin F. 1998, Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Bordeaux Hinkle K.H., Scharlach W.W.G., Hall D.N.B. 1984, ApJS 56, 1 Huggins P.J. & Healy A.P. 1986, ApJ 304, 418 Loup C., Forveille T., Omont A., Paul J.F. 1993, A&ASS 99, 291 Martinez A., Bujarrabal V., Alcolea J. 1988, A&ASS 74, 273 Miyoshi M., Matsumoto K., Kameno S., Takaba H., Iwata T. 1994, Nat. 371, 395 Pijpers F.P., Pardo J.R., Bujarrabal V. 1994, A&A 286, 501 Wood P.R. 1989, “From Miras to Planetary Nebulae”, Editions Frontières, edited by M.O.Mennessier and A.Omont
[^1]: AFOEV=Association Francaise des Observateurs d’Etoiles Variables
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Owing to the advancement of deep learning, artificial systems are now rival to humans in several pattern recognition tasks, such as visual recognition of object categories. However, this is only the case with the tasks for which correct answers exist independent of human perception. There is another type of tasks for which what to predict is human perception itself, in which there are often individual differences. Then, there are no longer single “correct’’ answers to predict, which makes evaluation of artificial systems difficult. In this paper, focusing on pairwise ranking tasks sensitive to individual differences, we propose an evaluation method. Given a ranking result for multiple item pairs that is generated by an artificial system, our method quantifies the probability that the same ranking result will be generated by humans, and judges if it is distinguishable from human-generated results. We introduce a probabilistic model of human ranking behavior, and present an efficient computation method for the judgment. To estimate model parameters accurately from small-size samples, we present a method that uses confidence scores given by annotators for ranking each item pair. Taking as an example a task of ranking image pairs according to material attributes of objects, we demonstrate how the proposed method works.'
author:
- |
Xing Liu\
Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku Univeristy\
`[email protected]`\
Takayuki Okatani\
Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University\
RIKEN Center for AIP\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'nips2018.bib'
title: Evaluating Artificial Systems for Pairwise Ranking Tasks Sensitive to Individual Differences
---
Introduction
============
Standard recognition tasks, in which some entities (e.g., labels) are to be predicted from an input (e.g., an image etc.), can be roughly categorized into two groups:
- Tasks in which what to predict is given independent of human perception.
- Tasks in which what to predict is human perception itself.
For the sake of explanation, we limit our attention to visual tasks in what follows, although the discussions apply to other modalities. Then, examples of $T_1$ are visual recognition of object categories and individual faces, and examples of $T_2$ are prediction of aesthetic quality ([@AVA; @aethe2; @AADB; @aes-survey]) and memorability ([@memo]) of images.
In order to build a machine-learning-based system for task group $T_2$, it is first necessary to materialize what humans perceive from images. This can be performed by, for example, asking human subjects to give a score for an image or asking them to rank multiple images. Then, we consider training artificial systems (e.g., convolutional neural networks) so that they will predict the scores or ranking results as accurately as possible.
As is well recognized, CNNs can now rival humans for several visual recognition tasks ([@resnet; @googlenet]), when they are properly trained in a supervised manner. Although it may not be widely recognized, this is only the case with task group $T_1$, in which labels to predict are given independent of human perception and thus there should exist correct answers to predict; therefore it is straightforward to define and measure the performance of CNNs. For task group $T_2$, however, it remains unclear whether CNNs can achieve the human level of performance, although the advancement of deep learning arguably has contributed to significant performance boost.
This may be attributable to individual differences of annotators that often emerge in tasks of $T_2$. When there are individual differences, there is no unique correct answer to predict, which makes it difficult to evaluate the performance of artificial systems. Figure \[iccvface\] shows an example of such cases, that is, pairwise ranking of images according to material attributes of objects. While, for some image pairs and attributes, human annotators will give unanimous ranking as depicted in Figure \[iccvface\](a), for others, they will give diverged rankings. The latter can be divided into two cases, i.e., when the annotators confidently make diverged rankings, which mostly occurs for subjective cases, as in Figure \[iccvface\](b), and when they are uncertain and give diverged rankings, as in Figure \[iccvface\](c).
![ Examples of pairwise ranking of images according to material attributes of objects. Rankings given by different annotators are (a) unanimous, (b) diverged with confidence, or (c) uncertain and diverged. []{data-label="iccvface"}](liu_fig1.pdf){width="130mm"}
In order to build an artificial system that rivals humans for this type of tasks, we need to answer the following questions:
- How can we measure its performance or judge its equivalence to humans?
- How can we build such an artificial system?
In this paper, targeting at pairwise ranking tasks, we attempt to give answers to these questions.
For $Q_1$, we propose a method that is based on a probabilistic model of ranking results given by human subjects. Suppose that an artificial system predicts ranking of $N$ image pairs. The proposed method quantifies [*how probable it is that the same ranking result is generated by human annotators*]{} for the same $N$ image pairs. It properly considers the above individual differences.
Despite its simplicity, there are a few difficulties to overcome with this approach. One is the difficulty with obtaining an accurate probabilistic model of human ranking from small sample size data[^1]. To resolve this, we propose to collect confidence scores from annotators for ranking each item pair, and utilize them to accurately estimate a probabilistic model of human ranking (Sec.\[sec:estimate-choice-p\]). Thus, our proposal includes an annotation scheme for achieving the goal. Another difficulty is with computational complexity. The presence of individual differences increases the number of ranking patterns that humans can generate for $N$ item pairs, making naive computation infeasible. We present a method that performs the necessary computation efficiently (Sec.\[q-value-comp\]). Following the proposed data collection scheme, we have created a dataset named Material Attribute Ranking Dataset (MARD), on which we tested the proposed method. The dataset will be made publicly available.
For $Q_2$, we argue that learning to predict distribution of rankings given by multiple annotators performs better than previous methods. In previous studies ([@bestpaper; @RRankcnn; @ranknet-p]), individual differences are usually ignored; the task is converted to binary classification by taking the majority if there are individual differences. Our experimental results support this argument.
Distinguishing Artificial Systems from Humans {#twomeasures-section}
=============================================
Outline of the Proposed Approach
--------------------------------
We consider a pairwise ranking task using $N$ pairs, where, for instance, two images in each pair $(i=1,2,\ldots,N)$ are to be ranked. We denote a ranking result of a human subject (or an artificial system) by a sequence $ X \triangleq \{ x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{N} \}$, where $x_i$ is a binary variable, such that $x_i = 1$ if a subject chooses the first image, and $x_i=0$ if the subject chooses the second image. Considering the aforementioned individual differences, we introduce a probabilistic model for $X$. Let $p(X)$ be the probability mass function of human generated sequences $X$’s. Given a sequence $\mathtt X$ generated by an artificial system, we wish to use $p(X)$ to estimate how probable a human can generate $\mathtt X$. If the probability is very low, it means that $\mathtt X$ is distinguishable from human sequences; then, we may judge the artificial system behaved differently from humans. If it is high, then we cannot distinguish $\mathtt X$ from human sequences, implying than the artificial system behaves similarly to humans, as far as the given task/dataset is concerned.
Ideally, any $X$’s with $p(X)\neq 0$ can be generated from human subjects, and thus it could be possible to use $p(\mathtt X)=0$ or $\neq 0$ for the above judgment. However, this is not appropriate. As the exact $p(X)$ is not available, we have to use an approximate model built upon several assumptions. Moreover, $p(X)$ is estimated from the data collected from human subjects, which could contain noises. It tends to have a long-tail (i.e., many sequences with a very small probability). Thus, the model $p(X)$ may be unreliable particularly for $X$’s with low $p(X)$’s. These sequences are also considered to be minor and eccentric sequences that the majority of humans will not generate.
Therefore, we use a criterion that excludes such minor sequences with the lowest probabilities. Let $S$ denote a subset of $2^N$ possible sequences for the $N$ pairs. In particular, we consider a subset $S$ with the minimum cardinality $\vert S\vert$ that satisfies the following inequality: $$\sum_{X\in S} p(X) > 1-\epsilon,$$ where $\epsilon$ is a small number. We denote it by $S_\epsilon$. $S_\epsilon$ indicates a set of sequences that humans are likely to generate. The complementary set $S_0\setminus S_\epsilon$ contains the above-mentioned minor sequences.
Given a ranking result $\mathtt X$ created by an artificial system for the same $N$ pairs, we check if ${\mathtt X}$ belongs to $S_\epsilon$, i.e., whether ${\mathtt X} \in S_\epsilon$ or not. We declare ${\mathtt X}$ to be indistinguishable from human results if ${\mathtt X} \in S_\epsilon$, and to be distinguishable if ${\mathtt X} \notin S_\epsilon$.
Model of Human Ranking {#probmodel-for-pairranking}
----------------------
We now describe the model $p(X)$. Assuming that ranking results of different pairs are independent of each other, we model the probability of a sequence $X$ by $$\label{bimo}
p(X)=p(x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{N}) = \prod^{N}_{i=1}p(x_{i}).$$ We then model $p(x_i)$ using a Bernoulli distribution with a parameter $\theta_i$, that is, $$\label{px}
p(x_{i}=1) = \theta_i \; \; {\rm and} \;\;\; p(x_{i}=0) = 1-\theta_i.$$ Determination of $\theta_i$ will be explained later. Human subjects can provide many different sequences; each sequence $X$ will occur with probability $p(X)$.
It should be noted that the Bradley-Terry model, a popular model of pairwise ranking, is not fit for our problem. It considers a closed set of items (e.g., sport teams and scientific journals), and is mainly used for the purpose of obtaining a ranking of all the items in the set from observations of ranking of item pairs). On the other hand, in our case, we consider an open set of items. Our interest is not with the item set itself but with evaluation of an intelligent system performing the task.
Percentile of a Sequence in Probability-Ordered List {#q-value-comp}
-----------------------------------------------------
![ Each $N$ bit sequence represents an instance of pairwise rankings for $N$ item pairs. These sequences are sorted in the descending order of their probabilities. The hatched area of $p(X)$ on the right indicates the cumulative probability of $1-\epsilon$. We check a machine-generated sequence is ranked above the lowest rank $r$. This test is efficiently performed by calculating its percentile value $Q$ and see if $Q<1-\epsilon$. []{data-label="human-zone"}](liu_fig2.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
#### Percentile Value $Q$
As mentioned above, we want to check whether $\mathtt X \in S_\epsilon$ or $\notin S_\epsilon$. To perform this, we calculate the [*percentile*]{} of $\mathtt{X}$ in the ordered list of all possible sequences $X$’s in the order of $p(X)$. It is defined and computed as follows (see Fig.\[human-zone\]): [*i) Sort all (i.e., $2^N$) possible binary sequences $X$’s in descending order of $p(X)$ of (\[bimo\]) and ii) Compute the percentile of $\mathtt{X}$ (denoted by $Q$) using the cumulative sum of probabilities from the first rank to the position where $\mathtt{X}$ is ranked.* ]{} Using $Q$ thus computed for the target $\mathtt X$, the condition $\mathtt X \in S_\epsilon$ is equivalent to $Q\leq 1-\epsilon$ (and $\mathtt X \notin S_\epsilon$ is equivalent to $Q > 1-\epsilon$). It is noteworthy that $Q$ represents how close the sequence is to the most probable ranking result of humans, which corresponds to $Q=0$.
#### Efficient Computation of $Q$
When $N$ is large, it is not feasible to naively perform the above procedure, as the number of possible sequences explodes. It is also noted that $\theta_i$ may differ for each $i$, and thus the standard statistics of binomial distribution cannot be computed for the whole sequence. Thus, we group the elements having the same $\theta_i$ to a subsequence, which are specified by an index set $I_g\triangleq\{i\,\vert\,\theta_i=\theta_g\}$ for a constant $\theta_g$. Suppose that this grouping splits $X$ into $G$ subsequences $X_1,X_2, \ldots,X_G$. Using the independence of the elements, we have $$p(X)=\prod_{g=1}^G p(X_g).$$ In this grouping, we may redefine the variable $x_i$ by swapping the first and second images so that $\theta_i\geq 0.5$. This enables us to minimize the number $G$ of groups without loss of generality to improve computational efficiency as will be discussed below. Let $n_g$ be the number of elements belonging to $X_g$ (i.e., $n_g=\lvert I_g\rvert$), and $\theta_g$ be their Bernoulli parameter (i.e. ${\theta_g=\theta_i}$ for any $i\in I_g$). Then, the probability of $X_g$ being a sequence $\mathtt{X}_g$ is computed by $$\label{xg}
P(X_g=\mathtt{X}_g) = \theta_g^{k_g}{(1 - \theta_g)}^{(n_g - k_g)},$$ where $k_g$ is the number of 1’s (i.e., $x_i=1$) in $\mathtt{X}_g$. Note that the number of possible sequences having $k_g$ 1’s is $\binom{k_g}{n_g}$, and each of them has the same probability computed as above. For the entire sequence, the probability of $X$ being a sequence $\mathtt{X}$ is given by $$P(X=\mathtt{X}) =
\prod_{g=1}^G P(X_g=\mathtt{X}_g).
\label{eq:seq1}$$ Using along with , we can compute the probability that a sequence $\mathtt{X}$ consists of subsequences $\mathtt{X}_g ({g=1,2,\ldots,G}$), each of which has $k_g$ 1’s. The number of such sequences is calculated by $M(k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_g)\triangleq\prod \limits_{g=1}^G \binom{k_g}{n_g}$, and each sequence has the same probability.
Now, we consider sorting all $2^N$ sequences of $X$. We construct a sequence $\{k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_G \}$ by choosing each of its elements $k_g$ (the number of 1’s in the $g^{th}$ group) from $[0,n_g]$. We obtain $M(k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_G)$ sequences having the same probability by employing this assignment scheme. We denote the $j^{th}$ assignment by $K_j$ ($j=1,2,\ldots,J)$, where $J$ is the number of possible assignments, which is given by $\prod_{g=1}^G (n_g+1)$. (Note that $\sum_{j=1}^J M(K_j)=2^N$.)
As it is not necessary to sort sequences having the same probability, we only need to sort $J$ blocks of sequences instead of $2^N$ individual sequences. For each $j^{th}$ block associated with an assignment $K_j$, we use for computation of the probability of each sequence belonging to this block. Let $P_j$ be this probability. Then, using $P_j$, we sort $J$ blocks, which can be done much more efficiently than sorting $2^N$ sequences.
Finally, we compute $Q$ for a sequence $\mathtt{X}$. In order to compute its rank, we count the number of 1’s in $\mathtt{X}$ (more specifically, the number of 1’s in each $\mathtt{X}_g$ of $\mathtt{X}=\{ \mathtt{X}_1,\mathtt{X}_2,\ldots,\mathtt{X}_G \}$, and find the block $j_\mathtt{X}$ to which $\mathtt{X}$ belongs. Let $I_\mathtt{X}$ be the index set of blocks ranked higher than $j_\mathtt{X}$, i.e., $I_\mathtt{X}\triangleq\{j\,\vert\,P_j\geq P_{j_\mathtt{X}}\}$. Then, the cumulative probability down to block $j_\mathtt{X}$ (including it) can be computed by $$Q = \sum_{j\in I_\mathtt{X}} M(K_j)P_j.$$
\[sec:qk\]
Estimation of the Bernoulli Parameter Using Confidence Scores {#sec:estimate-choice-p}
=============================================================
Small-sample Estimate of $\theta_i$
-----------------------------------
We modeled human ranking by the Bernoulli distribution as in (\[px\]). We now consider how to estimate its parameter $\theta_i, \forall i$. Suppose $n_i$ subjects participate in ranking the $i^{th}$ image pair, $\forall i$. Let $n_i'(\leq n_i)$ be the number of subjects who chose the first image. Considering a pairwise ranking task with exclusive choice, the number of subjects who chose the second image is ${n_i-n_i'}$. Then, the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of $\theta_i$ is immediately given by $$\label{pxest}
\theta_i = \frac{n_i'}{n_i}, \forall i.$$
Despite its simplicity, this method could have an issue when the subjects unanimously choose the same image of an image pair, i.e., either $n_i'=n_i$ or $n_i'=0$. In this case, the above MLE gives $\theta_i=1$ or $\theta_i=0$, which leads to $p(x_i=0)=0$ or $p(x_i=1)=0$. However, this result is quite sensitive to (in)accuracy of $\theta_i$ and thus results may not be useful. If a CNN chooses the one with $p(x_i)=0$ for only a single unanimous pair, then $p(X)$ immediately vanishes irrespective of ranking of other pairs (i.e., $Q=100$%), declaring that this CNN behaves completely differently from human. The estimate (\[pxest\]) could be inaccurate if $n_i$ is not large enough. Although this issue will be mitigated by using a large $n_i$, it will first increase the cost of data collection; it will also increase the computational complexity of $Q$ (because the number $G$ of groups having an identical $\theta_i$ tends to increase).
A More Accurate Estimate Using a Confidence Score
-------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we instead consider collecting additional information from human subjects. For each image pair $i$, we ask them to additionally give a [*confidence score*]{} of their ranking. We use a score $s\in \{0, 1, 2\}$, which correspond to “not confident”, “somewhat confident” and “very confident”, respectively. As we ask $n_i$ subjects for a single image pair $i$, we introduce an index $h(=1,\ldots,n_i)$ to represent each subject and denote the ranking choice and score of $h$-th subject by $x_{ih}$ and $s_{ih}$, respectively. Let $X^{(i)}=[x_{i1},\ldots,x_{in_i}]$ and $S^{(i)}=[s_{i1},\ldots,s_{in_i}]$. Assuming independence of individual annotations, we have $$\label{eq:estimate-1}
\begin{aligned}
p(X^{(i)},S^{(i)}|\theta_i) &= \prod_{h=1}^{n_i}p(x_{ih}, s_{ih} |\theta_i) \\
&=\prod_{h=1}^{n_i}p(s_{ih}|x_{ih}, \theta_i)p(x_{ih}|\theta_i).
\end{aligned}$$
We use this model to perform maximum likelihood estimation for the unanimously ranked pairs. Suppose that all $n_i$ subjects chose the first image. Then we have $$\prod_{h=1}^{n_i}p(x_{ih}=1|\theta_i) = {\theta_i}^{n_i}.$$ To model $p(s_{ih}|x_{ih},\theta_i)$, we consider the probability of occurrence of each score $s=0,1,2$; we denote it by $q_s^{(i)} \equiv p(s_{ih}=s)$. Then we have $$\prod_{h=1}^{n_i}p(s_{ih}|x_{ih}=1, \theta_i) = {q_0}^{n_0}{q_1}^{n_1}{q_2}^{n_2},$$ where $n_0$, $n_1$ and $n_2$ denotes the number of subjects who chose confidence scores 0, 1, and 2, respectively; we omit the superscript in $q_0$, $q_1$, $q_2$ etc. for simplicity. Thus, from we have $$\label{eq:estimate-f}
p(X^{(i)}={\mathbf 1}, S^{(i)}|\theta_i) = {\theta_i}^{n_i}{q_0}^{n_0}{q_1}^{n_1}{q_2}^{n_2}.$$
Given the observations $S^{(i)}$ and $(n_0,n_1,n_2)$, we want to maximize the likelihood with respect to $\theta_i$ as well as the introduced unknowns $q_0$, $q_1$, and $q_2$. As they are probabilities, there are a few constraints for $q_0$, $q_1$, and $q_2$ defined as
\[eq:qconsts\] $$\begin{aligned}
& q_0+q_1+q_2=1,\\
& 0\leq q_0,q_1,q_2 \leq 1.\end{aligned}$$
We then assume a relation between the confidence scores and $\theta_i$ leading to the following equation: $$\label{eq:estimate-important_constraint}
\frac{1}{2}q_0 + \frac{3}{4}q_1 + q_2 = \theta_i.$$ This equation indicates that the three scores, [*not confident*]{}, [*confident*]{}, and [*very confident*]{}, are mapped to $\theta_i=0.5$, 0.75, and 1.0, respectively. In other words, subjects who are not confident irrespective of the choice $x_i=1$ will choose the other with 50% in the future; those who are very confident will always do the same choice in the future; those who have intermediate confidence will do the same with the intermediate probability 75% in the future.
Using the constraints (\[eq:qconsts\]) and (\[eq:estimate-important\_constraint\]), we can maximize the likelihood (\[eq:estimate-f\]) with respect to the unknowns. To be specific, we eliminate, say, $q_0$ and $q_1$, from (\[eq:estimate-f\]) using (\[eq:qconsts\]a) and (\[eq:estimate-important\_constraint\]) and maximize it for $\theta_i$ and $q_2$ with the inequality constraints (\[eq:qconsts\]b). Any numerical constrained maximization method can be used for this optimization. As a result, we have the MLE for $\theta_i$. It should be noted that we use this estimation method only when the ranking results are unanimous; we use the standard estimate (\[pxest\]) otherwise.
#### Discussion on the Use of Confidence Score
As is described above, we propose to use a confidence score to estimate each $\theta_i$. An alternative use of confidence scores is to simply eliminate the ranking results with a confidence score less than 2 and go with only maximally confident ranking results. We do not adopt this approach due to the following reason. We think that there are two cases for how individual differences emerge (see also Fig.\[iccvface\]): i) annotators make selections confidently, which are nevertheless split (subjectivity); and ii) annotators make selections without confidence, which makes their decisions fluctuated and then split (uncertainty). Elimination of samples with score 0 or 1 will remove data of type (ii). This will be fine when we are only interested in data of type (i), which seems to be the case with most existing studies. On the other hand, our study also considers data type (ii). Suppose, for instance, the case where people perceive very similar glossiness for two different objects, e.g., a plastic cup and a glass mug; uncertainty will be fairly informative for such cases. This is why we attempt to model the uncertainty instead of eliminating it. As we are interested in modeling individual differences, we don’t eliminate samples with low inter-rater agreement, either.
Experimental Results
====================
Material Attribute Ranking Dataset {#MARD-section}
----------------------------------
To test our method, we have created a dataset of a pairwise ranking task. It has been shown ([@mate_attr_flem; @mate_attr_flem2]) that humans can visually perceive fairly accurately the “material attribute” of an object surface, such as hardness, coldness, lightness etc. Motivated by this, we chose a task of ranking a pair of images according to such material attributes. We consider thirteen material attributes, namely [*aged, beautiful, clean, cold, fragile, glossy, hard, light, resilient, smooth, sticky, transparent*]{}, and [*wet*]{}.
The dataset, which we name Material Attribute Ranking Dataset (MARD), consists of 1,000 training and 300 testing samples for each of the thirteen attributes. Each sample contains ranking results of an image pair of five Mechanical Turkers. For test samples for which the initial five Turkers make a unanimous selection, the dataset provides additional ranking results of ten more Turkers as well as three-level scores of their confidence in their ranking.
It should be noted that MARD differs from any of similar existing datasets of pairwise ranking, e.g., Emotion Dataset ([@emotion_dataset]). The existing datasets simply discard individual differences by taking the majority of nonunanimous annotations, which is equivalent to regarding the most probable ranking result of humans as the only correct prediction. Although this greatly simplifies the problem, this makes it impossible to consider individual differences in any ways.
#### Details of Creation of MARD
MARD uses images of the Flicker Material Database (FMD) ([@FMD-cite]), a benchmark dataset of classification of ten materials categories. We split 1,000 FMD images into two sets of non-overlapping 500 images (one set is used for training and the other set is used for testing). We then created 1,000 and 300 image pairs by randomly choosing images from each set, respectively. We asked five Turkers to rank each image pair in terms of each of the thirteen material attributes by showing the paired images in a row. (The same image pairs were used for all the attributes.) Specifically, we asked them to choose one of three options, the first image, the second image, and “unable to decide”, for each pair. We discarded the image pairs with three or more “unable to decide” in the training set and those with one or more “unable to decide” in the test set. For the image pairs of the test set which were ranked unanimously for an attribute by the five Turkers, we further have ten more Turkers rank the same image pair and attribute. In this second task, we removed the “unable to decide” option, and also asked the Turkers to additionally provide their confidence on their ranking by choosing one of three level confidence, i.e., “Not confident”, “Somewhat confident”, and “Very confident”. The confidence scores are used in order to estimate the parameter $\theta_i$ to mitigate the sensitivity issue with unanimous ranking, as was discussed in Section \[sec:estimate-choice-p\].
Evaluation of Differently Trained CNNs {#sec:exp_mard}
--------------------------------------
Using the MARD, we conducted experiments to test our evaluation method. To see how it evaluates different prediction methods, we consider four methods. The first three are existing methods that convert the task into binary classification by regarding the majority of human ranking results as the correct label to predict. For the fourth method, we present a method that considers the individual differences as they are.
- RankCNN ([@RRankcnn]): A CNN is trained to predict binary labels by minimizing weighted squared distances computed for each training sample to its binary label.
- RankNet$_h$ ([@bestpaper]): In their original work, a linear classifier is trained to predict binary labels by searching for maximum-margin hyper-planes in a feature space. In this study, we instead employ a hinge-loss.
- RankNet$_p$ ([@ranknet-p]): A neural network (a CNN in this study) is trained to predict binary labels by minimizing the cross-entropy loss.
- RankDist (ours): A CNN is trained to predict the distribution of ranking of each item pair. To be specific, it is trained to predict the ML estimate (\[pxest\]) of the Bernoulli parameter $\theta_i$. (Recall that training samples do not provide scores.) The cross-entropy loss is used.
We applied the above four methods to the training set of the MARD. For all the four methods, we use the same CNN, VGG-19 ([@vgg]). It is first pretrained on the ImageNet and fine-tuned on the EFMD ([@yanzhang]). Then it is trained using the MARD where its ten lower weight layers are fixed and the subsequent layers are updated. It is used in a Siamese fashion, providing two outputs, from which each loss is computed. The losses for all the thirteen adjectives are summed and minimized. Note that the four methods differ only in their employed losses.
Table \[tab:mard\_q-value-vgg19\] shows the $Q$ values of the four methods for the thirteen attributes that are computed using the test set of the MARD. When choosing $90.0\%$ for the threshold for $Q$, any ranking results with $Q\geq 90.0\%$ are declared to be distinguishable from human ranking. It is observed that the number of such attributes is 3, 2, 3, and 1, for RankCNN, RankNet$_h$, RankNet$_p$, and RankDist, respectively. RankDist tends to provide smaller $Q$’s for many attributes, indicating that its ranking results are closer to the most probable human results than other three. The three methods show more or less similar behaviours.
In summary, the proposed evaluation method enables to show which method provides ranking that are (in)distinguishable from human ranking for which attribute. For instance, the ranking results for the attribute [*hard*]{} are the most dissimilar to human ranking, implying that there is room for improvements. Our method also makes it possible to visualize the different behaviours of the four methods; in particular, RankDist that considers individual differences performs differently from the three existing methods that neglect individual differences.
[@C[0.5in]{}C[0.5in]{}C[0.5in]{}C[0.5in]{}C[0.5in]{}@]{} (VGG19)&RankCNN & RankNet$_{h}$& RankNet$_{p}$& RankDist\
aged& 0.7& 1.9& 4.0& 3.4\
beautiful& 39.8& 38.9& 32.3& 38.3\
clean& 31.6& 5.7& 27.9& 16.3\
cold& 1.8& 8.4& 10.7& 0.2\
fragile& [**99.3**]{}& [**97.4**]{}& [**98.7**]{}& 89.1\
glossy& 72.4& 88.0& [**90.9**]{}& 32.9\
hard& [**100**]{}& [**100**]{}& [**100**]{}& [**93.8**]{}\
light& 35.9& 20.8& 36.5& 4.9\
resilient& 18.6& 26.9& 16.5& 4.3\
smooth& 54.3& 61.3& 71.5& 33.1\
sticky& 31.2& 31.2& 10.0& 12.5\
transparent& [**100**]{}& 10.0& 7.4& 8.7\
wet& 25.3& 27.2& 7.9& 0.3\
Summary
=======
In this study, we have discussed how to compare artificial systems with humans for the task of ranking a pair of items. We have proposed a method for judging if an artificial system is distinguishable from humans for ranking of $N$ item pairs. More rigorously, we check if an $N$-pair ranking result given by an artificial system is distinguishable from those given by humans. It relies on a probabilistic model of human ranking that is based on the Bernoulli distribution. We have proposed to collect confidence scores of ranking each item pair from annotators and utilize them to estimate the Bernoulli parameter accurately for each item pair. We have also shown an efficient method for the judgment that calculates and uses the percentile value $Q$ of the target $N$-pair ranking result. Taking annotation noises and inaccuracies with the models into account, $Q$ is compared with a specified threshold (e.g., 90.0%); if it is smaller than the threshold, we declare the artificial system is indistinguishable from humans for rankings of the $N$-item pairs. The value $Q$ may also be used as a measure of how close the ranking result of the artificial system is to the most probable ranking result of humans.
[^1]: We have $M$ human annotators rank each of $N$ item pairs. Considering data collection cost, increasing both $M$ and $N$ is prohibitive. As $N$ needs to be large, $M$ has to be small.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present Jansky Very Large Array observations of 20 - 37 GHz absorption lines from nearby Galactic diffuse molecular gas seen against four cosmologically-distant compact radio continuum sources. The main new observational results are that 3H and are ubiqitous in the local diffuse molecular interstellar medium at $\la 1$ while HC$_3$N was seen only toward B0415 at $>$ 4 mag. The linear/cyclic ratio is much larger in C$_3$H than in C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} and the ratio /HCN is enhanced compared to TMC-1, although not as much as toward the Horsehead Nebula. More consequentially, this work completes a long-term program assessing the abundances of small hydrocarbons (CH, , linear and cyclic C$_3$H and C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}, and and ) and the CN-bearing species (CN, HCN, HNC, HC$_3$N, HC$_5$N and CH$_3$CN): their systematics in diffuse molecular gas are presented in detail here. We also observed but did not strongly constrain the abundances of a few oxygen-bearing species, most prominently HNCO. We set limits on the column density of C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN, such that the anion C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN is only viable as a carrier of diffuse interstellar bands if the N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) abundance ratio is much smaller in this species than in any others for which the anion has been observed. We argue that complex organic molecules are not present in clouds meeting a reasonable definition of diffuse molecular gas, ie $\la 1$ mag.'
author:
- Harvey Liszt
- Maryvonne Gerin
- Anthony Beasley
- Jerome Pety
title: 'Chemical complexity in local diffuse and translucent clouds: ubiquitous linear-C$_3$H and CH$_3$CN, a detection of HC$_3$N and an upper limit on the abundance of C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The molecular inventory of diffuse interstellar gas is interesting because the unexpectedly high abundances of trace species imply the presence of underlying physical processes that might otherwise remain hidden [@GodFal+14]. But knowledge of the molecular complement of diffuse molecular gas can be used to advantage even when the underlying physical processes and observed abundances are only very imperfectly understood:
- Chemistry provides reliable [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}-tracers with well-determined relative abundances from optical astronomy such as OH (X(OH) = N(OH)/N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 10^{-7}$ [@WesGal+09; @WesGal+10]) and CH (X(CH) $= 3.5\times 10^{-8}$ [@SheRog+08]) as well as [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} that is observed in absorption at 89 GHz with an abundance X([[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 3\times 10^{-9}$ that can be fixed with respect to both CH and OH [@LisLuc96; @LisPet+10; @LisGer16].
- The empirically-determined relative abundance of [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} suffices to explain observations of widely-observed CO in diffuse molecular gas [@LisPet+10] as the product of recombination of [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} with ambient electrons [@GlaLan75; @Lis07CO; @VisVan+09; @Lis17CO] followed by exchange of carbon isotopes [@WatAni+76; @Lis17CO].
- Tallying the inventory of identifiable molecular species sets broad guidelines for attributing practicable carriers of diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) [@LisSon+12; @LisLuc+14]. We recently showed that is not sufficiently abundant to serve as the carrier of the DIBs at 4881Å and 5450Å with which it was tentatively identified on the basis of coincidences in laboratory spectra [@MaiWal+11]. Constraining the abundance of another putative DIB-carrier, C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN$^-$ [@CorSar07], is one aspect of the present work. Knowledge of the abundances of smaller molecules should help in understanding the abundances of broad groups of much larger species like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that may not be individually identifiable.
The molecular inventory of diffuse molecular gas has recently been greatly enlarged using high spectral resolution heterodyne techniques. The HiFi instrument on HERSCHEL observed an extensive inventory of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen hydrides and hydride ions in the sub-mm and THz domains [@GerNeu+16], including species long known in optical absorption (CH, CH) but also such species as hydrofluoric acid (HF) and the argonium ion ArH. CF, $c-$C$_3$H and HCO were detected in local gas at the IRAM 30m telescope [@LisPet+14] and CF was subsequently detected in diffuse molecular gas across the galactic disk [@LisGuz+15] using NOEMA.
In this work we were motivated to extend the molecular inventory and explore the limits of chemical complexity in diffuse molecular gas, given the recently-developed spectroscopic capabiliies of the enhanced Jansky Very Large Array (VLA). We used the VLA to search at frequencies 20 - 37 GHz for polyatomic molecules whose transitions are most favorably observed in the cm-wave band. We study three chemical families:
- Hydrocarbons. and are the heaviest molecules known in local diffuse molecular gas but they and c-C$_3$H are as ubiquitous as the lighter hydrocarbons CH and : by contrast, has not been detected [@LisSon+12; @LisLuc+14]. Here we demonstrate the ubiquity and high abundance of 3H and compare the abundances of the linear and cyclic versions of C$_3$H and C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}. [@LoiAgu+17] have recently shown that the relative abundance of the linear and cyclic versions of these molecules represents a competition between formation and isomerization by interaction with atomic hydrogen. The abundance of neutral atomic hydrogen is much higher in diffuse molecular gas, presenting an interesting test of the chemistry. [@LoiAgu+17] stress the role of C$_3$, which is uniquely observable in diffuse molecular gas. Here we show that C$_2$, also uniquely observable in diffuse molecular gas, is by a slight margin over CH and the most abundant carbon-bearing molecule after CO: this would not have been possible without a comprehensive survey.
- CN-bearing molecules. The relative abundances of CN, HCN and HNC are very nearly constant in diffuse molecular gas [@LisLuc01] but larger CN-bearing species have yet to be detected [@LisPet+08]. Here we show that is ubiquitous at = 1 mag, which is quite a surprise given that recent models of the formation of at such moderate extinction predicted an abundance of that is some five orders of magnitude below the observed levels [@MajDas+14]. We also detect HC$_3$N toward B0415+379 (3C111) at = 1.6 mag but not toward B2200+420 () at = 0.33 mag ( $\simeq$ /3.1).
- Oxygen-bearing molecules. Previously-detected, lighter oxygen-bearing species include OH, [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}, HOC, HCO and CO observed at radio frequencies, and [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}O and the many oxygen hydrides and hydride ions observed by HiFi [@GerNeu+16]. [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CO, usually thought to form on dust, is known to be ubiquitous in diffuse molecular gas [@Nas90; @MarMoo+93; @LisLuc+06] although CH$_3$OH, which must form on grains, is not detected [@LisPet+08]. Here we set limits on an eclectic group of heavier oxygen-bearing species HNCO, HCOOH (formic acid) and [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}COH. The systematics of the oxygen-bearing species are not discussed here, owing to the paucity of significant new results.
The plan of this work is as follows. In Section 2 we describe the new observations discussed here and the manner of the presentation of the results. In Sections 3 - 5 we separately discuss the hydrocarbon, CN-bearing and oxygen-bearing species including results for CH, CN, C$_2$ and C$_3$ that are observed in optical/UV absorption along sightlines having comparable and CH to those observed here. Section 6 discusses the viability of C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN as a DIB carrier, Section 7 compares our results with those of [@ThiBel+17] for diffuse clouds observed toward Sgr B2 in the Galactic center and disk and Section 8 is a summary.
Observations, conventions and conversion from optical depth to column density
=============================================================================
Observing and data reduction
----------------------------
The new observations reported here were taken at the National Radio Observatory’s Very Large Array (VLA) on 17 June and 6 July 2013 under proposal 13A-097 while in the C-configuration having angular resolution 25-45 milliarcsec. The data were taken in four scheduling blocks (SB) of 2 hour duration, observing absorption against the continuum targets listed in Table 1 in two orthogonal polarizations. The observing was done with 8 spectral windows having 512 channels of resolution and separation 78 kHz placed opportunistically within the range 20.1 - 22.5 GHz in June (corresponding to velocity resolution 0.104 - 0.115 ) and 512 channels of resolution and separation 156 kHz within the range 32.7 - 37.3 GHz in July, corresponding to velocity resolution 0.126 - 0.143 . Spectroscopic properties of the newly-observed spectral lines discussed here are summarized in Table 2.
{height="7.4cm"}
As in our earlier project discussed in [@LisSon+12], two continuum targets and a bandpass calibrator (3C84) were covered in each SB. Considerable time was devoted to reference pointing on each continuum source before it was observed. No absolute amplitude calibration was performed but the fluxes relative to that of the bandbass calibrator 3C 84 (S$_\nu \approx 10-16$ Jy) are given in Table 1. In each SB the bandpass calibrator was observed for approximately 20 minutes. The sources were observed for approximately 40 minutes during any one SB execution.
The data were calibrated using very standard techniques in CASA, largely repeating the procedures described in [@LisSon+12]: Overall the scheme resembles that given in online CASA tutorials for spectral line sources such as TW Hydra with the notable exception that each absorption target, being a phase calibrator, serves as its own phase calibrator. The bandpass calibrator observations were phase-calibrated within each scan sub-interval, followed by construction of an average bandpass solution. This was applied on the fly to complex gain-cal solutions for each continuum target at the sub-scan level, followed by scan-length gain calibration solutions to be applied to each target individually. Once the data were passband- and phase-calibrated in this way they were also fully reduced given the point-like nature of the background targets. For each polarization and baseband, spectra were extracted as vector phase averages over all visibilities, without gridding, mapping or, indeed, more than very minimal manual flagging of bad datapoints. The spectra were produced in CASA’s plotms visualizer and exported to drawspec singledish software [@Lis96] where spectra in the two polarizations were co-added and very small linear baselines amounting typically to 0.01% of the continuum were removed from each of the basebands.
All velocities discussed here are relative to the kinematic definition of the Local Standard of Rest that is in universal use at radio telescopes.
Conversion from integrated optical depth to column density
----------------------------------------------------------
Equivalent widths (integrated optical depths) are given in Table 3. For 3H the entries are the average of the two lines observed. For the entries for K=0 are the sum of the optical depths of the three K=0 transitions listed in Table 1. The K=0 and K=1 transitions are easily distinguished toward B0415 and B2200 (Figure 4) but not toward B0355, given the complex kinematic structure and modest signal/noise. For B0355 the only quantity given in Table 3 is the integrated optical depth for all kinematic components summed over both K-ladders and the total column density was determined by scaling with respect to the analogous quantity derived toward the sources B2200 and B0415 where the K-ladder structure was resolved..
Default factors needed to convert the observed integrated optical depths (Table 3) to column density (Tables 4-6) are given in the next-to-last column of Table 2: these were computed by assuming rotational excitation in equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background. This is an excellent approximation for strongly-polar diatomics (ie, not CO) and smaller polyatomics having low-J transitions in the mm-wave regime where emission is demonstrably weak, typically a few hundredths of a Kelvin for even optically thick lines [@LucLis96; @LisPet16]. However, for lower-lying transitions of heavier species observed at cm-wavelengths as in this work, collisional excitation more efficiently redistributes the rotational population out of the lowest states, increasing the numerical factors that should be used to convert observed optical depths to column density.
An upward correction factor due to rotational excitation is tabulated separately as a range in the right-most column of Table 2, corresponding to results for the density range n([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 0 - 400 \pccc$ that is used in Appendix A. The maximum correction is often below 2 but can be larger when the lowest-lying transition was observed. We have kept the default equivalent width - column density conversion separate from application of the excitation correction, in part because all of the new observations are unlikely to be characterized by the same density, but the correction should be kept in mind during the discussion and it is noted explicitly in the text as required. Throughout, we have avoided drawing conclusions that seemed unwarranted in the face of this uncertainty.
Presentation of results: Figures and tables
-------------------------------------------
![ Line profiles of 3H for all sources are shown as histrograms compared with profiles of [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} shown shaded in light grey and scaled downward by a factor 100. For B0415 the 3H profile has been scaled downward by a factor 2. [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} absorption toward B2251+158 is at -9.6 .](l-C3H-Fig2.eps){height="7.7cm"}
{height="14.5cm"}
Figure 1 shows results for the newly-detected species 3H along with a complement of spectra of previously-observed hydrocarbons having two and three carbons: 3H was not observed toward B0355+508 by [@LisPet+14]. Figure 2 shows a source-by-source comparison of the newly-detected 3H with spectra of [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}, the species that shows the fullest extent of molecular absorption in our work. 3H is clearly a very ubiquitous species in diffuse molecular gas but with substantial variation in the ratio of the strength of the observed transition to that of J=1-0 [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}, as seen by comparing the individual features seen toward B0355. The expected variation of the optical depth-column density conversion factor for 3H is approximately 1 - 1.8 for densities in the number density range n([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 0 - 400 \pccc$ (Table 2).
Figure 3 compares spectra of the newly-detected CN-bearing species CH$_3$CN and HC$_3$N with those of previously-observed nitrogen-bearing species. The -17 and -11 components toward B0355+508 that are prominent in the CN-bearing species are just those that are weaker in 3H in Figures 1 and 2.
Table 3 gives integrated optical depths for the newly-observed species listed in Table 2 and Tables 4 - 6 give molecular column densities using the integrated optical depths in Table 3, calculated in the limiting case of no collisional excitation above the cosmic microwave background. For B0355+508 the results are listed separately for the kinematic components that are known to exist toward this source in [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}. For the other sources, results are shown integrated across the velocity range of the [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} profile.
Comparison with other millieu
-----------------------------
The results for diffuse clouds from our work are compared with abundances for the same species determined in other environments in Tables 4 and 5 where detailed references are given, and in passing throughout the text. TMC-1 is the cyanopolyyne peak in the Taurus Dark Cloud, the well-known Horsehead (HH) Nebula hosts a PDR and dense core that are distinguished in the tables. B1b is a complex dark cloud core that has higher density and 3-10 times higher column density than TMC-1. Abundances in the Orion Bar are as noted in the references in the tables.
The abundances of small hydrocarbons
====================================
We previously showed that [*c-*]{}C$_3$H was ubiquitous in local diffuse molecular gas [@LisPet+14] and the present work extends this statement to the linear variant 3H. By contrast, is not detected. Based on the accumulated data shown in Table 4 and previous results for [@LisSon+12] we summarize the chemistry of small hydrocarbons as follows:
- is generally the most abundant hydrocarbon. N() $\ga$ N(CH) in diffuse molecular gas and dark cloud gas.
- The fractional abundance of is the same in diffuse molecular gas ($4\pm 2 \times 10^{-8}$) and toward TMC-1 ($3-5 \times 10^{-8}$), but much larger than toward B1b or the Horsehead environments ($0.3-1.0) \times 10^{-8}$.
- Adding a third carbon beyond to form C$_3$H produces a drop of about a factor 100 in column density in all environments. The drop is larger in diffuse molecular gas (N()/N(C$_3$H) $\approx 200$) than in dark cloud gas or the Horsehead (N()/N(C$_3$H) $\approx 30-70$) if [*c-*]{}C$_3$H is considered. However, the drop is more nearly equal to 100 in all environments if the comparison is based on [*l-*]{}C$_3$H.
- The cyclic/linear ratio N([*c-*]{}C$_3$H)/N([*l-*]{}C$_3$H) $\simeq 0.5 $ in diffuse molecular gas, comparable to what is observed in the circumstellar envelope around the evolved star IRC+10216 (0.4, see [@AguCer+08B]), but very different from the values N([*c-*]{}C$_3$H)/N([*l-*]{}C$_3$H) $\simeq 3-10 $ in the other environments shown in Table 4.
- The linear variant is much less abundant relative to cyclic in C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} than in C$_3$H. The linear/cyclic ratio N()/N() $<< 1$ in diffuse molecular gas and the Horsehead environments, 1/40 - 1/15, and slightly larger, 1/7-1/6, in dark cloud gas.
- Abundance does not fall uniformly with complexity, being at least as abundant as CH, and being more abundant than [*c-*]{}C$_3$H. N([*l-*]{}C$_3$H)/N([*l-*]{}C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\approx 1-3$ in all environments, and slightly larger in diffuse molecular gas than otherwise. N([*c-*]{}C$_3$H)/N([*c-*]{}C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\approx 1/10$ in diffuse molecular gas, only slightly less than in dark cloud gas (1/6-1/7). The Horsehead environents have ratios nearer unity, N([*c-*]{}C$_3$H)/N([*c-*]{}C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\approx 1/2$
- The ratios N(3H)/N() $ \approx 0.1 - 0.2$ observed here (Table 4) are quite comparable to those observed toward Sgr B2 by [@CorMcG+17] in gas of indeterminate .
- N()/N() $<<1$ for diffuse molecular gas, smaller than toward TMC-1 where N()/N() $\approx$ 0.5 as we have summarized in Table 4 albeit with large uncertainty in N() for TMC-1, see also [@LisSon+12]. Our measurements of N() are insufficiently sensitive to make worthwhile comparisons with C$_3$H.
The situation is summarized in Figure 5. At left, the molecular column densities are plotted against the far IR dust emission-derived optical reddening equivalents given in Table 1 [@SchFin+98] and only the total column density toward B0355 can be used; at right the individual kinematic components have been measured for several but not all molecules toward B0355. Also shown in this Figure are values of N(C$_3$) and N(C$_2$), using the C$_3$ column densities of [@AdaBla+03] and [@OkaTho+03] [^2], the C$_2$ column densities cited in either paper and the CH column densities given by [@OkaTho+03]. Inclusion of the results for C$_2$ and C$_3$ was motivated by the central role attributed to C$_3$ in small-hydrocarbon formation in dark clouds by [@LoiAgu+17], see their Figure 3. Ironically, N(C$_3$) is not observable in dark clouds so [@LoiAgu+17] did not tabulate calculated values of N(C$_3$) from their models. Triatomic carbon is observed at THz frequencies in the envelopes and cores of star-forming regions like DR21(OH) with a fractional abundance X(C$_3$) $\approx 0.6 - 3.0 \times 10^{-9}$ [@MooHas+12], comparable to what is shown here in Figure 5 [^3]. CO aside, C$_2$ is the most abundant carbon-bearing molecule in diffuse molecular gas, 2-3 times more abundant than either CH or . The factor 40 drop in abundance between C$_2$ and C$_3$ is twice as large as that between and .
[@LoiAgu+17] consider in detail the formation of the isomers of the molecular ions that recombine to form C$_3$H and C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} along with those of their recombination products, and they took into account the subsequent linear $\rightarrow$ cyclic isomerization arising from reaction with free atomic hydrogen. They conclude that the comparatively small $c$-C$_3$H/$l$- C$_3$H ratio ($\approx 5$) in dark clouds is created during initial formation, either via the reaction of C + C$_2$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} or by dissociative recombination, while the much larger values 30-100 seen in C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} arise after formation of through linear $\rightarrow$ cyclic isomerization in reaction with atomic hydrogen.
The $c$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}/$l$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} ratio in dark clouds decreases with increasing density, which is understood in terms of the smaller atomic hydrogen fraction in denser gas. While this may occur, the much larger atomic hydrogen fraction in diffuse and translucent gas does not lead to yet-larger $c$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}/$l$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} ratios in our observations, which show quite comparable values to those seen in dark clouds. The inverted ratios $c$-C$_3$H/$l$-C$_3$H $\approx 0.5$ in our work have no precedent in dark clouds.
{height="5cm"}
The abundance of polyynes and CN-bearing species
================================================
- CN itself is the most abundant CN-bearing molecule. N(CN)/N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 3\times 10^{-8}$ in diffuse molecular gas and toward TMC-1, or N(CN)/N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 1\times 10^{-8}$ toward B1b.
- N(CN)/N(HCN) $\approx$ 7 in diffuse molecular gas vs. 1-1.5 in dark cloud gas
- N(HCN)/N(HNC) $ \approx 3-6$ in diffuse molecular gas vs. 1 in dark cloud gas, a sign of warmer chemistry in diffuse gas.
- N(HC$_3$N)/N(HCN) $\le 0.4$ in diffuse molecular gas comparable to B1b but much less than TMC-1 where N(HC$_3$N)/N(HCN) $\approx 60$.
- N()/N(HCN) $\approx 0.015$ in diffuse molecular gas comparable to TMC-1 (0.02) but much greater than B1b (0.002).
- N()/N(HC$_3$N) = 4 toward B0415, much larger than in dark clouds (1/20 - 1/30), so is enhanced but not by as much as in the Horsehead PDR.
- The large values N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N() $\approx 10$ in dark clouds are not seen in diffuse molecular gas.
- There is no fiducial value for N(CH$_3$NC)/N() in dark cloud gas but the best upper limits N(CH$_3$NC)/N() $< 0.15 - 0.3$ in diffuse molecular gas are comparable to the abundance ratio N(CH$_3$NC)/N() $= 0.15$ seen toward the Horsehead PDR.
The overall situation is summarized in Figure 6 where the optical absorption measurements of N(CN) and N(C$_2$) cited by [@OkaTho+03] are also included. CN itself is the most abundant CN-bearing molecule, with column densities about 1/3 - 1/2 those of C$_2$, or comparable to those of CH, at larger or N(CH). The main result is of course the surprising ubiquity of in diffuse molecular gas, with X() = N()/N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\approx 0.85 \times 10^{-10}$. That said, there is another surprise in Figure 6: optical CN absorption line data at intermediate or N(CH) where N(CN) measured in optical absorption is much smaller than N(CN) measured in the radio at the same . In mm-wave absorption, CN, HCN and HNC appear in nearly fixed proportions [@LisLuc01; @AndKoh+16], with N(CN)/N(HCN) = $7\pm 1$. Smaller CN abundances measured in absorption toward early-type stars would suggest photodissociation of CN, especially, as the likely cause. Lamentably, the abilities of optical/UV absorption spectroscopy have not yet allowed detection of species such as HCN in the absorption spectra of stars occulted by diffuse clouds. The optical/UV spectra of HCN and HNC have recently been calculated by [@AguRon+17] as part of a computation of the photodissociation rates of both species, showing that the photodissociation rate of HNC is 2.2 times greater. This could account in part for the higher N(HCN)/N(HNC) ratios in diffuse clouds, compared to TMC-1 (see Figure 6 and Table 5).
Oxygen-bearing species
======================
Limits on the column densities of isocyanic acid (HNCO), formic acid (HCOOH; found on Earth in ants, bees and nettle plants according to its discoverers [@ZucBal+71]) in the interstellar medium (ISM) and protonated formaldehyde ([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}COH) are given in Table 6. HNCO and HCOOH were observed in their lowest transitions, leading to rather large uncertainties in their column densities as noted in Table 1. HNCO can only be said to be less abundant in diffuse molecular gas than in TMC-1 if the excitation is weak in the diffuse molecular gas. There is no fiducial value of the column density of protonated formaldehyde ([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}COH) for TMC-1.
C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN as a possible DIB carrier
=======================================================
{height="8.4cm"}
[@CorSar07] proposed the para-ladder rotational transitions of the anion C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN as the carrier of a diffuse interstellar band (DIB) at $\lambda$803.7nm. It is this ladder whose lowest rotational transition was observed here in the neutral version of the molecule, C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN. The neutral and its anion have the same symmetry properties, similar rotational structure and roughly comparable permanent dipole moments (3.6 vs. 1.2 Debye, respectively) [@MajDas+14] so that arguments used in the discussion of the required abundance of the anion should also be used when comparing its column density with that of the neutral observed here. As shown in Table 3, the ratios N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N(CN) and N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N(HCN) are at least about one order of magnitude smaller in diffuse molecular gas than in dark cloud gas toward TMC-1.
Using Herbig’s unpublished data [@CorSar07] determined equivalent widths toward eight stars having reddening $= 1 - 1.4$ mag, quite comparable to those toward B0355 and B0415 in this work. The results are $<W_\lambda$/$> = 0.00220\pm0.00064$ nm/mag, or $<$ N($p$-C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/$> = 4.025\times 10^{10}/{\rm f}\pcc$/mag where f is the oscillator strength of the $\lambda$803.7nm transition. [@CorSar07] hypothesized f=0.5, leading to an implied column density N($p$-C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) $= 1.2-1.3\times 10^{11}\pcc$ toward B0355 and B0415. The upper limits we deduce for N($p$-C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) toward these sources are somewhat above this, N($p$-C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) $< 2.5\times 10^{11}\pcc$ before applying a correction for rotational excitation above that provided by radiative equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, which is in the range 1-3.
[@CorSar07] showed that two strong spectral features corresponding to absorption out of the ortho-ladder K=1 levels were absent in the optical spectrum, implying that all of the C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN resided in the para rotational ladder[^4]. To explain this, [@CorSar07] argued that the ortho/para ratio was small because weak collisional excitation in the diffuse molecular ISM would leave all molecules in the lowest possible states, in radiative equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background in all facets of the excitation. Our calculations show that this is a poor assumption for the para-ladder given the large electron fraction in diffuse molecular gas and the large permanent dipole moments of the species in question, but the optical profiles that were integrated to give the equivalent widths naturally include the poorly-resolved rotational sub-structure even if [@CorSar07] did not consider it to be present. The point is that we are obliged to compare the required column density of $p$-C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN with upper limits for $p$-N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) that are fully corrected for rotational excitation within the para-rotation ladder even if they weaken our conclusions.
Our limits on N($p$-C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) are above the required column density of the anion by a factor of a few, 2-6. Under normal circumstances, the large neutral/anion column density ratios $> 200$ found for other species [@SatGia+15] would exclude C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN as a possible carrier of the DIB at $\lambda$803.7nm. However, [@CorSar07] argued, on the basis of unpublished work by E. Herbst and T. Millar, that the neutral/anion ratio would be exceptionally small, N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) $\approx 1$.
Indeed, small ratios N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) = 0.25 - 0.6 were subsequently calculated by [@MajDas+14] who tracked the time evolution of a comprehensive chemical network over a wide range of and n(H). However, the models of [@MajDas+14] also predict N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) $ = 3.5\times 10^7\pcc$ and N() $= 1.4 \times 10^5\pcc$ at = 1 mag and n(H) $=350 \pccc$. These are some 4 orders of magnitude below the required column density of N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN) but also more than five orders of magnitude below our newly-observed column density of toward B2200+420 () at = 1 mag in Table 5. Clearly, the chemistry of C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN, and other important anions and molecules possibly linked to DIBs in diffuse molecular gas, must be revisited.
To summarize, our observational upper limit suffices to show that the ratios N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N(CN) and N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)/N(HCN) are at least about one order of magnitude smaller in diffuse molecular gas than toward TMC-1. But if it is accepted that the neutral/anion ratio is so much smaller for C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN than for other species, C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN might remain a viable carrier of the DIB at $\lambda$803.7nm.
COMS in diffuse clouds?
=======================
Claims for the presence of various oxygen and nitrogen bearing complex organic molecules (COMS) in diffuse clouds have recently been made on the basis of ALMA observations toward Sgr B2 [@ThiBel+17]. Some of the column densities derived in that work are shown in Table 7, where we copied results for the three galactic center clouds appearing near 0-velocity (their Table 1) and for the cloud at +27 assumed to lie in the Scutum arm (their Table 2). For comparison we show results for TMC-1 ( = 10-20 mag) and B2200 ( = 1 mag), largely as shown in our Tables 5 and 6. For TMC-1 and B2200 we take N(H$^{13}$CO) = N([[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{})/62, the result obtained for local gas [@LucLis98]. The results for N(CH$_3$OH) are taken from from [@LisPet+08] for B2200 and from [@OhiIrv+92] and [@GraMaj+16] for TMC-1.
[[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}and are often used as [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} tracers, for instance with X([[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}) = N([[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{})/N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 3\times 10^{-9}$ here, or X() $= 2.5\times 10^{-9}$ in the work of [@RiqBro+17]. As shown in Table 7, the column densities of [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} in the features described as diffuse clouds toward Sgr B2 range from 15 to 200 times larger than toward B2200 and are comparable to or even larger than what is observed in TMC-1[^5]. The column densities seen toward Sgr B2 range up to 12 times that seen toward B2200. Clouds with such comparatively high column densities of the tracers of [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} cannot also have $\la$ 1 mag, the usual meaning of the term “diffuse” [@SnoMcC06].
The column densities toward Sgr B2 are 3-20 times larger than toward TMC-1 for CH$_3$OH, 3-5 times larger than TMC-1 for CH$_3$CN, and as much as 5 times larger than TMC-1 for HC$_3$N. They are all several hundred times larger than seen toward B2200. COMS may have been observed toward Sgr B2, but the nature of the host gas remains to be determined.
{height="9.1cm"}
Summary and discussion
======================
This work completes several major aspects of a long work program to catalog and systematize the molecular inventory of diffuse molecular gas observed in absorption at radio wavelengths near the Sun and in the wider Galaxy outside the central molecular zone, extending it beyond the very limited complement of mostly-diatomic molecules seen at UV through NIR wavelengths. The case for comparability of the diffuse molecular gas observed in the radio and UV through NIR domains was made in our recent discussions of the suitability of small polar species as carriers of DIBs [@LisSon+12; @LisLuc+14] and will not be repeated here, keeping the focus on the observable chemistry of the detected hydrocarbons and CN-bearing species. The oxygen-bearing family of molecules observed at radio wavelengths (OH, CO, HCO, [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}, HOC, [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CO and CH$_3$OH) will be discussed in a forthcoming work that includes recent ALMA observations of HOC and comparisons with existing HERSCHEL observations of [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}O.
The systematics of the small hydrocarbons and CN-bearing species are comprehensively outlined in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. The most abundant species in each family, CH or and CN, have relative abundances with respect to [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} that are about equal to each other and the same in diffuse molecular gas and TMC-1, X() = N()/N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 4\times 10^{-8}$ and X(CN) $= 3\times 10^{-8}$ at higher or N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}). However, the most abundant carbon-bearing molecule overall among those considered here (ie, neglecting CO), is C$_2$ with X(C$_2$) $= 8\times 10^{-8}$, 2-3 times more abundant than CH, or CN. The factor 40 drop in abundance between C$_2$ and C$_3$ is twice as large as that between and .
In this work we showed that $l$-C$_3$H and are ubiquitous in local diffuse molecular gas and the ratio of to HCN is the same as in TMC-1, N()/N(HCN) $\approx 0.02$. The relative abundance of $c$-C$_3$H is about the same in diffuse molecular gas as in TMC-1 or dark clouds generally [@LisPet+14] but the linear variant is enhanced in diffuse molecular gas: N($c$-C$_3$H)/N($l$-C$_3$H) $\approx 0.5$ in diffuse molecular gas, vs 4-10 in the other environments considered in Tables 3-4. The linear variant is much more abundant relative to cyclic in C$_3$H than in C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} in all environments.
The $c$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}/$l$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} ratio in dark clouds decreases with increasing density, which is understood in terms of the smaller atomic hydrogen fraction in denser gas. The much larger atomic hydrogen fraction in diffuse and translucent gas does not lead to yet-larger $c$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}/$l$-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} ratios in our observations, which show quite comparable values to those seen in dark clouds. The inverted ratios $c$-C$_3$H/$l$-C$_3$H $\approx 0.5$ in our work have no precedent in dark clouds.
In Section 6 we discussed the suitability of C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN as a DIB-carrier [@CorSar07] based on the limits we were able to set on N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN). For C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN to be a viable candidate DIB-carrier, the neutral/anion ratio would have to be small, no more than 2-6. Neutral/anion ratios for observed species are typically 200:1 or larger [@SatGia+15].
In Section 7 we compared our results with those of [@ThiBel+17] for three low-velocity clouds and another in the Scutum Arm observed in absorption toward Sgr B2: these observations are the basis of claims for the existence of complex organic molecules (COMS) in diffuse clouds. We noted that column densities of [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}-tracers such as [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{} were one - two orders of magnitude higher in that work than those we associate with clouds at $\la$ 1 mag locally, and in some cases even larger than those seen in TMC-1. Claims for the presence of COMS in diffuse clouds, material at $\la$ 1 mag, must be carefully assessed.
Describing the molecular inventory of diffuse molecular gas is still a work in progress: outstanding undetected hydrocarbons with three carbon atoms include and the recently-introduced t-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} [@LoiAgu+17] whose microwave spectrum is unknown. t-C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} could be a common host of unidentified lines given the ubiquity of the other isomers of C$_3$[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} in a wide range of astrophysical environments.
Understanding the observed abundance of even some quite small species (CH, [[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{}) in diffuse molecular gas requires the addition of new physics into the chemical modelling, as embodied in the work of [@GodFal+14] and [@ValGod+17]. It has further been suggested that the small hydrocarbons observed here should originate in a top-down chemistry after the breakup of much larger species [@GuzPet+15]. Observations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with the James Webb Space Telescope may soon test this idea.
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by Associated Universities, Inc. under a contract with the National Science Foundation. HL, MG and JP were partially funded by the grant ANR-09-BLAN-0231-01 from the French [*Agence Nationale de la Recherche*]{} as part of the SCHISM project (http://schism.ens.fr/) during the early phases of this work. The work of MG and JP was supported by the CNRS program “Physique et Chimie du Milieu Interstellaire”(PCMI). The work of MG and JP was supported by the Programme National “Physique et Chimie du Milieu Interstellaire” (PCMI) of CNRS/INSU with INC/INP co-funded by CEA and CNES.
We thank the Alexandre Faure for providing excitation rates for and we thank the anonymous referee for a variety of remarks that led to improvements in the manuscript.
[lccccc]{} Target & aka & l & b & $^a$ & flux$^b$\
& & & & mag & %\
B0355+508 & NRAO150 & 150.38 &-1.60 & 1.50 & 28,29\
B0415+379 & 3C111 & 161.67& -8.82 & 1.65 & 8,10\
B2200+420 & & 92.59& -10.44 & 0.33 & 28,31\
B2251+158 & 3C454.3 & 86.11& -38.18 &0.11 & 16,21\
\
$^a$from [@SchFin+98]\
$^b$ entries are 21 GHz and 36 GHz fluxes as percentages\
of 3C84 (S$_\nu \approx 16,10$ Jy)\
[lcccccc]{} Species & ortho/para/other & transition & frequency& log(A$_{kj}~\ps)^a$ & N(X)/$\int\tau dv^b$ & Correction$^e$\
& & & MHz & & $\pcc$ ()$^{-1}$ &\
3H & $l=f$ & J=3/2-1/2,$\Omega$=1/2,F=2-1 & 32627.30 & -5.89 & $2.82\times10^{13} $ & 1-1.8\
3H & $l=e$ & J=3/2-1/2,$\Omega$=1/2,F=2-1 & 32660.65 & -5.89 & $2.82\times10^{13} $ & 1-1.8\
HC$_3$N$^c$ & & J=4-3 & 36292.33 & -5.49 & $1.09\times10^{13}$ & 1-1.6\
CH$_3$CN & E & 2(0)-1(0) F=3-2 & 36795.57 & -5.45 & $1.27\times10^{13}$ & 1-1.7\
CH$_3$CN & E & 2(0)-1(0) F=2-1 & 36795.48 & -5.57 & $2.38\times10^{13}$ & 1-1.7\
CH$_3$CN & E & 2(0)-1(0) F=1-0 & 36794.42 & -5.70 & $5.47\times10^{13}$ & 1-1.7\
CH$_3$CN & A & 2(1)-1(1) F=1-0 & 36795.03 & -5.57 & $1.19\times10^{13}$ & 1-1.7\
CH$_3$NC & E & 1(0)-0(0) & 20105.75 & -6.32 & $1.07\times10^{13}$ & 1-4.5\
C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN$^d$ & p & $1_{01}-0_{00}$ & 20119.61 & -6.41 & $7.73\times10^{13}$ & 1-3.5\
HNCO & & 1(0,1)-0(0,0) F=2-1 & 21981.46 & -6.98 & $6.39\times10^{13}$ & 1-6\
HCOOH & t& 1(0,1)-0(0,0) & 22471.18 & -7.07 & $6.80\times10^{13}$ & 1-7\
[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}COH& & 2(0,2)-1(1,1) & 36299.95 & -6.51 & $5.61\times10^{13}$ & 1-1.6\
\
$^a$ www.splatalogue.net\
$^b$ for the observed ortho or para version only, assuming rotational\
excitation in equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background\
$^c$ 96% of the integrated intensity is in an unresolved blend\
$^d$ J=3/2-1/2,F$_1$=5/2-3/2,F=7/2-5/2. Spectroscopy from [@IrvFri+88] and [@OhiKai98]\
$^e$ See Figures A1-A2\
[lcccccccccc]{} Target & vel & EW & EW & EW & EW & EW & EW & EW & EW & EW\
&& m PS. & m PS. & m PS. & m PS. & m PS. & m PS. & m PS. & m PS. & m PS.\
& & 3H & HC$_3$N & CH$_3$CN$^b$ & CH$_3$CN$^c$ & CH$_3$NC & C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN &HNCO&HCOOH&[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}COH\
B0355+508 & -17 & $2.20(0.56)$ & $< 2.0$ & & & $<1.71$ & $<$ 1.90 &$<$2.10&$<$2.21&$<$3.63\
& -14 & $6.40(0.64)$ & & & & & &&&\
& -10 & $2.22(0.48)$& & & & & &&&\
& -8 & $3.56(0.56)$ & & & & &&& &\
& -4 & $5.00(0.70)$ & & & & &&&&\
& all & $19.3(0.13)$ & $< 5.5$ & 23.0(3.0)$^d$ & & $<4.47$ & $<$3.24 &$<$4.86&$<$4.80&$<$7.98\
B0415+379 & & $32.8(1.75)$ & 8.5(1.9) & 42.4(3.2) & 9.7(1.8) & $<4.16$ & $<$3.15&$<$4.62&$<$4.62&$<$9.30\
B2200+420 & & $8.16(0.4)$ & $<2.55$ &7.4(1.2) &2.3(0.6) & $<1.92$ &$<$1.68&$<$1.65&$<$1.95&$<$2.94\
B2251+158 & & $< 4.5$ & $< 4.5$ & $<$7.1 & & $<4.92$ & $<$3.90&&&$<$7.31\
\
$^a$ all upper limits are $3\sigma$\
$^b$ The sum of the three observed K=0 lines\
$^c$ K=1\
$^d$ K=0 and K=1 are not distinguishable, this is their sum\
[lccccccccc]{} Target & v & N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{})$^1$ & N(CH)$^2$ &N()$^a$ & N()$^b$ & N()$^c$ & N(C$_4$H)$^m$ & N(3H)$^d$ & N(3H)\
& & $10^{20}\pcc$ & $10^{13}\pcc$ & $10^{13}\pcc$ & $10^{12}$ $\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$ & $10^{13}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$\
B0355 & -17 &4.3 &1.5 & 1.17 & 0.90 & &&& 0.62(0.16)\
& -14 & 5.0 &1.8 & 1.50 & 0.48 & &&& 1.81(0.18)\
& -10 & 4.8 &1.7 & 2.27& 1.96 & &&& 0.63(0..14)\
& -8 & 3.8 &1.3 & 2.38 & 1.34 & &&& 1.07(0.16)\
& -4 & 4.0 &1.4 & 1.78 & 1.54 & &&& 1.41 (0.20)\
& -all & 22 & 7.7& 9.10 & 6.11 & 1.58 & $<$1 & & 5.56(0.34)\
B0415 & & 45 &15.8& 8.29 & 4.28& 2.81 & $<$ 2.3 & 4.63(0.18) & 9.24(0.49)\
B2200 & & 8.7 &3.0& 3.11 & 1.47& 1.01 & $<$ 0.4 & 1.62(0.05) & 2.30(0.13)\
B2251$^e$ & & 1.0 &0.36 & 0.67 & 0.31 & $<$ 0.84 &$<$ 0.3 & & $<$ 1.3\
TMC-1/10$^f$ & &10& 2 & 5-10 & 10 & & 2 & 6 & 5\
TMC-1/10$^g$ & &” & & & 2 & 0.6 & 0.3-9 & 18 & 6\
TMC-1/10$^h$ & &”& & 6 & 12 & 2 & & 10 & 1\
TMC-1/10$^i$ & &”& & 2 & 6 & 2 & & 10 & 1\
consensus & &10-20$^l$ &2 &5 & 6 & 1 & 2 & 9 & 2\
B1b/10$^j$ & &$\ga60$ & & & 2 & 0.6 & & 6 & 1\
HH PDR/10$^k$ & &19 & & 1-2 & 0.5-0.8 & 0.5-1.5& & 2-7 & 0.6 - 1.8\
HH core/10$^k$ & &32 & & $<1$ & 0.3-0.4 & 0.1-0.3 & & 0.8-2.3& 0.1-0.4\
Orion Bar/10$^n$& & 30 & & 4 & 1.3 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 2 & 0.6\
\
$^1$ N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) = N([[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{})/$3\times 10^{-9}$ for sources observed in this work\
$^2$ N(CH) = N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\times 3.5 \times 10^{-8}$ for sources observed in this work\
$^a$N() from [@LucLis00]\
$^b$N()= $(4/3)\times$N($o$-) from [@LisSon+12]\
$^c$N()= $4\times$N($p$-) from [@LisSon+12]\
$^d$ N($c$-C$_3$H) from [@LisPet+14]\
$^e$ upper limits are $3\sigma$\
$^f$ [@OhiIrv+92] whose tables must be interpreted with N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 10^{22}\pcc$\
$^g$ [@GraMaj+16]\
$^h$ [@LoiAgu+17] except from [@SakSar+10]\
$^i$ [@FosCer+01]\
$^j$ [@LoiAgu+17] and [@DanGer+13]\
$^k$ Horsehead (HH nebula values from [@GuzPet+15]\
$^l$ N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\ge 2\times 10^{22}\pcc$ beam-averaged on 1 scales is given by [@FehTot+16]\
$^m$ Results for C$_4$H from [@LisSon+12]\
$^n$ [@CuaGoi+15], Table 6\
[lccccccccc]{} Target & v & N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) & N(CN)$^b$ & N(HCN)$^b$ & N(HNC)$^b$ & N(HC$_3$N) &N()$^{c}$ & N() & N(C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN)\
& & $10^{20}\pcc$& $10^{13}\pcc$ & $10^{13}\pcc$ & $10^{13}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$& $10^{11}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$\
B0355 & -17 &4.3 &2.13& 0.29 &0.077 &$<$0.22& & $<$ 0.18 & $<$ 1.5\
& -14 &5.0&$<$0.32& 0.09 &0.017& & & &\
& -10 &4.8&3.35 & 0.36 &0.123 & & & &\
& -8 &3.8&0.76 &0.17 &0.030& & & &\
& -4 &4.0&$<$0.32&0.12 &0.037 & & & &\
& -all &22&6.6&1.05 & 0.28& $<$0.60 &1.7(0.2) & $<$0.37& $<$ 2.5\
B0415 & &45 &15.78& 2.480& 0.554& 0.93(0.21)&3.9(0.3) & $<$0.44& $<$ 2.4\
B2200 & & 8.7& 3.29 &0.450 & 0.074 & $<$0.26&0.7(0.1) & $<$0.20 & $<$ 1.3\
B2251 & & 1.0 & 0.20 &0.023 &0.008 &$<$0.49 & $<$0.7 & $<$0.52 & $<$ 3.0\
TMC-1/10$^d$ & & 10 &3 & 2 & 2 & 60 & 10 & & 50\
TMC-1/10$^e$ & & & & & & 234 & 4 & & 38\
consensus & & $10-20^i$ &3 &2 &2 &120 & 6 & &44\
B1b/10$^g$ &&$\ga60$&6&5&2&2&0.1&&\
HH-PDR$^h$ &&&&&& 2.5&100&15&\
HH-core$^h$ &&&&&& 5 &5 &$<$5&\
Orion Bar$^j$/10 & &30 & 2.5 & 0.34 & 0.4 & 3 & 7 & &\
\
$^a$ all upper limits are $3\sigma$\
$^b$N(CN), N(HCN) and N(HNC) from [@LisLuc01]\
$^c$Sum of N() K=0 and K=1\
$^d$ [@OhiIrv+92] whose tables must be interpreted with N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $= 10^{22}\pcc$\
$^e$ [@GraMaj+16]\
$^g$ [@LoiAgu+17] and [@DanGer+13]\
$^h$Horsehead nebula values from [@PetGra+12], [@GraPet+13] and [@GuzPet+15]\
$^i$ N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\ge 2\times 10^{22}\pcc$ beam-averaged on 1 scales is given by [@FehTot+16]\
$^j$ [@CuaGoi+17]
[l c c c c c]{} Target & v & N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) & N(HNCO)&HCOOH&[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}COH\
& & $10^{20}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$ & $10^{11}\pcc$\
B0355 & -17 & 4.3 & $<$1.3 &$<$1.5&$<$2.0\
& -14 & 5.0 & &&\
& -10& 4.8 & &&\
& -8 & 3.8 & &&\
& -4 & 3.8 & &&\
& -all & 22 & $<$3.1 &$<$3.2&$<$4.5\
B0415 & & 45& $<$3.0 &$<$3.1&$<$5.2\
B2200 & & 8.7 & $<$1.1 &$<$1.3&$<$1.6\
B2251 & & 1.0 & && $<$4.1\
TMC-1/10$^d$ & & 10 & 2 &$< 2$ &\
TMC-1/10$^e$ & & & 11 & &\
consensus & & 10-20$^f$ & 4.7 & $<2$ &\
\
$^d$ TMC-1 values from [@OhiIrv+92]\
$^e$ TMC-1 values from [@GraMaj+16]\
$^f$ N([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $\ge 2\times 10^{22}\pcc$ beam-averaged on 1 scales according to [@FehTot+16]\
[lcccccc]{} Species & TMC-1&B2200&GC 1& GC 2 & GC 3&Scutum\
& $\pcc$& $\pcc$& $\pcc$& $\pcc$& $\pcc$& $\pcc$\
H$^{13}$CO& 1.3$\times10^{12~a}$ &0.042$\times 10^{12~a}$&1.5$\times 10^{12}$&8$\times 10^{12}$&4$\times 10^{12}$&0.6$\times 10^{12}$\
&2.0$\times 10^{13}$&0.150$\times 10^{13}$&0.5$\times 10^{13}$&2$\times 10^{13}$&1$\times 10^{13}$&0.8$\times 10^{13}$\
CH$_3$OH &0.2$\times 10^{14}$&$<0.005\times 10^{14}$&4$\times 10^{14}$&4$\times 10^{14}$&2$\times 10^{14}$&0.6$\times 10^{14}$\
CH$_3$CN &0.4$\times 10^{13}$&0.007$\times 10^{13}$&1$\times 10^{13}$&2$\times 10^{13}$&$<6\times 10^{13}$&1.4$\times 10^{13}$\
HC$_3$N &13$\times 10^{13}$&$<0.004\times 10^{13}$&$<3\times 10^{13}$&60$\times 10^{13}$&$<3\times 10^{13}$&$<2.5\times 10^{13}$\
\
$^a$ N(H$^{13}$CO) = N([[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{})/62\
Rotational excitation
=====================
For the low-lying transitions of heavier species observed in this work, collisional excitation redistributes the rotational population out of the lowest states, increasing the numerical factors that should be used to convert observed optical depths to column density. Collisions with electrons greatly dominate the excitation in diffuse molecular gas where the CO abundance is small and C is the dominant carrier of carbon leading to an electron fraction n(e)/n(H) $\ga 1.4\times10^{-4}$ [@SofLau+04]. Excitation rates for collisions with He and [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} play a smaller role and have not been calculated for most of the species discussed here but we included [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} excitation of HC$_3$N [@FauLiq+16] and excitation of by He and [[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{} (Faure, private communication). Electron excitation is considered here as in [@Lis12Electrons], using separate closed-form approximations for molecular ions and neutrals.
The excitation rate coefficients and our excitation calculations are not hyperfine-resolved and are just recalculations of the rotational partition function. Results of the excitation calculations are illustrated in Figure A.1 for hydrocarbons and CN-bearing species and in Figure A.2 for the oxygen-bearing species. The normalization on the vertical axis is such that the integrated optical depth of the transition in question corresponds to a total column density N $= 10^{11} \pcc$ (shown in each panel) but it is only the extent of the variation across the horizontal axis that matters. The default optical depth-column density conversion factor given in the next-to-last column of Table 2 corresponds to zero density at the left and the maximum correction corresponds to the amount by which the curves have fallen at n([[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}) $ = 400 \pccc$. The very lowest-lying transitions are quite sensitive to density variations while those lying higher may be nearly unaffected. The excitation, being dominated by electrons, is only weakly sensitive to the kinetic temperature as shown in Figures A.1 and A.2 where the calculations have been carried out for kinetic temperatures of 20, 40 and 60 K: the different curves at these tempertures often overlap to the point that they are indistinguishable.
{height="16cm"}
{height="8cm"}
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M., [Blake]{}, G. A., & [McCall]{}, B. J. 2003, ApJ, 595, 235
, A., [Roncero]{}, O., [Zanchet]{}, A., [Ag[ú]{}ndez]{}, M., & [Cernicharo]{}, J. 2017, ApJ, 838, 33
, M., [Cernicharo]{}, J., [Pardo]{}, J. R., [et al.]{} 2008, Astrophys. Space. Sci., 313, 229
, R., [Kohno]{}, K., [Tamura]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2016, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn., 68, 6
, J., [McGuire]{}, B., [Herbst]{}, E., & [Remijan]{}, A. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.03432
, M. A., & [Sarre]{}, P. J. 2007, A&A, 472, 537
, S., [Goicoechea]{}, J. R., [Cernicharo]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2017, A&A, 603, A124
, S., [Goicoechea]{}, J. R., [Pilleri]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2015, A&A, 575, A82
, F., [Gerin]{}, M., [Roueff]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2013, A&A, 560, A3
, A., [Lique]{}, F., & [Wiesenfeld]{}, L. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 460, 2103
, O., [T[ó]{}th]{}, L. V., [Ward-Thompson]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2016, A&A, 590, A75
, D., [Cernicharo]{}, J., [Gerin]{}, M., & [Cox]{}, P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 168
, M., [Neufeld]{}, D. A., & [Goicoechea]{}, J. R. 2016, Ann. Rev. Astrophys. Astron., 54, 181
, A. E., & [Langer]{}, W. D. 1975, ApJ, 197, 347
, B., [Falgarone]{}, E., & [Pineau des For[ê]{}ts]{}, G. 2014, A&A, 570, A27
, P., [Majumdar]{}, L., [Ohishi]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2016, Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser., 225, 25
, P., [Pety]{}, J., [Guzm[á]{}n]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2013, A&A, 557, A101
, V. V., [Pety]{}, J., [Goicoechea]{}, J. R., [et al.]{} 2015, ApJ, 800, L33
, W. M., [Friberg]{}, P., [Hjalmarson]{}, A., [et al.]{} 1988, ApJ, 334, L107
, H., & [Lucas]{}, R. 2001, A&A, 370, 576
, H., [Lucas]{}, R., & [Pety]{}, J. 2006, A&A, 448, 253
, H., [Lucas]{}, R., [Pety]{}, J., & [Gerin]{}, M. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 297, The Diffuse Interstellar Bands, ed. J. [Cami]{} & N. L. J. [Cox]{}, 163–172
, H., [Sonnentrucker]{}, P., [Cordiner]{}, M., & [Gerin]{}, M. 2012, ApJ, 753, L28
, H. S. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 125, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ed. G. [Hunt]{} & H. [Payne]{}, 3
, H. S. 2007, A&A, 476, 291
—. 2012, A&A, 538, A27
—. 2017, ApJ, 835, 138
, H. S., & [Gerin]{}, M. 2016, A&A, 585, A80
, H. S., [Guzm[á]{}n]{}, V. V., [Pety]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2015, A&A, 579, A12
, H. S., & [Lucas]{}, R. 1996, A&A, 314, 917
, H. S., & [Pety]{}, J. 2016, ApJ, 823, 124
, H. S., [Pety]{}, J., [Gerin]{}, M., & [Lucas]{}, R. 2014, A&A, 564, A64
, H. S., [Pety]{}, J., & [Lucas]{}, R. 2008, A&A, 486, 493
—. 2010, A&A, 518, A45
, J.-C., [Ag[ú]{}ndez]{}, M., [Wakelam]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2017, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 470, 4075
, R., & [Liszt]{}, H. 1998, A&A, 337, 246
, R., & [Liszt]{}, H. S. 1996, A&A, 307, 237
—. 2000, A&A, 355, 327
, J. P., [Walker]{}, G. A. H., [Bohlender]{}, D. A., [et al.]{} 2011, ApJ, 726, 41
, L., [Das]{}, A., & [Chakrabarti]{}, S. K. 2014, A&A, 562, A56
, A. P., [Moore]{}, E. M., & [Bania]{}, T. M. 1993, ApJ, 419, L101
, B., [Hassel]{}, G. E., [Gerin]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2012, A&A, 546, A75
, A. G. 1990, Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser., 72, 303
, M., [Irvine]{}, W., & [Kaifu]{}, N. 1992, in Astrochemistry of cosmic phenomena: proceedings of the 150th Symposium of the International Astronomical Union, held at Campos do Jordao, Sao Paulo, Brazil, August 5-9, 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer, ed. P. D. [Singh]{}, 171–172
, M., & [Kaifu]{}, N. 1998, Faraday Discussions, 109, 205
, T., [Thorburn]{}, J. A., [McCall]{}, B. J., [et al.]{} 2003, ApJ, 582, 823
, J., [Gratier]{}, P., [Guzm[á]{}n]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2012, A&A, 548, A68
, D., [Bronfman]{}, L., [Mauersberger]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.02464
, N., [Saruwatari]{}, O., [Sakai]{}, T., [Takano]{}, S., & [Yamamoto]{}, S. 2010, A&A, 512, A31+
, M., [Gianturco]{}, F. A., [Carelli]{}, F., & [Wester]{}, R. 2015, ApJ, 799, 228
, D. J., [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P., & [Davis]{}, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
, Y., [Rogers]{}, M., [Federman]{}, S. R., [et al.]{} 2008, ApJ, 687, 1075
, T. P., & [McCall]{}, B. J. 2006, Ann. Rev. Astrophys. Astron., 44, 367
, U. J., [Lauroesch]{}, J. T., [Meyer]{}, D. M., & [Cartledge]{}, S. I. B. 2004, ApJ, 605, 272
, V., [Belloche]{}, A., [Menten]{}, K. M., [Garrod]{}, R. T., & [M[ü]{}ller]{}, H. S. P. 2017, A&A, 605, L6
, V., [Godard]{}, B., [Hennebelle]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2017, A&A, 600, A114
, R., [van Dishoeck]{}, E. F., & [Black]{}, J. H. 2009, A&A, 503, 323
, W. D., [Anicich]{}, V. G., & [Huntress]{}, W. T., J. 1976, ApJ, 205, L165
, T., [Galazutdinov]{}, G., [Beletsky]{}, Y., & [Kre[ł]{}owski]{}, J. 2009, A&A, 499, 783
, T., [Galazutdinov]{}, G. A., [Beletsky]{}, Y., & [Kre[ł]{}owski]{}, J. 2010, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 402, 1991
, B., [Ball]{}, J. A., & [Gottlieb]{}, C. A. 1971, ApJ, 163, L41
[^1]: Based on observations obtained with the NRAO Jansky Very Large Array (VLA)
[^2]: The C$_3$ column densities in common between these references only agree to within a factor two or so
[^3]: Abundances of and are also comparable.
[^4]: In fact this could easily be taken to disqualify C[[[$\mathrm{H_2}$]{}]{}]{}CN as the carrier.
[^5]: The very largest disparities might be explained in small part by a smaller N([[[$\mathrm{HCO^+}$]{}]{}]{})/N(H$^{13}$CO) ratio if the material near 0-velocity toward Sgr B2 is actually in the central molecular zone.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We generalize upper bounds for constant dimension codes containing a lifted maximum rank distance code first studied by Etzion and Silberstein. The proof allows to construct several improved codes.
**Keywords:** Finite projective spaces, constant dimension codes, subspace codes, subspace distance, rank distance, maximum rank distance codes, lifted maximum rank distance bound, combinatorics.
author:
- 'Daniel Heinlein[^1]'
title: New LMRD bounds for constant dimension codes and improved constructions
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Let $V \cong \mathbb{F}_q^v$ be a $v$-dimensional vector space over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $q$ elements. By ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ we denote the set of all $k$-dimensional subspaces in $V$. Its size is given by the $q$-binomial coefficient ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}=\prod_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac{q^v-q^i}{q^k-q^i}$ for $0 \le k \le v$ and $0$ otherwise.
The set of all subspaces of $V$ forms a metric space associated with the so-called subspace distance $d_S(U,W) = \dim(U+W) - \dim(U \cap W)$, cf. [@MR2451015 Lemma 1]. A $(v,M,d;k)_q$ constant dimension code (CDC) $C$ is a subset of ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ of cardinality $M$ in which for each pair of elements, called codewords, the subspace distance is lower bounded by $d$, i.e., we have $d \le d_S(U,W)$ for all $U \ne W \in C$.
The main question of subspace coding in the constant dimension case asks for the maximum cardinality $M$ for fixed parameters $q$, $v$, $d$, and $k$ of a $(v,M,d;k)_q$ code. The maximum cardinality is denoted as $A_q(v,d;k)$.
$A_q(v,d;k)$ is known for some parameters. By definition, $A_q(v,d;k)=0$ for $k<0$ or $v<k$. If $d \le 2$, then $A_q(v,d;k)={{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}$. Let $U^\perp$ denote the orthogonal complement of $U$ with respect to a fixed non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on $V$. Since $d_S(U^\perp, W^\perp)=d_S(U,W)$, we have $A_q(v,d;k) = A_q(v,d;v-k)$, cf. [@MR2597176 Remark after Lemma 1], and hence may assume $k \le v/2$. If $2k<d$, any code has at most one element. The subspace distance in the constant dimension case is always even: $d_S(U,W)=2(k-\dim(U \cap W))$ for $U,W \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$. Therefore we occasionally use the assumption $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$.
Note that for $U\ne W$ in a $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC $C$ the subspace distance yields $\dim(U \cap W) \le k-d/2$. Therefore any at least $(k-d/2+1)$-dimensional subspace of $V$ is contained in at most one codeword.
A prominent code construction uses maximum rank distance (MRD) codes. A linear rank metric code $[m \times n, M, d]_q$ is a subspace $C$ of the vector space of $m \times n$ matrices over $\mathbb{F}_q$, i.e., $\mathbb{F}_q^{m \times n}$, of cardinality $M$, for which the distance of two elements is lower bounded via the rank metric $d_r(A,B) = {\text{rk}}(A-B)$, i.e., $d \le d_r(A,B)$ for all $A \ne B \in C$. For all parameters, $0 \le m, n, d$ and $q$ prime power, there is a linear rank metric code that attains the maximum cardinality of $\left\lceil q^{\max\{m,n\}(\min\{m,n\}-d+1)} \right\rceil$, cf. [@MR791529].
The lifted MRD (LMRD) code [@MR2450762 Proposition 4] is a $(v,\#M,d;k)_q$ CDC $C$ that uses a $k \times k$ identity matrix $I_k$ as prefix for a $[k \times (v-k),\#M,d/2]_q$ MRD code $M$, where $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$ implies $\#M=q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)}$: $C=\{ \operatorname{rowspan}(I_k \mid A) : A \in M \}$. The horizontal concatenation of matrices, having the same number of rows, is denoted by “$\mid$”.
The arising question of upper bounds on sizes for CDCs that contain an LMRD as subset was partly answered by Etzion and Silberstein in [@MR3015712 Theorem 10 and Theorem 11]. This paper generalizes both bounds in Proposition \[prop:1\] and Proposition \[prop:2\] such that both bounds together cover the parameter range $k < 3d/2$ together with $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$.
Since the writing of [@MR3015712] there are quite a few works that can profit of a generalized LMRD bound. First of all Etzion asked in Research Problem 5 of his survey of open problems [@etzion2013problems] and the authors of [@heinlein2017coset] asked in the conclusion for a generalization of the LMRD bound. Next the expurgation-augmentation method of Honold et al. [@liu2014new; @ai2016expurgation] often surpasses the LMRD bound and is therefore stronger than all constructions that include an LMRD as subset. The homepage <http://subspacecodes.uni-bayreuth.de> bundled with the manual in [@HKKW2016Tables] lists some explicit calculations of lower and upper bounds and particularly the LMRD bound for small parameters. Finally, there are multiple papers that use the LMRD bound and can profit of this generalization [@MR3440233; @MR3329980; @silberstein2013new; @MR3367813; @MR3705116; @heinlein2017new].
The main result of this paper is summarized in this proposition.
\[prop:0\] For $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$ let $C$ be a $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC that contains an LMRD code.
If $k<d \le 2/3 \cdot v$ we have $$\#C \le q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)} + A_q(v-k,2(d-k);d/2)\text{.}$$ If additionally $d=2k$, $r \equiv v \mod{k}$, $0 \le r <k$, and ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{r}\\{1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}<k$, then the right hand side is equal to $A_q(v,d;k)$ and achievable in all cases.
If $(v, d, k) \in \{ (6+3l,4+2l,3+l), (6l,4l,3l) \mid l \ge 1 \}$, then there is a CDC containing an LMRD with these parameters whose cardinality achieves the bound.
If $k<d$ and $v<3d/2$ we have $$\#C \le q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)} + 1$$ and this cardinality is achieved.
If $d \le k < 3d/2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\#C
&
\le
q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)} + A_q(v-k,3d-2k;d)
\\
&
+
{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{d/2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k}\\{d-1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}
q^{(k-d+1)(v-k-d/2)}
/
{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-d/2}\\{d/2-1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$
For fixed $q$ and $v$, Figure \[fig\] visualizes the parameter regions of $d$ and $k$ in which which if clause of Proposition \[prop:0\] is applicable. The style is based on the tables in <http://subspacecodes.uni-bayreuth.de> [@HKKW2016Tables].
at (2,-2) [$k=d=2$]{}; (2,-2) – (10,-2) node\[right\] [$k$]{}; (2,-2) – (2,-20) node\[below\] [$d$]{}; (2,-4) – (10,-20) node\[right\] [$d=2k$]{}; (2,-2) – (10,-10) node\[right\] [$d=k$]{}; (3,-2) – (10,-6-2/3) node\[right\] [$k=3d/2$]{}; (6+2/3,-13-1/3) – (10,-13-1/3) node\[right\] [$v=3d/2$]{}; (10,-2) – (3,-2) – (10,-6-2/3); (10,-10-0.4) – (2,-2-0.4) – (2,-4) – (6+2/3,-13-1/3) – (10,-13-1/3); (10,-6-2/3-0.4) – (3,-2-0.4) – (2,-2) – (10,-10); (10,-13-1/3) – (6+2/3,-13-1/3) – (10,-20);
The paper is organized as follows. We collect basic facts and definitions about constant dimension codes in Section \[sec:introduction\] and Section \[sec:preliminaries\]. The two main bounds are proved in Section \[sec:maintheorems\]. Since the second bound depends on two parameters we show how to choose these parameters to get the strongest bound in Section \[sec:comparisonbounds\]. In this section, we also compare the second with the first bound. The proof of Proposition \[prop:0\] is then presented, together with final remarks, in Section \[sec:proof\_prop0\]. Section \[sec:code\_improvements\] constructs an addendum for an LMRD along the proof of Proposition \[prop:1\], effectively increasing some lower bounds. A conclusion is drawn in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
In the remainder of the paper, we need well-known facts about $q$-binomial coefficients.
Using $[x]_q={{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{x}\\{1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}=(q^x-1)/(q-1)$ for integral $x \ge 0$ and $q$-factorials $[x]_q!=\prod_{i=1}^{x} [i]_q$, the $q$-binomial coefficient is ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}=\frac{[v]_q!}{[k]_q! [v-k]_q!}$ for $0 \le k \le v$ and $0$ otherwise. We will use the inequalities $\frac{a-1}{b-1} \le (\ge) \frac{a}{b}$ if $1 < b$ and $a \le (\ge) b$ and $\frac{[x]_q}{[y]_q} \le (\ge) q^{x-y}$ if $0 < y$ and $x \le (\ge) y$.
Let $\mu(q)=\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{-i})^{-1}$, then $q^{k(v-k)} \le {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} \le \mu(q) q^{k(v-k)}$ [@MR2451015 Lemma 4]. Note that $\mu(q)$ is monotonically decreasing in $q$ and some approximated values are given in Table \[tab:mu\].
$q$ 2 3 4 5 7 8 9
------------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
$\mu(q)$ 3.46 1.79 1.45 1.32 1.20 1.16 1.14
$\log_q(\mu(q))$ 1.79 0.53 0.27 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.06
: Values for $\mu(q)$ and $\log_q(\mu(q))$ for small $q$.[]{data-label="tab:mu"}
Moreover, one of the two Pascal identities for $q$-binomial coefficients is ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}={{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-1}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}q^k+{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-1}\\{k-1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}$.
An upper bound for the size of CDCs is the Singleton bound:
\[lem:singleton\_bound\] For $q \ge 2$ prime power, $v$, $d/2$, $k$ integers with $d/2 \le \min\{k,v-k\}$: $$A_q(v,d;k)\!\le\!{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d/2+1}\\{\max\{k,v-k\}}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}\!\!\!\!=\!\min\left\{\!{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d/2+1}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}\!\!\!\!, {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d/2+1}\\{v-k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}\!\right\}\!\text{.}$$
Successive zeros and ones are abbreviated:
$1_l=\underbrace{1 \ldots 1}_{l}$ and $0_l=\underbrace{0 \ldots 0}_{l}$.
The bijection $\tau$ between a Grassmannian and an appropriate set of full-rank matrices in reduced row echelon form (RREF) $$\tau_{q,v,k}:{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathbb{F}_q^v}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]} \rightarrow \{A \in \mathbb{F}_q^{k \times v} \mid {\text{rk}}(A)=k, \text{$A$ is in RREF}\}$$ will also be applied multiple times. If $q$, $v$, and $k$ is clear from the context, we will abbreviate $\tau_{q,k,v}$ with $\tau$.
By $$\Gamma_{q,k,v} = \tau^{-1}(0_{(v-k) \times k} \mid I_{v-k})$$ we denote the $(v-k)$-dimensional subspace of $V$ that contains all vectors which start with $k$ zeros. We use this to partition the vector space $$V = \ \Gamma_{q,k,v} \ \dot\cup \ \Delta_{q,k,v}\text{,}$$ hence $\Delta_{q,k,v}$ contains all $q^v-q^{v-k}$ vectors of $V$ whose first $k$ entries are not $0_k$ each.
Note that the authors of [@MR3329980] denote $\Gamma_{q,k,v}$ special flat and that we again drop the reference to $q$, $v$, and $k$ if it is clear from the context.
A $k$-spread $S$ in $V$ is a subset of ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ such that all nonzero vectors of $V$ are partitioned in subspaces in $S$, hence $S$ is a $(v,(q^v-1)/(q^k-1),2k;k)_q$ CDC. It exists iff $k \mid v$ [@MR0169117].
A partial $k$-spread $P$ in $V$ is a subset of ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ such that some nonzero vectors of $V$ are packed in subspaces in $S$, hence it is a $(v,\#P,2k;k)_q$ CDC. The question of the maximum cardinality $\#P$ is not setteled, cf. [@MR0404010; @MR560442; @MR2576869; @MR3631662; @MR3682737; @MR3682916; @MR0169117]. Quite recently, it could be answered for many parameters.
\[lem\_size\_ps\] For $r \equiv v \mod{k}$, $0 \le r <k \le v/2$, and $[r]_q<k$: $A_q(v,2k;k)=(q^v-q^{k+r})/(q^k-1)+1$.
With the exception of $21$ sporadic cases in [@MR3631662], [@MR0169117 §VI] and [@MR3631662 Theorem 2.9 and 2.10] describe the strongest upper bounds for partial spreads, the latter can be derived by interpreting the set of non-covered $1$-dimensional subspaces as columns of a generator matrix of a linear code, cf. [@heinlein2017projective; @honold2016partial].
A lower bound for CDCs, which in particular meets the upper bound in Lemma \[lem\_size\_ps\], is given by the Echelon-Ferrers construction [@MR2589964]. Its main ingredient is the following lemma which connects the subspace distance to the Hamming distance using the pivot vector $p_{q,v,k}:{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]} \rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}_2^v$ such that $p_{q,v,k}(U)_i=1$ iff the $i$-th columnn of $\tau(U)$ is a pivot column for $U \le V$. If the context implies $q$, $v$, and $k$, we abbreviate $p_{q,v,k}$ with $p$.
\[lem:dh\_ds\] If $U,W \le V$ then $d_S(U,W) \ge d_H(p(U),p(W))$.
For each codeword $c$ of a binary constant weight code of length $v$, weight $k$, i.e., each non-zero codeword has exactly $k$ ones, and Hamming distance $d$, the Echelon-Ferrers construction builds a CDC $C_c$ using codewords $M$ of a $[k \times (v-k),N,d/2]_q$ rank metric code with prescribed zeros such that $M$ *fits* in a RREF matrix with pivots in the positions of the ones of $c$. The final CDC is the the union of each $C_c$.
Although it is an open question how this rank metric code may be constructed in the general case, for the scope of this paper we only need:
\[lem:EFMRD\_special\_case\] Let $A$ be a $[a \times a',l,d_a]_q$ and $B$ a $[b \times b',l,d_b]_q$ rank metric code. Then there is a $[(a+b) \times (a'+b'),l,d_a+d_b]_q$ rank metric code such that each codeword contains a zero matrix of size $b \times a'$ in the bottom left corner.
$\mathcal{S}_n$ is the symmetric group of permutations of $n$ elements.
$\mathcal{H}_k(U)$ is an arbitrary $k$-dimensional subspace of a vector space $U$, cf. [@MR2451015 before Definition 1].
Moreover, we need to count the number of subspaces which lie in a given subspace and only intersect another given subspace trivially.
Let $W$ and $U$ be subspaces of $V$. The set of all $c$-dimensional subspaces that are in $W$ and intersect $U$ trivially is: $${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{W}{\setminus}{U}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}} = \{ A \le W \mid \dim(A)=c \text{ and } A\cap U = \{0\} \}\text{.}$$ For $w = \dim(W)$ and $u = \dim(U \cap W)$ its cardinality is ${{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{w}{\setminus}{u}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}$ which can be computed: $${{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{w}{\setminus}{u}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} = \prod_{i=0}^{c-1} \frac{q^w-q^{u+i}}{q^c-q^i} = q^{uc} \prod_{i=0}^{c-1} \frac{q^{w-u}-q^{i}}{q^c-q^i} = q^{uc} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{w-u}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}$$ for $0 \le c \le w-u$ and 0 otherwise.
Bounds on CDCs containing LMRDs {#sec:maintheorems}
===============================
In general, any $(k-d/2+1)$-dimensional subspace of $V$ is contained in at most one codeword of a $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC $C$. If $C$ contains an LMRD $M$, all $(k-d/2+1)$-subspaces in $\Delta$ are covered by codewords in $M$. More precisely:
\[lem:etzion\_subspace\] Using $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$, each $(k-d/2+1)$-dimensional subspace of $V$, whose nonzero vectors are in $\Delta$, is subspace of exactly one element of a $(v,q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)},d;k)_q$ LMRD code.
The number of $(k-d/2+1)$-dimensional subspaces in $\Delta$ is $$\#{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{V}{\setminus}{\Gamma}}\\{k-d/2+1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}} = {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{v}{\setminus}{v-k}}\\{k-d/2+1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} = q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k}\\{k-d/2+1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}\text{.}$$ The cardinality of an LMRD code is $q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)}$, it contains only nonzero vectors from $\Delta$, and, since each $(k-d/2+1)$-dimensional subspace is contained in exactly one codeword, the statement follows.
\[lem:subspaces\_in\_delta\] Any subspace $U$ of $V$ contains a $(\dim(U)-\dim(U \cap \Gamma))$-dimensional subspace whose nonzero vectors are in $\Delta$.
By definition of $\Delta$ all vectors in $U \setminus (U \cap \Gamma)$ are in $\Delta$. Then basis extension yields a desired subspace.
These two lemmata will now show that the non-LMRD codewords in a CDC which contains an LMRD have to have a large intersection with $\Gamma$, which is of course not true for general CDCs.
\[lem:cdc\_partition\] Using $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$, any $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC $C$ that contains an LMRD code $M$ can be partitioned into $$C = M \ \dot\cup \ \ \dot\bigcup_{t=d/2}^{k} \ S_t\text{,}$$ where $S_t = \{ U \in C \mid \dim(U \cap \Gamma) = t \}$, and $$d_S(A\cap \Gamma,B\cap \Gamma) \ge d_S(A,B)-2k+a+b$$ for $A \in S_a$ and $B \in S_b$.
A subspace $U \in C$ with $\dim(U \cap \Gamma) \le d/2-1$ yields via Lemma \[lem:subspaces\_in\_delta\] an at least $(k-d/2+1)$-dimensional subspace $W$ with nonzero vectors in $\Delta$. Then Lemma \[lem:etzion\_subspace\] shows that $W_0 \le W$, $\dim(W_0)=k-d/2+1$, is contained in exactly one codeword in $M$, i.e., $U \in M$. Moreover, using the minimum distance, $W_0$ is in at most one element of $C$.
For $A \in S_a$ and $B \in S_b$ we have $\dim(A \cap B \cap \Gamma) \le \dim(A \cap B) = k-d_S(A,B)/2$, hence $d_S(A\cap \Gamma,B\cap \Gamma)=a+b-2\dim(A \cap B \cap \Gamma) \ge d_S(A,B)-2k+a+b$.
Using this lemma, we can upper bound the size of a $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC $C$ that contains an LMRD $M$, for $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$, via $$\#C = \#M + \sum_{t=d/2}^{k} \#S_t = q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)} + \sum_{t=d/2}^{k} \#S_t\text{.}$$
The following trick may be observed in [@ahlswede2009error Theorem 3].
\[lem:subspaces\_upper\_bound\] Let $l<2m$ be an integer and $A_i \subseteq {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{i}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ for $m \le i \le M$ such that $d_S(U,W) \ge \dim(U) + \dim(W) -l$ for $U \ne W \in \bigcup_{i=m}^{M} A_i$. Then $$\# \bigcup_{i=m}^{M} A_i \le A_q(v,2m-l;m)\text{.}$$
For each $m \le i \le M$, we define $B_i=\{ \mathcal{H}_m(U) \mid U \in A_i \}$. Then the set $C=\bigcup_{i=m}^{M} B_i$ is a $(v,\#\bigcup_{i=m}^{M} A_i,2m-l;m)_q$ CDC. The cardinality follows from the minimum distance, i.e., for $\tilde{U} \ne \tilde{W} \in C$ such that $U \in A_u$ yielded $\tilde{U}$ and $W \in A_w$ yielded $\tilde{W}$, we have $u+w-l \le d_S(U,W) = u+w-2\dim(U \cap W) \Rightarrow \dim(\tilde{U} \cap \tilde{W}) \le \dim(U \cap W) \le l/2$ and $d_S(\tilde{U},\tilde{W})=2(m-\dim(\tilde{U}\cap \tilde{W})) \ge 2(m-l/2) >0$.
\[prop:1\] For $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$ let $C$ be a $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC that contains an LMRD code where $k < d$. Then $$\#C \le q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)} + A_q(v-k,2(d-k);d/2)\text{.}$$
Using Lemma \[lem:cdc\_partition\], we only have to upper bound the size of $\dot\bigcup_{t=d/2}^{k} S_t$. Applying Lemma \[lem:subspaces\_upper\_bound\] with $A_i = \{U \cap \Gamma \mid U \in S_i\} \subseteq {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{i}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$, $m=d/2$, $M=k$, and $l=2k-d$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:cdc\_partition\]) is possible since $0 < 2m-l = 2(d-k) \Leftrightarrow k < d$.
The special case of $d=2(k-1)$ and $k \ge 3$ was already proved in [@MR3015712 Theorem 10].
Next, we generalize [@MR3015712 Theorem 11] and need therefore two technical lemmata.
\[lem:something\_le\_zero\] Let $c,k,q,t,t_0,y$ be integers where $q$ is a prime power, $y \ne 0$, and $c \le k-t$ as well as $t_0 \le t$. Then $${{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t_0}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t_0}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} \le {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}\text{.}$$
Since $t_0 = t$, $c<0$, $y<0$, and $t_0 < y$ as well as $c=0$ are obvious, we assume $1 \le c$ and $1 \le y \le t_0 < t$. $$\begin{aligned}
&
\frac{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t_0}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t_0}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}} q^{c(t-t_0)}
=
\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-t_0}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t_0}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-t}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}
=
\frac{[k-t_0]_q! [t_0]_q! [k-t-c]_q! [t-y]_q!}{[k-t]_q! [t]_q! [k-t_0-c]_q! [t_0-y]_q!}
\\
&
=
\prod_{i=t_0+1}^{t}\frac{[k-i-c]_q [i-y]_q}{[k-i]_q [i]_q}
\le
\prod_{i=t_0+1}^{t}q^{-c}q^{-y}
=
q^{-(c+y)(t-t_0)}\end{aligned}$$ The exponent is negative and therefore we have $\le q^{c(t-t_0)}$.
Note that the restriction $t_0 \le t$ is the reason for the fixation of $t_0=d/2$ before Proposition \[prop:2\].
\[lem:NtY\] Using the notation of Lemma \[lem:cdc\_partition\], let $c$, $t$, and $y$ be integers with $0 \le y \le k$, $d/2 \le t \le k$, and $k-d/2+1 \le c+y$. Let $N_{t,Y} = \{U \in S_t \mid Y \le U\}$ for each $Y \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ with $0 \le y \le k$ and $d/2 \le t \le k$.[^2] Then we have: $$\sum_{Y \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}} \#N_{t,Y} = \#S_t \cdot {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}\text{.}$$ Moreover for all $Y \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ we have: $$\sum_{t=d/2}^{k-c} \#N_{t,Y} \cdot {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} \le {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{v}{\setminus}{v-k}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}\text{.}$$
The equation follows from double-counting the set $\{(Y,U) \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]} \times S_t \mid Y \le U\}$.
For the inequality, we have $0$ on the left hand side if $c<0$ or $k-d/2<c$, i.e., we assume $0 \le c \le k-d/2$. The statement follows from counting $$\dot\bigcup_{t=d/2}^k\dot\bigcup_{U \in N_{t,Y}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{U}{\setminus}{\Gamma}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}\subseteq{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{V}{\setminus}{\Gamma}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}\text{.}$$ The left hand side is disjoint because for fixed $Y$ there is, using $\dim(\langle Y, R \rangle) = y+c \ge k-d/2+1$, at most one element $W \in C$ with $\langle Y, R \rangle \le W$, where $R \in {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{V}{\setminus}{\Gamma}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}$.
Furthermore ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{U}{\setminus}{\Gamma}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}} = \emptyset$ for $k-c<t$ and $U \in N_{t,Y}$.
In particular, we have for all integers $c$, $t_0$, and $y$ with $0 \le y \le k$, $k-d/2+1 \le c+y$, $Y \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$, and $d/2 \le t_0 \le k$, as well as $0 \le c \le k-t_0$: $$\#N_{t_0,Y} \le \frac{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{v}{\setminus}{v-k}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} -\sum_{t=d/2, t \ne t_0}^{k-c} \#N_{t,Y} \cdot {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}}{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t_0}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}}\text{.}$$
In the successive discussion, we fix $t_0=d/2$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:something\_le\_zero\]), to ease the notation significantly while maintaining the same level of detail: The second summand of the last part of the proof of the next proposition would not vanish for other $t_0$.
\[prop:2\] For $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$ let $C$ be a $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC that contains an LMRD code for integers $c$ and $y$ such that $1 \le y \le d/2$, $1 \le c \le \min\{k-d/2,d/2\}$, and $k-d/2+1 \le c+y$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\#C
\le
q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)}
+
\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-d/2}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}
q^{c(v-k-d/2)}
+
A_q(v-k,d-2(c-1);k-c+1)
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$
Using Lemma \[lem:cdc\_partition\] we only have to upper bound $\sum_{t=d/2+1}^{k} \#S_t + \#S_{d/2}$. Applying Lemma \[lem:NtY\], we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
\#S_{d/2}
&
=
\frac{\sum_{Y \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}} \#N_{d/2,Y}}{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}
\le
\sum_{Y \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}
\frac{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{v}{\setminus}{v-k}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} -\sum_{t=d/2+1}^{k-c} \#N_{t,Y} {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}}{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{d/2}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}
\\
&
=
\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{v}{\setminus}{v-k}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} -\sum_{t=d/2+1}^{k-c} \#S_t {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}}{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{d/2}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$
Hence
$$\begin{aligned}
&
\sum_{t=d/2+1}^{k} \#S_t + \#S_{d/2}
\le
\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{v}{\setminus}{v-k}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}}{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{d/2}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}
\\
&
+
\frac{\sum_{t=d/2+1}^{k-c} \#S_t \left({{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{d/2}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}-{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{t}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} {{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{t}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}}\right)}{{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{k}{\setminus}{d/2}}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}_{q}} {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}
+
\sum_{t=k-c+1}^{k} \#S_t
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$
Now we apply Lemma \[lem:something\_le\_zero\] for $t_0=d/2$ and $d/2+1 \le t \le k-c$, and thereby upper bound the second summand with zero.
The last summand can be upper bounded by utilizing again Lemma \[lem:subspaces\_upper\_bound\] with $A_i = \{U \cap \Gamma \mid U \in S_i\} \subseteq {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{i}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$, $m=k-c+1$, $M=k$, which is possible since $1 \le c$, and $l=2k-d$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:cdc\_partition\]), using $0 < 2m-l = d-2(c-1) \Leftrightarrow c \le d/2$. This upper bounds the last summand with $A_q(v-k,d-2(c-1);k-c+1)$.
The special case of $d=k$ even, $c=1$, $y=d/2$ was already proved in [@MR3015712 Theorem 11].
Comparison of the bounds {#sec:comparisonbounds}
========================
First, small values of $y(c)$ are better.
\[rem:optimal\_choice\_y\] Using $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$, the function $f(y)={{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} / {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}} = \prod_{i=0}^{y-1} \frac{q^{v-k}-q^i}{q^{d/2}-q^i}$ is monotonically increasing for $1 \le y \le d/2$. Hence for fixed $c$ the optimal choice for $y$ is $\max\{1,k-d/2+1-c\}$, which implies $\max\{1,k-d+1\} \le c \le \min\{k-d/2,d/2\}$. Note that such a $c$ exists iff $d/2 < k < 3d/2$.
Second, small values of $c$ are better for the third summand of Proposition \[prop:2\].
\[lem:third\_summand\] For a prime power $q$ and integers $v \ge 0$ and $k \ne 0$, we have $$A_q(v,d;k) \le A_q(v,d-2;k-1)\text{.}$$
For $k<0$, $v<k$, $2k < d$, $v \le 1$, or $d \le 2$ the statement is obvious. For odd $d$ we can use $\tilde{d}=d+1$ due to $A_q(v,d;k)=A_q(v,d+1;k)$. We estimate the left hand side with the Singleton bound and the right hand side with the size of an LMRD code. Since both bounds depend on whether $k \le v/2$, we have these three cases:
If $k \le v/2$ then $$\begin{aligned}
A_q(v,d;k)
\le
{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d/2+1}\\{v-k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}
\le
\mu(q) q^{(v-k)(k-d/2+1)}
\le
q^{(v-k+1)(k-d/2+1)}
\le
A_q(v,d-2;k-1)\end{aligned}$$ which is true for $q \ge 3$, since $\mu(q) \le q \le q^{k-d/2+1}$, and $q=2$ with $2 \le k-d/2+1$. For $q=2$ and $d=2k$, the Singleton bound is ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k+1}\\{1}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{2}}=2^{v-k+1}-1$ yielding the result.
If $v/2 \le k-1$ then $$\begin{aligned}
&
A_q(v,d;k)
=
A_q(v,d;v-k)
\le
{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d/2+1}\\{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}
\le
\mu(q) q^{k(v-k-d/2+1)}
\\
&
\le
q^{(k-1)(v-k-d/2+3)}
\le
A_q(v,d-2;v-k+1)
=
A_q(v,d-2;k-1)\end{aligned}$$ which is true for $1 \le k$, since $\mu(q) \le q^2 \le q^{3k-3-v+d/2}$, i.e., $v+5 \le 2k+3 \le 2k+1+d/2 \le 3k+d/2$.
If $v$ is odd and $k = (v+1)/2$ then $$\begin{aligned}
&
A_q(v,d;k)
=
A_q(v,d;(v+1)/2)
=
A_q(v,d;(v-1)/2)
\le
{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d/2+1}\\{(v+1)/2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}
\\
&
\le
\mu(q) q^{((v-1)/2-d/2+1)(v+1)/2}
\le
q^{((v-1)/2-d/2+2)(v+1)/2}
\\
&
\le
A_q(v,d-2;(v-1)/2)
=
A_q(v,d-2;k-1)\end{aligned}$$ which is true for $3 \le v$ since $\mu(q) \le q^2 \le q^{(v+1)/2}$.
The second summand of Proposition \[prop:2\] is monotonically increasing in $c$ and therefore smaller values of $c$ are also better for this term.
\[lem:second\_summand\] For integers $c$, $d$, $k$, $q$, $v$, and $y(c)$ such that $q$ is a prime power, $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$, $0 \le c \le k-d/2-1$, $0 \le y(c) \le d/2$, $2 \le d/2$, and $2 \le v-k$ let $$f(c)=\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y(c)}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-d/2}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y(c)}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}} q^{c(v-k-d/2)}\text{.}$$
If $y(c+1) = y(c)$ or $y(c+1) = y(c)-1 \ge 0$, then $f(c) \le f(c+1)$.
The term $$\lambda=\frac{[d/2-y(c)]_q!}{[d/2-y(c+1)]_q!} \cdot \frac{[v-k-y(c+1)]_q!}{[v-k-y(c)]_q!}$$ is $1$ if $y(c+1)=y(c)$ and $$\frac{[v-k-y(c)+1]_q}{[d/2-y(c)+1]_q} \le \mu(q) q^{v-k-d/2}$$ if $y(c+1)=y(c)-1$. Using the $q$-factorial version of the $q$-binomial coefficient one gets: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f(c)}{f(c+1)}
&=
\frac{q^{k-d/2-c}-1}{q^{k-c}-1} \cdot q^{-(v-k-d/2)} \cdot \lambda
\\
&
\le
q^{-d/2} \cdot q^{-(v-k-d/2)} \cdot \lambda
\\
&
\le
\begin{cases}
q^{-(v-k)} &\text{if } y(c+1)=y(c) \\
\mu(q) q^{-(d/2)} \le q^{2-(d/2)} &\text{else} \\
\end{cases}
\\
&\le
1\end{aligned}$$
The second summand in Proposition \[prop:2\] is already larger than the second summand in Proposition \[prop:1\].
\[lem:compare\_prop1\_prop2\] Let $d$, $k$, $q$, and $v$ be integers such that $q$ is a prime power, $2 \le d/2 < k < d \le 2v/3$, $k+d/2 \le v$, $c=1$, and $y=k-d/2$. Then we have $$A_q(v-k,2(d-k);d/2)
\le
\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-d/2}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}} q^{c(v-k-d/2)}
\text{.}$$
Applying the Singleton bound yields $$\begin{aligned}
&
A_q(v-k,2(d-k);d/2)
\le
{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d+1}\\{v-k-d/2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}
\le
\mu(q) q^{(v-k-d/2)(k-d/2+1)}
\le
q^{(v-k-d/2)(k-d/2+1)+d/2}
\\
&
=
q^{(v-k-d/2)(k-d/2)} \cdot q^{d/2} \cdot q^{v-k-d/2}
\le
\prod_{i=1}^{y} \frac{[v-k-y+i]_q}{[d/2-y+i]_q} \cdot \frac{[k]_q}{[k-d/2]_q} \cdot q^{v-k-d/2}
\\
&
=
\frac{[v-k]_q![k]_q![k-d/2-c]_q![d/2-y]_q!}{[v-k-y]_q![k-c]_q![k-d/2]_q![d/2]_q!} \cdot q^{v-k-d/2}
=
\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-d/2}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}} q^{c(v-k-d/2)}\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Proposition \[prop:0\] and final remarks {#sec:proof_prop0}
=================================================
Here we state the proof of Proposition \[prop:0\], which can be found in the introduction.
First, we discuss the optimal choice of $y$ and $c$. Remark \[rem:optimal\_choice\_y\] shows that the optimal choice for $y$ is $\max\{1,k-d/2+1-c\}$. Then for $\max\{1,k-d+1\} \le c \le \min\{k-d/2,d/2\}$ we compare the second summand and the third summand of the statement in Proposition \[prop:2\] separately. The third summand, i.e., $A_q(v-k,d-2(c-1);k-c+1)$ is monotonically decreasing in $c$ as seen in Lemma \[lem:third\_summand\]. The second summand, i.e., $$\frac{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-k}\\{y(c)}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}}{{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{k-d/2}\\{c}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}{{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{d/2}\\{y(c)}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}} q^{c(v-k-d/2)}$$ is also monotonically decreasing in $c$ by Lemma \[lem:second\_summand\]. Hence the smallest $c$ yields the smallest upper bound and therefore is $\max\{1,k-d+1\}$ the optimal choice for $c$.
Second, we compare the bound in Proposition \[prop:2\] to the bound in Proposition \[prop:1\] where both bounds are applicable, i.e., $d/2 < k < d$. The second summand of Proposition \[prop:2\], utilizing the optimal choice of $y$ and $c$, is already larger than the second summand of Proposition \[prop:1\] by Lemma \[lem:compare\_prop1\_prop2\].
Hence we only apply Proposition \[prop:2\] for $d \le k < 3d/2$ and in particular $d \le k$ shows $c=k-d+1 \ge 1$ and $y=d/2 \ge 2$.
The restriction $v<3d/2$ is equivalent to $2(v-k-d/2) < 2(d-k)$, i.e., any two codewords $U\ne W$ in an orthogonal $(v-k,\#C,2(d-k);d/2)_q$ code have $d_S(U,W) \le 2(v-k-d/2) < 2(d-k)$, hence $\#C \le 1$. Moreover a code attaining this bound can be constructed by extending an $(v,\#M,d;k)_q$ LMRD with the codeword $Z=\tau^{-1}(0_{v-k} \mid I_k)$ since $2k \le v$ implies that $Z$ intersects each other codeword trivially.
In addition to the trivial cases in the last proof, the second summand in Proposition \[prop:1\] is known in further cases:
\[rem:partial\_spreads\_and\_spreads\] For $2 \le d/2 \le k \le v/2$ as well as $k<d \le 2v/3$:
If $d=2k$, then $A_q(v-k,2(d-k);d/2)$ corresponds to a partial spread and if in addition $r \equiv v \mod{k}$, $0 \le r <k$, and $[r]_q<k$ then $A_q(v-k,2(d-k);d/2)=\frac{q^{v-k}-q^{k+r}}{q^{k}-1}+1$ [@MR3682737]. Hence the bound in Proposition \[prop:0\] is $\#C \le \sum_{i=0}^{l-1} q^{k(l-i)+r} +1 = A_q(v,d;k)$, using $v-k-r = lk$. An optimal CDC containing an LMRD can be constructed with the Echelon-Ferrers construction and the pivots $p_i=(0_{ik} 1_{k} 0_{v-(i+1)k})$ for $i=0,\ldots, l$.
If $v=3d/2$, then $A_q(v-k,2(d-k);d/2)$ corresponds to an orthogonal partial spread and if in addition $d-k \mid d/2$, it corresponds to a spread of size $(q^{3d/2-k}-1)/(q^{d-k}-1)$.
There is, for integral $l \ge 1$ and prime power $q$, a $(6l,q^{3l(l+1)}+q^{2l}+q^l+1,4l;3l)_q$ CDC $C$ that contains an LMRD. This cardinality achieves the bound of Proposition \[prop:0\].
The bound of Proposition \[prop:0\] can be computed via Remark \[rem:partial\_spreads\_and\_spreads\].
$C$ is constructed with the Echelon-Ferrers construction and these pivot vectors:
$( 1_{l} 1_{l} 1_{l} 0_{l} 0_{l} 0_{l} )$ (i.e., an LMRD of size $q^{3l(l+1)}$)
$( 1_{l} 0_{l} 0_{l} 1_{l} 1_{l} 0_{l} )$
$( 0_{l} 1_{l} 0_{l} 1_{l} 0_{l} 1_{l} )$
$( 0_{l} 0_{l} 1_{l} 0_{l} 1_{l} 1_{l} )$ (i.e., a subcode with $1$ element )
Note that the Hamming distances between these four constant weight codewords is always $4l$ which implies the subspace distance of at least $4l$ by Lemma \[lem:dh\_ds\]. The size of the subcode, corresponding to the second constant weight codeword, is $q^{2l}$ and can be constructed with Lemma \[lem:EFMRD\_special\_case\] and two $[l \times 2l, q^{2l}, l]_q$ MRDs. The third constant weight codeword gives rise to $q^{l}$ codewords of $C$ using the same technique and two $[l \times l, q^{l}, l]_q$ MRDs.
Previously, only the optimality for $l=1$ was known [@MR3015712 Theorem 10].
Another series of LMRD bound achieving parameters is:
There is, for integral $l \ge 1$ and prime power $q$, a $(6+3l,q^{6+4l}+q^{2+l}+1,4+2l;3+l)_q$ CDC $C$ that contains an LMRD. This cardinality achieves the bound of Proposition \[prop:0\].
First, the bound is given by $\#C \le q^{6+4l}+A_q(3+2l,2+2l;2+l)$. The second summand is, due to orthogonal codes and $3+2l \equiv 1 \mod{(1+l)}$ for $l \ge 1$, known [@MR0404010] and equal to $q^{2+l}+1$.
Second, $C$ can be constructed with the Echelon-Ferrers construction and these pivot vectors:
$(1_1 1_{1+l} 1_1 0_{1+l} 0_1 0_{1+l})$ (i.e., an LMRD of size $q^{6+4l}$)
$(1_1 0_{1+l} 0_1 1_{1+l} 1_1 0_{1+l})$
$(0_1 0_{1+l} 1_1 0_{1+l} 1_1 1_{1+l})$ (i.e., a subcode with $1$ element )
Note that the Hamming distances between these three constant weight codewords is always $4+2l$ which implies the subspace distance of at least $4+2l$ by Lemma \[lem:dh\_ds\]. The size of the subcode, corresponding to the second constant weight codeword, is $q^{2+l}$ and can be constructed with Lemma \[lem:EFMRD\_special\_case\], a $[1 \times (2+l), q^{2+l}, 1]_q$ MRD and a $[(2+l) \times (1+l), q^{2+l}, 1+l]_q$ MRD.
For all prime powers $q$ and integral $l \ge 1$, this bound was previously known [@MR3015712 Theorem 10] and is listed here for completeness.
Improved code sizes {#sec:code_improvements}
===================
Since Lemma \[lem:cdc\_partition\] states that any $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC that contains an LMRD $M$ can be partitioned into $C= M \dot\cup S_{d/2} \dot\cup \ldots \dot\cup S_{k}$, we know that any codeword in $C \setminus M$ has an at least $d/2$-dimensional intersection with $\Gamma$. Hence we describe a promising approach to find large codes $C$ by considering $E \subseteq {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{d/2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$. If $k<d$, i.e., $k-d/2+1 \le d/2$, then any codeword in $C \setminus M$ contains different elements in $E$. Moreover, Lemma \[lem:cdc\_partition\] also states, that the minimum distance of $E$ has to be at least $2(d-k)$, cf. Proposition \[prop:1\], with other words, $E$ is a $(v-k,\#E,2(d-k);d/2)_q$ CDC. Therefore it is natural to consider already large CDCs, which are for example listed in [@HKKW2016Tables] and try to extend them. On the other hand, a given $(v',N',d';k')_q$ CDC, where $2 \le d'$, can be used to build a $(v'+2k'-d'/2,N,2k';2k'-d'/2)_q$ CDC, $N \le N'$, that is compatible to any LMRD that respects these parameters.
Moreover, if $k<d$, then a $(v,\#C,d;k)_q$ CDC $C$ that contains an LMRD $M$ implies a $(v-k,\#C-\#M,2(d-k);d/2)_q$ CDC $C'=\{\mathcal{H}_{d/2}(U \cap \Gamma) \mid U \in C \setminus M \}$, which in turn shows that generating a large $C$ is at least as difficult as generating $C'$.
Next, the number of subspaces in $C\setminus M$ having a large intersection with $\Gamma$ is limited by $\# S_t \le A_q(v-k,d-2(k-t);t)$ for $\max\{d/2,k-d/2+1\} \le t \le k$ as an application of Lemma \[lem:subspaces\_upper\_bound\], $m=M=t$, $l=2k-d$, $A_t=\{U \cap \Gamma \mid U \in S_t\} \subseteq {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{t}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$, with $\#A_t=\#S_t$, due to the minimum distance $d_S(U \cap \Gamma, W \cap \Gamma) \ge d_S(U, W) -2k+2t \ge d-2k+2t >0$, shows.
$T \gets \tau\left({\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\mathbb{F}_q^{v-d/2}}\\{k-d/2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\right)$ $C_{\max} \gets \{\}$ $C \gets \{\}$ $A \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{V}\\{v-d/2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ $M \gets \tau(A)$ $\sigma \gets \operatorname{random}(\mathcal{S}_{\#T})$ $W \gets U \oplus \tau^{-1}(T_{\sigma(r)} \cdot M)$ **continue** $r$ $C \gets C \cup W$ **continue** $U$ $C_{\max} \gets C$ **return** $C_{\max}$
For a given subcode $E$, Algorithm \[alg:search\] shows our applied search strategy. Note, that the argument $r_{\max}$ controls the level of detail of each of the independent $n_{\max}$ runs. Note further, that we do not precompute the set of extensions for each subspace in $E$ although it may be useful to save computation time if $r_{\max}$ is large compared to the size of the set of extensions, i.e. ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{v-d/2}\\{k-d/2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{q}}$, and $n_{\max}$ is at least two.
Table \[tab:new\_code\_sizes\] lists improved sizes of CDCs for small fixed parameters $q$, $v$, $d$, and $k$. The size of the LMRD with this parameters is $\#M$ and the successive columns show only the extended cardinality to the corresponding LMRD size. Therefore LMRD-B is the size of the LMRD bound, PKLB is the previously best known lower bound, $E$ is the used subcode up to embedding in $\Gamma$, and BKLB is the current best known lower bound. The codes can be downloaded from <http://subspacecodes.uni-bayreuth.de>, see also [@HKKW2016Tables].
$q$ $v$ $d$ $k$ $\#M$ [LMRD-B $-\#M$]{} [PBKLB $-\#M$]{} $E$ [BKLB $-\#M$]{}
----- ------ ----- ----- ---------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
$2$ $10$ $6$ $5$ $2^{15}$ $155$ [$122$ [@MR2801585 Ex. 4]]{} ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ $155$
$2$ $11$ $6$ $4$ $2^{14}$ [$A_2(7,4;3)$ $\le 381$]{} [$285$ [@MR2589964; @HKKW2016Tables]]{} [$(7,333,4;3)_2$ [@HKKW2016Tables]]{} $333$
$2$ $11$ $6$ $5$ $2^{18}$ $1395$ [$852$ [@MR2589964; @HKKW2016Tables]]{} ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ $1334$
$2$ $12$ $6$ $4$ $2^{16}$ [$A_2(8,4;3)$ $\le 1493$]{} [$1144$ [@MR2589964; @HKKW2016Tables]]{} [$(8,1326,4;3)_2$ [@new_lower_bounds_cdc]]{} $1303$
$2$ $12$ $6$ $5$ $2^{21}$ $11811$ [$7232$ [@MR2589964; @HKKW2016Tables]]{} ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ $7925$
$2$ $13$ $6$ $4$ $2^{18}$ [$A_2(9,4;3)$ $\le 6205$]{} [$4747$ [@MR3367813]]{} [$(9,5986,4;3)_2$ [@new_lower_bounds_cdc]]{} $5753$
: New lower bounds on some CDC parameters[]{data-label="tab:new_code_sizes"}
Note that a further improvement of the second code, i.e. $(q,v,d,k)=(2,11,6,4)$, would imply a $(7,\#E,4;3)_2$ CDC $E$ with $333 < \#E$.
The situation of the first code, i.e., $(q,v,d,k)=(2,10,6,5)$, is a special case, since $\#S_3 \le 155$, $\#S_4 \le 1$, and $S_5 \subseteq \{\Gamma\}$.
If $\#S_5=1$, then $\#S_3=\#S_4=0$ because any subspace $U \in S_3 \cup S_4$ has $d_S(U,\Gamma) \le 4$, hence we set $S_5 = \emptyset$.
If $\#S_4=1$, then $\#S_3 \le 140$ because for $U \in S_4$ we have $\#\{ W \in S_3 \mid \dim((U \cap \Gamma) \cap (W \cap \Gamma)) = 3 \} = {{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{4}\\{3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{2}}=15$, i.e., the elements in this set have $d_S(U,W)=2(5-3)=4$ and, aiming for large code sizes, we set $S_4 = \emptyset$.
Therefore, a code with these parameters that contain an LMRD and achieves the LMRD bound has to contain a subcode $S_3$ of cardinality $155$, i.e., all subspaces ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ have to be extended with subspaces in ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{V}{\setminus}{\Gamma}}\\{2}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}}$ such that the minimum distance constraint is fulfilled. Note that the subspace distance of any codeword $U \in M$ and $W \in S_3 = C \setminus M$ is at least $6$ and therefore solely the minimum distance of $S_3$ is in question.
There are, for each subspace in ${\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$, ${{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{10-3}\\{5-3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}_{2}}=2667$ extensions to $5$ dimensions, of which $2480$ intersects $\Gamma$ $3$-dimensional.
Hence by prescribing the following subgroup of order $31$ of the stabilizer of $\Gamma$, i.e., the cyclic group generated by a block diagonal matrix consisting of twice the same generator of a Singer cycle in $\Gamma$, $$G=
\left\langle\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
0&0&0&0&1\\
1&0&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0&1\\
0&0&1&0&0\\
0&0&0&1&0\\
&&&&& 0&0&0&0&1\\
&&&&& 1&0&0&0&0\\
&&&&& 0&1&0&0&1\\
&&&&& 0&0&1&0&0\\
&&&&& 0&0&0&1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}
\right)\right\rangle,$$ we partition the set $\{U \in {\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{{\mathbb{F}}_2^{10}}\\{5}\end{smallmatrix}\right]} \mid \dim(U \cap \Gamma)=3\}$ of size $2480 \cdot 155 = 384400$ into $12400$ orbits of length $31$ under the action of $G$. $3100$ of these orbits contain a pair of subspaces that has an intersection of at least dimension $3$ and hence these orbits cannot be subset of a $(10,N,6;5)_2$ CDC. The remaining $9300$ orbits are then considered as vertices of a graph in which two vertices $O_1 \ne O_2$ share an edge iff $\dim(U \cap W) \le 2$ for all $U \in O_1$ and $W \in O_2$. Clearly the clique number is upper bounded by $5=\#{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}{\Gamma}\\{3}\end{smallmatrix}\right]}/\#G$ since each $3$-dimensional subspaces in $\Gamma$ may be contained at most once without violating the minimum distance. A greedy clique search provides a clique of size $5$, with other words these five orbits are an extension of any $(10,2^{15},6;5)_2$ LMRD of size $155$ achieving the LMRD bound of Proposition \[prop:0\]. Representatives in RREF of these five orbits are $$\begin{aligned}
&
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&1&1&1&0&0&0&1&0\\
&&&&& 1&0&0&0&0\\
&&&&& 0&1&1&0&0\\
&&&&& 0&0&0&0&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0&0&0&1&0&0&0\\
&&&&& 1&0&0&0&0\\
&&&&& 0&0&1&0&0\\
&&&&& 0&0&0&1&0\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&1&0&0&0&0&0&0&1\\
&&&&& 1&0&0&0&1\\
&&&&& 0&1&0&1&0\\
&&&&& 0&0&1&0&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\\
&
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1&1&0&0&0&1&0\\
&&&&& 1&0&0&0&1\\
&&&&& 0&1&0&1&1\\
&&&&& 0&0&1&0&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&1&0&0&0&1&1\\
&&&&& 1&0&0&0&0\\
&&&&& 0&1&0&0&1\\
&&&&& 0&0&1&1&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right),\end{aligned}$$ in which the omitted parts are zeros since the corresponding rows are RREF matrices of the $3$-dimensional intersection with $\Gamma$.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper we generalize the bounds for the cardinality of constant dimension codes that contain a lifted maximum rank distance code, first studied in [@MR3015712 Theorems 10 and 11], to a larger set of parameters. Now we have bounds for the size of CDCs containing LMRDs as subset which are not applicable for general CDCs iff $k < 3d/2$. It remains an open question if there are LMRD bounds for $3d/2 \le k$. Furthermore the proofs of these bounds provide new insights in the structure of extensions of lifted maximum rank distance codes and give rise to six new largest CDCs.
[10]{}
R. Ahlswede and H. Aydinian. On error control codes for random network coding. In [*Network Coding, Theory, and Applications, 2009. NetCod’09. Workshop on*]{}, pages 68–73. IEEE, 2009.
J. Ai, T. Honold, and H. Liu. The expurgation-augmentation method for constructing good plane subspace codes. , 2016.
A. Beutelspacher. Partial spreads in finite projective spaces and partial designs. , 145(3):211–229, 1975.
M. Braun, P. R. J. [Ö]{}sterg[å]{}rd, and A. Wassermann. New lower bounds for binary constant-dimension subspace codes. , pages 1–5, 2016.
D. A. Drake and J. W. Freeman. Partial [$t$]{}-spreads and group constructible [$(s,\,r,\,\mu)$]{}-nets. , 13(2):210–216, 1979.
S. El-Zanati, H. Jordon, G. Seelinger, P. Sissokho, and L. Spence. The maximum size of a partial 3-spread in a finite vector space over [GF]{}(2). , 54(2):101–107, 2010.
T. Etzion. Problems on $q$-analogs in coding theory. , 2013.
T. Etzion, E. Gorla, A. Ravagnani, and A. Wachter-Zeh. Optimal [F]{}errers diagram rank-metric codes. , 62(4):1616–1630, 2016.
T. Etzion and N. Silberstein. Error-correcting codes in projective spaces via rank-metric codes and [F]{}errers diagrams. , 55(7):2909–2919, 2009.
T. Etzion and N. Silberstein. Codes and designs related to lifted [MRD]{} codes. , 59(2):1004–1017, 2013.
T. Etzion and L. Storme. Galois geometries and coding theory. , 78(1):311–350, 2016.
E. M. Gabidulin. Theory of codes with maximum rank distance. , 21(1):3–16, 1985.
D. Heinlein, T. Honold, M. Kiermaier, S. Kurz, and A. Wassermann. Projective divisible binary codes. The Tenth International Workshop on Coding and Cryptography, 2017. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.08291.
D. Heinlein, M. Kiermaier, S. Kurz, and A. Wassermann. Tables of subspace codes. , 2016.
D. Heinlein and S. Kurz. Asymptotic bounds for the sizes of constant dimension codes and an improved lower bound. In [*Coding theory and applications*]{}, volume 10495 of [*Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci.*]{}, pages 163–191. Springer, Cham, 2017.
D. Heinlein and S. Kurz. Coset construction for subspace codes. , 63(12):7651–7660, 2017.
D. Heinlein and S. Kurz. A new upper bound for subspace codes. , 2017.
T. Honold, M. Kiermaier, and S. Kurz. Optimal binary subspace codes of length 6, constant dimension 3 and minimum subspace distance 4. In [*Topics in finite fields*]{}, volume 632 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 157–176. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015.
T. Honold, M. Kiermaier, and S. Kurz. Partial spreads and vector space partitions. In M. Greferath, M. Pav[č]{}evi[ć]{}, N. Silberstein, and A. Vazquez-Castro, editors, [*[N]{}etwork [C]{}oding and [S]{}ubspace [D]{}esigns*]{}. Springer, to appear. arXiv preprint 1611.06328.
R. Kötter and F. R. Kschischang. Coding for errors and erasures in random network coding. , 54(8):3579–3591, 2008.
S. Kurz. Improved upper bounds for partial spreads. , 85(1):97–106, 2017.
S. Kurz. Packing vector spaces into vector spaces. , 68:122–130, 2017.
H. Liu and T. Honold. A new approach to the main problem of subspace coding. , 2014.
E. L. Năstase and P. A. Sissokho. The maximum size of a partial spread in a finite projective space. , 152:353–362, 2017.
B. Segre. Teoria di [G]{}alois, fibrazioni proiettive e geometrie non desarguesiane. , 64:1–76, 1964.
N. Silberstein and T. Etzion. Large constant dimension codes and lexicodes. , 5(2):177–189, 2011.
N. Silberstein and A.-L. Trautmann. New lower bounds for constant dimension codes. In [*Information Theory Proceedings (ISIT), 2013 IEEE International Symposium on*]{}, pages 514–518. IEEE, 2013.
N. Silberstein and A.-L. Trautmann. Subspace codes based on graph matchings, [F]{}errers diagrams, and pending blocks. , 61(7):3937–3953, 2015.
D. Silva and F. R. Kschischang. On metrics for error correction in network coding. , 55(12):5479–5490, 2009.
D. Silva, F. R. Kschischang, and R. Kötter. A rank-metric approach to error control in random network coding. , 54(9):3951–3967, 2008.
[^1]: The author is with the Department of Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, GERMANY. Email: [email protected] work was supported by the ICT COST Action IC1104 and grants KU 2430/3-1, WA 1666/9-1 – “Integer Linear Programming Models for Subspace Codes and Finite Geometry” – from the German Research Foundation.
[^2]: Note that we deliberately use $t < y \le k$ with $N_{t,Y} = \emptyset$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a system of two Tomonaga-Luttinger models coupled by a small transverse hopping (a two-chain ladder). We use Abelian and non-Abelian bosonisation to show that the strong coupling regime at low energies can be described by an SO(5)$_1$ WZW model (or equivalently 5 massless Majorana fermions) deformed by symmetry breaking terms that nonetheless leave the theory critical at $T=0$. The SO(5) currents of the theory comprise the charge and spin currents and linear combinations of the so-called pi operators (S.C. Zhang, Science 275, 1089 (1997)) which are local in terms both of the original fermions and those of the effective theory. Using bosonisation we obtain the asymptotic behaviour of all correlation functions. We find that the 5 component “superspin” vector has power law correlations at $T=0$; other fermion bilinears have exponentially decaying correlations and the corresponding tendencies are suppressed. Conformal field theory also allows us to obtain the energies, quantum numbers, and degeneracies of the low-lying states and fit them into deformed SO(5) multiplets.'
address:
- 'Centre de Recherche en Physique du Solide et Département de Physique,'
- 'Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada J1K 2R1.'
- '[CRPS-97-24 | cond-mat/9710251]{} (revised version, March 1998)'
author:
- 'David G. Shelton[@Shelton] and David Sénéchal'
title: 'SO(5)-Symmetric Description of the Low Energy Sector of a Ladder System'
---
\#1[[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[\#1]{}]{}
epsf
Introduction
============
One of the most characteristic features of the high-T$_c$ Cuprates is the proximity of antiferromagnetic (AF) and superconducting (SC) phases as a function of doping. As a result, much of the theoretical effort has focused on trying to consistently treat the insulating-underdoped-optimally doped region of the phase diagram, in which AF and SC tendencies compete and may have strong fluctuations.
An interesting recent proposal is that of Zhang.[@zhang] He suggests that the simplest way of unifying AF and SC in the Cuprates is to introduce a new five-component vector order parameter consisting of the three component staggered magnetisation, and two components associated with the real and imaginary parts of the d-wave SC order parameter. Clearly this new concept is only useful if there exists some kind of symmetry (higher than the known SO(3)$\otimes$U(1)) which relates the AF and SC sectors. His suggestion is that an approximate SO(5) symmetry emerges in the low energy sector (SO(5) because the new composite order parameter has five components and transforms like a vector). If true, this would allow the construction of an SO(5) quantum nonlinear $\sigma$-model to explain the low-energy dynamics of the high T$_c$ materials. This could explain the form of the phase diagram, and the so-called $\pi$-mode.[@demler]
However, there have been several criticisms of this theory. Some [@greiter] have focused more on the details of microscopic calculations in the framework of the t-J or Hubbard models. Others have added several physical objections.[@baskan] One response to these criticisms has been to attempt to construct concrete examples of extended microscopic Hamiltonians which manifestly have an SO(5) symmetry.[@microscopic] But knowing the Hamiltonian does not necessarily tell us much about the low energy behaviour.
In this paper we study a two-chain ladder Hamiltonian that is related to popular two-dimensional models of the Cuprates. One of the reasons that ladder systems have attracted such attention is that many experimental realisations of these systems are very closely related to the high T$_c$ materials [@lad], and some have even exhibited superconductivity.[@ueh; @iso] From a theoretical point of view, powerful non-perturbative techniques such as bosonisation and conformal field theory (CFT) exist in one dimension. This offers hope of starting with a microscopic Hamiltonian and ending up with a tractable effective field theory. In this paper it is not our purpose to comment on the general validity of the SO(5) idea but to explicitly study a simplified and more tractable model.
There is a large body of literature on two-chain and ladder systems [@dag]$^-$[@fabrizio] (for a review see Ref. ). Using a combination of weak coupling RG and bosonisation, the phase diagram has been intensively investigated. These analyses reveal that for small interchain hopping there are interesting strong coupling phases. However, whilst Abelian bosonisation and weak coupling RG are good for determining the phase diagram, they do not explicitly respect the symmetries of the system, nor do they provide detailed information about the correlations. In this paper we explore in more detail the strong coupling region of a two chain ladder system, taking care to preserve the full non-Abelian symmetries and obtain the correlations.
It is well known that many 2 chain ladder systems are spin liquids; that is, they exhibit a spin gap for a wide range of different fillings and couplings. This is because the Luttinger liquid is a quantum critical system, and as such, highly unstable to perturbations such as interchain coupling. In general there are a number of relevant couplings which can drive the system into a spin gap phase (an explicit example is discussed in section VI). However, in this paper we study a simplified system in which there is no backscattering and as a result, no spin gap. This model is of interest because it displays remarkable similarities to some aspects of the Zhang proposal in 2 dimensions.[@zhang]
The model we consider is a system of 2 spinful Tomonaga-Luttinger (TL) models in the repulsive regime, coupled by a small interchain hopping. This corresponds to the case of no backscattering and was studied in Refs. ,,. We demonstrate that the hopping only generates couplings in a certain sector of the theory (which we call “flavour”), freezing it out of the effective action at energy scales below $t_{\perp}$. In agreement with the above references, we find that this leaves a critical (at T=0) spin and charge sector with conformal charge 5/2. However, we go on to show that this can be represented as a system of 5 massless Majorana fermions, or equivalently, an SO(5)$_1$ Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model, deformed away from the symmetric point by marginal current-current interactions. These SO(5) breaking terms are associated with spin charge separation (spin and charge velocities not equal $v_s\neq v_c$) and the anomalous charge exponent ($K_c\neq 1$), which distinguish the spin and charge sectors. Thus the system is never exactly SO(5) symmetric except in the trivial noninteracting case. Nonetheless, this representation does have strong analogies with the Zhang proposal in 2d; the physics can be understood using an SO(5) symmetric $\sigma$-model with symmetry breaking terms. In this way we obtain the asymptotic behaviour of all correlation functions; the correlations of the 5 component “superspin” are enhanced (power law at T=0); we obtain their scaling dimensions. Other fermion bilinears die away exponentially fast.
Sections II-V are concerned with an analysis of this model, including its detailed symmetric description, the relevant currents, the $\pi$-operators, its correlations and low lying multiplets in the excitation spectrum. One important way in which the system we are studying differs from that considered by Zhang is that we are away from half-filling, which is a very special point in 1d. Exactly at half-filling it is necessary to consider the Umklapp term, which causes a Mott gap in the charge sector. [@giamarchi] Then the low energy effective Hamiltonian is simply a pure spin Heisenberg model (with exchange $J\sim 4t^2/U$ in the case of the repulsive Hubbard model at strong $U$). We comment further on this difference in section IV.
In section VI we finally consider the case of two coupled Luttinger liquids, which differs from the previous model in that it includes marginal backscattering terms. An example of this is provided by some regions of the phase diagram of a system of 2 Hubbard chains coupled by single particle hopping. In this more physical case, we show in detail how the additional marginal terms cause a spin gap to appear in agreement with Refs. -, and numerical work such as Ref. . Then the spectrum and correlations are as in Ref. ; there is a spin gap but the charge sector remains gapless.
Finally, we conclude. There is also an appendix which sketches out a bosonisation prescription that enables us to calculate the correlation functions of fermion bilinears.
A Simple Model
==============
Many systems of interacting one-dimensional fermions away from half filling fall into the Luttinger liquid universality class. That is, they exhibit spin-charge separation, gapless excitations, anomalous power law correlations and the absence of a quasiparticle pole (see Ref. for a recent review, and references therein). For example, the one-dimensional repulsive Hubbard model away from half-filling is known from its exact solution to be a Luttinger liquid all the way from $U=0$ to $U=\infty$, as is the t-J model for small enough $J/t$.
One of the simplest two-chain models of this type that can be written down consists of two Tomonaga-Luttinger (TL) models (labelled by a chain index $i=1,2$) coupled by a small transverse hopping $t_{\perp}\ll t$: \[TLmodel\] H = H\_[TL]{}(1)+H\_[TL]{}(2)+H\_where the TL Hamiltonian is a sum of three pieces ($H_0+H_2+H_4$): H\_0(i)=& iv\_F&\_dx (R\^\_[,i]{}\_x R\_[,i]{}-L\^\_[,i]{}\_x L\_[,i]{})\
H\_2(i)=& g\_2&\_[,b’]{}dx j\_[,i]{}\^R(x)j\_[,i]{}\^L(x)\
H\_4(i)=& g\_4&\_[,]{}dx ( j\_[,i]{}\^R(x)j\_[,i]{}\^R(x) + j\_[,i]{}\^L(x)j\_[,i]{}\^L(x)) \[tl\] The current (or density) is simply defined as \[density\] j\^R\_[,i]{} = R\_[,i]{}\^R\_[,i]{} j\^L\_[,i]{} = L\_[,i]{}\^L\_[,i]{} and the electrons fields $R_{\a,i}$ and $L_{\a,i}$ are slowly varying on an atomic scale: the electron annihilation operator at site $x$, chain $i$ and spin $\a$ may be expressed as \[cont\] c\_[,i]{}(x) = R\_[,i]{}(x)\^[ik\_Fx]{} + L\_[,i]{}(x)\^[-ik\_Fx]{} In terms of these fields, the simple interchain hopping term becomes H\_= t\_dx \_( R\_[,1]{}\^(x)R\_[,2]{}(x) + L\_[,1]{}\^(x)L\_[,2]{}(x) + [h.c.]{} ) For simplicity, we have assumed that the Hamiltonian is invariant under spin rotation, and so the coupling constants $g_2$ and $g_4$ are the same for parallel and antiparallel spin configurations. Normal ordering is assumed throughout in products of local fields (definition of currents, Hamiltonians, etc.).
It is worth making a quick observation about the difference between the terms TL [*liquid*]{} and TL [*model*]{}: The TL model is an idealised and specific Hamiltonian, written down in Eq. (\[tl\]). It has a perfectly linear dispersion, an infinitely deep Fermi sea, has only density-density interactions and is exactly solvable for all values of the coupling constants (the model is unstable beyond a critical value of $g_2$).[@voit] The TL liquid (which is the generic state corresponding to many realistic Hamiltonians like the Hubbard model away from half filling) differs in that the dispersion is no longer exactly linear, and the Fermi sea no longer infinitely deep. But from our point of view the most important difference in the low energy sector is the presence of marginally irrelevant couplings (backscattering). In a single chain system these are not very important when repulsive – they simply give logarithmic corrections to the correlation functions. In section VI we will study the effect of these additional terms in the two chain system, in order to establish the behaviour of the more realistic coupled TL [*liquids*]{}, but for the moment, we will restrict our attention to the simpler case of coupled TL [*models*]{}.
The model (\[TLmodel\]), even though it is made of TL models, is not exactly solvable because of the interchain hopping. However, we will argue presently that the model segregates into three different [*sectors*]{}, respectively associated with charge, spin, and “flavour”, and that the combined effect of interchain hopping and interactions is to make the flavour sector massive, leaving only the charge and spin sectors critical (i.e., gapless). To each sector one may associate current operators, expressed as bilinears of the electron fields: \[currents\] &J\_R(x) &= \_[,i]{} R\^\_[,i]{}(x)R\_[,i]{}(x)\
&[**J**]{}\_R(x) &= \_[i,,]{} R\^\_[,i]{}(x) \_ R\_[,i]{}(x)\
&[**I**]{}\_R(x) &= \_[i,j,]{} R\^\_[,i]{}(x) \_[ij]{} R\_[,j]{}(x) where $\sb$ is the vector of Pauli matrices (left-moving currents are defined similarly). These currents have the following commutation relations (they may be derived from Wick’s theorem): &=& -[2i]{}’(x-y) \[J\_R\^a(x),J\_R\^b(y)\] &=& -[i2]{} \^[ab]{}’(x-y) + i\^[abc]{}J\_R\^c(y)(x-y) \[I\_R\^i(x),I\_R\^j(y)\] &=& -[i2]{} \^[ij]{}’(x-y) + i\_[ijk]{}I\_R\^k(y)(x-y) and currents of different types (i.e., charge, spin, and flavour) commute. Thus in the language of non-Abelian bosonisation, the charge current obeys a U(1) Kac-Moody algebra, and the spin and flavour currents obey SU(2)$_2\equiv$SO(3)$_1$ algebras.[@book; @zamfat] It is simple to show that the Hamiltonian (\[TLmodel\]) may be expressed as $H=H_0+V_c+V_f$, where only the above currents appear. This is just a matter of taking careful account of point-splitting and normal ordering:[@stone] \[ham2\] H\_0 &=& [v\_F2]{}dx( J\_R\^2 + [**J**]{}\_R\^2 + [**I**]{}\_R\^2 + \[RL\] )\
V\_c &=& dx{ g\_2 J\_RJ\_L+g\_4(J\_R\^2+J\_L\^2)}\
V\_f &=& 2dx{ g\_2I\_R\^zI\_L\^z+g\_4\[(I\_R\^z)\^2+(I\_L\^z)\^2\] + t\_( I\_R\^x + I\_L\^x ) } Therefore the model (\[TLmodel\]) decouples into three independent sectors (charge, spin, flavour). The important point is that the hopping term only involves the flavour sector, which is decoupled from the other two. The effect of interactions ($g_2$ and $g_4$) on the charge sector will be a velocity renormalisation and anomalous scaling exponents ($K_c\ne1$). The combined effect of interactions and transverse hopping on the flavour sector is more dramatic. The RG analysis of Ref. shows unambiguously that in the repulsive regime ($K_c<1$), the system scales to strong coupling at energies $<t_{\perp}$ (in the notation of Ref. our model corresponds to initial conditions of $g_i^{(1)}=0$, $g_i^{(2)}=-g_i^{||}=g_0$ for $i=0,\pi,f,t,b$). The combination of the small hopping term $t_{\perp}$ and the interaction terms leads to the generation of important couplings in the RG process, giving a gap in some channels. What our analysis tells us is that all of this physics is only happening in the flavour sector, and thus it is this sector that becomes gapped, while the total spin and total charge sectors remain untouched and critical. So at low enough energies the flavour sector is frozen out of the effective theory, and our task is simply to understand the remaining charge and spin degrees of freedom.
Spinor and vector descriptions
==============================
Each electron field $R_{\a,i}$ or $L_{\a,i}$ carries charge, spin and flavour. The separation of the model into charge, spin and flavour sectors is therefore difficult to describe in terms of these operators. However, one may introduce a different set of Fermi fields in terms of which this separation is much more natural. To this end, we must use some representation theory of Lie groups.
Let us first consider the model (\[TLmodel\]), but without interactions or interchain hopping (i.e., two free, decoupled chains). This model has SO(8) symmetry, and this may be shown has follows. Each complex field $R,L$ may be written in terms of its real and imaginary parts: $R_{\a,i}=R_{1,\a,i}+iR_{2,\a,i}$ and then, except for a total derivative, the Hamiltonian $H_0$ takes the form H\_0 = iv\_F\_dx (R\_\_x R\_-L\_\_x L\_) where the composite index $\mu$, running from 1 to 8, stands for spin, chain and real/imaginary part. The eight Fermi fields $R_\mu$ (or $L_\mu$) can undergo an internal SO(8) rotation that leaves $H_0$ invariant. Hence the model has a chiral SO(8) symmetry. It is well known that a collection of $N$ real free fermions like this is equivalent to a special kind of conformal field theory: a level-1 SO(N) WZW model.[@DMS] Chiral SO(8) currents may be defined in terms of those real fermions as follows: \[so8currA\] J\^A\_R = \_[,=1]{}\^8 R\_S\^A\_ R\_where $S^A_{\mu\nu}$ is a matrix representation of the generators of SO(8) ($A$ runs from 1 to $\hf N(N-1)=28$, the number of generators). Left-moving currents are defined similarly. The charge, spin and flavour currents (\[currents\]) are special cases of the above and correspond to specific values of the index $A$ if the generators $S^A_{ij}$ are chosen judiciously.
The currents (\[so8currA\]) are bilinears in the electrons fields $R_\mu$ ($\a=1,\ldots,8$). However, the SO(8)$_1$ WZW model contains other fields, belonging to a different representation of SO(8), in terms of which these currents are also bilinears. Among all SO(N) groups, SO(8) is peculiar in that its vector representation, of dimension 8, has properties identical to its spinor and conjugate spinor representations (also of dimension 8). Indeed, which one is called ‘vector’ is a matter of convention, dictated by the way the SO(8) symmetry breaks down to smaller SO(N) components. In order to decide to which SO(8) representation the electron fields belong, one must study in detail how each representation breaks down when the symmetry is reduced. Let us consider a two-stage symmetry breaking, in which the flavour sector, with its SU(2), is first segregated, and then the charge U(1) and spin SU(2) (note that U(1)$\sim$SO(2) and SU(2)$\sim$SO(3)): \[break\] SO(8) SO(5)SO(3)\^[fl.]{} SO(2)\^[c]{}SO(3)\^[sp.]{}SO(3)\^[fl.]{} We stress that the goal of the present analysis is to fit the fields and states of the model into symmetry multiplets, without demanding the symmetry to be exact. In the first stage of this breakdown, the vector and spinor representations of SO(8) are decomposed as follows (irreducible representations will be commonly denoted by bold numbers giving their dimensions, with an occasional superscript distinguishing between vectors ($v$) and spinors ($s$)): 8\^v && (5,1) (1,3)\
8\^s && (4,2) \[decomp1\] (here, for instance, the notation $(\rep4,\rep2)$ stands for a tensor product of the 4-dimensional representation of SO(5) with a doublet of SU(2)$^{\rm fl.}$). Since SO(5) representations are not all that familiar, we provide a pictorial view of the lowest nontrivial ones on Fig. \[so5fig\]. The multiplet $\rep4$ is the spinor representation of SO(5), while $\rep5$ is the vector representation and $\rep{10}$ the adjoint representation, i.e., the representation of the SO(5) symmetry currents or generators. The decomposition of these SO(5) representations in terms of spin multiplets and charge quantum numbers is best appreciated on Fig. \[so5fig\]. For instance, the SO(5) spinor $\rep4$ breaks down into two spin-$\hf$ doublets, one with charge +1 and the other with charge -1. On the other hand, the vector representation breaks down into a spin-1 triplet of charge zero and two singlets of charges $\pm2$.
We may now ascertain that the electron fields $R_\mu$ belong to the [*spinor*]{} representation of SO(8). Indeed, the lowest excited states of $H_0$, obtained by acting on the vacuum with the lowest electron creation operators, form a multiplet of 4 states of charge $+1$ and four states of charge $-1$. This is precisely the charge content of the spinor multiplet $\rep8^s$, since the spinor $\rep4$ of SO(5) contains two states of charge $+1$ and two of charge $-1$, and appears twice in the decomposition (\[decomp1\]), because of the flavour doublet.
A different set of real fermions, denoted $\xi_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,8$), belongs to the [*vector*]{} representation of SO(8). These new fermions are related in a complicated, nonlocal way to the original fermions. The transformation relating them may be explicitly obtained via Abelian bosonisation, if one takes care to preserve the anticommutation factors, but this is not a particularly illuminating procedure. The important point is that they are just a different basis or representation for the same system. These fermions obey the usual anticommutation relations $\{\xi_i(x),\xi_j(y)\}=\delta_{ij}
\delta(x-y)$. The SO(8) currents (\[so8currA\]) may also be expressed as bilinears of these fermions, albeit with the help of a different set of SO(8) matrices: J\_R\^A = [12]{}\_[ij]{}\_iT\^A\_[ij]{}\_j A characteristic feature of the vector representation is its particularly simple decomposition into charge, spin and flavour components: in the first stage of the breakdown (\[break\]), the vector representation decomposes as $\rep8^v\to (\rep5,\rep1) \oplus (\rep1,\rep3)$. In the second stage, the SO(5) vector decomposes as $\rep5\to(\rep3,\rep1)\oplus(\rep1,\rep2)$ (this time, doublets on the r.h.s. correspond to spin and charge multiplets, respectively). We may thus distinguish three Majorana fermions ($\xi^s_i$, $i=1,2,3$) for spin, three others ($\xi^f_i$, $i=1,2,3$) for flavour and the remaining two ($\xi^c_i$, $i=1,2$) for charge. The spin, flavour and charge current then have the following expressions: J\_R\^[i]{}&=&-[i2]{}\_[ijk]{}\^s\_j\^s\_k\
I\_R\^i&=&-[i2]{}\_[ijk]{}\^f\_j\^f\_k\
J\_R&=& -i\^[jk]{}\^c\_j\^c\_k = -2i\^c\_1\^c\_2 \[currents2\] It is interesting to note that these currents (and eventual SO(5) currents) are local in terms both of the electron fields [*and*]{} in terms of the above Majorana fermions, even though the fermion operators themselves are nonlocally related. The Majorana fermions are nonetheless legitimate operators of the theory. For instance, at half-filling, if all sectors became gapped, the three spin fermions $\xi^s_i$ would describe the triplet of spin excitations characteristic of a gapped spin-1 chain.[@tsvelik]
The SO(5) currents and Zhang’s $\Pi$ operators
==============================================
We have seen above that the spin and charge degrees of freedom, which make up the critical sector of the theory (\[TLmodel\]), may be described by the five Majorana fermions $\xi^c_{1,2}$ and $\xi^s_{1,2,3}$. Except for the interaction $V_c$ of Eq. (\[ham2\]), the low-energy sector is equivalent to a level-1 SO(5) WZW model with conformal charge $c={5\over2}$.[@schulz] Indeed, the above Majorana fermions may be arranged in the following suggestive sequence: \[so5vector\] \_1 = \^c\_2 \_2 = \^s\_1 \_3 = \^s\_2 \_4 = \^s\_3 \_5 = \^c\_1 plus corresponding left-moving fields. That the non-interacting part of the spin-charge sector is equivalent to a level-1 SO(5) WZW model means that this part of the Hamiltonian may be simply expressed as[@witten] H\_0 = iv\_F\_[j=1]{}\^5 dx (\_j\_x\_j-\_j\_x\_j) (here $\xib_j$ denote the left-moving fields).
It is then useful and instructive to introduce the full ten SO(5) currents. Four of those currents are provided by the charge and spin currents of Eq. (\[currents\]). The remaining six, corresponding to Zhang’s $\pi$-operators,[@zhang] may be expressed in the continuum limit either in terms of the Majorana fermions $\xi^c_{1,2}$ and $\xi^s_{1,2,3}$, or directely in terms of the electron fields.
It is interesting at this point to go back to the lattice definition of the $\pi$ operators:[@zhang] \[pidef\] \^\_[a]{}&=& \_[[**k**]{},,]{} g([**k**]{}) c\_\^( [**k**]{}+[**Q**]{}) (\_[a]{}\_2)\_ c\_\^(-[**k**]{})\
&=&\_[[**m**]{},[**n**]{},,]{}g\_[[**m**]{},[**n**]{}]{} \^[i[**Q**]{}]{}c\_\^([**m**]{}) (\_a\_2)\_c\^\_([**n**]{}) where [**m**]{} and [**n**]{} are vectorial site indices (in-chain and chain index). On a square lattice at half-filling Zhang takes ${\bf Q}=(\pi,\pi)$. On a two-chain system, away from half filling, there are two possibilities: ${\bf
Q}=(2k_F,\pi)$ for right movers and ${\bf Q}=(-2k_F,\pi)$ for left movers.
The structure factor $g({\bf k})=\cos k_x-\cos k_y$ has the local form: g\_[[**m**]{},[**n**]{}]{} = {
[rl]{} +2 &\
-2 &\
0&\
. \[gmn\] Defining a “staggered $\pi$-density”: \^\_[a]{} = 8dx\^[2ik\_Fx]{}\_a\^\[stagpi\] we find, with the help of Eq. (\[cont\]), the following expressions: \[picont\] \^\_x&=&-[i2]{}\
\^\_y&=&-[12]{}\
\^\_z&=& Interestingly, this continuum expression for the $\pi$ operators is quite robust and does not depend too closely on the microscopic definition (\[pidef\]). One might have alternatively chosen the Henley-Kohno form $g({\bf k})=$sgn$(\cos k_x-\cos k_y)$ and this would not have changed the results, apart from derivative terms which are irrelevant in the RG sense – essentially because in a two-chain ladder system there are only two $k_y$ values, $0$ or $\pi$. Another seemingly different microscopic expression for the $\pi$ operators is used in Ref. , but again, we have verified that the same expression (\[picont\]) is obtained in the continuum limit.
We define the matrix $l^{ab}(x)$, analogously to Zhang: (
[ccccc]{} 0&&&&\
\^\_x+\_x&0&&&\
\^\_y+\_y&-J\^z\_R&0&&\
\^\_z+\_z&J\^y\_R&-J\_R\^x&0&\
J\_R&-i(\^\_x-\_x)&-i(\^\_y-\_y) &-i(\^\_z-\_z)&0\
)\[defzha\] (the matrix is antisymmetric and so we only wrote down the lower diagonal). Using Wick’s theorem for the electron fields $R_{\a,i}$ and $L_{\a,i}$, we find that the $l^{ab}$ obey an SO(5)$_1$ Kac-Moody algebra, different from the standard SO(5) algebra by a quantum anomaly coming from the necessity for normal ordering with respect to the vacuum: = (x-y)(\^[ac]{}l\^[bd]{}(x)-\^[ad]{}l\^[bc]{}(x) -\^[bc]{}l\^[ad]{}(x)+\^[bd]{}l\^[ac]{}(x)) +[i2]{}’(x-y)( \^[ac]{}\^[bd]{}-\^[ad]{}\^[bc]{}) \[SO5comm\]A similar procedure gives the corresponding relationship for left-moving currents.
How can the SO(5) symmetry currents be expressed in the Majorana (vector) representation $\xi$? A vector representation of the SO(5) generators may be easily written down: t\^[(ab)]{}\_[ij]{} = i(\_i\^a\_j\^b-\^a\_j\_i\^b ) The currents (\[defzha\]) can then be represented as follows: l\^[ab]{}(x) = [12]{}\_[i,j=1..5]{}\_it\^[(ab)]{}\_[ij]{}\_j where the 5 fermions $\xi_i$ are numbered as in Eq. (\[so5vector\]): Note that the $\pi$ operators correspond to bilinears involving one fermion $\xi$ from the spin sector and one from the charge sector, which again fits with the physics since we know that they create objects with both spin and charge.
In the low-energy sector of the model (\[TLmodel\]), the spin-charge sector can be represented by an SO(5)$_1$ WZW model, perturbed away from the perfectly symmetric point by current-current interactions (the only interactions present in the spin and charge sectors in our model). So Zhang’s idea of using an SO(5) $\s$-model representation with symmetry breaking interactions[@zhang] is explicitly seen to be valid for this model, and the Hamiltonian for the spin and charge sectors can be written in terms of the SO(5) currents in the Sugawara form, analogous to the form proposed in Ref. : \[so5def\] H\_[cs]{} &=& H\_[0s]{}+H\_[0c]{}+V\_c\
&=& [v\_F4]{}dx\_[a<b]{} { (l\^[ab]{})\^2+([|l]{}\^[ab]{})\^2} +dx {g\_2 l\^[15]{}[|l]{}\^[15]{} +g\_4((l\^[15]{})\^2+([|l]{}\^[15]{})\^2)}
One notable difference between this system and that considered by Zhang is that here we are working away from half-filling; the $\pi$ operators are defined slightly differently, to carry momentum $(\pm 2k_F, \pi)$. The chemical potential term in the Hamiltonian, which in 2d breaks SO(5), here (due to perfect nesting) simply renormalises the wavevector $k_F$; momentum is still conserved and the algebra (\[SO5comm\]) still closes because operators carrying $2k_F$ only give non-zero expectation values when combined with operators carrying $-2k_F$. If we were to work at half-filling, there would be an additional Umklapp scattering which would lead to a Mott charge gap.[@giamarchi]
Since there are $\pi$ operators in this system, one may also ask whether there is a well-defined $\pi$-resonance as claimed in 2d.[@demler; @zhang] If this is so, the commutator of the Hamiltonian with the $\Pi$ operator will be proportional to the $\Pi$ operator.[@zhang] It can easily be seen that this will not be the case. Later on, in section V, we obtain bosonised forms for these operators. Then one can see that in Fourier space, the correlator of $\pi$ operators does not have a simple pole; their effect is not to generate a single well-defined triplet excitation but a shower of unconfined spinons and holons.
Bosonisation {#nabos}
============
The low-energy sector of the model (\[TLmodel\]), i.e., the perturbed SO(5) WZW model of Eq. (\[so5def\]) is exactly solvable, in the sense that we may find the exact energy levels of low-lying states and the long-distance correlations of various operators. We will first indicate the physical content of the SO(5) WZW model without perturbations, and then see explicitly how the interactions $g_2$ and $g_4$ separate spin and charge sectors, affect correlation exponents and deform low-energy SO(5) multiplets.
In the language of conformal field theory,[@DMS] particularly useful when dealing with critical theories, each WZW model contains a finite number of primary fields, having well-defined conformal dimensions $\Delta$ and $\bar\Delta$. An operator $A$ with such conformal dimensions has the following dynamical correlations: A(x,t) A(0,0)\~[1(x-vt)\^[2]{} (x+vt)\^[2|]{}]{} The level-1 SO(5) WZW model has two primary fields: a five-component vector field $\xi$ of conformal dimension $\Delta=\hf$ and a four-component spinor field $h$ of conformal dimension $5\over16$. Under SO(5) rotations, these fields transform respectively in the vector and spinor representations of SO(5). Of course, the field $\xi$ is made of the five Majorana fermions (\[so5vector\]), whereas the field $h$ is what is left of the original electron fields $R_\mu$, originally in a spinor representation of SO(8), after the flavour sector has been gapped out. Freezing out the flavour part has had the effect of decreasing the conformal dimension of the spinor field from $\hf$ (in SO(8)) to $5\over16$ (in SO(5)), thus making it more relevant. In addition to these primary fields, the ten SO(5) currents (\[defzha\]) also play a crucial role in the theory and their correlations may also be exactly calculated.
Spin-charge separation
----------------------
When the interactions of (\[so5def\]) are turned on, the SO(5) symmetry is explicitly broken and the spin and charge sectors of the theory separate. The spin sector, unaffected by the interactions, becomes a level-1 SO(3) WZW model, which is the same as a level-2 SU(2) WZW model. The SU(2)$_2$ WZW theory contains two primary fields: a spin triplet (or vector) $\xi^s_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) with conformal dimension $\hf$, and a spin-$\hf$ (or spinor) field $g_\a$ ($\a=\up,\dn$), of conformal dimension $3\over16$. Products of the left- and right-moving parts of $g$ are commonly arranged in a $2\times2$ matrix: \[WZWmatrix\] G =
The charge sector becomes a U(1) theory, which may be described by a single boson field $\Phi_c$. The effect of the interactions on the charge boson is simply to change the spectrum of anomalous dimensions ($K_c\ne1$) and the theory remains critical. Since Abelian bosonisation is fairly standard,[@coleman; @mandelstam; @banks; @stone] we shall only state a few results. The charge boson $\Phi_c$ may be written as the sum of right and left parts: $\Phi_c=\phi_c+\phib_c$. Defining the dual field $\theta_c$ as $\theta_c=\phi_c-\phib_c$, the charge Hamiltonian may be written as H\_c = [v\_c2]{}dx where K\_c&=&\
v\_c&=& \[ll\]For more general lattice Hamiltonians that are Luttinger liquids in the low energy sector, the parameters $v_c$ and $K_c$ depend in a more complicated way upon the original couplings, so in the following analysis, one can just treat them as independent parameters whose precise value depends upon the original model.
If $g_2=0$, there are no anomalous exponents ($K_c=1$) and the scaling fields $e^{\pm i\sqrt{4\pi}\phi_c}$ represent right-moving fermions of conformal dimensions $(\frac12,0)$. When $g_2$ is turned on, the original charge current ($l^{15}=J_R$) is no longer conserved but becomes a linear combination of currents that are still conserved (see eg. Ref. ): J\_R = j\_R-j\_L(K\_c=\^[-2]{}) where $j_R$ and $j_L$ have respectively conformal dimensions $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$. The chiral components $\phi_c$ and $\phib_c$ mix through the same Bogoliubov transformation and the original fermion operators $e^{\pm
i\sqrt{4\pi}\phi_c}$ acquire a left conformal dimension: = [18]{}(K\_c+[1/K\_c]{})+14|= [18]{}(K\_c+[1/K\_c]{})-14 \[anomaldim\] Although the above results are very well known, it is worth pausing over them for a moment. They show that the interaction strengths $g_2$ and $g_4$ are not relevant energy scales in the low energy theory. They only appear as ratios $g_{2,4}/v_F$ in the renormalisation of the velocity $v_c$ and the anomalous exponent $K_c$. This is a very non-perturbative result. If we recall the exact solution of the one-dimensional Hubbard model away from half-filling, we know that it is a Luttinger liquid for all $U>0$ from $0$ to $\infty$.[@hubb] In this range, $K_c$ varies from its noninteracting value of $1$, to $1/2$ at $U=\infty$. Even when the on-site repulsion is infinite, its effect in the low energy sector is just a fairly small renormalisation of the anomalous exponent! The theory is still critical with gapless spin and charge excitations.
Some critics of the Zhang SO(5) proposal have claimed that because of the strong on-site repulsion in the Hubbard model, the $\pi$ operators cannot create low energy excitations.[@greiter] The argument is essentially that one is forced to put two electrons on the same site, which costs an energy of order $U$. The reason that the criticism [@greiter] may be too simplistic is first of all that it is a single-particle argument, whereas the low energy excitations of this system are many-body collective phenomena, and secondly that it is a short length scale argument which may have some validity in the U.V.; but we are interested in the low energy I.R. behaviour which is quite different in a non-Fermi liquid such as the TL liquid. Even if much of the spectral weight is shifted to high energies there is still some at low energies and this is what dominates the low energy theory. Given that the two-dimensional Cuprates are examples of non-Fermi liquids, it cannot be ruled out [*a priori*]{} using these arguments that even in the presence of strong on-site repulsion, the $\pi$-operators may generate low energy excitations (at least when one is slightly away from half-filling).
Let us then see what happens to the SO(5) currents and primary fields after spin-charge separation. Three of the five components of $\xi$ become a spin triplet ($\xi_s$) and the remaining two are simply $\cos(\sqrt{4\pi}\phi_c)$ and $\sin(\sqrt{4\pi}\phi_c)$. Out of the 10 SO(5) currents, six – the $\pi$ operators – are no longer conserved currents and may then be expressed as products of SU$(2)^{\rm sp.}_2$ fields with charge fields. Schematically, ,\^\~e\^[i\_c(z)]{}\_s(z) When $K_c\ne1$, the conformal dimensions of the $\pi$ operators are no longer $(1,0)$, but rather, from Eq. (\[anomaldim\]) and since the field $\xi_s(z)$ has conformal dimensions $(\frac12,0)$, = [18]{}(K\_c+[1/K\_c]{})+34|= [18]{}(K\_c+[1/K\_c]{})-14 \[pidimen\] Thus, the $\pi$ operators are no longer conserved currents, as expected.
As mentioned above, the spinor representation $\rep4$ of SO(5) factorizes into a pair of SU(2) doublets of charges $\pm1$ when SO(5) is broken. The spinor field $h$ may thus be factorized as h(x) \~(g\_, g\_) where $g$ is the SU(2) spinor mentioned above and the boson factors have conformal dimension $1\over4$. The decomposition described here can be rigorously proven by checking the corresponding commutators with the currents. We obtained it differently, by the method of affine characters (see Ref. ), which we will not explain in detail here, since the coincidence of conformal dimensions and components is sufficiently convincing for our purpose.
The SO(5) order parameter
-------------------------
One of the interesting operators of the SO(5) WZW model (and of its perturbed version) is a continuum version of Zhang’s five-component order parameter $n_a$ ($a=1,\ldots,5$).[@zhang] This operator can be defined in terms of the original electron fields. The components $n_{2,3,4}$ correspond to the staggered magnetisation and the components $n_{1,5}$ to the d-wave superconducting order parameter. The staggered magnetisation is defined as \_[[**Q**]{}]{} = \_[[**k**]{},,]{} c\_\^([**k**]{}+[**Q**]{}) \_c\_([**k**]{}) Picking ${\bf Q}=(2k_F,\pi)$ and using Eq. (\[cont\]), we find \_[[**Q**]{}]{} = \_[k,,]{} (R\^\_[,1]{}\_ L\_[,1]{}-R\^\_[,2]{}\_ L\_[,2]{}) \[staggeredMag\] The ${\bf Q}=(-2k_F,\pi)$ component of the magnetisation is just the Hermitian conjugate of the above. The d-wave order parameter ${\cal D}$ is defined as dx\^= \_[[**m**]{},[**n**]{}]{}g\_[[**m**]{},[**n**]{}]{} c\_\^([**m**]{}) c\_\^([**n**]{}) where $g_{{\bf m},{\bf n}}$ has been introduced in Eq. (\[gmn\]). Taking the continuum limit, we find \^&=& \_[i=1,2]{} ( R\^\_[,i]{}L\^\_[,i]{}+L\^\_[,i]{} R\^\_[,i]{}) -R\^\_[,1]{}L\^\_[,2]{} -L\^\_[,1]{}R\^\_[,2]{} -R\^\_[,2]{}L\^\_[,1]{} -L\^\_[,2]{}R\^\_[,1]{} \[d-wave\] The combinations ${\cal D}+{\cal D}^\dg$ and $i({\cal D}-{\cal D}^\dg)$ then correspond to $n_1$ and $n_5$, respectively.
An expression of the order parameter $n_a$ in terms of the scaling fields $h$ or $\xi$ would be more useful, since the flavour part is not explicitly absent from the above. Such an expression is difficult to obtain in a systematic way from the above expressions; but one can infer what it has to be (this result can be confirmed by Abelian bosonisation; see the appendix). Clearly, $n_a$ should be a bilinear in $h$ or $\xi$, with equal left and right conformal dimensions. Let us consider the following SO(5) tensor products: 44 &=& 15\
55 &=& 1 This means that a bilinear in $\xi$ (5 components) cannot transform as a vector of SO(5), whereas a bilinear in $h$ (4 components) can. We thus seek an order parameter of the form \[so5spingen\] n\_a = \^a\_[ij]{}h\_i|h\_j where the five $4\times4$ matrices $\G^a$ must transform as a vector of SO(5) when $h$ and $\bar h$ are acted upon by a $4\times4$ unitary representation of SO(5). If we denote by $\ell^{ab}$ a $4\times4$ representation of the SO(5) generators, this requirement amounts to = i(\^[ac]{}\^b - \^[bc]{}\^a) Experience with the Lorentz group and Dirac matrices may guide us here. If a set of five matrices $\G^a$ obey the Clifford algebra $\{\G^a,\G^b\} = 2\delta^{ab}$, then it is a simple matter to show that the above commutation relations are satisfied if we define \^[ab]{} = -[i4]{}\[\^a,\^b\] Moreover, the matrices thus defined do obey the SO(5) algebra = i(\^[ac]{}\^[bd]{} + \^[bd]{}\^[ac]{} - \^[ad]{}\^[bc]{} -\^[bc]{}\^[ad]{})
Let us adopt the following representation for the Clifford algebra: \^1 &=& 1\_3\
\^2 &=& \_1\_2\
\^3 &=& \_2\_2\
\^4 &=& \_3\_2\
\^5 &=& -1\_1 Then the charge and $S_z$ matrices take the form \^[51]{} = \^[23]{} = With the above generators $Q$ and $S_z$, the factorisation of the chiral field $h$ in terms of the SU(2)$_2^{\rm sp.}$ field $g$ and of the charge boson $\phi_c$ must be h &=& (g\_(\_c),g\_(\_c), g\_(\_c),g\_(\_c)\
|h &=& (|g\_(\_c),|g\_(\_c), |g\_(\_c),-|g\_(\_c) The explicit expression for the order parameter $n_a={\rm tr}(\G^a h\bar h)$ in terms of the spin matrix field (\[WZWmatrix\]) and of the charge boson is then n\_1 =& (G) &()\
n\_2 =& i (G\_1) &()\
n\_3 =& i (G\_2) &()\
n\_4 =& i (G\_3) &()\
n\_5 =& -(G) &() We first notice that $n_{1,5}$ form a spin singlet and are the real and imaginary parts of the complex d-wave order parameter $\Tr(G)\exp(-i\sqrt\pi\theta)$, whereas $n_{2,3,4}$ form a spin triplet. We also see how the scaling dimensions of $n_{1,5}$ diverge from those of $n_{2,3,4}$ when $K_c$ is different from unity: the fields $\cos(\sqrt\pi\theta)$ and $\sin(\sqrt\pi\theta)$ have conformal dimensions $\Delta=\bar\Delta =1/(8K_c)$ while $\cos(\sqrt\pi\Phi)$ and $\sin(\sqrt\pi\Phi)$ have conformal dimensions $\Delta=\bar\Delta=K_c/8$. Thus (n\_1)&=&(n\_5) = 3/16+1/8K\_c\
(n\_[2]{})&=&(n\_3) = (n\_4) = 3/16+K\_c/8 \[orderparam\] We may also consider the SO(5) singlet $h_i\bar h_i$, which becomes simply $\Tr(G)\cos(\sqrt\pi\Phi)$ in this representation. This field is conjectured to be the charge density wave (CDW) order parameter.[@private] Within this model it has the same scaling dimension as the staggered magnetisation (or spin density wave), but in a more general model with a spin gap the two fields could have different correlation lengths since spin singlet and triplet states would not necessarily have the same excitation energy.
To summarize, the components of the SO(5) order parameter have power-law correlations governed by the above conformal dimensions. When full SO(5) symmetry is present, $\Delta(\vec{n})=5/16$; and $\vec{n}$ is the vector primary field of the SO(5)$_1$ WZW model. When $K_c\ne1$, the SO(5) symmetry is broken and the staggered magnetisation is less ($K_c>1$) or more ($K_c<1$) relevant than the d-wave order parameter. The behaviour of the other possible fermion bilinears can be checked by a combination of Abelian bosonisation and an Ising model representation of bosonic exponents – we find that their correlations decay exponentially as a result of the gap in the flavour sector (for details see the appendix). Of course, since we are in one dimension, there are no real phase transitions, just enhanced fluctuations. Thus the fluctuations in the superspin channel are enhanced whereas other tendencies are suppressed. If a weak inter-ladder coupling were added to form a two- or three-dimensional system, then a mean-field treatment would lead to a phase transition in the channel that has the highest susceptibility (i.e., the most fluctuations), i.e. an ordered phase for the most relevant operator. Thus, this approach predicts d-wave superconductivity for weakly coupled ladders with attractive effective interactions ($K_c>1$). Finally, since the charge and spin sectors of this model are described by conformal field theories, one can also recover the finite-temperature behaviour of the correlation functions in the standard way.[@DMS]
Lowest-energy states
--------------------
In the absence of interactions and interchain coupling, the low-energy sector of the model is especially simple: the theory is a SO(8)$_1$ WZW model. The states fall into two representations of the Kac-Moody algebra: that of the identity, which contains states with even charge, and that of the spinor (electron) field $R_\mu$, which contain states of odd charge. Remember, this is just a complicated way of representing noninteracting fermion excited states. As SO(8) is broken into SO(5)$_1\otimes$SU$(2)^{\rm fl.}_2$, these representations break into a finite number of representations of SO(5)$_1\otimes$SU$(2)^{\rm fl.}_2$, as indicated in Eq. (\[decomp1\]). When the flavour sector is gapped, the low lying states must all be flavour singlets and so many of those representations become irrelevant, in particular all the representations of odd charge coming from the spinor $R_{\a}$.
The only surviving Kac-Moody representation in the SO(5)$_1$ theory is that of the identity. Such a representation contains an infinite number of energy levels, and at each level the states fall into SO(5) multiplets. In the pure WZW model (before spin-charge separation) the excited states may be obtained from the vacuum by applying ladder operators associated with the SO(5) currents. Let us explain: in a system of finite length $L$, the currents may be Fourier expanded as follows: l\^[ab]{}(x) = \_[n]{} e\^[2i nx/L]{} l\^[ab]{}\_n where the sum runs over all integers (positive and negative). From the commutation relations of the currents, one may infer commutation relations for the modes $l^{ab}_n$ and show that, for $n<0$, $l^{ab}_n$ is a raising operator for the energy in the WZW model. Of course, the $l^{ab}_0$ are nothing but the SO(5) generators and allow us to navigate within a multiplet.
The multiplet content at each energy level may be easily obtained from the representation theory of Kac-Moody algebras, in particular by the method of affine characters.[@DMS] Schematically, in the case at hand, the multiplet content may be expressed in terms of a spectrum-generating function $X(q)$: X(q) &=& 1 + q + q\^2(+++) + q\^3(+ + 3 + + 1)+\[spectrum1\] where the coefficient of $q^\Delta$ indicates the multiplet content of states with conformal dimension $\Delta$. For instance, a term like $2q^3\cdot\rep{10}$ in $X(q)$ means that the multiplet $\rep{10}$ of SO(5) occurs twice with conformal dimension $\Delta=3$ in the right-moving sector. The full low-energy Hilbert space is a left-right product, encapsulated in the generating function $X(q)X(\bar q)$. For instance, the term $Nq^\Delta\rep{10}\otimes\bar
q^{\bar\Delta}\rep{\bar 5}$ stand for a left-right tensor product of multiplets, occurring $N$ times at the energy level $(2\pi v_F/L)(\Delta+\bar\Delta)$, with momentum $(2\pi /L)(\Delta-\bar\Delta)$ ($v_F$ is the common spin and charge velocity before spin-charge separation).
The eigenvalues of $S_z$ and $Q$ and the energy of each state in the right-moving sector may be encoded in a more general spectrum-generating function $X(q,x,y)$: X(q,x,y) = \_[states]{} q\^x\^[2S\_z]{}y\^[Q]{} The advantage of spectrum-generating functions is that tensor products translate into ordinary products of functions, and direct sums into ordinary sums. Anticipating spin-charge separation, it is possible to write the function $X(q.x.y)$ as a combination of spin-charge products: X(q,x,y) = X\_[sp]{}\^[(0)]{}(q,x)X\_[c]{}\^[(0)]{}(q,y) + X\_[sp]{}\^[(2)]{}(q,x)X\_[c]{}\^[(2)]{}(q,y) \[spectrum2\] where $X_{\rm sp}^{(j)}(q,x)$ is the spectrum-generating function for the spin-$j$ Kac-Moody representation of SU(2)$_2$ and $X_{\rm c}^{(0,2)}$ is the analog for the charge sector. The lowest terms of these functions are X\_[sp]{}\^[(0)]{}(q,x) &=& 1 + q(1+x\^2+x\^[-2]{}) + q\^2(3+2x\^2+2x\^[-2]{} + x\^4+x\^[-4]{}) +\
X\_[sp]{}\^[(2)]{}(q,x) &=& q\^[1/2]{}(1+x\^2+x\^[-2]{}) + q\^[3/2]{}(2+x\^2+x\^[-2]{}) + q\^[5/2]{}(4 + 3x\^2+3x\^[-2]{}+x\^4 + x\^[-4]{}) +\
X\_[c]{}\^[(0)]{}(q,y) &=& 1 +q + q\^2(2+y\^4 + y\^[-4]{}) + q\^3(3+y\^4 + y\^[-4]{}) +\
X\_[c]{}\^[(2)]{}(q,y) &=& q\^[1/2]{}(y\^2 + y\^[-2]{}) + q\^[3/2]{}(y\^2 + y\^[-2]{}) + q\^[5/2]{}(2y\^2 + 2y\^[-2]{}) + \[spectrum3\] Again, the exponent of $x$ is twice the value of $S_z$ and that of $y$ is the charge $Q$. A term like $4x^2y^{-2}q^3$ in a (\[spectrum2\]) would stand for four states with $\Delta=3$, $S_z=1$ and $Q=-2$. The charge states represented in $X_{\rm c}^{(0)}$ have charge $Q=0$ (modulo 4) and those in $X_{\rm c}^{(2)}$ have charge $Q=2$ (modulo 4). From the above expressions and relation (\[spectrum2\]), the full spectrum of energies and quantum numbers may be recovered. Of course, we must consider the left-right product $X(q,x,y)X(\bar q,x,y)$. That the expression (\[spectrum2\]) is a sum of products, instead of being a simple product of spin and charge factors, means that one cannot consider the charge and spin spectra independently: there are “glueing conditions” between charge and spin states, conditions encoded in (\[spectrum2\]).
When spin and charge separate, the energy levels shift in two ways. First, because of different spin and charge velocities, $X_{\rm sp}^{(j)}(q,x)$ and $X_{\rm c}^{(n)}(q,y)$ become respectively $X_{\rm sp}^{(j)}(q_s,x)$ and $X_{\rm c}^{(n)}(q_c,y)$, where $q_s=q^{v_s/v_F}$ and $q_c=q^{v_c/v_F}$. Second, anomalous charge exponents change the conformal dimensions in the charged sector, whose structure deserves a more detailed explanation: excited states in the charge sector may be obtained either (i) by applying the creation operators associated with the charge boson $\phi_c$ (this does not change the charge $Q$) or (ii) by applying exponentials $\exp(iQ\sqrt{\pi}\phi_c)$ on the vacuum, where $Q$ is the charge thus created. The generating functions in the charge sector may be expressed as X\_[c]{}\^[()]{}(q,y) = X\_[bos.]{}(q)\_[Q=4r+]{} q\^[Q\^2/8]{}y\^Q where $r$ runs over all integers, $\ell=0$ or 2, and $X_{\rm bos.}(q)$ is the spectrum generating function associated with the boson creation operators only: X\_[bos.]{}(q) = \_[r=1]{}\^ = 1 + q + 2q\^2 + 3q\^3 + 5q\^4 + 7q\^5 + When $K_c$ changes from its initial value of unity, left and right boson creation operators mix through some Bogoliubov transformation and the conformal dimensions associated with the exponentials of $\phi_c$ and $\phib_c$ become \[dims\] (Q,|Q) &=& [132]{}\^2\
|(Q,|Q) &=& [132]{}\^2 Left-right products of spectrum-generating functions in the charge sector then become X\_[c]{}\^[()]{}(q\_c,y) X\_[c]{}\^[(’)]{}(|q\_c,y) = X\_[bos.]{}(q\_c)X\_[bos.]{}(|q\_c) \_[Q=4r+|Q=4r’+’]{} q\^[(Q,|Q)]{}|q\^[|(Q,|Q)]{} y\^[Q-|Q]{} The above expression, combined with Eqs (\[spectrum2\],\[spectrum3\],\[dims\]) allows us to extract the energy, momentum, charge and spin of the whole low-energy sector for arbitrary values of $v_s$, $v_c$ and $K_c$.
Let us consider, for instance, the first excited states. According to Eq. (\[spectrum1\]), They fall into the multiplet $\rep{10}$ of SO(5). The spin and charge content of such a multiplet is easily read from the corresponding $S_z-Q$ diagram of Fig \[so5fig\]. The multiplet $\rep{10}$ consists of three spin triplets (of charge $-2$, $0$ and $2$, respectively), plus a neutral spin singlet. After spin-charge separation and if $K_c\ne1$, the contribution of this multiplet to the spectrum-generating function is, according to Eqs (\[spectrum2\],\[spectrum3\]), q\_c + q\_s(1+x\^2+x\^[-2]{}) + q\_s\^[1/2]{}q\_c\^[(2,0)]{}|q\_c\^[|(2,0)]{} (1+x\^2+x\^[-2]{})(y\^2+y\^[-2]{}) Thus, the energies of these states split in the following fashion: E(Q=0,j=0) &=& [2v\_cL]{}\
E(Q=0,j=1) &=& [2v\_sL]{}\
E(Q=2,j=1) &=& [v\_sL]{} + [v\_c2L]{}(K\_c+[1K\_c]{})\
The last of these states are in fact created by applying $\pi$ operators (see Eq. (\[pidimen\])). The energy levels are proportional to the scaling dimensions of the operators in the conformal field theory.[@DMS]
To conclude, the eigenstates, in particular the lowest-energy states, fall into deformed SO(5) multiplets. The amount of deformation is exactly determined by the renormalised charge velocity $v_c$ and anomalous charge exponent $K_c$.
The Luttinger liquid Case
=========================
As we mentioned earlier, the case of two coupled Luttinger liquids is different to that of two Luttinger models. Let us consider, as an example of a Luttinger liquid, the one-chain Hubbard model at weak coupling $U\ll t$: H\_[Hub]{} = -t\_[r,]{}(c\_[r,]{}\^c\_[r+1,]{}+c\_[r+1,]{}\^c\_[r,]{}) +U\_r n\_[r,]{} n\_[r,]{} If we linearise about the right and left Fermi points as in (\[cont\]), and use the charge currents (\[density\]) and the corresponding spin currents \_R=\_[,]{}R\^\_\_ R\_ ,\_L= \_L\^\_\_L\_ we find the Hamiltonian density ($v_F\sim ta_0$): \_[Hub]{} -iv\_F\_( R\_\^\_x R\_- L\^\_\_x L\_) + [U4]{}(j\_R\^2+j\_L\^2)+[U2]{}j\_Rj\_L -[U3]{}(\_R\^2+\_L\^2)-2U\_R\_L This Hamiltonian is not equivalent to a Tomonaga Luttinger model because the last two terms are not pure density-density interactions. The $(\jv_R^2+\jv_L^2)$ term will only renormalise the spin velocity $v_s$ and is not very important. However, the marginally irrelevant $\jv_R\cdot \jv_L$ term cannot simply be absorbed in this way. It is this term which gives rise to logarithmic corrections to the correlation functions in Luttinger liquids – although otherwise it does not drastically change their properties, hence the utility of the Luttinger liquid concept.
As this weak coupling bosonisation suggests, the coupling constant of this term is of the same order as the other couplings in the theory, so it cannot necessarily be jettisoned when we consider more complicated models such as the two-chain ladder. Let us therefore consider as a model for the generic Luttinger liquid two-chain ladder, the Hamiltonian (\[TLmodel\]) perturbed by marginally irrelevant spin current interactions in each chain: \_[liq]{}&=&[H]{}+[H]{}\_[marg]{}\
[H]{}\_[marg]{}&=&-(\_[R1]{}\_[L1]{} +\_[R2]{}\_[L2]{}) where $\lambda>0$, and $\jv_{Ri},\jv_{Li}$ are the right and left moving spin currents in chains $i=1,2$. It is instructive to write the perturbation in terms of the Majorana (vector) fermions $\xi_i$. We find: \_[marg]{} = -[2]{}( [**J**]{}\_R\_L-\_[i=1,2,3]{}(\^s\_i\^s\_i) \^f\_3\^f\_3)\[marg\] The first term is a marginally irrelevant interaction in the total spin sector (${\bf J}_R=\jv_{R1}+\jv_{R2}$ as defined in (\[currents\])). But it is the second term which is most significant. It couples the fermions of the spin sector ($\xi^s_i$= rightmoving, $\xib^s_i$= leftmoving, $i=1,2,3$) to one of the fermions in the flavour sector. So the spin and flavour sectors are no longer genuinely decoupled.
Suppose that the flavour sector becomes gapped. Then: \^f\_3\^f\_30 To first approximation, we can then replace $\xi^f_3\xib^f_3$ in (\[marg\]) by its expectation value, and we see that the effect of a gap in the flavour sector is to generate a mass term for the fermions of the spin sector – a spin gap. This is a crude argument but it is borne out by the RG analysis of Refs. ,, as well as numerical work [@scalapino] (in the notation of Ref. a finite backscattering corresponds to $g_i^{(1)}\neq 0$) which shows the existence of strong coupling regimes with a spin gap in a model of two Hubbard chains coupled by a small hopping. In general it is hard to estimate the size of this gap. If it is large, the low energy physics will be as described in Refs. ,. It could be, however, that in some models (with small $\lambda$ for example) the spin gap is very small, in which case for intermediate energy scales the behaviour will still be described approximately by the model (\[TLmodel\]).
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have studied a system of two TL models coupled by a small interchain hopping. We have shown that this critical (at T=0) theory can be represented much more symmetrically than in the standard Abelian bosonisation representation as an SO(5)$_1$ WZW model, or equivalently as a system of 5 Majorana fermions, perturbed by symmetry breaking interactions. We have obtained the correlations of fermion bilinears in this theory and demonstrated that the components of the “superspin” [@zhang] have power law correlations, and are enhanced, whilst other tendencies are suppressed. Conformal field theory allows us to obtain the exact energy levels in a finite size system and observe how the degeneracy of the SO(5) multiplets is broken by spin-charge separation ($v_c\neq v_s$) and the presence of an anomalous exponent ($K_c\neq 1$) in the charge sector. Except in the trivial noninteracting case, there is no exact SO(5) symmetry. In section VI we showed briefly how the inclusion of backscattering results in the appearance of a spin gap.
In the light of these results, S.C. Zhang has recently shown[@private] that a whole class of ladder systems with more general interactions have Hamiltonians with microscopic SO(5) symmetry. Knowing the Hamiltonian does not tell us about the strong coupling behaviour at low energies. But a continuous symmetry like SO(5) cannot be spontaneously broken in one dimension and must therefore be present in the low-energy theory as well. The latter must be described by a SO(5) WZW model, perturbed by various primary fields, perhaps with a critical point or line in the space of coupling constants (a conformal field theory with Lie-group symmetry is necessarily a WZW model). This is the simplest class of low energy theories with SO(5) symmetry in 1+1 dimensions.
The SO(5) symmetric description of ladder models, which are clearly related to popular models of the Cuprates, and the similarity of the form of the theory in ladders to that proposed by S.C. Zhang [@zhang] for the 2d Cuprates, is certainly encouraging and suggestive. Nonetheless, in view of the many special features of one-dimensional theories we are cautious about drawing more general conclusions.
Acknowledgements
================
D.G.S. is grateful to I. Affleck for originally drawing his attention to the SO(5) theory, and to S.C. Zhang, E. Demler and A.M. Tsvelik for useful conversations. This work is supported by NSERC (Canada) and by FCAR (Québec).
Appendix: Abelian Bosonisation of Fermion Bilinears
===================================================
We want to know the long distance (low energy) behaviour of the correlations of various bilinears. In Sect. (\[nabos\]) we demonstrated that the correlations of the “superspin” order parameter could be deduced within the framework of non-Abelian bosonisation from a careful analysis of the operators of the conformal field theory. We can further justify this analysis and find the behaviour of the other fermion bilinears explicitly by using Abelian bosonisation.
We introduce an Abelian boson $\Phi_\a^i$ for each species of fermion $i=1,2$, $\a=\up,\dn$. Then we introduce linear charge and spin, bonding and antibonding combinations of these fields: \_\^ &=& [12]{}(\_\^1\_\^2)\
\^i\_[c,s]{} &=& [12]{}( \^i\_\^i\_) If one carefully applies Abelian bosonisation to the original Hamiltonian (\[TLmodel\]), taking full account of the anticommutation factors,[@banks] one can identify each of these Bose fields with two of the Majorana fermions introduced in section (4). The $\Phi_c^+$ field is simply associated with the two charge fermions, the $\Phi_c^-$ field represents two of the flavour fermions. $\Phi_s^+$ represents two of the spin fermions, and $\Phi_s^-$ comprises one flavour fermion and one spin fermion.
Operator $X$ $\Delta=\bar\Delta$
----- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
(a) $R^{\dg}_{1\up}L^{\dg}_{1\dn}$ $\Phi_s^+-\theta_c^+-\Phi_s^--\theta_c^-$ –
(b) $R^{\dg}_{1\up}L^{\dg}_{2\dn}$ $\Phi_s^+-\theta_c^+-\theta_s^-+\Phi_c^-$ ${3\over 16}+{1\over 8K_c}$
(c) $R^{\dg}_{1\up}L_{1\dn}$ $\Phi_c^+-\theta_s^++\Phi_c^--\theta_s^-$ ${3\over 16}+{K_c\over 8}$
(d) $R^{\dg}_{1\up}L_{1\up}$ $\Phi_c^++\Phi_s^++\Phi_c^-+\Phi_s^-$ ${3\over 16}+{K_c\over 8}$
(e) $R^{\dg}_{1\up}L_{2\dn}$ $\Phi_c^+-\theta_s^+-\theta_c^-+\Phi_s^-$ –
(f) $R^{\dg}_{1\up}L_{2\up}$ $\Phi_c^++\Phi_s^+-\theta_s^--\theta_c^-$ –
: Fermion Bilinears.\[bilin\]
After bosonisation, the various fermion bilinears have the form \~\^[-iX]{} where the different $X$s are given in Table \[bilin\]. We will briefly describe how we arrive at the long distance behaviour of their correlations. We find straightforwardly: (\^[i\_s\^+]{})&=& (\^[i\_s\^+]{})=[18]{}\
(\^[i\_c\^+]{})&=&[K\_c8]{}\
(\^[i\_c\^+]{})&=&[18K\_c]{} (The scaling dimension is $D=\Delta+\bar\Delta$ and here $\Delta
=\bar\Delta$ so $D=2\Delta$) But the charge and spin ($-$) fields are a little more subtle. In our model, the flavour sector acquires a gap. Since we start with $K_c<1$ this strong coupling regime corresponds to the limit $K_c\rightarrow 0$ in the c$-$ sector, whence to leading approximation we can replace the complex exponents by their expectation values: \^[i\_c\^-]{}&&0\
\^[i\_c\^-]{}&=&0 Higher order corrections will die away exponentially. Thus the bilinears (a), (e) and (f) in Table \[bilin\] die away exponentially and the corresponding tendencies are suppressed.
The exponents of $\Phi_s^-$ are a little more subtle since we know that only one of the Majorana fermions to which $\Phi_s^-$ corresponds is gapped, whilst the other remains gapless. Here, however, we can make use of their representation in terms of the corresponding Ising order and disorder operators.[@shelton; @sato; @i+d] Introducing Ising order and disorder operators $\s_f,\mu_f$ corresponding to the Majorana flavour fermion $\xi^f_3$ and $\s_s,\mu_s$ corresponding to the spin fermion $\xi_s^3$, we can identify the following approximate operator correspondences: \_s\^-&\~& \_f\_s\
\_s\^-&\~& \_f\_s\
\_s\^-&\~& \_f\_s\
\_s\^-&\~& \_f\_s When the flavour fermion becomes gapped, either $\langle\s_f\rangle=0$, $\langle\mu_f\rangle\neq 0$ or $\langle\s_f\rangle\neq 0$, $\langle\mu_f\rangle=0$, depending upon the definitions. Thus to first approximation these can again be replaced by their expectation values. The Ising model corresponding to the spin fermion $\xi_s^3$ remains critical and has scaling dimensions $\Delta=\bar\Delta(\s_s,\mu_s)=1/16$. In this way we obtain the long distance asymptotics shown in Table \[bilin\]. The only bilinears which still have power law correlations are the interchain pairing (\[d-wave\]), represented by (b) in Table \[bilin\], and the staggered magnetisation (\[staggeredMag\]), represented by (c) and (d). Thus, it is precisely the components of the unified order parameter $n_a$ that have power law correlations, while all the other tendencies around $\pm 2k_F$ are suppressed. Note that the scaling dimensions that we find agree with those found in Sect. \[nabos\] from non-Abelian bosonisation (cf. Eq. (\[orderparam\])).
Now at: [*Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3NP.*]{}
Shou-Cheng Zhang, Science [**275**]{}, 1089 (1997).
E.C. Demler and S.C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} 4126 (1995).
Martin Greiter, preprint cond-mat/9705049; the response of E. Demler, S.C. Zhang, S. Meixner and W. Hanke, preprint cond-mat/9705191; Greiter’s 2nd response, Martin Greiter, preprint cond-mat/9705282.
G. Baskaran and P.W. Anderson, preprint cond-mat/9706076.
S. Rabello, H. Kohno, E. Demler, S.C. Zhang, preprint cond-mat/9707027; C.L. Henley, preprint cond-mat/9707275.
E. Dagotto and T.M. Rice, Science [**271**]{}, 618 (1996).
M. Uehara, T. Nagata, J. Akimitsu, H. Takahashi, N. Mori and K. Kinoshita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn [**65**]{}, 2764 (1996).
M. Isobe [*et al.*]{} Physica C [**282**]{}, 811 (1997).
E. Dagotto, J. Riera and D. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 5744 (1992).
T.M. Rice, S. Gopalan, M. Sigrist, Europhys. Lett. [**23**]{} 445 (1993).
A. Finkel’stein and A. Larkin, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 10461 (1993).
D.V. Khveshchenko and T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{} 252 (1994).
L. Balents and M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 12133 (1996); H-H. Lin, L. Balents, M.P.A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 6569 (1997).
H.J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{} R2959 (1996).
M. Fabrizio, A. Parola and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 3159 (1992).
M. Fabrizio, A. Parola, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 226 (1992).
M. Fabrizio, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{} 15838 (1993).
T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{} 2905 (1991).
D.J. Scalapino, S.-C. Zhang and W. Hanke, cond-mat/9711117 (unpublished).
R.M. Noack, S.R. White and D.J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{} 882 (1997).
D. G. Shelton and A.M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 14036 (1996).
J. Voit, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**57**]{} 977-1116 (1994).
A.M. Tsvelik, Cambridge University Press (1995).
E. Witten, Comm. Math. Phys. [**92**]{}, 455-472 (1984).
V.G. Knizhnik and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Nuc. Phys. B [**247**]{} 83-102 (1984).
A.M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{} 10499 (1990).
A.B. Zamolodchikov and V.A. Fateev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**43**]{} 657-664 (1986).
, P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and D. Sénéchal, Springer-Verlag (1997). Representations of Kac-Moody algebras are discussed in Chap. 14.
S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{} 2088 (1975).
S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{} 3026 (1975).
T. Banks, D. Horn and H. Neuberger, Nuc. Phys. B [**108**]{} 119-129 (1976)
, Ed. M. Stone, World Scientific (1994).
F. Woynarovich, J. Phys. A [**22**]{} 4243 (1989); H. Frahm and V.E. Korepin, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{} 10553 (1990).
M. Sato, T. Miwa and M. Jimbo, [*Holonomic Quantum Fields V*]{}, Kyoto University Press, Kyoto 1980, Vol 16 p. 531.
Vol. 1, C. Itzykson and J.-M. Drouffe, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
D.G. Shelton, A.A. Nersesyan and A.M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{} 8521-8532 (1996).
Shou-Cheng Zhang, private communication.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that three principle means of treating privacy amplification in quantum key distribution, private state distillation, classical privacy amplification, and via the uncertainty principle, are equivalent and interchangeable. By adapting the security proof based on the uncertainty principle, we construct a new protocol for private state distillation which we prove is identical to standard classical privacy amplification. Underlying this approach is a new characterization of private states, related to their standard formulation by the uncertainty principle, which gives a more physical understanding of security in quantum key distribution.'
author:
- 'Joseph M. Renes$^1$ and Jean-Christian Boileau$^{2,3}$'
title: 'Privacy Amplification, Private States, and the Uncertainty Principle'
---
Privacy amplification is the art of extracting a secret key from a string which is partially-known to an eavesdropper [@BBR88; @BBCM95]. In quantum key distribution (QKD) it plays a vital role as the protagonists, Alice and Bob, would like to transform their shared, but not secret, raw key into a verifiably secret key even when the eavesdropper Eve has tampered with the quantum signals.
Heuristically, privacy amplification works by applying a suitable randomly-chosen function to the raw key which scrambles and shortens it so that Eve’s limited knowledge of the input tells her nothing about the output. The canonical example is using a random public string and computing the XOR with the original string. Provided Eve’s information is not too large, Alice and Bob can be confident that the output will be secret.
Broadly speaking, QKD has historically taken three main approaches to privacy amplification. Each is characterized by its treatment of the states held by the various parties to the protocol. The first focuses on Eve’s marginal state conditional on the key string, which she obtains in the course of eavesdropping. Applying a random function to the key string results in new marginal states for Eve which are essentially identical. We term this method [*classical privacy amplification*]{} as it is an adaptation of privacy amplification against classical adversaries. It can be traced through the sequence of papers [@KMR05; @RK05; @CRE04; @KGR; @DW05].
The remaining two approaches focus either concretely on the states held by Alice and Bob, including any auxiliary systems, or abstractly on the key itself. In the former, privacy amplification is recast as a virtual form of [*private state distillation*]{} in which Alice and Bob transform their initial shared quantum state into a private state, a state which yields secret keys upon measurement [@HHHO05].
Maximally entangled states are a subset of private states, so this method includes the techniques of applying entanglement distillation to privacy amplification developed in [@DEJMPS96; @LoChau99; @ShorPreskill00] and the subsequent work employing the technique of Shor and Preskill. Means for distilling more general private states were found in [@RS06].
The latter approach of focusing abstractly on the key itself, irrespective of its realization by either honest party and disregarding any auxiliary systems not held by Eve, was employed in the first QKD security proof by Mayers [@Mayers96], subsequently improved by Koashi and Preskill [@KP03], and finally culminated in a security proof based on the uncertainty principle by Koashi [@K06]. Here privacy amplification is viewed as a means of creating a virtual Pauli $X$ eigenstate and then obtaining the key by measuring the conjugate $Z$ observable.
In this letter we draw these three threads together and show they are equivalent when privacy amplification is based on linear functions. We do so by adapting Koashi’s proof to give a new method of private state distillation and then prove it is identical to classical privacy amplification. The distillation technique follows from a new characterization of private states which is complementary to their standard description in the sense of the uncertainty principle. This unifies various approaches to the security of QKD, allowing the various means of treating privacy amplification to be interchanged. Moreover, it provides a more physical picture of how security arises from quantum mechanics. The new private state distillation method significantly generalizes that presented in [@RS06], which directly applied entanglement distillation techniques. Correction of phase errors afflicting the key subsystems becomes easier for private states as the shield can store phase error information. Thus, not all phase errors need be corrected, increasing the secret key yield above the entanglement yield. However, the resulting rates still do not always match those of classical privacy amplification as the shared state is not always a classical mixture of states subjected to various phase errors.
Our results are presented as follows. We first show how the uncertainty principle inspires dual descriptions of private states. Then the method of classical privacy amplification is shortly recounted before proceeding to the new approach to private state distillation. The details of the derivation of the secret key rate are presented from which the equivalence of the methods follows. Finally, we conclude with a view to open problems and related issues.
*Secret Keys and Private States.*—A perfect secret key shared by Alice and Bob is a uniformly-distributed random variable about which Eve has zero information. Thus a *perfect secret bit* is defined as $\kappa_{ABE}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=0}^1 P^{k}_{A}\otimes P^k_B\right)\otimes \rho_E$ for any $\rho_E$, where $P^k={|k\rangle}{\langle k|}$.
Private states are those quantum states for which independent measurements by Alice and Bob yield a secret key. For secret *bits*, our focus in the remainder of the paper, these measurements might as well be standard basis measurements on the qubit key registers $A$ and $B$. The overall state can be purified by including additional systems, be they *shield* systems $S$ under the control of Alice and/or Bob or Eve’s systems $E$. A *private state* $\gamma_{ABSE}$ is then a pure state of the form $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_k {|kk\rangle}_{AB}V^{k}_S{|\xi\rangle}_{SE}=U_{ABS}{|\Phi\rangle}_{AB}{|\xi\rangle}_{SE},$$ where the unitaries $V^{k}$ as well as the state ${|\xi\rangle}$ are arbitrary. The state ${|\Phi\rangle}$ is the canonical maximally-entangled state and the unitary $U_{ABS}=\sum_{j,k}P^{j,k}_{AB}\otimes V^{j,k}_S$ is called a *twisting operator*.
The fact that private states lead to secret keys and secret keys come from private states immediately follows (cf. Theorem 2 of [@HHHO05b]). Measurement of a private state $\gamma_{ABSE}$ immediately yields $\kappa_{ABE}$ with $\rho_E=\xi_{E}$. Conversely, suppose $\gamma_{ABSE}$ is a pure state yielding $\kappa_{ABE}$ under the prescribed measurement. It follows that ${|\gamma\rangle}_{ABSE}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_k {|kk\rangle}_{AB}{|\varphi^k\rangle}_{SE}$ for some arbitrary normalized states ${|\varphi^k\rangle}$ and furthermore, that $\varphi_E^k=\rho_E$ for all $k$. Calling ${|\xi\rangle}_{SE}$ the purification of $\rho_E$, we must have ${|\varphi^k\rangle}_{SE}=V^{k}_S{|\xi\rangle}_{SE}$ for some unitaries $V^{k}_S$ since all purifications of the same state are related by unitaries on the purifying system. We have implicitly proven
A pure state $\gamma_{ABSE}$ is a private state if and only if (a) $p_{j,k}={\rm Tr}[\gamma_{ABSE}\,P^{j,k}_{AB}]=\frac{1}{2}\,\delta_{j,k}$, and (b) $\gamma_E^j=\gamma_E^{k}$ for all $j,k$.
This formulation is straightforward: Eve can obtain no information about the key when all her marginal states are identical. The approach of classical privacy amplification is to prove the shared output state has this property.
A different characterization of private states follows from considering a hypothetical measurement by Alice in the $x$-basis. This produces conditional states of the $BS$ subsystem: $\sigma^{x}_{BS}=2\,{_A}{\langle \widetilde{x}|}\gamma_{ABS}{|\widetilde{x}\rangle}_A$, where ${|\widetilde{x}\rangle}$ is the $x$th $x$-basis state. Then one has
\[thm:privstate2\] A pure state $\gamma_{ABSE}$ is a private state if and only if (a) $p_{j,k}={\rm Tr}[\gamma_{ABSE}\,P^{j,k}_{AB}]=\frac{1}{2}\,\delta_{j,k}$, and (b$'$) $\sigma^j_{BS}\,\sigma^k_{BS}=0$ for all $j\neq k$.
Suppose $\gamma_{ABSE}$ is a private state, for which condition (a) is satisfied by inspection. The states $BS$ conditional states are $\sigma_{BS}^x=Z^x_BU_{BS}\big(P^{\widetilde{0}}_B
\otimes \xi_{S}\big)U_{BS}^\dagger Z^x_B$, where the unitary $U_{BS}{=}\sum_k P^k_B\otimes V^{k}_S$ for $P^{\widetilde{x}}={|\widetilde{x}\rangle}{\langle \widetilde{x}|}$, and $Z^x$ is the $x$th power of $Z$, in contrast to all other upper indices appearing herein. Since $[Z_B,U_{BS}]{=}0$, $\sigma_{BS}^x=U_{BS}\big(P^{\widetilde x}_B
\otimes \xi_{S}\big)U_{BS}^\dagger$, and (b$^\prime$) follows immediately.
Conversely, by condition (a) we have ${|\gamma\rangle}_{ABSE}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_k {|kk\rangle}_{AB}{|\varphi^k\rangle}_{SE}$. From the Schmidt decomposition ${|\varphi^k\rangle}_{SE}=\sum_{\ell}\sqrt{\lambda^k_\ell}{|\mu^k_\ell\rangle}_S{|\nu^k_\ell\rangle}_E$ define $Y^{k}_S{=}\sqrt{\varphi^k_S}V^{k}_S$ for unitary $V^k$ so that ${|\varphi^k\rangle}_{SE}=\sum_\ell Y^{k}_S{|\ell\ell\rangle}_{SE}$. Here $V^{k}{=}L^{k} (R^{k})^T$ using the unitaries $L^{k}{|\ell\rangle}{=}{|\mu^k_\ell\rangle}$ and $R^{k}{|\ell\rangle}{=}{|\nu^k_\ell\rangle}$. Now we can write $\sigma^x_{BS}=Z^x_B\sigma_{BS}Z^x_{BS}$ for $\sigma_{BS}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{jk}{|j\rangle}_B{\langle k|}\otimes Y^{j}_S(Y^{k}_S)^\dagger$. Condition (b$'$) then implies $(Y^{0})^\dagger\, Y^{0}= (Y^{1})^\dagger\, Y^{1}$. Defining ${|\xi\rangle}_{SE}{=}\sqrt{(Y^{0}_S)^\dagger\, Y^{0}_S}\sum_\ell {|\ell\rangle}_S{|\ell\rangle}_E$ we obtain $V^{k}_S{|\xi\rangle}_{SE}{=}{|\varphi^k\rangle}_{SE}$ and thus the operator $U_{BS}$ produces the private state: ${|\gamma\rangle}_{ABSE}=U_{BS}{|\Phi\rangle}_{AB}{|\xi\rangle}_{SE}$.
We can understand the relationship between these two characterizations as an instance of the uncertainty principle, which in entropic form requires that the sum of entropies of $x$- and $z$-basis measurements must not be less than unity [@MU88]. Theorem 1 implies that Eve’s entropy of Alice’s $z$-basis measurement (i.e. the key) is itself unity. Complementarily, theorem 2 means Bob’s entropy (actually Bob and shield) of Alice’s $x$-basis measurement is zero, so Eve’s entropy of $z$ must be not less than unity.
*Classical Privacy Amplification.*—An ideal privacy amplification protocol would output a perfectly secret key key from the input of only partially secret data. This is too optimistic for practical applications however, and in this section we recapitulate the formulation of protocols which distill an *approximately* secret key. We say $\rho_{ABE}$ is $\epsilon$-private when $||\rho_{ABE}-\kappa_{ABE}||_1\leq 2\epsilon$. This definition ensures the key can be safely composed with any other cryptographic task and moreover, we can interpret the definition as saying that the actual key $\rho_{ABE}$ is really the ideal key $\kappa_{ABE}$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$ [@RK05; @benor] [^1].
Here we assume that the input to privacy amplification is $\psi_{ABE}^{\otimes n}$, where $\psi_{ABE}=
\frac{1}{{2}}\sum_k P^{k,k}_{AB}\otimes \varphi^k_{E}$ describes a shared but not necessarily secret bit. In QKD this product state is the product of a *collective attack* in which Eve tampers with each signal individually. More general coherent attacks have been dealt with by randomly permuting the quantum signals after receipt and then showing that privacy amplification can extract the same key from the resulting state as from a product state [@GL03; @R05].
Now, for $K$ the classical random variable held by Alice and Bob, and $I$ the quantum mutual information, one can show
\[thm:dwrate\] There exists a privacy amplification scheme to extract $n[1-I(K{:}E)]$ secret bits from $\psi_{ABE}^{\otimes n}$, for $n\rightarrow\infty$. Moreover, this is the maximum possible rate.
The scheme in [@DW05] works by selecting a function at random and applying it to each of the $A$ and $B$ systems; the output size of the function is $n[1-I(K{:}E)]$ bits. The crux of that proof is a result on measure concentration, the generic term indicating when a random variable is exponentially likely to be very close to its mean value. The random variable in this case is Eve’s state $\varphi_E^\mathbf{k}$, where $\mathbf{k}\in\{0,1\}^n$. Initially Eve’s conditional states are not close to the mean, but averaging over *some* of the $\mathbf{k}$ produces a new random variable which is. This partial average comes from regarding the random function as picking a random reversible function on the length-$n$ strings and then discarding (averaging over) the last $nI(K{:}E)$ bits.
The privacy amplification function need not be completely random; as shown in [@RK05] any 2-universal family of hash functions suffice. This includes random linear hashing, which we will use for private state distillation.
*Private State Distillation.*—As in classical privacy amplification, the goal of private state distillation is to distill a state close to a private state, again measured by the trace distance. Since the key measurement is itself a quantum operation, an output state $\epsilon$-close to a private state results in a key at least $\epsilon$-close to $\kappa_{ABE}$.
Koashi’s method is to distill an $X$ eigenstate in a [*single*]{} abstract key register; its immediate application to private states is obscured by the need to respect the form of the twisting operator. But by using a linear hash function for privacy amplification we can neatly avoid this problem. The essential point remains that the honest parties have full information about an observable conjugate to the key.
Initially Alice, Bob, and Eve share $\psi_{ABE}^{\otimes n}$, which can be purified using the shield system $S$ to the state $$\label{eq:inputpsd}
{|\Psi\rangle}_{ABSE}=
{|\psi\rangle}^{\otimes n}_{ABSE}=\frac{1}{{2^n}}\sum_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{x}}{|\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\rangle}_AZ^\mathbf{x}_B{|\mathbf{k}\rangle}_{B}{|\varphi^\mathbf{k}\rangle}_{SE}.$$ Generally, Bob cannot perfectly predict the outcome $\mathbf{x}'$ of Alice’s hypothetical $x$-basis measurement since his information is limited by the Holevo quantity $\chi$ of the ensemble $\mathcal{E}=\{\frac{1}{2},\rho_{BS}^x\}$, where $\rho_{BS}^x=2\,{_A}{\langle \widetilde{x}|}\psi_{ABS}{|\widetilde{x}\rangle}_A$ [@K73]. But then the distillation strategy suggests itself: have Alice provide Bob the missing information. If she narrows the possible $\rho^\mathbf{x}_{BS}$ to a suitably-random set of size $2^{n\chi(\mathcal{E})}$, then the HSW theorem indicates that with high probability Bob can determine $\mathbf{x}'$ [@HSW].
Having sketched the method roughly, we now turn to the details. Alice’s announcement consists of the bits $h_i=\mathbf{u}_i\cdot\mathbf{x}'$ for $n[1{-}\chi(\mathcal{E})]$ randomly chosen $\mathbf{u}_i$, i.e. a random linear hash of $\mathbf{x}'$. This can be thought of as the result of measuring the observables $X^{\mathbf{u}_i}$, which define Pauli $X$ operators for a set of “encoded” qubits. The complementary subsystem of encoded qubits is associated with the set of $Z^{\mathbf{v}_j}$, where for all $i,j$. Thus we can decompose the space of Alice’s (Bob’s) physical qubit systems into virtual systems $A_1, A_2$ ($B_1, B_2$) corresponding to the observables $Z^{\mathbf{v}_j}$ and $X^{\mathbf{u}_i}$, respectively. The post-announcement state is ${|\Psi'\rangle}_{A_1BSE}={}_{A_2}{\langle \widetilde{\mathbf{h}}|}Z^\mathbf{h}_{B_2}{|\Psi\rangle}_{ABSE}$, $${|\Psi'\rangle}_{A_1BSE}=\frac{1}{2^{n\chi}}\sum_{\mathbf{y},\ell}{|\widetilde{\mathbf{y}}\rangle}_{A_1}Z^\mathbf{y}_{B_1}
{|\ell\rangle}_{B_1} {|\bar{\varphi}^\ell\rangle}_{B_2SE},$$ where ${|\bar{\varphi}^\ell\rangle}_{B_2SE}=(2^{n(1{-}\chi)})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sum_\mathbf{m}{|\mathbf{m}\rangle}_{B_2}{|\varphi^{(\ell,\mathbf{m})}\rangle}_{SE}$, since Bob can apply $Z^\mathbf{h}_{B_2}$ after learning $\mathbf{h}$ from Alice. He is left to distinguish the states $\varrho^\mathbf{y}_{BS}=Z^\mathbf{y}_{B_1}\Psi'_{BS}Z^\mathbf{y}_{B_1}$. Note that system $B_2$ has now become part of the shield.
A slight modification of the HSW theorem ensures that with high probability the pretty good measurement [@HW94] can distinguish the $\varrho^\mathbf{y}_{BS}$ with arbitrarily small probability of error. The theorem originally applies to the distinguishability of random subsets of $\rho_{BS}^\mathbf{x}$ and here we have a random subspace. However, in the Appendix we show that the standard proof can be easily adapted to this case, and in fact more generally to the use of 2-universal hashing. Bob’s measurement has elements $$\label{eq:pgm}
E^\mathbf{y}_{BS}=\sqrt{T^{-1}_{BS}}\,\Big(\Pi_{BS}\,\Pi^{\mathbf{y}}_{BS}\Pi_{BS}\Big) \sqrt{T^{-1}_{BS}},$$ for $T_{BS}=\sum_\mathbf{y}\Pi_{BS}\Pi^{\mathbf{y}}_{BS}\Pi_{BS}$, and $\Pi^\mathbf{y}_{BS}$ ($\Pi_{BS}$) the projection onto the typical subspace of $\varrho^\mathbf{y}_{BS}$ ($\langle\varrho^{\mathbf{y}}_{BS}\rangle$), the subspace spanned by eigenvectors whose eigenvalues are near the likely value. Here $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes the average value.
We can determine the $E^\mathbf{y}_{BS}$ explicitly and thereby obtain the twisting operator. Note that $Z^\mathbf{y}_{B_1}\varrho^{\mathbf{y}}_{BS}Z^\mathbf{y}_{B_1}=
\frac{1}{2^{n\chi}}\sum_{\mathbf{\ell},\ell'}
{|\mathbf{\ell}\rangle}_{B_1}\!{\langle \ell'|}\otimes{\rm Tr}_{E}\big[{|\bar{\varphi}^\mathbf{\ell}\rangle}_{B_2SE}
{\langle \bar{\varphi}^{\ell'}|}\big]$, meaning that system $B_2S$ determines typicality in both $\Pi_{BS}$ and $\Pi^\mathbf{y}_{BS}$. Following the proof of Theorem 2 we may then define $\bar{Y}^\mathbf{\ell}_{B_2S}$ so that $\Pi_{BS}\Pi^{\mathbf{y}}_{BS}\Pi_{BS}$ becomes $$Z^{\mathbf{y}}_{B_1}\bigg(\sum_{\mathbf{\ell},\mathbf{\ell'}}
{|\mathbf{\ell}\rangle}_{B_1}\!{\langle \mathbf{\ell'}|}\otimes \bar{Y}_{B_2S}^\mathbf{\ell}\bar{Y}_{B_2S}^{\mathbf{\ell}' \dagger}\bigg)Z^{\mathbf{y}}_{B_1}.$$ Direct calculation gives $T_{BS}=2^{n\chi}\sum_\mathbf{\ell} P^\mathbf{\ell}_{B_1}
\otimes \bar{Y}_{B_2S}^\mathbf{\ell}\bar{Y}_{B_2S}^{\mathbf{\ell} \dagger}$ and the square root of the (pseudo) inverse follows.
Now consider the unitary $\bar{V}^\mathbf{\ell}$ which comes from the polar decomposition $\bar{Y}^\mathbf{\ell}=\sqrt{\bar{Y}^\mathbf{\ell}(\bar{Y}^\mathbf{\ell})^\dagger}\,\bar{V}^\mathbf{\ell}$; with it we can write $$E^{\mathbf{y}}_{BS}=Z^{\mathbf{y}}_{B_1}\bigg(\frac{1}{2^{n\chi}}\sum_{\mathbf{\ell},\mathbf{\ell}'}
{|\mathbf{\ell}\rangle}_{B_1}\!{\langle \mathbf{\ell}'|}\otimes \bar{V}_{B_2S}^\mathbf{\ell}\bar{V}_{B_2S}^{\mathbf{\ell}' \dagger}\bigg)Z^{\mathbf{y}}_{B_1}.$$ Defining the $\bar{U}_{B S}=\sum_\mathbf{\ell}P^{\mathbf{\ell}}_{B_1}\otimes \bar{V}^{\ell}_{B_2S}$ we can express this in the more appealing form $E^\mathbf{y}_{BS}=\bar{U}_{BS}
(P^{\widetilde{\mathbf{y}}}_{B_1}\otimes \mathbbm{1}_{B_2 S})
\bar{U}_{B S}^\dagger$.
Thus, Bob’s strategy is to untwist the shield as best he can and then measure his key system in the $x$-basis. He and Alice obtain the same outcome with probability $${\rm P}_s=\frac{1}{2^{2n\chi}}\sum_{\mathbf{\ell},\mathbf{\ell}'}
{}_{B_2SE}{\langle \bar{\varphi}^{\mathbf{\ell}'}|}\bar{V}^{\mathbf{\ell}'}_{B_2S}\bar{V}_{B_2S}^{\mathbf{\ell} \dagger}
{|\varphi^{\mathbf{\ell}}\rangle}_{B_2SE}.$$ If Bob can determine $\mathbf{y}$ with high probability, ${\rm P}_s\approx 1$, and $\bar{U}_{BS}^\dagger$ functions as an untwisting operator. Defining ${|\Psi''\rangle}_{A_1BSE}=\bar{U}_{BS}^\dagger{|\Psi'\rangle}_{A_1BSE}$, the squared fidelity of $\Psi''_{A_1B_1}$ with $\Phi_{A_1B_1}^{\otimes n\chi}$ equals ${\rm P}_s$. Then ${\rm P}_s\geq 1{-}\epsilon^2$ implies $|| \Psi''_{A_1B_1} - \Phi_{A_1B_1}^{\otimes n\chi}||_1\leq 2\epsilon$ [@FvG99] and therefore ${|\Psi'\rangle}_{A_1BSE}$ is $\epsilon$-private. Altogether we have sketched a proof of
\[thm:psd\] There exists a distillation procedure to distill $n\chi(\mathcal{E})$ private states from $\psi_{ABS}^{\otimes n}$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Note that this is the same rate found by Koashi. Now the associated method of classical privacy amplification is simple. The key is the result of measuring $Z^{\mathbf{v}_j}$ which commutes with the private state distillation procedure. This key can just as well be reconstructed from individual $Z$ measurements directly and inherits privacy from the virtual procedure.
Theorems \[thm:dwrate\] and \[thm:psd\] give the secret key rates $1{-}I(K{:}E)$ and $\chi(\mathcal{E})$, corresponding to distillation procedures following from the two descriptions of private states, respectively. Since these descriptions are equivalent, we expect the associated distillation methods to have the same rate. This intuition can be confirmed either by direct calculation or by appealing to upper bounds applicable to either scenario. By the results of [@RK05], $\chi(\mathcal{E})\leq 1{-}I(K{:}E)$. Conversely, $1{-}I(K{:}E)\leq\chi(\mathcal{E})$ or else by performing the classical privacy amplification coherently, as detailed in [@DW05], Bob would effectively be able to distinguish more of the states $\rho^\mathbf{x}_{BS}$ than possible.
*Conclusions.*—We have found that the three principle means of treating privacy amplification are essentially identical and interchangeable. The dual descriptions of private states on which the respective distillation methods rest are shown to be elegantly related by the uncertainty principle. This provides an immediate and intuitive understanding of how the quantum information about the key is balanced between the eavesdropper and shield and how the secret information can be extracted.
Care must be taken to incorporate these results into QKD security proofs. Here Alice and Bob begin with a known state ${|\psi\rangle}_{ABSE}$, whereas one of the main tasks of a key distribution protocol is to reliably estimate the state shared by the various parties. The presence of a shield system makes this task more difficult, but recent work demonstrates how to estimate the parameters relevant to private state distillation [@HHHLO06].
Reduction of coherent attacks to the case of collective attacks studied here is similarly intricate. This reduction has been accomplished by creating a permutation invariant state $\vartheta^{(n)}_{ABE}$ by randomly scrambling the order of the quantum signals and then demonstrating that the chosen key distillation method produces just as many secret bits as from the product input $\psi^{\otimes n}_{ABE}$. It remains to be shown that when including the shield system this sort of reduction method still applies. In particular, Bob must still be able to distinguish the $\rho^\mathbf{x}_{BS}$ even though the $\mathbf{x}$ are no longer independently and identically distributed. We will report on this in a future publication.
Finally, our result on achieving the Holevo bound using 2-universal hashing may be of independent interest.
[*Acknowledgements.*]{}—We thank Gernot Alber, Hoi-Kwong Lo, Norbert Lütkenhaus, and Graeme Smith for helpful discussions. JMR recieved support from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation and the European IST project SECOQC, and JCB from NSERC and the Marie Curie foundation.
[*Appendix*]{}—Given a source described by the ensemble $\mathcal{E}=\{p_x,\rho_x\}_{x=1}^d$ which distributes letters $x$ to Alice and states $\rho_x$ to Bob, we seek a protocol which enables Bob to learn $x$ and consumes few resources as possible. The idea is for Alice to send Bob some (minimal) amount of information about $x$ so that he can then perform a measurement to distinguish between the quantum states consistent with this information.
2-universal hashing can be used for this purpose. A family of functions $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ is 2-universal if Pr$[f(x)=f(x')]\leq 1/|\mathcal{Y}|$ for all $x\neq x'\in\mathcal{X}$. Note that random linear hashing, as used in the main text, is 2-universal. Suppose Alice applies a random $f$ from the hash family to a block (length-$n$ string) $\mathbf{x}$ of letters, using $\mathcal{X}=\{0,1,\dots,d{-}1\}^n$. Then Bob will be left to distinguish between the elements of $\{\rho_{\mathbf{y}}=\rho_{y_1}\otimes\dots\otimes\rho_{y_n}\,|\, f(\mathbf{y})=f(\mathbf{x})\}$, for which he uses the measurement $\{E_\mathbf{y}^f\}$ as defined in Eq. \[eq:pgm\], with the slight change that $E_\mathbf{y}=0$ when $\mathbf{y}$ is nontypical. This rejects nontypical signals, which are in any case exceedingly rare. Adapting the presentation in Appendix B of [@D05] shows this protocol will have low error probability. We now specialize to $d=2$, but the argument is essentially the same for the general case.
Given a function $f$, the average probability of error is given by ${\rm P}_{{\rm E}|f}=\sum_\mathbf{x}p_\mathbf{x}{\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathbf{x}
(\mathbbm{1}-E_\mathbf{x}^f)].$ Lemma 2 of [@HN03] states that $\mathbbm{1}-(S+T)^{-1/2}S(S+T)^{-1/2}\leq 2(\mathbbm{1}-S)+4T$ for $0\leq S\leq\mathbbm{1}$ and $T\geq 0$, which we can apply to $E_\mathbf{x}^f$ using $\Lambda_\mathbf{x}=\Pi\,\Pi_\mathbf{x}\,\Pi$ as $S$ and $\sum_{\mathbf{x}'\neq \mathbf{x}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}$ as $T$ to obtain $${\rm P}_{{\rm E}|f}\leq 2-2\sum_\mathbf{x} p_\mathbf{x} \Big({\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathbf{x}\Lambda_\mathbf{x}]-2\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\mathop{\sum_{\mathbf{x}'\neq \mathbf{x}}}_{f(\mathbf{x})=f(\mathbf{x}')}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathbf{x}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]\Big),$$ where $p_\mathbf{x}=p_{x_1}\!\!\cdots p_{x_n}$ When $\mathbf{x}$ is typical, Tr$[\rho_\mathbf{x}\Lambda_\mathbf{x}]\geq 1-3\epsilon$ and by construction $\Lambda_\mathbf{x}=0$ when $\mathbf{x}$ is not typical. Moreover, the total probability of typical strings exceeds $1-\epsilon$, so we obtain $${\rm P}_{{\rm E}|f}\leq 8\epsilon+4\sum_{\mathbf{x}}p_\mathbf{x}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\mathop{\sum_{\mathbf{x}'\neq \mathbf{x}}}_{f(\mathbf{x})=f(\mathbf{x}')}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathbf{x}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}].$$ Now average over the possible $f$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm P}_{{\rm E}}&\leq& 8\epsilon+4\sum_{\mathbf{x}}p_\mathbf{x}
\sum_{\mathbf{x}'\neq \mathbf{x}}{\rm Pr}[f(\mathbf{x}'){=}f(\mathbf{x})]\,
{\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathbf{x}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]\notag\\
&\leq&8\epsilon+\frac{4}{|\mathcal{Y}|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}}p_\mathbf{x}
\sum_{\mathbf{x}'\neq \mathbf{x}}{\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathbf{x}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]\notag\\
&\leq&8\epsilon+\frac{4}{|\mathcal{Y}|}\sum_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}'}p_\mathbf{x}
{\rm Tr}[\rho_\mathbf{x}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]\notag\\
&=&8\epsilon+\frac{4}{|\mathcal{Y}|}\sum_{\mathbf{x}'}
{\rm Tr}[\rho^{\otimes n}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate the trace, note that ${\rm Tr}[\rho^{\otimes n}\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]={\rm Tr}[\Pi\rho^{\otimes n}\Pi\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]$. Since $\Pi\rho^{\otimes n}\Pi\leq 2^{-n[S(\rho)-\delta]}\Pi$ (Eq. 19 of [@D05]) we have $${\rm P}_{\rm E}\leq 8\epsilon+4\frac{2^{-n[S(\rho)-\delta]}}{|\mathcal{Y}|}
\sum_{\mathbf{x}'}{\rm Tr}[\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}].$$ But again $\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}=0$ for nontypical $\mathbf{x}'$ while Tr$[\Lambda_{\mathbf{x}'}]\leq
2^{n[\sum_j p_j S(\rho_j)+\delta]}$ otherwise (Eq. 18), leading to $${\rm P}_{\rm E}\leq 8\epsilon+4\frac{2^{-n[\chi(\mathcal{E})-2\delta]}}{|\mathcal{Y}|}
\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in{\rm Typ}}1.$$ Finally, the size of the typical set is less than $2^{n[H(p_i)+\delta]}$, so putting it all together we have $${\rm P}_{\rm E}\leq 8\epsilon+4\,2^{n[H(p_i)-\chi(\mathcal{E})+3\delta]}
|\mathcal{Y}|^{-1}.$$ By choosing $\log_2|\mathcal{Y}|=n[H(p_i)-\chi(\mathcal{E})+4\delta]$, the probability of error can be made arbitrarily small.
Since Bob ultimately learns $x$, an information gain of $H(p_i)$ bits, but Alice only provides $H(p_i){-}\chi(\mathcal{E})$, the quantum states themselves provide on average $\chi(\mathcal{E})$ bits, in accordance with the Holevo bound.
[99]{} C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and J.-M. Robert, SIAM J. Comput. [**17**]{}, 210 (1988).
C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, and U. M. Maurer, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory [**41**]{}, 1915 (1995).
R. König, U. Maurer, and R. Renner, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory [**51**]{}, 2391 (2005).
R. Renner and R. König, in *Proceedings of the Second Theory of Cryptography Conference (TCC) 2005*, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3378 (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 407-425.
M. Christandl, R. Renner, and A. Ekert, quant-ph/0402131.
I. Devetak and A. Winter, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**461**]{}, 207 (2005). I. Devetak and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 080501 (2004).
R. Renner, N. Gisin, and B. Kraus, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 012332 (2005). B. Kraus, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 080501 (2005).
K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 160502 (2005).
D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2818(1996).
H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, Science [**283**]{}, 2050 (1999).
P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 441 (2000).
J. M. Renes and G. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 020502 (2006).
D. Mayers, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. [**1109**]{} 343 (1996).
M. Koashi and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 057902 (2003).
M. Koashi, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**36**]{}, 98 (2006).
K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, quant-ph/0506189.
H. Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 1103 (1988).
M. Ben-Or, M. Horodecki, D. W. Leung, D. Mayers, J. Oppenheim, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. [**3378**]{}, 386 (2005).
D. Gottesman and H.-K. Lo, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory [**49**]{}, 457 (2003).
R. Renner, Ph.D. thesis, ETH, 2005; quant-ph/0512258.
A. S. Kholevo, Probl. Peredachi Inf. [**9**]{} 177, (1973).
A. S. Holevo, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory [**44**]{}, 269 (1998). B. Schumacher and M. Westmoreland, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 131 (1997).
P. Hausladen and W. K. Wootters, J. Mod. Opt. [**41**]{}, 2385 (1994).
C. A. Fuchs and J. van de Graaf, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory [**45**]{}, 1216 (1999).
K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, D. Leung, and J. Oppenheim, quant-ph/0608195.
I. Devetak, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory [**51**]{}, 44 (2005).
M. Hayashi and H. Nagaoka, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory [**49**]{}, 1753 (2003).
[^1]: In usual QKD protocols, the state obtained after bit error correction is close in trace distance to $\psi_{ABE}^{\otimes n}$. Thus bit error correction and privacy amplification can be treated separately and the security of the whole QKD protocol ensured by the triangle inequality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Coleman–Glashow sum-rule for magnetic moments is always fulfilled in the chiral quark model, independently of SU(3) symmetry breaking. This is due to the structure of the wave functions, coming from the non-relativistic quark model. Experimentally, the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is violated by about ten standard deviations. To overcome this problem, two models of wave functions with configuration mixing are studied. One of these models violates the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule to the right degree and also reproduces the octet baryon magnetic moments rather accurately.'
address: 'Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden'
author:
- 'Johan Linde,[^1] Tommy Ohlsson,[^2] and H[å]{}kan Snellman[^3]'
date: Received 11 April 1997
title: Octet baryon magnetic moments in the chiral quark model with configuration mixing
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The quark structure of baryons at low energies are probed by parameters such as magnetic moments, axial-vector form factors and decay rates of various kinds. Any refinement of the non-relativistic quark model (NQM) should improve on the experimental agreement of these parameters, if the refinement is significant. Much work has been done to effectuate such refinements and improve the agreement with the magnetic moments, the spin polarization of the nucleon, etc. Among these refinements, the chiral quark model ([$\chi$]{}QM) suggested by Manohar and Georgi [@mano84] has attracted some attention recently [@eich92; @chen95; @lilf95; @chen952; @chen97; @song97; @webe97]. Other models are one with quark-gluon configuration mixing by Lipkin[@lipk90], and one with quark-diquark configuration mixing by Noda [*et al.*]{} [@noda94].
One crucial test for quark model refinements is the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule [@cole61] $$\mu(p)-\mu(n) +\mu(\Sigma^-) -\mu(\Sigma^+)
+\mu(\Xi^0)-\mu(\Xi^-) =0$$ for the magnetic moments of the octet baryons, that can be derived under very general assumptions on the magnetic moment operator. Experimentally, this sum-rule is violated by ten standard deviations, the left hand side being equal to $(0.49
\pm 0.05)\,\mu_N$.
Franklin [@fran69; @fran84] and Karl [@karl92] have shown that the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is valid beyond the NQM. Franklin noted the validity of this sum-rule under the assumption of “baryon independence” of a given quark moment contribution. Karl considered the case of general quark spin polarizations and showed that the sum-rule is valid assuming SU(3) symmetry for the wave functions of the baryon octet states.
As we will show below, the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule turns out to hold also in the $\chi$QM with arbitrary SU(3) symmetry breaking, as long as the wave functions for baryons with $xxy$ quarks ($x,y = u,d,s$, $x \neq y$) have the same (mirror) symmetry. This indicates a certain over-simplification in the description of the baryons in this model and in several other models.
One possible way to remedy this is to allow the quark magnetic moments to vary between the isomultiplets. The alleged symmetry is then not relevant. This approach has the disadvantage of complicating the quark model, by making the quarks vary with environment. In fact, we know that the mass spectrum can be well accounted for using the same quark masses in all isomultiplets. It is therefore desirable to instead modify the wave functions, keeping the quark properties the same throughout.
A natural modification of the mirror symmetry occurs when the quarks are allowed to have an orbital angular momentum in the wave function. The reason is that the mass of the $s$ quark breaks the symmetry. An example of such a model has been suggested by Casu and Sehgal [@casu96]. Using their formulas, the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is indeed violated and the left hand side is approximately given by $0.06
\, \langle L_z \rangle \, \mu_N$, where $\langle L_z \rangle$ is the angular momentum. To reach the experimental value of $0.49 \, \mu_N$, this requires $\langle L_z \rangle$ to be about $8$, a value which is unfortunately quite unrealistic.
Another model, which also breaks the Coleman–Glashow magnetic moment sum-rule, is given by SU(3) breaking terms in a purely phenomenological SU(3) parametrization [@bosc95; @bosc96]. This model satisfies the experimental value for the left hand side. On the other hand, this model does not have any polarization of the vacuum, and therefore the violation of the Gottfried sum-rule, giving $\bar{u}
- \bar{d} \simeq - 0.15$, cannot be explained.
Buck and Perez [@buck95] have discussed a model in which they add a configuration term to the usual SU(6) spin function. This term involves a total angular momentum of the quarks with $L=1$. Their model violates the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule and gives $0.40\,\mu_{N}$ for the left hand side, but neither this model includes any vacuum polarization.
In this paper we will therefore concentrate our further discussion to the $\chi$QM and study two models of configuration mixing in the wave functions of the octet baryons.
In the first model, this is done in the form of a gluon coupled to the three quarks in a way suggested by Lipkin [@lipk90]. The full wave function, being a superposition of the one with zero gluons and the one with one gluon, there is a natural room for varying the relative importance of these two components for the different isomultiplets. This creates a breaking of the mirror symmetry that generates the breaking of the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule.
In the other model, we use instead of a quark-gluon a quark-diquark configuration mixing, that is allowed to vary between the isomultiplets.
Both these models have been used originally without the Goldstone bosons that play an essential role in the $\chi$QM. Their performance is then not satisfactory in other respects, like the $\bar u$-$\bar d$ asymmetry. In our paper, we use the mechanisms of these two models to generate the configuration mixing needed to break the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule. This configuration mixing can be viewed as a correction to the SU(6) quark model baryonic wave functions. At the end of this article, we will give an example, in the form of a toy model, how such a configuration mixing could come about.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:CGSMM\] we first review the $\chi$QM, and then we show that the $\chi$QM with arbitrary SU(3) symmetry breaking generates octet baryon magnetic moments that satisfy the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule. In Sec. \[sec:CQMCM\] we then introduce two different models for configuration mixing in the octet baryon wave functions, one with quark-gluon mixing and one with quark-diquark mixing, and we show that the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule can be violated in these models provided that the mixings are allowed to vary between the isomultiplets. At the end of this section, we discuss a toy model for configuration mixing. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:SC\], we present a summary of our analyses and also the main conclusions.
The Coleman–Glashow Sum-rule for Magnetic Moments {#sec:CGSMM}
=================================================
The chiral quark model
----------------------
The Goldstone bosons (GBs) of the $\chi$QM are pseudoscalars and will be denoted by the $0^{-}$ meson names $\pi,K,\eta,\eta'$, as is usually done. For convenience, we will closely follow the notation of Ref. [@chen95]. The Lagrangian of interaction, ignoring the space-time structure, is to lowest order $$\label{eq:lag}
{\cal L_{\it I}} = g_8 \, \bar{{\bf q}} \, \Phi \, {\bf q},$$ where $g_8$ is a coupling constant, $${\bf q} = \left(\begin{array}{c} u \\ d \\ s
\end{array}\right),$$ and $$\Phi = \left ( \begin{array}{ccc} c_{\pi^0}
\frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt{2}} + c_{\eta} \frac{\eta}{\sqrt{6}} +
c_{\eta'} \frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{3}} & c_{\pi^+} \pi^+ & c_{K^+}
K^+\\ c_{\pi^-} \pi^- & - c_{\pi^0} \frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt{2}} +
c_{\eta} \frac{\eta}{\sqrt{6}} + c_{\eta'}
\frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{3}} & c_{K^0} K^0\\ c_{K^-} K^- &
c_{\bar{K}^0} \bar{K}^0 & - c_{\eta} \frac{2 \eta}{\sqrt{6}} +
c_{\eta'} \frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{3}}\\ \end{array} \right ),$$ where all $c_i$ are parameters.
The effect of this coupling is that the emission of the GBs will create quark-antiquark pairs from the vacuum with quantum numbers of the pseudoscalar mesons. Goldstone boson (GB) emission will therefore in general flip the spin of the quarks. The interaction of the GBs is weak enough to be treated by perturbation theory. This means that on long enough time scales for the low energy parameters to develop we have
$$\begin{aligned}
u^{\uparrow} & \rightleftharpoons & (d^{\downarrow}+ \pi^+) +
(s^{\downarrow} +K^+) + (u^{\downarrow} + \pi^0, \eta, \eta'),
\\ d^{\uparrow}& \rightleftharpoons & (u^{\downarrow}+ \pi^-)
+ (s^{\downarrow} +K^0 ) + (d^{\downarrow} + \pi^0 ,\eta
,\eta'), \\ s^{\uparrow} & \rightleftharpoons &
(u^{\downarrow}+ K^-) + (d^{\downarrow} +\bar{K}^0) +
(s^{\downarrow} + \eta ,\eta').\end{aligned}$$
The matrix $\Phi$ in the Lagrangian (\[eq:lag\]) is the most general parametrization of the pseudoscalar GB matrix in the $\chi$QM. In a realistic model, one should of course not use all these parameters. The reason for introducing this large set of parameters is to make the following discussion general. The parameter $c_{\eta'}$ describes U(3) symmetry breaking and the other parameters describe SU(3) symmetry breaking.
Cheng and Li have used the SU(3) symmetric model with a broken U(3) symmetry [@chen95] and showed that it can successfully be used to calculate the quark spin polarizations in the nucleon. In a later paper[@chen97], they have extended this model by introducing SU(3) symmetry breaking in the Lagrangian via two parameters $c_{K}=\alpha$ and $c_{\eta}=\beta$. Song [*et al.*]{} [@song97] and Weber [*et al.*]{} [@webe97] have also studied models with SU(3) symmetry breaking, similar to the one discussed by Cheng and Li. All these extended models have lead to significantly better results for several physical quantities.
The Coleman–Glashow sum-rule
----------------------------
There is, however, one important set of data which the $\chi$QM cannot successfully predict regardless how many symmetry breaking parameters one introduces in the Lagrangian (\[eq:lag\]): the octet baryon magnetic moments. This is the case at least as long as one uses SU(6) symmetric wave functions for the octet baryons. This is most easily illustrated by the function $$\Sigma_{\mu}\equiv\mu(p) - \mu(n) + \mu(\Sigma^-) -
\mu(\Sigma^+) + \mu(\Xi^0) - \mu(\Xi^-).
\label{summaregel}$$ Experimentally, $\Sigma_{\mu}=(0.49\pm0.05) \, \mu_N$, but, as we will show, in the $\chi$QM $\Sigma_{\mu}=0$ (the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule).
Writing out the explicit valence quark content of the baryons in Eq. (\[summaregel\]) we have $$\Sigma_{\mu}=\mu{\bf (}B(uud){\bf )}-\mu{\bf (}B(ddu){\bf )}+
\mu{\bf (}B(dds){\bf )}-\mu{\bf (}B(uus){\bf )}+\mu{\bf
(}B(ssu){\bf )}-\mu{\bf (}B(ssd){\bf )}.$$ To obtain $\Sigma_{\mu}=0$ we need a mirror symmetry, such that the contribution to the magnetic moment generated by GB emission from the two $u$ quarks in $B(uud)$ cancels the corresponding contribution generated by GB emission from the two $u$ quarks in $B(uus)$, the contribution generated by the $d$ quark in $B(uud)$ cancels the one generated by the $d$ quark in $B(ssd)$, etc., provided that the quark magnetic moments are constant. This is trivially true in the NQM. As mentioned in the Introduction, there is a large class of models beyond the NQM, where the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is fulfilled [@fran69; @fran84; @karl92]. We will now make a schematic calculation to show that the above condition is fulfilled in the $\chi$QM with arbitrary SU(3) symmetry breaking.
First, we introduce a function $\hat{B}$ to describe the spin structure of a baryon $B$ $$\hat{B}=n_{x^{\uparrow}}\hat{x}^{\uparrow}+n_{x^{\downarrow}}
\hat{x}^{\downarrow}+
n_{y^{\uparrow}}\hat{y}^{\uparrow}+n_{y^{\downarrow}}
\hat{y}^{\downarrow}+
n_{z^{\uparrow}}\hat{z}^{\uparrow}+n_{z^{\downarrow}}
\hat{z}^{\downarrow}.
\label{b-hatt}$$ The coefficient $n_{q^{\uparrow\downarrow}}$ of each symbol $\hat{q}^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ should be interpreted as the number of $q^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ quarks. See Appendix \[app:survey\] for a complete discussion of the function $\hat{B}$. Then, $\Delta
q^{B}=n_{q^{\uparrow}}(B)-n_{q^{\downarrow}}(B)$ is the $q$ quark spin polarization in the baryon $B$. Normally, there is also a contribution from the antiquarks to the spin polarization, but in the $\chi$QM this is zero. The baryon magnetic moments can be parametrized as $$\mu(B)=\Delta u^{B}\mu_{u}+\Delta d^{B}\mu_{d}+\Delta
s^{B}\mu_{s}, \label{eq:bar_mom}$$ where $\mu_{q}$ is the quark magnetic moment of the $q$ quark. Here the quark spin polarization, $\Delta q^{B}$, may vary from baryon to baryon, but the quark magnetic moment, $\mu_q$, is the same for all baryons.
The starting point in the $\chi$QM is the spin structure in the NQM. The NQM spin structure of an octet baryon $B(xxy)$ is $$\hat{B}(xxy)
=\frac{5}{3}\hat{x}^{\uparrow}+\frac{1}{3}\hat{x}^{\downarrow}
+\frac{1}{3}\hat{y}^{\uparrow}+\frac{2}{3}\hat{y}^{\downarrow},
\label{baryonmoment}$$ so the spin polarizations are $\Delta x^B = \frac{4}{3}$, $\Delta y^B
= - \frac{1}{3}$, and $\Delta z^B = 0$, where $z$ is the non-valence quark. Using this it is easy to see that the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is fulfilled in the NQM. With help of Eq. (\[baryonmoment\]) we can express the spin structure after one iteration in the $\chi$QM by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}(xxy)=&& P_x
\left(\frac{5}{3}\hat{x}^{\uparrow}+\frac{1}{3}
\hat{x}^{\downarrow}\right) + P_y
\left(\frac{1}{3}\hat{y}^{\uparrow} +
\frac{2}{3}\hat{y}^{\downarrow}\right) \nonumber \\ && {} +
\frac{5}{3} \vert \psi(x^{\uparrow}) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{3}
\vert \psi(x^{\downarrow}) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{3} \vert
\psi(y^{\uparrow}) \vert^2 +\frac{2}{3} \vert
\psi(y^{\downarrow}) \vert^2, \label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{q}$ is the probability of no GB emission from the $q$ quark and $\vert \psi(q^{\uparrow \downarrow}) \vert^2$ are the probabilities of GB emission from the $q^{\uparrow \downarrow}$ quarks. The functions $P_q$ and $\vert \psi(q^{\uparrow \downarrow})
\vert^2$ are discussed in detail in Appendix \[app:survey\].
For example, the probability function $\vert \psi(x^\uparrow) \vert^2$ is of the form $$\vert \psi(x^{\uparrow}) \vert^2 = b_{x^{\downarrow}}
\hat{x}^{\downarrow} + b_{y^{\downarrow}} \hat{y}^{\downarrow}
+ b_{z^{\downarrow}} \hat{z}^{\downarrow},\label{eq:9}$$ where $b_{x^{\downarrow}}$, $b_{y^{\downarrow}}$, and $b_{z^{\downarrow }}$ are some constants depending on the choice of the parameters $c_{i}$ in the Lagrangian. We have here omitted the quark-antiquark pair created by the GB as it will not contribute to the spin polarizations.
It is now easy to see that the sum-rule is fulfilled. For example, the two valence $u$ quarks in $B(uud)$ give a contribution to the spin structure after GB emission, which is $$P_u \left(\frac{5}{3}\hat{u}^{\uparrow}+\frac{1}{3}
\hat{u}^{\downarrow}\right) + \frac{5}{3} \vert
\psi(u^{\uparrow}) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{3} \vert
\psi(u^{\downarrow}) \vert^2. \label{eq:10}$$ This is canceled by an identical contribution from the $u$ quarks in $B(uus)$. Similarly, the contribution from the $d$ quark in $B(uud)$ $$P_d \left(\frac{1}{3}\hat{d}^\uparrow + \frac{2}{3}
\hat{d}^\downarrow\right) + \frac{1}{3}
\vert\psi(d^\uparrow)\vert^2 + \frac{2}{3}
\vert\psi(d^\downarrow)\vert^2$$ will cancel the contribution from the $d$ quark in $B(ssd)$, etc. This shows that the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule $\Sigma_\mu = 0$ is satisfied in the $\chi$QM with arbitrary symmetry breaking in the Lagrangian (\[eq:lag\]). One can also easily show that the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is fulfilled for arbitrary number of iterations of GB emission in the $\chi$QM.
Note that expression (\[eq:10\]) contains a part of the spin polarization of all three quarks, $u$, $d$, and $s$, as can be seen from Eq. (\[eq:9\]). Similarly, the original $d$ quark in the proton contributes by GB emission to the spin polarization of all three quarks. The contribution to the spin polarization of the $u$ quark generated by the original $d$ quark in the proton is in general different from the one generated by the $s$ quark in $\Sigma^+$, due to the symmetry breaking in the Lagrangian. This means that in general $\Delta u^p \neq \Delta
u^{\Sigma^+}$. Therefore the sum-rule is fulfilled only because of the mirror symmetry in the NQM wave functions used as input in Eq. (\[eq:8\]). The sum-rule is not a result of baryon independent quark spin polarizations, but a result of the fact that the total contribution from all six baryons to a given flavor cancels. Thus, we have the relation $$\Delta q^p - \Delta q^n + \Delta q^{\Sigma^-} - \Delta q^{\Sigma^+} +
\Delta q^{\Xi^0} - \Delta q^{\Xi^-} = 0,\quad q=u,d,s,$$ rather than simple relations as [*e.g.*]{} $\Delta u^p = \Delta
u^{\Sigma^+}$. This can also be seen from the explicit expressions in Appendix \[app:spin\_pol\] (when $\theta_N = \theta_\Sigma = \theta_\Xi
= 0$).
The Chiral Quark Model with Configuration Mixing {#sec:CQMCM}
================================================
As we have shown above, the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is satisfied in the $\chi$QM. There are in principle two ways of overcoming this problem as discussed before, one is to let the quark magnetic moments vary between the isomultiplets of the octet baryons, and the other one is to introduce symmetry breaking in the wave functions. For reasons discussed in Sec. \[sec:intro\], we will here adopt the second alternative. One way of doing this is to add configuration mixing terms in the wave functions.
In our models, the wave functions will have the general structure $$\vert B^\uparrow \rangle \equiv \vert B; {\textstyle S = \frac{1}{2},
S_z = +\frac{1}{2} } \rangle = \cos \theta_B \vert B_{1}^{\uparrow}
\rangle + \sin \theta_B \vert {B'_1}^\uparrow \rangle,
\label{blandad_vag_funk}$$ where $\vert B_{1}^{\uparrow} \rangle$ is the usual SU(6) wave function and $\vert {B'_1}^\uparrow \rangle$ is the configuration mixing term. The angle $\theta_B$ is a measure of the amount of mixing. We will let the angles of configuration mixing be the same within each baryon isomultiplet, but let them vary between different isomultiplets. We also assume, for simplicity, that the mixing angle for $\Lambda$ is equal to the one for $\Sigma$. Thus we have three mixing angles $\theta_{N}$, $\theta_{\Sigma}$, and $\theta_{\Xi}$.
Wave functions with quark-gluon mixing
--------------------------------------
First, we will discuss a simple model with a wave function with an additional term where a color-octet baryon state is coupled to a spin one color-octet gluon state. We call this model the chiral quark model with quark-gluon mixing ($\chi$QM$g$).
The wave function for the octet baryons in this model is a mixture of two different wave functions [@lipk90] $$\vert B^\uparrow \rangle = \cos \theta_B \vert B_1^\uparrow \rangle +
\sin \theta_B \vert (B_8 G)^\uparrow \rangle.$$ Thus, in this case we have set $|{B'_{1}}^{\uparrow}\rangle =
|(B_{8}G)^{\uparrow}\rangle$ in Eq. (\[blandad\_vag\_funk\]).
The octet baryon color-singlet wave function for the $xxy$ baryons is given by $$\vert B_1^\uparrow (xxy) \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \left( 2 \vert
x^\uparrow x^\uparrow y^\downarrow \rangle - \vert x^\uparrow
x^\downarrow y^\uparrow \rangle - \vert x^\downarrow x^\uparrow
y^\uparrow \rangle \right)
\label{eq:b1xxy}$$ and for the $\Lambda$ baryon by $$\vert \Lambda_1^\uparrow (uds) \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(
\vert u^\uparrow d^\downarrow s^\uparrow \rangle - \vert u^\downarrow
d^\uparrow s^\uparrow \rangle \right).
\label{eq:l1uds}$$ We have suppressed color and permutations in flavor in the above wave functions. We will do so also in the following, as this will not affect the spin structures.
The gluonic octet baryon color-singlet wave function is a coupling of an octet baryon color-octet wave function, $\vert B_8 \rangle$, and a spin-one color-octet gluon wave function, $\vert G \rangle$, to make a color-singlet state with total angular momentum $J = \frac{1}{2}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\vert (B_8 G)^\uparrow \rangle &=& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \vert B_8;
{\textstyle S = \frac{1}{2}, S_z = +\frac{1}{2} } \rangle \otimes
\vert G; {\textstyle S = 1, S_z = 0 } \rangle \nonumber \\ &+&
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \vert B_8; {\textstyle S = \frac{1}{2}, S_z =
-\frac{1}{2} } \rangle \otimes \vert G; {\textstyle S = 1, S_z = +1 }
\rangle.
\label{eq:b8g}\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\vert B_8 (xxy) ; {\textstyle S = \frac{1}{2}, S_z = +\frac{1}{2} }
\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left( \vert x^\uparrow x^\uparrow
y^\downarrow \rangle + \vert x^\uparrow x^\downarrow y^\uparrow
\rangle + \vert x^\downarrow x^\uparrow y^\uparrow \rangle \right)
\label{eq:b8xxy}$$ for the $xxy$ baryons and $$\vert \Lambda_8 (uds) ; {\textstyle S = \frac{1}{2}, S_z = +
\frac{1}{2} } \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \vert u^\uparrow
d^\downarrow s^\uparrow \rangle - \vert u^\downarrow d^\uparrow
s^\uparrow \rangle \right)
\label{eq:l8uds}$$ for the $\Lambda$ baryon.
Wave functions with quark-diquark mixing
----------------------------------------
An alternative to the quark-gluon mixing as a source of configuration mixing is given by a model with quark-diquark mixing. We call this model the chiral quark model with quark-diquark mixing ($\chi$QM$d$).
The diquark model is a modification of the usual quark model by considering two quarks glued together to form a diquark. There are SU(3) sextet axial-vector diquarks and SU(3) triplet scalar diquarks. We will only consider scalar diquarks. The symbol $(q_1 q_2)_d$ will denote a scalar diquark consisting of the quarks $q_1$ and $q_2$.
It has been suggested in Ref. [@lich69], that a quark-diquark model can be used to calculate strong and electromagnetic properties of baryons. In such a model, the diquark, although formed as a bound state of two quarks, is regarded as essentially elementary in its interaction with a quark to form a baryon.
In this model, the wave function for the octet baryons is a mixture of the usual SU(6) wave function and a quark-diquark wave function [@noda94] $$\vert B^\uparrow \rangle = \cos \theta_B \vert B_1^\uparrow \rangle +
\sin \theta_B \vert B_d^\uparrow \rangle.$$ Thus, in this case we use $|{B'_{1}}^{\uparrow}\rangle=|B_{d}^{\uparrow}\rangle$ in Eq. (\[blandad\_vag\_funk\]).
The octet baryon color-singlet wave function for the $xxy$ baryons is again given by Eq. (\[eq:b1xxy\]) and for the $\Lambda$ baryon by Eq. (\[eq:l1uds\]). The quark-diquark octet baryon wave function is $$\vert B_d^\uparrow (xxy) \rangle \equiv \vert x^\uparrow \rangle
\otimes \vert (x y)_d \rangle = \vert x^\uparrow (x y)_d \rangle
\label{eq:bd}$$ for the $xxy$ baryons and $$\vert \Lambda_d^\uparrow (uds) \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \left(
\vert u^\uparrow (d s)_d \rangle - \vert d^\uparrow (u s)_d \rangle -
2 \vert s^\uparrow (u d)_d \rangle \right)$$ for the $\Lambda$ baryon [@jako93].
Discussion of parameters
------------------------
In our further calculations, we will use the following parameters in the Lagrangian (\[eq:lag\]): $c_{\pi^0} = c_{\pi^+} = c_{\pi^-} =
1$, $c_{K^+} = c_{K^-} = c_{K^0} = c_{\bar{K}^0} = \alpha$, $c_\eta =
\beta$, and $c_{\eta'} = \zeta$. In some of our calculations we will use an SU(3) symmetric Lagrangian with $\alpha=\beta=1$. See Appendix \[app:survey\] for a detailed discussion of the Lagrangian.
The parameter $a$, describing the probability of GB emission, and the parameter $\zeta$ can be estimated from the $\bar{u}$-$\bar{d}$ asymmetry. The New Muon Collaboration (NMC) experiment has measured the isospin asymmetry difference of the quark sea in the proton to be [@amau91; @arne94] $$\bar{u} - \bar{d} \simeq - 0.15.
\label{eq:ud1}$$ In the $\chi$QM this difference is given by $$\bar{u} - \bar{d} = a \left( \frac{2 \zeta + \beta}{3} - 1 \right).
\label{eq:ud2}$$ The expressions for the antiquark numbers $\bar{u}$ and $\bar{d}$ are given in Appendix \[app:survey\]. Combining Eqs. (\[eq:ud1\]) and (\[eq:ud2\]) we obtain $$a \simeq \frac{0.44}{3 - 2 \zeta - \beta}.
\label{eq:a}$$ Similarly to Eq. (\[eq:ud2\]) we have for the antiquark density ratio $$\bar{u} / \bar{d} = \frac{21 + 2(2\zeta+\beta)+(2\zeta+\beta)^{2}}{33
- 2(2\zeta+\beta)+(2\zeta+\beta)^{2}}
\label{eq:u/d}$$ with the experimental value $\bar{u} / \bar{d} = 0.51 \pm 0.09$ [@bald94].
If we set $\beta = 1$, then Eq. (\[eq:u/d\]) reduces to $${\bar{u} / \bar{d}} \, \vert_{\beta = 1} = \frac{6 + 2 \zeta +
\zeta^2} {8 + \zeta^2}.$$ From this we obtain $- 4.3 < \zeta < - 0.7$. Following Cheng and Li [@chen95], we choose the value $\zeta = - 1.2$. The value of $a$ is now given by Eq. (\[eq:a\]) to be $a \approx 0.10$, which is in good agreement with Ref. [@eich92]. However, when $\beta$ is a free parameter in the calculations, we have to use the relation $2
\zeta + \beta \simeq -1.4$, which comes from Eq. (\[eq:a\]), in order to keep $a \approx 0.10$. We therefore make the assumption that $$\zeta = - 0.7 - \frac{\beta}{2}.$$ This also fixes the value of $\bar{u} / \bar{d}$ to $0.53$.
In what follows, we consider the case where the magnetic moments of the quarks satisfy the relations $$\label{eq:muu}
\mu_u = -2 \mu_d$$ and $$\label{eq:mus}
\mu_s = \frac{2}{3} \mu_d.$$
Numerical results
-----------------
As we have seen, when $\theta_N = \theta_\Sigma = \theta_\Xi = 0$, $\Sigma_\mu = 0$ for every choice of the parameters $c_i$. Also when the mixing angles are the same, but not equal to zero, $\Sigma_\mu =
0$. However, when at least one of the mixing angles $\theta_B$ is different from the others, the value of $\Sigma_\mu$ will be non-zero.
In the models, that we will discuss, all three mixing angles $\theta_N$, $\theta_\Sigma$, and $\theta_\Xi$ will be free parameters. The magnetic moment of the $d$ quark, $\mu_d$, will also be a free parameter and the other quark magnetic moments are then given by the relations (\[eq:muu\]) and (\[eq:mus\]). In order to calculate the magnetic moments of the octet baryons we will also need the quark spin polarizations, which are obtained from the quark spin structures. A detailed derivation of the spin polarizations starting from the Lagrangian (\[eq:lag\]) can be found in Appendices \[app:survey\] and \[app:spin\_pol\]. The baryon magnetic moments are given by Eq. (\[eq:bar\_mom\]).
We fit the experimental data for the octet baryon magnetic moments and the weak axial-vector form factor $g_A$. Since the magnetic moments depend on the products of quark magnetic moments and quark spin polarizations, the use of $g_A$ serves as a normalization of the parameters. The parameter values obtained from the different fits can be found in Table \[tab:fit\_data\].
Let us first say a few words about the NQM with configuration mixing, [*i.e.*]{} no GB emission $(a=0)$.
In the case with quark-gluon mixing, we will get the NQM$g$, an extension of the model for the proton suggested by Lipkin [@lipk90]. The NQM$g$ gives $\Sigma_\mu \approx 0.17 \, \mu_N$. However, the NQM$g$ does not give rise to any $\bar{u}$-$\bar{d}$ asymmetry, because of lack of vacuum polarization.
In the case with quark-diquark mixing, we will get the NQM$d$, an extension of the model for the proton considered by Noda [*et al.*]{} [@noda94]. This model gives a much better value on $\Sigma_\mu$, than the NQM$g$. The value obtained is $\Sigma_\mu \approx 0.36 \,
\mu_N$, which is still not within the experimental errors. As in the NQM$g$, there is no $\bar{u}$-$\bar{d}$ asymmetry in the NQM$d$. The mixings also become unrealistically large, for example $\sin^{2}\theta_{\Sigma} \approx 0.65$.
We now continue with the $\chi$QM. We will discuss two cases, one where we put $\alpha=\beta=1$, and one where we let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ vary independently. Thus in the first case, we have the original SU(3) symmetric Lagrangian and we can study the effect of the mixing angles alone. The second case makes it possible to see how the combination of symmetry breaking and wave function mixing improves the results.
In the first calculation with $\alpha=\beta=1$, we obtain the mixings $\sin^{2}\theta_{N} \approx 0.00$, $\sin^{2}\theta_{\Sigma} \approx
0.05$, and $\sin^{2}\theta_{\Xi} \approx 0.11$ in the quark-gluon model, and $\sin^{2}\theta_N \approx 0.00$, $\sin^{2}\theta_\Sigma
\approx 0.25$, and $\sin^{2}\theta_\Xi \approx 0.33$ in the quark-diquark model. In Table \[tab:octet\] the values of the octet baryon magnetic moments, $g_A$, and $\Sigma_\mu$ are presented together with the experimental values. The over all fit is obviously better than in the case without mixing, as we have more parameters, but the important result is that we are now able to obtain non-zero values of the function $\Sigma_{\mu}$. In the quark-gluon model we obtain $\Sigma_\mu \approx 0.28 \, \mu_N$, which still differs from the experimental value, but in the quark-diquark model we obtain $\Sigma_{\mu}\approx 0.55 \, \mu_N$, which is very close to experiment. Note, in Table \[tab:data\], that the total spin polarization $\Delta\Sigma$ is the same in the $\chi$QM$g$ and $\chi$QM$d$ as in the $\chi$QM, simply because the mixing angle $\theta_N$ is zero in these models.
In the second calculation we also let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be free parameters. In this fit we have to use $\zeta = -0.7 - \beta/2$, in order to keep $a \approx 0.10$. The values of the magnetic moments are over all improved compared to the above case with $\alpha=\beta=1$, especially $\chi^2$ decreases with a factor of about 10 in the $\chi$QM$d$, see Table \[tab:octet\]. The value of $\Sigma_\mu$ in the $\chi$QM$g$ is about the same as in the case with $\alpha=\beta=1$, but in the $\chi$QM$d$ we obtain $\Sigma_\mu \approx
0.52 \, \mu_N$, which lies within the experimental errors. The symmetry breaking in the Lagrangian becomes relatively large, $\alpha
\approx 0.70$ and $\beta \approx 0.73$ in the quark-gluon model and $\alpha \approx 0.69$ and $\beta \approx 0.55$ in the quark-diquark model. The values obtained for $\alpha$, which is a suppression factor for kaon GB emission, are reasonable as it can be argued that $\alpha$ is proportional to $m/m_{s}=2/3$ [@chen97; @song97; @webe97]. On the other hand, the mixing angles are not changed very much compared to the fits with $\alpha=\beta=1$, except for $\theta_{N}$, which gets a non-zero value in the quark-diquark model. The mixings obtained are $\sin^2 \theta_N
\approx 0.00$, $\sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \approx 0.25$, and $\sin^2
\theta_\Xi \approx 0.33$ in the $\chi$QM$g$ and $\sin^2 \theta_N
\approx 0.11$, $\sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \approx 0.34$, and $\sin^2
\theta_\Xi \approx 0.41$ in the $\chi$QM$d$.
By letting $\alpha$ and $\beta$ vary, the major improvement we obtain is very good values for the weak axial-vector form factor, $g_A
\approx 1.26$ in the $\chi$QM$g$ and $g_A \approx 1.24$ in the $\chi$QM$d$. On the other hand, the total spin polarization $\Delta\Sigma$ becomes somewhat large (see Table \[tab:data\]).
How does the choice of parametrization of the Lagrangian influence the results? We have chosen to introduce the SU(3) symmetry breaking parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the same spirit as has been done by other authors[@chen97]. There are of course other options. For example, it is possible that the probability of $d\to K^{0}+s$ is different from that for $s\to \bar{K}^{0}+d$ due to the different phase space. Taking this into account would require a set of new parameters. Although this would give small corrections to the results, it would not change the main conclusions. As has been pointed out, there is no way to break the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule in the $\chi$QM$d$ by introducing more symmetry breaking parameters in the Lagrangian.
To investigate how a different set of parameters would influence the results, we have considered the case where the substitution $\varphi_{sq} \to \epsilon \varphi_{sq}$, $q = u,d$ has been carried out in the last row in the matrix (\[Phihatt\]). The parameter $\epsilon$ accounts for the difference in probability of an $s$ quark emitting a GB and a $u$ or $d$ quark emitting a GB, as discussed above. We have made a fit including $\epsilon$ in the model $\chi$QM$d$, when $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are considered as free parameters. For $\epsilon$ we obtained the value 1.27. This results in minor changes of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The mixing angles are $\sin^2 \theta_N \approx 0.10$, $\sin^2 \theta_\Sigma
\approx 0.32$, and $\sin^2 \theta_\Xi \approx 0.40$, which are almost identical to the fit with $\epsilon = 1$ (see the last column in Table \[tab:fit\_data\]). This shows that the exact choice of parametrization in the Lagrangian does not affect the main conclusions, and verifies that the introduction of further SU(3) breaking parameters in the $\chi$QM Lagrangian cannot reduce the size of configuration mixing needed to break the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule.
A Simple Mechanism for Configuration Mixing {#sub:mechanism}
-------------------------------------------
We will here describe a simple mechanism in the form of a toy model for configuration mixing in the wave functions for the octet baryons.
In this simple toy model, we assume that we have a two level system of mass states for the octet baryons, such that these are mixings of (1) the usual three quark mass states, where the $u$ and $d$ quarks have mass $m$ and the $s$ quark has mass $m_s$, and (2) quark-diquark mass states. The mass of the $(ud)_d$ diquark is $M$ and the mass of $(us)_d$ and $(ds)_d$ diquarks is $M_s$. The diquarks are only singlets. When these states mix we obtain the two physical mass states, the ground state and the first excited state. The first excited state is simply assumed to be the mass state next in order to the ground state with the same quantum numbers as the ground state. Thus, we interpret the excitation to be a quark-diquark excitation rather than a radial excitation.
The wave functions $\Psi_-$ and $\Psi_+$, corresponding to the physical mass states, can be expressed in the wave functions $\Psi_0$ and $\Psi_1$, corresponding to the unphysical mass states, as $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \Psi_- = \Psi_0 \cos \vartheta + \Psi_1 \sin
\vartheta\\ \Psi_+ = - \Psi_0 \sin \vartheta + \Psi_1 \cos \vartheta
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:psi}$$ where $\vartheta$ is the configuration mixing angle. The wave function $\Psi_-$ should be compared to Eq. (\[blandad\_vag\_funk\]).
We then introduce the Hamiltonian $$\hat{H} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} m_{0} & H \\ H & m_{1} \end{array}
\right),$$ where $m_0$ is the lower unphysical mass state and $m_1$ is the higher unphysical mass state. The parameter $H$ corresponds to the transition probability between the unphysical mass states $m_0$ and $m_1$, and it is assumed to be the same for $N$, $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, and $\Xi$.
For the lower unphysical mass states we use a simple mass formula with a hyperfine coupling term [@grif87] $$m_{0}{\bf (}B(q_1 q_2 q_3){\bf )}=m_{q_1}+m_{q_2}+m_{q_3}+
h\left(\frac{{\bf s}_{q_{1}}\cdot{\bf
s}_{q_{2}}}{m_{q_{1}}m_{q_{2}}} +\frac{{\bf
s}_{q_{1}}\cdot{\bf s}_{q_{3}}}{m_{q_{1}}m_{q_{3}}}+
\frac{{\bf s}_{q_{2}}\cdot{\bf
s}_{q_{3}}}{m_{q_{2}}m_{q_{3}}}\right),$$ where ${\bf s}_{q_i}$ is the spin of the quark $q_i$. The parameter $h$ is the QCD hyperfine coupling parameter. Since the diquarks are scalars, there is no hyperfine coupling in the higher unphysical mass states. The mass formulas for the higher unphysical mass states are $m_1(N) = m + M$, $m_1(\Lambda) = (m+M_s)/3 + 2(m_s+M)/3$, $m_1(\Sigma) = m + M_s$, and $m_1(\Xi) = m_s + M_s$.
Solving the eigenvalue problem for the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation $\hat{H}
\Psi = E \Psi$, where $$\Psi = \left( \begin{array}{c} \Psi_0 \\ \Psi_1
\end{array} \right),$$ we get the eigenvalues $$E_{\pm} = \frac{m_0 + m_1}{2} \pm \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{(m_0-m_1)^2 + 4
H^2},$$ which should correspond to the physical mass states.
The quantity $\sin^2 \vartheta$ measures the part of the total mass state which is of quark-diquark origin and is given by $$\sin^2 \vartheta = \frac{2 x^2}{1 + 4 x^2 + \sqrt{1+ 4 x^2}},$$ where $x = H/(m_1 - m_0)$.
Choosing the illustrative values $m = 400 \;{\rm MeV}$, $m_s = 590
\;{\rm MeV}$, $M =920 \;{\rm MeV}$, $M_s = 1000 \;{\rm MeV}$, $h/(4
m^2) = 60 \;{\rm MeV}$, and $H = 190 \;{\rm MeV}$, we obtain an octet baryon mass spectrum, which is in good agreement with the measured spectrum. For the mixings we get $\sin^2 \vartheta_N \approx 0.19$, $\sin^2 \vartheta_\Lambda \approx 0.22$, $\sin^2 \vartheta_\Sigma
\approx 0.36$, and $\sin^2 \vartheta_\Xi \approx 0.36$. The mixing for $\Sigma$ and $\Xi$ is the same, since $m_1(\Sigma) - m_0(\Sigma)$ is equal to $m_1(\Xi) - m_0(\Xi)$ in this simple model.
Since we have assumed that the mixing angles for $\Sigma$ and $\Lambda$ should be equal in the $\chi$QM$d$, the corresponding mixing $\sin^2 \theta_\Sigma$ should be compared to the harmonic mean of $\sin^2 \vartheta_\Sigma$ and $\sin^2 \vartheta_\Lambda$ in the toy model, which is $\sin^2 \vartheta_{\Sigma\Lambda} \equiv 2 \sin^2
\vartheta_\Sigma \sin^2 \vartheta_\Lambda / (\sin^2 \vartheta_\Sigma +
\sin^2 \vartheta_\Lambda) \approx 0.27$.
Comparing the mixings in the toy model ($\sin^2 \vartheta_N \approx
0.19$, $\sin^2 \vartheta_{\Sigma\Lambda} \approx 0.27$, and $\sin^2
\vartheta_\Xi \approx 0.36$) with the ones obtained from the $\chi$QM$d$ with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ free ($\sin^2 \theta_N \approx
0.11$, $\sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \approx 0.34$, and $\sin^2 \theta_\Xi
\approx 0.41$), we see that they are of the same order of magnitude and they also appear in increasing order.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:SC}
=======================
In this paper, we have studied the octet baryon magnetic moments in the $\chi$QM with configuration mixing. In particular, the experimentally well established violation of the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule cannot be reproduced in the $\chi$QM, no matter how many SU(3) symmetry breaking parameters one introduces in the Lagrangian (\[eq:lag\]).
As discussed, there are in principle two ways of overcoming this problem, one is to let the quark magnetic moments vary between the isomultiplets, and the other is to introduce symmetry breaking in the wave functions of the octet baryons. Taking the view, that the quarks should have the same properties independently of in which baryon they are, we are lead to choose the second alternative.
We considered two extensions of the $\chi$QM, one with quark-gluon configuration mixing ($\chi$QM$g$), and one with quark-diquark configuration mixing ($\chi$QM$d$). The $\chi$QM$d$ with symmetry breaking in the Lagrangian ($\alpha \approx 0.69$ and $\beta \approx
0.55$) led to $\Sigma_\mu \approx 0.52 \, \mu_N$, a value which lies within the experimental errors. The experimental value is $\Sigma_\mu
= (0.49 \pm 0.05) \, \mu_N$. The values of the octet baryon magnetic moments and the weak axial-vector form factor $g_A$ are also in very good agreement with experiments. The amount of quark-diquarks lies between $11\%$ and $41\%$ in this model.
The introduction of a different set of symmetry breaking parameters in the Lagrangian does not change the results significantly. The violation of the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule is, in our models, solely due to the configuration mixing parameters.
In conclusion, extensions of the $\chi$QM with configuration mixing of quark-diquarks can explain the experimentally observed violation of the Coleman–Glashow sum-rule for the octet baryon magnetic moments.
This work was supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council (NFR), Contract No. F-AA/FU03281-310. Support for this work was also provided by the Ernst Johnson Foundation (T.O.).
A Survey of the Chiral Quark Model {#app:survey}
==================================
The Lagrangian ${\cal L}_I$ in Eq. (\[eq:lag\]), giving rise to GB emission, will be specialized by putting $c_{\pi^0} = c_{\pi^+} =
c_{\pi^-} = 1$, $c_{K^+} = c_{K^-} = c_{K^0} = c_{\bar{K}^0} =
\alpha$, $c_\eta = \beta$, and $c_{\eta'} = \zeta$. To find the quark polarizations, we replace the GBs with their quark contents. The Lagrangian of the effective interaction is then given by $$\hat{{\cal L}}_I = \sum_{q=u,d,s} \hat{{\cal L}}_q,$$ where $$\hat{{\cal L}}_q = g_8 \bar{q} \sum_{q'=u,d,s}
\hat{\Phi}_{qq'} q'.$$ The transition of $q \rightarrow {\rm GB} + q' \rightarrow (q
\bar{q'})_0 + q'$, where $q' = u,d,s$, is described by the Lagrangian $\hat{{\cal L}}_q$. The matrix $\hat{\Phi}$ is $$\hat{\Phi} = ( \hat{\Phi}_{qq'} ) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\phi_{uu} u \bar{u} + \phi_{ud} d \bar{d} + \phi_{us} s \bar{s} &
\varphi_{ud} u \bar{d} & \varphi_{us} u \bar{s}\\ \varphi_{du} d
\bar{u} & \phi_{du} u \bar{u} + \phi_{dd} d \bar{d} + \phi_{ds} s
\bar{s} & \varphi_{ds} d \bar{s}\\ \varphi_{su} s \bar{u} &
\varphi_{sd} s \bar{d} & \phi_{su} u \bar{u} + \phi_{sd} d \bar{d} +
\phi_{ss} s \bar{s}\\
\end{array}
\right), \label{Phihatt}$$ where $$\phi_{uu} = \phi_{dd} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\beta}{6} +
\frac{\zeta}{3}, \hspace{3mm} \phi_{du} = \phi_{ud} = -
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{\beta}{6} + \frac{\zeta}{3}, \hspace{3mm}
\phi_{us} = \phi_{ds} = \phi_{su} = \phi_{sd} = -
\frac{\beta}{3} + \frac{\zeta}{3},$$ $$\phi_{ss} = \frac{2 \beta}{3} + \frac{\zeta}{3}, \hspace{3mm}
\varphi_{ud} = \varphi_{du} = 1,
\hspace{3mm}\mbox{and}\hspace{3mm} \varphi_{us} = \varphi_{ds}
= \varphi_{su} = \varphi_{sd} = \alpha.$$
The transition probability of $u$, $d$, and $s$ quarks can then be expressed by the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \psi(u) \vert^2 &=& a \Bigg[ \left( 2 \phi_{uu}^2 + \phi_{ud}^2
+ \phi_{us}^2 + \varphi_{ud}^2 + \varphi_{us}^2 \right) \hat{u} +
\phi_{uu}^2 \hat{\bar{u}} \nonumber \\ &+& \left( \phi_{ud}^2 +
\varphi_{ud}^2 \right) \left( \hat{d} + \skew6\hat{\bar{d}} \right) +
\left( \phi_{us}^2 + \varphi_{us}^2 \right) \left( \hat{s} +
\skew2\hat{\bar{s}} \right) \Bigg],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \psi(d) \vert^2 &=& a \Bigg[ \left( \phi_{du}^2 + 2 \phi_{dd}^2
+ \phi_{ds}^2 + \varphi_{du}^2 + \varphi_{ds}^2 \right) \hat{d} +
\phi_{dd}^2 \skew6\hat{\bar{d}} \nonumber \\ &+& \left( \phi_{du}^2 +
\varphi_{du}^2 \right) \left( \hat{u} + \hat{\bar{u}} \right) + \left(
\phi_{ds}^2 + \varphi_{ds}^2 \right) \left( \hat{s} +
\skew2\hat{\bar{s}} \right) \Bigg],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \psi(s) \vert^2 &=& a \Bigg[ \left( \phi_{su}^2 + \phi_{sd}^2 +
2 \phi_{ss}^2 + \varphi_{su}^2 + \varphi_{sd}^2 \right) \hat{s} +
\phi_{ss}^2 \skew2\hat{\bar{s}} \nonumber \\ &+& \left( \phi_{su}^2 +
\varphi_{su}^2 \right) \left( \hat{u} + \hat{\bar{u}} \right) + \left(
\phi_{sd}^2 + \varphi_{sd}^2 \right) \left( \hat{d} +
\skew6\hat{\bar{d}} \right) \Bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $a \propto \vert g_8 \vert^2$ and the coefficients of the $\hat{q}$ and $\skew3\hat{\bar{q}}$ should be interpreted as the number of $q$ and $\bar{q}$ quarks, respectively.
The total probabilities of emission of a GB from $u$, $d$, and $s$ quarks are given by $$\Sigma P_u = a \left( \phi_{uu}^2 + \phi_{ud}^2 + \phi_{us}^2 +
\varphi_{ud}^2 + \varphi_{us}^2 \right) = a \left( \frac{9 + \beta^2 +
2 \zeta^2}{6} + \alpha^2 \right),$$ $$\Sigma P_d = a \left( \phi_{du}^2 + \phi_{dd}^2 + \phi_{ds}^2 +
\varphi_{du}^2 + \varphi_{ds}^2 \right) = a \left( \frac{9 + \beta^2 +
2 \zeta^2}{6} + \alpha^2 \right),$$ and $$\Sigma P_s = a \left( \phi_{su}^2 + \phi_{sd}^2 + \phi_{ss}^2 +
\varphi_{su}^2 + \varphi_{sd}^2 \right) = a \left( \frac{2 \beta^2 +
\zeta^2}{3} + 2 \alpha^2 \right).$$ The total probability of no emission of GB from a $q$ quark is then given by $$P_q = 1 - \Sigma P_q.$$
The antiquark numbers of the proton can be obtained from the expression $2 P_u \hat{u} + P_d \hat{d} + 2 \vert \psi(u) \vert^2 +
\vert \psi(d) \vert^2$. They are $$\bar{u} = \frac{1}{12} \left[ \left( 2 \zeta + \beta + 1 \right)^2 +
20 \right] a,$$ $$\bar{d} = \frac{1}{12} \left[ \left( 2 \zeta + \beta - 1 \right)^2 +
32 \right] a,$$ and $$\bar{s} = \frac{1}{3} \left[ \left( \zeta - \beta \right)^2 + 9
\alpha^2 \right] a.$$
The spin structure of a baryon $B$ is described by the function $\hat{B}$, which is defined by $$\hat{B} \equiv \langle B^\uparrow \vert {\cal N} \vert B^\uparrow
\rangle,
\label{eq:spin_struct_def}$$ where $\vert B^\uparrow \rangle$ is the wave function and ${\cal N}$ is the number operator $${\cal N} = N_{u^\uparrow} \hat{u}^\uparrow + N_{u^\downarrow}
\hat{u}^\downarrow + N_{d^\uparrow} \hat{d}^\uparrow +
N_{d^\downarrow} \hat{d}^\downarrow + N_{s^\uparrow}
\hat{s}^\uparrow + N_{s^\downarrow} \hat{s}^\downarrow.$$
In the model with quark-gluon mixing ($\chi$QM$g$) the wave function for $xxy$ baryons is $$\vert B^\uparrow (xxy) \rangle = \cos \theta_B \vert
B_{1}^{\uparrow} (xxy) \rangle + \sin \theta_B \vert {\bf (}{B_{8}}
(xxy)G{\bf )}^\uparrow \rangle. \label{gluonwave}$$ Simple calculations, using Eqs. (\[eq:b1xxy\]) and (\[eq:b8g\]), give $$\langle B_{1}^{\uparrow} (xxy) \vert {\cal N} \vert B_{1}^{\uparrow}
(xxy) \rangle= \frac{5}{3} \hat{x}^\uparrow + \frac{1}{3}
\hat{x}^\downarrow + \frac{1}{3} \hat{y}^\uparrow + \frac{2}{3}
\hat{y}^\downarrow
\label{eq:b1xxy_2}$$ and $$\langle {\bf (}B_8 (xxy) G{\bf )}^\uparrow \vert {\cal N} \vert
{\bf (}B_8 (xxy) G{\bf )}^\uparrow \rangle = \frac{8}{9}
\hat{x}^\uparrow + \frac{10}{9}
\hat{x}^\downarrow + \frac{4}{9} \hat{y}^\uparrow + \frac{5}{9}
\hat{y}^\downarrow.
\label{eq:b8Gxxy_2}$$ The coefficients of the $\hat{q}^{\uparrow \downarrow}$ in the above formulas should be interpreted as the number of $q^{\uparrow
\downarrow}$ quarks.
Using Eqs. (\[eq:b1xxy\_2\]) and (\[eq:b8Gxxy\_2\]), and then making the substitution $$\hat{q}^\uparrow \rightarrow P_q \hat{q}^\uparrow + \vert \psi
(q^\uparrow) \vert^2,
\label{eq:subst_pil}$$ for every quark, $q = u,d,s$, in the obtained formula, we get the spin structure, after one interaction, as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}(xxy) &=& \cos^2 \theta_B \Bigg[ \frac{5}{3} \left( P_x
\hat{x}^\uparrow + \vert \psi(x^\uparrow) \vert^2 \right) +
\frac{1}{3} \left( P_x \hat{x}^\downarrow + \vert \psi(x^\downarrow)
\vert^2 \right) \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{1}{3} \left( P_y
\hat{y}^\uparrow + \vert \psi(y^\uparrow) \vert^2 \right) +
\frac{2}{3} \left( P_y \hat{y}^\downarrow + \vert \psi(y^\downarrow)
\vert^2 \right) \Bigg] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_B \Bigg[
\frac{8}{9} \left( P_x \hat{x}^\uparrow + \vert \psi(x^\uparrow)
\vert^2 \right) + \frac{10}{9} \left( P_x \hat{x}^\downarrow + \vert
\psi(x^\downarrow) \vert^2 \right) \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{4}{9} \left(
P_y \hat{y}^\uparrow + \vert \psi(y^\uparrow) \vert^2 \right) +
\frac{5}{9} \left( P_y \hat{y}^\downarrow + \vert \psi(y^\downarrow)
\vert^2 \right) \Bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $\vert \psi(q^{\uparrow \downarrow}) \vert^2$ describe the probability of emission of GBs, [*i.e.*]{} the probability of transforming a $q^{\uparrow \downarrow}$ quark.
The probabilities of transforming $u$, $d$, and $s$ quarks with spin up by one interaction can be expressed by the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \psi(u^\uparrow) \vert^2 &=& a \left[ \left( \phi_{uu}^2 +
\phi_{ud}^2 + \phi_{us}^2 \right) \hat{u}^\downarrow + \varphi_{ud}^2
\hat{d}^\downarrow + \varphi_{us}^2 \hat{s}^\downarrow \right]
\nonumber \\ &=& \frac{a}{6} \left(3+\beta^2+2 \zeta^2\right)
\hat{u}^\downarrow + a \hat{d}^\downarrow + a \alpha^2
\hat{s}^\downarrow, \label{eq:begin}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \psi(d^\uparrow) \vert^2 &=& a \left[ \left( \phi_{du}^2 +
\phi_{dd}^2 + \phi_{ds}^2 \right) \hat{d}^\downarrow + \varphi_{du}^2
\hat{u}^\downarrow + \varphi_{ds}^2 \hat{s}^\downarrow \right]
\nonumber \\ &=& a \hat{u}^\downarrow + \frac{a}{6} \left(3+\beta^2+2
\zeta^2\right) \hat{d}^\downarrow + a \alpha^2 \hat{s}^\downarrow,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \psi(s^\uparrow) \vert^2 &=& a \left[ \left( \phi_{su}^2 +
\phi_{sd}^2 + \phi_{ss}^2 \right) \hat{s}^\downarrow + \varphi_{su}^2
\hat{u}^\downarrow + \varphi_{sd}^2 \hat{d}^\downarrow \right]
\nonumber \\ &=& a \alpha^2 \hat{u}^\downarrow + a \alpha^2
\hat{d}^\downarrow + \frac{a}{3} \left(2\beta^2+\zeta^2\right)
\hat{s}^\downarrow.
\label{eq:end}\end{aligned}$$ As before, the coefficient of $\hat{q}^\downarrow$ is the transition probability to $q^\downarrow$. We have here neglected the quark-antiquark pair created by the GB, since it will not contribute to the spin polarizations.
Similarly, in the model with quark-diquark mixing ($\chi$QM$d$), we replace the wave function $|(B_{8}(xxy)G)^{\uparrow}\rangle$ by $|B_{d}^{\uparrow}(xxy)\rangle$ in Eq. (\[gluonwave\]). Using Eq. (\[eq:bd\]), we find $$\langle B_{d}^{\uparrow} (xxy) \vert {\cal N} \vert B_{d}^{\uparrow}
(xxy) \rangle = \hat{x}^\uparrow.$$ After one interaction we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}(xxy) &=& \cos^2 \theta_B \Bigg[ \frac{5}{3} \left( P_x
\hat{x}^\uparrow + \vert \psi(x^\uparrow) \vert^2 \right) +
\frac{1}{3} \left( P_x \hat{x}^\downarrow + \vert \psi(x^\downarrow)
\vert^2 \right) \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{1}{3} \left( P_y
\hat{y}^\uparrow + \vert \psi(y^\uparrow) \vert^2 \right) +
\frac{2}{3} \left( P_y \hat{y}^\downarrow + \vert \psi(y^\downarrow)
\vert^2 \right) \Bigg] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_B \left( P_x
\hat{x}^\uparrow + \vert \psi(x^\uparrow) \vert^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$
The spin structure of the $\Lambda$ baryon after one interaction can be obtained by a similar procedure like the one above for $xxy$ baryons. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Lambda}(uds) &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \Bigg[ P_u
\left(\frac{1}{2} \hat{u}^\uparrow + \frac{1}{2}
\hat{u}^\downarrow\right) + P_d \left(\frac{1}{2} \hat{d}^\uparrow +
\frac{1}{2} \hat{d}^\downarrow\right) + P_s \hat{s}^\uparrow \nonumber
\\ &+& \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(u^\uparrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert
\psi(u^\downarrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(d^\uparrow)
\vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(d^\downarrow) \vert^2 + \vert
\psi(s^\uparrow) \vert^2 \Bigg] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma
\Bigg[ P_u \left(\frac{1}{2} \hat{u}^\uparrow + \frac{1}{2}
\hat{u}^\downarrow\right) + P_d \left(\frac{1}{2} \hat{d}^\uparrow +
\frac{1}{2} \hat{d}^\downarrow\right) + P_s \left(\frac{1}{3}
\hat{s}^\uparrow + \frac{2}{3} \hat{s}^\downarrow\right) \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(u^\uparrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert
\psi(u^\downarrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(d^\uparrow)
\vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(d^\downarrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{3}
\vert \psi(s^\uparrow) \vert^2 + \frac{2}{3} \vert \psi(s^\downarrow)
\vert^2 \Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ in the $\chi$QM$g$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Lambda}(uds) &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \Bigg[ P_u
\left(\frac{1}{2} \hat{u}^\uparrow + \frac{1}{2}
\hat{u}^\downarrow\right) + P_d \left(\frac{1}{2} \hat{d}^\uparrow +
\frac{1}{2} \hat{d}^\downarrow\right) + P_s \hat{s}^\uparrow \nonumber
\\ &+& \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(u^\uparrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert
\psi(u^\downarrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(d^\uparrow)
\vert^2 + \frac{1}{2} \vert \psi(d^\downarrow) \vert^2 + \vert
\psi(s^\uparrow) \vert^2 \Bigg] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma
\Bigg( \frac{1}{6} P_u \hat{u}^\uparrow + \frac{1}{6} P_d
\hat{d}^\uparrow + \frac{2}{3} P_s \hat{s}^\uparrow \nonumber \\ &+&
\frac{1}{6} \vert \psi(u^\uparrow) \vert^2 + \frac{1}{6} \vert
\psi(d^\uparrow) \vert^2 + \frac{2}{3} \vert \psi(s^\uparrow) \vert^2
\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ in the $\chi$QM$d$.
The spin polarization, $\Delta q^B$, where $q = u,d,s$, is defined as $$\Delta q^B \equiv n_{q^\uparrow}(B) - n_{q^\downarrow}(B),$$ where in the spin structure formulas $n_{q^\uparrow}(B)$ and $n_{q^\downarrow}(B)$ are the coefficients of $\hat{q}^\uparrow$ and $\hat{q}^\downarrow$, respectively, for the baryon $B$. The spin polarizations for the octet baryons are given in Appendix \[app:spin\_pol\].
The magnetic moment of a baryon $B$ is determined from the expression $$\mu(B) = \Delta u^B \mu_u + \Delta d^B \mu_d + \Delta s^B \mu_s.$$
The total spin polarizations of the proton (the spin fraction carried by the quarks in the proton) is given by $$\Delta \Sigma = \Delta u^p + \Delta d^p + \Delta s^p.$$
For the weak decay $n \to p + e^- + \bar{\nu}_e$ we can express the weak axial-vector form factor, ${g_A}$, in terms of the spin polarizations as $${g_A} = \Delta u^p - \Delta d^p.$$
Spin Polarizations {#app:spin_pol}
==================
Spin polarizations in the $\chi$QM$g$ {#app:spin_pol_g}
-------------------------------------
The spin polarizations for the proton are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^p &=& \cos^2 \theta_N \left[ \frac{4}{3} - \frac{a}{3} \left(
7 + 4 \alpha^2 + \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{8}{3} \zeta^2 \right)
\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_N \left[ - \frac{2}{9} +
\frac{a}{9} \left( 5 + 2 \alpha^2 + \frac{2}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{4}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta d^p &=& \cos^2 \theta_N
\left[ - \frac{1}{3} - \frac{a}{3} \left( 2 - \alpha^2 - \frac{1}{3}
\beta^2 - \frac{2}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2
\theta_N \left[ - \frac{1}{9} + \frac{a}{9} \left( 4 + \alpha^2 +
\frac{1}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{2}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right] \\ \nonumber
\\ \Delta s^p &=& \cos^2 \theta_N \left( - a \alpha^2 \right) + \sin^2
\theta_N \left( \frac{a}{3} \alpha^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for $\Sigma^+$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\Sigma^+} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ \frac{4}{3} -
\frac{a}{3} \left( 8 + 3 \alpha^2 + \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{8}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ -
\frac{2}{9} + \frac{a}{9} \left( 4 + 3 \alpha^2 + \frac{2}{3} \beta^2
+ \frac{4}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right] \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta
d^{\Sigma^+} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( \frac{a}{3} \left( -4 +
\alpha^2 \right) \right) + \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( \frac{a}{9}
\left( 2 + \alpha^2 \right) \right) \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta
s^{\Sigma^+} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ - \frac{1}{3} -
\frac{a}{3} \left( 2 \alpha^2 - \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 - \frac{2}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ -
\frac{1}{9} + \frac{a}{9} \left( 4 \alpha^2 + \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 +
\frac{2}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for $\Xi^0$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\Xi^0} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Xi \left[ - \frac{1}{3} +
\frac{a}{3} \left( 2 - 3 \alpha^2 + \frac{1}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{2}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Xi \left[ -
\frac{1}{9} + \frac{a}{9} \left( 2 + 3 \alpha^2 + \frac{1}{3} \beta^2
+ \frac{2}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right] \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta d^{\Xi^0}
&=& \cos^2 \theta_\Xi \left( \frac{a}{3} \left( 1 - 4 \alpha^2 \right)
\right) + \sin^2 \theta_\Xi \left( \frac{a}{9} \left( 1 + 2 \alpha^2
\right) \right) \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta s^{\Xi^0} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Xi
\left[ \frac{4}{3} - \frac{a}{3} \left( 7 \alpha^2 + \frac{16}{3}
\beta^2 + \frac{8}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2
\theta_\Xi \left[ - \frac{2}{9} + \frac{a}{9} \left( 5 \alpha^2 +
\frac{8}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{4}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for $\Lambda$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\Lambda} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( - a \alpha^2
\right) \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( \frac{a}{3}
\alpha^2 \right) \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta d^{\Lambda} &=& \cos^2
\theta_\Sigma \left( -a \alpha^2 \right) \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2
\theta_\Sigma \left( \frac{a}{3} \alpha^2 \right) \\ \nonumber \\
\Delta s^{\Lambda} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( 1 - \frac{a}{3}
\left( 6 \alpha^2 + 4 \beta^2 + 2 \zeta^2 \right) \right) \nonumber \\
&+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ - \frac{1}{3} + \frac{a}{3} \left( 2
\alpha^2 + \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{2}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for the other octet baryons are found from isospin symmetry.
Spin polarizations in the $\chi$QM$d$ {#app:spin_pol_d}
-------------------------------------
The spin polarizations for the proton are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^p &=& \cos^2 \theta_N \left[ \frac{4}{3} - \frac{a}{3} \left(
7 + 4 \alpha^2 + \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{8}{3} \zeta^2 \right)
\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_N \left[ 1 - a \left( 2 +
\alpha^2 + \frac{1}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{2}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right]
\\ \nonumber \\ \Delta d^p &=& \cos^2 \theta_N \left[ - \frac{1}{3} -
\frac{a}{3} \left( 2 - \alpha^2 - \frac{1}{3} \beta^2 - \frac{2}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_N \left( - a
\right) \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta s^p &=& - a \alpha^2.\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for $\Sigma^+$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\Sigma^+} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ \frac{4}{3} -
\frac{a}{3} \left( 8 + 3 \alpha^2 + \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{8}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ 1
- a \left( 2 + \alpha^2 + \frac{1}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{2}{3} \zeta^2
\right) \right] \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta d^{\Sigma^+} &=& \cos^2
\theta_\Sigma \left( \frac{a}{3} \left( -4 + \alpha^2 \right) \right)
+ \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( - a \right) \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta
s^{\Sigma^+} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ - \frac{1}{3} -
\frac{a}{3} \left( 2 \alpha^2 - \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 - \frac{2}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( -
a \alpha^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for $\Xi^0$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\Xi^0} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Xi \left[ - \frac{1}{3} +
\frac{a}{3} \left( 2 - 3 \alpha^2 + \frac{1}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{2}{3}
\zeta^2 \right) \right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Xi \left( - a
\alpha^2 \right) \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta d^{\Xi^0} &=& \cos^2
\theta_\Xi \left( \frac{a}{3} \left( 1 - 4 \alpha^2 \right) \right) +
\sin^2 \theta_\Xi \left( - a \alpha^2 \right) \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta
s^{\Xi^0} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Xi \left[ \frac{4}{3} - \frac{a}{3}
\left( 7 \alpha^2 + \frac{16}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{8}{3} \zeta^2 \right)
\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Xi \left[ 1 - a \left( 2
\alpha^2 + \frac{4}{3} \beta^2 + \frac{2}{3} \zeta^2 \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for $\Lambda$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\Lambda} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( - a \alpha^2
\right) \nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ \frac{1}{6} -
\frac{a}{6} \left( 3 + 5 \alpha^2 + \frac{\beta^2}{3} + \frac{2
\zeta^2}{3} \right) \right] \\ \nonumber \\ \Delta d^{\Lambda} &=&
\cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( - a \alpha^2 \right) \nonumber \\ &+&
\sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ \frac{1}{6} - \frac{a}{6} \left( 3 + 5
\alpha^2 + \frac{\beta^2}{3} + \frac{2 \zeta^2}{3} \right) \right] \\
\nonumber \\ \Delta s^{\Lambda} &=& \cos^2 \theta_\Sigma \left( 1 -
\frac{a}{3} \left( 6 \alpha^2 + 4 \beta^2 + 2 \zeta^2 \right) \right)
\nonumber \\ &+& \sin^2 \theta_\Sigma \left[ \frac{2}{3} - \frac{a}{3}
\left( 5 \alpha^2 + \frac{8 \beta^2}{3} + \frac{4 \zeta^2}{3} \right)
\right].\end{aligned}$$
The spin polarizations for the other octet baryons are found from isospin symmetry.
A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. [**B234**]{}, 189 (1984).
E.J. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 2269 (1992).
T.P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2872 (1995).
L.-F. Li and T.P. Cheng, Report No. hep-ph/9506397 (unpublished).
T.P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, in [*International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics, (HEP 95)*]{}, Proceedings, Brussels, Belgium, edited by J. Lemonne [*et al.*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996), hep-ph/9510236.
T.P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Report No. CMU-HEP97-01, hep-ph/9701248, Phys. Rev. D (to be published).
X. Song, J.S. McCarthy, and H.J. Weber, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 2624 (1997).
H.J. Weber, X. Song, and M. Kirchbach, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**12**]{}, 729 (1997).
H.J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B [**251**]{}, 613 (1990).
H. Noda, T. Tashiro, and T. Mizutani, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**92**]{}, 909 (1994).
S. Coleman and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**6**]{}, 423 (1961).
J. Franklin, Phys. Rev. [**182**]{}, 1607 (1969).
J. Franklin, Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{}, 2648 (1984).
G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 247 (1992).
M. Casu and L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 2644 (1997).
J.W. Bos, D. Chang, S.C. Lee, Y.C. Lin, and H.H. Shih, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 6308 (1995).
J.W. Bos, D. Chang, S.C. Lee, Y.C. Lin, and H.H. Shih, Chin. J. Phys. [**35**]{}, 150 (1997).
B. Buck and S.M. Perez, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1419 (1995).
D.B. Lichtenberg, Phys. Rev. [**178**]{}, 2197 (1969).
R. Jakob, P. Kroll, M. Sch[ü]{}rmann, and W. Schweiger, Z. Phys. A [**347**]{}, 109 (1993).
New Muon Collaboration, P. Amaudruz [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2712 (1991).
New Muon Collaboration, M. Arneodo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, R1 (1994).
NA51 Collaboration, A. Baldit [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**332**]{}, 244 (1994).
See, [*e.g.*]{}, D. Griffiths, [*Introduction to Elementary Particles*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1987), pp. 180-184.
Particle Data Group, R.M. Barnett [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 1 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter NQM NQM$g$ NQM$d$ $\chi$QM $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM $\chi$QM$g$ $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM$g$ $\chi$QM$d$ $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM$d$
------------------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------- ------------------------- ------------- ---------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------
$\mu_d$ $-0.91$ $-1.15$ $-1.09$ $-1.35$ $-1.23$ $-1.40$ $-1.24$ $-1.42$ $-1.27$
$\alpha$ - - - $(1)$ $0.52$ $(1)$ $0.70$ $(1)$ $0.69$
$\beta$ - - - $(1)$ $0.99$ $(1)$ $0.73$ $(1)$ $0.55$
$\sin^2 \theta_N$ - $0.18$ $0.39$ - - $0.00$ $0.00$ $0.00$ $0.11$
$\sin^2 \theta_\Sigma$ - $0.20$ $0.65$ - - $0.05$ $0.04$ $0.25$ $0.34$
$\sin^2 - $0.24$ $0.46$ - - $0.11$ $0.11$ $0.33$ $0.41$
\theta_\Xi$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Parameter values obtained in the different fits. The subscript $_{\alpha \beta}$ in a model name indicates that the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ were allowed to vary in the fit. Hyphen (-) indicates that the parameter was not defined in the fit. $(1)$ means that the parameter was not free in the fit, but put to $1$. The magnetic moment of the $d$ quark, $\mu_d$, is given in units of the nuclear magneton, $\mu_N$.
\[tab:fit\_data\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity Expt. values NQM NQM$g$ NQM$d$ $\chi$QM $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM $\chi$QM$g$ $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM$g$ $\chi$QM$d$ $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM$d$
---------------------- ------------------ --------------- --------- --------- ---------- ------------------------- ------------- ---------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------
$\chi^2$ $0.28$ $0.14$ $0.081$ $0.12$ $0.075$ $0.082$ $0.055$ $0.031$ $0.0032$
$\mu(p)$ $2.79 \pm 0.00$ $2.72$ $2.77$ $2.85$ $2.67$ $2.65$ $2.76$ $2.74$ $2.80$ $2.76$
$\mu(n)$ $-1.91 \pm 0.00$ $-1.81$ $-1.89$ $-1.76$ $-1.86$ $-1.94$ $-1.92$ $-1.96$ $-1.95$ $-1.95$
$\mu(\Sigma^+)$ $2.46 \pm 0.01$ $2.61$ $2.56$ $2.53$ $2.57$ $2.52$ $2.52$ $2.49$ $2.48$ $2.46$
$\mu(\Sigma^-)$ $-1.16 \pm 0.03$ $-1.01$ $-0.95$ $-1.14$ $-1.05$ $-1.15$ $-1.02$ $-1.07$ $-1.07$ $-1.15$
$\mu(\Xi^0)$ $-1.25 \pm 0.01$ $-1.41$ $-1.38$ $-1.25$ $-1.45$ $-1.41$ $-1.35$ $-1.35$ $-1.24$ $-1.25$
$\mu(\Xi^-)$ $-0.65 \pm 0.00$ $-0.50$ $-0.41$ $-0.66$ $-0.55$ $-0.49$ $-0.48$ $-0.48$ $-0.61$ $-0.67$
$\mu(\Lambda)$ $-0.61 \pm 0.00$ $-0.60$ $-0.56$ $-0.45$ $-0.65$ $-0.62$ $-0.63$ $-0.64$ $-0.59$ $-0.61$
$g_A$ $1.26 \pm 0.00$ $\frac{5}{3}$ $1.35$ $1.41$ $1.12$ $1.24$ $1.12$ $1.26$ $1.12$ $1.24$
\[1mm\] $\Sigma_\mu$ $0.49 \pm $0$ $0.17$ $0.36$ $0$ $0$ $0.28$ $0.27$ $0.55$ $0.52$
0.05$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Octet baryon magnetic moments, $g_A$, and $\Sigma_\mu$. The subscript $_{\alpha \beta}$ in a model name indicates that the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ were allowed to vary in the fit. The octet baryon magnetic moments and $\Sigma_\mu$ are given in units of the nuclear magneton, $\mu_N$. The experimental values have been obtained from Ref. [@barn96].
\[tab:octet\]
Quantity NQM NQM$g$ NQM$d$ $\chi$QM $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM $\chi$QM$g$ $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM$g$ $\chi$QM$d$ $\chi_{\alpha \beta}$QM$d$
----------------- ---------------- --------- --------- ---------- ------------------------- ------------- ---------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------
$\Delta u^p$ $\frac{4}{3}$ $1.05$ $1.20$ $0.79$ $0.89$ $0.79$ $0.91$ $0.79$ $0.91$
$\Delta d^p$ $-\frac{1}{3}$ $-0.29$ $-0.20$ $-0.32$ $-0.35$ $-0.32$ $-0.35$ $-0.32$ $-0.33$
$\Delta s^p$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $-0.10$ $-0.03$ $-0.10$ $-0.05$ $-0.10$ $-0.05$
$\Delta \Sigma$ $1$ $0.76$ $1$ $0.37$ $0.52$ $0.37$ $0.51$ $0.37$ $0.53$
: Spin polarizations for the proton. The subscript $_{\alpha
\beta}$ in a model name indicates that the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ were free in the fit.
\[tab:data\]
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^3]: Electronic address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Analytical solutions of the Dirac equation in an external electromagnetic field are found such that according to the field-theoretic interpretation electron-positron pairs are trapped for a period of time. The naive one-particle interpretation of the Dirac wave function fails in this case completely. Simple electromagnetic field which produces this effect was undeniably concocted and may look artificial but the phenomenon of time traps seems real.'
author:
- 'Iwo Bialynicki-Birula'
- 'Zofia Bialynicka-Birula'
title: 'Time traps for electron-positron pairs'
---
Introduction
============
In the present work we pose and answer the question: Are there configurations of the electromagnetic field that produce the time traps for electron-positron pairs? The time trap is defined here as a time period (see Fig. 1) during which pairs exist, while there is nothing before and after this period. To find the answer we use a simplified theory based on the Dirac equation in an external electromagnetic field, disregarding the mutual interaction of electrons and positrons. This simplification allowed us to state our problem in terms of the properties of the Dirac wave functions.
The Dirac equation, and also other relativistic wave equations, have two levels of interpretation. On one hand they can be treated as wave equations describing the time evolution of the relativistic wave functions. This interpretation, however, must be treated with great caution. A careless approach leads to paradoxes like, for example, the Klein paradox. Solutions of the Dirac equation, in general, are not just wave functions describing the states of electrons but they have also the equally important second part representing (complex conjugate) wave function of the positron. There is no difficulty in separating these two parts in the absence of external field even for very elaborate solutions of the Dirac equation. Also in static electromagnetic fields these two parts can be separated due to the energy gap between the electronic and positronic states. However, when the field is time dependent such separation is not possible since the electron-positron pairs are continuously created and annihilated. The correct interpretation of the wave functions satisfying the Dirac equation was given by Feynman [@rpf]. According to this interpretation a solution of the Dirac equation in an external potential describes, in general, four distinct processes depicted in Fig. 2. Still, most authors of papers dealing with the electrons moving in time-dependent electromagnetic fields, starting with the classic paper by Wolkow [@wolk], completely disregard this problem and treat the modulus squared of the Dirac wave function as a true probability density for the electrons only. In the case of time traps, this interpretation fails completely but we can still use the Dirac wave function as a convenient mathematical tool provided we apply their field-theoretic interpretation as we have done in this work.
![The time trap for electron-positron pairs. For the time values before $t_0$ and after $t_3$ the system is in the vacuum state.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="40.00000%" height="0.2\textheight"}
![Four different processes described by a single solution of the Dirac equation: a) Electron scattering, b) Positron scattering, c) Pair creation, d) Pair annihilation. The shaded area represents the presence of the external electromagnetic field which is responsible for all four processes.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="40.00000%" height="0.2\textheight"}
Solutions of the Dirac equation and the S-matrix
================================================
In the situation depicted in Fig. 1 the electromagnetic field vanishes in the past and in the future so that the formalism of the S-matrix is most convenient to deal with the time evolution. In this formalism the [*initial/final*]{} state of the system is described by the state vectors in the [*in/out*]{} Fock spaces build by the action of the [*in/out*]{} creation operators of noninteracting particles on the [*in/out*]{} vacuum state vectors. The relevant dynamical properties in this formalism are contained in the S-matrix which transforms the [*in*]{} operators into the [*out*]{} operators and the [*out*]{} vacuum state vector into the [*in*]{} vacuum state vector, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inout}
a_{out}=S^\dagger a_{in}S,\;\;a^\dagger_{out}=S^\dagger a^\dagger_{in}S,\;\;
S|0_{out}\rangle=|0_{in}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In the standard formulation of QED the $S$-matrix is defined as the time-ordered exponential of the interaction Hamiltonian. Given the $S$-matrix, we may find the relation between the [*out*]{} and [*in*]{} operators. In this work, however, we reverse this order. First, we find the relation between the [*out*]{} and [*in*]{} operators and in the next step we determine the $S$-matrix. The relation between the [*out*]{} and [*in*]{} operators can be found directly when an explicit solution of the Dirac equation for the field operator $\hat{\psi}$ is known. This is a hopeless task in the full-fledged theory. However, this task becomes feasible in the simplified version of the theory when only the external classical electromagnetic field is taken into account. In this case the wave function and the field operator both obey the same equation. We may construct the field operator by simply replacing the c-number amplitudes by the annihilation and creation operators.
In the [*in*]{} and [*out*]{} regions where the electromagnetic field vanishes the field operator $\hat{\psi}$ can be represented as the standard superposition of annihilation operators of electrons and creation operators of positrons for the free field ($c=1,\hbar=1$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pw}
&\hat{\psi}({\bm r},t)=\sum_{s=\pm}\int\!\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}e^{i{\bm p}\cdot{\bm r}}\left[a({\bm p},s)u({\bm p},s)e^{-iE_pt}+b^\dagger(-{\bm p},s)v(-{\bm p},s)e^{iE_pt}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The bispinors $u$ and $v$ will be chosen in the Weyl representation [@weyl] of $\gamma$ matrices, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uv}
u({\bm p},+)&=N(\bm p)\left[\!\begin{array}{c}
K(\bm p)+p_z\\p_x+i p_y\\K(\bm p)-p_z\\-p_x-i p_y
\end{array}\right],\;
v({\bm p},+)=N(\bm p)\left[\begin{array}{c}
-K(\bm p)+p_z\\p_x+i p_y\\K(\bm p)+p_z\\p_x+i p_y
\end{array}\right],\quad K(\bm p)=E(\bm p)+m,\nonumber\\
u({\bm p},-)&=N(\bm p)\left[\begin{array}{c}
p_x-i p_y\\K(\bm p)-p_z\\-p_x+ i p_y\\K(\bm p)+p_z
\end{array}\right],\;
v({\bm p},-)=N(\bm p)\left[\begin{array}{c}
p_x-i p_y\\-K(\bm p)-p_z\\p_x-i p_y\\K(\bm p)-p_z
\end{array}\right],\quad N(\bm p)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{K(\bm p)E(\bm p)}}.\end{aligned}$$ The time evolution of $\hat{\psi}({\bm r},t)$ from $t_{\rm in}$ to $t_{\rm out}$, when both $t_{\rm in}$ and $t_{\rm out}$ lie in the field free regions (Fig. 2), induces the transformation (\[inout\]) of the annihilation and creation operators and determines the $S$ operator. In the case of the interaction of electrons with the classical electromagnetic field only, this transformation is a linear one.
Toy model of the electromagnetic field
======================================
Our greatly oversimplified model of the electromagnetic field will be assumed as homogeneous in space, ${\bm E}(t)=-\partial_t{\bm A}(t)$. In addition, the potential ${\bm A}(t)$ will be assumed to be piecewise constant in time. Thus, the electric field consists of $\delta$-like spikes at times $t_n$ when the potential is discontinuous. Owing to the homogeneity of the field, different momentum modes are not coupled and we may consider just one momentum mode at a time. The time dependence of the potential requires the presence of the positive and negative energy components. The field operator of a single momentum mode (but two spin modes) in the $n$-th time slice is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mode}
&\quad\hat{\psi}_n(\bm r,t)
=e^{i{\bm p}\cdot{\bm r}}\sum_{s=\pm}\\
&\!\times\left[a_n(s)u({\bm p}_n,s)e^{-iE({\bm p}_n)t}+b^\dagger_n(s) v(-{\bm p}_n,s)e^{iE({\bm p}_n)t}\right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It satisfies the solution of the Dirac equation in our piecewise potential, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deq}
(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-\gamma^\mu eA_\mu(n)-m)\hat{\psi}_n(\bm r,t)=0\end{aligned}$$ provided the momentum in the $n$-th time slice is shifted ${\bm p}_n={\bm p}+{\bm q}_n$ by the value of momentum ${\bm q}_n=e{\bm A}(n)$ delivered by the electric field. However, in order to complete the construction of the Dirac bispinor, we must secure its continuity for all transition times $t_n$. This can be achieved by properly adjusting the annihilation and creation operators in the adjacent time slices.
Owing to the orthogonality of the bispinors $u$ and $v$, we may extract the operators $(a_{n+1},b^\dagger_{n+1})$ just by multiplying the continuity condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cont}
\hat{\psi}_{n+1}(\bm r,t_n)=\hat{\psi}_n(\bm r,t_n),\end{aligned}$$ by $u^\dagger({\bm p}_{n+1},s)$ and $v^\dagger({\bm p}_{n+1},s)$. The resulting relations can be written in the following compact matrix form, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mat}
P_{n+1}(t_n)F_{n+1}=M_nP_n(t_n)F_{n},\end{aligned}$$ where the transfer matrices $M_n$ are built from all 16 products of the bispinors $u$ and $v$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{etc}
M_n^{11}&=u^\dagger({\bm p}_{n+1},+)u({\bm p}_n,+),\nonumber\\
M_n^{12}&=u^\dagger({\bm p}_{n+1},+)u({\bm p}_n,-),\nonumber\\
M_n^{13}&=u^\dagger({\bm p}_{n+1},+)v({\bm p}_n,+),\;{\rm etc.},\end{aligned}$$ the four operators were arranged in a vector, and $P_n(t_n)$ is the diagonal time evolution matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fp}
F_n&=\left[a_n(+),a_n(-),b^\dagger_n(+),b^\dagger_n(-)\right],\\
P_n(t)&={\rm diag}\left[e^{-iE({\bf p}_n)t},e^{-iE({\bf p}_n)t},e^{iE({\bf p}_n)t},e^{iE({\bf p}_n)t}\right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Using repeatedly the relation (\[mat\]) we obtain the formula which expresses the final operators in terms of the initial operators, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{matn}
P_4(t_3)F_4=M_3P_3(t_3-t_2)M_2P_2(t_2-t_1)M_1P_1(t_1-t_0)M_0P_0(t_0)F_0.\end{aligned}$$ This is a characteristic formula for any layered medium (cf., for example, Eq.(20) in [@soto]) in which the product of transfer matrices connects initial and final layers.
![Schematic representation of the time trap ($\Delta t_1=t_1-t_0=t_3-t_2, \Delta t_2=t_2-t_1$). Note the symmetry under time reversal. Only one transfer matrix $M$ and two propagation matrices $P$ are needed to obtain the complete description.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="40.00000%" height="0.2\textheight"}
In what follows we will consider only the simplest case, when there is no coupling between different spin state. This happens when the momentum is in the direction of the electric field, $p_x=0=p_y$. The transformations between the operators $a({\bm p},s)$ and $b^\dagger(-{\bm p},s)$ (known in theory of superconductivity as Bogoljubov-Valatin transformations [@bog; @val]) are characterized by $2\times 2$ matrices. For definiteness, we consider the spin $+$ components. The continuity condition at time $t_0$ in Fig. 3 reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mm1}
\left[\begin{array}{c}a_1\\
b^\dagger_1\end{array}\right]
=\left[\begin{array}{cc}m_{11}&m_{12}\\
m_{21}&m_{22}\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{c}a_0\\
b^\dagger_0\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{mm2}
m_{11}=m_{22}=\frac{K(p+q)K(p)+p(p+q)}
{2\sqrt{E(p+q)E(p)K(p+q)K(p)}},\\
m_{12}=-m_{21}=\frac{pE(p+q)-(p+q)E(p)-mq}
{2\sqrt{E(p+q)E(p)K(p+q)K(p)}}.\end{aligned}$$
We dropped the vector indices because both ${\bm p}$ and ${\bm q}$ have only the $z$ component. The matrix $m_{ij}$ is unitary, as it must be, to preserve the anticommutation relations between the annihilation and creation operators. The product of the first four factors in (\[matn\]) gives the transformation of the operators at time $t_0$ into the operators at time $t_1$. The properties of this matrix are crucial for the formation of the time trap.
The transformations (\[mm1\]) are generated by c-number unitary matrices. However, these transformations can also be implemented by unitary operators acting in the Fock space. In our simple case the equivalence of the two forms of the transformation gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bv}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}&u_{12}\\
u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{c}a\\
b^\dagger\end{array}\right]={\hat U}^\dagger\left[\begin{array}{c}a\\
b^\dagger\end{array}\right]{\hat U}.\end{aligned}$$ The mathematical description in terms of simple $2\times 2$ matrices is much easier to handle while the description of the same situation in terms of unitary operators ${\hat U}$ provides the physical interpretation of the results.
A general unitary $2\times 2$ matrix can be parametrized with 4 real coefficients, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u2}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}&u_{12}\\
u_{21}&u_{22}\end{array}\right]=e^{i\xi_0}
\left[\cos(|\bm\xi|)-i{\bm\xi}\!\cdot\!{\bm\sigma}
\frac{\sin(|\bm\xi|)}{|\bm\xi|}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bm\xi}=\{\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3\}$ and $\{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3\}$ are the Pauli matrices. The corresponding unitary operator ${\hat U}$ in (\[bv\]) is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u3}
{\hat U}=\exp[i(\xi_0G_0+{\bm\xi}\cdot{\bm G})].\end{aligned}$$ The four generators $G_0$ and ${\bm G}$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u4}
&G_0=a^\dagger a-b^\dagger b,\quad\;\;\;\,
G_1=a b+b^\dagger a^\dagger,\nonumber\\
&G_2=i(a b-b^\dagger a^\dagger),\quad G_3=-a^\dagger a-b^\dagger b.\end{aligned}$$ The fermionic nature of the annihilation and creation operators enables one to express the exponential operator (\[u3\]) as the following combination of the annihilation and creation operators, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u5}
&e^{i\xi_3}{\hat U}=\left[\cos(|\bm\xi|)+i\xi_3
\frac{\sin(|\bm\xi|)}{|\bm\xi|}\right](I-a^\dagger a-b^\dagger b)\nonumber\\
&+[e^{i\xi_0}a^\dagger a+e^{-i\xi_0}b^\dagger b]+2[\cos(|\bm\xi|)-\cos(\xi_0)]a^\dagger b^\dagger b a\nonumber\\
&+i\frac{\sin(|\bm\xi|)}{|\bm\xi|}\left[(\xi_1+i\xi_2)a b-(\xi_1-i\xi_2)a^\dagger b^\dagger\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $I$ is the unit operator. In order to construct the time trap, we need to apply the transition formulas (\[bv\]) for consecutive time slices at each time $t_n$. The resulting chain of transformations can be evaluated either in terms of the products of bispinors $u$ and $v$ or equivalently in terms of the products of the operators $\hat U$. We choose the first method because the formula (\[u5\]) is rather complicated and then transcribe the final results into the formalism of quantum states.
Construction of the time trap
=============================
We define the time trap for the field configuration depicted in Fig. 1 when the state of the system is such that it is the vacuum state for the times before $t_0$ and after $t_3$ but it is the state of electron-positron pairs during the time period from $t_1$ to $t_2$. Such a state can be achieved by fine-tuning the values of two parameters: the momentum and time duration. The criterion for the time trap will be formulated in terms of the properties of the $u_{ij}$ matrix.
Let us consider the transfer matrix that connects the annihilation and creation operators at times $t_0$ and $t_1$. In order to form the time trap we require that the vacuum state at $t_0$ will be transformed into the pair state at $t_1$. The matrix $u_{ij}$ which realizes this transformation must satisfy the conditions $u_{11}=0=u_{22}$. The proof of this assertion is based on (\[bv\]) rewritten in the form:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sm}
a^\dagger {\hat U}|0\rangle={\hat U}(u^*_{11}a^\dagger+u^*_{12}b)|0\rangle,\\
b^\dagger{\hat U}|0\rangle={\hat U}(u_{21}a+u_{22}b^\dagger)|0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Under the assumption that ${\hat U}|0\rangle$ is the pair state, the left hand sides in these formulas must vanish because one cannot add more particles to the state containing the pair. The vanishing of the right hand sides requires that $u_{11}=0=u_{22}$. The product of matrices $u_B=MP(t_1-t_0)M^{-1}$ that evolves our system across the “potential barrier” (see Fig. 3) has the general form (\[bv\]) with the following values of the parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{up}
&|{\bm\xi}|=E(p+q)(t_1-t_0),\\
\frac{\xi_1}{|{\bm\xi}|}=-&\frac{m q}{E(p)E(p+q)}\quad
\frac{\xi_3}{|{\bm\xi}|}=\frac{m^2+p^2+p q}{E(p)E(p+q)}.\end{aligned}$$ The only way to make the diagonal elements of this matrix vanish is to choose the time difference such that $|{\bm\xi}|=(n+1/2)\pi$ and the momentum $p=(-q\pm\sqrt{q^2-4m^2})$. Note that the value of $p$ is real only when the electric field is strong enough to produce pairs, $eA\ge 2m$. With this choice of parameters the matrix $u_B$ takes on the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{up1}
u_B=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&i\\i&0
\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ The assumed time symmetry gives the same matrix for the propagation from time $t_2$ to time $t_3$. To complete the construction of the matrix $u_T$ that generates the time trap we must insert the free propagation matrix from time $t_1$ to time $t_2$ between the two matrices $u_B$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ut}
u_T=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&i\\i&0\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{-iE({\bf p}_n)(t_2-t_1)}&0\\0&\hspace{-0.8cm}e^{iE({\bf p}_n)(t_2-t_1)}\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}0&i\\i&0\end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Choosing the time period $E(p)(t_2-t_1)=(2n+1)\pi$, we obtain the unit matrix $u_T=I$. The description of the time trap is very simple in terms of the unitary operators ${\hat U}_T$ and ${\hat U}_B$ in the Fock space corresponding to the matrices $u_T$ and $u_B$. The operator ${\hat U}_T$ does noting because it is the unit operator. The trap is completely transparent,it has no influence on particles evolving in time from $t_0$ to $t_3$. The operator ${\hat U}_B$ does not change the one-particles states but it converts the vacuum state into the pair state, and vice versa. If the initial state is the vacuum, then we encounter pairs in time trap but there is again the vacuum in the final state.
The symmetry between the vacuum state and the pair state makes it possible to produce time crystals by repeating periodically the trap configuration. Of course, this periodic trap is manufactured rather than created spontaneously, so it is not the kind of the time crystal envisioned by Wilczek [@fw].
Discussion
==========
We have to admit that the model of the time trap described here is painfully unrealistic. Its only value is its simplicity. All calculations can be explicitly carried out so that we could prove the main point of our analysis that the study of the solutions of the Dirac equation in an external electromagnetic field may lead to results extending much beyond the mere description of bound states of electrons in atoms and relativistic beams of electrons. Note that our solutions of the Dirac equation are still valid if the annihilation operators were replaced by complex amplitudes, say $f_n$ and $g^*_n$ obeying the relations imposed by the continuity conditions. In this case instead of the field operator we would obtain a solution of the Dirac equation. Our results clearly show that one c-number solution of the Dirac equation may describe a fairly complicated history. Even though the calculations may be carried out with the use of the Dirac wave function, it is difficult to obtain the correct physical interpretation of such solutions without resorting to the field-theoretic tools.
[00]{} R.P. Feynman, The theory of positrons, Phys. Rev. [**76**]{}, 749 (1949). D. M. Wolkow, Über eine Klasse von Lösungen der Diracschen Gleichung, Z. Phys. [**94**]{}, 250 (1935). H. Weyl, [*The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Dover, New York, 1931), p. 213. N. N. Bogoljubov, On a new method in the theory of superconductivity, Nuovo Cimento [**7**]{}, 794 (1958). J. G. Valatin, Comments on the theory of superconductivity, Nuovo Cimento [**7**]{}, 843 (1958). L. L. Sánchez-Soto, J. J. Monzón, A. G. Barriuso, and J. F. Cari$\tilde{\rm n}$ena, The transfer matrix: a geometrical perspective, Phys. Rep. [**513**]{}, 191 (2012). , F. Wilczek, Quantum time crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 160401 (2012).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Introducing his Chronology Protection Conjecture Stephen Hawking said that it seems that there exists a Chronology Protection Agency making the Universe safe for historians.
Without taking sides about such a conjecture we show that the Chronology Protection Agency is not necessary in order to make the Universe unsafe for historians but safe for logicians.
author:
- Gavriel Segre
title: There exist consistent temporal logics admitting changes of History
---
Introduction
============
Given a time-orientable space-time $ ( M , g_{ab}
) $ let us recall that [@Hawking-Ellis-73], [@Wald-84]:
\[def:chronology violating set\]
*chronology violating set of $ ( M , g_{ab} )$:* $$V_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} ) \; := \; \cup_{p \in M} I^{+} (p) \cap I^{-} (p)$$
\[def:chronology horizon\]
*chronology horizon of $ ( M , g_{ab} )$:* $$H_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} ) \; := \; \partial [ I^{+} ( V_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} )
)]$$
A curious feature of General Relativity is that there exist solutions $( M , g_{ab} ) $ of Einstein’s equation such that $ V_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} ) \; \neq \; \emptyset $.
The so called time travel paradoxes then occur.
These paradoxes can be divided in two classes:
- *consistency paradoxes* involving the effects of the changes of the past (epitomized by the celebrated Grandfather Paradox in which a time-traveller goes back in the past and prevents the meeting of his grandfather and his grandmother)
- *bootstrap paradoxes* involving the presence of loops in which the source of the production of some information disappears (as an example let us suppose that Einstein learnt Relativity Theory from [@Hawking-Ellis-73], [@Wald-84] given to him by a time-traveller gone back to 1904).
They has been faced by the scientific community in different ways (see the fourth part “Time Travel” of [@Visser-96] as well as [@Visser-03]):
1. adding to General Relativity some ad hoc axiom precluding the physical possibility of causal loops (such as the strong form of Penrose’s Cosmic Censorship Conjecture)
2. appealing to consistency conditions (such as in Novikov’s Consistency Conjecture) requiring that causal loops, though allowing causal influence on the past, don’t allow alteration of the past
3. arguing that the problem is removed at a quantum level (such as in Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture [@Hawking-92] stating that the classical possibilities to implement time-travels are destroyed by quantum effects)
4. arguing that the so called time-travel paradoxes are only apparent and may be bypassed in a mathematical consistent way
As to General Relativity we think that discarding tout court non globally-hyperbolic solutions of Einstein’s equation considering them “unphysical” is a conceptually dangerous operation:
in presence of “unphysical” solutions of physical equations we have always to remember that our intuition is not a neutral quality but is affected by the Physics to which we are used.
Consequentially, in presence of new Physics, it is natural that it appears to us as counter-intuitive.
If Dirac had discarded as “unphysical” the negative-energy solutions of his equation he would have never predicted the existence of anti-matter [@Weinberg-95].
While we agree with Visser’s [@Visser-03] idea that solutions with “non-localized” chronology violating set may be seen as produced by a sort of *garbage in-garbage out* phenomenon (where the *garbage in* are perverse initial-value conditions and the *garbage-out* are the resulting perverse solutions) we think that solutions with “localized” chronology violating set should be taken seriously.
Of course, depending on the precise mathematical definition that we adopt for the term “localized”, we may arrive to different conclusions.
A minimal definition of the term “localized” would consist in imposing that $ V_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} ) \neq M $.
This is sufficient to discard Gödel’s solution, the Van Stockum - Tipler time machine, some spinning cosmic string time machine but not Gott time machine that may be excluded only assuming a more restrictive definition of “localized” as “suitably bounded”.
An other argument often used in the literature consists in the refutal as “unphysical” of any non asymptotically-flat space-time; this is (at least) curious: the fact that asymptotically flatness is a condition required in order to be able to define a black-hole (as the complement of the causal past of future null infinity $
\mathcal{B} \, := \, M - J^{-} ( \mathcal{I}^{+} ) $) is not a good reason to assume as “physicality”’s criterion one incompatible with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy under which the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions of Classical Cosmology are derived.
Finally we agree with the Headrick-Gott’s [@Headrick-Gott-94] refutation of the claim that the observed absence of time-travellers in the present and in the past would be an empirical datum supporting the physical impossibility of time-travel:
no experimental fact on $ M - H_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} ) $ can be used as an argument in favour or against the hypothesis that $
V_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} ) \neq \emptyset $.
When also Quantum Mechanics is taken into account we again agree with Visser’s viewpoint [@Visser-03] according to which the Kay-Radzikowski-Wald singularity theorems (stating that in presence of a non-empty chronology-violating set there are points of the *chronology horizon* where the two-point function is not of Hadamard form [@Kay-Radzikowski-Wald-97], [@Kay-06]) has to be interpreted not as a support of Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture but as an evidence of the fact that in such a situation Semi-classical Quantum Gravity (defined as Quantum Field Theory on a fixed curved background augmented with the semi-classical Einstein equation $ R_{a b} - \frac{1}{2}
R g_{a b} \; = 8 \pi < \psi | \hat{T}_{ab} | \psi > $ taking into account the back-reaction of the quantum fields on the spacetime’s geometry [@Wald-94]) is not a good approximation of Quantum Gravity.
Hence we think that the status of Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture may be decided only at the Quantum Gravity level.
Since most of the phenomenology of Quantum Gravity is detectable only at the Planck scale (lengths of the magnitude of the Planck length $
l_{Planck} \sim 10^{- 33}
\, cm$, energies of the magnitude of the Planck energy $E_{Planck} \sim 10^{19} \, GeV $) that is enormously far from our present possibility of experimental investigation, the quantum status of Hawking’s Chronology-Protection Conjecture may be at present investigated only on a theoretical basis, all the rival alternative proposals (String Theory [@Deligne-Etingof-Freed-Jeffrey-Kazhdan-Morgan-Morrison-Witten-99a], [@Deligne-Etingof-Freed-Jeffrey-Kazhdan-Morgan-Morrison-Witten-99b], Loop Quantum Gravity [@Rovelli-04], Connes’ Quantum Gravity [@Connes-98], [@Landi-97], Simplicial Quantum Gravity [@Ambiorn-Carfora-Marzuoli-97], Prugovecki’s Quantum Gravity [@Prugovecki-92], Finkelstein’s Quantum Gravity [@Finkelstein-97], $ \cdots $) being far from giving, on this issue, clear and univocal answers.
Without taking sides about the physical possibility of chronology violations, in this paper we will show that, from a logical viewpoint, the so-called time travel paradoxes may be seen as a consequence of the fact that, in presence of chronology violations, we insist on the adoption of the usual Temporal Logic.
The adoption of suitable unusual Temporal Logics allows to get rid of any mathematical inconsistency.
Indeed not only the affection of the past but even its change can be formalized by suitable consistent Temporal Logics.
Temporal Logics
===============
Temporal Logics are the particular Modal Logic in which the following temporal operators are introduced [@Prior-62]:
- P := “it has been true that”
- H := “it has always been true that”
- F := “it will be true that”
- G := “it will always be true that”
The absence of any temporary operator in a formula in Temporary Logic means that it is temporally referred to the present time: $$x \; := \; \text{"x is true at the present time"}$$
To avoid too many parenthesis we will assume that the temporal operators P,H,F,G, are at the top of the strength’s hierarchy of Propositional Logic introduced in the appendix \[sec:Classical Propositional Logic\].
We adhere to Arthur Prior’s traditional notation.
From a conceptual viewpoint is anyway important to remark that:
1. P is the past existential quantificator. This fact may be remarked introducing the notation: $$\exists_{-} \; := P$$
2. H is the past universal quantificator. This fact may be remarked introducing the notation: $$\forall_{-} \; := H$$
3. F is the future existential quantificator. This fact may be remarked introducing the notation: $$\exists_{+} \; := F$$
4. G is the future universal quantificator. This fact may be remarked introducing the notation: $$\forall_{+} \; := G$$
In the case in which one assume a nonrelativistic notion of absolute time taking values on $ \mathbb{R} $ and identifying conventionally the present time with $ t = 0$ the temporal operators may be defined considering time-dependent propositions of the form: $$x(t) \; := \; \text{"The proposition x is true at time t"}$$ and defining them as:
\[def:temporal operators\]
$$P x \; := \; \exists t \in ( - \infty , 0 ) \, : \, x(t)$$
$$H x \; := \; x(t) \; \forall t \in ( - \infty , 0 )$$
$$F x \; := \; \exists t \in ( 0 , + \infty ) \, : \, x(t)$$
$$G x \; := \; x(t) \; \forall t \in ( 0 , + \infty )$$
$$x \; := \; x(0)$$
\[rem:conditions in which the temporalized definitions of the temporal operators can be adopted\]
Assuming a nonrelativistic notion of time with a nontrivial topological structure (such as, for instance, those discussed in [@Segre-06]) or a relativistic notion of time one has to give up the definition \[def:temporal operators\]
Given a formula containing a composed temporal operator of the form $ x y \; \; x,y \in \{P,H,F,G \} $ let us observe that x alterates the present time for y.
In the case in which the the definition \[def:temporal operators\] may be adopted this fact can be expressed by the following:
\[prop:time-dependent expression of the composed temporal operators\]
The definition \[def:temporal operators\] is assumed
1. $$P P x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 ) : ( \exists
t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) : x(t) )$$
2. $$P H x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 ) : ( x(t) \;
\forall t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) )$$
3. $$P F x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 ) : ( \exists
t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty ) : x(t))$$
4. $$P G x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 ) : ( x(t) \;
\forall t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty ))$$
5. $$H P x \; = \; ( \exists t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) : x(t) ) \; \forall t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 )$$
6. $$H H x \; = \; ( x(t) \; \forall t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) )
\; \forall t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 )$$
7. $$H F x \; = \; ( \exists t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty ) : x(t) ) \; \forall t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 )$$
8. $$H G x \; = \; ( x(t) \; \forall t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty ) ) \; \forall t_{1} \in ( - \infty , 0 )$$
9. $$F P x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty ) : ( \exists t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) : x(t) )$$
10. $$F H x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty ) : ( x(t) \;
\forall t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ))$$
11. $$F F x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty ) : ( \exists t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty
) : x(t) )$$
12. $$F G x \; = \; \exists t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty ) : ( x(t) \;
\forall t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty ))$$
13. $$G P x \; = \; ( \exists t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) : x(t) ) \; \forall t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty )$$
14. $$G H x \; = \; ( x(t) \; \forall t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) ) \; \forall t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty )$$
15. $$G F x \; = \; \; ( \exists t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty ) : x(t) ) \forall t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty )$$
16. $$G G x \; = \; ( x(t) \; \forall t \in ( t_{1} , + \infty )) \;
\forall t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty )$$
The thesis follows by multiple application of the definition \[def:temporal operators\]
Let us observe that the temporal operators H and G may be defined in the following way:
$$H x \; := \; \neg P \neg x$$
$$G x \; := \; \neg F \neg x$$
Let us now introduce the following basic:
\[def:Temporal Logic\]
*Temporal Logic:*
a modal logic obtained adding to Classical Propositional Logic (see appendix \[sec:Classical Propositional Logic\]) the temporal operators P, H, F, G and suitable axioms and inference rules governing their behavior among which there are the following: $$\label{eq:axiom for the past}
AXIOM_{-} \; := \; H x \, \rightarrow \, P x$$ $$\label{eq:axiom for the future}
AXIOM_{+} \; := \; G x \, \rightarrow \, F x$$
Given a temporal logic it is important to keep attention about the meaning given to a logical variable x appearing in a formula.
We will assume that x will continue to have the same meaning it had in Propositional Calculus (defined by the definition \[def:logical notation\]).
Consequentially x will not be allowed to contain temporal operators.
Let us remark that if the definition \[def:temporal operators\] is assumed the axiom $ AXIOM_{-} $ and $ AXIOM_{+} $ become trivially provable statements.
Changing the past
=================
Given a temporal logic T:
\[def:temporal logic admitting changes of History\]
*T admits changes of History:*
1. “The fact that x is now true doesn’t imply that it will be always true that x has been true” $$\neg ( x \; \rightarrow \; G P x)$$
2. “The fact that x has been true doesn’t imply that it will be always true that x has been true” $$\neg ( P x \; \rightarrow \; G P x)$$
3. “The fact that x has always been true doesn’t imply that it will be always true that x has been true” $$\neg ( H x \; \rightarrow \; G P x)$$
4. “The fact that x is now true doesn’t imply that it will be true that x has been true” $$\neg ( x \; \rightarrow \; F P x)$$
5. “The fact that x has been true doesn’t imply that it will be true that x has been true” $$\neg ( P x \; \rightarrow \; F P x)$$
6. “The fact that x has always been true doesn’t imply that it will be true that x has been true” $$\neg ( H x \; \rightarrow \; F P x)$$
Let us remark that:
1. T temporal logic
2. the definition \[def:temporal operators\] is assumed
T doesn’t admit changes of History
1. $$x \; = \; x(0)$$
while: $$GP x \; = \; ( \exists t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) : x(t) ) \; \forall t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty
)$$ that considering in the right hand side the value $ t=0 $ implies that: $$x \; \rightarrow \; G P x$$ that applying the $ AXIOM_{+} $ of definition \[def:Temporal Logic\] and the theorem \[th:transitivity of implication\] implies that: $$x \; \rightarrow \; F P x$$
2. $$\label{eq:auxiliary 1}
P x \; = \; \exists t \in ( - \infty , 0 ) \, : \, x(t)$$
while: $$\label{eq:auxiliary 2}
GP x \; = \; ( \exists t \in ( - \infty , t_{1} ) : x(t) ) \; \forall t_{1} \in ( 0 , + \infty
)$$ that considering as particular value of t in the right-hand side of eq. \[eq:auxiliary 2\] the one whose existence is stated by the right hand side of eq. \[eq:auxiliary 1\] implies that: $$P x \; \rightarrow \; G P x$$ that applying the $ AXIOM_{+} $ of definition \[def:Temporal Logic\] and the theorem \[th:transitivity of implication\] implies that: $$Px \; \rightarrow \; F P x$$
3. $$H x \; = \; x(t) \; \forall t \in ( - \infty , 0 )$$
so that considering any value $ t \in ( - \infty , 0 ) $ as the t in the right hand side of eq. \[eq:auxiliary 2\] implies that: $$H x \; \rightarrow \; G P x$$ that applying the $ AXIOM_{+} $ of definition \[def:Temporal Logic\] and the theorem \[th:transitivity of implication\] implies that: $$H x \; \rightarrow \; F P x$$
Let us now prove two propositions that will be our key ingredients in analyzing the consistency of temporal histories admitting changes of History.
\[prop:on the temporalized Principle of Contradiction\]
1. T temporal logic
2. T admits changes of History
“The fact that the Principle of Contradiction now holds doesn’t imply that it will always be true that the Principle of Contradiction held ”:
$$\neg [ \neg ( x \wedge \neg x ) \; \rightarrow \; GP \neg ( x \wedge \neg x
)]$$
The thesis immediately follows applying the definition \[def:temporal logic admitting changes of History\] to the Principle of Noncontradiction (the theorem \[th:Principle of noncontradiction\]) holding at the present time
The conceptual reason why the Principle of Noncontradiction is so important in Propositional Logic (as well as in Predicative Logic of $ 1^{th}$ and $ 2^{th} $ order) derives by the Scotus Theorem (the theorem \[th:Scotus theorem\]) asserting that *“ex absurdo quodlibet sequitur”*, i.e. that every proposition can be inferred starting from a contradiction.
The situation is deeper in a temporal logic admitting changes of History:
\[prop:on the temporalized Scotus theorem\]
“The fact that everything may be proved from a contradiction doesn’t imply that it will always be true that everything could be proved from a contradiction”
1. T temporal logic
2. T admits changes of History
$$\neg [ ( x_{1} \wedge \neg x_{1} \rightarrow x_{2} ) \; \rightarrow \; GP ( x_{1} \wedge \neg x_{1} \rightarrow x_{2} )]$$
The thesis immediately follows applying the definition \[def:temporal logic admitting changes of History\] to the Scotus Theorem (the theorem \[th:Scotus theorem\]) holding at the present time
Let us now analyze the notion of consistency of a temporal logic.
Given a temporal logic T:
\[def:consistency\]
*T is consistent:* $$\neg ( x \wedge \neg x)$$
Then:
every temporal logic is consistent
The thesis is nothing but theorem \[th:Principle of noncontradiction\] of Propositional Logic.
\[def:always consistency\]
*T is always-consistent:* $$[\neg ( x \wedge \neg x) ] \wedge [ H \neg ( x \wedge \neg x) ] \wedge [ G \neg ( x \wedge \neg x)]$$
Proposition\[prop:on the temporalized Scotus theorem\] shows that always-consistency is not necessary to exorcize the *“ex absurdo quodlibet sequitur”* phenomenon.
Anyway even imposing always-consistency changes of History are not banned:
$$\exists \; T \text{always-consistent temporal logic admitting changes of History}$$
It is sufficient to take the axioms of T such that:
“the fact that the fact that Principle of Contradiction now holds doesn’t imply that it will always be true that the Principle of Contradiction held doesn’t imply that the Principle of Contradiction didn’t hold”:
$$\neg \{ \neg [ \neg (x
\wedge \neg x ) \rightarrow GP \neg ( x
\wedge \neg x ) ] \; \rightarrow \; P ( x
\wedge \neg x) \}$$
Classical Propositional Logic {#sec:Classical Propositional Logic}
=============================
In this section we will briefly review the basic notions of Propositional Calculus in its boolean formulation [@Mendelson-64]:
Given the binary alphabet $ \Sigma := \{ 0 , 1 \} $ (where 1 is identified with “true” and 0 is identified with “false”) let us introduce the following logical operators:
*negation:*
$ \neg : \Sigma \mapsto \Sigma $:
$$\neg 0 \; := \; 1$$
$$\neg 1 \; := \; 0$$
*conjunction:*
$ \wedge : \Sigma \times \Sigma \mapsto \Sigma$: $$0 \wedge 0 \; := \; 0$$ $$0 \wedge 1 \; := \; 0$$ $$1 \wedge 0 \; := \; 0$$ $$1 \wedge 1 \; := \; 1$$
*disjunction:*
$ \vee : \Sigma \times \Sigma \mapsto \Sigma$: $$0 \vee 0 \; := \; 0$$ $$0 \vee 1 \; := \; 1$$ $$1 \vee 0 \; := \; 1$$ $$1 \vee 1 \; := \; 1$$
*implication:*
$ \rightarrow : \Sigma \times \Sigma \mapsto \Sigma$: $$0 \rightarrow 0 \; := \; 1$$ $$0 \rightarrow 1 \; := \; 1$$ $$1 \rightarrow 0 \; := \; 0$$ $$1 \rightarrow 1 \; := \; 1$$
*biimplication:*
$ \leftrightarrow : \Sigma \times \Sigma \mapsto \Sigma$: $$0 \leftrightarrow 0 \; := \; 1$$ $$0 \leftrightarrow 1 \; := \; 0$$ $$1 \leftrightarrow 0 \; := \; 0$$ $$1 \leftrightarrow 1 \; := \; 1$$
In order of avoiding too many parentheses we will assume the following (traditional) hierarchy of strength for the logical connectives:
1. $ \neg $
2. $ \wedge $ and $ \vee $
3. $ \rightarrow $ and $ \leftrightarrow $
Clearly:
$$( x_{1} \leftrightarrow x_{2} ) \; \leftrightarrow ( (x_{1}
\rightarrow x_{2}) \; \wedge \; ( x_{2} \rightarrow x_{1}) )$$
Given a number $ n \in \mathbb{N}_{+} $ and a map $ f :
\Sigma^{n} \mapsto \Sigma $:
*f is a tautology:* $$f( x_{1} , \cdots , x_{n} ) \; = \; 1 \; \; \forall x_{1}, \cdots,
x_{n} \in \Sigma$$
We will adopt the following:
\[def:logical notation\]
*logical notation:* $$f( x_{1} , \cdots , x_{n} ) \; := \; \text{ f is a tautology}$$
It can be easily verified that:
*Double negation adfirms:* $$\neg \neg x \; \leftrightarrow \; x$$
\[th:Principle of noncontradiction\]
*Principle of Noncontradiction:* $$\neg ( x \wedge \neg x)$$
\[th:De Morgan’s laws\]
*De Morgan Laws:* $$x_{1} \wedge x_{2} \; \leftrightarrow \neg ( \neg x_{1} \vee \neg
x_{2} )$$ $$x_{1} \vee x_{2} \; \leftrightarrow \; \neg ( \neg x_{1} \wedge \neg
x_{2} )$$
*Tertium non datur:* $$x \vee \neg x$$
The thesis follows applying the theorem \[th:De Morgan’s laws\] and the theorem \[th:Principle of noncontradiction\]
\[th:Scotus theorem\]
*Scotus Theorem (ex absurdo quodlibet sequitur):* $$x_{1} \wedge \neg x_{1} \; \rightarrow \; x_{2}$$
$$\label{eq:auxialiary formula number 1}
x_{1} \wedge \neg x_{1} \; \rightarrow \; x_{1}$$
$$\label{eq:auxialiary formula number 2}
x_{1} \wedge \neg x_{1} \; \rightarrow \; \neg x_{1}$$
$$\label{eq:auxialiary formula number 3}
\neg x_{1} \; \rightarrow \; \neg x_{1} \vee x_{2}$$
$$\label{eq:auxialiary formula number 4}
x_{1} \wedge ( \neg x_{1} \vee x_{2} ) \; \rightarrow \; x_{2}$$
Combining equation \[eq:auxialiary formula number 1\], equation \[eq:auxialiary formula number 2\], equation \[eq:auxialiary formula number 3\] and equation \[eq:auxialiary formula number 4\] the thesis follows
It may be also easily verified that:
\[th:reflectivity of implication\]
*Reflectivity of implication:* $$x \; \rightarrow \; x$$
\[th:transitivity of implication\]
*transitivity of implication:* $$(( x_{1} \rightarrow x_{2} ) \wedge ( x_{2} \rightarrow x_{3}
)) \; \rightarrow \; ( x_{1} \rightarrow x_{3} )$$
from which it follows that:
*Modus ponens:* $$x_{1} \wedge ( x_{1} \rightarrow x_{2} ) \; \rightarrow \; x_{2}$$
Furthermore it may be easily verified that:
\[th:Principle of Contraposition\]
*Principle of Contraposition:* $$( x_{1} \rightarrow x_{2} ) \; \leftrightarrow \; ( \neg x_{2}
\rightarrow \neg x_{1} )$$
from which it follows that:
*Modus tollens:* $$\neg x_{2} \wedge ( x_{1} \rightarrow x_{2} ) \; \rightarrow \;
\neg x_{1}$$
Furthermore:
*Reductio ad absurdum:* $$(\neg x_{1} \rightarrow x_{2} \wedge \neg x_{2} ) \;
\rightarrow \; x_{1}$$
The thesis immediately follows combining theorem \[th:Principle of noncontradiction\] and theorem \[th:Principle of Contraposition\]
Classical Propositional Calculus may be formalized as a formal systems in many ways, for instance choosing as axiom the theorem \[th:Principle of noncontradiction\] and as rules of inference the theorem \[th:reflectivity of implication\], theorem \[th:transitivity of implication\] and the theorem \[th:Principle of Contraposition\]
Notation
========
---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
$ i.e. $ id est
$ \forall $ for all (universal quantificator)
$ \exists $ exists (existential quantificator)
$ G \, , \, \forall_{+} $ future universal quantificator
$ H \, , \, \forall_{-} $ past universal quantificator
$ F \, , \, \exists_{+} $ future existential quantificator
$ P \, , \, \exists_{-} $ past existential quantificator
$ x \; = \; y $ x is equal to y
$ x \; := \; y $ x is defined as y
$ \partial S $ boundary of S
$ I^{+} (S) $ chronological future of the set S
$ I^{-} (S) $ chronological past of the set S
$ J^{+} (S) $ causal future of the set S
$ J^{-} (S) $ causal past of the set S
$ \mathcal{I}^{+} $ future null infinity
$ \mathcal{I}^{-} $ past null infinity
$ V_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} )$ chronology violating set of the spacetime $ ( M , g_{ab} ) $
$ H_{chronology} ( M , g_{ab} )$ chronology horizon of the spacetime $ ( M , g_{ab} ) $
$ \Sigma $ binary alphabet
$ \wedge $ conjunction
$ \vee $ disjunction
$ \neg $ negation
$ \rightarrow $ implication
$ \leftrightarrow $ biimplication
---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
[10]{}
S.W. Hawking G.F.R. Ellis. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973.
R.M. Wald. . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.
M. Visser. . Springer, New York, 1996.
M. Visser. The quantum physics of chronology protection. In G.W. Gibbons E.P.S. Shellard S.J. Rankin, editor, [*The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology*]{}, pages 161–173. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
S. Hawking. The chronology protection conjecture. , 46:603–611, 1992.
S. Weinberg. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
M.P. Headrick J.R. Gott. (2+1)-[D]{}imensional [S]{}pacetimes [C]{}ontaining [C]{}losed [T]{}imelike [C]{}urves. , 50:7244–7259, 1994.
B.S. Kay M.J. Radzikowki R.M. Wald. Quantum field theory on spacetimes with a compactly generated [C]{}auchy horizon. , 183:533–556, 1997. gr-qc/9603012.
B.S. Kay. uantum [F]{}ield [T]{}heory in [C]{}urved [S]{}pacetime. In J.P. Francoise G.L. Naber T.S. Tsun, editor, [*Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics. Vol.4*]{}, pages 202–216. Birkhauser, Basel, 2006.
R.M. Wald. . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.
P. Deligne P. Etingof D.S. Freed L.C. Jeffrey D. Kazhdan J.W. Morgan D.R. Morrison E. Witten. . American Mathematical Society, 1999.
P. Deligne P. Etingof D.S. Freed L.C. Jeffrey D. Kazhdan J.W. Morgan D.R. Morrison E. Witten. . American Mathematical Society, 1999.
C. Rovelli. . Cambridge University Press, Candbridge, 2004.
A. Connes. Noncommutative [G]{}eometry: [T]{}he [S]{}pectral [A]{}spect. In A. Connes K. Gawedzki J. Zinn-Justin, editor, [*Quantum Symmetries*]{}, pages 643–686. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1998.
G. Landi. . Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
J. Ambiorn M. Carfora A. Marzuoli. . Springer, Berlin, 1997.
E. Prugovečki. . Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, 1992.
D.R. Finkelstein. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
A.N. Prior. Tense-[L]{}ogic and the [C]{}ontinuity of [T]{}ime. , 13, 1962.
G. Segre. The multihistory approach to the time-travel paradoxes of [G]{}eneral [R]{}elativity: mathematical analysis of a toy model. .
E. Mendelson. . D. Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, 1964.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**SOME MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL REMARKS**
**ON SURREAL NUMBERS**
J. A. Nieto
*Facultad de Ciencias Físico-Matemáticas de la Universidad Autónoma*
*de Sinaloa, 80010, Culiacán Sinaloa, México*
**Abstract**
We make a number of observations on Conway surreal number theory which may be useful, for further developments, in both in mathematics and theoretical physics. In particular, we argue that the concepts of surreal numbers and matroids can be linked. Moreover, we established a relation between the Gonshor approach on surreal numbers and tensors. We also comment about the possibility to connect surreal numbers with supesymmetry. In addition, we comment about possible relation between surreal numbers and fractal theory. Finally, we argue that the surreal structure may provide a different mathematical tools in the understanding of singularities in both high energy physics and gravitation.
Keywords: Surreal numbers, supersymmetry, cosmology
Pacs numbers: 04.60.-m, 04.65.+e, 11.15.-q, 11.30.Ly
November, 2016
**1. Introduction**
Surreal numbers is a fascinating subject in mathematics. Such numbers were invented, or discovered, by the mathematician John Horton Conway in the 70’s \[1\]-\[2\]. Roughly speaking, the key Conway's idea is to consider a surreal number in terms of previously created dual sets $X_{L}$ and $X_{R}$. Here, $L$ stands for left and $R$ for right. One of the interesting things is that such numbers contains many well known ordered fields, including integer numbers, the dyadic rationals, the real numbers and hyperreals, among other numerical structures. Moreover, the structure of surreal numbers leads to a system where we can consider the concept of infinite number as naturally and consistently as any ‘ordinary’ numbers.
It turns out that in contrast to the inductive Conway definition of surreal numbers, Gonshor \[3\] proposed in 1986 another definition which is based on a sequence of dual pluses and minuses {$+,-$}. Gonshor itself proves that his definition of surreal numbers is equivalent to the Conway definition.
In this article, we shall make a number of remarks on surreal number theory which we believe can be useful in both scenarios: mathematics and physics. In particular, we shall established a connection between surreal numbers and tensors. Secondly, we shall show that surreal numbers can be linked to matroids. Moreover, we shall argue that surreal numbers may be connected with spin structures and therefore may provide an interesting developments in supersymmetry. We also comment about the possibility that surreal numbers are connected with fractal theory. Finally, we also mention that concepts of infinitely small and infinitely large in surreal numbers may provide a possible solution for singularities in both high energy physics and gravitation.
Technically, this work is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly review the Conway definition of surreal numbers. In section 3, we also briefly review the Gonshor definition of a surreal number. In section 4, we established a connection between surreal numbers and tensors. In section 5, we comment about the possibility that surreal numbers and matroids are related. Moreover, in section 6 we mention number of possible applications of the surreal number theory, division algebras, supersymmetry, black holes and cosmology.
**2. Conway formalism**
Let us write a surreal number by
$$x=\{X_{L}\mid X_{R}\} \label{1}$$
and call $X_{L}$ and $X_{R}$ the left and right sets of $x$, respectively. Conway develops the surreal numbers structure $\mathcal{S}$ from two axioms:
**Axiom 1**. Every surreal number corresponds to two sets $X_{L}$ and $%
X_{R}$ of previously created numbers, such that no member of the left set $%
x_{L}\in X_{L}$ is greater or equal to any member $x_{R}$ of the right set $%
X_{R}$.
Let us denote by the symbol $\ngeq $ the notion of no greater or equal to. So the axiom establishes that if $x$ is a surreal number then for each $%
x_{L}\in X_{L}$ and $x_{R}\in X_{R}$ one has $x_{L}\ngeq x_{R}$. This is denoted by $X_{L}\ngeq X_{R}$.
**Axiom 2**. One number $x=\{X_{L}\mid X_{R}\}$ is less than or equal to another number $y=\{Y_{L}\mid Y_{R}\}$ if and only the two conditions $%
X_{L}\ngeq y$ and $x\ngeq Y_{R}$ are satisfied.
This can be simplified by saying that $x\leq y$ if and only if $X_{L}\ngeq y$ and $x\ngeq Y_{R}$.
Observe that Conway definition relies in an inductive method; before a surreal number $x$ is introduced one needs to know the two sets $X_{L}$ and $%
X_{R}$ of surreal numbers. Thus, since each surreal number $x$ corresponds to two sets $X_{L}$ and $X_{R}$ of previous numbers then one wonders what do one starts on the zeroth day or $0$-day? If one denotes the empty set by $%
\emptyset $ then one defines the zero as
$$0=\{ \emptyset \mid \emptyset \}. \label{2}$$
Using this, one finds that in the first day or $1$-day one gets the numbers
$$-1=\{ \emptyset \mid 0\},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\{0\mid \emptyset
\}=+1. \label{3}$$
In the $2$-day one has
$$-2=\{ \emptyset \mid 1\},\text{ \ }-\frac{1}{2}=\{-1\mid 0\},\text{\ \ \ }%
\{0\mid 1\}=\frac{1}{2},\text{\ \ \ \ }\{1\mid \emptyset \}=+2. \label{4}$$
While in the $3-$day one obtains
$$\begin{array}{c}
-3=\{ \emptyset \mid 2\},\text{ \ }-\frac{3}{2}=\{-1\mid 0\} \text{\ \ \ }
\\
\\
\frac{1}{2}=\{0\mid 1\},\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ }+2=\{2\mid \emptyset \}.%
\end{array}
\label{5}$$
The process continue as the following theorem establishes.:
**Theorem 1**. Suppose that the different numbers at the end of $n$-day are
$$x_{1}<x_{2}<...<x_{m}. \label{6}$$
Then the only new numbers that will be created on the $(n+1)$-day are
$$\{ \emptyset \mid x_{1}\},\{x_{1}\mid x_{2}\}...\{x_{m-1}\mid
x_{m}\},\{x_{m}\mid \emptyset \}. \label{7}$$
Furthermore, for positive numbers one has
$$\{x_{m}\mid \emptyset \}=x_{m}+1 \label{8}$$
and
$$\{x_{m}\mid x_{m+1}\}=\frac{x_{m}+x_{m+1}}{2}. \label{9}$$
While defining $$-x=\{-X_{R}\mid -X_{L}\}, \label{10}$$for negative numbers one gets
$$\{ \emptyset \mid x_{m}\}=-(x_{m}+1) \label{11}$$
and
$$\{-x_{m}\mid -x_{m+1}\}=-\frac{(x_{m}+x_{m+1})}{2}. \label{12}$$
Thus, at the $n$-day one obtains $2^{n}+1$ numbers all of which are of form$$x=\frac{m}{2^{n}}, \label{13}$$where $m$ is an integer and $n$ is a natural number, $n>0$. Of course, the numbers (13) are dyadic rationals which are dense in the reals $R$. Let us recall this theorem:
**Theorem 2**. The set of dyadic rationals is dense in the reals $R$.
Proof:
Assume that $a<b$, with $a$ and $b$ elements of the reals $R$. By Archimedean property exist $n\in N$ such that
$$0<\frac{1}{n}<b-a, \label{14}$$
which implies$$0<\frac{1}{2^{n}}<\frac{1}{n}<b-a.$$Thus, one has
$$1<2^{n}b-2^{n}a. \label{15}$$
As the distance between $2^{n}b$ and $2^{n}a$ is grater than $1$, there is an integer $m$ such that
$$2^{n}a<m<2^{n}b \label{16}$$
and therefore
$$a<\frac{m}{2^{n}}<b. \label{17}$$
So, the set of dyadic rationals are dense in $R$.
The sum and product of surreal numbers are defined as
$$x+y=\{X_{L}+y,x+Y_{L}\mid X_{R}+y,x+Y_{R}\} \label{18}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{c}
xy=\{X_{L}y+xY_{L}-X_{L}Y_{L},X_{R}y+xY_{R}-X_{R}Y_{R}\mid X_{L}y+xY_{R} \\
\\
-X_{L}Y_{R},X_{R}y+xY_{L}-X_{R}Y_{L}\}.%
\end{array}
\label{19}$$
The importance of (18) and (19) is that allow us to prove that the surreal number structure is algebraically a closed field. Moreover, through (18) and (19) it is also possible to show that the real numbers $R$ are contained in the surreals $\mathcal{S}$ (see Ref. \[1\] for details).
**3. Gonshor formalism**
In 1986, Gonshor \[3\] introduced a different but equivalent definition of surreal numbers.
**Definition 1**. A surreal number is a function $\mu $ from initial segment of the ordinals into the set $\{+,-\}$.
For instance, if $\mu $ is the function so that $\mu (1)=+$, $\mu (2)=-$, $%
\mu (3)=-$, $\mu (4)=+$ then $\mu $ is the surreal number $(++-+)$. In the Gonshor approach the expressions (3)-(5) becomes: $1$-day
$$-1=(-),\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }(+)=+1, \label{20}$$
in the $2$-day
$$-2=(--),\text{ \ }-\frac{1}{2}=(-+),\text{\ \ \ }(+-)=+\frac{1}{2},\text{\ \
\ \ \ \ }(++)=+2, \label{21}$$
and $3$-day
$$\begin{array}{c}
-3=(---),\text{ \ }-\frac{3}{2}=(--+),\text{\ \ }-\frac{3}{4}=(-+-),\text{\ }%
-\frac{1}{4}=(-++) \\
\\
(+--)=+\frac{1}{4},\text{ \ }(+-+)=+\frac{3}{4},\text{ \ \ }(++-)=+\frac{3}{2%
},\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ }(+++)=+3,%
\end{array}
\label{22}$$
respectively. Moreover, in Gonshor approach one finds the different numbers through the formula
$$n\mid a\mid +\frac{\mid b\mid }{2}+\sum \limits_{i=i}^{q}\frac{\mid
c_{i}\mid }{2^{i+1}}, \label{23}$$
where $a,b,c_{1},...,c_{q}\in \{+,-\}$ and $a\neq b$. Furthermore, one has $%
\mid +\mid =+$ and $\mid -\mid =-$. As in the case of Conway definition through (23) one gets the dyadic rationals. Observe that the values in (20), (21) and (22) are in agreement with (23). Just for clarity, let us consider the additional example: $$(++-+-+)=2-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{8}+\frac{1}{16}=\frac{27}{16}.
\label{24}$$
By the defining the order $x<y$ if $x(\alpha )<y(\alpha )$, where $\alpha $ is the first place where $x$ and $y$ differ and the convention $-<0<+$, it is possible to show that the Conway and Gonshor definitions of surreal numbers are equivalent (see Ref. \[3\] for details).
**4. Surreal numbers and tensors**
Let us introduce a $p$-tensor \[4\],
$$t_{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}...\mu _{p}}, \label{25}$$
where the indices $\mu _{1},\mu _{2},...,\mu _{p}$ run from $1$ to $2$. Of course $p$ indicates the rank of $t_{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}...\mu _{p}}$. In tensorial analysis, (25) is a familiar object. One arrives to a link with surreal numbers by making the identification $1\rightarrow +$ and $%
2\rightarrow -$. For instance, the tensor $t_{1121}$ in the Gonshor notation becomes
$$t_{1121}\rightarrow t_{++-+}\rightarrow (++-+). \label{26}$$
In terms of $t_{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}...\mu _{p}}$, the expressions (18), (19) and (20) read
$$-1=t_{2},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }t_{1}=+1, \label{27}$$
in the $2$-day
$$-2=t_{22,}\text{ \ \ }-\frac{1}{2}=t_{21},\text{\ \ \ }t_{12}=\frac{1}{2},%
\text{\ \ \ }t_{11}=2, \label{28}$$
and $3$-day
$$\begin{array}{c}
-3=t_{111},\text{ \ }-\frac{3}{2}=t_{112},\text{\ \ }-\frac{3}{4}=t_{121},%
\text{\ }-\frac{1}{4}=t_{122},\text{\ } \\
\\
t_{211}=+\frac{1}{4},\text{ \ }t_{212}=+\frac{3}{4},\text{ \ }t_{221}=+\frac{%
3}{2},\text{\ \ \ }t_{222}=+3,%
\end{array}
\label{29}$$
respectively.
Formally, one note that there is a duality between positive and negative labels in surreal numbers. In fact, one can prove that this is general for any $n$-day. This could be anticipated because according to Conway definition (1) a surreal number can be written in terms of the dual pair left and right sets $X_{L}$ and $X_{R}$. Further, the concept of duality it is even clearer in the Gonshor definition of surreal numbers since in such a case one has a functions $\mu $ with codominio in the dual set $\{+,-\}$. In terms of the tensor $t_{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}...\mu _{p}}$ in (25) such a duality can be written in the form
$$t_{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}...\mu _{p}}+(-1)^{q}\varepsilon _{\mu _{1}\nu
_{1}}\varepsilon _{\mu _{2}\nu _{2}}...\varepsilon _{\mu _{p}\nu _{p}}t^{\nu
_{1}\nu _{2}...\nu _{p}}=0, \label{30}$$
where
$$\varepsilon _{\mu \nu }=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) . \label{31}$$
It is interesting to observe that the $2$-day corresponds to
$$t_{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}}=2\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1%
\end{array}%
\right) +\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) . \label{32}$$
If one introduces the notation
$$\eta _{\mu \nu }=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1%
\end{array}%
\right) , \label{33}$$
one discovers that (32) can be written as
$$t_{\mu \nu }=2\eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon _{\mu \nu }.
\label{34}$$
It is worth mentioning that, in general any $2\times 2$-matrix $\Omega _{\mu
\nu }$ can be written as
$$\Omega _{\mu \nu }=x\delta _{\mu \nu }+y\varepsilon _{\mu \nu }+r\eta _{\mu
\nu }+s\lambda _{\mu \nu }. \label{35}$$
Here, one has
$$\delta _{\mu \nu }\equiv \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1%
\end{array}%
\right) \label{36}$$
and
$$\lambda _{\mu \nu }\equiv \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) . \label{37}$$
The set of matrices (31), (33), (36) and (37) determine a basis for any $%
2\times 2$-matrix belonging to the set of $2\times 2$-matrices which we denote by $M(2,R)$.
It is interesting that by setting $r=0$ and $s=0$ in (4) one gets the complex structure $\Omega _{\mu \nu }\longrightarrow z_{\mu \nu }$, namely
$$z_{\mu \nu }=x\delta _{\mu \nu }+y\varepsilon _{\mu \nu }. \label{38}$$
In fact, in the typical notation of a complex number (38) becomes $z=x+iy$. Observe also that when $\det \Omega \neq 0$ one obtains the group $GL(2,R)$ from $M(2,R)$. If one further requires that $\det \Omega =1$, then one gets the elements of the subgroup $SL(2,R)$. It is worth mentioning that the fundamental matrices $\delta _{\mu \nu },\eta _{\mu \nu },\lambda _{\mu \nu
} $ and $\varepsilon _{\mu \nu }$ given in (31), (33), (36) and (37) not only form a basis for $M(2,R)$ but also determine a basis for the Clifford algebras $C(2,0)$ and $C(1,1)$. In fact, one has the isomorphisms $%
M(2,R)\sim C(2,0)\sim C(1,1)$. There exist a theorem that establishes that all the others higher dimensional algebras of any signature $C(a,b)$ can be constructed from the building blocks $C(2,0),$ $C(1,1)$ and $C(0,2)$ (see Ref. \[5\] and references therein). So a connection of these developments with surreal numbers seems to be a promising scenario.
**5. Surreal numbers and matroids**
For a definition of a non-oriented matroid see Ref. \[6\] and for oriented matroid see Ref. \[7\] (see also Refs. \[8\]-\[12\] and references therein). Here, we shall focus in some particular cases of oriented matroids. First, assume that $\chi ^{\mu \nu }$ satisfies the Grassmann-Plücker relation
$$\chi ^{\mu \lbrack \nu }\chi ^{\alpha \beta ]}=0. \label{39}$$
Here, the bracket $[\nu \alpha \beta ]$ means completely antisymmetric. In this case, the ground set of a $2$-rank oriented matroid $M=(E,\chi ^{\mu
\nu })$ is $$E=\{ \mathbf{1,2,3,4}\}, \label{40}$$and the alternating map becomes$$\chi ^{\mu \nu }\rightarrow \{-1,0,1\}. \label{41}$$The $\chi ^{\mu \nu }$ function can be identified with a $2$-rank chirotope. The collection of bases for this oriented matroid is
$$\mathcal{B}=\{ \mathbf{\{1,2\},\{1,3\},\{1,4\},\{2,3\},\{2,4\},\{3,4\}}\},
\label{42}$$
which can be obtained by just given values to the indices $\mu $ and $\nu $ in $\chi ^{\mu \nu }$. Actually, the pair $(E,\mathcal{B})$ determines a $2$-rank uniform non-oriented ordinary matroid.
Let us consider the underlying ground bitset (from bit and set) \[13\]-\[14\]$$\mathcal{E}=\{1,2\} \label{43}$$and the pre-ground set
$$E_{0}=\{(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(2,2)\}. \label{44}$$
One finds a relation between $E_{0}$ and $E$ by comparing (40) and (44). In fact, one has
$$\begin{array}{cc}
(1,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{1}, & (1,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{2}, \\
& \\
(2,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{3}, & (2,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{4}.%
\end{array}
\label{45}$$
This can be understood considering that (45) is equivalence relation by making the identification of indices $\{a,b\} \leftrightarrow \mu $,..,etc. Observe that considering this identifications the family of bases (42) becomes
$$\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{B}_{0}=\{ \{(1,1),(1,2)\},\{(1,1),(2,1)\},\{(1,1),(2,2)\}, \\
\\
\{(1,2),(2,1)\},\{(1,2),(2,2)\},\{(2,1),(2,2)\} \}.%
\end{array}
\label{46}$$
It turns out that the chiritope $\chi ^{\mu \nu }$ can be associated with a $%
2$-qubit system. So the pair $(E_{0},B_{0})$ can be identified with a qubitoid (a combination of qubit and matroid).
The procedure can be generalized to higher dimensions. For instance, consider the pre-ground set
$$\begin{array}{cc}
E_{0}= & \{(1,1,1,1),(1,1,1,2),(1,1,2,1),(1,1,2,2), \\
& \\
& (1,2,1,1),(1,2,1,2),(1,2,2,1),(1,2,2,2) \\
& \\
& (2,1,1,1),(2,1,1,2),(2,1,2,1),(2,1,2,2) \\
& \\
& (2,2,1,1),(2,2,1,2),(2,2,2,1),(2,2,2,2)\}.%
\end{array}
\label{47}$$
It is not difficult to see that by making the identifications
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
(1,1,1,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{1} & (1,1,1,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{2} &
(1,1,2,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{3} \\
& & \\
(1,1,2,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{4} & (1,2,1,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{5} &
(1,2,1,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{6} \\
& & \\
(1,2,2,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{7} & (1,2,2,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{8} &
(2,1,1,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{9} \\
& & \\
(2,1,1,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{10} & (2,1,2,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{11}
& (2,1,2,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{12} \\
& & \\
(2,2,1,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{13} & (2,2,1,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{14}
& (2,2,2,1)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{15} \\
& & \\
(2,2,2,2)\leftrightarrow \mathbf{16,} & &
\end{array}
\label{48}$$
one obtains a relation between the pre-ground set $E_{0}$ given in (47) and the ground set $$E=\{ \mathbf{1,2,...,15,16}\}. \label{49}$$This can be again understood by considering that (49) is equivalent to make the identification of indices $(a,b,c,d)\leftrightarrow \mu ,...etc$. It turns out that considering these relations one finds that the collection of bases $\mathcal{B}$ contains $\left(
\begin{array}{c}
16 \\
2%
\end{array}%
\right) =120$ two-element subset of the $16$-element set $E$, given in (49). This $2$-element subset can be obtained by considering a lexicographic order of all $120$ two-subsets of $\{ \mathbf{1,2,...,15,16}\}$. One finds that the first terms of $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ look like
$$\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{B}_{0}=\{ \{(1,1,1,1),\{1,1,1,2)\},\{(1,1,1,1),\{1,1,2,1)\}, \\
\\
\{(1,1,1,1),\{1,1,2,2)\},\{(1,1,1,1),\{1,2,1,1)\},\{(1,1,1,1),\{1,2,1,2)%
\},...\}.%
\end{array}
\label{50}$$
(See Refs. \[13\] and \[14\] for details.)
The method, of course, can be extended to $2^{2n+1}$-dimensions, $%
n=0,1,2,...etc$ and can be connected to $N$-qubit system. However, it is worth mentioning that the complete classification of $N$-qubit systems is a difficult, or perhaps an impossible task. In reference \[15\] an interesting development for characterizing a subclass of $N$-qubit entanglement has been considered. An attractive aspect of this construction is that the $N$-qubit entanglement can be understood in geometric terms. The idea is based on the bipartite partitions of the Hilbert space in the form $C^{2^{N}}=C^{L}%
\otimes C^{l}$, with $L=2^{N-n}$ and $l=2^{n}$. Such a partition allows a geometric interpretation in terms of the complex Grassmannian variety $%
Gr(L,l)$ of $l$-planes in $C^{L}$ via the Plücker embedding. In this case, the Plucker coordinates of the Grassmannians are natural invariants of the theory.
There are a number of ways in which one can connect matroids with surreal numbers. First, one may think in the bitset given in (43) in the Gonshor form$$\mathcal{E}=\{1,2\} \rightarrow \{-,+\}. \label{51}$$Second, the numbers of any the ground set in matroid theory
$$E=\{ \mathbf{1,2,3,...}\}, \label{52}$$
can be written in terms of the surreal numbers as$$\{ \{0,\emptyset \},\{1,\emptyset \},\{2,\emptyset \},...\}. \label{53}$$In this context the basis set $\mathcal{B}$ will be also written in terms of the surreal numbers. Third, another possibility is also to identify the chirotope map $\chi \rightarrow \{-1,0,1\}$ in terms of the surreal numbers $%
\chi \rightarrow \{ \{ \emptyset ,0\},\{ \emptyset ,\emptyset
\},\{0,\emptyset \} \}$.
Of course, it will interesting to fully develop these possible links between matroids and surreal numbers. But even at these stage one note that the key concept in both matroid theory and surreal numbers theory is duality. This is because in matroid theory it is known that in matroid theory there is a key theorem that every matroid $\mathcal{M}$ has a dual $\mathcal{M}^{\ast }$, while in surreal number theory duality is every where. In a sense this is because a surreal numbers $x=\{X_{L},X_{R}\}$ is defined in terms of two dual sets $X_{L}$ and $X_{R}$. So one wonders whether in surreal number theory exist a theorem establishing that for every surreal number set $%
\mathcal{S}$ there exist a dual surreal number set $\mathcal{S}^{\ast }$.
**6. Various mathematical and physical possible applications**
In this section we shall describe an additional number of possible applications of surreal numbers in mathematics and physics. Although such a description will be brief the main idea is to stimulate further research in the area. One may think that our proposals are in a sense for experts in the topic but in fact the main intention is to call the attention of mathematicians and physicist telling them look here are a number of subjects in which you have the opportunity to participate.
*I. Applications in mathematics:*
*(a) Division algebras*
There is a celebrated Hurwitz theorem:
**Theorem (Hurwitz, 1898):** *Every normed algebra over the reals with an identity is isomorphic to one of following four algebras: the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the Cayley (octonion) numbers.*
Moreover, the Hurwitz theorem is closely related with the parallelizable spheres $S^{1},S^{3}$ and $S^{7}$ \[16\] and the remarkable theorem that only exist division algebras in $1$, $2$, $4$ and $8$ dimensions \[17\]-\[18\]. So, one wonders what could be the corresponding Hurwitz theorem and these remarkable developments on division algebras if one extend the real numbers to surreal numbers. In this context, it has been proved in Refs. \[19\]-\[21\] that for normalized qubits the complex $1$-qubit, $2$-qubit and $3$-qubit are deeply related to division algebras via the Hopf maps, $S^{3}\overset{%
S^{1}}{\longrightarrow }S^{2}$, $S^{7}\overset{S^{3}}{\longrightarrow }S^{4}$ and $S^{15}\overset{S^{7}}{\longrightarrow }S^{8}$, respectively. It seems that there does not exist a Hopf map for higher $N$-qubit states. So, from the perspective of Hopf maps, and therefore of division algebras, one arrives to the conclusion that $1$-qubit, $2$-qubit and $3$-qubit are more special than higher dimensional qubits (see Refs. \[22\]-\[23\] for details). Again one wonders whether surreal numbers can contribute in this qubits theory framework.
*II. Applications in physics:*
*(a) Supersymmetry*: For finite sets $X_{L}$ and $X_{R}$, one of the key tools in surreal numbers are integers $n$ and dyadic rationals $d=\frac{m%
}{2^{k}}$. For $n=0,1$ and $2$ and $d=\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}$ one recalls the spin structure of supersymmetry. So one wonders if for instance spin $%
\frac{1}{4}$ may be a prediction of surreal number theory. Remarkable, this spin has been proposed in $N=1$ supersymmetry in connection with anyons ( see Refs. \[24\]-\[25\] and references therein). Thus, for finite sets $X_{L}$ and $X_{R}$, surreal numbers $x=\{X_{L}$,$X_{R}\}$ and in the Gonshor approach, one finds that bosons can be identified with $s$ integer spin and fermions with dyadic rational with spin$$n\mid a\mid +\frac{\mid b\mid }{2}+\sum \limits_{i=1}^{q}\frac{\mid
c_{i}\mid }{2^{i+1}},$$given in (23). One can even think in this expression as the eigenvalues of a ket $\mid n,s_{1},s_{2},s_{3,}...>$. Here we made the associations$$s_{1}\rightarrow \frac{\mid b\mid }{2},s_{2}\rightarrow \frac{\mid c_{1}\mid
}{4},s_{3}\rightarrow \frac{\mid c_{2}\mid }{8}... \label{54}$$and so on. Thus, in this framework, it seems the whole structure of surreal numbers can be identified with a kind of supersymmetric approach.
*(c)* *Black-holes*
Consider the Schwarzschild metric \[26\]
$$ds^{2}=-(1-\frac{2GM}{c^{2}r})dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{(1-\frac{2GM}{c^{2}r})}%
+r^{2}(d\theta ^{2}+sen^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}), \label{55}$$
where $M$ is the source mass, $G$ is the Newton gravitational constant and $%
c $ is the light velocity. There are a number of observations that one can make about (55). First, notice that in this expression all quantities are real numbers. Second there are two type of singularities, namely in $r=r_{s}=%
\frac{2GM}{c^{2}}$ and $r=0$. It is known that using Kruskal coordinates it is possible to show that the singularity at $r=r_{s}$ is simply a coordinate singularity. However the singularity at $r=0$ is a true physical singularity of spacetime. First of all, in this context, when one referes about singularity in terms of real numbers one means that in the limit $%
r\rightarrow 0$ one obtains the expression $\frac{2GM}{c^{2}r}\rightarrow
\infty $ (see Ref. \[26\] and references therein for details).
From the point of view of surreal numbers theory the singularity $\frac{2GM}{%
c^{2}r}\rightarrow \infty $, when $r\rightarrow 0$, is not a real problem because in such a mathematical theory all kind of infinite large and infinite small are present. So by a assuming that all quantities in the line element given in (55) is written in terms of surreal numbers
$$d\mathcal{S}^{2}=-(1-\frac{2G\mathcal{M}}{c^{2}\mathcal{R}})d\mathcal{T}^{2}+%
\frac{d\mathcal{R}^{2}}{(1-\frac{2G\mathcal{M}}{c^{2}\mathcal{R}})}+\mathcal{%
R}^{2}(d\mathcal{\theta }^{2}+sen^{2}\mathcal{\theta }d\mathcal{\phi }^{2}),
\label{56}$$
the problem of singularities in black-hole physics no longer exist!
*(d) Cosmology*
In the Friedmann cosmological equation \[26\]
$$\frac{1}{a^{2}}\frac{da(t)}{dt}+\frac{k}{a^{2}}-\frac{8\pi \rho _{m}}{3}-%
\frac{8\pi \rho _{r}}{3}=0, \label{57}$$
one assumes that the matter density is given by
$$\rho _{m}=\frac{\rho _{0m}}{a^{3}}, \label{58}$$
while the radiation energy density is
$$\rho _{r}=\frac{\rho _{0r}}{a^{4}}, \label{59}$$
where $k,\rho _{0m}$ and $\rho _{0r}$ are constants. So, even if one does not consider the solution of (57) the expressions (58) and (59) tell us that there is a ‘big-bang’ singularity at $a\rightarrow 0$. In fact, when $%
a\rightarrow 0$ one has$$\rho _{m}\rightarrow \infty \label{60}$$and$$\rho _{r}\rightarrow \infty . \label{61}$$Just as in the case of black-holes these singularities are related to the fact that one is considering real numbers structure in the length scale $a$ as well as in the time evolution parameter $t$. Again, one wonders what formalism one may obtain by replacing $\ a$ by some kind of surreal length scale $\mathcal{A}$ and the time parameter $t$ by a surreal time parameter $%
\mathcal{T}$. Of course, this in turn will imply that the whole gravitational theory must be modified with surreal numbers structure.
Another possibility is to identify the whole evolution of the surreal numbers structure with a cosmological model in the sense that in $0$-day one has the scalar field particle of $0$-spin (the Higgs field?), in the $1$-day one has $(-1)$-spin and $1$-spin (the photon?) and the $2$-day one obtains the $(-2)$-spin, $(-\frac{1}{2})$-spin, $\frac{1}{2}$-spin $2$-spin (graviton and fermion?) and so on. Following this idea one may even identify the $0$-day and $0$-spin with the big bang and since $0=\{ \emptyset
,\emptyset \}$ one can say that everything in our universe started with vacuum state $\emptyset $.
*(e) Fractals*
It is known that fractals and dyadic fractions are deeply related. Much of this relationship can be explained by infinite binary tree which can be viewed as a certain subset of the modular group $PSL(2,Z)$ (the general linear group of $2$ by $2$ matrices over the integers). The subset is essentially the dyadic grupoid or dyadic monoid. This in turn provides the natural setting for the symmetry and self-similarity of many fractals. Moreover, it is also that these groups and the rational numbers can be connected with dyadic subsets \[27\].
**7. Final remarks**
Due to the fact that duality is the underlying concept in both surreal numbers and matroid theory, we believe that it is a matter of time that these two mathematical scenarios are considered as important tools in physics and in particular in high energy physics and gravity.
From the serious difficulties with infinities in black-hole physics and cosmology as well as in higher energy physics it seems to us that surreal numbers theory offers a new view for a solution. Instead of thinking that the infinities are the enemies in quantum and classical physical theory incorporate them in a natural way as surreal numbers framework suggest.
It turns out that surreal numbers can be understood as a particular case of games \[2\] (see also Ref. \[31\]) which is a fascinating mathematical theory. In fact, games can be added and substracted forming an abelian group and a sub-group of games is identified with surreal numbers which can also be multiplied and form a field. As we mentioned before this field contains the real numbers among many other numbers structures. The key additional condition for reducing a game $x=\{x_{L},...,x_{R},...\}$ to a surreal number is that $x_{L}$ and $x_{R}$ are surreal numbers and satisfy $%
x_{L}<x_{R}$. So, one wonders whether game theory may lead to even more interesting applications that those presented in this work.
Finally, we believe that it is just a matter of time for the recognition of the surreal numbers structure as one of the key mathematical tools in superstring theory \[28\]-\[30\]. This is because although the problems of some infinities are solved there remain always additional problems with the emergency of new infinities. This phenomena may be traced back to the fact that the action in superstring theory is written in terms of real functions (target space-time coordinates) rather that surreal functions.
**Acknowledgments:** I would like to thank to P. A. Nieto, C. García-Quintero and A. Meza for helpful comments. This work was partially supported by PROFAPI/2013.
[99]{} D. E. Knuth, *Surreal Numbers: How two ex-students turned on to pure mathematics and found total happiness: a mathematical novelette*, (Addison -Wesley publising Co, 1974).
J. H. Conway, *On number and Games* (London Mathematical Society Monographs, Academic Press., 1976).
H. Gonshor, *An Introduction to the Theory of Surreal Numbers* (London Mathematical Society Lectures Notes Series: 110, Cambridge University Press, 1986).
I. S. Sokolnikoff, *Tensor Analysis* (New York, Chapman & Hall, 1951).
M. F. Atiyah,R. Bott and A. Shapiro, Topology **3** (1964) 3.
J. G. Oxley, *Matroid Theory*, (Oxford Science Publications. Oxford University Press, New York, 1992).
A. Björner, M. Las Vergnas, B. Sturmfels, N. White and G. M. Ziegler, *Oriented Matroids*, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
J. A. Nieto, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. **8**, 177 (2004); arXiv: hep-th/0310071.
J. A. Nieto, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. **10**, 747 (2006), arXiv: hep-th/0506106.
J. A. Nieto, J. Math. Phys. **45**, 285 (2004); arXiv: hep-th/0212100.
J. A. Nieto, Nucl. Phys. B **883** (2014) 350; arXiv:1402.6998 \[hep-th\].
J. A. Nieto and M. C. Marin, J. Math. Phys. **41** (2000) 7997; hep-th/0005117.
J. A. Nieto, Phys. Lett. B **718** (2013) 1543; e-Print: arXiv:1210.0928 \[hep-th\].
J. A. Nieto, Phys. Lett. B **692**, 43 (2010); e-Print: arXiv:1004.5372 \[hep-th\].
P. Levay, J. Phys. A **38**, 9075 (2005).
J. F. Adams, Ann. Math. **75**, 603 (1962).
R. Bott and J. Milnor, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. **64**, 87 (1958).
M. Kerbvair, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. **44**, 286 (1958).
R. Mosseri and R. Dandoloff, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **34**, 10243 (2001).
R. Mosseri, Two and Three Qubits Geometry and Hopf Fibrations; arXiv:quant-ph/0310053.
B. A. Bernevig and H. D. Chen, J. Phys. A; Math. Gen. **36**, 8325 (2003).
P. Levay, Phys. Rev. D **75,** 024024 (2007); e-Print: hep-th/0610314.
P. Levay and S. Szalay, Phys. Rev. D **83,** 045005 (2011); e-Print: arXiv:1011.4180 \[hep-th\].
L. Mezincescu and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 191601; arXiv:1008.2334 \[hep-th\].
D. Soroking, Fortsch. Physics **50** (2002) 724.
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, *Gravitation* (San Francisco, W. H. Freeman, 1973)
L. Vepstas, The Minkowski question Mark, gl(2,z) and the Modular Group, http://www.linas.org/math/chap-minkowski.pdf, 2004.
Y. Nambu, *Duality and hydrodynamics* (Lectures at the Copenhagen Conference, 1970).
T. Goto, Prog. Theor. Phys. **46**, 1560 (1971).
M. Green, J. Schwarz, E. Witten, *Superstring Theory* (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987).
D. Schleicher and M. Stoll, Moscow Math Journal **6 (2)** (2006) 359; arXiv:math/0410026 \[math.CO\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.